The “Anti-Ecological Character” of Ecological Capitalism

Ecological capitalism is currently the mainstream theory on ecology in developed capitalist countries, primarily comprising two theoretical paradigms: ecological marketism and ecological Keynesianism. Whether ecological marketism or ecological Keynesianism, both are essentially reformist strategies constructed by Western scholars to resolve the ecological dilemmas of capitalist social development, and their theoretical manifestation is the theory of capitalist ecological modernization. From the standpoint, viewpoint, and method of Marxism, the analysis of the causes of ecological problems by ecological capitalist theory generally overlooks the deep-seated driver of the capitalist system logic. Although ecological problems arise from multiple factors such as population size and value concepts, the most fundamental cause lies in the mode of production and the social system that accompanies it. The expansionary, profit-seeking, and short-sighted nature of the capitalist mode of production and the capitalist system creates an inherent antagonistic contradiction between them and the construction of ecological civilization. To fundamentally solve ecological problems, it is necessary to dissolve the “anti-ecological character” of the mode of production and social system, and actively promote changes in the mode of production and institutional construction that align with the essence of ecological civilization. As socialism with Chinese characteristics enters the New Era, the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core is leading the broad masses of the Chinese people to successfully open up a path of socialist ecological civilization with Chinese characteristics.

生态资本主义是当前发达资本主义国家关于生态的主流理论，主要有生态市场主义和生态凯恩斯主义两种理论范式。无论是生态市场主义，还是生态凯恩斯主义，实际上都是西方学者为解决资本主义社会发展的生态困境所构建的改良策略，理论层面上的表现形式就是资本主义生态现代化理论。从马克思主义立场、观点、方法看，生态资本主义理论对于生态问题产生原因的分析普遍忽视了资本主义制度逻辑这一深层动因。生态问题的产生虽然有人口数量、价值观念等多重因素，但最根本原因就在于生产方式和与之相伴生的社会制度。资本主义生产方式和资本主义制度的扩张、趋利和短视，导致其与生态文明建设之间存在天然的矛盾对立。要想从根本上解决生态问题，就必须消解生产方式和社会制度的“反生态性”，积极推动与生态文明本质相符合的生产方式变革和制度建构。中国特色社会主义进入新时代，以习近平同志为核心的党中央，正带领广大中国人民成功开辟中国特色社会主义生态文明道路。

I. Market or Government: The Two Major Schools of Ecological Capitalism

一、市场还是政府：生态资本主义的两大派别

Within ecological capitalism, based on the criteria of market-led versus government-led, there are two main theoretical schools: ecological marketism and ecological Keynesianism.

在生态资本主义内部，以市场主导和政府主导为划分标准，主要存在两大理论派别：生态市场主义和生态凯恩斯主义。

Ecological marketism starts from the free market and the price mechanism, attempting to argue that through the spontaneous and orderly operation of the market, following the logic of the capitalist system along the path of “ecological capitalization,” ecological problems can be solved without government intervention. Ecological marketists believe that the free market is the optimal means to solve ecological problems, and that ecological issues can be entirely resolved through market mechanisms. Although they also recognize that in the early stages of industrialization, the disorderly expansion of the free market triggered “negative externalities” in economic development, damaging the ecological environment, they still believe that the “positive externalities” of economic development can offset the “negative externalities” through the spontaneous and orderly operation of the free market. In this process, the decisive factor is the “price mechanism” of the free market. Ecological marketists argue that compared to human intervention, the “price mechanism” has the advantage of rapidly capturing market signals from both the production and consumption ends; furthermore, the “price mechanism” can also accurately assess the ecological costs incurred in the processes of production, exchange, and consumption in a quantitative manner. Judging from the early practice of ecological marketism, this theory has not achieved the expected results. A primary issue in balancing economic development with ecological environmental protection is that ecological protection requires costs, while the basic logic of the free market is cost minimization and profit maximization. Whether at the enterprise level or the consumer level, even if ecological marketists firmly believe in the regulatory capacity of the free market, no enterprise or individual is willing to follow ecological principles and adopt high-cost production methods and lifestyles. Even if some groups are willing to follow ecological principles out of moral conscience, the actual effect is often negligible.

生态市场主义从自由市场和价格机制出发，试图论证通过市场自发有序运转，按照资本主义制度逻辑走“生态资本化”道路，不需要政府干预就能解决生态问题。生态市场主义者认为，自由市场是解决生态问题的最优手段，生态问题完全能够通过市场手段加以解决。尽管他们也看到了在早期工业化进程中，自由市场的无序扩张引发了经济发展“负外部性”，损害了生态环境，但仍认为能够通过自由市场的自发有序运转，以经济发展的“正外部性”抵消“负外部性”。而在这一过程中，起决定性作用的就是自由市场的“价格机制”。生态市场主义者认为，“价格机制”相较于人为干预，具有快速获取生产和消费两端市场信号的反应优势；此外，“价格机制”还能以量化方式准确评估生产、交换、消费过程中耗费的生态成本。从生态市场主义早期实践来看，这一理论并未取得预想效果。在经济发展过程中兼顾生态环境保护面临的一个首要问题是，生态环境保护需要耗费成本，而自由市场的基本逻辑却是成本最小化、利润最大化。不管是在企业层面，还是在消费者层面，即便生态市场主义坚信自由市场的调节能力，但仍没有企业、个人愿意遵循生态化原则，采取高成本生产方式和生活方式。即便部分群体出于道德自觉而愿意遵循生态化原则，但实际效果往往微乎其微。

In response to the above dilemma, ecological marketism attempts to use economic policy tools to accelerate the marketization and capitalization of ecological governance. If humans are viewed as rational economic actors, then on ecological issues, only when closely integrated with real economic interests can the ecological plans envisioned by humanity be truly implemented. This is the nature of humanity under the dominance of capital logic. Specifically, ecological marketism argues that, first, the externalized environmental costs in economic development should be internalized; second, according to the principle of environmental cost internalization, enterprises as the main polluters must pay the pollution control costs assessed by a third party; finally, the price of ecological products should objectively reflect the environmental costs incurred. The specific implementation path for these three major policy proposals is ecological tax reform, which in fact has begun to lean towards seeking government power, attempting to solve ecological problems through the interaction of the free market’s price mechanism and the government’s regulatory mechanism. As an external intervention measure of ecological marketism, the core of ecological tax reform is also built on the basic logic of the market mechanism. In specific ecological governance practice, the objects of taxation mainly cover multiple areas such as land, water, forests, minerals, and waste emissions. In the theoretical context of ecological marketism, ecological tax reform will increase the cost of ecological resources and ecological services in the processes of production and living. To minimize ecological costs as much as possible, individuals and enterprises will take corresponding measures to cope with cost changes, ultimately driving individual and corporate entities to contribute to ecological governance.

针对上述困境，生态市场主义试图借助经济政策手段加速实现生态治理市场化、资本化。如果将人看作理性经济人，在生态问题上只有与现实经济利益紧密结合，人类设想的生态计划才能真正实施。这是资本逻辑主导下的人性使然。具体而言，生态市场主义认为，首先，应推动经济发展中的外化环境成本走向内化；其次，根据环境成本内化原则，以企业为主体的生态污染者必须支付经由第三方评估的污染治理成本；最后，生态产品的价格应客观反映耗费的环境成本。上述三大政策主张的具体实施路径是生态税制改革，这实际上已开始倾向求助政府权力，试图以自由市场的价格机制和政府的调控机制的互动来解决生态问题。作为生态市场主义的外部干预手段，生态税制改革的核心也是建立在市场机制的基础逻辑之上。在具体生态治理实践中，征税对象主要涵盖土地、水、森林矿产、废弃物排放等多个领域。在生态市场主义理论语境下，生态税制改革将会提升生产生活过程中的生态资源成本和生态服务成本，为尽可能降低生态成本，个人和企业都会采取相应措施以应对成本变化，最后推动个人主体和企业主体在生态治理中作出贡献。

In addition to ecological tax reform, ecological marketism also attempts to establish a “pollution permit” system to “reconcile” the opposition between production development and ecological protection. Regarding pollutant emissions in the production process, the government should quantitatively demonstrate the annual emission standards for pollutants in advance, and issue and sell “pollution permits” to enterprises with pollution needs. If an enterprise’s annual pollution quota is not exhausted, it can continue to sell it to other enterprises on the market according to the price mechanism. On this basis, with economic development and technological progress, the government will gradually reduce the share of pollution permits through an overall assessment of economic and social development. As the share of pollution permits decreases, high-consumption production entities will gradually withdraw from the market and be eliminated. Furthermore, ecological capitalism also emphasizes that the economic benefits brought by “ecological tax reform” and the “pollution permit system” should be fed back into ecological and environmental governance in the form of national finance. In the view of ecological marketists, the above two government actions will strengthen the development flexibility of corporate entities, expand ecological effects from the local to the whole through a forcing mechanism, and ultimately promote a virtuous cycle in economic and social development.

除生态税制改革外，生态市场主义还试图建立“污染许可证”制度，以“调和”生产发展和生态保护的对立。对于生产过程中污染物的排放，政府应提前对污染物的年度排放标准进行量化论证，并向有污染需求的企业发放、出售“污染许可证”。如果企业年度污染份额未耗尽，还能按照价格机制继续在市场上向别的企业出售。在此基础上，随着经济发展和技术进步，政府通过对经济社会发展状况的总体评估而逐步减少污染许可份额。随着污染许可份额减少，高消耗的生产主体会逐渐从市场抽离，被市场淘汰。此外，生态资本主义还强调，“生态税制改革”和“污染许可证制度”带来的经济效益，应以国家财政形式重新反馈于生态环境治理。在生态市场主义者看来，上述两种政府行为将会强化企业主体发展弹性，通过倒逼的方式将生态效应由局部扩展到整体，最终推动经济社会发展呈现出良性循环态势。

In essence, the core of the theoretical propositions of ecological marketism is to take the path of “ecological capitalization” through the marketization of ecological resources. Although it partially involves national government macro-policies, these policies are implemented in the manner of “ecological capitalization.” Simply put, it defines ecological resources as “commodities” to be used at a cost under the market price mechanism. In this regard, the ecological socialist Saral Sarkar issued a warning: charging for pollution turns environmental services into commodities, whereupon an enterprise can legally pollute more by paying higher fees. Judging from the early practical results of ecological marketism, the path of “ecological capitalization” dominated by market principles has not achieved the expected effects; instead, it has further legalized the exploitation and destruction of the ecological environment by capital entities, fully demonstrating the anti-ecological characteristics of market logic, especially capital logic.

本质上看，生态市场主义理论主张的核心就是以生态资源市场化方式走出“生态资本化”道路，尽管它部分涉及国家政府宏观政策，但政策却是按照“生态资本化”方式实施的。简单地说，就是将生态资源界定为“商品”，在市场价格机制作用下进行有偿使用。对此，生态社会主义者萨拉·萨卡发出警告：对污染的收费把环境服务转换成了商品，届时一个企业可以通过支付更高的费用来合法污染更多的环境。从生态市场主义早期实践成效来看，以市场原则为主导的“生态资本化”道路没有达到预期效果，反而使资本主体对生态环境的剥削破坏进一步合法化，充分展示出市场逻辑尤其是资本逻辑的反生态特征。

Precisely because ecological marketism did not achieve the expected results in concrete practice, another theory emerged within ecological capitalist theory—ecological Keynesianism. Ecological Keynesianism has formed a systematic theory of ecological intervention, arguing that solving ecological problems cannot rely on the single role of the market, and that large-scale government planning and macroeconomic regulation are necessary. Judging from the practical effects of ecological marketism, ecological modernization cannot be achieved through the free market; the disorder of the free market will instead lead to chaos in ecological governance. Therefore, ecological Keynesianism argues that it is necessary to resort to macroeconomic regulation at the level of the national government. In the view of ecological Keynesianists, the practices of “ecological tax reform” and establishing a “pollution permit system” are commendable, but such policy recommendations are far from sufficient for successful ecological protection. The government’s power and functions in the process of ecological governance cannot be limited to initial intervention but must be extended to all links of production, distribution, exchange, and consumption.

正是由于生态市场主义在具体实践过程中并未达到预期效果，生态资本主义理论内部出现了另一种理论——生态凯恩斯主义。生态凯恩斯主义形成了一套系统的生态干预理论，认为解决生态问题不能依靠单一市场作用，大规模政府计划和宏观调控是必要的。从生态市场主义实践效果来看，生态现代化并不能通过自由市场实现，自由市场的无序性反而会导致生态治理走向混乱。因此，生态凯恩斯主义认为必须求助于国家政府层面的宏观调控。在生态凯恩斯主义者看来，“生态税制改革”和建立“污染许可证制度”的做法值得肯定，但这种政策建议离成功进行生态保护相距甚远。政府在生态治理过程中的权力职能不能仅限于初始干预，必须扩展至生产、分配、交换、消费全部环节。

Ecological Keynesians focus their criticism of ecological marketism on the latter’s entry into the theoretical error of what Samuelson called the “fallacy of composition.” In simple terms, although some propositions of ecological marketism are worthy of affirmation, the problem lies in the preconceived extension of micro-level correctness to the macro-level whole; that is, “ecological tax reform” and “pollution permit systems” may be correct at the micro level of individuals and enterprises, but their effect at the macro level of the economic operation process is another matter. Whether in terms of function or the scope of power intervention, the government should and does have the capacity to extend its scope to all links of production, distribution, exchange, and consumption, rather than limiting its vision to the partial pollution volume of individual subjects and enterprise subjects. Furthermore, compared with ecological marketism’s emphasis on the consistency of economic efficiency and ecological efficiency, ecological Keynesianism goes a step further by incorporating the employment issue into the vision of ecological modernization, that is, solving the unemployment problem while solving the ecological problem.

生态凯恩斯主义者批评生态市场主义的重点在于，后者进入了萨缪尔森所言“合成谬误”的理论误区。简单来说，生态市场主义的部分主张虽值得肯定，但问题在于将微观层面的正确性先入为主扩展到宏观整体层面，即“生态税制改革”和“污染许可证制度”在微观的个体、企业层面可能是正确的，但在经济运行过程的宏观层面效果如何则另当别论。无论是从职能，还是从权力干预范围来看，政府都应该且有能力将范围扩展至生产、分配、交换、消费各环节，而不应将视野局限于个人主体和企业主体的局部污染量。此外，相较于生态市场主义强调经济效益与生态效益的一致性，生态凯恩斯主义更进一步将就业问题纳入生态现代化的视野，即在解决生态问题的同时解决失业问题。

Ecological Keynesianism emphasizes that the national government should transition from the role of “night watchman” to that of “designer,” carrying out an ecological reconstruction of modern industrial society through powerful macroeconomic regulation. Ecological Keynesian Rudolf Hilker criticized that the “free market” proposition of ecological marketism faces a dual predicament in theory and practice: neither “ecological tax reform” nor “pollution permit systems” can provide a practical and feasible method to solve the old problem of unchecked accumulation of toxic waste, a major issue for all developed industrial societies. Specifically, the theoretical propositions of ecological Keynesianism are mainly manifested in the following two aspects.

生态凯恩斯主义强调国家政府应该从“守夜人”角色过渡至“设计师”角色，通过强有力的宏观调控对现代工业社会进行生态重建。生态凯恩斯主义者鲁道夫·希尔克批评道，生态市场主义的“自由市场”主张面临理论和实践的双重困境，无论“生态税制改革”还是“污染许可证”制度，都不能提供一种切实可行的方法来解决无节制的有毒废弃物堆积的老问题，这是所有发达工业社会的重大问题。具体而言，生态凯恩斯主义的理论主张主要表现在以下两方面。

First, the government must not only carry out ecological regulation of the micro-market under the effect of the price mechanism but also must plan large-scale ecological investment. The purpose of large-scale ecological investment is to support the development of industries that meet ecological governance requirements (low input, low consumption, low emissions), consider appropriately increasing the supply of public services, reduce the use of industrial machinery in the form of enterprise labor subsidies, increase human input, and provide more employment positions. In this way, both the ecological problem and the employment problem can be solved simultaneously. As early as the 1980s, the German Trade Union Federation (DGB) proposed a policy advisory suggestion, arguing that the state should invest 50 billion German marks in more than 50 ecological projects over four years. At that time, this series of projects could solve the employment problem for several hundred thousand people.

第一，政府不仅要在价格机制作用下对微观市场进行生态管制，而且必须有计划进行大规模生态投资。大规模生态投资的目的在于扶持符合生态治理要求（低投入、低消耗、低排放）的产业发展，考虑适当增加公共服务供给，以企业劳工补贴形式降低工业机器使用，增加人力投入，提供更多就业岗位。如此，就能同时解决生态问题和就业问题。早在20世纪80年代，德国工会联合会（DGB）就提出了一项政策咨询建议，认为国家应在4年间为50余个生态项目投资500亿马克。届时，这一系列项目约可解决几十万人的就业问题。

Second, under the impetus of the government, post-industrial-era ecologically regulating technologies should be used to eliminate industrial-era ecologically destructive technologies. With the development and progress of science and technology, especially ecological technology, its role in economic production and ecological governance has become increasingly prominent. Ecological technology will run through the entire process of ecological social reconstruction as an important means. Driven by ecological technology, the vigorous development of the ecological industry will correspondingly generate a large number of new demands for ecological products, leading to a substitution trend of ecological products for industrial products. Under the combined effect of government regulation and the market mechanism, the ecological industry will expand from a certain field to the entire process of economic and social development, fundamentally increasing economic resilience. In short, compared with ecological marketism, ecological Keynesianism always holds a skeptical attitude toward the ecological utility of the market mechanism, places more emphasis on the government’s role in resource allocation at the redistribution level, and takes into account social livelihood issues while considering ecological problems.

第二，应在政府推动下，通过后工业时代的生态调节型技术淘汰工业时代的生态破坏型技术。随着科学技术尤其是生态技术发展进步，其在经济生产和生态治理中的作用愈发凸显。生态技术将会作为一种重要手段贯穿于生态社会重建的始终。在生态技术推动下，生态产业的蓬勃发展相应会催生大量新的生态化产品需求，进而出现生态产品对工业产品的替代态势，并在政府调控和市场机制联合作用下将生态产业由某一领域扩展至经济社会发展全过程，从根本上增加经济弹性。简言之，相较于生态市场主义，生态凯恩斯主义对市场机制的生态效用始终持怀疑态度，更为注重政府在再分配层面的资源配置作用，且在考虑生态问题的同时关照社会民生问题。

Whether it is ecological marketism or ecological Keynesianism, both are actually reform strategies constructed by Western scholars to solve the ecological predicament of capitalist social development. At the theoretical level, their manifestation is the capitalist ecological modernization theory. At a broad level, “‘ecological capitalism’ can be more broadly summarized as a gradualist approach and practice for dealing with ecological and environmental problems, with economic and technological innovation as the main means, under the capitalist institutional framework composed of modern democratic political systems and market economy mechanisms.” Objectively speaking, as the mainstream theory for promoting ecological construction in Western countries, ecological capitalism plays an increasingly important role in the economic development, ecological governance, and social change of capitalist countries. Some scholars even believe that among the numerous and complex ecological theories in the West, ecological capitalism will assume the important mission of “green economy” and “green new deal.” Despite a series of progressive significances, whether ecological capitalism can thoroughly solve ecological problems, solve social problems while solving ecological problems, and ultimately even resolve the contradictions of capitalism still requires further observation and discussion.

无论是生态市场主义，还是生态凯恩斯主义，实际上都是西方学者为解决资本主义社会发展的生态困境所构建的改良策略，在理论层面的表现形式就是资本主义的生态现代化理论。在广义层面，“‘生态资本主义’可以更宽泛地概括为，在现代民主政治体制与市场经济机制共同组成的资本主义制度架构下，以经济技术革新为主要手段应对生态环境问题的渐进性解决思路与实践”。客观来看，生态资本主义作为西方国家推进生态建设的主流理论，在资本主义国家的经济发展、生态治理和社会变革中发挥着越来越重要的作用。甚至有学者认为，在西方纷繁芜杂的生态理论中，生态资本主义将会承担起“绿色经济”和“绿色新政”的重要使命。尽管具有一系列进步意义，但生态资本主义能否彻底解决生态问题，在解决生态问题的同时解决社会问题，甚至最终化解资本主义矛盾，仍需进一步观察与讨论。

II. A Political Economy Critique of the “Anti-Ecological Character” of Ecological Capitalism

二、生态资本主义“反生态性”的政治经济学批判

Objectively speaking, to fundamentally solve ecological problems, one must first scientifically recognize the root causes of ecological problems. Only by starting from the root cause can one avoid falling into the cycle of “pollution—treatment—pollution.” From the standpoint, viewpoint, and method of Marxism, ecological capitalism generally overlooks the fundamental cause of ecological problems, namely, the logic of the capitalist system. On this point, French eco-socialist Michael Löwy profoundly pointed out: “As Marxists say, our answer is: the cause lies in the capitalist system. Its absurdity, the irrational logic of its infinite expansion and accumulation, its obsession with productivism at all costs in pursuit of profit, should be held responsible for humanity falling into the abyss.” Ecological Marxist John Bellamy Foster, in *The Ecological Crisis and Capitalism*, more explicitly pointed out: “Ecology and capitalism are two opposing fields; this opposition is not manifested in every instance, but as a whole in the interaction between the two.” There is a natural and irreconcilable rift between “ecology” and “capitalism”; as long as something is ecological, it is necessarily non-capitalist; as long as something is capitalist, it is necessarily anti-ecological. The ability to make this judgment stems from the expansionary, profit-seeking, and short-sighted characteristics of the logic of the capitalist system, which are fundamentally contradictory and opposed to “ecology.” A fact implied by the logic of the capitalist system is that, within the capitalist framework, any attempt by ecological capitalism to solve ecological problems is essentially just tinkering; only by transforming the capitalist system can attempts to solve ecological problems have theoretical persuasiveness and practical feasibility.

客观来看，要想从根本上解决生态问题，首先应科学认清生态问题产生的根源。只有从根源入手，才不会陷入“污染—治理—污染”的循环。从马克思主义立场、观点、方法来看，生态资本主义普遍忽视了生态问题的根本原因，即资本主义制度逻辑。对此，法国生态社会主义者迈克尔·洛维深刻指出：“正如马克思主义者所说，我们的答案是：起因在于资本主义体系。它的荒谬性，它无限扩张和积累的非理性逻辑，它痴迷于不惜一切代价追求利润的生产主义，应当为人类陷入深渊负责。”生态马克思主义者约翰·贝拉米·福斯特在《生态危机与资本主义》中更为明确指出：“生态和资本主义是相互对立的两个领域，这种对立不是表现在每一个实例之中，而是作为一个整体表现在两者之间的相互作用之中。”“生态”与“资本主义”之间存在天然的且后天无法化解的裂缝；只要是生态的，必然是非资本主义的；只要是资本主义的，必然是反生态的。而能够做出这种判断，根源在于资本主义制度逻辑的扩张、趋利和短视特征，这些因素与“生态”具有根本的矛盾对立。资本主义制度逻辑暗含的一个事实是：在资本主义框架下，生态资本主义任何尝试解决生态问题的做法本质上都只是小修小补；只有变革资本主义制度，解决生态问题的尝试才具有理论说服力和实践可行性。

First, from the expansionary characteristic of the logic of the capitalist system, Marx profoundly pointed out in *Capital* when analyzing “capital” that capital is not a thing; in essence, it is value in process of self-expansion, a capitalist social relation mediated by some thing. As the concrete manifestation of capitalist social relations, the value of existence and purpose of the special category of capital is to “suck” living labor without limit; to achieve this goal, “capital pursues universality without restraint,” extending its claws not only to the working class but also to the “defenseless” natural world. The particularity of capitalism lies in the fact that it must be built on the basis of infinite expansion; once expansion stops, it means its own “end.” Therefore, from the nature of capitalism, “each unit of capital faces the fate of what is commonly called ‘expand or die’; each capitalist must endlessly seek to expand markets and increase profits, or else lose their position in the hierarchical structure.” As long as capitalism exists, it must inevitably pursue an economic development model of infinite expansion and infinite growth. Once the natural resources obtained exceed the ecological limits, ecological problems will accompany capitalism in a vicious cycle.

第一，从资本主义制度逻辑的扩张特征来看，马克思在《资本论》中分析“资本”时深刻指出，资本不是物，其在本质上是自行增殖的价值，是以某种物为中介的资本主义社会关系。作为资本主义社会关系的具象表现，资本这一特殊范畴的存在价值和目的就是无限度“吮吸”活劳动；为实现这一目标，“资本可不遏制地追求普遍性”，不仅将魔爪伸向工人阶级，更伸向“无法反抗”的自然界。资本主义的特殊性在于，它必须建立在无限扩张的基础之上，一旦停止扩张，也就意味着自身的“终结”。因此，从资本主义本性来看，“每个单位的资本都要面临俗话所说的‘要么增长，要么死亡’的命运，每个资本家必须无止境地寻求扩大市场和增加利润，否则将失去在等级结构中的地位”。只要资本主义存在，就必然要追求无限扩张、无限增长的经济发展模式。而一旦获取的自然资源超出生态界限，生态问题就会以一种恶性循环的方式伴随资本主义始终。

Second, from the perspective of the profit-seeking characteristic of the logic of the capitalist system, the purpose of capitalist production is not to satisfy people’s needs for use value, but to maximize value augmentation in order to obtain more exchange value. The exchange value of wealth in capitalist society is universally expressed in the form of money. Therefore, the purpose of capitalist production is to obtain money. In capitalist society, all types of needs can ultimately be reduced to one type, namely the need for money. Moreover, under the logic of the capitalist system, money must necessarily re-enter the sphere of production and the sphere of circulation, ultimately acquiring the attribute of capital and once again possessing the logic of augmentation and expansion. Consequently, what capitalist countries care about most in economic and social development is growth in the value dimension, such as economic growth rates and total economic output, while they belittle human development, not to mention the ecological environment. In short, capitalism takes profit acquisition, rather than human development and ecological protection, as its purpose, treating people (workers) and nature alike as tools for value augmentation.

第二，从资本主义制度逻辑的趋利特征来看，资本主义生产的目的不是满足人的使用价值需要，而是最大程度实现价值增殖，以获取更多交换价值。资本主义社会财富的交换价值又普遍以货币为形式。因此，资本主义的生产目的就是获取货币。在资本主义社会，一切需要的类型最终都能归结为一种，即对货币的需要。并且，在资本主义制度逻辑下，货币必然要再次进入生产领域和流通领域，最终具有资本属性，再度具备了增殖扩张的逻辑。因此，资本主义国家在经济社会发展中最关注的就是经济增速、经济总量等价值维度的增长，而轻视人的发展，更不用提生态环境。简言之，资本主义以获取利润，而不是以人的发展和生态保护为目的，将人（劳动者）和自然界统统看作价值增殖的工具。

Third, from the perspective of the short-sighted characteristic of the logic of the capitalist system, as a derived characteristic of the logic of the capitalist system, short-sightedness is determined by the expansionary and profit-seeking characteristics of the logic of the capitalist system. To achieve capital augmentation and expansion and to extract surplus value without limit, many governments and enterprises in capitalist society usually focus only on short-term immediate interests and lack long-term consideration for economic and social development. “Industrial enterprises cannot operate for future generations… We must now produce for the market in order to make money.” This leads them to completely ignore the “limits of nature”; even when they attach importance to ecological issues in order to alleviate domestic ecological contradictions, their methods of resolution are means such as resource exploitation and pollution transfer. The ecological tax reform and ecological technology application advocated by ecological capitalism appear feasible on the surface, but as long as they touch the cake of the ruling class and hinder capital augmentation, they cannot be smoothly advanced in practice.

第三，从资本主义制度逻辑的短视特征来看，作为资本主义制度逻辑的派生特征，短视是由资本主义制度逻辑的扩张和趋利特征决定的。为实现资本增殖扩张、无限度获取剩余价值，资本主义社会中不少政府、企业，通常只关注短期眼前利益，对于经济社会发展缺乏长足考量。“工业企业不可能为后代而运转……我们现在必须为市场而生产，才能赚钱。”这就导致其全然无视“自然的极限”，即便为缓和国内生态矛盾而重视生态问题，其解决方式也是通过资源剥削和污染转移等手段。生态资本主义提倡的生态税制改革和生态技术应用看似具有可行性，但只要动了统治阶级的蛋糕，阻碍了资本增殖，在实践中就无法顺利推进。

Viewed from the historical process of the development of human civilization, the driving effect of capitalism on social productive forces is indeed unmatched by previous social formations; this is also the “civilizing” effect of capital that Marx discussed. However, this civilizing character of capitalism precisely contains a destructive side. From the perspective of human development, capitalism treats workers as commodities; workers obtain the freedom of “owning nothing,” freely selling their labor power. Prescribed by the logic of the capitalist system, workers are reduced to tools for augmentation. In capitalist society, both capital owners and workers deviate from their free nature, presenting a highly reified state. Capital owners lose themselves in the competition for value augmentation, alienated into “personified” capital, while workers who have lost the means of production are completely subordinated to capital. From the perspective of human relations, “there is no other connection between people except naked self-interest, except callous ‘cash payment’.” [6]6 Marx and Engels, *The Communist Manifesto*. Under the rule of capitalism, materialism and egoism prevail, and people have no time to care about anything beyond working for money. From the perspective of the relationship between humans and nature, capitalism also creates an antagonistic contradiction between humans and nature. Capital, as a “runaway horse” without boundaries or national borders, inevitably extends its tentacles into every field and region; anything can become an object for capital to trample wantonly. Under the logic of capital augmentation, “production on the one hand comes from the infinite exploitation of workers, and on the other hand from the infinite plundering of nature.” As long as the capitalist system continues to exist, ecological problems manifested in the form of the antagonism between humans and nature cannot be fundamentally resolved, and ecological problems will inevitably assume a globalized trend, ultimately making the people of developing countries pay the price. The increase in ecological problems and the expansion of capital augmentation are two sides of the same coin, accompanying each other; wherever capital expands globally, it will inevitably trigger ecological problems.

从人类文明发展的历史进程来看，资本主义对于社会生产力的推动作用确实是以往社会形态无法比拟的，这也是马克思所谈到的资本的“文明”作用，但资本主义的这种文明性恰恰包含了毁灭性一面。从人的发展来看，资本主义将劳动者当作商品，劳动者获得了“一无所有”的自由，自由出卖自己的劳动力。在资本主义制度逻辑规定下，劳动者沦为增殖工具。在资本主义社会，资本所有者与劳动者，都在背离其自由本性，呈现出高度的物化状态。资本所有者在价值增殖竞争中迷失，异化为“人格化”资本，而失去生产条件的劳动者则彻底从属于资本。从人与人的关系来看，“人和人之间除了赤裸裸的利害关系，除了冷酷无情的‘现金交易’，就再也没有任何别的联系”。在资本主义统治下，物质主义、利己主义盛行，人们根本无暇顾及工作挣钱之外的事物。从人与自然的关系来看，资本主义还造成了人与自然的矛盾对立。资本作为没有边界、国界的“脱缰野马”，必然要将触手伸向各个领域、地域，任何事物都能成为资本肆意践踏的对象。在资本增殖的逻辑作用下，“生产一方面来自于对工人的无限剥削，另一方面来自于对自然的无限索取”。只要资本主义制度持续存在，以人与自然对立为表现形式的生态问题就不可能得到彻底解决，并且生态问题必然会呈现出全球化态势，最终使广大发展中国家的人民埋单。生态问题的增加与资本增殖的扩张是一体两面、相伴相生的；只要资本在全球进行扩张，所到之处必然会引发生态问题。

Marx profoundly pointed out: “Modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the production and appropriation of products based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of some by others.” [7]7 Marx and Engels, *The Communist Manifesto*. The capitalist private ownership of the means of production determines that capitalist countries only care about the interests of a part, a minority, namely the interests of the capitalists; the interests of the majority within the whole, as well as the ecological environment as a public resource, can hardly enter the scope of capitalist protection. Apart from the interests of capitalists, everything else can become an object of exploitation and appropriation. Therefore, “the most direct result of private property is the splitting of production into two opposing aspects: the natural aspect and the human aspect, namely land and human activity.” [8]8 Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*. Regarding the problem of the antagonism between humans and nature, Marx believed that it must be resolved by transforming the capitalist system; only by eliminating the institutional foundation of the capitalist logic of expansion can the “anti-ecological character” of capitalism be fundamentally dismantled.

马克思深刻指出：“现代的资产阶级私有制是建立在阶级对立上面、建立在一些人对另一些人的剥削上面的产品生产和占有的最后而又最完备的表现。”资本主义生产资料私有制决定了资本主义国家关注的只是局部、少数人的利益，即资本家的利益；整体范围内大多数人的利益以及作为公共资源的生态环境，很难进入资本主义的保护范围。除资本家利益，其他一切事物都能成为被剥削、占有的对象。因此，“私有制的最直接的结果是生产分裂为两个对立的方面：自然的方面和人的方面，即土地和人的活动”。对于人与自然对立问题，马克思认为必须通过变革资本主义制度的方式来解决，只有消灭资本主义扩张逻辑的制度基础，才能从根本上瓦解资本主义的“反生态性”。

It is precisely the anti-ecological nature of the logic of the capitalist system that renders any effort to protect the ecology within the framework of the capitalist system ultimately futile. Although ecological capitalism is committed to solving the ecological problems of capitalist countries, its specific proposals and strategies do not touch the substantive root of ecological problems; therefore, it can only alleviate but cannot fundamentally cure ecological problems. At the essential level, ecological capitalism actually dresses capitalism in a green cloak through the means of capital innovation. As a historical category, capitalism is bound to perish. However, from the perspective of its internal developmental logic, capitalism will inevitably try every means to prolong its lifespan. Therefore, since its birth, the form of capitalism has undergone many changes. No matter how it changes, the essence of capitalism has not changed. As the latest form of morphological evolution, the nature of ecological capitalism remains profit-seeking. “Since the profit-seeking nature has not changed, the basic contradiction between the socialization of production and the capitalist private appropriation of the means of production has not changed; the contradiction between ecological capital and ecological justice will inevitably erupt from time to time, ultimately leading to a deviation from and alienation of the essence of ecological justice and ecological civilization.” [9]9 The author cites a Chinese scholar’s argument here; the original source is not identified in the text. It is in the above sense that the author believes that, as a short-term, gradualist strategy for capitalist countries to alleviate ecological problems, ecological capitalism cannot fundamentally solve ecological problems in the long run, and its theory itself possesses an “anti-ecological character.”

正是资本主义制度逻辑的反生态本性，导致任何在资本主义制度框架下保护生态的努力实际上都无济于事。生态资本主义虽然致力于解决资本主义国家的生态问题，但其具体主张、策略并未触及生态问题的实质根源，因此，只能缓解而无法根治生态问题。从本质层面看，生态资本主义实际上通过资本创新的方式，为资本主义披上了绿色外衣。作为一种历史范畴，资本主义必将走向灭亡。但从内部发展逻辑来看，资本主义必然要想方设法延续寿命。因此，自诞生以来，资本主义的形态已历经多种变化。无论如何变化，资本主义的本质并未发生改变。作为形态演变的最新样式，生态资本主义本性仍旧是逐利的。“既然逐利本性没有变，生产的社会化与生产资料资本主义私人占有之间的基本矛盾没有变，生态资本与生态正义之间的矛盾一定会不时地爆发，最终导致对生态正义和生态文明本质的偏离和异化。”正是在上述意义上，笔者认为，作为资本主义国家缓解生态问题的短期性、渐进性策略，生态资本主义从长期来看是不可能彻底解决生态问题的，其理论本身具有“反生态”。

III. The Prerequisite and Foundation for Solving Ecological Problems: The Public Ownership Form of Ownership

三、解决生态问题的前提和根基：所有制的公有制形式

According to the foregoing discussion, although the emergence of ecological problems is influenced by multiple factors such as population size and value concepts, the most fundamental cause lies in the mode of production and the social system that accompanies it. The expansionary, profit-seeking, and short-sighted characteristics of the capitalist mode of production and the capitalist system lead to an inherent contradiction between capitalism and ecological development. To fundamentally solve ecological problems, it is necessary to eliminate the anti-ecological character of the social system and actively promote changes in the mode of production that conform to the requirements of ecological civilization construction. John Bachtell, Chairman of the Communist Party USA, profoundly pointed out: “It is difficult for the capitalist mode of production to create harmony in the relationship among humans, nature, and society. Only when people reach socialist society can this harmony become a reality.” [10]10 John Bachtell, then Chairman of the Communist Party USA; the quotation is from his writings or speeches on socialism and ecology. Compared with capitalism, socialism possesses multiple advantages in solving ecological problems, including in terms of value stance, institutional foundation, and economic system.

据前文所述，生态问题的产生虽然受人口数量、价值观念等多重因素，但最为根本的原因就在于生产方式和与之相伴生的社会制度。资本主义生产方式和资本主义制度的扩张、趋利和短视特征，导致资本主义与生态发展之间存在天然矛盾。要想从根本上解决生态问题，就必须消解社会制度的反生态性，积极推动与生态文明建设要求相符合的生产方式变革。美国共产党主席约翰·巴切特尔深刻指出：“资本主义的生产方式很难在人、自然和社会三者关系中创造和谐。人们只有到社会主义社会，才能让这种和谐成为现实。”相较于资本主义，社会主义在解决生态问题上具有价值立场、制度基础和经济体制等多重优势。

First, from the perspective of value stance, there is a difference in advantages between capitalism’s “value augmentation as the core” and socialism’s “people-centered” approach. As a product of the bourgeois revolution, the capitalist system naturally prioritizes safeguarding the interests of capitalists, presenting a development thought of “value augmentation as the core” in its value stance. As a product of the proletarian revolution, the socialist system naturally prioritizes safeguarding the fundamental interests of all the people, presenting a development thought of “people-centered” in its value stance.

第一，从价值立场来看，是资本主义“以价值增殖为核心”和社会主义“以人民为中心”的优势差异。资本主义制度作为资产阶级革命的产物，首要维护的自然是资本家的利益，在价值立场上呈现出“以价值增殖为核心”的发展思想。社会主义制度作为无产阶级革命的产物，首要维护的必然是全体人民的根本利益，在价值立场上呈现出“以人民为中心”的发展思想。

Second, from the perspective of the institutional foundation, it is the difference in superiority between capitalist private ownership and socialist public ownership. Under the conditions of capitalist private ownership, “the contradiction between the socialization of production and the capitalist private appropriation of the means of production” has remained unresolved since the birth of capitalism and cannot be resolved. On the one hand, the enormous expansion of wealth in the upper strata of society generates massive waste and pollution; on the other hand, the lower strata of society are filled with extreme poverty and injustice, making it difficult to genuinely satisfy the basic living needs of the people. Under the conditions of socialist public ownership, the means of subsistence (including natural resources) are commonly possessed by all the people, and there is no situation where privileged strata privately possess ecological resources. “The entire society, a nation, indeed all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not the owners of the land. They are merely its possessors, its beneficiaries, and they must hand it down to subsequent generations as good heads of household, having improved it.” [11]11 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 3, Chapter 46. The original passage reads: “From the standpoint of a higher economic form of society, the private ownership of the globe by single individuals will appear quite as absurd as the private ownership of one man by another. Even a whole society, a nation, or even all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not the owners of the globe. They are only its possessors, its usufructuaries, and, like *boni patres familias*, they must hand it down to succeeding generations in an improved condition.” The author’s citation is a paraphrase. Socialist public ownership, by continuously eliminating the “contradiction between the socialization of production and the capitalist private appropriation of the means of production,” abolishes not only the exploitation of the laboring people at the bottom by capital but also the enslavement and plunder of natural resources by capital. Under the conditions of socialist public ownership, the products created by laborers belong to society as a whole, and the needs of the laborers themselves are rationally satisfied through the socialist mode of distribution; at the same time, social production will adopt a planned, non-destructive approach to the extraction of natural resources. As Marx profoundly pointed out, in communist society, “socialized humanity, the associated producers, will rationally regulate their material interchange with nature.” [12]12 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 3, Chapter 48. The original passage reads: “The realm of freedom actually begins only where labour which is determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases; thus in the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of actual material production. … Freedom in this field can only consist in socialized man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature.” The author’s citation is a paraphrase. The fundamental purpose of the logic of the socialist system is not accumulation or expansion, nor is it safeguarding the interests of a particular group; rather, it is to take the overall relationship between humanity and nature as its standpoint, to take the satisfaction of human needs for use-values as the goal of production, and to strive to achieve the free liberation and comprehensive development of all humanity as soon as possible.

第二，从制度基础来看，是资本主义私有制和社会主义公有制的优势差异。在资本主义私有制条件下，“生产的社会化与生产资料资本主义私人占有之间的矛盾”自资本主义诞生之日起一直未能解决，也不可能解决。一方面，上层社会财富巨大膨胀，造成大量浪费与污染；另一方面，底层社会则充斥着赤贫与不公，人民的基本生活需要很难得到真正满足。在社会主义公有制条件下，生存资料（包括自然资源）归全体人民共同占有，不存在特权阶层私人占有生态资源的情况，“整个社会，一个民族，以至一切同时存在的社会加在一起，都不是土地的所有者。他们只是土地的占有者，土地的受益者，并且他们应当作为好家长把经过改良的土地传给后代”。社会主义公有制通过不断消除资本主义“生产的社会化与生产资料资本主义私人占有之间矛盾”，消灭了资本对底层劳动人民的剥削现象，还消灭了资本对于自然资源的奴役攫取现象。在社会主义公有制条件下，劳动者创造的产品归社会所有，劳动者自身需要会在社会主义分配方式下得到合理满足；同时，社会生产对于开采自然资源将采取有计划、非破坏性方式。正如马克思深刻指出，在共产主义社会，“社会化的人，联合起来的生产者，将合理地调节他们和自然之间的物质变换”。社会主义制度逻辑的根本目的不在于增殖、扩张，不在于维护某一部分群体的利益，而在于立足人与自然的整体关系，以满足人类使用价值需要为生产目的，力求早日实现全人类的自由解放和全面发展。

Third, from the perspective of the economic system, it is the difference in superiority between the capitalist market economy and the socialist market economy. Under the capitalist market economic system, economic and social development is left to the dominance of the free market, with the government playing only a supplementary role and stepping in only after problems and crises have emerged; the government is often merely the “night watchman” of “wealth,” essentially an accomplice in capital’s pursuit of profit, allowing the free market to develop unchecked. However, the market is not omnipotent; the spontaneity, blindness, and lag of the market determine that once the market is allowed to develop freely, it will create a vicious cycle of ecological problems. In contrast, the socialist market economy emphasizes the decisive role of the market in resource allocation while better leveraging the role of the government. Compared to the “night watchman” government of capitalist countries, the socialist state government is more of a “planner” and “regulator,” using the government’s “compassion” to compensate for the market’s “ruthlessness.” The socialist market economy must operate under the influence of socialist political forces; it is a planned, purposeful, and foresighted market economy, which largely eliminates the harms caused by market mechanism failures. “The goal of socialism is not accumulation, but the development of global productive forces to meet the needs of the laboring people. Therefore, we see that socialism, by its very nature, is a harmonious, universal economic form.” [13]13 The source of this quotation is not identified in the original text. It appears to be a paraphrase or summary of a view associated with socialist economic theory, possibly from a Chinese source or a Soviet-era text.

第三，从经济体制来看，是资本主义市场经济与社会主义市场经济的优势差异。在资本主义市场经济体制下，经济社会发展交由自由市场主导，政府只是起辅助作用，并且在问题、危机出现后方才登场；政府往往只是“财富”的“守夜人”，本质上就是资本逐利的帮凶而任由自由市场发展。然而，市场不是万能的，市场的自发性、盲目性、滞后性等弊端决定了一旦任凭市场自由发展，就会造成生态问题恶性循环。相较而言，社会主义市场经济在资源配置方式上强调市场的决定性作用和更好发挥政府作用。相较于资本主义国家政府的“守夜人”，社会主义国家政府更多是“规划人”“调控人”，用政府的“有情”来弥补市场的“无情”。社会主义市场经济必须在社会主义政治力量作用下运行，是有计划、有目的、有预见的市场经济，在很大程度上消除了由市场机制失灵导致的危害。“社会主义的目的不是积累，而是以发展全球生产力，来满足劳动人民的需要。因此，我们看到，社会主义由于它本身的特质，是一个和谐的、普遍的经济形态。”

The issue that needs to be clarified here is that, from a theoretical perspective, only socialism is a social form compatible with the requirements of ecological civilization; but from a practical perspective, why has China, as the world’s largest socialist country, also experienced ecological problems in the process of modernization? This contradiction between theory and practice has led some people to make misjudgments. On this issue, we must have a clear understanding: China’s ecological problems are not caused by public ownership but by multiple historical and practical factors. On the one hand, constrained by the level of development of productive forces, we neglected to a certain extent the issue of the “quality” of economic development, forming an extensive development model over a certain historical period. On the other hand, in the process of developing the socialist market economy, we had neither ready-made theoretical guidance nor successful experiences to draw upon; we could only grope our way forward. Coupled with the transfer of pollution from developed capitalist countries, these factors jointly triggered China’s ecological problems. As socialism with Chinese characteristics enters the New Era, under the guidance of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, we have made ecological progress an important component of the Five-Sphere Integrated Plan and the Four-Pronged Comprehensive Strategy, carried out a series of fundamental, pioneering, and long-term tasks, put forward a series of new concepts, new ideas, and new strategies, and continuously strengthened the Party’s leadership over ecological progress. China’s ecological progress has achieved comprehensive and historic accomplishments. Therefore, theory and practice have continuously proven that, as long as we recognize the importance of ecological civilization and strengthen top-level design in terms of production methods and institutional foundations, starting from the synergy between socialist public ownership and ecological civilization, ecological problems can be completely resolved under the socialist system.

这里需要阐明的问题是，从理论层面来看，只有社会主义才是与生态文明要求相符合的社会形态；但从实践层面来看，作为世界上最大的社会主义国家中国，为何在现代化进程中也产生了生态问题？上述理论与实践的矛盾困境导致一部分人出现了误判。对于这个问题，我们必须有清醒认识：中国的生态问题不是由公有制所致，而是有历史和现实的多种因素。一方面，受生产力发展水平制约，我们在一定程度上忽视了经济发展的“质”的问题，形成了一段历史时期内的粗放型发展模式。另一方面，在发展社会主义市场经济的过程中，我们既没有现成理论指导，也没有可供借鉴的成功经验，只能摸索前进，加之发达资本主义国家的污染转移，共同引发了中国的生态问题。中国特色社会主义进入新时代，在习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想的指导下，我们把生态文明建设作为统筹推进“五位一体”总体布局和协调推进“四个全面”战略布局的重要内容，开展了一系列根本性、开创性、长远性工作，提出了一系列新理念新思想新战略，不断加强党对生态文明建设的领导，中国生态文明建设取得了全局性、历史性成就。因此，理论和实践不断证明，只要我们认识到生态文明的重要性，从社会主义公有制和生态文明的协同性方面加强顶层设计等生产方式和制度基础出发，生态问题在社会主义制度下完全能够得到解决。

At the present stage, although China has built a moderately prosperous society in all respects, it is still in the primary stage of socialism and far from reaching the historical stage of “abolishing capital” that Marx predicted. Therefore, this requires us to dialectically view the historical role of capital. On the one hand, we must deepen reform comprehensively, continuously improve the socialist market economic system, and further unleash the potential for the development of productive forces; on the other hand, we must also rationally guide capital, using the power of the socialist state and government, through the standardized management of rules and regulations and healthy competition in the ecological market, to guide innovation in the capital market, promote the transformation of capital from industrial capital to ecological capital, and blaze a path of socialist ecological civilization with Chinese characteristics that differs from that of Western developed countries.

现阶段，中国虽然已全面建成小康社会，但仍处于社会主义初级阶段，远未达到马克思当年所预测的“消灭资本”的历史阶段。因此，这就要求我们必须辩证看待资本的历史作用。一方面，必须通过全面深化改革，不断完善社会主义市场经济体制，进一步释放生产力发展潜能；另一方面，还必须对资本进行合理的引导，通过社会主义国家、政府力量，以规章制度的规范化管理和生态市场的良性竞争，引导开展资本市场创新，推动资本由工业资本向生态资本的形态转化，走出一条区别于西方发达国家的中国特色社会主义生态文明道路。

Source: *Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping Theoretical Research*, Issue 4, 2023

文章来源：《毛泽东邓小平理论研究》2023年第4期

Online Editor: Jing Mu

网络编辑：静穆