A Critical Study of Contemporary Western Left-Wing Scholars on Green Capitalism

Since the beginning of the 21st century, and especially since the 2008 international financial crisis, the discourse system of green capitalism, characterized by terms such as “green economy,” “green growth,” and “green new deal,” has become a new expression through which contemporary Western developed countries attempt to repair the crisis. This ideology advocates the coordinated development of capital accumulation and the ecological environment, premised on not changing the fundamental system of capitalism, and attempts to reconcile the contradiction between capital and ecology by relying on modern technology, the market, government, and other means. Under the influence of these ideas, Western monopoly capital has initiated a “green” turn; a large number of bankers, entrepreneurs, and others have been quickly reshaped from the chief culprits of nature into its “saviors,” as if contemporary capitalism has discovered an effective path to repair the ecological crisis and achieve sustained capital valorization. However, can so-called green capitalism truly reshape the relationship between humans and nature? Can sustained capital accumulation and the ecological environment be compatible? What exactly is the relationship between economic growth and the ecological environment? How should a social transformation plan to replace contemporary capitalism be designed? In response to this, Western left-wing scholars have launched a series of discussions.

进入21世纪特别是2008年国际金融危机发生以来，以“绿色经济”“绿色增长”“绿色新政”等为表征的绿色资本主义话语体系成为当前西方发达国家试图修复危机的新表达。这一理念宣扬资本积累与生态环境的协调发展，以不改变资本主义根本制度为前提，试图依靠现代科技、市场、政府等手段调和资本与生态之间的矛盾。在这些思想鼓吹下，西方垄断资本纷纷开启“绿色”转向，大批银行家、企业家等一时间由自然的罪魁祸首被重塑为自然的“救世主”,似乎当代资本主义探寻到了修复生态危机、实现资本持续增殖的有效路径。然而，所谓绿色资本主义果真能重塑人与自然之间的关系?持续的资本积累与生态环境能否兼容?经济增长与生态环境之间究竟是怎样一种关系?如何设计替代当代资本主义的社会转型方案?对此，西方左翼学者们展开了一系列探讨。

I. The Exposure of the Falsity of Green Capitalism by Western Left-Wing Scholars

一、西方左翼学者对绿色资本主义虚假性的揭露

Regarding the “green” turn of contemporary capitalism, Western left-wing scholars generally deny it. In their view, so-called green capitalism is essentially a new form of the sustained expansion of contemporary monopoly capital under a green disguise. In this regard, scholars have exposed the falsity of green capitalism from multiple dimensions, focusing on the internal logic of capital’s pursuit of sustained growth, the inherent contradictions between the capitalist mode of production and ecology, and the resulting ecological consequences.

对于当代资本主义的“绿色”转向，西方左翼学者普遍予以否定。在他们看来，所谓的绿色资本主义实质上是当代垄断资本在绿色伪装下持续扩张的新样态。对此，学者们重点从资本追求持续增长的内在逻辑、资本主义生产方式与生态的内在矛盾及其导致的生态后果等多维度揭露了绿色资本主义的虚假性。

First, green capitalism caters to the logical demands of capital’s pursuit of sustained valorization. Capital’s “green growth” is actually a new tactic of contemporary monopoly capital to resolve crises; serving capital valorization remains its fundamental purpose, which means that green capitalism has not transcended the boundaries of neoliberalism.

第一，绿色资本主义迎合了资本追求持续增殖的逻辑要求。资本的“绿色增长”实际是当代垄断资本化解危机的新手法，服务于资本增殖仍是其根本宗旨，这就使得绿色资本主义并没有超出新自由主义的界限。

Capitalism has never lacked means to deal with crises. After the outbreak of the 2008 international financial crisis, monopoly capitalists quickly transformed into advocates and promoters of the “green economy.” They shrewdly discovered that the ecological field actually harbors enormous business opportunities, a new opportunity for capital to emerge from the shadow of the financial crisis and make profits. Austrian scholar Spash Clive L. points out that “for the wealthy minority in the world, the ecological crisis and the economic crisis are just another opportunity to make money.” [1]1 Spash Clive L., “The Ecological Economics of the Anthropocene: A New Paradigm for the 21st Century?” (paraphrased). Capital seems not only able to break through ecological barriers to achieve sustained expansion but is even regarded by Western developed countries as an important solution to ecological problems. However, the real purpose that capital cares about is achieving limitless valorization, and the large financial groups, social elites, and mainstream thinkers of developed countries do not intend to fundamentally change the capitalist property relations and power system. In this regard, American representative of ecological Marxism John Bellamy Foster emphasizes that ecological problems have not yet constituted an insurmountable obstacle to capital accumulation, and we should not underestimate capitalism’s ability to achieve its own accumulation and sustained profitability amid ecological degradation. [2]2 John Bellamy Foster, *The Ecological Revolution: Making Peace with the Planet* (paraphrased).

资本主义向来不缺乏应对危机的手段。2008年国际金融危机爆发后，垄断资本家迅速转变为“绿色经济”的倡导者、推动者。他们精明地发现，生态领域实际上潜藏着巨大商机，是资本走出金融危机阴霾、有利可图的新契机。奥地利学者斯帕什·克莱夫(Spash Clive L.)指出，“对于世界上那些富有的少数人来说，生态危机和经济危机只是另一个赚钱的机会。”1资本似乎不仅能够突破生态障碍实现持续扩张，甚至被西方发达国家视为应对生态问题的重要解决方案。只不过，实现无底线的价值增殖才是资本关心的真正目的，发达国家的大财团、社会精英和主流思想家们也并非想彻底改变资本主义财产占有关系和权力体系。对此，美国生态学马克思主义代表人物约翰·贝拉米·福斯特(John Bellamy Foster)强调，生态问题尚未构成资本积累不可逾越的障碍，我们不应该低估资本主义在生态退化中实现自身积累、持续盈利的能力2。

Scholars represented by Giorgos Kallis, Thomas Wanner, Naomi Klein, and others have successively revealed the essence of green capitalism. In their view, the “green economy” and “green growth” of contemporary capitalism conceal the truth of capital’s pursuit of sustained growth. Kallis and others, through analysis of large amounts of data, point out that post-financial-crisis “green growth is likely a misguided goal.” [3]3 Giorgos Kallis et al., “The Case for Degrowth” (paraphrased). This emerging ideology has not fundamentally changed the growth-oriented economic development model; it merely obscures the contradiction between capital accumulation and the ecological environment. Wanner regards “green growth” as a “passive revolution” [4]4 Thomas Wanner, “The New ‘Passive Revolution’ of the Green Economy and Growth Discourse” (paraphrased). of neoliberalism in response to its own contradictions and crises. “Green growth” claims to achieve a decoupling of economic growth from resources and the environment, but in reality, “green growth” still takes the unlimited valorization of capital as its fundamental purpose and has “smoothly” promoted the sustained erosion of resources and the environment by capital. Renowned Canadian scholar Naomi Klein points out that in recent years, developed countries’ attempts to curb climate warming through green technology, market regulation, etc., have all ended in failure, the root cause being that “we have an economic system that is pathologically obsessed with GDP growth, placing it above everything else. It ignores the social and ecological consequences of this behavior.” [5]5 Naomi Klein, *This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate* (paraphrased). It can be seen that green capitalism is merely a means for Western monopoly capital to deal with the intertwined economic and ecological crises; seeking the sustained growth of value and wealth remains the core goal of capitalists. Whether it is the green economy, green growth, or the green new deal, they are essentially capitalists “pouring the old wine of growth into the bottle of the new economy.” [6]6 A paraphrase of a common critical expression.

以乔治·凯利斯(Giorgos Kallis)、托马斯·万纳(Thomas Wanner)、娜奥米·克莱恩(Naomi Klein)等为代表的学者纷纷揭示了绿色资本主义的本质。在他们看来，当代资本主义的“绿色经济”“绿色增长”掩盖了资本追求持续增长的真相。凯利斯等人通过大量数据分析指出，后金融危机时代的“绿色增长很可能是一个被误导的目标”3,这一新兴理念并没有彻底改变增长型的经济发展模式，它只是遮蔽了资本积累和生态环境之间的矛盾。万纳则将“绿色增长”视为新自由主义应对自身矛盾与危机的一场“被动革命”4。“绿色增长”扬言实现经济增长与资源环境的脱钩，但实际上“绿色增长”仍然以资本的无限增殖为根本目的，并“顺利”推动了资本对资源环境的持续侵蚀。加拿大著名学者娜奥米·克莱恩指出，近些年来发达国家通过绿色技术、市场调节等试图阻止气候变暖的尝试均以失败而告终，其根源在于“我们拥有这样一个经济体系——它病态地迷恋GDP增长，将之置于其余一切之上。它无视这种行为所带来的的社会和生态后果”5。可见，绿色资本主义不过是西方垄断资本应对错综复杂的经济危机和生态危机的一种手段，谋求价值财富的持续增长依然是资本家的核心目标。不管是绿色经济、绿色增长还是绿色新政，它们实际上是资本家将“增长的旧酒倒入了新经济的瓶中”6。

Furthermore, in the view of Western left-wing scholars, the greening of capital has not fundamentally eradicated the contradiction between capital accumulation and ecology; the destruction of ecology by capital has not only not decreased but has further worsened. German scholar Jason Hickel, in the article “Is Green Growth Possible?”, explicitly denies the compatibility between capital accumulation and resources and the environment. On the one hand, from the perspective of resource and energy utilization, a complete decoupling of sustained capital growth from resources and energy is impossible. This is mainly because capital accumulation will inevitably encounter the physical limits of nature; “when resource efficiency reaches physical limits, sustained GDP growth will push resource use back up.” [7]7 Jason Hickel, “Is Green Growth Possible?” (paraphrased). On the other hand, from the perspective of actual carbon emissions, neither green technology nor the research and development of new energy can completely and effectively solve the problem. Even if the application of clean energy such as wind and solar power can curb carbon emissions to a certain extent, this rate of emission reduction still has a considerable gap compared with the goals set by the Paris Agreement. Moreover, the carbon capture and storage technology solution advocated by many scholars is actually not yet mature and “is controversial among climate scientists.” [8]8 Reference to ongoing scientific debate on carbon capture and storage. Victor Wallis also points out that technological fetishism has always been a normal state of capitalist development, and the greening of technology mainly reflects the demands of enterprises, namely, the pursuit of profit maximization and sustained growth. [9]9 Victor Wallis, “Technology, Ecology, and the Capitalist Mode of Production” (paraphrased). Although the technological solutions of green capitalism have clothed capital accumulation’s plunder of ecology in a legal guise, this solution has not fundamentally reversed the ecological crisis; the ecological problems of developed countries and the world remain severe.

另外，在西方左翼学者看来，资本的绿色化并没有彻底根除资本积累与生态之间的矛盾，资本对生态的破坏不仅没有减少反而进一步恶化。德国学者杰森·海克尔(Jason Hickel)在《绿色增长可能吗?》一文中明确否认了资本积累与资源环境之间的兼容关系。一方面，从资源能源利用情况来看，资本的持续增长与资源能源彻底脱钩是不可能的。这主要是因为，资本积累势必会遇到自然的物理极限，“当资源效率达到物理极限时，持续的GDP增长将推动资源使用回升”7。另一方面，从实际碳排放量来看，无论是绿色技术还是新能源的研发都不能彻底有效地解决问题。即使风能、太阳能等清洁能源的应用能够在一定程度上抑制碳排放量，但这一减排速度实际上与《巴黎协定》所设定的目标仍然存在较大差距。并且，被许多学者推崇的碳捕获和封存技术方案实际尚不成熟，“在气候科学家中备受争议”8。维克多·沃利斯(Victor Wallis)也指出，技术迷恋一直是资本主义发展的常态，而技术绿色化实际上主要反映了企业的诉求，即追求利润最大化和持续增长9。绿色资本主义的技术方案虽然使得资本积累对生态的掠夺披上了合法外衣，但这一方案并没能彻底扭转生态危机，发达国家以及全球的生态问题依然严峻。

Second, green capitalism, rooted in the capitalist mode of production, cannot completely eliminate ecological contradictions. Scholars represented by ecological Marxism believe that there is an irreconcilable contradiction between the capitalist mode of production and nature. Without a thorough transformation of the capitalist mode of production, so-called green capitalism merely obscures the nature of capital’s continued profit-seeking and its conflict with nature.

第二，植根于资本主义生产方式基础上的绿色资本主义不可能彻底消除生态矛盾。以生态学马克思主义为代表的学者们认为，资本主义生产方式与自然之间存在着不可调和的矛盾，在没有彻底变革资本主义生产方式的前提下，所谓绿色资本主义不过是遮蔽了资本继续获利的本性及其与自然的冲突。

Ecological Marxist scholars such as John Bellamy Foster, David Pepper, and Paul Burket generally emphasize the importance of historical materialism in studying ecological issues. They point out that this Marxist method provides effective guidance for analyzing the root causes of capitalist ecological crises, the relationship between ecological problems and class struggle, and how to coordinate the development of humanity and nature. Accordingly, they argue that the relationship between humanity and nature is neither abstract nor empty, nor can it be simply regarded as a purely natural process. Without a specific mode of social production, it is impossible to grasp the essence of ecological problems.[10]10 The original text uses a superscript “10” to indicate a footnote citation, which is retained here as an endnote marker. Material production practice is the prerequisite for the survival and development of human society and the bond linking humanity and nature. This production process appears on the surface as an interaction between humanity and nature, but in reality it is a socialized process—that is, how people appropriate the means of production and distribute the products of labor fundamentally shapes the state of the relationship between humanity and nature. Moreover, the state of the relationship between humanity and nature changes along with changes in the mode of social production. “Since human production is generally determined by its social form and by specific class relations, its evolution cannot be regarded as a purely natural process. The production relation between humanity and nature must be seen as a natural relation mediated by society.”[11]11 The original text uses a superscript “11” to indicate a footnote citation, which is retained here as an endnote marker.

约翰·贝拉米·福斯特、戴维·佩珀(David Pepper)、保罗·伯克特(Paul Burket)等生态学马克思主义学者普遍强调历史唯物主义在研究生态问题方面的重要性。他们指出，马克思主义的这一方法对于分析资本主义生态危机的根源、生态问题与阶级斗争的关系、人与自然如何协调发展等提供了有效指导。据此，他们认为，人与自然之间的关系既不是抽象的、空洞的，更不能被简单地视为纯粹的自然过程。离开了特定社会生产方式就无法把握生态问题的本质10。物质生产实践是人类社会生存和发展的前提，是联系人与自然的纽带。这一生产过程表面上呈现为人与自然之间的互动，但实际上它是一个社会化过程，即人与人之间如何占有生产资料、如何分配劳动产品等从根本上塑造着人与自然的关系状况。并且，人与自然关系状况也伴随着人类社会生产方式的变化而变化。“就目前为止，既然人类生产一般来说是由其社会形式以及特殊的阶级关系决定的，因此它的演进就不能被视为单纯的自然过程。人与自然之间的生产关系必须被视为一种由社会中介的自然关系。”11

Foster and other scholars further explain the inherent conflict between the capitalist mode of production and nature. In their view, capitalism is a specific mode of production, and the separation of the producers from the means of production constitutes the essential characteristic of capitalist social production. It is precisely on the basis of this specific mode of production that capital production and reproduction achieve the double exploitation of labor and nature. First, under capitalist conditions, the antagonistic relationship between people in the appropriation of nature fundamentally leads to the antagonism between humanity and nature. Foster specifically distinguishes between two categories: “general appropriation” of nature and “capitalist appropriation” of nature. “Human beings are objective and material; like all other living beings, we cannot survive without the free appropriation of nature.”[12]12 The original text uses a superscript “12” to indicate a footnote citation, which is retained here as an endnote marker. The use and appropriation of nature by human beings exist universally in human society, but under capitalist conditions the relationship of appropriation of nature is essentially different from the general relationship of appropriation. The capitalist private appropriation relationship excludes the direct producers from the appropriation of the means of production, thereby creating the fundamental precondition for capital to plunder nature and expand wildly. Under capitalist conditions, the so-called possibility for everyone to appropriate nature is in fact merely capital’s appropriation of nature; the conflict between humanity and nature is undoubtedly a true reflection of the contradictory relations between people. Second, in the capitalist production process, the subject position of the worker is completely lost, and nature is alienated into an important force controlling labor. The economic system that separates workers from the natural conditions of production fundamentally causes and exacerbates the alienation between humanity and nature.[13]13 The original text uses a superscript “13” to indicate a footnote citation, which is retained here as an endnote marker. In the capitalist production process, workers lose their subject position in labor, and the natural conditions of production, existing in the form of raw materials, fuel, etc., confront labor as possessions of capital. This makes it impossible for workers to genuinely care about issues such as the conservation and efficient use of natural resources in production. Finally, the separation of producers from the means of production disrupts the normal order of the material exchange between humanity and nature, leading to a “rift” in the metabolic process under capitalist conditions. The relationship between humanity and nature is essentially a process of continuous material and energy exchange. However, capitalist social production, whose fundamental purpose is the pursuit of valorization, unilaterally and one-dimensionally plunders nature—that is, it replaces the two-way interaction between human social production and nature with a non-reciprocal form—thereby disrupting the normal metabolism between humanity and nature. Natural reproduction, as an objective system independent of capital accumulation, encounters obstacles to the conditions for maintaining its own reproduction, thus triggering various ecological problems.

福斯特等学者进一步阐释了资本主义生产方式与自然之间的内在冲突。在他们看来，资本主义是一种特殊的生产方式，生产者与生产资料的分离构成了资本主义社会生产的本质特征。正是在这种特殊的生产方式基础上，资本生产及再生产实现了对劳动和自然的双重剥削。首先，资本主义条件下人与人之间在自然占有方面的对立关系从根本上导致了人与自然的对立。福斯特具体区分了对自然的“一般占有”和“资本主义占有”两个范畴。“人是客观的、物质的，我们和所有其他生物一样，没有对自然的自由占有就无法生存。”12人对自然的利用和占有普遍存在于人类社会，但是，资本主义条件下人对自然的占有关系却与一般占有关系有着本质区别。资本主义私人占有关系将直接生产者排除在生产资料占有之外，这就为资本掠夺自然、疯狂扩张创造了根本前提。资本主义条件下所谓人人都可以占有自然实质上仅仅是资本对自然的占有，人与自然之间的冲突无疑是人与人之间矛盾关系的真实映射。其次，在资本主义生产过程中劳动者的主体地位彻底沦丧，自然异化为控制劳动的重要力量。劳动者与自然生产条件相分离的经济制度从根本上导致并加剧了人与自然的异化13。在资本主义生产过程中，劳动者丧失了劳动主体地位，且以原料、燃料等形式存在的自然生产条件作为资本的所属物与劳动相对立。这就使得劳动者不可能真正关心生产中自然资源的节约、有效利用等问题。最后，生产者与生产资料的分离破坏了人与自然之间物质交换的正常秩序，导致了资本主义条件下新陈代谢的“断裂”。人与自然之间实质是物质能量持续交流互换的过程。然而，以追求价值增殖为根本目的的资本主义社会生产，只是一味地、单向度地掠夺自然，即以无交互的形式取代了人类社会生产与自然之间的双向互动，继而破坏了人与自然之间正常的新陈代谢。自然再生产作为独立于资本积累之外的客观系统，其维持自身再生产的条件遇阻，由此诱发种种生态问题。

Accordingly, ecological Marxism denies the thoroughness and authenticity of green capitalism. In their view, whether it is the economic policies introduced by capitalist countries, such as ecological taxes and carbon trading, or the green technology applications and new energy alternatives advocated by capitalist enterprises, as long as the capitalist private appropriation mode has not undergone a thorough change, workers cannot equally enjoy the various natural conditions and the benefits they bring. So-called fair wealth and ecological justice can only be flashy and insubstantial empty fantasies.

据此，生态学马克思主义否认绿色资本主义的彻底性、真实性。在他们看来，无论是资本主义国家推出的生态税、碳交易等经济政策，还是资本主义企业倡导的绿色技术应用、新能源替代等，只要资本主义的私人占有方式未发生彻底改变，工人就不可能平等地享有各种自然条件及其带来的利益，所谓财富公平和生态正义就只能是华而不实的空洞幻想。

Third, green capitalism seriously tramples on ecological justice. Since the 2008 international financial crisis, the promotion of “green economy” and “green new deals” by developed capitalist countries has not only failed to thoroughly resolve ecological contradictions but has further exacerbated inequalities between the poor and the rich, and between poor and rich countries, in terms of the enjoyment of ecological benefits and the assumption of ecological responsibilities.

第三，绿色资本主义严重践踏了生态正义。2008年国际金融危机以来发达资本主义国家对“绿色经济”“绿色新政”等的推行，不但没有彻底消解生态矛盾，反而进一步加剧了穷人与富人、穷国与富国之间在生态利益享有及生态责任承担等方面的不平等。

Currently, competition and plunder for ecological resources on a global scale have become an important part of the rivalry among monopoly capitals. Natural conditions of production are indispensable factors for any kind of social production and reproduction. Although the endless pursuit of valorization is the inherent logic of capital, nature is also a necessary precondition for maintaining capital reproduction. Without the natural material conditions of production—resources, energy, etc.—of a certain quantity and quality needed to sustain capital reproduction, capital accumulation cannot be truly realized. Brett Clark and others explain that capitalist production is a dialectical unity of use-value and valorization; valorization dominates use-value, and the realization of valorization “ultimately depends on the production and exchange of commodities that encompass the use-values of natural matter.”[14]14 The original text uses a superscript “14” to indicate a footnote citation, which is retained here as an endnote marker. In the process of capitalist industrialization and globalization, capital’s fanatical pursuit of value and wealth has obscured its concern for nature, and nature has been purely alienated into a tool for capital’s profit-seeking. However, ecological and environmental problems such as shortages of various resources and energy and the degradation of ecosystems increasingly constrain capital accumulation. In response, how to resolve various ecological obstacles to create favorable conditions for sustained capital profitability, and how to break through all national and regional restrictions to carry out ecological plunder on a global scale, have become the focus and competition of capital.

当前，在全世界范围内展开生态资源的竞争与掠夺已成为垄断资本角逐的重要内容。自然生产条件是任何一种社会生产及再生产必不可少的因素。尽管实现无止境的价值增殖是资本的内在逻辑，但自然又是维持资本再生产所必须的前提条件。如果没有维持资本再生产所需的一定数量和质量的资源、能源等自然物质生产条件，资本积累就无法真正实现。布雷特·克拉克(Brett Clark)等解释称，资本主义生产是使用价值与价值增殖的辩证统一，价值增殖是使用价值的主宰，而价值增殖的实现“最终依赖于涵盖自然物质的使用价值的商品生产和交换”14。在资本主义工业化、全球化进程中，资本对价值财富的狂热追求遮蔽了对自然的关照，自然单纯异化为资本逐利的工具。然而，各种资源能源短缺、生态系统退化等生态环境问题对资本积累的制约日益凸显。对此，如何化解各种生态障碍为资本持续盈利创造有利条件、如何冲破一切民族和地域限制在全球范围内开展生态掠夺成为资本关注和竞争的焦点。

However, the new round of ecological colonial plunder carried out by capital has severely damaged ecological justice between the rich and the poor, and between poor and rich countries. Control over material resources is the core of capital accumulation and competition, yet it has brought about severe social and environmental inequalities within and between countries.[15]15 See David Harvey, *The New Imperialism* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), and other works on accumulation by dispossession. Specifically, Western monopoly capital exploits the poor and poor countries from the dual dimensions of value wealth and ecological interests. On the one hand, the wealth gap between the poor and the rich within Western developed countries, and between developed and underdeveloped countries, has further widened. Within capitalist countries, the capitalization and privatization of nature fundamentally lead to an unjust distribution of social wealth among different classes. Internationally, developed countries, relying on their control over the international economic system and their advantageous position in the international division of labor, unjustly plunder backward countries and regions, attempting to perpetuate the structural relationship between the “center” and the “periphery.” It is thus evident that promoting sustained profitability for monopoly capital, even at the expense of the interests of the poor and poor countries, is the fundamental purpose of contemporary Western capitalism’s “greening.” On the other hand, the ecological problems caused by capital’s ecological colonial expansion appear to affect everyone equally, but in reality, they unjustly impact the world’s rich and poor, poor and rich countries. Faced with the same ecological degradation, different classes and countries and regions at different levels of development focus on different issues, and they bear different ecological risks and consequences. The rich in developed countries are more concerned with the quantity of their economic wealth and the quality of their comfortable lives, while the poor are more concerned with their own survival. As David Harvey points out, “the rich ‘in any case’ cannot afford to give up a comfortable environment; on the contrary, the poor, who cannot afford to bear losses, are likely to sacrifice it for a paltry sum of money.”[16]16 David Harvey, *The Enigma of Capital and the Crises of Capitalism* (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 245. Although advocates of Western green capitalism also set goals such as enhancing the well-being of human society and improving the human living and development environment, simply conceptualizing the ecosystem as a provider of human welfare actually obscures the issue of inequality, namely “what welfare, and for whose welfare.”[17]17 This refers to the critique of the concept of ecosystem services as a neoliberal framing that obscures distributional questions. Within developed capitalist countries, the poor have in fact become the greatest victims of toxic waste, polluted water sources, and harmful urban housing. Internationally, problems such as resource scarcity, air pollution, declining water quality, and soil contamination in backward countries and regions seriously threaten the life and health of local residents, while Western monopoly capital turns a blind eye to this.

然而，资本展开的新一轮生态殖民掠夺，严重损害了穷人与富人、穷国与富国之间的生态正义。实现对物质资源的控制是资本积累和竞争的核心，但它却在国家内部和国家之间带来了社会和环境方面的严重不平等15。具体而言，西方垄断资本从价值财富和生态利益双重维度对穷人、穷国展开了剥削。一方面，西方发达国家穷人和富人、发达国家与欠发达国家之间的贫富差距进一步扩大。在资本主义国家内部，自然的资本化、私有化从根本上导致了社会财富在不同阶级之间的不公正分配。在国际范围内，发达国家凭借他们对国际经济体系的操控及其有利的国际分工地位，不公正地掠夺落后国家和地区，试图长期维系“中心”与“外围”的关系结构。可见，推动垄断资本持续盈利，甚至为此不惜牺牲穷人和穷国的利益是当代西方资本主义“绿色化”的根本宗旨。另一方面，资本的生态殖民扩张所导致的生态问题看似平等地存在，实际上却在不公正地影响着世界上的富人和穷人、穷国与富国。面对同样的生态退化，不同阶级、不同发展程度的国家和地区关注的内容是不一样的，他们所承担的生态风险和生态后果也是不一样的。那些发达国家的富人们更关心他们的经济财富数量、优美生活质量问题，而穷人们则更关注自身的生存问题。正如戴维·哈维(David Harvey)指出的，“富人‘无论如何’都不可能放弃舒适的环境，相反，没有能力承受损失的穷人却很可能为了得到一笔微不足道的钱而牺牲它。”16尽管西方国家绿色资本主义的倡导者也将提升人类社会福祉、改善人类生存和发展环境等作为重要目标，但是，单纯将生态系统概念化为人类福利的提供者，实际上掩盖了不平等问题，即“什么福利、为谁的福利”等问题17。在发达资本主义国家内部，穷人实际成为有毒垃圾、被污染的水源、城市有害住房等的最大受害者。在国际范围内，落后国家和地区出现的资源匮乏、空气污染、水质下降、土壤污染等问题严重威胁着当地居民的生命健康，而西方垄断资本对此却视而不见。

Currently, capitalism is eroding civilization and life across the entire planet.[18]18 This echoes a common leftist critique that capitalism is a world-ecological system that degrades both nature and society. Green capitalism has not only failed to resolve the contradictions between humans and nature and between humans themselves, but has further damaged ecological justice. The massive accumulation of wealth in contemporary capitalism is in essence a severe trampling on the basic rights of the poor and poor countries to ecology, health, and security. On one side, developed capitalist countries continue to promote resource plunder and value wealth accumulation worldwide; on the other side, the vast majority of the poor and the people of backward countries suffer from multiple threats such as ecological crises and development crises. With the rampage of ecological colonialism, more and more people in developing countries and regions have launched a series of protest activities. The intensification of global ecological injustice and the resulting social contradictions and conflicts constitute the most powerful refutation of green capitalism.

当前，资本主义侵蚀着整个地球上的文明和生命18。绿色资本主义不仅没能消除人与自然、人与人之间的矛盾，反而进一步损害了生态正义。当代资本主义巨额财富积累实质上是对穷人和穷国生态、健康、安全等基本权利的严重践踏。一面是发达资本主义国家在世界范围内持续推进资源掠夺和价值财富积累，一面是广大穷人和落后国家人民饱受着生态危机、发展危机等重重威胁。随着生态殖民主义的肆虐，越来越多的发展中国家和地区人民展开了一系列抗议活动。全球范围内生态非正义的加剧以及由此引发的一系列社会矛盾和冲突构成了对绿色资本主义最有力的驳击。

II. The “Degrowth” Theory and the Academic Debates It Has Sparked

二、“去增长”理论及其引发的学术争论

While exposing the falsity of green capitalism, Western left-wing scholars have further explored the roots of its failure and pathways to resolution. Among these, they have engaged in intense academic debates focusing on the relationship between economic growth and resources and the environment. The “degrowth” theory, as a theoretical reflection responding to contemporary green capitalism, has had considerable influence in left-wing academic circles, but at the same time faces various criticisms.

西方左翼学者在揭露绿色资本主义虚假性的同时，进一步探讨了绿色资本主义失效的根源及化解路径。其中，重点围绕经济增长与资源环境之间的关系问题，学者们展开了激烈的学术争论。“去增长”理论作为回应当代绿色资本主义的一种理论反思，在左翼学界产生了较大影响，但与此同时又面临着各种质疑。

The exploration of the relationship between economic growth and resources and the environment can actually be traced back to the 18th century. During this period, the famous British economist Thomas Robert Malthus was among the first to notice capitalist environmental problems. In *An Essay on the Principle of Population*, he regarded population growth as the root cause of various social contradictions such as food scarcity, poverty, and war, and advocated limiting population growth as a solution. Entering the mid-to-late 20th century, as capitalist ecological problems became increasingly severe, the Club of Rome largely inherited the Malthusian perspective. In *The Limits to Growth*, they extended the perspective of growth from population growth to material production, energy consumption, environmental pollution, etc., but argued that growth cannot continue indefinitely, and that the finiteness of nature “ultimately determines the earth’s limits to growth.”[19]19 Donella H. Meadows et al., *The Limits to Growth* (New York: Universe Books, 1972), p. 23. Only by implementing “zero growth” could a true balance between ecological demand and supply be achieved. During the same period, economists represented by Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen and Herman Daly also emphasized the role of natural factors in economic growth. Faced with the degradation of ecosystems, Daly more explicitly advocated for the development of a “steady-state economy.” Additionally, the French ecological Marxist representative André Gorz argued that there is a fundamental contradiction between economic growth and natural conditions, and that “economic rationality,” which is committed to maximizing economic efficiency and continuous growth, is essentially different from “ecological rationality,” which pursues minimal natural consumption.[20]20 See André Gorz, *Ecology as Politics* (Boston: South End Press, 1980). Only by replacing “economic rationality” with “ecological rationality” can ecological problems be solved. In summary, the above views provided important intellectual foundations for the “degrowth” theory.

关于经济增长与资源环境关系的探讨实际上可以追溯到18世纪。这一时期，英国著名经济学家托马斯·罗伯特·马尔萨斯(Thomas Robert Malthus)较早地注意到了资本主义环境问题。在《人口原理》一书中，他将人口增长视为诱发粮食匮乏、贫穷和战争等各种社会矛盾的根源，主张将限制人口增长作为解决问题的方案。进入20世纪中后期，伴随着资本主义生态问题的日益严峻，罗马俱乐部在很大程度上继承了马尔萨斯主义的观点。在《增长的极限》中，他们将增长视域由人口增长拓展到物质生产、能源消耗、环境污染等方面，但增长不可能无限持续下去，自然的有限性“最终决定这个地球的增长极限”19。只有实行“零增长”才能真正达到生态需求与供给之间的平衡。同一时期，以尼古拉斯·乔治斯库-罗根(Nicholas Georgescu Roegen)、赫尔曼·戴利(Herman Daly)等为代表的经济学家也强调自然要素在经济增长中的作用，面对生态系统的退化，戴利更明确主张发展“稳态经济”。另外，法国生态学马克思主义代表人物安德烈·高兹(Andre Gorz)认为，经济增长与自然条件之间存在着根本矛盾，致力于经济效益最大化和持续增长的“经济理性”与追求尽可能少的自然消耗的“生态理性”之间有着本质不同20。只有以“生态理性”替代“经济理性”才能解决生态问题。总之，上述观点为“去增长”理论提供了重要的思想基础。

Entering the 21st century, in response to the rise of green capitalism after the financial crisis, the “degrowth” theory advocated by scholars such as Giorgos Kallis and Jason Hickel has become an influential academic trend in Western green left-wing circles. This theory holds that there is a fundamental antagonistic relationship between economic growth and resources and the environment; any mode of production committed to growth, whether capitalist or socialist, is ecologically unsustainable.[21]21 See Giorgos Kallis, *Degrowth* (Newcastle upon Tyne: Agenda Publishing, 2018). That is to say, ecological degradation is closely related to the value obsession with economic growth, and not to specific social modes of production. If a society takes the pursuit of economic growth as its guiding principle, it will inevitably lead to a series of ecological problems. This is mainly because the growth of the human economy and the improvement of material living standards actually imply more material and energy consumption, and more resource consumption inevitably increases the burden on the ecological environment. Only by completely reversing the economic concept aimed at growth can the relationship between humans and nature be truly improved. In this regard, Kallis further specifically analyzed capitalist economic growth and socialist economic growth. In his view, unlimited demand and eternal scarcity constitute the core characteristics of capitalism; capitalism creates scarcity and uses it to justify its unlimited expansion. However, natural limits constitute an obstacle to the unlimited expansion of capital; even with sufficient ecological technology, capital’s uninterrupted growth cannot be sustained. Similarly, if socialism pursues economic growth, it is also ecologically unsustainable and will equally lead to ecological degradation. He denies the possibility of economic growth based on ecological principles under socialism. Although socialism can overcome capitalist alienation and achieve the socialized ownership of the means of production, it still cannot achieve the coordinated development of economic growth and the ecological environment. Therefore, socialism should not blindly imitate capitalism, but should abandon the goal of economic growth and take “degrowth” as the goal of socialism.

进入21世纪针对金融危机发生后绿色资本主义的兴起，乔治·凯利斯、杰森·希克尔等学者倡导的“去增长”理论成为西方绿色左翼学界具有重要影响的学术思潮。这一理论认为，经济增长与资源环境之间存在着一种根本的对立关系，任何一种致力于增长的生产方式无论是资本主义的还是社会主义的，在生态上都是不可持续的21 。即是说，生态退化与对经济增长的价值迷恋密切相关，而与特定的社会生产方式并无关联，如果某种社会将追求经济增长作为主导理念，则必然会导致一系列生态问题。这主要是由于人类经济的增长、物质生活水平的提高实际上意味着更多的物质和能源消耗，而更多的资源消耗势必增加生态环境的负担。只有彻底扭转以增长为目的的经济理念，才能真正改善人与自然的关系。对此，凯利斯进一步具体分析了资本主义经济增长和社会主义经济增长。在他看来，无限需求和永恒匮乏构成了资本主义的核心特征，资本主义制造了稀缺并用它来证明其无限扩张是合理的。然而，自然方面的限制却构成了资本无限扩张的障碍，即便是拥有足够的生态技术也无法维持资本不间断的增长。与之相似，社会主义如果追求经济增长，在生态上也是不可持续的，同样会导致生态退化。他否认社会主义条件下基于生态原则的经济增长，尽管社会主义能够克服资本主义异化、实现生产资料的社会化占有，但它仍然不可能实现经济增长与生态环境的协调发展。因此，社会主义不应当盲目效仿资本主义，而应当放弃经济增长的目标，将“去增长”作为社会主义追求的目标。

Supporters of the “degrowth” theory further explain the connotation of “degrowth.” First, they clarify the distinction between this theory and Malthusian environmentalism. Kallis points out that, on the surface, emphasizing the constraint of natural limits on economic growth is a similarity between the two theories. However, these two theories exhibit considerable differences in terms of whether humans can recognize natural limits and whether they can transcend them. The error of Malthusian environmentalism lies not in their emphasis that growth has limits, but in their pessimistic belief that humans cannot break through natural limits no matter what. In contrast, although the “degrowth” theory also emphasizes natural limits, it is based on a meaning different from that understood by Malthusian environmentalism. This is mainly reflected in the fact that the natural limits referred to by Malthusian environmentalism appear primarily as external, imposed limits; whereas the natural limits referred to by the “degrowth” theory can be avoided, meaning that humans can consciously engage in “self-limitation,” reshape value concepts aimed at growth, and reorganize production, reproduction, and consumption, thereby escaping natural limits.[22]22 Giorgos Kallis, “In Defense of Degrowth,” Ecological Economics, Vol. 70, No. 5, 2011, pp. 873–880. Second, they also specifically analyze the main content and characteristics of “degrowth.” Heikkurinen emphasizes that “degrowth” does not mean reduction in all aspects, let alone economic recession. For example, “degrowth” is planned, and its main purpose is to reduce the damage of economic activities to the ecological environment, reduce social inequality, and promote human well-being; “degrowth” is not simply about reducing economic activities; it also focuses on expanding healthcare, education, and other undertakings. In comparison, economic recession is neither planned nor concerned with the ecological environment, social equality, or human well-being.[23]23 Halme Heikkurinen, “Degrowth by Means of Technology? A Treatise for a Technologically Oriented Degrowth,” Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 197, No. 2, 2018, pp. 1664–1673.

“去增长”理论的支持者们进一步解释了“去增长”的内涵。首先，他们澄清了这一理论与马尔萨斯环境主义的区别。凯利斯指出，表面上看，强调自然极限对经济增长的约束是这两种理论的相似之处。然而，在人类能否认识自然限制、能否超越自然限制等方面，这两种理论又表现出较大差异。马尔萨斯环境主义的错误并不在于他们强调增长是有极限的，而是由于他们悲观地认为人类无论如何都无法突破自然限制。与之不同，“去增长”理论虽然同样强调自然限制，但却建立在不同于马尔萨斯环境主义所理解的意义上。这主要体现为，马尔萨斯环境主义所谓的自然限制主要呈现为一种外部的、强加的限制；而“去增长”理论所谓的自然限制是可以避免的，即人类能够通过有意识的“自我限制”(self-limitation),重塑以增长为目的的价值理念并重新组织生产、再生产和消费等进而摆脱自然限制22。其次，他们还具体分析了“去增长”的主要内容和特点等。海克尔强调，“去增长”并不意味着全方位缩减，更不等同于经济衰退。比如，“去增长”是有计划的，其主要目的在于减少经济活动对生态环境的破坏，减少社会不平等和促进人类福祉；“去增长”也不是一味地减少经济活动，它还注重扩大医疗保健、教育等事业。相比较而言，经济衰退既不是有计划的，更不会关注生态环境、社会平等和人类福祉等23。

The “degrowth” theory has sparked considerable controversy in current Western left-wing academic circles. Overall, the theory’s critique of capital has generally received affirmation from other scholars. David Schwartz clearly states that we basically agree with Kallis and others’ explanation of capitalist economic growth, and we share consistency in this regard.[24]24 David Schwartz, “The Degrowth Movement: A Critical Assessment,” Monthly Review, Vol. 72, No. 3, 2020, pp. 1–15. Eleanor Finley also points out that the “degrowth” theory emphasizes that a planet with limited resources cannot sustain a society committed to ever-increasing material production and consumption. “This theory presents a powerful argument against capitalism, directly challenging the economic thinking driven by resource scarcity.”[25]25 Eleanor Finley, “Beyond the Limits of Nature: A Critique of Degrowth,” Capitalism Nature Socialism, Vol. 31, No. 4, 2020, pp. 1–18. However, even though the “degrowth” theory’s critique of capital accumulation shows considerable commonality with other left-wing scholars, it exhibits significant divergence from other scholars regarding the relationship between economic growth and the ecological environment, especially whether a socialist economy needs growth and its relationship with ecology. Specifically, opponents of the “degrowth” theory focus their critique on the following aspects.

“去增长”理论在当前西方左翼学界引发了较大争议。总体来看，这一理论有关资本批判的观点普遍得到了其他学者的肯定。大卫·施瓦茨曼(David Schwartz)明确指出，我们基本上同意凯利斯等人对资本主义经济增长的解释，在这方面我们有着一致性24。芬利(Eleanor Finley)也指出，“去增长”理论强调一个资源有限的星球无法维持一个致力于不断增长的物质生产和消费的社会，“这一理论提出了一个反对资本主义的有力论据，直接挑战了经济学关于资源稀缺驱动的思维方式。”25 然而，即使“去增长”理论批判资本积累的观点与其他左翼学者表现出较大的共性，但是，在关于经济增长与生态环境的关系、特别是社会主义经济是否需要增长及其与生态的关系等方面，“去增长”理论又与其他学者展现出较大分歧。具体而言，“去增长”理论的反对者们重点从以下方面进行了批判。

First, the “degrowth” theory creates an opposition between humans and nature.

第一，“去增长”理论制造了人与自然之间的对立。

Finley points out that this theory sharply opposes social production to nature, essentially exhibiting a dualistic view of nature. In the schema of the “degrowth” theory, nature is at one end, passive and limited; human society is at the other end, active and unlimited. This undoubtedly severs the organic connection between humans and nature. Finley points out that while creating this opposition and division between humans and nature, this theory interprets the ecological crisis as a failure of human collective self-limitation, which often easily leads to political authoritarianism.[26]26 Eleanor Finley, “Beyond the Limits of Nature: A Critique of Degrowth,” Capitalism Nature Socialism, Vol. 31, No. 4, 2020, pp. 1–18. Schwartz states that the problem with Kallis and others lies in their violation of ecological principles and their misunderstanding of the relationship between human social production and the ecosystem. Ecosystems are not static, and humans are not in absolute confrontation with ecology. Ecosystems are often dynamic and constantly changing; even without human influence, ecosystems interact and change internally.[27]27 David Schwartz, “The Degrowth Movement: A Critical Assessment,” Monthly Review, Vol. 72, No. 3, 2020, pp. 1–15. The development of humans and human society cannot be separated from nature, but there is no direct, proportional relationship between human material consumption and ecological degradation. He further explains that human utilization of clean renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power can not only enhance the level of human social production but also reduce the impact on ecology. Therefore, the relationship between production and ecology cannot be examined from a mechanical or one-sided perspective. In summary, the mechanistic and dualistic defects exhibited by the “degrowth” theory have become important content for criticism by other left-wing scholars.

芬利指出，这一理论将社会生产与自然严重对立起来，实质上展现了二元论的自然观。在“去增长”理论图式中，自然处于一端，是被动地、有限的；人类社会处于另一端，是主动地、无限的，这无疑割裂了人与自然之间的有机联系。芬利指出，这一理论在制造人与自然对立与分裂的同时，将生态危机解释为人类集体自我限制的失败，这又往往容易导致政治上的威权主义26。施瓦茨曼表示，凯利斯等人的问题在于他们违背了生态原则、误解了人类社会生产与生态系统之间的关系。生态系统不是静止不变的，人类也并非处于与生态的绝对抗衡之中。生态系统往往是动态的、不断变化的，即使没有人类的影响，生态系统内部也在相互影响、不断变化27。人及人类社会的发展离不开自然，但人类进行的物质消费与生态退化之间并非直接的、正比例关系。他进一步解释称，人类对风能和太阳能这些清洁的可再生能源的利用，不仅能够提升人类社会生产水平，而且又能够降低对生态的影响。因而，不能用机械地、片面的观点考察生产与生态之间的关系。总之，“去增长”理论展现出的机械论、二元论等缺陷成为其他左翼学者批评的重要内容。

Second, “degrowth” neglects the importance of the mode of production, class relations, and other factors in the study of ecological issues.

第二，“去增长”忽视了生产方式、阶级关系等在生态问题研究中的重要性。

Because the “degrowth” theory overemphasizes values and fantasies, it is often accused of having idealist tendencies.[28]28 See John Bellamy Foster, Brett Clark, and Richard York, The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on the Earth, New York: Monthly Review Press, 2010. German scholar Ulrich Brand points out that in modern environmental political theory, degrowth theory manifests as a conscious change in value concepts. Economic growth is not simply a process of material production and distribution; it is built upon specific social relations of production and is committed to consolidating these relations.[29]29 Ulrich Brand, “How to Get Out of the Growth Trap? A Critique of Degrowth,” in Matthias Schmelzer and Andrea Vetter (eds.), Degrowth: A Vocabulary for a New Era, London: Routledge, 2019, pp. 45–52. Similarly, scholars represented by Foster, Richard Smith, and Stefania Barca also strongly oppose abstractly discussing ecological issues detached from specific social modes of production. Foster points out that the discussion of ecological issues cannot be separated from specific social modes of production; the relations among people in social production fundamentally shape the relationship between humans and nature. As for capitalism, it should “be understood as a mode of production and exchange based on class relations, which accumulates capital through the exploitation of workers’ labor and the private appropriation of surplus value.”[30]30 John Bellamy Foster, “Marx’s Theory of Metabolic Rift: Classical Foundations for Environmental Sociology,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 105, No. 2, 1999, pp. 366–405. It is precisely by relying on this unique social mode of production that capital achieves the dual exploitation of nature and labor. Barca also points out that building an ecologically sound society is not just about reducing material production activities; if the alienation of labor under capitalism cannot be overcome, and if workers cannot achieve democratic control and decision-making over the means of production and surplus products, then so-called “degrowth” cannot be realized. Therefore, “building a degrowth society can only begin with promoting de-alienation.”[31]31 Stefania Barca, “Labor and the Ecological Crisis: The Case for a Degrowth Strategy,” in Aaron Vansintjan (ed.), The Future Is Degrowth: A Guide to a World Beyond Capitalism, London: Verso, 2020, pp. 123–140. Thus, in the view of the above scholars, resolving the ecological crisis of capitalist society is not merely a matter of changing values or transforming economic concepts; it more deeply involves the reconstruction of the mode of ownership of the means of production, the mode of wealth distribution, and so on.

由于“去增长”理论过度关注价值观和幻想，它常常被指责为具有唯心主义倾向28。德国学者乌尔里希·布兰德(Ulrich Brand)指出，在现代环境政治理论中，去增长理论展现为一种有意识的价值观念变革。经济增长不单纯是一个物质生产与分配的过程，它建立在特定的社会生产关系之上并致力于巩固这一关系29。相类似，以福斯特、理查德·史密斯(Richard Smith)、斯特凡尼娅·巴尔卡(Stefania Barca)等为代表的学者也极力反对脱离特定社会生产方式、抽象地谈论生态问题。福斯特指出，对生态问题的探讨离不开特定的社会生产方式，人与人之间在社会生产中的关系状况从根本上塑造着人与自然之间的关系。就资本主义而言，它应当“被理解为一种基于阶级关系基础之上的生产和交换模式，它通过剥削工人劳动和对剩余价值的私人占有来进行资本积累”30。正是依托这种独特的社会生产方式，资本实现了对自然和劳动的双重剥削。巴尔卡也指出，构建生态良好的社会不只是物质生产活动的减少，如果不能克服资本主义的劳动异化，不能实现劳动者对生产资料以及剩余产品的民主控制与决策，就不可能实现所谓的“去增长”。因此，“建设一个去增长的社会只能从促进去异化开始”31。可见，在上述学者看来，化解资本主义社会的生态危机不仅仅是一个改变价值观或变革经济理念的问题，它更深层地涉及生产资料的占有方式、财富分配方式等的重构。

Third, the “degrowth” theory denies the necessity of socialist economic growth and its consistency with ecology.

第三，“去增长”理论否认社会主义经济增长的必要性及其与生态的一致性。

Schwartz believes that Kallis opposes socialist economic growth mainly because he has serious misunderstandings about socialism and fails to grasp the essential difference between capitalist growth and socialist growth. Socialism is not merely a system of wealth distribution; it is a social mode of production that replaces capitalist private ownership with the collective control of the means of production. Whether it is to meet people’s needs for higher-quality health, education, etc., or to effectively respond to natural disasters, diseases, and other issues, socialism relies on a certain degree of economic growth. And without a certain degree of economic growth, socialism cannot distribute and redistribute wealth, nor can it meet high-quality human needs or enhance human well-being.[32]32 David Schwartz, “The Degrowth Movement: A Critical Assessment,” Monthly Review, Vol. 72, No. 3, 2020, pp. 1–15. Moreover, economic growth has entirely different goals under different social conditions. Socialist economic growth is not subordinated to the need for capital profit, but is based on the need to satisfy the development of people themselves and the entire human society. As Brand points out, production solely for profit growth is fundamentally different from production oriented toward human well-being, the quality of production and consumption, and the ecological environment.[33]33 Ulrich Brand, “How to Get Out of the Growth Trap? A Critique of Degrowth,” in Matthias Schmelzer and Andrea Vetter (eds.), Degrowth: A Vocabulary for a New Era, London: Routledge, 2019, pp. 45–52. Therefore, under socialist production conditions, especially after achieving the socialized control of the means of production, humans and nature can fundamentally escape the alienated state under capitalist conditions.

施瓦茨曼认为，凯利斯之所以反对社会主义经济增长，主要是因为他对社会主义存在严重误解，也没有把握到资本主义增长与社会主义增长之间的本质区别。社会主义不仅仅是一种关于财富分配的制度，它更是以生产资料的联合控制取代资本主义私人占有的一种社会生产方式。无论是为满足人们追求更高质量的健康、教育等方面的需要，还是为有效应对自然灾害、疾病等问题，社会主义都依赖一定的经济增长。而如果没有一定的经济增长，社会主义就不可能对财富进行分配和再分配，也不可能满足人类高质量的需要、增进人类福祉32。并且，经济增长在不同的社会条件下有着截然不同的目标。社会主义经济增长不是服从于资本获利的需要，而是基于满足人自身及整个人类社会发展的需要。正如布兰德所指出的，单纯以获利增长的生产和以人类福祉、生产和消费质量、生态环境等为导向的生产有着根本不同33 。因此，在社会主义生产条件下，特别是在实现生产资料的社会化控制之后，人与自然能够从根本上摆脱资本主义条件下的异化状态。

In summary, the “degrowth” theory and the academic debates it has sparked constitute an important part of the Western left-wing academic community’s active reflection on green capitalism in the post-financial-crisis era. This academic debate reveals significant differences among scholars in theoretical perspectives, research methods, and other aspects, and a unified theoretical understanding has not yet been formed. However, this academic debate has also expanded scholars’ exploration of the capitalist ecological crisis and demonstrated the diversified characteristics of their designs for alternatives to capitalist society.

总之，“去增长”理论及其引发的学术争论构成了后金融危机时代西方左翼学界积极反思绿色资本主义的重要内容。这一学术争论反映出学者们在理论观点、研究方法等方面存在着较大差异，尚未形成统一的理论认识。但是，这一学术争论也拓展了学者们对资本主义生态危机的探讨，并展现出他们对资本主义社会替代方案设计的多元化特点。

III. Western Left-Wing Scholars’ Design of Social-Ecological Transformation Schemes

三、西方左翼学者对社会生态转型方案的设计

In the process of seeking alternatives to capitalist society, promoting social-ecological transformation has become a new demand for many Western left-wing scholars in the post-financial-crisis era. They have not only clarified the basic connotation of social-ecological transformation but also planned specific pathways for it. Compared with the past, the pathways for social transformation in this period exhibit a series of new changes and new characteristics.

在寻求资本主义社会替代方案的进程中，推动社会生态转型成为后金融危机时代许多西方左翼学者的新诉求。他们不仅明确了社会生态转型的基本内涵，而且规划了社会生态转型的具体路径。较之以往，这一时期的社会转型路径又呈现出一系列新变化、新特点。

Social-ecological transformation is regarded by many left-wing scholars as a process of thorough change involving social economy, politics, culture, and so on. Australian scholar Robyn Eckersley explains the connotation of social-ecological transformation by distinguishing between the two concepts of “transition” and “transformation.” In her view, “transition” and “transformation” are two different concepts. The former refers to a shift from one state to another, while the latter implies a more radical and thorough change in social form.[34]34 Robyn Eckersley, “Ecological Democracy and the State: Reflections on Visions, Goals and Strategies,” in The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Political Theory, ed. Teena Gabrielson et al. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 320. Regarding the understanding of social “transformation,” Eckersley cites Karl Polanyi’s analysis of the “Great Transformation.” Polanyi regarded the “Great Transformation” as a process of the replacement of social forms, in which the liberalization of markets, the commodification of land and labor, and so on triggered changes in class relations, state functions, cultural cognition, social identity, and the flow of resources and energy, thereby promoting the replacement of feudal society by capitalist society. Furthermore, Eckersley further explains that although there is also a connection between “transition” and “transformation”—namely, that the continuous accumulation of the former provides the basis for the latter—it is necessary to distinguish between the two concepts. One important reason for this is that this distinction provides a method for understanding and assessing the depth and direction of social change.[35]35 Robyn Eckersley, “Ecological Democracy and the State,” 321.

社会生态转型被许多左翼学者视为涉及社会经济、政治、文化等的彻底变革过程。澳大利亚学者罗宾·埃克斯利(Robyn Eckersley)通过区分“过渡”和“转型”两个概念来阐释社会生态转型的内涵。在她看来，“过渡”和“转型”是两个不同的概念。前者指从一种状态过渡到另一种状态；而后者则意味着更激进、更彻底的社会形态的变革34。对社会“转型”的理解，埃克斯利引证了波兰尼(Karl Polanyi)关于“大转型”的分析。波兰尼将“大转型”视为社会形态更替的过程，其中，市场的自由化、土地和劳动力的商品化等引发了阶级关系、国家功能、文化认知、社会身份、资源能源流动等方面的变化，进而推动了资本主义社会对封建社会的替代。另外，埃克斯利进一步解释称，尽管“过渡”与“转型”之间也存有联系，即前者的不断积累为后者提供了基础，但是对“过渡”和“转型”这两个概念做出区分是有必要的。其中一方面重要原因在于，这种区分为理解和评估社会变革的深度和方向提供了一种方法35。

Unlike scholars such as Eckersley who grasp the connotation of social-ecological transformation by differentiating between concepts, Brand focuses on revealing the essential connotation of social-ecological transformation on the basis of critiquing the Western ecological modernization theory research paradigm. Faced with the capitalist ecological crisis, mainstream Western thinkers, social elites, and others advocate implementing a “green development” strategy involving value concepts, social norms, the application of ecological technology, and so on. In Brand’s view, this strategy is in fact no different from the capitalist ecological modernization theory. Their fundamental problem is that the diagnosis of the ecological crisis is hardly conducted from the perspective of critiquing capitalism; it merely roots social change within the existing economic, political, and cultural institutions of capitalism.[36]36 Ulrich Brand, “Green Economy, Green Capitalism and the Imperial Mode of Living: Limits to a Prominent Strategy, Contours of a Possible New Capitalist Formation,” Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 9, no. 1 (2016): 107-122. In contrast, the theory of social-ecological transformation examines capitalist society from a critical perspective, advocates more radical social change, and is committed to constructing modes of production, consumption, and power structures that transcend capitalism. Faced with the multiple crises of capitalism, promoting social change in capitalism is an ongoing process. “But the important question is, which logic of change will become dominant. This will have profound political-strategic implications.”[37]37 Ulrich Brand, “Green Economy, Green Capitalism and the Imperial Mode of Living,” 119. Thus, the so-called social-ecological transformation is essentially a systemic renewal encompassing politics, culture, norms, and so on, based on the thorough transformation of the capitalist system. Emphasizing the unity of environmental change and social system change constitutes an important feature of the theory of social-ecological transformation.

不同于埃克斯利等学者通过辨析不同概念来把握社会生态转型的内涵，布兰德重点在批判西方生态现代化理论研究范式的基础上，揭示了社会生态转型的本质内涵。面对资本主义生态危机，西方国家主流思想家、社会精英等主张实施涉及价值理念、社会规范、生态技术运用等方面的“绿色发展”战略。在布兰德看来，这一战略实际上无异于资本主义生态现代化理论。它们的根本性问题在于：对生态危机的诊断几乎没有从批判资本主义的角度进行，仅仅将社会的变革植根于资本主义现有的经济、政治、文化制度之中36。相反，社会生态转型理论从批判的角度来审视资本主义社会，倡导更加激进的社会变革，致力于建构超越资本主义的生产方式、消费方式和权力结构等。面对资本主义的重重危机，推动资本主义的社会变革是持续发生的过程。“但是，重要的问题是，什么样的变革逻辑将占据主导地位。这将产生深远的政治战略影响。”37 可见，所谓的社会生态转型实质上是在彻底变革资本主义制度基础上涵盖政治、文化、规范等的系统革新，强调环境改变与社会制度变革的统一构成了社会生态转型理论的重要特征。

At the same time, Western left-wing scholars have further explored the specific pathways for social-ecological transformation. As for how to promote social-ecological transformation, scholars’ views share commonalities while also having their own distinctive features. Compared with previous scholars’ planning of ideal social schemes, their design of pathways for social-ecological transformation in this period mainly exhibits the following new characteristics.

与此同时，西方左翼学者进一步探讨了社会生态转型的具体路径。至于如何推动社会生态转型，学者们的观点既有共性，又各具特色。较之于以往学者们对理想社会方案的规划，这一时期，他们对社会生态转型路径的设计主要呈现以下新特点。

On the one hand, the critique and examination of capitalism have gradually become more rational. Unlike most previous left-wing scholars’ extreme and one-sided critiques of capitalism, some scholars have gradually adopted a relatively rational and tolerant attitude toward green capitalism. Although they deny the thoroughness and authenticity of green capitalism, they also recognize the positive significance of state governance, ecological technology, and so on in ecological governance and social transformation. Schwartzman explicitly points out that the lack of strategic thinking is a notable deficiency of the contemporary left, and its important manifestation is simply adopting a comprehensive critical perspective to examine green capitalism, ignoring or denying the role of the “Green New Deal” in social transformation.[38]38 David Schwartzman, “A Critique of Degrowth and Its Politics,” Capitalism Nature Socialism 23, no. 1 (2012): 119-125. In his view, although the “Green New Deal” currently promoted by Western countries cannot completely save capitalism, these policies can play a potentially facilitating role. This is mainly because, given the increasingly severe ecological degradation, various policies and measures conducive to maintaining ecological development cannot wait until after socialism is achieved to begin implementation. Only by launching various ecological protection projects under the existing capitalist system can a path toward ecological socialism truly be opened.[39]39 David Schwartzman, “A Critique of Degrowth and Its Politics,” 123. Furthermore, the “Green New Deal” introduced by developed countries provides favorable factors for the transition to ecological socialism. Whether it is active government intervention, the development of green industries, or the application of energy-saving and environmental protection technologies, these not only help improve the ecological environment but also help enhance workers’ own welfare. Thus, the “strategic thinking” emphasized by Schwartzman is actually adopting a dialectical attitude toward green capitalism, effectively integrating the use of green capitalism into the process of replacing capitalism and constructing ecological socialism.

一方面，对资本主义的批判与审视渐趋理性。与以往多数左翼学者对资本主义极端、片面的批判有所不同，一些学者逐渐对绿色资本主义采取了相对理性、包容的态度。他们虽然否认绿色资本主义的彻底性、真实性，但他们也意识到国家治理、生态技术等在生态治理和社会转型中的积极意义。施瓦茨曼明确指出，缺乏战略思维是当代左翼的显著缺陷，其重要表现就是单纯用一种全面批判的眼光审视绿色资本主义，忽视或否认“绿色新政”在社会转型中的作用38。在他看来，尽管当前西方国家推崇的“绿色新政”不可能彻底地挽救资本主义，但是，这些政策却可以发挥潜在的促进作用。这主要由于，鉴于当前日益严峻的生态退化，各种有利于维护生态发展的政策、措施不可能等到社会主义实现以后才开始实施。在现有的资本主义制度下启动各种生态保护项目，才能真正开辟一条通往生态社会主义的道路39。另外，当前发达国家出台的“绿色新政”为实现向生态社会主义转变提供了有利因素。无论是政府的积极干预、绿色产业的发展，还是节能环保技术的运用等，不仅有助于改善生态环境，而且有助于提升工人自身福利。可见，施瓦茨曼所强调的“战略思维”实际上是用一种辩证的态度对待绿色资本主义，将有效利用绿色资本主义统一于替代资本主义、建构生态社会主义进程之中。

Regarding how to utilize green capitalism, many left-wing scholars particularly emphasize the role of the state in social-ecological transformation. For a long time, on the issue of the relationship between the state and ecological governance, scholars have mainly formed two views: one emphasizes the compatibility and consistency between the capitalist state and capital accumulation, exposes the essence of the state serving capital accumulation, and thereby denies or downplays the role of the state in social-ecological transformation; the other, while not denying the intrinsic connection between the state and the social economy, emphasizes the unique responsibilities and functions of the state in social change, especially its positive role in promoting ecological improvement. Currently, the latter view has gained recognition from many scholars. Scholars such as Christoph Görg argue that the state is neither a neutral entity nor simply an instrument of capital rule, but a social relation.[40]40 Christoph Görg, “The State in the Web of Global Social Relations: A Contribution to a Materialist State Theory,” in The State and the Global Ecological Crisis, ed. John Barry and Robyn Eckersley (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005), 67-86. The concept of the state cannot be examined from itself alone, but should be examined from the social relations in which it is situated and through its functions in maintaining or changing various social relations. Specifically, the state plays a crucial role in coordinating multiple economic and political conflicts and promoting social consensus. Struggles in the ecological field are also inseparable from the state; the state must be regarded as a key force in promoting social-ecological transformation. Austrian scholar Daniel Hausknost and British scholar Marit Hammond also point out in their article “Beyond the Environmental State? The Political Prospects of a Sustainability Transformation” that although the “environmental state,” as a popular term in current Western developed countries, has never completely broken the institutional framework of capitalism, the role of the state in ecological governance and environmental political transformation cannot be simply denied. This requires updating concepts and reconsidering and reassessing the capacity of the state to promote social-ecological transformation.[41]41 Daniel Hausknost and Marit Hammond, “Beyond the Environmental State? The Political Prospects of a Sustainability Transformation,” Environmental Politics 29, no. 1 (2020): 1-18.

对于如何利用绿色资本主义，许多左翼学者特别强调国家在社会生态转型中的作用。长期以来，围绕国家与生态治理的关系问题，学者们主要形成了两种观点：一是强调资本主义国家与资本积累的相容性、一致性，揭露国家服务于资本积累的实质，进而否认或淡化国家在社会生态转型中的作用；二是虽不否认国家与社会经济之间的内在联系，但又强调国家在社会变革中所具有的独特责任与职能，特别是在促进生态改善方面的积极作用。当前，后一种观点获得许多学者的认同。克里斯托夫·戈尔格(Christoph Görg)等学者认为，国家既非中立的实体，也不单纯是资本统治的工具，而是一种社会关系40。对国家概念的理解不能从其自身加以考察，而应当从它所处的社会关系、通过它在维系或变更各种社会关系中的功能等来进行审视。具体而言，国家在协调多方面的经济、政治冲突以及促进社会共识等方面发挥着至关重要的作用。生态领域的斗争同样离不开国家，必须将国家视为推动社会生态转型的关键力量。奥地利学者丹尼尔·霍斯克诺斯特(Daniel Hausknost)和英国学者马丁·哈蒙德(Marit Hammond)在《超越环境国家?可持续转型的政治前景》一文中也指出，“环境国家”作为当前西方发达国家流行的术语，虽从未彻底打破资本主义的制度框架，但不能一味否认国家在生态治理和环境政治转型中的作用。这就需要更新观念，重新考虑和评估国家对于推动社会生态转型的能力41。

On the other hand, attention is focused on the political alliance of ecological movements in different countries and regions. In the past, left-wing scholars emphasized the political alliance of different classes, strata, and social organizations within capitalist countries. Currently, Western left-wing scholars’ exploration of the pathways for social-ecological transformation has taken on a more global perspective. In addition to closely following political alliances within developed countries, they also pay attention to and affirm the frequently emerging ecological movements in developing countries and regions, advocating for regional and global ecological cooperation among different countries and regions.

另一方面，着眼于不同国家和地区生态运动的政治联合。以往，左翼学者们侧重强调资本主义国家内部不同阶级、阶层、社会组织等的政治联合。当前，西方左翼学者关于社会生态转型路径的探讨更加具有全球视野。除了密切关注发达国家内部政治联合外，他们还关注和肯定发展中国家和地区频频兴起的生态运动，倡导不同国家和地区开展地区性、全球性的生态合作。

The reasons for the above changes are multifaceted. First, the expansion of ecological colonialism in developed countries intensifies global ecological contradictions. The conflict between capital and ecology has broken through the boundaries of nations and ethnic regions and expanded globally. Ecological contradictions are not only manifested between the rich and the poor within capitalist countries but are also prominently reflected between underdeveloped and developed countries. The production and reproduction of capitalist society is a self-propelling, continuously expanding process. Faced with various ecological obstacles, breaking through regional boundaries to find new sources of resources globally and achieving the substitution of means of production has become an important way for capital to achieve sustained valorization. Moreover, with the continuous expansion of capital, the production and lifestyle of Western developed countries have gradually permeated underdeveloped countries and regions, becoming a template blindly imitated by some groups. This makes different countries and regions closely correlated in solving ecological problems.[42]42 The original text uses a superscript numeral 42, indicating a footnote in the source material that is not provided here. Second, ecological movements exhibit different characteristics in developed and developing countries. One is that ecological movements in Western countries encounter new difficulties. Since the rise of ecological movements in Western countries, although they have played a certain positive role in promoting ecological improvement, they currently face a series of new problems. Due to differences in guiding ideology, interest starting points, and value cognition, various ecological organizations are divided into many factions with serious disagreements, making it difficult to carry out united and effective cooperation. More seriously, in recent years, with the “green” turn of Western governments, some workers’ organizations and social groups have even been co-opted by the government, developing greater illusions about the so-called “green growth” and “green economy” of capitalism, gradually transforming from critics of capitalism into its defenders. The other is the rise of radical ecological movements in developing countries and regions. Along with the expansion of ecological colonialism by developed countries, relevant organizations and people in underdeveloped countries and regions have questioned and criticized the global economic and political order, and have launched a series of resistance movements demanding ecological justice, requiring developed countries to assume ecological responsibility and pay ecological debts. Among them, some trade union organizations in Southern countries and regions have even proposed more radical policies, such as calling for a thorough change in the mode of ownership of the means of production.

出现上述变化的原因是多方面的。首先，发达国家的生态殖民主义扩张加剧全球生态矛盾。资本与生态之间的矛盾冲突已经突破国家和民族地区界限向全球范围扩展，生态矛盾不仅体现在资本主义国家穷人和富人之间，而且突出地体现在欠发达国家与发达国家之间。资本主义社会生产及再生产是一个自我推进、持续扩张的进程，面对种种生态障碍，冲破地域界限在全球范围内寻找新的资源产地、实现生产资料替换就成了资本实现持续增殖的重要方式。并且，伴随着资本的持续扩张，西方发达国家的生产和生活方式逐渐渗透到欠发达国家和地区，成为部分群体盲目效仿的模板。这就使得不同国家和地区在生态问题的解决方面具有某种密切相关性42。其次，生态运动在发达国家和发展中国家呈现出不同特点。一是西方国家生态运动遭遇新困境。西方国家的生态运动兴起一段时间以来，尽管在促进生态改善方面发挥了一定积极作用，但是，它们在当前又面临着一系列新问题。由于在指导思想、利益出发点、价值认知等方面存在差异，各种生态组织派别林立、分歧严重，难以开展团结有效的合作。更为严重的是，近些年来，伴随着西方政府的“绿色”转向，一些工人组织、社会团体甚至被政府笼络，对资本主义所谓的“绿色增长”“绿色经济”等产生较大幻想，逐渐由资本主义的批判者蜕变为护卫士。二是发展中国家和地区激进的生态运动兴起。伴随发达国家的生态殖民主义扩张，欠发达国家和地区相关组织和民众纷纷质疑、批判全球经济政治秩序，并开展了一系列争取生态正义、要求发达国承担生态责任、支付生态债务的反抗运动。其中，一些南方国家和地区的工会组织甚至还提出更激进的政策，如呼吁彻底改变生产资料的占有方式等。

Based on this, Western left-wing scholars have gradually paid high attention to ecological movements in developing countries and regions. They advocate active ecological and political cooperation between different countries and regions, and even place the leading force of the global ecological movement on these countries and regions. Brand believes that it is necessary to adopt a global and long-term perspective for the analysis of social-ecological transformation, and strengthening the political alliance of the green left between different countries and regions is not only a matter of principle but a matter of accelerating the overall process of social-ecological transformation.[43]43 The original text uses a superscript numeral 43, indicating a footnote in the source material that is not provided here. Foster also points out that the destruction of the foundation of all human survival and development by capitalism will ultimately force the world’s workers to unite and seek a new path forward. In his view, the main political forces and struggle strategies for changing the world’s ecological situation are currently concentrated in the Third World.[44]44 The original text uses a superscript numeral 44, indicating a footnote in the source material that is not provided here. [n] “Four Confidences” (四个自信) refers to confidence in the path, theory, system, and culture of socialism with Chinese characteristics, a key political slogan of the CPC.

基于此，西方左翼学者逐渐对发展中国家和地区的生态运动给予高度关注。他们倡导不同国家和地区之间开展积极的生态政治合作，甚至将全球生态运动的主导力量寄托于这些国家和地区。布兰德认为，对于社会生态转型的分析采取全球和长期视角都是十分必要的，加强不同国家和地区之间绿色左翼的政治联合不仅是一个原则性问题，而是加速社会生态转型总体进程的问题43。福斯特也指出，资本主义对整个人类生存与发展基础的破坏，最终将迫使世界工人联合起来寻求新的前进道路。在他看来，当前改变世界生态状况的主要政治力量和斗争策略主要集中在第三世界44。

Conclusion

结 语

In summary, in response to the new “green” changes of contemporary capitalism, Western left-wing academic circles have exposed the essence of this change, focusing on academic discussions on the relationship between economic growth and resources and the environment, and redesigning specific plans for future social-ecological transformation. This theoretical research undoubtedly has certain positive significance. On the one hand, this research provides a reference for us to rationally understand and grasp the new changes in contemporary capitalism. After the international financial crisis, seeking “green growth” of capital has become an important concept and practice for Western countries to try to resolve the crisis and achieve self-redemption. Is this change effective? Can it truly achieve the reconciliation between humans and nature? In this regard, the active theoretical discussions by left-wing scholars provide useful references for us to grasp the essence of green capitalism and judge its development trends. On the other hand, this theoretical discussion, to a certain extent, defends the contemporary value of Marxism. The significance of the basic viewpoints and methods of Marxism for solving contemporary ecological problems is beyond doubt, but how to further apply and develop this scientific theory in light of the changes in the New Era is worthy of in-depth study. Currently, the criticism and reflection on green capitalism by some left-wing scholars can be said to have borrowed from relevant Marxist theories to a certain extent, and have to a certain extent expanded the research horizon of Marxism. Although this theoretical research is not yet mature or perfect, its theoretical consciousness is worthy of affirmation.

总之，针对当代资本主义的“绿色”新变，西方左翼学界揭露了这一变化的实质，重点围绕经济增长与资源环境的关系问题展开学术探讨，并重新设计未来社会生态转型的具体方案。这一理论研究无疑具有一定积极意义。一方面，这一研究为我们理性认识和把握当代资本主义新变化提供了参考。国际金融危机之后，谋求资本的“绿色增长”成为西方国家试图化解危机、进行自我救赎的重要理念和实践。这一转变是否有效?能否真正实现人与自然的和解?对此，左翼学者积极展开的理论探讨对于我们把握绿色资本主义的本质、研判其发展趋势等提供了有益借鉴。另一方面，这一理论探讨在一定程度上捍卫了马克思主义的时代价值。马克思主义的基本观点和方法对于解决当代生态问题的意义毋庸置疑，但如何结合新时代变化进一步运用和发展这一科学理论却值得深入研究。当前，一些左翼学者对绿色资本主义的批判与反思可以说在某种程度上借鉴了马克思主义的相关理论，在一定程度上拓展了马克思主义的研究视域。这一理论研究虽尚不成熟、不完善，但其理论自觉值得肯定。

At the same time, it cannot be ignored that we must clearly see that this theoretical research still has obvious shortcomings. For example, from the perspective of the scientific nature of the theory, whether in discussing the relationship between economic growth and the ecological environment, or in exploring the practical pathways of social transformation, some scholars either completely abandon the viewpoints and methods of historical materialism, or attempt to use historical materialism but fail to adhere to it consistently. From the perspective of the systematicity and unity of the theory, Western left-wing scholars have significant differences in theoretical foundations, research methods, and academic interests, resulting in large divergences in their theoretical viewpoints, making it difficult to form a complete and consistent theoretical system. In addition, although the current criticism of capitalism by left-wing scholars is gradually showing a relatively objective and fair attitude, their theories are either confined to unrealistic theoretical fantasies, or, facing enormous resistance from capitalist society, they reveal a pessimistic mood about the future, thereby degenerating into theoretical tools serving Western countries. In view of this, only by consistently adhering to the basic stance, viewpoints, and methods of Marxism, and firmly strengthening the “Four Confidences”[n] in the socialist ecological civilization with Chinese characteristics, can the harmonious coexistence between humans and nature be truly achieved.

与此同时，不可忽视的是，我们又要清醒地看到这一理论研究还存在着明显缺陷。比如，从理论的科学性来看，无论是在探讨经济增长和生态环境的关系问题上，还是在探讨社会转型的实践路径等方面，一些学者要么彻底抛弃历史唯物主义的观点和方法，要么试图运用历史唯物主义但又未能始终如一地坚守。从理论的系统性、统一性来看，西方左翼学者在理论基础、研究方法、学术兴趣等方面存在显著差异，致使他们的理论观点分歧较大，难以形成完整、一致的理论体系。另外，当前左翼学者对资本主义的批判尽管逐渐呈现出相对客观、中肯的态度，但他们的理论要么拘泥于不切实际的理论幻想，要么面对来自资本主义社会的巨大阻力又对未来流露出悲观情绪，进而退化为服务西方国家的理论工具。鉴于此，唯有始终坚持马克思主义的基本立场、观点和方法，坚定中国特色社会主义生态文明“四个自信”,才能真正实现人与自然和谐共生。

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑