Re-examining Marx’s Social Theory and Its Contemporary Relevance

Starting from the proposition of “the self-criticism of bourgeois society” that Marx put forward in the “Introduction” to the *Grundrisse*, we can reinterpret Marx’s social theory and activate its contemporary relevance. Although this interpretation neither intends nor can it completely replace other interpretive models, it is quite beneficial for re-examining Marx’s classical texts, his social theory, and its contemporary relevance. It can both enhance the descriptive effect of bourgeois society and enrich the horizon for understanding bourgeois society.

从马克思在《〈政治经济学批判〉导言》中所提出的“资产阶级社会的自我批判”命题切入，我们可以重新解读马克思社会理论并激活其当代性。虽然这种解读无意也不能完全替代其他解读模式，但对重审马克思经典文本、社会理论及其当代性颇有助益，既可以增强资产阶级社会的描述效应，又可以丰富资产阶级社会的理解视域。

Marx’s social theory is manifested not only as a thorough grasp of real individuals and their reified circumstances, but also as a microscopic anatomy of bourgeois society in its totality. On the one hand, as the actual bearers of social relations, real individuals jointly constitute bourgeois society through various activities. On the other hand, as the overall network of social relations, the structure of bourgeois society prescribes real individuals and their existential circumstances. Therefore, Marx grasps bourgeois society as a subject in constant motion and ceaseless change, that is, the “real subject” of dialectics. Through an in-depth study of the self-movement of bourgeois society, Marx concretely narrates the self-movement of bourgeois society in his classical texts. In essence, this proves from another angle that Marx’s method of research and his method of presentation are highly unified.

马克思社会理论不仅表现为对现实的个人及其物化处境的透彻把握，而且表现为对总体意义上的资产阶级社会的显微解剖。一方面，作为社会关系的实际承担者，现实的个人经由各种活动共同构成了资产阶级社会。另一方面，作为社会关系的网络总体，资产阶级社会结构性地规定着现实的个人及其生存处境。因此，马克思把资产阶级社会把握为经常运动和不断变化的主体，即辩证法的“实在主体”。通过对资产阶级社会自我运动的深入研究，马克思在经典文本中具体叙述了资产阶级社会的自我运动。实质上，这从另一个角度证明了马克思的研究方法和叙述方法是高度统一的。

Regarding the understanding of the overall picture and self-movement of bourgeois society, we often see two different paths. The first is the path focusing on political economy, which takes the relationship between capital and labor as the “axis around which the entire system of bourgeois society revolves.” This is not only what Engels explicitly submitted to us when summarizing and generalizing Marx’s theory, but is also clearly demonstrated by Marx in classical texts such as *Wage Labour and Capital*, *Capital*, and its manuscripts. The separation of capital and labor constitutes the premise of modern private property, and modern private property further institutionalizes and solidifies this separation. Fundamentally, modern private property provides institutional guarantees for private property and alienated labor. On the one hand, the relationship between capital and labor is linked to the structural contradictions between productive forces and relations of production, and between the economic base and the superstructure. On the other hand, it extends into the bipolar antagonism between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Centered on the relationship between capital and labor, the self-movement of bourgeois society, although directly determined by the development of the relations of production (whose sum total is the economic base) based on the productive forces, and the superstructure erected upon the economic base, is concretely manifested as the degree of antagonism between classes.

就理解资产阶级社会的总体图景和自我运动而言，我们常看到两条不同的路径：一是侧重于政治经济学的路径，即把资本与劳动的关系视为资产阶级社会体系“所围绕旋转的轴心”。这不仅是恩格斯在概括总结马克思学说时明确提交给我们的，更是马克思在《雇佣劳动与资本》《资本论》及其手稿等经典文本中所清晰昭示的。资本与劳动的分离构成了现代私有制的前提，现代私有制则将资本与劳动的分离进一步制度化、固定化。从根本上讲，现代私有制为私有财产和异化劳动提供了制度化保障。资本与劳动的关系一方面关联着生产力与生产关系、经济基础与上层建筑的结构性矛盾，另一方面延展出资产阶级与无产阶级的两极性对抗。围绕着资本与劳动的关系，资产阶级社会的自我运动虽然直接取决于生产力基础上的生产关系（其总和即经济基础）、耸立在经济基础之上的上层建筑的发展状况，但是具体表现为阶级与阶级之间的对抗程度。

The second is the path focusing on social and political philosophy, which takes the relationship between the individual and society, or the individual and the whole, as the key clue for understanding bourgeois society. Comparatively speaking, the division between the individual and society, or the individual and the whole, is somewhat vague; the division between the individual, society, and the state is more specific, although this does not simply correspond to the relationship between real individuals, civil society, and the political state. For Marx, modern bourgeois society involves not only real individuals, but also civil society (i.e., society in a general sense, or economic society) and political society (i.e., the state in a general sense, or the political state). In bourgeois society, real individuals are both the concrete components of civil society and the basic units of the political state. That is to say, in order to have a stronger descriptive effect, we insert the meso-level economic society between the micro-level real individual and the macro-level political state. In order to have greater normative significance, we insert the moderate and concrete principle of society between the extreme and abstract principle of the individual and the principle of the state (the principle of the whole). Therefore, the customary relationship between the individual and society, or the individual and the whole, needs to be further refined, even complicated into the relationship between the individual, society, and the state. From a realistic perspective, the individual appears as a knot of social relations, while society and the state are merely networks of relations formed by individuals in the process of their actual life activities.

二是侧重于社会政治哲学的路径，即把个人与社会或个人与整体的关系作为理解资产阶级社会的关键线索。相较而言，个人与社会或个人与整体这种划分有失笼统，个人、社会与国家的划分更加具体，尽管这并非简单对应于现实个人、市民社会与政治国家的关系。对于马克思而言，现代资产阶级社会不仅涉及现实个人，而且包括市民社会（即一般意义上的社会，或者经济社会）和政治社会（即一般意义上的国家，或者政治国家）；在资产阶级社会中，现实个人既是市民社会的具体构成，又是政治国家的基本单位。也就是说，为了更具有描述效应，在微观的现实个人和宏观的政治国家之间，我们楔入了中观的经济社会；为了更具有规范意义，在极端而抽象的个人原则与国家原则（整体原则）之间，我们楔入了持中而具体的社会原则。因此，惯常的个人与社会或个人与整体的关系要再细化，甚至复杂化为个人、社会与国家的关系。从现实性上而言，个人表现为社会关系的纽结，而社会、国家不过是诸个人在实际生活过程中形成的关系网络。

The division of the relationship between the individual, society, and the state, along with the division of principles matching them, displays the general tendencies at the level of social practice and theoretical thought. In essence, they are ideal types in Weber’s sense, which indeed have a strong descriptive effect for bourgeois society. Further concretizing and complicating the general division between the individual and society, or the individual and the whole, and their principles, not only provides guiding clues for understanding bourgeois society, but also finds more concrete subject-bearers for the simplified antagonism between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat and the abstracted contradiction between productive forces and relations of production. Comparatively speaking, the relationship between the individual, society, and the state, and the underlying principles of the individual, society, and the state, can provide more explanatory space for our understanding of bourgeois society and our grasp of Marx’s social theory. Furthermore, this is to find an explanatory chain between reified reality and resistance to power, between social structure and active subjects, thereby balancing the explanatory equilibrium between subject activation and objective structuration. Perhaps, as Negri and other radical leftists believe, we can neither stop at the objectivity obtained by structuralism nor at the subjectivity emphasized by idealists or even solipsists; true hope should lie in the reconstruction of subjectivation and ontology. Therefore, in Marx’s social theory, the path of understanding through political economy and the path of understanding through social and political philosophy are not diametrically opposed, but are highly complementary.

个人、社会与国家的关系划分以及与它们相匹配的原则划分，所展示的是社会实践层面和思想理论层面的大致倾向。实质上，它们就是韦伯意义上的理想类型，对于资产阶级社会而言确实有很强的描述效应。将一般意义上个人与社会或个人与整体及其原则的划分再具体化和再复杂化，不仅为理解资产阶级社会提供了指导性线索，而且为被简单化的资产阶级与无产阶级的对抗、被抽象化的生产力与生产关系的矛盾找到了更加具体的主体承担者。比较而言，个人、社会与国家的关系及其背后的个人原则、社会原则与国家原则可以为我们理解资产阶级社会、把握马克思社会理论提供更多的解释空间。进一步说，这是在物化现实与权力反抗、社会结构与能动主体之间找到一个解释链条，从而兼顾了主体能动化和客观结构化的解释平衡。或许，正如奈格里等激进左翼所认为的那样，我们既不能止步于结构主义所获取的客观性，也不能止步于唯心论者甚至唯我论者所强调的主体性，真正的希望应在于主体化和本体论的重构。因此，在马克思社会理论中，政治经济学的理解路径和社会政治哲学的理解路径不是截然对立的，而是具有很强的互补性。

Marx’s social theory is an in-depth anatomy of the self-movement of bourgeois society in the 19th century. On the one hand, closely adhering to the times to grasp the actual social conditions of Western Europe and even the entire world, Marx’s social theory possesses a strong sense of empirical reality. On the other hand, it strives to inquire, from the principled height of what it means to be human, into the possible schemes for human emancipation and their real conditions, thereby possessing a rich theoretical imagination. It should be said that Marx’s social theory integrates a sense of empirical reality and theoretical imagination; Marx was not content to be merely a specialist in empirical data or a specialist in abstract meaning. The methodological inspiration of Marx’s social theory lies in: on the one hand, based on an empirical grasp of a given society, carrying out necessary theoretical distillation; on the other hand, returning the distilled theory to the empirical level to seek its real foundation. This inspiration essentially touches upon the issue of the theory’s contemporary relevance, that is, how to draw from Marx’s social theory the power to observe contemporary social reality. Re-examining Marx’s social theory is of great benefit for interpreting, criticizing, and shaping contemporary social reality.

马克思社会理论是对19世纪资产阶级社会自我运动的深入解剖。一方面，紧贴时代来把握西欧甚至整个世界的社会现实状况，马克思社会理论具有厚重的现实经验感；另一方面，努力从人之为人的原则高度来追问人的解放之可能性方案及其现实条件，从而具有丰富的理论想象力。应该说，马克思社会理论集现实经验感和理论想象力为一体，马克思并不满足于做一个材料专业户或意义专业户。马克思社会理论的方法论启示在于：一方面，在对既定社会进行经验把握的基础上，作必要的思想提炼；另一方面，将提炼的思想返回到经验层面，寻找其现实基础。这一启示实质上触碰到该理论的当代性问题，即如何从马克思社会理论中汲取观照当代社会现实的力量。重审马克思社会理论，对于解释、批判和形塑当代社会现实大有裨益。

First, the power to interpret contemporary social reality. As an anatomy of the self-movement of bourgeois society, how can Marx’s social theory explain the trends of change in bourgeois society over the more than 100 years since Marx’s death? Compared to the 19th century in which Marx lived, the massive emergence of immaterial labor since the 20th century, the deepening of globalization, the deep connection between finance and capital accumulation, and the widespread proliferation of digital technology all indicate that capitalist society has undergone new and even extraordinarily drastic changes. The key to Marx’s social theory lies in confronting the various changes in the conditions of social life head-on, and then regarding these changes as concrete manifestations of society’s self-movement. For the study of society, methodology is always key. Engels, Lukács, and others provided important demonstrations of using Marx and his thought as a method to explore bourgeois society. In essence, understanding contemporary bourgeois society requires, on the one hand, a holistic and relational mode of thinking, defining bourgeois society as a subject that originates from its internal contradictions and engages in self-criticism; on the other hand, it requires a processual and historical mode of thinking, grasping bourgeois society as a total historical process and historical product.

首先，解释当代社会现实的力量。作为对资产阶级社会自我运动的解剖，马克思社会理论何以能够解释资产阶级社会在马克思去世后100多年的变化趋势？相比于马克思所置身的19世纪，20世纪以来非物质劳动的大量出现、全球化的不断加深、金融与资本积累的深度关联、数字技术的广泛普及等，都表明资本主义社会有了崭新的甚至异常剧烈的变化。马克思社会理论的关键在于，直面社会生活条件的诸种变化，进而把这些变化视为社会自我运动的具体表现。对于社会的研究，方法论始终是关键。以马克思及其思想作为方法探讨资产阶级社会，恩格斯、卢卡奇等作了重要示范。实质上，理解当代资产阶级社会，一方面要有总体性、关系性的思维，把资产阶级社会规定为源于其内部矛盾而自我批判的主体，另一方面要有过程性、历史性的思维，把资产阶级社会把握为总体的历史过程和历史产物。

Second, the power to critique contemporary social reality. Contemporary capitalism has undergone significant changes. Although Marx’s exposition on the demise of capitalism and Lenin’s judgment on the moribund nature of capitalism both possess their historical rationality, they did not witness the actual state of society after their time: when faced with various social crises, the bourgeoisie, in order to maintain its ruling position, also learned to engage in self-repair. Fundamentally, Marx attributed historical development to the reproduction of social relations. Both Althusser and Lefebvre acknowledged this point: it is precisely through the reproduction of social relations that bourgeois society has gained unprecedented room for development. The former, from the perspective of ideological state apparatuses, explored the difficulties of transforming a given society at the level of subject construction; the latter linked the transformation of social relations to the production of space, revealing the internal roots of capitalism’s survival. In addition, the human catastrophe brought about by Nazi Germany and the painful lesson of the dissolution of the Soviet Union also corroborate the importance of the reproduction of social relations for society’s self-critique. Viewing the social development of contemporary China from the perspective of the reproduction of social relations and the universal emancipation of humanity remains a theoretical task we cannot evade.

其次，批判当代社会现实的力量。当代资本主义已经发生了很大变化，虽然马克思关于资本主义灭亡的阐述、列宁关于资本主义垂死的论断都有其历史合理性，但是他们并没有看到身后社会的实际状况：面对诸种社会危机时，为了维护自己的统治地位，资产阶级也学会了自我修复。从根本上说，马克思把历史发展归结为社会关系的再生产。阿尔都塞和列斐伏尔都指认了这一点：正是通过社会关系的再生产，资产阶级社会获得了前所未有的发展空间。前者从意识形态国家机器的角度出发，探讨了从主体建构层面变革既定社会的困难所在；后者将社会关系的变革与空间生产相连接，揭示了资本主义得以幸存的内在根源。此外，纳粹德国所带来的人类浩劫，苏联解体的惨痛教训，也佐证了社会关系再生产之于社会自我批判的重要性。从社会关系再生产、普遍的人的解放的角度反观当代中国社会发展，仍然是我们无法回避的理论任务。

Finally, the power to shape contemporary social reality. For the current capitalist system, mass movements such as feminism, ecologism, and anti-colonialism have drawn important intellectual resources from Marx, becoming significant forces driving the development of actual society. For China, Marxism is the ideological weapon and program of action for social revolution, reform, and construction. The development of human society over the past century and more has maintained an intrinsic and organic connection with Marxism. Fundamentally, this is precisely the quality of Marxism, which contains within itself the practical principles for comprehensively understanding present-day life and the program of action for transcending the real world. After the 1990s, some observers asserted that Marxism as a theory was finished and that socialism as a cause had gone bankrupt. However, the current world situation precisely proves the vitality of Marxism and the dynamism of socialism. It should be said that the entire process of world history still falls within the scope of Marx’s theoretical assertions. Marx’s social theory is not a closed theoretical system that has been completed and can be taken out at will to tailor social reality; rather, it takes the universal emancipation of humanity as its goal, actively intervening in and positively influencing human social life.

最后，形塑当代社会现实的力量。对于当前资本主义体系而言，女性主义、生态主义、反殖民主义等群众运动从马克思那里汲取了重要的思想资源，成为推进现实社会发展的重要力量。对于中国而言，马克思主义是社会革命、改革与建设的思想武器和行动纲领。人类社会过去一个多世纪的发展跟马克思主义保持着内在的、有机的联系。从根本上来说，这正是本身包含着综合理解当下生活的实践原理和超越现实世界的行动纲领的马克思主义品质所在。20世纪90年代之后，有观察家断言：作为理论的马克思主义完蛋了，作为事业的社会主义破产了。但是，当前世界形势恰恰证明了马克思主义的生机和社会主义的活力。应该说，整个世界历史的进程仍然在马克思的理论断言范围以内。马克思社会理论不是业已完成的封闭理论体系，可以拿出来随意剪裁社会现实，而是以普遍的人的解放为鹄的，主动介入和积极干预人类社会生活。

(This article is a phased result of the National Social Science Fund project “Research on Marx and Engels’ Thought on Social Self-Critique” (22XKS018))

（本文系国家社科基金项目“马克思恩格斯社会自我批判思想研究”（22XKS018）阶段性成果）

(The author is a researcher at the Guizhou Provincial Base for the Local Practice of Adapting Marxism to the Chinese Context and the Needs of the Times [the Two Integrations] at Guizhou Normal University)

（作者系贵州师范大学贵州省马克思主义中国化“两个结合”的地方实践推动高端智库研究员）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心