The Contemporary Reconstruction of Marx’s Category of “General Intellect” and an Assessment of Its Effects

Innovatively developing Marxism in the 21st century is a common mission for Marxist theory researchers both at home and abroad. Some Western left-wing scholars, in light of the new changes and new forms of contemporary capitalism, have conducted in-depth explorations of relevant categories and ideas that Marx touched upon but did not systematically elaborate. In a new context, they have endowed these with a distinct contemporary connotation, constructing a unique set of theoretical paradigms and discursive systems, thereby powerfully demonstrating the contemporary value and strong vitality of Marx’s thought. Among these, “general intellect” is one of the categories they have focused on excavating. So, what is “general intellect” in Marx’s context? How do contemporary Western left-wing scholars understand this category? What kind of theoretical system have they constructed by means of this category? And how should we view their theoretical constructions? Answering these questions is undoubtedly an important task before us.

创新发展21世纪的马克思主义，是国内外马克思主义理论研究者的一项共同使命。有些西方左翼学者结合当代资本主义的新变化、新形态，围绕马克思当年涉及但并未系统阐述的相关范畴和思想展开了深入探讨，并在新的语境中赋予其鲜明的时代内涵，建构了一套独具特色的理论范式和话语体系，有力展现了马克思思想的当代价值和强大生命力。其中，“一般智力”（general intellect，也翻译为“普遍智能”）就是他们重点挖掘的范畴之一。那么，什么是马克思语境中的“一般智力”？当代西方左翼又如何理解这一范畴的？借助这一范畴，他们建构了什么样的理论体系？我们又应当如何看待他们的理论建构？解答这些问题，无疑是摆在我们面前的重要课题。

From “General Intellect” to “Intellect in General”: The Logical Shift in Contemporary Western Left-Wing Discourse

从“一般智力”到“智力一般”：当代西方左翼话语的逻辑转换

In the section “Fixed Capital and the Development of the Productive Forces of Society” (called the “Fragment on Machines” by contemporary Western left-wing scholars) of the *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858*, Marx points out: “Nature builds no machines, no locomotives, railways, electric telegraphs, self-acting mules etc. These are products of human industry; natural material transformed into organs of the human will over nature, or of human participation in nature. They are organs of the human brain, created by the human hand; the power of knowledge, objectified. The development of fixed capital indicates to what degree general social knowledge has become a *direct force of production*, and to what degree, hence, the conditions of the process of social life itself have come under the control of the *general intellect* and been transformed in accordance with it. It indicates to what degree the social productive forces are produced, not only in the form of knowledge, but also as immediate organs of social practice, of the real life process.” [1]1 “Even a clever housewife cannot cook a meal without rice” (巧妇难为无米之炊) is a Chinese idiom meaning that one cannot accomplish a task without the necessary conditions or materials. This is the context in which Marx’s category of “general intellect” emerges. In light of the new changes in contemporary capitalism, contemporary Western left-wing scholars, through a critical reading of this passage, have rediscovered and contemporarily reconstructed the category of “general intellect” in a new context, thereby opening up an entirely new theoretical space.

在《1857—1858年经济学手稿》的“固定资本和社会生产力的发展”（当代西方左翼称为“机器论片断”）中，马克思指出：“自然界没有造出任何机器，没有造出机车、铁路、电报、自动走锭精纺机等等。它们是人的产业劳动的产物，是转化为人的意志驾驭自然界的器官或者说在自然界实现人的意志的器官的自然物质。它们是人的手创造出来的人脑的器官；是对象化的知识力量。固定资本的发展表明，一般社会知识，已经在多么大的程度上变成了直接的生产力，从而社会生活过程的条件本身在多么大的程度上受到一般智力的控制并按照这种智力得到改造。它表明，社会生产力已经在多么大的程度上，不仅以知识的形式，而且作为社会实践的直接器官，作为实际生活过程的直接器官被生产出来。”1这就是马克思“一般智力”范畴的出场语境。结合当代资本主义新变化，当代西方左翼通过对这段话的批判性解读，在新的语境中实现了对“一般智力”范畴的再发现和当代重构，从而开启了一个全新的理论空间。

First, what is the “general intellect” as understood by contemporary Western left-wing scholars? Virno believes that Marx actually provides two dimensions of understanding. One is the explicit dimension of material labor. Virno points out that, in Marx’s view, capitalist machine-based large-scale production inevitably forces workers to be separated from the general intellect, reducing the former to a secondary link in the production process, to mere manual laborers; at the same time, it inevitably vigorously absorbs and appropriates the general intellect, transforming it into fixed capital. The second is the implicit dimension of immaterial labor. Virno argues that, in Marx’s analysis, there is actually another very important clue hidden, namely the issue of “general intellect” in the sphere of immaterial labor. He points out that Marx proposed two different types of immaterial labor: first, labor whose product can be separated from the labor act itself, such as the labor of writers, painters, etc.; second, labor whose product cannot be separated from the labor act, such as the labor of pianists, dancers, teachers, orators, doctors, etc. [2]2 Paolo Virno, *A Grammar of the Multitude* (Los Angeles: Semiotext(e), 2004), pp. 49–50. Virno believes that, in Marx’s analysis, the status of these two clues is not equal. Although Marx saw the issue of immaterial labor, due to the limitations of social and historical conditions, he did not elevate this dimension to the dominant scale for analyzing “general intellect,” instead considering it “negligible, and therefore to be completely disregarded.” [3]3 Karl Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, Part 1 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1963), p. 401. Thus, Marx only understood the category of general intellect based on material labor, subsequently understanding the latter as the scientific knowledge objectified in the machine system and fixed capital, thereby missing the rich connotations of general intellect. However, in the post-Fordist era, everything has changed; immaterial labor has replaced material labor as the dominant form of capitalist labor. Therefore, Virno believes it is necessary to overturn Marx’s original analytical logic, take immaterial labor as the dominant scale for understanding general intellect, link it with living labor, and redefine the scientific connotation of general intellect.

首先，什么是当代西方左翼学者理解的“一般智力”？维尔诺认为，马克思实际上提供了两个认识维度。一是显性的物质劳动维度。维尔诺指出，在马克思看来，资本主义机器大生产必然迫使工人与一般智力分离开来，使前者降低为生产过程的次要环节，沦为单纯的体力劳动者；同时，也必然会大力吸纳和占有一般智力，将其转化为固定资本。二是隐性的非物质劳动维度。维尔诺认为，在马克思的分析中，实际上还隐藏着另一条非常重要的线索，即非物质劳动领域中的“一般智力”问题。他指出，马克思提出了两种不同的非物质劳动：一是产品可以脱离劳动行为的非物质劳动，如作家、画家的劳动等；二是产品无法与劳动行为分离的劳动，如钢琴家、舞蹈家、教师、演说家、医生的劳动等。2维尔诺认为，在马克思的分析中，这两条线索的地位是不一样的，虽然马克思看到了非物质劳动问题，但由于社会历史条件所限，他并没有将这一维度上升为分析“一般智力”的主导尺度，而是认为它是“微不足道的，因此完全可以置之不理”3。于是，马克思只是基于物质劳动来理解一般智力范畴，进而把后者理解为对象化在机器体系和固定资本中的科学知识，错失了一般智力的丰富内涵。然而，到了后福特制时代，一切都发生了变化，非物质劳动已经取代物质劳动成为资本主义劳动的主导形态。因此，维尔诺认为，必须颠覆马克思当年的分析逻辑，将非物质劳动当作理解一般智力的主导尺度，将其与活劳动联系起来，重新界定一般智力的科学内涵。

Thus, a new question arises: since immaterial labor is divided into two types, which type of immaterial labor is the dominant scale for understanding general intellect? In Virno’s view, the first type of immaterial labor belongs to objectified labor; it provides an external end product, such as a book, a painting, a mathematical formula, etc. In this case, general intellect, just like in the sphere of material labor, manifests as an objective form of assets. The difference lies only in that, in the sphere of material labor, general intellect is objectified as fixed capital; while in the sphere of immaterial labor, general intellect is objectified as objective knowledge and thought. Therefore, this type of immaterial labor is still insufficient to embody the fundamental attributes of general intellect. Hence, Virno believes that only by relying on the second type of immaterial labor can the fundamental characteristics of general intellect be thoroughly grasped, because unlike the first type of immaterial labor, this type does not provide any external objective product. Here, general intellect no longer condenses into some kind of “fixed asset, but unfolds in communicative interaction in the name of cognitive paradigms, dialogic performance, and linguistic competition,” embodying the “living subjects’ capacity for communication, abstract thought, and self-reflection.” [4]4 Paolo Virno, *A Grammar of the Multitude*, p. 106. In other words, in this type of labor, general intellect manifests neither as scientific knowledge cast into fixed capital, nor as “the sum total of knowledge already acquired by humanity,” but rather as the potentiality of the subject itself. [4]4 Paolo Virno, *A Grammar of the Multitude*, p. 106. Based on this, Virno points out that it is necessary to transcend the logic of the object and understand general intellect as the capacity of the subject itself. At the same time, it is also necessary to transcend the original logic of the few, that is, no longer understanding general intellect as the exclusive preserve of a minority, but as a universal capacity possessed by all the public, thereby completing the logical shift from Marx’s “general intellect” to “intellect in general,” [5]5 “Intellect in general” is Virno’s term, distinguishing it from Marx’s “general intellect” by emphasizing the subjective, living capacity of the multitude rather than objectified knowledge. from the intellect of the few to the intelligence of the multitude. From this perspective, the general intellect understood by Virno includes not only the scientific power objectified in the machine system and the objective knowledge and thought objectified in various end products, but also the various potentialities and capacities inherent in the subject itself; the latter is Virno’s essential definition of the category of general intellect.

于是，一个新的问题就产生了：既然非物质劳动分为两种类型，那么，哪种类型的非物质劳动才是理解一般智力的主导尺度呢？在维尔诺看来，第一种非物质劳动属于对象化的劳动，它提供一种外在的终端产品，如一本书、一幅画、一个数学公式等。在这种情况下，一般智力仍像物质劳动领域一样，表现为一种客观化的资产形态。区别只在于，在物质劳动领域，一般智力对象化为固定资本；而在非物质劳动领域，一般智力对象化为客观的知识和思想。因此，这种非物质劳动还不足以体现一般智力的根本属性。因此，维尔诺认为，只有基于第二种非物质劳动，才能彻底把握一般智力的根本特质，因为与第一种非物质劳动不同，这种非物质劳动不提供任何外在的客观产品。在这里，一般智力不再凝结为某种“固定资产，而是以认知范式、对话演绎、语言竞争的名义在交流互动中展开”，“体现着活生生的主体的交往、抽象思考和自我反思”能力。4换句话说，在这种劳动中，一般智力既不表现为浇筑在固定资本中的科学知识，也不表现为“人类已获得的知识的总和”，而是表现为主体自身的潜能本身。4基于此，维尔诺指出，必须超越客体逻辑，将一般智力理解为主体自身的能力。同时，也必须超越原来的小众逻辑，即不能再将一般智力理解为少数人的专利，而是理解为所有公众具有的普遍能力，由此完成了从马克思的“一般智力”到“智力一般”（intellect in general)5、从少数人的智力到大众智能的逻辑转变。以此来看，维尔诺所理解的一般智力不仅包括对象化在机器体系中的科学力量，以及对象化在各种终端产品中的客观知识和思想，还包括主体自身蕴含的各种潜能和能力本身，后者才是维尔诺对一般智力范畴的本质界定。

Second, what is the relationship between general intellect, on the one hand, and the labor theory of value and real abstraction, on the other? The Autonomist and Cognitive Capitalism schools point out that although Marx saw immaterial labor under the capitalist conditions of his time, he consistently believed that the latter did not create surplus value and belonged to unproductive labor: “Where there is no autonomous finished product, to a great extent one cannot speak of productive (surplus-value) labor. Marx actually accepted the equation: labor without an end product = personal private service.” [6]6 Paolo Virno, *A Grammar of the Multitude*, p. 107. Therefore, they argue that, for Marx, the labor theory of value primarily refers to material labor creating value, while immaterial labor is excluded from productive labor. But in the post-Fordist era, with the deep adjustment of the capitalist industrial structure and the vigorous development of the culture industry, immaterial labor has replaced material labor as the dominant form of creating surplus value; and general intellect has also replaced the physical strength of the past, becoming “a pillar of wage labor, hierarchy, and the production of surplus value.” [6]6 Paolo Virno, *A Grammar of the Multitude*, p. 107. Here, “all labor in post-Fordism is productive (surplus-value-creating) labor.” [6]6 Paolo Virno, *A Grammar of the Multitude*, p. 107. This assertion is not only Virno’s conclusion but also a common view of Lazzarato, Negri, Hardt, and the Cognitive Capitalism school.

其次，一般智力与劳动价值论、现实抽象之间存在何种关系？自治主义和认知资本主义学派指出，马克思虽然看到了当时资本主义条件下的非物质劳动，但他却始终认为，后者并不创造剩余价值，属于非生产劳动，“在那里没有自主的制成品，在极大程度上就不能说生产性（剩余价值）劳动。马克思实际上接受了这样一个等式：没有终端产品的劳动=个人私人服务”6。因此，他们认为，在马克思那里，劳动价值论主要是指物质劳动创造价值，非物质劳动则被排斥在生产性劳动之外。但在后福特制时代，随着资本主义产业结构的深度调整和文化工业的蓬勃发展，非物质劳动代替物质劳动成为创造剩余价值的主导形式；而一般智力也取代了过去的体力，成为“雇佣劳动、等级制度、生产剩余价值的一个支柱”6。在这里，“后福特制的全部劳动都是生产性的（创造剩余价值的）劳动”6。这一断言不仅是维尔诺的结论，也是拉扎拉托、奈格里、哈特和认知资本主义流派的共同观点。

On this basis, they raised a new question: how to understand the “real abstraction” of the post-Fordist era? Since Sohn-Rethel, Žižek and others rediscovered Marx’s “real abstraction,” some left-wing scholars have also attempted to offer new interpretations of this issue on a new foundation. Virno is one of them. He points out that in Marx, “real abstraction” is merely an ex post “empirical fact”;[7]7 Paolo Virno, *A Grammar of the Multitude: For an Analysis of Contemporary Forms of Life*, trans. Isabella Bertoletti, James Cascaito, and Andrea Casson (Los Angeles: Semiotext(e), 2004), pp. 72, 74. for example, money is merely the empirical incarnation of the “idea of equivalence” in reality, reflecting humanity’s summary and abstraction of already completed material labor results, and it refers only to the “past tense of labor.” In the post-Fordist era, however, immaterial labor without a terminal product has become the dominant form of surplus-value creation, so “real abstraction” is no longer embodied in the result of labor but manifests as activity itself; it no longer refers to the “past tense of labor” but manifests as the “present tense of labor.” Therefore, compared with monetary abstraction, general intellect “is a more absolute concept of true abstraction,” “the real stage at which spiritual abstraction is itself the abstraction of the real.”[7]7 Paolo Virno, *A Grammar of the Multitude: For an Analysis of Contemporary Forms of Life*, trans. Isabella Bertoletti, James Cascaito, and Andrea Casson (Los Angeles: Semiotext(e), 2004), pp. 72, 74. If in Marx it is material labor that creates value, then in the post-Fordist era it is general intellect that creates value; if in Marx value abstraction manifests as the social transformation of material labor and its products, then in the post-Fordist era “real abstraction” directly manifests as the spiritual abstraction of general intellect; if in Marx general intellect is separated from labor, then in the post-Fordist era general intellect has become closely integrated with labor. On this basis, Virno points out that Marx once predicted that mass intellect would only appear in post-capitalist society, yet the development practice of contemporary capitalism shows that mass intellect has already emerged in the post-Fordist era.

在此基础上，他们提出了一个新的问题，即如何理解后福特制时代的“现实抽象”？自索恩-雷特尔、齐泽克等人重新发现马克思的“现实抽象”之后，一些左翼学者也试图在新的基础上对此问题作出新的诠释。维尔诺就是其中之一。他指出，在马克思那里，“现实抽象”不过是一种事后的“经验事实”6，比如，货币不过是“等价理念”在现实中的经验化身，反映了人类对已经完成的物质劳动成果的总结和抽象，它只指涉“劳动的过去时”。而在后福特制时代，没有终端产品的非物质劳动已经成为剩余价值创造的主导形式，因此“现实抽象”不再体现在劳动的结果中，而是表现为活动本身；它不再指涉“劳动的过去时”，而是表现为“劳动的现在时”。因此，与货币抽象相比，一般智力“是更加绝对的真正抽象的概念”，“是精神的抽象直接在它们本身的真实的抽象阶段”6。如果说在马克思那里，是物质劳动创造价值，那么在后福特制时代，则是一般智力创造价值；如果在马克思那里，价值抽象表现为物质劳动的社会转化及其产物，那么在后福特制时代，“现实抽象”则直接表现为一般智力的精神抽象；如果说在马克思那里，一般智力是与劳动分离的，那么，在后福特制时代，一般智力已经与劳动紧密结合在一起了。基于此，维尔诺指出，马克思曾预言大众智能只可能出现于后资本主义社会，然而当代资本主义的发展实践表明，大众智能在后福特制时代就已经出现了。

Third, what changes have occurred in the relationship between general intellect and fixed capital? In Marx, constant capital and variable capital are an essential distinction based on the role of capital in the production of surplus value, while fixed capital and circulating capital are an external distinction based on the form of circulation of capital.[8]8 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 2, trans. David Fernbach (London: Penguin, 1978), Part Two, Chapters 8–11. However, in contemporary Western left-wing thought, a new trend has emerged: an attempt to activate the category of fixed capital to reconstruct the contemporaneity of Marx’s thought. If Harvey, through the spatial turn, reinterpreted the contemporary value of fixed capital, then Negri and others, through the mediation of general intellect, have endowed fixed capital with new connotations.

再次，一般智力与固定资本的关系出现了何种变化？在马克思那里，不变资本与可变资本是依据资本在剩余价值生产中的作用作出的本质划分，而固定资本与流动资本则是依据资本的流通形式作出的外在划分。7不过，在当代西方左翼思潮中，却出现了一种新的趋势，即力图激活固定资本范畴来重构马克思思想的当代性。如果说哈维通过空间转向，重新诠释了固定资本的当代价值，那么奈格里等人则通过一般智力的中介重新赋予固定资本以新的内涵。

In Marx, the production process mainly refers to the material production process, and fixed capital mainly refers to the visible system of machinery, which is the objectified product of scientific knowledge, while scientific knowledge is created by human beings as subjects. Therefore, the degree of development of fixed capital ultimately depends on the degree of development of human beings themselves. On this basis, Marx drew an important conclusion: “The saving of labor time is equal to an increase of free time, i.e. time for the full development of the individual, which in turn reacts back upon the productive power of labor as itself the greatest productive power. From the standpoint of the direct production process, the saving of labor time can be regarded as the production of fixed capital, this fixed capital being man himself.”[9]9 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy*, trans. Martin Nicolaus (London: Penguin, 1973), p. 711. An increase in free time means that individuals have more time to engage in scientific research and fully appropriate general intellect, which in turn promotes the development of general intellect and scientific knowledge, thereby promoting the development of fixed capital. Therefore, when Marx says “fixed capital is man himself,” he mainly means that the development of fixed capital ultimately depends on the development of man himself, not that man himself has become fixed capital.

在马克思那里，生产过程主要是指物质生产过程，而固定资本主要是指看得见的机器体系，它是科学知识对象化的产物，而科学知识则是由作为主体的人创造出来的。因此，固定资本的发展程度，最终取决于人自身的发展程度。基于此，马克思给出了一个重要结论：“节约劳动时间等于增加自由时间，即增加使个人得到充分发展的时间，而个人的充分发展又作为最大生产力反作用于劳动生产力。从直接生产过程的角度来看，节约劳动时间可以看作生产固定资本，这种固定资本就是人本身。”8自由时间的增加意味着个人有更多时间从事科学研究，充分占有一般智力，这反过来又推动了一般智力和科学知识的发展，从而促进固定资本的发展。因此，当马克思说“固定资本就是人本身”时，主要是指固定资本的发展最终取决于人本身的发展，而不是说人本身已经成了固定资本。

In the post-Fordist era, the connotation of this proposition has undergone a major change. Negri points out: “When Marx asserts that fixed capital, which in Capital is usually understood as the network of machines, has become ‘man himself,’ he predicts the development of capital in our time.”[10]10 Antonio Negri, *Marx Beyond Marx: Lessons on the Grundrisse*, ed. Jim Fleming, trans. Harry Cleaver, Michael Ryan, and Maurizio Viano (New York: Autonomedia, 1991), pp. 162, 163, 164. With the deep adjustment of the capitalist industrial structure, capitalist countries have gradually shifted low-end manufacturing overseas, forming an industrial structure dominated by knowledge production and the like. For large companies and enterprises, the production of material products in factories that Marx spoke of has sunk to the lowest end of the value chain. To maintain their competitive advantage, what matters is no longer the production of tangible goods but the high-end products of the value chain, such as the R&D and innovation of knowledge, information and general intellect. To produce such intangible products, the mere system of machinery is insufficient; it must rely on highly qualified workers who possess general intellect. On this basis, Negri points out that, for the production of intangible products, fixed capital no longer manifests as the system of machinery but as general intellect and man himself: “Fixed capital now appears to be inside bodies, inscribed on them, and also subject to them—this is even more the case when we consider activities such as research and software development. These jobs are not the congealing of material products separate from the worker, but are still incorporated into the brain and cannot exist apart from the person.”[10]10 Antonio Negri, *Marx Beyond Marx: Lessons on the Grundrisse*, ed. Jim Fleming, trans. Harry Cleaver, Michael Ryan, and Maurizio Viano (New York: Autonomedia, 1991), pp. 162, 163, 164. In other words, for material products, fixed capital manifests as the system of machinery, and variable capital manifests as labor power dominated by physical strength; but for immaterial products, fixed capital manifests as man himself who possesses general intellect, i.e., the “body-machine,” while variable capital manifests as labor power dominated by general intellect. If in the former case fixed capital and labor power are still separate, then in the latter case fixed capital and labor power achieve unity on the basis of general intellect: the person possessing general intellect is both the main labor force for knowledge-information production and technological R&D and the indispensable fixed capital for the latter. On this basis, Negri points out that in the post-Fordist era, man has replaced the system of machinery and become the highest form of fixed capital. In Negri’s view, the development of fixed capital from machinery to man himself means that Marx’s distinction between fixed capital and variable capital seems to have become obsolete: “Here, the boundary between dead labor and living labor (i.e., the boundary between fixed capital and variable capital) becomes thoroughly blurred.”[10]10 Antonio Negri, *Marx Beyond Marx: Lessons on the Grundrisse*, ed. Jim Fleming, trans. Harry Cleaver, Michael Ryan, and Maurizio Viano (New York: Autonomedia, 1991), pp. 162, 163, 164. This means that Marx’s explanation of the organic composition of capital, i.e., the ratio of constant capital to variable capital, has also lost its former validity, because here variable capital precisely represents fixed capital itself. On this basis, Negri draws the conclusion: today, the reappropriation of fixed capital is by no means a metaphor but a political program that must be practiced in the class struggle of the new era, because to reappropriate fixed capital is to reappropriate general intellect, to return to man himself.

到了后福特制时代，这一命题的内涵发生了重大变化。奈格里指出：“当马克思断言在《资本论》中通常被理解为作为机器网络的固定资本，已经变成了‘人本身’时，他预言了资本在我们时代中的发展。”9随着资本主义产业结构的深度调整，资本主义国家逐渐将低端制造业转移到海外，形成了以知识生产等为主导的产业结构。对于大公司、大企业而言，马克思当年所说的工厂中的物质产品的生产已沦为价值链的最低端，它们要维持自身的竞争优势，重要的不再是有形物品的生产，而是价值链的高端产品，如知识、信息和一般智力的研发创新。而要生产这种无形产品，单纯的机器体系已无法完成，必须依靠拥有一般智力的高素质劳动者。基于此，奈格里指出，就无形产品的生产来说，固定资本已经不再表现为机器体系，而是表现为一般智力和人本身，“固定资本现在看起来是在身体之内，印在他们身上，同时也服从他们——当我们考虑诸如研究和软件开发等活动时，情况更是如此。这些工作不是与工人相分离的物质产品的凝结，而是仍然被纳入大脑、不能脱离人而存在”9。换言之，对于物质产品而言，固定资本表现为机器体系，可变资本表现为以体力为主导的劳动力；但对于非物质产品而言，固定资本则表现为拥有一般智力的人本身，即“身体-机器”，而可变资本则表现为以一般智力为主导的劳动力。如果说在前者那里，固定资本和劳动力还是分离的，那么在后者这里，固定资本与劳动力在一般智力的基础上实现了合一：拥有一般智力的人既是知识信息生产和技术研发的主要劳动力，也是后者不可或缺的固定资本。基于此，奈格里指出，在后福特制时代，人已经取代机器体系，成为固定资本的最高形态。在奈格里看来，固定资本从机器发展为人本身，意味着马克思当年关于固定资本和可变资本的划分似乎已经过时了，“在这里，死劳动和活劳动之间的界限（即固定资本和可变资本之间的界限）彻底变得模糊不清了”9。这意味着，马克思当年关于资本有机构成的解释，即不变资本和可变资本之比，也已经失去了既有效力，因为在这里，可变资本恰恰代表着固定资本本身。在此基础上，奈格里得出了结论：今天，重新占有固定资本，绝不是一种隐喻，而是新时期阶级斗争必须践行的政治纲领，因为重新占有固定资本，就是重新占有一般智力，就是回归人本身。

General Intellect and the New Form of Capitalism: The Paradigm Shift of Contemporary Western Left-Wing Social Critical Theory

一般智力与资本主义新形态：当代西方左翼社会批判理论的范式转换

With the rapid development of the third scientific and technological revolution, contemporary capitalist society has undergone tremendous changes. Against this backdrop, some left-wing thinkers have analyzed these changes from different perspectives and, on the basis of reflecting on Marx’s theory of material production, have constructed various paradigms of social critique, exerting a significant influence on Italian autonomism and cognitive capitalism. Among them, the more prominent include Debord’s critique of the spectacle[11]11 Guy Debord (1931–1994), French Marxist theorist and founding member of the Situationist International. His 1967 book *The Society of the Spectacle* argues that social life in advanced capitalism is reduced to a mere accumulation of spectacles—images and representations that mediate all social relations., Baudrillard’s critique of symbolic simulation[12]12 Jean Baudrillard (1929–2007), French sociologist and philosopher. His theory of symbolic simulation holds that in the postmodern era, signs and codes have replaced reality, creating a hyperreality where the distinction between the real and the simulated collapses., and Poster’s critical theory of the mode of information[13]13 Mark Poster (1941–2012), American historian and media theorist. His “mode of information” theory analyzes how electronic communication technologies restructure social relations and subjectivity, arguing that information has become a dominant principle of social organization.. From the critique of the spectacle to the critique of symbolic simulation and then to the critique of the mode of information, this trajectory reflects the theoretical cognition of contemporary Western leftists regarding the transmutation of the dominant logic of capitalism. Although their starting points differ, they share one commonality: they all believe that Marx’s theory of material production was merely a product of the era of industrial capitalism and can no longer explain contemporary capitalist society. Furthermore, these social critique theories have, to some extent, opened up a “new” horizon different from the logic of material production, providing important reference for contemporary autonomism and cognitive capitalism to reactivate the category of “general intellect” and construct distinctive theories of immaterial labor and cognitive labor. On the basis of comprehensively absorbing these views and other left-wing ideas, autonomism and cognitive capitalism have constructed a set of social critique paradigms that share both consensus and divergence. However, what is worth pondering is that, compared with their predecessors, their entire logic has undergone a major shift.

随着第三次科技革命的迅猛发展，当代资本主义社会发生了巨大变化。在此背景下，一些左翼思想家从不同的方面分析了这种变化，并在反思马克思物质生产理论的基础上，建构了不同的社会批判范式，对意大利自治主义和认知资本主义产生了重要影响。其中，比较突出的有德波的景观批判10、鲍德里亚的符号仿真批判11和波斯特的信息方式批判理论12。从景观批判到符号仿真批判再到信息方式批判，反映了当代西方左翼对资本主义主导逻辑嬗变的理论认知，虽然他们的立足点有差异，但有一点却是共同的，即都认为马克思的物质生产理论只是工业资本主义时代的产物，已无法解释当代资本主义社会。此外，这些社会批判理论在某种程度上开启了一种不同于物质生产逻辑的“崭新”视域，为当代自治主义和认知资本主义重新激活“一般智力”范畴、建构富有特色的非物质劳动和认知劳动理论提供了重要借鉴。在综合吸收这些观点以及其他左翼思想的基础上，自治主义和认知资本主义建构了一套既有共识又存在分歧的社会批判范式。不过，值得玩味的是，与前辈相比，他们的整个逻辑都发生了重大变化。

First, a general shift from the specific paradigms of the spectacle, the symbol, and the mode of information to the general intellect. In terms of theoretical lineage and debt relations, the evolution from the spectacle to symbolic simulation and then to the mode of information reflects a process in which the former influences the latter and progresses logically. However, the autonomist school believes that whether it is the spectacle, symbolic simulation, or the mode of information, they are in fact merely one aspect of the transformation of contemporary capitalism. Remaining solely at these specific levels makes it impossible to fully grasp the dominant logic of contemporary social evolution. Therefore, autonomism and cognitive capitalism argue that it is necessary to enter the depths of history, summarize the common logic behind the spectacle, the symbol, simulation, and the mode of information, transcend specific paradigms, and reach abstraction itself. In this context, Marx’s category of “general intellect” precisely meets their theoretical needs. Combining the new changes in contemporary capitalism, they incorporate the spectacle, the symbol, simulation, information, knowledge (in its objectified form), as well as cognition, communication, emotion, linguistic exchange, thinking, and imagination (as capacities and potentialities themselves) into the category of general intellect, and treat the latter as the general abstract basis for dissecting contemporary capitalist society. This not only transcends the objective dimension of “the power of objectified knowledge” that Marx spoke of but also transcends specific paradigms such as the spectacle, the symbol, simulation, and information, realizing a logical shift from concrete reality to general abstraction.

首先，从景观、符号和信息方式的具体范式到一般智力的总体转换。就理论渊源和债务关系而言，从景观到符号仿真再到信息方式的演变，反映的是前者影响后者并在逻辑上不断递进的过程。不过，自治主义学派认为，不论是景观、符号仿真还是信息方式，实际上都不过是当代资本主义转型的一个侧面。仅仅停留在这些具体层面，还无法完整地把握当代社会演变的主导逻辑。因此，自治主义和认知资本主义认为，必须进入历史深处，总结景观、符号、仿真和信息方式背后的共同逻辑，超越具体范式，达及抽象本身。在此背景下，马克思的“一般智力”范畴恰恰迎合了他们的理论需要。结合当代资本主义新变化，他们将景观、符号、仿真、信息、知识（客观化形态）以及认知、交往、情感、语言交流、思考、想象（能力和潜能本身）等通通纳入一般智力范畴之中，并将后者当作解剖当代资本主义社会的一般抽象基础。这不仅超越了马克思当年所说的“对象化的知识力量”的客体维度，也超越了景观、符号、仿真、信息等具体范式，实现了从现实具体到一般抽象的逻辑转变。

Second, a shift from critical discourse to affirmative discourse, and from the logic of capital to the logic of the subject. In the work of Debord, Baudrillard, and Poster, the so-called spectacle, simulation, symbol, and even information are all constructed under the dominance of capital and appear as objects of critique: Debord calls for the complete destruction of the spectacle through a revolution in everyday life, Baudrillard hopes for the return of symbolic exchange and the “implosion” of codes to definitively end the logic of “simulation,” and Poster regards computer viruses as an important means of resisting the mode of information. However, in the hands of autonomism and cognitive capitalism, the entire logic is inverted. The spectacle, the symbol, and information no longer appear as objects of critique but are flipped into an affirmative, positive discourse, that is, they are regarded as positive manifestations of general intellect and social productive forces. This is a typical logical misalignment. As Virno points out: “‘The spectacle’ is interpersonal communication that has become a commodity. What is transmitted through the spectacle is precisely the human capacity for communication, the exchange of oral language… In the post-Fordist era, interpersonal communication is also a basic element necessary for productive cooperation; therefore, it is the dominant productive force… In the spectacle, we find the most influential social productive forces displayed in various independent, fascinating forms.”[14]14 Paolo Virno (b. 1952), Italian Marxist philosopher and a key figure in the autonomist tradition. The quotation is from his work *A Grammar of the Multitude* (2004), where he reinterprets the spectacle as a positive expression of the general intellect and communicative capacities. Furthermore, in the definitions of immaterial labor by Lazzarato, Negri, and Hardt, one can also see the positive role played by factors such as the spectacle, information, and symbols. This is also the reason why Hardt and Negri later named it “biopolitical labor”[15]15 Sun Leqiang, “Marx’s Category of ‘General Intellect’ and the Theoretical Turn of Contemporary Western Left-Wing Thought”, *Social Sciences in China*, 2017, no. 6. [This is a reference to the author’s own earlier work, cited as the source for the three-stage periodisation and the concept of “general intellect capitalism”.] in *Multitude*: as a borrowing from Foucault, the category of “biopolitics” is endowed with a unique connotation in Hardt and Negri’s work, opposed to the category of “biopower” (i.e., capital’s power over life), specifically referring to a liberatory politics of subject-formation; it is a positive biopolitics. If, in Debord, Baudrillard, and Poster, the spectacle, symbolic simulation, and the mode of information represent the latest developmental forms of the logic of capital, then in the autonomist school, these factors are regarded as positive forces for subject-formation. Autonomists believe that in contemporary Western society, capital has indeed extended its tentacles into all fields of immaterial labor, completed the internal colonization of the entire spiritual life, and inaugurated a new form of domination based on general intellect. It is precisely in the labor of producing the spectacle, information, symbols, knowledge, and emotions that a new form of cooperation emerges, one that contains the possibility of “exiting” capital. This cooperation is no longer the passive cooperation imposed by capital but the collective cooperation autonomously formed by laborers.[14]14 Paolo Virno (b. 1952), Italian Marxist philosopher and a key figure in the autonomist tradition. The quotation is from his work *A Grammar of the Multitude* (2004), where he reinterprets the spectacle as a positive expression of the general intellect and communicative capacities. In this cooperation, the subject will reappropriate general intellect, liberate it from the domination of capital, the state (Virno), and Empire (Hardt and Negri), and realize the “communism” of general intellect.

其次，从批判话语到积极话语、从资本逻辑到主体逻辑的转变。在德波、鲍德里亚和波斯特那里，所谓景观、仿真、符号甚至信息，都是在资本的主导下建构完成的，是作为批判对象出场的：德波呼吁通过日常生活的革命来彻底摧毁景观，鲍德里亚期冀于象征交换的回归和符码的“内爆”来彻底终结“仿真”逻辑，波斯特则将电脑病毒视为抵抗信息方式的一个重要途径。但到了自治主义和认知资本主义这里，整个逻辑被颠倒了过来。景观、符号、信息等不再作为批判对象出场了，而是被翻转为一种肯定式的正面话语，即被视为一般智力和社会生产力的积极表现，这是一种典型的逻辑错位。如维尔诺指出：“‘景观’是已经成为一种商品的人际交往。通过景观传递的恰恰就是人类的交往能力，口头语言的交流……在后福特制时代，人际交往也通常是富有成效的合作所必需的基本要素；因此，它是起支配作用的生产力……在景观里，我们发现了以各种独立的、受人迷恋的形式展示的最具影响力的社会生产力。”13此外，在拉扎拉托、奈格里和哈特关于非物质劳动的定义中，同样可以看到景观、信息、符号等因素蕴含的积极作用，这也是后来哈特、奈格里在《大众》中将其命名为“生命政治劳动”14的原因所在：作为对福柯的借鉴，“生命政治”这一范畴在哈特、奈格里这里被赋予独特内涵，其与“生命权力”范畴（即资本对生命的权力统治）相对，特指主体生成的解放政治学，它是一种积极的生命政治学。如果说在德波、鲍德里亚和波斯特那里，景观、符号仿真和信息方式代表了资本逻辑的最新发展形态，那么到了自治主义学派这里，这些因素则视为主体生成的积极力量。自治主义者认为，在当代西方社会，资本的确已经将自己的触角延伸到一切非物质劳动领域，完成了对整个精神生活的内在殖民，开启了以一般智力为基础的新型统治，正是在生产景观、信息、符号、知识和情感的劳动中，出现了一种全新的合作形式，它蕴含着“出离”资本的可能性。这种合作不再是资本强加的被动合作，而是劳动者自主形成的集体合作。13在这种合作中，主体将会重新占有一般智力，将其从资本、国家（维尔诺）和帝国（哈特、奈格里）的支配下解放出来，实现一般智力的“共产主义”。

Third, a paradigm shift from post-industrial society to cognitive capitalism. Debord’s society of the spectacle, Baudrillard’s symbolic simulation, and Poster’s mode of information, to some extent, reflect the new changes and developments of contemporary capitalism, seemingly heralding the birth of a new capitalist paradigm different from industrial society. This problematic has been continued in autonomism and cognitive capitalism. In their view, “the confirmation of the category of general intellect responds to the structural crisis of industrial capitalism itself”[16]16 The “pluralistic mass subject” refers to the Autonomist Marxist concept of the “multitude” (*multitudo*), as developed by thinkers like Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt, which replaces the classical Marxist proletariat with a heterogeneous social subject.; it is necessary to demarcate this new form based on the dominant dimensions of general intellect, immaterial labor, and cognitive labor. However, in terms of specific paradigms, Virno consistently adheres to the analytical framework of post-Fordism and state power, Hardt and Negri move toward a capital-Empire devoid of state power, while cognitive capitalism focuses on the power relations between capital and new forms of labor, proposing the paradigm of “cognitive capitalism.” Vercellone points out: “The term ‘cognitive’ emphasizes the new nature of the contradictory relationship between labor and capital, as well as the form of wealth based on capital accumulation. It should be noted that the concept of cognitive capitalism has also been developed as a response to the inadequate explanation of the current transformation of capitalism (from Fordism to the flexible post-Fordist model, sometimes also called ‘Toyotism’). The explanatory category of ‘post-Fordism,’ adopted jointly by workerist leftists and regulation school economists, remains essentially constrained by the horizon of new industrial capitalists under the new capitalism.”[16]16 The “pluralistic mass subject” refers to the Autonomist Marxist concept of the “multitude” (*multitudo*), as developed by thinkers like Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt, which replaces the classical Marxist proletariat with a heterogeneous social subject. At the same time, the neoliberal “knowledge economy” paradigm, while better reflecting the dominant role of knowledge in contemporary economic growth, obscures the absorption and domination of knowledge production and cognitive labor by capital power. Therefore, the cognitive capitalism school neither agrees to use post-Fordism or Empire to designate this new form nor agrees to use the knowledge economy to summarize this new model; instead, it proposes a new paradigm, namely “cognitive capitalism,” to characterize the latest form of current capitalist development.

再次，从后工业社会到认知资本主义的范式转换。德波的景观社会、鲍德里亚的符号仿真、波斯特的信息方式，在某种程度上反映了当代资本主义的新变化、新发展，似乎宣告了一种不同于工业社会的新型资本主义范式的诞生。这一问题域在自治主义和认知资本主义这里都得到了延续。在他们看来，“一般智力范畴的确认回应了工业资本主义本身的结构性危机”15，必须从一般智力、非物质劳动和认知劳动的主导维度来界划这种新形态。不过，在具体范式上，维尔诺始终坚持后福特主义和国家权力的分析框架，哈特和奈格里走向了去国家权力的资本帝国，而认知资本主义则聚焦资本与新型劳动之间的权力关系，提出了认知资本主义（cognitive capitlaism）范式。韦赛隆指出：“‘认知’这一术语强调了劳动和资本矛盾关系的新性质，以及基于资本积累的财富形式。需要注意的是，认知资本主义的概念也被发展为对目前资本主义转变（从福特主义到后福特主义灵活模式，有时也被称为‘丰田主义’）解释不力的一种回应。同时由工人主义左翼和调节学派经济学家共同采用的‘后福特主义’解释范畴，本质上仍然受到新资本主义视域下新工业资本家的束缚。”15与此同时，新自由主义的“知识经济”范式虽然较好地体现了知识在当代经济增长中的主导作用，却掩盖了资本权力对知识生产和认知劳动的吸纳和支配作用。因此，认知资本主义流派既不同意用后福特制或帝国来指称这种新形态，也不同意用知识经济来概括这种新模式，而是提出了一个新范式，即“认知资本主义”来概括当前资本主义发展的最新形态。

It is precisely on the basis of the role of general intellect and cognitive labour in the development of capitalism that they have achieved a historical periodisation of the stages of capitalist development, dividing capitalism into three stages: mercantile capitalism, industrial capitalism, and cognitive capitalism.[15]15 Sun Leqiang, “Marx’s Category of ‘General Intellect’ and the Theoretical Turn of Contemporary Western Left-Wing Thought”, *Social Sciences in China*, 2017, no. 6. [This is a reference to the author’s own earlier work, cited as the source for the three-stage periodisation and the concept of “general intellect capitalism”.] Mercantile capitalism developed from the early 16th century to the end of the 18th century; at this time, the labour-capital relation was marked by the knowledge hegemony of artisans and trade workers, and characterised by mercantilism and financial accumulation. The stage of industrial capitalism originated with the First Industrial Revolution and ended with Fordist capitalism. The greatest feature of this stage is the thorough separation of mental labour from manual labour: the capitalist gradually appropriates scientific knowledge and uses it to complete the domination of the worker (fixed capital and the management process), and the worker’s labour is entirely reduced to material labour or manual labour separated from knowledge. In this period, surplus value mainly originates from material labour, and Marx’s theory of material production is adapted to this stage. By the stage of cognitive capitalism, this logic of Marx’s has become obsolete: today, knowledge production is as completely subordinated to the power of capital as material production once was, and the creation of surplus value no longer originates from material labour but is rooted in general intellect and cognitive labour. This is an entirely new capitalism, namely “general intellect capitalism”.[15]15 Sun Leqiang, “Marx’s Category of ‘General Intellect’ and the Theoretical Turn of Contemporary Western Left-Wing Thought”, *Social Sciences in China*, 2017, no. 6. [This is a reference to the author’s own earlier work, cited as the source for the three-stage periodisation and the concept of “general intellect capitalism”.] Here, “the opposition between dead labour and living labour under traditional industrial capitalism gives way to a new form of antagonism, namely the opposition between capital’s ‘dead knowledge’ and labour’s ‘living knowledge’”.[15]15 Sun Leqiang, “Marx’s Category of ‘General Intellect’ and the Theoretical Turn of Contemporary Western Left-Wing Thought”, *Social Sciences in China*, 2017, no. 6. [This is a reference to the author’s own earlier work, cited as the source for the three-stage periodisation and the concept of “general intellect capitalism”.]

正是依据一般智力和认知劳动在资本主义发展过程中的作用，他们实现了对资本主义发展阶段的历史分期，将资本主义划分为三个阶段：重商资本主义、工业资本主义和认知资本主义。15重商资本主义发展于16世纪早期到18世纪末，此时的劳资关系以工匠和贸易工人的知识霸权为标志，以重商主义和金融积累为特点。工业资本主义阶段起源于第一次工业革命，终结于福特制资本主义。这一阶段的最大特点是体力劳动与脑力劳动的彻底分离：资本家逐步占有科学知识，并运用科学知识来完成对工人的统治（固定资本和管理过程），工人的劳动完全沦为与知识分离的物质劳动或体力劳动。在这一时期，剩余价值主要来源于物质劳动，而马克思的物质生产理论就是与这一阶段相适应的。到了认知资本主义阶段，马克思的这套逻辑已经过时了：今天的知识生产已经像当年的物质生产一样完全从属于资本权力，剩余价值的创造已经不再来源于物质劳动，而是根源于一般智力和认知劳动，这是一种全新的资本主义，即“一般智力资本主义”15。在这里，“传统工业资本主义下的死劳动与活劳动之间的对立，让位于一种新的对抗形式，即资本的‘死知识’和劳动的‘活知识’之间的对立”15。

Finally, there is the shift from the pessimism of resistance to the optimism of liberation. The Situationists did not abandon class struggle; rather, they advocated a cultural and artistic revolution in everyday life to achieve a rebellion against the society of the spectacle. Poster, however, argues that in the information age of the “superpanopticon”, class logic has been thoroughly dissolved, leaving only a plurality of dispersed individuals, and revolution has become an impossible illusion. Here, individuals seem only able to act like hackers, creating computer viruses or causing minor disruptions, engaging in a kind of everyday resistance resembling cyber “terrorism”. By Baudrillard, all resistance appears to have been deconstructed, because in his view all subjects of resistance have died, ultimately falling into pessimistic nihilism. Compared with them, Autonomism and cognitive capitalism carry a bit more hope and optimism, offering a relatively positive but also somewhat naive alternative. The former seizes on general intellect and immaterial labour to construct a pluralistic mass subject,[16]16 The “pluralistic mass subject” refers to the Autonomist Marxist concept of the “multitude” (*multitudo*), as developed by thinkers like Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt, which replaces the classical Marxist proletariat with a heterogeneous social subject. achieving a rupture with Marx’s theory of the proletariat. Cognitive capitalism, on the other hand, seeks to reconstruct the class subject resisting capital on the basis of the relation between capital and cognitive labour, thereby proposing the theory of the “cognitive class”. This is, to some extent, a contemporary extension and continuation of Engels’s category of the “mental proletariat”.[17]17 Engels’s “mental proletariat” (*geistiges Proletariat*) refers to the stratum of intellectual workers who, under capitalism, sell their mental labour power and are thereby subsumed into the proletariat. The term appears in Engels’s 1893 letter to the International Congress of Socialist Students. However, in terms of strategy of struggle, they are internally consistent: they advocate the reappropriation of general intellect through the collective cooperation of subjects, thereby completing the ultimate “exodus” from capital.

最后，从抵抗的悲观主义到解放的乐观主义的转变。情景主义者并没有放弃阶级斗争，而是主张通过日常生活的文化艺术革命，来实现对景观世界的反叛。而波斯特则认为，在“超级全景监狱”的信息时代，阶级逻辑已经被彻底瓦解，剩下的只是一个个多元分散的个体，革命已经成为一种不可能的幻象。在这里，个体似乎只能像黑客那样制造点电脑病毒或搞点小破坏，做一些类似网络“恐怖主义”的日常反抗。而到了鲍德里亚这里，所有反抗似乎都被解构了，因为在他看来，所有的反抗主体都已经死亡了，最终倒向了悲观的虚无主义。与他们相比，自治主义和认知资本主义则多了几分希望和乐观，提供了一种比较积极但也略显幼稚的替代方案。前者抓住一般智力和非物质劳动，建构了多元化的大众主体16，实现了与马克思工人阶级理论的决裂。而认知资本主义则力图基于资本与认知劳动的关系，来重构反抗资本的阶级主体，由此提出了“认知阶级”理论，这在某种程度上是对恩格斯的“脑力劳动无产阶级”17范畴的当代拓展和延续。不过，在斗争策略上，他们是内在一致的，即主张通过主体的集体合作来实现对一般智力的重新占有，进而完成对资本的最终“出离”。

The Fetishism of General Intellect and the Utopia of Liberation: A Critical Reflection on Contemporary Western Left-Wing Thought

一般智力拜物教与解放的乌托邦：对当代西方左翼的批判性反思

Through the rediscovery and contemporary reshaping of Marx’s category of “general intellect”, Autonomism and cognitive capitalism have constructed a distinctive theory of social critique, becoming a unique landscape in contemporary Western left-wing thought. This not only provides new perspectives for the current academic community to deepen the study of Marx’s *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858* and *Capital*, but also offers new threads for accurately grasping the developmental genealogy of contemporary Western left-wing theory, while simultaneously providing new ideas for deepening our research into the characteristics of contemporary capitalist development. However, it must also be recognised that their theoretical construction suffers from unavoidable major defects.

自治主义和认知资本主义通过对马克思“一般智力”范畴的再发现和当代重塑，建构了一套富有特色的社会批判理论，成为当代西方左翼思潮中一道独特的风景线，不仅为当前学界进一步深化对《1857—1858年经济学手稿》和《资本论》的思想研究提供了新视角，也为准确把握当代西方左翼理论的发展谱系提供了新脉络，同时为我们进一步深化对当代资本主义发展特质的研究提供了新思路。但也必须看到，他们的理论建构也存在不可避免的重大缺陷。

(I) The Subjectivisation of General Intellect and Its Generalisation

（一）一般智力的主体化转向及其泛化

First, it narrows the scientific connotation of Marx’s category of “general intellect”. Returning to Marx’s original context, it can be found that: first, the general intellect Marx speaks of does not refer to individual intellect, but to the overall intellect formed by a society at a specific stage of development, i.e., “general social knowledge”; second, the power of knowledge objectified in fixed capital is merely the manifestation of that part of general intellect transformed into direct productive forces, not the entirety of general intellect; finally, the objectification of general intellect into fixed capital is merely the dominant mode of its transformation into direct productive forces at the stage of machine-based large-scale production, but it is not the only way it functions.[18]18 This paragraph summarises Marx’s discussion of general intellect in the *Grundrisse* (the *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858*), particularly the “Fragment on Machines”, where he distinguishes general social knowledge from its objectification in fixed capital. Therefore, when Virno criticises Marx for understanding general intellect only as “objectified knowledge power”, he clearly narrows the connotation of Marx’s category of general intellect. And when, from the standpoint of the post-Fordist era, he criticises Marx for not understanding general intellect from the subjective logic of living labour, he is clearly ahistorical. For in the era in which Marx lived, the objectification of general intellect into fixed capital was precisely the dominant form of its functioning at that stage; we cannot demand perfection from the standpoint of contemporary society.

第一，窄化了马克思“一般智力”范畴的科学内涵。回到马克思的原初语境可以发现：首先，马克思所说的一般智力不是指个人智力，而是指一个社会发展到特定阶段所形成的总体智力，即“一般社会知识”；其次，对象化在固定资本中的知识力量，不过是转化为直接生产力的那部分一般智力的体现，而不是一般智力的全部；最后，一般智力对象化为固定资本，不过是其在机器大生产阶段转化为直接生产力的主导方式，但并不是它发挥作用的唯一方式。18因此，当维尔诺批评马克思仅仅将一般智力理解为“对象化的知识力量”时，显然窄化了马克思一般智力范畴的内涵。而当他站在后福特制时代批判马克思没有从活劳动的主体逻辑来理解一般智力时，显然是超历史的。因为在马克思生活的时代，一般智力对象化为固定资本，正是它在这个阶段发挥作用的主导形式，我们不可能站在当代社会来求全责备。

Second, it confuses general intellect with the forms in which general intellect functions. In Marx’s view, productive forces are divided into two forms: “direct productive forces” and “potential productive forces.” Only those that enter the production process and manifest themselves within it are “direct productive forces”; conversely, they are “potential productive forces.” For general intellect to be transformed into direct, real productive forces, there are roughly two pathways: first, combining with labor and directly internalizing itself as the basic competence of actual laborers; second, objectifying itself into the means of labor and directly entering the production process. However, under different social conditions and at different stages of development, the dominant mode by which general intellect is transformed into direct productive forces differs. (1) The pre-capitalist era. Marx states: “In earlier stages of production, limited knowledge and experience were directly linked to labor itself and did not develop into an independent force separate from labor.” [19]19 Marx, *Economic Manuscripts of 1861–1863*, *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 32, p. 214. During this period, general intellect was combined with labor; the slow accumulation of labor experience coalesced into general intellect and was transformed into direct productive forces in the labor process, or objectified into the means of labor. (2) The era of machine-based large-scale production. Marx points out that the developmental process from cooperation to manufacture and then to machine-based large-scale production is precisely the process in which capital continuously absorbs general intellect and causes the latter to achieve complete separation from labor. [20]20 See Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 13, on the separation of mental and manual labor under machinery. In other words, the developmental process from cooperation to machine-based large-scale production is the evolutionary process in which the dominant form of general intellect’s transformation into productive forces shifts from labor-based to means-of-labor-based. To put it more precisely, in the stage of machine-based large-scale production, the dominant mode by which general intellect is transformed into direct productive forces is no longer labor but the machine system under the dominance of capital; this is precisely the context in which Marx’s category of “general intellect” emerges. Moreover, outside the factory, Marx also observed the social diffusion of general intellect, distinguished two different types of immaterial labor, and affirmed the positive role of general intellect in social life. (3) The era of Taylorism and Fordism. With the deepening of the second industrial revolution, the extent of the expansion of general intellect far exceeded that of earlier historical periods, exerting a major impact on human social life and production activities. However, in the sphere of material production, general intellect remained in a state of separation from labor, maintaining a certain continuity with the stage of machine-based large-scale production described by Marx. The American scholar Braverman points out that Taylorism is based on three principles: first, the complete separation of the labor process from the skills of the workers, which is the process of the deskilling of labor; second, the thorough separation of conception from execution, meaning that workers no longer execute labor according to their own will but according to the instructions of management, which is the process of the de-subjectification of labor; third, management’s use of its monopoly over knowledge to comprehensively control every step and mode of operation of the labor process. [21]21 Harry Braverman, *Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century*, Monthly Review Press, 1974. However, compared with Marx’s era, at this time general intellect, besides being transformed into fixed capital, was also applied to management practices to control the labor process of workers. More importantly, in the sphere of social life, the degree of diffusion of general intellect was also quite astonishing, giving rise to various cultural industries. In this regard, “Virno and Vercellone underestimate the degree of ‘diffusion’ of general intellect from the initial industrial revolution to the Fordist period.” [22]22 Carlo Vercellone, “From Formal Subsumption to General Intellect: Elements for a Marxist Reading of the Thesis of Cognitive Capitalism,” *Historical Materialism*, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2007. (4) The post-Fordist or post-industrial society. With the rapid development of the third scientific and technological revolution, the role of knowledge and general intellect in social production and life has become increasingly prominent; and the deep adjustment of the capitalist industrial structure has led to a continuous decline in the proportion of manufacturing and a continuous rise in the proportion of high-end industries and services. To maintain their competitive advantage, capitalist enterprises need a more highly qualified labor force; or, to put it another way, confining general intellect to fixed capital and management can no longer meet the needs of the times. Hence, a new, more widespread practice has emerged: striving to achieve the reintegration of general intellect with labor. In this process, the popularization of education and vocational training have undoubtedly played a significant role. Therefore, in contemporary capitalist society, on the one hand, general intellect continues to be objectified into fixed capital; on the other hand, it gradually merges with labor and, through the labor process, is transformed into direct productive forces. This is precisely the basis on which contemporary Western leftists assert that immaterial labor has become the dominant form of contemporary capitalism. From this perspective, general intellect and the forms in which general intellect functions are entirely two different things. As society continuously develops, general intellect as the overall social intellect also continuously develops; however, at different stages of development, due to the constraints of specific relations of production, the dominant mode by which general intellect is transformed into direct productive forces differs. We must by no means view general intellect and its mode of functioning in a transhistorical manner, still less use contemporary society as a frame of reference to criticize previous historical stages. Virno and cognitive capitalism clearly have not realized this.

第二，混淆了一般智力与一般智力的作用形式。在马克思看来，生产力分为“直接的生产力”和“潜在的生产力”两种形式：只有那些进入生产过程并在其中表现出来的现实生产力，才是“直接的生产力”；反之，则是“潜在的生产力”。对于一般智力而言，要转化为现实的直接生产力，大致有两个途径：一是与劳动结合起来，直接内化为现实劳动者的基本素养；二是对象化为劳动资料，直接进入生产过程。然而，在不同社会条件和不同发展阶段背景下，一般智力转化为直接生产力的主导方式却是不同的。（1）前资本主义时代。马克思说：“在以前的生产阶段上，范围有限的知识和经验是同劳动本身直接联系在一起的，并没有发展成同劳动相分离的独立的力量。”19在这一时期，一般智力是与劳动结合在一起的，劳动经验的缓慢积累汇聚成一般智力，并在劳动过程中转化为直接的生产力，或对象化为劳动资料。（2）机器大生产的时代。马克思指出，从协作到工场手工业再到机器大生产的发展历程，就是资本不断吸纳一般智力并使后者实现与劳动彻底分离的过程。20换言之，从协作到机器大生产的发展历程，就是一般智力从以劳动为主导的生产力形式不断向以劳动资料为主导的转化方式的演变过程。说得再确切些，即在机器大生产阶段，一般智力转化为直接生产力的主导方式，不再是劳动，而是资本主导下的机器体系，这也就是马克思“一般智力”范畴的出场语境。此外，在工厂之外，马克思也看到了一般智力的社会扩散问题，并区分了两种不同的非物质劳动，肯定了一般智力在社会生活中的积极作用。（3）泰勒制和福特制时代。随着第二次工业革命的深入发展，一般智力的扩展程度远远超过以前的历史时期，对人类社会生活和生产活动产生了重大影响。不过，在物质生产领域，一般智力仍与劳动处于分离状态，这与马克思所说的机器大生产阶段保持着某种连续性。美国学者布雷弗曼指出，泰勒制是建立在三大原则之上的：第一，使劳动过程与工人的技能完全分割开来，这是劳动的去技能化过程；第二，概念与执行过程的彻底分离，即工人不再按照自己的意愿来执行劳动，而是按照管理部门的指令执行，这是劳动的去主体化过程；第三，管理部门利用对知识的垄断来全面控制劳动过程的每一个步骤及操作方式。21不过，与马克思的时代相比，此时，一般智力除了转化为固定资本之外，也被运用到管理实践之中，用于管控工人的劳动过程。更为重要的是，在社会生活领域，一般智力的扩散程度也是相当惊人的，形成了各种文化产业。就此而言，“维尔诺和韦塞隆低估了一般智力从最初的工业革命到福特主义这个时期的‘扩散’程度”22。（4）后福特制或后工业社会。随着第三次科技革命的迅猛发展，知识和一般智力在社会生产生活中的作用越来越显著；而资本主义产业结构的深度调整，导致制造业所占比重日趋下降，高端产业和服务业所占比重日趋上升。资本主义企业为了维持自己的竞争优势，更加需要高素质劳动力，或者说，再将一般智力局限于固定资本和管理层，已无法满足时代发展的需要。于是，一种新的更加普遍的做法便出现了，即努力实现一般智力与劳动的再融合。在这一过程中，教育的大众化和职业培训无疑发挥了显著作用。因此，在当代资本主义社会，一般智力一方面会继续对象化为固定资本；另一方面也逐渐与劳动融合起来，通过劳动过程，转化为直接生产力。这正是当代西方左翼断言非物质劳动已成为当代资本主义主导形态的依据所在。以此来看，一般智力与一般智力的作用形式完全是两回事。随着社会的不断发展，作为社会总体智力的一般智力也在不断发展，然而，在不同发展阶段，由于特定的生产关系的限制，一般智力转化为直接生产力的主导方式却是不同的。我们决不能超历史地看待一般智力及其作用方式，更不能以当代社会为参照系来批判以往的历史阶段。维尔诺和认知资本主义显然没有意识到这一点。

Third, it has generalized the connotation of general intellect. Based on post-Fordism, Virno calls for transcending the objective dimension (objectified scientific forces and objective knowledge itself), advocates understanding general intellect from the perspective of living labor, and interprets it as the universal potentiality possessed by the public. Although this definition highlights the initiative, activity, and creativity of the subject, it also excessively generalizes the connotation of general intellect. First, it confuses two different types of intellect. Marx points out: “It is only capitalist production that for the first time turns the material production process into the application of science in production—into science applied in practice.” [23]23 Marx, *Economic Manuscripts of 1861–1863*, *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 32, p. 215. Therefore, “general intellect” as “general social knowledge” can only be proposed as a product of a specific stage of social development. When Virno, based on the subjective dimension, defines various potentialities inherent in individuals—such as cognition, thinking, communication, linguistic dialogue, etc.—as the core connotation of general intellect, he has clearly departed from Marx’s context and confused the species attributes of the subject itself with Marx’s general intellect. Following this logic, the general intellect in Virno’s sense would have already appeared as early as primitive society, and there would be no need to wait until the post-Fordist era to make such a demarcation. This obviously generalizes the connotation of general intellect and commits a common-sense error. Second, it is a pan-subjectivizing interpretation of general intellect. The reintegration of general intellect with living labor is merely one mode in which general intellect functions in the post-Fordist era, yet Virno reverses this logic, arguing that since living labor has become the dominant mode in which general intellect functions, then all attributes and potentialities inherent in living labor belong to general intellect. This is clearly a pan-subjectivizing interpretation of general intellect. Third, it is an individualizing construction of the category of general intellect. The general intellect understood by Marx is a social overall intellect, not a simple sum of individual intellects, just as social productive forces are not a mechanical addition of individual forces. In the case of Virno and Vercellone, this logic is reversed. They argue that contemporary capitalism has already realized the individualization of general intellect and the generalization of the individual intellect, thereby interpreting general intellect as the sum of all individual intellects, and thus realizing an individualizing turn in the category of general intellect.

第三，泛化了一般智力的内涵。维尔诺基于后福特主义，呼吁超越客观维度（对象化的科学力量和客观知识本身），主张从活劳动的角度来理解一般智力，并将其诠释为公众具有的普遍潜能。这一界定虽然突出了主体的积极性、主动性和创造性，但也过分泛化了一般智力的内涵。首先，混淆了两种不同的智力。马克思指出：“只有资本主义生产才第一次把物质生产过程变成科学在生产中的应用，——变成运用于实践的科学。”23因此，作为“一般社会知识”的“一般智力”能够被提出来，必然是社会发展到特定阶段的产物。当维尔诺基于主体维度，把个体蕴含的各种潜能，如认知、思考、交往、语言对话等，界定为一般智力的核心内涵时，显然已经脱离了马克思的语境，混淆了主体自身的类属性和马克思意义上的一般智力。照此逻辑，维尔诺意义上的一般智力早在原始社会时期就已经出现了，根本不需要等到后福特制时代才作出这种界划，这显然泛化了一般智力的内涵，犯了常识性错误。其次，是对一般智力的泛主体化解读。一般智力与活劳动重新结合起来，不过是一般智力在后福特制时代发挥作用的一种方式，而维尔诺却把这一逻辑颠倒了过来，认为既然活劳动已经成为一般智力发挥作用的主导方式，那么，活劳动身上所蕴含的一切属性和潜能就都属于一般智力，这显然是对一般智力的泛主体化解读。再次，是对一般智力范畴的个体化建构。马克思所理解的一般智力是一种社会总体智力，而不是个体智力的简单相加，犹如社会生产力不是单个人力量的机械相加一样。到了维尔诺和韦赛隆这里，这一逻辑发生了翻转。他们认为，当代资本主义已经实现了一般智力的个体化和个体的一般智力化，由此将一般智力诠释为所有个体智力的总和，进而实现了一般智力范畴的个体化转向。

Fourth, the connotation of fixed capital has been generalized. Negri, proceeding from general intellect and immaterial labor, offers a contemporary interpretation of “fixed capital is man himself.” He argues that in the post-Fordist era, fixed capital is no longer merely the material form of the system of machinery but should also include man himself. In his view, capital’s domination over man today has already far surpassed the bodily discipline of Marx and Foucault’s sense, incorporating man’s thought and entire life under the power of capital. Undoubtedly, this judgment provides a useful reference for our accurate understanding of the exploitation mechanisms of contemporary capitalism, but it must also be recognized that this assertion itself contains unavoidable defects. If the labor process of contemporary capitalism has undergone a transformation from material labor to immaterial labor, then fixed capital must also inevitably undergo a transformation from material form to immaterial form. Even a clever housewife cannot cook a meal without rice [1]1 “Even a clever housewife cannot cook a meal without rice” (巧妇难为无米之炊) is a Chinese idiom meaning that one cannot accomplish a task without the necessary conditions or materials.; even if an immaterial laborer possesses superb general intellect, as long as his labor still requires means of labor, then, whether in material or immaterial form, these means of labor still play the role of fixed capital. More importantly, whether this fixed capital is tangible or intangible, it is inevitably the result of the objectification of general intellect, ultimately rooted in man himself. In this regard, even in contemporary society, Marx’s original proposition and the distinction between fixed capital and variable capital remain valid. Negri, however, precisely reverses this logic: since fixed capital is the result of the objectification of general intellect, “an organ of the human brain created by the human hand,” man himself becomes fixed capital. This is like the theory of human capital, where, because human power plays an increasingly important role relative to material power, human power becomes the most important capital—this is clearly a logic of fetishism.

第四，泛化了固定资本的内涵。奈格里从一般智力和非物质劳动出发，对“固定资本就是人本身”作出了当代诠释。他认为，在后福特制时代，固定资本不再只是物质形态的机器体系，还应当包括人本身。在他看来，今天，资本对人的统治，已经远远超越马克思和福柯意义上的身体规训，将人的思想和整个生命都纳入资本的权力之下。毫无疑问，这一判断为我们准确理解当代资本主义的剥削机制提供了有益借鉴，但也必须看到，这一断言本身存在不可避免的缺陷。如果说当代资本主义劳动过程出现了从物质劳动到非物质劳动的转型，那么，固定资本也必然会出现从物质形态到非物质形态的转型。巧妇难为无米之炊，纵然非物质劳动者拥有高超的一般智力，但只要他的劳动还需要劳动资料，那么，不论是物质形态还是非物质形态，这种劳动资料就依然发挥着固定资本的作用。更为重要的是，不论这种固定资本是有形的还是无形的，它都必然是一般智力对象化的结果，最终根源于人自身。就此而言，即使到了当代社会，马克思的原初命题以及关于固定资本和可变资本的区分依然能够成立。而奈格里恰恰把这一逻辑翻转了过来：由于固定资本是一般智力对象化的结果，“是人的手创造出来的人脑的器官”，于是人本身就成了固定资本，这就像人力资本理论那样，由于人力相对于物力发挥着越来越重要的作用，所以人力就成了最重要的资本，这显然是一种拜物教化的逻辑。

(II) Mass Intellect and General Intellect Determinism

（二）大众智能与一般智力决定论

In the “Fragment on Machines,” Marx does provide a line of argument based on general intellect: with the continuous development of general intellect, the production of exchange value under capitalism will become increasingly independent of direct labor time; once a certain point is reached, the capitalist system of exchange-value production will tend to collapse. In reality, this interpretation has a defect: it confuses the essential distinction between value production and wealth production. In his later works, Marx recognized this defect and ultimately abandoned this logic. [24]24 Sun Leqiang, “Marx’s ‘Fragment on Machines’ and the Contemporary Reconstruction of the Category of General Intellect,” *Social Sciences in China*, 2022, no. 9, pp. 4-23. However, Virno and cognitive capitalism did not accept Marx’s later explanation; instead, based on the logic of general intellect in the “Fragment on Machines,” they completed a demarcation of the developmental form of contemporary capitalism. They point out that in contemporary society, general intellect has become a “universal light,” a shared foundation for all practices. Thus, they publicly declare that Marx’s theory of material production and labor theory of value are obsolete. This assertion clearly commits the same error as the “Fragment on Machines.” Tony Smith points out: “The analyses of post-Fordism/cognitive capitalism by Virno and Vercellone exhibit an inverted one-sidedness: in order to emphasize the creativity of social labor latent in the theory of capital fetishism, they underestimate the continuous formal determinations of capital.” [25]25 Tony Smith, “The ‘General Intellect’ in the Grundrisse and Beyond,” trans. Zhang Yibing, *Marxism and Reality*, 2021, no. 4, p. 107. This assessment is very pertinent. In contemporary capitalist society, general intellect has indeed achieved a reintegration with the subject, becoming an intrinsic component of living labor or labor power. But this is merely a transformation in the form of capital’s absorption of general intellect. As long as living labor still requires the mediation of money to realize its transformation from possibility to actuality, living labor and the general intellect it contains cannot escape the constraints of value relations and capital relations. To go a step further, even if immaterial labor replaces material production as the main source of surplus value, it cannot fundamentally overturn the labor theory of value. Because in Marx’s view, the true substance of value is not concrete labor but undifferentiated human abstract labor. The transformation from material labor to immaterial labor is merely a change in the concrete form of labor; this cannot alter the mechanism of abstract labor itself. As long as the latter is not abolished, value relations and the logic of capital will still achieve a real subsumption of immaterial labor and the general intellect it contains, transforming it into abstract labor stripped of all qualitative determinations. Under this mechanism, general intellect cannot become the true substance of value and the fundamental basis of real abstraction. Conversely, if this mechanism no longer exists, what immaterial labor produces is merely immaterial products, not commodities, and they possess no value attribute whatsoever. Then the general intellect contained in living labor naturally cannot be the substance and source of value. In this regard, although Virno and cognitive capitalism see the important role of general intellect in contemporary capitalist society, they excessively downplay the intensity of capital’s subsumption of general intellect, sliding into the rut of general intellect fetishism and general intellect determinism.

在“机器论片断”中，马克思确实基于一般智力提供了一条论证逻辑：随着一般智力的不断发展，资本主义的交换价值生产将越来越不取决于直接劳动时间，一旦达到某一个点，资本主义交换价值生产制度将会趋于崩溃。实际上，这一解释存在缺陷，即混淆了价值生产和财富生产的本质区别。在后来的著作中，马克思已经意识到了这一缺陷，并最终放弃了这一逻辑。24然而，维尔诺和认知资本主义并没有接受马克思后来的解释，而是基于“机器论片断”中的一般智力逻辑，完成了对当代资本主义发展形态的界划。他们指出，在当代社会，一般智力已经成为一种“普照的光”，成为一切实践的共享基础。于是，他们公开宣告，马克思的物质生产理论和劳动价值论已经过时了，这一断言显然犯了与“机器论片断”一样的错误。托尼·史密斯指出：“维尔诺和韦塞隆对后福特主义/认知资本主义的分析展现出颠倒的片面性：他们为了强调潜隐在资本拜物教理论中的社会劳动的创造力，低估了资本连续的形式规定。”25这一评价是非常中肯的。在当代资本主义社会，一般智力确实与主体实现了再融合，成为活劳动或劳动力的内在组成部分，但这不过是资本对一般智力吸纳形式的转变，只要活劳动依然要借助货币的中介来实现从可能性到现实性的转化，那么，活劳动及其内含的一般智力就不可能摆脱价值关系和资本关系的制约。再退一步来说，即便非物质劳动取代物质生产成为剩余价值的主要来源，也不可能从根本上推翻劳动价值论。因为在马克思看来，价值的真正实体并不是具体劳动，而是人类无差别的抽象劳动，从物质劳动到非物质劳动的转型不过是劳动具体形态的转变，这并不能改变抽象劳动机制本身。只要后者没有被废除，价值关系和资本逻辑就依然会实现对非物质劳动及其蕴含的一般智力的实质吸纳，将其转化为去除一切质性规定的抽象劳动，在此机制下，一般智力不可能成为价值的真正实体和现实抽象的根本基石。反之，如果这一机制不存在了，非物质劳动生产的就只是非物质产品而非商品，根本不具有价值属性，那么，活劳动中包含的一般智力自然也就不可能是价值的实体和来源。就此而言，维尔诺和认知资本主义虽然看到了一般智力在当代资本主义社会中的重要作用，但是过分贬低了资本对一般智力的吸纳强度，滑向了一般智力拜物教和一般智力决定论的窠臼之中。

Marx did indeed believe that only in post-capitalist society could general intellect be re-integrated with labor, thereby achieving a perfect unity of individual intellect, mass intellect, and social universal intellect. However, beyond Marx’s expectations, this trend of integration has already appeared in contemporary capitalist society. On this point, the judgments of Autonomism and cognitive capitalism are correct. But when they further argue that the individual intellect, mass intellect, and universal intellect that Marx once envisioned have already emerged today, they clearly exaggerate the diffusion degree and dominant role of general intellect in contemporary society. Even if their judgment could hold, this mass intellect can only be mass intellect under the dominance of capital, not mass intellect in Marx’s sense. On this point, Marx’s judgment is again correct. In Marx’s view, as long as capital relations are not completely overthrown, general intellect can only submit to the domination of capital. Only by liberating general intellect from capital relations can it become the common wealth of all subjects. However, Marx believed that, due to historical conditions, in the socialist stage, the opposition between manual and mental labor has not yet been completely eliminated, and people still have to submit to the survival pressures of material scarcity. Therefore, at this time, general intellect cannot yet be internalized as the quality of every individual; some people still have to engage in subsistence-oriented productive labor. Only in the future communist society can people shed survival pressures, fully appropriate general intellect, and take the free and comprehensive development of the individual as their goal. At that time, each person will fully appropriate general intellect, truly achieving the universal intellect of everyone; conversely, the full development of each person’s intellect will become the driving force for the development of social general intellect and universal intellect. Only then can the intellect of each individual, mass intellect, and the universal intellect of the whole society truly achieve a perfect combination. In contrast, Autonomism and cognitive capitalism simplistically believe that, merely through collective cooperation, they can easily break through the constraints of capital and achieve mass intellect and universal intellect. In reality, this is merely a fantastic illusion of postmodernism.

马克思当年确实认为，只有在后资本主义社会中，一般智力才可能重新与劳动融合起来，进而实现个人智能、大众智能和社会普遍智能的完美统一。然而，超出马克思预料的是，这种融合趋势在当代资本主义社会就已经出现了，在这点上，自治主义和认知资本主义的判断是正确的。但当他们由此认为，马克思当年所设想的个体智能、大众智能和普遍智能在今天已经出现时，显然过分夸大了一般智力在当代社会的扩散程度和主导作用。即便他们的判断能够成立，这种大众智能也只可能是资本主导下的大众智能，而不可能是马克思意义上的大众智能。在这点上，马克思的判断又是正确的。在马克思看来，只要资本关系没有被彻底推翻，一般智力就只可能屈从于资本的宰制，只有将一般智力从资本关系中解放出来，一般智力才能成为所有主体的共有财富。不过，马克思认为，由于历史条件所限，在社会主义阶段，体力劳动和脑力劳动的对立尚未彻底消除，人们还不得不屈从于物质匮乏的生存压力，因此，此时一般智力还无法内化为每个人的素养，一部分人还不得不从事谋生性的生产劳动。只有到了未来共产主义社会，人们才能摆脱生存压力，全面占有一般智力，将个人的自由全面发展作为自己的目标，届时，每个人将会充分占有一般智力，真正达到每个人的普遍智能；反过来，每个人智力的充分发展又成为推动社会一般智力和普遍智能发展的动力。只有到了这时，每个人的智能、大众智能和整个社会的普遍智能才能真正实现完美结合。反观自治主义和认知资本主义，他们却简单地以为，只要借助集体合作，就能轻而易举地突破资本的限制，实现大众智能和普遍智能。实际上，这只不过是一种后现代主义的奇妙幻想。

(III) General Intellect and the Retreat of Class Logic

（三）一般智力与阶级逻辑的退却

Virno correctly saw Marx’s distinction between two types of non-material labour, but drew the wrong conclusion, namely that in Marx’s view, all non-material labour does not create surplus value. In fact, Marx’s analysis of non-material labour is not that simple. Besides the two types of non-material labour, he also, starting from the capital relation, distinguished two kinds of non-material labour of different natures: one kind that does not create surplus value, and one kind that does create surplus value, and listed many concrete examples, such as the labour of artists, painters, teachers, actors, doctors, lawyers, and so on. Marx believed that when they engage in non-material labour autonomously, they do not constitute wage workers in the modern sense; but when they are hired by entrepreneurs to make money, they become productive workers. “A schoolmaster is a productive worker when, in addition to belabouring the heads of his scholars, he works like a horse to enrich the school proprietor.” [26]26 Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 16. The quotation is from the English edition; the Chinese text cites *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 44, p. 418. Only thus can we understand the true meaning of Marx’s statement that “the bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage-labourers.” [27]27 Marx and Engels, *The Communist Manifesto*, Section 1. The quotation is from the English edition; the Chinese text cites *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 22, p. 487. And when the autonomists and cognitive capitalists assert that in contemporary capitalist society, all non-material labour and cognitive labour creates surplus value, they obviously confuse two kinds of non-material labour of different natures. And when autonomism, based on the general intellect and non-material labour, declares Marx’s theory of the working class obsolete, it obviously commits the error of empiricism. In Marx, the working class is an essential division made on the basis of labour-power and the relations of production. Whether a labourer belongs to the workers or not does not depend on whether he possesses the general intellect, but is rooted in the relations of production in which he is situated. In this regard, the rise of non-material labour has not changed Marx’s class logic; what it has changed is merely the composition of the working class, that is, from a class structure originally dominated by the manual-labour proletariat to a class structure dominated by mental labour. This is the process of the proletarianisation of the general intellect and the general intellectualisation of the proletariat. [28]28 The author’s own formulation, summarising a dialectical process: the general intellect (social knowledge as a productive force) is subsumed under capital and its bearers become wage-workers (proletarianisation), while the working class increasingly relies on intellectual rather than manual labour (intellectualisation). Only on this basis can we understand Engels’ category of the “mental-labour proletariat.” Therefore, when autonomism, starting from the general intellect and non-material labour, abandons class logic and proposes the so-called theory of the multitude, it is clearly problematic. For the “multitude” they speak of includes not only autonomous non-material labourers but also the “mental-labour proletariat” in the sense of Marx and Engels, and is thus an outright supra-class category. On this point, cognitive capitalism has a certain rationality: based on the internal relationship between capital power and knowledge production, it constructs a cognitive class theory and to a certain extent adheres to Marx’s class logic, which is commendable. But in terms of strategy for struggle, they end up in the same place as autonomism, failing to shake off the erroneous tendencies of anarchism and reformism, and falling into a pre-Marxist position.

维尔诺正确地看到了马克思关于两种非物质劳动的划分，却得出了错误的结论，即认为在马克思看来，所有非物质劳动都不创造剩余价值。实际上，马克思对非物质劳动的分析没有那么简单，除了两种类型的非物质劳动外，他还从资本关系入手，划分了两种不同性质的非物质劳动，一种是不创造剩余价值的非物质劳动，一种是创造剩余价值的非物质劳动，并列举了很多具体事例，如艺术家、画家、教师、演员、医生、律师等的劳动。马克思认为，当他们自主地从事非物质劳动时，并不构成现代意义上的雇佣工人；但当他们被企业主雇佣过来赚钱时，他们就成了生产工人，“一个教员只有当他不仅训练孩子的头脑，而且还为校董的发财致富劳碌时，他才是生产工人”26。只有如此，我们才能理解马克思这段话的真实内涵，即“资产阶级抹去了一切向来受人尊崇和令人敬畏的职业的神圣光环。它把医生、律师、教士、诗人和学者变成了它出钱招募的雇佣劳动者”27。而当自治主义和认知资本主义者断言，在当代资本主义社会，所有非物质劳动和认知劳动都创造剩余价值时，显然混淆了两种不同性质的非物质劳动。而当自治主义基于一般智力和非物质劳动，宣告马克思工人阶级理论过时的时候，显然犯了经验主义的错误。在马克思那里，工人阶级是依据劳动力和生产关系做出的本质划分。一个劳动者究竟属不属于工人的一部分，并不取决于他是否拥有一般智力，而是根源于他所处的生产关系。就此而言，非物质劳动的崛起并没有改变马克思的阶级逻辑，它改变的只不过是工人阶级的构成结构，即从原来以体力劳动无产阶级为主导的阶级结构转变为以脑力劳动为主导的阶级结构，这是一般智力的无产阶级化和无产阶级的一般智力化过程。28也只有基于此，我们才能理解恩格斯的“脑力劳动无产阶级”范畴。因此，当自治主义从一般智力和非物质劳动出发，抛弃阶级逻辑，提出所谓的大众理论时，显然是有问题的。因为他们所谓的“大众”不仅包含自主的非物质劳动者，还包含着马克思恩格斯意义上的“脑力劳动无产阶级”，因而是一个彻头彻尾的超阶级范畴。在这一点上，认知资本主义具有一定的合理性，他们基于资本权力与知识生产之间的内在关系，建构出了认知阶级理论，在一定程度上坚持了马克思的阶级逻辑，这是值得肯定的。但在斗争策略上，他们却与自治主义殊途同归，并没有摆脱无政府主义和改良主义的错误倾向，陷入了前马克思主义的立场之中。

Notes

注释

1 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 31, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1998, p. 102.

1《马克思恩格斯全集》第31卷，北京：人民出版社，1998年，第102页。

2 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 26, Part 1, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1972, pp. 442-443; Virno, *A Grammar of the Multitude*, trans. Dong Bicheng, Beijing: Commercial Press, 2017, pp. 64-65.

2《马克思恩格斯全集》第26卷第1册，北京：人民出版社，1972年，第442-443页；维尔诺：《诸众的语法》，董必成译，北京：商务印书馆，2017年，第64-65页。

3 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 26, Part 1, p. 443.

3《马克思恩格斯全集》第26卷第1册，第443页。

4 Virno, *A Grammar of the Multitude*, p. 82, p. 84.

4维尔诺：《诸众的语法》，第82页，第84页。

5 Paolo Virno, “General Intellect,” *Historical Materialism*, vol. 15, no. 3, 2007, p. 6.

5 Paolo Virno,“General Intellect,”Historical Materialism,vol.15,no.3,2007,p.6.

6 Virno, *A Grammar of the Multitude*, p. 66, p. 84, p. 80, p. 81, p. 81.

6维尔诺：《诸众的语法》，第66页，第84页，第80页，第81页，第81页。

7 Sun Leqiang, *A Study of Marx’s Reproduction Theory and Its Philosophical Effects*, Nanjing: Jiangsu People’s Publishing House, 2016, pp. 223-229.

7孙乐强：《马克思再生产理论及其哲学效应研究》，南京：江苏人民出版社，2016年，第223-229页。

8 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 31, pp. 107-108.

8《马克思恩格斯全集》第31卷，第107-108页。

9 Negri, “The Appropriation of Fixed Capital: A Metaphor?”, trans. Huang Lu, *Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Contemporary Capitalism*, Nanjing, 2017.

9奈格里：《固定资本的占有：一个隐喻？》，黄璐译，《第四届当代资本主义研究国际学术研讨会论文集》，南京，2017年。

10 Debord, *The Society of the Spectacle*, trans. Wang Zhaofeng, Nanjing: Nanjing University Press, 2006.

10德波：《景观社会》，王昭风译，南京：南京大学出版社，2006年。

11 Baudrillard, *Symbolic Exchange and Death*, trans. Che Jinshan, Nanjing: Yilin Press, 2006, p. 67.

11鲍德里亚：《象征交换与死亡》，车槿山译，南京：译林出版社，2006年，第67页。

12 Mark Poster, *The Mode of Information*, trans. Fan Jinghua, Beijing: Commercial Press, 2000.

12马克·波斯特：《信息方式》，范静哗译，北京：商务印书馆，2000年。

13 Virno, *A Grammar of the Multitude*, pp. 74-75, p. 78.

13维尔诺：《诸众的语法》，第74-75页，第78页。

14 Michael Hardt, Antonio Negri, *Multitude*, New York: The Penguin Press, 2004, p. 109.

14Michael Hardt,A n tonioNegr i,M ultitud e,New York:The Penguin Press,2004,p.109.

15 Carlo Vercellone, “From Formal Subsumption to General Intellect: Elements for a Marxist Reading of the Thesis of Cognitive Capitalism,” *Historical Materialism*, vol. 15, no. 1, 2007, p. 32, p. 14, pp. 15-16, p. 33, p. 33.

15 Carlo Vercellone,“From Formal Subsumption to General Intellect:Elements for a Marxist Reading of the Thesis of Cognitive Capitalism,”Historical Materialism,vol.15,no.1,2007,p.32,p.14,pp.15-16,p.33,p.33.

16 Within the autonomist school, understandings of the multitude differ. For instance, Röttger points out: “The class struggle in *Empire* is a primitive type of class struggle: struggle goes to find class. Virno’s is the opposite: class goes to find struggle.” See Virno, *A Grammar of the Multitude*, Preface, p. 16.

16自治主义流派内部对大众的理解是不同的，如罗廷格指出：“《帝国》涉及的阶级斗争是一种原始类型的阶级斗争：斗争去寻找阶级。维尔诺的恰好相反：阶级寻找斗争。”参见维尔诺：《诸众的语法》，序言第16页。

17 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 22, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1965, p. 487.

17《马克思恩格斯全集》第22卷，北京：人民出版社，1965年，第487页。

18 Sun Leqiang, “The Problem of the ‘General Intellect’ in Marx’s ‘Fragment on Machines’,” *Journal of East China Normal University* (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 2018, No. 4.

18孙乐强：《马克思“机器论片断”语境中的“一般智力”问题》，《华东师范大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)2018年第4期。

19 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 47, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1979, p. 570.

19《马克思恩格斯全集》第47卷，北京：人民出版社，1979年，第570页。

20 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 44, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2001, p. 418.

20《马克思恩格斯全集》第44卷，北京：人民出版社，2001年，第418页。

21 Braverman, *Labor and Monopoly Capital*, trans. Fang Sheng et al., Beijing: Commercial Press, 1978, pp. 104-110.

21布雷弗曼：《劳动与垄断资本》，方生等译，北京：商务印书馆，1978年，第104-110页。

22 Tony Smith, “The ‘General Intellect’ in the *Grundrisse* and Beyond,” in *Marx’s Laboratory: Critical Interpretations of the Grundrisse*, ed. Riccardo Bellofiore, Guido Starosta, Peter D. Thomas, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013, p. 225.

22Tony Smith,“The'General Intellect' in the Grundrisse and Beyond,”In Marx's Laboratory:Critical Interpretations of the Grundrisse,ed.Riccardo Bellofiore,Guido Starosta,Peter D.Thomas,Leiden/Boston:Brill,2013,p.225.

23 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 47, p. 576.

23《马克思恩格斯全集》第47卷，第576页。

24 Sun Leqiang, “Beyond the ‘Fragment on Machines’: A Re-examination of the Philosophical Significance of *Capital*,” *Academic Monthly*, 2017, No. 5.

24孙乐强：《超越“机器论片断”：〈资本论〉哲学意义的再审视》，《学术月刊》2017年第5期。

25Tony Smith, “The ‘General Intellect’ in the Grundrisse and Beyond,” In Marx’s Laboratory: Critical Interpretations of the Grundrisse, pp. 227-228.

25Tony Smith,“The'General Intellect' in the Grundrisse and Beyond,”In Marx's Laboratory:Critical Interpretations of the Grund risse,p.227-228.

26 *Complete Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 44, p. 582.

26《马克思恩格斯全集》第44卷，第582页。

27 *Selected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 1, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2012, p. 403.

27《马克思恩格斯选集》第1卷，北京：人民出版社，2012年，第403页。

28 Negri, Harvey, Postone, Stiegler, Zhang Yibing, Xu Yu: “Marx’s *Grundrisse* and Contemporary Capitalism,” *Journal of Nanjing University* (Philosophy, Humanities and Social Sciences), 2018, No. 4.

28奈格里、哈维、普殊同、斯蒂格勒、张一兵、许煜：《马克思的〈大纲〉与当代资本主义》，《南京大学学报》(哲学·人文科学·社会科学)2018年第4期。

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑