The author thinks that theory and system are not absolutely opposite, and mature theory needs system; Marx and Engels opposed the absolute truth system in modern Europe, not any theoretical system. The dogmatic Marxist philosophy of the traditional Soviet model has its profound political reasons. Therefore, Marxist philosophy is not anti-system in nature, and the reconstructed Marxist philosophy needs a system.
First, the origin of anti-system tendency in China's philosophy.
As we all know, our traditional Marxist philosophy was derived from the former Soviet Union. In 1930s, under the guidance of Stalin, Soviet Marxist scholars compiled Marxist philosophy textbooks without the original works of Marx and Engels and sufficient theoretical basis. Since then, this "congenital deficiency" textbook has become the standard expression of Marxist philosophy. It has not only become the Soviet Union, but also the only standard work of Marxist philosophy in the whole Eastern Group. In 1950s, according to the main content and framework of Soviet Marxist philosophy textbook model, China supplemented some of Mao Zedong's philosophical thoughts, and Ai Siqi edited Principles of Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism. For decades, this philosophical content and framework has been taught and applied in Marxist philosophy, and has been regarded as the standard in China.
After the end of 1970s, with the increasingly obvious contradiction between reality and textbook theory, with the introduction of western Marxist philosophy, and with the increasing contact and research of China scholars on Marx's original works, China's philosophical circles began to reflect on Marxist philosophy textbooks of the Soviet model. Through in-depth study and analysis of Marxist philosophy, China's philosophical circles have basically reached the understanding that the traditional Soviet-style Marxist philosophy textbooks do not reflect the true colors of Marxist philosophy, nor do they reflect the major revolutionary changes made by Marxist philosophy in the history of European philosophy. This series of studies laid a solid foundation for the reconstruction of Marxist philosophy in China, but it also triggered the emergence of anti-system tendency in China's philosophy. Some people think that in today's knowledge explosion, "traditional philosophy still needs to explain the universal nature and laws of the world." Although it is still necessary to synthesize and integrate subject knowledge, it is impossible to build a philosophical system "[1]. Philosophy, in essence, "has no peak of development and opposes the systematization of philosophy." The peak ended the development of philosophy, and systematization brought philosophy close to itself [2]. Therefore, we are already in the "post-institutional era". The author thinks that the reflection of China's philosophy on the Soviet model Marxist philosophy is fruitful, and the questioning of the Soviet model Marxist philosophy system is also well founded, but it is debatable to introduce the viewpoint of anti-system. Looking at the anti-system argument, their reasons are nothing more than the following aspects:
First, after decades of practice and the "text checking" of the first-hand materials of more and more classic Marxist writers in China, the defects of Marxist philosophy textbooks in the Soviet model have become more and more obvious. Except for the traces of old materialism, it does not reflect the essence of Marxist philosophy. The Marxist philosophy of the Soviet model also makes Marxist philosophy systematic and dogmatic. For decades, Marxist philosophy has only been regarded as a rigid dogma and formula. Any development of Marxist philosophy is regarded as a betrayal of Marxist philosophy, which makes the traditional Marxist philosophy more and more divorced from the times and reality. Therefore, some scholars in the field of philosophy in China blame the system for this problem, and think that the strict system of Marxist philosophy in the Soviet model stifles the development of Marxist philosophy, and the strict textbook system makes the development of Marxist philosophy unable to find a breakthrough, and the system is the chief culprit restricting the development of Marxist philosophy.
Secondly, Marx and Engels both exposed and criticized the contradiction between Hegel's idealistic philosophy system and method. It can be said that Marxist philosophy was established on the basis of criticizing and overcoming the contradiction of Hegel's philosophical system and method. Therefore, it is believed that Marxist philosophy has always opposed the system since its birth. On the grounds of Engels' criticism of Turin's philosophical system and the fanaticism of some German college students at that time, anti-systemists believe that Marx and Engels are anti-systems, and Marxist philosophical theory cannot be expressed in the form of systems.
Third, although Marx and Engels founded Marxist philosophy and achieved great changes in the history of European philosophy, they did not establish a philosophical system, and their rich philosophical thoughts were included in their various works. Therefore, anti-systemists believe that Marxist philosophy is anti-system in nature. Like the traditional Marxist philosophy textbooks of the Soviet model, systematizing Marxist philosophy completely violates the original intention of Marx and Engels.
It is precisely because of the above reasons that some scholars in China's philosophy circle are very disgusted with rebuilding Marxist philosophy with theoretical system, and even issued an appeal of "less systematic awareness and more problem awareness", which makes the debate on whether Marxist philosophy needs a system continue in China's philosophy circle.
Second, the attitude of Marx and Engels to this system.
Marx and Engels never suggested that philosophical theory does not need a system, but they opposed the system of absolute truth.
In modern Europe, people think that whether a theory is scientific depends on whether its system is complete and rigorous, and the goal of theoretical research is to establish an absolute truth system that ends a certain subject. Because of this, a phenomenon appeared in modern Europe, and a great scientist like Newton had to improve his theoretical system with the help of "the first driving force of God". Only when the great dialectician Hegel declared the impossibility of absolute truth through his dialectics, could he resist the influence of systematic tradition and had to establish a strict system of absolute truth. Therefore, in Europe before Marx, a strict theoretical system was closely linked with absolute truth and dogma, and once this absolute truth system was established, it became a ready-made dogma and formula. Marx and Engels criticized this system of absolute truth, which reached the pinnacle of Hegel's philosophy.
In the article ludwig feuerbach and the End of German Classical Philosophy, Engels profoundly analyzed and criticized the contradiction between the method and system of Hegel's philosophy, which was an important theoretical basis for guiding the philosophical circles in China to conclude that Engels opposed the establishment of a philosophical system. But after careful analysis, we will find that Engels opposed the absolute truth system in modern Europe, not any theoretical system. Engels pointed out in "The End of ludwig feuerbach and German Classical Philosophy": Hegel "had to establish a system, and according to the traditional requirements, this philosophical system must be completed with some absolute truth. So Hegel, especially in logic, although he emphasized that this eternal truth is only a logical or historical process itself, he still found that he had to end this process because he had to end his system somewhere. ..... In this way, all the dogmatic contents of Hegel's system are declared as absolute truth, which is contradictory to his dialectical method of eliminating all dogmatic things; In this way, the revolutionary side is stifled by the conservative side. " [3] From this exposition of Engels, we can see that, first of all, Engels is not opposed to the establishment of any theoretical system. He opposed the traditional absolute truth system in modern Europe, which demanded strict logical structure. In order to achieve the rigor and completeness of the theoretical system, even with the help of a mandatory structure, Hegel "had to end this process because he had to end his system somewhere". Secondly, due to the characteristic of modern European systematic thinking mode, the theory with strict and complete system is regarded as absolute truth. In Marx and Engels' exposition, system, absolute truth and dogma have become synonymous words to criticize traditional systematic philosophy. When Marx and Engels criticized this system philosophy, they often only mentioned "system", which made some scholars mistakenly think that Marx and Engels criticized the establishment of a theoretical system, which is obviously a misunderstanding. This can be confirmed in Engels' anti-Turin theory.
Engels pointed out in "On Anti-Turin": "Mr. Turin, who created the system, is not an individual phenomenon in contemporary Germany. Recently, in Germany, systems such as astrochemistry, natural philosophy, politics and economics have mushroomed. The most lame doctoral students, even college students, did not move, at least creating a complete' system'. " [4] From this exposition of Engels, we can first see the profound influence of modern system thinking mode. Although Marx and Engels criticized the system philosophy represented by Hegel, people still aim at pursuing a complete and rigorous system; Secondly, we can see that Engels put quotation marks on this absolute truth system in great detail to show that it is a traditional system. In Anti-Turin, Engels also pointed out: "The purpose of this book is not to use another system to oppose Mr. Turin's' system', but to hope that readers will not ignore the internal relations between the various opinions I put forward." [5] This argument is an important theoretical basis to guide many scholars to believe that Engels opposed the establishment of a philosophical system, but as long as we understand Turin's philosophy, we will find that Turin and Hegel have established an all-inclusive absolute truth system, but out of the need for criticism, Engels had to follow Mr. Turin's example, in order to avoid people thinking that Engels is also establishing an all-inclusive system like Turin, so Engels specifically stated that he "does not intend to use another system to follow Mr. Turin's' system'. "
Marx was also very disgusted with the popular tradition of systematic philosophy in modern Europe. He deeply felt that the one-sided pursuit of a complete and rigorous system restricted modern philosophy, especially the conflict between system and method exposed in Hegel's philosophy. Marx's new philosophy was established on the basis of breaking through Hegel's system and saving his dialectical method. Marx pointed out: "Dialectics has aroused the anger and horror of the bourgeoisie and its boastful spokesmen in its reasonable form, because dialectics includes the negative understanding of existing things in its positive understanding, that is, the understanding that existing things are bound to perish; Dialectics understands every established form from constant movement, so it is also understood from its temporary aspect; Dialectics does not worship anything. In essence, it is critical and revolutionary. " [6] Marx made it clear at the beginning of "New Philosophy" that his theory is different from the traditional system philosophy, pointing out: "I don't advocate that we erect any dogmatic banner. ..... The advantage of the new ideological trend is precisely that we don't want to predict the future dogmatically, but only hope to discover the new world by criticizing the old world. " 〔7〕
Based on the above analysis, the author believes that Marx and Engels did not oppose the establishment of a philosophical theoretical system, nor did they claim that their philosophy does not need a system. Their so-called "anti-system" discourse is only aimed at the dead system philosophy in modern Europe. Marxist philosophy is not anti-system in nature.
Third, the traditional Marxist philosophy textbook system
The direct reason for the anti-system tendency in China's philosophy circle is that the traditional Marxist philosophy textbook system has been closed, rigid and solidified for decades, and has long been regarded as the formula and dogma of absolute truth. On the surface, it seems that this is caused by the system, and it seems that the strict system restricts the development of Marxist philosophy. But as long as we study deeply, we will find that the traditional Marxist philosophy textbook system has been turned into a fixed dogma, which is not the fault of the system itself, but caused by political reasons.
As mentioned earlier, in the 1930s, under the inspiration and guidance of Stalin, Marxist scholars in the former Soviet Union compiled Marxist philosophy textbooks. Since then, Marxist philosophy expressed in the textbooks of Marxist philosophy of the Soviet model has become the mainstream ideology of various socialist countries. However, Stalin did not correctly handle the relationship between upholding Marxism and developing Marxism. The textbook system of Marxist philosophy in the Soviet model was absolutized, dogmatized and sanctified during Stalin's period, and the viewpoint of Marxist philosophy was simplified into a political formula, which could only be applied without any development. Stalin does not allow anyone's views to be different from his model, otherwise it will not only be rejected theoretically and politically, but even be brutally suppressed. The killing of Bukharin, whom Lenin called "the most precious and greatest theorist of the Party", is a typical example. Since then, there has been a situation of "all horses are dark" in the philosophy circle of the Soviet Union. In the Eastern Group, the Soviet Union, as the big brother of socialist countries, does not allow other socialist countries to have a new understanding of Marxist philosophy. Philosophy textbooks in other socialist countries can only be copies of Marxist philosophy textbooks in the Soviet model, and any development of Marxist philosophy is criticized and rejected as heresy. For example, the philosophy of Hungarian Luacs and German Karl Kirsch was accused of revisionism, and the philosophy of Yugoslav pragmatists was accused of being anti-Marxism–Leninism. For modern western philosophy, it is measured by the standard of absolute political opposition and class opposition. All modern western philosophy is denounced as idealism, and bourgeois philosophy and imperialist philosophy are absolutely excluded. In this way, in the former Soviet Union and other socialist countries, the textbook system of Marxist philosophy in the Soviet model was regarded as absolute truth, and the road to the development of Marxist philosophy was blocked and became a closed and rigid dogma. As some scholars have said, "Stalin dogmatized and sanctified Marxist theory, and there were two major' creations'. One is to simplify the Marxist philosophical viewpoint into a political formula, which confuses philosophy and politics. ..... Another creation of Stalin is to describe the supreme leader of the proletarian party as the only person who can develop Marxist theory "[8]. It can be seen that political intervention is the main reason for the absolute truth and dogmatism of the traditional Marxist philosophy textbook system.
As far as the system is concerned, the Marxist philosophy textbook of the Soviet model does have problems. In fact, the Marxist philosophy textbook system of the Soviet model is still influenced by the traditional systematic thinking mode in modern Europe. In addition, the Marxist scholars in the Soviet Union at that time did not master more Marxist texts, lacked a comprehensive understanding of the content and system characteristics of the new Marxist philosophy, and did not understand the essence of Marxist philosophy. The main problems existing in Marxist philosophy textbooks of the Soviet model are as follows: first, the theoretical system is completely a replica of European traditional system philosophy, still an abstract philosophy of "explaining the world" and still an all-encompassing epistemological system from nature to history to thinking; The second is to understand Marxist philosophy as dialectical materialism and historical materialism, completely ignoring the historical materialism essence of Marxist philosophy. It is precisely because of this defect that the reconstructed Marxist philosophy must not be repaired only in the traditional system.
From the above analysis, we can see that although there are problems in the traditional Marxist philosophy textbook system, this is not the main reason why Marxist philosophy has become absolute truth and dogma, but the political intervention in Stalin's period has made the contents of traditional Marxist philosophy textbooks become dogma. It can be seen that the problems existing in the traditional Marxist philosophy textbook system should not be the reason for the opposition between philosophy and system.
Fourth, the need of Marxist philosophy system.
As a scientific understanding of the nature and laws of the objective world, Marxist philosophy needs to be embodied through a systematic theoretical system.
First of all, the interrelation of philosophical research objects determines that theory and system are not absolutely opposite, but closely related. Although the system is not the purpose of our theoretical research, it is indispensable to the theory. It is the carrier and form of theory, and all mature theories need systems. We know that philosophy is people's understanding of the general nature and laws of the world or human history, and the world is universally related. As a revelation and reflection on the object of universal connection, philosophical theory itself must have a systematic logical system, otherwise, the theory is a messy and random patchwork.
Marx was busy with the realistic philosophical struggle and wrote Das Kapital before his death, and did not sort out and systematically expound his philosophical thoughts, but this does not prove that Marx rejected the theoretical system. Marx's masterpiece Das Kapital is the best example of the combination of theory and system. In Das Kapital, starting with the smallest cell of capitalism-commodity, Marx made a gradual and in-depth analysis of the economic phenomenon of capitalism, thus discovering the law of surplus value and the basic contradiction of capitalism, and drawing a scientific conclusion that capitalist society is bound to perish. It can be seen that a scientific and reasonable system is helpful to the accurate elaboration of the theory, and the theory and system are not absolutely opposite. Marxist philosophy, as a scientific inquiry into the general nature and laws of the world and human history, also needs a system.
Secondly, Marx and Engels emphasized that their philosophy is method, but method and system are not absolutely opposite. In the process of knowing and understanding Marxist philosophy, there has always been a debate about the system or method, that is, is Marxist philosophy a theoretical system or a method? The author believes that this is due to the generalization of Marx and Engels' criticism of Hegel's philosophy. Marx and Engels emphasized that their new philosophy is a method, not a dogma, and it is aimed at the old philosophy, especially Hegel's philosophy. The opposition between method and system in Hegel's philosophy is not the opposition between method and general system, but the opposition between method and mandatory absolute truth system, which Marx and Engels resolutely oppose. It is in this sense that Marx and Engels put forward that their own philosophy is a method, not a dogma. Therefore, outside the scope of this criticism, the system cannot be equated with dogma, and the method and system cannot be absolutely opposed. Method is not isolated from the theoretical system, but closely related to it. Without a scientific theoretical system, there will be no scientific method. Marxist philosophy with "transforming the world" as its core still needs a system.
Thirdly, the disciplinary characteristics of philosophy also determine that Marxist philosophy must have a system. Marxist philosophy, like other philosophies, is the result of abstract thinking, and the tool of abstract thinking is category. Philosophy reveals the essence and laws of the world through categories, the relationship between categories and the deduction between categories. However, any category of philosophy is not mechanically pieced together, but organically unified, which determines that the category of philosophy has its logical order and level, that is, philosophy is required to have a logical system. Marxist philosophy is no exception.
Finally, the special position of Marxist philosophy in China determines that it needs a theoretical system. As the mainstream ideology of China's socialist society, Marxist philosophy is not only the object of academic research, but also the theoretical basis and practical guidance of China's socialist construction and the necessary rational reference for people to face modern life. Marxist philosophy must be popularized among the masses and become a way of thinking to guide their practice. Therefore, today's Marxist philosophy, as an ideology, cannot be expressed by a series of controversial works like Marx's, but must be integrated into a systematic theoretical system in order to be understood and accepted by the broad masses.
To sum up, Marxist philosophy is not anti-system in nature. On the one hand, we should pay attention to the problem of system.
Overcome the disadvantages of modern European system philosophy. Any attempt to establish an absolutely perfect system is unrealistic. System is only the logical form of theoretical system, and there is only accurate distinction, not perfect distinction. On the other hand, we can't go to the other extreme-the theoretical system of exclusion. Marxist philosophy needs a system. The reconstructed Marxist philosophy system should embody the essence of Marxist philosophy, take Marx's historical materialism as the core, absorb the essence of all philosophies in the east and west, and take the theme of the times as the basis. The reconstructed Marxist philosophy system must be open, and only by persisting in openness can the development of Marxist philosophy be guaranteed.