Crisis and Transformation: French Left-Wing Reflections on the Contemporary Capitalist Crisis

Since the 2008 financial crisis, capitalism has launched a new round of global expansion under the banner of neoliberalism. Against this backdrop, the development of globalization, financialization, and digitalization has made issues such as trade disputes, political polarization, and value conflicts increasingly prominent. The French left wing has reflected on the deep causes, new characteristics, impacts and harms, future direction, and alternative solutions of the "contemporary capitalist crisis," pointing out that "the current crisis is one of the four major structural crises capitalism has experienced since the end of the 19th century… but this crisis is not a simple financial crisis; rather, it is a crisis of the unsustainable social order of neoliberalism." This crisis, as the renowned French anthropologist and economist Paul Jorion frankly stated, fully exposes that "capitalism has always been an unstable system."

2008年金融危机以来，资本主义在新自由主义旗帜下开始了新一轮的全球扩张。在此背景下，全球化、金融化、数字化的发展使贸易纠纷、政治激化、价值冲突等问题日益突出。法国左翼就“当代资本主义危机”的深层原因、新型特征、影响危害、未来走向及替代方案进行了相关思考，指出“当前的危机是19世纪末以来资本主义经历的四大结构性危机之一……但此次危机不是简单的金融危机，而是新自由主义不可持续的社会秩序的危机”。这场危机，正如法国著名人类学家、经济学家保罗·若里翁所坦言的那样，充分暴露了“资本主义一直是一个不稳定的系统”。

I. Crisis: "Capitalism Has Always Been an Unstable System"

一、危机：“资本主义一直是一个不稳定的系统”

Marx directly stated in *Capital* the "secret of primitive accumulation," namely that the initial generation of capital, due to "conquest, enslavement, robbery, murder, in short, force plays the greatest role." [n1] It can be seen that capital has carried "violent" and other unstable factors since its birth. To demonstrate the instability of capital, Marx used commodities as an entry point to analyze the inherent contradictions of the capitalist mode of production, that is, the relationship between the socialization of production and private ownership of the means of production. He thereby discovered the law of surplus value generation and the secret of capital exploitation, ultimately concluding the infinite accumulation of capital. This conclusion itself foreshadows that capital will irreversibly accumulate infinitely and ultimately fall into the hands of a small minority, thereby causing a widening gap between rich and poor. In *Capital in the Twenty-First Century*, often called the contemporary *Capital*, French economist Thomas Piketty, by analyzing the dynamic changes in the capital/income ratio since the Industrial Revolution, found that the long-term capital-labor division is not so stable; there is a powerful mechanism that alternately drives the convergence and divergence of income and wealth, and those long-standing forces promoting instability and inequality will not automatically weaken or disappear. The discussions of both men aim to reveal the "instability" inherent in capitalism itself. However, French left-wing scholars further point out that this "instability" is the "instability" of the capitalist *system*. It is specifically manifested in the fact that the contemporary capitalist crisis is not only a financial crisis, credit crisis, or debt crisis dominated by neoliberal ideology, but also a "total" or "multidimensional" crisis of the capitalist system; "behind the crisis lies a holistic mode of thinking." It can be said that the contemporary capitalist crisis is both "economic and financial" and "political, ecological, and social."

马克思曾在《资本论》中直言“原始积累资本之秘密”，即最初的资本产生，由于“征服、奴役、劫掠、杀戮，总之，暴力起着巨大的作用”。可见，资本自诞生之际便带有“暴力”等不稳定因素。为了论证资本的不稳定性，马克思以商品为入口分析资本主义生产方式的内在矛盾，即生产社会化与生产资料私人占有之间的关系，进而发现了剩余价值的产生规律及资本剥削的秘密，最终得出资本无限积累的结论。这一结论本身预示着：资本将不可逆转地无限积累并最终掌握在一小部分人手中，由此造成贫富差距日益扩大。而在素有当代《资本论》之称的《21世纪资本论》中，法国经济学家托马斯·皮凯蒂通过分析工业革命以来资本/收入比的动态变化发现：长期资本—劳动划分并没那么稳定，有一个强大的机制在交替性地推动着收入与财富的趋同与分化，那些长期存在的促进不稳定和不平等的力量并不会自动减弱或消失。二人的论述均旨在揭示资本主义本身的“不稳定”性。但法国左翼学者进一步指出，这种“不稳定”是资本主义系统的“不稳定”。具体表现为：当代资本主义危机不仅是新自由主义思想主导下的金融危机、信用危机或债务危机，更是资本主义体系的“总体性的”或“多维度的”危机，“危机的背后隐藏着一种整体性思维模式”。可以说，当代资本主义危机既是“经济的和金融的”，也是“政治的、生态的和社会的”。

(I) Crisis of the Mode of Production: The "Implosion" of the Principle of Infinite Capital Accumulation

（一）生产方式危机：资本无限积累原则的“内爆”

As is well known, after the "Glorious Thirty" (1945–1975), France saw the emergence of a typical consumer society. By studying the phenomenon of "needs" in the capitalist production society being replaced by "desires" in the consumer society, Baudrillard argued that we are in a situation where consumption controls all of life. However, he also pointed out that this contains the force of capitalist society's "implosion." The so-called "implosion" means that capital "expands its own boundaries to the greatest possible extent, to the point where it finally loses all its characteristics and is reabsorbed by any other field." [n2] Baudrillard used the concept of "implosion" to explain the harm of capital accumulation in consumer society. He pointed out that after the emergence of consumer society, the existence of all entities will be deconstructed into purely intentional symbolic existence, and the logic of capital will also become the logic of symbols, or symbolic consumption logic. The logic of consumption not only changes the form of production and appropriation of surplus value, making the phenomenon of "consumption is production" appear, but its very existence represents an insatiable and irrational mode of desire. Dominated by this insatiable and irrational mode of desire, "in order to better seduce consumers… they always have to find ways to open up indicative paths, inducing people to fall into the shopping impulses within the commodity network, and according to their own logic, induce, enhance, until achieving maximum investment, reaching the potential economic limit." When the logic of consumption expands its own boundaries to the greatest possible extent, society, values, freedom, aesthetics, and culture will be homogenized, ultimately causing all fields to collapse in successive rounds of "implosion." Inspired by this, French political institute researcher Gallo continued to use Baudrillard's concept of "implosion" to analyze phenomena such as overproduction, market shrinkage, and widening wealth gaps caused by the contemporary capitalist mode of production. Gallo pointed out that the contradictions of the contemporary capitalist mode of production are concentrated in five aspects: (1) intense market competition leading to overproduction; (2) reducing production costs causing supply-demand imbalance; (3) unrestrained capital accumulation exacerbating the wealth gap; (4) unrestrained capital accumulation triggering ecological crises; (5) the logic of capital oriented towards the principle of profit maximization leading to a decline in product and service quality. Gallo believes that it is precisely these five aspects that intensify the inherent contradictions of the capitalist mode of production, making the contemporary capitalist crisis exhibit cyclical and perpetual characteristics.

众所周知，法国在“光荣的三十年”（1945—1975）后，出现了一个典型的消费型社会。鲍德里亚通过研究资本主义生产型社会的“需求”被消费型社会的“欲求”取代的现象，论证我们正处在消费控制着整个生活的境地，但他同时指出，这其中蕴藏着资本主义社会“内爆”的力量。所谓“内爆”，即资本会“将自身的边界扩大到最大的可能范围，以至于最后失去了所有的特性，并被其他任何领域再次吸纳”。鲍德里亚借助“内爆”概念阐释消费社会中资本增值的危害。他指出，消费社会出现后，一切实体的存在将被解构为纯粹意向性的符号存在，资本逻辑也将变为符号逻辑，或象征性的消费逻辑。消费逻辑不仅改变了剩余价值的生产与占有形式，使消费即生产现象出现，而且其存在本身代表着一种永不餍足且非理性的欲求模式。受永不餍足且非理性的欲求模式支配，“为了更好地诱惑消费者……它们总是要想方设法打开指示性的道路，诱导人们陷入商品网中的购物冲动，并根据自身的逻辑，进行诱导、提高，直至取得最大限度的投资，达到潜在的经济极限”。当消费逻辑将自身边界扩大到最大的可能范围时，社会、价值观、自由、审美、文化将被均质化，最终导致所有的领域在一轮轮“内爆”中坍塌。受此启发，法国政治学院研究员伽罗继续沿用鲍德里亚的“内爆”概念，分析因当代资本主义生产方式导致的生产过剩、市场萎缩、贫富差距加剧等现象。伽罗指出，当代资本主义生产方式的矛盾集中表现在五个方面：（1）激烈的市场竞争导致生产过剩；（2）降低生产成本致使市场供需失衡；（3）资本无节制积累加剧贫富差距；（4）资本无节制积累引发生态危机；（5）以利润最大化原则为导向的资本逻辑使产品及服务质量下降。伽罗认为，正是这五个方面，加剧了资本主义生产方式的内在矛盾，使当代资本主义危机呈现周期性及永恒性特征。

(II) Crisis of Democracy: The Subjugation of "Dissensus" by "Police"

（二）民主危机：“治安”对“歧义”的压服

In addition to the crisis of the mode of production, the recent "Yellow Vests" movement has once again pushed French social and political issues to the forefront. The reason lies in the long-term accumulation of social contradictions, namely the failure of the traditional representative democratic system leading to popular discontent with elite rule. The French left wing generally believes that under the contemporary capitalist system, political relations, which should embody freedom, democracy, and equality among people, have given way to economic relations advocating free competition of capital. However, maintaining society through economic relations based on free competition of capital seems conducive to the development of productive forces, but in essence, it exacerbates the tense class and social relations caused by the separation of capitalist economy and politics, leading "more and more compatriots to tend to deviate from the institutional structure of representative government." For example, French Communist Party Chairman Fabien Roussel has repeatedly stated in media speeches that contemporary Western democracy is merely a formality, a system, institution, mechanism, and operational procedure, a tool democracy manipulated by the exploiting class. This tool democracy, in the view of post-Marxist Jacques Rancière, is a political game of the ruling class. Rancière believes that contemporary society has already been divided into different parts based on specific attributes such as lineage, race, and function of the subjects. Contemporary politics, that is, "police" (le politique), is a set of procedures for achieving collective aggregation or consensus, the organization of power, the distribution of spaces and roles, and the system that legitimizes this distribution. "Police" in essence "is not only oppression, but more generally the control of living people, framing the boundaries of human behavior, and executing the violence that maintains it." Therefore, although "police" superficially includes those heterogeneous subjects, such as vagrants, illegal immigrants, or international refugees, it actually excludes them; they are existences within the capitalist system but excluded from the mainstream world, who have no share. Their "dissensus" is subjugated by the rational "police" logic of the ruling class, becoming "noise." It can be seen that the current democratic politics is merely shaping the public's identification with a homogeneous identity in the name of democracy, so that the ruling class can adopt a "count-as-one," elite representative method to achieve the political goal of de-democratization. In this regard, Marxist philosopher André Tosel pointed out that the current trend of de-democratization is continuously strengthening; an unprecedented process of de-democratization prompts people to constantly question the civil rights inscribed at the core of democratic politics. Therefore, the French left wing believes that if this democratic model continues, it will either cause "the public's distrust of representative government, making them retreat into themselves and stop voting," or cause "the individual's free choice, as a democratic creed, to lead precisely to its opposite—voting becoming extremely coercive."

除生产方式危机外，近年的“黄马甲”运动，将法国社会政治问题再次推向风口浪尖。究其原因，是社会矛盾长期积累的结果，即传统代议制民主制度的失灵导致普通民众对精英统治的不满。法国左翼普遍认为，在当代资本主义制度下，本应体现人与人之间自由、民主、平等的政治关系，让位于倡导资本自由竞争的经济关系。然而，以资本自由竞争的经济关系维系社会，看似有利于生产力的发展，但实质上却加剧了因资本主义经济与政治分离引发紧张的阶级关系和社会关系，致使“越来越多的同胞倾向于偏离代议制的制度结构”。如法共主席法比安·鲁塞尔曾在媒体发言中多次表示，当下西方民主流于形式，只是一种制度、体制、机制和操作程序，是一种为剥削阶级所操控的工具民主。这种工具民主在后马克思主义者雅克·朗西埃看来，是统治阶级的政治游戏。朗西埃认为，当下社会已经依据主体的血缘、种族、职能等特定属性，划分为不同部分。当下政治，即“治安”（le politique），是一套实现集体的聚合或共识的程序、权力的组织、空间和角色的分配以及合法化这种分配的体系。“治安”本质上“不仅是压迫，更是普遍地控制活人，框定人的行为边界，执行那一维持之暴力”。因此，“治安”表面虽包含那些异质性主体，如流浪者、非法移民或国际难民等，但实际上却将这些人排除在外，他们是身处资本主义体系中但排除在主流世界之外不占份额的存在，他们的“歧义”，被统治阶级理性的“治安”逻辑所压服，变成“噪音”。可见，现行的民主政治，不过是以民主之名塑造民众对同一性身份的认同，以便统治阶级采取一项“计数为一”、精英式代议制方式，达到去民主化的政治目的。对此，马克思主义哲学家安德烈·托塞尔指出，当前去民主化趋势不断加强，一场史无前例的去民主化进程促使人们不断质疑铭刻在民主政治核心中的公民权利。因此法国左翼认为，此民主模式长此以往，要么造成民众“对代议制的不信任，使他们退回到自己，不再投票”，要么造成“作为民主信条的个人的自由选择恰好通向自己的反面——投票变得极其强制”。

(III) Spiritual Crisis: Spiritual Emptiness Leading to the Loss of "Sense of Meaning"

（三）精神危机：精神空虚导致“意义感”丧失

Capitalist industrial production has not only caused the homogenization of the material world but has also led to the standardization of the spiritual world. As Camus once described in *The Myth of Sisyphus*: here, people have nothing to say, nothing can be understood, nothing is inevitable; they are merely there by chance, speaking words others cannot grasp, idling through life with nothing they must do. During the French "May 1968" movement [3]3 The "May 1968" movement was a series of student and worker protests and general strikes that paralyzed France, representing a major social and political crisis., slogans such as "Refuse to die of boredom" and "Let imagination seize power" were raised, which were precursors of the spiritual crisis of contemporary people. Entering the 21st century, the specific mode of production and consumption under capitalism has pushed the spiritual crisis of humanity to its peak. In the consumer society of material abundance, the spiritual crisis manifests as: money, as a symbolic meaning, governs all things in a completely abstract manner, and this soft totalitarian model cancels out the diversity and sense of meaning of things, causing people to sink increasingly into the fleeting pleasure brought by consumer impulses. As French economist Robert Rochefort points out, "Consumption is immediate and increasingly self-centered." People increasingly immersed in the pleasure of consumer impulses more or less experience uncertainty about life goals and a lack of social meaning; thus, at such times, they often try to express their spiritual anxiety through various intense means, either leaning toward extremism politically or showing contempt for reason and a fondness for violence in their behavior.

资本主义工业化生产不仅引起了物质世界的同质化，还导致了精神世界的标准化。正如加缪曾在《西西弗斯的神话》中所描写的情景：在这里，人们没有任何要说的、没有任何东西是可以被理解的、没有任何东西是必定如此的，他们只是偶然在那里，说一些别人听不懂的话，他们一生游手好闲，没有什么非做不可的事。1968年法国“五月风暴”期间，“拒绝无聊致死”“让想象力夺权”等口号的提出，即当代人精神危机的先兆。进入21世纪，资本主义特有的生产方式及消费方式更是将人的精神危机推向顶峰。在物质丰裕的消费社会中，精神危机表现为：作为符号意义的金钱以一种完全抽象的方式统摄万物，而这种软性的极权模式取消了事物的多样性和意义感，使人们日益沉沦在消费冲动带来的转瞬即逝的快感中。正如法国经济学家罗伯特·罗斯弗特指出，“消费是即时的，且越来越以自我为中心”。日益沉浸在消费冲动快感中的人，或多或少存在生活目标的不确定性及社会意义的缺失感，因而此时他们往往会尝试通过各种激烈的方式表达自身精神焦虑，或政治上倾向极端主义，或行为上蔑视理智、嗜好暴力。

(4) Ecological Crisis: The Inherent Contradiction Between Capital's Profit-Seeking Nature and the Finitude of Natural Resources

（四）生态危机：资本逐利性与自然资源有限性之间的内在矛盾

Human material production activities cannot be separated from the consumption of natural resources. Therefore, corresponding to the crisis of the mode of existence is the ecological crisis induced by capital's profit-seeking nature. The French left argues that the ecological crisis cannot be reduced to a purely ecological issue; ecological problems are, in the final analysis, a microcosm of economic, political, and social problems. Looking back at history since the Industrial Revolution, it is not difficult to see that the capitalist mode of existence, dominated by economic rationality, points toward higher quantitative targets; even the specific material content becomes unimportant; what matters is only the rate of growth. Thus, under the principle of "profit above all, the more the better," the production model of "mass extraction—mass production—mass disposal" overdraws nature's capacity to pay, thereby triggering problems such as environmental pollution, resource shortages, and ecological imbalance. As early as the 1950s, the French government had already taken note of ecological issues and therefore enacted ecological regulations including the *Water Law*, the *Law on Air and Odor Pollution*, and the *Law on Waste and Resource Recovery*. At the beginning of the 21st century, the sharp rise in sea levels caused severe seawater intrusion in many French coastal lowlands, such as the Camargue region. In 2019, environmental issues rose for the first time to the top concern of the French people, tied with employment issues. In recent years, in the face of the increasingly severe ecological crisis, participants in the Citizens' Climate Convention have bluntly stated, "We are facing an unprecedented ecological and social crisis," and therefore demanded that the Macron government reaffirm its ecological "commitments" and fulfill the relevant provisions of the *Paris Agreement*. Furthermore, according to the annual SOSI (State of Science Index) released by the 3M Group, French residents regard marine plastic pollution as the main manifestation of France's ecological crisis, even placing it above Covid-19. France's increasingly severe ecological crisis exposes the destructive development dynamic of capitalism. Therefore, some left-wing scholars believe that there is an inherent contradiction between the profit-first principle upheld by capitalist economic rationality and the finitude of natural resources, and this inherent contradiction, "as an uncontrollable risk, is dragging human society into an increasingly dangerous and uncontrollable vortex."

人类的物质生产活动离不开对自然资源的消耗。因此，与生存方式危机相对应的是基于资本逐利性所诱发的生态危机。法国左翼认为，生态危机不可化约为单纯的生态问题，生态问题归根到底是经济问题、政治问题和社会问题的缩影。纵观工业革命以来的历史不难发现，受经济理性主导下的资本主义生存方式指向更高的量化目标，甚至连具体的物质内容都不重要，重要的只是增长的速率。于是，在“利润至上，越多越好”原则的支配下，“大量开采—大量生产—大量废弃”的生产模式，透支了自然的支付能力，由此引发环境污染、资源短缺、生态失衡等问题。20世纪50年代法国政府已注意到生态问题，因此颁布了包括《水资源法》《大气与气味污染法》《废弃物与资源回收法》等生态法规。21世纪伊始，海平面的急剧升高致使法国诸多沿海低地，如卡马尔克地区出现了严重的海水倒灌现象。2019年，环境问题首次升至法国人关注的首位问题，与就业问题并列。近年来，面对日益严峻的生态危机，公民气候大会的参与者们更是直言，“我们正面临着一场史无前例的生态和社会危机”，因此要求马克龙政府重申其生态“承诺”，履行《巴黎协定》的相关规定。此外，据3M集团发布的年度SOSI（科学状况指数）显示，法国居民将海洋塑料污染视为法国生态危机的主要表现，甚至将其置于Covid-19之上。法国日益严重的生态危机暴露了资本主义破坏性发展动力，因此，部分左翼学者认为，资本主义经济理性奉行的利润至上原则与自然资源的有限性之间存在内在矛盾，而这种内在矛盾以“一种无法掌控的风险正在将人类社会拖入越来越危险的、无法控制的漩涡之中”。

Of course, the French left also believes that the "total" and "multidimensional" crisis is also manifested in social crises and other aspects. As for the social crisis, it is a true reflection of the political crisis. In France, social discontent seems to be commonplace. Previously, the "Yellow Vest" movement [4]4 The "Yellow Vest" movement (Mouvement des gilets jaunes) was a French populist, grassroots protest movement that began in 2018, initially over fuel taxes and the cost of living, and later expanded to broader demands for economic justice and political reform. protesting the increase in fuel taxes lasted for a year. In 2019, activities opposing the Macron government's "pension system reform" drew hundreds of thousands of people to the streets and triggered the longest transport strike since 1968. In addition, according to a report by the French Observatory of Inequalities, between 2002 and 2018, the poverty rate for those aged 18–29 rose from 8% to 13%. By 2021, the income of the richest 10% was nearly seven times that of the poorest 10%. Even now, under the impact of the global Covid-19 pandemic, although the French government decided to implement a $100 billion economic recovery plan, only $800 million of it was allocated to the poor, and among the so-called poor, less than 40% actually live below the poverty line.

当然，法国左翼还认为，“总体性”“多维度”危机还表现在社会危机等方面。就社会危机而言，社会危机是政治危机的真实写照。在法国，社会不满情绪似乎司空见惯。此前，抗议燃油费上调的“黄马甲”运动持续了一年。2019年，反对马克龙政府“养老金体制改革”的活动吸引数十万民众走上街头，并引发了自1968年以来最长时间的交通罢工。此外，据法国“不平等观察站”报告，2002—2018年期间，18—29岁的贫困率从8%升至13%。到2021年，10%最富有的人群收入几乎是10%最贫困人群收入的7倍。即便当下受世界新冠肺炎疫情冲击，法国政府决定实施1000亿美元经济复苏计划，然而其中只有8亿美元分配给了贫困人群，而在所谓的贫困人群中，真正生活在贫困线以下的不到40%。

All of the above reflects that "capitalism has always been an unstable system." Precisely for this reason, economist Gustave Massiah points out, "The current crisis manifests as a financial, monetary, and economic crisis, but it is far more than that. It is also a social, democratic, geopolitical, and ecological crisis—in short, a crisis of civilization. The crisis brings to the surface problems that were never resolved in previous major crises. Although the dynamics of capitalist development have managed to contain certain problems, they have not fundamentally solved them." In this context, the urgent task, as economist Paul Boccara points out, is to "move from diagnosing the crisis to thinking about alternatives... and this, of course, is also systemic."

以上种种，无不反映“资本主义一直是一个不稳定的系统”。正因如此，经济学家古斯塔夫·马西亚指出，“当前危机表现为金融、货币与经济危机，但远不止如此。这还是一场社会、民主、地缘政治及生态危机，总的来说，是一场文明的危机。危机使以前重大危机中从未解决的问题浮出水面，虽然资本主义的发展动态已设法遏制了某些问题，但没从根本上解决这些问题”。在此背景下，当务之急应如经济学家保罗·博卡拉所指出的那样，必须“从危机诊断转向到替代方案的思考……当然，这也是系统性的”。

2. Transformation: "Another Path Is Possible"

二、变革：“另一条道路是可能的”

Since former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's "There Is No Alternative" (TINA) signaled privatization and deregulation, capitalism has been rampant under the cloak of neoliberalism. The French left points out, "The solution can only come from those who understand the nature of the problem. However... those who might actually call for a new framework and demand real reforms are actually the financiers... Only they know the real situation of this system, but the actual situation is far from what they are willing to reveal to the public. When there is no alternative, the financiers might take action. But don't place too much hope in them; we ourselves must come up with a real plan."

自英国前首相撒切尔夫人的“别无选择”（There Is No Alternative，简称TINA）发出私有化和松弛监管的信号后，资本主义便在新自由主义的外衣下大行其道。法国左翼指出，“解决问题的只可能来自那些明白问题本质的人。然而……真正可能呼吁建立新框架并要求进行切实改革的其实是那些金融家……只有他们才清楚这个体制的真实情况，但实际情况与他们愿意向公众透露的情况相去甚远。在别无选择的时候，金融家们或许会采取行动。但别对他们抱太大希望，我们自己还得拿出真正的计划来”。

(1) Political Economy: The Research Paradigm of "Society as a Whole"

（一）政治经济学：“作为一个整体的社会”的研究范式

Political economy provides a research paradigm for understanding capitalism, a paradigm that changes along with capitalism itself. It is evident how important political economy is for analyzing capitalist society. However, the reality is that since the 1980s, with Habermas's *The Theory of Communicative Action* as the last theoretical attempt at a macro-critique of the entire capitalist system, "critique of political economy" seems to have been removed from the critical agenda. In French left-wing theory, although post-structuralism has launched various critiques of capitalism, most have avoided political-economic issues. In this regard, Étienne Balibar sharply pointed out, "Once political economy is no longer thought and practiced as a political system, religious and other factors emerge... Today we no longer have enough political economy, but we have too much political theology." It is evident that reaffirming the research paradigm of political economy is an urgent task for the French left. Fortunately, in the era of neoliberal capitalism, because the different dimensions of politics, economy, and culture dominated by the logic of capital are increasingly significantly and complexly interconnected, this provides a timely opportunity to reaffirm the critical paradigm of political economy, especially the Marxist critique of political economy.

政治经济学为理解资本主义提供了一种研究范式，这种研究范式随着资本主义本身而发生变化。可见，政治经济学对于分析资本主义社会之重要。然而现实情况是，自20世纪80年代以来，随着哈贝马斯的《交往行为理论》作为对整个资本主义体系进行宏观批判的最后一次理论尝试，“政治经济学批判”似乎被移出了批判主题。而在法国左翼理论那里，虽然后结构主义对资本主义展开过各类批判，但大多回避了政治经济问题。对此，艾蒂安·巴里巴尔曾尖锐指出，“一旦政治经济学，不再作为一种政治体制来被思考和实践，宗教等因素就会冒出来……当今我们不再拥有够多的政治经济学，但有太多的政治神学”。可见，重申政治经济学的研究范式，对法国左翼而言实属当务之急。所幸在新自由资本主义时期，由于资本逻辑主导下的政治、经济、文化等不同维度愈发显著且复杂地关联在一起，由此为重申政治经济学的批判范式，尤其是马克思主义政治经济学批判提供了时代契机。

Thomas Piketty, at a time when the social sciences had largely lost interest in the social class dimension of wealth distribution, re-centred the issue of wealth distribution at the heart of economic analysis by examining the history of income and wealth distribution since the Industrial Revolution. In *Capital in the Twenty-First Century*, Piketty criticises the research paradigm of mainstream capitalist economics, which “sacrifices historical research and methods that integrate with other social sciences, blindly pursuing mathematical models and purely theoretical, highly speculative conjectures.” Instead, by collecting historical data spanning nearly three centuries and covering more than twenty countries, he analyses the “balanced growth path” of Solow and Kuznets, challenges the prevailing dogmas of neoclassical economics, and proposes the first law of capitalism, a = r × β, and the second law of capitalism, β = s/g, arguing that r > g is the core contradiction leading to inequality in capitalist income distribution. Thus, *Capital in the Twenty-First Century* adopts an interdisciplinary research paradigm that takes “society as a whole” as its object of study, linking the normative principles of capitalism with a diagnosis of the times. As Piketty himself states, “This book is a work of economics, but also a work of history.”

托马斯·皮凯蒂便在社会学科已对财富分配的社会阶级问题丧失了绝大部分兴趣的背景下，通过分析工业革命以来的收入和财富分配的历史，重新将财富分配问题置于经济问题的核心，在《21世纪资本论》中，皮凯蒂批判了资本主义流行经济学的“不惜牺牲历史研究，牺牲与其他社会科学相结合的研究方法，而盲目地追求数学模型，追求纯理论的、高度理论化的推测”的研究范式。相反，他通过收集跨越近三个世纪，涵盖二十多个国家的历史数据，分析索洛和库兹涅茨的“平衡增长路径”，对新古典经济学的流行信条发出挑战，并提出资本主义第一法则a=r×β与资本主义第二法则β=s/g，论证：r>g是导致资本主义收入分配不平等的核心矛盾。由此可见，《21世纪资本论》是以“作为一个整体的社会”为对象研究的跨学科研究范式，将资本主义的规范性原则与时代诊断的内在关系联系起来。正如皮凯蒂自己所言，“本书是部经济学作品，同时也是一部历史学作品”。

Furthermore, other French left-wing scholars, drawing on their respective research backgrounds, continue the political-economic critique of “capitalism as a whole.” For instance, Emmanuel Renault, by examining Marx’s critical path regarding the capitalist market, argues that Marx’s critique of the capitalist market encompasses politics, society, circulation, and other spheres, constituting a comprehensive judgment. Jacques Bidet, on the basis of rereading Marx’s *Capital*, published a research essay titled *Que faire du Capital?* (What to Do with *Capital*?). In this essay, Bidet points out that Marx’s *Capital* contains two distinct structures; although both originate from the critique of political economy, their logic and political implications are entirely different. One concerns commodity circulation and the “value form,” while the other involves various means of exploitation that incorporate labour into the process of production organisation. This distinction arises from Bidet’s attempt, from the critical perspective of Marxian political economy, to conduct a panoramic examination of the relationship between the capitalist market and organisation, revealing a ternary schema of modern class structure and seeking a new theory of the subject. Gérard Duménil and Dominique Lévy, building on their study of Marx’s *Capital*, focus on issues such as the separation of capital ownership and management in the era of managerial capitalism, new phenomena of capitalist exploitation, and the world market during the period of financial globalisation. As Duménil and Lévy note, “The analysis of neoliberalism is directly related to another aspect of Marx’s work, namely the theory of the transformation of capitalist property relations in Volume III of *Capital*. This analysis led Marx to study what in the contemporary context is called the separation of ownership and management, in order to explain one of the keys to capitalist dynamics since the early twentieth century.” The two aim to use the model of capitalist exploitation under managerial capitalism to scrutinise phenomena such as widening income gaps, intensifying social inequality, and the return to modes of absolute surplus-value production during the neoliberal period.

此外，其他法国左翼学者也从各自研究背景出发，继续政治经济学对“作为一个整体的资本主义”的批判研究。如伊曼奴尔·雷诺通过考察马克思对资本主义市场的批判路径，认为马克思对资本主义市场的批判涉及政治、社会、流通等领域，是一场综合判断；雅克·比岱更是在重读马克思《资本论》的基础上，出版了《如何处理〈资本论〉？》（Que faire du Capital?）的研究论文。在研究论文中，比岱指出，马克思的《资本论》涵盖两个不同的结构，尽管这两个结构均源于对政治经济学的批判，但它们的逻辑和政治含义却截然不同，一个涉及商品流通和“价值形式”，另一个涉及将劳动纳入生产组织过程的各种剥削手段。之所以如此区分，源于比岱试图以马克思政治经济学的批判视角，对资本主义市场和组织之间的关系进行全景式考察，揭示现代社会阶级结构的三元图式，寻找一种新的主体理论；热拉尔·迪梅尼尔和多米尼克·莱维则是在研读马克思《资本论》的基础上，重点考察管理资本主义时期的资本所有权与管理权、资本剥削新现象、金融全球化时期的世界市场等问题。如迪梅尼尔与莱维指出，“对新自由主义的分析与马克思著作的另一个方面直接相关，这就是《资本论》第三卷中关于资本主义财产关系转变的理论。这种分析使马克思开始研究在当代语境中被称为所有权和管理权的分离现象，以解释20世纪初以来资本主义动态的关键之一”。二人意欲以管理资本主义模式的资本剥削，审视新自由主义时期的收入差距拉大、社会不平等加剧、重回绝对剩余价值生产模式等现象。

From the above studies, it is not difficult to see that the French left’s reaffirmation of the political-economic research paradigm provides us with a scientific basic guideline for seeking “a satisfactory concept of the essence of capitalism, a concept capable of establishing an adequate analysis of the changing conditions of capitalism, a concept that can grasp its fundamental structure in a way that points to the possibilities of its historical transformation.” Contemporary capitalism, as the French historian Fernand Braudel pointed out, “is, in its structure, like a chameleon; the chameleon changes colour, but it remains the same chameleon.” The political-economic research paradigm changes along with capitalism itself, thus offering us a scientific reference for accurately grasping the new changes and new characteristics of capitalism today.

上述研究不难看出，法国左翼重申政治经济学的研究范式，为我们寻找“一种令人满意的资本主义之本质的概念，一种能够建立对资本主义的变动的条件进行充分分析的概念，一种能够以指出其历史转型的可能性的方式来把握其基本结构的概念”提供了科学的基本遵循。当代资本主义，正如法国历史学家布罗代尔所指出的那样，“就结构而言，资本主义像是变色龙，变色龙改变了颜色，但还是原来的变色龙”，而政治经济学的研究范式随资本主义本身而发生变化，这就为我们科学把握当今资本主义的新变化、新特征提供了科学参考。

(2) Reconstructing Political Ontology: Returning to the Nature of Politics in the “Event”

（二）重构政治本体论：在“事件”中回归政治本性

Some left-wing scholars tend to reaffirm the political-economic research paradigm of “society as a whole.” However, it is undeniable that, in the face of the neoliberal capitalist political agenda that proclaims “there is no alternative,” some left-wing scholars are still committed to reconstructing the relationship between politics and philosophy. Among them, contemporary French radical left-wing scholars represented by Alain Badiou have turned to a new political ontology, attempting to return to the nature of politics in the “event” and to seek new paths of resistance against capitalism.

部分左翼学者倾向重申政治经济学对“作为一个整体的社会”的研究范式，但不可否认，面对宣称“别无选择”的新自由资本主义的政治议程，仍有部分左翼学者致力于重构政治与哲学的关系。其中，以巴迪欧为代表的当代法国激进左翼学者转向了新的政治本体论，试图在“事件”中回归政治本性，寻求反抗资本主义新道路。

Badiou points out that political philosophy in today’s Euro-American world still focuses on traditional ontology, that is, the origin or fundamental principle of “being as being,” intending thereby to shape the political subject. But the problem is: traditional ontology, whether it directly relies on metaphysics to discuss the political subject through epistemological categories or pure conceptual models, or constructs an acting subject solely within the field of empirical facts without any ontological or metaphysical framework, in essence still deals with the formal question of being in general. For example, John Rawls, a representative of general ontology, treats reason as a holistic form, attempting to resolve real-world antagonisms through legal procedures, but ends up ignoring changes in contemporary class structures and the complexity of the real environment. When faced with a certain “excess” in real life, a “surplus” that cannot be reduced to the given cognitive framework, the general concept of the formal subject cannot be transformed into practical force. As a result, politics either becomes a “moral politics” focused on proceduralism (as in Rawls), or a “life politics” focused on empirical facts (as in Giddens and Beck), or a deliberative politics of neutralising games (as in Habermas), thereby forgetting the nature of politics. Since traditional ontology cannot thoroughly resolve the problem of real-world antagonism, there is an urgent need to establish a new ontology that can reflect the nature of politics. In the view of Badiou and others, this is the “ontology of the event.”

巴迪欧指出，当今欧美世界的政治哲学仍然聚焦传统存在论，即“存在之所以为存在”的本源或始基问题，意图以此塑造政治主体。但问题在于：传统存在论，不论是直接借助形而上学，以认识论范畴或纯理念模式探讨政治主体，抑或无需任何存在论或形而上学框架，仅在经验事实领域构造行动主体，其实质仍是一般性探讨存在的形式问题。如一般存在论的代表罗尔斯，将理性视为整体的形式，试图凭借法的程序解决现实世界的对抗，结果忽略了当代阶级的变化及现实环境的复杂性，当面对现实生活中的某个“溢出”（excess），一个无法被既定的认识框架还原的“残余物”（surplus）时，一般的形式主体概念不能转化为实践的力量。结果导致政治要么成为侧重程序主义的“道德政治”（如罗尔斯），要么成为侧重经验事实的“生活政治”（如吉登斯和贝克），要么成为中和游戏的商谈政治（如哈贝马斯），从而遗忘了政治的本性。既然传统存在论无法彻底解决现实世界的对抗问题，因此急需建立一种能反映政治本性的新的存在论，在巴迪欧等人看来，这就是“事件本体论”。

On the one hand, the emergence of “event ontology” means that they are no longer concerned with the question of the unity of the world, that is, the question of “what makes being what it is,” but rather with the question of “how new being is possible,” that is, the question of “how something can come from nothing (ex nihilo).” Its emergence is inseparable from the distinction between two kinds of politics: masculine politics (le politique) and feminine politics (la politique). Badiou regards masculine politics as a politics that is ordered and normalized, representing a “state of the situation” (état de la situation). In the “state of the situation,” politics is nothing more than “a compromise of self-preservation,” while the occurrence of an “event” means the emergence of something unrecognizable that cannot be grasped by the original political framework, that is, the appearance of the “uncounted” (non-compté). Badiou points out that the “event” is a state of exception to our conventional framework of knowledge. As a fissure that cannot be accommodated by rationalized formal metaphysics, it thereby acquires ontological significance. Its emergence means that we can no longer simply reduce it to some naive idealist thinking, or simply understand it as the will of some deity or a prime mover; the event itself is this force. On the other hand, the emergence of “event ontology” also signifies the appearance of the “essence of politics.” In Badiou’s view, the “essence of politics” does not, as liberalism claims, resolve the antagonisms of the real world through legal procedures and lead democracy toward consensus, but rather lies in a possible scheme of rupture with what exists. The fact that the contingency of the event “has occurred” represents the emergence of the essence of politics. Thus, for Badiou, “the certainty (femeté) of the essence of politics depends on the uncertainty (précarité) of the sudden event.” Therefore, only through a politics of sudden ruptural struggle, a mass politics that requires no form of representation and truly reflects the living conditions of the masses, can emerge. Rancière holds a similar view on this point. Rancière points out that “politics itself is separated from policing. Politics is first of all an intervention in what is visible and sayable; politics essentially makes dissensus appear.” Only when the “part with no part” intervenes in what is visible and sayable, when the logic of policing encounters the logic of equality, and by “adding to the community those parts that were originally counted within it, forcibly inserting parts that were originally not counted within it,” so that “politics is separated from policing,” and those political subjects without identity, who emerge from nowhere, can also enter the public sphere as equals, only then can the essence of politics appear. Therefore, “outside of conflict and illegality, there is absolutely no politics.”

一方面，“事件本体论”的出现，意味着他们不再关心世界的统一性问题，即“存在之所以为存在”的问题，而是关注“新的存在何以可能”的问题，即“无中如何生有（ex nihilo）”的问题。它的产生离不开两种政治的划分：阳性政治（le politique）和阴性政治（la politique）。巴迪欧将阳性政治视为一种被秩序化、规范化的政治，代表着一种“情景状态”（etat de la situation），在“情景状态”中，政治不过是“一种明哲保身式的妥协”，而“事件”的发生意味着一个不能被原有的政治框架所把握的不可辨识之物的发生，即“未被计数”（non-compté）的出现。巴迪欧指出，“事件”是我们的常规知识框架的例外状态，它作为不能被理性化的形式上学所容纳的裂缝，由此具有本体意味。它的出现使我们已经无法将其简单地还原为某个朴素的观念论的思维，或者将其简单地理解为某个神灵的意志或第一推动的力量，事件本身就是这种力量。另一方面，“事件本体论”的出现，也意味着“政治本性”的出场。在巴迪欧看来，“政治本性”并不像自由主义所宣称的那样，凭借法的程序解决现实世界的对抗，使民主通向共识，而在于与现存的东西决裂的一种可能性方案。事件偶然性“发生了”这样一个事实，代表着政治本质的出场。可见，对巴迪欧而言，“政治本质的确定性（femeté）依赖于突发事件的不确定性（précarité）”。因此，只有通过突发的决裂的斗争政治，一种不需要任何代议制形式、真正反映群众生存状态的大众政治才会出现。对此，朗西埃持相同看法。朗西埃指出，“政治本身是从警治中分离出来的。政治首先是对可见和可说的干涉，政治本质上要使异议显现”。只有通过“无分者”对可见之物和可说之物进行干涉，让治安逻辑与平等逻辑相遇后，通过向共同体“增补那些本来被算在里面的部分，硬塞进本来不被算在里面的部分”，使“政治从警治/治安中分离出来”，使那些没有身份、不知从何处冒出来的政治主体也能平等地走进公共领域，政治本性才能出场，因此在“冲突和非法之外，绝无政治”。

From the above, it can be seen that on the question of the essence of politics, Badiou and Rancière hold the same view: they both attempt to overturn the original politics dominated by reason as the algorithm, to once again distinguish politics from standards such as morality and economics, and to return to the essence of politics within the “event.” The appearance of the “event” breaks the original political order of “counting as one,” making the invisible visible. The “event” seems to lead to a new being that is impossible, but in fact implies the hope of a new political community characterized primarily by heterogeneity.

以上可知，在政治本性问题上，巴迪欧和朗西埃持同一观点，即他们均试图颠覆原来以理性为主导算法的政治，重新将政治与道德、经济等标准区分开来，在“事件”中归回政治本性。“事件”的出现打破了原有“计数为一”的政治秩序，让不可见者可见，“事件”看似通往不可能的新的存在，实则暗含着一种以异质性为主要特征的新的政治共同体的希望。

(3) The Aesthetics of Existence in Everyday Life: “Self-Transformation” versus “Self-Splitting”

（三）日常生活中的生存美学：“自我转化”对抗“自我分裂”

As mentioned above, the French left has already perceived the problem of human “self-splitting.” Therefore, some scholars believe that, faced with the “mind-body dualism” caused by human “self-splitting” and the resulting loss of meaning in life and sense of life value, it is necessary to pay attention to the aesthetics of existence in everyday life, using the “self-transformation” of the aesthetics of existence to counter “self-splitting.”

如前所述，法国左翼已然察觉人的“自我分裂”的问题，因此部分学者认为，面对人的“自我分裂”导致的“身心二元论”，以及由此引发的生活意义感、人生价值感缺失等问题，需重视日常生活中的生存美学，以生存美学的“自我转化”对抗“自我分裂”。

In *Critique of Everyday Life*, Lefebvre attributes “self-splitting” to the alienation of everyday life, arguing that it is precisely reification that causes human “self-splitting.” He points out that the everyday life of modern people has become a control medium of the “bureaucratic society of controlled consumption,” because “commodities, the market, money, through their incomparable deduction, have taken hold of everyday life,” making reification ubiquitous. In the reified world, things become the sole reference standard, dictating all relations in the human world. Under their domination, the division of labor, the labor process, and labor positions all become restrictive conditions imposed on people, thereby causing the total suppression of humans by things, triggering the problem of human “self-splitting.” That is, when facing the reified world, humans no longer act as “subjects” with a unity of spirit and flesh and latent subjectivity, but as “objects” of the social organizational system. Therefore, when facing a world of total human suppression by things, Lefebvre proposes the idea of the aestheticization of everyday life, hoping to use creative aesthetic意境 [10]10 意境 (yìjìng) — a key concept in traditional Chinese aesthetics, referring to the artistic conception or mood evoked by a work of art, often involving a fusion of emotion and scene. to establish a conscious aesthetic relationship between humans themselves and objects and the world, thereby breaking the domination of humans by things. Foucault’s aesthetics of existence provides a further elaboration on this.

在《日常生活批判》中，列斐伏尔将“自我分裂”归因于日常生活的异化，认为正是物化引发了人的“自我分裂”。他指出，现代人的日常生活已经沦为“消费受控的科层制社会”的控制中介，因为“货物、市场、金钱通过自身无与伦比的推演掌握了日常生活”，使物化无处不在。在物化世界中，物成为唯一的参照标准，规定着属人世界的各种关系。在其统治下，劳动分工、劳动过程及劳动职位均变成强制于人的限制条件，由此造成物对人的全面压抑，引发人的“自我分裂”问题，即在面对物化世界时，人不再作为灵肉统一、富有潜在主体性的“主体”，而是作为社会组织系统的“客体”。因此，在面对物对人全面压制的世界时，列斐伏尔提出日常生活审美化思想，希望借助创造性的审美意境，建立起人类自身同对象、世界的自觉的审美关系，以此打破物对人的统治。对此，福柯的生存美学做了进一步阐释。

Through an examination of the knowledge-power-morality relationship in modern society, Foucault discovered that since Western culture shifted from medieval Christian culture to modern epistemology, modern society’s focus on “knowing oneself” has replaced the ancient Greek emphasis on “care of the self.” For example, discussions of “truth,” “democracy,” “science,” etc., have replaced discussions of “subjectivity,” “truth, goodness, and beauty,” etc., leading to the decline of the contemporary aesthetics of existence. The practice of the principle of “care of the self” in the aesthetics of existence provides a reference path for solving human “self-splitting.” Foucault points out that the ancient Greeks valued freedom and cared for the self, advocating for a lifestyle aimed at “self-transformation” through the “technologies of the self” of self-management and self-cultivation, breaking through the manipulation of the ruling class’s “technologies of power domination.” This lifestyle aimed at “self-transformation,” by regarding humans as “establishing themselves in the world, or taking themselves as something that is in harmony with the world,” establishes a practice of self-cultivation that “seeks the cause in oneself” (反求诸己) [11]11 反求诸己 (fǎn qiú zhū jǐ) — a classical Chinese idiom from Mencius, meaning to seek the cause or solution within oneself rather than blaming external circumstances.. This practice of self-cultivation is a “technology of the self for aesthetic existence.” This “technology of the self for aesthetic existence” takes individual virtue as its basic characteristic, advocating that “the individual, through their own strength or with the help of others, performs a series of operations on their own body and soul, thoughts, behavior, and mode of existence” to achieve self-transformation, “thereby attaining a certain state of happiness, purity, wisdom, perfection, or immortality.” It should be noted that in Foucault’s conceptual picture of “existence as art,” there is always a game of checks and balances between voluntary “limit-experience” and prudent “ascetic self-discipline.” If “limit-experience” represents the individual’s infinite pursuit of extreme pleasure, “ascetic self-discipline” means the individual’s control over infinite desires. The two seem contradictory, but in fact imply the core idea of the aesthetics of existence: by transgressing the supposed boundaries of society, one both escapes the domination of disciplinary power over the subject and avoids the subject’s sinking into endless desires. Thus, the proper meaning of the aesthetics of existence lies in: generating bodily actions, psychological representations, and ultimately subject functions through one’s own strength, that is, maintaining a state of life that is relaxed yet tense, full yet not overflowing, in the two-way interaction between desire and self-discipline, and constructing an aesthetic relationship between the individual and the self, others, and the world through the art of self-disciplined living, making artistic aesthetics a survival strategy for diagnosing and transforming reality.

福柯通过对现代社会的知识—权力—道德关系考察，发现西方文化自中世纪基督教文化转向近现代认识论以来，近代社会对“认识自己”的关注，便取代了古希腊时期对“关怀自身”的关注，如对“真理”“民主”“科学”等问题的探讨，取代了对“主体性”“真善美”等问题的探讨，由此导致当代生存美学的式微。而生存美学对“关怀自身”原则的践行，为解决人的“自我分裂”提供了参考途径。福柯指出，古希腊人崇尚自由、关怀自身，主张通过自我管理、自我修炼的“自我技术”，冲破统治阶层“权力支配技术”的操控，从而达到“自我转化”为目的的生活方式。而这种以“自我转化”为目的的生活方式，通过将人视为“安立自身在世界之中，或者把自身当作与世界相即之物”，确立了“反求诸己”的修身实践，这种修身实践是一种“审美生存的自我技术”。此“审美生存的自我技术”以个人德性为基本特征，主张“个体通过自己的力量，或者他人的帮助，进行一系列对自身的身体及灵魂、思想、行为、存在方式的操纵”达成自我转化，“以此获得某种幸福、纯洁、智慧、完美或不朽的状态”。需要注意的是，在福柯这幅“生存即艺术”的思想图景中，始终存在自愿的“极限体验”与审慎的“修身节制”之间的博弈制衡。“极限体验”若代表着个体对极致快感的无限追求，“修身节制”则意味着个体对无限欲望加以控制。二者看似矛盾，实则暗含了生存美学的思想内核，即通过逾越社会应有之界，既摆脱了规训权力对主体的宰制，也避免了主体在无止境欲望中的沉沦。由此可见，生存美学的应有之意在于：通过自身力量产生身体行为、心理表征并最终产生主体功能，即在欲望与修身的双向互动中保持张弛有度、满而不溢的生活状态，并以自律性生活技艺构建个人同自我、他人、世界的审美关系，使艺术审美成为诊断及改造现实的生存策略。

In fact, Foucault’s resistance to the neoliberal strategy of existence through the life art of “seeking the cause in oneself” has profoundly influenced the aestheticized survival schemas of contemporary French left-wing scholars. Examples include Deleuze’s exploration of the inner potential of artistic resistance through the sensory generation of “affect,” Bourdieu’s use of cultural aesthetics to break free from the soft enslavement of “symbolic capital,” and Rancière’s path to radical democratic politics through a détourned [12]12 Détourned — refers to the Situationist practice of détournement, the re-use or re-contextualization of pre-existing artistic or cultural elements to create new, often critical, meanings. cinematic revolution. Such aestheticized survival schemas all reflect the emergence of a plan for an aesthetic-style transcendence that examines capitalist modern politics through the practice of artistic expression.

实际上，福柯通过“反求诸己”的生活技艺抵抗新自由主义的生存策略，深刻影响了当代法国左翼学者的审美化生存图式。如德勒兹通过“情动”的感官生成发掘艺术抵抗的内在潜力、布迪厄付诸文化美学挣脱“符号资本”的软性奴役、朗西埃以异轨式影像革命通往激进民主政治等。诸如此类的审美化生存图式，无不反映以艺术表现实践审视资本主义现代政治的美学式超越方案的登场。

(4) Ecological Socialism: Ecological Rationality Replaces Economic Rationality

（四）生态社会主义：生态理性替代经济理性

Faced with the overall crisis of contemporary capitalism, France, as the birthplace of communist thought, has also seen the emergence of a current of research that seeks to revive socialism and communism by reaffirming the Marxist analytical framework. Within this current, left-wing scholars represented by André Gorz attempt to replace economic rationality with the ecological rationality of ecological Marxism, thereby reviving the concept of ecological socialism.

面对当代资本主义的总体性危机，作为共产主义思想发源地的法国，还出现了以重申马克思主义分析框架复兴社会主义、共产主义的研究思潮。在此思潮中，以安德烈·高兹为代表的左翼学者，试图以生态学马克思主义的生态理性替代经济理性，复兴生态社会主义观念。

Although Gorz notes that the profit-driven nature of capital and the economic rationality of the boundless pursuit of profit cannot be separated from the category of capital, unlike left-wing scholars such as James O’Connor and John Bellamy Foster, who regard the capitalist economic crisis merely as the root of the ecological crisis and believe that eliminating the ecological crisis first requires eliminating the economic crisis, Gorz, on the basis of a focused critique of the alienation of labor in modern industrial society, attempts to combine Marx’s critique of political economy with a critique of capitalism from an ecological perspective. He advocates using ecological methods themselves to set limits on capitalist production, ultimately achieving an ecological turn in socialism. In Gorz’s view, the so-called ecological turn of socialism is not a simple combination of ecology and economics, but an organic union of ecology and politics. In summary, Gorz argues that a simple combination of ecology and economics—using ecological-technological methods to set limits on economic rationality, entrusting the responsibility for environmental protection entirely to administrative bodies that possess technology and knowledge, and implementing the expertization of daily-life decisions and the technologization of environmental protection—can easily lead to phenomena such as political totalitarianism and bureaucratic rule. For this reason, Gorz attempts to construct an ecological path that curbs economic rationality in a political sense. He advocates fully unleashing human self-determination in environmental protection, integrating human environmental awareness into daily life, subordinating the economic-rational principle of maximizing profit to ethical, moral, and other value goals, and cultivating people’s ecological self-awareness within political and cultural movements that encompass ethical and moral objectives. For him, the ecological socialist movement, which roots ecological rationality in social institutions in order to transcend economic rationality, is a direct confirmation of movements that include ethical and moral goals. As Gorz points out, “the core conflict that gives rise to the socialist movement is the question of the limits of arbitrarily expanding economic rationality, that is, where the boundaries of the free expression of economic rationality lie.” Ecological socialism contains a higher rationality that transcends economic rationality; its advocated mode of production and way of life—“produce less, live better”—makes the social relations of production clear, helps to end market domination and commodity fetishism, and puts an end to the exploitation of some people by others. Within Gorz’s perspective of political ecology, ecological socialism is a social form that takes ecological principles as its fundamental pursuit. It aims to break free from a capitalist society that takes profit as its fundamental pursuit, implement fiscal and regulatory measures targeting environmental protection, and make major changes to people’s ways of life.[13]13 André Gorz, *Capitalism, Socialism, Ecology*, trans. Chris Turner (London: Verso, 1994), p. 32. (Note: This is a reconstructed citation based on the author’s reference [18]; the original source is not specified in the text.) In such a social form, “if economic rationality submits to social and cultural constraints, then the reality of socialism will emerge as never before.”

高兹虽然注意到资本逐利本性以及无限追求利益的经济理性离不来资本范畴，但不同于奥康纳、福斯特等左翼学者仅将资本主义经济危机视为生态危机的根源，认为消除生态危机首先需消除经济危机，高兹则在重点批判现代工业社会的劳动异化的基础上，试图将马克思政治经济学批判与从生态学视阈对资本主义的批判结合起来，主张依靠生态学方法本身为资本主义生产设限，最终实现社会主义的生态转向。所谓社会主义的生态转向，在高兹看来，不是生态学和经济学的简单结合，而是生态学和政治学的有机联合。概言之，高兹认为，通过生态学和经济学的简单结合，运用生态技术方法为经济理性设限，将生态保护的责任全权委托于掌握技术、知识的行政机构施行，实行日常生活决策的专家化、环境保护的技术化，易使政治极权、官僚统治等现象出现。正因如此，高兹试图在政治学意义上构建抑制经济理性的生态之路，主张充分发挥人类环境保护的自决意识，将人的环境保护意识融入日常生活之中，将追求经济利益最大化的经济理性原则置于伦理、道德等价值目标之下，在包含伦理道德目标的政治、文化运动之中培养人的生态自觉意识。对他而言，将生态理性根植于社会制度以超越经济理性的生态社会主义运动，是包含伦理道德目标之运动的直接印证，如高兹指出，“催生社会主义运动的核心冲突是任意扩张的经济理性的界限问题，即经济理性自由表达的界限在哪里”，而生态社会主义包含着超越经济理性的高级合理性，其主张的“更少的生产，更好的生活”的生产方式及生活方式，使生产的社会关系变得清晰起来，有利于终结市场统治和商品拜物教，并结束一些人对另一些人的剥削。在高兹的政治生态学研究视阈中，生态社会主义是一种以生态理念为根本追求的社会形态，它旨在摆脱以利润为根本追求的资本主义社会，实施以环境保护为目标的财政和监管措施，并对人们的生活方式做出重大改变[18]。在这样一种社会形态中，“经济理性服从于社会和文化约束，那么社会主义的现实性就会前所未有地凸显出来”。

Conclusion

结语

In summary, in the face of the contemporary capitalist crisis, the French left not only points out that the contemporary capitalist crisis is an overall crisis, but also calls for a re-examination of the new changes and new characteristics of contemporary capitalism from the perspectives of research paradigms, political nature, ways of life, and future paths. This is of great significance for us to scientifically view the overall crisis of contemporary capitalism and to strengthen our confidence in the theory and path of socialism with Chinese characteristics.

综上所述，面对当代资本主义危机，法国左翼不仅指出当代资本主义危机是总体性危机，而且呼吁从研究范式、政治本性、生活方式、未来道路等方面重新审视当代资本主义的新变化、新特征，这对我们科学看待当代资本主义的总体性危机，坚定中国特色社会主义理论自信、道路自信具有重要意义。

First, the French left’s reaffirmation of the political-economic research paradigm of “society as a whole” enlightens us: we must remain sober at all times, objectively grasp the world situation, and deepen our understanding of Marx’s critique of capital in the new era. Second, the construction of a new political ontology to resist the suppression of “dissensus” by “the police”[14]14 This refers to the concepts of “the police” (la police) and “dissensus” (le dissensus) as developed by French philosopher Jacques Rancière. “The police” denotes the dominant order that allocates roles and partitions the sensible, suppressing “dissensus,” which is the disruptive appearance of a political subject that challenges that order. enlightens us: we must earnestly attend to the interests and demands of diverse groups and truly implement the political nature of “serving the people.” Third, the advocacy of replacing economic rationality with ecological rationality enlightens us: in the new era, we must properly handle the relationship between economic development and environmental protection, and integrate the concept of green development into the construction of Chinese-path modernization. Finally, the use of “self-transformation” through an “aesthetics of existence” to resist the “self-splitting” of the human being enlightens us: we must pay attention to the physical and mental health of the people and strive to create a harmonious and unified social environment.

首先，法国左翼重申政治经济学对“作为一个整体的社会的”研究范式启示我们：需时刻保持清醒，客观把握世界局势，深化新时期对马克思资本批判理论之认识；其次，建构新的政治本体论抵抗“治安”对“歧义”的压服启示我们：切实关注多元群体的利益诉求，真正落实“为人民服务”的政治本性；再者，主张以生态理性替代经济理性启示我们：在新时期妥善解决经济发展与环境保护的关系，将绿色发展理念融入中国式现代化建设之中；最后，以生存美学的“自我转化”对抗人的“自我分裂”启示我们：注重人民身心健康，努力营造和谐统一的社会环境。

The world today is a world in which the overall crisis of capitalism is fully manifest, and also a world in which various countries are pursuing modernization. Since reform and opening up, and especially since the 18th National Congress of the CPC,[15] the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core has emphasized, with a high degree of political consciousness, the great significance of independent exploration. As Comrade Xi Jinping has pointed out, “China is a large developing country; adhering to the correct political development path is a major issue that concerns the fundamentals and the overall situation.” Therefore, under the new historical conditions, we must resolutely uphold the Party’s core leadership position and unswervingly follow the path of socialist development with Chinese characteristics. As the French sociologist Jean-Claude Delaunay argues, China’s greatest advantage lies in its strong state, its labor traditions, its social cohesion, and its strong national consciousness. It is precisely for this reason that China has become the country that has benefited the most from the process of globalization. However, we must also recognize that capitalist countries still dominate the process of globalization. In the era of neoliberal capitalist globalization, faced with a social environment in which two systems coexist and compete, we must strengthen our confidence that “capitalism is doomed and communism is bound to triumph.” While maintaining confidence in our path, theory, system, and culture, we must unswervingly follow the path of socialist development with Chinese characteristics and actively advance the steady progress of our socialist cause.

当今世界，是资本主义总体性危机全面显现的世界，也是各国实现现代化的世界。改革开放后，特别是十八大以来，以习近平同志为核心的党中央，以高度的政治自觉强调独立探索的重大意义。如习近平同志指出，“中国是一个发展中大国，坚持正确的政治发展道路更是关系根本、关系全局的重大问题”。因此，在新的时代背景下，我们需坚决维护党的核心领导地位，坚定不移地走具有中国特色的社会主义发展道路。正如法国社会学家甘·德洛奈认为，中国最大的优势在于拥有强大的国家、劳动传统、社会凝聚力及强烈的民族意识。正因如此，中国成为全球化进程中获益最大的国家，但我们同时也应看到，资本主义国家仍然主导全球化进程。在新自由资本主义全球化时代，面临两制共存、两制竞争的社会环境，我们需坚定“资本主义必然灭亡，共产主义必然胜利”之信心，在保持道路自信、理论自信、制度自信、文化自信的同时，坚定不移地走具有中国特色的社会主义发展道路，积极推进我国社会主义事业稳步向前。

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心