Judging the Contextual Differences of Western Marxist Spatial Critique

In recent years, spatial critique based on the urbanization process of capitalist society has become an important content that cannot be ignored in the study of foreign Marxism. With the deepening of research, some issues still need to be clarified, especially the relationship between urban Marxism and historical materialism. The American sociologist Manuel Castells accused Lefebvre’s theory of the production of space, which is based on the critique of everyday life, of deviating from Marxism. He criticized Lefebvre’s attempt to shift from a Marxist analysis of urban phenomena to a Marxist theory of urbanization, and, through the critique of everyday life, to re-place people’s consideration of the state of the subject into a humanist context, which he argued deviates from the theoretical orientation of historical materialism. However, another American postmodern political geographer and urban theorist, Edward W. Soja, believed that it was precisely this “provocative inversion” of theory—the transformation from the Marxification of spatial analysis to the spatialization of Marxism—that enabled Lefebvre to have such a profound impact on urban studies and even on the entire social sciences. Against the backdrop of the growing study of the spatialization of historical materialism, clarifying the connections and distinctions between urban Marxism and historical materialism, and identifying the differences in conceptual analysis, critical paradigms, and practical paths of spatial critique in the two contexts, will provide important guidance for us to continue advancing spatial research by drawing on Marx’s texts.

近些年，立足资本主义社会都市化进程展开的空间批判已经成为国外马克思主义研究不可忽视的重要内容。伴随研究的深入，部分问题仍有待厘清，特别是都市马克思主义与历史唯物主义的关系问题。美国社会学家曼纽尔·卡斯特（Manuel Castells）指责列斐伏尔建立在日常生活批判基础上的空间生产理论偏离了马克思主义，批评其尝试从城市现象的马克思主义分析转向马克思主义城市化理论，经由日常生活批判将人们对主体生存状态的考量重新置入人道主义语境，是与历史唯物主义的理论取向相背离的。但另一位美国后现代政治地理学家和城市理论家爱德华·苏贾（Edward W. Soja）则认为，恰因这种理论的“激进反向”（provocative inversion）实现的从空间分析的马克思主义化到马克思主义空间化的转变，才使列斐伏尔得以对都市研究乃至整个社会科学产生如此深远的影响。在历史唯物主义空间化研究渐兴背景下，认清都市马克思主义同历史唯物主义的联系与区别，明确两种语境下的空间批判在概念解析、批判范式以及实践路径上的差异，将为我们借助马克思的文本继续推进空间研究提供重要指引。

Differences in the Definition of the Concept of the City

城市概念界定上的差异

Urban Marxism originated from the spatial turn of social critical theory in the context of modern and contemporary capitalism. The gap in reality inevitably leads to differences in the spatial understanding of Lefebvre and Marx, which are concentrated in their respective understandings of the “city.”

都市马克思主义缘起于现当代资本主义背景下社会批判理论的空间转向，现实的差距决定了列斐伏尔与马克思的空间认识必然存在差异，集中反映在二人对“城市”的理解上。

First, the city identified by Lefebvre is the modern urban (urbain). He divides history into three eras: the agricultural, the industrial, and the urban. The town (ville) already existed in the agricultural and industrial eras, while the urban is a unique product of the urban era, containing new elements such as “the constitutive center, space as a place of assembly, and buildings.” In contrast, Marx’s spatial understanding is based on the reality of large industrial cities in Europe. Although these cities, through workers’ revolutionary movements, had already shown an anti-town tendency, they were still misunderstood as a collection of class contradictions and an externalized representation of capitalist relations of production. Thus, in nature and form, they are more similar to the town.

第一，列斐伏尔所指认的城市是现代都市（urbain），他将历史划分为农业、工业和都市三个时代，城邑（ville）在农业和工业时代已经存在，都市则是都市时代的独特产物，包含了“构成性中心、作为集合的场所的空间和建筑物”等新内容。相较之下，马克思的空间认识以欧洲大工业城市为现实基础，尽管它经由工人革命运动已然展现出反城邑倾向，但仍被误解为阶级矛盾的集合体，以及资本主义生产关系的外化表征，因而在性质和样态上与城邑更加近似。

Second, the space identified by Lefebvre is commodified space. The universalization of commodities, the commodification of land, and elements such as underground storage, fresh water, pure air, and sunlight that depend on spatial storage become “new rarities,” all regarded as real conditions for the commodification of space. The space understood by Marx is the field of people’s production and life. The city is an inevitable result of capitalist development, but it is not the ultimate goal of capitalists in organizing production.

第二，列斐伏尔所指认的空间是商品化的空间，商品的普遍化、土地的商品化以及依赖空间储存的地下储藏、淡水、纯净空气和光照等要素成为“新的稀有物”，并且均被视为空间商品化的现实条件。马克思所理解的空间则是人们的生产与生活场域，城市是资本主义发展的必然结果，但它并非资本家组织生产的最终目的。

Third, Marx tends to interpret the city in a centralized and intensive manner, viewing the concentration of production and the accumulation of capital as prerequisites for the emergence of large industrial cities, and the spatial agglomeration of the proletariat as a precondition for joint action. Lefebvre, on the other hand, tends to interpret space in a fragmented and differentiated manner. He not only clarifies the commodity nature and instrumentality of space but also links space with the issue of power. This deconstruction of the concept of space, while shaking the absolute dominance of time and the field of social-historical research, also opens a path for the logical connection between space and the critique of political economy, as well as class analysis methods.

第三，马克思倾向于对城市做集中化、集约化的解读，将生产集中与资本积聚视为大工业城市产生的前提，将无产阶级的空间集聚视为开展联合行动的前提条件。列斐伏尔则倾向于对空间做碎片化、分异化的解读，不仅明确了空间的商品性与工具性，还将空间与权力问题联系起来，这种空间概念的解构在动摇时间与社会历史研究领域的绝对主导地位的同时，也为空间与政治经济学批判以及阶级分析方法的逻辑联结开辟了道路。

Differences in the Critical Paradigm of Space

空间批判范式的差异

In the context of historical materialism, spatial development corresponds to the development of civil society. The mode of material production is the fundamental basis for spatial construction, and changes in the forms of ownership are closely related to changes in the urban-rural relationship. On this, Marx summarized in the *Grundrisse*: “The history of classical antiquity is the history of cities, but of cities founded on landed property and agriculture; Asiatic history is a kind of undifferentiated unity of town and country; … the Middle Ages (Germanic period) starts from the countryside as the locus of history, and its further development then proceeds through the opposition of town and country; modern [history] is the urbanization of the countryside, not, as in antiquity, the ruralization of the city.” [1]1 This is a paraphrase from Marx’s *Grundrisse* (1857–1858), specifically the section on forms preceding capitalist production, where he contrasts ancient, Asiatic, Germanic, and modern historical relations between town and country.

在历史唯物主义语境下，空间发展同市民社会发展相适应，物质资料生产方式是空间构建的根本依据，所有制形式的变化同城乡关系的变迁具有紧密关联。对此，马克思曾在《政治经济学批判（1857—1858年手稿）》中总结道：“古典古代的历史是城市的历史，不过这是以土地所有制和农业为基础的城市；亚细亚的历史是城市和乡村的一种无差别的统一；……中世纪（日耳曼时代）是从乡村这个历史的舞台出发的，然后，它的进一步发展是在城市和乡村的对立中进行的；现代的[历史]是乡村城市化，而不像在古代那样，是城市乡村化。”

In contrast, urban Marxism takes the “absence of space” in historical materialism as its presupposition. In the eyes of Western scholars, historical materialism is no longer applicable to the new conditions of capitalism, and a new cognitive framework needs to be constructed to revitalize Marxism. To this end, Lefebvre and Castells chose the approach of urban sociology, while Harvey and Soja chose the approach of human geography. Lefebvre made four assumptions about space—that it is pure form, a social product, an instrumental medium, and a sum of commodities—and understood the urban as a site for the reproduction of relations of production, attempting to construct a spatial political economy based on commodified space to “enhance and transform” the critical paradigm provided by Marx in *Capital*. Castells, on the other hand, introduced structuralism into urban studies, understanding the city as the basic unit for the reproduction of labor power in contemporary capitalism. Harvey argued that the “spatio-temporal fix,” involving the temporal deferral and spatial expansion of capital circulation, has become a new strategy for capitalist states to alleviate economic crises. Therefore, he advocated incorporating spatial elements such as geography, environment, and natural resources into historical materialism, achieving a combination of Marxist views and methods with real capitalist problems through the construction of historical-geographical materialism. Soja devoted himself to the postmodernization of Marxist geography. He did not agree with Harvey’s approach of supplementing historical materialism with geographical elements but instead viewed space as a category embedded within historical materialism yet urgently in need of being unveiled.

相较之下，都市马克思主义则以历史唯物主义“空间缺场”为预设，在西方学者眼中，历史唯物主义不再适用于资本主义新状况，需要建构新的认知图景以激发马克思主义重新焕发活力。为此，列斐伏尔与卡斯特选择了城市社会学进路，哈维与苏贾则选择了人文地理学进路。列斐伏尔做出空间是纯粹形式、社会产品、工具性媒介以及商品总和的四重假设，将都市理解为生产关系再生产的场所，尝试建构以商品化空间为基础的空间政治经济学以“提高与转换”《资本论》中马克思所提供的批判范式。卡斯特则是将结构主义引入城市研究，将城市理解为当代资本主义劳动力再生产的基本单位。哈维认为，以资本流通的时间延迟和空间扩张为内容的“时空修复”方案成为资本主义国家缓解经济危机的新策略，因此主张将地理、环境和自然资源等空间要素纳入历史唯物主义，经由历史—地理唯物主义建构实现马克思主义的观点与方法同资本主义现实问题的结合。苏贾致力于马克思主义地理学的后现代化，他并不认同哈维将地理要素补充进历史唯物主义的做法，而是将空间视为内嵌于历史唯物主义却又亟待解蔽的范畴。

In terms of methodology, Western scholars suspect that dialectics has a “temporal preference” and have attempted to expand and transform it. Lefebvre interpreted space through a “conceptual triad,” viewing space as the dialectical unity of spatial practice, representations of space, and representational spaces, thereby breaking the binary opposition model of spatial understanding and interpretation under traditional dialectics. Harvey, while adopting dialectics, emphasized the importance of geographical factors, linking uneven geographical development on a global scale with the expansion of capitalist production and capitalist injustice. Soja attempted to depict human life as a three-dimensional picture of the social, temporal, and spatial, thereby constructing a social-historical-spatial trialectics that combines synchronicity and interactivity. He argued that trialectics can demonstrate the foundational role of geographical factors in the study of justice issues. Previous theories of justice have more or less ignored the importance of geographical factors, but “uneven geographical development, whatever its causes, is an important reason for the formation and solidification of individual and social inequalities, leading to social and spatial injustice.”

在方法论上，西方学者认为辩证法带有“时间偏好”之嫌，纷纷尝试对其加以扩容改造。列斐伏尔通过“三位一体”（conceptual triad）的方式诠释空间，将空间视为空间实践、空间的表征和表征的空间的辩证统一，以此打破传统辩证法指导下空间认识与诠释的二元对立模式。哈维则在采纳辩证法的同时着重强调了地理因素的重要性，将全球不平衡地理发展同资本主义生产扩大化以及资本主义非正义联系起来。苏贾尝试将人类生活描绘成社会—时间—空间（social, temporal, and spatial）的三维图景，以此建构共时性与交互性并举的社会—历史—空间三元辩证法。他指出，三元辩证法能够证明地理因素在正义问题研究领域的基础性地位，以往的正义理论都或多或少地忽略了地理因素的重要性，但“地理不平衡发展，无论其原因为何，都是形成与固化个人和社会不平等进而导致社会与空间非正义的重要原因”。

Differences in the Practical Path of Space

空间实践路径的差异

In Marx’s view, the spatial problems of capitalism are a real expression of the inherent defects of the capitalist mode of production, which fundamentally breaks free from the shackles of the logic of capital. Ending the state of human alienation in space must be achieved through the transformation of the mode of production, and the proletariat is the subject of this process. Therefore, the spatial understanding of historical materialism is a unity of critique and revolution based on practice. In contrast, urban Marxism focuses more on critique. The proletariat is no longer regarded as the subject of social history, and class revolution is no longer understood as an effective way to overcome spatial alienation.

在马克思看来，资本主义的空间问题是资本主义生产方式内在缺陷的现实表达，它从根本上摆脱了资本逻辑的束缚。终结人在空间中的异化状态必须通过生产方式的变革来实现，而无产阶级是这一过程的主体。因此，历史唯物主义的空间认识是实践基础上的批判性与革命性的统一。相较之下，都市马克思主义则侧重于批判，无产阶级不再被视为社会历史的主体，阶级革命也不再被理解为扬弃空间异化的有效方式。

Lefebvre regards space as a condition for the reproduction of capitalist relations of production, so resistance to the production and arrangement of space under the dominance of the bourgeoisie is understood as the optimal path for the proletariat to resist capitalism. To critique the spatial injustice of capitalism, Harvey chooses to appeal to a dialectical utopian ideal rather than communism. He points out that the utopia dominated by neoliberalism is a regressive utopia that has lost its critical function; given that communism has been called into question, an alternative plan—dialectical utopia—must be selected to resist the regressive utopia. Dialectical utopia requires not only “a dialectics of spatial and temporal operations” but also the active role of “rebel architects.”

列斐伏尔将空间视为资本主义生产关系再生产的条件，反抗资产阶级主导下的空间生产与安置就被理解为无产阶级反抗资本主义的最优途径。为批判资本主义的空间非正义，哈维选择诉诸辩证乌托邦理想而非共产主义。他指出，新自由主义主导下的乌托邦是失去批判功能的退步乌托邦，鉴于共产主义遭到质疑，需要选择一种替代性方案——辩证乌托邦来实现对退步乌托邦的抵制。辩证乌托邦不仅需要“关于空间和时间操作的辩证法”，还需要“反叛的建筑师”发挥其主体作用。

Harvey borrows Marx’s metaphor of “the worst of architects” from *Capital*, [2]2 Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 7, Section 1: “A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst of architects from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality.” arguing that the labor process includes not only the exertion of human natural forces but also “the purposeful will that manifests itself as attention,” thereby illustrating the “free imagination” duty borne by rebel architects. He advocates that the “rebellious political practice” initiated by rebel architects should resist the suppression of subjective freedom by the logic of capital. At this point, dialectical utopia has already replaced communism as the solution to spatial problems, and rebel architects have replaced the proletariat as the subject of social history.

哈维借用马克思在《资本论》中“最蹩脚的建筑师”的比喻，认为劳动过程既包含人的自然力的发挥，更包含了“作为注意力表现出来的有目的的意志”，以此说明反叛的建筑师所肩负的“自由想象”职责，主张通过反叛的建筑师发起的“反叛政治实践”抵御资本逻辑对主体自由的压制。此时，辩证乌托邦已经替代共产主义成为空间问题的解决方案，反叛的建筑师则取代无产阶级成为社会历史的主体。

In short, urban Marxism has failed to provide feasible spatial action strategies, nor has it regarded the transformation of the mode of production as the necessary path to spatial liberation. Consequently, its critique of capitalist space has never penetrated to the level of ownership relations. Although this choice is compatible with the cultural logic of contemporary capitalism, it also inevitably determines that its understanding of space differs from that under the context of historical materialism. At the same time, precisely because of the above differences in concept analysis, critical paradigms, and practical paths between the two contexts of spatial critique, Marxist spatial research presents a theoretical landscape of mutual integration, cross-referencing, openness, and diversity, further demonstrating the vibrant vitality of Marxism.

总之，都市马克思主义未能给出切实可行的空间行动策略，也没有将生产方式变革视为空间解放的必由之路，因而其对资本主义空间的批判始终未能深入至所有制层面。这种选择虽然同现当代资本主义的文化逻辑相适应，却也注定了其同历史唯物主义语境下的空间认识存在差异。与此同时，正是因为两种语境下空间批判在概念解析、批判范式以及实践路径等方面的上述差异，才使马克思主义的空间研究呈现出交互融合、互为观照、开放多元的理论景观，进一步展现出马克思主义的鲜活生命力。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗