A Re-examination of the Concepts of “Globalization,” “Anti-Globalization,” and “De-globalization”

Introduction

导言

General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out with a resounding voice in his report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC: “China adheres to the correct direction of economic globalization, promotes trade and investment liberalization and facilitation, advances bilateral, regional, and multilateral cooperation, promotes coordination of international macroeconomic policies, jointly creates an international environment conducive to development, jointly cultivates new drivers of global development, opposes protectionism, opposes ‘building walls and erecting barriers,’ ‘decoupling and severing supply chains,’ and opposes unilateral sanctions and maximum pressure.” Adhering to the correct direction of economic globalization is an important thesis newly proposed in the report to the 20th National Congress. Facing the changes unseen in a century in the world, how to understand the correct direction of economic globalization and how to adhere to it have become major tasks. To answer this question, this article attempts to start from a conceptual analysis of “globalization,” “anti-globalization,” and “de-globalization,” clarify the scientific connotation of economic globalization, and clear the ideological foundation for a deep understanding of this important thesis on adhering to the correct direction of economic globalization.

习近平总书记在党的二十大报告中掷地有声地指出：“中国坚持经济全球化正确方向，推动贸易和投资自由化便利化，推进双边、区域和多边合作，促进国际宏观经济政策协调，共同营造有利于发展的国际环境，共同培育全球发展新动能，反对保护主义，反对‘筑墙设垒’‘脱钩断链’，反对单边制裁、极限施压。”坚持经济全球化正确方向是党的二十大报告中新提出的一个重要论述。面对世界百年未有之大变局，如何理解经济全球化正确方向，怎样坚持经济全球化正确方向，成为一项重大课题。为了回答这个问题，本文尝试从“全球化”“反全球化”“逆全球化”的概念辨析出发，明确经济全球化的科学内涵，为深入理解坚持经济全球化正确方向这一重要论述廓清思想基础。

I. “Economic Globalization” Cannot Be Simply Equated with “Globalization”

一、“经济全球化”不能简单等同于“全球化”

Whether in everyday conversation or in academic exchange, there is often a phenomenon of directly equating “economic globalization” with “globalization.” However, by deeply studying the series of important speeches by General Secretary Xi Jinping, we can clearly see that although economic globalization has encountered headwinds and countercurrents in recent years, the general trend of economic globalization is irreversible, and China adheres to the correct direction of economic globalization. That is to say, in a strict sense, we use the concept of “economic globalization,” not the general concept of “globalization.” So, the question arises: is “economic globalization” not “globalization”? Obviously, this question cannot be understood in the sense of a logical sophistry like “a white horse is not a horse,” but must be answered by returning to the intellectual history of the conceptual terms and the changes in social history.

无论是在日常生活的谈论中，还是在学术研究的交流中，往往存在将“经济全球化”与“全球化”直接等同起来的现象。然而，深入学习习近平总书记系列重要讲话，我们可以明确，虽然近年来经济全球化遭遇逆风逆流，但经济全球化大势不可逆转，中国坚持经济全球化正确方向。也就是说，在严格的意义上，我们使用的是“经济全球化”概念，而非一般性的“全球化”概念。那么，问题来了，“经济全球化”不是“全球化”吗？显然，这个问题不能在“白马非马”这样一个逻辑诡辩的意义上理解，而必须回到概念术语的思想史考察和社会历史的变迁中去加以解答。

In a direct sense, the widespread use of the concept of “globalization” was concentrated in the 1990s. Since the turn of the century, academic discussions surrounding “globalization” have become a new hot topic. However, regarding the proposal and use of the concept of “globalization,” there are different views in Western academia. A widely accepted view is that “globalization” as a systematic academic concept and analytical tool emerged in 1983. In the article “The Globalization of Markets,” Levitt used “globalization” to describe the enormous changes in the international economy over the previous 20 years, namely the diffusion of goods, services, capital, and technology in world production, consumption, and investment. Some scholars have traced back further and found that expressions like “globalize” and “globalism” first appeared in a 1944 treatise, and in 1961 the noun “globalization” was first included in an American English dictionary. In recent years, some scholars have focused on the critical dimension contained in the proposal of this concept, discovering that in 1970, the Italian radical journal *Sinistra Proletaria* published an article titled “The Globalization Process of Capitalist Society.” The article argued that the multinational corporation IBM “has ‘globalized’ all activities in the production process, embodying within itself the global (mondializzazione) of capital imperialism.”

在直接的意义上，“全球化”这个概念的广泛使用集中出现在 20 世纪 90年代。世纪之交以来，围绕“全球化”的学术讨论成为新的热点话题。然而，就“全球化”这个概念的提出和使用来说，西方学界有不同的观点。一种被广泛接受的看法是，作为系统的学术概念和分析工具的“全球化”（globalization）是1983 年出现的。在《市场的全球化》一文中，菜维特用“全球化”来形容此前20年间国际经济发生的巨大变化，即商品服务、资本和技术在世界生产、消费和投资领域中的扩散。有学者向前追溯，发现“全球化”（globalize）和“全球主义”（globalism）这样的表述，最初是在1944年的一篇论著中出现的，1961年名词“全球化”第一次被收人美式英语词典之中。近年来，有学者关注到这个概念提出时所包含的批判性维度，发现1970年意大利激进刊物《无产阶级左派》发表了一篇题为“资本主义社会的全球化进程”的文章。该文认为跨国公司IBM“使生产过程中的所有活动‘全球化’了，其自身内部体现了资本帝国主义的全球（ mondializzazione ）”。

Regarding the above understanding, whether from the perspective of mainstream Western economics or from the standpoint of the radical left, the direct reference is to the development of globalized capitalism centered on the rise of neoliberalism since the 1970s. The salient features of this globalized capitalism include not only the formation of multinational enterprises and the international division of labor under the dominance of capital, but also the development of capitalist financialization. Of course, the rapid development and world-changing impact of “globalization” in this period also benefited from the development of information and communication technology, especially the internet, and the transformation of the international political and economic landscape. Therefore, some scholars also call this kind of “globalization” “hyper-globalization.”

就上述理解来说，无论是从西方主流经济学的角度出发，还是从激进左翼的立场出发，直接指涉的都是20世纪70年代以来以新自由主义兴起为内核的全球化资本主义的发展。这种全球化资本主义的显著特征除了跨国企业的形成以及资本主导下生产的国际分工外，还包括资本主义金融化的发展。当然，这一时期的“全球化”之所以快速发展、迅猛改变世界，还得益于信息通讯技术特别是互联网的发展以及国际政治经济格局的转型。因此，有学者也把这种“全球化”称为“超级全球化”。

Parallel to the proposal and discussion of the concept of “globalization,” a large number of discussions on the historical process of “globalization” have also emerged. Leaving aside the extreme view that regards the early migration of humans from Africa to various parts of the world as the beginning of “globalization,” focusing on history since 1500, Western scholars represented by Stuart, Robertson, and Friedman mostly take the early 19th century and the second half of the 20th century as the time nodes distinguishing the three stages of “globalization.”

与“全球化”概念的提出和讨论相并行，关于“全球化”的历史进程的讨论也大量出现。暂且抛开将人类早期从非洲迁徙到世界各地视为“全球化”的开端这种极端观点不谈，聚焦 1500 年以来的历史，以斯图尔特、罗伯逊、弗里德曼为代表的西方学者大多将19世纪初和 20世纪下半叶作为区分“全球化”三个阶段的时间节点。

It is worth noting that the 2002 World Bank report *Globalization, Growth, and Poverty* proposed: the first wave of modern globalization occurred between 1870 and 1914, mainly manifested as economic growth driven by the development of transportation and the reduction of trade barriers. The second wave of globalization, from 1945 to 1980, was mainly the integration of developed countries. The most recent wave was from 1980 to the early 21st century, whose main driving forces were the development of transportation and communication technology and the entry of developing countries into the global market. The period from 1914 to 1945 was a time when governments responded to the “Great Depression” with protectionism, and the wave of globalization reversed. This view has gained increasing attention from scholars due to the rise of “de-globalization” ideology in recent years. Some scholars have even further distinguished two different periods of “de-globalization” based on this: the period between the two world wars and the headwinds and countercurrents encountered by economic globalization today.

值得注意的是，2002年世界银行报告《全球化、增长与贫困》提出：现代全球化的第一次浪潮发生在1870年到1914年间，主要表现为交通运输发展和贸易壁垒削减推动的经济增长。从1945年到1980年是全球化的第二次浪潮，主要是发达国家的一体化。最近一次则是从1980年到21世纪初，其主要动力是交通和通讯技术发展以及发展中国家进入全球市场。从1914年到1945年间，是各国政府以保护主义应对“大萧条”，全球化浪潮发生逆转的时期。这一观点因为近年来“逆全球化”思潮的抬头，得到了越来越多学者的关注。甚至有学者据此进一步区分了“逆全球化”的两个不同时期，即两次世界大战之间的阶段和今天经济全球化遭遇的逆风逆流。

Although in a direct sense, the proposal and use of the concept of “globalization” reflects the development of neoliberalism or globalized capitalism, the proposal of this concept also objectively describes the characteristics of a certain stage in the history of human society, especially economic life. In other words, if we understand the process from economic internationalization, to regional integration, and then to globalization in a broad sense from the perspective of the development of productive forces, the flow of production factors, technological progress, and the expansion of intercourse, we will find that, as General Secretary Xi Jinping correctly pointed out: “Historically, economic globalization is the objective requirement of the development of social productive forces and the inevitable result of scientific and technological progress, not something created artificially by any person or any country. Economic globalization has provided a strong impetus for world economic growth, promoted the flow of goods and capital, scientific and technological progress, and the exchange of peoples of all countries.”

尽管在直接的意义上，“全球化”这个概念的提出和使用所映射的是新自由主义或全球化资本主义的发展，但是，这个概念的提出也客观描述了人类社会历史，尤其是经济生活发展到一定阶段的特征。换言之，如果我们从生产力发展、生产要素流动、科技进步和交往扩大的意义上来广义地理解经济的国际化、区域一体化再到全球化的进程，就会发现，正如习近平总书记正确指出的那样：“历史地看，经济全球化是社会生产力发展的客观要求和科技进步的必然结果，不是哪些人、哪些国家人为造出来的。经济全球化为世界经济增长提供了强劲动力，促进了商品和资本流动、科技和文明进步、各国人民交往。”

Although concepts related to “globalization” only became popular after the end of the Cold War, the development trend of economic globalization is nothing new. On this point, Marx and Engels had already scientifically identified it on the basis of historical materialism over 170 years ago. *The German Ideology* and *The Communist Manifesto* clearly discuss the expansion of the division of labor and intercourse, especially the development of large-scale industry, which created the world market and formed world history. Guided by the three stages of economic globalization distinguished by General Secretary Xi Jinping, and following the analytical path of Marx and Engels on the development of productive forces, the division of labor, and intercourse, we attempt to subdivide “economic globalization” into the following four periods.

虽然“全球化”相关概念是冷战结束以后才流行起来的，但经济全球化的发展趋势并不是什么新东西。对于这一点，马克思恩格斯早在170多年前已经在历史唯物主义的基础上进行了科学的指认。《德意志意识形态》和《共产党宣言》明确论述了分工和交往的扩大，特别是大工业的发展，产生了世界市场，形成了世界历史。在习近平总书记区分的经济全球化三个阶段的指引下，遵循马克思恩格斯有关生产力、分工和交往发展的分析路径，我们尝试将“经济全球化”细分为以下四个时期。

First, from 1500 to 1870, from the Age of Discovery to the development of large-scale industry. According to the distinctions in Marx’s *Capital*, the evolution of economic globalization in this period can be further divided into: (1) the opening of new sea routes, the development of commerce, the rise of cities, or the stage of simple cooperation; (2) the stage of manufacture; (3) the stage of machine-based large-scale industry.

一是从1500年到1870年，从地理大发现到大工业的发展。按照马克思《资本论》中的区分可以将这一时期经济全球化的演进再区分为：（1）新航路的开辟、商业的发展、城市的兴起，或者说简单协作的阶段；（2）工场手工业阶段；（3）机器大工业阶段。

Second, from 1870 to 1945, the period of transition of capitalism from free competition to monopoly, a period when capital export accelerated the development of economic globalization. However, within this stage, there was a period when economic globalization encountered a reversal, namely the period between the two world wars, when contradictions intensified between imperialist countries and between imperialist countries and backward countries and regions.

二是从1870年到1945年，资本主义从自由竞争向垄断阶段过渡，资本输出推动经济全球化加速发展的阶段。只不过在这一阶段中，存在一个经济全球化遭遇逆转的时期，就是两次世界大战期间，帝国主义国家之间、帝国主义与落后国家地区之间矛盾激化的阶段。

The third period runs from 1945 to the 1980s, which some scholars call the “stage of two parallel world markets.” That is, after the Second World War, two parallel world markets—socialist and capitalist—took shape in the global economy. The advanced capitalist countries, relying on Fordism or the welfare state system and through the establishment of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, gave economic globalization an institutionalized development.

三是从1945年到1980年代，有学者将其称之为“两个平行世界市场阶段”。也就是说，第二次世界大战之后世界经济中形成了社会主义和资本主义两个平行的世界市场。发达资本主义国家借助福特主义或福利国家制度，并通过关税及贸易总协定、世界银行和国际货币基金组织的建立，使经济全球化获得制度化发展。

The fourth period is the new stage of economic globalization’s development since the 1980s. On the one hand, neoliberalism and financial monopoly capitalism drove the development of “globalization capitalism”; on the other hand, China actively integrated into economic globalization and played an increasingly important role in the world economy. However, under the multiple impacts of the 2008 financial crisis, the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and the COVID-19 pandemic, economic globalization has encountered “headwinds and crosscurrents” in recent years, giving rise to a trend of “de-globalization.”

四是20世纪80年代以来经济全球化发展的新阶段。一方面，新自由主义和金融垄断资本主义推动了“全球化资本主义”的发展；另一方面，中国积极融入经济全球化，并在世界经济中扮演起越来越重要的角色。只不过，在2008年金融危机、第四次工业革命、新冠肺炎疫情的多重影响下，近年来经济全球化遭遇“逆风逆流”，出现了“逆全球化”趋势。

In summary, the concept of “globalization” was proposed and widely used mainly from the 1990s onward, in the sense of analyzing and grasping neoliberalism. Therefore, in Western academic discourse, “globalization” is directly associated with “globalization capitalism.” The concept of “economic globalization” that we use, however, is based on historical materialism, especially Marx and Engels’s discussions on the division of labor and world history. Looking back at history, although for a long period from the 16th to the 20th century the development of economic globalization was indeed directly linked to the germination, rise, and transformation of the capitalist mode of production, fundamentally, the bourgeoisie’s entry onto the historical stage and the development of capitalism benefited from the development of productive forces, the expansion of the division of labor and intercourse, and hitched a ride on economic globalization. Therefore, in terms of concept use and discursive expression, “economic globalization” cannot be simply equated with “globalization.” Adhering to the correct direction of economic globalization does not mean that we uncritically accept or identify with “globalization capitalism.”

概而言之，“全球化”这个概念的提出和广泛使用，主要是自 20 世纪 90 年代以来，分析把握新自由主义的意义上出现的。因此，在西方的学术话语中，“全球化”在直接的意义上与“全球化资本主义”相关联。而我们所使用的“经济全球化”概念，则是以历史唯物主义，特别是马克思恩格斯关于分工和世界历史的论述为基础的。回顾历史，虽然在从16 世纪到20 世纪的很长一段时间中，经济全球化的发展的确与资本主义生产方式的萌芽、兴起和变迁直接联系在一起。但是，从根本上说，资产阶级走上历史舞台以及资本主义的发展，得益于生产力的发展、分工和交往的扩大，搭上了经济全球化的便车。因此，在概念使用和话语表达上，“经济全球化”不能简单等同于“全球化”。坚持经济全球化正确方向，并不等于我们不加反思地接受、认同“全球化资本主义”。

II. “Anti-Globalization” Is Dissatisfaction with “Globalization Capitalism”

二、“反全球化”是对“全球化资本主义”的不满

It is worth noting that, beginning in the early 1990s, in a complementary and antagonistic relationship with the rise of “globalization capitalism,” protest activities under the name of “anti-globalization” also began to brew and ferment. The “Battle of Seattle,” which erupted at the end of November 1999, lifted the curtain on the global “anti-globalization” movement. At the turn of the century, the “anti-globalization” movement intensified. At the same time, alongside large-scale, sometimes violent street protests, a civilized “form of anti-globalization” emerged and developed. This was the World Social Forum, which stood in opposition to the World Economic Forum. In the “anti-globalization” movements represented by the “Battle of Seattle” and the World Social Forum, the two main issues were global justice and environmental protection.

值得注意的是，从 20 世纪 90 年代初开始，与“全球化资本主义”的兴起相反相成，以“反全球化”为名的抗议活动也开始酝酿、发酵。1999年11月底爆发的“西雅图风暴”拉开了全球范围内“反全球化”运动的序幕。世纪之初，“反全球化”运动愈演愈烈。同时，在大规模的带有暴力色彩的街头抗议之外，一种文明的“反全球化形式”出现并发展起来。这就是与世界经济论坛分庭抗礼的世界社会论坛（World Social Forum）。在以“西雅图风暴”和世界社会论坛为代表的“反全球化”运动中，最主要的两个议题是全球正义和环境保护。

In 2000, then-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan analyzed the causes of the “anti-globalization” movement in his report *We the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century*: “Few individuals, groups or governments are opposed to globalization as such. They are opposed to the gross inequalities that it has produced. First, the benefits and opportunities of globalization remain highly concentrated among a small number of countries, and are distributed unevenly even within those countries. In recent decades, an imbalance has emerged: successful rules for promoting the expansion of global markets have been formulated and well implemented, while support for equally legitimate social objectives—whether labor standards, environmental protection, human rights, or poverty reduction—has lagged behind. More broadly, globalization has meant for many people a greater vulnerability to unfamiliar and unpredictable forces, which can at times cause economic instability and social dislocation with alarming speed.”

2000年，时任联合国秘书长安南曾在《我们人民——面向21世纪的联合国》中分析了“反全球化”运动的成因，“很少有个人、团体或者政府反对全球化本身，他们反对的是全球化所带来的悬殊差异。首先，全球化的好处和机会仍然高度集中在少数国家，即便在这些国家内部的分布也不均衡。最近几十年出现了一种不平衡的现象：成功制定了促进全球市场扩展的有力规则并予以良好实施，而对同样正确的社会目标，无论是劳工标准还是环境、人权或者减少贫穷的支持却落在后面。更广义地说，全球化对许多人已经意味着更容易受到不熟悉和无法预测的力量的伤害，这些力量有时以迅雷不及掩耳的速度造成经济不稳和社会失调。”

In 2003, Joseph Stiglitz pointed out in *Globalization and Its Discontents* that the “anti-globalization” movement mainly expressed the dissatisfaction of developing countries and groups in developed countries whose interests had been harmed by “globalization” with the way “globalization” operated. This dissatisfaction was not caused by economic globalization itself, but by problems in the governance model of economic globalization. In “capitalist globalization,” the rule-makers were large American corporations and the financial sector, which were the biggest winners. The neoliberal “Washington Consensus” that formed the basis of these rules had serious flaws, leading to slow economic growth and increased instability in countries that implemented its policies. That is to say, the cause of “anti-globalization” was not “economic globalization” itself, but the defects in the global governance model of the “capitalist globalization” pattern that emerged in the objective process of economic globalization.

2003年，斯蒂格里茨在《全球化及其不满》中指出，“反全球化”运动主要表现了发展中国家以及发达国家中因为“全球化”而利益受到损害的群体对“全球化”运行方式的不满，这种不满并非经济全球化本身所造成的，而是经济全球化的治理方式出了问题。在“资本主义全球化”中，规则的制定者是美国的大企业和金融界，它们是最大的赢家。作为这一规则基础的新自由主义“华盛顿共识”本身存在严重缺陷，会导致执行其政策的国家经济增长缓慢，动荡加剧。也就是说，“反全球化”出现的原因并非“经济全球化”，而是经济全球化客观进程中所出现的“资本主义全球化”模式在全球治理方式上的缺陷。

In the historical process of “economic globalization,” from the end of the Second World War to the 1980s was the so-called “stage of two parallel world markets.” Under the Cold War structure, a capitalist world market dominated by the United States took shape. Among the advanced capitalist countries, “economic integration” was achieved through so-called “embedded liberalism,” including the Bretton Woods system and measures such as the United States developing industrial trade with its allies. Correspondingly, within the advanced capitalist countries, the Fordist or welfare state system was used to accelerate capital circulation and achieve social stability.

在“经济全球化”的历史进程中，从第二次世界大战结束到20世纪80年代是所谓的“两个平行世界市场阶段”。在冷战格局下，以美国为主导的资本主义世界市场形成，在发达资本主义国家之间，通过所谓的“内嵌的自由主义”，包括布雷顿森林体系，美国发展与盟友之间的产业贸易等措施形成了“经济的一体化”。相应的，在发达资本主义国家内部，通过福特制或者说福利国家制度来加速资本循环，实现社会稳定。

Since the 1970s, with the outbreak of the oil crisis and capitalism entering a stage of stagflation, Western countries successively adopted neoliberal reforms. On the one hand, domestically, they used “re-privatization” to reshape so-called free competition and market vitality. On the other hand, after the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, they used the “Washington Consensus” to open up territory for the free movement of capital worldwide. This also constituted the direct impetus for the rise of “capitalist globalization” since the 1980s.

20世纪70年代以来，随着石油危机的爆发以及资本主义进入滞胀阶段，西方国家纷纷采取新自由主义改革。一方面，在国家内部通过“重新私有化”来重新塑造所谓的自由竞争和市场活力。另一方面，在布雷顿森林体系解体的情况下利用“华盛顿共识”为资本在世界范围内的自由流动开疆拓土。这也构成了 20 世纪 80 年代以来“资本主义全球化”兴起的直接动因。

In this way, the class contradictions that originally existed within capitalist countries also took on new forms. The middle-class strata formed under Fordist capitalism or the welfare state system began to suffer losses to their own interests due to the emergence of neoliberalism. With the emergence of multinational corporations and the increase in foreign direct investment, a large amount of manufacturing industry was transferred from developed countries to developing countries. While this brought huge new profits for large enterprises and financial capital, it also led to the intensification of the gap between rich and poor within developed capitalist countries. These white-collar middle-class and blue-collar industrial workers, whose interests were harmed in the process of “globalization,” besides complaining about large business owners and financiers, also developed a spontaneous dissatisfaction with developing countries.

这样一来，原本资本主义国家内部的阶级矛盾也获得了新的形式。在福特制资本主义或者说福利国家制度中形成的中产阶级阶层，开始因为新自由主义的出现而遭受自身利益的损失。随着跨国企业的出现、对外直接投资的提升，大量制造业从发达国家转移到发展中国家。这在为大企业和金融资本带来新的巨额利润的同时，也导致了发达资本主义国家内部贫富分化的加剧。这些在“全球化”进程中利益受损的白领中产阶级和蓝领产业工人，除了抱怨大企业主和金融家之外，还对发展中国家产生了自发的不满。

At the same time, within the “capitalist globalization” system dominated by advanced capitalist countries, contradictions between developed countries and developing countries and “transition countries” also gradually accumulated and erupted. Especially when developing countries and “transition countries” fell into economic difficulties, in order to obtain loans from Western banks and aid from Western countries, they had to accept the “Washington Consensus” and meet Western demands in terms of political system and ideology. A dual result then emerged: on the one hand, their domestic industries became increasingly dependent on international financial capital, and even national assets were handed over to Western companies at low prices through privatization; on the other hand, the so-called aid did not promote these countries’ economic development or social welfare, but instead rescued the foreign banks that had controlled their resources and industries through loans.

与此同时，在以发达资本主义国家为主导的“资本主义全球化”体系中，发达国家与发展中国家和“转型国家”之间的矛盾也逐渐积累并爆发出来。特别是当发展中国家和“转型国家”在经济上陷人困境时，为了获得西方银行的借款和西方国家的援助，而不得不接受“华盛顿共识”，在政治体制和意识形态上满足西方的要求时，双重结果就产生了：一方面，本国的产业越来越严重地依附于国际金融资本，甚至是国家资产通过私有化以低廉的价格被移交给西方公司：另一方面，所谓的援助并没有推动这些国家的经济发展和社会福利，而是挽救了那些通过贷款控制了其资源和产业的外国银行。

In short, the emergence of the “anti-globalization” movement can be understood as a spontaneous product of the transfer and displacement of the inherent contradictions of the capitalist mode of production generated by “capitalist globalization.” “Economic globalization” is an inevitable outcome of the development of social productive forces and technological progress. However, the neoliberal “capitalist globalization” is, in essence, the internationalization of financial monopoly capital. The world system shaped by “capitalist globalization” has neither eliminated the vertical class differences between capital and labor within capitalist countries, nor has it alleviated the horizontal spatial differentiation between the center and the periphery among nations. Going further, these two dimensions often overlap and intermingle in reality. Thus, although a motley array of “anti-globalization” movements jointly direct their struggle against so-called “globalization,” their understandings of “globalization” are not entirely identical, and there is even a tendency to conflate “capitalist globalization” with “economic globalization.” Consequently, due to differences in their own interests and demands, the various objections to “globalization” within these movements appear ambiguous, interwoven, and even contradictory. From this, it is not difficult to see that if there is a lack of scientific grasp of the new changes in contemporary capitalism, “anti-globalization” is doomed to descend into a chaotic mess, and “globalization” is doomed to self-disintegration amidst its own triumphalism.

简言之，“反全球化”运动的出现可以被理解为“资本主义全球化”所产生的资本主义生产方式内在矛盾转移、转嫁的自发产物。“经济全球化”是社会生产力发展和科技进步的必然产物。但新自由主义的“资本主义全球化”，本质上是金融垄断资本主义的国际化。由“资本主义全球化”所塑造的世界体系，既未消除资本主义国家内部资本和劳动的纵向阶级差异，又加剧了各个国家之间中心和边缘的横向空间分化。更进一步，二者在现实中往往交叠杂糅在一起。这样，虽然林林总总的“反全球化”运动共同把斗争的矛头指向了所谓的“全球化”。但是这些运动中对“全球化”的理解并不完全相同，甚至有将“资本主义全球化混同于“经济全球化”的倾向。因此，出于自身利益诉求的差异，这些运动中对“全球化”的种种反对之间也就呈现出含混交错甚至是矛盾冲突的特征。由此不难发现：如果缺乏对当代资本主义新变化的科学把握，“反全球化”注定在众声喧哗中走向一地鸡毛，“全球化”注定在莺歌燕舞中走向自我裂解。

III. Three Usages of “De-Globalization”

三、“逆全球化”的三种用法

Today, “de-globalization” has become a hot topic of social discussion and a focus of academic attention. When discussing “de-globalization,” people often first associate this concept with two events: Brexit and the intensification of protectionism and populism following Donald Trump’s election as U.S. president. In this sense, some scholars have called 2016 the “first year” of “de-globalization.” However, just as the concept of “globalization” has complex usages and different referents, there are also clear differences between the initial proposal of the concept of “de-globalization” and its current application. At the same time, this concept has multiple different understandings in the present context.

今天，“逆全球化”已经成为社会热议、学界关注的一个焦点话题。一谈到“逆全球化”，人们往往首先会将这个概念同两个事件联系起来，这就是英国脱欧和特朗普当选美国总统后保护主义、民粹主义的加剧。正是在这个意义上，有学者将2016 年称为“逆全球化”的“元年”。然而，正如“全球化”概念有其复杂的使用方式和不同的指向一样，“逆全球化”（deglobalization）这个概念的提出和当下运用之间也存在着明显的差异，同时，这个概念在当前语境中也有着多种不同的理解。

A general consensus in academia is that the concept of “de-globalization” was first proposed in 2001 by Walden Bello, the founder of the well-known anti-capitalist globalization organization “Focus on the Global South.”[8]8 “Samuelson’s trap” refers to the economist Paul Samuelson’s argument that free trade can sometimes harm a country’s long-term welfare; “Kindleberger’s trap” refers to the historian Charles Kindleberger’s argument that a global economic crisis can occur when a dominant power fails to provide public goods like open markets. The following year, Bello published the book *De-Globalization: Ideas for a New World Economy*, in which he systematically expounded his understanding of “de-globalization.” Bello regarded the Asian financial crisis at the end of the 20th century, the “Battle of Seattle,” and the end of the economic boom during the Clinton administration in the United States as three manifestations of the crisis of “globalization.” From the standpoint of “Southern countries, or developing countries,” he emphasized the empowerment of localities and nations alongside the construction of a multilateral global economic governance system. In Bello’s view, this “de-globalization” represented a new direction for the world economy. Thus, the “de-globalization” Bello initially proposed was essentially a reflection on capitalist globalization since the 1980s, aimed at transcending neoliberal “globalization” and advocating for an intrinsic unity between “localization” that protects developing countries and multilateral “regulation.” This demand was consistent with the “anti-globalization” of the 1990s but was more constructive. The headwinds encountered by “economic globalization” today are clearly different from, even vastly divergent from, this understanding.

学界普遍的共识是：“逆全球化”这个概念是由著名的反资本主义全球化组织“关注全球南方”的创始人瓦尔登·贝洛于2001年最先提出的。[8]次年，贝洛出版了《逆全球化：探寻一种新的世界经济》一书，对他所理解的“逆全球化”进行了系统的论述。贝洛将20世纪末亚洲金融危机“西雅图风暴”以及美国克林顿时期经济繁荣的终结视为“全球化”危机的三个表现，进而站在“南方国家或者说发展中国家的立场上，强调地方和国家的赋权与全球经济治理体系的多边主义建构。这种“逆全球化”在贝洛看来是一种世界经济的新走向。可见，贝洛最早提出的“逆全球化”其实是在反思20世纪80年代以来的资本主义全球化，以此来超越新自由主义的“全球化”，倡导一种保护发展中国家的“地方化”与多边主义“调节”的内在统一。这一诉求与20 世纪90年代以来的“反全球化”一脉相成，但更具建设性。今天“经济全球化”所遭遇的逆流显然与上述理解并不相同，甚至是大相径庭。

Many scholars regard 2016 as the “first year of de-globalization,” emphasizing the impact of Brexit and Trump’s victory on the “adverse current of globalization.” It was also from 2017 onward that challenges to free trade from trade protectionism, the replacement of multilateralism by unilateralism in global governance, and the tendency toward passive disruption and active decoupling of global supply chains at the real economic level have increasingly intensified. At the same time, extreme political tendencies have worsened, with populism and narrow nationalism on the rise. Academia has also noted that since the 2008 financial crisis, Western capitalist countries, facing the theoretical and practical bankruptcy of neoliberalism, have begun to take measures to hinder the process of “economic globalization.” Therefore, many analyses trace the intensification of “de-globalization” in recent years back to the policy adjustments of developed capitalist countries themselves after the 2008 financial crisis.

很多学者将2016年视为“逆全球化元年”，意在强调英国脱欧和特朗普胜选对于“全球化逆潮”的影响。也正是从 2017 年开始，贸易保护主义对自由贸易的挑战、全球治理上的单边主义对多边主义的取代，现实经济层面上全球供应链的被动断裂和主动脱钩的倾向日益增强，同时极端政治倾向加重，民粹主义和狭隘民族主义抬头，同时，学界也注意到，2008年金融危机以来，西方资本主义国家面对新自由主义在理论和实践上的破产，已经开始采取措施阻碍“经济全球化”进程。因此，很多分析也将近年来“逆全球化”的加剧追溯到2008年金融危机之后发达资本主义国家自身的政策调整。

Unlike the “anti-globalization” or “de-globalization” trends of thought that emerged 20 years ago—when it was mainly developing countries and vulnerable groups in developed countries who were dissatisfied with “globalization”—the “de-globalization” trend since 2016, or even since 2008, encompasses new dissatisfaction with “globalization” from the middle class and workers in developed countries, as well as the demands of Western financial monopoly capital to protect its own interests. These dissatisfactions and demands, mixed with populism, narrow nationalism, and other extreme currents of thought, are expressed through voting, manifesting as protectionism and unilateralism led by Western developed countries, giving rise to so-called “small yard, high fence” and “decoupling and severing supply chains.”

与 20年前出现的“反全球化”或“逆全球化”思潮不同，如果说当时主要是发展中国家以及发达国家中的弱势群体对“全球化”不满，2016年以来甚至是 2008年以来的“逆全球化”潮流则包含着发达国家的中产阶级和工人对“全球化”的新的不满，以及西方金融垄断资本维护自身利益的诉求。这些不满和诉求与民粹主义、狭隘民族主义及其他极端思潮混合在一起，通过投票的方式表达出来，表现为西方发达国家主导下的保护主义和单边主义，出现了所谓的“小院高墙”和“脱钩断链”。

It should also be noted that there is another tendency in Western academia regarding the issue of “de-globalization.” This involves simply regarding “capitalist globalization” and “globalization” as two inherently related sides of the same coin. Following this line of thought, some Western scholars have even proposed the so-called “impossible trinity of the global economy” hypothesis to explain the emergence of “de-globalization.” In essence, within these tendencies, “de-globalization” is equated in a general sense with trade protection and state intervention, and is further extended to the entire process of world history formation and development since the Age of Discovery. Among these, a troubling and alarming phenomenon is that some scholars refer to the intensification of contradictions among imperialist powers between the two world wars as “de-globalization 1.0,” and the recent headwinds encountered by economic globalization as “de-globalization 2.0.” Even worse, some use so-called “Samuelson’s trap” and “Kindleberger’s trap” to implicitly or explicitly attribute the emergence of “de-globalization” to the international trade frictions and geopolitical tensions caused by the so-called rise of China.

还应注意的是，围绕“逆全球化”问题，西方学界还存在另一种倾向。这就是在将“资本主义全球化”和“全球化”简单地视为内在关联的正反两个方面。沿着这一思路，甚至有西方学者提出了所谓的“全球经济的不可能三角”假说，来解释'逆全球化的出现。究其本质，在这些倾向中，“逆全球化”在一般意义上被等同于贸易保护和国家干预，并进一步被推广到地理大发现以来世界历史的形成发展的全程。其中，一个令人不安、值得警惕的现象是，有学者将两次世界大战之间帝国主义之间矛盾的激化，称为“逆全球化1.0”，将近年来经济全球化所遭遇的逆流称为“逆全球化2.0”。更有甚者，还利用所谓的“萨缪尔森陷阱”“金德尔伯格陷阱”等说法，或明或暗地将“逆全球化”现象的出现归咎于所谓的中国崛起引发的国际贸易摩擦和地缘政治紧张。

Based on the above analysis, we can summarize three different theoretical explanations and practical referents of the concept of “de-globalization.”

基于上述分析，我们可以概括“逆全球化”概念的三种不同理论解释和现实指向。

First, “de-globalization” specifically refers to the economic and foreign policy adjustments, political situation changes, and social thought trends that have occurred in developed capitalist countries since the outbreak of the 2008 financial crisis and the bankruptcy of neoliberalism. Marked by Brexit and Trump’s election as U.S. president, this change has manifested more directly. This is also the direct referent of the adverse currents encountered by economic globalization in recent years.

其一“逆全球化”特指在2008年金融危机爆发以来、新自由主义遭遇破产之后，发达资本主义国家所发生的经济和外交政策调整、政治形势和社会思潮变化。以英国脱欧和特朗普当选美国总统为标志，这一变化更为直接地表现出来。这也是近年来经济全球化遭遇逆流的直接所指。

Second, regarding the initial proposal of the concept of “de-globalization,” in Bello’s exposition, this concept is more directly linked to “anti-globalization,” but in terms of theoretical reflection, it is more systematic and profound than general protest activities. This kind of “de-globalization,” on the one hand, reflects on “capitalist globalization,” emphasizing the protection of the interests of developing countries or “Southern” countries; on the other hand, it calls for the construction of a multilateral world economic system. Clearly, the “de-globalization” we see today is far removed from this understanding.

其二，就“逆全球化”概念的最初提出而言，在贝洛的论述中，这一概念与“反全球化”更为直接地联系在一起，但在理论思考上较之一般的抗议活动更加系统、深入。这种“逆全球化”一方面反思“资本主义全球化”，强调对发展中国家或“南方”国家的利益保护，另一方面呼唤建构一种多边主义的世界经济体系。显然，今天我们所看到的“逆全球化”与这一理解相去甚远。

Third, “de-globalization” is also often equated in a general sense with trade protection and state intervention, and is regarded as the opposite and complementary side of “globalization.” This understanding has positive implications for thinking more comprehensively about the rise of capitalism and the essence of Western liberalism and neoliberal economics. However, whether for “globalization” or “de-globalization,” abstract and generalized understandings may lead people to overlook the specific epochal characteristics of the development of “economic globalization” under particular historical conditions, thereby missing the essence of the issue.

其三，“逆全球化”还常常在一般意义上被等同于贸易保护和国家干预，并被视为与“全球化”相反相成的另一面。这种理解对于我们从更全面的角度思考资本主义的兴起以及西方自由主义和新自由主义经济学的本质具有积极的启示意义，但无论是就“全球化”来说，还是就“逆全球化”而言，抽象的泛化理解都可能会使人们忽视特定历史条件下“经济全球化”发展的具体时代特征，进而与问题的实质擦肩而过。

Undoubtedly, when referring to the headwinds and adverse currents encountered by economic globalization today, we are clearly using the term “de-globalization” in the sense of the first understanding above. So, why have the trends and strategies of “de-globalization” shown a tendency to rise and intensify in recent years?

毋庸置疑，就今天经济全球化所遭遇的逆风逆流来说，我们显然是在上述第一种理解的意义上来使用“逆全球化”这个术语的。那么，“逆全球化”思潮和策略近年来之所以呈现抬头、加剧的趋势，到底是为什么呢？

Fundamentally, the headwinds encountered by economic globalization in recent years are the product of the intensification of the internal contradictions of “capitalist globalization” or “hyper-globalization” that has prevailed since the 1980s. In the “globalization” dominated by Western capitalist countries, developing countries provided cheap labor and products for developed countries, reducing the production costs of multinational enterprises. Developed countries, through financial hegemony and technological monopoly, gained new possibilities for extracting super-profits and maintained their own social stability and economic growth. However, in this process, the internal contradictions of capitalism were not resolved; they were merely temporarily obscured through different modes of transfer and shifting. Within developed countries, although they enjoyed the dividends of “globalization” overall, the contradictions between large enterprises and financial capital on the one hand, and the底层人群 [n9] and industrial workers on the other, became increasingly acute. Even the “middle class” gradually became discontents of “globalization.” The contradictions between developed and developing countries also became more evident; the so-called “trickle-down effect” was not fully realized, but instead led to “anti-globalization” movements on a global scale.

从根本上说，近年来经济全球化遭遇逆流是20世纪80年代以来“资本主义全球化”或“超级全球化”内在矛盾激化的产物。在西方资本主义国家主导的“全球化”中，发展中国家为发达国家提供了廉价劳动力和产品，降低了跨国企业的生产成本，发达国家通过金融霸权和科技垄断，获得了攫取超额利润的新的可能，并且维持了自身的社会稳定和经济增长。然而，在此过程中资本主义的内在矛盾并没有消解，而只是在不同方式的转移和转嫁中暂时被遮蔽了起来。在发达国家内部，虽然从总体上享有了“全球化”的红利，但是大企业和金融资本与底层人群和产业工人之间的矛盾日益尖锐，甚至“中产阶级”也逐渐为了“全球化”的不满者。发达国家与发展中国家之间的矛盾也越发明显，所谓的“涓滴效应”并未全面实现，反而导致了全球范围内的“反全球化”运动。

The outbreak of the 2008 financial crisis was, in essence, the product of the intensification of the internal contradictions of neoliberalism, and it also declared the practical bankruptcy of neoliberalism. After the crisis broke out, Western capitalist countries, in order to protect the interests of large enterprises and financial capital, not only failed to adopt effective reform measures, but instead used means such as financial transfusion and quantitative easing, as well as trade and technological barriers, to escort the profit-seeking of financial monopoly capital. When this rentier tendency of capitalism further intensified and coalesced with the populist and extremist political tendencies that had arisen from dissatisfaction with “globalization,” the shift of “de-globalization” from an undercurrent to a rising tide occurred. If the initial means adopted by “de-globalization” dominated by Western capitalist countries after 2017 were “small yard, high fence,” then since 2021, “decoupling and severing supply chains” and even extreme sanctions have been added. It can be said that the emergence of “de-globalization” in recent years is not only a sign of the bankruptcy of the “capitalist globalization” dominated by neoliberalism, but should also be seen as a sign of the transformation and reshaping of capitalist society after the 2008 financial crisis.

2008 年金融危机的爆发，从本质上说就是新自由主义内在矛盾激化的产物，也宣告了新自由主义在实践上的破产。危机爆发后，西方资本主义国家为了保护大企业和金融资本的利益，非但没有采取行之有效的改革措施，反倒通过金融输血加放水、贸易和科技壁垒等手段，为金融垄断资本的逐利保驾护航。当这样一种资本主义的食利化倾向进一步强化，并与因不满“全球化”而兴起的民粹主义、极端主义政治倾向相媾和后，“逆全球化”从暗流涌动到抬头加剧的转变也就随之发生了。如果说西方资本主义国家主导的“逆全球化”在 2017 年以后最先采取的手段是“小院高墙”，那么2021 年以来，又加上了“脱钩断链”甚至是极限制裁。可以说，近年来“逆全球化”的出现，不仅是新自由主义主导的“资本主义全球化”破产的标志，而且更应该被看作2008年金融危机之后，资本主义社会转型重塑的标志。

In analyzing the headwinds encountered by economic globalization in recent years, in addition to focusing on the internal contradictions of “capitalist globalization,” attention must also be paid to the short-term effects produced by the advent of the “Fourth Industrial Revolution.” In the view of Klaus Schwab, Chairman of the World Economic Forum, “the Fourth Industrial Revolution, by promoting the development of ‘smart factories,’ enables flexible collaboration between virtual and physical production systems on a global scale. This helps achieve complete customization of product production and gives rise to new operational models.” [9]9 The term “底层人群” (dǐcéng rénqún) refers to the lower strata or grassroots populations in society, often implying those with low income, limited social status, and minimal political influence. As an objective requirement of the development of social productive forces and an inevitable result of technological progress, economic globalization will inevitably gain new development with the unfolding of the “Fourth Industrial Revolution.” However, in the short term, the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” may become a driving force for “de-globalization.”

分析经济全球化近年来所遭遇的逆流，除了关注“资本主义全球化”的内在矛盾外，还必须注意“第四次工业革命”来临所产生的短期效应。在世界经济论坛主席施瓦布看来，“第四次工业革命通过推动‘智能工厂’的发展，在全球范围内实现虚拟和实体生产体系的灵活协作。这有助于实现产品生产的彻底定制化，并催生新的运营模式”。[9]作为社会生产力发展的客观要求和科技进步的必然结果，经济全球化必将随着“第四次工业革命”的展开获得新的发展。然而，短期内“第四次工业革命”却有可能成为“逆全球化”的助推力。

On the one hand, regarding the impact of the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” on the production process, the introduction of intelligent manufacturing or cyber-physical systems, especially the emergence of unmanned factories, in addition to effectively improving production efficiency, also provides new possibilities for a new round of industrial transfer. That is to say, the new round of technological revolution provides realistic conditions for developed countries to “re-industrialize,” thereby reducing production costs and maintaining competitive advantages. On this basis, the restructuring of global industrial chains has become one of the important drivers of “de-globalization.” On the other hand, the development of the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” itself provides an excellent opportunity for late-developing countries to achieve curve-overtaking through technological progress and industrial upgrading. However, in order to maintain their own monopoly advantages, developed countries not only set up technological barriers to limit the technological research and development and industrial upgrading of late-developing countries, but also use “long-arm jurisdiction” to maintain an unreasonable economic order, and even use the state apparatus to form “small circles” globally, stoking opposition and confrontation with ideology, and implementing decoupling and severing supply chains to maintain their own competitive advantages. In reality, these actions constitute important manifestations of “de-globalization.”

一方面，就“第四次工业革命”对生产过程的影响来说，智能制造或信息物理系统的引入，特别是无人工厂的出现，除了有效提高生产效率外，也为新一轮的产业转移提供了新的可能。也就是说，新一轮科技革命为发达国家“再工业化”从而降低生产成本、维持竞争优势提供了现实条件。在此基础上，全球产业链的重构也就成为“逆全球化”的重要动因之一。另一方面，“第四次工业革命”的发展本身为后发国家通过科技进步和产业升级实现弯道超车提供了绝佳的时机。然而发达国家为了维持自身的垄断优势，不仅通过设置技术壁垒的方式来限制后发国家的技术研发和产业升级，而且通过“长臂管辖权”来维持不合理的经济秩序，甚至是通过国家机器在全球范围内搞“小圈子”，以意识形态挑动对立对抗，实行脱钩、断链来维护自身的竞争优势。在现实中，这些行径构成了“逆全球化”的重要表现。

IV. Clarifying the Connotations of Concepts, Adhering to the Correct Direction of Economic Globalization

四、明辨概念内涵，坚持经济全球化正确方向

In summary, whether it is “globalization,” “anti-globalization,” or “de-globalization,” these concepts themselves, in the process of their proposal and use, contain specific historical backgrounds and concrete theoretical orientations. Scientifically analyzing the practical connotations of these theoretical concepts has fundamental theoretical significance for our comprehensive grasp of General Secretary Xi Jinping’s important expositions on economic globalization and for our in-depth understanding of the major assertion in the report of the 20th National Congress of the CPC of “adhering to the correct direction of economic globalization.”

概而言之，无论是“全球化”，还是“反全球化”以及“逆全球化”这些概念本身在其提出和使用的过程中，都蕴含着特定的时代背景和具体的理论指向。科学辨析这些理论概念的实践内涵，对于我们全面把握习近平总书记关于经济全球化的重要论述，深人理解党的二十大报告中提出的“坚持经济全球化正确方向”这一重大论断、具有基础性的理论意义。

As mentioned above, the concept of “globalization” is a broad “signifier” with multiple meanings. In a broad sense, we can understand it as the expansion of interactions between people, the flow of factors of production on a global scale, and the formation of a world market and world history, driven by the development of productive forces and technological progress. Economic globalization is understood in this sense. In a narrow sense, and even in terms of the origin of this concept, “globalization” in many cases refers precisely to the “capitalist globalization” promoted by neoliberalism since the 1980s. Compared with the past, especially the early course of economic globalization that began in the second half of the 19th century, “capitalist globalization” or “hyper-globalization” essentially serves the large multinational enterprises and financial monopoly capital of developed countries led by the United States. Joseph Stiglitz believes that the rule-makers of “globalization” are actually large American enterprises, while Leo Panitch positions “globalization” as the internationalization of US imperialism. In the process of such “economic globalization,” its discontents and opponents naturally emerge.

如前所述，“全球化”概念是一个具有多重含义的宽泛“能指”。在广义上，我们可以将其理解为由生产力发展和科技进步所推动的人与人之间交往的扩大、生产要素在全球范围内的流动、世界市场和世界历史的形成。经济全球化就是在这个意义上来讲的。在狭义上讲，甚至就这个概念的提出来说“全球化”在很多情况下指的就是20世纪80年代以来新自由主义推动的“资本主义全球化”。较之以往，特别是19 世纪下半叶开始的经济全球化早期历程，“资本主义全球化”或“超级全球化”在本质上服务于以美国为首的西方发达国家的大型跨国企业和金融垄断资本。斯蒂格里茨就认为“全球化”规则的制定者其实是美国大企业，潘尼奇则将“全球化”定位为美帝国主义的国际化。在这样一种“经济全球化”的进程中，它的不满者和反对者自然会产生。

From the 1990s to the early 2000s, this discontent and opposition mainly came from developing countries and those groups in developed countries who suffered losses due to “capitalist globalization.” This is the rise of the so-called “anti-globalization” movement, whose concentrated manifestations were street protests represented by the “Battle of Seattle,” as well as “anti-globalization” organizations and forums such as the “World Social Forum.” In the final analysis, “anti-globalization” is not caused by the objective historical process of economic globalization, but is rooted in the transfer and shifting of the internal contradictions of capitalism in the process of “capitalist globalization.” Of course, due to the complexity and diversity of “anti-globalization” practices, the meaning of this concept itself has become increasingly broad, even chaotic. The first proposal of the concept of “de-globalization” was also heavily marked by the imprint of “anti-globalization.”

20世纪90年代到新世纪初，这种不满之声和反对意见主要是由发展中国家以及发达国家中因为“资本主义全球化”而受到利益损失的人群发出的。这就是所谓“反全球化”运动的兴起，其集中表现是以“西雅图风暴”为代表的街头抗议活动，以及“世界社会论坛”等“反全球化”组织和论坛。在归根结底的意义上，“反全球化”并不是由“经济全球化的客观历史进程所导致的，而是根源于“资本主义全球化”过程中资本主义内在矛盾的转移和转嫁。当然，因为“反全球化”实践的复杂性和多样性，这个概念本身的意涵也就越发宽泛，甚至是混乱。“逆全球化”概念的首次提出也被打上了“反全球化”的强烈印记。

Since the 2008 financial crisis, due to the incompetence of neoliberal global governance, the rise of emerging market economies and developing countries, and the accelerated evolution of changes unseen in a century, within developed countries, the populism that has risen due to the dissatisfaction of the middle class and industrial workers with “globalization,” the protectionism that has resurged to safeguard the interests of monopoly financial capital and high-tech monopolies, and the decoupling and severing of supply chains adopted to contain the rise of emerging market economies and developing countries represented by China, have converged to constitute today’s chaotic phenomenon of “de-globalization.”

2008 年金融危机以来，由于新自由主义全球治理的无能，新兴市场国家和发展中国家的崛起，世界百年未有之大变局加速演进，在发达国家内部，因中产阶级和产业工人对“全球化”不满而抬头的民粹主义，为维护垄断金融资本利益和高科技垄断而再度泛滥的保护主义，与为遏制以中国为代表的新兴市场国家和发展中国家崛起而采取的脱钩断链汇聚在一起，就构成了今天的“逆全球化”乱象。

This so-called “de-globalization” is not about “removing economic globalization,” nor can it actually do without economic globalization. Rather, it is a strategy adopted by the rentier stratum of the developed countries, who, in order to maintain their own monopoly position and continue to extract super-profits through the unjust international economic order, employ the state apparatus. The implementation of this strategy not only violates the objective laws of social-historical development but also, in its panic, directly “slaps the face” of the “capitalist globalization” strategy previously promoted by the Western developed countries and the neoliberal ideology they propagated, thereby directly exposing its own hypocritical essence and false characteristics. Going further, the “de-globalization” strategy pursued by Western countries cannot fundamentally overcome the inherent contradictions of the capitalist mode of production. Within the developed countries themselves, this “de-globalization” has not only failed to dissolve various social contradictions but has instead intensified the differentiation of interests and led to social fragmentation. On a world scale, this “de-globalization,” on the one hand, through the displacement and shifting of contradictions, has caused greater economic losses and political turmoil in developing countries and regions; on the other hand, it has even directly provoked opposition and confrontation, resulting in regional conflicts and security challenges. What deserves vigilance is that, although the Western developed countries are the initiators of “de-globalization” in recent years, some Western politicians and scholars have shifted the blame for the setbacks encountered by economic globalization onto China and other emerging market and developing countries, even proposing a so-called “re-globalization” to embellish the “rules-based international order” advocated by the U.S. government.

这种所谓的“逆全球化”并非要“去经济全球化”，也不可能真的不要经济全球化，而是发达国家的食利者阶层为了维持自身的垄断地位，继续利用不合理的国际经济秩序攫取超额利润，利用国家机器采取的一种策略。这种策略的实施，不仅违背了社会历史发展的客观规律，而且在慌乱中直接“打脸”了西方发达国家此前推行的“资本主义全球化”策略、宣扬的新自由主义意识形态，直接暴露了自身的虚伪本质和虚假特征。更进一步，西方国家所推行的“逆全球化”策略并不能从根本上克服资本主义生产方式的内在矛盾，在发达国家内部，这种“逆全球化”非但没有消解各种社会矛盾，反而加剧了利益的分化，导致了社会的撕裂。在世界范围内，这种“逆全球化”一方面通过矛盾的转移和转嫁，使得发展中国家和地区遭受了更大的经济损失和政治动荡；另一方面甚至通过直接挑动对立对抗，造成了地区冲突和安全挑战。值得警惕的是，明明西方发达国家才是近年来“逆全球化”的始作俑者，但是一些西方政客和学者却将经济全球化遭遇逆流的原因“甩锅”给中国等新兴市场国家和发展中国家，甚至提出了所谓的“再全球化”来为美国政府所宣扬的“基于规则的国际秩序”进行文饰。

Based on the above conceptual analysis, our view is: today’s problem is not whether to have “globalization,” nor is it a matter of “de-globalization” versus “re-globalization.” Rather, the issue is, in the face of economic globalization as an irreversible historical trend, how we should jointly respond to global governance challenges and jointly create a bright future for humanity. Grasping the general trend of history and based on its own experience, China’s solution for upholding the correct direction of economic globalization is: to promote more inclusive global development, to promote more beneficial global development, to promote more resilient global development, to uphold and practice true multilateralism, and to promote the building of a community with a shared future for mankind.

基于上述概念辨析，我们的观点是：今天的问题不在于要不要“全球化”，也不在于究竟是“逆全球化”还是“再全球化”，而在于面对经济全球化这一不可逆转的历史趋势，应该如何共同应对全球治理挑战，共同开创人类美好未来。把握历史大势、基于自身经验，坚持经济全球化正确方向，中国给出的方案是：推动更加包容的全球发展，推动更加普惠的全球发展，推动更有韧性的全球发展，维护和践行真正的多边主义，推动构建人类命运共同体。

In the report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC, as an answer to the question of the times—“What is wrong with the world, and what should we do about it?”—General Secretary Xi Jinping declared with resounding force: China will unswervingly follow the path of peaceful development, unswervingly deepen reform and expand opening up, and unswervingly advance the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation through Chinese-path modernization. China always maintains and promotes world peace through its own development, and China’s development and world development are interwoven and mutually reinforcing. China will unswervingly promote high-standard opening up, adhere to the correct direction of economic globalization, continue to promote the building of an open world economy, and expand the convergence of interests with all countries. A China that is continuously moving toward modernization will surely provide more opportunities for the world, inject stronger impetus into international cooperation, and make greater contributions to the progress of all humanity!

在党的二十大报告中，作为“世界怎么了、我们怎么办”时代之问的解答，习近平总书记掷地有声地宜示：中国将坚定不移走和平发展道路，坚定不移深化改革、扩大开放，坚定不移以中国式现代化全面推进中华民族伟大复兴。中国始终以自身发展维护和促进世界和平，中国发展同世界发展相互交融、相互成就。中国将坚定不移推进高水平对外开放，坚持经济全球化正确方向，继续推动建设开放型世界经济，扩大同各国利益的汇合点。一个不断走向现代化的中国，必将为世界提供更多机遇，为国际合作注入更强动力，为全人类进步作出更大贡献！

(Author: Professor and Doctoral Supervisor, Center for Studies of Marxist Social Theory and Department of Philosophy, Nanjing University)

（作者：南京大学马克思主义社会理论研究中心暨哲学系教授、博士生导师）

Online Editor: You Heng

网络编辑：有恒