Translation of the entry ‘MEGA’ in the Historical-Critical Dictionary of Marxism (Historisch-Kritisches Wörterbuch des Marxismus [HKWM]), vol. 9/I (Hamburg: Argument, 2018), pp. 388-404. Part I written by Rolf Hecker, Manfred Neuhaus, Richard Sperl, and part II by Hu Xiaochen.
Part I
1. The Marx-Engels Complete Works project (Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe [MEGA]) faced challenges far beyond those typically encountered in the review, collection, and editorial processing of any substantial body of work.[1] As an integral part of the history of Marxism’s reception in the 20th century, it became entangled in the struggles over its appropriation. The contradictions arising from the fact that the MEGA is both a scholarly editorial project guided by the principles of historical-critical text analysis and an undertaking dependent on political shifts and state funding can be studied exemplarily in the two—strictly speaking, even three—MEGA projects: the first from 1924 to 1941 in the Soviet Union; the second, known as MEGA2, from 1965 in the GDR; and finally, after a hiatus and relaunch with a modified concept and partial personnel changes, from 1990 in the FRG.
The effort to provide the most comprehensive possible foundation for the study of the works and biographies of Marx and Engels inevitably came into conflict with the state’s need for ideological legitimacy, as expressed through Marxism-Leninism. An unrestrained preservation and dissemination of the original works, free from considerations of state interests, was impossible and, in the case of the first MEGA, was suppressed through repression and persecution. At the same time, the legacy of Marx and Engels was repeatedly endangered by fascism. In this sense, it was rightly observed in retrospect—following the project’s rescue from the uncertainties of the 1989/90 upheaval—that ‘The MEGA is, in the truest sense of the word, a secular undertaking, and its beginning, its failure, and its revival mirror, almost paradigmatically, the historical tragedies of the 20th century.’[2]
The origins of the project date back to the 1880s. According to Engels’ vision, a Marx edition should ideally compile all writings in chronological order, presenting the texts in their historical form—without cuts or alterations, but corrected for textual errors—and facilitate understanding through prefaces and explanatory footnotes. However, Engels, who had been entrusted by Marx’s heirs with the preservation of his legacy, was unable to seriously pursue a comprehensive editorial project, primarily due to his more than ten years of work editing the second (1885) and third (1894) volumes of Capital. During his lifetime, Engels allowed ‘the party’ only to reprint ‘a few minor things’ by Marx ‘in and as individual items, without notes or preface,’ in order to avoid ‘in this piecemeal fashion the complete edition to whose ultimate publication I am committed’.[3] At the same time, Engels was pleased that Eduard Bernstein ‘cannot wait to be initiated in the hieroglyphics’ so that he might later work on ‘collected editions of things by Marx and myself,’ and he also included Karl Kautsky in these ‘necessary provisions’.[4]
Under Engels’ supervision, several works were published, including Wage Labour and Capital (1884 and 1891), The Poverty of Philosophy (German translations in 1885 and 1892), The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (3rd edition, 1885), Critique of the Gotha Programme (Neue Zeit, 1891), and The Civil War in France (1891). Wilhelm Liebknecht had already proposed the idea of a complete edition of Marx’s writings in 1883. However, within the framework of the International Library, only a few individual works were published, including Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Germany[5] and the new edition of A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy,[6] both edited by Kautsky.
After Engels’ death in 1895, several editorial projects were initiated by the SPD, which gradually became the heir to much of the Marx and Engels legacy. The first step was the four-volume edition Aus dem literarischen Nachlass von Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels und Ferdinand Lassalle, prepared by Franz Mehring on behalf of the party leadership and published by Dietz in 1902. This edition included many previously unknown works from the 1840s. The three-volume edition of Theories of Surplus Value, edited by Kautsky between 1905 and 1910, continued the publication of Marx’s extensive handwritten legacy concerning the critique of political economy, a task Kautsky had begun under Engels’ guidance.
At the turn of 1910/11, a meeting took place in Vienna, attended by Max Adler, Otto Bauer, Adolf Braun, Gustav Eckstein, Rudolf Hilferding, Karl Renner, and David B. Riazanov. The participants agreed that, after the expiration of copyright protection in 1913, the German Social Democratic Party would take on the task of producing ‘a complete edition of Marx’s works that meets all scientific requirements, is absolutely perfect, systematically organised, compared with the manuscripts and various editions of Marx’s writings, and includes an introduction and extensive indexes’.[7]
Following this decision, in 1913, a four-volume edition of the correspondence between Marx and Engels (Briefwechsel zwischen Marx und Engels), edited by August Bebel and Bernstein, was published. The debates sparked by this publication revealed, for the first time, the sharp tension between party interests and the editorial aim for completeness. Bebel, Kautsky, Mehring, and others feared that a full publication might discredit certain individuals and thus harm the party. Against Bernstein’s original idea, it was ultimately decided to publish the letters in an edited, partially abridged form, with some letters omitted entirely, without specifying the criteria for such exclusions. This decision, in turn, sparked controversy over the value of the publication. Additionally, Kautsky prepared a ‘popular edition’ of the first volume of Capital (1914), which included an extensive preface by the editor and a bibliography, index of names, and subject index, the latter compiled by Riazanov. Even during the War, in 1917, a two-volume collection of writings by Marx and Engels from 1852-62, edited by Riazanov, was published. However, these initial steps only made a portion of Marx and Engels’ literary legacy accessible.
2. The first MEGA. – It was only in the Soviet Union that the conditions for a comprehensive edition of the works were established. On the one hand, this strengthened the party-political ties, as the project became, in the aftermath of the division within the workers’ movement, an initiative of the Comintern, which decided to implement it in the form of the MEGA at its 5th World Congress in 1924. The institutional affiliation of the project to the Marx-Engels Institute, and after its dissolution in 1931, to the Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute in Moscow—combined with the expansion of the status of the classical figures to include Lenin, and later, temporarily, Stalin—tied the project irrevocably to the Soviet state and its party. On the other hand, the MEGA was not without international connections, particularly to German Social Democracy, whose Berlin archive housed the majority of the legacy, nor could it have been realised without the professional, independent research efforts of specialists.
2.1 Riazanov drove the project forward, for which he had already received permission in 1921—while Lenin was still alive—to hire ‘non-party collaborators’.[8] His close ties to German Social Democracy dated back to pre-war times. Since 1907, he had lived as an emigrant in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, where he had already focused on editorial issues. The SPD leadership allowed him to photograph the handwritten legacy. Furthermore, Riazanov established a network of international correspondents. In Cologne, Trier, Paris, Brussels, and London, knowledgeable individuals set to work collecting documents and materials. Despite the historical upheavals, parts of the legacy—particularly letters—were continuously transferred to the Moscow archive (which later became part of the Russian State Archive for Social and Political History).
The project was secured through agreements between the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow and the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt am Main, under the leadership of Carl Grünberg, as well as through the establishment of the Marx-Engels Publishing Society (Marx-Engels-Verlags-Gesellschaft), later the Marx-Engels-Verlag, based in Berlin.[9] On this basis, Riazanov began in Moscow the edition of a planned 42-volume set, which was published in Frankfurt am Main and Berlin, and, after 1933, printed in Leningrad. Between 1927 and 1941, twelve volumes were published. Within this framework, a series of first editions were released – first in the Marx-Engels-Archiv in 1925, later in MEGA –, which particularly stimulated social-critical studies, such as the Feuerbach chapter from the German Ideology and Engels’ Dialectics of Nature, then the 1844 Manuscripts[10] and the German Ideology.[11] Particularly, the so-called early writings prompted a discussion on alienation and reification in capitalism. In 1939, the Grundrisse was published as a special volume in the MEGA for the first time; their impact on Marx research did not occur until the GDR reprint in 1953.
2.2 Riazanov adhered to the principles of historical-philological textual criticism. In addition to the complete publication, typically based on the principle of the final version, this included the recording of relevant variants from manuscripts and prints and, at least in principle, a genetic analysis of the text. Moreover, the prohibition of contamination was already in place: all texts were presented in the original language based on a specific text witness, with orthography and punctuation modernised and standardised in contrast to the editorial practices of the second MEGA. Riazanov’s international editorial team made extraordinary contributions, particularly in transcribing the complex manuscripts, determining authorship for anonymously or pseudonymously published works, and dating them. However, Riazanov’s tendency to launch his projects with insufficient preparation, aiming for immediacy, had a negative impact on the consistency of the editorial design. Due to the lack of detailed editorial guidelines, there was no fixed schema for assigning the material to the various sections, nor for the structure and internal organisation of the individual volumes, especially their scholarly apparatus.
2.3 With the consolidation of the Stalinist regime and the rise to power of the Nazis, the project found itself subjected to the strains of the ‘Age of Extremes’ (Hobsbawm). After 1933, the printing and distribution of the works of Marx and Engels were no longer possible in Germany. Volumes of the MEGA were even thrown onto the bonfire in May 1933. They could no longer be borrowed from libraries. Through adventurous means and at the cost of substantial material losses, the estate was smuggled out of Germany and stored in a bank vault in Copenhagen. Negotiations between the exiled leadership of the SPD and the Moscow Institute over a sale or secure storage failed. The small and large series of the economic manuscripts from 1857/58 and 1861-63, along with some other smaller manuscripts, were delivered in 1935 through the intermediary Marek Kriger via the Soviet embassy in Vienna to the Moscow Institute.[12] Only the acquisition by the International Institute of Social History, founded in Amsterdam in 1935, and its transfer to England during the German occupation of the Netherlands, saved the entire collection from destruction.
However, the decisive factor was the development within the Soviet Union itself. Stalin had long viewed Riazanov, who defied his dogmas, as a thorn in his side. The work of his institute became increasingly difficult. As long as he could, Riazanov advocated for politically persecuted staff and ensured that ‘staff sentenced to exile were allowed to continue working for the institute at the place of exile for a fee’.[13] In the autumn of 1930, Riazanov complained that a large part of his staff was only employed part-time, with some even ‘working on the same subject simultaneously for two institutes’,[14] whereas the Lenin Institute, responsible for publishing Lenin’s works, could draw on a much larger workforce.[15] In 1931, in an effort to remove Riazanov and end his independent editorial work, the Marx-Engels Institute was merged with the Lenin Institute; of the 243 employees who were ‘checked’ during this process, 131 were dismissed,[16] with Riazanov himself being exiled to Saratov and replaced by Vladimir Adoratskii. Among those dismissed was also Karl Schmückle, who had led the ‘German group’ in the editorial department.[17] He and Riazanov were later accused of anti-state activities during the Great Terror and executed in 1938. The edition, stripped of its best forces after 1931 (the volumes published under Adoratski were mostly prepared by Riazanov), was discontinued in 1941.
3. The Second MEGA. – The discontinuation of a critical text edition did not mean the end of a complete works edition. For, even within Marxism-Leninism, there was an interest in such an edition, one that would make the ‘canon’ available for party work and serve as a core element of school and university education.
3.1 The Works Edition as a Replacement. – The Works of Marx-Engels Works edition in Russian (Sochinenia) was intended to fulfil both functions. This edition, which was planned to appear simultaneously with the first MEGA, had already been decided upon by the 13th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolshevik) in 1924, with the publication beginning in 1928. It continued even after the suspension of the MEGA and, after being interrupted by the Second World War, was completed in 1947 with 28 volumes (volume 20 was not published) across 33 books, marking the first comprehensive edition. Like the first MEGA, it is divided into three sections (Works, Capital, Letters). It includes 1,247 writings and essays, as well as 3,298 letters—600 of which were published for the first time, presented in full text as opposed to the 1913 edition. Following Stalin’s death in 1953, this edition was replaced by a second, expanded edition with 39 volumes, later supplemented by an additional 11 volumes, in part due to newly discovered documents and letters.
This second Russian edition served as the basis for a German-language edition (MEW), which attracted significant interest, particularly in the Soviet occupation zone and the GDR, partly to provide a reliable foundation for the numerous individual editions published after 1945. The decision to create this edition was made in the Karl Marx Year of 1953 and implemented by the Institute for Marxism-Leninism at the Central Committee of the SED. By 1968, 39 volumes had been published (with an additional 5 supplementary volumes later). The MEW contains all the works, writings, and articles that had been published (including many previously unknown works), along with a selection of manuscripts, drafts, and preparatory works (altogether around 1,700 texts), as well as all 4,170 preserved letters of the authors (for the first time, including those addressed to third parties, of which a third were translated into German). Exceptions to the principle of completeness were made with regard to the early writings, which were later published in two supplementary volumes, and some works critical of the tsarist autocracy and its foreign policy (including revelations about the history of diplomacy in the 18th century).[18] As evidenced by the introductions and commentaries, this edition, which was internationally respected, was again subject to political considerations.
The MEW were designed as a study edition, without the claim of completeness, intended for a broad readership. However, the complex edition, with its richly annotated text corpus, was used less as a ‘popular edition’ and more in line with the needs of scientifically interested users. It also served as the basis for numerous individual and selected editions and was used for translations into other languages. In this way, the MEW assumed the tasks and functions of a modern scientific collected edition, though they were unable to fully fulfil these demands.
3.2 The Start from 1965. – Riazanov’s MEGA concept was revisited in the context of the discussion about the scope and structure of the second, expanded edition of the Sochinenia during the period of the so-called thaw in Moscow and Berlin. However, it took another two decades for the successor to come to fruition ‘after long and difficult labour’.[19] This delay was primarily due to the still prevalent concerns within the party leadership, especially in the CPSU, that the MEGA had a ‘predominantly “scientific-academic” character’[20] and, furthermore, could undermine Marxist-Leninist theory, as it appeared that it might surpass the Lenin edition in volume—initially planned to include ‘50-55 volumes’.[21]
In 1965, a joint editorial commission was tasked with preparing the edition; it was not until ten years later that the first volume of the second MEGA was published. Gradually, even from a ‘Marxist-Leninist standpoint’, the understanding emerged that a ‘politically motivated withholding of works by Marx and Engels […] would be unscientific and politically foolish’.[22] Despite all opposition, the core principle of completeness could therefore be upheld. Regarding the structure, Riazanov’s basic division by work types was adopted, with preparatory works – summaries, excerpts, notebooks, individual notes, literature lists, and marginalia – being gathered into an additional section. Of course, this project, which, in many ways, followed scientific standards – the excellent philological work carried out in Berlin and Moscow was widely acknowledged by the international scholarly community – was inherently marked by a ‘tense relationship between Marxist-Leninist creed and scientific claim, editorial care and legitimising purposes’.[23]
3.3 Restart from 1990. – Whether the MEGA should continue after the end of the GDR and the Soviet Union was politically and scientifically controversial among those who could now make decisions under the new power structures. The successful transition to an ‘academic, party-independent edition’[24] was primarily due to the politically and scientifically interested sections of the German and international public – as expressed, for example, in an unprecedented support campaign by Japanese scholars.
The International Institute for Social History and the Karl Marx House of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, in agreement with the previous Berlin and Moscow editors, founded the International Marx-Engels Foundation in Amsterdam in October 1990, which acquired all editorial rights and has since continued the MEGA. In addition to the aforementioned institutions, the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences (BBAW), the Historical Research Centre of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation in Bonn, and the Russian State Archive for Social and Political History in Moscow are members. In 1993, following an international evaluation chaired by the philosopher Dieter Henrich, the German Science Council recommended its continuation. The editorial principles were revised, reducing the scope from 164 to 114 volumes, with, among other changes, the planned 40 volumes of Marx and Engels’ marginalia being abandoned. The previous structure was maintained: Works, Articles, Drafts (32 volumes) in Section I; Capital and Preparatory Works (15 volumes) in Section II; Correspondence (35 volumes) in Section III; and Excerpts, Notes, Marginalia (32 volumes) in Section IV.[25] From then on, the scientific responsibility rested with an international research network with editorial teams on three continents (in Europe, Japan, and the USA), whose communication centre is based at the working group located at the BBAW.
4. Achievements and Controversies. – The development of the second MEGA illustrates the indispensable foundational role of a critical collected edition, which adheres to the principles of absolute fidelity to the works and the goal of as complete an exploration as possible. The complete works, as reflected in the MEGA, appear as a ‘work in progress’, as a workshop within the context of its time, presenting not only the struggle with opposing directions but also the differences across the various periods of creation.
4.1 New material is made accessible in the second MEGA primarily through the extensive excerpt section, which documents the process of Marx’s studies in particular. This includes, for instance, the excerpts on natural sciences, geology, and chemistry, providing new insights into Marx’s views on the relationship between society and nature[26] and elements of an ecological Marxism in his work.[27] The material basis is also significantly expanded with regard to his journalistic and political writings (New York Tribune, historical excerpts, General Council minutes of the IWA), thus deepening our understanding of Marx’s political activity as the ‘intellectual head’ of the First International.
Particularly significant for reconstructing the work on Marx’s main opus is the Capital section, which includes all economic manuscripts from 1857 onwards, as well as Section IV (the Manchester, Paris, and London Notebooks). For the first time, Marx’s research process is comprehensively documented. In his 1926 preface to the popular edition of Capital Volume II, Kautsky refers to suspicions that Engels ‘did not always fully grasp Marx’s train of thought and did not always arrange and edit the manuscripts in accordance with it’ (xi). The complete publication provides fresh impetus to research and discussions on the division of contributions between Marx and Engels in Capital volumes II and III, on the first part of Volume I, on the manuscript and printed version of volume III, and on the unfinished overall plan of the main opus, as well as on broader questions concerning the genesis, scope, and contemporary relevance of Marx’s analysis of capitalism. Thanks to the publication of third-party letters to Marx and Engels, which are fully available up to the end of 1866 in Section III, the ‘authentic textual history’ of Capital can be ‘far better’ reconstructed ‘than was possible for earlier commentators and readers, who had to rely exclusively on the more or less subjective […] personal accounts of our two authors’.[28]
4.2 At the same time, the challenges arising from the differing needs for reading and using the texts become apparent. The decisive aspect here is the text-genetic principle, which forms a key foundation for any critical edition of works based on modern editorial standards. In preparing the second MEGA, inspiration was drawn from Goethe and Brecht philology: the primary aim is no longer to produce a text that comes as close as possible to the author’s intentions but rather to document the text in its genesis, from the earliest draft to the final version. Critical text revision, in the sense of correcting clearly erroneous passages, is carried out with great caution and with detailed accountability. Using a method primarily developed by Richard Sperl and Inge Taubert, the genesis of the work is presented from the first conceptual sketch to the final authorised version: the individual works are reproduced in their entirety in the textual section, based on the manuscript or the first print. Through variant listings in the scholarly apparatus, the text’s development can then be fully traced and understood.
The second MEGA has been accompanied, from the outset, by controversies surrounding this approach. Staff members of the National Research and Memorial Sites of Classical German Literature in Weimar did not view ‘documenting the genesis’ of individual texts as ‘an independent task of a historically critical complete edition’.[29] Beyond specific research into the philological history of the works, it is also possible to engage with and receive the works of Marx and Engels without full reliance on scrupulously prepared textual genesis and variant listings.
Marx and Engels’ aims would not be well served if their work were only carefully restored, thereby reducing Marxism to a ‘history of ideas focusing solely on the perpetuation and interpretation of Marx’s thoughts’.[30] The fact that, after 1990, editorial efforts concerning the literary legacy of Marx and Engels could be detached from previous political constellations and ideological commitments does not signify the end of the tension between scholarly and practically societal-critical receptions of the now academically processed work. Even its role as a central component of official ideology is not over, as editorial work and discussions in the PR China demonstrate. However, with the second MEGA, a solid foundation has been established, against which all formats and functions of the dissemination of Marx and Engels’ legacy must be measured.
Part II
1. China. – The Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe plays a significant role in the PR China, as evidenced by the extensive translation and research efforts, particularly since the 1990s. In this context, the MEGA1, initiated by David B. Riazanov, is primarily regarded as an object of historical research, whereas the MEGA2 has been largely translated into Chinese.
Early indications that the emergence of MEGA1 had already attracted interest in the Republic of China (1911–1949) can be found in 1933 in the leftist and Marxist-oriented journals Xianxiang Yuekan (Phenomenon Monthly) and Chuban Xiaoxi (Publication News). In 1939, Wu Enyu, under the supervision of Harold Joseph Laski, wrote a doctoral dissertation in London titled The Evolution of Marx’s Social and Political Ideas with Special Reference to the Period 1840–1848, in which he used volumes of MEGA1 as a source.[31] At that time, the writings of Marx and Engels were still largely unknown in China. The Manifesto was first published in its entirety in Chinese in 1920, while the first volume of Capital appeared only in 1936.[32] The original volumes of MEGA1 are available in only a few Chinese academic institutions and have been translated into Chinese only in fragments.
The systematic and planned translation and publication of the works of Marx and Engels began in 1956 under the direction of the Central Compilation and Translation Bureau (CCTB) in Beijing, which operated under the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC). By 1985, a 50-volume Chinese edition had been produced, primarily based on the second Russian edition of the Marx-Engels Collected Works. While this edition played a crucial role in the dissemination and study of Marx and Engels’ writings, it also exhibited linguistic and substantive weaknesses—particularly since almost all texts were translated from Russian rather than from the original languages.[33] In 1986, in order to provide a more comprehensive and faithful presentation of Marx and Engels’ works, the CPC Central Committee decided to produce a second Chinese edition. Following a comparison of various foreign editions of the Marx-Engels Collected Works, it was determined that this new edition would primarily be based on MEGA2. The project envisions a 70-volume edition, structured similarly to MEGA2 into four sections: Works, Capital and Related Manuscripts, Letters, and Excerpts. However, this second Chinese edition will be less extensive than MEGA2: the last two sections will be translated only partially (for instance, most letters addressed to Marx and Engels will be omitted), and the apparatus volumes will be excluded altogether. The first three volumes appeared in 1995, and by 2017, 28 volumes had been published.
In preparation for and during the development of the second Chinese edition, numerous articles on MEGA2—including its editorial plans, guidelines, and introductions to individual volumes—were translated into Chinese and published in journals of the CCTB dedicated to Marx-Engels or Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin studies. However, these journals were intended solely for internal use within the CCTB. In fact, these publications were essentially one journal whose changing titles reflected its evolving focus: Summarized and Translated Materials on the Works of Marxism-Leninism (1978–1981), Research Materials on Marxism-Leninism (1982–1989), Marx-Engels Studies (1989–1995), Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin Studies (1996–2006, formed by merging the previous journal with the formerly separate Lenin Studies and Stalin Studies), and, since 2006, Research Materials on Marxism.[34]
3. Political Background of the Rise of MEGA in China. – Only a small number of Chinese readers are able to study the works of Marx and Engels in the original German. Consequently, the translation of these texts from German into Chinese is essential for the dissemination of Marxism in China. However, this process goes far beyond mere linguistic conversion, as it also requires a deep understanding of the original texts and a careful analysis of the similarities and differences between Chinese and Western cultures. Mao Zedong had already recognized the significance of translation work during the Anti-Japanese War in Yan’an. He regarded the monk Xuanzang—who, during the reign of Emperor Taizong of Tang (7th century), translated numerous Buddhist scriptures into Chinese, primarily from Sanskrit—and the renowned writer and translator Lu Xun, an active figure in the May Fourth Movement that promoted the reception of Western culture in the Republic of China, as role models for Chinese translators.[35]
During the Seventh Party Congress (1945), Mao strongly criticised the prevailing tendency to undervalue translation work and emphasised that Marxism-Leninism would have remained unknown in China without the efforts of translators.[36]
In China, the translation of the works of the Marxist ‘classics’ has contributed to the transformation of theoretical and political discourses since the founding of the People’s Republic. Moreover, as Ngeow Chow Bing argues in his study on the CCTB, ‘research on Marxism’ remains important for the Communist Party of China, as ‘ideological’ justification continues to be a crucial component of decision-making processes.[37] ‘If political and economic reforms could be couched in terms that Marx would have approved of, these reforms could face weaker resistance. As the Party is unlikely to advocate Western-style democratisation, ideas of reform to be found in the writings of Marx and Engels, and even Lenin, this CCTB’s combination of Marxism and reformism could very well be significant.’[38] Ngeow sees the CCTB increasingly as a ‘political think tank’, whose leadership includes ‘well-known advocates for political reforms and democracy’.[39]
4. Research and Controversies. – The significance of the new Chinese edition of the works of Marx and Engels becomes evident in light of historical developments. From 1949 to 1978, Marxist research in the People’s Republic of China was largely based on the rigid framework of “Diamat”. With the publication of the new edition, efforts have increased to break free from the constraints of traditional dogmatic Marxist theory and to reinterpret Marx’s doctrine by incorporating previously inaccessible sources and hermeneutic methods.
A significant milestone in this development was marked by Zhang Yibing’s 1999 book Huidao Makesi (Back to Marx, 2014). Unlike any previous work in Chinese Marxist research, it underscored the importance of returning to the original texts. The book received considerable attention in China and, despite facing substantial criticism—some feared that a meticulous reconstruction of the texts might overshadow their practical significance[40]—the tendency towards textual research gained recognition and support, particularly among younger Marxist scholars.
In this context, Wang Dong posits a new foundation for Marx research (2006), where he rejects the three traditional interpretative models—namely, explaining Marx’s thinking from the perspectives of Engels, the Soviet Union, or the West—and instead advocates for an interpretation based on Marx’s own writings, while simultaneously establishing an independent Chinese Marxist research tradition. It is often lamented that there is a lack of original Chinese research on or based on MEGA2, in contrast to the large volume of translations of foreign works (which appear, for example, in the journals Foreign Theoretical Trends and Marxism and Reality). Moreover, the development and publication of MEGA2 itself largely takes place without Chinese involvement (while, for instance, Japanese researchers have long played an important role here). The first comprehensive Chinese study on the history of MEGA and its editorial principles is Zhao Yulan’s From MEGA1 to MEGA2: The Emergence and Development of the Marx-Engels Collected Works (2013).
The adoption of MEGA2 in China, however, has been contradictory. While Nie Jinfang and others argue that the orthodox reception can only be overcome, and a true understanding of Marxism gained, if some texts of Marx and Engels still unknown in Chinese—particularly manuscripts, excerpts, and notes—are translated and studied in greater depth,[41] others, such as Hu Daping,[42] call for Marxist research to focus more on the current developmental issues facing society. There are also those who question the MEGA2 project as a whole. Sun Leqiang (2012) criticises that both MEGA projects were tainted by Soviet ideology from the outset. With regard to MEGA2, there is also debate over the differences between the Dietz-MEGA and the Akademie-MEGA. Xia Fan points to the controversial classification of the Feuerbach manuscript within the DI complex, illustrating how the view of the Dietz-MEGA has shifted to the Akademie-MEGA, and how the latter deconstructs Marx’s legacy.[43]
The MEGA2 also sparks unrealistic expectations here and there, such as the belief that it will create a new, flawless image of Marx that will withstand all criticism of Marxism. Wei Xiaoping rejects such mystifications and calls for a realistic approach that acknowledges the fundamental functions of the MEGA2: to present the texts and the creative process of Marx and Engels in their entirety and with fidelity, thereby allowing for a scholarly approach to their work and making its unique value evident.[44]
(Translated by Kaan Kangal)
References for Part I
Dlubek, Rolf 1993, ‘Tatsachen und Dokumente aus einem unbekannten Abschnitt der Vorgeschichte der MEGA2 (1961-1965)’, Marx-Engels-Forschung. Neue Folge, 1993, pp. 41-63.
Dlubek, Rolf 1994, ‘Die Entstehung der zweiten Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe im Spannungsfeld von legitimatorischem Auftrag und editorischer Sorgfalt’, MEGA-Studien, 1994, Heft 1, pp. 60-106.
Engels, Frederick 2001a, ‘Engels to Karl Kautsky. 29 June 1891’, in Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 49, London: Lawrence & Wishart, pp. 209-212.
Engels, Frederick 2001b, ‘Engels to Karl Kautsky. 28 January 1889’, in Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 48, London: Lawrence & Wishart, pp. 257-9.
Engels, Frederick 2004, ‘Engels to Richard Fischer. 15 April 1895’, in Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 50, London: Lawrence & Wishart, pp. 496-8.
Grandjonc Jacques and Jürgen Rojahn 1996, ‘Der revidierte Plan der MarxEngels-Gesamtausgabe’, MEGA-Studien, 1995, Heft 2, pp. 62-89
Griese, Anneliese 2006, ‘Die geologischen, mineralogischen und agrochemischen Exzerpte von Marx im Vergleich mit seinen chemischen Manuskripten. Ein Beitrag zu ihrer wissenschaftshistorischen Einordnung’, Marx-Engels-Forschung. Neue Folge, 2006, pp. 31-48.
Haug, Wolfgang Fritz 1983, ‘Krise oder Dialektik des Marxismus’, in Wolfgang Fritz Haug, Pluraler Marxismus. Beiträge zur politischen Kultur, Band. 1, Berlin/West 1985, pp. 22-51.
Hecker, Rolf 1993, ‘Hans Stein – wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter und Korrespondent des Moskauer Marx-Engels-Instituts (1925-1929). Teil 1: Zur Mitarbeit an der MEGA’, Marx-Engels-Forschung. Neue Folge, 1993, pp. 17-40.
Kautsky, Karl 1926, ‘Vorwort’, in Karl Marx, Das Kapital. Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie, Bd. 2: Der Zirkulationsprozess des Kapitals, Berlin: Dietz.
Langkau, Götz 1983, ‘Marx-Gesamtausgabe – Dringendes Parteiinteresse oder dekorativer Zweck? Ein Wiener Editionsplan zum 30. Todestag. Briefe und Auszüge’, International Review of Social History, 28:1, pp. 105-42.
Lohmann, Hans-Martin 1999, ‘Säkulares Unternehmen. Ein überfälliger Akt historischer Gerechtigkeit: Die Fortsetzung der Marx/Engels Gesamtausgabe’, Die Zeit, 25.2.1999.
Mis’kevič, Larisa 2013, ‘Wie kamen ökonomische Manuskripte von Marx nach Moskau?’, Marx-Engels-Jahrbuch, 2012/13, pp. 7-21.
Rjasanow, David B. 1997, ‘Referat Rjazanovs über die Aufgaben des Marx-Engels-Instituts 1930/31’, Marx-Engels-Forschung, Sonderband 1, pp. 108-24 (zit. Referat).
Röhr, Werner 2014, ‘Einleitung’, in Werner Röhr (ed,), Karl Schmückle, Begegnungen mit Don Quijote. Ausgewählte Schriften, Hamburg: Argument, pp. I-LXXVIII.
Rokitjanskij, Jakov G. 2001, ‘Die ›Säuberung‹ – Übernahme des Rjazanov-Instituts durch Adoratskij’, Marx-Engels-Forschung, Sonderband 3, pp. 13-22.
Saito, Koheit 2016, Natur gegen Kapital. Marx’ Ökologie in seiner unvollendeten Kritik des Kapitalismus, Frankfurt am Main: Campus. 2016.
Vollgraf, Carl Erich 1993, ‘Nochmals zur Kommentierung in der zweiten MEGA. Fallstudien’, Marx-Engels-Forschung. Neue Folge, 1993, pp. 69-81.
Vollgraf, Carl Erich 2017, ‘Marx auf dem Trampelpfad. Zur Plantreue eines großen Sozialisten (1844-1862)’, Zeitschrift für marxistische Erneuerung, 111, 28:1, pp. 33-54.
Vollgraf, Carl Erich, Richard Sperl and Rolf Hecker (eds.) 2000, Erfolgreiche Kooperation: Das Frankfurter Institut für Sozialforschung und das Moskauer Marx-Engels-Institut (1924-1928), Marx-Engels-Forschung, Sonderband 2.
References for Part II
Bing Ngeow Chow 2015, ‘From Translation House to Think Tank: The Changing Role of the Chinese Communist Party’s Central Compilation and Translation Bureau’, Journal of Contemporary China 93: 24, pp. 554-72.
Hu Daping 2003, ‘Ye lun Makesi zhuyi zhexue de yanjiu fangfa yu xueshu guifan. Yu Nie Jinfang shangque’ (On the Research Methods and Academic Standards of Marxist Philosophy. A Response to Nie Jinfang), Zhexue dongtai (Philosophical Trends), 2: pp. 8-12.
Mao Zedong 1993-9, Mao Zedong wenji (Mao Zedong Works), 8 vols., Beijing: Research Centre for Documentation at the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China.
Nie Jinfang 2005, Qingli yu chaoyue. Chongdu Makesi wenben de yizhi, jichu yu fangfa (Purification and Transcendence. Intent, Foundations, and Methods of Rereading Marx’s Texts), Beijing: Beijing Shifan Daxue Chubanshe.
Nie Jinfang 2008, ‘Jinnianlai guonei Makesi wenben yanjiu de huigu yu xingsi. Yanjiu baogao’ (Review and Reflection on Marx Text Research in China in Recent Years. A Research Report), Zhongguo zhexue nianjian (Philosophical Yearbook of China), Beijing, pp. 134-47.
Sun Leqiang 2012, ‘Zai xueshu xing yu yishi xingtai zhi jian. MEGA dui woguo Makesi zhuyi zhexue yanjiu de yingxiang jiqi jiazhi pinggu’ (Between Scholarly Quality and Ideology. On the Influence of the MEGA on Chinese Research in Marxist Philosophy), Jianghai xuekan, 3, pp. 72-76.
Wang Dong 2006, Makesi xue xin dianji. Makesi zhexue xin jiedu de fangfalun daoyan (A New Foundation for Marx Research. A Methodological Introduction to the New Interpretation of Marx’s Philosophy), Beijing: Beijing Daxue Chubanshe.
Wei Xiaoping 2013, ‘Makesi Engesi quanji lishi kaozheng ban (MEGA2) zai guonei de fanxiang yu sikao’ (The MEGA2 in China: Echo and Reflection), Xin shiye (Expanding Horizons), 4, pp. 103-06.
Xia Fan 2007, ‘Xueyuanban MEGA yu xifang makesi xue de shentou’ (The Academy MEGA and the Penetration of Western Marx Research), Nanjing shehui kexue (Social Sciences in Nanjing), 10, pp. 49-52.
Xy Yang and Lin Fangfang 2017, ‘Übersetzung und Rezeption des Marx’schen ›Kapital‹ in China (1899-2017)’, in: Zeitschrift für marxistische Erneuerung, 111, 28, pp. 73-81.
Zhang Yibing 1999/2014, Huidao Makesi (Back to Marx), Nanjing: Jiangsu Renmin Chubanshe (English edition Back to Marx. Changes of Philosophical Discourse in the Context of Economics, Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen).
Zhang Yibing 2015, ‘Lun lishi weiwu zhuyi de wu. Zhuishu Wu Enyu jiaoshou ›Makesi de zhengzhi sixiang‹’ (On the Material of Historical Materialism. Tracing Professor Wu Enyu’s Marx’s Political Thought), Zhongguo gaoxiao shehui kexue, Beijing, 3, pp. 15-23.
Zhao Yulan 2013, Cong MEGA1 dao MEGA2 de licheng: Makesi Engesi quanji lishi kaozheng ban de dansheng yu fazhan (From MEGA1 to MEGA2: The Birth and Development of the Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe), Beijing: Zhongguo Shehuikexue Chubanshe.
Zhao Yulan 2016, ‘MEGA2 in China’, in: Marx-Engels-Forschung. Neue Folge, 2014/15, Hamburg 2016, pp. 284-97.
Translated by Kaan Kangal
© Berliner Institut für kritische Theorie (InkriT)
[1] This is a translation of the entry ‘MEGA’ in the Historical-Critical Dictionary of Marxism (Historisch-Kritisches Wörterbuch des Marxismus [HKWM]), vol. 9/I (Hamburg: Argument, 2018), pp. 388-404.
[2] Lohmann 1999
[3] Engels 2001a, p. 210. See also Engels 2004, pp. 497-8.
[4] Engels 2001b, pp. 258-9.
[5] Volume 24, 1896.
[6] Volume 30, 1897.
[7] Quoted in Langkau 1983, p. 127.
[8] Hecker 1993, p. 18, fn. 5.
[9] Cf. Vollgraf et al. 2000.
[10] MEGA1 vol. I.3 (1932); Kröner edition in 1932.
[11] MEGA1 vol. I.5 (1932/33).
[12] Cf. Mis’kevič 2013, p. 7.
[13] Rokitjanskij 2001, p. 14.
[14] Referat, p. 111.
[15] Referat, p. 113.
[16] Rokitjanskij 2001, p. 20.
[17] Cf. Röhr 2014, p. XXI.
[18] MECW, vol. 15, pp. 25-96.
[19] Dlubek 1993, p. 41.
[20] Dlubek 1994, p. 70.
[21] Cf. ‘Ergebnisse des Meinungsaustauschs der Abteilungsleiter über die MEGA vom 29. Juni 1964’ (The Results of the Exchange of Opinions among Department Heads on the MEGA from 29 June 1964), in Dlubek 1993, p. 59.
[22] Dlubek 1993, p. 45.
[23] Dlubek 1994, p. 100.
[24] Vollgraf 1993, p. 69.
[25] Cf. Grandjonc/Rojahn 1995.
[26] Cf. Griese 2006.
[27] Cf. Saito 2016.
[28] Vollgraf 2017, p. 54.
[29] Quoted in Dlubek 1994, p. 89.
[30] Haug 1983/1985, p. 25.
[31] Cf. Zhang 2015, p. 15f.
[32] Xy and Lin 2017, pp. 73-4.
[33] Cf. Xy and Lin 2017, pp. 77-8.
[34] Cf. Zhao 2016, p. 285-6.
[35] Mao 1993-9 (Letter to He Kaifeng on Newspapers and the Question of Translation Work, 15 September 1942), vol. 2, p. 441.
[36] Mao 1993-9 (Resolution of the Seventh Congress of the CPC), vol. 3, p. 418.
[37] Bing 2015, p. 572.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Ibid., p. 554.
[40] Cf. Nie 2008.
[41] Nie 2005.
[42] Hu 2003.
[43] Xia 2007, p. 50f.
[44] Wei 2013.
