Who Is the Proletariat in the Information Age?

In Marx’s writings, the concept of the “proletariat” is neither the powerless “rabble” [1]1 “Rabble” (*Pöbel* in German) refers to a concept in Hegel’s *Philosophy of Right*, denoting a class of people excluded from civil society and lacking property or stable means of subsistence. spawned by civil society in the Hegelian context, nor the listless, immature subject that Lukács sought to repair by “endowing it with class consciousness”; rather, it is the “class in chains that is thoroughly radical” [2]2 A reference to Marx’s *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Introduction*, where he describes the proletariat as a class with “radical chains.” surging onto the historical stage, the “gravedigger” of the bourgeoisie forged by the internal contradictions of capital and labor. By the logic of historical necessity, it becomes a veritable revolutionary force and political subject. However, in the post-industrial era, especially in the present age when information technology has swept the globe, with the implementation of post-Fordism and the gradual hegemony of information capital and immaterial labor, the chasm between the propertied and the propertyless appears to be narrowing. The proletariat has even receded into an ordinary group that “does not look like the proletariat,” leading some Western scholars to declare a “farewell to the working class” and a “crisis of the proletariat.” [3]3 “Farewell to the working class” alludes to André Gorz’s 1980 book *Adieux au prolétariat*, which argued that the traditional industrial working class was declining. “Crisis of the proletariat” refers to debates among Western Marxists about the relevance of the proletariat as a revolutionary subject in late capitalism. Some have even claimed, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, that the proletariat as “gravedigger” has itself entered the grave, while those proletarians who still “remain” have been gradually “assimilated” by the capitalist system. Against this backdrop, in order to rediscover a political subject, fill the “absence of a subject” in the information age, and revive the specter of communism, Western radical leftist thinkers represented by Negri, Žižek, and Rancière advocate a return to the communist position, launching a radical critique and resistance against the global capitalist order. Among them, a core issue they raise is: Who can become the new political subject to transform the existing order? In response to this question of the political subject, radical leftist thinkers have introduced subject concepts such as “the multitude,” “the excluded,” “the part of no part,” and “homo sacer,” which have become the “new proletariat” succeeding the traditional proletariat.

在马克思的著述中，“无产阶级”概念既不同于黑格尔语境中由市民社会催生的无权之人“贱民”1，也不是卢卡奇意欲修补的那个萎靡不振并需要“被赋予阶级意识”的幼弱主体，而是涌向历史前台的“被戴上彻底的锁链的阶级”2，是资本与劳动内在矛盾的运演所锻造出的资产阶级的“掘墓人”。它因历史的必然性逻辑而成为名副其实的革命力量和政治主体。然而，在后工业时代，特别是在信息技术席卷全球的现时代，由于后福特制的推行和信息资本、非物质劳动逐渐成为“霸权”，有产者与无产者之间的鸿沟似乎日渐弥合，无产阶级甚至已经隐退为“不像无产阶级样子”的普通群体，以至于有西方学者发起了“告别工人阶级”和“无产阶级危机”3的断言。有人甚至因苏联解体而宣称作为“掘墓人”的无产阶级首先进入了坟墓，而那些依然“存留”的无产者也逐渐被资本主义制度所“同化”。在此背景下，为了重新寻找政治主体，弥补信息时代的“主体缺位”，使共产主义幽灵再度复活，以奈格里、齐泽克、朗西埃为代表的西方激进左翼思想家主张重回共产主义立场，对全球资本主义秩序进行激进批判与反抗。其中，他们提出的一个核心议题就是：谁能成为变革既有秩序的新政治主体？围绕这个政治主体之问，激进左翼思想家们推出了“诸众”“被排除者”“无分者”“神圣人”等主体概念，成为了继传统无产阶级之后的“新无产阶级”。

I. The Rise and Emergence of the “New Proletariat”

一、“新无产阶级”的勃兴与出场

The “emergence” of the “new proletariat” in the writings of contemporary Western radical leftist thinkers is, on the one hand, because the post-structuralist “dissolution of the subject” has rendered their political programs utterly unattractive, and their abandonment of the goal of social change has led the ideal of liberation into a dead end; on the other hand, because the rise of information capitalism has accelerated social antagonism, urgently requiring an agent of social change to “open the door to communism.” [4]4 “Open the door to communism” is a phrase used by radical leftist thinkers to signal the need for a new political subject to initiate a communist transformation. Notably, a common tendency among these radical thinkers is their rejection of socialism; they are more inclined to redefine the concept of communism against the backdrop of information network technology and the dominance of immaterial labor, and to use the new proletariat, which information network technology is accelerating into being, as the political subject to resist capitalism, aiming to reconstruct a communist model suited to the present era.

当代西方激进左翼思想家笔下的“新无产阶级”之所以能够“出场”，一方面是因为后结构主义者“消解主体”的做法使其政治方案彻底丧失了吸引力，他们对社会变革目标的抛弃把解放理想引向了死胡同；另一方面是因为信息资本主义的崛起加速了社会对抗，迫切需要变革现代社会的能动者“打开共产主义之门”4。值得注意的是，这些激进思想家的共同倾向是对社会主义的否定，他们更倾向于在信息网络技术和非物质劳动占主导地位的背景下重新界定共产主义概念，并以信息网络技术正在加速催生的新无产阶级为政治主体来反抗资本主义，以期重建一个与当今时代相吻合的共产主义模式。

(I) The “Multitude” in the Name of the Poor

（一）穷人之名的“诸众”

With globalization carrying the borderless flow of capital and the global surge of information capital, what changes have occurred in capitalism’s mechanisms of control, modes of exploitation, and class relations? Is the proletariat as a political subject still “present”? Leftist scholars represented by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, based on the factual judgment that “capitalism is transforming into Empire,” first launched a critique of contemporary capitalism and reshaped the concept of the proletariat. Hardt and Negri point out in *Empire*: With the advance of globalization and the decline of sovereign states, a new, boundless form of sovereignty is emerging, and “this new global form of sovereignty is what we call Empire.” [5]5 Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, *Empire* (2000), p. xi. This borderless new global apparatus of rule is the new biopolitical form constructed by Hardt and Negri—a power structure full of contradictions, conflicts, and divisions, which “holds immense power of oppression and destruction.” [6]6 Ibid., p. 384. Faced with such an overpowering rule of the “new Empire,” where should humanity go? Where is the “ferry” to the ideal shore of humanity? Who is the best “helmsman”? In their view, the best subject to resist and overthrow Empire is “the multitude,” which will lead humanity beyond Empire to build a new world of great harmony.

随着全球化裹挟着资本的无疆界流动和信息资本的全球涌动，资本主义的控制机制、剥削方式及其阶级关系究竟发生了怎样的变化？作为政治主体的无产阶级还“在场”吗？以哈特（Michael Hardt）和奈格里（Antonio Negri）为代表的左派学者基于“资本主义正在向帝国转变”这个事实判断，首先发起了对当代资本主义的批判，重塑了无产阶级概念。哈特和奈格里在《帝国》中指出：随着全球化的推进和主权国家的衰微，一个无边无垠的新的主权形式正在生成，这个“新的全球的主权形式就是我们所称的帝国”5。这个无疆界的新的全球统治机器就是哈特和奈格里所构造的新的生命政治形式——充满矛盾、冲突和分化的权力结构，它“持有巨大的压迫和毁灭的力量”6。面对如此超强的“新帝国”统治，人类究竟何去何从？迈向人类理想彼岸的“渡船”在哪里？谁是最好的“舵手”？在他们看来，反抗和颠覆帝国的最佳主体便是“诸众”，它会带领人类超越帝国，建立一个新的大同世界。

As the subject resisting Empire, “the multitude” is already quite different from Marx’s concept of the proletariat. It is “all the constellation-like existing individuals” [7]7 “Constellation-like” (*konstellationsartig*) is a term used by Hardt and Negri to describe the multitude as a dispersed, non-unified collection of singularities. subordinated to the new Empire under the drive of the logic of capital. In Hardt and Negri’s view, “the multitude” is a living alternative force endogenous to Empire, a mobile, homeless populace subjected to deep exploitation, entirely distinct from social subjects like “the people” or “the masses.” If “the people” is seen as “one,” then the multitude manifests as “many.” If the masses are a dim, indistinct mixture, then the multitude is a colorful collection that retains social differences, a community unconcerned with property. Hardt and Negri distinguish the multitude from the concept of the proletariat: the proletariat includes both industrial workers in the narrow sense and wage laborers in the broad sense, but this already excludes groups such as the poor, unpaid domestic workers, and agricultural laborers. In contrast, the multitude is a more open and inclusive concept, “composed of all forms of social production,” [8]8 Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, *Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire* (2004), p. 105. involving both material production and the “biopolitical production” of immaterial products (information, images, emotions, etc.). It is no longer an identity marker like “the people,” nor does it possess the consistency implied by “the masses.” Instead, it is a new force—a new global class—based on “difference” and finding “the common” within it for communication and unified action. The goal of this new class is “to create an alternative global society from within Empire.” [9]9 Ibid., p. xv. But this process is a protracted struggle; only “the multitude is the only role currently capable of revolution,” and therefore it is necessary to “ensure that the multitude becomes a revolutionary role,” [10]10 Ibid., p. 212. taking the multitude as the revolutionary subject.

“诸众”作为反抗帝国的主体，已经和马克思的无产阶级概念大为不同。它是资本逻辑驱动下屈从于新帝国的“所有星丛式存在的个人”7。在哈特和奈格里看来，“诸众”是内生于帝国的活生生的替代性力量，是深受剥削的、居无定所的流动性的民众，它与“人民”“群众”等社会主体全然不同。如果把人民看作“一”，那么诸众则表现为“多”。如果说群众是黯然的、模糊的混合体，那么诸众则是多彩的、保留着社会差异的集合，是无关财产的共同体。哈特和奈格里区分了诸众和无产阶级概念的差异：无产阶级既包括狭义的产业工人，也包括广义的雇佣工人，但这已经把穷人、无工资的家务劳动者、农业劳动者等群体排除在外。与之相反，诸众则是更加开放、包容的概念，它“由社会生产的各种形式构成”8，既牵涉物质生产形式，也包含生产非物质产品（信息、形象、情感等）的“生命政治生产”形式，它既不再是一种类似“人民”概念的身份标识，也不具有“群众”概念内蕴的一致性，而是基于“差异”并从中找到“共同性”（the common）来进行交流和统一行动的新力量——新的全球阶级。这个新阶级的目的是“从帝国内部创造出一种替代性的全球社会”9。但这个过程是漫长的战役，只有“诸众是当下唯一有能力进行革命的角色”，因而必须“确保诸众成为革命性角色”10，把诸众作为革命主体。

Similar to Hardt and Negri, Paolo Virno combines Marx’s concept of “general intellect” with the post-Fordist mode of production to reconstruct “the multitude as subjectivity.” Virno argues that the primary production resources of contemporary capitalism are embedded in human linguistic-communicative and cognitive capacities, meaning that today’s workforce as a whole has been transformed into intellectual labor, i.e., “mass intellectuality” (another name for the multitude), which lies at the core of the post-Fordist economy. Since post-Fordist labor is intellectual labor mediated by human linguistic-cognitive capacities, this requires pruning those “proletarian concepts” no longer suitable for intellectual labor. Thus, Virno concludes: “The lack of proletarianization means that the post-Fordist worker is the multitude, not the people.” [11]11 Paolo Virno, *A Grammar of the Multitude* (2004), p. 103. Virno’s “multitude” is a revolutionary “fighter” endogenous to post-Fordism, but he does not design a ready-made battle plan for it. Instead, he believes that the “capitalist communism” spawned by post-Fordism will gather the forces of the “multitude” to form a new communist subject system.

与哈特、奈格里相似，维尔诺（Paolo Virno）把马克思的“一般智力”概念和后福特制的生产方式结合起来，重构了“作为主观性的诸众”。维尔诺认为，当代资本主义的主要生产资源内涵在人类语言—交往能力、认知能力中，这意味着当今劳动力的整体已经转化成智力劳动力，即“大众知性”（对诸众的另一个称呼），它位于后福特制经济的核心。由于后福特制的劳动是借助于人类语言—认知能力的智力劳动，这就需要删减那些不再适合智力劳动的“无产阶级概念”，这样一来，维尔诺得出结论说：“缺乏无产阶级化意味着后福特制的劳动者是诸众，不是人民。”11维尔诺的“诸众”是内生于后福特制的革命“斗士”，但他没有给“诸众”设计出现成的战斗方案，相反，他认为后福特制催生的“资本共产主义”将会把“诸众”的力量集聚起来，形成新的共产主义主体系统。

(II) The Non-Substantial “Excluded”

（二）非实体的“被排除者”

Slavoj Žižek, along with Hardt and Negri, belongs to the same camp in terms of philosophical stance and theoretical construction of the political subject, namely, seeking a new revolutionary subject starting from the actual existence of capitalism. In Žižek’s view, capitalism’s enclosure of “common resources” or “the commons” has brought disastrous consequences for humanity, manifested in four forms of antagonism: ecological crisis, privatization of intellectual property, ethical shocks driven by capital-driven new technologies, and the gap between the “included” and the “excluded.” The universal consequence of this endless movement of enclosure driven by the logic of capital is the alienation of the human subject itself, that is, the stripping away of the rich social relations that constitute the essence of being human, reducing people to a bare abstract subject unable to participate in and share social relations, causing a universal “proletarianization” of human existence, and thereby degrading the human subject to a “substance-less subjectivity.”[12]12 Slavoj Žižek, *The Parallax View* (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006), p. 269. Žižek believes that the rule of contemporary capitalism is realized through the exclusion of backward countries, vulnerable groups, immigrants, the poor, etc., and these “excluded” who are shut out by the current system constitute a special class, the subject of resistance to capitalism, and a potential revolutionary force of liberation. Based on this, Žižek vividly states: “We are all excluded, excluded from nature, and also excluded from our symbolic substance. Today, we are all potentially ‘homo sacer,’ and the only way to prevent this from becoming a reality is to act in advance.”[13]13 Slavoj Žižek, *Living in the End Times* (London: Verso, 2010), p. 335. It should be pointed out that Žižek’s constructed “excluded” is no longer the proletariat in the traditional sense. He has strictly distinguished Marx’s concept of the proletariat from that of the working class, arguing that the proletariat is the “invested agent of revolutionary struggle,” while the working class is a “descriptive term in the field of knowledge.”[14]14 Slavoj Žižek, *The Parallax View*, p. 269. In fact, both the proletariat and the working class in Marx’s discourse are products of large-scale industry; they are both the dispossessed and the revolutionary subject that overthrows the existing system. However, the “excluded,” as the new proletariat in Žižek’s view, are the victims squeezed out by the “included,” a “negativity of the void,”[15]15 Slavoj Žižek, *The Ticklish Subject: The Absent Centre of Political Ontology* (London: Verso, 1999), p. 172. which has degenerated into the “liberated” rather than the true subject leading liberation.

齐泽克（Slavoj Žižek）与哈特和奈格里在政治主体的哲学立场和理论建构上同属一个阵营，即从资本主义现实存在出发寻找新的革命主体。在齐泽克看来，资本主义对“共同资源”或“共有物”的圈占给人类带来了灾难性的后果，表现为生态危机、知识财产私有化、资本驱动新技术引发的伦理冲击、“被包容者”和“被排除者”之间的鸿沟等四种对抗形式。这种资本逻辑驱动的无休止的圈占运动引发的普遍后果是人类主体本身的异化，即抽离掉了作为人的本质的丰富社会关系，使人沦为无法参与和共享社会关系的赤裸裸的抽象主体，造成人类存在的普遍的“无产阶级化”（proletarianization），进而把作为主体的人降格为“无实体的主体性”12。齐泽克认为，当代资本主义的统治通过对落后国家、弱势群体、移民、穷人等的排斥而得以实现，而这些被现行制度隔离在外的“被排除者”却是一个特殊的阶级，是反抗资本主义的主体，是潜在的革命的解放力量。基于此，齐泽克形象地指出：“我们都是被排斥者，被排斥在自然，也被排斥在我们的象征实体之外。今天，我们都是潜在的‘神圣牲人’（homo sacer），而避免让此成为事实的唯一途径就是预先采取行动。”13需要指出的是，齐泽克塑造的“被排除者”已经不是传统意义上的无产阶级，他曾严格区分马克思的无产阶级和工人阶级概念，认为无产阶级是“革命斗争的投入行为者”，而工人阶级则是“知识领域的描述性词汇”14。实际上，马克思话语中的无产阶级和工人阶级都是大工业的产物，它们既是被剥夺者，更是推翻现存制度的革命主体。而“被排除者”作为齐泽克眼中的新无产阶级，是“被包容者”所排挤的受害者，是“否定性的空无”15，它已经蜕变为“被解放者”，而不是领导解放的真正主体。

(3) The “Part of No Part” Without Participation

（三）无参与之分的“无分者”

Jacques Rancière’s construction of the revolutionary subject of emancipatory politics is extremely similar to Žižek’s. In a sense, Žižek’s “excluded” is an absorption and transformation of Rancière’s concept of the political subject. The difference is that Rancière does not directly shape the new political subject from capitalism, but derives the new subject concept of the “part of no part” as a marginal group from a strict distinction between the terms “politics” and “police.” Rancière argues that the opposition between politics and police is directly expressed as different methods of calculating the parts of the community: “The first only counts those real parts and actual groups… The second makes an ‘additional’ count of the part of those who have no part. We will call the first police, and the second politics.”[16]16 Jacques Rancière, *Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy*, trans. Julie Rose (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999), p. 6. The “part of those who have no part” here refers to the elements excluded by the ruling class, those “who have no share” outside the community, i.e., the “part of no part.” Rancière points out that the ancient poor, the Third Estate, and the modern proletariat all belong to the “part of no part.” “It is precisely because of the existence of the part of no part… that the community exists as a political community.”[17]17 Jacques Rancière, *Disagreement*, p. 9. The greatest characteristic of the “part of no part” is “having no part in participation”; it is a component not counted within the community. Political activity uses the “share of the part of no part” to break the perceptual configuration that defines the components and their possession or lack of shares, giving a place to the “part of those who have no part,” giving a share to those who have no share, making the invisible visible, and ultimately realizing and restoring what Rancière calls the “share of the part of no part.” In fact, Rancière equates the modern proletariat with the part of no part and takes the “share of the part of no part” as the measure for constructing the political subject. This approach ignores the historical field and economic scene in which the class itself exists; he seems to have completely forgotten that “this share of the part of no part is both everything and nothing.”[18]18 Jacques Rancière, *Disagreement*, p. 9. In other words, the “share of the part of no part” cannot appear, cannot be seen, confirmed, or understood. Because of this, we can regard the “share of the part of no part” as a “disordered politics generated in the rupture of the police order of constitution,” which precisely indicates “the heterogeneous direction of Rancière’s post-Marxist biopolitical philosophy.”[19]19 See Tang Tang, “The Heterogeneous Direction of Rancière’s Post-Marxist Biopolitical Philosophy,” *Philosophical Trends*, no. 5 (2012).

朗西埃（Jacques Rancière）对解放政治革命主体的塑造与齐泽克极为相似，在某种意义上，齐泽克的“被排除者”是对朗西埃政治主体概念的吸收和改造。不同的是，朗西埃没有直接从资本主义出发对新政治主体进行形塑，而是在严格区分“政治”和“治安”这两个术语中导出了作为边缘群体的“无分者”这个新主体概念。朗西埃认为，政治与治安的对立直接表现为对共同体中诸多部分的计算方法的不同：“第一种只计算那些现实的部分和实在的群体……第二种则对无部分的部分进行‘额外’地计算。我们将把第一种称为治安，第二种称为政治。”16这里的“无部分的部分”就是受主流阶级排斥的成分，就是共同体之外的“不拥有任何份额的人”，即“无分者”。朗西埃指出，古代的穷人、第三阶级和现代的无产者都属于“无分者”，“正是由于无分者的存在……共同体才以一种政治性共同体而存在”17。“无分者”最大的特点就是“没有参与之分”，是不被计算在共同体之内的“组分”，政治活动就是借助于“无分者之分”来打破那个界定组成部分及其有无份额的感知配置，使“无部分的部分”有位置，使“无份额者”有份额，使不可见的变成可见，最终实现和重归朗西埃所说的“无分者之分”。实际上，朗西埃把现代无产者等同于无分者，并把“无分者之分”作为政治主体构造的量值，这种做法忽略了阶级本身存在的历史场域和经济场景，他似乎已经全然忘却了“这个无分者之分，既是全部，也是全无”18。换句话说，“无分者之分”是无法出现，无法被看见、确证和理解的。正因为如此，我们可以把“无分者之分”看作“治安构序逻辑断裂中生成的失序政治”，这也恰好表明了“朗西埃后马克思生命政治哲学的异质走向”19。

(4) The “Homo Sacer” of Bare Life

（四）生命赤裸化的“神圣人”

Giorgio Agamben has pushed the study of biopolitics to a new peak, and also brought the idea of communism to the forefront of the current era, reconstructing a new form of community based on the critique of biopolitics. Unlike other radical left-wing thinkers, Agamben’s construction of the political subject is presented in an obscure way, using the “Homo sacer,” an individual from ancient Roman law, as an image to shape the bare life existing in the contemporary capitalist world, opening up the biopolitical direction of capitalist critique. In Agamben’s view, people in the modern capitalist world have become similar to the “living dead,” whose “life is excluded from the space where it should be protected. Life is abandoned, reduced to bare life (sacred life).”[20]20 Giorgio Agamben, *Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life*, trans. Daniel Heller-Roazen (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), p. 90. Moreover, in a society controlled by modern capital, everyone can become a “Homo sacer” of bare life at any time, and the current “state of exception”[21]21 “State of exception” (Ausnahmezustand) is a concept from Carl Schmitt, developed by Agamben to describe a situation where the legal order is suspended, often used to justify sovereign power’s extra-legal actions. (i.e., the suspension of law, political disorder, phenomena such as refugees and camps) has become the norm, even a permanent state. This state directly threatens the survival of “Homo sacer,” having become a “lawless” implicit totalitarian state. Agamben believes that these abandoned bare lives are like “life emptied of value,” to the extent that in various modern European languages, the word “people” has become synonymous with the poor, the powerless, and the excluded. Therefore, the word “people” “simultaneously names the constitutive political subject and the class that is in fact… excluded from politics.”[22]22 Giorgio Agamben, *Means Without End: Notes on Politics*, trans. Vincenzo Binetti and Cesare Casarino (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000), p. 30. In this regard, Jodi Dean, in *The Communist Horizon*, comments that Agamben’s understanding of “people” can distinguish between the “privileged stratum” and “the rest of us.” The so-called “the rest of us” are those left over after exclusion and screening by the ruling class; as a force of division and a force that creates division, it is a substitute for other communist subject concepts — “the proletariat,” “the multitude,” and “the part of no part.”[23]23 Jodi Dean, *The Communist Horizon* (London: Verso, 2012), p. 125. That is to say, the concept of the proletariat is once again reconstructed by Dean as “the rest of us,” acquiring the same meaning as the subject concepts of Negri, Rancière, and Agamben. Dean believes that class struggle in contemporary capitalism is already obvious, manifested as the struggle between the ruling class and “the rest of us.” It is this struggle that will once again lift communism from the horizon.

阿甘本（Giorgio Agamben）把生命政治的研究推向了新的高峰，也把共产主义的理念推向了当今时代的前台，重建了基于生命政治批判的新的共同体形式。与其他激进左翼思想家不同，阿甘本对政治主体的建构以一种隐晦的方式呈现出来，并以“神圣人”（Homo sacer）这个古罗马法中的个体为形象，塑造了寄存于当代资本主义世界中的赤裸生命，开启了资本主义批判的生命政治路向。在阿甘本看来，现代资本主义世界中的人已经类似于“活死人”，其“生命被排除在它本应受到保护的空间外。生命遭到了弃置，被缩减为赤裸生命（神圣生命）”20。并且，在现代资本控制的社会中，每个人随时都可能成为生命赤裸的“神圣人”，而当下的“例外状态”21（即法律被悬置、政治失序、难民和收容所等现象）变成了常态，甚至成了永恒状态，这种状态直接威胁着“神圣人”的生存，已然成为“无法无天”的隐性极权主义状态。阿甘本认为，这些被弃置的赤裸生命如同“被掏空价值的生命”，以至于在各种现代欧洲语言中，“人民”一词已经成为穷人、无权者和被排除者的代名词。因此，“人民”这个词“同时命名了构成性的政治主体和事实上……被排除在政治之外的阶级”22。对此，乔蒂·狄恩（Jodi Dean）在《共产主义地平线》中评论道：阿甘本对“人民”的这种理解可以将之区分为“特权阶层”和“剩下的人”（the rest of us）。所谓“剩下的人”，就是被主流阶级排除和筛选后余下的人，它作为一种分裂和制造分裂的力量，是对其他共产主义主体概念——“无产阶级”“诸众”和“无分者”的替代23。也就是说，无产阶级概念再次被狄恩重构为“剩下的人”，它和奈格里、朗西埃、阿甘本的主体概念获得了同等的意义。狄恩认为，当代资本主义的阶级斗争已经显而易见，表现为统治阶级和“剩下的人”之间的斗争，正是这种斗争会将共产主义从地平线上再次托起。

II. Is the “New Proletariat” Still the Proletariat?

二、“新无产阶级”还是无产阶级吗？

Western radical left-wing thinkers, focusing on the realities of contemporary capitalist development, attempt to reactivate Marx’s concept of the proletariat, providing a subjective impetus for the revival of the idea of communism in both theory and practice. Their theoretical courage and the significant political implications arising from it cannot be ignored. However, from the perspective of Marx’s historical origins and theoretical shaping of the proletariat, the new proletariat depicted by these Western radical left-wing thinkers has deviated from the revolutionary subject that raises the banner of resistance in Marx’s vision. Although the proletariat in Marx’s view is an “unstable type of proletarian” [24]24 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto*, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 6 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 491. [Translator’s note: This is a standard English edition; the Chinese text cites the Chinese edition.], which changes as capital excludes labor and the organic composition of capital rises, the class’s own historical origins, identity markers, and mission tasks possess stability. It can only withdraw from the historical stage by “abolishing the antithesis that oppresses it and makes it the proletariat” [25]25 Ibid., p. 490.. Therefore, as a “stand-in” for the traditional proletariat, this new proletariat in the era of globalization has abandoned Marx’s context, sliding into an abstract, passive subject at the theoretical level, thus undergoing a “de-revolutionizing” transformation.

西方激进左翼思想家们着眼于当代资本主义发展的现实，试图重新激活马克思的无产阶级概念，从理论和实践上为共产主义观念的复兴提供主体之势，其理论勇气和由此引发的重大政治意义是不可忽略的。但如果从马克思对无产阶级的历史起源和理论塑造的话语来看，西方激进左翼思想家们笔下的新无产阶级已经偏离了马克思视域中那个举起反抗大旗的革命主体。尽管马克思视野中的无产阶级是“不稳定型的无产者”24，会随着资本对劳动的排斥、资本有机构成的提高而发生变动，但这个阶级本身的历史缘起、身份标识、使命任务却具有稳定性，它只有“消灭制约着它而使它成为无产阶级的那个对立面”25，才有可能退出历史的舞台。因此，作为传统无产阶级的“替身”，这些新无产阶级在全球化时代已经抛弃了马克思的语境，滑向了理论层面的抽象的消极主体，从而发生了“去革命化”的蜕变。

(I) The Origins and Essential Determinants of the Proletariat

（一）无产阶级的起源及其本质规定性

The emergence and evolution of any class are inseparable from specific historical scenes and contemporary contexts. There was originally no proletariat in human history; rather, changes in the mode of production provided the objective soil for its birth, nurturing this “special estate” [26]26 Karl Marx, *Capital*, vol. 1, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 35 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1996), p. 407. [Translator’s note: Standard English edition; Chinese text cites Chinese edition.] charged with the great task of human emancipation. In the context of Marx and Engels, the proletariat is neither the “rabble” stigmatized and negatively labeled by the ruling classes in Western history, nor the “poor,” “paupers,” or “outcasts” at the bottom of the class-society pyramid, nor the “multitude,” “excluded,” “those without a part,” “homo sacer,” or “leftover people” in the eyes of modern Western radical left-wing thinkers. Instead, it specifically refers to “the class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live” [27]27 Ibid., p. 613.. That is to say, the fundamental marker of why the proletariat is called the proletariat is “having no property” — that is, lacking means of production, and therefore it must sell its labour power to make a living. So why did the proletariat lose its means of production in the tide of historical progress? Why was it saddled with “radical chains”? How will it smash these chains in the revolutionary torrent and thereby “win the whole world”? These are precisely the questions that Marx and Engels spent their lives answering. Marx first proposed in the “Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right”: “The proletariat announces the dissolution of the hitherto existing world order, only by revealing the secret of its own existence” [28]28 Ibid., p. 638.. This “secret” is the “key” to understanding the origins, essence, and mission of the proletariat. Only by uncovering the secret of why the proletariat exists can one truly understand the limitations of the “new proletariat” and the “transformation” it has undergone.

任何阶级的产生和演变都离不开特定的历史场景和时代情境。人类历史上本没有无产阶级，而是生产方式的变迁为之提供了客观的土壤，孕育了这个承担人类解放大任的“特殊等级”。在马克思恩格斯的语境中，无产阶级并不是西方历史上被统治阶级污名化并被贴上负面标签的“乌合之众”，也不是处于阶级社会金字塔底层的“穷人”“贫民”和“贱民”等另类群体，更不是现代西方激进左翼思想家眼里的“诸众”“被排除者”“无分者”“神圣人”和“剩下的人”，而是特指“没有自己的生产资料，因而不得不靠出卖劳动力来维持生活的现代雇佣工人阶级。”26也就是说，无产阶级之所以称为无产阶级，根本标识是“无产”，即没有生产资料，因此它必须靠出卖自己的劳动力来维持生计。那么，无产阶级缘何在历史前行的大潮中丧失了自己的生产资料？它为何又会被戴上“彻底的锁链”？它将如何在革命洪流中砸碎枷锁进而“获得整个世界”？这些问题正好是马克思恩格斯经过毕生奋斗已经回答了的问题。马克思在《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》中首次提出：“无产阶级宣告迄今为止的世界制度的解体，只不过是揭示自己本身的存在的秘密。”27这个“秘密”是理解无产阶级缘起、本质和使命的“钥匙”，只有揭开了无产阶级缘何存在的秘密，才能真正理解“新无产阶级”的局限和发生的“蜕变”。

From a historical perspective, the proletariat is the product of the separation of the subject of labour from the objective conditions of labour — it is the “free worker” who has lost his objective conditions. The historical field in which the proletariat emerges is inseparable from the primitive formation of capitalist relations. The process of the primitive formation of capitalist relations is precisely the process of the separation and dissolution of the worker from his objective conditions. This process gave birth to capital, and even more so nurtured the “living labour capacity as poor as a church mouse” that stands opposed to capital. In the *Grundrisse* (1857–1858), Marx examined pre-capitalist forms of community and their property relations. He discovered that in property relations based on the commune, the worker was fused with the objective conditions of labour (land, tools, means of subsistence): “The individual relates to the objective conditions of labour simply as his own; he relates to them as the inorganic nature of his subjectivity, in which the latter realises itself” [29]29 Karl Marx, *Capital*, vol. 1, Afterword to the Second German Edition, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 35, p. 20. [Translator’s note: Standard English edition; Chinese text cites Chinese edition.]. Thus, the worker was both the subject of his own existence and regarded the objective conditions of production as the conditions of his own existence, “as the mode of existence of his individuality” [30]30 This refers to the concept of a “chosen people” in religious eschatology, which Marx and Engels criticized as an idealist notion of historical agency.. In this situation, the worker possessed his property mediated through the community. However, with population growth, expansion of common land, improvement of tools, and increased intercourse leading to a

从历史场域来看，无产阶级是劳动的主体与劳动的客观条件相分离的产物，是丧失了自己客观条件的“自由工人”。无产阶级产生的历史场域离不开资本主义关系的原始形成，资本主义关系原始形成的过程就是劳动者同自己的客观条件发生分离和解体的过程，这个过程催生了资本，更孕育了同资本相对立的“一贫如洗的活劳动力”。马克思在《政治经济学批判（1857—1858年手稿）》中考察了资本主义以前的共同体形式及其所有制关系，他发现在以公社为基础的所有制关系中，劳动者同劳动的客观条件（土地、劳动工具、生活资料）是融为一体的，“个人把劳动的客观条件简单地看做是自己的东西，看做是使自己的主体性得到自我实现的无机自然”28，因而劳动者既是自身存在的主体，也把生产的客观条件看做是自己生存的条件，“看做是他的个体的存在方式”29。在这种情况下，劳动者以共同体为中介占有自己的财产。然而，随着人口增多、公有地扩展、工具改进和交往频繁带来的生产方式的提高，以共同体为基础的所有制发生裂变和解体，单个的劳动者逐渐同客观条件发生分离，“财产就不再是亲身劳动的个人对劳动客观条件的关系了”30。随之引发的就是劳动者同土地、生产工具、生活资料的关系的解体，这个解体的过程就是劳动者同自己的客观条件相分离的过程，使他们从先前的天然的联系中游离出来，“使大批个人脱离他们先前的（以这种或那种形式）对劳动的客观条件的肯定关系，把这些关系加以否定，从而把这些个人变成自由工人”31。这样就使得劳动者一极成为丧失了客观条件的自由工人，而作为土地、原料、工具等劳动客观条件的另一极则逐渐转化成货币和资本，即“以独立的价值形式，与那些已同这些条件分离的、丧失了财产的个人相对立”32。所以，无产阶级在本源上是丧失了自己客观条件的自由工人，他们“自由得一无所有；他们唯一的活路，或是出卖自己的劳动能力，或是行乞、流浪和抢劫”33。

From the perspective of actual conditions, the proletariat is a product engendered by large-scale capitalist industry, a class that stands opposed to the bourgeoisie and engages in “wage labor.” The actual field in which the proletariat exists is directly related to the relations of production dominated by the logic of capital; it is a product of the transformation of capitalist relations of production. Marx and Engels, in the *Communist Manifesto*, analyzed the revolutionary impact of the Industrial Revolution and machine-based large-scale industry on humanity: it increasingly split society into two opposing camps, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and simplified class antagonisms. Under the impact of machine-based large-scale industry, the possessors of capital gained economic and political dominance, while “the lower strata of the middle class — the small industrialists, small merchants, and small rentiers, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all these classes sink down into the proletariat.” [24]24 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto*, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 6 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 491. [Translator’s note: This is a standard English edition; the Chinese text cites the Chinese edition.] The proletariat consists of the wage workers exploited and displaced in large-scale industry, those “called into existence by the industrial revolution.” [25]25 Ibid., p. 490. As “the product of large-scale industry itself,” the proletariat stands at the two poles of a unity of opposites with the bourgeoisie; the two sides are mutually interdependent and mutually antagonistic. This means that the proletariat is not an unchanging group but changes along with the transformation of the capitalist mode of production and changes in the bourgeoisie itself. The typical manifestation of the transformation of the capitalist mode of production is the adoption of machinery, using machines to produce machines — that is, the capitalist application of machinery. In order to realize capital accumulation and obtain more surplus value, the capitalist replaces human labor with machinery as the means of labor, turning the machine into a new means of producing surplus value. The greatest evil consequence of the capitalist application of machinery is that it displaces more workers, “creates a surplus population of workers, who have no choice but to submit to the laws imposed on them by capital … The machine abolishes all moral and natural limits on the working day.” [26]26 Karl Marx, *Capital*, vol. 1, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 35 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1996), p. 407. [Translator’s note: Standard English edition; Chinese text cites Chinese edition.] The capitalization of machinery shows that the more the capitalist uses machines, the more workers are displaced, the more severe the exploitation and impoverishment suffered by the proletariat, and the longer and heavier the chains fastened upon the proletarians. Hence Marx points out: “The accumulation of capital is the increase of the proletariat.” [27]27 Ibid., p. 613. The greater the accumulation of capital, “the larger the reserve army of labor and the official pauperism. This is the absolute, general law of capitalist accumulation.” [28]28 Ibid., p. 638. Therefore, as long as capitalism exists, the proletariat necessarily exists; as long as machinery is driven by capital, the proletariat cannot escape the fate of being displaced; as long as capital accumulation expands without limit, the displaced proletarians must suffer the fate of relative impoverishment.

从现实场景来看，无产阶级是资本主义大工业催生的产物，是与资产阶级相对立并从事“雇佣劳动”的阶级。无产阶级存在的现实场域与资本逻辑主导的生产关系直接相关，它是资本主义生产关系变革的产物。马克思恩格斯在《共产党宣言》中分析了工业革命和机器大工业对人类产生的革命性影响：它使社会日益分裂为资产阶级和无产阶级相对立的两大阵营，使阶级对立更加简单化了。在机器大工业的冲击下，资产者获得了经济和政治上的统治地位，而“以前的中间等级的下层，即小工业家、小商人和小食利者，手工业者和农民——所有这些阶级都降格到无产阶级的队伍里来了”34。无产阶级就是在大工业中受剥削、被排挤的雇佣工人，他们是“由于工业革命而产生的”35。无产阶级作为“大工业本身的产物”，与资产阶级处于对立统一的两极，双方相互依存、相互斗争。这意味着，无产阶级不是一成不变的群体，而会随着资本主义生产方式的变革和资产阶级本身的变化而发生变化。资本主义生产方式变革的典型表现就是采用机器、用机器来生产机器，即机器的资本主义应用。资本家为了实现资本积累和获得更多剩余价值，使劳动资料以机器的形式代替人力，使机器充当了生产剩余价值的新手段。机器的资本主义应用带来的最大恶果就是把更多的工人排挤出来，“制造了过剩的劳动人口，这些人不得不听命于资本强加给他们的规律……机器消灭了工作日的一切道德界限和自然界限”36。机器的资本化应用表明，资本家越使用机器，被排挤的工人就越多，无产阶级遭受的剥削和贫困就越严重，套在无产者身上的锁链就越长、越重。所以，马克思指出：“资本的积累就是无产阶级的增加”37。资本积累的越多，“工人阶级中贫苦阶层和产业后备军越大，官方认为需要救济的贫民也就越多。这就是资本主义积累的绝对的、一般的规律”38。所以，只要资本主义存在，无产阶级就必然存在；只要机器被资本所驱动，无产阶级就无法摆脱被排挤的命运；只要资本积累在无限膨胀，被排挤的无产者就必然遭受相对贫困的命运。

From the perspective of mission and task, the proletariat is a truly revolutionary class. Only by abolishing the existing mode of appropriation and shattering the various fetters that bind them can they liberate themselves, thereby realizing a “new heaven and new earth” that has superseded exploitation and alienation. The essential determination of the proletariat lies in the fact that they are the stratum at the bottom of society, possessing no means of production and engaged in wage labor; the exploitation, oppression, and impoverishment they suffer are the most severe, making them the most revolutionary class and the subject representing humanity’s future. In Marx’s view, the proletariat is not an illusory, abstract subject but a collective composed of real wage laborers parasitic on capital relations; in essence, they are real individuals, living laborers dominated by the logic of capital and displaced by machinery. “The historical mission of this class is to overthrow the capitalist mode of production and finally abolish classes.” [29]29 Karl Marx, *Capital*, vol. 1, Afterword to the Second German Edition, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 35, p. 20. [Translator’s note: Standard English edition; Chinese text cites Chinese edition.] That is to say, the proletariat is a truly real revolutionary subject and an existing revolutionary force; they are by no means the “chosen people” [30]30 This refers to the concept of a “chosen people” in religious eschatology, which Marx and Engels criticized as an idealist notion of historical agency. proclaimed by eschatologists to save the world, nor are they “those with a world-historical mandate” [31]31 This phrase alludes to the Hegelian idea of a “world-historical individual” or a people chosen by history to fulfill a world-historical mission, which Marx rejected in favor of class analysis. swept along by the historical current, but rather the guides, promoters, and revolutionaries who lead humanity toward the good. The position and identity of the proletariat determine that they must shoulder the great task of liberation, must make a great difference in history, and must struggle for the ideal of human emancipation. As Marx says, the proletariat “cannot raise itself up, cannot straighten its back, without blowing up the entire superstructure of official society.” [32]32 Karl Marx, *A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction*, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 186. [Translator’s note: Standard English edition; Chinese text cites Chinese edition.] Only by liberating themselves can they win the whole world.

从使命任务来看，无产阶级是真正革命的阶级，他们只有废除现存的占有方式，炸毁束缚他们的各种枷锁，才能解放自己，从而实现扬弃了剥削和异化的“新天新地”。无产阶级的本质规定性在于，他们是处于社会下层的没有生产资料且从事雇佣劳动的群体，他们遭受的剥削、压榨和面临的贫困是最惨重的，因而是最具革命性的阶级，也是代表人类未来的主体。在马克思看来，无产阶级不是虚幻的抽象的主体，而是由寄生于资本关系中的现实的雇佣劳动者所组成的集体，他们在本质上是现实的个人，是被资本逻辑统治和被机器排挤的活生生的劳动者。“这个阶级的历史使命是推翻资本主义生产方式和最后消灭阶级。”39也就是说，无产阶级是真正现实的革命主体和现存的革命力量，他们绝不是末世论者宣称的拯救世界的“选民”40，也不是身处历史潮流中的“被世界历史选中的天命在身者”41，而是人类向好的引导者、推动者和革命者。无产阶级的地位和身份决定了他们不得不肩负解放的大任，必须在历史上大有作为，必须为实现人类解放的理想而斗争。正如马克思所言，无产阶级“如果不炸毁构成官方社会的整个上层，就不能抬起头来，挺起胸来。”42他们只有解放自己，才能获得整个世界。

(II) The “De-Revolutionizing” Transformation of the “New Proletariat”

（二）“新无产阶级”的“去革命化”蜕变

From the concept and subject-image of the proletariat in Marx’s context, it can be seen that although the mode of production in today’s world has undergone earth-shaking changes, as long as the contradiction between capital and labor exists, the proletariat still exists and remains the political subject that transforms society. Although in the information age the mode of capital’s exploitation of labor has changed, the logic of capital remains the dominant logic of existing society, and the bourgeoisie on a world scale still exists. This determines that the proletariat cannot retreat to the backstage of history, nor can it be submerged in the torrent of capital relations. On the contrary, the proletariat still exists within the exploitative relations dominated by the logic of capital, still the group in Marx’s context that possesses no means of production and lives by selling its labor power. Compared with the wage workers of the era of machine-based large-scale industry, although today’s proletariat has to some extent acquired property, this does not mean they possess the means of production, nor does it mean they have escaped wage relations. On the contrary, not only have they not escaped the fetters of capital, but they are even more deeply displaced by the artificial-intelligence machines driven by capital, and thus still face the fate of unemployment and impoverishment. Therefore, the various “new proletariats” shaped by radical left-wing thinkers have not only failed to transcend Marx’s revolutionary proletariat but have instead dissolved the revolutionary and radical character of Marx’s proletarian political subject, causing it to undergo a “de-revolutionizing” transformation.

从马克思语境中的无产阶级概念和主体形象可以看出，尽管当今人类的生产方式发生了翻天覆地的变化，但只要资本与劳动对立的矛盾存在，无产阶级就依然存在，而且依然是变革社会的政治主体。尽管在信息时代，资本剥削劳动的方式发生了变化，但资本逻辑依然是现存社会的主导逻辑，世界范围内的资产阶级依旧存在，这决定了无产阶级不可能隐退到历史的幕后，也不可能淹没在资本关系的洪流中，相反，无产阶级依然存在于资本逻辑主导的剥削关系中，依然是马克思语境中那个没有生产资料并靠出卖自己的劳动力维持生计的群体。相较于机器大工业时代的雇佣工人而言，虽然今天的无产阶级在一定程度上获得了财产，但这并不代表他们拥有了生产资料，也并不意味着他们摆脱了雇佣关系，相反，他们不但没有摆脱资本的枷锁，反而深受资本驱动的人工智能机器的排挤，因而依旧面临着失业、贫困的命运。所以，激进左翼思想家们塑造的形形色色的“新无产阶级”不仅没有超越马克思的革命无产阶级，反而消解了马克思无产阶级政治主体的革命性、激进性，使之发生了“去革命化”的脱变。

The new proletariat is no longer the group without means of production that stands in opposition to the bourgeoisie, and therefore cannot assume the great task of resistance. Looking at the concepts of revolutionary subject shaped by radical left-wing thinkers, they are no longer a true reproduction of the classical proletariat, nor do they take “lack of means of production” as their fundamental marker; rather, they are new social strata and marginal groups shaped from the perspective of information and communicative capitalism. In fact, when Hardt and Negri shape “the multitude” as a force to resist “Empire,” this “multitude” is an existing revolutionary subject and, to some extent, is consistent with the classical proletariat. However, when Hardt and Negri define “the multitude” as an inclusive concept and a synonym for “the poor,” they have already departed from the essential determination of the proletariat. In their view, “the multitude” is closely linked to the organizational form of production and possesses two characteristics: “one is poverty, and the other is freedom.” [33]33 Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, *Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire*, New York: The Penguin Press, 2004, p. 157. One can imagine, how can such a “multitude” be a “propertyless” mass? Are all poor and free people the proletariat? Obviously, the inclusiveness of “the multitude” and the generalization of the concept’s reference have already dissolved the revolutionary character of the proletariat, which determines that such an “all-encompassing” subject can hardly bear the great task of social transformation. Similarly, Žižek’s “the excluded” encompasses all vulnerable groups, immigrants, and the poor; Rancière’s “the part of no part” includes both the ancient poor and the Third Estate, as well as the modern proletarian; Agamben’s “homo sacer” specifically refers to those whose lives have been abandoned and reduced to bare life, the “living dead”; Dean takes those “left over” after being excluded and screened by the mainstream class as the concept of the communist subject; Žižek even incorporates “the slum-dwellers” into the category of the proletariat, arguing that many characteristics of slum-dwellers “coincide” with Marx’s description of the proletariat. [34]34 Slavoj Žižek, “Against the Populist Temptation,” *Critical Inquiry*, Vol. 32, No. 3, 2006, p. 556. The political subjects they shape either refer to the “totality” left over after being screened by the mainstream class, or to the “outside” rejected by the whole of society, or to the “nameless bodies” [35]35 Judith Butler, *Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence*, London: Verso, 2004, p. 32. and “bare life” whose lives have been abandoned, to the extent that these subjects are no longer the resisters under the rule of the logic of capital, nor are they the propertyless in opposition to the bourgeoisie. Consider this: are such subjects still the “gravediggers” of the bourgeoisie? Can they still assume the heavy responsibility of overthrowing private ownership?

新无产阶级不再是处于资产阶级对立面的那个无生产资料的群体，因而无法承担反抗的大任。纵观激进左翼思想家们塑造的革命主体概念，它们都已经不再是经典无产阶级的真实再现，也不再把“无生产资料”作为根本标识，而是从信息和交往资本主义的视角塑造的新的社会阶层和边缘群体。实际上，当哈特和奈格里把“诸众”作为反抗“帝国”的力量加以塑造的时候，这个“诸众”是现存的革命主体，在某种程度上和经典无产阶级具有一致性。但是，当哈特和奈格里把“诸众”定义为包容的概念和“穷人”的代名词时，他们已经脱离了无产阶级的本质规定。在他们看来，“诸众”与生产的组织形式密切勾连，并具有两个特征：“一个是贫穷，一个是自由。”43可想而知，这样的“诸众”又何以是“无产”的大众？难道凡是贫穷和自由的人都是无产阶级吗？显然，“诸众”的包容性和概念指涉的泛化已经消解了无产阶级的革命性，这决定了这样的“大全式”主体难以担负起社会变革的大任。与此相似，齐泽克的“被排除者”把弱势群体、移民、穷人等全部容纳在内；朗西埃的“无分者”既涵括古代的穷人和第三阶级，也涵括现代无产者；阿甘本的“神圣人”特别指涉那些生命遭到了弃置和被缩减为赤裸生命的“活死人”；狄恩把那些被主流阶级排除和筛选后“剩下的人”作为共产主义主体概念；齐泽克甚至把“贫民窟”纳入无产阶级的范畴，认为贫民窟的许多特点与马克思对无产阶级的描述“不谋而合”44。他们塑造的这些政治主体，要么指涉那些被主流阶级筛选后剩下的“全体”，要么指涉那些被社会全体拒斥的“外部”，要么指涉那些被弃置了生命的“无名的身体”45和“赤裸的生命”，以至于这些主体已经不再是资本逻辑统治下的反抗者，也不再是与资产阶级相对立的无产者。试想，这样的主体还是资产阶级的“掘墓人”吗？他们还能担任推翻私有制的重任吗？

The new proletariat is no longer the real wage laborers under the rule of the logic of capital, and therefore cannot “expropriate the expropriators.” In Marx, the proletariat is both “present” as a group composed of real individuals and “emerges” as the laborers of capitalist machine-based large-scale industry; they depend on capital and make a living within the capital community, thus possessing a distinct identity marker and being a concretely existing class. The difference is that the new proletariat of the radical left-wing thinkers is neither specifically referring to “wage laborers,” nor specifically referring to the “opposite” of the bourgeoisie, nor a real revolutionary subject, but rather a general reference to the abstract “masses” outside the mainstream class, or even the “marginalized people”游离于资本主义体系之外. Such “masses” and “marginalized people” cannot be understood and demonstrated from the real relations of the capitalist world, nor can they obtain subject consciousness and class consciousness, and thus cannot yet be considered a true class, because “when it has consciousness, it becomes a class.” [36]36 See *The Poverty of Philosophy*, *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 4, p. 210. Moreover, these marginal groups have already departed from the field of capital exploitation and left the real scene of information capital. This causes the subject concepts of the radical left-wing thinkers to fall again into the abstract subject plane that Marx criticized, becoming invisible and illusory subjects. For example, Žižek’s subject concept is no longer a real subject, “but an ‘emptiness’ constituted by pure ‘negativity’”; [37]37 Slavoj Žižek, *The Ticklish Subject: The Absent Centre of Political Ontology*, London: Verso, 1999, p. 154. Badiou’s subject based on the event, although different from Derrida’s ghostly subject, is likewise a “not-yet-subject subject” detached from the present; the subject Rancière focuses on is “a mute subject”; [38]38 Jacques Rancière, *Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy*, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999, p. 22. while Hardt and Negri, placing their hopes on the heterogeneous and plural “multitude,” ultimately fall into an optimistic revolutionary utopia. Therefore, since these political subjects cannot form revolutionary goals and a unified plan of action, how can they “expropriate the expropriators” to realize a world of great harmony?

新无产阶级不再是处于资本逻辑统治下的现实的雇佣劳动者，因而无法“剥夺剥夺者”。在马克思那里，无产阶级既作为由现实的个人所组成的群体而“在场”，也作为资本主义机器大工业的劳动者而“出场”，他们依赖于资本并在资本共同体中谋生，因而具有鲜明的身份标识，也是切实存在的阶级。不同的是，激进左翼思想家的新无产阶级既不是特指“雇佣劳动者”，也不是特指资产阶级的“对立面”，更不是现实的革命主体，而是泛指主流阶级之外的抽象的“大众”，甚至是游离于资本主义体系之外的“边缘人”。这样的“大众”和“边缘人”无法从资本主义世界的现实关系中得到理解和论证，也无法获得主体意识和阶级意识，因而还谈不上真正的阶级，因为“当它有了觉悟之后，它才成为一个阶级”46。并且这些边缘群体已经脱离了资本剥削的发生场域，离开了信息资本的现实场景。这样就使得激进左翼思想家的主体概念再次陷入了马克思所批判的那个抽象的主体界面，成为了无法看见的虚幻的主体。例如，齐泽克的主体概念已经不是一种真正的主体，“而是由纯粹的‘否定性’所构成的‘空’”47；巴迪欧基于事件的主体虽然不同于德里达那种幽灵般的主体，但同样是一种脱离当下的“尚不是主体的主体”；朗西埃关注的主体却是“一种哑然的主体”48；而哈特和奈格里寄希望于异质、多元的“诸众”，最终也陷入了乐观的革命乌托邦。因此，这些政治主体既然无法形成革命的目标和统一行动的纲领，又如何“剥夺剥夺者”以实现大同世界？

Likewise, the new proletariat is no longer the “relative surplus population” squeezed out by machinery, and therefore cannot be the true bearer of human liberation. Marx believed that as long as capitalists use technology and machinery to extract surplus value, more laborers will be squeezed out and reduced to new proletarians. Marx accordingly argued: “This source of relative surplus population is thus constantly flowing.” [39]39 *Capital*, Vol. 1, *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 23, p. 703. This is an inherent paradox that capitalism cannot circumvent. In fact, in the information age, the substitution of machines for human labor is even more pronounced; the use of intelligent machines pushes most people out of the market, turning them into the unemployed. Although Hardt and Negri emphasize the exclusion and impact of immaterial labor on people in the information age, they, like other radical left-wing thinkers, have not reconstructed the concept of the proletariat from the perspective of Marx’s critique of political economy, but instead place their hopes on abstract subjects of the post-industrial era, thus inevitably failing to reach the path of human liberation. It should be said that the true subject of human liberation remains and can only be the revolutionary proletariat; the historical laws of Marx’s “two inevitables” and “two never-will’s” [40]40 “Two inevitables” refers to the inevitable collapse of capitalism and the inevitable victory of communism; “two never-will’s” refers to the fact that no social formation ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed, and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society. See *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*, Preface. remain valid, and the prologue to the future ideal society will still be opened by the proletariat.

同样，新无产阶级也不再是被机器排挤出的“相对过剩人口”，因而不可能是人类解放的真正承担者。马克思认为，只要资本家利用技术和采用机器赚取剩余价值，就会有更多的劳动者被排挤出来，沦为新的无产者。马克思据此认为：“相对过剩人口的这一源泉是长流不息的”49，这是资本主义无法绕开的内在悖论。实际上，在信息时代，机器对人的劳动的替代更加明显，智能机器的使用更是将大多数人排挤出市场，使之成为失业群体。虽然哈特和奈格里强调信息时代非物质劳动对人的排斥和影响，但他们和其他激进左翼思想家一样，都没有从马克思的政治经济学批判的视域重构无产阶级概念，而是寄希望于后工业时代的抽象的主体，因而注定无法通达人类解放之途。应该说，人类真正解放的主体依旧是而且只能是革命无产阶级，马克思“两个必然”和“两个决不会”的历史必然性规律依然有效，未来理想社会的序幕依然由无产阶级来开启。

III. Reshaping the Proletariat in the Information Age

三、重塑信息时代的无产阶级

Is there a proletariat in the information age? Who is the real proletariat in the information age? What fate does the proletariat in the information age face? These questions remain core issues in Marxist theory and theoretical difficulties that the academic world today must confront directly. If we avoid discussing the proletariat, or even dissolve its subject role, then Marx’s class theory will slide into the trap of historical nihilism. Although the era Marx lived in is incomparable to today’s era, Marx’s revelation of the field of occurrence, essential determination, and mission of the proletariat remains the key to understanding the proletariat in the information age. Today, with the tremendous changes in the mode of production driven by information technology and artificial intelligence, capitalism has transcended the traditional mode of production and entered an era of “digital capitalism” dominated by networks, information, and data. [41]41 See Dan Schiller, *Digital Capitalism: Networking the Global Market System*, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999. Digital capitalism is not a subversion or transcendence of political economy, nor does it falsify the opposition between capital and labor or the true source of surplus value; it is still a new form of capitalism within the context of Marx’s critique of political economy. It is just that digital capitalism, with digital capital and digital labor as its hegemonic forms, further obscures exploitation, alienation, and the poverty of the proletariat, which precisely provides a “breakthrough point” for us to reshape the proletariat in the information age.

信息时代究竟有没有无产阶级？谁才是信息时代真正的无产阶级？信息时代的无产阶级究竟面临怎样的命运？这些问题依旧是马克思主义理论中的核心问题，也是当今学界不得不直面的理论难题。如果我们避而不谈无产阶级，甚至消解无产阶级的主体作用，那么马克思的阶级理论就会滑向历史虚无主义的陷阱。尽管马克思所生活的时代与今天的时代不可同日而语，但马克思对无产阶级发生场域、本质规定、使命任务的揭示依旧是理解信息时代无产阶级的锁钥。今天，随着信息技术、人工智能催生的生产方式的巨变，资本主义已经超越了传统生产方式，进入了网络、信息和数据主导的“数字资本主义”时代50。数字资本主义并非是对政治经济学的颠覆和超越，也没有证伪资本与劳动的对立以及剩余价值的真实来源，它依然是马克思政治经济学批判语境中的资本主义新形态。只不过，数字资本主义以数字资本和数字劳动为霸权形式进一步遮掩了剥削、异化和无产阶级的贫困，这恰好为我们重塑信息时代的无产阶级提供了“突破口”。

(I) The Contradiction between Digital Capital and Digital Labor: The Field of Occurrence of the Proletariat

（一）数字资本与数字劳动的矛盾：无产阶级的发生域

Capital’s exclusion of labor and the depreciation of human logic by the logic of capital constitute the historical field in which the proletariat is produced; it is precisely the separation of capital and labor, along with the struggle and confrontation between them, that gives rise to the proletariat. In fact, in the era of digital capitalism, the opposition between capital and labor still exists, only this opposition has gradually transformed into an opposition between digital capital and digital labor. Actually, this change has not departed from the critical context and domain of political economy. In *Capital* and its manuscripts, Marx recognized the ontological significance of labor, to the extent that he repeatedly emphasized that labor is “the basic condition of all history,”[42]42 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 1, People’s Publishing House 2009, p. 16. (This is the source cited in the original text’s note 2, which the author uses for the first quotation in paragraph 1.) and considered the dual character of labor to be “the pivot around which an understanding of political economy turns.”[43]43 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 5, People’s Publishing House 2009, p. 55. (This is the source for the second quotation in paragraph 1, referring to Marx’s comment on the dual character of labor.) Engels even highly praised Marx for having “found the key to an understanding of the whole of social history in the history of the development of labor.”[44]44 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 4, People’s Publishing House 2009, p. 258. (This is the source for Engels’ praise of Marx in paragraph 1.) However, by dissecting the primitive germ of the capital relation and its mode of production, Marx discovered that in historical change the laborer gradually becomes separated from his own objective conditions, ultimately leading to the opposition between capital and labor. This opposition intensifies in capitalist society, manifesting as capital’s mastery and domination over people, causing human alienation; this process is precisely the process by which the proletariat differentiates itself from labor relations. More importantly, Marx also saw the impact on people of changes in the form of labor brought about by the transformation of the machine system. In the “Fragment on Machines,” Marx observed the major impact of the combination of science, technology, and knowledge with capital on human labor. He predicted that, with the development of the machine system and science, “the accumulation of knowledge and skill … is absorbed into capital, as opposed to labor, and hence appears as an attribute of capital,”[45]45 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 8, People’s Publishing House 2009, p. 196. (This is the source for the quotation on knowledge and skill being absorbed into capital in paragraph 1.) that is, the machine system and scientific knowledge are incorporated into capital in the form of immaterial elements and appear as attributes of capital. In this way, “general social knowledge has become a direct force of production, and hence the conditions of the social life process themselves have come under the control of the general intellect and have been transformed in accordance with it.”[46]46 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 8, People’s Publishing House 2009, p. 198. (This is the source for the quotation on general social knowledge becoming a direct force of production in paragraph 1.) That is to say, the general intellect, composed of elements such as the machine system and scientific knowledge, serves as a means for capital’s self-valorization, thereby controlling and displacing labor power to a certain extent, thus giving rise to a new impoverished population. Therefore, “in the machine system, knowledge appears to the worker as something alien and external … as soon as the worker’s living labor is no longer required by [capital’s] need, the worker becomes superfluous.”[47]47 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 8, People’s Publishing House 2009, p. 197. (This is the source for the quotation on knowledge appearing alien to the worker in paragraph 1.) In fact, Marx had already discerned here the comprehensive manipulation of human life by the “general intellect.” In today’s digital age, the “general intellect” generated by information, knowledge, and skills has achieved complete hegemony, to the point that contemporary society has seen the emergence of a “digital fetishism,” which “worships neither gods nor people, but data.”[48]48 This is a reference to the concept of “digital fetishism” as discussed by contemporary critical theorists, e.g., Christian Fuchs, *Digital Labour and Karl Marx*, Routledge 2014, p. 256. Correspondingly, general data is giving rise to new interfaces and new platforms, enabling digital capital to achieve dominance, while human labor has correspondingly shifted, becoming digital labor in the typical form of producing and processing data. Digital capital, as means of production, is appropriated by capitalists, while the laborers engaged in digital labor not only receive no remuneration but are also exploited by digital capitalists, reduced to wage laborers without means of production. That is to say, in the digital age, the proletariat has not disappeared; rather, it is the manifestation of the opposition between digital capital and digital labor, a digital proletariat bred by the system of capital logic in the digital age, lacking digital means of production and employed by digital capitalists. Therefore, the proletariat in the information age has at least two sources: on the one hand, it remains the wage laborers without means of production parasitic on modern large-scale industry; on the other hand, it consists of the modern wage workers attached to digital capitalists and engaged in digital labor.

资本对劳动的排斥以及资本逻辑对人的逻辑的贬斥是无产阶级生产的历史场域，正是资本和劳动的分离以及二者之间的斗争和较量催生了无产阶级。实际上，在数字资本主义时代，资本与劳动的对立依旧存在，只不过这种对立逐步转化为数字资本和数字劳动的对立。其实，这种变化依然没有脱离政治经济学批判语境和论域。在《资本论》及其手稿中，马克思看到了劳动的本体论意义，以至于他反复强调劳动是“一切历史的基本条件”51，认为劳动的二重性是“是理解政治经济学的枢纽”52。恩格斯甚至高度赞扬马克思“在劳动发展史中找到了理解全部社会史的锁钥”53。但是，马克思通过解剖资本关系的原始萌芽及其生产方式，发现在历史变迁中劳动者同自己的客观条件逐渐分离，最终导致了资本与劳动的对立，这种对立在资本主义社会愈演愈烈，表现为资本对人的驾驭和统治，使人发生了异化，这个过程就是无产阶级从劳动关系中分化的过程。更为重要的是，马克思还看到了机器体系变革带来的劳动形式的变化对人产生的影响。在“机器论片段”中，马克思看到科技、知识与资本结合对人类劳动的重大影响，他预测到，随着机器体系和科学的发展，“知识和技能的积累……就同劳动相对立而被吸收在资本当中”54，即机器体系和科学知识会以非物质性要素的形式并入资本并表现为资本的属性。这样一来，“一般社会知识，已经在多么大的程度上变成了直接的生产力，从而社会生活过程的条件本身在多么大的程度上受到一般智力的控制并按照这种智力得到改造”55。也就是说，以机器体系、科学知识为要素的普遍智力会充当资本增殖的手段，从而会在一定程度上控制和排挤劳动力，从而催生新的贫困人口。所以，“在机器体系中，对工人来说，知识表现为外在的异己的东西……只要工人的活劳动不是[资本的]需要所要求的，工人便成为多余的了”56。实际上，马克思在这里已经洞悉到了“一般智力”对人类生活的全面操控。在今天的数字时代，由信息、知识、技能所创生的“一般智力”完全取得了霸权地位，以至于当今社会出现了“数字拜物教”，“它崇拜的既不是神也不是人，而是数据”57。与此相适应，一般数据正在催生新界面和新平台，使得数字资本取得了统治地位，而人类的劳动也随之发生了转向，成为以生产数据和处理数据为典型形式的数字劳动。数字资本作为生产资料被资本家占有，而从事数字劳动的劳动者不仅没有获得报酬，反而遭受数字资本家的剥削，沦为了没有生产资料的雇佣劳动者。也就是说，在数字时代，无产阶级不仅没有消失，反而是数字资本与数字劳动对立的表现，是资本逻辑体系在数字时代孕育的没有数字化生产资料并受雇于数字资本家的数字无产者。所以，信息时代的无产阶级至少有两个来源：一方面仍然是寄生于现代大工业中的无生产资料的雇佣劳动者，另一方面就是依附于数字资本家并从事数字劳动的现代雇佣工人。

(II) Artificial Intelligence, the Hegemony of Digital Labor, and the Contemporary Fate of the Proletariat

（二）人工智能、数字劳动霸权与无产阶级的当代命运

In the era of artificial intelligence and the hegemony of digital labor, what encounters and fate does the proletariat face? We believe that the proletariat in the information age still faces the fate of exploitation and alienation, and may even fall into unemployment and poverty due to the capitalist application of artificial intelligence. On the one hand, digital laborers produce data and create information through online platforms and digital media, which are ultimately monopolized by digital capitalists; even consumers’ online shopping data and daily consumption information are appropriated by digital capitalists. In this way, these vast data chains become “general data” in the hands of capitalists, achieving the monopoly position of digital capital, “and today’s digital capitalism is precisely the system constructed on the basis of this general data.”[49]49 This is a reference to the concept of “general data” as discussed by theorists of digital capitalism, e.g., Yann Moulier Boutang, *Cognitive Capitalism*, Polity 2011, p. 57. Digital possessors sit precisely at the top of this system, selling the monopolized data in the form of advertisements and commodities, ultimately obtaining high profits. On the surface, the digital labor involved in this process appears voluntary and willing, but in reality, the laborers are engaged in unpaid labor, “and their labor has equally become an object of exploitation.”[50]50 This is a reference to the exploitation of digital labor as analyzed by scholars such as Trebor Scholz, *Uberworked and Underpaid: How Workers Are Disrupting the Digital Economy*, Polity 2017, p. 112. The more data digital laborers and consumers create, the more general data digital capitalists appropriate; the more this general data can be transformed into digital capital, the more the digital proletariat is exploited by digital capital, and thus the more it falls into relative poverty. On the other hand, with the global sweep of technology, “artificial intelligence has become as ubiquitous as air,”[51]51 This is a reference to the ubiquity of artificial intelligence in contemporary society, as discussed by authors like Kai-Fu Lee, *AI Superpowers: China, Silicon Valley, and the New World Order*, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt 2018, p. 3. and when artificial intelligence operates driven by capital, human labor will be replaced by intelligent machines, causing more laborers to become unemployed and even inducing a new “proletariat.” Therefore, as long as humanity remains under the rule of capital logic and private ownership, the proletariat will never disappear, nor can it completely escape the fate of alienation and poverty; it will merely manifest itself in different ways, sometimes hidden and sometimes visible.

在人工智能和数字劳动霸权的时代，无产阶级究竟有着怎样的遭遇和命运？我们认为，信息时代的无产阶级依旧面临着剥削和异化的命运，甚至还会因为人工智能的资本主义应用而陷入失业和贫困的境地。一方面，数字劳动者通过网络平台、数字媒介生产的数据和创造的信息最终被数字资本家垄断，甚至消费者的网购数据、生活消费信息也被数字资本家据为己有，这样就使得这些庞大的数据链在资本家那里成为了“一般数据”，获得了数字资本的垄断地位，“而今天的数字资本主义正是在这个一般数据基础上构架出来的体系”58。数字占有者恰好居于这个体系的顶端，他们把垄断的数据以广告和商品的形式抛售，最终获得高额利润。从表面上看，这个过程中蕴涵的数字劳动是自觉自愿的，殊不知劳动者从事的却是无酬劳动，“他们的劳动同样成为了剥削的对象”59。数字劳动者和消费者创造的数据越多，数字资本家占有的一般数据就越多，这些一般数据就越能转化成数字资本，数字无产者就越受数字资本的剥削，从而就越发陷入相对贫困的境地。另一方面，随着科技在全球的席卷，“人工智能已经像空气一样无处不在”60，而当人工智能在资本的驱动下运转时，人的劳动将会被智能机器替代，以至于更多劳动者会失业，甚至会诱发新的“无产阶级”。所以，只要人类还处于资本逻辑和私有制的统治中，无产阶级就永远不会消失，也不可能彻底摆脱异化和贫困的命运，只是他们会以或隐或明的不同方式呈现罢了。

(III) “The Two Inevitabilities”: The Struggle and Outcome of the Proletariat in the Information Age

（三）“两个必然”：信息时代无产阶级的斗争与结局

Therefore, the various new concepts of the proletarian subject shaped by Western radical left-wing thinkers are, to a large extent, illusory concepts detached from the contemporary form of capitalism. To find the proletariat in the information age, one can only “repeat Marx’s critique of political economy once again,”[52]52 This is a reference to the need to repeat Marx’s critique of political economy in the digital age, as argued by scholars such as Christian Fuchs, *Digital Labour and Karl Marx*, Routledge 2014, p. 1. rather than pinning hopes on the seduction of abstract subjects such as the post-industrial “multitude,” “the excluded,” “the part of no part,” or “the remainder.” If we return to Marx’s critical perspective of political economy, we will recognize that the “two inevitabilities” proclaimed by Marx and Engels in the *Communist Manifesto* remain the guiding light for the struggle and liberation of the proletariat in the information age, and remain the decoder for human emancipation. Although in the age of artificial intelligence, those fantastic ideas about the “technological singularity”[53]53 “Technological singularity” refers to the hypothetical future point when artificial intelligence surpasses human intelligence, leading to unpredictable changes in civilization; popularized by Ray Kurzweil, *The Singularity Is Near*, Viking 2005. can always cause anxiety, and those reflections on the “useless class” may also draw praise from supporters, such assertions have all departed from the theoretical horizon of historical materialism and thus fallen into the quagmire of nihilism. We believe that the proletariat in the information age cannot be reduced to the “marginal groups” and all-encompassing “fluid masses” in the eyes of radical left-wing thinkers, nor can it be reduced to the “useless class” in Harari’s view, nor to the “cognitariat” in the perspective of “cognitive capitalism”; it remains the initiator of the future ideal communist society. In the information age, no matter how capitalists use digital capital and artificial intelligence to win profits and consolidate their rule, and no matter how capitalists treat laborers with “post-Fordism” to conceal the exploitative relationship between capital and labor, this cannot fundamentally resolve the contradiction between capital and labor, nor can it eradicate the basic contradiction of capitalism. Therefore, in the information age, Marx’s proletariat remains the political subject that transforms society; “the fall of the bourgeoisie and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.”[54]54 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 2, People’s Publishing House 2009, p. 43. (This is the source for the “two inevitabilities” quotation from the *Communist Manifesto* in paragraph 5.)

所以，西方激进左翼思想家所塑造的形形色色的新无产阶级主体概念在很大程度上是脱离了当代资本主义形态的虚幻的概念，要找寻信息时代的无产阶级只能“再次重复马克思关于政治经济学的批判”61，而不是寄希望于后工业的“诸众”“被排除者”“无分者”“剩下的人”等抽象主体的诱惑。如果回到马克思的政治经济学批判视域，我们就会认识到，马克思恩格斯在《共产党宣言》中呼喊的“两个必然”依旧是指引信息时代无产阶级斗争和解放的明灯，依然是人类解放的解码器。尽管在人工智能时代，那些关于“奇点临近”62的奇思妙想总能让人惶恐不安，那些关于“无用阶级”的断想也会让支持者称赞不绝，但这样的论断都脱离了历史唯物主义的理论视野，因而陷入了虚无主义的泥沼。我们相信，信息时代的无产阶级不可能沦为激进左翼思想家眼里的“边缘群体”和包罗万象的“流动的大众”，也不会沦为赫拉利眼里的“无用阶级”，更不会沦为“认知资本主义”视域中的“知产阶级”，而依然是未来共产主义理想社会的启幕者。在信息时代，无论资本家如何利用数字资本、人工智能赢得利润以牢筑自己的统治基础，也无论资本家如何以“后福特制”善待劳动者以掩盖劳资双方的剥削关系，这都无法从根本上解决资本与劳动的矛盾，也无法根除资本主义的基本矛盾。因此，在信息时代，马克思的无产阶级依旧是变革社会的政治主体，“资产阶级的灭亡和无产阶级的胜利是同样不可避免的”63。

Notes

注释

1 Hegel, *Elements of the Philosophy of Right*, trans. Fan Yang and Zhang Qitai, Commercial Press 2018, p. 278.

1黑格尔：《法哲学原理》，范扬、张企泰译，商务印书馆2018年版，第278页

2 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 1, People’s Publishing House 2009, p. 16.

2《马克思恩格斯文集》第1卷，人民出版社2009年版，第16页。

3 Andre Gorz, *Farewell to the Working Class: An Essay on Post-industrial Socialism*, Pluto Press, 1982, p.66.

3 Andre Gorz，Farewell to the Working Class:An Essay on Post-industrial Socialism，Pluto Press，1982，p.66.

4 Callinicos, “Who Is the Revolutionary Subject Today?”, trans. Lu Shaochen, *Contemporary Marxist Theory Review Abroad* (Vol. 11), People’s Publishing House, 2013, p.399.

4 卡利尼科斯：《谁是今日之革命主体？》，鲁绍臣译，《当代国外马克思主义评论》（第 11册），人民出版社 2013年版，第399页。

5 Michael Hardt, Antonio Negri, *Empire*, trans. Yang Jianguo, Fan Yiting, Jiangsu People’s Publishing House, 2003, p.2.

5 麦克尔·哈特、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2页。

6 Michael Hardt, Antonio Negri, *Empire*, trans. Yang Jianguo, Fan Yiting, Jiangsu People’s Publishing House, 2003, p.4.

6 麦克尔·哈特、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4页。

7 Zhang Yibing, “Resisting Empire: New Revolutionary Subject and Socialist Strategy”, *Dongyue Tribune*, 2018, No. 5.

7 张一兵：《反抗帝国：新的革命主体和社会主义战略》，《东岳论丛》2018年第5期。

8 Michael Hardt, Antonio Negri, *Multitude: Preface*, trans. Chen Feiyang, *Foreign Theoretical Trends*, 2005, No. 2.

8 麦克尔·哈特、安东尼奥·奈格里：《大众·序言》，陈飞扬译，《国外理论动态》2005年第2期。

9 Michael Hardt, Antonio Negri, *Multitude: Preface*, trans. Chen Feiyang, *Foreign Theoretical Trends*, 2005, No. 2.

9 麦克尔·哈特、安东尼奥·奈格里：《大众·序言》，陈飞扬译，《国外理论动态》2005年第2期。

10 Michael Hardt, Antonio Negri, *Commonwealth*, trans. Wang Xingkun, Renmin University of China Press, 2016, p.128.

10 麦克尔·哈特、安东尼奥·奈格里：《大同世界》，王行坤译，中国人民大学出版社2016年版，第128页。

11 Paolo Virno, *A Grammar of the Multitude*, trans. Dong Bicheng, The Commercial Press, 2017, p.144.

11 保罗·维尔诺：《诸众的语法》，董必成译，商务印书馆2017年版，第144页。

12 Slavoj Žižek, *First as Tragedy, Then as Farce*, London: Verso, 2009, p.92.

12 Slavoj Žižek.First as Tragedy，Then as Farce，London:Verso，2009，p.92．

13 Slavoj Žižek, “How to Begin from the Beginning?”, trans. Wang Xingfu, *Contemporary Marxist Theory Review Abroad* (Vol. 8), People’s Publishing House, 2010, p.58.

13 斯拉沃热·齐泽克：《如何从头开始？》，汪行福译，《当代国外马克思主义评论》（第 8册），人民出版社2010年版，第58页。

14 Slavoj Žižek, *The Ticklish Subject*, trans. Wan Yuzhe, Taiwan Guiguan Books Co., Ltd., 2004, p.190.

14 斯拉维·纪杰克：《神经质主体》，万毓泽译，台湾桂冠图书股份有限公司2004年版，第190页。

15 Lin Zheyuan, “From Four Antagonisms of Contemporary Capitalism to the New Proletariat: On Žižek’s Theory of the Revolutionary Subject”, *Foreign Theoretical Trends*, 2017, No. 7.

15 林哲元：《从当代资本主义的四种对抗到新无产阶级——论齐泽克的革命主体论》，《国外理论动态》2017年第7期。

16 Jacques Rancière, *On the Shores of Politics*, trans. Jiang Yuhui, Shanghai Translation Publishing House, 2007, p.129.

16 雅克·朗西埃：《政治的边缘》，姜宇辉译，上海译文出版社2007年版，第129页。

17 Jacques Rancière, *Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy*, trans. Liu Jihui et al., Northwest University Press, 2015, p.23.

17 雅克·朗西埃：《歧义：政治与哲学》，刘纪蕙等译，西北大学出版社2015年版，第23页。

18 Jacques Rancière, *Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy*, trans. Liu Jihui et al., Northwest University Press, 2015, p.29.

18 雅克·朗西埃：《歧义：政治与哲学》，刘纪蕙等译，西北大学出版社2015年版，第29页。

19 Zhang Yibing, “The Part of No Part: Disordered Politics Generated in the Rupture of the Police Order’s Logic of Configuration – The Heterogeneous Trajectory of Rancière’s Post-Marxist Biopolitical Philosophy”, *Social Science Research*, 2013, No. 1.

19 张一兵：《无分之分：治安构序逻辑断裂中生成的失序政治——朗西埃后马克思生命政治哲学的异质走向》，《社会科学研究》2013年第1期。

20 Giorgio Agamben, *Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life*, trans. Wu Guanjun, Central Compilation and Translation Press, 2016, p.35.

20 吉奥乔·阿甘本：《神圣人：至高权力与赤裸生命》，吴冠军译，中央编译出版社2016年版，第35页。

21 Giorgio Agamben, *State of Exception*, trans. Xue Xiping, Northwest University Press, 2015, pp.4, 6.

21 吉奥乔·阿甘本：《例外状态》，薛熙平译，西北大学出版社2015年版，第4、6页。

22 Giorgio Agamben, *Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life*, trans. Wu Guanjun, Central Compilation and Translation Press, 2016, p.236.

22 吉奥乔·阿甘本：《神圣人：至高权力与赤裸生命》，吴冠军译，中央编译出版社2016年版，第236页。

23 Jodi Dean, *The Communist Horizon*, Verso, 2012, pp.18-19.

23 Jodi Dean，The Communist Horizon，Verso，2012，p.18-19.

24 Jamil Jonna, John Bellamy Foster, “Marx’s Theory of Working-Class Precariousness”, trans. Xia Yinping, Zha Yishan, *Contemporary Marxist Theory Review Abroad* (Vol. 15), People’s Publishing House, 2017, p.332.

24 贾米尔·约恩纳、约翰·贝拉米·福斯特：《马克思工人阶级不稳定性理论》，夏银平、查懿珊译，《当代国外马克思主义评论》（第15册），人民出版社2017年版，第332页。

25 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 1, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p.260.

25《马克思恩格斯文集》第1卷，人民出版社2009年版，第260页。

26 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 2, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p.31.

26《马克思恩格斯文集》第2卷，人民出版社2009年版，第31页。

27 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 1, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p.17.

27《马克思恩格斯文集》第1卷，人民出版社2009年版，第17页。

28 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 8, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p.134.

28《马克思恩格斯文集》第8卷，人民出版社2009年版，第134页。

29 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 8, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p.143.

29《马克思恩格斯文集》第8卷，人民出版社2009年版，第143页。

30 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 8, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p.147.

30《马克思恩格斯文集》第8卷，人民出版社2009年版，第147页。

31 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 8, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p.155.

31《马克思恩格斯文集》第8卷，人民出版社2009年版，第155页。

32 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 8, People’s Publishing House, 2009, pp.155-156.

32《马克思恩格斯文集》第8卷，人民出版社2009年版，第155—156页。

33 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 8, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p.160.

33《马克思恩格斯文集》第8卷，人民出版社2009年版，第160页。

34 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 2, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p.39.

34《马克思恩格斯文集》第2卷，人民出版社2009年版，第39页。

35 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 1, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p.676.

35《马克思恩格斯文集》第1卷，人民出版社2009年版，第676页。

36 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 5, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p.469.

36《马克思恩格斯文集》第5卷，人民出版社2009年版，第469页。

37 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 5, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p.709.

37《马克思恩格斯文集》第5卷，人民出版社2009年版，第709页。

38 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 5, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p.742.

38《马克思恩格斯文集》第5卷，人民出版社2009年版，第742页。

39 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 5, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p.18.

39《马克思恩格斯文集》第5卷，人民出版社2009年版，第18页。

40 Bertrand Russell, *A History of Western Philosophy* (Vol. 1), trans. He Zhaowu, Li Yuese, The Commercial Press, 1996, p.507.

40 罗素：《西方哲学史》（上卷），何兆武、李约瑟译，商务印书馆1996年版，第507页。

41 Han Lixin, *A Study of the New Edition of The German Ideology*, Renmin University of China Press, 2008, p.334.

41 韩立新：《新版〈德意志意识形态〉研究》，中国人民大学出版社2008年版，第334页。

42 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 2, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p.42.

42《马克思恩格斯文集》第2卷，人民出版社2009年版，第42页。

43 Zhang Yibing, *Marx Illuminating the World*, Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 2018, p.99.

43 张一兵：《照亮世界的马克思》，上海人民出版社2018版，第99页。

44 Slavoj Žižek, *The Parallax View*, trans. Ji Guangmao, Zhejiang University Press, 2014, p.433.

44 斯拉沃热·齐泽克：《视差之见》，季广茂译，浙江大学出版社2014年版，第433页。

45 Giorgio Agamben, *Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life*, trans. Wu Guanjun, Central Compilation and Translation Press, 2016, p.58.

45 吉奥乔·阿甘本：《神圣人：至高权力与赤裸生命》，吴冠军译，中央编译出版社2016年版，第58页。

46 Ralph Miliband, *Marxism and Politics*, trans. Huang Zidu, The Commercial Press, 1984, p.26.

46 拉尔夫·密利本德：《马克思主义与政治学》，黄子都译，商务印书馆1984年版，第26页。

47 Hrazmik Koshian, “Rancière, Badiou, Žižek on the Shaping of the Political Subject – Mapping the Subject-Project of Contemporary Radical Left Political Philosophy”, trans. Sun Haiyang, *Foreign Theoretical Trends*, 2016, No. 3.

47 哈兹米格·科西彦：《朗西埃、巴迪欧、齐泽克论政治主体的形塑——图绘当今激进左翼政治哲学的主体规划》，孙海洋译，《国外理论动态》2016年第3期。

48 Lan Jiang, “From the Revolutionary Proletariat to the ‘Non-Existent’ in the Event: The Evolution of the Subject in French Marxism”, *Journal of Hangzhou Normal University (Social Sciences Edition)*, 2016, No. 1.

48 蓝江：《从革命的无产阶级到事件中的“非在”——法国马克思主义的主体的嬗变历程》，《杭州师范大学学报(社会科学版)》2016年第1期。

49 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 5, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p.740.

49《马克思恩格斯文集》第5卷，人民出版社2009年版，第740页。

50 Dan Schiller, *Digital Capitalism*, trans. Yang Liping, Jiangxi People’s Publishing House, 2001, p.15.

50 丹·希勒：《数字资本主义》，杨立平译，江西人民出版社 2001年版，第15页。

51 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 1, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p.531.

51《马克思恩格斯文集》第1卷，人民出版社2009年版，第531页。

52 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 5, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p.55.

52《马克思恩格斯文集》第5卷，人民出版社2009年版，第55页。

53 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 4, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p.313.

53《马克思恩格斯文集》第4卷，人民出版社2009年版，第313页。

54 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 8, People’s Publishing House, 2009, pp.186-187.

54《马克思恩格斯文集》第8卷，人民出版社2009年版，第186-187页。

55 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 8, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p.198.

55《马克思恩格斯文集》第8卷，人民出版社2009年版，第198页。

56 *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 8, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p.187.

56《马克思恩格斯文集》第8卷，人民出版社2009年版，第187页。

57 Yuval Noah Harari, *Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow*, trans. Lin Junhong, CITIC Press, 2017, p. 331.

57 尤瓦尔·赫拉利：《未来简史：从智人到智神》，林俊宏译，中信出版社2017年版，第331页。

58 Lan Jiang, “General Data, Virtual Body, Digital Capital: The Triple Logic of Digital Capitalism,” *Philosophical Research*, no. 3, 2018.

58 蓝江：《一般数据、虚体、数字资本：数字资本主义的三重逻辑》，《哲学研究》2018年第3期。

59 Christian Fuchs, *Marx Returns* (vol. 1), trans. Communication Station Workshop, East China Normal University Press, 2016, p. 98.

59 福克斯：《马克思归来》（上），传播驿站工作坊译，华东师范大学出版社2016年版，第98页。

60 Calum Chace, *The Artificial Intelligence Revolution: The Fate of Humanity in the Age of Superintelligence*, trans. Zhang Yaoran, China Machine Press, 2017, p. 14.

60 卡鲁姆·蔡斯：《人工智能革命：超级智能时代的人类命运》，张尧然译，机械工业出版社2017年版，第14页。

61 Xu Jilin, *Empire, Metropolis, and Modernity*, Jiangsu People’s Publishing House, 2005, p. 83.

61 许纪霖：《帝国、都市与现代性》，江苏人民出版社2005年版，第83页。

62 Ray Kurzweil, *The Singularity Is Near*, trans. Li Qingcheng, Dong Zhenhua, and Tian Yuan, China Machine Press, 2011, p. 10.

62 雷·库兹韦尔：《奇点临近》，李庆诚、董振华、田源译，机械工业出版社2011年版，第10页。

63 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, vol. 2, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 43.

63《马克思恩格斯文集》第2卷，人民出版社2009年版，第43页。

(Author: doctoral student at the School of Marxism, Beijing Normal University)

（作者：北京师范大学马克思主义学院博士生）

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑