Zhang Liang and Sun Leqiang: Development Trends and Effect Evaluation of Foreign Marxist Schools of Thought in the 21st Century
Since the turn of the 21st century, the global landscape has entered a new historical stage of profound adjustment and accelerated evolution. The capitalist world has generated a multitude of complex and deep-seated practical problems, raising numerous theoretical issues that urgently require answers. Since the drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe [1], although Marxism suffered a heavy blow and entered an unprecedented low ebb in the advanced capitalist world of the West, it has not only tenaciously survived but remained steadfast in its purpose. It consistently maintains a critical study of the new changes, developments, and forms of contemporary capitalism, producing many valuable new results. Xi Jinping pointed out: "Regarding the new results of foreign Marxist research, we must pay close attention to and study them; we must analyze and discern them, neither adopting an attitude of total rejection nor engaging in wholesale copying." [2] How, then, should we correctly treat the contemporary development of 21st-century foreign Marxism? The most important point is that, at the starting point, we must be clear about our historical positional relationship with 21st-century foreign Marxism: we are not its followers, but its contemporaries. This means we can no longer rely on the ready-made results of Western academia to construct our cognitive map. We must exercise our subjective initiative, using the basic theories of Marxism as a scientific guide to deeply analyze the socio-historical conditions under which contemporary foreign Marxism formed and evolved. On the basis of a comprehensive summary, we must make a seek-truth-from-facts judgment of its developmental status and landscape. Furthermore, standing on the position of socialism with Chinese characteristics, we must analyze and discern its theoretical results—adopting some while rejecting others—and fully absorb the intellectual essence that is conducive to improving the level of Chinese Marxist academic research and theoretical innovation capacity, thereby making a beneficial contribution to the innovative development of 21st-century Marxism and contemporary Chinese Marxism.
I. Research Paths and Reflections of Contemporary Foreign Marxism on the Basic Theories of Marxism
Since the new century, contemporary foreign Marxism has gradually emerged from the trough of the 1990s, exhibiting a new developmental momentum. Faced with the major adjustments and transformations of contemporary capitalism, contemporary foreign Marxists have expressed their cognitive attitudes toward Marxism from different perspectives, attempting to "revise" and "develop" Marxism in practice, thereby forming a diverse array of academic schools and theoretical trends. Faced with these intricate and complex trends in contemporary foreign Marxism, we must maintain firm theoretical resolve, clarify the cognitive attitudes and internal disagreements of these trends regarding the basic theories of Marxism, and discern the theoretical substance hidden behind various noisy "spectacles," [3] effectively advancing the demarcation of positions and the overall positioning of contemporary foreign Marxist thought.
First, philological research has exhibited new trends, the color of deconstructionism has become increasingly evident, and the "Marx-Engels dichotomy" has taken on new forms. After the drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the leadership of MEGA2 [4] shifted into the hands of Western scholars. Adhering to principles such as academization, de-ideologization, and historicization, they re-arranged or reconstructed the documents of Marx and Engels, most typically Capital and The German Ideology. They advocate for removing Engels's editorial traces, reducing Volumes 2 and 3 of Capital to their respective independent manuscript fragments, and even deconstructing The German Ideology into immature "semi-finished products" or relatively independent "drafts." Under this influence, the compilation and translation of Marxist classics led by Euro-American countries have also displayed deconstructionist tendencies to varying degrees. This has overturned traditional academic perceptions of Marxist classics and the classical image of the authors, and even further activated the research tendency of concocting the "Marx-Engels dichotomy." Reviewing the history of thought, one finds that from the opposition between "dialectics of nature" and "historical dialectics" in early Western Marxism to the opposition between the thought paradigms of Marx and Engels concocted by Western "Marxology" [5]—setting aside the correctness of the views—these various discourses remained primarily within the fields of philosophy and political science. In the late 20th century, as eras and social conditions evolved, these views and Western "Marxology" gradually declined, losing their established influence. However, since the new century, under the influence of MEGA2 and various deconstructionist versions, the "Marx-Engels dichotomy" has begun to see a resurgence, becoming an increasingly hot topic among contemporary Western scholars. Under the banner of philological verification, they widely trumpet the opposition between the original manuscripts of Capital and Engels's edited versions, introducing an opposition previously limited to the field of philosophy into the field of political economy, and concocting an opposition between two methods and fundamental principles of the critique of political economy. In today’s context, how to respond to this erroneous tendency is particularly important. It is undeniable that Engels's arrangement of Capital has become an inseparable and important part of the history of the workers' movement and the history of Marxist development. The practice of attempting to deconstruct Capital through a comparative analysis of Marx's manuscripts and Engels's edited versions inherently erases the political orientation behind such editing. It attempts to separate Engels's work from the practice of the workers' movement and the genealogy of Marxist development, reducing it to mere clerical work. This is itself a form of historical nihilism and political deconstructionism—a presumption of "original sin" detached from the history of thought.
Second, research paths are diverse, cognitive attitudes are divided, theoretical logics are unconventional, and the effectiveness of research is mixed. Since the new century, contemporary foreign leftist scholars have expressed their understanding of the basic theories of Marxism in new contexts, covering a wide range of topics and using various modes of expression. In general, these can be summarized into four basic paths.
The first is the "rereading Marx" path. After the drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, Marxism fell into a worldwide low ebb, and theories like the "end of history" and the "obsolescence of Marxism" were clamorous. Faced with various challenges, some leftist scholars advocated for a rereading of Marx’s documents, striving to draw a clear line between the basic theories of Marxism and Soviet Marxism, thereby rehabilitating Marxism's name and achieving its breakthrough and reconstruction. Undeniably, this approach has important theoretical value and academic significance. However, due to changes in the era's background and social situation, this path has generally been unable to respond to the themes of the times, increasingly degenerating into a scholastic, marginalized, and niche route with limited influence. For example, in the study of dialectics, relevant scholars have not moved beyond the problematics of historical dialectics versus the dialectics of nature, or subjective dialectics versus objective dialectics, with few major breakthroughs; some scholars have even directly abandoned historical dialectics, retreating back into the ruts of systematic and logical dialectics.
The second is the path of localized and concrete construction. Since the second half of the 20th century, with the complex evolution of the international situation and global landscape, as well as the emergence of new social problems and the deep development of globalization, some contemporary Western leftist scholars began to rethink the relationships between the global and the local, universal and particular. They gradually initiated a research turn from grand narratives to concrete problems, from globalism to local experience, and from universality to localization. In this process, some Western leftist scholars believe that the basic theory of Marxism is, to some extent, an abstract principle that must be combined with local characteristics, local experiences, and specific problems to obtain sufficient developmental momentum. This formed the localized and concrete paths of basic Marxist theoretical research, such as Italian Autonomist Marxism, the French Regulation School, "Latin-Americanized" Marxism, and so on; further examples include the combination of Marxism with issues of ecology, space, the urban, gender, and race. Undoubtedly, these paths have to some extent expanded the problematic and methods of Marxist theoretical research and produced a series of influential theoretical results with academic value, which deserve our serious study and treatment. But the flaws of these paths are also undeniable: they have not handled the relationship between basic Marxist principles and local experiences well, overemphasizing the latter and exhibiting a tendency to use local experience to revise or even negate basic Marxist principles, failing to truly achieve the dialectical unity of upholding Marxism and developing Marxism.
The third is the path of grafting various "post-" theories. Since the 1970s, with the neoliberal turn of the capitalist world, various social trends under the banner of "post-" theories—such as postmodernism, post-structuralism, and post-colonialism—have gained unprecedented vitality, becoming a prominent feature of the Western theoretical world. Simultaneously, the classic Western Marxism pioneered by figures like Lukács logically moved toward differentiation, replaced by a pluralistic and fragmented landscape. One of the more prominent paths within this involves grafting Marxism together with various "post-" theories. Thus, the basic theories of Marxism are reinterpreted or deconstructed within the frameworks of various "post-" theories. This practice of "developing" Marxism under the banner of "post-" theories is, in reality, merely using the name of Marxism to serve the substance of various "post-" theories. This path may win high theoretical prestige and be favored by many followers, but one point is beyond doubt: no matter how surprising or spectacular it may be, it cannot truly represent the future of Marxism.
The fourth is the path of thorough critique and deconstruction. Within contemporary foreign leftist trends, there is also an extreme tendency: they maintain a leftist stance and criticize contemporary capitalism, but on the question of how to treat Marxism, they go to extremes. They not only refuse to identify as Marxists but thoroughly criticize and deconstruct Marxist positions, viewpoints, and methods. Some scholars even believe that Marxism has two fundamental flaws: philosophically, it has not escaped the ruts of modern metaphysics; in terms of the critique of political economy, the entire theory is merely a mirror reflection of bourgeois ideology, failing to escape the trap of Eurocentrism. Other scholars believe that Marxism is entirely a product of the era of free-competition capitalism and is no longer applicable to contemporary capitalism; they thus advocate abandoning Marxism and finding a different path to reconstruct a critical theory of contemporary capitalism. However, as an alternative, what they offer basically retreats to the old paths of romanticism, utopianism, or anarchism. History has fully proven that although leftist trends that abandon Marxism do not lack radicalism and academic innovation, they cannot provide a feasible alternative or political program. Ultimately, they become a "fig leaf" for history, leading into a theoretical and practical dead end.
Lastly, theoretical barriers are increasing, logical differentiation is deepening, and divides over the general line are becoming more serious. As an integral paradigm, Marxism is the organic unity of philosophy, political economy, and scientific socialism. Since the new century, most Western scholars have merely elaborated on or responded to certain Marxist theories or viewpoints based on their own interests and focus, resulting in an excess of fragmentation and a lack of integrity. Simultaneously, the theoretical barriers between different tendencies are intensifying, making it impossible to systematically grasp and deepen the understanding and research of the basic theories of Marxism as a whole. Reviewing the entire history of Marxist development, one finds that how to understand the dialectical relationship between objective logic and subjective logic constitutes a "red thread" running through the history of Marxism. In terms of basic philosophical theory, this is mainly expressed as the relationship between the contradictory movement of productive forces and relations of production and the class struggle; in the field of political economy, it is expressed as the problem of how to understand the relationship between the dialectics of capital and the logic of class. Looking across contemporary foreign leftist trends, theoretical disagreements on this issue are increasing:
Some scholars have become increasingly mired in the whirlpool of objective structures or discourse theory, losing sight of both the possibility of the emergence of the subject and the hope for the future, ultimately falling into a state of pessimistic despair. Some scholars still hold fast to Marx’s objective logic, emphasizing the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production as well as the objective contradictions of capitalist society, striving to reshape the logic of class within new contexts. Other scholars have directly abandoned the essential logic of Marx’s historical materialism and political economy, returning to the empirical level of everyday life or empiricism to artificially construct a class logic. Still others have discarded both the objective formulas of Marxism and its class logic, proclaiming the "disappearance of the proletariat" and the "obsolescence of class," turning instead toward a path of subjective struggle represented by various marginalized groups and "the multitude." Furthermore, some leftist scholars have retreated back into the embrace of speculative humanism or modern philosophies of the subject. The type of theory used as guidance inevitably shapes the line of struggle. Consequently, the theory of proletarian revolution—which Marxism emphasizes as being grounded in objective contradictions—has been deconstructed, and the basic theories of scientific socialism have been abandoned, replaced by various pre-Marxist and non-Marxist political lines.
II. Four New Growth Points and Development Trends in Contemporary Overseas Marxist Theoretical Research
Since the 1960s and 1970s, issues such as ecology, space, the urban environment, gender, identity politics, and biopolitics have increasingly emerged as major problems of the contemporary world, particularly within contemporary capitalism. Combining new historical practices and the issues of the era, contemporary Western leftist scholars have deeply, comprehensively, and systematically excavated relevant thoughts from the original works of Marx and Engels, grafting them onto various Western indigenous resources. This has led to the formation of schools such as Eco-Marxism, Feminist Marxism, and Urban Marxism; or rather, it has formed research pathways centered on themes like ecology, space, the urban, gender, identity politics, and biopolitics, which have become important theoretical growth points for contemporary overseas Marxism. Entering the New Era [6], these theoretical studies continue to occupy an important position in the genealogy of contemporary overseas Marxism, yet their overall developmental state and evolutionary trends have taken on new characteristics.
First, the ecological movement is gradually receding, theoretical innovation is increasingly sluggish, the momentum of development is leveling off, and overall influence is in decline. Eco-Marxism and eco-socialism were highlights of Western leftist theory and social movements in the 20th century. As contemporary capitalism has increased its governance of the ecological environment and deeply adjusted global industrial value chains, developed Western countries have gradually transferred low-to-mid-end industries with high pollution to the Third World and developing countries. This has achieved a global transfer of ecological contradictions and social problems. Consequently, the eco-socialist movement has gradually lost its practical basis in the West, and an academicized path of development has increasingly become the dominant trend in contemporary Western Eco-Marxism. Overall, since the start of the new century, the development momentum of Eco-Marxism has remained stable, but it lacks influential and charismatic leading figures. In terms of theoretical forms, it mainly manifests through three construction pathways: starting from the global division of labor and capital accumulation to integrate ecological issues with a critique of the logic of capital in the era of globalization, thereby constructing an ecological critical theory for the globalized age; actively drawing on theoretical resources and research methods from the natural and other sciences to graft Marxism onto various indigenous resources, constructing a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary system of ecological research; and advancing along the path of eco-socialism to combine ecological issues with political philosophy, social movements, and party politics, in an attempt to reconstruct an eco-political critique of contemporary capitalism. Since the turn of the century, the school of Eco-Marxism has generally faced a developmental predicament of "continuation with few breakthroughs," characterized by a growing lack of innovative drive and declining influence.
Second, the "spatial turn" has become increasingly significant, while its theoretical logic has grown more dispersed, its practical programs more utopian, and its nihilistic color more pronounced. The spatial turn has been an important theoretical growth point in contemporary overseas Marxist research for nearly half a century. Entering the 21st century, spatial critical theory has ushered in a new period of development, showing a trend where old and new themes clash fiercely yet promote one another. Specifically: 1. From the perspective of theoretical logic, the ontological path of space has been further reinforced. For Marx and Engels, neither time nor space possessed autonomy; they were essentially rooted in material existence and its motion. Contemporary overseas Marxism, however, has subverted this logic, exaggerating the "production of space" [7] as the fundamental cornerstone of Marx’s historical materialism and political economy, and magnifying space into the ontological basis for the reproduction of the logic of capital and social relations, using this to reconstruct Marxist social critical theory. 2. From the perspective of research methodology, the interdisciplinary path has become increasingly evident. Since the new century, the question of space has become a focal point for discussion across different disciplines. While contemporary Western leftists continue to promote the spatialization of Marxist critical theory, they are also actively absorbing and drawing upon research results from various disciplines to forcefully advance the "Marxization" of spatial critical theory: the trend of interdisciplinary integration between Marxism and geography, sociology, network information communication, architecture, urban planning, and political science is becoming more apparent, as is the grafting of methods such as structuralism, post-structuralism, postmodernism, deconstruction, positivism, and empiricism. 3. From the perspective of critical themes, the demand for the politicization of space is increasingly prominent. Contemporary Western leftist scholars have critically analyzed the unevenness of capitalist spatial reproduction, revealing the essence and consequences of capital-centric spatial production. Centering on themes such as spatial justice, the right to the city, spatial revolution, and strategies of struggle, they have systematically elucidated the geopolitics triggered by spatial imbalance and actively advocated for radical spatial revolution. Finally, from the perspective of practical programs, a color of nihilism has become increasingly evident. Contemporary Western leftist scholars have transformed Marx’s proletarian revolution and the movement for human liberation into diversified movements of spatial resistance and spatial liberation, which is itself a result of a retreat in position. They attempt to carry out spatial revolutions or achieve spatial justice without overthrowing the capitalist system; the theoretical significance of these efforts far outweighs their practical significance. In essence, they are nothing more than a form of romanticism or utopianism filled with "geographical imagination," which can neither see a future direction nor find a realistic way out.
Third, multiculturalism has fallen into a predicament, identity politics has suffered heavy blows, and development prospects are increasingly shrinking. Identity politics actively responds to various demands for identity recognition in the culturally pluralistic societies of the era of capitalist globalization; it is a theoretical program for the contemporary Western left to maintain resistance and express its position. It originated in the 1970s and 80s and, supported by postmodern theory, reached its peak around the turn of the new century. Contemporary Western leftist identity politics mainly manifests in two paradigms: first, multiculturalist identity politics, primarily expressed through using specific lifestyles and values to resist the dominant order—a set of comprehensive social strategies carried out by marginalized groups such as women, Black people, and immigrants to protect and improve their collective interests; second, "justice-oriented" identity politics, namely an identity paradigm guided by "recognition theory." Theoretically, multiculturalism and identity politics have powerfully revealed the logic of cultural colonization within Western-centrism and effectively criticized Eurocentrism. Practically, for a certain period, they also achieved certain results, winning some social rights and interests for marginalized minority groups. However, one must also recognize their unavoidable internal limitations. They focus excessively on issues of culture and identity without touching upon the essence or economic roots of these problems. In other words, they merely strive for cultural redemption and rights-based struggle without changing the capitalist system. This not only completely deconstructs Marxist class theory and one-sidedly exaggerates the historical status of "difference" but also carries the potential of being co-opted, assimilated, and utilized by capitalism. Following the outbreak of the 2008 financial crisis, undercurrents of anti-globalization have surged, and cultural conservatism, racism, nationalism, and xenophobia have increasingly spread. Multiculturalism has encountered a double crisis in both theory and practice, and identity politics has consequently fallen into a predicament, with its prospects for development appearing far from optimistic.
Finally, biopolitics has become increasingly popular, research paradigms are sharply divided, and the path for practice is increasingly bleak. Biopolitics is a theoretical growth point that emerged against the backdrop of neoliberalism; it was first proposed by Foucault and subsequently developed by leftist thinkers such as Hardt, Negri, Agamben, and Esposito, forming three typical paradigms: first, the critique of capital power by Hardt and Negri, where "biopower" refers to capital's total control over human life, while biopolitics serves as the production of life and the generation of revolutionary subjects; second, Agamben’s critical path based on "decisive sovereignty," namely a biopolitics of the regression from political life to "bare life"; and third, Esposito’s "immunitary" biopolitical paradigm based on the dual logic of the "immune body" and the "community," a theory of the social regulation of life through governing technologies where medicine, biology, and law permeate one another. As an important component of contemporary Western leftist theory, biopolitics has more or less moved toward a negation of Marx’s critique of political economy. This has led to a slight deficiency in the critical force of this theory, a tendency toward metaphysicalization and utopianism, and a failure to break out of the neoliberal framework in both theory and practice. In other words, biopolitics merely resists capitalism in ways it can accept and within the boundaries it allows. In this regard, biopolitics cannot replace the critique of political economy to become the dominant trend of the future development of Marxism, nor can it replace the Marxist politics of liberation to become the dominant form of future practical struggle. On the contrary, only by advancing along the path opened by Marx’s critique of political economy can biopolitics gain a broader space for development; and only by returning to the line of struggle of party politics can the resistance of biopolitics find a feasible practical outlet.
III. Four Main Directions and Reflections in Research on Practical Problems in Contemporary Overseas Marxism
Entering the new century, especially since the 2008 global financial crisis, latent crises in all aspects of capitalism have erupted. Contemporary overseas Marxism has conducted in-depth analyses of major practical issues such as new changes in the capitalist mode of production, economic crises, class structures, and crises of democracy, providing useful references for our correct understanding of the new changes, features, and developmental trends of contemporary capitalism.
First, the theory of material production has been deconstructed, the logic of industrial capitalism is continuously exiting the stage, and new "fancies" are constantly emerging. Since the late 1970s, European and American countries have successively shifted toward neoliberalism, gradually achieving a transition from Fordism to Post-Fordism. Consequently, how to understand the developmental characteristics and historical effects of capitalism during this period has become one of the important issues of concern for contemporary overseas Marxism, leading to several typical cognitive paradigms:
(1) The technological paradigm represented by "flexible production" and "intelligent production." This paradigm holds that, with the help of modern science and technology, contemporary capitalism has overcome the verticality and rigidity of previous production, achieving intelligence and flexibility in the production process. This path focuses more on the technological changes in the contemporary capitalist production process, relatively neglecting the factors of the relations of production.
(2) The paradigm of immaterial labor and cognitive labor. This paradigm holds that the productive labor understood by Marx in his day mainly manifested as physical labor and material labor...
Furthermore, the production strategies of contemporary capitalism have shifted from the original production of tangible goods to the production of non-material products represented by knowledge, information, and affect. The creation of surplus value in contemporary capitalism has likewise shifted from the original manual and physical labor to non-material and cognitive labor represented by mental and intellectual labor. This has given rise to paradigms such as cognitive capitalism or digital capitalism. (3) The sign, information mode, or network mode of production paradigm. This paradigm holds that with the deepening development of network information technology and media, what occupies the dominant position today is no longer material production, but rather the production of signs, information, and codes, thereby proposing the information capitalism or network capitalism paradigms. (4) The new imperialism paradigm. This paradigm holds that the neoliberal turn means that finance capital has transcended industrial capital to become the true master of global discursive hegemony. The entire world has been reduced to an empire of finance capital, forming a new imperialism paradigm characterized by accumulation by dispossession [8].
Overall, contemporary foreign Marxism has revealed new changes and developments in contemporary capitalism from various perspectives, providing important references for our understanding of its developmental characteristics. However, it must also be noted that these paradigms still possess significant flaws. On the one hand, contemporary foreign Marxism distorts or abandons Marx's theory of material production. These thinkers clearly lack a sufficient understanding of the scientific connotation of Marx’s categories of material production and the mode of production. They interpret material production purely at a technical or empirical level as the production of "things," using this to revise, critique, or negate Marx's theory of material production—a manifest theoretical defect. When they simply use the production of signs, culture, information, and knowledge to negate the theory of material production, they are clearly mistaking the effect for the cause, compounding their error. On the other hand, contemporary Western leftist scholars have not fundamentally revealed the operational mechanisms of the contemporary capitalist mode of production. They merely seize upon one or some characteristics of contemporary capitalism to define the overall character of its development, which clearly risks overgeneralization.
Second, research on crises has heated up across the board, analytical paradigms continue to diversify, yet diagnoses of the root causes converge toward the same conclusion. Since the economic crisis of 2008, the school of state interventionism within mainstream Western economics has argued that neoliberalism was the chief culprit behind the financial and economic crises. They have conducted in-depth analyses of the social harms of neoliberalism from various perspectives, including political systems, economic systems, distribution systems, tax systems, and financial systems. One might say that while state interventionist economics is relatively sharp in its critique of neoliberalism, its critique of capitalism itself is weak and powerless. They even naively believe that the structural crises of contemporary capitalism can be resolved simply by abandoning neoliberalism and returning to Keynesianism and state interventionism. The historical practice of capitalism has proven with ironclad facts that crises are rooted in the inherent contradictions of capitalism. No matter what reform measures capitalism adopts, it is impossible to completely eliminate crisis.
By contrast, contemporary Western leftist scholars argue that while neoliberalism indeed accelerated the outbreak of the current crisis, this crisis can by no means be blamed solely on neoliberalism; rather, it is rooted in the logic of capital valorization and the inherent contradictions of capitalism. Therefore, they advocate for a return to the analytical framework of Capital to engage in a critical analysis of the inherent contradictions of contemporary capitalism. Generally speaking, most leftist scholars maintain that Capital still possesses irreplaceable contemporary value for understanding the crises of contemporary capitalism. However, they exhibit marked differences in their analytical paradigms and research paths: some scholars focus on excavating the theory of the lack of effective demand hidden behind the subprime mortgage crisis; others emphasize the trend of declining general rates of profit for industrial capital and capital accumulation caused by the relocation of global industrial value chains and the rise in the organic composition of capital. Still others, centering on the contradiction between finance capital and industrial capital, systematically discuss the destructive impact of the excessive expansion of fictitious capital and the fictitious economy on the real economy. Some scholars, starting from the world market and the world system, focus on the new contradictions and dire consequences triggered by globalized capitalism. There are also scholars who, beginning with the total process of capitalist production, systematically analyze the "aggregate contradictions" facing contemporary capitalism, including fundamental contradictions, moving contradictions, and dangerous contradictions [9].
Essentially, these leftist scholars have all adhered to an analytical path based on economic contradictions. Within new contexts, they have analyzed the new changes, developments, and characteristics of capitalist economic contradictions, providing important references for our understanding of the financial, economic, and structural crises of contemporary capitalism. However, it must also be noted that no matter how these contradictions change, they have not altered the fundamental contradiction of capitalism—namely, the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production. As long as capitalism continues to exist, financial and economic crises will remain unavoidable. The notion of attempting to completely overcome capitalist crises without changing the capitalist system itself is nothing more than a beautiful fantasy. On this point, contemporary Western leftist scholars have consistently maintained a clear-headed understanding and judgment.
Third, theories of social structure confront one another, the logic of class increasingly retreats, and strategies of struggle become ever more speculative. Since the late 1970s, as the contemporary capitalist mode of production has undergone transformation and globalization has intensified, the industrial and social structures of contemporary capitalism have also experienced significant changes. How to understand the class structure of contemporary capitalism has thus become one of the major questions in contemporary foreign Marxist research. On this issue, contemporary foreign Marxism has seen great divergence, forming different research paths. First, regarding the structure of polarization: some leftist scholars believe that with the transformation of the capitalist mode of production and the adjustment of the industrial structure, industrial workers in the Marxian sense have gradually decreased, while the "middle stratum" engaged in services, high-tech, and other industries has risen significantly. This presents a diversified, flat structure that is "small at both ends and large in the middle." Consequently, they argue that the polarized structure proposed by Marx is no longer applicable to contemporary capitalist society. Conversely, other scholars argue that no matter how capitalism changes, it cannot conceal the reality of contemporary capitalist polarization—namely, the confrontation between the 1% and the 99%. This further proves the correctness of Marx’s framework of polarization and his historical predictions.
Second, regarding the logic of class: some leftist scholars argue that with the transformation of the capitalist mode of production, the proletariat in the Marxian sense has gradually moved toward "extinction." They claim class contradictions in contemporary capitalist society are no longer between the bourgeoisie and the traditional working class, but have transformed into contradictions between the bourgeoisie and a few marginalized groups. Other scholars believe that in contemporary capitalist society, cognitive labor and non-material labor have replaced material labor to become the dominant forms of social labor. They thus propose the concepts of the "cognitive class" and the "multitude," arguing that the primary contradiction of contemporary capitalism has transformed into a confrontation between capital and the cognitive class/multitude. Still others believe that with the deepening of globalization, the primary contradiction of contemporary capitalism has transformed into the contradiction between transnational capital and the global proletariat, and so on.
Third, regarding strategies of struggle: various leftist scholars have offered their own prescriptions. These range from reformist schemes that "patch and mend" within the capitalist system without revolution, to various anarchist schemes shouting for "radical democracy" and proposing "autonomous multitude" or "pluralist democracy." There are also schemes advocating for the struggle of marginalized groups and romanticist schemes advocating for the re-appropriation of "general intellect" or the revolution of everyday life.
In reality, these judgments are basically made based on empirical sociology, historical statistics, or the logical deductions of post-structuralism. Has Marx’s logic of class truly become inapplicable to contemporary capitalist society? This is not actually the case. Here, we shall take the relationship between mental laborers and capital as described by Marx and Engels as an example to illustrate the contemporary value of Marxist class theory. Marx and Engels divided mental laborers into three types: The first type consists of the bourgeois rulers and their spokespersons. To achieve ideological dominance, a segment of the bourgeoisie must specialize in the production of ideas and become the manufacturers of ideology. So-called bourgeois philosophers, jurists, moralists, etc., are the primary producers of this ideology; they constitute the accomplices and spokespersons of the bourgeoisie. The second type consists of mental laborers who autonomously engage in non-material labor, upon whom capital has not yet completed its rule and subordination. The third type consists of non-material laborers of a capitalist nature, whom Engels called the "proletariat of mental labor" [10]. Since labor-power refers to the aggregate of physical and mental capabilities [11], it follows that whether the labor-power sold is primarily manual or mental, as long as it produces surplus value for the capitalist, it belongs to the category of the working class. Whether one is engaged in manual labor divorced from the "general intellect," or mental/non-material labor integrated with the "general intellect," as long as one sells their labor-power and creates surplus value, they are a productive worker in the Marxian sense. Therefore, when contemporary Western leftist scholars use concepts like the "middle stratum," "cognitive stratum," and "the multitude" to name those mental and non-material laborers—and use these to analyze contemporary capitalist social structures—they are clearly grouping people of different class identities under a single concept. This is a logic of eclectic compromise that fails to grasp the internal essence of contemporary capitalist class structure. In this regard, Marx’s method of class analysis and his logic of class remain our scientific method for understanding the social structure of contemporary capitalism.
Finally, the critique of democracy is deepening and its diagnosis of problems is incisive, yet the proposed alternatives are weak and ineffective. Since the outbreak of the financial crisis, a major shift has occurred in the Western political landscape, marked by a series of "black swan" events and the full exposure of the flaws in Western democratic systems. Against this backdrop, contemporary Western leftist scholars have dissected the chaos and root causes of Western democracy from different perspectives. In their view, the superstructure is determined by the economic base. Capitalism itself is built upon private appropriation, which dictates that the capitalist democratic system is, in essence, at the service of private property and bourgeois interests. The "marriage" of capital and democracy has led, on the one hand, to the excessive capitalization of democracy, and on the other, to the excessive corrosion of democracy by capital, tilting it entirely toward oligarchy and a game of money; the US general election is a typical example. The so-called "one person, one vote" is merely a procedural, formal democracy. It only resolves the issue of electoral procedure but does not solve the substantive issue of how the elected representatives govern the country on behalf of the voters. The so-called "of the people, by the people, for the people" is an impossible myth, again highlighting the deceptive nature of Western representative democracy. Furthermore, the UK "Brexit" referendum reflected the indifference and numbness of the Western populace toward democracy itself, revealing the conflict and paradox between "representative democracy" and "popular sovereignty." In addition, Western society is severely polarized and social centrifugal forces are intensifying, which acutely reflects the declining attraction and cohesion of Western democratic systems. The spread of populism, xenophobia, and racism, alongside the rise of right-wing forces, reflects that Western representative democracy is encountering its own crisis of legitimacy. More importantly...
The series of bullying acts and various "humanitarian disasters" manufactured by Euro-American countries have thoroughly torn apart the lies of Western democratic values, vividly exposing the ugly face of these nations. It can be said that while contemporary Western leftist scholars offer relatively profound diagnoses regarding the current chaos of Western democracy, it is regrettable that the prescriptions they issue are weak and ineffective. Whether advocating for a return to classical democracy or classical republicanism, appealing to morality, ethics, and "good governance," arguing for self-improvement within the framework of Western democratic institutions, or pursuing a "Third Way" between capitalism and socialism, these proposals possess neither feasibility nor reality.
IV. Conclusion
In the 70 years since the founding of New China, the Chinese academic community has consistently adhered to the guiding principle of "not forgetting our origin, absorbing external influence, and facing the future." [12] We have formed a set of positions and methods for treating foreign thought scientifically—proven correct by practice—namely, dialectical critical absorption and applying learning to practice. Our "original aspiration" in studying advanced foreign thought and culture is to better understand the world and China, to manage China’s own affairs well, and to comprehensively serve the cause of our country’s socialist modernization. Standing at the commanding heights of the New Era, contemporary Chinese Marxist theoretical workers must further strengthen their Chinese position and sense of mission, basing themselves on Chinese practice to continuously open new horizons for contemporary Chinese Marxist philosophical research.
First, we must strengthen the Chinese position and correctly view the positive significance and limitations of contemporary foreign Marxist trends. Contemporary foreign Marxist trends can provide important enlightenment for our theoretical and practical research. Regarding philology and compilation, MEGA2 [13] and various new editions provide important references for our current undertaking of compiling Marxist literature. In terms of research on the thought of classic works, contemporary foreign Marxism—combined with the characteristics of the new age—has deeply excavated relevant ideas mentioned but not fully elaborated by Marx and Engels, offering new inspirations for domestic academia to further expand research on classic authors and works. Theoretically, contemporary foreign Marxist trends have grafted local resources onto Marxism, constructing social critical theories with distinct contemporary Western and national characteristics. This has vigorously promoted the Sinicization, nationalization, and internationalization of Marxism, constituting an important part of the developmental lineage of 21st-century Marxism and providing beneficial insights for the innovative development of contemporary Chinese Marxism. On a practical level, contemporary foreign Marxism effectively reveals the structural contradictions and developmental trends of contemporary capitalism, providing direct references for us to correctly understand the defects and maladies of the contemporary capitalist system. More importantly, as a progressive force, contemporary foreign Marxism consistently maintains an attitude of critique and resistance, serving as an important component of the overall force currently opposing capitalism. However, at the same time, we must remain highly vigilant against their deconstructionist tendencies in philological compilation, reflect on the methodological frameworks and flaws of their theoretical research, resist the various Euro-American-centrist and neoliberal premises latent behind their thoughts, and criticize their various non-Marxist political positions.
Second, we must strengthen our sense of historical orientation, correctly recognizing the relative position of contemporary foreign Marxist trends within the new historical coordinates, and consciously shoulder the heavy era-defining responsibility of innovating and developing 21st-century Marxism. Over the 70 years since the founding of New China, we have completed in a few decades the journey of modernization that took developed countries several centuries. Socialism with Chinese characteristics has entered a New Era. Whether in terms of the stage of socio-historical development or the level of ideological and cultural maturity, we are no longer simple followers or "runners behind" Western modernization; instead, we have transformed into "side-by-side runners" of the era, and have even become "front-runners" in certain fields. This means that contemporary foreign Marxism is no longer the "vanguard" or "leader" of world trends and the spirit of the age; today, we occupy the same historical orientation and the same starting line as "contemporaries." Therefore, we can no longer view contemporary foreign Marxist trends with the mindset of a "runner behind" or an "apprentice," much less uncritically transplant them into China or revere them as templates for the innovative development of contemporary Chinese Marxism. Contemporary Chinese Marxist theoretical workers must base themselves on the development practice of the past 70 years, especially the 40-plus years of Reform and Opening-up, seriously summarize experiences, and strive to achieve the sublimation from "Chinese experience" to "Chinese theory." We must fully excavate the world-historical significance of this theory for solving the universal problems facing humanity, using vivid and rich Chinese practice and Chinese wisdom to innovate and develop 21st-century Marxism.