Ecological Socialism: The Historical and Cultural Significance of Rural Perspectives – By Prof. Zhao Yuezhi (赵月枝)

Ecological Socialism: The Historical and Cultural Significance of Rural Perspectives 

By Prof. Zhao Yuezhi (赵月枝)  

(Translated by Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD) 

Translator’s Note: Having consulted directly with Prof. Zhao Yuezhi, I translated this very interesting text into the English language. Texts such as these are important for forming a true and accurate interpretation of historical events and cultural development as it dialectically unfolds in a nation of over a billion people. Elsewhere, Prof. Zhao has written that Mao Zedong predicted many of the twists and turns associated with post-1949 Chinese Communist development. Of course, how and what the Chinese people think of themselves is a stark contrast to the racially fuelled Eurocentric narratives which informs the West and dominates the discourse of that part of the world. Obviously, these narratives that depict everything ‘Chinese’ as ‘evil’ has more to say about the Judeo-Christian historical foundations of the secularist West, than it does about China itself. Prof. Zhao Yuezhi – who is just as respected in the West as she is in China – possesses an intellect at the cutting-edge of Chinese dialectical development and is a reliable source of authentic information about that country. The important point to remember is that dialectical development does not stop and cannot be judged simply through previous manifestations associated with different eras (now gone). Dialectical development is an ongoing and organic process that must be viewed not only from its externality (as it appears to be ‘objectively’), but also from within the heart of its developmental core (as ‘thoughts’ and ‘behaviours’ cascade from its Socialist heart). Of course, for the capitalist West, Socialist China must ‘fail’ – and be seen to fail – to reinforce the dominant narrative of US-inspired predatory capitalism. What many do not grasp in the West is that from the Chinese perspective capitalism has already failed and been replaced (i.e. ‘transitioned’) into Socialism. This is the Chinese Communist Revolution fully realised in 1949 and unfolding ever since. China is ‘Socialist’ as the workers have seized the means of production and the Communist Party defines the dominant ideas of this age. However, China is still moving within a Socialist context toward the achievement of ‘Socialism’, which is not far from actuality. What capitalists think about this is irrelevant – rather like a medieval ‘doctor’ stating his opposition to modern medicine whilst not even understanding what it is he is disagreeing with! ACW (12.4.2019)

[Abstract] The exploration of ecological socialism lies at the heart of the construction of an ecological civilization. On the one hand, China possesses the political, economic, social and cultural resources that lead the world toward ecological socialism in the 21st century, whilst on the other hand, there is the issue of excessive use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides in current Chinese agriculture, and the narratives pursued by Chinese intellectuals and media with regard to the land and environment. On the issue of neoliberalism and Western centralism, and the fact that China’s most marginalized labour force has also been involved in the production of the world’s factories, the ecological socialist vision will face enormous challenges in China. At the political and economic level, China needs to fight against a forced “integration” with capitalism, strive for its own space for independent development, and gradually transform its position as a world factory. At the level of thought, culture and communication, we must persistently criticize Western hegemony and internalized racism. Only in this way can China surpass capitalism, urban centralism and industrialism and realize the vision of ecological socialism as a “new global village”. [Key words] ecological socialism; rural vision; new global village; culture; communication [CLC number] B089. 1 [Document code] A [Article ID]1004 -0633 (2015) 06 -066 -7 

Note: This article was compiled and supplemented on March 28, 2015 at the “Heyang Forum and Rural, Cultural and Communication” academic week speech held in Jinyun, Zhejiang. Thanks to Bai Hong Tan’s (白洪 谭) recording and finishing, Lin Chun (林春), Huang Yingying (黄樱棻) and Wu Changchang’s (吴畅畅) suggestions for revision, I am also very grateful to Ms. Gao Yuanmin (高苑敏) for her important contribution in the publication process. [Received Date] 2015 -10 -08 [Author] Zhao Yuezhi, Canadian National Distinguished Professor of Simon Fraser University, Changjiang Scholar of the Communication University of China, Chair Professor, Executive Dean of Heyang Rural Research Institute, Yunyun County. Beijing 100024 

In December 2013, the Central Urbanization Work Conference pointed out that urban construction should allow residents to see the mountains, see the water, and remember to live with a sense homesickness. The phrase “remember to live with a sense of homesickness” is a very pleasant one. It appeals to our mourning for the rural life and the local people, and as a cultural concept appears to be a matter for people living the city. I hope that from the overview that is the result of a combination of historical logic and theoretical logic, and from the standpoint of the vision of ecological society, I understand the world history, culture and ecological significance of the rural vision and how this can be used to coordinate urban and rural development. My professional research has always had a strong political economic orientation, but political economics and cultural studies have always been two-sided. The ultimate concern is value and meaning. For example, Adam Smith paid attention to ethical philosophy before writing The Wealth of Nations, and Marx’s criticism of classical political economics (which referenced Smith) aimed at human liberation. The culture referred to here is anthropological, not literary. 

In terms of culture, the concept as used here cannot be reduced to the cultural products that are commoditized, but the relationship between people and other people, and the inner communication of people, for instance, “who am I”, “what is the meaning of life”? This is a subjective problem. Ecology involves the relationship between man and nature, which is the prerequisite for any political and economic form. Not long ago, I explained the basic connotation of the theoretical framework of cross-cultural communication within the political economy in “China’s Challenge: Political Economy of Intercultural Communication.” [1] On this basis, I hope to further open up the field of analysis from the global to the village and from the international to the domestic perspective by emphasizing the cultural and ecological perspectives, and develop the “new global village” thinking of ecological socialism. In addition to criticizing the class issues of political economy, this thinking also involves rural and urban interiors, frontiers and coastal areas, as well as the margins and centres of the world system. 

The relationship between the central state and other issues. After the 2008 world financial crisis, I deeply realized that China cannot save the world from this deep crisis, but that only “ecological socialism can save China and the world”. In the book “China and Global Capitalism”, Lin Chun pointed out that the “Chinese characteristics” is nothing but socialism. Lin Chun described four basic aspects of the socialist China model: a strong country; a strong and resource-rich “public” economic sector; prioritising people’s livelihood development; social organization, participation, and power. A strong country is first and foremost a socialist country, not a state capitalist country. The “public” economic sector is broader than the “state-owned” that is nowadays – “state-owned” is not the only form of “public ownership”. In the history of Chinese socialism, there has been a strong collective economy. [2] The socialist model outlined in the book is not only very clear, but also has a historical basis and strong appeal. Here, I only hope to elaborate and supplement the two aspects of culture and ecology from the perspective of urban-rural relations. Within the historical and cultural significance of the country’s vision, the concept of “village” contains the paradox logic between the city and the country, the centre and the edge in the global capitalist system. On the one hand, the process of capitalist expansion is the process of urban exploitation, which in turn eliminates the countryside. The production elements of the countryside are plundered and then hollowed out. In the narrative framework of capitalist modernization, the village is the opposite of the city at the spiritual and cultural level, meaning backwardness and narrowness, and it is to be abandoned. On the other hand, capitalism has used the village as a safety valve to transfer and resolve the economic crisis, and to appropriate and possess it at the spiritual and cultural levels, to idealize and landscape it. The development of capitalism is closely related to the British enclosure movement, a process that turned British farmers into industrial workers. This is a familiar narrative. It is on this basis that Marx regards the working class as the most advanced revolutionary subject. However, from the perspective of the global capitalist system, one point that cannot be ignored is that colonialism and imperialism are also indispensable parts of capitalism. The original accumulation of capitalism directly benefits from the overseas expansion of European powers. [3] That is to say, the rise of capitalism is a global process. In the global perspective rather than the British vision, capitalist production “elements” and social labour subjects, in addition to the British workers produced by the British enclosure movement, include the land of Native Americans, the Latin American silver, the African slaves, India and Chinese farmers, etc. In a February 2015 US Monthly Review, a book review entitled “The Land of Aboriginal People and the Body of Africans: The Source of American Capitalism” is also of this view. [4] Once we break out of the epistemological misunderstandings of Eurocentrism and the dualism of East and West, we will find that the slaves that were driven and the aborigines who used the land as a living resource were almost annihilated, whilst existing at the same time as the British working class. This inspires us to rethink the linear development of machinery: this position only sees the process of replacing the former firstly with slaves, farmers and then workers, and ignores the simultaneity of all these categories in historical time and space. Although these non-European factors that construct European capitalism are “non-capitalist”, they are not necessarily “pre-capitalist”. [5] This in turn involves how to better grasp the central and marginal relationship of the global capitalist system at the epistemological and methodological level, and to link the Marxist class-centred position with the anti-imperialist position more organically. The anti-capitalist vision of the workers and the anti-colonial view from the standpoint of the peasant/indigenous people are interactive and indispensable. This is the key to connecting Western Marxism with “Southern” Marxism. This is not only a theoretical issue, but also a guiding ideology and practice. In practice, the cost of ignoring farmers’ problems is very large. In modern China, the issue of peasants has always been a fundamental issue of the revolution. In the European context, Professor Cui Zhiyuan (崔之元) believed that Marx’s neglect of the peasant issue directly affected the failure of the German Social Democratic Party in guiding the strategy and Hitler’s coming to power (Cui Zhiyuan, “Free Socialism and China’s Future: The Petty Bourgeois Declaration”, http: / /www. 360doc. Cn/article/8553846_ 255920496. Html. Issue 6 of 2015). The bankruptcy of Indian cotton farmers, China’s opium trade, selling African black slaves to South American silver mines and North American plantations, and large-scale immigration to alleviate the pressure on the British population, all of which constitutes British industrial capitalism as the core of “The rise of the West.” Between 1840 and 1860, the time period between the first and second Sino-British Opium Wars, the number of slaves shipped from Africa to the United States increased from 250,000 to 750,000. [6] More importantly, unlike the current neoliberal myths about the role of the United States, the United States has played a very important role in this process: From the very beginning, the United States was the engine of the original accumulation through violence. This work sought to drive away the aborigines and suppress the people for enslavement. Today, these issues still exist in a variety of official and civil, violent and non-violent forms. In Vancouver, the school where I work is located in the urban area on the land where the Aboriginal people have not been ethnically cleansed (whilst being subject to European colonisation); not far from my office, there is a gathering place for Aboriginal people, which is the poorest neighbourhood in Vancouver. Here, more than 100 Aboriginal women who have been prostitutes and have lived on the streets – have disappeared. Many of them were dismembered after being violently abused by a white farm owner. This is a horrible story. In the eyes of the aborigines, this is also the legacy of the history of genocide today. In short, the historical legacy of North American agricultural capitalism includes the painful struggle of Aboriginal people and the poverty of the black community. Today, there are riots in the black community of the United States, which is a historical legacy of the problem of American slaves. Professor Lu Xinyu (吕新雨) has had a profound discussion about why China’s agriculture cannot take the American road. [7] But back to the cultural level, I want to emphasize that capitalism and colonialism are closely related to racism. 

According to the above book review, through the use of military force, the homeland of the aborigines was transformed into a place for “planting White”. [8] The white here is cotton, but it is also white in the racial sense – “superior whites.” In fact, we are still deeply influenced by the internalized white racism. As an overseas Chinese, I have a better understanding of this aspect. For example, Chinese immigrants (when taking their children abroad for education) often want to go to a place with more whites and fewer Chinese, and avoid other coloured ethnic groups. What is even more worrying is that when discussing “China’s rise” today, some nationalists did not have enough reflection and criticism on colonialism and its cultural expression — racism — and wishfully express that China should step into the role of the United States – mimicking the “empire” mentality of the latter. Because some Western public opinion is also happy and eager to create the “China threat theory”, through China’s investment in Asia, Africa and Latin America, especially China’s interest in energy and other resources in these places, it has often become the “China threat theory” in the West. If China imitates the American road, “we will really be expansive and influential in the World”? Will Americans really take you seriously and be on an equal footing with you? In fact, the United States — or more specifically, the dominant class in the United States — – It is more likely that like the old man Zhao in “The True Story of Ah Q”, he is only allowed to revolutionize himself whilst you are not allowed to revolutionize. You can become a vassal of capitalism dominated by the United States, but the “Zhao Laoye” of the United States will not let China replace it in the capitalist system. As Lin Chun pointed out, the capitalist accumulation logic “includes exploitation, domination, and subversion, which hinder the development of marginal countries.” At the same time, because the successful development of South Korea, Taiwan and other places benefited from the aid and market of the United States and the special background of the Cold War, they could not prove that the basic position of the dependency theory was wrong. [9] What’s more, today’s China will never have the geopolitical and moral space to deprive the people of Asia, Africa and Latin America like the European white sectarians and racists. Compared with the above-mentioned urban-rural relationship in the development of capitalism, China’s current situation is not completely consistent with other countries—this is in part due to the unyielding struggle of Chinese farmers. However, Chinese farmers also face the same contradiction: On the one hand, rural areas are being marginalized by the process of modernization and urbanization; on the other hand, rural areas are considered to be the root of Chinese culture. Just a few years ago when China began a large-scale village, even the New York Times published a front page. The article pointed out that the village is the carrier of Chinese culture. When the village is dead, Chinese culture will die. [10] For example, in my hometown of Heyang (situated in Jin Yun County, Zhejiang) there are ancient dwellings, which are considered key national and cultural relics worthy of protection. On the one hand, it has long faced the problem of emptying from the inside; on the other hand, it also faces the problems of the land and buildings being misappropriated and inappropriately redeveloped. This village, like some other similar villages, has become a focal point for people in the city and even the entire Chinese people to express their sense of homesickness. In the Spring Festival Evening 2015 regarding “Homesickness” the background image of the song included an image of Heyang. However, how many village homes have been demolished or people moved out of their ancestral hall, so that the areas have now become a cultural relic. This has meant that families have been unable to solve their housing problems for many years, and they have become housing difficulties or feel that their interests are damaged. In the eyes of these people, there is a contradiction between the issue of people’s livelihood and the protection of ancient dwellings and tourism. Is the homestead market based on market purchasing power or on-demand allocation? How can the principle of openness, fairness and justice in the process of demolition or land acquisition be guaranteed? Has the enthusiasm of the villagers (as the main part of the village) been encouraged to participate in the village development? In the process of Heyang’s future development, experts from the city are considering altering the direction of flow of the river in the area which will cause much disruption and change. Does this procedure respect local knowledge, or take the “mass line” and fully seek the opinions of the villagers? At the very least, do these villagers understand the plans that are intended to unfold? These problems, together with the complex political and economic power relations inside and outside the village, including social differentiation, village election politics, the impact of ruptures in the community and the disruption of blood and clan links within society. All this happens whilst the villagers trust in the public authority, and are willing to accept the different imaginations of the village’s future, due to the openness of information, etc. Cultural factors, entangled with each other, make a small area like Heyang, to be like a reflection of the entire native China, at the crossroads of where to go. Historically, the Chinese revolution led by the Communist Party of China was centred on the Agrarian Revolution. This vigorous agrarian revolution not only challenged the global capitalist order, but also opened the way for Chinese peasants to gain dignity and self-awareness and set a benchmark for the dignity of the lower classes of the world. In today’s China, as the process of capital being invested in the countryside, increasingly more rural areas are becoming urban back gardens, as a consumerist cultural ideology continues to erode traditional rural lifestyles, the question becomes one of how to reconstruct rural communities and maintain farming and rural areas, together with ensuring dignity and awareness of the purpose of agriculture (in all its aspects), whilst deciding how to define what is the good life – which has become a crucial issue. This is a question of world historical significance. It is definitely not something that can be solved simply by economic development. In order to avoid China simply developing agricultural capitalism, we must double-criticize the ideological and cultural aspects of liberal market fundamentalism and internalized white racism. After more than 30 years of reform and opening up, China has become the world’s second largest economy, and the talk of China’s rise is endless. Some American elites are worried that China will replace the US world hegemony; there are also many speculating voices in China. However, if the land of the indigenous people and the body of the Africans can be the source of American capitalism, then today, the land of Chinese peasants and the body of migrant workers are the secrets of China becoming a factory of the world under the background of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Today, after the “Xiaogang Village” has already completed its ideological symbolic role for the reforms in Wukan in Guangdong. In the mean time the resetting of the river flow in Zhejiang is a symbol of a new conflict erupting around the land and environment, one that we have to face the question of where China is to go (as a matter of world development) and the direction rural China is go inside the country. Just as the issue of peasants was once the fundamental issue of China’s revolution, today, the revival of local culture is an important part of China’s “soft power” construction and how to pursue this soft power. 

As Huang Ping pointed out in an interview, the most crucial thing is not how to go out and influence others, but that we should have a cultural-ethical pattern that we consider to be justified and taken for granted. The majority of the people are in it and enjoy themselves. [11] This is a process of economic development, and it is a process of finding spiritual homes and rebuilding communities. It is important to emphasize that we are concerned about rural China and we are not simply going back to the past – we have no reason to romanticize the past and actually cannot return to the past. For me personally, first of all, I was born in Ziran Village at the foot of Yan Mountain – but today this area in now part of Heyang Village, I don’t know whether to return to Yan Mountain or Heyang—as in the administrative sense, Ziran Village (at the foot of Yan Mountain) no longer exists. As regards the “18 foot” wood cabin I was born in, the front-door is now tightly locked, and I can see through the window that it is full of farm tools used by my parents. The owner of this house – my brother in the patriarchal society – left the village many years ago to earn a living, and has long been unable to find the key to open the door. It is well known that by the end of the reform and opening up period, young people began to stay in the countryside and it is difficult to see the future. In fact, in the Chinese context, “returning to the past” is a specific rhetorical way to suppress discussions about the uncertainty of the future direction of China. We don’t want to go back to the past, but to move to the future—and not everyone has to go to the city, but can stay and keep the youthful aspect in the countryside whilst living a life of peace. To answer what is a good life of our own, we need the transformation of the entire social value system, we need to challenge the Western consumer capitalist cultural hegemony with regards its imaginations as to what constitutes a good life, and we need Chinese social science to carry out an innovation in the interpretation and definition of  ontology and epistemology. The paradigm revolution completely abandons Western centralism and urban centralism and abandons the logic of capitalist development ontology and capital accumulation. [12] If we jump out of developmentalism and see that culture is a way of life, we may have a new understanding of the issue of “middle income traps”. In other words, will the “middle income trap” itself be a problem within the logic of capital and developmentalism? First, in a society where the rich and the poor are very uneven, and a very small number of people have a large amount of wealth, based on “per capita income” – the “middle income” is a very deceptive indicator. Secondly, the distribution of inequality, overproduction, and insufficient underlying consumption capacity are the root causes of the economic crisis and the “trap” of development. What’s more, the West has long shown that GDP has grown to a certain extent and will not bring more happiness to the people. Today, the determination to promote a more radical marketization and privatization with the determination to indefinitely increase output capacity, can only lead to greater inequality. What we need to promote is a new “Pan Xiao Discussion” (a very popular open dialogue originating in May 1980, encouraging young people to express their feelings and impressions about life) in the contemporary era. This would not include a discussion justifying capitalist self-interest or the law of the jungle, but would rather revisit the question of what should be the goal of (socialist) life, before establishing a definition of the meaning of (socialist) life. This would open a new chapter in the dialectical expression of life, transcend Eurocentrism and the (outdated) 19th century concept of development, strengthen ideological resources in China and the south of the world, whilst simultaneously uniting the anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, anti-racist scholars with the aborigines of Europe and the United States. Such a comprehensive and all-embracing process would considerably strengthen the criticism formulated against capitalism and colonialism.  

In Heyang, traditional culture emphasized “cultivating the fields family style” (耕读家风 – Geng Du Jia Feng). I grew up under the subtle influence of “cultivating the fields family style”. On the door of the “18 foot” wood cabin built by my ancestors, I wrote the words “淳朴家风” (Chun Pu Jia Feng). This was a play on words with me replacing the two characters representing “field cultivation” (耕读 – Geng Du) with the two-character meaning “pure original nature” (淳朴 – Chun Pu), as I deeply felt that this mode of existence represents a non-consumeristic lifestyle that pursues the balance of the material and spiritual realms, ensuring the harmony of the physical and the psychological. In Vancouver, after reading the works of Canadian communication scholars McLuhan, Innis, and others, I discovered Canadian Aboriginal thinkers. In the summer of 2013, at the International Academic Conference of the 40th Anniversary of the Academy I hosted, we invited three Aboriginal theorists to be the keynote speakers at the conference. They are the new-born thinkers of the Native American culture that have been oppressed and nearly destroyed over the last 500 years. They are from the Columbia University, the University of British Columbia, the University of Victoria, and the North American universities whose colonial history is engraved on their names. They have the most cutting-edge critical academic ideas in North America.  Their thoughts on the relationship between man and nature have something in common with my Chinese peasant ancestors. Their thorough anti-colonialist and anti-racist ideology was unrecognized in the Western critiques that I am familiar with. Among them, Glen S. Coulthard, just published a book called Red Skin, White Face. [13] This book name has a clear dialogue with the famous African anti-colonialist thinker Frantz Fanon in the 20th century, with the author claiming to be a communist of the Deni tribe he belongs to. The process of capitalist development is Marx’s process of “ecological breaking”, that is, the process of breaking the relationship between human and natural matter. In order to bridge this gap, Chinese humanities and social science workers have a lot of work to do — on the one hand, absorb the essence of Chinese traditional culture, on the other, deepen the study of Marxist ecological thinking, and thus provide ideas and culture for the construction of the foundation of ecological civilization. In terms of culture, I believe that the idea of ​​”harmony between man and nature” as the core concept of Chinese civilization and should be without controversy. If we want to say “Chinese characteristics”, this is Chinese characteristics, and should not be developed at the expense of the environment. If Chinese characteristics are socialist, then such socialism must be ecological socialism based on the harmonious coexistence of man and nature. This is the socialist definition with the most “Chinese characteristics.” The socialist system is also an inevitable requirement of ecological civilization. At the same time, we need to emphasize that Western Marxists have made many breakthroughs in “rediscovered” Marx’s ecological thoughts in the past 20 years. According to the analysis of Foster, the editor of the American Monthly Review and the radical ecological socialist, Western ecological thought has experienced the development from the “first stage” to the “second stage”. 

[14] In the “first phase”, in the 1980s and early 1990s, Western ecologists—some also claiming to be “ecological socialists”—were somewhat influenced by the “Green Party”. At that time, they hoped to make a clean break with Stalinism and “scientific socialism” as the official ideology of the Communist Party. They also hoped to keep a distance from the Marxist theoretical system that was in crisis due to the drastic changes in the Soviet Union and the East. Some people even distanced themselves from Marxism – interpreting it as an obstacle to ecologicalism. In this sense, they are only “green” and not “red.” They did not build their own ecologicalist theoretical system on the basis of drawing upon Marxism’s radical critique of capitalism. Politically, the first phase of the Western ecologicalists was closer to the position of the Western Social Democratic Party, the position of capitalist reformism or “green capitalism”. Since then, especially since the mid-1990s, with the publication of works such as Marx and Nature (1998) and Marx’s Ecology 1999, and the deepening of the capitalist ecological crisis, Marxism as an ecological vision of political economy has been further explained and developed. These studies show that Marx has long recognized the extent of natural destruction under capitalist conditions and the ecological crisis caused by the development of capitalism. And a note on Marx’s modern agriculture issue published in the 10th issue of the Monthly Review, 2014, shows more clearly that although Marx was optimistic about the impact of modern technology on agriculture in the early days, based on his mastering the most cutting-edge knowledge of agriculture and chemistry at the time, Marx gradually realized that the application of capitalist agricultural science and technology has an irreversible destructive effect on the exchange relationship between man and nature. [15] It is on the basis of these latest studies that the ideas of some Western ecologists have entered a more radical second stage, that is, the natural science foundation and “scientificity” that completely opposes capitalism and re-understands Marxist theory. For the analysts of the second stage – the term “green capitalism” is itself contradictory – the ecological crisis generated by capitalism cannot be overcome by the capitalist system itself, regardless of whether the specific means is green technology. It is also a market trading mechanisation for carbon emissions. In short, as Foster pointed out, Marx not only believes that capitalism undermines the source of the two sources of wealth which are labour and land, but also that the definition of socialism should include the “reasonable regulation” of the relationship between man and nature by the producers’ union. [16] I thought that it is in this sense that the word “science” in “science and society” has returned to its original meaning. In short, the key to building socialism lies in redefining the purpose of production and transcending the consumption relations of capitalism and the logic of life: In the capitalist system, the exploited labourers often engage in alienated, wasteful, ecologically destructive production as capital. Accumulate and consume natural resources and your own life. However, alienated labour is not only limited to Foxconn-like sweatshops, but the “world factory” has long been representative of its tentacles. 

Stretched into every corner of the “global village” in the sense of McLuhan, exploiting any working people in the countryside. For example, in the village where I grew up, many elderly people and women engaged in very simple and mechanical “processing of materials”, mainly assembling tiny plastic gadgets, such as small jewellery. They are the end of the world’s capitalist production machine, the least skilled and least mechanised workforce. In the words of one of my aunt’s aunts, she knew that what she did was “garbage” and that she was “waste” when she sold abroad, but she had no other way out. Of course, when it comes to garbage, it is impossible to mention the ecological damage of the capitalist market system to China and the third world countries, including the fact that China’s rural areas are dumping e-waste and municipal waste. For example, Guangdong Guiyu has become the largest dumping area for western e-waste, which not only causes local environmental pollution, but also greatly threatens the health of local people. At the same time, China’s rural land is being gradually commercialized, and the more radical Chinese neoliberals not only push for land privatization, but also believe that this is an American “advanced” system. In fact, in North America, the anti-colonial and anti-capitalist struggles of the aborigines have been centred around the land issue. In the minds of the aborigines, the relationship between man and land is not a concept of possession, but a concept of gift; land is not only seen as a material resource of human beings, but also as a mutually beneficial relationship with people. In other words, in addition to political and economic perspectives, it is necessary for us to have a rich understanding of the land from a cultural and ecological perspective. At this point, the understanding of Native Americans and the understanding of Chinese farmers constitute a common cause. For this reason, I oppose cultural essentialism and simple binary opposition between East and West [17]—I am from the “Orient” (by birth) and now I am now from the “West” (by experience) in the geographical sense, whilst the aborigines have only been in the West from the start.  The “reasonable regulation” of the relationship between man and nature referred to above necessarily involves agricultural knowledge. As mentioned earlier, Marx is very concerned about the damage caused by the application of modern agricultural technology to the land. This reminds me of the “Four Thousand Years of Farmers” and the question of who is “advanced”, who is “backward”, who has knowledge, who is at the forefront of academic thought, and we are rediscovering today that we have been abandoned, suppressed. The Four Thousand Years Farmer is the legacy of American agronomist Franklin H. King. At the beginning of the 20th century, he realized the unsustainability of modern agriculture in the United States. He came to East Asia to study “sustainable agriculture” and how East Asian farmers planted the land, and described these farmers as being in biology, chemistry, the soil, etc, an expert with a wealth of knowledge upon the subject. This book, published in the United States during the 1911 Revolution, documented the traditional agricultural knowledge of many Eastern farmers and is now a guide for American organic farming practitioners. Ironically, this book was translated into Chinese in 2011, just a hundred years after its publication in the United States, when agricultural fertilizers and pesticides in China have reached a peak of usage.  

[18] Of course, like the e-waste problem I mentioned earlier, when we talk about the environment and ecology, we cannot leave the issue of justice at the domestic and international levels. Not long ago, Chai Jing’s (柴静) documentary “Under the Dome” sparked a great debate. Critics point to the neoliberal political tendencies that Chai Jing advocates for the privatization of the energy industry, as well as the overall urban middle-class position: workers who are unemployed because of factory closures and farmers who suffer from more serious water pollution and soil pollution. They are not treated as subjects, they are at most the object of sympathy. It should be pointed out that pollution such as soil and water sources, which are more serious than urban haze, will eventually affect the city people through food, which just proves the importance of the vision of urban-rural relations and how it is important in today’s context and the urgency of the “worker-peasant alliance” as the main body. At the international level, on the issue of the Copenhagen International Climate Conference, Chai Jing had an interview with Academician Ding Zhongli (丁仲礼) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. In the interview, Chai Jing internalized the unfair position of the major western countries on developing countries in the allocation of carbon emissions, which led to the question of Ding Academician: Are not the Chinese people human beings? If a country has influential media persons (to entertain rather than educate the masses), then neglecting the issue of environmental justice and equality amongst the different classes and strata in the country becomes easy. This is accompanied by the erroneous assumption that the bias Western stance on environmental issues represents a “universal” position. This leads to the environmental sphere becoming the playground of the urban middle-class, through which its privileged position is maintained. and allows for the Western countries to aggressively promote neoliberalism, which leads to a new wave in imperialistic and neo-colonial activity. Of course, after more than 30 years of commercialist transformation, certain aspects of the Chinese media itself has long been driven by the strong logic of capital and has become a marketing tool for powerful consumerist ideology. [19] In short, on the one hand, China, as the only sustainable farming civilization in the world, as a land revolution carried out through blood and fire in the 20th century, clearly stipulates in the Constitution “a socialist country based on the alliance of workers and peasants”. It still has the political, economic, and social and cultural resources that lead the world toward ecological socialism in the 21st century. On the other hand, from the excessive use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides in current Chinese agriculture, to the new issues of Chinese intellectuals and the media on land and environment, the vision of liberalism and Western centralism, and the fact that China’s most marginal labour force has also been involved in the production of the world’s factories, the ecological socialist vision will face enormous challenges in China. Conclusion:  In a recent speech, I pointed out that in a certain sense, farmers are Chinese aborigines. What needs to be added is that Chinese farmers, of course, also include ethnic minority farmers and herdsmen in China. 

They are the masters of the People’s Republic, and they have very important political subjective differences with the indigenous peoples on the North American reservations. That is to say, Chinese peasants are an integral part of the people of a sovereign country, and some indigenous peoples in North America are still fighting for their “sovereignty” – in their eyes, the state power in North America is still a sectarian continuation regime that does not belong to them. In the context of China, the emphasis on rural vision is hoped to substantially improve the political representation, voice and political opportunities of farmers and migrant workers, so as to truly implement “people’s democracy.” It is important to emphasize that to achieve true democracy at the village level, it is necessary to go beyond simple rural electoral politics, and in the specific work, let the villagers participate in rural governance substantively. At the same time, as a sovereign country, China needs to fight against an “integration” with capitalism, strive for its own space for self-development, and gradually change its status as a factory in the world. Of course, at the level of thought, culture and communication, we must persistently criticize Western hegemony and internalized racism. Only in this way can China surpass capitalism, urban centralism and industrialism to realize the vision of “new localism” [20] or “new global village”. The reason why it is a “new global village” is because the “global village” in the sense of McLuhan not only masks the domestic and international unequal relations at the symbolic level, but also has the colour of technical centralism, and I imagine the “new global village”. It is both symbolic and substantive as it involves both refactoring the close relationship between people and the reconstruction of the harmonious relationship between man and nature. It is ecological, socialist, scientific, and has various national characteristics. Returning to Heyang, a village that has become a national key cultural relics protection unit, the challenge now is how to ensure the village still belongs to the Heyang villagers during the process of protection and development of ancient dwellings, as it is developed for the country and to the world. Can the Heyang villagers have a beautiful life of their own? How can the villagers be taken as the basis, as representative as the people’s livelihood, together with the villagers pursuing self-democratic management and subjective reconstruction as the core, carry out community reengineering, promoting the inheritance of farming civilization and presenting Heyang as the “new global village”? Culture and ecological resources are the public wealth of the community. Because of this, Heyang must only be healthy in the framework of the “communist moral economy” (21) advocated by Lin Chun. I believe that under the influence of the new historical conditions, the peasants will be organized on the basis of collective or cooperative economy and share the principle of mutual benefit, thus turning the rural community into a frontier experimental zone of ecological socialism with the fundamental goal of human freedom and all-round development. Any other option is unacceptable and unfeasible. 

References] [1] Zhao Yuezhi. China’s Challenge: A Political Economy of Intercultural Communication [J]. Journal of Communication and Social Sciences, 2014, total issue 28. [2] Lin Chun, China and Global Capitalism: Reflections on Marxism, History, and Contemporary Politics, Palgrave Macmillan, 2013, pp. 180 -181. [3] Lin Chun, China and Global Capitalism: Reflections on Marxism, History, and Contemporary Politics, Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. p. 5 [4] Roxanne Dunbar – Ortiz, “Native Land and African Bodies: The Source of U. S. Capitalism”, Monthly Review, Volume 67, Issue 2, February 2015. [5] Lin Chun, China and Global Capitalism: Reflections on Marxism, History, and Contemporary Politics, Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. p. 184. [6] Roxanne Dunbar – Ortiz, “Native Land and African Bodies: The Source of U. S. Capitalism”, Monthly Review, Volume 67, Issue 2, February 2015. [7] Lu Xinyu. Country and Revolution: The Three Books of Chinese Neoliberalism [M]. East China Normal University Press, 2012. [8] Roxanne Dunbar – Ortiz, “Native Land and African Bodies: The Source of U. S. Capitalism”, Monthly Review, Volume 67, Issue 2, February 2015. [9] Lin Chun, China and Global Capitalism: Reflections on Marxism, History, and Contemporary Politics, Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. p. 184 -185. [10] Ian Johnson, “In China, Once the Villages Are Gone, the Culture Is Gone”, The New York Times, February 1, 2014. [11] Maya. Interview with Huang Ping: China’s International Environment and Strategic Choice in the First Half of the 21st Century [J]. End of the World, 2008, (7). [12] Zhao Yuezhi. Communication and Society: Political Economy and Cultural Analysis [M]. Communication University of China Press, 2011; Shaying. Reconstructing Chinese Communication: An Interview with Prof. Zhao Yuezhi, a Communication Political Economist [J]. Journalist, 2015, (1). [13] Glen S. Coulthard, Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition, University of Minnesota Press, 2014. [14] John Bellamy Foster, “Paul Burkett’s Marx and Nature Fifteen Years After”, Monthly Review, Vol. 66, Issue 7, December 2014. [15] Kohei Saito, “The Emergence of Marx’s Critique of Modern Agriculture Ecological Insights from His Excerpt Notebooks”, Monthly Review, Volume 66, Issue 5, October 2014. [16] John Bellamy Foster, “Paul Burkett’s Marx and Nature Fifteen Years After”, Monthly Review, Volume 66, Number 6, November 2014. [17] Zhao Yuezhi. Communication and Society: Political Economy and Cultural Analysis [M]. Communication University of China Press, 2011. 4. [18] [United States] Franklin H. Kim. Four thousand years of farmers: sustainable agriculture in China, North Korea and Japan [M]. Cheng Cunwang, Shi Yan translation. Oriental Publishing House, 2011. [19] Zhao Yuezhi, Fan Songnan. Disadvantages: History, Reality, and Ecological Socialist Road [J] . Journalism University, 2015, (1). [20] Lu Xinyu. New localism, or urban slums [J]. The era of openness, 2010, (4). [21] Lin Chun, China and Global Capitalism: Reflections on Marxism, History, and Contemporary Politics, Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. p. 7. 

Recommended reading: Roxanne Dunbar – Ortiz, “Native Land and African Bodies: The Source of U. S. Capitalism”, Monthly Review, Volume 67, Issue 2, February 2015. Lu Xinyu. Country and Revolution: The Three Books of Chinese Neoliberalism [M]. East China Normal University Press, 2012. [United States] Franklin H. Kim. Four thousand years of farmers: sustainable agriculture in China, North Korea and Japan [M]. Cheng Cunwang, Shi Yan translation. Oriental Publishing House, 2011. 

(Editor: Wang Yunchuan [王云川]) 

Original Chinese Language Text: 

file:///C:/Users/Shi%20Da%20Dao/Documents/WeChat%20Files/ShiDaDao-108/FileStorage/File/2019-04/生态社会主义_乡村视野的历史文化和生态意义_赵月枝.pdf 

生态社会主义: 乡村视野的 历史文化和生态意义 

赵月枝 

［摘要］ 探索生态社会主义是建设生态文明的核心。一方面，中国至今依然具有在 21 世 纪引领世界走向生态社会主义的政治经济和社会文化资源; 另一方面，从化肥农药在当下中 国农业中的过度使用，到中国知识分子和媒体在土地、环境等问题上的新自由主义和西方中 心主义主导立场，再到中国最边缘的劳动力也已被卷入世界工厂的生产这一事实，生态社会 主义愿景在中国将面临巨大的挑战。在政治经济层面，中国需要在抗击与资本主义 “接轨” 的过程中，争取自主发展的空间，逐渐改变自己作为世界工厂的地位。在思想、文化与传播 层面，必须坚持不懈地批判西方霸权和内在化了的种族主义。只有这样，中国才能超越资本 主义、城市中心主义和工业主义，实现生态社会主义 “新地球村”的愿景。 ［关键词］ 生态社会主义; 乡村视野; 新地球村; 文化; 传播 ［中图分类号］ B089. 1 ［文献标识码］ A ［文章编号］1004 －0633 (2015) 06 －066 －7 

注: 本文系于2015 年3 月28 日在浙江缙云举办的“河阳论坛暨乡村、文化与传播”学术周演讲基础上，整理和补充而成。感谢白洪 谭的录音整理，林春、黄樱棻、吴畅畅的修改建议，也非常感谢高苑敏女士在本文出版过程中的重要贡献。 ［收稿日期］ 2015 －10 －08 ［作者简介］ 赵月枝，西蒙·弗雷泽大学加拿大国家特聘教授，中国传媒大学长江学者，讲座教授，缙 云县河阳乡村研究院执行院长。 北京 100024 

2013 年 12 月中央城镇化工作会议指出，城镇 建设要让居民望得见山，看得见水，记得住乡愁。 “记得住乡愁”这句话很动听，它诉诸我们对乡土 的眷念情感，但好像是城里人的事。我希望从历史 逻辑和理论逻辑相结合的高度，并站在生态社会主 义愿景的立场，理解乡村视野和城乡协调发展的世 界历史文化和生态意义。 我的专业研究一直有很强的政治经济学取向， 但政治经济学与文化研究从来都是一体两面的，其 终极关怀是价值和意义问题。比如，亚当·斯密在 写 《国富论》之前关注伦理哲学，而马克思对以 斯密为代表的古典政治经济学的批评旨在人类 解放。 这里所指的文化，是人类学意义上的，而非文 

凭意义上文化。此处的文化也不能被简约到那种被 商品化了的文化产品，而是涉及人和人之间的关 系，以及人的内在传播，即 “我是谁”、 “生命的 意义是什么”这样的主体性问题。生态涉及人和 自然的关系，是任何政治经济形式得以存在的前提 物质条件。 不久前，我在 《中国的挑战: 跨文化传播政 治经济学刍议》中，阐述了跨文化传播政治经济 学理论框架的基本内涵。 〔1〕在此基础上，我希望通 过强调文化和生态的视角，进一步打通从全球到村 庄、从国际到国内两个层面的分析，发展生态社会 主义 “新地球村”思维。除了批判政治经济学所 关注的阶级问题外，这一思维还涉及国家内部乡村 和城市、边疆和沿海，以及世界体系中的边缘和中 

66 

生态社会主义: 乡村视野的历史文化和生态意义 

心国家的关系等问题。2008 年世界金融危机后， 我深切认识到，非但中国救不了深处危机中的世 界，唯有 “生态社会主义才能救中国与世界”。林 春在 《中国与全球资本主义》一书中，从理论与 历史逻辑相统一的高度指出，“中国特色”不是别 的，就是社会主义。林春描述了社会主义中国模式 的四个基本方面: 强大的国家; 强大和赋有资源的 “公有”经济部门; 民生优先的发展; 社会组织、 参与和权力。一个强大的国家，首先是一个社会主 义性质的国家，不是国家资本主义的国家。“公有” 经济部门，比当下说的 “国有”更广泛——— “国 有”并不是 “公有”的唯一形式，在中国社会主 义历史上，就有过强大的集体经济。 〔2〕该书所勾勒 的社会主义模式不仅非常清晰，而且具有历史基础 和强大吸引力。在这里，我只希望从城乡关系的视 野，在文化和生态两个层面做些阐述与补充。 乡村视野的世界历史文化意义 “村庄”这一理念，内含着全球资本主义体系 中城市与乡村、中心与边缘之间的悖论逻辑。一方 面，资本主义扩张的过程就是城市剥削，进而消灭 乡村的过程，乡村的生产要素被掠夺，随后被空心 化。在资本主义现代化叙事框架里，乡村在精神和 文化层面是城市的对立面，意味着落后、狭隘，是 要被抛弃的。另一方面，资本主义又把乡村作为转 嫁和化解经济危机的安全阀，并且在精神和文化层 面挪用和占有它，对它进行理想化和景观化处理。 资本主义的发展与英国的圈地运动密切相关， 这一过程使英国农民变成了产业工人。这是我们熟 知的叙事。正是在此基础上，马克思把工人阶级看 成是最先进的革命主体。然而，从全球资本主义体 系的角度考察，一个不可忽略的事实是，殖民主义 和帝国主义同样是资本主义不可或缺的部分。资本 主义的原始积累直接得益于欧洲的海外扩张。 〔3〕也 就是说，资本主义的崛起，是个全球性的过程。在 全球视野而非英国视野下，资本主义的生产 “要 素”和社会劳动主体，除了英国圈地运动产生的 英国工人，还包括北美原住民的土地、拉美的白 银、非洲的黑奴、印度和中国的农民等。 2015 年 2 月的美国 《每月评论》( Monthly Ｒeview) 中，一篇题为 《原住民的土地和非洲人的身 体: 美国资本主义的源泉》的书评，说的也是这 一观点。 〔4〕一旦跳出欧洲中心主义和东西方二元论 的认识论误区，我们就会发现，奴隶，连同被驱 

赶、几乎被灭绝的以土地为生存资源的原住民，是 与英国工人阶级同时存在的。这就启发我们，要重 新思考机械的线性发展观: 这一立场仅仅看到了从 奴隶到农民到工人这一后者替代前者的过程，而忽 略了所有这些范畴在历史时空中的同时性。虽然这 些构建欧洲资本主义的非欧洲因素是 “非资本主 义的”，但不一定是 “前资本主义的”。 〔5〕 这又涉及到如何在认识论和方法论层面更好地 把握全球资本主义体系的中心和边缘关系，把马克 思主义以阶级为中心的立场与反帝立场更有机地联 系在一起的问题。站在工人立场上的反资本主义视 野和站在农民/原住民立场上的反殖民主义视野，是 交互的、缺一不可的。这是连接西方马克思主义和 “南方”马克思主义的关键。这不仅仅是理论问题， 更是指导思想和实践问题。在实践中，忽视农民问 题的代价是非常大的。在现代中国，农民问题一直 是革命的根本问题。在欧洲语境中，崔之元教授就 认为，马克思对农民问题的忽视，直接影响了德国 社会民主党在指导战略上的失败和希特勒的上台。 ① 印度棉农的破产，中国的鸦片贸易，把非洲黑 奴贩卖到南美银矿和北美种植园，大规模向外移民 以减轻英国本土的人口压力，所有这些，构成了以 英国工业资本主义为核心的 “西方崛起”。从 1840 年到 1860 年间———也就是中英第一次到第二次鸦 片战争这段时间，从非洲运往美国的黑奴从 25 万 增加到 75 万。 〔6〕更重要的是，和当下有关美国国家 角色的新自由主义迷思不一样，在这个过程中，美 国国家扮演了非常重要的角色: 从一开始，美国国 家就是暴力原始积累的引擎，干着驱赶原住民和镇 压奴隶反抗的勾当。今天，这些问题依然以各种官 方的和民间的、暴力的与非暴力的形式存在。在温 哥华，我所供职的学校位于市区的校区就在原住民 一直没有割让的土地上; 我的办公室不远处，就有 原住民的聚集区，这是温哥华最穷的街区。在这 里，沦为妓女、流落街头的 100 多名原住民妇女失 踪了。她们中许多人受到一位白人猪场老板的暴虐 后被肢解。这是一个令人发指的故事。在原住民眼 里，这也是种族灭绝历史在今天的遗产。总之，北 美农业资本主义的历史遗产包括原住民痛苦的挣扎 和黑人社区的贫困等。今天，美国黑人社区时有发 生的暴乱，也是美国黑奴问题在的历史遗产。 有关中国农业为什么不能走美国道路这一政治 经济问题，吕新雨教授已经有深刻的讨论。 〔7〕但回 到文化层面，我要强调的是，资本主义和殖民主义 

67 

① 崔之元，“自由社会主义与中国的未来: 小资产阶级宣言”，http: / /www． 360doc． cn/article/8553846_ 255920496． html。 

2015 年第6 期 

与种族主义密切相关。上述书评中说，通过军事力 量，原住民的家园被转化为了 “种植白色”的巨 大保留地。 〔8〕这里的白色是棉花，但同时也是种族 意义上的白色——— “优越的白人”。实际上，我们 至今还深受内在化了的白人种族主义的影响。作为 海外华人，我对这方面更有体会。比如，中国人移 民或把孩子送到国外教育，往往希望到一个白人 多、华人少的地方，对其他有色族裔，则避而远 之。更令人担心的是，今天在讨论 “中国崛起” 时，一些民族主义者对殖民主义及其文化表达——— 种族主义———没有足够的反思和批判，一厢情愿地 表达出希望中国步英美后尘的 “帝国”心态。由 于西方的某些舆论也乐于和急于制造 “中国威胁 论”，而中国在亚非拉的投资，尤其是中国对这些 地方的能源和其他资源的兴趣，往往成为了西方制 造 “中国威胁论”的话柄。 如果中国模仿美国道路， “我们真的也会阔 了”吗? 美国人真会把你当回事，与他们平起平 坐吗? 实际上，美国———或更具体地说，美国的主 导阶级———更可能会像 《阿 Q 正传》里的赵老太 爷那样，只许他自己革命，不许你革命。你可以成 为美国主导的资本主义的附庸，但美国的 “赵老 太爷”不会让中国在资本主义体系内取代它自身。 正如林春所指出的那样，资本主义积累逻辑 “包 含着剥削、宰制、颠覆，这些都阻碍边缘国家的发 展”。同时，由于韩国、台湾等地的成功发展得益 于美国的援助和市场以及冷战的特殊背景，它们不 能证明依附理论的基本立场是错的。 〔9〕更何况，今 天的中国也绝不可能像当年的欧洲白人垦殖主义者 和种族主义者那样，有地缘政治和道德空间去剥夺 亚非拉民众。 相对于上述资本主义发展中的城市与乡村关系 悖论，中国当下的情形与其他国家不完全一致——— 这部分得益于中国农民不屈的抗争。但是，中国农 村也面临同样的矛盾: 一方面，农村正在被现代化 和城市化的进程所边缘化; 另一方面，农村又被认 为是中国文化的根脉之所在。就在几年前中国开始 大规模并村的时候，连 《纽约时报》也刊登头版 文章指出，村庄才是中国文化的载体，村庄死了， 中国文化也就死了。 〔10〕以成了国家重点文物保护单 位的我的家乡浙江缙云河阳古民居为例，一方面， 它早就面临空心化的问题; 另一方面，它也面临被 挪用和被景观化的问题。这个村庄，与其他一些类 似的少数村庄一样，成了城里人，甚至整个中华民 族寄托乡愁的标本性地方。2015 年春晚 《乡愁》 那首歌的背景影像，就有河阳的镜头。然而，好几 

户村民在被拆了房子或迁出如今成了文物的祠堂 后，由于宅基地分配问题多年没有解决等原因，成 了住房困难户或感觉利益受损。在这些人眼里，民 生问题与古民居保护和旅游开发之间出现了矛盾。 宅基地是按市场购买力还是按需分配? 拆迁或征地 过程中的公开、公平和公正原则如何保证? 村民作 为村庄的主体参与村庄建设的积极性有没有得到发 挥? 城里来的专家在设计规划河阳未来发展的过程 中，有没有尊重本地知识，更遑论走 “群众路线” 和充分征求村民的意见? 最起码，这些规划村民是 否知情? 这些问题，加上村庄内外复杂的政治经济 权力关系和社会分化、村庄选举政治对一个以血缘 和宗族为纽带的熟人社会产生的社区撕裂影响、村 民们对公权力机构的信任度、对村庄未来不同的想 象、信息的公开性等政治、经济和文化因素，相互 纠结，使一个小小的河阳，跟整个乡土中国一样， 处在了何去何从的十字路口。 历史上，中国共产党领导的那场中国革命是以 土地革命为核心的。这场轰轰烈烈的土地革命，不 仅挑战了全球资本主义秩序，而且为中国农民赢得 尊严和主体性开创了可能性道路，也为世界下层民 众赢得尊严树立了标杆。在今天的中国，随着资本 下乡和农村变成城市人后花园的进程不断加快，随 着消费主义文化意识形态不断侵蚀农村和传统的农 村生活方式，如何重构农村社区，维护农民、农村、 农业的尊严和主体性，如何定义什么是好的生活， 成了至关重要的问题。这是一个有世界历史意义的 问题，绝对不是简单的靠经济发展就可以解决的。 为了避免中国重复农业资本主义的道路，我们有必 要对自由主义市场原教旨主义和内在化了的白人种 族主义进行意识形态和文化层面上的双重批判。 经过 30 多年的改革开放，中国成了世界第二 大经济体，中国崛起的声音不绝于耳。有些美国精 英正在担心中国会取代美国的世界霸主地位; 在中 国国内，也有不少飘飘然的声音。但是，如果可以 说土著人的土地和非洲人的身体是美国资本主义的 源泉，那么，在今天，中国农民的土地和农民工的 身体，就是中国特色社会主义背景下中国成为世界 工厂的秘密。 今天，在 “小岗村”早已完成了它为改革鸣 锣开道的意识形态符号作用之后，在广东乌坎、浙 江画水成为农村围绕土地和环境而爆发的新冲突的 符号之后，我们不得不面对一个中国何去何从、中 国农村何去何从的问题。就像农民问题曾是中国革 命的根本问题一样，今天，乡土文化的复兴是中国 “软实力”建设的重要内容。而追求这种软实力， 

68 

生态社会主义: 乡村视野的历史文化和生态意义 

正如黄平在一篇访谈中所指出的那样，最关键的不 是如何走出去影响别人，而是我们应该有一个自己 视为天经地义的、理所当然的文化伦理格局，广大 人民身在其中，自得其乐。 〔11〕这是一个经济发展的 过程，更是一个寻找精神家园、重建社区共同体的 过程。 需要强调的是，我们关注乡土中国，并不是要 简单地回到过去———我们既没有理由把过去浪漫 化，实际上也回不到过去了。拿我个人来说，首 先，由于我出生的岩山下自然村已被并成河阳村的 一部分，我不知回到岩山下还是河阳———从行政意 义上，岩山下这个村已不存在; 其次，我出生的那 间 “十八间”厢房，现在房门紧锁，从窗户往里 可以瞧见里面堆满了我父母用过的农具。房子的主 人———男权社会里我的弟弟，已离开村庄谋生多 年，早已找不到开启房门的那把钥匙了。众所周 知，到了改革开放后期，年轻人继续留在农村，已 经很难看到未来了。实际上，在中国语境下，“回 到过去”是一种特定修辞方式，以此打压有关中 国未来走向的讨论。我们不是要回到过去，而是要 走向未来———不是所有人都不得不到城市，而是要 让乡村留得住年轻人，在那里过上一种怡然自得的 生活。 要回答什么是属于我们自己的好生活，需要整 个社会价值体系的变革，需要挑战劫持了什么是好 生活想象的西方消费资本主义文化霸权，还需要中 国社会科学进行本体论和认识论层面的创新和范式 革命，彻底抛弃西方中心主义、城市中心主义，扬 弃资本主义发展本体论和资本积累的逻辑。 〔12〕如果 跳出发展主义，并从文化是一种生活方式这一角度 看，我们也许对 “中等收入陷阱”这样的问题会 有新的认识。也就是说，“中等收入陷阱”本身会 不会就是一个资本逻辑和发展主义逻辑内的问题? 首先，在一个贫富非常不均、极少数人占有大量财 富的社会里，基于 “人均收入”的 “中等收入”， 是个非常有欺骗性的指标; 其次，分配不平等，生 产过剩，底层消费能力不足，是经济危机和发展 “陷阱”的根源。更何况，西方早有研究表明， GDP 增长到了一定的程度，不会给国民带来更多 的幸福感。今天，用壮士断腕的决心推动更激进的 市场化和私有化，只能带来更大的不平等。我们更 需要推动的是新时代的 “潘晓讨论”，对那场为利 己主义思想和丛林法则正名的讨论进行否定之否 定，重新讨论什么是人生目标这个问题，进而确立 生活的意义。 要开启新生活，超越欧洲中心主义和 19 世纪 

的发展观，思想资源在中国，在全球的南方，在欧 美反帝、反资和同时反种族主义的学者以及原住民 那里，在我们展开对资本主义和殖民主义的双重批 判这里。在河阳，传统文化强调 “耕读家风”。我 就是在 “耕读家风”的潜移默化下成长起来的， 我祖辈所建 “十八间”的院门上，则赫然写着 “淳朴家风”四个字。从 “耕读”、 “淳朴”这四 个字里，我深感这是一种追求物质和精神、体力和 脑力平衡的、非消费主义的生活。在温哥华，在读 过加拿大传播学者麦克卢汉、伊尼斯等人的著作 后，我发现了加拿大原住民思想家们。2013 年夏 天，在我主办的学院 40 周年院庆国际学术会上， 我们请来了三位原住民理论家做会议的主题发言 人。他们是北美原住民文化 500 多年来几近被毁灭 后的新生思想家，他们来自哥伦比亚大学、不列颠 哥伦比亚大学、维多利亚大学这些殖民历史刻在其 名字上的北美大学，他们具有北美最前沿的批判学 术思想。他们关于人和自然之间关系的思想，与我 的中国农民先辈有共通之处。而他们彻底的反殖民 主义和反种族主义思想，又是我所熟悉的西方批判 思想难以望其项背的。其中的格林·科塔德 ( Glen S． Coulthard) ，刚出了一部名为 《红皮肤，白面 具》的书。 〔13〕这一书名与 20 世纪非洲著名反殖思 想家范农的名著有明显的对话关系，而作者自称是 他所属的德尼部落的共产主义者。 乡村视野与生态社会主义理想 资本主义发展过程是马克思所说的 “生态断 裂”的过程，即人与自然物质交换关系的断裂过 程。为了弥合这一断裂，中国的人文和社会科学工 作者有许多工作可做———一方面吸收中华传统文化 的精华，一方面深化马克思主义的生态思想研究， 从而为建设生态文明提供思想和文化基础。在文化 方面，我认为，把 “天人合一”当作中华文明的 核心理念，应该毫无争议。如果要说 “中国特 色”，这就是中国特色，而不应该是以牺牲环境为 代价的发展。如果说中国特色就是社会主义，那 么，这样的社会主义，必定是以人与自然和谐共生 为基础的生态社会主义，这才是最有 “中国特色” 的社会主义定义。而社会主义制度也是生态文明的 必然要求。 同时，我们需要强调的是，西方马克思主义者 近 20 来年在 “重新发现”马克思的生态思想方面 已有许多突破。根据美国 《每月评论》杂志主编、 激进生态社会主义者福斯特的分析，西方生态主义 思想已经历了从 “第一阶段”到 “第二阶段”的 69发展. 

 〔14〕 在 “第一阶段”，即1980 年代和1990 年代初， 西方的生态主义者———有的也自称是 “生态社会 主义者”———多少受 “绿党”的影响。当时，他 们希望与斯大林主义以及作为共产党国家官方意识 形态的 “科学社会主义”划清界限，也希望与因 苏东剧变而处于危机中的马克思主义理论体系保持 距离，有些人甚至把马克思主义当作生态主义思想 的障碍。从这个意义上说，他们只 “绿” 而不 “红”。他们并没有在汲取马克思主义对资本主义 激进批判的基础上，建立起自己的生态主义理论体 系。在政治上，西方第一阶段的生态主义者更接近 西方社会民主党的立场，即资本主义改良主义的立 场或 “绿色资本主义”。 此后，尤其是 1990 年代中期以来，随着 《马 克思与自然》 ( Marx and Nature，1998 ) 、《马克思 的生态学》 ( Marx’s Ecology 1999) 等著作的出 版，以及资本主义生态危机的深化，马克思主义政 治经济学的生态视野得到了进一步的阐释和发展。 这些研究表明，马克思早已深刻认识到资本主义条 件下自然被破坏的程度和资本主义发展所造成的生 态危机。而 《每月评论》2014 年第 10 期上发表的 一篇对马克思有关现代农业问题的笔记研究，则更 清楚地表明，虽然马克思在早期曾对现代科技对农 业的影响表示乐观，但基于他所掌握的当时最前沿 的农业化学知识，马克思已经逐渐认识到资本主义 农业科技应用对人与自然交换关系具有不可逆转的 破坏作用。 〔15〕正是在这些最新研究的基础上，西方 一些生态主义者的思想进入了更激进的第二阶段， 也就是彻底反对资本主义和重新理解马克思主义理 论的自然科学基础和 “科学性”的阶段。对这第 二阶段的分析者来说，“绿色资本主义”这个词本 身就自相矛盾———资本主义所产生的生态危机不可 能靠资本主义体制本身来克服，不管具体的手段是 绿色技术还是碳排放的市场交易机制。总之，正如 福斯特指出，马克思不仅认为资本主义损害了劳工 和土地这两个财富的源泉，而且认为社会主义的定 义包含生产者联合体对人和自然关系的 “合理规 制”。 〔16〕我以为，正是在这个意义上，“科学社会主 义”中的 “科学”一词才回归了其本义。 总之，建设社会主义的关键，在于重新定义生 产目的、超越消费资本主义生产关系和生活逻辑: 在资本主义体系中，被剥削的劳动者往往从事异化 的、浪费的、破坏生态的生产，为资本积累而消耗 自然资源和自己的生命。然而，异化劳动不仅局限 于富士康般的血汗工厂，“世界工厂”早已把触角 

伸到了麦克卢汉意义上的 “地球村”每一角落， 剥削着农村里任何具有劳动能力的人群。比如，在 我生长的村庄里，不少老年人和妇女从事非常简单 和机械的 “来料加工”工作，主要是装配微小的 塑料小玩意儿，如笔头的小饰品等。他们是全球资 本主义这架生产机器最末端、最不需要技能、最低 廉的劳动力。用我一位邻家姑姑的话说，她知道她 做的东西是 “垃圾”，也知道卖到国外也是 “垃 圾”，但她没有别的出路。 当然，说到垃圾，就不能不提到资本主义市场 体系对中国和第三世界国家的生态破坏，包括中国 的农村已是电子垃圾和城市垃圾的倾销地这样的事 实。比如，广东贵屿已经成为西方电子垃圾的最大 堆放地，不仅造成当地环境污染，更让本地人的健 康受到极大威胁。 与此同时，中国农村的土地正被逐步商品化， 而更激进的中国新自由主义者不仅力推土地私有化， 还认为这是效仿美国的 “先进”制度。实际上，在 北美，原住民的反殖民主义、反资本主义斗争一直 围绕着土地问题而展开。在原住民的思想里，人和 土地的关系不是一种占有的概念，而是一种馈赠的 概念; 土地不止被看成是人的一种物质资源，更被 看成与人形成一种互惠关系。换言之，除了从政治 经济的角度，我们还有必要从文化和生态的角度丰 富对土地的认识。在这点上，北美原住民的认识和 中国农民的认识也是相通的。也正因如此，我反对 文化本质主义和简单的东西方二元对立 〔17〕———我本 人生于 “东方”，现在又来自地理意义上的 “西 方”，而原住民一直在 “西方”的土地上。 上面所指的对人和自然关系的 “合理规制”， 必然涉及农业知识。前面讲到，马克思十分关注现 代农业科技的应用对土地造成的损害。这使我想起 《四千年农夫》以及这本书所昭示的谁 “先进”、 谁 “落后”、谁有知识、谁在学术思想前沿的问 题，与我们今天重新发掘被抛弃、被压制和边缘化 的知识体系和思想的迫切性问题。 《四千年农夫》 是美国农学家富兰克林·H·金的遗著。他在 20 世纪初，就意识到美国现代农业的不可持续性，因 而来到东亚研究 “永续农业”和东亚农民是怎么 种地的，并把这些农民描述成是在生物、化学、土 壤、气候方面拥有丰富知识的专家。这本在辛亥年 间在美国出版的著作，记录了许多东方农民的传统 农业知识，如今成了美国有机农业实践者的指南。 具有讽刺意味的是，这本书在 2011 年，正值它在 美国出版后的一百年之际，在中国农业滥用化肥和 农药已经到了无以复加的今天，被翻译成了中文在 

70 

生态社会主义: 乡村视野的历史文化和生态意义 

中国出版。  

〔18〕 当然，就像我前面提到的电子垃圾问题，当我 们谈环境和生态时，就不能离开国内、国际层面的 正义问题。不久前，柴静拍摄的纪录片 《穹顶之 下》引发了极大的争论。批评者把矛头指向柴静 倡导能源产业私有化的新自由主义政治倾向，以及 全片的城市中产阶级立场: 因工厂被关闭而失业的 工人和受更严重的水污染和土壤污染之害的农民是 不被当作主体的，他们最多是被同情的对象。需要 指出的是，比城市雾霾问题更严重的土壤、水源等 污染最终也会通过食品影响城里人，而这也恰恰证 明了城乡关系视野的重要性，以及在今天的语境下 如何重构作为主体的 “工农联盟”的迫切性。国 际层面上，在此前哥本哈根国际气候会议问题上， 柴静对中国科学院的丁仲礼院士做过一次访谈。访 谈中，柴静俨然内化了主要西方国家在碳排放分配 中对发展中国家的不公正立场，以致于引起丁院士 反问: 中国人是不是人? 如果一个国家颇有影响的 媒体人，一边忽视国内不同阶级和阶层间的环境正 义问题，一边把西方在环境问题上的立场当成 “普世”的立场，那么，环境领域成为城市中产阶 级维护其特权地位和西方国家推行新自由主义及新 殖民主义政策的新场域也就不足为奇了。当然，经 过 30 多年的商业主义转型，中国媒体本身早已被 做强做大的资本逻辑所驱动，并沦为了强大的消费 主义意识形态的推销工具了。 〔19〕 总之，一方面，中国作为世界上唯一持续的农 耕文明，作为一个在 20 世纪进行过血与火的土地 革命，在宪法中明文规定 “以工农联盟为基础的 社会主义国家”，至今依然具有在 21 世纪引领世 界走向生态社会主义的政治经济和社会文化资源; 另一方面，从化肥农药在当下中国农业中的过度使 用，到中国知识分子和媒体在土地和环境等问题上 的新自由主义和西方中心主义主导立场，再到中国 最边缘的劳动力也已被卷入世界工厂的生产这一事 实，生态社会主义愿景在中国将面临巨大的挑战。 结语: 建设生态社会主义的 “新地球村” 在不久前的一次演讲中，我指出，在一定意义 上，农民是中国的原住民。需要补充的是，中国的 农民，当然也包括中国境内的各少数民族农牧民， 

是人民共和国的主人，他们与北美保留地上的原住 民有非常重要的政治主体性上的区别。也就是说， 中国的农民是一个主权国家的人民的有机组成部 分，而北美的一些原住民至今还在争取他们的 “主权”———在他们眼里，北美的国家政权依然是 垦殖主义者政权的延续，而不属于他们。 在中国语境下，强调乡村视野，旨在希望实质 性地提高农民和农民工的政治代表性、话语权和参 政机会，从而真正落实 “人民民主”。需要强调的 是，要在村庄层面实现真正的民主，就要超越简单 的农村选举政治，而在具体的工作中让村民实质性 地参与乡村治理。同时，作为一个主权国家，中国 需要在抗击与资本主义 “接轨”的过程中，争取自 主发展的空间，逐渐改变目前这种作为世界工厂的 地位。当然，在思想、文化与传播层面，必须坚持 不懈地批判西方霸权和内在化了的种族主义。只有 这样，中国才能超越资本主义、城市中心主义和工 业主义，实现 “新乡土主义” 〔20〕或 “新地球村”愿 景。之所以是 “新地球村”，是因为麦克卢汉意义 上的 “地球村”不仅在象征层面掩盖了国内、国际 不平等关系，而且具有技术中心主义的色彩，而我 所想像的 “新地球村”，既是象征意义上的，更是 实质意义上的。它既涉及重构人与人之间的紧密关 系，也涉及重建人与自然的和谐关系。它是生态的、 社会主义的，也是科学的、具有各民族特色的。 回到河阳这个已成为全国重点文物保护单位的 村庄，当下面临的挑战是，如何在古民居保护和开 发中，在她走向全国、走向世界的过程中，使村庄 依旧属于河阳村民的村庄，并能拥有一种属于自己 的美好生活? 如何以村民为本、民生为本，以及以 村民自我民主管理和主体性重构为核心，进行社区 再造，促进农耕文明的承传和河阳作为 “新地球 村”的复兴? 文化和生态资源是社区共同体的公 共财富。正因为如此，河阳只有也必须在林春所倡 导的 “共产主义道义经济” 〔21〕框架中才能健康发 展。我以为，除了在新历史条件下把农民以集体或 合作经济为基础和共享共赢为原则组织起来，从而 把乡村共同体变成以人的自由全面发展为根本目标 的生态社会主义建设前沿实验区，任何其他选择都 是不可欲和不可行的。 

71 

2015 年第6 期 

【参考文献】 〔1〕赵月枝． 中国的挑战: 跨文化传播政治经济学刍议 〔J〕 ． 传播与社会学刊，2014，总第28 期． 〔2〕Lin Chun，China and Global Capitalism: Ｒeflections on Marxism，History，and Contemporary Politics，Palgrave Macmillan，2013， pp． 180 －181． 〔3〕Lin Chun，China and Global Capitalism: Ｒeflections on Marxism，History，and Contemporary Politics，Palgrave Macmillan，2013． p． 5 〔4〕Ｒoxanne Dunbar － Ortiz，“Native Land and African Bodies: The Source of U． S． Capitalism”，Monthly Ｒeview，Volume 67，Issue2，February 2015． 〔5〕Lin Chun，China and Global Capitalism: Ｒeflections on Marxism，History，and Contemporary Politics，Palgrave Macmillan， 2013． p． 184． 〔6〕Ｒoxanne Dunbar － Ortiz，“Native Land and African Bodies: The Source of U． S． Capitalism”，Monthly Ｒeview，Volume 67，Issue2，February 2015． 〔7〕吕新雨． 乡村与革命: 中国新自由主义批判三书 〔M〕 ． 华东师范大学出版社，2012． 〔8〕Ｒoxanne Dunbar － Ortiz，“Native Land and African Bodies: The Source of U． S． Capitalism”，Monthly Ｒeview，Volume 67，Issue2，February 2015． 〔9〕Lin Chun，China and Global Capitalism: Ｒeflections on Marxism，History，and Contemporary Politics，Palgrave Macmillan， 2013． p． 184 －185． 〔10〕Ian Johnson，“In China，Once the Villages Are Gone，the Culture Is Gone”，The New York Times，February 1，2014． 〔11〕玛雅． 黄平访谈: 中国在21 世纪上半期的国际环境与战略选择 〔J〕 ． 天涯，2008，( 7) ． 〔12〕赵月枝． 传播与社会: 政治经济与文化分析 〔M〕 ． 中国传媒大学出版社，2011; 沙垚． 重构中国传播学: 传播政治经济学者赵月枝教授访谈 〔J〕 ． 新闻记者，2015，( 1) ． 〔13〕Glen S． Coulthard，Ｒed Skin，White Masks: Ｒejecting the Colonial Politics of Ｒecognition，University of Minnesota Press，2014． 〔14〕John Bellamy Foster，“Paul Burkett’ s Marx and Nature Fifteen Years After”，Monthly Ｒeview，Vol． 66，Issue 7， December 2014． 〔15〕Kohei Saito，“The Emergence of Marx’s Critique of Modern Agriculture Ecological Insights from His Excerpt Notebooks”， Monthly Ｒeview，Volume 66，Issue 5，October 2014． 〔16〕John Bellamy Foster，“Paul Burkett’s Marx and Nature Fifteen Years After”，Monthly Ｒeview，Volume 66，Number 6，November 2014 ． 〔17〕赵月枝． 传播与社会: 政治经济与文化分析 〔M〕 ． 中国传媒大学出版社，2011． 4． 〔18〕〔美〕富兰克林· H· 金． 四千年农夫: 中国、朝鲜和日本的永续农业 〔M〕 ． 程存旺，石嫣译． 东方出版社，2011． 〔19〕赵月枝，范松楠． 坏境传播: 历史、现实和生态社会主义道路 〔J〕 ． 新闻大学，2015，( 1) ． 〔20〕吕新雨． 新乡土主义，还是城市贫民窟〔J〕 ． 开放时代，2010，( 4) ． 〔21〕Lin Chun，China and Global Capitalism: Ｒeflections on Marxism，History，and Contemporary Politics，Palgrave Macmillan， 2013． p． 7． 

推荐阅读: Ｒoxanne Dunbar － Ortiz，“Native Land and African Bodies: The Source of U． S． Capitalism”，Monthly Ｒeview，Volume 67，Issue2，February 2015． 吕新雨． 乡村与革命: 中国新自由主义批判三书 〔M〕 ． 华东师范大学出版社，2012． 〔美〕富兰克林· H· 金． 四千年农夫: 中国、朝鲜和日本的永续农业 〔M〕 ． 程存旺，石嫣译． 东方出版社，2011． 

( 责任编辑: 王云川)