The British Marxist Debate on the Contemporary Working Class and Its Theoretical Reflections

In March 1978, Eric Hobsbawm, a British Communist Party member and Marxist historian revered as “the most sagacious living Marxist,” delivered a lecture titled “The Forward March of Labour Halted?” in which he expressed concern about the future of the British working-class movement. In September, after the lecture text was published, it sparked debate within the British leftist camp. *Marxism Today* continued to publish discussion articles for nearly two years, until Thatcherism forcefully captured people’s attention and brought the matter to a close. Nevertheless, the reflections and debates thus provoked did not cease. Laclau and Mouffe subsequently developed “post-Marxism,” advancing an influential theoretical explanatory model for the phenomenon of the contemporary working class’s declining revolutionary character. Stuart Hall, echoing “post-Marxism” from afar, engaged in profound reflection on the crisis of the contemporary working class and possible solutions from the ideological dimension. Ralph Miliband and Ellen Meiksins Wood, among others, attacked the first three types of views as “new revisionism” and “new ‘true socialism’” with extremely negative implications for the future of British socialism, strenuously arguing that the Marxist theory of class struggle had not become obsolete. After the 1990s, working-class movements in developed capitalist countries such as Britain entered a prolonged decline, from which they have yet to emerge. However, in the last two years, sporadic radical working-class struggles have appeared in Europe, exemplified by the “Yellow Vests” in France. Are working-class movements in developed capitalist countries reviving? It is necessary for us to return to the debates and dialogues surrounding the contemporary working class that took place within British Marxism in the 1980s, so as to draw useful theoretical inspiration from them.

1978年3月，被尊为“现世最睿智的马克思主义者”的英国共产党员、马克思主义历史学家艾瑞克·霍布斯鲍姆发表题为“工党的急行军已然停滞不前？”的演讲，对英国工人阶级运动的前途表示了忧虑。9月，演讲稿刊发后在英国左派阵营内部引发讨论，《今日马克思主义》（Marxism Today）持续刊发讨论文章近2年，直到撒切尔主义强势吸引人们的注意力后才告一段落。不过，由此引发的思考与争论并没有停止，拉克劳和墨菲随后发展出“后马克思主义”，针对当代工人阶级革命性衰退现象提出了一种影响很大的理论解释模型；斯图亚特·霍尔与“后马克思主义”遥相呼应，从意识形态维度对当代工人阶级的危机及其可能的解决方案进行了深刻思考；拉尔夫·密里本德以及艾伦·梅克森斯·伍德等则抨击前三类观点是对英国社会主义未来具有极大消极影响的“新修正主义”和“新‘真正的社会主义’”，力证马克思主义阶级斗争学说没有过时。20世纪90年代以后，英国等发达资本主义国家工人阶级运动陷入长期衰退，至今仍未走出低谷。不过，近2年欧洲出现了以法国“黄背心”为代表的零星激进工人抗争活动。发达资本主义国家工人阶级运动在复兴吗？我们有必要回到20世纪80年代英国马克思主义围绕当代工人阶级展开的争论与对话，从中汲取有益的理论启迪。

I. The Working-Class Movement in Crisis: A Warning from Hobsbawm

一、工人阶级运动处于危机中：来自霍布斯鲍姆的警讯

*Marxism Today* was a theoretical journal founded by the Communist Party of Great Britain in 1957. Because it mainly conveyed the mainstream position of the CPGB, its theoretical and political influence was quite limited before 1979. In September 1978, at the invitation of the journal’s new editor, Martin Jacques, Hobsbawm published a short article, namely the lecture text from the March 1978 Marx Memorial Lecture, “The Forward March of Labour Halted?” This short article was primarily a summary of the historical changes in the British workers’ movement over the past hundred years, with the beginning and end briefly touching on his views on the current state and future of the working-class movement. Hobsbawm did not expect that such a “small article,” written in the spirit of “friendly support,” would have such a great impact, thrusting him, who had previously paid little attention to real politics, into the storm center of political debate, prompting his subsequent transformation in direction, and simultaneously elevating *Marxism Today* to become the most vibrant political theory journal in Britain over the following decade or more.

《今日马克思主义》是英国共产党1957年创办的一份理论刊物，因为主要传达英国共产党的主流立场，1979年以前，其理论影响和政治影响都相当有限。1978年9月，霍布斯鲍姆应杂志新主编马丁·雅克之邀发表了一篇短文，即1978年3月马克思纪念讲座上的演讲稿“工党的急行军已然停滞不前？”，该短文主要是对过去100年英国工人运动历史变迁的总结，开头和结尾简单谈了他对工人阶级运动现状和前途的看法。霍布斯鲍姆没有想到这样一篇具有“友情支持”色彩的“小文章”会产生那么大的影响，将原本不关注现实政治的他推到政治争论的风口浪尖，促成了他后来的道路转型，同时也使《今日马克思主义》一跃成为后来十余年间英国最具活力的政治理论刊物。

Unlike other first-generation British New Left Marxists such as Raymond Williams, Edward Thompson, and Ralph Miliband, Hobsbawm was a relatively “academic” figure who paid little attention to reality: after receiving his PhD from Cambridge University in 1947, he immediately became a lecturer in history at Birkbeck College, University of London, and for the next thirty years devoted himself single-mindedly to being a professional historian, focusing on labor historiography with remarkable achievements. Although he engaged in labor history research, he neither followed nor participated in the actual working-class movement, merely keeping in political step with the mainstream position of the CPGB, and maintaining an optimistic attitude toward the British working class and the prospects of socialism. However, entering the 1970s, Hobsbawm underwent an imperceptible change: initially, due to the needs of academic exchange, he established relatively close academic ties with Marxists in Italy, Spain, and other Southern European countries, thereby intersecting with the still-forming “Eurocommunism,” and ultimately identifying with the concept of “Eurocommunism,” advocating that, in light of the new situations and new tasks facing communist parties in developed European capitalist countries, they should explore theories and strategies for moving toward socialism suited to their own national conditions. Since it was necessary to explore a path suited to Britain’s own conditions, what was the state of the British working class and its movement, and what were its prospects? These were the questions Hobsbawm pondered and sought to answer when preparing “The Forward March of Labour Halted?” in 1978.

与雷蒙·威廉斯、爱德华·汤普森、拉尔夫·密里本德等其他第一代英国新左派马克思主义者不同，霍布斯鲍姆是一个不太关注现实的“学院派”：1947年剑桥大学博士毕业后，随即进入伦敦大学伯克贝克学院任历史学讲师，此后30年间一心一意做职业历史学家，致力于劳工史学研究，成果斐然；尽管从事劳工史研究，但不关注也不参与现实的工人阶级运动，只是在政治上紧跟英国共产党主流立场，对英国工人阶级以及社会主义前景持积极乐观态度。然而，进入20世纪70年代后，霍布斯鲍姆在不知不觉中发生了变化：最初是因为学术交往的需要，他与意大利、西班牙等南欧的马克思主义者建立了比较密切的学术联系，进而与还在形成中的“欧洲共产主义”产生交集，最终认同“欧洲共产主义”观念，主张根据欧洲发达资本主义国家共产党面临的新形势新任务，探索符合本国实际的走向社会主义的理论和策略。既然要探索符合本国实际的道路，那么英国工人阶级及其运动现状如何，前景又如何呢？这些就是1978年霍布斯鲍姆准备“工党的急行军已然停滞不前？”时思考并努力回答的问题。

In 1978, coinciding with the 160th anniversary of Marx’s birth, Hobsbawm was invited to deliver the Marx Memorial Lecture, with the theme “The British Working Class a Hundred Years after Marx.” At the start of the lecture, Hobsbawm said he “wanted to take this opportunity to survey overall certain developments of the British working class over the past hundred years,” because “the working class and the labour movement are in a phase of crisis,” yet most people, including leaders of working-class political parties, were completely unaware of this, let alone capable of making changes to keep pace with the times. His purpose was “to examine the crisis within the long-term perspective of the changing structures of British capitalism and the proletariat,” because “our task as Marxists, and mine as the Marx Memorial lecturer, is to apply Marx’s method and general analytical theory to concretely analyse our era.” Hobsbawm pointed out that, with the continuous development of British capitalism and the growth and maturation of working-class political consciousness, around 1878 the traditional British working-class movement, centered on industrial workers, reached its peak. However, after entering the 20th century, especially after the end of the Second World War, “the nature of British capitalism underwent profound changes in four aspects”: first, the capitalist mode of production shifted from labour-intensive to technology-intensive; second, a large-scale public service sector emerged outside the capitalist private sector, absorbing a significant employed population; third, the impact of capitalist competition on the condition of the working class diminished, while the influence of the politically driven public service sector on the working class increased; fourth, workers’ actual living standards escaped the absolute poverty of Marx’s era and achieved substantial improvement. The changes in the form of capitalism affected and altered the internal composition of the working class: occupationally, the number of white-collar workers grew rapidly, while the number of industrial workers and manual labourers in Marx’s sense declined sharply, their share of the total labour force falling from about 75% in 1911 to about 50% in 1976; in terms of gender, the dominance of male workers was completely overturned, with the proportion of female employees rising from 20% in 1951 to 50% at that time; in terms of the source of the labour force, a large number of immigrant workers appeared after the Second World War, especially immigrant workers of colour. This diversification of composition led to the resurgence and prevalence of sectarianism within the working-class movement: sectarianism based on geography, sectarianism based on industry, sectarianism based on income stratification, and ultimately the differentiation and split between the poor and the rich within the working class. Social being determines social consciousness. As the mode of social being changed, the political consciousness of the contemporary British working class also changed; simply put, the will to pursue a socialist future weakened, and the trade unionism of the 19th century, which prioritized economic interests above all, once again dominated. Hobsbawm’s conclusion was: “The development of the working class over the past generation has posed so many serious problems for its own future and that of its movement. What makes all this even more lamentable is that today we are actually in a phase of world crisis of capitalism, more precisely, a phase of crisis, even collapse

1978年适逢马克思诞辰160周年，霍布斯鲍姆受邀做马克思纪念演讲，主题是“马克思百年之后的英国工人阶级”。在演讲一开始，霍布斯鲍姆就说“想利用这个机会总体审视英国工人阶级在过去一百年的某些发展”，因为“工人阶级和劳工运动正处于危机阶段”，但包括工人阶级政党领袖在内的大多数人对此茫然不觉，更不用说做出与时俱进的变革。他的目的就是“在英国资本主义和无产阶级的变动结构这种长时段视野中审视危机”，因为“我们作为马克思主义者以及我作为马克思纪念演讲嘉宾的任务，就是运用马克思的方法和一般分析理论具体地分析我们的时代”。霍布斯鲍姆指出，随着英国资本主义的不断发展和工人阶级政治意识的成长成熟，1878年前后，以产业工人为主体的传统英国工人阶级运动进入高潮。但是，进入20世纪以后，尤其是第二次世界大战结束以后，“英国资本主义的性质从四个方面发生了深刻变化”：第一，资本主义生产方式由劳动力密集型转变为技术密集型；第二，在资本主义私营部门之外出现了大规模的公共服务部门，吸收了大量就业人口；第三，资本主义竞争对工人阶级状况的影响在降低，受政治利益驱动的公共服务部门对工人阶级的影响在上升；第四，工人的实际生活水平摆脱马克思时代的绝对贫困，获得实质性改善。资本主义的形态变化影响、改变了工人阶级的内部构成：职业上，白领工人数量增长迅猛，马克思意义上的产业工人、体力劳动者数量急剧下降，在总劳动人口中的占比从1911年的75%左右降到1976年的50%左右；性别上，男性工人主导的局面被彻底改变，女性职工占比从1951的20%上升到当时的50%；劳动力来源地上，第二次世界大战后出现了大量移民工人，尤其是有色人种移民工人。构成的多样化导致工人阶级运动中宗派主义的死灰复燃和大行其道：基于地缘的宗派主义、基于行业的宗派主义、基于收入分层的宗派主义，最终是导致工人阶级中穷人—富人的分化、分裂。社会存在决定社会意识。随着社会存在方式的变化，当代英国工人阶级的政治意识也发生了变化，简单地讲，就是追求社会主义未来的意愿弱化了，19世纪那种经济利益至上的工联主义再次占据统治地位。霍布斯鲍姆的结论是：“工人阶级在过去一个世代的发展对其自身及其运动的未来提出了那么多严重问题。让所有这些变得更可悲的是，今天我们其实正处于资本主义的世界危机阶段，更准确地讲，是英国资本主义社会的危机阶段，甚至可以说是崩溃阶段！此时此地，工人阶级及其运动原本应当提供一种非资本主义的替代选择，并领导英国人民通向这个目标。”在演讲的最后，霍布斯鲍姆发出了一个“欧洲共产主义”式的呼吁：马克思主义者应当像马克思当年那样，分析新形势新变化，制定新路线新战略，以“让工党和社会主义运动恢复其灵魂、活力和历史主动性”，“这就是等待英国资本主义进入其突然降临的危机阶段时我们应当做的事情。现在就在危机阶段，我们非做这事不可了！”

Although he was aware of its potential for political polemic, Hobsbawm indeed did not expect that the published speech would attract so much attention. Trade union leaders, Labour Party politicians and theorists, Communist Party theorists, New Left theorists, and others all joined the discussion. From this specific point, it prompted a broad debate within the leftist camp on the state of contemporary British politics. At the same time, Hobsbawm himself continuously developed and refined his political views in the process of responding to the debate, achieving a transformation from an "academic" to a "public political intellectual" intervening in reality.

尽管知道具有潜在的政治论战意味，但霍布斯鲍姆确实没有想到演讲稿刊发后会引发那么多关注，工会领袖、工党政治家和理论家、共产党理论家、新左派理论家等都参与讨论，并由点及面促使左派阵营对当代英国政治现状的大讨论，同时，他本人也在回应争论的过程中不断发展完善自己的政治观念，实现了从“学院派”向介入现实的“公共政治分子”的转型。

"The Forward March of Labour Halted?" Why did it produce such a heated response beyond Hobsbawm's expectations?

“工党的急行军已然停滞不前？”为什么会超出霍布斯鲍姆的意料产生热烈反响呢？

First, it forewarned the defeat of the British Labour Party in the 1979 general election. In 1945, Labour formed its first independent government, thereafter replacing the Liberal Party as the ruling party alternating in power with the Conservative Party. Before the 1979 election, its time in office was comparable to that of the Conservatives. At least until the end of 1978, the incumbent Labour government of James Callaghan (1976–1979) showed no clear signs of impending defeat. Against this backdrop, Hobsbawm's warning of Labour's defeat a full year in advance, based solely on his foresight as a historian, naturally caused great shock.

首先，它预警了1979年英国工党大选的失败。1945年，工党首次独立组阁，从此取代自由党成为与保守党轮流坐庄的执政党，在1979年大选之前，执政时间与保守党不相上下。至少在1978年底之前，执政的工党卡拉汉政府（1976—1979）并没有流露出明显的败象。在此背景下，霍布斯鲍姆仅仅基于自己作为历史学家的远见卓识就提前1年预警了工党的失败，自然令人大感震动。

Second, it provided a new analytical perspective, sparking enthusiasm for discussion among people from all walks of life. Why did the political victory march of the Labour Party suffer a historic setback? Hobsbawm offered a completely new analytical angle, arguing that the problem lay in the working class and trade unions unilaterally pursuing economic interests, being keen on trade-unionist "wage strikes," and no longer being able to form an effective political integration with the Labour left that pursued a socialist future. As Hobsbawm later reflected and summarized, it was precisely this new perspective, rooted in history and confronting reality, that attracted not only theorists but also political activists at all levels, from local to national, to participate.

其次，它提供了一种新的分析角度，激发了各个方面人士的讨论热情。工党的政治胜利进程为什么会招致历史性挫败？霍布斯鲍姆提供了一种全新的分析角度，认为问题在于工人阶级、工会片面追求经济利益，热衷于搞工联主义的“工资罢工”，不再能够与追求社会主义未来的工党左派形成有效的政治整合。就像霍布斯鲍姆后来回顾总结的那样，正是这种源于历史、面对现实的新视角，不仅吸引了理论家，也吸引了从地方到中央各个层级的政治活动家参与其中。

Third, it prompted the British leftist theoretical circles to begin seriously considering the major question of "what has happened to the contemporary working class." After the end of the Second World War, developed capitalist countries successively entered the "affluent society," and the social class structure also underwent changes: first, the number, proportion, and role in social progress of the traditional working class all declined significantly; second, a considerable number of new social strata emerged, promoting various new social movements such as those concerning gender, race, homosexuality, anti-nuclear weapons, and ecology, whose role in driving social change became increasingly powerful. In the 1970s, French Marxists were the first to reflect on these new phenomena and changes. Whether it was Nicos Poulantzas's theory of the "new petty bourgeoisie" or André Gorz's theory of the "new working class," both held that the traditional industrial working class was in crisis, having lost its original revolutionary character, and that social change and a socialist future could only rely on various new class forces. Hobsbawm's position clearly echoed those of Poulantzas and Gorz, thereby prompting more and more British Marxists to pay attention to the fate and direction of the British working class.

最后，它促使英国左派理论界开始认真思考“当代工人阶级怎么了”这个重大问题。第二次世界大战结束后，发达资本主义国家陆续进入“丰裕社会”，社会阶级结构也随之发生改变：一是传统工人阶级的数量、比重以及对社会进步的作用都在显著下降，二是出现了相当数量的新社会阶层，推动了性别、种族、同性恋、反核武器、生态等多种新社会运动，对社会变革的推动作用越发有力。20世纪70年代，法国马克思主义者率先思考这些新现象新变化，不管是普兰查斯的“新小资产阶级”理论，还是安德烈·高兹的“新工人阶级”理论，都认为传统产业工人阶级陷入危机，已经丧失原有的革命性，社会变革、社会主义未来只能依靠各种新的阶级力量。霍布斯鲍姆的立场显然呼应了普兰查斯和高兹的立场，从而推动越来越多的英国马克思主义者关注英国工人阶级的命运和走向。

II. Laclau and Mouffe: First and Foremost, a Crisis of the Marxist Theory of Class

二、拉克劳和墨菲：首先是马克思主义阶级学说的危机

In January 1979, four months after the publication of "The Forward March of Labour Halted?", Stuart Hall published an article in *Marxism Today* titled "The Great Moving Right Show," predicting that the Conservative Party led by Margaret Thatcher would win the general election, and for the first time publicly used the new term "Thatcherism." Subsequently, the debate on the contemporary working class and the discussion on Thatcherism proceeded simultaneously in *Marxism Today* and interpenetrated each other. Eventually, the discussion on Thatcherism deepened continuously, while the debate on the contemporary working class came to a temporary halt. Just at this time, in January 1981, two leftist theorists who had not participated in the earlier debate and were not very well-known at the time appeared, elevating the original debate from the concrete practical level of trade unions, the Labour Party, and their policies to the theoretical level of the concept of class, class theory, and revolutionary strategy. They argued that the crisis of the contemporary British working class was, first and foremost, a crisis of the Marxist theory of class. These two were Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe.

1979年1月，也就是《工党的急行军已然停滞不前？》发表4个月后，斯图亚特·霍尔在《今日马克思主义》上发表《大右转秀》一文，预言玛格丽特·撒切尔领导的保守党将获得大选胜利，并第一次公开使用了撒切尔主义这个新名词。随即，当代工人阶级争论和撒切尔主义讨论在《今日马克思主义》上同时进行并且相互渗透，最终，撒切尔主义讨论不断走向深入，当代工人阶级争论则暂告一段落。就在此时，1981年1月，两位没有参与此前争论、当时也不太著名的左派理论家出现了，一下子将原先的争论从工会、工党及其政策这种具体实践层面，上升到阶级概念、阶级理论、革命战略这种理论层面，指出当前英国工人阶级的危机实际上首先是马克思主义阶级学说的危机。他们就是拉克劳和墨菲。

Compared with most of the original participants in the debate, such as Hobsbawm, Laclau and Mouffe are quite "alternative": first, they have practical experience of engaging in more radical and more brutal leftist struggles in Latin America, and their understanding of class and class struggle differs from that of more localized British leftist theorists and activists; second, they are both experts in Marxist political theory, whose first theoretical works are respectively *Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory* (1977) and *Gramsci and Marxist Theory* (1979), giving them a more theoretical and historically deeper understanding of class and class struggle; third, they are deeply influenced intellectually by continental European "Western Marxism" and post-structuralism, and are more familiar with and more sympathetic to the class theories of Poulantzas, Gorz, and others. Faced with the same crisis of the contemporary working class, what they see naturally differs from what Hobsbawm and others see. In January 1981, they co-authored the article "Where Is the Socialist Strategy Going?" in *Marxism Today*, stating at the outset: "Today's socialist political struggle takes place in a terrain profoundly transformed by the emergence of new contradictions, and the traditional Marxist discourse focusing on the analysis of class struggle and capitalist class contradictions finds great difficulty in clarifying this struggle. The women's movement, the national movement, movements of racial and sexual minorities, movements against nuclear weapons and the anti-system movement—these new political subjects have distinct anti-capitalist characteristics, but their identities are not constructed around clear 'class interests.' Is it now time to revise the concept of class struggle? ... This is the new type of problem currently facing socialist fighters in developed capitalist countries. The old necessity, the famous 'guarantee of history,' has been seriously questioned; political uncertainty accompanies growing theoretical difficulties. This is why the phrase 'crisis of Marxism' is heard more and more frequently." That is to say, in their view, what the crisis of the contemporary working class truly exposes is the crisis of Marxist theory, especially the Marxist doctrine of class, because "the notion of the working class as the 'historical force of change' is no longer valid," and the urgent task is to reinvent a new doctrine of class, identify new subjects of revolutionary struggle, and formulate a new strategy for socialist revolution. In 1985, they published *Hegemony and Socialist Strategy*, raising the banner of "post-Marxism." What most attracts attention in this book is, of course, its radical democratic theory, and this theory is precisely based on their new doctrine of class.

与霍布斯鲍姆等大多数原先的争论参与者相比，拉克劳和墨菲相当“另类”：第一，他们有在拉丁美洲从事更激进、更惨烈左派斗争的实践经历，对阶级和阶级斗争的体认不同于那些更本土化的英国左派理论家和活动家；第二，他们都是马克思主义政治理论专家，他们的第一部理论著作分别是《马克思主义理论中的政治和意识形态》（1977）和《葛兰西与马克思主义理论》（1979），对阶级和阶级斗争有着更理论化也更具思想史纵深感的认识；第三，他们在思想上深受欧洲大陆的“西方马克思主义”、后结构主义的影响，更熟悉也更认同普兰查斯、高兹等的阶级理论。同样是当代工人阶级危机，他们看到的自然和霍布斯鲍姆等人看到的有所不同。1981年1月，他们在《今日马克思主义》上联名发表《社会主义战略向何处去？》一文，开宗明义就说：“今天的社会主义政治斗争发生在一个因新矛盾的出现而被深刻改观的地带，聚焦阶级斗争和资本主义阶级矛盾分析的传统马克思主义话语要讲清楚这种斗争存在很大困难。妇女运动、民族运动、少数种族和少数派性取向运动、反对核武器和反体制运动等等，这些新政治主体具有鲜明的反资本主义特征，但其身份认同却不是以明确的‘阶级利益’为中心建构的，现在是不是到了有必要修改阶级斗争观念的地步呢？……这是发达资本主义国家社会主义斗士们目前面临的新问题类型。原有的必然性，著名的‘历史的保证’，受到严重质疑；政治不确定性与不断增长的理论困局则相伴而生。这就是为什么人们越来越频繁听到‘马克思主义的危机’这个说法。”也就是说，在他们看来，当代工人阶级危机真正暴露出来的是马克思主义理论尤其是马克思主义阶级学说的危机，因为“工人阶级作为‘变革的历史性力量’的观念已不再有效”，当务之急就是重新发明新的阶级学说，确定新的革命斗争主体，制定新的社会主义革命战略。1985年，他们出版《霸权与社会主义战略》一书，打出“后马克思主义”旗号。该书最受人关注的当然是其中的激进民主理论，而这一理论恰恰是以他们的新阶级学说为基础的。

In Laclau and Mouffe's view, there is nothing new under the sun. The crisis encountered by the British working class in the late 1970s had already appeared once in Germany before the First World War: the German working class and trade unions developed through economic struggle, but their political relationship with the Social Democratic Workers' Party became increasingly tense, "to the point where the unity of the working class and its determination to pursue socialism became increasingly problematic." This reality, running counter to the expectations of Marxist theory, confirmed the "crisis of Marxism." The Second International, the Third International, and "Western Marxism" all made unremitting explorations to overcome this theoretical crisis, yet the same crisis of the working class reappeared eighty years later! This shows that Marxist theory, especially class theory, must be thoroughly rethought. Drawing on Gramsci's theory of hegemony and the post-structuralist trend that flourished in the 1970s, they argue that the real problem with Marxist class theory is its insistence that only the working class can lead to and realize socialism—this is an erroneous essentialist mode of thinking. The essentialist thinking of Marxist class theory rests on three theoretical pillars: the centrality of productive forces, the tendency toward the universal impoverishment of the working class, and the notion that socialism is the fundamental interest of the working class. But historical development has proven all of them wrong. "The economic sphere is not a self-regulating space obeying endogenous laws; there exists neither a principle for constructing social subjects that can be fixed to a final class core, nor class positions defined by historical interests." That is to say, as the material bearers of specific functions of the capitalist mode of production, the working class does not necessarily form a revolutionary class consciousness from its experience as a class in itself.

在拉克劳和墨菲看来，太阳底下没有新的东西，20世纪70年代末英国工人阶级遭遇的这种危机，早在第一次世界大战前的德国就已经出现过一次：德国工人阶级、工会靠经济斗争获得发展，但与德国社会民主工人党的政治关系却变得日益紧张，“以至于工人阶级的统一及其追求社会主义的决心都日益变得成问题了”。这种与马克思主义理论预期背道而驰的现实确证了“马克思主义的危机”。第二国际、第三国际以及“西方马克思主义”都为克服这种理论危机进行了不懈探索，但同样的工人阶级危机80年后却再次出现！这说明必须对马克思主义理论尤其是阶级理论进行彻底的反思。借助葛兰西的霸权理论和20世纪70年代勃兴的后结构主义思潮，他们提出，马克思主义阶级理论真正的问题在于坚持认为只有依靠工人阶级才能走向、实现社会主义，这是一种错误的本质主义思维。马克思主义阶级理论的本质主义思维有三个理论支柱，即生产力中心地位论、工人阶级贫困普遍化趋势论、社会主义是工人阶级的根本利益论，但历史发展已经证明它们都是错误的。“经济领域不是一个服从内生规律的自我调节空间，那里既不存在可以固定到某一最终阶级核心的社会主体建构原则，也不存在由历史利益定位的阶级立场”，也就是说，作为资本主义生产方式特定功能的物质承担者，工人阶级从其自在的阶级经历中并不必然形成革命的阶级意识。

If class consciousness is not generated immanently and historically within the dialectical relationship between economic base and superstructure, then how is it formed? Laclau and Mouffe argue that, first, class consciousness is formed within a non-essentialist, overdetermined totality of social relations. In their view, the concept of "overdetermination" is an important theoretical contribution of Althusser, but the later Althusser increasingly emphasized the ultimately determining role of the economic base, thereby pushing the concept of "overdetermination" toward a new essentialism. Its original conception, however, contained a different "theoretical promise," namely an anti-essentialist "logic of overdetermination." Within this overdetermined totality of social relations, the formation of class consciousness is not only truly overdetermined but also "structurally to be subverted and transcended"—it is not fixed. Second, class consciousness is autonomously formed by the working class through the contingent articulation of ideological elements. In the introduction to *Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory*, Laclau uses Plato's "allegory of the cave" to elaborate his theory of articulation, emphasizing that the construction of meaning is subjective and contingent, not necessarily true. Based on this theory of articulation, Laclau and Mouffe argue that within the overdetermined totality of social relations, various ideological elements can be randomly and contingently articulated by the working class into a "discourse," that is, into its own class consciousness. In this sense, the working class forms its own class consciousness, but this class consciousness is not necessarily socialist or revolutionary. Third, class itself is actually an identity constituted through subjective acts of identification. The working class's discursive choices are open; whichever ideological elements it chooses, it will form a corresponding discourse, and thereby become a certain kind of person or "subject." In contemporary capitalist society, the working class has not chosen a revolutionary ideology, so it naturally ceases to be a revolutionary "subject." Since this is the case, where are the new revolutionary "subjects"? Based on the pattern of actual social movements, Laclau and Mouffe point out that the new socialist revolutionary force should be constructed from the multiple political subjects involved in current new social movements: "Countless new struggles have already shown a tendency to oppose new forms of subordination, and they emerge from the very heart of the new society."

如果不是在经济基础与上层建筑的辩证关系中内在地历史生成，那工人阶级的阶级意识是如何形成的呢？拉克劳和墨菲认为，第一，阶级意识是在一种非本质主义的多元决定社会关系总体中形成的。在他们看来，“多元决定”观念是阿尔都塞的重要理论贡献，但越到后期，阿尔都塞越强调经济基础归根到底的决定作用，从而使“多元决定”观念走向新的本质主义，其最初构想则蕴含了一种不同的“理论承诺”，即反本质主义的“多元决定逻辑”，在这种多元决定的社会关系总体上，阶级意识的形成不仅是真正多元决定的，而且是“在结构上要被颠覆和超越的”，不是固定不变的。第二，阶级意识是工人阶级通过对意识形态要素进行具有偶然性的接合自主形成的。在《马克思主义理论中的政治和意识形态》的导论中，拉克劳以柏拉图的“洞穴喻”引申出自己的接合理论，强调意义的建构是主体性的、偶然的，不必然为真的。基于这种接合理论，拉克劳和墨菲认为，在多元决定的社会关系总体中，各种意识形态因素都有可能被工人阶级随机地、偶然地接合成为“话语”，也就是自己的阶级意识。就此而言，工人阶级是自己形成了自己的阶级意识，但这种阶级意识不必然是与社会主义相关的、革命的。第三，阶级本身实际上是通过主体性的认同活动而构成的身份。工人阶级的话语选择是开放的，选择了什么意识形态要素，就会形成什么话语，进而成为什么人、“主体”。在当代资本主义社会中，工人阶级没有选择革命的意识形态，就自然不再是革命的“主体”。既然如此，新的革命“主体”在哪里呢？基于现实的社会运动格局，拉克劳和墨菲指出，新的社会主义革命力量应该从当下新社会运动涉及到的多元政治主体中去建构，“无数新的斗争已经表现出了反对新的从属形式的倾向，而且它们就来自新社会的中心地带”。

Shortly after the publication of *Hegemony and Socialist Strategy*, it quickly attracted attention from the British leftist theoretical circles. There were those who defended and endorsed it, as well as those who criticized and opposed it, and the debate soon spilled beyond Britain’s borders, generating considerable international influence, with its aftereffects persisting into the early twenty-first century. A careful analysis of the prolonged controversy surrounding “post-Marxism” reveals that Laclau and Mouffle’s new theory of class was not the focal point of the debate. For any leftist theorist who does not stand on the explicit ground of a working-class party when examining the working-class movement in contemporary developed capitalist countries, it is not difficult to acknowledge: first, they provide a new theory of the formation of working-class consciousness that can explain why revolutionary consciousness among the working class has declined under developed capitalist conditions; second, they reveal a new trend in anti-capitalist movements within developed capitalist societies, namely a shift from traditional class struggle to new ideological struggle and hegemonic struggle, where new social movement groups are historically replacing the working class as the active subjects of anti-capitalist movements; third, they make people aware that, although new social movement groups cannot replace the working class in accomplishing the socialist revolutionary task of achieving the liberation of all humanity, these groups do possess the possibility of becoming revolutionary subjects, and Marxists should strive to promote the realization of this possibility by supporting these new social movements.

《霸权与社会主义战略》出版后，很快就引起英国左派理论界的关注，捍卫、辩护者有之，批判、反对者亦有之，且很快溢出英国的边界，产生相当大的国际影响，余波一直持续到21世纪初。仔细分析围绕“后马克思主义”展开的长期争论，不难发现，拉克劳和墨菲的新阶级学说并不是争论的重点。因为凡是不站在明确的工人阶级政党立场上审视当代发达资本主义国家工人阶级运动的左派理论家，都不难承认：第一，他们提供了一种新的工人阶级意识形成理论，能够解释发达资本主义条件下工人阶级革命意识为什么会衰退的现象；第二，他们揭示了发达资本主义社会中反资本主义运动的新趋势，即从传统的阶级斗争转向新的意识形态斗争、霸权斗争，新社会运动群体正历史性地取代工人阶级成为反资本主义运动的活跃主体；第三，他们让人们意识到，虽然新社会运动群体不可能替代工人阶级去完成实现全人类解放的社会主义革命任务，但这些群体确实具有成为革命主体的可能性，马克思主义者应当通过支持这些新社会运动，努力促进这种可能性的实现。

III. Stuart Hall: The Working Class Must “Learn from Thatcherism”

三、斯图亚特·霍尔：工人阶级要“向撒切尔主义学习”

In a sense, Laclau and Mouffle’s new theory of class expressed, in a radical and highly theorized manner, the sentiments of the second-generation British New Left theorists of the 1970s who were deeply influenced by continental “Western Marxism,” especially French thought. However, their theoretical expression and strategic choices were so radical that most influential second-generation New Left theorists at the time kept their distance, avoiding endorsing them. There was perhaps one exception: Stuart Hall. Throughout the 1980s, Hall was primarily engaged in a critique of Thatcherism, the other side of which was a reflection on the ideological crisis of the contemporary working class. In Hall’s view, the reasons for Thatcherism’s success were also the reasons for the left’s crisis. If the British working-class movement and the Labour Party were to escape their current crisis, they had to “learn from Thatcherism” in ideological struggle. This clearly echoed the positions of Laclau and Mouffle.

从某种意义上讲，拉克劳和墨菲的新阶级学说以激进的、高度理论化的方式表达了20世纪70年代深受欧陆“西方马克思主义”，尤其是法国思想影响的第二代英国新左派理论家的心声。但是，他们的理论表达和战略选择是如此激进，以至于当时有影响的第二代新左派理论家大多与他们保持距离，避免为他们背书。或许只有一个例外，这个人就是斯图亚特·霍尔。在整个20世纪80年代，霍尔主要致力于撒切尔主义批判，这种批判的另外一面则是对当代工人阶级意识形态危机的反思。在霍尔看来，撒切尔主义获得成功的原因也就是左派陷入危机的原因，英国工人阶级运动和工党要想摆脱当前的危机，就必须在意识形态斗争中“向撒切尔主义学习”（Learn from Thatcherism）。这与拉克劳和墨菲的立场显然是相互呼应的。

Before triggering the debate on Thatcherism, Hall was known in British leftist theoretical circles as the true father of “cultural studies” rather than as an observer of social and political issues. Nevertheless, he always paid close attention to the contemporary working class, especially its ideological condition. In the mid-to-late 1950s, the first-generation New Left, such as Richard Hoggart, observed that, compared with the 1930s, British working-class consciousness had undergone significant changes, showing a clear trend toward embourgeoisement. Hoggart tended to attribute this to the negative influence of the emerging bourgeois commercial culture and mass culture. In 1958, the American economist John Kenneth Galbraith published *The Affluent Society*, arguing forcefully that the advent of the affluent society had profoundly altered the economic, political, social, and ideological structures of developed capitalist societies, rendering Marx’s nineteenth-century traditional wisdom obsolete. Galbraith’s views inspired Hall, prompting him to publish the article “A Sense of Classlessness” in 1958. Based on the theory that the economic base determines the superstructure, he reinterpreted the phenomenon of the fading of proletarian consciousness that Hoggart had identified: the development of the capitalist mode of production led to the advent of the affluent society, the lifestyle of the working class began to converge with that of the bourgeoisie, which in turn led to the convergence of class consciousness, and thus the phenomenon of classlessness emerged. Starting from this point, Hall began to delve deeply into the formation mechanisms of contemporary working-class cultural concepts and their potential revolutionary potential. In the 1970s, through cultural studies projects such as *Resistance Through Rituals: Youth Subcultures in Post-War Britain* (1975) and *Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State, and Law and Order* (1978), Hall increasingly strongly discovered the objective shaping and transforming effect of bourgeois ideology on working-class concepts. Theoretically, he increasingly identified with Althusser-Poulantzas’s theory of ideological state apparatuses and Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony, ultimately confirming that the power exercised by contemporary bourgeois ideological state apparatuses over social members, including the working class, is comprehensive, material, and therefore objective, sometimes even decisive. With the establishment of this understanding, Hall’s focus shifted from culture to the bourgeois ideological state apparatuses, and then to the bourgeois state itself. It became a natural progression for him to propose and lead the critique of Thatcherism.

在触发撒切尔主义争论之前，霍尔以真正的“文化研究”之父而非社会政治问题观察家闻名于英国左派理论界，不过，他始终在密切关注当代工人阶级尤其是工人阶级的意识形态状况。20世纪50年代中后期，理查德·霍加特等第一代新左派观察到，较之于30年代，英国工人阶级意识已经有了很大变化，表现出明显的资产阶级化趋势，霍加特倾向于将此归结为新兴资产阶级商业文化、大众文化的消极影响。1958年，美国经济学家加尔布雷斯（旧译加耳布雷思）出版《丰裕社会》一书，力证丰裕社会的来临深刻改变了发达资本主义社会的经济、政治、社会及意识形态结构，马克思那种19世纪的传统智慧过时了。加尔布雷斯的观点给霍尔以启发，促使他在1958年发表《无阶级的观念》（A Sense of Classlessness）一文，基于经济基础决定上层建筑理论，重新解释霍加特发现的无产阶级意识消退现象：资本主义生产方式的发展导致丰裕社会的来临，工人阶级的生活方式与资产阶级的生活方式开始趋同化，进而导致阶级意识的趋同化，无阶级现象由此出现。以此为起点，霍尔开始深入探索当代工人阶级文化观念的形成机制及其可能的革命潜能。在70年代的《通过仪式抵抗：战后英国青年亚文化》（1975）、《监控危机：抢劫、国家、法与秩序》（1978）等文化研究项目中，霍尔越来越强烈地发现资产阶级意识形态对工人阶级观念具有客观的塑造和改变作用，在理论上越来越认同阿尔都塞—普兰查斯的意识形态国家机器理论和葛兰西的文化霸权理论，最终确认当代资产阶级意识形态国家机器对社会成员包括工人阶级发挥的权力是全面的、物质性的，因而也是客观的，有时甚至是决定性的。随着这种认识的确立，霍尔的关注焦点从文化转向资产阶级意识形态国家机器，进而转向资产阶级国家本身，提出并领导撒切尔主义批判就变得水到渠成了。

In 1988, in response to accusations that the critique of Thatcherism had abandoned class theory and class analysis, Hall emphasized that his relevant writings had never “suggested that British society or ‘Thatcherism’ could be analyzed without the concept of class.” “The real question is not whether to use the word ‘class,’ but what the term means, and what it can or cannot convey.” In fact, Hall’s critique of Thatcherism also inherently contained a new theory of class.

1988年，针对关于撒切尔主义批判放弃阶级学说和阶级分析的指责，霍尔强调，自己的相关论著从来没有“暗示离开阶级概念能够分析英国社会或‘撒切尔主义’”，“真正的问题不在于是否使用‘阶级’这个词，而在于这个术语意味什么，以及能够或不能传达什么”。事实上，霍尔的撒切尔主义批判也内在包含一种新的阶级学说。

First is the theory of the re-formation of modern working-class consciousness centered on the concept of “articulation.” In the 1990s, British “cultural studies” began to spread forcefully from the English-speaking world to the non-English-speaking world, becoming a global academic trend. Against this backdrop, in 1996, the American cultural studies scholar Jennifer Daryl Slack published a widely circulated essay claiming that “articulation theory” is “one of the most productive concepts in contemporary cultural studies.” The biggest problem with this judgment is that it confuses the nature of the political critique of “Thatcherism” with that of “cultural studies,” generalizing “articulation,” a specific political-analytical concept mainly used to explain the re-formation of contemporary working-class consciousness, into a general theory of ideological critique. When we restore the specific problematic of the formation or re-formation of modern working-class consciousness and then look at Hall’s famous interview on articulation, it is not difficult to understand Hall’s real meaning: first, unlike the era of Marx and before, the modern working class faces a complex environment of ideological struggle; the acquisition of its class consciousness is no longer a transcendental, necessary deterministic process but a concrete, non-necessary process of contingent articulation, with a strong capacity for autonomous selection and the possibility of re-formation. Second, Hall rejects the view of Laclau and Mouffe in *Hegemony and Socialist Strategy* that articulation is confined solely to the ideological field as a purely discursive process; he emphasizes that articulation always occurs within real social processes involving the dialectical and complex interaction between the economic base and the superstructure, especially in periods of intense social upheaval. Third, in turbulent social situations, the existing ideological structure of a specific social force can break, and then articulate with a new ideological formation; at this point, although the external material form has not changed, a new socio-political subject emerges. Fourth, between 1964 and 1970, as the social democratic-welfare state consensus entered a period of crisis, the existing class consciousness of the modern British working class began to fracture. After 1970, the Conservative Party keenly seized the opportunity, launching an ideological struggle against the Labour Party, continuously promoting the fracture and disintegration of the social democratic-welfare state consensus, and ultimately enabling the working class to articulate with “authoritarian populism,” the new Conservative ideology. This integrated a considerable number of workers into the Conservative Party’s “historical bloc,” making them supporters of “Thatcherism.” In other words, using the concept of “articulation,” which originates from but differs from Laclau’s, Hall relatively successfully explained from the perspective of class consciousness re-constitution this perplexing new phenomenon of why the contemporary British working class turned to support the Conservative Party.

首先是以“接合”概念为核心的现代工人阶级意识再形成理论。20世纪90年代，英国“文化研究”开始从英语世界向非英语世界强势传播，成为一种世界性的学术潮流。在这个背景下，1996年，美国文化研究学者斯莱克发表了一篇流传颇广的论文，指称“接合理论”是“当代文化研究最具生产力的概念之一”。这个判断最大的问题在于混淆了“撒切尔主义”政治批判与“文化研究”的性质差别，将“接合”这一主要用于解释当代工人阶级意识再形成的具体政治分析概念，泛化为一般的意识形态批判理论。当我们恢复现代工人阶级意识形成或再形成这个具体的问题域，再看霍尔关于接合的那段著名访谈，就不难理解霍尔的真意：第一，与马克思及其之前的时代不同，现代工人阶级面对复杂的意识形态斗争环境，其阶级意识的获得不再是一种先验的、必然的决定论过程，而是一种具体的、非必然的偶然接合过程，具有很强的自主选择性和再形成的可能性；第二，霍尔拒绝像拉克劳和墨菲在《霸权与社会主义战略》中认为的那样，把接合仅仅限定在意识形态场域，当作单纯的话语过程，强调接合始终是发生在真实的、经济基础与上层建筑辩证复杂互动的社会过程中，尤其是剧烈动荡的社会情势中；第三，在动荡的社会情势中，特定社会力量既有的意识形态结构会发生断裂，进而与新的意识形态构成进行接合，此时，尽管外在的物质形态没有改变，但一种新的社会政治主体却出现了；第四，1964—1970年间，随着社会民主主义—福利国家共识进入危机期，现代英国工人阶级既有阶级意识开始发生断裂，1970年以后，保守党敏锐地抓住机会，针对工党发动意识形态斗争，不断促进社会民主主义—福利国家共识的断裂、解体，最终使工人阶级与“权威民粹主义”这一新的保守党意识形态发生接合，使相当数量的工人阶级被整合进保守党的“历史集团”，成为“撒切尔主义”的支持者。也就是说，霍尔用源于但又区别于拉克劳的“接合”概念，从阶级意识再构成的角度，较为成功地解释了当代英国工人阶级为什么会转而支持保守党这一令人困惑的新现象。

Second is the theory of modern class struggle centered on ideological hegemony. Why was the Conservative Party under Thatcher able to repeatedly (1979, 1983, 1987) defeat the Labour Party, which had made great contributions to the welfare of the contemporary working class, and win general elections, even achieving a landslide victory in 1983? Hall believed the key was that the Left and the Labour Party were still stuck in the traditional mindset of “Labourism,” failing to recognize that the struggle for ideological hegemony had historically become the most important arena of modern class struggle. By “Labourism,” Hall meant the political ideas formed by the British Labour Party in previous class struggles: “It really assumes that economic facts can fire themselves directly into the heads of the working class without passing through the real world. Working-class consciousness is like a subway with an automatic program: once Labour, always Labour.” However, with the re-formation of working-class consciousness, the main battlefield of class struggle between Labour and the Conservatives, the Left and the Right, had shifted from the past economic sphere to the ideological sphere. The Labour Party and the Left, not clearly aware of this change, ceded ideological hegemony, leading to the working class being integrated by “Thatcherism” and forming “an ‘imagined community’ according to Thatcher’s political project.” Where one fails, one should stand up there. Hall believed that for the British working-class movement and the Labour Party to escape their current crisis, they must “learn from Thatcherism” and seize the initiative in the struggle for ideological hegemony.

其次是以意识形态霸权为核心的现代阶级斗争理论。撒切尔领导下的保守党为什么能够一再（1979、1983、1987）战胜为当代工人阶级福利做出巨大贡献的工党赢得大选，甚至在1983年取得压倒性的胜利？霍尔认为，关键在于左派和工党的思维还停留在传统的“工党主义”之中，没有认识到意识形态霸权斗争已经历史地成为现代阶级斗争的最重要场域。霍尔讲的“工党主义”是指英国工党在此前阶级斗争中形成的政治观念，“它真的假定经济事实不经过真实世界就能直接将自己发射到工人阶级头脑里。工人阶级意识就像自动设定程序的地铁一样：一旦工党，总是工党”。但是，随着工人阶级意识再形成的发生，工党与保守党、左派与右派的阶级斗争主战场已经从过去的经济领域转移到意识形态领域，工党和左派没有清醒意识到这种变化，将意识形态霸权拱手相让，导致工人阶级被“撒切尔主义”整合，“按照撒切尔主义的政治规划形成了一种‘想象的共同体’”。在哪里失败，就应当在哪里站立来。霍尔认为，英国工人阶级运动和工党要想摆脱当前的危机，就必须“向撒切尔主义学习”，掌握意识形态霸权斗争的主动权。

Finally, there is the theory of recreating the subject of socialist revolution oriented toward new social movements. Although he called on the working class to learn new skills of ideological struggle from “Thatcherism,” as a sober and冷静 observer, Hall’s judgment on the present and foreseeable future of the British political landscape was actually pessimistic: entering the 1990s, “capital is still global, and today more than ever. Not only that, but the old inequalities that accompany it still determine people’s life experiences, limiting the hopes and sorrows of all groups, all classes, and all communities. Along with the new era, new social divisions, new inequalities, and new forms of disempowerment are being produced, covering over the old forms.” So, should one give up the struggle because the opponent is strong? Hall’s answer was no, and with a spirit of persistence—knowing it cannot be done yet still doing it—he strove to recreate the subject of socialist revolution. On the one hand, like Laclau and Mouffe, Hall valued new social movements, believing that the working-class movement must establish broad alliances with various new social movements in practice. But on the other hand, unlike Laclau and Mouffe, who were confident that a new revolutionary subject could certainly be constructed from new social movements, Hall questioned with doubt: “Is there a political force there that can restart the movement towards ‘socialism’? Is there a doctor in the house who can cure the disease?” Why was this? Ultimately, because Hall adhered to the basic materialist stance of Marxism, he doubted or even denied the possibility of articulating and constructing a revolutionary subject with genuine revolutionary consciousness from new social movements lacking an objective class experience base. — If so, why did Hall still choose to support new social movements like the struggles of ethnic minority immigrants of color in the late 1980s? Apart from the fact that the struggles of ethnic minority immigrants of color in Britain were surging at the time and that Hall himself was an immigrant of color, the most fundamental theoretical reason was that Hall knew clearly that the vast majority of ethnic minority immigrants of color belonged to the working class, and from them, it might be possible to articulate a genuine revolutionary subject!

最后是面向新社会运动的社会主义革命主体再创造理论。尽管号召工人阶级要向“撒切尔主义”学习意识形态斗争新本领，不过，作为一名清醒冷静的观察家，霍尔对英国政治格局的当下及其可见未来的判断其实是悲观的：进入20世纪90年代以后，“资本依然是全球性的，并且今天更胜以往。不仅如此，与之相伴而生的旧的不平等依旧在决定人们的生活经验，限制所有人群、所有阶级以及所有共同体的希望与忧愁。与新时代一起出现的，正在生产出新的社会分裂、新的不平等和剥夺权力的形式，它们将原有的形式都覆盖了”。那么，能够因为对手的强大而放弃斗争吗？霍尔的答案是否定的，并且怀着一种知其不可为而仍为之的坚持精神，努力去重新创造社会主义革命主体。一方面，与拉克劳和墨菲一样，霍尔重视新社会运动，认为工人阶级运动必须在实践中与各种新社会运动建立广泛的联盟关系；但另一方面，霍尔没有像拉克劳和墨菲那样确信新的革命主体就一定能够从新社会运动中建构出来，而是心存疑虑地追问：“那里存在能够重新启动朝着‘社会主义’的运动的政治力量吗？屋子里有能治病的医生吗？”为什么会如此？说到底，是因为霍尔坚守马克思主义的唯物主义基本立场，怀疑甚至否定从缺乏客观的阶级经历基础的新社会运动中接合、建构出具有真正革命意识的革命主体的可能性。——既然如此，霍尔20世纪80年代末为什么还是选择支持有色人种少数族裔移民抗争这种新社会运动呢？除了当时英国的有色人种少数族裔移民抗争运动风起云涌，霍尔本人也是有色人种移民这两点，最根本的理论原因在于，霍尔清楚绝大多数有色人种少数族裔移民都属于工人阶级，从他们这里或许有可能接合出真正的革命主体！

IV. Miliband-Wood: Marxist Class Struggle Theory Is Not Outdated!

四、密里本德—伍德：马克思主义阶级斗争学说没有过时！

Within the British Marxist camp, the most senior political theorist concerning the working class and working-class parties is undoubtedly Ralph Miliband: as early as 1961, he published *Parliamentary Socialism: A Study in the Politics of Labour*, a book on the relationship between British trade unions and the Labour Party; in 1978, he published *Marxism and Politics*, which reconstructed Marx’s political theory system based on class and class struggle, receiving widespread acclaim. In fact, Miliband had already noticed phenomena such as the decline in the revolutionary character of the British working class and the rightward shift of the British Labour Party in the 1960s. But as a Marxist political theorist who maintained close ties with the working class and the working-class movement, no matter how disappointed he was with the working class and the Labour Party, he insisted that the future of British socialism ultimately had to rely on workers, trade unions, and the Labour Party to achieve it, because “the Labour Party remains a ‘working-class party,’ in the sense that there is currently no other important party to replace it. Of course, this has always been the fundamental problem of British socialism, and it is not a problem that can be solved immediately.” Standing from this position, Miliband naturally disagreed with the views of Hobsbawm, Laclau and Mouffe, Hall, and others. In 1985, he published the widely noted article “The New Revisionism in Britain” in *New Left Review*, criticizing that although Hobsbawm, Laclau and Mouffe, Hall, and others had not formally abandoned their socialist beliefs, they had retreated from a socialist stance to a new revisionist position.

在英国马克思主义阵营中，关于工人阶级、工人阶级政党，最资深的政治理论家当属拉尔夫·密里本德：早在1961年，他就出版了论英国工会与工党关系的《议会社会主义：工党政治研究》一书；1978年，他又出版《马克思主义与政治学》一书，基于阶级和阶级斗争对马克思的政治学说体系进行重建，得到广泛好评。事实上，密里本德在20世纪60年代就关注到了英国工人阶级革命性下降、英国工党右倾化等现象，但作为一名与工人阶级、工人阶级运动保持密切联系的马克思主义政治理论家，无论对工人阶级、工党怎样失望，他都坚持认为，英国的社会主义未来最终还得依靠工人、工会以及工党去实现，因为“工党仍是‘工人阶级政党’，在这个意义上，目前没有别的重要的政党取代它。当然这一直是英国社会主义的根本难题，这不是一个好像马上就能解决的难题”。站在这种立场上，密里本德当然不赞同霍布斯鲍姆、拉克劳和墨菲、霍尔等人的观点，遂于1985年在《新左派评论》上发表引起广泛关注的《英国的新修正主义》一文，批评霍布斯鲍姆、拉克劳和墨菲、霍尔等人虽然没有正式放弃社会主义信仰，但已经从社会主义立场倒退到一种新的修正主义立场。

In Miliband’s view, the new revisionism has four basic positions: first, it rejects “class politics,” holding that trade unions and the working class can no longer bear the historical mission of transforming capitalism; second, it places the future of socialism more in the hands of various new social movements; third, it opposes statism and refuses to use the capitalist state for social reform; fourth, it sharply criticizes and even negates the historical role of the Labour Party (including the Labour left). Miliband emphasizes that no matter how low the revolutionary character of the contemporary working class may be, the working class should not be deconstructed, because “‘the ruling class’ is not a verbal image: it signifies a very real and powerful concentration of power, a close cooperative relationship with capital and the capitalist state, a union of class power and state power, which not only possesses enormous resources but uses them resolutely and comprehensively, and is able to unite its foreign allies to block any substantial challenge to its existing power.” Miliband does not deny the importance of new social movements or their positive role in the struggle against capitalism, but he believes that these cannot become grounds for canceling the working class’s status as the revolutionary subject of the socialist movement, because “if the organized working class refuses to do this work, then no one will do it; as a conflict-ridden, increasingly despotic and cruel social system, capitalist society will continue to exist, generation after generation.” He affirms that in the future process of socialist construction, it will be necessary to unite various positive forces such as mass organizations, political parties, trade unions, workers’ councils, local governments, women’s groups, and Black parliamentarians, but he firmly opposes underestimating and thereby negating the role of the state, because “the state must play an important role throughout the entire process… not only to contain and conquer the resistance of reactionary forces to socialist progress, but also to perform many different functions, including mediating the interests between different and potentially conflicting forces grouped under the name of ‘people’s power’… the task of providing ultimate protection for political, civil, and social rights will fall to the state and its regional and local organizations; even after capitalism is superseded, in opposing sexism, racism, and other unknown discriminations and abuses of power, the state will also be the ultimate force.” Although he had long ceased to harbor illusions about the Labour Party, Miliband firmly opposed treating it in a nihilistic manner, on the one hand because there are still many radical leftists within the Labour Party, “people who after 1979 campaigned for the implementation of left-wing policies within the Labour Party,” and their very existence shows that the Labour Party still has hope; on the other hand, because in a period when socialism is at a low ebb, the left should unite rather than slander and destroy each other—such things “are best left to the enemies of socialism.”

在密里本德看来，新修正主义有四个基本立场：第一，拒绝“阶级政治”，认为工会和工人阶级已不再能够承担改造资本主义的历史使命；第二，把社会主义的未来更多寄托在各种新社会运动上；第三，反对国家主义，拒绝为了社会改良而利用资本主义国家；第四，激烈批评甚至否定工党（包括工党左派）的历史作用。密里本德强调，无论当代工人阶级的革命性如何低落，都不应解构工人阶级，因为“‘统治阶级’不是一个语言形象：它意味着一种非常真实强大的权力集合，一种与资本和资本主义国家的紧密合作关系，一个阶级权力和国家权力的联合，它不仅拥有巨大的资源，并且坚定而全面地使用它们，能够联合自己的国外同盟者，阻止对自己现有权力的一切实质性挑战”。密里本德并不否定新社会运动的重要性及其在反对资本主义斗争中的积极作用，但认为这些并不能成为取消工人阶级作为社会主义运动革命主体地位的理由，因为“如果组织化的工人阶级拒绝做这项工作，那么这项工作就不会有人去完成；作为一个充满冲突的、逐渐增长的专制和残酷的社会系统，资本主义社会将继续存在下去，一代又一代地存在下去”。他肯定，在未来的社会主义建设过程中，有必要将大众力量、政党、工会、工人委员会、地方政府、妇女团体、黑人议员等各种积极力量都联合起来，但坚决反对低估进而否定国家的作用，因为“国家在整个进程中必须发挥重要的作用……不仅要遏制和征服反动分子对社会主义进步的抵制，而且要履行许多不同的职能，包括调停归在‘人民权力’名义下不同的和可能冲突的力量之间的利益关系……对政治的、市民的和社会的权利提供最终保护的任务，将落到国家及其区域地方组织身上；甚至在资本主义被超越之后，在反对性别歧视、种族主义以及其他未知的权力歧视和滥用方面，国家也将是终极力量。”尽管早就对工党不再抱有幻想，但密里本德坚决反对以虚无主义的方式对待工党，一方面是因为工党中还有不少激进的左派，“这些人在1979年以后为争取实行工党内的左派政策而进行竞选”，他们的存在本身就说明工党还是有希望的；另一方面是因为在社会主义遭遇低潮的情况下，左派更应当联合起来，而不应当相互诋毁、自相残杀，这种事情“最好留给社会主义的敌人”。

To prove that the Marxist theory of class struggle has not become obsolete, Miliband also devoted himself to applying it to the study of real problems, the result of which was his 1989 book *Divided Societies: Class Struggle in Contemporary Capitalism*. In this book, Miliband insists that contemporary advanced capitalist societies remain class societies, that Marx’s analysis of class struggle has not become obsolete, and that the problem is merely how to apply it correctly to face changed realities. Contemporary advanced capitalist societies have a cone-shaped class structure composed of eight basic classes: the power elite and senior professionals in various fields constitute the ruling class, while the various newly emerged middle classes (petty bourgeoisie) and the traditional working class together constitute the ruled class. Superficially, the new social movements led by the new middle classes (petty bourgeoisie) differ markedly from traditional working-class struggles, but they “together with industrial workers, service workers, and other workers engaged in struggle, establish potential alliances, creating the possibility of forming new pressure groups and alliances,” and these all “point back to class struggle.” Miliband emphasizes that no matter how highly one affirms the significance and role of new social movements, on the road to socialism they should not be equated with the working-class movement. “The workers’ movement will remain the core of the struggle aimed at fundamental change and revolution in advanced capitalist societies. New social movements may doubt or even deny this. But all the conservative forces in this society will not deny it. For them—it is they who are first in the struggle, who bear the pressure of the struggle, and if necessary, are even crushed by it—the main opponent has always been the organized working class and the socialist left.” Miliband believes that class struggle in contemporary advanced capitalist societies has not only not died out but has expanded in new, less noticed forms. This new form is what he calls the “class struggle from above” waged by the ruling class: “What I call class struggle from above is actually launched by different actors—employers, holders of state power, political institutions such as political parties, lobbying groups, the press, and many other institutions that claim to be ‘non-political’ (and they may indeed think they are non-political)—but they all undoubtedly lead to class struggle.” This expansion of class struggle should bear primary responsibility for the great setbacks suffered by British socialism. Furthermore, internationalization—that is, using various means to interfere in the political processes of other countries—is a new change in class struggle in contemporary advanced capitalist countries. In short, Miliband believes that class struggle in advanced capitalist societies has not ended, but the existing class struggle has also not led to the desired positive results, because “the class struggle to create a democratic, equal, cooperative, classless society has hardly begun.”

为了证明马克思主义阶级斗争学说没有过时，密里本德还致力于运用前者研究现实问题，其成果就是1989年出版的《分裂的社会：当代资本主义的阶级斗争》。在该书中，密里本德坚持认为，当代发达资本主义社会依旧是阶级社会，马克思的阶级斗争分析并没有过时，问题仅仅是在于如何正确运用它去面对变化了的现实。当代发达资本主义社会存在一个由八个基本阶级构成的圆锥形的阶级结构，权力精英和各个领域的高级专业人员构成了统治阶级，各种大量涌现的新中间阶级（小资产阶级）和传统的工人阶级一起构成了被统治阶级。从外观上看，新中间阶级（小资产阶级）主导的新社会运动和传统的工人阶级斗争存在显著差异，但它们“与从事斗争的工业工人、服务业工人以及其他工人一起建立了潜在的联盟，创造出了建立新的压力集团和联盟的可能性”，而这些都“重新指向阶级斗争”。密里本德强调，无论如何高度肯定新社会运动的意义和作用，但在通向社会主义的道路上都不应将新社会运动与工人阶级运动等量齐观视之。“工人运动将依旧是发达资本主义社会中以根本变革和革命为目的的斗争的核心。新社会运动可以怀疑甚至否定这一点。但这个社会中的所有保守力量都不会否定这一点。对他们——正是他们首先处于斗争之中，并受到斗争的压力，如果需要，甚至被压得粉碎——而言，主要的对手从来都是组织起来的工人和社会主义左派。”密里本德认为，当代发达资本主义社会的阶级斗争不仅没有熄灭，而且在新的、不太被人注意到的新形式下扩大化了。这种新形式就是他所说的由统治阶级发动的“自上而下的阶级斗争”：“我称之为自上而下的阶级斗争实际上是由不同的角色发动的——雇主、国家权力拥有者、诸如政党这样的政治机构、院外游说集团、报刊以及其他许多自称‘非政治的’（它们确实可能以为自己是非政治的）机构，等等——但是，它们无疑都导致阶级斗争。”这种阶级斗争的扩大化应当为英国社会主义所遭受的巨大挫折承担主要责任。此外，国际化即运用各种方式干涉别国政治进程的发展，是当代发达资本主义国家阶级斗争的一个新变化。总之，密里本德认为，发达资本主义社会的阶级斗争没有终结，但现有阶级斗争也并没有导致理想的、积极的结果，因为那种“为了创造一个民主的、平等的、合作的无阶级社会的阶级斗争，几乎还没有开始”。

On the question of criticizing neo-revisionism and defending the Marxist theory of class, Miliband had a very firm and consistent ally: Ellen Meiksins Wood. Wood was a Marxist political theorist in the English-speaking world, born in the United States and teaching in Canada. However, after the 1980s, her main theoretical activities were all linked to “British Marxism,” a point especially evident in the publication of her individual monographs: of nine individual monographs, seven were published in Britain, and six by the same publisher, Verso, founded by Perry Anderson! In 1986, Wood published *The Retreat from Class: A New ‘True’ Socialism* at Verso, which established her position in British Marxist theoretical circles at a stroke. On the question of the contemporary working class, *The Retreat from Class* is highly consistent with Miliband’s “British neo-revisionism,” and its theoretical innovations are mainly fourfold. First, it returns to *The German Ideology* and the *Communist Manifesto*, and through the naming of the new “‘true’ socialism,” directly places the latter in opposition to Marx and Marxism. Second, using Poulantzas as an intermediary, it traces the origins of the new “‘true’ socialism” back to the French post-structuralist and deconstructionist currents of the 1970s, thereby elevating the critique to the level of settling accounts with the negative influence of structuralism and post-structuralism on the second-generation British New Left. Third, it focuses on Laclau and Mouffe’s *Hegemony and Socialist Strategy*, providing a comprehensive and systematic theoretical analysis of the “post-Marxist” new theory of class; given the later widespread dissemination of “post-Marxism,” this critique was undoubtedly prescient. Fourth, through Chapter 11, “Socialism and the ‘Universal Human Good,’” it examines Raymond Williams’s views, emphasizing that as long as one adheres to the theory of class and class struggle, and “treats socialism not only as an abstract moral good, but also as an objective political goal that organizes social forces most directly against the interests and power structures of capital,” then Marxists can also speak of socialism from an ethical and moral standpoint, thereby effectively distinguishing the tradition of ethical socialism cherished by the first-generation British New Left, including Miliband, from “‘true’ socialism” and the new “‘true’ socialism.”

在批判新修正主义、捍卫马克思主义阶级学说这个问题上，密里本德有一个非常坚定和一致的同盟者，这就是艾伦·梅克森斯·伍德。伍德是一位出生在美国、任教在加拿大的英语世界马克思主义政治理论家，不过，20世纪80年代以后，她的主要理论活动却都与“英国马克思主义”联系在一起，这一点在其个人专著的出版上表现得尤其明显：9种个人专著，7种在英国出版，6种是同一家出版社，即佩里·安德森创办的Verso出版社！1986年，伍德在Verso出版《阶级的退却：新“真正的”社会主义》，一举确立自己在英国马克思主义理论界的地位。在当代工人阶级问题上，《阶级的退却》与密里本德的“英国的新修正主义”保持高度一致，理论新意主要有四点：第一，回到《德意志意识形态》和《共产党宣言》，通过新“‘真正的’社会主义”这种命名，将后者直接置于马克思和马克思主义的对立面；第二，以普兰查斯为中介，将新“‘真正的’社会主义”的起源追溯到20世纪70年代法国的后结构主义和解构主义思潮，从而使批判上升到了清算结构主义与后结构主义对第二代英国新左派消极影响的高度；第三，聚焦拉克劳和墨菲的《霸权与社会主义战略》，对“后马克思主义”的新阶级学说进行了全面系统的理论剖析，鉴于“后马克思主义”后来的广泛传播，这种批判无疑是具有先见之明的；第四，通过第十一章“社会主义与‘普遍的人类之善’”对雷蒙·威廉斯观点的辨析，强调指出，只要坚持阶级和阶级斗争学说，“不仅把社会主义当作一种抽象的道德之善，而且当作一种组织社会力量最直接地反对资本主义的利益和权力结构的、客观的政治目标”，那么，马克思主义者同样可以从伦理道德的角度来言说社会主义，从而将包括密里本德在内的第一代英国新左派所珍视的伦理社会主义传统，与“‘真正的’社会主义”、新‘真正的’社会主义”进行了有效的区分。

V. A Few Theoretical Reflections

五、几点理论思考

The year 1989 coincided with the 200th anniversary of the French Revolution. In the second half of that year, just as French revisionist historians were trying to prove that the revolution had not occurred, the “sudden changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe” [30]30 “Sudden changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe” (苏东剧变) refers to the revolutions of 1989 in Eastern Europe and the subsequent dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, which led to the collapse of communist governments in the region. abruptly took place and rapidly worsened. On December 26, 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed. Hobsbawm immediately declared that the short twentieth century, closely linked to the great Soviet socialist movement, had ended! Faced with this sudden and enormous upheaval, socialists and Marxists around the world were all shocked, even bewildered: “At the end of this century, humanity can for the first time in history observe a world in which the past, including the immediate past, has lost its former guiding function; the old maps and old charts that once guided people throughout their lives no longer represent the land we are crossing or the seas we are sailing. In this world, we do not know where our journey is taking us, nor even where it should take us!” [31]31 Eric Hobsbawm, *The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914–1991* (London: Michael Joseph, 1994), p. 16. The translation here follows the Chinese text’s rendering of Hobsbawm’s passage. In this state of mind, the debate on the contemporary working class was quickly forgotten and abandoned. However, this debate, which ended inconclusively, contains important theoretical insights worthy of serious consideration by today’s Chinese Marxist theoretical circles.

1989年适逢法国大革命200周年。是年下半年，就在法国的修正主义史学家们力图证明当年并非革命的时候，“苏东剧变”骤然发生，加速恶化。1991年12月26日，苏联解体。霍布斯鲍姆随即宣告，与伟大的苏联社会主义运动紧密联系在一起的短暂的20世纪结束了！面对这一突如其来的巨大变故，全世界的社会主义者、马克思主义者无不感到震撼，甚至茫然无措：“在这个世纪的末期，人类有史以来第一次可以观察这样一个世界，在这个世界里，过去，包括当下的过去，失去了自己曾经拥有的指引作用，那些曾经对人们一生都发挥作用的老地图、老航海图，已不再能够体现我们正在穿越的陆地、正在航行的海洋。在这个世界里，我们不知道自己的旅程把我们带向何方，甚至都不知道应当把我们带向何方！”在这种思想状态下，关于当代工人阶级的争论迅速被遗忘、废弃。不过，这场无疾而终的争论包含重要的理论启示，值得今天的中国马克思主义理论界认真思考。

First, the leadership of the working-class party over the working class must be upheld. The history and reality of the working-class movement in Britain and even Europe led both sides of the debate to reach a tacit understanding: they denied that the working-class movement needed the leadership of a strong and capable party. Even Miliband believed that “it is unrealistic to take it for granted that the ‘party’ is, as it were, a natural political institution of the working class, with a unique mission to represent the working class politically (and in many other respects as well),” and that the coexistence of multiple working-class parties within one country is a major trend in the development of the modern working-class movement, and that “a multi-party form can represent the reality of the movement more accurately than a single party.” [32]32 Ralph Miliband, “Socialist Advance in Britain,” *The Socialist Register 1983* (London: Merlin Press, 1983), p. 305. Looking back on the 100-year history of the socialist movement, Lenin’s instructions remain correct: first, classes need the leadership of parties, “as a general rule, in most cases, at least in modern civilized countries, classes are led by political parties”; [33]33 V. I. Lenin, “Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder,” in *Collected Works*, Vol. 31 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1966), p. 24. second, only a communist party established according to Marxist-Leninist principles can truly lead the working class to victory: “Only a party that has truly become the vanguard of the revolutionary class, that has absorbed all the best representatives of that class, that has concentrated within itself thoroughly conscious and loyal communists who have been educated and tempered through stubborn revolutionary struggle, that has closely linked itself with the entire life of its own class, and through that class with the entire mass of the exploited, and that has won the full trust of this class and these masses—only such a party can lead the proletariat in the most ruthless and resolute final struggle against all the forces of capitalism. On the other hand, only under the leadership of such a party can the proletariat develop the full force of its revolutionary impact… can it develop all its strength.” [34]34 V. I. Lenin, “The Conditions for the Victory of the Communist International,” in *Collected Works*, Vol. 31 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1966), p. 188.

第一，必须坚持工人阶级政党对工人阶级的领导。英国乃至欧洲工人阶级运动的历史与现实，让争论的双方在一个问题上形成默契，就是否定工人阶级运动需要一个坚强有力的政党的领导。即便是密里本德也认为，“想当然地认为‘党’仿佛是工人阶级的一个天然政治机构，负有在政治上（在其他许多方面也是一样）代表工人阶级的独特使命，这是不真实的”，一国内多个工人阶级政党并存是现代工人阶级运动发展的大趋势，“多党形式比一个党更能确切地代表运动的现实”。回首过去100年社会主义运动史，列宁的指示依旧是正确的：一是阶级需要政党的领导，“在通常情况下，在多数场合，至少在现代的文明国家内，阶级是由政党来领导的”；二是只有按照马克思列宁主义原则建立起来的共产党才能真正领导工人阶级赢得胜利，“只有共产党真正成为革命阶级的先锋队，吸收了这个阶级的一切优秀代表，集中了经过顽强的革命斗争的教育和锻炼的、完全觉悟的和忠诚的共产主义者，把自己跟本阶级的全部生活密切联系起来，再通过本阶级跟全体被剥削群众密切联系起来，取得这个阶级和这些群众的充分信任——只有这样的党才能在反对资本主义一切势力的最无情最坚决的最后斗争中领导无产阶级。另一方面，只有在这样的党的领导下，无产阶级才能发挥自己进行革命冲击的全部威力……才能发挥自己的全部力量”。

Second, the leadership of ideological struggle must be grasped. Why did the Labour Party lose the support of the working class? The consensus of both sides in the debate was that the Labour Party did not attach importance to, nor was it adept at, waging ideological struggle, and thus lost the leadership of ideological struggle. This allows us to see the importance of ideological struggle from the perspective of developed capitalist countries, and to understand more deeply that “while we concentrate on economic construction, we must not relax or weaken ideological work for a single moment. The collapse of a political regime often begins in the ideological sphere; political turmoil and regime change can happen overnight, but ideological evolution is a long-term process. Once the ideological defense line is breached, other defense lines are difficult to hold. We must firmly grasp the leadership, management, and discourse power of ideological work in our hands, and never let them slip away at any time, otherwise we will make irreparable historical mistakes.” [35]35 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the National Conference on Propaganda and Ideology Work,” August 19, 2013. This passage is a standard formulation in Chinese Communist Party discourse on ideological security. At the same time, we must dare to and be adept at engaging in ideological struggle: “Our comrades must strengthen their awareness of positions. In the realm of propaganda and ideology, if we do not occupy the positions, others will. … Different strategies should be adopted for different zones. For the red zone, we must consolidate and expand it, continuously increasing its social influence. For the black zone, we must dare to enter, fight inside the belly of the Iron Fan Princess [36]36 “Fight inside the belly of the Iron Fan Princess” (钻进铁扇公主肚子里斗) is a reference to the classic Chinese novel *Journey to the West*, where the Monkey King shrinks himself and enters the stomach of the Iron Fan Princess to force her to submit. It is used here as a metaphor for engaging and subverting hostile ideological positions from within., and gradually push for a change in its color. For the gray zone, we must carry out large-scale work, accelerate its transformation into a red zone, and prevent it from degenerating into a black zone. These tasks must be undertaken promptly and persisted with; they will surely yield results.” [37]37 Xi Jinping, “Speech at

第二，必须掌握意识形态斗争的领导权。工党为什么会失去工人阶级的支持？争论双方的共识是：工党不重视、不善于开展意识形态斗争，丧失了意识形态斗争的领导权。这让我们从发达资本主义国家的视角看到了意识形态斗争的重要性，更加深刻地认识到，“我们在集中精力进行经济建设的同时，一刻也不能放松和削弱意识形态工作。一个政权的瓦解往往是从思想领域开始的，政治动荡、政权更迭可能在一夜之间发生，但思想演化是个长期过程。思想防线被攻破了，其他防线就很难守住。我们必须把意识形态工作的领导权、管理权、话语权牢牢掌握在手中，任何时候都不能旁落，否则就要犯无可挽回的历史性错误”。同时，要敢于并且善于从事意识形态斗争，“我们的同志一定要增强阵地意识。宣传思想阵地，我们不去占领，人家就会去占领。……对不同地带，要采取不同策略。对红色地带，要巩固和拓展，不断扩大其社会影响。对黑色地带，要勇于进入，钻进铁扇公主肚子里斗，逐步推动其改变颜色。对灰色地带，要大规模开展工作，加快使其转化为红色地带，防止其向黑色地带蜕变。这些工作，要抓紧做起来，坚持下去，必然会取得成效”。

Third, it is necessary to correctly handle the relationship between the working class and other new social strata. The economic base determines the superstructure. As the mode of production changes, the emergence of new social strata is inevitable. The working class and its party must learn to correctly handle their relationship with these new social strata. Neither following Laclau and Mouffé in abandoning the working class’s subject position and placing all hope on new social strata, nor insisting, like Miliband and Wood, on the working class’s leading role alone, is advisable. The correct approach must be able to unify the leading role of the working class and its party with the subject position of the new social strata. On this issue, our Party has set a successful example: “To do a good job of united front work under the new circumstances, it is necessary to correctly handle the relationship between unity and diversity. The united front is a unity of unity and diversity. Without unity, or without diversity, it is impossible to establish and develop a united front. As the saying goes, ‘Without the one, the two cannot be formed; without the two, the one cannot be achieved.’[38]38 A classical Chinese philosophical formulation from the Song dynasty thinker Zhang Zai’s *Zhengmeng* (Correcting Youthful Ignorance), expressing the dialectical interdependence of unity and duality. Unity and diversity are not immutable but are historical, concrete, and developing.”

第三，必须正确处理工人阶级与其他新社会阶层的关系。经济基础决定上层建筑。随着生产方式的变化，新社会阶层的涌现是不可避免的。工人阶级及其政党必须要学会正确处理与这些新社会阶层的关系。像拉克劳—墨菲那样，放弃工人阶级的主体地位，把希望完全寄托在新社会阶层身上，或者像密里本德—伍德那样一味坚持工人阶级的领导地位，都是不可取的。正确的做法必须能够将工人阶级及其政党的领导地位和新社会阶层的主体地位统一起来。在这个问题的处理上，我们党树立了成功的典范：“做好新形势下统战工作，必须正确处理一致性和多样性关系。统一战线是一致性和多样性的统一体，只有一致性、没有多样性，或者只有多样性、没有一致性，都不能建立和发展统一战线，正所谓‘非一则不能成两，非两则不能致一’。一致性和多样性不是一成不变的，而是历史的、具体的、发展的。”

Fourth, it is necessary to restore and strengthen the tracking and study of contemporary Western class issues and class theories. After the end of the Cold War, and especially after entering the 21st century, domestic academic circles have continuously reduced their attention to contemporary Western class issues and class theories. In retrospect, this practice is undoubtedly problematic, because “a very important characteristic of contemporary world Marxist currents is that many of their proponents critically reveal the structural contradictions of capitalism as well as its contradictions in the mode of production, class contradictions, and social contradictions, and conduct in-depth analyses of capitalist crises, the evolutionary process of capitalism, and the new forms and essence of capitalism. These views help us correctly understand the development trends and fate of capitalism, accurately grasp the new changes and new features of contemporary capitalism, and deepen our understanding of the trends of change in contemporary capitalism.”[39]39 This quotation is from Xi Jinping’s speech at the symposium on philosophy and social sciences in May 2016, where he discussed the value of studying contemporary Marxist thought abroad. Facing the “changes unseen in a century,” we must make full theoretical preparations, restore and strengthen the tracking and study of contemporary Western class issues and class theories, and provide necessary theoretical support for scientifically understanding and predicting the nature and direction of contemporary Western social protest activities. (Notes omitted.)

第四，应当恢复和加强对当代西方阶级问题和阶级理论的追踪和研究。冷战结束后，尤其是进入21世纪以后，国内学界对当代西方阶级问题和阶级理论的关注度持续下降。现在看来，这种做法无疑是有问题的，因为“当代世界马克思主义思潮，一个很重要的特点就是他们中很多人对资本主义结构性矛盾以及生产方式矛盾、阶级矛盾、社会矛盾等进行了批判性揭示，对资本主义危机、资本主义演进过程、资本主义新形态及本质进行了深入分析。这些观点有助于我们正确认识资本主义发展趋势和命运，准确把握当代资本主义新变化新特征，加深对当代资本主义变化趋势的理解”。面对“百年未有之大变局”，我们必须做好充分的理论准备，恢复和加强对当代西方阶级问题和阶级理论的追踪和研究，为科学认识和预判当代西方社会抗争活动的性质与走向提供必要的理论支持。（注释略）

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑