중국에서의 마르크스주의의 몰이론화와 몰자유화

서장복 경상대학교 사회과학연구원 2010 마르크스주의 연구 Vol.7 No.4

The transformation of Marxism in China is called Sinicization of Marxism and evaluated positively. However, the Sinicizationof Marxism clearly has its negative aspects. Firstly, Marxism inherits a theoretical attitude peculiar to European which means to love wisdom and to seek for truth, but Sinicized Marxism abandons this attitude, and thus to bring about de-theorization of Marxism. Secondly, Marxism regards free development of each individual as its highest value, but Sinicizaed Marxism not only dare not speak up freedom, but also negates many basic human rights, and thus to bring about de-liberalization of Marxism. Since the reform and openning policy in China, Marxist theoretical attitude has been recovered to some extent— that is re-theorization of Marxism,and Marxist value of freedom has been recognized to some extent— that is re-liberalization of Marxism. Nevertheless, with regard to theoretical attitute and value of freedom, Sinicizaed Marxism is still far from original Marxism. 중국에서 마르크스주의의 변용은 마르크스주의의 중국화(Sinicization of Marxism)라고 불리는데, 대체로 긍정적으로 평가되고 있다. 하지만 마르크스주의의 중국화는 부정적 측면도 갖고 있다. 첫째, 마르크스주의는 지혜를 사랑하고 진리를 추구하는 유럽 특유의 이론적 태도이다. 하지만 중국화된 마르크스주의는 이런 태도를 버리고 마르크스주의의 몰이론화로 나아갔다. 둘째, 마르크스주의는 개인의 자유로운발전을 최고의 가치로 여기지만, 중국화된 마르크스주의는 자유에 대해 언급하지않을 뿐 아니라 많은 기본적인 인권을 부정하며, 그래서 마르크스주의의 몰자유화로 나아갔다. 중국에서 개혁‧개방 정책 이래로 마르크스주의의 이론적 입장이 어느정도 회복 ― 이것은 마르크스주의의 재이론화이다 ― 되었고, 자유에 대한 마르크스주의의 가치도 어느 정도 인정 ― 이것은 마르크스주의의 재자유화이다 ― 되었다. 그럼에도 이론적 입장과 자유의 가치와 관련하여 중국화된 마르크스주의는 여전히 원래의 마르크스주의와 큰 차이를 보이고 있다.

On a Way to Material Marxism: On or Over Post-Marxism

( Kim¸ Dae-jung ) 동국대학교 영어권문화연구소 2015 영어권문화연구 Vol.8 No.2

This paper delineates how, with advent of (post) structural Marxism, ontic Marxism almost perishes but sustains its life through compromise with post-Marxism. To investigate this, the paper analyzes Louis Althusser’s structural Marxism and Fredrick Jameson's understanding of Althusser’s theories to reveal both theories’ attempt to reexamine and criticize ontic Marxists’ ideas of subject, totality, and history utilizing (post) structural linguistics and relevant theories. Yet, their efforts turns out to be partially successful because of inevitable paradoxes and contradictions in their own projects. Though Althusser tries to re-read and find a true Marxism getting over vulgar one and Jameson tries to reinterpret Althusser’s structural Marxism to suggest a compromised model of post-post-Marxism, it is still questionable if their projects turn out to be successful. Delving into these contentions, this paper pries into the polemics of language, subject, and history, such notions for which structural Marxists have been frequently criticized. In response to the critiques, post-Marxists have defended their positions condescendingly reiterating the recounts of how obsolete subject's language and discourse in structuralism and structural Marxism become. The next examinations target the idea of history, the most problematic concept both for structural Marxists and their critics because historicity and materialism may not be reconciled in contemporary Marxist's theory in spite of Fredrick Jameson's eclectic efforts. This contradiction also suggests that Marxism may not be ontic anymore if we do not accept the ambiguity of history and real praxis. Lastly, this paper explores Merleau-Ponty's theories to find an ontological Marxist theoretical position which might be a possible answer to my question.

有關馬克思主義中國化的思考

林海順(Lin, Hai-Shun) 동아인문학회 2014 동아인문학 Vol.28 No.-

This paper aims at rearrange the historical evolution of the concept of the sinification of Marxism, and analysis intrinsic reason that the combination of Marxism and China"s reality. With the further reform and opening up and emancipating the mind, the sinification of Marxism not only become the important research topic of Chinese academic circles, but also attracted great attention of foreign academic circles. In addition, because of active research in academic circles, the problem also renewed interest in politics. With the exchanges between academic circles and political circles, further studies is now in progress. The sinification of Marxism had begun from when Marxism was officially introduced into Chinese and combined with the practice of China, but to raise the cencept of sinification of Marxism was experiencing a certain process. One of the reason why the sinification of Marxism has become the guiding thought of ideological and cultural construction of China communist party is that Mao Ze-dong had explained and promoted it in 1938 at the sixth plenary session of the sixth central committee of Chinese communist party. In his view, the so-called sinification of Marxism is the combination of Marxism and Chinese concrete reality. However, after Mao Ze-dong had raised the concept of the sinification of Marxism, almost no using it, using ‘the combination of Marxist-Leninist theory and China"s revolutionary practice’ instead of it. After the founding of the People"s Republic of China, beginning to reuse the concept of the sinification of Marxism. This is due to theoretically against weakening and belittle Marxism, but also against the tendency of dogmatism and the rigid Marxism. At this time, the so-called sinification is not the final result, but a product of development process. It is not only the existing facts, but also is the development process. And not only to a certain point, but a process of sustainable development. Consequently, to exist for a long time and play a role in China, Marxism must conform to the reality"s demands of all classes of Chinese society, and promote the development of itself.

Marxism, Language, and Literature: Rethinking the Early Marxist Literary Criticism

Jun Young Lee 한국외국어대학교 영미연구소 2014 영미연구 Vol.30 No.-

Since both literature and language pay decisive concerns to human beings, an attempt to define language inevitably accompanies the definition of literature to a considerable extent. Therefore, it has been taken for granted that the problem of language should serve as a formulating impact to most contemporary theories of literary criticism. In case of Marxist criticism, however, there seems to be a longstanding consensus that language has been peripheral to its main praxis of literary criticism. This oversimplified consensus has not been gained from precise and meticulous studies on Marxism but from prejudices against the widely condemned dogmatism in some branches of Marxism, especially the doctrine of socialist realism in the Soviet tenet. However, if we follow the transition faithfully in the thought of language in Marxism from the mid 19th-century initial stage of Marx and Engels to the early 20th-century developing stage of V. N. Volosinov and critics of Russian Formalism, it is possible to track down the genuine and substantial discourses of language even in the early tradition of Marxism. If a literary theory of Marxism is built around the philosophy of language, it is also able to surpass the textual limitations of Formalism as well as dogmatism by way of bridging literary texts over socio-historical and economic conditions of the world. Therefore, after discussing the early thoughts of language in Marxism, including those of Marx and Engels, and Russian Formalism, this paper presents Volosinov's philosophy of language as a significant case of the literary theory of Marxism. The significance of Volosinov's philosophy of language, which is fundamentally faithful to the original thoughts of Marx and Engels, can be found in its productive effort to achieve the dialogic synthesis that goes beyond the conflicting impasse between the asocial poetics of pure formalism and the dogmatic literary criticism of the vulgar Marxism. The specificity of literature lies in its language- not as a language of self-sustained static system, but as a language of a practical activity, that is, as a specific form of practical consciousness inseparable from all social material activities. Therefore, the language of literature is also a particular form of socio-historical language. In this regard, Volosinov's philosophy of language, which inherited the critical consciousness of Marx and Engels's thoughts of language than any other theories, deserves to be reconsidered by many critics of contemporary literary criticism.

브로델과 마르크스주의

고원 한국세계문화사학회 2020 세계 역사와 문화 연구 Vol.0 No.56

In the 1960s, French Marxist Louis Althusser relied on structuralism to redefine Marxism as a rigorous and strict science. Louis Althusser’s attempt gave Marxism a new boost, and achieved international success. But the situation did not last long, because Louis Althusser’s Marxism based on structuralism has ruled out the possibility of a change in reality. In the end, Louis Althusser, with self-criticism, ceases to redefine Marxism as a rigorous and strict science. And at the end of the 1970s, he insist on the “crisis” and the “transformation” of Marxism. It was Fernand Braudel’s history that provided new possibilities for the transformation of Marxism. After the publication of Civilisation matérielle, économie et capitalisme, XVe et XVIIIe siècles in 1979, Fernand Braudel began to attract attention of Marxists. The theory and the concepts of Fernand Braudel were accepted by Marxists and used as a means to seek the transformation of Marxism. This article examines the encounter between Fernand Braudel and Marxism. Our interest is the relation between Marxism and Fernand Braudel's historical ideas and the impact of Fernand Braudel on the historical flow of Marxism. 1960년대 프랑스의 마르크스주의자 루이 알튀세르는 구조주의의 도입을 통해 마르크스주의를 엄밀한 과학으로 재정립하고자 했다. 알튀세르의 시도는 마르크스주의에 새로운 활력을 불어넣었고, 국제적인 성공을 이뤄냈다. 그러나 이러한 정세는 오래가지 못했다. 구조주의에 기반한 알튀세르의 마르크스주의는 변화를 사고할 수 없는 자기모순에 빠졌기 때문이다. 결국 알튀세르는 자기비판과 함께 마르크스주의를 엄밀한 과학으로 정립하려는 시도를 중단한다. 그리고 1970년대 막바지에 이르면 “마르크스주의의 총체적인 위기”와 “전화”의 필요성을 주장한다. 마르크스주의의 전화를 위한 새로운 가능성을 제공한 것은 페르낭 브로델의 역사학이었다. 1979년 『물질문명과 자본주의』의 출간 이후 브로델은 마르크스주의자들의 관심을 끌기 시작했다. 브로델이 역사 연구의 과정에서 제기한 문제들과 제시한 개념들은 마르크스주의자들에게 수용되었고, 마르크스주의의 전화를 모색하기 위한 수단으로 활용되었다. 이 글은 브로델과 마르크스주의의 만남에 대해 고찰해보고자 한다. 마르크스주의자들이 브로델의 역사사상과 만나게 되는 구체적인 과정과 그 결과 브로델이 마르크스주의의 역사적 흐름에 어떠한 영향을 미쳤는지를 살펴볼 것이다.

Irw olhoe and the Introduction of Marxism into Korea in the 1920s

박종린 한국학중앙연구원 한국학중앙연구원 2009 Korea Journal Vol.49 No.1

Irwolhoe, or the January Association, asserted the unification of the split socialist movement upon its formation in January 1925. Perceiving that the national liberation movement was an ideological struggle as well as an economic and political one, Irwolhoe published Sasang undong as a means of realizing its objective of prevailing in ideological warfare. Suppressed by the colonial authorities from Japan, Irwolhoe changed the editing policy of Sasang undong in January 1926. Gwondoksa took over Sasang undong’s mission of “introducing scientific theories.” By the end of 1927, Gwondoksa had published a total of nine pamphlets. They were primarily translations of works analyzing capitalism through the prism of Marxism, in addition to translated versions of Marxist texts. In 1926, Makseu-wa makseujuui and Gwahakjeok sahoejuui were published. The two books are noteworthy in the history of the introduction of socialism to Korea in that they attempted to analyze Marxism through the works of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. Irwolhoe regarded Leninism as the Marxism of the imperial era and as “genuine Marxism” that enriched Marxism by solving theoretical and practical problems through Marx’s theories and methodology. Irwolhoe, or the January Association, asserted the unification of the split socialist movement upon its formation in January 1925. Perceiving that the national liberation movement was an ideological struggle as well as an economic and political one, Irwolhoe published Sasang undong as a means of realizing its objective of prevailing in ideological warfare. Suppressed by the colonial authorities from Japan, Irwolhoe changed the editing policy of Sasang undong in January 1926. Gwondoksa took over Sasang undong’s mission of “introducing scientific theories.” By the end of 1927, Gwondoksa had published a total of nine pamphlets. They were primarily translations of works analyzing capitalism through the prism of Marxism, in addition to translated versions of Marxist texts. In 1926, Makseu-wa makseujuui and Gwahakjeok sahoejuui were published. The two books are noteworthy in the history of the introduction of socialism to Korea in that they attempted to analyze Marxism through the works of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. Irwolhoe regarded Leninism as the Marxism of the imperial era and as “genuine Marxism” that enriched Marxism by solving theoretical and practical problems through Marx’s theories and methodology.

중국철학 : 艾思奇(애사기)의『대중철학』과 마르크스주의 철학의 대중화

조봉래 ( Bong Lae Cho ) 한국철학사연구회 2013 한국 철학논집 Vol.0 No.39

중국 마르크스주의에서 ‘중국화’와 ‘대중화’는 언제나 중요한 문제였다. 중국화는 아직까지 꾸준히 강조되고 이론적으로도 발전 했지만, ‘대중화’는 상대적으로 주목을 덜 받으며 이론적으로 정립된 내용이 많지 않다. 그러나 2007년 중국공산당 제 17차 전국대표대회에서 “당대 중국 마르크스주의 대중화를 추동하자”라는 보고가 제출된 후 중국 학술계에서는 마르크스주의의 대중화와 관련한 다방면의 이론화 작업이 진행 중이다. 중국 마르크스주의 철학사를 통틀어 ‘마르크스주의의 대중화’를 최초로 제기했고 이 문제에 대해 중국의 마르크스주의 이론가를 망라하여 가장 독보적인 영향을 끼친 사람은 아이쓰치(艾思奇)이다. 아이쓰치의 『대중철학』은 마르크스주의의 대중화와 관련하여 가장 대표적인 책이다. 1930년대 중국은 심각한 위기에 봉착했고 중국의 지식인들과 대중들은 중국을 하나로 묶어 이끌어 줄 수 있는 사상무기를 절박하게 요구하였다. 많은 지식인들이 이들의 요구에 부합하는 것으로 마르크스주의에 주목하였고, 특히 아이쓰치는 마르크스주의 철학의 지도 작용을 어떻게 발휘시킬 것인가, 추상적이며 심오한 철학원리를 어떻게 통속화 대중화 시켜 그것을 광대한 군중들이 장악하고 이용할 수 있도록 만들 것인가 하는 문제를 있는 힘을 다해 고민했던 것이다. 『대중철학』은 마르크스주의 철학의 통속화와 중국화라는 특징을 가지고 있으며 책이 출간 된 이후 중국혁명에 지대한 영향을 끼쳤다. 본 논문에서는 『대중철학』을 통해 마르크스주의 철학의 대중화를 고찰해 봄으로써 당대 중국정부가 마르크스주의의 대중화를 다시 강조하는 이유를 파악하고자 했다. 1930년대 아이쓰치의 『대중철학』과 마르크스주의 철학의 대중화 운동이 마르크스주의를 민심을 통일할 수 있는 사회공동체의 학문으로 자리를 잡게 했다면 시장경제의 확대로 인해 혼란과 갈등을 겪고 있는 21세기의 중국공산당도 바로 중국 사회를 통합하려는 목적으로 ‘중국 마르크스주의 대중화’를 다시 한 번 강조할 수밖에 없었던 것이다. The ‘Localization’ & the ‘Popularization’ issues always play an important role at the Chinese Marxism. The Chinese Communist Party (C.C.P) is still emphasizing the ‘Localization’, but the ‘Popularization’ did not received the Chinese theorists` attention. Therefore a new theory in ‘Popularization of Chinese Marxism’ is very small. But at the 17th National Convention, C.C.P offered a suggestion that entitled “Lead the popularization of Marxism in China”. And diversity theorization involved popularization of Marxism is in motion by Chinese theoretician. Throughout history of Chinese Marxism, the first theoretician who raised an objection of the popularization of Marxism in China is Aisiqi, and his achievements in this field are unequaled. His Popular philosophy is the most typical book on the popularization of Marxism in China. In the 1930s, China faced a serious crisis, Chinese intelligentsia & mass desperately wanted an idea to unify the country. Many intellectuals have latched on to the Marxism, especially Aisiqi was absorbed in the important assignment that how can bring out leadership of Marxism, how can popularize abstract and profound principle of Marx philosophy. Aisiqi`s Popular Philosophyis marked by the ‘Localization’ & the ‘Popularization’, after this book is published, had a big impact on Chinese Revolution. The purpose of this thesis is a meaning through the Popular Philosophy consideration and evaluation to get to the bottom of that the C.C.P offered a suggestion with ‘Popularization of Chinese Marxism’.

Marxism, Language, and Literature: Rethinking the Early Marxist Literary Criticism

이준영 한국외국어대학교 영미연구소 2014 영미연구 Vol.30 No.-

Since both literature and language pay decisive concerns to human beings, an attempt to define language inevitably accompanies the definition of literature to a considerable extent. Therefore, it has been taken for granted that the problem of language should serve as a formulating impact to most contemporary theories of literary criticism. In case of Marxist criticism, however, there seems to be a longstanding consensus that language has been peripheral to its main praxis of literary criticism. This oversimplified consensus has not been gained from precise and meticulous studies on Marxism but from prejudices against the widely condemned dogmatism in some branches of Marxism, especially the doctrine of socialist realism in the Soviet tenet. However, if we follow the transition faithfully in the thought of language in Marxism from the mid 19th-century initial stage of Marx and Engels to the early 20th-century developing stage of V. N. Volosinov and critics of Russian Formalism, it is possible to track down the genuine and substantial discourses of language even in the early tradition of Marxism. If a literary theory of Marxism is built around the philosophy of language, it is also able to surpass the textual limitations of Formalism as well as dogmatism by way of bridging literary texts over socio‐historical and economic conditions of the world. Therefore, after discussing the early thoughts of language in Marxism, including those of Marx and Engels, and Russian Formalism, this paper presents Volosinov's philosophy of language as a significant case of the literary theory of Marxism. The significance of Volosinov’s philosophy of language, which is fundamentally faithful to the original thoughts of Marx and Engels, can be found in its productive effort to achieve the dialogic synthesis that goes beyond the conflicting impasse between the asocial poetics of pure formalism and the dogmatic literary criticism of the vulgar Marxism. The specificity of literature lies in its language‐ not as a language of self-sustained static system, but as a language of a practical activity, that is, as a specific form of practical consciousness inseparable from all social material activities. Therefore, the language of literature is also a particular form of socio-historical language. In this regard, Volosinov’s philosophy of language, which inherited the critical consciousness of Marx and Engels’s thoughts of language than any other theories, deserves to be reconsidered by many critics of contemporary literary criticism.

마르크스주의 중국화에 대한 고찰 -중국 사회주의 정체성의 근원을 찾아서-

김도희 ( Do Hee Kim ) 한중사회과학학회 2014 한중사회과학연구 Vol.12 No.3

Socialist identity is an important factor in China. People recognize China is Socialist country. Because China was built by the socialist institution and ideology against western invasion and internal disorder after a period of modern upheaval. In order to know what country is China, we have to study China’s socialist identity. It needs to examine how Marxism became sinicized. This article give a detailed account the background of formation, process, characteristics and meaning of the Sinicizing of Marxism. First, starting of the Sinicizing of Marxism will be discussed by the four topics about beginning and background. Second, it will show the process of theorization of the Sinicizing of Marxism with the new enlightenment movement through official papers of those days scholars and revolutionist. Third, the factors and its implication of re-emergence of the Sinicizing of Marxism will be reviewed since the reform and opening of China. Fourth, this paper will try to study critically the problems of the Sinicizing of Marxism via its features. Socialist values and ideals inherent have been weakened by various elements of the Sinicizing of Marxism is complicated. Historically formed socialist’s values and tradition will be to help resolve China’s rich-poor gap and inequality. For this, the Sinicizing of Marxism linked to China’s socialist identity needs some harsh criticism. This paper presents the study of China’s socialist identity through the features and implications about the Sinicizing of Marxism. And this kinds of efforts have helped to clarify the realities of China.

리다자오(李大釗)의 마르크스주의 수용의 특징 - 민족주의적 관점에서-

한미경 한국통일전략학회 2014 통일전략 Vol.14 No.3

he history of mankind, from the perspective of Marxist, is resistance to the contradictions in the relations of production and the development of the class struggle of the proletariat, eventually transformed in the form of socialism. Therefore, Marxism is inevitably required in capitalist countries where these contradictions are found. However, the reason for the acceptance of Marxism in China is quite different. In this study we will examine Li Da-Zhao, the forerunner of Marxist in China, what is his ideological features. Naturally, we will be able to find out the origin of Chinese Marxism. Furthermore, we compare it with the characteristics of Marxism of early nationalist communists in Korea, especially we define them as 'resistance nationalism.' To look at the features of the Marxist ideology of Li, we first examined his studying in Japan. His academical environment in Japan was largely based on learning western thoughts and studying Marxism was one of them. Secondly, through the success of the Russian revolution, he dreamed the Chinese revolution. Thirdly, since the May 4th Movement, Li is fully espousing Marxist ideology. Lastly, we examine the acceptance of Marxism of early Korean communist Marxists whose country was oppressed by Japan as China. We can conclude Li's acceptance of Marxism was driven extremely nationalistic demands. 마르크스주의는 인류의 역사는 생산관계의 모순에 저항하는 프롤레타리아의 계급투쟁으로 발전하며 결국 사회주의의 형태로 옮아간다고 주장한다. 그러므로 필연적으로 이러한 모순이 발견되는 자본주의 국가에서 마르크스주의가 요구된다고 볼 수 있겠다. 그러나 중국에서 마르크스주의가 수용되는 이유는 조금 다르다. 본 연구는 중국에서 마르크스주의의 소개자인 리다자오를 통해 그 수용 특징은 무엇인지를 살펴보고자 한다. 나아가 일제 강점기 한국에서의 마르크스주의 수용의 특징을 비교하면서 그러한 특징이 민족주의에 있음을 밝히고자 한다. 리다자오의 마르크스주의의 특징을 살펴보기 위해 먼저 리다자오의 일본유학기의 활동 내용을 살펴본다. 환경적 영향으로 그는 일본 유학기에 마르크스주의를 접했을 가능성이 있다. 하지만 그 당시에는 마르크스주의가 주된 내용이기보다는 다른 서구사상을 접하고 받아들인 측면이 크다. 두번째로 러시아혁명을 보는 리다자오의 시각을 살펴본다. 그는 러시아의 지리적 위치로 인해 동서양을 문명을 이어줄 중대한 역할을 한다고 보았으며 러시아 혁명의 성공으로 인해 중국 혁명까지도 꿈꾸게 된다. 세번째로 5·4운동 이후에는 마르크스주의에 경도하게 된다. 마지막으로 일제 강점기 한국에서 마르크스주의를 받아들인 특징들과 비교하면서 리다자오가 마르크스주의를 받아들이게 된 이유가 지극히 민족주의적인 요구에 있었음을 알게 될 것이다.