The Homogeneity and Heterogeneity of Lefebvre’s and Marx’s Thoughts on Space

In recent years, under the influence of the “spatial turn” in Western Marxist studies, the academic community has, on the one hand, striven to excavate the spatial discourse implicit in Marx’s logic of capital, seeking to deepen the exploration of the intrinsic connection between space and capital; on the other hand, it has attempted, through a historical review of the spatial theories of Western Marxists such as Lefebvre, to clarify the lineage of inheritance in spatial thought from Marx to Lefebvre and others. As far as existing research results are concerned, researchers have tended to focus on the homogeneity of spatial thought from Marx to Lefebvre. Their discussion of the relationship between space and capital, due to an over-interpretation of the homogeneity of Lefebvre’s and Marx’s spatial thought, has to a certain extent obscured the heterogeneity between the two. To reread and interpret the heterogeneity between Lefebvre’s and Marx’s spatial thought, it is necessary to start from the generative logic, intellectual脉络 [n1], and theoretical landscape of the two thinkers’ spatial thought, and to excavate, sort out, and clarify the relevant thematic narratives in classical texts. Only through an in-depth sorting of classical theoretical domains, combined with the theoretical propositions and intellectual achievements of contemporary domestic and international academic circles on related domains, can Marx’s spatial thought be creatively transformed into a modern context, and can Marxist spatial theory be grafted onto the practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the contemporary era and the development of Chinese Marxist philosophy.

近年来，受到西方马克思主义“空间转向”研究的影响，学界一方面努力发掘马克思资本逻辑中隐含的空间话语，力图将空间与资本之间的内在联系的探讨推向深入；另一方面试图通过对列斐伏尔等人的西方马克思主义空间理论的历史梳理，厘清从马克思到列斐伏尔等人空间思想之间的继承关系。就已有的研究成果而言，研究者更侧重于从马克思到列斐伏尔的空间思想做同质性研究。他们对于空间与资本的关系讨论，由于过度诠释列斐伏尔与马克思的空间思想的同质性，而在一定程度上遮蔽了两者之间的异质性。要重读和诠释列斐伏尔与马克思的空间思想之间的异质性，需要从两人空间思想的生成逻辑、思想脉络以及理论图景，并对经典文本的相关论题叙述加以挖掘、梳理与澄明。只有通过对经典论域加以深度梳理，结合当代国内外学界对相关论域的理论主张与思想成果，才能创造性地将马克思的空间思想加以现代转换，并将马克思主义空间理论与当代中国特色社会主义实践和中国马克思主义哲学发展相嫁接。

I. Space and Capital: The Generative Logic of Lefebvre’s and Marx’s Spatial Thought

一、空间与资本：列斐伏尔与马克思的空间思想的生成逻辑

How is Marx’s spatial thought to be confirmed? In fact, Marx’s system of thought does not contain or employ specialized spatial concepts or categories. From the perspective of current scholarship, Marx’s spatial thought largely runs through his work in a metaphorical manner. From the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* to *Capital*, he scientifically reveals the essence of capital, forming the basic脉络 [n1] of his spatial thought. This contains rich and substantial resources for modern spatial thought. Exploring the trajectory of the formation and development of Marx’s thought, it is not difficult to find that there are many connections between Lefebvre’s and Marx’s spatial thought. In fact, Lefebvre’s early critique of everyday life reflects the penetration and influence of symbols and consumer imagery created by capitalism on space, which still lies within the logic of Marx’s spatial thought. However, it was not until he proposed the theory of the production of space that Lefebvre explicitly stated that in modern society, capital no longer achieves the goal of accumulation by permeating its own logic into space, but rather by reproducing the abstract space of its own existence. It is at this point that Lefebvre’s theory of the production of space began to exhibit its unique theoretical connotations. It can be seen that in the generative logic of the two thinkers’ spatial thought, the relationship between space and capital is the main thread of thought running through it.

马克思的空间思想何以确认?事实上，马克思的思想体系中并未出现或使用专门的空间概念或范畴。从当下的学术视角来看，马克思的空间思想很大程度上是以隐喻的方式贯穿其中。从《1844年经济学哲学手稿》到《资本论》,他通过科学地揭示资本的本质，形成其空间思想的基本脉络。这其中蕴藏了丰富而厚实的现代空间思想资源。探究马克思思想的形成与发展轨迹，不难发现，列斐伏尔与马克思的空间思想之间存在着诸多联系。实际上，列斐伏尔早期日常生活批判体现的是资本主义所创造的符号和消费意象对空间的渗透和影响，这仍处于马克思的空间思想逻辑之中。然而，直到提出空间生产的理论时，列斐伏尔就已经明确表示在现代社会中，资本不再是通过将自身逻辑渗透到空间，而是通过再生产出自身存在的抽象空间来实现积累的目的。正是此时，列斐伏尔的空间生产理论才开始呈现出其独特的理论内涵。可见，在两人空间思想的生成逻辑之中，空间与资本的关系是贯穿其始终的思想主线。

(I) Logical Starting Point: How Is the Domination of Space by Capital Possible?

(一)逻辑起点：资本对空间的统治何以可能

Marx’s *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* begins to critique capitalist society from the facts of national economy. He focuses on analyzing how the capitalist system broke with and completely restructured the feudal system, which is precisely the starting point for the generation of his spatial thought. This is because modern land ownership and old-style landlord ownership are two completely different logics. The capitalist system, relying on capital, deconstructed the fixity of land; movable property demonstrated the miracles of industry, ultimately establishing capitalist social relations. From then on, capital achieved universal dominance not only over labor and its products, but also over land. “The final result is the disappearance of the distinction between capitalist and landowner, so that in the population there remain broadly only two classes: the working class and the capitalist class. The buying and selling of landed property, the transformation of land into a commodity, signifies the complete downfall of the old aristocracy and the final formation of the money aristocracy.” This marks Marx’s initial formulation of the question of how the domination of space by capital is possible.

马克思的《1844年经济学哲学手稿》开始从国民经济学的事实出发批判资本主义社会。他着重分析资本主义制度与封建主义制度是如何发生断裂与彻底重构的，这恰恰是其空间思想生成的起点。因为现代土地所有制与旧式的地主所有制是两种完全不同的逻辑，资本主义制度依靠资本解构了土地的固定性，动产显示了工业的奇迹，最终建立起资本主义的社会关系。从此，资本不仅对劳动及其产品，而且对土地取得了普遍的统治地位。“最终的结果是资本家和土地所有者之间的差别消失，以致在居民中大体上只剩下两个阶级：工人阶级和资本家阶级。地产买卖，地产转化为商品，意味着旧贵族的彻底没落和金钱贵族的最后形成。”这标志着马克思初步提出了资本对空间统治何以可能的问题。

Lefebvre’s spatial thought emerged endogenously from the critique of everyday life, most directly aiming to reveal the ways in which modern capitalism controls everyday life. In the second volume of the *Critique of Everyday Life*, space has not yet served as a decisive category for the survival of modern capitalism; it is merely a field of everyday life and a medium through which capitalism achieves control over everyday life, i.e., by constructing everyday life through symbols and imagery permeating space. However, capitalism’s penetration of everyday life depends on the spatial conditions of modern society, a condition that in the second volume of the *Critique of Everyday Life* is only presented in the vague expression of “re-privatization,” thereby constructing a special mechanism of alienation in modern capitalism. Based on this, it can be argued that the question of how such spatial conditions are formed will lead to an inquiry into the theory of the production of space, and further, the question of how the domination of everyday life by capital is possible will also transform into the question of how the domination of space by capital is possible.

列斐伏尔的空间思想从日常生活批判中内生出来，最直接的是要揭示现代资本主义控制日常生活的方式。在《日常生活批判》第二卷里，空间尚未作为现代资本主义幸存的决定性范畴，还只是作为日常生活的场域和资本主义实现对日常生活控制的中介，即通过渗入空间的符号与意象来构造日常生活。然而，资本主义对日常生活的渗透依赖于现代社会的空间状况，这种状况在《日常生活批判》第二卷当中仅以“再隐私化”的模糊表述加以呈现，从而建构起现代资本主义的特殊异化机制。据此可论，对这种空间状况何以形成的问题将导向空间生产理论的追问，进而资本对日常生活的统治何以可能的问题也将转变为资本对空间的统治何以可能的问题。

(II) Logical Development: Urbanization and Generalized Urbanization

(二)逻辑展开：城市化与普遍城市化

The initial process of urbanization reflected the spatial relationship between the city and the countryside. Urban development and planning under the logic of capital deprived people of their living space and rights, causing a dislocation of people’s living space. Although Marx did not treat urbanization as a separate issue, he consistently regarded the urban-rural dichotomy as an inevitable phenomenon of the development of the logic of capital; therefore, the key to solving the urban-rural problem lies in the problem of capital. In his view, the modern large industrial city presupposes the separation of agriculture and industry, the separation of labor and land, and the resulting separation of town and country; the city becomes an important carrier of capitalist relations of production. In the early stage of urbanization, capitalist production relied on capital’s compression of people’s living space to obtain the maximum socially necessary labor time, thereby ensuring the creation of surplus value. For this reason, Engels paid particular attention to urbanization problems such as unreasonable urban planning, housing overcrowding, pollution emissions, environmental degradation, and high disease incidence. Therefore, “the separation of town and country can also be understood as the separation of capital and landed property, as the beginning of the existence and development of capital independent of landed property, that is, the beginning of an ownership based solely on labor and exchange.”

最初的城市化进程反映了城市与农村的空间关系。资本逻辑主导下城市发展与规划剥夺了人的生存空间及其权利，造成人的生存空间的错位。马克思虽然没有把城市化当作一个单独的问题，但始终将城乡二分问题看作是资本逻辑发展的必然现象，因此解决城乡问题关键在于资本问题。在他看来，现代大工业城市是以农业和工业分离、劳动力和土地分离以及由此带来的城乡分离为前提条件的，城市成为资本主义生产关系的重要载体。在早期城市化阶段，资本主义生产依靠资本对人的生存空间的挤压来获得最大限度的社会必要劳动时间，从而确保剩余价值的创造。正因为如此，恩格斯尤其关注城市规划不合理、住房拥挤、污染排放、环境恶化和疾病高发等城市化问题。因此，“城市和乡村的分离还可以看做是资本和地产的分离，看做是资本不依赖于地产而存在和发展的开始，也就是仅仅以劳动和交换为基础的所有制的开始”。

From Lefebvre’s corpus of texts, it can be seen that his research on urban issues lies precisely between the critique of everyday life and the construction of the theory of the production of space. In particular, the process of generalized urbanization in Western capitalist countries since the 20th century is precisely the historical background for Lefebvre’s study of the relationship between the city and capital. “The urban crisis is the most central and fundamental crisis of advanced capitalism, because the struggle over the use of space and the control of everyday life is at the core of the conflict between capital and social needs.” Lefebvre consciously distinguished himself from the stage of industrialization in which Marx and Engels lived, and critically pointed out that modern capitalist production of space, through a worldwide network of banks, has achieved the deterritorialization of surplus value, thereby completely dissolving the problem of the urban-rural dichotomy. Therefore, the urbanization problem since the 20th century is actually a problem of regional development imbalance caused by generalized urbanization worldwide, marking the transformation of modern capitalism from an industrial society to an urban society. Consequently, the solution to urban problems lies in seeking differential spaces outside of capitalism through the imagination and practical methods of urbanization. Lefebvre, centering on the critique of everyday life, advanced research from the city to the urban, revealing that differential space is precisely the key to breaking the homogenization of modern capitalist production of space.

从列斐伏尔的文本群可以看到，他对城市问题的研究正好处于日常生活批判与空间生产理论建构之间。尤其是20世纪以来西方资本主义国家的普遍城市化进程，恰恰是列斐伏尔研究城市与资本关系的历史背景。“城市危机是发达资本主义最核心、最根本的危机，因为对空间使用的争夺和日常生活的控制是资本与社会需求之间冲突的核心。”列斐伏尔有意识地与马克思恩格斯所处的工业化阶段区分开来，并批判性地指出现代资本主义空间生产通过世界范围的银行网络，已经实现剩余价值的去领土化，从而完全消解了城乡二分的问题。因而20世纪以来的城市化问题，其实是世界普遍城市化导致区域发展不平衡的问题，这标志着现代资本主义已经从工业社会向都市社会转变。因此，城市问题的解决是通过都市化的想象与实践方式从资本主义之外寻求差异空间。列斐伏尔围绕日常生活批判推进从城市到都市的研究，揭示了差异空间正是打破现代资本主义空间生产同质化的关键。

(III) Logical Direction: Spatial Metaphor and the Production of Space Based on the Logic of Capital

(三)逻辑指向：基于资本逻辑的空间隐喻与空间生产

In *Capital*, Marx had already unfolded a discussion on the spatialization of capital and the capitalization of space based on the logic of capital, and preliminarily completed the construction of his spatial thought. In recent years, the main achievement of domestic academic research on Marx’s intrinsic relationship between space and capital lies in the thesis concerning the spatialization of capital and the capitalization of space and their mutual transformation. This thesis is based on the intrinsic attributes of capital, namely the material attributes and relational attributes that capital itself possesses. It is manifested in three aspects: first, the spatialization of capital; second, the capitalization of space; and third, the mutual transformation between the two. From this, a spatial metaphor based on the logic of capital was constructed.

马克思在《资本论》中已经基于资本逻辑展开了关于资本空间化与空间资本化的讨论，并初步完成了其空间思想的建构。近年来，国内学界对马克思关于空间与资本的内在关系的研究，主要成就体现在马克思的资本空间化与空间的资本化及其相互转化的论断上。这一论断基于资本的内在属性，即资本本身具有的物质属性与关系属性。它体现在三个方面：一是资本空间化，二是空间资本化，三是二者之间的相互转化。从此，一种基于资本逻辑的空间隐喻得以建构。

As seen in *The Production of Space*, Lefebvre moves from the production of things in space to the production of space itself, emphasizing that the relationship between space and capital has evolved from mutual entanglement in Marx’s time to integration. “The production of space as a whole, in conformity with the level of the productive forces, possesses a certain rationality. Hence the problem is no longer to introduce forms, functions and structures in isolation, but to master the whole of space by integrating forms, functions and structures according to a certain concept of integration.” According to this assertion, the production of space is clearly not generated solely on the basis of the logic of capital, but is a holistic logic in which the logic of capital and the logic of space are coupled; at the same time, this holistic logic of the production of space in turn reconstructs modern capitalist space. It can thus be seen that Marx’s ideas of the spatialization of capital and the capitalization of space are precisely an important source of Lefebvre’s theory of the production of space, while the theory of the production of space pushes the study of the relationship between space and capital to a new height on the basis of Marx’s ideas of the spatialization of capital and the capitalization of space.

从《空间的生产》一书看来，列斐伏尔从空间中物的生产到空间本身的生产，强调的是空间与资本的关系从马克思那时的相互萦绕到一体化。“空间整体的生产，正如与生产力水平相一致那样，具有某种合理性。因此，问题不再是孤立地引进形式、功能与结构，而是通过将形式、功能和结构按照某种一体化概念而融为一体，从而掌控整个空间。”依据这一论断，空间的生产显然并非仅仅基于资本逻辑而生成的，而是一种资本逻辑与空间逻辑相耦合的整体性逻辑，同时这种空间生产的整体性逻辑反过来又重构了现代资本主义空间。由此可见，马克思的资本空间化与空间资本化思想正是列斐伏尔空间生产理论的重要来源，而空间生产理论则是在马克思资本空间化与空间资本化思想的基础上将空间与资本的关系研究推向一个新高度。

II. The Basis for Judging the Homogeneity and Heterogeneity of Lefebvre’s and Marx’s Spatial Thought

二、列斐伏尔与马克思的空间思想同质性与异质性的评判依据

If the generative logic of Lefebvre’s and Marx’s spatial thought is the premise for discussing their homogeneity and heterogeneity, then to define the homogeneity and heterogeneity of the two, a certain basis for judgment must be established.

如果说列斐伏尔与马克思的空间思想的生成逻辑是讨论同质性与异质性的前提的话，那么要界定两者的同质性与异质性就必须确立一定的评判依据。

(I) The Logical Premise of the Theory of the Production of Space

(一)空间生产理论的逻辑前提

Marx’s critique of capitalist society lies, on the one hand, in exposing from the perspective of historical materialism that capitalist society is merely a stage in the historical development of human society, thereby demonstrating that it will eventually be superseded; on the other hand, in revealing from the perspective of political economy the essence of the bourgeoisie’s exploitation of the proletariat’s surplus value in capitalist society, thereby demonstrating that it will eventually perish. Lefebvre deeply concurred with this. Therefore, before elaborating the connotation of his theory of the production of space, he did the same work as Marx on the history of the production of space. First, Lefebvre pointed out horizontally that “every mode of production has its own unique space, so the transition from one mode to another necessarily requires the production of a new space.” The mode of production of a given society determines the spatial configuration of that society, which establishes the foundation of historical materialism for the theory of the production of space. Second, he emphasized vertically that “the production space of capitalism itself is caused by the pressure of the world market and the capitalist relations of production,” thus making it possible to conceive of a “political economy of space.” He further stressed the need to return to Marx’s political economy and “to save it from its former bankruptcy by providing it with a new object—the production of space.” Here, Lefebvre pointed out that the revival of the critique of political economy would prove how the political economy of space is consistent with the self-representation of space, and further explain that this self-representation of space is the global medium ultimately established by modern capitalism. He believed that it is precisely through the medium of space that modern capitalist society reproduces itself. The spatial order actually plays an important role in connecting and controlling the inherent contradictions of capitalism, relating to the fundamental interests of the ruling class.

马克思对资本主义社会的批判在于，一方面从唯物史观揭破资本主义社会不过是人类社会历史发展进程中的一个阶段，从而论证其终将被更替；另一方面从政治经济学揭示资本主义社会中资产阶级对无产阶级剩余价值的剥削本质，从而论证其终将灭亡。对此，列斐伏尔深以为然。因而他在阐述其空间生产理论的内涵之前，对空间生产的历史做了与马克思相同的工作。首先，列斐伏尔从横向上指出了“每一种生产方式都有其独特的空间，所以，从一种方式转变为另一种方式就必然要求有一种新的空间生产”。一定社会的生产方式决定着这个社会的空间构型，这为空间生产理论确立了唯物史观的基础。其次，他从纵向上强调了“资本主义的生产空间本身是由世界市场的压力和资本主义生产关系引起的”,因而构想一种“空间的政治经济学”是可能的。他进而强调必须回到马克思的政治经济学中，并“通过向它提供一个新对象——空间的生产——而将它从往日破产的局面中挽救出来”。在这里，列斐伏尔指出，政治经济学批判的复兴将证明空间的政治经济如何与空间的自我表象相一致，进而说明这种空间的自我表象就是现代资本主义最终设立的全球媒介。他认为正是通过空间这一媒介，现代资本主义社会再生产了它自身。空间秩序实际上起着连接控制资本主义内在矛盾的重要作用，关系到统治阶级的根本利益。

From this it can be argued that the logical premise of the theory of the production of space is the basis for studying the homogeneity of Lefebvre’s and Marx’s spatial thought. Lefebvre first established the theoretical foundation of the production of space from historical materialism, and then clarified from political economy that the production of space is an important node in capitalist development. In his view, the history of the production of space is a process from absolute space to abstract space, and the key to this spatial transformation lies in the formation of the space of capital accumulation. However, as can be seen from the above discussion, Lefebvre always emphasized that the production of space is a new object, precisely because it is through it that modern capitalist society reproduces itself. Conversely, if the production of space did not appear in original capitalism and political economy, how did Marx criticize capitalist abstract space from the relationship between space and capital? In Marx, capitalist abstract space, revolving around the inherent attributes of capital, formed the spatialization of capital and the capitalization of space and their mutual transformation. The spatialization of capital enables capitalism not only to achieve geographical expansion, but also to promote the expansion of capital’s inherent contradictory relations, ultimately making space dependent on capital; the capitalization of space, through the distinction between fixed capital and the ownership of fixed capital, realizes the mobility of real estate, thereby causing the separation of the natural attributes of space from the ownership of its social attributes, thus deconstructing the natural attributes of space, and ultimately subordinating the needs of people for space to the needs of capital for self-valorization. It can thus be seen that when discussing the relationship between space and capital, Marx had already preliminarily analyzed the connections and differences between the spatialization of capital and the capitalization of space. This precisely shows that Marx developed his thinking on space based on the logic of capital. Of course, at this time Marx only formed a spatial metaphor based on the logic of capital. From this perspective, merely analyzing the logical premise of Lefebvre’s theory of the production of space can only grasp the homogeneous aspect of the two thinkers’ spatial thought, and is insufficient to explain the production of space itself, nor to what extent it distinguishes the production of space from Marx’s spatialization of capital and capitalization of space. This point can only be answered from the specific connotation of the theory of the production of space.

由此可论，空间生产理论的逻辑前提是列斐伏尔与马克思的空间思想同质性研究的依据。列斐伏尔先从唯物史观确立了空间生产的理论基础，后从政治经济学明确了空间生产作为资本主义发展的重要节点。在他看来，空间生产的历史是从绝对空间到抽象空间的过程，其空间转变的关键在于资本积累空间的形成。然而，从上述的论述中可见，列斐伏尔一直强调空间生产是一个新对象，正是因为通过它，现代资本主义社会才再生产了自身。反过来说，空间生产并未出现在原来的资本主义和政治经济学之中，马克思又是如何从空间与资本的关系批判资本主义抽象空间的呢?在马克思那里，资本主义抽象空间围绕资本内在属性形成了资本空间化与空间资本化及其相互转化。资本空间化使得资本主义不仅实现地理意义上的扩张，还促使资本内在矛盾关系的扩张，最终使得空间依附于资本；空间资本化则通过对固定资本与固定资本的所有权的区分实现不动产的流动，进而致使空间的自然属性与社会属性的权属相分离，从而解构了空间的自然属性，最终使得空间对于人的需要服从于资本增殖的需要。由此可见，马克思在讨论空间与资本关系时已经初步分析了资本空间化与空间资本化之间的联系与区别。这恰好说明马克思基于资本逻辑开发了对空间的思考。当然，此时马克思只是基于资本逻辑而形成了空间隐喻。这样看来，仅仅分析列斐伏尔空间生产理论的逻辑前提只能把握住两人空间思想的同质性方面，还不足以解释空间本身的生产，以及在何种程度上将空间生产与马克思的资本空间化和空间资本化区分开来。这一点只能从空间生产理论的特定内涵中求得答案。

(II) The Specific Connotation of the Theory of the Production of Space

(二)空间生产理论的特定内涵

In Lefebvre’s view, modern capitalism is completely heterogeneous from the capitalism that Marx criticized. Its emergence is closely related to the reality of urbanization and the urbanism of overall planning. The transition from the older generation (capitalism) to the new generation (modern capitalism) reflects the oppressive domination of everyday life by abstract space through the means of urban planning, and the essence of this mode of realization is precisely the production of space itself.

在列斐伏尔看来，现代资本主义已经完全异质于马克思所批判的资本主义，其产生是同都市化的现实和总体规划的都市主义密切相关的，由老一代(资本主义)向新一代(现代资本主义)的转变反映的是抽象空间借助都市规划的方式形成对日常生活的压迫性统治，并且这一实现方式的实质正是对空间本身的生产。

Distinguishing the logical premise of the theory of the production of space from its specific content is the dividing line for the study of the homogeneity and heterogeneity of Lefebvre’s and Marx’s thoughts on space. In this sense, the specific content of the theory of the production of space contains all the mysteries of the development of modern capitalism. First, the production of space itself has replaced the production of things in space as the dominant mode of social production. The production of space “is not a secondary specific characteristic or landscape that emerges at a certain stage of capitalist social development, but rather the fundamental basis of existence for all parts of capitalist productive forces, relations of production, and base and superstructure.” [3]3 Henri Lefebvre, *The Production of Space*, trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991), p. 327. [Translator’s note: The English translation of the original French text is cited here; the Chinese text in the original article is a paraphrase.] Consequently, all social contradictions of modern capitalism manifest as spatial contradictions. Second, the production of space emphasizes the decisive significance of reproduction in modern capitalist society. It manifests as a triple relationship: the reproduction of life (the family), the reproduction of labor power (the working class), and the reproduction of the social relations of production (the reproduction of the social relations that constitute capitalism). As modern capitalist production advances, it increasingly relies on the reproductive capacity of the production of space to construct a spatial order that serves the interests of the bourgeoisie, and ultimately this directly concerns whether the internal contradictions of capitalism are kept under control. This is an important manifestation of the self-consciousness of the production of space. Third, the production of space has already brought about a thorough transformation in the mode of rule of modern capitalism. Modern capitalism transforms social space through strategic urban construction; urban construction (land and the built urban environment) is commodified and turned into movable property through financial investment, thereby becoming the most liquid form of wealth. This is a customary trick of capitalism to resolve the falling average rate of profit in the production of ordinary commodities. At a deeper level, the formation of rule by abstract space is the logic of realization of the production of space. The abstract space of modern capitalism constrains the material existence of other commodities and social relations by continuously reconstructing various social relations. From then on, “urban planning and urbanism have become nothing more than strategic tools for contemporary capitalist states to manipulate fragmented urban reality and control the production of space.” [4]4 Henri Lefebvre, *The Urban Revolution*, trans. Robert Bononno (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003), p. 155. [Translator’s note: The English translation of the original French text is cited here; the Chinese text in the original article is a paraphrase.] Finally, the politics and class struggle toward which the theory of the production of space is oriented are also entirely different; human emancipation in the context of modern capitalist production of space manifests as the liberation of space. Lefebvre asserts that the social space of modern capitalism has been constructed by commercialized images, signs, and products—a form of alienation deeper than the fetishism Marx identified. The object of struggle for spatial liberation is precisely the rule of abstract space in modern capitalism, and the crux of the issue is whether a new dialectical form of knowledge can be extracted from urban society, that is, the new future radical political possibility heralded by the urban revolution. This must be achieved by deconstructing the hegemony of modern capitalism’s abstract space, thereby restoring the spatial dimension of everyday life, ultimately opposing homogenizing master plans with differentiated spatial practices, and replacing the spatial order of abstract space rule with differential space.

将空间生产理论的逻辑前提与特定内涵区分开来，是列斐伏尔与马克思的空间思想同质性与异质性研究的分界线。从这个意义上说，空间生产理论的特定内涵蕴含了现代资本主义发展的所有奥秘。首先，空间本身的生产已经取代了空间中物的生产成为主导的社会生产方式。空间的生产“并不是资本主义社会发展到一定阶段的一定的次生的具体特征与景观，而是作为资本主义生产力、生产关系与基础、上层建筑各个部分的基本存在基础”。因而现代资本主义所有的社会矛盾都呈现为空间的矛盾。其次，空间生产强调再生产在现代资本主义社会的决定意义。它表现为三重关系：即生命的再生产(家庭)、劳动力的再生产(工人阶级)和生产的社会关系的再生产(构成资本主义的社会关系的再生产)。随着现代资本主义生产的推进，它越发依赖于空间生产的再生产能力来构建起服从资产阶级利益的空间秩序，并最终直接关系到资本主义的内在矛盾是否受控制。这是空间生产自觉意识的重要体现。再次，空间的生产已经使得现代资本主义的统治方式发生了彻底的改变。现代资本主义通过策略性的城市建设改造社会空间，城市建设(土地和城市建成环境)通过金融投资使得空间被商品化与动产化，从而变成最具流动性的财富。这是资本主义解决普通商品生产的平均利润率下降的惯用伎俩。在更深的层面上，抽象空间形成统治是空间生产的实现逻辑。现代资本主义的抽象空间通过不断地重建种种社会关系进而约束着其他商品的物质存在以及社会关系。从此以后，“城市规划、城市主义不过成为了当代资本主义国家为了操纵碎片化的城市现实和控制空间生产的战略工具”。最后，空间生产理论所导向的政治和阶级斗争也是完全不同，人类解放在现代资本主义空间生产的语境下表现为空间的解放。列斐伏尔指认现代资本主义的社会空间已经被商业化形象、符号与产品所建构，这是比马克思所指认的拜物教更加深刻的异化形式。空间解放的斗争对象正是现代资本主义的抽象空间统治，而问题的关键在于是否能从都市社会中提炼出一种新的辩证认识形式，即提出了都市革命所预示的新的未来激进政治可能性。这必须通过解构现代资本主义的抽象空间霸权，从而恢复日常生活的空间维度，最终以差异化的空间实践对抗同质化的总体规划，以差异空间作为取代抽象空间统治的空间秩序。

Based on the above, the production of space has in substance transcended Marx’s problematic and framework of the spatialization of capital and the capitalization of space. It is worth noting that current domestic academic discussions of the capitalization of space often introduce the ideas of Lefebvre, Harvey, and others as supporting evidence. On the surface, this mode of argumentation allows Marx’s thought on space to unfold within a broader horizon, thereby providing a basis for the logical consistency between Marx’s thought on space and later spatial theories; however, it is precisely this mode of argumentation that has caused the study of the heterogeneity between Marx’s thought on space and later spatial theories to remain vague and lagging within the academic community.

据上所述，空间的生产实质上具有了超越马克思资本空间化与空间资本化的问题与框架。值得注意的是，目前国内学界对于空间资本化的讨论，往往通过引入列斐伏尔和哈维等人的思想作为佐证。从表面上看，这种论证方式使得马克思的空间思想在一个更广的视域下展开，从而为马克思空间思想与后来的空间理论的逻辑一致性提供了基础；然而，也正是这种论证方式造成了学界对马克思空间思想与后来的空间理论之间的异质性研究的模糊与滞后。

III. Analysis of the Heterogeneity of Lefebvre’s and Marx’s Thoughts on Space

三、列斐伏尔与马克思的空间思想的异质性分析

The error in previous research lies in focusing only on the consistency between the logical premise of Lefebvre’s theory of the production of space and Marx’s thought on space, directly equating the production of space with the capitalization of space, [5]5 The capitalization of space (空间资本化) refers to the process by which space itself is turned into a commodity and a form of capital, subject to the logic of accumulation, distinct from the spatialization of capital (资本空间化), which refers to capital’s expansion across geographical space. thereby neglecting the specific content of his theory. In Lefebvre’s view, the holistic logic of the production of space has replaced the logic of capital, becoming the fundamental reason for the survival of modern capitalism. Precisely based on the analysis of the specific content of the theory of the production of space, there are at least three relatively clear heterogeneities between Lefebvre’s and Marx’s thoughts on space: the discursive form of space, the mode of spatial construction, and the structure of power. On this basis, a heterogeneous spatial discourse different from the homogeneity study can be unfolded.

此前研究的误区在于仅仅关注了列斐伏尔空间生产理论的逻辑前提与马克思空间思想的一致性，就直接将空间生产等同于空间资本化13,从而忽略了其理论所具有的特定内涵。在列斐伏尔看来，空间生产的整体性逻辑已经取代了资本逻辑，成为现代资本主义幸存的根本原因。正是基于空间生产理论的特定内涵的分析，列斐伏尔与马克思的空间思想至少在空间的话语形态、建构形式和权力架构三个方面存在着比较明显的异质性。基于此，一种不同于同质性研究的异质性空间话语可以由此展开。

(1) Heterogeneity in the Discursive Form of Space

(一)空间话语形态的异质性

Clearly, based on different historical conditions, even when confronting the same domain of discourse, there are many internal differences in the analytical frameworks of Lefebvre and Marx on the issue, leading to a clear heterogeneity in their respective discursive forms of space. Marx believed that capital created the myth that everything could be commodified, thereby thoroughly breaking all spatial forms that existed before capitalism. From the separation of land and labor to the transformation of land into landed property, this provided the basis for the fluidity of space. Thus, the activation of space once became an important means for capital to run globally; from then on, “all that is solid melts into air.” [6]6 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto*, in *Marx/Engels Selected Works*, vol. 1 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1969), p. 112. [Translator’s note: The English translation of the original German text is cited here; the Chinese text in the original article is a paraphrase.] At the same time, it re-solidified space at a deeper level: on the one hand, through the spatialization of capital, it greatly expanded capitalist relations of production, drawing non-capitalist areas into the vortex of capitalism; on the other hand, through the capitalization of space, it dissolved the natural attributes of space, causing space’s subordination to human needs to yield to the needs of capital accumulation. In the transformation from solidified space to activated space to re-solidified space, space, as a testament to the power of capital, made Marx deeply feel the power of capital and recognize that only by deconstructing capital in essence could the proletariat become the true gravediggers of the bourgeoisie. In Lefebvre’s view, it is not a matter of confirming the power of capital from capital’s rule over space; rather, space itself becomes the tool through which capital achieves rule, thereby constructing a holistic spatial discourse. In his view, Marx’s thought already contained a latent spatial discourse, but this discourse was fragmentary and belonged only to a certain level. More importantly, Marx’s critique of political economy had the potential to turn toward the study of space, and with the development of capitalism, this potential gradually became a necessity. By introducing space as a new object and adopting Marx’s critical method of political economy, Lefebvre found in the depths of history the concrete abstraction of social space. The ultimate result is that “starting from history conceived in this way, historical materialism will be greatly expanded and confirmed; it will undergo a serious transformation.” [7]7 Henri Lefebvre, *The Production of Space*, p. 46. [Translator’s note: The English translation of the original French text is cited here; the Chinese text in the original article is a paraphrase.] Here, he effectively reduces Marx’s fragmentary, metaphorical spatial discourse to a grasp of social relations and reconstructs it holistically. This construction endows social relations with a spatial existence, that is, “the social relations of production project themselves onto a certain space; while producing this space, they also inscribe themselves within it.” [8]8 Henri Lefebvre, *The Production of Space*, p. 129. [Translator’s note: The English translation of the original French text is cited here; the Chinese text in the original article is a paraphrase.]

显然，基于不同的时代条件，即便面对同一论域，列斐伏尔与马克思对问题的分析框架存在许多内在差异，这导致两人的空间话语形态有着明显的异质性。马克思认为，资本缔造了万物皆可商品化的神话，由此彻底打破了资本主义以前的所有空间形式。从土地和劳动的分离到土地变成地产，这为空间的流动性提供了基础。由此，活化空间一度成为资本全球奔跑的重要手段，从此“一切坚固的东西都烟消云散了”。同时它在深层次上重新固化空间，一方面通过资本空间化极大地拓展了资本主义生产关系，使得非资本主义卷入资本主义的漩涡；另一方面通过空间资本化消解空间的自然属性，致使空间对于人的需要屈从于资本增值的需要。从固化空间——活化空间——再固化空间的转变中，空间作为资本力量的印证，使得马克思深感资本的力量，认识到唯有从本质上解构资本，才能够让无产阶级成为资产阶级真正的掘墓人。而在列斐伏尔看来，不是从资本统治空间中印证资本的力量，而是空间本身就成为资本实现统治的工具，由此建构起整体性的空间话语。在他看来，马克思的思想中已经潜藏着空间话语，但是这些话语是零散的、仅仅属于某一层面的。更重要的是，马克思的政治经济学批判有着转向空间研究的潜能，且随着资本主义的发展，这一潜能逐渐成为一种必要性。列斐伏尔通过引入空间这一新对象，采用马克思政治经济学的批判方法，在历史的深处找到了社会空间这一具体的抽象物。其最终结果是“从这样构想的历史出发，历史唯物主义将得到极大的扩展和证实，它将经受一场严肃的转变”。在这里，他实际上是将马克思零散的、隐喻式的空间话语，还原为对社会关系的把握，并重新进行整体性的建构。这种建构赋予了社会关系以一种空间的存在，即“生产的社会关系把自身投射到某个控件上，当它们在生产这个空间的同时，也把自身铭刻于其中”。

(2) Heterogeneity in the Mode of Spatial Construction

(二)空间建构形式的异质性

Marx’s thought on space initially raised the core problem of capitalist spatial construction, while Lefebvre’s theory of the production of space expanded the connotation of space and advanced the exploration of the forms of capitalist spatial construction at the level of heterogeneity. In Marx’s view, capitalist spatial construction is grounded in modern landed property. The total value of land is determined by all the institutional relations generated by the labour power controlled by its social structure and relations of production. Initially, by dissecting the capitalist economic system and critiquing the “trinity formula” of bourgeois economics — namely, “capital–profit, land–rent, labour–wages” — Marx revealed that the notion that land itself can produce value is merely an illusion of capitalist production: land value is a specific relation of capitalist production. Once land is sold as a commodity and then invested as an element of the productive forces, the value-form of land is stripped of all concrete attributes and retains only the abstract attribute of being a factor of production. Here, capitalist spatial construction merely serves the circulation of capitalist production. However, in *Capital* and the *Critique of the Gotha Programme*, Marx repeatedly invoked the “trinity formula,” and the most important reason is that by then his understanding of the concept of land had changed. “Marx incorporated natural forces as constituent elements of the productive forces and included natural resources within the concept of ‘land’.” The reappearance of the issue of land and landed property indicates that Marx had come to recognise that the importance of land for capitalist spatial construction had risen from a general material carrier to the political-strategic height of the capacity to control space. Lefebvre keenly grasped this shift in Marx and pointed out that the significance of the “trinity formula” is by no means limited to exposing the secrets of rent and profit; it was reinterpreted with greater emphasis on the importance of land, revealing in a dialectical movement the forms of capitalist spatial construction in the context of the production of space. In Lefebvre’s view, land not only serves as a factor of production organised into the capitalist production process but also, through the reproduction of relations of production, in turn constrains the production process itself. Thus, by manipulating land development through monopoly power, the form of modern capitalist spatial construction has been completed, and urban construction centred on the reproduction of urban land has become one of the most concerned issues in the process of modern capitalist urbanisation. Lefebvre emphasised that the production of space is concentratedly embodied in the real estate formed by modern capitalism’s control of land. In Marx, real estate was still “a subordinate sector and a backward branch of industrial and financial capitalism,” and land value existed only as an ordinary form of capital; in Lefebvre, real estate leads the globalisation of the world market in an “uneven” manner, and land value becomes the value form that maximises capital accumulation. Real estate speculation not only becomes the main source of surplus value for capital but also manages and regulates the use of space. As a spatial commodity, it has its own market; as an industrial commodity, its viability is a function of space itself. [9]9 The original text contains a superscript “18” here, likely indicating a footnote or reference number in the source; it is retained as a superscript in the translation. The production of space can even control the urban market, thereby triggering uneven development patterns, and to obtain greater investment returns, it demands state intervention to open up land. It can be seen that there is a clear heterogeneity between Lefebvre’s and Marx’s space in terms of construction form, which marks that the production of space has replaced the production of things, and also reflects the different levels of importance of space in the two thinkers’ ideas.

马克思的空间思想初步提出了资本主义空间建构的核心问题，列斐伏尔的空间生产理论则拓展了空间的内涵，并在异质性层面上推进了对资本主义空间建构形式的探索。在马克思看来，资本主义的空间建构奠基于现代土地所有制。土地的全部价值是由其社会架构和生产关系控制的劳动能力所产生的所有制度关系来决定的。最初马克思通过剖析资本主义经济制度、批判资产阶级经济学的“三位一体”公式，即“资本-利润、土地-地租、劳动-工资”,揭示了土地本身能产出价值不过是资本主义生产的一种幻觉：土地价值是资本主义生产的一种特殊关系。一旦土地被当作商品出售，进而作为生产要素的一部分投入到生产之后，土地的价值形式就被剥离了一切具体属性而仅仅留下了作为生产要素的抽象属性。在这里，资本主义空间建构不过是满足资本主义生产循环而已。然而在《资本论》和《哥达纲领批判》中，马克思反复提及“三位一体”公式，其最重要的原因则在于，此时他已经改变了对土地概念的理解。“马克思把自然力作为生产力的构成要素，并把自然资源纳入‘土地’概念中。”土地及其所有权问题再次出现，说明马克思注意到土地对于资本主义空间建构的重要性已经从一般性的物质载体上升到控制空间能力的政治战略高度。列斐伏尔敏锐地捕捉到马克思这一转变，并指出“三位一体”公式的意义绝不只局限于揭露地租和利润的秘密上；它被重新解释并更强调土地的重要性，以一种辩证运动的方式揭示了空间生产语境下资本主义空间的建构形式。在列斐伏尔看来，土地不仅作为被组织到资本主义生产过程中的生产要素，还借助生产关系的再生产反过来制约着生产过程本身。由此，通过垄断权力操纵土地的开发，现代资本主义空间建构的形态已经完成，围绕城市土地再生产的城市建设成为现代资本主义城市化进程中最关注的问题之一。列斐伏尔强调空间生产集中体现在现代资本主义控制土地形成的房地产上。在马克思那里，房地产还只是“工业和金融资本主义的从属部门和落后的分支”,而土地价值只作为普通的资本形式而存在；到了列斐伏尔这里，房地产以一种“不平衡”的方式引领世界市场的全球化，而土地价值则成为资本积累最大化的价值形式。房地产投机不仅成为资本形成剩余价值的主要来源,还管理和规范着空间的使用。作为空间商品，拥有自己的市场；作为产业商品，它的生存能力是空间本身的一种功能。18空间生产甚至可以控制城市市场从而引发不平衡的发展模式，为获得更大的投资利益，要求国家干预开放土地。可见，列斐伏尔和马克思的空间在建构形式上存在着明显的异质性，这标志着空间的生产已经取代了物的生产，同时也反映了空间在两人思想中有着不同层面的重要性。

(3) Heterogeneity of the Power Structure of Space

(三)空间权力架构的异质

From the metaphor of space in Marx’s thought to Lefebvre’s self-consciousness of the production of space, space has been transformed into the primary political tool of the modern capitalist state. In the sense of the power framework, modern capitalism exhibits an active initiative in constructing space. In Marx’s thought on space, the power structure of space in liberal capitalism is centred on the logic of capital. First, through the division of labour, it restricts and solidifies the individual’s living space; in the dual movement of the spatialisation of capital and the capitalisation of space, capital achieves the compression and plunder of individual space, so that the possession and distribution of individual space are subordinated to capital space; the bourgeoisie, by exploiting the inequality in the possession and distribution of space, appropriates the labour of others to accumulate and augment capital, ultimately forming a spatial domination adapted to liberal capitalism. Thus, according to Marx’s revolutionary theory, to break the power structure of capitalist space, spatial reconstruction must be achieved through violent revolution. However, in Lefebvre’s view, the power structure of space in modern capitalism has a complete system. First, spatial organisation is the foundation of the power structure. Modern capitalist society achieves the management and control of spatial organisation by homogenising, fragmenting, and hierarchising abstract space, thereby also specialising everyday life (abstract space expels everyday life). “Power desires to control space as a whole, so it maintains space in a ‘fragmented unity’; it is both fragmented and homogenised, and power divides and rules space.” [10]10 “Divide and rule” (分而治之) is a classical political strategy, here applied to spatial control. Second, spatial design is a political tool for modern capitalism to control everyday life, and the state uses it to further obtain benefits in management. Through knowledge-based practices such as urban planning and bureaucratic political practices, modern capitalism creates an “abstract space.” On the one hand, spatial design unifies the use of space with the control of everyday life, making everyday life more dependent on capitalist organisation; on the other hand, it provides support for the power structure of the social control alliance, so as to further oppose the use of space by the working class in everyday life. Finally, state intervention is the top-level design of the power structure. The destruction of space originates from the inalienable needs of human existence; it is realised through the dominance of abstract space and conceals state intervention through ideological planning. Lefebvre identifies a contradiction in state intervention in space: on the one hand, modern capitalism constructs an abstract social space through the production of space to conceal everyday life; on the other hand, while modern capitalism attempts to conceal people’s everyday life through state intervention, it also undermines the construction of its own social space, thereby exposing everyday life instead, and thus more thoroughly revealing the abstractness of its social space.

从马克思的空间思想隐喻到列斐伏尔空间生产的自觉，空间已经转变为现代资本主义国家首要的政治工具。从权力框架意义上说，现代资本主义表现出主动建构空间的积极性。在马克思空间思想中，自由资本主义空间权力架构是以资本逻辑为轴心，首先通过分工限制并固化了个人的生存空间；在资本空间化与空间资本化的双向运动中资本实现对个人空间的挤压与掠夺，从而使得个人空间的占有和分配屈从于资本空间；资产阶级利用空间占有和分配的不平等，从而占有他人劳动来积累与增殖资本，最终形成适应于自由资本主义的空间统治。由此，依据马克思的革命理论，要打破资本主义空间的权力构架，必须通过暴力革命来实现空间重构。然而，在列斐伏尔看来，现代资本主义空间的权力架构却是具有完整的系统。首先，空间组织是权力架构的基础。现代资本主义社会通过将抽象空间同质化、碎片化、层级化来实现空间组织管理与控制，进而使得日常生活也被特殊化了(抽象空间驱逐日常生活)。“权力渴望从整体上控制空间，所以它将空间维持在一个‘支离破碎的统一体’中，它既是碎片化的又是同质化的，权力对空间分而治之。”其次，空间设计是现代资本主义控制日常生活的政治工具，国家用它来更进一步地获得管理方面的利益。现代资本主义通过像城市规划这类知识性的实践和官僚政治的实践，从而创造了一种“抽象空间”。空间设计一方面将空间的使用与日常生活的控制统一起来，使得日常生活更依赖于资本主义组织；另一方面为社会控制联盟的权力架构提供支撑，以便进一步反对日常生活中工人阶级对空间的使用。最后，国家干预是权力架构的顶层设计。空间的破坏源于不可剥夺的人类生存的需要，它通过抽象空间的主导来实现，并通过意识形态规划来掩盖国家干预。列斐伏尔指认，国家干预空间存在着这样的矛盾：一方面，现代资本主义通过空间生产建构起抽象的社会空间来隐藏日常生活；另一方面，现代资本主义企图通过国家干预来掩盖人们日常生活的同时，也会破坏到其社会空间的建构，反而使得日常生活暴露出来，从而更彻底地暴露出其社会空间的抽象性。

Conclusion

结语

The contemporary problem of space has become one of the hot topics of discussion in academic circles both at home and abroad. Time and space, as fundamental categories of dialectical materialism, are the basic mode of human existence. From Marx’s scattered spatial metaphors to Lefebvre’s holistic logic of the production of space, this reflects the transformation of capitalist spatial construction from an unconscious to a conscious process. Thanks to Lefebvre’s discourse of heterogeneity, not only has a deep-level critique of modern capitalist spatial production been advanced, but it has also pointed toward the possibility of a socialist differential space and socialist revolution. However, when he pondered in the preface to *The Production of Space* whether socialism had ever created its own space, he stated that the socialist mode of production had so far not taken on any concrete form of its own. The reason Lefebvre answered this way is that the decisive problematic had already shifted from industrialization to urbanization; the future spatial form would necessarily be built on the foundation of an urban society, and the socialism of the time had not developed along this path. Although he put forward many useful ideas about socialist spatial production and socialist differential space, he never truly delved into the concrete conditions of the socialist system, the mode of production, the path of modernization, and the construction of spatial forms within socialist countries. Taking China as an example, against the backdrop of the former US-Soviet struggle for absolute space, the Chinese path of modernization from the very beginning focused on the development of its own social contradictions; the spatial strategy it adopted was to carve out a relative space for its own development within absolute space. This was grounded in an understanding of the differential forms of space, transcending increasingly absolutized ideological prejudices, and thereby shifting the focus of development onto the value pursuit of socialism. Over more than 40 years of reform and opening up, in the course of urbanization, China has introduced a capital market and experienced problems such as capital over-accumulation, excessive urbanization, and land speculation. This precisely reflects the contest between the socialist system and the market based on the logic of capital. The superiority of the socialist system lies precisely in always adhering to a people-centered orientation in spatial production, actively guiding the development direction of the capital market, so as to satisfy the people’s aspiration for a better life. Socialist spatial production with Chinese characteristics has grown from nothing, from passive response to active development; “different forms of spatial practice are precisely the salient markers of different modernization programs.” [11]11 The phrase “different forms of spatial practice are precisely the salient markers of different modernization programs” is a direct quotation from the original Chinese text; the source is not identified in the article.

当代空间问题已经成为国内外学术界讨论的热点论题之一。时间与空间作为唯物辩证法的基本范畴之一，是人类的根本存在方式。从马克思零散的空间隐喻到列斐伏尔空间生产的整体性逻辑，反映了资本主义空间建构从不自觉到自觉的转变。得益于列斐伏尔的异质性话语，不仅推进了现代资本主义空间生产的深层次批判，而且还指明了社会主义差异空间和社会主义革命的可能性方向。然而，他在《空间的生产》前言中思考社会主义可曾创造过自己的空间时，却表示社会主义生产方式迄今为止尚没有自己的具体形式。列斐伏尔这样回答的原因在于，具有决定性意义的总问题式已经由工业化转向都市化，未来的空间形态必定建立在都市社会的基础之上，而目前的社会主义并没有遵循这个方向发展起来。尽管他提出了不少关于社会主义空间生产、社会主义差异空间的有益构想，但是却没有真正深入社会主义国家中具体分析社会主义制度、生产方式、现代化道路及空间形态建构的实际情况。以中国为例，在曾经的美苏争夺绝对空间背景下，中国式的现代化道路从一开始就关注自身社会矛盾的发展，由此所采取的空间战略是在绝对空间中开辟出自身发展的相对空间。它奠基于对空间的差异性形态的认识，超越日益绝对化的意识形态偏见，从而将发展关注点转移到社会主义的价值追求上来。改革开放40多年来，中国在城镇化进程中，由于引入资本市场出现了资本过度积累，过度城市化和土地投机等问题，这恰恰反映了社会主义制度与基于资本逻辑而形成的市场之间的角力。社会主义制度的优越性正是在空间生产中始终坚持以人民为导向，积极引导资本市场的发展方向，以满足于人民对美好生活的向往。中国特色社会主义空间生产从无到有、从被动应对到主动发展，“不同的空间实践形式正是不同的现代化方案的显著标志”。

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心