Advancing Through Reflection and Critique, Debate and Reconstruction — Trends in Overseas Marxist Studies in 2025

At present, the global ecological crisis continues to intensify, the technological revolution accelerates, gender and racial issues in Western societies become increasingly prominent, and the clash of ideas and cultures is unprecedented. Against this backdrop, overseas Marxist studies in 2025 have continuously expanded and deepened around these themes through reflection and critique, debate and reconstruction. It is precisely through this reflection and critique, debate and reconstruction that the explanatory power, critical force, and practical creativity of theory itself are internally accumulated and enhanced.

当下，全球生态危机持续加剧，科技革命加速推进，西方社会性别和种族问题日益突出，思想文化的激荡前所未有。在此背景下，2025年国外马克思主义研究围绕上述主题在反思与批判、争论与重构中不断拓展和深化。正是通过这种反思与批判、争论与重构，理论本身的解释力、批判力以及实践创造力才得到内在的积蓄和提升。

I. Research on the Social Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School

一、法兰克福学派社会批判理论研究

In recent years, scholarly research on the social critical theory of the Frankfurt School has gradually increased, broadly falling into two categories: one is expansionary research conducted from within critical theory, and the other is critical research conducted from outside critical theory. The main subjects of the former are scholars from the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research and its closely cooperating institutions (such as Goethe University Frankfurt, the Berlin Center for Social Critique at Humboldt University of Berlin, and the New School for Social Research in New York), while the main subjects of the latter are experts and scholars from other universities and research institutions. The former type of research focuses on affirmative analysis and positive reconstruction of critical theory, while the latter type is more diverse and scattered, encompassing both affirmative analysis and systematic critique. Specifically, some scholars believe that the spirit and methods embodied in critical theory still hold outstanding value in the current era and should be explored and excavated in depth from multiple angles. At the same time, other scholars argue that critical theory increasingly reveals obvious theoretical defects and shortcomings, subjecting it to systematic critique and offering constructive opinions and suggestions regarding its theoretical aims and future direction of development.

近年来，学界对于法兰克福学派社会批判理论的研究逐渐增多，大致可以分为两类：一类是批判理论内部进行的拓展性研究，另一类则是外部对批判理论展开的批判性研究。前者的研究主体主要是法兰克福社会研究所及其密切合作机构（如法兰克福歌德大学、柏林洪堡大学社会批判中心、纽约社会研究新学院等）的学者，后者的研究主体则主要是其他一些大学和研究机构的专家学者。前一种研究侧重于对批判理论的肯定性分析和积极重构，后一类研究则更分散和多样，既有肯定性分析，也有系统性批判。具体来说，一些学者认为批判理论蕴含的精神和方法在当今时代仍具有突出价值，应进行多角度的深入探讨和挖掘。同时，也有学者认为批判理论日益暴露出明显的理论缺陷和不足，对其进行了系统性批判，并就其理论旨趣和未来发展方向提出了一些建设性意见和建议。

(1) Exploring the Contemporary Value of Critical Theory

（一）探寻批判理论的时代价值

The Frankfurt Institute for Social Research, founded in 1923, is the birthplace of the Frankfurt School's social critical theory. However, today the research base for critical theory is no longer limited to the Institute for Social Research but also includes other universities and research institutions with close cooperative ties to it, and a number of representative critical theorists and well-known scholars have emerged. They are committed to inheriting and developing the tradition of critical theory and actively responding to the issues of the times. These research institutions hold a series of academic seminars, lectures, and publish series of works each year. In 2025, works by several representatives of the Frankfurt School were published, such as Theodor Adorno's *Lectures 1946–1968* (Volumes 1 and 2), Rahel Jaeggi's *Progress and Regression* (English edition), and Hartmut Rosa's *Time and the World*. At the same time, the aforementioned institutions held a series of academic activities, with themes mainly including the history of the Frankfurt School from a feminist perspective, the contemporary value of the critical theory of first-generation Frankfurt School representatives (such as Max Horkheimer, Adorno, and Erich Fromm), antisemitism and racism, and social crisis and social solidarity. Among these, the excavation of the contemporary value of the critical theory of Frankfurt School representatives occupied a prominent position. For example, at a seminar at Humboldt University, Frankfurt School social critical theorist and senior researcher at the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, Alex Demirović, along with Rahel Jaeggi, Professor of Political and Social Philosophy at Humboldt University and Director of the Berlin Center for Social Critique, and Robin Celikates, Professor of Social Philosophy at the Free University of Berlin and Deputy Director of the Berlin Center for Social Critique, deeply explored the guiding significance of Horkheimer and Adorno's views on antisemitism in *Dialectic of Enlightenment* for analyzing contemporary racism. At related seminars, Rainer Funk, the first director of the Erich Fromm Foundation, and Barbara Umrath, a long-term cooperating scholar with the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research and Professor of Gender Studies at the Cologne University of Applied Sciences, discussed Fromm's critical views on gender issues, which provide insights for understanding the anti-feminist stance of traditional patriarchal nuclear families and its resurgence in the contemporary era. Overall, these scholars strive to excavate the profound connotations and contemporary value of early Frankfurt School social critical theory, aiming to promote the revival of critical theory in the present day, which also demonstrates the inherent theoretical self-awareness of critical theory.

成立于1923年的法兰克福社会研究所是法兰克福学派社会批判理论的发源地。然而，今天批判理论的研究基地已不仅限于社会研究所，还包括其他一些与其有密切合作关系的大学和研究机构，并诞生了一批有代表性的批判理论家和知名学者。他们致力于继承和发扬批判理论传统，积极回应时代问题。这些研究机构每年都会召开系列学术研讨会，举办系列讲座，同时出版系列著作。2025年，一些法兰克福学派代表人物的著作相继出版，如阿多诺的《讲座1946-1968》（第一、二卷）、拉赫尔·耶吉（RahelJaeggi）的《进步与倒退》（英文版）、哈特穆特·罗萨（HartmutRosa）的《时间与世界》等。同时，上述机构还举行了一系列学术活动，主题主要包括女性主义视域下的法兰克福学派发展史、初代法兰克福学派代表人物（如霍克海默、阿多诺、弗洛姆等）批判理论的时代价值、反犹主义和种族主义、社会危机与社会团结等，其中对法兰克福学派代表人物批判理论时代价值的挖掘占据了重要地位。如法兰克福学派社会批判理论家、罗莎·卢森堡基金会高级研究员亚历克斯·德米罗维奇（Alex Demirovic'）Demirovic'） 、柏林洪堡大学政治与社会哲学教授兼社会批判中心主任拉赫尔·耶吉、柏林自由大学社会哲学教授兼社会批判中心副主任罗宾·切利卡特斯（RobinCelikates）等在洪堡大学的一次研讨会上，深入探讨了霍克海默和阿多诺在《启蒙辩证法》中关于反犹主义的观点对于分析当代种族主义问题具有的指导意义；埃里希·弗洛姆基金会首任主任莱纳·芬克（RainerFunk）、法兰克福社会研究所长期合作学者及科隆应用技术大学性别研究教授芭芭拉·乌姆拉斯（BarbaraUmrath）等在相关研讨会上讨论了弗洛姆在性别问题上的批判性观点，该观点为理解传统父权制核心家庭的反女权主义立场及其在当代的回潮提供了启示。总的来看，这些学者力图挖掘早期法兰克福学派社会批判理论的深刻内涵及其时代价值，旨在推动批判理论在当代的复兴，这也展现了批判理论的内在理论自觉。

Similarly, outside the Frankfurt School, a group of scholars also fully affirm the intrinsic value of Frankfurt School social critical theory and emphasize that the current era urgently needs to fully unleash the liberating function of critical theory. Lukas Meisner, a researcher at the Berlin Institute for Critical Theory, in his book *Critical Marxist Theory: Political Autonomy and the Radicalization Project of Modernity*, regards Frankfurt School critical theory as a variant of Marxist theory, calling it "critical Marxist theory" and emphasizing that the aim and value orientation of critical theory is human emancipation. In Meisner's view, this theory is based on the Hegelian Marxism pioneered by Georg Lukács, Karl Korsch, and Antonio Gramsci, insists on analyzing society with a totality method, focuses on ideological critique, and aims to promote the return of emancipatory practice. Meisner points out that over the past few decades, critical Marxist theory has been gradually replaced by postmodernism, which is increasingly liberalized and contemptuous of Marxism. However, today capitalism has fallen into multiple crises, which are destroying the world from economic and ecological, political and cultural, social and spiritual aspects. Therefore, we need critical Marxist theory more than ever before. Of course, Meisner also states that this critical theory must first shed its domesticated character in order to exert its powerful critical and liberating functions.

同样，在法兰克福学派之外也有一批学者充分肯定了法兰克福学派社会批判理论的内在价值，并强调当今时代迫切需要充分发挥批判理论的解放功能。柏林批判理论研究所研究员卢卡斯·迈斯纳（LukasMeisner）在其《批判的马克思主义理论：政治自治与现代性的激进化方案》一书中将法兰克福学派批判理论视为马克思主义理论的一个变体，称之为“批判的马克思主义理论”，强调批判理论的旨趣和价值指向是人类解放。在迈斯纳看来，这种理论以卢卡奇、柯尔施和葛兰西开创的黑格尔主义的马克思主义为基础，坚持以总体性方法分析社会，侧重于意识形态批判，目的是推动解放实践的回归。迈斯纳指出，在过去几十年里，批判的马克思主义理论逐步被日益自由主义化和蔑视马克思主义的后现代主义所取代。然而，今天资本主义陷入了多重危机，这些危机正在从经济和生态、政治和文化、社会和精神等多方面摧毁这个世界。因此，我们比以往任何时候都更需要批判的马克思主义理论。当然，迈斯纳也表示，这种批判理论首先要摆脱被驯化的特征，才能发挥其强大的批判和解放功能。

Lauren Langman, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Sociology at Loyola University Chicago, also believes that in the current era, humanity cannot escape the predicament of crisis and social disorder without the guidance of critical theory. He points out that the Frankfurt School's critical theory is emancipatory, rooted in the Marxist systematic critique of capitalism. Critical theory regards the capitalist system as an exploitative and alienating social system, emphasizing that it must be replaced by a humanistic socialist society, that is, the "sane society" Fromm spoke of, which places human needs first. Langman notes that today our world is becoming increasingly frustrating and hopeless. The legacy of capitalism, especially neoliberalism, has given rise to authoritarian populism, religious nationalism, and various new forms of fascism. This era is, as Gramsci said, "The old is dying and the new cannot be born." [1]1 A phrase from Antonio Gramsci's *Prison Notebooks*, often used to describe a period of interregnum where the old order is decaying but the new order has not yet emerged. However, Langman remains full of confidence and hope for the future, because more and more progressive youth have joined social movements seeking social justice, committed to expanding the rights of the majority, striving for equal economic redistribution, and building a more inclusive society. Based on this, Langman believes that the coming decades will usher in the bright future prophesied by the utopian ideals of critical theory.

美国芝加哥洛约拉大学社会学系名誉教授劳伦·朗曼（LaurenLangman）也认为，当今时代人类要走出危机与社会失序的困境，就离不开批判理论的指引。他指出，法兰克福学派的批判理论是解放性的，植根于马克思主义对资本主义的系统批判。批判理论将资本主义制度视为一种剥削性和异化的社会制度，强调它必须被一种人本主义的社会主义社会即弗洛姆所说的将人类的需求放在首位的“健全社会”所取代。朗曼指出，今天我们的世界变得越来越令人沮丧和绝望。资本主义的遗产特别是新自由主义催生出专制民粹主义、宗教民族主义以及各种新法西斯主义。这个时代正如葛兰西所言，“旧制度垂而不死，新制度一时又不能落地”。然而，朗曼对未来仍充满信心和希望，因为越来越多的进步青年已经加入到寻求社会正义的社会运动中，致力于扩大大多数人的权利，争取平等的经济再分配和建立更具包容性的社会。基于此，朗曼认为，接下来的几十年将迎来批判理论的乌托邦理想所预言的光明未来。

Based on a comprehensive examination of Frankfurt School social critical theory, the above scholars fully affirm that critical theory still holds significant theoretical and practical significance in the current era and can provide necessary spiritual guidance for humanity to escape existential predicaments and achieve emancipation. Based on this, they generally believe that the critical power and emancipatory potential of critical theory should be fully excavated, allowing it to radiate new vitality in the present era.

基于对法兰克福学派社会批判理论的全面审思，以上学者充分肯定了批判理论在当今时代仍具有重要的理论和实践意义，能够为人类摆脱生存困境、获得解放提供必要的精神指引。基于此，他们普遍认为应充分挖掘批判理论具有的批判力量和解放潜力，使其在当今时代焕发出新的生机。

(2) Critique of Critical Theory and Its Reconstruction

（二）对批判理论的批判及其重建

Contrary to the affirmative assessments above, some scholars argue that the social critical theory of the Frankfurt School, and even Western Marxism as a whole, increasingly reveals obvious theoretical defects and inadequacies in the present era. Lois McNay, Professor of Political Theory at the University of Oxford, points out that the priority of Frankfurt School critical theory today is to establish a normative foundation, that is, to identify some constitutive principle on the basis of which people can evaluate and critique specific systems of power. For Habermas this constitutive principle is communication, for Honneth it is recognition, and for Rainer Forst it is justification. McNay argues that one problem arising from this focus on normative foundations is that social critique not only becomes an afterthought but also becomes highly formalized. Here, McNay effectively indicates that the Frankfurt School, with Habermas and his successors, has undergone a normative turn, that critical theory has increasingly shown a tendency toward de-radicalization, and that its critical edge has further weakened. She calls on critical theorists of the Frankfurt School to pay greater attention to its tradition of social critique. Amy Allen, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at Pennsylvania State University, points out in dialogue with McNay that an excessive focus on normative questions is itself problematic, and that seeking a normative foundation beyond context is a mistake. In Allen’s view, such a foundation is unavailable and cannot perform the necessary critical function. Allen emphasizes that if Frankfurt School critical theory is to maintain its political relevance, it needs to be more open and engage more extensively with other forms of critical theory, such as feminist theory, critical race theory, and postcolonial theory. From the above analysis, it can be seen that both McNay and Allen direct their criticism at the normative turn of critical theory, calling for a return to the critical thrust of the first-generation Frankfurt School’s social critical theory and for a further expansion of the scope of dialogue within critical theory.

与上面的肯定性评价相反，部分学者认为法兰克福学派的社会批判理论甚至整个西方马克思主义在当今时代日益暴露出明显的理论缺陷和不足。牛津大学政治理论教授洛伊斯·麦克奈（LoisMcNay）指出，今天法兰克福学派批判理论的优先事项是建立规范基础，即确定某种构成性原则，以便人们可以以此为依据评估和批判特定的权力体系。这种构成性原则在哈贝马斯那里是沟通，在霍耐特那里是承认，在莱纳·福斯特那里是辩护。麦克奈认为，这种对规范基础的关注带来的一个问题就是，社会批判不仅成为事后的想法，而且变得高度程式化。在这里，麦克奈实际上指明了法兰克福学派在哈贝马斯及其之后出现了一种规范性转向，批判理论日益出现了去激进化趋势，其批判性进一步弱化。她呼吁，法兰克福学派的批判理论家需要更加重视其社会批判传统。美国宾夕法尼亚州立大学哲学与性别研究杰出教授艾米·艾伦（AmyAllen）在与麦克奈的对话中指出，对规范性问题过度关注本身就是有问题的，试图寻找超越语境的规范性基础更是一个错误。在艾伦看来，这样的基础是不可用的，无法发挥必要的批判作用。艾伦强调，如果法兰克福学派批判理论还想保持其政治相关性，就需要更加开放，更多地与其他形式的批判理论（如女性主义理论、批判种族主义理论、后殖民主义理论等）接触。由以上分析可以看出，麦克奈和艾伦都将矛头指向了批判理论的规范性转向，呼吁回归第一代法兰克福学派社会批判理论的批判旨趣，并进一步拓展批判理论的对话范围。

Other scholars extend this critical stance from the Frankfurt School to the entire field of Western Marxist studies, offering a critical analysis of the core problems exposed in its development. John Bellamy Foster, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Oregon, points out that Western Marxist theorists not only rejected Soviet Marxism but also the classical Marxism inaugurated by Marx and Engels, as well as Marxism from the Global South. They excluded Marxist political economy and historical studies from their theory, thereby also excluding materialism, ceasing to discuss the proletariat and imperialism, breaking away from the concept of class struggle, and distancing themselves from revolutionary practice. The result is the formation of an exclusionary club, which Lukács called the “Grand Hotel Abyss.” [2]2 “Grand Hotel Abyss” (深渊大酒店) is a metaphor used by the Hungarian Marxist philosopher György Lukács to describe Western intellectuals who, while critically analyzing the crises of bourgeois society, remain comfortably detached from revolutionary practice, observing the “abyss” from a safe distance. Foster argues that while Western Marxism has provided us with rich critical insights, it has also fallen into a fourfold retreat: (1) retreat from class struggle, (2) retreat from the critique of imperialism, (3) retreat from materialism, and (4) retreat from reason. He believes that our current task, in the context of a global crisis, is to restore historical materialism to its important position as a revolutionary theory and to build a socialist society characterized by substantive equality and ecological sustainability. In a certain sense, Foster’s critique of Western Marxism is incisive and irrefutable. Of course, this critique does not amount to total negation, because Foster specifically notes that the “critique” of Western Marxism contains positive elements, and “retreat” does not mean complete “surrender.”

还有部分学者将这种批判立场由法兰克福学派扩展至整个西方马克思主义研究领域，对其在发展过程中暴露出的核心问题进行了批判性分析。美国俄勒冈大学社会学名誉教授约翰·贝拉米·福斯特（JohnBellamyFoster）指出，西方马克思主义理论家们不仅拒绝苏联马克思主义，也拒绝马克思恩格斯开创的经典马克思主义以及全球南方的马克思主义，将马克思主义政治经济学、历史学排除于其理论之外，从而也排除了唯物主义，不再探讨无产阶级和帝国主义问题，脱离了阶级斗争理念，远离了革命实践。其结果就是形成了一个排他性的俱乐部，卢卡奇称之为“深渊大酒店”。福斯特指出，西方马克思主义虽然为我们提供了丰富的批判见解，但也陷入了四重退却：（1）对阶级斗争的退却，（2）对帝国主义批判的退却，（3）对唯物主义的退却，（4）对理性的退却。他认为，当前我们的任务是，在全球性危机的时代背景下恢复历史唯物主义作为革命理论的重要地位，建立实质平等、生态可持续的社会主义社会。在一定意义上说，福斯特对西方马克思主义的批判是切中要害的和无可辩驳的。当然，这种批判并不等于完全否定，因为福斯特特别提到西方马克思主义的“批判”包含了积极因素，“退却”并不意味着完全“投降”。

In sum, whether it is the internal expansionary study of critical theory within the Frankfurt School or the external in-depth examination of critical theory, both are necessary for the development of critical theory itself. Through this kind of critical study, the inner spirit and methods contained in critical theory have been re-examined and explored from multiple angles. Only in this way can critical theory become a doctrine that withstands the test of history and the times.

总之，无论是法兰克福学派内部对批判理论的拓展性研究，还是外部对批判理论的深度考察，对于批判理论本身的发展来说都是必要的。通过这种批判性研究，批判理论所蕴含的内在精神和方法得到了重新审视和多方面发掘，也唯有如此，批判理论才能成为经得起历史和时代考验的学说。

II. Research on Ecological Marxism

二、生态马克思主义研究

Since the 1970s and 1980s, the global ecological crisis has become increasingly severe, and issues of ecology and climate change have become important topics in international academic discussion. As an important school of Western Marxism, research on ecological Marxism has made significant progress in recent years, both in excavating the ideas of classical Marxist writers and in innovating specific viewpoints. Scholars have engaged in a series of discussions around the ecological thought of Marx and Engels, degrowth communism, and the ecological modernization of capitalism.

20世纪七八十年代以来，全球生态危机日益严峻，生态和气候变化问题成为国际学术界讨论的重要议题。作为西方马克思主义的重要流派，近年来，生态马克思主义研究在马克思主义经典作家思想的挖掘和具体观点的创新等方面都取得了明显进展。学者们围绕马克思恩格斯的生态思想、去增长共产主义以及资本主义生态现代化等问题展开了一系列讨论。

(1) Excavation of the Ecological Thought of Marx and Engels

（一）对马克思恩格斯生态思想的挖掘

In recent years, ecological Marxist scholars have placed greater emphasis on excavating and interpreting the relevant ideas of classical Marxist writers. This has not only endowed their theories with richer intellectual content but also provided stronger support for their theoretical frameworks. Some scholars have responded to misunderstandings or deliberate distortions of the relevant ideas of Marx and Engels by excavating ecological ideas from their texts. Ian Angus, editor of the ecosocialist online magazine *Climate & Capitalism* and a founding member of the Global Ecosocialist Network, pointed out in an interview that although Marx never acknowledged himself as an ecologist and the term “ecology” did not even exist at the time, it is wrong to conclude that Marxism has nothing to say about ecological issues. This is because some people have read only a few works by Marx and Engels without delving into more of their texts; in fact, a large number of Marx and Engels’s writings address ecological issues. For example, in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, Marx pointed out that while humans are part of nature, humans change nature, and nature also changes humans. At the same time, in the *Grundrisse* and *Capital*, Marx mentions the concept of “metabolism” and elaborates on it accordingly. Angus uses this to demonstrate that the writings of Marx and Engels contain rich ecological thought. He also fully affirms the contributions of Paul Burkett and John Bellamy Foster in this regard, pointing out that what they have done is precisely to return to Marx’s texts, excavating and elaborating the profound ecological ideas contained in Marx’s works from different angles, which has greatly inspired him personally.

近年来，生态马克思主义学者更加注重对马克思主义经典作家相关思想的挖掘和阐释，这不仅赋予了其理论更丰富的思想内涵，而且使其理论架构得到了更有力的支撑。部分学者通过挖掘马克思恩格斯文本中的生态思想，回应了对马克思恩格斯相关思想的某些误解或刻意曲解。生态社会主义网络杂志《气候与资本主义》编辑、全球生态社会主义网络创始成员伊恩·安格斯（IanAngus）在一次采访中指出，尽管马克思从未承认过自己是生态学家，并且当时“生态”这个词也根本没有出现，但就此认为马克思主义对生态问题无话可说却是错误的。这是因为有些人只读了马克思恩格斯的几部著作而未深入其更多文本，事实上马克思恩格斯的大量著作都涉及生态问题。比如，马克思在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中就指出，虽然人是自然的一部分，但人在改变自然，自然也在改变人。同时，在《政治经济学批判大纲》和《资本论》中，马克思都提到了“新陈代谢”这一概念并进行了相应阐发。安格斯借此证明马克思恩格斯的论著中包含丰富的生态思想。他还充分肯定了保罗·伯克特（PaulBurkett）和约翰·贝拉米·福斯特在这方面的贡献，指出他们所做的正是回到马克思的文本，从不同角度挖掘和阐述马克思著作中包含的深刻的生态思想，这给予他本人很多启发。

John Bellamy Foster, in his multiple works, has deeply excavated and elaborated the ecological thought of the classical Marxist writers, and on this basis has purposefully clarified a series of misunderstandings of Marx and Engels’ relevant ideas and viewpoints, while also criticizing deliberate distortions of certain views of Marx and Engels. In the article “Ecological Marxism and the Liberation of Prometheus,” Foster systematically refutes the view that Marx adhered to a Promethean or industrialist stance. He argues that the main representatives of the first phase of ecosocialist development in the 1980s and 1990s, Ted Benton and John P. Clark, accused Marx and Engels of pursuing a mechanical Prometheanism or hyper-industrialism, thereby labeling historical materialism as productivist and anti-ecological. In short, on environmental issues, they emphasized a break with classical Marxism. As representatives of the second phase of ecosocialist development from the late 1990s to the present, Burkett and Foster are deeply influenced by the thought of Marx and Engels. Foster emphasizes that the purpose of his ecosocialist theory is to reveal Marx’s ecological critique of capitalism, while simultaneously refuting the accusation that “Marx adhered to industrialism and Prometheanism.” In Foster’s view, if Marx adhered to a certain Prometheanism, it was a revolutionary humanist Prometheanism. The difference between these two types of Prometheanism is that the former advocates the unlimited plunder of nature using technology and power as tools, while the latter emphasizes revolutionary enlightenment, the development of the social individual, and harmony between humanity and nature.

约翰·贝拉米·福斯特在其多部著作中深入挖掘和阐述了马克思主义经典作家的生态思想，并在此基础上有针对性地澄清了对马克思恩格斯相关思想观点的一系列误解，也批判了其中对马克思恩格斯某些观点的刻意曲解。在《生态马克思主义与解放的普罗米修斯》一文中，福斯特系统反驳了那种认为马克思坚持普罗米修斯主义或工业主义立场的观点。他认为，20世纪八九十年代生态社会主义发展第一阶段的主要代表人物泰德·本顿（TedBenton）和约翰·P.克拉克（JohnP.Clark），指责马克思恩格斯追求机械的普罗米修斯主义或超工业主义，从而将历史唯物主义贴上生产主义和反生态主义的标签。简言之，在环境问题上，他们强调与经典马克思主义决裂。作为20世纪90年代末至今生态社会主义发展第二阶段的代表人物，伯克特和福斯特深受马克思恩格斯思想的影响。福斯特强调，其生态社会主义理论的目的在于揭示马克思对资本主义的生态批判，同时反驳那种对所谓的“马克思坚持工业主义、普罗米修斯主义”的指控。在福斯特看来，如果说马克思坚持某种普罗米修斯主义，那也是一种革命性的人本主义普罗米修斯主义。这两种普罗米修斯主义的区别在于前者主张以技术和权力为工具无限地掠夺自然，而后者则强调革命性的启蒙、社会个体的发展以及人类与自然之间的和谐。

(2) The Debate on the “Anthropocene” and “Degrowth Communism”

（二）关于“人类世”和“去增长共产主义”的争论

The “Anthropocene” and “degrowth communism” have been key terms in ecological Marxist research in recent years. However, different scholars hold varying attitudes and positions on these two issues, leading to systematic discussions and heated debates.

“人类世”和“去增长共产主义”是近年来生态马克思主义研究的关键词。然而，不同学者在这两个问题上的态度和立场不尽相同，也由此展开了系统讨论和热烈争论。

Ian Angus agrees with the formulations of the “Anthropocene” and “degrowth.” In an interview with *Monthly Review*, he pointed out that over the past ten thousand years, the Earth’s climate has been relatively stable and changed slowly; only in the last century has the atmospheric carbon dioxide content surged, and the speed of climate change has exceeded imagination. Based on this, the concept of the “Anthropocene” was proposed and has been accepted by many disciplines, including earth science and geology. However, there are also those who oppose it. Angus emphasizes that this oppositional stance can easily be exploited by climate change deniers, thereby allowing the climate to continue deteriorating or falling into blind technological optimism. This is precisely the goal of capitalist ideology. On the issue of “degrowth,” Angus points out that while he does not fully agree with Jason Hickel’s views, he believes their basic proposition is correct: we need to regard “degrowth” as a social problem. However, the issue is not simply “degrowth,” but how to redistribute resources to 90% of the world’s people. Angus emphasizes that the contradiction between humanity and nature cannot be resolved under capitalist conditions, because the main driving force of capitalist development is the pursuit of profit and the increase of wealth for a small minority. Only by eliminating the profit motive can we possibly stop capitalism’s large-scale destruction of the environment, which is precisely the goal that socialism strives to achieve. Ecosocialists aim to help people think about this issue and understand what to do, thereby creating a sustainable and better world for humanity.

伊恩·安格斯赞同“人类世”和“去增长”的提法。他在接受《每月评论》采访时指出，在过去的一万多年里，地球气候都相对稳定、变化缓慢，只有到了最近一个世纪，大气中的二氧化碳含量猛增，气候变化的速度之快超乎人们的想象。基于此，“人类世”的概念被提出并已被包括地球科学和地质学在内的许多学科所接受。然而，也有人持反对意见。安格斯强调，这种反对立场很容易被否认气候变化的人所利用，从而放任气候继续恶化，或陷入盲目的技术乐观主义。这正是资本主义意识形态所要达到的目的。关于“去增长”的问题，安格斯指出，虽然他并不完全同意杰森·希克尔（JasonHickel）的观点，但认为其基本主张是正确的，我们需要将“去增长”视为一个社会问题。然而，问题不是简单地“去增长”，而是如何将资源重新分配给世界上90%的人。安格斯强调，在资本主义条件下是无法解决人与自然之间的矛盾的，因为资本主义发展的主要驱动力是赚取利润，增加一小部分人的财富。只有消除利润动机，才可能阻止资本主义对环境的大规模破坏，这正是社会主义力图实现的目标。生态社会主义者旨在帮助人们思考这一问题并弄清该怎么做，从而为人类创造一个可持续发展的、更加美好的世界。

Unlike Ian Angus, Jason W. Moore, a professor of sociology at Binghamton University in the United States, does not agree with the concept of the “Anthropocene” proposed by Foster, Kohei Saito, and others. He argues that this concept attributes the climate crisis to human factors rather than to capital itself, whereas in fact capitalism is the culprit behind the climate crisis. Moore criticizes Foster and his colleagues for ignoring Marx’s view that the limitation of capitalism lies in capital itself. He believes that while the ecological Marxist theories of Burkett, Foster, and James O’Connor are groundbreaking, they also exhibit obvious one-sidedness; their theoretical construction proceeds from what capitalism is obsessed with, rather than from class struggle. Moore conducts his analysis based on the labor process and class struggle, emphasizing that priority must be given to proceeding from class struggle, guiding the proletariat, the femitariat, and the biotariat to strengthen strategic unity, in order to ultimately achieve the socialist liberation of humanity and nature. To this end, the global proletariat must undergo a revolutionary struggle to address the Earth’s crisis, advancing towards socialism within the web of life.

与伊恩·安格斯不同，美国宾汉姆顿大学社会学教授杰森·W.摩尔（JasonW.Moore）并不认同福斯特和斋藤幸平（KoheiSaito）等人提出的“人类世”概念。他认为，这一概念将气候危机归因于人为因素而非资本本身，事实上资本主义正是气候危机的罪魁祸首。摩尔批评福斯特及其同行忽略了马克思关于资本主义的局限性就在于资本本身的观点。他认为，伯克特、福斯特和詹姆斯·奥康纳（JamesO'Connor）的生态马克思主义理论虽然具有开创性，但也表现出明显的片面性特征，其理论建构正是从资本主义所迷恋的东西而不是从阶级斗争出发的。摩尔以劳动过程和阶级斗争为基础展开分析，强调必须优先从阶级斗争出发，引导无产阶级（proletariat）、女性无产阶级（femitariat）和生物无产阶级（biotariat）加强战略统一，才能最终实现人与自然的社会主义解放。为此，全球无产阶级必须经过一场应对地球危机的革命斗争，在生命网络中迈向社会主义。

As a representative of the new generation of ecological Marxists, Kohei Saito systematically elaborates his theory of “degrowth communism” in the book *Slow Down: The Degrowth Manifesto*. This theoretical proposition has also sparked heated discussion in academic circles. Some scholars express support, others raise questions, and still others provide a systematic and dialectical analysis from both positive and negative aspects. Dominic Roulx, a professor in the Department of Geography at Concordia University in Canada, and Matthias Fritsch, a professor in the Department of Philosophy at the same university, conducted a dialectical analysis of the theory of “degrowth communism” in a co-authored article. They affirm both the originality and positive significance of this theory, while also pointing out the internal contradictions it contains and the strategic hesitation it exhibits. Roulx and Fritsch note that in the book, Saito elaborates on the vision of “degrowth communism” in the late Marx and its contemporary significance. On this basis, Saito seeks to explain that communism aims to end capitalism’s systemic requirement to externalize burdens onto nature and future generations, and that degrowth is necessary to ensure the sustainable development of humanity within the Earth’s carrying capacity. In addition, Saito offers a profound critique of the Green New Deal promoted by Western countries and criticizes the anti-democratic technological stance of left-wing accelerationism. Roulx and Fritsch argue that by comparing the concept of degrowth communism he discovered in the late Marx’s thought with the Green New Deal, left-wing accelerationism, and the remedial measures of old-school ecosocialism, Saito has succeeded in making the legacy of Marxist theory more compelling than ever in addressing climate change. However, they also point out that Saito’s theory has certain problems. For example, Saito’s interpretation of the late Marx’s thought as advocating degrowth communism, even if not far-fetched, is likely ahistorical. At the same time, Saito exhibits obvious strategic hesitation and logical contradictions in his choice of paths to achieve ecosocialism and degrowth goals. These are issues that Saito needs to resolve. It should be said that Roulx and Fritsch’s evaluation of Saito’s theory of “degrowth communism” is relatively comprehensive and fair. Some foreign Marxist scholars, in order to provide a solid foundation for their theories, tend to over-interpret the texts of Marx and Engels, while the suggestions and plans they propose often lack practicality, remaining only at the theoretical level and unable to play an effective role in practice.

作为生态马克思主义的新生代代表人物，斋藤幸平在《减速：去增长宣言》一书中系统阐述了其“去增长共产主义”理论。他的这一理论主张在学界也引发了一番热议。有学者表示支持，也有学者提出质疑，还有部分学者从正反两方面进行了系统辩证的分析。加拿大康考迪亚大学地理系教授多尼米克·鲁克斯（DominicRoulx）和哲学系教授马蒂亚斯·弗里奇（MatthiasFritsch）在他们合作的一篇文章中对“去增长共产主义”理论进行了辩证分析。他们既肯定了这一理论的独创性和积极意义，也指出了其中包含的内在矛盾及表现出的战略犹豫。鲁克斯和弗里奇指出，在书中，斋藤幸平阐述了晚年马克思的“去增长共产主义”愿景及其当代意义。在此基础上，斋藤幸平力图说明共产主义旨在终结资本主义将负担外化到自然和子孙后代身上的系统性要求，而去增长就是要保证在地球能够承受的范围内实现人类的可持续发展，因此去增长是必要的。除此之外，斋藤幸平还深刻批判了西方国家推行的绿色新政，批评了左翼加速主义的反民主技术立场。鲁克斯和弗里奇认为，斋藤幸平将其在晚年马克思思想中发现的去增长共产主义理念与绿色新政、左翼加速主义以及老派生态社会主义的补救措施进行比较，成功地使马克思主义理论遗产在应对气候变化方面的作用比以往任何时候都更加引人注目。然而，他们同时也指出，斋藤幸平的理论存在一定的问题。如斋藤幸平将晚年马克思的思想解读为倡导去增长共产主义，这即便不算牵强，恐怕也是非历史的。与此同时，斋藤幸平在实现生态社会主义和去增长目标的路径选择上表现出明显的战略犹豫和逻辑矛盾。这些都是斋藤幸平需要解决的问题。应该说，鲁克斯和弗里奇对斋藤幸平“去增长共产主义”理论的评价是相对全面和中肯的。一些国外马克思主义学者为了给其理论提供坚实基础，往往倾向于对马克思恩格斯的文本进行过度解读，同时他们提出的一些建议和方案欠缺实操性，只停留于理论层面，难以在实践中发挥有效作用。

3. Marxist Feminist Studies

三、马克思主义女性主义研究

In 2025, Marxist feminist research has made notable progress in two areas: first, a review of the intellectual history and movement history of this school, aimed at drawing intellectual wisdom from its own history of thought and movement in order to provide answers to the questions of the era; second, an intersectional expansion of core theory, which is the self-perfection of Marxist feminist theory to meet the demands of reality. Of course, these two types of research are not sharply demarcated or completely separate; rather, they often intersect and combine to a certain extent.

2025年，马克思主义女性主义研究在两个方面进展比较明显：一是本流派思想史和运动史的回顾，这一研究旨在从自身思想史和运动史中汲取思想智慧，以便为时代问题提供解答；二是核心理论的交叉性拓展，这是马克思主义女性主义理论为适应现实要求所进行的自我完善。当然，这两种研究并不是界限分明或截然分开的，而是往往有一定的交叉和结合。

(I) The Contemporary Significance of the “Wages for Housework Campaign”

（一）“家务劳动工资化运动”的当代意义

The “Wages for Housework Campaign” of the 1970s was groundbreaking in the history of Marxist feminism. It greatly advanced the development of Marxist feminism in both theory and practice, making women’s unpaid domestic labor visible and valued, and sparking deep reflection on issues such as capitalism’s appropriation of unpaid domestic labor and gender oppression.

20世纪70年代的“家务劳动工资化运动”在马克思主义女性主义发展史上具有开创性意义。它在理论与实践两个方面极大推动了马克思主义女性主义的发展，使女性的无偿家务劳动被看到、被重视，引发了人们对资本主义无偿占有家务劳动和性别压迫等问题的深入思考。

Some scholars have sought to revive memory and rethink the profound significance of this campaign. Emily Callaci, a professor of history at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, published a book in 2025 titled *Wages for Housework: The Feminist Fight Against Unpaid Labor*. In the book, Callaci reviews the Wages for Housework Campaign of the 1970s, introduces the ideas, actions, and contributions of its main representatives, and summarizes the campaign’s historical significance and contemporary impact. Callaci affirms the outstanding contributions of Selma James, Silvia Federici, Mariarosa Dalla Costa, Wilmette Brown, and Margaret Prescod in advancing the demand for wages for housework. In Callaci’s view, the ideas of these feminist activists were diverse, ambitious, and imaginative revolutionary ideas. They argued that capitalism extracts wealth not only from workers but also from the unpaid work that creates and sustains the worker’s labor power — that is, domestic labor, this “invisible labor.” For these theorists and activists, domestic labor is an important component of the social reproduction of capitalism, because it produces and sustains the most important source of value for capitalism: the worker. Yet those who perform this work have no right to share in the wealth they create; they are often the poorest and most dependent groups in society. As Dalla Costa put it, the Wages for Housework Campaign was a movement against capitalism, against the extraction of value from women, against domestic labor, and against dependence on men and the nuclear family. Callaci emphasizes that although the campaign ultimately ended for many reasons, it is important that we do not file down its sharp edges, blunt its critique of capitalism, or obscure the deep demands it posed to us. Callaci calls for a rethinking of this campaign, and on this basis to imagine and fight for a world that truly values women.

一些学者试图唤醒人们的记忆，重新思考这场运动所具有的深刻意义。美国威斯康星大学麦迪逊分校历史学教授艾米丽·卡拉奇（EmilyCallaci）在2025年出版了著作《家务劳动工资：反对无酬劳动的女权主义斗争》。在书中，卡拉奇回顾了20世纪70年代的家务劳动工资化运动，介绍了该运动主要代表人物的思想、行动与贡献，总结了该运动的历史意义和时代影响。卡拉奇肯定了塞尔玛·詹姆斯（SelmaJames）、西尔维娅·费代里奇（SilviaFederici）、玛丽亚罗莎·达拉·科斯塔（MariarosaDallaCosta）、威尔梅特·布朗（WilmetteBrown）和玛格丽特·普雷斯科德（MargaretPrescod）等人为推动家务劳动工资化作出的突出贡献。在卡拉奇看来，这些女性主义活动家的思想是多样化的、雄心勃勃的和富有想象力的革命思想。她们认为，资本主义不仅从工人那里榨取财富，还从创造和维持工人劳动力的无偿工作中榨取财富，这就是家务劳动这一“隐形劳动”。在这些理论家和活动家看来，家务劳动是资本主义社会再生产的重要组成部分，因为它产生并维持着资本主义最重要的价值来源——工人。然而，那些从事这项工作的人却无权分享他们创造的财富，他们往往是社会中最贫穷和最具依赖性的群体。正如科斯塔所说，家务劳动工资化运动就是一场关于反对资本主义、反对从女性那里榨取价值、反对家务劳动、反对对男性和核心家庭依赖的运动。卡拉奇强调，虽然这场运动最终因多方面原因而终结，但重要的是，我们不能磨平这场运动尖锐的棱角、钝化其对资本主义的批评、掩盖其向我们提出的深层要求。卡拉奇呼吁要重新思考这场运动，在此基础上设想并为一个真正重视女性的世界而奋斗。

Italy was the birthplace of the Wages for Housework Campaign, and the movement naturally had a profound influence and special significance for the development of Italian feminism. Martina Gabrielli, a PhD candidate in the Department of History at the University of Milan, reviewed and summarized the important impact of the Italian Lotta Femminista movement of the 1970s on contemporary Marxist feminist theory and practice. She points out that the Lotta Femminista theorists (Federici, Dalla Costa, etc.) put forward a groundbreaking view: that unpaid domestic labor is a form of exploitation and the main cause of women’s control and subordination. The Lotta Femminista movement, based on this theoretical position, influenced the global women’s movement and sparked widespread discussion. Unfortunately, due to internal factionalism and a distancing from the broader women’s movement, the Lotta Femminista organization eventually dissolved. Gabrielli notes that the Lotta Femminista movement had an important international impact in both theory and practice; its political efforts contributed a valuable legacy to the development of Marxist feminist theory and political ideology, advancing the emergence of Marxist feminist social reproduction theory and the recognition of the economic value of unpaid care and domestic labor in international economic indicator systems. On this basis, Gabrielli emphasizes that the historical significance of the Lotta Femminista movement should not be underestimated.

意大利是“家务劳动工资化运动”的发源地，该运动对于意大利女性主义的发展自然有着深远影响和特殊意义。意大利米兰大学历史系博士候选人玛蒂娜·加布里埃利（MartinaGabrielli）回顾和总结了20世纪70年代意大利洛塔女权主义运动（LottaFemminista，也译为“女权主义斗争”）对于当代马克思主义女性主义理论与实践的重要影响。她指出，洛塔女权主义者（费代里奇、科斯塔等）提出了一种开创性观点，即无酬家务劳动是一种剥削形式，是妇女受控制和处于从属地位的主要原因。基于这一理论立场展开的洛塔女权主义运动影响了全球妇女运动并引发了广泛讨论。遗憾的是，因内部出现了不同派系并与更广泛的妇女运动保持距离，洛塔女权主义组织最终解散。加布里埃利指出，洛塔女权主义运动在理论和实践上产生了重要的国际影响，其政治努力为马克思主义女性主义理论和政治意识形态的发展贡献了宝贵遗产，推动了马克思主义女性主义社会再生产理论的出现以及国际经济指标体系对无酬照护和家务劳动经济价值的承认。基于此，加布里埃利强调，不能低估洛塔女权主义运动的历史意义。

As the above scholars suggest, although the Wages for Housework Campaign was short-lived, it occupies a pivotal position in the history of Marxist feminism. To this day, unpaid domestic labor remains widespread and is still disproportionately borne by women. The ideas of Marxist feminist theorists such as James, Federici, and Dalla Costa thus retain important practical significance and contemporary value.

正如上述学者所言，虽然“家务劳动工资化运动”历时不长，但它在马克思主义女性主义发展史上具有举足轻重的地位。时至今日，无偿家务劳动仍普遍存在并更多地是由女性来承担。詹姆斯、费代里奇和科斯塔等马克思主义女性主义理论家的思想就仍然具有重要的现实意义和时代价值。

(II) Marxist Feminism’s Reception of Intersectionality Theory

（二）马克思主义女性主义对交叉性理论的接受

In recent years, internal discussions within Marxist feminism have increasingly shown the following trends: first, a tendency to accept intersectionality theory, recognizing that gender oppression and its solutions cannot be analyzed solely from the perspectives of the gender division of labor and social reproduction, but must also attend to issues of race and ecology that arise in the domain of gender; second, an emphasis that gender issues should not be considered solely from the perspective of identity, as this easily excludes the Marxist method of class analysis, thereby causing fragmentation within the feminist camp; third, attention to the importance of the Marxist method of political-economic analysis in analyzing feminist issues.

近年来，马克思主义女性主义内部的讨论日益呈现出如下趋势：一是倾向接受交叉性理论，认识到不能仅从性别分工和社会再生产等角度分析性别压迫问题并探讨其解决之道，还应关注在性别领域出现的种族和生态等问题；二是强调不能仅从身份认同的角度去思考性别问题，这容易将马克思主义的阶级分析方法排除在外，从而造成女性主义集团内部的分化；三是注意到马克思主义政治经济学分析方法在分析女性主义问题方面的重要性。

Andreas Bieler, a professor in the School of Politics and International Relations at the University of Nottingham, and Adam David Morton, a professor in the Department of Political Economy at the University of Sydney, argue in a co-authored article that the traditional Marxist feminist theory of social production and reproduction is undoubtedly valuable. However, analyzing the exploitation and oppression of capitalism solely within this framework has limitations. They agree with Nancy Fraser’s view that there is a necessary structural connection between capitalist production and reproduction, on the one hand, and gender domination and racial oppression, on the other. In their view, although patriarchy did not originate with capitalism, it was reshaped and fully integrated by capitalism in the subsequent historical process. At the same time, racialization accompanied the birth of capitalism and continued to expand outward. They emphasize the need to return to Marx’s dialectical method in thinking about the multiple oppressions of capitalism.

英国诺丁汉大学政治与国际关系学院教授安德烈亚斯·比勒（AndreasBieler）和澳大利亚悉尼大学政治经济学系教授亚当·大卫·莫顿（AdamDavidMorton）在一篇合作文章中指出，传统马克思主义女性主义的社会生产和再生产理论毫无疑问是有价值的。然而，仅在这一框架下分析资本主义的剥削与压迫问题是有局限性的。他们认同南茜·弗雷泽（NancyFraser）的观点，即资本主义的生产和再生产与性别统治、种族压迫之间存在着必然的结构性联系。在他们看来，尽管父权制并非起源于资本主义，但它在后来的历史进程中被资本主义所重塑和全面整合。同时，种族化也伴随着资本主义诞生并不断向外扩张。他们强调，应回归马克思的辩证方法思考资本主义的多重压迫问题。

With the development of feminist theory and practice across different schools, scholars have increasingly discovered that several major feminist schools more or less possess certain theoretical limitations, and have therefore attempted to combine the positions, viewpoints and methods of several major feminist schools in order to break through these limitations. Some scholars believe that Marxist feminism can compensate for its own theoretical deficiencies and shortcomings only if it is combined with intersectionality theory. Charles Prusik, Assistant Professor in the Department of History, Philosophy and Political Science at Morehead State University in the United States, and Sarah E. Vitale, Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy at Ball State University in the United States, put forward the above view in an article. They argue that many feminists have consistently criticized Marxism, claiming that Marxism is class reductionist and universalist. However, in fact, Marxism does not reduce gender and race issues to class issues, but rather elucidates the universal phenomena of capitalist society through the category of value. They also emphasize that Marx’s method of critique of political economy lays the foundation for critical theory today. A critical Marxist theoretical analysis is more suitable for understanding the relationship between gender and capital. Based on the above analysis, they conclude: labor power as a commodity depends on women’s unpaid labor, which is both independent of the reproduction of capitalist social relations and constitutes the reproduction of capitalist social relations. Patriarchy and the gender division of labor are inherent to capitalist society. Here, Prusik and Vitale both reject the view that Marxism is class reductionist and affirm the importance of the Marxist method of political economy for analyzing the gender division of labor and gender oppression under the capitalist system.

随着不同流派女性主义理论与实践的发展，学者们日渐发现，一些主要女性主义流派或多或少地都存在一定的理论局限，于是试图将几种主要女性主义流派的立场、观点和方法结合起来以突破这种局限。一些学者认为，马克思主义女性主义只有与交叉性理论结合起来，才能弥补自身的理论缺陷和不足。美国摩海德州立大学历史、哲学与政治系助理教授查尔斯·普鲁西克（CharlesPrusik）和美国鲍尔州立大学哲学系副教授莎拉·E.维塔莱（SarahE.Vitale）在一篇文章中就提出了上述观点。他们认为，许多女性主义者一直批评马克思主义，认为马克思主义是阶级还原论和普遍主义的。然而，事实上，马克思主义并没有将性别和种族问题简化为阶级问题，而是通过价值范畴来阐明资本主义社会的普遍现象。他们还强调，马克思的政治经济学批判方法为今天的批判理论奠定了基础。批判性的马克思主义理论分析更适合理解性别与资本之间的关系。基于以上分析，他们得出结论：作为商品的劳动力依赖于妇女的无酬劳动，这种劳动既独立于资本主义社会关系的再生产，又构成资本主义社会关系的再生产。父权制和性别分工是资本主义社会所固有的。在这里，普鲁西克和维塔莱既否定了马克思主义是阶级还原论的观点，同时也肯定了马克思主义政治经济学方法对于分析资本主义制度下的性别分工和性别压迫的重要性。

Kevin B. Anderson, Distinguished Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, published the book *Marx’s Revolutionary Path in His Later Years: Colonialism, Gender, and Indigenous Communism* in 2025. In the book, Anderson delves into the relevant discussions and basic viewpoints on gender issues in Marx’s late notebooks. He points out that in his later years Marx studied gender issues among Native Americans and in ancient Greece and Rome, strongly condemned patriarchal rule, and indicated that gender oppression is closely related to the property system and the relations of production, but this is not a simple economic determinism. In his view, Marx believed that gender and family relations possess a certain independence and autonomy relative to the economic base, and attempted to examine differentiated societies based on race and gender from an intersectional perspective.

美国加州大学圣塔芭芭拉分校社会学杰出教授凯文·安德森（KevinB.Anderson）在2025年出版了著作《晚期马克思的革命之路：殖民主义、性别与土著共产主义》。在书中，安德森深入挖掘了马克思晚年笔记中关于性别问题的相关论述和基本观点。他指出，马克思在晚年研究了美洲原住民和古希腊罗马的性别问题，强烈谴责父权制统治，并指出性别压迫与财产制度和生产方式密切相关，但这并非简单的经济决定论。在他看来，马克思认为性别和家庭关系相对于经济基础具有一定的独立性和自主性，并试图从交叉性视角考察基于种族和性别的差异性社会。

IV. Research on Digital Capitalism

四、数字资本主义研究

In recent years, with the vigorous development of various innovative technologies, digital capitalism and digital socialism, techno-feudalism and neo-feudalism, among others, have increasingly become important topics in foreign Marxist studies.

近年来，随着各类创新科技的蓬勃发展，数字资本主义与数字社会主义、技术封建主义和新封建主义等日益成为国外马克思主义研究的重要论题。

(A) Critique of Digital Capitalism and the Construction of Digital Socialism

（一）数字资本主义批判与数字社会主义的建构

The critique of digital capitalism and the construction of digital socialism are two inseparable themes in the study of digital capitalism. As an important representative figure in the field of critique of digital capitalism, the academic views of Christian Fuchs, Professor at the University of Westminster in the United Kingdom, have attracted much attention in recent years and have also sparked extensive debate. In the article “Negri, Spinoza, Marx and Digital Capitalism,” Fuchs deeply analyzes the internal operating mechanisms of contemporary digital capitalism and possible future directions of change. In his view, digital capitalism is a fundamental dimension and main orientation of 21st-century capitalism. Digital capital is an exploitative tool and form of domination of capitalism, governing the class relationship between the owners and organizers of digital means of production and the digital workers who use these means of production to create digital commodities. The accumulation of digital capital is the product of digital labor. The workers who participate in the production of digital commodities constitute the digital working class. The digital labor of workers creates digital wealth. Under the capitalist system, digital wealth belongs mainly to the digital bourgeoisie. Fuchs points out that in digital labor, the power of digital capital is invisible to workers. The boundaries between labor and entertainment, labor time and leisure time, workplace and home, production and consumption, profession and hobby are often blurred. Exploited digital workers do not feel alienated in the labor process but instead derive pleasure and even self-realization. Digital managers integrate the entire subjectivity of workers (including emotions and intellect) into the labor process and covertly extend working hours, thereby creating ever more surplus value. Fuchs calls on the digital proletariat to launch a digital socialist movement, emphasizing that the digital socialist movement is a power movement challenging digital capitalism. In his view, the digital working class possesses enormous inherent potential to stop producing digital capital through digital strikes, refusal to perform digital labor, and other means, and to appropriate digital capital, transforming it into digital wealth and digital commons for the benefit of all. Fuchs is undoubtedly insightful in being able to see the new forms of exploitation under capitalism in the digital age and in envisioning a vision of digital socialism. However, digital technology is merely a tool; it has already penetrated not only the production sphere of capitalism but also the daily lives of ordinary people, so the feasibility of a digital strike becomes a problem. At the same time, the identities of the subjects of digital revolution are diverse and ambiguous; how such a group can achieve unity is another practical difficulty. Therefore, this kind of digital revolution and digital socialist program still has a certain utopian character.

数字资本主义批判与数字社会主义的建构是数字资本主义研究的两个不可分割的主题。作为数字资本主义批判领域的重要代表人物，英国威斯敏斯特大学教授克里斯蒂安·福克斯（ChristianFuchs）的学术观点近年来备受关注，也引发了广泛热议。在《奈格里、斯宾诺莎、马克思与数字资本主义》一文中，福克斯深入分析了当代数字资本主义的内在运作机制及未来可能的变革方向。在他看来，数字资本主义是21世纪资本主义的一个基本维度和主要面向。数字资本是资本主义的一种剥削工具和统治形式，支配着数字生产资料所有者和组织者与那些利用这些生产资料创造数字商品的数字工人之间的阶级关系。数字资本的积累是数字劳动的产物。参与数字商品生产的工人构成了数字工人阶级。工人的数字劳动创造了数字财富。在资本主义制度下，数字财富主要属于数字资产阶级。福克斯指出，在数字劳动中，数字资本的力量对工人来说是隐形的。劳动与娱乐、劳动时间与休闲时间、工作场所与家庭、生产与消费、专业与爱好之间的界限往往是模糊的。被剥削的数字工人在劳动过程中并不感到疏离，而是获得了乐趣甚至自我实现。数字管理者将工人的全部主体性（包括情感和智力）整合进劳动过程，并隐蔽地延长了工作时间，从而创造了越来越多的剩余价值。福克斯呼吁数字无产阶级进行一场数字社会主义运动，强调数字社会主义运动是一种挑战数字资本主义的权力运动。在他看来，数字工人阶级拥有巨大的内在潜能，能够通过数字罢工、拒绝进行数字劳动等方式停止生产数字资本，并挪用数字资本，将其转化为数字财富和数字公共资源，从而惠及所有人。福克斯能够看到数字时代资本主义的新型剥削方式，并设想了一种数字社会主义的愿景，毫无疑问是有其独到见解的。然而，数字技术只是一种工具，它不仅已经深入到资本主义的生产领域，也深入到普通民众的日常生活之中，那么数字罢工的可行性就成为一个问题。同时，数字革命主体的身份是多样的、模糊的，这样一个群体如何实现团结又是一个现实难题。因此，这种数字革命和数字社会主义方案尚具有一定的乌托邦性质。

Fuchs’s critical theory of digital capitalism has had a considerable impact in academic circles. Some scholars have accepted and borrowed his theory to further elaborate their own academic views. Gil Baptista Ferreira, Professor at the Polytechnic Institute of Coimbra in Portugal, affirms that Fuchs’s theory of digital capitalism, Yanis Varoufakis’s theory of techno-feudalism, and Shoshana Zuboff’s theory of surveillance capitalism profoundly expose the new forms of exploitation and control in contemporary capitalism. Ferreira points out that Fuchs, by examining digital labor from a Marxist perspective, demonstrates how users’ unpaid activities on social media (likes, shares, updates, etc.) create economic value for platforms, as well as the platforms’ covert exploitation of users. In Ferreira’s view, Fuchs’s viewpoint highlights the structural logic of exploitation in the digital age. Drawing on the theories of Fuchs, Varoufakis and others, Ferreira constructs a theoretical framework of digital genealogy, which, from the intersecting perspectives of philosophy, sociology and media studies, exposes the loss of the subject’s aura in the digital age, the fluidity of identity, and the reality of individuals falling into universal burnout.

福克斯的数字资本主义批判理论在学界产生了较大影响，部分学者接受并借用其理论进一步阐发自己的学术观点。葡萄牙科英布拉理工学院教授吉尔·巴普蒂斯塔·费雷拉（GilBaptistaFerreira）肯定了福克斯的数字资本主义理论、亚尼斯·瓦鲁法基斯（YanisVaroufakis）的技术封建主义理论和肖莎娜·祖博夫（ShoshanaZuboff）的监控资本主义理论对当代资本主义新的剥削和控制形式的深刻揭露。费雷拉指出，福克斯通过马克思主义视角审视数字劳动，展示了用户在社交媒体上的无偿活动（点赞、分享、更新等）为平台创造经济价值，以及平台对用户的隐蔽剥削。在费雷拉看来，福克斯的观点凸显了数字时代剥削的结构性逻辑。在借鉴了福克斯、瓦鲁法基斯等人的理论基础上，费雷拉构建起一种数字谱系学的理论框架，在哲学、社会学和媒体研究的交叉视野下，揭露了数字时代主体光晕丧失，身份变得具有流动性，个体陷入了普遍倦怠的现实。

Some scholars focus their critique of digital capitalism on the alienation of digital labor and the shaping of digital class consciousness. Bhabani Shankar Nayak, Professor of Business and Law at City, University of London, argues that under capitalist conditions, the economic and social digital transformation driven by technological progress not only spawns various forms of digital capitalism (such as “platform capitalism,” “data capitalism,” and “surveillance capitalism”) but also concentrates control over all relations of production, distribution, consumption, and exchange in the hands of a few digital platform owners. In this situation, digital workers labor long hours for meager wages, and a new category of unpaid workers—social media users—has even emerged. At the same time, digitalization intensifies the datafication of society, weakens human subjectivity, and further commodifies interpersonal relations and nature. Digital workers produce commodities and provide services within the individualized work structures of digital capitalism while enduring a strong sense of alienation, and their class consciousness is increasingly eroded. Nayak argues that the contemporary relevance of Marx’s thought must be re-grasped. He emphasizes that for over 170 years, the view in the *Communist Manifesto* that “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” has not only never lost its validity but continues to provide a fundamental framework for understanding contemporary social, economic, political, cultural, and technological changes. Nayak stresses that the current series of challenges and crises create conditions for the collective ownership of digital technologies and platforms, promote the shaping of digital class consciousness, and lay the groundwork for the possibility of radical change. Nayak’s analysis of digital alienated labor and digital class consciousness to a certain extent inherits the Marxist critical approach to capitalism; however, he does not provide a feasible plan for how specifically to overcome digital alienation and shape this class consciousness.

有学者侧重于从数字劳动异化和数字阶级意识塑造的角度进行数字资本主义批判。英国伦敦城市大学商法学院教授巴巴尼·尚卡尔·纳亚克（BhabaniShankarNayak）认为，在资本主义条件下，由技术进步推动的经济社会数字化转型，不仅催生了各种形式的数字资本主义（如“平台资本主义”“数据资本主义”“监控资本主义”），还将所有生产、分销、消费和交换关系的控制权集中在少数数字平台所有者手中。在这种情况下，数字工人长时间工作但工资微薄，甚至出现了一种新的无薪工人即社交媒体用户。同时，数字化加剧了社会的数据化，削弱了人的主体性，使人际关系和自然进一步商品化。数字工人在数字资本主义的个性化工作结构中生产商品和提供服务，同时忍受着强烈的疏离感，其阶级意识日益被削弱。纳亚克认为，当下必须重新把握马克思思想的时代意义。他强调，170多年来，《共产党宣言》中关于“至今一切社会的历史都是阶级斗争的历史”的观点不仅未曾失效，而且持续在为理解当代社会、经济、政治、文化和技术变革提供基本框架。纳亚克强调，当前面临的一系列挑战和危机为数字技术和平台的集体所有创造了条件，并推动了数字阶级意识的塑造，为激进变革的可能性奠定了基础。纳亚克对数字异化劳动和数字阶级意识的分析一定程度上继承了马克思主义对资本主义的批判理路，然而对于如何具体克服数字异化和塑造这种阶级意识，他并没有提供切实可行的方案。

(2) The Debate on Techno-Feudalism and Neo-Feudalism

（二）关于技术封建主义和新封建主义的争论

The theory of techno-feudalism, proposed by French economist Cédric Durand and former Greek Finance Minister and renowned economist Yanis Varoufakis and elaborated in detail from a social-critical perspective, has sparked considerable discussion in international academic circles in recent years. In his book *Technofeudalism: What Killed Capitalism*, Varoufakis declares that capitalism is dead and has been replaced by a new techno-feudal order. This is because the digital trading platforms dominated by large tech companies operate primarily on the basis of rent; the market and profit are no longer their foundation or their goal. A society that has lost these two core features of capitalism, he argues, is no longer a capitalist society but a new type of feudal society. This view has been questioned and opposed by some scholars.

由法国经济学家塞德里克·迪朗（CédricDurand）和希腊前财长、著名经济学家亚尼斯·瓦鲁法基斯提出并从社会批判角度详细阐发的技术封建主义理论，近年来在国际学术界引发了诸多讨论。瓦鲁法基斯在《技术封建主义：是什么杀死了资本主义》一书中宣称资本主义已死，已被一种新的技术封建秩序所取代。这是因为，各大型科技公司主导的数字交易平台主要以租金形式运作，市场和利润已不再是其依托的基础和追求的目标，丧失了资本主义这两个核心特征的社会也就不再是资本主义社会，而是一种新型封建主义社会。这一观点遭到了一些学者的质疑和反对。

Nicholas Gane, Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick, UK, criticizes Varoufakis’s view, arguing that it lacks sufficient theoretical and empirical basis. Drawing on Max Weber’s perspective, Gane points out that feudalism is built on a system of honor, status, and custom, and includes different institutional forms such as “liturgy,” “patrimonialism,” “manorialism,” “slavery,” and “alien rule.” At the same time, feudalism inherently despises bourgeois commercial utilitarianism, viewing it as dirty greed and harboring hostility toward it. However, today, capitalist markets still exist; what Varoufakis calls “cloud capital” is still capital, capable of accumulation, circulation, and market exchange, and its income remains profit. Based on this, Gane argues that although its form has changed, capitalism remains capitalism and should not be confused with what Varoufakis calls “techno-feudalism.” He particularly emphasizes that the danger of declaring capitalism dead is that it will continue to operate unchecked, and global elites will continue to benefit from it. From the above analysis, it can be seen that Gane grasps the essence of the issue, effectively refutes the erroneous claim that contemporary capitalism has turned into techno-feudalism, and points out the harm of this erroneous claim.

英国华威大学社会学教授尼古拉斯·盖恩（NicholasGane）批评了瓦鲁法基斯的观点，认为其观点缺乏足够的理论和现实依据。盖恩借用马克斯·韦伯的观点指出，封建制度是建立在荣誉、地位和惯例构成的体系基础之上的，并且包含不同的制度形式，如“礼仪制”“家产制”“庄园制”“奴役制”和“外邦制”等。同时，封建主义本质上蔑视资产阶级的商业功利主义，将其视为肮脏的贪婪，对其抱有敌意。然而，在今天，资本主义的市场依然存在，瓦鲁法基斯所谓的“云资本”仍然是资本，可以积累、流通并通过市场进行交易，其收入仍然是利润。基于此，盖恩指出，尽管形式发生了变化，但资本主义仍然是资本主义，不应将其与瓦鲁法基斯所称的“技术封建主义”相混淆。他还特别强调，宣称资本主义已死的危险在于，它将继续肆无忌惮地运行，全球精英也将持续从中受益。由以上分析可以看出，盖恩把握住了问题的实质，有力驳斥了当代资本主义已经转向技术封建主义的错误论断，并指出了这种错误论断的危害。

Some Western scholars do not endorse the term “techno-feudalism.” Jodi Dean, Professor of Political Science at Hobart and William Smith Colleges in New York, USA, in her 2025 book *The Capital Tomb: Neo-Feudalism and the New Class Struggle*, points out that the claim “capitalism is dead” is inappropriate; contemporary capitalism is transitioning toward a “neo-feudalism,” whose prominent feature is the rise of the service sector. In this new type of society, feudal lords and peasants return in modernized forms, and workers become servants. At the same time, capital accumulation drives plunder and hoarding rather than investment and technological improvement. Faced with this trend, Dean emphasizes that a strong communist party and communist movement are crucial for overcoming capitalism and resisting neo-feudalism. Dean replaces the concept of techno-feudalism with the concept of neo-feudalism. However, whether techno-feudalism or neo-feudalism, the content expressed and the issues to be explained are essentially the same: that contemporary capitalism has become or is transitioning toward a new type of feudalism.

有些西方学者并不赞同“技术封建主义”的提法。美国纽约州霍巴特和威廉史密斯学院政治学系教授乔迪·迪恩（JodiDean）在其2025年出版的《资本之墓：新封建主义与新阶级斗争》一书中指出，“资本主义已死”的论断是不恰当的，当代资本主义正在向一种“新封建主义”过渡，其突出特征是服务业的兴起。在这种新型社会中，封建领主和农民以现代化的方式回归，工人变成了仆人。同时，资本积累推动了掠夺和囤积，而非投资和技术改进。面对这一趋势，迪恩强调，一个强大的共产党和共产主义运动对于克服资本主义、抵御新封建主义是至关重要的。迪恩用新封建主义概念取代了技术封建主义概念，然而，不管是技术封建主义还是新封建主义，所表达的内容和要说明的问题本质上并无二致，即当代资本主义已经成为或正在向一种新型封建主义转变。

This definition of “neo-feudalism” has also been subjected to in-depth analysis and systematic critique by other scholars. Radhika Desai, Professor of Political Science at the University of Manitoba, Canada, while not directly criticizing Dean’s theory of neo-feudalism, critiques related views put forward by other scholars in one of her articles. Desai states simply and forcefully that labeling capitalism as neo-feudalism is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of neoliberalism and capitalism, as well as the significance of monopoly for both. Drawing on Marx’s political economy, Desai points out that Marx long ago stated that capitalism always revolves around the free market and competition, and that competition necessarily leads to monopoly. Marx also foresaw that with the formation of monopoly capital, profit would increasingly be transformed into interest. At the same time, although interest on money-capital existed before capitalism, capitalism inherited it and transformed it into an element for the expansion of capitalist production. Marx also clearly stated that rent is a category of capitalism and, like interest, represents a deduction from profit. Based on the above analysis, Desai argues that calling today’s capitalism feudalism commits at least four errors: first, it exonerates capitalism; second, it forgets that monopoly is the fate of capitalism; third, it fails to recognize that the rent system also exists in capitalist society and is not unique to feudal society; and fourth, it fails to recognize that capitalism has passed its peak, yet humanity continues to pay the price for maintaining it. Desai, relying on Marxist political economy, analyzes the essential differences between capitalism and feudalism, refutes the view that contemporary capitalism has become a new type of feudalism, points out its fundamental errors, and makes her critique more profound and persuasive.

对于这种“新封建主义”的界定，也有学者进行了深入分析和系统批判。加拿大曼尼托巴大学政治学教授拉迪卡·德赛（RadhikaDesai）虽然没有直接针对迪恩的新封建主义理论提出批评意见，但她在一篇文章中批评了其他学者提出的相关观点。德赛简单而有力地指出，给资本主义打上新封建主义的标签是基于对新自由主义和资本主义以及垄断对于两者的重要意义的根本误解。基于马克思的政治经济学理论，德赛指出，马克思早就说过资本主义始终是围绕自由市场和竞争展开的，并且竞争必然导致垄断。马克思还预见到，随着垄断资本的形成，利润将越来越多地被转化为利息。同时，虽然货币资本利息早在资本主义以前就存在了，但资本主义将其继承下来，转变为资本主义生产扩张的要素。马克思还明确表示，租金也是资本主义的范畴，和利息一样，它代表利润的扣除。基于以上分析，德赛指出，称今天的资本主义为封建主义，至少犯了四个错误：首先，这是在为资本主义开脱；其次，忘记了垄断是资本主义的命运；再次，未能认识到地租制也存在于资本主义社会，并非封建社会所独有；最后，未能认识到资本主义已经走过了其巅峰阶段，但人类还在为继续维持资本主义而付出代价。德赛依据马克思主义政治经济学理论分析了资本主义与封建主义的本质差异，驳斥了当代资本主义已经变成一种新封建主义的观点，并指出了其根本错误所在，使其批判更加深入、更具说服力。

Conclusion

结语

In 2025, overseas Marxist studies continued to expand and deepen through reflection and critique, debate and reconstruction, exhibiting roughly the following basic characteristics. First, the major schools of thought and their core issues remained the focus of discussion. For instance, the contemporary value and limitations of the Frankfurt School’s social critical theory, the debates within ecological Marxism over the “Anthropocene” and “degrowth communism,” Marxist feminism’s reception of intersectionality theory, the critique of digital capitalism and the construction of digital socialism, and the debates over techno-feudalism and neo-feudalism were all key topics of scholarly discussion. Second, diachronic and synchronic studies coexisted. Some scholars focused on retrospective studies of the developmental history of a particular school of thought, seeking to draw wisdom from its intellectual history to answer the questions of the era, while others paid more attention to prominent contemporary issues, conducting cross-disciplinary research in related fields. Third, reflective and critical research became the dominant tone. The reflective and critical character of current overseas Marxist studies is relatively prominent, and this reflective and critical research also provides an internal impetus for theoretical innovation. Fourth, the practical guiding power of related theories remains insufficient. Some theoretical viewpoints proposed by overseas Marxist scholars are relatively innovative, but their operability is weak, and their practical guiding power is clearly inadequate. For example, how to achieve “degrowth” and what the scale of “degrowth” should be, how to satisfy the interest demands of different gender groups to achieve their maximum unity, and how to guide the digital working class in collective strikes — these goals and initiatives all face certain difficulties and obstacles at the level of concrete practice, which are issues that the academic community needs to continue to ponder and explore in depth.

2025年国外马克思主义研究在反思与批判、争论与重构中不断拓展和深化，并大致呈现如下基本特征。一是主要思潮流派及其核心议题仍是讨论的重点。如法兰克福学派社会批判理论的时代价值与局限性问题、生态马克思主义关于“人类世”和“去增长共产主义”的争论、马克思主义女性主义对交叉性理论的接受、数字资本主义批判与数字社会主义的建构、关于技术封建主义和新封建主义的争论等问题，均是学者们讨论的重点。二是历时性研究与共时性研究兼而有之。一些学者侧重于某一思潮流派发展史的回顾性研究，力图从其思想史中汲取智慧以解答时代问题，也有学者更关注当下突出的时代问题，在相关领域展开交叉性研究。三是反思性、批判性研究成为主基调。当前国外马克思主义研究的反思性和批判性特征较为突出，这种反思性、批判性研究也为理论创新提供了内在动力。四是相关理论的实践指导力仍不足。一些国外马克思主义学者提出的理论观点比较有创新性，但其可操作性不强，实践指导力明显不足。比如，如何实现“去增长”以及“去增长”的尺度是什么，如何满足不同性别群体的利益诉求以实现其最大限度的联合，如何引导数字工人阶级集体罢工，这些目标倡议在具体实践层面都面临一定的困难和障碍，这也是学界需要继续思考和深入探讨的问题。