Yan Yan: The Absolute Boundary of Capital and Its Rational Transcendence
Marx’s writing of Capital and his long-term engagement in the study of political economy were fundamentally aimed at achieving the free and comprehensive development of human beings through the critique and transcendence of capital. Unlike various idealistic humanists and utopian socialists, Marx sought to scientifically clarify the operational mechanisms of capital. By revealing its internal contradictions (absolute boundaries), he demonstrated the historical necessity and practical possibility of transcending capital. However, the complexity of the problem lies in the fact that Marx and Engels failed to foresee that a market economy could operate under socialist conditions; consequently, they did not analyze how a socialist society should treat capital. Yet, Marx’s assertion of "using capital itself to abolish capital" [1] indicates that in circumstances where the material prerequisites for a communist society are not yet present, retaining and developing capital is entirely necessary. Therefore, exploring how to leverage the positive role of capital while effectively inhibiting its negative effects under the conditions of a socialist market economy is an unavoidable and major theoretical issue.
Regarding the thesis of transcending capital, the Eastern European Neo-Marxist theorist István Mészáros provided extensive analysis in his work Beyond Capital. This article intends to evaluate the "theory of transcending capital" with a view toward promoting research on related issues. Mészáros was a renowned Western Marxist theorist and a student of Lukács. In Theories of Comparative Politics, the American scholar Ronald H. Chilcote categorized him alongside Bertell Ollman as a Hegelian Marxist. In reality, however, Mészáros sought to "take Hegelian Marxism as a basis, yet go beyond it." The difference between Mészáros and Lukács lies in the fact that while Lukács's History and Class Consciousness was clearly indebted to Hegel's intellectual legacy, Mészáros, in Beyond Capital, not only rejected Hegel's "uncritical positivism" but also questioned Lukács’s concept of mediation and theory of class consciousness.
Although Mészáros expressed dissatisfaction with Hegel’s conservatism, he greatly admired the method of totality. He emphasized that capital is a totalizing system and a mode of social metabolic control [2] that stands above individuals. He argued that "the life chances of individuals are determined according to the actual position that the social groups to which they belong occupy in the hierarchical command structure of capital." Unlike bourgeois economists and philosophers, Mészáros argued that the capital system possesses fatal flaws. Its trend toward infinite expansion will inevitably encounter absolute boundaries, leading to severe destructive consequences. Because capital refuses to acknowledge the existence of absolute boundaries, its presumptuous and reckless posture will summon the "spectre of total uncontrollability." Currently, the rule of capital has penetrated every aspect of daily life; humanity’s only hope is to transcend capital and turn toward an entirely new order of social metabolism.
Marx long ago foresaw the death throes of capital. He pointed out: "For us, the difficult question is this: on the Continent, revolution is imminent and will immediately assume a socialist character. Is it not bound to be crushed in this little corner, considering that in a far greater territory bourgeois society is still on the ascendant?" [3] Marx was not only aware of the incredibly powerful force of capital but also foresaw that the global expansion of capital would most likely stifle revolution; after all, "no social formation is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed." Mészáros’s analysis of the absolute boundaries of capital is grounded in Marx’s assertions, while incorporating practical considerations of new changes in capitalism—such as the transformation of periodic economic crises into totalizing structural crises, the emergence of the consumer society, and the strengthening of state regulation. Regardless, the nature of capital's infinite expansion remains unchanged, and the absolute boundaries always exist. The pretentious attempt of capital to transcend these boundaries to achieve "perpetual peace" can only result in the opposite and bring about its own humiliation. With the end of capital’s historical ascendant phase, the absolute boundaries have been reactivated. However, capital would rather perish with humanity than vanish of its own accord. This leaves no choice but to transcend capital. While agents of the bourgeoisie claim "there is no alternative" (TINA), Mészáros emphasizes that the absolute boundary is the fate of capital. Although adjustments to the relations of production may prolong the life of capitalism, in the long run, capital is destined to perish. Because the absolute boundary is the necessary condition for the existence of capital, if one must admit "there is no alternative," it can only be that there is no alternative to transcending capital and moving toward socialism.
I. The Irreconcilable Contradiction Between Transnational Capital and the Nation-State
The relationship between universality and particularity has always been a focus for philosophers. Hegel believed that people should pursue universal things: "To rise to the universal is the infinite, urgent requirement of our age." Capital contains an inherent claim to universality; it must constantly expand and cross national borders to become a global existence. It is in this sense that Marx acknowledged the objective trend of globalization in capital, emphasizing that "the true task of bourgeois society is the establishment of the world market (at least in outline) and of production based upon it." He believed that the formation of world history and universal intercourse were necessary prerequisites for the realization of the communist cause. The problem is that capitalist society has failed to handle the relationship between universality and particularity, resulting in an irreconcilable contradiction between transnational capital and the nation-state. Whether it be Kant’s "perpetual peace," Smith’s "invisible hand," or Hegel’s "ethical state," all attempted to sublate the dualistic opposition between universality and particularity. In the end, however, "perpetual peace" sank into subjectivist fantasy, while the "invisible hand" and the "ethical state" fell into "uncritical positivism."
Hegel distinguished between the "ethical state" as an earthly divinity and the "concrete state" in reality, attempting to unify universality and particularity. He believed the "cunning of reason" could achieve this unity. However, this was equivalent to stating that social development possesses an overall harmony and that "universal eternal capital" would become the end of history. It is evident that Hegel’s idealist view of the state is conservative and closed. The leap from civil society to the ethical state does not mean that human society will enter a new stage of historical development; rather, it means the logical end of modern history. "This logical end must simultaneously be identified as the final completion of all modern social institutions."
Mészáros profoundly perceived that Hegel’s "uncritical positivism" originated from the views of national economists. Like Smith’s "invisible hand," its inevitable result is the "inability to identify the inseparable destructive side within the productive progress of the capital system." As Marx criticized, Hegel "sees only the positive side of labor, not its negative side." Hegel's primary problem was confusing theoretical contradictions with real-world contradictions. Once it is determined that the ethical state can remedy the innate defect of the non-morality of civil society, one will inevitably overlook all contradictions triggered by capital in real society, thereby falling into the position of bourgeois apologetics. Hegel attempted to use the idealized ethical state to contain the contradictions of civil society, but the result was the legitimization of both civil society and the capital system.
Whether Hegel ignored particularity remains a matter of debate in academic circles. Some scholars believe that in Hegel’s vision, "difference and individuality are both insignificant and trivial." In fact, however, Hegel sometimes favored particularity. For instance, in the Elements of the Philosophy of Right, he emphasized that the state in reality is essentially an individual state and a particular state; every nation has a state system suitable for itself, and independence is the basic freedom and highest honor of a nation. Overall, Hegel believed that transnational capital (universality) could coexist peacefully with the nation-state (particularity). But in reality, the contradiction between the two is unsolvable within the capital system. On the one hand, capital cannot eliminate its trend toward infinite expansion; on the other hand, the nation-state will certainly defend the particular interests of its own nation. Furthermore, the circulation of capital requires a social environment of equality and justice, yet the maintenance of capital’s rule requires the establishment of an unequal relationship with labor.
Hegel realized that interest conflicts and contradictions would inevitably exist between nation-states because "particularity itself is without moderation or measure." However, he opposed Plato’s Republic, believing that such attempts to exclude particularity were futile. Hegel disagreed with Kant’s "league of princes" and "perpetual peace," viewing these concepts as weak and illusory. Instead, he advocated relying on the dialectical movement of the Absolute Spirit and achieving the unity of universality and particularity through the ethical state. But as Mészáros said, this unity is equally abstract and false, also failing to escape the value-postulate of the "ought" (Sollen) [4]. "Hegel often opposed letting the 'ought' intrude into philosophy. In fact, despite this, what could be more clamorous than the 'ought' of this illusory thinking compared to the way he himself made historical development end in the idols of reason and the realized modern state?"
Mészáros discovered that capital, as a universalizing force, always bears the characteristic of "overreaching itself" (acting beyond its capacity). In reality, however, it must be constrained by particularity, because particularity constitutes the basic condition for the realization of universality. The problem is that as long as unequal relations still exist in society, the contradiction between universality and particularity cannot be resolved. People seem to be left with only two choices: either to continue struggling within the capital system or to thoroughly transcend capital. Mészáros argued that the infinite expansion of capital is an illusion originating from the non-historical affirmation of the order of capital metabolism. The truth of history is that "the structural mismatch between the material reproductive structure of global capital and its totalizing political command structure—diverse nation-states with difficult-to-transcend 'personalities'—merely foreshadows the increasing sharpening of antagonisms and the necessity of the primary contradiction." Therefore, Kant’s "perpetual peace" and "league of nations" are merely subjectivist utopias, and Hegel’s "cunning of reason" is nothing but the forced logic of historical philosophy. All efforts to resolve the contradictions of capitalist society, as long as they do not question the capital system and its principle of unequal rule, will be impossible.
When the expansion of capital reaches a point that civil society can no longer accommodate, the state is no longer a panacea for capital valorization; rather, it must inevitably move toward dissolution alongside capital.
II. The Destruction of the Material Conditions for the Reproduction of Social Metabolism
Marx argued that capital is "an endless and limitless drive to go beyond its own limiting barrier. Every limit is and must be a limitation for capital." This implies that in capitalist society, the relationship between capital and nature can only be one of antagonism: capital always seeks to create more exchange value, while nature can only provide finite physical resources. The ceaseless expansion of capital inevitably leads to the destruction of nature. Given that nature is "man’s inorganic body" and a necessary condition for capital valorization, the movement of capital can only result in the simultaneous demise of humanity and capital. To avoid this outcome, one must transcend capital and follow the socialist path of development. In 1972, the Club of Rome predicted in its research report, The Limits to Growth, that future economic growth would be unsustainable and that "zero growth" would become the fundamental strategy for humanity to escape crisis.
From the early "more is better" and "economies of scale" to the contemporary "less is better" and "diseconomies of scale," bourgeois ideology always tends to "attribute the responsibility for the generation of difficulties and the growth of danger to powerless individuals, thereby ignoring the causal foundations and the general framework of the capital system." This has led to the universal victory of impersonal, reified forces. Mészáros argues that the Club of Rome fabricated a type of natural crisis and population dilemma for people, attempting to maintain the balance between man and nature by restricting population growth and slowing production. According to this logic, the capital system naturally possesses the ability to limit its own desires, can halt disordered expansion in a timely manner, and thus makes itself something that cannot be transcended in the current era.
The basic strategy of the Club of Rome is to make people learn to adapt to limits and live in peace with capital. Mészáros, however, considers this a form of Neo-Malthusianism [5]. Its fatal flaw is the failure to recognize the nature and developmental trends of capital, which inevitably results in a fall into pessimism. Marx once pointed out: "If capital no longer felt a particular limit as a limitation, but felt at home within it, capital itself would have moved down from exchange value to use value, from the general form of wealth to a specific substantial existence of wealth." The point Marx conveys here is that capital will never voluntarily give way to use value or let material substance replace the general form of wealth; future human society should abolish the dominance of exchange value and return use value to the center of social life.
In Mészáros's view, capital possesses an indeterminacy: when expansion remains within certain limits, it presents a progressive face; when development exceeds specific boundaries, it reveals a hideous, regressive countenance. The nature of capital’s infinite expansion determines that it must turn from good to evil. Regardless of the obstacles set by any force (nature, the state, culture), capital will eliminate them, a process in which antagonism and contradiction are unavoidable. Mészáros believes capital is destined to be "overconfident in its own power" (bu zi liang li); although it can resolve some contradictions and crises—for instance, by displacing contradictions through economies of scale—this strategy, while effective in the early stages, has now proven absurd as the contradiction between labor and capital deepens.
The reason "economies of scale" become "diseconomies" is, on the one hand, that they will inevitably be based on an economy of waste. Under the capital system, use value is always subordinate to exchange value. From the perspective of profit, the result can only be that "no matter how absurdly wasteful a production process is, as long as its product can be brought to market for profit, it must be welcomed as the 'correct and appropriate' form of capitalist 'economy'." Sombart [6] noted the link between luxury and capitalism relatively early, emphasizing that "luxury consumption possesses a revolutionary power that brought about the formation of the capitalist mode of production, commodity forms, and organizational patterns." Conversely, Weber believed that thrift was the core spirit of capitalism, advocating that people live a Puritan-like life. In the confrontation between thrift and luxury, the former camp also included economists like Say and Ricardo, while the latter included Mandeville and Malthus. Mészáros argues that both sides held to extremes, merely revealing certain facets of capital without fully elucidating its essence. Both sides shared the same theoretical presupposition: that the existence of the capital market is rational. While some theorists realized the contradictions of the capital system and denounced the phenomenon of exploitation, they nonetheless agreed that social contradictions were accidental and temporary, and that exploitation was a necessary price for the cause of human liberation and social development. In Mandeville's words, "Every part was full of vice, yet the whole mass a paradise." This view is exactly the same as Smith's "invisible hand" being able to automatically realize social prosperity and universal human goodness. All these theorists erroneously assumed the capital system to be eternal, thereby falling into the ideological trap of "there is no alternative" (TINA).
The second way capital struggles for self-preservation is by using science and technology to increase labor productivity. This method is equally ineffective. Even if science and technology could, to a certain extent, prevent the deterioration of the natural environment, capital and its personified representatives would not allow them to develop in that direction. The scope of science and technology will "have to remain strictly subordinate to the absolute requirements of capital expansion and accumulation. Consequently, they always have to be used selectively, in accordance with selective principles advantageous only to capital." Unlike technological optimists, Mészáros believes that science and technology are rooted in the capital system and are therefore both productive and destructive. Any attempt to retain productivity while avoiding destructiveness is impossible. He particularly reminds people: "Science and technology are not well-trained, energetic substitutes sitting on the bench, anxiously waiting for the call from the coach of an enlightened socialist group to turn the tide of the game." Just as Gajo Petrović [7] argued, when people slap a socialist label on science and technology, an atomic bomb does not suddenly start producing edible mushrooms.
Mészáros points out that capital always tries to control everything but ultimately falls into a state of being out of control. This is because capital’s control over needs is built upon exchange value: "Under the conditions of capitalist modernity, the needs that have undergone extensive development must be those sanctioned and determined by capital, while the true needs that can shape human personality are inevitably neglected." Marx once noted: "The more the historically self-produced needs—i.e., the needs produced by production itself, the social needs produced from social production and exchange—become necessary, the higher is the level of development of real wealth." Here, Marx does not merely wish to clarify that human needs are social and historical in nature; he wants to emphasize that needs are highly likely to be transformed into accomplices of capital. Once needs are directed toward the growth of material wealth, those needs declared by capital to be "necessary needs" tend toward alienation because they no longer point toward the free and well-rounded development of the person, but are instead subordinate to the valorization of capital. Orthodox Marxism tends to view the social and historical nature of needs in a neutral and positive sense, emphasizing that needs are not only a basic fact of human history but that satisfied needs can give rise to new needs, promoting the continuous advancement of human society. Marx never denied that needs have positive significance, but he reminded people that needs under the capitalist system are alienated needs. Capital transforms past luxury needs into necessary needs for the purpose of its own valorization. Therefore, to achieve the free and well-rounded development of the person, one must thoroughly transform and abolish this alienated structure of needs.
In short, capital is pulling away the natural foundation of every production sector. Although it has played a positive role historically, its overall developmental trend has not only failed to bring about human liberation but has instead endangered the continued existence of capital and the survival of humanity. Mészáros believes that under the capital system, it is impossible for humanity to obtain liberation through technology; without qualitatively breaking the dominant mode of social production, the scarcity caused by capital will forever dominate humanity. Unlike those bourgeois ideologues who uphold the "there is no alternative" stance, Mészáros, while admitting that "we live in a world firmly controlled by the rule of capital," firmly believes in "the existence of the wisdom to resist 'there is no alternative' and the necessity of individual participation in this resistance." In a 1992 interview, he remarked: every one of us Marxists owes a debt to Sartre, for it was Sartre who issued a stern challenge to the "no alternative" view. Despite the massive changes in capitalist society, Marx’s thought remains the entire horizon of our activity; only Marxism can provide us with a way out of the crisis of capital.
III. The Challenge of Women’s Liberation and Substantive Equality
Since the valorization of capital cannot be separated from the combination of laborers and the means of production, the third absolute limit of capital is the production of human beings. Capital not only reproduces its own structures and social relations at the macro-level of social production but also reproduces individuals at the micro-level in the form of the family. The reason the latter aspect is important is that "if individuals are to reproduce society, they must reproduce themselves as individuals." Marx and Engels regarded the production of human beings as the third type of relationship in historical development and summarized and refined the theory of "two types of production" [8], demonstrating the significance of human production for the development of human society. It can be said that once the production of human beings becomes alienated, then society must be alienated.
The production of human beings is closely related to women’s liberation. Historically, as Engels stated, "The overthrow of mother-right was the world-historical defeat of the female sex." Since humanity entered civilized society, women have always been in a position of being ruled and oppressed. Mészáros believes the key to women’s liberation is obtaining substantive equality; the two together point toward the holistic transcendence of the capital system. Women’s liberation and substantive equality constitute an absolute limit of capital, a limit that has now been fully activated. On the question of women’s liberation, Mészáros returns once more to a critique of Kant and Hegel, arguing that both erroneously maintained the conservative stance of "there is no alternative," and thus...
...impossible to provide any beneficial reference for women's liberation and substantive equality. In the eyes of Kant and Hegel, the social status of women was not high; Kant openly advocated for "patriarchy" [9] and emphasized that women must be assigned to subordinate positions. Since capital possesses absolute dominance over labor, this unequal relationship, when reflected in the family, inevitably manifests as the oppression of women by men. Hegel also harbored prejudices against women, claiming, for instance, that women "are not made for the higher sciences, philosophy, and certain artistic productions which require a universal element," because "they proceed not according to the demands of the universal, but according to accidental inclinations and opinions." While the prejudices of Kant and Hegel certainly had temporal causes, their pursuit of Enlightenment values such as equality and justice was sincere. The problem was that the inherent contradictions of capital had not yet been fully exposed, leaving them with no choice but to believe in the power of transcendental morality and the ethical state. If Kant and Hegel possessed a certain theoretical self-awareness regarding the contradictions of modern society and expressed dissatisfaction with the negative consequences of Enlightenment rationality, then radical liberals like Hayek went so far as to declare the system of capital the most ideal social system, falling directly into naked cynicism.
Mészáros resolutely opposed the market liberalism of Hayek and others. In his view, the theoretical secret of Hayek and his ilk lies in "tracing capitalist exchange relations back to the earliest periods of human history, in order to eternalize the specific mode of the existing socio-economic system of expanded reproduction (based on the rule of capital), along with the 'extended order' of the economy." In essence, this is a crude form of material reductionism. In the "Introduction to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right," Marx pointed out that "the emancipation of the German is the emancipation of man"; Mészáros goes further to propose that "the liberation of women is the emancipation of humanity." The identity between the two lies in the fact that under the system of capital, the proletariat cannot achieve liberation; if workers do not liberate themselves, they cannot liberate all of humanity. Similarly, "within the framework of the established socio-economic order, there can be no 'special space' for women’s liberation." Women's liberation requires the support of substantive equality, which is impossible to achieve under the system of capital. Evidently, women's liberation must take the socialist cause as its fundamental direction; its goal can only be a new social metabolic order fundamentally different from the system of capital.
Regarding the relationship between capital and women's liberation, capital is likewise "overestimating its own strength." This is prominently manifested in the fact that because capital possesses an irrepressible drive, it tends to transform more and more women into labor power while simultaneously maintaining unequal power relations, which inevitably leads to family instability and a derangement of social functions. That is to say, under the system of capital, the transcendence of capital and women's liberation fall into a vicious circle: the more unequal the system of capital, the more remote women's liberation becomes; the more women are oppressed and exploited, the greater the power of capital to maintain its own privileges. Under the system of capital, the irreconcilable contradiction between capital and labor dictates that substantive equality is fundamentally unattainable. Therefore, only by thoroughly changing the metabolic production mechanism centered on capital and replacing it with a society of associated producers can substantive equality and women's liberation be realized.
IV. The Fate of Chronic Unemployment and Population Crisis
In An Essay on the Principle of Population, Malthus, adopting the posture of a doomsayer [10], declared that an overpopulation crisis was imminent. Under the guise of "natural laws," he devised a set of solutions that were merely intended to maintain the survival of the system of capital and confirm that there was "no other choice" and that "capital is eternal." Marx and Engels criticized Malthus's population theory on many occasions, arguing that it concealed the true source of social contradictions and did nothing more than tell people that all suffering and inequality stemmed from excessive population growth and had nothing to do with capital. Malthus emphasized that to restrain excessive population growth, one must practice late marriage, birth control, industry, and frugality. He attacked social relief, arguing it would greatly reduce workers' wages and make already dire living conditions even worse [11]. Malthus threatened workers with false and groundless rhetoric to make them willingly accept the rule of capital. To this, Marx offered a penetrating critique: "It turns the different historical relations into an abstract numerical relation, which he has fished out of thin air and which is based on neither natural nor historical laws."
Mészáros agrees with Marx's critique of Malthusian population theory. In his view, the logic of capital is the true root of the population crisis. Therefore, to keep the population within a reasonable range, a brand-new social metabolic order, distinct from the system of capital, must be proposed. According to Mészáros, overpopulation is merely the appearance of the population crisis in capitalist society, rather than an absolute surplus of population. As Marx analyzed, "a surplus working-class population is a necessary product of accumulation or of the development of wealth on a capitalist basis, but this surplus population becomes, conversely, the lever of capitalistic accumulation, nay, a condition of existence of the capitalist mode of production." Malthus also recognized this point, but limited by his narrow prejudices, he reached the erroneous conclusion of absolute overpopulation. According to bourgeois ideology, surplus population is related to the means of subsistence: when population growth exceeds the supply of the means of subsistence, a surplus population appears. This view ignores the decisive role of social factors in surplus population. Surplus population is not overpopulation in the general sense, but a surplus of labor power. Since surplus population is manufactured by capital, it cannot be eradicated within the system of capital. To capital, surplus labor is not useless; the reason for declaring them "superfluous" is primarily to maintain the unequal relationship between capital and labor. Specifically, this can be divided into two scenarios: first, labor power excluded from the production process, which becomes an "industrial reserve army" for capital, capable not only of replenishing capital with new labor at any time but also of driving down the general wage level of workers; second, those individuals as actual (or potential) consumers, who are crucial for the realization of capital's profit. Through a set of ideological propaganda, capital and its personifications claim on the one hand that unemployment is inevitable, while on the other hand encouraging workers to consume. This is nothing more than achieving the exploitation of labor by capital at both the production and consumption stages, completing the rule of things over people. Therefore, on the issue of population, capital will inevitably encounter its own absolute limits. Liberal ideologues may claim that the "invisible hand" or the state can successfully make adjustments to save humanity from disaster, but the reality is that large-scale unemployment has already seriously endangered the foundations of the system of capital. "In these circumstances, the 'population explosion' in the form of chronic unemployment is activated as an absolute limit of capital."
V. An Appraisal of Mészáros's "Beyond Capital"
The above is a brief analysis of Mészáros's theory regarding the absolute limits of capital. The four limits correspond to four pairs of contradictions. During the ascendant phase of capitalism, the state could alleviate or transfer parts of these contradictions through a series of policy adjustments. However, for contemporary capitalist society, the means of regulation have become increasingly impoverished, and the possibility of achieving sustainable development has become increasingly low. "And this is merely the way in which the bourgeoisie prepares for more extensive and more destructive crises, and diminishes the means whereby crises are prevented." As Marx analyzed in Capital: "Capitalist production is continually engaged in the attempt to overcome these immanent barriers, but it overcomes them only by means which again place these barriers in its way and on a more formidable scale." Marx once pointed out, "The universality towards which capital unceasingly strives experiences limitations in its very nature, which will, at a certain stage of its development, allow it to be recognized as being itself the greatest barrier to this tendency, and hence will drive towards its own self-abolition by means of capital."
Mészáros's analysis of the absolute limits of capital is developed precisely along Marx's line of thought. He believes that although contemporary capitalist society constantly transforms its relations of production, these death-struggles are merely "robbing Peter to pay Paul" [12] and are fundamentally unsustainable. If humanity does not wish to perish, a new socialist type of metabolic order must be put on the agenda. Although contemporary capitalist society is quite different from the era of Marx and Engels, one thing remains unchanged: capital, as an uncontrollable social metabolic mode of production, still occupies the dominant position. As such, the inherently expansive nature of capital must manifest through various forms, and capital will inevitably encounter its own absolute limits. However, before its demise, capital will surely engage in a "struggle of a cornered beast," releasing a large amount of destructive energy. If people do not take timely action, the cost will be enormous, and they may even perish along with capital. Mészáros firmly believes that the only way forward for humanity is to go beyond capital. He distinguishes between capital and capitalism, arguing that the concept of "capital" is broader and more fundamental than that of "capitalism." It includes not only the way capitalist society operates but also "the conditions of the origin and development of the production of capital, including periods when commodity production was not yet as ubiquitous and dominant as it is under capitalism." Based on this distinction, Mészáros believes that "Marx wrote Capital in order to help break the rule of capital, not merely capitalism." Mészáros made this distinction primarily to oppose the bureaucratized socialism of the Soviet Union. In his view, although the Soviet Union abolished private property in its political system, it did not achieve the true liberation of labor. Capital as a process of social metabolic reproduction had not yet been eliminated, and "changing the legal form of ownership, replacing one type of personification of capital with another, can absolutely not change the subordination of labor to the structurally determinate system of capital."
Mészáros's views need to be viewed dialectically. Marx indeed distinguished between capital and capitalism, but in most cases, he understood capital from the perspective of capitalist relations of production. Capital examines "the capitalist mode of production and the relations of production and exchange corresponding to that mode." Marx acknowledged that capital existed in pre-capitalist societies, but at that time, capital had not developed into the dominant social force and did not stand above humanity as an alien power; thus, it was not the primary object of his analysis and critique. Furthermore, regarding Marx's statement that "human anatomy contains a key to the anatomy of the ape"...
A scientific methodology also determined that the object of his [Marx's] analytical critique was capital within capitalist society. The issue lies in the fact that socialist society had not yet emerged during the lifetimes of Marx and Engels; consequently, they tended to assume that surpassing capitalism and surpassing capital were accomplished simultaneously. In their view, capitalist society was the final society of the exploiting classes in human history, and capitalist relations of production were the final antagonistic form of the social production process. Mészáros [13] defines Soviet socialism as "post-capitalist"—on one hand, to remind people that this type of socialism is anti-capitalist, and on the other, to imply that Soviet socialism had not yet surpassed capital. However, Mészáros adopted a metaphysical mode of thinking. Proceeding from a categorical opposition between capitalism and socialism, he argued that one can only choose between the two: either surpass capital or submit to it. As he put it, capital is a controlling force that you cannot simply tinker with; either it controls you, or you eliminate it—there is no middle ground [14]. From this starting point, Mészáros believed that market socialism was like a "square circle"—entirely absurd and unthinkable.
This perspective is clearly erroneous. It fails to correctly reveal the true essence of Marx's dictum regarding "using capital itself to eliminate capital" [15]. In fact, the true intent of Marx's critique of capital "was not to completely negate capital, much less to oppose it on purely moralistic grounds, but rather to objectively analyze and reveal the internal laws governing the operation of the capitalist mode of production, thereby subating and surpassing capitalist relations of production." That is to say, what should be surpassed is not capital-in-general (the natural attributes of capital), but capital-in-particular (the social attributes of capital). The primary problem with Soviet socialism was not whether it retained capital after the abolition of private ownership, but rather its failure to effectively utilize capital and eliminate capital’s negative effects. Regarding communism—the highest ideal society for humanity—it must certainly be thoroughly insulated from capital. However, the process of realizing a communist society is bound to be incomparably tortuous and complex, especially during the stage of socialist development, when it "is in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges." Here, the "birthmarks of the old society" refer not only to the commodity (market) economy and the influence of capital, but also, in the context of our country, to the dregs [16] of feudal culture. Mészáros tended toward a radical and categorical critique and negation of capital. He failed to see the diversity of socialist models and failed to realize that a specific type of socialist market economy can, on one hand, activate the "civilizing aspects of capital" while, on the other, overcoming the "negative aspects of capital." Ultimately, he fell into pessimism.
In Mészáros's work, "surpassing capital," in addition to meaning the elimination of "capital," contains two levels of meaning: first, surpassing the existing versions of Capital, including the 1857-1858 Economic Manuscripts (Grundrisse) and Theories of Surplus Value; and second, surpassing Marx's design itself. This author believes that if "surpassing" is primarily based on the uncompleted and open nature of Capital, with the fundamental goal of supplementing and developing Marxism according to new changes in capitalism, then it is reasonable. However, if "surpassing" aims to negate and overthrow the basic viewpoints and fundamental methods of Marxism, it is erroneous and must be resisted. Taken as a whole, Mészáros's analysis of the absolute limits of capital adheres to the basic position and fundamental methods of Marxism. Since these limits had not fully manifested by the mid-19th century and thus were not fully elucidated by Marx and Engels, this interpretation possesses a certain positive significance and represents an important development of the Marxist theory of the critique of capital. Nevertheless, one must pay close attention to the metaphysical and one-sided views contained within it.
Specific to our country, the issue in the context of the New Era is not how to surpass capital, but how to regulate and guide the healthy development of capital. We must, on one hand, recognize that capital is an important force for promoting the development of productive forces and, on the other hand, realize that "capital possesses a profit-seeking nature; if not regulated and constrained, it will bring incalculable harm to economic and social development." Strengthening the theoretical study of capital requires not only delving into the texts of classical Marxist authors but also absorbing and drawing lessons from the perspectives of foreign Marxist theorists. Mészáros's analysis of the absolute limits of capital in his magnum opus, Beyond Capital, is clearly instructive in this regard.