The Research On The Second International Marxist Philosophy

As the first generation of Marxian after Marx and Engels, the Second International theorists'interpretation of Marxism in the specific historical period was an important stage in the development history of the Marxist philosophy, which can not be ignored.The interpretation of Marxist philosophy given by the mainstream theorists of the Second International was done in a relatively complex environment. This period was not only the "peace" development period of capitalism, but also a period when Marxism facing theoretical challenges of the theory of crisis, economic determinism and neo-Kantianism. In this context, based on Engels'later years' works, various theorists tried to explore the way-out of Marxism from the practical and theoretical level, which formed three different dimensions reconstructing it in the new era. The right-wing theorists represented by Bernstein believed that the prevailing social conditions had been changed fundamentally compared to when Marxist doctrine came into being. Thus, they claimed to give up the violent revolution on the issue of proletarian revolution, going the way of social reform and "complement" Marxism with Kant's ethics theoretically. The left-wing theorists represented by Luxembourg argued that there were not essential changes on the social nature compared with the period when Marx was alive. So, not matter in practice or in theory, it should adhere to the basic ideas of Marxist theory, without any adjustment. The centrist theorists represented by Kautsky adopted a compromise position. They actually took the same approach with the right-wing theorists on the issued of the practical strategy of proletarian revolution. They shared the same opinions with the left-wing theorists on theoretical issues, arguing that it should continue to adhere to the basic principles of Marxist theory.In the reconstruction of Marxism at the same time, the mainstream theorists of the Second International also reinterpreted Marxist philosophy. Generally speaking, there were three ways to interpret it. The way of historical materialism represented by Kautsky and Mehring argued that Marxist existed as a pure method; Bernstein and Austro-Marxian explained Marxism with Kant's philosophy; Plekhanov argued that Marxist philosophy was a kind of dialectical materialism and formed the historical materialism when it applied to the historical field.In the interpretation of Marxism in general, the Second International theorists gave its own understanding on the concept of nature and the concept of society and history. Kautsky argued that society was just a special case in nature. So he paid attention to the similarities between nature and society; Plekhanov believed that the nature of the natural environment determined the nature of the social environment. Based on the difference between the natural environment and the artificial environment, Lafargue advocated that the artificial environment eliminated the diversity of the natural environment; Mehring insisted that the nature accessed to the production was the nature related to the people. In the social and historical issues, various theorists expressed their different opinions on the relationship between the material factors and spiritual factors according to the classic discourses of Marx. Kautsky argued that the will was the starting point and motivation of the economic life; Mehring explained the relationship between social being and social awareness, focusing on the production mode of the material life. Plekhanov introduced the social psychology research into the social history and put forward the "five-level" theory about the social structure.For the theoretical defects existed in the reconstruction and interpretation of the Marxism by the Second International mainstream theorists, the Second International theorists, the early western Marxian and Lenin had made a different reaction. Labriola's explanation to Marxism by way of practice philosophy and Luxembourg's interpretation and innovation on Marx's dialectics surpass the Second International Marxism from inside. The early Western Marxian represented by Lukacs strongly criticized the vulgar Marxism of the Second International, proposed that it should re-interpret Marxist philosophy in order to restore its revolutionary nature. Lenin criticized the Second International Marxist philosophy in the later stage of its own ideology development, trying to re-explore the relationship between the state and revolution, in order to restore the true spirit of Marxism. Through discussion, this dissertation argued that the mainstream theorists of the Second International persisted and defended Marxism in a particular period, which contributed significantly to Marxism, but their understanding of Marxist philosophy had some un-ignorable theoretical defects. Early Western Marxian'criticism on the Second International Marxist philosophy had a great theoretical significance. However, their explanation of Marxist philosophy by the tradition of Hegelian also constrained the development of Marxist philosophy. Lenin's criticism not only overcame the vulgarized understanding of the Second International theorists on the Marxism philosophy, but also avoided sliding into the tradition of Hegelian interpretation.