The Problematic Consciousness and Practical Purport of Contemporary Imperialism Critique

The study of contemporary imperialism critique emerged at the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century from the totalizing, critical analyses of the capitalist world after World War II, especially since the 1970s, conducted by left-wing scholars abroad, as well as from their exploration of paths to transcend capitalism. These theoretical discussions sparked an international academic upsurge in the study of contemporary imperialism in the early 21st century. From its inception, the study of contemporary imperialism has exhibited a distinct problematic consciousness and practical purport, focusing on dissecting the new characteristics and trends of the contemporary capitalist world within the tension of “intervening in reality through theory” and “developing theory through reality,” thereby advancing critical theory and radical politics through new categories and analyses. Understanding and reflecting on the contributions and limitations of the critique of contemporary imperialism by left-wing scholars abroad is a beneficial path for deepening the understanding of the contemporary form of capitalism and for innovatively developing Marxism in the 21st century.

当代帝国主义批判研究兴起于20世纪末21世纪初国外左翼学者对二战后特别是20世纪70年代以来的资本主义世界进行的总体性、批判性分析，以及对超越资本主义路径问题的探讨。这些理论探讨在21世纪初期掀起了当代帝国主义研究的国际学术热潮。当代帝国主义研究自兴起之初就呈现出鲜明的问题意识和现实旨趣，在“以理论介入现实”和“以现实发展理论”的张力之中聚焦剖析当代资本主义世界的新特征和新趋势，以新范畴和新分析推动了批判理论和激进政治学的发展。认识和反思国外左翼学者当代帝国主义批判研究的贡献及局限，是深化认识资本主义的当代形态和创新发展21世纪马克思主义的有益路径。

I. Theoretical Debates: Paradigms and Methodologies of Contemporary Imperialism Critique

一、理论争鸣：当代帝国主义 批判的范式与方法论

The development of reality calls for theoretical innovation. After World War II, especially since the 1970s, capitalism entered a new stage of development, exhibiting new changes, characteristics, and trends in various aspects. At the beginning of the 21st century, left-wing scholars abroad revived the study of imperialism, publishing a series of works that analyzed the features of the new stage of capitalism and its consequences, such as Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri’s *Empire* (2000), Leo Panitch’s *The Capitalist State* (2001), Samir Amin’s *Imperialism and Globalization* (2001), David Harvey’s *The New Imperialism* (2003), Ellen Wood’s *Empire of Capital* (2003), and John Bellamy Foster’s *The New Age of Imperialism* (2003). In March 2003, the United States, under the pretext of counterterrorism, bypassed the UN Security Council to launch a military strike against Iraq, drawing more attention to discussions of contemporary imperialism. From September 29 to October 2, 2004, the Fourth International Marx Congress, held in Paris with the theme “Imperialist War, Social War,” attracted nearly a thousand scholars from around the world to participate in the discussions. Prominent international left-wing journals, including *New Left Review*, *Monthly Review*, *International Socialism*, *Past & Present*, *Historical Materialism*, *Rethinking Marxism*, and *Socialist Register*, also published articles on the critique of contemporary imperialism. These studies and discussions propelled the critique of contemporary imperialism to the forefront of international academia, sparking various explorations and debates.

现实的发展呼唤理论的创新。二战后特别是20世纪70年代以来，资本主义进入新的发展阶段，在各方面呈现出新变化、新特征和新趋势。21世纪伊始，国外左翼学者复兴了帝国主义研究，发表了一系列著述，剖析资本主义新阶段的特征及其后果，如迈克尔·哈特和安东尼奥·内格里的《帝国》(2000)、利奥·帕尼奇的《资本主义国家》(2001)、萨米尔·阿明的《帝国主义和全球化》(2001)、大卫·哈维的《新帝国主义》(2003)、艾伦·伍德的《资本的帝国》(2003)、约翰·贝拉米·福斯特的《帝国主义的新时代》(2003),等等。2003年3月，美国以反恐名义绕开联合国安理会对伊拉克实施军事打击，使更多目光聚焦于当代帝国主义的讨论上。2004年9月29日至10月2日，在巴黎召开的第四届国际马克思大会将主题定为“帝国主义战争、社会战争”,吸引了来自世界各地近千名学者参与讨论。国际著名左翼期刊包括《新左派评论》《每月评论》《国际社会主义》《过去与现在》《历史唯物主义》《重思马克思主义》《社会主义年鉴》等也纷纷发表有关当代帝国主义批判的文章。这些研究和讨论将对当代帝国主义的批判推到了国际学界的前台，引发了各种探讨与争鸣。

(I) The Question of the Applicability of Classical Imperialism Theory

(一)经典帝国主义理论的适用性问题

The “return” of imperialism to the center of critical theory in the early 21st century is relative to the historical context of the early 20th century. At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, Marxist thinkers developed classical imperialism theory, critiquing “the expansion of colonial empires and the intense conflicts among capitalist industrial states for expansion.” [1]1 This is a paraphrase of a core theme in classical Marxist theories of imperialism, as developed by figures like Lenin, Bukharin, and Luxemburg. In the subsequent decades, this theory of imperialism became a Marxist tradition for grasping the political, economic, and cultural conditions of Third World countries and their relations with First World developed capitalist countries. After World War II, the vigorous development and ultimate victory of national liberation movements dismantled the imperial colonial system, making the concept and theory of imperialism an intellectual relic of a specific historical stage. At the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, the Gulf War, and especially the Iraq War, once again focused theoretical and political discussion on imperialism.

帝国主义在21世纪初“重新”回到批判理论的中心，是相对于20世纪初的历史语境而言的。19世纪末20世纪初，马克思主义思想家发展了经典帝国主义理论，批判“殖民帝国的扩张和资本主义工业国家之间为扩张发生的激烈冲突”,这种帝国主义理论在随后几十年的发展中成为把握第三世界国家的政治、经济和文化状况及其与第一世界发达资本主义国家之间关系的马克思主义传统。二战后，民族解放运动以其蓬勃发展和最终胜利瓦解了帝国殖民体系，帝国主义概念和理论成为特定历史阶段的思想遗迹。20世纪末21世纪初，海湾战争特别是伊拉克战争的爆发再次将理论和政治的讨论聚焦在帝国主义上。

The return of imperialism studies inevitably raises the question of the applicability of classical imperialism theory. On this issue, left-wing scholars abroad hold three different positions. The first, represented by scholars such as Alex Callinicos, supports inheriting and developing the relevant categories and paradigms of classical imperialism theory. Callinicos argues that although classical imperialism theory has its own defects, it remains an “indispensable tool for understanding the contemporary world.” [2]2 Alex Callinicos, *Imperialism and Global Political Economy* (Cambridge: Polity, 2009), p. 8. In particular, Bukharin’s analysis of two potentially conflicting trends in the imperialist stage of capitalism—the “internationalization of production, circulation, and investment” and the “interpenetration of private capital and the nation-state”—can be applied to dissect the “economic competition between capitals” and “geopolitical competition between states” in contemporary imperialism. [3]3 See Nikolai Bukharin, *Imperialism and World Economy* (1915). The second, represented by scholars such as Harvey, holds that classical imperialism theory is not applicable to the present era, but its relevant discussions have contemporary significance. Harvey points out that the writers who studied imperialism did not complete the research program Marx outlined in the *Grundrisse*, which included colonies, the international division of labor, international exchange, exports and imports, exchange rates, the world market, and crises. They did not propose an analytical framework for the spatial theory of capital accumulation and its inherent contradictions, nor for the geopolitical relations between nation-states. However, their discussions on national self-determination, class alliances, primitive accumulation, monopoly and finance capital, relations with non-capitalist social formations, agriculture, and rural social issues are instructive. For instance, Harvey draws on Luxemburg’s analysis of “primitive accumulation,” which persists and plays an important role in capital accumulation, and on this basis proposes the concept of “accumulation by dispossession” to critique the mechanisms by which neoliberal capitalism uses plunder and fraud to solve the problem of surplus capital. [4]4 David Harvey, *The New Imperialism* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). The third, represented by scholars such as Panitch and Sam Gindin, completely denies the contemporary applicability of classical imperialism theory. Panitch and Gindin argue that applying classical imperialism theory means prioritizing economic determinism, a theoretical stance that leads to reductionism and instrumentalism, overestimating the political influence of economic factors, and failing to truly reflect the important role played by the “relatively autonomous” state, especially the United States, in the formation of global capitalism. [5]5 See Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin, *The Making of Global Capitalism: The Political Economy of American Empire* (London: Verso, 2012).

帝国主义研究的回归必然引起有关经典帝国主义理论的适用性问题的讨论。在这一问题上，国外左翼学者持有三种不同的立场。第一种是以亚历克斯·卡利尼克斯等为代表的学者支持继承和发展经典帝国主义理论的相关范畴和范式。卡利尼克斯认为，古典帝国主义论虽然存在自身缺陷，但仍是“理解当代世界不可或缺的工具”,特别是布哈林对资本主义在帝国主义阶段的“生产、流通、投资的国际化”和“私人资本和民族国家的相互渗透”两种潜在的冲突趋势的分析，可以沿用于剖析当代帝国主义的“资本之间的经济竞争”和“国家间的地缘政治竞争”。第二种是以哈维等为代表的学者认为经典帝国主义论不适用于现时代，但其中的相关探讨具有当代意义。哈维指出，研究帝国主义的作家们没有完成马克思在《政治经济学批判大纲》中列出的包括殖民地、劳动的国际分工、国际交换、出口和进口、汇率、世界市场和危机等的研究计划，没有提出一个关于资本积累及其内在矛盾的空间理论与民族国家间地缘政治关系的分析框架，但他们关于国家自决权、阶级联盟、原始积累、垄断和金融资本、与非资本主义社会形态的关系、农业、农村社会问题等的讨论具有启示性。譬如，哈维吸收了卢森堡对资本积累中持续存在并发挥重要作用的“原始积累”的分析，并在此基础上提出“剥夺性积累”概念，用来批评新自由主义资本主义以掠夺和欺诈等手段解决过剩资本问题的机制。第三种是以帕尼奇和萨姆·金丁为代表的学者对经典帝国主义理论的当代适用性持彻底否定的意见。帕尼奇和金丁认为，沿用经典帝国主义理论就意味着把经济决定因素放在首位，这种理论立场会导向还原论和工具论，高估经济因素的政治影响，无法真实反映“相对自主的”国家特别是美国在全球资本主义的形成过程中扮演的重要角色。

To a large extent, the question of the applicability of classical imperialism theory concerns whether the theories of Marxist thinkers about colonial empires can be used to understand subsequent informal empires, that is, empires without colonies. One of the core issues of classical imperialism theory is to explain the relationship between the occupation of colonies and capitalist expansion. Therefore, it pays particular attention to the relationship between capitalist and non-capitalist modes of production and different social formations, as well as the important role played by capitalist states in this process. Consequently, the question arises: when major capitalist states no longer possess colonies and no longer resolve the problem of surplus capital through territorial expansion, how does capital accumulation occur in the new stage of capitalism? What is the relationship between capital globalization and state power, and what are the inter-state relations in this context? These issues constitute the core propositions for left-wing scholars abroad in constructing a critical theory of contemporary imperialism, namely, revealing the operating mechanisms of capitalism in the post-colonial era.

在很大程度上，经典帝国主义理论的适用性问题讨论的是马克思主义思想家关于殖民帝国的理论能否用于理解之后的非正式帝国，即无殖民地的帝国。经典帝国主义理论的核心问题之一是解释占领殖民地与资本主义扩张之间的关系，因此特别关注资本主义与非资本主义的不同生产方式和不同社会形态之间的关系，以及资本主义国家在其中发挥的重要作用。那么，问题也产生了，当主要资本主义国家不再占有殖民地，不再通过扩张领土来解决资本过剩问题，那么资本主义新阶段如何实现资本积累，资本全球化与国家权力的关系以及在此背景下的国家间关系又是怎样的?这些问题构成了国外左翼学者构建当代帝国主义批判理论的核心命题，即揭示后殖民时代资本主义的运行机制。

(II) The Question of Paradigms in Contemporary Imperialism Critique

(二)当代帝国主义批判的范式问题

Closely related to the question of the applicability of classical imperialism theory is the question of paradigms in contemporary imperialism critique. Borrowing Callinicos’s terminology, the relevant debates revolve around whether and how to understand the unfolding of contemporary imperialism from the two aspects of “economic competition between capitals” and “geopolitical competition between states.” [6]6 Alex Callinicos, “Does Capitalism Need the State System?” *Cambridge Review of International Affairs* 20, no. 4 (2007): 533-549. On this issue, Callinicos has debated with Panitch and Gindin over whether to adopt a paradigm of two competitions or a paradigm based on state theory to analyze contemporary imperialism. Harvey and Wood have also discussed how to understand the two logics or two forces of contemporary imperialism. Scholars who uphold the concept of the post-national state, such as William Robinson, view the critical theory of contemporary imperialism based on the dual logic of capital-state and economy-politics as a “trap of realist analysis,” [7]7 William I. Robinson, *A Theory of Global Capitalism: Production, Class, and State in a Transnational World* (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004), p. 10. arguing that a dualistic paradigm creates a split and opposition between economic and political logics, and moreover, does not conform to the changed social reality (mainly referring to the formation of the transnational state).

与经典帝国主义理论的适用性问题紧密相关的，是当代帝国主义批判的范式问题。借用卡利尼克斯的术语，相关争论围绕着是否以及如何从“资本之间的经济竞争”和“国家间的地缘政治竞争”两个方面来理解当代帝国主义的展开。在这一问题上，卡利尼克斯与帕尼齐、金丁之间就采用两种竞争的范式还是基于国家理论的范式分析当代帝国主义发生过争论；哈维与伍德之间就如何理解当代帝国主义的两种逻辑或者说两种力量也进行过探讨；而持后民族国家理念的学者如威廉·罗宾逊把基于资本—国家、经济—政治二元逻辑的当代帝国主义批判理论看作“现实主义分析的陷阱”,认为二元范式会造成经济逻辑和政治逻辑的分裂和对立，而且不符合变化了的社会现实(主要指跨国国家的形成)。

Overseas left-wing scholars who oppose the dual-logic approach each have their own theoretical aims. For example, Panitch and Gindin oppose dual logic in order to adopt a capitalist-state-centered theory to understand imperialism, while Robinson aims to propose a transnationalized analytical paradigm. At the same time, overseas left-wing scholars who support the dual-logic approach also have their own theoretical sources. For instance, Callinicos traces the dual paradigm back to the classical theory of imperialism established by Bukharin and Lenin, while Harvey mainly draws on Giovanni Arrighi’s distinction in *The Long Twentieth Century* between “the capitalist logic of power” and “the territorial logic of power” to discuss the two interrelated yet contradictory powers and processes driving contemporary imperialism. Harvey believes that adopting two logics can, on the one hand, reveal the conflicts and contradictions between private and collective interests, deterritorialization and territorialization, and mobility and stability in modern society, and on the other hand, reflect the importance of state power in institutional arrangements for capital accumulation, thereby adopting a dialectical perspective to “avoid falling into a purely political or economic analytical model.” [8]8 The term “dual logic” here refers to the analytical framework distinguishing between the capitalist logic of power (driven by capital accumulation) and the territorial logic of power (driven by state geopolitical interests), as elaborated by David Harvey. In addition, Wood also proposes analyzing the imperialist characteristics of capitalism from the two aspects of “economic power” and “extra-economic power.” She believes that this analytical paradigm can not only distinguish traditional colonial empires, which relied mainly on extra-economic coercion for rule, from new capitalist empires, which primarily exercise rule through economic laws, but also show that the separation of the economic and the political leads to a complex relationship between the global economic system and nation-states.

反对二元逻辑的国外左翼学者各有其理论诉求，如帕尼齐和金丁反对二元逻辑是为了采用以资本主义国家为中心的理论来理解帝国主义，而罗宾逊是为了提出跨国化的分析范式。与此同时，支持二元逻辑的国外左翼学者也各有其理论来源，如卡利尼克斯将二元范式追溯到布哈林和列宁奠定的经典帝国主义理论，而哈维主要借鉴乔万尼·阿瑞吉在《漫长的20世纪》中对“权力的资本逻辑”和“权力的领土逻辑”的区分，以之论述推动当代帝国主义的两种相互联系又相互矛盾的权力和进程。哈维认为，采用两种逻辑，一方面可以呈现出现代社会中私人利益与集体利益、去领域化和领域化、流动性与稳定性之间的冲突和矛盾，另一方面也反映出国家权力在制度安排等方面之于资本积累的重要性，从而以一种辩证的视角“避免落入单纯的政治或经济分析模式”。此外，伍德也提出从“经济力量”和“超经济力量”两个方面来分析资本主义的帝国主义特征。她认为，这种分析范式不仅可以把主要依靠超经济强制进行统治的传统殖民帝国和主要通过经济法则实施统治的资本主义新型帝国区分开来，同时还可以表明经济和政治的分离导致了全球经济体系与诸民族国家之间的复杂关系。

Specifically, among overseas left-wing scholars who use the capital-state dual logic to analyze contemporary imperialism, there are also differences in their understanding of dual logic. Take Harvey and Wood as examples. In his book *The New Imperialism*, Harvey attempts to construct an analytical framework that integrates the geographical process of capital accumulation with the geopolitical struggles of nation-states through the dual logic of power. This framework highlights both the capitalist logic of power, which has achieved unlimited expansion since the 1970s through means such as privatization, marketization, and financialization as “accumulation by dispossession,” and the territorial logic of power, which is fixed within specific spaces. He refers to Wood’s historical overview analysis of property empires, commercial empires, and new empires in *Empire of Capital* as a “formal typology,” arguing that this comparative study fails to reveal the historical-geographical process of hegemonic transition in capitalism, nor does it interpret the molecular process of capital accumulation in time and space, thereby neglecting the core issue of the material conditions shaping the new imperialism. In Wood’s view, Harvey regards “accumulation by dispossession” as a continuation of “primitive accumulation” based on plunder, fraud, and violence in contemporary capitalism, failing to grasp the essence of capitalist exploitation and the specificity of capitalist society. She argues that Harvey mistakenly conflates the pre-capitalist “politically constituted” property rights with capitalist property rights, and that this understanding cannot distinguish the British Empire from the American Empire at all, nor can it even distinguish the Roman Empire from the American Empire. Wood believes that the specificity of capitalist society lies in the separation of economic power from political power. This separation enables infinitely expanding capital to transcend limited territorial boundaries. Therefore, capitalist imperialism mainly relies on economic laws rather than territorial plunder or tribute to maintain hegemony. Further, following Harvey’s analysis, infinitely expanding capital accumulation requires corresponding state power as a guarantee, but “a truly global state that could provide meticulous and reliable management for capital is almost unimaginable.”

具体而论，运用资本—国家二元逻辑分析当代帝国主义的国外左翼学者对于二元逻辑的认识也存在分歧。以哈维和伍德为例。哈维在《新帝国主义》一书中以权力的二元逻辑试图构建一个融合资本积累的地理过程与民族国家的地缘政治斗争的分析框架，既突出了20世纪70年代以来以私有化、市场化、金融化等“剥夺性积累”手段实现无限扩张的权力的资本逻辑，同时也强调了固定在特定空间内的权力的领土逻辑。他将伍德在《资本的帝国》中对财产帝国、商业帝国、新型帝国的历史概述分析称为“形式类型学”,认为这种比较研究没有展现出霸权转移的资本主义历史地理进程，也没有诠释资本积累在时空中的分子化过程，忽视了塑造新帝国主义的物质条件这一核心问题。而在伍德看来，哈维将“剥夺性积累”视为基于掠夺、欺诈和暴力的“原始积累”在当代资本主义的延续，没有把握资本主义剥削的本质和资本主义社会的特殊性，错误地把前资本主义“政治构建”的所有权与资本主义所有权混淆在一起，这种理解丝毫不能将英帝国和美帝国区分开来，甚至不能将罗马帝国和美帝国区分开来。伍德认为，资本主义社会的特殊性在于经济力量与政治力量相互分离，这种分离使得无限扩张的资本能够超出有限的领土疆域，因而，资本主义的帝国主义主要依靠经济法则而不是掠夺领土或贡赋来维护霸权。进一步地，依循哈维的分析，无限扩张的资本积累需要与之相应的国家权力作为保障，但是“一个可以为资本提供缜密而可靠的管理的真正的全球国家几乎是难以想象的”。

The debates among overseas left-wing scholars over the critical paradigm of contemporary imperialism mainly revolve around the issue of the legitimacy of the capital-state, economy-politics dual logic. These debates actually point to the challenges posed by a series of changes in the capitalist world to existing cognitive frameworks. The discussion of dual logic can be traced back to Hegel and Marx, who identified the separation of civil society and the political state as a characteristic of modern society. Marx also deepened his research on this basis, forming historical materialism based on the dialectical relationship between the economic base and the superstructure. Therefore, the debate over the critical paradigm of contemporary imperialism—whether the capital-state dual logic can be used to understand contemporary imperialism—inevitably relates to the epistemological issue of the historical materialist method.

国外左翼学者关于当代帝国主义批判范式的争论主要围绕着资本—国家、经济—政治二元逻辑的合理性问题展开。这些争论实际指向资本主义世界产生的一系列变化对既有认识框架提出的挑战。关于二元逻辑的探讨可以追溯到黑格尔和马克思，他们指认了市民社会与政治国家的分离构成现代社会的特征，而马克思也在此基础上不断深化研究，形成了基于经济基础与上层建筑的辩证关系的历史唯物主义。因此，关于当代帝国主义批判范式的争论，即能否沿用资本—国家二元逻辑认识当代帝国主义的问题，不可避免地关联到历史唯物主义方法论的认识问题。

(III) The Issue of the Historical Materialist Method

(三)关于历史唯物主义方法论的问题

The discussion of the above two issues concerns the question of historical materialism as a method. Historical materialism is the method for studying society and history established by Marx and Engels in *The German Ideology*, written in 1845. This method formed the foundation of their lifelong research. Historical materialism elucidates the general laws of the development of human society through the dialectical relationship between the economic base and the superstructure, and between productive forces and relations of production. The issues of the applicability of classical imperialism theory and the paradigm of contemporary imperialism critique ultimately boil down to the question of how to understand and whether to adopt historical materialism to comprehend contemporary imperialism.

上述两个问题的探讨关涉到历史唯物主义作为方法论的问题。历史唯物主义是马克思恩格斯在1845年写作的《德意志意识形态》中确立的研究社会和历史的方法，这一方法构成了他们毕生研究的基础。历史唯物主义以经济基础和上层建筑、生产力和生产关系的辩证关系阐发人类社会发展的一般规律。关于经典帝国主义理论的适用性问题和当代帝国主义批判的范式问题，归根结底是如何认识以及是否采用历史唯物主义来理解当代帝国主义的问题。

At the beginning of *The New Imperialism*, Harvey points out that his goal is to use the method of “historical-geographical materialism” to “study the current state of global capitalism and the role that a ‘nascent’ imperialism might play within it.” Historical-geographical materialism is Harvey’s integration of historical materialism and geographical research, emphasizing a critique of capitalism from a geographical and spatial perspective. This method is fully applied in Harvey’s critique of the new imperialism, prominently reflected in his analysis of the spatial fix of capital accumulation. Some domestic scholars believe that historical-geographical materialism “has no strict definition but is merely used as a general term for a Marxist geographical research program different from traditional determinism.”

哈维在《新帝国主义》一书的开篇就指出，他的目标是以“历史地理唯物主义”的方法“研究全球资本主义的现状，以及一个‘新生的’帝国主义在其中可能将发挥的作用”。历史地理唯物主义是哈维对历史唯物主义和地理学研究的整合，强调从地理和空间角度对资本主义展开批判。这一方法在哈维对新帝国主义的批判中得到了充分运用，突出体现在他对资本积累的空间修复的分析上。有国内学者认为，历史地理唯物主义“这一术语没有严格的定义，只是用来泛指不同于传统决定论的马克思主义地理学的研究纲领”。

As shown by Panitch and Gindin’s critique of classical imperialism theory, a major challenge to historical materialism comes from economic determinism. When historical materialism is simplistically and crudely equated with economic determinism, this methodology attracts much criticism. In the 2005–2006 debate between Callinicos and Panitch and Gindin over the critique of contemporary imperialism, the primacy of the economic base was a focal point of contention. Callinicos argues that the uniqueness of Marxist imperialism theory lies in “placing modern imperialism in the context of the historical development of the capitalist mode of production.” Panitch and Gindin accuse Callinicos of often falling into “a simple repetition of earlier historical models” when analyzing issues, using economic determinants to obscure the relative autonomy of the state, and neglecting the role the state plays in managing the contradictions and crises of global capitalism and in making its territorial space a site for capital accumulation. They aim to construct a new theory of imperialism critique based on state theory to overcome the neglect of the state in previous imperialism theories. Callinicos disagrees with Panitch and Gindin’s view, pointing out that insisting on the primacy of the economic base is a fundamental stance of Marxists. Applying historical materialism to analyze contemporary imperialism should start from the primacy of the economy, and emphasizing the primacy of the economy does not mean denying the important role of the state. Although Marx and Engels and thinkers who studied imperialism did not construct a systematic state theory and emphasized studying capitalism from the mode of production, they did not ignore or deny the role of the state in the development of capitalism. This is evidenced by their relevant research plans and writings. Among subsequent Marxists, we also see their efforts and achievements in developing state theory. Panitch and Gindin’s understanding of historical materialism is clearly non-dialectical and one-sided.

正如帕尼齐和金丁对经典帝国主义理论的批评所显示的，对历史唯物主义的一个很大的诘难来自经济决定论。当把历史唯物主义简单粗暴地等同于经济决定论，这种方法论就招致了诸多批评。在2005—2006年卡利尼克斯与帕尼齐、金丁关于当代帝国主义批判的争论中，经济基础的首要地位就是一个争论焦点。卡利尼克斯认为，马克思主义帝国主义理论的独特之处就在于，“将现代帝国主义置于资本主义生产方式历史发展的背景中”。帕尼齐和金丁指责卡利尼克斯在分析问题时常陷入“对早期历史模式的简单重复”,以经济决定因素遮蔽了国家的相对自主性，忽视国家在管理全球资本主义的矛盾和危机方面以及使其领土空间成为资本聚集地方面发挥的作用。他们要建构一个基于国家理论的新的帝国主义批判理论，以克服以往帝国主义理论中对国家的忽视。卡利尼克斯不认同帕尼齐和金丁的观点，指出坚持经济基础的优先地位是马克思主义者的基本立场，运用历史唯物主义分析当代帝国主义就应当从经济的优先地位着手，而且强调经济的优先地位并不等同于否定国家的重要作用。虽然马克思恩格斯和研究帝国主义的思想家们没有构建体系化的国家理论，强调从生产方式入手研究资本主义，但他们并不是忽视甚至否认国家在资本主义发展中的作用，这一点从他们的相关研究计划和著述中可以得到佐证。在后继的马克思主义者那里，我们也看到了他们在发展国家理论方面的努力和建树。帕尼齐和金丁对于历史唯物主义的认识显然是非辩证的、片面的。

Since the birth of historical materialism, criticism and defense of its relationship with economic determinism have always existed. This article does not intend to review these debates, but merely seeks to demonstrate that Marxism has carried out the most thorough and powerful critique of capitalism. As long as the social reality of capitalism as the dominant global economic system remains unchanged, open and dialectical Marxism will always be a powerful weapon for criticizing capitalist society, and historical materialism, as the core essence of Marxism, is undoubtedly the theoretical foundation of contemporary imperialism critique.

历史唯物主义自诞生以来，对它与经济决定论的关系的批评与辩护就一直存在。本文无意回顾这些争论，只是力图表明，马克思主义对资本主义进行了最彻底和最有力的批判，只要资本主义作为全球主导经济制度的社会现实不变，开放的、辩证的马克思主义就始终是批判资本主义社会的有力武器，而历史唯物主义作为马克思主义的核心要义，无疑是当代帝国主义批判的理论基础。

II. Reflection on Reality: Structural Characteristics and Internal Contradictions of Contemporary Imperialism

二、现实反思：当代帝国主义的 结构特征及内在矛盾

Contemporary imperialism is often termed “new imperialism” to distinguish it from the imperialism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. From the late 19th century to the post-World War II period, especially since the rise of neoliberalism, the development of capitalism has shown new trends, and as the capitalist mode of production has been pushed worldwide, the inherent contradictions of capitalism itself have been reproduced on a larger scale. Revealing the “newness” and “pathology” of new imperialism is a focal issue of discussion among foreign left-wing scholars. These discussions mainly revolve around issues of capital, class, and the state, analyzing the structural characteristics and internal contradictions of contemporary imperialism from multiple dimensions such as political economy, political philosophy, sociology, and philosophy.

当代帝国主义常被命名为“新帝国主义”,以区别于19世纪末20世纪初的帝国主义。从19世纪末到二战后特别是新自由主义兴起以来，资本主义的发展呈现出新的趋势，而随着资本主义生产方式被推向世界，资本主义本身固有的矛盾也以更大规模被再生产出来。揭示新帝国主义之“新”和“病”,是国外左翼学者讨论的焦点问题。这些探讨主要围绕着资本、阶级和国家等议题展开，从政治经济学、政治哲学、社会学、哲学等多维度剖析当代帝国主义的结构特征及内在矛盾。

(I) Changes in the Global Production System and Class Structure

(一)全球生产体系与阶级结构的变迁

Reflection on the capitalist mode of production and class relations is an important component of contemporary imperialism critique. Since World War II, especially from the 1970s onward, capitalism has entered a phase of comprehensive expansion. The rise of transnational corporations has promoted the formation of international monopoly organizations and secured their dominant position in the global production system; the dominant position of financial capital has been continuously consolidated, with the rapid development of non-bank financial institutions absorbing more idle social capital into the global financial market, and global financial oligarchs exerting a dominant influence on the world economy; a new international division of labor has replaced the colonial international division of labor, shaping the global industrial value chain, further intensifying the degree of exploitation of global industrial workers and the wealth gap between the North and the South; flexible labor systems have increased temporary and contract workers in the global labor market, weakening workers’ bargaining power and the real basis for worker alliances. The concentration and internationalization of production and capital have driven the restructuring of class relations on a global scale.

对资本主义生产方式和阶级关系进行反思是当代帝国主义批判研究的重要构成。二战后特别是20世纪70年代以来，资本主义进入全面扩张阶段。跨国公司的崛起推动国际垄断组织的形成，并取得对全球生产体系的主导地位；金融资本的统治地位不断得到巩固，非银行金融机构的极速发展将更多社会闲置资本吸纳到全球金融市场，全球金融寡头对世界经济施加支配性影响；新国际劳动分工取代殖民化国际劳动分工形塑了全球产业价值链，全球产业工人的受剥削程度和南北贫富差距进一步加剧；弹性劳动制增加了全球劳动力市场中的临时工、合同工，削弱了工人的谈判能力和工人联盟的现实基础。生产和资本的集中与国际化推动了阶级关系在全球的重构。

Based on the internationalization of production and capital, foreign scholars in the early 21st century proposed the concept of a “transnational class” to analyze the class structure of the global capitalist system. Leslie Sklair, William I. Robinson, Jerry Harris, and William K. Carroll have made considerable explorations in this area. Among them, Robinson’s book *A Theory of Global Capitalism* has had a significant international impact. Based on the transformation of production relations leading to changes in social structure, Robinson argues that we are in a major historical transition period, where the internationalization of production and capital has led to the transnationalization of class relations, and qualitative changes in economic forms and political structures distinguish global capitalism from early capitalism. Using the sociological analytical method of “structure and agency,” he points out that the formation of a transnational class depends not only on the ownership of the means of production but also on the shaping of class consciousness. In this regard, the transnational bourgeoisie has become a class in itself and for itself, because transnational capital has become the dominant force in the global capitalist system, constituting the objective basis of the transnational bourgeoisie, while transnational mergers and acquisitions, transnational strategic alliances, transnational subcontracting and outsourcing indicate that the class consciousness of this class has formed, uniting purposefully and strategically to create conditions for transnational capital accumulation, so as to achieve the valorization of capital on a world scale to a greater extent. The emergence of the transnational capitalist class simultaneously shapes its opposite—the transnational proletariat. However, in comparison, the transnational proletariat is a class in itself but not for itself. Although a small number of conscious resistance movements have emerged among them, such as the Zapatista movement in Mexico, class consciousness and global collective action have not yet formed.

基于生产和资本的国际化，国外学者在21世纪初期提出“跨国阶级”的概念用以分析全球资本主义体系的阶级结构。莱斯利·斯克莱尔、罗宾逊、杰里·哈里斯、威廉·卡罗尔在这一方面做出了较多探索。其中，罗宾逊《全球资本主义论》一书产生了较大的国际影响。基于生产关系的嬗变引起社会结构的转变，罗宾逊认为，我们正处在重大的历史转折期，生产和资本的国际化引起了阶级关系的跨国化，经济形式和政治结构上的质变使全球资本主义区别于早期资本主义。他运用社会学“结构与能动性”的分析方法，指出跨国阶级的形成不仅取决于生产资料所有权的占有，还取决于阶级意识的塑造。就此而言，跨国资产阶级已经成为自在自为的阶级，因为跨国资本成为全球资本主义体系的主导力量，构成跨国资产阶级的客观基础，而跨国并购、跨国战略联盟、跨国转包和外包等表明这一阶级的阶级意识已经形成，有目标、有策略地联合起来为跨国资本积累创造条件，以便更大程度地实现资本在世界范围的增殖。跨国资本家产生的同时也塑造了它的对立面——跨国无产阶级。但相较而言，跨国无产阶级是自在不自为的阶级，虽然在他们中间出现了少量的、有意识的反抗运动，例如墨西哥的萨帕塔运动，但是尚未形成阶级意识和全球性的集体行动。

There are also differences among foreign scholars as to whether the formation of a transnational class is in the future tense or the present tense. Arguments questioning the reality of the transnational bourgeoisie mainly include two types: one holds that the dominant position of the nation-state endows capitalist interests with territoriality, and the global expansion of capital does not equal the internationalization of capitalist interests; the other holds that competitive relations exist among capitalists, and competition leads to conflicts of interest among capitalists rather than unity. In his book *False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism*, John Gray points out that transnational corporations are not “stateless transnational institutions,” because currently the core business and most assets of transnational corporations remain in their home countries, and they all express and embody a single national culture, characteristics particularly prominent in American transnational corporations. Regarding the view that transnational corporations perform the functions of nation-states, Gray argues that “the global market has not hatched a corporation to take over the functions once performed by sovereign states, but has weakened and hollowed out both sovereign states and corporations.” This leads to another important issue in contemporary imperialism critique, namely, the status and function of the nation-state.

对于跨国阶级的形成到底是未来时还是现在时，国外学者之间也存在分歧。质疑跨国资产阶级的现实性的论点主要包括两种，一是认为民族国家的主导地位赋予资本家利益以地域性，资本的全球扩张不等于资本家利益的国际化，二是认为资本家之间存在竞争关系，竞争会导致资本家之间利益的冲突而不是联合。约翰·格雷在《伪黎明：全球资本主义的幻象》一书中指出，跨国公司并不是“无祖国的跨国机构”,因为目前跨国公司的核心业务和大部分资产都保留在母国，而且都表达和体现了单一的民族文化，这些特征在美国跨国公司中体现得尤为显著。针对跨国公司行使民族国家功能的观点，格雷认为，“全球市场没有孵化出一种公司来担当曾属于主权国家的功能，而是把主权国家和公司都削弱和挖空了”。这里就引出当代帝国主义批判研究中的另一个重要问题，即民族国家的地位与职能问题。

(II) The Status and Function of the Nation-State in Transition

(二)转型中民族国家的地位与职能

The nation-state emerged with the rise of capitalism, performing the function of “a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.” [9]9 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto* (1848), describing the executive of the modern state as a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie. In the era of globalization, the scope of power of the nation-state has changed, and the development of regional organizations has reshaped the geographical space of capitalist organization. The status and function of the nation-state in contemporary imperialism is a focal point of debate among foreign left-wing scholars. Based on different views of the nation-state in the era of globalization, Robinson distinguishes three positions: “weak state theory,” “strong state theory,” and “transnational state theory.” Among them, the more influential are the “strong state theory,” represented by David Harvey, Ellen Meiksins Wood, and Alex Callinicos, which emphasizes the dominant position of the nation-state in the development process of contemporary imperialism, and the “transnational state theory,” represented by Robinson, Michael Hardt, and Antonio Negri, which argues that the nation-state has been transformed into a “transnational state” or “Empire” in the process of globalization, and does not recognize that the nation-state still occupies a central position at the present stage.

民族国家随资本主义兴起而产生，履行着“管理整个资产阶级的共同事务的委员会”的职能。在全球化时代，民族国家的权力范围发生了变化，而区域组织的发展也重塑了资本主义组织的地理空间。关于当代帝国主义中民族国家的地位与职能，是国外左翼学者争论的一个焦点问题。依据对全球化时代的民族国家的不同看法，罗宾逊区分了“弱国家论” “强国家论”“跨国国家论”三种立场。其中影响较大的，是以哈维、伍德、卡利尼克斯等为代表的“强国家论”,强调民族国家在当代帝国主义发展进程中的主导地位，和以罗宾逊、哈特、内格里等为代表的“跨国国家论”,主张民族国家在全球化进程中已经被改造为“跨国国家”或“帝国”,不认同民族国家在现阶段仍占据着中心地位。

Scholars holding the “strong state theory” mostly adopt a dualistic logical paradigm of the global economy and the nation-state, although there are also differences among their views. For example, Harvey, Wood, and Callinicos all consistently emphasize the important role of state institutional arrangements for capital accumulation, arguing that the development of the global economy has not produced a “world politics” to manage economic forces, and the state remains the most important territorial entity, providing an indispensable environment for capital accumulation in areas such as formulating policies and legal provisions, maintaining social order, ensuring a credit environment, providing infrastructure construction, and integrating ideology.

持“强国家论”的学者大多采用全球经济和民族国家的二元逻辑范式，尽管他们的观点之间也存在差异。譬如哈维、伍德、卡利尼克斯等一致强调国家制度安排之于资本积累的重要作用，认为全球经济的发展并未产生出管理经济力量的“世界政治”,国家仍是最重要的领土实体，在制定政策和法律条款、维护社会秩序、保障信誉环境、提供基础设施建设、整合意识形态等方面为资本积累提供不可或缺的环境。

The “transnational state theory” is closely related to the perspective of a transnational class. Scholars who hold the “transnational state theory” believe that economic globalization has already led to a transformation of class structure and political form, manifested as the transnationalization of classes and the state. Robinson opposes viewing the nation-state as a transhistorical eternal existence. He states: “The nation-state is no longer the organizing principle of capitalism, nor is it any longer the institutional ‘container’ of class development and social life.” The transnational state, as a special form of the state, is a polycentric structure composed of supranational institutions that manage the global flow of capital and commodities. Robinson proposes the theory of “transnational hegemony” to oppose Arrighi’s “world hegemony theory” or “hegemony transfer theory” based on the nation-state. The theory of transnational hegemony is a post-nation-state paradigm based on the globalization of relations of production, elevating supranational institutions to the dominant political organization. Robinson’s theory of transnational hegemony naturally makes him sympathetic to Hardt and Negri’s “Empire” theory. In his view, “Empire” is precisely a transnational hegemonic pattern that eliminates national boundaries. Hardt and Negri’s imperial sovereignty “is composed of a series of national and supranational organisms united under a single logic of rule.” They believe that the decline of the nation-state does not represent its disappearance, only that its dominant controlling power has weakened, submitting to the systemic domination of Empire. The power of Empire resides above nation-states and supranational institutions, forming a new global mode of authority. Unlike modern sovereignty, Empire’s mode of authority has a “virtual” character: it has no substance, no boundaries, no center, and is an open, smooth network space.

“跨国国家论”与跨国阶级的观点是紧密相关的。持“跨国国家论”的学者认为，经济全球化已经引起阶级结构和政治形式的转型，表现为阶级和国家的跨国化。罗宾逊反对将民族国家视为一个超历史的永恒存在。他说道：“民族国家再也不是资本主义的组织原则，再也不是阶级发展和社会生活的体制‘容器’。”跨国国家作为国家的一种特殊形态，是由管理资本和商品的全球流动的超国家机构组成的多中心结构。罗宾逊提出“跨国霸权”理论，用来反对阿瑞吉的基于民族国家的“世界霸权论”或“霸权转移论”。跨国霸权理论是一种基于生产关系的全球化的后民族国家范式，把超国家机构提升为主导的政治组织。罗宾逊的跨国霸权理论天然地使他对哈特和内格里的“帝国”理论抱有好感。在他看来，“帝国”就是消除国家疆界的跨国霸权格局。哈特和内格里的帝国主权“由一系列国家的和超国家的机体构成，这些机体在统治的单一逻辑下整合”。他们认为，民族国家的衰落并不代表民族国家的消失，只是它的主导控制力已经削弱，服从于帝国的系统性支配。帝国的权力居于民族国家和超国家机构之上，形成新的全球权威模式。不同于现代主权，帝国的权威模式具有“虚拟性”特征，没有实体、没有边界、没有中心，是一个开放、平滑的网络空间。

Robinson’s theory of the transnational state, like Hardt and Negri’s Empire theory, cannot escape the criticism of having constructed a new “myth” for the era of globalization. In the view of opponents, global political-economic relations are rooted in the interstate system, and there is a complex interactive relationship between economic globalization and the nation-state. Globalization both depends on the nation-state and contradicts it; one cannot simply replace the nation-state with the transnational state, nor replicate issues at the national level on a global scale. Amin argues that replacing national sovereignty with transnational sovereignty is a “naive illusion of globalization.” On the one hand, we still live in a “class society,” only now integrated into world capitalism, with its imperialist character even more pronounced; on the other hand, the imperialist “bloc” composed of the United States, Europe, and Japan occupies a dominant position in the capital extraction of the new imperialist system, but economic unity cannot eliminate their political divisions. Looking at the current world order, an indisputable fact is that national sovereignty has not been replaced by transnational sovereignty, and geopolitical competition between states remains an important factor shaping international politics.

罗宾逊的跨国国家理论和哈特、内格里的帝国理论一样难逃构筑了全球化时代新“神话”的批评。在反对者看来，全球政治经济关系根植于国家间体系，经济全球化与民族国家之间存在着复杂的互动关系，全球化既依赖于民族国家又与民族国家相矛盾，不能简单地把民族国家置换为跨国国家，或者把国家层面的问题复制到世界范围。阿明认为，以跨国化主权取代民族国家主权是一种关于“全球化的幼稚的幻象”。一方面，我们仍旧生活在“阶级社会”,只是被整合进了世界资本主义中，其帝国主义的色彩更加浓厚；另一方面，由美国、欧洲和日本组成的帝国主义“联合体”在新帝国主义体系的资本攫取中占据着主导地位，但是经济上的联合并不能消除它们政治上的区隔。纵观当今世界格局，一个不争的事实是，国家主权并没有被跨国主权所取代，国家间的地缘政治竞争仍是塑造国际政治的重要因素。

(III) The Subject and Form of Anti-Capitalist Struggle

(三)反资本主义斗争的主体与形式

Since the 1970s, the global expansion of neoliberalism has pushed open the tightly closed doors of many countries, providing a realistic basis for establishing an “open-door” imperialism. “Open-door” imperialism “avoids the costs and dangers of direct political rule or territorial control,” further expanding and consolidating the power of capital. In this historical situation, foreign left-wing scholars study the class relations of contemporary imperialism and the relationship between capital accumulation and state power, with the ultimate intention of exploring the subject and form of resistance struggle.

20世纪70年代以来，新自由主义的全球扩张推开了很多国家紧闭的大门，使建立一种“门户开放”的帝国主义具有了现实基础。“门户开放”的帝国主义“避开了直接的政治统治或领土控制带来的代价和危险”,使资本权力得到进一步扩大和巩固。在这一历史处境中，国外左翼学者研究当代帝国主义的阶级关系以及资本积累与国家权力的关系，在最终意图上是为了探究反抗斗争的主体和形式。

On the question of the revolutionary subject, the concept of “the multitude” proposed by Hardt and Negri in the book *Empire* has sparked considerable controversy. They argue that the strategy of contemporary capital accumulation has changed: immaterial labor that creates information, symbols, knowledge, and emotions has become the dominant means of capital valorization, reshaping the wage laborer typically exemplified by the “male industrial worker” and triggering a new production of subjectivity. This new production of subjectivity is “the multitude,” that is, “all those who are exploited by and subjected to capitalism.” The multitude is an indeterminate, heterogeneous, and fluid force, as well as the condition of all production and a generative force, possessing the desire and potential for liberation. As communicative labor, interactive labor, and affective labor become the center of capital accumulation, language, meaning, and communication networks also become important means of struggle. Based on these analyses, Žižek regards Hardt and Negri’s *Empire* as a “pre-Marxist work,” because they “are unable to repeat Marx’s analysis under current conditions, namely that the prospect of proletarian revolution is inherent in the internal contradictions of the capitalist mode of production.” This limitation results from a lack of political-economic analysis. Amin points out that the resistance strategy proposed on this basis, with “the multitude” as the subject, is merely a product of idealism, an invention of idealism: “Without any change in actual social relations, it assumes that this reversal has already occurred in the world of ideas.”

在革命主体问题上，哈特和内格里在《帝国》一书中提出的“诸众”概念引起了较大争议。他们认为当代资本积累的策略已经发生变化，创造信息、符号、知识、情感等的非物质劳动成为主导的资本增殖途径，重塑了以“男性产业工人”为典型形象的雇佣劳动者，引发了新的主体性生产。这个新的主体性生产就是“诸众”,即“一切受剥削于、受支配于资本主义的人”。诸众是一种未定型、杂多性和流动性的力量，更是一切生产的条件、一种生成性的力量，具有解放的欲望和潜能。随着通讯交往劳动、互动式劳动和情感劳动等成为资本积累的中心，语言、意义和交往网络也成为重要的斗争手段。基于这些分析，齐泽克将哈特和内格里的《帝国》视为一本“前马克思主义的著作”,因为他们“没有能够在当前的条件下去重复马克思的分析，即无产阶级革命的前途就蕴含在资本主义生产方式的内在矛盾之中”,这种局限性是缺乏政治经济学分析导致的。阿明指出，在此基础上提出的以“诸众”作为主体的反抗策略只是一种观念先行的产物、唯心主义的发明，“在现实的社会关系没有变化的前提下，它就假设这种颠倒在观念世界已经发生了”。

On the question of the form of resistance, as traditional revolution has gradually declined, the new social movements that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s have shaped new forms and imaginaries of radical politics, also posing new questions for foreign left-wing scholars. The “newness” of new social movements is manifested in their subjects, organizations, means, and demands, which differ from traditional class politics. New social movements are primarily initiated by youth groups and the middle class, lacking fixed organizations, parties, or programs. Based on loose collective action, their core demands are to change social behavioral and value norms, seeking social recognition for specific collective identities. Hardt and Negri argue: “Revolutionary thought should not flee from identity politics, but should work through it and learn from it.” Harvey, on the other hand, categorizes all forms of struggle in the new phase, including identity politics, as “struggles against accumulation by dispossession.” These struggles are initiated by special-interest groups or non-governmental organizations with common interests, aiming to achieve specific demands in culture, ideology, or material interests, but they do not necessarily shake the existing social order. In Harvey’s view, opposing financial institutional arrangements supported by state power should become the primary goal of the movement against accumulation by dispossession. Transnational corporations, world economic organizations, and the Wall Street–Treasury–Washington alliance, as the core of new imperialist rule, should become the main targets of the anti-globalization movement, and the internationalization of financial capital naturally gives these resistance movements a transnational character. However, because the demands of movements against accumulation by dispossession involve various different group interests, in specific contexts some movement demands even contradict each other. These fragmented social movements lack a unified economic and political foundation, making it difficult to form an organic alliance. Thus, Harvey questions the reality of the homogenized revolutionary subject “the multitude” proposed by Hardt and Negri, and also worries that the struggle against accumulation by dispossession “risks splitting the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements that seem to be brewing at present.”

在反抗形式问题上，随着传统革命日渐衰微，20世纪六七十年代兴起的新社会运动塑造了激进政治的新形态和新想象，也给国外左翼学者提出了新课题。新社会运动之“新”体现为具有不同于传统阶级政治的主体、组织、手段和诉求。新社会运动主要由青年群体和中产阶级发动，没有固定的组织、政党和纲领，基于松散的集体行动，以改变社会的行为和价值规范为核心诉求，谋求特定集体身份的社会认同。哈特和内格里认为：“革命思想不应该逃避身份政治，而应该通过身份政治而运作，并从中学习。”而哈维将新阶段包括身份政治在内的所有斗争形式统称为“反对剥夺性积累的斗争”,这种斗争由具有共同利益的特殊群体或非政府组织发起，旨在实现文化、意识形态或者物质利益上的特殊诉求，但不必然动摇既存的社会秩序。在哈维看来，反对国家权力支持下的金融制度安排应当成为反剥夺性积累运动的首要目标。跨国公司、世界经济组织、华尔街—财政部—华盛顿的联盟等作为新帝国主义统治的核心，应当成为反全球化运动的主要斗争对象，而金融资本的国际化使得这些反抗运动天然地具有跨国属性。但由于反剥夺性积累的运动诉求涉及各种不同的群体利益，在特殊的语境中有些运动诉求甚至相互矛盾。这些碎片化的社会运动之间缺乏统一的经济和政治基础，难以形成有机的联合。由此，哈维质疑哈特和内格里提出的同质化革命主体“诸众”的现实性，也担忧反剥夺性积累斗争“存在着分裂当前似乎正在酝酿的反资本主义与反帝国主义运动的危险”。

Similar to Harvey’s targeting of transnational corporations in the resistance struggle, Robinson focuses on the anti-transnational hegemony movement. As previously noted, Robinson develops the nation-state-based theory of hegemony into a theory of transnational hegemony. This post-nation-state hegemony is a top-down transnational elite agenda that serves global capital accumulation. Transnational capital becomes the dominant force in the global capitalist system, the transnational capitalist class displaces the national capitalist class in its dominant position, and a global capitalist group is formed. At the same time, within global civil society, anti-capitalist forces are also growing. Although in their early stages anti-capitalist forces have not yet reached the self-conscious state of the transnational elite stratum, organized struggle movements have already begun to emerge. In Robinson’s view, the anti-hegemonic movement should also develop from the national level to the transnational level. First, the exploitation of the global labor force by transnational capital gives the anti-hegemonic movement a naturally transnational character; second, the infrastructure used by transnational elites to organize global activities can become the material basis for anti-hegemonic forces to organize struggle; finally, the anti-hegemonic movement can only wage a substantive struggle against transnational capital on the basis of transnational unity. Robinson states: “The real prospect for anti-hegemonic social change in the era of globalization should be a globalization movement from below, a movement that seeks to challenge the power of global elites in an expanding transnational civil society by uniting anti-hegemonic forces across nations and regions.” The anti-hegemonic movement is a globalization movement in quotation marks; it must use the fruits of globalization to unite the global proletariat to the greatest extent possible in resisting the super-exploitation of global capitalism, thereby inverting globalization from above into globalization from below. In other words, the anti-hegemonic movement is not de-globalization, but “alternative globalization.”

与哈维将反抗斗争对准跨国公司类似，罗宾逊聚焦于反跨国霸权运动。如前所述，罗宾逊将基于民族国家的霸权理论发展为跨国霸权理论。这种后民族国家霸权是一种自上而下的跨国精英议程，服务于全球资本积累。跨国资本成为全球资本主义体系的主导力量，跨国资本家占有了民族资本家的支配地位，形成了全球资本家集团。与此同时，在全球市民社会中，反资本主义的力量也在生长。尽管反资本主义力量在早期阶段尚未达到跨国精英阶层的自为状态，但是有组织的斗争运动已经开始出现。在罗宾逊看来，反霸权运动也应从国家层面发展到跨国层面。首先，跨国资本对全球劳动力的剥削使得反霸权运动天然地具有跨国属性；其次，跨国精英用来安排全球活动的基础设施可以成为反霸权力量用来组织斗争的物质基础；最后，反霸权运动也只有在跨国联合的基础上才能对跨国资本家发起实质性的斗争。罗宾逊说道：“全球化时代的反霸权社会变革的真正前景，应该是一场自下而上的全球化运动，这场运动试图通过跨国家、跨区域联合反霸权力量，在一个不断扩张的跨国公民社会中挑战全球精英的权力。”反霸权运动是一场打双引号的全球化运动，它必须利用全球化的成果最大程度地联合全球无产阶级来反抗全球资本主义的超级剥削，从而将自上而下的全球化颠倒为自下而上的全球化。换言之，反霸权运动不是逆全球化，而是“替代性的全球化”。

In comparison, Wood places greater emphasis on organization, unity, and struggle at the national level, arguing that struggle at the national level plays a more fundamental role than transnational struggle. In her view, while anti-capitalist movements targeting transnational corporations and transnational organizations have raised people’s level of consciousness, it is mistaken to take “the instruments of capital’s global penetration as the target of attack, rather than challenging the capitalist system itself” as a premise, and many participants in such movements merely hope to “domesticate” these transnational corporations and organizations to achieve “improvement.” Wood has little confidence in transnational movements and instead places more trust in resistance struggles or the reconstruction of political forces based on regions and nations. She believes that, for the future of European integration and the role of the European left in cross-border anti-capitalist struggle, resolving the chaos among left-wing parties in France, or rebuilding a socialist party with a broad popular base in Germany or even Britain, will be more decisive than movements opposing the International Monetary Fund or the Group of Seven. Only by resisting on the basis of concrete action plans and action forces can the anti-capitalist struggle be better advanced.

相较而言，伍德更强调国家层面的组织、团结和斗争，认为国家层面的斗争比跨国的斗争发挥着更基础的作用。在她看来，以跨国公司和跨国组织为靶子的反资本主义运动虽然提高了人们的意识水平，但把“资本全球渗透的工具作为攻击目标，而不是挑战资本主义制度本身”当作前提是错误的，而且许多此类运动的参加者只是期望“驯化”这些跨国公司和跨国组织达到“改善”的目的。伍德对跨国运动不抱太大信心，而是更相信基于地区和国家的反抗斗争或政治力量重构。她认为，对于欧洲一体化的未来以及欧洲左翼在越出边界的反资本主义斗争中的作用而言，法国解决左翼政党的混乱问题或德国甚至英国重建一个拥有广泛民众基础的社会主义政党，将比反对国际货币基金组织或七国集团的运动更具有决定性意义。只有在具体的行动计划和行动力量的基础上进行反抗，才能更好地推动反资本主义斗争。

III. Overall Assessment and Multiple Implications of Contemporary Imperialist Critique

三、当代帝国主义批判研究的 总体评析和多重启示

Contemporary imperialist critique is a product of a specific era. Foreign left-wing scholars actively engaged in critical research on contemporary imperialism at the beginning of the 21st century, keenly grasping the transformation of the times and the urgency of constructing a theory for it. Conducting a comprehensive analysis of post-transformation capitalist society is no easy task, and foreign left-wing scholars have made valuable attempts in this regard. We should examine this new theoretical form dialectically. On the one hand, contemporary imperialist critique has developed Marxism through its study of the new stage of capitalism. First, its exploration of new means of capital exploitation reveals the operational mechanisms of contemporary capitalism and capital’s total control over life; second, the debate over the status and functions of the nation-state in the era of globalization highlights the contemporary transformation of the state and its relationship with the global economy; finally, its reflections on the forms and production of subjectivity in resistance struggles in the new historical context indicate new trends and difficulties in the anti-capitalist struggle. On the other hand, the contemporary imperialist critique of foreign left-wing scholars also has its own problems and shortcomings. For example, Negri and Hardt’s theory of empire lacks support from political-economic analysis and has a strong idealist character; Harvey and Wood’s critique of new imperialism is relatively forceful in its critique of neoliberalism but gives less thought to the question of the revolutionary subject; Robinson’s theory of the transnational state highlights the deterritorializing trend of future global development but has also been accused of constructing a “globalization myth.” Overall, these theoretical discussions opened the prelude to the study of contemporary imperialism in the 21st century, bringing a systematic analysis of the new stage of capitalism into our field of vision, and providing multiple implications for better constructing Marxism in the 21st century.

当代帝国主义批判研究是特定时代的产物。国外左翼学者在21世纪之初积极展开对当代帝国主义的批判性研究，敏锐地把握到时代的转型和对其进行理论构建的迫切性。要对转型后的资本主义社会进行总体性的分析并不是一项容易的课题和任务，国外左翼学者对此做出了可贵的尝试。对于这种新的理论形态，我们应当辩证地审视。一方面，当代帝国主义批判研究以对资本主义新阶段的研究发展了马克思主义。首先，对资本剥削新手段的探讨，揭示了当代资本主义的运行机制和资本对生活的全面控制；其次，关于民族国家在全球化时代的地位和职能的争论，将国家的当代转型及其与全球经济的关系问题凸显了出来；最后，对新的历史语境中的反抗斗争的形式和主体性生产的思考，反映出反资本主义斗争的新动向和面临的困难。另一方面，国外左翼学者的当代帝国主义批判研究也存在各自的问题与缺点。如内格里和哈特的帝国理论缺乏政治经济学分析的佐证，具有浓重的观念论色彩；哈维和伍德的新帝国主义批判对新自由主义的批判较为有力，但对革命主体问题思考较少；罗宾逊的跨国国家论突出了未来全球发展的解域化趋势，可也被指责构筑了“全球化神话”。从总体来看，这些理论探讨在21世纪开启了当代帝国主义研究的序幕，把对资本主义新阶段的体系化分析带入了我们的视域，为我们更好地构建21世纪马克思主义提供了多重启示。

(I) Oriented toward the Critique and Transcendence of Capitalism

(一)指向对资本主义的批判与超越

Critically analyzing capitalism and seeking social change to overcome its defects and contradictions is the starting point and foothold of Marxism. Although capitalism has undergone various formal changes in the course of its global expansion since its birth, its essence has not changed. As a specific economic and social formation, capitalism takes profit maximization as its ultimate goal of production, the socialization of production and the private ownership of the means of production as its fundamental contradiction, and the unpaid exploitation of the surplus labor of the majority of workers by a minority of capitalists who own the means of production as its basic characteristic. From the early capitalism of Marx’s time, to the imperialism critiqued by thinkers represented by Lenin, to the new imperialism analyzed by foreign left-wing scholars, the purpose of production, the fundamental contradiction, and the exploitative nature of capitalism have not substantially differed. The British scholar Terry Eagleton points out: “The stability of the inner logic of capitalism means that most of Marxism’s critiques of the capitalist system remain valid to this day.” [11]11 Terry Eagleton, *Why Marx Was Right* (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011), p. 2. The Marxist critique of capitalism has not become outdated. At the same time, the rapid development of capitalism and the sharpening of social contradictions pose new questions for Marxist theory and practice. Understanding and grasping the “change” and “continuity” of contemporary capitalism, and exploring real solutions to social contradictions, are becoming increasingly urgent. Contemporary imperialist critique inherits the critical tradition of Marxism, analyzes the modes of capital accumulation and hegemonic rule in the new stage of capitalist development, exposes the more hidden and brutal means of exploitation in neoliberal capitalism, and explores paths to transcend capitalism on the basis of reflecting on new forms of anti-capitalist struggle. Contemporary imperialist critique arises within the process of capitalist development and inherits and develops the critical spirit and value purport of Marxism under new historical conditions.

批判地分析资本主义并寻求社会变革以克服资本主义的缺陷和矛盾是马克思主义的出发点和立足点。虽然资本主义自诞生以来在其全球扩张的进程中产生了各种形式的变化，但其本质没有改变。资本主义作为一种特殊的经济社会形态，以利润最大化为其生产的最终目的，以生产的社会化和生产资料的私人占有为其基本矛盾，以少数占有生产资料的资本家无偿剥削大多数劳动者的剩余劳动为其根本特征。从马克思所处的早期资本主义，到以列宁为代表的思想家批判的帝国主义，再到国外左翼学者分析的当代新帝国主义，资本主义的生产目的、基本矛盾、剥削性质并没有实质差别。英国学者伊格尔顿指出：“资本主义内在逻辑的稳定性，决定了马克思主义对资本主义体制的多数批判时至今日仍有其道理。”马克思主义对资本主义的批判没有过时。与此同时，资本主义的快速发展和社会矛盾的尖锐化，对马克思主义的理论和实践也提出了新的课题，认识和把握当代资本主义的“变”与“不变”,并探索解决社会矛盾的真正方案越来越具有迫切性。当代帝国主义批判研究继承了马克思主义的批判传统，剖析了资本主义发展新阶段的资本积累方式和霸权统治手段，揭露了新自由主义资本主义中更隐蔽、更残酷的剥削手段，并在反思新形式的反资本主义斗争的基础上探讨了超越资本主义的路径问题。当代帝国主义批判研究产生于资本主义发展历程之中，并在新的历史条件下继承和发展了马克思主义的批判精神和价值旨趣。

(II) Marxism Is an Open System Oriented toward Real Problems

(二)马克思主义是面向现实问题的开放体系

Marxism is a spirit grasped in the epoch. As Engels said: “Our theory is a developing theory, not a dogma to be learned by rote and mechanically repeated.” As an open theoretical form, Marxism is continuously enriched and expanded as it responds to real problems in the course of the epoch’s development. The new imperialism critique theory constructed by foreign left-wing scholars is a contemporary form of Marxism, which develops Marxism through a critical analysis of the new stage of capitalism. Discussing the characteristics and mechanisms of contemporary imperialism is not intended to create a “rupture” between it and the imperialism of the early 20th century, but rather to better grasp 21st-century capitalism and socialism, to analyze and respond to the various real problems encountered in the contemporary era, and thereby to explore alternative schemes for building “another world.” Compared with the imperialism of the early 20th century, capitalism has entered a new stage of development: the transformation of production methods based on automation, digitalization, and intelligence profoundly affects the global industrial landscape; neoliberalism centered on privatization, marketization, and financialization shapes international monopoly capitalism; the competition among capitalist powers to carve up colonies has transformed into capital competition dominated by transnational corporations and financial oligarchs of capitalist countries; large-scale wars have been replaced by so-called “low-intensity wars”; the prevalence of consumerism shapes new ideologies, and so on. Against this backdrop, capitalist society has given rise to numerous social problems such as a sharply widening gap between rich and poor, overproduction, debt crises, financial speculation, the digital divide, environmental destruction, ecological imbalance, and refugee tides. Only by deeply analyzing the operational mechanisms of capitalist society can we find the roots of and solutions to the many problems above. Contemporary imperialism critique research has emerged precisely in this historical situation, with the aim of exposing and remedying the maladies of the existing social order and taking as its purport a future-oriented good society.

马克思主义是在时代中把握的精神。正如恩格斯所说：“我们的理论是发展着的理论，而不是必须背得烂熟并机械地加以重复的教条。”作为一种开放的理论形态，马克思主义随着时代的发展在回应现实问题中不断得到丰富和拓展。国外左翼学者构建的新帝国主义批判理论是马克思主义的一种当代形态，通过对资本主义新阶段的批判性分析发展了马克思主义。讨论当代帝国主义的特征和机制不是要制造它与20世纪初期帝国主义之间的“断裂”,而是为了更好地把握21世纪的资本主义和社会主义，分析和应对当代遭遇的各种现实问题，从而探索建设“另一个世界”的替代性方案。与20世纪初期的帝国主义相比，资本主义已经进入新的发展阶段：以自动化、数字化、智能化的生产方式变革深刻影响全球产业格局；以私有化、市场化、金融化为核心的新自由主义塑造了国际垄断资本主义；资本主义强国瓜分殖民地的竞争转变为资本主义国家跨国公司和金融寡头主导的资本角逐；大规模战争被所谓的“低烈度战争”取代；消费主义的盛行塑造新的意识形态，等等。在此背景下，资本主义社会产生了贫富差距急剧扩大、生产过剩、债务危机、金融投机、信息鸿沟、环境破坏、生态失衡、难民潮等诸多社会问题。必须深入剖析资本主义社会的运行机制，才能找到以上诸多问题产生的根源和解决方案。当代帝国主义批判研究正是在这一历史处境中应运而生的，以揭露和解决现存社会秩序的病症，并以朝向未来的美好社会为主旨。

(3) Promoting the construction of 21st-century Marxism in the two-way interaction between theory and practice

(三)在理论与实践的双向互动中推动构建21世纪马克思主义

Although foreign left-wing scholars’ contemporary imperialism critique research draws on Marxist intellectual resources to varying degrees, and although there are certain controversial assertions and categories within the theories themselves, they overall demonstrate a positive path for activating and developing Marxism in the contemporary context. This path is “using theoretical analysis as a weapon to intervene in real society” and “taking real problems as the orientation to promote theoretical innovation”—that is, the two-way interaction between theory and practice. Harvey distinguishes two research orientations for interpreting the “new” of “new imperialism”: the first research orientation arises because changes in material conditions give rise to new things, making past theories no longer applicable, thus necessitating the construction of a set of new concepts adapted to modern circumstances; the second research orientation is to construct new concepts to explain fundamental changes in material conditions and imperialist practices. In fact, these two research orientations are not mutually exclusive but jointly point to the dialectical relationship between theory and practice, and between consciousness and reality. Understanding new things is inseparable from new concepts; constructing new theories must be based on new realities. The emergence of contemporary imperialism critique research is both a product of changes in material conditions—it is precisely these changes in material conditions that have sparked debates over the applicability of classical imperialism theory—and a result of proposing new concepts to explain social reality and social practice, which is the dimension of deepening the understanding of contemporary capitalism through theoretical innovation. In this dual dimension, contemporary imperialism critique research has made exploratory answers to the major questions of “where Marxism is going” and “where human society is going.” For us, these theoretical explorations are not only methods that can be drawn upon for constructing 21st-century Marxism, but also useful references for discussing the development trends of the contemporary world and strategies for responding to contemporary imperialism. (Notes omitted)

虽然国外左翼学者的当代帝国主义批判研究对马克思主义思想资源的借鉴程度不同，而且理论内部也存在某些具有争议的论断和范畴，但它们总体上展现了在当代语境中激活和发展马克思主义的积极路径。这条路径就是“以理论分析为武器介入现实社会”和“以现实问题为导向推动理论创新”,即理论与实践之间的双向互动。哈维将阐释“新帝国主义”之“新”的研究取向区分为两种：第一种研究取向是由于物质条件变化导致新事物的产生，使得过去理论不再适用，从而必须建构一套适应现代情况的新概念；第二种研究取向是构建新的概念来解释物质条件和帝国主义实践的根本变化。实际上，这两种研究取向不是相互排斥的，而是共同指向了理论与实践、意识与现实之间的辩证关系。认识新事物离不开新概念，构建新理论必须以新现实为依据。当代帝国主义批判研究的产生既是物质条件变化的产物，正是这种物质条件的变化引起了经典帝国主义理论的适用性之争，同时也是提出新的概念阐释社会现实和社会实践的结果，这是以理论创新深化对当代资本主义认识的维度。在这双重维度上，当代帝国主义批判研究对“马克思主义将往何处去”和“人类社会将往何处去”的重大问题作出了探索性解答。对我们来说，这些理论探索不仅是构建21世纪马克思主义的可资借鉴的方法，也是探讨当代世界的发展动向和当代帝国主义的应对策略的有益参考。（注释略）

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑