Han Qiuhong: Principles and Methods for Constructing an Autonomous Knowledge System in Foreign Marxist Studies
From the very beginning of introducing foreign Marxist intellectual resources, China’s research on foreign Marxism has fully demonstrated a distinct subjective self-awareness. Particularly following the establishment and development of the first-level discipline of Marxist Theory and its constituent second-level disciplines, research on foreign Marxism has continually advanced disciplinary construction, academic research, and discourse innovation within the knowledge system framework of "One Theory, Two Histories" (yī lùn liǎng shǐ), guided by a problem-oriented approach. Under the guiding ideology of the innovative construction of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics, research on foreign Marxism has further transitioned from an "object-oriented" paradigm of "following the object" toward a new paradigm of autonomous dialogical research. This has laid a solid foundation for constructing an autonomous knowledge system for foreign Marxist studies with Chinese characteristics. In the New Era, under the ideological guidance of "accelerating the construction of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics" and "striving to build an all-encompassing, all-field, and all-element philosophy and social sciences system," [1] research on foreign Marxism—as an important component of the first-level discipline of Marxist Theory—requires its autonomous knowledge system construction to clearly adopt Marxism and the theoretical achievements of the Sinicization of Marxism as its principles and methods, while also manifesting its significant disciplinary significance and academic value.
I. "One Theory, Two Histories": The Basic Knowledge System Framework for Foreign Marxist Studies
Looking at the knowledge system structures across various disciplines in the philosophy and social sciences, "One Theory, Two Histories" (basic professional principles + the global developmental trajectory of the professional theory + the Chinese developmental trajectory of the professional theory) constitutes the most fundamental theoretical framework of a discipline. It contains the most basic and general foundational knowledge of a field and serves as the principle and basis for the architecture of an autonomous knowledge system and the deployment of its content. For foreign Marxist studies, "One Theory" refers to the Introduction to Foreign Marxism, while the "Two Histories" refer respectively to the History of the Global Dissemination and Theoretical Development of Marxism from a global perspective, and the History of Foreign Marxist Studies from a Chinese perspective. Together, these three constitute the basic framework of the foreign Marxist knowledge system, providing the foundational cornerstone and basic research orientation for the construction of an autonomous knowledge system in this field.
The Introduction to Foreign Marxism can be described as the foundational knowledge and theoretical content of the field; it is the prerequisite knowledge reserve for conducting research. "To know a thing is to objectify it, and only then is it possible to know it correctly." [2] The objectified knowledge of foreign Marxism is condensed within the introductory content, including basic theories such as the definition of relevant concepts, research objects, research methods, the significance of study, and specific intellectual content. It provides a comprehensive overview of the theoretical content and laws of thought involved in the discipline. It addresses how to understand the "foreign" in foreign Marxism—beyond its geographical meaning, what are its constraints in theoretical logic? What is the historical-logical relationship between it and the concept of "Western Marxism"? In what sense is foreign Marxism "Marxism"? Into which periods can its theoretical historical process be divided? Defining these basic concepts and research objects is not only a prerequisite for learning the specialty but also helps in further reflecting on theoretical issues such as how to correctly understand the essential attributes of Marxism, how to fundamentally recognize the relationship between the theoretical system founded by the classical Marxist authors [1] and the various theoretical forms of world Marxism, and how to defend and develop Marxism. In the systematic introduction of specific theoretical content, the focus is primarily on figures, schools of thought, and texts. This ranges from Early Western Marxism to the Frankfurt School’s Critical Theory, and further to Ecological Marxism, Feminist Marxism, Post-Marxism, and Post-Marxist trends. Schools such as Existentialist Marxism represented by Sartre, Freudian Marxism represented by Fromm, and Structuralist Marxism represented by Althusser all appear as intellectual trends. Accompanying the introduction of these trends are various introductory monographs and textbooks, such as A New Compilation of Foreign Marxist Philosophical Schools (Yu Wujin et al., 2002), Contemporary Foreign Marxist Philosophical Trends (Zhang Yibing, ed., 2012), The Course of 20th Century Western Marxist Philosophy (Chen Xueming, ed., 2013), and Introduction to Foreign Marxism (Han Qiuhong et al., 2022). All these adopt the approach of introducing a knowledge system, unfolding a holographic map of foreign Marxist theory and its trajectory for the reader.
The History of the Global Dissemination and Theoretical Development of Marxism constitutes the original theoretical lineage traced by foreign Marxist studies. It anchors the Marxist coordinate system and extends the axes along which Marxism adapts to and integrates with local realities and cultural traditions, giving rise to theoretical forms with distinct characteristics. Foreign Marxism represents the diverse forms through which Marxism, after Marx, disseminated and evolved throughout the world, demonstrating the powerful vitality and "truth-power" of Marxism in adapting to local conditions. Marxism has always emphasized methodological principles such as "everything depends on time, place, and conditions," [2] "concrete analysis of concrete conditions," and "integrating theory with practice." The specific application of basic principles is based on the concrete realities, national styles, and cultural traditions of different regions and historical periods. As capitalism transitioned from the era of free capitalism in which Marx and Engels lived to the era of monopoly capitalism, and amidst the twists and turns of the international communist movement and its global influence—along with the fluctuations of the global economic and political landscape—Marxism’s scientific understanding of the laws of capitalism and its scientific judgment regarding Scientific Socialism (which transcends capitalism) allowed it to spread worldwide. It combined with local realities to become an intellectual weapon for criticizing the ills of capitalism and seeking paths to social liberation. In this process, by integrating with the local customs, cognitive characteristics, and cultural features of different regions, various "neo-Marxist" theoretical forms emerged, continuously extending and developing alongside changes in the era and society. Germany continued the Frankfurt School’s tradition of social critical theory, forming a contemporary critique of political philosophy; France inherited structuralist trends, forming a contemporary critique of ideology represented by the Left; the Anglo-American tradition of logical positivism led to Marxist research from the perspective of analytical philosophy; the British tradition of cultural criticism and historical research influenced the "Cultural Materialism" of the British Marxist school and the emergence of the Marxist Historians Group; there are also Latin American Socialism and Japanese Marxism. All these reflect the dissemination and characteristic development of Marxism across the globe. In a broad sense, world Marxism—within its respective civilizational models, cultural contexts, thinking styles, and discourse systems—collectively promotes the innovation and development of Marxist research, ensuring it advances with the times and adapts to local conditions, thus forming a "theoretical community." This constitutes the world history of Marxist theory, an indispensable theoretical evolutionary lineage that the foreign Marxist knowledge system must grasp. It prompts us to further consider how to tell the China story in Chinese discourse based on the construction of an autonomous knowledge system, sending out the unique voice of Chinese Marxism to the world.
The History of Foreign Marxist Studies (in China) is the academic trajectory of our research on foreign Marxist theory as the "subject" (zhǔtǐ) [3] of research. It prominently reflects the core issues of concern to Chinese scholars at different historical stages and theoretical periods, highlighting the subjective self-awareness and problem-consciousness of this academic field. It is the academic manifestation of scholars standing on a subjective "standpoint" to respond to the "Questions of the Times, of China, and of the World." [4] If understanding the history of global dissemination and theoretical development is to recognize the theoretical process of foreign Marxism from a world perspective—a cognitive grasp of the developmental lineage of the research object—then mastering the history of foreign Marxist studies in China is to have self-knowledge of the discipline’s research trajectory in our country. It allows us to understand the intellectual background of how Chinese scholars, by integrating the needs of the times, the needs of China, and theoretical and practical requirements, have sought the essence of human thought from broad theoretical resources and absorbed or differentiated the experiences and lessons of foreign ideas. Since the publication of Xu Youyu’s Western Marxism (1982), research on foreign Marxism in China has unfolded systematically. To date, three major research paradigm stages have formed around changes in core themes, fully demonstrating the theoretical self-awareness and problem-oriented consciousness of Chinese scholars.
The first stage concerned the theoretical qualitative question of whether Western Marxism and foreign Marxism are indeed "Marxism," and in what sense they are—this formed the "Attribute Paradigm" of academic debate. As is well known, this period coincided with the global convergence and confrontation of various Marxist research forms and the most drastic period of Chinese social transformation. During this time, when it was urgent to "clear the source" (zhèngběn qīngyuán) [5] of Marxist theory and seek intellectual support for it, foreign Marxist research focused on the attribute of Western Marxism, leading to debates between theories of "non-Marxism," "exploration," "partial Marxism," and "developmental Marxism." This strengthened the theoretical consensus regarding the essential characteristics and research value of Western and foreign Marxism, and deepened the scientific understanding of the "core of truth" of Marxism through intellectual exchange and comparative analysis. Mapping out the attribute question pushed the flourishing development of foreign Marxist research into the "Intellectual History Paradigm," which integrates history and theory. In this stage, scholars translated and introduced representative figures and works of foreign Marxism on a large scale. Through the translation and interpretation of figures, ideas, and text, they deepened the textual and semantic analysis of foreign Marxist viewpoints and systems, conducting comparative research using the specific principles and methods of Marxist theory. Scholars emphasized theoretical-historical research perspectives such as etymology, the history of concepts, the history of doctrines, and the history of schools—unifying historical and intellectual research paradigms. Through comparative analysis, they critically identified the limitations of foreign Marxist research on Marxism.
The third stage, building upon rich prior results, has increasingly manifested a "Problem-oriented Paradigm" that is closely linked to Chinese reality and responds to the "Questions of China." Scholars have focused more on autonomous research regarding theoretical frontier issues of universal international and domestic concern arising from the changing times. They are no longer merely "running behind" the intellectual content and knowledge systems of Western scholars; instead, they are capable of proposing autonomous insights and logical frameworks on core issues and engaging in theoretical dialogue with Western scholars. Specifically, surrounding shared concerns regarding civilizational prospects (such as the critique of capitalism and the path to communist liberation) and universally discussed socio-economic structural issues (such as digital capitalism, biopolitics, ecological crises, equality and justice, and artificial intelligence), new research results, theoretical viewpoints, and discourse expressions have emerged incessantly. Through academic exchange, the theoretical voice of Chinese Marxist scholars is continuously disseminated, promoting intellectual interaction within the world Marxist community that involves Chinese participation. Simultaneously, scholars have increasingly focused on reflecting on the contemporary value of foreign Marxism, considering its significance as an intellectual resource for responding to and solving Chinese problems, as well as the empirical value of its critique of capitalism. Studying the history of foreign Marxist research in China is an indispensable and important task; it helps us grasp the dynamics and frontiers of theoretical research, seize the core questions of the era, and reflect on the laws and prospects of paradigm shift and innovation, providing the academic historical accumulation necessary for an autonomous knowledge architecture.
II. "One Body, Two Sides": Methodological Consciousness in the Construction of an Autonomous Knowledge System for Foreign Marxist Studies
From the developmental trajectory of research on overseas Marxism in our country, it is evident that since the initial introduction of these theories into the domestic sphere, Chinese scholars have fully manifested the theoretical self-awareness of the researcher as subject. They have continuously identified, reflected upon, and critically appraised the intellectual and theoretical resources of overseas Marxism while responding to theoretical and practical problems. This process serves to trace Marxism to its source [6] and strengthen its foundations [7], providing a scholarly interpretation and reference for the theory and practice of Sinicized Marxism. Therefore, if we say that theoretical self-awareness has consistently permeated the research process, this self-awareness is primarily manifested as a methodological self-awareness of "one core and two orientations" (一体两面, yītǐ liǎngmiàn). The "one core" refers primarily to the subjectivity of Marxism itself; firming up Marxist faith and adhering to Marxism as a guide is the baseline of overseas Marxist research and constitutes the standard for constructing an independent knowledge system. The "two orientations" refer to two dimensions. From the perspective of spatial logic, they refer to being oriented toward China and toward the world—that is, research on overseas Marxism has broadened our global horizon for contemplating Marxism, forming Chinese characteristics for the innovative development of Marxism through comparison. From the perspective of temporal logic, they refer to being oriented toward reality and toward the future—that is, the research consistently unfolds theoretical criticism based on Marxist methodological principles, contemplating the path of human liberation through the lens of Marxist teleology and its scientific judgment of socio-historical development.
"Adhering to the guidance of Marxism is the fundamental hallmark that distinguishes contemporary Chinese philosophy and social sciences from other philosophies and social sciences; it must be upheld with a clear-cut stand."[6] Adhering to Marxism as guidance is the underlying color and true nature of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics. An important task in accelerating the construction of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics is to promote the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism, and to develop 21st-century Marxism and contemporary Chinese Marxism. Therefore, regarding the specific field of overseas Marxist research, there is no doubt that taking Marxism as guidance is the banner and hallmark of the construction of the discipline’s independent knowledge system, and upholding and developing Marxism is the main theme of research. This requires our research to persist in using the Marxist worldview and methodology to critically study overseas Marxist thought; to use the methodological principles of dialectical materialism and historical materialism to scientifically evaluate whether the new concepts, ideas, viewpoints, and approaches proposed by overseas Marxists—and their proclaimed attitudes toward the innovation and development of Marxism—are worthy of the name or are merely insincere; and to take the promotion and development of contemporary Chinese Marxism as a principle. By integrating the century-long struggle led by the Communist Party of China and the corresponding theoretical and practical achievements of Sinicized Marxism, we must contemplate the connections and differences between Chinese-path modernization and Western modernization in the development of human civilization. Through the theoretical bridge of overseas Marxism, we can compare the world significance of Chinese-path modernization, further sublimating the profound interpretation and global dissemination of contemporary Chinese Marxist theory. These are the theoretical directions of concern when centering the subjectivity of Marxism in the process of constructing an independent knowledge system.
"We are still in the historical era specified by Marxism. This is the scientific basis for our firm confidence in Marxism and our conviction in the inevitable victory of socialism."[8] We have not departed from the era specified by Marxism. Furthermore, in this era, the theoretical and practical achievements of contemporary Chinese Marxism have historically confirmed the merit of Chinese-path modernization in creating a new form of human civilization. This has endowed us with even greater confidence in our path, theory, system, and culture, allowing us to continuously draw theoretical nutrients and lessons from abroad for the innovative development of Marxism, while internally exploring the theoretical path of constructing an independent knowledge system guided by the methodology of the "Two Combinations." This is also a methodological self-awareness of drawing on the strengths of all cultures while oriented toward the world, and weeding through the old to bring forth the new while oriented toward China. As Xi Jinping emphasized: "Regarding new achievements in overseas Marxist research, we must pay close attention and study them with analysis and discernment; we can neither adopt an attitude of wholesale rejection nor engage in wholesale copying. At the same time, we must persist in managing our own affairs well, continuously develop socialism with Chinese characteristics, steadily grow our country’s comprehensive national strength, and fully demonstrate the superiority of our socialist system."[8] This requires that research on overseas Marxism adopt an objective, dialectical scrutiny and critical appropriation. In the process of constructing an independent knowledge system, effectively exerting the guiding role of Marxist methodology is inseparable from grasping two major logical threads: one is social critique theory and its methodological insights oriented toward real-world social problems; the other is the summary of experiences and exploration of scientific socialist theory and movements oriented toward the future of socio-historical development. These two orientations coincide with the Marxist theoretical mission of "destroying the old world and building a new one," respond to the "questions of the world" and "questions of the times" specified by Marxism in our current era, and correspond to the core issues that Marxism critiques and provides scientific answers for. They are also the core issues of universal concern for the "theoretical community" of global Marxism. Therefore, the theoretical analysis of these two orientations both reflects and represents a methodological self-awareness of whether one follows the Marxist worldview and methodology.
Oriented toward reality, we must grasp the developmental dynamics and intellectual threads of capitalist critique and modernity critique, reflecting on the experiences and inspirations of overseas Marxism’s theoretical exploration along this logical line. The great transformation of philosophical thinking achieved by the "two shifts" and "two great discoveries" of Marxism, and the scientific system of the critique of political economy, were all inseparable from Marx and Engels’ deep involvement in social production and their observation of the people’s livelihoods. The direct object of Marxist theoretical critique is precisely the capitalist mode of production and its social system. To a certain extent, the social critique theory and capitalist critique thought of overseas Marxism have inherited the logical starting point of Marxist capitalist critique—which launches deep critiques rooted in social contradictions—and its problem-awareness regarding social reality. They have taken the pulse of capitalist industrial civilization, focusing on issues such as "consumption alienation," "technical rationality," "mass culture," the "colonization of the lifeworld," "mechanisms of socio-psychological repression," the "decline of the public sphere," the "limits to growth of capitalism," and the "contradictions of capitalist spatial structures." From certain facets and dimensions, they have formed descriptions and critiques of capitalist society and its systems, which they identify as "late capitalism" or "cannibal capitalism," offering a degree of heuristic significance. As Xi Jinping pointed out: "A very important characteristic of contemporary global Marxist trends is that many of them have critically revealed the structural contradictions of capitalism as well as contradictions in modes of production, class, and society, providing in-depth analysis of the capitalist crisis, the evolutionary process of capitalism, and new forms and essences of capitalism. These viewpoints help us correctly understand the trends and fate of capitalist development, accurately grasp the new changes and characteristics of contemporary capitalism, and deepen our understanding of its shifting trends."[8] At a time when contemporary capitalism is exhibiting new changes and characteristics and the global economic and political landscape is undergoing seismic shifts, research on overseas Marxism needs to focus more keenly on core issues such as the critique of capitalism and modernity. In theoretical dialogue, we must profoundly recognize the dialectical relationship between the essence and form of capitalism and deeply understand the consensus and differences in the perception of modernization and modernity among critique theories from different national styles, cultural genes, customs, and mindsets. This will assist us in reflecting on and resolving the risks and challenges faced in the process of modernization and in telling the story of the innovative contributions of Chinese-path modernization.
Oriented toward the future, we must continuously monitor new progress and dynamics in scientific socialist theory and movements within the international community, reflecting on the history and prospects of the international communist movement. This helps us accurately and profoundly understand and articulate the world significance of the socialist concept within Chinese-path modernization for human liberation and the progress of civilization. While critiquing capitalist society and its systems, overseas Marxist theory has similarly proposed ideal visions for a social form and civilizational model that transcends capitalism, reflecting the conceptualizations and expectations of the overseas leftist camp for socialism to replace capitalism. Marxism's "two inevitabilities" [8] and the theory of scientific socialism are major discoveries concerning the general laws of human social development, grounded in the critique of political economy and the materialist conception of history; they provide a scientific judgment of the grand trends of human social development. Today, as the general crisis of capitalism breaks out comprehensively and the calls for global Marxism and socialism grow louder, this grand historical trend has once again reached a historical window for moving the entirety of human history forward. However, the voices of socialism and communism from around the world and their theoretical explorations of the path to realization are diverse. Contemporary radical leftist trends in overseas Marxism have expressed varying opinions on the concept and practice of communism, proposing their own communist hypotheses and ideological concepts. Clearly, their advocacy of socialist alternatives based on the critique of capitalism reflects a certain degree of Marxist research, but they each face ideological limitations that are difficult to break through and the predicament of failing to reach a consensus on the theory and practice of how to achieve socialism/communism. Ben Agger summarized: "The history of Western Marxism is a history of constant alternation between a determinism of revolution born from crisis and a pessimism regarding socialist change formed during periods of political harmony and class reconciliation... Many Marxists either exaggerate the deterministic tendency or the voluntaristic tendency, rather than combining the two as Marx originally did; this is precisely the characteristic of Western Marxism."[9] Therefore, a dialectical analysis of overseas Marxist perceptions of socialism and communism, combined with a systematic understanding of the history of the international communist movement and the changes in scientific socialist theory and movement as eras have shifted following Marx, helps us grasp the laws of thought, development, and historical trends. Through theoretical inter-connectivity and intellectual exchange, we can continuously clarify the essence of scientific socialism, seek consensus, and become increasingly firm in the scientific path of human liberation and in our confidence in the path, system, theory, and culture of socialism with Chinese characteristics. In the contemporary era of great changes unseen in a century, issues of universal concern—such as how to promote profound changes in the international political and economic landscape, how to reach a consensus on the concept of a community with a shared future for humanity with the common well-being of the world's people as a goal, and how to achieve a more just and reasonable global governance system—have likewise become questions of the times and the world that Marxism needs to answer. These are inherent requirements in the historical process of continuously realizing scientific socialism. Therefore, deepening our understanding and reflection on the history and reality of scientific socialist theory and the international communist movement through comparative research—and continuously highlighting the socialist concept of Chinese-path modernization as a new form of human civilization and its global significance—is a vital logical direction for constructing an independent knowledge system of overseas Marxist research under the guidance of Marxist methodology.
III. "One core and three dimensions": The practical path for constructing an independent knowledge system for overseas Marxist research
Some scholars have used the distinction between "substance" (ti) and "function" (yong) [9] to understand the dialectical unity between the knowledge system and the disciplinary, academic, and discourse systems. They point out: "Analyzing through the categories of Chinese philosophy, the Chinese knowledge system is the 'substance,' while the academic, disciplinary, and discourse systems are the 'function.' Once the substance is established, the function becomes clear; without substance, there is no function. There is no substance without function, and without function, the substance cannot manifest."[10] By the same token, if the core ontological status of the knowledge system is regarded as the "meta-problem" that currently requires attention and focus, then it is necessary to make fundamental breakthroughs across three major dimensions: innovation in the disciplinary system, the academic system, and the discourse system. This creates the platform and provides the momentum and support for the construction of an independent knowledge system. Therefore, the latter can be termed the path of realization for the former, while the former serves as the core guide and objective for the latter. The two complement each other, constituting a "one core, three dimensions" structural model of the system.
First, clarify the positioning of the disciplinary system and the objectives of talent cultivation to create a platform for the construction of an independent knowledge system. A disciplinary system embodies the specialized classification of a theoretical body of knowledge, reflecting the logical levels, architecture, and professional directions of a subject's knowledge system. Therefore, as one of the secondary disciplines under the primary discipline of Marxist Theory, the study of Foreign Marxism must clarify both its own disciplinary positioning in constructing an independent knowledge system and its disciplinary significance within the primary disciplinary system of Marxist Theory. It must consistently provide the support and assistance expected of a secondary discipline for the innovative development of Marxist Theory. The study of Foreign Marxism embodies an international perspective and a comparative dimension. Through the tracking and intensive study of the theoretical forms and developmental dynamics of world Marxism, it provides a comparative global horizon for confirming the truthful significance of Marxism and the scientific nature and world significance of Sinicized Marxism. Consequently, only by clarifying its own disciplinary boundaries and connotations under the guidance of Marxist stances, viewpoints, and methods, within the context of Sinicized Marxist theory and practice, and under the overall framework of the primary discipline of Marxist Theory, can the study of Foreign Marxism establish its own strategic resolve and exert its theoretical value and disciplinary significance through its intellectual tension. This constitutes the prerequisite issue for the construction of an independent knowledge system for Foreign Marxism.
An important objective and task of constructing the disciplinary system lies in building and cultivating a professional workforce of talents needed by the New Era, the nation, and the people. "The essence of modernization lies in the modernization of man." If advancing the construction of an independent knowledge system for a discipline is likewise an aspect of the modern development of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics, then the particularly critical core link lies in the cultivation of talent and the building of a workforce. According to the deployment of the "overall development strategy for philosophy and social sciences centered on educating people and cultivating talent," the discipline of Marxist Theory should take the cultivation of thinkers and theorists who possess profound Marxist theoretical literacy and are well-versed in both Chinese and Western scholarship as its fundamental goal. Through the collaborative construction of various secondary disciplines, it should cultivate Marxist theoretical professionals who truly understand, believe in, study, and apply Marxism, as well as comprehensive talents with both moral integrity and professional competence. In this sense, the study of Foreign Marxism, in its linkage with other secondary disciplines, provides an important disciplinary horizon and platform for cultivating future academic experts in Marxist theory and master-level scholars well-versed in both Chinese and Western traditions. Emphasis should be placed on building an integrated development system of students, academics, and the discipline. First, leverage the advantage of Foreign Marxism’s interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary perspective to open up a broad horizon for students in world Marxist research, as well as a "fusion of horizons" [10] where Marxist theory intersects and integrates with other disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, geography, and psychology, thereby broadening students’ theoretical vistas. Second, leverage the comparative advantage of Foreign Marxism research to continuously distinguish the scientific and revolutionary nature of Marxism through the historical and theoretical comparison and analysis of "China, the West, and Marxism" (Zhong-Xi-Ma) [11]. This confirms the national character and innovativeness of Sinicized Marxism, guiding students with correct theoretical directions and value orientations to open their theoretical minds on the basis of firm Marxist faith, face the world, absorb excellent foreign resources, and draw on the strengths of all. Third, attach importance to the construction of the curriculum system for Foreign Marxism research. Through the vehicle of classroom teaching, provide channels for students to receive international theoretical dynamics and broaden the multiple paths through which students understand Marxism. Through the construction of course content and curriculum systems, incorporate the knowledge system of Foreign Marxism into the " ideological and political curriculum" [12] teaching reforms. Use theoretical explanations and critical interpretations to cultivate students' ability to use Marxist stances, viewpoints, and methods to reflect on various theoretical forms of world Marxist research, enhancing their critical, dialectical, and innovative thinking, thereby improving their comprehensive quality.
Second, exert great effort to strengthen the innovation of the academic system to provide an engine for the construction of an independent knowledge system. Philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics should manifest six major characteristics: inheritance, nationality, originality, timeliness, systematicity, and professionalism. "The accelerated construction of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics is, in the final analysis, the construction of China's independent knowledge system." Moving steadfastly in this direction requires standing firmly on Marxist stances, viewpoints, and methods, continuously promoting the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture, and unceasingly advancing innovation in knowledge, theory, and method. Here, academic system innovation plays an important role as an engine and driving force. Through a scientific paradigm, the academic system systematically elucidates the research objects, purposes, methods, professional directions, and their interrelationships, as well as the value and significance of research and study for the discipline. These elements constitute both the content and framework of the academic system and serve as the prerequisite knowledge structure and the threads of in-depth deliberation for the actual conduct of academic research. The innovative construction of an academic system concerns the establishment of a scientific paradigm for the discipline. The latter is characterized by a brand-new understanding and interpretive norm of a discipline's systematic knowledge system, including the definition of basic concepts, the interpretation of the essence and laws of the research object expressed around these basic concepts, and the rationality analysis and evaluation standards of research methods and results. It directly reflects the knowledge scope, core, logical layout, and structural framework related to a discipline. Therefore, for any discipline, the innovative construction of its independent knowledge system is inseparable from its own academic system innovation and the high-quality development of academic research. The latter provides the regulatory framework for the self-confirmation of the former's rationality and determines the theoretical sustainability and growth potential of the former's sustainable development.
Foreign Marxist theory, with its diverse theoretical forms and contents, provides a distinct sense of problem-awareness and objects for critique for the academic innovation of Foreign Marxism research in our country. As Xi Jinping pointed out: "I have read some Western books researching Marxism; their conclusions are not necessarily correct, but in terms of researching and verifying Marxist texts, they have done their homework quite well. By contrast, the efforts of some of our researchers in this area are far from sufficient." 10 For example, the core concepts and theoretical systems developed by foreign Marxist thinkers—such as "totality," "reified structures," and "class consciousness"—provide certain inspirations for us to reflect on the construction of the discourse system of Marxist theory. With the changes in the historical conditions and manifestations of capitalism, the multi-angled academic perspectives and critiques formed by foreign Marxist theories regarding advanced capitalist industrial civilization have expanded our academic perspective for reflecting on the historical forms and essential laws of capitalism. Furthermore, Foreign Marxist theory itself originated from a logical pivot from the traditional to the contemporary around the 1970s. Some Marxist interpretive paradigms reflecting "post-scholarship" (houxue) [13] colors and some "return to the study" style philological researches provide an academic target for our critical reflection on how to innovatively develop Marxist theory and endow it with new connotations of the times while standing firm on basic Marxist stances, viewpoints, and methods—ensuring that the truth of Marxism radiates new vitality and vigor while advancing with the times. By deepening the study of Foreign Marxism, we are aided in "returning to Marx," returning to the Marxist classics, and returning to the theory and practice of Sinicized Marxism. This deepens academic research on the contemporary interpretation of classical theories and, with a problem-oriented approach that observes the times and responds to and solves realistic problems, continuously explores academic system innovation to promote the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism and the development of contemporary Chinese Marxism.
Third, attach importance to the empirical reference of original conceptual terms and the innovation of the discourse system to provide support for the construction of an independent knowledge system. In the process of constructing an independent knowledge system for any discipline, the construction of the discourse system occupies a pivotal position; it is the "cell" of the knowledge system. For the construction of a discourse system in any disciplinary category, "a nation's discourse system is the systematic expression of an ideological system composed of various concepts, theories, beliefs, and experiences in the nation's own language and script. The power of attraction, dominance, and authority formed by the ideological strength carried by the discourse system itself is the power of discourse." [15] Under the methodological guidance of the "Two Combinations" [14], exploring a discourse system that can describe Chinese problems, highlight Chinese characteristics, and voice Chinese perspectives concerns the theoretical and cultural confidence of the nation's development. Foreign Marxism research provides resourceful materials and empirical inspirations for this. On the one hand, the conceptual categories of foreign Marxist ideology and theory reflect a diagnosis of the issues of the times in responding to realistic problems. For instance, concepts such as the "one-dimensional society," the "colonization of everyday life," the "society of the spectacle," the "symbolic society," "hyper-reality," "post-truth," "late capitalism," "digital capitalism," "cannibal capitalism," "fossil capitalism," and "digital Taylorism" vividly describe the new characteristics of advanced capitalist industrial civilization. The theoretical systems constructed around these new core concepts form a pathological analysis of capitalism, providing new modes of discourse and thinking maps for the critique of capitalism. They also enrich the discourse content of Marxist theory and excavate new discourse paradigms and theoretical critical priorities that advance with the times. The new concepts and terms they propose highlight a unique problem-awareness, providing reference value for our construction of original discourse.
On the other hand, the theoretical self-awareness and independent critical consciousness of Foreign Marxism research allow us to pay attention to breaking through the discourse hegemony of Western-centrism. From a Marxist stance, viewpoint, and method, we critically examine the deviations and distortions of the original meaning of Marxist truth in foreign Marxist theories when they reconstruct Marxism or reinterpret Marxist concepts. This provides inspiration for us to scientifically consider how to dialectically unify "upholding the fundamentals" with "innovation," achieving the organic integration of independent discourse system innovation with the inheritance and development of Marxist theory. For example, their use of "multitude" [15] autonomism to replace the theory of proletarian revolution, the assertion that "the ecological crisis has replaced the economic crisis as the essence of the capitalist crisis" to dissolve Marxist crisis theory, the use of postmodern-tinged "historical-geographical materialism" to reconstruct historical materialism, and the replacement of proletarian parties with "Green Parties"—all of these, to a certain extent, deconstruct the authenticity of Marxism. To this, we must apply vigorous critique and take it as a cautionary tale. Although Foreign Marxism research can provide "absorbed foreign" [16] intellectual nourishment for our original discourse, it by no means implies the mechanical copying of foreign Marxist discourse modes, or the copying of "collage-like" or abstractly speculative methods created by foreign Marxist concepts. We need to clearly distinguish the essential value and limitations of foreign ideas, conduct critical reference, and form complementary advantages. In Foreign Marxism research, through constant study of classical texts and deliberation on classical theories, and through the interaction between Chinese discourse expressions and methods and the conceptual terms and knowledge systems of Western scholars, we can refine semantics and polish terminology, gradually achieving the independent construction of a theoretical research discourse system that is "faithful, expressive, and elegant" (xin-da-ya) [17]. At the same time, it is especially necessary to uphold the basic principles of being rooted in the Chinese standpoint, responding to Chinese problems, reflecting Chinese style, and manifesting Chinese concern and a global heart. Under the methodological guidance of the "Two Combinations," we must persist in taking Marxism as guidance and the fine traditional Chinese culture as the foundation, exploring and forming academic discourse and theoretical logic with Chinese characteristics. This is the fundamental direction and compliance for achieving the construction of an independent knowledge system.
(Author Profile: Han Qiuhong, Professor and Doctoral Supervisor, Faculty of Marxism, Northeast Normal University) Online Editor: Tong Xin Source: Studies in Marxist Theory (Makesizhuyi lilun xueke yanjiu), Issue 5, 2023.