Liu Qingyun: On the Contemporary Interpretation of the Concept of Communism by the Western Left since the 21st Century
The concept of communism is a central topic of inquiry for Western Left-wing scholars, having undergone a developmental trajectory from affirmation to negation and back to resurgence. The collapse of the Soviet Union caused the Left to lose its vitality, becoming submerged in critiques of consumerism and entertainment culture, while the international communist movement fell into a low ebb. However, since the dawn of the 21st century—and particularly following the 2008 capitalist economic crisis—Left-wing scholars have reignited their enthusiasm for the study of the idea of communism, attempting to interpret its contemporary value and paths of realization through entirely new perspectives. Indepth research into foreign scholars' views on the realistic conditions, theoretical foundations, and practical paths for the emergence and development of the idea of communism is of great significance for comprehensively understanding the concept of communism and promoting the development of communist theory in our country.
I. The Practical Urgency and Positive Factors in Reprising the Idea of Communism
Entering the 21st century, the inherent contradictions of capitalism remain irreconcilable; antagonisms and conflicts persist and show a marked trend of intensification. The renowned Left-wing scholar Alain Badiou, influenced by the environmental shifts of the current era, is no longer a traditional Marxist defender of proletarian revolutionary theory but has instead become a political theorist who places his hopes in the idea of communism and the communist movement. He points out that the four principles governing today's capitalist society are collectivism versus privatization, polymorphous labor versus specialization, concrete universality versus closed identities, and free association versus the State. The various contradictions generated by these antagonisms constantly strike at the world system woven by capitalism. Building on this, the Left-wing theorist [Slavoj] Žižek not only affirms the rationality and necessity of Badiou’s "communist hypothesis" but also emphasizes that "one should locate the antagonism in historical reality, making it a practical urgency"[1]. He reveals four prominent forms of antagonism in modern capitalist society: the ecological crisis, the inconsistency between private property and shared knowledge, the anti-ethical phenomena of bioengineering, and the contradiction between the "included" and the "excluded." After an objective analysis of these capitalist antagonisms, Žižek recognizes the limitations of capitalism and views these defects as symptomatic manifestations of capitalism heading toward its end. In Žižek's view, although capitalism has entered a new stage where global market conditions are increasingly exploited and utilized, the risk of collapse in the financial system constantly reflects the "functional urgency" of the capitalist system—it cannot solve its own problems. Therefore, Žižek clearly states: "What is needed today is not a moral critique of capitalism, but a full-scale reaffirmation of the communist idea"[2]. Compared to Badiou’s stance against historical determinism, Žižek places greater emphasis on focusing on historical reality itself.
When discussing the realistic conditions for the emergence and development of communism, the book The Actuality of Communism—one of the representative works of contemporary foreign communist studies—cannot be overlooked. In this work, Bruno Bosteels, a professor at Columbia University, adopts an ontological perspective to deeply analyze the limitations of the "speculative Left." He notes that "speculative Leftism represents an uncompromising purification of the concept of communism, which consists not so much in the abolition of communism as in a total voiding of its current status, including the state and all classes, parties, and ideological apparatuses"[3]. This trend, aimed at "purifying" communism by severing all past and present ties with class, party, and state, is typically characterized by the search for a "Left-wing ontology" (emphasizing the constitution of the social while downplaying or even eliminating the fusion of the social and the political), the acceptance of the "impolitic" nature of politics, and broad distinctions between power and non-power, or political invariance and aesthetic plurality. Bosteels argues that ignoring the long history of communism leads to the demise of true emancipatory politics; he thus emphasizes the rationality and reality of a "plural communism," advocating for a re-recognition of the concept—that is, redefining the ideological content of communism based on absorbing historical experiences and lessons.
Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that the famous post-Marxist scholar Jodi Dean takes a different approach by discussing the practical urgency of communism at both theoretical and realistic levels from the perspective of the current "new communist movement." She proposes that "as we turn our desiring gaze toward a communist horizon, we can now set about collectively shaping a world that we already have in common"[4]. In Dean’s view, the Left has long been paralyzed by the negative rhetoric that communism inevitably leads to Stalinism, decline, and collapse; therefore, scholars must provide new theoretical interpretations. Dean explicitly points out that because "the severe inequality brought about by the extreme capitalism and desperate financialism of neoliberal state policy is obvious, undeniable, and global"[4], it is necessary to reassert the theoretical value and practical role of communism. In her 2020 article "Communism or Neofeudalism," Dean points directly to the "neofeudalist" tendencies of contemporary capitalism, sharply presenting people with a single-choice question: communism or neofeudalism, advocating for the overthrow of capitalism in favor of communism. She believes that the concentration of capitalist monopolies, intensified inequality, and the subordination of the state to the market all manifest feudal characteristics. As the accumulation of rent, debt, and power becomes as significant as accumulation through commodity production, it indicates that more and more capitalists are not using capital for reproduction but are instead hoarding it or redistributing rents. Thus, Dean states that "today’s communicative capitalism is a system that, through the intensification and diversion of its own processes, is becoming neofeudalism"[5]. She identifies four interlocking features of this feudalism: the fragmentation of sovereignty, hierarchy and expropriation involving new lords and peasants, desolate hinterlands and privileged cities, and insecurity and catastrophe. Through this, she demonstrates capitalism's trajectory toward an even worse "neofeudalism": "The dimensions of capitalist production such as expropriation, domination, and force have become so powerful that there is no longer reason to assume equal actors meet in the labor market, even as a dominant fiction"[5]. This will lead to phenomena such as new lords and serfs, extreme inequality, and power politics, making the contemporary urgency of the communist struggle beyond doubt.
However, we see that while capitalist crises bring about economic collapse, they also create a new round of space for capital utilization. This not only stimulates the bourgeoisie to revive the economy with stricter market rules but also brings about reforms and adjustments made by capitalism to itself. Together, these constitute the realistic factors for the continued existence and development of capitalism, creating a "disjuncture" between crisis and revolution. In this sense, it appears that self-contradictions capitalism cannot solve—such as economic and ecological crises—have become important forms for capital to reopen capitalist space, collectively maintaining the survival and development of capitalism. Žižek reveals the capitalist essence of this explanation and calls for people to pay more attention to the factors behind the crisis: the gradually strengthening consciousness of proletarian revolution (advances in organization, intellect, and politics), the idea of humanity seeking liberation from oppression, the environmental carrying capacity under capitalist development, and the efforts of communist forces to explore new paths.
Amidst the general atmosphere of social antagonism and "Left-wing melancholy," communist factors resisting capitalism are also growing within the soil of the contemporary social environment. In discussing the four antagonisms of capitalist society, Žižek has recognized the forms and contents of the "commons" existing in culture, natural resources, and human biogenetics. He points out that the process and extent of the "included" seizing and exploiting these commons serve as the reference standard for the current revival of the concept of communism. Jodi Dean not only remains optimistic about the "new communist movement" under the momentum of communism but also points out shifts in the era of "neo-capitalism" under network information technology. She believes that as information technology expands and improves across different fields, human communication capabilities have broken through traditional limitations of time, space, and geography, leading to the rapid development of global "communicative capitalism." Under these conditions, it is possible to organize and implement revolution based on a shared collective desire. The Left-wing theorist [Michael] Hardt discusses the "commonality" of products produced by this mode of production from the perspective of "immaterial production." Immaterial products produced through specific acts—such as generating knowledge, disseminating information, and exchanging affects—can be used, possessed, and consumed by others. In this process, laborers both create value and improve themselves, which to some extent overcomes the essence of pure exploitation of workers in capitalist production. He believes that communism differs from both capitalism and socialism in that it is primarily based on the production and distribution of immaterial production. On one hand, products created through immaterial production possess their own social sharedness, enabling equal distribution; on the other hand, the process of immaterial production completes its own growth, generation, and perfection while creating value. Hardt views this definition as an important manifestation of communist characteristics in modern society, marking the "publicization" (commoning) of individual labor products. Therefore, immaterial production is a field that can directly achieve socialization, and the sharing of such commons becomes an essential component of reaching a future communist society. [Antonio] Negri further points out that "commonality" (the common) already exists within the organism of contemporary capitalist society, referring to the present society as "communist capitalism." He believes the core of communism is the realization of the "common"—the process by which "the common" (the multitude) overthrows private property through revolution, achieves common ownership of property, and establishes a completely new community on this basis. He vividly describes the return of the idea of communism and the development of the communist movement as: "The seeds have been sown; if we plow the soil well, the harvest will follow"[6].
II. The Logical Schema of Western Left-wing Scholars’ Return to the Idea of Communism
Facing both opportunities and challenges, as a vital force in radical politics, Western Left-wing scholars have embarked on a new journey to explore the return to the idea of communism. They continuously accumulate experience, weeding through the old to bring forth the new, attempting to guide practice through theoretical results and find a global alternative to capitalism.
(1) The Theoretical Level The various defects appearing in current capitalist society have placed new demands on solving the problem of "the commons" under the wave of globalization. How to re-interpret communism from existing theoretical foundations—thereby establishing the universal liberating principles of communism—has become the core focus of the Western Left. Western Left-wing scholars mainly provide logical arguments for the return to communism across three levels: subject theory, immaterial production theory, and egalitarian theory.
First, Western Left-wingers tend to envision the political form of communism from the perspective of subject theory. Badiou’s "communist hypothesis" is a social development vision that entails popularizing the idea of communism, relying on a "new subject" to carry out relevant revolutionary movements, and realizing new forms of political organization. He believes that the "Idea" is "the subjectivation of the interplay between the process of a truth and its representation in history"[7].
Likewise, the Idea of Communism encompasses a process of subjectivizing communism, enabling individuals to grow into political subjects within "Events" [8] and integrate themselves into the whole of history. When Alain Badiou envisions communism, he does so primarily based on his own grasp of the "subject," almost entirely excluding economic factors from his scope of consideration. He believes that true communism should be a future society where people—possessing subjective consciousness—pursue the ideal of a happy life on the foundation of the collective ownership of the means of labor and the collective sharing of the fruits of labor. This is an undifferentiated communal society that stands in stark contrast to the capitalist lifestyle of money-worship and hedonism; it is an egalitarian society that realizes the maximum degree of freedom for the subject.
It is necessary to point out that the theoretical foundation for Badiou’s critique of contemporary capitalist society is his philosophy of the Event. An Event breaks or destroys the existing order; the traces left behind after an Event erupts mark the existence of Truth, while the subject is the force that activates these traces and reproduces Truth, realizing both the formation of the subject and the reproduction of Truth in this process. For instance, he proposes that the Event possesses contingency and rupture. As an Event, the Paris Commune manifested a state of affairs changing from "nothing" to "something," and the process by which the proletariat formed itself as a subject within this Event was a "communist Event"—a contingent historical rupture occurring during the capitalist stage of human social development. Badiou uses this to argue for the vital role of the subject as a mediator for contingent Events, whereby the Idea of Communism becomes the condition for the individual to become a political subject. Slavoj Žižek, within the scope of practical reason, makes realistic hypotheses regarding communism. He emphasizes the importance of changing existing social antagonisms and frames the subject’s appropriation of "the commons" [9] as a process of humanity’s continuous proletarianization. Here, "the commons" includes not only material resources such as natural resources and land, but also spiritual resources such as language and culture.
He points out that the process of proletarianization is a process of fierce confrontation between the "excluded" and the "included." The included occupy a "private" position within the social order, while the excluded—though representing universality within society—lack the qualification for "privacy." They are not only deprived on a material basis but also find it difficult to realize true democracy within the space of democratic politics. Therefore, Žižek states that as the subjecthood of the excluded expands, the proletariat in the traditional sense no longer possesses reality, while the antagonisms of capitalist society cause more people to become "the excluded." He calls for the new "proletarians" to unite and take practical action to strive for the appropriation of the commons.
Secondly, the Western Left is keen to analyze the dominant economic forms of contemporary capitalist society through the theory of "immaterial labor." Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri conducted an in-depth analysis of Italian Autonomist Marxism and, on this basis, proposed the theory of "immaterial production" or "biopolitical production" [10] with immaterial labor as its logical core, attempting to explore a contemporary realistic path to achieving communism. Hardt believes that "biopolitical production" is the production of social life itself, encompassing all political, economic, cultural, and social relations, including thoughts, information, language, and genetic codes. This process produces both commodity objects and corresponding social relations. It is the immaterial production of the subject itself, characterized by a developmental tendency to gradually break away from capital, carrying obvious political significance and vital signs. This form of production has become the dominant mode of production in modern society. Products of immaterial production can take a virtual state or manifest affective characteristics. They can be specifically categorized into: industrial labor that integrates communication technology to achieve informationization; productive labor that integrates intellectual components to achieve automation; and labor that integrates emotional factors to achieve virtual or actual interaction. Hardt and Negri state that the change in the labor force toward an information economy, including labor content and form, "is the most immediate sociological and anthropological implication of the process of economic paradigms." [15]
Hardt analyzes two new forms of property struggle in contemporary society: material production and immaterial production. Due to the private nature of the former and the communal nature of the latter, he further situates the struggle between "exclusive property" and "shared property," proposing that precisely because the latter is easily shared or copied, ownership is difficult to manage. The regenerability of shared property breaks the logic of scarcity; thus, "today the immaterial triumphs over the material, the renewable over the non-renewable, and the shared over the exclusive." [16] Restricting the sharing of the "commons" reduces its productivity, while the shared attribute of shared property dictates that it must necessarily expand its scope of dissemination and influence, and increase its user base, to guarantee and develop its productive forces. In Hardt’s view, the developmental trend of shared property is unstoppable. It includes both natural commons—such as land, forests, and water—and artificial commons—such as thoughts, information, and language. This contradicts capitalist private property. After a series of analyses and demonstrations, Hardt concludes that "although the production of shared property producers is increasingly becoming the center of the capitalist economy, capital cannot intervene in the production process; it must remain external to expropriate value in the form of rent (through finance and other mechanisms)." [16] This creates autonomous realms for these producers as much as possible to improve productivity. The nature of public property—such as its shared character and openness of use—poses an obstruction to capitalist property relations and runs contrary to capitalist modes of appropriation. The process by which it gradually develops and replaces private property’s economic dominance is also the process by which capital transcends itself and attains liberation.
Finally, the Western Left tends to use egalitarian theory as the logical basis for interpreting the Idea of Communism. Badiou proposes that communism is built upon three axioms: first, the idea of egalitarianism, meaning that human beings are equal by nature, aiming to establish a world no longer structured by social relational inequalities such as wealth, the division of labor, segregation, state persecution, or gender differences; second, the disappearance of the coercive, transcendent state, emphasizing that people's political actions can be organized without being constrained by concepts such as power, state representation, or elections; third, that "the organization of labor involves no division of labor, no specialization of tasks, and in particular no oppressive distinction between intellectual and manual labor." [17] When discussing communism, Badiou treats today's communism as a "common name," [11] believing "it designates a total conception of a society and a world dominated by the principle of equality, a world no longer composed of traditional social relations—wealth, the division of labor, racial segregation, state persecution, gender differences, and so on." [18] He weaves the concept of equality throughout his communist thought, emphasizing professional equality, pursuing income fairness, and advocating that the principle of equality can eliminate the heavy pressure exerted by power and wealth relations on human beings. Furthermore, Badiou points out that the "politics of the commons" [12] is an inevitable requirement for achieving the true equality of every individual. This is specifically manifested in each subject's active attitude toward participating in politics, the right to participate in politics, and the virtue of proactive political participation. Identity politics will disappear along with the revolutionary tradition of internationalism because the egalitarian liberation pursued by communism means that objective institutions are transformed into subjective rights and the identity differences between subjects disappear, which inevitably brings political liberation. Žižek similarly adheres to the egalitarian ideal within communism, believing that the "excluded" in society—those excluded by the existing capitalist order—are the liberated ones, and they should obtain the equal rights of social subjects.
(2) The Practical Level
First, Leftist scholars focus on expanding the scope of the subject of resistance, relying on new revolutionary subjects to realize the practical path of the communist hypothesis. Badiou points out that the core of communist politics is by no means the official ideology of state power, but rather the continuous operation between the understanding and action of the masses. In his view, the idea of relying on capitalist society itself to abolish private property and establish collective ownership is absurd. Based on his new understanding of the revolutionary subject, Badiou points out that in the current historical stage of continuous capitalist adjustment and reform, the strength and role of the proletariat as the revolutionary subject is gradually being marginalized. He emphasizes that the scope and number of subjects should be expanded to break through boundaries of class, nation, and gender, thereby achieving a situation where the periphery encircles the center. Influenced by his philosophy of the Event and theory of the subject, Badiou values the practical necessity of hypothesizing and deducing the Idea of Communism through Events. He proposes that the subject—"this force is nothing other than the human 'creativity' by which the proletariat, through revolution, restores absolute equality from absolute poverty" [19]—believing that by adhering to communist convictions and through diligent practice, they can realize the communist ideal of transforming the world. While real subjects can, under theoretical guidance, become the direct driving force for realizing the communist hypothesis, Badiou does not favor demonstrating the historical trend of communism’s inevitable arrival from the perspectives of materialist dialectics and political economy.
Building on Jacques Lacan’s psychoanalytic "triadic model," Žižek divides the class structure of current capitalist society into the middle class (industrial workers), the symbolic class (those mainly engaged in intellectual labor), and the class of the Real (slum dwellers) [13], according to the similar characteristics of the Imaginary, the Symbolic, and the Real. He advocates that the goal of countering capitalism can be achieved through the alliance of the latter two. Hardt and Negri, meanwhile, shift their focus to the study of the "Multitude." They believe that the working class engaged in traditional material production can no longer play the absolute protagonist in the global economy. "Today’s production must be considered not only from an economic perspective, but more broadly as social production—not only the production of material goods, but also the production of communication, relations, and forms of life," [20] namely "biopolitical production" in the form of ideas, images, affects, and relationships. Correspondingly, the "Multitude" differs from the working class; it is a more open and inclusive concept, including subjects engaged in all forms of social production—social, economic, political, and cultural. It consists of all communist subjects resisting oppression, including the working class, without identity restrictions, and is capable of achieving communication and cooperation beyond geographical limits. Negri analyzes the anti-human characteristics of capitalist production from the field of biopolitics and elaborates on current forms of class struggle and revolutionary aspirations using the logic of: "individual dissatisfaction—multitude resistance—driving constitutionalism."
Second, Leftist scholars encourage the development of social movements and the innovation of forms of struggle, thereby opening up communist paths that are more in line with reality. After May 1968 [14], Alain Badiou, as an inheritor of Marx's revolutionary thought, not only regarded the Communist Manifesto as the greatest work of the 19th century but also unswervingly continued this cause, regarding communism as a real movement that abolishes the present state of things. Badiou believes that examining the contemporary concept of "communism" requires organizing small-scale local political experiments and referencing current mass movements and their demands. He affirms the "world as one" as an axiom and advocates that, on this basis, one should transcend the characteristic attributes of identity and strengthen the universal content within identity, thereby gathering the "greatest common denominator" of social forces to guarantee the conditions for the existence of the communist hypothesis in both theory and practice.
Žižek’s analysis of contemporary revolutionary struggle begins with "repeating Lenin." He highly praises Lenin’s behavior in keenly perceiving the weakest link of imperialism and having the courage to carry out a revolution at a time when parties in other countries chose to submit to the tide of patriotism. He believes the current environment for struggle is similar to the Leninist period and advocates that in today’s era of continuous expansion of global capitalism, the spirit and attitude of Lenin—daring to formulate a revolutionary plan—are especially needed. On this basis, Žižek emphasizes the power of action and identifies with Marx’s definition of communism as the "movement which abolishes the present state of things." He proposes that the choice of path for communism under the current political and economic background should take the movement against real antagonisms as its main content. He suggests that even without a guarantee of success, political action must be carried out: "an act is an 'excessive' strategy of intervention that redefines the very rules and contours of the existing order." [21] Of course, Žižek also maintains a cautious attitude toward the current social situation, believing that before taking action, "we will have to risk steps into the new abyss in totally inappropriate situations; we will have to redesign aspects of the new in order to keep the good of the old (education, healthcare, etc.)." [22]
...awaiting the opportune moment. In pursuit of a new society of democracy, equality, and freedom, Hardt and Negri take class struggle as the modern model for seeking legitimacy. They advocate for building new spheres of communication, new forms of social cooperation, and new modes of interaction through information systems and network structures—that is, utilizing a more democratic form of network organization, the "mass network struggle," to realize the resistance and struggle of the "multitude." As they note, "This new power will certainly resist and attack the enemy, just as military power does, but its focus is increasingly internal—producing new subjectivities and new forms of expansion within the organization." [30] On the one hand, the multitude is the common subject of labor and the essential object through which capital achieves global development; the development of capitalism requires the form of biopolitical production to realize a new round of capital valorization. On the other hand, the shared characteristics of biopolitical production necessarily resist the process of capitalist globalization, allowing the multitude to be released from Imperial suppression and achieve autonomous expression and governance. It is worth affirming that Negri takes Lenin's analysis of the relationship between the theory of imperialism and insurrectionary strategy as a model for a revolutionary intellectual path. He argues that the study of class composition must fully consider the relationship between struggle and capitalist development, crises, and restructuring, especially through an in-depth analysis of the power relations that constitute class composition. He believes that in contemporary capitalist society, the path to proletarian liberation lies in using all available weapons, noting: "We must add that the definition by Marx and Lenin of our task to abolish the state for communism will only be given if a strategic plan is reformulated and recognized in a subsequent cycle of international workers' struggles." [31]
Third, while Western Leftist scholars all emphasize the importance of organization to varying degrees, they diverge in their understanding of the political party. Faced with the current reality of the working class being suppressed by capital, Negri emphasizes that "communism begins to take shape when the proletariat once again aims to appropriate the social (the community) and turns it into the order of a new society." [32] The establishment of community depends on the redefinition of exchange value. On one hand, capitalist globalization has greatly expanded the space for capital production; Negri refers to this phenomenon of capital subsuming society as "capitalist biopower." Things such as real estate rents, machinery, and communication networks have all achieved a "publicness" that transcends geography. Capital itself, in particular, has become the universal vehicle for the development and expansion of global capitalism, continuously pushing these "commons" toward global expansion. On the other hand, with the constant changes in the technical composition of labor and the gradual awakening of workers' subjective consciousness, Negri encourages the proletariat to organize mass movements to seize property and build a free political structure—the community—at the moment when capitalist appropriation reaches its peak, thereby achieving a genuine metamorphosis of the worker against capital. Taking the possibility of revolution as a premise, Jodi Dean highlights the importance and necessity of establishing a political party. She believes the party is capable of formulating strategy, plans, and self-arrangements through a revolutionary lens. She notes that people's orientation toward the future depends on the party's ability to coordinate its actions through future planning. She hopes to lead the people in revolution toward communism by establishing "a party dedicated to the abolition of private property and to making production, circulation, and reproduction serve the people, rather than subjecting the people to the requirements of capital accumulation." [33] From the Occupy Wall Street movement, she summarized lessons regarding revolutionary forms, recognizing the party's revolutionary advantages: clear collective propositions, a responsible organizational structure, the ability to recognize individuals with different capacities, and the maintenance of internal solidarity. On this basis, she emphasizes that the party can provide the organizational form for formulating strategies and plans and for generating and exercising political power. Moreover, "discipline and preparation enable the party to adapt to circumstances rather than being entirely shaped or determined by them." [34] She advocates for the establishment of a party guided by communist principles. Such a party can prepare for revolutionary situations, define revolutionary goals, and launch a new international communist movement, thereby overturning the realities of elite privilege, working-class enslavement, and environmental catastrophe to realize the beautiful future vision of a communist society. However, Badiou opposes the establishment of a political party. He believes the centralization and militarization of the party are not conducive to organizing a communist society. He emphasizes that the social organization of communist power should rely on three aspects: "mass movements, organizations that continuously forge the movement's slogans and will, and the state, which will still exist for a long time and must be brought under the continuous supervision of organizations and movements." [35]
III. Correctly Understanding the Reinterpretation of the Concept of Communism by Western Leftist Scholars
Viewed as a whole, the contemporary interpretations of communism by Western Leftist scholars are courageous attempts to return to communism based on an analysis of objective changes in reality. They have conducted many beneficial explorations into communism, yet some limitations remain.
On one hand, the return to the concept of communism represents a reflection on and challenge to the existing capitalist order by Western Leftist scholars, and many of their views are quite innovative and enlightening. For example, Badiou divides the developmental history of the "communist hypothesis" from its inception to the present into three periods. The first stage, from the French Revolution of 1792 to the Paris Commune of 1871, was the period of establishing the communist hypothesis, with the themes being the workers' movement and insurrection. Following an interval of over 40 years, it entered its second stage, from the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 to the "Cultural Revolution" [15] in China in 1976; its theme was party building, emphasizing the importance of discipline. The period from 1976 to the present is the third stage, which is also a second period of passive stabilization. Badiou points out that the current third stage of communism "will involve a new relationship between political movements and the ideological level—a relationship already prefigured in the 'ideological revolution' of the Cultural Revolution or May '68." [36] This requires people to have the courage to re-establish this hypothesis in the ideological field, carry out the preliminary work of this stage, improve methods and approaches, and concentrate on exploring the conditions for the existence of communism. This historical periodization is of great practical significance for our reflection today on the developmental stages and future trends of communism. Of course, how to study the communist hypothesis from the perspective of world history requires further exploration by scholars. Similarly, Hardt and Negri’s investigation of capitalist modes of production from the dimension of "immaterial labor" is of significant value. The concept of "immaterial labor" can be traced back to Marx's discussion of "fixed capital and the development of the productive forces of society" in the Grundrisse (1857–1858). Starting from Marx’s concept of "general intellect" [16] in the production process—that is, general social knowledge that can control and transform social productive forces—Italian autonomist Marxists argue that immaterial factors such as "knowledge, technology, and social intelligence" play an increasingly important role in promoting the development of productive forces. They recognize that while traditional physical labor once played a central role in production, today "this role has increasingly been replaced by the intellectualized and immaterialized labor force in the field of communication and interaction." [37] Furthermore, the exploitation and oppression of laborers by capitalists in the process of immaterial labor production become harder to detect and distinguish due to the blurred definitions of labor forms and labor time. Therefore, stimulating workers' subjective consciousness and critical behavior becomes particularly important. Based on these understandings, Hardt and Negri formed their "theory of biopolitical production" and identified a "new image of the collective biopolitical body." They propose that while capitalist industry and finance produce commodities, they also produce producer-subjects—active subjects within a biopolitical environment. However, the Empire utilizes "master narratives" to constantly produce its so-called fairness and justice, especially ideological justifications, in linguistic form to verify its legitimacy. With the development of communication and interaction and the high-speed advance of globalization, "legitimacy" narratives move in tandem with productive interaction. Using this "globalized biopolitical machine"—the communication machine—the Empire maintains its indelible position of power, while immaterial labor, which produces immaterial goods such as knowledge, culture, information, and affect, is achieving global expansion. This perspective of analyzing global immaterial production to demonstrate the growth of communist factors provides new ideas for our understanding of the current situation. Of course, there are many other elements in the logical schemas of Western Leftist scholars that we can draw upon, such as theories of the subject and party building, which require further comparative study and deep excavation of their theoretical and practical significance.
On the other hand, there are several inadequacies in the Western Leftist scholars' reinterpretation of the concept of communism. Specifically, in terms of form, they all ignore the revolutionary characteristics of communism to varying degrees, limiting the content to theoretical discussion or philosophical interpretation. They are unable to propose global strategies and plans for action that address the internal contradictions of the capitalist mode of production or transcend capitalist society. For example, Badiou’s vision of using new methods rather than revolutionary methods to subvert the existing order of rule remains open to debate. On one hand, Badiou believes that a revolutionary subject no longer exists in the contemporary era, so proletarian revolution is out of the question; on the other hand, the reform of capitalist society in reality and the continuous deepening of the globalized economic market drive capitalism toward new developments, leaving the communist movement in a low period. The application of his "philosophy of the event," concerning the accidental and sudden nature of events, provides theoretical support to some extent for Badiou's proposal of "entirely new forms of political organization." Yet, it is precisely because he makes the subversion of the social order dependent on sudden events that his communist hypothesis becomes utopian; it remains unexplained what kind of political organizational form is intended or how it should be realized. In terms of methodology, their communist thought dilutes the status of Marxism when blending it with other theoretical perspectives, underestimating the vital role of materialist dialectics and historical materialism. For example, the Western Leftist scholars' one-sided emphasis on the purely egalitarian category of communism violates realistic conditions. Badiou blurs the boundary between the concept of communism and an abstract view of equality, arguing that the first principle of emancipatory politics is the "egalitarian axiom." This not only diminishes the revolutionary and combative nature of communism but also, to some extent, causes a historical regression that does not align with Marx’s vision of communism. Relying solely on the power of the subject's subjective will makes it impossible to achieve a thorough transformation of capitalism or to open a truly communist society. Although Badiou recognizes the value of communist theory as an eternal truth in the present age and its importance in guiding practical action, he is still unable to conceive an effective plan for reaching a future communist society. Regarding the path of realization, their definitions of revolutionary methods and revolutionary subjects lack reality, failing to form the ultimate driving force for the realization of communism. For example, among the four antagonisms emphasized by Slavoj Žižek, the commons—such as culture, natural resources, and the human genetic code—are privatized by a minority, while the majority are gradually "proletarianized," becoming subjects deprived of substance—the "excluded." Žižek does not deny that the excluded might use violent means to protect or reclaim the commons, but it must be noted that his concept of the proletariat here differs essentially from Marx's proletariat and does not possess its own inherent revolutionary meaning. Therefore, whether it is necessary to use the method of proletarian revolution to allow the excluded to obtain the right to share the commons remains a choice that must be made according to practice. Furthermore, in terms of content, they all lack a scientific economic analysis of the mechanisms of capitalist operation; thus, their advocacy for communism remains at the level of a hypothesis and cannot gain widespread public recognition. In terms of function, some of their views still fall under the suspicion of intentionally or unintentionally defending capitalist society, failing to reach the height of Marx's human liberation.
In summary, Western Leftist scholars attempt to revive the contemporary concept of communism from different perspectives, using the advanced network information technology and immaterial production of the "post-industrial era" as a theoretical foundation. This is of great significance for our expansion of the global vision of communism and our deep understanding of the contemporary value of communism today. Correctly applying Marx’s historical materialism and materialist dialectics to view the strengths and weaknesses of these Western Leftist political scholars' views is likewise an essential component of studying the return of the concept of communism in Western Leftist thought.
Slavoj Žižek, "How to Begin from the Beginning," translated by Wang Xingfu, published in Contemporary Foreign Marxism Review, 2010, Issue 00. 2. Slavoj Žižek, "Why the Idea and Why Communism?", Symptom, No. 12, 2011, p. 27. 3. Bruno Bosteels, The Actuality of Communism, Verso, 2011, p. 24. 4. Jodi Dean, The Communist Horizon, Verso, 2012, p. 21, pp. 46-47. 5. Jodi Dean, "Communism or Neo-Feudalism?", New Political Science, Vol. 42, No. 1, 2020, p. 1, p. 16. 6. Antonio Negri, Factory of Strategy: Thirty-Three Lessons on Lenin, translated by Arianna Bove, Columbia University Press, 2014, p. xvi. 7. Alain Badiou, The Communist Hypothesis, translated by David Macey and Steve Corcoran, Verso, 2010, p. 235. 8. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire, translated by Yang Jianguo and Fan Yiting, Jiangsu People's Publishing House, 2003 edition, p. 276. 9. Michael Hardt, "The Common in Communism", Rethinking Marxism, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2010, p. 349, p. 351. 10. Alain Badiou, "The Courage of Obscurantism", Symptom, No. 11, 2010, p. 2. 11. Alain Badiou, "'We Need a Popular Discipline': Contemporary Politics and the Crisis of the Negative", Critical Inquiry, Vol. 34, No. 4, 2008, p. 648. 12. Chen Yongguo (ed.), Radical Philosophy: An Alain Badiou Reader, Peking University Press, 2010 edition, p. 13. 13. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire, The Penguin Press, 2004, p. xv. 14. Rex Butler, Slavoj Žižek: Live Theory, Continuum, 2005, p. 145. 15. Slavoj Žižek, "Why the Idea and Why Communism?", Symptom, No. 12, 2011, p. 32. 16. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire, The Penguin Press, 2004, p. 83. 17. Antonio Negri, Factory of Strategy: Thirty-Three Lessons on Lenin, translated by Arianna Bove, Columbia University Press, 2014, p. 337. 18. Costas Douzinas and Slavoj Žižek (eds.), The Idea of Communism, Verso, 2010, p. 156. 19. Jodi Dean, "Communicative Capitalism and Revolutionary Form", Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 47, No. 3, 2019, p. 327. 20. Jodi Dean, The Communist Horizon, Verso, 2012, p. 241. 21. "Communism in Our Time: An Interview with Badiou and Žižek," translated by Yin Shuguang, published in Foreign Theoretical Trends, 2018, Issue 7. 22. Alain Badiou, "The Communist Hypothesis", New Left Review, No. 49, 2008, p. 37. 23. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire, translated by Yang Jianguo and Fan Yiting, Jiangsu People's Publishing House, 2003 edition, p. 20. [N1]
(Author's Affiliation: School of Marxism, Renmin University of China) Web Editor: Zhang Jian Source: Socialism Studies, 2020, Issue 5