Lefebvre Lays the Foundation for a Western Marxist Urban Philosophy

How the reflections and research on the city present in the ideological systems of Marx and Engels can be transformed into theoretical resources for a Marxist urban philosophy; how, on the basis of Marx and Engels’s thought and theory, a theoretical horizon for urban philosophy can be opened up, and within this horizon the concrete state of existence and contradictions of human society can be examined; how the alienation and counter-alienation of urban life under the capitalist system can be creatively depicted, and a path of urban liberation grounded in Marxist urban philosophy can be sketched out—these are the extremely important, creative and inspiring parts of Lefebvre’s ideological system. On the basis of a systematic study of Marx and Engels’s urban thought, Lefebvre’s reflection and planning for the path of human liberation made him the founder of Western Marxist urban philosophy.

马克思和恩格斯思想体系中存在的关于城市的思考和研究如何转化为马克思主义城市哲学的理论资源；如何基于马克思和恩格斯的思想理论开辟出城市哲学的理论视域，并在这一视域内审视人类社会具体的存在状态与矛盾；如何创造性地描绘资本主义制度下城市生活的异化与反异化，勾画出以马克思主义城市哲学为基础的城市解放道路，是列斐伏尔思想体系中十分重要且具有创造性与启发性的部分。列斐伏尔在对马克思和恩格斯城市思想做出系统研究的基础上，对人类解放道路的思考与谋划，使其成为西方马克思主义城市哲学的奠基人。

Marx and Engels provided rich theoretical resources for the establishment of a Marxist urban philosophical theory. The relationship between Marx and Engels’s thought and theory and urban philosophy is the primary question Lefebvre had to answer, and also a key question concerning the legitimacy of Marxist urban philosophy. Lefebvre believed that the era in which Marx and Engels lived was precisely the era when capitalist industrial cities were gradually rising. During this period, the relationship between city and countryside changed; the city became the main site for the production of social wealth, and a series of profound changes taking place in the city heralded the birth of new modes of production and new ways of life. Marx and Engels lived within this situation and were witnesses to the birth of the modern city. Lefebvre pointed out: “In the works of Marx and Engels there is from beginning to end a discussion of urban problems, but the founders of scientific socialism did not provide a systematic exposition of them.” [1]1 Henri Lefebvre, *La pensée marxiste et la ville* (Paris: Casterman, 1972), p. 15. Through an in-depth study of the works of Marx and Engels, Lefebvre extracted, in the analysis and synthesis of relevant “fragments,” a research path for urban philosophy based on historical materialism and the critique of political economy.

马克思和恩格斯为马克思主义城市哲学理论的创立提供了丰富的理论资源。马克思和恩格斯的思想理论与城市哲学的关系是列斐伏尔要回答的首要问题，也是关涉马克思主义城市哲学合法性的关键问题。列斐伏尔认为，马克思和恩格斯所处的年代正是资本主义工业化城市逐步兴起的时代。在这一时期，城市与乡村的关系发生了变化，城市成为社会财富生产的主要场所，在城市中发生的一系列深刻变化预示着新的生产方式、生活方式的诞生。马克思和恩格斯身居其中，是现代城市诞生的见证者。列斐伏尔指出：“在马克思和恩格斯的著作中从始至终都存在对城市问题的探讨，但科学社会主义的创始人并没有对之做出系统的论述。”列斐伏尔通过对马克思和恩格斯著作的深入研究，在对相关“片段”的分析与整合中提炼出了以历史唯物主义和政治经济学批判为基础的城市哲学研究路径。

Lefebvre began with Engels, believing that Engels, from a more concrete and microscopic horizon, described the urban deployment of the capitalist mode of production and the living conditions of the working class subjected to it. Lefebvre held that Engels very keenly captured how the various elements of a new society (capitalist society) were gathering in the city, and their interaction shaped new urban characteristics and new spatial features, signifying a new way of life. At the same time, the concentration of production and population brought by capitalist industrialization changed the workers’ mode of existence, destroyed the countryside and its family structure, transformed people’s spiritual world, and reduced workers to machines and tools. Moreover, Engels also discovered various social problems in urban reality; these problems made the civilization and barbarism, progress and decay, cleanliness and filth contained in the city like two sides of a coin: one side shining in the sunlight, a symbol of social civilization and progress; the other side hidden in darkness, a different space shaped by the capitalist mode of production. They could coexist without interfering with each other, each going its own way, but both were inseparable components of the new landscape of the capitalist city. Lefebvre pointed out that Engels described the capitalist city with thought-provoking details; it was “a masterpiece the bourgeoisie successfully created, concealing the scenes of poverty that it itself found repugnant,” and also “concealing oppressive exploitation and its results.” [2]2 Ibid., p. 22. Lefebvre believed that Engels revealed the chaos and disorder of the capitalist city. In Engels, this chaos and disorder manifested as the resistance actions of the proletariat, while in Lefebvre’s view it signified a completely new form of revolution—the urban revolution.

列斐伏尔从恩格斯着手，认为恩格斯在一个更加具体的、微观的视域中描述了资本主义生产方式的城市布展以及居于其下的工人阶级生存状况。列斐伏尔认为，恩格斯十分敏锐地捕捉到一个新社会（资本主义社会）的诸种要素正在城市中聚集，它们的相互作用塑造了新的城市特征以及新的空间特性，表征了一种新的生活方式。同时，资本主义工业化带来的生产集中与人口集中改变了工人的生存方式，毁灭了农村及其家庭结构，改变了人们的精神世界，使工人沦为机器和工具。不仅如此，恩格斯还发现了城市现实中的种种社会问题，这些问题让城市包含的文明与野蛮、进步与衰颓、洁净与肮脏等如同硬币的两面：一面闪耀在阳光下，是社会文明与进步的表征；一面隐匿于黑暗，是资本主义生产方式塑造的别样空间。它们可以互不干扰，各行其是，但都是资本主义城市这一新景观不可分割的组成部分。列斐伏尔指出，恩格斯以发人深省的细节描述了资本主义城市，它是“资产阶级成功地创造出的一个杰作，掩盖了那些它自身也觉得反感的贫穷景象”，也“掩盖了压迫性剥削及其结果”。列斐伏尔认为，恩格斯揭示出了资本主义城市的混乱与失序。这些混乱和失序在恩格斯那里体现为无产阶级的反抗行动，而在列斐伏尔看来则意味着一种全新的革命形态——都市革命。

Lefebvre believed that Engels, in the dialectical relationship between theory and reality, between economic thought and economic practice, and in the depiction and understanding of the new phenomenon of the capitalist industrial city, incorporated a lived experience, whereas Marx more often expressed his views from an abstract principle. That is to say, Marx did not discuss urban problems as concretely and explicitly in reality as Engels often did, but many of Marx’s reflections can only be understood in the reality and context of the city. After Marx and Engels began their historic collaboration, the situation changed, and their urban thoughts merged with each other. Therefore, Lefebvre believed that the emergence of the urban phenomenon, the city as a holistic background, constituted a foundational part for understanding Marxist theory; that is, the totality presented by the city formed a solid basis for historical materialism. In the process of capitalism replacing feudalism, “the city was the site and instrument of historical transformation,” [3]3 Ibid., p. 33. and the city was also the carrier of various changes and adjustments in this transformation; it witnessed the changes in class relations and property relations during the alternation of old and new systems, and also witnessed how the working class was degraded to “abstract activity and a stomach.” [4]4 Ibid., p. 35. Lefebvre emphasized, against the urban background, Marx and Engels’s research on the division of labor and intercourse, taking this as the real basis for the discovery of historical materialism. In Lefebvre’s eyes, Marx and Engels, from the dialectical tension between macro and micro, concrete and abstract, and in the process of great adjustments and transformations in people’s production and life, depicted the laws and processes of human social development, and through the dimension of the city, revealed the history, reality, and future direction of human existence, thereby demonstrating human practical power.

列斐伏尔认为，恩格斯在理论与现实、经济思想与经济实践的辩证关系中，在对资本主义工业城市这一新事物的描绘和理解中，融入了一种生活的体验，而马克思则更多地从一种抽象原则出发来表述自身的观点。也就是说，马克思没有如恩格斯那样经常性地在现实中具体而明确地谈论城市问题，但马克思的很多思考只有在城市的现实和语境中才能得到理解。在马克思和恩格斯开启历史性的合作之后，情况发生了变化，两者的城市思想彼此融合。因此，列斐伏尔认为，城市现象的出现，城市作为一种整体性的背景，构成了理解马克思主义理论的基础性部分，即城市呈现出的整体性构成了历史唯物主义的一个坚实基点。在资本主义取代封建主义的过程中，“城市是发生历史性转变的场所和工具”，城市也是这一转变中各式各样变化与调整的载体，它见证了新旧制度交替过程中阶级关系、财产关系的变化，也见证了工人阶级如何被贬低为“抽象的活动和胃”。列斐伏尔着重强调了在城市背景下马克思和恩格斯对劳动分工与交往问题的研究，将之作为历史唯物主义得以发现的现实基础。在列斐伏尔的眼中，马克思和恩格斯从宏观与微观、具体与抽象的辩证张力中，在人们生产、生活发生巨大调整与变革的过程中，描绘了人类社会发展的规律和过程，并通过城市这一维度展现了人类生存的历史与现实以及未来的发展方向，从而展现了人的实践力量。

Lefebvre’s investigation and comparison of Marx and Engels reveals his own real theoretical intention, namely, to conduct urban analysis based on changes in life, differences in reality, and concrete situations. Lefebvre believed that the relationship between city and countryside and its transformation is both the real basis for understanding historical materialism and the key to understanding the process of urban development and its role in the evolution of human social development. On the basis of Marxist political economy, Lefebvre put forward his own proposition: “I attempt to prove that for Marx, the dissolution of the feudal mode of production and the transition to capitalism are closely linked to a theme: the city.” [5]5 Ibid., p. 41. The existence of the city is not only foundational but also subjective. It gathers various elements, allowing them to ferment within itself, and at the same time it is a work. Lefebvre pointed out: “The city is a subject; it is a force of coherence.” [6]6 Ibid., p. 47. In this sense, the urban subject contains a force that enables it to manifest, maintain, and transform itself, allowing it to leap to a new form. Regarding the transition from feudalism to capitalism, only by understanding it as the contradictory movement of the urban-rural relationship can one concretely grasp and comprehend this process. In the feudal city, which was a center of political and economic power, the increasing rise and growth of commerce, the dissolution of guilds, the separation of laborers from the means of production such as land, the prosperity of the monetary economy—this series of concrete transformations caused the contradiction between city and countryside to give way to the contradiction of capitalist relations of production, the contradiction between capitalists and workers. Lefebvre believed that the capitalist city is still a subjective city; the true masters of this city are those who participate, and they collectively create the urban work. These people who participate in constructing the urban work possess “the right to the city.” Although this right may be marginalized and deprived in the process of urban development, as a right it signifies the possibility of transformation. Only by understanding the city as a subject can one understand that in its development process, the expansion of human social intercourse, the progress of globalization, etc., will all bring about a completely new urban form, namely, the urban society. Lefebvre called this “the complete urbanization of society.” [7]7 Ibid., p. 52. It is a creative imagination of future society, the ultimate result of industrialization in Marx’s sense.

列斐伏尔对马克思和恩格斯的考察与比较显示出他自己真实的理论意图，即基于生活变迁、现实差异与具体情境来进行城市分析。列斐伏尔认为，城乡关系及其变迁既是理解历史唯物主义的现实基础，也是理解城市发展过程及其对人类社会发展演化所起到的作用的关键。列斐伏尔以马克思主义政治经济学为基础提出了自己的主张，“我试图证明，对马克思来说，封建生产方式的解体和向资本主义的过渡与一个主题密切相关：城市”。城市的存在不仅是基础性的，更是主体性的。它聚集了各种要素，使之在自身内部发酵，同时它也是一部作品。列斐伏尔指出：“城市是一个主体，它是一种连贯性的力量。”在这一意义上，城市主体蕴含着一种使自身得以展现、维持和转化的力量，使自身能够向一个新的形态跃迁。就封建主义向资本主义转变来说，只有将其理解为城乡关系的矛盾运动，才能具体地把握和理解这一过程。在封建的、作为政治经济权力中心的城市中，商业的日益兴起和壮大、行会的解体、劳动者与土地等生产资料的分离、货币经济的繁荣等，这一系列具体的转换，使城乡之间的矛盾让位于资本主义生产关系的矛盾、资本家和工人的矛盾。列斐伏尔认为，资本主义的城市仍然是一个主体性的城市，这个城市的真正主人是参与性的，他们共同创造了城市作品。这些参与构建城市作品的人拥有“城市权利”，这种权利虽然有可能在城市发展的过程中被边缘化、被剥夺，但是作为一种权利，它表征着变革的可能性。而只有将城市理解为主体，才能明白在其发展历程中，人类社会交往的扩大、全球化的进展等，都将带来一种全新的城市形式即都市。列斐伏尔将其称为“社会的完全都市化”，它是对未来社会的创造性想象，是马克思意义上工业化的最终结果。

In Lefebvre’s theoretical vision, the city is a historical category. This is the theoretical attitude that Marx and Engels maintained when discussing the urban question, and it is also an important method of their theoretical construction. Therefore, the excavation of Marx and Engels’ urban theory must also adhere to a concrete and historical attitude. Through an analysis of the works of Marx and Engels, Lefebvre argues that, in the process of Marx’s discussion of the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production, especially in his study of relations of production, the question of reproduction has important theoretical and practical significance for understanding the establishment of capitalism, the capitalist city, the alienation of daily life, the problem of space, and the enormous changes in people’s rhythms of life, and particularly for understanding the survival of capitalism. Lefebvre takes the city and the evolution of the urban-rural relationship as a key to understanding the above issues. It is precisely through the city, through the concrete relationship of the city with productive forces and relations of production, with political power, and with population, that one can understand that “in past societies, the most important social relations were not economic relations,” and that it is precisely “under the capitalist system that the economic base plays a dominant role. The economy occupies the dominant position.” Marx’s important contribution was to discover “the victory of the economy over history.” Lefebvre points out that, in studying today’s capitalism, starting from the perspective of the reproduction of relations of production, one can clearly see a dual historical process, namely, “the reproduction of relations of production implies the expansion and enlargement of the mode of production and its material base. As Marx anticipated, capitalism spread to the whole world, absorbed earlier productive forces, and transformed them for itself. But capitalism also created new sectors of production, thereby creating new sectors of exploitation and domination, including leisure, daily life, knowledge and art, and finally urbanization.” This process opened up the world market, continuously carrying out the spatialization of capital and the capitalization of space.

在列斐伏尔的理论视野中，城市是一个历史范畴，这是马克思和恩格斯讨论城市问题时秉持的理论态度，也是其理论建构的重要方法。因此，对马克思和恩格斯城市理论的挖掘也需要秉持具体的、历史的态度。通过对马克思和恩格斯著作的分析，列斐伏尔认为，马克思在讨论生产力和生产关系矛盾运动的过程中，尤其是在对生产关系做出研究时，再生产问题对理解资本主义的建立、资本主义的城市、日常生活的异化、空间问题以及人们生活节奏的巨大变化，特别是理解资本主义的幸存具有重要的理论和现实意义。列斐伏尔将城市、城乡关系的演变视为理解上述问题的一把钥匙。正是通过城市，通过城市与生产力和生产关系、与政治权力、与人口的具体关系，才能理解“在过去的社会中，最重要的社会关系不是经济关系”，而正是“在资本主义制度下，经济基础起支配作用。经济占主导地位”。马克思的重要贡献就是发现了“经济对历史的胜利”。列斐伏尔指出，对今天的资本主义展开研究，从生产关系再生产的角度出发就可以明显地看出一个双重的历史过程，即“生产关系的再生产意味着生产方式及其物质基础的扩展和扩大。正如马克思所预料的那样，资本主义传播到全世界，吸收了早期的生产力，并为自己改造了它们。但资本主义也创造了新的生产部门，从而创造了新的剥削和统治部门，包括休闲、日常生活、知识和艺术，最后还有城市化”。这个过程开辟了世界市场，不断进行着资本空间化和空间资本化。

With a very cautious attitude, Lefebvre made a holistic and systematic study of the intellectual resources of Marx and Engels and of their urban thought. This study is not a simple combing or a patchwork of “fragments,” but rather an attempt to foreground the urban question within the perspective of historical materialism, laying an epistemological and methodological foundation for urban studies, highlighting the importance of the urban question in our era within the process and context of historical development, and concretely considering and revealing, within an orderly framework, the series of contradictions and even alienation that capitalist urban problems bring to people. Based on the expansion and shift of the Marxist theoretical perspective, Lefebvre placed his hopes in a new type of urban philosophy. This urban philosophy contains the possibility of human liberation, and contains a new urban form, order, and relationship.

列斐伏尔以十分审慎的态度对马克思和恩格斯的思想资源，对其城市思想作出了整体性与系统性的研究。这一研究不是简单的梳理和对“片段”的拼凑，而是试图在历史唯物主义的视野中使城市问题凸显出来，为城市研究奠定了认识与方法上的基础，在历史发展的过程与脉络中突出了我们时代城市问题的重要性，又在秩序性的框架中具体思考和揭示资本主义的城市问题给人们带来的一系列矛盾乃至异化。列斐伏尔基于马克思主义理论视角的扩展与切换，寄希望于一种新型的城市哲学，这一城市哲学蕴含着人类解放的可能性，蕴含着一种新的城市形态、秩序和关系。

(The author is an associate professor at the School of Marxism, Dalian University of Technology)

（作者系大连理工大学马克思主义学院副教授）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心