Contemporary French Critical Theory’s Misreading of *Capital*

Since the 1970s, as a direct response to the May 1968 movement [1]1 The May 1968 movement was a series of student and worker protests and general strikes in France that nearly toppled the government, representing a major crisis of legitimacy for post-war capitalist modernity. and Western Marxism, a grand social trend of thought that critiques modernity more broadly has emerged in contemporary French academia. Although most contemporary French critical theorists are not defenders of orthodox Marxism, they still regard Marx as the theoretical pioneer of the critique of modernity. In their view, *Capital*, as the “highest peak” of the theory of historical materialism, remains an unavoidable intellectual resource for our discussion of modernity today. This view is further confirmed in Piketty’s *Capital in the Twenty-First Century*; Piketty’s judgments, made from the standpoint of a new stage of Western capitalist development, further attest to the contemporary value of *Capital*. Compared with early Western Marxism, which emphasized the logic of totality, contemporary French critical theory, due to its anti-essentialist, anti-reductionist, and anti-historicist intellectual positions, exhibits theoretical characteristics such as pluralization, fragmentation, and heterogeneity. It has been labeled “post-structural,” “postmodern,” or “ultra-modern,” and to a large extent, this has led to a misreading of *Capital*.

20世纪70年代以来，作为对“五月风暴”运动和西方马克思主义的直接回应，当代法国学界涌现出一种对现代性进行更广泛批判的宏大社会思潮。尽管大多数当代法国批判理论家并非正统马克思主义的捍卫者，但他们依然认为，马克思是现代性批判的理论先驱。在他们看来，作为历史唯物主义理论的“最高峰”，《资本论》依然是我们今天探讨现代性问题不可回避的思想资源。这一观点在皮凯蒂《21世纪资本论》中进一步被证实，皮凯蒂站在西方资本主义新发展阶段所作的判断，同时进一步证实了《资本论》的当代价值。与早期西方马克思主义强调总体性逻辑相比，当代法国批判理论因其反本质主义、反还原主义、反历史主义的思想主张，故而呈现出多元化、零散化、异质性等理论特征，被冠以“后结构”“后现代”“终极现代”之称，其在很大程度上造成了对《资本论》的误读。

First, an important orientation of contemporary French critical theory is to attempt to dismantle the foundation of historical materialism in *Capital* by emphasizing the universal premise of a generalized political economy. This transforms Marx’s historical analysis of the laws of motion of the capitalist economy, grounded in material production, into a universal economic inquiry grounded in the production of meaning, applicable to all social formations. There are two basic approaches here: one, like Bataille’s, draws inspiration from anthropological research, placing symbolic exchange—distinct from the principle of utility—at the center of general social life, thereby exploring a general anthropology that transcends capitalist civilization; the other, like Lyotard’s, takes contemporary technological revolution and other changes in environmental conditions as its basis, examining the logical defects of modernity from a postmodern perspective. It is worth noting that on the path of a critique of generalized political economy, Baudrillard has gone the furthest and is the harshest critic of Marx, continuing Bataille’s theory of symbolic exchange. In *The Mirror of Production*, he critiques a series of concepts in *Capital* such as “use value” and “exchange value,” with the intention of completely negating the premise of material production in historical materialism and replacing it with a semiotic political economy focused on the production of meaning. From this starting point, the critique of generalized political economy completely loses its basic attribute as a historical science and ultimately degenerates into a romantic critique.

第一，当代法国批判理论的一个重要指向，是通过强调广义政治经济学的普遍性前提，试图瓦解《资本论》的唯物史观基础，从而把马克思立足于物质生产之上的、对于资本主义经济运动规律的历史性剖析转变为立足于意义生产之上的、适用于一切社会形态的普遍经济学探讨。这里存在着两条基本进路：一是像巴塔耶那样，从人类学研究中获得灵感，将不同于功利原则的象征交换置于普遍社会生活的中心，进而探讨超越资本主义文明的一般人类学；二是像利奥塔那样，以当代科技革命等环境条件变化为依据，从后现代视角审视现代性的逻辑缺陷。值得提及的是，在广义政治经济学批判的道路上，鲍德里亚是走得最彻底，也是对马克思批评最尖锐的一位，他延续的是巴塔耶的象征交换理论。在《生产之镜》中，他对《资本论》中“使用价值”“交换价值”等一系列概念展开批判，其意图是彻底否定唯物史观的物质生产前提，以聚焦意义生产的符号政治经济学取而代之。由此出发，广义政治经济学批判就彻底丧失了作为历史科学的基本属性，最终蜕变为一种浪漫主义批判。

Second, scientific epistemology, i.e., a new philosophical paradigm for interpreting *Capital* from the perspective of the French new epistemology [2]2 The French new epistemology (or historical epistemology) refers to a tradition in 20th-century French philosophy (e.g., Bachelard, Canguilhem) that studies the historical conditions and ruptures in the formation of scientific concepts, distinct from Anglo-American analytic epistemology.. This is the unique path opened up by Althusser for interpreting *Capital* from the perspective of the French new epistemology, and it has been carried on by his students Badiou, Macherey, and others. Althusser explicitly states that his reading of *Capital* is a philosophical reading, i.e., an epistemological and methodological reading, which differs both from an economic reading that treats *Capital* as an analysis of the laws of motion of the capitalist economy and from an analysis of the specific theoretical space contained within *Capital* from a specialized field. Badiou continues his teacher’s line of thought. In his view, reading *Capital* in the manner of “theoretical practice” [3]3 “Theoretical practice” is an Althusserian concept denoting the process by which theoretical raw materials (concepts, ideologies) are transformed into scientific knowledge through the application of a theoretical framework, independent of direct empirical observation. has at its core the extraction from historical materialism and the critique of political economy of a general theory that makes Marx’s doctrine a science, namely dialectical materialism; and the scientific framework of dialectical materialism should even be elaborated using the axiomatic systems of geometry and set theory. It should be said that the scientific epistemological interpretive path is conducive to restoring the holistic perspective of Marxism, advancing from the previously fragmented perspectives of philosophy, economics, and political science to Marxism as “a single block of steel.” At the same time, the problem it brings is that it merely stops at identifying the complexity of the issues, without making a profound interpretation of the question of “the method of *Capital*” itself.

第二，科学认识论，即从法国新认识论角度解读《资本论》的新哲学范式。这是阿尔都塞所开辟的、从法国新认识论角度解读《资本论》的独特路径，为其学生巴迪欧、马舍雷等人继承。阿尔都塞明确指出，他对《资本论》的阅读是一种哲学的阅读，即认识论和方法论的阅读，既不同于把《资本论》当作分析资本主义经济运动规律的经济学阅读，也不同于从某个专门领域分析《资本论》所内含的特定理论空间。巴迪欧延续了自己老师的思路，在他看来，以“理论实践”的方式阅读《资本论》，其核心在于从历史唯物主义和政治经济学批判中抽离出一种使得马克思的学说成为科学的一般理论，即辩证唯物主义；而辩证唯物主义的科学架构甚至应当以几何学和集合论的公理体系加以阐发。应当说，科学认识论解读路径有利于恢复马克思主义的整体性视野，从原先彼此割裂的哲学、经济学、政治学视域推进到作为“一块整钢”的马克思主义。同时带来的问题是，它仅仅停留于指认问题的复杂性层面，而没有对“《资本论》的方法”这一问题本身作出深刻的解读。

Third, spatiotemporal expansion, i.e., critiquing the dynamic deployment of capital relations from the two dimensions of time and space. Contemporary French critical theory affirms the theoretical essence of Marx’s historical dialectics, examining the new changes in capitalism not from the perspective of “things” but from that of “social relations.” However, in their view, contemporary capitalist production has already far overflowed the geographical space of the 19th century, completing its self-deployment in the two dimensions of time and space. For example, for Lefebvre, who promoted the “spatial turn” in the study of historical materialism, Marx saw material production constrained by a specific time and space; on this basis, Lefebvre sees that capitalist production itself is a production process that constantly transcends geographical spatial limits. According to Lefebvre’s conception, “space” is not only the historical result of social relations of production but also their ontological basis or necessary premise; the highest form of Marx’s historical dialectics is the dialectics of “the production of space.” It can be seen that contemporary French critical theorists are often able to keenly capture the new changes and new trends of contemporary capitalism and provide some explanation of the contemporary development of the logic of capital. However, constrained by the limitations of their positions and methods, they find it difficult to reveal the socio-historical essence of these new changes and new trends and can only think about them from the perspective of the construction of capital power.

第三，时空扩展，即从时间与空间两个维度批判资本关系的动态布展。当代法国批判理论肯定了马克思历史辩证法的理论精髓，不是从“物”而是从“社会关系”层面探讨资本主义的新变化。但在他们看来，当代资本主义生产已经远远溢出了19世纪的地理空间，在时空两个维度完成了自我布展。譬如，对于推动历史唯物主义研究“空间化”转向的列斐伏尔而言，马克思看到的是一定时空制约下的物质生产，列斐伏尔在此基础上看到的是资本主义生产本身是一个不断超越地理空间限制的生产过程。按照列斐伏尔的设想，“空间”不仅是社会生产关系的历史性结果，更是其本体论基础或必要性前提，马克思历史辩证法的最高形态就是“空间生产”的辩证法。可以看出，当代法国批判理论家往往能够敏锐捕捉当代资本主义的新变化和新趋势，对资本逻辑的当代发展作出一定说明，但囿于立场与方法的局限，难以揭示出这些新变化新趋势的社会历史本质，而只能从资本权力建构的角度加以思考。

Fourth, the critique of power, i.e., emphasizing the dimension of organizational power in the critique of political economy. Whether emphasizing the socio-political basis of capitalist production from a macro perspective or expanding the biopolitical theory based on bodily control from a micro perspective, the critique of power has always been an important path for contemporary French critical theory to interpret *Capital* and thereby critique modernity. Bidet argues that concepts such as “value” and “labor power” elaborated by Marx in *Capital* are not only economic concepts but also socio-political concepts. Only by examining the formation of value and the expenditure of labor power within specific social production, and by endowing economic concepts with a social form, can one truly understand the internal connection between market logic and the logic of capital. Although Foucault is not a Marxist, in texts such as *Discipline and Punish*, through a creative interpretation of parts of *Capital* such as “the commodification of labor power” and “cooperation and the division of labor,” he intends to explain the micro-physical foundations of capital domination and the capitalist system of governance.

第四，权力批判，即强调政治经济学批判的组织权力维度。无论是从宏观维度强调资本主义生产的社会政治基础，还是从微观视角拓展基于身体控制的生命政治理论，权力批判始终是当代法国批判理论解读《资本论》进而对现代性展开批判的重要路径。比岱认为，马克思在《资本论》中所阐述的“价值”与“劳动力”等概念不仅是经济学概念，而且是社会政治概念，只有在特定的社会生产中考察价值形成与劳动力耗费，赋予经济概念以社会形式，才能真正理解市场逻辑和资本逻辑之间的内在关联。福柯虽然不是马克思主义者，但在《规训与惩罚》等文本中，通过对《资本论》中“劳动力商品化”“协作与分工”等部分的创造性解读，意图说明资本统治与资本主义治理体系的微观权力基础。

Overall, contemporary French academia interprets *Capital* from the four paths outlined above. Among these, there are both classical interpretations based on textual analysis and “theoretical innovations” grounded in the exploration of major practical issues. These theoretical efforts have a certain academic value. Although different thinkers have different foundational positions and different theoretical interests, and even within the same school of thought, differences in viewpoints are extremely large, they also exhibit some common characteristics. First, they all emphasize the place of *Capital* in the history of thought and its contemporary value, advocating that Marx’s critical spirit and scientific attitude be used to confront the new developments of contemporary capitalism. Second, they are able to keenly capture the new changes and new trends of contemporary capitalism in different fields, always emphasizing that contemporary capitalism has structural contradictions at various levels. Third, they all borrow other Western intellectual and cultural resources to conduct interdisciplinary research centered on *Capital*, thereby developing Marx’s critique of capitalism into a broader critical theory of modern society.

总体而言，当代法国学界从上述四条路径出发解读《资本论》，其中既有立足文本分析的经典阐释，也有基于重大现实问题探讨的“理论创新”，这些理论努力具有一定的学术价值。虽然不同思想家的立论基础不同，理论旨趣各异，即使同一学派内部思想观点的差异也极大，但是也呈现出一些共性特征。其一，他们都强调《资本论》的思想史地位与当代价值，主张以马克思的批判精神和科学态度面对当代资本主义的新发展。其二，他们能够敏锐地捕捉到不同领域中当代资本主义的新变化和新趋势，始终强调当代资本主义存在着各个层次的结构性矛盾。其三，他们都借用其他西方思想文化资源，围绕《资本论》展开跨学科式的研究，进而把马克思的资本主义批判理论发展为更宏大的现代社会批判理论。

However, although contemporary French critical theory all embodies a radical critical stance of “going beyond Marx,” in terms of its theoretical essence, it regresses to the “revolution of phrases” that Marx criticized in his own time. From the perspective of historical materialism, the emancipation of the proletariat and the communist revolution are both grounded in the movement of capitalism’s inherent contradictions. Marx expended enormous effort writing *Capital*, exploring the laws of capitalist economic movement from the general laws of human historical development, with the aim of seeking a solid theoretical foundation for scientific socialism. In contrast, contemporary French critical theory directly negates the scientificity of Marx’s immanent critical path, instead seeking a romanticized transcendence from the outside. Whether it is the critique of political economy in a broad sense or the critique of power, once it departs from concrete socio-historical analysis and sets aside the method of class analysis, any pursuit of an ideal future society becomes a rootless duckweed. [4]4 “Rootless duckweed” (无根之萍) is a Chinese four-character idiom meaning something that lacks a solid foundation and is therefore unstable or transient. Furthermore, contemporary French critical theory, under the banner of particularity, launches a struggle against essentialism, unaware that it has fallen into the study of specific empirical phenomena. They negate historical laws, always accusing historical materialism of lacking scientificity on the basis of individual fields or new phenomena; hence, the logic of fragmentation and utopian revolution always become the final destination of contemporary French critical theory.

然而，当代法国批判理论虽然都体现出“超越马克思”的激进批判立场，但就其理论本质而言，却是退回到马克思当年所批判的“词句革命”。在唯物史观视域中，无产阶级解放和共产主义革命都是建立在资本主义内在矛盾运动基础上的。马克思耗费大量精力写作《资本论》，从人类历史发展的一般规律出发探寻资本主义经济运动规律，其目的就是为科学社会主义寻求坚实的理论基础。反观当代法国批判理论，它径直否定了马克思内在批判路径的科学性，反而从外部寻求浪漫化的超越。无论是广义政治经济学批判，还是权力批判，一旦脱离了具体的社会历史分析、撇开了阶级分析方法，任何对未来理想社会的追寻都将成为无根之萍。进一步而言，当代法国批判理论打着特殊性的名义掀起一场反本质主义的斗争，殊不知自己却陷入了对具体经验现象的研究。他们否定历史规律，总是以个别领域或新的现象指责历史唯物主义的科学性，因而碎片化逻辑与乌托邦革命总是成为当代法国批判理论的最终归宿。

Web editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗