Class Determination and Its Characteristics in Post-Western Marxism: A Critical Analysis

Class theory is an important component of Marxism. Differences in the criteria and methods of class determination lead to divergent judgments on the state of social classes, thereby directly affecting confidence in Marxist theory and strategic choices for the communist movement. In the era of “post-Western Marxism,” left-wing theorists in capitalist countries have deconstructed and reconstructed the class theory and class determination of classical Marxist writers. While partially inheriting and developing Marxist class theory, they also exhibit deviations, dissolution, and rebellion against it. A critical analysis of this theoretical phenomenon will help us better understand and uphold Marxist class theory, and better comprehend and address practical issues.

阶级理论是马克思主义的一个重要组成部分，阶级判定标准和方法的差异将导致对社会阶级状况的不同判断，从而直接影响对马克思主义理论的信心和对共产主义运动的策略选择。“后西方马克思主义”时代，资本主义国家的左派理论家对马克思主义经典作家的阶级理论和阶级判定进行了解构和重构，在部分继承和发展马克思主义阶级理论的同时，也呈现出对马克思主义阶级理论的偏移、消解和反叛。对这一理论现象进行评析，将有利于我们更好地理解和坚持马克思主义阶级理论，更好地理解和处理现实问题。

I. Class Determination of Classical Writers and Its Characteristics

一、经典作家的阶级判定及其特点

Marx did not provide a clear definition of “class”; he used the term in multiple senses. Generally speaking, in his early period Marx used “class” more in a political sense, while in his later period he emphasized the economic dimension. In the chapter “Classes” in *Capital*, Marx held that answering the question “what makes wage-laborers, capitalists, and landowners the three great social classes” would naturally answer “what forms a class.” The core point of Marx’s discussion here is that different relations of social groups to the ownership of the means of production serve as the fundamental criterion for class division. Marx primarily discussed class formation from the economic sphere, especially the process of production. He regarded the division of labor as the basis for the origin and existence of classes, the ownership of the means of production and labor as the criterion for class division, and shared lifestyles, class interests, and level of education as necessary conditions for class division. Marx’s class theory focuses on the production and distribution of surplus value, rather than on property ownership. “Marx’s concept of class is closely linked to the production of surplus value. The class process is the appropriation of others’ surplus labor.” Therefore, compared with the more politically charged term “estate,” in Marx’s work the economic connotation of “class” relations is stronger.

马克思没有对“阶级”下过明确的定义，他曾在多种意义上使用过“阶级”一词，总体来说，马克思早期更多的是在政治层面使用“阶级”一词，而后期则更多地侧重于经济层面。在《资本论》的《阶级》章中，马克思认为只要解答了“是什么使雇佣工人、资本家、土地所有者成为社会三大阶级的成员”的问题，也就自然而然地解答了“是什么形成阶级”的问题。马克思在该处论述的核心点是把社会集团对生产资料所有制的不同关系作为划分阶级的根本标准。马克思主要是从经济领域特别是生产过程的角度来论述阶级形成的，他认为分工是阶级起源和存在的基础，生产资料和劳动占有是阶级划分的标准，共同的生活方式、阶级利益和教育程度是划分阶级的必要条件。马克思的阶级理论集中于剩余价值的生产和分配，而不是财产所有权，“马克思的阶级概念是与剩余价值的生产紧密相连的。阶级过程就是占有别人的剩余劳动”。所以，较之于政治意味更浓一些的“等级”而言，在马克思那里，“阶级”关系的经济学意味要更浓一些。

Lenin, in his article “A Great Beginning,” provided a classic definition of class: “Classes are large groups of people differing from each other by the place they occupy in a historically determined system of social production, by their relation (in most cases fixed and formulated in law) to the means of production, by their role in the social organization of labor, and, consequently, by the dimensions of the share of social wealth of which they dispose and the mode of acquiring it. Classes are groups of people one of which can appropriate the labor of another owing to the different places they occupy in a definite system of social economy.” Lenin’s definition of “class” is an inheritance and development of Marx’s views. Lenin’s class division is based on the place occupied in the system of social production, the relation to the means of production, the role in the social organization of labor, and the dimensions and mode of acquiring the share of social wealth determined by these three factors. Lenin’s definition grasps class profoundly from an economic perspective, especially from the perspective of ownership of the means of production.

列宁在《伟大的创举》一文中给阶级下了经典定义，“所谓阶级，就是这样一些大的集团，这些集团在历史上一定的社会生产体系中所处的地位不同，同生产资料的关系（这种关系大部分是在法律上明文规定了的）不同，在社会劳动组织中所起的作用不同，因而取得归自己支配的那份社会财富的方式和多寡也不同。所谓阶级，就是这样一些集团，由于它们在一定社会经济结构中所处的地位不同，其中一个集团能够占有另一个集团的劳动”。列宁对“阶级”所作的定义是对马克思观点的继承和发展。列宁的阶级划分是以在社会生产体系中所处的地位、同生产资料的关系、在社会劳动组织中所起的作用以及由于这三个因素所决定的取得归自己支配的那份社会财富的方式和多寡为标准的。列宁的定义从经济角度特别是从生产资料所有制角度对阶级进行了深刻的把握。

In summary, the class determination of classical writers such as Marx and Lenin has the following characteristics:

概括言之，马克思和列宁等经典作家的阶级判定具有如下一些特点：

First, class determination is discussed from the sphere of production, not from the sphere of distribution. The expositions of Marx and Lenin all contain the following three points: relation to the means of production, position in society and labor, and the mode and amount of acquiring social wealth. Among these three points, the first two are more fundamental and decisive, while distribution is a characteristic at the level of outcome determined by the former two.

第一，从生产领域而不是分配领域来讨论阶级判定问题。马克思和列宁的论述都包含着以下三个质点：与生产资料的关系、在社会和劳动中的地位、获得社会财富的方式和多寡。在这三点中，前两点是更为基础的、决定性的，而分配则是由前两者所决定的一个结果层面的特征。

Second, the expositions of classical Marxist writers particularly emphasize economic factors such as relations of ownership and position in labor, and assign them an important role. However, they also give necessary emphasis to the influence of non-economic factors such as politics, culture, and education on class determination. As Marx pointed out, social division of labor, lifestyle, material interests, and level of education all influence class determination. Therefore, for determining the class affiliation of a particular stratum or estate, the relation to the means of production and position in labor are decisive factors. For an individual, class affiliation is the result of the combined action of multiple factors, among which the relation to the means of production and position in labor are ultimately decisive. However, education, lifestyle, and cultural concepts can sometimes be decisive for an individual’s class identification and class affiliation.

第二，马克思主义经典作家的论述特别强调了所有制关系、劳动中的地位等经济因素，并赋予经济因素以重要作用，但是他们同时对经济之外的政治、文化、教育等因素对阶级判定的影响也给予了必要的强调。正如马克思所指出的，社会分工、生活方式、物质利益和教育程度等都对阶级判定具有影响。因而，就某一阶层或等级的阶级归属的判定而言，与生产资料的关系和劳动中的地位是决定性的因素；而就某一个体而言，其阶级归属则是多种因素共同作用的结果，其中与生产资料的关系和劳动中的地位是最终意义上的决定性因素，但是，教育、生活方式、文化观念等对个体的阶级认同和阶级归属的影响有时是决定性的。

Third, the category of “class” in classical Marxist writers includes multiple dimensions: economic, political, cultural, social, and value-based. Of course, the most essential dimension remains the economic one. Marx and Lenin both grasped the category of class at this level. Class is based on different relations to the ownership of the means of production, leading to different forms of exploitation and appropriation of surplus labor—that is, either appropriating or being appropriated. But class is also political and social; it has tendencies in political and social lifestyle, as well as tendencies in cultural identification and value orientation. These tendencies in different political, cultural, social, and value dimensions also influence class attributes.

第三，马克思主义经典作家的“阶级”范畴包括经济、政治、文化、社会、价值等多维内涵，当然，最本质的维度仍然是经济层面的内涵。马克思、列宁都是在这一层面来把握阶级范畴的。阶级是基于对生产资料的不同所有关系而导致的对剥削、对剩余劳动的占有的不同即占有或被占有。但是阶级也是政治的、社会的，它具有政治和社会生活方式方面的倾向性，同时也有文化认同和价值取向上的倾向性。不同的政治、文化、社会、价值维度的倾向性，对阶级属性同样具有影响。

II. Class Determination in Post-Western Marxism

二、后西方马克思主义的阶级判定

On the issue of class determination, Western Marxists generally adhered to Marxist views and positions, but there were also developments and deviations. Georg Lukács particularly emphasized the importance of class consciousness for class determination and class formation. However, Lukács one-sidedly stressed the “consciousness” dimension of “class consciousness,” thereby subjectivizing and abstracting the concept of class. Antonio Gramsci, while inheriting Marx’s class views, emphasized the struggle for ideological hegemony: “A social group can, and indeed must, already exercise ‘leadership’ before winning governmental power (this is indeed one of the principal conditions for the winning of such power).” Herbert Marcuse, in class determination, placed greater emphasis on the role of technology and ideology compared to classical writers. He pointed out that the technological and managerial system of capitalism “uses its power and efficiency to prevent the emergence of a new subject by assimilating mind to facts, thought to required behavior, aspirations to reality.” Serge Mallet and the early André Gorz, among others, also emphasized the nature of work—such as managerial work and technical work—on the basis of classical determination. However, they ultimately still judged these groups as belonging to the working class, because they remained “wage laborers.”

西方马克思主义者关于阶级判定的问题，总体上坚持了马克思主义的观点和立场，但是也有发展和偏离。乔治·卢卡奇（Georg Lukács）特别强调阶级意识对于阶级判定和阶级形成的重要意义，但是卢卡奇片面强调了“阶级意识”中的“意识”维度，从而把阶级概念主观化和抽象化了。安东尼奥·葛兰西（Gramsci Antonio）在继承马克思的阶级观点的基础上强调要争夺意识形态领导权，“一个社会集团能够也必须在赢得政权之前开始行使领导（这就是赢得政权的首要条件之一）”。赫伯特·马尔库塞（Herbert Marcuse）在阶级判定上较经典作家更强调技术和意识形态的作用，他曾指出，资本主义的技术和管理制度“运用它的权力和效能，通过把心灵与事实、思想与被要求的行为、愿望与实在同化起来的办法，阻碍新的主体的出现”。马勒和早期的安德列·高兹（AndréGorz）等人也在经典判定基础上强调了工作的性质，如管理工作、技术工作，但是，他们最终还是基于该类人员仍然属于“雇佣劳动者”，因而他们口中的“新中间阶级”最终还是被判定为属于工人阶级。

Overall, due to the development of the times and changes in capitalist reality, Western Marxists, on the issue of class determination, were somewhat more superficial than classical Marxist writers. Although there were occasional deviations from classical Marxist determination, they did not go so far as to dissolve or rebel against Marxist class theory. However, some new views on class determination proposed by left-wing scholars of post-Western Marxism have, in a certain sense, moved toward the deconstruction or even rebellion against Marxism. Typical types include the following.

总体来说，由于时代的发展和资本主义现实的变化，西方马克思主义者在阶级判定问题上，较马克思主义经典作家要略显肤浅，虽然时有对马克思主义经典判定的偏移，但尚没有走向对马克思主义阶级理论的消解和反叛。但是，后西方马克思主义的左派学者在阶级判定问题上提出的一些新观点，在某种意义上就走向了对马克思主义的解构甚至是反叛。典型的有以下一些类型。

First, the “overdetermination” view of class division. Nicos Poulantzas is, in a certain sense, a precursor of post-Marxism. In his book *Political Power and Social Classes*, he proceeds from overdetermination, arguing that while economic position plays a decisive role in determining social class, politics and ideology also play an important role. He points out that the composition of a class is not merely related to the economic aspect; it is influenced by various factors including economics, politics, and ideology, and is determined by multiple factors. “Social classes are determined by their position in the totality of social practices, that is, by their position in the overall division of labor, which includes political and ideological relations.” [3]3 Nicos Poulantzas, *Political Power and Social Classes*, trans. Timothy O’Hagan (London: Verso, 1978), p. 64. [The original English translation is cited here; the Chinese text references the concept of “overdetermination” (多元决定论), a term associated with Louis Althusser’s structural Marxism.] Poulantzas in fact treats economic, political, and ideological relations all as decisive factors in dividing social classes. The reason power and ideology become factors in class composition is that state power and ideological institutions play a role in reproducing class relations. Of course, Poulantzas does not treat the three elements of economics, politics, and ideology as equal in weight. He holds that when determining social class, the primary role is played by position in economic relations, and within the economic sphere, the production process is the ultimate determinant. The decisive role of economics is only manifested in that “economics allows one link to play the dominant role, while economics controls the transformation of the link that plays the decisive role.” [4]4 Ibid., p. 15. That is to say, the decisive role of economics lies merely in determining which aspects are decided by economics itself and which aspects are decided by politics or ideology.

第一，“多元决定论”阶级划分观。尼科斯·波朗查斯（Nicos Poulantzas，又译为尼科斯·普兰查斯）在某种意义上来说是后马克思主义的先驱，在《政治权力与社会阶级》一书中，他从多元决定论出发，认为在确定社会阶级时，经济地位虽然具有决定性作用，但政治和意识形态也起重要作用。他指出阶级的构成不仅仅与经济方面有关，它还受经济、政治、意识形态等各方面的影响，由多元因素决定。“社会阶级是按照它们在整个社会实践中的地位，也就是它们在包括政治和意识形态关系在内的整个劳动分工中的地位来决定的。”波朗查斯实际上把经济、政治和意识形态关系都看作是划分社会阶级的决定性因素，权力和意识形态之所以成为阶级构成的因素，是因为国家权力和意识形态机构在再生产阶级关系中起了作用。当然，波朗查斯并没有把经济、政治和意识形态三个要素等量齐观。他认为确定社会阶级时，起主要作用的是经济关系中的地位，在经济领域中，又以生产过程作为最终决定。经济的决定作用只是表现在“经济让其一个环节起统治作用，而由经济掌握着起决定作用的环节的转换”。也就是说，经济的决定作用仅仅在于它决定着哪些方面由自己起决定作用，哪些方面由政治或意识形态起决定作用。

Second, the work–class consciousness determinist view of class division. André Gorz never directly stated his criteria for class division, but through some of his discussions related to the class question, we can determine that what Gorz used to judge class affiliation were primarily work and class consciousness. And “work” in Gorz’s view is more reflected in the relationship between laborers and the means of production and their position in social production, as brought about by the development of science and technology. He successively proposed concepts such as the “new working class” and the “non-class of non-workers.” The “new working class” is composed of experts, scholars, students, bureaucratic managers, white-collar workers, intellectuals, foreign laborers, etc. They do not own the means of production, possess a certain degree of independence and autonomy in their labor, and become a “class” based on overcoming alienation and pursuing the meaning of labor and life. However, the randomness and fragmentation of labor lead to a lack of class consciousness among them. Therefore, in Gorz’s view, this group is not the “working class” in the traditional Marxist sense, but only the “new working class.” With the development of post-industrial society, the new working class evolves into the “non-class of non-workers,” composed of the unemployed and semi-unemployed on the margins of society. Their class composition is unclear, and their political identity is ambiguous. In Gorz’s view, they exist outside capitalist relations of production, “are not produced by capitalism, and are not stamped with the imprint of capitalist relations of production.” [5]5 André Gorz, *Farewell to the Working Class: An Essay on Post-Industrial Socialism*, trans. Michael Sonenscher (London: Pluto Press, 1982), p. 69. Because they are in a state of unemployment or semi-unemployment and lack class consciousness, Gorz calls them the “non-class of non-workers.”

第二，工作—阶级意识决定论的阶级划分观。高兹没有直接陈述过他的阶级划分标准，但是通过他的一些与阶级问题相关的论述，我们可以判定，被高兹用来作为阶级归属判定的主要是工作和阶级意识。而“工作”在高兹那里更多地体现为由科学技术发展所导致的劳动者与生产资料的关系和社会生产中的地位。他先后提出了“新工人阶级”“非工人的非阶级”等概念。“新工人阶级”由专家、学者、学生、科层管理人员、白领工人、知识分子、外籍劳工等组成，他们不占有生产资料，劳动中具有一定的独立性和自主性，他们是基于对异化的克服、追求劳动和生活的意义而成为一个“阶级”的，但是劳动的随机性和碎片化导致其缺乏阶级意识，因而，在高兹看来，此类群体不是马克思主义传统意义上的“工人阶级”，只是“新工人阶级”。随着后工业社会的发展，新工人阶级发展成“非工人的非阶级”，它由处于社会边缘的失业与半失业者组成，他们阶级成分不明、政治身份模糊。在高兹看来，他们处于资本主义生产关系之外，“不是由资本主义产生的，并且没有被打上资本主义生产关系的烙印”。由于他们处于失业或半失业状态，并且没有阶级意识，因而高兹称其为“非工人的非阶级”。

Third, the property–market determinist method of class determination. John E. Roemer holds that ownership of the means of production has a limiting effect on class, exploitation, and exploited status, but class is also the result of “individual choice.” As to which of these two aspects actually plays the decisive role in class status, it is ambiguous. Roemer argues that “when tangible assets are unequally owned, the emergence of classes becomes necessary.” [6]6 John E. Roemer, *A General Theory of Exploitation and Class* (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982), p. 19. However, “a person’s class status is not externally given. Rather, it emerges as the result of his optimizing behavior, a behavior aimed at maximizing his utility given his initial property.” [7]7 Ibid., p. 20. That is, he treats class differentiation as the natural result of social agents engaging in optimizing activities based on their own wealth. Under labor market conditions, “as a result of the optimal behavior of members and their initial assets, they end up in different class positions. Thus, through this mechanism, classes are formed.” [8]8 Ibid., p. 21. In this way, the class status of economic participants is determined by the special arrangement of the optimal solution to the market plan facing their initial property under reproducible equilibrium.

第三，财产—市场决定的阶级判定法。约翰·E.罗默（John E.Roemer）认为，生产资料所有权对阶级、剥削和被剥削地位是有限制作用的，但是，阶级也是“个人选择”的结果。至于二者之间究竟哪一方面对阶级地位起决定作用，是含混不清的。罗默认为，“当有形资产被不平等地拥有时，阶级的出现就是必要的了”。但是，“一个人的阶级地位不是外在地给定的。确切地讲，它的出现是他最优化行为的结果，这一行为是要在初始财产既定的情况下最大化其效用”。即，他把阶级的分化看作是社会经营者依据自己的财富从事最优化活动的自然结果。在劳动市场条件下，“作为成员们的最优行为和他们的初始资产的结果，他们最后处于不同的阶级地位。因此，通过这一机制，阶级形成了”。这样一来，经济参与者的阶级地位，是在可再生产的均衡下由对其初始财产面对市场规划的最优解的特殊排列规定的。

Fourth, the exploitation-centered method of class determination. Erik Olin Wright holds that class cannot be simplistically defined as a certain occupational category, but is a social relation, referring to a social relation that controls capital, decision-making, the work of others, and one’s own work. The concept of class should meet the following four criteria: class is relational; those relations are antagonistic; antagonism stems from exploitation; and the basis of exploitation lies in different ownership of the means of production. Wright emphasizes that class must be understood as a “relational concept,” and “classes should be defined according to their positions within specific relations of exploitation and domination.” [9]9 Erik Olin Wright, *Classes* (London: Verso, 1985), p. 30. He gives three reasons: first, class examines opposing groups where social conflict exists, and this opposition implies that these groups are in some form of social relation with each other; second, only by understanding class as a “relational concept” can class structure establish the dividing line for determining the fundamental nature of society on the historical path of social change; third, only by understanding class as a “relational concept” can the essential characteristics of unequal distribution between strata be explained.

第四，以剥削为中心的阶级判定法。埃里克·欧林·赖特（Erik Olin Wright）认为，阶级不能被简化地定义为某种职业分类，而是一种社会关系，是指一种控制资本、决策、他人工作和自己工作的社会关系。阶级概念应符合以下四个标准：阶级是关系上的；那些关系是对抗性的；对抗来源于剥削；剥削的基础在于对生产资料的不同所有权。赖特强调，必须将阶级理解为一个“关系概念”，“阶级应根据它们在特定的剥削和统治关系中的地位来定义”。他给出三个理由：一是阶级考察的是那些存在社会冲突的对立群体，这种对立意味着这些群体彼此处于某种形式的社会关系之中；二是只有将阶级理解为一个“关系概念”才能够使阶级结构在社会变革的历史道路中确立划分社会根本性质的分界线；三是只有将阶级理解为“关系概念”才能够解释等级间分配不平等的本质特征。

Fifth, the endowment determinist method of class determination. Jon Elster opposes the following four methods of class division: first, division according to property; second, division according to whether one exploits or is exploited (because this method cannot distinguish between landlords and the bourgeoisie, or between slaves and freemen); third, division according to market behavior (because this criterion does not apply to non-market economies); fourth, division according to whether one holds power (because it does not apply to market economies based on private ownership). He argues that “endowments” are the criterion for dividing classes, and “endowments include tangible property, intangible skills, and more subtle cultural traits. Behavior includes working versus not working, selling labor power versus buying labor power, lending capital versus borrowing capital, renting out land versus renting in land, issuing commands versus receiving commands in the management of common property.” [10]10 Jon Elster, “Three Challenges to Class,” in *Analytical Marxism*, ed. John E. Roemer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), p. 147. On the basis of a comprehensive examination of people’s “endowments” and “behavior,” he proposes a new definition of class: “A class is a group of people who, if they want to make the most of their endowments, are forced to take the same actions based on what they possess.” [11]11 Ibid., p. 148.

第五，禀赋决定论的阶级判定法。乔恩·埃尔斯特（Jon Elster）反对如下四种阶级划分法：一是按照财产来划分；二是按照是否进行剥削或者受剥削来划分（因为这种方式无法区分地主和资产阶级、奴隶和自由民）；三是按照市场行为来划分（因为这个标准不适用于非市场经济）；四是根据是否拥有权力来划分（因为不适用于以私有制为基础的市场经济）。他认为“禀赋”是划分阶级的标准，而“禀赋包括有形的财产、无形的技能和更为细微的文化性格。行为则包括工作的对不工作的、出卖劳动力的对购买劳动力的、借出资本的对借进资本的、出租土地的对租进土地的、在共同财产的管理中发布命令的对接受命令的”。他在综合考察了人们的“禀赋”和“行为”的基础上，提出来关于阶级的新定义，“阶级是这样一些人的集团，他们如果想最大限度地利用自己的禀赋，就不得不根据他们拥有的东西采取同样的行动”。

Sixth, the multi-domain class-division method. In order to handle political subjects that are anti-capitalist in nature but whose identity is not constructed around “class interests,” Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe and others argue that the traditional Marxist criteria for class division need to be expanded: the criteria for division are no longer solely the amount of means of production one owns; the scope of class division can be expanded from a single domain to multiple domains, for example, from simply looking at the ownership of means of production in economic terms to encompassing differences in interests pursued and value orientations; the domains for class division can be broader, that is, extending from the single economic domain to the political life domain, such as shared nationality, shared ethnicity, etc. However, these two scholars particularly emphasize ideology, pointing out that “only by constituting itself as a collective subject within a unified ideology does it become a coherent social force. It does not become a class or a coherent social force until it begins to possess some intelligible conceptual form that can explain a shared collective situation.” To some extent, “this way is to regard itself as ideology,” and “with the formation of an ideological imaginary, a certain group is also formed.” This effectively degrades the concept of class.

第六，多元—多领域阶级划分法。为了处置具有反资本主义性质而其同一性又不是围绕“阶级利益”而建构起来的政治主体，厄尼斯特·拉克劳（Ernesto Laclau）、尚塔尔·墨菲（Chantal Mouffe）等认为传统的马克思主义阶级划分的标准有扩大化的必要：划分的标准不再仅仅是占有生产资料的多寡；划分阶级的范围可以从单一领域扩大到多个领域，比如单纯从经济上看对生产资料占有的情况扩大到追求利益的不同和价值取向的差别等；划分阶级的领域可以更宽泛，即从单一的经济领域扩展到政治生活领域，如相同的民族、相同的种族等。但两位学者特别强调意识形态性，他们指出，“只有通过把自身在某一统一的意识形态内建成一个集体主体，它才变成一种一致的社会力量。直到它开始拥有某种可以解释一个共享的集体处境的可理解的概念形式时，它才会成为一个阶级或一种一致的社会力量”，在某种程度上，“这种方式就是把自身看作是意识形态”，“随着意识形态想象的形成，某一团体也就形成了”。这实际上是把阶级降格了。

Seventh, the tendency toward de-classification. On the issue of class determination, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri tend to negate the concept of class and class division, using broader concepts such as “the multitude” to blur the question of class determination. They point out that the core of the question of the multitude “is not what the multitude is, but what the multitude can become.” They argue that “the multitude” is a class concept, a global political subject under the sovereign form of empire that resists the rule of capital, a universal association of creative poor people dominated by capital. The multitude represents an irreducible diversity of subjects; the multitude immanent in empire formally abolishes nationality from the sovereign form, and its political goal points toward global democracy, constructing a society composed of different identities. The composition of the multitude emphasizes labor forms that include diversity: “the multitude is an economic class theory that does not require a choice between identity and diversity.” It does not exclude groups other than wage workers from entering, thereby abolishing a single identity/labor form and reflecting the plural expression of political demands. “Class” is in a state of eternal construction; the working class can always undergo political “reconstruction” based on the deconstruction of capitalism, incorporating more strata of workers, absorbing more new elements that resist capital, and organically integrating various forces.

第七，去阶级化倾向。在阶级判定问题上，迈克尔·哈特（Michael Hardt）、安东尼奥·奈格里（Antonio Negri）倾向于否定阶级概念和阶级划分，而用更宽泛的概念诸如“诸众”来模糊阶级判定问题。他们指出：诸众问题的核心“不在于何为诸众，而在于诸众可以成为什么”。他们认为“诸众”是一个阶级概念，是帝国主权形式下反抗资本统治的全球政治主体，是受资本宰制的具有创造性的贫者的普遍联合。诸众代表的是不可化约的多样性主体，内在于帝国的诸众从主权形式上取消民族性，其政治目标指向全球民主，构建由不同身份构成的社会。诸众的构成中强调包容多样性的劳动形式，“诸众是一种无须在同一性和多样性之间抉择的经济阶级理论”，它并不排斥雇佣工人以外的群体进入，从而取消了单一身份/劳动形态，体现政治诉求的多元表达。“阶级”处在永恒的建构中，工人阶级总能根据资本主义的解构而进行政治上的“重构”，纳入更多的工人阶层、吸纳更多新的抵抗资本的要素以及有机整合各种力量。

III. The Characteristics and Defects of Class Determination in Post-Western Marxism

三、后西方马克思主义的阶级判定的特点及缺陷

Compared with the class determination methods of classical Marxist writers, the class determination of left-wing scholars in post-Western Marxism exhibits clear differences and its own characteristics, as well as certain defects.

较之于马克思主义经典作家的阶级判定方法，后西方马克思主义的左派学者的阶级判定具有明显的差异和自身特色，也存在一定的缺陷。

(I) Characteristics of Class Determination among Post-Western Marxist Left-Wing Scholars

（一）后西方马克思主义左派学者阶级判定的特点

First, regarding the criteria for class determination, they have both inherited and expanded upon the criteria of classical writers, and there are also cases of directly rejecting the class determination criteria of classical Marxist writers or even negating the Marxist concept of “class” itself. Most scholars generally inherit and adhere to the theoretical perspective of Marx and Western Marxists in insisting on an economic angle for class division, but their understanding of how the economy functions in class division differs markedly from Marx’s. While generally acknowledging the role of the economy, they place greater emphasis on the roles of political, cultural, ideological, and other factors, or argue that the determining role of the economy is merely to decide when various factors play a determining role. Some scholars even directly negate the classical concept of “class,” using “articulation” to link together multiple groups sharing common characteristics, replacing “class” with such groupings.

第一，在阶级判定的标准上，他们对经典作家的判定标准有一定的继承和拓展，也有直接否弃马克思主义经典作家的阶级判定标准甚至否定马克思主义“阶级”概念本身的情况。大部分学者一般都继承和坚持了马克思和西方马克思主义者在阶级划分问题上坚持从经济的角度出发的理论视角，但是他们对经济在阶级划分问题上起作用的方式的认识与马克思有明显差异，他们一般都在承认经济作用的同时，更加强调政治、文化、意识形态等要素的作用，或者认为经济的决定作用只是决定各种要素在何时起决定作用。甚至有部分学者直接否定经典的“阶级”概念，而用“链接”的方式把多种具有共同特质的人群结合在一起，用这样一些群体来取代“阶级”。

Second, the class determination of post-Western Marxist left-wing thinkers exhibits a strong sense of reality. Most scholars discuss and evaluate class issues in close connection with the characteristics of the times, combined with changes in the social structure and class/stratum structure of capitalism. They have paid attention to changes in the working class and the proletariat in contemporary capitalist society, analyzed the composition and historical mission of the working class, expanded the subjects of social transformation, and “articulated” multiple subjects such as ecological movements, feminist movements, and social transformation movements with the traditional proletariat. On the one hand, this presents a strong sense of reality, but at the same time, it blurs traditional class boundaries.

第二，后西方马克思主义左派思想家的阶级判定都具有强烈的现实感。大部分学者是紧密联系时代特征、结合资本主义社会结构和阶级、阶层结构的变化来论述和评判阶级问题的。他们关注到了当代资本主义社会中的工人阶级和无产阶级的变化，对工人阶级的构成和历史使命进行了评析，对社会变革的主体进行了拓展，用生态运动、女权运动、社会改造运动等多元主体与传统无产阶级“链接”，这一方面呈现出强烈的现实感，但同时也模糊了传统的阶级界限。

Third, the criteria for class division place greater emphasis on plurality and dynamism. When dividing classes, most scholars focus on core elements that have already exceeded the scope of Marx and Lenin’s concerns, extending beyond the economic and political domains into the domains of life, culture, education, and ideology. While affirming the role of the economy, they also fully consider the roles of other factors, and to some extent, even affirm the determining role of certain non-economic factors. At the same time, they particularly emphasize the dynamism of class determination, meaning that under the combined effect of multiple factors, due to changes in some of these factors, especially non-economic ones, the class affiliation of individuals and groups may also change.

第三，阶级划分标准更注重多元性、动态性。大部分学者在划分阶级时，关注的核心要素已经超出了马克思和列宁所关注的范围，并且已经超出了经济和政治领域，扩展到了生活、文化、教育和意识形态等领域。在肯定经济的作用的同时，也充分考虑了其他要素的作用，甚至在某种程度上，肯定了某些非经济因素的决定性作用。同时，还特别注重阶级判定的动态性，即在多种因素的共同作用下，由于其中某些要素特别是非经济要素的变化，个体和团体的阶级归属也可能发生变化。

Fourth, their class determination methods exhibit a shift from essence to phenomenon, from the abstract to the empirical. In contrast to the Marxist class determination method, which some scholars attack as “essentialist,” their class determination precisely tends to remain at the level of phenomena, being a simple summary and categorization of certain phenomena without rising to the level of essence. At the same time, their class determination criteria belong more to the empirical level, being a simple intuition of experience that cannot rise to the abstract height of essence.

第四，他们的阶级判定方法呈现出一种由本质到现象、由抽象到经验的转变。与被某些学者攻击为“本质主义”的马克思主义的阶级判定方法相对立，他们的阶级判定恰恰更多地停留在现象层面，是对一些现象的简单的概括和归类，没有能够上升到本质层面。与此同时，他们的阶级判定标准更多地属于经验层面，是对经验的简单直观，不能上升到抽象的本质高度。

(II) Defects in the Class Determination Methods of Post-Western Marxist Left-Wing Thinkers

（二）后西方马克思主义左派思想家阶级判定方法的缺陷

First, some scholars, in their class determination, one-sidedly exaggerate the role of factors other than the economy, even taking individual factors such as exploitation, market behavior, occupation, personal endowment, and ideology as core criteria for class determination. This can only remain superficial and represents a regression compared to classical determination criteria.

第一，部分学者在阶级判定时片面夸大经济之外的其他要素的作用，甚至以个别要素如剥削、市场行为、职业、个人禀赋、意识形态等作为阶级判定的核心要素，这实际上只能是浮于表面，相对于经典判定标准来说是一种倒退。

Second, the class determination of some scholars often lacks clear value goals; their theories are relatively short-sighted, with insufficient applicability and explanatory power. Marxism takes the complete emancipation of humanity as its ultimate value pursuit, with class struggle as an important means of achieving it. In contrast, most post-Western Marxist scholars lack core value propositions; they merely “articulate” multiple forces together without committing to what is ultimately to be pursued. Compared with the macroscopic and comprehensive characteristics of classical Marxist class analysis, their analyses often focus on microscopic, partial appearances, and thus will ultimately be confined to partiality and temporality, with limited explanatory power. Post-Western Marxist left-wing scholars often replace class politics with multiple struggles, discourse politics, etc., and cannot provide a reasonable explanation regarding the driving force of revolution. Consequently, when faced with multiple goals and multiple interests, they cannot offer convincing explanations for what causes unity, what causes social difference, what causes antagonism, what causes division, and other such questions.

第二，一些学者的阶级判定往往没有明确的价值目标，理论相对短视，适用性不够，解释力不够。马克思主义以人的全面解放作为最终的价值追求，阶级斗争是其重要实现手段。而后西方马克思主义的学者则大部分没有核心的价值观念主张，他们只是把多元的力量“链接”在一起，至于最终要追求的是什么，则不置可否。相对于马克思主义经典阶级分析的宏观性、综合性的特点，他们的分析往往都是着眼于微观的、局部的表象，因而，最终将囿于局部性和阶段性而解释力有限。后西方马克思主义左派学者往往以多元斗争、话语政治等取代阶级政治，在革命的动力问题上，不能给出合理的解释，因而，面对多元的目标和多元的利益时，对究竟是什么导致联合、是什么导致社会差异、是什么导致对抗、是什么导致分化等问题也不能给出令人信服的解释。

Third, the class determination and related theoretical viewpoints of some scholars have largely degenerated into discursive politics and language games, ultimately becoming nothing more than a utopia. For scholars such as Laclau and Mouffe, they separate ideology from social determinants and decompose society into ideology or "discourse"; discourse is everything, and the struggle of the Left is to seize "discursive power." In this way, the political struggle of socialist revolution becomes a contest for discursive power, a kind of "discursive articulation." Within this discursive politics and pluralist democracy, the proletariat is dissolved, the opposition between labor and capital is no longer important, exploitation and being exploited become theoretical fictions, and the struggle between the working class and the bourgeoisie is no longer class struggle but a struggle over ideology and discursive power. Ultimately, this can only be a new version of "true socialism," a utopia.

第三，一些学者的阶级判定及其相关理论观点在很大程度上沦为了话语政治、语言游戏，最终只能是一种乌托邦。在拉克劳、墨菲等人那里，他们把意识形态从社会决定因素中分离出来，并且把社会分解成为意识形态或“话语”，话语就是一切，左派的斗争就是要争夺“话语权”。这样一来，社会主义革命的政治斗争就成为话语权的争夺，就成为一种“话语链接”。而在这种话语政治和多元民主中，无产阶级被消解了，劳资对立也不再重要，剥削和被剥削也成为理论虚构，工人阶级和资产阶级之间的斗争不再是阶级斗争，而成为意识形态和话语权斗争。这最终只能是一种新版的“真正的社会主义”，是一种乌托邦。

Fourth, the class theory of some scholars may lead to the negation of the proletariat, indifference to class struggle, and the deconstruction of Marxism. By weakening the role of economic factors, such class determination displaces relations of production, relations of exploitation, and the opposition between capital and labor from the core of Marxist theory. The actual consequence is the deconstruction of the philosophical foundation of the Marxist theory of class, a "dissolution of the Marxist theory of class from a positivist standpoint." By replacing the proletariat with a "people's alliance" that is "not constituted by class relations, nor by any determinate social relations, but by discourse," it leads to the disintegration of Marxism's historical transformative subject. And by replacing the struggle of the working class as a unified subject for socialism with a struggle waged by "plural" subjects for "radical plural democracy," it leads to a shift from class politics to radical plural democratic politics. Through their deconstruction of the Marxist theory of class, they negate the Marxist doctrines on class, class struggle, and the historical mission of the proletariat, which is in fact a deconstruction of Marxism.

第四，一部分学者的阶级理论可能导致的结果是对无产阶级的否定、对阶级斗争的漠视和对马克思主义的解构。此类阶级判定，通过削弱经济因素的作用，将生产关系和剥削关系以及资本与劳动的对立从马克思主义理论的核心中置换出去，实际的后果是对马克思主义阶级理论的哲学基础的解构，是“从实证主义观点消解马克思阶级理论”；通过用“不是由阶级关系构成，也不是由任何决定性的社会关系构成，而是由话语构成的”“人民同盟”来替代无产阶级，导致了对马克思主义的历史变革主体的瓦解；而用由“多元”主体为“激进多元民主”而进行的斗争代替了一场由工人阶级这个统一主体为社会主义而进行的斗争，则导致了由阶级政治转向激进多元民主政治。他们通过对马克思主义阶级理论的解构，否定了马克思主义关于阶级、阶级斗争、无产阶级历史使命的学说，这实际上是对马克思主义的解构。

IV. How to View the Class Theory of Classical Writers and the Class Theory of Post-Western Marxism

四、如何看待经典作家的阶级理论和后西方马克思主义的阶级理论

Regarding the class theory of the classical Marxist writers, we must view it historically and, on the basis of understanding its theoretical purpose, grasp and apply it scientifically.

对于马克思主义经典作家的阶级理论，我们要历史地看待，并在理解其理论目的的基础上，对其进行科学的把握和运用。

First, we must correctly grasp the purpose and methodological significance of Marxist class determination. Marx did not discuss the class question for the sake of classifying classes. The purpose of Marx's study of the class question was to reveal, on the basis of historical materialism, the developmental trends of capitalist society, demonstrating that the development of capitalism inevitably leads to the sharpening of class contradictions and the replacement of capitalism by socialism. Therefore, in a certain sense, Marx's views and analyses are macroscopic and abstract. However, the standpoint and methodological perspective from which the classical Marxist writers studied the class question are what we must uphold and inherit; this point cannot be weakened.

首先，我们要正确把握马克思主义阶级判定的目的和方法论意义。马克思不是为了划分阶级而讨论阶级问题的，马克思对阶级问题的研究目的是要在唯物史观的基础上揭示资本主义社会的发展趋势，说明资本主义的发展必然导致阶级矛盾的尖锐和资本主义被社会主义所取代。因此，在某种意义上，马克思的观点和分析是宏观的、抽象的。但是，马克思主义经典作家研究阶级问题的立场和方法论视角是我们必须坚持和继承的，这一点不容弱化。

Second, we must correctly treat the basic viewpoints and theoretical framework system of the Marxist theory of class. The classical Marxist writers' analysis of the class question is a unity of scientificity and revolutionary character, and we must treat this scientificity and revolutionary character dialectically. Some viewpoints and expositions that belong to the "basic principles" of Marxism must be upheld. Some expositions that may belong to "general principles" and "individual viewpoints" should be handled flexibly according to actual circumstances, without rigid dogmatism. The classical Marxist theory of class is an organic, systematic theory, and we cannot discard its framework for analyzing problems. For example, the bipolar opposing class model based on the mode of production, the class interaction model based on social formations, the intra-class relations model based on political situations, and the internally linked analytical framework formed by these three levels through the four concepts of class structure, class composition, class consciousness, and class action—all of these we should uphold and develop.

其次，我们要正确对待马克思主义阶级理论的基本观点和理论框架体系。马克思主义经典作家对阶级问题的分析是科学性和革命性的统一，对于其科学性和革命性我们要辩证对待。部分属于马克思主义“基本原理”的观点和论述，我们要坚持；部分可能属于“一般原理”和“个别观点”的论述则要根据实际情况，灵活处理，不能僵化教条。马克思主义经典阶级理论是有机的系统理论，其分析问题的框架我们不能否弃。如基于生产方式的两极对立阶级模式、基于社会形态的阶级互动模式和基于政治事态的阶级内部关系模式，以及这三个层次通过阶级结构、阶级构成、阶级意识和阶级行动四个概念而形成的内在联动分析框架，我们都应坚持和发展。

Finally, we must also rationally treat criticisms and negations of Marx's class views. We must resolutely resist malicious attacks, slanders, and defamations from some bourgeois scholars and anti-Marxists. For distortions and misunderstandings of the Marxist theory of class within the Left camp itself, we must treat them dialectically, analyzing their reasonable aspects while also pointing out their problems. Regarding the expositions of the classical Marxist writers themselves, we must also view them historically. It should be said that the Marxist doctrine of class struggle correctly reflected the class characteristics of society at that time and, from a macroscopic perspective, conformed to the developmental trends of social history. Since it was not aimed at classifying classes, we cannot force the relevant viewpoints and expositions of the classical Marxist writers to have strong operability and specific-level foresight.

最后，我们还要理性对待对马克思阶级观点的批判和否定。对于部分资产阶级学者和反马克思主义者的恶意攻击、诬陷和中伤，我们要坚决抵制；对于左派阵营内部对马克思主义阶级理论的歪曲和误解，则要辩证对待，分析其合理之处，同时也指出其存在的问题。对于马克思主义经典作家本身的论述，我们也要历史地看待。应该说马克思主义的阶级斗争学说正确地反映了当时的社会阶级特点，并且从宏观上来说是符合社会历史发展趋势的。由于它不是以划分阶级为目的，因而不能强求马克思主义经典作家的相关观点和论述具有很强的操作性和具体层面的预见性。

Regarding the class determination viewpoints of post-Western Marxist Left scholars, while we see their problems, we must also see their partial rationality and value.

对于后西方马克思主义左派学者阶级判定的观点，我们在看到其存在问题的同时，也要看到其部分合理性和价值。

First, the class determination of post-Western Marxism is partly a realistic reflection of the economic, political, and class structure of capitalist society, a reflection of the actual working class. At the phenomenal level, the social structure and class structure of contemporary capitalist countries have indeed undergone major changes. Class relations are increasingly interwoven and complex, and new intermediate strata are constantly emerging and regrouping, which has cast a psychedelic hue over the class relations of capitalism. Some scholars have seen these changes, but their judgments about them are not necessarily correct. The current state of the working class in contemporary capitalist countries—reified, non-revolutionary, tending toward conservatism—is something we must seriously confront and consider. Additionally, beyond the struggles of the working class, there exist multiple subjects of social antagonism in capitalist society. These subjects have diverse interest demands and cannot be directly incorporated into the category of the proletariat, but they are objects the proletariat should unite with. This expands the space for the proletariat's anti-capitalist struggle under the conditions of contemporary capitalism.

首先，后西方马克思主义的阶级判定部分的是对资本主义社会经济、政治和阶层结构的现实反映，是对现实工人阶级的反映。从现象层面来看，当代资本主义国家的社会结构和阶级结构确实发生了重大变化，阶层关系越来越交织和复杂，新的中间阶层不断涌现和重组，这为资本主义的阶级关系涂上了迷幻色彩。而有些学者看到了这些变化，只是对此所作的判断未必正确。当代资本主义国家的工人阶级被物化、不革命、趋于保守的现状，是值得我们认真对待和思考的。另外，在工人阶级的斗争之外，资本主义社会存在多种社会对抗主体，这些主体有着多元的利益诉求，不能直接纳入无产阶级的范畴，但是他们是无产阶级应该联合的对象。这为当代资本主义背景下无产阶级的反资本主义斗争延展了空间。

Second, the determination of post-Western Marxism is, to a certain extent, a product of addressing the lack of direct applicability of classical Marxist expositions to contemporary capitalist society, thereby avoiding a rigid treatment of the Marxist theory of class. What they seek to dissolve is merely the various preachings of Marxism about class simplification and the unified model of revolution, aiming to restore the Marxist theory of proletarian revolution, enrich its semantics, enhance its contemporary utility, and expand its class connotations and the political space of revolutionary significance. Of course, this starting point is good.

其次，后西方马克思主义的判定一定程度上是针对马克思主义的经典论述在当代资本主义社会的不直接适应性，避免僵化地对待马克思主义的阶级理论的产物。他们想要消解的只是马克思主义关于阶级简单化和革命统一模式的种种说教，旨在重新恢复马克思主义关于无产阶级革命的理论，丰富其语义与增强其当代实用性，拓展它的阶级内涵、革命意义的政治空间。当然这一出发点是好的。

Finally, relevant scholars have conducted a dynamic investigation of the composition of class and the working class. Negri and others argue that the working class, like class itself, changes historically, being constantly deconstructed and constantly reconstructed. Compared to traditional Marxism, which views class and the working class as a stable, unified, static object or group, they see class and the working class as a dynamic process of combination of multiple subjects that are in the process of formation, constantly deconstructed by capitalism and constantly reshaped. This better reflects the actual changes of the working class in contemporary capitalist society and provides a new perspective for a deeper and more thorough discussion of the class question. (Notes omitted) (This text has been abridged for publication.)

最后，相关学者对阶级和工人阶级的构成进行了动态的考察。奈格里等人认为，工人阶级和阶级本身一样是历史地变化着的，是不断被解构而又不断重新建构着的。相对于传统马克思主义把阶级和工人阶级看作一个稳定、统一、静止的客体或者群体而言，他们认为阶级和工人阶级是处于形成之中，不断地被资本主义解构又不断重塑的多种主体的动态结合过程。它更好地反映了当代资本主义社会工人阶级的现实变化，为更加深入、充分地探讨阶级问题提供了新的视角。（注释略）（本文编发时有删节）

(The author is Vice Dean, Professor, and Doctoral Supervisor of the School of Marxism at Nanjing Normal University.)

（作者系南京师范大学马克思主义学院副院长、教授、博士生导师）

Online Editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑