Two Dimensions of the Fusion of Marxism and Biopolitics

The reason Marxism and biopolitics can achieve a fusion of perspectives lies in the fact that the underlying logic of both revolves around the capitalist mode of production and the governmental techniques it requires. In terms of specific comparative research, on the one hand, it concerns the inherent demands of the capitalist mode of production, namely that the shift from the production of absolute surplus value to the production of relative surplus value brings about a trend toward the politicization of life. On the other hand, the reliance of the capitalist mode of production on the sphere of production necessarily gives rise to a localized mode of power operation distinct from "sovereignty," thereby bringing forth the type of power elucidated by biopolitics.

马克思主义与生命政治学之所以能够实现视域的融合，原因在于二者的底层逻辑都围绕着资本主义生产方式及其所要求的治理术。就具体的对比研究而言，一方面在于资本主义生产方式的内在要求，即从绝对剩余价值生产向剩余价值的生产会带来生命的政治化趋势，另一方面在于资本主义生产方式对于生产领域的倚重，必定会衍生出一种不同于“统治权”的在地化的权力运行模式，从而带出生命政治学所阐释的权力类型。

The Capitalist Mode of Production and the Politicization of Life

资本主义生产方式与生命的政治化

In *The Birth of Biopolitics*, Foucault anchors the framework for the birth of biopolitics in liberalism—that is, biopolitics, based on a discussion of the social naturalness of population, leads to the governmental technique of liberalism. This is a connection at the level of governmental technique. However, in terms of the original context of the politicization of life, it lies more in the inherent demands of the capitalist mode of production. This inherent demand and its connection with the mechanism of the politicization of life can be demonstrated through Marx's discussion of the production of relative surplus value in *Capital*.

在《生命政治的诞生》中，福柯将生命政治学的诞生框架锚定为自由主义，即生命政治学基于对人口的社会自然性的讨论而引出自由主义的治理术。这是在治理术意义上的关联，但就生命政治化的原初语境而言，更在于资本主义生产方式的内在要求。这种内在要求及其与生命政治化的机制相关联的环节可以从马克思在《资本论》中对相对剩余价值生产的讨论中得到呈现。

The fourth part of *Capital*, on the production of relative surplus value, has as its theme the tendency of social production to shift from the production of absolute surplus value to the production of relative surplus value. The production of absolute surplus value, i.e., the uncompensated extension of workers' labor time, manifests as a blatantly negative mode of expropriation of labor power and therefore always has a natural limit. Marx points out in *Capital* that "the cheapening of labor power achieved solely by abusing the labor power of women and children, solely by plundering all normal conditions of labor and life, solely by cruel overwork and night work, will ultimately encounter certain insurmountable natural limits." [1]1 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1, Chapter 10, Section 5. In this mode, the natural limits of the body are the limits of production itself.

《资本论》第四篇即相对剩余价值的生产，主题是社会生产趋于从绝对剩余价值的生产转向相对剩余价值的生产。绝对剩余价值的生产，即无偿延长工人的劳动时间，就对劳动力的剥夺而言，体现为一种赤裸裸的否定式的方式，因而总是有一个自然限度。马克思在《资本论》中指出，“单靠滥用妇女劳动力和未成年劳动力，单靠掠夺一切正常的劳动条件和生活条件，单靠残酷的过度劳动和夜间劳动来实现的劳动力的便宜化，终究会遇到某些不可逾越的自然界限”。就此模式而言，身体的自然界限即生产本身的界限。

To address this problem, the production of relative surplus value makes it imperative to "care for" the population and labor power. This is because the production of relative surplus value is, to a certain extent, not an intuitively negative form of negation of life. An important aspect of the production of relative surplus value is improving the quality of workers. This signifies the emergence of the logic of biopolitics; the so-called biopolitical attention to and maintenance of the population is an intrinsic component of this production. In *Capital*, Marx states: "What better demonstrates the peculiarity of the capitalist mode of production than the necessity for the state to enact compulsory laws to force it to establish the most basic sanitary and health facilities?" [2]2 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1, Chapter 15, Section 3. To ensure the effective operation of the capitalist mode of production and the transformation of means of production into capital, the population and labor power must be effectively protected. If understood in Foucault's terms, this characteristic of the capitalist mode of production is precisely the characteristic of politicization of life.

要面对这个问题，相对剩余价值的生产对人口、劳动力的“照顾”就势在必行。因为，相对剩余价值的生产在一定程度上并不是一种对生命的直观的否定形式。相对剩余价值的生产的一个重要方面是提高劳动者素质。这意味着生命政治逻辑的出场，所谓的生命政治对人口的关注和维护是这种生产的内在组成部分。在《资本论》中，马克思说：“为了迫使资本主义生产方式建立最起码的清洁卫生设施，必须由国家颁布强制性的法律。还有什么比这一点能更好地说明资本主义生产方式的特点呢？”为了使得资本主义生产方式有效地运转，确保生产资料转化为资本，人口、劳动力就必须得到有效的保护。资本主义生产方式的这种特点，如果按照福柯的理解，那就是生命政治化的特点。

In terms of the logic of politicization of life, Foucault links biopolitical attention to the population with capital accumulation. This macroscopic connection manifests as the intrinsic alignment between biopolitics and the capitalist mode of production. However, the reason biopolitics exhibits new characteristics should also be elucidated from the inherent needs of the capitalist mode of production. Marx's reflections on relative surplus value in *Capital* demonstrate the reasons for this mode of production's continuous self-adjustment. The original context of the birth of biopolitics is closely related to this "self-adjustment." From the initial primitive accumulation of capital and the production of absolute surplus value to the production of relative surplus value, the capitalist mode of production continuously adjusts the configuration of social elements. In this process of configuration, the politicization of life is one of its social effects. This social effect is not thematically discussed in Marx's *Capital*, but it constitutes the rationalizing background for this thesis. In other words, Marx's analysis of the capitalist mode of production and the reasons for its self-adjustment in *Capital* provides the principled premise for understanding biopolitics.

就生命政治化的逻辑而言，福柯将生命政治学对人口的关注与资本积累联系在一起，这种宏观的关联表现为生命政治学与资本主义生产方式的内在契合上。但生命政治学之所以表现出新的特征，还应从资本主义生产方式的内在需求来阐发。马克思在《资本论》中对相对剩余价值的思考，展示了这种生产方式不断进行自我调整的原因。生命政治学诞生的原初背景与这种“自我调整”密切相关。从一开始的资本原始积累、绝对剩余价值的生产到相对剩余价值的生产，资本主义生产方式在不断地调整社会要素的配置。在这个配置的过程中，生命的政治化是其社会效应之一。这种社会效应在马克思的《资本论》中并没有得到主题化的论述，但其构成了对此论题的合理化背景。或者说，马克思《资本论》中对资本主义生产方式的分析及其自我调整的原因为理解生命政治学提供了原则性的前提。

Without the need arising from the dimension of the production of relative surplus value, the attention to, care for, and adjustment of the population that biopolitics demonstrates could not have emerged. The production of relative surplus value breaks away from the direct, blatant exploitation of people in the production of absolute surplus value, thereby advancing production on a "positive" dimension. This "positive" dimension provides the initial context for explaining the formation of the politicization of life. Therefore, the analysis of biopolitics cannot merely remain at the level of the connotations of biopolitics itself; the key lies in revealing its possible premises and causes. If analysis remains solely at the level of the connotations of biopolitics, it would be fundamentally impossible to understand why Foucault understands 17th-18th century Europe as a context for the birth of biopolitics. Thus, the internal changes in the capitalist mode of production reflect the original background of the politicization of life.

如果没有在相对剩余价值生产维度的需要，生命政治学所展示的对人口的关注、呵护与调整就不可能出现。相对剩余价值的生产摆脱了绝对剩余价值生产对人的直接、赤裸裸的剥削，从而在一种“正面”的维度来推进生产。这种“正面”的维度为解释生命政治化的形成提供了最初的语境。因此，对生命政治学的分析，不能仅仅停留于生命政治学本身的内涵，关键在于揭示其可能的前提和缘由。如果仅仅停留于生命政治学的内涵分析，那基本无法理解福柯为什么将17—18世纪的欧洲理解为一种生命政治的诞生语境。因此，资本主义生产方式的内在变化折射出生命政治化的原初背景。

The "Materiality" of Power

权力的“唯物性”

The Marxist materialist analysis of power is a theoretical contribution of Western Marxism. However, in Foucault's understanding, these analyses of power, especially analyses of the state apparatus, ideology, etc., while seemingly advancing Marx's theory of power, actually bring it back into the field and logic of the operation of modern bourgeois state power. This kind of discussion of power is called by Foucault a tendency toward "Rousseauization." In *The Network of Power*, Foucault points out: "If we analyze power by giving priority to the state apparatus, by analyzing it as a mechanism of preservation, by analyzing it through a juridical superstructure, we are merely returning to the classic themes of bourgeois thought, which fundamentally sees power as a juridical fact. Giving priority to the state apparatus, considering the function of preservation and the juridical superstructure, is to 'Rousseauize' Marx, to reinscribe Marx into the bourgeois and juridical theory of power." [3]3 Michel Foucault, "The Network of Power," in *Power/Knowledge*. When Marx's theory of power is discussed in this way, not only is it not truly understood, but it is brought back into the discourse of power that Marx sought to critique.

马克思主义关于权力的唯物主义分析，是西方马克思主义的理论贡献。但就福柯的理解而言，这些对权力的分析，尤其是对国家机器、意识形态等的分析，看似推进了马克思的权力理论，但实际上是将其重新带回到了现代资产阶级的国家权力运行的场域和逻辑中。这种权力讨论，被福柯称为一种“卢梭化”的倾向。在《权力的网络》中，福柯指出，“如果我们通过优先考虑国家机器来分析权力，通过将其视作保存机制来分析权力，通过一种司法的上层建筑来分析权力，我们就只不过是在回到资产阶级思想的经典主题，它根本上视权力为司法事实。优先考虑国家机器、考虑保存功能和司法上层建筑，就是在将马克思‘卢梭化’，是在将马克思重新刻入资产阶级和司法的权力理论”。当以这种方式来讨论马克思的权力理论时，非但没有真正理解马克思的权力理论，反而将其带回到马克思所要批判的权力话语中。

In the *Critique of the Gotha Programme*, Marx's judgment is indeed, as Foucault says, a rejection of a "Rousseauized" discussion. Marx states: "In fact, they understand 'the state' as the government machine." "The whole program, for all its democratic clamor, is thoroughly infected with the Lassallean sect's servile faith in the state." [4]4 Karl Marx, *Critique of the Gotha Programme*, Part IV. Marx believes that this kind of discussion of power and the state actually regresses to illusions about the bourgeois state. This mode of discourse itself is not a materialist mode of discussion. If the understanding of power is fixed within the state apparatus, it means falling into the juridical representational system of power without unfolding an analysis of power within a concrete historical practice and localized mode.

在《哥达纲领批判》中，马克思的判断确实正如福柯所说，是拒绝一种“卢梭化”的讨论。马克思说，“事实上，他们是把‘国家’理解为政府机器”。“整个纲领，尽管满是民主的喧嚣，却彻头彻尾地感染了拉萨尔派对国家的忠顺信仰。”马克思认为，这种对权力与国家的讨论，实际上倒退到了对资产阶级国家的幻想中。这种言说方式本身并不是唯物主义的讨论方式，如果将权力的理解固定在国家机器当中，意味着陷入了权力的司法表征系统而并没有在一种具体的历史实践和在地化的模式中展开权力的分析。

Based on this judgment, Foucault believed that Marx, in *Capital*, presented a model that differs from the one that situates the discussion of power within the context of the state apparatus. On this point, Foucault offered four clarifications. First, there is no single power, but rather multiple juxtaposed powers. The power operating in the factory is different from the sovereignty of the state apparatus. Foucault argued that Marx consistently emphasized the relative autonomy of the actual power exercised by the employer in the factory, a relative autonomy compared to other social-juridical powers. Foucault believed that these powers are all exercised locally and regionally, with their own modes of operation, procedures, and techniques—that is, a localized model of the historical and geographical characteristics of power. Second, these powers are not derived from a supreme sovereignty. Foucault argued that Marx started from the initial, simple existence of these minute power zones, such as enslavement and workshops, to demonstrate how the large state was formed. Third, the function of these powers is not to serve as prohibitive, negative power, but to serve efficient production. This is what Marx referred to in *Capital* when he said that workers engage in cooperative labor under the management of the capitalist. For economic activity, this power is not negative but positive. Fourth, these power mechanisms and power procedures must be regarded as techniques. Foucault said that in *Capital* we can discover the history of the application of power techniques in workshops and factories, a power directly linked to technology, such as how the use of machinery makes the worker a subordinate appendage to the machine.

基于这种判断，福柯认为马克思在《资本论》中给出了一种区别于将权力讨论置于国家机器语境中的模式。对此，福柯作了四点说明。第一，没有单一的权力，而是存在多个并置的权力。在工厂中运行的权力是不同于国家机器的统治权。福柯认为，马克思一直强调雇主在工厂中行使的实际权力的相对自主性，这种相对自主性是相较于其他社会司法权力而言的。福柯认为，这些权力都是局部的、地域性的行使，有着自身的运作方式、程序和技术，即权力的历史和地理特征的在地化模式。第二，这些权力不是从最高的统治权那里派生出来的权力。福柯认为，马克思是从这些微小的权力区域的初始的、简单的存在出发，比如奴役、工场等，来展示大型国家是如何形成的。第三，这些权力的功能不在于作为禁止性的否定性权力，而是服务于有效率地生产，这就是马克思在《资本论》中所讲的，工人在资本家的管理下进行协作劳动。对于经济活动而言，这种权力不是否定性的，而是积极的。第四，这些权力机制、权力程序必须被视作技术，福柯说我们在《资本论》中能发现权力技术在工场和工厂应用的历史，这种权力与技术直接联系在一起，比如机器的使用如何使得工人作为附属物而从属于机器。

Based on these four clarifications, Foucault believed that Marx, in *Capital*, presented a form of power completely different from juridical power. Foucault argued that the materialism of power does not consist in confining the discussion of power to the "materiality" displayed by the state apparatus, but rather in situating the discussion of power on the specific links and objects of social operation. The domain of power relative to the autonomy of social law, as presented in *Capital*, is directly linked to the specific operations of the site of production and the factory. In Foucault's view, this form of power directly demonstrates the materiality of power.

基于这四点说明，福柯认为，马克思在《资本论》中展示了一种完全不同于司法权力的权力形态。福柯认为，权力的唯物主义不是像将权力的讨论禁锢在国家机器所展示的那种“唯物性”，而是将权力的讨论置于社会运行的具体环节和对象上。《资本论》所展示出来的相对于社会司法自主性的权力领域，是直接与生产场所、工厂的具体运作联系在一起的。这种权力形态在福柯看来就是直接展示了权力的唯物性。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗