Juan Hongfei: On the Theoretical Premises of Foreign Marxism Research
I. Research on Marx’s Thought: The Foundation of Foreign Marxist Studies
Regardless of how complex and diverse the trends and schools of foreign Marxism may be, and no matter the differences in the issues they address, the fields they research, and their fundamental theoretical orientations, so long as they can be categorized within the scope referred to by the concept of "foreign Marxism," they must necessarily possess an internal intellectual relationship with the thought of Marx. This point is fully reflected in how the current academic community defines this field of study.
The documents from the Academic Degrees Committee of the State Council regarding the establishment of Marxism as a first-level discipline and its subordinate second-level disciplines primarily determine the scope of foreign Marxist studies from two perspectives: first, a geographical demarcation, i.e., occurring outside of China; and second, a qualitative demarcation, i.e., possessing a basic nature that belongs to Marxism. This mainly includes the Marxist theoretical research and socialist practices of foreign Communist Parties, the critiques of contemporary capitalism by Western left-wing thinkers based on Marxist theoretical research, Western Marxist trends of thought, and various Marxist schools formed through the study of Marxist texts. Regarding the objects of foreign Marxist theoretical research generally recognized by the domestic academic community today—whether the concept is used in a broad sense or a relatively narrow sense—the theoretical schools involved all share direct or indirect intellectual relationships with Marx’s thought. These relationships serve as the basis for contemplating and judging the fundamental nature of various foreign Marxist trends. Therefore, the study of Marx’s thought serves as the foundation for the study of foreign Marxism.
First, the study of Marx’s thought is the basis for understanding and grasping foreign Marxist trends. This is determined by the dual tasks undertaken in the study of foreign Marxism. We do not study foreign Marxism for its own sake; rather, we have clear theoretical and practical objectives. From a theoretical perspective, as a contemporary form of the development of Marxism abroad, foreign Marxist trends necessarily draw theoretical resources from Marx. They confront major theoretical and practical problems arising in the developmental process of contemporary capitalist society by employing the basic stances, theoretical principles, and methods of Marxism, completing their own theoretical construction in the process of answering these questions. Consequently, their interpretation of Marx’s texts, their selection of theoretical resources, and the theoretical logic they follow when analyzing and addressing major issues can provide intellectual resources and theoretical references for the construction of Marxist theory in our own country. For this reason, it is necessary to use the study of Marx’s thought as a basis to make fundamental value judgments regarding various foreign Marxist trends, and to select or discard relevant theoretical achievements of foreign Marxism on the basis of clear value judgments.
From a practical perspective, the study of foreign Marxism aims to understand the basic conditions and existing real-world problems of contemporary capitalist society, providing intellectual resources and referable practical paths for solving various problems faced during the process of building socialism with Chinese characteristics. Although China has explored a modernization path distinct from that of developed capitalist countries and achieved world-renowned historical accomplishments through more than forty years of reform and opening up, the promotion of economic development and the construction of a modern society still face a series of problems that emerged during the construction of Western modern societies. In particular, under the premise that China is gradually approaching the center of the world stage and increasingly integrating into the process of world history, the global and humanitarian problems arising in the construction of modern society are likewise issues we must face. Foreign Marxist trends developed precisely alongside the changes in the modes of production and lifestyles of modern capitalist society. Their critiques of modern capitalism, reflections on actual socialism, and explorations of global and humanitarian issues provide us not only with first-hand materials for understanding and grasping the trends, problems, and global impact of modern capitalism, but also with intellectual resources for solving problems in the construction of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Therefore, we must use the study of Marx’s thought as a basis to discern the practical orientations of foreign Marxist trends and make prudent choices.
Second, basing research on the study of Marx’s thought cannot stop at a superficial understanding; rather, it requires a profound understanding and grasp of Marx’s basic stances, viewpoints, and methods. Regarding foreign Marxist trends, they do not constitute an internally unified theoretical whole, but rather a complex of doctrines composed of systems of thought with different intellectual inclinations and theoretical orientations. "Contemporary Marxism is like a multi-colored board; it is composed of diverse and conflicting theories that constantly revise their assessments of the past and present, while hopefully examining and understanding the future." For these many trends that consider themselves or are considered to be Marxist, one cannot judge their fundamental nature simply based on whether they accept Marx’s concepts and specific theoretical viewpoints. Instead, one must deeply analyze the basic stances and viewpoints held by their theories, as well as the basic methods they employ in the process of theoretical construction and the critique of capitalism, to determine in what sense they are Marxist, or in what sense they are non-Marxist or anti-Marxist. Raymond Aron, a French thinker contemporary with Sartre and Althusser, explicitly pointed out that existentialist Marxism and structuralist Marxism were merely two "Holy Families" [1]; due to their principled leftism, verbal revolutionism, and failure to study concrete reality, they abandoned the Marxist position of political engagement. "Critique of Dialectical Reason and Reading Capital are not oriented toward the masses; these works were not written to mobilize or recruit activists or sympathizers, but to satisfy the needs of a few." While we cannot use this to utterly deny the Marxist nature of these two schools, we can clarify their differences from Marx’s thought, and subsequently deepen our understanding of them by analyzing the roots of these differences.
If many early schools of foreign Marxism still upheld the stances, viewpoints, and methods of Marx’s thought to a certain extent, foreign Marxism after the 1970s has mostly just drawn theoretical resources from Marx, while actually exhibiting a departure from his thought. "While these theorists still consider themselves Marxists, they are fundamentally heterogeneous from traditional Western Marxism in that they have radically negated the most important principles within Marx’s philosophical framework. For instance, Ecological Marxism opposes the view that raising the level of productive forces is the basis of historical development, arguing that this is a non-ecological view of the mandatory enslavement of nature by the human subject; this actually constitutes a fundamental rejection of the basis of historical materialism. Another example is Feminist Marxism, which critiques Marx’s view of social class as being similarly patriarchal; they argue that in focusing on the relationship between labor and capital, Marx only identified labor realized within the exchange market while ignoring the status of women’s domestic labor in the conditions of the survival of the labor force, even though this is also a form of labor that creates surplus value. This no longer falls under the basic logic of Western Marxism." Nevertheless, their use of theoretical resources from Marx and their critique of contemporary capitalism via Marxist analytical methods still possess significant practical meaning.
Third, it is necessary to establish a solid foundation for the study of foreign Marxism on the basis of grasping the internal theoretical logic of the development of Marx's thought and his overall system of thought. Although foreign Marxist trends comprise many schools and diverse ideas, the reason they can be included under this concept is that they are all directly or indirectly associated with Marx’s thought. The revelation of this intellectual connection is the prerequisite for understanding and grasping various foreign Marxist trends.
We must grasp the internal logic and overall trajectory of the development of Marx’s thought as a whole to clarify how various foreign Marxist trends and schools take up the theoretical and practical problems posed by Marx, what theoretical resources they obtain from Marx to answer these questions, and the logical relationship between the basic theoretical principles they follow in the process of answering these questions and Marx’s system of thought. This clarifies their theoretical relationship with Marx’s thought and their position in the history of Marxist thought. For example, the founders of Western Marxism, such as Lukács, Korsch, and Gramsci, directly took up the issues of proletarian revolution and human liberation. With the help of Marx’s texts, they used the method of "totality" and a revolutionary consciousness of praxis [2] to restore and reconstruct Marxist orthodoxy, thereby opening a new path for the development of Marxism. The subsequent Humanist Marxism and Scientific Marxism merely shared two tendencies or two logics found within Marx’s thought. Marx’s system of thought indeed contains two logics: the first is the critique of capitalism developed in his youth with the goal of human liberation; the second is the critical analysis of the history and reality of capitalism centered on Capital and its manuscripts in his later period. However, within the totality of Marx’s system of thought, these dual logics are unified. Human liberation, as Marx’s "problematic" [3], was established on the basis of a critical analysis of bourgeois political liberation and its consequences; the critical analysis of the history and reality of capitalism then placed human liberation on a scientific basis. Human liberation is the ultimate goal of the critique of capitalism. Only by combining the two can one truly understand Marx’s complete system of thought. Yet Humanist Marxism and Scientific Marxism precisely severed the two; consequently, both believed it necessary to obtain theoretical resources from modern Western trends of thought to supplement the alleged deficiencies of Marxism. "The characteristic of Humanism is the contextualization and historicization of theory; this tendency easily dissolves the theoretical certainty of Marxism, diluting it into a generalized cultural critique. The problem with Scientism is an excessive faith in the objective logic of history, which often leaves it indifferent to changes in social reality."
Therefore, it is necessary to grasp Marx’s system of thought as a whole, to truly understand the relationship between different foreign Marxist trends and Marx’s thought, and to grasp the internal logic of their intellectual development through an analysis of the stances, viewpoints, and methods they hold. This allows us to discern the basic nature, theoretical contributions, and intellectual limitations of their thought, selecting or discarding them as theoretical resources for the construction of contemporary Chinese Marxist theory, reasonably using their theoretical achievements to contemplate the series of problems arising in China’s social modernization, and always upholding the leading position of Marxism.
II. Intellectual History: The Overall Horizon for Studying Foreign Marxism
The study of any philosopher or school of philosophy must always be conducted within a specific background of intellectual history. This is both a basic principle that any theoretical research should follow and a prerequisite for conducting in-depth theoretical study. If the study of Marx’s thought provides the foundation for researching foreign Marxism, then the study of intellectual history constitutes the overall horizon for that research. Only within the overall horizon of intellectual history can one achieve a holistic understanding of foreign Marxist trends, clarifying the mutual intellectual relationships between them and their positions in intellectual history while grasping the genealogy of these complex trends.
From the historical process of the development of foreign Marxism, its own evolution is closely related not only to Marx’s thought but also to modern Western thought. Therefore, it must be included within the general framework of the history of modern Western ideas. Within the reciprocal relationship between Marx’s thought and modern Western thought, an overall horizon for understanding and grasping foreign Marxism is formed.
The so-called history of ideas (intellectual history) is not merely a chronological progression of thoughts; it is a three-dimensional intellectual landscape composed of the theoretical systems of thinkers. Intellectual history is the starry sky of human thought; each thinker, due to the different theoretical depth and influence of their ideas, occupies a different position and displays a different color in that sky. The study of intellectual history aims to reveal the intellectual connections between different thinkers through the study of their systems of thought and to clarify the relationships between different genealogies of thought, thereby constructing a complete map of human ideas. Marx’s thought is the most brilliant star in the starry sky of modern human thought; all trends of foreign Marxism unfold around it, forming different intellectual landscapes through integration, collision, and conflict with various other trends of thought.
First, it is necessary to base research on the history of thought to enhance theoretical connoisseurship [4]. By clarifying the position and influence of various schools and ideas within Foreign Marxism in the context of human intellectual history since the 20th century, one can accurately locate them and avoid "falling into a five-mile fog" [5] when selecting research subjects. There is currently a curious phenomenon in Chinese research on Foreign Marxism: on one hand, middle-aged and senior scholars constantly emphasize and call for deep "plowing" of texts and problem-oriented research to drive studies deeper; on the other hand, young scholars constantly chase new concepts, new trends, and new figures from abroad in pursuit of novelty and difference, as if only this could demonstrate the frontier nature and innovativeness of their work. This divergence between old and new scholars is not merely a difference in intellectual sensitivity, but stems from differences in theoretical horizons, academic connoisseurship, and the capacity to grasp major theoretical issues. Due to their profound academic accumulation, senior scholars are able to understand and grasp foreign Marxist thinkers and their major theoretical problems within the totalizing horizon of the history of thought. While it is natural for young scholars to seek the new and the different, they must place the study of new concepts, trends, and figures within this totalizing horizon of intellectual history. They must select effective research objects and problems based on their theoretical positioning within that history, and subsequently grasp the intellectual relationships between various new trends and concepts as well as their relationship to original theories, thereby avoiding the fragmentation of research and ensuring historical depth and intellectual breadth.
Second, it is necessary to use the history of thought as a foundation to clarify the internal intellectual connections between different thinkers or schools. This allows one to obtain the logical path leading from one thinker to another and the basic train of thought for moving from one theoretical problem to another, thereby granting research on Foreign Marxism a broad theoretical horizon. On one hand, this helps move beyond the state of studying figures and schools in isolation, allowing for an understanding of their ideas within the progression of intellectual history. This clarifies that every thinker’s ideas undergo a historical process of formation and development; in different periods of their development, their ideas may actually possess entirely different theoretical characters. For instance, Lukács’s thought spanned three stages: Neo-Kantianism, Western Marxism, and his late-period self-reflection; Sartre likewise moved from existentialism toward Marxism, and so on. More importantly, because Foreign Marxism is multifaceted and complex, and the problems and fields it addresses vary significantly, it is difficult to grasp its overall developmental trajectory through a single theoretical logic. Only by basing research on the history of thought and grasping the theoretical logic governing the development of specific ideas and schools can one construct a general genealogy of Foreign Marxist thought.
On the other hand, this helps dissolve the barriers between the study of different thinkers and theoretical schools, enabling dialogue and communication. Although the various schools of Foreign Marxism exhibit major differences due to the theoretical resources they drew upon, their research positions, and their theoretical interests, they nonetheless share common intellectual resources and epochal problems. Thus, intellectual relationships exist in terms of the inheritance of problems, the borrowing of theories, and the extension of concepts. It is therefore necessary to clarify the intellectual relationships between various schools within the overall horizon of the history of thought and to grasp the development and internal logical shifts of Foreign Marxist trends as a whole. Only in this way can multiple dialogues and exchanges be realized in the research process—including both dialogues with different schools and thinkers and dialogues between researchers themselves—continually driving research on Foreign Marxism to deeper levels. In a situation where the general logic of Foreign Marxism's development is dissolving—becoming increasingly pluralized, fragmented, and localized, with growing theoretical alienation—dialogue and exchange based on the history of thought possess vital theoretical significance and practical value for understanding the genealogy of Foreign Marxism and promoting in-depth research.
Third, the study of Foreign Marxism must be conducted in conjunction with the history of Chinese Marxist thought, especially the history of Marxist thought since the Reform and Opening-up. The development of Foreign Marxist research in China has never been independent; it has always been closely linked to the study of Chinese Marxist philosophy. On one hand, the development of Foreign Marxist research promoted an internal shift in the logic of Chinese Marxist philosophy, allowing it to gradually break free from the theoretical logic of the traditional textbook system [6] and form a unique Chinese understanding of Marx's thought through the interpretation of original texts. On the other hand, the shift in the logic of Chinese Marxist philosophical research also brought about a shift in the attitude and position regarding the study of Foreign Marxism. To be precise, China’s research on Foreign Marxism has undergone a dual process of logical transformation: "from negative critique to affirmative appropriation; from indirect appropriation to direct dialogue." Regarding the former, it represents a shift from critiquing Foreign Marxism as revisionism, non-Marxism, or anti-Marxism to recognizing its Marxist character and utilizing its interpretations of Marx to reconstruct the theoretical logic and interpretive framework of Chinese Marxism. Regarding the latter, it refers to borrowing the theoretical resources of Foreign Marxism to directly face the practical problems arising in the construction of modern Chinese society, thereby entering into dialogue with Marx’s thought and Foreign Marxist trends in the process of reflecting upon and critiquing the problems of modernity. While promoting the theoretical construction of contemporary Chinese Marxism, this has also transformed the way of thinking, theoretical logic, and basic framework for dealing with Foreign Marxism.
Consequently, research on Foreign Marxism in China must be placed within this general logical process of dual transformation. Only then can its historical location be clarified and its theoretical positioning be defined, thus illuminating the theoretical significance and practical value of studying Foreign Marxism.
III. 20th-Century World History: The Practical Foundation of Foreign Marxist Research
From the perspective of the relationship between theory and reality, any genuine and vital theory directly faces reality itself; it is the theoretical expression of the logic of social and historical development. However, because different thinkers utilize different theoretical resources, hold different positions, and follow different paths of thought when facing social reality, they form different theories and schools. Therefore, placing the ideas of a philosopher or a philosophical school within the perspective of the social history in which they succeeded and developed not only deepens our understanding of the theory but, more importantly, reveals the profound practical dimension the theory possesses.
As a critical theory of contemporary capitalism, the formation and development of Foreign Marxism have always been closely linked to the global expansion of capitalism since the 20th century and the adjustments in its own mode of production. The rise and development of various schools of Foreign Marxism represent reflections on and critiques of the global and human problems brought about by the global expansion of capital. At the same time, because these problems manifest differently in different countries and regions, and because the theoretical responses they trigger vary, they present diverse characteristics, constituting the general picture of Foreign Marxism since the 20th century. As Russell Jacoby pointed out: "Everywhere, Marxism takes on the characteristics of its specific environment. A single, homogenous Marxism belongs to the past. Marxism often takes its color and content from its background conditions... Each Marxism is unique, with its own history, texts, leaders, achievements, and problems." Therefore, research on Foreign Marxism must not only grasp the theoretical resources upon which it relied during its formation and its internal theoretical logic, but also pay attention to the practical problems it confronts and the theoretical changes triggered by the transformation of society, thereby arriving at an accurate theoretical positioning. Reviewing the history of Foreign Marxism, one can see that every major theoretical shift in its development was linked to significant practical problems and the theoretical difficulties they induced.
First, looking at the initial rise of Foreign Marxism—that is, the Western Marxism pioneered by Lukács, Korsch, and Gramsci—it directly confronted the theoretical difficulties caused by the sharp contrast between the victory of the Russian October Revolution and the failure of the proletarian revolution in Europe. It was precisely this practical problem that prompted them to reflect on the theoretical predicament of "Orthodox Marxism." [7] Starting from the study of Marx’s own thought, they sought to reconstruct Marxist orthodoxy, opening a new path for the development of Marxism in the process of answering practical questions through theory, and guiding the development of Western Marxism in the first half of the 20th century. Subsequently, Humanist and Scientist Marxism followed different paths in reconstructing Marxism according to Western intellectual and cultural traditions. If Humanism revealed the critical dimension of Marxist philosophy centered on praxis and subjectivity to dissolve the determinist interpretations of Orthodox Marxism, Scientist Marxism utilized the "overdetermination" [8] of structuralism to critique simple economic determinism, providing theory for the analysis of capitalist reality. Although the two differed in their reinterpretation of Marx, both pointed toward the increasingly intensified cultural and ideological control of the proletariat by capitalism in order to explore the path to human freedom and liberation. This moved the struggle from a singular political revolution toward a unity of cultural and political revolution, and eventually to a process of comprehensive critique of capitalist culture.
Second, the radical cultural, political, and social critiques triggered by the "May Storm" [9] in France in 1968 posed major challenges to classical Western Marxist theory and opened a path of pluralistic development for Foreign Marxism. Having experienced the "Thirty Glorious Years" of capitalist development, on one hand, the control of capital had invaded all areas of human social life, distorting and fragmenting human life while forming a comprehensive suppression of the individual. This necessitated that the critique of capitalism transcend traditional economic, political, and cultural fields to construct a new theoretical logic. On the other hand, along with the process of globalization promoted by capitalism, capital has transcended traditional nation-state boundaries; while dissolving the power of the nation-state, it has triggered a series of global problems. It was exactly these new problems brought by changes in capitalist society that, under the influence of postmodern trends, led Foreign Marxism to abandon the pursuit of "totality" emphasized in its early stages. By combining with various academic fields and social trends to answer practical problems, a pattern of pluralistic development in Foreign Marxism was formed.
Third, from the end of the 20th century to the present, capitalism has gradually shifted from controlling global production to controlling global capital and the high-end technological fields of production. Through the use of advanced scientific and technological means, financial capital has exerted a huge influence on both the modes of production and the lifestyles of modern society. While deepening the crisis of capitalism, it has turned this crisis into a common crisis for all of humanity. On one hand, this situation has allowed Foreign Marxist trends that began after the 1970s—such as Feminist Marxism, Eco-Marxism, Spatial Critique, Biopolitics, and Multiculturalism—to continue and exhibit new characteristics. On the other hand, the outbreak of the 2008 financial crisis fully exposed the nature of "financial imperialism" built upon modern technological means. Foreign Marxist thinkers, combining their work with critiques of new technological developments, launched all-encompassing critiques of capitalism, forming a series of new research problems or fields. These include the critique of new political economy aimed at neoliberalism, the critique of digital capitalism targeting the global plunder of virtual capital formed by the combination of financial capital and new technology, and Left Accelerationism, which critiques the relationship between capitalism and technology.
Fourth, if the overarching development of Marxisms abroad has always been closely linked to the development of capitalism itself and its globalizing tendencies, then the development of East European Neo-Marxism displays distinct regional characteristics. It can only be truly grasped by connecting it to the reforms and practices of East European socialism and the world order created by the Cold War. Compared to the thinkers of various schools within Western Marxism, the East European Neo-Marxist theorists never distanced themselves from actual social practice to reflect upon and critique social life; they were always participants in real-world social activities and social activists. East European Neo-Marxist thinkers began their academic activities after the socialist revolution had already achieved victory in their respective countries. Consequently, they directly faced the question of how to promote structural social transformation to build socialism after the completion of the political revolution. This led their reflections on the Soviet model of socialism and their re-interpretations of Marx’s thought to be closely integrated with their own socio-historical and practical issues. Without understanding the socio-historical conditions of Eastern Europe and the extremely complex relations between the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe [10] caused by the Cold War, it is difficult to grasp their theories of socialist reform and the root causes of their eventual failure, let alone the uniqueness of their theories.
Fifth, the ultimate goal of studying Marxisms abroad is to serve the resolution of China's practical problems and to promote the theoretical construction of contemporary Chinese Marxism. Therefore, it is necessary to integrate the research problems of Marxisms abroad with the reality of contemporary China. To this end, one must grasp the history, tradition, and culture of Chinese society in its totality, as well as the changes that may occur within the overall process of contemporary China's modernization. This requires grasping the problems of modernity faced by China in its own developmental process within the relationship between China and the world, as well as the new changes in capitalism triggered by China's increasing proximity to the center of the world stage. One fact that must be noted is that with the rise of the vast number of emerging countries represented by China, the traditional world political and economic order is gradually changing. This has broken the pattern of the unidirectional flow of capital profits dominated by financial capitalism, triggering profound changes within capitalism. The rise of increasingly intensified trends of de-globalization, anti-globalization, and conservatism in the West is the most explicit manifestation of this. Therefore, it is necessary to combine a profound understanding and grasp of the "Great Changes Unseen in a Century" [11] to truly comprehend the new changes in capitalist society and achieve a genuine dialogue between Chinese Marxism and Marxisms abroad. In the process of revealing the practical logic of the development of Marxisms abroad, we must grasp their theoretical logic, thereby providing theoretical resources and clarifying theoretical issues for solving major theoretical and practical problems in the developmental process of the contemporary world and Chinese society, and for promoting the construction and development of contemporary Chinese Marxism.
In summary, only by building upon a solid foundation of research into Marx’s thought, integrating the epochal questions from the process of actual socio-historical development with the internal theoretical logic of Marxisms abroad, and placing them within the total horizon of the history of ideas, can we truly understand and grasp the trends of Marxisms abroad in their totality and provide them with a correct and effective theoretical positioning. By conducting genuine dialogue and exchange with thinkers of Marxisms abroad and their researchers, we can continuously deepen the study of Marxisms abroad while simultaneously turning it into an important theoretical resource that can be absorbed and drawn upon for solving China’s practical problems and constructing Chinese Marxist theory.
The study of Marxisms abroad is currently an extremely important and highly influential field in Chinese Marxist theoretical research. Not only are there a large number of participants and prolific outputs, but new questions, viewpoints, and fields are also constantly emerging, which has continuously played a role in pushing forward the enrichment of content and the expansion of fields in Chinese Marxist theoretical research. Especially in the last 20 years, a large group of young scholars has entered this research field, making it present a scene of prosperity. However, there is a problem that requires special attention: the lack of focus on the theoretical premises for conducting research in this field, which has already seriously affected its in-depth development. Some scholars have pointed out: "For a long time, the 'material-introduction and commentary' research paradigm has been prevalent in Chinese Western Marxist research. The characteristic of this paradigm is that it is divorced from the socio-historical conditions and cultural traditions in which the theorists were situated, and divorced from the process of the evolution of the theorists' thoughts, providing abstract interpretations of their ideas and theoretical texts. Its result is not only that it views a theorist’s lifelong thought as homogenous, but it also fails to reveal the practical roots and internal logic of the theorist’s theoretical construction. While being very familiar with specific theoretical viewpoints, it fails to truly grasp the theorist's actual intentions and theoretical questions. This prevents researchers of Western Marxism from grasping the deep logic of its internal development and causes Western Marxist research to appear increasingly positivist and fragmented. It not only fails to grasp the internal logic of the development of Western Marxism as a whole, but also fails to achieve organic interaction between the study of Western Marxism and the study of the history of Marxist development, the construction of Chinese Marxist philosophy, and the practice of Chinese modernization. This results in the situation of 'studying Western Marxism for Western Marxism’s sake,' making it impossible to realize the objective of our country's Western Marxist research." The fundamental reason for this is the failure to truly understand and grasp the premises of theoretical research into Marxisms abroad.