The Latest Progress and Implications of Foreign Political Economy Research

This article aims to systematically review the progress of foreign political economy research in 2019, summarize the characteristics and causes of research in 2019, and analyze its referential significance. It should be noted that, in order to faithfully reflect the state of foreign research, this article does not adopt the approach of first determining the article framework and then searching for the required literature, but instead classifies and screens papers published in 2019 in nearly twenty foreign journals. These journals include *Review of Radical Political Economics*, *Monthly Review*, *Science & Society*, *Critical Sociology*, *Critique*, *Cambridge Journal of Economics*, *New Left Review*, *New Political Economy*, *Rethinking Marxism*, *International Critical Thought*, *Radical Philosophy*, *Competition & Change*, *Japanese Political Economy*, *Journal of International Political Economy*, *Socialism and Democracy*, *Economy and Society*, and *Socio-Economic Review*. Although this approach may omit many articles, its advantage is that it can objectively reflect the state of foreign research and avoid subjectively delineating the scope of foreign research.

本文旨在系统梳理2019年国外政治经济学研究进展，总结2019年的研究特点与原因，分析其借鉴意义。需要说明的是，为了真实反映国外研究状况，本文并未采取先确定文章框架再检索所需文献的做法，而是对近二十本国外相关杂志2019年全年发表的论文进行了分类和筛选。这些杂志包括《激进政治经济学评论》《每月评论》《科学与社会》《批判社会学》《批判》《剑桥经济学杂志》《新左派评论》《新政治经济学》《重思马克思主义》《国际批判思想》《激进哲学》《竞争与变革》《日本政治经济学》《国际政治经济学杂志》《社会主义与民主》《经济与社会》《社会经济评论》。虽然这样处理可能会遗漏许多文章，但优点是能够客观反映国外研究状况，避免主观划定国外研究范围。

I. General Research

一、总论研究

1. The Contemporary Value of Marxist Political Economy

1.马克思主义政治经济学的时代价值

Samir Amin argues that without Marx, we cannot deeply understand the contemporary world. Marx's most important work, *Capital*, provides a scientific analysis of capitalist society and how it fundamentally differs from earlier social formations. Marx pointed out that capitalism has always been global and inevitably conquers the entire world. This insight inspired Amin to develop his theory of uneven development. The inherent contradictions of the capitalist mode of production make systemic economic crises inevitable. Faced with crisis, social change can move either toward revolution or toward decay. Amin believes that Marx never regarded capitalism merely as a new mode of production, but examined all dimensions of contemporary capitalist society, holding that the law of value regulates not only capital accumulation but also all aspects of modern civilization. This unique perspective enabled Marx to scientifically analyze for the first time the relationship between social relations and anthropology. From this angle, Marx had already incorporated "ecology" into his analysis, something only rediscovered a century later. Marx also makes us realize that communism is not a new and more advanced mode of production, but a higher stage of human civilization, though the road to socialism remains long.

萨米尔·阿明(Samir Amin)认为，如果离开了马克思，我们就不可能深刻理解当代世界。马克思最主要的著作《资本论》，提供了对资本主义社会及其如何根本不同于早期社会形态的科学分析。马克思指出，资本主义一直都是全球性的，必然会征服整个世界。这个观点启发阿明提出了不平衡发展理论。资本主义生产方式的内在矛盾使其必然会爆发系统性经济危机。面对危机，社会变革既有可能走向革命，也有可能选择衰败。阿明认为，马克思从未仅仅将资本主义视为一种新的生产方式，而是考察了当代资本主义社会的所有维度，认为价值规律不仅调节着资本积累，而且支配着现代文明的一切方面。这种独特的视角使马克思第一次科学分析了社会关系与人类学之间的关系。从这个角度看，马克思已经将“生态”纳入到了自己的分析之中，这在一个世纪后才被人们重新发现。马克思还使我们认识到，共产主义不是一种新的和更先进的生产方式，而是人类文明的更高阶段，但通往社会主义的道路仍然是漫长的。

In recent years, mainstream media such as *The New York Times* and *The Financial Times* have published articles commemorating the 200th anniversary of Marx's birth, declaring that "Marx was right" and "Marx is more important than ever." Savvas Matsas argues that the reason bourgeois mainstream media, which have always regarded Marx as an enemy, now praise him so highly is that the 2007–2008 global financial crisis proved Marx's prediction that capitalism has an inherent tendency toward self-destruction. Marx's opponents acknowledge his foresight, but the main reason is the historic failure of bourgeois economics, not a genuine understanding of Marx or of the inherent contradictions and limits of the capitalist mode of production he revealed. The global capitalist crisis has not ended a decade later, and still threatens the world with new, more destructive economic, political, and geopolitical explosions. Bourgeois economics can explain neither the past nor the present. In this context, liberal economists who have sensed the danger are forced to acknowledge Marx's profound analysis of capitalism, recognizing that Marx's diagnosis of capitalism has been empirically confirmed.

近年来，《纽约时报》《金融时报》等主流媒体纷纷发表文章纪念马克思诞辰200周年，并宣称“马克思是对的”“马克思比以往任何时候都重要”。萨瓦斯·马察斯(Savvas Matsas)认为，一直将马克思视为敌人的资产阶级主流媒体之所以对其大加赞扬，是因为2007～2008年全球金融危机证明了马克思的预测，即资本主义具有自我毁灭的内在趋势。马克思的反对者承认了他的先见之明，但主要原因是资产阶级经济学的历史性失败，而非真正理解了马克思及其揭示的资本主义生产方式的内在矛盾与限制。全球资本主义危机在十年之后仍未结束，而且仍然以新的更有破坏力的经济、政治和地缘政治爆炸威胁着世界。资产阶级经济学不但无法解释过去，而且不能理解当前。在此背景下，已经觉察到危险的自由主义经济学家也不得不承认马克思对资本主义的深刻分析，他们认识到马克思对资本主义的诊断已经得到了经验证明。

Drawing on recently published works by Marx, Ben Fine re-examines the contemporary value of Marx's theory of rent. Fine argues that Marx's theory of rent remains highly relevant for several reasons. First, in terms of method, concept, and theory, Marx's theory of rent is an indispensable part of his overall political economy. Specifically, Marx's approach to examining rent through the organic composition of capital is consistent with his theory of the labor process, his theory of relative surplus value, his theory of the transformation of values into prices of production, and his theory of the average rate of profit. Second, Marx's theory of rent is not a general theory of rent applicable to all situations. Third, the economic, social, and reproductive restructuring under neoliberalism is directly or indirectly supported by financialization, in which land ownership plays a significant role. Fine argues that Marx's theory of land ownership is not merely a technical explanation of the magnitude of rent, based on arbitrary assumptions and thus of limited applicability. On the contrary, grounded in the theory of value, it can help us understand how contemporary forms of accumulation attach themselves to land, the financialization of commodities and services, and how they underpin economic, social, and material reproduction, which affects everything from the environment to our daily lives.

在最近出版的马克思的著作基础上，本·法因(Ben Fine)重新考察了马克思地租理论的时代价值。法因认为，由于以下几个原因，马克思的地租理论仍然具有重要的时代价值。第一，从方法、概念和理论来看，马克思的地租理论是其政治经济学整体必不可少的一部分。具体说来，马克思通过资本有机构成考察地租问题的做法，与他的劳动过程理论、相对剩余价值理论、价值转变为生产价格的理论和平均利润率理论等保持了一致。第二，马克思的地租理论不是一个适用于一切情形的、关于地租的一般理论。第三，新自由主义下的经济、社会再生产与重构都直接或间接地由金融化所支撑，而土地所有权在其中发挥了重要作用。法因认为，马克思的土地所有权理论不只是一个关于地租数量的技术说明，建立在任意的假设基础上，从而具有有限的适用性。相反，在价值理论的基础上，它可以帮助我们理解当代的积累形式如何附着于土地、商品和服务的金融化，并且支撑了经济、社会和物质再生产，后者影响了从环境到我们日常生活的所有方面。

2. Research Methods in Marxist Political Economy

2.马克思主义政治经济学的研究方法

Through a textual analysis of the *Grundrisse* (hereafter *Grundrisse*), Paul Stasi re-examines the relationship between Marx and Hegel. Stasi points out that capital for Marx is equivalent to the world spirit for Hegel. The way Marx turns Hegel upside down is by showing how the unfolding of the logic of capital creates a series of determinations of the real world and forms various spheres of human activity. Stasi traces several threads of thought in the *Grundrisse* by examining Marx's method. Stasi argues that Marx's understanding of the concept of surplus undergoes a dialectical transformation—from surplus value to surplus labor to leisure time that permits the critique of capital—showing how the unfolding of capital's immanent laws creates both the conditions for real-world impoverishment and the potential for emancipation. Stasi notes that the *Grundrisse* is a notebook for some core concepts of *Capital*, mainly the concepts of abstract labor and socially necessary labor time, which are not fully elaborated in the *Grundrisse*. At the same time, it is clear that the *Grundrisse* is full of many profound insights and is generally consistent with Marx's mature works. The *Grundrisse* is deeply influenced by Hegel, whereas many of Marx's mature works tend to erase this trace.

保罗·斯塔西(Paul Stasi)通过对《政治经济学批判大纲》(以下简称《大纲》)的文本分析，重新考察了马克思与黑格尔的关系。斯塔西指出，资本对于马克思的意义，相当于世界精神对于黑格尔的意义。马克思将黑格尔颠倒过来的方式是指出资本逻辑的展开如何创造出了一系列真实世界的规定性，并形成了人类活动的各个领域。斯塔西通过考察马克思的研究方法，追踪了《大纲》中的一些思维线索。斯塔西认为，马克思对剩余概念的理解经历了辩证转换——从剩余价值到剩余劳动再到允许从事资本批判的休闲时间，表明资本内在规律的展开如何既产生了真实世界贫困化的条件，也创造了解放的潜能。斯塔西指出，《大纲》是《资本论》的一些核心概念的笔记，主要是抽象劳动和社会必要劳动时间的概念，这些概念在《大纲》中并未得到充分阐述。同时，很明显，《大纲》充满了许多深刻的见解，总体上与马克思的成熟作品保持一致。《大纲》深受黑格尔的影响，而马克思的许多成熟著作倾向于抹除它的痕迹。

Richard Westra argues that critical realism, founded by Roy Bhaskar, can greatly inspire Marxist research. However, the core principles of Bhaskar's theory have not been fully absorbed by Marxist scholars who focus on critical realism. If these principles are properly understood, we find it necessary to reconstruct Marx's texts on a basis different from traditional forms. Westra argues that three main scientific principles proposed by Bhaskar have important referential significance for Marxism: restoring ontology in theory construction, treating social science as capital-S science, and specifying retroduction as a strategy for scientific discovery. Westra examines these three principles in relation to three long-standing and interrelated problems in Marxist research. The first problem is the intelligibility of economic theory, the second is the basic principles of the dialectical structure of *Capital*, and the third is the social scientific implications of the cognitive sequence in Marxism. Westra argues that the Uno School in Japanese Marxist research reconstructs Marxism in a way that meets Bhaskar's basic scientific criteria, thereby enhancing the scientificity of Marx's works.

理查德·韦斯特拉(Richard Westra)认为，罗伊·巴斯卡(Roy Bhaskar)所创立的批判实在论能够极大启发马克思主义研究。然而，巴斯卡理论的核心原则并未被关注批判实在论的马克思主义学者所充分吸收。如果能够恰当地理解这些原则，我们就会发现有必要在不同于传统形式的基础上重建马克思的文本。韦斯特拉认为，巴斯卡提出的三个主要的科学原则对马克思主义具有重要借鉴意义——在理论构建中恢复本体论，社会科学是真正科学(capital-S science)，以及详细说明了作为科学发现策略的逆推法。韦斯特拉就马克思主义研究中三个长期存在和相互关联的问题，考察了这三个原则。第一个问题是经济理论的可理解性，第二个问题是《资本论》辩证结构的基本原理，第三个问题是马克思主义中的认知序列(cognitive sequence)的社会科学含义。韦斯特拉认为，日本马克思主义研究中的宇野学派对马克思主义的重建符合巴斯卡基本的科学评判标准，因此增强了马克思著作的科学性。

Over the past thirty-plus years, with the revival of critical theory, academic views on Nietzsche have changed, particularly as some leftist scholars have begun to adopt an appreciative stance toward him. Against this backdrop, the journal *Critical Sociology* published a set of papers discussing the relationship between Nietzsche’s views and Marxism, as well as the possibility of combining the two. Stanley Aronowitz argues that the renewed interest in Nietzsche stems from the fact that critical theory in the 1960s rarely held an optimistic outlook, but starting in the 1970s scholars sought to restore hope, and Nietzsche’s optimism can provide hope for some Marxists and other critical theorists. For example, Bloch was one of the earliest critical theorists to engage with Nietzsche, expounding a philosophy of hope in his *The Principle of Hope*. Ishay Landa contends that Marx and Nietzsche share many commonalities in their understanding of modernity; Nietzsche was not primarily concerned with moral and cultural issues, nor was Marx solely focused on the economic base. Nietzsche’s entire concept of culture is based on the keen recognition that the economic base plays an indispensable role in supporting all culture. Conversely, Marx was deeply concerned with the fate of civilization. In this respect, the views of Marx and Nietzsche are consistent. Their disagreement lies in differing social perspectives—Marx foresaw the disappearance of class antagonisms in future society, while Nietzsche resolutely opposed this outcome. Landa argues that only by combining Marx’s concept of the “social individual” with Nietzsche’s description of the “last man” can their meanings be accurately understood. Gary Yeritsian interprets Nietzsche’s thought from the perspective of a critique of capitalist art and links it to leftist movements influenced by Nietzsche. Yeritsian questions the approach of orthodox Marxists such as Lukács and Mehring, who regarded Nietzsche as a reactionary apologist for imperialism and capitalism. Yeritsian points out that Nietzsche’s political philosophy is undoubtedly elitist and anti-democratic, but Nietzsche’s opposition to industrial discipline and standardization, along with his support for the struggle against universal alienation, ties him closely to the liberatory impulse of the critique of art.

过去三十多年，随着批判理论的复兴，学界对于尼采的看法发生了变化，特别是一些左派学者开始对尼采持赞赏态度。在此背景下，《批判社会学》杂志发表了一组论文，讨论尼采的观点与马克思主义的关系，以及将二者结合起来的可能性。斯坦利·阿罗诺维茨(Stanley Aronowitz)认为，尼采之所以重新引起了人们的兴趣，在于20世纪60年代的批判理论很少持乐观态度，但从20世纪70年代开始学者们想要重新恢复希望，而尼采的乐观主义能为一些马克思主义者和其他批判理论家提供希望。例如，布洛赫就是最早开始关注尼采的批判理论家之一，在其《希望原理》中阐述了希望哲学。伊沙·兰达(Ishay Landa)认为，马克思和尼采在对现代性问题的认识上有许多共同之处，尼采并非主要关注道德和文化问题，马克思也并非仅仅集中于经济基础。尼采的整个文化概念基于以下敏锐的认识——经济基础在支撑一切文化方面发挥了不可或缺的作用。相反，马克思则深切关注文明的命运。在这个方面，马克思和尼采的观点存在一致。他们的不一致之处在于社会视角不同——马克思预见了阶级对立在未来社会的消失，尼采则坚决反对这种结果。兰达认为，只有将马克思的“社会个体”概念和尼采对于“最后的人”的描述结合起来，才能准确理解它们的含义。加里·耶里森(Gary Yeritsian)从资本主义艺术批判的视角解读了尼采的思想，并将其与受尼采影响的左翼运动联系起来。耶里森质疑了卢卡奇、梅林等正统马克思主义者将尼采视为帝国主义和资本主义的反动辩护者的做法。耶里森指出，尼采的政治哲学无疑是精英主义和反民主的，但尼采对工业纪律、标准化的反对和对反抗普遍异化斗争的支持，使其与艺术批判的解放冲动紧密联系在一起。

II. Classical Theoretical Research in Political Economy

二、政治经济学经典理论研究

1. Research on Value Theory and Exploitation Theory

1.价值理论与剥削理论研究

From the mid-1960s to the end of the 20th century, the number of people in the United States incarcerated in prisons and detention centers or under compulsory parole or probation grew from fewer than 800,000 to over 7 million. Mark Jay argues that this mass incarceration was from the outset designed to control, stigmatize, and exploit the poorest segment of the working class. To this day, the U.S. criminal justice system still targets the poorest people, with private forces attempting to steer prison reform movements and profit from mass incarceration. Specifically, corporations profit in three main ways. First, private contractors who obtain government contracts reduce operating costs to the extreme. Second, they profit by charging usage fees, which are often a condition for prisoners to leave prison. The third method of profiting is more direct but also very important—mass incarceration forces the poor to accept low wages, low-status, and flexible work. Mass incarceration shows that increasing institutional pressure leaves the poor and the working class with the following choice: either accept exploitation by capital, accept deteriorating and low-income work, pay high usage fees, and submit to constant surveillance, or be locked up in prison.

自20世纪60年代中期到20世纪末期，美国被囚禁于监狱和拘留所并强制假释或缓刑的人从不到80万增加到超过700万。马克·杰伊(Mark Jay)认为，这种大规模监禁(mass incarceration)从一开始就是为了控制、污蔑和剥削工人阶级中最穷的那部分人。直到今天，美国的刑事司法体系仍然以最贫穷的那部分人为目标，私人力量试图左右监狱改革运动，并通过大规模监禁获利。具体说来，企业主要通过三种方式从中获利。第一，获得政府合同的私人承包商将运营成本削减到极致。第二，通过收取使用费获利，这些费用通常是犯人离开监狱的条件之一。第三种获利方式更加直接，但也非常重要——大规模监禁迫使穷人接受低工资、地位低下和灵活的工作。大规模监禁表明，不断增加的制度压力使穷人和工人阶级面临以下选择——或者接受资本的剥削，接受不断恶化和低收入的工作、支付高昂的使用费、接受随时随地的监视，或者被关进监狱之中。

Exploitation usually refers to the exploitation of one person by another, that is, one individual exploits another through a specific transaction. Gabriel Wollner attempts to move beyond this individualistic transactional paradigm and discusses the issue of anonymous exploitation. Wollner argues that a convincing concept of exploitation must satisfy five conditions: it must accurately describe and successfully distinguish between exploitative and non-exploitative transactions; it must reasonably articulate the injustice of exploitation; it must reasonably distinguish between exploiters and the exploited; it must be possible to use this concept of exploitation to identify the sources of and solutions to exploitation; and it must at least provide a basic explanation for some real social phenomena. However, in some situations, we cannot identify the exploiter and the exploited. Specifically, Wollner identifies three types of anonymous exploitation: first, anonymous exploitation can be non-individual exploitation, where the exploiter, the exploited, or both are collective actors; second, anonymous exploitation can be non-subjective exploitation, where the exploiter, the exploited, or both are non-subjective collectives; third, anonymous exploitation can also be structural exploitation, generated by exploitative structures. Wollner argues that non-individual, non-subjective, and structural exploitation are real, independent, and not mysterious phenomena; if their importance is ignored, it means turning a blind eye to important instances of exploitation.

剥削通常指的是人对人的剥削，即某个个体通过特定的交易剥削另一个个体。加布里埃尔·沃尔纳(Gabriel Wollner)试图摆脱这种个体主义的交易范式，讨论了匿名剥削(anonymous exploitation)的问题。沃尔纳认为，一个令人信服的剥削概念需要满足五个条件，即能够准确描述和成功区分剥削性和非剥削性交易，能够合理阐述剥削的不公正性，能够合理区分剥削者和被剥削者，能够使用这个剥削概念识别剥削的来源和解决方法，以及至少能为一些真实的社会现象提供基本的解释。然而，在一些情形中，我们无法确定剥削者和被剥削者。具体说来，沃尔纳认为存在三种匿名剥削：第一，匿名剥削可以是非个体的剥削，剥削者、被剥削者或两者是群体行为人；第二，匿名剥削可以是非主体的剥削，剥削者、被剥削者或两者是非主体的群体；第三，匿名剥削也可以是结构性剥削，由剥削性的结构所产生。沃尔纳认为，非个体、非主体和结构性剥削是真实、独立和并不神秘的现象，如果忽视了其重要性，就是对剥削的重要情形视而不见。

Tamar Diana Wilson attempts to incorporate the homeless into Marx and Engels’ class theory and concept of the superstructure. Wilson argues that capitalism not only makes the proletariat a commodity, but also commodifies those who are homeless, unstably employed, and unemployed. However, they are typically not commodities within the production chain, but rather commodities of the capitalist system as a whole. In capitalist society, the homeless are an oppressed and exploited class. The homeless are sometimes exploited as part of the bottom layer of the surplus population identified by Marx, but in most cases, they are commodified and exploited through ideological, political, and legal means. They are controlled by what Althusser called the repressive state apparatus and the ideological state apparatuses. The homeless do not compete with the working class but are forced to accept low wages and unstable work. They are bound by the imperialism of medicine, psychiatry, and social work, as different ideological state apparatuses claim that homelessness is a problem of individual behavior, completely ignoring that capitalism is the root cause of their condition.

塔玛·戴安娜·威尔逊(Tamar Diana Wilson)试图将无家可归者(homeless)纳入马克思和恩格斯的阶级理论和上层建筑概念。威尔逊认为，资本主义不仅使无产阶级成为商品，商品化的对象还包括那些无家可归者、不稳定就业者和失业者。然而，他们通常并不是生产链条中的商品，而是资本主义制度整体的商品。在资本主义社会，无家可归者是受压迫和剥削的阶级。无家可归者有时作为马克思所识别的剩余人口中底层的部分而受到剥削，但大多数情况下，通过意识形态、政治和法律的手段，他们被商品化而受到剥削。他们受到阿尔都塞所说的强制性国家机器与意识形态国家机器的控制。无家可归者并不与工人阶级竞争，只得接受低工资和不稳定的工作。他们受到医学、精神病学和社会工作帝国主义的束缚，因为不同的意识形态国家机器宣称无家可归是个体行为方面的问题，而完全不顾资本主义才是产生他们的根源。

Andrea Ricci, building on Marx’s labor theory of value and the theory of rent in Volume III of *Capital*, constructs a theoretical model for analyzing unequal exchange. Ricci argues that value transfer arises from the contradictory character of socially necessary labor, which allows for a possible discrepancy between two methods of measuring value—value in production and value in circulation. Under conditions of structural imbalance between supply and demand, strictly speaking, unequal exchange manifests in the form of differential rent—due to differences in the level of industrial specialization—and in the form of absolute rent—due to differences in capital and labor income. The former depends on the difference between market prices of production and market values, leading to inter-industry value transfers. The latter depends on the difference between market prices and market prices of production, leading to intra-industry value transfers. In addition, there are inter-industry value transfers caused by differences in the organic composition of capital, as well as broader unequal exchange arising from differences between international prices of production and market values. Ricci measures international value transfers from 1995 to 2007 and finds that both the absolute and relative magnitudes of international value transfers increased, with the direction flowing from developing countries and emerging economies to the core regions of the capitalist world, indicating that unequal exchange continues to play a significant role in the contemporary capitalist global economy.

安德里亚·里奇(Andrea Ricci)在马克思的劳动价值论和《资本论》第三卷地租理论的基础上，构造了一个分析不平等交换的理论模型。里奇认为，价值转移产生于社会必要劳动的矛盾特征，它使两种价值测量方法之间可能存在差异——生产中的价值与流通中的价值。在供给与需求结构性失衡的条件下，严格说来，不平等交换表现为级差租金的形式——由于产业专业化水平存在差异，以及绝对租金的形式——由于资本和劳动收入存在差异。前者取决于市场生产价格与市场价值之间的差异，导致了产业间的价值转移。后者则取决于市场价格与市场生产价格之间的差异，导致了产业内的价值转移。此外，还存在资本有机构成差异所导致的产业间价值转移，以及由国际生产价格与市场价值之间的差异产生的更广义的不平等交换。里奇测算了1995~2007年间的国际价值转移，发现国际价值转移的绝对量和相对量都增加了，方向从发展中国家和新兴经济体流向资本主义世界的核心地区，这表明不平等交换在当代资本主义全球经济中持续发挥了重要作用。

2. Research on the Theory of Capital Accumulation

2.资本积累理论研究

Over the past four decades, the capital accumulation process of the world capitalist system has undergone a major shift, from emphasizing the stimulation of production expansion to emphasizing the redistribution of surplus value. This shift has led Marxist scholars to re-examine the concept of "primitive accumulation." Daniel Bin argues that expropriation processes similar to primitive accumulation still exist today, and that capitalism cannot continue to exist without obtaining additional means of production and incorporating more labor into the accumulation process. To understand the relationship between expropriation and capital accumulation, Bin discusses three distinctions: the first is whether expropriation can generate capital accumulation, the second is whether capitalism is viewed as an abstract construct or a historical system, and the third is whether the analysis remains at the global level or the local level. At the level of actually existing world capitalism, expansionary expropriation has enabled capitalism to achieve the complete proletarianization of direct producers and the complete capitalization of means of subsistence and means of production. Bin points out that capitalism's shift from the creation of surplus value to the redistribution of surplus value indicates that it has encountered its own limits, and the expropriation of means of subsistence and means of production in late capitalism shows that this system is exhausted.

过去四十年中，世界资本主义体系的资本积累过程发生了重大转变，从强调刺激生产扩张转变为强调剩余价值的再分配。这种转变使马克思主义学者重新考察了“原始积累”的概念。丹尼尔·宾(Daniel Bin)认为，类似于原始积累的剥夺过程在今天仍然存在，如果不能获得额外的生产资料和将更多劳动力纳入积累过程，资本主义就无法继续存在。为了理解剥夺和资本积累的关系，宾讨论了三个区别：第一个区别是剥夺能否产生资本积累，第二个区别是将资本主义视为一种抽象建构还是历史体系，第三个区别是分析停留在世界层面还是局部层面。在现实存在的世界资本主义层面，扩张性剥夺使资本主义实现了直接生产者的完全无产阶级化，并使生活资料与生产资料实现了完全的资本化。宾指出，资本主义从剩余价值的创造转向剩余价值的再分配表明它遇到了自身的限度，晚期资本主义对生活资料和生产资料的剥夺表明这个制度气数已尽。

David M. Kotz and Deepankar Basu, starting from the Social Structure of Accumulation (SSA) theory, provide an explanation for the current stagnation of U.S. economic growth, arguing that the reason for the stagnation is that the neoliberal SSA not only fails to continue promoting normal accumulation but instead hinders capital accumulation. Kotz and Basu explain how the neoliberal SSA shifted from promoting capital accumulation to hindering it and causing economic stagnation. Specifically, the neoliberal SSA promoted long-term stable accumulation and economic expansion through the following three aspects: first, income inequality between capital and labor and among different households; second, the financial sector increasingly engaging in speculative and high-risk activities; and third, huge asset bubbles. However, the three trends generated by these three growth mechanisms made them unsustainable in the long run—rising household debt ratios, rising financial sector debt ratios, and the spread of toxic financial assets throughout the financial system. Kotz and Basu argue that after the financial collapse, it is no longer possible to promote accumulation through another bubble, and the neoliberal SSA can no longer promote long-term capital accumulation and economic expansion. Only by establishing a new regulatory SSA, in which the government plays an active role, can normal capital accumulation and economic expansion be restored. In another article, Kotz analyzes the new U.S. expansion that began in the summer of 2009 from the perspective of changes in the profit rate, its determinants, and the role of aggregate demand, in order to reveal which factors suppressed the tendency toward crisis. The study finds that after the 2009 crash, the profit rate of the U.S. non-financial corporate sector recovered in 2012–2013, mainly due to an increase in the output-capital ratio; the profit rate fell again in 2013–2016, mainly due to a decline in the profit share; and the profit rate recovered slightly in 2017, as a small increase in the output-capital ratio outweighed a slight decline in the profit share. An analysis of the main components of aggregate demand shows that a substantial increase in consumer spending played a major role in prolonging the current expansion, but this increase was not supported by asset bubbles, but rather by rapid growth in disposable income. Kotz points out that neoliberal capitalism has fallen into a structural crisis, yet there is currently no sign that a viable new institutional structure for U.S. capitalism will emerge.

大卫·科茨和迪彭卡·巴苏(David M. Kotz & Deepankar Basu)从积累的社会结构(SSA)理论出发为当前美国经济增长的停滞提供了解释，认为美国经济增长陷入停滞的原因是新自由主义SSA非但不能继续促进正常的积累，反而阻碍了资本积累。科茨和巴苏解释了新自由主义SSA如何从促进资本积累转变为阻碍资本积累并导致了经济停滞。具体说来，新自由主义SSA通过以下三个方面促进了长期的稳定积累和经济扩张：第一，资本与劳动之间以及不同家庭之间的收入不平等；第二，金融部门日益从事投机性和高风险活动；第三，巨大的资产泡沫。然而，这三个增长机制所产生三个趋势使其在长期中不可持续——家庭负债率不断提高，金融部门负债率也不断高升，以及有毒金融资产在整个金融体系扩散。科茨和巴苏认为，金融崩溃后已不可能通过另一场泡沫来促进积累，新自由主义SSA已无法促进长期的资本积累和经济扩张，只有建立新的调节的SSA，使政府发挥积极作用，才能恢复正常的资本积累和经济扩张。在另一篇文章中，科茨从利润率变化、其决定因素和总需求的作用的角度分析了美国自2009年夏天开始的新一轮扩张，以揭示是哪些因素抑制了危机倾向。研究发现，经历了2009年的暴跌后，美国非金融企业部门的利润率在2012～2013年得以恢复，产出-资本比的提高是主要原因；利润率在2013～2016年再次下降，主要原因是利润份额的下降；利润率在2017年又轻微复苏，原因是产出-资本比的小幅上升超过了利润份额的轻微下降。对总需求主要组成部分的分析表明，消费支出的大幅增加对于延长本轮扩张时间发挥了主要作用，但消费支出增加并非是由资产泡沫支撑的，而是由于可支配收入的快速增长。科茨指出，新自由资本主义陷入了结构性危机之中，然而目前并没有迹象表明美国资本主义会出现一个新的可行的制度结构。

Lefteris Tsoulfidis and Dimitris Paitaridis argue that the U.S. Great Recession of 2007 was a typical crisis of a falling profit rate, because the increase in the value composition of capital completely exceeded the growth rate of surplus value. They analyze the relationship among the value composition of capital, the material composition of capital, and the rate of surplus value within a growth accounting framework. The study finds that the average annual growth rates of the value composition of capital, the rate of surplus value, and the material composition of capital from 1964 to 2016 were 1.5%, 1.02%, and 0.99%, respectively, leading to a decline in the profit rate; the evolution of the U.S. profit rate and the total real profit since the 1980s indicates that 2007 was the critical point where profits stagnated and began to decline, and the U.S. and world economies entered a new phase after 2007, strikingly similar to the late 1960s. In short, the decline in the net profit rate was the cause of the Great Recession of 2007, and this decline was mainly caused by the increase in the value composition of capital, which reflects changes in the technical composition of capital. At the same time, the increase in non-productive activities and related non-productive expenditures further exacerbated the decline in the profit rate.

莱夫特里斯·特苏菲迪斯和迪米特里斯·帕塔里迪斯(Lefteris Tsoulfidis & Dimitris Paitaridis)认为，美国2007年大萧条是典型的利润率下降危机，由于资本价值构成的提高完全超过了剩余价值的增长速度。他们在一个增长核算框架内分析了资本价值构成、资本物质构成和剩余价值率之间的关系。研究发现，1964～2016年资本价值构成、剩余价值率和资本物质构成的年均增长率分别为1.5%、1.02%和0.99%，从而导致了利润率的下降；美国20世纪80年代以来的利润率演进和实际利润总量表明，2007年为利润停滞并开始下降的临界点，美国和世界经济在2007年后进入了新的阶段，与20世纪60年代末期惊人地相似。简而言之，净利润率的下降是2007年大萧条爆发的原因，而净利润率下降主要是由资本价值构成提高造成的，后者反映了资本技术构成的变化。同时，非生产性活动与相关的非生产性支出的增加进一步加剧了利润率的下降。

3. Research on the Theory of Social Reproduction

3.社会再生产理论研究

Silvia Federici discusses the history of social reproduction theory and the challenges it currently faces. Federici first criticizes the view that links the analysis of social reproduction with radical positions, arguing that discussing social reproduction issues does not necessarily imply adopting a Marxist or radical stance; the theorists and activists who advocated for "wages for housework" in the 1970s made the discussion of social reproduction "revolutionary" because they discovered a field where extensive exploitation exists. Federici points out that feminists currently face a formidable task, requiring an in-depth analysis of the severe crisis of social reproduction facing the entire world. We do not need to prove that reproductive work is not "productive"; many scholars have already offered profound critiques of this view. To deny the productivity of women's unpaid labor is to assume that a large portion of the population is unrelated to capital accumulation, thereby making it impossible to declare that the wealth produced by capitalism is also the fruit of their labor. Federici notes that many feminists in the 1970s and today reject the wages for housework movement, but apart from proposing moderate demands such as government-provided childcare and men sharing housework, they offer no alternative.

西尔维亚·费德里西(Silvia Federici)讨论了社会再生产理论的历史和当前面临的挑战。费德里西首先批评了将社会再生产分析与激进立场联系起来的观点，认为讨论社会再生产问题并不意味着采取马克思主义或激进立场；20世纪70年代倡导“家务劳动工资”的理论家和活动家使得对社会再生产的讨论变得“革命性”，其原因在于他们发现了一个存在大量剥削的领域。费德里西指出，女性主义者当前面临艰巨的任务，需要深入剖析当前全世界所面临的严重社会再生产危机。我们不需要证明再生产工作是非“生产性”的，已经有许多学者对这个观点进行了深刻的批评。如果否定妇女无酬劳动的生产性，就是假定大量的人口与资本积累无关，从而就无法宣布资本主义所生产的财富也是她们的劳动成果。费德里西指出，20世纪70年代和今天的许多女性主义者都否定家务劳动工资运动，但除了提出由政府提供儿童保育和男性承担家务的温和要求之外，他们没有提供任何替代性选择。

Alessandra Mezzadri argues that only by treating social reproductive activities and spheres as value-creating can we deepen our understanding of contemporary capitalist labor relations, and at the same time, we need to incorporate informal and informalised labor into the discussion of the relationship between social reproduction and value creation. Mezzadri argues that social reproductive activities and spheres promote value-producing activities through three channels. First, by directly strengthening control over labor to increase the rate of exploitation, such as through the "dormitory labor regime," social reproduction becomes highly individualized and incorporated into the value creation process. Second, by absorbing the reproduction costs externalized by capital, it effectively forms a subsidy to capital. Third, through the fragmentation and decomposition of the labor process on a world scale, it expands the process of formal subsumption of labor, enabling social reproductive activities and spheres to directly create value. The large army of home-based workers undertakes a large number of processing tasks, indicating that the formal subsumption of labor still plays a role in the value production process. This makes production and social reproduction increasingly difficult to distinguish, as they coincide in time and are both subject to the law of value. Mezzadri points out that incorporating the sphere of social reproduction into value-creating activities can, theoretically, form a complete understanding of the capitalist mode of production, and politically, it provides a broad basis for organizing all labor struggles.

亚历山德拉·梅扎德里(Alessandra Mezzadri)认为，只有将社会再生产活动和领域看作是创造价值的，才能够加深我们对当代资本主义劳动关系的理解，同时我们需要将非正式和非正式化的劳动(informal and informalised labour)纳入对社会再生产与价值创造关系的讨论之中。梅扎德里认为，社会再生产活动和领域通过三种渠道促进了价值生产活动。第一，通过直接加强对劳动的控制而提高剥削率，如通过“宿舍劳动体制”，社会再生产变得高度个体化和被纳入价值创造过程之中。第二，通过吸收资本所外化的再生产成本，实际上形成了对资本的补贴。第三，通过世界范围内劳动过程的碎片化和分解，扩张劳动的形式隶属过程，使社会再生产活动和领域直接创造价值。家庭工人大军承担了大量加工任务，表明劳动的形式隶属仍然对价值生产过程发挥了作用。这使生产和社会再生产再也难以区分，因为它们在时间上重合且都受制于价值规律。梅扎德里指出，将社会再生产领域纳入价值创造活动，从理论上看可以形成对资本主义生产方式的完整理解，从政治上看为将所有的劳动斗争组织起来提供了广泛的基础。

Kirstin Munro elaborates a model of production and reproduction in capitalist society, arguing that production is carried out by households, capitalist enterprises, and the government, with each sector’s production process requiring necessary inputs from the other sectors. It is precisely the interdependence of households, capitalist enterprises, and the government in these production processes that leads to the overall reproduction of capitalist society. According to this model, the proportions of various inputs required for household production are variable; working-class households can substitute among three types of inputs in their household production process: unpaid labor, commodities purchased with paid labor income, and government inputs. Munro points out that this systemic model of capitalist production demonstrates that households and household production must be linked to the production and reproduction of capitalist society, and that it is impossible to separate the reproduction of labor power from the overall reproduction of capitalist society. At the same time, redistribution of wealth and power in favor of the working class cannot change the underlying production processes; it can only alter the proportions of these inputs. Therefore, the working class should aim to fundamentally transform the production and reproduction processes of capitalist society as its goal of struggle, rather than merely redistributing costs and benefits.

希尔斯廷·芒罗(Kirstin Munro)详细阐述了一个资本主义社会的生产和再生产模型，认为生产是由家庭、资本主义企业和政府进行的，每个部门的生产过程都需要从其他部门获得必要的投入品，正是家庭、资本主义企业和政府在这些生产过程中的相互依赖关系导致了资本主义社会整体的再生产。根据这个模型，家庭生产所需的各种投入品的比例是可变的，工人阶级家庭能够在其家庭生产过程中变换无酬劳动、有酬劳动收入购买的商品和政府投入这三种投入品。芒罗指出，这个系统性的资本主义生产模型表明，必须将家庭和家庭生产与资本主义社会的生产和再生产联系起来，不可能将劳动力的再生产从资本主义社会整体的再生产中剥离出来。同时，有利于工人阶级的财富与权力的再分配无法改变潜在的生产过程，其只能改变这些投入品的比例。因此，工人阶级要以根本变革资本主义社会的生产和再生产过程为斗争目标，而非只是重新分配成本与收益。

4. Research on Financial Capital and Imperialist Theory

4.金融资本与帝国主义理论研究

John Bellamy Foster argues that the globalization of production and finance since the mid-1970s has created a more generalized form of monopoly capitalism, and that contemporary imperialism has entered the stage of “late imperialism.” Late imperialism refers to the current phase of monopoly finance capital and stagnation, in which U.S. hegemony is in continuous decline, global conflicts intensify, and the ecological foundations of civilization and life itself are increasingly threatened. Compared with the past, the goals pursued by imperialism today are more aggressive and unrestricted. The United States pursues comprehensive domination in military, technology, finance, and even energy. Neo-fascist tendencies have re-emerged, becoming the last lifeline of monopoly finance capital. Foster argues that late imperialism represents the historical end of the capitalist world order, either heralding global catastrophe or the beginning of a new revolution. Broad human struggle must be based on the continuous revolutionary resistance of the working class and the people of the Global South, with its primary goal being the overthrow of imperialism as the global manifestation of capitalism.

约翰·贝拉米·福斯特(John Bellamy Foster)认为，1970年代中期以来的生产和金融全球化创造出了一种更加普遍的垄断资本主义形式，当代帝国主义已经进入了“晚期帝国主义”(late imperialism)阶段。晚期帝国主义指的是当前的垄断金融资本和停滞阶段，美国霸权在不断衰落，全球冲突加剧，同时文明的生态基础与生活本身日益受到威胁。与以往相比，今天的帝国主义所追求的目标更具攻击性和不受限制。美国追求军事、技术、金融甚至能源的全面支配。新法西斯主义倾向再次出现，成为垄断金融资本最后的救命稻草。福斯特认为，晚期帝国主义代表了资本主义世界秩序的历史终结，它或者预示了全球性的灾难，或者是新的革命的开始。广泛的人类斗争必须基于工人阶级和全球南方国家人们持续的革命反抗的基础上，其首要目标是推翻作为资本主义的全球表现的帝国主义。

Samir Amin argues that contemporary capitalism is universally monopolistic capitalism, with monopolies tightly controlling the global production system, and all enterprises incorporated into a monopoly control network. This universal monopoly dominates the world economy and represents a new stage of imperialism. Amin points out that the current process of capital accumulation is dominated by the pursuit of monopoly rent or imperialist rent maximization; these profits are mainly obtained by the plutocracy controlling the oligopolistic groups, cannot be used for productive investment, and are thus the root of financialization. Correspondingly, the political system of contemporary capitalism has become plutocracy, with the plutocracy becoming the ruling class and the status of the middle class changing. In peripheral capitalist countries, the old ruling class has been replaced by speculators who extract profits through their connection with global capitalism. The fragmentation of production has made the proletariat more widely distributed, thereby weakening its solidarity. Amin points out that the value system of bourgeois civilization is disappearing, replaced by a system without any value standards; this dramatic change heralds the end of bourgeois civilization.

萨米尔·阿明认为，当代资本主义是普遍垄断的资本主义，垄断紧紧控制了全球生产体系，所有企业都被纳入到垄断控制网络之中。这种普遍的垄断支配了世界经济，是帝国主义的新阶段。阿明指出，当前资本积累过程已由追求垄断租金或帝国主义租金最大化的要求所支配，这些利润主要被控制寡头集团的财阀所获得，无法用于生产性投资，从而是金融化的根源。相应地，当代资本主义的政治体制已经变为财阀政治，财阀成为统治阶级，中产阶级的地位发生了改变。在外围资本主义国家，旧的统治阶级已被投机商所取代，他们通过与全球资本主义的联系而攫取利润。生产的分散化使无产阶级的分布更加广泛，从而削弱了其团结性。阿明指出，资产阶级文明的价值体系正在消失，取代它的是一个没有任何价值标准的体系，这种戏剧性的变化预示了资产阶级文明的终结。

In recent years, a new international division of labor linked to global commodity chains or global value chains has emerged, leading many left-wing scholars to question whether imperialism still exists. Intan Suwandi argues that to understand the imperialist character of the world economy, one must delve into the “hidden sites of production” in the Global South and uncover the exploitative relations within them. Suwandi proposes an analytical framework of labor-value commodity chains, attempting to incorporate global exploitation into the framework of the labor theory of value in order to reveal the exploitative relations behind the veil of globalized production. The labor-value commodity chain framework compares differences in unit labor costs across countries, enabling us to see the exploitative relations behind complex global commodity chains. Global capital seeks out regions with low unit labor costs worldwide to maximize profits. Data on unit labor costs in different countries show that countries highly involved in labor-value chains tend to have very low unit labor costs, meaning that these countries not only have low wages but also relatively high labor productivity. Therefore, organizing labor-value commodity chains globally implies extracting surplus value through the exploitation of workers in the Global South. Suwandi argues that labor-value commodity chains have an imperialist character, with transnational monopoly giants fully exploiting differences in unit labor costs within an imperialist system to exploit global workers. In another article, Suwandi et al. argue that while the global commodity chain analytical framework to some extent depicts the complexity of globalized production, it does not touch upon the exploitative essence and capital-labor relations behind it. In reality, global commodity chains dominated by monopoly finance capital represent a new imperialist international division of labor. Suwandi et al. point out that the intensification of global inequality is an inevitable product of the new imperialist exploitative system; only through the analysis of labor-value commodity chains can the essence of globalized monopoly finance capital be truly revealed, the power structure relations behind neoliberal globalization be clarified, the constantly changing class relations and forms of struggle worldwide be grasped, and an effective critical analysis of contemporary global political and economic reality be conducted.

近年来，出现了与全球商品链或全球价值链联系在一起的新国际劳动分工，许多左派学者开始质疑帝国主义是否仍然存在。因坦·苏万迪(Intan Suwandi)认为，要理解世界经济的帝国主义特征，需要深入全球南方国家的“隐蔽的生产场所”，发现其中的剥削关系。苏万迪提出了劳动价值商品链(labor-value commodity chains)的分析框架，试图将全球剥削纳入劳动价值论的框架，以揭示全球化生产面纱背后的剥削关系。劳动价值商品链框架比较了不同国家单位劳动力成本(unit labor costs)的差异，使我们能够看到复杂的全球商品链背后的剥削关系。全球资本在世界范围内寻找单位劳动力成本低的地区，以获得最大利润。不同国家的单位劳动力成本数据表明，高度参与劳动价值链的国家往往具有非常低的单位劳动力成本，意味着这些国家不仅工资低，劳动生产率也较高。因此，在全球组织劳动价值商品链意味着通过剥削南方国家的工人而榨取剩余价值。苏万迪认为，劳动价值商品链具有帝国主义特征，跨国垄断巨头在一个帝国主义体系中充分利用单位劳动力成本的差异实现对全球工人的剥削。在另一篇文章中，苏万迪等认为，虽然全球商品链分析框架在一定程度上刻画了全球化生产的复杂性，但并没有触及其背后的剥削本质和劳资关系。实际上，垄断金融资本主导下的全球商品链是一种新的帝国主义国际分工。苏万迪等指出，全球范围内不平等加剧是新帝国主义剥削体系的必然产物，必须通过劳动价值商品链分析才能真正揭示全球化垄断金融资本的本质，理清新自由主义全球化背后的权力结构关系，把握世界范围内不断变化的阶级关系和斗争形式，以及对当代全球的政治经济现实进行有效的批判性分析。

5. Research on Ecological Marxism

5.生态学马克思主义研究

Foster and others argue that the root of the ecological crisis in the Anthropocene lies in the inherent drive of capitalist accumulation toward unlimited expansion, which disrupts the healthy metabolic relationship between humans and the environment. However, explaining current environmental problems solely from this aspect is insufficient; analysis must proceed from the perspective of the imperialist world system or global capitalism, examining the accumulation structures worldwide and the mutual competition among nation-states. Foster and others, from the angles of imperialist rent, monopoly finance capital, material footprint, plunder of the oceans, energy imperialism, and water imperialism, reveal the catastrophic impact of imperialism on the Earth's ecosystem in the Anthropocene era. Compared with Northern countries, Southern countries are more vulnerable to the negative effects of climate change. Yet the Northern countries' response to climate deterioration is to analyze how the vulnerability of Southern countries creates new global security problems and to consider how to exploit these problems to strengthen imperial hegemony, the most obvious example being the U.S. energy domination strategy. Foster and others point out that without incorporating resistance to imperialism, an ecological revolution cannot be carried out under the current crisis. Therefore, the global ecological movement is a movement that unites all oppressed peoples. Over the past two years, multiple protests against climate change have erupted worldwide. Foster points out that these movements indicate that environmental struggles in developed capitalist countries have shifted from a previous general climate action framework to more radical climate justice and ecosocialist movements. Foster analyzes in detail the origins, propositions, and shortcomings of the Green New Deal, criticizing the mitigation measures advocated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Green New Deal Resolution released in February 2019 proposed promoting a just economic transition, achieving zero greenhouse gas emissions in the United States through a ten-year national mobilization. Foster argues that the contradiction of this radical version of the Green New Deal lies in its continued emphasis on economic growth and capital accumulation, its basic neglect of directly conserving resources and reducing total consumption, and its tendency toward green Keynesianism under the dominance of monopoly finance capital. The IPCC's proposed climate change mitigation strategies are dominated by capital accumulation relations and neoclassical economics; the mitigation models it proposes hold that only so-called market efficiency and non-existent technological solutions are the only way out. In another article, Foster and others argue that Marx's concept of "expropriation" is extremely important for understanding historical capitalism, and that late capitalism and late imperialism increasingly use equal exchange to conceal their plunder system, with the bloody plunder of land, labor, and the human body on a global scale still forming the boundary conditions of capitalism today. Foster and others point out that a historical materialist method combining exploitation and expropriation can provide us with a broader perspective for understanding various contradictions and conflicts within capitalism. In the capitalist system, expropriation creates entirely new internal dynamics for exploitation, and exploitation in turn generates demand for broader expropriation, thereby expanding the boundaries of capitalism. Thus, the dialectic of exploitation and expropriation in capitalism forms a vicious cycle, linked to the logic of capital accumulation. In the 21st century, the dialectic of exploitation and expropriation will continue and destroy the foundations of the Earth and life itself; the only way out is toward ecosocialism.

福斯特等认为，人类世(Anthropocene)生态危机的根源是资本主义积累具有无限扩张的内在冲动，其破坏了人与环境之间健康的新陈代谢关系；然而，仅仅从这个方面解释当前的环境问题是不够的，必须从帝国主义世界体系或全球资本主义的角度进行分析，考察世界范围内的积累结构和民族国家之间的相互竞争。福斯特等从帝国主义租金、垄断金融资本、物质足迹、掠夺海洋、能源帝国主义和水帝国主义等角度，揭示了人类世时代帝国主义对地球生态系统造成的灾难性影响。与北方国家相比，南方国家更容易受到气候变化的负面影响。然而，北方国家对气候恶化的反应却是分析南方国家的脆弱性如何造成了新的全球安全问题，以及思考如何利用这些问题加强帝国霸权，最明显的例子是美国的能源支配战略。福斯特等指出，如果不将反抗帝国主义纳入进来，就无法在当前的危机下进行生态革命。因此，全球生态运动是一项团结一切受压迫人民的运动。过去两年全球范围内爆发了多起针对气候变化的抗议活动。福斯特指出，这些运动表明发达资本主义国家的环境斗争从之前一般性的气候行动框架转变为更加激进的气候正义和生态社会主义运动。福斯特详细分析了绿色新政的由来、主张和不足，批评了联合国政府间气候变化专门委员会(IPCC)所倡导的缓解措施。2019年2月发布的《绿色新政决议》提出推动公正的经济转型，通过十年的国民动员使美国实现温室气体零排放。福斯特认为，这个激进版本的绿色新政的矛盾在于仍然强调经济增长和资本积累，基本不谈直接保存资源和削减总消费量，在垄断金融资本占主导的情况下有转向绿色凯恩斯主义的倾向。IPCC所提出的缓解气候变化的策略受资本积累关系和新古典经济学的支配，其所提出的缓解模型认为只有所谓的市场效率和并不存在的技术方案才是唯一出路。在另一篇文章中，福斯特等认为，马克思的“剥夺”(expropriation)概念对于理解历史资本主义极为重要，晚期资本主义和晚期帝国主义日益用平等交换掩盖其掠夺体系，全球范围内对土地、劳动和人的肉体的血腥掠夺直到今天仍形成了资本主义的边界条件。福斯特等指出，一个将剥削与剥夺结合起来的历史唯物主义方法，能够为我们理解资本主义中的各种矛盾与冲突提供更宽广的视角。在资本主义制度中，剥夺为剥削创造了全新的内在动力，剥削反过来产生了对更广泛的剥夺的需求，从而扩展了资本主义的界限。因此，资本主义中剥削与剥夺的辩证关系形成了一个恶性循环，与资本积累的逻辑联系在一起。在21世纪，剥削与剥夺的辩证法将继续存在，并破坏了地球和生活本身的基础，唯一的出路是通向生态社会主义。

Ianan Gus argues that, in addition to devastating climate change, microbiology must also be incorporated into our understanding of the Anthropocene, defining the Anthropocene by incurable pandemics. Antimicrobial resistance has caused a global health crisis; drug-resistant bacterial infections are now the third leading cause of death in the United States, estimated to cause 162,000 deaths annually. The antimicrobial resistance crisis is caused by two factors: on the one hand, bacteria have astonishing adaptive capabilities; on the other hand, the primary concern of pharmaceutical companies is sales and profits. The more widely a drug is used, the more severe the resistance becomes. However, to cope with falling antibiotic prices, pharmaceutical companies, on the one hand, aggressively promote antibiotics through advertising and other means, using them for any conceivable disease, and on the other hand, strive to develop different rather than better antibiotics in order to obtain monopoly prices. Furthermore, large quantities of antibiotics are used on livestock, and the resulting drug-resistant bacteria also infect humans, further exacerbating the risk of antimicrobial resistance. Gus points out that solving the antimicrobial resistance problem requires global joint efforts, liberating public health from profit-driven large corporations, and elevating it to the same status as other ecological crises of the Anthropocene.

伊南·格斯(Ianan Gus)认为，除了毁灭性的气候变化，也需要将微生物学纳入到我们对人类世的理解之中，用无法治愈的流行病来界定人类世。耐药性造成了全球性健康危机，现在耐药细菌感染是美国第三大死亡原因，预计每年造成16.2万人死亡。耐药性危机是由两个因素造成的：一方面细菌有惊人的适应能力，另一方面制药企业的主要关切是销售额和利润。一种药物使用的越广泛，耐药性就越严重。然而，制药企业为了应对抗生素价格下降，一方面通过广告等方式极力推销抗生素，将其用于任何能想的到的疾病，另一方面努力开发不同而非更好的抗生素，以便获得垄断价格。此外，大量抗生素被用于牲畜身上，所产生的耐药细菌也会感染人类，进一步加剧了耐药性风险。格斯指出，解决耐药性问题需要全球的共同努力，将公共健康从以盈利为目的大企业手中解放出来，将其上升到与人类世其他生态危机相同的地位。

III. Research on Contemporary Capitalism

三、当代资本主义研究

1. Critique of Neoliberalism

1.对新自由主义的批判

David Jaffee discusses, within the theoretical framework of the Social Structure of Accumulation (SSA), the crisis of the current neoliberal SSA and the possibility of establishing a new SSA. Jaffee argues that capital accumulation depends on the coexistence of productive capacity and consumption capacity; the former is usually linked to the supply side, the latter to the demand side. The 2008 global financial crisis was a demand-side crisis caused by a great imbalance between productive capacity and consumption capacity, increased inequality, and financialization. Jaffee points out that although there appears to be a cyclical dynamic between crises of productive capacity and consumption capacity, there is no reason to believe that the swing of this crisis trend and movements resisting the hegemony of capital will necessarily occur in the current phase. In the neoliberal phase, the possibility of generating a new SSA capable of transforming U.S. capital through traditional political channels has sharply declined. Legislators from both the Democratic and Republican parties are captive to neoliberal ideology, and democracy continues to deteriorate. In addition to political obstacles, two mutually reinforcing structural features of the U.S. neoliberal capitalist economy—financialization and global value chains—also hinder the establishment of a new SSA.

大卫·耶菲(David Jaffee)在积累的社会结构(SSA)的理论框架中讨论了当前新自由主义SSA的危机，以及确立一个新的SSA的可能性。耶菲认为，资本积累取决于生产能力与消费能力的共同存在，前者通常与供给侧联系在一起，后者通常与需求侧联系在一起。2008年全球金融危机是由生产能力与消费能力的极大失衡、不平等加剧和金融化所导致的需求侧危机。耶菲指出，虽然生产能力与消费能力危机之间似乎存在周期性动态，但并没有理由认为这种危机趋势的摆动与反抗资本霸权的运动在当前阶段必然会发生。在新自由主义阶段，通过传统政治渠道产生一个能够变革美国资本的新SSA的可能性已经急剧下降。民主和共和两党的立法者被新自由主义的意识形态所俘虏，民主持续恶化。除政治障碍外，美国新自由资本主义经济的两个相互加强的结构特征——金融化与全球价值链——也阻碍了新的SSA的建立。

Foster argues that neoliberalism is a comprehensive ruling-class political ideological project, linked to the rise of monopoly finance capital, whose main strategic goal is to incorporate the state into capitalist market relations. Neoliberalism intends to create an absolute capitalism, causing severe human and ecological destruction in our time. Foster points out that neoliberalism is by no means laissez-faire, but rather comprehensive state intervention, representing a new type of combination of state and market, making the state's activities of social reproduction increasingly subordinate to capitalist reproduction. Governments can no longer effectively control all sectors, including central banks and major monetary policy mechanisms, while finance capital exerts significant influence on them. Absolute capitalism has five prominent contradictions—economic, political, imperialist, social reproduction, and environmental contradictions—which indicate its overall failure. Foster points out that the absolute capitalism promoted by neoliberalism accelerates the global pace toward extinctionism and destructionism; the available choice for humanity is to carry out a long-term ecological revolution, leading to 21st-century ecosocialism.

福斯特认为，新自由主义是一个综合的统治阶级政治意识形态工程，与垄断金融资本的崛起联系在一起，其主要战略目标是将国家纳入资本主义市场关系之中。新自由主义意图创造出一个绝对资本主义(absolute capitalism)，造成了我们时代人类与生态的严重破坏。福斯特指出，新自由主义绝非自由放任，而是全面的国家干预，代表了国家与市场的一种新型结合方式，使国家的社会再生产活动日益附属于资本主义再生产。政府已不能有效控制所有部门，包括央行和主要的货币政策机制等，金融资本则对其产生了重要影响。绝对资本主义有五个突出的矛盾——经济、政治、帝国主义、社会再生产和环境矛盾，这些矛盾表明了其整体失败。福斯特指出，新自由主义所推动的绝对资本主义加快了全球走向灭绝主义与破坏主义的步伐，人类可有的选择是进行长期的生态革命，通往21世纪的生态社会主义。

Utsa Patnaik and Prabhat Patnaik argue that contemporary neoliberalism has entered a dead end, primarily for two reasons: first, the global trend of overproduction, and second, the bursting of asset price bubbles formed to resist this trend, which has plunged the global economy into crisis. Specifically, the dead end of neoliberalism has at least four important implications: first, compared with the 1990s and early 2000s, the world economy is suffering from high unemployment; second, for third-world economies, the era of export-led growth has largely ended; third, many third-world countries are about to face severe balance-of-payments difficulties; fourth, fascism is reviving worldwide. They argue that in the current era of fascist revival, wars between major powers will not break out; what we face is a long-standing and somewhat attenuated form of fascism that will not self-destruct and must be ended by the struggle of the working class. In response to the resistance activities of third-world peoples, imperialism will respond in at least four ways: capital flight, trade sanctions, the implementation of so-called Latin American-style democracy or parliamentary coups, and resorting to economic warfare and ultimately military warfare.

尤特萨·帕特奈克和普拉哈特·帕特奈克(Utsa Patnaik & Prabhat Patnaik)认为，当代新自由主义已经进入了死胡同，主要原因有两点——一是全球生产过剩趋势，二是为抵抗这一趋势而形成的资产价格泡沫破裂使全球经济陷入危机之中。具体说来，新自由主义走入死胡同至少有四个重要含义：第一，与20世纪90年代和21世纪初相比，世界经济深受高失业率的折磨；第二，对于第三世界经济体来说，出口导向型增长的时代已基本结束；第三，许多第三世界国家即将面临严重的收支平衡难题；第四，法西斯主义在世界范围内复兴。他们认为，在当前法西斯主义复兴的时代，大国之间不会爆发战争，我们面对的是一个长期存在和凶残程度有所减弱的法西斯主义，它并不会自寻灭亡，必须由工人阶级的斗争来终结。面对第三世界人们的反抗活动，帝国主义将至少以四种方式应对——资本外逃，贸易制裁，实施所谓的拉丁美洲式的民主或议会政变，以及诉诸经济战争和最终的军事战争。

Jack Rasmus analyzes the recovery and prospects of US neoliberalism after the 2008 global financial crisis. The global financial crisis plunged neoliberalism into crisis, and Obama was elected US president as the best candidate to save neoliberalism. Rasmus argues that, viewed against the broader historical backdrop of neoliberal policy evolution, the development of neoliberal policies during the Obama period fell into crisis, and Trump’s election in 2016 was a response to Obama’s failure to revive neoliberalism. Trump attempted to revive the neoliberal policy regime in a more aggressive form of neoliberalism 2.0. The policies implemented by Trump successfully restored some core features of neoliberalism, such as further expanding tax cuts, increasing military spending, sharply cutting social program spending, increasing budget deficits, and promoting deregulation. Trump’s practice during this period shows that a more vicious and aggressive neoliberalism 2.0 is emerging, which has had severe negative impacts on workers, the middle class, and foreign capitalist competitors. Whether Trump’s version of neoliberalism will ultimately succeed still needs to be verified in the coming years.

杰克·拉斯穆斯(Jack Rasmus)分析了2008年全球金融危机之后美国新自由主义的恢复与前景。全球金融危机使新自由主义陷入危机，奥巴马作为挽救新自由主义的最佳候选人而当选美国总统。拉斯穆斯认为，从新自由主义政策演进更广阔的历史背景看，奥巴马时期新自由主义政策的发展陷入了危机，特朗普2016年的当选是对奥巴马无法复兴新自由主义的回应，特朗普试图以更有侵略性的新自由主义2.0形式复兴新自由主义政策体制。特朗普所实施的政策使新自由主义的一些核心特征得以成功恢复，如特朗普进一步扩大了减税，增加了军费支出，大幅削减了社会项目支出，增加了预算赤字，推动了去监管化，等等。特朗普这段时间的实践表明，一个更加恶毒和更具侵略性的新自由主义2.0正在浮现，其对工人、中产阶级和国外资本主义竞争者造成了严重的负面影响。特朗普版本的新自由主义能否最终取得成功，还需要未来几年的时间来验证。

2. Research on Financialization and Income Distribution

2.金融化与收入分配研究

Eckhard Hein argues that the institutional transformation of mature capitalist economies caused by financialization and its crisis is inseparable from the re-emerging stagnation trend in contemporary capitalism. Hein identifies three demand and growth regimes of finance-dominated capitalism: in the pre-crisis period of 1997–2007, the US, UK, and Spain were debt-led private consumption boom regimes; Germany and Sweden were export-led mercantilist regimes; and France and other core eurozone countries were domestic demand-led regimes. However, significant shifts occurred during and after the crisis: Germany and Sweden remained unchanged; Spain and the core eurozone countries as a whole transformed into export-led mercantilist regimes; the US and UK, like France, became domestic demand-led regimes, but their crises were mainly stabilized by government deficits. Hein argues that these regime shifts have exacerbated the stagnation trend in mature capitalist economies and increased current global macroeconomic risks. This is because if more and more countries, such as the eurozone as a whole, transform into export-led mercantilist regimes, the global economy faces an aggregation problem, as it will become increasingly difficult to generate corresponding current account deficits in other regions. The evolutionary path and volatility of financial profits are particularly important for analyzing financialization transformation. Costas Lapavitsas and Ivan Mendieta-Muňoz use multiple methods to measure the average profit rate, financial sector profit rate, and profit share in the US economy from 1955 to 2015, revealing the evolutionary process of US economic financialization. The study finds that from the early 1980s to the early 2000s, the profit rate of the US financial sector increased rapidly, and total financial profits reached historical highs in the early 2000s, marking the golden age of financialization. At the same time, interest rates and banks’ net interest margins showed a downward trend, indicating the existence of financial predation in the US economy. The 2007–2009 economic crisis was a watershed; after the crisis, both the profit rate and profit volume of the financial sector failed to recover to previous levels. They argue that the change in financial profit rates after the financial crisis is not just a short-term adjustment of the financial sector; the financial crisis may be a historical watershed, marking the end of the golden age of US financialization.

埃克哈德·海因(Eckhard Hein)认为，金融化及其危机所造成的成熟资本主义经济的体制转变，与当代资本主义重新出现的停滞趋势密不可分。海因识别了金融主导的资本主义的三种需求和增长体制，在危机爆发前的1997～2007年间，美国、英国和西班牙为债务拉动的私人消费高涨体制，德国和瑞典为出口拉动的重商主义体制，法国和其他欧元区核心国家为内需拉动的体制。然而，危机和危机以后发生了重大转变：德国和瑞典保持不变；西班牙和欧元区核心国家整体转变为出口拉动的重商主义体制；美国、英国与法国一样成为内需拉动的体制，但其危机主要靠政府赤字来稳定。海因认为，这些体制转变加剧了成熟资本主义经济的停滞趋势，增加了当前全球宏观经济的风险。这是因为，如果越来越多的国家转变为出口拉动的重商主义体制，比如欧元区整体，那么全球经济就面临加总问题，因为将越来越难以在其他区域产生相关的经常账户赤字。金融利润的演进路径与波动对于分析金融化转变尤为重要。考斯达斯·拉帕维查斯和伊万·门迭塔-穆沃斯(Costas Lapavitsas & Ivan Mendieta-Muňoz)以多种方法测算了1955～2015年美国经济的平均利润率、金融部门利润率及其利润份额，揭示了美国经济金融化的演进过程。研究发现，从1980年代初到2000年代初，美国金融部门的利润率迅速提高，金融利润总量在2000年代初达到了历史最高水平，这段时间是金融化的黄金时期。同时，利息率和银行的净利差呈下降趋势，表明美国经济中存在金融掠夺。2007～2009年经济危机是一道分水岭，危机后金融部门的利润率与利润量都未恢复之前的水平。他们认为，金融危机后金融利润率的变动不只是金融部门的短期调整，金融危机可能是一道历史分水岭，标志着美国金融化黄金时代的结束。

Katherine A. Moos examines changes in the net social wage in the US from 1959 to 2012 and provides a Marxist explanation. The net social wage method was pioneered by Anwar Shaikh and others. The net social wage refers to the difference between workers’ fiscal transfer payments and the taxes they pay; there are currently two calculation methods: NSW1, which includes indirect taxes, and NSW2, which excludes indirect taxes. Shaikh found that the US net social wage from 1952 to 1997 was close to zero. Moos extended the calculation period to 2012 and found that from 1959 to 2012, NSW1 and NSW2 averaged 1.3% and 3.8% of GDP, respectively, with the net social wage rising rapidly after 2002, indicating that redistribution to workers increased from the early 21st century. How is this possible when neoliberal policies still dominate? Moos argues that capitalist states must not only remove obstacles for capital to exploit labor but also ensure that labor can maintain daily and intergenerational reproduction; in the neoliberal era, capital’s excessive exploitation of labor has urgently required state intervention, and US redistribution policies are intended to mitigate the impact of neoliberal capitalist labor markets on families and workers—that is, the state needs to assume the responsibility of easing class relations. After the outbreak of the 2008 global financial crisis, rising income inequality sparked academic discussions on unconditional basic income. Annamaria Artner analyzes the feasibility of unconditional basic income under capitalism and argues that in a profit-centered society based on private ownership, an unconditional basic income policy is unsustainable. Unconditional basic income refers to the state unconditionally providing each citizen with a certain amount of money each month to enable them to live a dignified life. Artner points out that under capitalism, the iron law of competition forces enterprises to constantly face survival contests. To obtain sufficient profits, enterprises must strive to compress the wage share. However, unconditional basic income sets a floor for workers’ income, thereby limiting the possibility of compressing the wage share. Even if an unconditional basic income policy is implemented, there is no guarantee that the government will not abolish or cut it in the face of a severe economic depression. The sustainability of an unconditional basic income policy depends on thoroughly transforming the internal logic of production by abolishing private ownership of the means of production.

凯瑟琳·莫斯(Katherine A. Moos)考察了美国1959～2012年净社会工资(net social wage)的变化，并从马克思主义的角度进行了解释。净社会工资方法是安瓦尔·谢克(Anwar Shaikh)等人开创的。净社会工资指的是工人的财政转移支付与其支付的税收之差，目前有两种计算方法，即包含间接税的NSW1与不包含间接税的NSW2。谢克发现美国1952～1997年的净社会工资接近于零。莫斯将计算时间延长到了2012年，发现1959～2012年NSW1和NSW2平均占GDP的1.3%和3.8%，净社会工资在2002年后快速提高，表明对工人的再分配从21世纪初开始增加。在新自由主义政策仍然占主导的情况下，这何以可能?莫斯认为，资本主义国家不仅要为资本剥削劳动扫除障碍，也要保证劳动力能够维持日常和代际的再生产；新自由主义时代，资本对劳动的过度压榨已迫切需要国家的干预，美国的再分配政策是为了缓和新自由资本主义劳动市场对家庭和工人的影响，即国家需要承担起缓和阶级关系的责任。2008年全球金融危机爆发后，收入不平等加剧激发了学界关于无条件基本收入(unconditional basic income)的讨论。安娜玛丽亚·阿特钠(Annamaria Artner)分析了无条件基本收入在资本主义下的可行性，认为在以利润为中心和基于私有制的社会中，无条件基本收入政策是不可持续的。无条件基本收入指的是国家每月无条件为每一位公民提供一定数量的货币，让其能够过上有尊严的生活。阿特钠指出，在资本主义制度下，竞争铁律的存在使企业时刻面对生存竞赛。为了获得足够的利润，企业必须努力压缩工资份额。然而，无条件基本收入为工人收入设置了一个下限，从而限制了压缩工资份额的可能性。即使无条件基本收入政策被实施，也无法保证在严重的经济萧条面前政府不会将之废除或削减。无条件基本收入政策的持续性依赖于通过消灭生产资料私有制，彻底变革生产的内在逻辑。

3. Research on Digital Capitalism

3.数字资本主义研究

Matthieu Montalban and others used the regulation school approach to analyze the impact of the platform economy or the platformization of the economy on the contemporary capitalist system, arguing that the platform economy is merely an internal transformation and enhanced version of the financialized accumulation regime, rather than a completely new accumulation regime. The platform economy includes both the digital infrastructure of hardware and software and a governance structure, thus constituting a form of regulation. Montalban et al. point out that although the platform economy disrupts most institutional forms and the previous regulatory model of financial capitalism, it does not represent a new accumulation regime but is endogenous to the financialized neoliberal accumulation regime. Financialization created the preconditions for the development of the platform economy, which is based on a similar institutional hierarchy, and technologies such as blockchain and cryptocurrencies have promoted the development of financialization. At the same time, the platform economy accelerates neoliberal trends through more flexible wage-labor relations and outsourcing. The income inequality and unemployment caused by the crisis of the financialized accumulation regime have driven the development of the platform economy, which in turn exacerbates income inequality between skilled and unskilled workers. Furthermore, stakeholders in the platform economy have promoted the “silicolonisation” of public policy, including neoliberal policies such as deregulation and spending cuts.

马蒂厄·蒙塔尔班(Matthieu Montalban)等用调节学派方法分析了平台经济或经济的平台化对当代资本主义制度的影响，认为平台经济仅仅是金融化积累体制的内在转型和加强版本，而非全新的积累体制。平台经济既包括硬件和软件的数字基础设施，也包含一种治理结构，从而是一种调节形式。蒙塔尔班等指出，尽管平台经济扰乱了大部分制度形式和之前的金融资本主义调节模式，但并不代表一种新的积累体制，而是内生于金融化新自由主义积累体制。金融化为平台经济的发展创造了前提条件，平台经济则基于与之类似的制度等级结构，而且区块链和加密货币等技术推动了金融化发展。同时，平台经济通过更加灵活的工资-劳动关系与外包加快了新自由主义趋势。金融化积累体制危机造成的收入不平等和失业推动了平台经济的发展，平台经济反过来又加剧了技能与非技能工人之间的收入不平等。此外，平台经济的利益相关者推动了公共政策的“硅谷殖民化”(silicolonisation)，包括放松监管和减少开支等新自由主义政策。

Evgeny Morozov deeply analyzes the view of some scholars that big data will radically transform capitalism and ultimately replace the price coordination system, and examines the inspiration of concepts such as “digital feedback infrastructure” for solving the socialist calculation problem. Scholars such as Viktor Mayer-Schönberger argue that big data will destroy existing business models and create new ones, not only reshaping but also ending capitalism. Morozov argues that these scholars lack a theoretical and historical understanding of the concept of capitalism, and their view of data and money as opposed to each other, and price and information as opposed, is also untenable. Morozov argues that we should examine the feedback infrastructure itself, which will play an important role in the reshaping of left-wing and right-wing political projects. For the left, a promising approach is to use feedback infrastructure to identify new, non-market forms of social coordination, thereby challenging the coordination tools produced by neoliberalism. Morozov identifies three possibilities: first, “solidarity as a discovery procedure,” drawing on Hayek’s description of “competition as a discovery procedure”; second, “designing non-markets,” focusing on social coordination issues unrelated to production and consumption; third, “automatic planning,” concentrating solely on coordination in the economic sphere. Morozov points out that if the means of creating alternative forms of social coordination remain the exclusive property of tech giants, these three possibilities cannot be realized. This requires the socialization of the means of feedback production, placing the feedback infrastructure under social control.

叶夫根尼·莫罗佐夫(Evgeny Morozov)深入剖析了一些学者认为大数据会彻底变革资本主义和最终取代价格协调体系的观点，并考察了“数字反馈基础设施”(digital feedback infrastructure)等概念对解决社会主义核算问题的启发。维克托·迈尔-舍恩伯格(Viktor Mayer-Schönberger)等学者认为大数据会摧毁现有的商业模式并创造出新的模式，不仅会重塑而且将终结资本主义。莫罗佐夫认为，这些学者对资本主义概念缺乏理论与历史的理解，其关于数据与货币相互对立、价格与信息相对立的观点也是站不住脚的。莫罗佐夫认为我们应当考察反馈基础设施本身，其将在左派和右派政治计划的重塑中发挥重要作用。对于左派来说，一个有希望的方案是利用反馈基础设施确定新的、非市场的社会协调形式，从而挑战新自由主义所产生的协调工具。莫罗佐夫认为一共有三种可能性：第一，“团结作为发现程序”，借鉴了哈耶克对“竞争作为发现程序”的描述；第二，“设计非市场”，关注与生产和消费无关的社会协调问题；第三，“自动计划”，仅集中于经济领域的协调。莫罗佐夫指出，如果创造替代性的社会协调模式的手段仍然是科技巨头的专属财产，上述三种方案就不可能实现。这需要实现反馈生产资料的社会化，由社会控制反馈基础设施。

Over the past two decades, employers have used a large number of new electronic surveillance methods in the workplace. Ivan Manokha argues that the nature of workplace surveillance today is completely different from the past, having a significant impact on the nature of power relations in the workplace. Due to the development of information and communication technologies, ubiquitous electronic devices and sensors can collect and process electronic data on employee performance in real time, and employees’ health status is increasingly monitored and analyzed by new technologies such as biometrics and wearable technology. Manokha argues that the digitization of employees is a qualitative change in workplace surveillance, turning workers, their performance, and their bodies into lines of code and data streams that can be inspected and manipulated, with workers unable to control or even be aware of how they are processed. Manokha argues that, from the perspective of Foucault’s theory of biopower, the increasing surveillance of employee health can be understood as a form of privatized and implemented biopower. With the replacement of surveillance by the naked eye with automated electronic surveillance, the disciplinary power in the workplace has been greatly strengthened.

过去二十年中，雇主在工作场所使用了大量新的电子监视手段。伊万·马诺卡(Ivan Manokha)认为，今天工作场所监视的性质与过去完全不同，对工作场所权力关系的性质产生了重要影响。由于信息和通信技术的发展，无处不在的电子设备和传感器可以实时收集和处理雇员表现的电子数据，雇员的健康状况日益被生物统计学和可穿戴技术等新技术所监测和分析。马诺卡认为，雇员的数字化是工作场所监视上质的变化，使工人、工人的表现和身体成为能被检查和操纵的代码行和数据流，工人无法控制甚至意识不到它们的处理方式。马诺卡认为，从福柯的生命权力理论的角度看，对雇员健康状况监视的日益加强可以理解为私有化并实施生命权力的一种形式。随着自动化电子监视对监视者肉眼观察的取代，工作场所中的规训力量极大加强了。

David Arditi proposes the concept of the “digital music trap,” arguing that it is a natural outcome of digital capitalism that commodifies our daily lives. The digital music trap refers to the use of digital technology to expand the ways music is consumed; it is the expansion of cross-media music consumption platforms, extending music consumption beyond record sales. We are paying for music everywhere in countless ways, such as subscribing to streaming music, with payment methods in cash or data. From a political economy perspective, music listeners are actually working for and being exploited by record companies, which not only obtain advertising revenue but also profit by selling user preference information. Arditi points out that the commodity of the record industry is recorded music, but its form has undergone various changes from records to copyrights; changes in the form of the music commodity drive people to repurchase music in new formats, and each purchase and play by listeners increases the rate of exploitation. Arditi concludes that we need a critical understanding of the social implications of the digital music trap. Although music is ubiquitous, it is subordinate to the capitalist logic of commodification.

大卫·阿迪提(David Arditi)提出了“数字音乐陷阱”(digital music trap)的概念，认为它是将我们的日常生活商品化的数字资本主义的一个自然结果。数字音乐陷阱指的是利用数字技术扩展音乐消费方式，它是跨媒体音乐消费平台的扩张，使音乐消费超出了唱片销售量。我们正以无数种方式到处为音乐付费，如定制流媒体音乐，支付方式可以是现金或数据。从政治经济学的角度看，音乐听众实际上在为唱片公司工作并受到它们的剥削，唱片公司不仅取得了广告收入，还能通过出售用户偏好信息获利。阿迪提指出，唱片业的商品是录制音乐，但其形式经历了从唱片到版权的多种形式变化；音乐商品形式的变化驱使人们再次购买新格式的音乐，听众的每次购买和播放都提高了剥削率。阿迪提最后指出，我们需要批判性理解数字音乐陷阱的社会含义。尽管音乐无处不在，但这些音乐附属于资本主义的商品化逻辑。

4. Research on the Systemic Crisis of Contemporary Capitalism

4.当代资本主义的系统性危机研究

William I. Robinson argues that current global capitalism faces a structural crisis of overaccumulation and a political crisis of legitimacy or hegemony, moving toward a comprehensive crisis of capitalist rule, with the global police state and fascism being responses to the capitalist crisis. Robinson analyzes the connections among the global capitalist crisis, 21st-century fascist tendencies, and the rise of the global police state. The core of 21st-century fascism is the combination of transnational capital, reactionary political forces within the state, and neo-fascist forces in civil society, seeking a mass base from the globally privileged working class. Trump, with his personal charisma, has inspired various neo-fascist forces, and Trumpism and other similar movements attempt to rebuild the legitimacy of the state. Robinson points out that to win the war against the global police state and 21st-century neo-fascism, we need to build a broad anti-fascist alliance; at the same time, we must revive the Marxist critique of global capitalism and its crisis to provide guidance for emancipatory working-class political movements. In another article, Robinson points out that in recent years there has been a broader militarization of the global economy and society, and we need to rethink the relationship between militarization and capitalism; compared with military Keynesianism, the concept of the global police state better summarizes the current stage, and the emergence of the global police state is a response to the unprecedented crisis of world capitalism. Robinson argues that the global police state refers to three interrelated aspects. First, the ruling class has created a ubiquitous system of mass control, repression, and warfare to control the actual or potential resistance of the global working class. Second, the global economy itself increasingly relies on these systems of warfare, social control, and repression as a means of continuing to obtain profits and accumulate capital in a situation of economic stagnation, which Robinson calls militarized accumulation. Third, the political system is increasingly moving toward 21st-century fascism, or totalitarianism in a broad sense.

威廉·罗宾逊(William I. Robinson)认为，当前全球资本主义面临过度积累的结构性危机，以及合法性或霸权的政治危机，正在走向资本主义统治的全面危机，全球警察国家和法西斯主义是对资本主义危机的回应。罗宾逊分析了全球资本主义危机、21世纪法西斯主义倾向和全球警察国家兴起之间的联系。21世纪法西斯主义的核心是跨国资本、国家中的反动政治力量和市民社会中的新法西斯主义力量三者的结合，它试图从全球享有特权的工人阶级中寻找群众基础。特朗普则用其人格魅力鼓舞了各种新法西斯主义力量，特朗普主义与其他类似的运动试图重建国家的合法性。罗宾逊指出，要取得反抗全球警察国家和21世纪新法西斯主义战争的胜利，我们需要建立广泛的反法西斯主义联盟；同时，我们必须复兴对全球资本主义及其危机的马克思主义批判，为解放性工人阶级政治运动提供指导。在另一篇文章中，罗宾逊指出，近年来全球经济与社会出现了更加广泛的军事化，我们需要重新理解军事化与资本主义之间的关系；与军事凯恩斯主义相比，全球警察国家的概念能更好地概括当前阶段，全球警察国家的出现是对世界资本主义陷入空前危机的反应。罗宾逊认为，全球警察国家指的是相互联系的三个方面。第一，统治集团创造了无处不在的大众控制、镇压和战争体系，以控制全球工人阶级实际或潜在的反抗。第二，全球经济本身日益依赖于这些战争、社会控制和镇压体系，作为在经济停滞的情况下继续获得利润与积累资本的手段，罗宾逊将其称为军事化积累。第三，政治制度日益走向21世纪的法西斯主义，或者广义上的极权主义。

Luiz Carlos Bresser-Pereira argues that rentier-financier capitalism, neoliberalism, and globalization have been in crisis since 2008, and have fallen into political crisis since 2016. Bresser-Pereira terms contemporary capitalism rentier-financier capitalism, holding that the ruling class of contemporary capitalism is no longer the entrepreneurial class but primarily the rentier-capitalist class, while the technocracy retains the role of managing enterprises. Specifically, contemporary capitalism faces a crisis of low growth rates and quasi-stagnation of wages. On the supply side, this is due to a decline in the productivity of capital in the 1970s. The response measures have been, on the one hand, to increase monopoly power, and on the other hand, to adopt neoliberal reform measures aimed at lowering wages and restoring capital profits. On the demand side, wage stagnation is the problem itself rather than a response measure. To solve the problem of capital surplus, the rentier-financier elite has adopted means such as mergers and acquisitions, privatizing public monopolies, and increasing consumer borrowing. Bresser-Pereira points out that these measures cannot increase investment; instead, they exacerbate inefficiency and inequality, benefiting only a small clique of the powerful class and rentier-capitalists, financiers, and executives.

路易斯·卡洛斯·布雷塞尔-佩雷拉(Luiz Carlos Bresser-Pereira)认为，食利者-金融家资本主义、新自由主义和全球化自2008年以来一直处于危机之中，2016年后则陷入政治危机之中。布雷塞尔-佩雷拉将当代资本主义称为食利者-金融家资本主义，认为当代资本主义的统治阶级已不再是企业家阶级，而主要是食利者资本家阶级，技术官僚则保留了管理企业的作用。具体说来，当代资本主义面临低增长率和工资准停滞的危机。从供给侧看，这是由于资本的生产力在20世纪70年代出现了下降。其应对措施则是一方面增加垄断权力，另一方面采取旨在降低工资并恢复资本利润的新自由主义改革措施。从需求侧看，工资停滞是问题本身而非应对措施。食利者-金融家精英为了解决资本过剩问题，采取了兼并收购、将公共垄断私有化和增加消费者借贷等手段。布雷塞尔-佩雷拉指出，这些措施并不能增加投资，反而加剧了低效率和不平等，其受益人只是一小撮有权阶级和食利者资本家、金融家、高管。

IV. Research on Socialism and Anti-Capitalist Struggle

四、社会主义与反资本主义斗争研究

Samir Amin and Firoze Manji argue that late capitalism has become a completely closed and totalitarian system, that substantive progressive reform at the current stage is merely an illusion, and that the future path can only be to unite workers and all oppressed masses in a resolute socialist struggle. Amin and Manji point out that over the past thirty years, power in the world system has become highly concentrated, the financial oligarchy has seized absolute political power, imperialist forces strive to prevent peripheral countries from escaping their subordinate status, and contemporary capitalism has lost its innovativeness and flexibility. However, current struggles against capitalism suffer from defects such as excessive fragmentation and a lack of solidarity. In this context, Amin and Manji advocate for building a transnational alliance of the working class and the oppressed, and propose the following four suggestions: First, the goal is to form an alliance capable of developing into an organization, not merely to organize a movement; Second, the historical experience of the Workers' International should be seriously studied; Third, a large number of militant parties and organizations should be invited to join; Fourth, this undertaking is not about recreating a past international workers' organization, but should be built on new principles. They recommend convening a founding conference of the alliance, to be attended by advanced representatives of anti-capitalist struggles from various regions, to establish common goals for struggle, and call on each of us to strengthen our sense of historical responsibility and explore the revolutionary socialist path.

萨米尔·阿明和菲罗兹·曼日(Samir Amin & Firoze Manji)认为，晚期资本主义已经成为一个完全封闭和极权主义的体系，在当前阶段进行实质性的进步改革只是幻想，未来的出路只能是联合工人和一切受压迫群众，进行坚决的社会主义斗争。阿明和曼日指出，过去三十年中世界体系的权力高度集中，金融寡头掌握了绝对的政治权力，帝国主义力量竭力阻止外围国家摆脱被支配地位，当代资本主义已经丧失了创新性与灵活性。然而，当前反抗资本主义的斗争存在过度分散化和缺乏团结性等缺陷。在此背景下，阿明和曼日倡导建立一个工人阶级和受压迫者的跨国联盟，并提出了以下四点建议：第一，其目标是成立能够发展为一个组织的联盟，而非只是组织一场运动；第二，应当认真学习工人国际的历史经验；第三，应当邀请大量充满斗志的政党和组织加入；第四，这项事业不是再造一个过去的国际工人组织，而是应该建立在新的原则基础上。他们建议召开由各地反抗资本主义的先进代表参加的联盟成立大会，确立共同的斗争目标，并呼吁我们每一个人都增强历史责任感，探寻革命的社会主义道路。

Foster points out that the first two decades of the 21st century have shown that the capitalist system has completely failed, and the socialist system is the only way out. The current capitalist world faces economic stagnation, financialization, mass unemployment, ecological crisis, and the most severe inequality in history; the digital revolution has transformed from a promise of freedom of communication and liberation of production into a new means of surveillance, control, and replacement of the working class; liberal democracy is collapsing, while fascism, racism, imperialism, and war are quietly rising. Foster criticizes a relatively popular erroneous view among the left, which attributes the above problems to the neoliberal model of capitalism, suggesting that replacing it with a more rational capitalist model would suffice. Foster points out that capitalism has transformed from a historically necessary and creative social system into an unnecessary and destructive one. We now face an epochal choice between a thorough revolutionary reconstruction of society or mutual destruction. Currently, millions of people globally have already thrown themselves into anti-capitalist struggles, laying the foundation for a worldwide movement toward socialism.

福斯特指出，21世纪的前20年表明，资本主义制度已经彻底失败，社会主义制度则是唯一的出路。当前资本主义世界面临经济停滞、金融化、大规模失业、生态危机和历史上最为严重的不平等；数字革命已经从通信自由和生产解放的承诺，异化为监视、控制和替代工人阶级的新手段；自由民主制度正在崩溃，法西斯主义、种族主义、帝国主义和战争则悄然抬头。福斯特批评了左派中比较流行的一种错误观点，即将上述问题归结为资本主义的新自由主义模式，从而用更加理性的资本主义模式替代便可以。福斯特指出，资本主义已经从一个具有历史必然性和创造性的社会制度，转变为非必要和破坏性的社会制度。我们现在面临对社会进行彻底的革命性重建或走向共同毁灭的时代选择。当前全球范围内数以百万计的人已经投入到了反资本主义斗争之中，为全世界通往社会主义的运动奠定了基础。

Tom Brass analyzes the fact and reasons for the disappearance of revolutionary agency from leftist theory and practice. Brass points out that, on the one hand, there are currently favorable conditions for transcending the neoliberal economy, but on the other hand, the outcome seems unlikely to take the form of a transition to socialism. At the core of this paradox is a negative attitude toward the concept of class-based revolutionary agency. Brass argues that the disappearance of actions aimed at directly seizing state power, along with socialism itself, can be traced back to the advocacy of the evolution of capitalism and subsequent resistance (rather than transcendence). This reformist tendency is related to changes in academia: the critique of capitalism aimed at transitioning to socialism was replaced after the 1980s by a new populist postmodernism, a form of resistance to capitalism that avoids systemic transcendence and is thus less politically threatening. The weakening of leftist views is largely because many socialists have abandoned the basic principles of Marxism. Brass argues that this postmodern "cultural turn" in Marxist theory and practice has produced significant political consequences, causing those leftists who abandoned Marxism to struggle for the wrong goals, making populism the dominant framework in social sciences, removing revolution as an option for radical practice, and ensuring that economic crises inevitably trigger political crises.

汤姆·布拉斯(Tom Brass)分析了当前革命机构(revolutionary agency)从左派理论与实践中消失的事实与原因。布拉斯指出，当前一方面存在超越新自由主义经济的有利条件，另一方面其结果看起来不可能采取向社会主义过渡的形式。这个悖论的核心是对基于阶级的革命机构概念持消极态度。布拉斯认为，意图直接夺取政权的行动与社会主义本身的消失，可以追溯到对资本主义的演化及后来的抵抗(而非超越)的鼓吹。这种改良主义倾向与学术界的变化相关，以向社会主义过渡为目标的资本主义批判，在1980年代以后被新的民粹主义的后现代主义所取代，这种反抗资本主义的形式避免了系统性的超越，从而政治威胁性更小。左派观点之所以受到削弱，很大程度上是因为许多社会主义者抛弃了马克思主义的基本原则。布拉斯认为这种马克思主义理论与实践的后现代“文化转向”产生了重要的政治后果，使那些抛弃了马克思主义的左派为了错误的目标而斗争，使民粹主义成为社会科学的主导框架，使革命不再是激进实践的选择，以及使经济危机不可避免地引发政治危机。

Peter Ranis argues that worker cooperatives should play an important role in the movement against capitalism. Only within the social relations of cooperatives can workers' potential be fully realized, because they exhibit multifaceted rather than one-sided human characteristics. From the perspective of labor alienation, worker cooperatives are in profound ideological confrontation with the division of labor that constitutes the basis of capitalist production. In the face of attacks by American capitalism, the formation of worker cooperatives has played a role in countering the deterioration of working conditions, job instability, and the courts' crackdown on trade unions. Ranis argues that although the market will continue to play an incentive role, as worker cooperatives develop, proliferate, and unite, market forces will weaken, and use value will begin to dominate exchange value. Cooperatives do not rely on the exploitation of workers; different positions within them are determined by democratic election, and their technological innovations can be used by the entire collective. Ranis argues that cooperatives oppose capitalism, but not capital; what they oppose is capital's notorious behavior and immoral use. In terms of income distribution, the wage relationship is replaced by the distribution of surplus value determined by cooperative members, thereby ending the hierarchy between labor and capital.

彼得·拉尼斯(Peter Ranis)认为工人合作社应当在反抗资本主义的运动中发挥重要作用。只有在合作社的社会关系中，工人的潜能才能得到充分发挥，因为他们表现出多方面而非单方面的人类特性。从劳动异化的角度看，工人合作社与构成资本主义生产基础的劳动分工存在深刻的意识形态对抗。面对美国资本主义的攻击，工人合作社的形成发挥了对抗工作条件恶化、工作不稳定和最高法院对工会的打击的作用。拉尼斯认为，虽然市场会继续发挥激励作用，但随着工人合作社的发展、激增和联合，市场力量将会减弱，使用价值开始支配交换价值。合作社并不依赖对工人的剥削，其内部的不同岗位由民主选举确定，其技术创新能为整个团体所用。拉尼斯认为，合作社反对资本主义，但并不反对资本，其反对的是资本臭名昭著的行为和不道德的使用方式。在收入分配方面，工资关系被由合作社成员决定的剩余价值分配所取代，从而结束了劳资等级制度。

V. Summary and Implications

五、总结与启示

1. Characteristics and Causes of Foreign Political Economy Research in 2019

1.2019年国外政治经济学研究的特点及原因

Compared with previous years, the overall characteristic of foreign political economy research in 2019 is a decrease in purely theoretical research and an increase in research on practical issues, along with a substantial increase in articles criticizing contemporary capitalism and exploring resistance strategies and the socialist path. There may be two reasons for this: First, 2017 and 2018 were respectively the 150th anniversary of the publication of Volume I of *Capital* and the 200th anniversary of Marx's birth; 2019 had no similar commemorative events, so both related international conferences and the number of published purely theoretical research papers were relatively few; Second, a decade had passed since the outbreak of the 2008 global financial crisis by 2019, yet developed capitalist countries such as the United States remained mired in multiple crises—economic downturn, rising unemployment, increasing income inequality, the rise of fascism, deepening ecological crisis—while protests erupted frequently around the world. Against this backdrop, foreign Marxist scholars strengthened their research on issues such as imperialism, economic financialization, critique of neoliberalism, ecological Marxism, anti-capitalist movements, and socialism.

与前几年相比，2019年国外政治经济学研究的总体特点是纯理论性研究减少，现实问题研究增多，而且批判当代资本主义和探索反抗策略与社会主义道路的文章大量增加。其原因可能有两点：第一，2017年和2018年分别为《资本论》第一卷出版150周年和马克思诞辰200周年，2019年没有类似的纪念活动，所以无论是相关的国际研讨会，还是发表的纯理论性研究论文数量都相对较少；第二，2019年离2008年全球金融危机爆发已经过去了十年，美国等发达资本主义国家仍陷入多重危机之中，经济低迷、失业上升、收入分配不平等增加、法西斯主义抬头、生态危机加深等，同时全球各地的抗议活动频发，在此背景下，国外马克思主义学者加强了对帝国主义、经济金融化、新自由主义批判、生态学马克思主义、反资本主义运动和社会主义等问题的研究。

Specifically, in the study of the logic, method, and contemporary value of Marxist political economy, the discussion sparked by Fred Moseley’s 2016 book *Money and Totality: A Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marx’s Logic in Capital and the End of the ‘Transformation Problem’* has somewhat subsided, while discussions on research methods have drawn more heavily on philosophical and Western Marxist perspectives. In the study of classical theory, the most notable difference between 2019 and previous years is a significant decline in research on the labor theory of value; research on exploitation theory, capital accumulation theory, imperialism theory, and ecological Marxism has increased, which is clearly inseparable from real-world issues such as the intensification of social contradictions in contemporary capitalism, the stagnation of capital accumulation, the escalation of global conflicts, and environmental degradation. In the study of contemporary capitalism, foreign Marxist scholars, on the one hand, closely follow the latest changes in contemporary capitalism, such as the evolution of neoliberalism and financialization, income distribution dynamics, and digital capitalism, attempting to provide theoretical explanations; on the other hand, they engage in profound critique and reflection on the social contradictions and systemic crises of contemporary capitalism. In the study of socialism and anti-capitalist struggles, foreign Marxist scholars not only further demonstrate the inevitability of socialist revolution theoretically but also discuss specific struggle strategies, such as establishing transnational alliances, forming worker cooperatives, and reviving radical programs. Apart from the weakening of the first area of research, the other three areas reached new levels in 2019.

具体说来，在马克思主义政治经济学的逻辑、方法和时代价值研究方面，由弗雷德·莫斯利(Fred Moseley)2016年出版的《货币与总体：对马克思〈资本论〉逻辑的一个宏观-货币解读及“转形”问题的终结》一书所激发的讨论有所减弱，关于研究方法的讨论则更多借鉴了哲学和西方马克思主义的研究视角。在经典理论研究方面，2019年与前几年最明显的区别是关于劳动价值论的研究大为减少；关于剥削理论、资本积累理论、帝国主义理论和生态学马克思主义的研究增多，这显然与当代资本主义社会矛盾激化、资本积累停滞、全球冲突加剧和环境恶化等现实问题密不可分。在当代资本主义研究方面，国外马克思主义学者一方面密切关注新自由主义和金融化演进、收入分配动态和数字资本主义等当代资本主义的最新变化，试图从理论上进行说明；另一方面又对当代资本主义的社会矛盾和系统性危机进行了深刻的批判与反思。在社会主义与反资本主义斗争研究方面，国外马克思主义学者不仅从理论上进一步论证了社会主义革命的必然性，而且讨论了诸如建立跨国联盟、成立工人合作社和恢复激进主义纲领等具体的斗争策略。除了第一个方面的研究有所减弱以外，其他三个方面的研究在2019年都达到了新的水平。

2. The Implications of Foreign Political Economy Research in 2019

2.2019年国外政治经济学研究的借鉴意义

The foreign political economy research of 2019 can undoubtedly greatly inspire domestic theoretical research and the study of socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics. Specifically, we believe the following aspects can provide reference for us.

2019年国外政治经济学研究无疑能极大启发国内的相关理论研究和中国特色社会主义政治经济学研究。具体说来，我们认为以下几个方面能为我们提供借鉴。

First, draw on the research methods of Western Marxism. Western Marxism’s critique of the cultural crisis of technological rationalism and its exploration of human freedom and liberation can offer important reference for us. Of course, Western Marxism and Marxist political economy have different theoretical starting points and emphases, and the views of some scholars must be critically accepted. Limited by the author’s knowledge structure, this article mainly introduces ecological Marxism and a set of articles on Nietzsche, and research in this area needs to be further strengthened.

第一，借鉴西方马克思主义的研究方法。西方马克思主义对技术理性主义文化危机的批判和对人类自由、解放之路的探索，能为我们提供重要借鉴。当然，西方马克思主义与马克思主义政治经济学的理论出发点与侧重点不同，对一些学者的观点也要批判性接受。受笔者知识结构的限制，本文主要介绍了生态学马克思主义和关于尼采的一组文章，需要继续加强这方面的研究。

Second, focus on the dynamics of labor exploitation and capital accumulation, revealing the deep roots of social contradictions in contemporary capitalism from these two aspects. Many problems of contemporary capitalism stem from the obstruction of capital accumulation. To overcome this obstacle, capital, on the one hand, intensifies the exploitation of labor, and on the other hand, continuously innovates forms of exploitation and expands the scope of exploitation, ultimately leading to escalating international conflicts and deepening domestic contradictions.

第二，关注劳动剥削与资本积累动态，从这两个方面揭示当代资本主义社会矛盾的深层根源。当代资本主义的许多问题都源于资本积累受到了阻碍，为克服这一障碍，资本一方面加重对劳动的剥削，另一方面不断创新剥削方式和扩展剥削领域，其最终结果是国际冲突不断加剧和国内矛盾日益加深。

Third, from a holistic perspective, grasp the internal connections among imperialism, financialization, neoliberalism, the Anthropocene ecological crisis, the social reproduction crisis, and even digital capitalism, revealing the systemic crisis of contemporary capitalism. The crisis of contemporary capitalism is by no means a one-sided crisis; even when analyzing a single issue in isolation, it must be linked to other aspects. Taking digital capitalism as an example, in addition to being connected to issues such as labor exploitation and socialist accounting, neoliberalism and financialization have both played important roles.

第三，从整体性视角出发，把握帝国主义、金融化、新自由主义、人类世生态危机、社会再生产危机甚至数字资本主义的内在联系，揭示当代资本主义的系统性危机。当代资本主义的危机绝不是单方面的危机，即使单纯分析其中的某个问题，也要联系其他方面。以数字资本主义为例，除了与劳动剥削和社会主义核算等问题联系在一起，新自由主义和金融化都在其中发挥了重要作用。

Fourth, strengthen the construction of discursive power and firmly uphold confidence in the path, theory, system, and culture of socialism with Chinese characteristics. The systemic crisis of contemporary capitalism and the rise of anti-capitalist struggles on a global scale further highlight the theoretical and practical value of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Scientific socialism has shown strong vitality in 21st-century China and has held high the great banner of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the world. At present, we must both firmly uphold the “Four Confidences” [13]13 The “Four Confidences” (四个自信) refers to confidence in the path, theory, system, and culture of socialism with Chinese characteristics, a key political slogan promoted by the CPC. and strive to secure the great victory of socialism with Chinese characteristics for a New Era, while also strengthening the construction of discursive power, resolutely resisting neoliberal ideology, and providing Chinese solutions for the development of world socialism.

第四，加强话语权建设，坚定中国特色社会主义的道路自信、理论自信、制度自信、文化自信。当代资本主义的系统性危机和全球范围内反资本主义斗争的兴起，更加凸显了中国特色社会主义的理论与实践价值。科学社会主义在21世纪的中国焕发出强大生机活力，在世界上高高举起了中国特色社会主义伟大旗帜。当前我们既要坚定“四个自信”，奋力夺取新时代中国特色社会主义伟大胜利，也要加强话语权建设，坚决抵制新自由主义意识形态，为世界社会主义发展提供中国方案。

Online editor: Zhong Yao, Zheng Yifan

网络编辑：钟尧 郑宜帆