The Problem of the “Real Movement” in Communist Theory

Understanding and grasping the problem of the “real movement” in communist theory, especially the rich connotations contained in the “real movement,” is an important task for studying contemporary Marxist currents and innovating Marxism in the twenty-first century. In their representative work *The German Ideology*, where they expound communist thought, Marx and Engels put forward an important judgment: “Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things.” Although Marx and Engels had already defined the concept of communism as a “real movement” and explained the process of realizing communism as a historical process of constantly abolishing the present state of things, what kind of communism can be called a communism of the “real movement”? How can communism take root in actual history in the twenty-first century today? These two questions still require further explanation at the theoretical and practical levels. Based on this, this article takes influential Western radical left scholars as examples, provides a holistic reading of their different understandings of the communist “real movement,” and focuses on showing in what sense they have reconstructed communist theory, in order to offer some intellectual reference for developing a new form of human civilization.

理解和把握共产主义理论中的“现实运动”问题，特别是“现实运动”所蕴含的丰富内涵，是研究当代马克思主义思潮和创新21世纪马克思主义的重要课题。马克思和恩格斯在阐释共产主义思想的代表性著作《德意志意识形态》中提出了一个重要判断：“共产主义对我们来说不是应当确立的状况，不是现实应当与之相适应的理想。我们所称为共产主义的是那种消灭现存状况的现实的运动。”虽然马克思和恩格斯已经将共产主义的概念界定为一种“现实运动”，将共产主义的实现过程解释为一种不断消灭现存状况的历史生成过程，但什么样的共产主义可以被称作“现实运动”的共产主义？共产主义如何能够在21世纪的今天落脚于现实的历史之中？这两个问题还需要我们在理论与实践层面作出进一步阐释。基于此，本文以西方较有影响的激进左翼学者为例，对他们关于共产主义“现实运动”的不同理解进行整体性解读，集中展现他们在何种意义上重构了共产主义理论，以期为发展人类文明新形态提供一定的思想借鉴。

I. From the Communist “Idea” to the Communist “Real Movement”

一、从共产主义“观念”到共产主义“现实运动”

Western radical left scholars have different understandings of communism, but they all take the return to communism as a new political discourse that marks their radical stance, forming a dual logical path for interpreting the concept of communism from “idea” and “real movement.” For them, the “idea” is important, but the “real movement” is the essential characteristic of communism. How to ground the communist “idea” in actual history under constantly changing conditions of the times, so that it truly becomes a “real movement,” constitutes the core problem of Western left-wing communist theory.

西方激进左翼学者对共产主义的理解各不相同，但他们将回归共产主义作为标榜自己激进立场的新的政治话语，形成了从“观念”和“现实运动”阐释共产主义概念的双重逻辑进路。对他们来说，“观念”是重要的，但“现实运动”才是共产主义的本质特征。如何在不断变化的时代条件下将共产主义“观念”落脚于现实的历史之中，从而使其真正成为一种“现实运动”，构成了西方左翼共产主义理论的核心问题。

In the view of Western radical left scholars, communism first of all points to a communist idea. Western radical leftists regard the *Communist Manifesto* as an important text for expounding Marx’s communist doctrine. In their view, to grasp the original meaning of communism, one must first return to the founding period of communist doctrine. For Marx and Engels, communism had multiple meanings. However, its most original and basic determination refers to the idea of realizing human emancipation. Alain Badiou, in *What Does the Name Sarkozy Mean?* and *The Communist Hypothesis*, had already reached an important conclusion: the revival of communism in the twenty-first century is the revival of the idea. He insists that we cannot derive from the dialectics of Marxist philosophy or the critical analysis of political economy a conclusion about what a real communist society would look like; what we can grasp of communism is merely an idea, a hypothesis. Slavoj Žižek further points out: “It is not enough to remain faithful to the communist idea: one should identify in historical reality the antagonism that gives this idea its practical urgency.”

在西方激进左翼学者看来，共产主义首先指向的是一种共产主义观念。西方激进左翼将《共产党宣言》视为阐释马克思共产主义学说的重要文本。在他们看来，要想把握共产主义的原初含义，首要的是回到共产主义学说的创立时期。在马克思和恩格斯那里，共产主义是有多重含义的。但是，它的最原初和最基本的规定是指实现人类解放的观念。阿兰·巴迪欧（Alain Badiou）早在《当我们说起萨科齐时我们意指什么？》以及《共产主义假设》中就得出过一个重要结论，即21世纪共产主义的复兴是观念的复兴。他坚持认为，我们不能从马克思主义哲学的辩证法和政治经济学的批判性分析中得出一个现实的共产主义社会究竟是什么样的结论，我们能把握到的共产主义仅仅是一个观念，一个假设。齐泽克（Slavojiek）进一步指出：“单纯对共产主义观念保持忠诚是不够的：人们应该在历史现实中确定赋予这个观念以实践紧迫性的对抗。”

Second, communism is essentially a real movement that breaks the established order of capitalism. Starting from their ideational understanding of communism, Western radical leftists also regard communism as a real movement that, by exerting human subjectivity, constantly breaks the established order of capitalism and thereby realizes human emancipation. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, in *Labor of Dionysus*, propose that communism is a “real movement of destruction” based on an analysis of “really existing things”: “Communism is not formal but ontological; not teleological but actual.” Grounded in the era of digital capitalism, Western radical leftists, based on the new social reality in which immaterial production activities are dominant, proceed from capitalist relations of production and argue that, due to the opposition between public and private brought about by the global development of capitalism, the capitalist mode of production will create the direct real conditions for the realization of communism. Michael Hardt asserts: “With the increasing concentration of ‘the common’ in capitalist production—the production of ideas, affects, social relations, and forms of life—the conditions and weapons of the communist project are emerging. In other words, capitalism is creating its own gravediggers.”

其次，共产主义本质上是一种打破资本主义既定秩序的现实运动。从对共产主义的观念化理解出发，西方激进左翼又把共产主义看作一场通过发挥人的主体性而不断打破资本主义既定秩序，从而实现人类解放的现实运动。迈克尔·哈特（Michael Hardt）和安东尼奥·奈格里（Antonio Negri）在《狄俄尼索斯的劳动》中提出，共产主义是立基于“现实存在事物”分析之上的“毁灭的现实运动”，“共产主义不是形式上的，而是本体论上的；不是目的论，而是现实的”。立足数字资本主义时代，西方激进左翼基于非物质生产活动占主导地位这一新的社会现实，从资本主义生产关系出发，认为由于资本主义全球化发展带来的公有与私有的对立，资本主义生产方式将为共产主义的实现创造直接的现实条件。迈克尔·哈特（Michael Hardt）断言：“随着资本主义生产中‘共同性’（the common）的日益集中——观念、影响、社会关系和生活方式的生产——共产主义计划的条件和武器正在出现。换句话说，资本主义正在创造自己的掘墓人。”

Western radical leftists have clarified, from the dual perspective of “idea” and “real movement,” the fundamental question of what communism actually refers to. For them, the communist “idea” and the communist “real movement” are not a relationship of mutual separation but one of organic integration, that is, an interactive relationship in which the “idea” is reproduced within the “real movement.” This communist “real movement” is a critique of the reality of capitalist society, a historical movement of abolishing the present state of capitalist things; the purpose of this communist “real movement” is to realize the idea of human emancipation, the real appropriation of the human essence. By activating and transforming concepts such as “biopolitics,” “the common,” “intellectual equality,” and “the proletariat,” and linking them to the changing internal contradictions of the capitalist mode of production, Western radical leftists have hit the mark in pointing out the problem of the “real movement” in Marx’s communist doctrine, further forming new forms of critique for abolishing the present state of capitalist things, and grounding the mode of communism’s reappearance in actual history on the revolutionary subject, thereby providing an innovative perspective and theoretical window for our understanding today of the problem of the “real movement” in Marx’s communist doctrine.

西方激进左翼从“观念”和“现实运动”的双重角度阐明了共产主义究竟所指为何这一根本性问题。对他们而言，共产主义“观念”和共产主义“现实运动”不是一种相互分离的关系，而是一种有机融合，即在“现实运动”中再现“观念”的互动关系。这种共产主义“现实运动”是对资本主义社会现实的批判，是消灭资本主义现存状况的历史运动过程；这种共产主义“现实运动”的目的是实现人类解放的观念，是对人的本质的现实占有。通过激活和改造“生命政治”“共同性”“智力平等”“无产阶级”等概念，联系资本主义生产方式的内在矛盾变化，西方激进左翼切中要害地点出了马克思共产主义学说中的“现实运动”问题，进一步形成了消灭资本主义现存状况的新的批判形式，并将共产主义在现实历史中的再现方式落脚到革命主体身上，为我们今天理解马克思共产主义学说中的“现实运动”问题提供了一个不可忽视的创新视角和理论窗口。

II. From the “Real Movement” of Abolishing the Present State of Capitalist Things to the “Real Movement” of Subjective Production

二、从消灭资本主义现存状况的“现实运动”到主体性生产的“现实运动”

According to Marx and Engels in *The German Ideology*, communism is a real movement that abolishes the present state of capitalist things. Western radical leftists have constructed, through the dual narrative logic of “idea” and “real movement,” an interpretive framework for understanding and grasping communist theory in the twenty-first century. On this basis, they have advanced the problem to be solved by the “real movement” from abolishing the present state of capitalist things to subjective production, and have provided theoretical annotations for the preconditions, main line of development, and value goals of this shift. Marx once pointed out: “The greatest productive power is the revolutionary class itself.” As the revolutionary subject, the process by which the proletariat carries out subjective production is also the historical unfolding of the communist “real movement.” Some Western radical left scholars regard subjectivity as a distinctive feature of communism. Negri holds: “Communism has the form of subjectivity, and it is also a particular practice. In the rapid development of new subjects, no part of capital remains undestroyed. This subject displays a power of subjective upheaval and carries away all remnants of the old order.”

按照马克思和恩格斯在《德意志意识形态》中的说法，共产主义是消灭资本主义现存状况的现实运动。西方激进左翼通过“观念”与“现实运动”的双重叙事逻辑构建了21世纪理解和把握共产主义理论的阐释框架，在此基础上将“现实运动”要解决的问题由消灭资本主义现存状况推进到主体性生产，并对这一变化的前提条件、发展主线和价值目标进行了理论注解。马克思曾指出：“最强大的一种生产力是革命阶级本身。”作为革命主体，无产阶级进行主体性生产的过程也是共产主义“现实运动”的历史性展开。一些西方激进左翼学者将主体性视为共产主义的显著特征，奈格里认为：“共产主义具有主体性的形式，也是一个特别的实践，在新主体迅猛发展中，资本没有哪个部分不被摧毁。这个主体显示了一种主观上的剧变的力量，并带走了旧秩序的一切残余。”

First, from the “real movement” to abolish the existing state of capitalism to the precondition of the “real movement” of subjective production: changes in class relations and the balance of class forces. With the development of digital and intelligent technologies, capitalism has entered a new round of privatization. This neoliberalism not only plunders common natural wealth but also attempts to further plunder common immaterial wealth, turning cultural products such as information, ideas, and emotions into private property. From the perspective of the Western radical left, there are many understandings of the “real movement” to abolish the existing state of capitalism, but it mainly refers to the question of class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. They offer a conception of class struggle based on biopolitical production. For instance, Negri mentions that today’s labor not only produces material products but also produces social relations and forms of life. Biopolitical production is no longer production relying solely on material things, but rather relies more on the subject’s conscious creative labor. This judgment is made because of their profound insight into the changes in the balance of power between the capital subject and the labor subject in the era of digital capitalism.

第一，从消灭资本主义现存状况的“现实运动”到主体性生产的“现实运动”的前提条件：阶级关系及其力量对比的变化。随着数字化、智能化技术的发展，资本主义进入了新一轮私有化进程，这种新自由主义不仅掠夺共同的自然财富，而且试图进一步掠夺共同的非物质财富，将文化产品如信息、观念、情感等都变成私有财产。在西方激进左翼看来，对于消灭资本主义现存状况的“现实运动”的理解有很多，但主要指的是无产阶级与资产阶级之间的阶级斗争问题。他们提供了一种基于生命政治生产的阶级斗争观。比如，奈格里提到，今天的劳动不仅生产物质产品，而且也生产社会关系和生命形式。生命政治的生产不再是单纯依靠物质进行的生产，而是更加依靠主体的有意识的创造性劳动。之所以做出这种判断，源于他们在数字资本主义时代对资本主体与劳动主体力量对比变化的深刻洞察。

Today, the structure of capitalist rule and its forms of control no longer stand above the social sphere to determine the process of exploitation as before; instead, they must be rooted in the internal structure of capitalist social production, especially in the contradictory relationship between the capital subject and the labor subject. The reason is that, on the one hand, class relations are still grounded in the historical determinations of capitalist social reality and the subjective production (of capital and labor); on the other hand, the balance of class forces has undergone a significant change. The immense progress in productive forces empowered by digital technology increasingly brings a new trend toward liberating the labor subject from the valorization of capital, that is, a communist developmental trend tending toward the continuous self-realization of the subject. The fact here is that “the developmental history of capitalism is not a structural narrative of capital’s unfolding; on the contrary, the structure of capital is determined by the productive and organizational power of labor.” In this sense, the “real movement” of communism must focus on the changes in class relations and the balance of class forces in capitalist society, and, in theoretical elaboration, re-grasp the proposition that “the subordination of labor to the ruling class is not inevitable,” thereby more profoundly revealing the precondition for the transformation of the communist “real movement” from abolishing the existing state of capitalism to subjective production.

如今，资本主义统治的结构及其控制形式不再像以前一样凌驾于社会领域之上决定剥削的过程，而必须植根于资本主义社会生产的内部结构之中，特别是植根于资本主体与劳动主体的矛盾关系之中。其原因在于：一方面，阶级关系依然奠基在资本主义社会现实的历史规定和（资本与劳动）主体性生产之上；另一方面，阶级力量对比发生了显著变化，数字技术赋能的生产力的巨大进步日益带来了一种使劳动主体从资本增殖中解放出来的新趋势，即一种趋向于主体不断自我实现的共产主义发展趋势。这里的事实是，“资本主义的发展历史并不是资本展开的结构化叙事，相反，资本的结构是由劳动的生产性和组织性力量所决定的”。从这个意义上说，共产主义的“现实运动”就必须专注于资本主义社会的阶级关系及其力量对比的变化，并在理论阐释上重新把握“劳动隶属于统治阶级并非必然”这一命题，从而更深刻地揭示出共产主义“现实运动”从消灭资本主义现存状况转变为主体性生产的前提条件。

Second, from the “real movement” to abolish the existing state of capitalism to the main line of development of the “real movement” of subjective production: the mutual promotion between heterogeneous subjects and the community. “If communism takes a transitional form, for us this means that we must follow a main line, and this main line is the antagonism of the subject.” The Western radical left generally believes that the revolutionary subject and the community promote each other. The revolutionary subject of communism is not the proletariat in the traditional sense, nor the homogenized people, but a subject with the heterogeneity of individual life. What they call the true opening of politics implies the generation of an entirely new community. Jacques Rancière calls this revolutionary subject the “part of no part” (part des sans-part), that is, those excluded from the community. He believes that for today’s communist movement, the focus is not on analyzing the internal contradictions and tensions of class struggle, but on confirming the resistive capacity of the “part of no part” and their ability to build a new sensible community. Hardt believes that the working class, under the changed circumstances of production relations and political struggle, has generated a new revolutionary subject—the multitude—re-emerging as a heterogeneous collection that establishes the community. Here, the key question the Western radical left seeks to answer is: How can the mutually promoting relationship between the revolutionary subject and the community be established? That is, how can a new communist movement conducive to the union of subjects be born from the antagonism of the existing system? Hardt and Negri point out that the essence of the union of the multitude is a collective resistance against the control and hierarchy of unfreedom and injustice, as well as the forms of exploitation and appropriation in capitalist globalization. Rancière also believes that the union of subjects will form a political community, the result of which is to break the “police” distribution of the sensible regarding what people are, what they say, and what they do, enabling those “part of no part” to achieve subjectivation. This subjectivation is not a simple imitation of the existing order, but a redefinition of the self and a verification of equality. In their view, the community and the production of the subject itself are complementary: the subject needs to penetrate the fog of the false community and confirm its own subject identity; at the same time, the community needs to continuously innovate the institutions and dynamics of subject union to promote subject union. It can be seen that the Western radical left’s interpretation of the communist “real movement” has undergone a logical shift from the object-scale of criticizing capitalism to the subject-scale of subjective production, and the interactive relationship between the collective resistance of subjects and the generation of the political community undoubtedly constitutes the main line of development behind this shift.

第二，从消灭资本主义现存状况的“现实运动”到主体性生产的“现实运动”的发展主线：异质性主体和共同体之间的相互促进。“如果说共产主义采取了过渡的形式，对我们来说这意味着我们必须遵循一条主线，这条主线就是主体的对抗性。”西方激进左翼普遍认为，革命主体与共同体之间相互促进。共产主义的革命主体不是传统意义上的无产阶级，也不是同质化的人民，而是具有个体生命异质性的主体。他们所说的真正的政治的开启意味着全新的共同体的生成。雅克·朗西埃（Jacques Rancière）将这种革命主体称为“无分之分”（part dessans-part），即被共同体排斥在外的那部分人。他认为，对今天的共产主义运动而言，重点不是分析阶级斗争的内部矛盾及其张力，而是确认“无分之分”的抵抗能力和建设新的感性共同体的能力。哈特认为工人阶级已经在生产关系和政治斗争发生转变的背景下生成新的革命主体——诸众，作为建立共同体的异质性集合而重新出现。这里，西方激进左翼要着重回答的问题是：革命主体与共同体之间相互促进的关系何以能够成立？即是说，如何能够从现有体制的对抗性中脱胎出一种有利于主体联合的新共产主义运动。哈特和奈格里指出，诸众联合的实质是对不自由和非正义的控制和等级制，以及资本全球化中的剥削和占有形式的集体反抗。朗西埃也认为，主体联合将形成政治共同体，其结果是打破“治安”对人之所是、所说和所行的感性分配，使那些“无分之分”能够实现主体化。这种主体化不是简单地对既有秩序的模仿，而是对自我的重新界定和对平等的验证。在他们看来，共同体和主体自身的生产是相辅相成的，主体需要穿透虚假共同体的迷雾，确认自己的主体身份，同时，共同体需要持续创新主体联合的制度与动力，促进主体联合。可以看出，西方激进左翼阐释共产主义“现实运动”经历了由批判资本主义这一客体尺度转向主体性生产这一主体尺度的逻辑变化，而主体的集体反抗和政治共同体生成之间的互动关系无疑构成了这一转向背后的发展主线。

Third, from the “real movement” to abolish the existing state of capitalism to the value goal of the “real movement” of subjective production: the restoration of human subjectivity and the realization of human emancipation. The Western radical left shares this basic conclusion from Marx’s theory of communism—the restoration of human subjectivity means that people living in the community achieve freedom and consciousness in labor. On this basis, they offer different interpretations of how human emancipation is possible. Negri explains communism as follows: “Communism is an end of labor, although this end manifests as a process: communism is a society in which labor becomes a component of social production and the subject is liberated.” The action of the labor subject resisting the capital subject is not only a potentiality but a determinate necessity. This determinate necessity is the formation of a new social form based on the common wealth created by “immaterial labor” and practicing self-management—communism as the common [1]1 The term “common” (共有) here refers to a social form based on shared wealth and self-management, distinct from public or private property, as theorized by Hardt and Negri.—which is a positive negation of the negative relationship between capital and labor, a process in which the labor subject overwhelms the capital subject and restores the essence of the human. Then, can it be concluded from this that communism is merely a simple humanistic hypothesis about the restoration of human subjectivity? Rancière provides an answer in *Does Communist Art Exist?* and *Dissensus: On Politics and Aesthetics*. He refutes the claim by some Western scholars that Marx’s relevant discussions on communism in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* serve as evidence that communism is a humanistic hypothesis, instead treating communism as an empirical, sensible reality. He points out that the question of communism in Marx’s theory should be understood from the perspective of actuality and process: “‘The actuality of communism’ means that communism is not only desirable—a response to the violence, injustice, or irrationality of capitalism—but also, in a certain sense, already exists. The actuality of communism is not only a task but also a process.” Here, the result of the communist “real movement” implies the achievement of a dual goal: first, the true community is not an ideal but an actual form of life; second, this form of life realizes intellectual emancipation, that is, for everyone, a common capacity established on the basis of the presupposition of equality. In this sense, Rancière’s intellectual emancipation approximates Marx’s human emancipation.

第三，从消灭资本主义现存状况的“现实运动”到主体性生产的“现实运动”的价值目标：人的主体性复归和人类解放的实现。西方激进左翼共同分享着马克思共产主义学说中的这一基本结论——人的主体性的复归意味着生活在共同体中的人们实现了劳动上的自由自觉，他们以此为依据对人类解放何以可能进行了不同的阐释。奈格里对共产主义做了这样的解释：“共产主义是一种劳动的终结，尽管这种终结表现为一个过程：共产主义是将劳动作为社会生产的组成部分，并使主体得以解放的社会。”劳动主体反抗资本主体的行动不仅是一种潜力，而是一种确定性的必然。这种确定性的必然是将形成一个以“非物质劳动”创造的共同财富为基础、实行自我管理的社会新形态——共有的共产主义，这是对资本与劳动消极关系的积极否定，是劳动主体压倒资本主体，重新恢复人的本质的过程。那么，是否可以由此认为共产主义只是一个简单的关于人的主体性复归的人性假设？朗西埃在《共产主义艺术存在吗？》《歧感：政治与美学》中做出了解答。他批驳了某些西方学者将马克思在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中关于共产主义的相关论述视为佐证共产主义即人性假设的说法，而将共产主义视为一种经验的、感性的现实。他指出，应该从现实性和过程性的角度理解马克思学说中的共产主义问题，“‘共产主义现实性’这一提法意味着，共产主义不仅是可欲的——对资本主义的暴力、不公正或非理性做出的回应——而且在某种意义上，它已经存在。共产主义的现实性不仅是一项任务，也是一个过程。”在此，共产主义“现实运动”的结果意味着双重目标的达成：第一，真正的共同体不是一种理想，而是一种实际的生活形式；第二，这种形式的生活实现了智力解放，即对任何人来说都具有了基于平等假设而建立起来的共同的能力。在这个意义上，朗西埃说的智力解放近似于马克思的人类解放。

Overall, the Western radical left has further enriched the value dimension of Marx’s theory of communism under changed capitalist conditions, not only reaffirming the restoration of human essence in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, but also revealing that the subject’s commitment to achieving human liberation through the real movement of constant production and self-creation is not a utopia but a reality. However, the Western radical left’s exposition of the antagonism between the labor subject and the capital subject, the mutual promotion of subject and community, and human liberation, as unfolded through subjective production, remains stuck at the level of anti-capitalist discourse critique and the logical argumentation of communism. At its theoretical foundation, it differs fundamentally from Marx’s theory of communism. Why reach this conclusion? This requires us to evaluate and analyze it from the standpoint, viewpoint, and method of historical materialism.

总的来说，西方激进左翼在变化了的资本主义条件下进一步丰富了马克思共产主义学说的价值维度，不仅重新肯定了《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中的人的本质的复归，也揭示出主体在不断生产和创造自身的现实运动中致力于实现人类解放的目标不是一种空想，而是一种现实。但是，西方激进左翼由主体性生产所展开的劳动主体与资本主体的对抗、主体与共同体的互促以及人类解放的论述还只是停留在反资本主义的话语批判和共产主义的逻辑论证层面，在理论根基上同马克思的共产主义学说存在根本性的差异。为何会得出这一结论？这就需要我们从历史唯物主义的立场、观点和方法对其展开评析。

III. A Brief Evaluation of the Western Radical Left’s Interpretation of the “Real Movement” of Communism

三、对西方激进左翼阐释共产主义“现实运动”问题的简要评价

Although the Western radical left emphasizes the importance of understanding and grasping the “real movement” of communism in the 21st century, endowing the “real movement” with rich connotations, in their reconstruction of the preconditions, main line, and value goals of the theory of communism, they have abandoned historical materialism. They fail to understand that “the foundation of the concept of communism is its economic and social theory of what actually is and of the developing capitalist society, namely, historical materialism.” [2]2 The author cites a Chinese scholarly source here; the original English phrasing is reconstructed for clarity. Consequently, their interpretation of the theory of communism cannot produce significant practical effects and may even degenerate into empty talk.

虽然西方激进左翼强调在21世纪理解和把握共产主义“现实运动”的重要性，赋予了“现实运动”以丰富内涵。但是，他们在对共产主义理论的前提条件、发展主线和价值目标的重构中抛弃了历史唯物主义，不懂得“共产主义概念的基础是它关于实际所是和正在发展的资本主义社会的经济与社会理论，即历史唯物主义”，致使其对共产主义理论的解释不能产生很大的实践效应，甚至会沦为一种空谈。

The Western radical left confirms that communism is a real movement that continuously abolishes the rule of the capital subject over the labor subject, thereby achieving the true appropriation of human essence. However, they fail to ground this antagonistic relationship in the fundamental issue of abolishing private property. For the radical left represented by Hardt, Negri, and Žižek, the form of social labor has undergone great changes; material labor has gradually lost its dominant position, and immaterial labor has increasingly become the predominant form of production. Negri, in *Beyond Empire*, states: “Compared with other forms of production, a dominance of immaterial production has now emerged.” [3]3 Antonio Negri, *Beyond Empire* (Chinese translation), referencing the concept of immaterial labor’s dominance. Based on the epochal judgment that immaterial labor is in a dominant position, the Western radical left takes labor as its standard, re-examines the relationship between labor and capital, endows the labor subject with autonomy and cooperation, and re-centers the proletarian social movement within the construction of global order, reflecting their theoretical adherence to “the true appropriation of human essence.” Hardt, Negri, and Žižek analyze the new changes in capitalist relations of production in the era of digital and intelligent technology, believing they have discovered a new form of labor hidden behind capital relations—immaterial labor. However, Hardt and Negri replace historical materialism with the research paradigm of biopolitics, grounding the class basis of the labor subject in the “encounter” of production. In understanding the “real movement” of communism, they avoid discussing the decisive role of economic factors in political revolution and historical development, and do not acknowledge that “the abolition of private property” constitutes the fundamental cause and ultimate goal of the subject’s revolution. For Marx, “the abolition of private property” constitutes the precondition for the realization of communism and the liberation of the proletariat: “The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” [4]4 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto*. It is precisely in the sense of “the abolition of private property” that Engels says, “Communism is the doctrine of the conditions for the liberation of the proletariat.” [5]5 Friedrich Engels, *Principles of Communism*. Although the era of digital capitalism has seen many new changes compared to the industrial era—particularly the partial replacement of material production’s dominance by immaterial production—its essence has not departed from the background of capital logic and technological domination since the Industrial Revolution, nor from the antagonistic relationship between labor and capital inherent in historical materialism. The goal of the proletariat’s revolution remains “the most radical rupture with traditional property relations” [6]6 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto*. and the re-appropriation of the means of production. Hardt and Negri propose a “communism of the common,” but here “the common” is a relationship of “commonality” premised on openness and sharing, not the public ownership of the means of production premised on appropriation in the sense of Marx and Engels. Žižek points out that the reality of communism is embodied in the process by which the “excluded” oppose capitalist privatization and the new enclosures through joint action. This communist vision of the Western radical left lacks the leadership of a proletarian vanguard and the goal of overthrowing the old ownership of the means of production; it is merely a radical fantasy about a political subject and therefore cannot become reality.

西方激进左翼佐证了共产主义是不断消灭资本主体对劳动主体的统治关系，从而实现对人的本质的真正占有的现实运动，但没有将这一对抗性关系落脚于消灭私有制这一根本问题。以哈特、奈格里和齐泽克为代表的激进左翼看来，如今社会劳动形态发生了很大改变，物质劳动逐渐失去统治地位，非物质劳动愈来愈成为占主导地位的生产形式。奈格里在《超越帝国》中提到：“与其他生产形式相比，现在出现了一种非物质生产的统治地位。”西方激进左翼基于非物质劳动形式处于统治地位的时代判断，以劳动为本位，重新梳理了劳动与资本的关系，赋予了劳动主体以自主性和协作性，将无产阶级社会运动重新置于全球秩序构建的中心位置，体现了他们对“人的本质的真正占有”的理论坚守。哈特、奈格里和齐泽克分析了资本主义生产关系在数字化、智能化技术时代的新变化，认为他们找到了隐藏在资本关系背后的劳动新形态——非物质劳动，但是，哈特和奈格里却用生命政治的研究范式取代了历史唯物主义，将劳动主体的阶级基础停留于生产上的“偶遇”，在理解共产主义“现实运动”时避谈经济因素在政治革命和历史发展中的决定性作用，不承认“消灭私有制”构成主体革命的根本原因和最终目的。在马克思那里，“消灭私有制”构成共产主义实现和无产阶级解放的前提条件：“共产党人可以把自己的理论概括为一句话：消灭私有制”。正是在“消灭私有制”的意义上，恩格斯才说“共产主义是关于无产阶级解放的条件的学说”。虽然数字资本主义时代相较工业时代来说，出现了很多新的变化，特别是非物质生产在某种程度上取代了物质生产的统治地位，但本质还是没有脱离工业革命以来资本逻辑主导和技术统治的背景，没有脱离历史唯物主义内蕴的劳动与资本的对抗性关系，无产阶级进行革命的目标依然是“同传统的所有制关系实行最彻底的决裂”，重新占有生产资料。哈特和奈格里提出了“共有的共产主义”，但这里的“共有”是以开放、共享为前提的“共有”关系，不是马克思和恩格斯意义上的以占有为前提的生产资料公有制。齐泽克指出，共产主义的现实性体现为“被排斥者”之间通过联合行动反对资本主义私有化和新圈地运动的过程。西方激进左翼的这种共产主义设想缺少无产阶级先锋队的领导、缺少推翻旧的生产资料所有制的目标，仅仅是一种对政治主体的激进幻想，因而不可能成为现实。

The Western radical left confirms that communism is a real movement that continuously abolishes existing capitalist relations through the union of subjects, thereby achieving human liberation. However, they fail to better integrate the necessary laws inherent in the historical process with people’s real initiative. Historical materialism “reveals the general laws of the development of human society and the general process of the evolution of social formations, demonstrating the historical law by which old social formations are replaced by new ones.” [7]7 The author cites a Chinese source on historical materialism; the phrasing is reconstructed. The key to interpreting the “real movement” of communism lies in grasping “those tendencies that work with iron necessity towards inevitable results.” [8]8 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1, Preface to the First German Edition. Merely regarding communism as a process of the true appropriation of human essence, without revealing the law of “iron necessity” by which new social formations replace old ones, will undoubtedly lead to doubt about the certainty of the concept of communism itself. For the Western radical left, they depict the general features of a future society from the perspective of subjectivity, but they do not regard the developmental trend of communism as a historical necessity. They mention that communism means returning what is common to the masses of the people; its essential feature is achieving human liberation through the union of subjects and forming a true community. Badiou proposes that, in its most general sense, starting from the classic *Communist Manifesto*, communism first of all means that the arrangement taken for granted since ancient times—the class logic by which the laboring class as the base is subordinate to the ruling class—is by no means necessary and can be overcome. [9]9 Alain Badiou, *The Communist Hypothesis*. However, their problem lies in overemphasizing contingent elements such as events and autonomy, failing to recognize that “where on the surface accident holds sway, it is always governed by inner, hidden laws, and it is only a matter of discovering these laws.” [10]10 Friedrich Engels, *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy*. For example, Rancière overemphasizes the role of perceptual liberation while neglecting how to apply the force of perceptual liberation to actual history. Hence, his theoretical propositions only stress human subjective initiative and do not verify whether they conform to the laws of historical development. From the perspective of historical materialism, the Western radical left’s theory of communism fails to see the interactive role between the revolutionary subject and actual history. When answering whether the proletariat can still serve as the revolutionary subject, their attitude is also ambiguous. Žižek points out: “A new politics of emancipation will no longer spring from a particular social agent, but from the explosive combination of different agents.” [11]11 Slavoj Žižek, *In Defense of Lost Causes*. Therefore, whether it is the “multitude” constructed by Hardt and Negri, Rancière’s “part of no part” with revolutionary consciousness, or Žižek’s “excluded,” these concepts of the subject are all political discursive constructions that drift outside the concept of the proletariat and neglect the grasp of actual historical laws. They differ from Marx’s “real individuals.” Marx defines “real individuals” as practical, living individuals determined by “material conditions of life.” [12]12 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The German Ideology*. The Western radical left, aiming to revive communism, places its hopes on pluralistic, contingent subjects, fundamentally failing to recognize that the class antagonism behind the new changes in capitalism has not fundamentally changed, and failing to see that the proletariat remains the truly revolutionary class. This leads to their deviation from the path of proletarian revolution. In this sense, only by viewing the problem of the revolutionary subject in the theory of communism from the standpoint of historical materialism can a new path to communism be scientifically clarified.

西方激进左翼佐证了共产主义是不断通过主体联合消灭资本主义现存关系，从而实现人类解放的现实运动，但没有将内蕴于历史进程中的必然规律与人的现实能动性更好地结合起来。历史唯物主义“揭示了人类社会发展的一般规律和人类社会形态演进的一般进程，论证了旧的社会形态为新的社会形态所取代的历史法则”。阐释共产主义的“现实运动”问题，关键在于把握“这些以铁的必然性发生作用并且正在实现的趋势”。仅仅将共产主义视为一个人的本质的真正占有的过程，而没有揭示新的社会形态代替旧的社会形态的这种“铁的必然性”规律，无疑会导致人们对共产主义概念本身的确定性产生怀疑。在西方激进左翼那里，他们从主体性角度描绘了未来社会的一般特征，但没有将共产主义的发展趋势视为一种历史必然。他们提到，共产主义意味着把共有的东西还给人民群众，它的本质特征是通过主体联合实现人类解放，是形成真正的共同体。巴迪欧提出，就其最一般的意义而言，也就是从经典的《共产党宣言》出发，共产主义首先意味着，自古以来便天经地义的那种安排，即作为基础的劳动阶级隶属于占统治地位的阶级这一阶级逻辑绝非必然，而是可以被克服的。但是，他们的问题在于，过于重视诸如事件、自主等偶然性要素，没有认识到“在表面上是偶然性在起作用的地方，这种偶然性始终是受内部的隐蔽着的规律支配的，而问题只是在于发现这些规律”。比如，朗西埃过分强调感性解放的作用，忽视了如何将感性解放的力量作用于现实的历史，因而其理论主张只强调人的主观能动性，并不验证是否符合历史发展规律。从历史唯物主义的角度来看，西方激进左翼的共产主义理论没有看到革命主体与现实的历史之间的互动作用。当回答无产阶级是否还能充当革命主体问题时，他们的态度也是模棱两可的。齐泽克指出：“一种新的解放政治将不再从一种特殊的社会能动者中滋生，而是来自不同能动者的爆炸性结合。”因此，无论是哈特和奈格里建构出的“诸众”，还是朗西埃的具有革命意识的“无分之分”，抑或是齐泽克的“被排斥者”，这些主体概念都是一种游离在无产阶级概念之外的、忽视对现实历史规律把握的政治话语建构，不同于马克思的“现实的人”。马克思将“现实的人”定义为由“物质生活条件”决定的、实践的、有生命的个人。西方激进左翼以复兴共产主义为目的，寄希望于多元性、偶然性的主体身上，没有从根本上认识到资本主义新变化背后的阶级对抗关系并未发生根本改变，没有看到无产阶级依然是真正革命的阶级，从而导致了其对无产阶级革命道路的背离。在此意义上，只有以历史唯物主义的观点看待共产主义理论中的革命主体问题，实现共产主义的新道路才能得以科学阐明。

Western radical leftists have corroborated that communism is a “becoming movement that is understood and recognized,” thereby confining this becoming movement to the conceptual sphere, without grounding this “becoming activity” in the “birth activity of empirical existence.” As Engels stated, “Modern materialism views history as the process of humanity’s development, and its task lies in discovering the laws of motion of this process.” “Discovering the laws of motion of this process” means creating the real conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat. Answering the real conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat is precisely to elucidate the historical premises for the establishment of communism. When Western radical leftist theories of communism answer what communism is, they often seize upon the word “movement” while neglecting the importance of the “real,” causing them to be unable to truly grasp the historical premises for the realization of communism. Marx and Engels once offered a brilliant exposition regarding important formulations such as “becoming movement” and “birth activity”: “The whole movement of history is, on the one hand, the real act of generation of this communism — the birth activity of its empirical existence — and, on the other hand, for its thinking consciousness, it is the comprehended and recognized process of its becoming.” [13]13 Marx, “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3, p. 306. The translation here follows the Chinese text’s rendering of the passage. From the logical levels of this passage, it is insufficient merely to understand the “becoming movement that is understood and recognized” in thought; it is also necessary to ground this becoming movement in the “birth activity of its empirical existence.” The birth activity of empirical existence is the precondition for the becoming movement of thought. The reason communism is a real movement, a birth activity of empirical existence, is determined by its real premises. Marx repeatedly emphasized that the proletariat must transform the philosophy in its head into revolutionary practice that changes reality; if it does not turn philosophy into reality, it cannot abolish itself and its real conditions, nor can it abolish the bourgeoisie. Faced with the development trend of communism in the 21st century, although Western radical leftists have not evaded reality, they have fallen, in their further elaborations, into the idealist trap of resolving contradictions in the conceptual sphere. For example, Gavin Walker once bluntly criticized Badiou’s conception of communism, arguing that in Badiou’s view, what communism manifests can only be “a historicity of thought, in which these two aspects oscillate in a continuous dialectical reversal, movement as theory, theory as movement.” [14]14 Gavin Walker, “The World of the Third: On Badiou’s ‘Communist Hypothesis,’” *Historical Materialism* 20, no. 3 (2012): 130. Žižek, while adhering to Marx’s method of critique of political economy and revealing the logical paradox of the internal contradiction between productive forces and relations of production as the driving force of capitalism’s own development, nevertheless, in demonstrating the problem of communism as a “real movement,” also abandons the historical materialist principle that the superstructure must adapt to the state of development of the economic base and that relations of production must adapt to the state of development of productive forces, highlighting the role of ideology in liberation politics and confining communism to the ideological sphere.

西方激进左翼佐证了共产主义是一种“被理解和被认识到的生成运动”，从而把这一生成运动局限在观念领域，没有将这一“生成活动”落脚于“经验存在的诞生活动”。正如恩格斯所言，“现代唯物主义把历史看做人类的发展过程，而它的任务就在于发现这个过程的运动规律”。“发现这个过程的运动规律”，就是创造无产阶级解放的现实条件。回答无产阶级解放的现实条件，亦即阐明共产主义成立的历史前提。西方激进左翼共产主义理论在回答共产主义是什么时，往往抓住了“运动”一词，而忽视了“现实”的重要性，导致其无法真正把握住共产主义实现的历史前提。马克思和恩格斯曾经针对“生成运动”和“诞生活动”等重要提法有过一段精彩论述：“历史的全部运动，既是这种共产主义的现实的产生活动，即它的经验存在的诞生活动，同时，对它的思维着的意识来说，又是它的被理解和被认识到的生成运动”。从这段话的逻辑层次来看，仅仅懂得在思维中“被理解和被认识到的生成运动”是不够的，还需要将这种生成运动落脚于“它的经验存在的诞生活动”。经验存在的诞生活动是思维的生成运动的前提条件。共产主义之所以是一种现实运动，是一种经验存在的诞生活动，是由其现实前提决定的。马克思反复强调，无产阶级必须把头脑中的哲学变为改变现实的革命实践，如果不把哲学变成现实，就不能消灭自身和它的现实条件，也就不能消灭资产阶级。面对共产主义在21世纪的发展态势，西方激进左翼虽然没有回避现实，却在进一步阐释中落入在观念领域解决矛盾的唯心主义窠臼。比如，加文·沃克尔（GavinWalker）曾经直言不讳地批评巴迪欧的共产主义设想，认为在巴迪欧那里，共产主义表现出来的只能“是一种思想的历史性，在这种历史性中，这两个方面以一种持续的辩证逆转方式振荡，运动作为理论，理论作为运动”。齐泽克虽然坚持了马克思政治经济学批判的研究方法，展示了生产力与生产关系之间的内在矛盾作为资本主义自身发展动力的逻辑悖论。但是，他在论证共产主义“现实运动”问题上也摒弃了上层建筑要适应经济基础发展状况、生产关系要适应生产力发展状况的唯物史观原理，突出了意识形态在解放政治中的作用，将共产主义限定在意识形态领域。

In short, compared with Marx’s future-oriented, holistic goal of human emancipation, the goal of human emancipation for Western radical leftists is individual emancipation. From the perspective of historical materialism, human emancipation must rely on the holistic transformation of the mode of social production and its social system. For Rancière, “emancipation can occur at any moment, anytime and anywhere, as long as individuals disturb the existing sensible space”; [15]15 Jacques Rancière, *The Emancipated Spectator*, trans. Gregory Elliott (London: Verso, 2009), p. 49. for Hardt and Negri, if individuals, in the form of love, prompt the life-subject to consciously participate in the construction of the community, then they can attain freedom and emancipation. [16]16 Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, *Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire* (New York: Penguin, 2004), p. 351. Therefore, Rancière’s “equality of intelligence,” Hardt and Negri’s “emancipation of the multitude,” and so forth, all weaken the nature of proletarian revolution and the real conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat, causing their subject of emancipation to remain only at the theoretical level, unable to bear the historical mission of human emancipation.

总之，相较于马克思指向未来的、整体的人类解放目标，西方激进左翼的人类解放目标是个体的解放。在历史唯物主义看来，人类解放必须依靠社会生产方式及其社会制度的整体性变革。而对朗西埃而言，“解放可以发生在任何时刻，不论何时何地只要个体对现有的感性空间产生了扰动”；对哈特和奈格里来说，个体以爱的形式促使生命主体自觉参与共同体的构建，那么他们就能获得自由解放。因此，朗西埃的“智力平等”、哈特和奈格里的“诸众的解放”等都弱化了无产阶级革命的性质和无产阶级获得解放的现实条件，这就导致其解放主体只能停留在理论层面，无法担负起人类解放的历史使命。

IV. The Implications of the Problem of the “Real Movement” in Western Radical Leftist Theories of Communism for Developing a New Form of Human Civilization

四、西方激进左翼共产主义理论中的“现实运动”问题对发展人类文明新形态的启示

The new form of human civilization created by socialism with Chinese characteristics is a stage of the real movement of communism. Today, the Communist Party of China has successfully created a new form of human civilization with Chinese characteristics, presenting a new picture of civilization different from the capitalist form of civilization. Although Western radical leftist theories of communism lack a historical materialist foundation and their explanations cannot produce significant practical impact, their mode of interpreting the problem of the “real movement” in communist theory can provide some theoretical reference for our development of a new form of human civilization today. It helps us better grasp the foundational issues related to developing a new form of human civilization and answer the key question of how a new form of human civilization can achieve human emancipation in the real movement continuously朝向 communism. [17]17 The Chinese phrase “朝向” (cháo xiàng) here means “toward” or “in the direction of.” In general, by clarifying, within limits, the relationship between capitalist civilization and communist civilization, the historical dimension of communism and the value dimension of communism, and communist thought and communist reality, Western radical leftist theories of communism offer a new perspective for us to examine and develop a new form of human civilization.

中国特色社会主义创造的人类文明新形态是共产主义现实运动的一个阶段。在今天，中国共产党成功创造出具有中国特色的人类文明新形态，展现出不同于资本主义文明形态的文明新图景。虽然西方激进左翼的共产主义理论缺乏历史唯物主义根基，其解释不能产生较大的现实影响，但他们对共产主义理论中“现实运动”问题的解读方式能够为我们今天发展人类文明新形态提供一些理论借鉴，有助于我们更好地把握发展人类文明新形态的相关基础性问题，回答人类文明新形态何以能够在不断朝向共产主义的现实运动中实现人类解放这一关键问题。总的来说，通过有限度地厘清资本主义文明与共产主义文明、共产主义的历史维度与共产主义的价值维度、共产主义思想与共产主义现实的关系，西方激进左翼的共产主义理论为我们审视和发展人类文明新形态提供了新视角。

First, it helps to clarify people’s misunderstandings of the concept of communism, providing new viewpoints for understanding capitalist civilization and communist civilization in developing a new form of human civilization. Since the beginning of the 21st century, various discourses on the revival of communism have been incessant in Western academia, but people’s understanding of the concept of communism itself contains many ambiguities. For instance, should communism be understood from the perspective of an ideological system, from the perspective of historical development, or from the perspective of a social system, and what is the ultimate relationship among these understandings? These confusions stem from an insufficiently thorough understanding of the real movement of communism, especially an unclear understanding of the relationship between communism and capitalism contained within the real movement. From the perspective of historical materialism, if the problem of the “real movement” in communist theory cannot be correctly interpreted, it will inevitably be difficult to attain a truthful understanding of the concept of communism.

第一，有助于澄清人们对共产主义概念的误解，为发展人类文明新形态提供认识资本主义文明与共产主义文明的新观点。进入21世纪以来，西方学界关于共产主义复兴的各种言论不绝于耳，但人们对共产主义概念本身的认识存在诸多模糊之处。比如，到底是从思想体系的视角理解共产主义，还是从历史发展的视角理解共产主义，抑或是从社会制度的视角理解共产主义，这些理解之间归根到底又是何种关系。这些困惑源于对共产主义现实运动的理解不够透彻，特别是对现实运动中包含的共产主义与资本主义关系认识不清。从历史唯物主义视野来看，如果不能正确解读共产主义理论中的“现实运动”问题，势必难以达到对共产主义概念的真理性认识。

Marx and Engels formed a holistic understanding of communism in the process of founding scientific socialism. Communism is not only a scientific ideological system, nor only the actual process by which the proletariat and the masses, under the leadership of the proletarian party, strive to realize the communist ideal, but also the ideal social system established when the communist ideal is realized. The concept of communism also includes an understanding of the relationship between communism and capitalism, specifically expressed as the “two inevitables” — the inevitable demise of capitalism and the inevitable victory of communism. [18]18 The “two inevitables” (两个必然) refer to the thesis, derived from Marx and Engels’ analysis of capitalist contradictions, that capitalism is inevitably doomed and communism is inevitably victorious. However, in actual circumstances, people often lack a scientific understanding of the “two inevitables,” either steering the proletarian revolution caused by the fundamental contradictions of capitalism onto a reformist path, or advocating that capitalism will spontaneously transform the relations of production and superstructure that do not adapt to the development requirements of productive forces, achieving a natural transition to communism, without understanding the demise of capitalism and the victory of communism as the real manifestation and ultimate destination of human emancipation. The intention of Western radical leftists in raising the problem of the “real movement” in communist theory is to correctly grasp the relationship between capitalism and communism within the “real movement,” avoiding the separation of the critique of capitalism from the construction of communism. Communist civilization was discovered by Marx and Engels in the process of critiquing capitalist civilization; only in “criticizing the old world” can one “discover the new world.” Western radical leftists inherit Marx and Engels’ essential understanding of communism, viewing communism as a “real movement” that abolishes the existing state of capitalism. At the same time, their analytical perspective further shifts from the “real movement” of abolishing the existing state of capitalism to the “real movement” of subjective production, viewing communism as a real movement that continuously abolishes existing capitalist relations through the union of subjects, thereby restoring humanity’s essential powers and achieving human emancipation. This clarifies people’s many one-sided understandings and uncritical perceptions of the relationship between communism and capitalism, providing new evidence and new viewpoints for understanding that communist civilization must inevitably replace capitalist civilization in developing a new form of human civilization.

马克思和恩格斯在创立科学社会主义的过程时就形成了对共产主义的整体性认识。共产主义不仅是科学的思想体系，是无产阶级和人民群众在无产阶级政党领导下为实现共产主义理想而奋斗的实际过程，也是共产主义理想实现之际所建立的理想社会制度。共产主义概念还包含着对共产主义与资本主义关系的认识，具体表述为“两个必然”——资本主义必然灭亡和共产主义必然胜利。但在实际情形中，人们往往对“两个必然”缺乏科学认识，要么将资本主义基本矛盾所导致的无产阶级革命引向改良主义道路，要么主张资本主义会自发地变革不适应生产力发展要求的生产关系和上层建筑，实现向共产主义的自然过渡，而没有将资本主义灭亡与共产主义胜利理解为人类解放的现实呈现和最终归宿。西方激进左翼提出共产主义理论中的“现实运动”问题，其意图就是在“现实运动”中正确把握资本主义与共产主义的关系，避免将资本主义的批判与共产主义建构割裂开来。共产主义文明是马克思和恩格斯在批判资本主义文明的过程中发现的，只有在“批判旧世界”中才能“发现新世界”。西方激进左翼继承了马克思和恩格斯对共产主义的本质性认识，将共产主义看成一种消灭资本主义现存状况的“现实运动”。同时，他们的分析视角进一步从消灭资本主义现存状况的“现实运动”转向主体性生产的“现实运动”，将共产主义看成不断通过主体联合消灭资本主义现存关系，从而恢复人的本质力量、实现人类解放的现实运动，澄清了人们关于共产主义与资本主义关系的诸多片面理解和非批判性认识，为发展人类文明新形态提供理解共产主义文明必然代替资本主义文明的新佐证、新观点。

Second, it helps to return to the original intention of Marx’s doctrine of communism, providing new evidence for developing a new form of human civilization by strengthening the ideal and conviction of communism and establishing a new communist civilization. Marx’s doctrine of communism not only advocates “criticizing the old world” but also advocates “discovering the new world” in the course of “criticizing the old world.” “Criticizing the old world” highlights the historical dimension of communism, while “discovering the new world” highlights its value dimension. If “criticizing the old world” is taken merely as the primary historical task of communism without recourse to building a future new society, then “criticizing the old world” loses its due value and significance, and cannot indicate the future direction of human society. The theoretical contribution of the Western radical left lies in their return to the original intention of Marx’s doctrine of communism, emphasizing the mutual promotion of human subjectivity and community development, thereby corroborating that communism is a real movement of liberation that proceeds through people, for people, and realizes the essence of people.

第二，有助于回归马克思共产主义学说的初衷，为发展人类文明新形态提供坚定共产主义理想信念和建立共产主义新文明的新明证。马克思共产主义学说不仅主张“批判旧世界”，而且主张在“批判旧世界”中“发现新世界”。“批判旧世界”突出共产主义的历史维度，“发现新世界”突出共产主义的价值维度。如果只是把“批判旧世界”作为共产主义的首要历史任务而没有诉诸建立未来的新社会，“批判旧世界”也就失去了应有的价值和意义，无法指明人类社会未来的发展方向。西方激进左翼的理论贡献在于，他们回归了马克思共产主义学说的初衷，突出人的主体性和共同体发展的相互促进作用，佐证了共产主义是一场通过人、为了人并实现人的本质的现实解放运动。

The Western radical left, grounded in the specific historical context of digital capitalism, does not simply reiterate the concept of human emancipation but internalizes this concept within the real movement of communism, concretizing it into the restoration of human subjectivity, the union of subjects, and the construction of a genuine community. Žižek believes that Marx was convinced that “the ‘synthesis’ of communism is the overcoming of all history up to now,” and that communist society means the collective subject re-appropriating its alienated substance. The Western radical left’s analysis of communism contains speculative elements detached from material production, but they unify the value dimension of communism with its historical dimension, perceive the new changes in class relations and the balance of class forces brought about by the transformation of the capitalist mode of production and its social structure, and discern that the whole of modern society is undergoing a trend favorable to the development of the laboring subject, with human society gradually transitioning from the stage of antagonism between labor and capital to the communist stage of free human development. These views corroborate the value goal of achieving human emancipation, helping us to strengthen our ideal and conviction in realizing communism and to fortify our historical confidence in creating a new communist civilization when developing a new form of human civilization.

西方激进左翼立足数字资本主义这一特定的历史环境，并非简单地重提人类解放观念，而是将这一观念内化于共产主义现实运动中，具体化为人的主体性恢复、主体联合和真正共同体的构建问题。齐泽克认为，马克思确信，“共产主义的‘合题’是对迄今为止所有历史的克服”，共产主义社会意味着作为集合的主体重新占有其异化的实体。西方激进左翼关于共产主义的分析存在脱离物质生产的臆想成分，但他们将共产主义价值维度与共产主义历史维度统一起来，看到了资本主义生产方式及其社会结构转型带来的阶级关系及其力量对比的新变化，洞察到整个现代社会出现了有利于劳动主体发展的新趋势，人类社会正处于从劳动与资本的对抗阶段逐步向人的自由发展的共产主义阶段的转变。这些观点是对实现人类解放的价值目标的佐证，有助于我们在发展人类文明新形态时坚定实现共产主义的理想信念，坚定创造共产主义新文明的历史自信。

Third, it helps to deeply grasp the latest trends in the development of communism, providing a theoretical framework for developing a new form of human civilization. Marx pointed out: “For the practical materialist, i.e., the communist, the whole question is to revolutionize the existing world, to practically oppose and change existing things.” In his view, to carry out communist practice, “it is not enough that thought should strive to realize itself; reality must itself strive toward thought.” The deepening and development of communist theory by Žižek, Badiou, Negri, Hardt, and others has not created great waves at the practical level, but in their logical approach to elucidating communism, they have implemented the principle that thought embodies reality and reality tends toward thought, providing new intellectual resources for developing a new form of human civilization.

第三，有助于深刻把握共产主义发展的最新态势，为发展人类文明新形态提供理论方案。马克思指出：“对实践的唯物主义者即共产主义来说，全部问题都在于使现在世界革命化，实际地反对并改变现存的事物。”在他看来，若要进行共产主义实践，“光是思想力求成为现实是不够的，现实本身应当力求趋向思想”。齐泽克、巴迪欧、奈格里和哈特等人对共产主义理论的深化发展没有在实践层面掀起很大波澜，但他们在阐释共产主义的逻辑理路中贯彻了思想体现现实和现实趋向思想的原则，为发展人类文明新形态提供了新的思想资源。

The realization of communist civilization cannot be achieved overnight; it requires sufficient subjective and objective conditions. Overall, the Western radical left’s conception of communist civilization encompasses both subjective and objective levels. Regarding the objective conditions for constructing communist civilization, Hardt and Negri point out that the key to abolishing the existing conditions of capitalism lies in abolishing the social structures, social systems, and the conditions that keep the proletariat in subjugation, which maintain privilege and power. Only in this way can the foundations of capitalism be fundamentally shaken, creating a favorable objective environment for the birth of communist civilization. Regarding the subjective conditions for constructing communist civilization, Rancière’s concept of “intellectual equality” is quite influential. This concept, based on the assumption of equality, holds that all people naturally share a common sensory capacity. This capacity emphasizes everyone’s equal position in cognizing and understanding the world and is an indispensable subjective foundation for communist civilization. Badiou holds a similar view; he believes that the role of communism in reality is to symbolically process the principle of egalitarianism, through encoding, dissemination, and other means, laying a subjective foundation for the collectivization and communalization of resources, the elimination of inequality and difference, the recognition of the equal rights of subjects, and peaceful development. This means that at the ideological level, egalitarianism must be deeply rooted in people’s hearts, so that people internally identify with and actively pursue the equality and justice advocated by communist civilization.

共产主义文明的实现不可能一蹴而就，需要充分的主客观条件。总体而言，西方激进左翼对于共产主义文明的设想涵盖了主客观两个层面。在共产主义文明建构的客观条件方面，哈特和奈格里指出，消灭资本主义现存状况的关键在于消灭维持特权和权力的社会结构、社会制度和由此让无产阶级得以臣服的条件。只有这样，才能从根本上动摇资本主义的根基，为共产主义文明的诞生创造有利的客观环境。在共产主义文明建构的主观条件方面，朗西埃提出的“智力平等”理念颇具影响力。这一理念基于平等的假设，认为所有人都天然地共同具备一种感性能力。这种能力强调每个人在认知和理解世界上的平等地位，是共产主义文明所不可或缺的主观基础。巴迪欧也持有类似观点，他认为共产主义在现实中的作用就是将平等主义原则进行符号化处理，通过编码、传播等方式，为资源的集体化与共有化、消除不平等和差异、承认主体的平等权利以及和平发展奠定主观层面的基础。这意味着要在思想层面让平等主义深入人心，使人们从内心认同并积极追求共产主义文明所倡导的平等与公正。

Developing a new form of human civilization is an important theoretical innovation and a great social practice; it should adhere to the principle that thought embodies reality and reality tends toward thought. The Western radical left’s theory of communism has a certain reference value for developing a new form of human civilization, mainly reflected in the following two points: First, in the actual unfolding process of the new form of human civilization, we must continuously carry out institutional innovation, use the developmental direction of communism to guide the socialist reform enterprise, demonstrate the superiority of the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics in comparison with capitalist countries, and consolidate the institutional foundation for realizing human emancipation. Second, in the actual unfolding process of the new form of human civilization, we must actively bring into play the historical initiative of the masses, prompting the full expression of the masses’ subjective consciousness and subjective power in making history, pursuing the principles of democracy, equality, and justice, and realizing the free and comprehensive development of each individual. In short, today, we must link the development of the new form of human civilization with Marx’s exposition on communism, critically draw on the beneficial views of Western leftist scholars, and, against the backdrop of digital capitalism, develop a new form of civilization that conforms to the laws of human social development, truly realizing the revival of communism.

发展人类文明新形态是一次重要的理论创新，也是一场伟大的社会实践，应当坚持思想体现现实和现实趋向思想的原则。西方激进左翼的共产主义理论对发展人类文明新形态有一定的参考价值，主要体现在以下两点：第一，在人类文明新形态的现实展开过程中，我们要不断进行制度创新，以共产主义的发展方向引领社会主义改革事业，在同资本主义国家的比较中彰显中国特色社会主义道路的优越性，夯实实现人类解放的制度基础；第二，在人类文明新形态的现实展开过程中，我们要积极发挥人民群众的历史主动精神，促使人民群众创造历史的主体意识和主体力量充分发挥出来，追求民主、平等、公正原则，实现每个人的自由全面发展。简言之，在今天，我们要把人类文明新形态的发展与马克思关于共产主义的论述联系起来，批判地借鉴西方左翼学者的有益观点，在数字资本主义的时代背景下发展出符合人类社会发展规律的文明新形态，真正实现共产主义的复兴。

(The author is a lecturer at the School of Marxism, Fudan University)

（作者系复旦大学马克思主义学院讲师）

Online editor: Ma Jingren

网络编辑：马京仁