Manifesting Theoretical Value through the Tempering of Social Critique

Foreign Marxism refers primarily to theoretical currents that exist in countries and regions outside China, which, in terms of basic viewpoints, methods, and value orientations, adhere to and identify with Marxism to varying degrees, engage in theoretical innovation in response to practical needs and their own national cultures, adopt a critical stance toward the capitalist system, and sometimes propose designs for an ideal future society. Foreign Marxism encompasses numerous schools of thought without a unified system, but these schools generally share characteristics such as being reality-oriented, critical, open, and academic. As long as the problems and drawbacks of capitalist society are not fundamentally resolved, Marxist currents, as their antithesis, will continue to thrive.

国外马克思主义主要是指存在于中国以外的国家和地区，在基本观点、方法和价值取向等一些方面或多或少地坚持和认同马克思主义，因应现实需要和本国文化进行理论创新，对资本主义制度持批判态度，有时还对未来理想社会提出方案设计的理论思潮。国外马克思主义包含众多思想流派而没有统一的体系，但这些思想流派大都具有现实性、批判性、开放性、学术性等特点。只要资本主义社会的问题和弊端没有根本解决，作为其对立面的马克思主义思潮就会生生不息。

In 2022, foreign Marxist scholars, upholding academic traditions, conducted extensive and in-depth analysis and critique of Marxist theoretical schools, representative figures, and various problems existing in contemporary Western developed capitalist countries, while also designing and planning alternative ideal social systems.

2022年度，国外马克思主义学者秉持学术传统，围绕马克思主义的理论流派、代表人物以及当代西方发达资本主义国家存在的各种问题，进行了广泛而深入的分析、批判，并对替代性的理想社会制度进行设计和谋划。

I. Research on the Frankfurt School

一、法兰克福学派研究

Since the 1930s, the Frankfurt School has occupied an important position within foreign Marxist currents, having developed to the stage where the third generation is mainstream and the fourth generation is emerging. Due to its prominent social critique, intellectual creativity, and organizational continuity, it has consistently been a hot topic in Western academic research.

自20世纪30年代以来，法兰克福学派在国外马克思主义思潮中一直处于重要地位，迄今已发展到第三代砥柱主流、第四代崭露头角的阶段。由于其突出的社会批判性、思想创造性和组织传承性，一直是西方学界研究的热点之一。

(I) The School as an Organization

（一）学派组织整体

The Frankfurt School is an interdisciplinary group of left-wing thinkers whose contributions to the social sciences and humanities have made them one of the most influential groups of scholars, with their work inspiring decades of development in social critical theory. Robert Cluley and Martin Parker of the University of Nottingham, UK, examined the organizational structure and development of the Frankfurt School. By reading the texts of the Frankfurt School and their work practices, Cluley and Parker found that the thinkers of the Frankfurt School did not neglect everyday organizational tasks; they regarded this organizational work as an integral part of social dialectical theory. The Frankfurt School described itself as “a collective entity, not merely a more or less artificial and accidental gathering of scientists working in related fields,” with the goal of becoming “a new type of scientific work organization.” Today’s critical scholars must not only read the theory of the Frankfurt School but also understand how this research institute managed to survive for so long and exert such significant influence.

法兰克福学派是一个跨学科的左翼思想家团体，对社会科学和人文科学的贡献使他们成为最有影响力的学者团体之一，其工作激励了社会批判理论数十年的发展。英国诺丁汉大学罗伯特·克卢利（Robert Cluley）、马丁·帕克（Martin Parker）对法兰克福学派的组织结构和组织发展进行了考察。通过阅读法兰克福学派的文本及其工作实践，克卢利和帕克发现法兰克福学派的思想家没有忽视日常的组织任务，他们将这种组织工作视为社会辩证理论的组成部分。法兰克福学派将自己描述为“一个集体实体，而不仅仅是在相关领域工作的科学家或多或少地人为和偶然的聚会”，其目标是要成为“一种新型的科学工作组织”。今天的批判学者不仅要阅读法兰克福学派的理论，还要理解这个研究机构是如何长期存在并产生如此重大的影响的。

Although the critical theorists of the Frankfurt School were committed to critiquing modern industrial society, their research methods differed greatly from those of Marx. Tom Rockmore of Duquesne University, USA, pointed out that Marx analyzed the economic problems of modern industrial society with the aim of proposing an alternative to modern industrial capitalism. In contrast, the first generation of critical theorists, represented by Max Horkheimer, and the second generation, represented by Jürgen Habermas, neglected the economic dimension of the modern world. They followed the view of the Frankfurt School’s founder, Friedrich Pollock, that politics determines economics, rather than the Marxist view that economics determines politics. Driven by two generations of critical theorists such as Horkheimer and Habermas, social critical theory gradually became another research path for the critique of capitalism.

尽管法兰克福学派的批判理论家们致力于对现代工业社会的批判，但他们与马克思的研究方法有巨大差别。美国杜肯大学汤姆·洛克莫尔（Tom Rockmore）指出，马克思分析现代工业社会的经济问题，目的在于提出替代现代工业资本主义的理论。而以霍克海默（Max Horkheimer）等人为代表的第一代批判理论家和以哈贝马斯（Jürgen Habermas）为代表的第二代批判理论家忽视了现代世界的经济维度，他们追随的是法兰克福学派开创者波洛克（Friedrich Pollock）关于政治决定经济的观点而非马克思主义关于经济决定政治的观点。在霍克海默、哈贝马斯等两代批判理论家的推动下，社会批判理论逐渐成为资本主义批判的另一种研究路径。

Alvi Saccarelli of the University of Lucerne, Switzerland, demonstrated the relationship between the Frankfurt School and the experimentalism represented by John Dewey. Although some critical theorists criticized Dewey’s experimentalism, Dewey actually developed his own method of social critique in response to the problem that social life might be immune to calls for change. The critical theorists of the Frankfurt School and the American pragmatists, in different yet complementary ways, pointed out the extent to which contemporary society is caught in a vicious cycle of opposition and suffering, thereby indicating the objective possibility of another form of social life. From Dewey, critical theory scholars learn that critical theory must find ways to enter the everyday life experience of the public through group action and maintain a critical posture toward social problems in order to avoid the decline of theory.

瑞士卢塞恩大学阿尔维·萨克拉论证了法兰克福学派和以杜威（John Dewey）为代表的实验主义的关系。尽管一些批判理论家批评杜威的实验主义，但杜威实际上也制定了他的社会批判方法，以回应社会生活可能对变革主张免疫的问题。法兰克福学派批判理论家和美国实用主义者是以不同而又相互补充的方式，指出了当代社会在何种程度上陷入了对立和痛苦的恶性循环，从而指出了另一种社会生活形式的客观可能性。从杜威那里，批判理论学者认识到：批判理论必须找到通过群体行动进入公众日常生活经验的方法，要保持对社会问题的批判姿态，才能避免理论的衰落。

(II) First-Generation Critical Theory

（二）第一代批判理论

Theodor Adorno is an important representative of the first generation of the Frankfurt School. Although he is often interpreted as a critic of the managed world and the consumer industry rather than a Marxist, Werner Bonefeld of the University of York, UK, and Chris O’Kane of the University of Texas, USA, emphasized the intersection between Adorno’s critical theory and Marx’s critique of political economy, taking Adorno’s negative dialectics as the basis for understanding Marx’s critique of political economy. This conception of the critique of political economy as a critical theory marks a departure from traditional Marxist scholarship and traditional interpretations of Adorno’s work. Its subtle interpretation of social critical theory and its subversion of the economic categories of political economy have led to cutting-edge developments in contemporary social theory and critiques of social practice.

西奥多·阿多诺（Theodor Adorno）是法兰克福学派第一代的重要代表人物。虽然他经常被解读为管控世界和消费产业的批评家而不是马克思主义者，但英国约克大学沃纳·布恩福德（Werner Bonefeld）、美国德州大学克里斯·奥凯恩（Chris O.Kane）强调了阿多诺的批判理论与马克思政治经济学批判之间的交集，将阿多诺的否定辩证法作为理解马克思政治经济学批判的基础。这种将政治经济学批判理解为一种批判理论的观念，标志着对传统马克思主义学术和对阿多诺作品传统解读的背离。它对社会批判理论的巧妙阐释，对政治经济学的经济范畴的颠覆，引致了当代社会理论的前沿发展及对社会实践的批判。

Mary E. Witlacil of Colorado State University, USA, analyzing the pessimism in Adorno’s critical theory, pointed out that in the face of widespread environmental problems, global pandemics, and the spread of authoritarianism, Western societies lack sufficient political will to solve these pervasive issues. This lack of political response is troubling. And if people do not maintain optimism about a better future, they are accused of being irrational, unpatriotic, or even conservative. The left generally denies pessimism, but it is difficult for anyone to guarantee that tomorrow will necessarily be better. Perhaps Adorno-style philosophical pessimism is an alternative standpoint from which to think about the discordant relationship between the myth of progress, contemporary political stagnation, capitalism, and climate change. This critical orientation provides a ballast against blind optimism, the myth of progress, and the arbitrary thinking of dominating nature, potentially allowing the relationship between the climate crisis, income inequality, and spreading authoritarian populism to be reconfigured.

美国科罗拉多州立大学玛丽·维特拉西尔（Mary E. Witlacil）在对阿多诺批判理论的悲观主义进行分析的基础上指出，面对广泛的环境问题、全球流行病和威权主义的蔓延，西方社会却没有足够的政治意志来解决这些普遍存在的问题。这种政治回应的缺乏是令人不安的。而如果人们不对更美好的未来保持乐观情绪，他们就会被指责为非理性、不爱国，甚至守旧。左翼是普遍否定悲观主义的，但谁都很难保证明天必然会更好。也许阿多诺式的哲学悲观主义是一个可供选择的立场，可以从这个立场来思考进步神话、当代政治停滞、资本主义和气候变化之间的不和谐关系。这种批判取向为盲目乐观情绪、进步神话和统治自然的专断思维提供了镇流器，有可能使得气候危机、收入不平等和蔓延的威权民粹主义之间的关系得以重新构建。

Herbert Marcuse is another representative of the first generation of the Frankfurt School. Considering the renewed interest in his life and work in recent years, and the critical questions he raised about the pervasive violence of late capitalism, Nick Stevenson of the University of Nottingham, UK, argues that it is necessary to reassess Marcuse’s critical theory. In his view, Marcuse’s works contain dialectical thought that points to key possibilities for transcending one-dimensional society in a future world. While breaking with Puritan ethics, socializing the economy and liberating nature could enable citizens to lead more peaceful and fulfilling lives. However, for socialists, Marcuse remains a problematic intellectual because he kept his distance from the workers’ movement. Therefore, to properly evaluate his work, it must be carefully linked to the voices of the New Left, which remain critical of his intellectual and cultural output.

赫伯特·马尔库塞（Herbert Marcuse）是法兰克福学派第一代的另一位代表人物。考虑到近年来人们对他的生活和工作重新产生了兴趣，以及他对晚期资本主义普遍存在的暴力所提出的批判性问题，英国诺丁汉大学尼克·史蒂文森（Nick Stevenson）认为有必要重新评估马尔库塞的批判理论。在他看来，马尔库塞的作品中蕴含着辩证思想，指出了在未来世界中超越一维社会的关键的可能性。在打破清教伦理的同时，将经济社会化，解放自然，可以使公民过上更和平、更充实的生活。但是对于社会主义者来说，马尔库塞仍然是一个有问题的知识分子，因为他与工人运动保持着距离。因此，若要正确看待他的工作，还需谨慎地与新左派的声音联系起来，这些声音仍然对他的知识和文化作品持批评态度。

Charles Reitz of Kansas City Community College in the United States applies Marcuse’s critical theory to contemporary issues such as global capitalism’s ecological destructiveness and racism, calling for the unity of diverse radical social movements—including ecosocialism, anti-racism, women’s movements, LGBTQ rights movements, and anti-war movements—in a just struggle. He argues that the best way to confront regressive politics today is to promote cooperation among various radical forces. Drawing new critical resources from Marcuse’s call for the “Great Refusal,” he envisions a replacement for and transcendence of capitalist oligarchy: a green economic choice, and a “Plan for a Global Federation” that would achieve genuine human liberation, because it would be a new system of ecological production, equal distribution, common ownership, and democratic governance. This provides not only new insights for the ideological and cultural spheres but also new insights for the underlying economic structure of capitalism.

美国堪萨斯城社区学院查尔斯·雷茨（Charles Reitz）将马尔库塞的批判理论运用于当代问题，如全球资本主义的生态破坏性、种族主义等，呼吁生态社会主义、反种族主义、妇女运动、LGBTQ权利运动和反战运动等不同的激进的社会运动团结起来进行正义的斗争，认为今天要对抗倒退的政治，最好的办法是推动各种激进力量的合作。他从马尔库塞关于“大拒绝”的呼吁中寻找到新的批判性资源，设想了对资本主义寡头政治的取代和超越：这是一种绿色经济选择，也是一种实现真正人类解放的“地球联邦计划”，因为它将是一种生态生产、平等分配、共有所有权和民主治理的新制度。这不仅为意识形态和文化领域提供了新见解，而且为资本主义的底层经济结构提供了新见解。

(III) The Second Generation of Critical Theory

（三）第二代批判理论

Jürgen Habermas is the most important representative of the second generation of the Frankfurt School. Tom Bailey of John Cabot University in Italy examines Habermas’s views and the influence of his political theory on non-“Western” contexts from a global perspective, covering themes from Latin America, the Middle East, and India to China, and from cosmopolitanism, democracy, and human rights to colonialism, feminism, modernity, and religion. Tom Bailey points out that, through Habermas’s own response to accusations of “provincialism,” it can be seen that Habermas has always been a staunch defender of the Enlightenment. Because the Enlightenment is a pivot of European history, he is sometimes accused of being a Eurocentrist and of using universalism to mask Western colonial and imperial ambitions. These views are a misunderstanding of Habermas’s work; in fact, he has always sought to transcend the provincialization of Western political thought.

尤尔根·哈贝马斯（Jürgen Habermas）是法兰克福学派第二代的最重要代表。意大利约翰·卡伯特大学汤姆·贝利（Tom Bailey）以全球视角考察了哈贝马斯的观点及其政治理论对非“西方”语境的影响，包括从拉丁美洲、中东到印度和中国，从世界主义、民主、人权到殖民主义、女权主义、现代性和宗教等主题。汤姆·贝利指出，通过哈贝马斯本人对其“地方主义”指控的回应，可以看出哈贝马斯一直是启蒙运动的坚定捍卫者。由于启蒙运动是欧洲历史的枢纽，因此他有时被指责为欧洲中心主义者，并利用普世主义来掩盖西方的殖民和帝国野心。这些看法是对哈贝马斯作品的误解，实际上他一直在试图超越西方政治思想的地方化。

Habermas is not only one of the most influential continental philosophers of the post-war period but also a major public intellectual in Germany, and increasingly a public intellectual for the European Union. However, Peter Verovšek of the University of Groningen in the Netherlands argues that Habermas’s political writings have not received the attention they deserve, and that he himself is often misunderstood as an ideal theorist who is both ignorant of and indifferent to “real” politics. By showing how Habermas’s philosophy relates to his political engagement, Verovšek presents Habermas’s philosophy as a model for applying theoretical insights to political development in an indirect, mediated manner. This approach focuses on debate within the democratic public sphere. Compared with directly participating in decision-making processes or directly applying philosophy to political practice, Habermas’s method has a clear advantage: the other two methods both risk threatening the principle of democratic equality in the public sphere.

哈贝马斯不仅是战后最具影响力的欧洲大陆哲学家之一，也是德国的主要公共知识分子，而且越来越成为欧盟的公共知识分子。但荷兰格罗宁根大学彼得·维罗夫塞克认为，哈贝马斯的政治著作没有得到应有的重视，他本人还经常被误解为一个对“现实”政治既无知又冷漠的理想理论家。通过展示哈贝马斯的哲学如何与他的政治参与相关联，维罗夫塞克将哈贝马斯的哲学看作以间接、中介的方式将理论见解应用于政治发展的典范。这种方式侧重于民主公共领域内的辩论。与积极参与决策过程和直接将哲学应用于政治实践相比，哈贝马斯的方法具有明显的优势：其他两种方法都有可能威胁到公共领域的民主平等原则。

Verovšek also writes to reassess the debates between Habermas and Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida. Although Habermas offers a limited defense of the Enlightenment and has disagreements with his French contemporaries, Habermas’s philosophy displays many often-overlooked postmodern features. These include its departure from the autonomous subject, its suspicion of metaphysics, and its rejection of the philosophy of history. Given that many of Habermas’s postmodern commitments take a weaker version, Verovšek concludes that rather than reading Habermas as a conservative critic of his more radical French counterparts, it is better to see these three thinkers as part of a common attempt to address post-war European problems in an open, discursive manner.

维罗夫塞克还撰文重新评估了哈贝马斯与福柯（Michel Foucault）和德里达（Jacques Derrida）的辩论。尽管哈贝马斯对启蒙运动进行了有限的辩护，也与他的法国同时代人有争论，但哈贝马斯的哲学展示了许多经常被忽视的后现代特征。这包括它对自主主体的偏离、对形而上学的怀疑以及对历史哲学的拒绝。鉴于哈贝马斯的许多后现代主义承诺采取了较弱意义的版本，维罗夫塞克的结论是，与其将哈贝马斯解读为对法国更为激进的同行的保守派批评家，不如将这三位思想家视为以公开的、散漫的方式解决战后欧洲问题的共同尝试的一部分。

(IV) The Third Generation of Critical Theory

（四）第三代批判理论

As the leading figure of the third generation of the Frankfurt School, Axel Honneth of Goethe University Frankfurt attempts to develop a third path between liberalism and republicanism. The core of this attempt is the concept of “recognition,” which he believes can provide a key for deciphering the complexity of contemporary society. Tommaso Sperotto of the University of Palermo in Italy points out that in recent years, the term “recognition” has become increasingly important not only in philosophical debates but also as a political and sociological concept. This is reflected not only in the demands made by diverse minority groups but also in movements demanding greater political autonomy and independence, in nationalist reactions to economic globalization, and in conflicts over protecting identities perceived to be at risk—whether in post-colonial contexts or in the context of migration flows. In other words, the term “recognition” plays a dominant role in the contemporary socio-political landscape.

作为法兰克福学派第三代的领军人物，德国法兰克福大学阿克塞尔·霍耐特（Axel Honneth）试图在自由主义和共和主义之间发展第三条道路，这一尝试的核心即“承认”的概念，他认为“承认”概念可以为破译当代社会的复杂性提供一把解释的钥匙。意大利巴勒莫大学托马斯·斯佩罗托（Tommaso Sperotto）指出，近年来，“承认”一词不仅在哲学辩论中变得越来越重要，而且作为一个政治和社会学概念也变得越来越重要。这不仅体现在多样化的少数群体提出的要求中，还体现在要求更大的政治自治和独立运动中，体现在民族主义对经济全球化的反应中，体现在保护被认为处于危险之中的身份的冲突中——无论是在后殖民背景下还是移民流动的背景下。换句话说，“承认”一词在当代社会政治图景中扮演了主导角色。

Bruce Baum of the University of British Columbia in Canada argues that although Honneth himself focuses on struggles for recognition and social freedom rather than equality, his social critical theory provides a compelling overall framework for mapping a political sociology of social equality, with due consideration of class inequality, social identity differences, and the ecological challenges of contemporary globalized societies. By clarifying the interaction between equality and difference, Honneth combines equal respect for all (the core content of equality in modern democratic societies) with social esteem for specific subjects (which creates distinctions among people).

加拿大英属哥伦比亚大学布鲁斯·鲍姆（Bruce Baum）认为，尽管霍耐特本人关注的是争取承认和社会自由的斗争而不是平等，但他的社会批判理论提供了一个令人信服的总体框架，据此可以在适当考虑阶级不平等、社会身份差异和当代全球化社会的生态挑战的情况下，绘制有关社会平等的政治社会学。霍耐特通过阐明平等和差异的相互作用的方式，将对所有人的平等尊重（这是现代民主社会中平等的核心内容）与对特定主体的社会尊崇（由此形成人们之间的差别性）结合起来。

Honneth himself writes a study of the history of “labor,” pointing out that forced labor in ancient and medieval times was merely a heavy burden, without any need for moral consideration. With the advent of modernity, accompanied by processes of cultural revaluation and economic transformation, labor developed into a positive credential for free existence and a prerequisite for social integrity. Protestant ethics led to the valorization of labor, because it was interpreted as a symbol of one’s capacity for self-denial. Paid work became a mark of free determination and provided the precondition for individual independence. Over time, it increasingly influenced the cultural self-understanding of Western capitalist modern societies: labor that was once merely a daily struggle for bare necessities came to be understood as proof of social liberation and freedom.

霍耐特本人撰文对“劳动”的历史进行研究，指出古代和中世纪的强迫劳动只是一种沉重的负担，但没有必要对它进行道德上的考量。随着现代化的到来，伴随文化重估和经济转型的过程，劳动发展成为自由存在的积极凭证和社会廉正的前提。新教伦理导致了劳动的价值提升，因为它被解释为一个人拥有自我禁欲能力的象征。有报酬的工作成为自由决定的标志，并为个人独立提供了前提条件。随着时间的推移，它越来越影响到西方资本主义现代社会的文化自我理解：以前每天为挣到一份勉强糊口的必需品的劳动，现在被理解为社会解放和自由的证明。

Nancy Fraser, a representative of the third generation of the Frankfurt School at the New School for Social Research in New York, denounces contemporary capitalism as “cannibalistic” capitalism. She points out that capital is currently devouring every aspect of life—sucking wealth from nature and racialized populations, consuming people’s capacity for mutual care, and destroying corresponding political practices. Capital’s insatiable appetite causes one social crisis after another, from ecological destruction to democratic collapse, from racial violence to the devaluation of philanthropy. These crises have reached their peak due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Fraser argues that what we need is a broad socialist movement capable of identifying capital’s greed and “starving” it, in order to end the situation of the strong preying on the weak.

法兰克福学派第三代的代表人物、美国纽约社会研究新学院南茜·弗雷泽（Nancy Fraser）将当代资本主义斥为“食人的”资本主义。她指出，资本目前正在蚕食生活的方方面面——从自然界和种族化人群中吸食财富，吞噬人们相互关心的能力，并摧毁相应的政治实践。资本的贪婪胃口使得社会危机一个接一个地发生，从生态破坏到民主崩溃，从种族暴力到慈善事业的贬值等。这些危机因新冠肺炎疫情而达到了顶峰。弗雷泽认为，我们需要的是一个广泛的社会主义运动，能够识别资本的贪婪并将其“饿死”，以终结弱肉强食的局面。

Alice Goff of the University of Paris discusses Fraser’s theory of justice and her critique of capitalism. She argues that Fraser’s academic reputation is largely due to her contributions to contemporary debates on social justice and recognition theory. Fraser holds that social justice means a combination of recognition and redistribution, and she adds a political dimension to her view by insisting on representation. Goff provides an in-depth analysis of Fraser’s project of critiquing capitalism, pointing out that the concept of “boundary struggles” proposed by Fraser is her most original contribution. This concept constitutes a valuable tool for social and political theory. Through such a concept, Fraser illuminates a major blind spot in normative theories of justice and various critical theories, while also providing necessary tools for social movements and the Left.

法国巴黎大学爱丽丝·高芙（Alice Goff）讨论了弗雷泽的正义理论及其对资本主义的批判。她认为，弗雷泽的学术名望在很大程度上归功于她对当代社会正义和承认理论辩论的贡献。弗雷泽认为，社会正义意味着承认和再分配的结合，并通过坚持代表权为她的观点添加了政治维度。高芙对弗雷泽的资本主义批判事业进行了深入分析，指出弗雷泽提出的“边界斗争”概念是其最具原创性的贡献。这一概念构成了社会和政治理论的宝贵工具。通过这样一个概念，弗雷泽阐明了正义规范理论和各种批判理论中的一个主要盲点，同时也为社会运动和左派提供了必要的工具。

Today’s world order has seen some new changes, such as the intensification of deglobalization trends, the rise of nationalism and cultural conservatism, and the emergence of right-wing populism and polarized politics. In contrast, the Frankfurt School has shown a direction of normative integration, whether in Honneth’s research on the theory of recognition or in the work of the fourth-generation Frankfurt School thinker Rainer Forst on themes such as tolerance, justification, democracy, and justice. This provides reference and inspiration for various countries and the world at large in integrating diverse factors, resolving social conflicts, and maintaining social order. At the same time, it is also an obvious fact that the critical and revolutionary character of the Frankfurt School is generally diminishing. Its focus is on how to eliminate people’s motives for resistance within the existing system, rather than on the institutional transformation of capitalism.

今天的世界秩序出现了一些新的变化，比如逆全球化趋势加剧，民族主义、文化保守主义抬头，右翼民粹主义和极化政治兴起等。与之相对，法兰克福学派则体现出规范性整合的发展方向，无论是霍耐特对承认理论的研究，还是法兰克福学派第四代莱纳·福斯特（Rainer Forst）对宽容、辩护、民主、正义等主题的研究，都是如此。这为各国乃至世界整合多元因素、化解社会冲突、维护社会秩序提供了借鉴和参考。与此同时，法兰克福学派的批判性、革命性总体呈现日渐消减的态势，也是一个显而易见的事实。其着眼点是如何在现有体制内消除人们反抗的动机，而非对资本主义进行制度性改造。

II. Research on “Ecological Marxism”

二、“生态马克思主义”研究

Since the 1970s, as the tension between human development and the finitude of the earth’s resources has become apparent, people have begun to reflect on the relationship between their own behavior and the ecological environment. Environmental protection and ecological movements have been rising worldwide, and the trend of thought known as “Ecological Marxism” (Eco-Marxism) has emerged in response to the times, becoming one of the most active schools of thought in the contemporary West.

20世纪70年代以来，随着人类发展与地球资源有限性之间紧张关系的呈现，人们开始反思自身行为与生态环境的关系。环境保护和生态运动在全世界范围内不断高涨，“生态马克思主义”（Eco-Marxism）思潮也应时而生，成为当代西方最为活跃的思想流派之一。

(I) The Natural Ecology of the Anthropocene

（一）人类世的自然生态

Since the concept of the Anthropocene was first used by the natural sciences in the early 21st century, it has been widely disseminated. As this concept has moved from the natural sciences into the social sciences and humanities, its meaning has given rise to many different interpretations. As one of the main representatives of “Ecological Marxism,” John Bellamy Foster of the University of Oregon in the United States points out that the current characteristic of the Anthropocene is an “anthropogenic rift” in the biological cycles of the Earth system. This signifies that human activity is the main geological force affecting the entire Earth, and at the same time implies a crisis of survival for the world’s population. This is because the global system of capital accumulation has led humanity to despoil its own nest, resulting in a global state of emergency that threatens present and future generations, calling into question the continuation of human civilization and human existence itself. Only by solving the social problems that currently lead to the Earth’s emergency situation and exploring the theory, history, and practice of how capitalism changes the Earth’s environment can it be possible to rationally develop ecological and social resources on a new journey of hope.

人类世（Anthropocene）的概念自21世纪初自然科学首次使用以来，已经得到广泛传播。随着这一概念从自然科学进入社会科学和人文科学，它的含义出现了许多不同的解释。作为“生态马克思主义”的主要代表人物之一，美国俄勒冈大学约翰·福斯特（John Bellamy Foster）指出，当前人类世的特点是地球系统的生物周期出现了“人为断裂”。这标志着人类活动是影响整个地球的主要地质力量，同时意味着世界人口的生存危机。这是由于资本积累的全球化体系已经导致人类糟蹋了自己的巢穴，其结果是一种威胁今世后代的全球性紧急状态，人类文明的延续和本身生存受到质疑。只有解决当前导致地球紧急状况的社会问题，探索资本主义改变地球环境的理论、历史和实践，才有可能在新的希望之旅中合理开发生态和社会资源。

Foster, together with Brett Clark of the University of Utah in the United States, and Brian Napoletano and Pedro Urquijo of the National Autonomous University of Mexico, also co-authored an article pointing out that humanity’s social metabolic relations and what Marx called the “universal metabolism of nature” have become a dangerously antagonistic relationship. This has altered the Earth system on a scale that potentially undermines human existence itself. Faced with this threat, many anthropocentric or anthropomorphic concepts, such as the domination of nature by humans, the “production of nature,” and posthumanism, which seeks to eliminate the grand distinctions between nature/society and naturalism/humanism, have proven to be obstacles to the necessary critical and dialectical thinking about ecological issues.

福斯特还与美国犹他大学布雷特·克拉克（Brett Clark）、墨西哥国立自治大学布莱恩·纳波利塔诺（Brian Napoletano）和佩德罗·乌尔基霍（Pedro Urquijo）共同撰文指出：人类的社会代谢关系与马克思所说的“自然的普遍代谢”已经变成危险的对立关系。这改变了地球系统，其规模有可能破坏人类的生存本身。面对这一威胁，许多人类中心主义或拟人化的概念如人类对自然的统治、“自然的生产”，以及寻求消除自然/社会、自然主义/人文主义的宏大区分的后人类主义等，已被证明是对生态问题进行必要批判和辩证思考的障碍。

Mads Ejsing of the University of Copenhagen in Denmark examines three competing theoretical narratives about the Anthropocene that have been particularly attractive in social and political theory in recent years: first, the “good” Anthropocene advocated by ecological modernists; second, the “bad” Anthropocene or so-called Capitalocene criticized by “Ecological Marxists”; and third, the “mysterious” Anthropocene envisioned by new materialists. These three narratives not only interpret the Anthropocene differently, but also provoke distinctly different political responses. Ejsing argues that today we cannot rely on a single grand narrative of the Anthropocene. Instead, we need a multitude of different Anthropocene theories so that people can see what other possibilities still exist.

丹麦哥本哈根大学麦德斯·埃辛（Mads Ejsing）考察了关于人类世的三种相互竞争的理论叙述，这三种理论近年来在社会和政治理论中具有特别的吸引力：一是生态现代主义者倡导的“美好的”人类世，二是“生态马克思主义”者批评的“坏的”人类世或所谓的资本世，三是新唯物主义者设想的“神秘的”人类世。这三种叙述不仅对人类世的解读有所不同，它们也引发了明显不同的政治反应。埃辛认为，今天不能依赖于人类世的单一宏大叙事。相反，我们需要的是大量不同的人类世理论，这样人们才能看到还存在什么其他可能。

(II) Marxism and Ecology

（二）马克思主义与生态

For a long time, the relationship between Marxism and ecology has been a fiercely debated topic. Emanuele Leonardi of the University of Bologna in Italy and Salvo Torre of the University of Catania, taking the cycle of accumulation and struggle as their thread, argue that the different encounters between Marxist theory and the ecological crisis are closely related to the material conditions of the historical period in which they are situated. On the one hand, material environmental conditions shape class relations; on the other hand, they also influence the expression of the working class in ecological politics. The manner in which the relationship between the two is coordinated depends on the characteristics of the given cycle. In the anti-authoritarian cycle, Marx’s principles are “adjusted” to adapt to an unprecedentedly politicized ecological crisis. In the anti-globalization cycle, the works of Marx and Engels are “reread” to reveal their long-hidden ecological potential. In the anti-austerity cycle, Marxist categories are re-examined to recognize the failure of capital’s “green” strategy and to take corresponding action.

长期以来，马克思主义与生态的关系是一个争论激烈的话题。意大利博洛尼亚大学伊曼纽尔·莱昂纳迪（Emanuele Leonardi）、卡达尼亚大学萨尔沃·托雷（Salvo Torre）以积累与斗争的循环为线索，认为马克思主义理论与生态危机的不同遭遇，与其所在历史周期的物质条件密切相关。物质环境条件一方面会塑造阶级关系，另一方面也会影响工人阶级在生态政治中的表达。以何种方式协调两者关系取决于给定的周期特征。在反威权周期中，通过“调整”马克思的原则来适应前所未有的政治化的生态危机。在反全球化周期中，通过“重新阅读”马克思和恩格斯的著作，揭示其长久隐藏的生态潜力。在反紧缩周期中，则通过重新审视马克思主义范畴来认识资本的“绿色”战略的失败并采取相应行动。

Simon Boxley of King Alfred’s College in the United Kingdom discusses the theme of “Green Marxism” rather than “Ecological Marxism.” This is because the latter is increasingly associated with a single school of thought, whereas Green Marxism can encompass three major areas. The first holds that a return to the sources is necessary, and that the analysis needed to meet the challenges of the current environmental crisis should be rediscovered in the works of Marx and Engels—this is “Ecological Marxism.” The second attempts to revise and supplement the analyses of Marx and Engels in order to “correct” or “update” the basic ideas of Marxism for the Anthropocene—this is “Ecological Revisionism” (the term carries no negative connotation). The third advocates responding to immediate and urgent ecological, social, and economic conditions; those holding this view are called “Eco-Activists.” For them, the abstract debates engaged in by the first two groups should give way to ecological protection and the construction of alternatives. Boxley believes that these different voices each have their different applications.

英国阿尔弗雷德国王学院西蒙·博克斯利（Simon Boxley）讨论的主题是“绿色马克思主义”，而不是“生态马克思主义”。因为后者越来越多地与单一的思想流派联系在一起，而绿色马克思主义可以包含三大领域。一是认为回归本源是必要的，应在马克思和恩格斯的著作中重新发现应对当前环境危机挑战所需的分析，即“生态马克思主义”；二是试图修正和补充马克思和恩格斯的分析，以“纠正”或“更新”马克思主义人类世的基本思想，即“生态修正主义”（该术语无任何负面含义）；三是主张对直接、紧迫的生态、社会和经济条件进行回应，持这一观点的群体被称为“生态活动家”。对他们来说，前两类人所从事的抽象辩论应该让位于对生态保护和替代方案的构建。博克斯利认为，这些不同的声音各有其不同的应用。

(III) Ecology and Sustainable Development

（三）生态与可持续发展

Sustainability is a common term whose connotations include various interpretations ranging from minimal survival and reproduction to “sustainable development.” Ajay Chaudhary of the Brooklyn Institute for Social Research in New York, United States, analyzes what is commonly meant by sustainable development: is it capitalism, socialism, or the climate? Because the goals promised by sustainable development are irreconcilable, a “sustainable development paradox” arises. On the one hand, people’s analyses, models, policies, and projects are all devoted to “basic system protection”—not from the perspective of the ecosystem, but from the perspective of the dominant human socio-economic system. On the other hand, there is an understanding that climate change is caused by this very anthropogenic socio-economic activity. When a framework based on the protection of the basic social system attempts to absorb research from climate science, the resulting “sustainable” framework is fundamentally incoherent. To better understand how this social system—actually existing capitalism—organizes its metabolic exchange between society and nature, Chaudhary proposes the concept of the “extractive cycle,” which he sees as a vicious cycle of material extraction and emotional depletion.

可持续性是一个常见的术语，其内涵包括从最低限度的生存、繁殖到“可持续发展”等各种演绎。美国纽约布鲁克林社会研究所阿贾伊·乔杜里（Ajay Chaudhary）分析了人们常说的可持续性发展究竟是指什么，是指资本主义、社会主义还是气候？由于可持续发展承诺的目标之间具有不可调和性，因而产生了“可持续发展悖论”。一方面，人们的分析、模型、政策和项目都致力于 “基本系统保护”——不是从生态系统的角度，而是从占主导地位的人类社会经济系统的角度。另一方面，有一种认识是，气候变化是由这种人为的社会经济活动引起的。当一个基于基本社会系统保护的框架试图吸收来自气候科学的研究时，由此产生的“可持续”框架从根本上是不连贯的。为了更好地理解这个社会系统——实际存在的资本主义——如何组织它在社会和自然之间的代谢交换，乔杜里提出了“提取循环”的概念，他认为这是一个物质提取和情感枯竭的恶性循环。

William Leiss of Queen’s University in Canada has examined the potential risks of climate change for Canada and for all of humanity. He points out that infectious diseases, major earthquakes, war, and other disasters trigger immediate action because the casualties and destruction they cause are obvious. Climate change, however, is a difficult problem to solve because its long-term dangers are hidden, a global risk unlike other forms of human experience. The Canadian government’s commitment to achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 will require major changes in people’s economy and way of life. Leiss explains the importance of policies that ensure the net-zero target is met, and why Canadian citizens must understand why we have to achieve this goal. The actions we take or fail to take in the coming decades may determine whether certain types of severe disasters will befall our descendants.

加拿大女王大学威廉·莱斯（William Leiss）探讨了气候变化对加拿大乃至全人类的潜在风险。他指出，传染病、大地震、战争和其他灾难会立即引发行动，因为它们造成的伤亡和破坏是显而易见的。而气候变化是一个难以解决的问题，因为它的长期危险是隐藏的，是一种不同于其他人类经验的全球风险。加拿大政府承诺到2050年实现温室气体净零排放，这将要求人们的经济和生活方式发生重大变化。莱斯解释了确保实现净零排放目标的政策的重要性，以及加拿大公民需要理解为什么我们必须实现这一目标。我们在未来几十年采取或不采取行动，可能决定某些类型的严重灾难是否会降临到我们的后代身上。

(IV) Ecological Revolution and Ecological Civilization

（四）生态革命与生态文明

John Bellamy Foster links “ecological Marxism” with ecological revolution and ecological civilization, arguing that the dialectical integration of these three concepts can be seen as a way of pointing toward new revolutionary practice in the twenty-first century. Within Marxism there is a tradition of the dialectics of nature, which insists that humanity belongs to nature and exists within it, while at the same time humanity possesses an advantage greater than that of all other living beings: the ability to learn the laws of nature and apply them correctly. This critical, dialectical, and materialist perspective exposes the dangers of all attempts to commodify the natural world and demands the abandonment of the capitalization of nature. Only by carrying out an ecological and social revolution, one that enables humanity as a whole to follow a broad scientific understanding and to regulate the social metabolism between humanity and the Earth in a rational and sustainable manner with the aim of promoting truly free human development, can we extricate ourselves from the current planetary crisis.

约翰·贝拉米·福斯特（John Bellamy Foster）将“生态马克思主义”和生态革命、生态文明相联系，认为这三个概念的辩证结合可以被视为指向21世纪新的革命实践的方式。在马克思主义内部有一个自然辩证法传统，它坚持认为人类属于自然，存在于自然之中，同时人类具有比所有其他生物都更大的优势，能够学习自然的规律并正确地应用它们。这种批判的、辩证的和唯物主义的观点揭露了将自然世界商品化的一切企图的危险，要求抛弃自然的资本化。只有进行一场生态和社会革命，使人类作为一个整体能够遵循广泛的科学认识，并以促进真正自由的人类发展为目的，以合理和可持续的方式调节人类与地球的社会代谢，才能摆脱目前的地球危机。

In Foster’s view, the concept of ecological civilization is a historical product of the development of “ecological Marxism.” Although traditional Chinese values are important, any attempt to separate the two denies the historical significance of the concept of ecological civilization and its importance in the global ecological revolution. Foster emphasizes that the construction of ecological civilization in today’s world must move toward socialism; transcending the existing capitalist system through ecological revolution is the only choice for achieving ecological civilization. At this critical juncture for the survival of the Earth and humanity, environmental proletarians of the world need to unite; the environmental proletariat is the most fundamental and most important subject of the ecological revolution for truly realizing ecological civilization. China’s construction of ecological civilization, which integrates socialism with Chinese characteristics, “ecological Marxism,” and the essence of traditional Chinese culture, possesses a comprehensive, profound, and feasible roadmap for ecological transformation and can achieve remarkable results in practice. From the perspective of global ecological governance, the role China plays on the stage of ecological civilization construction in the course of socialist development can be seen as the greatest gift it offers to the world. It is evident that Foster places high expectations on China’s construction of ecological civilization.

在福斯特看来，生态文明概念是“生态马克思主义”发展的历史产物，尽管中国传统价值观很重要，但任何将两者分开的企图，都是在否定生态文明概念的历史意义以及它在全球生态革命中的重要性。福斯特强调：当今世界的生态文明建设必须迈向社会主义，通过生态革命扬弃现存资本主义制度是实现生态文明的不二选择。在地球和人类生死存亡的危急关头，全世界环境无产者需要联合起来，环境无产阶级是真正实现生态文明的最基本、最主要的生态革命主体。综合了中国特色社会主义、“生态马克思主义”和中国传统文化精髓的中国生态文明建设，拥有一个全面的、深刻的、可行的生态转型路线图，可在实践中取得卓著成绩。从全球生态治理角度看，在社会主义发展中，中国在生态文明建设这个舞台上所发挥的作用可以看作献给世界的最大礼物。可见，福斯特对中国的生态文明建设寄予了很高的期望。

III. Research on “Post-Marxism”

三、“后马克思主义”研究

“Post-Marxism” is a current of thought that emerged in the 1970s, employing postmodern theories of anti-foundationalism, anti-essentialism, and anti-centrism to deconstruct orthodox Marxist theory, while formally inheriting Marxism’s critical spirit and attempting to “activate” and “innovate” Marxism according to its own intentions. It can be said that “post-Marxism” is a combination of the postmodern and the modern, a unity of deconstruction and construction.

“后马克思主义”（post-Marxism）是兴起于20世纪70年代，运用反基础主义、反本质主义、反中心主义的后现代理论对正统马克思主义理论进行解构，同时又在形式上继承马克思主义的批判精神，试图按其意旨“激活”和“创新”马克思主义的思潮。可以说，“后马克思主义”是后现代与现代的结合、解构与建构的统一。

Since the emergence of “post-Marxism,” the world has undergone tremendous changes, necessitating a reassessment of its significance in the modern world. Stuart Sim of Northumbria University in the UK edited the collection *Reflections on Post-Marxism: Laclau and Mouffe’s Radical Democratic Project in the 21st Century*, which explores the theoretical content and theoretical status of “post-Marxism” and examines its significance in the context of global political developments such as Brexit, Trump, and the rise of the far right. This book encompasses and draws upon valuable insights from authors across various disciplines internationally, powerfully demonstrating the continued relevance of “post-Marxism”—especially the radical democratic theory of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe—to social development.

自“后马克思主义”出现以来，世界发生了巨大的变化，需要重新评估其在现代世界中的意义。英国诺森比亚大学斯图亚特·西姆（Stuart Sim）主编论文集《对后马克思主义的反思：拉克劳和墨菲在21世纪的激进民主计划》，探讨了“后马克思主义”的理论内容、理论地位等问题，并研究了其在英国脱欧、特朗普和极右翼崛起等全球政治发展背景中的意义。这本书涵盖、借鉴了国际上各学科作者的宝贵见解，有力地证明了“后马克思主义”——特别是埃内斯托·拉克劳（Ernesto Laclau）和尚塔尔·墨菲（Chantal Mouffe）的激进民主理论——与社会发展的持续相关性。

Sim himself, as one of the authors in the collection, proposes several key texts for reassessing “post-Marxism.” He argues that texts such as Jean-François Lyotard’s *Libidinal Economy*, Jean Baudrillard’s *The Mirror of Production*, Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe’s *Hegemony and Socialist Strategy*, and Jacques Derrida’s *Specters of Marx* all offer highly critical readings of the Marxist tradition from the perspective of broad post-structuralist and postmodernist theory, the result of which has been considerable controversy within the left. But what has each work left behind? A dead end, or signposts for the future of left-wing thought? Sim reassesses the meaningful resonances these four key works can evoke today.

西姆本人作为论文集的作者之一，在其中提出了重新评估“后马克思主义”的几个关键文本。他认为，让·利奥塔（Jean Lyotard）的《力比多经济学》、让·鲍德里亚（Jean Baudrillard）的《生产之镜》、埃内斯托·拉克劳和尚塔尔·墨菲的《霸权和社会主义战略》、雅克·德里达的《马克思的幽灵》这些文本都从广义的后结构主义和后现代主义理论的角度，对马克思主义传统进行了高度批判性的解读，其结果是在左翼中引发了相当大的争议。但每一部作品都留下了什么？是一条死胡同，还是左翼思想未来的路标？西姆在文中对这四部关键作品在今天所能引起的有意义的共鸣进行了重新评估。

Philip Goldstein of the University of Delaware in the United States points out that in *Hegemony and Socialist Strategy*, Laclau and Mouffe offer a new interpretation of radical politics, arguing that what constitutes the conditions for hegemonic politics is subjective construction, rather than the objective historical stages and class backgrounds of traditional Hegelian Marxism. On this basis, they forcefully defend the “identity politics” of contemporary women, African Americans, homosexuals, and working-class groups, while opposing the hegemonism of the new right as well as the “class superiority” and revolutionary orientation of the radical left. In later works, they draw on post-structuralist discourse to develop the concept of hegemony. Mouffe also elaborates the concept of the divided subject, arguing that the divided subject is constituted by the antagonisms of different social movements or the dislocation of social structures. In order to establish genuine pluralism nationally and globally, she offers a new interpretation of plural antagonisms in the political sphere, forcefully opposing universal norms of reason or democracy.

美国特拉华大学菲利普·戈德斯坦（Philip Goldstein）指出，拉克劳和墨菲在《霸权与社会主义战略》一书中对激进政治提出了新解释，认为构成霸权政治条件的是主观建构，而不是传统黑格尔式马克思主义的客观历史阶段和阶级背景。在此基础上，他们有力地为当代女性、非裔美国人、同性恋者和工人阶级团体的“身份政治”辩护，同时反对新右翼的霸权主义以及激进左翼的“阶级优越”和革命取向。在后来的著作中，他们借鉴后结构主义话语，对霸权概念作出了发展。墨菲还阐述了分裂主体的概念，认为分裂主体是由不同社会运动的对立或社会结构的错位构成的。为了在全国和全球范围内建立真正的多元主义，她对政治领域的多元对立作出新解释，有力地反对了理性或民主的普遍性规范。

Gulshan Khan of the University of Nottingham in the UK brings Laclau’s “post-Marxist” approach into dialogue with the thought of the analytic philosopher Philip Pettit. Khan argues that the goal of both thinkers is to reconfigure power and domination toward more democratic and egalitarian relations. Unlike Pettit, Laclau believes that despite formal equality, emancipation remains the focus of political struggle. He insists that within the underlying structure of society, more radical change is possible. Although both Laclau and Pettit value democratic contestation that challenges and overthrows despotic power, for Pettit political freedom is a model of contestability within existing institutions, whereas Laclau’s concepts of liberation and freedom operate at a level that competes with the hegemonic system. This fosters a form of political struggle that may transcend existing institutions and realize a new institutional order.

英国诺丁汉大学顾姗寒（Gulshan Khan）把拉克劳的“后马克思主义”方法引入与分析思想家菲利普·佩蒂特（Philip Pettit）的对话中。顾姗寒认为，两位思想家的目标都是重新配置权力和统治，使之朝着更加民主和平等的关系发展。与佩蒂特不同的是，拉克劳认为尽管存在形式上的平等，但解放仍然是政治斗争的焦点。他坚持认为在社会的底层结构中，有可能进行更激进的变革。尽管拉克劳和佩蒂特都重视挑战和推翻专制权力的民主竞争，但对佩蒂特来说，政治自由是既有制度内的一种可竞争性模式，而拉克劳关于解放和自由的概念是在与霸权系统相竞争的层面上起作用的。这促成了一种政治斗争的形式，它可能超越现有制度并实现一种新的制度秩序。

How can left-wing forces win politically? This is a question that has long troubled socialists, progressives, democrats, greens, and Marxists. Thomas Jacobs of Ghent University, Belgium, argues that Laclau and Mouffe, in their book *Hegemony, Discourse, and Political Strategy*, symbolically drew upon and integrated linguistic, Marxist, and post-structuralist theory, solving this problem in a groundbreaking way and giving rise to a discourse theory known as “post-Marxism.” Jacobs inherits the legacy of Laclau and Mouffe, elaborating this discourse theory into a complete theory of political strategy. He argues that this form of “post-Marxist” discourse analysis can explain how political strategies function and why they fail or succeed. Through a case study of the debate and politicization of EU trade policy in the European Parliament, Jacobs demonstrates the empirical potential of this discourse theory in elucidating the dynamics of hegemonic struggle.

左翼力量如何在政治中获胜？这是一个长期困扰社会主义者、进步主义者、民主主义者、绿党和马克思主义者的问题。比利时根特大学托马斯·雅各布斯（Thomas Jacobs）认为，拉克劳和墨菲在其所著《霸权、话语与政治策略》一书中，标志性地借鉴、融合了语言学、马克思主义和后结构主义理论，以一种开创性的方式解决了这个难题，形成了被称为“后马克思主义”的话语理论。雅各布斯继承了拉克劳和墨菲的遗产，将这一话语理论阐述为一个完整的政治战略理论。他认为，这种“后马克思主义”的话语分析形式可以解释政治策略如何发挥作用，以及它们为什么失败或成功。雅各布斯通过一个欧洲议会中关于欧盟贸易政策的争论和政治化的案例研究，表明了这一话语理论在阐述霸权斗争动态方面的实证性潜力。

Michael Peters of the University of Canterbury, New Zealand, elaborates on the critique of knowledge capitalism by post-structuralism and “post-Marxism.” Drawing on the works of Lyotard, Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, and others, he outlines the following three related propositions: first, the knowledge economy is a form of neoliberal globalization; second, education has become a form of knowledge capitalism; third, post-structuralism provides a “post-Marxist” critique of neoliberal globalization as a form of knowledge capitalism. The philosophers Lyotard, Foucault, Derrida, and Deleuze all considered themselves Marxist or “post-Marxist” thinkers. Inspired by them, Peters proposes an alternative form of educational globalization, which he calls “knowledge socialism,” based on the principles of openness, the ethics of cooperation, and the rise of peer production: together, these three constitute a powerful model of transnational networked intelligence.

新西兰坎特伯雷大学迈克尔·彼得斯（Michael Peters）阐述了后结构主义与“后马克思主义”对知识资本主义的批判。他根据利奥塔、福柯、德里达、德勒兹等人的著作，概述了如下三个相关主张：第一，知识经济是新自由主义全球化的一种形式；第二，教育已成为知识资本主义的一种形式；第三，后结构主义提供了对知识资本主义形式的新自由主义全球化的“后马克思主义”批判。利奥塔、福柯、德里达和德勒兹这些哲学家都将自己视为马克思主义或“后马克思主义”思想家。受他们启发，彼得斯提出了另一种形式的教育全球化，即其所谓“知识社会主义”，它奠基于开放原则、合作伦理和对等生产的兴起：这三者共同构成了一种强大的跨国网络化智能模式。

Regarding “post-Marxism,” there is a relatively widespread doubt and concern: some “post-Marxists” clearly exhibit characteristics that deviate from Marxism. This is indeed a problem that must be taken very seriously in research, requiring Marxist scholars to undertake necessary clarification and critique. But at the same time, it must be recognized that the emergence of “post-Marxism” is a manifestation of the conflict and replacement of diverse Western cultures. It serves not only as a challenge to Marxism but also as a whetstone. Under the hammering and tempering of “post-Marxism,” world Marxism may be reborn from the ashes, find new paths of development, and reveal a new visage.

对于“后马克思主义”，人们存在一种较为普遍的疑虑和担忧，那就是：有些“后马克思主义者”明显带有一些背离马克思主义的特征。这的确是一个在研究中不能不予以高度重视的问题，需要马克思主义学者对其进行必要的澄清和批判。但同时也要看到,“后马克思主义”的出现是西方多元文化冲突、更替的体现，它对马克思主义不仅是挑战，也能起到磨刀石的作用。在“后马克思主义”的锤打、淬炼下，世界马克思主义或可以浴火再生，找到新的发展路径，显现出新的面貌。

IV. Critique of Digital Capitalism

四、数字资本主义批判

Science and technology are the primary productive forces. Contemporary technological development changes with each passing day—for example, automation engineering, internet technology, advanced algorithms, artificial intelligence, etc.—rapidly and profoundly transforming human material life, human thought and consciousness, and even social organization and institutions, thereby continuously posing new research topics for people. Marxists have always had a tradition of emphasizing practice and science, and they are even less likely to stand outside the global wave of technology. Many foreign Marxist scholars have explored the issues of exploitation and inequality in digital capitalism from a critical perspective.

科学技术是第一生产力。当代科技发展日新月异，比如自动化工程、互联网技术、高级算法、人工智能等，迅速而深刻地改变着人类物质生活、人的思想意识乃至社会组织制度，进而不断对人们提出新的研究课题。马克思主义者向以重视实践与科学为传统，更不可能置身于世界科技浪潮之外。许多国外马克思主义学者从批判的角度，对数字资本主义的剥削和不平等问题进行了探讨。

In the book *Marx, Alienation and Techno-Capitalism*, translated into English for the first time, Lelio Demichelis of the University of Insubria, Italy, reinterprets the views of Marx, Nietzsche, Foucault, and others, especially critical theory and the Frankfurt School, on the administered society (where everything is automated and machine-controlled), showing that humanity is increasingly led to delegate autonomy, freedom, responsibility, and consciousness of life to others. Thus, the view that techno-capitalism is in crisis or decline is mistaken. In fact, it continues to create hegemony and domination for itself, for society, for individuals, and for the environment. Everything is well concealed by the system itself, because no one resists, no one seeks alternatives, and everyone adapts to the dynamics of the system, to the different forms of alienation produced by techno-capitalism. People feel physically constrained, but most importantly, they are constrained in thought. This is because, through technology, people seek omnipotent power and domination over others and the environment. This is not the triumph of the Anthropocene (a new era in which humanity becomes the force determining the environment), but the triumph of the Technocene. In the Technocene, technology creates an environment that makes humans believe they are free subjects rather than objects designed by technology and neoliberalism, and delegates every thought and action to technology. Delegation is the greatest form of human alienation. In fact, people are increasingly ruled by techno-capitalism. Techno-capitalism is now a global, non-state, and global religion—it rules the world, replacing legitimate and controllable power (democracy) with its own uncontrolled force. This is the delirium of the entire West, and it has also become the delirium of the globalized world.

在首次被翻译成英文的《马克思、异化与技术资本主义》一书中，意大利英苏布里亚大学莱里奥·德米凯利斯（Lelio Demichelis）重新诠释了马克思、尼采、福柯等人，特别是批判理论和法兰克福学派对管理社会（一切都是自动化和机器操控的）的观点，表明人类越来越多地被引导着将自主权、自由、责任感和对生命的意识委托于他者。可见，认为技术资本主义正处于危机或衰落中的观点是错误的。事实上，它继续为自己、对社会、对个人、对环境制造霸权和统治。一切都被体制本身很好地掩盖了，因为没有人反抗，没有人寻求替代方案，每个人都适应了体制的动态，适应了技术资本主义产生的不同形式的异化。人们感觉在身体上受到限制，但最重要的是在思想上的限制。这是由于借助于技术，人们寻求对他人和环境的无所不能的权力和统治。这不是人类世的胜利(人类将成为决定环境的力量的新时代)，而是技术世的胜利。在技术世中，技术创造了环境，使人类相信他们是自由的主体而不是由技术和新自由主义设计的对象，并将他们的每一个想法和行动委托给技术。委托是人类异化的最大形式。事实上，人们越来越多地被技术资本主义所统治。技术资本主义现在是全球性的非国家和全球性的宗教——它统治着世界，用它自己的不加控制的力量取代了合法和可控的权力(民主)。这是整个西方的谵妄，也已经成为全球化世界的谵妄。

Christian Fuchs of the University of Westminster, UK, builds on Habermas’s concept of the public sphere and links it to Marx’s concept of alienation. On the basis of the fusion of these two concepts, Fuchs points out that digital capitalism and capitalist social media do not form a public sphere but rather pose a threat to democracy. Social media has become an indispensable part of political and public communication, and right-wing politicians often use internet platforms to spread fake news. The Arab Spring and the Occupy movement showed that social media plays an important role in social movements. Today, any politician, political party, NGO, or social movement cannot do without social media, which raises the question of the connection between social media and the public. Fuchs uses the concept of the public sphere to critique capitalist internet platforms, while arguing that a public service internet is a manifestation of the digital public sphere and digital democracy.

英国威斯敏斯特大学克里斯蒂安·福克斯（Christian Fuchs）以哈贝马斯的公共领域概念为基础，并将之与马克思的异化概念联系起来。在这两个概念融合的基础上，福克斯指出，数字资本主义和资本主义社交媒体并没有形成一个公共领域，而是对民主构成了威胁。社交媒体已经成为政治和公共传播不可或缺的一部分，右翼政客经常利用互联网平台传播虚假新闻。阿拉伯之春和占领运动表明，社交媒体在社会运动中具有重要作用。如今，任何政治家、政党、非政府组织或社会运动都离不开社交媒体，这就提出了社交媒体与公众之间联系的问题。福克斯运用公共领域的概念对资本主义互联网平台进行了批判，同时他认为公共服务互联网是数字公共领域和数字民主的表现。

James Muldoon of the University of Exeter, UK, compares two reform proposals in the debate on how to democratize the digital economy: data-owning democracy and digital socialism. Data-owning democracy is a political-economic system characterized by the widespread distribution of data as capital among citizens, while digital socialism requires social ownership of productive assets in the digital economy and mass control of digital services. Although there is a degree of complementarity between the two, the theory of data-owning democracy has important limitations that have not yet received significant attention in the literature. Muldoon highlights three aspects that digital socialists argue make data-owning democracy unable to achieve a more just digital economy: lack of workplace democracy, limitations in scope, and lack of democratic control over long-term investment decisions in new technologies.

英国埃克塞特大学詹姆斯·马尔登（James Muldoon）对比了如何使数字经济民主化的辩论中提出的两种改革建议:数据拥有民主和数字社会主义。数据拥有民主是一种政治经济制度，其特征是数据作为资本在公民中广泛分布，而数字社会主义则需要数字经济中生产性资产的社会所有权和对数字服务的大众控制。虽然两者之间存在一定程度的互补性，但数据拥有民主的理论存在重要的局限性，这些局限性尚未在文献中得到显著关注。马尔登主要强调了数字社会主义者认为数据拥有民主无法实现更公正的数字经济的三个方面:缺乏工作场所民主，范围上的限制，以及对新技术的长期投资决策缺乏民主控制。

The global economy of the 21st century is to a large extent driven by large technology companies and extensive digital capitalism. Michael Kwet, a visiting scholar at Yale University, points out that this is a global phenomenon centered on the United States, plundering the global market through a process of digital colonialism. The mainstream antidote to the ills of digital capitalism is centered on the United States and Europe, revolving around a series of liberal and progressive capitalist reforms, including antitrust, limited privacy laws, unionization of big tech companies, algorithmic discrimination, and content regulation. However, all of these are proposed within the capitalist framework, ignoring digital colonialism and the ecological crisis of the 21st century. Kwet believes that it is necessary to realize a combination of political, economic, and social alternatives based on digital technology protocols, and to achieve the socialization of knowledge and infrastructure, in order to reverse the trend of digital colonization. At the same time, it is also necessary to improve the ideology concerning the technological ecosystem through laws that support digital socialism. These solutions are formulated within an anti-colonial eco-socialist framework that encompasses environmental sustainability and socio-economic justice.

21世纪的全球经济在很大程度上是由大型科技公司以及广泛的数字资本主义推动的。耶鲁大学访问学者迈克尔·克韦特（Michael Kwet）指出，这是一个以美国为中心，通过数字殖民主义过程掠夺全球市场的全球现象。数字资本主义弊病的主流解毒药是以美国和欧洲为中心、围绕着一系列自由和进步的资本主义改革，包括反托拉斯、有限的隐私法、大科技公司的工会化、算法区分和内容管制等。但所有这些都是在资本主义框架内提出的，忽视了数字殖民主义和21世纪的生态危机。克韦特认为，需要基于数字技术协议，实现政治、经济和社会的替代方案的结合，实现知识和基础设施的社会化，以扭转数字殖民化的趋势。同时还要通过支持数字社会主义的法律，完善关于科技生态系统的思想意识。这些解决方案都是在一个反殖民的生态社会主义框架内制定的，该框架包含了环境的可持续性和社会经济正义。

Holger Potschke of the University of Tromsø – The Arctic University of Norway studied labor struggles in digital capitalism. Based on a series of interviews with German trade union representatives, Potschke traces the recent development of the increasingly digitalized economy, outlining the challenges and opportunities facing trade unions. The research findings indicate that the large-scale deployment of digital technology disperses the labor force, lowers social standards, worsens working conditions, exacerbates power imbalances, and harms the interests of employees. Although digital communication technologies can raise public awareness, connect, and mobilize workers, they can only partially address the aforementioned adverse factors. Potschke's research shows that specialized technical knowledge is becoming increasingly important for trade unions; it is necessary to strengthen international and regional cooperation among labor organizations to counter global capital; under conditions of technologically enhanced globalized exploitation and control, it is also very important to combine the efforts of established trade unions and grassroots workers' movements to improve the situation of workers.

挪威北极大学霍尔格·波茨奇研究了数字资本主义中的劳工斗争。基于对德国工会代表的一系列采访，波茨奇追溯了日益数字化的经济的最近发展，概述了工会面临的挑战和机遇。研究结果表明，数字技术的大规模部署分散了劳动力，降低了社会标准，恶化了工作条件，加剧了权力失衡，损害了受雇者的利益。虽然通过数字通信技术可以提高公众意识、联系并动员工人，但只能部分解决上述不利因素。波茨奇通过研究表明：专业技术知识对工会越来越重要；需要通过加强劳工组织之间的国际和区域合作来应对全球资本；在技术增强的全球化剥削和控制条件下，联合已建立的工会和基层工人运动共同努力改善工人状况亦十分重要。

Sarah Lenz of the University of Hamburg, Germany, explores how actors in the political, economic, and civil society spheres work towards the legitimation of a green digital economic modernization. Both digital modernization and green modernization face a legitimacy crisis: on the one hand, green modernization is criticized for its market-based strategies, which create new inequalities and ecological problems without adequately addressing existing ecological problems. On the other hand, global digital capitalism faces criticism not only for increased surveillance but also for the negative impacts of digital technology on the natural and social environment (considering the energy consumption of data centers and the extraction from the Global South). Given the importance of data for tracking and sensing, the problem of digital colonialism can arise in the process of sharing data information. Developing countries often face the risk of becoming mere providers of raw data, yet having to pay for the digital intelligence generated from their data.

德国汉堡大学莎拉·伦茨（Sarah Lenz）探讨了政治、经济领域和民间组织的行动者如何致力于绿色数字经济现代化的合法化。数字现代化和绿色现代化都面临合法性危机：一方面，绿色现代化因其以市场为基础的战略而受到批评，这种战略造成了新的不平等和生态问题，而未能充分解决已经存在的生态问题。另一方面，全球数字资本主义面临的批评不仅是监控的增加，还包括数字技术对自然和社会环境的负面影响(考虑到数据中心的能源消耗和对全球南方的榨取)。鉴于跟踪和传感的数据的重要性，人们在分享数据信息的过程中，就有可能产生数字殖民主义问题。发展中国家往往面临着沦为原始数据提供者，却不得不为使用其数据生成的数字情报付费的风险。

Foreign Marxist scholars have deeply insight into the new changes of the digital age, which is of great enlightening significance for people to see through the social reality of capitalism under the digital illusion. However, the critique of many scholars is limited to digital technology itself, failing to touch upon capitalist relations of production and lacking a critique at the level of the capitalist system; its shortcomings are evident.

国外马克思主义学者深入洞察数字化时代的新变化，对于人们识破数字幻象下的资本主义社会现实，具有重要启发意义，但是，不少学者的批判局限于数字技术本身，未触及资本主义生产关系，缺乏对资本主义制度层面的批判，其不足是明显的。

V. Research on Other Fields and Issues

五、其他领域和问题研究

The research content of foreign Marxism is complex and diverse, and its developmental trends are difficult to fully describe in a single article; one can only select the most important aspects and discuss them in general terms. Besides the several relatively important aspects mentioned above, it also involves research on other fields and practical issues.

国外马克思主义的研究内容纷繁复杂，其发展动态亦难以一文尽述，只能择其要者，概而论之。除了上述几个较为重要的方面外，还涉及其他一些领域和现实问题的研究。

(A) Capitalist Economy and Market Socialism

（一）资本主义经济与市场社会主义

Sol Picciotto of Lancaster University, UK, traces the philosophical, political, sociological, and economic foundations of progressive taxation advocated by socialists, linking them to the goal of socializing the ownership of the means of production. Their attitudes towards taxation reflect their views on how capitalism is built upon the foundations of private property and state power, and how it should be transcended through progressive taxation. These theories were formed in the context of their advocates' practical political participation in struggling against authoritarian capitalist states. Picciotto also discusses Keynesian variants of socialism, arguing that wealth disparities lead to increasing inequality, and proposes tax measures aimed at social ownership and equalization of property.

英国兰卡斯特大学索尔·比乔多（Sol Picciotto）追溯了社会主义者倡导累进税制的哲学、政治学、社会学和经济学基础，并将其与生产资料所有权社会化的目标联系起来。他们对税收的态度反映了他们的观点，即资本主义是如何建立在私有财产和国家权力的基础上的，以及应当如何通过累进税收超越资本主义。这些理论是在其倡导者与专制的资本主义国家作斗争的实际政治参与的背景下形成的。比乔多还讨论了凯恩斯主义的社会主义变种，认为财富差距导致了日益严重的不平等，并提出了针对社会所有权和财产均等化的税收措施。

Rémy Herrera of the French National Centre for Scientific Research offers a fierce critique of mainstream economics in contemporary Western capitalist countries, viewing it as a one-sided, unscientific form of thought, and applies this critique to fields such as growth, development, institutions, defense, or the environment, to illustrate the necessity of transcending mainstream economics, especially capitalist economics. This critique targets both neoclassical economics and weak reformist currents, from neo-institutionalists to neo-Keynesians, including figures like Thomas Piketty and Amartya Sen. In this process, he negates Keynes's theories on money, crisis, and the state, then provides a Marxist explanation of the current capitalist crisis, viewing it as a systemic crisis without an inherent logic or dynamic solution, and emphasizes the connection between this capitalist crisis and imperialist wars, as well as capital's destruction of the environment and natural resources. Herrera concludes that we must find the necessary alternative from a Marxist perspective, shifting from a capitalist economy to socialism, in order to protect humanity and the environment.

法国国家科学研究中心雷米·埃雷拉（Rémy Herrera）对当代西方资本主义国家的主流经济学提出了激烈批评，将其看作片面的、不科学的思想形式，并将这种批评应用于增长、发展、制度、国防或环境等领域，以说明超越主流经济学尤其是超越资本主义经济学的必要性。这种批评既针对新古典主义经济学，也针对软弱的改革主义思潮，从新制度主义者到新凯恩斯主义者，包括托马斯·皮凯蒂（Thomas Piketty）和阿马蒂亚·森（Amartya Sen）等人。在这个过程中，他否定了凯恩斯关于货币、危机和国家的理论，然后对当前的资本主义危机提供了马克思主义的解释，认为这是一场没有内在逻辑和动力解决方案的系统性危机，并强调了这场资本主义危机与帝国主义战争之间的联系，以及资本对环境和自然资源的破坏。埃雷拉的结论是，我们必须在马克思主义的视角下找到必要的替代方案，从资本主义经济转向社会主义，以保护人类和环境。

The prominent analytical Marxist John Roemer of Yale University discusses models of cooperation and market socialism, using Kant and John Nash as examples. In his view, socialism relies on cooperation, just as capitalism relies on competition, which has always been an inherent concept of socialism. However, precise models of market socialism—that is, those sufficiently articulated to allow discussion and calculation of economic equilibrium—do not model production cooperation, or more generally, cooperation in economic behavior. Roemer introduces a Kantian optimization protocol, which, compared to Nash optimization, models how individuals cooperate in labor decisions and investment decisions. Roemer demonstrates that the "cooperative equilibrium" thus constructed is Pareto efficient, provided that, in addition to receiving wages and rents, profits are distributed not only to shareholders but to workers and investors in proportion to their contribution to the firm. Pareto efficiency is achieved when the firm distributes its entire output to the owners of the factors of production.

著名分析马克思主义者、耶鲁大学约翰·罗默（John Roemer）以康德与纳什（John Nash）为例，讨论了合作与市场社会主义的模式。在他看来，社会主义依靠合作，就像资本主义依靠竞争一样，一直是社会主义的固有概念。然而，市场社会主义的精确模型——也就是说，那些被充分阐明从而能够讨论和计算经济均衡的模型——并不模拟生产合作，或者更一般地，不模拟经济行为中的合作。罗默引入了一个康德优化协议，与纳什优化相比，它模拟了个人如何在劳动决策和投资决策中合作。罗默证明了这样建构的“合作均衡”是帕累托有效的，只要除了获得工资和租金之外，利润不是只分配给股东，而是按他们对公司的贡献比例分配给工人和投资者。帕累托效率是在企业将全部产出分配给要素所有者的情况下实现的。

The idea of combining some form of social equality with the market can be traced back to the origins of the socialist tradition and also constitutes the basis for many current alternatives to capitalist society. However, Maxi Nieto of the University of Elche, Spain, regards market socialism as an "impossible socialism." He argues that, taking as the axis the organic relationship between commodity circulation and capital revealed by Marx, it is possible to critique market socialism and demonstrate its inconsistency with the project of social liberation from the capitalist mode of production. This is because: first, the market is economically inefficient in allocation and tends to cause social polarization; second, the market politically hinders citizen autonomy and the free development of human capacities; third, the market is ecologically incompatible with the social metabolism of natural sustainability. Nieto concludes that a market-based production structure is incompatible with conscious, rational, and democratic economic regulation.

将某种形式的社会平等与市场结合起来的想法可以追溯到社会主义传统的起源，也构成了目前很多资本主义社会的替代方案的基础。然而，西班牙埃尔南德斯大学马克西·涅托（Maxi Nieto）将市场社会主义视为一种“不可能的社会主义”。他认为，以马克思所揭示的商品流通和资本之间的有机关系为轴心，就有可能对市场社会主义提出批评，以说明它与资本主义生产方式的社会解放方案的不一致性。这是因为：第一，市场在经济上存在配置方面的无效率并导致社会极化的趋势;第二，市场在政治上阻碍公民自治，阻碍人类能力的自由发展;第三，市场在生态问题上与自然可持续发展的社会新陈代谢不相容。涅托得出结论：以市场为基础的生产结构与有意识的、理性的和民主的经济调控是不相容的。

(B) Social Issues such as Class, Gender, and Race

（二）阶级、女性、种族等社会问题

Amy O’Sullivan and Conor Kelly of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology point out that over the past decade, class analysis has been revitalized as a response to intensifying economic inequality, social fragmentation, and political turmoil. Yet, somewhat paradoxically, the theory most traditionally associated with class analysis—Marxism—has largely been absent from these debates. O’Sullivan and Kelly reconstruct Marxist class analysis by examining the relationship between social class and alienation. They argue that incorporating insights from alienation theory can broaden the concept of class, avoid economism, and preserve the distinctiveness of Marxist theory compared with other approaches. Their central thesis is that Marxist class analysis cannot be reduced to an explanation of economic inequality but must be regarded as a struggle over the conditions of social development.

挪威科技大学埃米·奥沃斯文和康纳·凯利指出，在过去十年中，阶级分析作为对日益加剧的经济不平等、社会分裂和政治动荡的回应而重新焕发活力。然而，有些矛盾的是，传统上与阶级分析联系最紧密的理论——马克思主义——在这些辩论中基本上没有出现。奥沃斯文和凯利通过对社会阶级与异化之间关系的思考，重构了马克思主义的阶级分析。他们认为，结合异化理论的见解，可以扩大阶级概念，避免经济主义，同时保留马克思主义理论与其他方法相比的独特性。其中心论点是，马克思主义的阶级分析不能被简化为对经济不平等的解释，而必须被视为争取社会发展条件的斗争。

Jennifer Cohen of the University of Miami and Heidi Hartmann of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research discuss the importance of feminist political economy, arguing that feminists have made a significant contribution to thinking about an economy in which the purpose of social reproduction—sustaining life and human well-being—is not subordinated to the purpose of capitalist production—capital accumulation. Cohen and Hartmann contend that economic analysis that does not consider human reproduction is not only incomplete but also incorrect. Feminist political economy needs to see the totality of economic activity, and therefore cannot ignore oppression. In linking exploitation to oppressive social structures, the different dimensions of gender, race, and class together constitute key components of a holistic political-economic analysis.

美国迈阿密大学詹妮弗·科恩（Jennifer Cohen）、美国妇女政策研究所海蒂·哈特曼（Heidi Hartmann）谈及女性主义政治经济学的重要性，认为女性主义者对思考这样一种经济有很大贡献：在这种经济中，社会再生产的目的——维持生命和人类福祉——不服从于资本主义生产的目的——资本积累。科恩和哈特曼认为，不考虑人类再生产的经济分析不仅是不完整的，而且是不正确的。女性主义政治经济学需要看到经济活动的整体，因此不可能忽视压迫。在将剥削与压迫性的社会结构联系起来时，性别、种族和阶级的不同维度共同构成了整体政治经济分析的关键组成部分。

A widespread view holds that there exist economic forms that do not conform to the capitalist mode of production. Adam Bledsoe of the University of Minnesota, Tyler McCreary of Florida State University, and Willie Wright of Florida State University agree with this but point out that such views often neglect the racial issues that must be addressed in establishing non-capitalist economies. Racialization is a foundation of capitalism; ignoring this may lead to a failure to fully understand the role race plays in alternative configurations of capitalist forms. Analysis of diverse economies must take note of the fact that capitalism and its alternatives are shaped by racial differences. Racial capitalism shows that the marginalization of racialized populations is a core component of capitalist reproduction. Examples from Canada and the United States demonstrate that Black and Indigenous communities recognize the role their oppression plays in capital accumulation and have found ways to create economic alternatives to these forms of accumulation. Thus, Bledsoe et al. provide a nuanced approach to discussing the possibilities of diverse economies.

一种具有普遍性的观点是：存在不遵从资本主义生产方式的经济形态。美国明尼苏达大学亚当·布莱索（Adam Bledsoe）、佛罗里达州立大学泰勒·麦克瑞（Tyler McCreary）和威利·莱特（Willie Wright）对此表示同意，但又指出，此类观点往往忽视了建立非资本主义经济所必须关注的种族问题。种族化是资本主义的基础，忽视这一点，就可能无法充分理解种族在资本主义形态的替代配置中扮演的角色。对不同经济体的分析必须注意到这样一个事实，即：资本主义及其替代方案是由种族差异塑造的。种族资本主义表明，种族化人口的边缘化是资本主义再生产的核心组成部分。加拿大和美国的例子证明黑人和土著社区认识到他们的被压迫在资本积累中所起的作用，并找到方法来创造这些积累形式的经济替代品。由此，布莱索等人提供了一种细致入微的方法来讨论多样化经济的可能性。

Susan Koshy of the University of Illinois, Lisa Cacho of the University of Virginia, Jodi Byrd of Cornell University, and Brian Jefferson of the University of Illinois take land as a central site for deploying and resisting modern power, discussing the oppression of Black people, the commodification of human beings, slave labor, the history of Indigenous dispossession, and the uneven development of global colonies. They demonstrate the coexistence and entanglement of slavery and colonialism in the process of development from industrial capitalism’s conquest of the New World to contemporary financial capitalism. Their analysis of colonial racial capitalism constructs a new framework for understanding the persistent violence, instability, and inequality in modern society.

美国伊利诺伊大学苏珊·科希（Susan Koshy）、弗吉尼亚大学丽莎·卡乔（Lisa Cacho）、康奈尔大学乔迪·伯德（Jodi Byrd）、伊利诺伊大学布莱恩·杰斐逊（Brian Jefferson）以土地为中心，将其作为部署和抵抗现代权力的场所，讨论了压迫黑人、人类商品化、奴隶劳动以及土著被剥夺的历史和全球殖民地的不平衡发展等问题，展示了从工业资本主义征服新大陆到当代金融资本主义的发展过程中，奴隶制和殖民主义的共存和纠缠。他们对殖民种族资本主义的分析为理解现代社会中持续存在的暴力、不稳定和不平等搭建了新的框架。

VI. Conclusion

六、结 语

A survey of the developmental trends in foreign Marxism in 2022 reveals a notable characteristic of foreign Marxist researchers: the combination of an academic sensibility rooted in the academy with a sense of real-world concern for the state of the world. Their expositions are theoretical, yet what they focus on are issues of common concern in the present era and the world at large. For example, research on normative topics such as recognition, democracy, justice, tolerance, and justification, as well as studies of the ecological crisis of contemporary capitalism and digital control, all reflect this. Issues such as the gap between rich and poor, class struggle, gender, and race have long been pain points and difficulties in Western capitalist societies. This high degree of attention to and engagement with real-world problems is the source of the enduring vitality of foreign Marxism.

综览2022年国外马克思主义的发展动态，可以发现国外马克思主义研究者的一个明显特点，即：身处学院的学术感与心忧天下的现实感的结合。其阐述是理论性的，而其所关注的则是当今时代和世界普遍关心的问题。比如对承认、民主、正义、宽容、辩护等规范性论题的研究，对当代资本主义生态危机、数字控制的研究，都体现了这一点。而贫富分化、阶级斗争、性别、种族等问题，亦长期是西方资本主义社会的痛点和难点。这种对现实问题的高度关注和介入，是国外马克思主义长期保持生命活力的源泉。

Although foreign Marxism aims to transform unreasonable social structures, continuously criticizing the capitalist nature and various problems of Western countries and planning for alternative ideal societies, its content is diverse and its views are inconsistent, containing many anti-Marxist and non-Marxist elements. These critiques and plans are often assimilated and absorbed by the mainstream ideology of Western countries, to a certain extent and within a certain scope dissipating the dissatisfaction and hostility of some members of society, thereby objectively helping to stabilize the pluralistic social order of the West. Thus, the role of foreign Marxism in Western capitalist countries has a dual character. The research and development of foreign Marxism also require more study and understanding of Western mainstream ideology and academic thought, in order to more accurately grasp Marxist theory itself as its opposite, and to avoid falling into the narrow position of knowing only one side and not the other. (Notes omitted)

国外马克思主义虽然以变革不合理的社会为目标，不断对西方国家的资本主义属性及存在的各种问题进行批判，对替代性的理想社会进行谋划，但其内容庞杂、观点不一，其中也有很多反马克思主义、非马克思主义的成分。这些批判和谋划时常为西方国家主流意识形态所涵化、吸收，在一定程度上、一定范围内消解了部分社会成员的不满和敌意，因此在客观上反而帮助了西方多元社会秩序的稳定。可见，国外马克思主义在西方资本主义国家中的作用具有两重性。国外马克思主义的研究和发展，亦需要对西方主流意识形态和学术思想有更多研究和了解，才能更准确地把握作为其对立面的马克思主义理论自身，避免陷入只知其一不知其二的狭隘境地。（注释略）

(The author is a research fellow at the Institute of Marxism, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences)

（作者系中国社会科学院马克思主义研究院研究员）

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑