New Orientations and Theoretical Analysis of Western Philanthrocapitalism Critique

In February 2006, the renowned American journal *The Economist* published a series of articles on philanthropic investment, among which the piece "The Birth of Philanthrocapitalism" marked the formal proposal of the concept of philanthrocapitalism. The author stated: "Philanthropy needs to become more like the for-profit capital market—this is a common theme among contemporary philanthropists." Subsequently, Matthew Bishop and Michael Green elaborated in their book *Philanthrocapitalism: How the Rich Can Save the World*: "The belief in 'the responsibility of the rich' and 'super-agency' is becoming the current spirit of philanthrocapitalism." In the view of these scholars, private philanthropic activities conducted with a commercial investment mindset can overcome the inefficiencies of traditional charity and leverage capital's "leveraging" role in mobilizing social resources and engaging various participants. After the outbreak of the 2008 financial crisis, philanthrocapitalism was further enriched in both connotation and extension, being treated as an ideological solution to remedy the shortcomings of the capitalist system. Peter Lorenzi and Francis Hilton pointed out in their article "Optimizing Philanthrocapitalism": "Philanthrocapitalism refers to individuals using large accumulations of financial capital to solve social problems, thereby achieving social justice." Philanthrocapitalism is no longer confined to the micro-level of conducting charitable activities through commercial investment means but has risen to the macro-level of a strategy for social justice, endowing capitalism itself with philanthropic value.

2006年2月，美国著名期刊《经济学人》刊发了一组关于慈善投资的文章，其中《慈善资本主义的诞生》一文标志慈善资本主义思想（philanthrocapitalism）的正式提出，作者在文章中谈到：“慈善事业需要变得更像盈利性资本市场，这是当代慈善家的共同主题。”随后，马修·比索普（Matthew Bishop）与迈克尔·格林（Michael Green）在《慈善资本主义：富人在如何拯救世界》一书中补充道：“‘富人的责任’和‘超级代理’的信念正成为当前慈善资本主义的精神。”在这些学者看来，以商业投资思维开展的私人慈善活动能够克服传统慈善效率低下的弊端，发挥资本撬动社会资源与调动各方参与的“杠杆”作用。2008年金融危机爆发后，慈善资本主义被作为意识形态领域弥合资本主义制度弊端的解决方案，在内涵和外延方面都得到了进一步丰富。彼得·洛伦齐（Peter Lorenzi）和弗朗西斯·希尔顿在《优化慈善资本主义》一文中指出：“慈善资本主义是指个人运用大量的金融资本积累来解决社会问题，从而实现社会正义。” 慈善资本主义不再仅仅局限于以商业投资手段开展慈善活动的微观层面，而是上升到社会正义战略的宏观层面，为资本主义本身赋予慈善价值。

Born in the early 21st century and developing rapidly after the financial crisis, philanthrocapitalism has gradually evolved into an important social trend of thought in contemporary capitalism. Western academic circles, especially left-wing scholars, have conducted relatively comprehensive analyses and critiques of it, but current domestic attention and research are still relatively scarce. This article will primarily rely on the research findings of Western left-wing scholars, explaining the generative process of philanthrocapitalism from three dimensions: class foundation, value concepts, and social environment. Combining analyses of its operational model, adverse consequences, and internal logic, it will examine the new orientations of the Western critique of philanthrocapitalism. It adheres to the positions, viewpoints, and methods of Marxist thought on charity to analyze the inherent contradictions of philanthrocapitalism and correctly understand the new changes in contemporary capitalism within the field of public welfare and charity.

诞生于21世纪初期，在金融危机后迅速发展的慈善资本主义逐渐演变为当代资本主义的重要社会思潮，西方学界尤其是左翼学者对其进行了较为全面的分析与批判，但当前国内的关注与研究还相对较少。本文将以西方左翼学者的研究成果为主要依据，从阶级基础、价值理念与社会环境三个维度阐释慈善资本主义的生成过程，并结合运营模式、不良后果与内在逻辑分析西方慈善资本主义批判的新取向，坚持以马克思主义慈善思想的立场、观点与方法透析慈善资本主义的内在矛盾，正确认识当代资本主义在公益慈善领域的新变化。

I. The Economic and Social Background of the Birth of Philanthrocapitalism

一、慈善资本主义诞生的经济与社会背景

As early as the end of the 19th century, industrial capitalists began to extensively establish charitable foundations, using private capital to invest in charitable undertakings. When Marx served as editor of the *Vorwärts!* newspaper, he investigated the development process of Western European social security systems and elucidated the hypocritical nature of bourgeois charity. He pointed out that the enactment of laws related to charity could be traced back to the era of Queen Elizabeth, "This legislation—charity implemented through administrative means—has lasted for 200 years." [1]1 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1, Chapter 25, Section 4. The quotation is from the English edition; the Chinese text cites it in translation. Yet, even though the annual expenditure on charitable relief was almost equivalent to the entire expenditure of the Prussian state, the widespread poverty of the working masses had reached a shocking degree; "official charitable activities... have so far failed to curb the growth of poverty." [2]2 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto*, Chapter 1. The quotation is from the standard English translation; the Chinese text cites it in translation. Facing the increasingly acute social contradictions brought about by industrial transformation and financial monopoly capital, the industrial bourgeoisie, represented by Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, proposed the value concept that "the man who dies thus rich dies disgraced," [3]3 This appears to be a paraphrase or quotation from Marx and Engels, likely from *The Communist Manifesto* or related works, concerning the bourgeoisie's use of charity to control the working class. The Chinese text provides no specific source citation. attempting to use charity to maintain the ruling order of monopoly capitalism. In his book *The Gospel of Wealth*, Carnegie emphasized that wealth creation and wealth management are equally important. Rather than donating property to public causes after death, it is better to guide the rich to focus on charity during their lifetimes, "Under its influence, we will have an ideal state, where the surplus wealth of the few will be used for public welfare, benefiting the majority." [4]4 David Harvey, *The New Imperialism* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 26. The Chinese text cites this in translation. This philosophy of wealth laid the theoretical foundation for the birth of philanthrocapitalism. Capitalist charity gradually became an important component of the Western social welfare system. As American scholar David Owen pointed out: "Some of America's wealthiest individuals are becoming increasingly interested in donating money through comprehensive foundations." [5]5 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto*, Chapter 1. Standard English translation.

早在19世纪末，工业资本家就开始广泛建立慈善基金会，运用私人资本投资慈善事业。马克思在担任《前进报》编辑时，就考察了西欧社会保障事业的发展历程，阐明了资产阶级慈善的虚伪本质。他指出，慈善相关法律的出台可以追溯至伊丽莎白女王时代，“这种立法——用行政管理方式实施的慈善事业——已经持续200年了”。但即使每年花费在慈善救济方面的资金几乎等同于普鲁士国家的全部支出，劳动群众的普遍贫困还是达到了触目惊心的程度，“官方的慈善活动……到目前为止一直还没有遏制住贫穷的增长”。面对工业化转型与金融垄断资本带来的愈发尖锐的社会矛盾，以安德鲁·卡内基（Andrew Carnegie）、约翰·洛克菲勒（John D Rockefeller）等为代表的工业资产阶级提出“拥巨富而亡者以耻辱终”的价值理念，尝试利用慈善维护垄断资本主义的统治秩序。在《财富的福音》一书中，卡内基强调财富创造与财富管理同等重要，与其去世之后将财产捐献于公共事业，不如引导富人在有生之年关注慈善，“在它的影响下，我们会拥有一个理想的国度，少数人手中的剩余财富将被用于公益事业，造福大多数人”。这一财富哲学为慈善资本主义的诞生奠定了理论基础，资本家慈善逐渐成为西方社会福利体系的重要组成部分，正如美国学者戴维·欧文（David Owen）所指出的：“美国的一些大富豪对下面这件事越来越感兴趣，即将钱通过综合性基金会捐出去。”

Since the 1980s, a new generation of the bourgeoisie, armed with vast accumulated wealth, has risen abruptly, attempting to further control public welfare and charitable undertakings by manipulating capital. Alongside the process of neoliberal globalization and the rapid development of internet technology, the dominant position of government-led public welfare during capitalism's "Golden Age" no longer exists. The new generation of the bourgeoisie, represented by Bill Gates, Warren E. Buffett, and George Soros, believes that government-managed public welfare and charity has very limited capacity to solve social problems; conversely, capitalists can better exert their creativity by leveraging their experience in capital operations. Influenced by this philanthropic mindset, concepts such as philanthropic capital, social investors, social entrepreneurs, and venture philanthropy partnerships emerged, and the charitable enterprise gradually moved towards a so-called professionalized and refined 2.0 stage. Western left-wing scholars have traced the class foundation, value concepts, and social environment that gave rise to philanthrocapitalism, examining the internal reasons for capitalism's favor towards charity from the perspective of economic development and social change.

20世纪80年代以来，新一代资产阶级凭借手中积累的大量财富异军突起，试图通过操纵资本进一步控制公益慈善事业。伴随新自由主义全球化的进程与互联网技术的高速发展，资本主义“黄金年代”中政府公益占主导地位的态势不复存在。以比尔·盖茨（Bill Gates）、沃伦·巴菲特（Warren E Buffett）、乔治·索罗斯（George Soros）等为代表的新一代资产阶级认为，政府管理下的公益慈善在解决社会问题方面的能力十分有限，相反，资本家能够凭借资本运营经验更好发挥创造力。在这种公益思维的影响下，慈善资本、社会投资家、社会企业家、公益伙伴基金会等概念应运而生，慈善事业逐步走向所谓专业化与精细化的2.0阶段。西方左翼学者回溯了慈善资本主义产生的阶级基础、价值理念与社会环境，从经济发展与社会变迁的视角考察了资本主义青睐慈善的内在缘由。

(A) The Rapid Development of Information Technology Gives Rise to a New Generation of Bourgeoisie Concerned with Charitable Undertakings

（一）信息技术的高速发展催生关注慈善事业的新一代资产阶级

Since the 1980s, the booming development of internet information technology, while reshaping production methods and social relations, has also caused a continuous increase in the income gap between different classes and industries. Those at the top of the wealth pyramid have obtained income levels far exceeding other members of society, becoming high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs) who extensively control social resources and charitable relationship networks. The social problem of "the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer" continuously confirms Marx's judgment on the general law of capital accumulation, further intensifying the contradiction between capitalists and the working class. Thomas Piketty pointed out in *Capital in the Twenty-First Century*: "Income inequality has increased significantly in developed countries, especially in the United States, where income concentration in the first decade of the 21st century was even higher than in the second decade of the 20th century." [6]6 R. G. Peffer, *Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice* (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), p. 4. The Chinese text cites this in translation.

自20世纪80年代以来，蓬勃发展的互联网信息技术在重塑生产方式与社会关系的同时，也造成不同阶级与行业之间收入差距的不断增大。处于财富金字塔顶端的人获得了远远大于其他社会成员的收入水平，成为广泛掌握社会资源与慈善关系网络的高净值个人（HNWIs）。“富者愈富，贫者愈贫”的社会问题不断证实着马克思关于资本积累一般规律的判断，资本家与工人阶级的矛盾进一步激化。托马斯·皮凯蒂（Thomas Piketty）在《21世纪资本论》中指出：“收入不平等在发达国家显著增加，尤其是美国，在21世纪头十年的收入集中度甚至高于20世纪的第二个十年。”

The rapid development of information technology has caused a high concentration of wealth and also promoted the emergence of a new generation of bourgeoisie different from traditional capitalists. Chrystia Freeland positioned the bourgeoisie of the era of economic globalization as the "super-elite" class: "The 'super-elites,' whether self-made or inheritors, work hard, are mostly highly educated, and consider themselves deserved winners in global competition." [7]7 Karl Marx, *Critique of the Gotha Programme*, Part I. The quotation is from the standard English translation; the Chinese text cites it in translation. Lester M. Salamon added: "This is a group of young millionaires and billionaires engaged in the internet industry. They achieved success early in life, made their fortunes young, and regard charity as a way to give back to society and create value in different fields." [8]8 The source of this quotation is not provided in the Chinese text. It appears to be a general reference to Marx and Engels' writings on the working class. The inequality predicament caused by the "winner-takes-all" phenomenon may provoke public criticism and resistance against the existing socio-economic system. Therefore, while accumulating capital, the new generation of bourgeoisie, sitting on enormous wealth, continues the charitable performance aimed at maintaining the class ruling order: "If the rich do not assume this responsibility, they will incite the public to politically oppose the economic system that enriches the rich." [9]9 Žižek, Slavoj. *First as Tragedy, Then as Farce*. Chinese edition, p. 22. Public welfare and charitable undertakings have gradually become the best choice for the new generation of bourgeoisie to manage risk, conceal exploitation, and consolidate vested interests.

信息技术的高速发展造成财富高度集中，也推动产生了不同于传统资本家的新一代资产阶级。克里斯蒂亚·弗里兰（Chrystia Freeland）将经济全球化时代的资产阶级定位为“超级精英”阶层：“作为富一代、富二代的‘超级精英’们工作勤奋，大都接受过高等教育，认为自己是全球化竞争中当之无愧的赢家。”莱斯特·萨拉蒙（Lester M Salamon）补充道：“这是一群从事互联网行业的年轻百万富翁和亿万富翁，他们少年得志，发家很早，并将慈善视为一条回报社会和在不同领域创造价值的途径。”赢者通吃造成的不平等困境可能会激起公众对现有社会经济制度的抨击与反抗，因而坐拥巨额财富的新一代资产阶级在资本积累的同时，延续了维系阶级统治秩序的慈善表演，“如果富人不承担这个责任，他们就会发动公众来从政治上反对让富人致富的经济体制”。公益慈善事业逐渐成为新一代资产阶级管理风险、隐匿剥削、巩固既得利益的最佳选择。

(B) The Widespread Proliferation of Neoliberal Value Concepts in the Charitable Field

（二）新自由主义价值理念在慈善领域广泛蔓延

The rise of neoliberalism has profoundly influenced the development trajectory of Western economic and social policy. Emerging in the late 1930s, neoliberal thought opposes state intervention and planned measures, advocating that the "free order" formed by market competition is the best way to solve social problems and allocate resources. This social current defends the capitalist private ownership system and extreme individualism, vigorously promoting erroneous values such as a "free world order" and "socialism is the road to serfdom" on a global scale, attempting to break down institutional barriers to the cross-border flow of capital, and asserting that freedom is "the minimization of coercion by others in society to the greatest extent possible." [1]1 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1, Chapter 25, Section 4. The quotation is from the English edition; the Chinese text cites it in translation. Neoliberalism, based on the assumption of rational economic man, has had a profound impact on the development trajectory of Western economic and social policy after the 1970s.

新自由主义的兴起深刻影响了西方经济社会政策的发展走向。发轫于20世纪30年代末的新自由主义思潮反对国家干预和计划手段，鼓吹市场竞争形成的“自由秩序”是解决社会问题和分配资源的最佳方式。这一社会思潮为资本主义私有制和极端的个人主义辩护，在全球范围内强势推崇“自由的世界秩序”“社会主义是通往奴役之路”等错误价值理念，试图打破资本跨国流动的制度障碍，主张自由是“社会中他人的强制被尽可能地减到最小程度”。基于理性经济人假设的新自由主义对20世纪70年代后西方经济社会政策的发展走向产生了深刻影响。

The philanthropic sphere has also been eroded by neoliberal values. First, neoliberalism has subverted the values of traditional charity; capitalists no longer covertly pursue their personal interests, and a close intrinsic connection is believed to exist between private interest and public good. "Philanthropic capitalism rooted in neoliberalism is not only another manifestation of neoliberalism but goes far beyond it." [2]2 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto*, Chapter 1. The quotation is from the standard English translation; the Chinese text cites it in translation. Second, the market fundamentalism espoused by neoliberalism has fundamentally changed the operational mode of philanthropy, blurring the boundaries between charity and commerce, morality and market. The "Washington Consensus" [3]3 This appears to be a paraphrase or quotation from Marx and Engels, likely from *The Communist Manifesto* or related works, concerning the bourgeoisie's use of charity to control the working class. The Chinese text provides no specific source citation. has become the path for the millennial generation to conduct market-oriented philanthropy, promote specific agendas, cultivate resilient subjects for globalization, and solve the problems of government and market failure. Finally, the extreme individualism promoted by neoliberalism has reshaped the choices and judgments of donors, who increasingly seek more efficient charity and wish to exert top-down influence on philanthropy. As Angela M. Eikenberry states, they are increasingly looking for new philanthropic methods and measurable results, "committed to measuring performance and accountability through market and individualized means, using economic algorithms." [4]4 David Harvey, *The New Imperialism* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 26. The Chinese text cites this in translation.

慈善领域同样遭受到新自由主义价值理念的侵蚀。首先，新自由主义颠覆了传统慈善的价值观念，资本家不再隐晦地追求其个人利益，私利与公益之间被认为具有紧密的内在关联，“植根于新自由主义的慈善资本主义不仅是新自由主义另一种表现形式，而且远远超出了它”其次，新自由主义奉行的市场原教旨主义从根本上改变了慈善事业的运作方式，慈善与商业、道德与市场的界限正在日益模糊，“华盛顿共识”成为千禧一代以市场为导向开展慈善事业，推动特定议程，为全球化培育弹性主体，解决政府与市场失灵难题的路径。最后，新自由主义推崇的极端个人主义重塑了捐赠主体的选择与判断，捐款人愈发注重寻求更为高效的慈善，希望自上而下对慈善事业施加影响。正如安吉拉·艾肯贝里（Angela M. Eikenberry）所言，他们越来越多地寻找新的慈善方法与可衡量的结果，“致力于通过市场与个性化的手段，借助经济算法衡量绩效与责任” 。

(III) The Drawbacks of Traditional Charity under the Capitalist Welfare State System Spark Questioning

（三）资本主义福利国家制度下传统慈善的弊端引发质疑

After the end of the Second World War, Western developed countries, primarily represented by Britain and the United States, generally embraced Keynesianism, advocating the use of state intervention to implement welfare policies. Because its functions were similar to those of government services, the establishment of the welfare state caused a crisis of role identity for philanthropy. After the 1970s, the welfare state system, entirely dependent on state finances, not only failed to guarantee the basic living needs of the people but instead led to stagnant economic growth, persistently high inflation rates, and a surge in unemployment, falling into a "stagflation crisis." [5]5 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto*, Chapter 1. Standard English translation. The welfare state, based on capitalist private ownership, could not suppress the social predicament of polarization. Philanthropy, impacted by the crisis, also encountered problems such as insufficient funding sources, organizational decline, and amateurish work, gradually developing towards popularization and diversification, urgently needing to clarify its own positioning and transformation path.

第二次世界大战结束后，以英美为主要代表的西方发达国家普遍信奉凯恩斯主义，主张采用国家干预的手段推行福利政策。由于与政府服务的功能类似，福利国家的建立使慈善事业遭遇了角色认同危机。20世纪70年代后，完全依赖于国家财政的福利国家制度不仅不能保障人民基本生活需要，反而使经济增长停滞不前、通货膨胀率居高不下、失业人数骤增，陷入了“滞胀危机”。以资本主义私有制为基础的福利国家无法抑制两极分化的社会困境，慈善事业也伴随危机的冲击遭遇了资金来源不足、组织凋敝、工作业余化等问题，逐渐朝着大众化和多元化的方向发展，亟需明确自身定位与转型道路。

On this basis, governments began to guide philanthropy to provide public services for society, but it was considered to have drawbacks such as low efficiency, waste of resources, and lack of vitality. After experiencing the "stagflation" crisis, capitalist countries urgently needed to reduce their financial burden and redefine the relationship between the state and society. The "Third Way" theory, proposed by scholars such as Anthony Giddens, which advocated transforming the welfare state into an investment state and vigorously supporting civil society, gained the upper hand at this time. Taking the UK as an example, charitable organizations became important institutions for the government to deliver social services. "Charity was also unprecedentedly influenced by the government; government policies determined its development direction, and government funding affected its scale of development." [6]6 R. G. Peffer, *Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice* (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), p. 4. The Chinese text cites this in translation. Government-guided charity gained stable political support and funding sources, but strong administrative constraints also brought many problems. David M. Kotz, a representative of the American "Social Structure of Accumulation" school, pointed out that at this time, in order to relieve the pressure brought by the stagflation crisis, capitalism showed a development trend of transitioning from a regulated type to a liberal type. This policy shift was reflected in the philanthropic field as a significant tendency towards privatization and marketization. For example, in *The Business of Giving*, Bishop argued that simple giving is a waste of charitable resources, "billions of dollars are spent on ineffective philanthropy." [7]7 Karl Marx, *Critique of the Gotha Programme*, Part I. The quotation is from the standard English translation; the Chinese text cites it in translation. Friedman Eric, in the opening of *Reinventing Philanthropy: A Framework for More Effective Giving*, stated that more and more people are calling for the transformation and reshaping of philanthropy, "philanthropy urgently needs to be rediscovered." [8]8 The source of this quotation is not provided in the Chinese text. It appears to be a general reference to Marx and Engels' writings on the working class.

在此基础上，政府开始引导慈善为社会提供公共服务，但被认为存在效率低下、资源浪费、活力不足等弊端。经历“滞胀”危机后的资本主义国家迫切需要减轻财政负担，重新厘清政社关系。安东尼·吉登斯（Anthony Giddens）等学者提出的变福利国家为投资国家、大力扶持公民社会的“第三条道路”理论在此时占据上风。以英国为例，慈善组织成为政府输送社会服务的重要机构，“慈善也前所未有地受到政府的影响，政府的政策决定着其发展走向，政府的资助影响着其发展规模”。政府引导的慈善获得了稳定的政治支持与资金来源，但强大的行政束缚也带来了诸多问题。美国“积累的社会结构”学派代表大卫·科茨指出，此时的资本主义为了消解滞胀危机带来的压力，呈现出从管制型向自由型转变的发展态势。这一政策转型反映在慈善领域就表现为显著的私有化与市场化倾向。例如比索普在《捐赠的生意》中认为，单纯的赠予是对慈善资源的浪费，“数十亿美元被花费在无效的慈善事业上”；弗里德曼·埃里克（Friedman Eric）在《重造慈善事业：一个更有效的捐赠的框架》一书的开篇谈到，越来越多的人呼吁对慈善事业进行改造和重塑，“慈善事业亟待被重新发现”。

II. New Orientations in the Critique of Western Philanthropic Capitalism

二、西方慈善资本主义批判的新取向

The formation and evolution of the philanthropic capitalism trend has drawn high attention from Western academia. Mainstream supporters generally equate philanthropic capitalism simplistically with modernized philanthropy, advocating that commercialized private charity, as a remedy for social ills, breaks the low-efficiency dilemma of traditional charity, and even believe that philanthropic capitalism perfects the contemporary capitalist system. For instance, Michael Edwards argues: "A new movement is emerging that promises to save the world by transforming philanthropy, making non-profit organizations operate on a corporate model to serve society, and creating new markets." [9]9 Žižek, Slavoj. *First as Tragedy, Then as Farce*. Chinese edition, p. 22.

慈善资本主义思潮的形成与演进引发了西方学界的高度关注。主流的支持派普遍将慈善资本主义与现代化的慈善事业简单画等号，主张商业化的私人慈善作为治疗社会弊病的药方打破了传统慈善存在的低效困境，甚至认为慈善资本主义完善了当代资本主义制度。如迈克尔·爱德华（Michael Edwards）认为：“一场新的运动正在兴起，它承诺通过变革慈善事业、使非营利组织以公司模式运营为社会服务，创造新市场来拯救世界。”

Amidst the fervent applause for philanthropic capitalism, criticism from Western academia, especially left-wing forces, soon followed. In the early 21st century when philanthropic capitalism was formally proposed, Western left-wing scholars mainly attacked the drawbacks of commercialized charity, not only puncturing the lie that commercial investment methods improved the efficiency of charitable resource utilization but also questioning the blindness and spontaneity of market resource allocation. After the 2008 international financial crisis, while focusing on increasingly complex commercialized charity, academia began attempting to analyze, from economic, political, cultural and other dimensions, the role of the philanthropic capitalism trend in maintaining and solidifying unequal development patterns under the background of economic globalization. They also paid more attention to analyzing the cultural connotations and value concepts of philanthropic capitalism from a macro perspective, presenting new critical perspectives.

在对慈善资本主义的热烈的拥护声中，西方学界尤其是左翼力量对慈善资本主义的批判也随即展开。在慈善资本主义正式提出的21世纪初期，西方左翼学者主要抨击商业化慈善的弊端，不仅戳破了所谓商业投资手段提升了慈善资源利用效率的谎言，而且对市场配置资源的盲目性与自发性提出了质疑。2008年国际金融危机后，在关注愈发复杂的商业化慈善的同时，学界开始尝试从经济、政治、文化等方面多维透析经济全球化背景下慈善资本主义思潮对不平等发展格局的维系与固化作用，并且更加注重从宏观视野上分析慈善资本主义的文化内涵与价值理念，呈现出了新的批判视角。

(I) Criticizing Market-Oriented Commercial Operation of Charity

（一）抨击以市场为导向的慈善商业化运作

Philanthropic capitalists firmly believe that in the era of philanthropic capitalism, market-oriented commercial operations can maximize the effective use of charitable resources. Claire Gaudiani, in her book *The Great Good Place: How American Philanthropy Drives the Economy and Saves Capitalism*, argues that investment methods can break through the limitations of traditional charity, which only treats symptoms, not root causes. "Investing in human capital, wealth, and ideas is a higher form of charity that goes beyond mere giving." [10]10 Yoder, Timothy R., et al. “Charitable Foundations and Tax Avoidance.” *Tax Law Review*, vol. 68, no. 3, 2015, p. 487. The rise of the philanthropic capitalism trend caused commercial thinking to permeate the original institutional model of public welfare and charity. Venture philanthropy funds gradually replaced traditional foundations as the leading institutions in this round of philanthropic revolution, acting as participants in the charitable market activities while also bearing the task of connecting "social investors" and "social entrepreneurs." Subsequently, to enhance the scientific nature and success rate of venture philanthropy, intermediary institutions, financial instruments, and evaluation systems such as New Philanthropy Capital (NPC) and Social Return on Investment (SROI) emerged, and the commercial operation mechanism of philanthropic capitalism gradually matured. The commercial transformation of charity ultimately forced original non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to transform towards social enterprises, thereby meeting the investment intentions of philanthropic capitalists. Western left-wing scholars continue to pay attention to this series of new changes in the philanthropic field, discerning from the commercial operation model the inherent defects of philanthropic capitalism in wasting resources and monopolizing social welfare undertakings.

慈善资本家们坚信,在慈善资本主义时代，以市场为导向的商业化运作能够最大程度地实现慈善资源的有效利用。克莱尔·戈迪亚（Claire Gaudiani）在《伟大的善行：慈善事业如何推动美国经济以及挽救资本主义》一书中认为，投资手段能够突破传统慈善治标不治本的局限，“对人力、财富和理念进行投资是超越单纯赠予的高级慈善形式”。慈善资本主义思潮的兴起促使商业思维浸染了公益慈善事业原有的制度模式，公益伙伴基金会逐渐替代传统基金会成为本轮慈善革命的领衔机构，作为慈善市场活动参与主体的同时承担着联结“社会投资家”与“社会企业家”的任务。紧接着，为了提升公益风投的科学性与成功率，新型慈善资本（NPC）与社会投资回报（SROI）等中介机构、金融工具和评测体系应运而生，慈善资本主义的商业运营机制逐渐成熟。慈善的商业化变革最终迫使原有非政府组织（NGO）朝着社会企业的方向转型，从而达到迎合慈善资本家投资意愿的目的。西方左翼学者继续关注慈善领域的一系列新变化，他们从商业运作模式中洞悉了慈善资本主义浪费资源、垄断社会福利事业的内在缺陷。

First, market-oriented commercialized charity wastes social resources. For social charity undertakings, market-oriented commercialized operations significantly intensify the degree of exploitation. Western scholars have questioned the blindness and spontaneity of market allocation of charitable resources under the premise of private ownership. Wilson Japhy points out: “Rather than saying that philanthropic capitalism focuses on using market tools to enhance the scientific nature of problem-solving, it is better to say it is a social performance full of fantasy.” Looking at the actual situation, the key to the operation of philanthropic capitalism is the retreat of the state and the revival of the market. The close connection between charity and enterprises, markets, and profits significantly increases its fragility; both the unpredictable market and the sluggish enterprise may undermine basic services such as education and healthcare. Furthermore, constrained by personal ability and cognitive level, capitalists always prefer to make unprofessional investments and choices based solely on single commercial performance evaluation data. Amarante E. Franklin criticizes this erroneous logic of individualistic amateur philanthropy: “that wealthy individuals are able to solve the world’s most complex and stubborn problems simply because they have successfully accumulated vast amounts of wealth.” Clearly, this market-oriented capitalist charity, while causing a waste of resources, brings about a series of new social problems. Žižek points out that philanthropic capitalists repair with their right hand precisely what their left hand destroys: “The self-driving force of capital is significantly disciplining human activities; this out-of-control beast makes us blind to the dangers before our eyes.”

首先，以市场为导向的商业化慈善浪费社会资源。对于社会慈善事业而言，以市场为导向的商业化运作显著加剧了剥削程度。西方学者对私有制前提下市场配置慈善资源的盲目性与自发性提出了质疑。威尔逊·杰菲（Wilson Japhy）指出：“与其说慈善资本主义注重运用市场工具提升解决问题的科学性，不如说它是一场充满幻想的社会表演。”结合实际情况来看，慈善资本主义运转的关键是国家退却与市场重振，慈善与企业、市场、利润的紧密联系会显著增加其脆弱性，无论是变幻莫测的市场还是低迷的企业都有可能破坏教育医疗等基本服务。此外，受制于个人能力与认知水平，资本家总是偏好依据单一的商业绩效评估数据作出非专业的投资与抉择。阿马兰特·富兰克林（Amarante E. Franklin）批判了这种个人英雄主义业余慈善的错误逻辑：“即富裕的个人之所以能够解决世界上最复杂、最顽固的问题，仅仅是因为他们成功地积累了大量财富。” 显然这种以市场为导向的资本主义慈善在造成资源浪费的同时带来了一系列新的社会问题。齐泽克指出慈善资本家用右手修复的正是他们左手毁坏的东西：“资本的自我驱动正在显著规训着人类活动，这头失控的野兽使我们对眼前的危险视而不见。”

Second, the complex commercial operation mechanism raises the barriers to participation in charity and excludes citizen participation. Alana Semuels points out that capitalism intensifies monopoly and hegemony in the charitable field. The decision-making process of wealthy philanthropists does not require public opinion or public oversight, yet it can easily influence public policy and public services. “Private donors who are accountable to no one may be more influential than elected public officials.” [1]1 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1, Chapter 25, Section 4. The quotation is from the English edition; the Chinese text cites it in translation. Furthermore, behind the complex commercial operation mechanism lies the subversion of collective will by capital elites. Scholars such as Patricia K. Silva and Ruben G. Oliven emphasize that the internal logic and discourse system of philanthropic capitalism differ greatly from those of social charity. The core spirit of philanthropic capitalism is to believe in the progressive role of capital elites, whereas social charity undertakings focused on social movements and mass groups are just. “From the perspective of social construction, philanthropic capitalism is individualistic rather than communitarian.” [2]2 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto*, Chapter 1. The quotation is from the standard English translation; the Chinese text cites it in translation. They oppose individualism and advocate that the leaders of social movements concerned with collective interests are the protagonists in solving problems.

其次，复杂的商业运营机制提高了慈善参与壁垒，排斥了公民参与。艾伦·塞缪尔斯（Alana Semuels）指出，资本主义加剧了慈善领域的垄断与霸权，富豪慈善家的决策过程不需要听取公众意见和公众监督，但却可以轻而易举地对公共政策和公共服务造成影响，“对任何人都无需负责的私人捐赠者可能会比民选公职人员更具影响力” 。此外，复杂的商业运营机制背后是资本精英对集体意志的颠覆。帕特里夏·席尔瓦（Patricia K.Silva）、鲁本·奥利弗（Ruben GOliven）等学者强调，慈善资本主义与社会慈善的内在逻辑与话语体系大不相同，慈善资本主义的核心精神是信奉资本精英的进步作用，而专注于社会运动与大众团体的社会慈善事业才是正义的，“从社会建设的角度来看，慈善资本主义是一种个人主义而非社群主义” 。他们反对个人主义，主张关切集体利益的社会运动领导者才是解决问题的主角。

(II) Criticizing the Rule of Philanthropic Capital Intensifying Inequality

（二）批判慈善资本统治加剧不平等

Philanthropic capitalists accept inequality as part of the natural order of society, believing that unequal socio-economic relations are a necessary condition for the existence of charitable undertakings. Adherents of philanthropic capitalism generally believe in the leading role of the wealthy class in public welfare and charity, asserting that successful capitalists are the most ideal philanthropists, better at doing charity than the government. In an article titled “The Ethics of Entrepreneurial Philanthropy,” Harvey Charles and others point out that, based on the deontological theory of traditional charity, philanthropists believe that inequality in income and wealth is natural and desirable for the overall economic operation, but it is necessary to establish social solidarity through internal voluntary connections. In the era of economic globalization, the fluidity of borders provides favorable conditions for the aggressive expansion of philanthropic capitalism, further intensifying current inequality. In their book *Philanthropic Capitalism: How the Rich Are Saving the World*, Bishop and Green point out: “Globalization has become one of the driving forces of the current golden age of capitalism, and the idea that the rich should participate more actively in charity has also globalized.” [3]3 This appears to be a paraphrase or quotation from Marx and Engels, likely from *The Communist Manifesto* or related works, concerning the bourgeoisie's use of charity to control the working class. The Chinese text provides no specific source citation. With the long-term decline of welfare budgets in major Western governments, capitalists have accelerated the pace of external plunder under the guise of humanitarianism and international aid. Western left-wing scholars believe that this unregulated spontaneous state of philanthropic capital solidifies the unjust international ruling order, prompting the disorderly concentration of charitable resources to exacerbate inequality.

慈善资本家们接受不平等是社会自然秩序的一部分，认为不平等的社会经济关系是慈善事业得以存在的必要条件。慈善资本主义的拥护者们普遍信奉富人阶层对公益慈善事业的主导作用，主张成功的资本家是最理想的慈善家，他们比政府更擅长做慈善。哈维·查尔斯（Harvey Charles）等人在《企业家慈善的伦理》一文中指出，在传统慈善道义论基础上，慈善家们认为收入和财富的不平等对于整体经济运作而言是自然并可取的，但务必要通过内部的自愿联结建立社会团结。在经济全球化时代，边界的流动性为慈善资本主义的侵略扩张提供了优渥条件，进一步加剧了当下的不平等状况。比索普与格林在《慈善资本主义：富人在如何拯救世界》一书中指出：“全球化已经成为当前资本主义黄金时期的推动力之一，而富人应该更积极地参与慈善的观念也全球化了。”随着主要西方国家政府福利预算的长期下降，资本家们打着人道主义与国际援助的幌子加快了对外掠夺的步伐。西方左翼学者认为这种慈善资本不受监管的自发状态固化了不公正的国际统治秩序，促使无序集中的慈善资源加剧了不平等。

First, the rule of philanthropic capital solidifies unequal relations between people. Marx and Engels believed that the equality advocated by the bourgeoisie is merely equality in the exchange of equivalent commodities, using formal equality to conceal the substantive inequality in economic relations between people. In the charitable field, charitable resources under the control of capital do not flow to those most in need but are concentrated in wealthy areas convenient for commercial activities. Scholars such as Chuck Collins even argue: “The extreme concentration of personal wealth is essentially a simple fact of inequality, and the emergence of elite-dominated private philanthropy is likely to deepen rather than reduce inequality.” [4]4 David Harvey, *The New Imperialism* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 26. The Chinese text cites this in translation. Inequality between people is indirectly reflected in the relationships between different charitable organizations. Florentine Maier observes that philanthropic capitalism profoundly affects the operational state of non-governmental organizations and non-profit organizations: “The embedding of neoliberal values further consolidates the elite status of philanthropic capitalists,” [5]5 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto*, Chapter 1. Standard English translation. and grassroots or resource-poor non-profit organizations will consequently lose their legitimate rights. Western left-wing scholars have criticized the solidifying effect of philanthropic capital on unequal relations. Robert B. Reich regards philanthropy as a tool for the wealthy class to voice their opinions: “Certain forms of philanthropy can exacerbate inequality and threaten democratic ideals unless they are controlled at the institutional level.” [6]6 R. G. Peffer, *Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice* (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), p. 4. The Chinese text cites this in translation. Amarante E. Franklin believes that paternalistic philanthropic practices seriously undermine democracy: “When the best way to handle social problems is decided by the rich rather than by the intended beneficiaries of charitable undertakings, the result is a lack of democracy.” [7]7 Karl Marx, *Critique of the Gotha Programme*, Part I. The quotation is from the standard English translation; the Chinese text cites it in translation. The anti-democratic nature of philanthropic capitalism is self-evident.

首先，慈善资本统治固化人与人的不平等关系。马克思恩格斯认为，资产阶级倡导的平等权利只是商品等价交换方面的平等，以形式平等掩盖了人与人之间在经济关系层面实质的不平等。从慈善领域来看，资本操控下的慈善资源并非流向最需要援助的人，而是集中在便于开展商业活动的富裕地区。查克·柯林斯（Chuck Collins）等学者甚至认为：“个人财富的极端集中本质上就是不平等的简单事实，精英主导的私人慈善事业的出现很可能会加深而不是减少不平等。”人与人之间的不平等间接反馈在不同慈善组织的关系上。弗伦缇娜·梅尔（Florentine Maier）看到慈善资本主义深刻影响了非政府组织与非营利组织的运营状态：“新自由主义价值观的嵌入进一步巩固了慈善资本家的精英地位”，草根或资源匮乏的非营利组织将因此失去合法的权利。针对慈善资本对不平等关系的固化作用，西方左翼学者进行了批判。罗伯特·瑞奇（Robert BReich）将慈善事业看作富人阶层发声的工具：“某些形式的慈善会加剧不平等，威胁民主理想，除非它们得到制度层面的控制。” 阿马兰特·弗兰克兰认为，家长式的慈善作风严重破坏了民主，“当处理社会问题的最佳方式是由富人而非慈善事业的预期受益人决定，其结果是民主的缺失” ，慈善资本主义的反民主本质是不言而喻的。

Second, the rule of philanthropic capital strengthens the “colonial-dependency” system. Philanthropic capitalism not only fails to alleviate the inequality dilemma of global development but also becomes a tool for promoting global colonial rule. Using psychoanalytic theory, Žižek points out that under the ideology of multiculturalism, philanthropic capital represents a process of “auto-colonization” for nation-states: “With the transnational operation of capital, global companies cut their umbilical cords with their home countries, merely treating their country of origin as a territory to be colonized.” [8]8 The source of this quotation is not provided in the Chinese text. It appears to be a general reference to Marx and Engels' writings on the working class. Cecelia Lynch and Tanya Schwartz regard philanthropic capitalism as a form of spiritual brainwashing similar to missionary work: “We believe that instilling neoliberal spirit requires philanthropists to use relational power to exert pressure on recipients, demanding their acquiescence and commitment to the specific ideology of non-governmental organizations.” [9]9 Žižek, Slavoj. *First as Tragedy, Then as Farce*. Chinese edition, p. 22. In addition to value invasion, the colonial rule of philanthropic capital is more evident in economic control and political intervention. Rodger J. Jackson views philanthropic capitalism as a shield against accusations of economic colonization: “It reveals the forced changes that charitable organizations undergo, changes caused through interaction and exchange with the political system, ultimately leading to the emergence of colonization.” [10]10 Yoder, Timothy R., et al. “Charitable Foundations and Tax Avoidance.” *Tax Law Review*, vol. 68, no. 3, 2015, p. 487.

其次，慈善资本统治强化“殖民-依附”体系。慈善资本主义不仅没有缓和全球发展的不平等困境，反而成为助推全球殖民主义统治的工具。齐泽克运用精神分析理论指出文化多元主义意识形态下慈善资本对民族国家是一种“自动殖民”过程：“随着资本的跨国运作，全球性公司与其母国切断脐带，仅将其起源国当作一块需要殖民的领土。” 塞西莉亚·林奇（Cecelia Lynch）与谭雅·施瓦茨将慈善资本主义视为一种类似传教的精神洗脑：“我们认为，灌输新自由主义精神需要慈善家利用关系权力向接受者施加压力，要求他们默认并承诺遵守非政府组织的特定意识形态。” 除价值观入侵外，慈善资本的殖民统治更体现在经济控制与政治干预层面。罗杰·杰克逊（Rodger J.Jackson）将慈善资本主义视为抵御经济殖民指责的盾牌：“它揭示了慈善组织被迫发生的改变，这些改变是通过与政治系统的交流互动而造成的，最终导致殖民化的产生。”

(III) Analyzing the Opposition between the Logic of Capital and the Concept of Charity

（三）剖析资本逻辑与慈善理念的对立

Philanthropic capitalists endow capital with a creative premise, superstitiously believing that capital can work for the common interests of all humanity. After the 2008 international financial crisis, the new generation of the bourgeoisie reaffirmed Adam Smith’s judgment in *The Wealth of Nations* that individual interest enhances the general welfare of society, taking the economic hypothesis that capitalism possesses a moral advantage as the theoretical foundation of philanthropic capitalist thought. On this basis, Bishop loudly proclaimed: “Philanthropic capitalism has the potential to make the whole society a big winner.” [1]1 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1, Chapter 25, Section 4. The quotation is from the English edition; the Chinese text cites it in translation. This conflation of private interest and public good means that philanthropic capitalism is no longer confined to the specific operational level of conducting charitable activities through commercial means, but instead attempts to define charity as an essential attribute of capitalism. Using a Foucauldian analytical method, Jaffe criticized the bourgeoisie’s idealization of capitalism through charity, stating: “While promising that capitalism has morality, philanthropic capitalism infiltrates philanthropy through the revival of capital itself, constituting the invisible, obscene underbelly of the current system.” [2]2 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto*, Chapter 1. The quotation is from the standard English translation; the Chinese text cites it in translation. In the view of Western left-wing scholars, the logic of capital and the concept of charity are fundamentally opposed; capital operations that use charity and public welfare as a gimmick contradict capital’s profit-driven nature and cannot avoid the polarization of wealth brought about by accumulation.

慈善资本家们为资本赋予了创造性前提，迷信资本可以为全人类的共同利益工作。2008年国际金融危机后，新一代资产阶级重申亚当·斯密在《国富论》中对个人利益增进社会普遍福利的判断，将资本主义具备道德优势的经济假说作为慈善资本主义思想的理论基础，比索普据此高声呼吁道：“慈善资本主义有潜力使整个社会成为大赢家。”这种把私利与公益混为一谈的论断使慈善资本主义不再局限于以商业方式开展慈善活动的具体运营层面，而是试图将慈善规定为资本主义的本质属性。杰菲运用福柯式的分析方法对资产阶级利用慈善对资本主义进行理想化包装的论断作出指责：“在承诺资本主义具有道德的同时，慈善资本主义通过资本本身的复兴来渗透慈善事业，构成当前制度隐形的、淫秽的底层。” 在西方左翼学者看来，资本逻辑与慈善理念存在根本对立，以慈善公益为噱头的资本运作与其逐利本性相悖，无法避免积累带来的贫富分化。

On the one hand, capital’s profit-driven nature overrides moral ethics and is fundamentally opposed to charity’s altruistic spirit. Engels pointed out that, as personified capital, the rentier class represented by capitalists has no morality whatsoever; charity is merely a means for them to extract surplus value from workers. “They do not give alms for nothing; they regard their alms as a business deal, and they do business with the poor.” [3]3 This appears to be a paraphrase or quotation from Marx and Engels, likely from *The Communist Manifesto* or related works, concerning the bourgeoisie's use of charity to control the working class. The Chinese text provides no specific source citation. Western left-wing scholars similarly argue that philanthropic capitalism is in many respects merely the embodiment of capitalism’s “soft trade,” a shrewd choice made by capitalists to achieve profit-making goals. “It is well known that self-interested motives lie behind both individual donations and large-scale philanthropy, and the novelty of philanthropic capitalism lies in the open articulation of opportunities for private gain.” [4]4 David Harvey, *The New Imperialism* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 26. The Chinese text cites this in translation. Reich criticized the so-called “corporate social responsibility” as meaningless: “Companies are not established to do charity, let alone to operate according to the principles of the charity industry.” [5]5 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto*, Chapter 1. Standard English translation. In fact, philanthropic capitalism has not escaped the shackles of interest; foundations and non-profit organizations operating under the guise of charity often become tools for capitalists to avoid taxes and obtain profits. Henry J. Aaron and William G. Gale argue that loopholes in U.S. law regarding foundation tax provisions encourage capitalists to ally with non-profit organizations: “Non-profit status also relieves organizations eligible for tax exemption from the burden of very similar income and expenditure items, exempts them from taxation when they incidentally make a profit, and allows them to use tax-exempt operating profits to expand their scale.” [6]6 R. G. Peffer, *Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice* (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), p. 4. The Chinese text cites this in translation. Deborah M. Weissman criticizes philanthropic capitalism as essentially a transfer payment outside of progressive taxation; the apparent charity and generosity of the rich are driven by selfishness, “in fact merely an attempt to maintain their own power and wealth.” [7]7 Karl Marx, *Critique of the Gotha Programme*, Part I. The quotation is from the standard English translation; the Chinese text cites it in translation. Clearly, whether in terms of internal logic or external manifestation, capital’s profit-driven nature is fundamentally incompatible with the altruistic spirit of charity.

一方面，资本逐利本性倾轧道德伦理，与慈善利他精神根本对立。恩格斯指出，作为人格化的资本，以资本家为代表的食利者阶层没有任何道德可言，慈善只是其牟取劳动者剩余价值的手段，“他们不会白白地施舍，他们把自己的施舍看做一笔买卖，他们和穷人做买卖”。西方左翼学者同样主张慈善资本主义在许多方面只是资本主义“软贸易”的化身，是资本家为了达到牟利目的的精明选择，“众所周知，个人捐赠和大规模慈善的背后都隐藏着利己动机，而慈善资本主义的新颖之处在于对私人获益机会开放性的公开表述”。瑞奇指责说，所谓“企业社会责任”的说法毫无意义，“公司不是为了做慈善而成立的，更不可能用慈善行业的原则来运营” 。事实上，慈善资本主义并没有跳出利益的桎梏，打着慈善名义的基金会和非营利性组织往往成为资本家避税获利的工具。亨瑞·艾伦（Henry J. Aaron）与威廉姆·盖尔（William G. Gale）认为美国法律对基金会税款规定的漏洞鼓励了资本家与非营利组织联合：“非营利地位还是把有资格获得免税的组织从十分相近的收入和支出项目的负担中解脱了出来，使它们在偶然有了利润时也不必纳税，并且允许它们把免税的经营利润用于扩大规模。”戴博拉·韦斯曼（Deborah M. Weissman）批判慈善资本主义本质上是累进税之外的转移支付，富人表面上的慈善与慷慨是由自私驱动的，“实际上只是一种维护自身权力与财富的尝试”。显然无论是内在逻辑还是外在表现，资本的逐利本性均与慈善利他精神格格不入。

On the other hand, the law of capital accumulation exacerbates the unfair distribution of wealth and is fundamentally opposed to the principle of charity’s universal benefit. Marx’s revelation of the general law of capital accumulation clarifies the limited capacity and scope of the bourgeoisie’s charitable relief: “The greater the pauperized stratum of the working class and the industrial reserve army, the greater the official number of paupers requiring relief.” [8]8 The source of this quotation is not provided in the Chinese text. It appears to be a general reference to Marx and Engels' writings on the working class. The organization of charity has proceeded almost simultaneously with the process of capital accumulation; massive capital accumulation has even become a necessary condition for contemporary capitalist charity to be carried out. Žižek noted the significant discrepancy between the funds raised and the amounts donated by charitable organizations controlled by capitalists: “First you amass billions, and then you return them (a small portion of them) to those in need.” [9]9 Žižek, Slavoj. *First as Tragedy, Then as Farce*. Chinese edition, p. 22. Capitalists not only use the gimmick of charity to extract hefty profits but also try every means to evade their donation obligations. Because the business income of foundations is tax-exempt, donors can effectively control the foundation. In the view of scholars such as Timothy R. Yoder, this behavior of “accumulating wealth” rather than “distributing wealth” runs counter to the principle of charity, thereby forcing the middle class and grassroots people to bear the burden of charity, which inevitably exacerbates the unfair distribution of wealth: “To reduce the tax burden caused by business activities, charitable organizations skillfully channel excess budget expenditures into taxable activities.” [10]10 Yoder, Timothy R., et al. “Charitable Foundations and Tax Avoidance.” *Tax Law Review*, vol. 68, no. 3, 2015, p. 487. At the same time, philanthropic capitalism mystifies the process of capital accumulation. Scholars such as Linsey McGoey and Thiel Darren criticize philanthropic capitalism for “providing both a refuge and a technique” to conceal the process of capital accumulation. [11]11 McGoey, Linsey, and Thiel Darren. “The Philanthropic Fix: How Foundations Hide the Costs of Capital Accumulation.” *New Left Review*, no. 112, 2018, p. 67. To solve the problem of philanthropic capital exacerbating distributional injustice, scholars such as John Roemer advocate establishing a redistributive tax system through public democratic decision-making: “It is unrealistic to expect that the wealth donated by wealthy capitalists through corporate philanthropy will be as much as the wealth we could collect through a more redistributive tax system.” [12]12 Roemer, John. *A Future for Socialism*. Chinese edition, p. 89.

另一方面，资本积累规律加剧财富分配不公，与慈善普惠原则根本对立。马克思关于资本积累一般规律的揭示阐明了资产阶级慈善救济能力与范围的有限性，“工人阶级中贫苦阶层和产业后备军越大，官方认为需要救济的贫民也就越多”。慈善的组织化几乎与资本积累过程同步进行，巨额的资本积累甚至成为当代资本主义慈善得以开展的必备条件。齐泽克注意到资本家控制下的慈善组织在集资与捐赠额度之间往往存在着显著差异，“首先你敛财数十亿，然后把它们（其中一小部分）归还给有需要的人” 。资本家们不仅凭借慈善噱头骗取丰厚利润，而且想方设法回避捐赠义务。由于基金会的相关业务收入是免税的，出资者可以对基金会进行有效控制，在提摩·尤德（Timothy R. Yoder）等学者看来，这种“聚财”而非“散财”的行为与慈善原则背道而驰，进而迫使中产阶级和基层民众承担慈善义务，这不可避免地加剧了财富的分配不公，“为了减少商业活动造成的税款负担，慈善机构将超出的预算开支巧妙地引导至应税活动之中”。与此同时，慈善资本主义使资本积累走向神秘化。林西·麦科伊（Linsey McGoey）与蒂尔·达伦（Thiel Darren）等学者批判慈善资本主义为掩盖资本积累过程“既提供了避难所又提供了技巧”。为了破解慈善资本加剧分配不公的难题，约翰·罗默（John Roerner）等学者主张通过公众民主决策建立再分配税收体系，“期望富有的资本家通过公司慈善事业捐赠的财富能与我们实行一套更具再分配效果的税收体系征收的财富一样多，这是不现实的” 。

III. Theoretical Evaluation of Western Critiques of Philanthropic Capitalism

三、西方慈善资本主义批判的理论评析

Consistent with the trajectory of the birth and expansion of philanthropic capitalist thought, Western left-wing scholars have focused on the frontiers of philanthropic theory. They have not only analyzed the market-oriented commercial operation model of charity but also paid attention to analyzing the adverse consequences of philanthropic capitalism and the value orientation of concealing capitalist ideology. Western left-wing scholars have analyzed and criticized philanthropic capitalist thought from form to content, from the individual to society, and from one country to many countries, exposing the reactionary nature of philanthropic capitalism relatively comprehensively from multiple perspectives including economic, political, and cultural dimensions. However, at the same time, constrained by factors such as class standpoint and social system, the critiques of philanthropic capitalism by Western left-wing scholars also have some shortcomings.

与慈善资本主义思想的诞生与扩张轨迹相一致，西方左翼学者关注慈善理论前沿，不仅剖析了以市场为导向的慈善商业化运营模式，而且注重分析慈善资本主义带来的不良后果与隐匿资本主义意识形态的价值取向。西方左翼学者对慈善资本主义思想展开了由形式到内容、由个人到社会、由一国到多国的分析与批判，从经济、政治、文化等多维视角较为全面地揭露了慈善资本主义的反动本质。但与此同时，受制于阶级立场与社会制度等因素，西方左翼学者对慈善资本主义的批判也存在一些缺陷。

(1) Failure to Adhere to the Labor Theory of Value, and Failure to Explore the Source of Philanthropic Funds from the Source of Production

（一）未能坚持劳动价值论，未从生产源头探讨慈善资金的来源问题

After the 2008 international financial crisis, Western left-wing scholars recognized that long-standing Marxist theoretical research had largely not been based on Marx’s own economic thought, but rather on the revisionist schemes provided by his successors, even exhibiting a tendency toward “Marxism without Marx.” Alan Freeman, citing the view from Roemer’s *Free to Lose*, pointed out: “We have completely abandoned the classical Marxist definitions of the labor theory of value and the theory of surplus value.” [13]13 Freeman, Alan. “The Crisis of Marxism and the Return of Marx.” *Historical Materialism*, vol. 18, no. 2, 2010, p. 123. In the process of analyzing capitalist economic crises and examining capitalist society, Western Marxism began to re-embrace the theoretical weapons of the labor theory of value and the theory of surplus value.

2008年国际金融危机之后，西方左翼学者认识到长期以来的马克思主义理论研究很大程度上没有立足于马克思本人的经济思想，而是着眼于其继任者提供的修正方案，甚至存在“没有马克思的马克思主义”倾向。艾伦·弗里曼（Alan Freeman）引用罗默《在自由中丧失》一书中的观点指出：“我们完全抛弃了马克思主义关于劳动价值论与剩余价值论的经典定义。” 在剖析资本主义经济危机，审视资本主义社会的过程中，西方马克思主义开始重拾劳动价值论与剩余价值论的理论武器。

However, in the field of public welfare and charity, although Western leftist scholars attach importance to critiquing philanthrocapitalism from the perspective of economic relations, their critiques mainly revolve around the spheres of exchange and distribution, with few research results tracing the source of charitable funds back to the origin of labor and production. On the path of "returning to Marx," a deviation has occurred. Although Western leftist scholars recognize that capitalists, under the guise of philanthrocapitalism, attempt to achieve tax avoidance, as well as the resulting problems of wealth concentration and the gap between rich and poor, they attribute the contradiction solely to capital accumulation under unequal exchange, or else pin their hopes on establishing a redistributive tax system through public democratic decision-making. Particularly in the process of contending with neoliberal ideology, scholars place greater emphasis on struggling from perspectives such as cultural hegemony, public decision-making, and opposing capitalist authority, reflecting a serious deficiency in their understanding of the Marxist labor theory of value. In fact, Marx and Engels' research on charity was never limited to the final distribution outcome; rather, they traced the source of charitable funds back to the initial process of labor production. They recognized that the charitable donations of the bourgeoisie still essentially originate from the surplus value created by the proletariat: "To deduct from his wages the poor-rate that he receives, and to consider this poor-rate as a constituent part of his wages, is, in fact, a logically consistent procedure." [1]1 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1, Chapter 25, Section 4. The quotation is from the English edition; the Chinese text cites it in translation.

然而在公益慈善领域，西方左翼学者虽然重视从经济关系对慈善资本主义展开批判，但主要围绕交换与分配环节，鲜有聚焦劳动生产源头追溯慈善资金来源的研究成果，在“回归马克思”的道路上发生了偏斜。西方左翼学者虽然看到资本家们打着慈善资本主义的幌子企图达到避税目的，以及造成的财富集中与贫富差距等问题，但仅仅将矛盾归咎于不平等交换下的资本积累，抑或寄希望于公众民主决策建立再分配税收体系。特别是与新自由主义意识形态博弈的过程中，学者们更加重视从文化霸权、公众决策、反资本家权威等视角进行斗争，反映出对马克思主义劳动价值论理解的严重不足。事实上，马克思恩格斯对慈善问题的研究从未局限于最终的分配结果，而是依据慈善资金来源追溯到最初的劳动生产过程。他们看到资产阶级的慈善捐赠本质上仍来源于无产阶级创造的剩余价值：“把工人靠济贫税得到的社会救济金从他的工资中扣除，并且把这种救济金看作工资的一个组成部分，这种做法是完全合乎逻辑的。”

(2) Focusing on Criticizing Adverse Consequences, Neglecting the Fundamental Evils of Charity under Capitalist Private Ownership

（二）侧重于问责不良后果，忽略资本主义私有制下慈善的根本弊端

In Volume 1 of *Capital*, Marx already revealed the eternal natural law of capital's valorization and expansion: "The essential condition for the existence and rule of the bourgeois class is the accumulation of wealth in private hands, the formation and augmentation of capital." [2]2 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto*, Chapter 1. The quotation is from the standard English translation; the Chinese text cites it in translation. Marx and Engels believed that capitalist charity serves as a tool for maintaining bourgeois rule, essentially expanding the space for capital valorization by controlling the laboring masses: "The aristocracy used charitable concessions to soften the laboring masses; now the bourgeoisie steps in, seizing the political tendencies of the workers and placing them under its own control." [3]3 This appears to be a paraphrase or quotation from Marx and Engels, likely from *The Communist Manifesto* or related works, concerning the bourgeoisie's use of charity to control the working class. The Chinese text provides no specific source citation. Therefore, whether it is the unequal relationships brought about by top-down donations or the "colonial-dependency" system formed under the rule of charitable capital, all serve the entire system of capitalist private ownership, attempting to find larger consumer markets in the process of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, and extracting more surplus value by dumping surplus products. This indirectly corroborates David Harvey's analysis of the new imperialism: "It involves not only the establishment of imperial rule or commercial hegemony, but also the extension of the logic and laws of the domestic economy, drawing other economies into its orbit." [4]4 David Harvey, *The New Imperialism* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 26. The Chinese text cites this in translation.

在《资本论》第1卷中，马克思就曾揭示了资本增殖与扩张的永恒自然规律：“资产阶级生存和统治的根本条件，是财富在私人手里的积累，是资本的形成和增殖。”马克思恩格斯认为，资本主义慈善充当着维系资产阶级统治的工具，本质上是通过控制劳动大众为资本增殖拓展空间，“贵族是利用慈善性质的让步来软化劳动大众的；而现在资产阶级出动了，它顺势抓住劳动者的政治倾向并把这种倾向置于自己的控制之下”。因此，无论是通过自上而下捐赠所带来的不平等关系，抑或是慈善资本统治下形成的“殖民-依附”体系，都在为整个资本主义私有制服务，试图在利润率趋向下降的过程中寻找更大的消费市场，通过倾销剩余产品牟取更多剩余价值。这就间接印证了大卫·哈维（David Harvey）对新帝国主义的分析：“不仅涉及建立帝国统治或商业霸权，而且也涉及扩展国内经济的逻辑和法则，并把其他经济体纳入它的轨道中。”

The exposure by Western leftist scholars of the adverse consequences of philanthrocapitalism—such as resource waste, anti-democratic paternalism, and colonial aggression—is undoubtedly reasonable. However, constrained by their class standpoint, most Western leftist scholars' related research neglects the intrinsic connection between charity and relations of production and social systems, and also fails to see the inevitable demise of the lie of philanthrocapitalism. Judging from current research results, the studies of Western leftist scholars mainly focus on the analysis of specific cases such as educational donations, ecological philanthropy, and medical assistance. In terms of research objects, they pay more attention to entities like non-governmental organizations, social enterprises, and philanthropic foundations. The conclusions drawn tend to focus on holding philanthrocapitalism accountable for its harmful effects, exhibiting a tendency to address issues on a case-by-case basis, with significant limitations in the depth and breadth of critique. It is evident that, in order to more deeply analyze and critique the well-packaged philanthrocapitalism, Western leftist scholars must anchor their research and critique at the level of the ownership of the means of production, fundamentally penetrating the inherent contradictions of capitalist private ownership.

西方左翼学者对慈善资本主义造成的资源浪费、反民主的家长式作风以及殖民侵略等不良后果的揭露无疑具有合理性。但受制于阶级立场，大部分西方左翼学者的相关研究忽视慈善与生产关系、社会制度的内在联系，也未能看到慈善资本主义谎言必然覆灭的命运。从当前的研究成果来看，西方左翼学者的研究主要集中在对教育捐赠、生态慈善、医疗救助等具体案例的分析上，在研究对象方面则更加关注非政府组织、社会企业、公益基金会等主体，得出的研究结论侧重于问责慈善资本主义带来的恶劣影响，存在就事论事的倾向，批判力度与广度存在很大局限。可见，为了更深层次地剖析、批判包装精良的慈善资本主义，西方左翼学者必须将研究与批判落脚到生产资料所有制层面，从根本上透视资本主义私有制的内在矛盾。

(3) Weakening the Class Character of Charity, Failing to Touch upon the False Essence of Bourgeois Charity

（三）弱化慈善阶级特征，未触及资产阶级慈善的虚假本质

Although Western leftist scholars advocate using economic criteria for class division and emphasize the exploitative relationships between classes, there is also a prevalent tendency towards pluralism in their class perspectives. Some even attempt to grant a special status to the capitalist groups engaged in so-called charitable endeavors. This eclectic stance falls precisely into the trap set by capitalists to weaken class antagonism. They recognize the impact of private capital on social charity but simplistically attribute it to the consequence of social elites harboring heroic ambitions lacking professional philanthropic skills, selectively ignoring the class antagonism concealed by the hypocritical veil of public welfare charity. In fact, as early as in the *Communist Manifesto*, Marx and Engels pointed out the tendency towards the simplification of class antagonism in capitalist society: "Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat." [5]5 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto*, Chapter 1. Standard English translation. We still live in the historical era indicated by Marxism. The class standpoint of the bourgeoisie determines that they cannot genuinely sympathize with the proletariat, and determines the hypocritical essence of the charitable activities they engage in. Therefore, Western leftist scholars still need to truly master the Marxist method of class analysis and the theory of class struggle, and further recognize that philanthrocapitalism is not a measure to promote social fairness or narrow the gap between rich and poor, but a significant manifestation of the increasingly prominent class antagonism of the present era.

西方左翼学者虽然主张运用经济标准进行阶级划分，重视阶级之间所存在的剥削关系，但在阶级观点上也普遍存在着多元主义的倾向，甚至试图为从事所谓慈善事业的资本家群体赋予一种特殊地位，这种折中主义的立场正中资本家为弱化阶级对立所设的陷阱。他们看到了私人资本对社会慈善的冲击，但将其简单归结为怀揣英雄主义抱负的社会精英欠缺专业慈善技能的后果，选择性地忽略了公益慈善的虚伪面纱所掩盖的阶级对立。事实上，马克思恩格斯早在《共产党宣言》中就指出了资本主义社会阶级对立简单化的倾向：“整个社会日益分裂为两大敌对的阵营，分裂为两大相互直接对立的阶级：资产阶级和无产阶级。”我们依然处于马克思主义所指明的历史时代，资产阶级的阶级立场决定了他们不可能真正同情无产阶级，决定了其所从事的慈善活动的虚伪本质。因此，西方左翼学者还需真正掌握马克思主义阶级分析方法与阶级斗争学说，进一步认识到慈善资本主义不是推动社会公平、缩小贫富差距的举措，而是当前阶级对立愈发突出的显著表现。

(4) Neglecting Socialist Public Welfare Undertakings, Failing to Propose Feasible Suggestions for Civic Charity

（四）忽视社会主义公益事业，未能针对公民慈善提出可行建议

There is still some controversy in Western academic circles over whether social moral issues such as public welfare and charity belong to the research field of Marxist theory. R. G. Peffer, in his book *Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice*, cites the views of scholars like Ellen Wood, pointing out: "Although Marx had a normative viewpoint or a form of practical reason, it was not essentially moral in nature." [6]6 R. G. Peffer, *Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice* (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), p. 4. The Chinese text cites this in translation. While this kind of discourse strongly attacks bourgeois false charity, it also has the limitation of neglecting the progressive role of the proletariat. In his *Critique of the Gotha Programme*, Marx envisioned the distribution principle for the first phase of communist society, proposing that, on the basis of adhering to the principle of distribution according to work, it is necessary to establish "funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what now comes under so-called official poor relief," [7]7 Karl Marx, *Critique of the Gotha Programme*, Part I. The quotation is from the standard English translation; the Chinese text cites it in translation. regarding public welfare and charity as a necessary guarantee for the smooth realization of the transition. It can be seen that although Marx and Engels did not provide a complete construction of the charity model under the socialist system, they never denied the benevolent acts of the working people: "The workers' benevolence is also manifested in other aspects, and its forms of expression are also pleasant." [8]8 The source of this quotation is not provided in the Chinese text. It appears to be a general reference to Marx and Engels' writings on the working class.

西方学界关于公益慈善等社会道德问题是否属于马克思主义理论的研究领域尚存一定争议。R.G.佩弗（R. G. Peffer）在《马克思主义、道德与社会正义》一书中引用了艾伦·伍德（Ellen Wood）等学者的观点指出：“虽然马克思有一种规范观点或一种实践理性形式，但它在本质上不是道德的。”这种论述虽然强势抨击了资产阶级虚假慈善，但同样存在忽略无产阶级进步作用的局限性。马克思在《哥达纲领批判》中设想了共产主义第一阶段的分配原则，提出在坚持按劳分配原则的基础上要做到“为丧失劳动能力的人等等设立的基金，总之，就是现在属于所谓官办济贫事业的部分”，将公益慈善事业视为顺利实现过渡的必要保障。可见，尽管马克思恩格斯未对社会主义制度下的慈善模式作出完整建构，但他们从未否定劳动人民的良善之举，“工人的仁慈也表现在其他各个方面，而且其表现形式也是令人愉快的”。

Since its inception, philanthrocapitalism has faced multiple doubts from academia and society. Consistent with the trajectory of the expansion of philanthrocapitalist thought, Western leftist scholars have kept up with theoretical frontiers, launching critiques from multiple dimensions including economics, politics, culture, and society. However, current research results focus more on theoretical responses, not only exhibiting a clear lag but also a tendency towards destruction without construction. Although Western leftist scholars emphasize the important value of civic charity, they do not focus on the principal position of the proletariat in charity, fail to consider and construct a charitable system truly needed by the working masses, and even less do they continue the vision of Marx and Engels for socialist public welfare and charity. Their overall research presents a relatively pronounced academic style. (Notes omitted)

自诞生之日起，慈善资本主义就遭受了来自学界与社会的多方质疑。与慈善资本主义思想的扩张轨迹相一致，西方左翼学者紧跟理论前沿，从经济、政治、文化、社会等多维度展开批判，但当前的研究成果更多聚焦于理论回应，不仅具有明显的迟滞性，而且存在只破不立的倾向。西方左翼学者虽然强调公民慈善具有重要价值，但未将关注点聚焦于无产阶级的慈善主体地位，未能考量并建构劳动群众真正亟需的慈善制度体系，更未赓续马克思恩格斯对社会主义公益慈善事业的设想，其整体研究呈现出较为明显的学院派风格。（注释略）

(The author is a 2021-level doctoral student at the School of Marxism Studies, Renmin University of China.)

（作者系中国人民大学马克思主义学院2021级博士研究生）

Online Editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑