An Exploration of Contemporary Western Neo-Marxist Class Studies

The viewpoint of class is an important viewpoint of the Marxist historical materialist and political doctrine; the method of class analysis is an important method for Marxism to analyze and handle social problems. However, with the shift in the theme of the times and changes in historical conditions, Marx’s class theory has faced various doubts. Especially since the 1970s, the rise of the new technological revolution centered on information technology has caused profound changes in the class and social structure of Western developed capitalist countries. The growth and expansion of the “new middle class,” mainly composed of technical workers and managerial personnel, and the internal differentiation of the working class have seriously challenged Marx’s prediction that “the capitalist class structure will inevitably polarize.” The long-term prosperity of Western society has significantly improved workers’ living standards and working environments, eased labor-capital relations, weakened workers’ sense of class belonging and identity, and dampened their revolutionary will. The rapid end of Eurocommunism and the upheaval in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe cast a heavy shadow over the path of proletarian revolution in developed capitalist countries. At the same time, Western participatory democracy and new social movements surged.

阶级观点,是马克思主义唯物史观和政治学说的重要观点;阶级分析法,是马克思主义分析和处理社会问题的重要方法。然而,随着时代主题的转换与历史条件的变化,马克思的阶级理论遭到种种质疑。特别是20世纪70年代以来,以信息技术为核心的新技术革命的兴起,引起了西方发达资本主义国家的阶级和社会结构发生了深刻变化。以技术工人和管理人员为主体的“新中间阶级”的发展壮大和工人阶级的内部分化严重挑战着马克思关于“资本主义阶级结构必将走向两极化”的预言。西方社会的长期繁荣使得工人的生活水平和工作环境大幅改善,劳资关系得以缓和,工人阶级的阶级归属感和认同感被削弱,革命意志低沉。欧洲共产主义的迅速终结和苏东剧变的发生使得发达资本主义国家无产阶级革命的道路蒙上了重重阴影。与此同时,西方参与式民主和新社会运动风起云涌。

In this context, arguments such as “the demise of class,” “the fragmentation of the class subject,” “the obsolescence of class struggle,” and “the obsolescence of class analysis” emerged, challenging the practical explanatory power and theoretical persuasiveness of Marx’s class theory alongside the ideological hegemony of Western neoliberalism. Traditional Marxist leftists were unable to respond effectively. Against this backdrop, an alternative Western “Neo-Marxism” stepped forward, attempting to offer new interpretations of major theoretical issues such as the concept of class, class structure, class formation, and class politics from new perspectives, methods, and theoretical systems. Scholars conducted “postmodernist” cultural critiques and theoretical subversions of Western capitalist systems and values in the process of “post-industrialization,” yielding rich intellectual and cultural成果.

在此情形下,“阶级消亡论”“阶级主体破碎论”“阶级斗争过时论”“阶级分析过时论”等论调应运而生,与西方新自由主义意识形态霸权一起挑战着马克思阶级理论的现实解释力和理论说服力。传统的马克思主义左翼已无力对此做出回应。在此背景下,西方另类的“新马克思主义”挺身而出,试图以新的视角、方法和理论体系对阶级概念、阶级结构、阶级形成、阶级政治等重大理论问题做出新的阐发。学者们对处于“后工业化”过程中的西方资本主义制度和价值观进行了“后现代主义”的文化批判和理论颠覆,形成丰硕的思想文化成果。

I. A Brief Overview of Contemporary Western Neo-Marxist Class Studies

一、当代西方新马克思主义阶级研究简述

“Neo-Marxism” is a controversial concept, and scholars’ understandings of its connotation and extension vary. In a narrow sense, “Neo-Marxism” refers to Marxism in the former Soviet and Eastern European socialist countries, such as the Yugoslav Praxis School, the Hungarian Budapest School, and the Polish humanist Marxist School. Theoretically, it advocates humanism; practically, it promotes democratic and autonomous socialism.[1]1 The Yugoslav Praxis School, the Hungarian Budapest School, and the Polish humanist Marxist School were dissident Marxist currents in the 1960s-1970s that emphasized humanist and democratic socialism against Soviet-style state socialism. In a broad sense, Neo-Marxism is a general term for non-orthodox Marxist currents that transcend East-West boundaries and reinterpret and practice Marxism. The Neo-Marxism discussed in this article is the broad concept of Neo-Marxism. Broadly defined, “Neo-Marxism” encompasses diverse and shifting viewpoints and lacks practical function. Besides the narrow sense of “Neo-Marxist” schools, the broad sense also includes two parts: first, traditional Western Marxist schools such as the Frankfurt School; second, new schools that emerged after the 1970s, such as Analytical Marxism, Neo-Positivist Marxism, and Postmodernist Marxism. The expanded research on class issues within this latter school is the focus of this article.

“新马克思主义”是一个富有争议的概念,学者们对其内涵和外延的理解不尽相同。狭义的“新马克思主义”是指原苏东社会主义国家的马克思主义,如南斯拉夫实践派、匈牙利布达佩斯学派、波兰的人道主义马克思主义学派。它在理论上宣扬人道主义,实践上倡导民主自治的社会主义。1而广义的新马克思主义是指突破东西方限制,对马克思主义进行重新解释与实践的非正统马克思主义思潮的统称。本文所讲的新马克思主义就是广义上的新马克思主义的概念。广义上的“新马克思主义”观点庞杂,立场多变,缺乏实践功能。广义的“新马克思主义”除了包含狭义的“新马克思主义”流派外,还包括两个部分:一是法兰克福学派等传统西方马克思主义流派;二是20世纪70年代以后的分析马克思主义、新实证主义马克思主义、后现代主义的马克思主义等新的流派,而这一流派有关阶级问题的拓展性研究正是本文论述的重点。

Since the 1970s, the class studies of Western Neo-Marxist scholars have included both the deconstruction and reconstruction of traditional Marxist class theory and the defense and development of Marx’s class theory. The class studies of Western Neo-Marxism during this period mainly encompass Postmodern Marxism, Analytical Marxism, Post-Marxism, the contemporary Frankfurt School, and the French Neo-Marxist currents that flourished after the 1990s.

20世纪70年代以来,西方新马克思主义学者的阶级研究,既有对传统马克思主义阶级理论的解构和重建,也有对马克思阶级理论的辩护和发展。这一时期西方新马克思主义的阶级研究主要包括后现代的马克思主义、分析马克思主义、后马克思主义、当代法兰克福学派及20世纪90年代以后兴盛起来的法国新马克思主义思潮。

In the mid-1970s, European and American Neo-Marxism put forward various different views on the division of the middle class. British cultural Marxism, represented by E.P. Thompson, regarded class as a historical concept, particularly emphasizing the role of class consciousness—manifested in cultural factors such as the working class’s historical traditions, values, and religious beliefs—in the process of class formation, replacing class struggle with cultural conflict. Nicos Poulantzas proposed a structuralist overdetermination theory, overemphasizing the role of politics and ideology in class division, classifying the middle class into the camp of the “new petty bourgeoisie,” thus narrowing the scope of the working class.

20世纪70年代中期,欧美新马克思主义在中间阶级的划分问题上提出多种不同见解。以E.P.汤普森为代表的英国文化马克思主义认为,阶级是一个历史概念,特别强调工人阶级的历史传统、价值观念、宗教信仰等文化因素所表现出来的阶级意识在阶级形成过程中的作用,以文化冲突取代了阶级斗争。普兰查斯提出结构主义的多元决定论,他过于强调政治和意识形态在阶级划分中的作用,把中间阶级划归到“新小资产阶级”阵营,窄化了工人阶级的范围。

In the late 1970s, Postmodernist Marxism, represented by Michel Foucault, revealed the mechanism of capitalist class exploitation from the cultural level and achieved a turn in philosophical methodology, opposing macro-abstract class analysis and emphasizing micro-concrete power conflicts. Ecological socialism and feminism opposed analyzing ecological crises and women’s issues solely from economic factors and macro-class analysis, advocating for micro-analytical methods such as value orientation, gender differences, and female psychology to explain social conflicts and oppression. Representatives include the prominent ecological thinker André Gorz and feminist representatives such as Juliet Mitchell and Lise Vogel. The main representative of contemporary Euro-American cultural Marxism, Fredric Jameson, pointed out that in the era of late capitalism, micro-postmodern politics has replaced traditional totalizing politics, and current political and social struggles are disorganized and non-class-based.

20世纪70年代末,以福柯为代表的后现代主义马克思主义从文化层面揭示了资本主义的阶级剥削机制,并在哲学方法论上实现了转折,反对宏观抽象的阶级分析,强调微观具体的权利冲突。生态社会主义和女性主义反对单纯从经济因素和宏观的阶级分析层面解析生态危机和妇女问题。主张用价值取向、性别差异、女性心理等微观分析方法解释社会冲突和压迫问题。其代表有生态主义典型人物的高兹和女性主义的代表米歇尔、沃格尔等。当代欧美文化马克思主义的主要代表人物詹姆逊指出,在晚期资本主义时期,微观的后现代政治已经取代传统的总体化政治,当前的政治和社会斗争是无组织的,非阶级性的。

The Analytical Marxist school, which emerged in the late 1970s, adopted empirical analytical methods from rational choice theory and game theory to analyze class, class structure, and class struggle in Western society from the individual micro-level. Its representative, John Roemer, starting from the premise of the optimal choices of rational individuals in a market economy, attempted to replace Marx’s theory of surplus value exploitation with a new theory of exploitation. The American Neo-Marxist Erik Olin Wright, based on Roemer’s game theory approach, revised Marx’s class theory and constructed a general framework for class analysis. Wright also conducted in-depth research on the new middle class, proposing the theory of “contradictory class locations” for the new middle class.

20世纪70年代后期产生的分析马克思主义学派采用理性选择论和博弈论的实证分析方法,从个体微观层面来解析西方社会的阶级、阶级结构和阶级斗争。其代表人物J·罗默以市场经济中理性人的最优化选择为前提,尝试用新剥削论取代马克思剩余价值剥削理论。而美国新马克思主义者E·赖特依据罗默的博弈论方法,对马克思阶级理论进行修正,构建起阶级分析的一般框架。赖特还对新中间阶级问题进行深入研究,提出了新中间阶级的“矛盾的阶级地位”论。

During the same period, British Post-Marxist representatives Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe moved toward a postmodern-oriented pluralist social discourse identity and a radical pluralist democratic politics. The later Frankfurt School, represented by Jürgen Habermas and Axel Honneth, shifted its research focus to the theory of democratization of the public sphere and, in the 1980s and 1990s, proposed a discourse ethics, advocating for de-classed democratic politics and achieving social consensus through intersubjective discursive interaction.

同一时期,英国后马克思主义代表拉克劳和墨菲则走向了后现代取向的多元主义社会话语认同和多元化的激进民主政治。以哈贝马斯和霍耐特为代表的后期法兰克福学派则将研究的重心转向了公共领域民主化理论,并在八九十年代提出协商伦理学,主张去阶级化的民主政治,用主体间的话语互动实现社会共识。

At the same time, representatives of French critical Marxism, such as Lucien Sève, Alain Touraine, Pierre Bourdieu, and Jacques Bidet, constructed their class theories using methods different from Marx’s. Among them, the representative of French critical Marxism, Lucien Sève, attempted to replace Marx’s theory of practice with a “production-action theory,” while the prominent French left-wing sociologist Alain Touraine emphasized the significance of power struggles.[2]2 Lucien Sève (1926-2020) was a French Marxist philosopher; Alain Touraine (1925-2023) was a French sociologist known for his work on social movements and post-industrial society.

与此同时,法国批判马克思主义代表托塞尔、托雷、布迪厄、比岱等人用不同于马克思的方法构建其阶级理论。其中,法国批判马克思主义的代表人物托塞尔试图用“生产-行动理论”取代马克思的实践理论,法国著名左翼社会学家艾伦·托雷则突出权力斗争的意义。2

II. Theoretical Characteristics of Contemporary Western Neo-Marxist Class Studies

二、当代西方新马克思主义阶级研究的理论特征

Since the 1970s, Neo-Marxist scholars’ research on Western society and class structure has presented diverse viewpoints, achieving diversified development through mutual interaction and exchange. Scholars of this period kept pace with the times, possessing a strong sense of problem awareness and practical concern. However, their theories also exhibit characteristics of specialization and academization, making them less accessible to the general public. They are highly critical and innovative, achieving a transformation in modes of thinking and a broadening of research horizons, with research methods also showing interdisciplinary and comprehensive features.

20世纪70年代以来,新马克思主义学者对西方社会和阶级结构问题的研究观点各异,在相互激荡和交流中实现了多样化的发展。这一时期的学者与时俱进,具有强烈的问题意识与现实关切。然而,他们的理论又具有专业化、学院化的特征,不大容易为大众接受。他们极具批判精神和创新意识,实现了思维方式转换与研究视域的宽泛化,研究方法也呈现出跨学科化、综合化的特征。

(A) Achieving Diversified Development through Mutual Interaction

(一)在相互激荡中实现多样化的发展

Due to differences in theoretical backgrounds, national regions, and cultural traditions, Western Neo-Marxist theories of class and social structure exhibit extremely rich diversity. Even scholars from the same school may have quite different research themes in different countries.

由于理论背景、民族区域、文化传统的不同,西方新马克思主义的阶级和社会结构理论表现出极其丰富的多样性,甚至同一流派的学者在不同国家的研究主题也不大相同。

In the 1970s, the postmodernist school represented by Foucault deconstructed all grand narratives and core issues such as class, class struggle, revolution, and historical development through postmodern cultural differences and conflicts. They advocated replacing class politics with power politics and opposed explaining contemporary social conflicts and oppression from political and economic perspectives. From the late 1970s to the early 1980s, analytical Marxists still focused on the issues of class and class struggle within traditional Marxist class theory, but methodologically they no longer employed Marxist class analysis; instead, they started from individual rational choice to analyze class and social structures in Western countries. This weakened the theoretical foundation of traditional class politics. In the 1980s and 1990s, the mainstream of British neo-Marxist theory advocated de-class politics and a turn toward pluralistic discourse. During this historical period, traditional Western Marxists such as the later Frankfurt School represented by Habermas shifted the focus of class research toward the theory of democratization of the public sphere, and by the 1980s and 1990s they proposed deliberative ethics and deliberative politics, thereby realizing their de-classified theory of contemporary democratic construction.[3]3 Deliberative ethics and deliberative politics: concepts developed by Jürgen Habermas and others, emphasizing consensus-building through rational discourse in the public sphere as an alternative to class-based political struggle.

20世纪70年代,以福柯为代表的后现代主义流派用后现代的文化差异和冲突解构阶级、阶级斗争、革命、历史发展等一切宏大事件和核心问题。他们主张用权力政治代替阶级政治,反对从政治、经济角度解释当代社会冲突和压迫的问题。20世纪70年代后期至80年代初,分析学派的马克思主义者仍旧关注传统马克思主义阶级理论中的阶级和阶级斗争问题,但在方法论上却不再使用马克思主义的阶级分析方法,而是从个体的理性选择为起点分析西方国家的阶级和社会结构。这就弱化了传统阶级政治的理论基础。在20世纪八九十年代,英国的新马克思主义者的理论主流是倡导去阶级化政治、实现多元话语转向。在这一历史时期,以哈贝马斯为代表的后期法兰克福学派等传统西方马克思主义将阶级研究的重心转向了公共领域民主化理论,及至八九十年代又提出协商伦理学和协商政治,实现了其去阶级化的当代民主建构理论。3

(II) A Strong Sense of Problematic and Practical Concern in Dynamic Analysis

(二)在动态分析中表现出强烈的问题意识与现实关切

Foreign Marxist scholars have also criticized global capitalism under globalization, especially the phenomena of neoliberalism and the new empire. Research mainly covers new imperialism, class, exploitation, alienation, the subject of liberation, and so on. These studies have fully activated the Marxist tradition, transcended national and regional limitations, and fully reflected Marxism’s global vision and humanistic concern. In recent years, with the deepening of criticism of neoliberalism, a revival of class research has emerged, injecting new vitality into radical left-wing theoretical studies. Within the Marxist tradition, these studies have achieved a positive interaction between problematic awareness and theoretical research, realizing the unity of scholarship, thought, and reality.

国外马克思主义学者还对全球化背景下全球资本主义尤其是新自由主义与新帝国现象进行了批判。研究主要涉及新帝国主义、阶级、剥削、异化、解放主体等等。这些研究全面激活了马克思主义传统,突破了国家及区域性的局限,充分体现了马克思主义的全球视野及人文关怀。而近年来,随着对新自由主义批判的深入,出现了阶级研究的复兴,为激进左翼理论研究注入新活力。这些研究在马克思主义传统中较好地实现了问题意识与理论研究的良性互动,实现了学术、思想与现实的统一。

Under the background of post-industrial society, neo-Marxist class research exhibits a strong practical concern; many scholars emphasize combining theoretical research with the practice of social transformation. For instance, Poulantzas and Gorz consistently insisted on closely integrating proletarian theory with concrete practice. Although they did not advocate direct violent revolution, their class research was always closely linked to the specific changes in capitalist society. During this period, scholars often determined the class attributes of class members and their class positions and strategies based on specific political, economic, and cultural contexts and the situation of class struggle. For example, Gorz argued that when technical workers held an important and stable position in capitalist production practice, their class stance and inclination were closer to that of the petty bourgeoisie. Under the further development of science and technology and the post-Fordist conditions of further intelligent production, aside from core workers exhibiting cooperative elitism, a large number of technical workers were controlled by the post-Fordist work ethic, thereby losing class consciousness, and more technical workers degenerated into a “non-class of non-workers.”[4]4 Non-class of non-workers (非工人的非阶级): a term used by André Gorz to describe a post-industrial social stratum of precarious, deskilled workers who lack traditional class consciousness and do not constitute a revolutionary subject.

后工业社会背景下新马克思主义的阶级研究具有极强的现实关照,不少学者强调将理论研究与变革社会的实践相结合。如普兰查斯和高兹始终坚持要将无产阶级理论和具体的实践紧密结合在一起,虽然他们并不主张直接的暴力革命,但他们的阶级研究始终是和资本主义社会的具体变化紧密结合在一起的。这一时期,学者们往往根据具体的政治、经济、文化等背景及阶级斗争的形势来判定阶级成员的阶级属性和阶级的立场策略。比如,高兹认为,当技术工人在资本主义生产实践中具有重要的稳定地位时,他们在阶级立场和阶级倾向上更接近小资产阶级。而在科学技术进一步发展,生产进一步智能化的后福特制条件下,除了核心工人表现为合作的精英主义之外,大量的技术工人都被后福特制工作伦理控制,从而失去了阶级意识,更多的技术工人就沦为“非工人的非阶级”。4

(III) The Shift in Critical Themes and the Transformation of Critical Methods

(三)批判主题的转向与批判方式的转换

After the 1970s, neo-Marxist research on class issues achieved a transformation in the theme, content, method, and space of critique. Research during this period generally adhered to cultural-rational critique. The theme of critique shifted from a macro-level, class-struggle-centered unitary politics to a pluralistic politics centered on individual rights struggles; the content and method of critique shifted from abstract ideological hegemony to concrete everyday life; and the space of critique further expanded to include mass media critique, critique of everyday life, and critique of consumer culture in all fields. It profoundly revealed how, under the conditions of capitalist postmodernization, consumerist culture comprehensively dominates the sphere of human activity from production to life. In the research perspective of neo-Marxism after the late 1970s, cultural discourse analysis replaced traditional socio-economic-based class analysis, and cultural critique in the political sense became the main theme. The greatest characteristic of neo-Marxism during this period lies in its postmodernist turn in cultural critique, emphasizing a comprehensive cultural subversion of capitalism, advocating micro-level, decentered, individualized, and non-substantive cultural power struggles against Western class and social structures, attempting to transform Marxism into a non-Marxist radical theory.[5]5 Postmodernist turn: a shift in critical theory from economic and political analysis to cultural and discursive critique, influenced by poststructuralist thinkers such as Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida.

20世纪70年代以后,新马克思主义者关于阶级问题的研究实现了批判的主题、内容、方式和空间的转换。这一时期的研究总体上坚持文化理性批判。批判的主题从宏观的以阶级斗争为核心的一元政治转向了以个人权利抗争为中心的多元政治,批判的内容和方式从抽象的意识形态霸权转向了具体的日常生活领域,批判的空间上也进一步扩展到大众传媒批判、日常生活和一切领域的消费文化批判。它深刻揭示了资本主义后现代化条件下,消费主义文化从生产到生活对人活动领域的全面统治。20世纪70年代末以后的新马克思主义的研究视野中,文化的话语分析代替了传统的以社会经济为基础的阶级分析,政治学意义上的文化批判成为主旋律。这一时期新马克思主义最大特征就在于其文化批判的后现代主义转向,强调对资本主义进行全面的文化颠覆,主张对西方阶级和社会结构的微观化、非中心化、个体化和非实体化的文化权力抗争,试图把马克思主义转化成非马克思主义的激进理论。5

(IV) The Synthesis and Diversification of Research Methods

(四)研究方法的综合化与多元化

Contemporary neo-Marxist class research increasingly tends toward synthesis and interdisciplinarity, achieving cross-fertilization between philosophy and related humanities, social sciences, and empirical sciences (especially political science, ethics, linguistics, ecology, women’s studies, geography, architecture, etc.). Multi-disciplinary and diverse perspectives allow for a comprehensive and thorough study of issues, facilitating the formation of theoretical results rich in explanatory power and critical force. In contemporary Western neo-Marxist class theory research, scholars have shifted their research perspective to inequalities in the micro-level and individual daily life, employing methods such as mathematical analysis, game theory, and sociological survey research, providing us with new research methods and ideas for studying social problems.

当代新马克思主义阶级研究越来越趋向于综合化与跨学科化,实现了哲学与相关人文社会学科及实证科学(特别是政治学、伦理学、语言学、生态学、女性学、地理学、建筑学)等的交叉融合,而多学科、多样化的视角可以全面透彻地研究问题,有利于形成富有解释力和批判力的理论成果。在当代西方新马克思主义阶级理论的研究中,学者们把研究视角转向微观领域和个人日常生活领域的不平等,采用数理分析、博弈论、社会学调查研究等方法,为我们研究社会问题提供了新的研究方法和研究思路。

The British scholar McLellan believes that since the 1980s, a new trend has emerged in the field of British Marxist studies, combining Marx’s thought with analytical philosophy. This is largely influenced by liberal individualist political thought. The British analytical Marxist school attempts to combine Marxism with liberal analytical philosophy. For example, G. A. Cohen’s work *Karl Marx’s Theory of History* and Roemer’s views on exploitation. Furthermore, the American scholar Wright, who has made outstanding contributions to the development of Marxist class theory, also attempts to place Marxist class theory within a precise analytical framework to increase the operability of Marx’s basic theoretical concepts.

英国学者麦克莱伦认为,20世纪80年代以来,英国马克思主义研究领域出现了把马克思的思想同分析哲学结合起来的新趋势。这很大程度上受自由主义的个人主义政治思想影响。英国分析马克思主义学派尝试把马克思主义同自由主义的分析哲学结合起来。比如,杰瑞·科恩斯的著作《卡尔·马克思的历史》及罗默的剥削论观点。而对马克思阶级理论发展具有突出贡献的美国学者赖特也尝试把马克思主义阶级理论放到精确分析框架内,以增加马克思的基本理论概念的可操作性。

In addition, Western scholars’ research on Marxist class theory also exhibits a trend toward academization, professionalization, and elitism. In fact, in the early stages of neo-Marxism, its pioneers Lukács and Gramsci still maintained the fine tradition of integrating theory with practice. However, since the Frankfurt School, neo-Marxist research has had no connection whatsoever, organizationally or ideologically, with revolutionary parties, workers’ movements, or the working class. After World War II, neo-Marxist research became a specialized academic subject; its critical forms became increasingly professionalized, its language more terminological and obscure. Research venues were mostly transferred to university campuses, and participants were mostly university professors, researchers from research institutions, or specialized academic researchers from professional journals. Academic research became a specialized profession and a means of livelihood. While postmodern neo-Marxist thought became increasingly flattened, its form became increasingly aristocratic. Its proponents do not participate in actual workers’ movements or struggles against capitalism but merely engage in cultural critique of capitalism in their capacity as intellectuals.

此外,西方学者对马克思主义阶级理论的研究还具有学院化、专业化、精英化的趋势。事实上,在新马克思主义发展早期,其开拓者卢卡奇、葛兰西仍然保持着理论联系实践的优良传统,而法兰克福学派以来的新马克思主义研究已经在组织和思想上与革命政党、工人运动和工人阶级没有一点关系了。二战以后,新马克思主义研究成为专业学术主题,其批判形式日益专业化,语言更加术语化,晦涩难懂。研究场所大多转入大学校园,参与者多为大学教授、研究机构或专业刊物的专门学术研究人员,其学术研究成为一种专门的职业和谋生手段。后现代的新马克思主义在思想日益平面化的同时,其形式却日益贵族化,他们不会参与到现实工人运动和反抗资本主义的斗争中去,而只是以知识分子的身份从事对资本主义的文化批判。

III. The Relationship Between Neo-Marxist Class Research and Marxist Class Theory

三、新马克思主义阶级研究与马克思阶级理论的关系

Contemporary Western neo-Marxism, based on the reality of contemporary capitalism, has deferred and expanded Marxist class theory. There is both consistency in theoretical interest and divergence and difference in theoretical nature, objects of critique, and specific viewpoints between their class research and Marxist class theory.

当代西方新马克思主义立足于当代资本主义的现实,对马克思阶级理论进行了延异和拓展。他们的阶级研究与马克思阶级理论之间既有理论旨趣的一致性,也有理论性质、批判对象、具体观点等方面的背离和差异。

(I) Consistency in Theoretical Interest

(一)理论旨趣的一致

Throughout his life, Marx took “discovering a new world through the critique of the old world” as his sacred mission and made the pursuit of human happiness and liberation his lifelong value goal. Critical consciousness and revolutionary spirit are the soul of Marx’s thought. Contemporary Western neo-Marxist scholars, confronting the many contradictions and cultural dilemmas of Western society, have inherited Marx’s humanist sentiment and value stance, criticizing the modern capitalist system from multiple cultural dimensions and in all aspects. Both of these critical theories are built on the foundation of humanism, starting from the essence of humanity to critique the repression of human nature by existing society.

马克思一生将在“批判旧世界中发现一个新世界”作为自己的神圣使命,将追求人类幸福和解放作为毕生的价值目标。批判意识和革命精神是马克思思想的灵魂。而当代西方新马克思主义学者直面西方社会的诸多矛盾和文化困境,继承了马克思的人道主义情怀和价值立场,从文化层面多维度、全方面地批判了现代资本主义制度。这两种批判理论都建立在人本主义的基础上,从人的本质出发去批判现存社会对人性的压抑。

Marx believed that the essence of humanity is embodied in the labor practice of transforming the object. In the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, Marx pointed out that capitalist private property leads to the separation of labor and the conditions of labor, thereby causing the alienation of the worker from the product of labor, from the labor process itself, from species-being, and from other human beings. Private property also recognizes the legitimacy of the separation of labor and the conditions of labor in the form of state law. Therefore, only by achieving the “positive transcendence of private property” and establishing a communist society that abolishes exploitation and oppression can human alienation be eliminated, and ultimately the true appropriation of humanity’s essence and the restoration of human nature be realized.[6]6 Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1959), section on “Private Property and Communism.” Hence, Marx made the overthrow of the capitalist social system and the transcendence of alienation the core of the communist movement. In response to the phenomena of alienation in the Western industrialization process—such as machines controlling people, material wealth alongside spiritual suffering—neo-Marxist critical theorists, through analyzing changes in social structure, shifts in the revolutionary subject, and innovations in revolutionary methods, proposed the concept of “total revolution.” In the view of neo-Marxist scholars, alienation in modern society is not only manifested as an irrational economic compulsion but has become a comprehensive way of life, causing people to lose themselves in a state of false self-satisfaction. Therefore, for modern people, in addition to economic revolution, what is more important is to achieve a cultural and ideological revolution, ultimately realizing the full appropriation of their own essence, that is, the comprehensive and free development of the human being. However, unlike Marx, who placed greater emphasis on economic and political critique, Western neo-Marxist critique focuses more on cultural critique and highlights the individuality of human existence, and it differs significantly from Marx’s class theory in terms of the revolutionary subject, revolutionary strategy, and other aspects.[7]7 See, for example, Herbert Marcuse, *One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society* (Boston: Beacon Press, 1964).

马克思认为,人的本质体现在改造客体的劳动实践中。在《1844年经济学——哲学手稿》中马克思指出,资本主义私有制导致劳动和劳动条件相互分离,因而造成了劳动者和劳动产品、劳动本身、人性及与他人之间发生异化。私有制还以国家法律的形式承认了劳动和劳动条件分离的正当性。因此,只有实现对“私有财产的积极扬弃”,建立消灭剥削和压迫的共产主义社会,才能消除人的异化,并最终实现人对人的本质的真正占有和人性的复归。6因此,马克思把推翻资本主义社会制度,扬弃异化作为共产主义运动的核心。而针对西方工业化过程中出现的机器操纵人,生活富裕、精神痛苦等异化现象,新马克思主义批判理论家们通过分析社会结构的变化、革命主体的改变、革命方式的创新,提出了“总体革命”的构想。在新马克思主义学者看来,现代社会的异化不仅表现为一种不合理的经济强制,而且成为一种全面的生活方式,使得人们在虚假的自我满足状态下丧失了自我。因此,现代人除了进行经济革命外,更重要的是实现文化的意识形态的革命,最终实现对自己本质全面占有,即人的全面、自由发展。但是,与马克思更注重经济和政治批判不同,西方新马克思主义的批判更侧重文化层面的批判且更突出人的存在的个体性,并且在革命主体、革命策略等方面与马克思的阶级理论有很多不同。7

(2) Deviation in Theoretical Nature

(二)理论性质的背离

Contemporary Western neo-Marxist de-class-based pluralist social theory is a social and political theory heterogeneous to Marxism. It ignores class conflicts and their essence in contemporary Western society and denies the historical status and mission of the working class. For instance, some schools argue that Marx’s theory of class and social structure is outdated and advocate replacing Marxist class struggle with de-class-based identity politics and cultural rights struggles. Although this pluralist radical democratic theory objectively combines Marxism with liberal pluralism, it conceals the essence of capital’s exploitation of labor in the context of globalization and weakens the class consciousness of the Western masses. While a few figures in contemporary neo-Marxism exhibit quasi-Marxist tendencies, its overall nature is a negation of Marxism.

当代西方新马克思主义去阶级化的多元社会理论是一种异质于马克思主义的社会政治理论,它忽视了当代西方社会的阶级冲突及其本质,否定了工人阶级的历史地位和使命。比如,有的学派认为,马克思的阶级和社会结构理论已经过时,并主张用去阶级化的认同政治和文化层面的权利抗争替代马克思主义的阶级斗争。这种多元激进民主理论虽然在客观上把马克思主义与自由多元主义结合起来,但却掩盖了全球化背景下资本对劳动剥削的实质,弱化了西方大众阶级意识。虽然在当代新马克思主义中也有少数人物有准马克思主义倾向,但是其总体性质是否定马克思主义的。

Contemporary Western neo-Marxism advocates a comprehensive shift from traditional class politics to postmodern critical movements concerning ecology, gender, race and sexuality, minority groups, and the like, reducing the fundamental class contradictions of capitalism to the level of general social conflicts, thereby completely negating Marx’s theory of class and thoroughly deviating from historical materialism.

当代西方新马克思主义主张由传统阶级政治全面转向生态、性别、种族和性、少数群体等后现代性质的批判运动,把资本主义最根本的阶级矛盾降低到一般的社会冲突的层面,全面否定了马克思主义的阶级学说,彻底背离了历史唯物主义。

(3) Shift in Critical Focus

(三)批判重点的转向

After the 1970s, unlike Marx’s class theory, which exposed the essence of class through ownership and control of the means of production, scholars of postmodern-oriented neo-Marxism, ecological Marxism, Marxist feminism, and other schools focused more on philosophical-cultural critiques of the capitalist system from the perspective of rational cultural logics such as mass media, daily life, consumption in all spheres, and the commodification of art. In the view of neo-Marxist scholars, modern mass media infiltrates the ideology of the ruling class into people’s ways of life through various channels. Therefore, unlike Marx’s class theory, which emphasizes grand narratives and abstract critique, Western neo-Marxist postmodern culture shifts the critical theme to the micro level, shifts the critical content to real life, and makes the critical method more concrete.

20世纪70年代以后,与马克思阶级理论注重从生产资料所有权和支配权揭露阶级本质不同,后现代取向的新马克思主义和生态马克思主义、马克思主义女性主义等学派的学者更注重从大众传媒、日常生活和一切领域的消费、艺术商品化等理性文化逻辑角度对资本主义制度进行哲学-文化批判。在新马克思主义学者看来,现代大众传媒把统治阶级的意识形态通过各种渠道浸润到人的生活方式之中。因此,与马克思阶级理论更强调宏观叙事和抽象的批判不同,西方新马克思主义的后现代文化将批判主题转向微观,批判内容转向现实生活,批判方式更加具体。

After the 1970s, neo-Marxism progressed from striving for freedom at the individual level to striving for freedom at the micro and meso group levels, from striving for general democracy to striving for participatory mass democracy, and from competing for discursive hegemony in class terms to non-class-based pluralist radical democratic politics. Western neo-Marxism has increasingly deviated from Marxism politically and increasingly gravitated toward the liberal mainstream ideology of contemporary capitalism. Theoretically, it cannot truly reveal the fundamental nature and roots of the structural evolution of contemporary Western society, and thus it cannot, like Marx, profoundly analyze the fundamental contradictions of contemporary capitalism.[8]8 See, for example, Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, *Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics* (London: Verso, 1985).

70年代以后的新马克思主义,从争取个人层面的自由进展到争取微观和中观群体层面的自由,从争取一般民主到争取参与性的大众民主,从争夺阶级的话语霸权,转向非阶级政治的多元民主激进政治。西方新马克思主义在政治上日益背离马克思主义,日益趋向于当代资本主义的自由主义主流意识形态。在理论上不能真正揭示当代西方社会的结构性演变的根本性质和根源,因而也无法像马克思那样深刻剖析当代资本主义的根本矛盾。8

(4) Deviation in Theoretical Positions

(四)理论观点的背离

Neo-Marxist class theory also deviates from traditional Marxist positions in terms of theoretical content and specific viewpoints.

新马克思主义阶级理论在理论内容和具体观点上也背离了马克思主义传统观点。

First, the two differ in their understanding of the revolutionary subject.

第一,两者有关革命主体的认识不同。

Marx’s theory of surplus value revealed the profound economic roots of class antagonism in capitalist society. On this basis, he clearly pointed out that only the proletariat can shoulder the great mission of overthrowing capitalism. In contrast, contemporary Western neo-Marxists (such as Herbert Marcuse and André Gorz) argue that Marx’s labor theory of value is outdated, claiming that it is science and technology, not the broad working class, that create surplus value. The ideology of contemporary Western industrial society has caused the working class to lose its negativity and combativeness, rendering it incapable of undertaking the revolutionary task of overthrowing the capitalist system. Only those radical forces whose thinking has not been assimilated by the existing capitalist system and who maintain an independent self—such as students, the unemployed, unorganized workers, vagrants, and intellectuals—can assume the revolutionary task. They particularly emphasize the role of technical workers and intellectuals.

马克思的剩余价值学说揭示了资本主义社会阶级对立的深刻经济根源。并以此为基础,明确指出,只有无产阶级才能肩负起推翻资本主义的伟大使命。而当代西方新马克思主义者(比如马尔库塞、高兹)认为马克思的劳动价值论已经过时了,是科学技术创造了剩余价值,而非广大工人阶级。当代西方工业社会的意识形态使得工人阶级失去了否定性与战斗性,工人阶级已经无力承担推翻资本主义制度的革命任务。只有那些思想没有被现存资本主义制度同化的、保持独立自我的激进力量如学生、失业者、无组织的工人、流浪汉及知识分子才能承担革命的重任。他们特别强调技术工人和知识分子的作用。

Second, the two propose different revolutionary strategies.

第二,两者提出的革命策略不同。

The revolutionary consciousness and practical character of “changing the existing world” are core features of Marx’s philosophy. Because Marx lived in the early period of capitalist accumulation, when class antagonism was extremely acute and the proletariat at the bottom of society suffered hunger and poverty, they could only achieve freedom and liberation through the most effective means of violent revolution. In contrast, the Frankfurt School argues that modern society, while superficially affluent and comfortable, is also a “sick society.” The ills of contemporary Western capitalist society stem from the destruction of people’s instinctual psychological structures. To change society, it is necessary to liberate human nature; this requires not only social transformation in the political and economic sense but also a “cultural revolution” or “psychological revolution” that changes people’s psychological structures.[9]9 See, for example, Herbert Marcuse, *Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud* (Boston: Beacon Press, 1955).

“改变现存世界”的革命意识与实践性是马克思哲学的核心特征。由于马克思所处的资本主义早期积累时期,阶级对抗极度激化,处于社会底层的无产阶级遭受着饥饿与贫穷,他们只能采取最为有效的暴力革命方式,才能获得自由与解放。而法兰克福学派认为,现代社会表面上富裕、安逸,但同时也是一个“病态社会”。当代西方资本主义社会的弊端,源于人们的本能心理结构遭到破坏。要改变社会,就要解放人性,不但要进行政治、经济意义上的社会变革,更要进行改变人的心理结构的“文化革命”或“心理革命”。9

Third, the criteria for class division differ.

第三,阶级划分的标准不同。

Marx linked class division to ownership of the means of production, using the possession or non-possession of the means of production as the criterion for class division. Contemporary Western neo-Marxists argue that Marx’s criterion for class division is no longer applicable, that the factors influencing class division are multiple, and that occupational, political, and cultural factors are important aspects that must be considered. Apart from the thoroughly anti-class political post-Marxism, most “neo-Marxist” scholars do not seem to completely reject the concept of class. However, they generally believe that intense class antagonism and class struggle no longer exist, only non-class-based social and cultural conflicts, and that class division in contemporary developed capitalism is meaningless.

马克思将阶级的划分与生产资料所有权相关联,以是否占有生产资料作为阶级划分的标准。当代西方新马克思主义者则认为,马克思这一阶级划分标准已经不合时宜,影响阶级划分的因素是多重的,而职业、政治和文化因素是其中不得不考虑的重要方面。除了彻底反阶级政治的后马克思主义之外,多数“新马克思主义”学者似乎并不完全拒绝阶级概念,但是他们普遍认为,激烈的阶级对抗和阶级斗争已经不复存在,只存在非阶级对抗的社会文化冲突,对当代发达资本主义的阶级划分没有意义。

In summary, although the class studies of contemporary Western Neo-Marxist scholars have various theoretical limitations, and even deviate from traditional Marxist class theory on certain specific points, these scholars uphold Marx’s humanitarian sentiments and value stance, conducting profound cultural and social critiques of Western industrial society trapped in the predicament of technological rationality. Their research still possesses significant contemporary relevance. These studies not only enrich and expand the study of Marxist class theory and enrich the treasure house of human culture, but also provide reflections for humanity to more actively control historical changes, and offer diverse options for the world communist movement. At the same time, the class studies of contemporary Western Neo-Marxism provide important insights for rationally analyzing China’s industrialization process, improving national governance capacity, building a modern national governance system, and promoting harmony among social strata. For example, postmodernism’s attention to difference and individuality inspires us to clearly recognize the current diversity of interest groups in our country and the differences in interests among different strata, to establish mechanisms for the legitimate demands of different interest groups, to smooth channels for expressing demands, and to construct an active and effective mechanism for integrating interests. Furthermore, in terms of research methods, Western Neo-Marxist scholars are able to combine Marxist research with the empirical research methods and survey research methods of relevant specific sciences, shifting from grand theoretical narratives to micro-level individual psychological analysis. This novel academic perspective is conducive to breaking through the rigid thinking of some domestic scholars on the issue of class studies.

综上所述,当代西方新马克思主义学者的阶级研究虽然有着这样那样的理论局限性,甚至在某些具体观点上背离了传统马克思主义的阶级学说,但是学者们秉持马克思的人道主义情怀和价值立场,对处于科技理性困境之中的西方工业社会进行了深刻的文化和社会批判,其研究仍然具有重要的时代意义。这些研究不仅丰富和拓展了马克思主义阶级理论的研究,繁荣了人类文化宝库,而且为人类更加主动地掌控历史变局提供了思考,也为世界共产主义运动提供了多样化的选择。同时,当代西方新马克思主义的阶级研究对理性分析中国的工业化进程,提高国家治理能力,建设现代化国家治理体系,促进社会阶层和谐具有重要的启示作用。比如,后现代主义对差异性和个性的关注启发我们,要清醒认识当前我国利益群体的多元化和不同阶层的利益差异性,建立不同利益群体的合法诉求机制,畅通诉求表达渠道,构建积极有效的利益整合机制。此外,在研究方法上,西方新马克思主义学者能够将马克思主义研究与相关的具体科学的实证研究方法和调查研究方法结合起来,从宏大的理论叙事转向微观的个体心理分析,这种新颖的学术视角有利于突破某些国内学者在阶级研究问题上僵化的思维。

Notes

注释

1 Li Yuanyuan, “Western Marxist Class Theory and Its Contemporary Value” (Beijing: Doctoral dissertation of the Central Party School, 2010), p. 37.

1李媛媛:《西方马克思主义阶级理论及其当代价值》,北京:中央党校博士论文,2010年,第37页。

2 Zhou Suiming, “The Western Class and Social Structure Evolution Theory of Neo-Marxism,” *Issues of Contemporary World Socialism*, No. 2, 2006, pp. 18-19.

2周穗明:《新马克思主义的西方阶级和社会结构演变理论》,《当代世界社会主义问题》2006年2期,第18-19页。

3 Zhou Suiming, Wang Mei, et al., *The Western Left on the Evolution of Contemporary Western Social Structure* (Nanjing: Jiangsu People’s Publishing House, 2008), p. 210.

3周穗明,王玫等:《西方左翼论当代西方社会结构的演变》,南京:江苏人民出版社,2008年,第210页。

4 Tang Jianlong, “Class and Class Analysis in the Post-Fordist Era,” *Journal of Hunan Normal University (Social Science Edition)*, No. 1, 2014.

4汤建龙:《后福特制时代的阶级和阶级分析》,《湖南师范大学学报(社会科学学版)》2014年1期。

5 Zhou Suiming, *History of 20th Century Western Neo-Marxism (Volume 2)* (Beijing: Xuexi Publishing House, 2004), p. 655.

5周穗明:《20世纪西方新马克思主义发展史(下册)》,北京:学习出版社,2004年,第655页。

6 Modern Western Philosophy Research Office, Department of Philosophy, Fudan University, *Western Scholars on the “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844”* (Shanghai: Fudan University Press, 1983), p. 199.

6复旦大学哲学系现代西方哲学研究室:《西方学者论〈1844 年经济学——哲学手稿〉 》,上海:复旦大学出版社,1983年,第199页。

7 Che Yuling, “From Socio-Political Critique to Cultural Critique,” *Qiushi Journal*, No. 4, 1996.

7车玉玲:《从社会政治批判到文化批判》,《求是学刊》1996年4期。

8 Zhou Suiming, *History of 20th Century Western Neo-Marxism (Volume 2)* (Beijing: Xuexi Publishing House, 2004), p. 661.

8周穗明:《20世纪西方新马克思主义发展史(下册)》,北京:学习出版社,2004年,第661页。

9 Che Yuling, “From Socio-Political Critique to Cultural Critique,” *Qiushi Journal*, No. 4, 1996.

9车玉玲:《从社会政治批判到文化批判》,《求是学刊》1996年第4期。

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑