“Marxism in the Anthropocene”: Origins, Content Analysis, and Theoretical Critique

As Engels said: “Any field in the relationship between human knowledge and human life, even the most obscure field, cannot but have an effect on social revolution, and at the same time cannot but undergo certain changes under the influence of this revolution.” [1]1 This is a quotation from Friedrich Engels, *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (1886). As a cutting-edge concept that emerged from the field of geology and gradually radiated its influence across interdisciplinary domains, the “Anthropocene” not only marks a re-evaluation of the comprehensive impact of human activity within geological research, but also signifies the birth of a new discourse of environmental knowledge. As the concept of the “Anthropocene” and its knowledge products continue to release their efficacy in the research fields of contemporary environmental humanities and social sciences, some novel and original issues have begun to form and ferment. Among these, the issue of “Marxism in the Anthropocene” (or “Marxism of the Anthropocene”), which originated in European and American intellectual circles around 2010, deserves particular attention and critique. The core intent of the discussion on this issue is to use the discursive heat and theoretical tool effects of the “Anthropocene” category and its knowledge products to provide a certain path of “reflection” and “expansion” for the development of contemporary ecological Marxism and Marxist research, thereby achieving a theoretical activation of the capitalist ecological critique and the socialist ecological vision. Based on the complexity and cutting-edge nature of the “Marxism in the Anthropocene” issue, this article intends to start from a clarification of the genealogy of the Anthropocene category and its knowledge products, reveal the theoretical background for the rise of the “Marxism in the Anthropocene” issue, and through combing textual clues, glimpse the various divergent viewpoints within this issue, ultimately completing its substantive analysis and macroscopic evaluation.

正如恩格斯所言：“人类知识和人类生活关系中的任何领域，哪怕是最生僻的领域，无不对社会革命发生作用，同时也无不在这一革命的影响下发生某些变化。”作为一个出场于地质学界并将影响力逐步辐散到跨学科领域的前沿性概念，“人类世”(Anthropocene)不仅标志着地质学研究对于人类活动综合影响能效进入重估阶段，也意味着一套新的环境知识话语的诞生。随着“人类世”概念及其知识产物不断在当代环境人文社会科学的研究场域中释放能效，一些具有新异性与原创性的议题开始形成并发酵，其中，2010年前后滥觞于欧美思想界的“人类世的马克思主义”(Marxism in the Anthropocene/Marxism of the Anthropocene)议题尤其值得关注和批判。这一议题讨论的核心意旨在于通过“人类世”范畴及其知识产物的话语热度与理论工具效应，对当代的生态马克思主义与马克思主义研究提供某种发展路径上的“反思”与“扩容”,从而实现对资本主义生态批判与社会主义生态构想的理论激活。基于“人类世的马克思主义”议题的复杂性与前沿性，本文拟从人类世范畴及其知识产物的谱系澄清出发，揭示出“人类世的马克思主义”议题兴起的理论背景，并通过文本线索的梳理窥见其议题内部的种种差异性观点，最终完成其实质解析与宏观评价。

I. The Theoretical Background of the Rise of the “Marxism in the Anthropocene” Issue

一、“人类世的马克思主义”议题源起的理论背景

In the most general sense, the “Anthropocene” has three basic meanings. First, humanity’s capacity for natural intervention has shifted from “quantitative accumulation” to “qualitative change”; humans are now capable of exerting geological influence on the entire planetary ecosystem. The particularity of humans as a highly influential “geological force” relative to other biological populations has received empirical support from a considerable number of scholars. Second, the geological epoch currently faced by humanity is not a “well-ordered” environment; both humanity and the entire planetary ecosystem face increasingly severe ecological risks. These risks can no longer be simply summarized by shallow terms such as “land pollution,” “environmental destruction,” “resource extraction,” or “epidemic disease”; instead, they must be replaced by deep terms such as “species extinction,” “systemic crisis,” “ecosystem collapse,” or even “planetary extinction.” Third, as an intelligent species possessing certain resource bases and still having the capacity (at least the potential) to attempt to save the ecosystem, humanity faces an urgent and fundamental choice of development model. Which model of political, economic, and cultural resource allocation to choose in order to confront the systemic challenges of the living environment has become a common problem facing all of humanity. In any case, the “Anthropocene” will create a more transformative and radical theoretical situation, because the adjustment, planning, and determination of a model for civilizational development is no longer merely a consideration of “optimization,” but has become an inevitable trend that must be undertaken and is a matter of life and death. The “Marxism in the Anthropocene” issue that this article focuses on originated and developed precisely under this trend.

在最为一般的意义上，“人类世”有三重基本意涵。其一，人类的自然干预能力已经从“量的积累”转向“质的变化”,人类已经足以对整个行星生态系统产生地质影响，人类作为一种强影响性的“地质力量”(Geological Force)相对于其他生物种群的特殊性已经得到了相当数量学者的实证支持。其二，当前人类所面临的地质年代并非一个“良序”环境，人类及整个行星生态系统都面临着日趋严峻的生态风险。这种风险已经不能被简单概括为“土地污染”“环境破坏”“资源榨取”“疫病流行”等浅程度术语，取而代之的将是“物种灭绝”“系统性危机”“生态系统崩溃”甚或“行星灭亡”等深程度术语。其三，作为拥有一定资源基础、尚有能力(至少是潜能)尝试拯救生态系统的智能物种，人类面临着急迫且根本性的发展模式选择，究竟选择何种政治经济文化资源配置模式以应对生存环境系统性挑战，成为全体人类共同面对的难题。无论如何，“人类世”将会造成一种更强变革性与激进性的理论局面，因为文明发展模式的调整、筹划与确定已经不再只是一种“优化”维度的考量，而已经成为一种不可不为、生死攸关的必然趋势。本文所着力关注的“人类世的马克思主义”议题，正是在这一趋势之下源起与发展。

To elaborate on the origin and development process of the “Marxism in the Anthropocene” issue, it is first necessary to clarify the ins and outs of the “Anthropocene” concept. The “Anthropocene” concept in its contemporary sense was first created by biologist Eugene Stoermer in the late 1980s, but its true entry into public view dates back to the early 21st century. In 2000, Dutch scholar Paul Crutzen, who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for ozone layer research, and Stoermer jointly published the article “The Anthropocene” in the *Global Change Newsletter*. They argued that humans, as a geological force, have already had an irreversible impact on the Earth’s ecosystem; unless major disasters such as volcanic eruptions or planetary collisions occur, humans will inevitably exist as a significant geological force for thousands or even millions of years. In 2002, Crutzen published the article “Geology of Mankind” in the journal *Nature*, more explicitly calling for the use of “Anthropocene” as a concept for distinguishing epochs in the new geological sense. These two articles and the emergence of the “Anthropocene” concept caused a stir, sparking various debates within the geological community regarding the geological positioning of the human population and the division of geological epochs. Regarding the motivation for using this new concept of “Anthropocene” to supplement the traditional geological epoch concept of the “Holocene,” Crutzen believed that the influence of humans on the geological environment has gradually reached a dominant magnitude that cannot be ignored. Therefore, “it seems appropriate to assign the term ‘Anthropocene’ to the present, in many ways human-dominated, geological epoch, supplementing the Holocene—the warm period of the past 10–12 millennia.” [2]2 Paul J. Crutzen, “Geology of Mankind,” *Nature* 415, no. 6867 (2002): 23. In other words, in Crutzen’s view, the “Anthropocene” signifies an era in which humans, within their historical cycle of derivation and evolution, have continuously and substantially altered the natural environment through practices such as large-scale agricultural cultivation, natural resource extraction, pollutant emissions, and military and technological experiments, leaving deep traces in various parts of the Earth’s geological structure. In this era, humans must be regarded as a geological force with strong influence, and cannot be simply classified as some kind of environmental parasite or “passerby” of the geological epoch.

要阐述“人类世的马克思主义”议题的源起与发展过程，就需要首先理清“人类世”概念的来龙去脉。当代意义上的“人类世”概念由生物学家尤金·斯托默(Eugene Stoermer)初创于20世纪80年代后期，但这一概念真正进入公众视野，则要追溯到21世纪初。2000年，因臭氧层研究而获得诺贝尔化学奖的荷兰学者保罗·克鲁岑(Paul Crutzen)与斯托默在《全球变化通讯》上联合发表的《人类世》一文，认为人类作为一种地质力量已经对地球生态系统产生了不可逆转的影响，除非发生诸如火山喷发、行星碰撞之类的重大灾祸，人类必将作为一个重要的地质力量存在数千年甚至数百万年之久。2002年，克鲁岑在《自然》杂志上发表《人类地质学》一文，更为明确地呼吁使用“人类世”作为一种新地质学意义上的时代区分概念。这两篇文章及“人类世”概念的出场一石激起千层浪，掀起了地质学界关于人类种群地质学定位与地质年代划分的诸般争论。在使用“人类世”这一新概念补充“全新世”的传统地质年代概念的动机上，克鲁岑认为，人类对于地质环境的影响力已经逐渐达到了一个不可忽视的主导量级，因此，“将‘人类世’一词赋予目前这个在许多方面由人类主导的地质年代似乎是合适的，它为‘全新世’——过去10～12个千年的温暖期做了补充”。换而言之，在克鲁岑看来，“人类世”意味着人类在其衍生、演进的历史周期内不断通过规模农业栽培、自然资源攫取、污染物排放、军事与技术试验等实践活动大幅度改变自然环境以至在地球的地质结构各处留下深刻痕迹的时代，在这个时代内，人类必须被视作一种具有强影响能力的地质力量，而不能被简单地归为某种环境赘生物或曰地质年代的“过客”。

Despite their enormous influence, Stoermer and Crutzen are by no means the earliest proponents of the “Anthropocene” idea. Starting from the late 18th century, some naturalists and geologists had already advocated for paying more attention to the important role of humanity as a subjective force when considering the natural environment. For example, Comte de Buffon emphasized in *Natural History* that “the entire face of the Earth today bears the imprint of human power,” arguing that humans and nature together constitute two forces influencing the world’s appearance. [3]3 Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, *Natural History* (1749–1788). By the latter half of the 19th century, with the development of geological research and technological progress, more scholars began to attempt to construct a concept of a geological epoch that could reveal the significant efficacy of human influence. For instance, Thomas Jenkyn proposed the term “Human Epoch” in his geology lectures; Antonio Stoppani referred to the era of human life as the “Anthropozoic era.” [4]4 Thomas Jenkyn (1794–1858) was a British geologist; Antonio Stoppani (1824–1891) was an Italian geologist and paleontologist. In the first half of the 20th century, scholars such as Aleksei Pavlov and Vladimir Vernadsky pushed this construction of a “Human Epoch” towards maturity. In 1922, Pavlov explicitly proposed the term “Anthropogenic System Period or Anthropocene” to describe the composition of the geological driving forces of the current era. [5]5 Aleksei Pavlov (1854–1929) was a Russian geologist. Vernadsky sought to unify human spiritual activity with the evolutionary process of the biosphere, proposing the concept of the “Noösphere,” further highlighting the importance of human activity for the division of geological epochs. It is precisely based on the accumulation of these theoretical resources that the influence of the “Anthropocene” category could be fully exerted. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that the “cross-border effectiveness” of the “Anthropocene” category is closely related to the increasingly severe environmental crises since the 20th century and the “apocalyptic complex” in the cultural sphere. It not only signifies the emergence of new ideas regarding epochal division in the field of geology, but also marks the “cultural, psychological, political, and social critique” and self-reflexivity of humans in the process of transforming nature. [6]6 The term “self-reflexivity” (自反) here refers to a critical, self-aware examination of human actions and their consequences.

尽管影响力巨大，但斯托默与克鲁岑绝非“人类世”这一设想的最早提出者。从18世纪末开始，一些博物学家和地质学家就已经主张在考量自然环境时更多地关注人类这一主体性力量的重要作用，如布封(Comte de Buffon)在《自然史》中强调“今天地球的整个面貌都打上了人类力量的印记”,认为人与自然共同构成影响世界面貌的两股力量。及至19世纪后叶，随着地质学研究的发展与技术的进步，更多的学者开始尝试构建出一个能够揭示人类重大影响能效的地质年代概念，如詹金(Thomas Jenkyn)在其所讲授的地质课上提出“人类时代”的说法、斯托帕尼(Antonio Stoppani)将人类生活的时代称作“人类代”(Anthropozoic era)等。20世纪上半叶，巴甫洛夫(Aleksei Pavlov)、沃尔纳德斯基(Vladimir Vernadsky)等学者，将这种对“人类时代”的建构推向成型：巴甫洛夫于1922年明确提出了“人类系统时期或人类世”(Anthropogenic System Period or Anthropocene)的说法，用之描述目前时代的地质推动力量构成。沃尔纳德斯基则力图将人类的精神活动与生物圈的演进过程统一，提出了“人类圈”(Noösphere)概念，进一步突出了人类活动对于地质年代划分的重要性。正是基于上述理论资源的积累，“人类世”范畴的影响才能得到充分发挥。与此同时，必须承认的是，“人类世”范畴的“跨界生效”与20世纪以来日趋严峻的环境危机以及文化领域的“末世情结”关系甚密，它不仅意味着地质学领域对于时代划分的新观念的产生，亦标志着人类在改造自然过程中的“文化、心理、政治、社会层面的批判”与自反。

After 2008, under the repeated reiteration and advocacy of geologists such as Jan Zalasiewicz, the influence of the category of the “Anthropocene” and its intellectual products has become increasingly prominent. Environmental historian John R. McNeill believes that “the Anthropocene is not only a geological concept but also a political concept.” As the concept of the “Anthropocene” and its theoretical products have attracted growing attention, writings exploring and interpreting the “Anthropocene” from theoretical perspectives such as environmental philosophy, environmental politics, environmental ethics, literary criticism theory, and ecological Marxism have continued to emerge. It is against this background that the issue of “Marxism in the Anthropocene” gradually took shape, and “socialist ecological theorists quickly accepted the explanatory power of the Anthropocene, which emphasizes the epoch-making rise of modern human society as the dominant planetary geological force shaping Earth’s systems.” [7]7 John Bellamy Foster, “Marxism in the Anthropocene: Dialectical Rifts on a Planetary Scale,” *Monthly Review* 67, no. 10 (2016): 1.

2008年后，在扎拉斯维奇(Jan Zalasiewicz)等地质学者的反复重申与倡议之下，“人类世”范畴及其知识产物的影响力攀升趋势愈发显著。环境史学家麦克尼尔(John R.McNeill)认为，“人类世在是地质学概念的同时，也是一个政治学的概念”。随着“人类世”概念及其理论产物日益受到关注，从环境哲学、环境政治学、环境伦理学、文艺批评理论与生态马克思主义等理论视角出发进行“人类世”探讨与解读的著述不断涌现。正是在上述背景之下，“人类世的马克思主义”议题逐渐成形，“社会主义生态理论家很快就接受了人类世的解释力，它强调了现代人类社会作为支配地球系统变化的主要行星地质力量的划时代崛起”。

The theoretical link between the Anthropocene and Marxism may seem “forced,” but it in fact possesses a very clear scholarly foundation and potential for discussion. “The bourgeois period of history has the mission of creating the material basis for a new world: on the one hand, to create universal intercourse based on the mutual dependence of all humanity, as well as the tools for such intercourse; on the other hand, to develop human productive forces and transform material production into the scientific domination of natural forces. Bourgeois industry and commerce are creating these material conditions for the new world, just as geological transformations created the Earth’s surface.” [8]8 Karl Marx, “The Future Results of British Rule in India,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 12 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1979), 222. In Marx’s view, the analysis and critique of capitalism and the social revolution that is its real outcome are by no means an issue confined solely to the social and political sphere. Nature, as the material basis on which humanity depends for survival, production, and development, is also significantly affected by humanity’s social and historical actions, and this effect varies with humanity’s planning of its own development path. For example, the vast difference between capitalist and socialist societies in the mode of dominating natural forces results in markedly different impacts on nature. In other words, Marx’s critical analysis and vision of emancipation possess a strong, undeniable ecological tendency. The resolution of the crisis in the relationship between humanity and nature, and the continuation and development of human civilization in a more comprehensive and free manner, have always been theoretical implications inherent in Marxism.

人类世与马克思主义的理论链接看似“生硬”,实则具有非常清晰的学理基础与讨论潜能。“资产阶级历史时期负有为新世界创造物质基础的使命：一方面要造成以全人类互相依赖为基础的普遍交往，以及进行这种交往的工具，另一方面要发展人的生产力，把物质生产变成对自然力的科学支配。资产阶级的工业和商业正为新世界创造这些物质条件，正像地质变革创造了地球表层一样。”在马克思那里，资本主义分析与批判及作为其现实结果的社会革命绝非只是一个局限于社会政治范围内的议题。作为人类赖以生存、生产与发展的物质基础的自然界同样会受到人类的社会历史行动的重大影响，且这种影响随人类对自身发展道路的筹划而呈现出差异性，例如资本主义社会与社会主义社会在自然力支配方式上的巨大差异使得其二者对自然界所造成的影响差异明显等。换言之，马克思主义的批判分析与解放构想，有着强烈的、毋庸置疑的生态倾向，人与自然关系危机的解决、人类文明以更全面且自由的方式延续并发展，始终是马克思主义内蕴的理论意涵。

“Ecological Marxism, as a theoretical or discursive system containing multiple dimensions and research approaches, is not only based on the inheritance, development, and innovative application of classical Marxist theoretical methods but also inseparable from the critical analysis and transcendent vision of contemporary global ecological and environmental issues and social green transformation practices.” [9]9 Wang Yuchen, “Ecological Marxism: Theoretical Origins, Research Approaches, and Contemporary Significance,” *Journal of Peking University (Philosophy and Social Sciences)*, no. 4 (2020): 15. It is in line with this theoretical implication of Marxism that ecological Marxist scholars, including the green left with a strong Marxist theoretical orientation, have begun to attempt a “Anthropocene turn” in their research. This turn is centrally manifested in the issue of “Marxism in the Anthropocene,” which has already received considerable elaboration and discussion. In brief, the core purpose of the “Marxism in the Anthropocene” issue is to use the discursive popularity and theoretical tool effects of the “Anthropocene” category and its intellectual products to provide a perfected elaboration of the anthropocentric ecological values and political-philosophical views of ecological Marxism, with the aim of better stimulating the theoretical vitality of ecological Marxism in the critique of capitalism, institutional alternatives, and the vision of ecological socialism. When understanding the above, it is necessary to note that the diversity of the participating subjects—broadly defined ecological Marxist scholars—determines that the “Marxism in the Anthropocene” issue necessarily contains rich, heterogeneous theoretical connotations. This characteristic determines that this study will begin with the most basic textual clues and, on this basis, summarize and synthesize the core issues of concern for different participating subjects.

“生态马克思主义作为一个包含多重内容维度和研究进路的理论或话语体系，不仅基于对经典马克思主义理论方法的继承发展与创新应用，也离不开对当代世界范围内生态环境问题与社会绿色转型实践的批判性分析与超越性构想。”正是顺应着马克思主义的这一理论意涵，包括具有较强马克思主义理论倾向的绿色左翼在内的广义生态马克思主义学者开始尝试一种研究的“人类世转向”,这一转向集中表现为已经得到相当程度阐发与讨论的“人类世的马克思主义”议题。简要而言，“人类世的马克思主义”议题的核心意旨在于通过“人类世”范畴及其知识产物的话语热度与理论工具效应，对生态马克思主义的人类中心主义生态价值观与政治哲学观点进行完善性的阐发，以期更好地激发生态马克思主义在资本主义生态批判、制度替代与生态社会主义构想上的理论活力。在理解上述内容时需要注意的是，广义生态马克思主义学者这一参与主体的多样性，决定了“人类世的马克思主义”议题必然包含着丰富的、异质性的理论内涵。这种特性决定了本文研究将从最为基础的文本线索梳理展开，并在此基础上对不同参与主体关注的核心问题进行归纳、总结。

II. Textual Clues in the Discussion of the “Marxism in the Anthropocene” Issue

二、“人类世的马克思主义”议题讨论的文本线索

“Marxism in the Anthropocene” is clearly a composite category generated on the basis of the “Anthropocene” category and its theoretical products. That is, it has a specific theoretical connotation and is the result of a multi-dimensional intellectual synthesis of the “Anthropocene” category and its theoretical products with Marxism. Those who use “Marxism in the Anthropocene” as a proper noun mainly include John Bellamy Foster, Kohei Saito, Simon Boxley, and others, while the scholars who engage in academic discussion of this issue are more numerous and earlier.

“人类世的马克思主义”显然是一个基于“人类世”范畴及其理论产物而生成的复合范畴，即是说，它具有特定的理论内涵所指，是对“人类世”范畴及其理论产物与马克思主义进行多元知识综合思考的结果。将“人类世的马克思主义”作为一个专有名词的使用者主要包括福斯特(John Bellamy Foster)、斋藤幸平(Kohei Saito)、柏克斯利(Simon Boxley)等，而对这一议题进行学术讨论的学者则要更多也更早。

Based on considerations of time, relevance, third-party feedback, and other factors, the fact that Andreas Malm proposed the category of the “Capitalocene” in 2009 constitutes the starting point of the discussion of the “Marxism in the Anthropocene” issue. Malm used the category of the “Capitalocene” to criticize the “Anthropocene narrative” of some natural science researchers, who attribute the Anthropocene crisis to the human species as a whole. He argued that this research approach lacks a critical consciousness for analyzing ecological responsibility across different classes and advocated establishing a “Capitalocene” research paradigm dominated by the humanities and social sciences. This research paradigm begins with an analysis of the “fossil capital” economy and its political and cultural roots, attempting thereby to prove the structural link between the capitalist system and the Anthropocene crisis, ultimately completing the confirmation of capitalism’s responsibility for the Anthropocene. The textual fact reflected in this process is that the basic principles of Marxist political economy constitute an important knowledge foundation for the entire research paradigm. In terms of the subsequent effects of Malm’s research, a considerable number of left-wing scholars have enriched the critique of capitalism’s responsibility for the Anthropocene on the basis of Malm’s theory. Typical examples include Donna Haraway’s public lecture “Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Chthulucene” delivered at Aarhus University in Denmark in 2014 and its derivative articles, Jason W. Moore’s edited volume *Anthropocene or Capitalocene? Nature, History, and the Crisis of Capitalism*, and Hans Baer’s “Anthropocene or Capitalocene? Two Political Ecology Perspectives.”

依据时间、相关度、第三视角反馈等因素的考量，马尔姆(Andreas Malm)在2009年提出“资本世(Capitalocene)”范畴的事实构成了“人类世的马克思主义”议题讨论的发端。马尔姆用“资本世”范畴批评部分自然科学研究者将人类世危机归咎于人类物种整体的“人类世叙事(the Anthropocene Narrative)”,认为这种研究思路缺少了对不同阶级进行生态责任分析的批判意识，主张建立起一种以人文社会科学为主导的“资本世”研究范式。这种研究范式从对“化石资本”经济及其政治文化根源的分析展开，试图由此证明资本主义制度与人类世危机的结构性关联，最终完成对资本主义人类世责任的确证。这一过程中所反映出来的文本事实是，马克思主义政治经济学的基本原理构成了上述整个研究范式的重要知识基础。从马尔姆研究的后续效应来看，相当一批左翼学者都在马尔姆的理论基础上丰富了对资本主义人类世责任的批判，典型如哈拉维(Donna Haraway)在2014年丹麦奥胡斯大学公开发表的演讲稿《人类世、资本世、克苏鲁世》及其衍生文章、摩尔(Jason W.Moore)主编的《人类世还是资本世：自然、历史与资本主义危机》、汉斯·巴尔(Hans Baer)的《人类世还是资本世：两种政治生态学视角》等。

Unlike the attempts of Malm and others, which focus on the attribution of responsibility to capitalism and its critique in the Anthropocene discussion, Gerda Roelvink’s 2013 article “Rethinking Species-Being in the Anthropocene” constitutes an early expression within the “Marxism in the Anthropocene” issue that emphasizes theoretical construction. Starting from Crutzen’s proposition that “humanity has become a geological force,” Roelvink reviews the philosophical research history of Marx’s concept of “species-being,” criticizes the “dehumanization” of human species-being under the capitalist mode of production, argues that the core claim of communism is to construct a “humanized” mode of species existence, emphasizes the importance of Marx’s concept of “species-being” and its theory for addressing the ecological crisis of the Anthropocene, and advocates generating “a model of human dignity centered on moral relations with others and a politics of dignity centered on coexistence.” [10]10 Gerda Roelvink, “Rethinking Species-Being in the Anthropocene,” *Rethinking Marxism* 25, no. 1 (2013): 52. By 2020, Roelvink published the article “The Politics of the Anthropocene,” which, in the form of a book review, emphasized the significance of Marxism as a “post-capitalist political form” for resolving the Anthropocene crisis, reflecting the author’s turn toward the broad camp of ecological Marxism. Similar constructive elaborations of the “Marxism in the Anthropocene” perspective can also be seen in McKenzie Wark’s *Molecular Red: Theory for the Anthropocene*. Although this work uses the analytical tools of Marxist theory only to a relatively shallow degree, its invocation and consideration of the “metabolic rift” theory from *Capital* and its manuscripts clearly constitutes a positive attempt.

与马尔姆等人侧重于资本主义归责与批判的人类世讨论尝试不同，格尔达·罗尔温克(Gerda Roelvink)在2013年发表的《重思人类世中的类存在》构成了“人类世的马克思主义”议题讨论中侧重于理论建构的早期表达。罗尔温克从克鲁岑提出的“人类已然成为地质力量”命题出发，回顾了马克思“类存在”概念的哲学研究历程，批判了资本主义生产方式对于人的类存在的“非人化”,认为共产主义的核心主张就是构建出一种“人性化”的物种存在方式，强调马克思的“类存在”概念及其理论对于人类世生态危机应对的重要意义，并主张生成一种“以与他者的道德关系为中心的人性尊严模式和以共存为中心的尊严政治”。及至2020年，罗尔温克又发表了《人类世的政治学》一文，以著作评述的方式强调了马克思主义作为一种“后资本主义政治形式”对于解决人类世危机的重要意义，反映了作者向广义生态马克思主义阵营的转向。类似的以较为建构性的方式进行“人类世的马克思主义”观点阐发还可见于麦肯齐·瓦克(McKenzie Wark)的《分子之红：人类世的理论》。这部著作虽然只在较浅程度上使用了马克思主义理论的分析工具，但其对《资本论》及其手稿中“新陈代谢断裂(Metabolic Rift)”理论的援引与思考显然构成了一种积极尝试。

2015 was the year when ecological Marxist scholars, represented by John Bellamy Foster, formally entered the discussion of the “Anthropocene Marxism” topic. After several years of Anthropocene discussions dominated by green-left scholars, the framework for discussing the “Anthropocene Marxism” topic in a normative sense was gradually clarified. In his article “Marxism and Ecology,” Foster traced the construction and interpretation of the category “Anthropocene” by Soviet scholars, emphasizing the consistency of Marx and Engels’ analysis of the ecological impact of “human activity” and the scientific nature of the capitalist ecological critique thus unfolded. Furthermore, through an analysis of “the Planetary Rift,” Foster revealed the capitalist roots of the Anthropocene crisis, arguing that to address the risks at the level of planetary ecosystem safety, it is necessary to integrate Marxist ecological analysis with Earth system theory and the “Great Transformation” perspective, using Marxist political economy to reconstruct a critique of capitalism and an eco-socialist vision for the Anthropocene era. Subsequently, Foster announced his own “Anthropocene turn” in ecological Marxist research through a series of successive publications: “The Evolution of Ecological Marxism in the Anthropocene Era” and “The Anthropocene Crisis” in 2016, “Imperialism in the Anthropocene” in 2019, “Rereading Engels’ Dialectics of Nature in the ‘Anthropocene’ Era” in 2020, “The Capitalinian: The First Geological Age of the Anthropocene” in 2021, and “Capitalism in the Anthropocene” in 2022, among others. In these works, while criticizing capitalism’s ecological responsibility, Foster also constructively proposed the geological epoch periodization concepts of “the Capitalinian” and “the Communian” under the Anthropocene, arguing that a major research mission for ecological Marxist scholars in the Anthropocene is to do their utmost to ensure “ecological survival” and to devise an Anthropocene crisis response strategy under the guidance of socialism. Whether in terms of communicative influence or theoretical innovation, Foster can be regarded as a key contributor to the discussion of the “Anthropocene Marxism” topic, triggering a chain reaction among a number of scholars.

2015年是以福斯特为代表的生态马克思主义学者正式介入“人类世的马克思主义”议题讨论的一年，在经历了数年的以绿色左翼学者为主的人类世讨论后，规范意义上的“人类世的马克思主义”议题讨论框架被逐渐明确起来。福斯特在《马克思主义和生态学》一文中追溯了苏联学者对“人类世”这一范畴的构建与阐释，强调马克思与恩格斯对“人类行为”生态影响能力分析的一贯性以及由此所展开的资本主义生态批判的科学性。更进一步地，福斯特又通过对“行星裂缝(the Planetary Rift)”的分析揭示出人类世危机的资本主义根源，认为要应对这种行星生态系统安危层面的风险局面，就必须综合马克思主义的生态分析与地球系统理论及“大转型”视角，运用马克思主义政治经济学来重新建构人类世时代的资本主义批判理论与生态社会主义构想。其后，福斯特用接连发表的一系列著述宣告了自身生态马克思主义研究的“人类世转向”:2016年的《人类世时代生态马克思主义的演进》与《人类世危机》、2019年的《人类世的帝国主义》、2020年的《“人类世”时代重读恩格斯的〈自然辩证法〉》、2021年的《资本期：人类世的第一个地质年代》、2022年的《人类世的资本主义》,等等。在这些著述中，福斯特在批判资本主义的生态责任之余还建构性地提出了人类世之下“资本期(the Capitalinian)”与“共产期(the Communian)”的地质年代分期构想，认为生态马克思主义学者在人类世的一大研究使命即在于尽力保障“生态存续”并擘画社会主义主导下的人类世危机应对战略。无论是传播影响力还是理论创新性，福斯特都可以被视作是“人类世的马克思主义”议题讨论中的关键贡献者，引起了一批学者的连锁反应。

With Foster’s support, Ian Angus’s 2016 book *Facing the Anthropocene* revolves around the core idea of “showing socialists why they must understand the Anthropocene, and showing Earth system scientists why they must understand ecological Marxism,” using the Anthropocene as a discursive opportunity to elaborate a relatively complete eco-socialist theory. Kohei Saito, in his 2017 response to Foster, “Anthropocene Marxism,” clarified the broad trend of ecological Marxist participation in the Anthropocene topic, pointing out that the core issue of this trend is “how to understand the relationship between the Anthropocene and capitalism,” and comprehensively sorted out the differences in the interpretations of the “Anthropocene Marxism” topic by scholars such as Foster, Paul Burkett, and Jason W. Moore. This approach of “participating while sorting out” also constitutes the basic perspective of Camilla Royle’s writing in *Marxism and the Anthropocene*. This work is an extremely important textual vehicle for the discussion of the “Anthropocene Marxism” topic, which not only sorts out the similarities and differences in various scholars’ views but also reveals the “version update” issue of anthropocentric ecological values that the topic discussion must confront. In “Socialist Transformation in the Anthropocene Era,” Claus Thomasberger, starting from the two dimensions of Marxist research under the Anthropocene background and the practice of socialist transformation, demonstrates the theoretical and practical significance of Marx’s critique of capitalism for climate and energy issues in the Anthropocene. In *Nature, Society, and Justice in the Anthropocene*, Alf Hornborg, focusing on the complex relationship among money, technology, and nature in the Anthropocene, critiques capitalism as a “fetishistic system” of fossil fuels and money, arguing that this fetishistic system is the economic driver of the “planetary burning” in the Anthropocene. Thus, Marx’s theoretical exposition of “fetishism” constitutes a substantive political-economic analysis of the social roots of the Anthropocene’s emergence. In his article “Anthropocene Marxism,” Thomas Laughlin points out that the advent of the Anthropocene is a comprehensive cognitive revolution, and understanding this shift in grand narrative methods requires a correspondingly unique approach, in which Marxism plays an irreplaceable role. Marx and Engels were not only socialists/communists but also ecological materialists; their theory of objectifying activity and practice provides important theoretical tools for understanding the relationships between humans and between humans and nature. Beyond these scholars, there are a considerable number of others diligent in writing, who are not enumerated here.

在福斯特的支持下，伊恩·安格斯(Ian Angus)于2016年出版的《面对人类世》一书围绕“要向社会主义者展示为什么他们必须了解人类世，并向地球系统科学家展示为什么他们必须了解生态马克思主义”的核心理念，以人类世为话语契机阐发了一套较为完整的生态社会主义理论。斋藤幸平在2017年发表的响应福斯特之作《人类世的马克思主义》中明确了生态马克思主义者对人类世话题的广泛参与趋势，指出这一趋势的核心问题就在于“如何理解人类世与资本主义之间的关系”,总领性地梳理了福斯特、柏克特(Paul Burkett)、摩尔等学者对“人类世的马克思主义”议题阐发上的见解差异。这种“一边参与一边梳理”的讨论方式同样构成了卡米拉·罗伊尔(Camilla Royle)《马克思主义与人类世》写作的基本视角。这部著作是“人类世的马克思主义”议题讨论极为重要的文本载体，其中不仅梳理了各学者观点的异同，还揭示出议题讨论所必须面对的人类中心主义生态价值观的“版本更新”问题。克劳斯·托马斯贝尔格(Claus Thomasberger)在《人类世时代的社会主义转型》中从人类世背景下的马克思主义研究与社会主义转型实践两个维度出发，论证了马克思资本主义批判理论对于人类世气候与能源问题的理论与实践意义。霍恩伯格(Alf Hornborg)在《人类世的自然、社会与正义》中围绕人类世的货币、技术与自然的复杂关系，批判资本主义是一种化石燃料与货币的“拜物教体系”,这种拜物教体系是造成人类世“星球燃烧”的经济动因，由此，马克思对于“拜物教”的理论阐述构成了一种实质性的对人类世产生之社会根源的政治经济学分析。托马斯·劳克林(Thomas Laughlin)在其《人类世马克思主义》一文中指出，人类世的袭来是一场全面的认知革命，要理解这种宏大叙事方法的转变，就需要与之相对应的独特方法，在这方面，马克思主义具有不可替代的作用；马克思和恩格斯不仅是社会主义者/共产主义者，而且是生态唯物主义者，他们的对象化活动与实践理论为理解人与人、人与自然界之间的关系提供了重要的理论工具。在这些学者之外，还有相当部分学者勤于耕撰，在此不作枚举。

The above textual clues reveal the approximate timeline of the discussion on the “Anthropocene Marxism” topic: 2009 as the overall starting point, 2015 as the entry into formalized and systematic discussion, 2019 as a period of significantly increased output and richness of works, and the present as a time of vigorous development. The “Anthropocene Marxism” topic involves such a wide range of knowledge fields, schools of thought, and scholars that it cannot be fully covered in a single article. However, one fact that must be recognized is that to grasp the contemporary progress of Marxist, ecological Marxist, and capitalist critique-related research in foreign academic circles, the “Anthropocene Marxism” topic is unavoidable. Only by clarifying what this topic is actually saying can the relative lack of attention and response to the “Anthropocene” issue in domestic academic circles be changed and improved to a greater extent.

上述文本线索揭示出“人类世的马克思主义”议题讨论的大致时间节点：作为总体发端的2009年、正式进入规范化系统化讨论的2015年、著述产出数量与丰富程度显著提升的2019年与蓬勃发展趋势明显的当下。“人类世的马克思主义”议题牵涉知识领域之广、学派之多、学者之众难以一文尽述，但需要认清的一大事实是：若要把握国外学界马克思主义、生态马克思主义、资本主义批判等相关研究的当代进展，“人类世的马克思主义”议题是绕不过的；也只有在厘清这一议题究竟在言说什么的基础上，国内学界对于“人类世”问题关注与回应的相对缺失之境况才能得到更大程度的改变与优化。

III. Core Content of the Discussion on the “Anthropocene Marxism” Topic

三、“人类世的马克思主义”议题讨论的核心内容

It is particularly important to note that “Anthropocene Marxism” cannot be simply understood as the proposition that “Marxism was formed and developed in the Anthropocene.” On the one hand, the starting time of the Anthropocene is still disputed, so it cannot be determined that the history of Marxism’s formation and development is necessarily temporally encompassed by the Anthropocene. On the other hand, there is no need to provide a purely background geological epoch description of Marxism that lacks progressive significance. In other words, “Anthropocene Marxism” is not a simple evaluation or “retelling” of Marxism against the Anthropocene background, but rather an attempt to achieve certain theoretical goals through the tension between the Anthropocene category and its theoretical products, on the one hand, and Marxism, on the other.

需要特别注意的是，不能将“人类世的马克思主义”简单理解为“马克思主义是在人类世中形成与发展的”这一命题，因为一方面人类世的起点时间尚存争议，不能断定马克思主义的形成与发展历史一定在时间上被人类世所包围，另一方面也没有必要对马克思主义作一个缺少进步性意义的单纯背景性的地质年代描述。换句话说，“人类世的马克思主义”不是对马克思主义在人类世背景下做出某种单纯的评价或“复述”,而是试图通过人类世范畴及其理论产物与马克思主义之间的张力实现某种理论目标。

Based on the preceding macroscopic sorting of the topic’s textual clues, the core content of this topic discussion can be divided into three major aspects at a more microscopic and concrete level.

基于前文对议题文本线索的宏观梳理，这一议题讨论的核心内容在更为微观与具体的层面上可以被划分为三大方面。

First, discussions on the positioning of the temporal starting point of the Anthropocene and its significance for capitalist critique. Carles Soriano argues that “the question of the starting time of the Anthropocene is not only a technical issue but also has important implications for the conceptualization of the current crisis and the political strategies needed to exit it.” [16]16 Carles Soriano, “On the Anthropocene: The Crisis of the Capitalist System and the Possibility of a New Epoch,” *Monthly Review*, vol. 72, no. 6, 2020, p. 15. Since Crutzen and Stoermer propelled the Anthropocene to the center of interdisciplinary knowledge exchange, discussions on its temporal starting point have constituted an extremely important theoretical issue. If the Anthropocene emerged from the moment humans began using fire or consciously engaging in cultivation, then the theory of humanity’s ecological original sin would gain powerful geological evidence. If the temporal starting point of the Anthropocene roughly coincides with the historical node of the rise of capitalism, then left-wing theories that critique capitalism around the Anthropocene (including the mainstream views within the “Marxism of the Anthropocene” issue) would gain stronger evidentiary support. Within the basic understanding of geological research, the main propositions regarding the temporal starting point of the Anthropocene generally include “the theory of large animal extinction,” “the theory of fire use,” “the theory of agricultural origins,” “the theory of agricultural expansion,” “the theory of the Industrial Revolution,” “the theory of World War I,” “the theory of the Great Acceleration,” “the theory of nuclear weapons use,” “the theory of persistent industrial chemical production,” “the theory of atmospheric change,” and others. Among so many theoretical claims, scholars’ understanding of the starting point of the Anthropocene is dominated by “the theory of the Great Acceleration,” but interpretations still have different emphases. Foster argues that “the Great Acceleration” is not an accidental phenomenon in human development; it is not itself the sole factor causing the Anthropocene. In contrast, the “global environmental movement” initiated by humans after perceiving the ecological crisis also contributed to the formation of the Anthropocene situation. That is to say, the Anthropocene situation was never a “passively entered” period of human crisis declaration from the outset; on the contrary, it is a situation of actively, positively, and consciously measuring the living environment and adjusting survival strategies. This situation reveals the necessary significance of critiquing and transcending the capitalist system and its non-ecological nature. Kohei Saito similarly considers the Great Acceleration as the starting point of the Anthropocene crisis, but unlike Foster, he focuses more on discussing the “negative significance” of this starting point—that is, emphasizing that the Great Acceleration itself not only signifies the enhancement of capitalist productive forces and technological capabilities but also represents the phased failure of humanity’s attempt to “dominate nature.” The essence of this failure is the destructive product of the combination of capitalist economic expansion and the concept of “dominating nature,” and it is in this sense that capitalism needs to be critiqued. Malm and Hornborg oppose attributing the responsibility for the Anthropocene starting point to all of humanity. They attempt to critique the “theory of fire use” within the natural scientific narrative of the Anthropocene—that is, they do not accept that capitalism’s responsibility for the Anthropocene crisis should be transferred to the “rational consciousness” of humanity itself. The fossil fuel economy and ecological resource extraction system of fossil capitalism are also “not universally supported by humanity,” and capitalism’s anti-human nature should be regarded as the object of responsibility for the Anthropocene crisis. In the words of geologist Will Steffen, Malm and Hornborg’s view emphasizes that “the industrial capitalists of wealthy countries—not ‘all of humanity’—bear primary responsibility for the Anthropocene.” [17]17 Will Steffen, “Commentary on ‘The Anthropocene: A New Epoch of Geological Time’ by Jan Zalasiewicz et al.,” *GSA Today*, vol. 21, no. 2, 2011, p. 27. This view is endorsed by Angus, who states bluntly: “This may not be perfect ecosocialist analysis, but it certainly breaks the myth that Anthropocene science blames everyone.” [18]18 Ian Angus, *Facing the Anthropocene: Fossil Capitalism and the Crisis of the Earth System*, Monthly Review Press, 2016, p. 234.

其一，关于人类世时间起点定位及其资本主义批判意义的讨论。索里亚诺(Carles Soriano)认为，“人类世的起点时间问题不仅是一个技术性的问题，而且对当前危机的概念化和退出危机所需的政治战略具有重要意义”。自克鲁岑与斯托默将人类世推到各学科知识交汇的中心场域之日起，关于人类世时间起点的讨论就构成了一个极为重要的理论议题。如果人类世自人类使用火把或开始自觉的耕种活动之日起就已经诞生，那么人类的生态原罪论将得到有力的地质学论据。如果人类世的时间起点与资本主义勃兴的历史节点大致吻合，那么围绕人类世进行资本主义批判的左翼理论(包括“人类世的马克思主义”议题的主流性观点)将得到更强的论据支持。在地质学研究的基本理解上，关于人类世时间起点的主要主张大体包括“大型动物灭绝说”“火种说”“农业起源说”“农业扩张说”“工业革命说”“一战说”“大加速说” “核武器使用说”“持久性工业化学品生产说”“大气变化说”等。在如此多的理论声称之中，学者们对于人类世起点的理解以“大加速说”为主导，但在阐释上仍各有侧重。福斯特认为“大加速”(the Great Acceleration)并非一种人类发展之中的偶然现象，其本身并非造成人类世的唯一因素，与之相对的，人类在觉察到生态危机之后所发起的“全球环保运动”也促成了人类世局面的形成。也就是说，人类世局面从一开始就不是一种“被动进入”的人类危机宣告期，相反，它是一种主动、积极、自觉地衡量生存处境与调整生存策略的局面，这种局面揭示出批判与超越资本主义制度及其非生态性的必要意义。斋藤幸平同样认为大加速是人类世危机形成的起点，但与福斯特有所区别的是，他更侧重论述这一起点的“负面意义”,即强调大加速本身不仅意味着资本主义生产力与技术能力的提升，同时也意味着人类“支配自然”尝试的阶段性失败，这种失败的本质是资本主义经济扩张与“支配自然”观念相结合导致的破坏性产物，而资本主义正是在这个意义上需要被批判。马尔姆与霍恩伯格反对将人类世的起点归责于全体人类，他们尝试批判自然科学人类世叙事中的“火种说”,即不认同资本主义对于人类世危机的责任应该被转嫁给人类本身的“理性意识”,化石资本主义的燃料经济与生态资源攫取体系也“不是人类普遍支持的”,资本主义的反人类性更应当被视作是人类世危机的归责对象。用地质学者威尔·斯特芬(Will Steffen)的话来说，马尔姆与霍恩伯格的观点强调“富裕国家的工业资本家——而不是‘整个人类’——应对人类世负有主要责任”。上述观点被安格斯拥护，他直言“这可能不是完美的生态社会主义分析，但它们肯定会打破人类世科学指责所有人的神话”。

Second, discussions on how to “update the version” of the anthropocentric ecological values of the Anthropocene. “Humanity’s natural existence, the relationship between humans and nature, does not occur in isolation; it occurs through society, through human consciousness.” [19]19 Karl Marx, “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3, International Publishers, 1975, p. 337. Based on the “‘anthropocentric’ or ‘humanistic’ color” of Marxist theoretical interpretation itself, a kind of anthropocentrism with higher transcendence and contemporaneity clearly constitutes the ecological value foundation for ecological Marxist scholars and some green leftist scholars with socialist tendencies. Royle points out a paradox that must be taken seriously in discussions of the “Marxism of the Anthropocene” issue: on the one hand, resolving the Anthropocene crisis often requires humanity to gradually reduce or even “withdraw” its sphere of influence over nature; on the other hand, the Anthropocene means that humanity has achieved greater ecological agency and species protection capabilities than in any previous historical period. The above paradox reveals that how to view human capabilities and status, and ultimately complete the “version update” of ecological values from “center, beneficiary of interests” to “subject, practitioner of protection,” is a question scholars must consider. On this point, Foster argues that a considerable portion of leftist scholars who theoretically elaborate on the Anthropocene issue, influenced by the “critique of the dialectics of nature” within the Western Marxist tradition, have fallen into a theoretical error of “abandoning materialist dialectics and critical realism in favor of anthropocentric monism.” The most intuitive manifestation of this error is the rejection of the dialectical connection and holistic relationship between humans and nature, thereby failing to establish the intrinsic theoretical link between Marx’s vision of “socialism” and the resolution of the Anthropocene crisis. Therefore, Foster advocates, while critiquing capitalism, resolutely drawing a line with the “social monism” or “anthropocentric monism” of some scholars, moving toward a higher-level revival of the dialectics of nature—the anthropocentric stance of “socialist ecology”: “In socialist ecology, dialectics is crucial for understanding the regulation of nature and society through production; whereas in social monism, nature is subsumed into society/capitalism.” [20]20 John Bellamy Foster, “The Dialectics of Nature and Marxist Ecology,” in *The Ecological Revolution: Making Peace with the Planet*, Monthly Review Press, 2009, p. 215. Kohei Saito basically agrees with Foster’s interpretation of anthropocentrism. At the same time, through political economy research, he points out that, in Marx’s view, there is no need to reduce the dualism of humans and nature to monism; rather, one must explain from the many relations of society why such dualism has power in reality. The active subject status of humanity and its socio-historical attributes should not be dissolved; establishing an anthropocentric foundation for ecological values is not contradictory to carrying out ecosystem protection work in the Anthropocene. In recent works, Foster’s substantive expression of updating the version of anthropocentrism is clearer. Based on Marx’s theory of metabolic rift, he critiques the accusations of anthropocentrism against Marx by Timothy Morton, Jane Bennett, and others, arguing that Marx was by no means an advocate of old-style anthropocentrism; his theoretical goal was always to “attempt to provide a higher synthesis, aiming at the reconciliation rather than opposition of humanism and naturalism, humans and nature.” [21]21 John Bellamy Foster, *The Return of Nature: Socialism and Ecology*, Monthly Review Press, 2020, p. 512. In contemporary discussions of “Marxism of the Anthropocene,” the ecological value scheme that truly conforms to Marx’s original vision should be “the Dialectic of the Anthropocene”—that is, while fully guaranteeing humanity’s active subject status, the Anthropocene is regarded as “an era in which humanity must struggle in a revolutionary way, not only to promote human freedom, but also to avoid the destruction caused by the so-called ‘capitalist mortal threat to the world and all life.’” [22]22 John Bellamy Foster, “The Dialectic of the Anthropocene,” *Monthly Review*, vol. 73, no. 6, 2021, p. 45. This shifts the abstract debate over which of the dualism of humans and nature is more important toward a more practically meaningful situation.

其二，关于人类世的人类中心主义生态价值观如何“版本更新”的讨论。“人的自然存在，人和自然界的关系，不是孤立发生的，它是通过社会、通过人的意识而发生的。”基于马克思主义理论阐释自身的“‘人类中心主义’或‘人本主义’色彩”,一种具有更高超越性与时代性的人类中心主义显然构成了生态马克思主义学者与部分带有社会主义倾向的绿色左翼学者的生态价值观基础。罗伊尔指出了“人类世的马克思主义”议题讨论所必须重视的一个悖论：一方面，人类世危机的解决往往被要求人类逐步减少甚至“退出”对自然界的影响范围，但另一方面，人类世又意味着人类已经取得了比过往任何一个历史时期都更强大的生态能动性与物种保护力。上述悖论揭示出，究竟如何看待人类的能力与地位并最终完成由“中心、利益享受者”向“主体、保护实践者”的生态价值观“版本更新”是学者们必须思考的问题。在这一点上，福斯特认为，相当部分对人类世问题作理论阐发的左翼学者由于受到了西方马克思主义传统中“自然辩证法批判”的影响，陷入了一种“放弃唯物主义辩证法和批判现实主义而转向人类中心主义一元论”的理论误区，这种误区最为直观的表现就是拒斥人与自然二者之间的辩证联系与整体关系，从而没办法建立起马克思“社会主义”构想与人类世危机解除的内在理论关联。因此，福斯特主张在批判资本主义之余也要坚决与部分学者的“社会一元论”或“人类中心主义一元论”划清界限，走向自然辩证法更高层次的复苏——“社会主义生态学”的人类中心主义立场：“在社会主义生态学中，辩证法对于理解通过生产调节自然和社会来说至关重要；而在社会一元论那里，自然被纳入到社会/资本主义之中”。斋藤幸平基本认同福斯特对人类中心主义的诠释，同时他通过政治经济学研究指出，在马克思看来，不需要把人类与自然的二元论还原成一元论，而是要从社会的诸多关系中说明为什么这样的二元论在现实中有力量，不应当消解人类的能动主体地位及其社会历史属性，确立一种人类中心主义的生态价值观基础与进行人类世的生态系统保护工作并不矛盾。在新近著作中，福斯特对人类中心主义进行版本更新的实质性表述更为清晰。他立足于马克思关于新陈代谢断裂的理论，批判了莫顿(Timothy Morton)、本内特(Jane Bennett)等人对马克思的人类中心主义指摘，认为马克思绝非旧式人类中心主义的鼓吹者，其理论目标始终是“尝试提供一种更高的综合，以人本主义与自然主义、人与自然的调和而非对立为目标”。在当代讨论“人类世的马克思主义”时，真正符合马克思原初设想的生态价值方案应当是“人类世辩证法”(the Dialectic of the Anthropocene),即在充分保障人类能动主体地位的同时，将人类世视作“人类必须以革命的方式进行斗争的时代，不仅是为了促进人类自由，而且也是为了避免由于所谓的‘资本主义对世界和整个生活的致命威胁’而造成的破坏”,将关于人与自然二元何者更重要的抽象争论引向更具现实性意义的实践境遇。

Third, a discussion of the ecological socialist vision for the Anthropocene. At least in terms of the consensus within left-wing academia, the best solution to the Anthropocene crisis must be the replacement of the capitalist political, economic, and cultural system. However, regarding the specific plan for achieving this “post-capitalism” and the conception of the new social form that would result from its replacement, a great deal of discursive elaboration and issue-based discussion is still needed. In the theoretical atmosphere of Europe and America, ecological socialism always faces various criticisms. For example, Jordan Kinder and others outside the “Marxism in the Anthropocene” issue do not recognize “existing socialism” as a post-capitalist social form, but their critiques mostly do not deny the possibility and feasibility of socialism itself undergoing a version update. This reveals the theoretical necessity for the “Marxism in the Anthropocene” issue to respond to the question: “Why must the future of the Anthropocene be ecological socialism, and what kind of socialism is it?” In this sense, Angus’s theoretical response to the problem is relatively mature and systematic: “The problem that *Facing the Anthropocene* aims to solve is to build a bridge between Earth system science and ecological socialism.” [23]23 Ian Angus, *Facing the Anthropocene: Fossil Capitalism and the Crisis of the Earth System* (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2016). Angus believes that Luxemburg’s analysis of “socialism or barbarism” has already demonstrated the possible prospect of ecological socialism becoming the optimal solution for human civilization. Under this premise, Angus proposes the diversity of ecological socialist visions, arguing that “the ecological socialist movement is by no means entirely singular.” However, he holds that all proponents of ecological socialist visions must acknowledge two principles: (1) collective ownership of the means of production and an urgent pursuit of social equality and justice; (2) establishing, maintaining, and continuously improving a social industrial base with good ecological effects. In Angus’s view, the ecological socialism that serves as a way out of the Anthropocene crisis must necessarily oppose market-centrism and productive forces determinism, placing greater emphasis on use value rather than exchange value or monetary forms at the economic level. On this basis, Angus also elaborates on more than ten specific ecological socialist proposals, such as nuclear energy containment and cleanup, clean and free public transportation systems, and the construction of normative geoengineering. These specific designs have received widespread support from Foster and others. In Foster’s 2022 work *Capitalism in the Anthropocene*, the number of specific designs is expanded to 16, constituting the most concrete expression of the socialist vision within the “Marxism in the Anthropocene” issue.

其三，关于人类世的生态社会主义构想的讨论。至少在左翼学术界共识的意义上，应对人类世危机的最佳方案必然是资本主义的政治经济文化体系替代，但关于实现这种“后资本主义”的具体方案及作为其替代结果的新社会形态构想，仍然需要大量的话语阐发与议题讨论。在欧美的理论空气中，生态社会主义总是面临着各种指摘，如“人类世的马克思主义”议题外部的乔丹·凯因德(Jordan Kinder)等人并不认可“现存的社会主义”作为一种后资本主义社会形态的说法，但他们的批判多半并不否认社会主义本身进行版本更新的可能性与可行性，这揭示出“人类世的马克思主义”议题回应“人类世的未来为什么一定是生态社会主义的，这种社会主义又是怎样的”问题的理论必要性。在这个意义上，安格斯对问题的理论回应是较为成熟且系统的：“《面对人类世》要解决的问题是建立起地球系统科学与生态社会主义之间的桥梁”。安格斯认为，卢森堡的“社会主义或野蛮”分析已经论证了生态社会主义成为人类文明最优解的可能性前景。在此前提之下，安格斯提出了生态社会主义构想的多元性，即认为“生态社会主义运动绝不是完全单一的”。但他认为所有生态社会主义构想者都必须承认两个原则：(1)生产资料集体所有且对于社会平等与正义有迫切的追求；(2)建立、维护并不断改进具有良好生态效应的社会工业基础。在安格斯看来，作为人类世危机出路的生态社会主义必然是反对市场中心主义与生产力决定论的，在经济层面更重视使用价值而非交换价值或货币形式。在此基础上，安格斯还阐述了更为细致的十余条具体的生态社会主义构想，如核能遏制与清除、清洁免费的公共交通系统、建设规范性地球工程等。这些具体设计得到了福斯特等人的普遍支持，而在福斯特2022年的《人类世的资本主义》中，具体设计的数量被拓展到16条，构成了“人类世的马克思主义”议题关于社会主义构想的最具体表达。

Beyond the socialist visions of Foster, Angus, and others, Malm, within the narrative model of “Capitalocene” critique he pioneered, proposes that socialism faces challenges such as “the contradiction between emission reduction and development” in the Anthropocene, but still acknowledges the significant importance of socialism for escaping the “Capitalocene”: “Given that any meaningful transition requires challenging capitalism, the legacy of socialism provides a set of resources that can be drawn upon.” [24]24 Andreas Malm, *The Progress of This Storm: Nature and Society in a Warming World* (London: Verso, 2018), p. 189. Based on this understanding, Malm proposes the socialist vision of “Eco-Leninism,” that is, establishing a social form with sufficient disaster emergency awareness and resource integration capacity, transforming the social form of the confrontation between humans and nature in the Anthropocene into a social form of confrontation between humans and the capitalist system through state power mechanisms. Malm’s idea is not an unheard-of fantasy; left-wing scholars such as Jacques Rancière have also paid attention to “Eco-Leninism.” But ultimately, how this “Eco-Leninism” can be presented as a systematic political philosophy is a problem Malm has not yet solved.

在福斯特、安格斯等人的社会主义构想之外，马尔姆在其开创的“资本世”批判的叙事模式中提出社会主义在人类世面临着“减排与发展的矛盾”等挑战，但仍承认社会主义对于走出“资本世”的重要意义：“鉴于要发生任何有意义的过渡，都需要挑战资本主义，所以社会主义的遗产提供了一套可以借鉴的资源”。基于这一认识，马尔姆提出“生态列宁主义”的社会主义构想，即建立一种有充分的灾难应急意识与资源整合能力、通过国家权力机制将人类世的人与自然对抗的社会形态转变为人类与资本主义体系对抗的社会形态。马尔姆的想法并不是一种无人问津的奇想，雅克·朗西埃(Jacques Rancière)等左翼学者亦对“生态列宁主义”予以重视。但归根结底来说，这种“生态列宁主义”究竟如何作为一种具有体系性的政治哲学呈现出来，是马尔姆还没有解决的问题。

Overall, based on a broad understanding of ecological Marxism that includes both the green left and the ecological Marxist camp, the discussion of the “Marxism in the Anthropocene” issue possesses a vast textual foundation, a clear line of development, and distinct research topics. As shown by the “Anthropocene turn” in the personal research directions of scholars like Foster and Saitō Kōhei, ecological Marxist scholars were not “thrown into” the theoretical research field of the Anthropocene. On the contrary, through active adjustments to their own research emphases, they entered the state of elaborating Anthropocene discourse with a posture of clearly knowing what they wanted to argue. In the view of ecological Marxist scholars, the Anthropocene must necessarily be applied to the deepening of capitalist ecological critique theory, the design and innovation of capitalist alternatives, and the concrete unfolding of ecological socialist visions. In this sense, the starting point proof of the “Great Acceleration” provided by the Anthropocene is undoubtedly a powerful theoretical tool for further confirming the ecological responsibility of capitalism. [25]25 The “Great Acceleration” refers to the dramatic and roughly simultaneous surge in human activity and its environmental impacts (e.g., population, GDP, resource use, greenhouse gases) beginning around 1950, as documented by the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme. At the same time, the Anthropocene involves the issue of perfecting anthropocentrism, which is the theoretical foundation of ecological Marxist scholars in a general sense. In other words, if one were to retreat from an anthropocentric stance or even shift towards some kind of ecocentric stance, the foundation of ecological Marxism’s ecological values would be thoroughly shaken, to the point where its political philosophical expression would fracture. Based on the above understanding, the author believes that the current discussion trend of the “Marxism in the Anthropocene” issue in foreign academic circles is relatively vigorous but still faces relatively large argumentative obligations (i.e., difficulties). The most challenging among these is how to more structurally establish, on the foundation laid by Foster and others, a new form of anthropocentric ecological values that supplements or even surpasses the existing weak anthropocentrism, and from this, generate new capitalist critique alternatives and ecological socialist construction visions. The latter clearly constitutes the “discursive system implications and their main dimensions” of ecological Marxism.

总体来看，基于一种包含绿色左翼与生态马克思主义阵营在内的广义生态马克思主义理解，“人类世的马克思主义”议题的讨论具有庞大的文本基础、清晰的发展线索与明显的研究议题。正如福斯特、斋藤幸平等人在个人研究方向上的“人类世转向”所示的那样，生态马克思主义学者们并非被“抛入”了人类世的理论研究场域，相反，他们通过对自身研究侧重点的积极调整，以一种极其清楚自己想要论证什么的姿态进入了人类世话语的阐发状态中。在生态马克思主义学者的视域中，人类世必然需要被应用到资本主义生态批判理论的深化、资本主义替代方案的设计创新与生态社会主义构想的具体展开上。在这个意义上，人类世所提供的“大加速说”起点证明无疑是资本主义生态责任进一步确证的有力理论工具。同时，人类世涉及人类中心主义的完善化问题，这一问题是生态马克思主义学者们总体意义上的理论基本盘。换句话说，如若退让人类中心主义立场甚至转向某种生态中心主义立场，那么生态马克思主义的生态价值观基础将被彻底动摇以至于其政治哲学表达将发生断裂。基于以上理解，笔者认为当前国外学界的“人类世的马克思主义”议题讨论发展趋势较为蓬勃但还面临着较为庞大的论证义务(即难题),其中最具挑战性者即如何在福斯特等人开辟的地基之上更为结构化地树立起一种对已有的弱人类中心主义形成补充甚或超越的新形态的人类中心主义生态价值观以及由其产生出新的资本主义批判替代与生态社会主义建构设想，而后者显然构成了生态马克思主义的“话语体系意涵及其主要维度”。

IV. Theoretical Review of the “Marxism in the Anthropocene” Issue

四、“人类世的马克思主义”议题的理论评述

The existence of the “Marxism in the Anthropocene” issue is already very clear. The academic discussions carried out by a large number of scholars around this core concept and surrounding issues are worthy of attention. Due to the theoretical heterogeneity existing within the issue itself, to evaluate it theoretically as objectively as possible, it is necessary to distinguish between different “evaluating subjects.” From the perspective of the most basic Marxist research scholars, the “Marxism in the Anthropocene” issue undoubtedly contains both positive and negative theoretical impacts. On the positive level, the emergence of the “Marxism in the Anthropocene” issue has indeed provided new theoretical impetus and discursive growth points for the study of Marxism in foreign academic circles, allowing the interdisciplinary influence created by the Anthropocene category and its theoretical products to be projected into the research field of Marxism. Although the scientific nature of Marxism determines that it does not need to rely on external topics for theoretical exposition, promoting attention to and discussion of Marxism in a temporal-spatial sense is still worthy of support. From the perspective of the theory itself, the discussion of the “Marxism in the Anthropocene” issue often revolves around Marxist ecological thought and political economy (especially concentrated on the labor theory of value), attempting to make a strong ecologically relevant supplement to classic Marxist issues or categories. This supplement is progressive to a significant extent. On the one hand, the ecological implications and explanatory power of political economy inherent in Marxism can be activated and paid attention to to a greater degree. On the other hand, some Western Marxist traditions that deviate from the research stance of (classical) Marxism or even bring many problems due to their ideological coloring will also be falsified and liquidated.

“人类世的马克思主义”议题的实存已经十分清晰，大量学者围绕这一核心概念及周遭议题展开的学术讨论是值得关注的。由于议题自身内部存在的理论异质性，要尽可能客观地对其进行理论评价，就需要区分不同“评价主体”。从最为基础的马克思主义研究学者视角来看，“人类世的马克思主义”议题无疑包含积极与消极两个意义上的理论影响。在积极层面上，“人类世的马克思主义”议题的出场的确为马克思主义在国外学界的研究提供了新的理论动力与话语增长点，使得人类世范畴及其理论产物所创造出来的跨学科影响力被投射到马克思主义的研究场域之中。尽管马克思主义的科学性决定了其本身并不需要借助于外部话题得到理论展布，但在时空意义上能够推进马克思主义的关注与讨论仍然是值得支持的。从理论本身观之，“人类世的马克思主义”议题讨论往往围绕马克思主义的生态思想与政治经济学(尤其集中于劳动价值论)主张展开，尝试为马克思主义的经典议题或范畴作某种强生态关涉性的补充。这种补充在较大意义上是有进步意义的，一方面，马克思主义内蕴的生态意味与政治经济学解释力能够得到更大程度的激活与关注，另一方面，一些与(经典)马克思主义研究立场有出入甚或带来诸多问题的具有意识形态色彩的西方马克思主义传统也将得到证伪与清算。

From a negative perspective, the emergence of the “Anthropocene Marxism” topic reveals the risk of Marxism being “arbitrarily appropriated” in foreign academic circles. A considerable portion of the writings related to the “Anthropocene Marxism” topic lack a holistic understanding of Marxism. Although the authors often hold left-wing political positions or radical philosophical inclinations, they cannot fully clarify the basic connotations of Marxism. A typical example is [26]26 Paul Burkett, an American Marxist economist known for his work on ecological Marxism.Burkett, who understands Marxism as a rather dogmatic “red anthropocentrism,” ignoring Marxism’s dual critique and reflection on both old-style anthropocentrism and biocentrism, failing to demonstrate Marxism’s inherent transcendence, and easily interpreting Marxism as a kind of anti-naturalism or extreme anthropocentrism. Of course, any foreign academic discussion on a specific topic will have these common shortcomings. Beyond these unfavorable factors, there are still a large number of scholars who have made fruitful theoretical work on the connection between Marxism and the knowledge background of the Anthropocene.

从消极层面上看，“人类世的马克思主义”议题的出场显现出马克思主义在国外学界被“任意取用”的风险。相当部分关涉到“人类世的马克思主义”议题的著述都缺乏对马克思主义的整体认识，作者虽往往带有左翼政治立场或激进哲学色彩，但并不能充分厘清马克思主义的基础内涵，典型如柏克斯利，他将马克思主义理解为一种较为专断的“红色人类中心主义”,忽视了马克思主义对于旧式人类中心主义与生物中心主义的双向批判与反思，未能展现马克思主义自存的超越性，极易将马克思主义解读为某种反自然主义或极端人类中心主义。当然，任何一个国外学界关于特定议题的学术讨论都会存在这些通病，在这些不利因素之外，仍有大量的学者对马克思主义与人类世知识背景的接洽作出了卓有成效的理论工作。

From the perspective of more specific, focused, and specialized contemporary ecological Marxist researchers, the theoretical effects generated by the “Anthropocene Marxism” topic mainly include the following aspects: First, it is conducive to discerning new features of the theoretical growth of contemporary ecological Marxism, promoting the frontierization, perfection, and specialization of the knowledge genealogy of ecological Marxism. The “Anthropocene Marxism” topic reflects substantive changes in the development of ecological Marxism since the 21st century and proposes new categories, viewpoints, and solutions that did not exist before. Research on the “Anthropocene Marxism” topic at least reflects three new features exhibited by ecological Marxism since the 21st century: first, the enrichment of the surface structure of discourse, incorporating a large number of categories and theoretical tools based on geology and environmental history, such as “Capitalocene,” “Communocene,” “geoengineering,” and “planetary boundaries”; second, the perfection of anthropocentric ecological values, providing a more cutting-edge and comprehensive elaboration of the anthropocentric ecological value foundation of ecological Marxism; third, the theoretical deepening in terms of political philosophical implications, including advances in the ecological critique of capitalism, the conceptual design of ecological socialism, and the exploration of alternative solutions.

从更为具体、聚焦与专题化的当代生态马克思主义研究学者的视角来看，“人类世的马克思主义”议题产生的理论效应主要包含下述方面：首先，有利于洞见当代生态马克思主义理论增长的新特征，推动生态马克思主义的知识谱系前沿化、完善化、专题化。“人类世的马克思主义”议题反映出生态马克思主义在二十一世纪以来发展的实质性变化，并且提出了一些既往没有的新范畴、新观点、新方案。对“人类世的马克思主义”议题的研究至少反映出生态马克思主义在二十一世纪以来展现的三大新特征：其一是话语表层结构的丰富化，纳入了大量以地质学与环境史学为基本背景的范畴与理论工具，如“资本期”“共产期”“地球工程”“行星界限”等；其二是人类中心主义生态价值观的完善化，对生态马克思主义的人类中心主义生态价值观基础进行了更具前沿性与完善性的阐发；其三是政治哲学意涵上的理论深化，包括对资本主义的生态批判、生态社会主义的构想设计与替代方案的探索等方面的推进等。

Second, it is conducive to breaking the theoretical dilemma of “aphasia” regarding the Anthropocene in domestic academic circles’ Marxist theory and foreign Marxist studies. In the distribution of research hotspots in foreign academic circles, the Anthropocene and its related theoretical issues have always occupied an important position. In contrast, theoretical research on the Anthropocene in the domestic humanities and social sciences field exhibits several characteristics: first, the research disciplines are mainly philosophy and literature, with a relatively low level of involvement from the Marxist theory discipline; second, research methods are still dominated by translation of achievements and transmission of viewpoints, and the number of original theoretical achievements needs improvement; third, the understanding of relevant foreign academic literature on the topic needs further deepening, and it is not yet possible to systematically discern the core features of the Anthropocene and its theoretical discourse; fourth, the overall scale of research results needs expansion, and so on. These research conditions indicate that research on the “Anthropocene Marxism” topic can provide an opportunity for the domestic academic circles’ Marxist theory, especially the foreign Marxist studies field, to engage with the Anthropocene topic.

其次，有利于破解国内学界马克思主义理论及国外马克思主义研究中对于“人类世”失语的理论困境。在国外学界的研究热点分布中，“人类世”及其相关理论问题一直占据着重要位置。相较之下，国内人文社会科学领域关于人类世的理论研究呈现出几个特点：一是研究学科以哲学、文学等为主，马克思主义理论学科的介入程度尚不高；二是研究方法仍以成果译介、观点转达为主，具有原创性的理论成果数量有待提高；三是对话题相关的国外学术文献的了解程度有待进一步深化，还不能系统洞见人类世及其理论话语的核心特征；四是研究成果的总体规模有待扩大，等等。这些研究状况表明，“人类世的马克思主义”议题的研究能够为国内学界马克思主义理论尤其是国外马克思主义研究领域的人类世话题介入提供契机。

Finally, it is conducive to providing resourceful reference for the theory and practice of socialist ecological civilization. The theory and practice of socialist ecological civilization centrally reflect the theoretical and practical wisdom of the Communist Party of China in leading the people to respond to the ecological crisis and move towards a new form of human civilization. Socialist ecological civilization and its construction can be understood as a form of theoretical discourse and policy discourse, and can also be concretely promoted as a social practice. At a more macro level of “human civilization,” socialist ecological civilization and its construction clearly constitute a “red-green vision” that transcends the capitalist Anthropocene crisis response plan and is more contemporary and practical. In the process of constructing an “Anthropocene Marxism” topic with Chinese characteristics, some domestic scholars have already made significant contributions. For example, Jiang Lifu examined the discourse foundation, basic paradigms, and research space of Anthropocene ecocriticism, analyzed the possible versions of the “post-Anthropocene,” and based on the ecological thought of Marx and Engels and the classical theories of socialist thinkers such as Morris, reflected on and criticized the ecological threats of capitalism, which is precisely his entry point for exploring the theoretical connotations of ecological Marxist Anthropocene theory. Teng Fei conducted a combined study of [27]27 Xi Jinping Thought on Ecological Civilization is a component of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, focusing on environmental protection and sustainable development.Xi Jinping Thought on Ecological Civilization (and its Marxist foundation) with Anthropocene theory, using Xi Jinping Thought on Ecological Civilization to reflect on the “post-nature tendency” of Western ecological philosophy, and made theoretical supplements to the ecological value foundation of the Anthropocene based on the reality of socialist ecological civilization, and so on. At the level of practical knowledge, the 2021 academic symposium on “Anthropocene, Climate Change, and Literary Representation” explicitly proposed the category of “Anthropocene Marxism,” arguing that to eliminate climate violence, it is necessary to fully utilize Marx’s concept of “metabolic rift,” strengthen the ecological critique of capitalism, construct a community with a shared future for the earth in time and space, and contribute Chinese wisdom and add Chinese color to the ecological well-being of the world’s people. This clearly constitutes a conscious attempt by contemporary Chinese scholars to construct the discourse of “Anthropocene Marxism.”

最后，有利于为社会主义生态文明理论与实践提供资源性借鉴。社会主义生态文明理论与实践集中反映了中国共产党领导人民应对生态危机、迈向人类文明新形态的理论与实践智慧。社会主义生态文明及其建设可以作为一种理论话语和政策话语的形式被认识，同时也能够作为一种社会实践被具体推动，而在一个更为宏观的“人类文明”的层面上，社会主义生态文明及其建设显然构成了一种超越资本主义人类世危机应对方案的更具时代性与实践性的“红绿构想”。在建构具有中国特色的“人类世的马克思主义”议题的进程中，一些国内学者已经做出了较大贡献。如，姜礼福考察了人类世生态批评的话语基础、基本范式和研究空间,分析了“后人类世”的不同版本可能，并基于马克思恩格斯的生态思想与莫里斯等社会主义思想家的经典理论，对资本主义的生态威胁作了反思与批判，而这一点也正是他发掘生态马克思主义人类世理论内涵的切入点。滕菲将习近平生态文明思想(及其马克思主义基础)与人类世理论进行了结合性研究，以习近平生态文明思想反思西方生态哲学的“后自然倾向”,对人类世的生态价值观基础作了立足于社会主义生态文明现实的理论补充,等等。而在现实的知识实践层面，2021年举行的“人类世、气候变化与文学再现”学术研讨会上明确提出了“人类世马克思主义”范畴，认为要消除气候暴力必须充分利用马克思“新陈代谢断裂”概念，加强对资本主义的生态批判，建构地球时空命运共同体，为世界人民的生态福祉贡献中国智慧、增添中国色彩。这显然构成了当代中国学者对于“人类世的马克思主义”进行话语建构的一种自觉尝试。

Based on the above preliminary reflections on the “Anthropocene Marxism” topic, summarizing from a “theory-reality” cognitive framework, research on the “Anthropocene Marxism” topic can provide the following three contributions to socialist ecological civilization theory: first, through the deepening of its critique of capitalist theory, it helps to further recognize the values and chronic ills of mainstream Western environmental theory; second, through its elaboration of Anthropocene discourse, it enriches the discourse system of socialist ecological civilization theory, promoting the continuous entry of the theoretical discourse system of socialist ecological civilization with Chinese characteristics onto the international stage, thereby winning a broader space for international dialogue; third, through its analysis of the challenges to ecological values in the Anthropocene era and its attempts to perfect anthropocentric values, it assists in the cultivation of “ecological new people” in the context of socialist ecological civilization. At the practical level, the “Anthropocene Marxism” topic can provide mirroring references for ecological livelihood and well-being, green technological innovation, international ecological cooperation, etc., promoting the scientific, contemporary, and international development of socialist ecological civilization theory and practice, and contributing more diverse intellectual resources to ensuring the construction of Chinese-path modernization characterized by harmonious coexistence between humans and nature. (Notes omitted)

基于上述对“人类世的马克思主义”议题的初步思考，从一种“理论-现实”的认知框架出发进行总结，“人类世的马克思主义”议题研究能够对社会主义生态文明理论提供如下三方面贡献：一是经由其资本主义批判理论的深化，助力进一步认清西方主流环境理论的价值与痼疾；二是通过其对人类世话语的阐发，丰富社会主义生态文明理论的话语体系，推动中国特色社会主义生态文明理论及其话语体系不断走向国际舞台，从而赢得更为广阔的国际对话空间；三是通过其对人类世时代的生态价值观挑战的分析及对于人类中心主义价值观的完善尝试，助力社会主义生态文明语境中的“生态新人”培育工作。在实践层面，“人类世的马克思主义”议题能够为生态民生福祉、绿色技术创新、国际生态合作等方面提供镜鉴，促动社会主义生态文明理论与实践的科学化、时代化、国际化，为保障人与自然和谐共生的中国式现代化建设贡献更为多元的智力资源。（注释略）

(The author is a doctoral student at the School of Marxism, Peking University)

（作者系北京大学马克思主义学院博士研究生）

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑