Class and Race: The Discourse Shift in Mainstream Western Social Analysis and Its Implications

In contemporary Western discussions surrounding identity politics, racism has become a core issue. Previous discussions on this topic have mainly focused on the ideological and cultural sphere, primarily from the perspective of multiculturalism. From a historical perspective, the rise of racial theory in the post-war Western ideological and cultural sphere occurred in the context of the decline of traditional class discourse. However, there is a notable deficiency in academic discussions on how these two discourses have shifted in political competition and on the conceptual changes within mainstream Western political forces. This article will explore the significance of class and race issues for the identity politics of different political forces by tracing the changing status of class discourse in mainstream Western social analysis, especially the discursive logic and conceptual changes of liberal and European social democratic forces within left- and right-wing politics regarding class and race.

在当今西方围绕身份政治的讨论中，种族主义成为一个核心议题。以往关于该议题的讨论主要集中于思想文化领域，着重从多元文化主义视角展开。而从历史的视角看，种族主义理论在战后西方思想文化领域的兴起是在传统的阶级话语消退的过程中出现的。但是，学界对于这两种话语如何在政治竞争中转换以及西方主流政治力量的观念变化的讨论存在着明显的不足。本文将通过回溯阶级话语在西方主流社会分析中的地位变化，尤其是左、右翼政治中自由主义和欧洲社会民主主义力量在阶级与种族问题上的话语逻辑和观念变化，探讨阶级与种族问题对于不同政治力量的身份政治的意义。

I. From Class Politics to Racism: The Discourse Shift in Mainstream Western Social Analysis

一、从阶级政治到种族主义：西方主流社会分析的话语转换

Throughout the 20th century, class politics dominated Western politics for a considerable period, and class discourse became the dominant discourse in social analysis. This demonstrated the influence of Marx’s concept of class. However, after the 1950s, along with new changes in contemporary capitalism, Marx’s class discourse faced multiple challenges. The increasing prominence of race as a new identity politics issue was undoubtedly a result of relevant forces responding to these challenges from the ideological and cultural sphere. The discursive shift from class politics to racism reflects a change in the themes of Western political competition.

20世纪，阶级政治在相当长的时期主导了西方政治，阶级话语也成为社会分析的主导话语。这显示了马克思的阶级观的影响。但是，1950年代后，伴随着当代资本主义的新变化，马克思的阶级话语受到多方面的挑战，而种族问题作为新的身份政治问题的地位的日益凸显无疑是相关力量从思想文化领域回应这些挑战的结果。从阶级政治向种族主义的话语转变是西方政治竞争主题变化的反映。

(I) Marx’s Concept of Class

（一）马克思的阶级观

As a core concept of historical materialism, Marx’s concept of class includes the following basic points. (1) Individuals exist as members of a collective presented in the form of class, and class is a group of people who share the same relationship to the means of production; it is defined and divided according to people’s position in a given mode of production and exchange. (2) Social consciousness is a reflection of class consciousness, and class consciousness is the common thought formed by people based on their shared position in production, while “the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas.” [1]1 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The German Ideology* (1845-1846). (3) “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles,” that is, the history of struggles between exploited and exploiting classes, between dominated and ruling classes at various stages of social development. [2]2 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto* (1848).

作为历史唯物主义的核心概念，马克思的阶级概念包括如下几个基本要点。（1）个人是作为以阶级形式呈现的集体的一员而存在的，而阶级是对生产资料有相同关系的一群人，它是依据人们在一定的生产和交换方式中的地位来界定和划分的。（2）社会意识是阶级意识的反映，阶级意识是人们基于共同的生产地位形成的共同思想，而“统治阶级的思想在每一时代都是占统治地位的思想”。（3）“每一历史时代的经济生产以及必然由此产生的社会结构，是该时代政治的和精神的历史的基础；因此（从原始土地公有制解体以来）全部历史都是阶级斗争的历史，即社会发展各个阶段上被剥削阶级和剥削阶级之间、被统治阶级和统治阶级之间斗争的历史。”

This method of social analysis, which explains social relations from the perspective of material relations of production, profoundly influenced modern Western theories of social stratification. Dennis Gilbert believes that Marx’s theory of ideology and his views on the connection between social class and political processes are an effective starting point for modern research. However, unlike the stratification theories of mainstream Western sociology, Marx’s concept of class is a core component of historical materialism, and the elements constituting the above class concept cannot be separated from each other. Precisely because of this, Marx’s class concept is regarded by mainstream Western sociology as material determinism or reductionism. While drawing on Marx’s class concept, the latter attempts to “correct” the “one-sidedness” of its determinism. This tradition can be traced back to Max Weber’s concept of class in the early 20th century.

这种从物质生产关系出发解释社会关系的社会分析方法深刻影响了西方现代社会分层理论。丹尼斯·吉尔伯特认为，马克思的意识形态理论及其有关社会阶级与政治进程之间联系的观点是现代研究的一个有效起点。不过，与西方主流社会学的分层理论不同，马克思的阶级概念是唯物史观的核心内容，不能将构成上述阶级观的各要素剥离开来。也正因为如此，马克思的阶级观被西方主流社会学视为物质决定论或还原论，后者在汲取马克思阶级观的同时，试图“矫正”其决定论的“片面性”。这一传统可以追溯到20世纪初马克斯·韦伯的阶级观。

(II) The Prominence of Racial Identity and the Critique of Racism

（二）种族认同与种族主义批判的凸显

After entering the 1950s, new changes emerged in contemporary capitalism, especially new changes in class structure. Coupled with the background of the Cold War and its political constraints, class discourse faced multiple challenges. These challenges were mainly directed at traditional class consciousness and class struggle. Their socio-political background lay in the new class structure, particularly the emergence of the new middle class, and the institutionalization of class conflict brought about by democratic politics. Through the struggles of the working class and its political parties, the demands of class politics were effectively incorporated into the operation of democratic politics. While easing class contradictions, this also eroded the concepts of class and class struggle. Against this backdrop, liberals declared: “Class is an increasingly outdated concept.”

进入1950年代之后，当代资本主义出现新变化，尤其是阶级结构发生新变化，加上冷战的背景及其政治限制，阶级话语受到多方面的挑战，这些挑战主要针对传统的阶级意识和阶级斗争，其社会政治背景在于新的阶级结构、特别是新中间阶级的出现，以及民主政治所导致的阶级冲突的制度化。通过工人阶级及其政党的斗争，阶级政治的诉求被有效地纳入到民主政治的运行之中，这在缓和阶级矛盾的同时，也侵蚀了阶级和阶级斗争的观念。在此背景下，自由主义者宣称：“阶级已是越来越过时的概念。”

Discussions targeting Marx’s class concept mainly focused on its “material determinism.” Dissenters argued that the key to understanding injustice, poverty, and alienation is culture, not economics. Therefore, attention to ideology and culture became a new trend in the intellectual sphere. Among Marxists, efforts to “correct” material determinism began before the war with Antonio Gramsci’s focus on ideological and cultural issues. Gramsci emphasized: “Man is primarily spirit, that is, he is a product of history, not of nature.” [3]3 Antonio Gramsci, *Selections from the Prison Notebooks* (1971). Gramsci’s concept of cultural hegemony profoundly influenced 20th-century Western Marxist discourse, and the raising of race issues was one result of this trend. In the view of Western Marxists, the traditional Marxist concept of class simplified social relations, including reducing cultural phenomena to material relations. Especially against the backdrop of the rise of new social movements, the subjects of political mobilization were no longer class members, and people’s focus was no longer on traditional classes and organizations, but on new social divisions and the resulting new identity issues. Critical race theory emerged in response. This theory emphasizes “the salience and persistence of social identities and forms of conflict based on race,” [4]4 Michael Omi and Howard Winant, *Racial Formation in the United States* (1986). placing them above class-based social identities. The increasingly prominent status of racism in the ideological and cultural sphere and in political competition is closely related to three changes in the socio-political and cultural environment.

针对马克思的阶级观的讨论主要集中于其“物质决定论”。持不同意见者认为，理解不公正、贫困和异化问题的关键是文化，而非经济。因此，对意识形态和文化的关注成为思想领域的新趋向。而在马克思主义者那里，试图“矫正”物质决定论的努力始于战前安东尼奥·葛兰西对思想文化问题的关注。葛兰西强调：“人首先是精神，也就是说他是历史的产物，而不是自然的产物。”葛兰西关于文化霸权的观念深刻影响了20世纪的西方马克思主义话语，种族问题的提出就是这一趋向的一个结果。在西方马克思主义者看来，传统的马克思主义阶级观简化了社会关系，包括将文化现象简化为物质关系。尤其是在新社会运动兴起的背景下，政治动员的主体不再是阶级成员，人们关注的重点也不再是传统的阶级和组织，而是新的社会分裂及其所导致的新的身份认同问题，批判的种族理论应运而生。该理论强调“基于种族的社会认同和冲突形式的突出性和持久性”，并将其置于以阶级为基础的社会认同之上。种族主义问题在思想文化领域和政治竞争中日益突出的地位与社会政治和文化环境的三个变化密切相关。

The first is the systematic reflection on modern social conflicts and the critique of traditional discourse in the ideological and cultural sphere against the backdrop of post-war prosperity and the transition to a post-industrial society. In the context of the “retreat of class,” where the concept of class was deemed insufficient to cover some major new social problems, emerging radical movements sought new identity issues from the ideological and cultural sphere. Debates on racial and cultural identity and difference thus became the focus of this issue. In this process, postmodern theory developed rapidly, such as the anti-foundationalism of the 1970s-1980s, an epistemology that rejects seeking the foundation of knowledge in pure experience or pure reason, laying the discursive foundation for the development of a series of postmodern theories. The revival of Western Marxism in the 1960s-1970s, and the rise of critical race theory in Europe and America, also played an important role in the discursive construction of race and racism theory.

首先是思想文化领域在战后繁荣和后工业社会转型的背景下对现代社会冲突的系统性反思以及对传统话语的批判。在“阶级退却”、阶级概念被认为不足以概括一些新的重大社会问题的背景下，新兴的激进主义运动试图从思想文化领域寻找新的身份议题，有关种族文化同一性和差异性的争论遂成为这一议题的焦点。在此过程中，后现代理论迅速发展，比如1970—1980年代的反基础主义（anti-foundationalism），这种拒绝在纯粹经验或纯粹理性中寻求知识基础的认识论为一系列后现代主义理论的发展奠定了话语基础。而1960—1970年代西方马克思主义的复兴，以及批判的种族理论在欧美的兴起，也对种族和种族主义理论的话语构建发挥了重要作用。

The second is the shift in the themes of political competition. Facing changes in social structure and post-war political consensus, and driven by the needs of electoral competition, social democratic parties, as traditional representatives of the working class, began to seek cross-class alliances. This led to a trend of transformation from “class parties” to “people’s parties” or “catch-all parties.” Diluting ideology and class base became the main feature of this transformation, which also brought about the identity issue of the New Left. This prompted social democratic parties, after the 1960s, to cater to the newly emerging radical liberal ideological and cultural movements, highlighting new identity consciousness. This was epitomized by greater protection of individual freedom, identification with multiculturalism, attention to the rights of ethnic minorities, and respect for difference. In contrast, conservative forces in Europe and America became more conservative on race issues, emphasizing the impact of cultural diversity brought by immigration on traditional mainstream social values. This differentiation and the racism it triggered provided opportunities for the rise of right-wing populist political forces. Racism divides people into “us” and “them,” naturally adapting to the discursive needs of populism, while the prevalence of populism further reinforces social divisions based on racism.

其次是政治竞争的主题转换。面对社会结构的变化和战后的政治共识，出于选举竞争的需要，作为传统工人阶级代表的社会民主党开始寻求跨阶级联盟，从而出现了从“阶级党”向“人民党”或“全方位党”转变的趋向，淡化意识形态和阶级基础成为这种转变的主要特点，由此也带来了新左翼的身份问题。这促使社会民主党在1960年代后开始迎合新崛起的激进自由主义思想文化运动，突出新的身份意识，这集中体现为对个人自由的更大保护、对多元文化主义的认同、对少数族裔权利的关注以及对差异性的尊重。与之相对，欧美的保守主义力量则在种族问题上趋向保守，强调移民带来的文化多样性对传统的主流社会价值观的冲击。这种分化及其所引发的种族主义为右翼民粹主义政治力量的崛起提供了机会。种族主义将人划分为“我们”与“他者”，天然地适应了民粹主义的话语需要，而民粹主义的盛行又强化了基于种族主义的社会分化。

Furthermore, changes in the internal and external environment have led to and exacerbated social divisions over ethnicity and race in developed capitalist countries. Since the 1970s, a series of changes in the internal and external environment of developed capitalist countries in Europe and America, including new developments in globalization and regional integration, have made the immigration issue increasingly prominent. Developed capitalist countries in Europe and America are the main recipients of immigrants, who have brought new social conflicts, exacerbated social divisions, and triggered racism. At the same time, the aforementioned processes, along with the end of the Cold War, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and the drastic changes in Eastern Europe, while eroding traditional concepts of national borders, have also led to a revival of nationalism. The intertwining of various issues has, on the one hand, intensified the complexity of the racism problem in Europe and America, causing racial prejudice, racial discrimination, and racist ideology to overlap; on the other hand, it has also strengthened the role of race in the construction of new identity consciousness.

再者，内外环境的变化导致并加剧了发达资本主义国家在民族和种族问题上的社会分裂。1970年代以来，欧美发达资本主义国家内外环境的一系列变化，包括全球化和区域一体化的新发展，导致移民问题日益突出。欧美发达资本主义国家是移民的主要吸纳国，移民为其带来了新的社会冲突，加剧了社会分裂，引发了种族主义。与此同时，上述进程以及冷战结束和苏联解体、东欧剧变在侵蚀传统的国家边界概念的同时，也导致了民族主义的复兴。各种问题的交织一方面加剧了欧美种族主义问题的复杂性，使得种族偏见、种族歧视以及种族主义意识形态问题叠加，另一方面也强化了种族在新的身份意识构建中的作用。

Against this backdrop, race, as a new form of identity, has become increasingly prominent in social identity, further highlighting the value of critiques of racism in the ideological and cultural spheres. In the new critique of racism, especially in critical race theory, "racism" is primarily seen as an ideological structure, used to refer to how concepts based on differentialism are integrated into and shaped by existing legal and social institutions. In terms of research methods, relevant studies focus on discussing how racism, as a result of social and political construction, racializes relationships between individuals. Among these, the influence of critical race theory is particularly prominent; it is dedicated to analyzing how society, politics, law, and the media shape the social concepts of race and ethnicity and how they are in turn shaped by them. Critical race theory has a certain overlapping relationship with Western neo-Marxist studies of racism, the latter attempting to reapply Marxist methods to establish new connections between race and class.

在上述背景下，种族作为一种新的身份认同在社会认同中的地位日益凸显，从而进一步彰显了思想文化领域的种族主义批判的价值。在新的种族主义批判中，尤其在批判的种族理论中，“种族主义”主要被视为一种意识形态结构，用以指涉基于差别论的观念是如何融入到既有的法律和社会制度构建中以及如何被后者所塑造的。在研究方法上，相关研究着重于讨论种族主义作为社会和政治建构的结果如何使个体之间的关系种族化。其中，批判的种族理论的影响尤为突出，它致力于分析社会和政治法律以及媒体如何塑造种族（race）和族裔（ethnicity）的社会概念以及它们如何被后者所塑造。批判的种族理论与西方新马克思主义的种族主义研究存在一定的交叉关系，后者试图重新运用马克思主义的方法在种族与阶级之间建立新的联系。

II. From Class to Race: Liberal Concepts and Positions

二、从阶级到种族：自由主义的观念和立场

Liberalism is the core of the mainstream Western value system and plays a special role in the shift from class discourse to racial discourse. During the period when class discourse was dominant, liberalism catered to that discourse while also developing its own class discourse. After the war, liberals acted as the vanguard and main force in the process of "de-classification," and their concept of civil rights laid the ideological and political foundation for the development of consciousness based on racial identity. At the same time, the contradictory positions inherent in liberal racial concepts also laid the groundwork for the subsequent differentiation among different political forces within the liberal spectrum over the issue of racism.

自由主义是西方主流价值体系的核心，在从阶级话语向种族话语转换的过程中扮演了特殊的角色。在阶级话语占主导地位的时期，自由主义在迎合该话语的同时也发展了自己的阶级话语。战后，自由主义者在“去阶级化”的进程中充当了急先锋和主力军角色，其公民权利观念为基于种族身份的观念意识的发展奠定了思想和政治基础。与此同时，自由主义种族观念中存在的矛盾立场也为自由主义光谱下不同政治力量围绕种族主义问题的分化埋下了伏笔。

(I) Weber's View of Class and Its Influence

（一）韦伯的阶级观及其影响

As Anthony Giddens notes, Western class analysis is primarily based on two different discourses: scholars inheriting the Marxist tradition further developed the ideas originally proposed by Marx himself, while other scholars mainly continued Weber's view of class. Weber's view of class drew on Marx's social analysis method of explaining social relations based on material relations of production, but it also attempted to "correct" Marx's material determinism. Weber defined class as "any group of people who find themselves in the same class situation," where "class situation" represents the typical opportunities for people to obtain the supply of goods, their external living conditions, and personal life experiences. An individual's market position strongly influences their overall "life chances," so "class situation" becomes "market situation." However, while Weber acknowledged the position of classes and individuals in the market and pointed out that the distribution of material property is related to property rights, he also believed that the division of social status is not affected by class division. Weber also introduced the concepts of "status" and "power." Status is used to indicate differences in honor or social prestige granted to social groups, and wealth is not the only factor affecting social status; lifestyle and other factors also influence a person's social status. Power is expressed through political parties, which, unlike the impact of class and status on social stratification, are groups composed of individuals with common backgrounds, purposes, or interests. Marx explained status differences and party organizations from the perspective of class, while Weber believed that although both are influenced by class, they cannot be simply reduced to class divisions. Political parties may cross class lines, and status differences and party organizations can in turn affect the economic conditions of individuals and groups, thereby influencing class. Thus, while Weber acknowledged that class is related to people's position in material production, he also separated class from social status and social consciousness. Giddens believes that Weber supplemented and perfected Marx's theory, avoiding a polarized and rigid model.

如安东尼·吉登斯所言，西方的阶级分析主要基于两种不同的话语，继承马克思主义传统的学者进一步发展了马克思本人提出的思想，而其他学者则主要接续了韦伯的阶级观。韦伯的阶级观汲取了马克思的阶级观中基于物质生产关系解释社会关系的社会分析方法，但又试图“矫正”马克思的物质决定论。韦伯将阶级定义为“任何一群发现自己处于相同阶级处境的人们”，“阶级处境”表示人们获得产品供给及其外在生活条件和个人生活体验的典型机会，而一个人的市场地位（market position）强烈影响着他（她）的整体“生活机遇”，于是“阶级处境”也就成了“市场处境”。不过，韦伯虽然承认了阶级及其个体在市场中的地位，并指出物质财产的分配方式与财产权相关，但他同时认为社会地位的划分不受阶级划分的影响。韦伯还引入了“地位”和“权力”概念。地位用来表示社会群体被赋予的荣誉或社会声望的差异，而财富并不是影响社会地位的唯一因素，生活方式等因素也会影响人的社会地位。权力则是通过政党来表达的，政党不同于阶级和地位对社会分层造成的影响，是由具有共同背景、目的或利益的个体所组成的群体。马克思从阶级出发解释地位差异和政党组织，而韦伯认为，虽然两者都受阶级的影响，但不能将它们简单地归结为阶级划分，政党可能会跨越阶级界线，地位差异和政党组织都能反过来影响个体和群体的经济状况，进而影响阶级。由此，韦伯在承认阶级与人们的物质生产地位相关的同时，又剥离了阶级与社会地位和社会意识之间的关系。吉登斯认为，韦伯补充和完善了马克思的理论，避免了两极化的刻板模式。

The 20th-century liberal view of class inherits and develops Weber's view of class, particularly developing two concepts from Weber's related ideas. The first is the concept of "social status." Weber believed that social status is the result of the interaction of multiple factors; it depends not only on material wealth but more on lifestyle, education, and prestige. The second is the concept of an "open society." Weber believed that a social relationship could be called "open" if (or as long as) its system of rules does not exclude any willing participants, and it actually does so. Conversely, if a relationship, according to its subjective meaning and binding rules, excludes certain specific groups, or if participation is limited or conditional, that relationship is "closed." Clearly, while the concept of an "open society" acknowledges the class differences in existing society, it also proposes a theory of social dynamic equilibrium, thereby providing a rational basis for "overcoming" Marx's logic of class struggle. In contemporary Western social analysis, these two concepts and methods are widely used, and liberal racial discourse is also permeated by these concepts.

20世纪的自由主义阶级观是对韦伯的阶级观的继承和发展，尤其发展了韦伯的相关思想中的两个观念。一是“社会地位”的观念。韦伯认为，社会地位是多重因素交互作用的结果，它不仅取决于物质财富，更取决于生活方式、教育和声望。二是“开放社会”的观念。韦伯认为，一种社会关系，如果（或只要）它的规则体系不拒绝任何愿意参与者，而且事实上它也这样做了，就可称这种社会关系为“开放”的。而如果某种关系根据其主观意义和约束规则，有某些特定的人群被排除在外，或其参与是有限的，抑或附加了条件，该种关系就是“封闭”的。显然，“开放社会”的观念在承认既有社会的阶级差别的同时，又提出了一套社会动态平衡说，从而为“克服”马克思的阶级斗争逻辑找到了合理基础。在当代西方社会分析中，这两种观念和方法被广泛运用，自由主义的种族话语中同样渗透着这些观念。

(II) Liberal Racial Discourse

（二）自由主义的种族话语

In Western society, the discourse shift from class to race also bears a distinct liberal imprint. Liberals were the main advocates of "de-class politics" in the post-war Western ideological field. On the one hand, they used the development of democratic politics and civil rights to weaken the influence of the Marxist view of class; on the other hand, they injected liberal ideas and principles into the construction of new identity consciousness, including racial discourse.

在西方社会，从阶级到种族的话语转换同样带有鲜明的自由主义印记。自由主义者是战后西方政治思想领域“去阶级政治”的主要倡导者，他们一方面利用民主政治和公民权利的发展来消解马克思主义阶级观的影响，另一方面又将自由主义的理念和原则注入到对新的身份意识、包括种族话语的构建中。

Liberals have used postwar social and political changes to reinforce the “de-classing of politics.” The contemporary liberal Ralf Dahrendorf directly targets Marx’s concept of class: “There may always have been class conflict, yet class conflict has not always been the dominant form of conflict, and in the future it will not necessarily always be the dominant form of conflict.” Dahrendorf argues that two changes have altered the form of modern social conflict: first, the transition from status to contract, that is, from a hierarchical traditional social structure to an open modern social stratification; second, the rise of civil rights, and here Dahrendorf particularly emphasizes T. H. Marshall’s concept of civil rights. Marshall distinguishes between “quantitative or economic inequality” and “qualitative inequality”; the former may be ineradicable, while the latter, through equality of rights, can potentially be eliminated. Dahrendorf also borrows Theodor Geiger’s expression “the institutionalization of class conflict” to analyze how class conflict is brought under the normative framework of democracy: “The tension between capital and labor has been recognized as a principle of the structure of the labor market and has become a legitimate institution of society. … The methods, weapons, and techniques of class struggle have also been recognized, and therefore controlled. This struggle unfolds according to specific rules of the game. Thus class struggle has lost its worst possible consequences; it has been transformed into a legitimate tension between mutually checking elements of power. Capital and labor struggle against each other, reach compromises, negotiate solutions, and thereby determine wage levels, working hours, and other working conditions.”

自由主义者利用战后的社会政治变化来强化“去阶级政治”。当代自由主义者拉尔夫·达伦多夫将矛头直指马克思的阶级观：“也许曾经一直有过阶级冲突，然而阶级冲突并非总是占统治地位的纷争形式，而且在未来，也必然不总是占统治地位的纷争形式。”达伦多夫认为，两方面的变化导致了现代社会冲突形式的改变：一是从身份向契约的过渡，即从等级制的传统社会结构向开放的现代社会分层的过渡；二是公民权利的崛起，在此，达伦多夫尤其强调了托马斯·马歇尔的公民权利观点。马歇尔区分了“量的或经济的不平等”与“质的不平等”，前者可能无法消除，而借助于权利平等，后者是有可能被消除的。达伦多夫还借用了西奥多·盖格的“阶级冲突的制度化”这一表述来分析阶级冲突如何被纳入到民主的制度规范下：“资本和劳动之间的紧张关系作为劳动力市场的结构的一条准则而得到了认可，并成了社会的一个合法制度。……阶级斗争的方法、武器和技术也得到了认可，因此也得到了控制。这一斗争是按照特定的游戏规则而展开的。因此阶级斗争就失去了它可能造成的最坏的情形，它被转化成了互相制衡的权力要素之间的一种合法的紧张关系。资本和劳动互相斗争，形成妥协，协商解决办法，并因此决定了工资水平、工作时间和其他工作条件。”

While diluting class consciousness, liberals instead foreground an identity based on civil rights, and thus the issue of race is rediscovered and re-explored. In traditional Marxist class discourse, racial issues are subordinate to class relations. Liberals, however, treat racial issues as matters of civil identity and status, not class issues. Dahrendorf emphasizes that as class consciousness or boundaries become blurred, the struggle over citizenship is the greatest social conflict in modern society, and racial issues are increasingly highlighted as a new form of identity. This identity is inalienable; it is “not an economic status” but rather “removes people from market forces, even liberates them from market forces.” “This issue touches on human identity, because where people or individuals belong is determined by their identity,” and therefore “answering this question means drawing some boundaries.” These boundaries are “clearly discernible” geographically, in skin color, or in other respects. Race is precisely such a discernible boundary of identification, containing identity derived from natural or cultural differences.

在淡化阶级意识的同时，自由主义者转而突出基于公民权利的身份意识，因而种族问题得到重新认识和发掘。在传统马克思主义的阶级话语中，种族问题是从属于阶级关系的。而自由主义者将种族问题视为公民的身份和地位问题，而非阶级问题。达伦多夫强调，在阶级的意识或界线变得模糊的同时，围绕公民身份的争夺是现代社会最大的社会冲突，而种族问题就是作为新的身份意识被日益突出出来的，这种身份是不可转让的，它“不是一种经济上的身份地位”，而是“使人脱离市场力量，甚至是从市场力量下把人解放出来”，“这个问题触及到人的认同性，因为人或者个人归属于哪里是由人的认同性决定的”，因此“回答这个问题意味着要划分一些界线”，这些界线在地理上、肤色上或其他方面“是明显可辨的”。种族即是这样一种可辨析的识别界线，它内含了因自然差异或文化差异而导致的认同。

In Western discussions of racism, it is clearly visible that certain traditional liberal concepts are effectively employed in the construction of racial identity. Pierre-André Taguieff, describing the psychological motivations of Western racism, points out: “Max Weber, when reflecting on the relationship between ‘ethnological’ affinity and the sense of honor belonging to social groups (classes or estates), proposed a socio-psychological model based on the fear of losing social status. This relationship is imagined as a special form of the disappearance of hierarchy between ‘superior’ (commanding) groups and ‘inferior’ (subjugated) groups.” Taguieff argues that this ethnocentric model Weber posited is similar to the mechanism of “class contempt”: “The belief that one’s own customs are good and those of outsiders are inferior (as racial honor holds) fully corresponds to the sense of ‘social status’ (ständlich) honor. ‘Racial honor’ is a special mass honor, because it is accessible to all members of the community of origin to which they believe they belong.”

在西方社会围绕种族主义的讨论中可以清晰地看到，一些自由主义的传统观念被有效地运用于种族身份的构建。皮埃尔-安德烈·塔吉耶夫在描述西方种族主义的心理动因时指出：“马克斯·韦伯在思考‘人种学’亲近感和归属于社会群体（阶级或阶层）的荣誉感之间的关系时，提出了一个以惧怕失去社会地位为基础的精神社会模式。这种关系被想象成各‘上等’（发号施令）的群体和各‘下等’（受奴役）的群体之间等级消失的特殊形式。”他认为，韦伯设定的这种族中心论模式与“阶级蔑视”机制有相似之处：“相信自己的习俗良好，而外人的习俗低下（种族荣誉所以为的）的信念完全和‘社会地位’ (ständlich)的荣誉感相符。‘种族荣誉’是群众性的特殊荣誉，因为这种荣誉是他们自以为所属的来源共同体的成员都可以得到的。”

Furthermore, inclusion and exclusion, as core concepts of liberal social analysis, run through the liberal view of race. Liberals emphasize “equality of opportunity” rather than “equality of outcome,” and replace the traditional concepts of equality and inequality—the latter seen as bearing traces of class discourse—with the concepts of inclusion and exclusion. Dahrendorf states that “the struggles of various groups for horizontal (ethnic, cultural) inclusion or exclusion” should not be regarded as “class conflict.” Giddens also argues: “The concept of exclusion does not refer to the divisions of a hierarchical society, but to mechanisms that exclude certain groups of people from the mainstream of society.” Liberal political forces based on pluralist values oppose racism, support inclusive policies, and in principle accept the protection of ethnic minorities. After the war, they promoted progressive legislation and institutional reforms on a series of issues, including decolonization, combating anti-Semitism, and opposing apartheid.

此外，包容与排斥作为自由主义社会分析的核心概念也贯穿于自由主义的种族观中。自由主义者强调“机会平等”而非“结果平等”，并用包容与排斥概念取代传统的平等与不平等概念，后者被认为带有阶级话语的痕迹。达伦多夫指出，“各个群体为争取横向的（民族的、文化的）包容或排斥的斗争”不应该被视为“阶级冲突”。吉登斯也认为：“排斥性这一概念所涉及的不是等级社会的划分，而是属于把某些群体的人排除在社会主流之外的机制。”基于多元主义价值观的自由主义政治力量反对种族主义，支持包容政策，原则上接受对少数族裔的保护，并于战后在非殖民化、抵制反犹太主义和反对种族隔离等一系列问题上推进了一些进步的立法和制度改革。

However, unlike the positions of radical progressive forces, liberals often treat racial issues as an identity problem unrelated to class, or as a purely socio-cultural phenomenon, viewing it as specific racial discrimination rather than a systemic institutional problem. Their basic stance on racial issues is: to acknowledge legal equality as a matter of civil rights, in principle not to oppose removing some obvious racist obstacles, but not to aim at eliminating de facto racial inequality, thereby acknowledging or even tolerating actual differences between races. The “equality of opportunity” championed by neoliberalism expresses precisely this stance, which in effect means acknowledging the existence of differences based on skin color. Therefore, some conservative liberals, while proclaiming equality of opportunity, often consciously or unconsciously interpret the racial roots of inequality by highlighting racial differences. This is what Taguieff calls “implicit racism,” that is, racism that does not appear in the form of explicit theories, clear propositions, or reasonable demands. In the view of Marxists, this is substantive racism.

不过，与激进的进步主义力量的相关立场不同，自由主义者往往把种族问题作为一个与阶级无关的身份问题或纯粹的社会文化现象，视其为具体的种族歧视，而非系统性的制度问题。他们对待种族问题的基本立场是：承认作为公民权利的法律意义上的平等，原则上不反对扫除一些显而易见的种族主义障碍，但并不以消除事实上的种族不平等为目标，因而承认甚至容忍种族间的实际差异。新自由主义标榜的“机会平等”表达的就是这一立场，这实际上意味着承认基于种族肤色的差别存在。因此，一些保守的自由主义者在宣称机会平等的同时，往往有意无意地以突出种族差异的方式来诠释不平等的种族根源。这就是塔吉耶夫所称的“不言明的种族主义”，即不以明确的理论形式、清楚的主张或合理的要求出现的种族主义。在马克思主义者看来，这是一种实质性的种族主义。

(III) Contradictions and Divisions within Liberalism on the Issue of Racism

（三）自由主义在种族主义问题上的矛盾和分化

Although liberals emphasize increasing inclusion on racial issues, there are clear contradictions in their positions and policies. These contradictions stem from two factors: first, the contradictory elements inherent in liberal racial discourse itself; second, the heterogeneity of liberalism as a system of thought, and the resulting differentiation among related political forces and their associated ideas.

虽然自由主义者在种族问题上强调增进包容，但其立场和政策中存在着明显的矛盾。这种矛盾源自两方面的因素：一是自由主义的种族话语本身存在的矛盾因素；二是自由主义作为一种思想体系的驳杂性，以及由此导致的相关政治力量及其相关观念的分化。

Stuart Hall argues that the ability to “live with difference” has become “the major problem of the 20th century.” And the essence of the problem of racism lies in how to understand and treat difference. On this issue, there are clear contradictions in liberal political positions and policy proposals. On the one hand, pluralism is the political slogan of liberalism; liberals champion pluralism, endorse and tolerate multiculturalism, and the coexistence of multiple interests is also the core of the modern democratic system they defend. On the other hand, because individuals’ identification with racial identity and their claims of rights directly affect the identity of the community and the rights of others, liberals are essentially skeptical about whether a “multicultural society” is viable. Based on this skepticism, they often adopt a policy stance of contracting identity on racial issues. Therefore, although Western modern societies speak freely of multicultural concepts, Dahrendorf emphasizes that “multicultural societies” are “exceptions, not the rule,” and that the assumption that modern societies should be able to live with difference more easily than past societies is perhaps mistaken. Based on this skepticism about the compatibility of multiculturalism, liberals often accept discourses that exaggerate racial differences and advocate identity contraction on issues of race, immigration, and so on. And “according to the logic of identity contraction, defending national identity also manifests as strengthening control over national borders,” which “overlaps with a security-centered view (seeing immigrants as invaders who erode national sovereignty and cause insecurity),” leading to an increasing emphasis on security in immigration policy. This shows that the liberal concepts of inclusion and exclusion contain clear self-contradictions.

斯图亚特·霍尔认为，能否“与差别共存”已经成为“20世纪的主要问题”。而种族主义问题的实质就在于如何理解和对待差别。在此问题上，自由主义的政治立场和政策主张中存在着明显的矛盾。一方面，多元主义是自由主义的政治口号，自由主义标榜多元主义，对多元文化持认同和包容的态度，多元利益的共存也是其所捍卫的现代民主制度的核心。另一方面，由于个体对种族身份的认同和权利主张直接影响了共同体的认同以及他者的权利，自由主义者本质上对“多元文化社会”是否成立持怀疑态度。基于这种怀疑，他们往往在种族问题上持收缩身份的政策立场。因此，尽管西方现代社会畅言多元主义文化观念，但达伦多夫强调“多文化的社会”是“例外情况，而不是规则”，认为现代社会应该比以前的社会更容易带着差异生活的这种设想也许是错误的。基于对多元文化兼容的怀疑，自由主义者往往会接受夸大种族差异的话语，并在种族、移民等问题上主张身份收缩。而“根据身份收缩的逻辑观，捍卫民族身份也表现为对国家边界控制的强化”，它“与一种安全中心观（视移民为入侵、会侵蚀国家主权和导致不安全）叠加在一起”，导致在移民政策上日益强调安全。这表明，自由主义的包容与排斥概念存在着明显的自我矛盾。

Furthermore, from a historical perspective, liberalism as an ideological system is itself multi-sourced, constantly changing, and therefore a hybrid ideological system. In political reality, different political forces in contemporary Western countries, especially traditional mainstream left-wing and right-wing parties, all overlap with it ideologically. It is precisely for this reason that both radical and conservative political forces can find their ideological foundation and theoretical basis within liberalism. On the issue of race, since the 1960s, liberal ideology has evolved into two different, even opposing, tendencies. One is radical liberalism, which seeks to further amplify differences in real society and the protection of the rights of minority groups (including race and gender). This is primarily based on its understanding of racism, namely that the problem of racism as an ideology is actually a problem of institutions and culture. This implies that it tolerates de facto racism, because racism as an ideology is a systemic institutional oppression and cultural exclusion. The other is conservative liberalism, which seeks to inherit and protect traditional values (especially social values) and, in this process, consciously incorporates racist elements, holding strong skepticism about whether a “multicultural society” can truly exist. The increasing ideological divergence between the U.S. Democratic and Republican parties after the 1960s civil rights movement is a typical manifestation of this opposition. In Europe, this opposition manifests as the divergence between social democratic parties moving toward the people’s party and other center-right parties. Entering the 21st century, the polarization surrounding identity politics also centrally reflects this opposition.

此外，从历史的视角来看，自由主义作为一个思想体系，其本身是多源流的、不断变化的，因而是一个混杂的思想体系。在政治现实中，当今西方国家不同的政治力量、尤其是传统的左翼和右翼主流政党在意识形态方面都与之存在交叠关系。也正因为如此，激进和保守的政治力量都能从自由主义中找到思想基础和理论依据。在种族问题上，自1960年代以来，自由主义的意识形态演化出两种不同甚至对立的趋向。一种是激进自由主义，它寻求进一步放大现实社会的差异和对少数群体（包括种族和性别）权利的保护。这主要基于它对种族主义的理解，即作为意识形态的种族主义问题实际上是制度和文化的问题。这就意味着它容忍事实上的种族主义存在，因为作为一种意识形态的种族主义是一种系统性的制度压迫和文化排斥。另一种是保守自由主义，它寻求对传统价值观（尤其是社会价值观）的继承和保护，并在此过程中有意识地融入了种族主义元素，对“多文化的社会”能否真正存在持强烈的怀疑态度。1960年代民权运动后，美国民主党与共和党在意识形态方面的日趋分化就是这种对立的典型表现。在欧洲，这种对立表现为走向人民党的社会民主党与其他中右翼政党之间的分化。进入21世纪后，围绕身份政治的极化现象也集中反映了这种对立。

Therefore, facing the rise and challenge of right-wing populist parties (which essentially appeal to racism), political forces that claim to be defenders of traditional liberal values (including liberals and conservatives) find themselves in an awkward position: on the one hand, they profess to defend pluralism and oppose blatant racial discrimination and racism, using this as their main argument against right-wing populist parties; on the other hand, in the increasingly polarized competition of identity politics, they oppose the pluralist claims of radical liberalism and emphasize limiting differences.

因此，面对右翼民粹主义政党（在本质上诉诸种族主义）的崛起和挑战，自诩为传统自由主义价值体系捍卫者的政治力量（包括自由主义者和保守主义者）面临尴尬的处境：一方面，他们标榜捍卫多元主义，反对公然的种族歧视和种族主义，并以此作为抵制右翼民粹主义政党的主要主张；另一方面，在日趋极化的身份政治竞争中，他们又反对激进自由主义的多元主义主张，并强调限制差异。

III. The Awkward Position of European Social Democratic Parties on Class and Race Issues

三、欧洲社会民主党在阶级和种族问题上的尴尬处境

The decline of class discourse and the construction of racial discourse are closely related to the political choices of European social democratic parties after the war. As parties deeply influenced by Marxism in their early days and claiming to represent the working class, facing the challenges brought by changes in social structure, European social democratic parties chose to downplay their class character ideologically and organizationally, implementing a cross-class opening strategy. At the same time, they highlighted their new identity by catering to radical liberalism, which directly affected their stance on racism. Both of these brought new problems for social democratic parties, leading to a crisis of identity consciousness and a fragmentation of their support base.

阶级话语的式微和种族话语的构建与战后欧洲社会民主党的政治选择有密切关系。作为早期深受马克思主义影响、以工人阶级代表自居的政党，面对社会结构变化带来的挑战，欧洲社会民主党选择从意识形态和组织方面淡化自己的阶级色彩，实施一种跨阶级的开放战略。与此同时，它以迎合激进自由主义的方式来突出自己的新身份，这就直接影响了其在种族主义问题上的立场。这两者都为社会民主党带来了新问题，导致其身份意识的危机和支持力量的分化。

(I) The Theory and Practice of Social Democrats’ “De-class Politics”

（一）社会民主党的“去阶级政治”的理论与实践

Most social democratic parties in European countries were born in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as a product of the combination of the workers’ movement and socialist thought. Taking the German Social Democratic Party as an example, it was deeply influenced by Marxism in its early days and guided by Marx’s theory of class struggle, carrying a radical revolutionary character. Even after moving toward a reformist path, it maintained a distinct class identity in ideology and political organization. However, against the backdrop of changes in post-war social structure and socio-political environment, social democratic parties encountered a bottleneck in political development. Reformist forces within the parties believed that this was mainly caused by the constraints of their class identity and image. Under the leadership of reformist forces, social democratic parties implemented a series of “de-classification” reforms in thought and organization. Ideologically, social democratic parties adopted democratic socialism as their new concept, emphasizing the moral foundation of socialism while taking democracy (rather than class struggle) as their main path. Politically, they emphasized class cooperation rather than class antagonism, regarded “peaceful social reform” as the only path to human liberation, and advocated transforming capitalism through the role of the state. Through these changes, traditional class concepts gradually faded in the discourse system of social democratic parties. After the 1990s, although social democratic parties still used the term “class,” it was mainly used to express “class differences.” Entering the 21st century, the Swedish Social Democratic Party declared that “welfare society” had gradually replaced “class society.” Organizationally, symbolized by the reforms surrounding the adoption of the 1959 *Basic Program of the German Social Democratic Party* (the *Godesberg Program*) [14]14 The Godesberg Program, adopted in 1959, marked the German Social Democratic Party’s official abandonment of Marxism and class struggle in favor of a reformist, catch-all party model., the German Social Democratic Party claimed to have “transformed from a working-class party into a people’s party.” Otto Kirchheimer used the concept of the “catch-all party” to summarize this transformation, with reducing class dependence as its main feature, including setting aside the party’s ideological ambitions, downplaying its own class attributes and class origins, and ensuring connections with various different interest groups.

欧洲国家的大多数社会民主党诞生于19世纪末20世纪初，是工人运动与社会主义思想相结合的产物。以德国社会民主党为例，它早期深受马克思主义影响，并以马克思的阶级斗争学说为指导，带有激进的革命色彩，即使在走向改良主义道路之后，在意识形态和政治组织方面也具有鲜明的阶级身份特征。但是，在战后社会结构和社会政治环境变化的背景下，社会民主党陷入了政治发展的瓶颈。党内改革力量认为，这主要是其阶级身份和形象的约束所导致的。在改革力量的主导下，社会民主党在思想和组织方面采取了一系列“去阶级化”改革。在思想上，社会民主党以民主社会主义作为自己的新理念，在强调社会主义的道德基础的同时，以民主（而非阶级斗争）作为其主要路径。在政治上，它强调阶级合作而非阶级对抗，并将“和平的社会改革”视为实现人的解放的唯一路径，主张通过国家的作用改造资本主义。通过这些改变，传统的阶级观念在社会民主党的话语体系中日渐淡化。1990年代后，虽然社会民主党依然使用“阶级”一词，但主要用于表达“阶级差别”。进入21世纪后，瑞典社会民主党宣称已经用“福利社会”逐步代替了“阶级社会”。在组织上，以1959年的《德国社会民主党基本原则纲领》（即《歌德堡纲领》）获得通过前后的改革为象征，德国社会民主党自称“已经从一个工人阶级政党变成了一个人民政党”。奥托·基希海默尔用“全方位党”的概念来概括这一转变，而减少阶级依赖是其主要特色，包括放下党的意识形态抱负、淡化自身的阶级属性和阶级出身以及确保与各种不同的利益集团建立联系等。

Based on the historical origins and practical foundations of social democratic parties, “de-classification” is a long-term gradual process, inevitably full of pain and contradictions. The natural connection with the working class and its organizations (trade unions) makes it difficult for social democratic parties to truly break away from them in real political competition. From a political practice perspective, although the ideological and organizational transformation of social democratic parties centered on attracting the new middle class, for a considerable period (at least until the 1990s), the working class remained the strongest and most stable support base for social democratic parties in various countries, although its proportion gradually declined. Therefore, social democratic parties could hardly truly face all social classes equally like the literal “catch-all party.” More precisely, during this period, social democratic parties were parties primarily based on the working class, gradually opening up to other classes, especially the new middle class. They sought to build a cross-class alliance, but its foundation lay in a stable alliance with the traditional working class, particularly reflected in the stable relationship between the party and trade unions. For social democratic parties, the truly “catch-all” trend emerged in the “Third Way” of the 1990s, because the “Third Way” advocated by Tony Blair and Gerhard Schröder centered on the middle class rather than the working class. Therefore, it is not difficult to understand that although social democratic parties continuously downplayed their class character, they still retained traces of class in their values and political propositions, and trade unions were still valued. For example, the Swedish Social Democratic Party emphasized in its 2013 party program: “The ideology of the workers’ movement is a method for analyzing social development; the most fundamental is the materialist conception of history, that is, the recognition that factors such as technology, capital accumulation, and labor organization have a decisive role in society and people’s social conditions.”

基于社会民主党的历史渊源和现实基础，“去阶级化”是一个长期的渐进过程，其中必然充满痛苦和矛盾。与工人阶级及其组织（工会）的天然联系使社会民主党在现实的政治竞争中难以真正摆脱与它们的关系。从政治实践来看，尽管社会民主党的思想和组织转变以吸引新中间阶级为核心，但在相当长的时期里（至少一直到1990年代），工人阶级依然是各国社会民主党最强大、最稳固的支持力量，虽然其比重在逐步下降。所以，社会民主党难以真正向字面上的“全方位党”那样同等面向所有社会阶层。更确切地说，这一时期的社会民主党是一个以工人阶级为主要基础逐步向其他阶级、尤其是新中间阶级开放的政党。它寻求建立一个跨阶级联盟，但其基础在于与传统工人阶级的稳定联盟，这尤其体现在党与工会的稳定关系中。对于社会民主党来说，真正意义上的“全方位”趋势是在1990年代的“第三条道路”中表现出来的，因为安东尼·布莱尔和格哈德·施罗德倡导的“第三条道路”是以中间阶级而非工人阶级为重心的。所以不难理解，尽管社会民主党在不断淡化自身的阶级色彩，但在其价值观念和政治主张中依然保留了阶级的痕迹，工会也依然受到重视。例如，瑞典社会民主党在2013年的党纲中强调：“工人运动的意识形态就是分析社会发展的一种方法，最根本的是唯物主义历史观，即技术、资本积累和劳动组织等因素对社会和人们的社会条件具有决定性作用的认知。”

Under the banner of democratic socialism, social democratic parties have in fact replaced class discourse with a discourse of power. They regard capitalism as a "system of power," believing that a minority, by virtue of economic power, holds political power disproportionate to its demographic structure. This "power gap" implies a gap in the degree of freedom, and eliminating this gap is the goal of social democracy. Social democrats attempt to achieve this goal without altering the basic economic system of capitalism, adopting democratic means including economic democracy, political democracy, and social democracy. In practice, although social democratic parties have advanced political democracy to a certain extent, they have encountered stubborn resistance from capitalists on the issue of economic democracy, leading to an imbalance between economic democracy and political democracy. For a period, however, rapid economic growth and the development of universal welfare masked the problems arising from this imbalance to some degree. When circumstances changed, especially in the process of globalization dominated by neoliberalism after the 1980s, this imbalance markedly intensified, and European social democracy generally fell into an identity crisis. In terms of organization and political strategy, the contradiction between social democratic parties' increasing accommodation of the new middle class and their electoral dependence on the working class (including trade unions) exacerbated this identity crisis and brought greater uncertainty to the development of social democratic parties. Particularly against the backdrop of new social movements, the new middle class ideologically inclined more toward radical liberal values, tending toward diversity and the principle of difference, while traditional industrial workers tended more toward traditional values. Entering the 21st century, the value conflict between these two forces within social democracy became increasingly evident, with the direct result that working-class voters belonging to the traditional left shifted en masse toward right-wing populism in elections. The impetus for social democratic parties to "de-class politics" was originally to expand their organizational and mobilizational capacity, but over the long term, their organizational and mobilizational capacity clearly did not strengthen as a result of this "catch-all" trend. This spurred social democratic parties across Europe to reassess class identity, and entering the 21st century, especially after the 2008 financial crisis, they showed varying degrees of a return to class politics.

在民主社会主义的旗帜下，社会民主党实际上用权力话语取代了阶级话语，它将资本主义视为一种“权力制度”，认为少数人凭借经济权力掌握了与其人口结构不成比例的政治权力，这种“权力的差距”意味着自由程度的差距，而消除这种差距是社会民主主义的目标。社会民主党人试图在不改变资本主义基本经济制度的前提下实现这一目标，它采取了民主的方式，包括经济民主、政治民主和社会民主。在实践中，社会民主党虽然在一定程度上推进了政治民主，却在经济民主的问题上遭到资本家的顽强抵制，由此导致了经济民主与政治民主的失衡，只不过在一个时期里，经济的高速增长和普遍福利的发展一定程度上掩盖了这种失衡带来的问题。而当环境发生改变后，尤其是在1980年代后新自由主义主导的全球化进程中，这种失衡明显加剧，欧洲社会民主主义普遍陷入了身份危机。在组织和政治战略方面，社会民主党日益迎合新中间阶级与其对工人阶级（包括工会）的选举依赖之间的矛盾加剧了这种身份危机，也为社会民主党的发展带来了更大的不确定性。特别是在新社会运动的背景下，新中间阶级在意识形态方面更加迎合激进自由主义的价值观，趋向多样性和差异原则；而传统产业工人在价值观方面却更趋向传统。进入21世纪后，社会民主党的两种力量之间的价值观冲突愈发明显，其直接结果是属于传统左翼的工人阶级在竞选中大量向右翼民粹主义靠拢。社会民主党“去阶级政治”的动力本是为了扩大其组织和动员能力，但从长期趋势来看，其组织和动员能力显然没有因为这种“全方位”趋势而加强。这就刺激了欧洲各国社会民主党对阶级身份的重新认识，并在进入21世纪、尤其是2008年金融危机后不同程度地出现了重返阶级政治的趋势。

(2) The Influence of New Left Cultural Liberalism on European Social Democratic Parties

（二）新左翼的文化自由主义对欧洲社会民主党的影响

At the very time social democratic parties were downplaying traditional class consciousness and seeking to reconstruct a new identity, the Western New Left gave rise to a cultural liberal movement. Driven by the strategic priority of accommodating the new middle class, social democratic parties increasingly inclined toward accepting radical liberal positions in ideology and culture, in order to highlight their own radical identity. However, this choice also brought the competition over identity within the social democratic camp into the open, and led to the growing alienation of part of the traditional working-class base.

在社会民主党淡化传统阶级意识并寻求新的身份意识重构之时，西方新左翼兴起了文化自由主义运动。出于迎合新中间阶级的战略重点的需要，社会民主党日益倾向于在思想文化上接受激进自由主义的主张，以凸显自身的激进主义身份特征。但是，这一选择也令社会民主党阵营内部的身份意识竞争公开化，以及一部分传统的工人队伍日益疏离。

The main reason social democratic parties downplayed their traditional identity as representatives of the working class was to increase their appeal to the growing new middle class, and for this they needed to develop a new ideology that could accommodate this force. Against this backdrop, the Western New Left's cultural liberal movement that emerged in the 1960s provided an opportunity, nurturing radical ideas among the younger generation and directly influencing European social democracy. The main force and vanguard of this movement were intellectuals in the cultural field. Unlike the traditional middle class, the new middle class consists mostly of knowledge-based professionals, whose work environments primarily involve social interaction (such as teaching, management, and consulting), thus requiring tolerance of cultural diversity. Consequently, they are more receptive to cultural liberalism in their cultural outlook, and more inclined to identify with and even participate in new social movements. Adhering to universalist and anti-racist positions, they stand in opposition to traditional right-wing cultural conservatism on many issues, thus becoming virtually a reserved political force for the left.

社会民主党之所以淡化其传统的工人阶级代表身份，主要目的是为了增加对日趋庞大的新中间阶级的吸引力，为此就需要发展能够迎合这支力量的新意识形态。在此背景下，1960年代兴起的西方新左翼的文化自由主义运动为其提供了契机，在新一代年轻人中孕育了激进思想，也直接影响了欧洲的社会民主主义。该运动的主力和先导是文化领域的知识分子。新中间阶级与传统的中间阶级不同，他们多为知识型专业人员，其工作环境主要涉及社会互动（如教学、管理、咨询等），因此需要包容文化多样性，从而在文化观念上更为接受文化自由主义，也更认同甚至参与了新社会运动。他们坚持普遍主义和反种族主义立场，在众多问题上与传统右翼的文化保守主义相反，因此几乎成了左翼的政治保留力量。

However, the expanding influence of cultural liberalism also brought new problems for social democratic parties, primarily the differentiation between the new middle class and the traditional working class. As social democratic parties grew distant from the traditional working class and its trade unions, the latter began to drift away ideologically from social democracy, leading to changes in working-class voting behavior and the consequent phenomenon of "class decomposition." This provided an opportunity for the radical right to attract working-class support on cultural issues. The disaffected working class, especially traditional manual laborers, increasingly expressed dissatisfaction with universalist values tinged with cultural liberalism. In this context, the polarizing ideology and propaganda of right-wing populism (including xenophobia, ethnocentrism, and anti-universalism) satisfied the psychology and emotions of this segment of workers to a certain extent, and opposition to cultural liberalism became a powerful weapon for the far right to attract part of the working class. As some researchers have pointed out, the failure of the left's egalitarian agenda led to disillusionment with left-wing politics among the popular strata, which in turn led them to support right-wing populist forces out of an "illusory choice."

不过，文化自由主义影响的扩大也给社会民主党带来了新的问题，主要是新中间阶级与传统工人阶级的分化。随着社会民主党对传统工人阶级及其工会组织的疏远，后者开始在意识形态上疏离社会民主党，由此导致了工人阶级投票行为的改变以及随之而来的“阶级解组”现象。这为激进右翼在文化问题上吸引工人阶级的支持提供了机会，失落的工人阶级、尤其是传统的体力劳动者日益表现出对带有文化自由主义色彩的普遍主义价值观的不满。在这种背景下，右翼民粹主义的极化意识形态和宣传（包括仇外心理、种族中心主义、反普遍主义）在一定意义上满足了这部分工人的心理和情绪，反对文化自由主义成为极右翼吸引一部分工人阶级的有力武器。正如有研究者指出的，左翼平等主义议程的失败导致了大众阶层对左翼政治的幻灭，进而导致他们出于一种“幻觉选择”而支持右翼民粹主义势力。

(3) Social Democrats' View of Race

（三）社会民主党人的种族观

The change in social democrats' class stance and their radical liberal tendency in ideology and culture determined their racial discourse and policies. Early social democrats were deeply influenced by Marxism, regarding the elimination of class rule and exploitation as the most fundamental path to equality. Consequently, for a considerable period, the platforms of social democratic parties did not separately address the issue of race. This situation began to change as their class perspective weakened. After the 1960s, the platforms of social democratic parties increasingly expressed positions on racial oppression, immigration (refugees), and racism.

社会民主党在阶级立场上的变化及其在思想文化方面的激进自由主义倾向决定了其种族话语和政策。早期的社会民主党深受马克思主义影响，将消灭阶级统治和剥削视为实现平等的最根本途径，因此在相当长的时期里，社会民主党的纲领并没有单独提及种族问题。这种状况随着其阶级观念的淡化而开始改变。1960年代后，社会民主党的纲领开始更多地表达对种族压迫、移民（难民）和种族主义等问题的立场。

The social democrats’ view on race is built on two demands. The first is a demand for more thorough and universal equality. For example, the Socialist International’s *Frankfurt Declaration* proclaims: “Socialists fight for the abolition of all legal, economic, and political inequalities between men and women, between social strata, between urban and rural areas, between regions, and between races.” This determines the basic stance of social democrats against racial oppression and racial discrimination. In 1960, when the Swedish Social Democratic Party first raised the issue of race in its party program, it expressed a similar stance: “All people, regardless of social status, gender, race, or language, shall be treated equally.” Adhering to this stance, social democrats firmly claim to be “a party opposed to racism, committed to equality among groups of different skin colors, races, religions, and cultural attributes.” The second demand is for the protection of minority rights. This demand stems both from social democrats’ understanding of democratic principles and from their alignment with the radical liberal ideas of the New Left. In the *Godesberg Program*, [15]15 The *Godesberg Program* (1959) was a landmark revision of the Social Democratic Party of Germany’s (SPD) ideology, formally abandoning Marxism and accepting the market economy, while emphasizing democratic principles and social welfare. “minority rights” are emphasized as a democratic principle. Based on this principle, social democrats tend to favor equality of outcomes on a range of inequality issues, including race. The radical liberalism of the New Left further amplifies the protection of minority rights into multiculturalism. The combination of these two elements establishes the basic stance of social democrats on the issue of racism, which is particularly reflected in their understanding of “power gaps”: “Power gaps in society are not easily eliminated. When people’s opportunities for development depend on which group they belong to, it indicates the existence of a power structure.” The race issue is one of the problems within this power structure: “Racist structures still exist in our society, limiting the lives of some while granting privileges to others. Racists, through imagination, divide people into different racial groups and maintain the gaps between them in the possession of power and resources.” Eliminating power gaps means supporting the disadvantaged: “The task of social democrats is to support those who are disadvantaged. Only in this way can freedom in our society expand.” Based on this understanding, social democrats place greater emphasis on protecting the rights of ethnic minorities on the issue of racism. Meanwhile, as class identity consciousness gradually fades, the welfare society increasingly becomes an important path for social democrats to eliminate power gaps. On this basis, social democrats further emphasize “commitment to cultural integration, supporting exchanges between people with different cultures and different backgrounds. Such exchanges are based on the equal value and equal rights of every person, regardless of their social, gender, or racial background.”

社会民主党人的种族观建立在两个要求之上。一是要求更彻底、更普遍的平等。例如，社会党国际的《法兰克福宣言》宣称：“社会党人为了废除男女之间、社会阶层之间、城市与农村之间、地区之间、种族之间的所有法律的、经济的和政治的不平等而斗争。”这就决定了社会民主党人反对种族压迫和种族歧视的基本立场。1960年，瑞典社会民主党第一次在党纲中提出种族问题时表达了类似的立场：“不管社会地位、性别、种族或者语言，所有的人应受到同样待遇。”秉持这一立场，社会民主党坚称自己是“反对种族主义的政党，致力于不同肤色、种族、宗教和不同文化属性群体之间的平等”。二是要求保护少数群体的权利。这一要求既是出于社会民主党人对民主原则的理解，也与其所迎合的新左翼的激进自由主义观念一致。在《哥德斯堡纲领》中，“少数人的权利”被当作民主原则来强调。基于这一原则，社会民主党人在包括种族问题在内的一系列不平等问题上更倾向于追求结果的平等。而新左翼的激进自由主义进一步把对少数人权利的保护放大为多元文化主义。这两者的结合确立了社会民主党人在种族主义问题上的基本立场，这尤其体现在对“权力的差距”的理解上：“社会权力的差距是不容易消除的。当人们发展的可能性取决于其是否属于某个团体的时候，就说明权力结构的存在。”种族问题即是该权力结构中的问题之一：“我们社会还存在种族主义结构，它限制着某些人的生活，同时给另外一些人特权。种族主义者凭着想象把人们分成不同种族群体，并维护他们之间在权力和资源占有方面的差距。”而消除权力差距意味着支持弱势：“社会民主党人的任务是支持那些弱势的人们。只有这样，我们社会上的自由才会扩大。”基于这种认知，社会民主党在种族主义问题上更强调对少数族裔权利的保护。而在阶级的身份意识日渐淡化的同时，福利社会愈益成为社会民主党人消除权力差距的重要路径。在此基础上，社会民主党人进一步强调“致力于文化的融合，支持具有不同文化和不同背景的人们之间的交流。这种交流以人人同等价值和同等权利为基础，而不论其社会、性别和种族背景”。

It should be noted that although the class consciousness of social democrats is gradually receding, it is still retained to some extent, especially when facing identity crises. This is also reflected in their stance on the race issue. For example, while supporting the struggle to narrow actual power differences, the Swedish Social Democratic Party also opposes treating issues that belong to class structure as racial issues: “While racism and social class structures reinforce each other, there is a danger in social discourse of treating the class structure of poor groups and localities as a racial issue. Social democrats firmly oppose this practice.” Clearly, social democrats still bear the imprint of class, and this distinguishes them from liberals in their analysis of racial issues.

需要指出的是，虽然社会民主党的阶级意识在逐步消退，但依然有所保留，尤其是在面临身份危机时。这也反映在其关于种族问题的立场上。例如，瑞典社会民主党在支持缩小实际权利差别斗争的同时，也反对把一些属于阶级结构的问题当作种族问题来处理：“在种族主义和社会阶级结构之间相互强化的同时，在社会讨论中存在着把贫困群体和地方的阶级结构当作种族问题处理的危险。社会民主党人坚决反对这种做法。”显然，社会民主党人身上依然留有阶级的烙印，并由此而在分析种族问题时显示出与自由主义者的区别。

In summary, on the issue of race and racism, social democrats express both consensus with liberalism and their own characteristics. Based on historical traditions and political ideas, social democrats have embraced and developed radical liberal ideas on the race issue. However, entering the 21st century, against the backdrop of changing international and domestic environments, the ideas and policies of social democrats on the race issue have faced enormous challenges. This is particularly related to the growing prominence of immigration issues and the development of the welfare society. The former has brought about a cultural identity crisis centered on racial differences, thereby posing a huge challenge to the cultural integration proposed by social democrats. The latter directly impacts the stance and policies of social democrats on eliminating power gaps. Social democrats advocate opposing racism through the comprehensive development of welfare. The Swedish Social Democratic Party believes: “The best way to fight racism is to strengthen equality by creating full employment and developing universal welfare.” However, against the backdrop of prominent immigration issues and crises in the social welfare system, this policy proposition appears extremely weak, not only provoking opposition from conservative political forces but also triggering strong dissatisfaction among traditional industrial workers (the main losers in the process of globalization), who have long been the stable base of social democrats. These forces have in turn become an important foundation for right-wing populist parties. This highlights the contradiction between the ideal and reality of social democrats in pursuing more universal equality (narrowing power gaps).

总之，社会民主党在种族和种族主义问题上既表达了其与自由主义的共识，也显示出自己的特点。基于历史传统和政治理念，社会民主党在种族问题上迎合并发展了激进自由主义的观念。但进入21世纪后，在国际和国内环境变化的背景下，社会民主党在种族问题上的观念和政策遇到了巨大挑战。这尤其与移民问题的日益突出和福利社会的发展相关。前者带来了围绕种族差异而出现的文化认同危机，从而使社会民主党人提出的文化融合面临巨大挑战。后者则直接冲击了社会民主党人所主张的消除权利差距的立场和政策。社会民主党主张通过全面发展福利的方式来反对种族主义。瑞典社会民主党就认为：“与种族主义作斗争的最好办法是通过创造全面就业和发展普遍福利来加强平等。”然而，在移民问题突出和社会福利体制出现危机的背景下，这一政策主张显得极为苍白，不只引起保守主义政治力量的反对，也引发了作为社会民主党长期稳定基础的传统产业工人（全球化进程中的主要失落者）的强烈不满。这些力量转而成为右翼民粹主义政党的重要基础。这就凸显了社会民主党在追求更为普遍的平等（缩小权力差距）时理想与现实之间的矛盾。

On the race issue, the stance and policy propositions of social democrats also involve a fundamental issue: solidarity. In today’s developed Western countries, although various ethnic minority groups are all victims of racism, they often have conflicting interests when seeking policy protection, especially redistributive policies. In the past, class solidarity, especially the existence of trade unions, to some extent bridged the contradictions between these interest groups. But now, with the weakening of trade unions, the basis for solidarity among ethnic minorities is lacking. For example, on the issue of European immigration policy, different groups such as asylum seekers, refugees, and migrant workers have inconsistent interests in seeking redistributive policies, thereby affecting the decision-making of EU member states when formulating policies to remove related obstacles. Therefore, progressive forces gathered under the banner of “Social Europe” emphasize that, in order to seek alternative policies on the immigration issue, groups legally representing different categories must unite politically. However, in today’s Western countries, the prospects are not optimistic. Social democrats thus find themselves in a very awkward position on the race policy issue.

在种族问题上，社会民主党的立场和政策主张还涉及一个根本问题，即团结问题。在当今西方发达国家，各少数族裔群体虽同为种族主义的受害者，但在寻求政策保护尤其是再分配政策时往往又存在利益冲突。过去，阶级团结、尤其是工会的存在一定程度上弥合了这些利益群体之间的矛盾。但如今，随着工会的削弱，少数族裔之间缺少了团结的基础。例如，在欧洲移民政策问题上，寻求庇护者、难民和移民工人等不同群体在寻求再分配政策方面存在利益的不一致性，从而影响了欧盟成员国在制定消除相关障碍的政策时的决策。因此，聚集在“社会欧洲”（Social Europe）旗帜下的进步主义力量强调，为了寻求移民问题上的替代性政策，在法律上代表不同类别的群体必须在政治上团结起来。但是，在当下的西方国家，前景并不乐观。社会民主党因此也在种族政策问题上处于一种十分尴尬的境地。

IV. Conclusion: The Significance of Class and Race Discourse

四、结语：阶级和种族话语的意义

As an ideological and institutional analytical tool, racial theory developed in the post-war period, emerging alongside the decline of class as a method of social analysis. By analyzing the conceptual shifts around class and race among the two mainstream political forces in contemporary Western society—liberals and social democrats—we can see that, on the one hand, although Marx’s class discourse has significantly declined in influence in post-war mainstream social analysis, the social dynamics behind this phenomenon are often exaggerated; the more primary driver of the conceptual shift for both forces is the need for political competition. Especially for social democrats, the reason for choosing to change class consciousness and discourse is not the retreat of class, but a change in their self-positioning, more precisely the need of electoral politics. As a large body of contemporary Western discussion on class and race shows, identity consciousness and identity politics are, to a greater extent, the result of political and cultural shaping, particularly reflecting the consciousness of the dominant social class, which precisely confirms Marx’s view of class. In fact, class discourse has not completely disappeared. From Western social stratification theory and critical theories of racism, one can still see the shadow of class discourse, albeit more often embodied in Weberian discourse. [16]16 Weberian discourse refers to the sociological approach of Max Weber, which analyzes social stratification in terms of class, status, and party (power), rather than the Marxist focus on relations of production and class struggle. The reason mainstream political theory abandons Marx’s class discourse is likely more due to the critique of the existing capitalist system embodied in Marx’s class discourse, and the concept of antagonistic class relations it establishes.

作为一种意识形态和制度分析工具，种族理论是在战后发展起来的，是伴随着阶级作为一种社会分析方法的式微而兴起的。通过分析当今西方社会中自由主义者与社会民主主义者两大主流政治力量围绕阶级和种族问题的观念转变，我们可以看到，一方面，虽然马克思的阶级话语在战后的主流社会分析中的影响力显著下降，但这一现象背后的社会动因往往被夸大了，两种力量发生观念转变的更主要动因是政治竞争的需要。尤其对于社会民主党人来说，选择改变阶级意识和话语的原因并非阶级的退却，而是其自我定位的改变，确切地说是选举政治的需要。正如当代西方有关阶级和种族的大量讨论所显示的，身份意识和身份政治在更大程度上表现为一种政治和文化塑形的结果，尤其反映了占主导地位的社会阶级的意识，而这也恰恰印证了马克思的阶级观。事实上，阶级话语并未完全消失。从西方社会分层理论以及种族主义批判理论中，人们依然可以看到阶级话语的影子，只不过它们更多地体现为韦伯式的话语。而主流政治理论之所以放弃马克思的阶级话语，恐怕更是因为马克思的阶级话语中所体现的对既有资本主义制度的批判，以及它所建立的对立性阶级关系概念。

From the perspective of racial discourse, although there is no shortage of attempts in Western intellectual and cultural circles to replace class consciousness with race as a new form of identity consciousness amid extensive discussions on racial issues, the complexity of racial problems also makes it impossible to reach consensus in terms of concepts, analysis, and research methods. This uncertainty makes it difficult for race, whether as a form of identity consciousness or as an analytical tool, to replace the position of class in traditional social analysis discourse. However, as Ariane Chebel d’Appollonia pointed out: “The persistence of racism means that it has its useful side, that is, racism has its psychological, social, political, and institutional purposes to achieve.” [17]17 Ariane Chebel d’Appollonia, a French political scientist specializing in racism, immigration, and security studies. And as a form of institutional critique, critical race theory also has its theoretical and practical significance; it helps people understand the essence of capitalism in a more multidimensional and profound way.

而从种族话语的角度来看，尽管在西方思想文化领域围绕种族问题的大量讨论中不乏将种族作为一种新的身份意识替代阶级意识的尝试，但种族问题的复杂性也使得人们在概念、分析和研究方法上都无法取得共识。这种不确定性使得种族无论是作为一种身份意识，还是作为一种分析工具，都难以取代阶级在传统的社会分析话语中的位置。但是，正如阿丽亚娜·舍贝尔·达波洛尼亚所指出的：“种族主义的持续存在意味着它有其有用的一面，即种族主义有其在心理、社会、政治和制度方面所要达到的目的。”而作为一种制度批判，种族主义批判理论也有其理论和现实意义，它有助于人们更多维、也更深刻地认识资本主义的本质。

Furthermore, as a critical theory, racial critique is not entirely at odds with class analysis. Class analysis is precisely the direction that some progressive scholars in critical race theory strive to pursue. They attempt to reapply Marxist methods to analyze racial issues. And the examination of the relationship between race and class struggle—including the role of class struggle, workers’ organizations, and the unity of ethnic minorities in resolving racial discrimination and oppression—also helps people understand the practical significance of Marx’s view of class.

此外，作为一种批判理论，种族主义批判并不完全与阶级分析相悖。阶级分析正是批判的种族理论中一些进步主义学者所努力争取的方向。他们试图重新运用马克思主义方法分析种族主义问题。而对种族与阶级斗争的关系的考察——包括阶级斗争、工人组织以及少数族裔的团结对于解决种族歧视和压迫的作用——也有助于人们认识马克思的阶级观的现实意义。

(Author’s bio: Lin Deshan, School of Political Science and Public Administration, China University of Political Science and Law)

（作者简介：林德山，中国政法大学政治与公共管理学院）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心