Marxism Research Network
Unofficial English Translation

Sun Leqiang: The Contemporary Reconstruction and Effect Evaluation of Marx's Category of "General Intellect"

Marxism Abroad

Innovating and developing Marxism in the 21st century is a shared mission for Marxist theoretical researchers both at home and abroad. Some Western Leftist scholars, integrating the new changes and forms of contemporary capitalism, have conducted in-depth explorations centered on categories and ideas that Marx touched upon but did not systematically elaborate. By imbuing these with distinct epochal connotations within a new context, they have constructed a unique set of theoretical paradigms and discourse systems, powerfully demonstrating the contemporary value and robust vitality of Marx’s thought. Among these, the "general intellect" (also translated as 普遍智能 [pǔbiàn zhìnéng]) is one of the key categories they have excavated. What, then, is the "general intellect" in Marx’s own context? How do contemporary Western Leftists understand this category? What kind of theoretical system have they constructed with its help? And how should we view their theoretical constructions? Answering these questions is undoubtedly an important task set before us.

From "General Intellect" to "Intellect in General": The Logical Shift in Contemporary Western Leftist Discourse

In the section "Fixed Capital and the Development of the Productive Forces of Society" (referred to as the "Fragment on Machines" by the contemporary Western Left) in the Grundrisse (Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858), Marx points out: "Nature builds no machines, no locomotives, railways, electric telegraphs, self-acting mules etc. These are products of human industry; natural material transformed into organs of the human will over nature, or of human participation in nature. They are organs of the human brain, created by the human hand; the power of knowledge, objectified. The development of fixed capital indicates to what degree general social knowledge has become a direct productive force, and to what degree, hence, the conditions of the process of social life itself have come under the control of the general intellect and been transformed in accordance with it. It indicates to what degree the forces of social production have been produced, not only in the form of knowledge, but also as immediate organs of social practice, of the real life process." [1]

This is the context in which Marx’s category of the "general intellect" emerges. By integrating the new changes of contemporary capitalism and through a critical reading of this passage, the contemporary Western Left has achieved a rediscovery and contemporary reconstruction of the "general intellect" category in a new context, thereby opening a brand-new theoretical space.

First, what is the "general intellect" as understood by contemporary Western Leftist scholars? Paolo Virno [2] believes that Marx actually provided two dimensions of understanding. The first is the explicit dimension of material labor. Virno points out that, in Marx’s view, large-scale capitalist machine production inevitably forces the worker to be separated from the general intellect, reducing the former to a minor link in the production process and a mere manual laborer; at the same time, it inevitably absorbs and appropriates the general intellect on a large scale, transforming it into fixed capital. The second is the implicit dimension of immaterial labor. Virno argues that another very important clue is actually hidden in Marx’s analysis: the question of "general intellect" within the sphere of immaterial labor. He notes that Marx proposed two different types of immaterial labor: one where the product can be separated from the act of labor, such as the work of writers and painters; and another where the product cannot be separated from the act of labor, such as the work of pianists, dancers, teachers, orators, and doctors. [3]

Virno argues that in Marx’s analysis, the status of these two clues is unequal. Although Marx noticed the problem of immaterial labor, due to the limitations of socio-historical conditions, he did not elevate this dimension to the dominant scale for analyzing the "general intellect." Instead, Marx considered it "so infinitesimal that it can be left out of consideration entirely." [4] Consequently, Marx understood the category of general intellect based only on material labor, further understanding it as scientific knowledge objectified in the machinery system and fixed capital, thereby missing the rich connotations of the general intellect. However, in the Post-Fordist era [5], everything has changed; immaterial labor has replaced material labor as the dominant form of capitalist labor. Therefore, Virno believes it is necessary to subvert Marx’s original logic of analysis, treat immaterial labor as the dominant scale for understanding the general intellect, link it with living labor, and redefine the scientific connotation of the general intellect.

Thus, a new question arises: since immaterial labor is divided into two types, which type is the dominant scale for understanding the general intellect? In Virno’s view, the first type of immaterial labor belongs to objectified labor; it provides an external end-product, such as a book, a painting, or a mathematical formula. In this case, the general intellect still manifests as an objectified form of asset, just as in the sphere of material labor. The only difference is that in the sphere of material labor, the general intellect is objectified as fixed capital, whereas in the sphere of immaterial labor, it is objectified as objective knowledge and thought. Therefore, this type of immaterial labor is still insufficient to embody the fundamental attributes of the general intellect. Consequently, Virno believes that only on the basis of the second type of immaterial labor can one thoroughly grasp the fundamental qualities of the general intellect because, unlike the first type, this labor does not provide any external objective product. Here, the general intellect is no longer condensed into a kind of "fixed asset, but unfolds in communicative interaction in the name of cognitive paradigms, dialogical deduction, and linguistic competition," "embodying the capacities for communication, abstract thinking, and self-reflection of the living subject." [6] In other words, in this type of labor, the general intellect manifests neither as scientific knowledge cast in fixed capital, nor as the "sum of knowledge acquired by humanity," but as the potentiality of the subject itself. [6]

Based on this, Virno points out that one must transcend the logic of the object and understand the general intellect as the capacity of the subject itself. Simultaneously, one must transcend the original "niche" logic—that is, one can no longer understand the general intellect as the prerogative of a small number of people, but rather as a universal capacity possessed by the entire public. This completes the logical shift from Marx’s "general intellect" to "intellect in general," and from the intellect of the few to mass intellectuality. Viewed this way, the general intellect as understood by Virno includes not only the scientific power objectified in the machinery system and the objective knowledge and thought objectified in various end-products, but also the various potentialities and capacities inherent in the subject itself; the latter constitutes Virno’s essential definition of the general intellect category.

Second, what relationship exists between the general intellect, the labor theory of value, and "real abstraction"? The Autonomist and Cognitive Capitalism [7] schools point out that although Marx saw the immaterial labor under the capitalist conditions of his time, he maintained throughout that the latter did not create surplus value and belonged to unproductive labor: "where there is no autonomous finished product, one cannot speak of productive (surplus value) labor in any significant sense. Marx effectively accepted this equation: labor without an end-product = personal private service." [8] Therefore, they believe that for Marx, the labor theory of value primarily refers to material labor creating value, while immaterial labor is excluded from productive labor. But in the Post-Fordist era, with the deep adjustment of capitalist industrial structures and the flourishing of the culture industry, immaterial labor has replaced material labor as the dominant form of creating surplus value; and the general intellect has also replaced former physical strength to become "a pillar of wage labor, hierarchy, and the production of surplus value." [8] Here, "all Post-Fordist labor is productive labor (labor that creates surplus value)." [8] This assertion is not only Virno’s conclusion but also the shared view of Lazzarato, Negri, Hardt, and the Cognitive Capitalism school.

On this basis, they raise a new question: how to understand "real abstraction" (Realabstraktion) [9] in the Post-Fordist era? Since Alfred Sohn-Rethel, Slavoj Žižek, and others rediscovered Marx’s "real abstraction," some Leftist scholars have also attempted to provide new interpretations of this issue on a new basis. Virno is one of them. He points out that for Marx, "real abstraction" was merely a post-hoc "empirical fact" [8]; for example, money is merely the empirical embodiment of the "idea of equivalence" in reality, reflecting human summation and abstraction of already completed material labor results—it refers only to the "past tense of labor." In the Post-Fordist era, however, immaterial labor without an end-product has become the dominant form of surplus value creation; therefore, "real abstraction" is no longer embodied in the results of labor but manifests as the activity itself; it no longer refers to the "past tense of labor" but manifests as the "present tense of labor." Therefore, compared to the abstraction of money, the general intellect "is a more absolute and truly abstract concept," "it is the stage where mental abstractions are directly real abstractions in themselves." [8] If it was material labor that created value for Marx, then in the Post-Fordist era, it is the general intellect that creates value; if value abstraction for Marx manifested as the social transformation of material labor and its products, then in the Post-Fordist era, "real abstraction" directly manifests as the mental abstraction of the general intellect; if the general intellect was separated from labor for Marx, then in the Post-Fordist era, the general intellect has become closely integrated with labor. Based on this, Virno notes that while Marx predicted mass intellectuality could only appear in a post-capitalist society, the developmental practices of contemporary capitalism show that mass intellectuality has already emerged in the Post-Fordist era.

Third, what changes have occurred in the relationship between the general intellect and fixed capital? For Marx, constant capital and variable capital are essential divisions based on the role capital plays in the production of surplus value, while fixed capital and circulating capital are external divisions based on the form of capital circulation. [10] However, a new trend has appeared in contemporary Western Leftist thought, namely the effort to activate the category of fixed capital to reconstruct the contemporaneity of Marx’s thought. If David Harvey reinterpreted the contemporary value of fixed capital through the "spatial turn," then figures like Negri have imbued fixed capital with new meaning through the mediation of the general intellect.

For Marx, the production process primarily referred to the material production process, and fixed capital primarily referred to the visible machinery system—the product of the objectification of scientific knowledge, which in turn is created by human beings as subjects. Therefore, the degree of development of fixed capital ultimately depends on the degree of development of human beings themselves. Based on this, Marx delivered an important conclusion: "The saving of labor time is equal to an increase of free time, i.e. time for the full development of the individual, which in turn reacts back upon the productive power of labor as itself the greatest productive power. From the standpoint of the direct production process, it can be regarded as the production of fixed capital, this fixed capital being man himself." [11] An increase in free time means individuals have more time to engage in scientific research and fully appropriate the general intellect; this, in turn, drives the development of the general intellect and scientific knowledge, thereby promoting the development of fixed capital. Thus, when Marx says "fixed capital is man himself," he primarily means that the development of fixed capital ultimately depends on the development of man himself, rather than saying that man himself has become fixed capital.

In the Post-Fordist era, the connotation of this proposition has undergone a major change. Negri points out: "When Marx asserts in Capital that fixed capital, usually understood as a network of machines, has become 'man himself,' he predicted the development of capital in our age." [12]

With the deep adjustment of capitalist industrial structures, capitalist nations have gradually transferred low-end manufacturing overseas, forming industrial structures dominated by knowledge production and similar activities. For large corporations and enterprises, the production of material goods in factories—as described by Marx in his day—has degenerated into the lowest end of the value chain. To maintain their competitive advantage, what matters is no longer the production of tangible objects, but rather high-end products of the value chain, such as the research, development, and innovation of knowledge, information, and general intellect. To produce such intangible products, simple systems of machinery are no longer sufficient; one must rely on high-quality laborers possessing general intellect. Based on this, Antonio Negri [13] points out that, regarding the production of intangible products, fixed capital no longer manifests as a system of machinery, but as general intellect and the human being themselves: "Fixed capital now appears to be inside the bodies, imprinted upon them, and simultaneously subject to them—this is even more the case when we consider activities such as research and software development. These works are not the congelation of material products separated from the worker; rather, they remain incorporated in the brain and cannot exist apart from the person."

In other words, regarding material products, fixed capital manifests as a system of machinery and variable capital manifests as labor power dominated by physical strength; however, regarding non-material products, fixed capital manifests as the human being themselves who possesses general intellect—the "body-machine"—while variable capital manifests as labor power dominated by general intellect. If fixed capital and labor power were separated in the former case, then in the latter, fixed capital and labor power achieve a unification on the basis of general intellect: the person possessing general intellect is both the primary labor power for the production of knowledge-information and technological R&D, and the indispensable fixed capital for the latter. Based on this, Negri points out that in the Post-Fordist era [14], the human being has replaced the system of machinery to become the highest form of fixed capital. In Negri’s view, the evolution of fixed capital from machinery to the human being implies that Marx’s division between fixed and variable capital appears to have become obsolete: "Here, the boundary between dead labor and living labor (i.e., the boundary between fixed capital and variable capital) has become completely blurred." This means that Marx’s explanation of the organic composition of capital—namely, the ratio of constant capital to variable capital—has also lost its established validity because, in this context, variable capital represents fixed capital itself. On this basis, Negri concludes: today, the reappropriation of fixed capital is by no means a metaphor, but a political program that must be practiced in the class struggle of the New Era, because reappropriating fixed capital means reappropriating general intellect, which is to return to the human being themselves.

General Intellect and the New Forms of Capitalism: Paradigm Shifts in Contemporary Western Leftist Social Critique

With the rapid development of the Third Technological Revolution [15], contemporary capitalist society has undergone tremendous changes. Against this backdrop, several leftist thinkers have analyzed these changes from different perspectives. By reflecting on Marx’s theory of material production, they have constructed various paradigms of social critique, which have exerted a significant influence on Italian Autonomism [16] and cognitive capitalism. Among the most prominent are Guy Debord’s critique of the spectacle, Jean Baudrillard’s critique of symbolic simulation, and Mark Poster’s critical theory of the mode of information. The transition from the critique of the spectacle to the critique of symbolic simulation and finally to the critique of the mode of information reflects the theoretical cognition of the contemporary Western Left regarding the changing dominant logic of capitalism. Although their starting points differ, they share one commonality: all believe that Marx’s theory of material production was merely a product of the era of industrial capitalism and can no longer explain contemporary capitalist society. Furthermore, these social critical theories to some extent opened a "brand new" horizon distinct from the logic of material production, providing an important reference for contemporary Autonomism and cognitive capitalism to reactivate the category of "general intellect" and construct distinctive theories of immaterial and cognitive labor. By synthesizing and absorbing these views alongside other leftist thoughts, Autonomism and cognitive capitalism have constructed a set of social critique paradigms that share a consensus while retaining points of divergence. Interestingly, however, compared to their predecessors, their entire logic has undergone a major shift.

First, there is a total transition from the specific paradigms of spectacle, symbol, and mode of information to that of general intellect. In terms of theoretical lineage and intellectual debt, the evolution from spectacle to symbolic simulation and then to the mode of information reflects a process where the former influenced the latter in a logically progressive manner. However, the Autonomist school argues that whether it is the spectacle, symbolic simulation, or the mode of information, these are actually just facets of contemporary capitalist transformation. Staying merely at these specific levels makes it impossible to fully grasp the dominant logic of contemporary social evolution. Therefore, Autonomism and cognitive capitalism believe one must enter the depths of history to summarize the common logic behind the spectacle, symbols, simulation, and the mode of information, transcending specific paradigms to reach the abstract itself. In this context, Marx’s category of "general intellect" precisely met their theoretical needs. Combining the new changes in contemporary capitalism, they have incorporated the spectacle, symbols, simulation, information, and knowledge (in their objectified forms) as well as cognition, communication, affect, linguistic exchange, thinking, and imagination (as capacities and potentials themselves) into the category of general intellect, treating the latter as the general abstract foundation for dissecting contemporary capitalist society. This not only transcends the objective dimension of "objectified powers of knowledge" mentioned by Marx but also transcends specific paradigms like the spectacle, symbols, simulation, and information, achieving a logical transition from the concrete reality to the general abstract.

Second, there is a shift from critical discourse to affirmative discourse, and from the logic of capital to the logic of the subject. For Debord, Baudrillard, and Poster, the so-called spectacle, simulation, symbols, and even information are constructed under the dominance of capital and appear as objects of critique: Debord called for the total destruction of the spectacle through a revolution of everyday life; Baudrillard pinned his hopes on the return of symbolic exchange and the "implosion" of the code to completely end the logic of "simulation"; Poster viewed computer viruses as an important means of resisting the mode of information. But with Autonomism and cognitive capitalism, the entire logic is reversed. The spectacle, symbols, and information no longer appear as objects of critique; instead, they are flipped into an affirmative, positive discourse—that is, they are seen as active manifestations of general intellect and social productive forces. This is a typical logical displacement. As Paolo Virno [17] points out: "The 'spectacle' is human communication that has become a commodity. What is communicated through the spectacle is precisely the human capacity for communication, the exchange of verbal language... In the Post-Fordist era, interpersonal communication is also usually a basic element necessary for productive cooperation; therefore, it is the dominant productive force... In the spectacle, we find the most influential social productive forces displayed in various independent, fetishized forms."

Furthermore, in the definitions of immaterial labor provided by Maurizio Lazzarato, Negri, and Michael Hardt, one can similarly see the positive roles contained within factors such as the spectacle, information, and symbols. This is also why Hardt and Negri later named it "biopolitical labor" in Multitude: as a borrowing from Michel Foucault, the category of "biopolitics" is given a unique connotation by Hardt and Negri. It stands in contrast to the category of "biopower" (i.e., capital’s rule of power over life) and specifically refers to a liberatory politics of subject generation; it is an active biopolitics. If for Debord, Baudrillard, and Poster, the spectacle, symbolic simulation, and the mode of information represented the latest developmental forms of the logic of capital, then for the Autonomist school, these factors are seen as positive forces for the generation of the subject. Autonomists believe that in contemporary Western society, capital has indeed extended its tentacles into all fields of immaterial labor, completing an internal colonization of the entirety of mental life and initiating a new type of rule based on general intellect. It is precisely within the labor of producing spectacles, information, symbols, knowledge, and affect that a completely new form of cooperation has emerged, one that contains the possibility of "exodus" from capital. This cooperation is no longer a passive cooperation imposed by capital, but a collective cooperation formed autonomously by the laborers. In this cooperation, the subject will reappropriate general intellect, liberating it from the dominance of capital, the state (Virno), and Empire (Hardt and Negri), thereby realizing the "communism" of general intellect.

Third, there is a paradigm shift from post-industrial society to cognitive capitalism. Debord’s society of the spectacle, Baudrillard’s symbolic simulation, and Poster’s mode of information reflected, to some extent, the new changes and developments of contemporary capitalism, seemingly announcing the birth of a new capitalist paradigm distinct from industrial society. This problematic has been continued by Autonomism and cognitive capitalism. In their view, "the identification of the category of general intellect responds to the structural crisis of industrial capitalism itself," and this new form must be demarcated through the dominant dimensions of general intellect, immaterial labor, and cognitive labor. However, regarding specific paradigms, Virno consistently adheres to the analytical framework of Post-Fordism and state power; Hardt and Negri move toward a capitalist Empire devoid of state power; while cognitive capitalism focuses on the power relations between capital and new types of labor, proposing the "cognitive capitalism" paradigm. Carlo Vercellone [18] points out: "The term 'cognitive' emphasizes the new nature of the contradictory relationship between labor and capital, as well as the forms of wealth based on capital accumulation. It should be noted that the concept of cognitive capitalism was also developed as a response to the inadequate explanation of current capitalist transformations (from Fordism to the flexible model of Post-Fordism, sometimes also called 'Toyotism'). The explanatory category of 'Post-Fordism,' adopted jointly by the Workerist Left and the Regulation School of economists, essentially remains shackled by the new industrial capitalists under the horizon of neo-capitalism." At the same time, although the neoliberal "knowledge economy" paradigm effectively reflects the dominant role of knowledge in contemporary economic growth, it conceals the role of capital power in subsuming and dominating knowledge production and cognitive labor. Therefore, the school of cognitive capitalism agrees neither with using Post-Fordism or Empire to designate this new form, nor with using "knowledge economy" to summarize this new model. Instead, they propose a new paradigm—"cognitive capitalism"—to summarize the latest form of current capitalist development.

It is precisely based on the role of general intellect and cognitive labor in the process of capitalist development that they have achieved a historical periodization of capitalist development, dividing capitalism into three stages: mercantilist capitalism, industrial capitalism, and cognitive capitalism. Mercantilist capitalism developed from the early 16th century to the end of the 18th century, a time when labor-capital relations were marked by the knowledge hegemony of craftsmen and trade workers, and characterized by mercantilism and financial accumulation. The stage of industrial capitalism originated with the First Industrial Revolution and ended with Fordist capitalism. The greatest characteristic of this stage was the complete separation of physical labor from mental labor: capitalists gradually appropriated scientific knowledge and used it to achieve rule over workers (fixed capital and management processes), such that the workers’ labor degenerated entirely into material or physical labor separated from knowledge. During this period, surplus value primarily originated from material labor, and Marx’s theory of material production was suited to this stage. By the stage of cognitive capitalism, this logic of Marx’s has become obsolete: today, knowledge production has become as fully subordinated to the power of capital as material production once was. The creation of surplus value no longer originates from material labor but is rooted in general intellect and cognitive labor. This is a brand new kind of capitalism—"general intellect capitalism." Here, "the opposition between dead labor and living labor under traditional industrial capitalism gives way to a new form of antagonism, namely, the opposition between the 'dead knowledge' of capital and the 'living knowledge' of labor."

Finally, we see a shift from the pessimism of resistance to the optimism of liberation. The Situationists did not abandon class struggle; rather, they advocated for a rebellion against the "world of the spectacle" through a cultural and artistic revolution of everyday life. [19] In contrast, Mark Poster argued that in the information age of the "Superpanopticon," the logic of class has been thoroughly dismantled, leaving behind only fragmented and pluralistic individuals, making revolution an impossible illusion. [20] In this framework, individuals seem capable only of minor acts of daily resistance, such as creating computer viruses or engaging in small-scale disruptions—a form of cyber-"terrorism." By the time we reach Baudrillard, all resistance appears deconstructed because, in his view, all subjects of resistance are "dead," ultimately collapsing into a pessimistic nihilism. [21] Compared to these thinkers, Autonomism and Cognitive Capitalism offer a degree of hope and optimism, providing a relatively positive, if slightly naive, alternative. The former seizes upon "general intellect" and immaterial labor to construct a pluralistic "multitude" as a subject, effecting a rupture with Marx’s theory of the working class. [22] Meanwhile, Cognitive Capitalism seeks to reconstruct a class subject resisting capital based on the relationship between capital and cognitive labor, thereby proposing the theory of the "cognitive class." In some sense, this is a contemporary extension and continuation of Engels's category of the "proletariat of mental labor." [23] However, in terms of struggle strategy, they are internally consistent: they advocate for the re-appropriation of the general intellect through collective cooperation of the subjects, thereby achieving a final "exodus" from capital.

Fetishism of the General Intellect and the Utopia of Liberation: A Critical Reflection on the Contemporary Western Left

By rediscovering and reshaping Marx’s category of "general intellect," Autonomism and Cognitive Capitalism have constructed a unique set of social critical theories. This has become a distinctive landscape within contemporary Western Leftist thought. It not only provides a new perspective for scholars to further deepen their ideological research into the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1857–1858 (the Grundrisse) and Capital, but also offers a new thread for accurately grasping the developmental genealogy of contemporary Western Leftist theory. Simultaneously, it provides new ideas for our further research into the developmental characteristics of contemporary capitalism. However, it must also be recognized that their theoretical constructions contain unavoidable and significant flaws.

(1) The Subjective Turn and Generalization of General Intellect

First, they have narrowed the scientific connotation of Marx’s category of "general intellect." Returning to Marx’s original context, we find: first, the general intellect Marx spoke of does not refer to individual intelligence, but rather to the collective intelligence formed by a society at a specific stage of development—namely, "general social knowledge." Second, the power of knowledge objectified in fixed capital is merely the manifestation of that portion of the general intellect that has been transformed into direct productive forces, rather than the entirety of the general intellect. Finally, the objectification of the general intellect into fixed capital was merely the dominant mode of its transformation into a direct productive force during the stage of large-scale machine industry; it is not the only way it functions. [24] Therefore, when Paolo Virno criticizes Marx for understanding the general intellect merely as "objectified power of knowledge," he is clearly narrowing the connotation of Marx’s category. Furthermore, when he criticizes Marx from the perspective of the post-Fordist era for failing to understand the general intellect via the subjective logic of living labor, he is being ahistorical. In the era Marx lived in, the objectification of general intellect into fixed capital was precisely the dominant form of its function at that stage; we cannot demand perfection from him by using contemporary society as the standard.

Second, they confuse the general intellect with the forms through which it acts. In Marx’s view, productive forces are divided into two forms: "direct productive forces" and "potential productive forces." Only those actual productive forces that enter the production process and manifest within it are "direct productive forces"; otherwise, they are "potential productive forces." For the general intellect to transform into an actual direct productive force, there are generally two paths: first, combining with labor to be directly internalized as the basic quality of actual laborers; second, becoming objectified as means of labor and directly entering the production process. However, the dominant mode by which general intellect transforms into direct productive forces differs across different social conditions and developmental stages.

  1. The Pre-capitalist Era. Marx stated: "At earlier stages of production, the limited scope of knowledge and experience was directly connected with labor itself and had not developed into an independent power separate from labor." [25] During this period, the general intellect was integrated with labor; the slow accumulation of labor experience coalesced into general intellect, which was transformed into direct productive forces during the labor process or objectified into means of labor.
  2. The Era of Large-Scale Machine Industry. Marx pointed out that the developmental trajectory from cooperation to manufacture and then to large-scale machine industry is a process in which capital continuously absorbs the general intellect and effects its complete separation from labor. In other words, this trajectory is the evolution of the general intellect from a form of productive force dominated by labor toward a mode of transformation dominated by the means of labor. More precisely, in the stage of large-scale machine industry, the dominant mode of transforming general intellect into direct productive forces is no longer labor, but the machinery system dominated by capital. This is the context in which Marx’s category of "general intellect" appeared. Furthermore, outside the factory, Marx also observed the social diffusion of general intellect, distinguished between two types of immaterial labor, and affirmed the active role of general intellect in social life.
  3. The Era of Taylorism and Fordism. With the in-depth development of the Second Industrial Revolution, the degree of expansion of the general intellect far exceeded previous historical periods, exerting a major influence on human social life and productive activities. However, in the realm of material production, the general intellect remained separate from labor, maintaining a certain continuity with the stage of large-scale machine industry described by Marx. The American scholar Harry Braverman pointed out that Taylorism was built on three principles: first, the complete dissociation of the labor process from the skills of the workers (the process of deskilling); second, the total separation of conception from execution (workers no longer perform labor according to their own will but according to management instructions—the process of de-subjectification); and third, management’s use of its monopoly over knowledge to comprehensively control every step and operation of the labor process. [26] However, compared to Marx’s era, the general intellect was now applied to management practices to control the labor process, in addition to being transformed into fixed capital. Even more importantly, in the realm of social life, the diffusion of the general intellect was quite startling, forming various cultural industries. In this regard, "Virno and Vercellone underestimated the degree of 'diffusion' of the general intellect during the period from the initial industrial revolution to Fordism." [27]
  4. Post-Fordism or Post-Industrial Society. With the rapid development of the Third Technological Revolution, the role of knowledge and general intellect in social production and life has become increasingly prominent. The deep structural adjustment of capitalist industry has led to a declining proportion of manufacturing and a rising proportion of high-end industries and services. To maintain competitive advantages, capitalist enterprises increasingly require a high-quality workforce; limiting general intellect to fixed capital and management can no longer meet the needs of the era. Thus, a new and more pervasive practice emerged: the effort to achieve the re-integration of general intellect and labor. In this process, the massification of education and vocational training undoubtedly played a significant role. Therefore, in contemporary capitalist society, the general intellect continues to be objectified as fixed capital on one hand, while on the other, it gradually merges with labor, transforming into a direct productive force through the labor process. This is the basis for the contemporary Western Left’s assertion that immaterial labor has become the dominant form of contemporary capitalism. Viewing it this way, the general intellect and the forms through which it acts are two entirely different things. As society develops, the general intellect—as the collective intelligence of society—also develops. However, at different stages of development, due to the constraints of specific relations of production, the dominant mode of transforming general intellect into direct productive forces varies. We must not view the general intellect and its modes of action ahistorically, nor can we criticize previous historical stages by using contemporary society as a frame of reference. Virno and the theorists of Cognitive Capitalism clearly fail to realize this.

Third, they have generalized the connotation of the general intellect. Based on post-Fordism, Virno calls for a transcendence of the objective dimension (objectified scientific power and objective knowledge itself), advocating for an understanding of the general intellect from the perspective of living labor and interpreting it as a universal potential possessed by the public. While this definition highlights the initiative, proactivity, and creativity of the subject, it excessively generalizes the connotation of the general intellect. First, it confuses two different kinds of intellect. Marx pointed out: "Only capitalist production turns the material production process into an application of science—into science applied to practice." [28] Therefore, the "general intellect" as "general social knowledge" could only be proposed as a product of society reaching a specific stage of development. When Virno, based on the subjective dimension, defines the various potentials inherent in the individual—such as cognition, reflection, communication, and linguistic dialogue—as the core connotation of the general intellect, he has clearly departed from Marx's context. He confuses the species-essence of the subject with the general intellect in the Marxian sense. According to this logic, Virno’s version of the general intellect would have appeared as early as primitive society; there would be no need to wait for the post-Fordist era to make such a distinction. This clearly overextends the connotation of the general intellect and commits a common-sense error. Second, it is a pan-subjectivist interpretation of the general intellect. The re-integration of general intellect with living labor is merely one way the general intellect functions in the post-Fordist era. Virno, however, inverts this logic: because living labor has become the dominant mode through which the general intellect acts, he believes that all attributes and potentials inherent in living labor belong to the general intellect. This is clearly a pan-subjectivist misreading. Third, it is an individualized construction of the category. The general intellect as understood by Marx is a form of collective social intelligence, not a simple summation of individual intellects, just as social productive forces are not a mechanical summation of individual powers. In the hands of Virno and Vercellone, this logic is inverted. They believe that contemporary capitalism has achieved the individualization of the general intellect and the "general-intellectualization" of the individual, thereby interpreting the general intellect as the sum of all individual intellects, thus completing the individualized turn of the category.

Fourth, they have generalized the connotation of fixed capital. Taking general intellect and immaterial labor as his starting point, Antonio Negri provides a contemporary interpretation of the claim that "fixed capital is man himself." He argues that in the post-Fordist era, fixed capital is no longer just a machinery system in material form but should also include human beings themselves. In his view, the rule of capital over people today has far surpassed the bodily discipline discussed by Marx and Foucault, bringing human thought and the entirety of life under the power of capital. Undoubtedly, this judgment provides a useful reference for accurately understanding the exploitation mechanisms of contemporary capitalism, but it must also be seen that this assertion itself contains unavoidable flaws. If the contemporary capitalist labor process has undergone a transition from material labor to immaterial labor, then fixed capital must also undergo a transition from material to immaterial forms. One cannot "make bricks without straw" (or "cook a meal without rice"); even if immaterial laborers possess a superb general intellect, as long as their labor requires means of labor, those means—whether material or immaterial—still function as fixed capital. More importantly, whether this fixed capital is tangible or intangible, it is necessarily the result of the objectification of the general intellect, ultimately rooted in human beings themselves. In this regard, even in contemporary society, Marx’s original proposition and his distinction between fixed and variable capital remain valid. Negri, however, inverts this logic: since fixed capital is the result of the objectification of general intellect—"organs of the human brain, created by the human hand"—he concludes that man himself has become fixed capital. This is similar to Human Capital Theory: because human power plays an increasingly important role relative to physical resources, human power becomes the most important capital. This is clearly a logic of fetishism.

(2) Mass Intellectuality and General Intellect Determinism

In the "Fragment on Machines," Marx indeed provided a logic of argument based on the general intellect: as the general intellect develops continuously, the production of exchange value in capitalism will depend less and less on direct labor time; once a certain point is reached, the capitalist system of exchange value production will tend toward collapse. In reality, there is a flaw in this explanation—namely, the conflation of the essential difference between the production of value and the production of wealth. In his later works, Marx became aware of this flaw and ultimately abandoned this logic. [52]

However, Virno and the proponents of cognitive capitalism did not accept Marx’s later explanation; instead, they completed their characterization of the developmental forms of contemporary capitalism based on the general intellect logic found in the "Fragment on Machines." They point out that in contemporary society, the general intellect has become a "general illumination" [29], the shared foundation for all practice. Consequently, they openly proclaim that Marx’s theory of material production and the labor theory of value are obsolete. This assertion clearly commits the same error as the "Fragment on Machines." Tony Smith notes: "Virno and Vercellone’s analysis of Post-Fordism/cognitive capitalism exhibits an inverted one-sidedness: in order to emphasize the creativity of social labor latent in the theory of capital fetishism, they underestimate capital's continuous formal determination." [53]

This assessment is very pertinent. In contemporary capitalist society, the general intellect has indeed achieved a re-fusion with the subject, becoming an immanent component of living labor or labor power. However, this is merely a shift in capital’s form of subsuming the general intellect. As long as living labor still requires the mediation of money to realize the transformation from possibility to reality, then living labor and its inherent general intellect cannot escape the constraints of value relations and capital relations. Furthermore, even if immaterial labor replaces material production as the primary source of surplus value, it is impossible to fundamentally overthow the labor theory of value. For in Marx’s view, the true substance of value is not concrete labor, but undifferentiated human abstract labor. The transition from material labor to immaterial labor is merely a change in the concrete form of labor; it cannot change the mechanism of abstract labor itself. As long as the latter is not abolished, value relations and the logic of capital will continue to achieve the real subsumption of immaterial labor and its embedded general intellect, transforming it into abstract labor stripped of all qualitative determinations. Under this mechanism, the general intellect cannot become the true substance of value or the fundamental cornerstone of real abstraction. Conversely, if this mechanism ceased to exist, what immaterial labor produced would be mere immaterial products rather than commodities, possessing no value attributes at all; in such a case, the general intellect contained in living labor could naturally not be the substance and source of value. In this regard, while Virno and cognitive capitalism recognize the important role of the general intellect in contemporary capitalist society, they excessively downplay the intensity of capital’s subsumption of the general intellect, sliding into the ruts of general intellect fetishism and general intellect determinism.

Marx indeed believed at the time that only in post-capitalist society could the general intellect be reintegrated with labor, thereby achieving the perfect unity of individual intelligence, mass intelligence, and universal social intelligence. However, exceeding Marx’s expectations, this trend toward fusion has already appeared in contemporary capitalist society. On this point, the judgments of Autonomism and cognitive capitalism are correct. But when they proceed from this to suggest that the individual, mass, and universal intelligence envisioned by Marx have already emerged today, they clearly exaggerate the degree of diffusion and the dominant role of the general intellect in contemporary society. Even if their judgment held true, this "mass intelligence" could only be a mass intelligence dominated by capital, rather than a mass intelligence in the Marxian sense. On this point, Marx’s judgment remains correct. For Marx, as long as capital relations have not been thoroughly overthrown, the general intellect can only submit to the domination of capital. Only by liberating the general intellect from capital relations can it become the common wealth of all subjects. However, Marx believed that due to historical limitations, in the stage of socialism, the antithesis between manual and mental labor had not been thoroughly eliminated, and people still had to submit to the existential pressures of material scarcity. Therefore, at this stage, the general intellect cannot yet be internalized as the personal quality of every individual, and a portion of the population must still engage in productive labor for the sake of making a living. Only upon reaching the future communist society can people escape existential pressures, comprehensively appropriate the general intellect, and take the free and well-rounded development of the individual as their goal. At that time, everyone will fully appropriate the general intellect, truly attaining the universal intelligence of each individual; conversely, the full development of each individual's intelligence will become the driving force for the development of the society's general intellect and universal intelligence. Only then can the intelligence of each individual, the intelligence of the masses, and the universal intelligence of the entire society truly achieve a perfect combination. In contrast, the Autonomists and cognitive capitalists simply assume that through collective cooperation, they can easily break through the limits of capital to realize mass and universal intelligence. In reality, this is nothing more than a postmodern "fantastic illusion."

(3) The General Intellect and the Retreat of Class Logic

Virno correctly identified Marx’s division of two types of immaterial labor but arrived at the wrong conclusion—namely, the belief that in Marx’s view, all immaterial labor does not create surplus value. In fact, Marx’s analysis of immaterial labor was not so simple. In addition to the two types of immaterial labor, he also started from capital relations to distinguish between two different natures of immaterial labor: one that does not create surplus value and another that does. He cited many specific examples, such as the labor of artists, painters, teachers, actors, doctors, and lawyers. Marx believed that when they engage in immaterial labor autonomously, they do not constitute wage laborers in the modern sense; but when they are employed by an entrepreneur to make money, they become productive laborers. "A schoolmaster is a productive laborer when, in addition to belaboring the heads of his scholars, he works like a horse to enrich the school proprietor." [54] Only with this understanding can we grasp the true connotation of Marx’s statement that "The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers." [55] When Autonomists and cognitive capitalists assert that in contemporary capitalist society, all immaterial and cognitive labor creates surplus value, they clearly conflate two different natures of immaterial labor. Furthermore, when Autonomism uses the general intellect and immaterial labor to declare Marx’s theory of the working class obsolete, it commits an empiricist error. For Marx, the working class is an essential classification made on the basis of labor power and relations of production. Whether a laborer belongs to the working class does not depend on whether they possess general intellect, but is rooted in the relations of production in which they are situated. In this regard, the rise of immaterial labor has not changed Marx’s class logic; what it has changed is the composition of the working class—namely, a transition from a class structure originally dominated by the manual labor proletariat to one dominated by mental labor. This is a process of the proletarianization of the general intellect and the "general-intellectualization" of the proletariat. [56]

Only on this basis can we understand Engels’ category of the "proletariat of mental labor" (脑力劳动无产阶级). Therefore, when Autonomism starts from the general intellect and immaterial labor to discard class logic and propose the so-called theory of the "multitude" (大众), it is clearly problematic. Because their so-called "multitude" includes not only autonomous immaterial laborers but also the "proletariat of mental labor" in the sense used by Marx and Engels; thus, it is a thoroughly supra-class category. On this point, cognitive capitalism possesses a certain degree of rationality. Based on the internal relationship between the power of capital and the production of knowledge, they have constructed a theory of the "cognitive class," maintaining Marx’s class logic to a certain extent, which is worthy of affirmation. However, in terms of struggle strategy, they reach the same destination as Autonomism by different routes, failing to escape the erroneous tendencies of anarchism and reformism, and falling back into a pre-Marxist position.

Tony Smith argues that focusing solely on the "Fragment on Machines" results in a "one-sided" interpretation of general intellect. He contends that if we view the general intellect as an independent force outside the circulation of capital, we fall into the trap of "cognitive romanticism." In reality, the development of the general intellect is always mediated by the capitalist relations of production; capital's "social brain" [30] does not naturally liberate the workers but further refines the mechanisms of their exploitation. Under the current drive for high-quality development, we must recognize that while new quality productive forces represent the most advanced state of the general intellect today, their emancipatory potential can only be fully realized by continuously optimizing the relations of production and the superstructure.

The evolution of the labor process from "formal subsumption" to "real subsumption" [31] demonstrates that the general intellect is not a neutral technical factor. As Marx pointed out in the Results of the Direct Production Process, with the development of the capitalist mode of production, the "social productive forces of labor" appear as "productive forces of capital." This means the general intellect is crystallized into automated machine systems, which conversely dominate the living labor of the workers. Therefore, the "general intellect" is not merely a cognitive category, but a political-economic one. To truly advance Chinese-path modernization, we must uphold the fundamentals and break new ground, ensuring that the fruits of the general intellect—embodied in digital technologies and artificial intelligence—serve the goal of common prosperity rather than becoming a tool for new forms of capital accumulation.

In the New Era, the Sinicization of Marxism requires us to go beyond the limitations of Western "Autonomist" [32] interpretations of the general intellect. We must insist on seeking truth from facts and apply historical materialism to analyze the new characteristics of contemporary productive forces. As we promote the deep integration of the digital economy with the real economy, we must simultaneously improve the political ecosystem of innovation and persist over the long term in our commitment to the mass line. Only by doing so can the general intellect be transformed from a "force of capital" into a "force of the people," providing a solid material and technical foundation for the comprehensive building of a modern socialist country.