The Roots, Essence, and Way Out of Deglobalization: A Perspective Based on Historical Materialism

Globalization constitutes the basic relational structure of the contemporary world, but globalization is a double-edged sword. As globalization continues to develop in depth, various voices of "anti-globalization" arise one after another; as anti-globalization escalates, deglobalization follows. The 2008 global financial crisis was a landmark event in the transformation from anti-globalization to deglobalization. From this stage onward, anti-globalization shifted from thought and theory to the foreign policies of some countries, and the subjects of anti-globalization shifted from civil society and academia to governments and states. In 2016, with Brexit, the rise of right-wing populism in continental Europe, and the election of the radical Trump as president of the United States, that year is often regarded as another important node in the surging advance of deglobalization sentiment. Since 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic raging across the globe has objectively brought deglobalization into a new phase of widespread acceptance. From the perspective of a grand view of history, the emergence, fermentation, and prevalence of deglobalization is a phenomenon closely related to capitalism and the historical course of its globalization. Currently, academia mostly analyzes the issue of deglobalization from the perspectives of economics and diplomacy. In fact, using the analytical method of historical materialism to deeply examine its roots, essence, trends, and way out from the perspective of the history of capitalist development is a more valuable research angle.

全球化构成了当今世界的基本关系结构，但全球化是一把双刃剑，随着全球化不断向纵深发展，各种“反全球化”的声音此起彼伏；随着反全球化不断升级，逆全球化也随之而来。2008年全球性金融危机是反全球化向逆全球化转变的一个标志性事件。从这一阶段开始，反全球化从思想和理论转变为一些国家的外交政策，反全球化主体从民间和学术界转变为政府与国家。2016年，英国脱欧、欧陆右翼民粹主义高涨、美国激进主义者特朗普当选总统，该年度常常被视作逆全球化思潮高歌猛进的又一个重要节点。2020年以来，新冠肺炎疫情在全球肆虐，客观上将逆全球化带入一个被普遍认同的新阶段。从大历史观视角来看，逆全球化的产生、发酵和流行，是一个与资本主义及其全球化发展历程紧密相关的现象。当前，学术界多从经济学、外交学视角分析逆全球化问题。事实上，运用唯物史观分析方法，从资本主义发展史的视角深入透视其根源、本质、趋势与出路，不啻为一个更有价值的研究视角。

The Roots of Deglobalization: The Temporal Encounter of the Global Expansion of the Capitalist Mode of Production

逆全球化的根源：资本主义生产方式全球扩张的时代性遭遇

Academia often uses the theory of "globalization's losers" or "modernization's losers" to analyze the phenomenon of deglobalization. In globalization, some countries or groups become winners, while others become losers. Losers attribute their loss of interests to globalization and thus adopt an opposing attitude toward it. The "modernization's losers" theory explains the reasons for the emergence of deglobalization from the perspective of interest distribution in the process of globalization, and it has a certain degree of persuasiveness. However, this theory simplifies the essence of the problem into a single issue of interest distribution contradictions, weakens the differences between different national subjects or social strata, and obscures the social relations behind interest distribution. For example, the United States is in a trade deficit in its trade with many developing countries. If judged solely by this theory, the United States appears to be a "modernization loser." But in fact, it is one of the biggest beneficiaries of globalization, possessing a discursive power unmatched by any other country. In comparison, we are more inclined to start from Marxist theory, using the perspective of historical materialism, to discuss the fundamental issues behind deglobalization, starting from the capitalist mode of production and its operational logic.

学术界常用“全球化输家”或“现代化输家”理论来分析逆全球化现象。在全球化中，一些国家或群体成为赢家，另一些则成为输家。输家会将自己利益受损归咎于全球化，从而对其持反对态度。“现代化输家”理论从全球化过程中利益分配的视角，解释了逆全球化出现的原因，具有一定的说服力。但该理论将问题的本质简化为单一利益分配矛盾问题，弱化了不同国家主体或社会阶层之间的差异性，掩盖了利益分配背后的社会关系问题。例如，美国在与许多发展中国家的贸易中处于贸易逆差状态，如果单从该理论来看，美国似乎属于“现代化输家”。但事实上，它是全球化的最大获益者之一，拥有其他任何国家都无法比拟的话语权。相较而言，我们更赞同从马克思主义理论出发，运用历史唯物主义视角，从资本主义生产方式及其运行逻辑入手，讨论逆全球化背后的根本性问题。

It is undeniable that developed capitalist countries such as those in Europe and America currently dominate globalization; their production organization models, market rules, and financial systems serve as the global standards of globalization, objectively regulating and manipulating the economic exchanges and market behaviors of the entire world. From the perspective of historical materialism, deglobalization has not departed from the basic laws of capitalism and world historical development; it merely manifests in a conflictual form. First, on the surface, this is an inevitable conflict situation arising from uneven interest distribution in the global expansion of the capitalist mode of production. As mentioned earlier, there are both winners and losers in the process of globalization. All participants in globalization together form a vast complex of contradictions; they struggle and compete with each other, making conflict and contradiction unavoidable, thereby becoming the internal driving force of deglobalization. Deglobalization reflects the economic interest conflicts among various contradictory subjects, as well as their conflicts in politics, diplomacy, culture, and other aspects. As Giddens said, although globalization originates from economic integration, it has already exceeded economic phenomena, manifesting in all aspects and is reshaping the world. It must be pointed out that these economic, political, cultural, and diplomatic conflicts exist not only between developed capitalist countries and the vast number of developing countries, but also within each of them, and even between different classes or groups within the same country. Second, at a deeper level, this is an inevitable result of capitalism's self-adjustment and global regulation on an international scale, following the increasing globalization of the capitalist mode of production and the international transfer of capitalism's inherent contradictions. In the era of globalization, as the capitalist mode of production expands globally, its internal social contradictions also expand globally, transforming into contradictions between the increasing globalization and socialization of the mode of production and the capitalist private ownership of the means of production and national closure. Under these circumstances, capitalism also promotes its own adjustment experience globally, using some economic or diplomatic actions to carry out temporary, phased economic adjustments and crisis management of global problems. Third, from the perspective of historical development laws, it reflects the unity-of-opposites relationship between national subjects in the diversified development of world civilization. Historical materialism holds that the development of social history follows certain laws, but this does not mean that the historical trajectory of every historical subject is exactly the same; historical subjects possess agency and selectivity in the process of historical development. Reflected in the process of globalization, globalization is an inevitable product of the development of world history. Any country that does not actively participate in it will find it difficult to enjoy the conveniences it brings and to keep pace with world development. But this does not mean that every country must follow exactly the same standards to take the same path of integration into globalization. The West, as the maker of globalization rules, demands that other countries and regions participate according to its standards, which inevitably provokes their opposition. In fact, the same is true within developed countries; their interests are not monolithic but are also full of struggle. As a result, the emergence of deglobalization is inevitable.

不可否认，当前欧美等发达资本主义国家主导着全球化，其生产组织模式、市场规则、金融体系充当了全球化的世界性标准，客观上规约和操纵着整个世界的经济交往与市场行为。从历史唯物主义视角来说，逆全球化并未脱离资本主义与世界历史发展的基本规律，只不过以一种冲突化的形态呈现而已。其一，从表面上来看，这是资本主义生产方式全球化进程中，利益分配不均所带来的必然冲突局面。如前所述，全球化进程中有赢家也有输家。所有的全球化参与主体加在一起组成一个庞大的矛盾群，它们相互斗争、相互博弈，矛盾冲突变得不可避免，进而成为逆全球化的内在推动力。逆全球化反映了各矛盾主体之间的经济利益冲突，也反映了它们在政治、外交、文化等各方面的冲突。正如吉登斯所说，全球化虽然缘起于经济一体化，但已经超出经济现象，体现于方方面面，正在重塑世界。需要指出的是，这些经济、政治、文化、外交冲突，不只存在于发达资本主义国家与广大发展中国家之间，也存在于各自内部之间，甚至存在于同一国家不同阶层或群体之间。其二，从深层次来讲，这是资本主义生产方式日益全球化以及资本主义固有矛盾国际化转移后，资本主义在国际范围内进行自我调整与全球调控的必然结果。在全球化时代，随着资本主义生产方式扩展至全球，其内部社会矛盾也会随之扩展至全球，进而转换为生产方式日益全球化、社会化与生产资料资本主义私人占有制、民族封闭性之间的矛盾。这种情况下，资本主义也会将自身调节经验推广至全球，通过一些经济或外交行为，对全球问题进行临时性、阶段性的经济调整与危机管控。其三，从历史发展规律来看，它反映了世界文明多样化发展过程中民族主体之间的对立统一关系。历史唯物主义认为，社会历史的发展遵循一定的规律，但这并不意味着每一个历史主体的历史轨迹完全相同，历史主体在历史发展过程中具有能动性与选择性。反映在全球化进程中，全球化是世界历史发展过程中的必然产物，任何国家如果不积极参与其中，就很难享受它带来的便利，也很难跟上世界发展的步伐。但这并不意味着，每一个国家都要按照同样的标准走完全相同的全球化融入之路。西方作为全球化规则的制定者，要求其他国家和地区按照其标准参与进来，这必然引起它们的反对。事实上，在发达国家内部同样如此，它们的利益并非铁板一块，同样充满斗争。由此一来，逆全球化的出现在所难免。

The Essence of Deglobalization: The Global Extension of Capitalism's Internal Contradictions and Development Crisis

逆全球化的本质：资本主义内在矛盾的全球性延伸与发展危机

With the globalization of the capitalist mode of production and the world market, capitalism's inherent social contradictions extend to the global scope, which is one of the fundamental causes triggering deglobalization. Historical materialism holds that capitalism has inherent and insurmountable internal contradictions, namely the contradiction between the socialized large-scale production of the mode of production and the capitalist private ownership of the means of production, but it possesses a strong capacity for self-adjustment. In the centuries-long history of capitalist development, they have often transferred crises by seizing colonies, launching wars, and other means. However, in the era of globalization where peace and development are the themes of the times, they can no longer readily resort to military means such as external plunder and violent war. Therefore, they choose to use economic means to transfer domestic economic and class contradictions, such as launching trade wars against other countries, raising trade barriers, and imposing trade blockades. As the famous American left-wing scholar Arif Dirlik said, capitalist globalization means that class exploitation steps out of the national level and transforms into a worldwide contradiction; "the globalization of capital makes a global (rather than merely national) class possible for the first time." In fact, not only economic contradictions and internal class contradictions, but with the deepening of globalization, capitalism's inherent social contradictions and institutional contradictions have all extended globally in the forms of economy, politics, culture, etc., realizing the global transfer of capitalism's internal contradictions. The problem is that transferring contradictions is not the same as eliminating contradictions; it ultimately leads to a conflict between the globalization of productive forces and the regionalization and nationalization of relations of production. For example, in 2008, when the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers triggered a financial crisis, the United States quickly transferred the crisis globally, making the whole world "pay the bill" for it, thus provoking dissatisfaction from many countries. It was precisely from this year onward that deglobalization sentiment intensified, and many countries began to implement deglobalization strategies.

随着资本主义生产方式、世界市场的全球化，资本主义固有的社会矛盾延伸至全球范围，这是引发逆全球化的根本性原因之一。历史唯物主义认为，资本主义存在固有的、不可克服的内在矛盾，即生产方式的社会化大生产与生产资料资本主义私人占有制之间的矛盾，但其具有很强的自我调整能力。在数百年的资本主义发展史中，它们常常通过抢夺殖民地、发动战争等方式来转移危机。然而，在和平与发展成为时代主题的全球化时代，它们无法再动辄付诸对外掠夺、暴力战争等军事手段，于是选择采用经济手段来转移国内经济矛盾、阶级矛盾，如对他国发动贸易战、提高贸易壁垒、进行贸易封锁等。正如美国著名左翼学者阿里夫·德里克所说，资本主义全球化意味着阶级剥削走出国家层面，转化为世界性矛盾,“资本全球化使得全球性的（而非仅仅民族的）阶级第一次成为可能”。事实上，不只是经济矛盾与内部阶级矛盾，随着全球化的深入，资本主义固有的社会矛盾、制度矛盾，纷纷以经济、政治、文化等形式扩展至全球，实现了资本主义内在矛盾的全球化转移。问题在于，转移矛盾不等于消灭矛盾，它最终导致了生产力的全球化与生产关系的地区化、民族化之间的冲突。例如，2008年，随着雷曼兄弟公司破产引发金融危机，美国迅速将危机转移至全球，让整个世界为其“买单”，因此引发了多国的不满。也正是从这一年开始，逆全球化思潮愈演愈烈，很多国家开始实施逆全球化战略。

Deglobalization indicates that the governance systems and value standards of capitalism are encountering difficulties on a global scale. Take the European immigration issue as an example: because Western countries implement high-welfare systems, a large number of immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East have poured into the developed regions of Central and Western Europe, leading to prominent problems in the domestic distribution of resources and increasingly acute conflicts between native residents and immigrants. As a result, extreme right-wing populism prevails, and this in turn triggers various problems such as terrorism, extremist religious ideologies, and extreme nationalism. However, European countries are all at a loss as to how to deal with this. Beyond the capacity for social governance, the political model, ideology, culture, and values of capitalism are all facing challenges globally. For instance, Western democratic politics are becoming increasingly rigid, and the rise of extreme right-wing parties in Europe makes people astonished at the electoral system that the West has always prided itself on. Another example is that neoliberal and other capitalist ideologies are suffering repeated setbacks worldwide; more and more people recognize that capitalism is not the “end of history” [1]1 “End of history”: A thesis advanced by American political scientist Francis Fukuyama in 1989, arguing that the end of the Cold War signaled the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government. as Fukuyama claimed. These institutional predicaments of capitalism further prove that Marx’s critique of capitalism has not become outdated, and that Marx’s theories on the world market, the organic composition of capital, the periodic economic crises of capitalism, and world history remain correct and valid.

逆全球化表明资本主义治理制度与价值标准在全球范围内遭遇困境。以欧洲移民问题为例，由于西方国家实行高福利制度，北非中东地区大量移民涌入中西欧发达地区，导致其国内资源分配问题突出，土著居民与移民矛盾日渐突出。由此一来，极端右翼民粹主义盛行，并由此引发恐怖主义、极端宗教主义、极端民族主义等各种问题。然而，欧洲各国对此均束手无策。除了社会治理能力，资本主义政治模式、思想文化与价值观在全球范围均遭遇挑战。例如，西方民主政治越来越僵化，欧洲极右翼政党日盛，这些无不让人对西方一直引以为傲的选举制度感到震惊。又如，新自由主义等资本主义意识形态在全球范围内不断受挫，越来越多的人认识到资本主义并非福山所说的“文明的终结”。资本主义的这些制度困境，也进一步证明了马克思对资本主义的批判没有过时，马克思关于世界市场、资本有机构成、资本主义周期性经济危机、世界历史等理论仍然正确有效。

Deglobalization reflects the crisis in the global development of capitalism in recent years and is essentially a development issue. On the one hand, developed capitalist countries generally experience unsmooth internal development and sluggish domestic economic growth, leading to a series of problems such as unfair wealth distribution. Under these circumstances, extreme populism develops rapidly at home, and governments, in order to cater to populism and divert contradictions, promote deglobalization. On the other hand, international development is extremely unbalanced; the Matthew effect [2]2 Matthew effect: A term derived from the biblical Gospel of Matthew, used in sociology to describe the phenomenon where “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer,” i.e., accumulated advantage. in globalization only intensifies, and the economic interests of some countries are clearly damaged, forcing them to adopt certain deglobalization policies for self-protection. This imbalance exists not only among developing countries but also among developed countries and between different industries and sectors within developed countries. To achieve a balance of interests or self-preservation, some governments or certain strata in developed countries also continuously push for deglobalization. In addition, with the global spread of the crisis of capitalist development, the globalization crisis of capitalism intertwines with ecological crises, peace crises, religious crises, etc., becoming a global crisis of development thinking and development models. This “pan-crisis” pushes deglobalization ever deeper. Fukuyama, famous for his idea of the “end of history,” no longer praises the perfection of European and American capitalism in recent years; he even bluntly states that oligarchy and interest groups have distorted the American democratic system, and that the problems with the U.S. political system are obvious.

逆全球化反映了近年来的资本主义全球发展危机问题，本质上是一个发展问题。一方面，近年来发达资本主义国家普遍内部发展不顺畅，国内经济增长乏力，导致财富分配不公等一系列问题产生。在此情况下，国内极端民粹主义迅速发展，政府为迎合民粹、转移矛盾，推行逆全球化。另一方面，国际发展极不平衡，在全球化过程中马太效应只增不减，一些国家经济利益明显受损，为了自我保护而不得不推行一些逆全球化政策。这种不平衡性，不只存在于发展中国家之间，也存在于发达国家之间以及发达国家不同行业与领域之间。为了实现利益均衡或自保，一些发达国家的政府或某些阶层也不断推进逆全球化。除此之外，随着资本主义发展危机的全球化传播，资本主义全球化危机与生态危机、和平危机、宗教危机等交织在一起，成为一种全球性的发展思维、发展模式危机，这种“泛危机”将逆全球化逐渐推向更深处。以“文明的终结”思想而闻名的福山，近年来也不再称赞美欧资本主义的完美无缺，他甚至直言，寡头政治与利益集团对美国民主政体造成了扭曲，美国的政治体制问题明显。

The Deglobalization Trend and Its Way Out: Building a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind

逆全球化趋势及出路：构建人类命运共同体

The deglobalization trend reflects a temporary strategic adjustment by developed capitalist countries and will not change the trend of world historical development. On the one hand, deglobalization is not about changing the global profit-seeking nature of capital, nor is it a strategic contraction; it is a temporary adjustment aimed at establishing a global free trade system more favorable to capital itself. From this perspective, deglobalization does not conflict with neoliberalism; they are two parallel diplomatic strategic means employed by Western capitalist countries. In fact, the West has always been adept at setting “double standards”: anything unfavorable to it is flatly denied, while anything favorable is firmly grasped. For example, the United States constantly shifts its position on global “carbon emission” standards and implementation, even openly violating its own commitments. On the other hand, this temporary strategic adjustment will not change the trend of world historical development. Today, the destinies of all countries in the world are closely linked; if a crisis occurs, no country can remain immune, and success ultimately requires the coordinated efforts of all nations. From this perspective, we must unequivocally oppose deglobalization. It should be noted that when dealing with global issues, we must apply the dialectical unity of the particular and the universal to view issues of ethnic relations, respect the cultural characteristics of each nation and its autonomy in choosing its path, and avoid a one-size-fits-all approach or dogmatism.

逆全球化体现了发达资本主义国家的临时性战略调整，不会改变世界历史发展潮流。一方面，逆全球化不是要改变资本的全球逐利性，更不是战略性收缩，而是暂时性调整，目的是为了建立更有利于资本自身的全球自由贸易体系。从这个角度来讲，逆全球化与新自由主义并不冲突，它们是西方资本主义国家并行不悖的两种外交战略手段。事实上，西方一向善于制定“双重标准”，但凡对其不利的都一概否认，对其有利的则紧紧抓住不放。例如，美国在全球“碳排放”标准和执行问题上，不断变换立场，甚至公然违背自己的承诺。另一方面，这种临时性战略调整不会改变世界历史发展潮流。当今世界各国命运紧紧相连，如遭遇危机，都无法独善其身，需要各国协同努力才能最终取得成功。从这个层面来讲，我们要旗帜鲜明反对逆全球化。需要说明的是，在处理全球问题时，要运用个性与共性的辩证统一思维看待民族关系问题，要尊重各民族的文化特性与道路选择的自主性，不能一刀切，搞独断主义。

Because the profit-seeking and blind nature of capital will not change, the globalization model dominated by developed capitalist countries will not truly consider the interests of the lower and middle classes at home, nor the interests of other countries and nations; its essence is to serve capital. It merely adopts a form that appears to be “anti-capital expansion,” but in reality, deglobalization cannot resolve the inherent contradictions of capitalism and its global strategy; on the contrary, it may to some extent exacerbate problems, causing blockages in capital circulation and the closure of capital markets, pushing the development of the entire world into a difficult situation. The profit-seeking nature of capital and the shortsightedness of capitalism determine that globalization dominated by capitalism is inevitably full of contradictions and twists and turns. We must abandon illusions about developed capitalist countries and seek a better development model to truly solve the global problem of deglobalization. The problem of deglobalization is, in the final analysis, a development problem. To properly resolve it, the key still lies in development. Only when all countries and regions around the world achieve balanced development and common progress can the root causes be addressed. The way out lies in mutual respect, common development, equality, and mutual benefit among all countries, treating all of humanity as a community with a shared future, rather than a cluster of conflicting interests.

由于资本的逐利性、盲目性不会改变，因而发达资本主义国家主导的全球化模式不会真正考虑本国中下层大众的利益，也不会考虑其他国家和民族的利益，其本质是为资本服务的。只不过，它们采用了一种貌似“反资本扩张”的形式，但实际上，逆全球化不可能解决资本主义及其全球战略固有的矛盾，反而在一定程度上会激化问题，带来资本流通的不通畅、资本市场的封闭化，将整个世界的发展推向艰难境地。资本的逐利性与资本主义的短视性，决定了以资本主义为主导的全球化必然充满矛盾、一波三折，要放弃对发达资本主义国家的幻想，寻求更好的发展模式才能真正解决逆全球化这一世界性难题。逆全球化问题归根到底是一个发展问题，要妥善解决这一问题，重点还是在于发展，只有全球范围内各国各地区均衡发展、共同进步，才能解决根源性问题。其出路在于各国要相互尊重、共同发展、平等互利，将整个人类视作命运共同体，而不是利益争抢矛盾群。

The concept of a community with a shared future for mankind proposed by General Secretary Xi Jinping provides constructive philosophical thinking for the virtuous cycle of globalization development. China’s initiative to launch the Belt and Road Initiative puts this philosophical thinking into practice, forming a concrete and practical prescription and contributing Chinese wisdom and Chinese solutions to promoting regional and global development. As President Xi Jinping stated in his keynote speech at the 2017 World Economic Forum in Davos: “We should act proactively and manage the process properly to release more positive effects of economic globalization... We should adhere to an open strategy of mutual benefit and win-win cooperation, continuously enhance the internal and external linkages of development, and while achieving our own development, benefit other countries and peoples more.”

习近平总书记提出的人类命运共同体理念，为全球化发展的良性循环提供了有建设性的哲学思考，而中国带头发起“一带一路”倡议，则将这种哲学思考付诸现实，形成具体的现实良方，为推动区域性及全球化发展贡献了中国智慧、中国方案。正如习近平主席在2017年初的达沃斯世界经济论坛的主旨演讲中提到的那样：“要主动作为、适度管理，让经济全球化的正面效应更多释放出来……坚持互利共赢的开放战略，不断提升发展的内外联动性，在实现自身发展的同时更多惠及其他国家和人民。”

Online Editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗