Marxist Political Science Research in the 21st Century *Monthly Review* (USA)

As an international journal that advocates and insists on independent research into Marxism and socialism, *Monthly Review* was founded during the lowest "ice age" of the American left, confronting the contempt and hostility of Trumanism and McCarthyism toward the socialist movement, and grew tenaciously step by step to become one of the most influential journals in global left-wing academia and society. The journal was founded by Leo Huberman and Harvard University economics professor Paul Sweezy. Over more than 70 years, numerous famous social activists such as Albert Einstein, W. E. B. Du Bois, Che Guevara, Barbara Ehrenreich, Noam Chomsky, and Bernie Sanders have published their views in the journal. The magazine has also gathered and cultivated many world-renowned Marxist theorists, including Harry Magdoff, Paul Baran, Ellen Meiksins Wood, Robert McChesney, and John Bellamy Foster, making great contributions to the development of socialist theory in the United States and the world.

作为一本倡导和坚持独立研究马克思主义和社会主义的国际刊物，《每月评论》在美国左翼最低迷的“寒冰期”创刊，直面杜鲁门主义和麦卡锡主义对社会主义运动的蔑视与敌视，一步一步顽强成长，成为全球左翼学术和社会影响力最大的期刊之一。刊物由里奥·胡伯尔曼与哈佛大学经济学教授保罗·斯威齐创立，70余年来，阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦、杜波伊斯、切·格瓦拉、芭芭拉·埃伦赖希、诺姆·乔姆斯基、伯尼·桑德斯等众多著名社会活动家曾在刊物上发表见解，杂志也凝聚和培养了哈利·马格多夫、保罗·巴兰、艾伦·迈克辛斯·伍德、罗伯特·麦克切斯尼、约翰·贝拉米·福斯特等诸多享誉学界的马克思主义理论家，为美国和世界的社会主义理论发展做出巨大贡献。

Since entering the 21st century, *Monthly Review* has continuously focused on the latest global developments, advancing the comprehensive development of Marxist theoretical research in step with the times, and has achieved remarkable results in the study of Marxist political science, gradually forming a representative new force of American left-wing political critique. With its radical academic style, serious academic attitude, diverse academic adoption, and innovative academic thinking, it has contributed its own unique strength to the development of Marxist political science in the new century. At the same time, the journal's discussions on certain political issues have limitations, there is room for improvement in the field of Marxist political science research, and its influence on world socialism still has potential to be tapped.

进入21世纪以来，《每月评论》持续关注世界最新动态，与时俱进地推动马克思主义理论研究的全面发展，对马克思主义政治学的研究也成绩斐然，逐渐形成具有代表性的美国左翼政治批判新力量。它以激进的学术风格、严肃的学术态度、多元的学术采纳和创新的学术思维，对新世纪的马克思主义政治学发展贡献了属于自身的独特力量；与此同时，刊物对一些政治问题的研讨存在局限，在马克思主义政治学研究领域具备提升空间，对世界社会主义的影响力仍有潜力可待挖掘。

I. Developing the Marxist Theory of the State: Political Construction Beyond the Capitalist "Leviathan"

一、发展马克思主义国家学说：超越资本“利维坦”的政治构建

The Marxist theory of the state and related theories such as socialist democratic construction have always been important content in the research and exploration of Marxist political science. However, Western research on Marxist state theory, after experiencing a wave of debate in the 1960s and 1970s and the subsequent political failure of the Soviet Union, seems to have exhausted itself. In recent decades, theoretical discussion and development of left-wing state theory in developed capitalist countries have appeared difficult and faltering. Nevertheless, *Monthly Review* has still gathered left-wing progressive scholars such as István Mészáros, Michael Lebowitz, and Martha Harnecker, who focus on socialist political construction, are committed to exploring socialist democracy, and engage in the practice of socialist movements. Against the backdrop of widespread political crises in 21st-century capitalist countries, they elucidate the theoretical principles and practical paths of socialist political revolution, sounding the political "clarion call" for building a future-oriented social transformation.

马克思主义国家学说和社会主义民主建设等相关理论，一直以来都是马克思主义政治学研究和探索的重要内容，但西方对马克思主义国家理论的研究在经历20世纪六七十年代的辩论热潮以及随后的苏联政治失败后似乎筋疲力尽，近几十年来左翼的国家理论在发达资本主义国家的理论探讨和发展显得举步维艰。尽管如此，《每月评论》依然凝聚了梅扎罗斯、迈克尔·莱博维奇、玛塔·哈内克等专注于社会主义政治构建、致力于社会主义民主探究和投身于社会主义运动实践的左翼进步学者，在21世纪资本主义国家广泛处于政治危机的大背景下阐明社会主义政治革命的理论原理与实践路径，为构建面向未来的社会变革吹响政治“号角”。

First, adhere to the "theory of going beyond," resolutely transcend the authoritarian state form of the capitalist "Leviathan," achieve substantive equality and democracy, uphold social equality and fairness in real struggles, and advance socialism into reality with a 21st-century Marxist critical theory of the state. One, transcend the capitalist "Leviathan," deconstruct the capitalist state apparatus. As an assistant and young colleague of Lukács, Mészáros, in his work *Beyond Capital*, already embodied a Lukácsian mode of thinking. He believed that it is necessary not only to abolish classical capitalist society but also to break the entire rule of capital, and the key to revolution lies in overthrowing the executive organ of capital's rule—the state—thereby establishing a new social order that replaces the bourgeois "parliamentary-electoral" system through radical class struggle. Mészáros argued that historically, almost all state theories have "built high walls" to consolidate the legitimate governance of the ruling class. This Leviathanism enhances the state's political dominance in dealing with serious internal and external crises. At the same time, the capital system, as an organic order capable of self-reproduction and metabolism, relies on the complete operation of the entire state's "command structure," enabling the capitalist system to be perpetually repaired and restored. Based on this, Mészáros firmly believed that to end the capitalist system, it is necessary to adopt Marx's critical theory of the state, that is, to completely eliminate the state from the process of social metabolism, and to terminate capital's exploitation and enslavement of humanity through "the disappearance of political state and political authority." Mészáros also acknowledged that, in today's world where nation-states still control the global situation, abolishing the state in a short time is very naive, but it is necessary to analyze the necessary conditions for social change. Two, achieve "substantive equality" and "substantive democracy." The withering away of the political state means returning to society all the power that the Leviathan state has "confiscated" in history. This requires that social operation be truly in the hands of the people, implementing substantive equality and democracy, thereby constructing the socialist system. Mészáros pointed out that "substantive" involves fundamental changes in future society. For the historical sustainability of socialism, substantive equality and democracy are important principles that society must uphold. Bourgeois liberal democracy, under the guise of "greater equality," actually promotes capitalist autocratic rule. The sovereignty of the state does not belong to the people but is forever in the hands of capital, so there can be no equality without class differences. Therefore, the goal of revolution must never be merely to seize a part of the old system (such as taking the highest state power), but to completely abolish and transcend the fundamental antagonistic relationship of "capital-labor," thereby creating opportunities for substantive equality. Mészáros stated directly that, as a long-term strategic goal, pursuing substantive equality and democracy is an arduous process. Only by starting from fundamental principles of equality and substantive democratic measurement can we continuously assess the historical process of social change and transition, stride forward toward the scientific alternative to capitalism—socialism—while also "drawing a clear line of demarcation" from the Soviet model. Three, maintain equality and justice in social change, dialectically "transcend" the scope of traditional socialist practice, and achieve new political breakthroughs in the social struggles of the new era. Daniel Finn dialectically analyzes the practical controversies in the history of the socialist movement, arguing that maintaining socialist fairness should adhere to the leadership of the working-class "vanguard" during the transition period, support the speculative exploration of Marxist theory's "de-hierarchization," focus on cultivating capable left-wing politicians rather than mere radicals, and re-emphasize the leading and driving role of movement leaders in revolution. To maintain socialist justice, it is necessary to disarm the authoritarian forces of the reactionaries, oppose the suppression of dissidents among the people after the revolution, advocate replacing capital autocracy with broad social democracy, and draw a clear line of demarcation from erroneous trends of thought such as opportunism, adventurism, and feudalism, thereby achieving substantive equality, fairness, and justice under socialist conditions, and proposing the political prospects of socialism in the new century through a dialectical analysis of existing experience.

第一，坚持“超越理论”，坚决超越资本主义“利维坦”的威权国家形态，实现实质性平等与民主，在现实斗争中维护社会平等与公平，以21世纪的马克思主义国家批判理论推进社会主义映入现实。一是超越资本“利维坦”，解构资本主义国家机器。作为卢卡奇的助手和年轻同事，梅扎罗斯在其著述《超越资本》中就体现出卢卡奇式思维，他认为不仅需要废除古典资本主义社会，更应破除整个资本统治，而革命的关键在于推翻资本统治的执行机构——国家，从而以激进的阶级斗争建立替代资产阶级“议会—选举”制的社会新秩序。梅扎罗斯认为，历史上几乎所有国家理论都为巩固统治阶级的合法治理“筑起高墙”，这种利维坦主义提高了国家应对严重内外危机的政治主宰力；同时，资本系统作为一种能够自我繁殖和新陈代谢的有机秩序，依赖于整个国家“指令架构”的完整运转，使资本主义制度能够永续修缮和复原。基于此，梅扎罗斯坚信如果想要终结资本主义制度，必须采纳马克思的国家批判理论，即将国家从社会新陈代谢的历程中完全消灭，通过“政治国家和政治权威的消失”终止资本对于人类的剥削和奴役。梅扎罗斯也承认，在民族国家依然掌控世界局势的今天，短时间内废除国家是非常幼稚的，但对社会变革的必要条件做出分析是必要的。二是实现“实质平等”与“实质民主”。政治国家的消亡意味着将利维坦国家在历史中“没收”的全部权力交还社会，这需要社会运行切实掌握在人民手中，实行实质性的平等和民主，从而构建社会主义制度。梅扎罗斯指出，“实质性”涉及未来社会的根本变化。为了社会主义的历史可持续性，实质性平等与民主是社会必须坚守的重要原则。资产阶级的自由民主打着“更大的平等”的幌子实则推行资本主义专制统治，国家的主权并不归于人民，而永远掌握在资本手中，也就不可能存在无阶级差异的平等，因此革命的目标绝不能仅仅是夺取旧系统的一部分（如取得国家最高政权），而应是彻底废除和超越“资本—劳动”的根本对立关系，从而创建实质性平等的机会。梅扎罗斯直言，作为一种长期的战略目标，追求实质平等与民主是一个艰苦的过程，只有从根本的平等原则和实质的民主衡量出发，才能不断评估社会变革与过渡的历史进程，向超越资本主义的科学替代方案——社会主义大步迈进，但又要与苏联模式“划清界限”。三是在社会变革中维持平等和正义，辩证地“超越”传统社会主义实践范畴，在新时期的社会斗争中取得政治新突破。丹尼尔·芬恩辩证分析社会主义运动历史中的实践争议，认为维持社会主义公平应坚持过渡时期的工人阶级“先锋队”引领，支持马克思主义理论“去等级化”的思辨探讨，着力培养有能力的左翼政治家而非单纯的激进主义者，重新重视运动领袖对革命的领导带动作用。而为了保持社会主义正义则必须解除反动派的威权武装，反对革命后镇压异己人民，倡导以广泛社会民主替代资本专制，并与机会主义、冒进主义、封建主义等错误思潮划清界限，以此实现社会主义条件下的实质平等和公平正义，在对既有经验的辩证剖析中提出新世纪社会主义的政治前景。

Criticizing the state apparatus of capitalism, exposing from a Marxist perspective the nature of Western power and judicial systems as instruments of rule and class oppression, perfecting the Marxist political theory of the judicial system, and providing theoretical analysis for constructing a political system and mechanism centered on human development. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the state apparatus functions of imperialism have been increasingly strengthened. Western powers led by the United States not only carry out armed intervention in other countries but also subject their own people to close surveillance and harsh laws. The rule-of-law foundation of capitalism has been widely questioned. Consequently, Western left-wing scholars have profoundly exposed and criticized the shortcomings of the capitalist state apparatus, advocating correct concepts of legal rights from the perspective of Marxist political science. First, they attack imperialism for merging the laws of war with criminal law, defining national interests in terms of the interests of the ruling clique, monitoring citizens’ privacy in the name of “patriotism,” and infringing upon citizens’ rights and interests. Jean-Claude Paye points out that the combination of military law and criminal law gives the state full authority to turn the dictatorship against its own people; the rulers can freely define the identity of the enemy and have already “declared war” on citizens. Michael Tigar analyzes the long-standing U.S. tradition of “unconstitutionality,” arguing that imprisoning “target individuals” through political censorship, internet surveillance, international tribunals, and state secrets destroys the political foundation that the bourgeoisie claims to uphold and reflects the absolute hypocrisy of the judiciary. Second, they criticize the constitutionalization of states of emergency in imperialist countries, which places executive power above the law and elevates the police system to the core of the rule of law in capitalist states, further increasing oppression of the people. Paye points out that the trend in the U.S. and France toward constitutionalizing states of emergency symbolizes the arbitrary disposal of national sovereignty and the deprivation of citizens’ rights, amounting to a political change of “establishing a new constitution.” The legalized trend of further concentration of power in capitalist strongholds reveals the imperial essence of so-called constitutional democracy: safeguarding the interests of the ruling class itself under the pretext of protecting sovereignty, turning the constitution and parliament into veritable imperial organs of oppression. Paye discusses that the consequence of this judicial orientation is the formation of a powerful police state, granting the police maximum law enforcement authority, thereby completely eliminating the rule of law, making the police system the core of the nation-state, protecting the interests of the ruling class, and depriving citizens of their rights. Third, they condemn the capitalist criminal law and prison system represented by the United States, exposing the criminal acts of prisons carrying out class repression and racial oppression through mass incarceration, and calling for a humane and healthy transformation of the rule-of-law system. The U.S. prison system has long been criticized; since the 21st century, the role of its “prison-industrial” complex in capitalist rule has become increasingly prominent. Left-wing scholars unanimously agree that prisons are a means of social control under capitalism and the last gate of state repression. Hannah Holleman bluntly states that neoliberalism has exacerbated the viciousness of U.S. prisons, with prison conditions worsening, more poor people and Black people being arrested and imprisoned, and racism and prisoner abuse in prisons becoming commonplace. Richard Vogel points out that U.S. rulers use imprisonment to suppress and resolve the economic and social chaos caused by the post-industrial era, making prisons a political tool for reactionary governments to oppress the working people. Thus, scholars urgently call for the left to play a leading role in the movement and to make smashing the capitalist criminal law state an important issue in the socialist political revolution.

批判资本主义国家机器，以马克思主义视角揭露西方权力和司法体系的统治工具和阶级压榨本质，完善马克思主义政治学的司法理论体系，为构建以人类发展为中心的政治体制和机制提供理论分析。进入21世纪以来，帝国主义的国家机器职能日渐强化，以美国为首的西方强国不仅对他国进行武装干预，更对本国人民施以严密监视和重法，资本主义的法治根基遭受广泛质疑，因而西方左翼学者深刻揭露和批判资本主义国家机器弊端，以马克思主义政治学观点倡导正确法权观念。一是抨击帝国主义将战争法与刑法相合并，以统治集团利益定义国家利益，以“爱国主义”名义监视公民隐私，侵犯公民权益。让-克劳德·佩耶指出，军事法与刑法的结合使国家完全有权将专制矛头指向本国人民，统治者可以自由定义敌人的身份，已与公民“开战”。迈克尔·蒂加尔分析了美国长久以来的违宪“传统”，认为通过政治审查、网络监控、国际法庭、国家机密等方式囚禁“目标人物”，破坏了资产阶级标榜的政治基础，体现了司法的绝对虚伪性。二是批评帝国主义国家的紧急状态宪法化，使行政权力凌驾于法律之上，并将警察制度推升为资本主义国家的法治核心，进一步增加对人民的压迫。佩耶指出，美法等国将紧急状态宪法化的趋势，象征着国家主权的随意处置和对公民权利的剥夺，无异于是“另立宪法”的政治变革。资本主义强国权力进一步集中的合法化趋向，显露了所谓宪政民主的帝国本质，以保护主权为由维护统治阶级自身利益，将宪法和国会变为名副其实的帝国压迫机构。佩耶谈到这种司法导向的后果就是组成力量强大的警察国家，给予警察最大的执法权限，从而彻底消除法治，将警察制度作为民族国家核心，保护统治阶级利益，剥夺公民权益。三是谴责以美国为代表的资本主义刑法和监狱制度，揭露监狱以大规模监禁实行阶级镇压和种族压迫的罪恶行径，呼吁人道健康的法治体系变革。美国的监狱制度历来为人诟病，21世纪以来其“监狱—工业”联合体的资本主义统治作用愈加凸显。左翼学者一致认为，监狱是资本主义的社会控制手段，是国家镇压的最后大门。汉娜·霍勒曼直言新自由主义加剧了美国监狱的险恶，监狱条件更加恶劣，更多穷人和黑人被捕入狱，监狱中的种族主义和虐囚行为屡见不鲜。理查德·沃格尔指出，美国统治者以监禁镇压和解决后工业时代造成的经济和社会混乱，监狱成为反动政府欺压劳动人民的政治手段。由此，学者疾呼左翼必须在运动中发挥领导作用，将粉碎资本主义刑法国家作为社会主义政治革命重要议题。

II. Political Critique of 21st-Century Imperialism: A Three-Stage Theory from “Barbarism” to “Late Stage”

二、21世纪的帝国主义政治批判：由“野蛮”走向“晚期”的三阶段论

The theory of imperialism is an important component of Marxist political theory. It is based on a profound analysis of the essential economic characteristics of capitalism and directly radiates to and demonstrates the hegemonic and expansionist political behavior of imperialist states. This extremely alienated, irrational, and anti-human brutality was fully confirmed in the two world wars, making the 20th century the bloodiest century in human history. Entering the new millennium, having reaped the “dividends” of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the drastic changes in Eastern Europe, the United States became the veritable leader of imperialism. American leftists, at the “heart of the empire,” have also mercilessly criticized and profoundly exposed its hegemonic politics. Standing at a new historical starting point, they have innovated upon traditional imperialist theory, providing in-depth analysis and condemnation of the evolution of 21st-century imperialism from its peak to decline, from crisis to predicament, and ultimately to its inevitable fall into decay. They discuss the new characteristics of imperialism in the first two decades of the 21st century in three stages, perfecting and developing the contemporary Marxist political judgment on imperialism.

帝国主义论是马克思主义政治学说的重要理论，其立足于资本主义经济本质特征的深刻分析，直接辐射与论证了帝国主义国家在政治方面的霸权和扩张行为，这种极度异化的非理性、反人类的暴行在两次世界大战中得到充分印证，使20世纪成为人类历史上最为血腥的百年。进入新千年，在获取苏联解体和东欧剧变的“红利”下，美国成为名副其实的帝国主义领袖，而美国左翼也在“帝国中心”对其霸权政治进行无情批判与深刻揭露，站在新的历史起点将传统帝国主义理论推陈出新，对21世纪帝国主义由巅峰走向滑坡、从危机步入困局，最终无法避免进入衰败的演变过程予以深入分析和鞭笞，以三个阶段论述21世纪前20年的帝国主义新特点，完善和发展了马克思主义政治学关于帝国主义的当代论断。

The first stage, the “Barbaric Empire”—the heyday of imperialism (2000–2007). The commentary in Monthly Review shows that before the outbreak of the periodic economic crisis in 2008, “barbarism” was always the main theme of early 21st-century imperialism. Many American left-wing scholars, while criticizing the barbaric nature of imperialism, also demonstrated the scientific political theoretical perspective of Marxism. First, they criticized capitalist globalization for fueling imperialist hegemony and condemned the era of crisis brought about by “globalization-neoliberal militarism.” Samir Amin and others led this view. They argued that imperialism exists within the inherent requirements of capitalist expansion, and globalization is its inevitable step; in its third historical stage, imperialism controls the global market through capital expansion, plunders the earth’s resources wantonly, controls ideological discourse, and consolidates its hegemony with military force, revealing the authoritarian essence of imperialism. The journal’s editorial board compared the Iraq War with the Vietnam War, criticizing that right-wing conservative militarist forces and imperialist goals made it impossible for the U.S. to extricate itself from Iraq. Noam Chomsky also called the U.S. predicament in the Middle East an “imminent crisis.” Second, they pointed out that imperialism is equivalent to terrorism, summarily proposing the “two wings of the eagle” theory of the American-style empire. After the “9/11” incident, Monthly Review countered the hateful rhetoric of the American right-wing media. Chomsky clearly stated that the U.S. has always been a supporter and participant in terrorism, bluntly calling the U.S. the number one terrorist state, arguing that terrorism is only equivalent to America’s “low-intensity warfare,” and that terrorism pales in comparison to imperialism. The U.S. brazenly launched the Iraq War, shocking the world. Instead of lengthy discussions on the coldness and inhumanity of imperial wars, William Tabb called the U.S. construction of the world economic system and global military intervention the “two wings of the eagle”—on one side, Wilsonian multilateral thinking, striving to establish a global system of state governance; on the other side, a unilateralist authoritarian attitude, believing that the way to gain respect is to wield the “big stick”; “one is politically inclined toward liberalism, maintaining the open trading system advocated by transnational financial capital, while the other practices cowboy capitalism,” adopting conservative policies in areas such as the oil industry, military contracting, and religious propaganda. Tabb believed that these two interchangeable “faces” of the U.S. were nothing more than wanting both the “face” of a neoliberal leader and the “substance” of American-style military hegemony. These two swords run through the entire behavior of imperialism and are the intrinsic essence of its barbarism. Third, they analyzed the structural harms of imperialist politics and predicted that imperialist monopoly finance would inevitably trigger deep economic and political dangers. István Mészáros frankly stated that the political and legal systems radiated by imperialism have caused insecurity and threats worldwide; even major issues concerning human survival can still “reach sinful resolutions” at the highest U.S. decision-making level. Imperial politics dominated by private monopoly capital have poisoned the world. At the same time, Monthly Review observed that compared with neoliberalism and globalization, financialization is one of the least discussed new features of imperialism. Many scholars keenly sensed the risk of financial crisis, directly pointing out that financialization leads to financial bubbles, increases speculative behavior, helps the monopoly class weaken the role of the state in the political sphere, and places the world on the edge of uncontrollable danger, making it a “fatal straw” that could crush the empire.

第一阶段，“野蛮的帝国”——帝国主义鼎盛期（2000—2007年）。《每月评论》的评述显示，在2008年的周期性经济危机爆发之前，“野蛮”始终是21世纪初帝国主义的主旋律，多位美国左翼学者开始在批判帝国主义野蛮性的同时，也展示马克思主义的科学政治理论视野。一是批评资本主义全球化助长帝国主义霸权，批判“全球化—新自由主义的军国主义”带来的时代危局。萨米尔·阿明等人引领这一观点，他们认为帝国主义存在于资本主义扩张的内在要求之中，全球化是其必然步骤；帝国主义在其历史第三阶段以资本扩张控制全球市场，肆意掠夺地球资源，控制意识形态话语权，并以军事力量巩固自身霸权，展现了帝国主义的威权主义本质。刊物编辑部将伊拉克战争与越南战争比较，批评右翼保守的军国主义势力和帝国主义目标使美国在伊无法脱身。诺姆·乔姆斯基也把美国的中东困局称为“迫在眉睫的危机”。二是指出帝国主义等同于恐怖主义，总结性提出美式帝国“鹰之两翼”论。“9·11”事件后，《每月评论》反击美国右翼媒体的仇恨论调，乔姆斯基明确指出，美国一直以来就是恐怖主义的支持者和参与者，直言美国是头号恐怖主义国家，认为恐怖主义只相当于美国的“低强度战争”，在帝国主义面前恐怖主义只能相形见绌。美国悍然发动伊拉克战争让世界哗然，相比于长篇累牍探讨帝国战争的冷酷和反人道，威廉·塔布将美国的世界经济体系构建和全球军事干预称为“鹰之两翼”——一边是威尔逊主义的多边思想，力图建立全球性国家治理体系，另一边是单边主义威权态度，认为获得尊重的方式就是动用“大棒”；“一种在政治方面倾向于自由主义，维护跨国金融资本主张的开放贸易系统，另一种奉行牛仔资本主义”，在石油工业、军事承包、宗教宣传等方面采取保守政策。塔布认为美国自由切换的这两套“嘴脸”，无非是既要新自由主义领袖的“面子”，又要美式军国霸权的“里子”，这两把剑贯穿着帝国主义行为始终，是其野蛮性的内在本质。三是分析帝国主义政治的结构性危害，预言帝国主义垄断金融必将引发经济政治深层危险。梅扎罗斯坦言帝国主义辐射出的政治和法律制度已在世界范围内造成不安与威胁，即使关乎人类安危的重大议题依然能在美国的最高决策层“达成罪恶的决议”，私人垄断资本主导的帝国政治已荼毒世界。与此同时，《每月评论》观察到，与新自由主义和全球化相比，金融化是讨论最少的帝国主义新特征之一，诸多学者敏锐察觉金融危机风险，直接指出金融化导致金融泡沫，增加投机行为，有利于垄断阶级在政治领域削弱国家作用，并将世界置于不可控制的危险边缘，是可能压垮帝国的“致命稻草”。

The second phase, “Cracks in the Empire” — the period of imperialist crisis (2008–2015). The subprime mortgage crisis that erupted in the United States in 2008 ultimately triggered a global financial tsunami like a row of dominoes, plunging capitalism into its most severe systemic crisis since the “Great Depression.” During this period, the American Left concentrated its harsh political critique on the imperialist crisis. First, it attacked the financial monopoly class of imperialism for causing uncontrollable economic and social disasters, pointing out that the financial crisis, together with military setbacks, jointly led to the gradual loss of U.S. global hegemony. McChesney and others directly targeted the institutional defects behind the financial crisis, namely that U.S. politics still showed no concern for the classic democratic concept of the people, caring only about selecting political spokespersons who best represented the interests of capital, thereby harming the world through laissez-faire. [9]9 John Bellamy Foster, “The Financialization of Capital and the Crisis,” *Monthly Review* 59, no. 11 (2008): 1–19; Robert W. McChesney, “The Political Economy of Media and the Crisis of Journalism,” *Monthly Review* 60, no. 4 (2008): 1–14. Tabb argued that U.S. militarism in Afghanistan and Iraq not only discredited its unilateralism but also, with the ensuing global crisis triggered by the financial crisis, rendered the “Washington Consensus” a dead letter; the complete failure of both “wings of the imperial eagle” plunged the United States into a predicament of the times. [10]10 William K. Tabb, “The Crisis of the Washington Consensus,” *Monthly Review* 60, no. 3 (2008): 1–15. Second, it called on the Left to seize the opportunity of the imperialist crisis, analyzing social movements such as “Occupy Wall Street,” while exposing the increasingly prominent fascist ideology within imperialism, so as to prevent the world situation from sliding into danger and turmoil. Michael Yates and others pointed out that the “Occupy Wall Street” movement profoundly reflected the internal contradictions of imperialism; the U.S. lobbying-based electoral system and the strategy of “depoliticization” exacerbated domestic class divisions, while imperialist global cooperation created greater exploitation in international society, rendering the democratic system aimed at fairness and justice a dead letter. [11]11 Michael D. Yates, “The Great Inequality,” *Monthly Review* 63, no. 10 (2012): 1–18. Faced with the heavy blow suffered by imperialism under the financial crisis, the United States intended to revive a conservative geopolitical adversarial strategy; the financial crisis ignited the “spark” of fascism within imperialism. Foster and others urgently called for vigilance against the “American-style war virus” and comprehensively opposed the imperial politics controlled by oligarchic capital, advocating a people’s struggle to lead a new internationalist liberation movement. [12]12 John Bellamy Foster, “The Epochal Crisis,” *Monthly Review* 65, no. 5 (2013): 1–17. Amin pointed out that imperialism’s armed interventions and suppression of democracy around the world manifested a dangerous variant trend of fascism that required strict vigilance. [13]13 Samir Amin, “The Return of Fascism in Contemporary Capitalism,” *Monthly Review* 66, no. 4 (2014): 1–12. Third, it dialectically analyzed the popular Leftist thesis of “new imperialism,” arguing that the current stage remains that of “global monopoly-finance capital” imperialism. Regarding the stage and attributes of the new-century imperialist form with new characteristics in the process of human historical development, *Monthly Review* offered an independent academic view. In the July 2015 issue of *Imperialism Monthly*, Foster and Amin, among others, did not fully endorse views such as postmodern empire, ultra-imperialism, transnational capitalism, or the “new imperialism” of neoliberalism (which replace classical theory). They argued that even if the “phenomenology” of imperialism had changed, the “basic parameters of imperialism” depicted in classical Marxist works remained the theoretical core; 21st-century imperialism is a new stage of “global monopoly-finance capital,” which politically does not exceed the scope of classical Marxist theory. Therefore, current imperialism remains a temporal-spatial continuation of the era of imperialism in classical theory.

第二阶段，“帝国的裂缝”——帝国主义危机期（2008—2015年）。2008年美国爆发的次贷危机最终如多米诺骨牌般引发全球金融海啸，资本主义就此陷入“大萧条”以来最严重的系统性危机，美国左翼在此时期集中对帝国主义危机予以严厉政治批判。一是抨击帝国主义的金融垄断阶级引发不可控制的经济社会灾难，指出金融危机与军事挫败共同导致美帝国主义逐渐失去全球霸权。麦克切斯尼等人直指金融危机背后的制度弊端，即美国政治依然不关心关于人的经典民主概念，只在意选择最能代表资本势力的政治代言人，在放任中危害了世界。塔布认为美国在阿富汗和伊拉克的军国主义行为不仅让其单边主义声名狼藉，随之而来的金融危机引发的全球性危机更让“华盛顿共识”名存实亡，帝国主义“鹰之两翼”全线失灵让美国陷入时代困局。二是呼吁左翼抓住帝国主义危机机遇，剖析“占领华尔街”等社会运动，同时揭露帝国主义中日益抬头的法西斯主义思想，避免世界局势走向危险与动荡。迈克尔·耶茨等人指出，“占领华尔街”运动深刻反映帝国主义的内在矛盾，美国的游说选举制和“去政治化”策略加剧了国内的阶级裂痕，而帝国主义全球合作则在国际社会制造更大剥削，让以公平正义为目标的民主制度名存实亡。而面对金融危机下帝国主义遭受的重创，美国意欲重拾保守的地缘敌对战略，金融危机使帝国主义燃起法西斯主义“火苗”，福斯特等人疾呼警 惕“美式战争病毒”，并全面反对寡头资本控制的帝国政治，倡导以人民斗争引领新的国际主义解放运动；阿明指出帝国主义在世界各地的武装干预和压制民主的行为体现法西斯主义的危险变种趋向，需要严加警惕。三是辩证分析左翼流行的“新帝国主义”论断，认为当前仍处于“全球垄断—金融资本”帝国主义阶段。关于新世纪具有新特点的帝国主义样态在人类历史发展进程中的阶段和属性问题，《每月评论》给出了独立的学术观点。在2015年7月的《帝国主义月刊》中，福斯特和阿明等人皆不完全赞同（取代经典理论的）后现代帝国、超帝国主义、跨国资本主义、新自由主义的“新帝国主义”等观点，认为即使帝国主义的“现象学”发生了变化，马克思主义经典著作中所描绘的“帝国主义基本参数”仍是理论核心，21世纪的帝国主义是“全球垄断—金融资本”的新阶段，在政治上未超出马克思主义经典理论范畴，因此当前的帝国主义仍是经典理论中帝国主义时代的时空延续。

The third phase, “The Late Empire” — the period of imperialist decay (2016–present). Having failed to achieve fundamental self-transformation during its period of difficulty, imperialism instead embarked on a more conservative and reactionary path. *Monthly Review* harshly criticized the “senile” and frantic “struggles” of imperialism, arguing that imperialism has entered its late stage, and its destruction of the earth and civilization has become increasingly severe, urgently requiring institutional change. First, it unequivocally exposed the neo-fascist essence of the Trump administration, resolutely criticizing the right-wing politics that harm the world. While other left-wing publications avoided discussing U.S. neo-fascist practices, *Monthly Review* resolutely and independently pointed out that Trump’s election marked the entry of U.S. imperialist hegemonic crisis into its most severe stage, and that it had gradually fallen into the vortex of neo-fascism. [14]14 John Bellamy Foster, “Neofascism in the White House,” *Monthly Review* 68, no. 8 (2017): 1–30. In a debate with *New Left Review* editor Dylan Riley, Foster systematically discussed the evil combination of neo-fascism and contemporary imperialism, bluntly stating that Trump-style fascism incited the rise of right-wing reactionary forces worldwide, posing a huge threat to the development of human society. [15]15 John Bellamy Foster, “The New Imperialism of Globalized Monopoly-Finance Capital: A Reply to Dylan Riley,” *Monthly Review* 70, no. 7 (2018): 1–20. Faced with the raging COVID-19 pandemic, Foster and Rob Wallace, among others, pointed out that neoliberalism and neo-fascism expanded the repression of the capitalist state system during the special period, and their accompanying political schemes of racism, nationalism, and other forces that divide the world became increasingly rampant. [16]16 John Bellamy Foster and Rob Wallace, “Capitalism and the Pandemic,” *Monthly Review* 72, no. 2 (2020): 1–16. Second, it deeply analyzed the new-type imperialist political structure of today, discerning the political “dead end” of imperialism. Amin and others directly pointed out that contemporary imperialism consists of a ruling class of a tiny minority of the ultra-rich and profiteers, which divides the proletariat and expresses political rule through a new type of “political stratum” and media clergy, using an extremely deformed and decadent political system to obstruct its own and society’s progress. [17]17 Samir Amin, “The Political Economy of the New Imperialism,” *Monthly Review* 71, no. 3 (2019): 1–14. Third, it pointed out the severe destruction of the earth’s ecology and security by “late imperialism,” arguing that the demise of imperialism has become a real possibility, and proposed left-wing strategies for dealing with imperialism. *Monthly Review* combined its long-standing Marxist ecological critique with economic and political critique, arguing that imperialism in the “Anthropocene” will directly destroy the planetary home, not only driving capitalism to its demise but also pushing human civilization toward destruction, thereby bringing imperialism into its late stage. [18]18 John Bellamy Foster, “The Anthropocene and the Imperial Mode of Production,” *Monthly Review* 72, no. 11 (2021): 1–20. Foster pointed out that humanity in late imperialism faces multiple threats such as neoliberalism, neo-fascism, fossil fuel capital, and permanent militarism; the Left must carry out social revolution, struggle against all imperialism, racism, global patriarchy, and ecocide, abolish and transcend the “Leviathan” state of capital, and unite the common strength of the world’s working class. [19]19 John Bellamy Foster, “Late Imperialism,” *Monthly Review* 73, no. 6 (2021): 1–25. The late imperialism theory of *Monthly Review* undoubtedly provides important inspiration for the organization and rise of left-wing political struggle in the new phase.

第三阶段，“帝国的晚期”——帝国主义衰败期（2016年至今）。帝国主义在困境时期未能实现自身根本性变革，反而走上更为保守反动的道路，《每月评论》对帝国主义“垂暮”的疯狂“挣扎”予以严厉抨击，认为帝国主义已走向晚期，其对地球和文明的破坏也愈加强烈，亟须予以制度变革。一是旗帜鲜明揭露特朗普政权的新法西斯主义本质，对危害世界的右翼政治进行坚决批判。在其他左翼刊物避谈美国的新法西斯主义行径时，《每月评论》坚决而独立地指出特朗普的当选标志着美帝国主义的霸权危机进入最严重阶段，并已逐渐堕入新法西斯主义漩涡。福斯特在与《新左派评论》编辑迪伦·莱利的论战中系统论述新法西斯主义与当前帝国主义的邪恶结合，直言特朗普式法西斯主义煽动世界范围内右翼反动势力崛起，给人类社会发展带来巨大威胁。面对新冠肺炎疫情的肆虐，福斯特和罗伯·华莱士等人指出，新自由主义和新法西斯主义扩大了特殊时期的资本主义国家体系镇压，其携带的种族主义、民族主义等割裂世界的政治图谋日益猖獗。二是深刻分析当今的新型帝国主义政治结构，洞察帝国主义的政治“死胡同”。阿明等人直接指出，当代帝国主义由极少数富人与奸商构成统治阶级，分割无产阶级群体，通过新型的“政治阶层”和媒体神职人员来表达政治统治，以极度畸形腐朽的政治制度阻碍自身与社会的进步。三是指出“晚期帝国主义”对地球生态和安全的严重破坏，帝国主义的灭亡已成为现实可能，提出左翼对帝国主义的应对策略。《每月评论》将长期坚持的马克思主义生态批判与经济、政治批判相结合，认为“人类世”的帝国主义将直接摧毁地球家园，不仅使资本主义走向灭亡，更会把人类文明推向毁灭，这使帝国主义步入晚期。福斯特指出，人类在晚期帝国主义面临着新自由主义、新法西斯主义、化石能源资本、永久性军国主义等多重威胁，左翼必须进行社会革命，与所有帝国主义、种族主义、全球父权制度和生态灭绝进行斗争，废除和超越资本“利维坦”状态，凝聚世界工人阶级的共同力量。《每月评论》的晚期帝国主义理论无疑对新阶段左翼政治斗争的组织和兴起提供了重要启示。

III. Conceptions of Future-Oriented Socio-Political Revolution: 21st-Century Socialism and Eco-Socialist Revolution

三、面向未来的社会政治革命构想：21世纪社会主义与生态社会主义革命

Amid the epochal crisis of capitalism moving toward its “late stage,” left-wing scholars worldwide are pondering the means of change to save the perilous situation of human civilization and the survival disaster of the planet. Theoretical and practical considerations regarding socialist revolution are increasingly becoming a new trend in Marxist political studies. At a time when traditional workers’ movements and socialist revolutions are struggling, socialist voices are gradually fading, and socialist models face the need for breakthroughs, *Monthly Review* actively supports and promotes diverse conceptions of socialist change. From the broad perspective of global politics, economy, culture, society, and ecology, it explores future-oriented paths of socialist revolution. Among these, the revolutionary explorations of 21st-century socialism and eco-socialism have become key theories that the journal has focused on in the new century, providing a thought-provoking socialist “alternative agenda” to the capitalist political landscape.

在资本主义迈向“晚期”的时代危机之下，世界左翼学者纷纷思考拯救人类文明危局和星球生存灾难的变革手段，关于社会主义革命的理论和实践考量日益成为马克思主义政治学的研究新趋势。在传统工人运动和社会主义革命举步艰难、社会主义声音逐渐式微、社会主义模式面临突破之际，《每月评论》积极支持和推崇多元化的社会主义变革构想，在放眼全球政治、经济、文化、社会和生态的大视野下，探寻面向未来的社会主义革命道路。其中21世纪社会主义和生态社会主义的革命探索成为期刊在新世纪着重关注的重点理论，为资本主义政治格局提供了发人深省的社会主义“替代议程”。

First, it advocates the theory of 21st-century socialism, adopting the unique perspective of “returning to Marx” in an attempt to “break the old and establish the new” to create a socialist political dimension for the new century. Since the turn of the century, the world socialist movement has not yet fully emerged from its low ebb. *Monthly Review* still regards the exploration of the political and economic system transformation of socialism as a key issue for theoretical discussion. Among these, the political construction theory of Venezuela’s “21st-century socialism” expounded by Michael Lebowitz and others is quite representative, greatly expanding contemporary Marxist political science. First, it defines the basic connotation of 21st-century socialism. Lebowitz clearly explains three points of connotation for 21st-century socialism: (1) It is not capitalism; society’s goal is to meet human needs and realize the development of human capabilities, and people do not need to sell their labor; (2) It is not top-down; it rejects any state existing above society, but it is by no means populism; (3) It is not extremism; it does not prescribe personal beliefs, does not worship technology and productive forces, and maintains ecological harmony. Lebowitz’s definition of 21st-century socialism differs significantly from previous socialist theories. He calls for bottom-up democratic innovation but opposes populist practices, rejects the absolute control of political authority but demands the distributive function of society, and opposes the ecological degradation and camp antagonism caused by materialism and ideology. These proposals demonstrate a reference to and reflection on past socialist practices. Although his discussion of the organization, role, and position of the political state is vague, it still constitutes a certain innovative new socialist political vision. Second, it proposes the “basic triangle of socialism” and the theory of political transformation. Lebowitz believes that the construction of a new socialist political system cannot be separated from the three most basic elements of socialism: the mutual balance among social property, social production, and social needs. The establishment of this stable “triangle” requires using social wealth for the people, developing the people through social production, and satisfying the people through social needs. To ensure the stability of this “triangle,” political means must be used to integrate state capital and terminate the control and utilization of the state apparatus by old capital. Unlike traditional socialist transformation theories, Lebowitz proposes achieving genuine socialist political change through the people’s sense of “ownership.” While absorbing and inheriting the basic elements of the old society, new institutions are created for cooperative planning and labor distribution, with the aim of meeting the people’s own needs, gradually constructing the political and economic life of the new society, forming a bottom-up “progressive” democratic state, thereby making the new state completely subordinate to society, and fully tapping human potential through “self-work and autonomous communes.” He advocates drawing on Marx’s partial theory of the transitional stage in the *Critique of the Gotha Programme* and adopting a Lukácsian method of constructing “class consciousness,” [20]20 György Lukács (1885–1971) was a Hungarian Marxist philosopher and literary critic. His concept of “class consciousness” refers to the awareness by the proletariat of its historical role and the need for revolutionary transformation, as opposed to the “false consciousness” imposed by capitalist ideology. contrary to the Soviet model, to shape the political entity. This makes the path of 21st-century socialism clearly innovative, markedly different from the establishment paths of traditional socialist states and systems. Third, it creates a “new human” of socialism in political practice. Lebowitz points out that while capitalism produces material products, it also produces the alienated product of humanity—the proletariat. As a new socialism, it must produce a “new human”—the socialist human. Citing Chávez’s discussion of socialist reform, he argues that the new type of socialism is a humanism, whose core lies in promoting human development through practice and promoting comprehensive human development through social movements, thereby creating socialists. “21st-century socialism is the revival of revolution, that is, the return to Marx’s understanding of socialism.” Cultivating the new socialist human is an inevitable political requirement and important political guarantee for constructing and consolidating new socialism, enabling the theory of 21st-century socialism to form a complete theoretical loop.

第一，倡导21世纪社会主义理论，以“回到马克思”的独特视角，力图“破旧立新”地创建新世纪的社会主义政治维度。新世纪以来，世界社会主义运动还没有完全走出低潮，《每月评论》仍把社会主义政治和经济制度转型探索作为理论研讨的关键问题，其中迈克尔·莱博维奇等人阐释的委内瑞拉“21世纪社会主义”的政治构建理论颇具代表性，极大扩展了当代马克思主义政治学。一是定义21世纪社会主义的基本内涵。莱博维奇开宗明义解释了21世纪社会主义的三点内涵：（1）它不是资本主义，社会的目标是满足人的需要，实现人类能力的发展，人们无须出售自己的劳动；（2）它不是自上而下的，拒绝一切凌驾于社会之上的国家存在，但它也绝不是民粹主义；（3）它不是极端主义，不规定个人信仰，不崇拜技术与生产力，维护生态和谐。莱博维奇对21世纪社会主义的定义与以往社会主义理论有显著不同，他号召自下而上的民主革新但反对民粹主义实践，拒绝政治权威的绝对掌控但要求社会的分配功能，反对物质主义和意识形态导致的生态恶化和阵营对立，这些倡议表现出对以往社会主义实践的借鉴和反思，虽然对政治国家的组织、地位和作用的论述模糊，仍不失为某种创新的新社会主义政治畅想。二是提出“社会主义基本三角”及政治改造理论。莱博维奇认为，新的社会主义政治制度的构建离不开社会主义最基本的三个要素，即社会财产、社会生产和社会需求之间的相互平衡。这个稳定“三角形”的建立需要将社会财富用于人民、以社会生产发展人民、靠社会需求满足人民，而为保证这个“三角形”的稳固，必须利用政治手段整合国家资本，终止旧资本对国家机器的控制和利用。不同于传统的社会主义改造理论，莱博维奇提出通过人民的“主人翁”意识实现真正的社会主义政治变革，吸收和继承旧社会基本要素的同时，创建新机构进行合作计划和劳动分配，以满足人民自身需要的宗旨将新社会的政治经济生活逐步构建，形成自下而上的“累进式”民主国家，从而使新的国家完全服从于社会，通过“自我工作和自治的公社”把人的潜能全部挖掘。他主张通过借鉴马克思《哥达纲领批判》中关于过渡阶段的部分理论，采取与苏联模式相反的、卢卡奇式的“阶级意识”构建法塑造政治实体，这就使21世纪社会主义道路具备明显创新性，与传统社会主义国家和制度的建立路径迥然不同。三是在政治实践中制造社会主义“新人类”。莱博维奇指出，资本主义在生产物质产品的同时，也生产了人的异化产品——无产阶级，而作为新的社会主义则必须生产“新人类”——社会主义人类。他援引查韦斯的社会主义改革论述，指出新型的社会主义是一种人文主义，其核心在于以实践推动人类发展，以社会运动推动人类全面发展，从而制造社会主义者。“21世纪的社会主义是革命的复兴，即对马克思的社会主义认识的复归。”培养社会主义新人类是构建和巩固新社会主义的必然政治要求和重要政治保障，可使21世纪社会主义理论形成完整的理论闭环。

Second, on the basis of criticizing the existing capitalist system and developing Marxist ecological thought, it insists on the future political construction pattern of ecological socialism, depicting a political blueprint for building ecological socialism. The most representative figure in *Monthly Review*’s Marxist ecological studies is undoubtedly John Bellamy Foster, professor of sociology at the University of Oregon. Since 2000, this prolific scholar has continuously published high-level academic papers in *Monthly Review* as editor-in-chief, attacking the “epochal crisis” derived from capitalist global hegemony and constructing a political path for advancing the ecological socialist revolution. Foster’s political construction of ecological socialism mainly contains three major propositions. First, it is necessary to smash the root cause of the destruction of human sustainable development—the capitalist system—to carry out social revolution guided by scientific Marxism, construct the entire political analytical framework, reshape the huge redistribution system, and create a socialist model compatible with human needs and the planet’s development. In the “late” stage of monopoly financial capital control, capitalism’s systemic structural harm not only leads to unavoidable financial and economic crises but also overdraws the earth’s resources and environment, endangering human survival, and must be replaced. Foster believes the direction of social revolution should be, as Lewis Mumford stated in *The Condition of Man*: distribution according to need rather than ability or production contribution, to achieve a stable form of economy. This socialist form does not use social surplus but social remainder to satisfy and serve human needs and ecological sustainability, transferring power to the producers, replacing exchange value with use value, in order to realize the harmonious coexistence of man and nature. This requires adhering to Marx’s historical materialism and the theory of metabolic rift [21]21 Marx’s concept of “metabolic rift” describes the disruption of the natural nutrient cycle between society and nature under capitalism, particularly in agriculture, leading to ecological degradation. at the practical level, completing social transformation from political, ecological, economic, and other aspects. Second, political revolution must be realized by people; the revolutionary subject is the newly emerging “environmental proletariat,” and the revolution needs to unite all progressive social movements. Ecological Marxists believe that the working class is recognizing the connection between its own survival crisis and capitalism, thereby becoming the “environmental proletariat,” making class struggle not limited to the economic level. The realistic manifestation of “common revolution” is increasingly strong, thus enriching the connotation of class struggle in the current era. The traditional working-class politics, together with environmental struggles, struggles of people of color, women’s movements, and other broadly influential social movements, form the broadest revolutionary alliance, which will powerfully impact the core regions of imperialism and the rule of the capitalist world, lead contemporary social change with a more scientific Marxist left-wing spirit, and promote the propaganda and construction of socialism. Third, it explains the two-stage theory of social revolution, discussing the current revolution’s “minimum program” and the future plan’s “maximum program,” concretizing and visualizing the political practice of ecological Marxism. Foster has planned two stages of struggle for the current ecological socialist political struggle: (1) In the immediate democratic stage, it attempts to establish a broad revolutionary front alliance, unite all forces that can be united, and rally humanity oppressed by the bourgeoisie to create a sustainable social development model; (2) Entering the ecological socialist stage, it establishes a society of substantive equality, sustainability, and collective democracy, realizing human liberation and the return of nature. Foster emphasizes that to realize the “minimum program,” key measures must be taken such as reducing carbon emissions, redistributing wealth, developing new energy, transferring military spending, phasing out fossil fuels, advocating global cooperation, and upholding environmental justice, thereby providing a foundation for the “maximum program,” establishing an ecological socialism of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” [22]22 This phrase, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” is a classic formulation of the distributive principle of a fully communist society, found in Marx’s *Critique of the Gotha Programme* (1875). reconstructing the social metabolic system on a more public, fair, and just basis, combining social management and ecological planning with political change and global governance, and providing good institutional guarantees for human reproduction and the planet’s survival. The ecological socialism advocated and envisioned by Foster aims to construct a socialism that truly conforms to the requirements of nature and belongs to the broad masses of the people, constituting a theoretical contribution to the unremitting struggle for human freedom and survival in the 21st century.

第二，在批判现有资本主义制度和发展马克思主义生态思想的基础上，坚持未来的生态社会主义政治构建格局，为建设生态社会主义描绘政治图景。《每月评论》的马克思主义生态学研究代表人物莫过于俄勒冈大学社会学教授约翰·贝拉米·福斯特，2000年以来这位高产的学者以主编身份持续在《每月评论》发表高水平学术论文，抨击资本主义全球霸权衍生的“划时代危机”，为推进生态社会主义革命构建政治路径。福斯特关于生态社会主义的政治构建主要蕴含三大主张。一是必须击碎破坏人类可持续发展的根源——资本主义制度，以科学的马克思主义为指导进行社会革命，构建整个政治分析架构，重塑庞大的再分配体系，创建与人类需要和星球发展相适应的社会主义模式。资本主义在垄断金融资本控制的“晚期”阶段，其系统的结构性危害不仅导致无法避免的金融和经济危机，更透支地球的资源环境，危及人类生存，必须予以替代。福斯特认为社会革命的方向应如刘易斯·芒福德在《人类状况》中所言的：根据需要而非根据能力或生产贡献分配，以实现经济的稳定形态。这种社会主义形态不以社会盈余而以社会剩余满足与服务于人类需要和生态的可持续性，将权力转交给生产者，用使用价值代替交换价值，以期实现人与自然的和谐共生。这就要在实践层面必须坚持马克思的唯物史观和代谢断裂理论，从政治、生态、经济等多方面完成社会转型。二是政治的革命必须由人来实现，革命主体是新生的“环境无产阶级”，革命需要联合一切进步的社会运动。生态马克思主义者认为工人阶级正在认识到自身生存危机与资本主义的关联，从而成为“环境无产阶级”，使阶级斗争不仅限于经济层面，“共同革命”的现实表现愈加强烈，这就丰富了当今时代阶级斗争的内涵。传统的工人阶级政治与环境斗争、有色人种抗争、妇女运动等具有广泛影响的社会运动一起，组成最为广大的革命联盟，将强有力地冲击帝国主义核心地区和资本主义世界统治，以更具科学性的马克思主义左翼精神引领当代社会变革，推动社会主义的宣传与构建。三是阐释社会革命的两阶段论，论述当前革命的“最低纲领”和未来规划的“最高纲领”，把生态马克思主义政治实践具体化、可视化地铺展开来。福斯特为当下的生态社会主义政治斗争规划了两大斗争阶段：（1）在眼前的民主主义阶段，试图建立广泛的革命阵线联盟，团结一切可以团结的力量，凝聚被资产阶级压迫的人类创建可持续的社会发展模式；（2）步入生态社会主义阶段，建立实质性的平等、可持续和集体民主的社会，实现人的解放和自然复归。福斯特强调，为实现“最低纲领”，必须采取减少碳排放、财富再分配、开发新能源、转移军事开支、停用化石燃料、倡导全球合作、坚守环境正义等关键举措，从而为“最高纲领”提供基础，建立“各尽所能，按需分配”的生态社会主义，使社会代谢系统在更加公有、公平、公正的基础上重新建构，将社会管理和生态规划与政治变革和全球治理相结合，为人类繁衍和地球生息提供良好的机制保障。福斯特倡议和构想的生态社会主义旨在构建真正合乎自然要求的、属于广大人民的社会主义，是21世纪为人类自由和生存不懈斗争而做出的理论贡献。

IV. The Innovations and Limitations of 21st-Century *Monthly Review*: Has the Spring of Left-Wing Politics Arrived?

四、21世纪《每月评论》的创新与局限：左翼政治的春天来了？

In the 21st century, the scholars of *Monthly Review* have advanced the new development of Marxist political science and world socialism with a firm left-wing stance and a refined academic attitude, making significant innovations in many major theoretical and practical fields. At the same time, however, *Monthly Review* also exhibits clear limitations; its analyses of many controversial issues remain open to debate, and the political spring for the left still has a long way to go.

21世纪《每月评论》的学者们以坚定的左翼立场和精进的学术态度推进马克思主义政治学和世界社会主义的新发展，在主要理论和实践领域做出多方面重大创新。但与此同时，《每月评论》也体现出明显局限性，对诸多争议问题的分析仍待商榷，左翼的政治春天任重而道远。

The Marxist political science discussions in *Monthly Review* have important innovative significance for the present era. First, they develop new theories that are timely, closely following the new circumstances, new needs, new goals, and new practices of left-wing political development in the 21st century, exploring a developing Marxist political science against historical and contemporary backgrounds, organically linking classical theory with global politics, economy, culture, society, and ecology, and using a problem-oriented approach to drive Marxism forward with determination. Second, they explore new propositions that are revolutionary, daring to transcend classical Marxist political theory, using radical academic viewpoints to lead the 21st-century left-wing movement in breaking through shackles, launching a powerful assault on the old system and old authority of capitalism, and issuing a battle cry for the realization of the socialist blueprint. Third, they open up a new pattern that is international, gathering global left-wing political scholars with an academic breadth that embraces all rivers, concentrating the academic talents of Marxist theorists worldwide, creating a new situation of Marxist theory that is pluralistic, diverse, multilateral, and multidimensional, and enriching the research scope of Marxist political science with regional theories that have their own characteristics and representativeness. Overall, the pioneering innovations of *Monthly Review* in these fields have opened up an extremely broad academic space for the entirely new development of Marxist political science, worthy of praise and emulation by left-wing scholars worldwide.

《每月评论》的马克思主义政治学研讨在当今时代具有重要创新意义。一是发展具有时代性的新理论，紧扣21世纪左翼政治发展的新情况、新需要、新目标、新实践，在历史和现实背景中探索发展的马克思主义政治学，将经典理论与全球政治、经济、文化、社会、生态等进行有机联系，以问题导向推动马克思主义砥砺前行。二是探索具有革命性的新命题，敢于超越经典马克思主义政治学理论，以激进的学术观点引领21世纪的左翼运动突破桎梏，向资本主义旧体制与旧权威发起强有力的冲击，向实现社会主义蓝图发出战斗呐喊。三是开拓具有国际性的新格局，以海纳百川的学术胸襟汇聚全球左翼政治学者，集中世界马克思主义理论工作者的学术才能，开创多元、多样、多边、多维的马克思主义理论新局面，以各具特色和代表性的区域理论丰富马克思主义政治学的研究范畴。总体而言，《每月评论》在这些领域的开拓创新为马克思主义政治学的全新发展开辟了极为广阔的学术空间，值得世界左翼学者称道和学习。

On the other hand, *Monthly Review* has also shown some controversies and deviations in its Marxist political science research, and there remains considerable room for development and improvement in the future; the political spring for the American left is far from having arrived. First, the American left has suffered suppression and attack from the right-wing conservative forces in power; not only do their academic viewpoints find it difficult to enter the mainstream, but even left-wing scholars have been subjected to unwarranted surveillance and groundless smearing. The publication and distribution of the journal have been constrained by funding, which to some extent has affected *Monthly Review*'s further refinement and improvement of academic research. Second, the American left's study of Marxism does not fully inherit the core of classical Marxist theory; its analyses and discussions of political science are often intermingled with Western Marxist viewpoints, supplemented by interdisciplinary research methods. The conclusions and understandings thus formed sometimes contradict classical Marxist theory, and at other times excessively pursue metaphysics while neglecting practical pathways, making *Monthly Review*'s Marxist political science research rich and diverse yet also full of controversy, affecting its operability. Third, the American left's grasp of the achievements of world socialist development is insufficiently comprehensive and accurate; its evaluations of the political theories and practical achievements of major socialist countries are mixed, with inadequate research. In particular, there are errors in its understanding of the path, theory, system, and culture of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and there are certain biases and misreadings of political science research since China's reform and opening up, hindering the journal's correct understanding of world socialist development. It is hoped that as China's responsibilities and discourse in world socialist development increase, Western left-wing scholars represented by *Monthly Review* will correctly understand the important political implications contained in socialism with Chinese characteristics, laying the foundation and paving the way for the comprehensive revitalization of world left-wing politics. (Notes omitted)

另一方面，《每月评论》在马克思主义政治学研究中也出现了一些争议与偏差，在未来仍具备较大的发展与提升空间，美国左翼的政治春天远未到来。一是美国左翼遭受当局右翼保守势力的打压与攻击，不仅学术观点难以进入主流视野，甚至左派学者也遭到无理监视和无端抹黑，刊物的出版与发行受限于经费，一定程度上影响了《每月评论》对于学术研究的进一步精进和提升。二是美国左翼对于马克思主义的研究并不完全传承经典马克思主义理论内核，关于政治学的研讨分析多与西方马克思主义观点相杂糅，辅以跨学科的研究方法，形成的结论与认识时而与经典马克思主义理论相悖，时而过于追求形而上学但忽视实践路径，使《每月评论》的马克思主义政治学研究虽丰富多样，却也充满争议，影响可操作性。三是美国左翼对世界社会主义发展成就把握不够全面准确，对主要社会主义国家的政治理论和实践成果褒贬不一、研究不足，尤其对中国特色社会主义道路、理论、制度和文化认知存在谬误，对中国改革开放以来的政治学研究存在一定偏见和误读，阻碍了刊物对世界社会主义发展的正确认识。希望随着中国在世界社会主义发展中肩负的责任和话语的提升，以《每月评论》为代表的西方左翼学者能够正确理解中国特色社会主义蕴含的政治学重要意蕴，为世界左翼政治的全面振兴筑石铺路。（注释略）

(Authors: Fu Hao, Postdoctoral Fellow and Assistant Researcher at the Institute of Marxism, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Cheng Enfu, Deputy Director and Chief Professor of the Academic Committee of the University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.)

（作者：符豪，中国社会科学院马克思主义研究院博士后、助理研究员；程恩富，中国社会科学院大学学术委员会副主任、首席教授。）

Online Editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑