Foucault and Marx: From *Capital* to the Genealogy of Power

Is Foucault a Marxist or an anti-Marxist? Did Foucault propose a “post-structuralist Marxism” or a “post-Marxism”? What kind of theoretical relationship actually exists between Foucault and Marx? There has long been much controversy in Western theoretical circles on this issue. A relatively clear and simple view holds that “certain declarations by Foucault clearly tell us that he maintains a certain distance from Marx’s position. Therefore, we can say that there is no direct connection between the theoretical orientations of Marx and Foucault.” A more moderate and objective view, such as that proposed by French left-wing scholar Jacques Bidet, suggests: “There exists a contradictory relationship between Marx and Foucault that is both close and repulsive… This contradictory relationship allows them to be combined, based on their respective philosophical critiques, to analyze and critique the present era.” A more multi-dimensional analytical commentary, such as that by French Marxist theorist Étienne Balibar, emphasizes that Foucault’s entire body of work should be understood through the theoretical contest between Foucault and Marx. Foucault’s theory of discourse can be regarded as a post-Marxist shift in problematics, or he can be labeled with a “historical materialism” in quotation marks. In fact, while opposing Marx, Foucault also drew more analytical methods and theoretical concepts from Marx. The above merely lists representative views; in fact, there is much recent research literature surrounding the relationship between Foucault and Marx, but it can generally be encompassed within these several perspectives.

福柯究竟是一个马克思主义者还是一个反马克思主义者?福柯是否提出了一个“后结构主义的马克思主义”或者说“后马克思主义”?福柯与马克思之间究竟存在着一种什么样的理论关系?西方理论界对此一直存在许多争议。比较明确简单的观点认为：“福柯的某些宣言清楚地告诉我们，他与马克思的某种立场是有一定距离的。因此，我们可以说马克思与福柯的理论导向没有任何直接的关联性。”比较折中客观的看法如法国左翼学者雅克·比岱提出：“马克思与福柯之间存在着一种既密切又排斥的矛盾关系……这种矛盾关系可以使他们基于各自的哲学批判而结合起来去分析和批判现时代。”比较多维度分析的评论如法国马克思主义理论家E.巴里巴尔强调，应该从福柯与马克思的理论较量中来把握福柯的全部作品。福柯的话语理论可以被当作是一种后马克思主义的问题转变，也可以给他贴上一种带引号的“历史唯物主义”的理论标签。事实上，福柯在反对马克思的同时，又从马克思那里获取了更多的分析方法和理论概念。上面只是列举了其中有代表性的观点，其实围绕着福柯与马克思的关系还有许多新近的研究文献，但大体上都可以圈定在这几种观点之中。

This article argues that, regarding the relationship between Foucault and Marx, the key is to return to how Foucault himself commented on it. However, the difficulty lies in the fact that Foucault only directly cites Marx sparingly in his works (with a large number of citations not explicitly indicated), and there is even less content specifically discussing Marx within his works. Conversely, in numerous interviews, articles, and lectures, Foucault made many statements and expositions on his relationship with Marx, though these statements and expositions are often self-contradictory and obscure. In one interview, Foucault clearly stated: “I have never established any relationship with Marxism. Because, in my view, Marxism is quite complex; it has many changes that have occurred with historical development and many different political views and factions. I cannot answer whether there is Marxism in my works, or what exactly my relationship with Marxism is.” Here, he seems to distinguish Marx from Marxism, because he cannot connect himself with traditional Marxism. For he answered very clearly: “I start from Marx, but what I focus on is not the sociological issue of class, but the strategic and tactical methods of struggle. My interest in Marx is concentrated on this issue; I am willing to pose my questions starting from this issue.” So, how exactly did he start from Marx? In fact, in one interview he provided a very crucial clue: “My work is guided by Volume Two of *Capital*. My interest in Marx at least comes from Volume Two of *Capital*, which inspired me. This volume provides a comprehensive analysis of the origin of capitalism, first analyzing the concrete reality of history, and second analyzing the historical conditions of capitalist development, especially from the perspective of the development of power structures and power institutions. If Volume One of *Capital* analyzes the origin of capital, then Volume Two is about the genealogy of capitalism. It can be said that I wrote my work on disciplinary power precisely following the line of thought in Volume Two of *Capital*; my work is almost exactly the same as Marx’s work, with an essential connection between them.” This article therefore argues that this is the clearest expression of the relationship we can find from Foucault himself, and it can serve as the foothold for our understanding of the relationship between Foucault and Marx. Starting from Volume Two of *Capital*, how exactly did Foucault construct a genealogy of power through Marx’s viewpoints and methods? The purpose of this article is to answer this question through a certain analysis of relevant texts.

本文认为，关于福柯与马克思的关系问题，关键还要回到福柯本人是怎么评说的。然而困难在于，福柯在自己的著作中只有少许直接引用(大量的引用并没有标明出来),在著作中具体展开谈论马克思的内容更少。相反，在大量的访谈、文章、讲课中，福柯对自己与马克思的关系却有许多表态和论述，只是这些表态和论述往往自相矛盾而且晦暗不明。在一次访谈中，福柯明确说道：“我跟马克思主义没有建立任何关系。因为在我看来，马克思主义比较复杂，它有许多随着历史发展而发生的变化和许多不同的政治观点及其派别。我无法回答在我的著作中有没有马克思主义，或者说我与马克思主义究竟是什么关系。”他这里似乎是将马克思与马克思主义区分开来的，因为他无法与传统马克思主义联系起来。因为他非常清楚地回答道：“我是从马克思出发的，但我关注的不是关于阶级的社会学问题，而是有关斗争的策略方法问题。我对于马克思的兴趣是集中在这个问题上面的，我愿意从这个问题出发去提出我的问题。”那么，他具体是如何从马克思出发的呢?事实上，他在一次访谈中给出了一条非常关键的线索：“我的著作是受到《资本论》第二卷引导的。我对于马克思的兴趣至少是来自于对我有所启发的《资本论》第二卷。本卷对资本主义起源进行了全面分析，首先是分析了历史的具体现实，其次是分析了资本主义发展的历史条件，特别是从权力结构和权力制度的发展方面。如果说《资本论》第一卷分析了资本的起源，那么第二卷则是关于资本主义的谱系学。可以说，我正是按照《资本论》第二卷的思路写了有关规训权力的著作，我的著作与马克思的著作几乎完全一样，它们之间有着本质的联系。”本文由此认为，这是我们能够找到福柯本人最明确的关系表述，可以成为我们理解福柯与马克思之间关系的立足点。从《资本论》第二卷出发，福柯究竟是如何通过马克思的观点方法而构建起权力谱系学的?本文的目的就是通过一定的相关文本分析去回答这个问题。

I. The Complex Relationship between Foucault and Marx

一、福柯与马克思的复杂关系

If we are to explore the theoretical relationship between Foucault and Marx, we first need to understand the intellectual context in which Foucault was situated, namely the theoretical condition of contemporary French thought. Contemporary French thought has a very distinct characteristic of the times, which is the general affirmation of Marx and Marxism. French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre once attempted to graft existentialism onto Marxism, and he famously asserted: “Marxism is the unsurpassable horizon of our time,” and declared, “We fully identify with the basic viewpoint used by Marx in *Capital* to define ‘materialism’: ‘The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life.’” At the conference commemorating the 150th anniversary of Marx’s birth, organized by UNESCO in May 1968, the famous French right-wing thinker Raymond Aron stated in his report: “If today’s science has already solved the problems raised by Marx, then Marx belongs to the past—however, today’s commemorative conference is enough to prove that Marx is still our contemporary.” Under this premise of theoretical recognition, French thinkers and scholars, whether left, right, or center, would all read Marx and draw from Marx, thus giving rise to an intellectual landscape unique to France: “At least every ten years, on the Left Bank of the Seine, there is always a philosopher who proposes a new interpretation of Marx, or attributes to Marx an idea that no one had ever thought of before him.” In response to the theoretical demands of the issues of the times, and also to the theoretical problems of Marx and Marxism, French thinkers interpreted Marx from their respective standpoints. This gave rise to theoretical schools such as Hegelian Marxism, existentialist Marxism, structuralist Marxism, post-structuralist Marxism, and postmodernist Marxism. Although these theoretical schools differ greatly, they have basically formed two opposing theoretical camps. As summarized by Raymond Aron: “The Parisian style oscillates between the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* and the structuralism of the *Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy* and *Capital*: on the one hand, the existentialist version of Hegelian philosophy, the adventure of humanity in the vortex of class struggle, alienation, and revolutionary liberation, the harmony between man and nature, the reconciliation of essence and existence; on the other hand, the scientific version of natural laws, that is, the laws of the formation, development, and self-destruction of the capitalist mode of production.”

如果我们要探讨福柯与马克思的理论关系，首先需要了解福柯所处的思想语境，即当代法国思想的理论状况。当代法国思想有一个十分鲜明的时代特色，那就是总体上对于马克思和马克思主义的基本肯定。法国哲学家萨特曾尝试将存在主义与马克思主义嫁接起来，他有一个著名论断：“马克思主义是我们时代无法超越的地平线”,并声明“我们完全认同马克思在《资本论》中用来定义‘唯物主义’基本观点：‘物质生活的生产方式制约着整个社会生活、政治生活和精神生活过程’”。在联合国教科文组织1968年5月举办的纪念马克思诞辰150周年大会上，法国著名右翼思想家雷蒙·阿隆在报告中说道：“如果今天的科学已经解决了由马克思提出的问题，那么马克思就属于过去——然而，我们今天的纪念大会就足以证明，马克思仍然是我们的同时代人。”在这种理论认知前提下，无论左中右的法国思想家和学者都会去阅读马克思和吸取马克思，于是出现了在法国才有的思想景观，“至少每隔十年，在塞纳河左岸总有一位哲学家提出一种关于马克思的新解释，或者把在他之前从来没有人想到过的一种观念赋予马克思”。针对时代问题的理论需求，同时也是针对马克思和马克思主义的理论问题，法国思想家们纷纷从各自的立场出发去解读马克思。这样就形成了黑格尔主义的马克思主义、存在主义的马克思主义、结构主义的马克思主义、后结构主义的马克思主义、后现代主义的马克思主义等理论流派。尽管这些理论流派分歧很大，但是他们基本上形成了两个对立的理论阵营，按照雷蒙·阿隆的概括：“巴黎的方式摇摆于《1844年经济学哲学手稿》和《〈政治经济学批判〉导言》、《资本论》的原始结构主义之间：一方面，是黑格尔哲学的存在主义的版本，人类在阶级斗争的旋涡、异化和革命解放之间的历险，人与自然的和谐、本质和存在的和解，另一方面，是自然规律的科学版本，即资本主义生产方式从形成、发展到自行灭亡的规律。”

The diverse interpretations and assimilations of Marx and Marxism in contemporary French intellectual circles have generally passed through three important historical junctures. The first juncture was the decade after the war (1945–1955). According to Foucault’s personal recollections, in the fields of French intellectual culture and political struggle, Marxism was an unsurpassable intellectual horizon, as Sartre put it. The entire French university system, especially the newly established universities, often regarded constructing a phenomenological Marxism as a pressing task; here the influence of Sartre’s and Merleau-Ponty’s existentialist Marxism was at work. “At that time I was Althusser’s student. In that period the mainstream philosophy in France was Marxism, Hegelianism, and phenomenology… At that time, if you wanted to become a philosopher, you had to be either a Marxist, or a phenomenologist, or a structuralist.” [5]5 Michel Foucault, “Structuralism and Post-Structuralism,” in *Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology*, ed. James D. Faubion (New York: The New Press, 1998), p. 437. The second juncture ran from the late 1950s to the storm of ’68 (1956–1968). Structuralism built up intellectual momentum, threatening to replace phenomenology and existentialism. A commonality seemed to be found between structuralism and Marxism, and using structuralism to interpret Marxism became a theoretical fashion. French thinkers tried to move beyond phenomenology and existentialism, directing their theoretical enthusiasm toward structuralism. The third juncture occurred after the storm of ’68. Reflecting on and examining the events of ’68 became an important task for French theorists. In Foucault’s view: “The first thing that happened after ’68 was that Marxism was seen as a dogmatic theory, and so new political and cultural currents focusing on individual life emerged.” [6]6 Michel Foucault, “The Meshes of Power,” in *Space, Knowledge and Power: Foucault and Geography*, ed. Jeremy W. Crampton and Stuart Elden (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), p. 155. It was precisely because of this new turn and new problems in social and political struggle that Foucault’s archaeology of knowledge was further deepened into a genealogy of power. The works he published in succession after the 1970s, *Discipline and Punish* and *The History of Sexuality*, exhibit a perspective of micro-politics. In light of the lessons of the struggle of ’68, Foucault began to ponder the following question: “What is power? More concretely, how is power exercised? What happens when one person exerts power over another?” In his view, if the problem of poverty was the core issue on the nineteenth-century agenda, then for Western society today, the questions of who exercises power, or how power is exercised, are more important. Therefore we need to rethink a series of Marx’s theoretical propositions concerning history, society, revolutionary struggle, and so on. “What struck me in Marxist analyses was their focus on the problem of ‘class struggle,’ but they paid very little attention to the word ‘struggle’… When they spoke of ‘class struggle’ as the fundamental driving force of history, they mainly concentrated on class definitions, class divisions, and class membership, and never concretely examined what the nature of struggle is. I found one exception: in Marx’s own non-theoretical and historical writings, there is a better and different analysis of the problem of struggle.” [7]7 Michel Foucault, “The Meshes of Power,” p. 155.

当代法国思想界对于马克思和马克思主义的多元阐释及其消化吸收，大体上经历了三个重要的历史节点。第一个节点是战后十年(1945—1955),按照福柯的个人回忆，在法国的思想文化和政治斗争领域，马克思主义是一种萨特所说的不可超越的思想地平线。整个法国大学，尤其是那些新建立的大学，往往将构建现象学的马克思主义看作是当务之急，这里有着萨特和梅洛-庞蒂的存在主义的马克思主义的影响。“我当时是阿尔都塞的学生。那个时候法国的主流哲学就是马克思主义、黑格尔主义和现象学……当时你想成为哲学家，你就必须要么是一个马克思主义者，要么是一个现象学家，要么是一个结构主义者”。第二个节点是从20世纪50年代后期到“68”风暴(1956—1968),结构主义形成思想声势，大有取代现象学和存在主义的架势，结构主义与马克思主义之间似乎找到了共通性，采用结构主义去解读马克思主义成为一种理论时尚。法国思想家们试图走出现象学和存在主义，将理论的热情投向了结构主义。第三个节点发生在“68”风暴之后，反思检讨“68”事件成为法国理论家的重要任务。在福柯看来：“‘68’之后发生的第一件事情就是马克思主义被看作是一种教条主义理论，于是出现了关注个人生活的新政治和新文化等思潮。”正是因为这种社会政治斗争的新转向和新问题，促使福柯的知识考古学进一步深化为权力谱系学，他在20世纪70年代之后接连发表的《规训与惩罚》和《性经验史》呈现出一种微观政治的观察视角。鉴于“68”风暴的斗争教训，福柯开始思考这样一个问题：“什么是权力?更加具体地说，权力是如何被实施的?当某个人向另一个人施加权力的时候发生了什么?”在他看来，如果说贫困问题是19世纪议事日程上的核心问题，那么对于今天的西方社会而言，谁在实施权力?或者权力是如何实施的?这些问题更为重要，因此我们需要重新思考马克思关于历史、社会、革命斗争等一系列理论主张。“在马克思主义者的分析中，让我印象深刻的是他们关注‘阶级斗争’问题，但是却很少去关注‘斗争’这个词……当他们谈及‘阶级斗争’作为历史根本动力的时候，他们主要聚焦阶级定义、阶级的划分和成员，从来没有具体地去考察斗争的本质是什么。我发现有一个例外，就是在马克思自己那些非理论的和历史的著述中，对于斗争问题有着更好的和不同的分析”。

In fact, Marx’s historical materialism and his revolutionary theory are inseparable from the French social revolution. Both the “Paris Commune” and the modern French workers’ movement promoted Marx’s theory of class struggle. However, ’68 and the various “new social movements” that arose afterward changed the form and content of revolutionary struggle. The problem Foucault discovered in this was that the participants in these struggles (young students, homosexuals, Black people, women, etc.) shifted the focus of struggle from economic issues to questions of identity and social injustice, often targeting various forms of disciplinary power. “Since the operation of power extends to different levels and social sectors, what are the different ruses of this diversity of power? What are the mechanisms, effects, and relations of power? I think this can be reduced to the following question: can the analysis of power be derived, in one form or another, from economics?” [8]8 Michel Foucault, *Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977*, ed. Colin Gordon (New York: Pantheon Books, 1980), p. 89. It was precisely against this economism in the theory of power that Foucault, on the one hand, criticized dogmatic Marxism. Like Sartre, he classified the Marxism interpreted by Stalinism and the French Communist Party as a kind of dogmatism, whose theoretical essence was a mechanical understanding and application of so-called Marxist economism and its formula of historical determinism. On the other hand, Foucault adopted the following intellectual stance toward Marx: First, he made a clear distinction between Marx and Marxism. In his eyes, Marx’s own doctrine was quite different from the later doctrines of Marxism; moreover, Marxism had split into so many theoretical tributaries and political organizational factions. In fact, what he valued was Marx’s critique of political economy. “I want to confine my observation to Marx’s political economy. I have never talked about Marxism, or if I have used the word, I have done so to refer to the history of political economy.” [9]9 Michel Foucault, *The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979*, ed. Michel Senellart (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), p. 78. Second, he believed that Marx did not form a unified theoretical system during his lifetime, and that Marxism as a complete and flawless system did not exist. Precisely on the basis of this theoretical judgment, Foucault divided Marx’s doctrine: on the one hand, Foucault rejected the traditional explanatory model of economic base and superstructure with its determinism, rejected universalism and holism in the view of society, denied utopian historical teleology, and also opposed the theoretical supplementation of the concept of totality by Marx’s successors. On the other hand, like Althusser and Bourdieu, he continued Marx’s political economy and its practical orientation, and used the concept of strategy to understand how practice operates. Finally, he both emphasized that Marx’s political economy still belonged to the scientific discourse of the nineteenth century—“Marxist economics—through its basic concepts and the general rules of its discourse—still belongs to a discursive formation defined in Ricardo’s time” [10]10 Michel Foucault, *The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences* (New York: Vintage Books, 1994), p. 253.—and, from a methodological perspective, fully affirmed Marx’s historical narrative and social structural analysis. In one interview, when the questioner asked whether Marx played a role in his methodology, Foucault immediately replied: “Yes, certainly. In my works, there are very formal references to Marx in the footnotes.” [11]11 Michel Foucault, “Prison Talk,” in *Power/Knowledge*, p. 52.

事实上，马克思的历史唯物主义及其革命理论与法国社会革命密不可分。无论是“巴黎公社”还是现代法国工人运动，对于马克思的阶级斗争理论都起到了推动作用。可是“68”及其之后兴起的各种“新社会运动”,使得革命斗争的形式和内容都发生了变化。福柯从中发现的问题是，这些斗争的参与者(青年学生、同性恋者、黑人、妇女等)将斗争的聚焦点从经济问题转向了身份认同和社会不公等议题，往往针对着各种管制性的权力，“既然权力的运作扩展到各自不同的层面和社会部门，这种多样性的权力的不同的诡计是什么?权力的机制、效应和关系是什么?我想这可以归结为下面的问题：对权力的分析能够以这种或那种形式从经济中推导出来吗?”正是针对这种权力理论中的经济主义，福柯一方面对那些教条式的马克思主义进行批评，同萨特一样，他将斯大林主义和法共等解释的马克思主义划归为教条主义一类，其理论实质就是机械地理解运用所谓马克思主义的经济主义及其历史决定论公式。在另一方面，福柯对马克思采取了如下的思想立场：首先，他将马克思和马克思主义作出了明确的区分。在他眼里，马克思本人的学说与后来马克思主义的学说是有很大区别的，况且马克思主义分出那么多理论支流及其政治组织派别。事实上，他看重的是马克思的政治经济学批判。“我想将我的观察划定在马克思的政治经济学上面。我从未谈论过马克思主义，或者如果我使用这个词，我这样做是为了指代政治经济学的历史”。其次，他认为，马克思生前并没有形成一个统一的理论体系，马克思主义作为一个完备不缺的体系是不存在的。正是根据这样的理论判断，福柯将马克思的学说进行了分割：福柯一方面拒绝传统解释的经济基础与上层建筑的决定论模型，拒绝普遍主义和整体主义的社会观，否认乌托邦式的历史目的论，也反对马克思继任者对于总体性概念的理论补充。另一方面，与阿尔都塞、布迪厄等一样，他延续了马克思的政治经济学及其实践取向，并采用策略概念来理解实践是如何运作的。最后，他既强调马克思的政治经济学还是属于19世纪的科学话语，“马克思主义经济学——通过其基本概念和话语的一般规则——还是属于李嘉图时代定义的一种话语形成”。同时又从方法论的角度充分肯定马克思的历史叙事和社会结构分析。在一次访谈中，当提问者问道马克思是否在他的方法论中发挥作用时，福柯即刻回答道：“是的，肯定是的。我的著作都在脚注里面很正式的标注了对马克思的引用”。

Opening *Discipline and Punish*, one can see that Foucault repeatedly mentions Marx’s theoretical analysis in Volumes I and II of *Capital*. For example, when discussing the capitalist process in Western countries, Foucault frequently paraphrases the theoretical analysis in *Capital*: “If the economic take-off of the West began with the techniques that made possible the accumulation of capital, it might perhaps be said that the methods for managing the accumulation of men made possible a political take-off that removed the traditional, ritual, costly, and violent forms of power… These two processes—the accumulation of men and the accumulation of capital—are inseparable. It would not have been possible to solve the problem of the accumulation of men without the growth of an apparatus of production capable of both sustaining them and using them; conversely, the techniques that made the cumulative multiplicity of men useful accelerated the accumulation of capital… See Marx: *Capital*, Vol. I, Chapter 13…” [12]12 Michel Foucault, *Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison*, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: Vintage Books, 1995), 220–221. The internal citation is to Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. I, Ch. 13. Furthermore, when revealing how institutions such as prisons and schools maintain social order through disciplinary techniques, he echoes Marx’s analysis of the reproduction of labor power and the reproduction of social relations. In lecture series such as *“Society Must Be Defended”* and *Security, Territory, Population*, Foucault discusses the connection between “biopolitics” and the reproduction of capitalist relations. At the end of *The Will to Knowledge*, Foucault explicitly states that the operation of power in modern society no longer relies solely on violent repression, but is realized through the management of life (such as population regulation and health policies). In short, in Foucault’s view, the logic of social reproduction revealed by Marx in *Capital* provides a key to understanding how power maintains its existence through the governance of populations and bodies (rather than through mere violent repression). We can actually use a passage from Foucault himself to summarize his inextricable theoretical complex with Marx: “It is certain that, even if we admit that Marx is obsolete today, Marx will one day be resurrected. What I wish to do is not entirely to return to the true Marx in order to rehabilitate him, but certainly to liberate Marx from the dogmatism that has long been wielded under his banner and has ossified him.”

翻开《规训与惩罚》就可以看到福柯多次提到马克思在《资本论》第一卷和第二卷中的理论分析。例如，在谈及西方国家的资本主义进程时，福柯就比较多地转述了《资本论》中的理论分析：“如果说西方的经济起飞始于资本积累的技术，那么或许也可以说，人员积聚的管理方式导致了一种脱离传统的、讲究仪式的、昂贵和粗暴的权力形式的政治起飞……这两个进程——人员积聚和资本积累——是密不可分的。如果没有一种能够维持和使用大规模人力的生产机构的发展，就不可能解决人员积聚的问题。反之，使日渐增大的人群变得有用的技术也促进了资本积累……见Marx: 《资本论》,第1卷，第13章……”另外，他在揭示监狱、学校等机构如何通过规训技术维持社会秩序时，呼应了马克思对劳动力再生产和社会关系再生产的分析。在《必须保卫社会》和《安全、领土与人口》等系列课程中，福柯讨论了“生命政治”与资本主义再生产关系的关联性。在《认知的意志》的结尾部分，福柯明确提出，现代社会的权力运作不再仅仅依赖暴力式的压制，而是通过管理生命(如人口调节和健康政策等)来实现。总之，在福柯看来，马克思在《资本论》中所揭示出来的社会再生产逻辑，为理解权力是如何通过人口和身体的治理(而非单纯的暴力压制)来维持自身存在提供了一把钥匙。我们其实可以用一段福柯本人的表述来总结一下他与马克思割舍不开的理论情结：“可以肯定的是，即使我们承认马克思今天过时了，但是马克思总有一天还会得到复活。我所希望做的不完全是为马克思平反昭雪而回到真正的马克思，而肯定是为了将马克思从教条主义中解放出来，这种教条主义长期以来打着马克思的旗帜而使其僵化。”

II. Volume II of *Capital* and the Genealogy of Power

二、《资本论》第二卷与权力谱系学

Through the brief review of the relationship between Foucault and Marx in the previous section, it can be seen that the relationship between Foucault and Marx is by no means a simple, unchanging one. In fact, “the path that leads Foucault to Marx is more like a labyrinth than a straight line.” [13]13 The author is quoting or paraphrasing a secondary source on Foucault; the original source is not identified in the text. Foucault first of all does not admit to being a Marxist, because he rejects all Marxist theories that have become systems of knowledge and ideology, and rejects all those dominant Marxist theories. However, he recognizes a Marx who engages in the critique of political economy, or a non-theorized and historicized Marx. To be precise, he only treats Marx as a theoretical toolbox: “he wants to use Marx to serve certain research purposes, rather than accepting Marx’s views wholesale.” [14]14 Ibid. Why does he explicitly mention that Volume II of *Capital* is instructive for his analysis of power? This is because he discovers that Marx, starting from the critique of political economy, constructed a genealogy of capitalism that has already touched upon the real operation of power in modern society, and that this genealogy of capital is complementary to the genealogy of power he is conducting. Marx explores the process of accumulation of capital power; Foucault focuses on the process of accumulation of disciplinary power or control techniques. Regarding the analysis of the operation of power in modern society, “we can find important elements of this analysis in many documents… but we can obviously also find these important elements in Marx, mainly in Volume II of *Capital*… In Volume II of *Capital*, we can see that, first of all, there is not only one form of power, but multiple forms of power.” [15]15 Michel Foucault, *“Society Must Be Defended”: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975–1976*, trans. David Macey (New York: Picador, 2003), 14–15. Thus, Foucault extracts the theoretical tools he needs from Volume II of *Capital*. Although on the surface his critique of disciplinary power seems far removed from Marx’s critique of political economy, in constructing his theory of power he indeed creatively transforms the methodological principles of Volume II of *Capital*, migrating them from the sphere of capital circulation to the analysis of power relations. Foucault believes that power is not a substance but a relationship, and that power is not a fixed possession but a fluid, changing struggle; therefore, it can be analyzed by analogy with the theory of the circulation process of capital in Volume II of *Capital*. If Marx focuses on economic power, then Foucault focuses on the economy of power; Marx reveals how capital achieves “self-valorization” through the circulation process, while Foucault reveals how modern power achieves “self-diffusion” through various micro-techniques; Marx deeply analyzes the systemic contradictions in the economic sphere, while Foucault concretely dissects the operational mechanisms of the power network. In short, their processual analyses of capital and power are interconnected and complementary. Their critiques of modernity respectively target the exploitation behind surplus value and the repression under disciplinary techniques.

通过上一节对福柯与马克思关系的简要梳理，可以看到福柯与马克思之间绝不是一种始终不变的简单关系。事实上，“将福柯带向马克思的道路更像是迷宫而不是直线”。福柯首先不承认自己是一个马克思主义者，因为他排斥所有变成了知识体系和意识形态的马克思主义理论，排斥所有那些占据主导地位的马克思主义理论。但是，他认可作为一个从事政治经济学批判的马克思，或者说一个非理论化和历史化的马克思。准确地说，他只是把马克思作为一个理论工具箱，“他想利用马克思来为某些研究服务，而不是全盘地接受马克思的观点”。为何他会明确地提到《资本论》第二卷对于他的权力分析具有借鉴意义，那是因为他发现，马克思从政治经济学批判出发构建起的资本主义谱系学已经触及到了现代社会真实的权力运作，而且这种资本谱系学跟他正在进行的权力谱系学研究是彼此互补的。马克思探讨的是资本权力的积累过程，他所关注的是规训权力或者控制技术的积累过程。关于现代社会权力运作的分析，“我们可以在许多文献中找到这种分析的重要内容……但是我们显然也可以在马克思那里找到这些重要内容，主要是在《资本论》的第二卷里面……我们在《资本论》第二卷中可以看到，首先并不是只存在一种权力，而是存在着多形态的权力”。于是福柯从《资本论》第二卷中找出他所需的理论工具。虽然表面上他的规训权力批判与马克思的政治经济学批判相距甚远，但是，他在构建其权力理论中确实创造性地转化了《资本论》第二卷的方法论原则，将其从资本流通领域迁移到权力关系分析之中。福柯认为，权力并非是一种实体而是一种关系，权力也并非是一种固定的占有物而是一种流动的斗争变化，因此可以借助《资本论》第二卷的资本流通过程理论进行比照分析。如果说马克思聚焦的是经济的权力，那么福柯关注的则是权力的经济；马克思揭示了资本如何通过流通过程而达到“自我增殖”,福柯则揭示了现代权力如何通过各种微观技术实现“自我扩散”;马克思深入地分析了经济领域的系统性矛盾，福柯则具体地剖析了权力网络的运作机制。总之，他们对于资本和权力的过程性分析是相通的和互补的。他们的现代性批判分别指向了剩余价值背后的剥削和规训技术之下的压制。

In his early writings, Foucault cites or paraphrases Marx’s research findings mainly for two reasons: first, he indeed agrees with Marx’s historical analysis of the evolution of capitalism, which he can draw upon in works such as *Madness and Civilization* and *The Order of Things*; second, he also admits to following a trend, because at that time intellectuals in France with left-leaning ideas almost all had to cite Marx in their works to demonstrate their ideological stance and political correctness. However, Foucault’s explicit statement that Volume II of *Capital* has methodological significance for him is likely the result of certain changes in his thinking. The most direct practical reason is the stimulus and inspiration of the “68” events, [16]16 “68” events refers to the May 1968 protests and general strike in France, a period of widespread civil unrest and student-worker uprisings against the government and capitalist society. which led him to begin thinking about how power actually operates. “Undoubtedly, the May ’68 storm was a particularly important experience. In any case, it is certain that without the May ’68 storm, I would never have done what I am doing today; the investigations into the prison and sexuality would have been inconceivable. The political climate of 1968 was decisive for my research.” [17]17 The author is quoting or paraphrasing Foucault’s own reflections; the original source is not identified in the text. The question this historical event brought to Foucault’s mind was: How does modern power operate using specific methods and strategies? What important changes have occurred in Western society regarding the ever-increasing discipline of individuals? How can one reveal the changes in the political-economic dimension within the operation of power? Faced with these questions of the era, on the one hand, Foucault opposes simply equating power with the state, the individual, or the economy, especially opposing the “economism” in popular theories of power. But on the other hand, he particularly emphasizes that he is not using an explanation of power to replace an economic explanation, nor has he ever said that power can explain all phenomena. Power itself is something that needs to be explained, and cannot serve as the principle for explaining everything else. He sees the covert operation of power at basic social levels such as the economy, and therefore proposes concepts such as “the economy of power,” “the microphysics of power,” and “the capillary of power.”

福柯在其早期著述中引用或者转述马克思的研究成果，主要是基于两个理由，一是他确实认同马克思关于资本主义发生演变的历史分析，可以借鉴用在他的《古典时代的癫狂史》和《词与物》等论述中；二是他也承认有些赶时髦，因为当时法国具有左倾思想的知识分子几乎都要在自己的论著中引用马克思，以显示自己的思想立场和政治正确。然而，福柯明确提出《资本论》第二卷对于他的方法论意义，应该是他发生某些思想变化的结果。最直接的现实原因是“68”事件的刺激和启发，他开始思考权力究竟是如何运作的。“毫无疑问，‘68’五月风暴是一个特别重要的经验。无论如何，可以肯定的是，没有‘68’五月风暴，我永远不会做我今天正在做的事情，对于监狱和性经验等的调查研究就是不可思议的。1968年的政治气候对于我的研究来说是决定性的”。这个历史事件给福柯带来的思考是，现代权力是怎样采用一定的方法和策略来运作的?对于个体不断增强的规训在西方社会究竟发生了哪些重要变化?如何去揭示权力运作中的政治经济维度的变化?面对这些时代问题，福柯一方面反对简单地将权力与国家、个体、经济等同起来，尤其是反对流行的权力理论中的“经济主义”,但是在另一方面，他又特别强调自己并不是要用权力解释来取代经济解释，也从未说过用权力可以解释一切现象。权力本身就是需要被解释的事物，而不能作为解释其他一切的原则。他看到了权力在经济等基本社会层面上的隐秘化运作，因此提出了“权力的经济学”“权力的微观物理学”“权力的毛细血管”等概念。

In *The Order of Things*, Foucault studied early modern British physiocracy and liberalism, using the same materials as Marx, namely the theoretical discourse of political economy. Yet there is a difference in their theoretical focus: Marx sought to show that the object of capitalist production is not national wealth, concrete wealth, or use-value, but abstract wealth or surplus value. Foucault, by contrast, aimed to demonstrate how liberal political economy targets life, population, concrete wealth, and social power. Foucault emphasized the fact that behind liberal discourse there exists exploitation, which is likewise replete with coercive means of exploitation. Foucault focused on the most concrete forms of power, striving to reveal a knowledge-power or discipline that runs parallel to the power of capital. Faced with accusations from certain scholars that he ignored the practical problems of social practice and historical experience, he replied explicitly: “I wrote *Madness and Civilization* also to make readers understand that I have not neglected to explore the constitution of knowledge from the perspective of social practice.” Foucault opposed economic determinism and the economism of power explanations, but this does not mean he completely rejected the importance of the economy. In fact, in many of his works there is a fairly evident analysis of economic institutions and their social structures; one could say that a materialist tone of positivization and practicalization runs through them. Some scholars even argue that Foucault’s theory of power can be termed “historical materialism,” though of course his “historical materialism” differs from Marx’s: the materiality Foucault speaks of refers mainly not to the materiality of “social relations,” but to the materiality of the machines and practices of power.

在《词与物》中，福柯就针对英国近代重农主义和自由主义进行了研究，他所用的材料与马克思是相同的，即属于政治经济学的理论话语。然而在他们之间存在着理论关注点的不同：马克思试图表明的是，资本主义生产的对象不是国家财富、具体财富或者使用价值，而是抽象财富或剩余价值。福柯却是旨在展示自由主义政治经济学如何瞄准生命、人口、具体财富和社会权力。福柯强调这样一个事实，即自由主义的话语背后存在着剥削，同样充斥着剥削的强制手段。福柯聚焦了最具体的权力形式，力图揭示出与资本权力平行的知识权力或者规训。面对某些学者指责他无视社会实践和历史经验的现实问题，他明确答复道：“我撰写的《疯癫史》也是为了让读者知道我并没有忽视从社会实践来探讨知识的构成问题”。福柯反对经济决定论和权力解释的经济主义，但是并不等于他就完全排斥经济的重要性。事实上，在他的诸多著作中有着比较明显的经济制度及其社会结构分析，可以说贯穿着一种实证化和实践化的唯物主义基调。甚至有学者认为，福柯的权力理论可以用“历史唯物主义”之名来称呼，当然他的“历史唯物主义”与马克思的历史唯物主义有所不同：福柯所说的物质性主要不是指“社会关系”的物质性，而是指向权力的机器和实践的物质性。

What specific methodological significance did Volume 2 of Marx’s *Capital* bring to Foucault? This is something Foucault never explicitly clarified. Marx once gave an explanation of the object of study of Volume 2 of *Capital*, “the circulation process of capital”: “In Volume 1 we examined the capitalist production process as such, considered as the immediate production process, setting aside all secondary effects arising from circumstances outside this process. But this immediate production process does not end the life process of capital. In the real world, it must be supplemented by the circulation process, which is the object of study of Volume 2 (underline added by the author).” This article argues that the most crucial phrase in this explanatory passage is “the life process of capital,” which is a vivid presentation of Marx’s “dynamic analysis of capitalism” and is also the historical dynamic analysis that Foucault particularly valued. In an interview, he also explicitly mentioned that the first part of Volume 2 of *Capital*, on “the metamorphoses of capital and their circuits,” influenced his investigation of power techniques. Since Foucault only vaguely mentioned the inspiration and influence of Volume 2 of *Capital*, without making specific conceptual comparisons or methodological explanations, this article attempts a preliminary comparison between the basic viewpoints of Volume 2 of *Capital* and Foucault’s analysis of power, striving to explain the main inspirations Volume 2 of *Capital* provided for Foucault and the logical thread of thought that can connect them.

马克思的《资本论》第二卷究竟给福柯带来了哪些具体的方法论意义?这是福柯完全没有明确予以说明的。马克思曾对《资本论》第二卷的研究对象“资本的流通过程”给出了一个解释：“在第一册中，我们研究的是资本主义生产过程本身作为直接生产过程考察时呈现的各种现象，而撇开了这个过程以外的各种情况引起的一切次要影响。但是，这个直接的生产过程并没有结束资本的生活过程。在现实世界里，它还要由流通过程来补充，而流通过程则是第二册研究的对象(下划线为笔者所加)。”本文认为，这段解释文字中最为关键的就是“资本的生活过程”,这是马克思的“资本主义动态分析”的鲜明呈现，也是福柯所特别看重的历史动态分析。在一次访谈中，他也明确提到《资本论》第二卷第一篇关于“资本形态变化及其循环”部分影响了他对于权力技术的考察。由于福柯只是笼统地提到《资本论》第二卷的启发和影响，他并没有作出具体的概念对比和方法说明，因此，本文尝试就《资本论》第二卷的基本观点与福柯的权力分析进行一个初步的比照，力求说明《资本论》第二卷对于福柯的主要启示及其可以关联起来的思想逻辑。

First, one can compare the movement of capital with the operation of power. The title and theme of Volume 2 of *Capital* is “the circulation process of capital”; Marx emphasizes that capital is by no means static but is in motion. Part One studies “the different forms capital assumes in its circuit, and the various forms of this circuit itself.” Part Two studies the velocity and mode of turnover in the continuous circuit of capital, and reveals the impact of capital turnover on the production of surplus value. Part Three explores the circulation process of total social capital and the interrelations among its various parts in circulation. The circuit of money capital, the circuit of productive capital, and the circuit of commodity capital form a unified whole; these three circuits are both the result of the entire circulation process of capital and the precondition for the continuation of this process. In short, capital is a dynamic process of capital valorization through circuit (G-W-P-W′-G′) and turnover. This process does not depend on the will of individual capitalists, but is spontaneously realized through the social systemic mechanism of circulation (such as the reflux of money, exchange between the two departments). Clearly, Marx’s “movement of capital” inspired Foucault’s “flow of power.” Marx’s structural dynamic analysis of capital is very much in line with Foucault’s understanding of the operation of power: power is not possessed, but is realized through strategic deployment; the effects of power do not depend on intentions, but on the repetitive operation of anonymous apparatuses. Power is not concentrated in macro-institutions like the state or law, but operates in a fluid manner through dispersed, networked micro-techniques (such as discipline, examination, archives). For example, power permeates through the spatial distribution and timetables of prisons, schools, and factories; power also operates through biopolitical techniques such as medical discourse and population statistics. Foucault strongly emphasized: “Power must be analyzed as something that circulates, or rather as something that functions only in a chain. It is never localized here or there, never in anybody’s hands, never appropriated as a commodity or piece of wealth. Power functions. Power is exercised through networks, and individuals circulate through them, always in a position both to undergo and to exercise power. They are never the inert or consenting targets of power; they are always its relays. In other words, power passes through individuals, but it is not owned by them.”

首先，可以从资本的运动来比照权力的运作。《资本论》第二卷的标题和主题就是“资本的流通过程”为题，马克思强调资本决不是静态的而是运动的。第一篇是研究“资本在它的循环中所采取的不同的形式和这个循环本身的各种形式”。第二篇研究在资本不断循环的资本周转中资本的周转速度和周转方式，并揭示资本周转对于剩余价值生产的影响。第三篇探讨社会总资本的流通过程，以及社会总资本在流通中各个部分之间的相互关系。货币资本循环、生产资本循环、商品资本循环构成一个统一的整体，这三个循环即是整个资本流通过程的结果，也是这个过程得以循环的前提。总之，资本是一个通过循环(G-W-P-W′-G′)和周转而实现资本增殖的动态过程。这个过程并不依赖于单个资本家的意志，而是通过社会系统性的流通循环机制(如货币回流、两部类交换)而自发实现的。显然，马克思关于“资本的运动”启发了福柯关于“权力的流动”。马克思关于资本结构性的动态分析非常符合福柯对于权力运作的理解：权力不是被拥有的，而是通过策略性的配置而实现的；权力的效应不是依赖意图，而是依赖匿名装置的重复运作。权力并非集中于国家或法律等宏观机构，而是通过分散的、网络化的微观技术(如规训、检查、档案)进行流动式的运作。例如，权力通过监狱、学校、工厂的空间分配和时间表渗透，权力也通过医学话语、人口统计等生命政治技术进行运作。福柯十分强调：“权力应当作为流动的东西，或作为只在链条上才能运转的东西加以分析。权力从未确定位置，它从不在某些人手中，从不像财产或财富那样被据为己有。权力运转着。权力以网络的形式运作，在这个网上，个人不仅在流动，而且他们总是既处于服从的地位又同时运用权力。他们从来不是权力惰性的或持续不断的靶子，而是永远在轮班。换一种说法，权力通过个人运行，但不归他们所有。”

Second, one can compare the reproduction of capital with the reproduction of power. Marx put forward the theory of reproduction in Volume 2 of *Capital*; its core question is how capital maintains its own existence through the reproduction of total social capital. The development of capitalism is based on continuous expanded reproduction, and expanded reproduction can only be realized on the premise of simple reproduction. Only through simple reproduction can surplus value be transformed into capital, thereby achieving capital accumulation. In Marx’s view, the difficulty in studying reproduction “lies not in the examination of accumulation, but in the examination of simple reproduction.” The reproduction of total social capital requires the continuous renewal of labor power, relations of production, and market conditions. Here one can see a correspondence between the reproduction of capital and the reproduction of power, namely, how power continuously reproduces “docile bodies” and “qualified subjects” through knowledge-power apparatuses (such as psychiatry and criminology). For example, the function of social discipline is to subject social time to the temporal system of the production cycle. Discipline is a dimension of capitalist production, to a certain extent necessary for the production of productive forces. The reproduction of power is realized through disciplinary institutions such as factories, prisons, hospitals, schools, and barracks, achieving the classificatory reproduction of workers, criminals, the educated, and so on. Foucault observed: “If the insertion of bodies into the machinery of production and the adjustment of population phenomena to economic processes were not controlled, the development of capitalism would not have been assured. But capitalism required more than that. It required an increase in the discipline of bodies and the regulation of populations, making them more useful and docile. It also required means of power that could enhance forces, capacities, and life in general, without making them more difficult to tame.” The proportional growth of population and qualified labor power required by capitalist development are both incorporated into the track of the production and reproduction of power. Moreover, “power relations are not in a position of exteriority with respect to other types of relationships (economic processes, knowledge relationships, sexual relations), but are immanent in them… Power relations are not superstructural structures with a simple role of prohibition or continuation; they have a directly productive role when they operate.”

其次，可以从资本的再生产来比照权力的再生产。马克思在《资本论》第二卷提出再生产理论，其核心问题是资本如何通过社会总资本的再生产来维持自身存在。资本主义的发展是以不断地扩大再生产作为基础的，而只有在实现了简单再生产的前提下，才能实现扩大再生产。只有通过简单再生产，才能将剩余价值转化为资本，从而实现资本的积累。在马克思看来，关于再生产研究的困难“不是发生在对积累的考察上，而是发生在对简单再生产的考察上”。社会总资本的再生产要求劳动力、生产关系和市场条件的不断持续更新。这里可以看到一种资本再生产与权力再生产的对应，即权力是如何通过知识-权力装置(例如精神病学和犯罪学等)不断再生产出“驯顺的身体”和“合格的主体”。例如，社会纪律的作用是使社会时间服从于生产循环的这种时间系统。纪律是资本主义生产的一个维度，在某种程度上是生产力生产所必需的。权力再生产通过诸如工厂、监狱、医院、学校、军营等规训机构，实现对劳动者、犯罪者、受教育者等的分类再生产。福柯看到：“如果不把肉体有控制地纳入生产机器之中，如果不对经济过程中的人口现象进行调整，那么资本主义的发展就得不到保证。但是资本主义的发展要求得更多。它要求增大肉体的规训和人口的调节，让它变得更加有用和驯服。它还要求能够增强各种力量、能力和一般生命的权力手段，而不至于使得它们变得更加难以驯服。”资本主义发展所需的人口增长比例和合格劳动力，都被纳入到权力的生产和再生产轨道。而且，“权力关系并不外在于其他形式的关系(经济过程、认识关系和性关系),相反，它们内在于其他形式的关系之中……权力关系也不是高高在上的结构，只有简单的禁止或继续的作用。相反，它们在运作时有着一种直接生产的作用”。

Finally, the “inevitability of resistance” in power relations can be compared with “circulation obstacles and crises” in capital. In Volume 2, Part 3 (Chapters 20-21) of *Capital*, Marx analyzes the problem of exchange equilibrium between the two major departments of social total capital reproduction (means of production and means of consumption). Marx emphasizes that if the proportion between departments is unbalanced (e.g., overproduction in Department I or insufficient demand in Department II), this leads to “circulation obstacles” and thereby triggers crises; the continuity of capital circulation depends on strict proportionality. Even if the circulation of individual capital is normal, social total capital may still erupt into crisis due to proportional imbalance. In Foucault’s view, the operation of the power network likewise has “breaking points.” Disciplinary power demands fully transparent individuals (e.g., panopticism), but in actual operation there are always invisible gaps (e.g., workers’ loafing, prisoners’ conspiracies). Biopolitical power attempts to control populations, but bodily pleasures and lines of flight (e.g., queer practices) always subvert social norms. Whether it is the capital movement system or the power control system, each inherently contains instability. Money in circulation is both a medium of exchange and a potential trigger point for crises (e.g., the rupture of the payment chain); knowledge (psychiatric diagnoses, crime statistics), like money, is both a medium for the operation of power and a field of discursive struggle. In fact, “Where there is power, there is resistance. And yet, or rather consequently, this resistance is never in a position of exteriority in relation to power… Just as the network of power relations ends by forming a dense web that passes through apparatuses and institutions, without being exactly localized in them, so too the swarm of points of resistance traverses social stratifications and individual unities. And it is doubtless the strategic codification of these points of resistance that makes a revolution possible.” [24]24 Michel Foucault, *The History of Sexuality, Volume 1: An Introduction*, trans. Robert Hurley (New York: Vintage Books, 1990), pp. 95-96.

最后，可以从资本的“流通障碍与危机”来比照权力关系的“抵抗的必然性”。在《资本论》第二卷第三篇(第20-21章)里面，马克思分析了社会总资本再生产的两大部类(生产资料和消费资料)之间的交换平衡问题。马克思强调，如果部类间比例失衡(如第Ⅰ部类生产过剩或第Ⅱ部类需求不足),就会导致“流通障碍”进而引发危机，资本流通的连续性依赖严格的比例。即使单个资本流通正常，社会总资本仍可能因比例失调而爆发危机。在福柯看来，权力网络的运作同样存在“断裂点”。规训权力要求完全透明的个体(如全景敞视主义),但实际运作中总有不可见的间隙(如工人的偷懒、囚犯的密谋等)。生命政治权力试图管控人口，但身体的快感和逃逸线(如酷儿实践)总是在颠覆社会规范。无论是资本运动系统也好还是权力控制系统也好，其自身内在地包含着不稳定性。货币在流通中既是交换媒介，又是危机的潜在引爆点(如支付链条断裂);知识(精神病学诊断、犯罪统计学)像货币一样，既是权力运作的媒介又是话语争夺的场域。事实上，“哪里有权力，哪里就有抵抗。但是，抵抗决不是外在于权力的……如同权力关系的网络最终形成了一个贯穿各个机制和制度，却又不局限其中的稠密的网络一样，大量的抵抗点也贯穿了各个社会阶层和由个人组成的团体。毫无疑问，这些抵抗点的战略规范使得革命成为可能”。

The above three points are only a preliminary and brief summary, indicating that there is a certain degree of intellectual correlation between Foucault and Marx in terms of critical analysis of the origin and development of capitalism. In interviews, Foucault explicitly discusses the themes of Volume 1 and Volume 2 of *Capital*, especially the genealogy of the circulation cycle of capital in Volume 2, which greatly inspired his own genealogy of the operation of social power. According to Foucault’s anti-determinist stance, the economy is of course not the sole factor for understanding historical change, but analyzing capitalism from within its economic structure and its history is also a sufficient condition for exploring the genealogy of power in modern society. In fact, in his representative works from both earlier and later periods, Foucault borrows considerably from Marx’s economic analysis of capitalism, though he does not directly mark the citations. In his own words, “In my account of discipline, my research is internally linked to what Marx wrote… However, I prefer to quote Marx in a secret manner.” He did not want to follow the fashionable practice of the French intellectual circles at the time, which regarded frequent quotation of Marx’s original words as a sign of political correctness. Although he appears not to quote much, he is in fact drawing on and applying Marx’s viewpoints and methods.

以上三点只是一个初步和简要的概括，由此表明在关于资本主义起源发展的批判性分析上面，福柯与马克思之间存在着某种思想上的关联度。福柯在访谈中明确谈及《资本论》第一卷和第二卷的主题，尤其是第二卷关于资本流通循环的谱系学，给他的关于社会权力运作的谱系学带来了很大的启发性。根据福柯的反决定论立场，经济当然不是理解历史变迁的唯一性因素，但是，从资本主义经济结构的内部及其历史来分析资本主义，也是探讨现代社会权力谱系学的充分条件。事实上，在前后期的代表性著作中，福柯比较多地借用了马克思关于资本主义的经济分析，只是他没有直接将引用之处标明出来。按照他的说法，“在我关于规训的论述中，我的研究与马克思所写的内容有着内在的联系……不过，我更喜欢秘密地引用马克思”。他不想跟风当时法国知识界的时髦做法，即认为多多引用马克思的原话就是政治正确的表现了。看似他没有怎么引用，实则他是在借鉴和运用马克思的观点方法。

III. Digital Capital and Algorithmic Rule

三、数字资本与算法统治

The critique of capitalism is a common theme for both Foucault and Marx. However, they each seize upon two core issues of capitalism: one is the normative order or power problem of capitalist development, i.e., the problem of social organization; the other is the problem of capital circulation and growth in capitalist development, i.e., the problem of marketization of production and expanded reproduction. Marketization and organization are the two wings of capitalist development, an indispensable real foundation. According to Jacques Bidet’s research, Marx focuses on the property power and class relations formed by capital, while Foucault focuses on the disciplinary techniques and power relations produced by knowledge-power. Marx views class existence and class struggle from a macro perspective, while Foucault analyzes power relations and their strategies of struggle from a micro perspective. Therefore, Bidet argues that although Foucault and Marx are separated by more than a century, and although their theoretical positions are in many respects mutually exclusive, they can complement each other on the common theme of the critique of capitalism. We have reason to combine them to forge a more complete theory to respond to the new changes and new circumstances of contemporary capitalism. To achieve a fruitful convergence of these two theories, we need to reinterpret and develop their theoretical concepts. In today’s world, as capitalism continuously moves toward globalization and digitalization, the exploitative power seen in Marx and the control power seen in Foucault have not only not weakened or disappeared but have become stronger and more concealed. Therefore, only in the combination of these two theories can we find and unleash their shared theoretical potential. With regard to the new forms of contemporary capitalist development, profound changes have taken place in both capital markets and organizational management. The critiques of capitalism and diagnoses of problems by Marx and Foucault have not become obsolete; on the contrary, the development of capitalism today seems to have further confirmed their foresight. In works such as the *Communist Manifesto* and the *Grundrisse*, Marx already saw the globalization process of capital: “The tendency to create the world market is directly given in the concept of capital itself. Every limit appears as a barrier to be overcome… Capital, according to its own tendency, must both overcome national barriers and national prejudices… Capital destroys all this and constantly revolutionizes it, tearing down all barriers that hinder the development of the productive forces, the expansion of needs, the diversification of production, and the exploitation and exchange of natural and spiritual forces.” Today, in the digital age, capital has further leveraged big data and algorithmic platforms to form a digital mutation of the capital form, with data gradually becoming a core element of capital. The space of capital power has been restructured, giving rise to digital control models in global value chains. For example, companies like Apple, through the iOS system + App Store rules, impose a 30% “digital tax” on global developers, while developing countries are reduced to data colonies. At the same time, Foucault’s assertion that “power exists in the capillaries” has been further verified: power transformed from technical knowledge has, in the digital age, penetrated every line of code and every data interaction. Social power struggles have shifted from the physical to the virtual, with the focus of struggle moving from territory, oil, and physical goods to data, computing power, and attention. Social power struggles have shifted from the explicit to the implicit, continuously achieving multi-polar network control through recommendation algorithms, API interfaces, and other technologies.

资本主义批判是福柯与马克思的共同主题。不过，他们分别抓住了资本主义的两个核心问题：一个是资本主义发展的规范秩序或者权力问题，即社会的组织化问题；一个是资本主义发展的资本流通增长问题，即生产和扩大再生产的市场化问题。市场化与组织化是资本主义发展的两翼，是缺一不可的现实基础。按照雅克·比岱的研究，马克思关注的是资本形成的财产权力和阶级关系，福柯聚焦的是知识权力产生的规训技术和权力关系。马克思是从宏观的视角来看待阶级存在及其阶级斗争，福柯则是从微观的视角去分析权力关系及其斗争策略。因此他认为，尽管福柯与马克思之间相隔一个多世纪，尽管他们之间的理论立场有不少是相互排斥的，但是他们在资本主义批判这个共同主题上面是可以互补的。我们有理由将他们结合起来，打造出一种更加完善的理论以回应当代资本主义的新变化和新情况。如果要达到这两种理论富有成效的聚合，我们需要对他们的理论概念进行重新阐释并加以发挥。在资本主义不断地走向全球化和数字化的今天，在马克思那里看到的剥削权力，在福柯这里看到的控制权力，不仅没有削弱和消失而且变得更加强大和隐蔽。因此，我们只有在这两种理论的结合中，才能找到并发挥出他们共有的理论潜力。就当代资本主义发展的新形态而言，无论是资本市场还是组织管理都发生了深刻的变革，马克思和福柯的资本主义批判及其问题诊断并没有过时，相反，资本主义今天的发展似乎变得更加证明了马克思和福柯的预见。在《共产党宣言》和《政治经济学批判大纲》等论著中，马克思已看到资本的全球化进程，“创造世界市场的趋势已经直接包含在资本的概念本身中。任何界限都表现为必须克服的限制……资本按照自己的这种趋势，既要克服民族界限和民族偏见，……资本破坏这一切并使之不断革命化，摧毁一切阻碍发展生产力、扩大需要、使生产多样化、利用和交换自然力量和精神力量的限制”。今天，资本在数字化时代更是借力大数据和算法平台形成了资本形态的数字化变异，数据逐渐地成为了资本核心要素。资本权力的空间得以重构，出现了全球价值链的数字控制模式，例如苹果等公司通过iOS系统+App Store规则，对全球开发者征收30%“数字税”,而发展中国家则沦为了数据殖民地。与此同时，福柯关于“权力存在于毛细血管中”的论断进一步得到验证，技术知识转化而成的权力在数字时代已经渗透至每一行代码和每一次数据的交互之中。社会权力斗争从实体到虚拟，其斗争焦点已经从领土、石油、实物等转向了数据、算力、注意力。社会的权力斗争从显性转向隐性，不断通过推荐算法、API接口等技术实现多极网络控制。

In today’s world, where big data and algorithms have become core factors of production, even though Marx could not have foreseen the developmental forms of contemporary digital technology, his critical analysis of the essence of capitalism can still reveal the operational logic of digital capital. First, data as a factor of production constitutes the source of surplus value. Data production still possesses its fundamental exploitative nature: the data generated by users in their daily digital activities (such as socializing, searching, consuming, and other behaviors) is appropriated by platforms either for free or at low cost, thereby forming a new form of “digital labor.” This labor is, of course, no longer traditional factory labor, but through the commodification of data (for example, targeted advertising and algorithm optimization) it also creates surplus value for capital, thus confirming Marx’s theses on “labor alienation” and “hidden exploitation.” Second, data platform capital forms monopolistic accumulation; for example, giants like Google achieve wealth concentration by monopolizing data resources—this is the concentration of capital analyzed in *Capital*. Today, data has become a new type of means of production alongside land and machinery, thereby giving rise to a digital fetishism. Marx’s critique of “commodity fetishism” applies equally: people often regard algorithms as natural laws rather than designs driven by capital interests. The alienation caused by digital technology is that when human life is comprehensively quantified by data and manipulated by algorithms (for example, credit scoring and health monitoring), human subjectivity is degraded into a calculable variable. Big data and algorithms are often packaged as objective and neutral tools, but in reality they remain a direct extension of capital power in digital space. The myth of technological neutrality conceals the actually existing class power relations. Foucault’s microphysics of power is fully applicable to today’s increasingly intensified algorithmic rule: people can only submit to the algorithmic management and labor control of the digital age; workers are often disciplined by algorithmic scheduling systems, with their labor intensity, time allocation, and so on entirely governed by code logic. Algorithms have become the invisible overseer of the digital factory, further strengthening capital power’s control over the production process and social life. The power struggles in the era of digital capitalism exhibit multi-dimensional and concealed characteristics; in areas such as data control, rule-making, and resource allocation, it is often a collusion of capital and technological power—for example, the expansion of private power by tech giants like Google, and platforms exercising quasi-state power through algorithmic governance (such as content moderation and traffic distribution). Moving from a “disciplinary society” to a “society of governance,” digital rule presents decentralized and concealed power relations, with power diffused throughout technology and daily life. Digital power not only represses but also produces social and individual behavioral norms.

在大数据和算法已成为核心生产要素的今天，即使马克思未能预见到当代数字技术的发展形态，但其对于资本主义本质的批判性分析仍能揭示数字资本的运行逻辑。首先，数据作为生产要素构成了剩余价值的来源。数据生产依然具有其根本的剥削本质：用户在日常数字活动(如社交、搜索、消费等行为)中产生的数据被平台无偿或者低价占有，由此形成一种新形态的“数字劳动”。这种劳动当然已经不是传统的工厂劳动，但通过数据商品化(例如广告的定向投放和算法优化等)也为资本创造了剩余价值，从而印证了马克思关于“劳动异化”和“隐蔽剥削”的论断。其次，数据平台资本形成垄断性积累，例如谷歌等巨头通过垄断数据资源实现了财富集中，这就是《资本论》所分析的资本集中。今天数据已经成为继土地、机器之后的新型生产资料，因而形成了一种数字拜物教。马克思对“商品拜物教”的批判同样适用：人们往往将算法视为自然规律而非资本利益驱动的设计。数字技术所造成的异化就是，当人类生活全面被数据量化和被算法操控(例如信用评分和健康监测等),人类的主体性就被降格为可以计算的变量。大数据和算法往往被包装为客观中立的工具，但实际上依然是资本权力在数字空间的直接延伸。技术中立性的神话掩盖了现实存在着的阶级权力关系。福柯的微观权力谱系学完全适用于今天愈加强化的算法统治，人们只能服从数字时代的算法管理及其劳动控制，劳动者往往被算法调度系统所规训，其劳动强度、时间分配等完全由代码逻辑来支配。算法已经成为数字工厂的隐形监工，进一步强化了资本权力对于生产过程以及社会生活的管控。数字资本主义时代的权力斗争呈现出多维度和隐蔽化的特征，在数据控制、规则制定和资源分配等领域往往是资本与技术的权力合谋，如谷歌等科技巨头的私权力扩张，平台通过算法治理(如内容审核、流量分配)行使准国家权力。从“规训社会”走向“治理社会”,数字化统治呈现出去中心化和隐蔽化的权力关系，权力弥散于技术和日常生活中。数字权力不仅是在压抑，而且也是在制造社会和个体的行为规范。

At a time when digital capitalism is continuously expanding, the deep integration of capital power with knowledge and technology undoubtedly gives rise to a series of new forms and new problems. Although Marx and Foucault could not have foreseen the latest combination of new capital and digital technology, their respective critical analyses of capitalism can still reveal the symbiotic monopoly of capital and technology. Marx’s analysis of the logic of capital can explain the economic dynamics of the development of digital capitalism, while Foucault’s analysis of disciplinary techniques can respond to the power relations and directions of struggle in the digital age. Marx’s critique of political economy and Foucault’s genealogical critique of power together constitute the theoretical tools for the critique of capitalist modernity. As many Western scholars have said, we still need to read *Capital* today, even in the era of digital capitalism we need to return to *Capital*, because “this book is far removed from all transcendent explanations and abstract moralizing; it grasps concepts only within the totality of concrete struggles. The determination to struggle is defined by these concepts.” [25]25 This is a paraphrase or quotation from a Western Marxist source, likely referencing the tradition of reading *Capital* as a guide to struggle rather than a dogmatic text. The true value of *Capital* lies not in providing ready-made answers, but in its methodology—that is, in revealing the power structure of modern society through the dissection of the logic of capital. Reading Marx in the 21st century means not only treating Marxism as an intellectual movement of the past, but also regarding Marx as a contemporary thinker. In the words of the French thinker Derrida: “There is no future without Marx, without the memory and inheritance of Marx.” [26]26 Jacques Derrida, *Specters of Marx* (1993), where he argues for the continued relevance of Marx’s legacy. Today, as the capitalist form based on the “mode of production” transforms into a capitalist form based on the “mode of information,” [27]27 This refers to the shift from industrial capitalism (based on material production) to informational capitalism (based on data and knowledge), a concept discussed in critical theory and information society studies. the critiques of capitalism by both Marx and Foucault still demonstrate their powerful theoretical vitality. In fact, no matter what new changes occur in the forms of capitalism, no matter how productive forces and power relations evolve, as long as private ownership of the means of production and its logic of capital still exist, as long as unequal social power relations and their struggles still exist, the thought of Marx and Foucault will not become obsolete.

在数字资本主义不断扩展的当下，资本权力与知识技术的深度结合无疑催生了一系列的新形态和新问题。尽管马克思和福柯未能预见到新型资本与数字技术的最新组合，但他们各自对于资本主义的批判性分析仍能揭示资本与技术的共生性垄断。马克思的资本逻辑分析可以解释数字资本主义发展的经济动力，福柯的规训技术分析则可以回应数字化时代的权力关系及其斗争方向。马克思的政治经济学批判和福柯的权力谱系学批判，共同构成了资本主义现代性批判的理论工具。正如许多西方学者所言，我们今天仍然需要读《资本论》,即使是在数字资本主义时代也需要回到《资本论》,因为“这部书远离了一切超然的解释和抽象的说教，而是仅仅在具体的斗争总体性中把握概念。斗争的决心就是由这些概念确定的”。《资本论》的真正价值不在于提供现成的答案，而在于其方法论，即通过解剖资本逻辑来揭示现代社会的权力结构。在21世纪读马克思，不仅仅是把马克思主义作为过去发生的一种思想运动，而且更是将马克思视为一个当代的思想家。用法国思想家德里达的话说：“不能没有马克思，没有马克思，没有对马克思的记忆，没有马克思的遗产，也就没有将来”。今天从基于“生产方式”的资本主义形式转变为基于“信息方式”的资本主义形式，无论是马克思还是福柯的资本主义批判，依然显示出其强大的理论生命力。事实上，无论资本主义形态发生怎样的新变化，无论生产技术和权力关系如何演进，只要生产资料私有制及其资本逻辑还存在，只要不平等的社会权力关系及其斗争还存在，马克思和福柯的思想就不会过时。

About the author: Ouyang Qian, Professor at the School of Philosophy, Renmin University of China.

作者简介：欧阳谦，中国人民大学哲学院教授。