On the Western Left’s Contemporary Interpretation of the Idea of Communism since the 21st Century

The communist vision is an important topic of discussion among Western leftist scholars, having undergone a process from affirmation to negation and then to return. The collapse of the Soviet Union caused the left to lose its vitality and dynamism, or to become submerged in critiques of consumer and entertainment culture, while the international communist movement also fell into a downturn. However, since the beginning of the 21st century, especially after the 2008 capitalist economic crisis, leftist scholars have rekindled their research enthusiasm for the idea of communism, attempting to interpret the contemporary value and path to realization of communism from a全新的 perspective. An in-depth study of the real conditions, theoretical foundations, and practical paths for the emergence and development of the idea of communism among foreign scholars is of great significance for a comprehensive understanding of the idea of communism and for promoting the development of China’s communist theory.

共产主义设想是西方左翼学者探讨的重要议题，它经历了一个从被肯定到否定再到复归的发展过程。苏联解体使左翼丧失了生机与活力或淹没在消费、娱乐文化的批评之中，国际共产主义运动也陷入低迷。然而，进入21世纪以来，尤其是2008年资本主义经济危机之后，左翼学者重燃对共产主义观念的研究热情，试图以全新的视域阐释当代共产主义的时代价值与实现路径。深入研究国外学者关于共产主义观念产生发展的现实条件、理论基础以及现实路径等内容，对全面理解共产主义观念，以及推动我国共产主义理论的发展具有重要意义。

I. The Real Urgency and Positive Factors for the Return of the Idea of Communism

一、复归共产主义观念的现实紧迫性与积极因素

After entering the 21st century, the inherent contradictions of capitalism remain irreconcilable, with antagonisms and conflicts continuing and showing a clear trend of intensification. The prominent leftist scholar Alain Badiou, influenced by changes in the current era’s environment, is no longer a defender of the theory of proletarian revolution among traditional Marxists, but has instead become a political theorist who places his hopes in the idea of communism and the communist movement. He points out that the four principles manipulating contemporary capitalist society are collectivism versus privatization, polymorphous workers versus specialization, concrete universality versus closed identities, and free association versus the state. The various contradictions arising from these antagonisms constantly impact the world system woven by capitalism. On this basis, the leftist politician Slavoj Žižek not only affirms the rationality and necessity of Badiou’s communist hypothesis but also particularly emphasizes that “people should locate antagonisms in historical reality, making them an urgency of practice” [1]1 Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, *Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire* (New York: The Penguin Press, 2004), p. 115., revealing four relatively prominent forms of antagonism in modern capitalist society: the ecological crisis, the inconsistency between private property and the sharing of knowledge, the anti-ethical phenomena of bioengineering, and the contradiction between the included and the excluded. After objectively analyzing the various antagonisms of capitalism, Žižek recognizes the limitations of capitalism and views these drawbacks as phenomenal signs that capitalism is heading towards its end. In Žižek’s view, although capitalism has entered a new stage where global market conditions are increasingly developed and utilized, the risk of financial system collapse constantly reflects the functional urgency of the capitalist system, which cannot solve problems by itself. Therefore, Žižek clearly states: “What is needed now is not a moral critique of capitalism, but a comprehensive reaffirmation of communist ideas” [2]2 Michael Hardt, “The Common in Communism,” in Costas Douzinas and Slavoj Žižek, eds., *The Idea of Communism* (London: Verso, 2010), p. 137.. Compared to Badiou’s stance against historical determinism, Žižek places greater emphasis on attention to historical reality itself.

进入21世纪之后，资本主义的固有矛盾仍然不可调和，对抗与冲突不断，并带有明显的加剧趋势。著名左翼学者阿兰·巴迪欧，受到当前所处时代环境变化的影响，他已经不再是传统马克思主义者中无产阶级革命理论的辩护者，转而成为寄希望于共产主义观念以及共产主义运动的政治理论家。他指出操控当今资本主义社会的四个原则是集体主义对抗私有化、多形态的劳动者对抗专业化、具体的普世性对抗封闭的身份、自由联合对抗国家，而这些对抗所产生的种种矛盾则时刻冲击着资本主义编织的世界体系。在此基础上，左翼政治家齐泽克不仅肯定了巴迪欧关于共产主义假设的合理性与必要性，而且还特别强调“人们应当在历史现实中对对抗进行定位，使其成为实践的迫切性”1，揭示了现代资本主义社会中较为突出的四种对抗形式，即生态危机、财产私有与知识共享的不一致、生物工程的反伦理现象以及被包容者和被排斥者之间的矛盾。在对资本主义种种对抗进行客观分析之后，齐泽克认识到资本主义的局限性，并将这些弊端视为资本主义正在走向终结的现象表征。在齐泽克看来，虽然资本主义已经进入全球市场条件被开发、被利用不断增强的新阶段，但是金融体系的崩溃风险却时刻体现出资本主义系统的功能紧迫性，他们无法通过自身解决问题。因此，齐泽克明确指出：“现在所需要的不是对资本主义的道德批判，而是对共产主义思想的全面重新肯定”2。相较于巴迪欧反对历史决定论的立场，齐泽克则更加突出对历史现实本身的关注。

When discussing the study of the real conditions for the emergence and development of communism, the book *The Actuality of Communism*, a representative work of contemporary foreign studies on communism, is unavoidable. In this work, Columbia University Professor Bruno Bosteels, starting from an ontological perspective, deeply analyzes the limitations of the speculative left, pointing out that “speculative leftism represents an uncompromising purification of the concept of communism, which is less an abolition of communism than a complete blanking out of the current state including all classes, parties, and ideological institutions of the state” [3]3 Alain Badiou, *The Communist Hypothesis*, trans. David Macey and Steve Corcoran (London: Verso, 2010), p. 239.. This trend, aimed at purifying communism and eliminating all past and present connections with class, party, and state, has typical manifestations including seeking a leftist ontology (emphasizing the establishment of society while downplaying or even erasing the fusion of society and politics), accepting the depoliticization of politics, and making broad distinctions between power and non-power, political invariance and aesthetic pluralism. Bosteels believes that this behavior of ignoring the long history of communism will lead to the demise of genuine emancipatory politics. Therefore, he emphasizes the rationality and reality of plural communism and advocates for a re-understanding of the concept of communism, that is, redefining the ideological connotation of communism based on absorbing historical experiences and lessons.

谈及对共产主义产生、发展的现实条件的研究，作为当代国外共产主义研究的代表作之一的《共产主义的现实性》一书不可回避。哥伦比亚大学教授布鲁诺·波斯蒂尔斯在这部著作中以本体论视域为出发点，深入分析了投机左派的局限性，指出“投机的左倾主义代表了对共产主义概念的一种毫不妥协的净化，与其说是废除共产主义，不如说是对包括国家的所有阶级、政党和意识形态机构在内的当前状态的完全空白”3，这一股旨在净化共产主义，消除过去和现在与阶级、政党和国家的一切联系的潮流，它的典型表征包括寻求左派本体论（强调社会的建立而淡化甚至消弭社会与政治的融合关系）、接受政治的非政治性、对权力与非权力、政治不变性与审美多元性的宽泛区分等内容。波斯蒂尔斯认为这种忽略共产主义悠久历史的行为会导致真正的解放政治的消亡，因此强调多元共产主义的合理性与现实性，主张对共产主义概念进行重新认识，即在吸收历史经验教训的基础上对共产主义的思想内涵进行重新界定。

Additionally, it is worth mentioning that the prominent post-Marxist scholar Jodi Dean takes a different approach, starting from the perspective of the current new communist movement, discussing the real urgency of communism at both theoretical and practical levels. She proposes that “as our desiring gaze turns toward the communist horizon, we can now begin to collectively shape a world we already have in common” [4]4 Alain Badiou, *The Meaning of Sarkozy*, trans. David Fernbach (London: Verso, 2008), p. 98.. In Dean’s view, the left has long been paralyzed by the pessimistic tone that communism inevitably leads to Stalinism, decline, and collapse, thus requiring scholars to provide new theoretical interpretations. Dean clearly states that “it is precisely because the extreme capitalism and desperate financialism of neoliberal state policies have brought about severe inequalities that are obvious, undeniable, and global” [4]4 Alain Badiou, *The Meaning of Sarkozy*, trans. David Fernbach (London: Verso, 2008), p. 98. that the theoretical value and practical role of communism need to be re-exerted. In her latest 2020 article, “Communism or Neofeudalism,” Dean directly points to the neofeudal tendencies of contemporary capitalism, sharply presenting people with a single-choice question: choose communism or neofeudalism, advocating for overthrowing capitalism and moving towards communism. She argues that the concentration of capitalist monopolies, intensifying inequality, and the subordination of the state to the market all exhibit feudal characteristics. As the accumulation of rent, debt, and power becomes as significant as accumulation through commodity production, this indicates that more and more capitalists are not using capital for reproduction but for storage or redistribution of rent. Therefore, Dean states that “today’s communicative capitalism is a system that, through the intensification and redirection of its own processes, is becoming neofeudalism” [5]5 Alain Badiou, *The Communist Hypothesis*, p. 257.. She points out that this feudalism has four interlocking features: division of sovereignty, hierarchy and the new expropriation of lords and peasants, desolate hinterlands and privileged cities, and insecurity and disaster, thereby demonstrating capitalism’s worse neofeudal direction: “The multiple dimensions of capitalist production—expropriation, domination, force—become so powerful that there is no longer reason to assume that equal actors meet in the labor market, even as a dominant fiction” [5]5 Alain Badiou, *The Communist Hypothesis*, p. 257.. This will lead to many phenomena such as new lords and serfs, extreme inequality, and power politics, making the urgency of the era for communist struggle beyond doubt.

另外，值得一提的是，著名后马克思主义学者约迪·迪安则另辟蹊径从当前的新共产主义运动视角出发，论述了共产主义在理论与现实两个层面的现实紧迫性，提出“随着我们渴望的目光投向共产主义的地平线，我们现在可以着手共同塑造一个我们已经拥有共同点的世界”4。在迪安看来，左派已经被共产主义不可避免走向斯大林主义、走向衰退、崩溃的消极论调麻痹已久，因此需要学者对此做出新的理论阐释。迪安明确指出正是“因为新自由主义国家政策的极端资本主义和绝望的金融主义所带来的严重不平等是显而易见、不可否认的，而且是全球性的”4，所以需要重新发挥共产主义的理论价值与现实作用。而迪安在2020年最新的文章《共产主义或新封建主义》中，更是直指当代资本主义的新封建主义倾向，犀利地向人们提出了选择共产主义或者新封建主义的单选题，主张推翻资本主义，走向共产主义。她认为，资本主义垄断的集中、加剧的不平等现象以及国家对市场的屈从等都体现着封建主义表征，随着租金、债务、权力等的积累变得与通过商品生产的积累一样多，这表明越来越多的资本家没有将资本用于再生产，而是进行储存或者租金的重新分配，因此迪安表示“今天的交往资本主义是一个因为它自己过程的加强和转向正在成为新封建主义的系统”5。她指出这种封建主义具有四个连锁特征：主权的划分、等级制度和新的领主与农民的征用、荒凉的腹地和享有特权的城市以及不安全感和灾难，从而论证了资本主义更加糟糕的新封建主义走向：“资本主义生产征用、统治、武力等多个维度变得更加强大，以至于不再有理由假设平等的行动者在劳动力市场上相遇，即使这是一种支配性的虚构”5，这将会导致新的领主和农奴、极端的不平等、强权政治等诸多现象，共产主义斗争的时代紧迫性毋庸置疑。

However, we see that while capitalist crises bring economic collapse, they also generate new rounds of space for capital utilization. This not only stimulates the bourgeoisie to revive the economy with stricter market rules but also brings about reforms and adjustments that capitalism makes to itself. Together, they constitute the real factors for the continued existence and development of capitalism, creating a disconnection between crisis and revolution. In this sense, seemingly unsolvable contradictions of capitalism, such as economic crises and ecological crises, have all become important forms for capital to reopen capital space, collectively maintaining the survival and development of capitalism. Žižek reveals the capitalist essence of this interpretation and calls on people to pay more attention to factors such as the gradually strengthening revolutionary consciousness of the proletariat behind the crises (progress in organization, intellect, and politics), humanity’s desire to escape oppression and pursue liberation, the environmental carrying capacity pressure of capitalist development, and the efforts and attempts of communist forces to explore new paths.

然而，我们看到，资本主义危机在带来经济崩溃的同时，也产生了新一轮的资本利用空间，这不仅刺激资产阶级以更加严格的市场规则复苏经济，而且也带来资本主义对其自身做出的改革与调整。它们共同构成了资本主义依然存在并发展的现实因素，使资本主义产生了危机与革命的联结断层。从这个意义上来说，貌似经济危机、生态危机等资本主义无法解决的自身矛盾，都已经成为资本重新开拓资本空间的重要形式，它们共同维持着资本主义的生存与发展。齐泽克揭示了这种解释的资本主义本质，并呼吁人们应该更加重视危机背后逐渐增强的无产阶级革命意识（组织上、智力上、政治上的进步）、人类摆脱压迫追求解放的观念、资本主义发展的环境承载压力以及共产主义力量探索新路径的努力和尝试等因素。

Amid the overall atmosphere of social antagonism and leftist melancholy, communist factors resisting capitalism are also growing in the soil of the contemporary social environment. When discussing the four antagonisms of capitalist society, Žižek has already recognized the forms and content of the “commons” [6]6 Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, *Multitude*, p. xv. existing in culture, natural resources, human biological genes, etc., pointing out that the process and degree of their appropriation and exploitation by the included constitute the reference standard for the current revival of the concept of communism. Dean not only remains positively optimistic about the new communist movement under the sign of communism but also points out the changes in the situation of the new capitalist era under network information technology. She believes that with the expansion and upgrading of information technology in different fields, people’s communication capabilities have already broken through the traditional limitations of time, space, and region, and global “communicative capitalism” [7]7 “Communicative capitalism” (交往资本主义, jiāowǎng zīběnzhǔyì): A term used by Jodi Dean to describe a form of capitalism where communication networks (e.g., social media) capture and exploit our communicative acts, creating a sense of participation while depoliticizing and neutralizing radical potential. has developed rapidly. Under these conditions, it is possible to organize and implement revolution based on common collective desires. Left-wing theorist Hardt discusses the “publicness” of the products produced by this mode of production from the perspective of “immaterial production.” [8]8 “Immaterial production” (非物质生产, fēiwùzhì shēngchǎn): A concept from Italian autonomist Marxism (Hardt, Negri) referring to the production of ideas, information, affects, and relationships, which is seen as increasingly dominant in post-Fordist capitalism. The immaterial products produced by specific behaviors such as producing knowledge, disseminating information, and exchanging emotions can be used, appropriated, and consumed by others. In this process, workers both create value and improve themselves, which to a certain extent overcomes the essence of pure exploitation of workers in capitalist production. He believes that communism differs from capitalism and socialism mainly in that it is based on the production and distribution of immaterial production. On the one hand, the products produced through immaterial production possess their own social shareability, enabling equality in distribution; on the other hand, the process of immaterial production, while creating value, also completes its own growth, generation, and perfection. This definition is regarded by Hardt as an important manifestation of communist characteristics in modern society, marking the publicization of individual labor products. Therefore, immaterial production is a field that can directly achieve socialization, and realizing the sharing of such commons becomes an important content for reaching the future communist society. Negri goes further, pointing out that commonality already exists within the organism of contemporary capitalist society, and calls the current society “communist capitalism.” [9]9 “Communist capitalism” (共产主义的资本主义, gòngchǎnzhǔyì de zīběnzhǔyì): Negri’s term for the idea that the common (cooperation, knowledge, affects) is already the hidden substance of contemporary capitalism, making communism immanent within it. He believes that the core of communism is to realize the “common,” that is, the process by which multiple subjects overthrow private ownership through revolution, achieve common ownership of property, and on this basis establish a completely new community. He vividly describes the return of the concept of communism and the development of the communist movement as “the seed has been sown; if we till the soil well, the harvest will follow.” [6]6 Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, *Multitude*, p. xv.

在社会对抗与左派忧郁的整体气氛下，反抗资本主义的共产主义因素也在当代社会环境的土壤中生长出来。在论述资本主义社会的四种对抗时，齐泽克已经认识到文化、自然资源、人类生物基因等所存在的“共有物”形式与内容，指出被包容者对它们进行占有和剥削的过程和程度，是构成当前复兴共产主义概念的参照标准。迪安不仅对共产主义之势下的新共产主义运动保持积极乐观，而且指出了网络信息技术下新资本主义时代的事态变化。她认为随着信息技术在不同领域的扩展和提升，人们的沟通能力已然突破时空、地域的传统限制，全球“交往资本主义”迅速发展，而在此条件下以共同的集体愿望为基础，实现对革命的组织、实施则是有可能的。左翼理论家哈特从“非物质生产”角度论述了这种生产方式所生产的产品的“公共性”。生产知识、传播信息、交流情感等具体行为生产的非物质产品可以被他人使用、占有和消费，劳动者在这个过程中既创造价值，也提高自身，这在一定程度上克服了资本主义生产中对工人的纯粹剥削实质。他认为共产主义与资本主义以及社会主义不同的是它主要基于对非物质生产的生产和分配。一方面，通过非物质生产生产出的产品具有其自身的社会共享性，可以实现分配的平等；另一方面，非物质生产过程在创造价值的同时，也完成其自身的成长、生成与完善。这一界定被哈特视为现代社会中具有共产主义特征的重要表现，它标志着个人劳动产品实现了公共化。因此，非物质生产是可以直接实现社会化的领域，实现此类共有物的共享成为到达未来共产主义社会的重要内容。奈格里则更进一步地指出共有性已经存在于当代资本主义社会的机体之中，并将现在的社会称为共产主义的资本主义。他认为共产主义的核心是实现“共有”，即多元主体通过革命推翻私有制，实现财产共有，并在基础上建立全新的共同体的过程。他将共产主义观念的复归以及共产主义运动的发展生动地描述为“种子已经播种，如果我们把土壤耕得好，收获就会随之而来”6。

II. The Logical Schema of the Return of the Concept of Communism by Western Left Scholars

二、西方左翼学者复归共产主义观念的逻辑图式

Facing opportunities and challenges, as an important force of radical politics, Western left scholars have embarked on a new journey to explore the return of the concept of communism. They continuously accumulate experience, innovate, and attempt to guide practice with the theoretical results obtained, thereby seeking a global alternative to capitalism.

面对机遇与挑战，作为激进政治的重要力量，西方左翼学者开启了一段探索复归共产主义观念的新征程。他们不断积累经验，推陈出新，试图通过得出的理论成果指导实践，从而寻找出替代资本主义的全球性方案。

(I) Theoretical Level

（一）理论层面

The various ills emerging in contemporary capitalist society have raised new demands for solving the problem of the “commons” under the wave of globalization. How to reinterpret communism from the existing theoretical basis, thereby establishing the universal principle of liberation of communism, has become the core content focused on by the Western left. Western left scholars mainly make logical arguments for the return of communism from three levels: subject theory, immaterial production theory, and egalitarian theory.

当前资本主义社会出现的种种弊端，对解决全球化浪潮下的“共有物”问题提出了新要求，如何从现有理论基础重新阐释共产主义，从而确立共产主义的普世解放原则，成为西方左翼聚焦的核心内容。西方左翼学者主要从主体理论、非物质生产理论、平等主义理论三个层面对复归共产主义做出逻辑论证。

First, the Western left tends to envision the political form of communism from the perspective of subject theory. Badiou’s “communist hypothesis” [10]10 “Communist hypothesis” (共产主义假设, gòngchǎnzhǔyì jiǎshè): Alain Badiou’s term for the persistent idea of a society beyond private property and the state, which he argues must be re-asserted as a political axiom after the failures of actually existing socialism. is a conception of social development that involves the popularization of the idea of communism, relying on new subjects to carry out relevant revolutionary movements, and realizing new forms of political organization. He believes that the idea is “the subjectivization of the interaction between the truth process and the representation of history,” [7]7 “Communicative capitalism” (交往资本主义, jiāowǎng zīběnzhǔyì): A term used by Jodi Dean to describe a form of capitalism where communication networks (e.g., social media) capture and exploit our communicative acts, creating a sense of participation while depoliticizing and neutralizing radical potential. and the communist idea likewise contains the process of subjectivizing communism, enabling individuals to grow into political subjects in the event and integrate together into the entire history. When Badiou envisions communism, he is mainly based on his own grasp of the “subject,” hardly incorporating economic factors into consideration. He believes that true communism should be a future society where people with subject consciousness pursue a happy and ideal life, based on the collective ownership of the means of labor and the collective sharing of the fruits of labor. This is a society of undifferentiated community, completely different from the capitalist lifestyle of money-worship and hedonism, an equal society realizing the maximum freedom of the subject. It is necessary to point out that the theoretical basis for Badiou’s critique of contemporary capitalist society is “event philosophy.” [11]11 “Event philosophy” (事件哲学, shìjiàn zhéxué): Badiou’s philosophical framework centered on the “event”—a radical, unpredictable rupture in the existing order that creates the possibility for a new truth and a new subject. The event breaks or destroys the existing order; the trace left after the event’s eruption marks the existence of truth, and the subject is the force that activates the trace and reproduces truth, realizing the generation of the subject and the reproduction of truth in this process. For example: he proposes that events have contingency and rupture, and the Paris Commune [12]12 Paris Commune (巴黎公社, Bālí Gōngshè): The revolutionary socialist government that ruled Paris from March 18 to May 28, 1871, often cited by Marxists as the first example of the dictatorship of the proletariat. as an event embodies the change from nothing to something, and the process in which the proletariat as a subject generates itself in this event, is a communist event where historical rupture occurs contingently in the capitalist stage of human social development. Badiou thereby demonstrates the important role of the subject as an intermediary for contingent events, and the communist idea becomes the condition for individuals to become political subjects. Žižek makes a realistic hypothesis about communism within the scope of practical reason, emphasizing the importance of changing existing social antagonisms, and viewing the subject’s appropriation of the commons as a process of the continuous proletarianization of humanity. Here, the commons include not only material resources like natural resources and land but also spiritual resources like language and culture. He points out that the process of proletarianization is a process of intense confrontation between the excluded and the included. The included occupy the position of “private property” within the social order, while the excluded, although representing universality in society, lack the qualification for “private property.” They are not only deprived in terms of material foundation but also find it difficult to achieve genuine democracy in the democratic political space. Therefore, Žižek states that with the expansion of the excluded subject, the traditional proletariat is no longer realistic, and the antagonism of capitalist society makes more people become “the excluded.” He calls on the new “proletarians” to unite and take concrete actions to fight for the appropriation of the commons.

首先，西方左翼偏向于从主体理论视域设想共产主义的政治形式。巴迪欧的共产主义假设是实现共产主义的观念普及、依靠新的主体开展相关革命性运动、实现新的政权组织形式的社会发展构想。他认为观念是“真理的过程和历史的再现二者之间的彼此作用的主观化”7，共产主义观念则同样包含着将共产主义主观化的过程，它使个体在事件中成长为政治的主体，并一起融入整个历史当中。巴迪欧设想共产主义时，主要基于自己对“主体”的把握，几乎没有将经济因素纳入考量范围，他认为真正的共产主义应该是在劳动资料集体所有，劳动成果集体共享的基础上，具有主体意识的人们追求幸福理想生活的未来社会，这是一种与资本主义金钱至上、享乐为主的生活方式截然不同的无差别的共同体社会，是实现主体最大程度自由的平等社会。有必要指出的是，巴迪欧批判当代资本主义社会的理论基础是事件哲学。事件打破或者摧毁了现存秩序，事件爆发后遗留下的印记则标志着真理的存在，而主体又是激活印记、再现真理的力量，并在这个过程中实现了主体的生成与真理的再现。例如：他提出事件具有偶然性和断裂性，而巴黎公社作为事件所体现出的从无到有的事态变化，以及在此事件中无产阶级作为主体而生成自身的过程，就是在人类社会发展过程中的资本主义社会阶段，偶然出现历史断裂的共产主义事件。巴迪欧借此论证了主体作为中介对偶然性事件的重要作用，共产主义观念则成为个体成为政治主体的条件。齐泽克在实践理性范围内对共产主义做出现实假设，强调改变现存社会对抗的重要性，将主体对共有物的占有作为人类不断实现无产阶级化的过程，这里的共有物既包括自然资源、土地等物质资源，还包括语言、文化等精神资源。他指出无产阶级化的过程就是被排斥者与被包容者激烈对抗的过程，被包容者在社会秩序中占据着“私有”的位置，而被排斥者虽在社会中代表着普遍性，却没有“私有”的资格，他们不仅在物质基础上被剥夺，而且在民主的政治空间里也难以实现真正的民主。因此，齐泽克表示，随着被排斥者主体的扩大，传统意义上的无产阶级已经不再具有现实性，而资本主义社会的对抗则使更多人成为“被排斥者”。他呼吁新的“无产者”应该团结起来，采取切实的行动争取对共有物的占有。

Secondly, the Western Left is keen to analyze the dominant economic form of contemporary capitalist society from the theory of “immaterial labor.” Hardt and Negri deeply analyzed Italian autonomist Marxism and, on this basis, proposed a theory of “immaterial production” or “biopolitical production” with immaterial labor as its logical core, attempting to explore contemporary practical paths for realizing communism. Hardt believes that “biopolitical production” is the production of social life itself, encompassing all political, economic, cultural, and social relations, including ideas, information, language, and genetic codes. This process produces both commodity objects and corresponding social relations. It is the immaterial production of the subject itself, accompanied by a tendency of gradual development away from capital, carrying obvious political significance and vital characteristics. This form of production has become the dominant form of production in modern society. The products of immaterial production can assume a virtual state or possess emotional characteristics. They can be specifically distinguished into: large-scale industrial production labor integrated with communication technology and informatization; production labor integrated with intelligent components and achieving production automation; and labor integrated with emotional factors and achieving virtual or actual interaction. Hardt and Negri state that the transformation of labor power towards an information economy, including both the content and form of labor, “is the most direct sociological and anthropological connotation of the process of the economic paradigm.” [1]1 Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, *Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire* (New York: The Penguin Press, 2004), p. 115. Hardt analyzes two new forms of struggle over property in contemporary society: material production and immaterial production. Due to the private nature of the former and the common nature of the latter, he further situates the struggle between exclusive property and common property, proposing that because they are easily shared or copied, ownership is difficult to manage. The reproducibility of common property breaks the logic of scarcity, so “today the immaterial triumphs over the material, the reproducible triumphs over the non-reproducible, and the shared triumphs over the exclusive.” [2]2 Michael Hardt, “The Common in Communism,” in Costas Douzinas and Slavoj Žižek, eds., *The Idea of Communism* (London: Verso, 2010), p. 137. Restricting the sharing of “commons” reduces their productivity, while the shared nature of common property dictates that it must necessarily expand its reach and influence and increase its user base to ensure and develop its productivity. In Hardt’s view, the development trend of common property is unstoppable. This includes both natural commons such as land, forests, and water, and artificial commons such as ideas, information, and language. It contradicts capitalist private property. After a series of analyses and arguments, Hardt concludes that “although the production of producers of common property is increasingly becoming the center of the capitalist economy, capital cannot intervene in the production process and must remain external to extract value in the form of rent (through finance and other mechanisms),” [2]2 Michael Hardt, “The Common in Communism,” in Costas Douzinas and Slavoj Žižek, eds., *The Idea of Communism* (London: Verso, 2010), p. 137. thereby creating as much autonomous space as possible for these producers to increase productivity. The nature of public property, such as shareability and openness of use, impairs capitalist property relations and contradicts the capitalist mode of appropriation. The process of its gradual development and replacement of private property as the dominant economic form is also the process of capital transcending itself and achieving liberation.

其次，西方左翼热衷于从“非物质劳动”理论分析当代资本主义社会的主导经济形式。哈特与奈格里深入分析了意大利自治主义的马克思主义，并在此基础上提出了以非物质劳动为逻辑核心的“非物质生产”或“生命政治生产”理论，试图探索实现共产主义的当代现实路径。哈特认为“生命政治生产”是包含思想、信息、语言、遗传密码等所有政治、经济、文化、社会关系等在内的社会生活自身的生产，这一过程既生产商品客体，也生产出相应的社会关系，它是伴有逐渐脱离资本的发展倾向的主体自身的非物质生产，带有明显的政治意义和生命表征，这种生产形式已经成为现代社会占据主导地位的生产形式。非物质生产的产品它们可以采取虚拟状态，亦存在情感性表征，可以具体区分为融入通讯技术、实现信息化的大工业生产劳动；融入智能成分、实现生产自动化的生产劳动；融入感情因素、实现虚拟或实际交往的劳动。哈特与奈格里表示，包括劳动内容、劳动形式在内的向信息经济发展的劳动力变化，“这是经济范式进程的最直接的社会学与人类学的内涵”8。哈特分析了当代社会的两种新的财产斗争形式，物质生产与非物质生产。由于前者的私有性，后者的共有性，他进一步将斗争放置于独享财产与共享财产之间，提出正是因为它们很容易被共享或复制，因而难以管理所有权。共享财产的可再生性打破了稀缺性的逻辑，所以“今天非物质战胜了物质，可再生战胜了不可再生，共享战胜了排他”9。限制“共有物”被共享的做法会使其生产率降低，而共享财产的共享属性则决定了它必须采取扩大传播范围及影响、增加使用受众等方式来保证并发展其生产力的必然行为。在哈特眼中，共享财产的发展趋势势不可挡，这其中既包括土地、森林、水等自然的共有物，也包括思想、信息、语言等人为的共有物，它与资本主义的财产私有相违背。在经过一系列分析论证后，哈特得出结论，认为“虽然共享财产生产者的生产日益成为资本主义经济的中心，但资本不能干预生产过程，而必须保持在外部以租金（通过金融和其他机制）的形式剥夺价值”9，从而尽可能地为这些生产者们创造自主的领域，提高生产率。公共财产的性质，如共享性、使用的开放性等，都对资本主义财产关系带来妨害，有悖于资本主义占有方式，而它逐步发展并取代私有财产的经济主导地位的过程，亦是资本超越自身获得解放的过程。

Finally, the Western Left tends to use egalitarian theory as the logical foundation for interpreting the concept of communism. Badiou proposes that communism is based on three axioms. The first is egalitarian thought, i.e., the inherent equality of human nature, aiming to establish a world no longer structured by unequal social relations such as wealth, division of labor, segregation, state persecution, and gender differences. The second is the disappearance of the coercive, transcendent state, emphasizing that people’s political actions can be organized without being constrained by concepts such as power, state representation, and elections. The third is that “the organization of labor does not involve division of labor, specialization of tasks, and especially the oppressive distinction between intellectual labor and manual labor.” [3]3 Alain Badiou, *The Communist Hypothesis*, trans. David Macey and Steve Corcoran (London: Verso, 2010), p. 239. When discussing communism, Badiou treats contemporary communism as a “common name,” believing that “it designates a general conception of a society and a world dominated by the principle of equality, a world no longer constituted by traditional social relations—wealth, division of labor, racial segregation, state persecution, gender differences, etc.” [4]4 Alain Badiou, *The Meaning of Sarkozy*, trans. David Fernbach (London: Verso, 2008), p. 98. He integrates the concept of equality throughout his communist thought, emphasizing professional equality, pursuing income fairness, and advocating that the principle of equality can eliminate the oppressive weight of power, wealth, and other relations on people. Furthermore, Badiou points out that common politics is an inevitable requirement for achieving true equality for everyone. It is specifically manifested in each subject’s active participation in politics, their right to participate in politics, and the virtue of actively engaging in politics. Identity politics will disappear with the revolutionary tradition of internationalism, because the egalitarian liberation pursued by communism implies the transformation of objective institutions into subjective rights and the disappearance of identity differences between subjects, which inevitably leads to political liberation. Žižek also adheres to the egalitarian concept within communism, believing that the excluded in society—those excluded by the existing capitalist order—are the liberated ones who should obtain equal rights as social subjects.

最后，西方左翼倾向于将平等主义理论作为阐释共产主义观念的逻辑基础。巴迪欧提出，共产主义建立在三大公理之上，其一是平等主义思想，即人本性平等，意在建立一个不再由诸如财富、劳动分工、隔离、国家迫害、性别差异等社会关系结构不平等的世界；其二是强制的、超然的国家消失，强调人们的政治行动可以组织起来，而不受权力、国家代表权、选举等观念的制约；其三是“劳动的组织不涉及分工、任务的专门化，特别是智力劳动和体力劳动之间令人压抑的区别”10。巴迪欧在谈到共产主义时，他将今天的共产主义作为“常用名称”，认为“它指明了一个社会和一个以平等原则为主导的世界的总体构想，一个不再由传统社会关系构成的世界——财富、劳动分工、种族隔离、国家迫害、性别差异等等”11。他将平等理念贯穿于自己的共产主义思想之中，强调职业平等，追求收入公平，主张平等原则能够消除权力、财富等关系对人的重压。此外，巴迪欧还进一步指出共有政治是实现每个人真正意义上平等的必然要求，它具体表现为每个主体积极参与政治的态度，享有参与政治的权利以及主动参与政治的美德。身份政治会随着国际主义的革命传统而消失，因为共产主义所追求的平等主义解放，意味着客观机构转换为主体权利，主体之间的身份差别消失，这必然带来政治的解放。齐泽克同样坚持共产主义中的平等主义理念，认为社会中的被排斥者，即被现存的资本主义秩序排斥的人，他们是被解放者，他们应该获得社会主体的平等权利。

(II) Practical Level

（二）实践层面

First, left-wing scholars focus on expanding the scope of resistance subjects, relying on new revolutionary subjects to realize the practical path of the communist hypothesis. Badiou points out that the core of communist politics is by no means the official ideology of state power, but the continuous operation between the consciousness and action of the masses. In his view, the idea of relying on capitalist society itself to abolish private property and establish collective ownership is absurd. Based on his new understanding of the revolutionary subject, Badiou notes that in the historical stage of contemporary capitalism’s continuous adjustment and reform, the role and power of the proletariat as the revolutionary subject are gradually being marginalized. He emphasizes the need to expand the scope and number of subjects to break through the boundaries of class, nation, and gender, thereby achieving a situation where the periphery surrounds the center. Influenced by the philosophy of the event and the theory of the subject, Badiou emphasizes the practical necessity of hypothesizing and reasoning about the concept of communism through events. He proposes that the subject “is nothing other than the human ‘creative power’ of the proletariat restoring absolute equality from absolute poverty through revolution,” [5]5 Alain Badiou, *The Communist Hypothesis*, p. 257. believing that they can, on the basis of adhering to communist convictions and through diligent practice, realize the communist ideal of transforming the world. Real subjects can, under the guidance of theory, become the direct driving force for realizing the communist hypothesis, but Badiou does not favor demonstrating the historical inevitability of communism from the perspectives of dialectical materialism and political economy. Drawing on Lacan’s psychoanalytic “triadic model,” Žižek divides the class structure of contemporary capitalist society into the middle class (industrial workers), the symbolic class (those primarily engaged in mental labor), and the real class (the slum population) according to the similar characteristics of the Imaginary, the Symbolic, and the Real. He advocates achieving the goal of opposing capitalism through the alliance of the latter two. Hardt and Negri, on the other hand, shift their focus to the study of “the multitude.” They argue that the working class engaged in traditional material production can no longer play the absolute leading role in the global economy. “Today’s production must be considered not only from an economic perspective but more broadly as social production—not only the production of material goods but also the production of communication, relationships, and forms of life,” [6]6 Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, *Multitude*, p. xv. that is, “biopolitical production” in forms such as ideas, images, affects, and relationships. Correspondingly, “the multitude” differs from the working class. It is a more open and inclusive concept, encompassing all subjects engaged in all social production, including economic, political, and cultural production. It includes all communist subjects resisting oppression, including the working class, without identity restrictions, and can achieve communication and cooperation transcending geographical boundaries. Negri analyzes the anti-human characteristics of capitalist production from the biopolitical field and elaborates on the current manifestations of class struggle and revolutionary aspirations through the logical sequence of “individual discontent → multitude resistance → promoting constitution-making.”

其一，左翼学者注重扩大反抗主体范围，依靠新的革命主体实现共产主义假设的实践路径。巴迪欧指出共产主义政治的核心，绝不是国家权力的官方意识形态，而是人民群众的认识与行动之间的连续性操作。在他看来，依靠资本主义社会自身废除私有制、建立集体所有制的设想是荒谬的。巴迪欧基于他对革命主体的新理解，指出在当代资本主义不断实现调整和改良的历史阶段，作为革命主体的无产阶级力量和作用逐渐边缘化的现象，强调应该扩大主体的范围和数量，以达到突破阶级、民族、性别界限，从而实现边缘包围中心的态势。受事件哲学与主体理论的影响，巴迪欧重视以事件的方式假设、推理共产主义观念的现实必要性，提出主体“这股力量不外乎是无产阶级通过革命从绝对贫穷恢复绝对平等的人类‘创造力’”12，认为他们能够在坚持共产主义信念的基础上，通过努力实践，实现改造世界的共产主义理想。现实主体能够在理论的指导下成为实现共产主义假设的直接推动力量，而从唯物辩证法和政治经济学角度论证共产主义必然到来的历史趋势，却未受到巴迪欧的青睐。齐泽克在吸收拉康精神分析学“三元模型”的基础上，按照想象界、符号界、实在界的相似特征将当前资本主义社会的阶级结构划分为中间阶级（产业工人）、符号阶级（主要从事脑力劳动的人）、实在界阶级（贫民窟群体），主张可以通过后两者的联合来实现对抗资本主义的目的。而哈特和内格里则将自己的着眼点转移到对“诸众”的研究。他们认为从事传统物质生产的工人阶级已经不能在全球经济中扮演绝对主角，“今天的生产不仅要从经济的角度来考虑，更广泛地说是社会生产——不仅是物质产品的生产，而且是交流、关系和生活形式的生产”13，即包括想法、图像、影响和关系等形式的“生命政治生产”。与此对应，“诸众”与工人阶级不同，它是一个更为开放、包容的概念，包括从事社会经济、政治、文化等所有社会生产的主体，是包括工人阶级在内的反抗压迫的所有共产主义主体，不具有身份限制，并且能够实现超越地域限制的交流与合作。奈格里从生命政治领域分析了资本主义生产的反人性特征，并以“个体不满——多众反抗——推动立宪”为逻辑思路对目前阶级斗争的表现形式及革命愿望进行阐述。

Second, left-wing scholars encourage the launching of social movements and the innovation of forms of struggle, thereby opening up a path to communism that is more in line with actual conditions. After the May 1968 events in France, Alain Badiou, as an inheritor of Marx’s revolutionary thought, not only regarded the *Communist Manifesto* as the greatest work of the 19th century, but also unswervingly continued this cause, viewing communism as a real movement that abolishes the existing state of affairs. Badiou believes that examining the contemporary concept of “communism” requires organizing small-scale local political experiments and referencing current mass movements and their demands. He affirms “the one world” as an axiom and advocates transcending identity characteristics on this basis, strengthening the universal content within identity, thereby gathering the greatest common divisor of social forces and ensuring the conditions for the existence of the communist hypothesis in both theory and practice. Slavoj Žižek’s analysis of contemporary revolutionary struggle begins with a “repetition of Lenin.” He highly praises Lenin for, at a time when parties in other countries chose to submit to the tide of patriotism, keenly perceiving the weakest link in imperialism and daring to carry out revolution. Žižek believes that the current environment of struggle is similar to the Leninist period, and argues that in today’s era of continuous global capitalist expansion, what is especially needed is Lenin’s spirit and attitude of daring to formulate revolutionary plans. On this basis, Žižek emphasizes the power of action, agrees with Marx’s definition of communism as a “movement that abolishes the existing state of affairs,” and advocates that the path choice for communism under current political and economic conditions should take as its main content the movement of resisting real antagonisms. He argues that even without the guarantee of success, political action must be undertaken: “Action is a ‘surplus’ of transcendent strategic intervention that redefines the rules and contours of the existing order.” [13]13 Alain Badiou, *The Communist Hypothesis*, trans. David Macey and Steve Corcoran (London: Verso, 2010), p. 259. Of course, Žižek also maintains a cautious attitude toward the current social situation, believing that before taking action, “we will have to risk taking steps into a new abyss under completely inappropriate conditions; we will have to redesign all aspects of the new in order to preserve the advantages of the old (education, healthcare, etc.),” [14]14 Slavoj Žižek, *First as Tragedy, Then as Farce* (London: Verso, 2009), p. 157. waiting for the opportune moment. In pursuit of a new society of democracy, equality, and freedom, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri regard class struggle as a modern mode of pursuing legitimacy, advocating the use of information systems and network structures to construct new communication circles, new forms of social cooperation, and new modes of interaction—that is, through a more democratic form of network organization, the network struggle of the multitude—to realize the resistance and struggle of the multitude. “This new power will certainly resist and attack the enemy like military power, but its focus is increasingly concentrated internally—producing new subjectivities and new forms of expansion within the organization.” [15]15 Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, *Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire* (New York: Penguin Press, 2004), p. 347. On the one hand, the multitude is the common subject of labor and also an important object for capital to achieve global development; the development of capitalism requires the use of the form of biopolitical production to realize a new round of capital valorization. On the other hand, the shared character of biopolitical production inevitably resists the globalization process of capitalism, allowing the multitude to be released from the oppression of Empire and achieve autonomous expression and rule. It is worth affirming that Negri takes Lenin’s analysis of the relationship between the theory of imperialism and insurrectionary strategy as a model for the path of revolutionary thought, arguing that the study of class composition must also fully consider the relationship between struggle and capitalist development, crisis, and restructuring, especially an in-depth analysis of the power relations that constitute class composition. He believes that in the current capitalist society, the path of liberation for the proletariat lies in using all weapons, pointing out that “we must add that Marx’s and Lenin’s definition of our task of abolishing the state for communism will only be given if a strategic plan is reformulated and recognized in the subsequent cycle of international workers’ struggle.” [16]16 Antonio Negri, *The Porcelain Workshop: For a New Grammar of Politics*, trans. Noura Wedell (Los Angeles: Semiotext(e), 2008), p. 109.

其二，左翼学者鼓励开展社会运动，创新斗争形式，从而开辟出更加符合现实状况的共产主义路径。五月风暴之后，作为马克思革命思想的继承者的阿兰·巴迪欧不仅将《共产党宣言》看作19世纪最伟大的著作，更坚定不移地继续这一事业，将共产主义看作一种消灭现存状况下的现实运动。巴迪欧认为考察当代的“共产主义”概念，需要组织小规模的地方政治实验，需要参考当前的群众运动及其诉求。他将“唯一的世界”确认为公理，并主张在此基础上超越身份的特征属性，加强身份中的普遍性内容，从而聚集社会力量的最大公约数，在理论与实践中保证共产主义假设的存在条件。齐泽克对当代革命斗争的分析则从“重述列宁”开始，他高度评价列宁在其他国家的政党选择服从爱国主义的时代浪潮时，敏锐地觉察到帝国主义最薄弱的环节，并勇于开展革命的行为，认为当前的斗争环境与列宁时期相似，主张在全球资本主义持续扩张的今天，尤其需要列宁那种敢于制定革命规划的精神和态度。在此基础上，齐泽克强调行动的力量，认同马克思将共产主义作为“消灭现存状况的运动”的内涵限定，主张共产主义在当前政治、经济背景下的路径选择应该以反抗现实对抗性的运动为主要内容，提出即使没有成功的保证，也要开展政治行动，“行动是一个重新界定现存秩序的规则和轮廓‘过剩的’超越策略性干预”14。当然，齐泽克也保持着对当前社会情况的谨慎态度，认为在采取行动之前“我们将不得不冒着完全不适当的情况下采取步骤进入新的深渊的危险；我们将不得不重新设计新事物的各个方面，以便保持旧事物的优点（教育、医疗保健等）”15，静待时机的到来。为追求一个民主、平等、自由的新社会，哈特与奈格里将阶级斗争作为追求合法性的现代模式，主张借助信息系统和网络结构构建新的交流圈、新的社会协作形式以及新的交互模式，即以更加民主的网络组织形式——大众网络斗争——实现“诸众”反抗与斗争，“这种新的力量当然会像军事力量一样抵抗和攻击敌人，但它的焦点越来越多地集中在内部——在组织内部产生新的主观性和新的扩展形式”16。一方面，诸众是劳动的共同主体，也是资本实现全球发展的重要客体，资本主义的发展需要借助生命政治生产的形式实现新一轮的资本增殖；另一方面，生命政治生产的共享性特征又必然反抗资本主义的全球化进程，使诸众可以从帝国的压制中得到释放，实现自主的表达和统治。值得肯定的是，奈格里将列宁关于帝国主义理论与起义战略关系的分析，作为革命思想道路的典范进行类比，主张研究阶级构成也要充分考虑斗争与资本主义发展、危机、重组之间的关系，尤其是对构成阶级构成的权力关系的深入分析。他认为在当前的资本主义社会中，无产阶级的解放路径在于使用一切武器，指出“我们必须补充一点，马克思和列宁对我们为共产主义而消灭国家的任务的定义，只有在重新制定战略计划，并在随后的国际工人斗争周期中得到承认的情况下才会给出”17。

Third, left-wing scholars all emphasize the importance of organization to varying degrees, yet there is debate in their understanding of the political party. Faced with the reality of the working class being suppressed by capital, Negri emphasizes that “communism begins when the proletariat takes possession of society (the community) as its goal and turns it into the order of a new society.” [17]17 Antonio Negri, *Marx Beyond Marx: Lessons on the Grundrisse*, ed. Jim Fleming, trans. Harry Cleaver, Michael Ryan, and Maurizio Viano (Brooklyn: Autonomedia, 1991), p. 167. The establishment of the community depends on the redefinition of exchange value. On the one hand, capitalist globalization has greatly expanded the space for capital production. He calls this phenomenon of capital dominating society “capitalist biopower.” Things such as real estate rent, machinery and equipment, and communication networks have already achieved a “commonality” that transcends regions. Capital itself, in particular, has become a universal carrier for the development and expansion of global capitalism, constantly driving the global expansion of these “commons.” On the other hand, with the continuous change in the technical composition of labor, the subjective consciousness of workers gradually increases. Negri encourages the proletariat, when capital’s appropriation reaches its peak, to organize mass movements to fight for the appropriation of property and to build a free political structure—the community—thereby realizing the true transformation of workers in relation to capital. Taking the possibility of revolution as a premise, Jodi Dean strongly emphasizes the importance and necessity of establishing a political party. She believes that the party is capable of formulating strategy, plans, and organizing itself with a revolutionary vision, pointing out that people’s orientation toward the future depends on whether the party can coordinate its actions through planning for the future. She hopes to establish “a party dedicated to abolishing private property, making production, circulation, and reproduction serve the people, rather than making the people submit to the demands of capital accumulation,” [18]18 Jodi Dean, *The Communist Horizon* (London: Verso, 2012), p. 223. leading the people in revolution toward communism. From the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, she draws lessons about revolutionary forms, recognizing the revolutionary advantages of the party: clear collective demands and a responsible organizational structure, the ability to acknowledge individuals with different abilities, and the maintenance of internal unity. On this basis, she emphasizes that the party can provide an organizational form for formulating strategy, planning, generating and executing political power, and that “discipline and preparation enable the party to adapt to the environment, rather than being entirely shaped or determined by it.” [19]19 Jodi Dean, *Crowds and Party* (London: Verso, 2016), p. 247. She advocates establishing a party guided by the principle of communism. The party can prepare for revolutionary situations, determine revolutionary goals, and launch a new international communist movement, thereby changing the realities of elite privilege, working-class enslavement, and environmental disaster, and realizing the beautiful future vision of a communist society. However, Badiou opposes the establishment of a party. He believes that the centralization and militarization of the party are not beneficial to organizing a communist society, emphasizing that the communist forces of social organization should rely on three aspects: “mass movements, organizations that constantly forge movement slogans and will, and the state, which will still exist for a long time and must be brought under the continuous supervision of organizations and movements.” [20]20 Alain Badiou, *The Rebirth of History: Times of Riots and Uprisings*, trans. Gregory Elliott (London: Verso, 2012), p. 107.

其三，左翼学者都不同程度强调组织的重要性，却在对政党的认知上存在争论。面对工人阶级备受资本压制的现状，奈格里强调“当无产阶级重新以占有社会（共同体）为目标，并把它变成新社会的秩序时，共产主义就开始形成了”18。而共同体的建立依赖于交换价值的重新界定。一方面，资本主义全球化使资本的生产空间得到极大扩展，他将这种资本统摄社会的现象称之为“资本主义生命权”，诸如房地产租金、机器设备、通信网络等，都已经实现了超越地域的“公共性”，尤其是资本本身，它已经成为全球资本主义发展、扩展的通用载体，正在不断推动着这些“共有物”实现全球扩张；另一方面，随着劳动力技术构成的不断变化，工人的主体意识逐步提高，奈格里鼓励无产阶级要在资本占有逐步达到顶点之时，组织群众运动争取对财产的占有，建设自由的政治结构——共同体，从而实现工人对资本的真正蜕变。以革命的可能性为前提，迪安突出强调了建立政党的重要性和必要性，她认为党是有能力以革命的眼光来制定战略、计划和安排自身的，指出人们对未来的定位就取决于党是否有能力通过对未来的规划协调其行动，希望通过建立“一个致力于废除私有财产，使生产、流通和再生产为人民服务，而不是使人民服从资本积累的要求的党”19，带领人民进行革命，走向共产主义。从“占领华尔街”的运动中，她总结出关于革命形式的经验教训，认识到政党的革命优势，即明确的集体主张和负责任的组织结构、能够承认不同的能力个体、保持组织内部团结。在此基础上，她强调党能够为制定战略、规划，产生和执行政治权力提供组织形式，而且“纪律和准备使党能够适应环境，而不是完全由环境来塑造或决定”20，主张建立一个以共产主义为原则指导的政党。党能够为革命形势做准备，确定革命目标，开展新的国际共产主义运动，从而改变精英特权、工人阶级奴役和环境灾难的事实，实现共产主义社会的美好未来图景。然而，巴迪欧对建立政党则持反对意见，他认为党的集权化与军事化对组织共产主义社会并无益处，强调社会组织共产主义力量应该依靠“大众运动，不断锻造运动口号和意志的组织，仍将长期存在并且必须被纳入到组织和运动的持续监管之下的国家”21三个方面。

III. Correctly Understanding the Western Left Scholars’ Reinterpretation of the Concept of Communism

三、正确认识西方左翼学者对共产主义观念的重释

Overall, the Western left scholars’ contemporary interpretations of communism are all courageous attempts to return to communism based on analyzing objective changes in reality. They have conducted many quite beneficial discussions on communism, but there are still some limitations.

总体上来看，西方左翼学者对共产主义的时代阐释都是坚持在分析客观现实变化的基础上，意图复归共产主义的勇敢尝试，他们对共产主义进行了诸多颇为有益的探讨，但也仍存在一些局限。

On the one hand, the return to the concept of communism is a reflection and challenge by Western leftist scholars to the existing capitalist order, and many of their views are quite innovative and enlightening. For example: Badiou divides the history of the communist hypothesis from its inception to the present into three periods. The first stage, from the French Revolution of 1792 to the Paris Commune of 1871, is the period of the establishment of the communist hypothesis, with the theme of workers’ movements and uprisings. Then, after an interval of more than 40 years, it enters its second stage, from the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 to China’s “Cultural Revolution” of 1976, with the theme of Party building and an emphasis on the importance of discipline. From 1976 to the present is the third stage, also a second passive period of stabilization. Badiou points out that the third stage of communism now “will involve a new relationship between the political movement and the ideological level—a relationship that was already prefigured in the ‘Cultural Revolution’ or the ‘thought revolution’ of May ’68,”[21]21 Alain Badiou, *The Communist Hypothesis*, trans. David Macey and Steve Corcoran (London: Verso, 2010), p. 258. The “May ’68” refers to the student and worker protests in France in May 1968. requiring people to have the courage to re-establish this hypothesis in the ideological sphere and begin the preliminary work of this stage, improving methods and approaches, and concentrating efforts on exploring the conditions for the existence of communism. This periodization is of great practical significance for our thinking today about the stages of development and future trends of communism. Of course, how to study the communist hypothesis from the perspective of world history also requires further exploration by scholars. Hardt and Negri’s examination of the capitalist mode of production from the perspective of “immaterial labor” is equally valuable. The concept of “immaterial labor” can be traced back to Marx’s discussion of “fixed capital and the development of social productive forces” in the *Grundrisse* (1857-1858). The Italian autonomist Marxists, starting from Marx’s concept of “general intellect” in the production process—that is, general social knowledge capable of controlling and transforming social productive forces—demonstrated the increasingly important role of immaterial factors such as “knowledge, technology, and social intelligence” in developing productive forces. They recognize that traditional labor workers once played a central role in production, but now “this role has increasingly been replaced by intellectualized and immaterialized labor forces in the field of communication and interaction.”[22]22 Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, *Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire* (New York: Penguin Press, 2004), p. 109. The exploitation and oppression of workers in immaterial labor production by capitalists, due to the blurred definition of labor forms and labor time, become even less perceptible and distinguishable. Therefore, stimulating workers’ subjective consciousness and critical behavior becomes particularly important. It is on the basis of these understandings that Hardt and Negri formed their “theory of biopolitical production” and established the “new image of the collective biopolitical body.” They propose that while capitalist industry and finance produce commodities, they also produce the producer-subject—the acting subject in the biopolitical environment. However, the Empire uses a “master narrative” to continuously produce its so-called fairness and justice, especially its ideological justifications, in the form of language, to confirm its legitimacy. With the development of communication and interaction, the wave of globalization surges forward. The “legitimacy” narrative advances hand in hand with productive interaction. The Empire, by means of this “globalized biopolitical machine”—the communication and interaction machine—still maintains its indelible hegemonic position. Meanwhile, immaterial labor, which produces immaterial commodities such as knowledge, culture, information, and emotion, is achieving global expansion. This perspective, which analyzes global immaterial production to demonstrate the growth of communist factors, provides new ideas for our understanding of the current situation. Of course, there are many other aspects in the logical schemas of Western leftist scholars that can be used for reference, such as theories of the subject and the establishment of political parties, which await our further comparative research and in-depth exploration of their theoretical and practical significance.

一方面，复归共产主义观念是西方左翼学者对现存资本主义秩序的反思与挑战，其中许多观点颇具创新性与启发性。例如：巴迪欧将共产主义假设自建立伊始至现在的发展历史划分为三个时期，第一阶段为1792年法国大革命到1871年巴黎公社，是共产主义假设的建立时期，主题是工人运动和起义；随后在经历了40多年间隔之后，进入它的第二阶段，即从1917年布尔什维克革命至1976年中国的“文化大革命”，它的主题是党的建设，强调纪律的重要性；从1976年开始到现在是第三阶段，也是第二个被动的稳定期。巴迪欧指出现在共产主义的第三阶段“它将涉及政治运动和意识形态水平之间的一种新关系——这种关系在‘文化大革命’或五月风暴的‘思想革命’中就已经预示出来了”22，要求人们要有勇气在意识形态领域重新建立这一假说并展开此阶段的初步工作，改进方式方法，集中精力探索共产主义的存在条件。这种历史分期对我们今天思考共产主义的发展阶段及未来趋势极具现实意义。当然，如何从世界历史角度对共产主义假设进行研究也需要学者们做出进一步的探讨。哈特与奈格里从“非物质劳动”层面对资本主义生产方式的考察，同样具有重要价值。“非物质劳动”概念可以追溯到马克思在《1857-1858年经济学手稿》中对“固定资本和社会生产力发展”的论述，意大利自治主义的马克思主义者从马克思在生产过程中的“一般智力”概念出发，即可以控制、改造社会生产力的一般社会知识，论证了“知识、技术、社会智力”等非物质因素对发展生产力愈益重要的促进作用。他们认识到传统劳动工人曾在生产中起核心作用，但现在“这种作用已越来越被通讯交往领域智力化、非物质化的劳动力量所取代”23，而资本家对非物质劳动生产过程中劳动者的剥削和压迫，则会由于劳动形式、劳动时间的模糊界定，变得更加不易察觉和分辨，因此，激发工人的主体意识与批判行为就变得尤为重要。哈特与奈格里就是在这些认识的基础上，形成了他们的“生命政治生产理论”，确定了“集体生态政治体的新形象”。他们提出资本主义工业与金融在生产商品的同时，也生产出了生产者主体——生态政治环境中的行动主体，但帝国利用“主控叙述（master narrative）”将其所谓的公平正义，尤其是意识形态方面的辩护，以语言的形式不断生产出来，以证实它的合法性。随着通讯交往的发展，全球化浪潮高歌猛进，“合法性”叙述与生产交往齐头并进，帝国借助这种“全球化的生态政治机器”——通讯交往机器，依然保持着它难以磨灭的强权地位，而以生产如知识、文化、信息、感情等非物质商品的非物质劳动则正在实现全球扩展。这种通过分析全球范围内的非物质生产，从而论证共产主义因素增长的视角为我们认识当今局势提供了新思路。当然，西方左翼学者的逻辑图式中还有很多可供借鉴之处，如主体理论、建立政党等，有待我们进一步做出对比研究，深入挖掘其理论意义与现实意义。

On the other hand, there are also many shortcomings in the Western leftist scholars’ reinterpretation of the concept of communism. Specifically, in form, they all neglect the revolutionary character of communism to varying degrees, confining the content to theoretical discussion or philosophical interpretation, and are unable to propose global action strategies and plans to resolve the inherent contradictions of the capitalist mode of production and transcend capitalist society. For example: Badiou’s intention to adopt new methods, rather than revolutionary methods, to overthrow the existing ruling order remains to be explored. On the one hand, Badiou believes that there is no longer a revolutionary subject in the contemporary era, so the revolution of the proletariat is out of the question. On the other hand, the reform of capitalist society in real life, along with the continuous deepening of the globalized economic market, promotes new developments in capitalism, and the communist movement is still in a low ebb. The theoretical application of the contingent and sudden characteristics of events in the philosophy of the event provides, to some extent, theoretical support for Badiou’s claim of a “completely new form of political organization.” Yet precisely because he relies on sudden events to overturn the real social order, his communist hypothesis becomes utopian. What exactly this political organizational form is and how it should be realized cannot be explained. In method, when their communist thought is mixed with other theoretical viewpoints, they all lower the status of Marxism and underestimate the important role of dialectical materialism and historical materialism. For example: Western leftist scholars one-sidedly emphasize the purely egalitarian category of communism, which violates real conditions. Badiou confuses the boundary between the concept of communism and the abstract concept of equality, believing that the first principle of liberation politics is the “egalitarian axiom.” This not only diminishes the revolutionary character and combat effectiveness of communism but also, to some extent, causes historical regression. It does not conform to Marx’s conception of communism. Relying solely on the power of the subject’s subjective will cannot achieve a thorough transformation of capitalism, nor can it initiate a true communist society. Although Badiou recognizes the eternal truth value of communist theory in the contemporary era and its significance for guiding practical practice, he still cannot conceive of an effective plan to reach a future communist society. In terms of the path of realization, their definitions of the revolutionary method and the revolutionary subject lack reality and cannot form the ultimate driving force to truly promote the realization of communism. For example: Among the four antagonisms emphasized by Žižek, the commons—culture, natural resources, human genetic heritage, etc.—are privatized by a minority, while the majority gradually become “proletarianized,” becoming subjects stripped of substance, i.e., the excluded. Žižek does not deny that the excluded may use violence to protect or reclaim the commons, but it should still be noted that the concept of the proletariat here differs essentially from Marx’s proletariat and does not possess its own revolutionary implication. Therefore, whether the excluded must obtain the qualification to share the commons through proletarian revolution still needs to be chosen according to practice. In addition, in content, they all lack the scientific economic analysis of the operating mechanism of capitalism, so the communist advocacy they derive can only remain at the hypothetical level and cannot gain widespread recognition. In function, some of their views still have the suspicion of intentionally or unintentionally defending capitalist society and cannot reach the height of Marx’s human liberation.

另一方面，西方左翼学者在重释共产主义观念时也存在诸多不足之处。具体而言，在形式上，他们都不同程度地忽略了共产主义的革命性特征，将内容局限于理论探讨或哲学阐释上，无法提出解决资本主义生产方式的内在矛盾、超越资本主义社会的全球性行动策略与方案。例如：巴迪欧意图采取新的方式，而不是革命的方式颠覆现存统治秩序的构想，仍有待探讨。一方面，巴迪欧认为当代已经不存在革命的主体，所以无产阶级的革命就无从谈及；另一方面，现实生活中资本主义社会的改良，以及全球化经济市场的不断深化，又推动着资本主义实现新发展，共产主义运动仍处于低潮期。事件哲学中关于事件发生的偶然性、突发性特征的理论应用，在某种程度上为巴迪欧提出“全新的政治组织形式”的说法提供理论支撑，而恰恰又是因为他将现实社会秩序的颠覆依赖于突发性事件，造成了其共产主义假设的空想性，到底是怎样的政治组织形式，应该怎样去实现，都无法得到说明。在方法上，他们的共产主义思想在杂糅其他理论观点时都降低了马克思主义的地位，低估了唯物辩证法、唯物史观的重要作用。例如：西方左翼学者片面强调共产主义的纯粹平等主义范畴是违反现实条件的。巴迪欧混淆了共产主义观念与抽象的平等观之间的界限，认为解放政治的第一原则是“平等主义公理”，这不仅削减了共产主义的革命性与战斗力，而且在某种程度上也造成了历史的退步，不符合马克思关于共产主义的设想，依靠主体主观意志的力量根本无法实现对资本主义的彻底改造，也不能开启真正的共产主义社会。虽然巴迪欧认识到共产主义理论在当今时代的永恒真理性价值以及指导现实实践的重要意义，但他却仍然无法构想出通往未来共产主义社会的有效方案。在实现路径上，他们对革命方式和革命主体的界定都缺乏现实性，无法形成真正推动实现共产主义的最终动力。例如：齐泽克所强调的四种对抗性中，作为共享的共有物——文化、自然资源、人类遗传基因等——被少数人私有化，而大多数人则逐步处于“无产阶级化”，成为被剥夺了实体的主体，即被排斥者。齐泽克不否认被排斥者可能会通过暴力保护或夺回共有物的手段，但仍要注意的是，此处无产阶级概念与马克思的无产阶级存在本质差异，不具有自身的革命性意蕴。因此，是否一定要通过无产阶级革命的方式使被排斥者获得共享共有物的资格，仍然需要按照实践进行选择。除此之外，在内容上，他们都缺乏对资本主义运行机制进行经济学分析的科学性，因此得出的共产主义倡导也只能停留在假设层面，无法得到人们的广泛认同。在作用上，他们的某些观点仍然存在有意无意地为资本主义社会辩护的嫌疑，无法达到马克思人类解放的高度。

In summary, the efforts of Western leftist scholars to elaborate on the revival of the contemporary concept of communism from different perspectives, based on the developed network information technology and immaterial production of the “post-industrial era,” are of great significance for us today to expand the global vision of communism and deeply understand its contemporary value. Correctly applying Marx’s historical materialism and dialectical materialism to view the strengths and weaknesses of Western leftist political scholars’ views is also an inherent requirement for studying the Western leftist return to the concept of communism.

综上所述，西方左翼学者以“后工业时代”发达的网络信息技术和非物质生产为理论基础尝试从不同角度阐述复兴当代共产主义观念的努力，对我们今天扩展共产主义的全球视野、深入理解共产主义的当代价值，意义重大。而正确运用马克思的唯物史观及唯物辩证法看待西方左翼政治学者观点的优点与不足，同样也是研究西方左翼学者复归共产主义观念的应有之义。

Notes

注释

1 [Slovenia] Slavoj Žižek, “How to Begin from the Beginning,” trans. Wang Xingfu, in *Contemporary Marxist Criticism Abroad* 2010, no. 00.

1[斯洛文尼亚]斯拉沃热·齐泽克:《如何从头开始》,汪行福译,载于《当代国外马克思主义评论》2010年第00期。

2 Slavoj Žižek, “Why the Idea and Why Communism?”, *Symptom*, No. 12, 2011, p. 27.

2Slavoj zizek,"Why the Idea and Why Communism?",Symptom,No.12,2011,p.27.

3 Bruno Bosteels, *The Actuality of Communism*, Verso, 2011, p. 24.

3Bruno Bosteels,The actuality of Communism,Verso,2011,p.24.

4 Jodi Dean, *The Communist Horizon*, Verso, 2012, p. 21, pp. 46–47.

4Jodi Dean,The Communist Horizon,Verso,2012,p.21,pp.46-47.

5 Jodi Dean, “Communism or Neo-Feudalism?”, *New Political Science*, Vol. 42, No. 1, 2020, p. 1, p. 16.

5Jodi Dean,"Communism or Neo-Feucdalism?",New Political Science,Vol.42,No.1,2020,p.1,p.16.

6 Antonio Negri, *Factory of Strategy: Thirty-Three Lessons on Lenin*, translated by Arianna Bove, Columbia University Press, 2014, p. xvi.

6Antonio Negri,Factory of Strategy:Thirty-Three Lessons on Lenin,translated by Arianna Bove,Columbia University Press,2014,p.xvi.

7 Alain Badiou, *The Communist Hypothesis*, translated by David Macey and Steve Corcoran, Verso, 2010, p. 235.

7Alain Badiou,The Communist Hypothesis,translated by David Macey and Steve Corcoran,Verso,2010,p.235.

8 [US] Michael Hardt, [Italy] Antonio Negri, *Empire: The Political Order of Globalization*, translated by Yang Jianguo and Fan Yiting, Jiangsu People’s Publishing House, 2003, p. 276.

8[美]迈克尔·哈特、[意]安东尼奥·奈格里:《帝国——全球化的政治秩序》,杨建国、范一亭译,江苏人民出版社2003年版,第276页。

9 Michael Hardt, “The Common in Communism”, *Rethinking Marxism*, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2010, p. 349, p. 351.

9Michael Hardt,"The Common in Communism",Rethinking Marxism,Vol.22,No.3,2010,p.349,p.351.

10 Alain Badiou, “The Courage of Obscurantism”, *Symptom*, No. 11, 2010, p. 2.

10Alain Badiou,"The Courage of Obscurantism",Symptom,No.11,2010,p.2.

11 Alain Badiou, “‘We Need a Popular Discipline’: Contemporary Politics and the Crisis of the Negative”, *Critical Inquiry*, Vol. 34, No. 4, 2008, p. 648.

11Alain Bacdiou,"'We Need a Popular Discipline’:Contemporary Politics and the Crisis of the Negative",Critical Inquiry,Vol.34,No.4,2008,p.648.

12 Chen Yongguo, ed., *Radical Philosophy: A Reader of Alain Badiou*, Peking University Press, 2010, p. 13.

12陈永国主编:《激进哲学:阿兰·巴丢读本》,北京大学出版社2010年版,第13页。

13 Michael Hardt, Antonio Negri, *Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire*, The Penguin Press, 2004, p. xv.

13Michael Hardt,Antonio Negri,Multitude:War and Democracy in the Age of Empire,The Penguin Press,2004,p.xv.

14 Rex Butler, *Slavoj Žižek: Live Theory*, Continuum, 2005, p. 145.

14Rex Butle,Slavoj Zizek:Live Theory,Continuum,2005,p.145.

15 Slavoj Žižek, “Why the Idea and Why Communism?”, *Symptom*, No. 12, 2011, p. 32.

15Slavoj Zizek,"Why the Idea and Why Communism?",Symptom,No.12,2011,p.32.

16 Michael Hardt, Antonio Negri, *Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire*, The Penguin Press, 2004, p. 83.

16Michael Hardt,Antonio Negri,Multitude:War and Democracy in the Age of Empire,The Penguin Press,2004,p.83.

17 Antonio Negri, *Factory of Strategy: Thirty-Three Lessons on Lenin*, translated by Arianna Bove, Columbia University Press, 2014, p. 337.

17Antonio Negri,Factory of Strategy:Thirty-Three Lessons on Lenin,translated by Arianna Bove,Columbia University Press,2014,p.337.

18 Costas Douzinas, Slavoj Žižek, *The Idea of Communism*, Verso, 2010, p. 156.

18Costas Douzinas,Slavoj Zizek,The Idea of Communism,Verso,2010,p.156.

19 Jodi Dean, “Communicative Capitalism and Revolutionary Form”, *Millennium: Journal of International Studies*, Vol. 47, No. 3, 2019, p. 327.

19Jodi Dean,"Communicative Capitalism and Revolutionary Form",Millennium Journal of International Studies,Vol.47,No.3,2019,p.327.

20 Jodi Dean, *The Communist Horizon*, Verso, 2012, p. 241.

20Jodi Dean,The Communist Horizon,Verso,2012,p.241.

21 “Communism in Our Time: An Interview with Badiou and Žižek”, translated by Yin Shuguang, in *Foreign Theoretical Trends*, No. 7, 2018.

21《我们这个时代的共产主义——巴迪欧、齐泽克访谈录》,尹树广译,载于《国外理论动态》2018年第7期。

22 Alain Badiou, “The Communist Hypothesis”, *New Left Review*, No. 49, 2008, p. 37.

22Alain Badiou,"The Communist Hypothesis",New Left Review,No.49,2008,p.37.

23 [US] Michael Hardt, [Italy] Antonio Negri, *Empire: The Political Order of Globalization*, translated by Yang Jianguo and Fan Yiting, Jiangsu People’s Publishing House, 2003, p. 29.

23[美]迈克尔·哈特、[意]安东尼安·奈格里:《帝国——全球化的政治秩序》,杨建国、范一亭译,江苏人民出版社2003年版,第29页。

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑