Cheng Enhui: Four Paths of Contemporary French Marxism Research and Their Evaluation
French Marxist studies have long served as a major stronghold within the field of foreign Marxist research. When French Marxism is mentioned, we primarily think of Louis Althusser as a structuralist Marxist, as well as Jean-Paul Sartre and Henri Lefebvre as existentialist Marxists; these figures are the traditional subjects of French Marxist studies in China. However, Althusser, Sartre, and Lefebvre have all passed away. What, then, are the existing paradigms of contemporary French Marxist research? How do these different research paradigms unfold? And what are the connections between them? The author attempts to clarify the overall developmental state and theoretical associations of contemporary French Marxism by examining and comparing four of its main representative figures: Jacques Bidet, Alain Badiou, Jacques Rancière, and Étienne Balibar.
I. Bidet: Metastructure Theory with the Interpretation of Capital as an Entry Point
Jacques Bidet is a Professor Emeritus at the University of Paris X (Nanterre), Chairman of the International Marx Congress (le Congrès Marx International), and a lead coordinator of the journal Actuel Marx. He is also one of the leading representatives of French Marxism today. Since the publication of his doctoral thesis, What is to be Done with "Capital"?: Materials for a Refoundation (Que faire du «Capital»? Matériaux pour une refondation) in 1985, Bidet has maintained an indissoluble bond with Capital. Bidet’s metastructure theory originates precisely from his interpretation of Capital. He argues that traditional Marxist research has focused too heavily on the roles of elements such as the market and capital in the process of capitalist reproduction, while failing to grant sufficient attention to factors like organization and "competence-power." Therefore, metastructure theory aims to excavate Capital in order to reproduce the dual logic of market and organization within Marx’s theory.
Bidet believes that in Capital, Marx actually prioritized the legal sphere over the economic sphere and linked the two together: "This market-organization nexus plays a decisive role in Marx's theoretical construction, even though he failed to recognize its importance." The prerequisites for capitalist production and the appropriation of surplus value are the existence of property relations and free labor-power. When we speak of a producer, this producer is first and foremost a legal owner of the means of production; likewise, the hireable free labor-power is also labor-power defined by law. Thus, the prerequisite for productive activity is the "precedence of the law." Some readers might use the violence of primitive accumulation in English capitalism—where "sheep ate men" [1]—to question this legal precedence. On the contrary, this violent primitive accumulation fully illustrates the social-organizational dimension of the prerequisites of production, because "precedence of the law" here does not refer merely to legal statutes, but rather to the social-organizational dimension that corresponds to pure economic activity. "When we observe production, a property relation is already included within it, and it is included as a defining element of the 'economic' relation." (Bidet: 101) This is concentrated in the difference between the division of labor in commodities and the division of labor in the concrete production process. Different commodities are produced by different producers and exchanged between them, representing a transfer of legal ownership relations between producers. In contrast, the division of labor in the concrete production process takes place within the owner's domain and is the process of a single producer organizing production. The exchange of legal ownership forms the market, while the process of production forms the organization. "Marx here articulates the view of establishing the dual historical forms of modern labor coordination: namely, market and organization." (Bidet: 104)
The dual logic of market and organization is also reflected in Marx’s analysis of labor and labor-power. "By labor-power or capacity for labor is to be understood the aggregate of those mental and physical capabilities existing in the physicality, the living personality, of a human being, which he sets in motion whenever he produces a use-value of any kind." Labor-power is a commodity, but it is a special one that can produce surplus value; or more precisely, labor-power is a commodity that can utilize physical and mental strength to organize production. The logic of organization is contained within the logic of the market, and the value of labor-power is directly expressed as its price. Compared to the dependence of the feudal serf on the landlord, the freedom of labor-power is merely the freedom to be employed; the market form always contains a certain organizational form. In Chapter 6 of Volume I of Capital, "The Sale and Purchase of Labour-Power," Marx points out that "In order to extract value from the consumption of a commodity, our friend, Moneybags, must be so lucky as to find, within the sphere of circulation, in the market, a commodity whose use-value possesses the peculiar property of being a source of value." (Marx: 197) This "freedom" has two meanings: first, in contrast to the serf, the worker can sell their own labor; second, in contrast to the owner of the means of production, the worker has nothing but their own labor-power to sell. The sale of labor creates capitalist production, yet the sale of labor-power directly results in the worker's subordination to the capitalist. The distinction between labor and labor-power simultaneously contains the distinction between productive activity and relations of production. Bidet argues that "Marx did not consider this conceptual relationship between the freedom of wage labor and the freedom of commodities in this sense—that is, in the sense of relations of production." (Bidet: 128) The freedom of labor-power is from the start bound to the owner of the means of production; "the conversion of money into capital" should be more accurately interpreted as the conversion of the "metastructure" into structure—that is, the generation of classes.
How, then, is class generated in Bidet's "metastructure" theory? Bidet argues that the "metastructure" is a fiction of contract and rationality, representing the generative logic of modern society. Modern society remains a contractual society, and contracts can be divided into individual contracts and collective contracts. The market is a contract between individuals, while organization is a contract between the individual and the collective. The market represents economic rationality, whereas organization represents legal-political rationality. Market and organization are the two poles of individual and collective contracts, respectively; economic rationality and legal-political rationality are the two sides of modern society. "The general concept of modern class is reconstructed on the basis of the intricate transformation of the inter-individual contract of commodities and the central contract of organization." (Bidet: 4) Those who master the market are the capitalists who own the means of production, while those who master organization are the "competent-managers" (compétences-dirigeantes) who possess knowledge and capacity. Capitalists and the "competent-managers" together constitute the ruling class of modern society, which stands in opposition to the popular classes. "In fact, on the one hand, the pole of the capitalists (a) has its own 'management teams' (équipes dirigeants); on the other hand, the pole of 'competence' (b) likewise participates in the rule. Under such conditions, class antagonism takes a holistic form, namely, the ruling class (a+b) versus the popular class (c). At the same time, it is a triangular modeling between three 'original social forces'." However, the capitalists and competent-managers who jointly form the ruling class are not always a unified whole. When the property-owning capitalists occupy a dominant position in the rule, society tends more toward capitalism; when the competent-managers, who master knowledge and organizational capacity, occupy the dominant position, society develops toward socialism. Bidet believes that only the alliance of the masses with the competent-managers who possess knowledge and organizational skills can ultimately move in the direction of socialism.
II. Badiou: An Evental Philosophy Aimed at Communism
Alain Badiou is a famous French philosopher and leftist thinker. He served as the head of the philosophy department at the École Normale Supérieure (ENS) and, along with Deleuze, Foucault, and Lyotard, was a founder of the philosophy department at the University of Paris VIII. In his early years, Badiou was influenced by Althusser, and his thought has a strong Maoist and communist coloring. He participated in founding a Maoist party, the Marxist-Leninist Communist Union of France (L'Union des Communistes de France Marxiste-Léniniste), and contributed to two works in the "Yenan" [2] (Collection Yenan) series published by Maspero: Theory of Contradiction (Théorie de la contradiction) and On Ideology (De l’idéologie). Badiou’s "evental" philosophy is likewise a philosophy of the event aimed at communism.
To understand why Badiou’s evental philosophy is aimed at communism, one must first start with the relationship between philosophy and politics. We must distinguish between Badiou's two senses of politics. Just as Rancière distinguishes "politics" (la politique) from "the police" (la police), Badiou distinguishes "politics" in the feminine (la politique) from "the political" in the masculine (le politique). The latter refers to the representational politics of "counting for one" (compte pour un) under capitalist representative democracy. The former, however, is the maximum existential value of the empty set—a direct "presentation" (présenté) of non-being rather than a "representation" (représenté). Badiou argues that bourgeois democratic politics—as a form of representation, "counting for one," and elitism—is not politics in its authentic sense; it obscures the possibility of the masses' liberation as political subjects. Under the system of bourgeois representative democracy, we must first become a member of the business or religious world before it is possible to participate in representative democracy; thus, democratic politics degenerates into identity politics. However, those heterogeneities that are never incorporated into the system by capitalist representation (such as "illegal" immigrants) signify non-existence. "The political" (le politique) is the shadow of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave and likewise signifies "opinion" (doxa), whereas philosophy signifies the light of truth. The significance of this light of truth lies in enabling "the political" to be further transformed into "politics" (la politique).
How is this transformation of political types to be achieved? Badiou proposes the philosophy of the event. Badiou combines abstract philosophical concepts with mathematical proofs; "event," "subject," and "truth" are the keywords of Badiou’s thought. Truth exists in the rift of the event; there is no subject prior to the event. "The event, as the tearing of the established ideological order by the light of the Real, also manifests in its absolute impossibility (impossibilité)." Events are contingent; we cannot derive the event in advance from a given situation. The event itself signifies rupture and impossibility. This rupture and impossibility are directed at the original ruling order; it is a rupture with the original ruling order that is marked as impossible under that order. However, once an event occurs, the light of truth will carry the generation of the subject to push history into a new process. The subject is a subject of action—the re-presencing of a subject that was originally in a state of non-being (inexistant). The appearance of non-being breaks the original rule of "counting for one." The "One" (un) in the original counting for one can no longer encompass all the "multiples" under a unified name. The "One" (Un) with a capital letter does not exist of itself, because the "one" itself signifies "multiple." The expansion of this truth procedure is an extension of the state of exception, which Badiou calls "excess" (excès), and simultaneously signifies the realization of truth.
In Badiou’s theoretical horizon, what constitutes truth? This truth is the Idea of communism: "An Idea is the subjectivization of an interplay between the truth-process and its historical representation." For Badiou, the Real, the Imaginary, and the Symbolic are manifested as Truth, History, and the Idea. The reality of the Idea lies in Truth; History attempts to present Truth in imaginary language but instead obscures it, and Truth requires a new subject to realize a rupture with the existing order of domination. In his essay "The Idea of Communism," Badiou points out that the realization of the Communist Idea requires three fundamental elements: the political, the historical, and the subjective. The Event itself signifies a rupture with the original political system, a rebellion against History, and the realization of Truth, while the Subject is the irreducible mediation. Communism signifies not only an Ideal Truth but also a politics of emancipation. Badiou believes that emancipatory politics is both a proper name and a politics of the majority. "The ideological operation of the Idea of Communism is the imaginary projection of political real into a symbolic historical fiction, which includes, under its cover, the representation of the actions of countless masses via a proper name." (Badiou, 2016: 175). Communism as a generic extension is actually a rebellion against the transcendental structure of the original capitalist representative democracy; it is the extension of the "non-existent" [3]—those who were previously not incorporated into the political—and it simultaneously signifies political liberation.
III. Rancière: Literary and Aesthetic Politics Centered on the Logic of Equality
Jacques Rancière is a professor at Paris VIII University and a renowned French philosopher and leftist thinker whose research spans politics, literature, and art. Rancière’s intellectual path is one of "spiritual patricide." Along with Balibar, Macherey, and Establet, Rancière was a core member of Louis Althusser’s Capital reading group. His essay "The Concept of Critique and the Critique of Political Economy: From the 1844 Manuscripts to Capital" was included in the 1965 French edition of Reading Capital. However, Rancière grew disillusioned with Althusser’s conservative performance during the May 1968 [4] events, believing Althusser’s thought served to maintain the existing order and was elitist in essence. The former student drifted away from his mentor after May 1968. When Reading Capital was reprinted in 1971, Althusser removed the chapters written by Rancière, and in 1974, Rancière published Althusser's Lesson, marking his formal break with Althusser.
Equality is the primary thread running through Rancière’s thought and the theoretical reason for his final break with Althusser. Unlike Althusser’s elitist line, Rancière—having engaged in archival research on labor history—turned his gaze toward the masses, tracing the critique of elitism back to the philosophical tradition starting with Plato. The essence of the "Philosopher King" is the split between elitism and the masses: manual laborers engaged in agricultural production lack the leisure and reason to participate in the political activities of the polis, nor do they possess the courage required to defend it. From the beginning, the masses have been placed in a position of being managed and ignored. The ultimate goal of Rancière’s thought is to bring those ignored, silent, and invisible masses from the background of the political stage to the front, manifesting the power of political emancipation through the "part of those who have no part" [5]. For Aristotle, the three types of political subjects were the commoners, the nobles, and the oligarchs; however, the commoners, as political subjects, were often the objects of neglect.
Therefore, the starting point of politics is the resistance of the masses, as those without a part, against the original order: "Politics exists when the natural order of domination is interrupted by the institution of a part of those who have no part." Rancière distinguishes between "police" (la police) and "politics" (la politique). Police and politics are two different logics of human coexistence. The former refers to the procedural system of the organization, operation, and distribution of existing power—a neutral concept—while politics is "that which breaks the sensory configuration defining the parts and their shares or their lack of it by a modification of the space of 'what is,' by the supposition of a part of those who have no part." (Rancière, 2015: 48). The police is the current order of domination, while politics is the disruption of the original police order and the redistribution of the established order of rule, allowing what was previously without a place for expression, invisible, or misunderstood to reappear.
"Disagreement" (la mésentente) expresses precisely the inconsistency between police and politics. The police maintains the existing political system and is elitist in essence, while politics represents the side of liberation for the masses or commoners. Disagreement is the fracture between the existing order and the masses ignored by that order—the split between elite and mass. "Disagreement concerns the sensible presentation of a common object, that is, the very quality of the object presented by the interlocutors. In the extreme case, X cannot see the common object that Y is presenting to him because he does not understand that the sound emitted by Y actually constitutes words and arrangements of words similar to his own." (Rancière, 2015: 8). In French, "entente" actually carries the meanings of understanding, harmony, or agreement. Adding the negative prefix "més-" results in discord, disharmony, lack of understanding, divergence, or misunderstanding. However, mésentente cannot be understood as méconnaissance (misrecognition) or malentendu (misunderstanding), because the latter two occur within the same universality or knowledge system. In contrast, mésentente means "a situation in which one of the interlocutors at once understands and does not understand what the other is saying." (Rancière, 2015: 6). How should we understand Rancière’s "simultaneous understanding and lack of understanding"? The example Rancière provides in Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy regarding Jeanne Deroin, a woman participating in a national election, aptly demonstrates the logic of disagreement. Under the original parliamentary election mechanism, women could not participate as candidates; the universality of the concept of the "French people" never included women, and women were not considered political beings. Deroin countered this by arguing that women are the mothers and educators of future citizens, and while the family is a private space where the politics of citizenship is realized, this private space is "simultaneously the space for the implementation of citizenship recognized by the complementarity of law and morality." (Rancière, 2015: 62). Through her discourse on women also possessing political character, Deroin brought the subjects ignored by the logic of the police back to the fore, and at that moment, the opposition between the logic of the police and the logic of politics reached its peak.
How to bridge the gap between the masses and the elite then became the subsequent theoretical theme for Rancière, who turned his focus to the fields of literature and art, proposing "literary politics" and "aesthetic politics." The difference between writing and speech lies in the fact that the former is a subject-less reading and deconstruction, a rejection of and rebellion against phonocentrism. The existing political system constituted by phonocentrism since Plato is precisely the object of Rancière’s critique; therefore, writing possesses a function of political rebellion. The primary form of writing is literature, and the politics of writing is likewise the politics of literature. Just as political discourse is divided into the explicit and the implicit, literary discourse is also divided into the explicit and the implicit. The reason the political meaning of writing becomes possible is that writing manifests the implicit—manifesting the discourse of the masses ignored by the original discourse system. The carnality of words is precisely the politics of writing. Literary politics is not an emphasis on "literature serving politics," nor is it advocacy for writers to participate in political activities; rather, it aims to reveal the quasi-political nature inherent in literature. "It assumes that there holds an intrinsic link between politics as a specific form of collective practice and literature as a determined practice of the art of writing." Literature is a politics of writing that disrupts the world of noble art and ordinary life. The reason Madame Bovary was "put to death" was precisely because she lived her life as literature, or rather, equated literature with life. Madame Bovary was destined to be executed to warn those who would later fail to distinguish between art and life: "Literature must put her to death to keep art safe from its own ill-fated obsession, which is making life aesthetic." (Rancière, 2014: 81). By disrupting the established hierarchical order, literature transforms the invisible and unspeakable parts of the current system into the visible and speakable. Behind the resistance of life against aesthetics, the logic of equality is also interwoven; it is here that Rancière finds the connection between literature and politics. Rancière’s literary politics provides an alternative path for the contemporary radical left and offers a certain level of reference. However, due to its abandonment of the cornerstone of historical materialism, it has ultimately drifted away from traditional Marxism.
IV. Balibar: Post-Marxism with Race and Nation as Research Objects
Étienne Balibar was a primary co-author of Althusser’s Reading Capital and is hailed by the international academic community as Althusser’s most distinguished student and assistant. He is also one of the leading representatives of contemporary French Marxism. Scholars generally divide Balibar’s thought into the Althusserian period (1965–1979), the first theoretical transition (1979–1992), and the second theoretical transition (1992–present). The early period was Balibar’s apprenticeship, where structuralist Marxism aptly described his research paradigm. However, what truly reflects Balibar’s own thought are his transition periods, namely his shift toward a post-Marxist paradigm focused on the study of race and national identity.
Balibar’s first theoretical transition began in the 1980s when he shifted his research focus from interpreting Capital to studying the racial and national issues present in French society. Balibar argued that exploitation in the Marxian sense is not only manifested in class struggle; in the post-colonial era, it is more prominently manifested in struggles over racial and national identity. Or more precisely, identity politics triggered by racial and national issues constitutes a new form of class struggle in contemporary capitalism. The reason we call Balibar’s mid-to-late research paradigm "post-Marxist" is that "post-Marxism does not mean being outside of or anti-Marxist, but rather a Marxism that emphasizes other forms of social struggle—forms that have developed characteristics of sex, gender, nation, race, etc., since the 19th century. Post-Marxism means a search that remains Marxist, but adds the multifaceted aspects of all social structural features." After his theoretical transition, Balibar’s exploration of racial, national, and class identities recognized the role of racist and nationalist discourses in contemporary political struggle, ultimately combining the Marxist theory of class struggle with the struggle over racial and national identities. Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities is the most significant representative work of this period.
Why did struggles over national and racial identity become the primary form of class struggle in contemporary France? This must be understood through the history of French colonialism. As an old-school colonial power, France invaded Algeria as early as 1830...
Algeria gained independence in 1962. A century of colonial rule had forged close economic and personnel ties between France and Algeria; following Algerian independence, France experienced a wave of immigration from its former colony. The issue of race has since become a sensitive nerve in French society, and no philosopher with a sense of mission can avoid the racial question in France. Etienne Balibar is precisely such a thinker who closely attends to French social reality.
After the 1965 publication of Reading Capital (Lire le Capital), Balibar did not remain in France but chose to go to Algeria to teach. In 1981, he was expelled from the French Communist Party (PCF) for publishing remarks in Le Nouvel Observateur [6] attacking the Party’s policies regarding colonial immigrants. In Balibar’s view, race no longer manifests merely as an identity of skin color or lineage, but is increasingly linked to national cultural identity. The intersection and overlap between racial identity and national identity mean that struggles in contemporary capitalist society no longer manifest as naked class struggle, but as conflicts of racial and national identity that simultaneously carry the significance of class struggle. The ambiguity between racial, national, and class identities makes it impossible to use a single designation to describe the contemporary French struggle for identity; the essence of this ambiguity of identity lies in the difference and fictionality of the "universality" represented by race and nation.
Universality was the endpoint of Balibar's first theoretical turn and the starting point of his second. He sought the answer to national and racial problems by interrogating the maximum universality of political philosophy. However, since neither race nor nation constitutes the maximal universality of political philosophy, the question of whether an ultimate universality exists became the primary problem of his second theoretical turn. Through an examination of the 1789 French Revolution and its theoretical legacy, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, Balibar argues that the maximal universalities of political philosophy are equality and liberty. "Rights of man" refers to the rights of the individual as a natural being, while "citizen rights" refer to the rights of property owners within a political community. The Declaration equated the two, thereby granting the masses—as proletarians—the political rights that originally belonged only to property owners. For the majority of immigrants from former French colonies, the struggle for identity is primarily a struggle for French citizenship. If we view these immigrants as the proletarian masses, their counterpart should be the "full" French citizen; however, the reality is that most immigrants from former colonies live at the bottom of society, and undocumented immigrants must even struggle for the legal right of residency.
Equality is the equality of the masses, while liberty is the liberty of property owners. Since their inception, equality and liberty have formed a paradox; yet, behind the Declaration’s claim that the rights of man and the citizen are identical lies the identification of equality with liberty. There is no equality without liberty, and no liberty without equality. Balibar proposed the portmanteau "equaliberty" (l’égaliberté) to designate their reciprocity. The identification of equality and liberty is not direct but mediated through property and community. Balibar treated equality and liberty as a common base, forming two triangular structures with the mediators of community and property: a triangle of equality-liberty-property and a triangle of equality-liberty-community. While the identification of equality and liberty provides the foundation for equating the rights of man and the citizen, practical politics inevitably leans toward one side. When politics relies more heavily on the mediation of property, society tilts toward the principle of liberty; when it relies more on the principle of community, it tilts toward the principle of equality. Balibar views equality and liberty as the poles of political ideals, constantly guiding the transformation of real-world politics toward greater equality and liberty, ultimately leading to a "politics of civility" directed against the established systems of capitalism.
Conclusion
Having elucidated the four research paths of these representative figures of contemporary French Marxism, we face unavoidable questions: What is the relationship between these paths and original French Marxism? Is there inheritance and development? What are the relationships between these four paths, and is there an underlying shared theoretical logic? What are their values and limitations?
First, Jacques Bidet, Alain Badiou, Jacques Rancière, and Étienne Balibar all maintain close theoretical links with Louis Althusser; contemporary French Marxism can even be described as "Post-Althusserian French Marxism." Balibar and Rancière were members of Althusser’s Reading Capital seminar and were primary co-authors of the 1965 text. While Balibar is regarded by the international academic community as Althusser’s most eminent and loyal student, Rancière embarked on a path of theoretical rebellion following the May 1968 storm [7]. Balibar’s thought both inherits and develops Althusser’s: inheritance is mainly reflected in his Althusserian period, while development is concentrated in his middle and late periods. After Althusser’s death, Balibar was always present at commemorative events, and he was invited to write prefaces for Althusser’s works, such as the major late work On the Reproduction of Capitalism. Balibar continued Althusser’s inquiry into the reproduction of the relations of production, creatively extending it to the study of national and racial identities and proposing the theory of the politics of civility. Bidet was similarly deeply influenced by Althusser, as evidenced by his research subjects. Bidet’s doctoral thesis, How to Deal with Capital: Materials for a Refoundation, took Das Kapital as its object of study, directly influencing his subsequent half-century of theoretical work. The creation of his "metastructure" theory stems directly from his interpretation of Das Kapital. Rancière’s break with Althusser’s thought was the starting point of his own journey; their relationship is one of theoretical rebellion, yet it was precisely this rebellion that allowed Rancière to achieve his own standing. Badiou was also profoundly influenced by Althusser, having participated in the Reading Capital activities during his time at the École Normale Supérieure (ENS); Althusser remained one of Badiou’s most important spiritual mentors. The "Event" is the core concept of Badiou’s philosophy; Althusser’s influence is reflected in the theoretical link between "Event" and "Rupture." An event inherently implies a rupture; without a rupture, there is no event. The concept of the event carries a strong hue of Althusser’s "epistemological break." Thus, contemporary French Marxism is essentially a Post-Althusserian Marxism.
Second, through an analysis of Bidet, Badiou, Rancière, and Balibar, we find that "emancipatory politics" is the shared logic behind their thought. Balibar’s discussion of national and racial issues seeks to achieve equaliberty for French immigrants and ethnic minorities, and his "politics of civility" is a rebellion against the violence of established institutions. Both Balibar and Rancière regard equality as the cornerstone of political theory. Balibar proposed "equaliberty" to signify the reciprocity of the two concepts. Rancière views equality as the fundamental problem of politics; his distinction between "police" and "politics" highlights the "part of those who have no part" and constitutes a resistance against the logic of the police. Badiou and Rancière also share theoretical components; both distinguish between "feminine politics" and "masculine politics." Politics is "feminine" only when it is true politics—the politics of the masses and of emancipation—whereas "masculine politics" refers to the established, conservative politics representing the ideology of the ruling class. The logic of emancipatory politics runs through the thought of Balibar, Rancière, and Badiou. The three express different paths of emancipatory politics through different theoretical languages: Balibar’s politics of civility, Rancière’s aesthetic and literary politics, and Badiou’s philosophy of the event. Their final theoretical goal is the realization of the emancipatory politics of the masses. Furthermore, Bidet’s emphasis on the question of organization aims to move toward socialism through an alliance with organizational managers.
Third, Bidet, Badiou, Rancière, and Balibar have all proposed their own theoretical paradigms, which possess significant theoretical value while also containing certain defects. Balibar’s concept of "equaliberty" highlights the reciprocity of equality and liberty, yet how "equaliberty" as a portmanteau can escape the trap of language games without falling into meaningless tautology remains a major problem. How the universal principle of equaliberty can realize itself in a trans-nation-state context—and the conflicts between different cultural backgrounds represented by various immigrants and their relationship to the realpolitik of the nation-state—are urgent practical difficulties for Balibar’s politics of civility. This utopian form of theory is even more evident in Rancière and Badiou. Aesthetic and literary politics illuminate the "disagreement" (mésentente) between the police and politics, and the severance between realpolitik and the ignored masses; however, aesthetic and literary politics deprived of the support of historical materialism contribute little to the actual emancipation of the masses. The ultimate goal of Badiou’s philosophy of the event is communism, which is similarly a concept of communitarianism—an extension of the "One." The event implies contingency and rupture, and its realization requires the participation of a subject; yet, only the generation of the event can create the subject. This search for a "prime mover" can only appeal to the subject’s "fidelity" to the event. Balibar, starting from the urgent social problems of France, brought forth the idea of equaliberty and the possibility of trans-nation-state politics, though this politics faces many practical challenges. Bidet, starting from Das Kapital, analyzed the dual logic of the market and organization and the three-tiered class structure of modern society, attempting to realize socialism through an alliance of the masses and organizational managers. Compared to Balibar and Bidet, Rancière and Badiou are more like "preachers" of Leftist thought, bringing the ideals of egalitarianism and communism to the masses, where the ideal itself serves as the vanguard for the awakening of class consciousness. Beneath the thick fog of capitalist ideology, we need to point out the practical path, but we also need utopian ideals.