An Analysis of the New Wave of Socialist Thought in the United States

Bernie Sanders’s 2016 and 2020 campaigns demonstrated the vitality of socialism in the United States. Since 2016, American democratic socialists, post-Marxists, and traditional Marxists, integrating new historical conditions, have put forward new socialist programs—liberal socialism, 21st-century socialism, and class-struggle social democracy—while American anarchists have correspondingly articulated a new anarchist program. These various programs share both commonalities and differences, collectively constituting a new wave of socialist thought in the United States.

伯尼·桑德斯2016年和2020年的竞选活动证明了社会主义在美国的生机。2016年以来，美国的民主社会主义者、后马克思主义者、传统马克思主义者结合新的历史条件，推出了新的社会主义方案——自由社会主义、21世纪社会主义、阶级斗争社会民主主义，美国的无政府主义者则有针对性地阐发了新无政府主义的方案。各种方案异中有同、同中有异，共同构成了美国的新一轮社会主义思潮。

Liberalism, conservatism, and socialism are three competing major ideologies. The various problems exposed by 21st-century liberal capitalism have not only triggered introspection within liberalism but have also enhanced the appeal of conservatism and socialism. Conservatism, leveraging populism and nationalism, has become a significant political force in the United States. For various reasons, although socialism has experienced a revival in the United States, it still faces considerable difficulties. Liberal socialism, 21st-century socialism, class-struggle social democracy, and new anarchism represent attempts by American socialists to advance the socialist revival. Thought is the precursor to action. Sorting through the current socialist currents in the United States and comparing their similarities and differences helps in understanding the current state and prospects of American socialism.

自由主义、保守主义和社会主义是相互竞争的三大意识形态。21世纪自由资本主义暴露出的种种问题，既引发了自由主义内部的反思，也使保守主义和社会主义的吸引力增强。保守主义借力民粹主义和民族主义，成为美国的重要政治力量。由于种种原因，社会主义在美国虽有复兴，但仍然举步维艰。自由社会主义、21世纪社会主义、阶级斗争社会民主主义和新无政府主义展现了美国社会主义者在推进社会主义复兴方面的尝试。思想是行动的先导。梳理当前美国的社会主义思潮，比较其异同，有助于理解美国社会主义的现状和前景。

I. Liberal Socialism

一、自由社会主义

Liberal socialism is socialism that incorporates liberal elements, or is constrained by liberal elements. The Italian anti-fascist Carlo Rosselli was the originator of liberal socialism. To create consensus between the liberal left and the socialist left, since 2016, American democratic socialists James Livingston, Ira Katznelson, and Michael Walzer have proposed an American version of liberal socialism.

自由社会主义是吸纳自由主义因素或者说受自由主义因素限制的社会主义。意大利反法西斯主义者卡罗·罗萨利是自由社会主义的首倡者。为了在自由主义左翼与社会主义左翼之间创造共识，2016年以来，美国民主社会主义者詹姆斯·利文斯顿、艾拉·卡茨纳尔逊、迈克尔·沃尔泽提出了美国版的自由社会主义。

In a 2017 interview, Livingston attributed the rise of right-wing forces to neoliberalism, but he disagreed with American socialists’ indiscriminate criticism of liberalism. Theoretically, he argued, only socialism that incorporates liberal elements can sustain long-term vitality; practically, criticizing liberalism alienates liberals. He extracted elements of liberal socialism from American history, hoping that the socialist left and the liberal left could unite under the banner of liberal socialism. “Socialism and liberalism are not only compatible, but they are indispensable to each other. The left needs liberalism, and vice versa.”

2017年接受采访时，利文斯顿把右翼势力的崛起归咎于新自由主义，但他不赞同美国社会主义者盲目批评自由主义的做法。因为从理论上说，只有吸纳自由主义因素的社会主义才能维持长久的生命力；从实践上说，批评自由主义会疏离自由派。他从美国历史中提取出自由社会主义的因素，希望社会主义左翼和自由主义左翼能团结在自由社会主义的旗帜下。“社会主义和自由主义不仅是可以结合的，而且它们对彼此来说是不可或缺的。左翼需要自由主义，反之亦然。”

In 2020, Katznelson published the article “Is Liberal Socialism Possible?—Reflections on ‘Real Utopias’.” In it, he criticized American traditional Marxists for refusing to support liberal candidate Elizabeth Warren in the 2020 election, calling such behavior detrimental to the American socialist cause. He argued that if socialism cannot combine with liberalism, people would only suffer from two extremes—unregulated capitalism and authoritarian collectivism.

2020年，卡茨纳尔逊发表了《自由社会主义是可能的吗？——对“真实乌托邦”的反思》一文。他在文中批评了美国传统马克思主义者拒绝在2020年大选中支持自由派候选人伊丽莎白·沃伦的做法，称这样的行为无益于美国的社会主义事业，如果社会主义不能与自由主义结合，那么人们就只能遭受两种极端——无序的资本主义和专制的集体主义——的折磨。

Walzer recognized that the American left is in a state of division. To this end, in 2017 he wrote in *Dissent* magazine, calling on the American left to abandon debates over whether identity politics or class politics is more important and to focus on how to build “cross-racial alliances of the vulnerable.” *The Struggle for a Decent Politics*, published in 2023, is Walzer’s latest work. In it, he also advocates for liberal socialism.

沃尔泽意识到美国左翼处于分裂状态。为此，2017年他在《异见》杂志上撰文，呼吁美国左翼放弃关于身份政治和阶级政治何者更为重要的争论，集中思考如何建立“弱势群体的跨种族联盟”。2023年问世的《为优良政治而斗争》，是沃尔泽的最新研究成果。他在该书中倡导的也是自由社会主义。

Livingston and Katznelson have roughly outlined the characteristics of liberal socialism. The former proposed that socialism can be both liberal and democratic, as well as statist and authoritarian, and that the American left needs a socialism that “preserves markets, the petty bourgeoisie, civil society, and political pluralism.” The latter proposed that the core elements of liberalism include individual and collective rights, government by popular consent, the rule of law, and political representation, while the core elements of socialism include a minimum standard of living, opportunities for success, and access to essential resources. Liberal socialism is the combination of these two sets of elements—that is, the combination of liberty and equality.

利文斯顿和卡茨纳尔逊粗略描绘了自由社会主义的特征。前者提出，社会主义既可以是自由的和民主的，也可以是国家的和威权的，美国左翼需要的是“保留市场、小资产阶级、市民社会和政治多元主义”的社会主义。后者提出，自由主义的核心元素有个人和集体的权利、人民同意的政府、法治和政治代表制，社会主义的核心元素有最低生活标准、成功的机会和获得重要资源的可能性，而自由社会主义就是这两类元素的结合，即自由与平等的结合。

Comparatively, Walzer’s elaboration of liberal socialism is more detailed. He argues that without the constraints of liberalism, socialism becomes arbitrary, dogmatic, paranoid, and abusive of power. Therefore, the institutional foundation, mode of operation, and path of realization of socialism should all be constrained by liberalism: (1) Coercive administrative actions should first be evaluated by parliament and courts, and then subjected to the political test of free elections; (2) The process of overthrowing capitalism inevitably involves political conflict, which has winners and losers; liberal socialism requires that the personal and property freedoms of the losers remain inviolable; (3) Liberal socialism does not pursue equality of outcome, and even more so rejects the use of coercive means to guarantee equality of outcome; (4) Liberal socialism requires that the transition to a socialist society be completed with the consent of the people; (5) Liberal socialism requires the promotion of democratic politics worldwide, but the democratic order of other countries can only be created by their own people, not imposed by outsiders like the United States; (6) The realization of socialism is a process full of various possibilities; there is no definitive socialist blueprint; liberal socialism requires that various socialist schools maintain an open attitude and engage in discussion on the plans for realizing socialism; (7) Limit the influence of money and power. Different spheres have different principles of justice; the principle of justice in the economic sphere is free exchange; liberal socialism requires that each sphere remain independent, especially not allowing the principle of free exchange to break through the boundaries of the economic sphere and dominate other spheres like politics. The same requirement applies to political power. As long as the market mechanism is confined to operating within the economic sphere, and as long as the power mechanism is confined to operating within the political sphere, they are components of liberal socialism.

相较而言，沃尔泽对自由社会主义的阐释更为细致。他认为，失去自由主义的限制，社会主义将变得专断、教条、偏执和滥权，故而，社会主义的制度基础、运作方式、实现路径等都应受到自由主义的限制：（1）强制性的行政行为应先接受议会和法院的评估，后接受自由选举的政治检验；（2）推翻资本主义的过程必然伴随着政治冲突，政治冲突有赢有输，自由社会主义要求输方的人身和财产自由不受侵犯；（3）自由社会主义追求的不是结果平等，更拒绝用强制的手段保证结果平等；（4）自由社会主义要求在人民的同意下完成向社会主义社会的过渡；（5）自由社会主义要求在世界范围内推广民主政治，但他国的民主秩序只能由他国的民众创造，而不能由美国这样的外来者强加；（6）社会主义的实现是一个充满各种可能性的过程，没有一锤定音的社会主义方案，自由社会主义要求各社会主义流派保持开放的态度，就实现社会主义的方案展开讨论；（7）限制金钱和权力的影响力。不同领域有不同的正义原则，经济领域的正义原则是自由交换，自由社会主义要求各领域保持独立，尤其不允许自由交换的原则突破经济领域的边界，主导政治等其他领域。同样的要求也适用于政治权力。只要市场机制限于在经济领域内运作，只要权力机制限于在政治领域内运作，它们就是自由社会主义的组成部分。

II. 21st-Century Socialism

二、21世纪社会主义

It is generally believed that the German-Latin American scholar Heinz Dieterich is the originator of 21st-century socialism. He defined the characteristics of 21st-century socialism as “based on participatory democracy, implementing a democratic, planned, labor-value-based equivalent economy.” 21st-century socialism was once implemented in Latin American countries such as Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador. From the practice in these Latin American countries, 21st-century socialism is a program to replace neoliberalism and 20th-century socialism. It attempts to increase state power through democratic means to allocate resources more effectively, without sacrificing innovation and individual freedom. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the problems of the American capitalist system have been fully exposed. In response, some post-Marxists in the United States have also labeled their programs as 21st-century socialism, with prominent representatives including Fred Block and Nancy Fraser. Their 21st-century socialism has two meanings: first, it is an alternative program designed to address the various problems of 21st-century capitalism; second, it is a new program distinct from 20th-century socialism (the revolutionary socialism of the Soviet Union and the social democracy of Western Europe).

一般认为，拉美德裔学者海因茨·迪特里奇是21世纪社会主义的提出者。他界定的21世纪社会主义的特征是“以参与式民主为基础，实行民主的、有计划的、以劳动价值为基础的等价经济”。21世纪社会主义曾在委内瑞拉、玻利维亚、厄瓜多尔等拉美国家实施过。从拉美国家的实践看，21世纪社会主义是代替新自由主义和20世纪社会主义的方案，它试图用民主的方式增加国家权力，以更有效地分配资源，且不以牺牲创新和个人自由为代价。进入21世纪以来，美国资本主义制度的问题充分暴露。见此，美国的一些后马克思主义者也将自己的方案称为21世纪社会主义，突出代表有弗雷德·布洛克和南希·弗雷泽。他们所说的21世纪社会主义有两重含义：一是针对21世纪资本主义的种种问题而设计的替代方案，二是区别于20世纪社会主义（苏联的革命社会主义和西欧的社会民主主义）的新方案。

In works such as *Real Utopias* and *How to Be an Anti-Capitalist in the 21st Century*, Erik Olin Wright diagnosed eleven problems of capitalism, such as violating principles of justice, encouraging consumerism, destroying the environment, eroding community, and limiting democracy. He pointed to non-capitalist and anti-capitalist factors existing within the capitalist system, arguing that the continued growth of these factors would erode capitalism and lay the foundation for a socialist economic system. Drawing on Wright’s critique of the capitalist system, Fred Block outlined the contours of 21st-century socialism: in terms of ownership, 21st-century socialism will encompass multiple forms of ownership, including state-owned enterprises, non-profit enterprises, and small private enterprises; in terms of governance structure, it will feature various forms of participatory institutions that will dominate governance at all levels—cities, communities, and workplaces; in terms of the concept of equality, it will implement the complex equality proposed by Michael Walzer in *Spheres of Justice*, which divides society into mutually independent spheres and rewards those skilled in different spheres differently; in terms of economic form, it will construct an economy focused on enhancing capacity and dynamism; in terms of lifestyle, it will create a livable society; from a developmental perspective, it will provide ample conditions for innovation; in terms of the financial system, it will achieve the democratization of the financial system; and from an ecological dimension, it will realize a Green New Deal on a global scale.

在《真实乌托邦》《如何成为21世纪的反资本主义者》等著作中，埃里克·赖特诊断出资本主义的11个问题，如违背正义原则、鼓励消费主义、破坏环境、侵蚀社群、限制民主等，指出了存在于资本主义制度中的非资本主义和反资本主义因素，认为这些因素的持续生长会侵蚀资本主义，为社会主义经济制度奠定基础。布洛克以赖特对资本主义制度的批判为依据，展望了21世纪社会主义的概貌：从所有制上讲，21世纪社会主义将拥有包括国有企业、非营利性企业、小型私营企业等在内的多种所有制；从治理结构上讲，21世纪社会主义将有多种形式的参与性机构，这些机构将主导城市、社区、工作场所等各个层面的治理；从平等理念上讲，21世纪社会主义将落实沃尔泽在《正义诸领域》一书中提出的复合平等观，即把社会划分为相互独立的领域，给不同领域的擅长者以不同的回报；从经济形式上讲，21世纪社会主义将建构一种注重力量提升且充满活力的经济；从生活样态上讲，21世纪社会主义将创造一个宜居的社会；从发展的角度讲，21世纪社会主义将为创新提供充足的条件；从金融体制上讲，21世纪社会主义将实现金融体系的民主化；从生态维度讲，21世纪社会主义将在全球范围内实现绿色新政。

In her 2022 work *Cannibal Capitalism*, Nancy Fraser comprehensively critiques the capitalist order and proposes a program for 21st-century socialism. Capitalism is often used to refer to an economic behavior or system. She argues that defining capitalism in this way cannot adequately explain various crises; the concept of capitalism should be expanded and defined as a social order, of which the economic system is only one component. The capitalist social order exhibits both structural and historical dimensions. In terms of the structural dimension, the problem of the capitalist social order manifests as the encroachment of the market sphere on non-market spheres (the producing classes, social services, the natural environment, political power). This cannibalistic nature leads to economic crises, social crises, ecological crises, and political crises, sparking various forms of resistance. In terms of the historical dimension, the capitalist social order has passed through four periods: commercial capitalism, liberal colonial capitalism, state-monopoly capitalism, and globalized neoliberal capitalism. The 21st century is in the fourth period, where various crises of capitalism are intertwined. Only by targeting the cannibalistic capitalist order, correcting various injustices, and realizing 21st-century socialism can the oppressed achieve liberation. Fraser lists three principles of 21st-century socialism: first, readjust the relationship between the market sphere and non-market spheres, replacing the principle of profit maximization with the principle of justice; second, democratically distribute surplus value, change the tendency to prioritize economic growth as the primary task, and provide compensation for capitalism’s historical wrongs; third, abolish markets at the top and bottom, while retaining markets in the middle. “In the 21st century, we are worthy of pursuing a socialist project; ‘socialism’ is by no means a mere buzzword or historical relic. Socialism must become the name of a genuine alternative to the capitalist system that is currently destroying the earth and hindering our freedom, democracy, and opportunities for a good life.”

在2022年的著作《食人资本主义》中，弗雷泽全面批判了资本主义秩序，提出了21世纪社会主义的方案。资本主义常被用来指一种经济行为或经济制度。她认为，这样界定资本主义并不能充分解释各种危机，应扩展资本主义的概念，把它界定为一种社会秩序，而经济制度只是其中的组成部分。资本主义社会秩序展现出结构和历史两个向度。就结构向度而言，资本主义社会秩序的问题体现为市场领域对非市场领域（生产阶级、社会服务、自然环境、政治权力）的蚕食。这样的食人本性导致了经济危机、社会危机、生态危机和政治危机，激发了各式各样的反抗行为。就历史向度而言，资本主义社会秩序历经了商业资本主义、自由殖民资本主义、国家垄断资本主义和全球化的新自由主义资本主义四个时期。21世纪处于第四个时期，资本主义的各种危机交织。只有把矛头指向食人的资本主义秩序，纠正各种不公正现象，实现21世纪社会主义，受压迫者才能获得解放。弗雷泽列出了21世纪社会主义的三项原则：第一，重新调整市场领域与非市场领域的关系，用公正的原则代替利润最大化的原则；第二，民主地分配剩余价值，改变视经济增长为第一要务的倾向，为资本主义的历史过错提供补偿；第三，在顶层和底层取消市场，在中层保留市场。“在21世纪，我们值得追求社会主义计划；‘社会主义’绝不是一个纯粹的流行语或历史遗迹，社会主义必须成为真正替代目前正在摧毁地球、妨碍我们自由、民主和美好生活机会的资本主义制度的名称。”

III. Class-Struggle Social Democracy

三、阶级斗争社会民主主义

Traditional American Marxists are mainly gathered around the magazine *Jacobin*. Unlike other socialist currents, they still take varying degrees of public ownership and planned management as their goal and class struggle as the means to achieve it. Patrick Iber, a history professor at the University of California, Berkeley, commented: “The readers of *Jacobin* are more radical; they stand on a Marxist footing.” Since 2016, the reflections of traditional American Marxists have focused on the means of achieving socialism. Representative works include *The Socialist Manifesto* by Bhaskar Sunkara, founding editor-in-chief of *Jacobin*; five articles titled “The New American Left” published in *New Left Review* by several social activists; and the book *Confronting Capitalism*, a collaboration between *Jacobin* and Verso Books.

美国传统马克思主义者主要聚集在《雅各宾》杂志周围。不同于其他社会主义流派，他们依然把不同程度的公有制和计划管理作为目标，把阶级斗争作为实现目标的手段。加州大学伯克利分校历史系教授帕特里克·艾伯评价道：“《雅各宾》杂志的读者们较为激进，他们是站在马克思主义立场上的。”2016年以来，美国传统马克思主义者的反思集中在实现社会主义的方式上，代表性成果有《雅各宾》杂志创始主编巴斯卡尔·桑卡拉的《社会主义宣言》、多位社会活动家以《美国新左翼》为题发表在《新左翼评论》上的五篇文章、《雅各宾》杂志与沃索出版公司合作推出的著作《对抗资本主义》等。

Class struggle was once the main mode of struggle for the American left, but after the 1960s, its importance was supplanted by identity struggle. The objective reason is that the United States at this time entered the so-called “affluent society” or “post-materialist society.” Social transformation brought three consequences: first, material issues were no longer the most pressing problems troubling society; second, the number of manual workers decreased, while the new middle class, represented by professionals and professional managers, increased; third, “consumer” became a shared identity symbol for workers and others, dissolving class identity. The subjective reason is that American liberals have always worked to make class disappear from people’s view. Although the American socialist left did not abandon struggle after the 1960s, the main tools they used were no longer class theory but concepts like “intersectionality.” However, Bernie Sanders likened his own campaign to a bottom-up political revolution and opposed the rich as a class. Against this backdrop, class struggle has once again received attention.

阶级斗争曾是美国左翼的主要斗争方式，但20世纪60年代后，其重要性被身份斗争所取代。其客观原因是，这时的美国进入了所谓的“丰裕社会”或“后物质主义社会”。社会转型带来了三点后果：一是物质问题不再是困扰社会的最紧迫问题；二是体力工人数量减少，以专业人士和职业经理人为代表的新中产阶级增多；三是“消费者”成为工人与他人共享的身份符号，阶级认同被消解。其主观原因是，美国自由主义者始终致力于使阶级从人们的视野中消失。尽管20世纪60年代后，美国社会主义左翼没有放弃斗争，但他们使用的主要工具不再是阶级理论，而是“交叉性”这样的概念。不过，桑德斯却把自己的竞选运动喻为一场自下而上的政治革命，把富人当作一个阶级来反对。在这样的背景下，阶级斗争再次受到重视。

Sunkara argues that while Sanders’ campaign platform falls within the category of social democracy, it has an underlying tone of class struggle, and it is precisely this feature that won Sanders the support of millions and injected vitality into American socialism. Therefore, he calls on the American left to adopt a program of class-struggle social democracy, that is, to take Sanders-style social democracy as the immediate goal, but simultaneously engage in class struggle to steer social democracy toward socialism. Sunkara calls class-struggle social democracy “21st-century Americanism,” stating: “The urgent task is whether we can, by changing our rhetoric and integrating into the daily lives of Americans, bring the left into the American political mainstream, while at the same time enabling the working class to participate in politics independently, no longer always serving as the liberal opposition. In other words, can we, without losing our essence (or by dressing up as Paul Revere [1]1 Paul Revere was an American silversmith and patriot in the American Revolution, famous for his midnight ride to warn of the approaching British forces. Sunkara uses him as a metaphor for a figure who can make socialism resonate with American historical and cultural identity.), turn socialism into 21st-century Americanism?” To this end, he proposes three key measures to ensure the success of class-struggle social democracy: building a mass party, cultivating socialist activists, and mobilizing the working class.

桑卡拉认为，桑德斯的竞选纲领虽然属于社会民主主义的范畴，但却有着阶级斗争的底色，而正是这样的特征使桑德斯赢得了数百万人的支持,给美国社会主义注入了活力。所以他号召美国左翼采用阶级斗争社会民主主义的方案，即把桑德斯式的社会民主主义纲领作为当前目标，但要同时进行阶级斗争，把社会民主主义引向社会主义。桑卡拉把阶级斗争社会民主主义称为21世纪的美国主义，说道：“当务之急是，我们能否通过改变说辞、融入美国人的日常生活，使左翼进入美国的政治主流，同时让工人阶级独立地参与政治，不再总做自由主义的反对派。换言之，我们能否在不失本色的前提下（或者是装扮成保罗·列维尔），变社会主义为21世纪的美国主义？”为此，他提出了确保阶级斗争社会民主主义成功的三项关键措施：创建群众性政党、培养社会主义活动家、动员工人阶级。

Social activists such as Jeremy Gong, Sara Mason, Margie Miranda Alcazar, Ariel Saray, and Rene Christian Moya support the program proposed by Sunkara. In articles published in *New Left Review*, they draw on their own experiences to explain the significance of class-struggle social democracy, the importance of forming trade unions and leading labor movements, the necessity of making electoral politics serve class struggle, and the need to build a socialist party. In short, they are all thinking about how to ensure the class-struggle undertone of Sanders-style social democracy. As the editors of *New Left Review* put it, how this issue is resolved concerns whether the revival of socialism in the world’s most powerful capitalist country can be sustained.

杰里米·贡、萨拉·梅森、玛格丽·米兰达·阿尔卡萨、阿丽尔·萨拉伊、雷内·克里斯廷·莫亚等社会活动家支持桑卡拉提出的方案，他们在《新左翼评论》上撰文，结合自身的经历说明了阶级斗争社会民主主义的意义、组建工会和领导工人运动的重要性、使选举政治为阶级斗争服务以及建立社会主义政党的必要性等。概言之，他们都在思考如何确保桑德斯式社会民主主义的阶级斗争底色。就像《新左翼评论》的编者所言，以何种方式解决这一问题关乎世界上最强大资本主义国家的社会主义复兴之势能否持续下去。

In *Confronting Capitalism: How the World Works and How to Change It*, Vivek Chibber expressed gratitude to Sankara [2]2 Thomas Sankara, a Marxist revolutionary and President of Burkina Faso from 1983 to 1987, known for his anti-imperialist and social reform policies. and stated that his main purpose in writing the book was to explain the importance of class struggle. Some American Marxists theoretically criticize the concept of “intersectionality” and advocate the priority of class analysis. Differing from them, Chibber’s emphasis on class struggle is based on practical needs: first, progressive movements that abandon class struggle lead to divisions within oppressed groups, because such movements do not include demands for wealth redistribution; second, the Leninist principle of Party organization [3]3 The Leninist principle of Party organization refers to the concept of a centralized, disciplined vanguard party leading the working class in revolutionary struggle. inherent in class struggle is crucial for left-wing unity. He regards class politics and electoral politics as the left and right hands of socialists, but considering that at the present stage class struggle lags behind electoral politics, he calls for making class struggle the top priority. “Without studying how to organize the workers’ movement, relying solely on elections, the left will not get what it wants.”

维维克·齐伯在《对抗资本主义：世界如何运作以及如何改变世界》一书中对桑卡拉表示了感谢，提出自己撰写此书的主要目的就是要解释阶级斗争的重要性。有美国马克思主义者从理论上批评“交叉性”概念，主张阶级分析的优先性。与之不同，齐伯对阶级斗争的强调是基于现实需要：一是离开阶级斗争的进步运动会导致被压迫群体内部的分裂，因为这样的运动不包含财富再分配的要求；二是阶级斗争蕴含的列宁主义政党组织原则之于左翼团结的重要性。他把阶级政治和选举政治视为社会主义者的左右手，但考虑到现阶段阶级斗争滞后于选举政治，他呼吁把阶级斗争作为当务之急。“不研究如何组织工人运动，仅靠选举，左翼不会如愿以偿。”

IV. Neo-Anarchism

四、新无政府主义

Anarchism in the United States has taken different forms in different periods. The earliest anarchism to appear in the United States was individualist anarchism. During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when class antagonisms were intense, anarcho-communism became the mainstream. After World War II, with the flourishing of new social movements, anarcho-pacifism and green anarchism came to the fore. By the 1990s, anarchism had also become intertwined with the internet.

美国无政府主义在不同时期的表现形式不一。美国最早出现的无政府主义是无政府个人主义，在阶级对抗激烈的19世纪末20世纪初，无政府共产主义成为主流。二战后，随着新社会运动的勃发，无政府和平主义和绿色无政府主义擅场。到了20世纪90年代，无政府主义又与网络结合到一起。

Hostility to power and its various incarnations is the consistent principle of anarchism. Unlike other schools of socialism, the way anarchists realize their ideal principles is through “direct action.” In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the direct actions advocated by American anarchists included sabotage, violent struggle, and revolutionary industrial unionism. The direct action currently advocated by American anarchists is “prefigurative politics.” The “new” anarchism in the United States mentioned by scholars such as Fraser is precisely “new” in this respect.

敌视权力以及权力的各种化身，是无政府主义一以贯之的原则。不同于其他社会主义流派，无政府主义者实现理想原则的方式是“直接行动”。19世纪末20世纪初，美国无政府主义者倡导的直接行动有怠工、暴力斗争和单一大工会主义。而当前美国无政府主义者倡导的直接行动是“预演政治”。弗雷泽等学者提到的美国“新”无政府主义正是“新”在这一点上。

American anthropologist David Graeber is the main exponent of prefigurative politics. He believes that mainstream political discourse equates anarchy with disorder, leading the public to mistakenly think that radical political change inevitably leads to chaos and that patching up the existing system is the feasible path. Therefore, the prerequisite for initiating radical political change is to demonstrate to the public in advance that an anarchic society can function in an orderly manner. He agrees with Proudhon’s view: anarchy means order, while government means civil war. Thus, prefigurative politics is both a means to realize ideal principles and a preview of those principles, a unity of means and ends. From the writings and practices of Graeber and others, the new anarchism mainly has two principles: direct democracy and mutualism. Before 2016, Graeber had mentioned these principles in books such as *The Democracy Project*, and the “Occupy Wall Street” movement he helped lead also implemented these principles to a certain extent. Since 2016, the increased identification of American youth with socialism has led Graeber to believe that prefigurative politics has achieved the desired effect. Therefore, in his 2020 new book *Anarchy: A Way of Speaking*, he further elaborated on anarchism.

美国人类学家大卫·格雷伯是预演政治的主要阐释者。他认为，主流政治话语把无政府等同于无秩序，使民众误认为激进政治变革必然导致混乱、修补现有体制才是可行之道。因此，开启激进政治变革的前提就是向民众预先展示无政府的社会是可以有序运转的。他赞同蒲鲁东的观点：无政府意味着秩序，而政府意味着内战。可见，预演政治既是实现理想原则的途径，又是理想原则的预先展示，是手段与目的的统一。从格雷伯等人的言说和实践来看，新无政府主义主要有两条原则：直接民主和互惠主义。2016年之前，格雷伯就在《民主工程》等书中提到过这些原则，而他参与领导的“占领华尔街”运动也在一定程度上落实了这些原则。2016年以来，美国青年人对社会主义的认同度上升，这让格雷伯认为预演政治起到了预期的效果。所以在2020年的新著《无政府：一种言说的方式》中，他对无政府主义作了进一步的阐发。

The first is direct democracy. The 2008 financial crisis was caused by the speculative behavior of the rich, but the Bush administration’s solution to the crisis was to use taxpayers’ money to bail out financial institutions. American citizens initially had high hopes for Obama, but after being elected, Obama also followed the logic of the Republican government, becoming an elite who betrayed the people. The problems of representative democracy were fully exposed. Graeber believes that the United States has a tradition of direct democracy; American citizens desire self-governance, but the American political system is anti-democratic. The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution avoid the word “democracy”; during the founding period of the United States, “democracy” and “anarchy” were almost synonymous. He uses his own experience to prove that people can reach consensus and make decisions on the basis of direct participation. Therefore, he advocates replacing representative democracy with direct democracy. “I returned to the United States, joined an anarchist group that uses consensus as its decision-making principle, participated in a spokes council meeting of 1,000 people, people were divided into affinity groups, and after basic training in direct democracy skills—such as how to use hand signals to convey messages—everyone sat down in the same room, with no leadership, and people could still make collective decisions.”

首先是直接民主。2008年金融危机是富人的投机行为导致的，但小布什政府解决危机的方法却是用纳税人的钱为金融机构续命。美国民众最初对奥巴马寄予厚望，但当选后的奥马巴也遵从了共和党政府的逻辑，变为背叛民众的精英。代议民主制的问题暴露无遗。格雷伯认为，美国有着直接民主的传统，美国民众渴望自治，但美国的政治制度却是反民主的，《独立宣言》和美国宪法讳言民主二字，在美国建国时期，“民主”和“无政府”几乎是同义语。他以自己的经验证明，民众是可以在直接参与的基础上达成共识、作出决策的，因此，他主张用直接民主制代替代议民主制。“我回到美国，加入了以达成共识为决策原则的无政府主义团体，参加了有1000人组成的发言人会议，人们被分入亲和小组，在经过直接民主能力的基本训练——如如何用手势传递信号——后，都在同一间屋子里落座，没有领导层，人们也能作出集体决定。”

The second is mutualism. Mutualism, also called “real communism” or “grassroots communism” by Graeber, refers to people sharing resources and helping each other without the purpose of making a profit in daily life. He gives an example: when you need a wrench to fix a pipe, someone hands it to you without asking what benefit they can get from it; this is an embodiment of mutualism. As an anthropologist, Graeber believes that a market economy is not necessary; most transactions in human history have been based on reciprocity, and even in capitalist society, reciprocal behavior is not uncommon. He attempts to use this to illustrate that communism does not need to go through a process of creation from nothing; communist elements already exist within capitalist society.

其次是互惠主义。互惠主义又被格雷伯称为“真正的共产主义”或“草根共产主义”，指的是人们在日常生活中分享资源以及不以牟利为目的的互帮互助行为。他举例说道，当你需要一把扳手修水管时，他人顺手递给了你，却不问可以从中获得什么好处，这就是互惠主义的体现。作为人类学家的格雷伯认为，市场经济不是必需的，人类历史上的大部分交易行为建立在互惠的基础上，即便是在资本主义社会中，互惠行为也不罕见。他试图据此说明，共产主义不需要经历一个从无到有的创造过程，共产主义因素就存在于资本主义社会中

V. Similarities and Differences in the New Round of Socialist Thought in the United States

五、美国新一轮社会主义思潮的同与异

The support Sanders received encouraged American socialists. They are trying to seize the opportunity to promote the revival of American socialism. For example, Fraser said: “In any case, ‘socialism’ is back! For decades, the word was considered an embarrassment—people despised its failures and saw it as a remnant of a bygone era. Not anymore. At least not in the United States.” The same intention determines the commonalities among the various socialist currents, but because each socialist school follows different traditions and adopts different perspectives, there are also more or less differences among them.

桑德斯获得的支持，鼓舞了美国的社会主义者。他们试图抓住机遇，推动美国社会主义的复兴。例如，弗雷泽说道：“在任何情况下，‘社会主义’也归来了！几十年来，这个词被认为是一种尴尬——人们鄙视它的失败，认为它是一个逝去时代的残余。现在不是了。至少在美国不是。”同样的意图决定了各社会主义思潮的相同之处，但各社会主义流派依循的传统和观察的视角不同，所以它们之间又有着或多或少的差异。

(1) Common Ground

（一）相同之处

The common ground of the new round of socialist thought in the United States is reflected in the rejection of revolutionary socialism and the absorption of left-wing populism. American socialists attempt to expand the social base of socialism through such adaptive adjustments.

美国新一轮社会主义思潮的相同之处体现在对革命社会主义的拒斥和对左翼民粹主义的吸纳上。美国社会主义者试图通过这样的适应性调整，扩大社会主义的社会基础。

First, there is a rejection of revolutionary socialism. In the United States, the main supporters of socialism are young people aged 18 to 29. The reason for this is that they grew up in the post-Cold War era and are less influenced by the biases that demonize socialism. American socialists are clearly aware of this. To expand the social base of socialism in the United States, their common approach is to declare that their views differ from revolutionary socialism: they do not use violent revolutionary means, nor do they seek a planned economic system. Livingston, Katznelson, and Walzer, who advocate for liberal socialism, all express agreement with Bernstein’s views. Walzer states, “The movement itself is more important than the outcome.” They explicitly oppose a planned economy, viewing the market as an essential element of liberal socialism. Block and Fraser, who advocate for 21st-century socialism, do the same. Block’s 21st-century socialism continues Wright’s line of thought; Wright criticized the Soviet Union’s approach of destroying capitalism as unable to create a democratic, egalitarian society. Block pointedly states, “The problem is that a single ownership arrangement often leads to the concentration of power, and concentrated power is difficult to place under democratic control. When the state controls the means of production, the concentration of power is obvious, and enormous power is concentrated in the hands of top-level economic planners.” He endorses Walzer’s “complex equality,” aiming only to limit the destructive impact of the market economy. After the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, Fraser called for “ending cannibalistic capitalism once and for all,” but the method of struggle she advocates is not violent revolution but electoral politics. While affirming Marx’s critique of capitalism as an economic system, she states that her 21st-century socialism differs from command-style planned economies: “The key point is not that socialists should aim to eliminate this distinction all at once. On the contrary, the Soviet Union’s disastrous attempt to abolish the distinction between ‘politics’ and ‘economy’ can serve as a universal warning against wanting to eliminate distinctions.” She also specifically emphasizes that 21st-century socialism retains the market. Graeber, who advocates for neo-anarchism, agrees with Bakunin’s critique of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the judgment that the revolutionary subject is not the proletariat. “Bakunin was of course right: successful revolutions occurred in Russia, Spain, and China, not in Britain or Germany.” He does not reject the market but advocates building the market on the basis of mutualism, emphasizing that the proper meaning of communism is to manage the market with better methods.

一是对革命社会主义的拒斥。在美国，支持社会主义的主要是18至29岁的青年人。之所以如此，是因为他们生活在冷战结束后的年代，较少受妖魔化社会主义的偏见的影响。美国社会主义者对此都有着清楚的认识。为扩大社会主义在美国的社会基础，他们共同的做法是声明自己的主张与革命社会主义的区别：不使用暴力革命手段，不寻求计划经济体制。倡导自由社会主义的利文斯顿、卡茨纳尔逊、沃尔泽都表示赞同伯恩施坦的观点。沃尔泽就说道：“运动本身比结果重要。”他们明确反对计划经济，视市场为自由社会主义的必备要素。倡导21世纪社会主义的布洛克和弗雷泽同样如此。布洛克的21世纪社会主义延续了赖特的思路，赖特批评苏联摧毁资本主义的做法不能创造出一个民主、平等的社会。布洛克则有针对性地说道：“问题在于，单一的所有制安排往往会导致权力的集中，而集中的权力很难被置于民主的控制之下。当国家掌管生产资料时，权力的集中显而易见，巨大的权力会集中在顶层的经济计划者手中。”他赞同沃尔泽的“复合平等观”，其目标仅是限制市场经济的破坏性影响。新冠肺炎疫情暴发后，弗雷泽呼吁“一劳永逸地结束食人资本主义”，但她提倡的斗争方式并非暴力革命，而是选举政治。虽然肯定了马克思对作为一种经济制度的资本主义的批判，但她表示自己的21世纪社会主义有别于指令性的计划经济：“问题的关键不在于社会主义者应该旨在一口气消灭这种区分。相反，苏联废除‘政治’和‘经济’之间区别，这种灾难性的做法可以作为对人们想消除区分的普遍警告。”她还特意强调，21世纪社会主义是保留市场的。提倡新无政府主义的格雷伯赞同巴枯宁对无产阶级专政的批评和革命主体并非无产阶级的判断。“巴枯宁当然是正确的：成功的革命发生在俄国、西班牙、中国，而非英国或德国。”他不否定市场，而是主张把市场建立在互惠主义的基础上，强调共产主义的题中应有之义是用更好的方法管理市场。

Traditional Marxists are relatively friendly toward revolutionary socialism. In *The Socialist Manifesto*, Sankara states that the Soviet Union’s struggle against the bourgeoisie is forgivable, because the Bolsheviks were exploring a better world. Zipper believes that the Soviet experience, especially Lenin’s principles of party organization, is worth learning from. But even they do not consider revolutionary means desirable or a fully planned economy worth pursuing. Although Katznelson specifically criticizes Sankara for defending the Soviet Union, Sankara does not fully endorse the Bolshevik approach; instead, he calls the attempt to leap from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom through revolution mistaken. Moreover, Sankara advocates abolishing only the labor market and the capital market, while socialist society would still retain markets for goods and services. Zipper, who also advocates class struggle, believes that a planned economy is neither possible nor necessary, and that market socialism is the way forward. He also cites China as an example to prove that socialism and the market economy can be combined.

传统马克思主义者对革命社会主义的态度是相对友好的。在《社会主义宣言》中，桑卡拉称苏联发起的针对资产阶级的斗争值得原谅，因为布尔什维克是在探索一个更好的世界。齐伯认为，苏联的经验特别是列宁提出的政党组织原则值得学习。但即便是他们也不认为革命手段是可取的、完全的计划经济是值得追求的。虽然卡茨纳尔逊点名批评桑卡拉为苏联所作的辩护，但桑卡拉并非完全赞同布尔什维克的做法，反而称试图通过革命从必然王国一跃飞入自由王国的做法是错误的。而且，桑卡拉主张取消的是劳动力市场和资本市场，社会主义社会依然保留货物和服务市场。同样提倡阶级斗争的齐伯认为，计划经济既是不可能的，也是不必要的，市场社会主义才是出路。他还以中国为例，证明社会主义和市场经济是可以结合的。

Second, there is an absorption of left-wing populism. Chantal Mouffe regards the “people–oligarchy” dichotomy as a discursive strategy of populism. Such a division frames social conflict as a struggle between de-democratization and democratization: the oligarchy oppresses the people through de-democratization, while the people wage a just struggle against oppression. Mouffe argues that the neoliberal era is a post-democratic era, and that the left can only break the post-democratic order imposed by neoliberalism by adopting a populist strategy, because left-wing populism can, on the one hand, evoke the people’s emotional identification with democratization, and on the other hand, break class reductionism and integrate class struggle with various new social movements. Sanders uses the discursive strategy of left-wing populism. He once said, “We have received enormous support, which shows that our ideas align with the mainstream will of the people, and it also shows that millions of Americans support bolder, more progressive proposals that dare to challenge the wealthy class and establish a government that truly serves all the people, not just major campaign donors.” American socialists have borrowed the discursive strategy of left-wing populism in different forms and to varying degrees.

二是对左翼民粹主义的吸纳。尚塔尔·墨菲把“人民—寡头”二分法视为民粹主义的话语策略。这样的划分把社会冲突框定为去民主化与民主化的斗争：寡头通过去民主化压迫人民，人民进行的则是反压迫的正义斗争。墨菲认为，新自由主义时代是后民主的时代，左翼只有采用民粹主义的策略才能破除新自由主义施加的后民主秩序，因为左翼民粹主义一来可以唤起人民对民主化的情感认同，二来可以破除阶级还原论，整合阶级斗争和各式各样的新社会运动。桑德斯使用的就是左翼民粹主义的话语策略，他曾说道：“我们获得了巨大的支持，这表明我们的理念符合民众的主流意愿，这也表明数百万的美国民众都支持更为大胆、进步的提案，敢于挑战富人阶级，建立起真正为所有民众服务的政府，而不是仅服务于主要的竞选捐助方。”美国的社会主义者以不同形式不同程度地借鉴了左翼民粹主义的话语策略。

First, this is reflected in the affirmation of direct democracy or participatory democracy by various American socialist schools. Representative democracy is the institutional cause of the rise of populism. German scholar Jan-Werner Müller, in his book *What Is Populism?*, states, “Populism arises with the emergence of representative democracy; it is the shadow of representative democracy.” Both left-wing and right-wing populism appeal to the people’s dissatisfaction with representative elites. Therefore, a feasible method to dismantle right-wing populist forces and channel this public sentiment toward socialism is to highlight socialism’s commitment to direct democracy or participatory democracy. In Walzer’s liberal socialism, democracy plays a key role, and he often uses “liberal socialism” and “liberal democracy” interchangeably. For example, the transition to socialism is decided by the people themselves, and no other subject can act on their behalf—and the so-called other subjects include populists. Fraser’s 21st-century socialism takes the readjustment of the boundary between the market sphere and the non-market sphere as one of its core principles, and how to adjust it is decided directly by the people. “21st-century socialism must democratize the process of institutional design. This means making the design and scope of social spheres a political issue. In short, what capitalism decides behind our backs should now be decided by us collectively and democratically. Therefore, we ourselves should participate in what legal theorists call ‘redomaining’: redrawing the boundaries that divide social spheres and deciding what to include in them.” Sankara believes that the U.S. political system is unreasonable; Trump won the election despite receiving nearly 3 million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton. Therefore, he makes the democratization of various U.S. institutions a goal of social democratic class struggle, with specific measures including: breaking down the bureaucratic structure of trade unions, amending the constitution through referendums, abolishing the U.S. Electoral College and the winner-take-all system to encourage popular participation, and supporting Sanders’ proposed workplace democratization bill. Graeber chooses ancient Greece over ancient Rome because the former implemented direct democracy. He not only opposes the suppression of democracy by political elites in the name of law and order but also makes direct democracy a core principle of anarchism.

首先，这体现在美国各社会主义流派对直接民主或参与民主的肯定上。代议民主制是导致民粹主义兴起的制度原因。德国学者扬-维尔纳·米勒在《什么是民粹主义？》一书中说道：“民粹主义随着代议制民主的出现而崛起，它是代议制民主的阴影。”无论左翼还是右翼民粹主义都诉诸民众对代议精英的不满。所以，瓦解右翼民粹主义势力、将这股民意引向社会主义的可行方法，就是突出社会主义对直接民主或参与民主的承诺。在沃尔泽的自由社会主义中，民主扮演着关键的角色，自由社会主义与自由民主主义常常被他交替使用，例如，是否向社会主义过渡由人民自主决定，其他主体不能代劳，而所谓的其他主体就包括民粹主义者。弗雷泽的21世纪社会主义以重新调整市场领域和非市场领域的边界为核心原则之一，而如何调整则由人民亲自决定。“21世纪的社会主义必须使制度设计过程民主化。这意味着使社会领域的设计和范围变成一个政治问题。简而言之，资本主义在我们背后为我们决定的事情，现在应该由我们通过集体民主来决定。因此，我们自己应该参与法律理论家所谓的‘重新划界’（redomaining）:重新划定划分社会领域的边界，并决定将什么纳入其中。”桑卡拉认为，美国的政治制度是不合理的，特朗普比希拉里的选票少近300万张，却赢得了大选。因此，他把实现美国各项制度的民主化作为阶级斗争社会民主主义的目标，具体措施有：破除工会的官僚化结构，以公投的方式修改宪法，取消美国的选举人团制和赢者通吃的制度以鼓励民众的参与，支持桑德斯提出的工作场所民主化法案等。格雷伯在古希腊与古罗马之间选择了前者，因为前者落实了直接民主制。他不仅反对政治精英以法律和秩序为名对民主进行的压制，而且将直接民主作为无政府主义的核心原则。

Secondly, this is reflected in the integration of class struggle and new social movements by various socialist schools in the United States. In her 2018 book *For a Left Populism*, Mouffe criticized the view that she places greater emphasis on new social movements. She clarified that class struggle and various new social movements constitute an “equivalential chain” of resistance against oppression. One function of the “people–oligarchy” dichotomy is to enable diverse struggles to be waged in the name of the people. Walzer argued that various struggles against oppression have independent value, that class struggle does not have priority, and that other social struggles cannot be marginalized in the name of class struggle. Like Mouffe, Fraser criticized class reductionism, juxtaposing class struggle and new social movements. “Socialist alternatives must also correct these other injustices. It is by no means ‘merely’ a matter of changing the organization of economic production; it must also change the latter’s relationship to social reproduction, and the gender and sexual orders associated with it. Likewise, it must put an end to capital’s free rein over nature and its plunder of the wealth of conquered peoples, along with the racial/imperial oppression that accompanies it. In short, if socialism is to correct the injustices of capitalism, it needs to change not only the capitalist economy but also the entire institutionalized order of capitalism.” Some scholars believe that the publication of *Cannibal Capitalism* marks Fraser’s turn toward a comprehensive critique of capitalism, and that the influence of populism was an important reason for her completing this intellectual shift. Graeber also opposed giving class priority, emphasizing that power oppression takes different forms and that various struggles against oppression possess irreducible heterogeneity, calling on different disadvantaged groups to set aside theoretical differences and jointly participate in the practice of prefigurative politics.

其次，这体现在美国各社会主义流派对阶级斗争和新社会运动的整合上。在2018年出版的《为了左翼民粹主义》一书中，墨菲批评了认为她更看重新社会运动的观点。她澄清道，阶级斗争和各式各样的新社会运动构成了反抗压迫的“等同之链”。“人民—寡头”二分法的作用之一，就是可以使各式各样的斗争都以人民的名义开展。沃尔泽提出，各种反抗压迫的斗争都有独立的价值，阶级斗争不具有优先性，不能以阶级斗争为名将其他社会斗争边缘化。同墨菲一样，弗雷泽批评了阶级还原论，将阶级斗争和新社会运动并置。“社会主义的替代方案也必须纠正这些其他的不公正现象。它绝不是‘仅仅’改变经济生产的组织，还必须改变后者与社会再生产的关系，以及与之相关的性别和性秩序。同样，它必须结束资本对自然的自由驰骋和对被征服民族的财富的掠夺，以及随之而来的种族/帝国压迫。总之，如果社会主义要纠正资本主义的不公正，不仅需要改变资本主义的经济，也需要改变资本主义的整个制度化秩序。”有学者认为，《食人资本主义》的问世标志着弗雷泽走向了全面的资本主义批判，而民粹主义的影响是她完成这一思想转变的重要原因。格雷伯也反对将阶级置于优先地位，强调权力压迫有不同的表现形式，各种各样的反抗斗争具有不可化约的异质性，呼吁不同的弱势群体摒弃理论上的分歧，共同参与预演政治的实践。

In the new wave of socialist thought in the United States, class-struggle social democracy places class struggle in a prominent position. But two points are worth noting: first, Zipper also acknowledges that class analysis does not have priority, and his affirmation of class struggle is merely out of practical necessity; second, Sankara and Zipper use an expanded concept of the working class, with the former counting about 60% of the U.S. population as the working class and the latter counting about two-thirds of the U.S. population as the working class. It is not difficult to see that the boundary between the expanded “working class” and “the people” is blurred.

在美国新一轮社会主义思潮中，阶级斗争社会民主主义把阶级斗争放在了突出的位置。但有两点值得注意：一是齐伯也承认阶级分析不具有优先性，他肯定阶级斗争仅仅是出于现实需要；二是桑卡拉和齐伯使用的是扩展了的工人阶级概念，前者把美国60%左右的人口算作工人阶级，后者把美国2/3的人口算作工人阶级。不难看出，扩展了的“工人阶级”与“人民”之间的界限是模糊的。

(II) Differences

（二）不同之处

Although they share common practical concerns, different schools of socialism in the United States have different understandings of what socialism is and how to achieve it.

尽管有着共同的现实关切，但美国不同流派的社会主义对什么是社会主义以及如何实现社会主义有着不同的认识。

First, differences in the vision of socialism. Although bearing the name “socialism,” Walzer and others’ understanding of socialism leans toward social democracy. Livingston believes that the reforms of the Progressive Era in the United States were an embodiment of liberal socialism; Katznelson believes that Britain under Attlee came closest to liberal socialism. Walzer does not give a precise definition of liberal socialism, instead saying that socialism is an open concept, but he often identifies himself as a democratic socialist or a social democrat. The difference between 21st-century socialism and liberal socialism is obvious, because the former intends to replace not only the revolutionary socialism of the 20th century but also the social democracy of the 20th century. Block’s 21st-century socialism is based on Wright’s analysis, and Wright defines social democracy as a strategy for taming capitalism, arguing that this strategy ended in failure in the first decade or so of the 21st century. When distinguishing between social democrats and socialists, Fraser mentioned that social democrats believe “the government can guarantee employment and income, public health, and a livable place without disrupting the basic property relations and accumulation dynamics of capitalism.” Standing on the socialist side, she rejected this view, emphasizing that 21st-century socialism differs from social democracy. Both liberal socialism and 21st-century socialism require retaining a certain degree of private ownership, while class-struggle social democracy demands the abolition of private ownership. According to Sankara’s vision, not only would banks be nationalized, but the state would take over all private companies. In terms of the conception of a future society, neo-anarchism is also distinguished from liberal socialism, 21st-century socialism, and class-struggle social democracy by its opposition to the state.

首先是社会主义愿景的不同。虽然冠以“社会主义”之名，但沃尔泽等人对社会主义的理解偏向于社会民主主义。利文斯顿认为，美国进步主义时期的改革就是自由社会主义的体现；卡茨纳尔逊认为，艾德礼治下的英国最接近自由社会主义。沃尔泽没有给自由社会主义下一个精确的定义，而是说社会主义是一个开放的概念，但他常以民主社会主义者或社会民主主义者自居。21世纪社会主义与自由社会主义的区别是显而易见的，因为前者打算替代的除了20世纪的革命社会主义外，还有20世纪的社会民主主义。布洛克的21世纪社会主义是以赖特的分析为根据的，而赖特将社会民主主义定义为一种驯服资本主义的策略，认为这种策略在21世纪的头十几年中以失败告终。弗雷泽在区分社会民主党人和社会主义者时提到，社会民主党人认为，“政府可以在不扰乱资本主义的基本财产关系和资本积累动力的基础上，保证就业和收入、公共卫生和一个宜居的地方”。她站在社会主义者的立场上否定了这一观点，强调21世纪社会主义不同于社会民主主义。自由社会主义和21世纪社会主义都要求保留一定程度的私有制，而阶级斗争社会民主主义要求废除私有制。按照桑卡拉的设想，不仅银行会被国有化，而且国家将接管所有的私人公司。在对未来社会的构想方面，新无政府主义又以对国家的反对区别于自由社会主义、21世纪社会主义和阶级斗争社会民主主义。

Second, differences in the means of achieving socialism. Liberal socialists attempt to tame capitalism, while 21st-century socialists attempt to end capitalism. Although their goals differ, both place their hopes in electoral politics; they advocate social movements, hoping that social movements will assist electoral politics. In contrast, class-struggle social democracy places greater emphasis on the role of class struggle, arguing that electoral politics should serve class struggle. Sankara proposes that only class struggle can ensure the transition from social democracy to socialism; Jeremy Gong and others argue that waging class struggle can prevent elected politicians from deviating from the socialist direction. Zipper points out that class struggle targets the capitalist mode of distribution, and that any progressive movement, whether a feminist movement or an anti-racist movement, should raise demands for the redistribution of income or economic resources; otherwise, such a movement would only be fighting for rights for wealthy women and ethnic minorities, inevitably leading to a split between the poor and rich strata within feminist and anti-racist movements. Disappointment with electoral politics was an important motivation for Graeber’s choice of prefigurative politics. In short, electoral politics, class politics, and prefigurative politics all have their advocates. Moreover, they are also aware of the differences between these approaches. When Walzer mentioned the “Occupy Wall Street” movement in which Graeber participated in organizing, he argued that the occupiers’ slogans resounded across the United States, but the leaderless organizing principle caused their influence to quickly dissipate, and ultimately Trump was elected president, benefiting precisely the 1% of the rich whom the occupiers condemned. He concluded: “The cult of leadership is a threat to liberal democracy, and ultimately to democracy itself. But the antidote is not the leaderless organizing principle.” Fraser called neo-anarchists who treat direct action as an anti-capitalist strategy, but “they overlook the fact that the practices they cherish are not only sources of critique but also components of capitalism.” Her implication is that neo-anarchists mistakenly treat components of capitalism as things external to capitalism, and the direct action they advocate cannot end the capitalist order. Additionally, there are also disagreements between the advocates of class-struggle social democracy and neo-anarchism. The working class, valued by Sankara and others, is not seen by Graeber as the main force of social change. He specifically criticized this understanding of Marxists.

其次是实现社会主义的方式不同。自由社会主义者试图驯化资本主义，而21世纪社会主义者试图结束资本主义。尽管目标不同，但两者都寄希望于选举政治，他们提倡社会运动，也是希望社会运动助力选举政治。与之不同，阶级斗争社会民主主义更看重阶级斗争的作用，认为选举政治应为阶级斗争服务。桑卡拉提出，唯有阶级斗争才能保证社会民主主义向社会主义的转变；杰里米·贡等人认为，开展阶级斗争能防止当选的政治家背离社会主义的方向。齐伯指出，阶级斗争将矛头指向了资本主义的分配方式，任何进步运动，无论是女权运动还是反种族主义运动，都应提出收入或经济资源再分配的要求，否则这样的运动只是在为富有的女性和少数族裔争取权利，必然导致女权运动和反种族主义运动内部穷人阶层和富人阶层的分裂。而对选举政治感到失望是格雷伯选择预演政治的重要动因。总之，选举政治、阶级政治和预演政治都有提倡者。而且，他们也意识到了不同方式之间的区别。沃尔泽在提到格雷伯参与组织的“占领华尔街”运动时，认为占领者的口号响彻全美，但去领导的组织原则使其影响力很快消失，最终是特朗普当选总统，受益的恰恰是占领者谴责的那1%的富人。他总结道：“崇拜领袖是对自由民主制的威胁，归根结底是对民主制的威胁。但解药不是去领导的组织原则。”弗雷泽称新无政府主义者把直接行动当作反资本主义的策略，但“他们忽视了这样一个事实，即他们所钟爱的实践不仅是批判的来源，也是资本主义的组成部分”。她的言下之意是，新无政府主义者误把资本主义的组成部分当作外在于资本主义的东西，他们推崇的直接行动并不能结束资本主义秩序。另外，阶级斗争社会民主主义与新无政府主义的提倡者之间也有分歧。为桑卡拉等人所看重的工人阶级，在格雷伯看来不是社会变革的主体力量。他特意批评了马克思主义者的这一认识。

VI. The Prospects of Socialism in the United States

六、美国社会主义的前景

Conflicts of thought often lead to factional disputes, and the history of socialist development shows that factional disputes weaken the influence of socialism. The problems exposed by the 21st-century U.S. capitalist system have led some American socialists to hold an optimistic view of the prospects of socialism in the United States. For example, Sankara believes that the wealth gap in the United States and the achievements of the Sanders campaign make the realization of socialism in the United States inevitable. Fraser believes that the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic proves that the capitalist order is in a comprehensive crisis. At the end of her book *Cannibal Capitalism*, she calls: “Now is the time to figure out how to starve this voracious beast and put an end to capitalism once and for all.” However, taking the new wave of socialist thought in the United States as a whole, we can judge that the prospects of socialism in the United States are not clear. Whether the revival of socialism in the United States since 2016 can be sustained also depends on the subsequent actions of the various socialist schools.

思想之争往往导致派别之争，而社会主义发展史表明，派别之争会削弱社会主义的影响力。21世纪美国资本主义制度暴露出的问题，使美国的一些社会主义者对美国的社会主义前景持乐观的态度。如桑卡拉认为，美国的贫富差距和桑德斯竞选运动取得的成绩使社会主义在美国的实现成为必然。弗雷泽认为，新冠肺炎疫情的暴发证明资本主义秩序正处于全面的危机当中。她在《食人资本主义》一书的结尾呼吁：“现在是时候弄清楚应该如何饿死这头饕餮巨兽，一劳永逸地结束资本主义了。”但综合美国新一轮社会主义思潮来看，我们可以得出判断认为，美国社会主义的前景并不明朗。2016年以来，美国出现的社会主义复兴之势能否持续下去，还取决于各社会主义流派接下来的作为。

If one focuses on the differences among them, then the advocates of liberal socialism, twenty-first-century socialism, class-struggle social democracy, and neo-anarchism will judge current measures by ultimate goals, imbuing current measures with ultimate significance. In this way, factional strife will intensify. Signs of this are already present. "Democratic Socialists of America" is currently the largest socialist organization in the United States. Since 2016, the influx of large numbers of young people has boosted the organization's growth, and by 2021 its membership had risen to 95,000, second in scale only to the Socialist Party of America at its peak. However, due to disagreements over electoral politics and class politics, the Democratic Socialists of America organization has already split, and its membership began to decline after peaking in 2021. Clearly, intensifying factional strife will weaken the strength of the American socialist left and halt the revival of American socialism.

如果着眼于彼此之间的不同之处，那么自由社会主义、21世纪社会主义、阶级斗争社会民主主义和新无政府主义的提倡者就会以终极目标来审视当前的措施，赋予当前的措施以终极意义。如此一来，派别之争将会愈演愈烈。目前，已有了这样的迹象。“美国民主社会主义者”是目前美国最大的社会主义组织。2016年以来，大量青年人的加入助推了该组织的发展，2021年其成员数已增至9.5万，规模仅次于鼎盛时期的美国社会党。但由于在选举政治和阶级政治上的分歧，“美国民主社会主义者”组织已出现分裂，其成员数在2021年达至顶峰后开始下降。显然，愈演愈烈的派别之争会削弱美国社会主义左翼的力量，终止美国社会主义的复兴之势。

If one focuses on the commonalities among them, then the advocates of twenty-first-century socialism, class-struggle social democracy, and neo-anarchism can at least reach a minimal consensus with liberal socialism, because liberal socialism not only promises a gradualist strategy, decommodification measures, and further democratization, but also maintains an open attitude toward what socialism is. The reason Walzer and others blend liberalism with socialism is to make the democratic socialism proposed by Sanders more Americanized. Such promises, positions, and motives at least do not conflict with the current-stage goals of other socialist currents. In other words, other socialist currents can regard liberal socialism as an intermediate link on the path to their ideal goal. The common stance of rejecting revolutionary socialism and absorbing left-wing populism means that compromise is possible. If this is the case, liberal socialism or its variants will exert lasting influence in the United States, allowing the revival of American socialism to continue. Compromise among factions will also bring other benefits: class-struggle social democracy takes the working class as its main mobilization target, while neo-anarchism has an important influence on left-wing movements in the United States. By leveraging class-struggle social democracy and neo-anarchism, the social base of liberal socialism will become broader, and the strategy of eroding capitalism through a combination of bottom-up and top-down approaches proposed by Wright will be truly implemented, thereby opening up the prospect of a transition to socialism.

如果着眼于彼此之间的相同之处，那么21世纪社会主义、阶级斗争社会民主主义和新无政府主义的提倡者至少可与自由社会主义达成最低程度的共识，因为自由社会主义不仅允诺了渐进主义的策略、去商品化的举措、进一步的民主化，还对什么是社会主义持开放的态度。沃尔泽等人之所以糅合自由主义与社会主义，是为了使桑德斯提出的民主社会主义更加美国化。这样的允诺、立场和动机至少不与其他社会主义流派在现阶段的目标相冲突。换言之，其他社会主义流派可以将自由社会主义视为通往理想目标的一个中间环节。拒斥革命社会主义和吸纳左翼民粹主义的共同立场，意味着妥协是有可能达成的。果真如此，自由社会主义或其变体将在美国发挥持久的影响力，使美国的社会主义复兴之势延续下去。派别之间的妥协还会带来其他益处：阶级斗争社会民主主义把工人阶级作为主要的动员对象，而新无政府主义对美国的左翼运动有着重要影响，借力阶级斗争社会民主主义和新无政府主义，自由社会主义的社会基础将更为广泛，赖特提出的自下而上和自上而下相结合的侵蚀资本主义的策略将真正得到落实，从而开启向社会主义转变的前景。

In short, whether the revival of American socialism can be sustained, whether the American socialist movement can surpass its historical peak, and whether the United States can ultimately open up the prospect of a transition to socialism depend on the alignment of subjective and objective conditions. The willingness of each socialist current to downplay ultimate conflicts and focus on present consensus is an indispensable subjective condition.

总之，美国社会主义的复兴之势能否持续下去，美国社会主义运动能否超越历史上的最高点，美国能否最终开启向社会主义转变的前景，有赖于主客观条件的契合，而各社会主义流派淡化终极冲突、关注当下共识，是必不可少的主观条件。

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心