Contemporary Interpretations of Marx’s Theory of Alienation and Their Significance

Since the public publication of the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, debates surrounding Marx’s theory of alienation have never ceased. In China, interpretations of the concept of alienation in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* have produced numerous academic achievements. Abroad, contemporary scholars’ interpretations of Marx’s theory of alienation can be broadly divided into two categories: one is the textual interpretation school, represented by figures such as Allen Wood, Bertell Ollman, Robert C. Tucker, Allen Buchanan, and Sean Sayers, whose core topics include whether the theory of alienation runs through Marx’s thought from beginning to end, the similarities and differences between the concept of alienation in Marx’s early texts and in *Capital* and its manuscripts, and whether Marx’s theory of alienation possesses a normative dimension; the other is the application and development school, represented by figures such as Erich Fromm, Herbert Marcuse, and Henri Lefebvre, whose main characteristic is to diagnose the symptoms of contemporary capitalism and explore alternatives to transcend capitalism by applying Marx’s theory of alienation, based on the new trends and new features of twentieth-century capitalism. Comparatively speaking, the former type of interpretation places greater emphasis on elucidating the profound connotations of Marx’s theory of alienation from the context of the history of ideas, while the latter type focuses more on the contemporary significance of Marx’s theory of alienation under the conditions of contemporary capitalist society. In recent years, American scholar David Harvey and German scholar Hartmut Rosa have continued the latter interpretive path, proposing theories of “universal alienation” and “new alienation,” respectively. These contemporary interpretations offer important insights for understanding contemporary capitalism and exploring socialist alternatives to capitalism.

自从《1844年经济学哲学手稿》公开问世以来，围绕马克思异化理论的争论就没有停息过。在中国，对《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中异化概念的解读产生了诸多学术成果。在国外，当代学者对马克思异化理论的阐释，大致可以分为两类：一类是文本解读派，以艾伦·伍德、奥尔曼、塔克、布坎南和塞耶斯等人为代表，其核心论题包括异化理论是否贯穿于马克思思想的始终、马克思早期文本与《资本论》及其手稿中的异化概念之间的异同、马克思的异化理论是否具有规范性维度；另一类是运用发展派，以弗洛姆、马尔库塞、列斐伏尔等人为代表，其主要特征是立足20世纪资本主义的新趋势新特征，运用马克思的异化理论诊断当代资本主义的症状、探索超越资本主义的替代方案。比较而言，前一类阐释更为重视从思想史语境出发阐发马克思异化理论的深刻内涵，后一类阐释更为关注当代资本主义社会条件下马克思异化理论的时代意义。近年来，美国学者大卫·哈维和德国学者哈特穆特·罗萨延续后一种阐释路径，分别提出了“普遍异化”和“新异化”理论。这些当代阐释对于认识当代资本主义、探索替代资本主义的社会主义方案具有重要的启示意义。

I. David Harvey’s “Universal Alienation”

一、大卫·哈维的“普遍异化”

The concept of alienation is generally regarded as an important category of Marx’s philosophical thought, especially his early thought. However, this does not mean that Marx completely abandoned this concept later on. Even though Marx, in works such as *The German Ideology*, mocked the term “alienation” familiar to philosophers in a sarcastic tone, he still used the word “alienation” without quotation marks in *Capital* and its manuscripts. Nevertheless, during this period, “alienation” had transformed from a core concept for criticizing private property from the perspective of humanism into a descriptive subordinate concept within the perspective of the critique of political economy. Despite this, in Harvey’s view, the theory of alienation in Marx’s early works retains its intellectual charm and contemporary value. Harvey states: “I think the analysis of alienation in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* is very important, and the connection it makes between various mental states and sensory deprivation is quite outstanding.” He even points out: “At present, it is very necessary for us to return to the *1844 Manuscripts* (i.e., the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*—author’s note) and bring these things out again for discussion. It is precisely this part of Marx’s expression of sensory power that provides us with a very important theoretical horizon.” Starting from this theoretical horizon, in his book *Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism*, Harvey not only explicitly defines “universal alienation,” this “rebellion of human nature,” as one of the universal contradictions of capitalist society, but also believes that “the theme of alienation runs through many of the contradictions examined in this book.” In 2018, in a special essay commemorating the 200th anniversary of Marx’s birth, he further elaborated on this view.

异化概念通常被认为是马克思哲学思想特别是马克思早期思想的重要范畴，然而，这并不意味着马克思后来彻底放弃了这一概念。即使马克思在《德意志意识形态》等著作中以讽刺的语气嘲弄了哲学家们所熟悉的“异化”术语，他仍然在《资本论》及其手稿中不加引号地使用“异化”一词。不过，这一时期的“异化”已经从人道主义视域中对私有制批判的核心概念转变为政治经济学批判视域中描述性的附属概念。尽管如此，在哈维看来，马克思早期著作中的异化理论不失其思想魅力和当代价值。哈维说：“我认为《1844年经济学哲学手稿》对异化进行的分析是非常重要的，其中对于各种精神状态和感性剥夺的联系是相当出色的。”他甚至指出：“在当下，我们非常有必要重新回到《1844年手稿》（即《1844年经济学哲学手稿》——引者注）并把这些东西重新拿出来再讨论。恰恰是马克思这个时候表达的感性力的部分，为我们提供了一个非常重要的理论视域。”从这一理论视域出发，在《资本社会的17个矛盾》一书中，哈维不仅明确把“普遍异化”这一“人性的反叛”界定为资本社会的普遍矛盾之一，而且认为“异化这一主题存在于本书已检视的许多矛盾中”。2018年，在纪念马克思诞辰200周年的专题论文中，他进一步阐述了这一观点。

(1) Ubiquitous Alienation

（一）无处不在的异化

In the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, Marx’s theory of alienation implies a dual logic: one is the human species-essence and its alienation; the other is the contradictory relationship between capital and labor. If the former reflects the humanist perspective of Marx’s theory of alienation during this period, then the latter contains the seeds of Marx’s historical materialism and critique of political economy. As Harvey notes, Marx’s “early understanding of alienation was not rooted in the daily life and labor reality of workers generated within the capitalist mode of production,” but rather in the species-characteristics of human beings; in the *Grundrisse* (1857–1858), the universality of alienation arises from the inherent historical tendencies of capital, such as the world market, class relations, and the laws of competition. Therefore, Harvey primarily relies on the critique of political economy in *Capital* and its manuscripts to examine the phenomena of alienation in contemporary capitalism, revealing the universal characteristics of alienation.

在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中，马克思的异化理论隐含着双重逻辑：一是人的类本质及其异化；二是资本与劳动的矛盾关系。如果说前者反映了这一时期马克思异化理论的人本主义视域，那么后者则蕴含着马克思唯物史观和政治经济学批判的萌芽。正如哈维所言，马克思“早期著作中对异化的理解没有植根于在资本主义生产方式中生成的工人的日常生活和劳动现实”，而是植根于人的类特性；在《1857—1858年经济学手稿》中，异化的普遍性产生于资本内在的历史趋向，如世界市场、阶级关系、竞争规律当中。因此，哈维主要依据《资本论》及其手稿中的政治经济学批判来考察当代资本主义的异化现象，揭示出异化的普遍性特征。

Harvey starts from the original meaning of the word “alienation” to examine its multiple meanings. Alienation originally referred to a legal term for the transfer of property rights. In the process of property transfer, one’s own things belong to others. This meaning was extended to other fields. In terms of social relations, alienation refers to the loss of trust in people or institutions; psychologically, it refers to estrangement as a passive psychological phenomenon and anger, hostility, and the intense behavior resulting from them as active psychological phenomena. Moreover, Harvey believes that the multiple meanings of the word “alienation” are suitable for explaining the rich connotations of the relationship between workers and capitalists. This is because, although the exchange between workers and capitalists conforms to the provisions of labor contracts and is protected by law, this exchange contains alienation. That is to say, workers are forced to sell their labor power, and in the labor process, they become estranged from their products, nature, and various aspects of social relations, feeling a loss of their creative instincts, thus generating anger and hostility due to the deceptive nature of the labor-capital exchange.

哈维从“异化”一词的原初含义出发，考察了异化的多重含义。异化起初是指代产权转让的法律用词。在财产转让的过程中，自己的东西属于别人。这一含义被引申到其他领域。在社会关系方面，异化指对人或体制的信任丧失；在心理方面，是指作为被动心理现象的疏离和作为主动心理现象的愤怒、敌意以及由此而来的激烈行为。不仅如此，哈维认为“异化”一词的多重含义适用于说明劳动者与资本家之间关系的丰富内涵。这是因为，虽然工人与资本家之间的交换符合劳动合约的规定，受到法律保护，但是这一交换中包含着异化。也就是说，工人被迫出卖自己的劳动力，并且在劳动过程中与自己的产品以及自然界和社会关系的诸多方面相疏离，感受到自己的创造本能的缺失，因而会由于劳资交换的欺骗性而产生愤怒和敌意。

Because Harvey elaborates on the multiple meanings of alienation within the perspective of the critique of political economy, the theme of alienation as he understands it exists widely in many contradictions of capitalist society, or rather, the many contradictions of capitalist society reflect various forms of alienation from different aspects. For example, under the domination of exchange value, the use-value of commodities becomes insignificant, and the connection between commodities and the senses is severed; the prevalence of the division of labor and the formation of classes not only prevent people from grasping the whole but also create a huge chasm between people; the unequal distribution of wealth and the predatory accumulation in the sphere of capital realization make people no longer expect social equality and justice, even leading to widespread popular resentment. Harvey further discusses economic alienation, total alienation, and ubiquitous alienation, thereby revealing the universal alienation of contemporary capitalist society. He points out that in the economic sphere, alienation refers not only to the exploitation of labor by capital but also to phenomena such as unemployment, consumerism, land grabbing, deindustrialization, debt peonage, financial fraud, and rising housing and food prices in the spheres of value realization, distribution, and consumption; outside the economic sphere, alienation manifests as political disorder, lagging public services, nationalist ideology, racism, police violence, militarism, war, alcoholism, suicide, depression, bureaucracy, environmental pollution, gentrification, climate change, etc.; in the context of globalization, with the social and geographical expansion of capital accumulation, capital relations dominate almost all spheres, and individuals in different regions and periods can feel and experience alienation. In short, alienation transcends the boundaries of production, economy, and space, possessing a universal character. “Alienation is everywhere. It exists in the production of the factory and the consumption of the home, it dominates politics and the vast majority of daily life.”

由于哈维在政治经济学批判的视域中阐述异化的多重含义，所以，他所理解的异化主题广泛存在于资本社会的许多矛盾中，或者说，资本社会的诸多矛盾从不同方面反映了形式多样的异化。例如，在交换价值的支配下，商品的使用价值变得无足轻重，商品与感官的联系被阻断；分工的盛行与阶级的形成，既让人们无法把握整体，也在人们之间形成了巨大的鸿沟；财富分配不均以及资本实现领域的剥夺式积累，让人们不再期望社会平等和正义，甚至变得民怨沸腾。哈维还进一步论述了经济异化、整体异化以及无所不在的异化，从而揭示出当代资本主义社会的普遍异化。他指出，在经济领域，异化不仅是指资本对劳动的剥削，还包括价值实现、分配和消费领域的失业、消费主义、土地掠夺、去工业化、劳役债务、金融诈骗、房价和食品价格上涨等现象；在经济领域之外，异化表现为政治失序、公共服务滞后、民族主义意识形态、种族主义、警察暴力、军国主义、战争、酗酒、自杀、抑郁、官僚主义、环境污染、中产阶级化、气候变化等；在全球化背景下，随着资本积累的社会扩张和地理扩张，资本关系支配几乎一切领域，不同地域和时期的个体都能感受并经验到异化。总之，异化超出了生产、经济和空间的界限，具有普遍化的特征。“异化无处不在。它存在于工厂的生产和家庭的消费中，它支配政治和日常生活的绝大部分。”

(2) The Causes and Mechanisms of Universal Alienation

（二）普遍异化的原因与机制

After discussing the increasingly severe universal alienation in the capitalist world since the 1970s, Harvey further explores the reasons for the intensification of universal alienation. On the one hand, Harvey, based on the developmental trends of contemporary capitalism, analyzes the multiple factors leading to the intensification and spread of universal alienation. In the cities of developed capitalist countries, the deindustrialization of manufacturing has led to the decline of meaningful work and communities that unite people, even triggering street riots with anarchist characteristics. In rural areas and small towns of these countries, the increasing industrialization and capitalization of agriculture have destroyed the economic foundation of smallholder lifestyles, causing economic recession. With the development of transportation and communication technologies, the design and production of products have become separated, the traditional working class in developed countries has gradually weakened economically and politically, and the social structure and social cohesion formed around factory labor have been undermined. These conditions have worsened due to the widespread application of information technology and artificial intelligence, the accelerated relocation of factories from developed countries to other countries, the instability of labor supply in developed countries, and the increase in labor migrating into developed countries. In short, continuous economic development has not led to a substantial rise in people’s incomes but has instead widened the gap between rich and poor and income inequality. Harvey points out that corporate elites and the ruling class in developed capitalist countries, by manipulating the regional configuration of production and exchange, continuously consolidate their economic and political privileges, exclusively enjoying the benefits of economic development, while the vast majority of workers gain little or nothing.

在论述了20世纪70年代以来资本主义世界日趋严重的普遍异化后，哈维进一步探讨了普遍异化加剧的原因。一方面，哈维立足当代资本主义的发展趋势，分析了导致普遍异化加剧并蔓延的多方面因素。在发达资本主义国家的城市，制造业的去工业化导致有意义的工作和让民众团结在一起的社区的衰落，甚至引发了具有无政府主义性质的街头暴乱。在这些国家的一些农村和小城镇，农业的日益工业化和资本化摧毁了小农生活方式的经济基础，造成经济衰退。随着运输和通讯技术的发展，产品的设计和生产相分离，发达国家的传统工人阶级在经济上和政治上的力量日渐衰微，围绕工厂劳动而形成的社会结构和社会凝聚力被削弱。这些情况由于信息技术和人工智能的广泛应用、工厂从发达国家向其他国家的加速迁移、发达国家的劳动力供给不稳定，以及移入发达国家的劳动力增加而愈发严重。总之，经济的不断发展没有带来人们收入的大幅上升，反而加大了贫富差距和收入不平等。哈维指出，发达资本主义国家的企业精英和统治阶级通过操控生产和交换的区域性配置，不断巩固他们在经济和政治上的特权，独享经济发展的收益，而广大劳动者收益甚少或一无所获。

On the other hand, Harvey, based on the overall picture of capital circulation, reveals the mechanism of capital movement behind universal alienation. He attempts to combine the general mechanism of capital circulation to theoretically uncover the roots of universal alienation. He argues that capital circulation as a whole or totality includes three links: production, realization, and distribution—that is, capital increases through commodity production, value is realized through commodity sales, and the realized funds are distributed between capital and labor, as well as between capital owners and the state. The driving force behind capital circulation, besides the pursuit of surplus value or profit, also includes desires, needs, or expectations. In Harvey’s view, if the struggle against capitalism was previously mainly manifested as the struggle between capital and labor in the production link, then the struggle against capitalism now appears more in the links of value realization and distribution. In the value realization link, the state creates demand that can realize capital profits by increasing fiscal expenditure, while the people participate in struggles against capitalism due to unmet needs for housing, transportation, healthcare, and education. “As factories disappear in many parts of the world, one frontier of the struggle against capitalism has shifted to the field of value realization rather than production.” [5]5 David Harvey, *Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism*, p. 289. By analyzing the relationship between technological change and consumerism, Harvey elaborates in detail on the domination of capital logic over people’s needs. Drawing on Gorz’s analysis of the “rationalization of the factory,” Harvey seeks to reveal the close connection between the application and evolution of technology in capitalist society and the fundamental transformation of work and social values. Gorz’s analysis of the “rationalization of the factory” shows that the application of technology in capitalist society not only alienates individuals in their work but also alienates individuals’ consumption and needs, because technology penetrates the core of daily life, changes people’s values, makes labor meaningless, and makes people indulge in consumption as compensation, thereby weakening the resistance forces that challenge economic rationality and capital power. Harvey further calls this phenomenon the “development of alienated or compensatory consumerism” and points out that “the more time saved in production, the more urgently capital needs to absorb this time into consumption and consumerism.” [6]6 David Harvey, *Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism*, p. 286. In his view, the reason why the popularization of technology that should save time instead reduces people’s time for free creative activities is that “the structured way capital treats the problem of consumption time as a potential obstacle to capital accumulation” [7]7 David Harvey, *Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism*, p. 287. forces people to accept capitalism’s so-called economic rationality in both work and consumption and to submit to the logic of capital accumulation. Furthermore, in the distribution link, the state promotes the development of the capitalist accumulation mechanism through borrowing or fiscal deficits. The collusion between capitalist states and financial institutions creates massive debt, burdening people with various forms of debt, and national politics is also dominated by debt owners.

另一方面，哈维根据资本周转的整体图景，揭示了普遍异化背后的资本运动机制。他试图结合资本周转的总机制，从理论上揭示普遍异化的根源。他认为，作为整体或总体的资本周转包括生产、实现和分配三个环节，即资本通过商品生产而增殖、价值通过商品售卖而实现、变现的资金在资本与劳动力以及资本所有者与国家之间进行分配。而推动资本周转的动力，除了对剩余价值或利润的追逐外，还包括欲望、需求或期愿。在哈维看来，如果说，反对资本主义的斗争以往主要表现为生产环节中资本与劳动力之间的斗争，那么，反对资本主义的斗争如今更多出现在价值实现和分配环节。在价值实现环节，国家通过增加财政支出而制造能实现资本盈利的需求，民众则由于住房、交通、医疗和教育等需求无法满足而参与反对资本主义的抗争。“随着工厂在世界上许多地方消失，反对资本主义的斗争的一个前沿阵地出现在了价值的实现领域而非生产领域。”哈维通过分析技术变革与消费主义的关系，详细论述了资本逻辑对民众需求的宰制。借助高兹对“工厂的理性化”的分析，哈维力图揭示出技术在资本主义社会的运用和演变与工作和社会价值的根本变革之间的密切联系。高兹对“工厂的理性化”的分析表明，资本主义社会的技术运用不仅使个体在工作中遭遇异化，而且异化了个体的消费和需求，这是因为技术渗透到日常生活的核心，改变了人们的价值观念，使劳动变得无意义，使人们沉迷于消费来加以补偿，从而削弱了冲击经济理性和挑战资本权力的反抗力量。哈维进一步将这种现象称为“异化或补偿型消费主义的发展”，并且指出，“生产方面节省的时间越多，资本越迫切需要将这些时间吸收到消费和消费主义中”。在他看来，之所以本应节省时间的技术的普及反而减少了人们从事自由创造活动的时间，是因为“资本将消费时间问题当作资本积累的潜在障碍处理的结构化方式”，让人们不得不在工作和消费中接受资本主义的所谓经济理性，服从资本积累的逻辑。此外，在分配环节，国家通过借钱或者财政赤字的方法来促进资本主义积累机制的发展，资本主义国家与金融机构之间的勾结创造了大量债务，让民众背负各种形式的债务、国家政治也受到债务所有者的支配。

(III) Revolutionary Humanism That Transcends Alienation

（三）超越异化的革命人道主义

Harvey’s analysis of the phenomenon of universal alienation shows that from the Occupy Wall Street movement in the United States to the protest struggles of Korean farmers, from riots in North Africa and the Middle East due to rising food prices to the heavy debts of individuals and nations, people are deeply dissatisfied with the entire capitalist system. This widespread anger and discontent is precisely the main connotation of Harvey’s concept of universal alienation. In Harvey’s view, the concept of universal alienation is by no means a descriptive category of empirical reality but a normative category guiding political action. Although there are various forms of ineradicable contradictions in capitalist society, this does not mean that the capitalist system will collapse on its own. On the contrary, capital will survive through means such as mass surveillance, genocide, military repression, and thought control. He insists that external force must be used to seize the power of the capitalist class and terminate capital accumulation. For the scattered and numerous nonviolent opposition movements that have emerged around the world since the 1970s due to the rise of neoliberalism, what is urgently needed now is “a compelling grand vision that can combine with collective political subjectivity,” [8]8 David Harvey, *Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism*, p. 296. thereby providing a foundation and vitality for people’s political actions. Furthermore, the various contradictions of capitalist society and their consequences, “the catalytic political issues derived from all this, are to identify, confront, and overcome the many forms of alienation produced by capital’s economic engine, and to channel the pent-up related energy, anger, and frustration into a unified anti-capitalist force.” [9]9 David Harvey, *Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism*, p. 297. Traditional Marxism cannot accomplish this task because it mainly explores solutions from the contradictory relationship between technology and class, neglecting the subjective, psychological, and political issues involved in this revolutionary transformation, instead falling into the rut of prevalent economic rationality and fetishism, and even moving toward bureaucracy and dogmatism. As mentioned earlier, Harvey’s analysis of the roots of universal alienation has already revealed the close connection between technological change and value concepts under the domination of capital logic.

哈维对普遍异化现象的分析表明，从美国的占领华尔街运动到韩国农民的抗议斗争，从北非和中东因为食品价格上涨而发生的暴动到个人和国家的沉重债务，人们对整个资本主义体系深感不满。这种普遍的愤怒和不满正是哈维的普遍异化概念的主要内涵。在哈维看来，普遍异化概念绝非关于经验现实的描述性范畴，而是引领政治行动的规范性范畴。虽然资本主义社会存在各种形式的无法根除的矛盾，但这并不意味着资本主义体系会自行崩溃。相反，资本会利用大规模监视、种族灭绝、军事镇压、思想控制等手段存活下来。他坚持认为，必须借助外力才能夺取资本家阶级的权力、终止资本积累。对于20世纪70年代以来由于新自由主义的兴起而在世界各地出现的以非暴力方式进行的零散且众多的反对运动而言，当前迫切需要的是“一个具有说服力的、可以与集体的政治主体性结合的宏愿”，从而为人们的政治行动提供基础和活力。进而言之，资本主义社会的各种矛盾及其后果，“这一切衍生出的具有催化作用的政治问题，是设法辨明、正视和克服资本的经济引擎产生的许多形式的异化，并将压抑已久的相关能量、愤怒和挫折感导向一股一致的反资本主义力量”。而传统的马克思主义之所以不能完成这一任务，是因为它主要从技术与阶级的矛盾关系出发探讨解决问题的方法，忽视了这种革命性变革所涉及的主观、心理和政治问题，反而陷入流行的经济理性和拜物教的窠臼，甚至走向官僚主义和教条主义。如前所述，哈维对普遍异化根源的分析，已经揭示出资本逻辑支配下技术变革与价值观念之间的密切关联。

If Harvey’s concept of universal alienation provides, from a negative angle, a foundational concept and analytical framework for today’s anti-capitalist movements and socialist revolution that differs from traditional Marxism, then the “revolutionary humanism” proposed on the basis of this concept is Harvey’s political idea for the anti-capitalist movement. The humanist belief that humanity can improve itself and the world through its own efforts has a long history; it differs from fatalism and teleology, evolving into two types: religious humanism and secular humanism. Although humanism has historically exhibited dark sides such as advocating indulgence in sensual pleasures, infinitely elevating the status of humanity, and discriminating against specific ethnic groups and genders, it has always inspired people to help others, realize themselves, and pursue a more meaningful life, thereby promoting the revival of secular humanism in the contemporary era. Nevertheless, Harvey points out that the reason secular humanism finds it difficult to shake off its dark side is that it constantly faces conflicts between universal concern and class interests, and between individual rights and state power. “The difficulty with the humanist tradition is that a full recognition of the unavoidable internal contradictions of humanism has not been internalized within that tradition, among which the contradiction between freedom and control is the most obvious.” [10]10 David Harvey, *Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism*, trans. Xu Ruichun (Beijing: CITIC Press, 2014), p. 291. [Translator’s note: This is a back-translation from the Chinese edition; the original English text may differ slightly.] For this reason, Althusser and other left-wing scholars have purged humanism and the concept of alienation from the Marxist tradition. The theoretical inadequacy of secular humanism is also consistent with the trend in recent years that, although the activities of non-governmental charitable organizations have increased, they have been to no avail. Nevertheless, Harvey explicitly opposes Althusser’s position: “In my view, in order to resist all forms of alienation and fundamentally change a world dominated by capital, we urgently need to articulate clearly a secular revolutionary humanism that can be combined with religiously based humanism.” [11]11 David Harvey, *Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism*, p. 293. Unlike bourgeois liberal humanism, revolutionary humanism abandons the notion of an unchanging or given “essence” of humanity, and does not hesitate to sacrifice the interests of a minority in pursuit of the happiness of the majority in the future. Taking Frantz Fanon’s revolutionary ideas and practice as an example, Harvey reveals that the core of revolutionary humanism is to rebuild humanity through unavoidable violence and revolutionary means. Moreover, Harvey particularly emphasizes the Marxist theoretical foundation of this revolutionary humanism. He advocates unifying Marx’s *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* and *Capital*, analyzing the fundamental contradictions, changing contradictions, and universal contradictions of capitalist society, to explore a humanist project for changing the world. To this end, he has devised 17 proposals targeting the contradictions of capitalist society, attempting to provide direction and vitality for political practice.

如果说，哈维的普遍异化概念从否定的角度为当今世界的反资本主义运动和社会主义革命提供了区别于传统马克思主义的基础概念和分析框架，那么，基于这一概念而提出的“革命的人道主义”则是哈维为反资本主义运动所提出的政治理念。相信人类凭借自己的力量改善自我和世界的人道主义观念由来已久，它不同于宿命论与目的论，演变出宗教人道主义和世俗人道主义两种类型。虽然人道主义在历史上曾经出现过倡导放纵感官享受、无限拔高人类的地位以及歧视特定族群和性别等阴暗面，但它始终激励着人们去帮助他人、实现自我，追求更有意义的生活，从而推动了世俗人道主义在当代的复兴。尽管如此，哈维指出，世俗人道主义之所以难以摆脱其阴暗面，是因为它始终面临普世关怀与阶级利益、个人权利与国家权力之间的冲突。“人道主义传统的困难，在于对人道主义无法回避的内部矛盾的充分认识，并未内化在该传统中，当中以自由与控制之间的矛盾最为明显。”基于这一原因，阿尔都塞等左翼学者将人道主义和异化观念从马克思主义传统中清除出去。世俗人道主义的理论不足也与近年来非政府的慈善组织的活动虽然有所增加但无济于事的趋势相一致。尽管如此，哈维旗帜鲜明地反对阿尔都塞的立场：“在我看来，为了反抗各种形式的异化和根本改变受资本支配的世界，我们迫切需要明确有力地提出一种可以与基于宗教的人道主义结合的、世俗的革命人道主义。”与资产阶级的自由人道主义不同，革命人道主义抛弃了关于人类的某种不变或既定“本质”的观念，不惜以牺牲少数人的利益来追求大多数人的幸福未来。哈维以弗朗茨·法农的革命理念和实践为例，揭示出革命人道主义的核心是以无可避免的暴力、革命的方式重建人性。不仅如此，哈维尤为强调这种革命人道主义的马克思主义理论基础。他主张将马克思的《1844年经济学哲学手稿》和《资本论》统一起来，通过分析资本社会的根本矛盾、变化的矛盾和普遍矛盾，探讨改变世界的人道主义计划。为此，他谋划了针对资本社会矛盾的17条建议，试图为政治实践提供方向和活力。

II. Hartmut Rosa’s “New Alienation”

二、哈特穆特·罗萨的“新异化”

In discussing the various contradictions of capitalist society, Harvey elaborates on the acceleration tendency inherent in capital turnover and capital accumulation. On the one hand, to maintain a competitive advantage, capital must appropriate more surplus value and accelerate its circulation speed among different material forms. Therefore, “in the history of capital, the tendency toward acceleration is obvious. We can see that many technological and organizational innovations aim to speed up things and reduce obstacles posed by physical distance.” [12]12 David Harvey, *The Enigma of Capital and the Crises of Capitalism*, trans. Chen Jing (Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press, 2011), p. 120. [Back-translation from Chinese.] On the other hand, the compound growth pursued by capital in the accumulation process inevitably tends toward acceleration. “Capital always pursues growth, and it must be compound growth.” [13]13 David Harvey, *Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism*, p. 247. This exponential growth increasingly accelerates over time, thereby undermining the material foundations such as the ecological environment necessary for growth, leading to capital’s limits. Harvey also specifically examines the intensifying acceleration phenomena in various fields of capitalist society. For example, labor-saving technological innovations represented by computers, business innovations in finance and banking, the intensification of consumerism, and the accelerated deterioration of the ecological environment all exhibit acceleration trends. However, in Harvey’s view, the acceleration phenomena in various fields of contemporary capitalist society are essentially subordinate to the inherent logic of capital. In contrast, the German scholar Hartmut Rosa seeks to examine the changes and characteristics of the contemporary era from the perspective of time structure, using acceleration to characterize the time structure of late modernity. In works such as *Acceleration: The Change in Temporal Structures in Modernity* (2005) and *Resonance: A Sociology of Our Relationship to the World* (2016), Rosa proposes a critical theory of social acceleration, reveals new forms of alienation in late modern society, and explores the concept of resonance relations as a way to transcend these new forms of alienation.

在探讨资本主义社会的各种矛盾时，哈维论述了资本周转和资本积累所蕴含的加速倾向。一方面，为了在竞争中保持优势，资本必须占有更多的剩余价值，加快其在不同物质形式之间的流转速度。因此，“在资本的历史上，加速的倾向显而易见。我们可以看到，很多技术和组织创新的目的，是加快事物的速度和减少物理距离造成的障碍”。另一方面，资本在积累过程所追求的复合增长必然趋向加速。“资本总是追求增长，而且必须是复合增长。”这种指数型的增长越往后越会出现加速的情况，从而破坏增长所必须的生态环境等物质基础，导致资本的极限。哈维还具体考察了资本主义社会各领域愈演愈烈的加速现象。例如，以计算机为代表的节省劳动的技术创新、金融和银行业的业务创新、消费主义加剧以及生态环境恶性退化所呈现的加速趋势。不过，在哈维这里，当代资本主义社会各领域的加速现象本质上从属于资本逻辑的内在趋势。而德国学者哈特穆特·罗萨则力图从时间结构来考察当今时代的变化和特征，用加速表征晚期现代社会的时间结构。在《加速：现代时间结构的变化》（2005）、《共鸣——一种世界关系的社会学》（2016）等著作中，罗萨提出了社会加速批判理论，揭示了晚期现代社会的新异化形式，并且探讨了超越这些新异化形式的共鸣关系观念。

(I) The Theoretical Foundation for the Revival of the Concept of Alienation

（一）异化概念复兴的理论基础

Like Harvey, Rosa also advances the critique of modern society by reinterpreting the young Marx’s concept of alienation. He states: “My broader goal is to reconstruct a concept of critical theory developed by Marx and the early Frankfurt School but abandoned by Honneth and Habermas: alienation.” [14]14 Hartmut Rosa, *Alienation and Acceleration: Towards a Critical Theory of Late-Modern Temporality*, trans. Lin Kun (Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 2015), p. 1. [Back-translation from Chinese.] However, unlike Harvey, who directs his analysis and critique at the economic engine of capitalism and its mode of operation, Rosa delves into the phenomena of social acceleration that are closely related to modernization and modernity and extend beyond the economic sphere, launching a critique of the forms of alienation in late modern society. Specifically, he advances the critique of modern society from the temporal dimension, discussing the acceleration model that dominates modern social life and its manifestations and mechanisms from the following three aspects.

与哈维一样，罗萨也通过重新阐释青年马克思的异化概念来推进对现代社会的批判。他说：“我更大的目标是重建一个由马克思和早期法兰克福学派所发展出来的，但却被霍耐特和哈贝马斯放弃的批判理论概念：异化。”不过，不同于哈维将分析和批判的矛头指向资本主义的经济引擎及其运作方式，罗萨深入考察与现代化和现代性息息相关的、超出经济范畴的社会加速现象，展开了对晚期现代社会的异化形式的批判。具体而言，他从时间维度推进现代社会批判，从以下三个方面论述了支配现代社会生活的加速模式及其表现和机制。

First, social acceleration is an important yet neglected feature of the temporal structure of modern society. In Rosa’s view, a thorough examination of the social structure and quality of life, as well as the macro and micro dimensions of modern society, must start from the temporal structure. This is because “anyone who attempts to discover the characteristics of those structural complexes and meaning complexes from what we call the ‘dynamism and stability, internal tensions and developmental tendencies’ of modernity need only begin their work from the characteristics, logic, and development of the temporal structure, for in it, as if through a magnifying glass, one can recognize the interaction between the principles and trends that determine these configurations.” [15]15 Hartmut Rosa, *Acceleration: The Change in Temporal Structures in Modernity*, trans. Dong Lu (Beijing: Peking University Press, 2015), p. 9. [Back-translation from Chinese.] People in modern society always arrange their lives through norms, deadlines, and regulations linked to time, especially by making their activities coordinate or compatible with the demands of the capitalist system. The non-political and non-normative nature of time itself easily leads people to overlook its structural and coercive character, thus falling into the illusion of freedom of the modern subject. In the development of sociological theory, although classical sociologists such as Marx, Durkheim, and Weber noticed the phenomenon of social acceleration when reflecting on the experience of modernity, later sociology turned to the non-temporal, constant aspects of modern society, resulting in a simple severance of the connection between pre-modernity and modernity, neglecting the changes in modern society. Given the importance of the temporal structure and the inadequacy of sociological research, Rosa advocates starting from the temporal structure to explore the acceleration phenomena of modern social life and constructing an analytical framework with clear concepts that is compatible with empirical evidence. He states: “In my view, social acceleration is the core process of modernization, so the critique of modern society must first and foremost pay special attention to social acceleration.” [16]16 Hartmut Rosa, *Acceleration: The Change in Temporal Structures in Modernity*, p. 10.

首先，社会加速是现代社会时间结构的重要却被忽视的特征。在罗萨看来，深入考察现代社会的社会结构和生活质量、宏观面向和微观面向，必须从时间结构入手。这是因为，“尝试从我们所称之为‘现代性’的动态性和稳定性、内在的张力和发展趋势中，发现那些结构复杂体和意义复杂体的特性的人，只要将他的工作从时间结构的特性、逻辑和发展入手就可以了，因为就像通过放大镜一样在这当中能够认识到决定这些布局的原则和趋势之间的相互作用”。身处现代社会的人们，总是通过与时间关联在一起的规范、期限和规章来安排自己的生活，特别是让自己的活动与资本主义体制的需求保持协调或兼容，而时间本身具有的非政治性、非规范性也容易让人们忽视其结构性和强制性，从而陷入现代主体的自由幻象。在社会学理论的发展中，尽管马克思、涂尔干和韦伯等古典社会学家在反思现代性体验时注意到了社会加速现象，但后来的社会学转向现代社会的非时间、恒定的方面，其结果是简单割裂前现代与现代之间的联系，忽视了现代社会的变迁。鉴于时间结构的重要性和社会学研究的不足，罗萨主张从时间结构入手，探讨现代社会生活的加速现象，建构一个有着清晰概念且与经验相容的分析框架。他说：“在我看来，社会加速是现代化的核心过程，所以现代社会批判必须首先而且要格外关注社会加速。”

Secondly, social acceleration in modern society manifests itself in three forms of acceleration. Rosa points out that although there is no all-encompassing mode of acceleration, and not all phenomena are accelerating—indeed, some areas even exhibit deceleration—the forms of acceleration in modern society can be summarized as technological acceleration, acceleration of social change, and acceleration of the pace of life. Technological acceleration refers to the acceleration in the spheres of production, transport, and communication, and the consequent changes in the temporal-spatial perception and organization of social life. In terms of temporal-spatial perception, the way people perceive the world shifts from space-priority to time-priority; the perception of objects in terms of “front, back, left, right” is replaced by “early, late.” In terms of temporal-spatial organization, in the era of globalization and the internet, time is compressed, spatial distance is shortened and thereby becomes unimportant, and places such as schools, banks, and hotels become locations without history, uniqueness, or relatedness. Acceleration of social change refers to the acceleration of society itself, i.e., “attitudes and values, fashions and lifestyles, social relations and obligations, groups, classes, environments, social vocabularies, practices and habitus are all changing at an ever-increasing rate.” [17]17 Hartmut Rosa, *Social Acceleration: A New Theory of Modernity*, trans. Jonathan Trejo-Mathys (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013), p. 103. It means that the temporal interval of the “present” as experienced by people is continuously shrinking. In late-modern Western societies, social acceleration is prominently manifested in rising divorce and remarriage rates, as well as the speed of job changes and the frequency of changes in family and occupation. Acceleration of the pace of life results from an increase in the quantity of actions or experiences per unit of time; people must do more in less time, thereby generating an experience of time scarcity. It indicates that technological acceleration does not make people feel they have ample time; on the contrary, it makes them feel a shortage of time and panic about it.

其次，社会加速在现代社会呈现为三种加速形式。罗萨指出，虽然没有一种囊括一切的加速模式，也不是所有现象都在加速，在一些领域甚至存在减速现象，但是现代社会的加速形式可以概括为科技加速、社会变迁加速和社会步调加速三种。科技加速是指生产、运输和传播领域的加速及其对社会生活的时空知觉和组织方式的改变。在时空知觉方面，人们感知世界的方式从空间优先变为时间优先，感知物体的“前后左右”被“早晚”所代替；在时空组织方面，在全球化和互联网时代，时间遭遇压缩，空间距离被缩短，进而变得不重要，学校、银行和旅馆等地点成为没有历史、独特性或关联性的地方。社会变迁加速是指社会本身的加速，即“态度和价值，时尚和生活风格，社会关系与义务，团体、阶级、环境、社会语汇、实践与惯习（habitus）的形式，都在以持续增加的速率发生改变”。它意味着，人们所经验的“当下”的时间区间正在不断萎缩。在晚期现代的西方社会，社会加速突出地表现为，越来越高的离婚率和再婚率，以及更换工作的速度、家庭和职业的改变频率。社会步调加速是由于一定时间单位内行动事件或体验事件的量的增加，人们在更少的时间内要做更多的事，从而形成时间匮乏的体验。它表明，科技加速没有让人们觉得时间充裕，反而感到时间短缺并为此恐慌。

Thirdly, the driving mechanisms of social acceleration also take three forms. By analyzing the three forms of social acceleration, Rosa points out that technological acceleration, which should reduce working time, actually leads to an acceleration of the pace of life. This shows that, on the one hand, technological acceleration is not the cause of time scarcity; on the other hand, “the characteristic feature of modern society is that the growth in the volume of affairs and technological acceleration are fatefully combined.” [18]18 Hartmut Rosa, *Alienation and Acceleration: Towards a Critical Theory of Late-Modern Temporality* (Copenhagen: NSU Press, 2010), p. 22. Investigating the reasons, Rosa summarizes three driving mechanisms: First, the logic of competition as a social dynamic. Competition is not only the fundamental principle of profit-making in the capitalist economy but also the core principle that distinguishes pre-modern society and governs all spheres of modern social life. To save costs and maintain competitiveness, people save time, increase the speed of capital circulation, and accelerate innovation. For states and individuals, competition is the main driver of accelerated innovation and self-realization. Therefore, the logic of acceleration—increasing speed or saving time—occupies a central position in the modern mode of distribution. Second, the eternal promise as a cultural dynamic. From a cultural perspective, the secularity of modern society, especially the concept of pursuing a rich life and experiencing life’s ups and downs in this world, is an important driving mechanism of social acceleration. In the face of ultimate issues such as death, people respond in a modern way by continuously accelerating the pace of life and striving for a happy life. Third, the accelerating cycle as a self-driving system. As mentioned earlier, technological acceleration instead leads to an acceleration of the pace of life, rather than alleviating people’s burdens. Moreover, technological acceleration also brings about acceleration in all spheres and aspects of social life. The acceleration of social change also drives the acceleration of the pace of life and technology. Therefore, in modern society, once one stops competing or maintains the status quo, it is equivalent to falling behind. In summary, the three forms of acceleration mentioned above have formed in late-modern society “an interlocking, self-driving feedback system.” [19]19 Hartmut Rosa, *Social Acceleration: A New Theory of Modernity*, p. 163.

再次，社会加速的推动机制也表现为三种形式。通过分析社会加速的三种形式，罗萨指出，科技加速本应减少工作时间，实际上却导致生活步调的加速。这表明，一方面，科技加速不是导致时间匮乏的原因；另一方面，“现代社会的特征，就是事务成长量与科技加速命中注定般地结合在一起。”究其原因，罗萨概括出三种推动机制：一是作为社会动力的竞争逻辑。竞争既是资本主义经济的基本获利原则，也是区别于前现代社会并支配现代社会生活所有领域的核心原则。为了节省成本、保持竞争力，人们节约时间、提高资本循环速度、加速创新。对于国家和个人而言，竞争是推动加快创新速度、完成自我实现的主因。因此，提升速度或节约时间的加速逻辑就处于现代分配模式的核心位置。二是作为文化动力的永恒应许。从文化的观点来看，现代社会的世俗性，特别是在此世追求生活的富足、体验人生起伏的观念，是社会加速的重要推动机制。人们在面对死亡等终极问题时，通过不断加快生活步调、努力追求幸福生活来作出现代性的回答。三是作为自我推动系统的加速循环。如前所述，科技加速反而导致生活步调加速，而不是减轻人们的负担。不仅如此，科技加速还会带来社会生活的各个领域和面向的加速。社会变迁的加速也会推动生活步调和科技的加速。因此，在现代社会中，一旦停止竞赛或维持现状，就等于落后。总之，上述三种加速形式已经在晚期现代社会形成“一种环环相扣、不断自我驱动的反馈系统”。

(II) Forms of Alienation in Late-Modern Society

（二）晚期现代社会的异化形式

On the basis of the theory of social acceleration, Rosa develops a critique of late-modern society, revealing the state of alienation and its forms of manifestation in late-modern society.

在社会加速理论的基础上，罗萨展开了对晚期现代社会的批判，揭示了晚期现代社会的异化状态及其表现形式。

Rosa argues that the origins of critical social theory can be traced back to Marx’s early works, and that the critique of social acceleration he advocates is both a development of the critical social theory initiated by Marx and inherently contains forms such as functional critique, moral critique, and ethical critique. The ethical critique of the theory of social acceleration holds that the basic contradiction between individualization, pluralization, and the growing trend of mutual interdependence among people is an inevitable result of the competition-oriented logic of modern society’s acceleration race. That is, modern society, through strict temporal norms, satisfies people’s ever-increasing needs, making them feel guilty for not meeting social expectations, and thus, like hamsters trapped in a wheel, they run faster and faster. As a result, the personal autonomy promised by modernity has not been realized; both individual self-realization and the improvement of the political system must adapt to the logic of social acceleration to ensure competitive advantage. Rosa believes that this outcome is the state of alienation in late-modern society. “In the context of an accelerated society, on the one hand, actors are still promised autonomy, but on the other hand, the possibility of fulfilling and practicing this promise becomes increasingly remote, which inevitably leads to a state of alienation.” [20]20 Hartmut Rosa, *Alienation and Acceleration: Towards a Critical Theory of Late-Modern Temporality*, p. 30. As a state, alienation means that a subject voluntarily undertakes a certain action that actually goes against their true will, causing the subject to feel controlled by others without an external oppressor.

罗萨认为，社会批判理论的起源可以追溯至马克思的早期著作，而他所倡导的社会加速批判，既是对马克思开创的社会批判理论的发展，又内在地包含着功能批判、道德批判和伦理批判等形式。社会加速理论的伦理批判认为，个体化、多元化与人们的相互依赖程度不断增长趋势之间的基本矛盾，是现代社会加速竞赛的竞争导向的必然结果。也就是说，现代社会通过严格的时间规范来满足人们不断增长的需求，让人们产生没有满足社会期待的罪恶感，进而如同困在滚轮中的仓鼠一样滚得越来越快。结果，现代性所允诺的个人自主性并没有实现，个人的自我实现与政治系统的改进都要适应社会加速度逻辑，以确保竞争优势。罗萨认为，这一结果就是晚期现代社会的异化状态。“在加速的社会情境当中，一方面仍许诺行动者有自主性，但另一方面遵守和实践这个承诺的可能性却越来越渺茫，而这必然会造成异化状态”。作为一种状态，异化就是指主体自愿采取的某一行动，实际上违背了其真正的意志，从而让主体在没有外在压迫者的情况下感觉自己被他人管制。

To further examine the alienation of late-modern society from the perspective of the logic of social acceleration, Rosa analyzes five forms of alienation: First, spatial alienation. It refers to the relationship between the self and the world in the digital, globalized era. On the one hand, people’s social closeness and relatedness are detached from spatial proximity; those with whom we have close interactions need not be physically near us. On the other hand, due to the mobility caused by social acceleration and its disconnection from physical space, the familiarity and intimacy with specific spaces that we develop over time disappear. Second, alienation from the world of things (Dingwelt). It mainly refers to the alienation of the objects people produce and consume. These objects should, in the process of production and consumption, become part of people’s daily experiences, identity, and life history. However, in the process of social acceleration, they are rapidly replaced, discarded, and become unfamiliar; thus, the subject’s experience and knowledge no longer apply, and their characteristics are altered. Third, action alienation. It is a typical manifestation of the state of alienation, fitting Rosa’s definition of the state of alienation, i.e., “a state in which what we do (even if we do it voluntarily) is not what we really want to do.” [21]21 Hartmut Rosa, *Alienation and Acceleration: Towards a Critical Theory of Late-Modern Temporality*, p. 31. The reasons are, on the one hand, that most people are largely unaware of the operating mechanisms of various devices and tools; on the other hand, in the face of competition and acceleration, people prefer to choose easily satisfied desires, preferring to occupy the potential possibilities and use-rights of commodities rather than the commodities themselves. As a result, people lose a genuine, appreciative feeling for things, lacking a feeling of being at home. Fourth, temporal alienation. It refers to changes in the subjective experience of time. In the digital life of late-modern society, a time pattern of “short experience/short memory” has emerged, which differs from the classic patterns of “short experience/long memory” or “long experience/short memory.” It is characterized by desensualization, lack of full engagement, and decontextualization, forming only isolated fragments of action and experience in our life experience. Since we cannot holistically or meaningfully connect these fragments, “the result is that time seems to ‘fall doubly’: it flies by, yet leaves no trace in memory.” [22]22 Hartmut Rosa, *Alienation and Acceleration: Towards a Critical Theory of Late-Modern Temporality*, p. 33. Fifth, self-alienation and social alienation. This is the result of the four forms of alienation mentioned above. It means that although we experience many changes in a short period and encounter many strangers and interact with them, they are not effectively absorbed into our life experience. Not only are our actions and experiences fragmented from each other, but our life experience is also fragmented; thus, we are alienated from the world and from ourselves.

为了进一步从社会加速逻辑的视角考察晚期现代社会的异化，罗萨分析了五种异化形式：一是空间异化。它指涉数字化、全球化时代中自我与世界的关系。一方面，人们的社会亲近性和相关性均与空间临近性相脱离，那些与我们有着密切交往的人不必在物理距离上与我们邻近；另一方面，由于社会加速造成的流动性及其与物理空间的脱节，我们花费时间所形成的与特定空间的熟悉感和亲密感消失了。二是物界（Dingwelt）异化。它主要是指人们生产和消费的物品的异化。这些物品本应在生产和消费过程中成为人们的日常体验、身份认同和生命史的一部分，但是在社会加速过程中，它们被迅速更换、抛弃，变得陌生化，因此，主体的经验和知识不再适用，其特质也被改变。三是行动异化。它是异化状态的典型表现，契合罗萨关于异化状态的定义，即“一种我们所做的事（即便是我们自愿做的事）并不是我们真的想做的事的状态”。究其原因，一方面是因为人们大多不知晓各种设备和工具的运行机制，另一方面是因为在竞争和加速面前，人们更愿意选择容易满足的欲望，更愿意占用商品的潜在可能性和使用权，而非商品本身。结果，人们失去了对事物的本真的、珍惜的感觉，没有宛若在家的感觉。四是时间异化。它是指对时间的主观体验所发生的变化。在晚期现代社会的数字生活中出现了“体验短/记忆短”的时间模式，它不同于经典的“体验短/记忆久”或是“体验久/记忆短”的时间模式，具有去感官化、非全身心投入和去背景化的特点，仅仅在我们的生活体验中形成孤立的行动和体验片段。由于我们无法整全地或有意义地将这些片段联结在一起，所以，“结果就是，时间似乎‘落得双重下场’：飞快流逝，却又在记忆里不着痕迹。”五是自我异化与社会异化。它是上述四种异化的结果，是指虽然我们在短时间内经历诸多变化，遇到很多陌生人并与之交往，但实际上它们没有被很好地吸收到我们的生命经验中，不仅我们的行动与体验是彼此割裂的，而且我们的生命体验是碎片化的，所以，我们与世界和自我相异化。

(III) Resonant Relationships That Transcend Alienation

（三）超越异化的共鸣关系

As noted above, alienation is the conclusion Rosa draws from diagnosing the pathologies of late modern society from the perspective of the logic of social acceleration; what it reveals is a relationship of estrangement, indifference, or even hostility between the subject and the world. For Rosa, the critique of social acceleration and its concept of alienation answer the question “why our life is not good,” providing an entry point for addressing the universally concerned question “what is a good life.” This means that to achieve a good life in late modern society, one must break free from the state of alienation under the background of social acceleration and construct an ideal relationship between the subject and the world. The non-alienated relationship or state between the subject and the world is what Rosa calls “resonance.” In his view, rich and multifaceted experiences of “resonance” can constitute the main content of a “good life.” The “resonance” referred to here is not a cognitive concept but an existential or perceptual one. Although our understanding of the world and its cognitive structure will, to some extent, influence our experience of the world, it is insufficient if the interaction between subject and world is limited to causal and instrumental relations; this would lead to the subject being at odds with the world. Furthermore, as a non-alienated relationship between subject and world, “resonance is a dual process of af←fection (something from outside relates to us) and e→motion (we respond to this and establish a relationship through our reaction).” It includes both the subject receiving stimuli from the external world and responding, and the relationship the subject establishes in this process; in this process, both the subject and the world the subject experiences are changed. In short, resonance is not the same as echo or harmony; it means that the subject always depends on the other, and forms perceptual experiences of the world through interaction with the other, even through difference, opposition, and contradiction with the other. In Rosa’s words: “Resonance is a situation between harmony and conflict.”

如前所述，异化是罗萨从社会加速逻辑的视角诊断晚期现代社会的病症而得出的结论，其所揭示的是主体与世界之间的疏远、冷漠甚至是敌对的关系。在罗萨这里，社会加速批判及其异化概念回答了“我们的生活为什么不美好”的疑问，为解答“什么是美好的生活”这一人们普遍关注的问题提供了切入点。这就意味着，要在晚期现代社会实现美好生活，就必须摆脱社会加速背景下的异化状态，构建主体与世界之间的理想关系。而主体与世界之间的非异化关系或状态，就是罗萨所称的“共鸣（Resonance）”。在他看来，丰富而多面向的“共鸣”经验可以构成“美好的生活”的主要内容。这里所称的“共鸣”不是一个认知性的概念，而是存在主义的或感性的概念。尽管我们对于世界的理解及其认知结构，会在一定程度上影响我们关于世界的经验，但是，如果主体与世界之间仅限于因果性和工具性的互动是不够的，它会导致主体与世界格格不入。进一步而言，作为主体与世界之间的非异化关系，“共鸣是一种刺→激（af←fection）（一些事物从外部与我们产生关系）与感→动（e→motion）（我们通过反应对此回应并与之建立关系）的双重过程”。它既包括主体接受外部世界的刺激并作出回应，又包括主体在这一过程中所建立起来的关系；在这一过程中，主体以及主体所经验的世界都被改变。总之，共鸣不等于回音或合音，而是意味着主体始终依赖他者，并且在与他者的互动，甚至在与他者的差异、对立和矛盾中形成关于世界的感性经验。用罗萨的话来说：“共鸣是一种处于协调和冲突之间的情境。”

Thus, the experience or situation of resonance is the core of the therapeutic proposal Rosa puts forward after diagnosing the ills of late modern society. Resonance may seem elusive and fleeting, but it is not inaccessible or unrealizable. Rosa elaborates on two prerequisites for constructing a resonant relationship: first, the subject’s “resonance intention,” which refers to “an attitude of listening and responding (rather than an attitude of domination and control), an openness corresponding to accepting social vulnerability, and a certain sense of self-efficacy”; second, adherence to specific “axes of resonance,” i.e., different dimensions of the resonant relationship between subject and world. Rosa summarizes three dimensions or axes of resonance: first, the horizontal social axis of resonance connecting us with others, such as family, friendship, and politics; second, the diagonal material axis of resonance we create with certain objects, such as work, school, sports, and consumer activities; third, the vertical existential axis of resonance, which includes nature and art, experiences akin to religious experience of seeking and discovering the self. It should be pointed out that “resonance intention” and the axes of resonance are not purely individual or cognitive in nature; they are constructed and maintained by history, culture, the collective, and society; nor are they necessarily harmonious and pleasant experiences, but require the subject to take on the risk of being hurt with an open mind, to engage with and change the world in an unpredictable and non-controlling way. To overcome alienation and escape the cultural predicament of late modern society, Rosa also participated in a research project called the “Jena Plan,” attempting to absorb various resonant experiences in multiple fields and explore a new social and cultural model. This plan includes not only love, friendship, and democratic politics, but also experiences in nature and activities such as caring for and educating children.

可见，共鸣经验或情境是罗萨在诊断晚期现代社会的弊病之后所提出的治疗方案的核心。共鸣看似难以捉摸、转瞬即逝，但并非难以触及、不可实现。罗萨详细阐述了构建共鸣关系的两个前提：一是需要主体的“共鸣意向”，它是指“一种会倾听和回应的态度（而不是支配和控制的态度）、一种与接受社会脆弱性相应的开放性及一定意义上的自我效能感”；二是要遵循特定的“共鸣轴”（Axes of Resonance），即主体与世界之间共鸣关系的不同面向。罗萨概括出三种面向或共鸣轴：一是将我们与他人联系起来的横向的社会共鸣轴，如家庭、友谊、政治等；二是我们用某些物体所创造出来的对角线的物质共鸣轴，如工作、学校、运动和消费活动；三是纵向的存有性共鸣轴，即包括自然和艺术在内的、类似宗教体验的探寻自我、发现自我的体验。需要指出的是，“共鸣意向”和共鸣轴，都不是纯粹个体的、认知意义上的，而是由历史和文化、集体和社会所构建和维护的；也不必然是愉悦和谐的经历，而是需要主体以开放的心态去承担受伤的风险，以非预测、非控制的方式去接触和改变世界。为了克服异化、走出晚期现代社会的文化困境，罗萨还参与了一个研究项目“耶拿计划”，尝试在多个领域吸收各种共鸣经验，探索一种全新的社会文化模式。这一计划既包括爱情、友谊和民主政治，又包括在自然中的经历以及照料和教育子女等活动。

III. Alienation and the Critique of Capitalism

三、异化与资本主义批判

Although Harvey and Rosa both focus on interpreting Marx’s theory of alienation through the lens of application and development, neither completely avoids issues such as the textual basis and ideological nature of this theory, and they show considerable common ground on these issues. Both oppose metaphysical conceptions of human nature or the essence of humanity, emphasizing the important position of the theory of alienation in Marx’s system of thought. Harvey claims he is not a philosopher and does not discuss Marx’s concept of alienation from a philosophical perspective, but rather focuses on very practical issues related to the concept of alienation. He says: “In fact, what I focus on is the actual occurrence and deployment of the concept of alienation in real processes.” On the one hand, he acknowledges significant differences between the concept of alienation in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* and that in *Capital* and its manuscripts, and thus does not attempt to unify them; on the other hand, he places greater emphasis on the concept of alienation in the sense of the *1844 Manuscripts*, especially the perceptual dimension contained therein, and endows this concept with rich connotations on the basis of the critique of political economy. Rosa repeatedly emphasizes that modern social philosophy no longer takes external or unchanging concepts of human essence or nature as its normative foundation. He points out that alienation is a concept of critical theory originating from the young Marx and developed by the early Frankfurt School; the young Marx’s theory of alienation already contained three forms of social critical theory: a functional critique of the inherent contradictions of capitalist society, a moral critique of fundamental distributive injustice, and an ethical critique of alienated life and false consciousness. Moreover, Harvey and Rosa’s contemporary interpretations of Marx’s theory of alienation advance the critique of capitalism and enrich Western scholars’ socialist theory from the following three aspects.

尽管哈维和罗萨都侧重于从运用发展路径来阐释马克思的异化理论，但两人并没有完全回避这一理论的文本基础和思想性质等问题，并且在这些问题上呈现出颇多相通之处。他们都反对关于人性或人的本质的形而上学观念，强调异化理论在马克思思想体系中的重要地位。哈维自称不是哲学家，也不从哲学的视角来讨论马克思的异化概念，而是关注与异化概念相关的非常实际的问题。他说：“实际上，我关注的就是现实过程当中异化概念的现实发生和布展。”他一方面承认《1844年经济学哲学手稿》与《资本论》及其手稿中的异化概念之间存在显著的差异，因而并不试图将二者统一起来，另一方面更为重视《1844年经济学哲学手稿》意义上的异化概念，特别是其中所蕴含的感性维度，并在政治经济学批判的基础上赋予这一概念丰富的内涵。罗萨多次强调，现代社会哲学不再以外在的或不变的人类本质或天性观念为规范基础。他指出，异化是源于青年马克思、并被早期法兰克福学派所发展的批判理论概念；青年马克思的异化理论就已经包含着社会批判理论的三种形式，即对资本主义社会固有矛盾的功能批判、对根本的分配不公的道德批判，以及对异化生活和虚假意识的伦理批判。不仅如此，哈维和罗萨对马克思异化理论的当代阐释还从以下三方面推进了资本主义批判，丰富了西方学者的社会主义理论。

(1) Inheriting the Academic Tradition of Marxism

（一）传承马克思主义的学术传统

The 19th century in which Marx lived was an important period when the social sciences transitioned from a philosophical form to a scientific form; disciplines such as political economy, sociology, and anthropology gradually broke free from the influence of speculative philosophy and moved toward empirical science. Marx not only took great interest in the natural science research that spurred this major transformation, laying the theoretical foundation for a materialist view of nature and history and the critique of political economy by absorbing natural science, but also fully drew on the research achievements of the social sciences of his time. As is well known, British political economy and French utopian socialism were important sources of Marxism. With the collation and publication of Marx’s late anthropological notebooks, it was discovered that Marx paid constant attention to different forms of anthropological research from his early to late years, advocating a broader and deeper historical method in his late notebooks. Moreover, Marx also criticized and absorbed the positivist sociology emerging in the 19th century and the popular Historical School of Jurisprudence in Germany. In short, influenced by the great historical achievements of modern natural science, humanistic intellectuals, including Marx, were deeply influenced by the scientific rational worldview, attempting to construct scientific theories about human history and modern society. Marx not only absorbed new perspectives, viewpoints, and methods from the social sciences dominated by liberal ideology, but also engaged in direct debate with them, further clarifying his views and perfecting his theory through ideological contention. It can be seen that paying attention to and absorbing the research achievements of contemporary social sciences is a major feature of the development of Marx’s thought.

马克思所生活的19世纪是社会科学从哲学形态走向科学形态的重要时期，政治经济学、社会学和人类学等学科逐渐摆脱思辨哲学的影响，走向实证科学。马克思不仅对催生这一重大变革的自然科学研究抱有极大兴趣，通过吸纳自然科学而为唯物主义自然观和历史观以及政治经济学批判奠定了理论基础，而且充分借鉴了当时的社会科学研究成果。众所周知，英国的政治经济学和法国的空想社会主义是马克思主义的重要来源。随着马克思晚年人类学笔记的整理发表，人们发现，马克思从早年到晚年始终关注不同形式的人类学研究，在晚年笔记中倡导一种更博大、更深远的历史方法。不仅如此，对于19世纪方兴未艾的实证主义社会学，以及德国流行的历史法学派，马克思也进行了批判与吸收。总之，受到近代自然科学巨大历史成就的影响，包括马克思在内的人文知识分子都深受科学理性世界观的影响，试图建构关于人类历史和现代社会的科学理论。马克思既从自由主义意识形态支配下的社会科学那里吸取了新的视角、观点和方法，又与之展开直接论辩，在思想论争中进一步阐明观点、完善理论。可见，关注并吸纳同时代社会科学研究成果是马克思思想发展的一大特色。

Since the end of the 19th century, several generations of Western Marxist scholars have conducted research using Marxist theory and methods across many fields of the humanities and social sciences, producing a large body of fruitful theoretical results. Today, Marxism has deeply participated in research and debate in various fields of the contemporary humanities and social sciences, having become an important research paradigm and academic tradition. As university professors and well-known scholars active in mainstream Western academia, Harvey and Rosa have interpreted and developed Marx’s concept of alienation by fully absorbing the research results of contemporary social science, and have inherited the Marxist academic tradition within their respective areas of expertise. Harvey was originally a professor of geography; later, he reinterpreted Marxist theory from a spatial perspective and, combined with his reading of *Capital*, conducted critical research on contemporary capitalism. From the perspective of Harvey’s interpretation of Marx’s concept of alienation, what he mainly continues is Marx’s tradition of political economy. In his book *Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism*, which focuses on the concept of alienation, he actually, based on the theoretical analysis of Marx’s *Capital* and combined with the development of contemporary capitalism, comprehensively examines multiple contradictions of different natures within the economic operation mechanism of capital society, i.e., capitalist society. For him, alienation is not just one of the many contradictions of capital society, especially the universal contradiction, but runs through all the contradictions of capital society and is the most fatal contradiction of capital society.

19世纪末以来，西方几代马克思主义学者在人文社会科学诸多领域运用马克思主义的理论和方法展开研究，产生了一大批丰硕的理论成果。如今，马克思主义已经深度参与到当代人文社会科学各领域的研究与争鸣，俨然成为重要的研究范式和学术传统。作为活跃于西方主流学术界的大学教授和知名学者，哈维和罗萨对马克思异化概念的阐释和发展充分吸纳了当代社会科学的研究成果，并在各自擅长的领域内传承了马克思主义的学术传统。哈维起初是地理学教授，后来从空间视角重新阐释马克思主义理论，并且结合对《资本论》的解读，展开当代资本主义的批判研究。从哈维对马克思异化概念的阐释来看，他所延续的主要是马克思的政治经济学传统。在集中探讨异化概念的《资本社会的17个矛盾》一书中，他实际上是依据马克思《资本论》的理论分析，结合当代资本主义的发展，全面考察了资本社会即资本主义社会的经济运行机制中不同性质的多个矛盾。在他这里，异化不只是资本社会的诸多矛盾特别是普遍的矛盾之一，而是贯穿于资本社会的全部矛盾，是资本社会最致命的矛盾。

As a professor of sociology and a representative of the fourth generation of the Frankfurt School, Rosa has inherited the sociological tradition of Marx and the Frankfurt School, examining the internal structure of modern society from the temporal dimension and analyzing the fundamental contradictions of modernity, thereby redefining the concept of alienation and discussing its forms. From the perspective of Rosa’s interpretation of Marx’s concept of alienation, whether in arguing the logic of social acceleration or analyzing the forms of alienation in late modernity, he has extensively absorbed research results from fields such as sociology, psychology, and economics. For example, he cites cross-cultural empirical research on the pace of life to prove the acceleration of the pace of life, and cites empirical research on the “subjective time paradox” to infer the temporal form of alienation in late modern society. Due to his extensive citation of research conclusions from the field of social research and his exploration of cutting-edge topics in sociological research, Rosa’s representative works *Acceleration: The Change in the Temporal Structure of Modernity* and *Resonance: A Sociology of Our Relationship to the World* are regarded as important achievements in sociological research since the 21st century.

作为社会学教授和法兰克福学派第四代代表人物，罗萨传承了马克思和法兰克福学派的社会学传统，从时间维度考察现代社会的内在结构，剖析现代性的根本矛盾，由此重新定义了异化概念、论述了异化形式。从罗萨对马克思异化概念的阐释来看，无论是论证社会加速逻辑，还是分析晚期现代社会的异化形式，他都广泛吸收了社会学、心理学和经济学等领域的研究成果。例如，他引用对生活步调的跨文化的经验研究来证明生活步调的加速，引用对“主观时间矛盾”的经验研究来推论晚期现代社会的时间异化形式。由于大量征引社会研究领域的研究结论、探讨社会学研究的前沿论题，罗萨的代表作《加速：现代时间结构的变化》和《共鸣——一种世界关系的社会学》被视为21世纪以来社会学研究的重要成果。

(II) Expanding Marx’s Overall Critique of Capitalism

（二）拓展马克思对资本主义的总体批判

Unlike many social theorists of the 19th century, Marx was committed to revealing the fundamental contradictions of capitalist society and conducting an overall critique of capitalism. In Volume 1 of *Capital*, Marx for the first time scientifically explained the relationship between capital and labor, “the axis around which the entire modern social system revolves,” thereby making “the entire field of modern social relations clear and distinct.” [24]24 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1, Afterword to the Second German Edition. *Capital* takes the contradictory relationship between capital and labor as its entry point, examining the entire system and all fields of modern society. Nevertheless, the categorical arrangement of Marx’s system of critique of political economy unfolds around the core concept of capital. This is because capital is not a thing, but the social relation of production of bourgeois society, the “light of all lights” that dominates all other forms of production and relations of production, and the “all-dominating economic power of bourgeois society.” [25]25 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, Introduction. Based on this consideration, Marx not only detailed the production, circulation, and overall process of capital in the three volumes of *Capital*, but also planned to examine landed property, wage labor, the state, international trade, and the world market after completing the discussion of capital. It can be said that Marx’s system of political economy is essentially an overall critique of capitalism centered on the logic of capital.

与19世纪很多社会理论家不同，马克思致力于揭示资本主义社会的根本矛盾，展开对资本主义的总体批判。在《资本论》第1卷中，马克思第一次科学地说明了资本和劳动的关系这一“全部现代社会体系所围绕旋转的轴心”，从而“把现代社会关系的全部领域看得明白而清楚”。《资本论》以资本与劳动之间的矛盾关系为切入点，考察了现代社会的整个体系和全部领域。尽管如此，马克思的政治经济学批判体系的范畴排列是围绕着资本这一核心概念而展开的。这是因为资本不是物，而是资产阶级社会的生产关系，是主导其他一切生产形式和生产关系的“普照的光”，是“资产阶级社会的支配一切的经济权力”。基于这一考虑，马克思不仅在三卷本《资本论》中详细论述了资本的生产、流通和总过程，而且曾计划在论述完资本后再考察地产、雇佣劳动、国家、国际贸易和世界市场。可以说，马克思的政治经济学体系本质上是以资本逻辑为核心的对资本主义的总体批判。

Contemporary capitalism differs in many respects from the 19th century in which Marx lived, to the extent that some scholars have abandoned Marx’s overall critical approach, turning instead to the analysis and critique of the political, economic, cultural, and ecological fields of capitalist society. In contrast, Harvey and Rosa, when examining the trends and characteristics of Western capitalist development since the 1970s, have continued Marx’s overall critical approach by applying and developing Marx’s concept of alienation. On the one hand, both believe that a state of alienation in some sense widely exists in contemporary capitalist society. Harvey’s analysis of the multiple meanings of the word “alienation” actually uses the concept of alienation to cover the ills of capitalist society at both objective and subjective levels, such as estrangement, injustice, anger, resentment, and frustration in production, politics, society, and values. Although Rosa discusses the forms of alienation in late modern society within the dimension of ethical critique, the five forms of alienation he summarizes involve time, space, the world of things, action, and the self and society, covering the overall pattern of contemporary social life in another way. Compared to Marx, who mainly used alienation to describe the manifestation of the antagonistic relationship between capital and labor in the sphere of production, Harvey and Rosa’s concept of alienation points to a broader range of fields in contemporary capitalist society. On the other hand, both attempt to reveal the fundamental mechanism leading to this universal state of alienation. Harvey continues Marx’s path of critique of political economy, starting from the creation, exchange, and realization of value, comprehensively analyzing the mechanism of capital turnover and the technological factors it relies on, as well as their impact on values. Rosa inherits the tradition of social critique from Marx and the Frankfurt School, focusing on the problem of modernity, proposing the logic of social acceleration by analyzing the temporal structure of modern society, and exploring various forms of alienation in late modern society. In short, both continue Marx’s overall critical approach, deepening the understanding of the operational logic of contemporary capitalist society from different angles.

当代资本主义在诸多方面迥异于马克思所处的19世纪，以至于一些学者放弃了马克思的总体批判思路，转向对资本主义社会的政治、经济、文化和生态等领域的分析和批判。与之不同，哈维和罗萨在考察20世纪70年代以来西方资本主义发展的趋势和特征时，通过运用发展马克思的异化概念而延续了马克思的总体批判思路。一方面，他们都认为当代资本主义社会广泛存在某种意义的异化状态。哈维对“异化”一词多重含义的辨析，实际上是用异化概念涵盖资本主义社会在生产、政治、社会和价值观等客观和主观的层面所出现的疏离、不公、愤怒、怨恨和挫败等弊病。罗萨虽然是在伦理批判的维度探讨晚期现代社会的异化形式，但他所概括的五种异化形式涉及时间、空间、物界、行动以及自我和社会等多个方面，以另一种方式涵盖了当代社会生活的整体格局。相比于马克思主要用异化来形容资本与劳动之间的对立关系在生产空间的表现，哈维和罗萨的异化概念指向当代资本主义社会更为广泛的领域。另一方面，他们都试图揭示导致这种普遍异化状态的根本机制。哈维延续了马克思的政治经济学批判路径，从价值的创造、交换和实现等入手，全面分析了资本周转机制及其所依赖的技术因素以及它们对价值观念所产生的影响。罗萨则继承了马克思和法兰克福学派的社会批判传统，聚焦现代性问题，通过分析现代社会的时间结构而提出了社会加速逻辑，并探究晚期现代社会的各种异化形式。总之，他们都延续了马克思的总体批判思路，从不同角度深化了对当代资本主义社会运行逻辑的认识。

(III) Exploring Alternatives to Capitalism

（三）探索资本主义的替代方案

Marx’s critique of capitalism not only reveals the ills and contradictions of capitalist society on an overall level, but also proposes solutions to fundamentally eliminate these ills and contradictions, envisioning a communist society that transcends capitalism. As early as in *On the Jewish Question* and *A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction*, Marx advocated for the emancipation of man to transcend the political emancipation of the bourgeois revolution, in order to eliminate the dualization of the individual in state life and private life, and called on the proletariat to act as the subject of revolution to destroy all systems of servitude and truly realize human emancipation. In the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, Marx further directed his critique at alienated labor and private property, emphasizing that communism is a historical process of actively and continuously transcending private property in reality, aimed at achieving the comprehensive enrichment of the essential powers of the human being, including sensory abilities. Later, in works such as *The German Ideology*, *The Communist Manifesto*, *Capital*, and *Critique of the Gotha Programme*, Marx comprehensively discussed the conditions for the realization and basic principles of communist society. In Marx’s view, communist society is built on the basis of highly developed productive forces and an abundant flow of collective wealth; it will abolish private ownership of the means of production, eliminate rigid old divisions of labor and blind unplanned production, implement universal public ownership of the means of production and planned social production, along with the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” [26]26 Karl Marx, *Critique of the Gotha Programme*. form corresponding morals and values, and fully realize the full development of the “free individuality” of the human being; thus, it is a true “association of free individuals.” [27]27 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1, Chapter 1, Section 4.

马克思的资本主义批判不仅从总体上揭示了资本主义社会的弊病和矛盾，而且提出了从根本上消除弊病、解决矛盾的方案，设想了超越资本主义的共产主义社会。早在《论犹太人问题》和《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》中，马克思就主张用人的解放超越资产阶级革命意义上的政治解放，以消除个人在国家生活和私人生活中的二重化，并且倡导无产阶级担当革命的主体以摧毁一切奴役制，真正实现人的解放。在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中，马克思进一步把批判的矛头指向异化劳动和私有财产，强调共产主义是在现实中不断地积极扬弃私有财产的历史性过程，旨在实现包括感官能力在内的人的本质力量的全面丰富。后来，在《德意志意识形态》《共产党宣言》《资本论》和《哥达纲领批判》等著作中，马克思全面论述了共产主义社会的实现条件和基本原则。在马克思看来，共产主义社会建立在高度发展的生产力和充分涌流的集体财富的基础之上，将废除生产资料私有制，消除僵化的旧式分工体系和盲目的无计划生产，实行普遍的生产资料公有制和有计划的社会生产以及“各尽所能，按需分配”的原则，形成与之相适应的道德和价值观念，完全实现人的“自由个性”的充分发展，因而是真正意义上的“自由人的联合体”。

From the end of the 19th century to the first half of the 20th century, the communist alternative to capitalism proposed by Marx was written into the programs of workers’ movements and socialist movements worldwide, inspiring countless progressive people to resist colonial oppression and pursue independence and liberation. However, with the drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe [28]28 The drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe: Refers to the collapse of communist regimes in the Soviet Union and its Eastern Bloc satellite states between 1989 and 1991, culminating in the dissolution of the USSR. and the prevalence of neoliberalism, the world socialist movement fell into a trough. The slogan “There Is No Alternative,” loudly propagated by former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, was once rampant. Even so, insightful people around the world have tirelessly explored alternatives to capitalism in the era of globalization. If the endless social experiments, strike protests, and street movements in various countries are the political practices of exploring alternatives to capitalism, then Harvey and Rosa, as academic thinkers, represent the cutting-edge theoretical reflections on exploring alternatives to capitalism. The reason Harvey attaches importance to Marx’s concept of alienation and incorporates many contradictions of capitalist society into the category of alienation is precisely because alienation can centrally reflect the all-round destruction of the subjective and objective aspects of human beings by the economic operation mechanism of capital, thereby stimulating people’s consciousness of resistance, spirit of struggle, and concept of solidarity. The concept of “revolutionary humanism” he proposes aims to eliminate the universal alienation of the present era and achieve the happiness of the majority through violent revolution. Rosa also attempts to provide solutions to the ills of late modern society. The important questions he ponders are “what is a good life” and “why is our life not good.” In his view, the former is the most important question for humanity, while the latter is the entry point for exploring the former. The forms of alienation in late modern society revealed by him based on the theory of the logic of social acceleration, and the resonance relationship he proposes to transcend alienation, constitute the answers to these two questions respectively. Although Harvey’s and Rosa’s solutions differ, their explorations of alternatives to capitalism are both based on their respective overall critiques of capitalism, inheriting Marx’s critical spirit, and thus enriching the theoretical reflections of the socialist movement. Of course, in terms of their content, whether it is the specific suggestions in Harvey’s revolutionary humanist solution or the project measures in Rosa’s resonance relationship solution, they are satisfied with partial reforms and appeal to normative principles of what ought to be, evading the more fundamental issues of system and subject, and thus inevitably bear the character of utopianism and reformism.

从19世纪末到20世纪上半叶，马克思所提出的替代资本主义的共产主义方案被写入世界范围的工人运动和社会主义运动的纲领，激励着无数进步人士反抗殖民压迫、追求独立解放。不过，随着苏东剧变和新自由主义的盛行，世界社会主义运动陷入低谷，英国前首相撒切尔夫人大肆宣传的“资本主义无可替代”（There Is No Alternative）的口号一时间甚嚣尘上。即便如此，世界范围内的有识之士仍然在孜孜不倦地探索全球化时代的资本主义替代方案。如果说，世界各国层出不穷的社会实验、罢工抗议和街头运动是探索资本主义替代方案的政治实践，那么，作为学院派思想家的哈维和罗萨所代表的是探索资本主义替代方案的前沿理论思考。哈维之所以重视马克思的异化概念并且将资本社会的诸多矛盾都纳入异化的范畴，就是因为异化能够集中反映资本主义的经济运行机制对人的主观和客观方面的全方位破坏，从而激发民众的反抗意识、斗争精神和团结观念。他所提出的“革命人道主义”理念就是要消灭当今时代的普遍异化，以暴力革命的方式来实现大多数人的幸福。罗萨也试图为晚期现代社会的弊病提供解决方案。他思考的重要问题是“什么是美好的生活”和“我们的生活为什么不美好”。在他看来，前一个问题是人类最重要的问题，后一个问题则是探讨前一个问题的切入点。他依据社会加速逻辑理论而揭示的晚期现代社会的异化形式，以及他所提出的超越异化的共鸣关系，分别构成对这两个问题给出的答案。虽然哈维和罗萨的方案各不相同，但他们对资本主义替代方案的探索都奠基于各自对资本主义的总体批判，继承了马克思的批判精神，因而丰富了社会主义运动的理论思考。当然，就其内容而言，无论是哈维的革命人道主义方案中的具体建议，还是罗萨的共鸣关系方案的项目措施，都满足于局部范围的改革并诉诸应然的规范性原则，回避了更为根本的制度和主体问题，因而不可避免地带有空想性质和改良色彩。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗