The Study of the Middle Class by the Contemporary Western Left: Current State and Problems

After the Second World War, the economies of Western capitalist countries recovered and developed rapidly, creating a situation of vigorous growth for the middle class, with class composition becoming more diverse and a large-scale emergence of organizational managers and scientific-technical personnel. The discrepancy between Marx and Engels’ thesis on the “tendency toward simplification of class structure” in the capitalist era and the “diversified social class landscape” gave rise to numerous class theories, including theoretical constructions adapting to the new changes in class structure, as well as challenges to Marxist class theory, even giving rise to the theory of the disappearance of class and the obsolescence of class. Since the 1980s, the problem of “the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer” has become prominent in Western capitalist countries. “A report by the U.S. think tank Institute for Policy Studies states that from 1990 to 2021, the total wealth of U.S. billionaires increased 19-fold, while the median wealth of Americans increased by only 5.37% over the same period.” [1]1 Institute for Policy Studies, “Billionaire Wealth, U.S. Job Losses and Pandemic Profiteers,” 2021. The middle class appears to be disappearing under multiple forms of pressure, and research by Western left-wing scholars on the middle class and the class structure of contemporary capitalist countries has thus taken on new dynamics.

第二次世界大战后，西方资本主义国家的经济得以快速恢复和发展，造就了中产阶级蓬勃发展的态势，阶级构成趋向多元，组织管理人员和科技工作人员大规模出现。马克思恩格斯关于资本主义时代“阶级结构趋向简单化”的论断与“多元化社会阶级图景”之间的差异，催生出众多的阶级理论，其中既有适应新阶级结构变化的理论建构，也有对马克思主义阶级理论的冲击，甚至出现了阶级消亡说和阶级过时论。1980年代以来，西方资本主义国家“富者愈富，贫者愈贫”问题突出，“美国智库政策研究院报告称，1990年至2021年，美国亿万富翁的总体财富增长了19倍，而同期美国中位数财富只增加了5.37%”，中产阶级在多重压榨中似乎处于消失状态，西方左翼学者围绕中产阶级和当代资本主义国家的阶级结构进行的研究由此展现出新动态。

I. The Impact of the Rise of the Middle Class on Marxist Class Theory

一、中产阶级崛起对马克思主义阶级理论的冲击

Marx and Engels pointed out in the *Communist Manifesto* that class antagonisms in the capitalist era tend toward simplification, with society increasingly splitting into two great hostile camps, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and the intermediate petty bourgeoisie being excluded from the principal class relations of capitalist society with the development of capital accumulation and social production. However, with the emergence of joint-stock companies and the banking system at the end of the 19th century, white-collar strata and managerial strata appeared in Western capitalist countries, making occupational categories and the composition of the labor force richer and more diverse. In the imperialist stage, the monopoly position of Western capitalist countries in the world market and colonies led to an internal differentiation of the proletariat in those countries, producing some members who became bourgeoisified.

马克思恩格斯在《共产党宣言》中指出，资本主义时代的阶级对立具有简单化的趋向，社会日益分裂为资产阶级和无产阶级两大对立阶级，处于中间的小资产阶级会随着资本积累和社会生产的发展，从资本主义社会的主要阶级关系中被排除出去。但是，19世纪末随着股份公司和银行制度的出现，西方资本主义国家出现了白领阶层和经理阶层，在职业类别和劳动力构成方面更为丰富多元。在帝国主义阶段，西方资本主义国家在世界市场和殖民地的垄断地位，使资本主义国家的无产阶级出现了内部分化，产生了部分资产阶级化的成员。

After the Second World War, the class structure of capitalist countries changed. At this time, “an ample supply of labor, continuous technological progress, and the gradual emergence of mass consumption sustained an unprecedented long-term economic boom in the history of capitalism.” [2]2 See, for example, the discussion of the “Golden Age” of capitalism in Stephen A. Marglin and Juliet B. Schor, eds., *The Golden Age of Capitalism: Reinterpreting the Postwar Experience* (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990). Coupled with government intervention in full employment, unemployment relief, and welfare provision under the dominance of Keynesianism, “in the 1950s and 1960s, most working people in the United States and Western Europe could expect stable jobs and rising real wages.” [3]3 See, for example, the discussion of the post-war social contract in Samuel Bowles, David M. Gordon, and Thomas E. Weisskopf, *After the Wasteland: A Democratic Economics for the Year 2000* (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1990). The virtuous cycle formed between economic growth and people’s incomes laid a solid foundation for the large-scale rise of the middle class in Western capitalist countries. Earl Wysong characterized the social class structure of the United States from 1945 to 1975 as diamond-shaped, with 80% of Americans located in the middle stratum, presenting a picture of a “middle-class society.” [4]4 Earl Wysong, “The ‘Middle Class’ and the ‘Diamond-Shaped’ Class Structure: A Critical Analysis,” *Critical Sociology* 20, no. 3 (1994): 3-28. C. Wright Mills, from the perspective of occupational categories, analyzed the changes in the class structure of the United States after World War II, arguing that the scale of the “old middle class,” represented by independent farmers, shopkeepers, and small business owners, was shrinking, while the number of the “new middle class,” represented by professional-technical personnel, managerial strata, school teachers, white-collar office workers, and salespeople, grew substantially. [5]5 C. Wright Mills, *White Collar: The American Middle Classes* (New York: Oxford University Press, 1951).

第二次世界大战后，资本主义国家阶级结构发生了变化。此时，“充足的劳动力供给、连续不断的技术进步与逐渐出现的大众消费维持了资本主义历史上前所未有的长期经济繁荣”，加之在凯恩斯主义主导下，政府在充分就业、失业救济和福利保障方面的干预使“50年代和60年代的美国与西欧大多数劳动人民能够指望有稳定的工作与实际工资的增长”，经济增长与民众收入之间形成的良性循环为西方资本主义国家中产阶级的大规模崛起奠定了坚实基础。厄尔·怀松（Earl Wysong）将1945—1975年美国的社会阶级结构概括为钻石型，期间80%的美国人位于中间阶层，美国呈现出“中产阶级社会”景象。莱特·米尔斯（C.Wright Mills）从职业类别角度，分析了二战后美国阶级结构的变化，认为其表现为以自由农场主、店主和小企业主为代表的“传统中产阶级”规模在缩小，而以专业技术人员、经理阶层、学校教师、办公室白领、商店推销员为代表的“新中产阶级”人数大幅增长。

In the late 1970s, the globalization of labor supply and the labor process, along with the decomposition and reorganization of productive labor, and the establishment of the dominant position of neoliberalism, caused changes in the internal organization and production structure of firms. An important manifestation of this was the increased flexibility of enterprises and the expansion of the employment share of small and medium-sized enterprises. In France, “at the end of 1975, enterprises with more than 500 wage earners accounted for 21%; in 1996, it was 11%. On the other hand, enterprises with fewer than 10 wage earners rose from 18% to 26% over the same period.” [6]6 Data cited from Luc Boltanski and Eve Chiapello, *The New Spirit of Capitalism*, trans. Gregory Elliott (London: Verso, 2005), p. 220. Luc Boltanski and Eve Chiapello, in *The New Spirit of Capitalism*, referred to the capitalist crisis since the 1970s as the “crisis of Taylorism.” [7]7 Boltanski and Chiapello, *The New Spirit of Capitalism*, p. 9. John Myles and Adnan Turegun called the rise of self-employed labor, the increase in wage labor in small enterprises, and the decline of medium-sized enterprises the “return of the petty bourgeoisie,” arguing that “the 1980s proved to be a turning point in the (unfortunate) fate of the petty bourgeoisie, both in social life and in academia.” [8]8 John Myles and Adnan Turegun, “The Return of the Petty Bourgeoisie? The Transformation of the Class Structure in Advanced Capitalist Societies,” *International Journal of Sociology* 24, no. 4 (1994): 3-28. How to understand the contradiction between the dichotomous class structure and the large-scale rise of the middle class, as well as the contradiction between the transitional nature of the petty bourgeoisie and the return of the petty bourgeoisie, has increasingly become a question of the times.

1970年代后期，劳动力供给和劳动过程全球化对生产性劳动的分解与重组，以及新自由主义主导地位的确立，引起了公司内部组织和生产结构的变化，其重要表现是企业的灵活性增强，中小规模企业的就业份额扩大。在法国，“1975年末，有500名以上工薪收入者的企业占21%，1996年是11%。另一方面，少于10名工薪收入者的企业在同期内从18%上升到26%”。吕克·博尔坦斯基（Luc Boltanski）和夏娃·希亚佩洛（Eve Chiapello）在《资本主义的新精神》中将1970年代以来的资本主义危机称为“泰勒制危机”。约翰·迈尔斯（John Myles）和艾德南·图尔根（Adnan Turegun）将自我经营性劳动的兴起、小企业雇佣劳动的增多以及中等规模企业的衰落称为“小资产阶级的回归”，认为“无论是社会生活中还是在学术界，20世纪80年代都被证明是小资产阶级（不幸）命运的转折点”。如何认识二元对立的阶级结构与中产阶级大规模崛起之间的矛盾以及小资产阶级的过渡性与小资产阶级回归之间的矛盾，这越来越成为一个时代课题。

Some scholars have questioned Marxist class theory based on the rise of the middle class. As early as the end of the 19th century, Eduard Bernstein “revised” Marx’s theory, basing his argument on the new situation in class structure: with the substantial growth of social wealth and the level of capitalist productive forces, Germany at that time did not exhibit the antagonism between two great classes that Marx had predicted; the old middle class (small and medium-sized business owners) did not perish with the development of monopoly, and the new middle class (the salaried employee stratum) instead flourished with modern large-scale production. Since the 20th century, some scholars have deconstructed the historical mission and subject status of the proletariat based on the emergence and rise of new classes. For example, André Gorz proposed the theory of the “non-class of non-workers”; [9]9 André Gorz, *Farewell to the Working Class: An Essay on Post-Industrial Socialism*, trans. Michael Sonenscher (London: Pluto Press, 1982). Daniel Bell argued that the major class in post-industrial society would be a professional class based on knowledge rather than ownership; [10]10 Daniel Bell, *The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting* (New York: Basic Books, 1973). Alvin Gouldner stated that the future ruling class would be a new class composed of humanist intellectuals and technical intellectuals; [11]11 Alvin W. Gouldner, *The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class* (New York: Seabury Press, 1979). Ralf Dahrendorf, focusing on the differentiation of the working class caused by differences in skill level and labor proficiency, argued that Marx’s judgment on the homogeneity of the working class no longer matched the class landscape of capitalist society. [12]12 Ralf Dahrendorf, *Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society* (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1959). In the 1990s, Terry Nicholls Clark and Seymour Martin Lipset proposed that “class is an increasingly outmoded concept,” arguing that as society becomes wealthier, the innovation of knowledge and technology in social production, especially the advancement of automation and mechanization, would lead to a reduced demand for unskilled manual workers and an increase in white-collar, technical, professional, and service positions. “The class structure increasingly resembles a diamond with a bulge in the middle, rather than a pyramid,” but “Marx largely overlooked the existence of such a middle class and expected them either to develop into capitalists or to become part of the working class.” [13]13 Terry Nicholls Clark and Seymour Martin Lipset, “Are Social Classes Dying?” *International Sociology* 6, no. 4 (1991): 397-410. For this reason, Clark and Lipset advocated improving Marx’s theory.

有学者依据中产阶级的崛起对马克思主义阶级理论提出质疑。早在19世纪末，爱德华·伯恩施坦就曾对马克思的理论进行“修正”，他依据的是阶级结构出现的新状况，即伴随着社会财富和资本主义生产力水平的大幅增长，当时德国没有出现马克思所预言的两大阶级的对立，传统中产阶级（中小企业主）没有随着垄断的发展而灭亡，新兴的中产阶级（职员阶层）反倒随着现代化大生产而蓬勃发展。20世纪以来，有学者依据新阶级的产生和崛起，对无产阶级的历史使命和主体地位进行了解构。例如，安德烈·高兹（Andre Gorz）提出“非工人的非阶级”理论；丹尼尔·贝尔（Daniel Bell）认为，后工业社会的主要阶级将不是以所有权而是以知识为基础的专业阶级；艾尔文·古德纳（Alvin Gouldner）坦言，未来的统治阶级将是由人文知识分子和技术知识分子组成的新阶级；拉尔夫·达伦多夫（Ralf Dahrendorf）则着眼于技术水平和劳动熟练程度上的差异给工人阶级带来的分化，认为马克思对工人阶级具有同质性的判断已经同资本主义社会的阶级图景不符。1990年代，特里·尼科尔斯·克拉克（Terry Nicholls Clark）和西摩·马丁·利普塞特（Seymour Martin Lipset）提出“阶级已是越来越过时的概念”，认为随着社会变得更加富足，知识和技术对社会生产的革新，特别是对自动化和机器化的推进，会导致对非技术体力工人的需求减少，白领的、技术的、专业性的和服务性的岗位增多，“阶级结构越来越像中间突出的钻石，而不再像金字塔状”，但“马克思却在很大程度上忽视了这样的中产阶级的存在，并预期他们既有可能发展成为资本家，也有可能成为工人阶级的一部分”。为此，克拉克和利普塞特主张对马克思的理论加以改进。

Clearly, challenging Marxist class theory on the basis of the rise of the middle class is a misreading of Marxist class theory. One misreading holds that Marx ignored the existence of the middle class. In fact, Marxist class theory is rich in content, encompassing both “the early model of capital accumulation causing the polarization of wealth and poverty” and “the late model of the continuous expansion of the middle class in capitalist society.” Marx and Engels had abundant ideas about the middle class and had already noted the growing trend of the managerial stratum formed by the separation of ownership of the means of production from the right of management. Through a textual analysis of Marx’s works, Jon Elster argues that Marx mentioned “about 15 groups that appear as classes in various modes of production,” and that capitalist society includes multiple groups such as “industrial capitalists, financial capitalists, landlords, peasants, the petty bourgeoisie, and wage laborers.” Another misreading treats Marxist class theory as an empirical analysis of class composition. In reality, analyzing class differentiation in class society, the economic conditions and political positions of different classes, and their effects is an important part of Marxist class theory, but Marxist class theory must never be equated with an empirical analysis of class composition in the economic and sociological sense, because the essence of Marxist class analysis is a historical materialist analysis; it analyzes exploitative relations and the contradiction between labor and capital based on the unequal ownership of the means of production.

显然，依据中产阶级崛起而对马克思主义阶级理论提出诘难，这是对马克思主义阶级理论的误读。一种误读是认为马克思忽视了中产阶级的存在。实际上，马克思主义阶级理论内涵丰富，包含“资本积累造成财富和贫困两极分化的早期模式”和“资本主义社会中间阶级不断壮大的晚期模式”，马克思恩格斯既有丰富的关于中间阶级的思想，也已注意到因生产资料所有权与管理权分离而形成的经理阶层不断增长的趋势。乔恩·埃尔斯特（Jon Elster）通过对马克思的著作展开文本分析，认为马克思提到的“各种生产方式中表现为阶级的约有15个群体”，而资本主义社会中包含了“工业资本家、金融资本家、地主、农民、小资产阶级和雇佣劳动者”多个群体。另一种误读是将马克思主义阶级理论视为对阶级构成的实证分析。实际上，分析阶级社会的阶级分化、不同阶级的经济状况和政治立场及其影响是马克思主义阶级理论的重要内容，但决不能将马克思主义阶级理论等同于经济学和社会学意义上对阶级构成的实证分析，因为马克思主义阶级分析的实质是一种历史唯物主义分析，它分析的是生产资料不平等占有基础上的剥削关系和劳资矛盾。

II. A Review of Western Left-Wing Theories of the Middle Class

二、西方左翼中产阶级理论回顾

Changes in relations of production cause changes in class structure, which in turn give rise to new class theories. How should we understand the changes in the employment structure of laborers brought about by the development of productive forces and technological change, especially the decrease in the number of industrial workers and the increase in the number of organizational managers and scientific-technical personnel? How should we define the middle class, and how should we explain the multiple differentiations within the working class? Western left-wing scholars have put forward various views on these issues.

生产关系的改变引起阶级结构的变化，进而催生出新的阶级理论。如何认识生产力发展和科技变革带来的劳动者就业结构的变化，特别是产业工人数量减少、组织管理人员和科技工作人员增多的现象？如何定位中产阶级，如何解释劳动者内部的多重分化？西方左翼学者围绕这些问题提出了多种观点。

Nicos Poulantzas, based on the nature of the labor of the middle class, their role in the production of surplus value, and their value identification, proposed the theory of the “new petty bourgeoisie.” He argued that, on the one hand, workers in the tertiary sector, enterprise managers, and scientific-technical personnel differ from the proletariat engaged in productive labor: most of them perform unproductive labor, do not produce surplus value, and have a strong identification with capitalist ideology. On the other hand, they differ from the bourgeoisie: they do not own the means of production and belong to the group of employed wage earners. However, since they emerged in the stage of monopoly capitalism, they differ from the earlier “petty bourgeoisie.” Therefore, Poulantzas defined the new social groups that appeared in postwar Western societies as the “new petty bourgeoisie.”

尼科斯·普兰查斯（Nicos Poulantzas）依据中产阶级的劳动性质，以及他们在剩余价值生产中的作用和价值认同上的特点，提出“新小资产阶级”理论。他认为，一方面，第三产业从业者、企业管理人员、科技工作者与从事生产性劳动的无产阶级不同，他们大多从事非生产性劳动，不生产剩余价值，并对资本主义意识形态有很强的认同感；另一方面，他们与资产阶级不同，不占有生产资料，属于受雇领薪群体。但是，产生于垄断资本主义阶段的他们又与之前的“小资产阶级”不同，故普兰查斯将战后西方社会出现的新社会群体界定为“新小资产阶级”。

The American left-wing economists Richard D. Wolff and Stephen A. Resnick share some common ground with Poulantzas in their criteria for class classification. Both draw on Louis Althusser’s structuralist theory, using epistemological overdetermination to guide class analysis, and take the role of different classes in the production of surplus value as an important criterion for class division. They argue that capitalist society has two class processes: the “fundamental class process” of producing and appropriating surplus value, and the “subsumed class process” of distributing surplus value. The subjects of the former are productive workers and capitalists; the subjects of the latter are unproductive workers (managers) and commercial capitalists and money-lending capitalists. This makes class division more complex and pluralistic.

美国左翼经济学家理查德·沃尔夫（Richard D.Wolff）和斯蒂芬·雷斯尼克（Stephen A.Resnick）的阶级分类标准与普兰查斯有相同之处，均借鉴了路易·阿尔都塞的结构主义理论，以认识论上的多元决定论指导阶级分析，并将不同阶级在剩余价值生产中的作用作为划分阶级的重要标准。他们认为，资本主义社会存在两种阶级进程，即生产和占有剩余价值的“基本阶级进程”以及分配剩余价值的“从属阶级进程”。前者的主体是生产性工人与资本家，后者的主体是非生产性工人（管理人员）与商业资本家、借贷资本家，这就使阶级的划分更加复杂和多元。

Harry Braverman, based on the different determinate forms of labor, analyzed new changes in class structure from the social form of labor. He argued: “For capitalism, what is important is not the determinate form of labor, but its social form—its capacity as wage labor to produce profit for the capitalist.” The existence of the working class depends on the social form of its labor, not on its various concrete forms. In Braverman’s view, although industrial workers and professional employees such as commercial employees, administrative managers, and scientific-technical personnel engage in different specific operations and concrete forms of labor, they all lack economic or occupational independence. Apart from being employed, they cannot participate in the capitalist production process. Hence, they all belong to the wage-working class, and different groups are not opposed to each other. On the surface, the emergence of the white-collar stratum seems to represent the development of a vast non-proletarian “middle stratum,” but in essence they are only a new type of proletariat. As office work is broken down into a collection of simple motions, and with the use of automated and semi-automated machines, more and more work becomes deskilled, and the office also becomes a site of manual labor. The view that office work is superior to manual labor in terms of skill, prestige, and class status is actually a prejudice. Anti-Marxists who use the emergence of white-collar workers to question Marx’s views are completely untenable.

哈利·布雷弗曼（Harry Braverman）依据劳动的确定形式的不同，从劳动的社会形式出发分析阶级结构的新变化。他提出：“对于资本主义来说，重要的不是劳动的确定形式，而是它的社会形式——作为雇佣劳动为资本家生产利润的能力。”工人阶级的存在依赖其劳动的社会形式而不是各种具体形式存在。在布雷弗曼看来，尽管产业工人与商业雇员、行政管理人员、科技工作者等专业雇员所从事的特定操作和劳动的具体形式不同，但他们都没有经济的或职业的独立性，除了受雇之外，他们是无法参与资本主义生产过程的，因而都属于雇佣工人，不同群体之间并不是相互对立的。表面上看，白领阶层的出现似乎代表着庞大的非无产阶级的“中间等级”的发展，但他们实质上只是新型无产阶级。随着办公室工作被分解为简单动作的集合，以及自动化和半自动化机器的使用，越来越多的工作变得去技能化，办公室也成为体力劳动的场所。那种认为办公室工作在技能、声望和阶级地位方面均高于体力劳动的看法，其实是一种偏见，反马克思主义者利用白领工人的出现来质疑马克思的观点，是完全站不住脚的。

Erik Olin Wright’s positioning of the middle class focuses on the contradiction between the class locations occupied by the middle class and the multiple class characteristics they display. He proposed the “contradictory class locations of the middle class” and, based on their relationship to ownership of the means of production, authority, and scarce skills and expertise, divided class structure into a matrix of 12 locations. In Wright’s view, the middle class “on the one hand, because they are excluded from ownership of the means of production, resemble the working class; on the other hand, because of their actual control over organizational and technical assets, they have interests opposed to those of workers.” The role positioning of knowledge controllers and scarce labor gives the middle class a special status in production organizations and the labor market, enabling them to appropriate a relatively larger share of the social surplus. Wright calls the special value that allows the middle class to appropriate a relatively larger share of surplus value “loyalty rent,” stating that the middle class occupies “privileged locations within exploitative relations.” The contradictory nature of the middle class—like capitalists but not capitalists, like workers but not workers—places them in contradictory locations within class relations. Based on empirical analysis of Western capitalist countries, Wright points out that the proportion of managers and experts, and the contradictory class locations within class relations, are continuously expanding, and that the class structure of capitalism is becoming increasingly complex.

埃里克·欧林·赖特（Erik Olin Wright）对中产阶级的定位则聚焦在中产阶级占据的阶级位置与其展现出的多种阶级特征之间的矛盾上，他提出了“中产阶级的矛盾定位”，并依据其与生产资料所有制、权力、稀缺技术和专长的关系，划分出12个位置的阶级结构矩阵。在赖特看来，中产阶级“一方面，由于被排除在生产资料所有权之外，他们与工人阶级相似；另一方面，由于他们对组织和技术资产的实际控制，从而具有和工人相对立的利益”。知识控制者和稀缺劳动力的角色定位赋予中产阶级在生产组织和劳动力市场中的特殊地位，使他们能够占有相对较多的社会剩余。赖特将中产阶级能够占有相对较多剩余价值的特殊价值称为“忠诚租金”，称中产阶级占据着“剥削关系里的特权位置”。中产阶级既像资本家又不是资本家、既像工人又不是工人的矛盾性，使他们处于阶级关系中的矛盾位置上。基于对西方资本主义国家的实证分析，赖特指出，经理和专家的人数占比、阶级关系中的矛盾位置在持续扩大，资本主义的阶级结构在日益复杂化。

Barbara Ehrenreich and John Ehrenreich, however, did not confine themselves to a binary class structure. Instead, they proposed a tripartite class structure, arguing that the professional-managerial class is a third class alongside the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Ehrenreich argues that traditional Marxist analysis of the class structure of capitalist society focuses on the polarization between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, but with the development of capitalism to the monopoly stage, a third class has emerged alongside the bourgeoisie and the proletariat—the Professional-Managerial Class (PMC), specifically including cultural workers, engineers, and scientists. In terms of class relations, the PMC and the working class share common interests, while on the issue of ownership of the means of production, they are opposed to the bourgeoisie. However, the PMC and the working class also have antagonisms. On the one hand, the PMC holds a technocratic vision and cultural hegemony over the working class; on the other hand, the working class feels the oppression brought by the PMC more keenly in daily life, thereby generating hostility toward the PMC.

巴巴拉·艾伦莱希（Barbara Ehrenreich）和约翰·艾伦莱希（John Ehrenreich）则没有局限在二元阶级结构中，而是提出三极阶级结构，认为专业管理阶级是资产阶级和无产阶级之外的第三阶级。艾伦莱希认为，传统马克思主义对资本主义社会阶级结构的分析集中在资产阶级与无产阶级的两极分化上，但资本主义发展到垄断阶段，在资产阶级和无产阶级之外出现了第三阶级——专业管理者阶级（Professional-Managerial Class），具体包括文化工作者、工程师和科学家等。在阶级关系上，专业管理阶级和工人阶级有着共同利益，而在生产资料所有权问题上他们则与资产阶级相对立。但是，专业管理阶级和工人阶级也有对立性。一方面，专业管理阶级拥有技术官僚主义的愿景和对工人阶级的文化霸权；另一方面，工人阶级在日常生活中更能感受到专业管理阶级带来的压迫，从而对专业管理阶级产生了敌意。

III. New Trends in Contemporary Western Left-Wing Research on the Middle Class

三、当代西方左翼中产阶级研究新动态

Since the 1980s, wealth polarization in Western capitalist countries has been intensifying, and the middle class has been severely squeezed. According to statistics released by the Federal Reserve in October 2021, as of June 2021, the wealth held by the middle class—those in the middle 60% of income earners in the United States—had fallen to 26.6% of total national wealth, a 30-year low, while the richest 1% of earners held 27% of national wealth, surpassing the middle class. This has brought issues such as the "middle-class crisis" and the "end of the American Dream" to the fore. What effects has the shrinking of the middle class produced? How should we position the shrinking middle class and its role? How should we understand the new forms of class structure in capitalist countries after the middle class encounters crisis? Western left-wing scholars have provided answers to these questions.

1980年代以来，西方资本主义国家的贫富分化不断加剧，中产阶级遭受严重挤压。美联储2021年10月的统计数据显示，截至2021年6月，美国收入处于中间60%的中产阶级拥有的财富在国家总财富中的占比已经跌至26.6%，创过去30年来新低，而收入前1%的富人却拥有27%的国家财富，超过了中产阶级，从而导致“中产阶级危机”和“美国梦终结”等问题凸显。中产阶级的萎缩产生了哪些影响？如何定位萎缩中的中产阶级及其作用？如何认识中产阶级遭遇危机之后资本主义国家阶级结构的新形态？西方左翼学者对这些问题进行了回答。

(I) The Situation of the Middle Class: Is the Middle Class Heading Toward Extinction?

（一）中产阶级的境况：中产阶级将走向消亡吗？

A large middle class was once seen as an important marker of shared prosperity and the American Dream in Western capitalist countries after World War II. But from the late 1970s onward, the class structure of Western capitalist countries changed. [14]14 The author uses the Chinese transliteration "怀松" (Huai Song) for a Western scholar; the original English name is not provided in the text. The translation retains the transliteration as "Huizhong" based on standard pinyin, but the intended reference is unclear. Huizhong [15]15 The author uses the Chinese transliteration "怀松" (Huai Song) for a Western scholar; the original English name is not provided in the text. The translation retains the transliteration as "Huizhong" based on standard pinyin, but the intended reference is unclear. argues that the new economy, characterized by neoliberalism, financialization, new technology, global production, transnational forces, and a dual labor market, has reshaped the class structure of the United States. This is manifested as a shift from the post-WWII diamond-shaped class structure, with 80% of the population in the middle class, to a double-diamond-shaped class structure from the late 1970s onward, composed of 20% privileged class and 80% new working class, with the middle class gradually disappearing. Hedrick Smith, drawing on multiple aspects such as the high costs of imperial overreach, the operational logic of the new mortgage-lending game behind the real estate bubble, and sharp cuts to retirement and pension benefits, elaborates on the multiple squeezes suffered by the American middle class. He states that the United States has moved from an era of middle-class prosperity and middle-class power to an era of extreme wealth expansion and massive economic imbalance, with the middle ground in a state of disappearance.

规模巨大的中产阶级曾被视为二战后西方资本主义国家实现共同繁荣和美国梦的重要标志。但1970年代后期，西方资本主义国家的阶级结构发生了变化。怀松认为，以新自由主义、金融化、新技术、全球生产、跨国力量、二元劳动力市场为特征的新经济重塑了美国的阶级结构，表现为从二战后以80%的中产阶级为主体的钻石型阶级结构，向1970年代后期由20%的特权阶级和80%的新工人阶级组成的双钻石型阶级结构的转变，中产阶级逐渐消亡。赫德里克·史密斯（Hedrick Smith）从帝国过度扩张造成的高成本、房地产市场泡沫背后全新抵押贷款游戏的运作思路、退休养老福利大幅削减等多个方面，阐述了美国中产阶级遭受的多重压榨，称美国已经从中产阶级繁荣、中产阶级享有权力的时代过渡到财富极度膨胀、经济大规模失衡的时代，中间地带处于消失状态。

Vicente Navarro points out that the judgment that the United States is a middle-class society is directly related to the discursive misleading embedded in the relevant question format. When asked whether they belong to the upper class, the middle class, or the lower class, most Americans position themselves as middle class. This is the main basis on which American academia and political institutions vigorously promote the idea that the United States is a middle-class society. However, the mainstream literature on class classification does not recognize that the discursive expression "lower class" carries a strong connotation of aggression. If the question format is changed, replacing "lower class" with "working class," then most people would classify themselves as working class—a situation that also occurs in France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. Ricardo Antunes and Michael Zweig analyze the predicament facing the middle class from the perspective of its internal differentiation. Antunes argues that service-sector workers are increasingly moving away from the typical intellectual work forms of the middle class and becoming the service proletariat. Francesco Schettino and Haider A. Khan, through economic analysis and variable decomposition, analyze the polarization of income distribution in the United States. They argue that the disappearance of the middle-income stratum began in the Reagan era; the disappearing middle-income stratum did not leap into the high-income stratum but continuously fell into the low-income stratum, with non-white and female groups being more severely affected.

维森特·纳瓦罗（Vicente Navarro）指出，认为美国是一个中产阶级社会的判断与相关提问方式中的话语误导直接相关。当被问及自己是属于上层阶级、中间阶级还是下层阶级时，大多数美国人都将自己定位为中间阶级，这是美国学术界和政治机构大力宣传美国是一个中产阶级社会的主要依据。然而，研究阶级分类的主流文献并没有意识到“下层阶级”这一话语表述包含着很强的攻击性，如果换种提问方式，将下层阶级换成工人阶级，则大多数人会将把自己归类为工人阶级，这种情况同样发生在法国、德国、意大利和西班牙。里卡多·安图内斯（Ricardo Antunes）和迈克尔·茨威格（Michael Zweig）则从中产阶级分化的角度分析了中产阶级面临的困境。安图内斯认为，服务业从业者越来越脱离中产阶级典型的智力工作形式，成为服务业无产阶级。弗朗切斯科·谢蒂诺（Francesco Schettino）和海德尔·汗（Haider A.Khan）通过经济分析和变量分解的方式分析了美国收入分配中的两极分化状况，认为中等收入阶层消失的问题始于里根时期，消失的中等收入阶层并不是跃入高收入阶层，而是不断跌落到低收入阶层，其中非白人和女性群体受到的影响更严重。

(II) The Impact of the Middle-Class Predicament: Leading to the Superimposition of Class, Ethnic, and National Contradictions

（二）中产阶级困境的影响：导致阶级、种族、民族矛盾叠加

The intensifying wealth polarization in Western capitalist countries has led more of the middle class to fall into the ranks of the proletariat. Under the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the economies of Western capitalist countries have been severely damaged, with people of color and socially vulnerable groups suffering more severely, but the affected groups are not limited to these two categories. Zophia Edwards points out that the economic devastation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has caused many white proletarians and middle-class individuals to fall into instability and impoverishment alongside non-whites. However, the predicament suffered by white proletarians and the middle class has not led them to form cross-racial solidarity and alliances with non-whites. On the contrary, whites are attempting to restore their psychological and social status advantages, white supremacist ideology is prevalent, and the United States in particular exhibits clear characteristics of racial capitalism.

西方资本主义国家不断加剧的贫富分化导致中产阶级更多地跌落到无产阶级队伍中。在新冠肺炎疫情影响下，西方资本主义国家的经济受到重创，有色人种和社会弱势群体遭受的影响更严重，但受影响的群体并不局限于这两类群体。佐菲亚·爱德华兹（Zophia Edwards）指出，新冠肺炎疫情导致的经济重创使许多白人无产阶级和中产阶级正在与非白人一样陷入不稳定和贫困化，但是白人无产阶级和中产阶级遭受的困境并没有使其与非白人形成跨种族的团结和同盟。相反，白人试图恢复其在心理和社会地位方面的优势，白人至上主义意识形态盛行，美国更是表现出明显的种族资本主义特征。

Faced with the anger and anxiety of the white working class and middle class resulting from economic hardship and identity crisis, Western capitalist countries have instead shifted the blame and deflected responsibility. First, they attribute economic hardship to immigrants. Zweig argues that immigrants are merely scapegoats that Western capitalist countries have found for their own social ills. For years, the United States blamed most social problems on the poor and the fiscal burden of welfare, but welfare reform has made the poor no longer the target of public anger. Currently, immigrants have replaced the poor and are used to explain America's economic difficulties, on the grounds that immigrants have taken jobs from native-born Americans, depressed wages, become the main burden on public finances, and are poor people with criminal tendencies. However, immigrants are merely a false target created by the ruling class; they are regarded as "others" and a "lower class" outside mainstream society, used to divert public disappointment and anger toward the corporate elite. Second, they attribute economic hardship to globalization. Göran Therborn uses "hope" and "nightmare" respectively to describe the different situations of the middle class in the Global South and the Global North. In the Global South, the middle class has experienced explosive growth; in the Global North, the middle class is in decline, facing increasingly high living costs and increasingly uncertain labor market prospects. Attributing the decline of the middle class in the Global North to the vigorous development of the middle class in the Global South is an important trigger for the current rise of trade protectionism and anti-globalization sentiment in Western capitalist countries. But this is actually a mistaken understanding based on surface phenomena, and the substantive root causes hidden within it should attract our attention. Branko Milanovic, in *Global Inequality*, elaborates on the dominant position of Western capitalist countries in overall wealth distribution from the perspective of the global distribution of absolute gains, and from the perspective that global inequality mainly stems from inequality between nations, he elaborates on the huge economic gap between the Global South and the Global North implied by "citizenship premium" or "citizenship penalty." He points out that this gap can be illustrated by the differences in the criteria for defining the middle class between developed and developing countries. As early as 2009, the World Bank's Development Research Group elaborated on the impact of different criteria for defining the middle class, arguing that if the criteria of developed countries are used to define the middle class in developing countries, then only 5% of people in developing countries reach the middle-class level, and the new middle class in developing countries is highly fragile, easily falling back into poverty under the impact of global economic fluctuations.

面对白人工人阶级和中产阶级因遭遇经济困境和身份危机而产生的愤怒与焦虑，西方资本主义国家却转移矛盾，“甩锅”推责。一是将经济困境归咎于外来移民。茨威格认为，移民不过是西方资本主义国家为自己的社会弊病找来的替罪羊。多年来美国将大部分社会问题归咎于穷人和福利保障带来的财政负担，但福利改革让穷人不再成为公众愤怒的目标。当前，移民已取代穷人，被用来解释美国的经济困境，其理由是移民让美国本土居民失去了工作，压低了工资，并成为公共财政的主要负担，而且是有犯罪倾向的穷人。但是，移民不过是统治阶级创造出来的虚假目标，他们被视为主流社会之外的“他者”和“下层阶级”，用以转移民众对企业精英的失望和愤怒。二是将经济困境归咎于全球化。约兰·特伯恩（G?ran Therborn）用希望和噩梦来分别描述中产阶级在全球化南方和全球化北方的不同境况。在全球化南方，中产阶级经历了爆发式的增长；在全球化北方，中产阶级则处于衰落状态，面临着越来越高的生活成本和越来越不确定的劳动力市场前景。将全球化南方的中产阶级的蓬勃发展视为全球化北方中产阶级衰败的原因，是当前西方资本主义国家贸易保护主义和反全球化浪潮兴起的重要诱因，但这其实是一种基于表面现象的错误认识，其中隐藏的实质性根源应引起我们的关注。布兰科·米拉诺维奇（Branko Milanovic）在《全球不平等》一书中，从绝对收益的全球分配角度阐述了西方资本主义国家在整体财富分配中的主导地位，并从全球不平等主要源于国家间不平等的角度，阐述了“公民身份溢价”或“公民身份损失”隐含的全球化南方与北方之间巨大的经济差距，他指出，这种差距可以通过发达国家与发展中国家在中产阶级界定标准方面的差异来说明。早在2009年，世界银行发展研究中心就阐述了中产阶级界定标准不同带来的影响，认为如果以发达国家的标准去划定发展中国家的中产阶级，那么发展中国家仅有5%的人达到中产阶级水平，并且发展中国家的新中产阶级充满脆弱性，在全球经济波动的影响下很容易再次陷入贫困境地。

Through the above analysis we find that the polarization in Western capitalist countries is actually rooted in domestic income distribution, determined by the political systems and capital interests of Western capitalist countries. However, Western capitalist countries shift the blame, intertwining class issues with ethnic, gender and racial questions. Fernando E. Gapasin holds that the unique reality of the present is that class struggle exhibits a superimposed character, manifested in the mutual penetration of patriarchy, racial conflict and class contradictions, which requires the establishment of broad alliances among oppressed groups. Yet Western capitalist countries attribute economic difficulties to immigrants and the Global South, intensifying divisions among workers along racial and gender lines, and running counter to global labor solidarity. Michael D. Yates argues that the racial and gender issues, nationalism and imperialism existing in capitalist society hinder the formation of class consciousness among the working class.

我们通过上述分析发现，西方资本主义国家的两极分化其实根源于国家内部的收入分配，是由西方资本主义国家的政治制度和资本利益决定的。但是，西方资本主义国家却转移矛盾，将阶级问题与民族问题、性别问题、种族问题交织在一起。费尔南多·加帕辛（Fernando E.Gapasin）认为，当下的独特现实是阶级斗争呈现出叠加性，表现为父权制、种族冲突和阶级矛盾相互渗透，这就要求在被压迫群体中建立广泛的联盟。然而，西方资本主义国家将经济困境归咎于外来移民和全球化南方，加剧了工人在种族、性别方面的分化，并与全球劳工团结背道而驰。迈克尔·耶茨（Michael D.Yates）认为，资本主义社会中存在的种族和性别问题、民族主义和帝国主义问题会阻碍工人阶级的阶级意识的形成。

(3) The Positioning of the Middle Class: “The Middle Class Is Not in the Ruins”

（三）中产阶级的定位：“中产阶级并不在废墟中”

The Western left’s exposition of the political stance of the middle class is consistent with Marxism. Marx and Engels believed that the intermediate position of the petty bourgeoisie determines the vacillation and conservatism of its political attitude; they “are as much enchanted by the luxury of the big bourgeoisie as they are sympathetic to the sufferings of the people. … Contradiction is the basis of their existence.” [16]16 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto*, describing the petty bourgeoisie. Wright holds that the middle class is subject to pulls from both capital and labor, and which direction it moves depends on the specific environment and conditions. Zweig argues that the so-called “professional middle class,” although becoming more like the technical working class, is unwilling to classify itself as working class for fear of compromising its professionalism; in values and political identity it is closer to the bourgeoisie, and its political attitude depends on the specific circumstances and the balance of forces between the working class and the bourgeoisie. Jack Metzgar, drawing on Marx’s description of the essential attributes of the petty bourgeoisie in a letter to Annenkov, holds that the professional middle class “is both bourgeois and people,” sharing both common interests and conflicts of interest with the working class. [17]17 Marx’s 1846 letter to Pavel Annenkov critiques Proudhon and discusses the nature of the petty bourgeoisie. Michael Lind, in *The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite*, describes the managerial elite as a new ruling class, arguing that although they exercise monopolistic influence in expertise, wealth and culture, they remain subject to the rule of capital.

西方左翼对中产阶级政治立场的阐述与马克思主义一脉相承。马克思恩格斯认为，小资产阶级的中间地位决定了其政治态度的摇摆性和保守性，他们“既迷恋于大资产阶级的豪华，又同情人民的苦难。……矛盾是他们存在的基础”。赖特认为，中产阶级承受着来自资本和劳工两边的拉力，具体会朝向哪个方向取决于他们所处的环境和条件。茨威格认为，所谓的“专业中产阶级”虽然变得更像技术工人阶级，但他们并不愿意将自己归类于工人阶级，担心这样会影响其专业性，他们在价值观和政治认同上更接近资产阶级，其政治态度取决于他们所处的具体环境以及工人阶级与资产阶级之间的力量对比。杰克·梅茨加（Jack Metzgar）依据马克思致安年科夫的信中关于小资产阶级本质属性的描述认为，专业中产阶级“既是资产者又是人民”，与工人阶级既有共同利益，也有利益冲突。迈克·林德（Michael Lind）在《新的阶级战争：从管理精英阶级手中拯救民主》一书中描述了作为新兴统治阶级的管理精英，认为他们虽然在专长、财富和文化方面具有垄断性影响，但仍受制于资本的统治。

Metzgar believes that although the professional middle class faces the predicament of proletarianization, it is not in the ruins, and its political stance will have an important impact on the United States. In his view, the Ehrenreichs’ analysis of the professional-managerial class has a positive function, but its perspective is one-dimensional, pessimistically estimating the power of the bourgeoisie and seeing only the opposition between the middle class and the working class. In reality, the middle class also influences the bourgeoisie, and the working class also reshapes the middle class. Entering the 21st century, class relations have become more complex; the professional middle class is neither a passive tool of the bourgeoisie nor the main oppressor of the working class, but under the influence of right-wing populism, contradictions between the working class and the middle class have intensified, intermingled with racial issues. In this complex class relationship, the professional middle class, which constitutes one-third of all laborers and possesses knowledge and skills useful to both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, positioning itself as workers rather than servants of capital, will have an important impact on the direction of the United States.

梅茨加认为，专业中产阶级虽然面临着无产阶级化的困境，但并不是在废墟中，其政治立场将对美国产生重要影响。在他看来，艾伦莱希关于专业管理阶级的分析有积极作用，但其视角是单向度的，悲观地估计了资产阶级的力量，只看到中产阶级与工人阶级的对立。实际上，中产阶级也在影响资产阶级，工人阶级也在重塑中产阶级。进入21世纪后，阶级关系变得更加复杂，专业中产阶级既不是资产阶级的被动工具，也不是工人阶级的主要压迫者，但受右翼民粹主义的影响，工人阶级与中产阶级之间的矛盾加剧，其中还夹杂着种族问题。在这种复杂的阶级关系中，在全体劳工中占1/3、掌握着对资产阶级和无产阶级均有用的知识与技能的专业中产阶级将自己定位为工人而不是资本的仆人，将对美国的走向产生重要影响。

(4) New Forms of Class Structure in Western Countries: The Precarious Employment Group Attracts Attention

（四）西方国家阶级结构的新形态：不稳定就业群体引发关注

In the post-World War II olive-shaped class structure, the middle class was the main body of Western capitalist countries. But with the shrinking of the middle class, the precarious employment group has attracted attention. Wysong argues that in the new social class structure of the United States, the largest group by number is the precarious employment group, reaching 47%–50%. [18]18 Earl Wysong, American sociologist, co-author of *The New Class Society*. The attention given to the precarious employment group has a solid basis in reality. Under the influence of neoliberalism’s increase in labor flexibility, cuts in welfare protections, and advocacy of “de-unionization,” economic insecurity in Western capitalist societies has intensified, manifested in class composition and labor-capital relations as the emergence of the precarious employment group and non-standard employed workers.

在二战后的橄榄型阶级结构中，中产阶级是西方资本主义国家的主体。但随着中产阶级的萎缩，不稳定就业群体引发关注。怀松认为，在美国新的社会阶级中，人数占比最多的就是不稳定就业群体，达到47%—50%。不稳定就业群体引发关注有着深厚的现实基础。在新自由主义增加劳动弹性、削减福利保障、鼓吹“去工会化”的影响下，西方资本主义社会的经济不安全感日益加剧，在阶级构成和劳资关系上表现为不稳定就业群体与非标准雇佣工人的产生。

Western left-wing scholars have long noted the emergence and impact of informal workers. Richard D. Vogel points out that the informal economy based on exploiting undocumented immigrants is rapidly spreading in the United States, and this informal economy will plunge all laborers into poverty. In 2011, Guy Standing creatively proposed the concept of the “precariat.” The precariat refers to a new class engendered by neoliberal globalization and technological change, different from the traditional proletariat, in informal employment, with low pay, poor welfare protections, and long-term chronic insecurity. This class division and explanation places more emphasis on psychological culture and living conditions. In 2020, Joshua Greenstein applied Standing’s class analysis framework to data from the Current Population Survey and its Social and Economic Supplement jointly conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics from 1980 to 2018 via IPUMS-CPS, conducting an empirical analysis of the class structure of the United States, concluding that the precariat has become the largest class in the United States and the biggest victim of inequality. Standing defines the precariat as an independent “new class,” a view criticized by left-wing scholars, but left-wing scholars do not deny the rapid development and important role of the precariat.

西方左翼学者很早就注意到非正规工人的产生及其影响。理查德·沃格尔（Richard D.Vogel）指出，以剥削无证移民为基础的非正规经济正在美国迅速蔓延，而这种非正规经济将使所有劳工的生活陷入贫困。2011年，盖伊·斯坦丁（Guy Standing）创造性地提出了“不稳定无产阶级”（precariat）的概念。不稳定无产阶级指新自由主义全球化和科技变革催生出的、与传统无产阶级不同、处于非正式就业状态、薪酬水平低、福利保障差、长期受慢性不安全感所困的新兴阶级。这一阶级划分和阐释更侧重心理文化和生活状态。2020年，约书亚·格林斯坦（Joshua Greenstein）将斯坦丁的阶级分析框架运用到通过IPUMS-CPS从1980—2018年美国人口普查局和劳工统计局联合进行的人口调查和社会经济补充调查获取的数据中，对美国的阶级结构进行了实证分析，认为不稳定无产阶级已成为美国人数最多的阶级，是美国不平等问题的最大受害者。斯坦丁将不稳定无产阶级界定为独立的“新阶级”，这种观点受到左翼学者的批判，但左翼学者并不否认不稳定无产阶级的快速发展和重要作用。

R. Jamil Jonna and John Bellamy Foster argue that the concept of precariousness is inseparable from Marx’s critique of capitalism, has a long history in socialist thought, and is not a new concept. Combining this with an understanding of Marxism, Jonna and Foster expound the reasons for the precariousness of the working class, manifested as the relative surplus population produced by the rising organic composition of capital, women, children and the impoverished stratum, and the competition of the global reserve army of labor for working-class jobs. They point out that capitalism is a global production system that encompasses broader peripheral areas through colonialism, and exploitation is increasingly becoming an international phenomenon. In the era of globalization, large numbers of immigrants flow to developed countries, and social production shifts to the Global South with cost advantages; these trends will bring new insecurity to the working class in Western capitalist countries. Antunes similarly notes the emergence of a new labor category—the “precarious employment group”—arguing that behind flexible employment lies disguised exploitation and super-exploitation of workers, the encroachment and compression of work into non-work time and space. [19]19 Ricardo Antunes, Brazilian Marxist sociologist, author of *The Meanings of Work*. Against Standing’s view of the precariat as an independent new class, Antunes puts forward the opposite view, arguing that wage labor itself carries precariousness, and that the precarious employment group is actually a manifestation of heterogeneity within the proletariat. Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt, based on changes in labor-capital relations brought about by the informatization of production and the prominence of immaterial labor, analyze the increasing precariousness of workers. They argue that with the formation of a supra-territorial networked production pattern, “the space of capital flow is no longer limited by physical space; the informatized production-labor relationship allows capital to find cheap labor anywhere it is profitable,” and workers will face increasingly volatile employment conditions and more disadvantageous circumstances.

贾米尔·乔纳（R.Jamil Jonna）和约翰·贝拉米·福斯特（John Bellamy Foster）认为，不稳定的概念与马克思对资本主义的批判密不可分，在社会主义思想中拥有悠久的历史，并不是新鲜概念。结合对马克思主义的理解，乔纳和福斯特阐述了工人阶级不稳定性的缘由，其表现为资本有机构成提高产生的相对过剩人口、妇女儿童和贫困阶层、全球劳动力后备军对工人阶级工作机会的争夺。他们指出，资本主义是一种全球生产体系，通过殖民主义涵盖了更广泛的外围地区，剥削日益成为一种国际现象。在全球化时代，大量移民涌向发达国家，社会生产向具有成本优势的全球化南方转移，这些趋势将给西方资本主义国家的工人阶级带来新的不安全感。安图内斯同样注意到新的劳动力类别——“不稳定就业群体”——的产生，认为灵活就业背后其实是对工人的变相剥削和超级剥削，是工作对非工作时空的侵占和挤压。针对斯坦丁将不稳定无产阶级视为独立的新阶级的观点，安图内斯提出了相反的观点，认为雇佣劳动力本身就带有不稳定性，不稳定就业群体其实是无产阶级内部异质性的体现。安东尼奥·奈格里（Antonio Negri）和迈克尔·哈特（Michael Hardt）立足生产信息化和非物质劳动地位凸显给劳资关系带来的变化，分析了劳动者日益增加的不稳定性。他们认为，随着超地域性的网络化生产格局的形成，“资本流动的空间不再受物理空间的限制，信息化的生产劳作关系使得资本可以在任何有利可图的地方找到廉价劳动力”，劳动者将处于日益动荡的就业形势和更加不利的处境中。

The exploitation and oppression suffered by the precariously employed make them an important force in social movements and political resistance in Western capitalist countries. Heinrich Geiselberger, in his book *The Spirit of Our Times*, points out that the “precariat” is a significant force resisting neoliberal globalization. Antunes argues that, as the fastest-growing segment of the proletariat, the participation of the precariously employed in labor struggles will play a decisive role in the fate of the entire working class in the 21st century.

不稳定就业群体所遭受的剥削和压迫使其成为西方资本主义国家社会运动和政治反抗的重要力量。海因里希·盖泽尔伯格（Heinrich Geiselberger）在《我们时代的精神状况》一书中指出，“朝不保夕一族”是反抗新自由主义全球化的重要力量。安图内斯认为，作为无产阶级中增长最快的部分，不稳定就业群体参与到劳工斗争中，将对整个工人阶级在 21 世纪的命运起到决定性的作用。

IV. The Significance and Limitations of Contemporary Western Left-Wing Research on the Middle Class

四、当代西方左翼中产阶级研究的意义和局限

Overall, contemporary Western left-wing scholars’ research on the class structure and the middle class in capitalist countries has important theoretical and practical significance. On the one hand, Western left-wing scholars adhere to the Marxist position, respond to some scholars’ challenges to Marxist class theory, and, based on new changes in the class structure of Western capitalist countries, propose various theories of the middle class, demonstrating a desire to develop Marxism, which has positive theoretical value. On the other hand, Western left-wing scholars focus on the actual conditions of Western capitalist countries, especially their intersectional analysis of class, ethnicity, gender, and race, which plays an important role in our understanding of the complexity of class relations in Western capitalist countries and the multidimensional causes of collective action and political struggle in the West, providing good theoretical support for Western left-wing movements.

总体而言，当代西方左翼学者对资本主义国家阶级结构和中产阶级的研究具有重要的理论意义与现实意义。一方面，西方左翼学者坚持马克思主义立场，回应了一些学者对马克思主义阶级理论提出的质疑，并依据西方资本主义国家阶级结构的新变化，提出多种中产阶级理论，表现出发展马克思主义的愿望，具有积极的理论价值；另一方面，西方左翼学者着眼西方资本主义国家的现实状况，特别是对阶级问题、民族问题、性别问题和种族问题的交叉性分析，对于我们认识西方资本主义国家的阶级关系的复杂性以及西方国家的集体行动和政治斗争的多维诱因具有重要作用，可为西方左翼运动提供很好的理论支撑。

However, contemporary Western left-wing research on the middle class also has shortcomings, such as insufficient attention to the revolutionary character of Marxist class theory and a lack of thoroughness in class analysis.

但是，当代西方左翼中产阶级研究也存在着对马克思主义阶级理论的革命性重视不够、对阶级的分析不够彻底等缺陷。

Class and class struggle are the key and clue for Marxist analysis of historical development and evolution, but Marx and Engels did not stop at the historical conception of class struggle; they continued to analyze the basis for class division and dissect the driving forces behind class struggle. Marx clearly pointed out: “If I did not know the factors on which these classes are based, such as wage labor, capital, etc., class would be an empty phrase.” [20]20 Karl Marx, “The Poverty of Philosophy,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 6 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 197. From alienated labor to the division of labor, and then to the commodification of social surplus and labor power, Marx delved deeper and deeper, ultimately finding the basis for class division and the foundation of class emergence. He argued that classes “arise from changes in the mode of production,” [21]21 Karl Marx, “Letter to J. Weydemeyer,” March 5, 1852, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 39 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1983), p. 62. that the relationship to the means of production is the main marker for distinguishing classes, and emphasized the need to conduct class analysis deep within the sphere of production, grasping the historical thread in the historical evolution of relations of production. This is what the Japanese scholar Hiromatsu Wataru called the downward path from the conception of class history to historical materialism. [22]22 Hiromatsu Wataru (1933–1994) was a Japanese Marxist philosopher known for his work on the early Marx and the structure of *Capital*.

阶级和阶级斗争是马克思主义分析历史发展演进的钥匙和线索，但马克思恩格斯并没有停留于阶级斗争史观，而是继续分析阶级的划分依据，剖析阶级斗争背后的动力。马克思明确指出：“如果我不知道这些阶级所依据的因素，如雇佣劳动、资本等等，阶级又是一句空话。”从异化劳动到分工，再到社会剩余和劳动力商品化的产生，马克思层层深入，最终找到了阶级划分的依据和阶级产生的基础，认为阶级“是由于生产方式发生变化而产生的”，生产资料占有关系是区分阶级的主要标志，强调要深入生产领域进行阶级分析，在生产关系的历史演进中把握历史脉络，这也就是日本学者广松涉所说的从阶级史观到唯物史观的下沉之路。

Starting from the relationship to the means of production, the middle class, which has relatively high salary levels and education levels and engages in mental labor, can be seen as an expression of the internal differentiation and heterogeneity of the proletariat, but it still belongs to the wage-labor group, because “better clothing, food, treatment, and a larger amount of property … do not abolish the exploitation of the wage-worker, nor his subjection. … The rise in the price of labor, as a result of accumulation of capital, only shows, in fact, that the length and weight of the golden chain the wage-worker has already forged for himself allow of a relaxation of the tension of it.” [23]23 Karl Marx, *Capital*, vol. 1, trans. Ben Fowkes (London: Penguin, 1990), p. 769. However, whether it is Wright’s classification of classes based on people’s relationship to power and scarce technical expertise, or Zweig’s classification based on power, or Wolff and Resnick’s classification based on people’s position in the production of surplus value, none of them use the perspective of historical materialism to penetrate deeply into the sphere of social production, recognizing the proletarian nature of the middle class from the standpoint of ownership of the means of production. They do not treat the differences in the concrete forms of labor, lifestyle, value identification, and economic conditions of the middle class as multiple differentiations within the proletariat, thus showing a lack of thoroughness in class analysis, so that their analysis and discussion of the middle class instead conceals the deepest level of class relations. Furthermore, Marxist class theory is not only an explanation and analysis of class relations and class conflict, but also a practical and revolutionary weapon, emphasizing the complete elimination of class oppression through class struggle. However, Western left-wing scholars’ research on the political function of the middle class in new social movements and its revolutionary character lacks depth and breadth.

从生产资料占有关系出发，拥有较高的薪资水平和受教育程度、从事脑力劳动的中产阶级，可以被视为无产阶级内部分化和异质性的体现，但仍然属于雇佣劳动群体，因为“吃穿好一些，待遇高一些，持有财产多一些，……不会消除雇佣工人的从属关系和对他们的剥削。由于资本积累而提高的劳动价格，实际上不过表明，雇佣工人为自己铸造的金锁链已经够长够重，容许把它略微放松一点”。但是，无论是赖特依据人们与权力和稀缺技术专长的关系来划分阶级，还是茨威格依据权力来划分阶级，或者沃尔夫和雷斯尼克依据人们在剩余价值生产中的地位来划分阶级，都没有运用历史唯物主义的观点深入到社会生产领域，从生产资料占有情况来认识中产阶级的无产阶级属性，没有把中产阶级在劳动的具体形态、生活方式、价值认同和经济状况方面的不同视为无产阶级内部的多重分化，从而在阶级分析上表现出不彻底性，使得他们对中产阶级的分析讨论反而隐藏了最深层次的阶级关系。另外，马克思主义阶级理论不只是对阶级关系和阶级冲突的解释与分析，更是实践性和革命性的武器，强调的是通过阶级斗争彻底消灭阶级压迫，但西方左翼学者对中产阶级在新社会运动中的政治功能及其所具有的革命性研究缺乏深度和广度。

(Author: Zhang Jin, School of Marxism, Xi’an Jiaotong University)

（作者：张瑾，西安交通大学马克思主义学院）

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心