The Theoretical Path and Ecological Revolution of Marx’s Ecological Thought

In the understanding of Marx’s thought, because many Western scholars have not taken into account Marx’s complete works as an “artistic whole” and his overall thought, they have engaged in one-sided interpretations of Marx’s thought. Among these, a relatively common tendency is the view that Marx’s thought lacks an ecological dimension. As Foster summarizes, “Some people believe that Marx’s thought was anti-ecological from beginning to end, and that it was no different from the practice of the Soviet Union; some people acknowledge that Marx provided some enlightening insights on ecology, but ultimately succumbed to ‘Prometheanism’ (various views that support technology while opposing ecology).” This interpretation often relies on Marx’s positive evaluation of the development of productive forces under capitalist society, while ignoring Marx’s “negative” critique within this “affirmative understanding,” which certainly includes a critique from the ecological dimension. The renowned sociologist Giddens, on the other hand, opens up a chasm between Marx’s early and later thought, thereby denying the ecological dimension of Marx’s thought. In his view, “Although Marx showed considerable ecological sensitivity in his earliest works, he later adopted a ‘Promethean attitude’ toward nature,” and Marx’s “concern for transforming exploitative human social relations, as expressed in his class theory, did not extend to the exploitation of nature.” Criticisms of this kind not only erase the ecological dimension inherent in Marx’s thought but also dissolve the fundamental guiding role of Marx’s thought in an important area concerning human survival and development. Marx not only provided a powerful analysis of the major ecological crises of his era but also, by establishing a paradigm of relations of production for analyzing the relationship between humans and nature, offered fundamental guidance for analyzing and resolving the various ecological problems that emerge in the course of historical development. General Secretary Xi Jinping points out, “To study Marx, we must study and practice Marx’s thought on the relationship between humans and nature.” Marxism does not exhaust the answers to all questions but provides methodological guidance for analyzing and resolving various problems. Today, when we study Marx’s ecological thought, it is very important to learn and grasp the paradigm of relations of production that Marx established for analyzing the relationship between humans and nature, thereby providing solid scientific theoretical support for the construction of a socialist ecological civilization.

在对马克思思想的理解中，由于没有关照马克思的作为“艺术整体”的全部著作以及思想整体，很多西方学者对马克思思想进行了片面化解读。其中，一种较为普遍的倾向就是认为马克思思想中缺失了生态维度，正如福斯特所概述的，“一些人认为，马克思的思想从始至终都是反生态的，而且与苏联的实践毫无二致；一些人承认，马克思对生态学提供了一些启蒙性的观点，但最终却屈从于‘普罗米修斯主义’(支持技术而反生态的诸多观点)”；这种解读往往依据马克思对资本主义社会生产力发展的积极评价，而罔顾马克思在这种“肯定性理解”中的“否定性”批判，这当然包括生态维度的批判。著名社会学家吉登斯则在马克思早期思想和后期思想之间开掘了一条鸿沟，并由此否认了马克思思想的生态维度，在他看来，“马克思虽然在其最早期作品中体现出相当多的生态敏感性，但是后来对自然却采取了一种‘普罗米修斯主义的态度’”，马克思“在其阶级理论中所表达的对于变革剥削性的人类社会关系的关切”，“并没有延伸到对自然的剥削”。诸如此类的批判不仅抹杀了马克思思想中本有的生态维度，而且在一个关乎人类生存和发展的重要领域消解了马克思思想的根本性指引作用。马克思不仅对他那个时代的主要生态危机进行了强有力的分析，而且通过确立分析人与自然的关系的生产关系范式，为我们分析和解决历史发展进程中涌现出来的各种生态问题提供了根本指引。习近平总书记指出，“学习马克思，就要学习和实践马克思主义关于人与自然关系的思想”。马克思主义并未穷尽所有问题的答案，而是为我们分析和解决各种问题提供了方法论指引。今天，我们研究马克思的生态思想，十分重要的就是学习和把握马克思所确立的分析人与自然的关系的生产关系范式，以此为社会主义生态文明建设提供坚实的科学理论支撑。

I. A Paradigm Shift in the Path of Understanding the Relationship between Humans and Nature

一、人与自然关系理解路径的范式转变

The core issue that Marx’s ecological thought addresses is the relationship between humans and nature. In the process of his intellectual development, Marx’s analysis of the relationship between humans and nature underwent a major paradigm shift, namely from a single subject-object paradigm to a paradigm of relations of production (social relations) between humans formed within material productive activity. This paradigm shift provided a foundation for analyzing and understanding the relationship between humans and nature, freeing the subject-object paradigm from its abstract limitations. In Marx’s view, human history is a process of interaction between humans and nature. In this process, humans transform the forms of material nature for the sake of survival and development, changing it in a direction favorable to humans. At a specific historical stage, the way humans treat nature, and thus the specific relationship established between humans and nature, is conditioned by the relations of production established among humans. Of course, this does not deny that the way humans change nature also conditions the relationships among humans.

马克思生态思想解决的核心问题是人与自然的关系问题。在思想发展过程中，马克思对人与自然的关系的分析经历了一次重大的范式转变，即从单一的主客体范式转向了形成于物质生产活动之中的人与人的生产关系(社会关系)范式；这种范式转变提供了分析和理解人与自然的关系的基础，使主客体范式摆脱抽象性的限制。在马克思看来，人类历史就是一个人与自然相互作用的过程，在这一过程中，人为了生存和发展而对物质自然的形式予以改造，使其朝着有利于人的方向改变。在特定的历史阶段，人以何种方式对待自然，从而人与自然之间建立起何种特定的关系，则受制于人与人之间所建立的生产关系。当然，这并不否认人以何种方式改变自然也制约着人与人之间的关系。

In the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, Marx constructed the relationship between humans and nature from an idealized “practice” perspective, systematically elucidating the “unity” between humans and nature. For example, humans “make the whole of nature … into their inorganic body,” “nature, insofar as it is not the human body itself, is the inorganic body of humans,” “humans live from nature,” and “humans are a part of nature.” However, because Marx had only recently begun his research in political economy at this time and could not yet incorporate the essential dimension of relations of production into his understanding of history, he was unable to place the relationship between humans and nature on the basis of the relations of production among humans for a historical investigation. This led him to primarily follow an abstract subject-object paradigm in analyzing the relationship between humans and nature in bourgeois society. As Hiromatsu Wataru points out, Marx “placed Hegel’s ‘absolute spirit’ into a ‘real form’ called ‘man’ and attempted thereby to define the real unity of nature and spirit.” Therefore, although the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* already exhibited Marx’s own inherent thought—namely, that unlike Hegel, who unifies spirit and nature in the abstract “absolute spirit,” Marx believed that “only by combining with the historical process of self-alienation and self-recovery in the labor of ‘man’ can the unity of nature and spirit that Hegel aspired to be truly accomplished”—he did not transcend Hegel in terms of logical approach, that is, he “did not go beyond the circle of the ‘subject-object’ schema.” Starting from a single subject-object paradigm, Marx provided an idealized description of the interactive relationship between humans and nature and, on this basis, launched a fierce critique of the alienated relationship between humans and nature in capitalist society. On this foundation, Marx proposed to achieve the restoration of human essence through the sublation of “private property,” thereby realizing the true unity of humans and nature. However, constrained by the abstract subject-object paradigm, Marx at this time could not clarify how the alienated relationship between humans and nature actually occurred, and thus could not find a realistic path to eliminate this alienated relationship. Regarding the analysis of the roots of the relationship between humans and nature, Marx ultimately fell into a “circular argument.” On the one hand, Marx believed that the alienated relationship between humans and nature originated from the alienation of relations among humans, that is, “any self-alienation of man from himself and from nature manifests itself in the relationship he establishes between himself, nature, and other men distinct from himself. … In the practical, real world, self-alienation can only manifest itself through the practical, real relationship to other men.” On the other hand, Marx also believed that the alienation of relations among humans originated from the alienated relationship between humans and nature, arguing that it is “through estranged labor that man not only produces his relationship to the object and the act of production as alien and hostile powers; he also produces the relationship of other men to his production and his product, and the relationship of himself to other men.” Regarding the elimination of the alienated relationship between humans and nature, Marx envisioned the establishment of a rationalized relationship between humans and nature following the logical path of alienation and restoration. However, whether it is called “alienation-restoration” or “thesis, antithesis, synthesis,” “why alienation” and “why restoration” are necessary in fact, and how they are necessary in terms of “how it ought to be,” are not actually explained.

在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中，马克思基于理想性的“实践”视角对人与自然的关系进行了建构，较为系统地阐明了人与自然的“一体性”关系，如人“把整个自然界……变成人的无机的身体”，“自然界，就它自身不是人的身体而言，是人的无机的身体”，“人靠自然界生活”，“人是自然界的一部分”。但是，由于此时马克思开展政治经济学研究为时不久，尚不能在历史的理解中融入生产关系的本质维度，从而不能将人与自然的关系置于人与人的生产关系的基础上展开历史性考察，这导致其主要遵循抽象的主客体范式来分析资产阶级社会中人与自然的关系，如广松涉所指出的，马克思“将黑格尔的‘绝对精神’置于称为‘人’这样的‘真实形态’，并试图以此来规定自然与精神的现实统一”；因此，虽然在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中已经表现出自己的固有思想，即与黑格尔将精神与自然统一于抽象的“绝对精神”不同，马克思认为，“只有与在‘人’的劳动中的自我异化与自我获得的历史过程相结合，才能真正完成黑格尔所希冀的自然和精神的统一”，但他并没有在逻辑理路上超越黑格尔，即“没有超出‘主体—客体’图式的圈子”。从单一的主客体范式出发，马克思对人与自然之间的交互作用关系进行了理想化描述，并据此对资本主义社会中人与自然的异化关系展开了激烈的批判；在此基础上，马克思提出要通过扬弃“私有财产”来实现人的本质的复归，以此达到人与自然的真正统一。但受制于抽象的主客体范式，马克思此时无法弄清楚人与自然之间的异化关系到底是如何发生的，从而无法找到消除这种异化关系的现实路径。就人与自然的关系的根源分析而言，马克思最终陷入了“循环论证”。一方面，马克思认为人与自然的异化关系源于人与人的关系的异化，即“人同自身以及同自然界的任何自我异化，都表现在他使自身、使自然界跟另一些与他不同的人所发生的关系上。……在实践的、现实的世界中，自我异化只有通过对他人的实践的、现实的关系才能表现出来”。另一方面，马克思又认为人与人的关系的异化源于人与自然的关系的异化，认为正是“通过异化劳动，人不仅生产出他对作为异己的、敌对的力量的生产对象和生产行为的关系，而且还生产出他人对他的生产和他的产品的关系，以及他对这些他人的关系”。就人与自然的异化关系的消除而言，马克思按照异化和复归的逻辑进路来设想合理化的人与自然的关系的建立，但不论是称之为“异化—复归”也好，还是称之为“正、反、合”也好，“何以异化”和“何以复归”在事实上如何是必然的，以及在“何以应当如此”上如何是必然的，实际上没有得到说明。

In the subsequently completed *Theses on Feuerbach* and *The German Ideology*, Marx effected a major paradigm shift in the analysis of the relationship between humans and nature, namely from a subject-object paradigm to a paradigm of relations of production, and thereby established the basic path for analyzing and grasping the relationship between humans and nature, i.e., placing it on the basis of the relations of production among humans for analysis, so as to reveal its historical essence. It was precisely through this paradigm shift that Marx perfected the subject-object paradigm, endowing it with a historical dimension, which is fully reflected in his beginning to analyze the relationship between humans and nature on the basis of concrete historical circumstances. Regarding this paradigm shift that transcended the Hegelian schema, Hiromatsu Wataru explicitly pointed out: “In *The German Ideology*, which declared the critical transcendence of the entire ideology of the Young Hegelians, Marx and Engels repositioned the axis of their theory on people who ‘exist within’ historical relations, on ‘people’s relations to nature and to one another.’ — In the *Theses*, it still remained at the general formulation of ‘the ensemble of social relations,’ but now the said relations are structurally redefined with ‘relations of production’ as the axis.” It was precisely in *The German Ideology* that Marx and Engels discovered a fact that had long been overlooked by people, namely, that “people have a history because they must produce their own life, and must do so in a definite way,” and as long as people engage in the production of life, whether through labor to produce their own life or through procreation to produce the life of others, a twofold relationship immediately manifests itself, namely the relationship between humans and nature and the relationship between humans and humans. In Marx’s view, on the one hand, the relationship between humans and nature determines the relationship between humans and humans; on the other hand, the historical form in which the relationship between humans and nature appears is simultaneously constrained by the relationship between humans and humans. Thus, Marx began to analyze the relationship between humans and nature historically. In *The German Ideology*, Marx, taking two types of relations in early human history as examples, pointed out: “It is evident from the outset that this natural religion or this particular relation to nature is determined by the social form, and vice versa. Here, as everywhere else, the identity of nature and man also appears in this: the restricted relation of men to nature determines their restricted relation to one another, and their restricted relation to one another determines their restricted relation to nature, precisely because nature is as yet hardly modified by the historical process.” Although at this time Marx was still generally in a state of “poverty” (Engels’s term) regarding knowledge of political economy, and had not yet substantively put forward the concept of “relations of production,” and his understanding of “capital” still remained at the level of accumulated labor, i.e., viewing the “rule of capital” in modern society as the rule of “accumulated labor,” from the perspective of general historical materialism, Marx had already advanced the understanding of history into the realm of material production. By elucidating the interactive relationship between the relationship between humans and nature and the relationship between humans and humans, he initially constructed a paradigm of relations of production for historically analyzing the relationship between humans and nature.

在随后完成的《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》《德意志意识形态》中，马克思实现了分析人与自然的关系的范式的重大转变，即从主客体范式转向了生产关系范式，并由此确立起了分析和把握人与自然关系的基本路径，即将其置于人与人的生产关系的基础上展开分析，以此揭示其历史性的本质。也正是通过这种范式转变，马克思实现了主客体范式的完善，使其具备了历史性的维度，这充分体现在他开始立足于具体的历史情境来分析人与自然之间的关系。对于这种超越黑格尔的图式而实现的范式转变，广松涉明确指出：“马克思、恩格斯在宣告批判地超越黑格尔左派意识形态整体的《德意志意识形态》中，将视轴定在‘内部存在’于历史诸关系中的人们，‘人们的对自然的以及相互的诸关系’上来重新建构理论。——在《提纲》中，还停留在‘一切社会关系的总和’这样的一般性的提法上，而现在将所说的诸关系以‘生产关系’为基轴构造性地来重新进行规定。”正是在《德意志意识形态》中，马克思和恩格斯发现了一个历来被人们忽视的事实，那就是，“人们之所以有历史，是因为他们必须生产自己的生命，而且必须用一定的方式来进行”，而只要人们从事生命的生产，无论是通过劳动生产自己的生命，还是通过生育生产他人的生命，就会立即表现出双重关系，即人与自然的关系和人与人的关系。在马克思看来，一方面，人与自然的关系决定着人与人的关系，另一方面，人与自然的关系以何种历史样态出现，同时受到人与人的关系的制约。由此，马克思开始历史性地分析人与自然之间的关系。在《德意志意识形态》中，马克思以人类历史早期的两种关系为例指出：“这里立即可以看出，这种自然宗教或对自然界的这种特定关系，是由社会形式决定的，反过来也是一样。这里和任何其他地方一样，自然界和人的同一性也表现在：人们对自然界的狭隘的关系决定着他们之间的狭隘的关系，而他们之间的狭隘的关系又决定着他们对自然界的狭隘的关系，这正是因为自然界几乎还没有被历史的进程所改变。”虽然马克思此时总体上还处于政治经济学知识“匮乏”(恩格斯语)的状态，还未能实质性地提出“生产关系”的概念，其对“资本”的认识也仍然停留于劳动积累物的层面，即将现代社会“资本的统治”视为“积累起来的劳动”的统治，但从一般历史观的层面来看，马克思已经将对历史的理解推进到了物质生产领域，并通过阐明人与自然的关系以及人与人的关系的交互作用关系，初步建构起了历史地分析人与自然的关系的生产关系范式。

Thereafter, by further deepening his critique of political economy, Marx advanced his understanding of historical reality from the social relations between humans to the level of relations of production, and began to explain the historical form of humans, nature, and the relationship between humans and nature in modern society on the basis of historical capitalist relations of production. In this process, Marx provided a relatively systematic elucidation of the paradigm of relations of production used to clarify the historical character of the relationship between humans and nature. In *Wage Labour and Capital*, Marx explicitly stated: “In production, men not only act on nature but also on one another. They produce only by co-operating in a certain way and mutually exchanging their activities. In order to produce, they enter into definite connections and relations with one another, and only within these social connections and relations does their action on nature take place.” And in the *Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*, he further emphasized: “All production is appropriation of nature by the individual within and through a definite form of society.” In Marx’s view, it is precisely specific relations of production that shape specific social formations, i.e., “the totality of these relations of production constitutes the social relations, constitutes society, and specifically a society at a definite historical stage of development, a society with a distinctive character.” It is precisely within this society with a “distinctive character” that humans relate to nature in a specific way, or, as Moishe Postone put it, “nature” becomes the object of humans in a specific “kind.” In Marx’s view, in a specific social formation, what kind of relationship humans establish with nature, and consequently what attitude humans adopt toward nature within this relationship, is ultimately determined by the dominant relations of production in that social formation. Based on this understanding, Marx criticized the practice of abstractly examining the relationship between humans and nature divorced from a specific perspective of relations of production, arguing that such an approach can only see the common aspect of the relationship between humans and nature across various historical stages, i.e., “the subject is man, the object is nature, this is always the same, and unity already appears here.” Although such a generalization is necessary from an epistemological standpoint, as it can save us from repetition, it obliterates the historical differences in the relationship between humans and nature in different social formations constrained by specific relations of production. As Marx described in *Capital*, humans, with the aid of certain instruments, transform natural objects in a direction favorable to human needs; this constitutes the common content of labor in all stages of human history, “it is independent of every form of that life, on the contrary, it is common to all forms of society in which human beings live.” Precisely because of this, Marx emphasized that when examining this common content, “there is no need to describe the relation of the worker to other workers. Man and his labor on one side, nature and its materials on the other, is enough.” Conversely, to reveal the historical character of the relationship between humans and nature, it must be analyzed on the basis of the society shaped by specific relations of production.

此后，马克思通过进一步深化政治经济学批判而将对历史现实的理解从人与人的社会关系推进到生产关系层面，并开始以历史性的资本主义生产关系为基础说明现代社会中的人、自然以及人与自然的关系的历史样态。在此过程中，马克思对据以阐明人与自然的关系的历史性特质的生产关系范式作出了较为系统的阐明。在《雇佣劳动与资本》中，马克思明确指出：“人们在生产中不仅仅影响自然界，而且也互相影响。他们只有以一定的方式共同活动和互相交换其活动，才能进行生产。为了进行生产，人们相互之间便发生一定的联系和关系；只有在这些社会联系和社会关系的范围内，才会有他们对自然界的影响”。而他在《〈政治经济学批判〉导言》中则进一步强调：“一切生产都是个人在一定社会形式中并借这种社会形式而进行的对自然的占有。”在马克思看来，正是特定的生产关系形塑了特定的社会形态，即“生产关系总合起来就构成所谓社会关系，构成所谓社会，并且是构成一个处于一定历史发展阶段上的社会，具有独特的特征的社会”，也正是在这种具有“独特的特征的社会”中，人以特定的方式与自然发生关系，或如普殊同所言，“自然”以特定的“种类”成为人的对象。在马克思看来，在特定的社会形态中，人与自然建立起何种关系，进而在这种关系中人以何种态度对待自然，归根到底是由该社会形态中占据主导地位的生产关系决定的。基于这种认识，马克思对那种脱离特定的生产关系视域而抽象地考察人与自然关系的做法展开了批判，认为这种做法只能看到各个历史阶段中人与自然的关系的共性的一面，即“主体是人，客体是自然，这总是一样的，这里已经出现了统一”。虽然从认识上来说这种概括有其必要性，它可以使我们免于重复，但却会抹杀特定生产关系所制约的不同的社会形态中的人与自然的关系之间的历史性差别。正如马克思在《资本论》中所描述的，人借助一定的工具使自然物朝着有利于人的需要的方向发生改变，这构成了人类历史所有阶段的劳动的共性内容，“它不以人类生活的任何形式为转移，倒不如说，它为人类生活的一切社会形式所共有”。正因为如此，马克思强调，在考察这一共性内容时“不必来叙述一个劳动者与其他劳动者的关系。一边是人及其劳动，另一边是自然及其物质，这就够了”；反之，如果要揭示人与自然的关系的历史性特质，则必须将其置于由特定的生产关系所形塑的社会基础上展开分析。

In summary, Marx’s thought underwent a major paradigm shift in the course of its development. Through this shift, he established the paradigm of relations of production for analyzing the relationship between humans and nature, and thereby freed the subject-object paradigm from its abstract limitations. It was precisely by following the paradigm of relations of production that Marx profoundly elucidated the historical character of the relationship between humans and nature under capitalist relations of production, and then critically revealed the deep-seated roots of the increasingly severe ecological problems in modern society.

综上所述，马克思的思想在发展历程中经历了一次重大的范式转变，他通过这一转变确立起了分析人与自然的关系的生产关系范式，并由此使得主客体关系范式摆脱了抽象性的限制。马克思正是遵循生产关系范式深刻阐明了资本主义生产关系下人与自然的关系的历史性特质，并进而批判性地揭示了现代社会日益严重的生态问题的深层根源。

II. Capitalist Relations of Production and the Deep-Seated Roots of Ecological Problems

二、资本主义生产关系与生态问题的深层根源

Since modern times, and especially since the 1970s, increasingly severe ecological problems have prompted people to investigate the relationship between humans and nature, in order to find the roots of ecological problems and effectively address them. In this process, Marx’s ecological thought has become an important resource cited by many scholars. However, due to their departure from Marx’s analytical path of the paradigm of relations of production, they have not penetrated to the essential dimension of history in revealing the roots of ecological problems, but have instead remained at the level of historical phenomena. By following the paradigm of relations of production — that is, by placing the relationship between humans and nature on the basis of capitalist relations of production for historical analysis — Marx critically revealed the deep-seated roots of ecological problems in capitalist society.

近代以来，特别是20世纪70年代以来，日益严重的生态问题促使人们对人与自然的关系问题展开探究，以求找到生态问题的根源，并对其进行有效应对。在此过程中，马克思的生态思想成为很多学者援引的重要资源。但是，由于疏离于马克思生产关系范式的分析路径，他们在揭示生态问题的根源上并未深入到历史的本质性维度，而是仍然停留于历史现象的层面。通过遵循生产关系范式，即通过将人与自然的关系置于资本主义生产关系的基础上展开历史性分析，马克思批判性地揭示了资本主义社会生态问题的深层根源。

In Marx’s view, in the process of gradually establishing its dominant position, capitalist relations of production also gradually created a specific relationship between humans and nature. Marx pointed out that capital “creates a social stage, compared with which all earlier stages appear to be merely local developments of humanity and the worship of nature. It is only under the capitalist system that nature becomes purely an object for humans, purely a thing of utility; it ceases to be recognized as a power in its own right; and the theoretical cognition of its independent laws itself appears merely as a ruse to subject nature to human needs, whether as a means of consumption or as a means of production.” When Marx says that under capitalism “nature becomes purely an object for humans,” he by no means implies that only at this point does nature become the object of labor. For, on the one hand, with regard to the essential existence of humans, Marx, based on the subject-object paradigm, had long clarified that humans are “objective beings,” and that the essential powers of humans can only be realized in the process of transforming nature. On the other hand, viewed from the entire course of human historical development, people living in any historical stage must engage in labor for survival and development, and “labor is first of all a process between humans and nature, a process in which humans, through their own activities, mediate, regulate, and control the material metabolism between themselves and nature,” thus always taking nature as their object. The crux of the matter is that, compared with previous eras, capitalist relations of production completely transformed the relationship between humans and nature. Postone points out: “In Marx’s analysis, the growing destruction of nature under capitalism is not simply because nature becomes an object for humans; on the contrary, it depends first of all on the kind of object nature becomes.” In material production dominated by capital, “capital produces material wealth as a means of valorization. Therefore, it not only consumes material nature as raw material for material wealth, but also consumes it as a means of promoting capital’s self-expansion.” That is to say, within capitalist relations of production, the specific “kind” of object nature becomes lies in its transformation into a pure instrument for capital’s self-valorization. Since the sole purpose of capital in organizing production is the pursuit of exchange value, and thereby its own continuous growth, its consumption of natural resources is also unlimited; even if it cannot bring about an increase in surplus value, it will constantly increase the consumption of natural resources. The profit-driven nature of capital determines that it cannot examine the relationship between humans and nature from the perspective of value rationality, but instead treats nature entirely according to instrumental rationality, resulting in a purely utilitarian relationship between humans and nature. Marx analyzed this using the concept of a pure “thing of utility.” In his view, nature’s transformation from what originally belonged to humans as their “inorganic body” into a material instrument alien to human life is a result of the development of productive forces, and even more so an inevitable result of the development of productive forces under the premise of capitalist relations of production. With the enhancement of capitalist productive forces and the emergence of mechanized production methods, human control over nature increasingly strengthened. If “in agriculture, in its pre-capitalist forms, human labor merely appears as an assistant to natural processes it cannot control,” then in the capitalist era, natural processes began “on a large scale to be subordinated to the direct process of production.” The establishment of capitalist relations of production gradually turned nature from an object of worship in ancient societies into a pure instrument for capital’s profit-seeking in modern society. Along with the increasing development of capitalist productive forces, the depth of human control over nature grew ever greater, thereby inevitably triggering increasingly serious ecological problems.

在马克思看来，资本主义生产关系在其逐渐确立起主导地位的过程中，也逐渐创造了特定的人与自然的关系。马克思指出，资本“创造了这样一个社会阶段，与这个社会阶段相比，一切以前的社会阶段都只表现为人类的地方性发展和对自然的崇拜。只有在资本主义制度下自然界才真正是人的对象，真正是有用物；它不再被认为是自为的力量；而对自然界的独立规律的理论认识本身不过表现为狡猾，其目的是使自然界(不管是作为消费品，还是作为生产资料)服从于人的需要”。马克思所说的在资本主义社会中“自然界才真正是人的对象”，绝不是说此时自然界才成为劳动的对象，因为，一方面，就人的本质性存在而言，马克思基于主客体范式早已阐明人是一种“对象性的存在物”，人的本质力量只有在改造自然的过程中才能得到实现；另一方面，从整个人类历史发展的进程来看，生活于任何一个历史阶段的人们为了生存和发展都要从事劳动，而“劳动首先是人和自然之间的过程，是人以自身的活动来中介、调整和控制人和自然之间的物质变换的过程”，从而都是以自然为对象的。问题的关键在于，与以往的时代相比，资本主义生产关系彻底改变了人与自然的关系。普殊同指出，“在马克思的分析中，资本主义中对自然的不断增长的破坏，并非简单地因为自然成为人类的对象；相反，它首先取决于自然所成为的对象的种类”，在资本主导的物质生产中，“资本将物质财富作为价值形成手段而进行生产。因此，它不仅将物质自然作为物质财富的原料加以消耗，也将其作为推动资本的自我扩张的手段而加以消耗”。也就是说，在资本主义生产关系中，自然作为人的对象的特殊“种类”在于它变成了资本实现自我增殖的纯粹的工具。由于资本组织生产的唯一目的在于追求交换价值，并以此实现自身的不断增长，所以其对自然资源的耗费也是无限制的，即便不能带来剩余价值的增长，也会不断地加大对自然资源的耗费。资本攫利的本性决定了其不可能从价值理性的层面去审视人与自然的关系，而是完全依凭工具理性去对待自然，以致造成人与自然之间的纯粹的功利性关系。马克思用纯粹的“有用物”对此进行了分析，在他看来，自然由本属于人的“无机的身体”转变为与人的生命相异的物性工具，这是生产力发展的结果，更是资本主义生产关系前提下生产力发展的必然结果。随着资本主义生产力的提升和机器化生产方式的出现，人对自然的控制力日益增强，如果说“在农业中，在其资本主义前的形式中，人类劳动只不过表现为它所不能控制的自然过程的助手”，那么在资本主义时代，自然过程则开始“大规模地从属于直接的生产过程”。资本主义生产关系的确立逐渐使得自然由古代社会人们崇拜的对象变成现代社会资本攫利的纯粹工具。伴随着资本主义生产力的日益发展，人类控制自然的程度越来越深，从而无可避免地引发了日益严重的生态问题。

Regarding the ecological problems of capitalist society, Marx, in *Capital* and his manuscripts, provided a relatively systematic analysis based on capitalist relations of production. As Marx revealed, the transformation of money into capital, and thus the commencement of capitalist production, presupposes the emergence of a large number of free laborers: “The capital relation presupposes the separation between the workers and the ownership of the conditions for the realization of their labor. Once capitalist production has taken a firm foothold, it not only maintains this separation, but reproduces it on an ever-expanding scale.” It is precisely this “separation” and its continuous “reproduction” that cut off the connection between humans and nature, and brought about a transformation in the overall layout of society’s personnel, with more and more free laborers being “violently” driven into the cities. As Marx pointed out, “Capitalist production collects the population in great centers, and causes the urban population to achieve an ever-growing preponderance. This has two results. On the one hand, it concentrates the historical motive power of society; on the other hand, it disturbs the metabolic interaction between humans and the earth, i.e., it prevents the return to the soil of its constituent elements consumed by humans in the form of food and clothing; hence it hinders the operation of the eternal natural condition for the lasting fertility of the soil.” The destruction of soil fertility was precisely a typical manifestation of the ecological crisis in the era in which Marx lived.

对于资本主义社会的生态问题，马克思在《资本论》及其手稿中基于资本主义生产关系做了较为系统的剖析。正如马克思所揭示的，货币转变为资本，从而资本主义生产的开启要以大量自由劳动力的出现作为前提，“资本关系以劳动者和劳动实现条件的所有权之间的分离为前提。资本主义生产一旦站稳脚跟，它就不仅保持这种分离，而且以不断扩大的规模再生产这种分离”。正是这种“分离”及其不断“再生产”割断了人与自然的联系，并造成了整个社会人员布局的变革，越来越多的自由劳动力被“暴力”驱逐到城市。诚如马克思所指出的，“资本主义生产使它汇集在各大中心的城市人口越来越占优势，这样一来，它一方面聚集着社会的历史动力，另一方面又破坏着人和土地之间的物质变换，也就是使人以衣食形式消费掉的土地的组成部分不能回归土地，从而破坏土地持久肥力的永恒的自然条件”，而土地肥力的破坏正是马克思生活的时代面临的生态危机的典型表现。

In order to survive, free workers sell their labor-power to the capitalists. Under the conditions of capitalist relations of production, this is the prerequisite for free workers to be able to engage in labor and to maintain their own survival. For capital, “the labour process is merely a means; the valorisation process, or the production of surplus value, is the end,” and this movement of valorisation knows no bounds; “it is only insofar as the appropriation of ever more wealth in the abstract is his sole motive that he functions as a capitalist, i.e., as personified capital endowed with will and consciousness. Hence use-value must never be treated as the immediate aim of the capitalist; nor must the profit on any single transaction. His aim is rather the unceasing movement of profit-making.” [5]5 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works* (MECW), Vol. 35, pp. 152-153. From the perspective of the subject-object paradigm, at any historical stage the labour process is always a process in which human beings transform nature. From the perspective of the relations-of-production paradigm, i.e., under the premise of capitalist relations of production, the labour process is merely a means for capital’s boundless pursuit of its own valorisation; the capitalist, as the personification of capital, will constantly intensify the exploitation and oppression of workers and the unrestrained use of nature, because both are indispensable prerequisites for capital to organise production and realise valorisation. Since this is the case, capitalist production, by its very nature, does not take ecological issues into consideration. On this point, Engels clearly states: “All earlier modes of production were essentially directed towards the immediate useful effect of labour”; “this was most fully expressed in the capitalist mode of production which now prevails in Western Europe. The individual capitalists, who dominate production and exchange, are able to concern themselves only with the most immediate useful effect of their actions. Indeed, even this useful effect—insofar as it concerns the utility of the article that is produced or exchanged—retreats far into the background; the sole driving force becomes the profit to be made on selling.” [6]6 Friedrich Engels, “The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man,” in *Marx and Engels Selected Works*, Vol. 3, p. 334. Capital organises production for valorisation, and to organise production it must consume natural resources. This production, oriented solely toward its own valorisation, sets aside people’s genuine needs and is driven forward by profit; its inevitable result is the continuous destruction of the natural environment. On this point, Marx uses capitalist agriculture as a clear example: “All progress in capitalist agriculture is a progress in the art, not only of robbing the worker, but of robbing the soil; all progress in increasing the fertility of the soil for a given time is a progress towards ruining the long-term sources of that fertility.” [7]7 Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, MECW Vol. 35, p. 507. In short, in order to realise its own valorisation, capital will continuously intensify its control over nature and ceaselessly break through nature’s limits; hence capitalist relations of production are the “chief culprit” of ecological problems in modern society. In this regard, Leiss’s view that ecological problems originate from people’s idea of “the domination of nature” clearly fails to grasp the crux of the issue. Leiss’s “idealism” holds that it is the increasingly intensified idea of “the domination of nature” in capitalist society that has caused the modern ecological crisis. Although he shows a tendency to approach Marx’s thought by pointing out the intrinsic connection between the idea of “the domination of nature” and the capitalist system, because he focuses more on the mode of thinking and mode of behaviour of people under the capitalist system, he fundamentally deviates from Marx. In Marx’s view, “it is only capital which creates bourgeois society and the universal appropriation of nature and of the social bond itself by the members of society”; it is precisely on the basis of this universal appropriation of nature that the universal idea of “the domination of nature” gradually takes shape, and this idea will be continuously strengthened along with the process of capital’s valorisation. As David Pepper points out, the crux of the matter is that “the uses and ideas of nature change as the mode of production changes”; therefore, “it is not just ‘greedy’ individual monopolists or consumers who should be blamed, but the mode of production itself: the capitalist relations of production which sit on top of the pyramid of productive forces.” [8]8 David Pepper, *Eco-Socialism: From Deep Ecology to Social Justice* (London: Routledge, 1993), p. 105. In this regard, Leiss’s investigation of ecological problems does not touch the root.

为了生存，自由劳动者便将自己的劳动力出卖给资本家。在资本主义生产关系的条件下，这是自由劳动者能够从事劳动以及维持自己生存的前提。而对于资本而言，“劳动过程只表现为手段，价值增殖过程或剩余价值的生产才表现为目的”，并且这种增殖运动是没有限度的，“只有在越来越多地占有抽象财富成为他的活动的唯一动机时，他才作为资本家或作为人格化的、有意志和意识的资本执行职能。因此，决不能把使用价值看做资本家的直接目的。他的目的也不是取得一次利润，而只是谋取利润的无休止的运动”。从主客体范式的视角来看，无论是哪个历史阶段，劳动过程总是人改造自然的过程。从生产关系范式的视角来看，即在资本主义生产关系前提下，劳动过程只是资本无限制追求自身增殖的手段，作为资本之人格化代表的资本家会不断加强对劳动者的剥削和压迫以及对自然的无节制的利用，因为这两者都是资本组织生产、实现增殖不可或缺的前提。既然如此，资本生产按其本性是不会将生态问题纳入考虑的范围的。对此，恩格斯明确指出：“到目前为止的一切生产方式，都仅仅以取得劳动的最近的、最直接的效益为目的”，“在西欧现今占统治地位的资本主义生产方式中，这一点表现得最为充分。支配着生产和交换的一个个资本家所能关心的，只是他们的行为的最直接的效益。不仅如此，甚至连这种效益——就所制造的或交换的产品的效用而言——也完全退居次要地位了；销售时可获得的利润成了唯一的动力”。资本为了增殖而组织生产，而要组织生产就必须耗费自然资源，这种以实现自身的增殖为唯一导向的生产，将人的真正的需要置于一旁，而任由利益驱动前行，其必然的结果就是导致对自然环境的不断破坏。对此，马克思以资本主义农业为例做了明确说明，“资本主义农业的任何进步，都不仅是掠夺劳动者的技巧的进步，而且是掠夺土地的技巧的进步，在一定时期内提高土地肥力的任何进步，同时也是破坏土地肥力持久源泉的进步”。总而言之，资本为了实现自己的增殖，会不断加大对自然的控制，不断突破自然的限制，因而资本主义生产关系才是现代社会生态问题的“罪魁祸首”。就此而言，莱斯提出的生态问题源于人们的“控制自然”的观念的观点，显然没有抓住问题的关键。莱斯的“观念论”认为，正是资本主义社会日益强化的“控制自然”的观念造成了现代社会的生态危机。虽然他因指出“控制自然”的观念与资本主义制度之间的内在关联而表现出走近马克思的思想倾向，但由于其更多地将目光聚焦于资本主义制度下人们的思维方式和行为方式，却从根本上背离了马克思。在马克思看来，“只有资本才创造出资产阶级社会，并创造出社会成员对自然界和社会联系本身的普遍占有”，也正是在这种对自然的普遍占有关系的基础之上，才逐渐形成了普遍性的“控制自然”的观念，并且这种观念会伴随着资本增殖的进程而不断增强。正如戴维·佩珀所指出的，问题的关键在于“自然的用处和观念随着生产方式的改变而改变”，既然如此，“应该责备的不仅仅是个性‘贪婪’的垄断者或消费者，而且是这种生产方式本身：处在生产力金字塔之上的构成资本主义的生产关系”。就此而言，莱斯对生态问题的探究并未触及根本。

Marx also analyses the formation of ecological problems from the perspective of how the capital relation “manufactures” human needs. The fundamental purpose of capital’s organisation of production is to realise valorisation, and to achieve this purpose it must undergo the perilous “leap” of successfully selling the products it produces. But capitalist production is the production of surplus value, not the production of use-value; that is, it does not engage in production to satisfy genuine human needs, which makes it difficult to avoid a discrepancy between the products produced and the needs of consumers. To overcome this contradiction, capital uses various means and methods to “manufacture needs,” thereby achieving the ultimate goal of capital’s valorisation. Marx points out: “In accordance with this tendency, capital drives beyond national barriers and prejudices, and beyond the deification of nature as well, beyond the traditional satisfaction of present needs and the reproduction of old ways of life confined within fixed boundaries. Capital destroys all this and revolutionises constantly, tearing down all barriers that impede the development of the productive forces, the expansion of needs, the diversification of production, and the exploitation and exchange of natural and spiritual forces.” [9]9 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, MECW Vol. 28, p. 336. It must be noted that Marx here by no means abandons his view of genuine human needs as expressed in his earlier works. In his view, although capitalism, compared with earlier societies, expands the scope of human needs and raises their level, it does so in a distorted manner. Therefore, the view that blurs the boundary between Marx’s genuine needs and false or manufactured needs, and thereby claims that Marx’s thought is anti-ecological, is untenable. However, to emphasise that this “manufactured need” and the unlimited growth of human desires are important causes of ecological problems is not to say that Marx believed ecological problems originate from people’s consumption needs; in Marx’s view, the mode of consumption and the power of consumption are never self-sufficient; they are ultimately determined by the relations of production on the basis of a given level of productive forces. On this point, Marx states: “The social power of consumption is therefore not determined by either the absolute productive force or the absolute power of consumption, but rather by the power of consumption based on antagonistic relations of distribution, which reduce the consumption of the great majority of society to a minimum varying only within more or less narrow limits,” [10]10 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 3, MECW Vol. 37, p. 244. and relations of distribution are determined by relations of production; they are merely “an expression of one aspect of the relations of production.” [11]11 Karl Marx, *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*, MECW Vol. 29, p. 422. Therefore, for Marx, if the mode of consumption in capitalist society is a cause of ecological problems, then this cause is certainly not the fundamental one. In this regard, Agger’s view that ecological problems originate from individuals’ pursuit of high consumption in capitalist society—“the structural weaknesses of capitalism and state socialism have led to an environment in which individuals are forced to seek happiness through personal high consumption, thereby accelerating industrial growth and placing further pressure on an already fragile ecosystem” [12]12 Ben Agger, *Western Marxism: An Introduction* (Santa Monica: Goodyear Publishing Company, 1979), p. 272.—clearly fails to grasp the crux of the issue.

马克思还从资本关系“制造”人的需要的视角分析了生态问题的形成。资本组织生产的根本目的是实现增殖，而要实现这一目的就必须经历惊险的“一跃”，即生产的产品能够成功销售出去。但资本生产是剩余价值的生产，而不是使用价值的生产，即它不是为了满足真正的人类需要而从事生产，这就难以避免生产的产品与消费者的需求之间不相一致。为了克服这个矛盾，资本便通过各种方式和手段来“制造需要”，以此实现资本增殖的最终目的。马克思指出：“资本按照自己的这种趋势，既要克服把自然神化的现象，克服流传下来的、在一定界限内闭关自守地满足于现有需要和重复旧生活方式的状况，又要克服民族界限和民族偏见。资本破坏这一切并使之不断革命化，摧毁一切阻碍发展生产力、扩大需要、使生产多样化、利用和交换自然力量和精神力量的限制。”需要指出的是，马克思在这里绝没有放弃其在早期著作中关于人的真正的需要的观点。在他看来，尽管资本主义相比于以往的社会而言拓展了人的需要的范围、提升了人的需要的层次，但它却是以扭曲的方式实现这些的。因此，那种模糊化马克思关于真正的需要与虚假的或被制造出来的需要之间的界限，进而认为马克思的思想是反生态的观点是站不住脚的。但是，强调这种“制造的需要”以及人的欲望的无限增长是造成生态问题的重要原因，并不是说马克思认为生态问题源于人们的消费需求；在马克思看来，消费方式和消费力从来不具有自足性，其归根到底是由一定生产力水平基础上的生产关系决定的。对此，马克思指出，“社会消费力既不是取决于绝对的生产力，也不是取决于绝对的消费力，而是取决于以对抗性的分配关系为基础的消费力；这种分配关系，使社会上大多数人的消费缩小到只能在相当狭小的界限以内变动的最低限度”，而分配关系则取决于生产关系，它不过是“表现生产关系的一个方面”。因此，对于马克思而言，如果说在资本主义社会中消费方式是造成生态问题的原因，那么这个原因必定不是根本的。就此而言，阿格尔认为生态问题源于资本主义社会中的个人对高消费的追求，“资本主义和国家社会主义的结构上的弱点导致了人们在其中不得不通过个人的高消费来寻求幸福的环境，从而加速工业的增长，对业已脆弱的生态系统进一步造成压力”，这种观点显然没有抓住问题的要害。

In short, as Marx presents in *Capital* and its manuscripts, the root of ecological problems in capitalist society is by no means the idea of people’s “domination of nature,” nor is it the mode of consumption in modern society; it ultimately originates from the relations of production in capitalist society. It is precisely on the basis of the premise of capitalist relations of production that Marx elucidates the historical character of the subject-object relationship between human beings and nature in modern society, profoundly reveals the root of ecological problems in modern society, and at the same time points the way toward the construction of an ecological civilisation: that is, on the basis of the continuous development of productive forces, to thoroughly overturn capitalist relations of production and truly construct rational relations between human beings; only under this premise can the rationalisation of the relationship between human beings and nature be achieved.

总之，正如马克思在《资本论》及其手稿中所呈现的，资本主义社会生态问题的根源绝不是人们“控制自然”的观念造成的，也不是现代社会的消费方式造成的，它归根到底源自资本主义社会的生产关系。正是基于资本主义生产关系的前提，马克思阐明了现代社会人与自然的主客体关系的历史性特质，深刻揭示了现代社会生态问题的根源，同时也预示着生态文明建设的方向，那就是，在生产力不断发展的基础上彻底颠覆资本主义生产关系，真正建构起合理的人与人的关系，只有在此前提下才能实现人与自然关系的合理化。

III. Transformation of Relations of Production and the Ecological Revolution

三、生产关系变革与生态革命

People’s different understandings of the root causes of ecological problems determine their choice of paths for solving ecological problems and even for constructing ecological civilization. As mentioned above, Leiss believes that ecological problems originate from people’s concept of “controlling nature,” and thus focuses the choice of path for solving ecological problems on changing people’s concepts. However, because this path does not touch the foundation of the edifice of capitalist society, it exhibits a strong utopian character. Concepts ultimately come from reality; without changes in reality, concepts cannot be changed either. In this regard, Pepper points out, “If we want to change society and the relationship between society and nature, we must seek changes not only in people’s minds—their views or philosophies, i.e., their ‘social ideology’—but also in their material and economic life.” [13]13 Pepper, *Eco-Socialism: From Deep Ecology to Social Justice*, p. 222. Similarly, because Agger regards capitalist society’s pursuit of high consumption as the root of ecological problems, the focus of his proposed solution lies in slowing down the pace of economic development. He clearly states, “Today’s ecological crisis requires a planned reduction in industrial production,” and to achieve this goal, it is necessary to curb “capital concentration.” “The best way to control the process of production and distribution and avoid wasteful overproduction is to smash the bureaucratic centralization of the large and cumbersome capitalist political economy.” [14]14 Ben Agger, *Western Marxism: An Introduction*, p. 494. This plan essentially aims to limit the concentration and expansion of capital. But as Postone points out, “Within the framework of capitalist society, any attempt to fundamentally respond to growing environmental destruction by limiting this society’s mode of expansion is likely to be ineffective in the long run—not only because of the interests of capitalists and state managers, but also because the failure of surplus-value expansion will in fact lead to serious economic difficulties, accompanied by enormous social costs.” [15]15 Moishe Postone, *Time, Labor, and Social Domination: A Reinterpretation of Marx’s Critical Theory*, p. 385. Under the premise of capitalist relations of production, due to capital’s boundless drive for profit, limiting capital’s expansion is tantamount to “great treason”; hoping that capital will cease accumulation for the purpose of environmental protection is even more of a fantasy. In short, as long as capitalist relations of production are the premise of social production and are continuously reproduced within social production, any plan or measure based on them cannot fundamentally solve ecological problems.

人们对生态问题形成根源的不同理解，决定了其对生态问题的解决路径乃至生态文明建设路径的选择。如前文所述，莱斯认为生态问题源于人们“控制自然”的观念，并由此将解决生态问题的路径选择的焦点集中在人们的观念改变上。但是，这一路径由于没有触动资本主义社会大厦的根基，而表现出强烈的乌托邦色彩。观念归根到底来自现实，没有现实的改变，观念也不可能得到改变。对此，佩珀指出，“如果我们想改变社会以及社会—自然之间的关系，我们就必须寻求不仅在人们的思想中——他们的见解或哲学观即他们的‘社会意识形态’，而且也在他们的物质与经济生活中的改变”。同样，阿格尔由于将资本主义社会对高消费的追求视为生态问题的根源，所以他提出的方案的重点在于使经济发展的速度放慢。他明确指出，“今天的生态危机需要有计划地缩减工业生产”，而为了达到这个目的就需要抑制“资本集中”，“控制生产和分配的过程，避免浪费性的过度生产的最好办法，是粉碎又大又累赘的资本主义政治经济的官僚主义的集中化”。这一方案实际上就是要限制资本的集中和扩张，但正如普殊同所指出的，“在资本主义社会的框架内，任何试图通过限制这一社会扩张方式来在根本上回应不断增长的环境破坏的企图，在长远看来都很有可能是无效的——不仅因为资本家和国家管理者的利益，更因为剩余价值扩张的失败事实上将导致严重的经济困境，并伴有极大的社会成本”。在资本主义生产关系的前提下，由于资本无限逐利的本性，限制资本的扩张无异于“大逆不道”，希望资本出于保护环境的目的而停止增殖更是幻想。总而言之，只要资本主义生产关系是社会生产的前提，并在社会生产中不断地被再生产出来，那么任何一种立足于其上的方案、举措都无法从根本上解决生态问题。

As Marx revealed, capitalist relations of production are the root cause of increasingly serious ecological problems. Therefore, fundamentally different from any plan that seeks to solve the ecological crisis and promote ecological civilization construction outside the transformation of relations of production, Marx’s proposed plan lies in completely overthrowing capitalist relations of production, constructing socialist relations of production, and on this premise, rationally coordinating and planning the relationship between humans and nature. In this regard, Engels profoundly pointed out that to properly regulate the relationship between humans and nature, it is not enough to merely improve understanding; it also requires “a complete revolution in our existing mode of production, and together with it, in our entire present social system.” [16]16 Engels, “The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 25, p. 461. From a dialectical perspective, Marx both criticized capitalist relations of production for causing serious ecological problems and pointed out that they, by promoting the development of productive forces and social relations, laid the foundation for forming rational relations between humans and between humans and nature. Marx stated: “One of the civilizing aspects of capital is that it extracts this surplus labor in a manner and under conditions that are more advantageous to the development of productive forces, to the development of social relations, and to the creation of elements for a new and higher form, than under the earlier forms of slavery, serfdom, etc.” [17]17 Marx, *Capital*, vol. 3, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 25, p. 294. This shows that Marx never denied the historical progress brought by capitalist production, nor did he attribute ecological problems to the enhancement of humanity’s ability to transform nature resulting from this progress. As Postone states, Marx’s “critique of capitalist industry and agriculture is obviously not a productivist critique. Marx’s critique is based on an analysis of the specific form of labor under capitalism, not on ‘labor’,” [18]18 Postone, *Time, Labor, and Social Domination*, p. 384. and the specific form of labor is precisely formed on the basis of capitalist relations of production. In this regard, when Eckersley points out that “Marx…was thoroughly steeped in the Victorian faith in scientific and technological progress as a means for human triumph over and conquest of nature,” [19]19 Robyn Eckersley, *Environmentalism and Political Theory: Toward an Ecocentric Approach*, p. 83. he, lacking the perspective of relations of production, fails to distinguish between the specifically capitalist form of labor and labor in the anthropological sense, which are significantly different in Marx’s work, thus inevitably misreading Marx.

正如马克思所揭示的，资本主义生产关系乃是造成日益严重的生态问题的根源，因而与任何一种游离于生产关系变革之外寻求解决生态危机、推进生态文明建设的方案根本不同，马克思提出的方案则在于彻底颠覆资本主义生产关系，建构社会主义的生产关系，并以此为前提来合理协调和规划人与自然之间的关系。对此，恩格斯深刻指出，要调节好人与自然的关系，仅仅停留于提高认识是不够的，还“需要对我们的直到目前为止的生产方式，以及同这种生产方式一起对我们的现今的整个社会制度实行完全的变革”。马克思基于辩证的视角既批判资本主义生产关系造成了严重的生态问题，也指出其通过促进生产力和社会关系的发展，为形成合理的人与人的关系以及人与自然的关系奠定了基础。马克思指出：“资本的文明面之一是，它榨取这种剩余劳动的方式和条件，同以前的奴隶制、农奴制等形式相比，都更有利于生产力的发展，有利于社会关系的发展，有利于更高级的新形态的各种要素的创造。”这表明马克思从来都不否认资本主义生产所带来的历史进步，也从未将生态问题归结于因这种进步而带来的人类改造自然的能力的提升。诚如普殊同所言，马克思“对资本主义工业和农业的批判显然不是一种生产主义的批判。马克思的批判基于对资本主义劳动的特殊形式的分析，而非基于‘劳动’”，而劳动的特殊形式正是基于资本主义生产关系形成的。就此而言，当艾克斯利指出“马克思……彻底沉浸在维多利亚时代对科学和技术进步的信仰之中，将其作为人类取胜和征服自然的手段”时，他由于缺乏生产关系的视野而无法将在马克思那里存在着显著差异的资本主义特有的劳动形式和人类学意义上的劳动区分开来，从而不可避免地造成了对马克思的误读。

It is precisely capitalist relations of production that create a specific relationship between humans and nature and trigger serious ecological problems. But capitalist relations of production are by no means an eternal natural existence; thus, the relationship between humans and nature or the form of labor under capitalist relations of production is by no means an eternal natural form. Marx points out: “Insofar as the labor process is merely a process between humans and nature, its simple elements are common to all social forms of development of this process. But each specific historical form of this process further develops the material basis and social form of this process. When this specific historical form reaches a certain stage of maturity, it is cast aside and gives way to a higher form.” [20]20 Marx, *Capital*, vol. 3, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 25, p. 883. In his view, with the continuous development of productive forces in capitalist society, capitalist relations of production will increasingly reveal their own historical limitations and will eventually withdraw from the stage of history, i.e., “capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a natural process, its own negation,” [21]21 Marx, *Capital*, vol. 1, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 23, p. 832. and history will then enter a completely new stage, namely the socialist stage, the communist stage. At that time, the level of productive forces will achieve high development, and on the basis of developed productive forces, entirely new relations of production will be established, and these entirely new relations of production will lay the foundation for forming a rational relationship between humans and nature. In this entirely new stage, as Marx describes, “the associated producers, rationally regulating their material interchange with nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as a blind power; accomplishing it with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most worthy of and appropriate to their human nature,” [22]22 Marx, *Capital*, vol. 3, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 25, p. 926. or as Engels says, production in this stage will be “social production according to a predetermined plan.” [23]23 Engels, *Anti-Dühring*, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 20, p. 293.

正是资本主义生产关系造成了特殊的人与自然之间的关系，并引发了严重的生态问题。但资本主义生产关系绝非永恒的自然存在，从而资本主义生产关系下的人与自然的关系或劳动形式也绝非永恒的自然的形式。马克思指出：“就劳动过程只是人和自然之间的单纯过程来说，劳动过程的简单要素是这个过程的一切社会发展形式所共有的。但劳动过程的每个一定的历史形式，都会进一步发展这个过程的物质基础和社会形式。这个一定的历史形式达到一定的成熟阶段就会被抛弃，并让位给较高级的形式。”在他看来，伴随着资本主义社会生产力的不断发展，资本主义生产关系将会日益暴露自身的历史局限性，并最终会退出历史舞台，即“资本主义生产由于自然过程的必然性，造成了对自身的否定”，历史随之将会进入全新的阶段，即社会主义阶段、共产主义阶段。那时，生产力水平将实现高度发展，并在发达的生产力水平的基础上建立起全新的生产关系，而这种全新的生产关系将为形成合理的人与自然之间的关系奠定基础。在这个全新的阶段，正如马克思所描述的，“社会化的人，联合起来的生产者，将合理地调节他们和自然之间的物质变换，把它置于他们的共同控制之下，而不让它作为一种盲目的力量来统治自己；靠消耗最小的力量，在最无愧于和最适合于他们的人类本性的条件下来进行这种物质变换”，或者如恩格斯所说的，这个阶段的生产将是“按照预定计划进行的社会生产”。

Marx’s discussion of placing the metabolic interaction between humans and nature under people’s “common control” has drawn criticism from many scholars. Many thus regard him as an extreme anthropocentrist. According to this understanding, Marx merely emphasizes human manipulation of nature while neglecting nature’s constraints on humans. This interpretation completely misreads Marx’s thought. Marx clearly states that, in order to avoid becoming victims of “natural forces” and to sustain their own survival and development, humans must still “wrestle” with nature in the socialist or communist stage—that is, they must still control and transform nature through their own activity. The crux of the matter is that what destroys nature is not the labor by which humans transform nature, but labor of a specific form: “the growing destruction of nature should not be simplistically reversed as a result of humanity’s ever-increasing control and domination over nature.” [24] Fundamentally different from capitalist relations of production, which serve the self-expansion of capital and inevitably lead to the alienation of the human-nature relationship, under socialist relations of production, humans, having become masters of their own social combination and historical development, can reconstruct the human-nature relationship on the basis of human freedom and the comprehensive development of human needs and potentials. This means that in a socialist or communist society, people will achieve a “harmonious coexistence” with nature at a higher level. In this regard, Marx’s ecological program is a revolutionary program aimed at “changing the world.” Moreover, because the revolutionary target is directed at the capitalist relations of production that shape the entire edifice of capitalist society—a relationship that is undoubtedly the deepest root of all catastrophic consequences caused by capitalism, including ecological problems—Marx’s ecological revolution is thoroughgoing. This thorough revolutionary program tells us that ecological problems are essentially social problems; only by completely eradicating the social-systemic roots from which they arise can a truly rational human-nature relationship be established. Of course, Marx’s taking the overthrow of capitalist relations of production and the establishment of socialist relations of production as the fundamental path to solving ecological problems by no means implies that the rationalization of the human-nature relationship will automatically emerge with the realization of socialist or communist society. Rather, it means that socialist or communist society lays a solid foundation for achieving the rationalization of the human-nature relationship. From this perspective, the ecological problems that have emerged in China since reform and opening up are

马克思关于将人与自然之间的物质变换置于人的“共同控制”之下的论述，引起了很多学者的批判。很多学者由此将他视为极端的人类中心主义者。按照这种理解，马克思只是强调了人对自然的操控，而忽视了自然对人的限制。这种理解完全误解了马克思的思想。马克思明确指出，为了避免成为“自然力”的牺牲品，为了维持自己的生存和发展，在社会主义阶段或共产主义阶段，人类仍然要与自然“搏斗”，即仍然要通过自己的活动控制和改变自然。问题的关键在于，破坏自然的不是人类改变自然的劳动，而是特殊形式的“劳动”，“对自然的不断增长的破坏，不应被简单地反过来视作人类对自然的不断增强的控制和支配的一个结果”。与资本主义生产关系服务于资本的增殖而必然导致人与自然的关系的异化根本不同，在社会主义生产关系的基础上，人类由于成为自身的社会结合和历史发展的主人，从而能够在人类自由与人类需求和潜力得到全面发展的基础上来重新建构人类与自然的关系，这意味着，在社会主义或共产主义社会，人们将在更高的层次上实现自身与自然的“和谐共生”。就此而言，马克思的生态方案是一种指向“改变世界”的革命性方案，并且，由于将革命的目标指向形塑整个资本主义社会大厦的资本主义生产关系——这一关系无疑是包括生态问题在内的一切由资本主义引发的灾难性后果的最深层次的根源，故而马克思的生态革命是彻底的。这一彻底的革命性方案告诉我们，生态问题本质上是社会问题，只有彻底铲除其由以产生的社会制度根源，方可建立起真正合理的人与自然的关系。当然，马克思将颠覆资本主义生产关系、建立社会主义生产关系作为解决生态问题的根本路径，绝不意味着人与自然的关系的合理化会随着社会主义社会或共产主义社会的实现而自动地出现，而是意味着社会主义社会或共产主义社会为实现人与自然的关系的合理化奠定了坚实的基础。从这个视角来看，我国改革开放以来所出现的生态问题绝不是社会主义制度造成的，而是由于发展方式不合理、观念认知偏差等原因造成的。进入新时代以来，中国共产党通过全面深化改革来推动发展方式转变、实现高质量发展，并持续开展生态教育，无疑抓住了推进生态文明建设的关键。马克思实际上确立了生态文明建设与社会主义转变之互为前提的关系，即“正如人类与土地之间关系的转变——根据马克思的观点——是封建主义过渡到资本主义的必要前提一样，合理地调节与自然之间的新陈代谢关系也被理解为资本主义过渡到社会主义的一个必要前提”，也就是说，人与自然关系的合理化本身就是发展社会主义的应有之义。社会主义生产关系的不断丰富和发展与人与自然关系的合理化交互作用、一体推进，共同构成社会主义发展进程中的重要课题。

(Authors: Xu Hengbing, Professor in the Department of Marxist Theory, Political College of the National Defense University, and Distinguished Researcher at the Center for Adapting Marxism to the Chinese Context and the Needs of the Times, Nanjing Academy of Social Sciences; Xu Di, Associate Professor in the Department of Marxist Theory, Political College of the National Defense University)

（作者：许恒兵，国防大学政治学院马克思主义理论系教授，南京市社会科学院马克思主义中国化研究中心特聘研究员；许迪，国防大学政治学院马克思主义理论系副教授）

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗