A Review of Foreign Marxist Research on the Critique of Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism is a set of institutional designs, policy systems, and ideologies based on liberalism. Its core is the rational-actor hypothesis proposed by mainstream Western economics. This hypothesis holds that as long as each individual freely pursues the maximization of his or her own interests, the interests of the entire society can be maximized. The foundation of this set of ideas originates in the system of private exchange based on contractual relations. For Adam Smith, the founder of liberalism, this contract-based freedom of exchange is most conducive to social development and therefore possesses the highest value. Thus, the freedom of contract and the freedom of exchange become the most fundamental and most important rights within the system of liberal rights. This right simultaneously becomes the starting point for the construction of the entire society and the state. Within the liberal system of rights, the state can only be a “negative state”; it is merely the defender of individual rights, the guardian of contractual relations and market competition. Its existence is merely instrumental and does not itself possess independent value. The autonomy of private rights and the restriction of public power are the essential characteristics of liberal thought.

新自由主义是一套基于自由主义的制度设计、政策体系和意识形态。它的核心是西方主流经济学所提出的理性人假设。这种假设认为，只要每个人自由地追求自己利益的最大化，整个社会的利益就能实现最大化。这套理念的根基源于建立在契约关系之上的私人交换体系。在自由主义的鼻祖亚当·斯密那里，这种基于契约的交换自由最有利于社会发展，因此具有最高的价值。于是，契约的自由、交换的自由也就成为自由权利体系中最根本、最重要的权利。这种权利同时也成为整个社会和国家建构的出发点。在自由主义的权利体系中，国家只能是一个“消极国家”，它只是个人权利的捍卫者、契约关系和市场博弈的看守者，它的存在只是工具性的，其本身不具有独立的价值。私权自治、公权受限，就是自由主义观念的本质特征。

What neoliberalism revives is precisely this set of core values of liberalism. The only difference between neoliberalism and traditional liberalism is that neoliberalism exists in the era of economic globalization. Therefore, the series of policies and ideas it proposes based on the rational-actor hypothesis—such as privatization, liberalization, and marketization—are global in nature and are thus called “universal values.” However, these so-called “universal values” were dealt a heavy blow by the 2008 global financial crisis and the subsequent prolonged Great Recession, suffering a serious crisis. In the analysis and critique of the neoliberal crisis, many Western left-wing scholars have adhered to the Marxist critical tradition, deeply analyzing the new changes in contemporary capitalist relations of production, social relations, political relations, and international relations, and on this basis have explained the entire process of the rise, development, and decline of neoliberalism. This article attempts to systematically review the foreign Marxist critique of neoliberalism and, starting from Marxist financial capital theory, to offer a critical examination of the problems therein.

新自由主义所复活的就是自由主义这一套核心价值理念，新自由主义与传统自由主义的区别仅仅在于，新自由主义是处在经济全球化的时代。因此，它基于理性人假设所提出的私有化、自由化、市场化等一系列政策和理念都具有全球性，因而被称为“普世价值”。但是，这些所谓的“普世价值”理念被2008年全球金融危机以及之后的长期大萧条迎头痛击，遭遇了严重危机。在对新自由主义危机的分析和批判中，西方诸多左翼学者坚持马克思主义的批判传统，深入分析了当代资本主义生产关系、社会关系、政治关系和国际关系的新变化，并在此基础上阐释了新自由主义兴起发展和走向危机的整个过程。本文尝试对国外马克思主义的新自由主义批判进行系统梳理，并从马克思主义金融资本理论出发对其中存在的问题作一批判性审视。

The foreign Marxist critique of neoliberalism encompasses numerous schools with diverse viewpoints, but broadly summarized, there are four main research perspectives: the production perspective, the institutional perspective, the class and race perspective, and the geopolitical perspective.

国外马克思主义对新自由主义的批判流派众多，观点各异，但大体归纳起来，主要有四大研究视角，分别是生产视角、制度视角、阶级与种族视角、地缘政治视角。

I. The Production Perspective

一、生产视角

The production perspective mainly analyzes the rise and fall of neoliberalism from the internal contradictions of the capitalist production process. Its main representatives are the “American Marxist school,” such as Paul Baran, Paul Sweezy, Harry Magdoff, and John Bellamy Foster.

生产视角主要从资本主义生产过程的内在矛盾出发来分析新自由主义的兴衰，其主要代表是“美国马克思主义学派”，如保罗·巴兰（Paul Baran）、保罗·斯威齐（Paul Sweezy）、哈里·马格多夫（Harry Magdoff）、约翰·福斯特（John Bellamy Foster）等。

Based on the experience of Western monopoly capitalist society after the Second World War, Baran and Sweezy systematically analyzed monopoly capitalism. They argued that in the monopoly capitalist stage, capital surplus had replaced overproduction as the principal contradiction facing capitalist society. In this stage, because capitalists form monopoly alliances, they can maintain monopoly high prices, thereby alleviating the problems of overproduction and the falling rate of profit. However, this simultaneously creates a new problem: capital surplus. More and more monopoly profits are difficult to “re-capitalize,” so these surplus capitals turn to speculative activities, increasingly financializing the capitalist economy. The main manifestations are the extreme expansion of the financial sector of the capitalist economy, the increasing proportion of financial profits in total profits, the rising ratio of debt to GDP, and, simultaneously, a power shift within the capitalist class, with the power of financial capitalists increasingly overwhelming that of industrial capitalists. In this regard, Sweezy vividly pointed out: “With the rise of finance capital, the center of economic power also shifted. For a long time, people turned a blind eye to this issue, especially radicals who believed that power in capitalist society lay in the boardrooms of several hundred giant multinational corporations.” However, the situation was different in the late 1990s: “Real power lies less in corporate boardrooms than in financial markets.” In view of the rapid rise of finance capital, Baran and Sweezy called the monopoly capitalism of the post-war period, especially since the 1970s, the era of the “financial explosion,” while Foster called it the era of “monopoly-finance capitalism.” Within this research paradigm, neoliberalism is interpreted by the monopoly capital school as a political-economic strategy reflecting the special interests of financial monopoly capital. Under this strategy, the free flow of money to the financial sector and the preservation and strengthening of financial assets are in many respects more important than production or employment, and it also requires the state to increasingly submit to the demands of financial capitalists. Therefore, it can be said that neoliberalism is a set of policy systems and ideologies created by financial monopoly capital.

巴兰和斯威齐以第二次世界大战后西方垄断资本主义社会的经验为基础，对垄断资本主义进行了系统的分析。他们认为，在垄断资本主义阶段，资本过剩已经替代生产过剩成为资本主义社会面临的主要矛盾。在该阶段，由于资本家结成垄断同盟，从而可以维持垄断高价，致使生产过剩和利润率下降问题得以缓解，但同时却产生了一个新的问题，那就是资本过剩。越来越多的垄断利润难以再“资本化”，于是这些过剩资本转而进行投机活动，从而使资本主义经济日益走向金融化，其主要表现是资本主义经济的金融部门极度膨胀，金融利润在总利润中的比重越来越大，债务占GDP的比重不断上升，同时，资本家集团内部发生权力转移，即金融资本家的权力日益压倒了工业资本家的权力。对此，斯威齐曾形象地指出：“伴随着金融资本的崛起，经济权力的中心也转移了。长久以来，人们对这个问题视而不见，尤其是激进分子认为资本主义社会的权力处于几百个巨型跨国企业的董事会的会议室内。”但是，情况在20世纪90年代后期却有所不同了：“真正的权力与其说在企业董事会的会议室，不如说在金融市场。”鉴于金融资本的迅猛崛起，巴兰和斯威齐把战后尤其是20世纪70年代以来的垄断资本主义称为“金融大爆炸”的时代，福斯特则将其称为“垄断-金融资本主义”时代。在上述研究范式下，新自由主义被垄断资本学派解释为一种反映金融垄断资本特殊利益的政治经济策略。在这种策略下，货币向金融部门的自由流动以及金融资产的保存和强化在很多方面都比生产或就业更加重要，同时也要求国家日益臣服于金融资本家的需求。因此，可以说，新自由主义乃是金融垄断资本所创造的一套政策体系和意识形态。

Besides the monopoly capital school, other Western left-wing scholars such as Giovanni Arrighi and David Harvey also interpret the development of neoliberalism mainly from the perspective of capitalist production, but each has a different emphasis. Harvey, addressing the crisis tendencies within the internal contradictions of capital accumulation, proposed the theory of “spatio-temporal fix.” This theory originates from a reinterpretation of Marx’s tendency for the rate of profit to fall and the resulting trend toward crises of overaccumulation. He argues that the capitalist logic of imperialism lies in finding “spatio-temporal fix” channels for the problem of capital surplus, resolving capitalist crises through time deferral and geographical expansion. If there is a surplus of capital and labor within a specific region, and this surplus cannot be absorbed internally, then it must be exported elsewhere to find new spaces for profit extraction. Harvey believes that the expansion space for capitalism depends on “less economically developed” regions, areas and spaces that are “outside” the production mode of the dominant world power. Capitalist activity produces uneven geographical development, even without considering geographical differences in resource endowments and physical possibilities, as these resource endowments and physical possibilities further enhance regional and spatial differences. Starting from the above theory, Harvey argues that the emergence of neoliberalism is an inherent requirement of finance capital’s “spatio-temporal fix.” It is precisely to achieve a spatio-temporal fix for the problem of capital surplus within a certain geographical space that a certain demand for “freedom” arises. For example, under the Washington Consensus, developed countries require that the economies of developing countries must implement comprehensive freedom and opening-up policies, imposing no excessive restrictions on financial investment from developed countries; the state-owned assets of developing countries themselves must also be fully privatized to ensure “free trade” in financial markets. This kind of freedom is entirely the freedom demanded by capital, a thoroughgoing freedom of capital.

除了垄断资本学派之外，其他西方左翼学者如杰奥瓦尼·阿瑞基 (Giovanni Arrighi)、大卫·哈维 (David Harvey)等也主要从资本主义生产的角度出发来解读新自由主义的发展，但他们各自的侧重点又有不同。哈维针对资本积累内部矛盾的危机倾向，提出了“时间-空间修复”的理论，这一理论源于对马克思关于利润率不断下降并导致过度积累危机趋势的重新阐释。他认为，帝国主义的资本主义逻辑在于为资本过剩问题找出“时间-空间修复”渠道，通过时间延迟和地理扩张来解决资本主义危机。如果某一特定区域内存在资本过剩和劳动力过剩，而且这种过剩不能在内部得以吸收，那么就必须将其输送到其他地方，以寻找新的空间来获取利润。哈维认为，资本主义的扩张空间有赖于“经济不太发达”的地区，这些地区和空间“不在”占主导地位的世界大国的生产模式之内。资本主义活动产生了不均衡的地理发展，即便是在不考虑资源禀赋和物理可能性的地理差异的情况下也是如此，因为这些资源禀赋和物理可能性进一步增强了地域和空间的差异性。从上述理论出发，哈维认为，新自由主义的产生是金融资本进行“时间-空间修复”的内在要求。正是为了对某一个地理空间内的资本过剩问题进行时间和空间的修复，才产生了某种对于“自由”的要求，比如在华盛顿共识下，发达国家要求发展中国家的经济必须实行全面自由和开放的政策，对发达国家的金融投资不得施加过多的限制；发展中国家自身的国有资产也要充分私有化，以保障金融市场上的“自由买卖”。这种自由完全是资本所要求的自由，是彻头彻尾的资本自由。

Arrighi largely followed the long-cycle research method of the French historical school represented by Fernand Braudel. Arrighi believed that the production and expansion of capital inevitably fall into stagnation due to intensified competition and a declining rate of profit. To resolve this stagnation, capital instinctively ceases to invest in commodity production and trade and instead turns to financial expansion. In this way, material expansion and financial expansion constitute a complete systemic cycle of accumulation for capitalism, and financial expansion is an inevitable phenomenon in the late phase of each systemic cycle of accumulation. Arrighi argued that the systemic cycle of accumulation is not only a cycle of capital accumulation but also inherently contains the cycle of the rise and decline of hegemonic states. When a hegemonic state transitions from material expansion to financial expansion, that state begins to potentially decline; thus, financial expansion generally heralds the "arrival of autumn" for the hegemonic state. The present era is precisely one in which a cycle of financial expansion has arrived, and this means that the "autumn of American hegemony" has already arrived. Its main manifestations are the hollowing out of the U.S. real economy, the excessive expansion of the virtual economy, prolonged economic stagnation, and frequent financial crises. These crises have greatly weakened the hard power of U.S. hegemony. At the same time, the enormous economic and financial crises brought about by financial expansion have also dealt a heavy blow to the neoliberal international political and economic order dominated by the United States, and have proven with irrefutable facts that neoliberalism seeks not individual freedom but the rule of financial capital. Therefore, Arrighi believed that if the material expansion of capital promoted the formation and rise of neoliberalism, then the financial expansion of capital will ultimately proclaim the decline and crisis of neoliberalism.

阿瑞基在很大程度上遵循了法国历史学派布罗代尔（Fernand Braudel）的长周期研究方法。阿瑞基认为，资本的生产和扩张由于竞争加剧和利润率下降必然会陷入停滞，为了解决这种停滞，资本本能地不再投向商品生产和贸易，而是转向金融扩张。这样，物质扩张与金融扩张构成一个完整的资本主义体系积累周期，而金融扩张则是每个体系积累周期晚期必然出现的现象。阿瑞基认为，体系积累周期不仅是资本积累的周期，而且也内在地包含着霸权国家兴衰的周期。当一个霸权国家从实物扩张过渡到金融扩张的时候，这个国家也就开始潜在地走向衰落，因此金融扩张一般预示着霸权国家“秋天的到来”。而当今时代正是一个金融扩张周期到来的时代，而这也就意味着“美国霸权的秋天”已经到来，其主要表现是美国实体经济的空心化、虚拟经济的过度膨胀、经济的长期萧条以及频繁的金融危机等，这些危机大大削弱了美国霸权的硬实力；同时，金融扩张所带来的巨大经济和金融危机也沉重打击了美国主导的新自由主义国际政治经济秩序，并以无可辩驳的事实证明新自由主义要的并不是个人的自由，而是金融资本的统治。因此，阿瑞基认为，如果说资本的物质扩张推动了新自由主义的形成和崛起的话，那么，资本的金融扩张则终将宣告新自由主义的衰落和危机。

II. The Institutional Perspective

二、制度视角

If the production perspective explains neoliberalism primarily from the contradictions encountered in the capitalist production process, such as the falling rate of profit and capital overaccumulation, then another school of thought directly understands neoliberalism as a composite of a series of state policies and institutional systems—that is, understanding neoliberalism as a new institution adapted to a new stage of capitalist development. This is the institutional perspective in the study of neoliberalism. The main representatives of this perspective are the French Regulation School and the American "Social Structure of Accumulation" School.

如果说生产视角着重从资本主义生产过程所遭遇的利润率下降和资本过剩等矛盾出发来阐释新自由主义，那么，还有一派观点则直接把新自由主义理解为一系列国家政策和制度体系的综合体，也即将新自由主义理解为一种适应资本主义发展新阶段的新兴制度。这就是新自由主义研究的制度视角。该视角的主要代表是法国的调节学派和美国的“积累的社会结构”学派。

The main representatives of the French Regulation School include Michel Aglietta, Robert Boyer, and Alain Lipietz. They argue that capitalism in each historical period forms various institutions in areas such as labor-capital relations, capital competition relations, monetary operations, state policies, and international relations, in order to effectively regulate labor-capital relations, competition among capitalists, and power competition among states, thereby providing a stable institutional environment for capital accumulation. Neoliberalism is a new regulatory institution formed after capitalism encountered the stagflation crisis in the 1970s. It shattered the "Fordist" accumulation system characterized by labor-capital compromise that had formed after the war, and instead supported capitalists' suppression of workers' rights, supported the profit demands of financial capital, supported so-called "shareholder primacy," and vigorously promoted right-wing policies such as deregulating finance, cutting taxes and reducing profits, issuing excessive government bonds, and cutting social welfare. This caused the Keynesian policies that had persisted for nearly 30 years after the war to withdraw from the historical stage. Therefore, from the perspective of the French Regulation School, neoliberalism is a new policy and a new stage that succeeds Keynesianism.

法国调节学派主要代表人物有米歇尔·阿格利塔（Michel Aglietta）、罗伯特·博耶（Robert Boyer）、阿兰·利比兹（Alian Lipietz）等。他们认为，每个历史时期的资本主义都会在劳资关系、资本竞争关系、货币运行、国家政策和国际关系等方面形成各种制度，以有效调节劳资关系、资本家之间的竞争关系以及国家之间的权力竞争关系等，从而为资本积累提供一个稳定的制度环境。新自由主义就是资本主义在20世纪70年代遭遇滞胀危机之后形成的一种新的调节制度。它打碎了战后形成的以劳资妥协为主要特征的“福特主义”积累制度，转而支持资本家对工人权利的打压，支持金融资本的获利要求，支持所谓的“股东至上主义”，大力推行放松金融监管、减税让利、滥发国债、削减社会福利等右翼政策，从而使战后持续近30年的凯恩斯主义政策退出历史舞台。因此，在法国调节学派看来，新自由主义是与凯恩斯主义相接续的一个新政策和新阶段。

The main representatives of the American "Social Structure of Accumulation" (SSA) School include David Gordon and David Kotz. They argue that capital accumulation at a given stage always corresponds to a specific structure composed of the economy, politics, culture, and international relations. This structure is a unity of a series of institutions formed by the aforementioned various relations. To explain the new stage of capitalist financialization since the 1980s, they classify the social structure of capital accumulation into two types—"regulated" and "liberal"—according to whether the state intervenes in the market, and view the history of capitalist development as a periodic transition between these two structures. For example, regarding the stage of post-war capitalist development, from 1945 to 1970, the capitalist economic development model had "regulated" characteristics, featuring cooperation between workers and capitalists (i.e., the so-called post-war combination of mass production and mass consumption), cooperation among capitalists that outweighed competition, strict state regulation of financial capital (e.g., prohibiting the mixed operation of commercial banks and investment banks), and an international monetary system that adhered to the "gold" discipline stipulated by the Bretton Woods system, meaning that national credit currencies (paper money) could not be printed arbitrarily. However, after the 1970s, the capitalist economic development model shifted from regulated to liberal, that is, from the post-war "regulated SSA" to the "neoliberal SSA." Its characteristics include intensified labor-capital confrontation, with capitalists beginning to suppress workers' resistance through layoffs, wage cuts, and business outsourcing; intensified competition among capitals; the capture of state public power by financial capital, leading to the implementation of policies favorable to capital accumulation, such as cutting wages and welfare, deregulating finance, and cutting taxes and reducing profits; and the international monetary system breaking free from the gold constraint, shifting from a relatively fixed exchange rate system to a comprehensive floating exchange rate system, facilitating financial capital in extracting enormous profits from currency issuance and exchange rate speculation. In summary, from the perspective of the "Social Structure of Accumulation" School, neoliberalism is a set of "policy combinations" universally implemented by developed capitalist countries under the pressure of the stagflation crisis since the 1970s, which benefit capital rather than labor.

美国“积累的社会结构”学派（Social Structure of Accumulation, SSA）的主要代表人物有大卫·戈登（David Gordon）和大卫·科茨（David Kotz）等。他们认为，一定阶段的资本积累总是对应着一个由经济、政治、文化以及国际关系构成的特殊结构，这个结构是由上述各种关系所形成的一系列制度的统一体。为了解释20世纪80年代以来资本主义金融化发展的新阶段，他们把资本积累的社会结构按照国家是否干预市场区分为“管制型”和“自由型”两种结构，把资本主义发展史视为上述两种结构的阶段性转换。比如对战后资本主义发展的阶段来说，1945-1970年间，资本主义的经济发展模式具有“管制型”特点，其特点是工人与资本家合作（即所谓战后大规模生产和大规模消费的结合），资本家之间也是合作大于竞争，国家对金融资本实施严格的管制（比如严禁商业银行与投资银行的混业经营），国际货币体系遵守布雷顿森林体系所规定的“黄金”纪律，国家信用货币（纸币）不能随意印刷；但是到20世纪70年代后，资本主义经济发展模式从管制型转向自由型，也即从战后形成的“调节主义SSA”转向“新自由主义SSA”，其特点是劳资对抗加剧，资本家开始通过裁员、降薪和业务外包等方式打压工人的反抗；资本之间的竞争加剧；国家的公共权力被金融资本俘获，开始推行削减工资福利、放松金融管制、减税让利等有利于资本积累的政策；国际货币体系脱离黄金约束，从相对固定的汇率制度转向全面的浮动汇率制，以便于金融资本在货币发行和汇率投机中榨取巨额利润。总之，在“积累的社会结构”学派看来，新自由主义是20世纪70年代以来发达资本主义国家在滞胀危机压力下所普遍实施的一套有利于资本而非有利于劳动的“政策组合拳”。

Unlike the comprehensive institutional analysis of the French Regulation School and the American "Social Structure of Accumulation" School, Peter Gowan focused on the operational mechanism of dollar hegemony after the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, and on this basis, he specifically elaborated on the manifestation of neoliberalism at the level of the international monetary system. He argued that since the 1970s, due to the relative advantages of Japanese and European capital accumulation, the United States no longer possessed the economic strength it had in the 1940s and 1950s. Therefore, the peg of the dollar to gold under the gold exchange standard system increasingly became a major obstacle to the domestic and international wealth accumulation of U.S. financial monopoly capital, making the removal of this obstacle an imperative task. Gowan believed that, to some extent, the collapse of the Bretton Woods system was a deliberate move by the Nixon administration. Thus, at the same time as the dollar was decoupled from gold, the U.S. government conducted a series of diplomatic maneuvers in the Gulf region, enabling the dollar to find a new anchor—oil. However, oil does not possess the international monetary status of gold, so the decoupling of the dollar from gold in fact meant the release of the dollar currency and credit, and meant that the entire global political-economic system was placed under dollar hegemony. Therefore, this new international system was also called the "Dollar-Wall Street Regime" by Gowan. Under this regime, the United States gained the privilege of printing dollar banknotes without restriction, thereby being able to levy enormous seigniorage from the whole world. The United States relied on these printed dollar banknotes to acquire high-quality assets and high-end industries from various countries. At the same time, the United States could also use the strong position of the dollar to launch financial attacks on developing countries with weak financial systems, plundering the wealth of other countries by planning and manufacturing financial crises (such as the Southeast Asian financial crisis), thereby deepening the financial dependence of developing countries on the United States. All of this operates under the name of freedom. However, this freedom, obviously, is merely the freedom of a single nation-state's credit currency—the dollar.

不同于法国调节学派和美国“积累的社会结构”学派的综合性制度分析，彼得·高恩（Peter Gowan）关注布雷顿森林体系解体后美元霸权的运行机制，并在此基础上着重阐述了新自由主义在国际货币制度层面的体现。他认为，20世纪70年代以来，美国由于日本和欧洲资本积累的相对优势而不再拥有20世纪四五十年代的经济实力，因此金汇兑本位制下美元与黄金的挂钩越来越成为美国金融垄断资本在国内和国际进行财富积累的一个重大障碍，消除这种障碍成为一个势在必行的任务。高恩认为，在某种程度上，布雷顿森林体系的崩溃是尼克松政府的一个深思熟虑的举动，因此，在宣布美元与黄金脱钩之时，美国政府在海湾地区进行了一系列的外交操作，从而使美元找到一种新的锚定物——石油。但石油并不具有黄金那样的国际货币地位，因此美元与黄金脱钩事实上意味着美元货币和信贷的释放，意味着整个全球政治经济体系被置于美元霸权之下。因此这种新的国际制度也被高恩称为“美元-华尔街制度”。在这种制度下，美国获得了不受限制地印刷美元纸币的特权，从而可以向全世界征收巨额的铸币税，而美国正是依靠这些印刷出来的美元纸币到世界各国收购优质资产和高端产业；同时美国还可以利用美元的强势地位对金融体系薄弱的发展中国家发动金融攻击，以策划和制造金融危机（比如东南亚金融危机）的方式来掠夺别国财富，进而加深发展中国家对美国的金融依附。所有这一切的运行都是在自由的名义之下。只不过这种自由，显而易见，仅仅是一个民族国家的信用货币——美元的自由。

III. The Class and Race Perspective

三、阶级与种族视角

Beyond the perspectives of production and institutions, some left-wing scholars focus on class relations and race relations to explain the entire process of the rise and fall of neoliberalism.

在生产视角和制度视角之外，还有一些左翼学者聚焦于阶级关系和种族关系，以此来阐释新自由主义崛起和衰落的整个过程。

The main representatives of the class perspective are the French economists Gérard Duménil and Dominique Lévy. They argue that since the 1970s, the class structure of developed capitalist countries such as the United States and Britain has undergone tremendous changes. In addition to the industrial bourgeoisie and the industrial proletariat (which they call the popular class) as classified by traditional Marxism, a class of financial parasites has risen rapidly above the former two, which they call a "financial restoration." This class takes maximizing shareholder value as its operational goal and advocates that only by releasing the "free cash flow" of industrial companies to shareholders can economic resources be allocated most efficiently and rationally. However, Duménil and Lévy argue that this is not the case. The shareholder-value-maximization model of operation has greatly weakened the operational autonomy of corporate management (i.e., the industrial capitalists), because shareholders rarely make long-term investments with an eye to the value-creating capacity of industrial companies; instead, their investments generally follow a "short-termist" strategy. The essence of this investment is speculative arbitrage on industrial company stocks. On the basis of analyzing the antagonism between the financial capitalist class and the industrial capitalist class, Duménil and Lévy explain the fundamental reasons for the rise of neoliberalism. They argue that since the 1970s, the class structure of developed capitalist countries has taken the form of three tiers: "financial capitalist class—managerial class (industrial capitalist class)—popular class," with the financial capitalist class at the top. The neoliberal policy system and ideology mainly reflect the interests and demands of the financial capitalist class. Under this order, the power and interests of both the managerial class (industrial capitalist class) and the popular class have been suppressed to varying degrees by the financial capitalist class, and the class power structure established after World War II, centered on compromise between labor and capital and between industrial capital and financial capital, has been completely restructured.

阶级视角的主要代表人物是法国经济学家热拉尔·迪梅尼尔(Gerard Dumenil)和多米尼克·莱维(Dominique Levy)。他们认为，自20世纪70年代以来，美英等发达资本主义国家的阶级结构发生了巨大变化。在传统马克思主义所划分的工业资产阶级和工业无产阶级（他们称之为大众阶级）之外，一个凌驾于前二者之上的金融寄生者阶级迅猛崛起，他们称之为“金融复辟”。这个阶级以实现股东价值最大化作为经营目标，主张只有将产业公司的“自由现金流”释放给股东，才能使经济资源得到最有效合理的配置。但是，迪梅尼尔和莱维认为，事实并非如此。股东价值最大化的经营模式大大削弱了企业管理层（即产业资本家）的经营自主权，因为股东很少会着眼于产业公司的价值创造能力而进行长远投资，相反，他们的投资一般都奉行“短期主义”策略。这种投资的本质是对工业企业股票的投机套利。在分析金融资本家阶级与产业资本家阶级对立的基础之上，迪梅尼尔和莱维阐释了新自由主义崛起的根本原因。他们认为，自20世纪70年代以来，发达资本主义国家的阶级呈现为“金融资本家阶级—管理者阶级（产业资本家阶级）—大众阶级”三个层级，金融资本家阶级位居顶层。新自由主义政策体系和意识形态所反映的主要是金融资本家阶级的利益和诉求。在这个秩序下，管理者阶级（产业资本家阶级）和大众阶级的权力和利益都受到了金融资本家阶级不同程度的打压，第二次世界大战后建立起来的以劳资妥协、产业资本和金融资本妥协为核心的阶级权力结构被彻底重构。

If the class perspective focuses on analyzing the rise of neoliberalism, then the national and racial perspectives represented by Daniel Faber, Neil Davidson, Richard Saull, and others focus on analyzing its decline. They argue that current politics in the United States and Europe is showing a sharp rightward turn, and neoliberalism is taking on a new form—right-wing populism. Right-wing populism is epitomized by two major events: the election of U.S. President Trump and Brexit. Daniel Faber points out that as a right-wing populist, Trump positions himself as a representative of the people's voice, attributing the failures of American capitalism to "bad" trade agreements negotiated by "unreasonable" politicians. This form of neoliberalism replaces the cosmopolitan orientation of neoliberalism under the Clinton and Obama administrations with nationalism and racism; it focuses on immigration rather than inequality, and on racial segregation rather than racial inclusion, thus constituting a "reactionary neoliberalism." Similar to the United States, European countries have also experienced a racist and nationalist turn in neoliberalism. In some countries, right-wing nationalism and neo-fascism have gained increasing political support, such as France's National Rally and Italy's Five Star Movement. Brexit is the result of successful manipulation of nationalism and racism by British right-wing politicians to oppose European integration (a core tenet of EU neoliberalism). In analyzing the reasons for the rise of this reactionary liberalism, Davidson points out that nationalism and racism are new forms developed after the crisis of traditional neoliberalism. To fundamentally perpetuate neoliberalism, they serve three functions: first, they provide a spiritual compensation for the working class that cannot be obtained solely from commodity consumption; second, they ensure the working class's loyalty to the capitalist state—even if only minimally—or prevent the formation of revolutionary class consciousness; third, by using the concepts of nation or race, they reintegrate the fragmented grassroots social forces, enhance social cohesion, and thereby mobilize the entire nation behind national capital to confront its international competitors. All of this is aimed at saving the fate of capital itself in times of crisis.

如果说阶级视角重在分析新自由主义的崛起，那么以丹尼尔·费伯（Daniel Faber）、尼尔·戴维森（Neil Davidson）、理查德·索尔（Richard Saull）等为代表的民族和种族视角则重点分析了新自由主义的衰落。他们认为，当前美欧政治出现急剧右翼化倾向，新自由主义正在取得一种新的表现形式——右翼民粹主义。右翼民粹主义集中体现在美国特朗普总统的上台和英国脱欧这两大事件上。丹尼尔·费伯指出，作为一名右翼民粹主义者，特朗普将自己定位为人民声音的代表，将美国资本主义的失败归为“不合理”的政治家谈判的“不良”贸易协议。这种新自由主义以民族主义、种族主义的形式取代了克林顿、奥巴马政府时期新自由主义的世界主义导向，它关注的是移民而非不平等、关注种族隔离而非种族包容，因此是一种“反动的新自由主义”（Reactionary Neoliberalism）。与美国相似，欧洲各国也发生了新自由主义的种族主义和民族主义转向，在一些国家，右翼民族主义和新法西斯主义得到了越来越多的政治支持，比如法国的国民联盟和意大利的五星运动党等。英国脱欧则是英国右翼政客成功操纵民族主义和种族主义来反对欧盟一体化（这是欧盟新自由主义的核心主张）的结果。在分析这种反动自由主义崛起的原因时，戴维森指出，民族主义和种族主义是传统的新自由主义遭遇危机后发展出的新形式，它为了在根本上延续新自由主义，承担了三方面的功能：第一，它为劳动者阶级提供了一种精神上的补偿，这是仅从商品消费中无法获得的；第二，它确保了工人阶级对资本主义国家的忠诚——哪怕只是一点点——或防止了革命阶级意识形成；第三，它借民族或种族的概念，重新整合了已经碎片化的底层社会力量，提高了社会凝聚力，并以此动员了民族资本背后的全体国民来对抗其国际竞争对手。而所有这一切都是为了在危机中挽救资本自身的命运。

IV. Geopolitical Perspective

四、地缘政治视角

In addition to the above perspectives, some left-wing scholars combine neoliberalism with geopolitics, forming the geopolitical perspective in the critique of neoliberalism.

除了上述视角外，还有一些左翼学者把新自由主义与地缘政治结合起来，这就是新自由主义批判中的地缘政治视角。

Regarding the role and status of geopolitics in neoliberal globalization, Western left-wing academic circles hold different views. Michael Hardt, Antonio Negri, and William I. Robinson argue that global capitalism has become economically and politically integrated; the interstate system based on geopolitical competition is neither inherent nor necessary for the normal functioning of capitalist relations of production, and geopolitical conflicts among major capitalist countries have become obsolete. Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin also argue that although capitalism requires a state system, since World War II the United States has successfully established an "informal empire" that effectively subordinates other major capitalist countries to U.S. hegemony. This view is essentially the same as the conclusions of Hardt, Negri, and Robinson—that geopolitical competition is obsolete. However, other left-wing scholars such as Harvey, Alex Callinicos, and Neil Davidson hold different views. They argue that geopolitics is a neglected link in traditional Marxist theory; the neoliberal globalization process initiated by capitalism since the 1970s has not eliminated the influence of geopolitics, and Marxist analysis of capitalist globalization should introduce the concept of geopolitics.

关于地缘政治在新自由主义全球化中的地位和作用，西方左翼学界持有不同观点。麦克尔·哈特（Michael Hardt）、安东尼奥·奈格里（Antonio Negri）、威廉·罗宾逊（William I. Robinson）认为，全球资本主义在经济和政治上已融为一体，地缘政治竞争基础上的国家间体系既不是固有的，也不是资本主义生产关系正常运转所必需的，主要的资本主义国家之间的地缘政治冲突已经过时了。列奥·帕尼奇（Leo Panitch）和萨姆·金丁（Sam Gindin）也认为，尽管资本主义需要国家体系，但自第二次世界大战以来，美国成功地建立了一个“非正式帝国”，该帝国有效地使其他主要的资本主义国家服从于美国霸权。这一观点与哈特、奈格里和罗宾逊的结论基本相同，那就是地缘政治竞争已经过时。但是，还有一些左翼学者诸如哈维、亚历克斯·科利尼科斯（Alex Callinicos）、尼尔·戴维森等持不同观点。他们认为，地缘政治在传统马克思主义理论中是一个被忽略的环节，20世纪70年代以来资本主义开启的新自由主义全球化进程并没有消弭地缘政治的影响力，马克思主义对资本主义全球化的分析应该引入地缘政治的概念。

Callinicos and Harvey, in their analysis of contemporary capitalism, place particular emphasis on the concept of “geopolitics.” They argue that “capitalist imperialism should be understood as a combination of economic competition and geopolitical competition.” In their view, geopolitical competition and economic competition follow two distinct logics: the former pursues relative advantages in power, collective interests, and is fixed to specific territories, while the latter pursues profit, individual interests, and is unconstrained by time and space. Therefore, one cannot, like Hardt, Negri, and Robinson, negate geopolitics through the globalization of capital, thereby reducing geopolitical competition to a mere appendage of economic competition (capital competition). On the contrary, geopolitics always possesses independent value. They closely link the existence of geopolitics with the inherent unevenness of national development, arguing that throughout the entire history of modern imperialism, there has been uneven development among core states, as well as between core states and peripheral states, especially emerging states. This uneven development hinders the global unification of capital while also providing ample space for the existence of geopolitics. Capitalist states, especially great powers, exploit this uneven development of national power to seek their own interests through geopolitics. Particularly since the rise of the neoliberal globalization wave in the 1970s, U.S. hegemonic power has actually declined, its position has been shaken, and other power centers, such as emerging states, have increasingly gained the ability to challenge U.S. hegemony. These factors have further stimulated the development of geopolitics. Even the end of the Cold War did not terminate geopolitical competition; on the contrary, geopolitical competition has intensified after the financial crisis. These facts all indicate that geopolitical competition is an indispensable dimension for analyzing neoliberal globalization. Within this theoretical dimension, states fight for power, and capital fights for profit; the free flow of capital requires the coercion of certain political and military means as support, so state power becomes the provider of such coercive means, while neoliberalism opportunistically becomes the common ideology of both, because the so-called “freedom” of neoliberalism is not genuine, absolute “freedom,” but inherently contains a certain “coercion” based on power. Based on these considerations, Callinicos advocates that Marxist theories of imperialism in the new era should organically integrate geopolitics and economic competition.

科利尼克斯和哈维在对当代资本主义的分析中突出强调了“地缘政治”概念。他们认为，“应当将资本主义帝国主义理解为经济竞争和地缘政治竞争的结合”。在他们看来，地缘政治竞争与经济竞争遵循的是两个逻辑，前者表现为追求权力的相对优势、追求集体利益、固定于特定领土，后者则追求利润、追求个人利益、不受时空限制。因此不能像哈特、奈格里和罗宾逊那样以资本全球化来否定地缘政治，从而把地缘政治竞争仅仅看成经济竞争（资本竞争）的一个简单附属物。相反，地缘政治始终具有独立的价值。他们把地缘政治的存在与国家发展内在的不平衡紧密结合起来，认为在现代帝国主义的整个历史中，核心国家之间都存在着发展不平衡的现象，在核心国家与外围国家尤其是新兴国家之间同样存在着发展不平衡的现象，这种发展不平衡阻碍着资本的世界统一进程，同时也为地缘政治的存在提供了广阔的空间。资本主义国家尤其是大国正是在这种国家实力的不平衡发展中通过地缘政治来为自己谋取利益的。尤其是20世纪70年代新自由主义全球化浪潮兴起以来，美国的霸权实力实际上有所下降，地位有所动摇，新兴国家等其他权力中心日益具备了挑战美国霸权的能力，这些因素更加刺激了地缘政治的发展。即使是冷战的结束也并未能终止地缘政治竞争，相反，地缘政治竞争在金融危机之后反而有愈演愈烈之势。这些事实都表明，地缘政治竞争是分析新自由主义全球化的一个不可或缺的维度。在这一理论维度中，国家为权力而战，资本为利润而战；资本的自由流动需要某种政治和军事手段的强制予以辅助，于是国家权力就成为这种强制手段的提供者，而新自由主义则适时地成为二者共同的意识形态，因为新自由主义所谓的“自由”本身不是真正的、绝对的“自由”，而是内在地包含着某种基于权力的“强制”。基于以上考虑，科利尼克斯主张新时期马克思主义的帝国主义理论应该把地缘政治和经济竞争有机融合起来。

Davidson’s views are similar to those of Harvey and Callinicos. He points out that capitalism cannot be reduced to dependence on and obsession with capital and markets; geopolitics is a domain independent of capital competition. In geopolitics, the operation of state power clearly exhibits its own “irrational” logic, namely, that it cannot immediately satisfy the demands of a specific bourgeois group. Davidson gives an example: “U.S.-based oil companies were not entirely enthusiastic about the Iraq War. However, the capitalist state must act for the interests of the national/state capital as a whole, not for the interests of a specific sector of capital. That is the ultimate meaning of the Iraq War: the United States used it to warn its allies and enemies about what would happen if they went too far. It showed allies that the United States remains the only country capable of using military force to make rogue states comply, and it could also control China’s oil supply, etc. None of this has anything to do with market competition.” But this does not mean the war was irrational for U.S. capitalism. In Davidson’s view, the rationality of U.S. capitalism is precisely embodied in regional military interventions carried out in the name of neoliberalism.

戴维森与哈维和科利尼科斯的观点相近。他指出，资本主义不能被简化为对资本和市场的依赖和迷恋，地缘政治是与资本竞争相独立的领域。在地缘政治中，国家权力的运行明显地展现出自己“非理性”的逻辑，即它们不能立即满足具体的某个资产阶级集团的要求。戴维森举例说：“总部位于美国的石油公司们并不完全热衷于伊拉克战争。但是，资本主义国家必须为作为总体的民族/国家资本的利益，而不是为资本的特定部门的利益采取行动，这才是伊拉克战争的终极意义：美国借此敲打它的盟友和敌人，如果他们做得太过火，会发生什么。它向盟友表明，美国仍然是唯一一个能够动用武力让流氓国家服从的国度，还能控制中国的石油供应，等等，这些都与市场竞争无关。”但这并不意味着这场战争不合乎美国资本主义的理性，在戴维森看来，美国资本主义的理性恰恰体现在以新自由主义的名义实施的区域军事干涉中。

V. A Brief Evaluation

五、简要评价

Foreign Marxist research on neoliberalism is diverse in schools and rich in content, achieving important results and providing us with a unique perspective for understanding the new changes in contemporary capitalism. However, some of its views contradict Marxist financial capital theory and require critical examination.

国外马克思主义者的新自由主义研究派别纷呈，内容丰富，取得了重要成果，为我们认识当代资本主义的新变化提供了独特的视角，但是，其中的一些观点又与马克思主义金融资本理论存在相悖的地方，需要我们予以批判性审视。

The greatest feature of the production perspective is that it firmly grasps the essential transformation of capitalism from free competition to the monopoly stage, arguing that the form of capital dominating capitalist development has evolved from industrial capital to a new stage of financial monopoly capital. Therefore, its analysis of contemporary capitalism no longer centers on the free competition of industrial capital but on the monopoly of financial capital. Starting from this point, it understands neoliberalism as “the political form for dealing with the stagnation-financialization dilemma,” arguing that the financialization of the economy inevitably leads to the “financialization of the state,” i.e., state policy inevitably transitions from Keynesian policies that restrict financial capital to neoliberal policies that relax financial regulation. Thus, neoliberalism is essentially the ideology of global rule by financial monopoly capital.

生产视角的最大特色在于，它紧紧抓住了资本主义从自由竞争向垄断阶段过渡这个本质转变，认为支配资本主义发展的资本形态已经从产业资本发展到了金融垄断资本的新阶段，因此它对当代资本主义的分析就不再是以产业资本的自由竞争为中心，而是以金融资本的垄断为中心，正是由此出发，它把新自由主义理解为“应对停滞-金融化困境的政治形式”，认为经济的金融化必然导致“国家的金融化”，即国家政策必然从限制金融资本的凯恩斯主义政策向放松金融管制的新自由主义政策过渡，因此，新自由主义本质上是金融垄断资本进行全球统治的意识形态。

However, later foreign Marxists have largely abandoned this logical thread; that is, they have not given sufficient attention to monopoly capital. Instead, the analytical paradigms they use still primarily focus on the free competition of industrial capital, albeit that this free competition has become increasingly globalized compared to the 19th century. As Foster criticizes, most foreign Marxists have not deeply grasped the theoretical value and significance of the Marxist transition from the critique of industrial capital to the critique of financial capital. This leads them, consciously or unconsciously, to believe that “monopoly is no longer a big deal,” which precisely discards the essence of the Marxist critique of capital. In Foster’s view, without taking monopoly capital, especially monopoly financial capital, as a premise, it is impossible to truly understand the essence of contemporary capitalism, nor is it possible to truly understand the relationship between neoliberalism as an ideology and its economic base. Because financial monopoly capital has become the dominant form of capital in contemporary capitalist society, replacing industrial capital as the “universal light” [n] of the new era. The so-called “universal values” of neoliberalism are merely a realistic reflection and expression of this “universal light” of financial monopoly capital. In this sense, the production perspective continues the true spirit of historical materialism in foreign Marxist research on neoliberalism.

但是，后来的国外马克思主义者大都放弃了这条逻辑线索，也就是说，他们并没有给予垄断资本以足够的重视。相反，他们所使用的分析范式仍然以产业资本的自由竞争为主，只不过这种自由竞争与19世纪相比日益变得全球化了而已。正如福斯特所批判的，大多数国外马克思主义者并没有深刻领会马克思主义从产业资本批判向金融资本批判过渡的理论价值和意义，这就导致他们有意无意地认为，“垄断不再是一件大不了的事情”，这恰恰是丢掉了马克思主义资本批判的精髓。在福斯特看来，不以垄断资本尤其是垄断金融资本为前提，就不可能真正理解当代资本主义的本质，同样也不可能真正理解新自由主义作为一种意识形态与其经济基础之间的关系。因为金融垄断资本已经成为当代资本主义社会占据主导地位的资本形态，已经代替产业资本而成为新时代的“普照的光”。新自由主义所谓的“普世价值”正是金融垄断资本这种“普照的光”的一种现实映现和表达而已。从这个意义上来说，生产视角在国外马克思主义的新自由主义研究中延续了历史唯物主义的真精神。

Compared with the production perspective, the institutional perspective no longer focuses on the internal contradictions of capitalist relations of production and the consequent transformation of industrial capital into financial monopoly capital. Therefore, it has little interest in the economic laws proposed by Marx, such as the falling rate of profit and the overaccumulation of capital. Instead, it turns to study a series of institutions formed in the process of economic development, such as the labor-capital bargaining system, the state’s policy regulatory system, and the operational system of the international monetary system, with particular emphasis on the role of state power in capital accumulation. For example, the American “social structure of accumulation” school understands the history of capitalist development as an alternation between two types of structures—“state-regulated” and “laissez-faire”—based on whether the state strictly regulates capital accumulation. On this basis, it understands neoliberalism as a set of management systems characterized by “laissez-faire” implemented by capitalist countries since the 1970s to cope with the stagflation crisis, in opposition to the previous Keynesian system of “strict state regulation.” Although the institutional perspective also recognizes the rise of financial monopoly capital and the turn toward financialization in the capitalist economy, and has conducted extensive empirical investigations into the actual manifestations of financialization in various capitalist production sectors, even proposing that the greatest feature of the capitalist economy in the neoliberal era is “finance-led” growth, it nevertheless believes that financial capital dominates the capitalist economy because the state has relaxed financial regulation and implemented reform policies of privatization, liberalization, and marketization. Internationally, it is because the United States overturned the Bretton Woods system and pushed the international monetary system toward liberalization. In short, scholars from the institutional perspective believe that neoliberalism led to the expansion of financial capital power, unlike the production perspective, which holds that the rise of financial capital power created the policy system and ideology of neoliberalism. Based on this inverted understanding, when scholars from the institutional perspective propose plans to transform capitalism, they all focus on state regulation of financial capital. The problem lies precisely in the fact that this public power of the state has long been manipulated and captured by financial monopoly capital. Expecting the state to represent the public interest in “disciplining” capital ultimately risks degenerating into a utopian fantasy.

与生产视角相比，制度视角不再把重点放在资本主义生产关系的内在矛盾以及由此导致的产业资本向金融垄断资本形态的变化上，因此它对马克思提出的利润率下降和资本过剩等经济规律没有多大兴趣，而是转而研究经济发展过程中所形成的一系列制度，比如劳资谈判制度、国家的政策监管制度、国际货币体系运行制度等，尤其突出国家权力对资本积累所起的作用。比如美国“积累的社会结构”学派就以国家是否对资本积累严加管制而把资本主义发展史理解为“国家管制型”和“自由型”两种结构的轮替。在此基础上，它把新自由主义理解为20世纪70年代以来资本主义国家为应对滞胀危机而实施的一套以“自由放任”为特点的管理制度，而与之前“国家严格管制”的凯恩斯主义制度相对立。制度视角虽然也看到了金融垄断资本的崛起和资本主义经济金融化的转向，并对金融化在资本主义各个生产部门的实际表现做了大量实证考察，甚至还提出新自由主义时代资本主义经济的最大特点就是“金融主导”，但它却认为金融资本之所以主导了资本主义经济，乃是由于国家放松了金融管制并推行私有化、自由化和市场化的改革政策，在国际上则是由于美国推翻了布雷顿森林体系并使国际货币制度走向了自由化。总之，制度视角的学者们认为是新自由主义导致了金融资本势力的坐大，而不像生产视角认为的那样，是金融资本势力的崛起创造了新自由主义的政策体系和意识形态。正是基于这样一种颠倒的认识，制度视角的学者们在提出变革资本主义的方案时，都把着力点放在了国家对金融资本的监管上，而问题恰恰在于，国家这个公共权力早已被金融垄断资本所操纵和俘获，指望国家代表公共利益来“规训”资本，最后难免沦为一种空想。

If the keyword of the production perspective is economic laws, and the keyword of the institutional perspective is state policy, then the keyword of the class perspective is class division. To recognize the essence of neoliberalism, Duménil and Lévy adopt the Marxist method of class analysis, keeping pace with the times by distinguishing the upper echelons of the capitalist class—the financial capitalist class—from the lower echelons of small and medium-sized industrial and commercial capitalists. They keenly grasp the law of transition of capital forms from industrial capital to financial monopoly capital, thereby deeply inheriting Marx’s theory of interest-bearing capital and Lenin’s theory of finance capital within the field of political economy. Precisely based on this class subdivision, they understand neoliberalism as the ideology of financial capitalists (the upper echelons of the capitalist class) and regard the financial capitalist class as the behind-the-scenes driver of the state’s implementation of the neoliberal policy system. It should be said that this analysis is incisive and hits the nail on the head, and it also constitutes a natural extension and supplement to the production perspective. However, Duménil and Lévy’s class analysis method also has its “weaknesses.” This is prominently reflected in the unrealistic hopes they place on the managerial class. In their view, the financial capitalist class is a reactionary, parasitic class, while the managerial class, representing small and medium-sized industrial capitalists, belongs to the leading force of social progress. Therefore, the social transformation plan they proposed after the 2008 global financial crisis is to promote an alliance between the managerial class and the popular class (with the managerial class occupying the dominant position in the alliance) to confront the financial capitalist class. Their vision is to return to the era of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal in 1933, hoping for a strong president to represent the interests of the managerial class and the popular class, suppress the financial capitalist class, and thus “correct the errors” of the current “neoliberal counterrevolution.” In Duménil and Lévy’s view, this path is also a key step toward socialism. But can the managerial class truly bear such a sacred historical mission? In fact, it cannot. Under the rule of financial monopoly capital, although contradictions do arise within the capitalist group between financial capitalists and industrial capitalists, when facing the entire working class, as Marx long pointed out, the various groups of capitalists will inevitably “form a veritable freemason society.” Therefore, the hopes Duménil and Lévy place on the managerial class will ultimately end in disappointment.

如果说生产视角的关键词是经济规律，制度视角的关键词是国家政策，那么阶级视角的关键词则是阶级划分。为了认清新自由主义的本质，迪梅尼尔和莱维采用马克思主义的阶级分析方法，与时俱进地将金融资本家阶级这个资本家集团的上层与下层的中小工商业资本家区分开来，敏锐地把握住了资本形态从产业资本向金融垄断资本的过渡规律，从而在政治经济学领域深度继承了马克思的生息资本理论和列宁的金融资本理论。正是基于这种阶级细分，他们把新自由主义理解为金融资本家（资本家集团中的上层）的意识形态，把金融资本家这个阶级视为国家推行新自由主义政策体系的幕后推动者。应该说，这种分析是鞭辟入里、一针见血的，同时它也构成了对生产视角的一个自然延伸和补充。但是，迪梅尼尔和莱维的阶级分析法也是有“硬伤”的。这突出地反映在他们对管理者阶级所寄予的不切实际的希望上。在他们看来，金融资本家阶级是一个反动的、寄生的阶级，而代表中小产业资本家的管理者阶级则属于社会进步的主导力量，因此，他们在2008年全球金融危机之后提出的社会变革方案就是通过推动管理者阶级与大众阶级的联盟（管理者阶级占据联盟的主导地位）来对抗金融资本家阶级。他们的愿景是重回1933年罗斯福新政的时代，寄希望于一个强力总统来代表管理者阶级与大众阶级的利益，对金融资本家阶级予以镇压，从而对当下的“新自由主义反革命”予以“拨乱反正”。在迪梅尼尔和莱维看来，这条道路也是通往社会主义的关键一步。但是，管理者阶级真的能承担得起这样神圣的历史使命吗？其实不然。在金融垄断资本的统治下，尽管资本家集团内部确实发生了金融资本家与产业资本家之间矛盾，但是，在面对整个工人阶级时，正如马克思早已指出的，资本家的各个集团必然会“结成真正的共济会团体”。因此，迪梅尼尔和莱维对管理者阶级所寄予的希望最后不免会沦为失望。

Among the various perspectives in the study of neoliberalism, the racial perspective is quite special because it directly addresses the rapid rise of nationalist and racist ideological trends in American and European politics in recent years. Although it does not conduct a multifaceted historical investigation of the capitalist economy, politics, and ideology like the production, institutional, and class perspectives do, it correctly points out that right-wing populism is merely a variant form of neoliberalism developed after the financial crisis. In essence, it remains neoliberal, merely donning a nationalist and racist guise. Its purpose is to shift the domestic crisis, enhance the legitimacy of capitalist political rule, and prevent the awakening of class consciousness among the底层 masses. This judgment is more shrewd than profound, because it does not analyze the transformation of neoliberalism into right-wing populism from the perspective of financial monopoly capital, the highest form of capital development. In reality, whether it is the neoliberalism before the financial crisis or the right-wing populism of today, the dictatorship of financial capital and financial oligarchs lies behind both—this has never changed. What has truly changed is merely the mode and strategy of financial capital’s rule: originally, financial capital promoted neoliberalism to extract profits “freely and unimpededly” worldwide through financial globalization, but this predatory accumulation ultimately led to crisis. Therefore, financial capital had to use the right-wing populist principle of “one’s own country first” to shed the various “universal value” obligations it had assumed due to “excessive liberalization,” thereby shifting the crisis accumulated at home to other countries. Brexit, the United States’ “withdrawal from groups,” and the converging “one’s own country first” policies and “xenophobic” sentiments in the United States and Europe are all manifestations of this. Only by standing at this height can we deeply understand that right-wing populism is merely a “variant” of neoliberalism, a more reactionary form developed by neoliberalism.

在新自由主义研究的各个视角中，种族视角比较特殊，因为它直接着眼于近几年美欧政坛所发生的民族主义和种族主义思潮迅猛崛起的问题。尽管它没有像生产视角、制度视角和阶级视角那样，对资本主义经济、政治和意识形态展开多方面的历史考察，但它却正确地指出，右翼民粹主义不过是新自由主义在金融危机后发展出的一种变体形式，它在本质上依然是新自由主义的，不过是换上了一副民族主义和种族主义的面孔而已，其目的是为了转嫁本国的危机，提高资本主义政治统治的合法性，防止底层民众阶级意识的觉醒。这种判断与其说是深刻的，不如说是机敏的，因为它并没有站在金融垄断资本这种资本发展的最高形态上来分析新自由主义向右翼民粹主义的转化。实际上，无论是金融危机前的新自由主义还是现在的右翼民粹主义，其背后都是金融资本和金融寡头的独裁统治，这一点始终没有变，真正改变的只是金融资本的统治方式和统治策略：原来金融资本推行新自由主义是为了通过金融全球化在世界范围内“自由地、畅通无阻地”榨取利润，但是这种剥夺式积累最终导致了危机，因此金融资本又不得不用右翼民粹主义“本国至上”原则，来甩掉自己由于“过度自由化”而承担的各种“普世价值”义务，从而把自身在本国积累的危机转嫁到他国，英国脱欧、美国“退群”以及美欧各国正在趋于一致的“本国至上”政策和“仇外”心理都是这种表现。只有站在这个高度，我们才能深刻理解，右翼民粹主义不过是新自由主义的一种“变体”，是新自由主义发展出的一种更加反动的形态。

Finally, let us look at the geopolitical perspective. A major contribution of this perspective is its injection of power struggles between states based on geopolitical relations into the traditional Marxist theoretical system. In its view, imperialism is the intersection of economic competition and geopolitical competition, and geopolitical theory is not contained within the critique of Marxist political economy. Therefore, the analysis of capitalism cannot remain solely at the economic level of capital accumulation but must also advance to the political level of the critique of the state system. It should be said that this analysis is insightful, because compared with the argument that capitalist globalization belittles geopolitics, it recognizes that the uneven development of capitalism inevitably brings conflicts of interest between states, sees the inevitable combination of the free flow of capital with the political and military coercion of state power, and perceives a certain hypocrisy in the neoliberal rhetoric of freedom. In short, it recognizes that the globalization of capital has not “made the world flat,” thereby opening up a broad horizon for the integration of geopolitical research with Marxism.

最后来看地缘政治视角。该视角的一大贡献是把基于地缘关系的国家间权力斗争注入传统马克思主义的理论体系中。在它看来，帝国主义是经济竞争和地缘政治竞争的交叉，而地缘政治理论并没有包含在马克思主义政治经济学批判中，因此对资本主义的分析不能仅仅停留在经济学的资本积累层面上，还要推进到政治学的国家体系批判层面上。应该说，这种分析是富有创见的，因为与借资本主义全球化来贬低地缘政治的论调相比，它看到了资本主义发展的不平衡性必然会给国家之间带来的利益矛盾，看到了资本的自由流动与国家权力的政治和军事强制的必然结合，看到了新自由主义关于自由论调的某种伪善性，总之，它看到了资本的全球化并没有“使世界成为平的”，从而为地缘政治研究与马克思主义的结合打开了一个广阔的视阈。

VI. Theoretical Implications of Foreign Marxist Critiques of Neoliberalism

六、国外马克思主义对新自由主义批判的理论启示

As discussed above, although the Western Marxist critique of neoliberalism is more or less inadequate in its understanding and application of Marxist theory and method, the exploration from each perspective possesses its own specific theoretical value and contemporary significance. This is of important theoretical value for our in-depth understanding of the essential characteristics and developmental trends of contemporary capitalism, as well as for the development of Marxism in step with the times.

如上所述，国外马克思主义对新自由主义的批判尽管在理解和应用马克思主义的理论和方法上或多或少还有不到位的地方，但是，每种视角的探索都有其特定的理论价值和时代价值，对于我们深入理解当代资本主义的本质特征和发展趋势、对于马克思主义与时俱进的发展都有重要的理论价值。

First, the Western Marxist critique of neoliberalism helps us to profoundly understand the essential characteristics of contemporary capitalism. By critically synthesizing the four perspectives of the Western Marxist critique of neoliberalism, we can discover that the essence of contemporary capitalism is capitalism in which financial monopoly capital occupies the dominant position, and that neoliberalism is merely a set of social institutions, policy systems, and ideologies through which financial monopoly capital rules. It is the real-world expression of the interests and will of financial monopoly capital in the superstructure. The accumulation of financial monopoly capital is the foundation of neoliberalism, its production base and class base. The relationship between financial monopoly capital and neoliberalism is not an accidental one, but an essential one. As Marx said: "Each form of production generates its own specific relations of law, forms of government, etc."

首先，国外马克思主义对新自由主义的批判有助于我们深刻理解当代资本主义的本质特征。通过批判性地综合国外马克思主义对新自由主义批判的四种视角，我们可以发现，当代资本主义的本质是金融垄断资本占据主导地位的资本主义，而新自由主义不过是金融垄断资本进行统治的一套社会制度、政策体系和意识形态，它是金融垄断资本的利益和意志在上层建筑中的现实表达。金融垄断资本的积累是新自由主义的根基，是新自由主义的生产基础和阶级基础。金融垄断资本与新自由主义之间并不是一种偶然关联，而是一种本质性的关联。正如马克思所说的：“每种生产形式都产生出它所特有的法的关系、统治形式等等。”

Neoliberalism is the specific form of rule generated by financial monopoly capital. The accumulation of financial monopoly capital has inherent and insurmountable limits, which manifest as the fact that its predatory, parasitic, and speculative accumulation will sooner or later lead the entire society into crisis. The accumulation of financial monopoly capital has its own periods of ascent and descent. When it is in an ascending phase of accumulation, neoliberalism advances triumphantly, becoming a "universal value" that promotes financial globalization; when it is in a descending phase, especially when encountering a global crisis, neoliberalism inevitably hits obstacles everywhere, turning from prosperity to decline, and thus, following the financial and economic crises, an ideological crisis erupts. In order to extricate itself from this series of crises without harming its fundamental interests, financial monopoly capital can only manipulate nationalism and racism (i.e., right-wing populism) to conceal the deepening of class contradictions and shift crises abroad. This inevitably intensifies geopolitical and international relations crises, which in turn undermines the global accumulation system dominated by financial capital and erodes the foundation of its global rule. The result is that financial crises, social crises, ideological crises, and geopolitical and international relations crises begin to superimpose in sequence, plunging the contemporary capitalist system dominated by financial monopoly capital into a quagmire from which it cannot extricate itself. Under the heavy pressure of multiple crises and with no prospect of resolution in sight, the right-wing populist trend of neoliberalism is bound to continue developing in the coming period, thereby adding more uncertainty to the development of the world situation.

新自由主义就是金融垄断资本所产生的特有的统治形式。金融垄断资本的积累具有内在的、难以克服的限度，这种限度就表现为它的剥夺性、寄生性和投机性的积累迟早会把整个社会带向危机之中。金融垄断资本积累有自己的上升期和下降期。当它处于积累的上升期时，新自由主义就一路高歌猛进，成为推动金融全球化的“普世价值”；当它处于下降期尤其是遭遇全球性危机时，新自由主义也就必然到处碰壁，由盛转衰，从而继金融危机和经济危机之后，爆发意识形态危机。为了在不损害自身根本利益的前提下来摆脱这一系列危机，金融垄断资本只能通过操纵民族主义和种族主义（即右翼民粹主义）来掩盖阶级矛盾的深化，并向国外转嫁危机，而这必然又会加剧地缘政治和国际关系的危机，从而反过来危及金融资本主导的全球积累体系，侵蚀它全球统治的根基。结果就是，金融危机、社会危机、意识形态危机和地缘政治、国际关系的危机开始顺次叠加，使金融垄断资本主导的当代资本主义制度深陷泥潭而不能自拔。在多重危机的重压并暂时看不到解决希望的情况下，新自由主义的右翼民粹化趋势在未来一段时期势必会继续发展下去，从而为世界局势的发展增添更多的不确定性。

Second, the Western Marxist critique of neoliberalism has a certain significance for promoting the development of Marxist theory in step with the times. We know that Marxism and liberalism were two opposing social currents of thought in the 19th century. Marx's critique of liberalism was still mainly based on the free competition of industrial capital. For example, he pointed out incisively that "in free competition, it is not the individual who is free, but capital." In Marx's view, so-called freedoms such as freedom of competition, freedom of contract, and individual freedom cannot prevent the rule of capital; the dominant position of capital develops precisely naturally from this freedom. The capital Marx refers to here mainly means industrial capital, because in Marx's era, the monopoly of capital had not yet truly developed. By Lenin's era, free competition capitalism had developed into monopoly capitalism. Therefore, Lenin no longer centered his critique of capitalism on industrial capital but on financial (monopoly) capital, arguing that "what financial capital desires is not freedom, but domination," thereby further exposing the hypocritical veil of liberalism's discourse on individual freedom. But now, the era of colonial imperialism in which Lenin lived has also become history, replaced by an era of economic globalization dominated by financial capital and with neoliberalism as its ideology. It is precisely against this new historical background that Western Marxist scholars have launched their critique of contemporary capitalism. To a large extent, this critique inherits Lenin's critical tradition centered on financial monopoly capital. For example, the monopoly capital school in the United States takes financial monopoly capital as the starting point for analyzing contemporary capitalism, and scholars from the class perspective distinguish financial monopoly capital from small and medium-sized industrial and commercial capital. On this basis, they all reveal the essential connection between neoliberalism and financial monopoly capital in the era of economic globalization. At the same time, the Western Marxist critique of contemporary capitalism also inherits the analytical tradition in Lenin's theory of imperialism of organically combining financial capital with state power and international relations, and extends it to specific research in the era of financial globalization. For example, from the production perspective, Arrighi's analysis of the material and financial expansion of capital and hegemonic cycles, Harvey's analysis of the "spatio-temporal fix" of financial capital on a world scale, the institutional perspective's analysis of the international monetary system, the national and racial perspective's analysis of financial monopoly capital shifting crises abroad, and the geopolitical perspective's analysis of the uneven development of capitalist countries are all manifestations of Lenin's above-mentioned analytical methods in the new period. In summary, the Western Marxist critique of contemporary capitalism embodies in many aspects the Marxist critical tradition of capitalism and has certain theoretical reference value for the development of Marxism in the new era.

其次，国外马克思主义的新自由主义批判对于推动马克思主义理论与时俱进的发展具有一定意义。我们知道，马克思主义与自由主义是19世纪两大对立的社会思潮。马克思对自由主义的批判还主要建立在产业资本自由竞争基础之上，比如他曾一针见血地指出，“在自由竞争中自由的并不是个人，而是资本”。在马克思看来，竞争自由、契约自由、个人自由这些所谓的自由并不能防止资本的统治，资本的统治地位恰恰是从这种自由当中自然发展起来的。马克思这里所讲的资本主要指产业资本，因为在马克思所处的时代，资本垄断还没有真正发展起来。到了列宁所处的时代，自由竞争资本主义发展为垄断资本主义，因此，列宁不再以产业资本而是以金融（垄断）资本为核心展开对资本主义的批判，认为“金融资本所希望的不是自由，而是统治”，从而进一步揭开了自由主义关于个人自由论调的虚伪面纱。但是现在，列宁所处的殖民帝国主义时代也已经成为历史，代之而起的是一个以金融资本为主导、以新自由主义为意识形态的经济全球化时代。国外马克思主义学者正是在这样一个新的时代背景下展开他们对当代资本主义的批判的。这些批判在很大程度上继承了列宁以金融垄断资本为核心的批判传统，比如美国的垄断资本学派把金融垄断资本作为分析当代资本主义的出发点，阶级视角的学者把金融垄断资本与中小工商业资本区分开来，在此基础上它们都揭示了经济全球化时代背景下新自由主义与金融垄断资本之间的本质联系。同时，国外马克思主义学者对当代资本主义的批判还继承了列宁帝国主义理论中将金融资本与国家权力和国际关系有机结合的分析传统，并将其拓展到对金融全球化时代的具体研究中，比如生产视角中阿瑞基对资本的物质扩张和金融扩张以及霸权周期的分析、哈维对金融资本在世界范围内“时空修复”的分析、制度视角对国际货币制度的分析、民族和种族视角对金融垄断资本向国外转嫁危机的分析以及地缘政治视角对资本主义国家不平衡发展的分析等，都是列宁上述分析方法在新时期的体现。综上所述，国外马克思主义对当代资本主义的批判在诸多方面体现了马克思主义对资本主义的批判传统，对马克思主义在新时代的发展具有一定的理论参考价值。

(The author is an Associate Professor at the School of International Studies, Nanjing University, and a Research Fellow at the Asia-Pacific Development Research Center, Nanjing University.)

（作者系南京大学国际关系学院副教授，南京大学亚太发展研究中心研究员）

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心