Like many people, my first encounter with Marxist philosophy was in the political theory textbook in high school. Of course, my impression at the time was not a good one. That kind of “Marxism” dismissed so-called idealist metaphysics and incomplete materialism and the like—every kind of non-Marxist philosophy—as worth nothing at all, and that was precisely what first made me suspicious: I imagined that those idealist philosophers could hardly all have been fools; as thinkers who had made it into history, they must, in any case, have been much smarter than I was, so why would they go to the trouble of producing theories that were worthless and collapsed at a touch? I dimly felt that idealism, metaphysics, and such things, even if problematic, could not possibly be that simple. On the other hand, the textbook’s introduction to Marxist philosophy was also unacceptable: the theoretical logic was not rigorous, and one could easily point out a pile of contradictions from beginning to end—even I could do it offhand… Fortunately, I never pinned these problems on Marx himself, because I also imagined that Marx and Engels were even more world-historical giants, and however one looked at it, they must have been far more brilliant than I was; their theories, of course, could not be that simple either.
Non-Marxism is not that simple, and Marxism is all the less simple—armed with these two assumptions, I began looking for some extracurricular reading to confirm my view. I remember that the first relevant book I read was New Marxisms in the Twentieth Century, published by the Central Compilation & Translation Press; after that, during my first year of high school, I successively read more than ten books on Marxism or on philosophy. The result is easy enough to imagine: my assumptions were confirmed—Marxism is broad and profound, and philosophy too is by no means simple.
Below I will briefly talk about my initial impression of Marxist philosophy:
According to the conception handed down along the Soviet textbook system, philosophy is Marxist philosophy; this conception is of course wrong. However, as the old dogmas have been broken, another view has appeared in China today: Marxism is not philosophy. This conception is also untenable. Whether Marxism is philosophy, and what sort of philosophy it is, is a question that must be made clear first. As Teacher Zhang Libo said: “What Marxism is, what Marxist philosophy is, and how to understand Marx—these things that seem self-evident have, with the changes in social settings, again and again been called the basic premises of Marxist philosophy research.”[①]
In my understanding, Marxist philosophy has the following four characteristics: actuality, richness, profundity, and developmental character.
The first distinctive feature of Marxist philosophy is its actuality. As Marx himself said, the difference between Marxist philosophy and previous philosophies lies in the fact that it is not satisfied with merely “explaining the world,” but is more dedicated to “changing the world.” Like Marx’s politics and economics, Marxist philosophy is likewise grounded in reality. Marx’s point of departure is “human beings”; he takes human freedom and the all-round liberation of humankind as his ultimate goal. Marx also spoke of “abolishing philosophy.” I think that what he opposed was precisely that illusory philosophy detached from reality and from human beings themselves, whereas Marxist philosophy is always unfolded around human beings and around practice. Entering the modern era, the survival of Marxist philosophy is still like this: “Whether it is ‘returning to Marx’ or ‘developing Marx,’ it is a process of interpretation and understanding; what matters is to ground oneself in the real social life of the present and to promote a benign interaction among theory, history, and reality.”[②]
Richness is obvious. Marx and Engels not only ranged across and studied many disciplines—philosophy, economics, political science, history, sociology, the natural sciences, and so on—but even within philosophy alone, Marx’s philosophy widely involved and explored philosophical thought from antiquity to the present across various schools and traditions, and it also achieved accomplishments in all sorts of philosophical fields and categories. However, although Marxist philosophy is so rich and all-embracing, it should not be regarded as a self-sufficient and complete “theoretical system.” Marxist philosophy is certainly interconnected throughout, but it never attempted to construct a fully completed system. The Soviet textbook model systematized Marxist philosophy; in fact, it thereby shut Marxism off from itself and twisted it into something self-enclosed. Marxism should be seen as a rich treasury of thought. Various currents and schools, when facing different theoretical and practical problems, can all come to this treasury to seek roots, draw nourishment, and gain inspiration. That is the significance of the richness of Marxist philosophy.
As for profundity, it is necessary to emphasize it: Marxist philosophy by no means becomes vulgar merely because of its actuality and practical orientation. Marxist philosophy is certainly approachable, because it is always unfolded in close relation to human beings. But this in no way diminishes the profundity of its theory. With their keen insight and profound vision, Marx and Engels built a deep theoretical edifice; we must not forget the profundity of its content simply because of popularization and mass accessibility. Popularization is not simplification, and even less is it vulgarization! Making something accessible to the masses means “explaining profound things in simple terms,” and this can only be achieved on the basis of a deep understanding and practical application of the theory’s content; its degree of difficulty is often even higher than that of academic research. Yet in reality, the level of philosophical popularization in China is frankly hard to compliment, and this is precisely because the balance between popularization and profundity has not been properly grasped and coordinated.
Finally, a very important point is “developmental character”: “As everyone knows, Marxism, founded by Marx and Engels, is not a purely academic scholarly theory, but a social-critical theory with strong practical character. Because this practical theory has an ultimate concern for existing existence and a conscious intervention in the course of social history, it cannot enclose itself within a purely ideal scholarly kingdom; it cannot develop self-sufficiently while remaining far from the cultural and spiritual conflicts of the age. With an open theoretical horizon, it must intersect with or contend against the various cultural currents and theoretical doctrines of its time, and while influencing other theories and cultural currents of the same era, it also undergoes its own changes, differentiation, or progress.”[③] It is precisely this characteristic of Marxist philosophy that has made Marxism the “one philosophy of this era that cannot be surpassed.” It is unsurpassable precisely because it never reaches final perfection, but instead continues to develop as society changes.
May 8, 2005
[①] Zhang Libo, Marx in a Postmodern Situation, Nationalities Publishing House, January 2002, p. 283
[②] Zhang Libo, cited work, p. 9
[③] Yi Junqing, Ding Liqun, Li Xiaojuan, Wang Xiaodong, New Marxisms in the Twentieth Century, Central Compilation & Translation Press, April 2001, p. 8
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply