以1978年《东方学》的出版为起点，后殖民理论发展已近半个世纪。而自其诞生之日起，后殖民理论与马克思主义之间就存在交锋的状态，从而形成了以围绕焦点问题的讨论连缀而成的“论争史”，且绵延至今。而对这段“论争史”的整体分析和批判尤其在国内学界仍较为欠缺。本文的主旨即以对这段论争史的批判性分析为切入点审视马克思主义与后殖民理论的关系。首先，对马克思主义与后殖民理论所发生的论争进行整理分析，对其所寓之意进行理论探赜是本文的首要目标，工作由一个根本问题所推动，即论争或交锋为何（如此）发生。疑问的缘由有二，第一，马克思主义与后殖民理论在所讨论的语境中有着相似的立场——批判殖民主义；第二，后殖民理论的学理特征在于关注文化或从文化入手处理殖民问题，但马克思主义同样关注并处理文化问题，从两方面看起来，马克思主义与后殖民理论都似乎并不存在不可调和性，因此“论争史”为何发生且延续至今就成了一个巨大的谜题。其次，为回答问题，本文将论争史中最尖锐和最具理论张力的部分提炼为三个方面，分别是后殖民理论在发展中不断深化的对马克思主义的直接攻击，包括萨义德指控马克思是东方主义者以及查克拉巴蒂否定马克思主义的历史主义，其次是关于马克思主义与后殖民理论在“被殖民者主体”这一核心问题上的歧见，最后是马克思主义对后殖民理论在整体上做出的批判。通过对这些“事件”的批判性分析问题得到回答，第一，尽管两者都持批判殖民主义的立场，但后殖民理论往往忽视了对殖民主义具有决定性因素的资本主义现实或拒绝了马克思主义的政治经济学批判；第二，与脱离对资本主义的物质性批判相关，后殖民理论的文化视角和方法论往往将文化，尤其是文化的差异性推向极致，以致陷入文化主义陷阱，在理论建构和批评实践中体现出去语境化和非历史化的倾向。最后，本文借鉴詹姆逊所说的马克思主义是“不可逾越的地平线”的观点，将后殖民理论的正反两方面加以批判性的综合，即一方面指出马克思主义与后殖民理论在某些根本问题上具有不可调和性，从而理解了论争的发生并明确了马克思主义的基本立场，另一方面认识到后殖民理论作为一种新的文化理论具有其“区域合法性”，两相综合，马克思主义与后殖民理论的关系可表现为马克思主义对后殖民理论既“消解”又“保存”的辩证关系。
Starting with the publication of Orientalism in 1978, postcolonial theory has been developing for nearly half a century. Since its birth, Postcolonial theory and Marxism have been in a state of confrontation, thus forming a "history of controversy" that has been connected by discussions around focal issues. This special history continues to this day. In addition, the overall analysis and critique of the history is still lacking, especially in the domestic academia. The main purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between Marxism and Postcolonial theory by taking a critical analysis of the "history of controversy" as an entry point.First of all, it is the primary goal of this paper to comprehend and analyze the debate between Marxism and Postcolonial theory, and to theorize the implications of it. The work is motivated by a fundamental question, namely, why the debate or encounter took place. The question arises from two sources. Firstly, Marxism and Postcolonial theory share a similar stance in the context under discussion - a critique of colonialism. Secondly, while Postcolonial theory is characterized by a focus on culture or a cultural approach to colonial issues, Marxism is equally concerned with and deals with the cultural aspect, neither of which is shown to be irreconcilable. Thus, the "history of controversy" becomes a great mystery as to why it occurred and continues to this day.Second of all, in order to answer the question, this paper summarizes the most acute and theoretical tensions in the history of the debate into three aspects, namely, the direct attacks on Marxism in the development of Postcolonial theory, including Said's accusation of Marx as an Orientalist and Chakrabarty's denial of Marxist historicism, followed by the disagreement between Marxism and Postcolonial theory on the central issue of the "colonized subject," and finally, the Marxist critique of Postcolonial theory as a whole. The questions are answered by a critical analysis of these "events". On the one hand, although both take a critical stance on colonialism, Postcolonial theory tends to ignore the capitalist reality that is a decisive factor for colonialism or rejects the Marxist critique of political economy. On the other hand, related to the detachment from the critique of the materiality of capitalism, the cultural perspective and methodology of Postcolonial theory tend to push culture, especially cultural difference, to the extreme, so that they fall into the trap of culturalism and reflect the tendency to decontextualize and dehistoricize in their theoretical constructions and critical practices.To conclude, drawing on Jameson's view of Marxism as an " untranscendable horizon", this paper critically synthesizes and accommodates the positive and negative aspects of postcolonial theory. In other words, on the one hand, it points out that there is a certain irreconcilability between Marxism and Postcolonial theory on certain fundamental issues, thus understanding the controversy and clarifying the basic position of Marxism. On the other hand, it recognizes that Postcolonial theory as a new cultural theory has its own "regional legitimacy". By combining these two points, the relationship between Marxism and Postcolonial theory can be characterized as a dialectical one, calling Marxism both "dismantling" and "preserving" Postcolonial theory.
