On the Research Methodology of the Thoughts of Marx —— From Historical Restoration to Fusion of Horizons〔* 〕

Gao Yanbei

(College of Marxism Chang’an University，Xi’an Shaanxi710064)

Ⅰ．Introduction

A thorough understanding of Marx is vital to the profound understanding of the essence of Marxism．The problems centering on the understanding of Marxism have risen since the formation of Marxism．It is the key to have a profound understanding of Marx．This paper holds that the thorough understanding of Marx is both a theoretical problem and a practical one，which keeps developing with the constant development of society．Researches upon Marxism have shown that various researchers have put forward different theoretical problems in their respective historical situations and made different answers．The analysis of the different methodologies can not only help us become clearer about the efforts made by previous Marxism researchers，but more importantly，find the historical reference so as to thoroughly understand Marx．

Ⅱ．Background— “What I know is that I myself is not a Marxist．”

As is known to all，Engels once repeatedly mentioned a word said by Marx to clarify the misunderstanding of Marx’s thoughts，“What I know is that I myself is not a Marxist．”And he also interpreted the truth of historical materialism in the letters of his later life．It indicates that the problem of how to fully understand Marx has come into being when Marx and Engels were still alive due to the fact that some sort of historical evolution is bound to take place in the process of stepping from theory to practice in terms of Marx’s thoughts．

Various examples show that besides the situation where Marx’s thoughts are purposely twisted，there are two points that should be paid attention to in the understanding of Marx’s thoughts．First，Marx himself cares about the constant improvement of his thoughts．Therefore，the context and historical situation of Marx’s words should be paid attention to in understanding Marx，instead of viewing his words or texts as isolated;second，a scientific attitude should be held in the understanding and application of Marx’s thoughts since misunderstanding occurs quite frequently．

Therefore，the path of understanding Marx’s thoughts has come into being the moment his thoughts came into being．We should not only pay attention to the changes in the process of the evolution of his thoughts，but also take into consideration of the qualitative change of his thoughts from theory to practice．In this sense，it is not advisable to cover his whole thoughts by part of his speech or opinions．

Ⅲ．Different routes— science and revolution，which is genuine Marxism

The scientism and positivism of the late 19th century and the early 20th century have swept the world after the death of Marx and Engels．Theorists of the Second International believe that Marx’s thoughts are science，or even empirical approaches that are irrelevant to political standpoints．Such understanding is criticized by many people，including Lenin．Lenin even made remarked that“none of the Marxists can truly understand Marx since the half the century”after he studied Hegel，which is quite impressive．

The First World War reveals a serious lack of mainstream understanding of Marx’s thoughts on the part of the Second International，giving rise to a major change in the understanding of Marx，which is so significant that a new under-standing of Marxism has come into being，namely western Marxism．Western Marxism attacks the understanding of Marxism on the part of the Second International．

First，western Marxism notes that the overall understanding of Marx on the part of the Second International is wrong．Marx’s dialectics are considered as the core of Marxism，which are not means of understanding beyond the proletariats or human，but powerful tools which help human，especially the proletariats to recognize themselves and acquire class consciousness．

Second，major difference between Marx and Engels has been raised as a result．One of the reasons is that Engels’s understanding of dialectics are inflexible，while Marx’s dialectics are social historical dialectics，which are not suitable for the natural world．But Engels holds that dialectics also exist in the natural world．

Third，there are two Marxist views，namely believing that there are major difference between the thoughts of young Marx and mature thoughts of Marx in the age of Das Kapital．Young Marx represents the true Marx，while Engels reflects the mature thoughts of Marx．

In one word，the understanding of Marxism on the part of western Marxism maintains that the authentic Marxism should be explored without being misled，and that the essence of Marxism is revolutionary idea．Western Marxism has contributed to the research pattern of communism — western Marxism，which exerts profound influence on the research on Marxism．

Ⅳ．Deeper intervention of politics— heated study upon young Marxism

The cold war pattern between the two camps began to form at the end of the Second World War．The understanding of Marxism has become the focus of the ideological competition between the socialism and capitalism．Study upon young Marxism has become a hot spot．

To be objective，there is not much accumulation of the research upon young Marx on the part of the former Soviet Union．There is a distinctive feature of the research upon young Marx on the part of the former Soviet Union，namely adhering to Lenin’s view that“Marx has turned from idealism to materialism and from evolutionary democratism to communism”．The two“transformations”have become an unprecedented framework in the study on the part of the former Soviet Union，whose research goal is to unswervingly interpret and safeguard the correct understanding of young Marx on the part of the former Soviet Union．The research upon young Marx on the part of the former Soviet Union possesses strong political complexion，which can be clearly manifested in the starting point and the final aim of the research．

There is another new path in the 1950s and 1960s besides the research conducted by the former Soviet Union and western world，namely the research upon young Marx on the part of Eastern Europe，whose overall features can be summa-rized as distracting beneficial parts of the young Marxism to reform society．Their research pattern may be the most appropriate in terms of practice;however，the research standpoint is not thorough enough when compared to that of the former Soviet Union and western world．

There is a very important problem hidden in the research of the former Soviet Union—whether the single research upon young Marx is enough for the overall master of young Marx，which approaches the essential question of“thorough understanding”．

Ⅴ．Rejection of ideology— the rising of the study upon Marxism

Despite the early editing of Marx’s manuscripts，it cannot be regarded as Marxology itself，and it can only be called the premise or foundation of Marxology．Marxology，in the strict sense，refers to the understanding standpoint or research attitude towards Marx，which tolerates no political ideology and stresses research upon Marx objectively．

The rise of Marxology is likely to be connected with the politics’excessive intervention of research upon Marxism and the inner logic of research upon Marxism．There is neither systematic methodology in the research upon Marxism on the part of Marxology，nor major breakthrough in the overall understanding of the research upon Marxism because it alerts and rejects all significance of aspirations in the research upon Marxism．In this sense，the work of Marxology can be summarized as academic study rather than theory or ideal．

Marxology has made at least three contributions when we retrospect on the history of research upon Marxism．First，a platform of dialogue and communication has been built for the research upon Marxism between socialism and capitalism．Second，literature basis has been provided for the further interpretation of thoughts．Third，the restriction of ideology has been evaded and the research upon Marxism is likely to be open．

Ⅵ．Total inheriting or total abandoning— research upon Marxism in the post－industrial society

The world has begun to secretly take a turn in the middle of the heated researches on Marx across the world:the post－ industrial society has come，and the research upsurge of Marx across the world has begun to fade in the 1980s．History has presented new challenges．

The researches on Marxism in the worldwide have undergone major changes with the disintegration of USSR and upheaval of Eastern Europe，which contributed to the fade of the Oriental and Occidental researches on Marxism．Many people even think that these incidents imply the failure of Marxism and the victory of capitalism and that Marxism seems to be totally abandoned．However，meanwhile，capitalism all over the world has made people reconsider Marx，and something that was less noticed before，such as the criticism of capital，modernity and capitalism，has been taken into consideration when viewing Marx’s thoughts．Some people think that the world has changed fundamentally since the 1950s when compared to the age of Marx．As a result，Marxism has become invalid and should be abandoned as a whole．While some other scholars hold that the change of capitalist world since the 1950s constitutes certain new development of capitalism，and Marxism should be inherited as it still has explanatory power．It is worth noting that those who advocate the inheritance of Marxism hold that it is the fundamental standpoints and methods of Marx’s thoughts that should be inherited，rather than some specific conclusions．However，the puzzle still exists — what is Marx as a whole?Can standpoints and methods exist by themselves without opinions?

In one word，a thorough understanding of Marx has always been our goal during the hundred －year research upon Marx，which involves the entanglement between theory and practice，authors and readers，as well as learning and politics．Thus，the understanding is more abundant than that of pervious scholars．However，the understanding is also vague in that people try to fully grasp Marx’s thoughts，which is impossible in terms of the research history of Marx．As Professor Zhang Yibin and Hu Daping remarked，“We need to find a true starting point when returning to Marx，and meanwhile，we should enrich and develop Marxism by means of the latest social practice and the fruits of natural science．”All researches take place in certain historical conditions，whose core and line of thinking are influenced and restricted by these conditions．Studying Marx’s thoughts does not equal treating the fruits of pervious scholars uncritically，but coming to understand the current situation and future development，which is self－ knowledge．We cannot make sure that the self－knowledge can definitely guarantee a better research in the future，but at least，we have become more conscious thanks to the exploration of previous scholars．

Notes:

〔1〕《馬克思恩格斯文集(第10卷)》，北京:人民出版社，2009年。

〔2〕《馬克思恩格斯文集(第2卷)》，北京:人民出版社，2009年。

〔3〕《馬克思恩格斯文集(第3卷)》，北京:人民出版社，2009年。

〔4〕〔德〕希法亭:《金融資本——資本主義最新發(fā)展的研究》，福民等譯，北京:商務(wù)印書館，1994年。

〔5〕《列寧全集(第55卷)》，北京:人民出版社，1990年。

〔6〕〔匈〕盧卡奇:《歷史與階級(jí)意識(shí)》杜章智、任立、燕宏遠(yuǎn)譯，北京:商務(wù)印書館，1999年。

〔7〕吳曉明:《當(dāng)代學(xué)者視野中的馬克思主義哲學(xué):西方學(xué)者卷(下)》，北京:北京師范大學(xué)出版社，2012年。

〔8〕《列寧全集(第26卷)》，北京:人民出版社，1988年。

〔9〕〔蘇〕納爾斯基等:《十九世紀(jì)的馬克思主義哲學(xué)(上)》，金順福、賈澤林等譯，北京:中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)出版社，1984年。

〔10〕黃楠森、莊福齡、林利:《馬克思主義哲學(xué)史第八卷(上)》，北京:北京出版社，2005年。

〔11〕張一兵、胡大平:《從本真性到中國(guó)特色:馬克思哲學(xué)研究的“解釋學(xué)”轉(zhuǎn)向》，《江海學(xué)刊》2003年第1期，第34－40頁(yè)。