Many people have written papers in many aspects of personal growth. A thesis refers to an article that conducts research in various academic fields and describes the achievements of academic research. You always have no way to write a paper? The following is my paper on the characteristics of western Marxism for everyone. Welcome to reading. I hope you will like it.
On the Characteristics of Western Marxism 1 Abstract: Western Marxism is a trend of thought that rose in the West in the early 1920s and 1930s. Starting from the reality of capitalist society, they criticized and discussed the problems faced by capitalism, Marxist theory and the way out of proletarian movement. This paper attempts to analyze western Marxism as a whole and summarize its characteristics from six aspects. In order to absorb and use its reasonable components and better inherit and develop Marxist theory.
Paper Keywords: diversity, criticism, modernity and openness of Western Marxism
Western Marxism is a philosophical trend of thought that rose in the early 1920s and 1930s, and it is quite influential internationally. Under the pretext of the change of the times, it puts forward and tries to transform Marxism with some modern western philosophical thoughts to make it "perfect and develop". Although western Marxism and Marxism as a whole are fundamentally opposed, we should not take a simplistic and totally negative attitude towards it, but adopt a critical attitude and a sublation method to treat western Marxism, and draw positive and favorable factors from it. This paper attempts to grasp western Marxism as a whole and extract its commonness and general characteristics as the basic premise for further in-depth study of western Marxism.
First, the diversity of schools.
This can be said to be one of the most distinctive features of western Marxism. There are many schools and theories of western Marxism, which cannot be integrated into a perfect and unified "axiom" and universal model, with dazzling diversity and variability. This is an indisputable fact, as long as you have a little understanding and contact with western Marxism, you will feel it. Among them, hegelianism's Marxism, Phenomenological Marxism, Existentialism Marxism, Frankfurt School Marxism, Neo-Thomas Marxism, Structuralism Marxism, Geography Marxism, Ecology Marxism, Feminist Marxism and so on are more than ten influential schools. Moreover, some universities also have primary schools and many branch schools. It can be said that among these numerous schools, no two philosophers have the same views. In addition, various schools are constantly interacting and even crossing each other. Therefore, it is difficult for people to tell exactly how many schools of contemporary western Marxism are.
There are many reasons for this situation, but fundamentally speaking, there are two main reasons. First, the intersection, synthesis and marginalization of contemporary science and technology and scientific thought are embodied in philosophical thought. Because modern western philosophy lacks a truly scientific world outlook and methodology, and lacks the ability and vitality of self-renewal. We must absorb nutrition from Marxism and find our own way of survival and development. Second, most schools of western philosophy were popular for a while before the death of their founders, but they were all short-lived, then declined due to internal differentiation, or merged with other schools to produce a "new" school, or were excluded and replaced by another school. The latter subsequently suffered the same short-lived misfortune as the former. Such as hegelianism-New hegelianism, Thomas-New Thomas, Kant-New Kant, etc.
In short, they can only survive by constantly changing signs and doors. The diversity thus produced is not the result of one-sided alternation and opposition between correct and comprehensive world outlook and methodology and mistakes, but the result of one mistake and another mistake, one one-sided and another one-sided opposition.
As we all know, Marxist philosophy is based on the objective laws of nature and society, and it is a correct and comprehensive world outlook and methodology. Since the emergence of Marxist philosophy, western philosophy has concocted one weapon after another against Marxist philosophy, but they have failed again and again. This also forms the apparent diversity of western Marxist factions.
The diversity of western Marxism shows that "western Marxists" interpret Marxism from different angles, levels and philosophical schools, which is objectively conducive to further deepening the study of Marxism. However, it often leads to a situation of long-term regret, resulting in the revision and distortion of Marxism and eventually leading to a dead end in research.
Second, the dichotomy of content.
Although there are many schools of western Marxism, it is diverse and changeable, but this does not mean that the content is also chaotic and disorderly. Looking at their research content, it mainly involves two aspects: one is about scientific issues; The second is about people. It is these two problems that divide this trend of thought into two kinds: scientism (or rationalism) and humanism (or irrationalism). From the social and historical point of view, the emergence of scientism and humanism are two major ideological weapons against feudalism and religion during the rise of the western bourgeoisie: scientism against superstition and humanism against Shinto. At that time, the bourgeoisie not only attached importance to rationality and science, but also put forward the famous saying that "knowledge is power". At the same time, we attach importance to human nature and human rights, so we put forward the program of "freedom, equality and fraternity". The two are unified. With the consolidation of bourgeois rule, harsh facts show that under the capitalist system, scientific progress and machine operation have not brought universal "freedom, equality and fraternity"; On the contrary, it has brought about a profound social crisis and alienated people. At the same time, the development of science and technology itself and human social life itself have also raised many questions that need to be answered. Therefore, the split between rationalism and humanitarianism is becoming more and more obvious: on the one hand, rationalism has increasingly excluded human problems from the scope of science, on the other hand, it has also changed itself from abstract speculative rationalism to concrete empirical rationalism. Accordingly, it dismisses humanitarianism as hypocritical humanitarianism and flaunts itself as a "new humanitarianism" that wants to answer people's true colors. In this way, it finally split into two major trends of thought in the nineteenth century.
As far as scientism is concerned, the third technological revolution in the west in the 1950s had the greatest influence on it. This technological revolution led by information technology has enabled capitalism to enter the information age from the electrification age. Due to the great division and synthesis of science, three types of emerging disciplines have emerged: marginal disciplines, interdisciplinary disciplines and comprehensive disciplines. In the face of the objective fact of the rapid development of science and technology, the school that mainly uses mathematical logic structure as a tool to analyze the logical structure and logical method of natural science from a horizontal perspective gradually reveals its weakness of not explaining the law of scientific development, and thus has to give way to the school that mainly combines with the history of science and studies the law of scientific development from a vertical perspective. From logical positivism to critical rationalism, to historicism and neo-historicism, this analysis trend from horizontal to vertical, from static to dynamic is just illustrated.
As far as humanism is concerned, the social and historical reality in the west has the greatest influence on it since the end of World War II, especially since the 1950s. In this half century, western society has experienced several stages, such as post-war recovery, relative prosperity, stagnation crisis and stagflation revival. In this process, on the one hand, the production of scientific and technological materials is highly developed, and the material living standard has been unprecedentedly improved; On the other hand, it reflects various social crises under the basic contradictions of capitalism, especially the economic crisis from brewing to outbreak, from latent to superficial; Social morality is deteriorating, spiritual culture is declining, and the monopoly bourgeoisie and ruling groups are also stepping up their rule over the people. The accumulation of these contradictions eventually led to the new left movement that shocked western society in the late 1960s.
We must see that the humanistic philosophical trend of thought describes the basic contradiction of capitalism as if it were the contradiction between social repression brought about by scientific and technological progress and the improvement of material production and human nature, rather than the contradiction between productive forces and capitalist production relations, which is of course extremely absurd. However, it raises the question of how to deal with the relationship between science and technology and people.
Thirdly, modernity.
Most western Marxist theorists regard the "modernization" of Marxism as their historical mission. Under the slogan of "returning to (young) Marx", they demanded "rediscovering Marx" and "innovating" or "rebuilding" Marx through their own works, especially their early works, so as to realize the "modernization" of Marxism. On the one hand, they think that compared with the era of free capitalism in which Marx himself lived, contemporary capitalism has undergone fundamental changes, with new trends and new characteristics. Marxism is mainly the social theory of19th century, that is, the theory of free capitalism. The realistic foundation on which many of its principles are based has disappeared, and it can't answer all the questions raised by the present era, so it is negligent and must be "revised, supplemented and developed" to adapt to the contemporary social reality. On the other hand, "Western Marxists" believe that because Marx's theory has been distorted by Engels and his later orthodox Marxists, it has become unrecognizable. Therefore, it is necessary to root out the source, restore the true colors of Marxism, and establish a kind of "Marxist Marxism" to oppose Engels and his later orthodox Marxists.
It can be said that it is not only reasonable but also necessary for western Marxism to devote itself to the modernization of Marxism. Marxism is the product of the times and the result of social practice. Only by keeping pace with the times can we gain vitality and vigor in analyzing and solving practical problems. It is absolutely wrong to ask Marx and other classical writers to answer all kinds of questions raised by modern society and provide a panacea for all diseases under the circumstances of great changes in the times and social practice. True Marxists should stand at the forefront of the times, sum up and generalize new practical experience, analyze and solve practical problems, and inherit and develop Marxism with new ideas and viewpoints. In this sense, the efforts made by western Marxism in the modernization of Marx are worthy of praise and affirmation. However, it is regrettable and worthy of our vigilance that western Marxists gave up the theory of surplus value and class struggle in their efforts to modernize Marxism, rather than personal conclusions and statements. It is unreasonable to explain this only by modernization.
Fourth, purely academic.
"Western Marxists" study Marxism from a purely academic point of view, separating theory from practice and limiting the study of Marxist theory to academic circles. As Anderson said, the most important and fundamental feature of western Marxism is that it is divorced from political practice in academic structure. This academic feature of western Marxism was not like this at first. Its founders Lukacs and Gramsci are both active participants in proletarian revolutionary practice, and they both try to implement the principle of integrating theory with practice. After 1930s, "Western Marxists" began to break away from proletarian revolutionary practice and took Marxism as the object of pure academic research. This change was first manifested by the Frankfurt School. When Hawke Hammer founded critical theory in the early 1930s, he showed obvious separation from the workers' movement. The representative figures of western Marxism after Frankfurt School followed this tortuous road away from proletarian revolutionary practice.
Of course, western Marxism separates theory from practice, which is purely academic. It doesn't mean that they are behind closed doors and don't pay attention to reality. On the contrary, in their theory, we can see that many of the problems they discussed are urgent problems to be solved in contemporary society, and put forward some solutions to these problems. For example, in the May storm that broke out in 1968, their theory became the ideological weapon of the new left. Therefore, this is mainly relative to the relationship between "Western Marxists" and proletarian revolutionary practice.
Verb (abbreviation for verb) is open.
"Western Marxists" believe that Marxism should be open to various academic trends of thought and absorb bourgeois ideological and cultural achievements to "supplement, revise or develop" itself. This is mainly reflected in two aspects. The first is to seek roots in the philosophy before Marx and continue Marx's pedigree. That is, a new interpretation of Marxism is made by using the philosophical system before Marxism, thus forming its own theoretical system. For example, Lukacs and others mainly use Hegel's dialectics. They believe that dialectics is the essence of Marxism and can best express its essence. Dialectics is the core of Marxism, even including the whole Marxist theory. But Marx's dialectics is not the dialectics of nature understood by Engels and some "traditional Marxists". It is the most precious "dialectics of subject and object" inherited from Hegel's philosophy. It is this "dialectics of subject and object" that makes Marxism have the essence of revolution, which can reveal the dialectical process of social development and guide the society to the ideal state of the integration of subject and object. Second, it advocates absorbing contemporary bourgeois ideological and cultural factors, "supplementing" Marxism, especially combining Marxism with contemporary bourgeois philosophy. For example, Sartre and others think that "traditional Marxists" ignore people and "engulf people in their ideas", leaving an "empty field" for human studies, while existentialism emphasizes concrete and realistic people. Therefore, in order to restore the humanitarian essence of Marxism and establish Marxist anthropology, existentialism must be "introduced and supplemented" into Marxism, and Sartre and others are named existential Marxism.
It is undoubtedly of positive significance for western Marxism to boldly absorb and utilize the cultural achievements created by human society and widely use bourgeois ideas and theories to expand Marxism. However, after all, Marxism has a clear theoretical nature and a relatively independent and complete system. Inheriting and absorbing various cultural achievements is to strengthen one's physique and promote one's body's development and growth on the basis of digestion. The practice of western Marxists is actually more like disassembling and assembling parts, directly combining some diametrically opposite world views and practices, often with the nature of eclecticism.
Sixth, criticism
Criticality can be said to be the most important feature of western Marxism. It is with this "critical spirit" that "Western Marxists" view capitalist society and Marxist theory. "Critical Marxists" only accept Marxism's criticism of the society at that time and its critical methods, claiming to restore the revolutionary and critical spirit of Marxism and opposing Marxism as a scientific theoretical system. In their view, in order to give full play to the function of Marxism, it is imperative to restore its nature as a social critical theory. We can't understand Marxism as an all-encompassing general law and theoretical system and abide by it, like Engels and Soviet Union and Eastern Europe socialism. Instead, we should take criticism as the center and launch a comprehensive criticism of social phenomena such as ideology and daily life.
Western Marxism's criticism of capitalism reveals the ills of capitalist society from different aspects, especially their profound analysis and exposure of the loss of human nature in rich material life, which can be said to be very insightful and of great practical significance. However, in the process of "innovation or reconstruction" of Marxism, opposing Marxism is a scientific theoretical system, and overemphasizing criticism and ignoring science is a distorted interpretation of Marxism.
On the characteristics of western Marxism, the second part is the basic development of studying Marxist philosophy. These two core concepts not only give up the subjectivity of the revolution, but also provide sufficient impetus for the sustainable development of the revolution, thus enhancing the possibility of the anti-capitalist struggle in contemporary France. This paper discusses this philosophical basis.
First, the significance of epistemological fracture
Different from the new development stage of Structuralism Marxism and Humanism Marxism, it refers to French Marxism which emphasizes diversity and generativeness, which is not only a theoretical split, but also a split in the evolution of real society. In 1930s, a Hegelian thought invaded French Marxism. Under the invasion of Hegel's thought, Nietzsche's philosophy, Kierkegaard's phenomenology and Husserl's phenomenology all impacted the ideological circle to varying degrees. This diversity of thoughts not only contributed to Neo-Nietzscheism, but also produced the creative French hegelianism. In this process, it temporarily presented a relatively complete contemporary form of French Marxism.
The seeds of the foundation of contemporary French Marxist philosophy are French neo-Nietzscheism and French hegelianism. Alexandre Kojève discussed philosophical anthropology and phenomenology at the seminar. On the one hand, humanism was introduced into French philosophy; On the other hand, it is expounded that man is the basis of some existence, and "one's own desire is always the desire of others", which opens up a new road for dispelling subjectivity, that is, the generation and elimination of the subject of desire. This theoretical classification makes the original complex and rich theory simple and abstract. Specifically, Althusser strongly opposed hegelianism's ideological trend in France, which played a decisive role in shifting the focus of French Marxism from Hegel to Nietzsche. The key opportunity for the transformation of French Marxist philosophy is Althusser's epistemological fracture.
In the process of epistemology rupture, Althusser's epistemology rupture has two meanings. One is the fracture in time, that is, the fracture between young Marx and old Marx is expounded at different stages of time. The other is the logical cognitive fracture, which is inherent in philosophical epistemology. Therefore, no matter what kind of fracture, it indicates the fracture of Hegel's thought and Marxist thought. Althusser clearly realized: "Simple inversion is not a fracture. Instead of turning upside down things, it changes the essence and content of things because of changes in position and time! " To some extent, it is what Althusser called the ideological turn of scientific progress.
Althusser not only emphasized the existence of this kind of fracture in Marx, but also reprimanded those who tried to return to Hegel's thought. This kind of condemnation with the color of political declaration forced his followers to find another way. These scholars all expounded Hegel's thought, but in the end they all reached the same goal by different ways and found the "epistemological fracture" in other ways.
Second, the logical significance of reconciliation and fracture
The humanitarian interpreters, represented by Koyev, are the "some interpreters" referred to by Hippo Park Jung Su, who transformed Hegel into philosophical anthropology with people as the core. Hippolyte tried to transform French hegelianism, and his explanation direction was: from the initial humanistic explanation to the logical explanation of logicism, which was more like a rigorous scholar's study of Hegel's philosophy. However, Eliot made great efforts to complete the book Logic and Existence. In this book, he asked himself not only to change the French hegelianism thought from the original concern about human existence to the current concern about logic, but also to find a fusion point where existence and logic can be reconciled, thus supplementing the gap between Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit and logic. Compared with Althusser, the traditional Erie Porter seems to advocate no fracture, but in reality, his theoretical derivation process is too impatient.
In the aspect of self-consciousness mediated by language, Elibert tried to link logic with existence. At the same time, in his view, language contains several key elements: first, existence; The second is reflection; The third is meaning. As an important part of language, meaning means denying and abandoning the substantive elements of language in the process of reflection. Therefore, meaning itself is a way of existence of self-awareness. Hippolyte's "logic of meaning" refers to Hegel's logic, while hippolyte's logic of meaning refers to reconciliation and * * *, which is a general and special acquisition of ideological debate integration. After Deleuze used it, the situation was very different.
When reconciliation is classified as meaning, it becomes a linguistic problem, and there is still a danger in the linguistic return of meaning: it is the end of reconciliation and the beginning of rupture. This is the core problem of language, which cannot be avoided: the synthesis of concepts is language, which expresses external objective existence and is essentially different from the existence of language. The existence of this difference will lead to the expression of meaning as antagonistic existence. Hippolyte tried to integrate transcendentalism and empiricism with speculative logic, but this fracture always existed in the speculative logic of reconciliation. For Erie Porter, the logic of meaning is speculative logic, and there is always a gap between thinking and existence in the reconciliation of language, which makes hippolyte unpredictable. Until11960s, Deleuze expounded a book called The Logic of Meaning, which mainly expounded the internal fracture contained in the reconciliation of meaning.
Thirdly, from the generation connotation of meaning to the generation of event philosophy.
Elibert regards meaning as the main focus of speculative logic, which is an unspeakable way of explanation and has no direct transcendence. In the process of Hegel's elaboration, the existence of meaning itself has a dialectical relationship, and it is a process from "being" to "nothing". Therefore, in Deleuze's thought, it directly becomes "generative", constantly seeking its own basic content, and its meaning itself is paradoxical.
Deleuze believes that the event is not only a theoretical problem, but also a political realization problem. In the realization of political events, the meaning of "pluralism" is expressed as a "unique" way of existence, but this unique way of existence can not really highlight the meaning connotation of fracture, and the diversity and generation contained in the latter can not be expressed in a single way. Because there will always be real political events and meanings contained in the meaning in the fracture, the events as meanings are the internal causes of political events, not real political events, and there is extra space between them. However, this extra space is often the main reason for the persistence of social revolution, so the radical left in France enjoys event philosophy.
Fourth, the conclusion.
This paper briefly expounds the transformation of the foundation of French Marxist philosophy. Marx criticized Hegel's speculative philosophy, which made scholars rethink the problem domain of philosophy and inherited the revolutionary and critical nature of Marx's thought in the fracture. When we study the abstract theory of great thinkers, we not only discuss philosophy itself, but also do not forget to study the basis of Marxist philosophical thought. During this period, the philosophical thoughts we experienced promoted us to better study and face contemporary French Marxism today.
;