Sun Ying and Han Qiuhong: The "Group Portraits" and "Chaos" of Contemporary Foreign Marxist Ideological Trends
Foreign Marxism is an essential component of the camp of Marxist theory and practice. It also serves as a "stone from another mountain" [1] that can provide a mirror for contemporary Chinese Marxism.
Since the 1970s, with the emergence and development of globalized financial capitalism, capitalism has exhibited a series of new changes and characteristics, giving rise to new contradictions and problems. In response, traditional Western Marxism—which took the critique of advanced capitalist industrial civilization as its mission—has adapted to these shifts by transforming into contemporary foreign Marxist trends of thought. This transformation is characterized by a new plurality of values, ideas, and positions. To a certain extent, this signifies the "end of Western Marxism" and highlights a fragmented phenomenon where the "glory of competing powers" [2] coexists with the "suspicion of emerging chaos." This situation especially requires us to conduct an objective examination, discernment, and identification of these trends based on a firm commitment to Marxist positions, viewpoints, and methods.
The Descriptive Nature of Social Critique has Shallowed the View of Social History and Methodology
Historical materialism is one of Marx’s two great discoveries; it is the core theoretical weapon for scientifically understanding and critiquing the essence of capitalism and the laws of development of capitalist society. However, in their theoretical descriptions and social critiques of the new changes in contemporary capitalism, contemporary foreign Marxist trends have weakened or even remodeled the worldview and methodology of historical materialism.
First, the theoretical critique of contemporary capitalism within these trends primarily focuses on summarizing the new manifestations of capitalist society and its crises. They often neglect an in-depth analysis of the internal socio-historical roots and drivers of changes in the relations of production and transformations in economic structures. They are adept at vividly portraying the new changes and characteristics of contemporary capitalism from various perspectives: defining the monopoly form as the stage of "International Monopoly Capitalism," describing the capital form as "Globalized Financial Capitalism," emphasizing the arrival of the "Digital Capitalism" era through technological change, arguing from the trajectory of capitalist development that we are entering the dead end of "Late Capitalism," and suggesting from the perspective of civilizational modes that humanity is entering a "post-industrial civilization," "information society," "high-tech society," or "post-capitalist society." Their "diagnosis and treatment" of contemporary capitalist crises are equally vivid and diverse (accelerationist crisis, legitimation crisis, new alienation crisis, alienation of everyday life, crisis of semiotic symbolism, and the crisis of mass culture in the "post-truth" and "hyper-real" eras). They address modernity issues under the capitalist system from multiple angles such as digital exploitation, the decline of value, political disorder, uncontrolled technology, overlapping identities, cultural fusion, and the interlacing of time and space. These theoretical descriptions once again confirm, from various sides, Marx’s famous dictum that the bourgeoisie "creates a world after its own image." However, one rarely sees them using the methodological principles of historical materialism to deeply analyze the internal structural elements and essential dynamics that necessarily led capitalism to its contemporary new form. The social-historical perspective is increasingly marginalized within their analytical frameworks.
Second, contemporary foreign Marxism continuously injects analytical paradigms from politics, sociology, geography, ecology, and psychology into Marxism. While this has expanded the theoretical horizons and discourse of the Marxist critique of capitalism, it has also had the side effect of diluting and dissolving the methodological principles of historical materialism with the tools of other social or natural sciences. The Frankfurt School’s critical theory integrated sociological observation and analysis into Marxism; structuralism provided Marxism with a basis for overdetermination rooted in linguistic signs and positivism; Freudianism added micro-paradigms of psychology and psychoanalysis; Ecological Marxism reconstructed historical materialism using political ecology; Feminist Marxism demanded a reconciliation between the "history-blindness" of feminism and the "gender-blindness" of historical materialism; spatial critique theory called for the reconstruction of historical materialism into "historical-geographical materialism" on the methodological foundation of human geography; and post-Marxist trends sought discursive support to deconstruct the "meta-narratives" of historical materialism. These diverse schools often emphasize the analytical paradigms they have injected into Marxism, treating Marxist theory as an instrumental object for self-confirmation or self-perfection from their own theoretical standpoints. They deviate from or even abandon the socio-historical view and methodology of historical materialism. Therefore, although they claim to "reconstruct historical materialism," they are actually following a "non-Marxist" path that betrays it.
The Strategy of Multi-Centric Value Identity Betrays the Principle of the Proletarian Standpoint
The proletarian standpoint is one of the hallmarks of Marxist faith and principles. From its inception, Marxist theory has taken human liberation as its highest goal, guiding the proletariat in its struggle for liberation from a position consistent with the universal interests of humanity, emphasizing the proletariat's status as the subject of history. On this point, Georg Lukács stated: "The proletariat can only perfect itself by annihilating itself, by fighting its class struggle through to the end, and by realizing the classless society." During the period when capitalism transitioned from free competition to monopoly capitalism, early Western Marxism recognized the objective situation and internal stratification of the proletariat, yet it remained firmly on a class footing. It emphasized that the proletariat should enhance its "soft power," such as "class consciousness" and "cultural hegemony," to consciously shoulder the historical task of revolutionary liberation through self-perfection. However, this proletarian standpoint and the remaining logic of realistic revolution have shifted fundamentally along with the changes in capitalism. Developing into the current New Left, the proletariat has been replaced by pluralistic subjects.
Various schools of contemporary foreign Marxism have reached a degree of consensus on the "obsolescence" of Marxism. Specifically regarding the social existence of the proletariat, Western radical leftist scholars believe that the era of two opposing classes defined by the ownership of the means of production is gone forever. They argue that the traditional proletariat does not exist in contemporary capitalist society; the basic units of social stratification have shifted to subcultural groups, pluralistic interest groups, or generalized marginal political groups based on cultural and political identity. Concepts such as Jacques Rancière’s "part of those who have no part," Antonio Negri’s "multitude," Giorgio Agamben’s "bare life," Slavoj Žižek’s "new proletariat" as a "subject reduced to a point approaching zero of the Cartesian cogito," and Nancy Fraser’s "bivalent collectivities" have become their representative concepts of the historical subject that transcends the proletariat. In the eyes of Western radical leftists, it is precisely these radical, self-aware pluralistic groups—excluded due to different political identities—that possess the potential to resist and challenge the existing political order. They favor autonomous movements and new social movements led by these subjects, viewing them as effective ways to promote social justice and implement a "new communism."
Clearly, their ideas and theories of communism are a far cry from scientific socialism. They replace the "association of free individuals" with notions of "commonality" and "political community." Regarding the future of communism, they replace the actual revolutionary movement with abstract utopian hypotheses and identity struggles of radical democracy. Regarding the forces relied upon for communism, they replace the proletariat with pluralistic subjects. These absurd views exhibit characteristics of relativism, archaism, and romanticism. The problem lies not in the radical left's recognition of social stratification, but in the fact that they view the emerging or unjustly treated social strata and groups as "intergroups" with independent cultural value systems, replacing class relations with intergroup relations. Based on this, they convert the path of liberation—the proletarian seizure of power, which possesses socio-historical necessity—into a struggle for political identity, pinning their hopes on potential contingencies.
Consequently, we often see contemporary radical leftists spending vast amounts of energy searching for a yardstick to balance difference and equality, and reinterpreting the political discourse of "democracy" and "equality." As a result, they either fall into a bottomless abyss of infinitely defining the political identity of the subject through endless metaphysical inquiry, get stuck in the mire of antinomies with no way out, or lapse into utopian reveries. They remain trapped in theoretical debates over the rationality of "new communism" while treading water in terms of practical movements to innovate social governance models or overthrow hegemonic political rule. Fundamentally, contemporary foreign Marxism lacks a firm belief in communism and follows Marxist principles and methods inconsistently. They often treat Marxist theory as a theoretical tool for academic debate and research rather than as a scientific guiding ideology for promoting social change.
The Humanist Standpoint and Method Weaken the Scientific and Revolutionary Nature of Marx's Critique of Capitalism
From the perspective of theoretical characteristics and modes of thinking, an important reason for the pluralism, lack of consensus, and practical weakness of contemporary foreign Marxism is its return to a humanist axiology and cultural-philosophical critique, rather than utilizing the critique of political economy and historical materialism as methodological principles.
In the history of foreign Marxist critiques of capitalism, a persistent and universal thread is the critique of alienation. From Lukács revealing "reification" and reified consciousness in the "universalization of the commodity form," to the Frankfurt School’s theories of consumer alienation, alienation of everyday life, technological alienation, psychological alienation, semiotic alienation, alienation of the spectacle, and accelerationist alienation, and finally to today’s digital, platform, environmental, and spatial alienation—all are inseparable from the humanist tradition of value critique. The logic of "ought-to-be" [3] critique reflected in these works often stems from philosophical speculation, pointing toward debates over the rationality and legitimacy of cultural values. Meanwhile, it overlooks or obscures the political-economic analysis of the internal structural contradictions of capitalism based on the scientific worldview of historical materialism, as well as the implementation of the path of revolutionary practice. Perry Anderson, summarizing the contemporary critical logic of foreign Marxism, noted that it "theoretically shifts its center fundamentally toward philosophy," rather than focusing on economic or political structures. David Harvey similarly recognized and critiqued this "ought-to-be" logic as a "political activity that avoids core contradictions and can only deal with symptoms." From the dimension of political philosophy, Nancy Fraser also admitted, "We are far from having a convincing answer."
Consequently, the cultural-philosophical critique based on humanist principles inevitably falls into utopianism or manifests as formalized liberation schemes limited to paper or imagination, such as political struggle or cultural rejection. Marxism, however, has always emphasized that the engine of history is revolution, not critique. Remaining at the level of any form of speculation or so-called "revolution of consciousness" is not a true driving force of history. More important than endless theoretical debate is reaching a valuable consensus and forming a united force to promote socio-historical development and human progress. We must firm up the basic Marxist positions, viewpoints, and methods, rely on the power of the masses as the main subject, and liberate and develop the productive forces through continuous revolutionary practice. This involves constantly innovating material modes of production and life, comprehensively raising the level of material and spiritual civilization, and gradually moving toward the realization of human liberation.
In a certain sense, contemporary foreign Marxism has launched multi-dimensional critiques of real social issues concerning human survival, such as environmental issues, social equality and justice, cyberspace security, social psychology, and the rule of law. Schools such as Ecological Marxism, Feminist Marxism, Marxist spatial critique, and historical-geographical materialism are surging, attempting to combine natural sciences and humanities with Marxist theory. They continue the critical tradition of Western Marxism in identifying problems, critiquing the status quo, and expanding the global horizons and interdisciplinary integration of Marxist theory, fully demonstrating the theoretical vitality of Marxism. However, as stated above, contemporary foreign Marxism is simultaneously moving toward a "post-academic" abyss of fragmented deconstruction of basic Marxist positions through these diverse "avatars." It has dismembered the integrity of the Marxist theoretical system, making the failure to reach theoretical consensus and practical synergy the greatest limitation and obstacle to its development.