Han Qiuhong: Three Dimensions of Contemporary Western Leftist Scholars' Critique of Capitalist Modernity
For a long time, the theoretical reflections of Western Leftist scholars on the practical problems of capitalist society have constituted a "mirror of the self" for the critique of capitalist modernity, providing us with "stones from other hills" [1] to deeply grasp the laws of capitalist development and its inherent contradictions. The full onset of the digital age and the sudden arrival of the global COVID-19 pandemic have profoundly changed people's modes of production and life. Facing new eras and objective realities, contemporary Western Leftist scholars have continued the tradition of critiquing capitalist modernity. They have persisted in conducting distinctive social critical theory research on issues of alienation, the subject of revolution, and the path to liberation, forming new insights into "new alienation," "new subjects," and "new paths." Dissatisfied with the current decaying capitalist order, they spare no effort in critiquing the capitalist system and the various crises of modernity it causes, striving to draw nutrients and seek remedies from classical Marxist theory. However, they exhibit a compromising stance in recognizing the historical identity and subjective status of the proletariat and in judging the path of liberation to transcend capitalist modernity; they have failed to adhere to the fundamental stance, principles, and methods of Marxism. This is a primary reason why they cannot find a scientific path of liberation for the crisis of capitalist modernity. This demonstrates that "theory... becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses," and incomplete theory cannot fulfill this role.
I. The Manifestation of New Alienation: From Phenomenological Alienation to Accelerated and Deepened Legitimatized Alienation
Inspired by Marx’s theory of alienated labor and the critique of fetishism, the capitalist modernity critique theories of contemporary Western Leftist scholars often take the new manifestations of alienated phenomena under the conditions of the New Era as an entry point to reflect on the pathological mechanisms of capitalist modernity as a whole. Entering the digital age, these scholars have keenly grasped the accelerated transformation of human existential conditions. They argue that technological progress has not brought a new path to liberation but has instead exacerbated the crisis of alienation, making it more pervasive and concealed.
First, accelerationism and the deepening of alienation. Marx’s theory of alienated labor profoundly revealed the irrational condition of the inversion of subjective status between the worker and the object of labor under the capitalist system. From the reality of alienation where humans are dominated by things and producers are possessed by the objects of production, he critiqued the alienated reality in which relations between man and nature, man and man, and man and self are inharmonious, anti-ecological, and antagonistic under the capitalist mode of production. Alienation spreads from relations of production to broad relations of social intercourse, and from commodity relations to universal social relations. The theory of alienated labor profoundly reflects the inherent contradictions of the capitalist mode of production through the phenomena of social crisis; it is precisely the contradiction between private ownership of the means of production and socialized large-scale production that leads to the separation of the worker from labor. The worker is possessed by the object of labor, reduced to a slave of the capitalist and, further, a slave to the commodity as a thing, completely losing human dignity and value. Marx regarded labor as a true human need and inner essence. He pointed out that under the capitalist system, labor—which should satisfy the production and reproduction of the material means of life for actual individuals—is reduced to a tool for capital valorization, becoming an independent force external to man and a hostile force dominating the worker. This thought inspired contemporary Western Leftist scholars’ critique of the ills of capitalist modernity; from Lukács to the Frankfurt School’s critical theory, they have all closely grasped the alienation crisis of capitalist society to launch multi-angled critiques.
As new forms of contemporary capitalism, such as digital capitalism and platform capitalism, have become increasingly normalized, contemporary Western Leftist scholars have continued to provide theoretical concern and cultural critique regarding the alienated situation of contemporary people. Hartmut Rosa, a representative figure of contemporary critical theory and a German scholar, points out that modern social actors are not merely helpless victims in the face of uncontrollable acceleration dynamics. They are not simply forced to adapt to an acceleration gamble in which they have no stakes. Conversely, he suggests that the driving mechanisms of acceleration are also empowered by cultural promises. Through a closed "acceleration cycle system" (technological acceleration—acceleration of social change—acceleration of the pace of life), he profoundly reveals five "new alienations" that human society is constantly suffering: "alienation from space," "alienation from the world of things," "alienation from action," "alienation from time," and "self-alienation." His critique of contemporary capitalist society’s total descent into a crisis of alienation points directly to the self-closed system of capitalist modern civilization. Its deeper meaning is that the internal paradox of the logic of capital drags everything in human society into a vortex of capital, continuously infiltrating every element of the social organism. That is to say, capital expands into every corner of society, occupies every social space, incorporates everything into the capitalist system, and provides a basis for the legitimacy of capitalist modern civilization through cultural forms that align with capitalist values.
Contemporary alienation is not only manifested as production alienation where the refinement of the division of labor accelerates labor alienation; it also means that this labor alienation is wrapped in cultural value forms and products—such as consumerist culture, mass entertainment culture, and hedonistic culture—and the culture industry, all of which serve to maintain the capitalist operating mechanism. This forms a social alienation that diffuses into all fields and absorbs every individual. Within this, the alienated conditions people suffer no longer distinguish between class, identity, race, or group; instead, they are mired in a universal state of self-paradox: the more one indulges in external pleasure, the more one must endure the torment of internal pain. People are often in a contradictory state of existence, residing within the "iron cage" [2] of capitalist modern civilization which lacks value and meaning. This mode of alienation has already penetrated the marrow of social and cultural customs and is difficult to eradicate. This is the paramount focus of contemporary Western Leftist scholars’ cultural critique of the accelerationist alienation crisis in contemporary society. During the period of free-competition capitalism, labor alienation could be captured through the obvious misery and clear class opposition of the proletariat. However, after entering the period of monopoly capitalism, labor alienation has been hidden within the capitalist mode of flexible accumulation characterized by blurred class boundaries and decentralized labor. Social alienation has become ubiquitous throughout the entire capitalist acceleration system and cultural system. Capital keeps people busy making a living while simultaneously indulging them in pleasure, making it difficult for them to discern whether they are in a state of alienation, or even leading them to deceive themselves under the lies of freedom and autonomy. Therefore, in the critical theory of contemporary Western Leftist scholars, the critique of alienation often points toward dissatisfaction with social and cultural values, but rarely includes a scientific analysis penetrating the inherent contradictions of the capitalist mode of production.
Second, technological progress and the systematization of alienation. In the view of contemporary Western Leftist scholars, the mechanism by which social alienation becomes a universal fact lies in the logic of capital valorization, with science and technology acting as the mediator. Technology itself is neutral; when applied to different orders of rule and regulated by different systems, it produces different effects and impacts on society. Under the capitalist system, technology serves the ruling class and becomes a medium that promotes alienation. With the gradual maturation and rapid iteration of contemporary high technologies such as digital communication, artificial intelligence, big data, and cloud computing, once utilized by capitalism, they become important technical supports for the systematization of alienation. For example, digital production could originally serve to reduce carbon emissions and promote green production and consumption. However, the acceleration mechanism of capitalist modernity uses digital communication technology to aggressively promote consumerist culture, constantly creating false needs and expanding the digital capital market. This results in the consumption of more raw materials in the production process to maintain the abundance and diversity of commodities and the richness of profits and surplus value, causing a massive surge in energy consumption and carbon emissions, thereby exacerbating the ecological crisis. British political economist Graham Murdock points out that digital media platforms spare no effort in promoting a culture of overconsumption, which not only consumes a large amount of non-renewable natural resources but also causes ecological disasters to break out periodically. The COVID-19 pandemic that has recently plagued humanity is the latest and most powerful example.
The accelerationist evolution of the logic of capital valorization absorbs high technology to serve the accelerated expansion, concentration, and accumulation of capital. This reduces digital technology to a "Gestell" [3] (enframing) for the output of consumerist cultural values. Through new consumption mechanisms, it constantly manufactures and updates commodity consumption, dissolves commodity backlogs and inventories, and persuades people to buy more goods beyond their expected scope, leading to excessive resource consumption and deep ecological crises. Rosa emphasizes that accelerationism causes the "attitudes and values, fashions and lifestyles, social relations and obligations, groups, classes, environments, social vocabularies, and forms of practices and habitus" in the capitalist world to change at a continually increasing rate. Under the regulation of capitalist modernity, this change has not led to a more ideal "good life," but merely serves to ensure the more rational and rapid operation of the new consumption mechanisms born in acceleration—that is, the additional input of resources, the continuous expansion of production, and the renewed threat to the ecology. At the same time, digital technology can exert a "cloaking" function through the encoding of social elements, allowing irrational factors in society to be covered by codes while revealing content that benefits the ruling class. "Neither reality, referents, nor the substance of value can escape the shadow of the sign; only the symbolic (SYMBOLIQUE) remains." When social existence becomes a digital symbol, and when social relations are completely replaced by digital codes—even becoming programmable—the alienated situation humans encounter becomes more severe. Digital alienation reflects a new mode of social alienation; within the technical rationalization of digitization, it conceals the crisis of deepening alienation and obscures the catastrophic phenomena of original labor alienation, making the division of labor and capital exploitation more secretive. Contemporary society has not only failed to dissolve the crisis of alienation through technological progress but has, under the capitalist system, turned alienation into a systematic project with clear goals, high-tech mediation, and efficient operating mechanisms and methods. At this point, alienation is no longer just an "invisible" state of subject-object transposition that requires theoretical insight; it has become a system that has gained the value-recognition of the whole society, intensifying the overall crisis of capitalist society.
Third, disciplinary control and the legitimation of alienation. For the alienation system to achieve smooth self-renewal amidst uncertainty, the subtle discipline and control of social members by capitalism is indispensable. Utilizing digital communication technology, this political discipline can penetrate the entire society. Canadian accelerationist thinker Nick Srnicek points out that as platforms delve further into digital infrastructure and as society becomes increasingly dependent on them, understanding how platforms work and what they can do is vital for us. Facing a new capitalist world wrapped in and ruled by data, members of society have no choice but to compromise with reality and cater to the rules provided by the social control system. French philosopher Deleuze, in Negotiations, proposed that "control societies are taking over from disciplinary societies. 'Control' is the name Burroughs furnishes for the new monster, one that Foucault recognizes as our proximate future." "We are moving toward control societies that no longer operate by confining people but through continuous control and instant communication." Some contemporary Western Leftist scholars hold a pessimistic attitude toward the alienation crisis of contemporary Western capitalist society, realizing that the collusion between digital communication technology and capital will produce toxic side effects of one-dimensional control over the entire society. For instance, in the digital age, "we should treat data as a raw material that must be extracted; user activity is the natural source of this raw material. Like oil, data is a substance that is extracted, refined, and used in various ways." Nature and humanity are disciplined and calculated by digits and data; within the control of capitalism, they exist merely as labeled "raw materials" to be used and as symbolically fixed resources to create value. New identities are not born for freedom and liberation, but rather for the convenience of exploitation and control. Digits and platforms have thus become the boosters of new alienation.
Taking the digital management witnessed during the COVID-19 pandemic as an example, many contemporary Western Leftist scholars have critiqued the subtle disciplinary and control mechanisms of capitalist modernity. The German ecosocialist Benjamin Bratton, on the one hand, reflects on the relationship between humanity and ecology, while on the other, seeks potential solutions to move beyond the pandemic by analyzing the modalities of the control society. In The Revenge of the Real, he points out that "when reality—in the form of a virus, of our biological vulnerability to it, and of our inadequate governing responses—crashes through those consoling fancies and ideologies, we have to learn those hardest lessons." [4] Here, he explicitly expresses the failure of the control society in managing the pandemic. In The Stack, he further notes: "Cloud, network, zone, social graph, ecology, city, formal and informal violence, weird theologies—they all stack on top of one another. This massive composite machine is becoming a planetary-scale technology based on the properties and boundaries of spatial order." Relying on technology for pandemic control and management has become an inevitable choice for this era and society; yet it is precisely because of the singularity of this choice that the entire society faces the risk of falling into a manipulated surveillance capitalism. This is precisely the logic revealed by the cutting-edge Israeli historian Yuval Noah Harari in 21 Lessons for the 21st Century: "When the biotech revolution merges with the infotech revolution, Big Data algorithms might be able to monitor and understand my feelings much better than I can, and authority might shift away from humans to computers." It is evident from this that the contemporary ecological crisis, marked by the global outbreak of COVID-19, profoundly reflects what Habermas called the "legitimation crisis" of capitalist society—that is, the inherent irrationality of the capitalist system itself. It relies on the capital absorption of society and ideological control to maintain a self-enclosed order characterized by inherent contradictions, the inevitable result of which is a march toward self-destruction. Contemporary Western Leftist scholars pay more attention to the critique of cultural values, but weaken the scientific grasp of the inherent contradictions in capitalist relations of production provided by the methodology of Marxist historical materialism.
Although contemporary Western Leftist scholars have keenly captured the arrival of the digital surveillance society and the new crises of alienation it brings—such as "accelerated alienation," "digitally dominated alienation," and "monitored alienation"—they have made errors in their judgment regarding the path to liberation by abandoning the basic stance, principles, and methods of Marxism. For instance, in the view of Western accelerationist scholars, the pervasive social alienation within a continuous process of acceleration is both an indispensable link in the capitalist system of rule and the switch for its self-destruction. Therefore, on the path to liberation, they tend to choose to let this acceleration intensify until capitalism reaches the point of self-destruction, thereby achieving a natural transition from capitalism to socialism.
II. The Emergence of the New Subject: From the Proletariat to the "New Proletariat"
In the vision of contemporary Western Leftist scholars, with the in-depth development of capitalism, alienation is no longer merely the alienation of a specific class or stratum, but has become a pervasive existential and historico-cultural condition for all members of society. Consequently, the subject tasked with overthrowing the state of alienation and conducting the struggle for liberation cannot be limited to a single class or stratum. Instead, there must be a re-analysis of the structure of the socio-historical subject, a re-recognition of the subjective identity of the social liberation movement, and a re-definition of the roles and functions of the socio-historical subject. This is the theoretical background against which Western Leftist scholars in the post-industrial era have launched an extensive discussion on whether the proletariat is still the subject of labor, and whether it still exists and plays a historical role as a class unit. Whether based on the "flexible accumulation" model of contemporary capitalism—believing that the subject of labor in the proletarian sense no longer exists—or based on the "Great Refusal" of culture in response to the total crisis of capitalist modernity characterized by pervasive social alienation, contemporary Western Leftist scholars have all denied the contemporary relevance of the Marxist concept of the proletariat and redefined the subject of social liberation movements. We can gain a glimpse into their new understanding of the socio-historical subject through their various radical critiques of the problems of capitalist modernity.
The prominent ecological crisis in the contemporary capitalist world poses an unprecedented challenge to the entire human ecosystem. Based on changes in the objective environment and contemporary transitions in the capitalist mode of production, contemporary Western Leftist scholars believe that the concept of the subject must also be adjusted. The "proletariat," which bears the historical task of breaking the old capitalist world and establishing a new communist world, must also possess new connotations and identities; they have crowned this the "New Proletariat."
First, the "New Proletariat" must possess radicalism. Contemporary Western Leftist scholars believe that previous concepts of the proletariat and the working class were mainly defined according to the ownership of the means of production. As a simple and intuitive conceptual category, these were inevitably infiltrated by the capitalist notion of value neutrality. Furthermore, the term "working class" is even less conceptually clear than "proletariat" and is, under certain conditions, a mutation of a neutral social stratum concept, leaving vast space for the legitimation of capitalist exploitation and oppression. The "New Proletariat" must discard any tendency toward compromise; radicalism is its essential attribute. They argue that although Marx usually used "proletariat" and "working class" as synonyms, significant differences exist: the "working class" is a descriptive term belonging to the field of knowledge, while "proletariat" signifies the operator of truth—the source of power for revolutionary struggle. They believe that the irrational capitalist private ownership of intellectual property has stripped "general intellect" from the subject; added to this, bio-genetic technology has rendered the subject an object that is more easily manipulated. Therefore, various conflicts and antagonisms in the process of capitalist development have seriously threatened the foundations of human existence. The subject has been reduced to an abstract, hollow subject in the Cartesian sense—that is, an "immaterial subjectivity" devoid of substance and content. The Slovenian scholar Slavoj Žižek proposed the image of the "New Proletariat" as a "subject reduced to the Cartesian 'cogito' approaching the zero point." Its essence is a demand for the "New Proletariat" to start anew from the zero point where both material and spiritual possessions are naught, maintaining a radicalism that rebels against all existing frameworks to reshape its own subjective connotation.
Second, the "New Proletariat" is a collection of the broadly "excluded." The reason contemporary Western Leftist scholars emphasize the radicalism of the "New Proletariat" so much is mainly because they believe the contemporary oppressed at the bottom of society are the "politically excluded." Politics should function to provide a public space for equal participation in public affairs, enable social members to enjoy equal civil rights, and maintain social fairness and justice—this is the functional orientation that modern Western democratic politics has always heralded. However, under the capitalist system, politics has increasingly become a tool for privileged classes to suppress resistance and whitewash peace. Contemporary Western Leftist scholars critique this regressive, privileged politics, arguing that to change the unfair public order, a community of the "New Proletariat" must be built. In their view, the poor, refugees, and immigrants are all victims and scapegoats of this game of political exclusion. They are deprived of the right to access public goods, positioned outside the control of state power, and cannot be incorporated into a legitimate space for citizens, thus becoming the "living dead" under the capitalist order of rule. Yet it is precisely this type of "New Proletariat" that possesses revolutionary potential, hoping to become both the revolutionary subject of political liberation and a new type of leading group that eliminates the alienation crisis of capitalism and constructs a new social order. The French theorist Jacques Rancière pointed out that "politics exists wherever the count of parts and parties of society is disturbed by the inscription of a part of those who have no part." [5] Those social existents whom Rancière calls the "part of those who have no part" (le partage des sans-part), excluded from politics, possess at all times the possibility of resisting and challenging the existing political order. In the view of contemporary Western Leftist scholars, they do not acquiesce to or endure capitalist rule over society, but rather seek to establish a new territory within the homogenized and totalized manipulation of existing society, existing in a posture that is negative, universal, and developmental. This means they have no fixed, "legitimated specific characteristics," but rather appear as the "excluded" in the posture of rebels. Therefore, they are a direct, omnipresent force of resistance.
Finally, the "New Proletariat" should possess a full consciousness of community. Contemporary Western Leftist scholars—including the French scholar Alain Badiou, the Italian scholar Antonio Negri, and the American scholar Mike Davis—all emphasize the importance of the "New Proletariat's" community consciousness. They believe that whether the "New Proletariat" is radical is mainly reflected in whether it possesses a distinct identification with community values. The "New Proletariat" is no longer the proletariat that has lost its class consciousness in the Lukácsean sense, but is rather a community of value identification that is already aware of the crisis of capitalist modernity and consciously participates in a "New Communism" to lead humanity out of the crisis. They do not distinguish themselves by political or social status, but gather together only because of a shared value identification to realize the reorganization and reconstruction of the entire social order. Negri noted: "What is a strike? A strike is the destruction of a production system that brings objective obstacles. Because these new capitalist machines are filthy, they are machines that shut down desire; but once these machines are destroyed, it is necessary to reawaken the desire for solidarity, the desire for production." Therefore, "when I say 'production,' I do not only mean the factory; I mean the production of society, and especially reproduction—this is very important." He clearly realizes that the "New Proletariat," referred to as the "multitude," finds its importance in re-appropriating production through the modality of community. Only the "New Proletariat" acting as a community is the subjective power for resolving the crisis of capitalist modernity. Any attempt to overcome the total crisis of capitalist society through bourgeois leadership or internal capitalist adjustments has, through the terrible evolution of real life, revealed the role of political lies. In critiquing the falsity of Western democratic politics, Badiou pointed out that after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the practice of capitalist countries in reserving better medical resources and survival opportunities for the rich while ignoring the life and death of the poor completely punctured the lies vigorously promoted by the bourgeoisie, such as "everyone is equal before the virus" and "we are with you."
The understanding of the proletariat among contemporary Western Leftist scholars has changed its context, initiating new social movements that use a radical approach to advance political struggle or the construction of a new order. Although they still regard the proletariat as the core force for achieving social change and civilizational progress, the connotation of this socio-historical subject is already far removed from the Marxist definition and understanding of the proletariat. They understand the new components and organizational forms of the proletariat more from the perspectives of differences in political identity and cultural values. They tend more toward continuing the tradition of Western political philosophy, striving to find equality within difference or seeking a standard to balance difference and equality. It is not difficult to find that in the process of this theoretical exploration, contemporary Western Leftist scholars have either fallen into a bottomless abyss of rootless definitions of subjective political identity through endless metaphysical pursuit; or they have become mired in the mud of antinomy, finding no way to change; or they have lapsed into utopian reverie, remaining stuck in theoretical debates about the rationality of the "New Proletariat," "new social movements," and "New Communism," while treading water in the practical aspects of innovating social governance models or overthrowing power politics and hegemony. In final analysis, this is essentially because their faith in communism is not firm, and their adherence to the basic Marxist stance, principles, and methods is not thorough. They merely take Marxist theory as an object of academic research rather than as a scientific guiding ideology for promoting social change.
III. Conceptualizing the New Path: From Critiquing Neoliberalism to Revitalizing "Communism"
Regarding the way out of the total crisis of contemporary capitalist society, contemporary Western Leftist scholars mainly propose the path of "New Communism." Through their critique of neoliberalism, they demonstrate that capitalism is reaching its end and illustrate how "New Communism" will be constructed within the new social movements of the "New Proletariat." In this regard, taking the ecological crisis as an example, we look back at the theoretical understanding and attitudes of contemporary Western Leftist scholars regarding the global COVID-19 pandemic to examine their choice of path in critiquing capitalist modernity and its limitations.
As a primary scheme for the capitalist system to internally overcome and self-regulate its periodic crises, neoliberal policies achieved a degree of self-recovery and self-repair for a certain period. However, this "atavistic" liberal market economy soon reaped what it had sown in a new round of periodic economic crises, causing the myth of the "end of history" [6] to collapse under its own weight. When facing a major global public health crisis, regimes adhering to neoliberal policies were not only stretched thin but even allowed the epidemic prevention and control situation to deteriorate continuously, drawing condemnation from the international community and criticism from theorists. David Harvey, a representative figure of British New Marxism, criticized in his article Anti-Capitalist Politics in the Time of COVID-19 that neoliberalism was not a "good medicine" for self-redemption during the pandemic; instead, it exposed its inherent "toxicity" in full view. Governments tilted massive fiscal and tax subsidies toward large capitalists, private enterprises, and the wealthy, even placing funds directly into their hands. Meanwhile, the proletariat had nothing to rely on as they were deprived of vaccines, medical resources, food, political rights, and even human rights, constantly facing the danger of being ruthlessly cast into "bare life" [7]. Italian scholar Giorgio Agamben, when facing the pandemic, repeatedly emphasized that "everything points to the fact that the foundations of our society are no longer love, but have been replaced by distance, separation, suspicion, and even hatred." "We are witnessing the demise of an era, the demise of the era of capitalist democracy."
The logic of capital and consumerist mechanisms, which have long sustained the operation of capitalism, revealed their true forms under the heavy pressure of the global COVID-19 pandemic and gradually lost their internal momentum. The inability of the proletariat and the broad masses to make ends meet was no longer sufficient to sustain a development model based on "stimulating consumption." Both "experiential consumption" and "compensatory consumption" were struck down amidst inflation and surging unemployment. The sharp reduction in labor market demand, the unequal distribution of medical resources, the rapid widening of the gap between rich and poor, and the surge in class contradictions all highlighted the failure of neoliberal policies in responding to the pandemic and exiting the ecological crisis. American philosopher Noam Chomsky, from the perspective of the public health crisis, criticized the vulnerability of neoliberalism in the face of the pandemic and ecological disasters. He pointed out that the neoliberal veneration of the free market and its rejection of government intervention are two sides of the same process. Neoliberalism demands a free and relaxed market environment to serve social development, arguing that government intervention is the root of all evil. Yet the free market does not serve social development as promised; it is not a place to solve public development problems, but merely a "private venue" and "economic advisor" for a few large financial groups and capitalists. Therefore, the free market cannot provide solutions for the poor and the proletariat to deal with the pandemic and ecological crises. Under the dominance of neoliberalism, capitalism on the one hand declares that "the massive failure of the market is the root of social problems," while on the other hand vehemently asserting that "government cannot solve our problems, the government itself is the problem and can do nothing," eventually resulting in a breakdown under the superposition of this double failure. American sociologist [8] Polanyi argued that neoliberalism has greatly damaged the survival rights and interests of the masses at the bottom. The billionaires, big entrepreneurs, and financial tycoons living at the apex of the capitalist pyramid had long ago monopolized vaccines and medical supplies, even flying private jets to escape epidemic areas at the first moment, leaving the broad masses of proletarians and impoverished people exposed to the pandemic. In the article Is the Pandemic the Fault of Globalization?, he criticized how neoliberalism ruthlessly abandoned the "basis upon which the various groups of civil society depend for their safety and activity" (those deprived of all property and the rank of direct labor, i.e., concrete labor) [9] when the pandemic occurred; how it transformed workers into "one-dimensional" people by depriving them of "all property and direct labor" through the operation of the logic of surplus value; how it stripped workers of their spiritual freedom in the process of stimulating consumerist motives; how it dragged individuals into "Satan’s machine" [10] amidst unrestricted capital accumulation; and how it triggered market failure and pervasive crisis due to excessive emphasis on free market competition and laissez-faire capital accumulation. When contemporary Western left-wing scholars critique the structural problems of neoliberalism through theoretical reflection on the COVID-19 pandemic and the ecological crisis, they see that the capitalist system is not the end of human history, nor the optimal model for leading the way out of the ecological crisis and the pandemic; they are more actively issuing calls to revitalize socialism/communism.
Contemporary Western left-wing scholars’ use of concepts such as "implicit communism" has clear definitions and is manifested through their critique of current COVID-19 response strategies. Slavoj Žižek, in his article Is Barbarism with a Human Face Our Fate?, focused on the Trump administration, pointing out that while Trump on the one hand ridiculed the use of the word "communism," he on the other hand proposed that the government take over private enterprises and invested $2 trillion to provide aid to private firms under the support of the Defense Production Act. This method of disparaging communism while simultaneously employing government intervention is an outright self-contradiction. Based on this, Žižek argues that re-invoking "communism" to respond to the pandemic crisis, the public safety crisis, and the ecological crisis is a necessary rebuttal and response to neoliberal rhetoric and measures. American postmodernist thinker Judith Butler expressed support for Žižek’s critique of neoliberalism. She believes that the capitalist system's "survival of the fittest" attitude under the pandemic clearly adopts a "double standard." This "double standard behavior" intensified class contradictions and also activated people's "collective desire for radical equality." It is precisely in the process of resisting the inequality of medical distribution and life-saving treatment that a "socialist imagination" regarding the end of the pandemic and the ecological crisis was rapidly awakened. American scholar Chomsky pointed out: "Solidarity, justice, and internationalism are early signs of the rise of a new society. Now, the pandemic outbreak points directly to it. More than 150 years ago, Marx and Engels called it the 'realm of freedom,' namely communism. This is its proper name." Russian scholar Buzgalin pointed out: "Only through common action can we overcome this disaster. Quarantine is not so much a means of saving ourselves as it is a necessary means of saving everyone." Rancière emphasized that escaping the ecological crisis and the pandemic catastrophe requires reconstructing a future socialist framework, re-understanding that history will enter "post-communism" or "new communism," and re-exploring and constructing "a new form once called communism."
"New communism" is fundamentally different from scientific socialism. Because the results of contemporary Western left-wing scholars' tracing of the crisis of capitalist modernity deviate from the basic standby, principles, and methods of Marxism, their theoretical construction of the path for a future society cannot extend or expand the true meaning of scientific socialism. Although they hold correct theoretical aspirations for a new form of international society that realizes ecological civilization in the future, they mostly remain at the level of utopian descriptions of a community vision characterized by what they call "cosmopolitanism" or "common well-being." They are not clear about the subjective forces responsible for transcending capitalist modernity and constructing a "new communism" society; they merely repeatedly emphasize that these new subjects are neither the traditional proletariat nor generalized atomized individuals. They emphasize finding common value identification among communities with diverse cultural values to form a new type of collective organization with a community consciousness that consciously resists the existing unjust order of rule. However, they are unable to provide sufficient explanations on issues such as how to reach consensus amidst differences in cultural values, how to make the imagined consciousness of solidarity persist until the established order of rule is overthrown, how to construct a new social order within pluralism, and how to determine the standards of legitimacy for the new social order. This is because they have abandoned the scientific cognition of socio-historical subjects provided by the scientific worldview and methodology, mistakenly entrusting the core force of social transformation to interest-based communities where intergroup interests take priority, rather than to a true community aimed at the "association of free individuals." Their conceptions of future communism are merely a reactive utopia in the face of the total crisis of capitalist modernity.
(Author Biography: Han Qiuhong is a Professor and Doctoral Supervisor at the Faculty of Marxism, Northeast Normal University) Web Editor: Tong Xin Source: Marxism Studies, 2022, No. 3