The Neoliberal Capitalist Turn toward Neo-Fascism: Roots and Pathways Out

I. Neoliberal Capitalism and the Crisis and Predicament of Contemporary Society

一、新自由资本主义与当代社会的危机与困局

Michel Foucault, in works such as *The Birth of Biopolitics*, pointed out that, unlike classical liberalism, neoliberalism is increasingly characterized by the exercise of power. “The problem of neoliberalism is… how to exercise political power in its entirety according to the principles of a market economy”; the goal with which neoliberalism is concerned is “the privatization of social policy.” [1]1 Michel Foucault, *The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979*, ed. Michel Senellart, trans. Graham Burchell (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), 131, 144. By absolutizing and fundamentalizing market power, neoliberalism destroys social bonds and public consciousness, weakens the sense of the other, responsibility, and moral obligation, dissolves sympathy and warmth among people, and renders individuals indifferent to the suffering of others, even mutually hostile and on guard. In Henry Giroux’s view, “neoliberalism destroys ‘livelihoods and neighborly love,’ ‘empties democracy of its core, undermines its legitimacy,’” and devalues all knowledge and virtue outside of survival skills. [2]2 Henry A. Giroux, *Neoliberalism’s War on Higher Education* (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2014), 7. The representative figure of neoliberalism, Ludwig von Mises, labeled any socialist proposal that would guide, restrict, or constrain the absolute position of market competition and financialization as “destructionism,” and slandered it by saying, “Socialism is not construction, but destruction. Destruction is its essence.” [3]3 Ludwig von Mises, *Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis*, trans. J. Kahane (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1981), 19.

米歇尔·福柯（Michel Foucault）在《生命政治的诞生》等著作中指出，与经典自由主义不同，新自由主义权力化的特征日益明显。“新自由主义的问题在于……如何按照市场经济原则全面行使政治权力”，新自由主义所关心的目标是“社会政策私有化”。新自由主义将市场权力绝对化和原教旨主义化的做法，破坏了社会纽带和公共意识，削弱了他者意识、责任担当和道德义务的观念，瓦解了人们之间的同情心和温情，使个体对他人的痛苦漠不关心，甚至相互敌视和防范。在亨利·吉鲁（Henry Giroux）看来，“新自由主义摧毁‘谋生之道和邻里之爱’，‘清空民主的内核，破坏民主的合法性’”，贬低生存技能之外所有知识和德性的价值。新自由主义的代表人物路德维希·冯·米塞斯（Ludwig von Mises）把对市场竞争和金融化的绝对地位有任何引导、限制或约束的社会主义主张称为“破坏主义”，并污蔑“社会主义不是建设，而是破坏。破坏是它的本质”。

Once the political and value propositions of neoliberalism become state and social policy, they turn into neoliberal capitalism with hegemonic power, comprehensively squeezing the space and possibilities of social interaction, public action, and state governance. By eroding social bonds and moral boundaries, the symptoms of a poverty of ethical and political spirit—characterized by a sense of responsibility and commitment—have pervaded the entire society. Apart from recognizing equality of opportunity, neoliberal capitalism completely rejects any program of substantive equality; its rise has sown the seeds of polarization and uneven development. Neoliberal capitalism holds that oligopolistic monopoly, and the hereditary capitalism and neo-feudalism that arise from it, do not violate the principle of free competition but are rather the expression or result of competition itself—that is, “a dramatic increase in the degree of socioeconomic inequality, a marked deepening of the exploitation of the world’s poorest countries and peoples, a catastrophic global environment, a volatile global economy, and an unprecedented opportunity for the rich to get richer.” [4]4 David Harvey, *A Brief History of Neoliberalism* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 19.

新自由主义的政治与价值主张一旦成为国家和社会的政策，就成了具有支配权的新自由资本主义（neoliberal capitalism），全面挤压社会交往、公共行动和国家治理的空间与可能性。通过侵蚀社会纽带和道德边界，具有责任与担当意识的伦理和政治精神的贫困症状已经充斥整个社会。新自由资本主义除了承认机会平等外，完全拒绝了实质平等的任何方案，其兴起埋下了两极分化和不平衡发展的种子。新自由资本主义认为，寡头垄断以及由之产生的世袭资本主义和新封建主义并未违反自由竞争原则，而是竞争本身的表现或结果，即“社会经济不平等程度的大幅度提高，对世界最贫穷国家和人民的剥削程度的明显加深，灾难性的全球环境，动荡的全球经济和对富人而言前所未有的发财机会”。

Neoliberal capitalism has completely inverted the relationship between production and consumption: the comprehensive control and dominance of production by the consumer as the holder of money is its explicit proposition. Mises explicitly argued that production led by consumers is democratic production, and from this he developed the logic of credit, debt-based consumption, and production centered on the rich. Here it must be pointed out that Marx’s identification, in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, of the essence of capitalist industry as a “eunuch” subservient to the “consumer” who holds money, was not yet profound enough. It was only when writing *Capital* that Marx further elaborated that the commodity fetish contains not merely the reification of social relations, but also, within that reified relation, an unequal relationship of power and subordination—that is, the relation in which production is subordinated to exchange, and exchange is subordinated to the domination and subordination of capital’s valorization. The actual situation of inversion under neoliberal capitalism is far more severe than what it proclaims, and what Marx observed in the *1844 Manuscripts*. For example, the financialization and securitization of neoliberal capitalism have already made the economy a virtual valorization detached from production, relying purely on the power of capital. As Jodi Dean points out: “With the closure of the process of real subsumption, capitalism today is making itself worse. The monopolistic concentration of digital capitalism, rising inequality, and the subordination of government to the market are leading to the birth of a neo-feudalism. In this society, accumulation occurs through rent, debt, and power… The valorization process has long since surpassed the factory, entering a complex, speculative, and unstable closed loop, increasingly reliant on surveillance, coercion, and violence… This does not mean there are no longer capitalist production and exploitation relations; rather, it means that other aspects of capitalist production—expropriation, domination, and coercion—have become so powerful that organizing free and equal subjects to confront each other in the labor market is meaningless.” [5]5 Jodi Dean, *The Communist Horizon* (London: Verso, 2012), 18–19.

新自由资本主义彻底倒置了生产与消费的关系，即作为货币持有者的消费者对生产的全面控制和主导是新自由资本主义的明确主张。米塞斯就明确主张由消费者主导的生产才是民主的生产，并由此发展出信贷、债务消费和以富人为中心的生产逻辑。在这里不得不指出，马克思在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中对资本主义工业的本质是臣服于持有货币的“消费者”的“宦官”的指认还不够深刻。直到在写作《资本论》时，马克思才进一步深入阐述了商品拜物教所蕴含的并不仅仅是社会关系的物化，在物化关系中还同时存在权力与从属的不平等关系，也就是生产从属于交换，交换从属于资本增殖的支配与从属关系。而新自由资本主义倒置的实际情况远远比其所宣称的，以及马克思在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中所观察到的要严重得多，比如新自由资本主义的金融化和债券化已经使得经济成为脱离生产、纯粹依靠资本权力而展开的虚拟增殖了。正如约迪·迪安（Jodi Dean）所指出的那样：“随着其实质吸纳（real subsumption）进程的封闭，今天的资本主义正在使自身变得更糟。数字资本主义的垄断性集中、不平等加剧、政府对市场的屈从，正在导致一种新封建主义的诞生。在这种社会中，积累通过租金、债务和权力来实现……增殖过程已经远远超越工厂，进入了复杂、投机和不稳定的闭环，日益依赖监控、强迫和暴力……这并不意味着不再有资本主义生产和剥削关系，而是意味着征用、支配和强制等资本主义生产的其他方面已经变得如此强大，以致于组织自由和平等的主体在劳动力市场进行对抗已经没有意义。”

If Protestant ethics and classical liberalism still emphasized the time and efficiency of material production, neoliberalism emphasizes data, information, and algorithms to the fullest. The Korean-German philosopher Byung-Chul Han, in works such as *Psychopolitics*, points out: “Neoliberalism, as another form, a variant of capitalism, is not primarily concerned with biology, the body, or the flesh; it discovers that, in fact, spirit is the productive force.” “To increase productivity, what must be overcome is no longer the resistance of the body, but rather the optimization of the operating procedures of the spirit and the brain”—that is, using every means to obtain money as the vehicle for the exercise of power. [6]6 Byung-Chul Han, *Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and New Technologies of Power*, trans. Erik Butler (London: Verso, 2017), 25, 27. Therefore, the victory of neoliberalism manifests as the victory of monetarism and the logic of financialization based upon it. This poses a severe challenge to the objectification of the self’s essential powers through labor, and the driving force and positive mentality of actively constructing and creating the world suffer a serious setback.

如果说新教伦理和古典自由主义还强调物质生产的时间和效率的话，新自由主义强调的则是彻底的数据、信息和算法。韩裔德国哲学家韩炳哲（Byung-Chul Han）在《精神政治》等著作中指出：“新自由主义作为另一种形式，即资本主义的变种，在第一性上无关生物、躯体和肉体，它发现，其实精神才是生产力”，“为了提高生产力，所要克服的不再是来自肉体的反抗，而是要去优化精神和脑力的运转程序”，即用尽一切手段获得作为权力施行载体的货币。因此，新自由主义的胜利就表现为货币主义以及以其为基础的金融化逻辑的胜利，这使得以劳动为线索的自我本质力量的对象化面临着严峻的挑战，积极构造和创造世界的驱动力和积极心态遭到了严重的挫败。

The arrival of the era of neoliberal capitalism is also reflected in the transformation of state governance and political principles. If Hegel once envisioned the separation of state and civil society, with the state laying the general conditions for the normal operation of civil society, and civil society being a system of needs, then the sovereignty theory of neoliberal capitalism explicitly transforms the political activity of the state into a governance activity centered on the holder of money. Niklas Olsen, in his book *The Sovereign Consumer: A Cultural History of Neoliberalism*, provides an in-depth analysis and critique of this: neoliberal consumption is no longer the “satisfaction of needs” as Hegel put it, but the satisfaction of desires; consumption becomes a pleasure of exercising power through money, dominating the direction and content of material production, and thereby influencing the operation of the state and politics. [7]7 Niklas Olsen, *The Sovereign Consumer: A Cultural History of Neoliberalism* (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019), 1–15. Through the assumption that the consumer is the only independent, free subject, the democracy of neoliberal capitalist state governance and political operation is further transformed into a democracy of money; monetary and capital sovereignty become important principles of the political paradigm in the era of neoliberal capitalism. Perry Anderson and others have therefore put forward the judgment that state sovereignty in the era of neoliberal capitalism is fragmented, or even completely capitalized. [8]8 Perry Anderson, “The Origins of Neoliberalism,” *New Left Review* 50 (2008): 5–24. The space originally available for the social solidarity function that the non-fully marketized welfare state could still accomplish has thus been lost. This greatly frustrates people’s willingness to participate in social integration and public politics and democracy—or, rather, the positive content of democratic politics has been hollowed out. Axel Honneth believes that this lack of social-political life is the root of modern people’s spiritual distress: “In the abyss of failed sociality, the pain they feel cannot find resonance in the expression of the public sphere.” [9]9 Axel Honneth, *The Idea of Socialism: Towards a Renewal*, trans. Joseph Ganahl (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2017), 89.

新自由资本主义时代的到来同样还表现在国家治理和政治原则的转型上，如果说黑格尔曾经设想过国家与市民社会的分离，国家为市民社会的正常运行奠定一般条件，而市民社会是需要满足的体系的话，新自由资本主义的主权理论则明确将国家的政治活动转变为以货币持有者为中心的治理活动。尼克拉斯·奥尔森（Niklas Olsen）在《消费主权：新自由主义文化史》一书中对此展开了深入的分析与批判，即新自由主义的消费已然不是黑格尔所言的“需要的满足”，而是欲望的满足，消费变成了一种依靠货币而展开的权力施行快感，主导着物质生产的方向与内容，并进而影响着国家与政治之运行。通过消费者才是独立、自由的主体这一假定，新自由资本主义国家治理和政治运行的民主进一步转变为货币的民主，货币与资本主权成为新自由资本主义时代政治范式的重要原则。佩里·安德森（Perry Anderson)等人因此提出了新自由资本主义时代国家主权分割，甚至是彻底资本化的判断。原本非完全市场化的福利国家还能完成的社会团结功能就此失去了原有的空间，这导致人们参与社会整合和公共政治与民主的意愿大为受挫，或者说民主政治的积极内涵被掏空了。阿克塞尔·霍耐特（Axel Honneth）认为，这种社会政治生活的缺失是现代人精神困顿的根源，在“失败的社会性的深渊中，他们感受到的痛苦无法在公共空间的表达中找到共鸣”。

In other words, neoliberal capitalism has swallowed up the space of state governance by making the state revolve entirely around the market, especially the large corporations in the financial market. Neoliberalism regards the free financial market as the organizing and governing principle and orientation of the state… The state is supervised by the financial market, not the financial market by the state. Unlike traditional fascism and Keynesianism, which package the state as the protector of the losers, neoliberal capitalism goes to great lengths to describe the state as an entity of totalitarianism, corruption, and moral decay, holding that government is not the solution to problems but the problem itself. That is to say, apart from maintaining the circulation of international finance, the less government governs, the better it is, as if the only legitimate and lawful government is one that upholds the hegemonic position of finance.

换言之，新自由资本主义通过让国家完全围绕市场，特别是金融市场中的大公司旋转，从而吞没了国家治理的空间。新自由主义将自由金融市场视为国家的组织和治理原则与导向……国家受金融市场的监督而不是金融市场受国家的监督。与传统的法西斯主义和凯恩斯主义将国家包装成失败者的保护神不同，新自由资本主义极力将国家描述为极权、贪腐和道德堕落的存在，认为政府不是解决问题的方法，而是问题所在。也就是说，除维护国际金融流通外，管得越少的政府越是好的政府,似乎唯一正当和合法的政府是维护金融霸权地位的政府。

Sheldon S. Wolin, in his book *Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism*, regards the principle of taking the market and the corporation as the highest standard under neoliberal capitalism as inverted totalitarianism: the state can only obey and execute the logic of large financial corporations, and the supreme power of the sovereign has been transferred to globally influential corporations. James K. Galbraith, in his book *The Predator State*, points out even more directly that, under the control of large corporations, the neoliberal capitalist era has transformed from a welfare state system into a neoliberal state system that plunders ordinary people, ultimately leading to a negative correlation between economic growth and employment rates and labor income, continuously generating large numbers of unemployed and temporary workers, even affecting the middle class. In the neoliberal capitalist era, a considerable portion of the middle class or knowledge-based white-collar workers, who once relied on diligence and hard work to change their fate, have been reduced to new “losers.”

谢尔登·沃林（Sheldon S. Wolin）在其《民主大公司——被管制的民主和反向极权主义的幽灵》一书中将新自由资本主义以市场和公司作为最高标准的这一原则视为反向极权主义：国家只能服从并执行大金融公司的逻辑，主权者至高无上的权力转移成了全球有影响力的公司。詹姆斯·加尔布雷斯（James K. Galbraith）在其《掠夺型政府》一书中更加直接地指出了在大公司的控制下，新自由资本主义时代如何从福利国家体系转变为掠夺普通民众的新自由主义国家体系，最终导致经济增长与就业率和劳动收入呈负相关性，持续产生了大量的失业和临时就业人群，甚至波及到了中产阶级。在新自由资本主义时代，相当大一部分原本依赖勤奋、拼搏而改变自身命运的中产阶级或知识白领沦为了新的“失败者”。

The large numbers of unemployed, helpless people who see no meaning in diligence and hard work have escalated the basic mental state of burnout and powerlessness caused by neoliberal capitalism into dissatisfaction and hatred toward oneself and others. People’s desire for unity and a sense of belonging has transformed into identity politics based on race, gender, ethnicity, or nationalism. Academic circles have various judgments on the connection between neoliberal capitalism and neo-fascism. Some scholars believe that neoliberal capitalism as financial totalitarianism is itself a new type of fascism. Ronald W. Cox, in his article “Capitalism and Neo-Fascism,” specifically points out that if one considers how neoliberal capitalism has used the state for decades to prevent, attack, and slander democracy, socialism, and the advocacy of common prosperity, in order to maintain neoliberal capitalism’s predatory accumulation and the absolute command of the market, then neoliberal capitalism itself is already neo-fascism. Other scholars argue that neoliberal capitalism, on the one hand, seeks scapegoats, directing hatred and dissatisfaction toward foreign countries or ethnic groups, and on the other hand, transforms crises into bailouts for financialized enterprises, thereby either obscuring or further exacerbating the crisis of polarization and mutual hatred that constitutes neo-fascism. As John Bellamy Foster points out: “The greatest inequality in history, combined with the deterioration of the economic and social conditions of the majority of the population, has aroused widespread discontent, which on the whole still cannot be adequately expressed. Capital’s response to this unstable situation is to try to mobilize large numbers of reactionary lower-middle and middle classes against the upper-middle class and the working class (especially through racist attacks on immigrants) and to make the state an enemy external to the market. David Harvey has recently called this strategy the developing ‘alliance’ between neoliberalism and neo-fascism.” William I. Robinson argues: “Whether in its classic twentieth-century form or in the possible variant of twenty-first-century neo-fascism, fascism is a specific response to the crisis of capitalism.”

大量的失业、无助以及看不到勤奋和努力拼搏的意义所在的人群，使新自由资本主义所造成的倦怠和无力的基本精神状态升级成为对自我、对他人的不满和仇恨。人们渴望团结和有归属感的心理则转变成了种族主义、性别、族群或民族主义的身份政治。学界对新自由资本主义与新法西斯主义的关联性有多种不同的判断。有的学者认为，作为金融极权的新自由资本主义本身就是新型的法西斯主义。罗纳德·考克斯（Ronald W. Cox）在《资本主义与新法西斯主义》一文中特别指出，如果是考虑到新自由资本主义几十年来如何利用国家来防止、攻击和污蔑民主、社会主义和共同富裕的主张，以维护新自由资本主义剥夺性积累和市场的绝对命令地位的话，新自由资本主义本身就已经是新法西斯主义了。有的学者认为，新自由资本主义一方面通过寻找替罪羊，把仇恨和不满引向域外国家或族群，另一方面又将危机转化为对金融化企业的救助，从而要么遮蔽，要么进一步加剧了两极分化和相互仇视的新法西斯主义危机。正如约翰·贝拉米·福斯特（John Bellamy Foster）所指出的那样：“历史上最大的不平等，加上大多数人口的经济和社会处境恶化等，已经引起了人们的普遍不满，而这种不满情绪总体上仍无法得到充分表达。资本对这种不稳定局势的反应是试图动员大量反动的中下阶层来反对中上阶层和工人阶级（特别是通过向移民发动种族主义攻击），并使国家成为外在于市场的敌人。大卫·哈维（David Harvey）最近将这一策略称为新自由主义与新法西斯主义之间正在发展的‘联合’。”威廉·罗宾逊（William I. Robinson）认为：“无论是20世纪的典型形式还是21世纪新法西斯主义的可能变种，法西斯主义都是对资本主义危机的一种特殊回应。”

In the analysis of Western left-wing scholars, classical fascism is a political form in which capital is completely dependent on the bourgeois nation-state, leading to the disappearance of civil society and the suspension of democratic freedoms. Against the backdrop of unstable living conditions for ordinary people, it possesses powerful social mobilization forces, is the result of a combination of irrationalist emotions and manipulative rationalism, and manifests as military dictatorship, concentration camps, and violent suppression by various SS troops. Neo-fascism differs from this, because neoliberal transnational capital has already kidnapped and hijacked the nation-state. As Prabhat Patnaik states: “Neoliberal economic policy is the product of the hegemonic system of international financial capital; it embodies the preferences of international financial capital. In a world of globalized and internationalized capital, the state remains a nation-state, and these preferences are imposed on every nation-state; otherwise, capital will flow out of that state, causing a serious financial crisis… As a nation-state, it must follow the preferences of globalized finance; otherwise, there will be capital flight from this economy, triggering a financial crisis.” Patnaik argues that, unlike traditional fascism, which leads to global war, neo-fascism, even if it seizes state power and forms a fascist state, cannot trigger large-scale world war; it only increases ethnic and racial hatred and continuously creates conflicts and contradictions to divert attention. “Contemporary fascism can neither obtain the kind of support that fascism initially received (because it could alleviate crises) nor can it destroy itself in large-scale war as before. For this reason, it is likely to become a more enduring phenomenon.” Therefore, Patnaik regards neo-fascism as “low-intensity fascism,” but not without danger: “As long as neoliberal capitalism continues to exist, the crises arising from the fascist tendencies it produces will not change; as long as neoliberal capitalism continues to exist, we will be trapped in the predicament of the long-term existence of fascism.”

在西方左翼学者的分析中，经典的法西斯主义是资本完全依附于资产阶级民族国家，从而导致市民社会消失并悬置了民主自由的一种政治形式，其在普通民众生活条件不稳定的背景下，有着强大的社会动员力量，是非理性主义的情绪与操纵型的理性主义相结合的结果，并表现为军事独裁、集中营和各种党卫军的暴力镇压。新法西斯主义则与之不同，原因在于新自由主义的跨国资本已经绑架和挟持了民族国家。正如普拉巴特·帕特奈克（Prabhat Patnaik）所言：“新自由主义经济政策是国际金融资本霸权体制的产物，它们体现了国际金融资本的偏好。在一个资本全球化和国际化的世界里，国家仍然是民族国家，而这些偏好是强加给每一个民族国家的，否则资本就会流出这个国家，从而造成严重的金融危机……作为一个民族国家，它必须遵循全球化金融的偏好，否则就会有资金从这个经济体外逃，从而引发金融危机。”帕特奈克认为，与传统的法西斯主义导致全球战争不同，新法西斯主义即使掌握国家政权、形成法西斯国家，也不可能触发大规模的世界战争，而只是增加民族与种族仇恨，并不断制造冲突和矛盾以转移视线罢了。“当代法西斯主义既不可能得到法西斯主义最初曾获得过的那种支持（因为它能缓解危机），也不可能像以前那样在大规模战争中毁灭自我。基于此种原因，它很可能成为一种更为持久的现象。”因此，帕特奈克将新法西斯主义视为“低强度法西斯主义”，但并非毫无危险，“只要新自由资本主义继续存在，由其导致的法西斯主义倾向所产生的危机就不会改变，只要新自由资本主义继续存在，我们就会陷入法西斯主义长期存在的困境”。

Robinson similarly points out that in the era of globalized neoliberal capitalism, or neoliberal global capitalism, neo-fascism cannot be understood as a project of a single nation-state, because the core of neo-fascism is “the triangle formed by transnational capital, reactionary political forces within the state, and neo-fascist forces in civil society.” Since international financial capital is not interested in economic nationalism, even a far-right fascism in one country can hardly replicate the traditional fascist situation of dominating the entire world. Noam Chomsky, in an interview titled “We Are on the Road to Neo-Fascism,” points out that because the fundamental feature of neoliberalism is unconstrained hyper-globalization, financial capital can not only exploit the cheapest labor and provide the worst working conditions but also receive bailouts from nation-states when facing financial risks, and direct domestic discontent toward the countries and peoples suffering from neoliberal capitalist exploitation.

罗宾逊同样指出，在全球化的新自由资本主义，或者说新自由全球资本主义时代，新法西斯主义不能被理解为某个民族国家的方案，因为新法西斯主义的核心是“跨国资本、国家中的反动政治力量和市民社会中的新法西斯势力所构成的三角”。由于国际金融资本对经济民族主义不感兴趣，因此，即使是一国的极右法西斯主义，也很难复制传统法西斯主义一统天下的局面。诺姆·乔姆斯基（Noam Chomsky）在题为“我们正走在通往新法西斯主义的道路上”的访谈中指出，由于新自由主义的根本特征是不受约束的超级全球化，因此，金融资本不但能剥削最廉价的劳动力、提供最糟糕的工作条件，还能在遇到金融风险时得到民族国家的救助，并将国内的不满引向遭受新自由资本主义剥削的国家和民族。

II. Western Left-Wing Scholars’ Exploration of Ways to Transcend and Replace the Current Crisis

二、西方左翼学者对当下危机的超越与替代路径的探索

Faced with the crisis of neoliberal capitalism’s neo-fascism, Chomsky believes that there is no alternative but to thoroughly resist the hegemony of neoliberal capitalism. Similarly, Vivek Chibber, in his book *The Class Matrix: Social Theory after the Cultural Turn*, argues that resistance is the best solution to the crisis of neoliberal capitalism and its neo-fascist turn. However, unlike the path of resistance, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri have explicitly pointed out that the traditional Left easily falls into a “dualistic trap of neoliberal power and resistance,” and that what is truly needed is to shift from resistance to the study of alternative models. Moishe Postone also notes: “With respect to capitalism, Marx’s analysis is directed not toward the emergence of ‘resistance’ but toward the possibility of ‘transformation’; he outlines the gap between what is and what ought to be, and proposes the possibility of a future society, a possibility that is gradually becoming reality.”

面对新自由资本主义的新法西斯主义危机，乔姆斯基认为，除了彻底反抗新自由主义资本主义的霸权外，别无他路。同样，维维克·奇伯（Vivek Chibber）也在《对抗资本主义：世界如何运作以及如何改变它》一书中提出，对抗是解决新自由主义资本主义的危机和新法西斯主义转向的最好方案。然而，与对抗主义的路径不同，迈克尔·哈特（Michael Hardt）和安东尼奥·奈格里（Antonio Negri）曾明确指出，传统左翼容易陷入“新自由主义权力与反抗”的“二元论的怪圈”，而真正需要的是从反抗转移到替代模式的研究。莫伊舍·普殊同（Moishe Postone）亦指出：“就资本主义而言，马克思的分析并非针对‘抵抗’的出现，而是针对‘转型’的可能性，他概括了应然与实然之间的差距，提出了关于未来社会的可能性，这一可能性正在逐步变成现实。”

In response to global uneven development, the resurgence of conservatism, the rise of nativism, and the ebb of globalization, Enzo Traverso, in his book *The New Faces of Fascism*, analyzes various manifestations of neo-fascism. He argues that the essence of neoliberal capitalism is neo-imperialism, while neo-fascism is a regressive form of neoconservatism. He advocates rebuilding global interactions and trade on new principles of equality and sharing. In his view, the act of declaring “closed borders” in an era of “wall-building states” and blocking immigrants with militarized borders is extremely dangerous, as these actions will further intensify xenophobia. Although the hyper-globalization of neoliberalism has many problems, humanity cannot return to the pre-globalization era, because all key issues of the 21st century—from the ecological crisis to social inequality and population mobility—require global cooperation to explore solutions. In his view, internationalism has belonged to the Left from its origins, and we cannot easily abandon or reject global governance. In the era of globalization, socialism should rediscover the original meaning of borders, namely, places where humans meet, not lines of separation. Traverso advocates replacing the finance-dominated process of globalization with a new internationalism and cosmopolitanism.

针对全球发展的不平衡和保守主义的回潮、本土主义的兴起和全球化的退潮，恩佐·特拉维索（Enzo Traverso）在《法西斯主义的新面孔》一书中分析了各种新法西斯主义的表现。他认为，新自由资本主义的本质是新帝国主义，而新法西斯主义则是回退式的新保守主义。他主张在新的平等与共享原则上重建全球交往与贸易。在他看来，在“建墙的国家”时代宣称“封闭边界”，并且用军事化的边界阻挡移民的行为是极其危险的，因为这些行为将进一步强化仇外心理。虽然新自由主义的超级全球化存在诸多问题，但人类不可能再退回到全球化之前的时代，因为21世纪的所有关键问题，从生态危机到社会不平等和人口流动，都需要全球共同努力探索解决方案。在他看来，国际主义从起源上就属于左翼，我们不能轻易放弃或拒绝全球治理。在全球化时代，社会主义应该重新发现边界的原始含义，即人类交汇的地方，而不是分离线。特拉维索主张以新的国际主义和世界主义替代以金融为主宰的全球化进程。

Similarly, Kerem Alkin, in his article “The New Global Threat: Neoliberalized Fascism,” points out that while the completely unrestricted hyper-globalization advocated by neoliberal capitalism is deeply problematic, and the neoliberalized fascism that attacks specific ethnic groups and nations is an even greater global threat, this does not mean we need to return to the pre-globalization era. He advocates a new type of globalization in which nation-states possess a certain degree of strategic autonomy, in order to rebuild fair, shared, and cooperative global trade and geopolitical relations. That is, to re-energize nation-states to unite and jointly address the food crisis, energy crisis, climate crisis, and other common crises facing humanity that have been caused by the globalization of neoliberal capitalism.

同样，凯雷姆·阿尔金（Kerem Alkin）在《新的全球威胁：新自由化的法西斯主义》一文中指出，虽然新自由资本主义倡导的完全不受限制的超级全球化是有重大问题的，且通过对特定族裔和国家进行攻击的新自由化的法西斯主义更是全球性的威胁，但这并不意味着我们需要回到全球化之前的时代。他倡导各民族国家拥有一定战略自主权的新型全球化，以重建公平、共享与合作的全球贸易和地缘政治关系，即重新激励各民族国家团结起来，共同解决新自由资本主义的全球化所导致的粮食危机、能源危机和气候危机等人类共同面临的危机。

Overall, in recent years, research by the foreign Left on transcending and finding alternative paths out of the current crisis has been quite extensive. Some scholars focus on how to re-advance the democratic governance of the state and enhance the appeal of socialism, transforming the hyper-globalization of neoliberal capitalism, which completely bypasses state governance, into a new type of globalization involving the joint participation of nation-states and multinational corporations. Some scholars advocate a new developmentalism that rebalances the relationship between the state and the market, and between society and the market. Others emphasize the social responsibility and commitment of enterprises and corporations, particularly promoting “conscious capitalism,” where enterprises consciously incorporate the long-term interests of everyone affected by corporate decisions into their decision-making framework, rather than the neoliberal capitalism where capital dominates alone. Foster argues that to transcend absolutist neoliberal capitalism, a current minimum program should be proposed: improve the income distribution structure, decommodify and definancialize in the sphere of social production (focusing on medical insurance, transportation, housing, etc.), in order to re-establish social solidarity, fraternity, and mutual understanding, and restore the value of ethical social life and community.

总的说来，近年来，国外左翼关于当下危机的超越与替代路径的研究可谓是蔚为壮观。有的学者聚焦于如何重新推进国家的民主化治理和提升社会主义的吸引力，将完全撇开国家治理的新自由资本主义超级全球化转变为民族—国家和跨国公司共同参与的新型全球化；有的学者倡导重新平衡国家与市场、社会与市场关系的新发展主义；有的学者则强调企业和公司的社会责任与担当，特别是推动企业有意识地将受公司决策影响的每个人的长远利益纳入企业决策思考视野的自觉资本主义（Conscious Capitalism），而不是资本一家独大的新自由资本主义。福斯特主张，为了超越绝对化的新自由资本主义，应该提出当前的最低纲领：改善收入分配结构，在社会生产领域去商品化和去金融化（重点在医疗保险、交通、住房等领域），以重新实现社会的团结、友爱和相互理解，恢复社会伦理生活和共同体应有的价值。

Hardt and Negri argue that the crisis of neoliberal capitalism originates first from Hegel’s emphasis on formal mediation, and that money, as the formal mediator of civil society, does not have a dual function but only the attributes of power and domination. They advocate a theory of community that is de-formalized and de-privatized, proposing the construction of a multi-linear and complex biopolitical theory conducive to production and creation. Their analysis of immaterial labor and living labor comes very close to Marx’s thinking on transcending capitalist civilization. Unfortunately, because Hardt and Negri lack sufficient confidence in political parties and the state, and are overly entangled in the direct liberation of the oppressed, they fail to consider the possibility of achieving liberation in reality through the unfolding of a type of state governance based on the principle of human development and positive existence. Therefore, in viewing state governance as the problem itself, they employ the same logic as neoliberal capitalism, reducing the liberation of living labor and the multitude to a quasi-utopian theory. Nevertheless, their view that shared talent can create stronger productive forces in the era of the knowledge economy, and that the logic of neoliberal privatization hinders the further development of productive forces and destroys human vitality, is undoubtedly worthy of attention.

哈特和奈格里认为，新自由资本主义的危机首先来源于黑格尔对形式化中介的强调，而作为市民社会形式化中介的货币并没有二重性的功能，只有权力和支配的属性。他们主张一种去形式化和去私有化的共同体理论，提出构建有助于生产和创造的多线和复杂的生命政治理论，以及对非物质劳动和活劳动的分析已经非常接近马克思对超越资本主义文明的思考。遗憾的是，由于哈特和奈格里对政党和国家不抱有足够的信心，过度纠缠于被压迫群体的直接解放，而未能思考通过以人的发展和积极存在为原则的国家治理类型的展开，现实地实现解放的可能性。因此，在将国家治理视为问题本身这一点上，他们与新自由资本主义使用了相同的逻辑，使得活劳动和诸众的解放沦为一种类乌托邦的理论。但无论如何，他们关于共享才能在知识经济时代创造更强的生产力、新自由主义私有化的逻辑会阻碍生产力进一步发展并破坏人的生命活力的观点，无疑是值得重视的。

Critique and reconstruction are two sides of a single dynamic process. Foster and others argue that the root cause of the neo-fascist turn of neoliberal capitalism lies in its absolutist and totalitarian claims. Therefore, transcending neoliberal capitalism lies in transcending its absolute sovereignty, restoring the proper status of socialism—described by Mises as “destructionism”—and confining neoliberal capitalism, which asserts that “free competition has done everything that needs to be done,” within specific limits. However, Foster only abstractly discusses, at the theoretical level, the space for neoliberal capitalism’s self-negation and practice, failing to grasp, from the height of historical materialism, the Marxist philosophical concept of state governance and the idea of labor emancipation. Consequently, such self-negation and practice are extremely passive.

批判与重建是一体两面的动态过程。福斯特等人认为，新自由资本主义的新法西斯转向的根本原因是其绝对化和极权化的主张。因此，超越新自由资本主义就在于对其绝对性主权的超越，并重新恢复被米塞斯描述为“破坏主义”的社会主义的应有地位，把主张“自由竞争已经做了所有需要做的事情”的新自由资本主义限定在特定的范围内。但福斯特仅仅是从理论层面上抽象地讨论了新自由资本主义自否定和实践的空间，未能站在历史唯物主义的高度把握马克思主义哲学的国家治理理念和劳动解放的思想，因此这样的自否定和实践是极为被动的。

Unlike the scholars mentioned above who conduct alternative and critical analyses of neoliberal capitalism from a political-economic perspective, other left-wing scholars attempt to find solutions starting from moral values. In their view, since the root problem of the neo-fascist turn of neoliberal capitalism is neoliberalism’s destruction of moral imagination (regarding extremely cruel behavior as normal, gaining a sense of superiority by despising others and defeating opponents, pursuing spectacles of violence, devaluing social worth, and weakening shared responsibility and moral obligation), the urgent task is to rebuild social morality and civic compassion. Paul Marlor Sweezy believes that the way out beyond the neo-fascist turn of neoliberal capitalism is not the classical socialism of the Soviet type, but a truly free and democratic socialism and its moral outlook. He attempts, through a “remedialism” similar to John Bordley Rawls’s social liberal democracy, to regulate and repair the possible harmful consequences of private ownership, pure market competition, and global financialization, so as to maintain full employment and increase public goods, while implementing policies of equal opportunity and continuing the welfare state. However, the problem is that the failure of Keynesianism has already proven that simple welfare policies only reduce social vitality. If welfare policies cannot be combined with human subjectivity and promote human development on the basis of Marx’s theory of free time, they cannot counter the accusation that welfare and moralist approaches lead to a lack of dynamism, an accusation made by neoliberalism. This is a classic problem, which Marx already elucidated in depth: namely, that the history of human civilization develops from natural community, through the false community of capitalism, to the real community of the free association of individuals. The latter ensures that people do not shirk labor in the free association. Therefore, purely moral-ethical schemes are often nothing but a utopia. Paul Mason regards the urban community of the “participatory economy” as a scheme to transform neoliberal capitalism and escape the crisis, because people within it “can feel close to decision-making and directly enjoy the fruits of decisions.” In his view, the “participatory economy” scheme will gradually dissolve internal conflicts and contradictions. It should be said that, at the micro level, Mason’s proposition is not entirely a utopian fantasy.

与上述从政治经济的视角对新自由资本主义展开替代与批判分析的学者不同，另一些左翼学者则试图从道德价值观念入手寻找方案。在他们看来，由于新自由资本主义的新法西斯主义转向的根本问题是新自由主义对道德想象力的破坏（认为极端残忍的行为是正常的，通过鄙视他者、打败对手来获取自身的优越感，奉行暴力奇观，贬低社会价值，削弱共同责任和道德义务），因此，当务之急是重建社会的道德和公民的同情心。保罗·斯威齐（Paul Marlor Sweezy）认为，超越新自由资本主义的新法西斯主义转向的出路并不是苏联式的经典社会主义，而是真正自由民主的社会主义及其道德观。他试图通过类似约翰·罗尔斯（John Bordley Rawls）的社会自由民主主义的“补救主义”，对私有制和纯粹的市场竞争，以及全球金融化带来的可能恶果进行调剂和修复，以保持充分就业并增加公共产品，在实施机会平等政策的同时，延续福利国家的政策。但问题在于，凯恩斯主义的失败已经证明，简单的福利政策只会降低社会活力，如果福利政策不能与人的主体性相结合，并在马克思自由时间理论的基础上促进人的发展，就不能应对新自由主义对福利主义和道德主义方案会导致活力不足的指控。这是个经典的问题，马克思对此已然作了深入的阐明，即人类文明史存在从自然共同体到资本主义的虚假共同体、再到自由人联合体的真实共同体发展的方案，后者能确保人们在自由人联合体中不偷懒，因此，纯粹道德伦理的方案往往不过是一种乌托邦罢了。保罗·梅森（Paul Mason）将“参与性经济”的城市共同体视为变革新自由资本主义和走出危机的方案，因为民众在其中“能够感受到其接近决策并直接享有决策的成果”。在他看来，“参与性经济”的方案将逐步消解内部的冲突与矛盾。应该说，梅森的这一主张在微观层面上倒并不完全是一种乌托邦的想象。

Wendy Brown argues that the urgent task is to restore the legitimacy of universalist political action, because ever since neoliberal capitalism achieved hegemonic status, genuine political action and democratic decision-making have been consistently regarded as enemies of the market and capital. For a long time, the concept of civic freedom has receded, moral apathy and political apathy have spread, the passion for life has been transformed into neo-fascist hatred, and it is believed that there is no alternative to neoliberal capitalism. Therefore, restoring a universalist moral-political culture is the way out of the neo-fascistization of neoliberal capitalism. Timothy Snyder believes that the rampant spread of neoliberal capitalism and neo-fascism is closely related to the postmodernist claim of “post-truth,” which holds that there are no facts and no truth. Because if nothing is real, then everything is a spectacle. Hence, post-truth culture is the cause of the turn of neoliberal capitalism toward neo-fascism. The path to resisting the neo-fascist tendency of neoliberal capitalism lies in believing in truth.

温迪·布朗（Wendy Brown）认为，当务之急是恢复普遍主义政治行动的正当性，因为自从新自由资本主义取得霸权地位之后，真正的政治行动和民主决策就一直被视为市场和资本的敌人。长期以来，公民自由的概念已然消退，道德冷漠和政治冷漠蔓延，生活的激情被转换成了新法西斯主义的仇恨，并且认为除了新自由资本主义之外，别无选择。因此，恢复普遍主义的道德政治文化是解决新自由资本主义新法西斯主义化的出路。蒂莫西·斯奈德（Timothy Snyder）认为，新自由资本主义和新法西斯主义的猖獗与后现代主义没有事实、没有真理的后真相主张密切相关，因为如果没有什么是真实的，那么一切都是奇观。因此，后真相文化是导致新自由资本主义转向新法西斯主义的原因。抵制新自由资本主义新法西斯化倾向的路径就在于相信真理。

The above views and propositions offer us some inspiration. However, regrettably, they all fail to dialectically unify Marx’s realization of the positive existence and positive essence of human beings, and fail to practically regard the transformation of national spirit and state model as the path to realize this dialectical unity. Therefore, schemes that appear to replace or alleviate the neo-fascist tendency of neoliberal capitalism are, in fact, “accepting the important principles of Thatcherism” [18]18 A reference to the political and economic policies of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (1979–1990), which emphasized privatization, deregulation, and the reduction of state intervention, often summarized by the slogan “There Is No Alternative” (TINA). — that is, they share the same ideological premise as neoliberalism: any state intervention in and regulation of the market is necessarily authoritarian, totalitarian, and maintained by violent repression. The contradiction lies precisely in what Byung-Chul Han says: “The subjects in the neoliberal economy cannot form a ‘we’ that takes collective action. The reason is that the increasing self-ization and atomization of society are shrinking the space for collective action and preventing the formation of forces of resistance that might question the capitalist order.” [19]19 Byung-Chul Han, a contemporary German-born South Korean philosopher and cultural theorist, known for his critiques of neoliberalism and the “achievement society.” In the process of neoliberal capitalism gradually turning toward neo-fascism, individuals, reinforced by postmodernism, are incapable of imagining another world. On the contrary, people instead grant themselves moral and sacred power through the imagination of extreme racial purity. This makes them not only indifferent and cold to the suffering of others, but even take pleasure in the suffering of others or in causing suffering to others. In response to this cultural and moral condition, a “politics that can enhance empowerment and promote the flourishing of public freedom without violence” [20]20 A paraphrase or quotation from a contemporary political theorist, likely Wendy Brown or a related figure, emphasizing non-violent political transformation. is indeed difficult to escape the criticism and accusation of being utopian.

上述看法与主张给我们带来了一定的启发，然而遗憾的是，它们都未能辩证地把马克思关于人的积极存在和积极本质的实现统一起来，并切实地将民族精神和国家模式的转型视为这一辩证统一方案的实现路径，因此看似替代或缓解新自由资本主义新法西斯化倾向的方案，却恰恰“是接受了撒切尔主义的重要原则”，即与新自由主义持有相同的意识形态前提：国家对市场的任何干涉和调节都必然是专制的、极权的、靠暴力镇压的。而矛盾之处恰恰在于韩秉哲所说的：“新自由主义经济中的主体并不能形成采取集体行动的‘我们’。原因在于社会的日益自我化和原子化正在缩小集体行动的空间，并阻止了可能对资本主义秩序提出质疑的反抗力量的形成。”在新自由资本主义逐步转向新法西斯主义的过程中，后现代主义加持下的个人是不可能有能力想象另一个世界的。与此相反，人们反而在极端种族主义的纯洁性想象中给予自我以道德和神圣的力量，这使他们不但对他人的痛苦冷漠寡淡，甚至以他人的痛苦或者以给他人造成痛苦为乐。针对这种文化和道德状况，即“一种可以在没有暴力的情况下增强赋权、促进公共自由繁荣的政治”，确实难逃乌托邦化的批评和指责。

III. Returning to and Transcending Hegel: Political Practice in Historical Necessity

三、回到并超越黑格尔：历史必然性中的政治实践

Unlike the “ought” schemes of most Western left-wing moral or ethical approaches, Anderson believes that the only way out and precondition for transcending the neo-fascist tendency of neoliberal capitalism is a Leninist socialist revolution. However, Leninism only considered the dialectical unity of democracy and centralism within the Party, neglecting the importance of democratic governance at the level of the state and society. Robert Tucker, in his book *The Marxian Revolutionary Idea*, advocates a non-ethical and socio-political-economic path, arguing that it is necessary to seriously examine the “political aspects of Marx’s economic thought.” William Clare Roberts is one of the few contemporary Western left-wing scholars who insist on a non-ethical-moralist alternative scheme. In his book *Marx’s Inferno: The Political Theory of Capital*, he elucidates the importance and necessity of a republican interpretation of *Capital*.

与多数西方左翼道德或伦理主义的“应当”方案不同，安德森认为，超越新自由资本主义新法西斯化倾向的唯一出路和前提是列宁主义的社会主义革命，但列宁主义只考虑了党内的民主与集中的辩证统一关系，忽视了国家和社会层面的民主治理的重要性。罗伯特·塔克（Robert Tucke）在《马克思主义革命观》一书中倡导非伦理和社会的政治经济路径，认为有必要认真考察马克思“经济思想的政治方面”。而威廉·克莱尔·罗伯茨（William Clare Roberts）则是当代西方左翼学者中少有的非伦理道德主义替代方案的坚持者，他在《马克思的“地狱”：〈资本论〉的政治理论》一书中阐明了对《资本论》进行共和主义阐释的重要性和必要性。

These studies provide very beneficial explorations for us to further activate, from the perspective of historical science, Marx’s scheme of critiquing and transcending Hegel’s dialectics, philosophy of the state, and national cultural spirit. That is, while preserving the positive and civilizing aspects of private property and capital, through reconstructing the dialectics of the state and civilization, etc., to sublate their corrupt and evil side and create a practical scheme for a new civilization, thereby avoiding falling into the predicament of neo-fascism. Since Machiavelli, modern Western thought has always regarded individual freedom and republicanism as both contradictory and inseparable opposites and unities. “The essence of Machiavelli’s republicanism can be summarized in two closely related propositions: first, no city-state can achieve greatness without adhering to a free way of life; second, no city-state can adhere to a free way of life without maintaining a republican form of government. From this perspective, Machiavelli not only shows that he is fully defending traditional republican values, but also that he is fully adopting a traditional method of defense.” [21]21 A reference to Niccolò Machiavelli’s *Discourses on Livy*, where he argues for the necessity of republican institutions for maintaining liberty and greatness in a state. Later, Thomas Hobbes similarly attempted to form a state of mutual balance between the state of nature and the sovereign state of Leviathan. However, the one who truly and completely accomplished this task was Hegel. In his book *Elements of the Philosophy of Right*, he constructed a non-moralist scheme that unifies state ethics and individual freedom.

这些研究为我们从历史科学的视角进一步激活马克思对黑格尔的辩证法、国家哲学和民族文化精神进行批判和超越的方案，即在保留私有财产和资本的积极性和文明性的同时，通过重建国家与文明的辩证法等，扬弃其腐化与恶的一面，开创出新文明的实践方案，提供了非常有益的探索，避免陷入新法西斯主义的困局之中。自马基雅维利以来的现代西方思想界始终将个体的自由与共和视为既矛盾又难分的对立与统一面。“马基雅维利的共和主义，其精髓可以概括为两个密切相关的命题：首先，如果不坚持自由的生活方式，任何城邦都不可能实现伟大；其次，如果不维护共和政制，任何城邦都不可能坚持自由的生活方式。根据这一观点来看，马基雅维利不仅表明他在全力捍卫传统的共和主义价值观，而且表明他全力采取了一种传统的捍卫方式。”之后的托马斯·霍布斯（Thomas Hobbes）同样试图在自然状态与利维坦的主权国家之间形成相互平衡的状态。不过真正彻底完成这一工作的是黑格尔，他在《法哲学原理》一书中建构了国家伦理与个体自由相统一的非道德主义方案。

For Hegel, the modern state not only guarantees the individual’s rights to person and property but also elevates the evil of individual private desires through civil society into a person with legal personality. Beyond objective ethics, Hegel also preserves the moral space of private will. In this ideal design, the individual not only can perfect himself but also retains room for diversity and difference. Yet Hegel’s argument, with desire and private property as its logical core, has already sown the seeds of the neo-fascist turn of neoliberal capitalism. Hegel points out: “The concrete person who, as a particular person, makes his own particularity his end, as a whole of needs and a mixture of natural necessity and arbitrary will, is one principle of civil society. But the particular person is essentially related to other particular persons, so that each establishes himself and finds satisfaction by means of the others, and at the same time purely and simply by means of the form of universality, which is the other principle.” [22]22 G.W.F. Hegel, *Elements of the Philosophy of Right*, §182, Addition. This form of universality is the principle of financial capital. When Hegel makes it the precondition for the satisfaction of all needs, he has already eliminated all possibility of non-monetary and non-commodity spaces of interaction. Hegel argues: “Just as civil society is the battlefield of private interest, the war of all against all, so it is also the stage on which private interest clashes with the common particular affairs, and both of these clash with the state’s viewpoint and arrangements.” [23]23 Hegel, *Philosophy of Right*, §289, Addition. In forming this view, he had already discovered that the big bourgeoisie or the “rabble” [Pöbel] in civil society, developed on the premise of the formal right of the state, might in conflict seize control of the state, thereby destroying his conception of the dialectical unity of the state and individual private desires.

对于黑格尔来说，现代国家不但能保障个体的人身权和财产权，还能将个体的私欲之恶通过市民社会升华为具有法权人格的人。黑格尔在客观的伦理之外还保留了私人意志的道德空间。在这一理想的设计中，个体不但能完美起来，还能保留多样性和差异性的空间。但黑格尔以欲望和私有制为逻辑内核的论证，已然埋下了新自由资本主义新法西斯化的种子。黑格尔指出：“把自身作为特殊目的的具体的个人，作为各种需要的一个整体以及自然必然性与任性的一个混合体，是市民社会的一个原则。但是，特殊的个人本质上是同其他这样的特殊性相关联的，所以每个特殊的人都是通过他人的中介，同时也只有无条件地通过普遍性形式的中介，才使自身有效并得到满足。这是市民社会的另一个原则。”这一普遍性的形式即金融资本的原则。在黑格尔将其作为所有需要得以满足的前提条件时，他已经消灭掉一切非货币和商品交往空间的可能。黑格尔认为：“如同市民社会是个人私利的战场，是一切人反对一切人的战争一样，市民社会也是私人利益跟共同的特殊事务相冲突的舞台，并且是它们二者共同跟国家的观点和安排相冲突的舞台。”在形成上述观点时，他已然发现，在国家形式法权这一前提上发展起来的市民社会中的大资产阶级或“贱民”，都有可能会在冲突中将国家置于自己的掌控之中，从而摧毁其关于国家与个人私欲辩证统一的构想。

Hegel’s brilliance lies even more in his very honest discovery that the unfolding of civil society cannot truly eliminate particularity; on the contrary, it is mastered by particularity. “Particularity in itself is without measure and without limit, and the forms this lack of measure takes are themselves without measure.” [24]24 Hegel, *Philosophy of Right*, §185, Addition. “Through representation and reflection, man expands his passions—these passions are not a closed circle, like animal instinct—and leads them into the bad infinite.” [25]25 Hegel, *Philosophy of Right*, §185, Addition. “On the one hand, extravagance and luxury; on the other, poverty, disease, and moral decay.” [26]26 Hegel, *Philosophy of Right*, §185, Addition. In Allen Wood’s view, in a certain sense Hegel had already anticipated the basic mechanism of the birth of neo-fascism: the poverty and rabble continuously produced by civil society. The existence of this group fundamentally destroys “that sense of self which is the necessary vehicle of the modern individual’s moral self-consciousness and ethical attitude,” thereby producing “a state of ethical evil and moral degradation,” and providing the dynamic source for the emergence of fascism. [27]27 Allen W. Wood, *Hegel’s Ethical Thought* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), p. 250. Wood further points out that once the rabble emerges, spiritually “it is merely a state of alienation filled with envy and hatred, a mocking denial of all duties and ethical principles, an arrogant refusal to recognize the rights of all people, and a hatred-filled negation of all human dignity and self-respect.” [28]28 Wood, *Hegel’s Ethical Thought*, p. 251. And these are precisely the fundamental driving forces of neo-fascism.

黑格尔的厉害之处其实更在于他非常诚实地发现，市民社会的展开并不能真正消灭特殊性，反而会被特殊性所掌控。“特殊性本身是没有节制的，没有尺度的，而这种无节制所采取的诸形式本身也是没有尺度的”，“人通过表象和反思而扩张他的情欲——这些情欲并不是一个封闭的圈子，像动物的本能那样——并把情欲导入恶的无限”。“一方面，穷奢极侈，另一方面，贫病交迫，道德败坏。”在艾伦·伍德（Allen Wood）看来，在某种意义上，黑格尔已经预料了新法西斯主义诞生的基本机制：市民社会持续产生的贫困与贱民。这一群体的存在将从根本上破坏“作为现代个体道德上的自我意识与伦理态度的必然载体的那种自我感”，从而产生一种“伦理上的邪恶状态和道德上的减等状态”，并为法西斯主义的出现提供动力源泉。伍德进一步指出，贱民产生之后，在精神上，“它只是充满嫉妒和仇恨的异化的精神状态，是对一切义务和伦理原则的充满嘲笑态度的否认，傲慢地拒绝承认一切人拥有的权利，并且怀抱仇恨之心否定一切人类尊严和自尊。”而这些恰恰便是新法西斯主义的根本动力来源。

In Marx’s view, we must transcend the critical path of moralism and judge Hegel from the depth of historical materialism. Similarly, we may also need to transcend the critical path of moralism and analyze the neo-fascist turn of neoliberal capitalism from the depth of historical materialism and the ontology of state governance. In 1845, in his essay “Critical Notes on the Article ‘The National System of Political Economy’ by Friedrich List,” Marx directly criticized List’s vulgar economics and its liberal nationalism: “No matter how fierce the struggle among individual bourgeois, as a class the bourgeois have a common interest; this commonality, just as it is directed against the proletariat at home, is directed against the bourgeois of other countries abroad. This is what the bourgeois calls his nationality.” [29]29 Karl Marx, “Critical Notes on the Article ‘The National System of Political Economy’ by Friedrich List,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 4 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 281. Such nationality has its inevitability and rationality in a specific era. To transcend the crisis of neoliberal capitalism, it is necessary to reconstruct, based on the fundamental principles of historical materialism, a new historical ontological logic different from bourgeois nationality. Its fundamental ideas and logic are in the same line as those of the bourgeoisie yet essentially different, and it will inevitably open up new prospects for globalization and world history.

在马克思看来，我们要超越道德主义的批判路径，从历史唯物主义的深度评判黑格尔。同理，我们可能也需要超越道德主义的批判路径，从历史唯物主义和国家治理的本体论深度来分析新自由资本主义的新法西斯主义转向。1845年，马克思在《评弗里德里希·李斯特的著作〈政治经济学的国民体系〉》一文中，直接批判了李斯特的庸俗经济学及其自由主义民族观：“不管单个资产者同其他资产者进行多么激烈的斗争，资产者作为阶级是有共同利益的；这种共同性，正象它在国内是针对无产阶级的一样，在国外是针对其他国家的资产者的。这就是资产者所谓的他的民族性。”这样的民族性在特定的时代是有其必然性和合理性的。而要超越新自由资本主义的危机，则需要根据历史唯物主义的基本原则重建一个不同于资产阶级民族性的新的历史本体论逻辑，其根本的理念和逻辑与资产阶级的理念一脉相承但又有着本质上的不同，必将开启新的全球化和世界历史前景。

Over the past few hundred years, as Marx and Engels pointed out in the *Communist Manifesto*: “The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.” [30]30 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *Manifesto of the Communist Party*, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 6 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 488. Pure capitalist form, as the last antagonistic form in the history of human civilization, inevitably leads to “the subordination of the country to the town,” “the subordination of the uncivilized and semi-civilized countries to the civilized countries,” “the subordination of the peasant nations to the bourgeois nations,” and “the subordination of the East to the West.” [31]31 Marx and Engels, *Manifesto of the Communist Party*, p. 488.

过去的几百年如马克思恩格斯在《共产党宣言》中所指出的那样：“资产阶级，由于开拓了世界市场，使一切国家的生产和消费都成为世界性的了。使反动派大为惋惜的是，资产阶级挖掉了工业脚下的民族基础。古老的民族工业被消灭了，并且每天都还在被消灭……过去那种地方的和民族的自给自足和闭关自守状态，被各民族的各方面的互相往来和各方面的互相依赖所代替了。物质的生产是如此，精神的生产也是如此。各民族的精神产品成了公共的财产。民族的片面性和局限性日益成为不可能。”纯粹的资本主义形式作为人类文明史的最后一种对抗形式，必然会导致“农村从属于城市”、“未开化和半开化的国家从属于文明的国家”、“农民的民族从属于资产阶级的民族”、“东方从属于西方”。

Returning to Hegel requires not only that we view Marx’s theory of free and all-round development and free time from the perspective of the rationality of world history, that is, the history of human civilization and its inevitable trends, but also that we understand the practical premise of Marx’s theory: state governance and the inheritance and cultivation of the national spirit. This demands that we consciously resist the temptation of the predatory globalization of neoliberal capitalism and avoid the recurrence of the fascist catastrophe.

重新回到黑格尔，不只要求我们从世界历史的合理性，也就是人类文明发展史及其必然趋势的视角来看待马克思的自由而全面发展及自由时间的理论的重要性，并且必须明白马克思理论的实践前提是国家治理和民族精神的继承和培育。这就要求我们自觉抵制新自由资本主义剥夺式全球化的诱惑，避免再次出现法西斯主义灾难。

After reflecting on Hegel’s discussion of the rabble and poverty, Marx summarized the historical materialist theory of “the positive essence of man” [30]30 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *Manifesto of the Communist Party*, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 6 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 488. based on the logic of material desire and “the positive existence of man” [31]31 Marx and Engels, *Manifesto of the Communist Party*, p. 488. based on the logic of free and all-round development, and combined this with the complexity of practice and revolution. The author believes that only under the leadership of a political party and state that understand historical inevitability and social development trends, and by inheriting and drawing on all cultural and intellectual resources that can guide the transformation of man’s positive essence into man’s positive existence, is it possible to avoid the crisis triggered by neoliberal capitalism and its turn toward neo-fascism. This means that studying and elucidating the spiritual characteristics of Chinese civilization—valuing benevolence, emphasizing the people, upholding good faith, advocating justice, esteeming harmony, and seeking great unity—has immense historical and contemporary significance. [32]32 These five virtues—benevolence, people-centeredness, good faith, justice, harmony, and great unity—are standard formulations in official Chinese discourse on traditional culture, often cited as the spiritual essence of Chinese civilization. This spiritual character is connected with Marx’s concept of free time, can effectively overcome the situation where laborers are firmly bound to the chains of labor time and monetary finance, unable to extricate themselves, and can avoid the polarization and uneven development caused by neoliberal capitalism.

马克思在思考了黑格尔关于贱民和贫困问题的论述之后，总结出了以人的物质欲望为逻辑的“人的积极本质”和以人的自由而全面发展为逻辑的“人的积极存在”的历史唯物主义的理论，并将之与实践和革命的复杂性结合起来进行思考。笔者认为，唯有在了解历史必然性和社会发展趋势的政党和国家的主导下，继承和借鉴一切可以引导人的积极本质向人的积极存在转换的文化和思想资源，才有避免新自由资本主义引发危机和向新法西斯主义转向的可能性。这意味着研究和阐释中华文明讲仁爱、重民本、守诚信、崇正义、尚和合、求大同的精神特质是具有巨大的历史和现实意义的。这种精神特质与马克思的自由时间概念相通，能有效克服把劳动者牢牢地束缚在劳动时间和货币金融的链条上不能自拔的境况，并避免产生新自由资本主义导致的两极分化和不平衡发展。

In this process, we must always bear in mind the important leading role of the state and political party in world history, which is Hegel’s extremely significant contribution yet precisely the point he did not emphasize enough. Ralph Miliband repeatedly stressed the importance of active state governance in his book *Marxism and Politics*. This also demonstrates that a state more active than the one described by Hegel, and an individual freedom and development broader than the freedom of pure private property that Hegel championed, are crucial for opening a new world-historical civilization. From this perspective, both the contemporary Western left-liberal scheme centered on ethical conceptions such as “fraternity” and “solidarity,” and the left-egalitarian scheme of formal equality based on mutual recognition of gender and ethnicity, have limitations. First, they fail to touch upon, or even obscure, the power structure of neoliberalism, and thus cannot alleviate the intensifying trend of neofascism. Second, because they do not, from the height of historical materialism, confirm the fundamental defect of neoliberalism—its destruction or suppression of objectified labor, especially labor in the sense of free time for the comprehensive free development of the human individual—they cannot clarify it from the height of the necessity of world history and the developmental trend of human civilization, thereby becoming, in a certain sense, merely utopian or abstract ethical appeals. However, if the socialist revolution and the communist party achieve victory in revolutionary struggle, then the Western left’s reflections on moral and ethical reconstruction are undoubtedly worthy of reference and attention.

在这个过程中，我们始终需要牢记的是国家和政党对世界历史的重要引领作用，而这是黑格尔极为重要的贡献却又恰恰是他强调得还不够的地方。拉尔夫·密利本德（Ralph Miliband）曾经在《马克思主义与政治学》一书中反复强调积极的国家治理的重要性。这也说明了一个比黑格尔所描述的国家更积极、比黑格尔所推崇的纯粹私有制的自由更广泛的个体的自由和发展，对于开启新的世界历史文明的重要性。从这一点来讲，无论是当代西方左翼自由主义以“博爱”“团结”等伦理构想为核心逻辑的方案，还是左翼平等主义所推崇的性别、族群相互承认的形式平等方案，均存在局限。一是未能触及，甚至是遮蔽了新自由主义的权力架构，因此无法缓解新法西斯主义加剧的趋势。二是由于未能真正在历史唯物主义的高度上确认新自由主义的根本缺陷（对对象化劳动，特别是人的自由全面发展意义上的自由时间劳动的摧毁或压制），因此不能在世界历史必然性和人类文明发展趋势的高度上对其加以澄明，从而在某种意义上只能变成空想或抽象的伦理主义呼唤。不过，如果社会主义革命和共产主义政党取得了革命斗争的胜利，那么西方左翼关于道德和伦理重建的思考，则毫无疑问又是值得借鉴和重视的。

(Author: Lu Shaochen, Center for Contemporary Marxism Abroad, Fudan University; School of Philosophy, Fudan University; Institute of Ethnic Studies, Fudan University)

（作者：鲁绍臣，复旦大学当代国外马克思主义研究中心，复旦大学哲学学院，复旦大学民族研究院）

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心