A Review of Frontier Issues in Contemporary Overseas Marxist Studies

On September 29, 2017, the Political Bureau of the Party Central Committee conducted its 43rd collective study on contemporary world Marxist currents and their influence. General Secretary Xi Jinping, when presiding over this collective study, emphasized: “A very important characteristic of contemporary world Marxist currents is that many of their proponents critically reveal the structural contradictions of capitalism as well as its contradictions in the mode of production, class contradictions, and social contradictions, and conduct in-depth analyses of capitalist crises, the evolutionary process of capitalism, and the new forms and essence of capitalism. These views help us correctly understand the developmental trends and fate of capitalism, accurately grasp the new changes and new features of contemporary capitalism, and deepen our understanding of the changing trends of contemporary capitalism.” Since the establishment of the discipline of overseas Marxism in the 1980s, China’s research on overseas Marxism has made considerable progress. This article intends to summarize the latest developments in overseas Marxist currents from ten aspects as follows.

2017年9月29日，中共中央政治局就当代世界马克思主义思潮及其影响进行了第43次集体学习。习近平总书记在主持这次集体学习时强调：“当代世界马克思主义思潮，一个很重要的特点就是他们中很多人对资本主义结构性矛盾以及生产方式矛盾、阶级矛盾、社会矛盾等进行了批判性揭示，对资本主义危机、资本主义演进过程、资本主义新形态及本质进行了深入分析。这些观点有助于我们正确认识资本主义发展趋势和命运，准确把握当代资本主义新变化新特征，加深对当代资本主义变化趋势的理解。”自1980年代国外马克思主义学科确立以来，中国的国外马克思主义研究取得了长足的进展。本文拟从十个方面将国外马克思主义思潮的最新发展动态归纳如下。

I. Contemporary Ideological Theory and Its “New” Characteristics

一、当代意识形态理论及其“新”特征

The term “ideology” originally came from the French philosopher Destutt de Tracy’s work *Elements of Ideology*, meaning the science of ideas (idéologie). Marx and Engels, in *The German Ideology*, applied this concept to their critique of modern German philosophy represented by Ludwig Feuerbach, Bruno Bauer, and Max Stirner. Unlike Tracy’s neutral connotation of the science of ideas, Marx and Engels primarily used the concept of ideology from the perspective of “false consciousness,” meaning the superstructure representing the ruling class’s thought, which is determined by social existence. People are generally unaware of it but are consciously dominated by it, thus possessing the characteristics of falsity and unconsciousness. Marx vividly expressed this characteristic of ideology: “They do not know it, but they do it.” [1]1 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 1, Section 4, “The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof.” After Marx, Antonio Gramsci, General Secretary of the Italian Communist Party, enriched Marx’s theory of ideology through the theory of “civil society” and the concept of “cultural hegemony.” He likened ideology to the “cement” in the structure of a building and positioned ideology as a struggle for “cultural hegemony” through the method of “positional warfare.” [2]2 Antonio Gramsci, *Selections from the Prison Notebooks*, ed. and trans. Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (New York: International Publishers, 1971), pp. 206–276, 238–239.

“意识形态”一词最初来源于法国哲学家德斯蒂·德·特拉西的著作《意识形态的要素》,意指观念学(ideology)。马克思恩格斯在《德意志意识形态》中将这一概念运用于对以路德维希·费尔巴哈、布鲁诺·鲍威尔和麦克斯·施蒂纳为代表的现代德国哲学的批判。与特拉西具有中性色彩的观念学含义不同，马克思恩格斯主要从“虚假意识”的角度使用意识形态概念，意指代表统治阶级思想的上层建筑，它由社会存在决定，人们一般意识不到，但却自觉地受其支配，因此具有虚假性和无意识性的特征。马克思曾形象地表述了意识形态的这种特征：“他们没有意识到这一点，但是他们这样做了。”1马克思之后，意大利共产党总书记安东尼奥·葛兰西通过“市民社会”理论和“文化霸权”概念丰富了马克思的意识形态理论。他将意识形态比作大厦结构中的“水泥”,并将意识形态定位于通过“阵地战”的方式争夺“文化霸权”的斗争。2

Building on the ideological theories of Marx and Gramsci, Louis Althusser, combining Jacques Lacan’s psychoanalytic theory, greatly expanded the concept of ideology in three aspects: (1) ideology is eternal and has no history; (2) ideology has the function of a state apparatus; (3) the function of ideology is to interpellate individuals as subjects of ideology. [3]3 Louis Althusser, “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes towards an Investigation),” in *Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays*, trans. Ben Brewster (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1971), pp. 127–186. These three points constitute the core of Althusser’s theory of ideology.

在继承马克思和葛兰西的意识形态理论的基础上，路易·阿尔都塞结合雅克·拉康的精神分析理论，从三个方面大大扩展了意识形态概念：(1)意识形态是永恒的、没有历史的；(2)意识形态具有国家机器的功能；(3)意识形态的功能是将个体询唤(interpellate)为意识形态的主体。3上述三点构成了阿尔都塞意识形态理论的核心。

Slavoj Žižek, from the perspective of Freud’s and Lacan’s “unconscious,” expanded the concept of ideology, expressing it as: (1) all ideologies possess their own “sublime object”; (2) ideology is not merely an idea, nor merely a materialized state apparatus; it is “social reality” itself, but this reality is not “objective” social reality, but a reality constituted by “ideological fantasy”; (3) the function of ideology is primarily manifested through the form of unconscious enjoyment (jouissance), and this form of enjoyment is latent within the subject’s “fantasy framework,” through which the subject conceals a traumatic gap, thereby taming the subject into an ideological subject. [4]4 Slavoj Žižek, *The Sublime Object of Ideology* (London: Verso, 1989), pp. 1–55, 87–129. The outstanding contribution of psychoanalytic ideology theory lies in revealing the mechanism of “misrecognition” that occurs in the subject within ideology, allowing people to glimpse the internal logic of ideological operation. In other words, “Only when ideology touches the subject’s fantasy framework can ideological recognition succeed.” [5]5 Slavoj Žižek, *The Ticklish Subject: The Absent Centre of Political Ontology* (London: Verso, 1999), p. 171.

斯拉沃热·齐泽克则从弗洛伊德和拉康的“无意识”的视角扩展了意识形态概念，将其表述为：(1)一切意识形态都拥有自己的“崇高对象”;(2)意识形态不仅仅是观念，也不仅仅是实体化的国家机器，它就是“社会现实”本身，但这一现实不是“客观的”社会现实，而是由“意识形态幻象”构成的现实； (3)意识形态的功能主要是通过无意识的快感形式来体现的，而这一快感形式又潜在于主体的“幻象框架”之中，主体通过这一幻象框架遮蔽了创伤性的裂口，从而将主体驯化为意识形态化的主体。4精神分析意识形态理论的突出贡献在于揭示了主体在意识形态中产生的“误认”(misrecognition)机制，使人们得以窥探意识形态运作的内在逻辑。换言之，“只有当意识形态触及了主体的幻象框架，意识形态的承认才能成功”5。

II. Research on Digital Capitalism and New Imperialism

二、数字资本主义与新帝国主义研究

Digital capitalism is a new form of capitalism in the 21st century as it enters the digital age, a product of the encounter between contemporary capitalism and modern digital technology. Dan Schiller points out that digital capitalism is capitalism in the information age. [6]6 Dan Schiller, *Digital Capitalism: Networking the Global Market System* (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999), p. xiii.

数字资本主义是21世纪资本主义进入数字时代的新形态，是当代资本主义与现代数字技术革命遭遇的产物。丹·席勒指出，数字资本主义就是信息时代的资本主义。6

First, in the era of digital capitalism, capitalists strengthen the exploitation of capitalism through digital capital, further widening the gap between rich and poor. This mode of exploitation is realized through a new form of labor that integrates production and consumption—digital labor. In the era of digital capitalism, what dominates is no longer the productive labor and real economy of Marx’s time, but digital labor and digital production; digital labor becomes an extension and deepening of capital exploitation. And digital capital must function through digital network platforms.

其一，在数字资本主义时代，资本家通过数字资本强化了对资本主义的剥削，进一步拉大了贫富差距。这一剥削方式通过集生产与消费于一体的新型劳动形式——数字劳动来实现。在数字资本主义时代，占主导地位的不再是马克思时代的生产劳动和实体经济，而是数字劳动和数字化生产，数字劳动成为资本剥削的延伸与深化。而数字资本必须通过数字网络平台才能发挥功能。

Second, digital network platforms constitute the main mode of capitalist operation, from online shopping to daily consumption, from watching idol videos to leisure activities, from small daily consumption to capital operations, and even financial wars and military conflicts—none can do without digital technology and network platforms. In the era of digital capitalism, everything is “digitalized” and “capitalized”; people’s interactions, entertainment and leisure, and even emotional exchanges have become objects captured by digital capital. These daily activities or emotional exchanges have actually become means of making money in the digital age, demonstrating the power of digital capital. And the individual, as a consumer of digital products, is also a provider of digital labor and digital capital.

其二，数字网络平台构成了资本主义运行的主要模式，从网络购物到生活消费，从偶像视频的观看到生活休闲，小到日常消费，大到资本运作，甚至金融战和军事冲突，都离不开数字技术和网络平台。在数字资本主义时代，一切都“数字化”“资本化”了，人们之间的交往活动、娱乐休闲、甚至情感交流等，都变成了数字资本捕获的对象。这些日常生活的活动或情感交流在数字时代居然变成了赚钱的手段，由此可见数字资本的威力。而作为数字产品消费者的个体，同时也是数字劳动和数字资本的提供者。

Third, digital capitalism has not only failed to eliminate the gap between rich and poor but has instead led to its expansion on a global scale. The wealth of Microsoft capital and Apple capital rivaling that of entire countries is the most typical case. Christian Fuchs, in his book *Digital Labour and Karl Marx*, focuses on the exploitation of digital labor of global workers and consumers by the capitalist information and communication technology (ICT) industry under the global value chain. On the one hand, due to the international division of digital labor, workers in less developed regions are mostly engaged in low-end manufacturing labor related to ICT products, such as miners in Africa, Foxconn workers in China, and software engineers in India. On the other hand, social media users’ consumption of internet products is also a form of digital labor; the information, emotions, and other data they create are commodified and sold by large companies like Google and Twitter. This seemingly entertaining method is actually free labor for capitalists, also known as “playbour.” [7]7 Christian Fuchs, *Digital Labour and Karl Marx* (New York: Routledge, 2014), pp. 103–148, 243–292.

其三，数字资本主义不但没有消除贫富差距，反而导致贫富差距在全球范围内的扩大，微软资本和苹果资本富可敌国就是最典型的案例。克里斯蒂安·福克斯在《数字劳动和卡尔·马克思》一书中集中论述了全球价值链下资本主义信息通信技术(ICT)行业对全球劳工及消费者的数字劳动剥削。一方面，由于数字劳动的国际分工，欠发达地区的劳动者大多从事与ICT相关产品的低端制造业的劳动，如非洲的采矿工、中国的富士康工人、印度的软件工程师等；另一方面，社交媒体用户对互联网产品的消费也是一种数字劳动，他们创造的信息、情感等数据将被谷歌、推特等大型公司商品化并出售，这种看似娱乐的方式实际上是在为资本家免费劳动，也即所谓的“玩劳动”(playbour)。7

It is particularly noteworthy that digital capitalism is closely related to research on contemporary capitalism or new imperialism. Research on contemporary capitalism first needs to trace back to Marx’s *Capital*. After Marx, the Fourth International theorist Ernest Mandel, through his examination of 20th-century capitalism, revised Marx’s theory of economic crisis in his book *Late Capitalism*, proposing a “long wave theory” of the outbreak of capitalist crises. He argued that capitalism would not experience frequent economic crises but would have longer cycles, vividly representing this cycle as a “long wave” (50–100 years). However, Mandel generally still endorsed Marx’s theory of capitalist economic crisis. Lenin, in *Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism*, transformed the study of contemporary capitalism into the study of imperialism, proposing the classic thesis that “imperialism, economically, is monopoly capitalism.” [8]8 V. I. Lenin, *Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism*, in *Collected Works*, Vol. 22 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1964), p. 266. Since Lenin put forward this thesis, imperialism has had a history of one hundred years, and the emergence of digital capitalism has both accelerated the crisis of imperialism and provided new ways for it to escape the crisis.

需要特别关注的是，数字资本主义与当代资本主义或新帝国主义研究密切相关。当代资本主义研究首先需要追溯至马克思的《资本论》。马克思之后，第四国际理论家欧内斯特·曼德尔通过对20世纪资本主义的考察，在《晚期资本主义》一书中修正了马克思的经济危机理论，提出了资本主义危机爆发的“长波论”,认为资本主义不会频繁地爆发经济危机，而是具有更长的周期性，并形象地将这一周期用“长波”(50—100年)来表示。但是，曼德尔总体上还是认可马克思的资本主义经济危机理论的。而列宁则在《帝国主义是资本主义的最高阶段》中将当代资本主义研究转化为帝国主义研究，提出了“帝国主义就其经济实质来说，是垄断资本主义”8的经典论断。自列宁提出这一论断至今，帝国主义已经有了一百年的历史，而数字资本主义的出现既加速了帝国主义的危机，又为其摆脱危机提供了新途径。

Faced with the current state of imperialist development, contemporary Western leftist scholars have each put forward their own views. David Harvey, through his interpretation of Marx’s *Capital*, has proposed a theory of “new imperialism” based on spatial geography, in order to explain why modern imperialism “lingers on without dying.” Specifically, Harvey advances a theory of “spatio-temporal fix” grounded in spatial geography. The so-called spatio-temporal fix is the way in which new imperialism, through the spatial expansion of capital under globalization, transfers transnational capital to the Third World and backward countries in order to extract surplus value. By means of the “spatio-temporal fix,” capitalism acquires a powerful capacity for self-repair, thereby enabling it to evade capitalist crises and delay the collapse of the capitalist empire.[9]9 Harvey’s concept of the “spatio-temporal fix” refers to capitalism’s strategy of deferring crises by expanding into new geographical spaces and temporal horizons, thereby absorbing surplus capital and labor.

面对帝国主义的发展现状，当代西方左翼学者纷纷提出各自的观点。大卫·哈维通过对马克思《资本论》的解读提出了空间地理学基础上的“新帝国主义”理论，以解释为什么现代帝国主义“垂而不死”这一难题。具体而言，哈维提出了基于空间地理学的“时空修复”理论。所谓时空修复，就是新帝国主义通过全球化维度下资本的空间扩张，将跨国资本向第三世界和落后国家转移，以攫取超额剩余价值。借助“时空修复”的方式，资本主义拥有了强大的自我修复能力，从而能够规避资本主义危机，延迟资本帝国的崩溃。9

Hardt and Negri, in their book *Empire*, also offer a new interpretation of contemporary imperialism. They argue that in the post-capitalist era of service-oriented and informatized production, regional economic differences no longer manifest as disparities in the degree of development but rather as hierarchical differences within the international production system. The traditional industrial production and labor that Marx discussed in the nineteenth century are being replaced by another type of labor—immaterial labor. Immaterial labor takes three forms: informational industrial labor, information-data service labor, and affective labor. Correspondingly, the traditional assembly-line production model of industry has been replaced by the post-Fordist digital network production model. By virtue of their dominant position in the information industry, digital capital, and data services, capitalist empires can still establish control centers for production networks even as production is dispersed across the globe. The decentralization of the production process in physical space brings with it the centralization of economic management and control; Wall Street’s financial trade directs and influences the development of the global economy.[10]10 Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri’s *Empire* (2000) argues that contemporary global sovereignty has taken the form of a decentered and deterritorialized apparatus of rule, which they call “Empire,” replacing the old imperialist nation-state system.

哈特和奈格里在《帝国》一书中也对当代帝国主义进行了新阐释。他们认为，在生产服务化、信息化的后资本主义时代，经济的地域性差异不再表现为发展程度上的不同，而是体现为国际生产体系中的等级差异。马克思在19世纪论述的传统的工业生产和劳动正在被另一类劳动——非物质劳动——所取代。非物质劳动具有三种形式，即信息化工业劳动、信息数据服务劳动和情感劳动。与此相对应，传统工业的流水线式生产模式被后福特制的数字网络生产所代替，资本帝国凭借着在信息工业、数字资本和数据服务领域的主导地位，依然能够在生产分散于全球各地的背景下建立起生产网络的控制中心。生产过程在物理空间上的非中心化带来的是经济管理与控制的中心化，华尔街的金融贸易指导并影响着全球经济的发展。10

In short, digital capitalism and new imperialism have already transformed the traditional imperialist mode of exploitation through violent seizure of colonies, giving rise to a variety of modern capitalist forms, such as “financial capitalism,” “rentier capitalism,” “welfare capitalism,” “techno-capitalism,” “disaster capitalism,” and a series of other new modes of exploitation.

总之，数字资本主义和新帝国主义已经改变了传统帝国主义通过暴力抢占殖民地的剥削方式，进而衍生出各式各样的现代资本主义形态，如“金融资本主义”“租金资本主义”“福利资本主义”“技术资本主义”“灾难资本主义”等一系列新的剥削形式。

III. New Explorations of the Problem of Consumer Society and the Labor Theory of Value

三、关于消费社会与劳动价值论问题的新探讨

It is generally held that the West entered consumer society in the 1960s. Research on consumer society in recent years can be roughly divided into the following different views or schools. (1) The Marxist view of consumption places consumption at the end of the four links of production, distribution, exchange, and consumption, because Marx lived in the nineteenth century, an era of relative scarcity of production; but now that humanity has entered consumer society, how to reconstruct the Marxist view of consumption and how to handle the relationship among production, distribution, exchange, and consumption will be an important task for Marxism. (2) The liberal view of consumption, represented by Barbara Kruger, advocates “I consume, therefore I am.” Unlike Descartes’ mind-body dualism of “I think, therefore I am,” “I consume, therefore I am” internally links consumption with the existence of the subject. The core of Descartes’ proposition lies in the abstract “I think,” while the core of the liberal view of consumption lies in “I consume,” thereby granting consumption a certain ontological and existential centrality, clearly adopting an attitude of praise and approval. That is to say, only consumption can manifest the essence of the subject; otherwise, the subject has no ground to stand on, or even ceases to exist. (3) Scholars represented by Mary Douglas and Pierre Bourdieu regard consumption as a form of cultural and taste consumption. If the liberal view of consumption grants consumption an ontological and existential status, then cultural consumption greatly elevates the spiritual level and cultural taste of consumption, making people more confident and self-satisfied when consuming. (4) Scholars such as Jean Baudrillard consider consumption to be a form of symbolic consumption, situated within a certain structural social relation. Unlike the second and third views of consumption, which sing the praises of consumption, the “symbolic consumption” represented by Baudrillard is a typical critique of consumption. It inherits the critical style of Western Marxism, concretizing and symbolizing consumer society, with the aim of revealing the distorted social relations of capitalist society through consumption.

一般认为，西方在1960年代进入消费社会。近年来有关消费社会的研究大致有如下不同的观点或派别。(1)马克思主义消费观将消费置于生产、分配、交换、消费四个环节中的末端，这是由于马克思所生活的19世纪还处于生产相对不足的时代；但当人类进入消费社会后，如何重构马克思主义的消费观，如何处理生产、分配、交换和消费的关系，将是马克思主义的重要课题。(2)以芭芭拉·克鲁格为代表的自由主义消费观主张 “我消费故我在”。与笛卡尔的“我思故我在”的身心二元论不同，“我消费故我在”将消费与主体的存在内在地关联起来。笛卡尔命题的核心在于抽象的“我思”,而自由主义消费观的核心则在于“我消费”,这就赋予了消费以某种本体论和存在论的核心地位，显然采取的是一种褒奖和赞同的态度。也就是说，只有消费方能体现主体的本质，否则主体则无以立足，甚至不复存在。(3)以玛丽·道格拉斯和皮埃尔·布迪厄等人为代表的学者将消费视为一种文化、品味的消费。如果说自由主义消费观赋予了消费以本体论和存在论的地位，那么文化消费则大大提升了消费的精神层次和文化品位，使得人们在消费时更加理直气壮和志满意得。(4)让·鲍德里亚等学者认为消费是一种符号消费，处于某种结构性的社会关系之中；与第二、三种消费观为消费大唱赞歌不同，以鲍德里亚为代表的“符号消费”是一种典型的消费批判论，它秉承了西方马克思主义的批判风格，将消费社会具体化和符号化，旨在通过消费揭示资本主义社会畸形的社会关系。

In the study of consumer society, the most representative figure is the French philosopher Baudrillard. In his book *The Consumer Society*, he puts forward the concept of “consumer society,” arguing that consumption is a form of symbolic consumption and regarding it as a white myth. Unlike classical Marxist production ontology, Baudrillard reconstructs the relationship among production, distribution, exchange, and consumption from the perspective of consumption ontology, placing consumption in the primary position. This emphasis on consumer society inevitably conflicts with Marx’s labor theory of value. Therefore, how to view Marx’s labor theory of value against the backdrop of consumer society has become an important issue for scholarly inquiry. Starting from the perspective of symbolic consumption, Baudrillard opposes Marx’s labor theory of value. In *For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign*, he replaces Marx’s critique of political economy with a critique of the political economy of the sign, and replaces Marx’s use-value and exchange-value with symbolic value and sign-value, attempting to reconstruct a critique of political economy from a semiotic dimension. Proceeding from this, Baudrillard reconstructs his entire theoretical system with the theory of symbolic exchange, and then delves into the hyperreal world of technological simulation and simulacra. The famous film *The Matrix* was made with Baudrillard’s book *Simulacra and Simulation* as its theoretical support.

在消费社会的研究中，最具有代表性的当属法国哲学家鲍德里亚。他在《消费社会》一书中提出了“消费社会”的概念，认为消费是一种符号消费，并视其为白色神话。与经典马克思主义的生产本体论不同，鲍德里亚从消费本体论的视角重新构建生产、分配、交换与消费的关系，将消费置于首要地位。这种对消费社会的强调必然与马克思的劳动价值论相冲突，因此，如何在消费社会的背景下看待马克思的劳动价值论成为学界探讨的重要问题。鲍德里亚从符号消费的视野出发，反对马克思的劳动价值论，并在《符号的政治经济学批判》中，用符号政治经济学批判来取代马克思的政治经济学批判，用象征价值、符号价值来取代马克思的使用价值和交换价值，试图重构符号学维度下的政治经济学批判。由此出发，鲍德里亚用象征交换理论重构了其整个理论体系，进而深入到超现实的技术拟真和拟像世界。著名的《黑客帝国》就是以鲍德里亚的著作《拟真与拟像》作为理论支撑而拍摄的电影。

IV. Political-Philosophical Research on the Problem of Fairness and Justice

四、关于公平与正义问题的政治哲学研究

Because inequality and the widening gap between rich and poor in contemporary capitalist society are growing, fairness and justice have become a global social problem facing humanity today. And since the publication of John Rawls’s *A Theory of Justice* in the 1970s, fairness and justice have become a hot topic in the field of political philosophy, as well as a major issue that contemporary overseas Marxist studies cannot avoid. It first sparked a debate between liberalism and communitarianism, with Rawls, Robert Nozick, Alasdair MacIntyre, and others engaging in a fierce debate around justice and its distribution. Subsequently, many overseas Marxist scholars have also critically analyzed Rawls’s *A Theory of Justice*.

由于当代资本主义社会的不平等和贫富差距日益扩大，公平正义成为当今人类面临的全球性社会问题。而自1970年代约翰·罗尔斯的《正义论》出版以来，公平正义更是成为政治哲学领域的热点议题，也成为当代国外马克思主义研究难以回避的重大问题。它首先引发了自由主义与社群主义之争，罗尔斯、罗伯特·诺齐克、阿拉斯戴尔·麦金太尔等人围绕着正义及其分配问题展开了激烈辩论。之后，诸多国外马克思主义学者也对罗尔斯的《正义论》进行了批判分析。

Jürgen Habermas has proposed a mechanism of “equal, democratic” deliberative dialogue that differs from both liberalism and communitarianism. The greatest feature of this theory is its emphasis on the role of “norms” in a democratic society. Its theoretical foundation is clearly the principle of liberalism, but the goal it seeks to achieve is that of communitarianism. Habermas believes that his own theory is neither “positivist” nor “constructivist,” but rather seeks to “reconstruct” the deliberative mechanism. This view is typically embodied in his book *Between Facts and Norms*. In this work, Habermas, from a normative perspective, refutes Rawls’s theory of distributive justice based on a moral-analytical stance, replacing it with a theory of norms. Habermas’s “norms” include both legal norms and moral norms. He argues that the fairness and justice people seek can only be realized through binding “norms” and “rules” and through mechanisms of communicative deliberation; there is no other way. Therefore, between “facts and norms,” both the validity of facts and the validity of norms must be taken into account.[11]11 Habermas’s *Between Facts and Norms* (1992) develops a discourse-theoretic account of law and democracy, arguing that legitimate legal orders arise from communicative processes that respect both factual efficacy and normative validity.

于尔根·哈贝马斯提出了一种不同于自由主义和社群主义的“平等的、民主的”的协商对话机制。该理论的最大特征是强调“规范”在民主社会中的作用，其理论基础显然是自由主义的原则，但所要达到的目标则是社群主义的。哈贝马斯认为，自己的理论既不是“实证主义”的，也不是“建构论”的，而是要“重构”协商机制。这一观点典型地体现在他的著作《在事实与规范之间》中。在这部著作中，哈贝马斯从规范性的视角出发反驳了罗尔斯基于道德辨析立场的分配正义理论，转而用一种规范论取而代之。哈贝马斯的“规范”既包括法律规范也包括道德规范，他认为人们所追求的公平正义唯有通过具有约束性的“规范”和“规则”以及交往协商机制方能实现，舍此别无他途，因此在“事实与规范”之间必须兼顾事实的有效性与规范的有效性。11

G. A. Cohen, a representative of analytical Marxism, raised the issue of fairness and justice anew at the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st. In his two works *Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality* and *Rescuing Justice and Equality*, Cohen refuted the conceptions of fairness and justice held by Nozick and Rawls respectively. Specifically, Cohen first criticized Nozick’s views on “self-ownership” and “justice in acquisition” in *Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality*. Nozick argued that as long as procedural justice is followed, property acquired on the basis of individual talent is legitimate and justified. Cohen pointed out that the principle of “self-ownership” precisely embodies the inequality arising from deeper differences in talent, and that support for this “non-selective” difference exacerbates inequality in distribution among individuals. Furthermore, in Cohen’s view, Nozick’s argument that maintaining equality necessarily requires sacrificing freedom is equally untenable. Cohen combined the concept of “self-ownership” with equality of resources, proposing the idea of “joint ownership” of resources, meaning that everyone has an equal right to the world’s resources, and thus how they are used requires the consent of every owner. Next, in *Rescuing Justice and Equality*, Cohen challenged Rawls’s theory of distributive justice. Rawls believed that certain inequalities can be encompassed by justice, and therefore he advocated the difference principle, namely that social and economic arrangements should benefit the least advantaged to the greatest extent, thereby justifying those inequalities as permissible by justice. The most typical practice of the difference principle is to incentivize innovation through differential distribution of the “pie,” thereby increasing economic efficiency and producing a larger “pie.” Cohen criticized this view of Rawls, arguing that the difference principle cannot prove that inequality based on incentives meets the requirements of a just society, and that the rationality of a policy cannot be equated with its justice. He pointed out: “The difference principle is not an unconditional principle of justice, because it supports the kind of inequality-injustice caused by morally arbitrary factors.” [12]12 G. A. Cohen, *Rescuing Justice and Equality* (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008), p. 32. [Original Chinese note 12]

分析的马克思主义的代表人物G.A.科恩则在20世纪末和21世纪初重新提出了公平正义问题。在《自我所有、自由和平等》和《拯救正义与平等》两部著作中，科恩分别驳斥了诺齐克和罗尔斯的公平正义观。具体而言，科恩首先在《自我所有、自由和平等》中批判了诺齐克关于“自我所有”和“获取正义”的观点。诺齐克认为，只要遵从程序正义，那么基于个体天赋获得的财产便具有合法性和正当性。科恩则指出，“自我所有”原则恰恰体现了由更为深层的天赋差异引起的不平等，因此对这一“非选择性”差异的支持会加剧个体在分配上的不平等。此外，在科恩看来，诺齐克关于维持平等必须牺牲自由的论证同样是站不住脚的。科恩将“自我所有”的观念与资源平等相结合，提出了资源“共同所有”的主张，即每个人对世界资源都拥有平等的权利，因此如何利用它们也需要得到每一个所有者的同意。接着，科恩又在《拯救正义与平等》中向罗尔斯的分配正义理论提出了挑战。罗尔斯认为某些不平等是可以被正义包含的，因此他主张差别原则，即社会和经济安排应当有利于最少受惠者的最大利益，即证明那些不平等是正义所允许的。差别原则最典型的做法就是通过“蛋糕”的差异分配来激励创新，以此提高经济效率，生产更大的“蛋糕”。科恩批判了罗尔斯的这一观点，认为差别原则证明不了基于刺激的不平等是符合正义社会要求的，政策的合理性不能等同于正义性。他指出：“差别原则不是一个无条件的正义原则，因为它支持由道德上的专断引起的那种不平等式不正义。”12

Cohen further grounded his argument in modern ecological civilization, asserting that contemporary Marxists should seek the possibility of socialism from scarcity. He proposed two principles of justice for socialism that differ from those of Rawls. (1) The principle of equality. In Cohen’s view, the ultimate value orientation of a socialist society is equality, and equality of opportunity is the way that best embodies egalitarian justice. (2) The principle of community, also known as the communal principle. To prevent the substantive inequality that formal equality of opportunity can bring, Cohen introduced the communal principle, namely that people care for each other and take care of each other when necessary and possible, and also care about each other’s mutual care. The communal principle includes two modes of care: the first is a mode of care that curbs certain inequalities resulting from socialist equality of opportunity, emphasizing that the wealthy must contribute to the community, similar to a third distribution; the second is a mode of reciprocal care, emphasizing reciprocal behavior among community members arising from purposes beyond the market.

科恩进一步立足于现代生态文明，主张当代马克思主义者应当从稀缺中寻找社会主义的可能性。他提出了不同于罗尔斯的社会主义的两大正义原则。(1)平等原则。在科恩看来，社会主义社会的终极价值取向就是平等，而机会平等是最能够体现平等主义正义的方式。(2)共享原则，也即共同体原则。为了防止形式上的机会平等所带来的实质不平等，科恩引入了共享原则，即人们相互关心并在必要及可能的情况下相互照顾，而且还要在意彼此的相互关心。共享原则包括两种关心模式：第一种是抑制因社会主义机会平等导致的某些不平等的关心模式，强调富人要为共同体作出贡献，这类似于第三次分配；第二种是互惠性的关心模式，强调共同体成员出于市场以外的目的而产生的互惠行为。

In addition to the scholars mentioned above, many other foreign Marxist theorists have focused on the issue of fairness and justice, such as Allen W. Wood, Kai Nielsen, Ziyad Husami, and others.

除上述学者外，还有许多国外马克思主义理论家关注公平正义问题，比如艾伦·W.伍德、凯·尼尔森、齐雅德·胡萨米等人。

V. Ecological Marxism

五、生态马克思主义

Since the 1960s, ecological Marxism has begun to attract academic attention and gradually formed a social trend of thought. Ecological Marxism mainly emphasizes that the fundamental contradictions of modern capitalism lead to an imbalanced relationship between humanity and nature, thereby bringing about unavoidable ecological problems.

1960年代以来，生态马克思主义开始引发学界关注并逐渐形成一种社会思潮。生态马克思主义主要强调现代资本主义的基本矛盾导致了人与自然的不平衡关系，进而带来了难以规避的生态问题。

First, Marx’s exposition of the fundamental contradictions of capitalism already contains the assertion that capitalism inevitably leads to ecological crisis. As Marx stated, the fundamental contradiction between the socialization of production and capitalist private ownership inevitably leads capitalists to single-mindedly pursue surplus value, thereby ignoring environmental and ecological issues, and consequently triggering ecological crises. This is one of the main reasons why foreign Marxist scholars focus on ecological issues from an institutional perspective.

首先，马克思有关资本主义基本矛盾的阐述就蕴含着资本主义必然导致生态危机的论断。如马克思所言，生产的社会化与资本主义私人占有之间的基本矛盾必然导致资本家一味地追求剩余价值，从而对环境和生态问题置之不理，进而引发生态危机。这是国外马克思主义学者从制度层面关注生态问题的主要原因之一。

Second, ecological Marxist scholars have also applied Marx’s basic views and methods to the analysis and interpretation of modern ecological and environmental problems, attempting to explore a green social development path toward the future. From Ben Agger, who proposed the concept of “ecological Marxism,” to André Gorz, David Pepper, John Bellamy Foster, Joel Kovel, and Saral Sarkar, who continued to track ecological issues around the turn of the 21st century, all have, from different perspectives, combined Marx’s philosophy, political economy, and critique of capitalism with the increasingly severe ecological problems of the West, thereby putting forward their own theoretical propositions. For example, Foster believes that Marx’s ecological views exist not only in his economic theory but are more concentratedly embodied in Marx’s philosophy. Therefore, he focuses his research on materialist theory, attempting to rediscover Marx’s ecological thought. In his book *Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature*, Foster systematically expounds on materialism and ecology and traces the formation process of Marx’s materialist view of nature from the perspective of the history of development. It is worth mentioning that Foster takes the “metabolic rift” mentioned by Marx in *Capital* as a core concept, creatively applying it to the interpretation of ecological materialism, profoundly revealing the contradiction in the relationship between humanity and nature under capitalist production conditions, while also pointing out that ecological issues are not only related to the economic crisis of capitalism but also concern the survival fate of all humanity. [13]13 John Bellamy Foster, *Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature* (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2000). [Original Chinese note 13]

其次，生态马克思主义学者还将马克思的基本观点与方法运用于分析和阐释现代生态环境问题，试图探索一条通向未来的绿色社会发展道路。从提出“生态马克思主义”概念的本·阿格尔，到21世纪前后继续追踪生态问题的安德烈·高兹、戴维·佩珀、约翰·贝拉米·福斯特、乔尔·科威尔、萨拉·萨卡等人，都从不同的视角将马克思的哲学、政治经济学和资本主义批判理论与西方日益严重的生态问题相结合，进而提出了自己的理论主张。例如，福斯特认为，马克思的生态学观点不仅存在于其经济理论中，而且更集中地体现在马克思的哲学中。因此，他将研究的焦点置于唯物主义理论之中，试图重新发现马克思的生态思想。在《马克思的生态学：唯物主义与自然》一书中，福斯特系统阐述了唯物主义与生态学，并从发展史的角度梳理了马克思唯物主义自然观的形成过程。值得一提的是，福斯特将马克思在《资本论》中提及的“新陈代谢断裂”作为核心概念，创造性地运用于对生态唯物主义的阐释，深刻揭示了资本主义生产条件下人与自然关系的矛盾，同时也指出生态问题不仅关涉资本主义的经济危机，同样关乎全体人类的生存命运。13

Finally, it should be pointed out that with the deepening of research on ecological issues, this issue is no longer confined to capitalist society but involves a re-examination of the relationship between humanity and nature. Marx’s *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* provides an in-depth analysis of the relationship between humanity and nature, pointing the way for exploring contemporary ecological issues. In fact, most Western ecologists have also noted this issue, recognizing that any region or country with human activity, especially industrial activity, may face ecological problems and ecological disasters. Therefore, ecology is a global issue that must be taken seriously by the whole world and governments of all countries. Engels had already presciently pointed out in *Dialectics of Nature*: “Let us not, however, flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human victories over nature. For each such victory nature takes its revenge on us.” [14]14 Friedrich Engels, *Dialectics of Nature*, in *Marx Engels Collected Works*, vol. 25 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1987), p. 461. [Original Chinese note 14] On this basis, Slavoj Žižek proposed an alternative interpretation of the relationship between humanity and nature, pointing out that humans are “a wound of nature,” and that in the relationship between humanity and nature “there is no final solution,” only the maintenance of this traumatic “fragile balance.” [15]15 Slavoj Žižek, *Living in the End Times* (London: Verso, 2010), p. 331. [Original Chinese note 15]

最后，需要指出的是，随着生态问题研究的深入，该问题不再局限于资本主义社会，而是涉及对人与自然关系的重新探讨。马克思的《1844年经济学哲学手稿》对人与自然的关系进行了深入分析，为探讨当今生态问题指明了方向。事实上，西方生态学家大多也注意到这一问题，认识到凡是有人类活动、特别是有工业化活动的地区和国家都可能面临生态问题和生态灾难，因此生态是一个全球性问题，必须引起全世界和各国政府的高度重视。恩格斯在《自然辩证法》中已经先见性地指出：“我们不要过分陶醉于我们人类对自然界的胜利，对于每一次这样的胜利，自然界都对我们进行报复。”14齐泽克在此基础上提出了对人与自然关系的另类解读，指出人是“自然的伤口”,在人与自然的关系上“不存在最终的解决方案”,只能维持这种创伤性的“脆弱平衡”。15

VI. Contemporary Populism and Its “New” Characteristics

六、当代民粹主义及其“新”特征

Populism is a pervasive problem in today’s world. Whether it is Marine Le Pen, leader of the National Rally in the 2022 French presidential election, Donald Trump, who won the 2017 U.S. presidential election, the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, or populist movements and their representatives in other countries, all indicate that populist forces are on the rise globally today. Populist thought and movements have a long history, originating in mid-19th century Russia and spanning over a hundred years. Specifically, populism advocates a flattened form of plebeian democracy, so-called “great democracy,” emphasizing the interests of the lower classes. Therefore, its political propositions often possess great appeal and mobilizing power, like the “song of the Sirens,” extremely seductive and irresistible. However, although populism appears glamorous on the surface and can widely mobilize members of society and attract the general public, if allowed to develop unchecked, it is very difficult to control, possesses great social destructiveness and lethality, and the consequences are disastrous. It should be recognized that populism also constitutes a current social trend of thought in our country. For example, recent incidents in mass media such as doxing and attacks, cyber violence, the blockade of KFC outlets, the looting and vandalism in anti-Japan demonstrations, and extremist nationalist rhetoric are all manifestations of populist thought in social reality.

民粹主义是弥漫于当今世界的一个难题，无论是2022年法国总统选举中“国民阵线”的领袖玛丽娜·勒庞，还是2017年在美国大选中获胜的唐纳德·特朗普，抑或是已故委内瑞拉总统乌戈·查维斯，以及其他各国的民粹主义运动及其代表，都表明民粹主义势力在当今全球范围内呈现出上升趋势。民粹主义思潮及其运动由来已久，它发端于19世纪中期的俄国，至今已有一百余年的历史。具体而言，民粹主义崇尚平面化的平民民主，即所谓的“大民主”,强调底层民众的利益，因此其政治主张往往具有极大的吸引力和号召力，如同“塞壬的歌声”般极具诱惑，让人欲罢不能。然而，虽然民粹主义表面上光鲜亮丽，能够广泛动员社会成员，吸引普罗大众，但如果任其发展，则很难控制，具有极大的社会破坏性和杀伤力，后果是灾难性的。应当看到，民粹主义也构成了当前我国的一种社会思潮，如近年来大众媒体中出现的人肉搜索和攻击等网络暴力事件，以及围堵肯德基事件、反日游行中的打砸抢行为、极端民族主义言论等等，都是民粹主义思潮在社会现实中的体现。

Generally speaking, populism often engages in political activities under the banner of “the people,” but it is divided into left-wing and right-wing types. Neoliberalism largely manifests as right-wing populism. In *On Populist Reason*, Ernesto Laclau explored the strategy of constructing a “people’s” front through discourse theory for left-wing populism, and illustrated the mechanism of populist construction of “the people” through a diagram of antagonism.[16]16 Ernesto Laclau, *On Populist Reason* (London: Verso, 2005). Recently, Chantal Mouffe, who has long collaborated academically with Laclau, has raised the banner of left-wing populism again to revitalize left-wing populist theory. She first published *For a Left Populism* in 2019, followed by *Left-Wing Populism and the Power of Affect* in 2022. Slavoj Žižek, in *In Defense of Lost Causes*, fiercely criticized Laclau’s left-wing populist theory characterized by constructing “the people,” calling it “good enough in practice, but not good enough in theory.”[17]17 Slavoj Žižek, *In Defense of Lost Causes* (London: Verso, 2008), p. 264.

一般而言，民粹主义常常打着“人民”的旗号进行政治活动，但又划分为左翼和右翼两种。新自由主义大体表现为右翼民粹主义。恩斯特·拉克劳在《论民粹主义理性》中则对左翼民粹主义通过话语理论构建“人民”阵线的策略进行了探讨，并通过一个对抗的图表展现了民粹主义建构“人民”的机制。16最近，一直与拉克劳有着学术合作的查特尔·墨菲又祭起左翼民粹主义的大旗，以重振左翼民粹主义理论，她先是于2019出版了《写给左翼民粹主义》,接着又于2022年出版了《左翼民粹主义和情动的力量》。而齐泽克则在《捍卫失败的事业》中猛烈抨击拉克劳以建构“人民”为特征的左翼民粹主义理论，称这一理论“在实践上足够好，但在理论上却并不够好”17。

Compared with theoretical research on populism, populism in real society is indeed, as Žižek describes, highly ambiguous, complex, inflammatory, and destructive. It mainly stems from narrow nationalism and the emotional reactions of the lower classes, usually erupting at times of intensified social contradictions and economic crises. It uses inflammatory language and utopian political fantasies to redirect the anger and discontent of the masses toward opposition to the technocratic governance model of political elites. It is both a political trend, a political movement, and a political strategy. In political practice, it manifests as a rejection of technocratic elites and mainstream social systems, advocating equality and high social welfare, while externally opposing immigration and globalization. During Trump’s presidency, the construction of a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and a series of “withdrawals from groups” were manifestations of political populism. The destructiveness of populism is also evident in its tendency toward “conspiracy theories,” which establish a unified “people’s front” through the concrete identification of “enemies.” For example, Trump’s proposal to bring manufacturing back to the United States implicitly suggested that foreign workers had taken the cheese of the American unemployed.

与民粹主义理论研究相比较，民粹主义在现实社会中的确如齐泽克所描述的那样，极具模糊性、复杂性、煽动性和破坏性，它主要源自狭隘的民族主义和底层阶级的情绪性反应，通常发生于社会矛盾激化、经济危机产生的时刻，并借用煽动性的语言和乌托邦式的政治幻想，将群众的愤怒和不满转嫁到对政治精英的技术专家式治理模式的反对上。它既是一种政治思潮，又是一种政治运动，还是一种政治策略，在政治实践中具体表现为对技术精英及主流社会体制的拒斥，主张人人平等和社会高福利，对外则反对移民和全球化。特朗普执政时期在美国与墨西哥边境修建隔离墙，以及在任期间的一系列“退群”行为，都是政治民粹化的体现。民粹主义的破坏性还表现在其“阴谋论”的倾向中，即通过对“敌人”的具象化指认建立起统一的“人民”阵线，例如，特朗普提出的要让美国制造业回流，就内在地蕴含着国外工人抢走了美国失业群体的奶酪的暗示。

VII. The Social Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School and Its New Developments

七、法兰克福学派的社会批判理论及其新发展

Since its formation in Germany in the 1920s, the Frankfurt School has a history of nearly a hundred years and has now developed to its fourth generation. Facing the modern characteristics of capitalism and the alienation of technological rationality, the Frankfurt School has developed a unique social critical theory that continues to this day.

法兰克福学派自1920年代在德国形成至今，已经有了近百年的历史，目前已发展至第四代。面对资本主义的现代性特征和技术理性异化的现状，法兰克福学派发展出一种独具特色的社会批判理论，并延续至今。

The first generation of the Frankfurt School primarily targeted the Nazi atrocities during World War II, centering on rational reflection and technological critique to propose social critical theory. Its representatives were Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse. Horkheimer and Adorno discovered that reason, in the process of human liberation, turned into its opposite. Their dialectic of enlightenment argued: “Myth is already enlightenment, and enlightenment reverts to mythology.”[18]18 Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, *Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments*, ed. Gunzelin Schmid Noerr, trans. Edmund Jephcott (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002), p. xvi. On the one hand, enlightenment broke old myths, saving humans from fear of nature; on the other hand, enlightenment mystified itself, constructing another new “myth,” where blind obedience to and dependence on science and reason provided the possibility for fascist totalitarian rule. In other words, technological rationality, appearing in the guise of instrumental rationality, ultimately led to the domination of humans.

第一代法兰克福学派主要针对二战时期德国的纳粹暴行，以理性反思和技术批判为核心提出了社会批判理论，代表人物是马克斯·霍克海默、西奥多·阿多诺和赫伯特·马尔库塞。霍克海默和阿多诺发现，理性在人类解放的过程中走向了自己的对立面，他们提出的启蒙辩证法认为：“神话就是启蒙，而启蒙却倒退成了神话。”18一方面，启蒙打破了旧有的神话，将人从对自然的恐惧中拯救出来；另一方面，启蒙将自身神秘化，构造了另一种新“神话”,对科学、理性的盲从和依赖为法西斯的极权统治提供了可能。也就是说，技术理性以统治理性的面目出现，最终却走向对人的宰制。

The main theory of the second generation of the Frankfurt School is Jürgen Habermas’s theory of communicative action and discourse ethics. Unlike the first generation’s rejection of instrumental rationality, Habermas believed that modernity is an unfinished project, and philosophy should explain crises rather than merely criticize. Therefore, based on the tradition of rationalism, Habermas examined four manifestations of crisis in late capitalism: economic crisis, rationality crisis, legitimation crisis, and motivation crisis, pointing out that legitimation crisis is the main problem facing capitalism today. In Habermas’s view, communicative rationality is the main way to eliminate legitimation crisis. He replaced technological rationality and the subjectivity of Kantian philosophy with intersubjective communication, attempting to reconstruct Marx’s historical materialism with his theory of communicative action.

第二代法兰克福学派的主要理论是哈贝马斯的交往行动理论和商谈理论。不同于第一代对工具理性的排斥立场，哈贝马斯认为现代性是一项尚未完成的事业，哲学应该解释危机，而不是一味地进行批判。因此，哈贝马斯基于理性主义的传统考察了晚期资本主义危机的四种表现，即经济危机、合理性危机、合法化危机和动机危机，并指出合法化危机是当今资本主义面临的主要问题。在哈贝马斯看来，交往理性是消除合法化危机的主要途径。他用主体的交往取代了技术理性和康德哲学的主体性，并试图用其交往行动理论来重建马克思的历史唯物主义。

The representative of the third generation of the Frankfurt School is Axel Honneth. His theory of recognition and its pluralistic conception of justice mark the postmodern turn of social critical theory, that is, the “political-ethical turn.” Honneth applied Hegel’s theory of recognition and Habermas’s theory of social communication to the construction of his own theory of recognition. He argued that contemporary capitalist society contains contempt, repression, and misrecognition, so we must “struggle for recognition.” In his representative work *The Struggle for Recognition*, Honneth elaborated on three forms of recognition: emotional care, legal recognition, and social esteem. These three forms exist in the spheres of love, law, and solidarity, corresponding to individual self-confidence, self-respect, and self-esteem. Correspondingly, he developed a pluralistic conception of justice, arguing that justice aims to achieve individual autonomy and social recognition, specifically the principle of need in the sphere of love, the principle of equality in the sphere of law, and the principle of value in the sphere of cooperation. Honneth pointed out that the scope of forms of recognition and their principles can change with social development, thereby ensuring the validity of the theory of recognition. In addition, Honneth and Nancy Fraser engaged in a heated debate over “recognition or redistribution,” mainly concerning whether, from a postmodern perspective, the theory of recognition tends toward Marxian philosophy or is more closely related to Hegelian philosophy.

第三代法兰克福学派的代表人物是阿克塞尔·霍耐特，其承认理论及其多元正义构想标志着社会批判理论的后现代转向，也即“政治伦理转向”。霍耐特将黑格尔的承认学说与哈贝马斯的社会交往理论运用于自身的承认理论建构。他认为，当今资本主义社会存在着蔑视、压抑和误认，因此我们要“为承认而斗争”。在其代表性著作《为承认而斗争》中，霍耐特论述了承认关系的三种形式：情感关怀、法律承认和社会尊重。这三种形式分别存在于爱、法律和团结三个领域，并对应于个体的自信、自尊和自豪。与此相对应，他发展出了多元正义构想，认为正义旨在实现个体自主和社会承认，具体而言就是爱的领域的需要原则、法律领域的平等原则以及合作领域的价值原则。霍耐特指出，承认形式及其原则的范围可以随着社会发展而变化，以此来保障承认理论的有效性。此外，霍耐特与南希·弗雷泽围绕着“承认还是再分配”展开了激烈的争论，这主要体现为在后现代的视域下承认理论究竟是马克思哲学的趋向，还是更多地与黑格尔哲学相关联。

The fourth generation of the Frankfurt School is mainly represented by the political theory and practical philosophy of Rainer Forst, a student of Habermas. Following Honneth’s political-ethical turn, Forst combined the normative issues raised by Habermas in his later period with social and political justice, thereby pushing social critical theory to a deeper level. In *The Right to Justification: Elements of a Constructivist Theory of Justice*, he argued that social justice is based on the individual’s right to justification; through justification, people can prove themselves in normative situations. Therefore, achieving social and political justice requires “tolerance” and respect for others’ right to justification.

第四代法兰克福学派主要以哈贝马斯的学生莱纳·福斯特的政治理论和实践哲学为代表。继霍耐特的政治伦理转向之后，福斯特将哈贝马斯后期提出的规范性问题与社会政治正义相结合，从而将社会批判理论推向了更深层次。他在《辩护的权利：建构主义正义论的要素》中指出，社会正义是建立在个人辩护的权利基础之上的；通过辩护，人们能够在规范的情境中证明自己。因此，实现社会政治正义需要“宽容”,尊重他人辩护的权利。

VIII. The COVID-19 Pandemic and the Rise of Life Philosophy Studies

八、新冠疫情与生命哲学研究的兴起

The global spread of the COVID-19 pandemic beginning in early 2020 has made the issue of life philosophy in overseas Marxist studies an increasingly focused topic in academia. The main representative of life philosophy is Giorgio Agamben and his series of works, along with related scholars such as Walter Benjamin, Carl Schmitt, Michel Foucault, Hannah Arendt, and Slavoj Žižek. In his later work *Security, Territory, Population*, Foucault explored biopolitics in the sense of social governance, arguing that capitalism establishes control over biopower through knowledge and governance techniques. Agamben inherited Foucault’s focus on micro-power, and on the basis of synthesizing Martin Heidegger’s existentialism, Benjamin’s “bare life,” Arendt’s *The Human Condition*, and Schmitt’s theory of the “exception,” constructed a life philosophy under the state of exception.

2020年初开始全球蔓延的新冠疫情，使得国外马克思主义研究中的生命哲学问题日益成为学界关注的焦点。生命哲学的主要代表是吉奥乔·阿甘本及其系列著作，与此关联的还包括瓦尔特·本雅明、卡尔·施密特、米歇尔·福柯、汉娜·阿伦特和齐泽克等学者。福柯在其晚期著作《安全、领土与人口》中探讨了社会治安意义上的生命政治，他认为资本主义凭借着知识和治理技术建立起对生命权力的控制。阿甘本继承了福柯对微观权力的关注，在综合马丁·海德格尔的存在主义、本雅明的“赤裸生命”、阿伦特的《人的境况》以及施密特的“例外”理论的基础上，构建了例外状态下的生命哲学。

Agamben’s so-called state of exception refers to a state of crisis suspended outside law and norms, that is, “the point of imbalance between public law and political fact.”[19]19 Giorgio Agamben, *State of Exception*, trans. Kevin Attell (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), p. 2. This state can be analogized to the concept of “event” in Alain Badiou’s work and the concept of “surplus” in psychoanalysis. In the state of exception, the original social and political order is disrupted, the sovereign’s power transcends the law, and corresponding to the expansion of power is the gradual decline and dissolution of popular rights, which ultimately degenerate into bare life and stand in opposition to political power. On the one hand, the biological life of the individual is devoured by political life, becoming a subordinate existence; on the other hand, by means of the state of exception, political power reduces political life, turning the individual into “bare life” exposed to death and oppression. Agamben believes that, under the collusion of Western politics and law, the state of exception is becoming the true norm, and power acquires a quasi-legal status through its intervention in the law. Although political power lacks the “name” of law, it possesses the “substance” of law.

阿甘本所谓的例外状态，指的是悬置于法律与规范之外的危机状态，也即“公法与政治事实的失衡点”19,这一状态可以类比于阿兰·巴迪欧文本中的“事件”和精神分析中的“剩余”概念。在例外状态下，原有的社会政治秩序被打乱，主权者的权力超脱于法律之上，与权力扩张相对应的是民众权利的逐步式微与消解，最终沦为赤裸的生命而与政治权力相对立。一方面，个体的生物生命被政治生命所吞噬，沦为附属性的存在；另一方面，借助例外状态，政治权力对政治生命进行削减，使个体成为暴露在死亡与压迫面前的“赤裸生命”。阿甘本认为，在西方政治与法律的合谋下，例外状态正在成为真正的常态，权力通过对法律的干预而具有了类法律性的地位。政治权力虽然无法律之“名”,但却具有法律之“实”。

In the book *Homo Sacer*, Agamben points out that, as a domain beyond the control of law, the state of exception strips people of all their basic rights, and even human life is utterly unprotected, thereby creating the bare state of human life. The sovereign, through punishment, makes the efficacy of the law itself manifest. It is in this sense that Agamben asserts that the state of modern human life is reduced to a purely biological, animal-like existence, that is, the meaning of his “homo sacer.” In March 2020, Agamben stated in a declaration that we are falling into a state of exception due to the plague, and those in power are trying to make us adapt to this state of exception in order to normalize it. In this state, people are stripped of their social, political, and emotional dimensions, “living in a society that sacrifices freedom for so-called ‘security reasons,’ and therefore destined to live in a state of permanent fear and insecurity.” However, while this state of exception brings chaos to society, it also creates opportunities. On the new starting point constructed by the state of exception, people can, through the “messianic moment,” break through the gaps in the order of power and achieve the liberation of life.[20]20 Giorgio Agamben, “The State of Exception Provoked by an Unmotivated Emergency,” trans. anonymous, *Positions Politics*, March 2020.

在《牲人》一书中，阿甘本指出，作为律法无法控制的领域，例外状态使人在其中的一切基本权利都被剥夺了，甚至人的生命也毫无保障，这就造就了人的生命的赤裸状态。主权者又通过惩罚，使法律本身的效力彰显出来。正是在此意义上，阿甘本断言现代人的生命状态被还原为纯粹生物性的牲畜般存在，也即其“牲人”之意。2020年3月，阿甘本在一份声明中提到，我们正由于瘟疫而陷入例外状态，并且执政者正在试图让我们适应这一例外状态以便使其常态化，在这种状态下，人们被剥夺了社会、政治和情感的维度，“生活在一个为了所谓的‘安全理性’而牺牲自由的社会里，也因此注定生活在永久的恐惧和不安状态中”。不过，这种例外状态在给社会带来混乱的同时，也创造了机会，在例外状态构筑的新起点上，人们能够借助“弥赛亚时刻”冲出权力秩序的缝隙，获得生命的解放。20

IX. Postmodernism and Post-Marxist Currents

九、后现代主义与后马克思主义思潮

At the beginning of the 21st century, Chinese academic circles began to pay attention to the post-Marxist current. This current emerged after capitalist society entered postmodern society, and its representative figures include scholars such as Ernesto Laclau, Chantal Mouffe, Slavoj Žižek, and Judith Butler.

21世纪初，国内学界开始关注后马克思主义思潮。该思潮是在资本主义社会进入后现代社会后兴起的，代表人物有拉克劳、墨菲、齐泽克以及朱迪斯·巴特勒等学者。

Laclau and Mouffe developed Gramsci’s theory of cultural and political hegemony, so their theoretical propositions are also called “neo-Gramscianism.” Their main content can be summarized as follows. (1) On the basis of Gramsci’s logic of hegemony, they integrated Foucault’s critique of micro-power and Lacan’s psychoanalytic theory to construct a theory of hegemonic articulation centered on the logic of antagonism, dislocation, and contingency. They argue that classical Marxism’s theory of class struggle and violent revolution is no longer applicable to modern society with its diversified social strata, and therefore advocate replacing Marx’s concept of “contradiction” and class struggle theory with a theory of social antagonism. (2) They replace the subject with subject positions; therefore, for them, the subject of revolution is no longer the working class as a specific group, but women, immigrants, people of color, and others on the margins of society. The mode of revolution is no longer Marx’s class struggle but adopts a left-wing populist strategy to construct a “people’s” front. (3) They oppose economic determinism, re-examine the relationship between the economic base and politics, and emphasize the revolutionary guiding role of political hegemony and cultural ideology. In short, on the one hand, Laclau and Mouffe oppose Marx’s exposition on violent revolution and the determining role of the economic base, advocating social reform; on the other hand, they claim that their theory is “Marxist.” Their “post-Marxism” is manifested, first, in their research method being Marx’s method of social critique; second, although the object of their concern is no longer the working class as a subject, it is the poor strata and marginalized groups in society. For example, the 2020 “Black Lives Matter” (BLM) movement in the United States is, to some extent, a contemporary real-world manifestation of this post-Marxist current.

拉克劳和墨菲发展了葛兰西的文化和政治霸权理论，因此其理论主张又被称为“新葛兰西主义”,其主要内容可以概括为以下几点。(1)在葛兰西霸权逻辑的基础上，他们融合了福柯的微观权力批判与拉康的精神分析理论，构建了以对抗、错位、偶然性逻辑为核心的霸权接合理论。他们认为经典马克思主义的阶级斗争及其暴力革命理论已经不适用于当今社会阶层多元化的现代社会，因此主张用社会对抗理论来取代马克思的“矛盾”概念和阶级斗争理论。(2)他们用主体身份来替代主体，因此在他们那里，革命的主体不再是作为特定群体的工人阶级，而是处于社会边缘的妇女、外来移民、有色人种等；革命的方式也不再是马克思的阶级斗争，而是采取左翼民粹主义的策略以建构“人民”阵线。(3)他们反对经济决定论，并重新探讨了经济基础与政治之间的关系，强调政治霸权与文化意识形态的革命性引导作用。总之，拉克劳和墨菲一方面反对马克思关于暴力革命和经济基础的决定作用的论述，主张社会改良；另一方面又声称其理论是“马克思主义”的。他们的“后马克思主义”一是表现为其研究方法是马克思的社会批判方法论；二是其关注对象虽然不再是工人阶级这一主体，但却是社会的贫困阶层和边缘群体。比如，2020年美国的“黑人的命也是命”(BLM)运动或多或少就是这种后马克思主义思潮在当代的现实表现。

The Western left-wing scholar Slavoj Žižek is more radical than the post-Marxism of Laclau and Mouffe. On the one hand, in *The Sublime Object of Ideology*, he analyzes, from the perspective of ideology and commodity fetishism, the “symptomatic” characteristic of the subject’s subordination to fetishism in capitalist commodity society, that is, the subject’s difficulty in escaping what Lukács called the “reification” of commodity society. On the other hand, in *The Ticklish Subject* and *In Defense of Lost Causes*, he uses Lacan’s psychoanalytic theory to propose an alternative revolutionary subject, attempting to replace the “reified” subject with a “hysterical” acting subject. The greatest feature of Žižek’s radical left-wing theory lies in its connection of Marx with Lacan’s psychoanalytic theory, German classical philosophy, especially the thought of Kant and Hegel, and on this basis, a reinterpretation of Marx’s theory, thereby forming his unique left-wing Marxism with a psychoanalytic dimension.

西方左翼学者齐泽克则比拉克劳和墨菲的后马克思主义更为激进。一方面，在《意识形态的崇高客体》中，他从意识形态和商品拜物教的角度分析了资本主义商品社会中主体屈从于拜物教的“症候”性特征，即主体难以摆脱卢卡奇所谓的商品社会的“物化”状况。另一方面，在《敏感的主体》和《捍卫失败的事业》中，他又借助拉康的精神分析理论提出了另类的革命主体，试图用“歇斯底里的”行动主体来取代“被物化的”主体。齐泽克的激进左翼理论的最大特征在于其将马克思与拉康的精神分析理论、德国古典哲学、特别是康德和黑格尔的思想联系起来，并在此基础上重新解读马克思的理论，从而形成了其独具特色的精神分析维度的左翼马克思主义。

Butler, from the perspective of postmodernism, proposes a “queer” theory based on gender distinction and equality claims, and advocates replacing “identity politics” with performative “performativity.”

巴特勒则从后现代主义的视野提出了基于性别区分和平等主张的“酷儿”理论，并主张以行动性的“述行”来替代“身份政治”。

X. Spatial Critique and Urban Marxist Studies

十、空间批判与城市马克思主义研究

The study of spatial philosophy and urban issues has been one of the hot topics in academic circles in recent years. The founder of the overseas Marxist theory of spatial critique is the French scholar Henri Lefebvre. His theoretical research can be divided into an early and a later period. The early period mainly focused on the critique of everyday life, while the later period turned to the study of space and urban issues. In *Critique of Everyday Life*, Lefebvre reveals the total alienation of human beings caused by the expansion of capitalism, that is, alienation occurs not only in the sphere of labor production but also penetrates into people’s everyday life; leisure activities and living spaces are also incorporated into the capitalist system. Concern for the state of urban everyday life led Lefebvre to shift the focus of his theoretical research from time to space. In his later work *The Production of Space*, Lefebvre elaborates on the triadic constitution of physical space, social space, and mental space in urban space. Lefebvre’s “spatial turn” directly triggered the development of spatial critical theory and urban sociology.

空间哲学与城市问题的研究是近年来学界关注的热点之一。国外马克思主义空间批判理论的创始人当首推法国学者亨利·列斐伏尔，其理论研究可以分为前后两个时期，前期主要关注日常生活批判，后期则转向空间和城市问题研究。在《日常生活批判》中，列斐伏尔揭示了资本主义扩张所导致的人的全面异化，即异化不仅发生在劳动生产领域，还深入到人的日常生活，休闲活动和生活场所也被纳入到资本主义体系之中。对城市日常生活状况的关注，使得列斐伏尔将理论研究的视野从时间转向空间。在其晚期著作《空间的生产》中，列斐伏尔阐述了城市空间中物质空间、社会空间和精神空间的三元构成。列斐伏尔的这一“空间转向”直接引发了空间批判理论和城市社会学的发展。

Harvey combines geographical research with spatial philosophy to construct a spatial critical theory under historical-geographical materialism from a postmodern perspective. He inherits and develops the Marxist theory of uneven development of capitalism and Lefebvre’s theory of “the production of space,” and, starting from the city as the main territorial unit, demonstrates the core argument that capitalism must exist and continue through the production of space. Harvey divides space into absolute space, relative space, and relational space. His spatial critical theory mainly includes the following three dimensions: first, the critique of spatial philosophy and the production mechanism of capitalist space, corresponding to Marx’s theory of capital reproduction; second, the study of urban philosophy and spatial justice, and on this basis, a critique of neoliberalism’s attempt to capitalize urban construction; third, the production of space and the theory of the new imperialism. Harvey argues that the city has become the core of capitalist spatial issues. Contemporary capitalism, through its control of space, or by “annihilating space with time,” enables capitalism to continue and develop, ultimately forming a spatial production system that extends from the city to the region, the nation-state, and the globe.

哈维将地理学研究与空间哲学相结合，从后现代的角度构建了历史—地理唯物主义下的空间批判理论。他继承并发扬了马克思主义关于资本主义发展不平衡的理论以及列斐伏尔的“空间的生产”理论，从城市这一主要地域单元出发论证了资本主义必须通过空间的生产才能存在和延续的核心观点。哈维将空间分为绝对空间、相对空间和关系空间。其空间批判理论主要包含如下三个维度：其一是空间哲学与资本主义的空间生产机制批判，以对应于马克思的资本再生产理论；其二是城市哲学与空间正义问题研究，并在此基础上批判了新自由主义将城市建设资本化的企图；其三是空间生产与新帝国主义理论。哈维认为，城市成为资本主义空间问题的核心，当代资本主义通过对空间的掌控，或者“以时间消灭空间”,使资本主义得以延续和发展，最终形成了以城市为主延伸到区域—国家—全球的空间生产体系。

Edward Soja is primarily known for his concept of “heterotopia”—also called “thirdspace.” The so-called “thirdspace” is a “space of difference” that fuses the real and the imaginary, an “otherized” space, a space of possibility that transcends traditional binary epistemological space. This space is in fact a space from the perspective of postmodern geography, directly derived from Lefebvre’s “triadic” concept of space: spatial practice, representations of space, and spaces of representation. On this basis, Soja introduces the “other” into space; the “eternal presence of the other” injects a critical consciousness of creating difference into the philosophical critique of space, blasting homogeneous space into heterogeneous space and transforming static reality into fluid reality. Soja’s “thirdspace” is a space that integrates this openness and creativity, an ideal environment for free communication and an impenetrable labyrinth. Soja further proposed the concept of “spatial justice” on the basis of his “thirdspace” concept and subjected it to analytical critique.

爱德华·索亚主要以其提出的“异质空间”——也被称为“第三空间”——而闻名。所谓“第三空间”,就是融构了真实与想象的“差异空间”,一种“他者化”的空间，一种超越了传统二元论认识空间的可能性空间。这一空间其实就是后现代地理学视域下的空间，它直接来源于列斐伏尔的“三元组合”的空间概念：空间实践、空间的再现和再现的空间。在此基础上，索亚将“他者”引入到空间中，“他者之永恒存在”为空间哲学批判注入了一种创造差异的批判意识，将同质性空间爆破成异质性的空间，将静态的真实转化成流动的真实。索亚的“第三空间”是集这种开放性与创造性为一体的空间，是一个理想的自由交流环境，以及一个无法穿越的迷宫。索亚还在其“第三空间”概念的基础上进一步提出了“空间正义”的构想，并进行了分析批判。

Another representative figure in the philosophy of space is Manuel Castells. Castells’s critique of space primarily revolves around issues of urbanization, informatization, and globalization, with themes involving a critique of the Chicago School and critiques of “collective consumption” and urban social movements. He advocates establishing a “scientific object” for the theoretical study of urban studies and attempts to construct a new “structuralist Marxist” urban theory system to explain the structure and process of capitalist urbanization.

空间哲学的另一个代表性人物是曼纽尔·卡斯特。卡斯特的空间批判主要围绕着都市化、信息化和全球化问题展开，其主题涉及对芝加哥学派的批判，以及对“集体消费”和城市社会运动的批判。他倡导建立城市学理论研究的“科学对象”,并试图构建一个新的“结构主义的马克思主义”城市理论体系，以解释资本主义城市化的结构和进程。

XI. Conclusion

十一、结语

In addition to the ten major social currents of thought mentioned above, overseas Marxist studies are also widely distributed across fields such as philosophy, political science, history, and economics. Combining with the latest theoretical resources in academia, they have produced schools such as Existentialist Marxism, Feminist Marxism, Analytical Marxism, Structuralist Marxism, Psychoanalytic Marxism, Dependency Theory, and Eastern European Marxism. Furthermore, since the beginning of the 21st century, Japanese Marxist studies have risen prominently, and the theoretical views of left-wing scholars such as Hiromatsu Wataru, Mochizuki Kiyoshi, and Kojin Karatani have also attracted attention from domestic academia. All of this demonstrates the open and inclusive character of overseas Marxist studies. A large number of overseas Marxist theorists and left-wing scholars are committed to combining Marxism with the characteristics of the present era, thereby responding to the questions of the times, showcasing the powerful vitality and explanatory power of Marxist theory. We may not agree with their specific views, but their research methods and the issues they explore are what we should pay attention to.

除了上述所提及的十种主要社会思潮外，国外马克思主义研究还广泛分布于哲学、政治学、历史学、经济学等诸多领域，并与学界最新的理论资源相结合，产生了诸如存在主义的马克思主义、女性主义的马克思主义、分析的马克思主义、结构主义的马克思主义、精神分析的马克思主义、依附理论、东欧马克思主义等流派。此外，进入21世纪以来，日本的马克思主义研究异军突起，广松涉、望月清司、柄谷行人等左翼学者的理论观点也引起了国内学界的关注。所有这些都展现了国外马克思主义研究兼容并蓄的开放性特征。一大批国外马克思主义理论家和左翼学者致力于将马克思主义与当今时代特征相结合，以此回应时代之问，展示了马克思主义理论强大的生命力和解释力。我们可以不认可他们的具体观点，但他们的研究方法及其所探讨的问题则是我们应该关注的。

Notes:

注释：

1 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 5, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 91.

1《马克思恩格斯文集》第5卷,人民出版社2009年版,第91页。

2 Antonio Gramsci, *Prison Notebooks*, translated by Bao Xi, People’s Publishing House, 1983, p. 83.

2安东尼奥·葛兰西:《狱中札记》,葆熙译,人民出版社1983年版,第83页。

3 Louis Althusser, *Philosophy and Politics: An Althusser Reader*, translated by Chen Yue, Jilin People’s Publishing House, 2003, p. 334.

3路易·阿尔都塞:《哲学与政治:阿尔都塞读本》,陈越译,吉林人民出版社2003年版,第334页。

4 Slavoj Žižek, *The Sublime Object of Ideology*, translated by Ji Guangmao, Central Compilation & Translation Press, 2014, p. 45.

4斯拉沃热·齐泽克:《意识形态的崇高客体》,季广茂译,中央编译出版社2014年版,第45页。

5 Kong Ming’an and Tan Yong, “On the Recognition Mechanism of Ideology: An Analysis Based on the Ideological Theories of Althusser, Pêcheux, and Žižek,” in *Social Sciences Abroad*, No. 3, 2020.

5孔明安、谭勇:《论意识形态的承认机制——基于阿尔都塞、佩肖和齐泽克意识形态理论的分析》,载《国外社会科学》2020年第3期。

6 Dan Schiller, *Digital Capitalism*, translated by Yang Liping, Jiangxi People’s Publishing House, 2001, p. 5.

6丹·席勒:《数字资本主义》,杨立平译,江西人民出版社2001年版,第5页。

7 Christian Fuchs, *Digital Labour and Karl Marx*, translated by Zhou Yanyun, People’s Publishing House, 2020, p. 465.

7克里斯蒂安·福克斯:《数字劳动和卡尔·马克思》,周延云译,人民出版社2020年版,第465页。

8 *Lenin’s Collected Works: On Capitalism*, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 208.

8《列宁专题文集:论资本主义》,人民出版社2009年版,第208页。

9 David Harvey, *The New Imperialism*, translated by Chu Lizhong and Shen Xiaolei, Social Sciences Academic Press, 2009, p. 94.

9大卫·哈维:《新帝国主义》,初立忠、沈小雷译,社会科学文献出版社2009年版,第94页。

10 Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, *Empire: The Global Political Order*, translated by Yang Jianguo and Fan Yiting, Jiangsu People’s Publishing House, 2008, p. 284.

10麦克尔·哈特、安东尼奥·奈格里:《帝国——全球化的政治秩序》,杨建国、范一亭译,江苏人民出版社2008年版,第284页。

11 Jürgen Habermas, *Between Facts and Norms*, translated by Tong Shijun, SDX Joint Publishing Company, 2014, p. 2.

11于尔根·哈贝马斯:《在事实与规范之间》,童世骏译,生活·读书·新知三联书店2014年版,第2页。

12 G. A. Cohen, *Rescuing Justice and Equality*, translated by Chen Wei, Fudan University Press, 2014, p. 15.

12G.A.科恩:《拯救正义与平等》,陈伟译,复旦大学出版社2014年版,第15页。

13 John Bellamy Foster, *Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature*, translated by Liu Rensheng and Xiao Feng, Higher Education Press, 2006, pp. 157–158.

13约翰·贝拉米·福斯特:《马克思的生态学——唯物主义与自然》,刘仁胜、肖峰译,高等教育出版社2006年版,第157—158页。

14 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 9, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 559.

14《马克思恩格斯文集》第9卷,人民出版社2009年版,第559页。

15 See Kong Ming’an, “A New Interpretation of the Relationship between Humans and Nature: Revisiting the Contemporary Implications of Engels’s *Dialectics of Nature*,” in *Journal of Beijing Administration Institute*, No. 5, 2020.

15参见孔明安:《人与自然关系的新阐释——再论恩格斯〈自然辩证法〉的当代意蕴》,载《北京行政学院学报》2020年第5期。

16 Ernesto Laclau, *On Populist Reason*, London: Verso, 2005, p. 130.

16Ernesto Laclau,On Populist Reason,London:Verso,2005,p.130.

17 Slavoj Žižek, *In Defense of Lost Causes*, New York: Verso, 2008, p. 264.

17Slavoj Žižek,In Defense of Lost Causes,New York:Verso,2008,p.264.

18 Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, *Dialectic of Enlightenment*, translated by Qu Jingdong and Cao Weidong, Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 2006, p. 5.

18马克斯·霍克海默、西奥多·阿多诺:《启蒙辩证法》,渠敬东、曹卫东译,上海人民出版社2006年版,第5页。

19 Giorgio Agamben, *State of Exception*, translated by Kevin Attell, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005, p. 1.

19Giorgio Agamben,State of Exception,translated by Kevin Attell,Chicago:University of Chicago Press,2005,p.1.

20 See Agamben’s “Chiarimenti” published on March 31, 2020, on the blog of the Italian publisher Quodlibet, in response to Italian journalist Paolo Dalcais’s critical article “Filosofia e virus: le farneticazioni di Giorgio Agamben.”

20参见阿甘本于2020年3月31日在意大利自由辩论出版社(Quodlibet)的博客上发布的《声明》(“Chiarimenti”),该声明是为了回应意大利记者保罗·达尔卡伊斯的批评文章《哲学与病毒:阿甘本的幻觉》(“Filosofia e virus:le farneticazioni di Giorgio Agamben”)。

Online Editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑