New Advances in International Ecosocialist Research since the 2008 Financial Crisis

Since the outbreak of the 2008 financial crisis, the social contradictions of the world’s capitalist countries have continued to intensify, further exposing the inherent defects of the neoliberal theory and politics that had long occupied a hegemonic position. In particular, the various environmental crisis response plans of the currently dominant green capitalism are increasingly showing their limited practical effectiveness. This has created new opportunities for the development of ecosocialist theory, which is committed to criticizing contemporary capitalism and seeking an alternative strategy to “green capitalism.” Meanwhile, with the intensification or prominence of new and old ecological and environmental problems—such as the increase in disastrous weather caused by global climate change, the deterioration of food security, the destruction of biodiversity, and the damage caused by commercialized agriculture to local agricultural systems—ecosocialist research also needs to make corresponding theoretical responses, thereby achieving innovation and expansion in the scope of theoretical concern and many theoretical viewpoints. Based on this, this article provides a preliminary sorting and summary of the new trends, new viewpoints, and new theories that have emerged in international ecosocialist research over the past decade or more, in order to attract more attention and discussion from the domestic Marxist ecological academic community.

2008年金融危机爆发以来，世界资本主义国家的社会矛盾持续激化并使得长期占据霸权地位的新自由主义理论与政治的内在缺陷进一步显现。尤其是现实主导性的绿色资本主义的各种环境危机应对方案日益显示出其有限的现实成效，这就使得致力于批判当代资本主义并寻求“绿色资本主义”替代战略的生态社会主义理论获得了新的发展机遇；而随着全球气候变化导致的灾害性天气增多、粮食安全形势恶化、生物多样性遭到破坏、商品化农业对本土农业系统造成破坏等新旧生态环境问题的加剧或凸显，生态社会主义研究也需要做出相应的理论回应，从而实现理论关注视域和许多理论观点的革新与拓展。基于此，本文对过去十多年来国外生态社会主义研究中所出现的新趋势、新观点和新理论做一个初步梳理与归纳，以期引起国内马克思主义生态学界的更多关注和讨论。

I. New Excavations and Interpretations of Ecological Thought in the Classical Works of Marx and Engels

一、对马克思恩格斯经典著作中生态思想的新发掘与阐释

Studying and interpreting the ecological thought in the classical works of Marx and Engels is an important academic tradition of ecosocialist theoretical research. Since the 2008 financial crisis, the international ecosocialist academic community has continued this tradition and has achieved new results in the ecological implications of Marx’s relevant writings, the interpretation of the alienation of the human-nature relationship and its transcendence, and the study of Engels’s dialectics of nature, thereby promoting the deepening and expansion of basic theoretical research in ecosocialism.

研究阐释马克思恩格斯经典著作中的生态思想是生态社会主义理论研究的重要学术传统。国外生态社会主义学界在2008年金融危机后延续了这一传统，并在马克思相关著述的生态意涵、人与自然关系异化及其超越的阐释，以及恩格斯自然辩证法思想的研究等方面取得了新的成果，从而推动了生态社会主义理论基础研究的深化与拓展。

(I) Re-examination and Interpretation of Marx’s Ecological Thought

(一)对马克思生态思想的再考察与阐释

The international ecosocialist academic community not only continues to seek solutions to the capitalist economic crisis from classical works such as *Capital* by Marx and Engels, but also attempts to explore ways to respond to the contemporary capitalist ecological crisis through the excavation and interpretation of ecological thought in other important works by Marx. Following the systematic interpretations of Marx’s works by American scholars such as John Bellamy Foster and Paul Burkett at the end of the 20th century, and the debates between British ecological Marxists Ted Benton and Reiner Grundmann around the ecocentric and anthropocentric tendencies of Marx’s thought, in recent years, a group of ecosocialist scholars represented by the Japanese scholar Kohei Saito have conducted more in-depth textual investigations and theoretical interpretations of the ecological thought in Marx’s classical works. Saito believes that an in-depth examination of classical texts can clarify long-standing theoretical misunderstandings of Marx’s ecological thought in Western academia, such as “Marx endorsed the absolute domination of nature by society” or “Marx denied any natural limits.” Moreover, combining the documentary materials provided by the *Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe* (MEGA2) and the relevant parts of Marx’s natural science notebooks, Saito depicts a Marx with the face of an ecosocialist. Following this line of thought, Saito argues that in his later years, Marx attempted to make ecological critique an important component of his critique of capitalism. By focusing on the core concept of “metabolic rift,” Saito proposes that the Marxist ecological critique of capitalism will help lead a radical transformation that transcends the existing capitalist system. In his representative work *Karl Marx’s Ecosocialism*, Saito again emphasizes his effort, building on the previous textual investigations of American ecological Marxists like Burkett, to clarify the common academic misunderstanding that has long regarded Marx as a “Promethean,” and further points out that the thought of the later Marx already contained reflections on the ecological crisis of capitalism. Saito’s research on Marx’s classical writings from an ecosocialist perspective helps to achieve a more comprehensive and profound understanding of Marx’s critique of capitalism.

国外生态社会主义学界不仅继续从《资本论》等马克思恩格斯经典著作中寻找克服资本主义经济危机的方案，还尝试通过对马克思其他重要著作中生态思想的发掘阐释，来探寻应对当代资本主义生态危机的出路。继20世纪末美国学者约翰·贝拉米·福斯特(John Bellamy Foster)和保罗·伯克特(Paul Burkett)等对马克思著作所做的系统诠释，以及英国生态马克思主义者泰德·本顿(Ted Benton)和赖纳·格伦德曼(Reiner Grundmann)围绕马克思思想的生态中心主义与人类中心主义倾向所展开的争论之后，近年来，以日本学者斋藤幸平为代表的一批生态社会主义学者对马克思经典著作中的生态思想进行了更为深入的文本考察与理论阐释。斋藤幸平认为，对经典文本的深入考察可以澄清诸如“马克思赞同社会对自然绝对统治”或“马克思否认任何自然限制”等一些西方学界长期以来对马克思生态思想的理论误解。不仅如此，结合《马克思恩格斯全集》历史考证版(MEGA2)提供的文献资料以及其中的马克思自然科学札记相关部分，斋藤幸平描绘了一个具有生态社会主义者面相的马克思。循着这种思路，斋藤幸平认为，马克思晚年试图将生态批判作为其资本主义批判的重要组成部分。通过聚焦于“新陈代谢断裂”(metabolic rift)这一核心概念，斋藤幸平提出，马克思主义对资本主义的生态批判将有助于引领一种超越现行资本主义体系的激进变革。在他的代表性著作《卡尔·马克思的生态社会主义》中，斋藤幸平再次强调了他力图在伯克特等美国生态马克思主义者先前文本考察的基础上，澄清长期以来将马克思视为一个“普罗米修斯主义者”的常见学术误解，并进一步指出，晚年马克思的思想中已出现了关于资本主义生态危机的思考。斋藤幸平从生态社会主义视角对马克思经典著述所做的研究，有助于更为全面深刻地理解马克思的资本主义批判理论。

(II) Re-examination and Interpretation of Engels’s Dialectics of Nature and Its Ecological Implications

(二)对恩格斯自然辩证法及其生态意蕴的再考察与阐释

Engels’s writings contain very rich ecological thought. In recent years, a group of ecological Marxist scholars have further analyzed the ecological thought contained in Engels’s theory of the dialectics of nature and its significance for overcoming the contemporary ecological and environmental crisis, based on the excavation and sorting of documents. Camilla Royle, from the Department of Geography and Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, has conducted a comprehensive and in-depth review of Engels’s ecological thought. In her article “Dialectics, Nature, and the Dialectics of Nature,” she systematically analyzes Engels’s thought on the dialectics of nature from aspects such as Engels’s relationship with 19th-century natural science, dialectical biologists from the perspective of the dialectics of nature, and the similarities and differences between Lukács’s social dialectics and Engels’s dialectics of nature. She argues that, from a dialectical standpoint, the current metabolic rift between humans and nature is precisely an inherent defect exposed by class society. Therefore, just as Marxists believe that class society can be transformed, from the perspective of the dialectics of nature, the “metabolic rift” between humans and nature in class society can also be changed.

恩格斯的著作中蕴含着十分丰富的生态思想。近年来，一批生态马克思主义学者基于文献发掘与整理进一步分析了恩格斯自然辩证法理论中所蕴含的生态思想以及它对克服当代生态环境危机的启示意义。英国伦敦政治经济学院地理与环境系的卡梅拉·罗伊尔(Camilla Royle)对恩格斯的生态思想做了全面深入的梳理。在《辩证法、自然与自然辩证法》一文中，她从恩格斯与19世纪自然科学的关系、自然辩证法视角下的辩证生物学家(dialectical biologists)以及卢卡奇的社会辩证法与恩格斯自然辩证法之间的异同等方面，系统分析了恩格斯的自然辩证法思想，并认为，从辩证的立场来看，当前人与自然之间的新陈代谢断裂，正是阶级社会所暴露出的一个固有弊病。因而，正如马克思主义者认为阶级社会可以得到改造一样，从自然辩证法的观点来看，阶级社会中人与自然之间的“新陈代谢断裂”也同样可以被改变。

Regarding the heuristic value of Engels’s thought on the dialectics of nature for solving the current ecological crisis, British scholar Paul Blackledge argues that Engels’s dialectics of nature provides an effective perspective for exploring the causes of the contemporary ecological crisis. The contemporary ecological crisis can be understood as rooted in “the alienated nature of capitalist social relations, because economic production itself is a process of interactive metabolism with the natural world, and the alienated relations of production under the capitalist system inevitably lead to the alienation of the human-nature relationship.” Similarly, Foster has also analyzed Engels’s thought on the dialectics of nature and its immense practical value for solving the contemporary ecological crisis, arguing that Engels’s thought on the dialectics of nature is rooted in a deep reflection on the universal metabolic process of nature and a comprehensive understanding of the dialectics of nature and society. Foster particularly emphasizes that if Marx’s theory of metabolic rift constitutes the ideological core of historical materialist ecology, then Engels’s in-depth exploration of the universal metabolism of nature undoubtedly further strengthens and expands Marx’s theoretical analysis. On this basis, Foster clearly points out that Engels’s thought on the dialectics of nature helps to profoundly clarify the connotation of the concept of the “Anthropocene” and the major epochal challenges posed by the ecological crisis to humanity.

围绕恩格斯自然辩证法思想对于解决当前生态危机的启发价值，英国学者保罗·布莱克利奇(Paul Blackledge)认为，恩格斯的自然辩证法为探寻当代生态危机的成因提供了一个有效的视阈，可以将当代生态危机理解为植根于“资本主义社会关系的异化本质，因为经济生产本身就是一个与自然界进行交互新陈代谢的过程，而资本主义制度下异化了的生产关系必然导致人与自然关系的异化”。类似地，福斯特也对恩格斯的自然辩证法思想以及其中蕴含的对解决当代生态危机的巨大现实价值做了分析，认为恩格斯的自然辩证法思想根植于一种对自然界普遍新陈代谢过程的深入思考，以及对自然和社会辩证法的全面理解。福斯特尤其强调，如果说马克思的新陈代谢断裂理论构成了历史唯物主义生态学的思想内核，那么恩格斯对自然界普遍新陈代谢的深入探究，则无疑进一步强化并拓展了马克思的理论分析。在此基础上，福斯特明确指出，恩格斯的自然辩证法思想有助于深刻阐明“人类世”(Anthropocene)这一概念的内涵以及生态危机给人类带来的重大时代挑战。

II. Expanded Analysis of Theoretical Issues such as the Ecological Critique of the Capitalist System and Its Economic and Political Alternative Schemes

二、对资本主义制度的生态批判及其经济政治替代方案等理论议题的拓展分析

Another important aspect of advances in international eco-socialist research is the new development of existing theoretical schools or viewpoints. This analytical development can be summarized into the following three levels: first, traditional left-wing theory increasingly shows attention to ecological and environmental issues, represented by a significant increase in the discussion of ecological and environmental issues within “world-systems Marxism”; second, critical reflection on the inherent limitations of “green capitalism,” thereby focusing on the theoretical construction of a “red-green” political philosophy or “transformative politics,” and putting forward representative viewpoints such as radical social-ecological transformation theory, the theory of transcending development, and democratic eco-socialism; third, the expansion and innovation of eco-socialist research in methodology and analytical frameworks, such as a Gramscian political ecology analytical method. Although some of these theoretical schools or viewpoints and their integrated developments may not necessarily be of an ecological Marxist or eco-socialist nature—for instance, emerging research sub-directions in recent years such as ecological ethics research, liberation ecology, and eco-feminism among theoretical schools—this article argues that focusing on the following five mainstream theoretical schools at the above three levels, namely world-systems Marxism, radical social-ecological transformation theory, the theory of transcending development, democratic eco-socialism, and Gramscian political ecology, can broadly represent the expanded analysis in recent years of international eco-socialist research on theoretical issues such as the ecological critique of the capitalist system and its economic and political alternatives.

国外生态社会主义研究进展的另一个重要方面是对既有理论流派或观点的新拓展。这种分析拓展可以归纳为如下三个层面：一是传统左翼理论日益展现出对生态环境问题的关注，其代表是“世界体系的马克思主义”对生态环境问题的探讨显著增加；二是对“绿色资本主义”固有局限性的反思批判，从而聚焦于一种“红绿”政治哲学或“转型政治”的理论建构，并提出了诸如激进的社会生态转型理论、超越发展理论和民主生态社会主义等代表性观点；三是生态社会主义研究在方法论与分析框架上的拓展和革新，例如一种葛兰西式的政治生态学分析方法。虽然这其中的某些理论流派或观点及其融合发展未必属于生态马克思主义或生态社会主义性质，比如近年来涌现出的诸如生态伦理研究、解放生态学、生态女权主义等理论流派中的新兴研究分支方向，但本文认为，聚焦于上述三个层面的如下五个主流理论流派，即世界体系的马克思主义、激进社会生态转型理论、超越发展理论、民主生态社会主义和葛兰西式政治生态学，可以大致代表近年来国外生态社会主义研究对资本主义制度的生态批判及其经济政治替代方案等理论议题的拓展分析。

(I) World-Systems Marxism and Eco-Socialist Research

(一)世界体系的马克思主义与生态社会主义研究

In this regard, “world-systems Marxism” very clearly demonstrates this evolutionary trend. World-systems Marxism is a neo-Marxist theoretical school that emerged in the United States in the 1970s, with representative figures including Immanuel Wallerstein, Giovanni Arrighi, and Terence Hopkins. It should be said that Wallerstein, as the founder of this school, had already noted global ecological issues from a world-systems perspective and used the analytical method of world-systems theory to explore and reflect on the ecological crisis of the contemporary capitalist world. As world-systems theory research has advanced, this school’s attention to global ecological issues has gradually increased, prominently manifested in several special issues on the contemporary environmental crisis published in the school’s journal *Review*, and the emergence of a group of leading scholars represented by the American scholar Jason Moore. As the current representative figure of this school, Moore, from the perspective of combining world-systems theory, environmental history, and global ecological issues, has proposed new concepts such as capitalism’s “world-ecology” and “Oikeios,” which transcends the binary opposition between humanity and nature. He identifies the “four cheap things” plundered by capitalist development, including cheap labor, cheap food, cheap energy, and cheap raw materials, and argues that a post-Cartesian view of nature as the dialectical unity of humanity and nature is the correct way to interpret Marx’s political economy thought. It can be said that world-systems Marxism, represented by Moore, epitomizes the theoretical development path of traditional Western Marxist schools entering the contemporary academic horizon of eco-socialism by continuously expanding their focus on ecological issues, and these research results have preliminarily shaped a world-systems theory from an eco-socialist perspective.

在这方面，“世界体系的马克思主义”十分清晰地展现出了这一演进趋势。世界体系的马克思主义是1970年代兴起于美国的新马克思主义理论流派，其代表人物有伊曼努尔·沃勒斯坦(Immanuel Wallerstein)、乔万尼·阿瑞吉(Giovanni Arrighi)、特伦斯·霍普金斯(Terence Hopkins)等。应该说，作为这一流派奠基人的沃勒斯坦已经注意到世界体系视角下的全球生态问题，并通过世界体系论的分析方法探讨并反思了当代资本主义世界的生态危机。随着世界体系论研究的不断推进，这一流派对全球生态问题的关注度逐渐提高，突出表现为由该流派主办的期刊《评论》(Review)上刊登的多期关于当代环境危机的专栏论文，并涌现出以美国学者杰森·摩尔(Jason Moore)为代表的一批领军学者。作为该流派当前的代表性人物，摩尔从世界体系论、环境史和全球生态问题三者结合的视角出发，提出了诸如资本主义的“世界—生态系统”(world-ecology)、超越人与自然二元对立的“奥伊蔻斯”(Oikeios)等新概念，指认了资本主义发展所掠夺的包括廉价劳动力、廉价食物、廉价能源和廉价原材料等在内的“四大廉价品”,并认为，一种后笛卡尔式的人与自然辩证统一的自然观才是解读马克思政治经济学思想的正确方式。可以说，以摩尔为代表的世界体系的马克思主义集中体现了传统西方马克思主义理论流派通过不断扩展其对生态议题的关注而切入到当代生态社会主义学术视阈之中的理论发展路径，而这些研究成果也初步形塑了一种生态社会主义视阈下的世界体系论。

(II) Three Theoretical Constructions of “Transformative Politics” as Alternatives to “Green Capitalism”

(二)作为“绿色资本主义”替代战略的三种“转型政治”理论建构

This aspect mainly refers to three representative schools formed on the basis of critical reflection on the inherent limitations of “green capitalism”: radical social-ecological transformation theory, the theory of transcending development, and democratic eco-socialism. The first representative school is the radical social-ecological transformation theory or “critical political ecology” primarily proposed by Ulrich Brand of the University of Vienna, Austria. As a “red-green” political philosophy or “transformative politics” theory countering “green capitalism,” Brand, based on a “green-left” political stance, has proposed a theoretical framework of “critical political ecology” through the analysis and reconstruction of concepts such as “green economy,” “green capitalism,” “imperial mode of living,” and “social-ecological transformation.” This framework mainly includes the following three aspects: first, a critical analysis of “green capitalism”; second, clarifying the basic concepts and propositions of radical social-ecological transformation; third, promoting the construction of a “global green left” under the vision of transformation. It is worth noting that although Brand himself has never explicitly acknowledged his identity as an eco-socialist, he has specifically emphasized the methodological role of historical materialism in constructing his radical social-ecological transformation theory and stated that he has incorporated relevant theories of Gramsci. Thus, although Brand’s theoretical construction also has its limitations, especially an insufficient analysis of the fundamental contradictions of capitalism, the critical political ecology analysis he initiated still holds significant value. It can be considered that this theory constitutes a cutting-edge exploration of “transformative politics” as the antithesis of “green capitalism” in the contemporary European and American context.

这方面主要是指在对“绿色资本主义”的固有局限性进行批判性反思的基础上形成的激进社会生态转型理论、超越发展理论和民主生态社会主义等三个代表性流派。第一个代表性流派是以奥地利维也纳大学的乌尔里希·布兰德(Ulrich Brand)为主提出的激进社会生态转型理论或“批判性政治生态学”。作为与“绿色资本主义”相抗衡的一种“红绿”政治哲学或“转型政治”理论，布兰德基于“绿色左翼”的政治立场，通过对“绿色经济”“绿色资本主义”“帝国式生活方式”“社会生态转型”等概念的解析重构，提出了一个“批判性政治生态学”的理论构架，其中主要包括如下三个方面：一是对“绿色资本主义”进行的批判性分析；二是阐明激进社会生态转型的基本理念和主张；三是推动构建转型视野下的“全球绿色左翼”。值得注意的是，虽然布兰德本人从未明确承认自己的生态社会主义者身份，但他曾特别强调了唯物史观在其激进社会生态转型理论构建中所起的方法论作用，并且表示对葛兰西相关理论进行了吸纳。因而，尽管布兰德的理论构建也有其局限性，尤其是对资本主义基本矛盾的分析不够充分，但他所开启的批判性政治生态学分析仍具有重要价值，可以认为，这一理论构成了当代欧美语境下作为“绿色资本主义”对立物的“转型政治”的一种前沿性探索。

The second representative school of “transformative politics” theoretical construction is the Latin American “theory of transcending development.” This school differs from Brand’s attempt to construct a “transformative politics” theory in the European and American context; it is more an attempt to construct a “transformative politics” theory in the context of developing countries, dedicated to resisting (green) capitalism and the unequal international political and economic order resulting from its global expansion. The background of the theory of transcending development is the “Long-Term Working Group on Development Alternatives” established in 2010 with the support of the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation. This working group brought together scholars from Latin America and Europe, committed to seeking a more just and harmonious society-nature relationship based on the integration of intellectual currents, and exploring alternative choices to the current hegemonic development model and path. Although there is still a lack of clear definition of the conceptual elements that “transcending development” should include, concepts such as ecology, decolonization, socialism, multiculturalism, feminism, anti-capitalist economics, indigenous thought, and “good living” are undoubtedly some of the essential elements, because these ideas question the concept of “development” itself at the value level. It is worth noting that this school both affirms the unique value of natural ecology and accordingly criticizes various modernization development projects, thereby exhibiting a color of ecological radicalism or “deep green,” and also criticizes the capitalist modernization policies upheld by left-wing progressive governments and the exploitative nature of contemporary capitalism, thereby reflecting its “pan-red” political character. It can be said that the theory of transcending development integrates the characteristics of both “deep green” and “pan-red.” Although as a “red-green” transformative strategy or “transformative politics,” the theory of transcending development still faces many fundamental difficulties, based on another alternative imagination of contemporary “green capitalism,” this school epitomizes the unique construction of “transformative politics” theory by developing countries.

“转型政治”理论建构的第二个代表性流派是拉美的“超越发展理论”。这一流派与布兰德尝试在欧美语境下构建“转型政治”理论的努力有所不同，它更多是在发展中国家语境下构建“转型政治”理论的尝试，致力于抗拒(绿色)资本主义及其在全球范围内扩张所导致的不平等的国际政治经济秩序。超越发展理论提出的背景是2010年在罗莎·卢森堡基金会支持下组建的“发展替代长期性工作组”。该工作组吸纳了来自拉美和欧洲等地的学者，致力于在思想流派融合的基础上，寻求实现一种更为公正和谐的社会—自然关系，并探索对当前霸权性发展模式和路径的替代性选择。虽然对“超越发展”所应包含的理念要素仍缺乏一种明晰的界定，但是，生态学、去殖民化、社会主义、多元文化主义、女性主义、经济学上的反资本主义、原住居民思想以及“好生活”等概念，无疑是其中的一些必备元素，因为这些理念在价值层面都质疑“发展”这一概念本身。值得注意的是，这一流派既肯定自然生态的独特价值，并依此批评各种现代化发展项目，从而展现出一种生态激进主义或“深绿”的色彩，也对包括左翼进步政府所坚持的资本主义现代化政策以及当代资本主义的剥削性质提出了批评，从而体现出了其“泛红”的政治性质。可以说，超越发展理论融合了“深绿”与“泛红”这两个方面的特征。虽然作为一种“红绿”变革战略或“转型政治”的超越发展理论还面临着诸多基础性难题，但基于对当代“绿色资本主义”的另一种替代性想象，这一流派集中体现了发展中国家对于“转型政治”理论所进行的独特建构。

The third representative school of “transition politics” theory is “democratic eco-socialism,” which has drawn extensive attention from overseas academia in recent years. The “transition politics” embodied by this school differs both from the radical socio-ecological transition theory that serves as an alternative strategy to “green capitalism” in the European and American context, and from the Latin American transcendence-of-development theory in the Global South context. Instead, it originates from a dual reflection on the historical limitations of the capitalist system and the socialist practice of the Soviet Union. The uniqueness of this school lies in its view that, given the serious defects in the socialist practice centered on the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in the 20th century, left-wing progressives who still have faith in socialism must face the gap between ideal and reality. They should attempt to combine the superiority of socialism in collective ownership, social equality, representative and participatory democracy with terms such as radical democracy, global democracy, or earth democracy, so as to thoroughly overcome the historical limitations brought by the Soviet bureaucratic system. In the sense of a high degree of democracy, they seek to achieve the integration of democratic socialism and eco-socialism, thereby constructing a “transition politics” based on democracy and ecological sustainability, oriented toward a global strategic transition to socialism. It should be noted that this school emphasizes the democratic elements within eco-socialism, paying particular attention to a political framework tending toward representative and participatory democracy, built on the foundation of public ownership of the means of production. Specifically, theoretical explorations of democratic eco-socialism in recent years have mainly focused on its basic principles and social institutional arrangements. For example, Michael Löwy, drawing on the basic principles of eco-socialism proposed by James O’Connor—ecological rationality, democratic control, social equality, and fairness—has further added three supplementary principles for realizing democratic eco-socialism: collective ownership of the means of production, democratic planning of investment and production targets, and a new technological structure of productive forces. Hans Baer has also made theoretically pioneering explorations. He argues that the global tension over natural resources urgently demands a transformative alternative to the capitalist system, and that democratic eco-socialism is precisely such an ideal alternative. This is because this方案, while recognizing environmental sustainability as a priority principle of social institutions, also highlights the superiority of socialism in maintaining social equality. Furthermore, Baer points out that the construction of social institutions under democratic eco-socialism must fully consider the fragility of the Earth and the finiteness of resources, and that the distribution mechanism must follow two basic principles: public ownership of the means of production and participatory democracy.

“转型政治”理论的第三个代表性流派是近年来引起国外学界广泛关注的“民主生态社会主义”(democratic eco-socialism)。这一流派所体现的“转型政治”,既不同于欧美语境下作为“绿色资本主义”替代战略的激进社会生态转型理论，也不同于全球南方语境下的拉美超越发展理论，而是源自对资本主义制度与苏联社会主义实践中某些历史局限的双重反思。这一流派的独特之处在于，在它看来，鉴于20世纪以苏联、东欧为核心的社会主义实践存在着某些严重缺陷，对社会主义依然抱有信心的左翼进步人士必须正视理想与现实之间的差距，并且应当尝试将社会主义在集体所有制、社会平等、代议制和参与式民主方面的优越性，与激进民主、全球民主或地球民主等术语相结合，以便彻底克服苏联官僚化体制所带来的历史局限性，在高度民主的意义上实现民主社会主义与生态社会主义的融合，从而构建一种建立在民主与生态可持续性基础上的、全球范围的朝向社会主义战略转型的“转型政治”。应当指出，这一流派强调了生态社会主义中的民主元素，尤其重视建立在生产资料公有制基础上的趋向代议制和参与式民主的政治架构。具体而言，近年来对民主生态社会主义的理论探索，主要聚焦在其基本原则与社会制度安排等方面。例如，迈克尔·洛维(Michael Löwy)在采纳詹姆斯·奥康纳(James O'Connor)所提出的生态理性、民主控制、社会平等和公平等生态社会主义基本原则的基础上，进一步增加了包括生产资料集体所有权、投资和生产目标的民主计划以及新的生产力技术结构等三个实现民主生态社会主义的补充性原则。汉斯·巴厄(Hans Baer)也做出了具有学术前沿意义的理论探索。他认为，全球范围内的自然资源紧张迫切要求推动对资本主义制度进行一种替代性变革，而民主生态社会主义正是这样一种理想的替代方案，因为这一方案在承认环境可持续性作为社会制度优先原则的基础上，也凸显了社会主义在维护社会平等方面的优越性。此外，巴厄还指出，民主生态社会主义的社会制度建构必须充分考虑地球的脆弱性以及资源的有限性，其中的分配机制需要遵循两条基本原则，即生产资料公有制和参与式民主。

(3) Expansion and Innovation in Methodology and Analytical Frameworks

(三)在方法论与分析框架上的拓展和革新

The most representative in this regard is the so-called “Gramscian political ecology.” Political ecology adopts a political science analytical perspective on ecological and environmental issues, or rather, an intersection of “ecology” and “politics.” Since the 1980s and 1990s, political ecology has increasingly become a frontier field in contemporary Western environmental humanities and social science research. At the same time, some overseas scholars holding Marxist positions have observed this new academic trend and have sought to integrate this political ecology research, viewed through the lens of Western environmental sociology, with Marxist standpoints, viewpoints, and methods. Theoretical progress in this area is prominently reflected in the special issue of *Geoforum* titled “Gramscian Political Ecology.” This special issue proposes and deepens the concept of “Gramscian political ecology,” attempting to combine key concepts from Gramsci’s thought with contemporary political ecology. Currently, academic discussions overseas on Gramscian political ecology focus mainly on two aspects: first, methodological construction at the level of theoretical framework; second, empirical research guided by this methodology. Regarding the former, from the perspective of methodological construction, some scholars argue that the proposal of Gramscian political ecology reflects the theoretical significance of historical materialism for political ecology research. It should be said that this methodological innovation extensively draws on concepts from Gramsci’s theory, such as praxis, ideology, and hegemony, thereby opening up a micro-field for analyzing power struggles and opposition to cultural hegemony in contemporary natural resource and environmental protection. It has also proposed a series of new concepts, including “political ecology of praxis,” thus providing new methodological analytical tools for studying environmental politics. Regarding the latter, some scholars have used these new methodological analytical tools to conduct empirical research on power struggles in natural resource and environmental protection practices. Examples include a political ecology analysis of forestry management in Canada, studies of anti-hegemonic movements for land rights in Brazil, and struggles over genetically modified agriculture in Mexico. These studies generally argue that Gramsci’s concept of “cultural hegemony” is highly relevant for analyzing real-world environmental power struggles. They emphasize that Gramsci’s theory provides an effective analytical framework for examining issues such as how socially disadvantaged groups mobilize local resources and cultural symbolic forces in material struggles against hegemony.

这方面最具代表性的是所谓的“葛兰西式政治生态学”(Gramscian political ecology)。政治生态学所采取的是一种对生态环境问题的政治学分析视角，或者说“生态学”与“政治学”的交叉结合。自20世纪80、90年代以来，政治生态学日益成为当代西方环境人文社会科学研究中的前沿领域。与此同时，国外一些持有马克思主义立场的学者也观察到了这一学术新动向，并力图将这种西方环境社会学视阈下的政治生态学研究与马克思主义的立场观点方法结合起来。这方面的理论进展突出反映在《地理学论坛》(Geoforum)出版的《葛兰西式政治生态学》特刊中。该特刊提出并深化了“葛兰西式政治生态学”这一概念，并力图将葛兰西思想中的一些关键性概念与当代政治生态学相结合。目前，国外学界围绕葛兰西式政治生态学的学术探讨主要集中在两个方面：一是理论框架意义上的方法论建构；二是在这种方法论指导下的实证研究。就前者而言，从方法论建构的视角来看，有学者认为，葛兰西式政治生态学的提出体现了唯物史观对于政治生态学研究的理论借鉴意义。应该说，这种方法论创新广泛借鉴了葛兰西理论中的诸如实践、意识形态、霸权等概念，从而开拓出一种分析当代自然资源与环境保护方面权力斗争和反对文化霸权的微观场域，并提出了包括“实践的政治生态学”(political ecology of praxis)在内的一系列新概念，从而为研究环境政治提供了方法论意义上的新的分析工具。就后者来说，有学者运用这种新的方法论分析工具，开展了对自然资源与环境保护实践中的权力斗争的实证研究，比如，对加拿大林业管理的政治生态学分析，对巴西土地权利的反霸权运动、墨西哥围绕转基因农业的抗争活动等一系列具体案例的研究。这些研究普遍认为，葛兰西所提出的“文化霸权”等概念对分析现实中的环境权力斗争具有高度相关性，并强调，葛兰西的理论为分析诸如社会弱势群体如何在面对霸权的物质斗争中调动本土资源以及文化象征力量等问题，提供了一种有效的分析框架。

3. A “Red-Green” Theoretical Examination of Prominent Real-World Environmental Issues such as Global Climate Change

三、对全球气候变化等突出现实环境问题的“红绿”理论审视

As new types of ecological and environmental challenges or crises, represented by global climate change, have become increasingly prominent, a new feature has emerged in overseas eco-socialist research since the 2008 financial crisis. This research has gradually moved beyond the traditional academic approach that emphasized theoretical speculation, shifting toward a new research pattern that gives equal weight to theory and reality. This is particularly reflected in a “red-green” theoretical examination of prominent real-world environmental issues such as global climate change. Specifically, this can be summarized in the following three levels or scenarios: first, theoretical analysis of social movements in reality, especially environmental social movements, with representative research on labor environmental movements or “labor environmentalism”; second, theoretical analysis of new types of ecological and environmental challenges, mainly including issues such as global climate change, food security, and opposition to biodiversity erosion; third, grasping the ecological and environmental challenges facing human society or civilization from a broader perspective and their characteristics of the times, mainly manifested in discussions of concepts such as the “Anthropocene.”

由于以全球气候变化为代表的新型生态环境挑战或危机日渐凸显，自2008年金融危机以来国外生态社会主义研究出现了一个新特征，即逐渐超越传统意义上偏重理论思辨的学术进路，而转向一种理论与现实并重的新研究格局，尤其体现为对全球气候变化等突出现实环境问题的“红绿”理论审视。具体可以概括为如下三个层面或情形：一是对现实中社会运动特别是环境社会运动所进行的理论分析，其中具有代表性的是对劳工环境运动或“劳工环境主义”的研究；二是对新型生态环境挑战的理论分析，主要包括全球气候变化、粮食安全与反对生物多样性侵蚀等议题；三是从更宏大的视角来把握人类社会或文明面临的生态环境挑战及其时代特征，主要表现为对“人类世”等概念的探讨。

(1) Theoretical Analysis of Environmental Social Movements in Reality

(一)对现实中环境社会运动的理论分析

In this regard, a particularly emphasized theme or domain is the political alliance or fusion of contemporary labor movements and mass environmental movements, as it epitomizes the real possibility and actual state of “red-green” integrated sociopolitical mobilization. Continuing the academic tradition of research on green trade unionism established by Jeff Shantz, Dan Jakopovich, and others in the late twentieth century, many scholars after the financial crisis further explored the possibility of combining labor movements with environmental struggles and the specific implications of such a combination. In summary, these studies can be roughly divided into two research approaches: historical analysis and contemporary analysis. Regarding the former, from a historical retrospective perspective, ecosocialist or ecological Marxist scholars including Stefania Barca have conducted ecological case studies of labor movements and workers’ autonomist movements prevalent in Western and Southern Europe in the 1960s, exploring the specific organizational forms of the integration of Western European labor movements and environmental movements in the mid-to-late twentieth century, and proposing new concepts such as “class ecology” and “labor environmentalism.” Regarding the latter, from a contemporary analytical perspective, some scholars have focused on new phenomena and practices emerging from the combination of labor movements and environmental movements in capitalist societies since the twenty-first century, particularly studying sociopolitical movements in Latin America. For example, American scholars Aviva Chomsky and Steve Striffler focus on the Colombian coal mining industry in the context of destructive plunder by multinational corporations, arguing that these corporations, in the process of extracting natural resources from the Global South, have harmed the interests of local indigenous communities and caused severe ecological damage. It is precisely in this context that local trade unions with radical positions have raised anti-imperialist environmental critiques and struggles against these multinational corporations. Thus, based on a critical stance toward the imperialist hegemonic position of multinational extraction companies and developed countries in the Global North within the world system, ecosocialist activists represented by local radical trade unions have committed themselves to closely linking indigenous rights, labor issues, and environmental problems. These cases and their studies indicate that the practical practice of labor environmentalism promotes distributive justice and alternative development in Latin America, highlighting the practical dimension of ecosocialist politics.

在这方面，一个被特别关注的主题或论域是当代劳工运动与大众环境运动的政治联合或融合，因为它集中体现了“红绿”交融社会政治动员的现实可能性及其实际状态。延承由杰夫·尚茨(Jeff Shantz)、丹·雅格波维奇(Dan Jakopovich)等在20世纪后期创设的关于绿色工联主义研究的学术传统，许多学者在金融危机后进一步探讨了劳工运动与环境抗争相结合的可能性以及这种结合的具体意涵。概言之，这些研究可以大致分为历史分析与现实分析两种研究路径。就前者而言，从历史回溯的视角出发，包括斯蒂芬·巴卡(Stefania Barca)等在内的生态社会主义或生态马克思主义学者，对盛行于1960年代西欧和南欧的劳工运动、工人自治主义运动进行了生态维度下的案例分析，探讨了20世纪中后期西欧劳工运动与环境运动相互结合的具体组织样态，并提出了诸如“阶级生态学”(class ecology)、“劳工环境主义”(labor environmentalism)等新概念。就后者来说，从现实分析的视角出发，一些学者聚焦进入21世纪以来资本主义社会出现的劳工运动与环境运动相结合而产生的新现象与新实践，尤其是就拉美地区的社会政治运动展开研究。比如，美国学者阿维瓦·乔姆斯基(Aviva Chomsky)和史蒂夫·斯特里夫勒(Steve Striffler)专注于跨国公司破坏性掠夺背景下的哥伦比亚煤矿业，认为这些跨国公司在开采全球南方的自然资源的过程中损害了当地土著社区的利益，并造成了严重的生态环境破坏。而正是在这一背景下，当地具有激进立场的工会针对这些跨国公司提出了反对帝国主义的环境批评与抗争。由此可见，基于对跨国开采公司和全球北方发达国家在世界体系中帝国主义霸权地位的批判立场，以当地激进工会为代表的生态社会主义活动者已经致力于将土著权利、劳工问题与环境问题密切联系起来。这些案例及其研究表明，劳工环境主义的现实实践对于促进分配正义与拉美替代发展具有推动作用，并凸显出生态社会主义政治的实践向度。

(2) Theoretical Analysis of New Types of Ecological and Environmental Challenges

(二)对新型生态环境挑战的理论分析

The most representative of these is undoubtedly the issue of global climate change and its response. It is not difficult to find that, around the multiple crises at the level of global governance systems brought about by global climate change, the green left academic community has conducted extensive related research. Correspondingly, new concepts or theories such as “fossil capitalism,” “climate capitalism,” and “energy democracy” have continuously emerged. Focusing on the climate crisis and its response, many scholars have explicitly stated that climate capitalism or climate imperialism has become a new manifestation or new trend of late capitalism, and thus in-depth research in this area should become a new critical horizon from an ecosocialist perspective. Specifically, discussions on this topic can be summarized in the following three aspects. First, theoretical analysis of a series of international climate conventions. From a political economy perspective, these scholars have discussed the hegemonic forms in the regulation and response to the climate crisis within international climate conventions, climate policy mechanisms and diplomatic negotiations, technological cybernetics, and the impact of these mechanisms on vulnerable groups in power relations, particularly workers, local communities, and developing countries. Second, some scholars have explored climate change and its response from the perspective of climate politics, especially the different ways various factions within the Western political spectrum address environmental issues. For example, Nancy Fraser, writing in *New Left Review*, pointed out that climate politics has become a key issue spanning the political spectrum, and various political actors in the contemporary Western world must respond to it, exhibiting differentiated paths and approaches of integration. Third, other scholars have focused on the correlation between climate change research and new trends in contemporary international political economy. For instance, Matthew Paterson argues that over the past decade, the development of global climate politics has posed fundamental challenges to political economy, and the real interest issues involved in climate politics have become increasingly acute. Paterson suggests that responding to this real change urgently requires theoretical innovation, which will inevitably affect understandings of state-market-enterprise relations, globalized capitalism, imperialism, and international political economy.

这其中最具代表性的无疑是全球气候变化及其应对问题。不难发现，围绕全球气候变化所带来的世界治理体系层面上的多重危机，绿色左翼学界开展了大量的相关研究工作。相应地，诸如“化石资本主义”“气候资本主义”“能源民主”等新概念或新理论也不断涌现。聚焦于气候危机及其应对，许多学者明确提出，气候资本主义或气候帝国主义已成为晚期资本主义的新表征或新动向，因而这方面的深入研究理应成为生态社会主义视角下的一个新批判视阈。具体地说，关于这一议题的讨论可以概括为如下三个方面。其一，对系列国际气候公约的理论分析。这些学者从政治经济学的角度出发，对国际气候公约里关于气候危机监管与应对中的霸权形式、气候政策机制与外交谈判、技术控制论，以及这些机制对权力关系中的弱势群体，特别是工人、本土社区以及发展中国家的影响展开了讨论。其二，一些学者从气候政治，特别是从西方政治谱系中各种派别应对环境议题的不同方式这一角度，探讨了气候变化及其应对等问题。比如，南希·弗雷泽(Nancy Fraser)在《新左翼评论》撰文指出，气候政治已经成为一项跨越政治谱系的关键议题，当代西方世界中的诸政治行为体必须对此做出回应，并且表现出差异化的结合路径与切入方式。其三，还有学者关注气候变化研究与当代国际政治经济学新趋势的关联性。比如，马修·帕特森(Matthew Paterson)认为，过去10年间，全球气候政治的发展给政治经济学带来了根本性的挑战，气候政治所牵涉的现实利益问题也变得愈益尖锐。帕特森提出，应对这种现实变化亟需实现一种理论革新，而这必将影响人们对国家—市场—企业关系、全球化资本主义、帝国主义和国际政治经济学等的理解。

Furthermore, in response to the global trend of natural capitalization and the commodification of biological resources leading to food security and biodiversity crises, many ecosocialist scholars have also explored issues such as biodiversity protection, local agricultural ecosystem resistance to the erosion of global capital commodification, and resistance to the commodified appropriation of local species resources by multinational corporations. This ecological critique of contemporary capitalism from the perspective of natural commodification roughly includes two different entry paths: one from the perspective of environmental justice and environmental democracy; the other from the perspective of critiquing capitalist development discourse. Regarding the former, a representative scholar is the Indian left-wing environmental theorist Vandana Shiva. As an ecofeminist, Shiva has in recent years published multiple works from the perspective of environmental justice and environmental democracy, exploring issues such as food security and opposition to the commodification of biodiversity. Her research is based on the concept of environmental justice, emphasizing biodiversity protection and anti-capitalization in the agricultural field, the value of protecting local agricultural systems, opposition to the monopoly of seed resources by large capitalist biotechnology companies, and resistance to the erosion of local agricultural systems by capitalized agriculture, thereby expanding the political and policy connotations of environmental justice in the context of natural commodification. Regarding the latter, some scholars have launched an ecological critique of natural commodification from the perspective of questioning the “development discourse” promoted globally by capitalist states. For example, also focusing on global agriculture and food security issues, Philip McMichael of Cornell University explicitly questions the development discourse under the capitalist system and argues that, while a series of development discourses including world development and agricultural development are attractive, one must be aware of the underlying expression of capitalist ideology.

此外，针对全球范围内的自然资本化以及生物资源的商品化风潮所导致的粮食安全与生物多样性危机，许多生态社会主义学者还对诸如生物多样性保护、地方农业生态系统反抗全球资本商品化侵蚀，以及抗拒跨国公司对地方物种资源的商品化窃取等问题展开了探讨。这种从自然商品化角度展开的对当代资本主义的生态批判，大致包含两种不同的切入路径：一种是从环境正义与环境民主的视角切入；另一种是从对资本主义发展话语的批判视角切入。就前者而言，代表性学者是印度左翼环境理论家范达娜·席瓦(Vandana Shiva)。作为一名生态女性主义者，席瓦近年来以环境正义与环境民主为视角，发表了多部探讨粮食安全、反对生物多样性商品化等问题的著作。她的研究建基于环境正义的理念，强调生物多样性保护与农业领域的反资本化、重视地方性农业系统保护的价值、反对资本主义大型生物公司对种子资源的垄断，以及反对资本化农业对本土农业系统的侵蚀，从而在自然商品化的背景语境下拓展了环境正义的政治与政策内涵。就后者来说，有些学者从质疑资本主义国家在全球推行“发展话语”的角度，展开了对自然商品化的生态批判。比如，同样聚焦于全球农业与粮食安全问题，美国康奈尔大学的菲利普·麦克迈克尔(Philip McMichael)明确质疑资本主义体系下的发展话语，并认为包括世界发展、农业发展在内的一系列发展话语虽然具有吸引力，但必须意识到其背后隐含的资本主义意识形态表达。

(3) Grasping the Ecological and Environmental Challenges of Human Society or Civilization and Their Epochal Characteristics from a Broader Perspective

(三)从更宏大视角把握人类社会或文明的生态环境挑战及其时代特征

The most representative theoretical topic in this regard is the concept of the “Anthropocene.” Although still contested, the mainstream view of the “Anthropocene” is that the geological epoch of the “Holocene” has ended, and the 1950s mark the beginning of a new “Anthropocene,” whose main characteristic is that human activity has become the primary geological force affecting the entire evolution of the Earth. Currently, discussions within eco-socialist scholarship on the concept or topic of the “Anthropocene” focus on the following three aspects. First, attention is paid to the relationship between the “Anthropocene” and the causes of and responses to the ecological crisis, with the view that discussion of the “Anthropocene” concept or topic has heuristic value for solving the contemporary ecological crisis. For example, Carles Soriano argues that most current research methods on ecological and environmental problems are “based on a non-dialectical and non-materialist understanding of the mode of social reproduction,” which makes our understanding of the global ecological crisis not only incomplete but also more idealist. As humanity enters the planetary crisis era of the “Anthropocene,” a correct understanding of Marx’s theory

这方面最具代表性的理论议题就是“人类世”概念。虽然仍存在着争议，但目前围绕“人类世”概念的主流性看法是，地质学家所指称的地质时间尺度上的“全新世”已经结束，而1950年代标志着新的“人类世”的开启，这一新时期的主要特征是人类活动成为足以影响整个地球演进的主要地质力量。目前，生态社会主义学界关于“人类世”概念或议题的探讨主要集中在如下三个方面。其一，关注“人类世”与生态危机的成因及其应对措施的关系，认为“人类世”概念或议题讨论对于解决当代生态危机具有启迪价值。比如，卡莱斯·索里亚诺(Carles Soriano)认为，当前大部分生态环境问题的研究方法，都是“基于一种对社会再生产模式的非辩证和非唯物主义的理解”,这使得我们对于全球生态危机的理解不仅是不完整的，而且更多是唯心主义的。随着人类进入“人类世”的行星危机时代，对于马克思价值理论的正确理解将有助于我们解决当前全球尺度上的生态危机。其二，阐明“人类世”与“新陈代谢断裂”现实之间的关系，比如斋藤幸平强调了马克思的价值理论、新陈代谢断裂以及一种非笛卡尔式二元论(non-Cartesian dualism)的自然观对理解当代生态危机所具有的激进批判价值，并明确强调要在“人类世”时代运用马克思的思想对资本主义展开生态批判，从而逐步走向一种基于“去增长”的后资本主义社会。其三，拓展关于“人类世”概念或议题的讨论，进一步提出并阐发了“资本世”(Capitalocene)和“克苏鲁世”(Chthulucene)等关联性概念。这些延展性概念都被认为在某些方面拓宽或修正了“人类世”概念或议题的理论意涵。

IV. Conclusion

四、结 语

Overall, international eco-socialist research since the 2008 financial crisis has made important advances in the interpretation of the classical works of Marx and Engels, the expansion of theoretical issues and perspectives, and the critical analysis of real-world problems. It can even be said that it is entering or has already entered a new node or stage of development. These new advances are mainly reflected in two aspects. First, there is a clear inheritance of the research themes and methods of this academic field from the end of the twentieth century. For example, the in-depth reading and active interpretation of the classical works of Marx and Engels by the North American school represented by Foster and Burkert have had a significant impact on the research topics and methodological choices of a new generation of scholars such as Saito Kohei. Second, because more theoretical schools have joined or more theoretical issues have been incorporated, the scope of topics covered by eco-socialist research has expanded markedly. An example is the discussion of ecological Marxism in the era of the Anthropocene based on different theoretical schools. In this regard, on the one hand, the positive implications are self-evident. The cultural-theoretical deconstruction and alternative transformative practices corresponding to the increasingly complex non-ecological (or anti-ecological) nature of the contemporary capitalist world can only be matched by a global eco-socialist trend and movement that is increasingly cross-issue, cross-disciplinary, and cross-regional. Any theoretical expression that clings to simplistic slogans and conclusions or regional experience is unhelpful for advancing in practice a "red-green" transformative restructuring that takes the replacement of the capitalist system as its common goal. On the other hand, faced with the increasingly complex and diverse world of eco-socialist theory and practice, we must maintain full theoretical and ideological openness. We should better absorb and draw on the beneficial experiences of the peoples and cultures of the world in resisting or replacing the capitalist system, as well as the supporting politics and policies. At the same time, we must more firmly uphold and advance China's socialist modernization drive, which takes harmony between humanity and nature as its basic feature, and the construction of an ecological civilization under socialism with Chinese characteristics. It must be recognized that the research results of many contemporary international eco-socialist scholars or "green-left" theorists not only lack a Marxist theoretical foundation and methodology but are also, to varying degrees, confined by the economic and social institutional environment or ingrained modes of thinking in which they operate. Therefore, a cautious attitude should be adopted toward some of their specific views or analytical methods. (Notes omitted.)

总的来看，2008年金融危机之后的国外生态社会主义研究在马克思恩格斯经典著作阐释、理论议题观点拓展和现实问题批判分析等方面都取得了重要进展，甚至可以说正在或已经进入一个新的发展节点或阶段。这些新进展主要体现在两个方面：其一，对该学术领域在20世纪末研究主题与方法的明确继承，比如以福斯特和伯克特为代表的北美学派对于马克思恩格斯经典著作的深耕阅读与积极诠释，就对斋藤幸平等新一代学者的研究议题与方法选择产生了显著影响。其二，由于更多理论学派加入或理论议题被纳入其中，生态社会主义研究所涵盖的论域明显扩大，比如基于不同理论学派的对“人类世”时代的生态马克思主义的讨论。对此，一方面，这其中的积极意涵是不言自明的，与日趋复杂的当代资本主义世界的非(反)生态质性的文化理论解构与替代性变革实践相对应的，只能是一种日益走向跨议题、跨学科、跨区域的全球性生态社会主义思潮与运动，任何偏执于简单化的口号结论或地域性经验的理论表达都无助于现实推进一场以资本主义制度替代为共同目标的“红绿”重塑性变革。另一方面，面对越来越纷繁复杂的世界生态社会主义理论与实践，我们必须保持充分的理论与思想开放性，对于世界各国人民与文化抗拒或替代资本主义制度的实践及其支撑性政治与政策等有益经验，更好地加以吸收借鉴，同时更加坚定地坚持与推进我国以人与自然和谐共生为基本特征的社会主义现代化国家建设和中国特色社会主义生态文明建设。必须看到，许多当代国外生态社会主义学者或“绿色左翼”理论家的研究成果，不仅缺乏马克思主义理论基础和方法论，而且或多或少囿于他们所处的经济社会制度环境或固有思维方式，因而，需要对他们的一些具体看法或分析方法持审慎态度。（注释略）

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑