The “Exception” without Exception in the Logic of Capital and the Labor of Non-Labor

—A Critical Reflection on Contemporary Western Left-Wing Thought

——对当代西方左翼思潮的一种批判性反思

Although contemporary Western left-wing thinkers express their ideas in diverse forms, they share a common theoretical interventionism that directly confronts social reality. Since the 20th century, Western capitalist societies have generally experienced a golden period of economic development. The expansion and extension of capital not only failed to intensify its inherent contradictions but also weakened the sharp opposition between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat even in its direct manifestations. The consequences include: on the one hand, the research perspectives of Western left-wing thinkers have gradually become specialized, either turning toward a quasi-metaphysical study of pure philosophy and mathematics (e.g., Alain Badiou), or toward a critique of popular culture from the perspective of psychoanalysis (e.g., Slavoj Žižek), or focusing on a reconstruction of contemporary aesthetic theory (e.g., Jacques Rancière), or tracing back to classical traditions to construct a contemporary theoretical form of biopolitics (e.g., Giorgio Agamben). On the other hand, Western left-wing thinkers have highlighted the radical dimension of their own thought through an “evental” method of research. This evental method implies a certain conception of history as rupture, meaning that thinkers no longer insist on criticizing contemporary capitalism through a presupposition of some immanent rational order of history, but instead pay more attention to logical ruptures in any existing order—that is, the eruption of various abnormal social events—and directly transform critique into a kind of “emancipation,” discovering all possibilities of escaping contemporary capitalist society in the analysis of historical ruptures. This pursuit of a radical path has made them left-wing intellectuals who possess only a radical posture. In essence, their critical method has already deviated from the path of capitalist critique held by Marx. This path manifests as follows: Marx attempted to explore the inherent contradictions of capital within the logic of capital itself, thereby achieving a possible social emancipation, while contemporary radical left-wing thought, in the rupture of events, tries to construct an “external” critique of capitalist society through the critique of “exceptional” and “abnormal” events. Among them, only Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt’s thought on “Empire” attempts to restore a possible immanent critique within the global perspective of capital, but ultimately, in their conception of autonomous labor, their theory reveals a kind of intellectual naivety. The fundamental reason for this intellectual naivety is their collective neglect of the critical method and path of political economy inherent in Marx’s thought. Against the backdrop of the global outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020, this intellectual naivety has become even more directly and clearly evident.

当代西方左翼思想家虽思想表达形态各异，却拥有共同的直面社会现实的理论介入性。20世纪以来，西方资本主义社会普遍经历了一段经济发展的黄金期，资本的拓展与延伸不仅未能激化其内在矛盾，反而使资产者与无产者之间的尖锐对立在其直接的表现形式上也趋于弱化。由此带来的后果包括:一方面，西方左翼思想家的研究视角渐趋专业化，或者转向类形而上学化的纯粹哲学与数学的研究[如阿兰·巴迪欧(Alain Badiou)]，或者转向精神分析视阈下的流行文化批判[如斯拉沃热·齐泽克(Slavojizek)]，抑或是侧重于一种当代美学理论的重构[如雅克·朗西埃(Jacques Rancière)]，抑或溯源至古典传统构建当代生命政治的理论形态[如吉奥乔·阿甘本(Giorgio Agamben)]。另一方面，西方左翼思想家以“事件”化的研究方法凸显了自身思想的激进性维度。这一事件化的研究方法隐含着某种断裂化的历史观，这意味着，思想家将不再执着于通过某种关于历史的内在理性秩序的预设来批判当下的资本主义，而是更为关注任何现存秩序的逻辑性断裂，即各种非常态化的社会事件的爆发，并将批判直接转化为一种“解放”，在对历史断裂口的分析当中发现逃离当下资本主义社会的全部可能性。这一激进路径的探寻让他们成为仅富有激进姿态的左翼知识分子，在本质上，其批判方法已经背离了马克思所持有的资本主义批判路径。这一路经表现为:马克思试图在资本逻辑之内探寻资本自身的内在矛盾，从而实现一种可能的社会解放，而当代激进左翼思潮则在事件化的断裂当中试图以一种“例外的”、“非常态的”事件之批判去构筑一种对资本主义社会的“外在”批判。其中只有安东尼奥·奈格里(Antonio Negri)与迈克尔·哈特(Michael Hardt)的“帝国”思想试图在资本的全球化视阈下恢复一种可能的内在批判，但最终却在对自主性劳动的构想中让其理论呈现出一种思想的天真。而致使其陷入这一思想天真的根本原因在于，他们对马克思思想中固有的政治经济学的批判方法和路径的集体漠视。在2020年全球新冠疫情爆发的背景下，这一思想的天真体现得更为直接和明显。

I. The Anti-Intellectualism of Agamben’s Theory of the “State of Exception” and Its Roots

一、阿甘本“例外状态”理论的反智主义及其根源

Since the global outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020, Western left-wing thinkers were among the first to track and analyze this “event.” Žižek compiled his commentaries since the outbreak into a book, promptly publishing *Pandemic: Covid-19 Shakes the World*. Because Italy was the first country in Europe to enter a state of emergency, the Italian version of the book was also released almost simultaneously. Among these, Žižek constructs a radical post-human perspective. Facing the spread of the pandemic in Europe, Žižek points out: “We should resist the temptation to seek deeper meaning in the current pandemic—for example, that although the pandemic is cruel, it is merely the punishment for humanity’s cruel treatment of other species on Earth. If we seek such hidden messages behind the pandemic, it shows we are still in a pre-modern state... The most unacceptable fact is that the ongoing pandemic embodies a pure natural contingency, with no deeper meaning concealed behind it. In this broader order of things, we are merely one species with no particularity.” [1]1 Slavoj Žižek, *Pandemic!: Covid-19 Shakes the World*, Polity Press, 2020, p. 3. This de-subjectivized perspective allows Žižek to maintain a certain distance from the many remarks made during the pandemic by left-wing thinkers represented by Agamben. “All the Alt-Right and Fake Left refuse to accept the full facts of the pandemic, diluting it into a practice of social constructivist reductionism—in other words, denying the pandemic from the perspective of social meaning.” [2]2 Ibid., p. 4. This critique, in a sense, touches on the crux of contemporary Western left-wing thinkers’ analysis of the pandemic. Indeed, in the critiques of Agamben, Byung-Chul Han, and others, the pandemic, as an evental “state of exception,” has become a typical way to construct or reinforce social power. For Agamben, the threat of the virus to the real survival of human beings is far less worthy of attention than the problem of the reconstruction of social power brought about by this state of exception. So much so that at the very beginning of the outbreak in Italy, Agamben used the image of “the anointed one” [3]3 “涂油者” (literally “the anointed one”) refers to Agamben’s use of the biblical figure of the scapegoat or a ritual figure to suggest that the pandemic is a constructed narrative rather than a natural fact. to explain in what sense the pandemic was constructed by the social power system rather than being a real fact, and called the current pandemic a “state of exception brought about by an unfounded emergency.” After this view was criticized, Agamben does not seem to have abandoned this stance. He continued, in his article “On Infection” on March 11, to radically depict a post-pandemic “horrifying” scene for Europe still fighting the pandemic: “‘The neighbor’ no longer exists. ... All universities and schools are closed at once, with only online teaching; political and cultural discussions and gatherings are stopped, with communication only through digital channels; machines replace all human contact—all contagion,” [4]4 Giorgio Agamben, “On Infection,” March 11, 2020, translated into English in various online outlets. thereby criticizing the various efforts made by the government to combat the pandemic. Byung-Chul Han, a Korean-German left-wing thinker with a similar critical path, also highlighted the generalization of big data accompanying the pandemic and the social power it might extend, viewing anti-epidemic measures as excessive emergency responses. This, in a sense, has become a footnote to Agamben’s theory of the state of exception.

自2020年全球新冠疫情爆发以来，西方左翼思想家们最先对这一“事件”进行了追踪和分析。齐泽克将其自新冠疫情爆发以来的评论汇集成书，第一时间出版了《大流行:新冠撼动世界》(Pandemic:Covid-19 Shakes the World)。由于意大利在欧洲最先进入紧急状态，该书的意大利文版本也几乎同步上架。其中，齐泽克所构筑的是一种激进的后人类视角。面对疫情在欧洲的流行，齐泽克指出:“我们应当抵制这样一种诱惑，即在此刻流行的疫情当中探寻更为深层的意义，比如，虽然疫情很残忍，但却不过是人类残忍地对待地球其他物种所得到的惩罚。如果我们这样去探寻疫情背后隐蔽的信息，则说明我们还处于前现代当中……最为难以接受的一个事实是，正在流行中的疫情体现的是一种纯粹的自然的偶然性，其背后没有任何被遮蔽的更深层的意义。在这一更为广大的物的秩序当中，我们只是没有任何特殊性的一个物种而已。”1这种去主体化的视角让齐泽克能够对以阿甘本为代表的左翼思想家在疫情期间的诸多言论保持一定的距离。“所有另类右翼(Alt-Right)与虚假左翼(Fake Left)都拒绝接受疫情的全部事实，他们都将其稀释为一种社会建构主义还原论的实践，换言之，在社会意义的视角之下否认疫情。”2这一批判在某种意义上也触及了当代西方左翼思想家有关疫情分析的关键所在。的确，在阿甘本和韩炳哲等人的批判当中，疫情作为一种事件化的“例外状态”成为了建构抑或强化社会权力的典型方式。对阿甘本来说，病毒对现实的人的生存问题的威胁远不如由这一例外状态所带来的社会权力再建构的问题更值得警惕。以至于在意大利疫情刚刚爆发之际，阿甘本曾以“涂油者”的意象来说明疫情究竟在何种意义上是被社会权力体系所构造的，而并非是真实存在的事实，并将当下的疫情称为“由无端的紧急情况带来的例外状态”。在这一观点遭到了批判之后，阿甘本也似乎并没有放弃这一立场，他继续在3月11日的《论感染》一文当中极为激进地为当下仍在抗击疫情的欧洲描画了一个后疫情时代的“恐怖”场景:“‘邻人’不复存在。……一次性关闭所有大学和学校，只进行线上教学;停止政治与文化主题的讨论和聚会，只通过数字渠道交流;机器取代人类之间的一切接触———一切传染”3，以此批判政府为抗疫所做出的种种努力。与之有着相同批判路径的韩裔德国左翼思想家韩炳哲同样凸显了伴随着疫情而来的大数据的普遍化及其可能延伸出的社会权力，并将防疫的相关措施视为一种过度应急。这在某种意义上成为了阿甘本之例外状态理论的一个注脚。

The critique of the pandemic by Agamben and others, using the “state of exception” as an entry point, has led left-wing thinkers into a trap of anti-intellectualism: denying the fact of the pandemic and its spread, instead claiming that the pandemic is merely a fantasy constructed by the media and the government (e.g., Agamben); ignoring the biological transmission characteristics of the virus, instead worrying about the social disintegration brought about by the disappearance of “the neighbor,” and viewing all anti-epidemic measures as excessive panic (e.g., Agamben, Byung-Chul Han, Rancière [5]5 Jacques Rancière also expressed similar views during the pandemic, criticizing the state’s use of the health crisis to expand control.); even ignoring the social and economic losses caused by pandemic isolation, instead viewing the empty streets under lockdown as a direct victory of anti-consumerism, a miracle of the advent of communism (e.g., Žižek [6]6 Michel Foucault, *The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978-1979*.). These views directly manifest a rejection of and alienation from science and common sense in contemporary real life. This anti-intellectualism has made Western left-wing thought during the pandemic the focus of public criticism, and their consistently proclaimed theoretical posture of active intervention has instead appeared as an unrealistic and sensationalist grandstanding.

阿甘本等人以“例外状态”为切入点对疫情的批判让左翼思想家陷入了一种反智主义的窠臼之中:否认疫情及其蔓延的事实本身，转而认为疫情不过是由媒体和政府所建构的一个幻想(如阿甘本);无视病毒的生物传播特性，转而担忧邻人的消失所带来的社会解体，并将所有防疫措施视为过度恐慌(如阿甘本、韩炳哲、朗西埃4);甚至无视疫情隔离所造成的社会经济损失，转而将空荡荡的隔离中的街道视为反消费主义的一次直接胜利，共产主义降临的一种奇迹(如齐泽克5)。这些观点直接显现出了一种对当代现实生活中的科学与常识的否弃与疏离。这种反智主义让疫情当中的西方左翼思潮成为了舆论批判的焦点，他们所一贯标榜的积极介入的理论姿态反而显现为一种不切实际的哗众取宠。

But if we consider it purely from a theoretical perspective, Agamben’s analytical approach to the pandemic is in fact merely a practical exercise of his own thought. In recent years, all of Agamben’s philosophy has revolved around the question of biopolitics born in a state of exception. Although Michel Foucault, in his later lectures at the Collège de France, raised the question of biopolitics, he regarded it only as a technique of governance that became generalized only in modern society.[6]6 Michel Foucault, *The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978-1979*. Agamben, however, extends it into a mode of constructing law and social power that has always existed throughout the entire history of human social development, rather than a normal state of exception. In Agamben’s view, this abnormal state of exception has always been a contingent opportunity for the construction of power: from religious sacrifice, to the “suspension of law”[7]7 “Suspension of law” (*iustitium* in Latin) refers to a state in ancient Roman law where normal legal procedures were suspended, often in emergencies. in ancient Roman law, to protracted warfare, all are both a “state of exception” and a moment of formation for law or political power. Agamben, who provides a systematic explanation of this origin of power, naturally becomes wary of any contemporary attempt to construct a normalized all-encompassing control in the name of a “state of exception.” Agamben is committed to the most thorough critique of any power and its inherent control, which gives his thought a tendency toward anti-intellectualism.

但如果仅从学理角度来看，阿甘本面对疫情所给出的分析路径其实不过是他自身思想理论的一次实战性的演练。近年来，阿甘本的全部哲学都围绕一种例外状态下诞生的生命政治问题而展开。尽管米歇尔·福柯(Michel Foucault)晚年在其法兰西学院系列课程当中提出了生命政治的问题，但却仅仅将其视为直至现代社会才得以普遍化的一种国家治理术。6而阿甘本却将其拓展为整个人类社会发展的全部历史当中始终存在的一种法的以及社会权力的建构方式，而非正常的例外状态。在阿甘本看来，这种非正常的例外状态从来都是构筑权力的可能性契机:从宗教中的祭祀，到古代罗马法的“悬法”7，再到旷日持久的战争，都既是一种“例外状态”，同时又是一种法律抑或政治权力的形成契机。而对这一权力源头给出系统解释的阿甘本自然会警惕当代试图以“例外状态”为名构建出一种常态化的一切操控。阿甘本致力于对任何一种权力及其内在操控进行最为彻底的批判，这使其思想自身显露出一种反智主义的倾向。

The anti-intellectualist tendency of Agamben’s theoretical critique not only reveals that the eventalized analytical method of contemporary left-wing thought is impractical, but also, through its thoroughness, demonstrates the theoretical limits of contemporary Western left-wing thought as a radicalized political philosophy. It is precisely this radical political-philosophical tendency, together with the conservative tendency of Anglo-American political philosophy, that fully delineates the overall landscape of contemporary Western political philosophy.

阿甘本理论批判的反智主义趋向不仅透露出当代左翼思潮的事件化分析方法是不切实际的，同时还以其彻底性的推进展现出当代西方左翼思潮作为一种激进化的政治哲学研究的理论限度。而正是这一激进主义的政治哲学趋向与趋向于保守主义的英美政治哲学完整诠释了当代西方政治哲学的整体面貌。

First, political philosophy that aims at pursuing universal and good governance has a conservative tendency. For instance, Leo Strauss traces the theme of political philosophy back to Plato’s *Laws* and proposes: “The guiding theme of political philosophy is the regime, not the law.” And the so-called regime “is the order, the form, which gives society its character. Therefore, the regime is a specific way of life.”[8]8 Leo Strauss, *What Is Political Philosophy? And Other Studies*. Political philosophy built on this foundation naturally regards the “common good” as the goal of the statesman. Although it seems to contain an absolute value, it appears capable of merging with political science as a form of knowledge, i.e., the most rational technique of state governance, ultimately realizing a universal common good through a rational order.

首先，以追求普遍而良好的社会治理术为旨归的政治哲学带有一种保守主义的趋向。诸如列奥·施特劳斯(Leo Strauss)将政治哲学的主题追溯到柏拉图《法义》中的相关讨论，并提出了:“政治哲学的指导性主题是政制(regime)，而不是法律。”而所谓政制“是秩序、形式，它赋予社会其特性。因此，政制是一种特定的生活方式”。4建基于此的政治哲学自然会将“共同的善”视为政治家的目标8。虽然看似包含着一种绝对的价值，但却似乎能够与作为知识形态的政治科学，即一种最为合理的国家治理术融合起来，最终实现以一种合理的秩序来体现一种普遍而共同的善。

Second, political philosophy that takes struggle as the core of politics has a radical tendency. The German jurist Carl Schmitt, a contemporary of Strauss, confronted the same social reality but proposed a concept of politics entirely different from Strauss’s: “All political concepts, ideas, and terms contain hostility.”[9]9 Carl Schmitt, *The Concept of the Political*. “Politics creates the most intense and extreme antagonism, and the closer each concrete antagonism approaches the extreme point—that is, the formation of friend-enemy camps—the more political it becomes.”[10]10 Ibid. The discussion of the state of exception as the foundation of supreme social power also occupies a central place in Schmitt’s political philosophy and actually constitutes the theoretical starting point for the paradigm of the state of exception: “A philosophy that concerns itself with real life cannot evade the exceptional state and extreme situation, but must pay the greatest attention to them… because the norm can only arise from the exceptional state.”[11]11 Carl Schmitt, *Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty*. Based on this enthusiasm for the state of exception, Schmitt pays particular attention to the political theories of Machiavelli and Hobbes. The characteristics of the prince constructed by Machiavelli amid the chaos of Italy, and the state of nature conceived by Hobbes, are in a sense both political conceptions based on a “state of exception.” When Agamben elaborates the internal connection between the “state of exception” and sovereign power, he has already consciously acknowledged the internal link between his thought and Schmitt’s.[12]12 Giorgio Agamben, *State of Exception*. However, the state of exception affirmed in Schmitt’s context becomes an object to be criticized and examined in Agamben’s: “By placing the state of exception in the context of dictatorship, Schmitt then distinguishes between ‘commissioned dictatorship,’ which aims to protect or restore the existing constitutional order, and ‘sovereign dictatorship,’ which, as an exceptional figure, reaches its critical mass or melting point. The terms ‘dictatorship’ and ‘state of siege’ can therefore disappear in *Political Theology*, replaced by the state of exception, while, at least on the surface, the focus shifts from the definition of the exception to the definition of sovereignty.”[13]13 Ibid.

其次，以斗争为政治之核心内核的政治哲学带有一种激进主义的趋向。德国法学家卡尔·施密特(Carl Schmitt)与施特劳斯处于同一时代，却在面对相同的社会现实时提出了与施特劳斯完全不同的政治概念，“一切政治的概念、观念和术语的含义都包含敌对性”9，“政治造成了最剧烈、最极端的对抗，而且每一次具体对抗的程度越接近极点，即形成敌—友的阵营，其政治性也就越强”10。而对例外状态作为构筑社会至上权力的讨论也占据着施密特的政治哲学的核心，并实际上构筑了以例外状态为讨论范式的理论起点:“一种关注现实生活的哲学不能逃避非常状态和极端处境，而是必须在最大程度上关注它们，……因为规范只能来自于非常状态。”11基于这样一种对例外状态的热衷，施密特特别关注马基雅维利与霍布斯的政治理论。马基雅维利在意大利处于纷乱状态的情况下所构筑的君主特性以及霍布斯所设想的自然状态，在某种意义上说都是基于一种“例外状态”的政治设想。阿甘本在阐发“例外状态”与至上权力之间的内在关联时，已经自觉地指认了其思想与施密特之间的内在关联。12只是在施密特的语境中被肯定的例外状态，在阿甘本这里却成为一种有待批判和审视的对象:“透过将例外状态放在独裁的脉络之中，施米特接着区分了以保卫或回复现存宪政体制为目标的‘委任独裁’，与作为一个例外的形象，而在其中独裁达到可谓其临界质量或熔解点的‘主权独裁’。‘独裁’与‘戒严状态’等用语因此可以在《政治神学》中消失，而被例外状态所取代，同时，至少在表面上，重心也从例外的定义转移到主权的定义。”13

Thus, the latter radical political philosophy’s tracing back of power and norms leads to two possible consequences: on the one hand, as with Schmitt, in the process of absolutizing the state of exception, the supreme power it constructs is sacralized, thereby transforming philosophy into a political theology; on the other hand, as with Agamben, any possible birth of supreme social power is dissolved in an attempt to prevent the recurrence of the state of exception. However, Agamben’s paradox lies in the fact that when he seeks a way out for this controlled society, he still places his hope in a quasi-theological “community to come.” Therefore, whether affirming or negating the state of exception, it is impossible to fundamentally escape the tendency to turn politics into a theological postulate. Yet radical political philosophy seems able to realize its radicality only within this theological postulate. After all, without setting an absolute political goal and opposing it to social reality, the action to subvert the existing order of capitalist society would lack legitimacy. In this sense, the eventalized analyses based on a discontinuous view of history in contemporary Western left-wing thought are merely variants of various theoretical paths of the state of exception, all bearing the potential底色 of a political theology, hoping to rely on some突发契机 to complete a subversive revolution.

由此可见，后一种激进的政治哲学对权力和规范的溯源带来了两个可能的后果:一方面，如施密特，在将例外状态绝对化的过程中，将其所构筑的至上权力神圣化，从而将哲学转变为一种政治神学;另一方面，如阿甘本，以一种试图避免例外状态再度降临的方式来消解任何可能的社会至上权力的诞生。然而，阿甘本的悖论在于，当其试图为这种控制社会找寻出路时却仍将希望诉诸一种类神学的“随时降临的共同体”。因此，无论是对例外状态的肯定抑或否定，都无法从根本上摆脱让政治走向神学设定的趋向。然而，激进的政治哲学似乎只有在这一神学化的设定当中才能实现自身的激进性，毕竟如果不设定一个绝对的政治目标，并将其与社会现实对立起来，则颠覆当下资本主义社会既有秩序的行动就缺乏了合法性。从这一意义上说，当代西方左翼思潮当中以断裂的历史观所展开的事件化分析都不过是各种例外状态理论路径的变种，它们都带有一种可能的政治神学的底色，希望依赖于某个突发性的契机来完成一次颠覆性的革命。

In this sense, the theological attribute of a political philosophy that emphasizes subversion rather than construction necessarily contains a tendency toward anti-intellectualism. Because radical critique, in its demand for absolute rationality, reveals precisely its own theoretical impracticality. In this sense, anti-intellectualism, akin to faith, is both the theoretical limit of radicalized political philosophy and the necessary prerequisite it requires.

从这一意义上说，颠覆而非建构的政治哲学自身的神学属性让其必然包含着某种反智主义的趋向。因为激进的批判在一种绝对合理化的诉求中所显露的正是它自身理论的不切实际。在这一意义上，近乎于信仰的反智主义既是激进化的政治哲学的理论界限，又是其所需要的必要前提。

II. The Power-ized Logic of Capital and the Formation of a Pan-Labor Ideology

二、被权力化的资本逻辑与泛劳动意识形态的形成

Faced with the global pandemic of 2020, the problem with this so-called “state of exception” analytical approach lies not only in the theological底色 it reveals, but more importantly, in its failure to fundamentally hit the mark. When Agamben, Rancière, Byung-Chul Han, and others warn against the reconstruction of any form of social power during the pandemic, they fail to touch upon the most fundamental anxiety and fear of Western capitalist countries in the face of the pandemic. This anxiety and fear, as the pandemic spread, increasingly manifested as a concern about economic recession, rather than the loss of human life in the pandemic.

面对2020年的全球疫情，这种所谓的“例外状态”的分析路径存在的问题还不仅在于其所展现出的神学底色，更为重要的是，这一分析未能从根本上切中要害。阿甘本、朗西埃、韩炳哲等人在警惕于疫情中任何形式的社会权力之再造的时候，却根本没有触及西方资本主义国家面对疫情最为根本的焦虑和恐惧。这一焦虑和恐惧随着疫情的蔓延，越来越表现为对经济衰退的担忧，而非人在疫情中生命的丧失。

In his analysis of the pandemic, Byung-Chul Han writes: “Although the danger of COVID-19 is indeed not to be underestimated, it is still disproportionate to the panic caused by this pandemic. Even the Spanish flu, which had a higher fatality rate, did not have such a devastating impact on the economy. Why is this? Why is the world’s reaction to a virus so excessively panicked?”[14]14 Byung-Chul Han, “The Disappearance of Rituals,” cited from his article on the pandemic. However, Han fails to provide a good answer to this question, merely attributing the cause to changes in the new social reality architecture, such as the widespread application and development of big data, without clearly identifying that the “disproportionate panic” he refers to stems from the devastating economic blow caused by the pandemic.

韩炳哲在分析疫情的文章中提出:“尽管新冠的危险确实不可低估，但依然与这次疫情造成的恐慌是不成比例的。就连致死率更高的西班牙大流感也没有对经济造成如此毁灭性的影响。这究竟是为什么?为什么世界对一种病毒的反应恐慌得如此过分呢?”14然而，韩炳哲却未能对这个问题给出一个很好的回答，仅仅将原因归为大数据的普遍应用和发展等新的社会现实架构方式的改变，未能明确指认出他所谓的“不成比例的恐慌”源于因疫情而产生的对经济的毁灭性打击。

Here, we can discover that the epidemic, this so-called “state of exception,” reveals to us, in an extreme non-daily form, a hidden micro-power that we have already constructed in our daily state: namely, the compulsion to augment value inherent in the logic of capital itself. It has absolutely no need to rely on any “state of exception” to complete its own generation and development; on the contrary, all externalized control powers adopted to control the epidemic are precisely what obstruct the operation of this micro-power of capital. In this sense, the virus, as a living organism that depends on contagion (that is, a mode of self-replication of the virus), is a manifest logic of capital. The modes of operation of the two are isomorphic, so controlling the epidemic simultaneously curbs the logic of capital; all positive actions regarding epidemic prevention unquestionably uphold the premise of placing human life in the supreme position. However, in capitalist countries, under the control of the nearly frenzied compulsion of capital augmentation, the contradiction between the epidemic and economic recession is exceptionally acute. Today, the sharpening of social contradictions within the United States is, in essence, nothing other than the result of the inability to effectively coordinate the compulsion to augment value inherent in this logic of capital, within the context of capitalist society, with the prevention and control of the epidemic. Therefore, in the face of the current state of development of contemporary Western capitalism, the critique of the control society triggered by anxiety over the state of exception of the epidemic is not only a superficial remedy but fundamentally a case of heading in the wrong direction.

在此，我们可以发现，疫情，这一所谓的“例外状态”以极端的非日常的状态向我们揭示的正是我们在日常状态中已经建构起来的一个隐蔽的微观权力，即资本逻辑自身所包含的增殖强制。它根本无需借助于任何一种“例外状态”来完成自身的生成与发展，恰恰相反，为控制疫情所采取的所有外化的控制权力都在阻隔这一资本微观权力的运行。在这一意义上，病毒作为一个依赖于传染(也即一种病毒的自我增殖方式)而得以存在的生物体，是显在的资本逻辑。两者的运行方式具有同构性，因此对疫情的控制也同时会遏制资本逻辑，所有关于防疫的积极行动都毫无疑问秉承着将人的生命置于至上位置的前提。但在资本主义国家中，在近乎疯狂的资本增殖强制的权力操控之下，疫情与经济衰退之间的矛盾异常尖锐。如今，美国国内社会矛盾的尖锐化在本质上不过是在资本主义社会语境下这种资本逻辑所内含的增殖强制与防控疫情之间无法得到有效协调所致。因此，面对当代西方资本主义发展的现状，对疫情的例外状态的担忧所引发的对控制社会的批判，不仅是隔靴搔痒，而且根本是南辕北辙。

In other words, for contemporary Western capitalist society, social power has been fully internalized into everyday life, and it did not arise from any form of “state of exception.” On this point, Negri and Hardt have already offered some discussion: “We cannot confuse politics with theology. The dominant form of sovereignty in the contemporary world — if we insist on calling it that — is entirely embedded within and sustained by legal systems and governing institutions; it is a republican form that is both the rule of law and the rule of property. In other words, politics is not an autonomous sphere but is completely immersed in economic and legal structures. There is nothing special or exceptional about the exercise of this power. Its emphasis on naturalness — in fact, its silent, everyday operation — makes this power even more difficult to identify, analyze, and challenge. Our primary task is to expose the intimate relationship between sovereignty, law, and capital.” [15]15 Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, *Assembly*, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017, p. 15. [Citation as in original; the English text is a translation of the Chinese authors’ rendering.] Here, Negri and Hardt accurately identify two key points. First, to avoid the theological tendency of Western left-wing thought, critique needs to be concentrated on the logic of capital centered on property. The logic of capital today has become a new invisible system of power that no longer relies on the state apparatus for its existence. Second, they identify that in contemporary social life, this form of power always runs through everyday operations, rather than relying on a “state of exception” for its existence. Correspondingly, all event-based “states of exception” that block the power of capital will ultimately become effective opportunities for the birth of new forms of capital. The logic of capital, in its compulsion to augment value, always requires the continuous emergence of new things to activate the vitality of capital augmentation. Therefore, after a state of exception blocks capital, it will essentially achieve greater expansion through reorganization and transformation. As of May 31, 2020, the assets of U.S. technology giants still in the midst of the epidemic had increased substantially, with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s assets rising by 48%. Thus, for the logic of capital, which always needs to constantly explore new modes of augmentation, all states of exception are essentially nothing more than the “normality” required for the spread of the logic of capital.

换言之，对当代西方资本主义社会而言，社会权力已经全面内化在日常生活当中，非诞生于任何形式的“例外状态”之下。对此，奈格里和哈特已经有所论述:“我们不能把政治和神学混为一谈。当代主导的主权形式———如果我们坚持如此称呼的话———完全内嵌于法律系统和治理机构中，并因此而得到维持，是一种既是法治、也是财治(rule of property)的共和形式。换句话说，政治不是一个自主性的领域，而是完全浸没在经济和法律结构中。这种权力行使没有任何特别或者例外的地方。其对自然而然属性(naturalness)的强调———事实上，也即其悄无声息的日常运作让这种权力更加难以辨识、分析、乃至受到挑战。我们的首要任务就是让主权、法律和资本的亲密关系大白于天下。”15在此，奈格里和哈特较为准确地指认出关键性的两点。其一，为避免西方左翼思想的神学化趋向，需要将批判集中于以所有权(property)为核心的资本逻辑。资本逻辑在今天成为了无需依赖于国家机器而存在的新的隐形权力体系。其二，指认了在当代社会现实生活中这一权力形式始终贯穿于日常化运作当中，而非依赖于“例外状态”而存在。与之相应，所有事件化的“例外状态”对资本权力的阻断最终都将成为新资本形态诞生的有效契机。资本逻辑在其增殖强制中总是需要新事物的不断诞生以激活资本增殖活力，因此在例外状态对资本形成阻断之后，在本质上总会在重组和变形当中实现更大程度的拓展。截至2020年5月31日，仍处于疫情当中的美国科技巨头的资产都得到了大幅提升，其中脸书创始人马克·扎克伯格(Mark Zuckerberg)的资产上涨了48%。因此，对总是需要不断探寻新的增殖方式的资本逻辑而言，所有的例外状态本质上不过是资本逻辑的蔓延所需要的“常态”。

Therefore, the power structure of capitalist society revealed by the epidemic is by no means dependent on a state of exception like the epidemic. On this point, Negri and Hardt, more thoroughly than other Western left-wing thinkers, adhere to Marx’s critical method in confronting capitalist society: namely, discovering the power of capital within the everyday order of capital’s operation, and thereby exploring the possibility of subverting capital. In this possibility of critique, the analysis of power mechanisms from a purely political-philosophical perspective is merely one of many analyses Marx made of the internal mechanisms of capitalist society’s operation. In other words, with regard to this critique immanent in everyday life, Marx’s critique of the logic of capital is less a critique in the sense of political philosophy than a critique in the sense of social philosophy. In the latter study, the generation and operation of political power will be based on the analysis and critique of the everyday operation of the entire social economy.

因此，疫情所彰显出的资本主义社会的权力架构绝非依赖于疫情这样的例外状态。在这一点上，奈格里与哈特较之于其他西方左翼思想家更为彻底地坚持了马克思面对资本主义社会所持有的批判方法，即在资本运行的日常秩序当中发现权力化的资本，并籍此探寻颠覆资本的可能性。在这一可能性的批判中，单纯的政治哲学视域下的权力机制分析只是马克思对资本主义社会运行机制内部诸多环节所作的分析之一。换言之，就这种内在于日常生活的批判而言，马克思对资本逻辑的批判与其说是一种政治哲学意义上的批判，不如说是一种社会哲学意义上的批判。在后者的研究中，政治层面的权力的生成与运作将建基于对整个社会经济运行的日常化的分析和批判。

How did the operational logic of capital, originally merely an objective economic structural mode, become a mechanism of social power? Negri and Hardt’s analysis of this issue hits the mark. They not only propose the overall trend of “rule of property” replacing the rule of law, but also identify the root cause of this trend: “The concept of the individual is established not through ‘being’ but through ‘having’; the individual points not to a ‘deep’ metaphysical and transcendent unity, but to a ‘superficial’ entity that possesses property or belongings.” [16]16 Hardt and Negri, *Assembly*, p. 16. This is the unique mode of constructing capitalist ideology: it constructs for us a concept of personality related to property. The relations of production of capitalism not only require the existence of this kind of personality as a premise for establishing its own relations of production, but, more importantly, it directly shapes this personality. The essence of this personality is not determined by its own physical life, mode of behavior, or social relations; all its essence is related only to a certain property right. Therefore, when the epidemic spreads, in Western capitalist countries, what truly threatens people’s own survival and causes them fear is not their physical life itself, but the potential loss of their own property in the epidemic. For example, when the epidemic was raging, American citizens gathered in front of government buildings to protest, targeting not only the government’s ineffective epidemic prevention but also their desire to re-enter as soon as possible the alienated labor production controlled by the logic of capital. In the Western capitalist context, this struggle actually means that people today are no longer, as in the early modern period, struggling to shorten labor time; on the contrary, they are struggling to restore as quickly as possible a state of alienated labor, because the maintenance and acquisition of property depend on human labor as an intermediary. Under the social conditions of capitalist private ownership, this labor has to exist in the form of alienated labor, that is, human labor does not affirm but negates the human being. Thus, it can be seen that people in Western capitalist countries regard participation in the labor production of the logic of capital as an indispensable right of their own, and at the same time, they regard the self-production of the logic of capital as a necessary condition for modern people to maintain their own survival. Hence, an “ideology of labor,” as it might be called, is being established in capitalist society: it regards the (alienated) labor production carried out within the logic of capital as the essential determination of the human being, and thereby regards the guarantee of one’s own personality as a possession of property rights. Strictly speaking, Negri and Hardt’s critique of late capitalist society is based on this ideology of labor, but they share the same position as the national economists criticized by Marx, accepting as fact what they ought to have deduced. [17]17 This refers to Marx’s critique in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* of classical political economists who take private property as an unexamined premise rather than a historical product to be explained.

资本的运行逻辑原本仅仅是一种客观的经济架构方式，又如何成为了一种社会权力机制?奈格里与哈特对这一问题的分析是切中要害的，他们不仅提出了有关“财治”正在替代法治的整体趋势，实际上还指认了导致这一趋势的根源，即“个体的概念不是通过‘存/在(being)’而是通过‘有’(having)得以确立的;个体指向的不是‘深度的’形而上学和超验的统一体，而是‘表层的’拥有财产或所有物的实体”16。这是独特的资本主义意识形态的建构方式，即它为我们构筑了一个关乎财产的人格的理念。资本主义的生产关系不仅需要这种人格的存在作为其生产关系确立的前提，同时更为重要的是，它还直接塑造了这种人格。这种人格的本质不是由其自身的肉体生命，抑或行为方式、社会关系来确定，它所有的本质只与一定的财产权有关。因此，当疫情蔓延时，在西方资本主义国家中，真正能给人自身的生存带来威胁并使人产生恐惧的，并不是人的肉体生命本身，而是自身财产在疫情中可能遭受的损失。例如，在疫情肆虐之际，美国民众聚集在政府门前进行抗议，其矛头所指不仅是政府防疫不利，还包括希望尽早重新进入被资本逻辑所操控的异化劳动生产当中。在西方资本主义语境之下，这一斗争实际上意味着今天的人们不再如现代性初期那样，为了缩短劳动时间而进行斗争，相反，他们正在为了尽快重新恢复一种异化劳动的状态而进行斗争，因为财产的维持和获得需要依赖于人的劳动为中介。而在资本主义私有制的社会条件下，这一劳动不得不以异化劳动的方式存在，即人的劳动并不是肯定而是否定人自身。可见，西方资本主义国家中的人们将参与资本逻辑的劳动生产视为自身不可缺少的一种权利，同时也就意味着将资本逻辑的自我生产视为现代人维持自身生存的必要条件。由此，一种或可被称为“劳动的意识形态”正在资本主义社会中被建立起来:它将在资本逻辑中所进行的(异化)劳动生产视为人的本质性规定，并由此将自身人格的保障视为对财产权的一种拥有。严格说来，奈格里和哈特对晚期资本主义社会的批判建基于这一劳动意识形态之上，只是他们拥有了与马克思所批判的国民经济学家们相同的立场，将他们本该加以推论的东西当作事实接受下来。17

III. The Generalized Form of Labor in the Ideology of Labor and the Loss of Its Autonomy

三、劳动意识形态中被泛化的劳动形式及其自主性的丧失

Negri and Hardt attempt to confine the thrust of critique to the internal self-operation of capital. Although this critical thrust hits the vital point of contemporary capitalist society, the way they ultimately use to overcome capitalism is merely to appeal to the transformation of various forms of labor supported by new technology, that is, the transformation from material labor to immaterial labor. Among these, the mode of production of immaterial labor and the means of production it requires are virtual forms such as information, knowledge, and emotion. Therefore, it is not only unrestricted by scarce resources but also possesses direct commonality. And "commonality" becomes an effective way for Negri and Hardt to overcome capitalism: "Commonality becomes the central place of freedom and innovation — free communication, free use, free expression, and free communication — which is opposed to private control, that is, control arising from private property rights and their legal structure and market forces. In this context, freedom can only be the freedom of commonality." [18]18 Michael Hardt, Antonio Negri, *Commonwealth*, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009, p. ix. Moreover, because "the standpoint of commonality reveals how the process of economic valorization is increasingly embedded in the structure of social life," [19]19 Ibid., p. ix. the form of labor bearing this commonality can, within a structure of daily life, escape the control of capital and obtain an autonomous form of labor organization. "Capital does not determine the organization of cooperation, at least not in the way Marx said. Even in the most stringent and most exploitative situations, such as call centers or the catering industry, cognitive and affective labor generally escapes the rule of the capitalist and cooperates autonomously." [20]20 Ibid., p. 139. Thus it can be seen that for Negri and Hardt, the way to escape the manipulation of capital that has become power is the new form of labor. They fundamentally ignore that labor itself in capitalist society has become a link required by the internal logic of that system. Therefore, no matter how the form of labor changes or whether labor has autonomy, it merely provides effective assistance for the smooth unfolding of the logic of capital. In summary, Negri and Hardt's critique of capital is still confined to the ideology of labor. They inevitably regard the confirmation of personality and property rights as a premise requiring no demonstration, and they are convinced that this confirmation will still exist after the sublation of the logic of capital. Hence, their so-called escape of immaterial labor from capital itself embodies a theoretical naivety.

奈格里和哈特试图将批判的指向囿于资本内在的自我运演。这一批判指向虽然切中了当代资本主义社会的要害，但他们最终用以克服资本主义的方式不过是诉诸新技术支持之下的各种劳动形式的转变，即由物质劳动向非物质劳动的转变。其中，非物质劳动进行生产的方式和所需要的生产资料是一些信息、知识与情感等虚拟形式，因此它不仅不受稀缺性资源的限制，而且具有直接共同性。而“共同性”成为奈格里和哈特克服资本主义的有效方式:“共同性成为自由和创新的核心场所———自由交往、自由使用、自由表达和自由交往———这与私人控制相反，私人控制即是因为私有产权及其法律结构和市场力量而产生的控制。在此语境下，自由只能是共同性的自由。”18同时，更因为这种“共同性的立场揭示了经济增殖的过程如何日益内嵌于社会生活的结构之中”19，所以带有这种共同性的劳动形式就能在一种日常生活结构中脱离资本的控制，并获得一种自主性的劳动组织方式。“资本并不决定协作的组织，起码不像马克思所说的那样。甚至在最严格的、剥削最严重的情况下，如呼叫中心或餐饮业，认知和情感性劳动也会普遍摆脱资本家的统治，自主地进行协作。”20由此可见，对奈格里和哈特来说，用以摆脱被权力化的资本操控的方式是新兴劳动形式，他们从根本上忽视了劳动自身在资本主义社会中已经成为其逻辑体系内在要求的一个环节，因此不管劳动形式如何变化，劳动是否具有自主性，都不过是为资本逻辑的顺利展开提供有效助力。概言之，奈格里和哈特对资本的批判仍然囿于劳动的意识形态，他们必然将人格与财产权的确证视为一个无需论证的前提，并确信这一确证在扬弃了资本逻辑之后仍将存在，因此他们所提出的所谓非物质劳动对资本的逃离自身体现了一种理论上的天真。

In fact, this ideology of labor specific to capitalist conditions is an ideological obstacle that we must first eliminate when criticizing capitalism. For contemporary Western left-wing thinkers, however, they completely ignore this premise, or are confined by it. To eliminate this ideology, what needs to be done first is precisely to reveal the specific historical dimension of this ideology of labor: that is, it is not actually a universal determination of human essence, but has its own process of formation, and precisely because of this, it necessarily has the possibility of being transcended.

实际上，这种资本主义条件下特有的劳动意识形态是我们批判资本主义时首先需要予以破除的思想障碍，而对当代西方左翼思想家而言，他们却完全漠视这一前提，或者囿于这一前提。而要破除这一意识形态，首先需要做的正是揭示这一劳动的意识形态所特有的历史性维度，即它其实并非是人的本质的普遍规定，而是有其自身的形成过程，并正因如此，也必然有其被超越的可能性。

In its early formation, the ideology of labor, relying on theological guarantees, was constructed by thinkers as an obvious fact requiring no demonstration. For example, John Locke, on the premise of natural equality based on Christianity, on the one hand acknowledges that personality is inherent in humans: "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." [21]21 John Locke, *Two Treatises of Government*, Book II, Chapter II, Section 6. On the other hand, he uses labor as an intermediary to personalize property rights: "Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his." [22]22 Ibid., Book II, Chapter V, Section 27. Locke believes that property rights are not naturally inherent in personality. For a person to obtain property rights exclusively belonging to themselves, they must labor on natural things bestowed by God and originally belonging to all humanity, and thereby separate a part from its original natural state. Labor thus becomes a necessary intermediary for interpreting personality through property rights: "My labour taking them out of the common state they were in, hath fixed my property in them." [23]23 Ibid., Book II, Chapter V, Section 28.

劳动的意识形态在其形成之初由于依赖于神学的保障，而被思想家们建构为一个无需论证的显而易见的事实。例如，约翰·洛克(John Locke)在基于基督教的自然平等的前提下，一方面承认人格是人天然所具有的:“自然状态有一种为人人所应遵守的自然法对它起着支配作用;而理性，也就是自然法，教导着有意遵从理性的全人类:人们既然都是平等和独立的，任何人就不得侵害他人的生命、健康、自由或财产。”21而另一方面，他又以劳动为中介，将财产权人格化:“土地和一切低等动物为一切人所共有，但是每人对他自己的人身享有一种所有权，除他以外任何人都没有这种权利。他的身体所从事的劳动和他的双手所进行的工作，我们可以说，是正当地属于他的。”22洛克认为，财产权并不是为人格所天然具有的，人想要获得独属于自己的财产权，就必须对由上帝赐予的、本属于人类全体的自然物进行劳动，并使得其中的一部分脱离原有的自然状态。劳动因此成为了用财产权去诠释人格所必需的一种中介:“我的劳动使它们脱离原来所处的共同状态，确定了我对于它们的财产权。”23

But in Locke's era, the labor capable of unifying personality and property rights still referred to a kind of agricultural production labor, whose premise was on divinely granted common land. Under these labor conditions, there was a direct unity between the laborer and property rights, or between the laborer and the ownership of labor. However, once money intervenes and capital begins its primitive accumulation, these two necessarily become separated.

但在洛克的时代，能够将人格与财产权相统一的劳动所指的仍然是一种农业生产的劳动，其前提是发生在神授的公有制的土地上。在这种劳动条件下，劳动者与财产权或者说劳动者与劳动所有权之间具有直接的统一性，但是一旦货币介入，资本开始其原始积累，这二者就必然产生分离。

Marx's critique of Locke targets precisely the self-evident unity between the laborer and ownership that exists when the theological guarantee is lost. Unlike Locke, who attributes the laborer's property rights to God's gift, Marx's discussion of property rights takes the private ownership of the means of production as its premise. That is, in capitalist society, there is no natural unity between the laborer and their property rights, as Locke believed. In Volume 1 of *Capital*, when discussing the dual social character of the producer's private labor, Marx points out: "The division of the product of labor into useful thing and thing of value actually occurs only when exchange has become sufficiently extensive and important to make useful things produced for exchange, so that the value character of things is already taken into account in their very production. From then on, the private labor of the producer actually acquires a twofold social character. On the one hand, as a definite useful labor, it must satisfy a definite social need, and thus prove itself to be a part of the total labor, a part of the naturally evolved system of the social division of labor. On the other hand, it can satisfy the manifold needs of the producer himself only in so far as every particular kind of useful private labor can be exchanged with, i.e., equated to, every other kind of useful private labor." [24]24 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1, Chapter 1, Section 4. That is to say, abstract labor produces value, concrete labor produces use-value. On the one hand, under the conditions of private ownership, both the means of production and labor power belong to private individuals, so individuals have the right to decide on their own production; at this point, this production belongs to private labor. On the other hand, due to the different social divisions of labor, the various producers are inevitably connected and interdependent; objectively, this production is also for the purpose of satisfying the needs of others or society, and thus also possesses a social attribute.

马克思对洛克的批判所针对的正是在失去了神学保障的情况下劳动者与所有权所具有的那种不证自明的统一性。与洛克将劳动者的财产权归于上帝的赐予不同，马克思对财产权的探讨是以生产资料的私有为前提的，也即在资本主义社会中，劳动者与其所具有的财产权之间并不像洛克所认为的那样，具有天然的统一性。马克思在《资本论》第1卷中谈到生产者私人劳动的二重社会性质时指出:“劳动产品分裂为有用物和价值物，实际上只是发生在交换已经十分广泛和十分重要的时候，那时有用物是为了交换而生产的，因而物的价值性质还在物本身的生产中就被注意到了。从那时起，生产者的私人劳动真正取得了二重的社会性质。一方面，生产者的私人劳动必须作为一定的有用劳动来满足一定的社会需要，从而证明它们是总劳动的一部分，是自然形成的社会分工体系的一部分。另一方面，只有在每一种特殊的有用的私人劳动可以同任何另一种有用的私人劳动相交换从而相等时，生产者的私人劳动才能满足生产者本人的多种需要。”24也就是说，抽象劳动生产价值，具体劳动生产使用价值。一方面，在私有制的条件下，生产资料和劳动力都归私人所有，因此个体对自己的生产有决定权，此时这种生产属于私人劳动;另一方面，由于社会分工的不同，诸个生产者之间又不得不互相联系、相互依存，在客观上，这种生产同时也是为了满足他人的或社会的需要，因而也就具有了社会的属性。

In the pre-capitalist era of Locke, all property obtained by the laborer through their own labor belonged to the laborer themselves; that is, the laborer had full property rights over their own labor. However, when this condition changes to the capitalist relations of production, regardless of whether the laborer performs necessary labor or surplus labor, their property rights belong to the capitalist. Although the capitalist also pays wages for the laborer's necessary labor, this is entirely different from Locke's sense, where the laborer could directly own this part of the fruits of labor through their own labor. In this labor process, the laborer "not only replaces the original value, but creates new value; he objectifies in his product more labor time than is objectified in the product required to maintain him as a worker." [25]25 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1, Chapter 17. The early Marx called this labor under private ownership alienated labor, and called the truly human activity that escapes this alienated labor "free conscious activity." [26]26 Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, "Estranged Labour." The latter fundamentally realizes a departure from the form of "labor."

在洛克所处的前资本主义时代，劳动者通过自身劳动所获得的全部财产都归属于劳动者本人所有，即劳动者具有自己的全部财产权;然而，当这种条件变为资本主义的生产关系，无论劳动者进行的是必要劳动还是剩余劳动，其财产权都归资本家所有。尽管资本家也会给劳动者的必要劳动支付工资，但这与洛克意义上的、劳动者通过劳动可以直接拥有这部分劳动的成果全然不同。在这一劳动过程中，劳动者“不仅补偿原有价值，而且创造新价值;他在自己的产品中对象化的劳动时间，比维持他作为一个工人生存所需的产品中对象化的劳动时间要多”25。早期的马克思将这种私有制下的劳动称为异化劳动，而将逃离了这一异化劳动的真正的属人的活动称为“自由的有意识活动”26。后者从根本上实现了对“劳动”形态的脱离。

Therefore, the mode of confirming personality through the mediation of labour and through property created by labour itself reveals its inherent ideological character in Marx’s critique of alienated labour. The wealth that people create in (alienated) labour actually confirms only the personality inherent in the capitalist, who aims at profit. The possession of wealth (i.e., property rights) was originally not a way for people to define themselves; it only becomes a universal personality under the conditions of private ownership. Labour thereby becomes a distinctive capitalist ideology, shaping people’s basic understanding of the essence of humanity and the proper mode of human existence. In other words, within the ideology of labour, if a person cannot labour, it means they have already lost the legitimacy of their own existence, because in today’s era of the universal generalization of the logic of capital, people (not only capitalists) who are enveloped by the ideology of labour are becoming, or have already become, the living personified expression of capital. Marx had a clear awareness of this long ago: “Capital is completely devoid of selfhood; this situation exists subjectively in the worker, just as labour is devoid of selfhood and exists objectively in the capitalist. But the worker is unfortunate enough to be a living, and therefore impoverished, capital, a capital that loses its interest, and hence its conditions of survival, the moment it ceases to labour for an instant.” [27]27 Karl Marx, “Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 282. The translation follows the Chinese text’s rendering of the passage. Under capital that has become power, the entire value of people and their personality lies only in becoming the living vehicle for the valorization of capital.

因此，以劳动为中介、以劳动创造的财产来确证人格的方式本身在马克思对异化劳动的批判中显现出它固有的意识形态性。人在(异化)劳动中创造的财富所确证的其实仅是以盈利为目的的资本家固有的人格。对财富的占有(即财产权)原本无法成为人界定自身的方式，它只有在私有制条件下才变成了一种普遍的人格。劳动由此成为一种独特的资本主义意识形态，左右着人对于人之本质以及人恰当的生存方式的基本界定。换言之，在劳动的意识形态中，人若无法劳动，就意味着已经丧失了自身存在的合法性，因为在今天资本逻辑普遍泛化的时代，被劳动的意识形态所裹挟的人(不仅仅是资本家)正在或者已经成为了资本的活的人格化的表达。马克思对此早有清醒的认知:“资本是完全失去自身的人这种情况在工人身上主观地存在着，正像劳动是失去自身的人这种情况在资本身上客观地存在着一样。但是，工人不幸而成为一种活的、因而是贫困的资本，这种资本只要一瞬间不劳动便失去自己的利息，从而也失去自己的生存条件。”27在权力化的资本之下，人及其人格的全部价值仅在于成为了资本增殖的活的载体。

Therefore, during the pandemic, people in capitalist societies, obscured by the ideology of labour, no longer regard life itself as an absolute value, but instead transform the anxiety of capital valorization into anxiety about their own survival. This deep alienation is the inherent alienation of the ideology of labour itself. Hence, whether it is material labour or immaterial labour under the conditions of capital, mere formal changes cannot fundamentally overcome the expansion of the logic of capital. On the contrary, the change in the form of labour brings only a generalization of the labour process, which in turn brings about the extensive penetration of the ideology of labour into people’s daily lives, thereby effectively promoting the universalization of the logic of capital. For example, the labourers cultivated by the influencer economy, the so-called internet celebrities, appear to have freely chosen their workplace and working methods, but in reality they have merely generalized all the content of their lives into a form of labour production serving the valorization of capital. Negri and Hardt believe that immaterial labour, in the process of autonomous production, can also produce corresponding political subjects, such as the multitude, who realize political organization and projects of liberation through flexible immaterial labour. This conception is, in reality, nearly an illusory fantasy. In fact, the form of immaterial labour not only fails to produce revolutionary subjects but also transforms all non-labour behaviours themselves into a form of labour serving capital. The famous American futurologist Alvin Toffler, in his book *The Third Wave*, proposed the concept of the “prosumer,” which accurately summarizes the real state of labourers manipulated by generalized labour. This concept is a portmanteau, composed of “consumer” and “producer,” and refers to the state of existence in which consumers who consume online today are also producers of data capital. Today, with the support of internet technology, the “commonality” brought by these generalized non-labour forms essentially relies on traffic—the purest form of capital—to bring about the valorization of capital. Therefore, all the transformations in the form of immaterial labour bring about the virtualization of capital, such as the formation of data capital, rather than a change in the logic of capital itself.

因此，在疫情流行之际，资本主义社会中的人在劳动意识形态的遮蔽下不再将生命本身视为绝对价值，而是将资本增殖的焦虑转变成对自身生存的焦虑，这种深度的异化是劳动的意识形态自身的内在异化。因此，无论是在资本条件下的物质劳动抑或非物质劳动，仅仅是形式的些许变化无法从根本上克服资本逻辑的拓展。恰恰相反，劳动形式的改变所带来的只是劳动过程的泛化，它所带来的将是劳动意识形态对人的日常生活的广泛渗透，并由此有效推动资本逻辑的普遍化。例如，网红经济培育的作为网红的劳动者看似自主选择了工作地点、工作方式，实际上不过是将自身的全部生活内容都泛化为一种为资本增殖服务的劳动生产。奈格里和哈特认为，非物质劳动在进行自主化生产过程中还可能生产相应的政治主体，如诸众(multitude)，他们在灵活的非物质劳动中实现政治性组织和解放的筹划，这一构想在现实中也近乎是一种虚幻的想象。事实上，非物质劳动形式不仅无法产生革命主体，还会将所有非劳动的行为自身都转变为一种为资本服务的劳动形式。美国著名的未来学家阿尔文·托夫勒(Alvin Toffler)的著作《第三次浪潮》(The Third Wave)提出了一个“产消者”(Prosumer)的概念，准确地概括了一种被泛化劳动所操控的劳动者的真实状态。这一概念是一个合成词，由消费者(consumer)和生产者(producer)共同构成，它所指的是今天在线上进行消费的消费者同时也是数据资本的生产者这一生存状态。今天，在互联网技术的支持下，这些被泛化的非劳动形式所带有的“共同性”本质上都依赖于流量———即资本最为纯粹的表现形式———来为资本带来增殖。因此，非物质劳动形式的所有转变带来的是资本的虚拟化，如数据资本的形成，而非资本逻辑自身的改变。

Undoubtedly, contemporary Western left-wing thought, within the framework of new technology and economic development, still maintains its critique of capitalism, thereby offering thinkers a diversity of perspectives for reflecting on the times. However, these two inherent analytical paths—the “externalizing” critique characterized by attention to the state of exception and the “internalizing” critique characterized by property rights and immaterial labour—have both failed to truly provide a feasible path for escaping capitalism. Every state of exception in capitalist society gives rise to new forms of capital, which becomes a possible path for the self-propagation of the logic of capital. Therefore, a truly possible critique of contemporary capitalism still requires us to employ the perspective and method of Marx’s critique of political economy, to analyse the new immanent contradictions emerging in new forms of capital, and, in understanding these contradictions, to deconstruct the inherent capitalist ideology of labour, so as to explore a path of liberation that can truly escape the manipulation of capital’s power.

毋庸置疑，当代西方左翼思潮在新的技术与经济发展框架下仍然保持着对资本主义的批判，从而让思想家对于时代的思考视角有了一种多样化的可能。但固有的这两条分析路径———以关注例外状态为特质的“外在化”批判与以财产权和非物质劳动为特质的“内在化”批判———都未能真正地给出逃离资本主义的现实可行之路。资本主义社会的每一次例外状态都产生出新资本形态，这成为资本逻辑自我蔓延的一种可能路径。因此，对当代资本主义真正可能的批判仍需要我们运用马克思的政治经济学批判的视角和方法，分析新资本形态中出现的新的内在性矛盾，并在对这一矛盾的理解中解构资本主义内在的劳动意识形态，以便探寻一条真正可以摆脱资本权力操控的解放之路。

Notes

注释

1 Slavoj Žižek, *Pandemic! Covid-19 Shakes the World*, New York: OR Books, 2020, p. 14.

1Slavojzizek,Pandemic!Covid-19 Shakes the World,New York:OR Books,2020,p.14．

2 Ibid., p. 76.

2Ibid,p.76．

3 Giorgio Agamben, “On Infection,” at https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzUxMjk3MzM1MA==&mid=2247484987&idx=1&sn=2b2bef0865c5062265872c4d03411c15&chksm=f95d0972ce2a8064b148465148c1ef2e79fe6f928a6347658fa6bca08bff36b3eb347acc7695&mpshare=1&scene=1&srcid=&sharer_sharetime=1590946535178&sharer_shareid=4562df1835c28cd2591aec77b520eb41&exportkey=AQR4Y9HZA6gqp6vqhXzVsaE%3D&pass_ticket=pEILEN9WQN1iR3LgpfkMV3hfeDmW4aCWDu5qacHfEfQ%3D#rd.

3吉奥乔·阿甘本:《论感染》，载https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzU xM jk3MzM1MA==&mid=2247484987&idx=1&sn=2b2bef0865c5062265872c4d03411c15&chksm=f95d0972ce2a8064b148465148c1ef2e79fe6f928a6347658fa6bca08bff36b3eb347acc7695&mpshare=1&scene=1&srcid=&sharer_sharetime=1590946535178&sharer_shareid=4562df1835c28cd2591aec77b520eb41&exportkey=AQR4Y9HZA6gqp6vqhXzVsaE%3D&pass_ticket=pE ILEN9WQN1iR3LgpfkMV3hfeDmW4aCWDu5qacHfEfQ%3D#rd。

4 In his article “Viral/Immunitary: Two Questions on the Crisis,” Rancière points out that political time is woven by the common practice of setting agendas and timetables. This is precisely what we lack in a state of lockdown. There is no way to construct temporality to prepare for the “after” (dopo) that everyone is talking about. Therefore, those analyses that claim to respond to the current situation and prepare for the future are in fact pre-constructed analyses, ranging from the theory of the state of exception, the critique of control society, big-data totalitarianism, to the necessity of rethinking the relationship between the human and the non-human from beginning to end. The lockdown state reveals this ordered division of roles more clearly than ever: on the one hand, rulers reduce political time (tempo della politica) to a state of emergency and make a short-sighted career out of it; on the other hand, intellectuals place any situation in the centuries-long epoch of capital or the Anthropocene and know only one effective mode of intervention, namely, to thoroughly “overthrow” this epoch. https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzUxMjkyMzM1MA==&mid=2247485572&idx=1&sn=0c9ed394dc16fd2b8e7ffd28d376bc3a&chksm=f95d07cdce2a8edbf57d0de00c5164414347bdad7b17f53e4094b3b9f8c51f62972aed188ada&mpshare=1&scene=1&srcid=&sharer_sharetime=1590946467026&sharer_shareid=4562df1835c28cd2591aec77b520eb41&exportkey=Abq9xhKnTlzdMoIGiv1DeiM%3D&pass_ticket=pEILEN9WQN1iR3LgpfkMV3hfeDmW4aCWDu5qacHfEfQ%3D#rd.

4朗西埃在《病毒性/免疫性:审视危机的两个问题》一文中指出，政治时间是由制定议程和时间表的共同实践来编织的。而这正是我们在封锁状态下所缺乏的。没有办法构建时间性来为每个人都在谈论的“之后”(dopo)做准备。因此，那些声称对当下状况作出回应、为未来做准备的分析，事实上是事先建构的分析，从例外状态理论、控制社会批判、大数据极权主义，直到从头至尾重新思考人与非人之间关系的必要性。封锁状态比以往任何时候都更清楚地揭示出这种有序的角色分工:一方面，统治者们将政治时间(tempo della politica)简化为紧急状态，并目光短浅地以此为业;另一方面，知识分子们将任何情况都置于资本或人类纪的长达数世纪的时代中，并只知道一种有效的干预方式，即彻底“推翻”这个时代。https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzU xM jk3MzM1MA==&mid=2247485572&idx=1&sn=0c9ed394dc16fd2b8e7ffd28d376bc3a&chksm=f95d07cdce2a8edbf57d0de00c5164414347bda d7b17f53e4094b3b9f8c51f62972aed188ada&mpshare=1&sce ne=1&srcid=&sharer_sharetime=1590946467026&sharer_shareid=4562df1835c28cd2591aec77b520eb41&exportkey=Abq9xhKnTlzdMoIGiv1DeiM%3D&pass_ticket=pEILEN9WQN1iR3LgpfkMV3hfeDmW4aCWDu5qacHfEfQ%3D#rd。

5 See Slavoj Žižek, “Clear Racist Elements to the Hysteria over the Novel Coronavirus,” https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/8G7o1gfNJ6kO9hVt4LrvcQ.

5参见斯拉沃热·齐泽克:《清晰的种族主义元素到对新型冠状病毒的歇斯底里》，https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/8G7o1gfNJ6kO9hVt4LrvcQ。

6 See Michel Foucault, *The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France 1978-1979*, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008, p. 317.

6参见Michel Foucault,The Birth of Biopolitics:Lectures at the Collége de France 1978-1979,New York:Palgrave MacM illan,2008,p.317。

7 Giorgio Agamben, *State of Exception*, trans. Xue Xiping, Xi’an: Northwest University Press, 2015, p. 63.

7吉奥乔·阿甘本:《例外状态》，薛熙平译，西北大学出版社2015年版，第63页。

8 Leo Strauss, *What Is Political Philosophy?*, trans. Li Shixiang, Beijing: Huaxia Publishing House, 2014, p. 25.

8列奥·施特劳斯:《什么是政治哲学?》，李世祥译，华夏出版社2014年版，第25页。

9 Ibid., p. 8.

9同上书，第8页。

10 Carl Schmitt, *The Concept of the Political*, trans. Liu Zongkun et al., Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 2018, p. 39.

10卡尔·施密特:《政治的概念》，刘宗坤等译，上海人民出版社2018年版，第39页。

11 Ibid., p. 38.

11同上书，第38页。

12 Carl Schmitt, *Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty*, in Liu Xiaofeng, ed., *Schmitt Collected Works (Vol. 1): The Concept of the Political*, Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 2003, pp. 13-14.

12卡尔·施密特:《政治的神学:主权学说四论》，载刘小枫主编:《施密特文集(第一卷):政治的概念》，上海人民出版社2003年版，第13-14页。

13 Agamben, *State of Exception*, p. 9.

13阿甘本:《例外状态》，第9页。

14 Ibid., p. 47.

14同上书，第47页。

15 Byung-Chul Han, “Why East Asia Controls the Pandemic More Effectively than Europe,” https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1662110468178054008&wfr=spider&for=pc.

15韩炳哲:《为什么东亚对疫情的控制比欧洲有效?》，https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1662110468178054008&wfr=spider&for=pc。

16 Michael Hardt, Antonio Negri, *Commonwealth*, trans. Wang Xingkun, Beijing: Renmin University of China Press, 2016, pp. 3-4.

16迈克尔·哈特、安东尼奥·奈格里:《大同世界》，王行坤译，中国人民大学出版社2016年版，第3-4页。

17 Ibid., p. 4.

17同上书，第4页。

18 See *Complete Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 3, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2002, p. 267.

18参见《马克思恩格斯全集》第3卷，人民出版社2002年版，第267页。

19 Michael Hardt, Antonio Negri, *Commonwealth*, pp. 216-218.

19迈克尔·哈特、安东尼奥·奈格里:《大同世界》，第216-218页。

20 Ibid., pp. 216-217.

20同上书，第216-217页。

21 Ibid., p. 104.

21同上书，第104页。

22 John Locke, *Second Treatise of Government: An Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent, and End of Civil Government*, trans. Ye Qifang, Qu Junong, Beijing: Commercial Press, 1996, p. 6.

22约翰·洛克:《政府论(下篇):论政府的真正起源、范围和目的》，叶启芳，瞿菊农译，商务印书馆1996年版，第6页。

23 Ibid., p. 19.

23同上书，第19页。

24 Ibid., p. 20.

24同上书，第20页。

25 *Complete Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 44, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2001, pp. 90-91.

25《马克思恩格斯全集》第44卷，人民出版社2001年版，第90-91页。

26 *Complete Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 33, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2004, p. 137.

26《马克思恩格斯全集》第33卷，人民出版社2004年版，第137页。

27 *Complete Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 3, p. 273.

27《马克思恩格斯全集》第3卷，第273页。

28 See *Complete Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 3, p. 281.

28参见《马克思恩格斯全集》第3卷，第281页。

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑