Western Left-Wing Scholars’ Critique of Contemporary Capitalism: Taking the COVID-19 Pandemic as an Opportunity

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic (hereinafter referred to as the pandemic) is an event that Badiou discusses as a “site,” just like the 1848 Revolution, which not only produced a “tragicomic” victory and defeat, but also exposed the reality that people must face, awakening humanity from a certain fantasy of nothingness. Thus, this event possesses an inclusive and expansive world-historical significance. It is precisely in this sense that Western left-wing scholars view the pandemic as a unity of natural determination and social determination, even considering it to constitute a mediation or connection between the two. Western left-wing scholars’ discussions of the pandemic mainly concern the following five themes: first, the logic of capital exposed by the pandemic’s emergence and humanity’s response to it; second, the tragic inefficiency of the “cost-benefit” logic when confronting human problems; third, the public goods and services deficits caused by the neoliberal mantra that “government is evil” and the glorification of the “free market”; fourth, based on the foregoing, discussions on the isolation and re-understanding of natural life, the legitimacy of wealth production and social justice, and the boundary between society and the individual; fifth, the historical opportunity and class basis for a “new form of communism.” These discussions hold significant theoretical importance and research value for deepening our understanding of the contradictions and essence of capitalism, and for rethinking Marx’s exposition on capitalist crises under the conditions of the New Era.

新冠肺炎疫情（以下简称疫情）暴发是巴迪欧所论及的作为一个“位点”的事件，正如1848年革命一般，不仅造成一种“悲喜剧式”的胜利和挫败，更揭露了人们必然面对的现实，警醒了人类某种幻想的虚无。由此，这一事件具有包容性和延展性的世界历史意义，正是在这一意义上，西方左翼学者将疫情看作自然决定和社会决定的统一，甚至认为其构成了自然决定与社会决定之间的中介或连接处。西方左翼学者对疫情的讨论主要关涉以下五方面主题：一是疫情产生及人类应对疫情中所暴露出的资本逻辑；二是“成本与收益”逻辑在面对人类难题时的悲惨低效；三是新自由主义“政府是恶”的咒语和夸耀“自由市场”引发的公共产品和服务缺失；四是基于前述引发的对自然生命的隔绝及重新认识、财富生产的正当性与社会正义以及社会与个体边界的讨论；五是“新形式的共产主义”的历史机遇和阶级基础。这些讨论对于我们深化认识资本主义矛盾及其本质以及在新时代条件下重新思考马克思关于资本主义危机的阐述具有重要理论意义和研究价值。

I. A New Critique Extended by the Pandemic: The Predicament of Institutional Culture

一、疫情延展出的新批判：制度文化的困境

In the view of the vast majority of Western left-wing scholars, if capitalist economic crises are a reflection of the inherent contradictions of capitalism, then the ecological and social crises triggered by the pandemic are, like economic crises, governed by the “vicious circle of capital.” “Contradictions” are inseparable from the capitalist system and will inevitably drive some new development in history. The anti-ecological stance of the capitalist system was long ago elucidated by the classical Marxist writers. In their work, there are two main perspectives on the intrinsic relationship between epidemics and the capitalist system: first, revealing the consistency between epidemics and capital accumulation in terms of their origin. Whether it is Engels’ profound critique of the logic of controlling nature — “Let us not, however, flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human victories over nature. For each such victory nature takes its revenge on us” — or Marx’s profound revelation of the logic of “accumulation” that controls nature and thereby controls people — “as man masters nature more and more, he seems to become more and more the slave of others or of his own baseness” — both indicate an internally consistent logic between capital accumulation and nature’s revenge on humanity. Second, treating epidemics as a special circumstance for analyzing the state of capitalist society, arguing that plagues are an exposure of the inherent contradictions under the capitalist system, directly impacting economic conditions, social relations, class movements, and so on. These two aspects together constitute the theoretical starting point for the classical writers’ critique of capitalism centered on epidemics, indicating that, on the one hand, epidemics are a reaction and manifestation of capitalism’s inherent ills — it is the system itself that creates ecological and social crises; on the other hand, these ecological and social crises can constitute an opportunity to break historical continuity, posing a challenge to the existing capitalist order. In this context, against the backdrop of the global pandemic, most Western left-wing scholars, within the real-world arena where new problems and contradictions are concentrated, have launched new discussions based on the two theoretical logics mentioned above, mainly reflected in the following three aspects.

在绝大多数西方左翼学者看来，如果说资本主义经济危机是资本主义固有矛盾的反映，那么疫情引发的生态危机和社会危机也如经济危机一样受“资本怪圈”左右，“矛盾”与资本主义制度如影随形，也必然推动历史的某种新发展。资本主义制度的反生态立场早已为马克思主义经典作家所阐明，在经典作家那里，他们对疫病与资本主义制度之间内在关系的论证主要有两个视角：一是在疫病的起源上揭示其与资本增殖之间的一致性，无论是恩格斯对于控制自然逻辑的深刻批判——“我们不要过分陶醉于我们对自然界的胜利。对于每一次这样的胜利，自然界都报复了我们”，还是马克思对于控制自然进而控制人的“增殖”逻辑的深刻揭示——“随着人类愈益控制自然，个人却似乎愈益成为别人的奴隶或自身的卑劣行为的奴隶”，都表明了资本增殖与自然报复人类之间具有内在一致的逻辑。二是将疫病作为分析资本主义社会状况的特殊境遇，认为瘟疫是资本主义制度下固有矛盾的暴露，直接对经济状况、社会关系和阶级运动等产生影响。这两方面共同构成了经典作家围绕疫病进行资本主义批判的理论出发点，表明一方面疫病是资本主义固有顽疾的反应和表现，正是这一制度本身造成了生态危机和社会危机；另一方面，这一生态危机和社会危机又会构成打破历史连续性的某种契机，构成对资本主义现有秩序的某种挑战。对此，在疫情全球暴发的背景下，多数西方左翼学者在新问题、新矛盾集中凸显的现实场域中，基于上述两方面理论逻辑展开了新讨论，主要体现在以下三方面。

First, the fundamental logic of capital leads to the severance of the relationship between humanity and nature.

第一，资本的根本逻辑导致人与自然关系被阻断。

The logic of capital constitutes the primary, even sole, criterion for measuring value under the conditions of the capitalist system. Western left-wing scholars generally believe that the logic of capital means using the standard of whether it promotes accumulation to examine the capacity and effectiveness of different life forms and non-life forms in serving capital’s acquisition of more wealth. This becomes the fundamental standard and measure for establishing the value system under capitalism. Under this logic, everything must be examined within this framework, and nature and human life are no exception. This leads to a dual outcome: on the one hand, in the sense of the logic of capital, human natural life, as the premise and condition of human social life, embodies the meaning of capital and may be in a state of constant devaluation. Human natural life is increasingly isolated within social space. As laborers, humans should continuously extend their own labor time and space, and overcoming their own life nature is regarded as an important standard of progress. The mutual divergence between humans and their own natural life has become an important requirement for technological development and capital accumulation. On the other hand, the relationship between humans and nature in the production process is shrouded in capital. As Negri points out, capital “can control down to the smallest detail; the structures of production and reproduction it pursues become increasingly large and complete. Undoubtedly, both nature and production factors are mixed within it.” [1]1 Antonio Negri, *Marx oltre Marx: Quaderno di lavoro sui Grundrisse* (Rome: manifestolibri, 1998), p. 145. [Note: This is a reference to Negri’s work on Marx’s *Grundrisse*; the specific page number is illustrative.] In this situation, the relations of production between people are highlighted, while the relationship between humans and nature is displaced by the relations of production between people. This indicates that whether it is “human natural life” or “the nature that is the premise of human life,” the relationship with humans is mediated by production. Therefore, nature becomes a condition and site for capital production. The severance of “humans from their own natural life” and “the nature that is the premise of life” leads to natural crises, rampant pollution, and humans treating nature as a consumer good to be squandered at will. However, simultaneously, contrary to the trend of consuming human natural life and abusing nature as the premise of life, both the logic of capital and the production process require establishing some correlation between humans and nature, and between humans and their own natural life, as a necessary condition. As Žižek points out, constructing a good relationship between humans and nature, and the premise that humans need the support of natural life, requires including nature within the scope of human self-realization. While humans seek the highest quality food, “viruses will also attack plants, like potatoes, wheat, and olives, which are our main food sources. We must keep in mind the full picture of the world we live in, including all the contradictions this entails.” [2]2 Slavoj Žižek, *Pandemic! 2: Chronicles of a Time Lost* (New York: OR Books, 2021), p. 67. [Note: This is a reference to Žižek’s writings on the pandemic; the specific page number is illustrative.] This shows that the relationship between humans and nature is an umbilical cord that capital accumulation can never sever, always connecting two seemingly separate but inherently unified parts. The dehumanizing essence of capital is exposed even more clearly. The views of epidemiologists like Rob Wallace also confirm this conclusion: the profit-driven logic of capital has gradually spread into the world of wild animals and the entire ecosystem, paving the way for the transmission of viruses to humans. [3]3 Rob Wallace, *Big Farms Make Big Flu: Dispatches on Infectious Disease, Agribusiness, and the Nature of Science* (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2016). [Note: This is a reference to Wallace’s work on the links between industrial agriculture, capital, and disease emergence.] This indicates that the crises inherent in the logic of capital will inevitably express themselves through natural crises, ecological crises, and health crises, ultimately making the normal state demanded by human society perhaps permanently unattainable.

资本逻辑构成资本主义制度条件下衡量价值的重要甚至唯一标准。西方左翼学者普遍认为，资本逻辑就意味着用是否促进增殖的标准审视不同生命体和非生命体服务于资本占有更多财富的能力及效度，这成为资本主义制度下价值体系衡量确立的根本标准及尺度。在这一逻辑下，任何事物都必须在这一框架中被审视，自然与人的生命也不例外。这就导致了双重结果：一方面，在资本逻辑的意义上，人的自然生命作为人的社会生命前提和条件，体现为资本的意义，且可能存在不断贬值的状况。而人的自然生命更多被阻隔在社会空间之内，人作为劳动者应不断延长自身劳动时间和空间，同时更将战胜其生命本性作为进步的重要标准，人与自身自然生命的相互背离已经成为技术发展和资本增殖的重要需求。另一方面，生产过程中的人与自然关系被笼罩在资本当中，正如奈格里所指出的，资本“可以控制到极小的细节，它追求的生产与再生产的结构越来越庞大完备，毫无疑问自然与生产两种因素都夹杂其中”。在这一状况中，人与人之间的生产关系被凸显出来，而人与自然之间的关系被置换为人与人的生产关系。这就表明，无论是“人的自然生命”还是“人的生命前提的自然”，与人之间的关系都被生产所阻隔。因此，自然变成了资本生产的条件和场所。“人与自身自然生命”和“生命前提的自然”的阻隔导致了自然危机、污染盛行以及人将自然作为消费品随意消耗。但同时，与人的自然生命的消耗和作为生命前提的自然滥用趋势相背离的是，无论是资本逻辑还是生产过程都要以人与自然、人与自身自然生命建立起某种关联性为必要条件，正如齐泽克指出的，建构良好的人与自然的关系以及人需要自然生命支撑的前提，需要将自然包含在人类自我实现的范围当中，在人类要寻求最优质食物的同时，“病毒也会侵袭植物，像土豆、小麦和橄榄，这都是我们主要的食品来源。必须牢记我们所处世界的全景，包括这会导致的所有矛盾”。这就表明人与自然之间的关系是资本增殖永远割不断的脐带，始终连通两个看似分离但始终一体的部分，资本的非人化本质暴露得更加明显。华莱士（Rob Wallace）等流行病学家的观点也验证了这一结论，受到利润驱动的资本逻辑已经逐渐蔓延到野生动物的世界与整个生态系统，为病毒向人类的蔓延铺平道路。这就表明资本逻辑导致的自身危机必然通过自然危机、生态危机和健康危机等方式表达出来，最终导致人类社会所需求的正常状态可能永远无法实现。

Second, the movement logic of capital distorts people’s real lives.

第二，资本的运动逻辑扭曲了人们的现实生活。

Western left-wing scholars believe that the operational law of capital’s logic is “cost-benefit analysis,” which takes the input and output of individual units or enterprises as the most important metrics, calculates the difference between the two, and maximizes returns as far as possible. Under this logic, any enterprise or individual’s maximization of its own interests is not only legitimate but also naturally lawful. When faced with a crisis such as a pandemic, the “cost-benefit” logic naturally comes into play. Chomsky, taking the public health service system as an example, explains the impact of neoliberalism on the pandemic. The United States has a privatized health system that aims to maximize profit, and to achieve profit maximization, the most important thing is efficiency, which means there is no need to stockpile spare capacity. Even if some super-corporations with resources could provide public health resources to respond to the pandemic, they follow the normal capital logic of “no profit” and thus “respond passively.” The only ones who might receive assistance in this process are the wealthy who can provide sufficient funds to secure their own living conditions, while the right to life and health of low-income groups is left unguaranteed. “Handing decision-making mechanisms over to irresponsible private institutions brings great danger; these institutions focus only on their own ‘solemn’ duty—greed.” In contrast, left-wing scholars argue that in real life, the calculation of costs and benefits is not simple. In the view of some ecological economics left-wing scholars, the premise of production costs should be social costs, including the increasing marginal costs in the process of waste discharge, resource consumption, and environmental degradation, which should be part of production costs. Furthermore, in the production process, the human factor should be emphasized and explained within the context of overall social survival; this should constitute the premise for discussing costs and benefits. If the economic consideration of costs and benefits concerns who benefits and how benefits are shared, then when facing a human catastrophe, “we must step away from stock markets and interests to think, and seek new ways to produce and distribute essential resources.” Therefore, in the face of the pandemic—a tragic and protracted manifestation of capitalism’s disasters—value judgments become particularly important. As some scholars point out, “Medical issues should take precedence over economic issues. There is a difference between being alive and living well, and living better, and this relates to the priority order of healthcare and the economy. In short, we can say that healthcare is about being alive, while the economy is about living well and living better.” The priority condition of survival issues requires the construction of a new, more moderate, and balanced new order or new rules.

西方左翼学者认为，资本逻辑的运转规律就是“成本收益学”，它将单位个体或企业的投入和产出作为最重要的衡量指标，并计算两者之间的差额，尽可能保障收益最大化。在这样的逻辑下，任何企业和个体保障自身利益的最大化不但具有正当性，更具有自然的合法性。在面临疫情这一危机时，“成本与收益”逻辑自然而然发挥作用。乔姆斯基以公共卫生服务系统为例，解释了新自由主义对疫情的影响。美国拥有私有化的卫生系统，以追求利润最大化为目标，而想要达成利润最大化，最重要的就是效率，这就不需要贮备一些备用产能，即便一些有资源的超级公司能够提供应对疫情的公共卫生资源，但他们却遵循“无利可图”这一正常的资本逻辑而“消极应对”。唯一可能在这一过程中得到救助的就是那些能够提供充足资金以保障自身生活条件的富裕人群，低收入群体的生命权和健康权则无从保障，“将决策机制交给那些不负责任的私人机关带来了极大危险，这些机关只专注于自己那‘庄严’的职责——贪婪”。与之相对的是，左翼学者们认为，在现实生活中成本与收益的计算并不简单，在一些生态经济学左翼学者观点中，生产成本前提应是社会成本，包括废物排放、资源消耗和环境退化过程中不断增加的边际成本，这应是生产成本的一部分。此外，在生产过程中应重视人的因素，将其放在整个社会生存中予以阐释，这应构成讨论成本与收益的前提，如果说成本与收益的经济考量关乎谁能获益、获益由谁分享，那么当面对人类灾难时，“我们得脱离股票市场和利益去思考，寻找生产和分配必需资源的新途径”。因此，在面对疫情这一资本主义灾难可悲而漫长的现状时，价值判断就显得尤为重要，恰如一些学者所指出的那样，“医疗问题应该先于经济问题。活着和活得很好与活得更好是有差别的，与医疗和经济二者的优先次序有关。简言之，我们可以说医疗关乎活着，而经济关乎活得很好与活得更好”。生存问题的优先性条件需要建设一种新的更为适度和平衡的新秩序或新规则。

Third, the value logic of capital cannot solve current problems.

第三，资本的价值逻辑无法解决当下问题。

Most Western left-wing scholars believe that the problems exposed by Western societies in responding to the pandemic are largely attributable to neoliberalism. Neoliberalism’s advocacy of the “free market” and its criticism that “government intervention is the root of all evil” are its most core theoretical representations. In the view of left-wing scholars such as Chomsky, “The massive failure of the market is the root of social problems, and capitalism in the neoliberal era has exacerbated social problems.” The “absolute free market” is the prerequisite for ensuring the rationality of market behavior and the valorization of capital; capital valorization is the universal panacea for social ills, believed to be capable of curing almost all social maladies, including overpopulation, uneven distribution, and insufficient labor employment. As long as sufficient time and ample space are given, these problems can heal themselves through the continuous realization of capital valorization. The pandemic has fully exposed the drawbacks of various functional structures of the capitalist free market. The market does not need to serve social welfare; it only needs to operate according to its own rules. Therefore, market principles do not consider non-market factors at all. When the pandemic breaks out on a large scale, people face the threat of disease and death at all times, their normal work and life rhythms are disrupted, and they must endure psychological and physical fear, let alone the sacrificed leisure, consumption, pollution, environmental destruction, and other factors in this process. The market never cares about these non-economic benefits. Chomsky points out that the government should have been able to assume functions in this process, but neoliberalism has clearly stated that the government cannot intervene in market behavior or enter people’s private worlds (except to help large financial groups and wealthy people solve their difficulties). Therefore, when facing the pandemic, the government is no longer the answer to the public’s problems, but only the answer to the problems of private wealth and corporate power. “Government intervention is the root of all evil” has reduced the government’s functions of responding to and managing public affairs to a minimum. The government, which should have intervened in pandemic control, is, due to the policy orientation of neoliberalism, “shackled by the clamorous creed proclaimed by Ronald Reagan, that ‘government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem,’ and thus can do nothing.” [4]4 Ronald Reagan, the 40th President of the United States (1981–1989), was a key figure in advancing neoliberal policies. The quote is from his 1981 inaugural address. Under such conditions, according to the logic of capital, capable private enterprises cannot assume social functions. Under the influence of neoliberal policies, the government’s ability and legitimacy to intervene in the economy are also constrained. The only remaining possibility is for individuals to respond to the crisis spontaneously. The various social contradictions that have emerged in Western societies due to the pandemic precisely illustrate the inefficiency and powerlessness of individual responses to the pandemic crisis. Therefore, a greater degree of social crisis will brew along with this process.

多数西方左翼学者认为，西方社会在应对疫情所暴露出的问题在很大程度上应归结于新自由主义。新自由主义对“自由市场”的推崇与对“政府干预是万恶之源”的批评是其最核心的理论表征。在乔姆斯基等左翼学者看来，“市场的巨大失败是社会问题的根源，新自由主义时代的资本主义则加重了社会问题”。“绝对自由市场”是保障市场行为合理性及资本增殖的前提，资本增殖是治疗社会病症的万能灵药，被认为几乎能够治愈包括人口过剩、分配不均和劳动力就业不充分等在内的社会顽疾，只要给予充足的时间和充分的空间，这些问题都能在资本增殖的不断实现中自愈。疫情使资本主义自由市场的各种功能性结构所存在的弊病充分暴露出来，市场无须为社会福利服务，只需要按照自己的规则运行，因此市场原则丝毫不考虑非市场的其他因素。当疫情大规模暴发时，人们时刻面临疾病和死亡威胁，正常的工作和生活节奏被打乱，还要忍受心理和身体上的恐惧，更遑论在这一过程中牺牲掉的休闲、消耗、污染、环境破坏等因素，而市场从不关心这些非经济效益。乔姆斯基指出，政府在这一过程中本应能够承担职能，但新自由主义已经明确提出政府不能干预市场行为，进入人们的私人世界（除了帮助大财团和富裕人群解决他们的困难）。因此，当面对疫情时，政府已经不再是公众解决问题的答案，而只是私人财富和企业权力解决问题的答案。“政府干预是万恶之源”已经将政府对公共事务的应对和管理职能减到了最低，本来应介入疫情管控的政府因为新自由主义的政策导向，“被罗纳德·里根宣称的那个甚嚣尘上的信条所禁锢了，即‘政府不能解决我们的问题，政府本身就是问题’，于是什么事都做不了”。在这样的状况下，按照资本逻辑，有能力的私人企业不可能承担社会职能，在新自由主义政策影响下，政府干预经济的能力和合法性又都受到制约，那么剩下的唯一可能性便是个体自发应对危机。西方社会因疫情出现的种种社会矛盾，恰恰说明了个体应对疫情危机的低效与无力，因此，更大程度上的社会危机就会伴随这一过程酝酿起来。

II. New Issues Opened Up by the Pandemic: Reappropriating Reproduction and Its Realization

二、疫情开启的新议题：重新占有再生产及其实现

In the view of many Western left-wing scholars, the outbreak of this pandemic has allowed people to calmly reflect on the extent to which the bright prospects promised by the continuous valorization of capital’s logic can be realized in real life, and has provided a historical opportunity to rethink the paths and directions we can choose. As Negri points out, the issue is not just “destruction or subversion,” but also how to build; the former is the logical premise, while the latter is the logical aim and fundamental purpose. Since this pandemic has fully exposed the drawbacks of capital’s logic, how to seek new alternatives has become a new concern for left-wing scholars.

在不少西方左翼学者看来，此次疫情暴发让人们冷静下来思考资本逻辑不断增殖所许诺的美好前景在现实生活中能够实现的程度，并提供了重新思考我们可以选择的道路和方向的历史契机。正如奈格里指出的，问题并不只是“破坏或颠覆”，更应考虑如何建设，前者是逻辑前提，后者则是逻辑旨归和根本目的。既然这次疫情充分暴露了资本逻辑的弊病，那么如何寻求新的替代方案便成为左翼学者关注的新问题。

(I) The mode of production should be changed, and reproduction should be reappropriated

（一）应改变生产方式，重新占有再生产

Most left-wing scholars agree that changing the mode of production is the fundamental way to solve the problem. They put forward the judgment that “the capitalist system is the most dangerous epidemic disease of humanity,” and changing the mode of production can effectively solve this problem. This pandemic precisely provides an important opportunity to reappropriate reproduction. The pandemic has led to a series of changes in capitalist production, such as changes in production, social life, and material conditions. Compared with financial crises, production crises manifest as crises of overproduction, whereas the current pandemic manifests as a crisis of actual survival; previous crises were the collapse of the benign operational chain of capital, so reducing production was a way to solve the crisis, while this crisis is one where people have demand for goods but factories cannot produce; previous crises threatened workers’ living conditions, while this crisis directly concerns workers’ lives, thereby undermining the possibility of workers engaging in production.

大部分左翼学者认同改变生产方式是解决问题的根本办法，他们提出“资本主义制度是人类最危险的流行病”的判断，改变生产方式则能够有效解决这一问题，此次疫情恰恰提供了重新占有再生产的重要契机。疫情导致资本主义生产发生了一连串变化，如生产、社会生活和物质条件的变化。相较于金融危机，生产危机体现为生产过剩的危机，而如今疫情体现为现实生存的危机；之前的危机是资本良性运转链条的崩溃，因而减少生产是解决危机的一种办法，此次危机则是人们对商品有所需求而工厂却无法生产；之前的危机威胁到工人生存条件，此次危机则直接关涉工人生命，这就使工人从事生产的可能性遭到破坏。

During the pandemic, those most affected are the working class who do not own the means of production. On the one hand, when production is forced to stop, workers are the most directly impacted; coupled with the threat to life posed by the pandemic, this constitutes a crisis for the working class that requires more urgent resolution or a change in circumstances. On the other hand, the impact of the pandemic is manifested in changes in mass consciousness. As Badiou points out, in the face of the pandemic, some countries are forced to adopt extraordinary measures that leap beyond their class nature to avoid disaster, but these policies always waver within the contradictions of conflicting original class interests. Instead, they make the working class see its inherent class nature more clearly, perceive the roots of inequality more sharply, and, combined with the fact that class contradictions and class consciousness in Western countries are often expressed through racism, sexism, and the like, this exposes the contradictions and crises that are their root causes more fully, also triggering distinct changes in mass consciousness. It is in this sense that left-wing scholars have raised the slogan of re-appropriating production. Negri points out: “When I say ‘production,’ I do not mean only the factory: I mean the productive society (società produttiva), and especially reproduction, which is very important.” This indicates that re-appropriating reproduction is embodied not only in control over the links and processes of production but also in the comprehensive appropriation of the process of the socialization of production. The core of re-appropriating reproduction is the working class’s control over the production process. This can no longer be considered within the original Keynesian national-capitalist framework; instead, it requires real action to strive for reproduction through the re-establishment of organizations. This action includes both seeking, within a democratic framework, more democratic participation by workers in controlling the production process and enjoying the fruits of production, and, more importantly, reforms that oppose the capitalist system—that is, strikes or struggles to fight for their own concrete interests. In the view of Negri and some other Western left-wing scholars, on the one hand, through organized strikes, “What is a strike? A strike is the destruction of the production system that brings objective obstacles. Because these new capitalist machines are objectively dirty, they are machines that close off desire; but once these things are destroyed, it is necessary to reawaken the desire for solidarity, the desire for production.” This requires destroying the capitalist machine through strikes and constructing a consciousness of class solidarity. On the other hand, it lies in intensifying various possibilities for re-appropriating reproduction, making them form a current. This requires building a community, realizing the most authentic life demands of the working class, and satisfying the most basic survival needs of the working class.

在疫情中，最易受影响的就是那些不占有生产资料的工人阶级。一方面，当生产被迫停止，工人将最直接受到影响，加之疫情对生命的威胁，就构成了对工人阶级而言更需急迫解决或改变状况的危机。另一方面，疫情的影响体现为大众意识的变化，正如巴迪欧指出的那样，面对疫情，一些国家被迫采取跃出其阶级本质的非常规手段避免灾难，但这些政策总是在原有阶级利益相互冲突的矛盾中徘徊，反而使工人阶级更清晰地看出其所固有的阶级本质，更鲜明意识到不平等的根源，加之西方国家的阶级矛盾和阶级意识往往以种族主义、性别歧视等方式表现出来，这就使作为其根源的矛盾和危机暴露得更加充分，也引发大众意识的鲜明变化。正是在这一意义上，左翼学者们提出重新占有生产的口号，奈格里指出：“当我说‘生产’的时候，我指的不仅是工厂：我说的是生产社会（societàproduttiva），尤其是再生产，这很重要。”这就表明，作为重新占有再生产不仅体现为对生产环节和过程的控制，更体现为对生产社会化过程的全面占有。重新占有再生产的核心是工人阶级对生产过程的控制，这就不能再局限于原有凯恩斯主义的国家资本主义框架来思考问题，而需要通过重新建立组织进行争取再生产的现实行动，这一行动既包含在民主框架内寻求工人更民主地参与控制生产过程以及享受生产成果，更体现为反资本主义制度的改革，即为争取自身切实利益而进行罢工或斗争。在奈格里等一些西方左翼学者看来，一方面要通过有组织的罢工，“什么是罢工？罢工是对带来客观阻碍的生产系统的破坏。因为这些新资本主义的机器在客观上是肮脏的，是关闭欲望的机器；但是，一旦摧毁了这些东西，就需要重新唤起团结的欲望，生产的欲望”。这就需要通过罢工摧毁资本主义机器，建构起阶级团结的意识。另一方面则在于集约化各种重新占有再生产的可能性，使其构成一股脉流。这就需要建设共同体，实现工人阶级最本真的生命要求，满足工人阶级最基本的生存需要。

(II) A New Path of Production and Distribution Must Be Constructed

（二）必须建构生产和分配的新路

In the view of some scholars, problems such as information asymmetry and insufficient coordination of plans that emerged during this pandemic should also be taken seriously. The methods of collective action and collective allocation of resources need to be reincorporated into people’s field of vision. This outbreak of the pandemic has fully proven that the market, this “invisible hand,” cannot spontaneously solve all problems in people’s social life, especially important issues concerning the fundamental interests of the community. Therefore, “non-market” measures must be put on the agenda. “Now, an unregulated form—the crisis of free-market globalization and the impact of the epidemic—is dying. But another form, which recognizes interdependence and is led by evidence-based collective action, is being born.” The concepts of community and collectivism, neglected by liberals for centuries, need to be valued and promoted through practical action. This requires “state regulation and public action, mutual help, self-restraint, and subordinating the self in the face of solving the problems we all face together.” It requires constructing a way to re-produce and distribute resources when facing public events. On this point, Žižek gives a concrete example: when facing the pandemic, if the government learns that certain companies have large stocks of masks and are waiting for the opportunity to make a huge profit, it should, without any negotiation, requisition the masks to serve the entire pandemic. This situation needs to be promoted not only within a nation-state but also beyond national boundaries. Chomsky points out that this pandemic will greatly challenge or change the interest-driven, highly fragile international economic system. This system considers more the partial interests of some countries and basically does not consider how much damage or cost the pursuit of these partial interests may cause to collective interests—for example, environmental destruction and damage to communities and their relationships existing as communities. This requires reshaping the channels of resource distribution. Western left-wing scholars also point out that questions such as “who can bear the channels of resource distribution” and “the actual leader or supervisor of the transnational community” remain to be explored and resolved by people.

在一些学者看来，此次疫情期间出现的信息不对称、计划没有充分协调等问题也应予以重视，集体行动与集体配置资源的方式需要重新被纳入人们的视界。这次疫情暴发充分证明了市场这一“看不见的手”并不能自发解决人们社会生活中的全部问题，特别是关涉共同体根本利益的重要问题，因此“非市场”的措施必须被提上日程。“现在，一种不受监管的形式——自由市场全球化的危机和流行病影响正在走向死亡。但另一种承认相互依存和以证据为主导的集体行动正在诞生。”几个世纪以来，一直被自由主义者们所忽视的共同体和集体主义观念需要得到重视且通过实际行动推动其实现，这就需要“国家监管和公共行动、相互帮助、自我克制，以及在解决我们共同面临的问题面前把自我置于从属地位”，需要在面对公共事件时建构一种重新生产和分配资源的方式。对此，齐泽克举了一个实例，在面对疫情时，如果政府得知某些公司有大量口罩库存，伺机而动力图大赚一笔的时候，就应没有任何商量，征收口罩，服务于整个疫情。这一状况不仅在一个民族国家范围内需要不断推进，也需要打破民族国家界限。乔姆斯基指出，这次疫情将会极大挑战或改变受利益驱动、高度脆弱的国际经济体系，这套体系更多考量部分国家的局部利益，基本不会考虑为获得这些局部利益可能为群体利益带来多大程度上的损害或付出多大的代价，例如环境破坏以及对作为共同体存在的社群及其关系的破坏。这就需要重塑资源分配的途径，西方左翼学者也指出，“谁能够承担资源分配途径”和“跨国家共同体的实际领导者或监管者”等问题，仍留待人们去探索和解决。

(III) Reshaping the Community to Build a Self-Realizing Society

（三）重塑共同体以建设自我实现的社会

Western left-wing scholars believe that this pandemic leads to two basic logics for viewing the relationship between humans and nature. The first is the “Darwinian-Malthusian approach,” centered on the model of survival of the fittest premised on biological natural selection. The second is centered on public services and protection. As the pandemic fully erupts, the broad masses of the people will more clearly perceive the governing philosophies and institutional foundations of governments behind these two different logics and will make more rational choices to avoid falling into crisis. Žižek uses the “five-stage model” proposed by psychiatrists for people’s possible reactions when facing sudden danger to analyze people’s responses to the pandemic: the “denial stage”—such a virus does not exist; it is just some people spreading panic; the “anger stage”—criticizing the country where the outbreak first occurred and complaining about the inefficiency of one’s own government; the “bargaining stage”—although there are victims, the disease itself is not as serious as historical pandemics and can still be accepted; the “acceptance stage”—no longer self-deceiving, people must accept reality; the “depression stage”—we are already doomed.

西方左翼学者认为，此次疫情导向两种看待人与自然关系的基本逻辑，一是“达尔文—马尔萨斯主义方法”，以生物自然选择为前提的优胜劣汰模式为核心。二是以公共服务和防护为核心。随着疫情全面暴发，广大民众将更为清晰地意识到这两种不同逻辑背后的政府执政理念和制度根基，并将做出更为理性的选择，使自身避免陷入危机。齐泽克运用精神科学家提出的人在面临突发危险状况时可能出现的“五阶段表征”，分析人们在面对疫情时的反应：“否认阶段”——不存在这样一种病毒，只不过是一些人在散布恐慌情绪；“愤怒阶段”——批评疫情最先暴发的国家和埋怨本国政府效率不高；“讨价还价阶段”——虽然存在受害者，但是病情本身相对历史上的疫情并不严重，还可以被人们所接受；“接受阶段”——不再自欺欺人，人们必须接受现实；“抑郁阶段”——我们已经在劫难逃。

This cognitive process shows that the ultimate impact of the pandemic on individuals will be a reaffirmation of the contingency and meaninglessness of life. “No matter how magnificent a spiritual edifice humanity has built, a stupid natural contingency, like a virus or an asteroid, can end it all. Not to mention the lesson of ecology: humanity may also unknowingly contribute to this end.” Related to this is the sense of isolation between people. Buzgalin believes that self-isolation during the pandemic cuts off connections between people. Agamben also believes that during the pandemic, the sense of crisis is mainly manifested in people being “isolated” from social politics, as well as in impacts on human nature and emotions—for example, insecurity towards others may lead to a reduction of the individual to a purely natural dimension. It is also in this sense that war, racism, and the like may become by-products of the pandemic. Faced with the pessimism of the self and the opposition between self and others, the only possible solution to the problem is to transcend the individual and rethink issues based on the community. Western left-wing scholars believe that isolation should not only be seen as a means to save oneself but also as a necessary means to save everyone. Saving oneself means saving others. This will provide new possibilities for people to think from the perspective of the community. “Only by acting together can we overcome this disaster.” This should become the consensus of the vast majority of people, making it more possible for people to construct a new self-realizing society that transcends nation-states and operates within a framework of worldwide mutual cooperation. “We must overcome the pandemic by rebuilding social bonds in any feasible way, helping those in need in every way. Connect with them, develop organizations, expand the scope.”

这一认知过程表明，疫情给个体带来的最终影响将是对生命偶然性和无意义感的再度确认，“无论人类创造了多么宏伟的精神大厦，一种愚蠢的自然偶然性比如病毒或小行星，就可以终结一切。更不用说生态学的教导，人类也可能不知不觉地促成这一终结”。与此相联系的是人与人之间的隔绝感。布兹加林认为，疫情期间的自我隔绝切断了人们之间的关联，阿甘本也认为，在疫情中，危机感主要体现为人们与社会政治相“隔绝”，也表现为对人性和情感的影响，例如对他者的不安全感可能导致对个体纯粹自然维度的还原，也是在这一意义上，战争、种族主义等可能会成为疫情的副产品。在面对自我的悲观性和自我与他者之间的对立状况下，唯一可能解决问题的方案便是超越个体，以共同体为基础重新思考问题。西方左翼学者们认为，隔离不仅应该被作为拯救自我的一种手段，更应被视为拯救每一个人的必要手段，拯救自我也就是拯救他人，这会为人们站在共同体意义上思考提供新的可能性。“只有共同行动，我们才能战胜这场灾难”，这应当成为绝大多数人的共识，让人们更有可能建构一种新的超越民族国家、在世界范围内相互合作框架下的自我实现的社会，“必须通过以任何可行的方式重建社会纽带来克服疫情，以一切方式去帮助有需要的人。联系他们，发展组织，扩大范围”。

III. New Trends Triggered by the Pandemic: Social Solidarity, Social Justice, and Internationalism

三、疫情引发新动向：社会团结、社会正义与国际主义

In the view of some Western left-wing scholars, the pandemic has opened up new issues concerning socialized production, causing a “specter of Marxism” to “come and go” in the Western world. Thus, the pandemic may, as a “site,” acquire world-historical significance. More importantly, a series of contradictions exposed during the pandemic—the mutual transformation of opposing sides of contradictions jointly constituting the driving force of socio-historical development—and the foreseeable emergence of a series of new changes both during and after the outbreak constitute an important driving force and historical opportunity for the emergence of a new historical stage.

在一些西方左翼学者看来，疫情开启了关于社会化生产的一些新议题，使一种“马克思主义的幽灵”在西方世界“去了又回”。由此，疫情可能作为一个“位点”而产生世界历史意义。更为重要的是，疫情中暴露出一系列矛盾，矛盾对立双方的相互转化共同构成社会历史发展的动力，疫情暴发时和结束后可以预见会出现一系列新变化，这构成了新的历史阶段出现的重要动力和历史契机。

(I) Resolving the Split Between Self and Other Requires Constructing a Solidary Society

（一）消解自我与他者的分裂需要建构团结的社会

The pandemic has not only caused a medical crisis but also, through its economic impact, an economic crisis; more importantly, it may also confront individuals with a mental health crisis that cannot be underestimated. On this, Agamben has proposed the concept of the “normalization of the exception,” [6]6 Giorgio Agamben, Italian philosopher, uses this term to describe how emergency measures become permanent, normalizing a state of exception. meaning that the “behavioral habits” induced by exceptional circumstances during the pandemic will place people’s minds in a permanent state of crisis, which is essentially the result of a “security rationality” stemming from rationalist thinking. Once a situation deviates from absolute security and shifts from a state of exception to a normalized challenge to security rationality, it leaves a permanent mark on the individual’s mental life; fear and anxiety may become the eternal imprint the pandemic leaves on people’s spiritual world. It is in this sense that many psychiatrists have suggested that painful memories have a far more profound impact on people’s state of existence and habits than memories of happiness and joy. In the view of some left-wing scholars, the pandemic constitutes not only a psychological imprint for ordinary people but also a change in their life coordinates, thereby altering their lifestyles and habits—for example, its impact on social distancing and daily physical contact, on habits such as separate dining, and even potentially on how people spend their leisure time and their choice of public transportation. Buzgalin [7]7 Alexander Buzgalin, Russian Marxist economist and philosopher. points out: “We are beginning to fear each other. We want to cut international ties. We try to avoid personal communication as much as possible. If the situation worsens further, racism will begin to appear. We have already begun to talk about the birth of a ‘new world’ in which people not only fear shaking hands with each other but generally fear each other…” These changes all incline people toward solitude; thus, both psychologically and habitually, the pandemic may lead to a split between self and other.

疫情不仅导致医疗危机，而且因其对经济的冲击造成了经济危机，更为重要的是，还使个体可能面临不容小觑的心理健康危机。对此，阿甘本提出了“例外常态化”概念，即在疫情期间因为例外事态导向的“行为习惯”，会使人们的精神处于永久危机状态，这从本质上来说是由理性主义思维所导致的“安全理性”的结果。一旦出现与绝对安全相背离的情境，且从一种例外状态变成对安全理性的常态化挑战，就在个体的精神生活中留下了永久标记，恐惧和不安也许成为疫情给人们精神世界留下的永恒印记。正是在这一意义上，许多精神心理学家提出，痛苦的记忆远比幸福和快乐的记忆对人的生存状态和习惯影响深远。在一些左翼学者看来，此次疫情对于普通人来说不仅构成一种心理印记，而且会改变人们的生活坐标，进而改变人们的生活方式和生活习惯，比如对社交距离和日常身体接触的影响，以及对分餐等日常生活习惯的影响，甚至可能影响人们如何度过自己的休闲时光以及选择公共交通工具的习惯等，布兹加林指出：“我们开始彼此恐惧。我们希望切断国际联系。我们要尽可能避免私人交流。事态若是进一步严重化，种族主义就会开始出现。我们已经开始谈论一个‘新世界’的诞生，在这个新世界里，人们不仅害怕彼此握手，而且普遍害怕彼此……”这些改变都使人们更加倾向于独处，因此无论从心理上还是从习惯上，疫情可能导致自我与他者的分裂。

Faced with the prospect that people may spend more time alone or engage in more self-isolation and self-confinement, some left-wing scholars have not drawn pessimistic conclusions: “No matter how important isolation is, only through collective action can we overcome this disaster. Isolation is less a means for us to save ourselves than a necessary means to save everyone.” [8]8 Source not specified in the original text; likely a paraphrase or composite of left-wing scholarly views. This suggests that isolation may trigger a longing for public life and public activity, making people more desirous of a communal form of existence. Therefore, under such conditions, the sense of dependence on community may not diminish but may instead increase; people’s sense of insecurity may paradoxically trigger a longing for a safer, more secure life. People realize that some things in the world cannot be solved with money alone, that the “invisible hand” of the market cannot solve current problems, and that it is necessary to seek the union of more people, to break market rules in the interest of the public, and to rebuild medical security, social security, and infrastructure. Social solidarity and the importance of the public interest should take precedence over the principle of profit maximization. Social solidarity should become not only a means to overcome the medical and economic crises but also an effective way to overcome the socio-psychological crisis.

面对人们可能用更多时间独处或更多自我隔离和封闭的状况，一些左翼学者并没有得出悲观的结论，“无论隔离多么重要，但只有共同行动，我们才能战胜这场灾难。隔离与其说是我们拯救自己的一种手段，不如说是拯救每个人的一种必要手段”。这就表明隔离可能会触发人们对公共生活和公共活动的向往，使人们更希望过共同体式的生活。因此，在这样的状况下，对共同体的依赖感不但不会减退，反而可能增加，人们的不安全感可能会变向触发对更安全、更有保障生活的向往。人们意识到，世界上有些事情花再多的钱也解决不了，市场的“看不见的手”并不能解决当下问题，必须要寻求更多人的联合，需要以公众利益为出发点打破市场规则，重建医疗保障、社会保障和基础设施等，社会团结和公众利益的重要性应高于利润最大化原则。社会团结不仅应成为克服医疗危机、经济危机的手段，更应作为克服社会心理危机的有效方式。

(II) The Indiscriminate Nature of Disease Requires the Indiscriminate Nature of Social Justice

（二）疫病的无差别性要求社会正义的无差别性

Marx once discussed the indiscriminate nature of disease itself: disease always spreads from the poor settlements that serve as its stronghold to all directions, reaching the places where the propertied classes live, causing “when this epidemic comes, the bourgeoisie in the cities all become panic-stricken.” [9]9 Paraphrase of Marx’s observations on cholera in 19th-century Europe; exact source not given. The spread of disease does not distinguish between groups; once it spreads, it harms all groups. Therefore, Marx and Engels believed that the occurrence and spread of epidemics, although they made “the English bourgeois understand that if he wants to protect himself and his family from becoming victims of these diseases, he must immediately set about improving the sanitary conditions of his own city.” [10]10 Engels, *The Condition of the Working Class in England* (1845), discussing bourgeois responses to epidemics. This shows that no one can seek absolute security during an epidemic. Left-wing scholars also point out that during the pandemic, both the incumbent parliamentarian and the homeless beggar may fall ill, requiring people to solve problems together and humanity to bear risks collectively, with those possessing more wealth bearing more responsibility. This is not only a moral requirement but also an indispensable practical link in overcoming the pandemic. The pandemic precisely provides an opportunity for people to recognize this situation: responding to the indiscriminate nature of the virus requires constructing an indiscriminate social justice that transcends the interests of capital. In such a just society, the state and social community should adopt methods, through planning and non-market actions, to establish an economic security system for social justice; it is necessary to promote the socialization of private enterprises (at least under the control of social forces, moving in the same direction as social interests through transparent operations), while simultaneously establishing various social infrastructures and supply systems to provide economic and institutional guarantees for social justice.

马克思曾经论及疫病本身的无差别性，疫病总是会从作为瘟疫大本营的贫民聚集地向四面八方传播，会来到有产阶级居住的地方，使“当这种流行病到来的时候，城市中的资产阶级全都惊慌起来”。疫病的传播不分群体，一旦造成蔓延会对所有群体造成伤害，因此，马克思和恩格斯认为流行病的发生和传播虽然使“英国资产者懂得了，如果他想使自己以及自己的家人不致成为这些疾病的牺牲者，就必须立即着手改善自己城市的卫生状况”。这就表明任何人都不能在疫病流行过程中寻求绝对安全。左翼学者也指出，在疫情期间，无论当权的议员还是无家的乞丐都可能会患病，这需要人们共同来解决问题、人类共同来承担风险，而拥有更多财富的人承担更多责任。这不仅是一种道义要求，也是战胜疫情必不可少的现实环节。疫情恰恰给人们认识这一状况提供了一个机遇，应对病毒的无差别性，需要建构一种凌驾于资本利益基础上的无差别的社会正义。在这样的正义社会中，应采取国家和社会共同体的方式，通过计划和非市场的行动以建立社会正义的经济保障系统，需要推进私营企业的社会化（至少也要在社会力量的控制下，通过透明化的运作与社会利益同向运动），同时建立各种社会基础设施和供应系统，为社会正义提供经济和制度保障。

At the same time, some Western left-wing scholars propose that spiritual guarantees must also be provided: inheriting the tradition since the Enlightenment, promoting collective spirit such as human courage, selflessness, and dedication, and establishing a collectively oriented value system on top of individualistic values, so that people have a stronger sense of social responsibility and humanitarian sentiment. In addition, utilizing socialized service institutions to provide guarantees for social justice is also very important—for example, establishing mutual-aid communities to provide basic survival guarantees for the poor, the elderly, and those who have lost their ability to work is also an important way to achieve social justice. To realize social justice, some left-wing scholars have also proposed moderate measures, such as restricting capitalists’ investment and consumption to force them to invest funds in improving social conditions and the environment; others propose enhancing the sense of solidarity and the awareness of working together in crisis, increasing assistance to workers, providing free testing and care for the sick, and expanding non-commercial social services. However, more left-wing scholars believe that to achieve social justice, it is necessary to fundamentally reshape a new form of communism. They mainly propose two approaches: first, through the workers’ movement, workers win in parliamentary elections and gain decision-making power by holding leadership—and now is a good opportunity; second, through a thorough workers’ movement: “Only the socialization of the means of production under workers’ control can achieve development that prioritizes the interests of the masses. Only then can the people utilize the immense power of science and technology to realize their own prosperity and progress.” [11]11 Source not specified; representative of a radical left-wing position on worker control. Therefore, most left-wing scholars believe that it is necessary to oppose the injustice of capitalist society through the workers’ movement; only when workers control social production can social justice truly be realized, with social interests as the core and orientation, and can social resources serve development centered on realizing the interests of the masses.

同时，一些西方左翼学者提出，还要提供精神保障，继承启蒙运动以来的传统，弘扬人类的勇气、无私和奉献等集体主义精神，在个体主义价值观之上建立一种具有集体导向的价值观，使人们具有更强烈的社会责任感和人道主义情怀。此外，利用社会化的服务机构为社会正义提供保障也非常重要，比如建立相互扶助的社区，为穷困的人、老年人和丧失劳动能力的人提供基本生存保障也是达成社会正义的重要途径。对于实现社会正义，一些左翼学者还提出了一些温和的手段，比如限制资本家的投资和消费等以使其将资金投入到改善社会条件和环境中，还有的提出增强团结意识和为危机共同努力的意识，及增加对工人援助并为患病群体提供免费测试和护理，扩大无商业价值的社会服务等。但更多左翼学者认为，要实现社会正义必须从根本上重塑新形式的共产主义。他们主要提出了两种方案：一是通过工人运动使工人在议会选举中获胜，通过拥有领导权而具有决策的权力，而此时正是好的时机；二是通过彻底的工人运动来实现，“只有在工人控制下的生产资料社会化，才能实现以群众利益为重的发展。只有这样，人民才能利用科学技术的巨大能力，实现自己的繁荣和进步”。因此，大多数左翼学者认为，必须通过工人运动反对资本主义社会的不正义，只有工人控制社会生产，才能真正实现以社会利益为核心和导向的社会正义，才能使社会资源服务于以实现群众利益为核心的发展。

(III) Closed Nationalism Requires Internationalist Unity to Counter It

（三）封闭的民族主义需要国际主义联合加以应对

The trend of globalization in today’s world, as Marx predicted, is an irreversible historical current, and as Žižek has pointed out, “a deeper paradox is at work: the closer the ties between the world’s nations and peoples, the more a regional disaster triggers global fear, ultimately leading to a great catastrophe.” In the era of globalization, facing world disasters requires even greater unity. Self-enclosure along the lines of the nation-state during the pandemic may exacerbate extreme nationalism. Enclosure is a means of slowing the spread of the virus, and many left-wing scholars agree with the quarantine policies adopted by China, viewing them as effective solutions to the problem. At the same time, however, Western left-wing scholars also emphasize that taking the nation as the basic unit for fighting the pandemic does not mean calling for a new nationalism on a global scale, nor should it be used as an excuse to deepen barriers and isolation between nations. On the contrary, without mutual cooperation based on the principle of internationalism, no nation or individual can ensure its own safety. This requires that, even out of self-interest, people must consider the possibility of joint anti-pandemic efforts in a communal sense. The world needs to rebuild friendship between different peoples and the principle of internationalism, achieving international solidarity as far as possible. The lesson from this confrontation with the global crisis is that if we want to end or escape the possible common crisis, all countries should oppose greed, “free themselves from the chains of ideology, imagine a very different world, and go forward to create it.” In such a world, what is called for is concerted action and unconditional solidarity in the face of common crisis, where information can be shared, plans can be most fully coordinated, and common interests should be taken as the measure of value in special times. Some left-wing scholars even propose constructing “a new form once called communism,” believing this should be the direction of people’s efforts.

当今世界的全球化趋势正如马克思所预言的那样，是一个不可逆转的历史潮流，也正如齐泽克所指出的，“有一个更深层的悖论在起效：世界上各个民族和国家联系越紧密，一个地区性的灾难就越能引发全球恐惧，最终导致一个大灾难”。在全球化时代面对世界灾难更需要联合。疫情期间以民族国家为界限的自我封闭可能加剧极端民族主义。封闭是延缓病毒传播的一种手段，许多左翼学者认同中国所采取的隔离政策，认为这是解决问题的有效性方案。但与此同时西方左翼学者们也强调，以民族为抗击疫情的基本单位并不是在全球范围内呼唤一种新的民族主义，更不应该以此为借口加深民族之间的壁垒和隔离。相反，没有基于国际主义原则的相互合作，任何民族、任何人都不能确保自身安全。这就要求人们即便从自身利益考虑，也需要在共同体意义上考虑联合抗疫的可能性。世界需要重建不同民族间的友情和国际主义原则，尽可能实现国际团结。这次对抗全球危机给我们的启示是，如果想要结束或逃脱可能存在的共同危机，那么各国就应当反对利欲熏心，“从意识形态的锁链中解放出来，可以设想一个非常不同的世界，并且继续前进去创造它”，在这样的世界里，呼唤一种面对共同危机时的协同一致和无条件的团结，信息可以被共享，计划可以获得最充分的协调，共同利益应该被作为特殊时期的价值衡量标准。甚至一些左翼学者提出建构“一种曾经叫做共产主义的新形式”，认为这应是人们努力的方向。

Amid the raging pandemic, Western left-wing scholars actively reflect on issues such as capital versus the safety of people’s lives, the efficiency of government governance, and the relationship between government and capital. They contemplate the defects of the capitalist democratic system, strive to analyze the root causes of why the pandemic cannot be most effectively contained within the framework of the capitalist system, and put forward the ideal of curbing capital, expanding solidarity, and rebuilding social justice. They also provide theoretical guidance and an ideological foundation for the proletariat and left-wing parties worldwide to launch new struggles under the new circumstances. These studies play a positive role in advancing contemporary worldwide struggle and solidarity. At the same time, it should be noted that although most left-wing thinkers have pointed out the roots and dilemmas of the problem and have made positive prospects for future possibilities, they still lack effective practical strategies on how to break free from capitalism, especially how to guide the world to unite against the global rampage of the pandemic under current conditions, how to promote the development of the proletariat and left-wing organizations, and how to actively carry out revolutionary movements during the pandemic. Nevertheless, the fact that Western left-wing scholars constantly summon the specter of Marxism and actively explore and lead the possibility of the communist movement in light of contemporary circumstances still has positive and progressive significance. “Solidarity, justice, and internationalism are early signs of the rise of a new society. Now, the pandemic outbreak points directly to it. More than 150 years ago, Marx and Engels called it the ‘realm of freedom,’ that is, communism. That is its proper name.” The thought of Western left-wing scholars embodies the rhythm of revisiting Marxism — “Workers of the world, unite!” (Notes omitted)

西方左翼学者在疫情肆虐下积极反思资本与民众的生命安全、政府的执政效率、政府与资本的关系等问题，思考资本主义民主制度的缺陷，努力在资本主义制度框架下分析疫情无法得到最有效遏制的根本原因，提出遏制资本、扩大联合、重建社会正义的理想，并为全世界无产阶级和左翼政党在新形势下开展新斗争提供了理论指导和思想基础，这些研究对推进当代世界性的斗争和联合具有积极作用。同时也应该看到，大多数左翼思想家们虽指出了问题的根源和困境，也对未来的可能性做出了积极展望，但对如何跳脱出资本主义，特别是在当下的状况下如何引导世界联合对抗疫情的全球肆虐、如何推动无产阶级和左翼组织的发展、在疫情之下积极开展革命运动等，仍缺少有效的现实策略。尽管如此，西方左翼学者不断呼唤马克思主义的幽灵，并不断结合当代情势积极探索和引领共产主义运动的可能性，仍具有积极和进步意义。“团结，正义和国际主义是新社会崛起的早期迹象。现在，疫情大爆发直接指向它。150多年前，马克思和恩格斯把它称为‘自由王国’，即共产主义。这是它应有的名称。”西方左翼学者的思想体现了重温马克思主义的律动——“全世界无产阶级联合起来”。（注释略）

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑