The Implication of Capital Power in Foucault’s Theory of Power——A Reflection from the Perspective of Althusser

In recent years, many scholars have realized that Michel Foucault’s study of power in modern society, especially his research on biopolitics, can to a certain extent be linked and integrated with Marx’s critique of political economy. We can use Foucault’s theoretical system and analytical methods to grasp the power inherent in capitalist society and its specific mechanisms of operation. Consequently, some scholars have conducted correlational research on topics such as Marx’s biopolitical theory, the biopolitical implications in *Capital*, and the new power mechanisms in contemporary capitalist social forms (e.g., digital capitalism). However, it must be noted that although Foucault’s theory has indeed advanced our critical reflection on capitalist society, fundamentally, his study of modern capitalist society differs essentially from Marx’s theory. Therefore, an increasing number of scholars have proposed that Foucault’s theory of power cannot be simply applied to Marx’s theory; rather, it is necessary to fully recognize the heterogeneous connotations of the two and further explore a reasonable way to handle the relationship between them.

近年来，很多学者意识到，米歇尔·福柯对现代社会权力问题的研究，尤其是其生命政治学研究在一定程度上能够与马克思的政治经济学批判理论进行关联与融合，我们可以借用福柯的理论体系和分析方式来把握内在于资本主义社会中的权力及其具体的运行机制。因而一些学者对马克思的生命政治理论、《资本论》中的生命政治思想意涵、当代资本主义社会新形态(例如数字资本主义)中的新型权力机制等议题展开了关联性研究。不过需要注意的是，虽然福柯的理论确实推进了我们对资本主义社会的批判性反思，但从根本上说，他对现代资本主义社会的研究同马克思的理论之间存在着本质性差异。因此，越来越多的学者提出，不能将福柯的权力理论简单套用在马克思的理论上，而必须充分认识到二者的异质性内涵，并进一步探索处理二者之间关系的合理方式。

It is precisely in reflecting on the above issues that we find that Louis Althusser’s theoretical research, especially his study of the repressive state apparatus and ideological state apparatuses, can to a certain extent serve as a theoretical intermediary between Marx and Foucault. On the one hand, unlike Foucault, Althusser does not reject Marxist discourses such as class analysis and ideology. Instead, he considers his theory of the state apparatus to grow directly from Marx’s theoretical foundation, as a further refinement of the theory of the state already implicit but not fully developed in Marx’s thought, thus maintaining a clear intellectual continuity with Marx. On the other hand, Althusser’s theory of the state apparatus also focuses on the fact that in capitalist society, a complex set of power operation mechanisms plays a clear role in ensuring the continuous reproduction of the capitalist mode of production. His study of the operation of the repressive state apparatus and ideological state apparatuses bears certain similarities to Foucault’s analysis of various new power relations and liberal governmentality, allowing a theoretical connection to be established between them. Therefore, Althusser’s research effectively builds a theoretical bridge between Marx and Foucault. Althusser’s theoretical mediation enables us to see through to the connotation of capital power implicit in Foucault’s theory of power and lays the foundation for constructing a reasonable theory of capital power that both aligns with Marx’s thought and can accurately address the complex power mechanisms in modern capitalist society.

正是在对上述问题的思考中我们发现，路易·阿尔都塞的理论研究，尤其是其对镇压性国家机器和意识形态国家机器的研究在一定程度上可以成为马克思与福柯之间的理论中介。一方面，阿尔都塞不像福柯那样拒斥阶级分析、意识形态等马克思主义话语，而是认为自己关于国家机器的理论直接生长在马克思的理论基础之上，是对马克思思想中已经包含但尚未充分展开的国家理论的进一步完善，与马克思的理论存在明确的思想连续性；另一方面，阿尔都塞关于国家机器的理论也关注到，在资本主义社会中，有一套复杂的权力运行机制在发挥明确作用，以保障资本主义生产方式能够不断被再生产出来，而他对镇压性国家机器和意识形态国家机器的运行方式的研究与福柯对各种新型权力关系和自由主义治理术的分析具有一定的相似性，二者之间能够建立起理论关联。因此，阿尔都塞的研究相当于在马克思与福柯之间架起了一座理论桥梁。阿尔都塞的理论中介使我们能够透视福柯的权力理论背后所蕴含的资本权力内涵，并为建构一种既符合马克思的思想、又能够切中现代资本主义社会中复杂权力机制的合理的资本权力理论奠定基础。

I. Foucault: A Descriptive Theory of Power

一、福柯：关于权力的描述性理论

The originality of Foucault’s study of power lies in his use of a new methodological principle, distinct from traditional theories of power and politics, to rethink power and its history. He reveals a series of new modes of operation of modern power that people had not previously focused on, such as discipline and punishment and liberal governmentality, thereby providing a detailed explanation of the actual forms of power operation and their processes of transformation.

福柯对权力问题的研究其独创性在于，以一种区别于传统的权力理论和政治理论的新方法论原则来重新反思权力及其历史，揭示了规训与惩罚、自由主义治理术等人们之前未曾关注过的现代权力的一系列新运行方式，从而细致阐释了权力运作的实际形式及其变迁过程。

Foucault’s unique analysis of the modes of power operation in modern society is first closely related to his distinctive research method. Unlike many previous thinkers who, in a rationalist, essentialist, formalist, and universalist manner, start from a certain unquestionable subject and the subject’s essence or specific capacities to formally deduce the basic principles of the entire world and the universal laws of human society, Foucault insists on following his archaeological and genealogical methods to explore the issue of power. In Foucault’s context, “the archaeological ‘subject’ is situated within the field of knowledge but is not the owner of that field; it engages in neither transcendental activity nor empirical consciousness. The archaeology of knowledge does not reduce the existence of discourse to a primordial given founded in a transcendental subject in terms of fact and right, but rather reduces it to a process of historical practice.” The genealogical method similarly implies a rejection of a teleological, essentialist mode of analysis, instead grasping the modes of power operation and the rich relationships among power, knowledge, and the body within the concrete historical practices of power. Thus, as Foucault points out in *The Birth of Biopolitics*, his research method is mainly “to examine, starting from the forms of practice as they present themselves, and simultaneously from their self-reflection and their own rationalization, how things like the state and society, the sovereign and subjects, are actually established, and to explore the position they occupy.”

福柯对现代社会中权力运行方式的独特分析首先与其独特的研究方式密切相关。他并不像之前的很多思想家那样，按照理性主义、本质主义、形式主义和普遍主义的方式，以一个确定无疑的主体以及主体的本质、主体所具有的某些特定能力为出发点，从形式上演绎出整个世界的基本原理和人类社会运行的普遍规律，而是坚持遵循其考古学和谱系学的研究方式来探讨权力问题。在福柯的语境中，“考古学‘主体’虽处在知识领域之中，却并不是知识领域的所有者，它既不从事先验活动，也不进行经验意识。知识考古学并不把话语存在归结为一个先验主体中奠基事实和权利的原初给予的强求，而是归结为一个历史实践的过程”。谱系学方法同样意味着拒斥一种目的论的本质主义分析方式，而是在权力的丰富的具体历史实践中把握权力的运作方式以及权力—知识—身体之间的丰富关系。所以正如福柯在《生命政治的诞生》中所指出的，他的研究方式主要是“从实践所呈现的样式出发，同时从它的自我反思和自身的合理化出发，来考察国家和社会、君主和臣民等这些东西如何实际地被建立起来，并探寻它们所处的地位”。

Based on this unique methodological requirement for his research, Foucault emphasizes the need to set aside the influence of various essentialist, transcendental conceptual systems on the study of power. A particularly important point is to transcend the understanding of power from an economic perspective, that is, to avoid simplifying the analysis of power to an analysis of the economy. He argues that this way of combining power with the economy and reducing the analysis of power to economic analysis mainly takes two forms: first, the “economism” of power theory, and second, the “economic functionality” view of power. In Foucault’s view, the “economism” of power theory means treating power in the same way as right, i.e., regarding power as something that can be established and transferred through law and contract. Power, like wealth, is possessed before it is used, a view reflected in the thought of many 18th-century political philosophers. The “economic functionality” view of power is mainly embodied in Marx’s theory, which holds that “the primary function of power is both to maintain the relations of production and to reproduce class domination, the latter being made possible by the inherent form and development of the possession of productive forces. In this case, political power finds its historical cause in the economy. If you agree, roughly speaking, in one case, political power finds its formal model in the process of exchange, in the circulation of property in the economy; in the other case, political power finds its historical cause, the principle of its concrete form, and its current function in the economy.” Foucault regards both of these views as representative ways of reducing the issue of power to economic analysis, arguing that neither conforms to his archaeological and genealogical method of directly confronting concrete historical practice itself. Consequently, the method he ultimately adopts is what he calls a “non-economic study of power,” the key point of which is: “The knot between the economy and power should not belong to the category of functional substitution, nor to the category of formal isomorphism, but to another category, and it is precisely this that must be extracted.” In this way, by extracting the analysis of power from economic discourse, Foucault effectively maintains a certain distance between his discourse on power analysis and Marxist discourse on class analysis, historical materialism, and analysis of the mode of production. In other words, even when faced with similar theoretical objects, he focuses more on the issues of power and struggle inherent in them, rather than on their intrinsic correlation with the capitalist mode of production. As he points out, “Starting from Marx, what I like to discuss is not the sociological question of class, but the strategic method of struggle.”

基于对其研究所提出的这一独特方法论要求，福柯强调，必须抛开各种本质主义的、先验的观念体系对权力研究的影响，其中尤为重要的一点是，要超越从经济的角度理解权力，即将对权力的分析简化为对经济的分析这一方式。他认为，这种将权力与经济结合在一起，并将权力分析简化为经济分析的方式主要表现为两种形式，其一是权力理论的“经济主义”,其二是权力的“经济功能性”观点。在福柯看来，权力理论的“经济主义”意味着以看待权利的方式来看待权力，即将权力视作一种可以经由法律和契约所订立与转让的东西，权力就如财富一样，其被拥有先于其被使用，这在很多18世纪的政治哲学家的思想中有所体现；权力的“经济功能性”观点则主要体现在马克思的理论中，这一观点认为，“权力的主要职能是既维持生产关系，又再生产阶级的统治，后两者是由生产力占有的固有形态和发展赋予其可能性的。在这种情形下，政治权力在经济中找到了其历史性的原因。如果你们同意，大致上说，在一种情况下，有一种政治权力在交换的程序中，在财产流通的经济中找到它形式上的模型；在另一种情况下，政治权力在经济中获得历史性的原因、具体形式的原则和当前的功能”。福柯将以上两种观点都看作将权力问题简化为经济分析的代表性观点，认为二者都不符合其所持有的直面具体历史实践本身的考古学和谱系学研究方法。因而他最终所采用的方法实际上是一种他所谓的“权力的非经济研究”的方法，这一方法的要点在于：“经济与权力的死结不应当属于功能替代的范畴，也不属于形式同构的范畴，而是另一个范畴，关键的正是要把它抽取出来。”这样一来，通过将权力分析从经济话语中抽取出来，福柯事实上也就使自己的权力分析话语与马克思主义的阶级分析话语、历史唯物主义话语、生产方式分析话语之间保持了一定的距离。或者说，即便是面临相似的理论对象，他更加关注的也是其中所蕴含着的权力和斗争关系问题，而非其与资本主义生产方式的内在相关性。正如他所指出的，“从马克思出发，我喜欢讨论的不是关于阶级的社会学问题，而是关于斗争的战略方法”。

Here we find that, based on the methodological requirements he proposed for his own research, Foucault indeed has reason to demand that the analysis of power be extracted from what he calls economic analysis, so as to discard the interference of economic analysis in the study of power and thus confront the process of power’s operation in history itself. At the same time, however, we must also see that, because he insists on extracting this so-called pure mode of operation of power itself from a series of complex social structures, Foucault stops his research at the level of describing power, without further elevating and integrating these various descriptions into a concrete theory of power. This further makes power appear to have a separate history independent of the actual history of human society. It must be noted that we can indeed abstract the concept of power from the complex whole of society, and abstract the history of power’s operation itself from the complex history of humanity, but this does not mean that the study of the concept of power can and must be detached from the other rich concepts that constitute society, focusing only on the concept of power itself and its own history of operation.

在这里我们发现，基于其对自身研究所提出的方法论要求，福柯确实有理由要求将权力分析从他所谓的经济分析中抽取出来，以便摒弃经济分析对权力研究的干扰，从而直面历史上权力的运作过程本身。但与此同时，我们也必须看到，由于执着于将权力本身的这种所谓纯粹运行方式从一系列复杂的社会结构中抽取出来，福柯将自己的研究停留在了描述权力这一层面，而没有进一步将各种描述上升为、统合为一种具体的权力理论，这进一步使得权力似乎拥有了独立于人类社会现实历史的单独历史。必须注意的是，我们确实可以从复杂的社会整体中抽象出权力这一概念，从复杂的人类历史中抽象出权力运作本身的历史，但这并不意味着对权力概念的研究可以并且必须脱离构成社会的其他丰富概念而只看权力概念本身及其自身的运行历史。

From this perspective, although Foucault’s research on the issue of power did uncover a series of specific mechanisms of power operation that people had not previously noticed, it did not further explain how to understand power from the actual history of human society. In other words, he failed to grasp the actual history that runs through the various power practices and the historical transformations behind the modes of power. Foucault did indeed discover that the techniques of governance underwent a history of development from raison d’État governance, to liberal governance, to neoliberal governance. “If raison d’État governance governs groups of subjects according to reasons of state, then liberalism governs civil society according to reasons of social naturalness. The fact that people live, work, produce, and exchange together constitutes what Foucault calls social naturalness, while the increase, decrease, migration, and changes of the population, as well as the interrelations among population elements, constitute what Foucault calls the naturalness of the population.” [1]1 This passage cites a Chinese scholar’s summary of Foucault’s concepts of “raison d’État” governance and liberal governance, referring to the shift from governing subjects based on reasons of state to governing civil society based on the “naturalness” of society and population. However, regarding questions such as why raison d’État governance developed into liberalism, why governance based on reasons of state gave way to governance based on political economy, and how concepts like social naturalness and the naturalness of the population were formed, in Foucault’s theory we can only find a historical description of the process of change, but not a conceptual understanding of the essence of this process. Borrowing Althusser’s perspective, this means that what Foucault formed is a descriptive theory of power, which has not yet been elevated from descriptive theory to theory itself. In Althusser’s view, “great scientific discoveries have all had to first pass through the stage of what we call descriptive ‘theory.’ This is the first stage of all theories, at least in the field we are discussing (the field of the science of social formations).” [2]2 This is a paraphrase of Althusser’s argument in *Reading Capital* and *For Marx* that early scientific theories often begin as “descriptive” theories that identify phenomena but have not yet grasped the underlying structural essence. Although this descriptive stage is a necessary stage in the development of theory, and although descriptive theory can prompt us to conduct further research on the object of study by offering descriptive analyses and formulations about it, the problem is that description of the object of study is not yet theory about the object of study. Only when we transcend the descriptive understanding of phenomena and appearances and penetrate deeply into the essence and structure behind the object of study can we go beyond descriptive theory and reach theory itself. Therefore, while the research method Foucault adopted enabled him to discover a series of hidden new mechanisms of power operation, it also left his study of the issue of power at the level of a descriptive theory of power.

从这一角度看，虽然福柯对权力问题的研究确实发现了之前人们所未曾注意到的一系列具体的权力运行机制，但是对于如何从人类社会的现实历史出发理解权力这一问题却并未作出进一步说明，换言之，他没有进一步把握到贯穿于各种权力实践及权力方式的历史性变革背后的现实历史。福柯确实发现了治理的技术经历了由管治主义、自由主义的治理术到新自由主义的治理术的发展史。“如果说管治主义依据国家理由来治理一群群臣民，那么，自由主义则依据社会自然性理由来治理公民社会。而人们共同居住、生活、工作、生产和交换等就是福柯所说的社会自然性，人口的增加、减少、迁徙、变化以及人口要素之间的相互关系又构成了福柯所说的人口的自然性。”然而，关于管治主义为什么会发展为自由主义，基于国家理由的治理为什么会让位于基于政治经济学的治理，以及所谓社会的自然性、人口的自然性等概念是如何形成的等问题，我们在福柯的理论中只能找到其对变迁过程的历史性描述，而无法找到对这一过程之实质的概念性理解。借用阿尔都塞的观点来说，这也就意味着，福柯所形成的是一种关于权力的描述性理论，还没有将描述性理论上升为理论本身。在阿尔都塞看来，“伟大的科学发现都不得不首先经过我们称之为描述性的‘理论’这个阶段。这是所有理论的第一个阶段，至少在我们所讨论的领域(关于社会形态的科学的领域)是这样”。尽管这一描述性阶段是理论发展所必然经历的阶段，尽管描述性理论能够通过提出关于研究对象的描述性分析和表述而提示我们对研究对象展开进一步研究，但问题在于，对研究对象的描述还不是关于研究对象的理论。只有当我们超越对现象和表象的描述性理解，深入透视研究对象背后的本质和结构时，才能超越描述性理论而达到理论本身。所以，福柯所采取的研究方法在促使他发现一系列隐而不显的新型权力运行机制的同时，也使得他对权力问题的研究停留在了一种关于权力的描述性理论的层次上。

II. Althusser: An Analysis of Power Based on the Reproduction of the Conditions of Capitalist Production

二、阿尔都塞：基于资本主义 生产条件再生产的权力分析

Similar to Foucault, Althusser, through the pair of concepts of the repressive state apparatus and the ideological state apparatuses, also studied the issue of power control that people face in modern society. [3]3 Althusser’s “repressive state apparatus” (RSA) includes institutions like the police and army that function primarily by violence, while “ideological state apparatuses” (ISAs) include schools, churches, and media that function primarily by ideology to secure the reproduction of capitalist relations of production. Unlike Foucault, however, Althusser stands on the foundation of Marx’s thought. He does not wish to explore a purely abstract issue of power as Foucault does, but rather to study the issue of power within the overall context of historical materialism and within the overall context of a critical reflection on the capitalist mode of production. This makes it possible to elevate the descriptive theory of power into a theory of capital power in the capitalist era.

与福柯相类似的是，阿尔都塞通过镇压性国家机器和意识形态国家机器这一组概念，同样研究了现代社会中人们所面对的权力控制问题。而与福柯不同的是，阿尔都塞是站在马克思的思想基础上的，他并不想像福柯那样探究一种纯粹抽象的权力问题，而是要在历史唯物主义的整体语境中、在批判性反思资本主义生产方式的整体语境中来研究权力问题，这就使权力的描述性理论上升为资本主义时代的资本权力理论成为可能。

The most fundamental difference between Althusser’s research and Foucault’s research is that Foucault focuses on the issue of oppression or repression in modern society, while Althusser always emphasizes that when criticizing capitalist society, one must never replace the critique of exploitation with the critique of oppression. Althusser points out that in the relational schema of economic base and superstructure established by Marx, it is always the economic base as the “lower structure” that ultimately plays the determining role. Whether it is the oppression people feel in capitalist society or the function performed by the ideological state apparatuses in an “automatic” manner, they actually serve the capitalist mode of production and serve the exploitation of workers by capital. Only by focusing on how the bourgeois state apparatus uses oppression, repression, ideology, and other means to serve exploitation can one grasp the essence of capitalist society. Althusser found that the theoretical essence of a then-popular anarchist conception was actually to replace exploitation with oppression. “In this anarchist conception we find: (1) oppression replaces exploitation, or exploitation is thought of as a form of oppression; (2) repression replaces ideology, or ideology is thought of as a form of repression.” [4]4 This is a direct quotation from Althusser’s essay “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses,” where he critiques anarchist tendencies for reducing exploitation to oppression. Once exploitation is reduced to oppression, and oppression is regarded as the essence of exploitation, it means that when people understand society, they will inevitably understand all social problems as problems of oppression, as problems of power. In this way, all social struggles are transformed into struggles against oppression and repression. In fact, this is the basic assumption held by Foucault when studying the issue of power, namely that “the mechanisms of power are fundamentally primarily repressive.” [5]5 This is a paraphrase of Foucault’s view, often stated in works like *Discipline and Punish* and *The History of Sexuality*, that power is primarily repressive in its mechanisms. In the process of resisting oppression, people will inevitably discover that there is a collusive relationship between the operation of power and specific forms of knowledge: power creates a special form of knowledge, and this special form of knowledge in turn serves the further repression and oppression carried out by power. Thus, “there arises the necessity of ‘revolting’ against the ‘authority of knowledge.’” [6]6 This refers to Foucault’s analysis of the relationship between power and knowledge, particularly in works like *Discipline and Punish* and *Power/Knowledge*, where he argues that power produces knowledge and knowledge reinforces power. In Althusser’s view, this is the theoretical essence of a series of important events that occurred in the “May Movement” in France, and also the reason why “the May Movement first took place in universities and among intellectuals.” [7]7 The “May Movement” refers to the May 1968 protests and general strike in France, which began in universities and involved students and workers challenging authority, including academic and state authority.

阿尔都塞的研究与福柯的研究之间最为根本性的区别在于，福柯集中关注的是现代社会中的压迫或镇压问题；而阿尔都塞则始终强调，在对资本主义社会展开批判时，决不能以对压迫的批判来代替对剥削的批判。阿尔都塞指出，在马克思所确立的经济基础与上层建筑这一关系性图示中，归根到底起决定作用的永远是作为“下层建筑”的经济基础，无论是人们在资本主义社会中所感受到的压迫，还是意识形态国家机器以“自动”的方式所发挥的功能，实际上都服务于资本主义生产方式，服务于资本对工人的剥削。只有关注到资产阶级国家机器如何以压迫、镇压、意识形态等为手段来服务于剥削，才能够把握资本主义社会的实质。阿尔都塞发现，当时流行的一种无政府主义观念的理论实质实际上就是以压迫代替了剥削。“我们在这种无政府主义观念中发现：(1)压迫代替了剥削，或者说剥削被思考为压迫的一种形式；(2)镇压代替了意识形态，或者说意识形态被思考为镇压的一种形式。”而一旦将剥削化约为压迫，并将压迫视为剥削的实质，也就意味着人们在理解社会时，必然会将一切社会问题都理解为压迫问题，理解为权力问题。这样一来，一切社会斗争也就被转变为针对压迫和镇压的斗争。事实上，这就是福柯在研究权力问题时所持有的基本假设，即“权力的机制根本上主要是镇压”。而在反抗压迫的过程中，人们必然会发现，权力的运作与特定形态的知识之间存在着合谋关系，权力造就了一种特殊形态的知识，这种特殊形态的知识又反过来服务于权力所实施的进一步镇压和压迫，因而“就有了对‘知识权威’进行‘造反’的必要性”。在阿尔都塞看来，这就是法国的“五月运动”中所发生的一系列重要事件的理论本质，也是“五月运动首先在大学和知识分子当中发生的原因”。

The problem here is precisely that, although we can indeed intuitively perceive the oppression of one class by another in capitalist society, this is not the essence of capitalist society. The essential law of capitalist society has always been embodied in the logic of the capitalist mode of production’s appropriation of surplus value and its promotion of capital’s infinite self-valorization. Therefore, if the goal of social movements or struggles is simply defined as opposing oppression, and if one merely emphasizes a discourse of “oppression-resistance,” this can only lead to “grasping only oppression while ‘letting exploitation slip through the cracks.’” [8]8 This is a paraphrase of Althusser’s critique in “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses” that anarchist or purely anti-oppression struggles fail to address the underlying exploitation central to capitalism. According to this line of thought, although people’s goal is to resist oppression, because the root of oppression—its mode of production—is not revealed, this struggle against oppression cannot truly realize human freedom and liberation in the sense of transcending the capitalist mode of production. At most, it can only lead to an anarchism that tends to oppose all authority and forms of government, or, in the face of powerful forces that are difficult to resist, it can only reconfirm the state of human oppression.

这里的问题恰恰在于，尽管我们确实可以在资本主义社会中直观到一个阶级对另一个阶级的压迫，但这并不是资本主义社会的实质。资本主义社会的本质性规律始终体现在资本主义生产方式对剩余价值的占有和推进资本无限自我增殖的逻辑之中。因而，如果将社会运动或斗争的目标单纯定位为压迫，单纯强调一种“压迫—反抗”的话语的话，这只能导致“仅仅抓住了压迫而‘在私下里放过’了剥削”。按照这一思路，尽管人们的目标是反抗压迫，但由于没有揭示压迫背后的根源在于其生产方式，因而这一反抗压迫的斗争并不能在超越资本主义生产方式的意义上真正实现人的自由解放，而至多只能导向一种倾向于反对一切权威和政府形式的无政府主义，或是在难以反抗的强大权力面前重新确证人的被压迫状态。

In contrast, Althusser’s analysis of capitalist society always focuses on exploitation rather than oppression. According to his line of thought, oppression is not the ultimate goal of the bourgeoisie; it is merely one of the means the bourgeoisie employs to maintain the continuous operation of exploitation. Moreover, in addition to controlling people’s every move through meticulous discipline and surveillance, the bourgeoisie can also construct an ideology that functions automatically, so that even without the use of specific oppressive and repressive measures, people will voluntarily submit to the logic of exploitation and capital valorization—that is, to achieve a state where “it is unnecessary to station an individual gendarme behind each person’s back in order to ‘make’ those individuals ‘act automatically’.” [9]9 Louis Althusser, “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes towards an Investigation),” in *On the Reproduction of Capitalism: Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses*, trans. G. M. Goshgarian (London: Verso, 2014), p. 189. Translation modified. From this perspective, if one seizes only on oppression while neglecting the analysis of exploitation, one cannot penetrate the deep-seated operating mechanism inherent in capitalist society.

与之不同，阿尔都塞对资本主义社会的分析始终聚焦于剥削而非压迫。按照他的思路，压迫并不是资产阶级的最终目的，它只是资产阶级为了维持剥削的持续运行所采取的手段之一，而且除了以严密的规训和监视来控制人们的一举一动外，资产阶级还可以构建一种能够自动发挥作用的意识形态，以达到即便不运用具体的压迫和镇压手段，人们也会自觉服从于剥削和资本增殖逻辑的目的，即实现“不需要安排个体的宪兵跟在每个人的屁股后面，就‘使得’那些个人‘自动行事’”的状态。从这一角度来说，如果仅仅抓住压迫而放过了对剥削的分析，就无法洞悉内在于资本主义社会中的这一深层运转机制。

Therefore, with the analysis of exploitation in capitalist society as the main axis, Althusser emphasizes studying capitalist society from the perspective of “reproduction,” and his analysis of the mechanisms of power and their modes of operation in capitalist society is always closely linked to the problem of reproduction. In his view, for any social formation to exist continuously, it must be able to ceaselessly reproduce itself in the production process; once the chain of social reproduction is broken, a particular social formation will collapse. Hence, the continuous existence of a particular social formation necessarily requires that it can continuously provide the conditions of production needed for its production activities. According to Marx’s analysis of productive forces and relations of production, the conditions of production referred to here do not simply mean the means of production to be invested in the reproduction process, but also include labor power and specific relations of production. If there are sufficient means of production but no qualified labor power, or if there are no relations of production adapted to production, such as relations of ownership, then specific reproduction activities cannot proceed continuously. It is in this sense that Althusser discovers that, to ensure the stability of their state and society, the bourgeoisie must not only produce sufficient means of production but also continuously reproduce qualified labor power suited to the capitalist mode of production and appropriate relations of production.

因此，以洞悉资本主义社会中的剥削问题为主轴，阿尔都塞强调要从“再生产”的视角出发研究资本主义社会，对资本主义社会中的权力机制及其运作方式的分析，也始终与再生产问题紧密联系在一起。在他看来，任何一种社会形态要想持续性存在，都必须能够在生产过程中持续不断地再生产出自身，一旦社会再生产的链条发生断裂，某种特定的社会形态便会土崩瓦解。因此，某种特定社会形态的持续存在，必然要求其能够持续性地提供其生产活动所需的生产条件。根据马克思对生产力和生产关系的分析，这里所讲的生产条件并不单纯指用以投入再生产过程的生产资料，同时也包括劳动力和特定的生产关系。如果只有足量的生产资料而没有合格的劳动力，或没有与生产相适应的生产关系如所有制关系的话，特定的再生产活动也无法持续性进行。正是在这一意义上，阿尔都塞发现，资产阶级要想保障其国家和社会的稳定，就不仅要生产出足量的生产资料，而且必须不断再生产出适合于资本主义生产方式的合格劳动力以及恰当的生产关系。

It is precisely by exploring how to ensure that qualified labor power and appropriate relations of production can be continuously reproduced that Althusser discovers that, in addition to the well-known repressive state apparatuses represented by the state, government, police, military, etc., there is also a set of hidden ideological state apparatuses that play a role in ensuring the reproduction of the conditions of capitalist production. From the perspective of labor power, under capitalist conditions, “the reproduction of the qualification of labor power tends (this involves a tendency law) no longer to be ensured ‘on the spot in practice’ (in the apprenticeship of production itself), but more and more outside production, through the capitalist educational system and other institutions at various levels.” [10]10 Althusser, “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses,” p. 53. Here, the ideological state apparatuses perform the function of continuously providing qualified workers for the capitalist production process. The ideological state apparatus of the school system, on the one hand, equips workers with the qualified labor skills suited to capitalist production activities, and on the other hand, familiarizes workers in advance with and adapts them to the discipline and rules of capitalist production. From the perspective of the reproduction of relations of production, in a series of ideological state apparatuses—schools, families, churches, trade unions, publishing and distribution, etc.—people are not forced under oppression and repression to accept a system of institutions, laws, morals, and ideas adapted to capitalist relations of production; rather, in the process of “freely” participating in the operation of these apparatuses, they “automatically” accept the dominant ideology. “Those apparatuses seem to function ‘automatically,’ not by resorting to violence, but in practice through means different from violence, that is, through ideology, or more precisely, through ideologization.” [11]11 Althusser, “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses,” p. 189. Of course, Althusser also emphasizes that, in concrete practice, there may not be a strict, mutually exclusive distinction between repressive state apparatuses and ideological state apparatuses; repressive state apparatuses sometimes function through ideology, and the operation of ideological state apparatuses sometimes depends on repressive force for their guarantee. However, whether repressive state apparatuses or ideological state apparatuses, they ultimately function in different ways to reproduce labor power and relations of production, serving the continuous reproduction of the capitalist mode of production.

正是通过探究如何保障合格的劳动力和恰当的生产关系能够被不断再生产出来这一问题，阿尔都塞发现，除了人们所熟悉的以国家、政府、警察、军队等为代表的镇压性国家机器外，还有一套隐而不显的意识形态国家机器，在保障资本主义生产条件的再生产方面发挥着作用。从劳动力的角度来说，在资本主义条件下，“劳动力合格能力的再生产，倾向于(这涉及某种倾向性规律)不再(在生产本身的学徒期中)‘通过现场实践’而得到保障，而是越来越多地在生产之外，通过资本主义的教育系统以及其他层级的机构来完成”。在这里，意识形态国家机器发挥了不断为资本主义生产过程提供合格劳动者的功能。学校教育系统这一意识形态国家机器，一方面使劳动者具有了适合于资本主义生产活动的合格劳动技能，另一方面也使劳动者提前熟悉并适应资本主义的生产纪律和生产规矩。从生产关系再生产的角度来说，在学校的、家庭的、教会的、工会的、出版发行的等一系列意识形态国家机器中，人们并不是在压迫和镇压之下被强制接受一套与资本主义生产关系相适应的制度、法律、道德、观念体系，而是在“自由地”参与这些国家机器运转的过程中“自动地”接受占统治地位的意识形态。“那些机器看起来‘自动’发挥功能，不是诉诸暴力，而是在实际上通过不同于暴力的手段，即通过意识形态或更确切地说通过意识形态化而发挥功能。”当然，阿尔都塞同时也强调，在具体实践中，镇压性国家机器和意识形态国家机器之间可能并不存在一种非此即彼、严格对立的区分，镇压性国家机器有时也会通过意识形态来发挥作用，意识形态国家机器的运转有时也要依赖镇压性力量来得到保障。不过，无论是镇压性国家机器还是意识形态国家机器，最终都是以不同方式来发挥再生产劳动力和生产关系的功能，并服务于资本主义生产方式的不断再生产。

On the basis of the above analysis, Althusser points out that grasping, in a descriptive manner, a series of oppressive facts directly observable in capitalist society as the rule of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat, and “expressing the state as a pure instrument of rule and repression serving certain goals, that is, a pure instrument of the conscious will of the ruling class,” [12]12 Althusser, “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses,” p. 66. at most describes the surface appearance of power operations in capitalist society. It is precisely this analysis that remains at the level of describing appearances that has led many Marxists to fail to properly connect these power mechanisms with the exploitative facts behind them. However, when we examine these operating mechanisms from the perspective of the reproduction of the conditions of capitalist production, we find that the functions performed by repressive state apparatuses and ideological state apparatuses are to ensure the reproduction of the conditions of capitalist production. Moreover, the roles played by both repressive state apparatuses and ideological state apparatuses are actually concrete manifestations of the operation of power in capitalist society, that is, the operation of capital power. Thus, we “move from a still descriptive theory to a more ‘theoretical’ theory. This theory, through the operation of ideological state apparatuses, and through the fact that the reproduction of relations of production ensured by ideological state apparatuses is largely achieved by ensuring the operation of the relations of production themselves, reveals to us the precise complexity of the intricate relationship between the superstructure and the base.” [13]13 Althusser, “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses,” p. 67.

以上述分析为基础，阿尔都塞指出，我们以描述性方式将在资本主义社会中所能够直观到的一系列压迫性事实把握为资产阶级对无产阶级的统治，以及“把国家表达为为某些目标服务的统治和镇压的纯粹工具，即统治阶级有意识的意志的纯粹工具”,至多只是描述了资本主义社会中的权力运作表象。正是这种停留于表象描述的分析导致很多马克思主义者未能真正将这些权力机制与其背后的剥削事实恰当地联系起来。而当我们将这些运作机制置于资本主义生产条件再生产的视域中进行考察时就会发现，镇压性国家机器和意识形态国家机器所发挥的功能是保障资本主义生产条件的再生产，而且无论是镇压性国家机器还是意识形态国家机器所发挥的作用，实际上都是资本主义社会中的权力运作即资本权力运作的具体表现。由此，我们“从一种仍然是描述性的理论过渡到了一种更‘理论的’理论。这种理论通过意识形态国家机器的运作，通过意识形态国家机器保障生产关系的再生产在很大程度上是通过保障生产关系本身的运作来实现的这一事实，向我们揭示了上层建筑和下层建筑之间错综复杂关系的精确复杂性”。

III. A Theory of Power Mediated through Althusser

三、经由阿尔都塞中介的权力理论

Foucault’s research method determines that his study of the problem of power is primarily descriptive. Faced with this problem, Althusser, by constructing a discourse of reproduction analysis, makes it possible for a descriptive theory of the problem of power in capitalist society to ascend to theory itself. Using Althusser’s analytical method as a mediation, and reflecting on Foucault’s research on the problem of power in modern society, we can gradually construct a rational form of the theory of capital power.

福柯的研究方式决定了其对权力问题的研究主要是描述性的。面对这一问题，阿尔都塞通过建构再生产的分析话语，使有关资本主义社会权力问题的描述性理论上升为理论本身成为可能。以阿尔都塞的分析方式为中介，反思福柯围绕现代社会权力问题所作的研究，我们可以逐步建构一种合理形态的资本权力理论。

First, through the theoretical mediation of Althusser, we can discover that the new type of power studied by Foucault actually has considerable relevance to a form of capital power that serves the capitalist mode of production. Foucault grasped the entirely new connotations of the mode of power operation in modern society in areas untouched by traditional theories of power and politics. On the one hand, he found that power does not operate solely on the basis of reason but can also directly act upon the life-characteristics of human beings, including the human body and the biological characteristics and laws of the population as a whole. In this process, power performs the functions of discipline and governance by directly acting upon human life. On the other hand, he also proposed that power does not have only a negative connotation—that is, power is not merely restrictive—but also has a productive connotation. Specifically, by acting upon human life, power also produces knowledge and shapes subjects and their behavior in rational, psychological, and ethical senses. Although Foucault himself did not intend to answer questions about the source of power or whom power belongs to on this basis, from the perspective of analyzing the capitalist mode of production, especially from the viewpoint of the reproduction of the conditions of capitalist production, many of the new power techniques Foucault proposed function to a certain extent to support the operation of the capitalist mode of production and ensure that the conditions of capitalist production can be continuously reproduced. Therefore, the operational mechanisms and main characteristics of the new type of power described by Foucault are, in a certain sense, also the modes of operation and characteristics of the repressive state apparatus and ideological state apparatuses as grasped by Althusser. From this perspective, the power described by Foucault contains profound implications of capital power; his theory of power, constructed through the study of biopolitics, is actually an important component of a theory of power that grasps the main characteristics and modes of operation of capital power. Therefore, through a critical reflection on the mechanisms of power operation in capitalist society, what we need to construct is not a theory of power concerning so-called pure power relations unrelated to exploitation and capital valorization, but rather, based on the perspective of reproduction, a theory of power and biopolitics concerning capital power.

其一，经由阿尔都塞的理论中介，我们可以发现，福柯所研究的新型权力实际上与一种服务于资本主义生产方式的资本权力存在相当大的相关性。福柯在传统的权力理论和政治理论没有触及的领域中把握到了现代社会中权力运行方式的全新内涵。一方面，他发现权力并不仅仅在理性的基础上运作，而且可以直接作用于人的生命性特征，包括人的肉体以及作为整体的人口所具有的生物性特征和生物性规律。在这一过程中，权力通过直接作用于人的生命而发挥了规训、治理的功能。另一方面，他还提出，权力并不仅仅具有否定性内涵，即权力并不只是限制，而是也具有生产性内涵。具体而言，通过作用于人的生命，权力也生产了知识，塑造了理性意义上的、心理意义上的和伦理意义上的主体及其行为。尽管福柯本人并不打算在此基础上回答权力的来源、权力为谁所有等问题，但是基于对资本主义生产方式的分析，尤其是从资本主义生产条件的再生产这一视角来看，福柯所提出的很多新型权力技术在一定程度上都发挥着支撑资本主义生产方式的运行、保障资本主义的生产条件能够不断被再生产出来的功能。因而福柯所描述的新型权力的运作机制及其主要特征，从一定意义上讲也就是阿尔都塞所把握到的镇压性国家机器和意识形态国家机器的运行方式及其特征。从这一角度来说，福柯所描述的权力蕴含着深厚的资本权力意蕴；他经由生命政治学研究所建构的权力理论，实际上也是一种把握资本权力之主要特征和运行方式的权力理论的重要构成部分。所以通过批判性反思资本主义社会中的权力运行机制，我们所要建构的不是一种与剥削和资本增殖无涉的、所谓关于纯粹权力关系的权力理论，而是要基于再生产的视角，建构一种关于资本权力的权力理论和生命政治理论。

Therefore, constructing a rational form of the theory of capital power first requires us to rationally position the essence of power in capitalist society. That is, based on the foundational position of exploitation and the logic of capital in the capitalist mode of production, it is necessary to establish an internal connection between the various complex mechanisms of power operation embedded in capitalist society and exploitation. In fact, with the development of capitalist society, especially the rapid development of digital technology in recent years, a series of new control methods based on new technological means have gradually emerged. However, when many scholars engage in critical reflection on contemporary capitalist society, they gradually move toward a simple critique of digital technology, neglecting that many social problems people face in the era of digital capitalism are largely related to the capitalist application of digital technology. Scholars such as Byung-Chul Han attempt to extend Martin Heidegger’s basic approach to the critique of technology to analyze the new forms of power operation in the era of digital capitalism. While these studies can indeed help us discover new power mechanisms reliant on digital technology, because they fail to locate the root of the problem in exploitation and the logic of capital, instead locating it in digital technology itself, they often tend toward a purely technological critique, missing the direction of criticizing capitalist exploitation. In fact, this deviates from the correct path to solving the problems of digital capitalism. Although a series of new forms of power control are closely related to digital technology, it must also be recognized that the rapid development of digital technology has brought us rapid development of productive forces and new possibilities for achieving liberation. Therefore, the critique of digital capital must never be confused with the critique of digital technology; rather, the theory of capital power must be constructed starting from capitalist exploitation and the logic of capital.

因此，构建一种合理形态的资本权力理论，首先需要我们对资本主义社会中权力的实质进行合理定位，即基于剥削和资本逻辑在资本主义生产方式中的根基性地位，有必要将蕴含在资本主义社会中的诸种复杂权力运作机制同剥削建立起内在联系。事实上，随着资本主义社会的发展，尤其是近年来数字技术的快速发展，一系列基于新技术手段的新控制方式逐渐产生。而很多学者在对当代资本主义社会展开批判性反思时，逐渐走向了单纯对数字技术的批判，而忽视了数字资本主义时代人们所面临的很多社会问题在很大程度上与数字技术的资本主义应用有关。韩炳哲等学者试图延续马丁·海德格尔关于技术批判的基本思路，据此来分析数字资本主义时代的新型权力运作形式。这些研究确实能够帮助我们发现依托于数字技术的新型权力机制，但由于它们未能将问题的根源定位于剥削和资本逻辑之上，而是定位在了数字技术身上，所以往往会走向单纯的技术批判，而错过了资本剥削批判这一方向。事实上，这就偏离了破解数字资本主义问题的正确道路。尽管一系列新的权力控制方式与数字技术有着密切联系，但也要看到数字技术的快速发展为我们带来了生产力的快速发展，也带来了实现解放的新的可能性。因而决不能将数字资本批判同数字技术批判相混淆，而是要从资本主义的剥削和资本逻辑出发来建构资本权力理论。

Second, from Althusser’s theoretical perspective, the concept of war that Foucault uses to study the problem of power, to a certain extent, expresses class struggle in theoretical form. By rejecting the so-called economic analysis of power and replacing the problem of exploitation with the problem of oppression, Foucault believes that his study of power has broken free from the discourse of Marxist class analysis and reversed the traditional understanding of war. In his view, “Power is war. It is the continuation of war by other means. Thus, we now invert Clausewitz’s proposition and say that politics is the continuation of war by other means.” [14]14 Michel Foucault, *Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975–1976*, trans. David Macey (New York: Picador, 2003), 15. Foucault inverts Carl von Clausewitz’s famous dictum that “war is the continuation of politics by other means.” However, from the perspective of exploitation and the capitalist mode of production, the reason capitalism must continuously reproduce productive forces and relations of production suited to it is closely related to class struggle. On the one hand, the bourgeoisie engages in class struggle with the pre-capitalist feudal class and the feudal mode of production; on the other hand, it continuously engages in class struggle with the proletariat and modes of production that transcend capitalism. It is these two aspects of class struggle that compel the bourgeoisie to simultaneously exercise the dual functions of the repressive state apparatus and ideological state apparatuses, in order to ensure that suitable conditions of production can be continuously reproduced, thereby ensuring that the process of exploitation can continue. Fundamentally, their goal in winning the class struggle is to prevent the capitalist mode of production from being replaced by another mode of production. Therefore, placing the proposition “power is war” within the discourse of class struggle, we find that not only does the power described by Foucault begin to show certain implications of capital power, but the war he emphasizes as determining power is also significantly related to class struggle. The continuity and long-term nature of this war have already been clearly expressed by Marx and Engels in the *Communist Manifesto*: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” [15]15 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto* (1848), opening line of Chapter 1.

其二，从阿尔都塞的理论视角看，福柯用以研究权力问题的战争概念，在一定程度上是以理论的方式表述了阶级斗争。通过拒斥所谓的对权力的经济分析，以及以压迫问题代替剥削问题，福柯认为，他对权力问题的研究摆脱了马克思主义的阶级分析话语，并颠倒了对战争的传统理解。在他看来，“权力就是战争。它是通过其他方法继续的战争。这样，现在，我们把克劳塞维茨的命题翻转过来，我们说，政治是通过其他方法继续的战争”。但从剥削和资本主义生产方式的角度来看，资本主义之所以要不断再生产出与其相适应的生产力和生产关系，与阶级斗争密切相关。资产阶级一方面与前资本主义的封建阶级以及封建主义生产方式展开阶级斗争，另一方面不断与无产阶级以及超越资本主义的生产方式展开阶级斗争。正是这两方面的阶级斗争迫使资产阶级必须同时发挥镇压性国家机器和意识形态国家机器的双重功能，以保障合适的生产条件能够不断被再生产出来，从而保障剥削的过程能够持续进行。从根本上讲，他们要赢得阶级斗争胜利的目的，就是要避免资本主义生产方式被另一种生产方式所替代。因此，将“权力就是战争”这一命题置于阶级斗争的话语中，我们就会发现，不仅福柯所描述的权力开始呈现出了一定的资本权力意蕴，而且他所强调的这种决定了权力的战争，实际上也与阶级斗争有着重要关联。这一战争的持续性和长期性实际上已经由马克思恩格斯在《共产党宣言》中进行了明确表达：“至今一切社会的历史都是阶级斗争的历史。”

It is in this sense that constructing a rational form of the theory of capital power cannot merely stop at the level of understanding human beings and their life-characteristics, nor can it thereby reject the discourse of class analysis opened up by Marx. Instead, it must proceed from the Marxist standpoint, viewpoint, and method, recognizing that the concept of the real individual in Marx’s context not only concerns the human body and life existence but also concerns the class existence of human beings. As Marx pointed out in the *Introduction to a Critique of Political Economy*: “If I were to leave out the classes that constitute the population, the population would be an abstraction.” [16]16 Karl Marx, *Introduction to a Critique of Political Economy* (1857), in *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*, trans. N. I. Stone (Chicago: Charles H. Kerr, 1904), 265. In Marx’s view, “‘real individuals’ are subordinate to ‘class’; ‘class’ determines ‘real individuals’; compared to ‘real individuals,’ ‘class’ better reveals Marx’s value stance and analytical method.” [17]17 The author cites a Chinese secondary source here; the quotation is rendered from the original Chinese text. Therefore, through the theoretical mediation of Althusser, what we need to construct is not a theory of power that merely focuses on power relations or war relations between people, nor a theory that merely focuses on the biological characteristics of human beings, but rather a theory of power and biopolitics concerning class, built on the basis of Marx’s discourse of class analysis.

正是在这一意义上，建构一种合理形态的资本权力理论，不能仅仅停留在对人、对人的生命性特征的理解这一层面上，不能因此而拒绝马克思所开辟的阶级分析话语，而是要从马克思主义的立场、观点、方法出发，意识到马克思语境中的现实的人的概念不仅关注人的肉体和生命性存在，而且关注人的阶级存在。正如马克思在《〈政治经济学批判〉导言》中所指出的：“抛开构成人口的阶级，人口就是一个抽象。”在马克思这里，“‘现实的个人’从属于‘阶级’,‘阶级’决定着‘现实的个人’,相对于‘现实的个人’,‘阶级’更能彰显出马克思的价值立场与分析方法”。所以经由阿尔都塞的理论中介，我们所要建构的不是一种单纯关注人与人之间的权力关系或战争关系的权力理论、一种单纯关注人的生物性特征的理论，而是一种建立在马克思的阶级分析话语基础之上的关于阶级的权力理论和生命政治学理论。

Third, by introducing concepts such as the reproduction of the conditions of capitalist production, exploitation, and class struggle, we will further discover that the development process from governmentalism to liberalism grasped by Foucault actually coincides with the formation and development process of the capitalist mode of production. The concepts of the naturalness of society and the naturalness of population that liberal governmentality focuses on are merely ideological notions shaped by the bourgeoisie through ideological state apparatuses to conform to capitalist relations of production. As Marx reveals in *Capital*: “Formulas which bear it stamped upon them in unmistakable manner that they belong to a state of society in which the process of production has the mastery over man, instead of being controlled by him, such formulas appear to the bourgeois intellect to be as much a self-evident necessity imposed by Nature as productive labour itself.” [18]18 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 23 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1972), p. 98. [Translator’s note: The English translation follows the standard Moore-Aveling edition, with slight adjustments to match the Chinese citation.] This ideology treats the capitalist mode of production as an eternal and necessary law transcending human history, understands a series of social laws and population laws belonging to the capitalist era as the so-called natural premises of society and population, and further strives to safeguard the continuous reproduction process of capitalism by defending these laws. From this perspective, the history of the development of power itself that Foucault attempts to extract by breaking away from economic analysis is in fact still the history of the development of the capitalist mode of production — the history of the capitalist mode of production continuously reproducing itself and attempting to maintain its own stability.

其三，通过引入资本主义生产条件的再生产、剥削、阶级斗争等概念，我们将进一步发现，福柯所把握到的管治主义向自由主义的发展过程，实际上与资本主义生产方式的形成和发展过程是相契合的。而自由主义治理术所关注的所谓社会的自然性、人口的自然性等概念，不过是资产阶级通过意识形态国家机器塑造出来的与资本主义生产关系相符合的意识形态观念。正如马克思在《资本论》中所揭示的：“一些公式本来在额上写着，它们是属于生产过程支配人而人还没有支配生产过程的那种社会形态的，但在政治经济学的资产阶级意识中，它们竟像生产劳动本身一样，成了不言而喻的自然必然性。”这种意识形态把资本主义生产方式当作超越人类历史的永恒的必然性规律，把一系列属于资本主义时代的社会规律和人口规律理解为所谓社会和人口的自然性前提，并进一步力图通过捍卫这些规律来保障资本主义再生产过程的持续不断进行。从这一角度来说，福柯试图摆脱经济分析而抽取出的所谓权力本身的发展历史，实际上依然是资本主义生产方式的发展历史，是资本主义生产方式不断再生产自身并试图保持自身稳定的历史。

Therefore, constructing a rational form of capital power theory cannot, as Foucault does, regard liberal governmentality as a mature and complete set of power techniques and attempt to base socialist society on liberal governmentality as well. Foucault’s later research on liberal governmentality tries to view liberalism as an art of governance rather than a political theory or ideology. Consequently, he criticizes socialism for not having formed a mature and autonomous socialist governmentality, considers this to have led to the failure of socialism in social governance, and even proposes that liberal governmentality should be fully applied in socialist society. In response, on the one hand, we must recognize that so-called liberal governmentality is merely a specific governance technique effective only during the particular historical period of the capitalist stage, not a universal governance technique applicable to all social formations; therefore, it cannot be simply and directly grafted onto socialism. On the other hand, we must also see that a genuine problem of state governance is indeed implied here — the problem Althusser recognized when distinguishing between the concepts of state power and state apparatus: after the proletariat seizes state power, the original bourgeois state apparatus may continue to exist for a long time; if the proletariat cannot replace the bourgeois state apparatus with a proletarian state apparatus, then the proletariat may continue to reproduce the original bourgeois elements in the process of exercising power. Althusser also discovered this problem in his analysis of the Russian Revolution and indicated that Lenin himself remained highly attentive to the fact that the bourgeois state apparatus had not yet been completely destroyed after the proletariat seized power. [19]19 This refers to Althusser’s analysis in *Lenin and Philosophy* and other works, where he argues that the Bolsheviks after the October Revolution failed to fully dismantle the Tsarist state apparatus, leading to the persistence of bureaucratic and authoritarian elements in the Soviet system. Therefore, from this perspective, constructing a rational form of capital power theory cannot simply regard liberal governmentality as the sole example of successful social governance techniques; rather, starting from the goal of establishing a proletarian state apparatus that transcends the bourgeois state apparatus, we must explore rational governance methods suitable for socialism and even higher social formations. In fact, this is also an important issue that China needs to pay attention to in advancing its modernization process.

因此，建构一种合理形态的资本权力理论，不能像福柯那样将自由主义治理术视为一套成熟的、完善的权力技术，并试图将社会主义社会也建立在自由主义治理术之上。福柯后期对自由主义治理术的研究，试图把自由主义看作一种治理技艺，而不是一种政治理论或意识形态。由此，他批判社会主义并没有形成一套成熟的、自主的社会主义治理术，认为这导致了社会主义在社会治理上的失败，甚至提出应该在社会主义社会中也充分运用自由主义治理术。对此，我们一方面要看到，所谓自由主义治理术实际上只是在资本主义阶段这一特定历史时期内有效的特定的治理技术，而非适用于一切社会形态的普遍性治理技术，因而不能简单地将社会主义与自由主义治理术直接对接；另一方面，我们也要看到，这里确实隐含着一个真实的国家治理问题，即阿尔都塞在区分国家政权和国家机器两个概念时所意识到的问题：在无产阶级夺取国家政权后，原有的资产阶级的国家机器可能依然会长期存在，如果不能以无产阶级的国家机器代替资产阶级的国家机器，那么无产阶级在执政过程中可能会继续将原有的资产阶级要素进一步生产出来。阿尔都塞在对俄国革命的分析中同样发现了这一问题，并表明列宁本人也对无产阶级夺取政权后尚未彻底摧毁资产阶级国家机器这一点时刻保持高度关注。所以从这一角度来说，建构一种合理形态的资本权力理论，不能简单地将自由主义治理术视为唯一成功的社会治理技术的范例，而是要从建立一种超越资产阶级国家机器的无产阶级国家机器的目的出发，探索适合于社会主义以及更进一步的社会形态的合理治理方式。事实上，这也是中国在推进现代化建设进程中需要注意的重要问题。

In summary, the new type of power studied by Foucault actually has a strong coloring of capital power serving the capitalist mode of production; the concept of war he uses to study power issues also constitutes, to a certain extent, a theoretical expression of class struggle; and the liberal governmentality he focuses on is actually a specific strategy for the capitalist mode of production to continuously reproduce itself and attempt to maintain its own stability. On this basis, we must fully recognize that issues of power relations in capitalist society often have the substantive connotation of capital power; we must, based on Marx’s class discourse, pay attention to “class” — an expression of the social life of human beings — in power theory; and we must further explore how to construct a rational proletarian state apparatus, that is, to explore socialist state and social governance methods different from liberal governmentality. These will provide important theoretical insights for constructing a rational form of power theory on the basis of Marx’s standpoint, viewpoint, and method.

总的来说，福柯所研究的新型权力实际上具有浓厚的服务于资本主义生产方式的资本权力色彩；他用以研究权力问题的战争概念，也在一定程度上构成阶级斗争的理论表达；而其所关注的自由主义治理术，实际上是资本主义生产方式不断再生产自身并试图保持自身稳定的具体策略。在此基础上，我们要充分认识到，资本主义社会中的权力关系问题往往都具有资本权力这一实质性内涵；要基于马克思的阶级话语，在权力理论中关注“阶级”这一关于人的社会生命的表达；要进一步探索如何建构一种合理的无产阶级国家机器，即探索不同于自由主义治理术的社会主义国家和社会治理方式。这些将为我们在马克思的立场、观点、方法的基础上建构一种合理形态的权力理论提供重要的理论启示。