New Trends in Western Critical Theories of the Ecological Crisis of Capitalism

The emergence and development of the ecological crisis, as a typical manifestation of the ongoing contestation in the relationship between humanity and nature, has impelled Western academic circles to place on a more urgent agenda questions concerning where humanity is headed, how to construct a human ecological civilization home, and how to develop the entire planet as a community of shared destiny for humanity and nature. Western scholars take the ecological crisis as an important fulcrum for the critical theory of capitalism. Through dynamic monitoring and critique of the ecological crisis, they extend theoretical trends and practical strategies for ecological construction in Western society. This article takes as its theoretical perspective Western scholars’ judgments on the “new alienation,” “new subject,” “new object,” and “new path” presented by the capitalist ecological crisis, takes as its research content the task of penetrating the theoretical picture and new features of their critique of capitalist modernity, and takes as its value orientation the construction of an ecological civilization theory and ecological civilization path with Chinese characteristics. It strives to reflect on and draw lessons from their theoretical content, and seeks to provide ideological inspiration and theoretical reference for constructing a Chinese ecological discourse with self-assertion and self-authorization.

生态危机的发生发展作为人与自然关系不断博弈的典型表征，令西方学界将关于人类何去何从、人类生态文明家园如何构建、作为人与自然命运共同体的整个星球如何发展等问题，提上了更为迫切的日程。西方学者将生态危机作为资本主义批判理论的重要支点，通过对生态危机的动态监测与批判，延展出西方社会生态建设的理论动向与实践策略。本文以西方学者对资本主义生态危机呈现的“新异化”“新主体”“新客体”“新道路”等研判为理论视角，以透视其关于资本主义现代性批判的理论图景与崭新面貌为研究内容，以打造具有中国特色的生态文明理论与生态文明道路为价值旨归，努力反思并参鉴其理论内容，力求为建构具有自我主张、自我授权的中国特色生态话语权，提供思想启示和理论借鉴。

I. From Ecological Accelerationism to Ecological Cyberneticism: The “New Alienation” Derived from the Ecological Crisis

一、从生态加速主义到生态控制主义：生态危机衍生的“新异化”

The ecological crisis has undergone many significant transformations in the developmental circumstances of late capitalism. That is, along with the rise of accelerationism and digital capitalism, the ecological crisis has fallen, in the cunning of modernity, into a “new alienation” situation of ecological accelerationism, ecological digitalism, and ecological cyberneticism. Ecological accelerationism conveys an ecological crisis that spreads through all areas of life, exhibiting the characteristics of rapid encroachment and constant mutation. Ecological digitalism and ecological cyberneticism signify that the human living environment is sliding into a state of alienated domination by digital surveillance and machine calculation.

生态危机在晚期资本主义的发展境遇中发生了诸多显著的转变，即伴随着加速主义、数字资本主义的泛起，生态危机在现代性的狡黠中堕入了生态加速主义、生态数字主义与生态控制主义的“新异化”处境。生态加速主义传递出蔓延于生活各个领域的生态危机、表现出快速侵袭与不断变异的特质；生态数字主义与生态控制主义则表征出人类生存环境正滑入一个被数字监控与机器计算的异化宰制状态。

On the one hand, accelerated ecological alienation is the latest form of the capitalist ecological crisis. As Hartmut Rosa emphasizes in *The Birth of New Alienation: An Outline of a Critical Theory of Social Acceleration*: “Modern social actors are not merely helpless victims in the face of acceleration dynamics they cannot control. They are not simply forced to adapt to an acceleration game in which they have no stake. On the contrary, I want to suggest that the driving mechanisms of acceleration are also empowered by cultural promises.” [1]1 Hartmut Rosa, *The Birth of New Alienation: An Outline of a Critical Theory of Social Acceleration* (Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 2018), p. 35. The constant “involution” [neijuan] [2]2 “Involution” (neijuan) refers to a phenomenon of intensified competition and stagnation within a closed system, often used in contemporary Chinese discourse to describe excessive internal competition without corresponding progress. that people exhibit in contemporary life is precisely a typical microcosm of accelerationism. It is both a historical self-consciousness of human society’s continuous reshaping and renewal of its cultural context, and a dual manifestation at the social and psychological levels of the ecological crisis in which humanity and nature are increasingly moving toward conflict and opposition. In this regard, Rosa uses the “acceleration cycle system” to reveal the epochal symptoms of the ecological crisis and to sketch our existential picture: humanity is falling into a three-dimensional space constructed by technological acceleration, social change acceleration, and the acceleration of the pace of life. Faced with the epochal circumstance of the ecological crisis penetrating every aspect of our lives at full speed and in all directions, how to effectively reveal the temporal relationship between the ecological crisis and accelerationism requires understanding through an in-depth analysis of accelerationism.

一方面，被加速的生态异化是资本主义生态危机的最新样态。正如哈特穆特·罗萨在《新异化的诞生——社会加速批判理论大纲》中强调的：“现代社会行动者在面对无法掌控的加速动力时，并不只是无助的受害者而已。他们并不单纯仅是被迫去适应他们毫无筹码的加速赌局。相反的，我想指出，加速的推动机制也会由文化应许赋予力量。”1人们在当下生活中所表现出的不断“内卷”,正是加速主义的一个典型缩影，它既是人类社会不断重塑与更新文化语境的历史自觉，更是人与自然不断走向冲突对立的生态危机在社会与心理层面的双重表现。对此，罗萨借助“加速循环系统”揭示出生态危机的时代症候并勾勒了我们的生存画面：人类正在堕入一个由科技加速、社会变迁加速、生活步调加速构筑的三维立体空间中。而面对生态危机全速度、全方位浸入我们生活的时代境遇，如何有效地将生态危机与加速主义的时代关系揭示出来，需要在对加速主义的深入剖析中加以理解。

First, accelerationism proposes that capital, by successfully completing its alliance and collusion with the digital, leads to the need to continuously consume and add more raw materials in the production process, in order to maintain the abundance and diversity of commodities and the richness of profit and surplus value. This causes a significant rise in energy consumption and carbon emissions, which become important reasons for the concentrated outbreak of the ecological crisis. Digital capitalism, equipped with the “wings” of accelerationism, intensifies resource consumption and carbon emissions in media, platforms, equipment, and various forms of construction. That is, “digital media platforms spare no effort in promoting a culture of excessive consumption, not only consuming large amounts of non-renewable natural resources but also causing some ecological disasters to erupt periodically.” [3]3 See Christian Fuchs, *Digital Labour and Karl Marx* (New York: Routledge, 2014), p. 256. Second, accelerationism holds that capital turns consumerism into its own “chariot,” continuously manufacturing and updating commodity content by establishing a new consumption mechanism, persuading people to buy more commodities that were not originally within their expected range, leading to excessive resource consumption and the occurrence of the ecological crisis. Rosa emphasizes that the emergence of accelerationism causes “attitudes and values, fashions and lifestyles, social relations and obligations, groups, classes, environments, social vocabularies, practices, and habitual forms in the capitalist world to change at an ever-increasing rate.” [4]4 Hartmut Rosa, *Social Acceleration: A New Theory of Modernity* (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013), p. 78. This change does not lead to a more ideal good life; it merely serves to ensure that the new consumption mechanism born in acceleration operates more reasonably and rapidly, covering up the excessive destruction of the ecological environment through the additional input of resources and the continuous expansion of production. Third, accelerationism emphasizes that capital not only brings about the universalization of the accelerated control of human social relations but also extends this state to nature and ecology, demonstrating capital’s ability and level to control nature, utilize nature, and accelerate extraction from nature. It can be said that accelerationism has not only “cast a spell” on human society but has also released the effects of accelerated consumption and ecological destruction on the natural environment, pushing the capitalist ecological crisis toward a process of accelerated development.

其一，加速主义提出资本通过顺利完成与数字的联盟与合谋，导致生产过程中需要不断消耗与追加更多原材料，以维持商品的丰富性和多样性、利润与剩余价值的丰厚性，从而造成能源消耗量和碳排放量的大幅上升，这些成为生态危机集中爆发的重要原因。数字资本主义插上加速主义的“翅膀”,在媒介、平台、设备以及多方面建设中加剧了资源消耗与碳排放量，即“数字媒体平台不遗余力地宣扬过度消费的文化，不仅消耗了大量不可再生的自然资源，而且让一些生态灾难开始周期性地爆发”2。其二，加速主义认为资本将消费主义变为自己的“座驾”,通过建立一套新的消费机制来不断制造与更新商品内容，说服人们购买更多本不在其预期范围内的商品，导致资源过度消耗与生态危机的发生。罗萨强调，加速主义的出现，导致资本主义世界的“态度和价值，时尚和生活风格，社会关系与义务，团体、阶级、环境、社会语汇、实践与习惯的形式，都在以持续增加的速率发生改变”3。这种改变并没有导向一种更加理想的美好生活，仅仅是为了确保在加速中诞生的全新消费机制更加合理快速地运转起来，以资源的追加投入与生产的不断扩大来掩盖对生态环境的过度破坏。其三，加速主义强调资本不仅带来了人类社会关系被加速控制的普遍化，也将这种状态蔓延到自然和生态之中，展现了资本控制自然、利用自然、从自然中加速索取的能力与水平。可以说，加速主义不仅对人类社会“施了魔法”,更对自然环境释放了加速消耗与生态破坏的效应，促使资本主义生态危机走向了加速发展的进程。

On the other hand, we are experiencing an ecological digitalist crisis of digital discipline and data control. The coincidence of capitalism with digitalism in its accelerated advance has directly given birth to a “new alienation” world marked, utilized, and dominated by data. To penetrate this new change in the capitalist ecological crisis—how the ecological crisis shifts from a modernity crisis of physical space to a digital ecological crisis—analysis of issues such as digital capitalism becomes important and crucial. The development of capitalism at its current stage has exposed its deep-seated scheme of plundering and even dominating nature through the digital. It vainly attempts to establish a completely new development system for ecological nature by means of symbols, systems, links, stacks, the internet, and cloud platforms. This system, under the pretext of making nature operate better, develop more effectively, and coexist more stably, whitewashes the ugly face of making ecological nature serve the logic of capital, profit maximization, and high surplus value without end. Similarly, the network system established by the digital is comprehensively and profoundly infiltrating and covering our real life, accelerating influence and control over the structure of human society from all aspects, prescribing social activities and modes of interaction, and especially guiding humanity’s attitude toward nature and transforming the relationship between humanity and nature. Nick Srnicek points out: “With society’s enhancement of digital infrastructure and platform capital’s deeper penetration into digital infrastructure, our understanding of its functions and countermeasures is crucial”; “We should view data as raw materials to be extracted, and user activities as the natural resources of these raw materials. Just like oil, data is a raw material that is extracted and refined, usable in many ways.” [5]5 Nick Srnicek, *Platform Capitalism* (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2017), p. 56. This passage precisely confirms that whether it is ecological nature or human social activities and ecological footprints, they are all recorded, processed, and extracted by digital capitalism or platform systems in the form of data symbols, existing merely as datafied entities and reduced to usable raw materials, as resources capable of creating value, solidified by symbols, and concealing the latent ecological crisis under a new identity—“a new political economy throbs around new social media: forms of gray market labor, environmental deprivation, neocolonial sweatshops… most cultural activities under new media are like this.” [6]6 See Trebor Scholz, ed., *Digital Labor: The Internet as Playground and Factory* (New York: Routledge, 2013), p. 17. Clearly, in the process of accelerated development of digital capitalism, both humanity and nature cannot escape the alienated situation of being disciplined, dominated, and utilized. This is precisely why Jean Baudrillard, as early as in *For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign*, issued the indictment: “Authenticity, referents, and the substance of value cannot escape the shadow of the sign; only the symbolic is capitalized.” [7]7 Jean Baudrillard, *For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign* (St. Louis: Telos Press, 1981), p. 150. It can be seen that digital capitalism has intensified this crisis, and ecological nature must inevitably fall into a deeper degree of alienation under its accelerated domination.

另一方面，我们正在经历被数字规训与数据控制的生态数字主义危机。资本主义在加速前行中与数字主义的不谋而合，直接催生了一个被数据标记、利用与统治的“新异化”世界。要洞悉资本主义生态危机的这种新变化——生态危机如何从实体空间的现代性危机转向数字生态危机——对数字资本主义等问题的分析就变得重要而关键。资本主义在现阶段的发展暴露了它通过数字掠夺乃至宰制自然的深层图谋，它妄图以符号、系统、链接、堆栈、互联网、云平台的方式为生态自然建立起一个全新的发展系统。这一系统打着使自然更好运行、更有效发展、更稳定共生的幌子，粉饰的却是使生态自然为资本逻辑、利润最大化与高额剩余价值不竭服务的丑恶嘴脸。同样，由数字建立起来的网络系统正全面而深刻地浸入与覆盖我们的现实生活，从各个方面加速影响与控制着人类社会结构，规定着社会活动与交往模式，特别是引导着人对自然的态度，转变着人与自然的关系。尼克·斯尼尔塞克指出：“伴随着社会对数字基础设施的增强以及平台资本对数字基础设施的更深入的渗透，我们对其功能和应对措施的了解至关重要”;“我们应当将数据看成是用来提取的原材料，用户的活动就是这些原材料的自然资源。就像石油一样，数据是一个提取、精炼出来的原材料，可以在诸多方面进行使用”。4这段话恰恰证实，无论是生态自然，还是人的社会活动、生态足迹，都被数字资本主义或平台系统以数据符号的方式加以记录、加工、提取，仅仅作为数据化的存在而沦为一个可用的原材料，作为一个可创造价值的资源而被符号固化，以新的身份掩盖了潜藏的生态危机——“围绕着新社会媒介悸动着一种新的政治经济学：灰色市场劳动的形式，环境剥夺，新殖民的血汗工厂……新媒体下的大多数文化活动都是如此”5。显然，在数字资本主义加速发展的进程中，人与自然都摆脱不了被规训、被支配、被利用的异化处境，这也就是为什么让·鲍德里亚早在《符号政治经济学批判》中就发出控诉：“真实性、指涉物，以及价值的实体都不能摆脱符号的阴影，只有大写的象征性。”6可见，数字资本主义强化了这种危机，生态自然也必然在其加速支配中陷入一种更深程度的异化处境。

On yet another front, digital capitalism’s disciplining of nature is steering ecology toward more comprehensive control, pushing the ecological crisis into an alienated situation of eco-controlism. Just as the rapid spread of the ecological crisis is subject to the dynamic reporting of digital control, so too will its prevention and termination be accomplished through digital control. This is what Gilles Deleuze meant when he said: “Societies of control are in the process of replacing disciplinary societies. ‘Control’ is the name proposed to designate the new monster”; “We are entering control societies that no longer operate through surveillance but through continuous control and instantaneous information transmission.” [8]8 Gilles Deleuze, “Postscript on the Societies of Control,” *October* 59 (Winter 1992): 3-4. Thus, approaching the ecological crisis from the perspective of cybernetics, computers, computing systems, and integrated analysis has become the most typical mode of existence and characteristic of thought in this era. German ecologist Benjamin Bratton, reflecting on the capitalist ecological crisis along the lines of the control society, points out in *The Revenge of the Real*: “When reality—in the form of a virus, our vulnerability to it, and our inadequate management responses to it—breaks through those comforting fantasies and ideologies, we must learn these most difficult lessons.” [9]9 Benjamin Bratton, *The Revenge of the Real: Politics for a Post-Pandemic World* (London: Verso, 2021), p. 1. Here, he reveals humanity’s smallness and fragility in the face of crisis, proposing that we should emerge from the fantasy of capitalist ecological harmony and the harm of inadequate crisis management. However, in *The Stack*, he shows that the arrival of the control society shows no sign of promoting crisis resolution; on the contrary, it exacerbates the possibility of the crisis’s systemic spread. Because “clouds, networks, regions, social graphs, ecologies, megacities, formal and informal violence, weird theologies—they all stack on top of each other. This enormous composite machine, according to the attributes and boundaries of spatial order, is generating a technology of the super-system.” [10]10 Benjamin Bratton, *The Stack: On Software and Sovereignty* (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2015), p. xviii. This super-control technology not only brings the ecological crisis under systemic management; even people’s exit from the ecological crisis and escape from existential predicaments must be accomplished under the system’s control. Thus, the systemic control of the ecological crisis does not represent a resolution of the crisis or a change in the relationship between humans and the environment, but rather humanity’s gradual sinking deeper into eco-controlism. To some extent, it means controlling humanity itself. On this, Byung-Chul Han has noted: “Digital surveillance will now be promoted as a successful model for combating the epidemic. It will take this opportunity to display its system even more proudly.” [11]11 Byung-Chul Han, *In the Swarm: Digital Prospects*, trans. Erik Butler (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2017), p. 11. Because “after the fusion of the biotechnological revolution and the information technology revolution, big-data algorithms may be better able to monitor and understand my feelings than I can, and the authority that controls everything may shift from human hands to computers.” [12]12 Yuval Noah Harari, *Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow* (New York: Harper, 2017), p. 346. It is evident that the ecological crisis, and even human alienation, are increasingly subordinated to a gradually expanding control system.

再一方面，数字资本主义对自然的规训正将生态引向更全面的控制，将生态危机推向一种生态控制主义的异化处境。正如生态危机的快速传播处于数字控制的动态报道之下，其防御与终结也将通过数字控制来完成。这就是吉尔·德勒兹所说的：“控制的社会正在取代惩戒的社会。‘控制’一词是用来指代新魔鬼的”;“我们正在进入控制社会，这样的社会不再通过监控运作，而是通过持续的控制和即时的信息传播来运作”。7所以，从控制学、电脑、计算系统、集成分析的角度应对生态危机，已经是这个时代最典型的生存模式与思考特征。德国生态学者本杰明·布拉顿沿着控制社会的思路对资本主义生态危机进行反思，他在《真实地复仇》中指出：“当现实——以病毒、以我们对病毒的脆弱性、以我们对病毒不充分的管理反应——冲破那些令人欣慰的幻想和意识形态时，我们要吸取这些最困难的教训。”8在这里，他揭示了人类在危机面前的渺小与脆弱，提出应当从对资本主义生态和谐的幻想和对危机管理不力的危害中走出。但是他在《堆栈》中表明，控制社会的到来并没有显示出促进危机解决的迹象，反倒是加剧了危机系统性蔓延的可能。因为“云、网络、区域、社会图表、生态、大城市、正式和非正式的暴力、怪异的神学，它们都相互叠加在一起。这种巨大的复合机器根据空间秩序的属性和界线，正在生成为一种超级系统的技术”9。这种超级控制技术不仅使生态危机纳入到系统管理之下，就连人们走出生态危机，摆脱生存困境，也要在系统的控制下来完成。所以，对生态危机的系统控制并不代表危机的解决或者人与环境关系的改变，而是人本身逐步深陷到生态控制主义之中。从某种程度上讲，就是控制了人本身。对此，韩炳哲曾提到：“数字监控现在将会被作为对抗疫情的成功模式宣传。它将借此机会更加自豪地展示它的系统。”10因为“生物技术革命与信息技术革命融合之后，大数据算法有可能比我更能监测和理解我的感受，而掌控一切的权威也可能从人类手中转移到计算机手中”11。可见，生态危机乃至人的异化越来越屈从于一个逐渐壮大的控制系统。

In sum, Western scholars’ revelations of the “new alienation” under the crises of eco-acceleratism, eco-digitalism, and eco-controlism point to the various alienated predicaments in the current development of the capitalist ecological crisis. This both achieves, to a certain extent, a deepening and contemporary response to the Marxist theory of ecological crisis and alienation—that is, “the great transformation facing our century” [13]13 Karl Marx, “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 296. is “the reconciliation of humanity with nature and the reconciliation of humanity with itself” [14]14 Karl Marx, “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” p. 296.—and also prompts us to closely monitor and seriously reflect on the new changes and new trends in the capitalist ecological crisis, seeking reference and critical targets for constructing our own ecological theory.

总的来说，西方学者对生态加速主义、生态数字主义、生态控制主义危机下的“新异化”观的揭示，指出了资本主义生态危机在当下发展的种种异化困境。这既在一定程度上实现了对马克思主义生态危机与异化批判理论的深化延展与当代回应，即“我们这个世纪面临的大转变”12,就是“人类与自然的和解以及人类本身的和解”13,又提示着我们要紧密关注与认真反思资本主义生态危机的新变化与新动向，为建构自身的生态理论找寻参鉴与批判靶向。

II. From the “Proletariat” to the “New Proletariat”: The “New Subject” of Ecological Crisis Governance

二、从“无产阶级”到“新无产阶级”:生态危机治理的“新主体”

Some Western scholars argue that, because the resolution of the ecological crisis requires new saviors and leaders, Marx’s theory of proletarian revolution needs adjustment on the issue of the ecological crisis. That is, by incorporating the “new proletariat” as a representative resistant group, class revolution should give way to mass ecological resistance. This view indicates a clear shift in Western scholars’ judgment of the subject of ecological construction, manifesting as a new “view of the subject”: the belief that the “new proletariat,” endowed with sufficient radicalism, rebelliousness, and community consciousness, is the ideal subject of ecological governance.

一些西方学者认为，由于生态危机的解决需要新的拯救者与引领者，所以马克思关于无产阶级革命的理论在生态危机问题上就需要作出调整，即通过加入以“新无产阶级”为代表的反抗群体，使阶级革命让位于大众性的生态反抗。这一观点表明，西方学者对生态建设主体的判断发生了鲜明转向，彰显为一种新的“主体观”,即认为具有充分激进性、反抗性与共同体意识的“新无产阶级”是理想的生态治理主体。

The accelerated development of the ecological crisis and social problems makes people’s perception of their current living conditions and alienated state more intuitive and distinct. It also leads left-wing scholars represented by Slavoj Žižek, Alain Badiou, Jacques Rancière, and Antonio Negri to historically participate in discussions on the ecological crisis, climate change, and the construction of a new ecological subject. They propose that, facing the multiple fears dominating life in the capitalist world—the ecological crisis, new forms of slums, the ethical and moral impact of new technologies, sharp ideological antagonisms, deepening racism and ethnic conflicts, and so on—the impact of the ecological crisis is foremost. As the “most urgent threat” to all humanity, it determines, from the height of sustainable development, the mode of interaction between humans and nature, the reasonable boundaries of ethics, morality, and ecological protection, and, moreover, whether humanity can “sincerely struggle to protect the environment.” [15]15 Slavoj Žižek, *Living in the End Times* (London: Verso, 2010), p. 328. Left-wing scholars point out that the bourgeoisie’s profit-seeking nature exposes its inherent anti-ecological character. The transformation of the era also means that the subject of ecological governance cannot be the proletariat in its original sense. To construct a genuine subject of ecological governance, one must, while adhering to the proletariat’s subject position, carry out a more radical transformation suited to the contemporary era. That is, the genuine subject of ecological governance should be a “new proletariat” that is in the process of being generated, emerging, and gradually strengthening.

生态危机和社会问题的加速发展使人们对当下生存处境和异化状态的感知更为直观、鲜明，也使以斯拉沃热·齐泽克、阿兰·巴迪欧、雅克·朗西埃、安东尼奥·奈格里等为代表的左翼学者历史性地参与到对生态危机、气候变化、建构新的生态主体等问题的讨论之中。他们提出，面对支配资本主义世界生活的多重恐惧——生态危机、贫民窟的新形式、新科技带来的伦理道德冲击、意识形态尖锐对立、种族主义与民族矛盾加深，等等，其中来自生态危机的影响首当其冲。作为全人类“最紧迫的威胁”,它从可持续发展的高度决定着人与自然的相处模式，决定着伦理道德与生态保护的合理界限，更决定着人类是否“可以真诚地为保护环境而斗争”14。左翼学者指出，资产阶级的逐利性暴露了其内在的反生态性，时代的转换也意味着生态治理的主体不能是原生态意义上的无产阶级，而要建构一个真正的生态治理主体，就应当在坚持无产阶级主体地位的基础上对其作出更具当下时代意义的激进化改造，即真正的生态治理主体应当是一个正在生成、显现与逐步壮大的“新无产阶级”。

Before understanding the meaning and composition of the “new proletariat,” it is first necessary to distinguish between the two related concepts of “proletariat” and “working class,” so as to clear this prerequisite theoretical ground. In Žižek’s view, the “working class” and the “proletariat” belong to two different domains. The former, as a simple category, presents a neutral social stratum with substantive content; the latter, as a category of truth, presents itself as the thorough agent of revolutionary struggle. Therefore, it is necessary to “discern a distinct tendency” [16]16 Slavoj Žižek, *The Parallax View* (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006), p. 269. within the “synonymous use” of proletariat and working class, in order to draw boundaries for constructing a genuine ecological subject. That is, “we certainly should not abandon the concept of the proletariat or the proletarian standpoint; on the contrary, the current situation forces us to radicalize it to a level of existence far beyond what Marx imagined; we need a more radical concept of the proletarian subject.” [17]17 Slavoj Žižek, *The Ticklish Subject: The Absent Centre of Political Ontology* (London: Verso, 1999), p. 172. Based on this, through the radicalization of the “proletariat,” Žižek transforms it into a “subject without substance” and “the excluded” endowed with “community consciousness,” namely, the “new proletariat.”

在理解“新无产阶级”的涵义与构成之前，首先需要辨明“无产阶级”与“工人阶级”这两个相关概念，以清理这一前提性理论地基。在齐泽克看来，“工人阶级”与“无产阶级”分属于两个不同的领域，前者作为一个简单范畴展现的是一个具有实质性内容的中立社会阶层，后者则作为真理范畴展现为革命斗争的彻底行动者。所以需要在对无产阶级与工人阶级的“同义使用”中“辨别出一个明显的倾向”15,以便为建构真正的生态主体划清界限，即“我们当然不应该放弃无产阶级或无产阶级立场的概念；相反，当前的形势迫使我们将其激进化到远远超出马克思想象的存在层面，我们需要一个更激进的无产阶级主体概念”16。基于此，齐泽克通过对“无产阶级”的激进化操作，将其改造为一个“具有共同体意识”的“无实体的主体”和“被排斥者”,即“新无产阶级”。

First, the “new proletariat” is “a subject reduced to a Cartesian ‘cogito,’ approaching a zero point.”[18]18 Slavoj Žižek, *The Ticklish Subject: The Absent Centre of Political Ontology* (London: Verso, 1999), p. 184. By applying Jacques Lacan’s psychoanalysis, Žižek argues that the intensification of the capitalist ecological crisis destroys the external natural environment on which the subject depends for survival; the private ownership of intellectual property rights, which is irrational, strips the “general intellect” from the subject; and, amid the triumphant advance of science and technology, bio-genetic technologies reduce the subject to an object more easily manipulated. Thus, the very foundation of human existence has been seriously threatened, eroded, and deprived. The subject is forced to retreat to an abstract, empty subject in the Cartesian sense—that is, a “subjectivity without substance” that has lost its entity and content.[19]19 Slavoj Žižek, *The Parallax View* (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006), p. 315. Second, as a “part of no part” and an “excluded one,” the “new proletariat” continuously releases its potential to challenge the traditional political order and to govern the ecological crisis. Rancière points out: “Politics exists when the calculation of the parts and the components of society is disrupted by the counting of those who are the part of no part.”[20]20 Jacques Rancière, *Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy* (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999), p. 36. Their existence poses a challenge to the existing political order. They do not acquiesce to or tolerate capitalist rule but instead seek to establish a new territory within the homogenizing and totalizing control of existing society, existing in a negative, resistant, and developmental posture—that is, as Žižek emphasizes, the “part of no part” “belongs to this society but does not belong to any of its subgroups.”[21]21 Slavoj Žižek, *The Ticklish Subject*, p. 190. This means they are not fixed or “legitimized by specific characteristics,” nor are they “a positive category of social reality”;[22]22 Slavoj Žižek, *The Parallax View*, p. 316. rather, they are regarded as “the excluded” in the posture of resisters. Therefore, they are new subjects with a spirit of resistance in the era of ecological crisis. In the view of some left-wing scholars, the typical real forms of the “new proletariat” are the poor, refugees, and migrants, because the latter possess revolutionary potential in political change and ecological protection. This makes them both promising revolutionary subjects for political liberation and potential new leaders for resolving the capitalist ecological crisis. Finally, the “new proletariat” is a new subject endowed with a sense of community. Badiou believes that after the ecological crisis, the capitalist lie that “the virus is equal before everyone” is ruthlessly exposed, further revealing that the proletariat, as the exploited and abandoned object, has always been the internal logic of the self-preservation of the capitalist system. Therefore, it is impossible to resolve the ecological crisis through the bourgeoisie; only by re-establishing the proletariat as a community can there be real hope of surviving the ecological crisis. Negri points out in this regard: “What is a strike? A strike is the destruction of the production system that poses an objective obstacle. Because these new capitalist machines are dirty, they are machines that close off desire; but once these machines are destroyed, it is necessary to reawaken the desire for solidarity, the desire for production.”[23]23 Antonio Negri, *The Porcelain Workshop: For a New Grammar of Politics* (Los Angeles: Semiotext(e), 2008), p. 107. It can be seen that Negri clearly recognizes the importance of the “new proletariat” re-appropriating production in a posture of unity and in the manner of a community, so as to re-realize leadership over social development and governance of the ecological crisis, and to find a harmonious balance between survival and ecology. Thus, only the “new proletariat” as a community can be a possible force for resolving the ecological crisis and social problems.

首先，“新无产阶级”是“一个被还原到笛卡尔式‘我思’的趋近于零点的主体”17。齐泽克通过对雅克·拉康精神分析学的运用，提出资本主义生态危机的愈演愈烈导致主体赖以生存的外部自然环境被破坏，不合理的知识产权私有制将“一般智力”从主体中剥离，加之生物基因技术在科技发展的高歌猛进中导致主体沦为更易操纵的对象，所以人的存在根基已经受到严重威胁并被侵蚀、剥夺。主体不得不退回到笛卡尔意义上的抽象、空洞的主体，也就是丧失掉实体和内容的“无物质的主体性”18。其次，“新无产阶级”作为一个“无分者之分”的“被排斥者”,其所蕴含的对传统政治秩序的挑战以及对生态危机的治理潜能不断得到释放。朗西埃指出：“政治存在于，社会的部分与组成分子的计算被那些无分者之分的算入打乱的地方。”19他们的存在对现存政治秩序构成了挑战，他们不是默认与忍受资本主义的统治，而是要在现存社会同质化、整体化的操控中确立一片新领地，以一种否定性、反抗性、发展性的姿态而存在——也就是齐泽克所强调的“无分者之分”“属于这个社会，但不属于这个社会的任何亚群体”20。这意味着他们没有被固定化、“合法化的特定特征”,“不是肯定性的社会实在范畴”21,而是作为反抗者的姿态被视为“被排斥者”。因此，他们是生态危机时代具有反抗精神的新主体。在一些左翼学者看来，“新无产阶级”的典型现实样态就是贫民、难民、移民，因为后者在政治变革与生态维护上具有革命的潜能，这使他们既有望成为政治解放的革命主体，又可以成长为解决资本主义生态危机的新引领者。最后，“新无产阶级”是具备共同体意识的新主体。巴迪欧认为，生态危机发生后，资本主义关于“病毒面前人人平等”的谎言被无情戳穿，进一步暴露出无产阶级作为被剥削、被抛弃的对象始终是资本主义制度自我保存的内在逻辑。所以，妄图通过资产阶级来解决生态危机是不可能的，只有让无产阶级作为一个共同体重新建立起来，才是度过生态危机的真正希望。奈格里对此指出：“什么是罢工?罢工是对带来客观阻碍的生产系统的破坏。因为这些新资本主义的机器是肮脏的，是关闭欲望的机器；但是，一旦摧毁了这些机器，就需要重新唤起团结的欲望，生产的欲望。”22可见，奈格里清楚地意识到“新无产阶级”以一种团结的姿态、共同体的方式重新占有生产的重要性，以重新实现对社会发展的引领和对生态危机的治理，在生存与生态之间找到一种和谐共在的平衡。由此，只有作为共同体的“新无产阶级”,才是解决生态危机与社会问题的可能力量。

In general, Western scholars’ ecological-subject analysis of the “new proletariat” has undergone a transformation in the Marxist sense, pursuing an exploration that advances so-called class struggle or the construction of a new order in a radicalized manner, and ultimately moves toward a utopian vision of ecological protection. Therefore, this emerging and constructing radical subject has not transcended the theoretical horizon of Marx’s critique of modernity—that is, the proletariat has always been the core force for breaking the old world and building a new one, always “representing the interests of the entire movement,”[24]24 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto* (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2018), p. 41. and is the backbone leading toward the organic unity of “the realized naturalism of man and the realized humanism of nature.”[25]25 Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2018), p. 107.

总的来说，西方学者关于“新无产阶级”的生态主体研判在马克思的意义上发生了转换，进行了一种以激进化的方式来推进其所谓的阶级斗争或新秩序建构的探索，并最终走向了生态维护的乌托邦设想。因此，这一正在成长、建构中的激进主体并没有超出马克思现代性批判的理论视野，即无产阶级始终是打破旧世界、建立新世界的核心力量，始终“代表整个运动的利益”23,是引领走向“人的实现了的自然主义和自然界的实现了的人道主义”24有机统一的中坚力量。

III. From Subject-Object Unity to Community: The “New Object” of the Human-Nature Ecological Relationship

三、从主客体统一到共同体：人与自然生态关系的“新客体”

In rethinking and resolving the problem of conflict and confrontation between humans and nature, abandoning “all ‘naturalistic’ behaviors and modes of thinking”[26]26 Arran Gare, *The Philosophical Foundations of Ecological Civilization: A Manifesto for the Future* (London: Routledge, 2017), p. 12. and re-constructing an ecological “new object” as a community has gradually become a new approach to solving the ecological crisis. Some Western scholars believe that the dualistic separation of humans and nature should be discarded, and that humans and nature should be understood from the perspective of community, based on the idea of subject-object unity—that is, an ecological society should be a “community of communities” that conveys the interest of harmony and reconciliation, or a “holistic community” with an awareness of symbiosis and shared prosperity.

在重思与解决人与自然冲突对峙的难题时，放弃“推翻一切‘自然主义’的行为和思维方式”25,重新构建起作为共同体的生态“新客体”,逐渐成为解决生态危机的新思路。一些西方学者认为，应当摒弃人与自然二元割裂的观念，从共同体出发将人与自然放在主客体统一的思路上加以理解，即生态社会应当是一个传递和谐和解旨趣的“共同体之共同体”或具有共生共荣意识的“整体主义共同体”。

As representative figures in the field of ecology in Australia, Arran Gare and Andrew Brennan have deeply reflected on promoting the harmonious coexistence of humans and nature, demonstrating the diversity of ecological civilization, and building an ecological homeland for all humanity from the perspective of “community.” Gare believes that the “community of communities” focuses on the joint construction and joint development of humans and nature from “life creation” and “home creation,” opening up cultural care and ecological pursuits in the dimension of subject-object unity. Brennan emphasizes that the “holistic community” unfolds inquiries into environmental protection, biodiversity, and the harmonious coexistence of humans and nature from a broader global cooperation, likewise demonstrating the holistic thinking and international perspective of humans and nature as an ecological community.

作为澳大利亚生态学领域的代表人物，阿伦·盖尔与安德鲁·布伦南以“共同体”为视角对促进人与自然和谐共生、彰显生态文明多样性、建设全人类的生态家园进行了深入思考。盖尔认为，“共同体之共同体”从“生命创造”和“家园创造”中关注人与自然的共同建设、共同发展，在主客体统一的维度上敞开文化关怀与生态追求；布伦南强调，“整体主义共同体”从更广泛的全球合作中展开对环境保护、生物多样性、人与自然和谐共生的追问，同样展示出人与自然作为生态共同体的整体思维与国际视野。

Under the influence of ideas such as “Great Harmony” and “Common Welfare,” Gare established his ecological theory with “community of communities” as the core concept, emphasizing that the “community of communities” is the key to building a human ecological civilization. First, an ecological civilization based on community manifests “the place of humanity in the world, and the ultimate purpose worth striving for.” [27]27 Arran Gare, “Toward an Ecological Civilization: The Science, Ethics, and Politics of the Ecozoic,” in *Process Studies*, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2010, pp. 5-38. Ecological civilization understands the harmonious coexistence of humanity and nature as follows: whether humans or nature are “themselves” or components of “the state” or “the global ecosystem,” they are all “participants in historical and natural generation,” existing as communities “to enhance the life and adaptive capacity of these communities,” [27]27 Arran Gare, “Toward an Ecological Civilization: The Science, Ethics, and Politics of the Ecozoic,” in *Process Studies*, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2010, pp. 5-38. and are an indispensable part of the entire planetary ecosystem, playing a foundational role in promoting natural and historical development. Second, the development of human ecology and ecology has established the theoretical foundation for constructing the “community of communities.” Gare believes that the progress from ecology to human ecology conveys that the two share common content and space for development in the “community of life” and the creation of an “ecological home system.” Ecology focuses on the relationships between humanity and nature, the individual and society, and cultural communities and ecological communities, elevating the role of culture to the height of ecological civilization, thereby cultivating the “community of communities” mode of thinking needed to build ecological civilization. Human ecology further presents the two-way influence of nature and humanity as “humanized nature” and “naturalized humanity,” not only displaying the charm of “dynamic and creative nature,” highlighting nature that is “constituted by culture and in turn creates culture,” but also demonstrating that humans, as “culturally constituted communities within nature,” [28]28 Arran Gare, “Toward an Ecological Civilization: The Science, Ethics, and Politics of the Ecozoic,” in *Process Studies*, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2010, pp. 5-38. always transform and develop nature through productive practices such as labor. Therefore, both ecology and human ecology place the analysis of humanity and nature, society and ecology, culture and civilization within the perspective of “ecological community” or “community of communities,” serving as the theoretical cornerstone for building an ecological civilization society. Finally, an ecological civilization society is committed to creating a “community of life” as “ecological creation” and “home creation.” The community is built on the foundation of mutual care for each other’s interests, takes mutual respect for life and common progress and development as its value goal, opens a symbiotic and co-prosperous relationship as its practical path, and strives to achieve harmonious coexistence within a community home. This community consciousness is the effort to realize the ecologization of human living spaces and the homification of the ecological environment. In a certain sense, Gare’s thought on the “community of communities” and “ecological community” has been influenced by the ideas of “a community with a shared future for mankind” and “a community of life for humanity and nature.” This is why he actively praises that “China’s rise will be accompanied by its promotion of ecological civilization globally,” believes that China “plays a guiding role in the struggle to create a global civilization,” and argues that we should learn from the construction of ecological civilization in China’s New Era to “create an eco-socialist socio-economic formation.” [29]29 Arran Gare, “China and the Struggle for Ecological Civilization,” in *Capitalism Nature Socialism*, Vol. 23, No. 4, 2012, pp. 10-26.

盖尔在“大同世界”“共同福祉”等思想的影响下以“共同体之共同体”为核心思想建立起自已的生态理论，强调“共同体之共同体”是建设人类生态文明社会的关键。首先，以共同体为基础的生态文明彰显了“人类在世界中的地位，以及值得奋斗之终极目的”26。生态文明就是将人与自然的和谐共生理解为，无论人或自然是“他/它们自己”,还是“国家”“全球生态系统”的组成部分，他/它们都是“历史和自然生成的参与者”,是为“增强这些共同体的生命和适应能力”27而存在的共同体，是整个星球生态系统中不可或缺的一部分，对于促进自然与历史发展具有基础性作用。其次，人类生态学和生态学的发展为“共同体之共同体”的建构确立了理论基础。盖尔认为，从生态学到人类生态学的进步，传递出二者在“生命共同体”与创造“生态家园系统”上具有共同的建设内容与发展空间。生态学着重思考人与自然、个体与社会、文化共同体与生态共同体的关系，将文化的作用升华到生态文明的高度，以此培育构建生态文明所需的“共同体之共同体”的思维方式；人类生态学则进一步将自然与人类的双向影响呈现为“人化自然”与“自然化人”,既展现出“动态和创造性自然”的魅力，突出“由文化构成又创造文化”的自然，又彰显出人类作为“自然内部由文化构成的共同体”28,始终通过劳动等生产实践活动改造与发展自然。所以无论是生态学还是人类生态学，都将关于人与自然、社会与生态、文化与文明的分析放置在“生态共同体”或“共同体之共同体”的视域之内，作为构建生态文明社会的理论基石。最后，生态文明社会致力于创建一种作为“生态创造”和“家园创造”的“生命共同体”。共同体以相互利益的彼此关照为建设基础，以生命相互尊重与共同进步发展为价值目标，以敞开一种共生共荣关系为实践路径，致力于在一个共同体的家园中实现和谐共处。这种共同体意识就是努力实现人类生活家园的生态化以及生态环境的家园化。从一定意义上讲，盖尔“共同体之共同体”与“生态共同体”思想受到了“人类命运共同体”“人与自然生命共同体”思想的影响，这也就是为什么其积极赞扬“中国的崛起将伴随其在全球推进生态文明”,认为中国“在创造全球文明的斗争中起着引导作用”,应当向新时代中国生态文明建设学习，“创造一种生态社会主义的社会经济形态”。29

Brennan also systematically examined social values in the fields of nature and ecology, and on the basis of critiquing deep ecology, elaborated a “theory of natural system value,” proposing that nature and ecology should be viewed through a larger category, distinguishing between the ecological and the non-ecological, to dispel human confusion about nature, thereby reducing related mystical discussions. On this basis, Brennan emphasized the relationship between ethical polymorphism and environmental protection, highlighting that for humans to live a meaningful and valuable life, they must consider their position within the natural system and their impact on that system. He believes that establishing the concept of a “holistic community” within the framework of scientific ecology and practical ecology, and constructing a community conducive to environmental protection in international cooperation, is of great significance for achieving the overall progress of the human ecological home. [30]30 Andrew Brennan, *Thinking about Nature: An Investigation of Nature, Value and Ecology*, London: Routledge, 1988, p. 182.

布伦南对自然和生态学领域的社会价值也进行了系统考察，并在批判深层生态学的基础上阐发了“自然系统价值论”,提出应当通过一个更大的范畴来看待自然和生态，对生态与非生态进行辨析，解除人类对自然的困惑，从而减少与之相关的神秘讨论。在此基础上，布伦南强调了伦理多态性与环境保护的关系，突出了人要过上有意义、有价值的生活，就要考虑人在其所处的自然系统中的位置及对这一系统所产生的影响。他认为，从科学生态学和实践生态学的架构上确立起“整体主义共同体”的观念，在国际合作中建构一个有利于环境保护的共同体，对于实现人类生态家园的整体进步，具有重要意义。30

It can be said that from Gare’s “community of communities” to Brennan’s “holistic community,” both attempt to improve the relationship between humanity and nature through a “new object” view (i.e., the unity of subject and object), re-examining humanity and nature with a new posture and mentality. This new cognition breaks through the anthropocentrism of traditional Western philosophy, exhibiting the theoretical tendencies of postmodernism: anti-centrism, anti-foundationalism, and anti-monism. In a certain sense, as a new view of nature emerging from constructive postmodernism, they carry a constructive character rather than a purely粉碎主义 (shatterist) or deconstructivist color. Thus, they represent a new reflection by foreign scholars on the “new object” relationship between humanity and nature in the process of critiquing capitalism’s “new alienation” and reconstructing the “new subject.”

可以说，从盖尔的“共同体之共同体”到布伦南的“整体主义共同体”,都试图以一种“新客体”观(即主客体统一)改善人与自然的关系，以新的姿态与心态重新审视人与自然。这种新认知实现了对传统西方哲学人类中心主义的突破，表现出后现代主义的反中心主义、反基质主义、反一元论的理论倾向。一定意义上讲，作为从建设性后现代主义中萌发出的新自然观，它们带有一种建设性的特征而不是纯粹的粉碎主义或解构主义色彩，因而是国外学者在资本主义“新异化”批判与“新主体”重建过程中进行的人与自然“新客体”关系的新思考。

It must be pointed out that whether Gare or Brennan, their theories have unavoidable inherent defects. The former places the thinking on the unity of subject and object in the community more within the dimension of cultural speculation, diluting its practical character. The latter, on the one hand, falls again into the mystical mire of “ecocentrism” by insisting that “whether natural existence has life or not, it can be endowed with ethical value,” and on the other hand, fails to concretely propose a feasible plan for global ecological environmental protection cooperation, remaining a theoretical fantasy. Furthermore, in addition to the inherent anti-ecological nature of the capitalist system, the surge and growth of racism, xenophobia (rejection of community), authoritarianism, and historical nihilism in the West also lead to the practical powerlessness of foreign ecological scholars in constructing ecological communities. Therefore, their new concept of a community based on the “unity of subject and object” between humanity and nature remains an exploration within the framework of Marx’s ideas that humanity and nature are each other’s “inorganic body” [31]31 Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 42, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1979, p. 95. and “organic body,” and even the “reconciliation of humanity with nature,” [32]32 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *The Holy Family*, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 2, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1957, p. 119. and does not exceed Marx’s theoretical horizon.

需要指明的是，无论是盖尔还是布伦南，其理论都有不可避免的内在缺陷。前者对主客体统一的共同体思考更多放在文化思辨的维度而淡化了实践色彩，后者则一方面因为坚持“无论自然存在是否有生命，都可以被赋予伦理价值”的观点而再次陷入“生态中心主义”的神秘主义泥淖，另一方面也未能具体提出全球性生态环境保护联合的可行方案，而流于一种理论层面的畅想。此外，除了资本主义制度的内在反生态性，种族主义、仇外主义(对共同体的拒斥)、威权主义、历史虚无主义在西方的激增滋长，同样导致国外生态学者在构建生态共同体上的实践无力。所以，他们关于人与自然“主客体统一”的共同体新观念，仍然是在马克思关于人与自然互为彼此“无机身体”31与“有机身体”,乃至“人类与自然的和解”32意义上的一种探索，并未超出马克思的理论视野。

IV. From Neoliberalism to Communism: The “New Path” of Ecological Society Construction

四、从新自由主义到共产主义：生态社会建设的“新道路”

Regarding the choice of path out of the ecological crisis, there has always been a theoretical debate between capitalism and socialism. However, judging from the current reality, the effects of the two different systems in solving the ecological crisis are clearly distinguishable. With the deepening exposure and critique of the capitalist ecological crisis, many scholars represented by the Western left have further begun to criticize neoliberalism and revive socialism/communism.

关于走出生态危机的道路选择一直以来存在着是资本主义还是社会主义的理论争鸣。但从当前的现实情况来看，两种不同制度在解决生态危机的效应上高下立分。随着对资本主义生态危机的深入揭批，以西方左翼为代表的诸多学者进一步开始批判新自由主义与重振社会主义/共产主义。

The capitalist neoliberal approach has proven inadequate in addressing the ecological crisis, and its institutional plan has been denounced by left-wing scholars as inefficient and ineffective. Especially since the onset of the ecological crisis, the capitalist system has attempted to respond to the ecological crisis and achieve public security by intensifying neoliberalism, consumerism, and other measures, but the repeated failures of actual measures have become “the last straw that breaks its back.” David Harvey emphasizes that neoliberalism, as an internal mechanism for capitalism’s self-preservation, is not entirely beneficial; it also reveals a destructive tendency that cannot be ignored in the ecological crisis, delivering a fatal blow to capitalism. In particular, when faced with the disaster of the ecological crisis, many capitalist state governments have unhesitatingly adopted double standards, choosing to sacrifice the interests of the proletariat and the broad masses to safeguard the interests of the bourgeoisie and the minority upper class. This is why the big capitalists and wealthy strata can still obtain medical and health resources and emergency rescue channels in a short time, while the broad masses have to continue facing the danger of direct exposure to the crisis, enduring the plight of being “thrown” by society into “bare life.”[33]33 “Bare life” (nuda vita) is a concept from Giorgio Agamben, referring to a form of life stripped of political status and reduced to mere biological existence, often in a state of exception. Therefore, Agamben indignantly criticizes that the crisis has further torn apart the foundations of capitalist society’s existence; a society that should be driven by democracy, freedom, equality, and fraternity is being pushed into an abyss of intensified class contradictions, magnified hatred and conflict, and widened group gaps — “Everything points to the fact that the foundation of our society is no longer love, but distance, separation, suspicion, and even hatred.”[34]34 This quotation is attributed to Giorgio Agamben, reflecting his critique of the erosion of social bonds under capitalism during crises. The class gap and contradictions in capitalist society cannot be eliminated; their amplification in the crisis continuously destroys its operating mechanism, namely, the proletariat can no longer afford to purchase or pay for the commodities created by the bourgeoisie. Their meager and pitiful incomes are insufficient to sustain their own survival, let alone to continue guaranteeing the operation of consumerism throughout capitalist society — the successive emergence of difficulties such as reduced employment opportunities, skyrocketing unemployment, unequal distribution of medical resources, and the seizure and deprivation of living resources all mean that capitalist society no longer has any reason to arouse or awaken the consumption desires of the proletariat. The problems exposed by the interruption or stagnation of the consumption chain are precisely that capitalist society cannot, under conditions of intensified class contradictions and social conflicts, continue to maintain the smooth operation of production, distribution, exchange, and consumption, nor the advancement of expanded reproduction and the extraction of surplus value. On the contrary, it can only mean a regression in social development and a contraction of the economic situation. Thus, neoliberalism is not only incapable of resolving the disaster brought by the ecological crisis but will, in this process, lead capitalism into an even more difficult situation. In this regard, Chomsky criticizes neoliberalism from the perspective of the conflict between the free market and government intervention. He emphasizes that the free market in capitalist society has neither truly enabled economic operations to develop in a direction that guarantees freedom and equality, nor provided what is needed for social development; moreover, it has chosen to exclude government intervention, heading down a path of development without safeguards. This free market is a free market controlled by capitalists and big financial groups, not a market for the people, nor a market with a government; it is a market that, once a crisis occurs, easily falls into chaos and reveals a tendency toward self-destruction, essentially a market of unfreedom, inequality, and injustice. Thus, the framework of the neoliberal free market, due to its exclusion of government intervention mechanisms, has essential defects. On the one hand, it has produced “the great failure of the market as the root of social problems”; on the other hand, it has fallen into the dilemma of its own claim that “the government itself is the problem and can do nothing,”[35]35 These phrases paraphrase critiques of neoliberalism associated with Noam Chomsky, contrasting market failure with the claim that government is inherently ineffective. ultimately further amplifying the failure of neoliberalism in a double bind. Polanyi responds to Chomsky’s view. He argues that neoliberalism only thinks of the broad masses when it needs to maintain the operating mechanism of consumerism and extract surplus value, only allows them to survive when it needs them to be exploited and dominated, and once a crisis occurs, it first chooses to ruthlessly abandon the “foundation on which the various groups of civil society rely for their existence and activities,”[36]36 This phrase is a reference to Karl Polanyi’s concept in *The Great Transformation*, describing the social foundations that capitalism undermines. leaving the broad masses to fend for themselves in the ecological crisis. Thus, the abandonment of its own foundation by neoliberalism necessarily means that it cannot obtain the momentum for sustained operation, but only moves toward self-destruction in one crisis after another. Hence, while criticizing the failure of the neoliberal plan, foreign scholars have also issued theoretical calls for reviving socialism/communism.

资本主义新自由主义方案在应对生态危机上捉襟见肘，其制度方案被左翼学者驳斥低效无能。特别是生态危机发生以来，资本主义制度妄图通过强化新自由主义、消费主义等方式应对生态危机、实现公共安全，但现实举措的一再失败成为“压倒其生命的最后一棵稻草”。大卫·哈维强调，新自由主义作为资本主义自我持存的内在机制并非是完全有益的，它在生态危机中同样暴露出不可忽视的毁灭倾向，给资本主义造成致命一击。特别是众多资本主义国家政府在面对生态危机灾难时毫不犹豫地采取了双重标准，选择牺牲无产阶级与广大群众的利益以维护资产阶级与少数上层阶级的利益，这就是为什么大资本家与富人阶层依然能够在短时间能获得医疗卫生资源、紧急救助通道，而广大群众则不得不继续面临直接暴露在危机之中的危险，承受被社会“抛”进“赤裸生命”33的困境。所以阿甘本愤懑批判，危机使资本主义社会的存在根基进一步被撕裂了，一个应该由民主、自由、平等、博爱所推动的社会正在被推入阶级矛盾剧增、仇恨冲突放大、群体鸿沟增大的深渊——“一切都表明了一个事实，我们现在的社会的根基已经不再是爱了，取而代之的是距离，是分离，是怀疑，甚至是仇恨”34。资本主义社会的阶级鸿沟与矛盾冲突是无法消弭的，它在危机中的放大不断摧毁着它的运行机制，即无产阶级再也无力购买或支付由资产阶级创造的商品了，他们微薄可怜的收入不足以维持他们自己的生存，更遑论继续保障整个资本主义社会消费主义的运转了——就业岗位的减少、失业的剧增、医疗资源的分配不均、生活资源的被抢占剥夺等困境的迭出涌现，都意味着资本主义社会不再具有任何激起或唤醒无产阶级消费欲望的缘由，而从消费链条的中断或停滞中暴露出来的问题，正是资本主义社会不可能在阶级矛盾对立、社会冲突剧增的情况下继续维持生产、分配、交换、消费的顺利运行，以及扩大再生产的推进和剩余价值的剥夺。相反，它只能意味着社会发展的倒退与经济状况的萎缩。可见，新自由主义不仅无力解决生态危机带来的灾难，反而会在这一过程中将资本主义引向更加艰难的处境。对此，乔姆斯基从自由市场与政府干预的抵牾冲突中对新自由主义进行了批判。他强调，资本主义社会的自由市场既没有使经济运行真正向着保障自由平等的方向发展进行，为社会发展提供所需，更选择将政府干预排除在外，走向一条没有保障的发展之路。这个自由市场是由资本家与大财团控制的自由市场，不是人民的市场，也是没有政府的市场，是一个一旦发生危机就容易陷入混乱并暴露出自我毁灭倾向的市场，本质上是一种不自由、不平等、不正义的市场。可见，新自由主义的自由市场座架由于其对政府干预机制的排斥，是具有本质缺陷的。它一方面出现了“市场的巨大失败是社会问题的根源”,另一方面又陷入了其宣称的“政府本身就是问题，什么都做不了”的困境35,最终在双重困境中进一步放大了新自由主义的失败。波兰尼则对乔姆斯基的观点进行了回应。他认为，新自由主义只在维持消费主义运行机制与剥夺剩余价值时才想到广大群众，只在需要他们被利用与支配时才允许他们生存，而一旦发生危机，首先选择的就是无情抛弃它的“市民社会各个集团赖以安身和活动的基础”36,弃广大群众于生态危机之中而不顾。可见，新自由主义对自身根基的毁弃必然意味着它无法获得持久运行的动力，只是在一次又一次的危机中走向自我毁灭。由此，国外学者在批判新自由主义方案的落败时，也发出了重振社会主义/共产主义的理论呼吁。

Reviving socialism/communism is the aspiration of the left to escape the ecological crisis. Through an analysis of capitalist states’ measures to address the ecological crisis, Žižek puts forward the idea of building an ecological society within the framework of “socialization” and “implicit communism.” He points out that the Trump administration’s disdain for “communism” is in stark contrast to its actual measures. On the one hand, it publicly denigrates the harmfulness of government intervention; on the other hand, it insists on increasing government control over private enterprises, continuously injecting funds during the crisis to help enterprises weather it. In particular, the two trillion US dollars in capital injection and assistance to private enterprises is a manifestation of its self-contradiction — on the one hand, it demarcates “lives worth protecting and mourning”; on the other hand, it excludes “lives not worth protecting and mourning,” profoundly demonstrating capitalism’s ruthless double standards in treating capitalists and the masses. In response, Judith Butler also offers support and endorsement. He argues that capitalism’s “double-standard behavior” in the global ecological crisis has rapidly awakened a “socialist imaginary”[37]37 “Socialist imaginary” refers to a collective vision or horizon of possibility for a socialist alternative, as theorized by thinkers like Cornelius Castoriadis and invoked by Judith Butler. for escaping the ecological crisis — “Solidarity, justice, and internationalism are early signs of the rise of a new society. Now, the pandemic outbreak directly points to it. More than 150 years ago, Marx and Engels called it the ‘realm of freedom,’ that is, communism,”[38]38 This quotation is attributed to Judith Butler, referencing Marx and Engels’ concept of the “realm of freedom” from *Capital*, Volume 3. and “only by acting together can we overcome this disaster.”[39]39 This quotation is attributed to Judith Butler, emphasizing collective action as necessary to overcome the crisis. Therefore, escaping the ecological crisis requires redefining a future socialist framework, and this hope lies in “eco-socialism.”

重振社会主义/共产主义是左翼走出生态危机的心声。齐泽克通过对资本主义国家生态危机应对措施的分析，提出了关于在“社会主义化”“隐含的共产主义”中建设生态社会的设想。他指出，特朗普政府对“共产主义”的嗤之以鼻与他的举措简直是大相径庭。他一方面公开贬低政府干预做法的危害性，另一方面又坚持加大政府对私企的管控力度，在危机中不断追加投入，帮助企业度过危机。特别是两万亿美元对私企的注资与帮助，就是他自我矛盾的表征——他一方面划分“值得保护与哀悼的生命”,另一方面又剔除“不值得保护与哀悼的生命”,深刻展现着资本主义对待资本家与人民群众的无情双标。对此，朱迪恩·巴特勒也作出了声援与力挺。他认为，资本主义在全球性生态危机中的“双标行为”,使一个关于走出生态危机的“社会主义想象”37被迅速唤醒——“团结，正义和国际主义是新社会崛起的早期迹象。现在，疫情大爆发直接指向它。150多年前，马克思和恩格斯把它称为‘自由王国’,即共产主义”38,并且“只有共同行动，我们才能战胜这场灾难”39。所以，走出生态危机需要重新制定一个未来的社会主义框架，而这种希望就存在于“生态社会主义”之中。

In addition to the theoretical analyses of Western ecologists and the left, Japanese ecological Marxist representative Kohei Saito also proposes a possible way out of the ecological crisis, arguing that the solution must be sought within Marx’s ecological thought and socialist programs. He points out that the capitalist mode of production is a major root cause of the ecological crisis, and Marx provided an analysis of this crisis in terms of the “metabolic rift”[40]40 “Metabolic rift” is a concept from Marx, elaborated by ecological Marxists like John Bellamy Foster, describing the disruption of the natural material cycle between humanity and nature under capitalism. between humanity and nature. This analysis still possesses important theoretical efficacy for our understanding of the changing relationship between the material world and economic development today, serving as an important methodological foundation for analyzing the global ecological crisis in the contemporary world. He argues that the excessive environmental burden and ecological disasters on Earth reveal the difficulty for capitalism, which pursues unlimited economic growth, to solve practical problems such as global warming and the widening economic development gap between different countries and regions. The stubborn ills and drawbacks caused by capitalism in the course of human civilization development are becoming increasingly prominent, prompting more and more people to step outside the analytical perspective of capitalist ecology and begin to turn their attention to eco-socialism. Here, Saito, from the perspective of political economy, actively integrates and borrows from Marx’s ecological thought,[41]41 Kohei Saito is a Japanese scholar known for his work on Marx’s ecological thought, particularly in *Karl Marx’s Ecosocialism*. putting forward a preliminary vision of realizing eco-socialism through Marx’s ecology, providing a reference path for escaping the ecological crisis.[42]42 This reference to Saito’s proposal draws on his argument for an ecosocialist path based on Marx’s critique of political economy. Thus, when the capitalist system cannot provide a way out, the solution to the ecological crisis must be proposed and promoted by forces such as the left, and this is precisely why Marx’s concept of eco-socialism has become more important than ever before.

除了西方生态学者与左翼的理论分析，日本生态学马克思主义代表斋藤幸平也提出了应对生态危机的可能出路，他认为需要在马克思生态思想与社会主义方案中求解。他指出，资本主义生产方式是造成生态危机的重要根源，而马克思对于这一危机给出了人与自然“新陈代谢断裂”40的分析。这一分析对我们今天把握物质世界与经济发展的关系变化仍然具有重要的理论效力，是分析当今世界全球性生态危机的重要方法论基础。他指出，地球过度的环境负荷与生态灾难暴露出无限制追求经济增长的资本主义很难解决地球变暖及不同国家、地区经济发展差距拉大等现实难题。资本主义在带来人类文明发展的同时所造成的顽疾弊端正日益凸显，这促使越来越多的人考虑跳出资本主义的生态分析视野，开始将目光投向生态社会主义。在这里，斋藤幸平从政治经济学的视角出发，积极结合与借用马克思的生态学思想，41提出了用马克思的生态学来实现生态社会主义的初步设想，为走出生态危机提供了一条可资参考的路径。42可见，当资本主义制度无法提供出路方案时，生态危机的解决方案就必须由左翼等力量提出与推动，而这正是马克思的生态社会主义理念变得比以往任何时候都更为重要的原因。

In a certain sense, the new calls for ecological critique emanating from Western ecological scholars and the left have shown the world that the ideal path out of the ecological crisis is ecological socialism or ecological communism. Their theoretical visions and programmatic outlines are beautiful, but because they are tightly bound up within the capitalist system and its modernity, their adherence to ecological socialism and green communism remains merely an implicit germination or a metaphysical exploration of cultural enjoyment, destined never to reach Marx’s height of constructing an ecological communist society — “Communism, as the completed naturalism, equals humanism, and as the completed humanism, equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between human beings and nature and between human beings and human beings.” [43]43 Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3, p. 296.

一定意义上，从西方生态学者与左翼中发出的生态批判新呼吁向世界展示了走出生态危机的理想道路是生态社会主义或生态共产主义。他们的理论畅想与方案勾勒是美好的，但由于被紧紧裹挟于资本主义制度及其现代性之中，其对生态社会主义、绿色共产主义的坚持，也仅仅是一种隐含萌发或文化畅享式的形上探索，注定无法达到马克思对共产主义生态社会的建设高度——“共产主义，作为完成了的自然主义，等于人道主义，而作为完成了的人道主义，等于自然主义，它是人和自然界之间、人和人之间的矛盾的真正解决”43。

In summary, foreign scholars have discovered new alienations of the capitalist ecological crisis in the evolution from accelerationism to digitalism to controlism; established a new subject of ecological governance represented by the “new proletariat” through the radical transformation of the traditional proletariat; constructed new concepts of ecological development from a “community unifying subject and object”; and attempted to explore new paths for constructing an ecological society from criticizing neoliberalism to revitalizing socialism/communism. These new theories collectively present the new dynamics and new landscape of the critique of the capitalist ecological crisis, reveal the modern complicity in the evolution and transformation of the capitalist ecological crisis, and also inspire and impel us to display more Chinese wisdom and Chinese solutions in the construction of an ecological civilization under socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era, and to win international discursive power in the construction of human ecological civilization.

概言之，国外学者从加速主义、数字主义到控制主义的演变中发现了资本主义生态危机的新异化，从对传统无产阶级的激进化改造中确立起以“新无产阶级”为代表的生态治理新主体，从“主客体统一的共同体”中建构起生态发展新观念，从批判新自由主义到重振社会主义/共产主义中试图探索生态社会建设新道路。这些新理论集中呈现了资本主义生态危机批判的新动态与新图景，揭示了资本主义生态危机发展嬗变的现代性共谋，也激励与推动着我们在新时代中国特色社会主义生态文明建设中展示出更多中国智慧与中国方案，在人类生态文明建设中赢获国际话语权。

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑