生态危机的制度性解释——奥康纳“第二矛盾”与马克思“代谢断裂”的理论对比

Institutional Interpretations of Ecological Crisis—A Theoretical Comparison between O’Connor’s “Second Contradiction” and Marx’s “Metabolic Rift”

摘要: 奥康纳将生态危机视为资本主义制度中的内在矛盾，认为生态退化与社会再生产之间的张力构成资本积累的“第二矛盾”。他提出通过国家干预和生态治理机制调和资本与自然的关系，以缓解危机对经济体系的冲击。马克思则在“代谢断裂”理论中，从人与自然之间的物质代谢关系出发，揭示了资本主义生产方式对自然循环系统的系统性破坏，强调生态危机源于资本主义社会关系的结构性矛盾。本文在比较二者理论出发点、危机机制和实践路径的基础上指出，奥康纳强调制度调适的可行性，马克思则追求更深层次的制度批判；两种理论路径各有理论价值，也存在不同程度的现实约束。通过对这两种制度性解释路径的结构性比较，本文旨在深化对生态危机根源的理解，并为生态治理的理论探索提供多元视角。

Abstract: O’Connor regards ecological crisis as an inherent contradiction within the capitalist system, arguing that the tension between ecological degradation and social reproduction constitutes the “second contradiction” of capital accumulation. He proposes reconciling the relationship between capital and nature through state intervention and ecological governance mechanisms, thereby mitigating the crisis’s impact on the economic system. In contrast, Marx, through his theory of the “metabolic rift,” reveals the systemic disruption of natural cycles caused by capitalist modes of production, emphasizing that the root of ecological crisis lies in the structural contradictions of capitalist social relations. Based on a comparison of their theoretical premises, crisis mechanisms, and practical pathways, this article argues that while O’Connor emphasizes the feasibility of institutional adjustment, Marx pursues a deeper level of systemic critique. Both theoretical frameworks offer valuable insights yet face distinct practical constraints. By structurally comparing these two institutional explanations, this paper aims to deepen the understanding of the root causes of ecological crisis and provide a pluralistic perspective for the theoretical exploration of ecological governance.