Fu Hao and Cheng Enfu: Marxist Political Research in the 21st-Century American Journal "Monthly Review"
As an international publication advocating for and persisting in the independent study of Marxism and socialism, Monthly Review (MR) was founded during the "Ice Age"—the lowest ebb of the American Left. It grew tenaciously, step by step, while directly confronting the disdain and hostility directed toward the socialist movement by Trumanism and McCarthyism [1], becoming one of the most intellectually and socially influential journals for the global Left. The journal was founded by Leo Huberman and Harvard economics professor Paul Sweezy. For over 70 years, numerous renowned social activists—including Albert Einstein, W.E.B. Du Bois, Che Guevara, Barbara Ehrenreich, Noam Chomsky, and Bernie Sanders—have published their insights in its pages. The magazine has also coalesced and cultivated many world-renowned Marxist theorists such as Harry Magdoff, Paul Baran, Ellen Meiksins Wood, Robert W. McChesney, and John Bellamy Foster, making immense contributions to the development of socialist theory in the United States and the world.
Since entering the 21st century, Monthly Review has maintained a continuous focus on the latest global trends, advancing with the times to promote the comprehensive development of Marxist theoretical research. Its achievements in the study of Marxist politics have been remarkable, gradually forming a representative new force of political critique on the American Left. With its radical scholarly style, rigorous academic attitude, pluralistic intellectual adoption, and innovative academic thinking, it has contributed its own unique strength to the development of Marxist politics in the new century. At the same time, there remain limitations in the journal's discussions on certain political issues; there is room for improvement in its field of Marxist political research, and its influence on world socialism still has potential to be tapped.
I. Developing the Marxist Theory of the State: A Political Construction Transcending the Capitalist "Leviathan"
The Marxist theory of the state and theories related to the construction of socialist democracy have long been central components of research and exploration in Marxist politics. However, Western research into the Marxist theory of the state—after exhausting itself during the heat of the debates in the 1960s and 70s and the subsequent political failure of the Soviet Union—appeared to struggle for momentum in developed capitalist countries over recent decades. Despite this, Monthly Review has continued to bring together progressive leftist scholars such as István Mészáros, Michael Lebowitz, and Marta Harnecker, who specialize in socialist political construction, dedicate themselves to the exploration of socialist democracy, and immerse themselves in the practice of socialist movements. Against the backdrop of the widespread political crises in 21st-century capitalist states, they have clarified the theoretical principles and practical paths of socialist political revolution, sounding the political "bugle" for constructing a future-oriented social transformation.
First, adhering to the "theory of transcendence," resolutely transcending the authoritarian state form of the capitalist "Leviathan" [2], and realizing substantive equality and democracy. This involves upholding social equality and justice in real-world struggles and using 21st-century Marxist critical theory of the state to bring socialism into reality. One aspect is transcending the capitalist "Leviathan" and deconstructing the capitalist state apparatus. As an assistant and younger colleague of György Lukács, Mészáros embodied Lukácsian thought in his work Beyond Capital. He argued that it is necessary not only to abolish classical capitalist society but also to dismantle the entire rule of capital. The key to revolution lies in overthrowing the state—the executive organ of capital's rule—thereby establishing a new social order through radical class struggle to replace the bourgeois "parliamentary-electoral" system. Mészáros believed that historically, almost all theories of the state have "built high walls" to consolidate the legitimate governance of the ruling class. This Leviathanism enhances the state's political dominance in responding to severe internal and external crises. Meanwhile, the capital system, as an organic order capable of self-reproduction and metabolism, relies on the complete operation of the entire state "command structure" [3], enabling the capitalist system to be perpetually repaired and restored. Based on this, Mészáros firmly believed that to end the capitalist system, one must adopt Marx’s critical theory of the state—namely, the total elimination of the state from the process of social metabolism, terminating capital's exploitation and enslavement of humanity through the "disappearance of the political state and political authority." Mészáros also admitted that today, while nation-states still control the global situation, it would be naive to expect the abolition of the state in the short term, but it is necessary to analyze the essential conditions for social change.
Another aspect is the realization of "substantive equality" and "substantive democracy." The withering away of the political state means returning all power "confiscated" by the Leviathan state throughout history back to society. This requires that the functioning of society be effectively held in the hands of the people, implementing substantive equality and democracy to construct a socialist system. Mészáros pointed out that "substantiveness" involves fundamental changes in the future society. For the historical sustainability of socialism, substantive equality and democracy are vital principles that society must uphold. Bourgeois liberal democracy, under the guise of "greater equality," actually implements capitalist autocratic rule. State sovereignty does not reside with the people but is always held by capital; thus, equality without class differences cannot exist. Therefore, the goal of revolution must never be merely to seize a part of the old system (such as obtaining supreme state power), but rather to completely abolish and transcend the fundamental antagonism between "capital and labor," thereby creating opportunities for substantive equality. Mészáros stated plainly that, as a long-term strategic goal, the pursuit of substantive equality and democracy is an arduous process. Only by starting from fundamental principles of equality and substantive democratic measures can the historical process of social change and transition be continuously assessed, allowing for great strides toward socialism—the scientific alternative that transcends capitalism—while simultaneously "drawing a clear line of demarcation" from the Soviet model.
Thirdly, maintaining equality and justice during social transformation, dialectically "transcending" the traditional scope of socialist practice, and achieving new political breakthroughs in the social struggles of the new era. Daniel Finn dialectically analyzed the practical controversies in the history of the socialist movement, arguing that maintaining socialist fairness requires adhering to the leadership of the working-class "vanguard" during the transition period. He supported the speculative exploration of "de-hierarchicalization" in Marxist theory and emphasized cultivating capable leftist politicians rather than mere activists, re-emphasizing the role of movement leaders in driving the revolution. To preserve socialist justice, it is necessary to disarm the authoritarianism of reactionary forces and oppose the suppression of dissenting people after the revolution. He advocated for replacing capitalist autocracy with broad social democracy and drawing a clear line against erroneous trends of thought such as opportunism, adventurism, and feudalism. This aims to realize substantive equality, fairness, and justice under socialist conditions, proposing a political prospect for 21st-century socialism through a dialectical analysis of existing experience.
Critiquing the capitalist state apparatus involves using a Marxist perspective to expose the nature of Western power and judicial systems as tools of rule and class oppression. This refines the judicial theoretical system of Marxist politics and provides a theoretical analysis for constructing political systems and mechanisms centered on human development. Since the start of the 21st century, the functions of the imperialist state apparatus have been progressively strengthened. Western powers led by the United States have not only conducted armed intervention in other countries but have also subjected their own people to close surveillance and harsh laws. The foundations of the capitalist rule of law have come under widespread question. Consequently, Western leftist scholars have profoundly exposed and criticized the flaws of the capitalist state apparatus, advocating for correct concepts of legal rights from the perspective of Marxist politics.
One focus is attacking the merging of the laws of war with criminal law by imperialism, defining national interests through the interests of the ruling clique, and monitoring citizen privacy in the name of "patriotism," thereby violating civil rights. Jean-Claude Paye pointed out that the combination of military and criminal law gives the state the full right to point the spear of autocracy at its own people; rulers can freely define the identity of the "enemy" and are already "at war" with their citizens. Michael Tigar analyzed the long-standing American "tradition" of unconstitutionality, arguing that the imprisonment of "target individuals" through political screening, internet surveillance, international tribunals, and state secrets undermines the political foundations touted by the bourgeoisie and reflects the absolute hypocrisy of the judiciary.
A second focus is criticizing the constitutionalization of the state of emergency in imperialist countries, which allows executive power to override the law and elevates the police system to the core of the capitalist rule of law, further increasing the oppression of the people. Paye noted that the trend in countries like the U.S. and France to constitutionalize the state of emergency symbolizes the arbitrary disposal of state sovereignty and the deprivation of civil rights, which is tantamount to a political transformation that "establishes a separate constitution." The trend toward the legalization of further centralized power in capitalist powers reveals the imperial essence of so-called constitutional democracy—maintaining the interests of the ruling class under the pretext of protecting sovereignty, and turning the constitution and congress into veritable organs of imperialist oppression. Paye mentioned that the consequence of this judicial orientation is the formation of a powerful police state, granting police the greatest enforcement authority, thereby completely eliminating the rule of law and making the police system the core of the nation-state to protect ruling class interests and deprive citizens of their rights.
A third focus is condemning the capitalist criminal law and prison systems, exemplified by the United States, exposing the evil acts of mass incarceration used for class suppression and racial oppression, and calling for a humane and healthy transformation of the rule of law. The American prison system has long been criticized, and since the 21st century, its role in capitalist rule as a "prison-industrial complex" has become increasingly prominent. Leftist scholars unanimously believe that prisons are a means of social control for capitalism and the final gate of state repression. Hannah Holleman stated bluntly that neoliberalism has exacerbated the sinister nature of American prisons; conditions have worsened, more poor and Black people are incarcerated, and racism and prisoner abuse are common. Richard Vogel pointed out that American rulers use imprisonment to suppress and solve the economic and social chaos caused by the post-industrial era, with prisons becoming a political tool for reactionary governments to bully the working people. Consequently, scholars have called for the Left to play a leading role in the movement, making the crushing of the capitalist criminal-law state a major agenda item for socialist political revolution.
II. The Political Critique of Imperialism in the 21st Century: A Three-Stage Theory from "Barbarism" to "Late Stage"
The theory of imperialism is a vital component of Marxist political doctrine. Based on a profound analysis of the essential economic characteristics of capitalism, it directly radiates and demonstrates the hegemony and expansionist behavior of imperialist states in politics. This extremely alienated, irrational, and anti-human brutality was fully evidenced in the two World Wars, making the 20th century the bloodiest hundred years in human history. Entering the new millennium, benefiting from the "dividends" of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the drastic changes in Eastern Europe, the United States became the veritable leader of imperialism. American leftists, positioned at the "center of the empire," have ruthlessly criticized and profoundly exposed its hegemonic politics. From a new historical starting point, they have innovated traditional imperialist theory, providing an in-depth analysis and critique of the evolutionary process of 21st-century imperialism—from its peak to its decline, from crisis to impasse, and finally into an unavoidable decay. They discuss the new characteristics of imperialism in the first twenty years of the 21st century through three stages, refining and developing contemporary Marxist political assessments of imperialism.
The first stage is "Barbarous Empire"—the heyday of imperialism (2000–2007). Reviews in Monthly Review show that before the outbreak of the cyclical economic crisis in 2008, "barbarism" was the primary theme of imperialism in the early 21st century. Several American leftist scholars began to critique the barbarity of imperialism while simultaneously demonstrating the scientific political perspective of Marxist theory. One aspect was criticizing how capitalist globalization fosters imperialist hegemony and critiquing the era's crisis brought about by "globalization-neoliberal militarism." Samir Amin and others led this view, arguing that imperialism exists within the inherent requirements of capitalist expansion, with globalization being an inevitable step; in its third historical stage, imperialism controls global markets through capital expansion, wantonly plundering the earth's resources, controlling ideological discourse, and consolidating its hegemony through military force, revealing its authoritarian essence. The journal's editorial office compared the Iraq War to the Vietnam War, criticizing how right-wing conservative militarist forces and imperialist goals left the U.S. unable to extricate itself from Iraq. Noam Chomsky also referred to the U.S. impasse in the Middle East as an "imminent crisis." Another aspect was pointing out that imperialism is equivalent to terrorism, summarizing the "two wings of the eagle" theory of the American empire. The "9/11..."
After the "9/11" incident, Monthly Review countered the discourse of hate in the American right-wing media. Noam Chomsky explicitly pointed out that the United States has long been a supporter of and participant in terrorism, bluntly stating that the U.S. is the world’s leading terrorist state and arguing that terrorism is merely the U.S.’s "low-intensity warfare," which pales in comparison to the scale of imperialism. When the U.S. brazenly launched the Iraq War, it caused a global outcry. Rather than merely writing at length about the ruthlessness and anti-humanism of imperialist war, William Tabb referred to the U.S. construction of the world economic system and its global military interventions as the "two wings of the eagle." On one side is Wilsonian multilateralism [4], which attempts to establish a global governance system; on the other is a unilateralist authoritarian stance, believing that the way to earn respect is through the "big stick." He described this as "one side leaning toward political liberalism, upholding an open trade system advocated by transnational finance capital, and the other practicing 'cowboy capitalism,'" adopting conservative policies in the oil industry, military contracting, and religious propaganda. Tabb argued that these two "faces," which the U.S. switches between freely, are nothing more than a desire for the "appearance" (outer face) of a neoliberal leader while maintaining the "substance" (inner lining) of American-style military hegemony. These two swords pierce through imperialist behavior from start to finish and constitute its inherent barbaric essence. Third is the analysis of the structural harms of imperialist politics, predicting that imperialist monopoly finance would inevitably trigger deep economic and political dangers. István Mészáros stated frankly that the political and legal systems radiated by imperialism have already caused global unrest and threats. Even on major issues concerning human safety, "wicked resolutions" can still be reached within the highest decision-making levels of the United States. Imperialist politics dominated by private monopoly capital has poisoned the world. Concurrently, Monthly Review observed that compared to neoliberalism and globalization, financialization is one of the least discussed new characteristics of imperialism. Many scholars keenly sensed the risk of financial crises, directly pointing out that financialization leads to financial bubbles and increased speculation, helping the monopoly class weaken the role of the state in the political sphere and placing the world on the edge of uncontrollable danger—it is the "fatal straw" that could collapse the empire.
The second stage, "Cracks in the Empire"—the period of imperialist crisis (2008–2015). The subprime mortgage crisis that erupted in the U.S. in 2008 eventually triggered a global financial tsunami like falling dominoes. Capitalism thus fell into its most serious systemic crisis since the "Great Depression." During this period, the American Left concentrated on providing rigorous political critiques of the imperialist crisis. First, they attacked the imperialist financial monopoly class for triggering uncontrollable economic and social disasters, noting that the financial crisis, combined with military setbacks, led to the gradual loss of global hegemony for U.S. imperialism. Robert W. McChesney and others pointed directly to the institutional flaws behind the financial crisis: that American politics remains unconcerned with the classical concept of democracy regarding human beings, caring only about selecting political representatives who best embody the forces of capital, thereby endangering the world through negligence. Tabb argued that U.S. militarism in Afghanistan and Iraq not only rendered its unilateralism disreputable, but the subsequent global crisis triggered by the financial collapse caused the "Washington Consensus" to exist in name only. The total failure of the imperialist "two wings of the eagle" left the U.S. trapped in a contemporary predicament. Second, they called on the Left to seize the opportunities presented by the imperialist crisis, analyzing social movements such as "Occupy Wall Street" while exposing the rising fascist ideology within imperialism to prevent the world situation from moving toward danger and upheaval. Michael Yates and others pointed out that the "Occupy Wall Street" movement profoundly reflected the internal contradictions of imperialism. The American system of lobbying-based elections and "depoliticization" strategies exacerbated domestic class rifts, while imperialist global cooperation created even greater exploitation in the international community, making the democratic system—aimed at fairness and justice—exist in name only. Faced with the heavy blows dealt to imperialism by the financial crisis, the U.S. intended to return to a conservative strategy of geopolitical hostility. The financial crisis caused the "sparks" of fascism to ignite within imperialism. John Bellamy Foster and others urgently warned against the "American war virus," comprehensively opposing imperialist politics controlled by oligarchic capital and advocating for a new internationalist liberation movement led by the people's struggle. Samir Amin pointed out that armed intervention and the suppression of democracy by imperialism around the world reflected a dangerous variant tendency toward fascism, requiring strict vigilance. Third, they dialectically analyzed the "new imperialism" thesis popular on the Left, maintaining that the current stage remains one of "global monopoly-finance capital" imperialism. Regarding the stage and attributes of the imperialist form in the 21st century and its place in the process of human historical development, Monthly Review provided an independent academic perspective. In the July 2015 issue of the monthly's "Imperialism" theme, Foster, Amin, and others did not fully agree with perspectives such as postmodern empire, ultra-imperialism, transnational capitalism, or neoliberal "new imperialism" (as replacements for classical theory). They argued that even if the "phenomenology" of imperialism has changed, the "basic parameters of imperialism" described in classical Marxist works remain the theoretical core. Imperialism in the 21st century is a new stage of "global monopoly-finance capital," which politically does not exceed the categories of classical Marxist theory. Therefore, current imperialism is still a temporal and spatial continuation of the era of imperialism found in classical theory.
The third stage, "Late Empire"—the period of imperialist decay (2016 to the present). Imperialism failed to achieve fundamental self-transformation during its period of hardship; instead, it embarked on an even more conservative and reactionary path. Monthly Review has leveled harsh criticism against the "twilight" frantic "struggles" of imperialism, arguing that imperialism has entered its late stage, and its destruction of the planet and civilization has become increasingly intense, necessitating urgent institutional change. First, they have clearly exposed the neo-fascist nature of the Trump administration, conducting a resolute critique of the right-wing politics endangering the world. While other leftist publications avoided discussing neo-fascist conduct in the U.S., Monthly Review resolutely and independently pointed out that Trump's election marked the most serious stage of the U.S. imperial hegemony crisis and a gradual descent into the whirlpool of neo-fascism. In a debate with New Left Review editor Dylan Riley, Foster systematically theorized the evil combination of neo-fascism and current imperialism, bluntly stating that Trump-style fascism instigates the rise of right-wing reactionary forces worldwide, posing a massive threat to the development of human society. Confronted with the ravages of the COVID-19 pandemic, Foster, Rob Wallace, and others pointed out that neoliberalism and neo-fascism expanded the repression of the capitalist state system during this exceptional period, and the political plots they carry—such as racism and nationalism intended to divide the world—have become increasingly rampant. Second, they have profoundly analyzed the contemporary new imperialist political structure, gaining insight into the imperialist political "dead end." Amin and others pointed out directly that contemporary imperialism consists of a ruling class made up of a tiny minority of the wealthy and unscrupulous merchants who divide the proletariat, expressing political rule through a new "political class" and a media priesthood, and hindering its own progress and that of society through an extremely distorted and decayed political system. Third, they have pointed out the severe destruction of planetary ecology and security caused by "late imperialism," arguing that the demise of imperialism has become a realistic possibility and proposing leftist counter-strategies. Monthly Review has combined its long-held Marxist ecological critique with economic and political critiques, arguing that imperialism in the "Anthropocene" will directly destroy our planetary home, leading not only to the demise of capitalism but also pushing human civilization toward destruction; this marks the entry into late imperialism. Foster pointed out that in late imperialism, humanity faces multiple threats including neoliberalism, neo-fascism, fossil-fuel capital, and permanent militarism. The Left must carry out a social revolution, struggling against all imperialism, racism, global patriarchy, and ecocide, abolishing and transcending the state of the capital "Leviathan" to consolidate the collective power of the world’s working class. The theory of late imperialism in Monthly Review undoubtedly provides important enlightenment for the organization and rise of leftist political struggles in this new stage.
III. Conceptions of Future-Oriented Social and Political Revolutions: 21st-Century Socialism and Eco-Socialist Revolution
Under the epochal crisis of capitalism moving toward its "late" stage, leftist scholars worldwide are reflecting on transformative means to save human civilization from its crisis and the planet from survival disaster. Theoretical and practical considerations of socialist revolution are increasingly becoming new research trends in Marxist political science. At a time when traditional labor movements and socialist revolutions face difficulties, socialist voices are gradually fading, and socialist models face the need for breakthroughs, Monthly Review actively supports and promotes diversified conceptions of socialist transformation. Taking a broad perspective of global politics, economy, culture, society, and ecology, it explores a future-oriented path for socialist revolution. Among these, the revolutionary explorations of 21st-century socialism and eco-socialism have become the theoretical focus of the journal in the new century, providing a thought-provoking socialist "alternative agenda" for the capitalist political landscape.
First, the journal advocates for the theory of 21st-century socialism, utilizing the unique perspective of "returning to Marx" to attempt the creation of a socialist political dimension for the new century by "breaking the old to establish the new." Since the start of the new century, the world socialist movement has not yet fully emerged from its low ebb. Monthly Review still regards the exploration of socialist political and economic system transformation as a key issue of theoretical discussion. Among these, the theory of the political construction of "21st-century socialism" in Venezuela, as interpreted by Michael Lebowitz and others, is quite representative and has significantly expanded contemporary Marxist political science. First is the definition of the basic connotations of 21st-century socialism. Lebowitz explicitly explained three points: (1) It is not capitalism; the goal of society is to satisfy human needs and achieve the development of human capabilities, where people do not need to sell their labor. (2) It is not top-down; it rejects any state existence that stands above society, but it is by no means populism. (3) It is not extremist; it does not dictate individual beliefs, does not worship technology or productive forces, and maintains ecological harmony. Lebowitz’s definition of 21st-century socialism differs significantly from previous socialist theories. He calls for bottom-up democratic innovation but opposes populist practices; he rejects the absolute control of political authority but demands the distributive function of society; he opposes ecological deterioration and camp confrontation caused by materialism and ideology. These proposals reflect a borrowing from and reflection on past socialist practices. Although the discourse on the organization, status, and role of the political state is vague, it nonetheless represents a kind of innovative new socialist political vision. Second is the proposal of the "socialist elementary triangle" and political transformation theory. Lebowitz argues that the construction of a new socialist political system is inseparable from three most basic elements of socialism—the mutual balance between social property, social production, and social needs. Establishing this stable "triangle" requires using social wealth for the people, developing the people through social production, and satisfying the people through social needs. To ensure the stability of this "triangle," political means must be used to integrate national capital and terminate the old capital’s control and utilization of the state machine. Different from traditional socialist transformation theories, Lebowitz proposes achieving true socialist political change through the people's sense of "ownership" [5]. While absorbing and inheriting basic elements of the old society, he advocates creating new institutions for cooperative planning and labor distribution, gradually constructing the political and economic life of the new society with the goal of satisfying the people's own needs, thereby forming a bottom-up "progressive" democratic state. This would make the new state completely subordinate to society, tapping into the full potential of human beings through "communes of self-work and self-management." He advocates drawing on some of Marx’s theories regarding the transition stage in Critique of the Gotha Program and adopting a Lukácsian "class consciousness" construction method—the opposite of the Soviet model—to shape the political entity. This gives the path of 21st-century socialism clear innovativeness, diverging significantly from the paths of establishment for traditional socialist states and systems. Third is the creation of a socialist "new human" in political practice. Lebowitz points out that while capitalism produces material products, it also produces the product of human alienation—the proletariat. As a new socialism, it must produce the "new human"—the socialist human being. He cites Hugo Chávez’s discourse on socialist reform, pointing out that the new type of socialism is a humanism whose core lies in promoting human development through practice and advancing the comprehensive development of human beings through social movements, thereby creating socialists. "Socialism for the 21st century is a revolutionary resurrection, that is, a return to Marx’s understanding of socialism." Cultivating the new socialist human is an inevitable political requirement and an important political guarantee for constructing and consolidating new socialism, enabling...
The theory of 21st-century socialism thus forms a complete theoretical closed loop.
Second, based on a critique of the existing capitalist system and the development of Marxist ecological thought, the journal upholds a future political framework for ecosocialism, outlining a political vision for its construction. No figure represents Monthly Review’s Marxist ecological research better than John Bellamy Foster, a professor of sociology at the University of Oregon. Since 2000, this prolific scholar has served as editor, continuously publishing high-level academic papers in Monthly Review to attack the "epochal crisis" [6] stemming from capitalist global hegemony and to construct a political path for advancing the ecosocialist revolution. Foster’s political construction of ecosocialism primarily contains three major propositions.
First, the root cause of the destruction of sustainable human development—the capitalist system—must be smashed. Guided by scientific Marxism, a social revolution must be carried out to construct an entire political analytical framework, reshape the massive redistribution system, and create a socialist model compatible with human needs and planetary development. In its "late" stage controlled by monopoly-finance capital, the systemic structural hazards of capitalism not only lead to unavoidable financial and economic crises but also overextend the earth's resources and environment, endangering human survival; it must therefore be replaced. Foster believes the direction of social revolution should follow what Lewis Mumford described in The Condition of Man: distribution according to need rather than according to ability or productive contribution, in order to achieve a steady-state economy. This socialist form would satisfy and serve human needs and ecological sustainability not through social surplus [7] but through the "social remnant," transferring power to the producers and replacing exchange value with use value to realize the harmonious coexistence of humanity and nature. At the level of practice, this requires adhering to Marx’s historical materialism and metabolic rift [8] theory to complete a social transformation across political, ecological, and economic dimensions.
Second, the political revolution must be realized by people; the revolutionary subject is the nascent "environmental proletariat," and the revolution must unite all progressive social movements. Ecological Marxists believe the working class is realizing the connection between its own survival crisis and capitalism, thereby becoming an "environmental proletariat," ensuring that class struggle is not limited to the economic level. The realistic expression of "co-revolution" is becoming increasingly intense, which enriches the connotation of class struggle in the present era. Traditional working-class politics, together with wider-reaching social movements such as environmental struggles, the anti-racist struggles of people of color, and the feminist movement, form the broadest revolutionary alliance. This will powerfully impact the imperialist core and the rule of the capitalist world, leading contemporary social change with a more scientific Marxist Left spirit and promoting the propagation and construction of socialism.
Third, by explicating a two-stage theory of social revolution, the journal discusses the "minimum program" for the current revolution and the "maximum program" for future planning, laying out the political practice of ecological Marxism in a concrete and visible way. Foster plans two major stages of struggle for the current ecosocialist political struggle: (1) in the immediate democratic stage, an attempt to establish a broad revolutionary united front, uniting all forces that can be united [9] and coalescing humanity oppressed by the bourgeoisie to create a sustainable model of social development; (2) entering the ecosocialist stage, establishing a society of substantive equality, sustainability, and collective democracy, realizing human liberation and the restoration of nature. Foster emphasizes that to realize the "minimum program," key measures must be taken—such as reducing carbon emissions, redistributing wealth, developing new energy, diverting military spending, phasing out fossil fuels, advocating for global cooperation, and upholding environmental justice. These provide the foundation for the "maximum program": establishing an ecosocialist society of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," where the social metabolic system is reconstructed on a more public, fair, and just basis, combining social management and ecological planning with political change and global governance to provide a sound mechanical guarantee for human proliferation and the life of the planet. The ecosocialist vision advocated and conceived by Foster aims to build a socialism that truly accords with natural requirements and belongs to the broad masses of the people; it is a theoretical contribution made for the unremitting struggle for human freedom and survival in the 21st century.
IV. Innovations and Limitations of Monthly Review in the 21st Century: Has the Spring of Left-Wing Politics Arrived?
In the 21st century, the scholars of Monthly Review have advanced new developments in Marxist political science and world socialism with a firm left-wing stance and a rigorous academic attitude, making major innovations in main theoretical and practical fields. At the same time, however, Monthly Review also reflects obvious limitations; its analysis of many controversial issues remains open to debate, and the journey toward a political spring for the Left remains long and difficult.
The Marxist political science discussions in Monthly Review hold important innovative significance for the present era. First, they develop new theories suited to the times, closely following the new conditions, needs, goals, and practices of 21st-century left-wing political development. They explore a developing Marxist political science within historical and realistic contexts, organically linking classical theory with global politics, economy, culture, society, and ecology, and pushing Marxism forward through a problem-oriented approach. Second, they explore new revolutionary propositions, daring to transcend classical Marxist political science theory to lead 21st-century left-wing movements in breaking through shackles with radical academic views, launching a powerful assault on the old capitalist system and authority, and issuing a battle cry for the realization of the socialist blueprint. Third, they open up a new internationalist pattern, gathering global left-wing political scholars with an inclusive academic spirit, concentrating the academic talents of world Marxist theoretical workers, and creating a new situation of diverse, varied, multilateral, and multidimensional Marxist theory, enriching the research scope of Marxist political science with distinctive and representative regional theories. Generally speaking, the pioneering innovations of Monthly Review in these fields have opened up a vast academic space for the brand-new development of Marxist political science, deserving of praise and study by left-wing scholars worldwide.
On the other hand, some controversies and deviations have appeared in Monthly Review’s research on Marxist political science, and there is still significant room for development and improvement; the political spring for the American Left is far from arriving. First, the American Left suffers from suppression and attacks by the ruling right-wing conservative forces; not only is it difficult for their academic views to enter the mainstream, but left-wing scholars are even subjected to unreasonable surveillance and groundless smearing. Furthermore, the publication and distribution of journals are limited by funding, which to some extent affects Monthly Review’s ability to further refine and improve its academic research. Second, the American Left’s research on Marxism does not completely inherit the core of classical Marxist theory; discussions on political science are often mixed with Western Marxist [10] perspectives and supplemented by interdisciplinary research methods. The resulting conclusions and understandings are sometimes contrary to classical Marxist theory or over-pursue metaphysics while neglecting practical paths, making Monthly Review’s Marxist political science research rich and diverse but also full of controversy, impacting its operability. Third, the American Left lacks a comprehensive and accurate grasp of the developmental achievements of world socialism, and its research on the political theories and practical results of major socialist countries is inconsistent and insufficient. In particular, there are fallacies in their cognition of the path, theory, system, and culture of socialism with Chinese characteristics, as well as certain prejudices and misreadings of political science research since China’s Reform and Opening-up [11], which hinders the journal's correct understanding of the development of world socialism. It is hoped that as China’s responsibility and discourse power in the development of world socialism increase, Western left-wing scholars represented by Monthly Review will be able to correctly understand the important political science implications contained in socialism with Chinese characteristics, paving the way for the comprehensive revitalization of global left-wing politics.