Xie Changfei: Western Leftist Scholars' Critique of Contemporary Capitalism: Taking the COVID-19 Pandemic as an Opportunity
The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic (hereafter referred to as "the pandemic") is an event functioning as a "site" [1] as discussed by Badiou; much like the Revolutions of 1848, it has not only produced a "tragicomic" victory and defeat but has, more importantly, exposed the reality that humanity must inevitably face, awakening us to the nothingness of certain illusions. Consequently, this event possesses an inclusive and expansive world-historical significance. It is in this sense that Western leftist scholars view the pandemic as a unity of natural and social determinants, even suggesting that it constitutes the mediation or nexus between the two. Leftist discourse on the pandemic primarily concerns the following five themes: first, the logic of capital exposed in the origin of the pandemic and the human response to it; second, the tragic inefficiency of "cost-benefit" logic when confronted with human crises; third, the lack of public goods and services caused by the neoliberal mantra that "government is evil" and its vaunting of the "free market"; fourth, discussions based on the aforementioned regarding the isolation and re-conceptualization of biological life, the legitimacy of wealth production and social justice, and the boundaries between society and the individual; fifth, the historical opportunities and class basis for "new forms of communism." These discussions hold significant theoretical importance and research value for deepening our understanding of the contradictions and essence of capitalism, and for rethinking Marx’s expositions on capitalist crises within the context of the New Era.
I. New Critiques Extended from the Pandemic: The Dilemma of Institutional Culture
In the view of the vast majority of Western leftist scholars, if the capitalist economic crisis is a reflection of the inherent contradictions of capitalism, then the ecological and social crises triggered by the pandemic are governed by the same "capitalist feedback loop" as economic crises. "Contradiction" follows the capitalist system like a shadow and will inevitably drive some form of new historical development. The anti-ecological stance of the capitalist system was elucidated long ago by the classical Marxist writers. In their work, the demonstration of the internal relationship between epidemics and the capitalist system primarily takes two perspectives. First, at the origin of epidemics, they reveal a consistency with capital valorization. Whether it is Engels’ profound critique of the logic of controlling nature—"let us not, however, flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human victories over nature. For each such victory nature takes its revenge on us"—or Marx’s profound revelation of the logic of "valorization" that controls nature to further control man—"all our invention and progress seem to result in endowing material forces with intellectual life, and in stultifying human life into a material force"—both demonstrate an inherent logic between capital valorization and nature’s revenge on humanity. Second, they treat epidemics as a specific lens through which to analyze the state of capitalist society, viewing plagues as an exposure of the inherent contradictions of the capitalist system that directly impact economic conditions, social relations, and class movements. These two aspects together constitute the theoretical starting point for the classical writers' critique of capitalism centered on epidemics. They show, on the one hand, that epidemics are a reaction to and manifestation of the inherent maladies of capitalism—it is the system itself that causes ecological and social crises. On the other hand, these ecological and social crises constitute a certain opportunity to break historical continuity and pose a challenge to the existing capitalist order. Against the backdrop of the global pandemic, most Western leftist scholars have launched new discussions based on these two theoretical logics within the reality where new problems and contradictions are concentrated, manifested mainly in the following three areas:
First, the fundamental logic of capital leads to a rupture in the relationship between man and nature.
The logic of capital constitutes the important, and perhaps only, standard for measuring value under the conditions of the capitalist system. Western leftist scholars generally believe that the logic of capital entails scrutinizing all living and non-living entities through the criterion of whether they promote valorization, judging their ability and efficacy in serving capital’s appropriation of more wealth. This has become the fundamental standard and yardstick for the establishment of the value system under capitalism. Within this logic, everything must be examined through this framework, and nature and human life are no exception. This leads to dual consequences. On the one hand, in terms of the logic of capital, human biological life, as the premise and condition of human social life, is manifested as a value for capital and is subject to constant devaluation. Human biological life is increasingly confined within social space; as laborers, humans are expected to continuously extend their labor time and space, while the "conquest" of their own biological nature is regarded as a primary standard of progress. The mutual alienation of humans from their own biological life has become a vital requirement for technological development and capital valorization. On the other hand, the relationship between man and nature in the production process is shrouded in capital. As Negri points out, capital "is able to control even the smallest details; it pursues increasingly massive and complete structures of production and reproduction, in which nature and production are undoubtedly intermingled." In this situation, the relations of production between people are highlighted, while the relationship between man and nature is displaced by the production relations between people. This indicates that whether it is "human biological life" or the "nature that is the premise of human life," the relationship with the human is blocked by production. Nature thus becomes the condition and site for capital production. The rupture between "man and his own biological life" and the "nature that is the premise of life" leads to natural crises, rampant pollution, and the wanton depletion of nature as a consumer good. Yet, contrary to this trend of depleting biological life and abusing the natural premises of life, both the logic of capital and the production process require the establishment of a correlation between man and nature, and between man and his own biological life, as a necessary condition. As Žižek points out, constructing a sound relationship between man and nature—and the premise that humans need the support of biological life—requires including nature within the scope of human self-actualization. While humans seek the highest quality food, "viruses also attack plants—potatoes, wheat, and olives—which are our primary food sources. We must keep in mind the full picture of the world we live in, including all the contradictions this entails." This shows that the relationship between man and nature is an umbilical cord that capital valorization can never sever; it connects two parts that appear separate but are always one. The dehumanizing essence of capital is thus more clearly exposed. The views of epidemiologists like Rob Wallace also verify this conclusion: the profit-driven logic of capital has gradually spread into the world of wildlife and entire ecosystems, paving the way for viruses to spill over into human populations. This demonstrates that the crises caused by the logic of capital will inevitably be expressed through natural, ecological, and health crises, ultimately meaning that the "normality" required by human society may never be achievable.
Second, the movement logic of capital distorts the reality of people’s lives.
Western leftist scholars argue that the operational law of the logic of capital is "cost-benefit analysis." it takes the input and output of an individual or enterprise as the most important metric and calculates the difference between the two to ensure maximum profit. Under such a logic, it is not only justifiable but "naturally" legitimate for any enterprise or individual to maximize their own interests. When facing a crisis like the pandemic, the "cost-benefit" logic naturally comes into play. Noam Chomsky uses the public health system as an example to explain the impact of neoliberalism on the pandemic. The United States possesses a privatized health system aimed at profit maximization. To achieve this, efficiency is paramount, which precludes the need for spare capacity. Even if some resource-rich mega-corporations could provide public health resources to deal with the pandemic, they "respond passively" according to the normal capitalist logic that such actions are "unprofitable." The only people likely to receive aid in this process are the wealthy who can provide sufficient funds to guarantee their own living conditions, while the rights to life and health of low-income groups remain unprotected. "There was tremendous danger in turning the decision-making mechanism over to unaccountable private institutions that are focused only on their 'solemn' duty—greed." Conversely, leftist scholars believe that in real life, the calculation of costs and benefits is not simple. In the view of some ecological-economic leftists, the premise of production costs should be social costs, including the increasing marginal costs of waste discharge, resource consumption, and environmental degradation; these should be part of production costs. Furthermore, the human factor should be valued in the production process and interpreted within the survival of society as a whole; this should constitute the premise for discussing costs and benefits. If the economic consideration of costs and benefits concerns who benefits and who shares those benefits, then when facing human disasters, "we have to think beyond the stock market and profit to find new ways of producing and distributing essential resources." Therefore, in facing the pathetic and protracted reality of this capitalist disaster, value judgments become particularly important. As some scholars have noted, "medical issues should take precedence over economic issues. There is a difference between living, living well, and living better, which relates to the priority between medicine and the economy. In short, we can say medicine is about living, while the economy is about living well and living better." The priority of the question of survival requires the construction of a new, more moderate and balanced order or set of rules.
Third, the value logic of capital cannot solve current problems.
Most Western leftist scholars believe that the problems exposed by Western society’s response to the pandemic should be largely attributed to neoliberalism. The core theoretical hallmarks of neoliberalism are its veneration of the "free market" and its critique of "government intervention as the root of all evil." In the view of Chomsky and other leftist scholars, "the massive failure of the market is the source of social problems, and capitalism in the neoliberal era has exacerbated these social problems." The "absolute free market" is seen as the premise for ensuring the rationality of market behavior and capital valorization. Capital valorization is treated as a panacea for social ills, believed capable of curing almost all chronic social conditions—including overpopulation, inequality of distribution, and underemployment—given sufficient time and space; these problems are expected to self-heal through the continuous realization of capital valorization. The pandemic has fully exposed the defects in the functional structures of the capitalist free market. The market does not need to serve social welfare; it only needs to run according to its own rules. Therefore, market principles do not consider any non-market factors. When a large-scale pandemic breaks out, people face the constant threat of disease and death, the normal rhythm of work and life is disrupted, and they must endure psychological and physical fear—to say nothing of the sacrifices made in terms of leisure, depletion, pollution, and environmental destruction. The market never cares about these non-economic effects. Chomsky points out that the government should have been able to assume its functions during this process, but neoliberalism has explicitly stipulated that the government cannot interfere in market behavior or enter people’s private worlds (except to help large conglomerates and the wealthy solve their difficulties). Thus, in the face of the pandemic, the government is no longer the answer for the public to solve problems, but only the answer for private wealth and corporate power. The idea that "government intervention is the root of all evil" has reduced the government’s response to and management of public affairs to a minimum. Governments that should have intervened in pandemic control were, due to the neoliberal policy orientation, "shackled by the loud doctrine proclaimed by Ronald Reagan—that 'government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem'—and consequently could do nothing." In such a situation, according to the logic of capital, capable private enterprises will not undertake social functions. Under the influence of neoliberal policies, the government’s ability and legitimacy to intervene in the economy are both restricted. The only remaining possibility is for individuals to spontaneously respond to the crisis. The various social contradictions appearing in Western society due to the pandemic precisely illustrate the inefficiency and impotence of individual responses to the pandemic crisis. Consequently, a social crisis of even greater proportions will brew alongside this process.
II. New Issues Opened by the Pandemic: Re-appropriating Reproduction and Its Realization
In the view of many Western leftist scholars, this pandemic has allowed people to coolly reflect on the extent to which the beautiful future promised by the constant valorization of the logic of capital can be realized in actual life, providing a historical opportunity to rethink the paths and directions we can choose. As Negri points out, the question is not just one of "destruction or subversion," but more importantly, how to build. The former is the logical premise; the latter is the logical aim and fundamental purpose. Since the pandemic has fully exposed the maladies of the logic of capital, seeking a new alternative has become a new focus for leftist scholars.
(1) Changing the mode of production and re-appropriating reproduction
Most left-wing scholars agree that changing the mode of production is the fundamental solution to the problem. They put forward the judgment that "the capitalist system is humanity’s most dangerous pandemic," and that changing the mode of production can effectively resolve this issue; the current pandemic, precisely, provides an important opportunity to re-appropriate reproduction. The pandemic has triggered a series of changes in capitalist production, such as shifts in production, social life, and material conditions. Compared to a financial crisis, a crisis of production manifests as a crisis of overproduction, whereas today the pandemic manifests as a crisis of actual survival. Previous crises involved the collapse of the chain of capital’s healthy circulation, and thus reducing production was a way to resolve the crisis; the current crisis, however, is one where people have a demand for commodities but factories are unable to produce them. Previous crises threatened the survival conditions of workers, but this crisis directly concerns the lives of workers, thereby destroying the very possibility of workers engaging in production.
During the pandemic, the most vulnerable group is the working class, who do not own the means of production. On the one hand, when production is forced to stop, workers are the most directly affected; coupled with the threat the pandemic poses to life, this constitutes a crisis for the working class that requires an even more urgent resolution or change of circumstances. On the other hand, the impact of the pandemic manifests as a change in popular consciousness. As Badiou points out, faced with the pandemic, some countries were forced to adopt unconventional measures that leap beyond their class essence [6] to avoid disaster. However, these policies always vacillate within the contradictions of conflicting original class interests, which instead allows the working class to see the inherent class essence more clearly and become more starkly aware of the roots of inequality. Additionally, because class contradictions and class consciousness in Western countries are often expressed through racism and sexism, the contradictions and crises at their root are more fully exposed, triggering a sharp change in popular consciousness. It is in this sense that left-wing scholars have raised the slogan of re-appropriating production. Negri notes: "When I say 'production,' I am not just referring to the factory: I am talking about productive society (società produttiva), and especially reproduction—this is very important." This indicates that re-appropriating reproduction manifests not only as control over the stages and processes of production but, more importantly, as the comprehensive appropriation of the process of socialized production.
The core of re-appropriating reproduction is the working class's control over the production process. This can no longer be thought of within the framework of the original Keynesian state capitalism; rather, it requires actual action to fight for reproduction by re-establishing organizations. This action includes both seeking more democratic participation by workers in controlling the production process and enjoying the fruits of production within a democratic framework, and, more significantly, anti-capitalist reforms—namely, strikes or struggles to fight for their own tangible interests. In the view of Negri and some other Western left-wing scholars, it is necessary, on the one hand, to use organized strikes: "What is a strike? A strike is the destruction of a production system that brings objective obstacles. Because these neo-capitalist machines are objectively filthy, they are machines that shut down desire; but once these things are destroyed, it is necessary to reawaken the desire for solidarity and the desire for production." This requires using strikes to destroy the capitalist machine and construct a consciousness of class solidarity. On the other hand, it lies in intensifying various possibilities for re-appropriating reproduction so that they constitute a current. This requires building a community, realizing the most authentic life-demands of the working class, and satisfying their most basic survival needs.
(2) The necessity of constructing new paths for production and distribution
In the view of some scholars, issues that emerged during the pandemic such as information asymmetry and insufficiently coordinated planning should also be taken seriously; collective action and modes of collective resource allocation need to be brought back into view. The outbreak of this pandemic fully proves that the "invisible hand" of the market cannot spontaneously solve all problems in social life, especially important issues concerning the fundamental interests of the community. Therefore, "non-market" measures must be put on the agenda. "Now, one form—the crisis of unregulated, free-market globalization and its pandemic effects—is dying. But another form, which recognizes interdependence and evidence-led collective action, is being born." For centuries, the concepts of community and collectivism—which have been neglected by liberals—need to be valued and promoted through practical action. This requires "state regulation and public action, mutual aid, self-restraint, and the subordination of the self in the face of solving the problems we jointly encounter." It requires constructing a way to re-produce and re-distribute resources when facing public events. On this point, Žižek gives a concrete example: during the pandemic, if a government learns that certain companies have large stocks of masks and are waiting for an opportunity to make a huge profit, it should requisition the masks without any negotiation to serve the anti-pandemic effort as a whole. This state of affairs needs to be continuously advanced not only within the scope of a nation-state but also by breaking through nation-state boundaries. Chomsky points out that this pandemic will greatly challenge or change the profit-driven, highly fragile international economic system. This system considers more the local interests of certain countries and hardly considers the extent of damage or the price paid for these local interests at the expense of the collective interest—such as environmental destruction and the destruction of communities existing as collectives and their relationships. This necessitates reshaping the channels of resource distribution. Western left-wing scholars also point out that questions such as "who can undertake the channels of resource distribution" and "who are the actual leaders or regulators of trans-national communities" remain for people to explore and resolve.
(3) Reshaping the community to build a self-realizing society
Western left-wing scholars believe the pandemic leads to two basic logics regarding the relationship between humanity and nature. The first is the "Darwinian-Malthusian approach," centered on a survival-of-the-fittest model based on biological natural selection. The second is centered on public service and protection. As the pandemic broke out in full, the broad masses became more clearly aware of the governing philosophies and institutional foundations behind these two different logics and will make more rational choices to avoid falling into crisis. Žižek uses the "five stages of grief" proposed by psychiatrists—which may appear when people face sudden dangerous situations—to analyze reactions to the pandemic: the "denial stage" (the virus doesn't exist, it's just some people spreading panic); the "anger stage" (criticizing the country where the pandemic first broke out and complaining about the inefficiency of one's own government); the "bargaining stage" (victims exist, but the illness itself is not as serious as historical pandemics and is still acceptable); the "acceptance stage" (no longer self-deceiving, people must accept reality); and the "depression stage" (we are doomed).
This cognitive process shows that the final impact of the pandemic on individuals will be a re-confirmation of the contingency of life and the sense of meaninglessness: "No matter what grand spiritual edifices humanity creates, a stupid natural contingency like a virus or an asteroid can end everything. Not to mention the lessons of ecology—humanity might also unknowingly contribute to this end." Linked to this is the sense of isolation between people. Buzgalin believes that self-isolation during the pandemic cut the connections between people. Agambem also believes that during the pandemic, the sense of crisis primarily manifested as people being "isolated" from social politics, as well as an impact on humanity and emotion—for instance, a sense of insecurity toward the "other" might lead to the reduction of the individual to a purely natural dimension [7]; it is also in this sense that war and racism might become byproducts of the pandemic. In the face of personal pessimism and the confrontation between the self and the other, the only possible solution is to transcend the individual and rethink problems on the basis of the community. Western left-wing scholars believe that quarantine should not only be seen as a means of saving oneself but, more importantly, as a necessary means of saving everyone. Saving oneself is saving others; this provides new possibilities for people to think in the sense of the community. "Only through common action can we defeat this disaster"—this should become the consensus of the vast majority of people, making it more possible for people to construct a new self-realizing society within a framework of worldwide cooperation that transcends the nation-state: "The pandemic must be overcome by rebuilding social bonds in any feasible way, helping those in need by all means. Contact them, develop organizations, and expand the scope."
III. New Trends Triggered by the Pandemic: Social Solidarity, Social Justice, and Internationalism
In the view of some Western left-wing scholars, the pandemic has opened up some new issues regarding socialized production, causing a "specter of Marxism" to "depart and return" [8] in the Western world. Consequently, the pandemic may serve as a "site" [9] that generates world-historical significance. More importantly, the pandemic has exposed a series of contradictions. The mutual transformation of opposing sides of a contradiction constitutes the driving force of socio-historical development. A series of new changes can be foreseen both during the outbreak and after the pandemic ends, constituting an important impetus and historical opportunity for the emergence of a new historical stage.
(1) Dissolving the split between self and other requires building a solidaristic society
The pandemic has not only caused a medical crisis but also an economic crisis due to its impact on the economy. More importantly, it has caused individuals to face a mental health crisis that cannot be underestimated. To this, Agamben applied the concept of the "normalization of the exception" [10]: that is, "behavioral habits" led by exceptional circumstances during the pandemic will put people's spirits in a state of permanent crisis. This is essentially the result of "security rationality" [11] driven by rationalist thinking. Once a situation deviating from absolute security appears and turns from a state of exception into a normalized challenge to security rationality, it leaves a permanent mark on the individual's spiritual life. Fear and malaise may become the permanent marks left by the pandemic on people's spiritual worlds. It is in this sense that many psychiatrists point out that painful memories have a far more profound impact on human existential states and habits than memories of happiness and joy. In the view of some left-wing scholars, this pandemic not only constitutes a psychological mark for ordinary people but will also change their life coordinates, thereby changing their lifestyles and habits—such as the impact on social distancing and daily physical contact, and habits in daily life like using individual serving portions, and even potentially affecting how people spend their leisure time and their choices of public transport. Buzgalin points out: "We begin to fear each other. We want to cut international connections. We want to avoid private communication as much as possible. If things become even more serious, racism will begin to appear. We have already begun to talk about the birth of a 'new world,' in which people are not only afraid to shake hands but generally afraid of one another..." All these changes make people more inclined toward solitude; therefore, whether psychologically or habitually, the pandemic may lead to a split between the self and the other.
Faced with the situation where people might spend more time alone or in more self-isolation and enclosure, some left-wing scholars have not reached a pessimistic conclusion: "No matter how important quarantine is, only through common action can we defeat this disaster. Quarantine is not so much a means for us to save ourselves as it is a necessary means for saving everyone." This indicates that quarantine might trigger people's longing for public life and public activities, making them hope even more for a community-style life. Therefore, in such circumstances, the sense of dependence on the community will not only not diminish but may instead increase. People’s sense of insecurity might conversely trigger a longing for a safer, more guaranteed life. People realize that there are some things in the world that cannot be solved no matter how much money is spent, and the "invisible hand" of the market cannot solve the current problems. It is necessary to seek the union of more people, to break market rules with the public interest as a starting point, and to rebuild medical security, social security, and infrastructure. The importance of social solidarity and the public interest should be higher than the principle of profit maximization. Social solidarity should not only become a means of overcoming medical and economic crises but, more importantly, an effective way to overcome the socio-psychological crisis.
(2) The undifferentiated nature of disease demands the undifferentiated nature of social justice
Marx once noted the indiscriminate nature of epidemics; disease always spreads outward in all directions from the slums where the plague has its stronghold, reaching the quarters of the propertied classes, such that "when such an epidemic comes, the bourgeoisie in the cities are seized with panic." The spread of pestilence does not distinguish between social groups, and any contagion causes harm to all strata. Therefore, Marx and Engels believed that although the occurrence and spread of epidemics made the "English bourgeois understand that he must immediately set about improving the sanitary conditions of his towns if he does not want himself and his family to fall victim to these diseases." This demonstrates that no one can seek absolute safety during the course of an epidemic. Left-wing scholars have also pointed out that during the pandemic, everyone from powerful members of parliament to homeless beggars was susceptible to infection. This requires people to solve problems collectively and for humanity to bear risks together, with those possessing greater wealth assuming greater responsibility. This is not only a moral requirement but also an essential practical link in defeating the pandemic. The pandemic has provided an opportunity for people to recognize this situation: responding to the indiscriminate nature of the virus requires the construction of an indiscriminate social justice that stands above the interests of capital. In such a just society, the methods of the state and the social community should be employed to establish an economic security system for social justice through planning and non-market actions. It is necessary to promote the socialization of private enterprises (at the very least, ensuring they operate transparently under the control of social forces and move in the same direction as social interests), while simultaneously establishing various social infrastructures and supply systems to provide economic and institutional guarantees for social justice.
At the same time, some Western Left-wing scholars argue for the provision of spiritual guarantees, inheriting the traditions of the Enlightenment to promote collective spirits such as human courage, selflessness, and dedication. They advocate for establishing collective-oriented values above individualistic values, imbuing people with a stronger sense of social responsibility and humanitarian sentiment. Furthermore, utilizing socialized service institutions to guarantee social justice is also vital. For example, establishing mutual-aid communities to provide basic survival guarantees for the poor, the elderly, and those who have lost the ability to work is an important path toward achieving social justice. To realize social justice, some Left-wing scholars have proposed moderate means, such as restricting the investment and consumption of capitalists to force them to invest capital in improving social conditions and the environment. Others suggest strengthening the sense of solidarity and collective effort in the face of crisis, increasing aid to workers, providing free testing and care for the sick, and expanding social services that lack commercial value. However, a greater number of Left-wing scholars believe that to achieve social justice, new forms of communism must be fundamentally reshaped. They primarily propose two pathways: first, achieving victory in parliamentary elections through the labor movement, gaining decision-making authority through leadership—a goal for which now is an opportune time; second, achieving this through thoroughgoing labor movements, asserting that "only the socialization of the means of production under the control of workers can realize development that prioritizes the interests of the masses. Only in this way can the people utilize the immense power of science and technology to achieve their own prosperity and progress." Consequently, most Left-wing scholars believe that the injustice of capitalist society must be opposed through labor movements; only when workers control social production can social justice truly be realized with social interests as its core and orientation, ensuring that social resources serve a development centered on the interests of the masses.
(3) Closed Nationalism Requires an Internationalist Alliance to Respond
The trend of globalization in the world today is, as Marx predicted, an irreversible historical tide. It is also as Žižek pointed out: "A deeper paradox is at work: the more the various nations and countries of the world are interconnected, the more a local disaster can trigger global fear, ultimately leading to a massive catastrophe." In the era of globalization, the face of a global disaster necessitates an even greater alliance. During the pandemic, self-isolation defined by nation-state boundaries may have intensified extreme nationalism. While lockdown is a means of slowing viral transmission (and many Left-wing scholars approve of the quarantine policies adopted by China as an effective solution), Western Left-wing proponents emphasize that using the nation as the basic unit of pandemic control is not a call for a new nationalism on a global scale. Still less should it be used as an excuse to deepen barriers and isolation between nations. On the contrary, without mutual cooperation based on internationalist principles, no nation and no individual can ensure their own safety. This requires people, even if considering only their own interests, to consider the possibility of a joint anti-pandemic effort in the sense of a community. The world needs to reconstruct friendship and internationalist principles among different nations to achieve international solidarity to the greatest extent possible. The lesson from this fight against a global crisis is that if states wish to end or escape a potential common crisis, they must oppose greed and "liberate [themselves] from the chains of ideology, imagine a very different world, and move forward to create it." In such a world, there is a call for synergy and unconditional solidarity in the face of a common crisis, where information can be shared, planning can be fully coordinated, and the common interest is used as the standard of value in exceptional times. Some Left-wing scholars have even proposed constructing "a new form of what was once called communism," arguing this should be the direction of human endeavor.
In the face of the raging pandemic, Western Left-wing scholars have actively reflected on issues such as capital versus the life and safety of the masses, the efficiency of government governance, and the relationship between government and capital. They have contemplated the defects of the capitalist democratic system, striven to analyze the fundamental reasons why the pandemic could not be effectively contained within the framework of the capitalist system, and proposed the ideals of curbing capital, expanding alliances, and reconstructing social justice. This provides theoretical guidance and an intellectual foundation for the global proletariat and Left-wing parties to carry out new struggles under new conditions. These studies play a positive role in advancing contemporary global struggles and alliances. At the same time, it should be noted that although most Left-wing thinkers have pointed out the roots of the problems and dilemmas and have actively looked forward to future possibilities, they still lack effective practical strategies for how to break out of capitalism—specifically, how to guide a global alliance against the pandemic under current conditions, how to promote the development of proletarian and Left-wing organizations, and how to actively carry out revolutionary movements during the pandemic. Nevertheless, the fact that Western Left-wing scholars continually invoke the "specter" of Marxism and actively explore the possibilities of leading a communist movement in conjunction with contemporary conditions remains positive and progressive. "Solidarity, justice, and internationalism are early signs of the rise of a new society. Now, the outbreak of the pandemic points directly toward it. Over 150 years ago, Marx and Engels called it the 'realm of freedom' [12], that is, communism. This is its proper name." The thought of Western Left-wing scholars reflects a rhythmic return to Marxism—"Workers of the world, unite!"
(Author's affiliation: Faculty of Marxism, Northeast Normal University) Web Editor: Zhang Jian Source: Studies on Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping Theories, Issue 8, 2020.