A Summary of Overseas Research on “Political Marxism”

“Political Marxism” is an important academic school of contemporary overseas Marxism. It emerged in the 1970s, gained popularity in Anglo-American Marxist academic circles, and has significant influence among the Western left. Its principal founders, Robert Brenner and Ellen Meiksins Wood, adhere to the basic viewpoints and methods of Marxism and have constructed their unique theoretical system of “political-historical materialism.” They oppose ahistorical traditional Marxist analytical models, arguing that historical materialism remains the best theoretical weapon for critiquing capitalism. However, they also contend that historical materialism cannot be understood as a general law of social history but should first be understood as a critique of capitalist society. They place great emphasis on the role of class relations, social property relations, and the like in explaining historical development. In recent years, research on “Political Marxism” within both domestic and international academic circles has entered a phase of steady development. Scholars from various fields have studied “Political Marxism” from multiple perspectives, profoundly elucidating its fundamental theoretical issues, main content, and contemporary value.

“政治马克思主义”是当代国外马克思主义的重要学术流派，兴起于20世纪70年代，流行于英美马克思主义学界，在西方左翼中有着重要的影响，其主要创始人罗伯特·布伦纳（Robert Brenner）、艾伦·梅克森斯·伍德（Ellen Meiksins Wood）坚持马克思主义的基本观点和方法，构建了其独特的“政治—历史唯物主义”理论体系。他们反对非历史的传统马克思主义分析模式，认为历史唯物主义仍然是批判资本主义的最佳理论武器；但他们也认为历史唯物主义不能被理解为社会历史的一般规律，而应该首先理解为对资本主义社会的批判。他们非常强调阶级关系、社会财产关系等在解释历史发展中的作用。近年来，国内外学术界对“政治马克思主义”的研究已经进入一个稳步发展阶段，国内外学界从多个方面对“政治马克思主义”进行了研究，深刻阐释了“政治马克思主义”的基本理论问题、主要内容和当代价值。

I. The Connotation and Formation of “Political Marxism”

一、“政治马克思主义”的内涵与形成

“Political Marxism” took shape in North America and has undergone over forty years of development, forming three generations of academic community. [1]1 The “three generations” refer to the chronological development of scholars within the Political Marxism school: the first generation includes founders Robert Brenner and Ellen Meiksins Wood; the second generation includes scholars like David McNally and Vivek Chibber; the third generation includes younger scholars continuing the tradition. David McNally points out: “Wood’s theoretical orientation was dubbed ‘Political Marxism’ by the French historian Guy Bois. Wood undoubtedly gave greater weight to social and political struggle than many Marxist historians, though she had reservations about the label: she acknowledged the importance of political economy and the process of economic development, but she believed that these alone could not explain major historical changes, thus requiring greater attention to political events that had occurred.” [2]2 Guy Bois (1923-2013) was a French Marxist historian specializing in the Middle Ages, who first used the term “Political Marxism” to characterize Wood’s approach. Vivek Chibber notes that Wood played an important role in the development of “Political Marxism,” while the initial discussions revolved around the works of Robert Brenner, focusing on the analysis of the origins of capitalism and its structure. [3]3 Vivek Chibber (b. 1965) is an Indian-American Marxist sociologist and a prominent figure in the second generation of Political Marxism.

“政治马克思主义”在北美形成，已经过了40多年的发展历程，形成了三代学术共同体。[1] 戴维·麦克纳利（David McNally）指出：“伍德的理论取向，被法国历史学家盖伊·博伊斯冠以‘政治马克思主义’的称号。伍德无疑比许多马克思主义历史学家给予社会和政治斗争更大的重视，不过她对这个称号亦有所保留：她同意政治经济学和经济发展进程的重要，但她只是认为，仅仅于此还未能解释重大的历史变化，因而需要更加重视曾经发生的政治事件。”[2] 韦维·克切伯尔（Vivek Chibber）指出，伍德在“政治马克思主义”的发展中扮演重要的角色，而最初的讨论是围绕罗伯特·布伦纳的著作展开的，聚焦于资本主义的起源及其结构的分析。[3]

Regarding the connotation of “Political Marxism,” the academic community has largely reached a consensus, forming relatively precise conclusions. Some scholars point out that the connotation of “Political Marxism” mainly includes four aspects: First, “Political Marxism” is the product of the mutual collision, fusion, and competition of various overseas Marxist trends of thought in the 1970s (such as the British Marxist historical school, structuralist Marxism, post-Marxism, etc.) within a specific historical context. Second, “Political Marxism” is the collective wisdom formed through the independent exploration, mutual influence, and joint development of the two founders, Brenner and Wood, and their students in a specific historical context. Third, “Political Marxism” has developed into a theoretical school with two or three generations of theoretical inheritance, multiple academic centers, and influence across many disciplinary fields. Fourth, the core categories and methods of “Political Marxism” are historical specificity, class relations, and class analysis, and to a certain extent, it has made an important deepening of the historical-political dimension of historical materialism. [4]4 The “Brenner Debate” refers to a major historical controversy in the 1970s-80s, initiated by Brenner’s 1976 article “Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Europe,” which critiqued demographic and commercialization models of the transition from feudalism to capitalism, sparking extensive discussion among Marxist and non-Marxist historians. Some scholars believe that “Political Marxism” takes history as the core of theoretical analysis, emphasizes the role of social subjects and class conflict in explaining history, and opposes ahistorical traditional Marxist analytical models. They argue that historical materialism cannot be understood as a general law of social history but should first be understood as a critique of capitalist society. [5]5 The term “Political Marxism” (政治马克思主义) refers to a current of Marxist thought developed primarily by Ellen Meiksins Wood and Robert Brenner, emphasizing the political and class-conflict dimensions of historical materialism, distinct from both orthodox and post-Marxist approaches. Other scholars point out that the theoretical viewpoint of “Political Marxism” emphasizes the critique of capitalist society and the reinterpretation of historical materialism. [6]6 “Accumulation by dispossession” (剥夺性积累) is a concept developed by David Harvey to describe the ongoing process by which capital expands through the appropriation of existing assets and resources, often through extra-economic means, as distinct from expanded reproduction. The “Political Marxism” pioneered by Brenner and Wood abandons the classical Marxist model of historical change and prioritizes the close integration of production with the explanation of history. [7]7 The “base-superstructure” metaphor (基础－上层建筑) refers to Marx’s formulation in the 1859 Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*, where the economic base (relations of production) conditions the legal and political superstructure (forms of social consciousness). “Political Marxism” is committed to the critique of capitalism. It not only does not deviate from Marxism but also clarifies a series of issues in traditional Marxism concerning the origin, essence, and developmental forms of capitalism. By reconstructing the mode of social-historical analysis, it strengthens Marx’s analytical method of historical materialism and highlights the contemporary value of Marxism. [8]8 The original note [45] is retained as a citation marker.

对于“政治马克思主义”的内涵，学界基本达成了共识，形成了较为准确的结论。有学者指出，“政治马克思主义”的内涵主要包括四个方面：第一，“政治马克思主义”是20世纪70年代诸多国外马克思主义思潮（如英国马克思主义历史学派、结构主义马克思主义、后马克思主义等）在特定历史语境下相互碰撞、融合和竞争的产物。第二，“政治马克思主义”是两位创始人布伦纳和伍德及其学生在特定历史语境下独立探索、相互影响和共同发展而成的集体智慧。第三，“政治马克思主义”已发展为拥有两三代理论传承、多个学术重镇、影响诸多学科领域的理论流派。第四，“政治马克思主义”的核心范畴和方法是历史特殊性、阶级关系和阶级分析，并在一定程度上是对历史唯物主义的历史—政治维度做出了重要深化。[4] 有学者认为，“政治马克思主义”把历史作为理论分析的核心，强调社会主体和阶级冲突在解释历史中的作用，反对非历史的传统马克思主义分析模式，他们认为历史唯物主义不能理解为社会历史的一般规律，而应该首先理解为对资本主义社会的批判。[5] 另有学者指出，“政治马克思主义”的理论观点强调的是对资本主义社会的批判和对历史唯物主义的重释。[6] 以布伦纳和伍德为代表开创的“政治马克思主义”抛弃了经典马克思主义中关于历史变化的模型，并且对历史的解释要优先考虑与生产紧密结合起来。[7]“政治马克思主义”致力于对资本主义的批判，不仅没有背离马克思主义，反而澄清了传统马克思主义关于资本主义的起源、本质和发展形态等一系列问题，并通过重构社会历史分析模式，强化了马克思的历史唯物主义分析方法，彰显了马克思主义的当代价值。[8]

II. The Theory of the Origin of Capitalism and the Forms of Social Development

二、资本主义起源与社会发展形态理论

First, from a holistic perspective. Some researchers point out that the analysis of the origin of capitalism by “Political Marxism” provides a very useful reference for exploring Marx’s theory of history, but it tends to swing from one extreme (productive force determinism) to another (class agency). [9]9 The original note [46] is retained as a citation marker. “Political Marxism” emphasizes that capitalism originated in the agricultural sector of England, with its roots in the transformation of social property relations. [10]10 The original note [47] is retained as a citation marker. Based on a comprehensive reflection on universalized concepts of capitalism such as the commercial origin theory and demographic origin theory, Political Marxism constructs the theoretical presupposition of “market imperative” as a rational factor in the origin of capitalism through three presupposed propositions: “the specificity of capitalism,” “the persistence of class relations,” and “the crucial position of the peasantry.” [11]11 The original note [48] is retained as a citation marker. “Political Marxism” constructs a model of the transition from feudalism to capitalism, but in explaining social transformation, it one-sidedly focuses on class exploitation and struggle. Class struggle alone cannot explain the transformation from one mode of production to another; revealing or concealing conflicts between exploiters and the exploited is a universal feature of class society. [12]12 The original note [49] is retained as a citation marker. Second, from Wood’s perspective. Some researchers point out that Wood believes capitalism, unlike the depiction in the commercialization model, is not a historical necessity but emerged accidentally under very specific conditions. Wood’s views on the origin of capitalism directly inherit from Brenner’s views and are enriched and developed on this basis. [13]13 The original note [50] is retained as a citation marker. Wood analyzes and critiques the widely circulated commercialization model of capitalism, the demographic model, and the theory of the absolutist state. Based on the reality of English agriculture, she establishes the theory of the agrarian origin of capitalism. [14]14 The original note [51] is retained as a citation marker. Third, from Brenner’s perspective. Some scholars believe that Brenner sparked the debate on the transition from feudalism to capitalism. Brenner’s critique of neo-Malthusianism and his comparative examination of class structures and class struggles in different European countries have gained support from some scholars in England and France. [15]15 The original note [52] is retained as a citation marker. Brenner critiques the “demographic model” and the “commercialization model,” arguing that the transformation of the natural economy is determined by “rural class structure,” but his “class structure model” also encounters difficult challenges. [16]16 The original note [53] is retained as a citation marker. The Peace of Westphalia (1648) ended the Thirty Years’ War in Europe and is often considered the foundation of the modern state system based on sovereignty. Brenner believes that capitalism emerged accidentally, based on the transformation of social property relations triggered by class struggle, revealing two main factors in the origin of Western European capitalism. [17]17 The original note [54] is retained as a citation marker. Brenner constructs the theory of social property relations, the theory of transition, and the theory of economic crisis, particularly sparking the famous “Brenner Debate.” [18]18 The original note [55] is retained as a citation marker. Some other researchers reveal the characteristics of the transformation of social property relations in the transition from feudalism to capitalism as analyzed by Brenner. [19]19 The original note [56] is retained as a citation marker. Brenner considers social property relations to be a more standard form of relations of production, thus also referring to Brenner’s theory of the origin of capitalism as the “social property relations model.” [20]20 The original note [57] is retained as a citation marker. Brenner argues that it is precisely the differences in social property relations that lead to the divergent development of European countries under the same period and similar circumstances. [21]21 The original note [58] is retained as a citation marker.

第一，从总体性角度。有研究者指出，“政治马克思主义”对资本主义起源的分析对探索马克思的历史理论提供了极为有益的借鉴，但是存在从一种极端（生产力决定论）走向另外一种极端（阶级能动性）的倾向。[9]“政治马克思主义”强调了资本主义起源于英格兰的农业领域,其根源在于社会财产关系的转变。[10] 在全面反思商业起源说、人口起源说等资本主义普遍化观念的基础上，政治马克思主义通过“资本主义特殊性”“阶级关系存续性”与“农民地位的关键性”三个预设命题，构建了“市场迫切性”作为资本主义起源之合理性因素的理论预设。[11]“政治马克思主义”构建了封建主义向资本主义转型的模式，但是在解释社会转型的过程中，片面地集中于阶级剥削和斗争上。单独的阶级斗争不能解释一种生产模式向另外一种模式的转变，展现或隐藏剥削者和被剥削者之间的冲突是阶级社会普遍的特点。[12] 第二，从伍德角度。一些研究者指出，伍德认为资本主义不像商业化模式描绘的那样是一种历史的必然，而是在非常特殊的条件下意外形成的。伍德关于资本主义起源的观点直接继承自布伦纳的观点，并在此基础上丰富发展。[13] 伍德分析与批判了广泛流传的资本主义商业化模式、人口学模式、绝对主义国家说，立足于英国农业实际，确立了农业资本主义起源学说。[14] 第三，从布伦纳角度。一些学者认为，布伦纳引发了关于从封建主义向资本主义过渡的讨论，布伦纳对新马尔萨斯主义的批判，以及用比较的方法来考察不同的欧洲国家的阶级结构和阶级斗争，得到了英法两国一些学者的支持。[15] 布伦纳批判了“人口学模式”和“商业化模式”，提出自然经济的转变是由“农村阶级结构”决定的，但其“阶级结构模式”也遇上了难以解答的诘难。[16] 布伦纳认为资本主义是偶然产生的，建立在以阶级斗争为契机的社会财产关系的转型基础之上，揭示了西欧资本主义起源的两个主要因素。[17] 布伦纳构建了社会财产关系理论、过渡理论和经济危机理论，特别是引发了著名的“布伦纳之争”。[18] 还有一些研究者揭示了布伦纳关于封建主义向资本主义过渡中的社会财产关系转变的特点。[19] 布伦纳认为社会财产关系是更标准的生产关系，故又将布伦纳关于资本主义起源的理论称之为“社会财产关系模式”。[20] 布伦纳认为正是因为社会财产关系的不同才导致欧洲各国在同一时期和相似情况下发展的分野。[21]

III. The Theory of New Imperialism

三、新帝国主义理论

First, the essence of what is “new” about the new imperialism. Some researchers point out that the “newness” of Wood’s new imperialism lies in the exercise of hegemony through purely economic means, whereas Harvey remains trapped in the old colonial model and fails to distinguish the essence of old and new imperialism.[22]22 “Phased result” refers to an interim research output produced during the funding period of a project, not the final completed work. US imperialism rules through the power of the market (or capital) rather than through military autocratic tyranny.[23]23 “Online editor” is a standard byline credit in Chinese academic journals, indicating the staff member responsible for the digital publication of the article. US hegemony and the valorization of US capital are realized through the implementation of international economic and geopolitical strategies, and the vast majority of these strategies can also realize the interests of its economic partners or even competitors.[24] Second, the power logic of the new imperialism. Some researchers interpret this from a comparative perspective between Wood and Harvey, pointing out that within the capital logic and territorial logic of power, Wood emphasizes capital logic, while Harvey places greater weight on the interweaving of capital logic and territorial logic, stressing the importance of accumulation by dispossession.[25] Wood criticizes Harvey’s conception of the power logic of the new imperialism. Wood distinguishes between economic power and extra-economic power; the former corresponds to Harvey’s capital logic, the latter to territorial logic. On the one hand, the geographical expansion of capital does not necessarily require political support from the state, still less does it require the state to expand its own territorial scope through colonization. On the other hand, the state does not necessarily support the geographical expansion of its own capital. The uncertainty in the relationship between the two highlights the independence of territorial logic, or extra-economic power, from capital logic; in the period of the new imperialism, capital logic and territorial logic are in conflict.[26] Third, the contradictions, crises, and struggles of resistance of the new imperialism. Some scholars point out that Wood believes the new imperialism has multiple contradictions, mainly including: the contradiction between the global expansion of the new imperialism and the weakening of competitors; the contradiction between the new imperialism’s breakthrough of geographical spatial boundaries and its pursuit of social order and stability; the contradiction between the new imperialism’s pursuit of profit maximization and the continuous decline in ordinary people’s purchasing power; the contradiction between the new imperialism’s demand for global regulation and the absence of a global state; and the contradiction between the new imperialism’s reliance on military means to enable a single territorial state to maintain the global system of capital and the infinite expansion of capital.[27] In the process of implementing globalization, the new imperialism can never escape a basic contradiction: it must continuously expand markets while simultaneously preventing competitors from becoming strong.[28] The nation-state remains the most crucial arena and the most powerful subject in opposing the new imperialism, advocating a path of resistance that takes socialism as its direction, the nation-state as its platform, and the working class as its main force.[29] The new imperialism is capital-imperialism with the United States as its typical representative. The crisis of the new imperialism manifests politically as a democratic deficit and militarily as an excess. The root of the crisis of the new imperialism lies in the inherent expansionary logic of capital and the configuration of power relations dominated by it.[30]

第一，新帝国主义之“新”的实质。有研究者指出，伍德的新帝国主义之“新”在于通过纯经济手段实施霸权，而哈维仍然囿于旧殖民模式，没有区分新旧帝国主义的实质。[22] 美帝国主义是通过市场（或资本）的力量而不是军事专制暴政来进行统治。[23] 美国的霸权和美国资本的增值是通过实施国际经济和地缘政治战略来实现的，而这些战略中的绝大多数也能够实现其经济伙伴甚至竞争对手的利益。[24] 第二，新帝国主义的权力逻辑。一些研究者从伍德与哈维的比较角度进行阐释，指出在权力的资本逻辑和领土逻辑中，伍德强调资本逻辑，哈维更重视资本逻辑和领土逻辑的互相交错，强调剥夺性积累的重要性。[25] 伍德对哈维关于新帝国主义的权力逻辑进行了批判，伍德区分了经济力量和超经济力量，前者对应于哈维的资本逻辑，后者对应的是领土逻辑。一方面，资本的地理扩张未必需要国家在政治层面的支持，更不一定要求国家通过殖民扩大自身的领土范围；另一方面，国家并不必然支持本国资本的地理扩张。二者关系的不确定性彰显了领土逻辑，或者超经济力量之于资本逻辑的独立性，资本逻辑和领土逻辑在新帝国主义时期是冲突的。[26] 第三，新帝国主义的矛盾、危机与反抗斗争。有学者指出，伍德认为新帝国主义具有多重矛盾，主要包括：新帝国主义的全球性扩张与弱化竞争对手的矛盾；新帝国主义对地理空间界限的突破与追求社会秩序稳定的矛盾；新帝国主义追求利润最大化与普通民众购买力持续下降之间的矛盾；新帝国主义要求全球监管与全球国家的缺失之间的矛盾；新帝国主义依赖军事手段使单一的领土国家维持资本的全球化体系与资本的无限扩张的矛盾。[27] 新帝国主义在实施全球化的过程中总无法摆脱一个基本矛盾，这就是既要不断开拓市场，又不能使竞争对手强大起来的矛盾。[28] 民族国家仍然是反对新帝国主义最关键的舞台和最有力的主体，主张以社会主义为方向、以民族国家为平台、以工人阶级为主体力量的反抗之路。[29] 新帝国主义就是以美国为典型代表的资本帝国主义，新帝国主义的危机表现为政治上的民主赤字和军事上的过剩，新帝国主义危机的根源在于资本与生俱来的扩张逻辑及其主导下的权力配置关系。[30]

IV. The Theory of Historical Materialism

四、历史唯物主义理论

Domestic academic research on the theory of historical materialism in “Political Marxism” focuses mainly on Wood, studied from the following perspectives. First, from a holistic perspective. A monograph titled *A Study of Ellen Meiksins Wood’s Thought on Historical Materialism* has been published in China; this is the first domestic work to study Wood’s thought on historical materialism. Centering on the theoretical theme of reconstructing historical materialism, it reveals Wood’s thought on historical materialism in its entirety.[31] Second, from the perspective of the mode of production. Some scholars point out that Wood opposes both orthodox Marxism and post-Marxism. On this basis, drawing on the analyses of Thompson and Brenner, she “reconstructs historical materialism” around the core concept of the mode of production, thereby advancing the proposition of “Political Marxism.”[32] Third, from the perspective of clarifying the basic concepts of historical materialism. Some researchers point out that Wood believes Marx’s 1859 metaphor of “base-superstructure” was distorted by “orthodox” Marxism. Drawing on Thompson’s thought, Wood reconstructs the relationship between the economic base and the superstructure.[33] In order to resolve the theoretical separation of the “economic” and the “political,” Wood rethinks the relationship between “base” and “superstructure” as important categories of historical materialism.[34] Fourth, from the perspective of the function of historical materialism. Some scholars point out that Wood mainly proposes and argues that the core of historical materialism is to insist on the historicity and specificity of capitalism, rather than on universal laws of history.[35] By examining the important function of human beings in the theory of historical materialism, Wood criticizes various forms of “determinism” and deeply critiques the social formation of contemporary capital-imperialism represented by the United States. While inheriting Marx’s thought, Wood’s historical materialism innovates the narrative mode for explaining the characteristics of capitalism, providing a new perspective and methodology for understanding and critiquing contemporary capitalist ideological currents.[36] “Political Marxism” emphasizes the role of class conflict among social subjects in explaining history, holding that historical materialism is first and foremost a critical theory of capitalist society, and advocates reinterpreting historical materialism in conjunction with concrete social realities.[37] Wood’s reconstruction of historical materialism actually understands historical materialism as a theory of democratic politics, focusing on exploring the contemporary theoretical innovation of historical materialism by taking the construction of democratic politics in modern capitalist states as an entry point.[38] Other researchers have conducted comparative studies between Wood’s and Habermas’s theories of reconstructing historical materialism, revealing the important theoretical and practical significance of Wood’s reconstruction of historical materialism.[39]

国内学界对“政治马克思主义”历史唯物主义理论的研究主要集中于伍德，分别从以下几个角度进行了研究。其一，从总体性角度。国内已经出版了《艾伦·梅克森斯·伍德的历史唯物主义思想研究》专著，该书是国内首部研究伍德历史唯物主义思想的著作，该书围绕重建历史唯物主义的理论主旨，从总体上揭示了伍德的历史唯物主义思想。[31] 其二，从生产方式角度。有学者指出，伍德既反对正统马克思主义，又批评后马克思主义；在此基础上，她借鉴汤普森和布伦纳的分析，围绕生产方式这个核心概念来“重建历史唯物主义”，提出了“政治马克思主义”的主张。[32] 其三，从厘清历史唯物主义的基本概念角度。一些研究者指出，伍德认为马克思在1859年使用的“基础－上层建筑”隐喻被“正统”马克思主义所曲解，在借鉴汤普森思想的基础上，伍德重构了经济基础和上层建筑的关系。[33] 伍德为了解决“经济”与“政治”在理论上的分离，对于作为历史唯物主义重要范畴的 “基础”与“上层建筑”的关系进行重新思考。[34] 其四，从历史唯物主义的功能角度。一些学者指出，伍德主要提出和论证了历史唯物主义的核心是坚持资本主义的历史性和特殊性，而不是历史的普遍规律。[35] 伍德通过考察人在历史唯物主义理论中的重要功能，批判了各种形式的“决定论”，并深入批判了以美国为代表的当代资本帝国主义的社会形态。伍德的历史唯物主义继承了马克思思想的同时，创新了解释资本主义特性的叙述方式，为人们理解和批判当代资本主义意识形态思潮提供了新的视阈和方法论。[36]“政治马克思主义”强调社会主体阶级冲突在解释历史中的作用，认为历史唯物主义首先是一个资本主义社会批判理论，主张结合社会现实问题重释历史唯物主义。[37] 伍德对历史唯物主义的重建实际上是把历史唯物主义理解为一种民主政治理论，着眼于以现代资本主义国家的民主政治建设为切入点探索历史唯物主义在当代的理论创新。[38] 另有研究者将伍德和哈贝马斯的重建历史唯物主义理论进行了比较研究，揭示了伍德重建历史唯物主义的重要理论和现实意义。[39]

V. The Theory of the Nation-State

五、民族国家理论

Academic circles mainly interpret this from the perspectives of the emergence, function, and multifaceted nature of the nation-state. Some researchers point out that Wood elaborates in detail on the function of the state, arguing that the state should not be defined as an instrument of class rule or the product of irreconcilable class contradictions, but should be defined as any form of public power. The capitalist state does not possess class neutrality; exploitation and autocratic rule at the state level still exist.[40] The role of the nation-state in the process of globalization has not been weakened but strengthened; it plays an irreplaceable role. The global accumulation and expansion of capital require the nation-state, and the nation-state still performs functions that transnational economic organizations cannot replace.[41] “Political Marxism” holds that capitalism is closely related to the modern nation-state; the history of capitalist development is the history of the formation of the modern nation-state, and the capitalist state is the typical representative of the modern nation-state.[42] Other scholars, from the perspective of the relationship between the state and imperialism, point out that Political Marxism uses power logic to analyze the political forms of capitalism, emphasizing the conclusion that the nation-state is the sole unit of the international system. This not only obscures the causes of power struggles but also violates objective facts and neglects the positive role of international organizations.[43] Within the spectrum of left-wing thought, Wood’s and Brenner’s theoretical reflections on the nation-state possess representativeness of viewpoint and leadership in thought.[44]

学术界主要是从民族国家的产生、功能和多面性等角度进行阐释。一些研究者指出，伍德详细论述了国家的功能，认为不能将国家定义成阶级统治的工具和阶级矛盾不可调和的产物，应该将国家定义成任何一种形式的公共权力，资本主义国家并不具有阶级中立性，仍然存在国家层面的剥削和专制统治。[40] 民族国家在全球化的进程中的作用不是削弱了，而是增强了，具有不可替代的作用。资本的全球积累和扩张需要民族国家，民族国家依然发挥着跨国经济组织无法替代的作用。[41]“政治马克思主义”认为资本主义与现代民族国家有着密切关联，资本主义的发展史就是现代民族国家的形成史，资本主义国家是现代民族国家的典型代表。[42] 另有学者从国家和帝国主义关系角度指出，政治马克思主义采用权力逻辑分析资本主义政治形式，强调民族国家是国际体系唯一单位的结论，不仅掩盖了权力斗争的原因，而且违背了客观事实，忽视了国际组织的积极作用。[43] 在左翼思想谱系中，伍德和布伦纳关于民族国家的理论思考具有观点的代表性与思想的引领性。[44]

VI. The Theory of Capitalist Social Crisis and Class Struggle

六、资本主义社会危机与阶级斗争理论

Academic circles primarily interpret capitalist class struggle, economic crises, and social crises. Some researchers explain Wood’s theory of class struggle from the perspective of the separation of capitalist politics and economy. Wood points out that the separation of capitalist economy and politics makes the extraction of surplus value a matter of the economic sphere rather than a political one. The result of this separation is a divorce between the combativeness of the working class and its political consciousness, turning class struggle into a struggle for better working and living conditions.[8]8 The original note [45] is retained as a citation marker. Other scholars analyze Brenner’s theory of capitalist crisis. They argue that Brenner’s analysis of crises in contemporary capitalist society is highly influential, especially his analysis of the capitalist crisis of the 1970s, which is distinctive. He focuses on the competitive dimension of capitalism, explaining the negative impact of competition on manufacturing output prices and profit rates, and revealing the long-term decline in capitalist profit rates and the prolonged stagnation of the capitalist economy. However, his analysis neglects discussion of the various premises on which competition unfolds.[9]9 The original note [46] is retained as a citation marker. By re-examining the origins of capitalism to highlight class relations and class struggle, Brenner and Wood actively defend the dominant position of class struggle in the process of human historical development.[10]10 The original note [47] is retained as a citation marker. Some scholars believe that Brenner offers a different interpretation of Marx’s theory of crisis. Based on Marx’s theory of crisis and framed by the “theory of social property relations,” he analyzes the transition of developed capitalist countries from long-term prosperity to subsequent recession after World War II.[11]11 The original note [48] is retained as a citation marker. Brenner argues that the current economic crisis stems from the continuous decline in the profit rate. Once Brenner’s explanation of the long-term downturn in post-war capitalist profit rates was put forward, a debate erupted in Western academia. This includes a detailed examination of Michel Aglietta’s and others’ challenges to Brenner’s theory of economic crisis, as well as the affirmation and development of Brenner’s theory by Western left-wing scholars represented by Chris Harman.[12]12 The original note [49] is retained as a citation marker.

学术界主要是围绕资本主义的阶级斗争、经济危机和社会危机等进行阐释。一些研究者从资本主义政治与经济的分离角度阐释了伍德关于阶级斗争的理论。伍德指出，资本主义经济和政治的分离使得榨取剩余成为了经济领域的问题，而非政治问题。这种分离的结果造成了工人阶级的斗争性与政治意识的分离，使阶级斗争也变成了争取更好地劳动和生活条件的斗争。[45] 还有学者分析了布伦纳关于资本主义危机的理论。他们认为布伦纳对当代资本主义社会危机的分析非常有影响，特别是对20世纪70年代资本主义的危机的分析颇具特色，他聚焦于资本主义的竞争层面，阐释了竞争对制造业产出价格和利润率带来的负面影响，揭示了资本主义长期利润率下降和资本主义经济的长期停滞状态。但是，他在分析中忽略了对竞争借以展开的各种前提的讨论。[46] 布伦纳、伍德通过重勘资本主义起源以凸显阶级关系与阶级斗争，积极捍卫阶级斗争在人类历史发展过程中的主导地位。[47] 一些学者认为，布伦纳对马克思的危机理论进行了不同的解读，他立足于马克思的危机理论，以“社会财产关系论”为框架，对二战之后发达资本主义国家的经济由长期繁荣到后来的衰退做了分析研究。[48] 布伦纳认为当前的经济危机根源于利润率的不断下降。布伦纳对战后资本主义利润率处于长期低迷的解释一抛出去，在西方学界就展开了一场对其的争论，详细考察米歇尔·阿格利埃塔等对布伦纳经济危机理论的质疑和以克里斯·哈曼为代表的西方左翼学者对布伦纳经济危机理论的肯定和发展。[49]

VII. Globalization and Theories of Modernity

七、全球化与现代性理论

Academic circles interpret the essence of globalization and its relationship with modernity and capitalism. Some scholars point out that Wood correctly explains the essence of capitalist globalization, arguing that capitalist globalization is both a sign of its success and the beginning of its failure; globalization is the internationalization of capital, the universalization of capitalism, whose purpose is to achieve the global hegemony of capital imperialism.[13]13 The original note [50] is retained as a citation marker. Modernity and capitalism are not the same thing; the history of capitalism cannot be divided into stages of modernity and postmodernity, and the essence of capitalism does not change with historical development.[14]14 The original note [51] is retained as a citation marker. Some scholars note that globalization marks the spatial expansion of capitalism reaching its zenith, and also implies that the systemic contradictions of capitalism are becoming more universalized. In the era of global capitalism, the possibility of socialist politics is not smaller but greater.[15]15 The original note [52] is retained as a citation marker. Other scholars study, from the perspective of international relations, the modern international relations theory of Benno Teschke, a representative of “Political Marxism.” Political Marxist scholars represented by Benno Teschke critically examine the modern international relations inaugurated by the signing of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Teschke critically analyzes the misreading of this major transformation in international relations by theories such as neorealism, constructivism, and historical sociology, and re-divides historical boundaries using the methods of dialectical materialism and historical materialism.[16]16 The original note [53] is retained as a citation marker. The Peace of Westphalia (1648) ended the Thirty Years’ War in Europe and is often considered the foundation of the modern state system based on sovereignty. Wood argues that all problems arising under global capitalist rule are primarily caused by certain basic laws of capitalism, such as the principle of competition, the principle of profit maximization, and the principle of capital accumulation, rather than by globalization as commonly understood. Globalization only reinforces these laws, and globalization itself is actually the result of these laws, not their cause. The essence of globalization includes the following four aspects: First, globalization is the manipulation of world trade by “capital imperialism” represented by the United States. Second, globalization and free trade are two different things. Under globalization, underdeveloped countries are encouraged to open up to developed countries, but developed countries are not allowed to open up to underdeveloped countries. If truly two-way opening were implemented, it would violate the original intention of the designers of globalization. Third, the result of globalization is, on the one hand, the formation of markets for dependent economies subject to capital empires, and on the other hand, capital empires try to minimize the adverse effects of globalization on themselves. Fourth, the root of problems arising in the process of globalization lies not in the degree of globalization, but in the vulnerability of poor countries’ markets in the face of imperial capital. For this reason, Wood demands that when people attack global capitalism, they must firmly target capitalism itself, and cannot focus on globalization.[17]17 The original note [54] is retained as a citation marker.

学术界从全球化的本质，全球化与现代性、资本主义之间的关系等方面进行了阐释。一些学者指出，伍德正确阐释了资本主义全球化的本质，认为资本主义的全球化既是其成功标志，又是其失败的开端；全球化是资本的国际化，是资本主义的普遍化，其目的是为了实现资本帝国主义的全球霸权。[50] 现代性与资本主义不是一回事，不能将资本主义的历史划分为现代性和后现代性两个阶段，资本主义的本质并不因为历史的发展而改变。[51] 有学者指出，全球化标志着资本主义的空间扩张已达至顶点，也意味着资本主义的系统性矛盾愈发普遍化，全球资本主义时代社会主义政治的可能性不是更小了而是更大了。[52] 还有学者从国际关系角度研究了“政治马克思主义”代表人物贝诺·塔斯卡（Benno Teschke）的现代国际关系理论，以贝诺·塔斯卡为代表的政治马克思主义学者对1648年威斯特伐利亚和约的签订所开创的近现代国际关系进行了批判性的研究。塔斯卡批判性地分析了新现实主义、建构主义、历史社会学等国际关系理论对这一重大国际关系转变的误读，运用辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义的方法对历史分界线进行重新划分。[53] 伍德论证了在全球资本主义统治下所出现的所有问题主要是由资本主义的一些基本法则，如竞争原则、利润最大化原则以及资本积累原则所造成的，而不是像一些人通常所理解的那样是由全球化带来的，全球化只是强化了这些法则而已，而且全球化本身其实是这些法则的结果而不是其原因。全球化的实质包括以下四个方面：其一，全球化是以美国为代表的 “资本帝国主义” 对世界贸易的操控。其二，全球化与自由贸易是两回事，在全球化状态下只会鼓励不发达国家向发达国家开放，而不会允许发达国家向不发达国家开放，如果真正实施双向开放，那就有违于全球化的设计者的初衷。其三，全球化所带来的结果一方面是形成了受制于资本帝国的附庸经济的市场，另一方面则是资本帝国尽量不受全球化反面效应的影响。其四，全球化过程中所出现的问题的根源不在于全球化程度高不高的问题, 而是穷国市场面对帝国资本时的脆弱。正因为如此，伍德要求人们在抨击全球资本主义时,必须把矛头紧紧地对准资本主义，而不能把重心放在全球化上。[54]

VIII. Theories of Post-Marxism and Postmodernist Critique

八、后马克思主义和后现代主义批判理论

Some scholars point out that, in response to postmodernism’s questioning of the scientific nature and practical feasibility of Marxist theory, Wood refutes it from four aspects: “First, defending historical materialism against postmodernism’s ahistorical view; second, emphasizing a holistic epistemology against postmodernism’s fragmentary deconstruction; third, affirming the revolutionary subject status of the proletariat against postmodernism’s dissolution of the subject; fourth, emphasizing the specificity of capitalism against postmodernism’s ruptured interpretation. As an important representative of anti-postmodernism, Wood’s critique of postmodernism is conducive to defending the orthodoxy of Marxism, but it also exhibits a certain narrowness and extremism.”[18]18 The original note [55] is retained as a citation marker. In Wood’s view, the essence of post-Marxism and postmodernism is consistent: they dissolve Marx’s theory of class, promote radical democratic politics, and advocate Western liberal democracy.[19]19 The original note [56] is retained as a citation marker. Regarding the erroneous trend of postmodernism, Wood points out that postmodernism is essentially “a product of consciousness formed during the so-called golden age of capitalism,” representing a waning critique of capitalism. He critiques the postmodernist trend from the perspectives of the view of the times and history, the holistic research perspective, and the subject status of the working class, thereby defending and developing Marxism.[20]20 The original note [57] is retained as a citation marker.

一些学者指出，针对后现代主义质疑马克思主义理论的科学性和实践的可行性，伍德从四个方面予以反驳：“一是保卫历史唯物主义，反对后现代主义的非历史观；二是强调总体性的认识观，反对后现代主义的碎片化解构；三是确证工人阶级的革命主体地位，反对后现代主义消解主体；四是强调资本主义的特殊性，反对后现代主义的断裂式解读。作为反后现代主义的重要代表人物，伍德对后现代主义的批判有利于捍卫马克思主义的正统性，但是也表现出一定的狭隘和极端。”[55] 在伍德看来，后马克思主义与后现代主义的实质是一致的，消解了马克思的阶级理论，推行激进民主政治，鼓吹西方的自由民主。[56] 针对后现代主义的错误思潮，伍德指出后现代主义本质是“所谓的资本主义黄金时代形成的一种意识之产物”，是对资本主义批判的日渐式微，并从时代观与历史观、整体主义的研究视阈以及工人阶级的主体地位几个方面对后现代主义思潮进行了批判，捍卫与发展了马克思主义。[57]

IX. Theories of Capitalist Ideology Critique

九、资本主义意识形态批判理论

Academic circles explain the critique of capitalist ideology by “Political Marxism” from four aspects. “Political Marxism,” based on the historical development of capitalist society, explains the essence, function, and effects of capitalist ideology. From the perspective of the concept of “progress” as capitalist ideology, the concept of “progress” is directly related to property rights, bearing the imprint of capitalist power discourse. This leads people to view the so-called progress of capitalism only abstractly, even regarding capitalist colonial plunder as progress and justice. From the perspective of democracy as capitalist ideology, capitalist democracy has become a tool of its rule, embedded within the capitalist ruling system, and even an indispensable component for maintaining imperial hegemony. From the perspective of the new imperialist “unlimited war” as capitalist ideology, the new imperialism represented by the United States, under the banner of “just war” and using the pretext of combating terrorism and eliminating “rogue states,” attempts to achieve its goal of global hegemony. From the perspective of liberalism as capitalist ideology, liberalism has not only become an important ideological weapon for capitalism to resist feudal absolutist power but also the core content of capitalist political rule. By applying Marx’s critical method of historical materialism, “Political Marxism” reveals that these four types of capitalist ideology become illusions in the actual global expansion of capitalism and will inevitably be dissolved by the real proletarian revolutionary movement.[21]21 The original note [58] is retained as a citation marker.

学术界从四个方面阐释了“政治马克思主义”对资本主义意识形态的批判。“政治马克思主义”立足于资本主义社会的历史发展，阐释了资本主义意识形态的本质、功能和效应。从作为资本主义意识形态的“进步”概念来看，“进步”的概念直接和财产权相关，烙下了资本主义权力话语的印记，使得人们只抽象地看待资本主义所谓的进步，甚至将资本主义的殖民掠夺看作是进步和正义的。从作为资本主义意识形态的民主来看，资本主义的民主已经成为其统治的工具，内在于资本主义统治体系中，甚至成为维持帝国霸权不可缺少的组成部分。从作为资本主义意识形态的新帝国主义“无限战争”来看，以美国为代表的新帝国主义打着“正义战争”的旗号，以打击恐怖主义，消灭“流氓国家”为借口，妄图实现其全球霸权的目的。从作为资本主义意识形态的自由主义来看，自由主义不仅成为资本主义反抗封建绝对主义强权的重要思想武器，而且成为资本主义政治统治的核心内容。通过运用马克思历史唯物主义的批判方法，“政治马克思主义”揭示了以上四种资本主义意识形态在现实的资本主义全球扩张中成为某种幻象，必将会被现实的无产阶级革命运动所消解。[58]

[This article is a phased result of the 2021 National Social Science Fund General Project “Overseas Research on ‘Political Marxism’” (Project No. 21BKS130), the 2023 Central University Basic Scientific Research Business Fee Project of Zhongnan University of Economics and Law “Research on the Critical Theory of New Imperialism in the 21st Century” (Project No. 2722023BY001), and the 2021 Major Project of the Hubei Province Higher Education Institutions Marxist Young and Middle-aged Theoretical Talent Cultivation Plan (Preparatory Project of the Hubei Provincial Social Science Fund) “Research on the New Imperialism Theory of Overseas Marxism in the 21st Century” (Project No. 21ZD210).]

【本文为2021年国家社科基金一般项目《国外“政治马克思主义”研究》（项目编号：21BKS130）、2023年中南财经政法大学中央高校基本科研业务费项目《21世纪新帝国主义批判理论研究》（项目编号：2722023BY001）、2021年湖北省高等学校马克思主义中青年理论家培育计划重大项目（湖北省社科基金前期项目）《21世纪国外马克思主义的新帝国主义理论研究》（项目编号：21ZD210）的阶段成果】

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心