Four Paths of Contemporary French Marxist Research and Their Evaluation

French Marxist research has always been a major center of gravity in foreign Marxist studies. When French Marxism is mentioned, what first comes to mind are the structuralist Marxist Althusser and the existentialist Marxists Sartre and Lefebvre; these figures are also the traditional objects of Chinese French Marxist research. However, Althusser, Sartre, and Lefebvre have all passed away. What, then, are the existing paradigms of Marxist research in contemporary France? How are these different research paradigms unfolded? And what are the connections between them? The author attempts, through an examination of four major representatives of contemporary French Marxism—Bidet, Badiou, Rancière, and Balibar—to clarify the overall state of development and theoretical connections of contemporary French Marxism.

法国马克思主义研究一直是国外马克思主义研究中的重镇，提到法国马克思主义我们首要想到的是作为结构主义马克思主义者的阿尔都塞以及存在主义马克思主义者的萨特和列斐伏尔，这些人物也是我国法国马克思主义研究的传统对象。然而阿尔都塞、萨特、列斐伏尔均已过世，那么当代法国存在的马克思主义研究范式又有哪些呢？这些不同的研究范式是如何展开的？它们之间又有怎样的关联呢？笔者试图通过对比岱、巴迪欧、朗西埃、巴里巴尔四位当代法国马克思主义主要代表人物的考察，进而理清当代法国马克思主义的总体发展状态和理论关联。

I. Bidet: The Meta-Structure Theory Taking the Interpretation of *Capital* as Its Entry Point

一、比岱：以《资本论》解读为切入点的元结构理论

Jacques Bidet is a professor emeritus at Paris Nanterre University, president of the Congrès Marx International, principal editor of the journal *Actuel Marx*, and also one of the main representatives of contemporary French Marxism. Since the publication of his doctoral thesis *Que faire du «Capital»? Matériaux pour une refondation* in 1985, Bidet has been inextricably linked with *Capital*. Bidet's meta-structure theory originates precisely from his interpretation of *Capital*. Bidet believes that traditional Marxist research has placed too much emphasis on the role of elements such as the market and capital in the process of capitalist reproduction, while not giving sufficient attention to factors such as organization and competence. Therefore, the meta-structure theory aims to excavate *Capital* in order to reproduce the dual logic of market and organization in Marx's theory.

雅克·比岱（Jacques Bidet）是巴黎第十大学荣休教授、国际马克思大会（le Congrès Marx International）主席、《今日马克思》期刊（Actuel Marx）主要负责人，同时也是当今法国马克思主义的主要代表人物之一。比岱自1985年出版博士论文《如何处理<资本论>：用以重新奠基的素材》（Que faire du«Capital»?Matériaux pour une refondation）以来就与《资本论》结下了不解之缘。比岱的元结构理论正是源于对《资本论》的解读，比岱认为传统马克思主义研究过于注重市场、资本等要素在资本主义再生产过程中的作用，而对组织、权能等因素却没有给予足够的重视。因此，元结构理论就是要通过对《资本论》的挖掘以重现马克思理论的市场与组织的双重逻辑。

Bidet believes that in *Capital*, Marx actually places law prior to the economic sphere and connects the two together. "This connection of market-organization plays a decisive role in Marx's theoretical construction, although he did not recognize its importance." [1]1 The May 1968 events (often called May '68 or the May 1968 protests) were a series of student-led protests and a general strike in France that nearly toppled the government, representing a major social and political upheaval. The precondition for capitalist production activities and the appropriation of surplus value is the existence of relations of ownership and free labor-power. When we speak of the producer, this producer is first of all a legal owner of the means of production; the employable free labor-power is also free labor-power with legal stipulations. Therefore, the precondition for production activities is the "priority of law." Perhaps some readers might use the violence of England's primitive accumulation of capital, where "sheep devour men," to question this priority of law here. On the contrary, this violent primitive accumulation fully interprets the social-organizational dimension of the production precondition, because the "priority of law" here does not refer merely to legal provisions, but more to the dimension of social organization adapted to purely economic activity. "When we observe production, a relation of ownership is already included within it, and it is included as a defining component of the 'economic' relation." (Bidet: 101) This is concentratedly embodied in the difference between the division of labor among commodities and the division of labor in the concrete production process. Different commodities are produced by different producers and exchanged among producers; this is the transfer of legal ownership relations between producers. The division of labor in the concrete production process, however, takes place within the owner's domain; it is the process of a single producer organizing production. The exchange of legal ownership forms the market; the process of production forms the organization. "What Marx says here is the viewpoint of establishing the dual historical form of modern labor coordination, namely market and organization." (Bidet: 104)

比岱认为马克思在《资本论》中实际上将法律前置于经济领域并将两者联结在了一起，“市场-组织的这种联结在马克思的理论建设中起着决定性作用，虽然他没有认识到它的重要性。”资本主义生产活动与剩余价值占有的前提是所有权关系和自由劳动力的存在，当我们谈论生产者的时候，这个生产者首先是一个生产资料的法律所有者，可雇佣的自由劳动力也是具有法律规定性的自由劳动力。因此，生产活动的前提条件是“法律的前置”。或许有些读者会用英国“羊吃人”的资本主义原始积累暴力来质疑这里的法律前置性。恰恰相反，这种暴力的原始积累充分诠释了生产前提的社会组织维度，因为这里的“法律的前置”并不仅仅指法律条文，而更多是指与纯粹的经济活动相适应的社会组织维度。“当我们观察生产时，一种所有关系已经被包括在其中了，并且它是作为‘经济’关系的一个限定成分被包括的。”（比岱：101）这一点集中体现在商品的分工和具体生产过程分工的差异上。不同的商品由不同的生产者生产出来并在生产者之间进行交换，是生产者与生产者之间法律所有权关系的转移，而具体的生产过程中的分工则是在所有者内部进行的，是单个生产者组织生产的过程。法律所有权的交换形成了市场，生产的过程形成了组织，“马克思在这里讲出了建立现代劳动协调的双重历史形式的观点，即市场与组织。”（比岱：104)

The dual logic of market and organization is also reflected in Marx's analysis of labor and labor-power. "By labor-power or capacity for labor is to be understood the aggregate of those mental and physical capabilities existing in a human being, which he exercises whenever he produces a use-value of any description." [2]2 Althusser's *On the Reproduction of Capitalism* (French: *Sur la reproduction*) is a key late work elaborating his theory of ideological state apparatuses and the reproduction of the relations of production. Labor-power is a commodity, but it is a special commodity that can produce surplus value, or more precisely, labor-power is a commodity that can use physical and mental capabilities to organize production; the logic of organization is contained within the logic of the market. The value of labor-power is directly expressed as the price of labor-power. Compared with the relationship of dependence of the feudal serf on the landlord, the freedom of labor-power is merely the freedom to be employed; the market form always contains a certain organizational form. In Chapter 4 of Volume I of *Capital*, "The General Formula for Capital," Marx points out: "In order to be able to extract value from the consumption of a commodity, our friend, Moneybags, must be so lucky as to find, within the sphere of circulation, in the market, a commodity, whose use-value possesses the peculiar property of being a source of value, whose actual consumption is therefore an objectification of labor, hence a creation of value." [3]3 Althusser's concept of "epistemological rupture" (borrowed from Gaston Bachelard) refers to a radical break or discontinuity in the history of science or thought, marking the transition from ideology to science. The "freedom" here has two meanings: first, relative to the serf, the worker can sell his own labor; second, relative to the owner of the means of production, the worker has only his own labor-power to sell. Selling labor creates the production activity of capitalism; however, selling labor-power directly leads to the worker's subordination to the capitalist. The distinction between labor and labor-power simultaneously implies the distinction between production activity and relations of production. Bidet believes that "Marx did not consider this conceptual relationship between the freedom of wage-labor and the freedom of commodities in this sense, that is, in the sense of relations of production." (Bidet: 128) The freedom of labor-power is from the outset bound to the owner of the means of production. "The transformation of money into capital" should more precisely be interpreted as the transformation of the "meta-structure" into structure, i.e., the generation of classes.

市场与组织的双重逻辑在马克思那里还体现为对劳动与劳动力的分析。“我们把劳动力或劳动能力，理解为一个人的身体及活的人体存在的、每当他生产某种使用价值时就运用的体力和智力的总和。”劳动力是一种商品，但是这是一种特殊的、可以生产剩余价值的商品，或者更确切的说，劳动力是一种可以利用体力和智力组织生产的商品，组织的逻辑被包含在市场逻辑之中，劳动力的价值直接表现为劳动力的价格。与封建农奴对地主的依附关系相比，劳动力的自由也仅仅是被雇佣的自由，市场形式中总是包含着一定的组织形式。马克思在《资本论》第一卷第二篇“货币转化为资本”中指出，“货币占有者要把货币转化为资本，就必须在商品市场上找到自由的工人”。（马克思：197）这里的“自由”具有两种含义：一是指相对于农奴而言，工人能够出卖自己的劳动；二是相对于生产资料所有者而言，工人只有自己的劳动力可以出卖。出卖劳动所造就的是资本主义的生产活动，然而出卖劳动力却直接导致了工人对资本家的附属，劳动与劳动力的区分同时蕴含了生产活动与生产关系的区分。比岱认为“马克思没有在这种意义上，即生产关系的意义上考虑雇佣劳动自由与商品自由之间这种概念关系。”（比岱：128）劳动力的自由一开始就是束缚在生产资料所有者身上的，“货币转换为资本”更确切地应该解释为“元结构”向结构的转换，即阶级的生成。

How, then, are classes generated in Bidet's "meta-structure" theory? Bidet believes that the "meta-structure" is a fiction of contract and reason, the generative logic of modern society. Modern society is still a contractual society; contracts can be divided into individual contracts and collective contracts. The market is a contract between individuals; the organization is a contract between the individual and the collective. The market represents economic rationality, while the organization represents legal-political rationality. Market and organization are the two poles of individual contract and collective contract, respectively. Economic rationality and legal-political rationality are the two sides of modern society. "The general concept of the modern class is reconstructed on the basis of the complex transformation of the inter-individual contract of the commodity and the central contract of the organization." (Bidet: 4) Those who control the market are the asset-holders who own the means of production; those who control the organization are the "competent directors" (compétences-dirigeantes) who possess knowledge and ability. The asset-holders and the competent directors together constitute the ruling class of modern society, thereby opposing the popular class. "In fact, on the one hand, the pole of the asset-holders (a) has its own 'leadership teams' (équipes dirigeantes); on the other hand, the pole of the 'competent directors' (b) also participates in rule. Under these conditions, class confrontation takes the form of a whole, i.e., the ruling class (a+b) versus the popular class (c). At the same time, it is also a triangular shaping among three 'primordial social forces.'" However, the asset-holders and the competent directors who together form the ruling class are not always unified. When the asset-holders who possess property occupy a dominant position in rule, society will lean more towards capitalism; when the competent directors who possess knowledge and organizational ability occupy a dominant position, society will develop in the direction of socialism. Bidet believes that only the alliance of the popular class with the competent directors who possess knowledge and organizational ability can ultimately develop in the direction of socialism.

那么阶级在比岱的“元结构”理论中是如何生成的呢？比岱认为“元结构”是契约与理性的虚构，是现代社会的生成逻辑。现代社会依然是一个契约社会，契约可以分为个体契约和集体契约。市场是个体与个体之间的契约，组织是个体与集体之间的契约，市场代表了经济理性，而组织则代表法律-政治理性。市场和组织分别是个体契约和集体契约的两极，经济理性和法律-政治理性是现代社会的两面，“现代阶级的一般概念在商品的个体间契约和组织的中央契约的错综复杂的转化的基础上被重建”。（比岱：4）掌握市场的是占有生产资料的资产者，掌握组织的则是占有知识能力的“权能者”（compétences-dirigeantes），资产者与权能者共同构成了现代社会的统治阶级，从而与大众阶级相对立。“事实上，一方面，资产者（a）的极拥有它自己的‘领导团队’（équipes dirigeantes）；另一方面，‘权能者’(b）的极也同样参与统治。在这样的条件下，阶级的对抗采取整体的形式，即统治阶级（a+b）与大众阶级（c）。同时，亦是三种‘原初社会力量’之间三角塑型。”然而，共同组成统治阶级的资产者与权能者却并不总是一体的，当拥有财产的资产者在统治中占据优势地位的时候，社会就会更加偏向资本主义，而当掌握知识、组织能力的权能者占据优势地位的时候，社会就会朝向社会主义方向发展。比岱认为，只有大众与掌握知识、组织能力的权能者联合才能最终朝着社会主义的方向发展。

II. Badiou: The Philosophy of the Event with Communism as Its Aim

二、巴迪欧：以共产主义为旨归的事件哲学

Alain Badiou is a renowned French philosopher and left-wing thinker. He was formerly the chair of the Philosophy Department at the École Normale Supérieure (Paris) and, along with Deleuze, Foucault, and Lyotard, a founder of the Philosophy Department at Paris 8 University. In his early period, Badiou was influenced by Althusser, and his thought is heavily imbued with Maoism and communism. He participated in founding a Maoist party, the Union of the Communists of France Marxist-Leninist (L'Union des Communistes de France Marxiste-Léniniste), and co-authored two works in the "Collection Yenan" series published by François Maspero: *Theory of the Contradiction* (*Théorie de la contradiction*) and *On Ideology* (*De l’idéologie*). Badiou's philosophy of the event is likewise a philosophy of the event oriented toward communism.

阿兰·巴迪欧（Alain Badiou）是法国著名哲学家、左翼思想家，曾任巴黎高师哲学系主任，与德勒兹、福柯、利奥塔同为巴黎第八大学哲学系创始人。巴迪欧早期受阿尔都塞影响，其思想具有浓厚的毛主义和共产主义色彩，曾参与创建毛主义政党：法国马列主义共产同盟（L'Union des Communistes de France Marxiste-Léniniste)，并参与撰写了法国马斯佩罗出版社“延安文集”（Collection Yenan）系列丛书中的《矛盾理论》（Théorie de la contradiction）、《论意识形态》（De l’idéologie）两本著作，巴迪欧的事件哲学亦是以共产主义为旨归的事件哲学。

To understand why Badiou's philosophy of the event is oriented toward communism, one must first begin with the relationship between philosophy and politics. We must distinguish between two senses of politics in Badiou, just as Rancière distinguishes between "politics" and "police." Badiou similarly distinguishes between "feminine politics" (la politique) and "masculine politics" (le politique). The latter is the representative politics of "counting-as-one" (compte pour un) under capitalist representative democracy, whereas the former is the maximum value of the existential status of the empty set, the direct "presentation" (présenté) of non-being, rather than its "re-presentation" (représenté). Badiou argues that bourgeois democratic politics, as a representative, counting-as-one, elitist system, is not authentic politics; it obscures the possibility of the masses' liberation as political subjects. Under the bourgeois representative democratic system, one must first become a member of the business community, a religious community, etc., before one can participate in representative democracy; democratic politics degenerates into identity politics. However, those heterogeneous elements never incorporated into the system by capitalist representation (e.g., undocumented immigrants) signify non-existence. "Masculine politics" is the shadow in Plato's cave allegory, likewise signifying opinion, whereas philosophy signifies the light of truth. The meaning of this light of truth is precisely to further transform "masculine politics" into "feminine politics."

要理解巴迪欧的事件哲学为什么是以共产主义为旨归的事件哲学，就要首先从哲学与政治的关系谈起。我们要区分巴迪欧两种意义上的政治，正如朗西埃区分了“政治”与“治安”，巴迪欧同样区分了“阴性的政治”（la politique）、“阳性的政治”（le politique）。后者是资本主义代议制民主下的“计数为一”（compte pour un）的再现式的政治，而前者则是空集的实存值的最大值，是非在的直接“显现”(présenté)，而不是被“再现”（représenté）。巴迪欧认为，作为一种代议制、计数为一、精英主义的资产阶级民主政治并不是本真意义上的政治，它遮蔽了大众作为政治主体的解放可能性。在资产阶级代议制民主体制下，我们首先要成为工商界、宗教界的一份子，然后才有可能参与到代议制民主中，民主政治退化为身份政治。然而，那些始终未被资本主义代议制纳入到体制中的异质性（如：非法移民）则意味着非存在。“阳性的政治”是柏拉图洞穴喻的影子，同样也意味着意见，而哲学则意味着真理之光，这种真理之光的意义就在使得“阳性的政治”进一步转换为“阴性的政治”。

So how is this transformation of the type of politics to be achieved? Badiou proposes the philosophy of the event. Badiou combines abstract philosophical concepts with mathematical demonstration. "Event," "subject," and "truth" are the key terms of Badiou's thought. Truth exists in the fissure of the event; before the event, there is no subject. "The event, as the tearing open of the established ideological order by the light of the real, is also manifested in its absolute impossibility." The event is contingent; we cannot deduce the event in advance from the given situation. The event itself signifies rupture and impossibility. This rupture and impossibility are directed against the original ruling order; it is a rupture with the original ruling order, and this rupture is marked as impossibility under that order. But once the event occurs, the light of truth, carrying the generation of the subject, will propel history into a new process. The subject is the subject of action, the renewed presence of the subject that was previously in a state of non-existence (inexistant). The emergence of non-existence breaks the original rule of counting-as-one. The One (un) of the original counting-as-one can no longer contain all the multiples under a unified name. The big One (Un) itself does not exist, because the One itself signifies the multiple. This expansion of the truth procedure is an extension of the state of exception, which Badiou calls excess or surpassing (excès), and simultaneously signifies the realization of truth.

那么如何实现这种政治类型的转换，巴迪欧提出了事件哲学。巴迪欧将抽象的哲学概念与数学论证结合在一起，“事件”、“主体”、“真理”是巴迪欧思想的关键词。真理存在于事件的裂缝中，在事件之前是不存在主体的。“事件，作为真实之光对既定的意识形态秩序的撕裂，同时还表现于其绝对的不可能性（impossibilité）。”事件是偶然的，我们无法事先从既定的形势中推导出事件，事件本身就意味着决裂和不可能性。这种决裂和不可能是针对原有统治秩序而言的，是同原有统治秩序的决裂，而且这种决裂在原有统治秩序下被标注为不可能性。但是事件一经发生，真理之光便会裹挟着主体的生成推动历史进入一个新的进程。主体是行动的主体，是原先处于非在（inexistant）状态下的主体的重新在场。非在的出场打破了原有的计数为一的规则，原有的计数为一中的一（un）再也无法用统一的名称包容下所有的多，作为大写的一（Un）本身是不存在的，因为一本身就意味着多。这种真理程序的扩展是对例外状态的延展，巴迪欧将之称为溢出或者超出（excès），同时意味着真理的实现。

In Badiou's theoretical perspective, what exactly is truth? This truth is the Idea of communism. "The Idea is the subjectivation of the interaction between the truth procedure and historical representation." The real, the imaginary, and the symbolic are, in Badiou, manifested as truth, history, and the Idea. The reality of the Idea lies in truth. History attempts to present truth in the language of the imaginary but obscures truth itself. Truth requires a new subject to achieve a break with the original ruling order. In his essay "The Idea of Communism," Badiou points out that the realization of the Idea of communism requires three basic elements: the political, the historical, and the subjective. The event itself signifies a break with the original political system, a rebellion against history, and the realization of truth, while the subject is the irreducible mediation. Communism signifies not only the truth of the Idea but also emancipatory politics. Badiou believes that emancipatory politics is a proper name and, at the same time, the politics of the majority. "The ideological operation of the Idea of communism is to project the reality of politics in an imaginary way into the symbolic historical fiction, including, under its cover, the representation of the actions of countless masses through a proper name." (Badiou, 2016:175) Communism, as a generic extension, is actually a rebellion against the transcendental structure of original capitalist representative democracy, an extension of the non-existence that was previously not included in politics, and simultaneously signifies political emancipation.

在巴迪欧的理论视域中，什么才是真理呢？这个真理就是共产主义的理念，“理念是对真理过程与历史再现之间的相互作用的主观化。”真实、想象、象征在巴迪欧那里表现为真理、历史、理念。理念的真实性在于真理，历史试图以想象性的语言呈现真理却遮蔽了真理自身，真理需要新的主体以实现与原有统治秩序的断裂。巴迪欧在《共产主义的理念》一文中指出，共产主义理念的实现需要三个基本要素：政治的、历史的、主体的。事件本身意味着同原有政治体系的断裂，意味着对历史的反叛和真理的实现，而主体则是那不可化约的中介。共产主义不仅仅意味着理念真理，同时也是意味着解放政治。巴迪欧认为，解放政治是一个专有名字，同时也是大多数人的政治。“共产主义理念的意识形态运作，是把政治的真实性以想象的方式投射到象征性的历史虚构之中，包括在它的掩饰下通过一个专用名字对无数大众的行动的再现”。（巴迪欧：2016:175）作为类型延展的共产主义实际上是对原有资本主义代议制民主的超验结构的反叛，是将那些之前未被纳入到政治之中的非在的延展，同时也意味着政治解放。

III. Rancière: The Politics of Literature and Aesthetics with the Logic of Equality as the Main Thread

三、朗西埃：以平等逻辑为主线的文学、美学政治

Jacques Rancière is a professor at Paris 8 University and a renowned French philosopher and left-wing thinker. His research fields include politics, literature, and art. Rancière's intellectual path is one of "patricide." Rancière, along with Balibar, Macherey, and Establet, was a core member of Althusser's *Capital* reading group. His essay "The Concept of Critique and the Critique of Political Economy from the *1844 Manuscripts* to *Capital*" (Le concept de critique et la critique de l'économie politique des «Manuscrits de 1844» au «Capital») was included in the 1965 French edition of *Reading Capital*. Rancière was disappointed by Althusser's conservative stance during the May 1968 events [1]1 The May 1968 events (often called May '68 or the May 1968 protests) were a series of student-led protests and a general strike in France that nearly toppled the government, representing a major social and political upheaval., believing that Althusser's thought was a defense of the existing order, essentially elitist. This former student of Althusser gradually drifted apart from his mentor after the May 1968 events. When *Reading Capital* was reprinted in 1971, Althusser removed the chapter written by Rancière. In 1974, Rancière published *Althusser's Lesson* (La leçon d’Althusser), formally breaking with Althusser.

雅克·朗西埃（Jacques Rancière）是巴黎第八大学教授，法国著名的哲学家和左翼思想家，其研究领域涉及政治、文学、艺术等。朗西埃的思想之路是一条“精神弑父”之路，朗西埃与巴里巴尔、马舍雷、埃斯塔布莱同为阿尔都塞《资本论》读书小组的核心成员，其撰写的《批判概念与政治经济学批判:从〈1844年手稿〉到〈资本论〉》（Le concept de critique et la critique de l'économie politique des«Manuscrits de 1844»au«Capital»）一文被收录在1965年出版的法文版《读<资本论>》中。朗西埃对阿尔都塞在五月风暴中的保守表现是失望的，认为阿尔都塞的思想是对现存秩序的维护，其实质是精英主义的。这位阿尔都塞曾经的学生与其导师在1968年五月风暴后渐行渐远。1971年《读<资本论>》再版时，阿尔都塞将朗西埃撰写的章节删除，朗西埃也在1974年出版了《阿尔都塞的教训》（La leçon d’Althusser）一书正式与阿尔都塞决裂。

Equality is the main thread running through Rancière's thought and is also the theoretical reason for his final break with Althusser. In contrast to Althusser's elitist line, Rancière, who had previously studied the history of workers' archives, turned his perspective toward the masses of society and traced this critique of elitism directly back to the philosophical tradition since Plato. The essence of the "philosopher-king" is the split between elitism and the masses. Manual laborers engaged in agricultural production lacked sufficient leisure and reason to participate in the political activities of the polis, nor did they possess the courage needed to defend the polis. From the outset, the masses were in a position of being arranged and ignored. The ultimate goal of Rancière's thought is to bring those masses who are ignored, silent, and invisible under the original political framework back from the backstage of the political arena to the forefront, thereby manifesting the political emancipatory power of the "part of those who have no part." [2]2 Althusser's *On the Reproduction of Capitalism* (French: *Sur la reproduction*) is a key late work elaborating his theory of ideological state apparatuses and the reproduction of the relations of production. The common people, the aristocracy, and the oligarchy are the three types of political subjects in Aristotle's classification; yet the common people as political subjects are often the ignored element.

平等是贯穿于朗西埃思想始终的一条主线，也是朗西埃最终与阿尔都塞决裂的理论原因。与阿尔都塞的精英主义路线不同，曾经从事工人档案史研究的朗西埃将视角转向了社会大众，并将这种对精英主义的批判直接追溯到了柏拉图以来的哲学传统。“哲学王”的实质是精英主义与大众的分裂，从事农业生产的体力劳动者并没有足够的闲暇和理性参与城邦的政治活动，同时也不具备保卫城邦所需要的勇敢，大众从一开始就处于一种被安排、被忽视的地位。朗西埃思想的最终目的就是要将那些在原有政治框架下被忽视的、沉默的、隐性的大众从政治舞台的后方重新请到前台，以彰显“无分之分”的政治解放力量。平民、贵族、寡头是亚里士多德的三种政治类型的主体，然而平民作为政治主体却常常是被忽视的对象。

Therefore, the starting point of politics is the revolt of the multitude as those without part against the established order: “Politics exists when the natural order of domination is interrupted by the appearance of the part of those who have no part.” Rancière distinguishes between “police” and “politics.” Police and politics are two different logics of human coexistence; the former refers to the procedural system of organization, operation, and distribution of current power, and is a neutral concept, while politics is “that which breaks with the sensory configuration defining the parts and their shares or the absence thereof, by means of a hypothesis that is by definition non-existent: the part of those who have no part.” [1]1 The May 1968 events (often called May '68 or the May 1968 protests) were a series of student-led protests and a general strike in France that nearly toppled the government, representing a major social and political upheaval. Police is the existing order of domination, while politics is the disruption of the original police order, a redistribution of the established order of domination, thereby making visible what previously had no place for expression, was invisible, and was not understood.

因此，政治的起点就是大众作为无分者对原有秩序的反抗，“当统治的自然秩序被无分者之分的出现而打断时，政治便存在了。”朗西埃区分了“治安”（police）与“政治”(politique)，治安与政治是两种不同的人类共在逻辑，前者指现行权力的组织、运行、分配等程序体系，是一个中性的概念，而政治则是“借由一个在定义上不存在的假设，也就是无分者之分，来打破界定组成部分与其份额或无分者的感知配置。”（朗西埃，2015:48）治安是现行的统治秩序，而政治则是对原有治安秩序的破坏，是对既定统治秩序的重新分配，从而使得原先没有场所表达、不可见的、不被理解的重新显现出来。

“Dissensus” (mésentente) precisely expresses the inconsistency between police and politics. Police is the maintenance of the existing political system, whose essence is elitist, while politics represents the aspect of the multitude or the emancipation of the common people. Dissensus is the rupture between the existing order and the multitude ignored by that order, the rupture between the elite and the multitude. “Dissensus concerns the presentation of the perceptibility of a common object, that is, the very character of the object presented by the interlocutors. The extreme case of dissensus is when X cannot see the common object that Y presents to him, because he cannot understand that the sounds emitted by Y actually constitute words and arrangements of words similar to those he himself uses.” [2]2 Althusser's *On the Reproduction of Capitalism* (French: *Sur la reproduction*) is a key late work elaborating his theory of ideological state apparatuses and the reproduction of the relations of production. “Entente” in French actually means understanding, harmony, agreement. “Més” added as a negative prefix to “Entente” means disharmony, discord, lack of understanding, disagreement, misunderstanding. However, mésentente cannot be understood as “méconnaissance” (misrecognition) or “malentendu” (misunderstanding), because the latter two are misunderstandings within the same universality, the same system of knowledge, whereas mésentente implies that “one of the interlocutors both understands (entend) and does not understand what the other says.” [3]3 Althusser's concept of "epistemological rupture" (borrowed from Gaston Bachelard) refers to a radical break or discontinuity in the history of science or thought, marking the transition from ideology to science. How should we understand Rancière’s simultaneous understanding and non-understanding? The example Rancière gives in *Dissensus: On Politics and Aesthetics* of Jeanne Deroin [4]4 Jeanne Deroin (1805-1894) was a French socialist feminist and activist who campaigned for women's political rights, including the right to stand for election. participating in parliamentary elections as a woman aptly demonstrates the logic of the realization of dissensus. In the original parliamentary electoral mechanism, women could not stand as candidates; the universality of the concept “the French people” never included women; women were not political. Deroin pointedly argued that women are the mothers and educators of future citizens, and the family is the private space where the politics of citizenship is realized, but this private space “is also the space for the realization of citizenship recognized by the complementarity of law and morality.” [5]5 Rancière, *Dissensus*, 2015, p. 62. By arguing that women are equally political, Deroin brought the subjects ignored under the logic of police back to the forefront, and the opposition between the logic of police and the logic of politics reached its peak at this moment.

“歧义”（mésentente）所表述的正是治安与政治的不一致，治安是对现存政治体制的维护，其实质是精英主义的，而政治则代表了大众或者平民解放的一面。歧义是现存秩序与被秩序忽视的大众的割裂，是精英与大众的割裂。“歧义关乎共同对象之感受性的呈现，也就是对话者呈现此对象之特性本身。歧义的极端情况是，X无法看到Y向他呈现的共同对象，因为他无法理解Y所发出的声音其实构成了与他自己所使用的相似的词语以及词语的安排。”（朗西埃，2015:8）“Entente”在法语里实际上是理解、融洽、协定的含义，“Més”作为否定前缀添加到“Entente”前，实际上是不融洽、不协调、不理解、分歧、误解的含义。但是mésentente却不能理解为“méconnaissance”（错误认知）、“malentendu”（错误理解），因为后两者是在同一普遍性、同一知识体系内的错误理解，而mésentente则意味着“对话之一方同时理解（entend）与不理解另一方所说的话”。（朗西埃，2015:6）我们应该如何理解朗西埃的同时理解与不理解呢？朗西埃在《歧义：政治与哲学》中所举的让娜·德鲁安（Jeanne Deroin）作为一名女性参与国会选举的例子较为恰当地向我们展示了歧义的实现逻辑。在原有国会选举机制中，女子是无法作为候选人参与选举的，“法国人民”这一概念的普遍性从来都是不包括女人的，女人并不具有政治性。德鲁安针锋相对地指出，女人是未来公民的母亲和教育者，家庭是公民政治得以实现的私人空间，但这个私人空间“同时也是被法律与道德的互补性所认定之公民权的落实空间”。（朗西埃，2015:62）德鲁安通过对女人同样具有政治性的论述，将治安逻辑下的被忽略不计的主体重新请回了前台，治安逻辑与政治逻辑的对立也在这一刻达到顶峰。

So how to bridge the gap between the multitude and the elite became Rancière’s subsequent theoretical theme. Rancière turned his perspective to the fields of literature and art and proposed literary politics and aesthetic politics. The difference between writing and speech is that the former is a subjectless reading and deconstruction, a rejection and rebellion against phonocentrism. The phonocentric political system since Plato is precisely the object of Rancière’s critique; therefore, writing possesses a function of political rebellion. The primary mode of writing is literature; the politics of writing is also the politics of literature. Just as political discourse is divided into explicit and implicit, literary discourse is also divided into explicit and implicit. The political meaning of writing becomes possible precisely because writing is the manifestation of the implicit, the manifestation of the discourse of the multitude ignored by the original discourse system; the flesh of the word is precisely the politics of writing. Literary politics is not an emphasis on “literature serving politics,” nor is it an advocacy for writers to participate in political activities; literary politics aims to reveal the inherent quasi-political nature of literature: “It posits an intrinsic link between politics as a specific form of collective practice and literature as a determinate practice of the art of writing.” [6]6 Jacques Rancière, *The Politics of Literature*, 2014, p. 81. Literature is the politics of writing that disrupts the noble artistic world and ordinary life. Madame Bovary is condemned to death precisely because she turns life into literature, or equates literature with life. Madame Bovary is destined to be executed, to warn those who come after not to confuse art and life: “Literature must kill her to keep art free from its own ill-omened possession, which is making life aesthetic.” [7]7 Ibid. By disrupting the established hierarchical order, literature transforms the invisible and unsayable parts of the current system into the visible and sayable. Behind life’s rebellion against aesthetics runs the same logic of equality; it is here that Rancière discovers the connection between literature and politics. Rancière’s literary politics provides an alternative path for the contemporary radical left and has certain referential significance, but because it abandons the cornerstone of historical materialism, it ultimately drifts further and further away from traditional Marxism.

那么如何弥合大众与精英的鸿沟就成了朗西埃接下来的理论主题，朗西埃将视角转向了文学、艺术领域并提出了文学政治、美学政治。书写之与语言的差异在于前者是一种无主体的阅读和解构，是对语音中心主义的拒斥和反叛。自柏拉图以来的语音中心主义所构成的现存政治体系恰恰是朗西埃所批判的对象，因此书写就具有一种政治反叛的功能。书写最主要的方式是文学，书写的政治同样是文学的政治。正如政治话语分为显性与隐性一样，文学话语同样分为显性与隐性，书写的政治含义之所以成为可能，正是在于书写是对隐性的彰显，是对原有话语体系所忽视的大众话语的彰显，语词的肉身恰恰是书写的政治。文学政治不是对“文学服务于政治”的强调，也不是对作家参与政治活动的鼓吹，文学政治旨在揭示文学所固有的类政治性，“它假设在作为集体实践的特殊形式的政治和作为写作艺术的确定实践的文学之间，存在一种固有的联系”。文学是打乱高贵的艺术世界和平凡生活的书写政治，包法利夫人之所以被处死正是因为她将生活过成了文学，或者说将文学等同于生活。包法利夫人注定要被处死，以警醒那些不区分艺术与生活的后来者，“文学必须将她处死，以保持艺术不受它自己那不吉祥附体的影响，这就是让生活变成美学”。（朗西埃，2014:81）文学通过对既定等级秩序的扰乱，将现行体制下不可见、不可说的部分转化为可见的、可说的部分，生活对美学的反抗背后同样贯穿着平等的逻辑，朗西埃正是在这里发现了文学与政治的关联。朗西埃的文学政治为当代激进左翼提供了一条别样的路径，具有一定的借鉴意义，但由于抛弃了历史唯物主义的基石，最终与传统马克思主义渐行渐远。

IV. Balibar: Post-Marxism with Race and Nation as Objects of Study

四、巴里巴尔：以种族、民族为研究对象的后马克思主义

Étienne Balibar [8]8 Étienne Balibar (b. 1942) is a French Marxist philosopher, a former student of Louis Althusser and co-author of *Reading Capital*. is the main co-author of Althusser’s *Reading Capital* [9]9 *Reading Capital* (1965) is a seminal work of structuralist Marxism co-authored by Louis Althusser and his students, including Étienne Balibar., hailed by the international academic community as Althusser’s most outstanding student and assistant, and is also one of the main representatives of contemporary French Marxism. Academia roughly divides Balibar’s thought into the Althusserian period (1965-1979), the first theoretical turn period (1979-1992), and the second theoretical turn period (1992-present), i.e., early, middle, and late periods. The early period was Balibar’s apprenticeship; structuralist Marxism appropriately describes Balibar’s early research paradigm. However, what truly embodies Balibar’s own thought is his two theoretical turns, namely, the turn towards a post-Marxist paradigm studying issues of race and nation.

埃蒂安·巴里巴尔（Étienne Balibar）是阿尔都塞《读<资本论>》的主要合著者，被国际学界誉为阿尔都塞最卓越的学生和助手，同时是当代法国马克思主义的主要代表人物之一。学术界大致把巴里巴尔的思想分为阿尔都塞时期（1965-1979）、第一次理论转向时期（1979-1992）、第二次理论转向时期（1992-至今），即前期、中期、后期。前期是巴里巴尔的学徒期，结构主义马克思主义较为恰当地表述了巴里巴尔前期的研究范式。然而，真正能够体现巴里巴尔本人思想的则是其两次理论转向时期，即转向了种族、民族问题研究的后马克思主义范式。

Balibar’s first theoretical turn began in the 1980s. Balibar shifted his research perspective from interpreting *Capital* to studying the issues of race and nation existing in French society. Balibar argues that exploitation in the Marxian sense is not only manifested as class struggle; in the post-colonial era, it is more manifested as struggles over racial and national identity, or more precisely, identity politics arising from issues of race and nation is a new form of class struggle in contemporary capitalism. The reason we call Balibar’s middle and late period research paradigm post-Marxist is because “post-Marxism does not mean being outside or anti-Marxist, but a Marxism that values other forms of social struggle, which since the 19th century have developed characteristics of sex, gender, nation, race, etc. Post-Marxism means an exploration that remains Marxist, but incorporates the diverse aspects of all social constitutive features.” [10]10 The source of this quotation is not provided in the original text. Balibar’s exploration of racial, national, and class identities after his theoretical turn precisely recognizes the role of racist and nationalist discourses in contemporary political struggle, ultimately combining the Marxist theory of class struggle with struggles over racial and national identity. *Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities* [11]11 *Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities* (1988) is a collaborative work by Étienne Balibar and Immanuel Wallerstein. is the most representative work of this period.

巴里巴尔的第一次理论转向始于20世纪80年代，巴里巴尔将自己的研究视角从对《资本论》的解读转向了对法国社会存在的种族、民族问题的研究。巴里巴尔认为马克思意义上的剥削不仅仅体现为阶级斗争，在后殖民主义时代更体现为种族、民族身份的斗争，或者更确切地说，由种族、民族问题引发的身份政治是当代资本主义阶级斗争的新形式。我们之所以将巴里巴尔中后期的这种研究范式称为后马克思主义的，是因为“后马克思主义不意味着在马克思之外或反马克思主义，而是重视其他社会斗争形式的马克思主义，这些斗争形式从19世纪以来已经发展了性、性别、民族、种族等等方面的特征。后马克思主义意味着仍然是马克思主义的探索，但是它加入了所有社会构造特征中的多样化方面。”巴里巴尔理论转向后对种族、民族、阶级身份的探究正是看到了种族主义和民族主义话语在当代政治斗争的作用，最终将马克思主义的阶级斗争理论与种族、民族身份的斗争结合在一起，《种族、民族、阶级：模糊同一性》就是这一时期最主要的代表作品。

Why have struggles over national and ethnic identity become the main form of class struggle in contemporary France? This must be traced back to the history of French colonialism. As an old colonial power, France invaded Algeria as early as 1830, and Algeria gained independence in 1962. A century of colonial rule forged close economic and population ties between France and Algeria, and after Algeria's independence, France experienced a wave of immigration from Algeria. Ethnic issues have become a sensitive nerve in French society, and no philosopher with a sense of mission can avoid France's ethnic problems. Balibar is precisely such a thinker who pays close attention to the realities of French society. After the 1965 publication of *Reading Capital*, Balibar did not remain in France but chose to go to Algeria to teach. In 1981, Balibar was expelled from the French Communist Party for publishing an article in *Le Nouvel Observateur* criticizing the Party's policies on colonial immigrants. In Balibar's view, race is no longer merely manifested as the identity of skin color or lineage, but is more closely linked to the cultural identity of the nation. The overlap and interweaving of racial identity and national identity mean that struggles in contemporary capitalist society no longer appear as naked class struggle, but rather as conflicts of racial and national identity imbued with the significance of class struggle. The ambiguity among racial identity, national identity, and class identity makes it impossible for us to use a single designation to express the struggles of identity in contemporary France. The essence of this ambiguity of identity is the difference and fictionality of the universality itself represented behind race and nation.

为什么民族、种族身份的斗争会成为当代法国阶级斗争的主要形式呢？这就要从法国殖民主义的历史谈起，作为老牌殖民主义国家的法国早在1830年就入侵了阿尔及利亚，1962年阿尔及利亚独立。长达百年的殖民统治使得法国与阿尔及利亚形成了密切的经济、人员往来，法国在阿尔及利亚独立后也迎来了来自阿尔及利亚的移民潮。种族问题已经成为触动法国社会的敏感神经，任何一个有使命感的哲学家都不会回避法国的种族问题，巴里巴尔就是这样一位密切关注法国社会现实的思想家。1965年《读<资本论>》之后的巴里巴尔并没有留在法国，而是选择了去阿尔及利亚从事教学。1981年巴里巴尔因在《新观察者》发表了抨击法国共产党有关殖民地移民政策的言论被开除出党。在巴里巴尔看来，种族不再仅仅表现为肤色、血统的同一性，而是更多的与民族的文化同一性联系在一起。种族同一性与民族同一性两者之间交叉重叠使得当下资本主义社会的斗争不再表现为赤裸裸的阶级斗争，而是表现为兼具阶级斗争意义上的种族、民族身份的冲突。种族同一性、民族同一性、阶级同一性三者之间的模棱两可使得我们无法用单一的指称来表述当下法国身份认同的斗争，同一性的模棱两可的实质是种族、民族背后所代表的普遍性本身的差异性和虚构性。

Universality is the endpoint of the first theoretical turn and also the starting point of the second theoretical turn. Balibar seeks to answer questions of nation and ethnicity by pursuing the greatest universality of political philosophy. However, neither race nor nation is the greatest universality of political philosophy. Whether there exists an ultimate form of universality becomes the main problem that Balibar's second theoretical turn must address. Through his examination of the French Revolution of 1789 and its theoretical legacy, the *Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen*, Balibar argues that the greatest universality of political philosophy is equality and liberty. Human rights are the rights of man as a natural person, while citizens' rights are the rights of the propertied within the political community. The *Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen* equates human rights with citizens' rights, thereby granting the political rights originally belonging only to the propertied to the masses as the proletariat. For most immigrants from former French colonies, the primary struggle of identity is the struggle for French citizenship. If we regard the majority of immigrants from former French colonies as the mass of the proletariat, then the corresponding opposite is the full French citizen. Yet the reality is that most immigrants from former French colonies live at the bottom of society, and illegal immigrants must even struggle for legal residency status.

普遍性是第一次理论转向的终点，也是第二次理论转向的起点。巴里巴尔将对民族、种族问题的解答诉诸于对政治哲学最大普遍性的追问，然而无论是种族还是民族都不是政治哲学最大的普遍性，是否存在一种终极意义上的普遍性成了巴里巴尔第二次理论转向所要处理的主要问题。巴里巴尔通过对1789年法国大革命及其理论遗产《人权与公民权利宣言》的考察，认为政治哲学最大的普遍性是平等、自由。人权是人作为自然人的权利，而公民权则是政治共同体中有产者的权利，《人权与公民权利宣言》将人权与公民权等同，将原本仅仅属于有产者的政治权利赋予了作为无产者的大众。对于大多数原法属国家殖民地的移民而言，身份斗争首要的是法国公民身份的斗争。如果我们将大多数来自原法属殖民地的移民看作无产者的大众，那么与之相对应的则是全格的法国公民，然而现实却是来自原法属国家殖民地的移民大多生活在社会的底层，那些非法的移民甚至要为合法的居留身份而斗争。

Equality is the equality of the masses; liberty is the liberty of the propertied. Since their inception, equality and liberty have formed a paradox. However, behind the equation of human rights and citizens' rights proclaimed by the *Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen* lies the equation of equality and liberty. There is no liberty without equality, nor equality without liberty. Balibar proposes the compound word "égaliberté" (equaliberty) to denote their reciprocity. The equation of equality and liberty is not a direct equation, but an equation mediated by property and the community. Balibar takes equality and liberty as a common base and, together with the two mediators of community and property, forms two triangular structures: the triangular structure composed of equality, liberty, and property, and the triangular structure composed of equality, liberty, and community. The equation of equality and liberty is the foundation for the equation of human rights and citizens' rights. However, real politics always inevitably leans towards one side. When real politics relies more heavily on the mediator of property, society tends more towards the principle of liberty; when society relies more heavily on the principle of community, society tends more towards the principle of equality. Balibar regards equality and liberty as the poles of political ideals, thus continuously guiding real politics towards change in the direction of greater equality and greater liberty, ultimately leading to a civilization politics opposed to the established system of capitalism.

平等是大众的平等，自由是有产者的自由，平等自由自从诞生之日起就是一对悖论，然而《人权与公民权利宣言》所宣称的人权与公民权利等同背后却是平等与自由的等同。没有无自由的平等，也没有无平等的自由，巴里巴尔提出了复合词作为的“平等自由”（l‘égaliberté）以指称两者的相互性。平等与自由的等同并不是直接等同，而是财产与共同体的中介等同。巴里巴尔将平等、自由作为共同的基底分别与共同体、财产两个中介组成了上下两个三角结构，即平等、自由、财产组成的三角结构以及平等、自由、共同体组成的三角结构。平等与自由的等同是人权与公民权利等同的基础，然而现实政治却总是不可避免地偏向其中一面，当现实政治更加倚重财产中介时，社会就会更加偏向自由原则；而当社会更加倚重共同体原则时，社会就会更加偏向平等原则。巴里巴尔将平等与自由视为政治理念的极点，从而不断指引着现实政治向着更加平等、更加自由的方向变革，最终导向反对资本主义既成性体系的文明政治。

Conclusion

结语

After elucidating the four research paths of the four representative figures of contemporary French Marxism, the unavoidable questions are: What is the relationship between these four research paths and original French Marxism? Is there inheritance and development? What is the relationship among the four research paths themselves? Is there a shared theoretical logic? And what are their values and shortcomings?

在对当代法国马克思主义四位代表人物的四种研究路径进行阐释后，我们无法回避的问题就是四种研究路径与原有法国马克思主义是一种怎样的关系，是否有继承和发展？四种研究路径之间又是一种什么样的关系，是否存在共有的理论逻辑？其价值和缺陷又在哪里？

First, the four representative figures of contemporary French Marxism—Bidet, Badiou, Rancière, and Balibar—all have a close theoretical connection with Althusser. Contemporary French Marxism can even be described as post-Althusserian French Marxism. Balibar and Rancière were both members of Althusser's *Reading Capital* study group and were major co-authors of the 1965 work *Reading Capital*. Balibar is regarded by the international scholarly community as Althusser's most outstanding and faithful student, while Rancière embarked on a path of theoretical rebellion after the May 1968 events [1]1 The May 1968 events (often called May '68 or the May 1968 protests) were a series of student-led protests and a general strike in France that nearly toppled the government, representing a major social and political upheaval.. Balibar both inherits and develops Althusser's thought; the inheritance is mainly manifested in his Althusserian period, while the development is concentrated in his middle and later periods. After Althusser's death, Balibar was invariably present at commemorative activities for Althusser, and was often asked to write prefaces for Althusser's works, such as Althusser's most important later work, *On the Reproduction of Capitalism* [2]2 Althusser's *On the Reproduction of Capitalism* (French: *Sur la reproduction*) is a key late work elaborating his theory of ideological state apparatuses and the reproduction of the relations of production.. Balibar continued Althusser's exploration of the reproduction of relations of production, creatively extending it to the study of national and ethnic identity issues, and proposing the theory of civilization politics. Bidet was also deeply influenced by Althusser, which is concentrated in Bidet's object of study. Bidet's doctoral dissertation, *How to Approach Capital: Materials for a Refoundation*, took *Capital* as its object of study, which directly influenced his subsequent theoretical research for nearly half a century; the creation of the meta-structure theory was a direct result of his interpretation of *Capital*. Rancière's break with Althusser's thought is the starting point of his own thought; their relationship is more one of theoretical rebellion, but it is precisely this theoretical rebellion against Althusser's thought that made Rancière who he is. Badiou was also deeply influenced by Althusser. During his time at the École Normale Supérieure, he participated in Althusser's *Reading Capital* activities, and Althusser was one of Badiou's most important intellectual mentors. The event is the core concept of Badiou's philosophy of the event. Althusser's influence on Badiou's thought is concentrated in the theoretical connection between the concepts of "event" and "rupture." The event itself implies rupture; without rupture, there is no event. The concept of the event carries a strong flavor of Althusser's epistemological rupture [3]3 Althusser's concept of "epistemological rupture" (borrowed from Gaston Bachelard) refers to a radical break or discontinuity in the history of science or thought, marking the transition from ideology to science.. Therefore, contemporary French Marxism is essentially also post-Althusserian French Marxism.

其一、比岱、巴迪欧、朗西埃、巴里巴尔四位当代法国马克思主义的代表人物都与阿尔都塞有着密切的理论关联，当代法国马克思主义甚至可以表述为后阿尔都塞时代的法国马克思主义。巴里巴尔、朗西埃都是阿尔都塞“读《资本论》”读书小组的成员，也是1965年《读<资本论>》的主要合著者。巴里巴尔被国际学界视为阿尔都塞最卓越和最忠实的学生，朗西埃则在1968年五月风暴后走上了理论反叛的道路。巴里巴尔对阿尔都塞的思想既有继承又有发展，继承主要体现在其阿尔都塞时期，发展则集中体现在其中后期。阿尔都塞逝世后，悼念阿尔都塞的活动总少不了巴里巴尔的身影，阿尔都塞的著作也会请巴里巴尔作序，如：阿尔都塞后期最重要的著作《论再生产》。巴里巴尔延续了阿尔都塞对生产关系再生产问题的探讨，创造性地将之扩展到对民族、种族身份问题的研究并提出了文明政治的理论。比岱同样深受阿尔都塞影响，这一点集中体现在比岱的研究对象上。比岱的博士论文《如何处理<资本论>：用以重新奠基的素材》以《资本论》为研究对象，这直接影响了其后续近半个世纪的理论研究，元结构理论的创立更是直接来源其对《资本论》的解读。朗西埃与阿尔都塞思想的决裂是其思想的出发点，两者的关系更多的是一种理论反叛的关系，但也正是这种对阿尔都塞思想的理论反叛成就了朗西埃自身。巴迪欧也深受阿尔都塞影响，在巴黎高师期间也曾参与了阿尔都塞的“读《资本论》”活动，阿尔都塞是巴迪欧最为重要的精神导师之一。事件是巴迪欧事件哲学的核心概念，阿尔都塞对巴迪欧的思想的影响集中体现在“事件”与“断裂”两个概念的理论关联上，事件本身意味着断裂，没有断裂就无所谓事件，事件概念具有浓厚的阿尔都塞认识论断裂的色彩。因此，当代法国马克思主义实质上也是后阿尔都塞时代的法国马克思主义。

Second, through an analysis of the thought of Bidet, Badiou, Rancière, and Balibar, we discover that emancipatory politics is the common logic underlying their thought. Balibar’s investigation of issues of nation and ethnicity aims to achieve equality and freedom for French immigrants and ethnic minorities, and the civilization politics he proposes is also a rebellion against the violence of established institutions. Both Balibar and Rancière regard equality as the cornerstone of political theory; Balibar puts forward the concept of “equaliberty” to denote the reciprocity of the concepts of equality and freedom. Rancière treats equality as the fundamental question of politics, and his distinction between police and politics is both a manifestation of the part of those who have no part and a resistance to the logic of the police. Badiou and Rancière also share common theoretical elements: both distinguish between “feminine politics” and “masculine politics.” Feminine politics is genuine politics because it is the politics of the masses, the politics of emancipation, whereas masculine politics is the established, conservative politics representing the ideology of the ruling class. The logic of emancipatory politics runs throughout the thought of Balibar, Rancière, and Badiou; the three use different theoretical languages to articulate different paths of emancipatory politics—Balibar’s civilization politics, Rancière’s aesthetic and literary politics, and Badiou’s event philosophy—all ultimately aiming at the emancipatory politics of the masses. In addition, Bidet’s emphasis on the question of organization likewise seeks to move in the direction of socialism through an alliance with organizational managers.

其二、透过比岱、巴迪欧、朗西埃、巴里巴尔思想的分析，我们发现解放政治是其思想背后的共有逻辑。巴里巴尔对民族、种族问题的探讨要实现的是法国移民以及少数族裔的平等自由，所提出的文明政治也是对既成性制度的暴力的反叛。巴里巴尔与朗西埃都将平等视为政治理论的基石，巴里巴尔提出了“平等自由”的概念以指称平等与自由概念的相互性。朗西埃将平等视为政治的根本问题，区分治安与政治既是对无分之分的彰显，更是对治安逻辑的反抗。巴迪欧与朗西埃的思想也有着共通的理论成分，两者都区分了“阴性的政治”和“阳性的政治”，阴性的政治之所以是真正的政治，是因为这种政治是大众的政治、解放的政治，而阳性的政治则是代表统治阶级意识形态的既成性的、保守的政治。解放政治的逻辑贯穿于巴里巴尔、朗西埃、巴迪欧思想的始终，三者用不同的理论语言表述了解放政治的不同路径，巴里巴尔的文明政治、朗西埃的美学和文学政治、巴迪欧的事件哲学，最终的理论目标都是实现大众的解放政治。此外，比岱对组织问题的重视同样是要通过与组织管理者的联合，进而朝着社会主义的方向发展。

Third, Bidet, Badiou, Rancière, and Balibar each put forward their own theoretical paradigms, which possess a certain theoretical significance while also exhibiting certain theoretical deficiencies. Balibar’s concept of “equaliberty” points to the reciprocity of the concepts of equality and freedom, but how the compound word “equaliberty” can escape the trap of language games without falling into meaningless tautology remains a major difficulty for his theory of equaliberty. How the universal principle of equaliberty can realize itself within a trans-national state framework, the conflicts among the different cultural backgrounds represented by different immigrant groups, and the actual political relations with nation-states are all real-world problems that Balibar’s civilization politics urgently needs to resolve. This utopian form of theory is even more evident in the thought of Rancière and Badiou. Aesthetic and literary politics highlight the dissensus between police and politics and the rupture between actual politics and the neglected masses, but aesthetic and literary politics, lacking the support of historical materialism, contribute little to the emancipation of the masses. The ultimate goal of Badiou’s event philosophy is communism, which is likewise a communitarian idea, an extension of the type of the “One-in-the-form-of-the-Not-One.” [12]12 “One-in-the-form-of-the-Not-One” (大写的一) is a term from Alain Badiou’s ontology, referring to the structure of being as a multiple that is presented as a unified situation while its composition is irreducibly multiple, in contrast to a transcendent or totalizing One. The event itself implies contingency and rupture; its realization requires the participation of the subject, yet only the generation of the event can constitute the subject. This inquiry into the first cause can only resort to the subject’s fidelity to the event. Balibar starts from the real problems urgently needing resolution in French society, bringing the idea of equaliberty while also proposing the possibility of trans-national state politics, even though such politics faces many challenges from real-world problems. Bidet, taking *Capital* as his starting point, analyzes the dual logic of market and organization and the three-level class structure of modern society, and attempts to achieve socialism through an alliance between the masses and organizational managers. Compared with Balibar and Bidet, Rancière and Badiou are more like preachers of left-wing thought, bringing to the masses the ideas of egalitarianism and communism; the ideas themselves serve as the vanguard of the awakening of class consciousness. Under the thick fog of capitalist ideology, we need to point out the real path, but we also need utopian ideas. (Notes omitted)

其三、比岱、巴迪欧、朗西埃、巴里巴尔都提出了自身的理论范式，具有一定的理论意义，同时又具有一定的理论缺陷。巴里巴尔的“平等自由”概念指出了平等与自由概念的相互性，但作为复合词的“平等自由”如何摆脱语言游戏的巢穴而不陷入无意义的同语反复，依然是其平等自由理论面临的一大难题。平等自由的普遍性原则如何在跨-民族国家的范围内实现自身，不同的移民背后所代表的不同文化背景的冲突以及与民族国家的现实政治关系都是巴里巴尔的文明政治所亟待解决的现实难题。这种理论的乌托邦形式在朗西埃和巴迪欧的思想中体现地更为明显，美学、文学的政治彰显了治安与政治的歧义、现实政治与被忽略的大众的割裂，但失去了唯物史观支撑的美学、文学政治却对大众解放徒有增益。巴迪欧的事件哲学所最终要实现的目标是共产主义，这种共产主义同样是一种共同体主义的理念，是对“大写的一”的类型的扩展。事件本身意味着偶然性和断裂，事件的实现需要主体的参与，然而唯有事件的生成才能造就主体，这种对第一推动力的探讨只能求助于主体对事件的忠实。巴里巴尔从法国社会所亟待解决的现实问题出发，带来了平等自由的理念的同时提出了跨-民族国家政治的可能性，尽管这种政治面临诸多现实问题的挑战。比岱以《资本论》为出发点，分析了市场与组织的双重逻辑以及现代社会的三级阶级结构，并试图通过大众与组织管理者的联合实现社会主义。与巴里巴尔、比岱相比，朗西埃、巴迪欧更像是左翼思想的布道者，为大众带来平等主义、共产主义的理念，理念本身充当了阶级意识觉醒的先锋。在资本主义意识形态的浓雾下，我们需要指明现实的道路，同样也需要乌托邦的理念。（注释略）

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑