Chen Xiangqin: "Ge-yi" and "Reverse Ge-yi"
Around the 1980s, in the macro-environment of Reform and Opening-up, China ushered in an era of "emancipation of the mind." The influx of Western Marxism exerted a broad and profound influence on domestic Marxist research. During this period, domestic studies of various Western Marxist trends and schools—whether comprehensive or thematic—shared a common characteristic: they were subordinate to judgments regarding the overall nature of Western Marxism and the general relationship between these schools and Marxism. Consequently, within domestic theoretical circles, there consistently existed a "matching of meanings" (geyi) [1] and "reverse matching of meanings" between Marxism modeled on the Soviet textbook system and Western Marxism. It was precisely through this forward or reverse "matching of meanings" that Chinese Marxist research flourished and developed, inaugurating new theories, new ideas, and new scholarship in Marxism.
I. The Historical Origins of the Dissemination of Western Marxism in China
Prior to Reform and Opening-up, Marxist research in the New China was basically a situation where the Soviet textbook system held undisputed sway. Domestic theoretical circles primarily viewed the numerous 20th-century Western Marxist trends as bourgeois ideologies and conducted research on them through a critical lens. As early as the 1960s and 70s, Western Marxist works such as Lukács’s The Young Hegel and Existentialism or Marxism?, Sartre’s Critique of Dialectical Reason, and Merleau-Ponty’s Adventures of the Dialectic had been translated and introduced domestically. However, domestic theoretical circles generally regarded Western Marxism as a "counter-Marxist" revisionist trend, believing that while this trend superficially maintained myriad links with Marxism, its essence was that of a "reactionary bourgeois trend of thought."
The earliest domestic scholar to study Western Marxism was Professor Xu Chongwen. As early as the beginning of the 1960s, he introduced the American pragmatic Marxist Sidney Hook to China, translating works such as Towards the Understanding of Karl Marx, From Hegel to Marx (portions), and Reason, Social Myths and Democracy (portions). In addition, scholars such as Ma Qiaozhi, Ding Xianggong, and Xu Maoyong undertook the translation and study of the works and thought of the French existentialist Marxist Jean-Paul Sartre. During this period, the thoughts and works of representative Western Marxist figures like Lukács also appeared in relevant introductory papers within domestic theoretical circles.
Domestic theoretical circles only truly began to launch research into Western Marxism after the 1978 "Discussion on the Criterion of Truth" [2]. However, just prior to this, between 1977 and 1978, while Hu Qiaomu [3] was in charge of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), central leadership comrades requested that CASS provide a set of materials concerning Western Marxism. This task ultimately fell to Xu Chongwen, who spent several months compiling "a report that was submitted to the Central Committee after receiving Qiaomu's approval." Immediately following this, the West European Bureau of the International Department of the CPC Central Committee invited Xu Chongwen to lecture on Gramsci; the Ministry of Education invited him to universities in Shanghai, Harbin, and other locations to lecture on Western Marxism. Subsequently, these activities expanded to many universities, Party schools, military academies, and social science research institutions. After 1978, the journal Philosophical Translations (Zhexue Yicong) began to publish representative Western Marxist papers in large quantities. Simultaneously, domestic researchers began to translate, introduce, and study the trends, schools, representative figures, and theoretical works of Western Marxism. At the turn of the 1980s, a surge of interest in Western Marxism emerged domestically. This research boom harmonized with the macro-environment of Reform and Opening-up; it was an expression of the Chinese Marxist theoretical community opening up to the international community, and an embodiment of Chinese Marxist research breaking free from a logic of over-politicization and returning to a normal social and academic ecosystem [4].
II. The Basic Course of Domestic Western Marxist Research Around the 1980s
At the end of the 1970s, as Western Marxism began to spread in China, that which it came into direct contact with was the orthodox Marxism based on the Soviet textbook system then prevalent domestically. Consequently, how to grasp the relationship between this trend of thought and the Marxist textbook system became the dominant question in Western Marxist research during that period. From this perspective, domestic Western Marxist research in this period can be roughly divided into four stages.
(1) The stage of criticism or "matching of meanings" of Western Marxism by textbook-version Marxism (1978–1982)
When domestic Western Marxist research was just starting, the theoretical community basically followed the textbook system to launch criticisms, using the Soviet version of Marxism to "match the meaning of" (cognize and criticize) Western Marxism. At that time, the theoretical community generally viewed Western Marxism as "a bourgeois, anti-Marxist revisionist trend of thought that emerged in European and American capitalist countries after the October Revolution," believing that Western Marxism "opposed both the Neo-Kantianism of the Second International and the vulgar materialism of the Third International." They saw it as an "ideology proposing insights on revolutionary strategy and tactics that differed from Leninism" while analyzing modern capitalism and envisioning socialism. This trend "contended with Leninism politically" and "stood in opposition to the positions of dialectical materialism and historical materialism philosophically."
Mainstream domestic opinion held that although the Western Marxist trend "posed as Marxism," after the failure of the Soviet revolutions in various European countries in the 20th century, it generally proclaimed a "crisis of revolutionary subjectivity," a "crisis of ideology," and a "crisis of Marxism." Furthermore, they believed Western Marxists viewed Lenin’s philosophical thought "merely as an ideology used to justify a specific, crude model of socialism developed during the Bolsheviks' political struggle," and thus considered it a "non-Marxist trend of thought." Additionally, Leninism advocated the "principle of the Party character of philosophy" [5]—a theoretical principle Lenin proposed based on the fundamental question of philosophy summarized by Engels, with an eye toward the characteristics of philosophical struggle. Yet this was a principle Western Marxism could not accept; they advocated for a "pluralistic Marxism." Representative figures of this trend "never concealed their opposition to 'orthodox' or 'classical' Marxism," believing that "there is no original, 'pure' Marxism, only a Marxism that is constantly being created." Therefore, domestic critics argued they were "certainly not true Marxism" but rather an anti-Marxist trend.
(2) The stage where Western Marxist research broke through textbook-version Marxism (1982–1987)
In this stage, domestic research began to break through the Soviet textbook evaluation system, directly exploring the perceptions, understandings, and grasps of Marxism, capitalism, socialism, and revolution held by representative figures and schools of Western Marxism.
During this period, domestic understanding of Western Marxism became more comprehensive and evaluations became fairer. The theoretical community generally recognized that Western Marxism was a trend that appeared after World War I, developed after World War II, and gained widespread influence in the Western world after the 1960s. This trend, "along with its own defects, was a product of the changed capitalist world of the 20th century."
Regarding the question of whether Western Marxism constituted Marxism, domestic theoretical circles also began to maintain a cautious attitude. For example, some scholars pointed out that regarding the question of whether Western Marxism "is true Marxism or false? Is it truly an advanced Marxism suited to modern industrial society as it claims, or is it anti-Marxism under the banner of Marxism?", it was better "not to draw a conclusion for the time being." Of course, there were more positive views holding that Western Marxism was "not just a philosophical school" but "also a socialist school" and "a trend of thought rebelling against capitalism." The Western Marxist analysis of capitalism, its criticism of the Soviet model, its longing and hope for socialism, and its "re-discovery" of Marxism, "although containing various errors, nonetheless provided extremely valuable intellectual material for modern Western radical leftists thinking through the resolution of various urgent problems facing contemporary humanity." Some even argued that "'Western Marxism' should occupy its own position in the entire history of the development of Marxism"; in a certain sense, one could acknowledge Western Marxism as "the Marxism of contemporary capitalist society."
(3) The stage of using Western Marxism to perform "reverse matching of meanings" on textbook-version Marxism (1987–1989)
During this period, the domestic theoretical community launched a polemic and "contention of a hundred schools" [6] regarding Western Marxist research that lasted for several years, spreading to more than ten newspapers and journals (including the People's Daily) and even to the Taiwan region. The theoretical community’s understanding of Western Marxism not only began to break through the Soviet textbook system of Marxism, but there also appeared a "reverse matching of meanings" regarding Soviet Marxism—that is, launching a reverse examination, analysis, and critique of it.
The first manifestation of this "reverse matching of meanings" process was the peeling away of Western Marxism from Western bourgeois trends of thought and its classification within the history of Marxist development. This view held that the history of Marxist development is not merely a history of the works of "Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin," but must also reflect the "diversity of Marxist development." It argued that "although conditions are not yet ripe for a comprehensive evaluation of 'Western Marxism,' it is certain that it is one form among the diverse developmental forms of modern Marxism."
In light of this, some domestic scholars began to explore, from a philosophical height, the contributions made by Western Marxism to the development of Marxism. For example, using "praxis monism" or "praxis ontology" [7] to replace "matter monism" or "materialist ontology" in order to re-interpret Marx’s New Materialism; or using "totality" and "subjectivity" to transform dialectics, or using the dialectics of the subject (or the totality of subject-object) to criticize, negate, and transform the "objective dialectics" of Soviet Marxism, and so on. Although various Western Marxist trends attempted to use various schools of contemporary Western philosophy to explain, develop, supplement, and "synthesize" with Marxism—thereby potentially deviating from Marxism itself—these domestic studies held that Western Marxism’s reflection on Soviet Marxism and its exploration of the original face of Marxism were very beneficial. They helped the Chinese theoretical community liberate itself from the shackles of the Soviet textbook system, return to the study of the Marxist classics, and promote the transformation and reconstruction of Marxism under the premise of "clearing the source and purifying the flow" (zhengben qingyuan).
(4) The stage of hesitation, reflection, and advancing toward "two-way matching of meanings" in Western Marxist research (1989–1991)
During this period, due to the influence of domestic political disturbances [8], the drastic changes in Eastern Europe, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, domestic Western Marxist research entered a stage of hesitation, reflection, and forward movement. At the time, traditional judgments regarding Western Marxism—namely, that Western Marxism was not Marxism—resurfaced in the theoretical community.
This view argued that Western Marxism, under the banner of "re-discovering and designing" Marxism, was actually distorting Marxism; that by creating an opposition between the "Early Marx and Late Marx" and between "Marx and Engels or Lenin," Western Marxism was actually dismantling Marxism in an attempt to peel Leninism away from it. Although Western Marxist criticism of contemporary capitalist society was deep and sharp, they were unable to touch the capitalist system because they were mired in abstract humanism; the "humanized society" they meticulously mapped out was nothing more than an "idealized, abstracted, and generalized capitalist society." This view further held that Western Marxism’s treatment of contemporary bourgeois schools of thought as the "source, supplement, and synthesis" for Marxism only proved that it belonged to the category of bourgeois theoretical trends. A "common characteristic" of Western Marxism, they claimed, was its detachment from the proletarian revolution and socialist movements, as "the focus of discussion shifted from the political and economic fields toward the philosophical and cultural fields."
Consequently, it was regarded as a "betrayal of Marxism." Thus, Western Marxism was seen as a desertion and treachery of Marxism—a "bourgeois ideological trend that opposes Marxism while waving the banner of Marxism."
It was precisely during this period that domestic research, amidst hesitation and reflection, advanced toward the stage of "two-way geyi" (the integration and convergence of Western Marxism and traditional Marxism). Therefore, whether it was the "Leftist" judgment made by domestic theoretical circles against Western Marxism in the early 1980s, or the "Rightist" judgment made against traditional Marxism in the mid-1980s, both underwent serious reflection during this period. This established the correct attitude and position for subsequent Western Marxist studies: namely, to study Western Marxism under the prerequisite of "taking Marxism as guidance," in order to serve the purpose of "our upholding and developing Marxism."
III. Domestic Research on Certain Viewpoints of Western Marxism in the 1980s
Around the 1980s, domestic theoretical circles' research on Western Marxism primarily involved placing it within basic Marxist themes—such as the philosophical worldview, the analysis of contemporary capitalism, the critique of Soviet socialism, and aspirations for or reflections on revolution—to grasp and understand this trend holistically and attempt to provide a totalizing judgment of it. Numerous studies on the various trends, schools, figures, representative works, and theories of Western Marxism were consciously or unconsciously subordinate to this totalizing analysis or judgment.
(1) Research on Certain Philosophical Issues in Western Marxism
It is well known that materialism, dialectics, and the view of practice are the cornerstones of Marxist philosophy; Marxist philosophy is a practical, dialectical materialist philosophy. On issues such as the view of practice, dialectics, and materialism, Western Marxism proposed insights different from Soviet Marxism, and thus had a different understanding and grasp of Marxist philosophy. It was precisely under the inspiration and influence of Western Marxism that domestic theoretical circles reflected anew on the philosophical forms of Marxism.
1. The Debate over the Western Marxist View of Practice
One of the fundamental hallmarks distinguishing Marxist philosophy from all previous philosophies is the Marxist principle of practice. Marx also referred to his own philosophy as "practical materialism." For this reason, various schools of Western Marxism, without exception, developed a strong interest in the category of practice, devoting extensive space to discussing it.
However, the Western Marxist understanding of the concept or principle of practice differed from Soviet Marxism. The most representative view was "practice monism" or "practice ontology," used to replace "material monism" or "material ontology." For domestic theoretical circles in the 1980s, this view had a powerful impact and triggered a long-lasting polemic among Marxist researchers.
Some domestic scholars argued that the key to Marxism's "ability to grasp the unity of the natural world and the human world" lay in its "taking the viewpoint of social practice as the foundation of its worldview." Therefore, Marxist philosophy should be a "practice ontology." However, more scholars raised objections and counterarguments. They pointed out that elevating the principle of practice to the level of ontology and counterposing the viewpoint of practice against materialism was tantamount to "fundamentally abolishing Marxist materialism." They argued that if one "abstractly substantializes practice, thereby using things like the principle of subject-object identity [9] to negate the objective existence of the external world," and subsequently "claims that subject and object, matter and spirit, are unified in practice, it is actually nothing more than another version of the Hegelian idealist view of practice." Therefore, "the Marxist view of practice takes material monism as its basic prerequisite"; only in this way can Marxism "clearly distinguish itself from those forms of idealism." The "theoretical cornerstone of Marxism is material monism, not a 'practice monism' that transcends the opposition between materialism and idealism."
2. Exploration of Western Marxist Dialectics
In the view of the mainstream of Western Marxism, there is no dialectics of a pure object without the principle of subjectivity; the internal basis of dialectics is subjectivity. Hegel’s dialectics or logic of pure concepts and categories of thought was essentially rooted in the dialectics of "subject-object" as thought. In the context of Western Marxism, this kind of dialectics is a form of idealist speculation; the fundamental contribution of Marxist philosophy lies in its grasping of dialectics within real social existence rather than in thought-concepts.
The emphasis of Western Marxism on the subjective principle of dialectics stood in opposition to the prominence given to the dialectics of the object in Soviet Marxism. This opposition directly related to the basic understanding in Soviet Marxism regarding materialist dialectics (worldview) or the dialectics of nature (view of nature), and to the domestic theoretical circles' basic understanding of Marxist dialectics.
Influenced by Western Marxism, some domestic scholars believed that the object of dialectics should be "the dialectical relationship between subject and object in practical activities and the general laws of movement and development," rather than "the dialectical relations within and between objective things themselves." Consequently, Marxist dialectics should be a "practice dialectics" or a "historical dialectics." However, more domestic scholars argued that this dialectics based on the relationship between subject and object was actually the "principle of identity" [10] that Lenin had once criticized, and it "has fundamental disagreements with the materialist dialectics created by Marx." Therefore, "Western Marxism's view of the subject-object relationship as the sole factor of dialectics, and its resulting recognition of only the dialectics of social history, is an erroneous idea." "The kind of dialectics that abandons the prerequisite of the primacy of matter, elevates pure activity to an absolute, and uses the 'predicate' as the starting point and destination of subject and object, is not the method of Marx’s 'practical materialism,' but rather the Hegelian method of expression."
3. Contentions Regarding Western Marxist Materialism
Materialism is the fundamental philosophical position of Marxism. However, for Western Marxists, Marx’s new materialism is unified by the principle of social or historical practice, rather than being unified by the principle of objective or "in-itself" [11] matter. Soviet Marxism took a diametrically opposite stance, holding that the primacy and unity of matter is the cornerstone of philosophical materialism, and that "monism or ontology" of matter is an inherent part of philosophical materialism.
The Western Marxist interpretation of the "practice ontology" of Marx’s new materialism directly impacted the Soviet Marxist understanding of the "material ontology" of Marx’s new materialism, thereby sparking intense debate in domestic theoretical circles during the 1980s.
One domestic viewpoint held that where Marx’s new materialism differed from old materialism was in its realization of a transition from the principle of objectivity in old materialism to the principle of subjectivity in the new materialism—"understanding objectivity starting from the principle of subjectivity"—and was thus a "practical" materialism. Some domestic scholars countered this by saying, "practice is always human practice; without humans there is no human practice, so the human becomes the ultimate origin of the world," which "inevitably leads to idealism." They argued that Western Marxism "strips away the core part of practice as all objective material activity" and "adulterates the concept of 'practice' into an 'Absolute' that overrides materialism and idealism," which constitutes a "revision of Marx’s materialism into idealism." They believed that "all materialism maintains that the world is unified in matter," and Marx’s new materialism could not deny this in any sense; the Western Marxist "practice monism" or "practice ontology" " 'overcomes' materialist monism only to fall into an idealist spiritual monism," and is in fact "a revival of Fichte’s subjective idealism in the modern era."
(2) Research on Certain Political Issues in Western Marxism
We know that from its inception, Western Marxism proposed political claims different from Leninism. Consequently, in its subsequent development—whether in its analysis of Western capitalism, its critique of Soviet socialism, or its hopes and aspirations for socialism—Western Marxism differed from Soviet Marxism. These insights of Western Marxism provided a certain degree of inspiration, reference, and contrast for domestic theoretical circles' research on such issues.
1. Research on the Western Marxist Critique of Contemporary Capitalism
A central theme of Western Marxism is the critique of contemporary capitalist society. For this reason, around the 1980s, some domestic scholars raised objections to the view that Western Marxism should be regarded as a bourgeois ideological trend, arguing instead that it is a branch of the broader history of Marxist development. These scholars proposed that Western Marxism’s critical analysis of contemporary Western capitalism and industrial civilization is meaningful and valuable, noting that to develop Marxism, one must deeply understand contemporary Western society, and "referencing and analyzing the intellectual materials provided by 'Western Marxists' is one of the necessary paths."
However, Western Marxism’s critique of contemporary capitalist society was no longer based on Marxist political economy; instead, it saw a return from political economy to philosophy, moving toward philosophical, social, and cultural critiques, and transitioning from a critique of the rule of capital to a critique of the rule of technology (technocracy). This became particularly evident in the development of Western Marxism since the late 1930s. Moreover, while criticizing advanced capitalist society, Western Marxism critiqued the labor theory of value and the theory of surplus value in Marxist political economy, regarding them as obsolete or invalid. This naturally drew criticism from domestic theoretical circles at the time. Domestic scholars argued that this type of Western Marxist critique actually "replaced the critique of the essential nature of capitalist society with a critique of the forms of expression of the capitalist state, thereby obscuring the deep-seated roots of the various maladies produced by capitalist society." Thus, the theoretical circles of the time generally believed that many Western Marxist critiques of capitalism did not proceed from a Marxist starting point and therefore could not be considered a Marxist trend in the strict sense.
2. Exploration of the Western Marxist Critique of Soviet Socialism
The contradictions and opposition between Western Marxism and Soviet Marxism were manifested not only in theoretical forms but also in divergent perceptions of the Soviet model of socialism. Around the 1980s, the dissemination of Western Marxism in China triggered domestic theoretical circles to conduct research on Western Marxist analyses and critiques of Soviet socialism.
In the 1980s, the Western Marxist critique of Soviet socialism resonated with Gorbachev’s rebellion against the Soviet system, which naturally impacted the basic understanding of the Soviet Union in China at that time. Since the "Great Changes in Eastern Europe" [12] and the dissolution of the Soviet Union had not yet occurred, it was difficult to speak of a post-hoc reflection on the "Soviet model"; nevertheless, Western Marxist analyses and critiques of the Soviet Union still exerted a certain impact and influence on domestic theoretical circles. Some domestic scholars gave relatively positive evaluations, believing that many of the Western Marxist critiques aimed at the Soviet Union were "trenchant, well-founded, and hit the mark," and raised a series of "issues worth discussing," such as dictatorship and democracy, planning and the market, centralization and decentralization, the Party and the state, leaders and the masses, and social versus human liberation. Other scholars pointed out that the "critique of 'actually existing socialism' of the Soviet model" was one of the "three major themes" of Western Marxism. They "used speculative language as a weapon to study the new topics raised by the era and to answer the new challenges encountered by socialism," which "brought new vitality to the socialist movement in the Western world." However, when Western Marxism habitually "lumped 'actually existing socialism' together with capitalist society or even fascist society" and "crowned it with the title of a 'totalitarian society'," it could only be said that "the basic position and viewpoint from which they observe socialist society" was fundamentally wrong.
3. Understanding Western Marxist Theories of Revolution, Socialism, and Utopia
Another theme of Western Marxism is the prospect of revolution and reflections on and aspirations for socialism or utopia...
Around the 1980s, domestic discussions regarding theories related to Western Marxism also unfolded with great fervor. At that time, the attitude of the domestic theoretical community was fundamentally critical, holding that while Western Marxism’s totalizing critique of developed capitalist countries might be philosophically successful, this trend was unsuccessful regarding the political question of "how to transform the real world."
As is well known, Western Marxism emerged in the 1920s based on a reflection of the failures and setbacks encountered by the Soviet Revolution as it spread to Western European countries; it possessed an understanding of and reflection on revolution that differed from Leninism. This was the "theory of total revolution" that gradually formed within the Western Marxist camp. This totalizing view of revolution once served as the guiding ideology for several Left-wing movements in Western countries prior to the 1960s. However, with the ebbing of the "May Storm" [13] that swept the Western world in 1968, this concept also declined within the political sphere of Western society. Because Western Marxism shifted from a critique of political economy to a philosophical critique, and from a critique of the abstract rule of capital to a critique of the abstract rule of technology—a critique that covered not only European and American capitalism but also Soviet socialism and even scientific socialism itself—it left behind nothing but a pure utopian longing. As some domestic viewpoints pointed out, because Western Marxism moved further and further away from scientific socialism, it could only manifest a kind of "pessimistic mood of utopian disillusionment" regarding the future.
IV. Several Debates in the Domestic Theoretical Community Around the 1980s Regarding the General Understanding of Western Marxism
A basic feature of domestic Western Marxist research around the 1980s was the attempt to make a totalizing judgment on Western Marxism, thereby clarifying the basic relationship between this school of thought and Marxism as a whole. Naturally, different researchers had different judgments on this, leading to contention and polemics. In particular, the 1988 debate in the domestic theoretical community regarding the nature of Western Marxism pushed domestic research in this field to transition from primarily introductory studies to discussions of substantive issues.
The origin of this discussion was an article published by Du Zhangzhi in journals such as Modern Philosophy (Xiandai Zhexue) and Marxism Studies (Makesizhuyi Yanjiu), in which he criticized previous domestic research on Western Marxism; the People’s Daily reprinted his article. Xu Chongwen immediately published articles in the People’s Daily, Marxism Studies, and other periodicals to deliberate with Du, offering a counter-criticism. Subsequently, several other scholars published articles expressing their support for one side or the other. The English edition of China Daily reported on the polemics in detail twice, on October 4 and December 5, 1988, attracting overseas attention; Taiwan published the Collection of Debates on Western Marxism in the Mainland that same year. This debate, which lasted several years, had an influence and significance for the deepening and expansion of domestic Western Marxist research that cannot be underestimated.
(1) Debates Regarding the Existential Status of Western Marxism
The direct cause of the debate between Xu and Du was the question of whether the concept of "Western Marxism" is valid and whether the school of Western Marxism actually exists.
The concept of "Western Marxism" was first proposed by Karl Korsch in 1930 in his book The Present State of the Problem of "Marxism and Philosophy"—An Anti-Critique; its meaning referred to another type of Marxism represented by Lukács and himself. Later, Maurice Merleau-Ponty adopted this concept in his 1955 Adventures of the Dialectic and endowed it with a broader connotation. In 1976, Perry Anderson’s Considerations on Western Marxism used this concept in an even wider sense and provided a totalizing description of the Western Marxist trend.
On this issue, Du Zhangzhi’s view was that "'Western Marxism' is not a universally accepted concept with a definite meaning abroad." He argued that this concept not only "cannot reflect the current status of the development of Marxism abroad" but also "blurs the line between Marxism and non-Marxism," and that "those who accept this concept represent only a tiny minority in foreign Marxist studies." Xu Chongwen, however, believed Du Zhangzhi’s statement was biased. He pointed out that the concept of Western Marxism originated with Korsch, Merleau-Ponty, and Anderson, and already possessed specific meanings and referents in the Western theoretical world; therefore, it could not be easily dismissed.
Du Zhangzhi argued that there simply is no school of thought called "Western Marxism" in the Western intellectual world, because "among those engaged in Marxist theoretical research or those who call themselves Marxists, some are genuine Marxists, some are merely radicals, seekers of knowledge, or fellow travelers of Marxism, and a few are anti-Marxists." He therefore advocated that it would be better to view these trends as the broader "contemporary foreign Marxism." Some scholars in the theoretical community agreed with this view, believing that Western Marxism is a reinterpretation of Marxism via certain "unorthodox concepts" and a re-exploration via "unorthodox lines." Therefore, one should not use a rigid framework to qualitatively define it beforehand, but should start from the history of Marxism’s own development and differentiation, combined with international socialist practice, to conduct specific and comprehensive research on contemporary Western Marxism.
In response, Xu Chongwen pointed out that the existence of Western Marxism is an objective fact; as for whether one agrees with this trend, that is another matter. He believed that characterizing Western Marxism either as "anti-Marxist" or as the "modernization of Marxism" was biased, and that it should be "viewed as a trend of Left-wing radicalism in Western society that is distinct from Marxism."
(2) Debates Regarding the Nature of Western Marxism
The second issue involved in the Xu-Du debate was the nature of Western Marxism, which is related to the question of its existence.
On the question of the nature of Western Marxism, the domestic theoretical community around the 1980s basically held two opposing views: one was the orthodox view adhering to the Soviet and Eastern European ideological systems—that is, the view that Western Marxism is a non-Marxist or anti-Marxist trend "cloaked in the mantle of Marxism," a revisionist trend of a bourgeois nature; the other was the view that agreed with some Western New Left thinkers, regarding Western Marxism as the "Marxism of developed capitalism" and a manifestation of Marxism in contemporary Western developed societies.
In Du Zhangzhi’s view, the concept of Western Marxism inherited from Korsch, Merleau-Ponty, and Anderson carries a serious Trotskyist tendency. Using it to summarize the general picture of foreign Marxism is clearly taking the part for the whole, making it difficult to present the development of foreign Marxism truthfully. Furthermore, he believed that early theorists of so-called Western Marxism, such as Lukács, Gramsci, and Korsch, were actually outstanding Marxists and should be separated from the usually defined Western Marxist camp and classified as Marxist theorists. Xu Chongwen countered this. He pointed out that whether Western Marxism is an objective fact and whether this trend is truly Marxist are two separate questions; acknowledging the existence of Western Marxism does not conflict with making a correct evaluation of the trend.
Regarding the debate between Xu and Du on the nature of Western Marxism, some scholars pointed out that Du Zhangzhi and others’ proposal to "scientifically analyze important representatives of contemporary foreign Marxism and avoid 'only I am the supreme authority' or 'only my version is Marxism' is undoubtedly reasonable, but they only raised the problem without solving it." Xu Chongwen, on the other hand, seemed to have "attained or approached attaining the goals pursued by his critics" in an intangible way. These scholars partially agreed with Xu Chongwen, believing that Western Marxism is an objectively existing school of thought and a form of Marxism developed in Western developed capitalist society.
Regarding this debate, some scholars summarized: "A major reason why various parties currently have different understandings and evaluations of 'Western Marxism' is that the criteria used to divide what is or is not Marxism are not unified." On the surface, the debate was about whether the concept was valid or desirable; in substance, the focus of the debate was how to define the nature of various schools under the name of "Western Marxism" and other unorthodox Marxist schools.
(3) Debates Regarding Monism and Pluralism in Marxist Research
The third issue in the Xu-Du debate was whether Marxist research is monistic or pluralistic.
As is well known, Western Marxism consists of numerous schools, presenting a pluralistic pattern of Marxist research. Thus, it is difficult to demand a consistent explanation of Marxism from its various branches. Therefore, one view advocated that we should study Marxism from a diverse perspective. But in doing so, we face the following question: Can we acknowledge the diversity or pluralistic characteristics of interpretations of Marxism? Is the history of the development of Marxism "a process of 'single-line transmission' [14] among a few classical writers and leading figures," or "a process of 'one source, many streams' [15] in which various Left-wing figures creatively apply and interpret Marxism"?
Regarding such questions, some scholars explicitly advocated that "the pluralism of Western Marxist research should be combined with the monism of Marxism itself as a principle for correctly treating the study of foreign Marxism." Scholars holding this view believed that from the day of its birth, Marxism formed a pluralistic research pattern, but the pluralization of research, interpretation, and application does not mean the pluralization of Marxism itself. There is only one Marxism: the theory of proletarian revolution and liberation founded by Marx and Engels and developed and enriched by later communist activists and thinkers. At the same time, the development of Marxism requires pluralistic interpretation, research, and application, which is the internal driver for its development. The diversified development of Marxism "is reflected not only in socialist countries that have successfully seized power, but also includes diversified explorations within contemporary capitalist countries." This requires incorporating various Marxist research results from outside the international communist movement into one’s field of vision. Therefore, this view generally opposes the use of "Western Marxism" as a specific categorical concept. If "Western Marxism" is used pejoratively, then "orthodoxy" is viewed as the sole truth, thereby excluding or even suppressing the pluralistic research, interpretation, and application of Marxism; if the concept is used as a term of praise, then "orthodoxy" is viewed as a shackle, which leads to a betrayal of the monism of Marxism.
In response, Xu Chongwen raised a differing opinion, arguing that monism and pluralism cannot coexist regarding the question of what constitutes Marxism. The view that the pluralization of Marxist research and the monism of Marxism itself are unified is inherently self-contradictory and conflicting. If that were the case, Marxist monism would be merely "an illusion that exists in name only," and under the testing standards of diversity and pluralism, it would be impossible to maintain the unity and truth of Marxism itself.
V. Conclusion
In the China of the 1980s, various Western trends flowed into the country, but among them, only Western Marxism established such a profound connection with Marxism. An important sign of this is that after Western Marxism was introduced to China, it participated indirectly or directly in almost all major intellectual discussions of the period, such as the discussions on humanism and the problem of alienation, subjectivity and the Enlightenment, and the problem of practical materialism and the forms of Marxist philosophy.
The introduction of Western Marxism to China greatly promoted the liberation of thought within the domestic theoretical community. On the one hand, its analysis and critique of Western capitalism provided the domestic theoretical community with a perspective from which to move away from superficiality...
On one hand, cooling down from the "fever for Western learning" and the "fever for Westernization," the movement to deeply understand contemporary Western society provided indispensable intellectual resources; on the other hand, its dissection and critique of Soviet socialism provided the Chinese theoretical circles of that time with borrowable perspectives, viewpoints, and analytical methods for reflecting on the problems of the Soviet model and pondering the future and destiny of socialism. All of this prompted the domestic theoretical community to better recognize and reflect upon the problems of both the Soviet Union and the West, subsequently liberating them from the dual dogmas of the Soviet model and Western systems, and providing a theoretical opening for the successful clearing of the Chinese path. (Notes omitted)
(Author’s Affiliation: Institute of Chinese Marxism, Academy of Marxism, Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences) Online Editor: Zhang Jian Source: Marxism & Reality, Issue 1, 2023