The Triple Critique of Contemporary Capitalism and Its New Interpretation

Twentieth-century capitalism, especially modern capitalism led by the United States, can to some extent be described as financial capitalism, because since the first economic crisis erupted in the United States in 1929 and triggered a global economic crisis, the fate of capitalism has been closely tied to finance. Thereafter, apart from the stagflation of Western capitalism caused by the Middle East oil crisis in the 1970s and the Asian financial crisis of 1998, only the US subprime mortgage crisis that broke out in 2008 can be considered a global economic crisis. The US subprime mortgage crisis that erupted on Wall Street in 2008 was a typical financial crisis, exhibiting characteristics different from the 1929 economic crisis: although the subprime crisis came with ferocity, the disaster it triggered seems to have been resolved smoothly so far. Although new crises have erupted in US finance, such as the run on Silicon Valley Bank in the United States in 2023, for the US economy it also appears to have been “a close call” that landed smoothly; the US economy seems to be heading back toward revival and prosperity, with the Dow Jones index repeatedly hitting new highs, employment data looking bright, and the policy of “quantitative easing” gradually receding. So how exactly should we view contemporary financial capitalism led by the United States and its new characteristics?

20世纪的资本主义，特别是以美国为首的现代资本主义，在某种程度上可以说是金融资本主义，因为自从1929年美国爆发第一次经济危机并引起全球范围的经济危机之后，资本主义的命运就与金融紧密地联系在了一起。之后，除了20世纪70年代因为中东石油危机而引发西方资本主义的经济滞胀、1998年的亚洲金融危机之外，只有2008年爆发的美国次债危机算得上全球范围内的经济危机。2008年华尔街爆发的美国次债危机是一次典型的金融危机，它呈现出与1929年经济危机不同的特点：次债危机虽然来势凶猛，但是迄今为止似乎已经平稳地化解了次债引发的灾难。虽然美国金融又爆发了新的危机，如2023年美国硅谷银行出现挤兑风潮，但对美国经济而言，似乎也是“有惊无险”，平稳着陆，美国经济似乎重新走向了复兴和繁荣，道琼斯指数屡创新高，就业数据亮眼，“量化宽松货币”的政策渐行退出。那么，究竟如何看待当今以美国为首的当代金融资本主义及其新特征呢？

The well-known contemporary psychoanalyst and left-wing scholar Slavoj Žižek, along with Alfred Sohn-Rethel, a fellow traveler of the Frankfurt School, have both conducted in-depth analyses and critiques of the operation of contemporary capitalism. Žižek, employing modern psychoanalytic theory and Marx’s dialectical method of analysis, has meticulously outlined the “paradoxical” new characteristics of contemporary financial capitalism and subjected them to a comprehensive critical analysis. Sohn-Rethel, starting from Marx’s theory of commodity exchange, has addressed the epistemological origins of commodity fetishism and money fetishism. Here we primarily focus on Žižek’s critique, supplemented by Sohn-Rethel’s analysis and critique of commodity fetishism, to examine the contradictions and crises concealed beneath the legitimizing cloak of contemporary capitalism from three aspects—financial capital, political democracy, and ecological crisis—offering a reference for a comprehensive and in-depth study of capitalism.

当今著名的精神分析学家和左翼学者齐泽克与法兰克福学派的同路人索恩·雷特尔都对当代资本主义的运作进行了深入的分析和批判。齐泽克运用现代精神分析理论与马克思的辩证分析方法，条分缕析地勾勒出了当代金融资本主义的“悖论”性的新特征，并进行了全面的批判分析。索恩·雷特尔则从马克思的商品交换理论出发论及了商品拜物教和货币拜物教产生的认识论起源。在此我们主要以齐泽克的批判为主，辅之以雷特尔对商品拜物教的分析批判，从金融资本、政治民主和生态危机三方面来分析一下当代资本主义在合法化外衣之下所掩盖的矛盾及其危机，为全面深入研究资本主义做一参考。

I. Financial Capital · Digital Capital · Welfare Capital

一、金融资本·数字资本·福利资本

As capitalism enters the monopoly stage, capital accumulation exhibits a high degree of concentration and unification, ultimately unifying under a capital empire dominated by “finance.” The scholar Sohn-Rethel, in *Intellectual and Manual Labour*, analyzes how Marx’s commodity fetishism uses the concept of “uniqueness” to refer to this concentrated characteristic of financial money. With the support of financial markets and virtual currency, the “uniqueness” of commodity fetishism has been enhanced to an unprecedented degree. It can be said that twentieth-century capitalism has entered the era of financial capital and digital capital, and these two forms are the concentrated embodiment of this “uniqueness.” Against this backdrop, financial capital is sufficient to dominate the development of the entire national economy and even exert influence on the global economy; for example, financial speculation on Wall Street in New York, USA, can trigger a worldwide economic crisis. Engels had already perceived this phenomenon of financial capital, pointing out that “the stock exchange becomes the most prominent representative of capitalist production itself.” On the surface, financial capital and digital capital facilitate the concentration of capital and enable rapid capital accumulation; yet beneath this flourishing scene lies a greater crisis. As Marx predicted, while developing itself, capitalism also digs its own grave: capital accumulation not only widens the gap between rich and poor but also further leads to systemic economic crises. The more capitalism develops, the more severe the alienation it suffers—this is precisely the paradox of capitalism, and twentieth-century modern financial capitalism continues this trend.

随着资本主义进入垄断阶段，资本积累表现出高度的集中与统一，其最终统一于“金融”为主导的资本帝国。学者索恩·雷特尔在《脑力劳动与体力劳动》中分析了马克思商品拜物教中用“唯一性”概念来指称金融货币的这一集中特征。在金融市场与虚拟货币的加持下，商品拜物教的“唯一性”得到了前所未有的提高。可以说，20世纪的资本主义进入了金融资本和数字资本的时代，这两种形态就是这种“唯一性”的集中体现。在此背景下，金融资本足以支配整个国民经济的发展，甚至对全球经济产生影响，例如美国纽约华尔街的金融投机能够引起世界性的经济危机。恩格斯早已有所察觉到金融资本的这一现象，他指出，“交易所就成为资本主义生产本身的最突出的代表”。表面上看，金融资本与数字资本有利于资本的集中，能够迅速实现资本积累，然而在这一片繁茂的情境下却蕴含着更大的危机。正如马克思所预言的，资本主义在发展自身的同时也挖掘了自己的坟墓，资本积累不仅会造成贫富差距的拉大，还会进一步导致系统性的经济危机。资本主义越是发展，其所遭受的异化程度便越厉害，这正是资本主义的悖论所在，20世纪的现代金融资本主义仍然延续着这一趋势。

First, with regard to financial capitalism, the emergence of financial capital appears to alleviate the collapse of capitalism, but in reality it merely postpones the occurrence of crises temporarily; far from saving capitalism, it instead falls into a greater “deferred” crisis. On this point, Žižek points out that in contemporary capitalist society, characterized by financial speculation, the speculative activities of the capital market are closely related to the psychological activities and mechanisms of the subject in psychoanalysis, especially resembling the operational mechanism of surplus enjoyment (objet a) in Lacanian psychoanalytic theory. Specifically, the subject in capitalist financial activities is “paradoxical”: the subject and object in capital and financial markets undergo a fundamental inversion and change. Žižek argues that the subject in real life is not the rational subject of Kant’s “Copernican revolution” in modern philosophy, but an irrational subject governed by the psychoanalytic surplus enjoyment ($◇a)—a void, desiring, “paradoxical” subject. He points out that in capitalist financial activities, particularly in the operation of stock markets and futures markets, the subject is both a void subject and a subject full of desire, a “paradoxical” subject—that is, the subject embodies both “fear and greed.” Here, void and desire, greed and fear, are closely intertwined. According to Lacanian psychoanalytic theory, the subject in reality is incomplete, a castrated traumatic subject ($), a subject of void and lack. At the same time, precisely because of the subject’s void and lack, this leaves room for the subject’s infinite desire, and objet a constitutes the cause of the subject’s desire. In capitalist financial activities, the subject, driven by desire, continuously pursues profit; but when a financial crisis arrives, the subject falls into boundless panic and fear. To escape the financial crisis, the subject will resort to any means, degenerating into a hysterical, irrational subject—this is most typical in financial stock and futures markets. This capital operation resembles the mechanism of objet a in psychoanalysis: although the subject appears on the surface to be a subject pursuing profit maximization, it is in fact an irrational subject drawn into capital speculation by desire, filled with numerous unconscious impulses. The entire financial capital system is a huge money-devouring beast that requires the continuous operation of capital to sustain its own survival; yet this financialized activity of capitalism causes profits to derive more from non-productive business investment and capital operations, with the result being a mere pursuit of capital appreciation rather than operational profits from the real economy. In this way, the loopholes and drawbacks of capitalism itself lead to an unavoidable collapse of the economic structure and financial crises. In a word, the subject itself is a “paradoxical” entity. It is precisely because of this paradox of the subject that capitalism finds it difficult to avoid financial crises, ultimately leading to the inevitable total collapse and demise of capitalism. A typical case is the US economic crisis of 1929. Before the crisis, the US securities market presented a scene of prosperity, with people frantically speculating and buying stocks, utterly unaware of the approaching crisis. Yet once the crisis erupted, people panicked and fled in all directions. The same was true of the US subprime mortgage crisis that broke out in 2008 and the global financial crisis it triggered. Therefore, this speculative mechanism of the capitalist financial market inevitably gives rise to the paradoxical characteristics of the speculative subject: on the one hand, it highly alienates the financial speculative subject; on the other hand, it further intensifies the crisis of financial capitalism and accelerates the demise of the capitalist system itself.

其一，就金融资本主义而言，金融资本的出现看似缓解了资本主义的崩溃，但实际上不过是暂时性地延缓了危机的发生，非但不能拯救资本主义，反而陷入更大的“后置性”危机之中。齐泽克对此指出，在以金融投机为主要特征的当代资本主义社会，资本市场的投机活动与精神分析有关主体的心理活动及其机制密切相关，尤其是它与拉康精神分析理论中的剩余快感（对象a）的运作机制相类似。具体而言，资本主义金融活动中的主体是“悖论性”的：资本和金融市场中的主体与客体发生了根本性的颠倒和变化。齐泽克认为，现实生活中的主体并非是近代哲学康德意义上的那个“哥白尼革命”式的理性主体，而是一个受制于精神分析的剩余快感（$◇a）的非理性主体，一个虚空的、欲望的、“悖论式”的主体。他指出，在资本主义的金融活动中，特别是股票市场和期货市场的运作中，主体既是一个虚空的主体，又是一个充满欲望的主体，一个“悖论式”的主体，也就是说，主体集“恐惧和贪婪”于一身。这里，虚空与欲望、贪婪与恐惧紧密地联系在一起。根据拉康的精神分析理论，现实中的主体是不完满的，是一个被阉割的创伤性主体（$），一个虚空性和匮乏性的主体。同时正是由于主体的虚空和匮乏性特征，这也为主体无穷的欲望留下了相应的空间，而对象a就构成了主体的欲望成因。在资本主义的金融活动中，主体受欲望的驱使而不断逐利，但当金融危机来临之时，主体就会陷入无尽的恐慌与恐惧之中；为了摆脱金融危机，主体会不择手段地沦为歇斯底里的非理性主体，这一点在金融股票期货市场最为典型。这种资本运作类似于精神分析中对象a的运作机制，主体虽然表面上是一个追逐利益最大化的主体，实则是受欲望驱使而卷入资本投机活动中的非理性主体，这其中充满了诸多的无意识冲动。整个金融资本体系是一个巨大的吞金兽，它需要资本的不断运作来维持自身的存活，然而资本主义金融化的这种活动导致利润更多地来源于非生产经营业务的投资和资本运作，所带来的结果只是单纯地追求资本增值而非实体的经营利润。如此一来，资本主义自身的漏洞和弊端就造成了无法避免的经济结构崩塌和金融危机。一句话，主体本身是一个“悖论”性的存在物。正是由于主体的这一悖论才导致了资本主义难以规避的金融危机，并最终导致资本主义不可避免的总崩溃和灭亡，其中的典型的案例就是美国1929年的经济危机。危机之前的美国证券交易市场呈现出一派繁荣的景象，人们在拼命地投机买进股票，丝毫没有意识到危机的来临。然而，一旦危机爆发，人们惊慌失措，夺路而逃。同样，在2008年爆发的美国次债危机及其引发的全球金融危机同样如此。所以，资本主义金融市场的这一投机机制必然导致投机主体的悖论性特征：一方面，使金融投机主体高度异化；另一方面，进一步加剧了金融资本主义的危机，加速了资本主义制度本身的灭亡。

Of course, Žižek’s judgment on financial capitalism from the perspective of psychoanalysis is more or less inconsistent with the current state of capitalism: capitalism does not seem to show signs of imminent extinction; on the contrary, it appears to be in a period of “prosperous development,” and it is also not entirely consistent with Lenin’s assertion a hundred years ago in *Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism* that imperialism is monopolistic, parasitic, and moribund capitalism. So how should we view this “discordant” phenomenon?

当然，齐泽克从精神分析视野出发对金融资本主义的这一论断与当前资本主义的现状或多或少有不完全一致的地方：资本主义看来似乎并没有马上消亡的迹象，反而还处于“繁荣发展”的时期，而且它与列宁100年前在《帝国主义是资本主义的最高阶段》中所断言的帝国主义是垄断的、腐朽的、垂死的资本主义也不完全一致。那么，如何来看待这种“不协调”的现象呢？

Žižek points out that this phenomenon does not mean the disappearance of capitalist crises; rather, contemporary capitalism repeatedly delays or postpones crises through virtual capital and the credit system, shifting them onto the future, thereby greatly postponing the general outbreak and total collapse of capitalist crises. As far as the subjects of financial investment are concerned, since the subject itself is a void subject of desire, every subject is greedy before the outbreak of a capitalist financial crisis, and people frantically engage in capital investment and financial speculation. However, once the crisis arrives, people fall into extreme panic and fear, trying every means to escape the crisis. This is true not only of individuals but also of capitalist states; it is the high degree of alienation of financial monopoly capital in contemporary capitalist society. When a financial crisis suddenly erupts, the entire state also falls into immense panic. At this moment, whether for individuals or the state, the psychological level is characterized by a desire to quickly shake off the crisis, reduce losses, and restore the economy and production. The subject then transforms from the original void subject of panic into a subject of “desire,” a subject urgently seeking to escape the “crisis.” At this very moment, the best way to resolve the “panic” triggered by the crisis is expansionary fiscal and monetary policies, that is, printing large amounts of currency and issuing bonds, so as to avoid further outbreak and spread of the crisis. Of course, capitalist states are fully aware that such expansionary and indiscriminate printing of currency will inevitably lead to an even more severe economic crisis next time. But in order to avert the immediate crisis and tide over the difficulties, they can no longer afford to consider the long term and the future. Quickly filling the immediate “void” and resolving the crisis becomes the only choice for capitalism to escape the present crisis. However, this monetary policy, which merely seeks to escape the current economic predicament while overdrawing the future, is actually a way of postponing the crisis; it is like drinking poison to quench thirst [1]1 “Drinking poison to quench thirst” (饮鸩止渴) is a Chinese idiom meaning a short-term solution that leads to disaster., because from the perspective of macro-budgeting and budget balance, from the standpoint of “balancing the books” or “settling the overall account,” the financial capitalist system harbors immense crises, which will ultimately inevitably lead to the general outbreak of capitalist crises and the demise of capitalism.

齐泽克指出，这一现象并非意味着资本主义危机的消失，而是当代资本主义通过虚拟资本和信用制度对危机一再延缓或推迟，向未来转嫁，从而大大延缓了资本主义危机的总爆发和总崩溃。就金融投资主体而言，由于主体本身是虚空的欲望主体，在资本主义金融危机爆发之前每个主体都是贪婪的，人们在拼命地从事资本的投资和金融投机活动；然而一旦危机来临，人们则又陷入极度的恐慌和恐惧之中，想尽一切办法来躲避危机。不仅个人如此，资本主义国家也是如此，这是金融垄断资本在当代资本主义社会的高度异化。当金融危机突然爆发时，整个国家也陷入巨大的恐慌之中。此时无论是个人还是国家，在心理层次上就是渴望迅速摆脱危机，减少损失，恢复经济和生产。主体此时就从原来虚空的恐慌主体变成了一个“欲望”的主体，一个急欲摆脱“危机”的主体。此时此刻，化解危机所引发的“恐慌”的最佳办法就是扩张性的财政政策和货币政策，也就是大量印制钞票、发行债券，以避免危机的进一步爆发和蔓延。当然，资本主义国家非常清楚这种扩张性的盲目滥发钞票必将会导致下一次更严重的经济危机。但为了规避眼前的危机，渡过难关，已经顾不得那么长远和未来了。迅速填补眼前的“虚空”，化解危机，成为资本主义摆脱眼前危机的唯一选择。然而，这种只顾摆脱当前经济困境而透支未来的货币政策其实是一种将危机后置的方式，是在饮鸩止渴，因为从宏观预算和预算平衡的角度出发，从账务“平衡”或“算总账”看，金融资本主义制度潜伏着巨大的危机，它最终必然导致资本主义危机的总爆发和资本主义的灭亡。

Second, from the end of the 20th century to the present, financial capitalism has entered the stage of digital capitalism. As the product of the marriage of digital technology and financial capital, digital capitalism, relying on high-tech digital technology, has introduced financial monopoly capital into a higher stage of digital monopoly. With the support of digital technology, digital capital possesses a deeper monopoly compared to financial capital, while also exhibiting a more severe alienation, thereby giving rise to digital fetishism. As Sohn-Rethel pointed out, the emergence of fetishism originates from formal uniqueness. In commodity fetishism and money fetishism, both commodities and money become “unique” existences; they are the sole form for measuring all other content, “the essence of this form, as the uniqueness of the commodity’s existence, leads to the fact that money, according to its functional essence, is ‘one’.” [2]2 This is a reference to Alfred Sohn-Rethel’s analysis of the formal abstraction underlying commodity exchange and money. In the era of digital capitalism, everything can be easily abstracted into pure numbers, but these numbers are by no means ordinary numerical games; they possess a high degree of uniqueness. By relying on digital network platforms, they can invisibly establish connections across the world. Thus, digital capital incorporates the global capital market into its own digital structure, absorbing vast amounts of capital, thereby achieving centralized control and utilization of capital. Numbers, as the abstracted unity of the world, circulate among people and unconsciously connect them into a society. The reason digital capital possesses such immense magic lies not in capital itself, but in the infinite “charm” of numbers. Based on his study of Marx’s commodity fetishism, Sohn-Rethel pointed out the immense power of the abstract unity of fetishism, arguing that “pure mathematics” is “the insurmountable dividing line between mental labor and manual labor.” [3]3 This is a reference to Sohn-Rethel’s argument in *Intellectual and Manual Labour* about the social origins of abstract thought. Of course, what Sohn-Rethel discusses here is still the commodity abstraction or exchange abstraction involved in Marx’s *Capital*, not digital capital in the true sense. However, from the commodity abstraction of commodities to financial capital, and then to the abstraction of digital capital, the process and mechanism of abstraction are similar. Just like the abstraction in Marx’s commodity fetishism, the digital abstraction in digital capital ostensibly marks the purely quantitative content contained in commodities, but in reality it reflects a social relation more concealed than commodity fetishism and money fetishism. After the emergence of digital capital, people no longer need to rely on commodities, nor do they need to resort to financial currency; they can realize social relations between people merely by relying on pure digital symbols. Thus, the emergence of digital worship is natural, and the alienation caused by digital worship is predictable. Here, the process of numbers being “essentialized” is precisely the process of human social relations being “reified”; social relations between people are transformed into connections between numbers. Therefore, numbers and mathematical symbols, which originally possessed no social attributes, come to bear a social nature—this is the characteristic of “digital fetishism” attached to numbers. The prevalence of virtual currencies in digital capital pushes this fetishism to its peak. The unity of digital capital simplifies social production, thereby achieving efficient operation, just as the researcher of digital capitalism, Dan Schiller, pointed out: “Information networks have penetrated every aspect of capitalist economy and culture in an unprecedented manner and scale, becoming an indispensable tool and driving force for capitalist development.” [4]4 Dan Schiller is a scholar of digital capitalism; the quotation is from his work on the role of information networks in contemporary capitalism. However, whether it is financial capital or digital capital, the high degree of unity of capital will lead to the homogenization of thought. As Adorno pointed out in his critique of the culture industry, “In the culture industry, individuality is an illusion, not only because the mode of production has been standardized. The individual is tolerated and considered unproblematic only when he is in complete agreement with the universal.” [5]5 This is a reference to Theodor Adorno’s critique of the culture industry in *Dialectic of Enlightenment*. The unity of society leads to the prevalence of instrumental rationality, ultimately resulting in deeper alienation.

其二，20世纪末至今，金融资本主义进入数字资本主义的阶段。作为数字技术与金融资本联姻的产物，数字资本主义凭借着高科技的数字技术将金融垄断资本引入了更为高阶的数字垄断阶段。在数字技术的加持下，数字资本具有相较于金融资本更深层的垄断性，同时也显现出更为严重的异化性，由此产生了数字拜物教。正如索恩·雷特尔所指出的，拜物教的产生源于形式上的唯一性。在商品拜物教与货币拜物教中，商品与货币都成为“唯一”的存在，它是衡量其他所有内容的唯一形式，“这个形式的本质作为商品之定在的唯一性，导致了这样一个事实，即货币按其功能性本质来说是‘一’”。在数字资本主义时代，一切事物能够轻而易举地被抽象化为纯粹的数字，但这个数字绝非普通的数字游戏，而是具有高度的唯一性,它凭借数字网络平台，能在无形中建立起世界范围内的联系。由此数字资本将全球范围内的资本市场囊括进自身的数字结构当中，它吸纳大量的资本，进而实现对资本的集中控制与运用。数字作为世界的被抽象化了的统一性在人们之间流转，并使他们无意识地关联成为一个社会。数字资本之所以具有如此大的魔力，其奥秘并不在于资本，而在于数字的无限“魅力”。基于对马克思商品拜物教的研究，索恩·雷特尔指出了拜物教抽象统一的巨大威力，他认为“纯粹数学”是“脑力劳动与手工劳动之间不可逾越的分界线”。当然，雷特尔这里谈的还是马克思在《资本论》中所涉及的商品抽象或交换抽象，并非真正意义上的数字资本。但是，从商品的商品抽象到金融资本，再到数字资本的抽象，其抽象过程和机制是类似的。正如马克思的商品拜物教中的抽象一样，数字资本中的数字抽象表面上标记的是包含于商品中的纯粹量，但实际上反映了一种比商品拜物教和货币拜物教更为隐秘的社会关系。数字资本产生之后，人们无须借助于商品，也无须求助于金融货币，而仅仅依赖于纯粹的数字符号就可以实现人与人之间的社会关系，由此数字崇拜的产生就是自然而然的了，因数字崇拜而导致的异化也就可想而知了。这里，数字被“本质化”的过程，正是人的社会关系被“物化”的过程，人与人之间的社会关系被转化为数字之间的联系，因此，原本不具有社会属性的数字和数学符号便承担了一种社会本性，这就是附加在数字之上的“数字拜物教”的特征。数字资本中虚拟货币的盛行更是将这一拜物教推上了顶峰。数字资本的统一性使得社会生产简单化，从而实现高效运行，正如数字资本主义的研究者丹·希勒（Dan Schiller）所指出的，“信息网络以一种前所未有的方式与规模渗透到资本主义经济文化的方方面面，成为资本主义发展不可缺少的工具与动力”。然而，无论金融资本还是数字，资本的高度的统一性将会招致思维的单一化，如阿多诺在文化工业批判中所指出的，“在文化工业中，个性就是一种幻象，这不仅是因为生产方式已经被标准化。个人只有与普遍性完全达成一致，他才能得到容忍，才是没有问题的”。社会的统一性导致工具理性的盛行，最终导致更深层的异化。

Third, another aspect of contemporary capitalism that cannot be ignored is the birth of welfare capital and its effects. As discussed above, whether financial capital or digital capital, both are products of commodity fetishism, variants of monopoly capital in contemporary capitalism, whose aim is to achieve a more concentrated unification of capital, so as to realize the efficient utilization of capital. Paradoxically, however, the more concentrated capital becomes, the deeper the degree of its alienation, and the colder the relations between people become. This will inevitably further intensify the contradictions of capitalism, ultimately triggering a crisis of capitalism. In order to avoid the drawbacks of financial capital and digital capital, to slow down and eliminate the high degree of alienation they bring, and to overcome the increasingly severe polarization between rich and poor under capitalism, welfare capital emerged as the times required, and welfare capitalism logically ascended the historical stage. In the latter half of the 20th century, Western capitalist countries successively introduced a series of social welfare policies targeting unemployment, poor families, and women, aiming to eliminate severe wealth polarization and gender discrimination. On the one hand, capitalist countries printed large amounts of currency, injecting substantial funds into the financial sector and investment banks, and issuing low-interest loans; on the other hand, they enacted social welfare laws, launched family assistance programs, and provided unemployment relief and social subsidies, including corresponding public health services such as pensions and medical care. However, the emergence of welfare capital cannot fundamentally change the social reality of wealth polarization under capitalism, nor can it easily eliminate the increasingly serious phenomenon of social alienation. It must be acknowledged that the original design of welfare capital and welfare capitalism was good, but its actual effect did not, as anticipated, eliminate wealth polarization, stimulate consumption, reduce unemployment, and thereby raise the employment rate of the poor. On the contrary, it led to corruption in welfare distribution, and even gave rise to the negative phenomenon of fostering “lazy people.” Moreover, because implementing social welfare requires large amounts of capital, it led to excessive printing of money, resulting in capitalist fiscal deficits and triggering debt crises. For example, European welfare states such as Greece, Portugal, Italy, Spain, and Cyprus successively approached bankruptcy, the reason being their extensive pursuit of welfare capitalism, which led to corruption in distribution and the phenomenon of “eating from the same big pot” [6]6 “Eating from the same big pot” (大锅饭) refers to the egalitarian distribution system in which everyone receives the same regardless of contribution, often used critically to describe the inefficiencies of overly uniform welfare or socialist allocation., breeding many “lazy people.” Regarding welfare capital and its potential harm, Habermas has already mentioned it many times in *Legitimacy Crisis*. Similarly, Žižek also believes that the widespread prevalence of welfare in contemporary capitalist society cannot avert the crisis of capitalism. He points out the intrinsic connection between big capitalists represented by Soros and welfare capitalism. He argues that, like financial capital, welfare capital and its implementation also postpone the crisis of the capitalist system, and maintain the reproduction of capitalism through some external charitable activities. For instance, the charitable activities of capital magnates like Soros or Gates are not merely a matter of their personal traits or a burst of benevolence, because “whether such charitable activities are sincere or hypocritical, it is a logical node in the capitalist circulation process, and from a strict economic perspective, it is necessary. Because this kind of behavior postpones the crisis of the capitalist system. It restores balance without falling into the fatal trap: the destructive logic of hatred and the centralized redistribution of intensified wealth can only end in universalized poverty. One could also say that it avoids another model of restoring some balance and asserting vitality through sovereign expenditure, namely war. This paradox points to our sad predicament: contemporary capitalism cannot reproduce itself on its own; it needs external economic charity to support the cycle of social reproduction.” Thus it can be seen that the prescription of welfare capital cannot cure the ills brought by financial capital and digital capital, and moreover, it produces enormous side effects on state finances.

其三，当代资本主义另一个不容忽视的方面就是福利资本的诞生及其效应。如上所述，不论是金融资本还是数字资本，都是拜物教的产物，是垄断资本在当代资本主义的变种，其目的在于实现资本更为集中的统一，以实现对资本的高效利用。然而悖论性的是，资本越是集中，其异化的程度便越深，人与人之间的关系就越为冷漠。这必将进一步激化资本主义的矛盾，最终引发资本主义的危机。为了规避金融资本和数字资本的弊端，减缓并消除其所带来的高度异化，克服资本主义的愈发严重的贫富分化，福利资本应运而生，福利资本主义顺理成章地登上了历史舞台。20世纪后半叶，西方资本主义国家针对失业、贫困家庭和女性纷纷出台了一系列的社会福利政策，旨在消除严重的贫富分化和性别歧视。资本主义国家一方面大量印发货币，向金融领域和投资银行注入大量资金，发放低息贷款；另一方面则制定社会福利法，展开家庭救助，提供失业救济与社会补助，包括相应的养老、医疗等公共卫生服务。然而福利资本的出现并不能从根本上改变资本主义贫富分化这一社会现实，也难以消除日益严重的社会异化现象。必须承认，福利资本和福利资本主义的初衷设计是好的，但其实际效果并没有像预期的那样消除贫富分化，刺激消费、降低失业率进而提高穷人的就业率，相反，它导致了福利分配中的腐败，甚至出现了养“懒汉”的消极现象。不仅如此，由于实施社会福利需要大量资本，导致滥发钞票，致使资本主义财政赤字，引发债务危机。例如希腊、葡萄牙、意大利、西班牙、塞浦路斯等欧洲福利国家相继濒临破产，其缘由便在于大搞福利资本主义，导致分配中的腐败和“大锅饭”现象，滋生了很多的“懒汉”。对于福利资本及其潜在的危害性，哈贝马斯在《合法性危机》中已经多次提及。同样，齐泽克也认为，当今资本主义社会出现的大量福利的普及也难以规避资本主义的危机，他指出了以索罗斯为代表的大资本家与福利资本主义的内在关联。他认为，与金融资本一样，福利资本及其实施也延缓了资本主义体系的危机，并通过某种外在的慈善活动来维持资本主义的再生产，如索罗斯或者盖茨这样的资本大鳄及其慈善活动并不仅仅是他们个人特质或者善心大发，因为“无论这类慈善活动是真诚的还是伪善的，它都是资本主义流通过程的逻辑结点，从严格的经济观点来看是必然的。因为这种行为延缓了资本主义体系的危机。它恢复了平衡而没有落入致命的陷阱:憎恨的毁灭性逻辑和强化财富的中央集权式再分配只能终结于普遍化的贫困。人们还会说，它也避免了通过主权性的支出即战争来恢复某种平衡和声张血气的另一种模式。这个悖论指出了我们令人悲哀的困境:当代的资本主义不能依赖自身再生产自身，它需要外在的经济慈善来支撑社会再生产的循环”。由此可见，福利资本的药方不仅无法治好金融资本与数字资本所带来的弊病，还会对国家财政造成极大的副作用。

In summary, whether financial capital, digital capital, or welfare capital, none has changed the capitalist system itself at its root; instead, they have led to a deeper degree of social alienation. Therefore, only by opposing and overthrowing the capitalist system institutionally can the high degree of capital alienation and its harms be truly eliminated. On this point, Sohn-Rethel, Žižek, and Marx are all in agreement.

总之，无论是金融资本、数字资本还是福利资本，都没有从根源上改变资本主义制度本身，反而导致了更深度的社会异化。因而，只有从制度上反对和推翻资本主义制度，才能真正消除资本的高度异化及其危害。在这一点上，雷特尔、齐泽克和马克思都是不谋而合的。

II. The Form of Political Democratization and Its Paradox

二、政治民主化的形式及其悖论

The “uniqueness” of contemporary financial capital and its paradoxical characteristics are closely related to the formal nature of the capitalist democratic system and its paradox. In this regard, Žižek’s critical analysis of contemporary capitalist democracy also employs a Lacanian “paradoxical” analytical method. He believes that, without a doubt, contemporary capitalism is formally “democratic”; it is a “democratic” competitive system based on voting. But this democratic form does not imply the realization of “substantive” or genuine democracy, let alone “whole-process democracy” [7]7 “Whole-process democracy” (全过程人民民主) is a term from Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, emphasizing democratic participation throughout all stages of political decision-making, in contrast to the merely electoral democracy of liberal systems.. This democratic electoral system in capitalist society is not a voluntary choice of the people, but a “forced” choice, a helpless choice and a democracy of the ballot. Thus, what is concealed beneath the democratic form is substantive non-democracy. Political democratization means the paradox between the formal democratization of politics and the substance of genuine democracy.

当代金融资本的“唯一性”及其悖论性特征与资本主义的民主体制的形式性及其悖论密切关联。对此，齐泽克有关当代资本主义民主政治的批判分析也是拉康式的“悖论”的分析方法。他认为，毫无疑问，当代资本主义在形式上是“民主的”，它是一种选票式的“民主”竞争体制。但这一民主形式并不意味着民主的“实质的”或真正民主的实现，更不要谈“全过程的民主”了。资本主义社会的这种民主式的选举制度并非是人民的自愿选择，而是一种“被迫的”选择，一种无可奈何的选择和选票民主。因而，民主形式下掩藏的是实质上的非民主。政治的民主化意味着政治形式的民主化与真正民主实质之间的悖论。

First, it must be acknowledged that the modern capitalist democratic form represents a great progress relative to the societies that preceded it. This form originated with the English political philosopher Hobbes, took shape in Locke’s natural law and *Two Treatises of Government*, was refined by the 17th- and 18th-century French bourgeois Enlightenment thinkers Montesquieu and Jean-Jacques Rousseau in *The Spirit of the Laws* and *The Social Contract* respectively, and was finally deepened by the German classical philosophers Kant, Fichte, and Hegel. This bourgeois democratic form is also called abstract democracy or formal democracy; its essence lies in emphasizing the procedural and processual nature of democracy, aiming to realize the content and essence of democracy through democratic form. It should be noted that this democratic form of capitalism is closely linked to private property and formalized rule of law; discussing bourgeois democracy apart from private property and the judicial system is like climbing a tree to catch a fish [8]8 “Climbing a tree to catch a fish” (缘木求鱼) is a Chinese idiom from Mencius, meaning to pursue a goal by the wrong method, ensuring failure.. As Marx said, because of capitalist private ownership and its democratic form, “the bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together.” In other words, a critique of contemporary capitalism must take note of Marx’s recognition of capitalism’s enormous role in promoting the development of human society. Among these, compared with the feudal system, the capitalist relations of production, that is, the democratic system it established, laid the foundation for capitalist economic development, thereby unleashing enormous productive forces. This is most evident in the British Industrial Revolution. Therefore, ignoring Marx’s view of capitalism’s great progress in promoting social productive forces and engaging in a wholesale negation of it is not a historical materialist standpoint.

其一，必须承认近代资本主义民主形式相对于在它之前的社会而言是一个巨大的进步。这一形式发端于英国的政治学家霍布斯，成型于洛克的自然法和《政府论》，并由17至18世纪的法国资产阶级启蒙思想家孟德斯鸠和让·卢梭分别在《论法的精神》和《社会契约论》中所完善，最后为德国古典哲学家康德、费希特和黑格尔所深化。资产阶级的这一民主形式又被称为抽象民主或者形式民主，其要义在于强调民主的程序性和过程性，旨在通过民主的形式来实现民主的内容和本质。需要注意的是，资本主义的这一民主形式与其财产的私有和形式化的法制是密切关联在一起的，离开财产的私有和司法制度来谈资产阶级的民主无异于缘木求鱼，正如马克思所言，由于资本主义的私有制及其民主形式，“资产阶级在它的不到一百年的阶级统治中所创造的生产力，比过去一切世代创造的全部生产力还要多，还要大”。换句话说，对当今资本主义的批判必须注意到马克思对资本主义在推动人类社会发展中的巨大作用。其中相比于封建制度，资本主义的生产关系，即它所建立的民主体制为资本主义的经济发展奠定基础，从而释放了巨大的生产力，这一点在英国的工业革命中体现得最为明显。因此，无视马克思对资本主义在推动社会生产力方面的巨大进步而对之进行全面的否定，并不是历史唯物主义的观点。

Second, we must see the “paradoxical” character of the bourgeois democratic form. Formally, there is no doubt that the capitalist democratic system is adapted to the development of capitalist productive forces, but beneath its abstract and formalized democratic cloak, the capitalist formal democracy conceals its “non-democratic” character, that is, the “forced” or “coercive” character of bourgeois formal democracy. As everyone knows, with regard to the subject’s choice, choice implies a voluntary act of the subject. Since this is so, why does Žižek still say that under the capitalist democratic system there exists a “forced choice”? This requires an understanding of the unique meaning of Žižek’s so-called “forced choice.”

其二，要看到资产阶级民主形式的“悖论性”特征。从形式上看，毫无疑问，资本主义的民主体制是适应资本主义生产力发展的，但在其抽象的和形式化的民主外衣下，资本主义的形式民主制却掩盖了其“非民主”的特性，也就是资产阶级形式民主的“被迫性”或“强迫性”的特征。众所周知，就主体的选择而言，选择意味着主体自愿的行为。既然如此，为什么齐泽克还说在资本主义的民主体制下还存在着“被迫选择”呢？这就需要了解齐泽克所谓的“被迫选择”的独特含义。

Generally speaking, the subject’s choice is a voluntary rational will and decision; there is no so-called “forced” choice. In other words, “forced” choice is a pseudo-proposition for the subject. However, from the perspective of psychoanalysis, Žižek believes there is another kind of choice, namely forced choice. He argues that choice is closely related to the situation of choice. That is to say, there are two different kinds of choice: one is rational autonomous choice, the other is unconscious “forced” choice. What many subjects under the capitalist system face is precisely the latter kind of choice; thus choice is a “passive” choice under certain circumstances of the subject. Žižek’s view derives from Lacan’s psychoanalytic theory. Psychoanalytic theory holds that when the subject faces a situation of choice, it is not a choice between “good” and “bad,” “good” and “evil”; it is not an “either/or” “dualistic” choice. Therefore, psychoanalysis differs from the dualism of modern philosophy and modern ethics concerning the dichotomy of “good and evil.” If we follow the “dualistic” model of choice, the subject’s choice is either good or bad. However, psychoanalytic ethics holds that in real society, the situation of choice the subject faces is not “either good or bad” or “either good or evil,” but a choice between “bad” and “worse,” “evil” and “more evil.” This is the cruel truth of real society or the true social reality, as often occurs in situations such as war. Therefore, under certain special circumstances, the subject’s choice can only be a “helpless” forced choice, and the subject may even have to “sacrifice” one aspect in exchange for another. A typical example Žižek often cites is William Styron’s novel *Sophie’s Choice*. The novel’s heroine, Sophie, and her children are sent to a Nazi concentration camp. A Nazi officer forces her to make an impossible or unavoidable “forced” choice: Sophie must choose between her two children (a daughter and a son); the chosen one can survive, while the other will be sent to the gas chamber. Of course, Sophie also has another option: to make no choice, in which case both her children will be sent to the gas chamber. In this “forced” choice situation, Sophie’s only “rational” choice can only be to choose her younger son, while her daughter is sent to the gas chamber. As a result, this “forced” choice and the guilt it brings nearly drives Sophie to mental collapse; she is on the verge of suicide, haunted by it for a long time, and ultimately she does commit suicide over it. Here, Sophie’s choice is certainly not her own voluntary choice, but an unavoidable “forced” choice, a “painful yet rational” unavoidable choice. Here, the choosing subject is not in “harmony” with the situation or community in which the choice is made; on the contrary, they are in conflict. That is to say, the subject not only cannot freely choose its situation or group, but its very existence and characteristics are constrained by this situation itself or the community itself. Thus, the subject and its social situation or community are caught in a contradiction or paradox: the subject can only make the “sole” so-called “correct” choice, otherwise things will only be worse. Choice is not made between good and bad, good and evil, but a “forced” choice between bad and worse.

一般而言，主体的选择是自愿的理性意志和决定，不存在所谓的“被迫”的选择问题。换句话说，“被迫的”选择对主体而言是一个伪命题。然而，从精神分析的视野看，齐泽克认为还有另一种的选择即被迫的选择。他认为，选择与选择的情境密切关联。也就是说，存在着两种不同的选择，一种是理性的自主性的选择，一种是无意识的“被迫的”选择。资本主义体制下的诸多主体所面对的恰是后一种选择，因而选择是在主体某种情境下的“被动”选择。齐泽克的这一观点来自拉康的精神分析理论。精神分析理论认为，主体在面对选择的情境时并非是在“好”与“坏”、“善”与“恶”之间的“二者选一”；不是非此即彼的“二元论”的选择。因此，精神分析与近代哲学和现代伦理学有关“善恶”二分的二元论并不相同。如果按照“二元论”选择模式，主体的选择是非好即坏，然而精神分析的伦理学却认为，在现实的社会中主体面对的选择情境并非是“非好即坏”或者“非善即恶”，而是在“坏”与“更坏”、“恶”与“更恶”之间的选择，这就是现实社会的残酷真相或真正的社会现实，如在战争状态下常常出现的就是类似的情形。因此，在某种特殊情境下主体的选择只能是一种“无奈的”被迫选择，甚至主体不得不“牺牲”某一方面而换取另一方面。齐泽克经常举的一个典型例子就是威廉·斯泰隆的小说《苏菲的选择》。小说中的女主人公苏菲和她的孩子被送进了纳粹集中营，纳粹军官让她进行了一个不可能或不得不的“被迫”选择：苏菲必须在自己的两个孩子（姐姐和弟弟）之间进行选择，被选择的那个可以活下来，另一个则会被送进毒气室。当然苏菲还有一种选择，即不做选择，如此她两个孩子都会送进毒气室。在这种“被迫的”选择情境下，苏菲唯一的“理性”选择只能是选了自己的小儿子，而她的女儿则被送进了毒气室。结果这一“被迫的”选择及其所带来的负罪感使苏菲的精神几乎崩溃，几欲自杀，并长期困扰着她，最终她还是为此自杀。这里，苏菲的选择当然并非是她本人的自愿选择，而是“不得不”的“被迫”选择，一个“痛苦的但却理性”不得不的选择。这里的选择主体与其所选择的情境或共同体之间非但不是“和谐”的，反而是冲突的。也就是说，主体对于其所处的情境或其群体非但不能自由选择，而且其存在本身和特征就是受制于这个情境本身或共同体本身。因而，主体与其所处的社会情境或共同体之间处于一个矛盾或悖论之中：主体只能做出“唯一的”所谓的“正确”选择，否则只会更加糟糕。选择不是在好与坏，善与恶之间进行选择，而是坏与更坏之间的“被迫的”选择。

Similarly, with regard to democratic elections and party elections in capitalist society, the electorate or the masses likewise have no right to free choice; they can only be “forced.” The masses can only vote between the two main parties. Thus, capitalist democracy only formally guarantees that every citizen has an equal opportunity to exercise their rights, but in substance it is not genuine democracy. Here, capitalism combines the formal “superiority” of democracy with its substantive “forcedness” or hypocrisy. The democratic form, originally regarded as free election, turns into its “forced” opposite, becoming a form and system that the masses have no choice but to obey.

同样，针对资本主义社会的民主选举及其政党选举，选举人或大众同样是没有自由选择的权利，而只能是“被迫的”，大众只能在主要的两个政党之间进行投票选择。因而，资本主义民主只是在形式上保障每一个公民拥有平等的机会使用他们的权利，而实质上却并非真正的民主。这里，资本主义集民主形式上的“优越性”与实质上的“被迫性”或虚伪性于一身。本来被视为自由选举的民主形式却走向了其“被迫的”反面，成为大众不得不服从的形式和体制。

Third, what needs to be identified is the “superficial” feature of “misrecognition” in the bourgeois democratic form. That is to say, people have become accustomed to the electoral form of capitalism and regard it as “a matter of course,” so people no longer doubt it, and even tacitly accept and silently obey it. Žižek often uses the example of people taking an elevator to illustrate the capitalist democratic electoral system. As everyone knows, when people enter an elevator, they constantly press the door-close button, trying to control the speed at which the door closes. However, the actual situation is that the door-close button is nothing but a decoration; the door-closing time is already preset, so the elevator’s door-close button cannot speed up or hinder the door-closing speed. It is merely an illusion or “misrecognition” produced by the elevator rider. People think their button-pressing can speed up the door closing, but in reality it has no effect. Similarly, democratic elections in capitalist society have a similar “misrecognition” effect. When people cast their votes in democratic elections, it is like pressing the elevator button: every four or five years, a “rotational replacement” type of voting election takes place, making people mistakenly believe that their vote can change the election result. However, in reality, the final effect is the same as that of the elevator door closing; both are a kind of pre-designed procedural effect. The election result of capitalism is a pre-designed “procedural system”; no matter how the voting is done, the final result is more or less the same. Therefore, the “superficial” “misrecognition” of democratic elections becomes the essence of capitalist democratic elections. Here, the “deceptiveness” of the surface of democratic elections is laid bare, but under the capitalist system, people have become accustomed to it, mistaking the form of democracy for the essence of democracy. In this way, the “formality” of democracy covers up the “essence” of democratic elections. In essence, people must recognize that in capitalist society, as Marx said, capitalism has never had any substantive democracy; democracy has always been formal.

其三，需要辨识的是资产阶级民主形式的“表面”上的“误认”特征。也就是说，人们对资本主义的选举形式已经习以为常，并视之为“理所当然”，因而人们也不再怀疑甚至默认并默默服从。齐泽克经常以人们乘坐电梯的例子来阐释资本主义的民主选举制度。众所周知，人们在进入电梯时总喜欢不停地按关门键，试图控制电梯的关门速度，然而实际情况则是，关门键不过是一个摆设而已，电梯关门时间是早已设定好的，因而电梯的关门键并不能加快或阻碍电梯的关门速度，它不过是坐电梯者所产生的错觉或“误认”而已。人们认为自己的按键可以加快电梯的关门速度，但实际上起不到任何的效果。同样，资本主义社会的民主选举也具有类似的“误认”效果。人们在举行民主选举投票时其实就像选择电梯按钮一样，每四年或五年进行一次“轮流替换式”的投票选举，使人们误以为自己的投票可以改变选举结果。然而实际上，其最后的效果与电梯关门的效果是一样的，都是某种设计好的程序性效果。资本主义的选举结果是早已设计好的“程序体制”，无论进行怎样的投票，其最后的结果都大同小异。因此，民主选举的“表面性的”“误认”就成为资本主义民主选举的本质。这里，民主选举表面的“欺骗性”昭然若揭，但在资本主义的体制下，人们已经习以为常，把民主的形式误认为是民主的本质。如此，民主的“形式”性也就遮盖了民主选举的“本质”。实质上，人们必须认识到，在资本主义社会，正如马克思所言，资本主义从来就没有什么实质性的民主，民主从来是形式性的。

III. The Inevitability of Ecological Crisis and the Predicament of Worried Ecology

三、生态危机的必然性与担忧生态学的困境

The crisis of contemporary capitalism is manifested not only in financial crises and the “forced” choice of formalized democracy, but also in a third aspect: the ecological crisis brought about by capitalist development. Regarding the ecological crisis of capitalism, Western leftist scholars have already done much research. Žižek’s uniqueness lies in his use of psychoanalytic trauma theory to analyze the ecological crisis of capitalism, and he puts forward the concept of “worried ecology.” He believes that as long as the capitalist system exists, the ecological crisis of capitalism will be difficult to eliminate. Specifically, he discusses the ecological crisis of capital operation on two levels.

当代资本主义的危机不仅体现为金融危机和形式化民主的“被迫性”选择上，而且还有第三个方面，即资本主义的发展所带来的生态危机。对于资本主义的生态危机，西方左翼学者已经研究了很多，齐泽克的独特之处在于运用精神分析的创伤理论来分析资本主义的生态危机，并提出了“担忧生态学”的构想。他认为只要资本主义制度存在，资本主义的生态危机就难以消除。具体而言，他从两个层次上来论述资本运作的生态危机。

First, facing the tension between the subject in human society and nature, Žižek puts forward a startling proposition: “Nature does not exist.” As everyone knows, we live on this huge planet of nature and the cosmos; that is to say, we humans are inseparable from the “nature” that nurtures us at every moment. Since this is the case, why does he put forward such a bizarre philosophical proposition? In fact, the so-called “nature does not exist” is an ecological proposition based on Lacan’s psychoanalytic theory. This proposition needs to be understood from the following two aspects.

其一，面对着人类社会中的主体与大自然的张力，齐泽克提出了一个石破天惊的命题，“自然并不存在”。众所周知，我们生活在自然和宇宙这个巨大的星球上，也就是说，我们人类无时无刻离不开哺育我们的“自然”，既然如此，他为何提出如此怪诞的哲学命题呢？其实，所谓“自然并不存在”是基于拉康的精神分析理论而提出的一个生态学命题。对于这一命题，需要从以下两方面来理解。

On the one hand, “nature does not exist” means that we need to redefine the concept of “nature.” That is to say, the “nature” Žižek refers to here is not the “natural world” we deal with in daily life, but nature in his psychoanalytic sense. Because in his view, that original, pristine, and “real” nature, after being transformed by us humans, no longer exists; what we face is a “nature” that has been transformed by humans and has weathered many vicissitudes. And that original, non-existent “nature” exists only in our “fantasy” construction; it is a product of our unconscious “presupposition.” Hence, “nature does not exist.”

一方面，“自然并不存在”意味着我们需要重新界定“自然”这一概念。也就是说，齐泽克这里所谓的“自然”并非日常生活中我们与之打交道的那个“自然界”，而是在其精神分析意义上的自然。因为在他看来，那个原初的、原生态的和“实在”的自然经过我们人类的改造，早已不存在了；我们面对的是一个被人类改造过饱经沧桑的“自然”；而那个原初并不存在的“自然”仅仅存在于我们的“幻想”建构中，是我们人类无意识“预设”的产物。因而，“自然并不存在”。

On the other hand, this proposition also implies a certain tension in the relationship between man and nature: man as subject has become a wound or “trauma” of nature. As is well known, trauma is a core concept of psychoanalytic theory. Psychoanalysis holds that once the subject enters society, it is castrated by the big Other of language and the symbolic order, making the subject a traumatized subject ($), a subject crossed out. However, in examining the relationship between man and nature, Žižek inverts this relation: it is not man as subject, but on the contrary, nature that becomes a traumatized entity threatened or oppressed by the subject. Just as “nature does not exist,” the relationship between man and nature is not one of “harmonious coexistence” like the “unity of heaven and man” [10]10 The “unity of heaven and man” (天人合一) is a classical Chinese philosophical concept emphasizing the harmony and integration of the natural world (heaven) and human society., but rather a “traumatic” opposition. Relative to nature, humanity is the big Other representing the symbolic order, ceaselessly conquering and transforming nature, leading to the situation where “nature does not exist”—this is nature’s “trauma.” In the twenty-first century, with highly developed science and technology, a “paradoxical” contradictory relationship has formed between man and nature: on the one hand, humanity cannot do without the nature that nurtures us; humanity must respect the laws of nature and hold nature in awe; on the other hand, human greed and desire drive humanity to develop and exploit nature without limit, causing irreparable damage to nature and forming nature’s “trauma.” As Engels said in *Dialectics of Nature*, every “successful” conquest of nature by humanity is met with nature’s ruthless revenge, thereby forming a tension between man and nature, and man becomes “nature’s wound.” Žižek points out that not only does “nature not exist,” but also “our logic is no different from the logic of ecology: man is ‘nature’s wound,’ the balance of nature can never be restored; the only thing man can do to live in harmony with the environment is to fully accept this rift, this crack, accept this structural uprooting, and repair it as much as possible afterward; all other solutions—such as the illusion that a return to nature is possible, or the notion that nature can be fully socialized—lead directly to totalitarianism.”

另一方面，这一命题还意味着人与自然关系之间的某种张力，作为主体的人成了自然的伤口或“创伤”。众所周知，创伤是精神分析理论的核心概念。精神分析认为，主体一旦降临到社会中就会受到语言和象征界的大他者的阉割，使得主体成为一个创伤的主体（$），一个被打上斜杠的主体。然而，在对人与自然的关系的考察上，齐泽克颠倒了人与自然的关系：不是作为主体的人，而是相反，自然反而成为一个受到主体威胁或遭受主体打压的创伤者。正如“自然是不存在的”一样，人与大自然的关系并非是“天人合一”般的“和谐共生”关系，而是一种“创伤性”的对立。相对于自然而言，人类就是那个代表了象征界的大他者，不断地征服和改造自然，导致了“自然并不存在”的境况，这就是大自然的“创伤”。在21世纪科技发达的今天，人与自然之间形成了一种“悖论性”的矛盾关系：一方面，人类离不开哺育我们的自然，人类必须尊重大自然的规律，敬畏自然；另一方面，人类的贪婪和欲望使得人类对自然进行无限制的开发和索取，对自然造成了难以弥补的破坏，形成了大自然的“创伤”。正如恩格斯在《自然辩证法》中所说的那样，人类对大自然的每一次“成功”征服都会遭到自然的无情报复，进而形成人与自然之间的张力，人成了“自然的伤口”。齐泽克指出，不仅“自然是不存在的”，而且“我们的逻辑与生态学的逻辑无异：人是‘自然的伤口’，自然的平衡再也无法复原；要与环境和谐相处，人唯一能做的事情便是全盘接受这个裂口、裂缝，接受这个结构性的斩草除根，事后尽可能修复；所有其他的解决方案，如这样的幻觉——重返自然是可能的，如这样的观念——自然是可以全盘社会化的，都直接通往极权主义”。

Therefore, whether it is the “humanization of nature” or the “naturalization of man,” humanity can no longer return to that ideal and harmonious “relationship between heaven and man”; rather, it must maintain an appropriate tension between man and nature, preserving this traumatic “fragile balance.” Hence, psychoanalytic theory holds that in the relationship between man and nature, “there is no final solution.” Once this “fragile balance” is broken, humanity will fall into an irreparable catastrophe.

因而，无论是“自然的人化”还是“人化的自然”，人类都不可能再回到那种理想和谐的“天人关系”，而是要在人与自然之间保持适度的张力，维持这种带有创伤性的“脆弱平衡”。因此，精神分析理论认为，在人与自然的关系上，“不存在最终的解决方案”。一旦打破这种“脆弱平衡”，那么人类将陷入万劫不复的大灾难之中。

Second, regarding how to approach and handle the relationship between man and nature, Žižek explicitly opposes the views of those ecologists who advocate a return to primitive nature—that is, the view of “anxious ecology.” He says: “So far, the dominant ecological view is an ecology of anxiety and fear, that is, the worry that man-made or natural disasters will disrupt or destroy human civilization; this worry prompts us to implement planned measures to protect our safety.” An undeniable and brutal reality is that not only capitalism, but the entire globe, faces serious ecological problems. How to view this increasingly severe ecological problem varies among scholars. Some ecologists and eco-socialists have proposed various solutions to ecological problems, such as Foster, Gorz, O’Connor, and others. Žižek does not accept these, but instead puts forward his own radical ecological view from the perspective of the psychoanalytic Real and trauma. He argues that because “nature does not exist” and there is a tension between man and nature, the alarmist views of anxious ecology are unfounded. Faced with nature’s wound, we can only accept this traumatic “non-existent” nature, an object we live with day and night, just as we accept the existence of the Real.

其二，在如何对待和处理人与自然的关系上，齐泽克明确反对回归原始自然的那些生态学家的观点，也就是“担忧生态学”的观点。他说：“到目前为止，主导的生态观点是担忧和恐惧的生态学，即担心人为的或自然的灾难会扰乱或破坏人类文明，这种担心会促使我们实施有计划的措施以保护我们的安全。”一个不争的残酷的现实是，不仅资本主义，甚至全球都面临着严重的生态问题。如何看待这一日益严重的生态问题，学者们的看法各有不同。一些生态学家和生态社会主义者提出了各种解决生态问题的办法，如福斯特、高兹、奥康纳等。齐泽克对此并不认可，而是从精神分析的实在界和创伤的角度提出了他自己激进的生态学观点。他认为，由于“自然并不存在”以及人与自然之间的张力，担忧生态学那些杞人忧天的观点并不成立。面对自然的伤口，我们只能像接受实在界的存在那样接受这个创伤的“不存在的”自然，一个我们与之朝夕相处的对象。

Third, abandoning “anxious ecology” does not mean that humanity should let ecological crises and disasters take their course; rather, it means taking more radical “revolutionary” action, adopting a negative posture like Bartleby, saying “no” to capitalism, and taking resolute action in the mode of the “death drive,” making a great refusal of capitalism. He says: “In refusing his employer’s command, Bartleby does not negate the predicate verb. Rather, he affirms the non-predicate verb: he does not say he does not want to do it, but that he would prefer not to do it.” The idea of improving capitalism’s ecological crisis without eliminating the capitalist system is undoubtedly a naive fantasy. He believes that in the logic of ecology and the analysis of ecological crisis, people share a logic similar to that of psychoanalysis; only in this way can ecological crises and disasters be truly averted.

其三，对“担忧生态学”的抛弃并非意味着人类对生态危机和生态灾难听之任之，而是要采取更加激进的“革命性”行动，像巴特尔比那样采取否定的姿态对资本主义说“不”，以“死亡驱力”的方式而进行决绝的行动，对资本主义进行大拒绝。他说：“在拒绝雇主的命令时，巴特尔比不是否定谓语动词。而是肯定非谓语动词：他不说他不想去做，而说他宁愿不去做”。那种幻想不消除资本主义制度来改善资本主义生态危机的想法无疑是一种天真的幻想。他认为，在生态学的逻辑和生态危机的分析中，人们拥有相同或类似于精神分析的逻辑，只有如此，才能真正规避生态危机和生态灾难。

IV. Conclusion

四、结语

As humanity enters the New Era of the changes unseen in a century in the twenty-first century, we must rethink and explore the new problems that have emerged in this New Era. Capitalism has developed over several centuries; though it has gone through twists and turns, it still “lingers on without dying” and “rots without decaying.” A comprehensive exploration of this will be a major课题 [11]11 The Chinese term 课题 (kè tí) means “topic,” “subject,” or “issue” for research or discussion. facing Marxism in the twenty-first century. How to use Marx’s historical materialism to re-understand contemporary capitalism and its contradictions is also an urgent task for our construction of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Regarding the critical analyses of capitalism by Western leftist scholars, we can neither fully agree with them nor ignore them; rather, we need to conduct a profound analysis and critique on the basis of Marx’s theory, combined with the great practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Žižek’s triple analytical critique of contemporary capitalism and its crises from the perspective of psychoanalysis has certain reference and value for our understanding of the contradictions of contemporary capitalism and for repositioning the world socialist movement. In view of this, regarding contemporary capitalism, we can neither believe that it will soon perish nor deny its inherent contradictions and consider it immutable and eternal. From Marx’s perspective, capitalism and socialism have always waxed and waned in constant contradiction and struggle; similarly, socialism has gradually grown stronger in its struggle with capitalism. Therefore, how to understand and analyze the essence and characteristics of contemporary capitalism remains a major课题 [11]11 The Chinese term 课题 (kè tí) means “topic,” “subject,” or “issue” for research or discussion. facing Eastern and Western scholars. Although Žižek’s analysis and critique of contemporary capitalism are not without reason, they also contain many “radical” or “extreme” elements that require careful analysis and more comprehensive evaluation. Nevertheless, his sharp views and unique perspective have become an important dimension in the study of capitalism today that cannot be ignored, and they possess indispensable theoretical significance and practical value for our comprehensive and in-depth understanding of contemporary capitalism and for promoting the construction of socialism with Chinese characteristics. (Notes and references omitted)

当人类进入21世纪这个百年未有之大变局的新时代，我们必须对新时代出现的新问题重新思考和探讨。资本主义历经几百年的发展，虽历经波折，但仍“垂而不死”“腐而不朽”，对此做一全方位的探讨，将是马克思主义在21世纪所面临的一个重大课题。如何运用马克思的历史唯物主义理论重新认识当今的资本主义及其矛盾，也是我们建设中国特色社会主义的紧迫任务。对于西方左翼学者有关资本主义的批判分析，我们既不能完全赞同，也不要置之不理，而是需要在马克思理论的基础上，结合中国特色社会主义的伟大实践进行深刻的分析和批判。齐泽克从精神分析视野对当代资本主义及其危机的三重分析批判，对于我们理解当代资本主义的矛盾，重新定位世界社会主义运动，具有一定的参考和借鉴价值。鉴于此，对于当代资本主义，我们既不能认为其马上消亡，也不能否认其内在的矛盾，认为它亘古不变，永世持存。用马克思的观点看，资本主义与社会主义从来就是在不断的矛盾斗争中此消彼长的；同样，社会主义也是在与资本主义的斗争中逐渐壮大起来的。因此，如何认识和分析当代资本主义本质及其特征，仍是东西方学者所面临的一个重大课题。齐泽克对当代资本主义的分析和批判，虽不无道理，但其中也隐含了诸多的“激进”或“偏激”之处，需要我们进行认真的分析和更全面的评价。但无论如何，其犀利的观点和独特视野已成为当今研究资本主义不可忽视的一个重要维度，对我们全面而深入地了解当代资本主义和推动中国特色社会主义的建设具有不可或缺的理论意义和现实价值。（注释、参考文献略）

(The author is a distinguished professor and doctoral supervisor at the School of Marxism, Nankai University)

（作者系南开大学马克思主义学院特聘教授，博士生导师）

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑