Lan Jiang: Foreign Marxism Research from the Perspective of China's Independent Knowledge System
As an important component of Marxist theoretical research, Overseas Marxist studies have experienced rapid development over the past 40 years. Significant achievements have been made in several key research areas, such as Marxist social critical theory, contemporary capitalist studies, eco-Marxism, post-colonialism and its critique, and Marxist cultural studies. However, behind this unprecedented prosperity in Overseas Marxist studies, a series of issues remain that require continued deep reflection by contemporary Chinese Marxist scholars. For example, in the context of building socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era, and amidst the confluence of "changes unseen in a century" [1], why exactly do we need to study Overseas Marxism? Is it merely because overseas Marxist scholars possess profound academic attainments worthy of study by Chinese Marxist colleagues? Or is Overseas Marxist research a simple matter of introduction and translation—where whenever an overseas scholar, or even a relatively ordinary scholar, studies Marx’s thought, their books and treatises must be imported into China? Answers to such questions have remained vague, at least within the Overseas Marxist research of the last decade. Furthermore, how exactly should we study Overseas Marxism? Should it be transplanted wholesale as reference material for Chinese Marxist scholars, or should it undergo critical screening to distinguish the wheat from the chaff? If the latter, what criteria should be chosen for this critique and screening? Finally, as China is in a critical period for achieving the Two Centenary Goals and faces unprecedented domestic and international challenges, what kind of Overseas Marxist research is needed to help Chinese Marxist scholars, and indeed the entire project of building socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era, to work together with one heart, overcome difficulties, and contribute to the realization of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and a community with a shared future for humanity?
To understand these issues, we need to re-apprehend the value and significance of Overseas Marxist studies within the Chinese context, grounded in Chinese problems and using Chinese discourse. During the 43rd collective study session of the Political Bureau of the 18th CPC Central Committee, Xi Jinping spoke earnestly regarding Overseas Marxist research: "A very important characteristic of contemporary world Marxist trends is that many participants have provided critical revelations regarding the structural contradictions of capitalism, as well as contradictions in the mode of production, class contradictions, and social contradictions; they have conducted in-depth analyses of capitalist crises, the evolutionary process of capitalism, and the new forms and essence of capitalism. These perspectives help us correctly understand the developmental trends and destiny of capitalism, accurately grasp the new changes and features of contemporary capitalism, and deepen our understanding of the trends of change in contemporary capitalism. We must closely monitor and study the new achievements of Overseas Marxist research, analyzing and discriminating between them. We can neither adopt an attitude of wholesale rejection nor engage in indiscriminate copying. At the same time, we must persist in managing our own affairs well, continuously develop socialism with Chinese characteristics, steadily strengthen our country’s comprehensive national power, and fully demonstrate the superiority of our country’s socialist system." From this passage, we can profoundly appreciate that Overseas Marxist research is by no means a simple, undiscriminating transplantation and application of the theories and assertions of overseas Marxist scholars. Regarding Overseas Marxist research, we cannot follow a policy of pure "Nalaizhu-yi" (Taking-ism) [2], because the historical mission of building socialism with Chinese characteristics today differs vastly from the situations and problems faced by those overseas Marxist scholars. By understanding Xi Jinping’s judgment, we can see that the value of Overseas Marxist research lies precisely in its incisive revelation and critique of the latest developments, internal evolution, and contradictions of contemporary Western capitalism. This allows the people of the world to see the historical progressive significance of Chinese-path modernization and the close connection between socialism with Chinese characteristics and the common values of all humanity.
Therefore, for Chinese Marxist researchers today, we need to re-examine Overseas Marxist research under the Chinese independent knowledge system. While combining the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and fine traditional Chinese culture, the construction of this Chinese independent knowledge system requires further efforts in the following areas: (1) Facing Chinese problems: this addresses the question of "Why study Overseas Marxism?"—the fundamental question of Overseas Marxist research, which is an ontological issue; (2) Grounding in Chinese discourse: this addresses the question of "How to carry out Overseas Marxist research in China?"—what methods and discourse we use to critically employ the theoretical resources of Overseas Marxism, which is the methodological issue of Overseas Marxist studies; (3) Serving China's future: this addresses the question of "What kind of Overseas Marxist research do we need?"—this means we need Overseas Marxist research to proceed from China’s specific realities, face a more magnificent epochal perspective, and realize the future hopes that Marxism entrusts to human society.
Facing Chinese Problems: The Ontology of Overseas Marxist Research
For Overseas Marxist research, the first question to face is: when did Chinese Overseas Marxist research originate? Indeed, in the 1950s and 60s, the writings of some scholars who would later be called Western Marxists had already been translated and introduced through certain channels. For example, in 1963, Mr. Wang Jiuxing of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences translated excerpts of The Young Hegel by Georg Lukács, a founder of Western Marxism. In his preface, Mr. Wang did not use the title "Western Marxism" for Lukács, but instead viewed Lukács directly as a "revisionist" of the history of Marxist philosophy. That is to say, in Mr. Wang’s view, Lukács was not a tributary external to mainstream Marxist philosophy, but a revision and variation within it. Similarly, in the 1957 edition of the French Marxist thinker Henri Lefebvre's work Introduction to Aesthetics published by Zhaohua Fine Arts Publishing House, neither the Chinese translator nor the preface of the Russian translation referred to Lefebvre as "Western Marxist" or "Overseas Marxist." On the title page, the editor referred to Lefebvre as a "progressive French writer," while the Russian translator Smirnova introduced him as a "progressive French philosopher and economist." The term "Western Marxism" did not appear. Even in later compiled materials, such as the Research Materials on Marxism-Leninism series edited by the Central Compilation and Translation Bureau, the materials on Lukács, Althusser, Korsch, and others were collected under titles such as "Western Exploration of Marxism." This phenomenon indicates that for Western Marxist or Overseas Marxist research, the discipline did not emerge in China simply because the texts of Lukács, Lefebvre, Althusser, Korsch, and Sartre were translated and introduced. In that era, the documents of these authors did not constitute an independent object of study; their writings, much like Mr. Wang Jiuxing’s annotations, were merely a tributary and supplement to mainstream Marxist thought—a lens reflecting the attitudes of Western countries toward Marxist philosophy rather than a specific field of study.
In exploring how Western Marxist or Overseas Marxist research was born on Chinese soil and subsequently grew and matured, we cannot use the timing of the translation and introduction of these authors as the sole standard. We cannot even use the first appearance of the concept "Western Marxism" in China as the primary clue to explore the genealogy of Chinese Overseas Marxist research. This is because both the emergence of the concept of "Western Marxism" and the establishment of Overseas Marxist research as an independent discipline were not events brewed in an ivory tower, but were inseparable from the history of China's own socialist construction and development. For instance, in the 1980s, two landmark works signaled the birth of "Western Marxism" in China. One was the British author Perry Anderson’s Considerations on Western Marxism, which introduced the "Western Marxist" trend to Chinese scholars under that specific title. The other was Mr. Xu Chongwen’s Western Marxism from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, which represented the first time a Chinese scholar used their own language and discourse to articulate the so-called "Western Marxist" trend.
Perry Anderson’s Considerations on Western Marxism was actually a work of critique against the so-called "Western Marxist" trend. Among the scholars Anderson listed as "Western Marxists"—including Lukács, Korsch, Gramsci, Benjamin, Horkheimer, Della Volpe, Marcuse, Lefebvre, Adorno, Sartre, Goldmann, and Althusser—all became thinkers held in high esteem in subsequent Overseas Marxist research. Anderson argued that these "Western Marxist" theories were fundamentally different from the thoughts of major Marxist theorists like Marx, Engels, and Lenin. He pointed out: "In this changed world, revolutionary theory changed altogether, and the change produced what can now be called 'Western Marxism.' The works of the authors we shall now discuss constitute an entirely new academic structure within the development of historical materialism. In their hands, Marxism has become, in certain critical respects, a theory quite distinct from any that preceded it." Anderson emphasized the distinction between "Western Marxism" and mainstream Marxism. Simultaneously, from a Marxist standpoint, he attacked the tendency of these "Western Marxist" scholars to divorce critical theory from real-world politics and economics. Anderson continued: "Western Marxism has remained resolutely silent on those problems which are the very heart of the classic tradition of historical materialism: the detailed study of the economic laws of motion of the capitalist mode of production, the serious analysis of the political machinery of the bourgeois state, and the strategies of class struggle required to overthrow it." In a certain sense, Anderson’s critique of Western Marxism was correct; when faced with the reality of capitalism, Western Marxism largely recoiled into the realm of critical theory, replacing the "weapon of criticism" with the "criticism of weapons." [3] Consequently, it could only flourish in the fields of literature, art, and ideas, failing to find effective solutions for Western capitalism as it raged through state capitalism and neoliberal capitalism in the 1970s and 80s. Thus, Anderson’s Considerations on Western Marxism was not merely a work of theoretical introduction; it was a ruthless critique of Western Marxism’s enthusiasm for theory and ideas and its indifference to the problems of capitalism, grounded in the post-war development of Western capitalism itself.
Like Perry Anderson, Mr. Xu Chongwen, in his book "Western Marxism", pointed out that these so-called "Western Marxist" trends of thought were divorced from practical politics. However, when writing this book, Mr. Xu had a different motivation than Anderson. Xu noted: "In recent decades, modern Western society has indeed undergone many changes. Marxists living and fighting in the contemporary era must clearly reflect these changes. They must provide correct explanations and answers to the new phenomena and questions emerging from these changes, and closely integrate the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism with these conditions of modern Western society. Only in this way can Marxism develop alongside the development of practice rather than remaining stagnant. In this regard, what 'Western Marxism' contributes is an extremely valuable body of ideological material. It provides us with information and stimulates our thinking; it poses questions to us and offers lessons from the errors in their thinking, prompting us to formulate correct answers. It also provides the fruits of its explorations for our reference and use." In Mr. Xu’s interpretation, the value of studying "Western Marxism" did not lie in these theories providing us with a blueprint for understanding capitalist reality or strategies for overcoming the capitalist path. Rather, it lay in the fact that it "provides us with information and stimulates our thinking; it poses questions to us and offers lessons from the errors in their thinking, prompting us to formulate correct answers." The "us" here has a clear teleological orientation; it is not a generic reference but a specific one, particularly within a certain historical epoch. At the beginning of the 1980s, as the relatively closed national doors swung open, they encountered the immense influence of the capitalist world. In the process of Reform and Opening Up [4], it was indeed easy for Chinese people at the time to lose their way amidst the spectacle of capitalist trends, and even to waver in their conviction regarding Marxism and socialist construction. However, the introduction of "Western Marxism" allowed Chinese people at the start of Reform and Opening Up to use the critical edge of these thinkers to more deeply understand the mystified shell of capitalism and expose its unequal, inhumane, and unfair realities, thereby finding the correct way to think about how to build socialism with Chinese characteristics. In this regard, the critiques of "Western Marxism" held profound significance for the Chinese people of that era. In other words, the first generation of Chinese Marxist scholars who introduced foreign Marxist thought—such as Xu Chongwen, Chen Xueming, Du Zhangzhi, and Yu Wujin—actually operated on the basis of China's own problems. The importance of "Western Marxism" or foreign Marxist studies did not lie in their specific theories and conclusions, but in the fact that these ideas opened a theoretical window for the Chinese people of that era to understand the new changes in contemporary capitalism. This prevented them from blindly following neoliberal and capitalist values and trends in the early stages of Reform and Opening Up, thereby stabilizing their confidence in achieving Chinese-path modernization.
After more than 30 years of development, the original study of "Western Marxism" has evolved into a comprehensive field of foreign Marxist studies. It has expanded from the initial study of Western Marxist thought in the narrow sense—represented by figures like Lukács, Gramsci, Korsch, Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, Habermas, Sartre, and Althusser—to the study of foreign Marxist schools in a broad sense (such as the Frankfurt School, the Budapest School, and the Birmingham School); regional or national Marxist studies (French Marxism, British Marxism, Eastern European Neo-Marxism, Japanese Marxism, Latin American Marxism, etc.); and thematic fields of Marxism (feminist Marxism, ecosocialism, post-colonial Marxism, racial Marxism, etc.). To a certain extent, these studies have enriched and expanded the connotation and extension of contemporary foreign Marxist studies, leading more and more young scholars to devote themselves to this field—a phenomenon that is certainly cause for celebration.
However, we must recognize that within the prosperity of foreign Marxist studies, a core question remains unresolved: Why do we study foreign Marxism? As mentioned earlier, for the older generation of scholars like Xu Chongwen, Du Zhangzhi, and Chen Xueming, studying "Western Marxism" and foreign Marxism in the 1980s was clearly problem-oriented: investigating the development and changes of contemporary capitalism against the backdrop of China’s Reform and Opening Up, and using the theories and critical concepts of Western Marxism to decode the internal contradictions and developmental modes of capitalism. Yet, in the foreign Marxist studies of the 21st century, when some scholars introduce certain foreign Marxist thinkers, they perhaps fail to ask the same question as the older generation: Why does China need to introduce this thinker’s concepts and theories? Is it merely because Chinese people are not yet aware of them? Clearly, some young scholars have exhibited a sense of aimlessness in introducing and translating foreign Marxist theory. They study individual foreign Marxist thinkers solely to recommend those who are not yet well-known to a Chinese audience, thereby filling a "gap" in domestic research. Other researchers, when introducing the works of foreign Marxist scholars, do so only from the perspective of texts and concepts, lacking the dimension of historical materialism. They basically fail to examine how these thinkers proposed such concepts within Western capitalist society and blindly introduce these terms, forcibly applying them to China’s socialist reality. This creates a theoretical misalignment, implying that China must "cut the feet to fit the shoes" [5] to adapt to various concepts and assertions put forward by Western Marxism. If we are ignorant of the capitalist crises and left-wing trends in 1960s France, it is difficult to understand Guy Debord’s concept of the "society of the spectacle" or what the Situationist International’s critique of everyday life was actually targeting. If we remain unaware of how the movement of capitalist economic globalization at the turn of the century enabled capitalist states to use financial means to control global society—especially developing nations—we cannot understand the practical critical core of Hardt and Negri’s Empire or David Harvey’s The New Imperialism.
Marx long ago warned us that research divorced from the real world—talking of theoretical critique in abstraction from history—is a form of methodological idealism. Marx’s critique of the Young Hegelians, such as Feuerbach, in The German Ideology remains a "sobering realization" [6] for today’s foreign Marxist studies. Marx pointed out: "Where speculation ends—in real life—there as a result begins real, positive science: the depiction of the practical activity, of the practical process of development of men. Empty talk about consciousness ceases, and real knowledge has to take its place. When reality is described, philosophy as an independent branch of knowledge loses its medium of existence. At the best its place can only be taken by a summing-up of the most general results, abstractions which are derived from the observation of the historical development of men. These abstractions in themselves, divorced from real history, have no value whatsoever. They can only serve to facilitate the arrangement of historical material, to indicate the sequence of its separate strata. But they by no means afford a recipe or schema, as does philosophy, for trimming the epochs of history. On the contrary, our difficulties begin only when we set about the observation and the arrangement—the real depiction—of our historical material, whether of a past epoch or of the present. The removal of these difficulties is governed by premises which it is quite impossible to state here, but which only the study of the actual life-process and the activity of the individuals of each epoch will make evident. We shall select here some of these abstractions, which we use in contradistinction to the ideologists, and shall illustrate them by historical examples." Marx saw that the research of the Young Hegelians and Feuerbach was satisfied with a "revolution of words" and abstract concepts, showing no concern for the actual real world. Similarly, in today’s foreign Marxist studies, we should think about various foreign Marxist ideas through the lens of historical materialism. Chinese scholars must proceed from the specific realities of China, avoiding the tendency to discuss figures or ideas in isolation, or to speak vacuously about abstract concepts found in texts. Therefore, we must uphold Marx’s historical materialism and study foreign Marxism through the lens of actual human practical activities and the real process of development. For contemporary China, the greatest "reality" is the relationship between the new changes in contemporary world capitalism and the construction of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Only by persisting in this perspective can foreign Marxist studies find its correct course, allowing the critical edge of foreign Marxism to truly face China’s current problems. In a word, Chinese foreign Marxist studies has never been a discipline of mere introduction. From the moment "Western Marxism" or foreign Marxist studies appeared in China in the 1980s, it has been oriented toward Chinese problems, used to help "us" Chinese people think through the development of world capitalism, expose the basic contradictions of capitalism, and ultimately pave the way toward a communist society. If the basic dimension of Chinese problems is lost, foreign Marxist studies will instantly become "water without a source, or a tree without roots." Viewed thusly, being oriented toward Chinese problems is the ontological foundation of Chinese foreign Marxist studies. No matter how profound the theory or how cutting-edge the topic, it must ultimately be applied to Chinese problems, helping contemporary Chinese people to think about the development of global society, to position China’s role and status within the "great changes unseen in a century" [7], and to realize the specific requirements of Chinese-path modernization through Confidence in the Path, Confidence in the Theory, Confidence in the System, and Confidence in the Culture [8].
Basing Research on Chinese Discourse: The Methodology of Foreign Marxist Studies
Having established the ontological foundation of facing Chinese problems and integrating the specific realities of Chinese social development and practice, foreign Marxist studies in China’s New Era clearly has a historical mission different from that of the "Western Marxism" studies at the start of Reform and Opening Up. After more than 40 years of research and development, foreign Marxist studies continues to introduce and evaluate the thoughts, concepts, and problems of foreign Marxist scholars for today’s Chinese people; in this regard, many scholars of foreign Marxism have performed a service of immense merit. However, in today’s China, we still need to understand and address the following question: given that the general task of socialism with Chinese characteristics has become the realization of socialist modernization and the Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation, embarking on a new journey to achieve the "Two Centenary Goals" [9], practicing the Core Socialist Values, focusing on the historical developmental process of all humanity, and elaborating on the rich connotation and major significance of the common values of all humanity—how exactly should we study the thought and genealogy of foreign Marxism, and how should we narrate foreign Marxist thought to today’s Chinese people?
Generally speaking, China’s current methods for studying foreign Marxism can be divided into the following categories:
- Translation of original texts, and the introduction and evaluation of foreign Marxism.
In the 1980s, when "Western Marxism" and the study of foreign Marxism first entered China, researchers generally adhered to original texts (frequently in original languages such as English, German, French, or Italian) to expound upon the ideas of these foreign Marxist thinkers step by step, aiming to preserve their originality and authority. This was a path of "speaking according to" (genzhe shuo) [10]. On this path, Chinese scholars had an urgent demand for primary source materials regarding "Western Marxism" and foreign Marxist research. This catalyzed the translation and introduction of the first wave of foreign Marxist literature into China, including Lukács's History and Class Consciousness, Sartre's Critique of Dialectical Reason, Horkheimer and Adorno's Dialectic of Enlightenment, Benjamin's The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction and The Lyric Poet in the Era of High Capitalism, Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man, and Althusser's For Marx. Most of these books were introduced during this era. In the 1980s and 90s, the most representative achievement in the translation and introduction of foreign Marxist research was the "Foreign Marxism and Socialism Research Series," edited by Mr. Xu Chongwen and published by Chongqing Publishing House. This series introduced a large number of representative works by the most influential "Western Marxists," practitioners of "Western Marxology" [11], and foreign Marxist thinkers of that period. Masterpieces such as Horkheimer's Critical Theory, Korsch's Marxism and Philosophy, Della Volpe's Rousseau and Marx, Heller's Everyday Life, Roemer's Free to Lose (Social Democracy and the Future), Gramsci's Philosophy of Praxis, Marcuse's Reason and Revolution, Cohen's Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence, Lefebvre's De l'État (On the State), Habermas's The Theory of Communicative Action, Lukács's The Ontology of Social Being, and Adorno's Negative Dialectics received Chinese translations for the first time. This allowed Chinese readers, who were then thirsting for original texts, to catch a glimpse of the diverse styles of various foreign Marxist thinkers through this series. This collection not only included translations of primary documents but, more valuably, also compiled the research results of Chinese scholars of that time on foreign Marxist trends, such as Xu Chongwen's An Evaluation of "Western Marxism", Ou Litong's Research on the Frankfurt School, Li Qingyi's Contemporary Capitalist Theory in "Western Marxism", and Yu Wenlie's Analytical Marxism. These achievements represented the standard of Chinese scholarship on foreign Marxism at the time and laid a solid foundation for the subsequent prosperity of foreign Marxist research in China.
However, it is evident that although Chinese scholars began to study and discuss these foreign Marxist ideas—and conducted limited critiques of their thoughts and concepts from a Marxist perspective—they remained, on the whole, confined to the original contexts of these thinkers. To ensure they did not distort the ideas of foreign Marxist thinkers, many researchers even conducted studies within the original linguistic contexts of various languages, striving to ensure the brilliance of those conceptual insights was not tarnished during translation or evaluation. During this period, the hallmark of early foreign Marxist research was an insistence on primary documents and original concepts while staying close to the thinkers' own contexts and historical backgrounds. Yet, this process inevitably required Chinese scholars to detach themselves from their familiar linguistic environment and stay as close as possible to the context of foreign scholars to understand the content of their texts. This risked the "Handan Walk" effect [12]—that is, failing to grasp the true essence of these thinkers while becoming bogged down in the literal words and expressions presented in the texts and the abstract deduction of various concepts, thereby forgetting that our own historical background for interpreting and understanding foreign Marxist thinkers is precisely the current reality of China. Although we cannot forget that at the beginning of foreign Marxist research, there was a certain historical rationality to following "Western Marxism" and foreign Marxist research step by step, things have changed. Over more than forty years of building socialism with Chinese characteristics, China's research in philosophy and the social sciences has long been closely integrated with international research. Simple translation and introduction no longer satisfy the needs of our foreign Marxist research today. Consequently, there is indeed a certain "anachronism" in this research method. Some scholars have keenly noted this, pointing out: "In learning and researching foreign Marxist trends of thought, we must always adhere to the scientific and critical positions, viewpoints, and methods of Marxism. On the one hand, we should earnestly absorb and draw lessons from the theoretical achievements and beneficial experiences of foreign Marxism with an open mind and vision; on the other hand, we must always maintain a scientific attitude of dialectics, criticism, and analysis." This is indeed a question worth deep reflection regarding the "following along" path of researching foreign Marxism based on translation and introduction.
2. The Introduction of Problem-Consciousness: Genealogies and Research of Foreign Marxism
As more works by foreign Marxist thinkers were translated and introduced, Chinese scholars naturally began to develop deeper reflections. These thinkers were not isolated figures; how were they linked together within specific historical contexts, and within what intellectual veins and genealogies did they propose their problems and concepts? Therefore, at this stage, research no longer simply remained at the introductory level of "speaking according to" others. Instead, it attempted to leap out of the original Western contexts and textual frameworks, using a new framework to connect different thoughts, concepts, and problems, allowing the ideas of foreign Marxist research to be articulated in a way that Chinese people could understand. In a certain sense, we can call this the path of "speaking after" (jiezhe shuo) [13].
For example, the research in The History of the Understanding of Capitalism, edited by Professor Zhang Yibing of Nanjing University, is a typical case. Starting from the standpoint of Marx’s historical materialism and fully synthesizing the major contributions of key foreign Marxist theorists, it uses its own discourse to explore the entire vein of historical understanding of capitalism from Marx's era to contemporary Western capitalist development. We know that the greatest contribution of contemporary foreign Marxist research is the analysis and critique of various new changes in the developmental stages of contemporary capitalism. This spans from Horkheimer and Adorno’s critique of instrumental reason and the myth of enlightenment in Dialectic of Enlightenment, to Marcuse’s analysis of the ideological manipulation of workers in developed capitalist societies in One-Dimensional Man, to Debord’s The Society of the Spectacle—which pointed out that capitalist fetishism had shifted from the sphere of pure production to urban and cultural spectacles—and to Baudrillard’s The Consumer Society, which critiqued the sign political economy of symbolic exchange in consumer capitalism. All of these constitute the diverse analyses and critiques of capitalism by foreign Marxist thinkers since the 20th century, forming a long and profound scroll. However, for a long time, while foreign Marxist research in China made great strides in the study of individual figures—such as specialized analyses of Marcuse, Debord, Baudrillard, and Adorno—there was a persistent absence of a mapping of the general thread of foreign Marxist thinkers' views on post-war capitalist development. This required Chinese scholars to summarize their own problem-consciousness (wenti yishi) [14] through the reading of these texts, linking these scattered documents and ideas into a comprehensive thread that could be understood and criticized. As Mr. Zhang Yibing pointed out in the preface, the research in The History of the Understanding of Capitalism "takes the lines of 'other-borrowing,' creative generation, and development of Marx and Engels' concepts for understanding and recognizing capitalist social reality as the central axis of reflection. This is a reconstruction of the scene of intellectual history, or what can be called an archaeological study of the genealogy of Marx and Engels' concepts. We cannot directly return to the scene of Marx and Engels’ original reflections; we can only reconstruct the possible historical process of the formation of Marxist scientific understanding of capitalism based on subtle changes in literature and various complex historical supporting backgrounds. It needs to be particularly pointed out that the results of such research are not directly equivalent to the thoughts of Marx and Engels themselves, but are rather the specific historical subjective understandings obtained by us, Chinese Marxist researchers, in the 21st century. This point is precisely a form of methodological self-awareness."
Indeed, in genealogical research, a form of methodological self-awareness has begun to emerge. The exploration of using specific problems to link the intellectual contributions of different thinkers requires the unique wisdom of Chinese scholars to groundbreakingly explore the distinct problem-consciousness of foreign Marxism. However, these genealogical and skeletal studies are still conducted within the boundaries defined by Western theory and discourse systems; the resulting discourse system remains Western in style. For instance, in terms of Ecological Marxism, we still list the arguments of Western scholars like Ben Agger, James O'Connor, and John Bellamy Foster. The problems of concern remain highly dependent on the reports of the Club of Rome in the 20th century and recent discussions in Western discourse regarding global warming. Although Chinese scholars have managed to "speak after" these theories, on the whole, a Chinese discourse is still absent. We still need to discuss the intellectual genealogy of foreign Marxism within the language of translation and the problematics of introduction.
3. The Establishment of Chinese Discourse: The Chinese Voice in Foreign Marxist Research
The Chinese discourse (Zhongguo huayu) of foreign Marxist research did not appear overnight. It is the product of translation, introduction, and genealogical research reaching a certain stage of development. Once foreign Marxist research has accumulated a large number of primary text translations and clarified the developmental genealogy of foreign Marxism, a chemical reaction inevitably occurs, forming a unique discourse system within the research of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics. This means that foreign Marxist research will form a new path: we must not only "speak according to" and "speak after," but also "speak against" or "speak toward" (duizhe shuo) [15] using a Chinese discourse system, possessing the ability to engage in dialogue and interaction with Marxist research from all countries around the world. Xi Jinping has pointed out: "The characteristics, style, and ethos of philosophy and social sciences are the products of reaching a certain stage of development; they are signs of maturity, symbols of strength, and manifestations of confidence." Therefore, the establishment of a Chinese discourse system—using Chinese discourse to study the various ideas of foreign Marxism—means shifting the discourse field originally defined by Western scholars to topics based on China's specific historical practices.
Foreign Marxism research today has clearly moved beyond the stage of merely introducing and importing the works of foreign Marxist thinkers into China. Today, Chinese Marxist scholars should possess the theoretical and cultural confidence to engage in face-to-face dialogue and discussion with prominent Marxist thinkers from Western countries. We must absorb the superior elements of their thought while using a Chinese discourse system to analyze and critique the deficiencies in their rhetoric. For instance, the innovative Japanese Marxist scholar Kohei Saito gained international renown for his book Karl Marx's Ecosocialism. Recently, his new work, Capital in the Anthropocene, was also published in mainland China in 2023. However, when reading Saito’s works, we must not only identify what he advocates, proposes, or opposes; we must also engage with this new generation of foreign Marxist scholars from the standpoint of the Chinese discourse system.
In Capital in the Anthropocene, Saito clearly approaches Marx’s problems from the perspective of the "metabolic interaction" [16] between man and nature and so-called global climate justice. He argues that Marx was himself an ecosocialist and that Marx's critique of capitalism was precisely centered on the capitalist exploitation and plunder of nature. Setting aside the fact that Saito one-sidedly exaggerates the capitalist exploitation of nature while ignoring the inherent inequality and exploitation within capitalist relations of production, his very framing of the problem is deeply influenced by mainstream Western ideology since the 21st century. While there is no inherent value-based problem with advocating for carbon emissions reductions and carbon neutrality in the name of global warming and climate justice, Saito takes a sharp turn, arguing that such climate injustice stems from the "growth-orientedism" [17] of national GDPs. He suggests that the solution to climate justice lies in what he calls "degrowth communism," which requires "voluntary self-restraint" from the people. Saito argues: "To expand the 'realm of freedom,' we must destroy the system that pursues only infinite growth, driving people to work long hours and consume immoderately. To build a society that is overall happy, fair, and sustainable, we must practice voluntary 'self-restraint,' even if total production decreases relative to what it was."
Although Saito’s "degrowth communism" represents a form of political correctness within Western discourse, it is clearly unsuitable for contemporary China. Furthermore, Saito’s anti-capitalist growth and his advocacy for a socialism of human self-restraint are actually built upon a Western eschatological struggle between man and nature. This ignores the immense potential of human society itself, thereby leading to relatively extreme conclusions. For our research on Saito, it is not enough to merely introduce what he says. We must have the courage to enter into dialogue with him and, based on China’s position and discourse system, reveal his latent problems. Saito is proficient in German and has a unique side to his interpretation of original Marxist documents; however, as soon as he touches upon macro-historical issues, he falls into abstract ideological discourse. A critique of Saito cannot simply involve praise or blame [18]; rather, we must restore his work to China’s own discourse system for testing. Only then can we distinguish the wheat from the chaff, discover the beneficial components, and discard the ideological ones.
The establishment of a Chinese discourse system and the expression of a Chinese voice in foreign Marxism research is not an "ivory tower" movement of working behind closed doors [19]. Rather, it is the result of fully integrating Marxism with China's specific realities and China's fine traditional culture. Chinese history is long and enduring; through the vast changes of time [20], the Chinese people have formed a unique practical wisdom. As Xi Jinping pointed out: "The great social transformation of contemporary China is not a simple continuation of the 'master plate' of our country's history and culture, nor a simple application of the 'template' envisioned by classical Marxist writers, nor a 'reprint' of other countries' socialist practices, nor a 'copy' of foreign modernization development. No ready-made textbook can be found. Our philosophy and social sciences should center on what we are currently doing, excavating new materials, discovering new problems, proposing new viewpoints, and constructing new theories from the practice of our country's reform and development." This is not only the responsibility of Chinese researchers of foreign Marxism but also the pointer for the construction of the entire discourse system of Chinese philosophy and social sciences.
Serving China's Future: The Teleology of Foreign Marxism Research
Having understood "why we study foreign Marxism" and "how we study foreign Marxism," the next question we face is where foreign Marxism research is headed. In other words, for the future development of socialism with Chinese characteristics, in the face of "changes unseen in a century" [21], and to achieve the "Two Centenary Goals," what kind of foreign Marxism research do we need?
In terms of its origin, foreign Marxism research is still rooted in Marxism. Regardless of how the various trends of foreign Marxism change, they cannot escape one question: how to realize a more equal, just, and beautiful social system by transcending and overcoming capitalism. This social system constitutes the ultimate objective of all Marxist research. Communism is precisely the imagination of a future society that Marx began exploring in his youth, and it constitutes the "original aspiration" of the entire Marxist lineage. In the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844—a classic text later revered by "Western Marxism" and various other foreign Marxist trends—Marx analyzed private property, alienated labor, and the connection with Hegelian philosophy. Ultimately, in the name of communism, Marx sought to transcend the alienation of man’s species-essence by capitalist society and the social inequality brought about by private property and its property systems. He sought to build a communist society that actively sublated human alienation and returned to the true essence of man. Marx pointed out: "Communism is the positive transcendence of private property as human self-estrangement, and therefore as the real appropriation of the human essence by and for man; it is the complete return of man to himself as a social (i.e., human) being—a return become conscious and accomplished within the entire wealth of previous development." This return to the true essence of man became the root of the establishment of communist society in the later Manifesto of the Communist Party, and the basis for many later foreign Marxist scholars seeking human liberation after critiquing capitalism.
For example, in History and Class Consciousness by Georg Lukács, the founder of "Western Marxism," he provided a profound analysis of the phenomenon of reification under the capitalist system. Lukács believed that the reason for analyzing capitalist reification was the need to realize a brand-new social system—communist society. Under this society, the reification of man under capitalist production conditions would be overcome, returning toward a true human existence. Lukács said: "In this concept, the value-character and tendency of the overcoming of the problems posed by the reified existence are very clearly expressed. Nature here means the true human existence, the true essence of man liberated from the false, mechanizing forms of society: man as a perfect totality in himself, who has internally overcome or is overcoming the split between theory and practice, reason and sensibility, form and content... for him, freedom and necessity are identical." The era in which Lukács lived, the early 20th century, saw capitalism transition from industrial capitalism to finance and monopoly capitalism. Using the concepts of reification and class consciousness, Lukács pointed back to the "totality" of the concept of communism proposed by Marx and Engels in the 19th century. This concept of totality was also a basic characteristic Lukács used to define the future communist society.
By the 1960s, capitalism began to shift from the sphere of production to the sphere of consumption. During this period, the Lefebvrian school emerged to analyze everyday life and space; Guy Debord appeared to analyze the capitalist spectacle; and Jean Baudrillard later laid the foundation for the critique of consumer capitalism. But no matter how things changed, the original intention of these foreign Marxist thinkers remained the same. They still adhered to the original ideals of Marxism, proposing a more fair, harmonious, and beautiful communist system based on the analysis and critique of the new changes in capitalism. For instance, in The Society of the Spectacle, after critiquing capitalist "spectacle time," Guy Debord immediately provided a plan for the "total time" of realizing a "classless society." He pointed out: "The natural basis of time, the sensory data of time’s passage, becomes human and social by existing for man. This is the state of human practice's limitation, the different stages of labor, which at this point both humanize and dehumanize time, making it cyclical time or the separated irreversible time of economic production. The revolutionary project of a classless society, the project of a generalized historical life, is the project of the withering away of the social measure of time in favor of an individual and collective model of irreversible time which is playful in nature and which contains, simultaneously, a variety of autonomous yet federated times. This is the project of the total realization of communism in the temporal environment—communism which will eliminate 'everything that exists independently of individuals.'"
However, although foreign Marxist thinkers of various eras have provided diverse interpretations and descriptions of Marx’s vision for the future society—from Lukács, Althusser, Guy Debord, and Baudrillard to the later Badiou, Agamben, Byung-Chul Han, and Kohei Saito—and have all, to some extent, provided biting critiques of the inequality between people, the disharmony between man and nature, and the inversion of the relationship between man and civil society under capitalism tailored to their respective eras and countries, they all fall short when it comes to the question of how to exit the capitalist predicament. Their visions for a post-capitalist future socialism under the name of "communism" all carry a more or less "utopian" [22] element. Although they possess the indignation that comes from critiquing capitalist injustice and the "original aspiration" to build a fairer and better future society, relying merely on a few novel concepts and words is insufficient to shake the foundations of capitalism. As Marx pointed out in the Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right: Introduction: "The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism by weapons, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses." Any Marxism, including foreign Marxism research, can only become a truly powerful intellectual weapon when it is based on a material foundation and the practical basis of the masses. That is to say, all foreign Marxism research must serve a realistic purpose. In contemporary China, foreign Marxism research must serve the future of socialism with Chinese characteristics.
How, then, does the study of foreign Marxism specifically serve China’s vision for a future society? We can examine the future of socialism with Chinese characteristics on two levels: the domestic and the international. First, on the domestic level, the blueprint for an ideal future society is manifested in concrete terms. As the report to the 20th CPC National Congress [23] pointed out: "We must realize, safeguard, and develop the fundamental interests of the broadest possible majority of the people; grasp the most immediate and practical interests that concern the people most; persist in doing our best within our means; go deep among the masses and the grassroots; take more measures to benefit people's livelihoods and warm their hearts; strive to solve the urgent anxieties and demands of the masses; improve the basic public service system; enhance the level of public services; increase balance and accessibility; and solidly promote common prosperity." In terms of specific measures, the report proposed "improving the distribution system," "implementing the employment-first strategy," "improving the social security system," and "advancing the Healthy China initiative." In these areas, the study of foreign Marxism has much to offer. For example, recent achievements in Marxist political philosophy, especially regarding distributive justice, serve as a reference for "improving the distribution system" mentioned in the report. For instance, the research of the British Analytical Marxist G.A. Cohen on distributive justice offers insights for contemporary China. In his book Why Not Socialism?, Cohen points out that contemporary capitalist political systems and their theories are fundamentally built on inequality. Thus, he argues: "The socialist aspiration is to extend community and justice to our whole economic life... The victory of community in certain areas, such as healthcare and education, has confirmed the viability of former forms of production and distribution; now there is an urgent need to defend community because it is a value currently under threat from the encroachment of market principles." Clearly, research by figures such as Cohen, Axel Honneth, and Nancy Fraser concerning Marxist distributive justice, socialist security systems, and equitable healthcare systems can provide "stones from other hills" [24] to facilitate the construction of socialism with Chinese characteristics.
Second, on the international level, China is attempting to explore the reform and construction of a global governance system based on a community with a shared future for humanity. The development of socialism with Chinese characteristics is not merely China's own construction but an indispensable link in the global governance system. To unite the forces of justice worldwide and create a world where "all nations pursue the Great Way for the common good, living in harmony and cooperating for mutual benefit," [25] it is necessary to further call for and promote the common values of all humanity. The report to the 20th CPC National Congress stated: "The countries of the world should promote the common values of all humanity—peace, development, fairness, justice, democracy, and freedom—promote mutual understanding and affinity among all peoples, respect the diversity of world civilizations, transcend civilization barriers through exchange, transcend civilization conflicts through mutual learning, and transcend civilization superiority through coexistence, so as to jointly respond to various global challenges." To advance the initiative of common human values and realize a community with a shared future for humanity, Chinese Marxist scholars must not only think through foreign Marxist issues in conjunction with China's specific realities but also adopt a global perspective. They must work with Marxist researchers and thinkers across the globe to deliberate on common human values, reject hegemonism and unilateralism, and transform the world into one of "harmony and win-win cooperation." In this regard, many contemporary foreign Marxist thinkers have already made contributions. Beyond the earlier "World-Systems Theory" proposed by Andre Gunder Frank and Immanuel Wallerstein, recent foreign Marxist research—such as that by British Marxist Christian Fuchs and American Marxist Jodi Dean—has revisited how to establish a future social system in today's digital society that conforms to these common human values.
Of course, whether regarding the establishment of a just distribution system that serves the fundamental interests of the people and promotes common prosperity, or the international promotion of common human values, the analysis of foreign Marxist thinkers cannot be divorced from using specific Chinese problems as the ontology and the Chinese discourse system as the basic methodology. It must be sublimated through a teleology that relies on the Chinese people and aims for the Chinese Dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. To condense scattered and fragmented foreign Marxist research into theoretical results with genuine power and influence, we require a new Chinese independent knowledge system to provide an overarching structural framework for these rich and diverse foreign Marxist trends and ideas.
How, then, do we structurally frame foreign Marxist research in a way that serves the Chinese Dream and the future community with a shared future for humanity? In the early 17th century, the young French thinker René Descartes proposed the concept of a coordinate system. Using analytic geometry, he linked two long-independent fields of mathematics—number theory (centered on algebra) and graph theory (represented by geometry)—onto a single Cartesian plane. To an extent, the creation of this coordinate system and the pioneering contribution of analytic geometry solved the problem of mathematical unity that had troubled ancient mathematicians. Upon this foundation, later fields such as functions and calculus flourished, transforming mathematics from an ancient study with metaphysical tendencies into the mathematical foundation of modern science. We might emulate Descartes by establishing a "coordinate system for foreign Marxist research," allowing all scattered and isolated studies of figures and trends to find their specific positions within a unified frame.
The vertical axis of this coordinate system for foreign Marxist research consists of historical analysis regarding different countries, schools, and figures. In contrast to the previous isolated introductions of figures and schools, what runs through this vertical axis is precisely the vertical line of Marx’s most fundamental historical materialism. That is, we should not view foreign Marxist schools and figures through a "history of concepts" or "history of ideas" that moves from text to text or idea to idea. Instead, we must link different foreign Marxist intellectual trends to their respective historical eras and geographical spaces, ensuring that foreign Marxism descends onto the material base of social existence rather than remaining a castle in the air built of ideas and phrases. When we read Horkheimer and Adorno's claim that "the whole world is made to pass through the filter of the culture industry... precisely because the film always intends to reproduce the world of everyday perception... since the rapid rise of the sound film, this principle has been further strengthened through mechanical reproduction. Real life is no longer distinguishable from the film," we can recognize that Horkheimer and Adorno were actually critiquing the American cultural capitalist society they encountered during their exile in the U.S. during World War II. Cultural capitalism relied on Hollywood culture and pop music to create post-war prosperity, while the culture industry ideologically dominated the minds of the masses. Similarly, when we read in Hardt and Negri’s Empire about "immaterial links of language, communication, and symbolic production developed by communications industries... the development of communication networks has an organic relationship with the emergence of a new world order—in other words, it is both effect and cause, product and producer. Communication not only expresses the movement of globalization but also organizes it... it directs and channels the senses and the imagination," we can understand that they were addressing the rapid development of internet and communication technologies in the 1990s. They were discussing how capitalist control surpassed the territorial limits of the nation-state to become a truly globalized capitalist "Empire." For contemporary Chinese scholars, our study of foreign Marxism must confront the latest developments of healthcare—namely, the reality of digitized and intelligent capitalism. We must produce our own research along the extension of this historical vertical axis.
On the horizontal axis lies specific Chinese problems and Chinese discourse. Any study of foreign Marxism must face China's concrete issues and use the Chinese discourse system formed in the practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics to re-understand foreign Marxism. In this regard, we can analyze various foreign Marxist trends step-by-step. For instance, regarding Eco-Marxism, besides retaining the analysis of the "metabolic" relationship between man and nature (drawn from Marx’s late reading of Justus von Liebig’s agricultural chemistry), we must further consider how to develop ecological industries within the Chinese context and how to achieve "Dual Carbon" [26] emission reduction goals without compromising the living standards of the people. In this area, American Eco-Marxists like John Bellamy Foster and the previously mentioned Kohei Saito still lack sufficient reflection. This requires Chinese researchers of foreign Marxism to proceed from China’s concrete reality and propose "Chinese-path answers" to ecological and emission issues. Aside from ecology, other foreign Marxist trends involve equitable distribution, gender equality, digital industrial upgrading, and the regulation of financial capital—all of which must be reshaped and interpreted along the horizontal axis of Chinese problems and Chinese discourse.
Whether it is the vertical axis (genealogical and historical research) or the horizontal axis (Chinese problems and discourse), only by integrating them in a planar intersection can we exert the maximum collective force and value of foreign Marxist research. This collective force aims to create a more beautiful and harmonious society of socialism with Chinese characteristics and to play China’s unique role in the future community with a shared future for humanity by offering beneficial lessons and references. This is the teleology of foreign Marxist research. It should not merely lose itself in a labyrinth of words but should fuse text with reality, pointing toward a more brilliant tomorrow.
Conclusion The 20th-century French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan once viewed the structure of human cognition as a Borromean knot of three realms: the Real, the Symbolic, and the Imaginary, which together constitute a system of knowledge. We might borrow this expression for the study of foreign Marxism in China: (1) Chinese problems are the Real, providing a solid realistic foundation for research; (2) The Chinese discourse system is the Symbolic, representing an autonomously generated chain of signifiers that does not rely solely on external associations. Chinese discourse means using China’s own language to articulate the thoughts and concepts found in foreign Marxist trends, allowing them to truly land on the horizon of the Chinese knowledge system; (3) The future Chinese dream is the Imaginary, presenting us with a beautiful scroll of a future society. This allows Chinese researchers of foreign Marxism to clearly recognize their mission and task—to press forward with determination and work with one heart to realize the Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation and the "Two Centenaries" [27] goals, further contributing to the realization of a community with a shared future for humanity. We should not view Chinese problems, Chinese discourse, and China’s future dreams in isolation; they are interconnected. Together, they form the complete blueprint for foreign Marxist research under the perspective of a Chinese independent knowledge system. From now on, the study of foreign Marxism will no longer be a nomadic or scattered cultivation, but a "Grand Map of a Thousand Miles of Rivers and Mountains" [28] slowly unfolding across the interlocking fields of the reality of socialism with Chinese characteristics.
(Author’s Affiliation: Department of Philosophy, Nanjing University) Online Editor: Tongxin Source: Studies on Contemporary Chinese Marxism, Issue 2, 2024.