A Dual Reflection on Capitalism and Socialism by Foreign Left-Wing Scholars in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic

On April 8, 2020, Bernie Sanders, who holds democratic socialist ideas, announced his withdrawal from the Democratic Party’s U.S. presidential primary. This event occurred during the massive outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States and is thought-provoking. The withdrawal linked socialism, the public health crisis, and capital-dominated America: even in the face of a raging plague, America’s choice remained capital first. All intellectuals with a conscience had to consider a public issue: under the backdrop of a major pandemic, will the Western capitalist ideology currently led by Europe and America lead human society toward an abyss or redemption? The political imagination of Western left-wing intellectuals was reactivated. Faced with the enormous uncertainty confronting humanity as a whole, a new political and economic order was unanimously summoned anew: “Global communism or the law of the jungle, the coronavirus forces us to make a choice.”[1]1 The original text cites this as a quotation from an unspecified source, likely a left-wing intellectual or activist statement during the pandemic.

2020年4月8日，具有民主社会主义理念的伯尼·桑德斯（Bernie Sanders）宣布退出民主党的美国总统候选人初选。这一事件发生在新冠疫情在美国大爆发期间，耐人寻味。退选将社会主义、公共卫生危机和资本主导的美国连接在了一起：即使面对瘟疫肆虐，美国的选择仍然是资本优先。一切有良知的知识分子不得不思考这样一个公共性议题：在重大疫情背景之下，当前欧美所主导的西方资本主义意识形态将带领人类社会走向深渊还是救赎？西方左翼知识分子的政治想象力被再次激活。面对人类普遍遭遇的巨大不确定性，一种崭新的政治和经济秩序被异口同声地重新召唤出来：“全球共产主义抑或丛林法则，新冠病毒迫使我们做出抉择。”[1]

I. The Crisis of Neoliberalism and the Possibility of Transformation

一、新自由主义危机与转型的可能性

If the 1986 nuclear disaster, the “Chernobyl moment” for the Soviet Union, became a pretext for the Western world to criticize Soviet socialism, then in 2020 the Western world’s general entrapment in the vortex of the COVID-19 pandemic has become the “Chernobyl moment” for neoliberalism, and it is sounding the death knell of neoliberalism.

如果说1986年的核灾难带给苏联的“切尔诺贝利时刻”成为西方世界批评苏联社会主义的口实的话，那么2020年西方世界普遍陷入新冠病毒造成的疫情旋涡无法自拔则成了新自由主义的“切尔诺贝利时刻”，而它正在敲响新自由主义的丧钟。

(1) The Crisis of Consumerism

（一）消费主义的危机

David Harvey argues that the COVID-19 pandemic, in an unforeseen manner, has caused the capital circulation and turnover of global capitalism to fall into hemorrhagic shock, because “this neoliberal model increasingly relies on virtual capital and the enormous expansion of money supply and debt creation.”[2]2 The original text cites David Harvey, but the specific work is not identified in the paragraph. The production and demand chains of the entire society have been pressed to a pause, which instead allows us to see more rationally the deep crisis of productivism and consumerism under the dominance of capital. In fact, 70-80% of the main driving force behind contemporary capitalist economies’ ability to still complete capital circulation and accumulate profits depends on consumerism. The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic “has caused the total collapse of the core of the dominant form of consumerism in the richest countries. The spiral of endless capital accumulation is collapsing inward from one part of the world. … It is testing what Marx called ‘overconsumption and mad consumption, thus heralding the terrible and monstrous collapse of the entire system.’”[2]2 The original text cites David Harvey, but the specific work is not identified in the paragraph. Harvey focuses on assessing the possibility of the collapse of the global capital system from the perspective of the destruction of the contemporary capitalist economic ecological jungle shaped by neoliberalism. In this ecological jungle, consumerism provides the fertile soil for capital circulation and turnover, and many frontier models of “contemporary capitalist consumerism” cannot operate under current conditions, because “COVID-19 is not a violent fluctuation, but a powerful blow to the core of the dominant form of consumerism in the richest countries. The spiral of endless capital accumulation is collapsing inward from one place in the world to another.”[2]2 The original text cites David Harvey, but the specific work is not identified in the paragraph. However, some scholars believe that Harvey’s analysis of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the capitalist economy solely from the perspective of capital circulation is a kind of “so-called ‘underconsumption crisis theory’ that Marx had already criticized.”[3]3 The original text cites an unnamed critic of Harvey’s position. That is to say, judging whether the COVID-19 pandemic has brought a fundamental transformation to capitalism still requires a return to the classical analytical paradigm of Marxism—the change in the contradiction between productive forces and relations of production. From the perspective of productive forces and relations of production (especially the form of ownership of the means of production), the COVID-19 pandemic has not touched the existing private ownership and wage-labor relations. Although a collapse is far from possible, the consumerism crisis in the neoliberal world caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has already shown a decline in the capitalist economy. This decline presents a general morbid appearance of a sunset-like social system dominated by capital, to the extent that Habermas calls for: “We must strive to abolish neoliberalism.” Habermas’s call is evidently being confirmed by the facts unfolding in Europe: “The EU cares more about the survival of financial institutions and multinational corporations than about the safety of the people, once again proving it is a failed political entity. The EU has left (except Italy’s) 27 member states to fend for themselves, and has never even called on all countries to jointly support Italy, which is in dire straits.”[4]4 The original text cites Andres Piqueras, but the specific work is not identified in the paragraph.

大卫·哈维（David Harvey）认为，新冠疫情以令人始料未及的方式使全球资本主义的资本循环和周转陷入失血休克，因为“这种新自由主义模式越来越依赖于虚拟资本以及货币供应和债务创造的巨大扩展”[2]，整个社会的生产和需求链条都被按下了暂停键，这反而使我们能够更理性地看到资本主导下的生产主义和消费主义的深层危机。事实上，当代资本主义经济之所以仍然能够完成资本的循环并获得利润的积累，其主要动力的70%-80%依赖于消费主义推动，新冠疫情意外事件的出现“造成最富裕国家中占主导地位的消费主义形式核心的全能崩溃。无休止的资本积累的螺旋形式正在从世界的一部分向内部崩溃。……它正在检验马克思所说的‘过度消费和疯狂消费，从而预示着整个体系的可怕和怪异的崩溃’”[2]。哈维着重从新自由主义塑造的当代资本主义经济生态丛林的被破坏来评估全球资本体系崩溃之可能性。在这片生态丛林中，消费主义是提供资本循环和周转的丰厚土壤，而“当代资本主义消费主义”的许多前沿模式在当前的条件下无法运作，因为“新冠肺炎并不是一次剧烈波动，而是对主导最富裕国家的消费主义形式的核心的强力撞击，无止境的资本积累的螺旋形式正在从世界的一个地方到另一个地方向内坍塌”[2]。不过也有学者认为，哈维仅从资本流通的角度分析新冠疫情对资本主义经济的影响，是一种“早已被马克思批判过的所谓‘消费不足危机论’”[3]。也就是说，判断新冠疫情是否对资本主义带来根本性转变，仍然要回归到马克思主义的经典分析范式——生产力与生产关系的矛盾变化中来，而从生产力和生产关系（特别是生产资料所有制形式）来看，新冠疫情并未触动现有私有制与雇佣劳动关系。尽管崩溃还远不可能，但是新冠疫情造成的新自由主义世界的消费主义危机已然使资本主义经济呈现出颓势。这颓势呈现出一种资本主导的社会体制的夕阳西下的总体性病态面目，以至于哈贝马斯呼吁：“我们必须努力废除新自由主义。”哈贝马斯的呼吁显而易见地被正在欧洲发生的事实印证着：“比起民众的安危，欧盟更关心金融机构和跨国企业的生死存亡，再一次印证了它是一个失败的政治实体。欧盟任由（除意大利以外的）27个成员国自生自灭，甚至从未呼吁各国共同支援身陷囹圄的意大利。”[4]

(2) From Politics to Ecology: A Preview of a Greater Crisis

（二）从政治到生态：更大的危机的预演

The crisis caused by consumerism to the global capitalist economy is merely a preview of a greater crisis. Within the governance scope of neoliberalism, broader inequalities will continue to expand. The Spanish flu of 1918 caused the death of 60% of the poor living in Punjab, Mumbai, and other parts of western India. The same thing is happening again 100 years later. In regions with vast wealth gaps such as India, Africa, and Latin America, malnutrition due to food shortages and poor public health conditions in slums causing high infection rates and high incidence of severe illness have made these areas hard-hit by the virus. Thomas Piketty points out that the coronavirus has exposed the long-standing enormous inequality in human society, and unequal economic status has fueled the deadly spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, exacerbating the difficulty for countries with excessively polarized social wealth gaps to control the pandemic.[5]5 The original text cites Thomas Piketty, but the specific work is not identified in the paragraph. Antonio Negri believes that neoliberalism has fully exposed its political defects during the pandemic, which will activate a series of anti-neoliberal struggles in the foreseeable future.[6]6 The original text cites Antonio Negri, but the specific work is not identified in the paragraph. Left-wing scholars generally believe that even if the systemic decline of the neoliberal governance model can be avoided, the decline of Western democracy in the post-pandemic era will be inevitable. Noam Chomsky views the crisis brought by the COVID-19 pandemic as a “crisis of civilization” caused by barbaric neoliberalism.[7]7 The original text cites Noam Chomsky, but the specific work is not identified in the paragraph. The ideology of the free market and corporations prevents virus control from entering the black hole of profit; public health is a “consumable” cost of production. The wavering of European and American governments between resuming work and lockdowns shows that in the systemic coordination of social governance, the government and corporations are locked in an indecisive game. The raging virus will ultimately prompt the public to rethink what kind of world we truly need. Andres Piqueras’s view precisely responds to this question: “We must by no means turn a blind eye to China’s situation. Cuba’s medicines (especially interferon alpha-2b) opened China’s path to fighting the pandemic. China has shown us how a ‘people are equal’ planned economic system can defeat an unknown virus in the shortest time. Now, medical rescue teams from China, Cuba, and Venezuela have arrived in Italy to help them overcome the pandemic. Spain has also realized that we need help from these countries.”[4]4 The original text cites Andres Piqueras, but the specific work is not identified in the paragraph. After controlling the domestic spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, China and Cuba began to provide international aid, which is a genuine internationalist spirit that breaks down ideological barriers and national interest divides. Yet the Western world has still not made a serious assessment of the systems and civilized behaviors of socialist countries like China and Cuba during the crisis, but instead has adopted a beggar-thy-neighbor political strategy of shifting domestic conflicts abroad, especially onto China. On the one hand, this delays the rational and long-term measures for the Western world to effectively respond to the COVID-19 pandemic; on the other hand, it also drains and suffocates the ideological leadership of the neoliberal system dominated by Europe and America.

消费主义对全球资本主义经济造成的危机仅仅是更大的危机的一个预演。新自由主义的治理范围内，更大范围的不平等将继续扩展。发生在1918年的西班牙大流感造成了居住在旁遮普、孟买和印度西部其他地区60%的贫民的死亡。同样的事情正在100年后的今天再次发生，印度、非洲和拉美等贫富差距悬殊的地区，由于食物短缺造成的营养不良、贫民窟的恶劣公共卫生条件造成的高感染率和重症病高发率，使该地区成为病毒肆虐的重灾区。托马斯·皮凯蒂（Thomas Piketty）指出，新冠病毒暴露人类社会长期的巨大不平等，不平等的经济地位对新冠疫情的致命性传播起到了推波助澜的作用，加剧了社会财富两极分化差距过大国家控制疫情的难度[5]。奈格里（Antonio Negri）认为，新自由主义在疫情中已经将自身政治上的缺陷暴露无遗，这将在可预见的未来激活一系列反新自由主义的斗争[6]。左翼学者普遍认为，即使新自由主义治理模式的系统性衰落可以避免，但是后疫情时代西方民主的衰退将不可避免，乔姆斯基（Noam Chomsky）将新冠疫情带来的危机视为由野蛮的新自由主义带来的“文明的危机”[7]，自由市场和公司的意识形态避免将病毒控制引入利润的黑洞，公众的健康是“可消耗”的生产成本。欧洲和美国政府在复工和隔离之间摇摆不定，表明在社会治理的系统性协调方面，政府和公司二者处在难分胜负的博弈之中。病毒的肆虐最终将促使大众重新思考我们究竟需要什么样的世界？皮凯拉斯（Andres Piqueras）的观点正好回应了这样的问题：“我们绝不该对中国的情况视而不见。古巴的药品（特别是干扰素α-2b）开启了中国的抗疫之路。中国向我们展示了‘人人平等’的计划性经济体制如何在最短的时间内击败未知的病毒。现在，来自中国、古巴和委内瑞拉的医疗救援队已经到达意大利，帮助他们战胜疫情。西班牙也已经认识到，我们需要这些国家的帮助。”[4]中国和古巴在新冠疫情的国内传播被控制之后，开始着手提供国际援助，这正是一种破除了意识形态藩篱和国家利益鸿沟的真正的国际主义精神。而西方世界至今没有对危机中中国和古巴等社会主义国家的制度和文明行为做出认真的评估，却依然采取了将国内矛盾焦点转移到国外，特别是转移到中国身上的以邻为壑的政治策略。这一方面会迟滞西方世界有效应对新冠疫情的理智和长远举措，另一方面也在透支和窒息欧美主导的新自由主义体系的意识形态领导力。

Political crisis is faintly revealing a grim prospect, while ecological crisis has long shown its ferocious face. “Excessive deforestation and the large-scale planting of cash crops (rubber, oil palm, coffee, or cocoa) in plantations have destroyed the balance of ecosystems and biodiversity, thereby leading to the spread of viruses to communities. Excessive occupation of agricultural land has led to excessive deforestation, and urbanization and endless urban expansion have likewise accelerated the pace of deforestation, destroying the living environment of flora and fauna. Finally, through the population flows of globalization, the economic exchanges between multinational corporations, and the siphon effect of metropolises, individual regional epidemics are rapidly pushed toward global pandemics.”[8]8 See note [8] in the original text. Capital and the free market have widened the metabolic rift between society and nature, and the rampage of the novel coronavirus is precisely the demon summoned from this fissure. Professor Chen Xueming reflects on two popular views both domestically and internationally in relation to the epidemic and ecology — “humanized nature” and “people-centeredness.” He argues that “humanized nature” in practice only emphasizes humanization, without fully valuing nature, and that “when facing nature, one must necessarily set a boundary for one’s own actions, truly clarifying what can be done and what cannot, rather than endlessly exaggerating one’s own power”[9]9 See note [9] in the original text.; correspondingly, “people-centeredness” is not centered on people’s material desires but on people’s all-round development, and healthy living conditions and freedom from public health crises are precisely the proper meaning of “people-centeredness.” Wang Yuchen echoes Chen Xueming’s view, arguing that a distinction must be made between “needs” and “desires”; the consumerist ideology driven by capital replaces needs with desires, “encouraging all individuals to place consumption activities at the very core of their daily routines, while simultaneously intensifying a sense of dissatisfaction with every level of consumption already achieved”[10]10 See note [10] in the original text.(P115).

政治危机正在隐隐透露出晦暗的前景，而生态危机早已面露狰狞。“森林的过度砍伐和种植园（橡胶、油棕、咖啡或可可）中经济作物的大量种植破坏了生态系统的平衡和生物多样性，从而导致了病毒向社区的传播。农业用地的过度占用导致了森林砍伐过度，城市化和无休止的城市扩张同样也加快了森林砍伐的速度，破坏了动植物的生存环境。最后，通过全球化的人口流动，跨国公司之间的经济往来，大都市的虹吸效应，迅速将个别区域性流行病推向全球性流行病。”[8]资本与自由市场扩大了社会与自然的物质变换断裂（metabolic rift），新冠病毒的肆虐正是从这个裂缝中被召唤出来的恶魔。陈学明教授就疫情与生态的关系反思了两个国内外普遍流行的观点——“人化自然”和“以人为本”。他认为，“人化自然”在实践上仅仅侧重了人化，而没有充分重视自然，“在面对自然时，就必然会为自己的行为确立一个界限，真正明确哪些是可以做的，哪些是不可以做的，而不是一味地无限夸大自己的力量”[9]；而相应的，“以人为本”不是以人的物质欲望为本，而是以人的全面发展为本，健康的生活条件和免于公共卫生危机则正是“以人为本”的应有之义。王雨辰呼应了陈学明的观点，认为要区分“需要”和“欲望”，资本所驱动的消费主义意识形态，将需要替换为欲望，“鼓励一切个人把消费活动置于他们日常活动的最核心地位，并同时增强对每种已经达到了的消费水平的不满足的感觉”[10](P115）。

Thus, from politics to ecology, we are facing the prospect of a larger and broader crisis. As Marx put it, “Productive forces develop to a stage where the productive forces and means of intercourse generated under existing relations can only cause disaster; these productive forces are no longer forces of production but forces of destruction (machinery and money).”[11]11 See note [11] in the original text.(P542) The novel coronavirus further drives this destructive force to turn back on human society, thereby “plunging us into a postmodern barbarism. To escape this state, we must, like many socialist movements, re-explore paths other than the state and capital, creating an unknown world that transcends disaster capitalism.”[8]8 See note [8] in the original text.

于是，从政治到生态，我们正在面临一场更大更广泛危机的前景，正如马克思所言，“生产力在其发展的过程中达到这样的阶段，在这个阶段上产生出来的生产力和交往手段在现存关系下只能造成灾难，这种生产力已经不是生产的力量，而是破坏的力量（机器和货币）”[11](P542）。新冠病毒进一步促使这种破坏性力量反噬人类社会，从而“使我们陷入后现代的野蛮状态。为了摆脱这种状态，我们必须像许多社会主义运动一样，重新探索国家和资本以外的其他道路，创造出超越灾难资本主义的未知世界”[8]。

(III) The Beginning of Transformation: Left or Right

（三）转型的开始：向左还是向右

According to assessments by public health experts, the COVID-19 pandemic will persist worldwide for months or even years. This is a disheartening scientific prediction, as neoliberalism faces its first non-war external threat. If the Cold War allowed neoliberals to celebrate victory over their socialist rival, today’s Western world may not have the same opportunity to declare victory. After the global circulation process of capitalism is tragically interrupted, everyone, whether left or right, faces the same naked fact of life — survival. Left or right? Pikeras raises a question that the Western world pretends not to see: “If the pandemic truly leads to the paralysis of the capitalist economy, should we not ask ourselves: what kind of economy do we actually have? Can competition and self-interest shield humanity from pandemics, wars, famines, and climate change, and save us from self-destruction? The answer is certainly no. Perhaps it is time to look at China, which shows us the feasibility of another path.”[4]4 The original text cites Andres Piqueras, but the specific work is not identified in the paragraph. Wang Qingfeng makes a similar judgment from the perspective of biopolitics: capital disregards life during public health crises, even attempting to abandon care for the elderly and the weak; capital’s predatory practices accelerate the frequent occurrence of “states of exception,” from violent terrorist attacks in Europe in recent years to this sudden global infectious disease, all showing such a trend. Therefore, “in the social governance of the state of exception under the COVID-19 pandemic, Western societies mainly adopted a liberal laissez-faire governance technique, making strict control difficult to achieve and failing to produce effective management results. For China, behind the governance measures lies a collectivist overall social governance at work; it is precisely because of the support of this overall social governance that the epidemic could be rapidly controlled.”[12]12 See note [12] in the original text.

根据公共卫生专家的评估，新冠疫情将在全世界持续数月甚至数年，这是一个令人沮丧的科学预言，新自由主义第一次面对非战争的外部威胁。如果说冷战使新自由主义者欢呼战胜了它的社会主义对手的话，那么今日的西方世界很可能没有机会宣布同样的胜利。资本主义的全球循环过程被悲剧性地中断之后，每一个人，无论左派还是右派都面对着同样的赤裸裸的生命事实——生存，向左还是向右？皮凯拉斯提出了被西方世界假装看不到的问题：“如果疫情真的会导致资本主义经济的瘫痪，我们是否应该扪心自问：我们所拥有的究竟是什么样的经济？竞争和私利能使人类免受疫情、战争、饥饿和气候变化的侵袭，摆脱自我毁灭的结局吗？答案当然是否定的。也许是时候关注一下中国了，他们向我们展示了另一条道路的可行性。”[4]王庆丰从生命政治的角度做出了相似的判断：资本在公共卫生危机中漠视生命，甚至试图放弃对老者和弱者的照料；资本的竭泽而渔加速了“例外状态”的频繁发生，从欧洲近年来的暴力恐怖袭击到这次突如其来的全球性传染病都呈现出这样一个趋势。因此，“在新冠疫情下例外状态的社会治理，西方社会主要采用了自由主义的放任的治理术，在应对新冠疫情时严格管控很难实现，无法收到良好的管理的效果。对于中国而言，治理手段背后都有一个集体主义的社会总体治理在起作用，正是有了这种社会总体治理在背后做支撑，疫情可以得到迅速管控”[12]。

In Žižek’s view, the COVID-19 pandemic announces the beginning of the second half of the “love story” between the West and capitalism. If in the first half this love was tender and inseparable, then the second half begins with infidelity and betrayal. Although the Trump administration tried to sustain this love by giving each adult citizen a $1,000 check, Žižek mocks: “This is communism born of the need for bare survival. Unfortunately, it is precisely a replica of the so-called ‘war communism’ of the Soviet Union in 1918.”[13]13 See note [13] in the original text. Ajit Singh proposes that the COVID-19 pandemic will make it possible to replace the US-led neoliberal order. Any honest participant in the international community can see that “in this global struggle, Washington has not adopted any form of solidarity or cooperation, but has redoubled its efforts to deploy its new Cold War strategy, attempting to shift the blame for failure onto China and turning to naked racism. Behind Washington’s deepening hostility toward China lies a deep-seated anxiety, increasingly evident to countries around the world and even to the most ardent defenders of the American system: China’s state-led system is surpassing American capitalism and gradually legitimizing an alternative to the US-led neoliberal international order.”[14]14 See note [14] in the original text. Aleksandr Buzgalin explicitly proposes an alternative, calling for planned, non-market organized actions by the state and civic groups to support public systems such as healthcare, social security, and infrastructure, and more importantly, to “follow the path of formulating clear, transparent, and consistently applicable new rules to achieve universal public interest. In this regard, the principle of inviolability of private property and the interests involved in maximizing profits must be relegated to a secondary position.”[15]15 See note [15] in the original text.

在齐泽克眼中，新冠疫情宣布了西方与资本主义的“爱情故事”下半部的开始。如果在上半部中，这场爱情是缠绵和如胶似漆的话，那么下半部则开始了不忠和众叛亲离。尽管特朗普政府在用给每个成年公民发1000美元的支票的方式来继续维持这段爱情，但是齐泽克嘲讽：“这是受赤裸生存（bare survival）的需求所迫而产生的共产主义。很不幸的是，这恰是1918年前苏联所谓‘战时共产主义’的翻版。”[13]阿吉特·辛格（Ajit Singh）则提出新冠疫情将使替代以美国为首的新自由主义秩序成为可能，任何一个诚实的国际社会的参与者都看到，“在这场全球斗争中，华盛顿没有采取任何形式的团结与合作，而是加倍努力部署其新的冷战战略，试图把失败的责任推到中国身上，并转向赤裸裸的种族主义。华盛顿对中国的敌意日益加深的背后，是一种根深蒂固的焦虑，这种焦虑对世界各国乃至对美国体制最热心的捍卫者来说越来越明显：中国国家主导的体制正在超越美国的资本主义，并逐渐使替代以美国为首的新自由主义国际秩序合法化”[14]。布兹加林（Aleksandr Buzgalin）则明确提出了替代方案，要求由国家和公民团体有计划地采取非市场的组织化行动，支持医疗保健、社会保障和基础设施等公共系统，更重要的是，要“遵循制定明确、透明、一贯适用的新规则的道路，以实现普遍的公众利益。在这方面，私有财产不可侵犯的原则以及为实现利润最大化所涉及的利益必须被置于次要地位”[15]。

Left or right? This is both a choice of survival and a choice between “communism” and “barbarism.”

向左还是向右？这既是一个生存的选择，同时也是一个“共产主义”与“野蛮主义”之间的选择。

II. Rebuilding Order: Socialist or Communist Imagination

二、重建秩序：社会主义或共产主义想象

If the COVID-19 pandemic has fully exposed the hypocrisy of liberal ideology, then amid this global crisis, Marxism once again reveals the radiance of its truth and profound historical insight. It can be said that the COVID-19 pandemic is both a common crisis for all humanity and a historical opportunity to re-enlighten the working people of the world with communist discourse.

如果说新冠疫情彻底暴露了自由主义意识形态的虚伪性的话，那么在这场席卷全球的危机之中，马克思主义则再次显示出其真理的光芒和深刻的历史洞察力。可以说，新冠疫情既是全人类的共同危机，同时也是用共产主义话语再次启蒙全世界劳动者的历史契机。

(I) The Justification of Injustice: The Illusion of Equality and Its Consequences

（一）不正义的正义化：平等的幻象及其后果

Capitalism promised the world equality and prosperity, but what it has brought is injustice and poverty. The Intercept website listed the five areas in New York City with the highest and lowest rates of positive COVID-19 tests, respectively: in the five areas with the highest positive test rates, the per capita annual income was between $17,595 and $35,141; in the five areas with the lowest positive test rates, the per capita annual income was approximately between $106,702 and $147,547. Yet the paradox of the matter is that, under the intervention of the novel coronavirus, the unjust system of social production and wealth distribution ultimately receives a just verdict. In other words, the huge gap of wealth disparity between social classes overlaps with social risk factors, forming an exponential effect that amplifies risk, and ultimately this inequality, in a leveling form of catastrophic risk, backfires on the upper class. The disasters that have occurred and are occurring in the globalized system of production, trade and consumption constantly warn us: “Wealthy countries, having hoped to eradicate dangers by exporting them abroad, are therefore forced to import cheap food, and pesticides return to their highly industrialized homelands through fruit, cocoa and tea.” [16]16 “The emperor’s new clothes” (皇帝的新装) is a reference to Hans Christian Andersen’s fairy tale, used here as a metaphor for the exposed hypocrisy of the neoliberal system.(P49) In this major epidemic, we have clearly also discovered a high degree of leveling of epidemic risk; no social class can avoid the risk of viral infection by virtue of its possession of wealth and power (although the data above show a positive correlation between infection risk and income disparity). Similarly, when U.S. President Donald Trump declared global warming a hoax that imposed an unfair economic burden on the United States and stubbornly withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement, this was the industrial bourgeoisie of the United States attempting to shake off the constraints of international environmental obligations and trying to re-establish the bourgeoisie’s full control over the interpretation of environmental issues. However, developed capitalist countries have not thereby been exempted from the risks of environmental and ecological deterioration; on the contrary, risks are increasingly accumulating globally in an invisible form.

资本主义许诺给世界以平等和繁荣，但带来的却是不公和贫困。The Intercept网站分别列出了美国纽约市新冠病毒检测阳性率最高和最低的五个地区：新冠病毒检测阳性率最高的五个地区，人均年收入是17595-35141美元；新冠病毒检测阳性率最低的五个地区，人均年收入大约是106702-147547美元。但事情的吊诡之处在于，不正义的社会生产和财富分配制度在新冠病毒的介入下，最终获得了正义的判决。换句话说，社会阶层之间的巨大贫富差距鸿沟与社会风险性因素相互叠加，形成了一种放大风险的指数性效应，最终这种不平等反而以一种毁灭性的风险平均化方式反噬上层阶级。全球化的生产、贸易和消费体系中发生过和正在发生的灾难不断地警告我们：“富裕国家曾经希望通过将危险转移到国外来根除它们，却因此不得不进口廉价的食物，杀虫剂通过水果、可可和茶叶回到了它们高度工业化的故乡。”[16](P49）在此次重大疫情中，我们显然也发现了疫情风险的高度平均化，没有任何社会阶层可以避免因为财富和权力的占有而最终免于被病毒感染的风险（尽管上述数据显示了病毒感染风险与收入差距的正相关性）。相似的，当美国总统特朗普宣布全球气候变暖是一个骗局，形成了对美国的不公平的经济负担，并固执地退出《巴黎气候协定》的时候，这是美国的工业资产阶级试图摆脱国际环境义务的束缚，试图重新使得资产阶级全面掌握对于环境议题的解释权。但是，发达资本主义国家并没有因此而免除环境和生态恶化的风险，相反，风险在全球范围内日益以一种不可见的形式不断积累。

The management of the epidemic crisis is also becoming another field of class struggle. On the one hand, by defining the sources of risk and their solutions, the bourgeoisie transforms class conflict into a technical issue of risk management — that is, it reifies the overarching causes of risk into an empirical problem of sociology or economics. For example, the universal risk of biochemical disasters to humanity is reduced to a biochemical technical difficulty, thereby giving rise to a batch of companies and professions that digest biochemical disasters; thus, the disaster produced by capital ultimately turns it into a business opportunity. Taking the medical industry as an example, the capital-driven medical industry is in fact constantly producing disease, while simultaneously creating the consumption of medicine through the production of disease. The French ecological Marxist André Gorz provides powerful evidence for this: “Disease becomes the driving force of the most profitable industries, creating employment and ‘wealth.’ At the same time, the increase in the number of patients and the ‘health’ industry have been incorporated into national accounting; if the number of patients decreases, the disappearance of these industries translates into a reduction in GNP and a major blow to capital. In short, disease is profitable; health is not.” [17](P171) But on the other hand, the structural accumulation of crises also expands the field of class struggle further into civic movements. As mentioned above, the trend toward leveling of crises in the social structure cuts across conflicts of class interest; the commonality of risk is genuinely real, and therefore “it is possible for members of different classes, parties, occupational groups and age groups to unite to form civic movements in order to prevent the dangers of nuclear energy and toxic waste, and to stop the obvious destruction of nature” [16]16 “The emperor’s new clothes” (皇帝的新装) is a reference to Hans Christian Andersen’s fairy tale, used here as a metaphor for the exposed hypocrisy of the neoliberal system.(P53). Therefore, the optimal governance of the COVID-19 pandemic requires the creation of a cross-class social alliance, which is appropriately expressed as “a community with a shared future for mankind.” Slavoj Žižek, in reflecting on the pandemic, also believed that, compared with the beggar-thy-neighbor approach of some countries using the epidemic to blockade China, the world “

疫情危机的管理也正在成为另一种阶级斗争的场域。一方面，通过定义风险的来源和解决方案，资产阶级将阶级冲突转化为风险管理的技术议题，也就是说，将风险的总体性原因物化为一个社会学或者经济学的实证问题。比如，生化灾难对人类的普遍性风险被简化为生化技术难题，并因此催生出一批消化生化灾难的公司和职业，于是资本生产出的灾难最终使其成为一种商业机会。以医疗工业为例，资本驱动下的医疗工业事实上不断地在生产疾病，同时通过疾病的生产来制造医药的消费。法国生态马克思主义者安德烈·高兹为此提供的有力证据是：“疾病成为最有利可图的产业的动力，创造就业和‘财富’。同时，患者数量的增加和‘健康’产业已被纳入国民核算中，如果患者减少，那么这些产业的消失就转化为GNP的减少和对资本的重大打击。简言之，疾病是有利可图的，健康则不然。”[17](P171）但另外一方面，危机的结构性积累也将阶级斗争的场域进一步扩大到公民运动当中。如前所述，危机在社会结构中的平均化趋势跨越了阶级利益的冲突，风险的共同性是真实存在的，因而“为了预防核能和有毒废料的危险，阻止对自然的明显破坏，不同阶级、党派、职业群体和年龄群体的成员团结起来形成公民运动”是可能的[16](P53）。因此，新冠疫情的最优化治理需要产生一种跨越阶层的社会联合，这种社会联合被恰当地表述为“人类命运共同体”。齐泽克在反思疫情的时候也认为，相比较于某些国家利用疫情封锁中国的以邻为壑的做法来说，全世界更应该“需要完全无条件的团结和一种全球协同的反应，一种曾经叫做共产主义的新形式。假如我们不朝这个方向努力，那么今天的武汉可能是我们未来城市的景象”[18]。事实上，只要是真正具有深邃的世界性和历史性洞见的政治家和思想家，都能够走到人类命运共同体的基本逻辑上来。也正是在这个意义上，马克思才强调：“旧唯物主义的立脚点是市民社会，新唯物主义的立脚点则是人类社会或社会的人类。”[11](P502）正是出于这种人类共同的责任和担当，世界各国共产党接连发表国际性和地区性的联合声明，代表在疫情冲击下“被侮辱和被损害”的阶级和群体发声。他们一方面反对“新自由主义的反社会性和寄生性”，另一方面号召地区性的和国际性的工人联合，相互支持，共克时艰。也正是在这个意义上，李达希对资本主义的根本性转型的前景并不寄希望于疫情造成的经济危机或者社会危机，而是更加寄希望于工人阶级在资本主义生产领域发动的斗争和革命。

(2) Green Capitalism: A False Proposition

（二）绿色资本主义：一个伪命题

Does the option of a turn to the left or the right that the COVID-19 pandemic has placed before us imply that a transition to green capitalism could provide contemporary capitalism with a sustainable platform for self-preservation?

新冠疫情向我们提出的向左或向右转型的选项是否意味着向绿色资本主义的转型有可能使当代资本主义获得自我保存的持续性平台呢？

O’Connor puts forward the theory of the second contradiction of capitalism and attempts to replace the Marxist theory of economic crisis with an ecological crisis theory as the main analytical paradigm for the crisis of contemporary capitalism. O’Connor argues that the crisis of contemporary capitalism occurs primarily in the sphere where the conditions of production are destroyed. The so-called conditions of capitalist production are the external natural conditions (such as forests and water) on which the capitalist production process depends, as well as the public conditions of production (such as urban infrastructure). The COVID-19 pandemic has, on an unimaginable scale and depth, destroyed the natural and public conditions of global capitalist production and reproduction. However, O’Connor believes that reformed capitalist democracy can still keep the crisis caused by the destruction of production conditions within a tolerable range, and that a democratized bureaucracy is “the only political form that may be feasible, a democratic state of this kind: in such a state, the management of social labor is organized democratically.”[19](P439) In response, Foster criticizes: “Focusing solely on the conditions of production and the second contradiction of capitalism will weaken the comprehensiveness of the ecological crisis, and even, in the process of incorporating everything into the closed framework of a specific theory of economic crisis, weaken the impact of capitalism on the environment.”[20]

奥康纳提出资本主义双重矛盾理论，并试图以生态危机理论取代马克思主义经济危机理论作为对当代资本主义危机的主要分析范式。奥康纳认为，当代资本主义的危机主要发生在生产条件被破坏的领域。所谓资本主义生产条件即是资本主义生产过程所借以展开的外部自然条件（如森林和水等）以及生产的公共条件（如城市基础设施等）。新冠疫情的发生以令人难以置信的规模和深度破坏了全球资本主义生产和再生产的自然条件和公共条件，但是，奥康纳认为，改良的资本主义民主仍然可以将由于生产条件被破坏而导致的危机控制在可以容忍的范围之内，而民主化的官僚机构是“唯一可能行得通的政治形式，应是这样一种民主国家：在这种国家中,社会劳动的管理是民主化地组织起来的”[19](P439）。对此，福斯特的批评是：“仅仅关注于生产条件和资本主义的第二矛盾，将削弱生态危机的全面性，乃至在将一切纳入特定经济危机理论的封闭框架的过程之中，削弱了资本主义对环境的影响。”[20]

Based on his study of Saral Sarkar, Huan Qingzhi argues that the alternative of “green capitalism” or “ecological capitalism” cannot fundamentally change capitalism’s unsustainability and anti-ecological nature. “A genuine ecological economy can only operate within a socialist socio-political environment, and only by becoming a genuine ecological society can it become a genuine socialist society. This is because, on the one hand, there is an inevitable and irreconcilable contradiction between capitalism and the industrial economy, while on the other hand, capitalism requires a genuine ecological economy, and there is no contradiction between socialism and a genuine ecological economy, provided that socialist society is understood as a non-industrial society.”[21](P5) Essentially, the green capitalist project attempts to preserve the existing neoliberal order while resolving the predicament of destroyed production conditions through ecological technologies or modern management methods, thereby avoiding systemic crises of the type seen in the COVID-19 pandemic. It seeks to “systematically integrate the business principles of profitability, operability, and sustainability into the theoretical foundation of green capitalism, creating a new generation of industrial development model that balances economic costs with ecological benefits.”[22] However, the outbreak of COVID-19 has proven that green capitalism severely underestimates the gravity of the ecological crisis. Market mechanisms may have some effect in regulating national carbon emissions and controlling climate change, but nature’s punitive measures are beyond the reach of social and technological foresight. Has the novel coronavirus not already exceeded the scope of capitalism’s self-regulation?

郇庆治根据对萨拉·萨卡的研究，认为“绿色资本主义”或“生态资本主义”的替代方案根本无法改变资本主义的不可持续性和反生态本性，“一种真正的生态经济只能在社会主义的社会政治环境中运行，而且，只有成为真正的生态社会才能成为真正的社会主义社会。因为，一方面，资本主义与工业经济之间存在着不可避免的且无法调和的矛盾，另一方面，资本主义又需要一种真正的生态经济，而社会主义和真正的生态经济之间是不存在矛盾的，前提是社会主义社会被看作是非工业社会”[21](P5）。从本质上说，绿色资本主义的方案企图在保留现有新自由主义秩序的前提之下，通过生态技术或者现代管理的手段来解决生产条件被破坏的困境，进而避免类似新冠疫情类型的系统性危机，试图将“可获利性、可操作性和可持续性的商业原则系统整合到绿色资本主义的理论基础中，打造新一代兼顾经济成本与生态效益的工业发展模式”[22]。但是，新冠疫情的暴发证明绿色资本主义严重低估了生态危机的严峻性，市场手段也许对调节各国碳排放并控制气候变化有一定效果，但自然的惩罚手段是社会和技术手段无法预料的，新冠病毒不就已经超出了资本主义自我调控的范围了吗？

Of course, the tender veneer of green capitalism also conceals the substance of its “ecological imperialism.” The “greenness” of capitalist countries comes at a cost, and that cost is the development rights of developing countries, especially their right to ecological health. It is an indisputable fact that Western developed countries such as those in Europe and the United States have, through global trade, exported large quantities of electronic waste and industrial waste to developing countries like China. When China, considering the protection of its own ecological civilization rights and interests, stopped importing plastic products and other waste from Western countries, Europe and the United States generally fell into an ecological predicament of being besieged by garbage. This once again demonstrates that the “ecological imperialism” of green capitalism is a burden too heavy for the international community to bear.

当然，绿色资本主义的温情脉脉也掩盖了其“生态帝国主义”的实质。资本主义国家的“绿色”是有代价的，其代价是发展中国家的发展权利，特别是生态健康权。欧美等西方发达国家通过全球贸易的方式，大量向中国等发展中国家输出电子垃圾和工业废料已经是不争的事实。当中国考虑到保护本国生态文明权益并停止进口西方国家的塑料制品等废料后，欧美国家普遍陷入了垃圾围城的生态困境。这再一次说明了绿色资本主义的“生态帝国主义”实在是国际社会不堪承受之重。

(3) The Specter of Marx: Communist Discourse in the COVID-19 Pandemic

（三）马克思的幽灵：新冠疫情中的共产主义话语

Economic crises are nothing new; they have followed the history of capitalist development like a specter. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, the global capitalist economy was already showing signs of fatigue. Since the 2008 financial crisis, the United States has relied on massive quantitative easing to export inflation to the world, using beggar-thy-neighbor fiscal policies to prolong a false economic boom. The sudden outbreak of COVID-19 has played the role of a world war: after economic stagnation and the collapse of order comes a new period of rebuilding order, and thus the communist discourse within the pandemic has been reactivated. David Harvey once again invokes Marx’s revolutionary incantation: “The working class has no ideals to realize; it has only to set free the elements of the new society with which the old collapsing bourgeois society itself is pregnant.”[23](P60) He regards the systemic crisis of capitalism triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic we are experiencing as “that old, terrible, collapsing social order.” This catastrophe is creating a “new working class”—the relatively surplus population cast off by the stalled circulation of capital—whom Harvey primarily identifies as “African Americans, Latinos, and working-class women.”[24] City-wide lockdowns are creating a habit of collective action that, since the Second World War, has been internalized and tamed by the institutionalizing forces of capitalism. Harvey asks rhetorically: “Why don’t we set free those elements contained in the currently collapsing bourgeois society—the astonishing science, technology, and productive forces—and use artificial intelligence, technological transformation, and organizational forms to create something radically different from anything that has existed before?”[24] Harvey’s communist imagination is exciting, because clearly, although returning to work would allow the new working class to pay rent, mortgages, and buy food—precisely what the bourgeoisie wants—and to re-enter the old order of wage labor, since city-wide lockdowns have allowed the new working class to experience a “quasi-socialist” alternative of free basic food and medical care, why not delay the return to work a little longer, thereby cultivating this so-called socialist habit and activating the socialist imagination of the working class?

经济危机并不是新鲜事，它如同幽灵一样与资本主义发展史如影随形。新冠疫情之前，全球资本主义经济已经开始尽显疲态，美国自2008年金融危机以后，依靠巨额量化宽松向全世界输出通货膨胀，用以邻为壑的利己主义财政政策将虚假的经济繁荣苟延残喘至今。突如其来的新冠疫情扮演了一场世界大战的角色，经济停滞和秩序崩溃之后则将迎来重建秩序的新时期，新冠疫情中的共产主义话语于是被再次激活。大卫·哈维再次祭出马克思的革命咒语：“工人阶级不是要实现什么理想，而只是要解放那些由旧的正在崩溃的资产阶级社会本身孕育着的新社会因素。”[23](P60）他将我们正在经历的这场新冠疫情引发的资本主义系统性危机视为“那个陈旧的、可怕的崩溃中的社会秩序”。这场灾难正在创造出“新工人阶级”——被停滞的资本循环甩出的相对过剩人口，哈维将其主要人群定义为“非裔美国人、拉丁裔美国人和工薪妇女等”[24]。全城封锁正在创造一种集体行动的习惯，这种习惯自第二次世界大战以来已经被资本主义的体制化力量所内化并驯服，哈维反问道：“为什么我们不把目前正在崩溃的资产阶级社会所蕴含的那些要素——惊人的科学技术和生产力——解放出来，利用人工智能、技术改造和组织形式，以使我们能够创造一个与以往存在的任何事物迥然不同的东西？”[24]哈维的共产主义想象是令人兴奋的，因为很显然，尽管复工能够使新工人阶级付租金、还房贷和购买食物——这也正是资产阶级所希望的——并重新回到旧的雇佣秩序中去，但是，既然全城封锁让新工人阶级体会到了免费提供基本食品和医疗保障的“类社会主义”替代方案，为什么不让复工来得更晚一些，从而培养这种所谓的社会主义习惯，并激活工人阶级的社会主义想象呢？

However, Chinese people may not agree with Harvey’s imagination of communism as existing in the beyond, because in socialist Cuba, we have felt “the spirit of freedom and equality that this poor but unyielding island nation has always pursued.”[25] Even under imperialist economic blockade, Cuba has displayed a great communist spirit: Cuba has been providing foreign aid all along, having sent medical assistance to 59 countries, and even received the British cruise ship “Braemar,” which carried COVID-19 patients and had been refused docking by several other countries. Is this not precisely the projection of communist morality into the world of the here and now? As Marx said: “They recognize truth, justice, and morality as the basis of their relations with each other and with all people, regardless of color, creed, or nationality.”[23](P227) Perhaps, when neoliberals mock the struggles of socialist China and Cuba in the vortex of the pandemic, while themselves doing nothing and engaging in beggar-thy-neighbor policies, it is time for us to redefine liberalism and communism. Thus, Slavoj Žižek reminds us once again: “Suppose we define all those who care about freedom as liberals, and define as communists those who believe that freedom can only be saved through fundamental change at a time when global capitalism is heading for crisis. Then we should say that today, those who still see themselves as communists are the true liberals; only they seriously examine why our values of freedom are threatened and realize that only fundamental change can save them.”[26]

不过，中国人也许并不认同哈维对共产主义存在于彼岸的想象，因为在社会主义的古巴，我们感受到了“贫而不屈的岛国一直追求的自由和平等的精神”[25]。即使在帝国主义的经济封锁之下，古巴仍然展现了一种伟大的共产主义精神：古巴的对外援助一直都在进行，并已经向59个国家提供了医疗援助，甚至接收了载有新冠肺炎患者的英国“布雷马”号邮轮（该邮轮已经遭受多个国家拒绝靠岸）。这难道不正是共产主义道德在此岸世界中的投影吗？正如马克思所说：“承认真理、正义和道德是他们彼此间和对一切人的关系的基础，而不分肤色、信仰和民族。”[23](P227）或许，当新自由主义者嘲讽社会主义的中国和古巴在疫情旋涡中的挣扎，而又无所作为并以邻为壑的时候，正是我们重新定义自由主义和共产主义的时候。于是，齐泽克又一次提醒道：“假设我们将所有关心自由的人都定义为自由主义者，并把那些认为只有在全球资本主义走向危机的时候通过根本性变革来挽救自由的人定义为共产主义者，那么我们应当说，今天，那些仍然将自身视为共产主义者的人才是如假包换的自由主义者，只有他们严肃研究为何我们的自由的价值观受到威胁并意识到只有根本性变革才能挽救它们。”[26]

III. China’s Response: Evaluation of China’s Anti-Epidemic Efforts by Left-Wing Political Parties Worldwide

三、中国应对：世界左翼政党对中国抗疫的评价

The attempts by Western left-wing scholars to reopen a new horizon of communist discourse in the face of the pandemic are not impractical fantasies. In fact, socialist China’s anti-epidemic practice has demonstrated to the world the superiority of the socialist system. In contrast, the Western world, led by the United States, is having the “emperor’s new clothes” of the neoliberal system torn off by the escalating COVID-19 pandemic.

西方左翼学者面对疫情试图重新开启共产主义话语新境界的尝试并非不切实际的空想。事实上，社会主义中国的抗疫实践向全世界展示了社会主义制度的优越性。相比较之下，以美国为首的西方世界正在被新冠病毒疫情的一步步升级撕下新自由主义制度的“皇帝的新装”。

(1) China’s Response to the Pandemic Embodies a High Degree of Political Consciousness of a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind

（一）中国应对疫情体现出人类命运共同体的高度政治自觉

After his inspection in Wuhan, Dr. Bruce Aylward, Senior Advisor to the Director-General of the World Health Organization, remarked with emotion: “What I saw was a tremendous sense of responsibility and obligation. The Chinese people are committed to protecting their families, their communities, and even the entire world from this disease.”[14]14 See note [14] in the original text. Since the global spread of COVID-19, scientists, politicians, and intellectuals who respect science and humanity have unanimously agreed that socialist China has successfully responded to the disaster brought by the pandemic and has provided the world with a scientific and effective model for epidemic control.

世界卫生组织总干事高级顾问布鲁斯·艾沃德（Bruce Aylward）在武汉考察后感慨道：“我看到的是一种巨大的责任感和义务感，中国人民正在致力于保护他们的家庭、社区、甚至整个世界免受这种疾病的侵害。”[14]自新冠疫情全球蔓延以来，尊重科学和尊重人性的科学家、政治家和知识分子都一致认为，社会主义的中国成功应对了疫情带来的灾难，并给世界各国提供了科学和有效控制疫情的模式。

China’s victory in responding to the epidemic is also a victory of its governance philosophy. The Communist Party of China, exercising overall leadership, has established a fundamental principle proceeding from the concept of “a community with a shared future for mankind”: to be responsible both for the life and health of the Chinese people and for the life and health of the people of the world. As General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “We resolutely safeguard the life safety and health of the Chinese people, and we also resolutely safeguard the life safety and health of people of all countries, striving to contribute to global public health security.”[27] It was precisely under the guidance of this concept that the CPC, together with more than 230 political parties worldwide, issued a joint initiative on strengthening international cooperation to combat the COVID-19 epidemic, calling on: “All countries should enhance their awareness of a community with a shared future for mankind; the more difficult the times, the more mutual support and assistance are needed; by strengthening international cooperation, policy coordination, and operational alignment, we should pool global resources and forces to resolutely defeat the virus, the common enemy of humanity.”[28] A moment of crisis for all humanity is precisely the key point for strengthening solidarity and coordinating action; the market mechanism of neoliberalism has completely failed. However, the ideology of the monopoly bourgeoisie, represented by the Trump administration, chose to cast every citizen nakedly before the novel coronavirus, refusing to assume public responsibility. This proves that the barbaric neoliberal system has never regarded the common well-being of humanity as its highest principle. On the contrary, the destiny of humanity is property that private owners can sell, if a price can be put on it.

中国应对疫情的胜利也是国家治理理念的胜利。中国共产党总揽全局，树立起了从“人类命运共同体”理念出发的基本原则：既要对中国人民的生命健康负责，也要对世界人民的生命健康负责。正如习近平总书记指出的：“我们坚决维护中国人民生命安全和身体健康，也坚决维护世界各国人民生命安全和身体健康，努力为全球公共卫生安全做出贡献。”[27]正是在这一理念指导下，中国共产党联合230多个世界政党，就加强国际联合以抗击新冠疫情发出联合倡议，呼吁：“各国应增强人类命运共同体意识，越是困难的时候越要相互支持和帮助，通过加强国际合作、政策协调、行动配合等，汇集全球的资源和力量，坚决打败病毒这一人类的共同敌人。”[28]全人类的危机时刻正是加强团结、协调行动的关键点，新自由主义的市场机制已经完全失灵。但是，以特朗普政府为代表的垄断资产阶级的意识形态却要将每个公民赤裸裸地抛给新冠病毒，拒绝承担公共责任，这证明了野蛮的新自由主义体系从来不曾将人类共同福祉视为最高原则。相反，人类命运是私有者可以出卖的财产，如果可以给它标价的话。

The principle of a community with a shared future for mankind is rejected by the neoliberal system but welcomed by the communist world. In an official open letter, the Communist Party USA highly praised the important role of socialist China in the global anti-epidemic struggle, stating that the Communist Party of China, proceeding from public health rather than profit

人类命运共同体的原则被新自由主义体系拒斥，却被共产党世界所欢迎。美国共产党在一份官方公开信中对社会主义的中国在全球抗疫斗争中的重要角色高度赞扬，称中国共产党从公共健康而不是利润出发，采取大规模病毒检测和隔离手段迅速有效地动员全国资源应对危机[29]。英国共产党领袖罗伯特·格里菲斯（Robert Griffiths）表示：“这封公开信继承了争取和平、合作和社会进步的国际共产主义运动的优秀传统。”[30]委内瑞拉、秘鲁、玻利维亚等拉美共产党发布联合声明，认为私人垄断资本控制着拉美国家，公共卫生事业由于无利可图，长期以来几乎处于荒废状态，富人也许可以获得更好的私人医疗保障，但是大多数中下收入人群面临绝境。因此，“我们认为必须保障最贫穷社会阶层的工人、失业者和未充分就业者的权利，以此作为一种人道和团结的姿态”[31]。美国工人世界党官网发表文章称，社会主义的基础帮助中国战胜新冠病毒，中国共产党做出的决策不是依据百万富翁们的利益，而是如何维护全体人民的福利，这在资本主义的美国是不可想象的[32]。

Thus it can be seen that the principle of a community with a shared future for mankind embodied in China’s anti-epidemic efforts has completely discarded the false

由此可见，中国抗疫中体现出的人类命运共同体原则彻底摒弃了资本逻辑主导下的以财产权为新等级制度基础的虚假共同体。在虚假共同体中，交换价值体系凌驾于使用体系之上，对利润的渴望凌驾于人性的实之上现，私人公司的利益凌驾于人类普遍利益之上，资本主导的虚假共同体“对一切人来说表现为外在的、因而是偶然的东西。通过独立的个人的接触而表现的社会联系，对于他们同时既表现为物的必然性，又表现为外在的联系”[33](P354-355）。于是，在新冠疫情的攻击下，虚假共同体再次成为一切人反对一切人的战场。从世界左翼学者和领袖们的高度评价中我们可以感受到，世界上“被侮辱与被损害”的人们在新冠疫情的危机中无法继续容忍资本逻辑对人类团结应对共同灾难的集体行动的阻滞，在灾难中激发的人类共同体的自觉意识必将在灾后成为一个崭新的全球政治经济治理秩序的基石。

(2) China’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic Reflects the Governance Superiority of the Socialist System

（二）中国应对新冠疫情体现出社会主义制度的治理优越性

Left-wing scholar Carlos Martinez, under the title “Karl Marx in Wuhan,” elaborated in detail on three important reasons why Chinese socialism defeated the novel coronavirus: first, the combination of socialism with high-end technology achieved comprehensive monitoring of the virus, with artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and high-speed internet infrastructure widely used by ordinary people ensuring timely tracking and isolation of every potentially infected person; second, a highly coordinated top-down capacity for social mobilization ensured that scientific decisions made at the higher levels could be implemented down to the grassroots level; third, free and compulsory universal “wartime” medical welfare ensured that every citizen was free from fear of the virus [34]. Alberto Moreno Rojas, chairman of the Peruvian Communist Party (Red Fatherland), believes that the anti-epidemic struggle demonstrated the efficient governance model of Chinese socialism: the rapid nationwide mobilization of medical resources to assist Wuhan, coupled with the decisive implementation of a citywide lockdown; more importantly, the provision of completely free medical services for all COVID-19 patients averted an even greater humanitarian catastrophe.

左翼学者卡洛斯·马丁内斯（Carlos Martinez）以“卡尔·马克思在武汉”为题，详尽阐述了中国社会主义击败新冠病毒的三个重要原因：第一，社会主义与高端技术的结合实现了对病毒的全面监测，人工智能和云计算以及广泛被普通人使用的高速互联网基础设施保证了对每一个可能患病的人的及时追踪和隔离；第二，自上而下高度协调的社会动员能力保证了高层的科学决策能够贯彻到基层社会；第三，免费和强制性的全民“战时”医疗福利保证了每一个公民免于对病毒的恐惧[34]。秘鲁共产党（红色祖国）主席阿尔韦托·莫雷诺·罗哈斯认为，抗疫斗争体现了中国社会主义的高效治理模式：短时间内调集全国医疗资源援助武汉，同时断然实行全城隔离；更重要的是，为所有新冠肺炎患者提供完全免费的医疗服务，避免了更大的人道主义灾难。

It is evident that the two scholars have keenly noted the core principle of the governance superiority of the socialist system—public ownership and its practical rationality. The essential attribute of the socialist system is the socialist public ownership of the means of production. According to Engels, socialist public ownership means that “all branches of production will be managed by society as a whole, that is, for the public interest according to an overall plan and with the participation of all members of society. … Private ownership must also be abolished, and replaced by the common use of all instruments of production and the distribution of products by common agreement” [11]11 See note [11] in the original text. (p. 683). The COVID-19 pandemic has once again confirmed Engels’s judgment on the superiority of socialist public ownership in at least three respects. First, socialist public ownership places economic activities such as production and consumption under the governance of society, making people and their society the sole purpose of economic activity. Therefore, what socialist public ownership constructs is an economics of need rather than an economics of desire. It is in this sense that meeting the basic medical needs of society during the pandemic, without considering the rampant desire for capital profit, becomes the first choice of a public ownership society. Second, a planned and organized model of social governance based on the public interest constructs a beautiful vision of sharing the fruits of development. In fact, although China has a large-scale non-public sector of the economy, due to the leading role of the public sector, the socialist system with Chinese characteristics has formed a practical rational dynamic of public ownership. In other words, under the guidance of the public sector, the non-public sector has exercised the socialist functions of planning, organizing, and regulating economic activities, leading non-public production units to actively engage in the production of anti-epidemic materials in a short period and forming a continuous supply capacity for the whole world. China has now become the world’s manufacturing center for anti-epidemic materials. Third, the enormous potential of public ownership for the allocation and mobilization of social resources. Public ownership distributes the means of production and means of subsistence across society, so that “the nationalization of land will completely transform the relationship between labor and capital, … the government or state power opposed to society will cease to exist, … the national concentration of the means of production will become the national basis of a society composed of associations of free and equal producers” [23] (p. 233). From Marx’s judgment on the practical rationality of the public ownership economy, it is not difficult to understand why the Trump administration openly stood on the opposite side of society and common sense, whereas the Chinese government firmly stood on the same front as the people and society.

显而易见，两位学者敏锐地注意到了社会主义制度治理优越性的核心原则——公有制及其实践理性。社会主义制度的本质属性就是生产资料的社会主义公有制，按照恩格斯的看法，社会主义公有制使“一切生产部门将由整个社会来管理，也就是说，为了公共的利益按照总的计划和在社会全体成员的参加下来经营。……私有制也必须废除，代替它的是共同使用全部生产工具和按共同协议来分配产品”[11](P683）。新冠疫情至少在以下三个方面再一次证明了恩格斯对社会主义公有制的优越性所做出的判断。第一，社会主义公有制将生产和消费等经济活动置于社会的治理之下，人及其社会成为经济活动的唯一目的。因此，社会主义公有制所建构起来的乃是需求经济学而不是欲望经济学。也正是在这个意义上，满足新冠疫情中社会的基本医疗需求而不考虑资本盈利的旺盛欲望则成为公有制社会的第一选择。第二，以公共利益为出发点的有计划和组织化的社会治理模式建构了一个共享发展成果的美好愿景。事实上，尽管我国存在着规模巨大的非公有制经济部分，但是，由于公有制经济的主导作用，中国特色社会主义制度已经形成了公有制的实践理性动能。换句话说，非公有制经济在公有制经济引导之下发挥了对经济活动的计划、组织和调控的社会主义功能，短时期内带领非公有制生产部门主动投入到抗疫物资的生产活动中，并形成源源不断的产能供应给全世界。中国如今已经成为世界抗疫物资制造中心。第三，公有制潜在的巨大社会资源调配和动员能力。公有制使生产资料和生活资料在全社会分配，于是，“土地国有化将彻底改变劳动和资本的关系，……与社会相对立的政府或国家政权将不复存在，……生产资料的全国性的集中将成为由自由平等的生产者的各联合体所构成的社会的全国性的基础”[23](P233）。从马克思对公有制经济的实践理性的判断中，我们不难理解，为什么特朗普政府会公然站在社会和常识的对立面，与此相反，中国政府则坚定地站在人民和社会的同一战线上。

References

参考文献

Slavoj Žižek, “Global Communism or the Jungle Law: Coronavirus Forces Us to Decide,” RT Op-ed, March 10, 2020, accessed July 7, 2020, https://www.rt.com/op-ed/482780-coronavirus-communism-jungle-law-choice.

[1] Slavoj Zizek. Global Communism or the Jungle Law:Coronavirus Forces Us to Decide. RT-Op-ed, 2020-03-10.[2020-07-07]https://www.rt.com/op-ed/482780-coronavirus-communism-jungle-law-choice.

David Harvey, “Anti-capitalist Politics in the Time of COVID-19,” Reading Marx’s Capital with David Harvey, March 19, 2020, accessed July 7, 2020, http://davidharvey.org/2020/03/anti-capitalist-politics-in-the-time-of-covid-19.

[2] David Harvey. Anti-capitalist Politics in the Time of COVID-19. READING MARX’S CAPITAL WITH DAVID HARVEY,2020-03-19.[2020-07-07]http://davidharvey.org/2020/03/anti-capitalist-politics-in-the-time-of-covid-19.

Li Daxi, “Will the COVID-19 Pandemic Fundamentally Change Capitalism? — A Review of the Debates among Western Left-Wing Theorists,” Cha Wang, April 20, 2020, accessed July 7, 2020, http://m.cwzg.cn/theory/202004/56995.html?page=1.

[3] 李达希.新冠疫情将根本改变资本主义吗？——评西方左翼理论家的争论.察网, 2020-04-20.[2020-07-07]http://m.cw zg.cn/theory/202004/56995.html?page=1.

Andrés Piqueras, “Crisis Mundial, Coronavirus y Capitalismo Moribundo: Un Cóctel Mortal,” Público, March 17, 2020, accessed July 7, 2020, https://blogs.publico.es/dominiopublico/31228/crisis-mundial-coronavirus-y-capitalismo-moribundo-un-coctel-mortal.

[4] Andres Piqueras. Crisis Mundial, Coronavirus y Capitalismo Moribundo:Un Cóctel Mortal. PUBLICO, 2020-03-17.[2020-07-07]https://blogs.publico.es/dominiopublico/31228/crisis-mundial-coronavirus-y-capitalismo-moribundo-un-coctel-m ortal.

Thomas Piketty, “Confronting Our Long History of Massive Inequality,” The Nation, March 26, 2020, accessed July 7, 2020, https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/thomas-piketty-interview-inequality-book-covid.

[5] Thomas Piketty. Confronting Our Long History of Massive Inequality. THE NATION, 2020-03-26.[2020-07-07]https://ww w.thenation.com/article/culture/thomas-piketty-interview-inequality-book-covid.

Antonio Negri, “Coronavirus, La Fase Attuale Ed Il Futuro,” Radio Onda d’Urto, March 21, 2020, accessed July 7, 2020, https://www.radiondadurto.org/2020/03/21/coronavirus-la-fase-attuale-ed-il-futuro-lintervista-a-toni-negri.

[6] Antonio Negri. Coronavirus, La Fase Attuale Ed Il Futuro. RADIO ONDA d’URTO, 2020-03-21.[2020-07-07]https://ww w.radiondadurto.org/2020/03/21/coronavirus-la-fase-attuale-ed-il-futuro-lintervista-a-toni-negri.

C. J. Polychroniou, Noam Chomsky, and Robert Pollin, “To Heal From COVID-19, We Must Imagine a Different World,” Truthout, April 10, 2020, accessed July 7, 2020, https://truthout.org/articles/chomsky-and-pollin-to-heal-from-covid-19-we-must-imagine-a-different-world.

[7] C. J. Polychroniou, Chomsky and Pollin. To Heal From COVID-19, We Must Imagine a Different World. THRUTHOUT,2020-04-10.[2020-07-07]https://truthout.org/articles/chomsky-and-pollin-to-heal-from-covid-19-we-must-imagine-a-dif ferent-world.

Dimitris Fasfalis, “Marx in the Era of Pandemic Capitalism,” Socialist Project, April 13, 2020, accessed July 7, 2020, https://socialistproject.ca/2020/04/marx-in-the-era-of-pandemic-capitalism.

[8] Dimitris Fasfalis. Marx in the Era of Pandemic Capitalism. SOCIALIST PROJECT, 2020-04-13.[2020-07-07]https://social istproject.ca/2020/04/marx-in-the-era-of-pandemic-capitalism.

Chen Xueming, “We Should Thoroughly Reflect on How We Treat Nature,” Mao Zedong Deng Xiaoping Theory Research, 2020, no. 1.

[9] 陈学明.应当彻底反思我们究竟如何对待自然界.毛泽东邓小平理论研究，2020,(1).

William Leiss, The Limits to Satisfaction (Beijing: Commercial Press, 2016), trans. Li Yongxue.

[10]威廉·莱斯.满足的限度.李永学译.北京：商务印书馆，2016.

Collected Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 1 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2009).

[11] 马克思恩格斯文集：第1卷.北京：人民出版社，2009.

Wang Qingfeng, “Biopolitics and Governance Technology: China and the West,” School of Marxism, Peking University, April 19, 2020, accessed July 7, 2020, https://marxism.pku.edu.cn/xyxw/1324367.htm.

[12] 王庆丰.生命政治学与治理技术.中国与西方.北京大学马克思主义学院网, 2020-04-19.[2020-07-07]https://marxism.pku.edu.cn/xyxw/1324367.htm.

Slavoj Žižek, “Biggest Threat COVID-19 Epidemic Poses Is Not Our Regression to Survivalist Violence, But Barbarism with Human Face,” RT Op-ed, March 19, 2020, accessed July 7, 2020, https://www.rt.com/op-ed/483528-coronavirus-world-capitalism-barbarism.

[13] Slavoj Zizek. Biggest Threat COVID-19 Epidemic Poses Is Not Our Regression to Vurvivalist Violence, But BARBARISM with Human Face. RT-Op-ed, 2020-03-19.[2020-07-07]https://www.rt.com/op-ed/483528/coronavirus-world-capitalism-b arbarism.

Ajit Singh, “Amid Coronavirus Crisis, China Demonstrates that an Alternative to the US-led Neoliberal Order Is Possible,” Monthly Review Online, March 30, 2020, accessed July 7, 2020, https://mronline.org/2020/03/30/amid-coronavirus-crisis-china-demonstrates-that-an-alternative-to-the-us-led-neoliberal-order-is-possible.

[14] Ajit Singh. Amid Coronavirus Crisis, China Demonstrates that an Alternative to the US-led Neoliberal Order Is Possible.MONTHLY REVIEW ONLINE, 2020-03-30.[2020-07-07]https://mronline.org/2020/03/30/amid-coronavirus-crisis-chin a-demonstrates-that-an-alternative-to-the-us-led-neoliberal-order-is-possible.

[15]15 See note [15] in the original text. Aleksandr Buzgalin. The Coronavirus Is Stirring the Impulse to Communism. MONTHLY REVIEW ONLINE, 2020-04-08.[2020-07-07]https://mronline.org/2020/04/08/the-coronavirus-is-stirring-the-impulse-to-communism.

[15] Aleksandr Buzgalin. The Coronavirus Is Stirring the Impulse to Communism. MONTHLY REVIEW ONLINE, 2020-04-08.[2020-07-07]https://mronline.org/2020/04/08/the-coronavirus-is-stirring-the-impulse-to-communism.

[16]16 “The emperor’s new clothes” (皇帝的新装) is a reference to Hans Christian Andersen’s fairy tale, used here as a metaphor for the exposed hypocrisy of the neoliberal system. Ulrich Beck. Risk Society. Translated by He Bowen. Nanjing: Yilin Press, 2004.

[16]乌尔里希·贝克.风险社会.何博闻译.南京：译林出版社，2004.

[17] André Gorz. Ecology as Politics. Boston: South End Press, 1980.

[17] AndréGorz. Ecology as Politics. Boston:South End Press, 1980.

[18] Slavoj Žižek. Clear Racist Element to Hysteria over New Coronavirus. RT-Op-ed, 2020-02-03.[2020-07-07]https://www.rt.com/op-ed/authors/slavoj-zizek.

[18] Slavoj Zizek. Clear Racist Element to Hysteria over New Coronavirus. RT-Op-ed, 2020-02-03.[2020-07-07]https://www.rt.com/op-ed/authors/slavoj-zizek.

[19] James O’Connor. Natural Causes. Translated by Tang Zhengdong et al. Nanjing: Nanjing University Press, 2003.

[19]詹姆斯·奥康纳.自然的理由.唐正东等译.南京：南京大学出版社，2003.

[20] John Bellamy Foster. Capitalism and Ecology: The Nature of the Contradiction. Monthly Review, 2002,(4).

[20] John Bellamy Foster. Capitalism and Ecology:The Nature of the Contradiction. Monthly Review, 2002,(4).

[21] Saral Sarkar. Eco-Socialism or Eco-Capitalism. Translated by Zhang Shulan. Jinan: Shandong University Press, 2008.

[21]萨拉·萨卡.生态社会主义还是生态资本主义.张淑兰译.济南：山东大学出版社，2008.

[22] Zhuang Guiyang. Green Capitalism Encounters Difficulties in Development. People’s Tribune, 2018,(5).

[22]庄贵阳.绿色资本主义发展遭遇困境.人民论坛，2018,(5).

[23] Selected Works of Marx and Engels: Volume 3. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1995.

[23] 马克思恩格斯选集：第3卷.北京：人民出版社，1995.

[24] David Harvey. We Need a Collective Response to the Collective Dilemma of Coronavirus. JACOBIN, 2020-04-24.[2020-07-07]https://jacobinmag.com/2020/04/david-harvey-coronavirus-pandemic-capital-economy.

[24] David Harvey. We Need a Collective Response to the Collective Dilemma of Coronavirus. JACOBIN, 2020-04-24.[2020-07-07]https://jacobinmag.com/2020/04/david-harvey-coronavirus-pandemic-capital-economy.

[25] Tang Yongyan. Poor but Unbowed: Daily Life in Cuba During the COVID-19 Era. The Paper, 2020-04-02.[2020-07-07]https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_6786654.

[25] 唐永艳.贫而不屈：新冠时期的古巴生活日常.澎湃新闻网, 2020-04-02.[2020-07-07]https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDeta il_forward_6786654.

[26] Slavoj Žižek. Coronavirus Is “Kill Bill”-Esque Blow to Capitalism and Could Lead to Reinvention of Communism. RT-Oped, 2020-02-27.[2020-07-07]https://www.rt.com/op-ed/481831-coronavirus-kill-bill-capitalism-communism/.

[26] Slavoj Zizek. Coronavirus Is “Kill Bill”-Esque Blow to Capitalism and Could Lead to Reinvention of Communism. RT-Oped, 2020-02-27.[2020-07-07]https://www.rt.com/op-ed/481831-coronavirus-kill-bill-capitalism-communism/.

[27] People’s Daily Commentator. China’s Anti-Epidemic Efforts Demonstrate the Responsibility of a Major Country. People’s Daily, 2020-03-19.

[27]人民日报评论员.中国抗疫彰显负责任大国担当.人民日报，2020-03-19.

[28] Xinhua News Agency. Joint Appeal of World Political Parties on Strengthening International Cooperation in Combating the COVID-19 Pandemic. Xinhuanet, 2020-04-02.[2020-07-07]http://www.xinhuanet.com/world/2020-04/02/c_1125806860.htm.

[28] 新华社.世界政党关于加强抗击新冠肺炎疫情国际合作的共同呼吁.新华网, 2020-04-02.[2020-07-07]http://www.xinh uanet.com/world/2020-04/02/c_1125806860.htm.

[29] Rossana Cambron, Joe Sims. An Open Letter on the Coronavirus Crisis. COMMUNIST PARTY USA, 2020-03-24.[2020-07-07]http://www.cpusa.org/party_voices/an-open-letter-on-the-coronavirus-crisis.

[29] Rossana Cambron, Joe Sims. An Open Letter on the Coronavirus Crisis. COMMUNIST PARTY USA, 2020-03-24.[2020-07-07]http://www.cpusa.org/party_voices/an-open-letter-on-the-coronavirus-crisis.

[30] Eds. Britain’s Communists Sign Open Letter on International Response to COVID-19. MORNING STAR ONLINE, 2020-04-04.[2020-07-07]https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/britains-communists-sign-open-letter-international-responsecovid-19.

[30] Eds. Britain’s Communists Sign Open Letter on International Response to COVID-19. MORNING STAR ONLINE, 2020-04-04.[2020-07-07]https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/britains-communists-sign-open-letter-international-responsecovid-19.

[31] ICOR. Declaration on the Corona Pandemic. INTERNATIONAL COORDINATION OF REVOLUTIONARY PARTIES AND ORGANIZATIONS, 2020-04-03.[2020-07-07]https://www.icor.info/2020/declaration-on-the-corona-pandemic.

[31] ICOR. Declaration on the Corona Pandemic. INTERNATIONAL COORDINATION OF REVOLUTIONARY PARTIES AND ORGANAZATIONS, 2020-04-03.[2020-07-07]https://www.icor.info/2020/declaration-on-the-corona-pandemic.

[32] Sara Flounders. How Socialist Base Helps China Combat Coronavirus. WORKERS WORLD, 2020-02-11.[2020-07-07]https://www.workers.org/2020/02/46128.

[32] Sara Flounders. How Socialist Base Helps China Combat Coronavirus. WORKERS WORLD, 2020-02-11.[2020-07-07]ht tps://www.workers.org/2020/02/46128.

[33] Complete Works of Marx and Engels: Volume 31. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1998.

[33]马克思恩格斯全集：第31卷.北京：人民出版社，1998.

[34] Carlos Martinez. Karl Marx in Wuhan: How Chinese Socialism Is Defeating COVID-19. INVENT THE FUTURE, 2020-03-25.[2020-07-07]https://www.invent-the-future.org/2020/03/karl-marx-in-wuhan-how-chinese-socialism-is-defeatingcovid-19.

[34] Carlos Martinez. Karl Marx in Wuhan:How Chinese Socialism Is Defeating COVID-19. INVENT THE FUTURE, 2020-03-25.[2020-07-07]https://www.invent-the-future.org/2020/03/karl-marx-in-wuhan-how-chinese-socialism-is-defeatingcovid-19.

Online Editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑