Jia Keqing: Demonstrating Theoretical Value in the Crucible of Social Critique
Foreign Marxism refers primarily to theoretical trends existing in countries and regions outside of China that, to a greater or lesser extent, uphold and identify with Marxism in terms of basic viewpoints, methods, and value orientations. These trends engage in theoretical innovation in response to practical needs and national cultures, maintain a critical stance toward the capitalist system, and occasionally propose programmatic designs for a future ideal society. Foreign Marxism encompasses numerous schools of thought without a unified system, yet most of these schools share characteristics such as practical relevance, criticality, openness, and academic rigor. As long as the problems and contradictions of capitalist society are not fundamentally resolved, Marxist schools of thought, as its antithesis, will continue to thrive and renew themselves.
In the year 2022, scholars of foreign Marxism upheld their academic traditions by conducting extensive and in-depth analysis and critique centered on Marxist theoretical schools, representative figures, and the various problems existing in contemporary Western advanced capitalist countries, while also designing and planning alternative ideal social systems.
I. Research on the Frankfurt School
Since the 1930s, the Frankfurt School has maintained a significant position within the currents of foreign Marxism. To date, it has developed to the stage where the third generation serves as the mainstay and the fourth generation is beginning to emerge. Due to its prominent social criticality, intellectual creativity, and organizational continuity, it has remained a focal point of research in Western academia.
(i) The School as an Organizational Whole
The Frankfurt School is an interdisciplinary group of left-wing thinkers whose contributions to the social sciences and humanities have made them one of the most influential scholarly collectives, with work that has inspired decades of development in social critical theory. Robert Cluley and Martin Parker of the University of Nottingham, UK, examined the organizational structure and development of the Frankfurt School. Through a reading of the School’s texts and work practices, Cluley and Parker found that the Frankfurt School thinkers did not neglect everyday organizational tasks; rather, they viewed such organizational work as an integral component of social dialectical theory. The Frankfurt School described itself as "a collective entity, rather than merely a more or less artificial and accidental gathering of scientists working in related fields," with the goal of becoming "a new type of organization for scientific work." Today's critical scholars must not only read the theories of the Frankfurt School but also understand how this research institution has persisted for so long and generated such significant influence.
Although the critical theorists of the Frankfurt School were dedicated to the critique of modern industrial society, their research methods differ greatly from those of Marx. Tom Rockmore of Duquesne University in the United States points out that Marx analyzed the economic problems of modern industrial society with the aim of proposing a theoretical alternative to modern industrial capitalism. In contrast, the first generation of critical theorists, represented by figures such as Max Horkheimer, and the second generation, represented by Jürgen Habermas, neglected the economic dimension of the modern world. They followed the view of the Frankfurt School's founder, Friedrich Pollock [1], regarding the determination of economics by politics, rather than the Marxist view regarding the determination of politics by economics. Driven by these two generations of critical theorists, social critical theory gradually became an alternative research path for the critique of capitalism.
Alvie Sacra of the University of Lucerne, Switzerland, argued for the relationship between the Frankfurt School and experimentalism as represented by John Dewey. Although some critical theorists criticize Dewey's experimentalism, Dewey actually formulated his own method of social critique in response to the problem that social life might be immune to claims for change. Frankfurt School critical theorists and American pragmatists, in different yet complementary ways, pointed out the extent to which contemporary society is trapped in a vicious cycle of antagonism and suffering, thereby indicating the objective possibility of an alternative form of social life. From Dewey, critical theory scholars recognized that critical theory must find ways to enter the everyday experience of the public through group action and must maintain a critical stance toward social problems to avoid the decay of theory.
(ii) First-Generation Critical Theory
Theodor Adorno is a major representative of the first generation of the Frankfurt School. Although he is often interpreted as a critic of the "administered world" and the culture industry rather than as a Marxist, Werner Bonefeld of the University of York, UK, and Chris O'Kane of the University of Texas, USA, emphasize the intersection between Adorno's critical theory and Marx’s critique of political economy, using Adorno’s negative dialectics as a foundation for understanding Marx’s critique. This conception of the critique of political economy as a form of critical theory marks a departure from traditional Marxist scholarship and traditional interpretations of Adorno's work. Its subtle elucidation of social critical theory and its subversion of the economic categories of political economy have led to frontier developments in contemporary social theory and a critique of social practice.
Mary E. Witlacil of Colorado State University, USA, based on an analysis of the pessimism in Adorno’s critical theory, points out that in the face of widespread environmental problems, global pandemics, and the spread of authoritarianism, Western society lacks sufficient political will to resolve these ubiquitous issues. This lack of political response is disturbing. Furthermore, if people do not maintain an optimistic mood toward a better future, they are accused of being irrational, unpatriotic, or even reactionary. The Left generally rejects pessimism, yet it is difficult for anyone to guarantee that tomorrow will inevitably be better. Perhaps Adornian philosophical pessimism is an alternative position from which to consider the discordant relationship between the myth of progress, contemporary political stagnation, capitalism, and climate change. This critical orientation provides a ballast against blind optimism, the myth of progress, and the arbitrary thinking involved in the domination of nature, potentially allowing the relationships between the climate crisis, income inequality, and spreading authoritarian-populism to be reconstructed.
Herbert Marcuse is another representative figure of the first generation of the Frankfurt School. Considering the renewed interest in his life and work in recent years, as well as the critical questions he raised regarding the violence pervasive in late capitalism, Nick Stevenson of the University of Nottingham, UK, believes it is necessary to re-evaluate Marcuse's critical theory. In Stevenson's view, Marcuse's work contains dialectical thought that points to the key possibilities for transcending the "one-dimensional society" in a future world. While breaking with the Puritan ethic, socializing the economy and liberating nature could allow citizens to lead more peaceful and fulfilling lives. However, for socialists, Marcuse remains a problematic intellectual because he maintained a distance from the labor movement. Therefore, to view his work correctly, one must cautiously link it with New Left voices that remain critical of his intellectual and cultural output.
Charles Reitz of Kansas City Kansas Community College, USA, applies Marcuse's critical theory to contemporary issues such as the ecological destructiveness of global capitalism and racism. He calls for different radical social movements—such as ecosocialism, anti-racism, the women’s movement, LGBTQ rights movements, and anti-war movements—to unite in a struggle for justice, arguing that the best way to oppose regressive politics today is to promote cooperation among various radical forces. Drawing new critical resources from Marcuse's call for the "Great Refusal," Reitz envisions the replacement and transcendence of capitalist oligarchy: a "Green Economy Alternative" and a "Commonwealth of the Earth" plan for genuine human liberation, as it would be a new system based on ecological production, equitable distribution, common ownership, and democratic governance. This provides new insights not only for the ideological and cultural realms but also for the underlying economic structure of capitalism.
(iii) Second-Generation Critical Theory
Jürgen Habermas is the most important representative of the second generation of the Frankfurt School. Tom Bailey of John Cabot University, Italy, examined Habermas’s views and the influence of his political theory on non-Western contexts from a global perspective, covering themes ranging from Latin America, the Middle East, India, and China, and from cosmopolitanism, democracy, and human rights to colonialism, feminism, modernity, and religion. Tom Bailey points out that through Habermas’s own response to charges of "provincialism," it is evident that Habermas has always been a staunch defender of the Enlightenment. Because the Enlightenment is the pivot of European history, he is sometimes accused of being Eurocentric and using universalism to mask Western colonial and imperial ambitions. Bailey argues these views are misunderstandings of Habermas’s work; in fact, Habermas has consistently attempted to transcend the provincialism of Western political thought.
Habermas is not only one of the most influential continental philosophers of the post-war period but also a leading German public intellectual, and increasingly a public intellectual of the European Union. However, Peter Verovšek of the University of Groningen, Netherlands, argues that Habermas's political writings have not received the attention they deserve, and he himself is often misunderstood as an "ideal" theorist who is both ignorant of and indifferent to "real" politics. By demonstrating how Habermas's philosophy is linked to his political engagement, Verovšek views Habermas’s philosophy as a model for applying theoretical insights to political developments in an indirect, mediated way. This approach focuses on debate within the democratic public sphere. Compared to active involvement in decision-making processes or the direct application of philosophy to political practice, Habermas’s method has distinct advantages: both of the other methods risk threatening the principle of democratic equality within the public sphere.
Verovšek also authored an article re-evaluating the debates between Habermas, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Derrida. Despite Habermas's limited defense of the Enlightenment and his disputes with his French contemporaries, Habermas's philosophy exhibits many frequently overlooked postmodern characteristics. These include its departure from the autonomous subject, its skepticism toward metaphysics, and its rejection of the philosophy of history. Given that many of Habermas’s postmodern commitments take a "weaker" form, Verovšek concludes that rather than interpreting Habermas as a conservative critic of his more radical French peers, these three thinkers should be seen as part of a common attempt to address post-war European problems in an open, discursive manner.
(iv) Third-Generation Critical Theory
As a leading figure of the third generation of the Frankfurt School, Axel Honneth of the University of Frankfurt, Germany, has attempted to develop a "third way" between liberalism and republicanism. The core of this attempt is the concept of "recognition," which he believes can provide an explanatory key for deciphering the complexities of contemporary society. Tommaso Sperotto of the University of Palermo, Italy, points out that in recent years, the term "recognition" has become increasingly important not only in philosophical debates but also as a political and sociological concept. This is reflected not only in the demands made by diverse minority groups but also in movements calling for greater political autonomy and independence, in nationalist reactions to economic globalization, and in conflicts to protect identities perceived to be at risk—whether in post-colonial contexts or in the context of migratory flows. In other words, the term "recognition" has taken on a dominant role in the contemporary socio-political landscape.
Bruce Baum of the University of British Columbia argues that while Axel Honneth himself focuses on the struggle for recognition and social freedom rather than equality, his theory of social critique provides a compelling overarching framework. Within this framework, a political sociology of social equality can be mapped out, giving due consideration to class inequality, differences in social identity, and the ecological challenges of contemporary globalized society. By elucidating the interplay between equality and difference, Honneth combines equal respect for all persons—the core content of equality in modern democratic societies—with social esteem for specific subjects, which accounts for the distinctions between individuals.
Honneth has also written on the history of "labor," noting that forced labor in antiquity and the Middle Ages was merely a heavy burden devoid of moral consideration. With the advent of modernization, accompanied by processes of cultural revaluation and economic transformation, labor evolved into a positive voucher for free existence and a prerequisite for social integrity. The Protestant ethic led to an elevation of the value of labor, as it was interpreted as a symbol of an individual’s capacity for self-asceticism. Remunerated work became a hallmark of free determination and provided the precondition for individual independence. Over time, this increasingly influenced the cultural self-understanding of Western capitalist modern society: labor, previously performed daily to earn the bare necessities of life, is now understood as a testament to social emancipation and freedom.
Nancy Fraser of the New School for Social Research, a representative of the third generation of the Frankfurt School, denounces contemporary capitalism as "cannibalistic" capitalism. She points out that capital is currently encroaching upon every aspect of life—sucking wealth from nature and racialized populations, devouring the capacity for mutual care, and destroying corresponding political practices. Capital's voracious appetite causes social crises to occur one after another, ranging from ecological destruction to the collapse of democracy, and from racial violence to the devaluation of care work. These crises reached a climax during the COVID-19 pandemic. Fraser argues that what is needed is a broad socialist movement capable of identifying capital's greed and "starving" it to end this "eat-or-be-eaten" situation.
Alice Goff of the University of Paris discusses Fraser's theory of justice and her critique of capitalism. She maintains that Fraser's scholarly reputation is largely due to her contribution to contemporary debates on social justice and recognition theory. Fraser argues that social justice implies a combination of recognition and redistribution, adding a political dimension to her view by insisting on representation. Goff provides an in-depth analysis of Fraser's project of criticizing capitalism, noting that the concept of "boundary struggles" proposed by Fraser is her most original contribution. This concept constitutes a valuable tool for social and political theory. Through such a concept, Fraser elucidates a major blind spot within normative theories of justice and various critical theories, while simultaneously providing necessary tools for social movements and the Left.
In today's world order, several new changes have emerged, such as the intensification of anti-globalization trends, the resurgence of nationalism and cultural conservatism, and the rise of right-wing populism and polarized politics. In contrast, the Frankfurt School embodies a developmental direction of normative integration, whether in Honneth's research on recognition theory or in the research of the Frankfurt School’s fourth generation, such as Rainer Forst’s work on themes like tolerance, justification, democracy, and justice. This provides a reference for various countries and the world at large to integrate diverse factors, resolve social conflicts, and maintain social order. At the same time, it is an obvious fact that the critical and revolutionary character of the Frankfurt School is showing a trend of gradual attenuation. Its focus is on how to eliminate the motives for resistance within the existing system rather than performing a structural transformation of capitalism.
II. Research on "Eco-Marxism"
Since the 1970s, as the tension between human development and the finitude of Earth’s resources has become apparent, people have begun to reflect on the relationship between human behavior and the ecological environment. Environmental protection and ecological movements have continued to surge worldwide, and the trend of "Eco-Marxism" has emerged as the times require, becoming one of the most active schools of thought in the contemporary West.
(1) Natural Ecology in the Anthropocene
The concept of the Anthropocene has spread widely since it was first used in the natural sciences at the beginning of the 21st century. As this concept moved from the natural sciences into the social sciences and humanities, many different interpretations of its meaning emerged. As one of the main representatives of "Eco-Marxism," John Bellamy Foster of the University of Oregon points out that the current Anthropocene is characterized by an "anthropogenic rift" in the biological cycles of the Earth system. This signifies that human activity is the primary geological force affecting the entire planet, and it implies an existential crisis for the global population. This is because the globalized system of capital accumulation has led humanity to foul its own nest, resulting in a global emergency that threatens current and future generations, calling into question the continuation of human civilization and existence itself. Only by solving the current social problems leading to the planetary emergency and exploring the theory, history, and practice of how capitalism transforms the Earth's environment will it be possible to rationally develop ecological and social resources on a new journey of hope.
Foster, along with Brett Clark of the University of Utah, and Brian Napoletano and Pedro Urquijo of the National Autonomous University of Mexico, also co-authored an article noting that the social metabolic relationship of humanity has entered a dangerous opposition with what Marx called the "universal metabolism of nature." This has altered the Earth system on a scale that threatens to undermine human survival itself. Faced with this threat, many anthropocentric or anthropomorphic concepts—such as human dominion over nature, the "production of nature," and post-humanism seeking to eliminate grand distinctions like nature/society and naturalism/humanism—have proved to be obstacles to the necessary critique and dialectical thinking regarding ecological issues.
Mads Ejsing of the University of Copenhagen examines three competing theoretical narratives regarding the Anthropocene that have gained particular traction in social and political theory in recent years: first, the "good" Anthropocene advocated by ecomodernists; second, the "bad" Anthropocene or so-called "Capitalocene" criticized by "Eco-Marxists"; and third, the "mysterious" Anthropocene envisioned by new materialists. These three narratives not only interpret the Anthropocene differently but also trigger distinctly different political responses. Ejsing argues that today we cannot rely on a single grand narrative of the Anthropocene. Instead, what is needed is a plurality of different Anthropocene theories so that people can see what other possibilities exist.
(2) Marxism and Ecology
The relationship between Marxism and ecology has long been a subject of intense debate. Emanuele Leonardi of the University of Bologna and Salvo Torre of the University of Catania use the cycle of accumulation and struggle as a thread to argue that the different encounters between Marxist theory and the ecological crisis are closely related to the material conditions of their respective historical cycles. Material environmental conditions shape class relations on one hand and influence the working class's expression in ecopolitics on the other. The way these two are coordinated depends on the characteristics of a given cycle. In the anti-authoritarian cycle, Marxist principles were "adjusted" to suit an unprecedentedly politicized ecological crisis. In the anti-globalization cycle, the ecological potential long hidden in the works of Marx and Engels was revealed through "rereading" them. In the anti-austerity cycle, people acted by re-examining Marxist categories to recognize the failure of capital's "green" strategies.
Simon Boxley of University Centre Winchester [2] discusses the theme of "Green Marxism" rather than "Eco-Marxism." He argues that because the latter is increasingly associated with a single school of thought, Green Marxism can encompass three major areas. First is the view that a return to the source is necessary, rediscovering the analysis needed to face current environmental crises in the works of Marx and Engels—this is "Eco-Marxism." Second is the attempt to revise and supplement the analysis of Marx and Engels to "correct" or "update" the basic ideas of the Marxist Anthropocene—this is "Eco-revisionism" (a term used here without negative connotations). Third is the advocacy for responding to immediate and pressing ecological, social, and economic conditions—this group is referred to as "eco-activists." For them, the abstract debates engaged in by the first two categories should give way to ecological protection and the construction of alternatives. Boxley believes these different voices each have different applications.
(3) Ecology and Sustainable Development
Sustainability is a common term whose connotations range from minimal survival and reproduction to various interpretations of "sustainable development." Ajay Chaudhary of the Brooklyn Institute for Social Research analyzes what people actually mean by sustainable development: do they mean the sustainability of capitalism, socialism, or the climate? Because of the irreconcilability between the promised goals of sustainable development, a "sustainable development paradox" has arisen. On the one hand, people's analyses, models, policies, and projects are dedicated to "basic system preservation"—not from the perspective of the ecosystem, but from the perspective of the dominant human socio-economic system. On the other hand, there is a realization that climate change is caused by this very anthropogenic socio-economic activity. When a framework based on basic social system preservation attempts to absorb research from climate science, the resulting "sustainable" framework is fundamentally incoherent. To better understand how this social system—actually existing capitalism—organizes its metabolic exchange between society and nature, Chaudhary proposes the concept of the "extractive circuit," which he argues is a vicious cycle of material extraction and affective exhaustion.
William Leiss of Queen’s University in Canada explores the potential risks of climate change for Canada and all of humanity. He points out that infectious diseases, major earthquakes, wars, and other disasters trigger immediate action because the casualties and destruction they cause are obvious. Climate change, however, is an intractable problem because its long-term dangers are hidden; it is a global risk unlike any other human experience. The Canadian government's commitment to achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 will require major changes in people's economies and lifestyles. Leiss explains the importance of policies to ensure the achievement of net-zero targets and why Canadian citizens need to understand the necessity of this goal. The actions we take or fail to take in the coming decades may determine whether certain types of severe disasters befall our descendants.
(4) Ecological Revolution and Ecological Civilization
John Bellamy Foster links "Eco-Marxism" with ecological revolution and ecological civilization, arguing that the dialectical combination of these three concepts can be seen as pointing toward new revolutionary practices for the 21st century. Within Marxism, there is a tradition of the dialectics of nature, which insists that humans belong to nature and exist within it, while possessing a greater advantage than all other living beings: the ability to learn nature's laws and apply them correctly. This critical, dialectical, and materialistic perspective exposes the dangers of all attempts to commodify the natural world and demands the abandonment of the capitalization of nature. Only by carrying out an ecological and social revolution—enabling humanity as a whole to follow a broad scientific understanding and regulate the social metabolism between humanity and the Earth in a rational and sustainable way for the purpose of promoting truly free human development—can we escape the current planetary crisis.
In Foster’s view, the concept of ecological civilization is a historical product of the development of "Ecological Marxism." While traditional Chinese values are important, any attempt to separate the two denies the historical significance of the ecological civilization concept and its importance in the global ecological revolution. Foster emphasizes that ecological civilization construction in today's world must move toward socialism; the sublation of the existing capitalist system through ecological revolution is the only choice for achieving ecological civilization. At this critical juncture of survival for the Earth and humanity, the environmental proletariat of the whole world needs to unite. This environmental proletariat is the most fundamental and primary subject of the ecological revolution required to truly realize ecological civilization. Combining the essence of socialism with Chinese characteristics, "Ecological Marxism," and traditional Chinese culture, China's ecological civilization construction possesses a comprehensive, profound, and feasible roadmap for ecological transformation, capable of achieving outstanding results in practice. From the perspective of global ecological governance within socialist development, the role played by China on the stage of ecological civilization construction can be seen as the greatest gift offered to the world. Clearly, Foster holds high expectations for China's ecological civilization construction.
III. Research on "Post-Marxism"
"Post-Marxism" is a school of thought that emerged in the 1970s. It employs postmodern theories of anti-foundationalism, anti-essentialism, and anti-centrism to deconstruct orthodox Marxist theory while formally inheriting the critical spirit of Marxism, attempting to "activate" and "innovate" Marxism according to its own intentions. It can be said that "Post-Marxism" is a combination of the postmodern and the modern, and a unity of deconstruction and construction.
Since the emergence of "Post-Marxism," the world has undergone tremendous changes, necessitating a reassessment of its significance in the modern world. Stuart Sim of Northumbria University in the UK edited a collection of essays titled Reflections on Post-Marxism: Laclau and Mouffe's Radical Democratic Project in the 21st Century, which explores the theoretical content and status of "Post-Marxism" and examines its significance against the backdrop of global political developments such as Brexit, Trump, and the rise of the far-right. This book covers and draws upon valuable insights from international authors across various disciplines, forcefully proving the continued relevance of "Post-Marxism"—particularly the radical democratic theory of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe—to social development.
As one of the authors in the collection, Sim proposes several key texts for reassessing "Post-Marxism." He argues that Jean-François Lyotard’s Libidinal Economy, Jean Baudrillard’s The Mirror of Production, Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe’s Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, and Jacques Derrida’s Specters of Marx all offer highly critical readings of the Marxist tradition from the perspective of broad post-structuralist and postmodernist theory. The result has sparked considerable controversy within the Left. But what has each work left behind? Is it a dead end or a signpost for the future of Leftist thought? In his essay, Sim reassesses the meaningful resonance these four key works can evoke today.
Philip Goldstein of the University of Delaware in the United States points out that in Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, Laclau and Mouffe propose a new interpretation of radical politics. They argue that the conditions for hegemonic politics are subjective constructions rather than the objective historical stages and class backgrounds of traditional Hegelian Marxism. On this basis, they powerfully defend the "identity politics" of contemporary women, African Americans, LGBTQ+ individuals, and working-class groups, while opposing both the hegemonism of the New Right and the "class exceptionalism" and revolutionary orientation of the radical Left. In later works, they developed the concept of hegemony by drawing on post-structuralist discourse. Mouffe also elaborated the concept of the "split subject," arguing that the split subject is constituted by the antagonism of different social movements or the dislocation of social structures. To establish genuine pluralism on national and global scales, she provides a new interpretation of pluralistic antagonism in the political sphere, forcefully opposing universal norms of rationality or democracy.
Gulshan Khan of the University of Nottingham in the UK brings Laclau’s "Post-Marxist" approach into dialogue with the analytical thinker Philip Pettit. Khan argues that both thinkers aim to reconfigure power and domination toward more democratic and egalitarian relations. Unlike Pettit, Laclau believes that despite formal equality, emancipation remains the focus of political struggle. He insists that more radical changes are possible within the underlying structures of society. Although both Laclau and Pettit value democratic competition to challenge and overturn arbitrary power, for Pettit, political freedom is a mode of contestability within existing institutions, whereas Laclau’s concepts of emancipation and freedom operate at a level that competes with the hegemonic system. This fosters a form of political struggle that may transcend the existing system and realize a new institutional order.
How can Left-wing forces win in politics? This is a question that has long troubled socialists, progressives, democrats, Greens, and Marxists. Thomas Jacobs of Ghent University in Belgium argues that in their book Hegemony, Discourse and Political Strategy, Laclau and Mouffe solve this puzzle in a groundbreaking way by drawing on and integrating linguistics, Marxism, and post-structuralist theory, forming a discourse theory known as "Post-Marxism." Jacobs inherits the legacy of Laclau and Mouffe, articulating this discourse theory as a complete theory of political strategy. He believes this "Post-Marxist" form of discourse analysis can explain how political strategies function and why they fail or succeed. Through a case study of the debate and politicization regarding EU trade policy in the European Parliament, Jacobs demonstrates the empirical potential of this discourse theory in elucidating the dynamics of hegemonic struggle.
Michael Peters of the University of Canterbury in New Zealand elaborates on the post-structuralist and "Post-Marxist" critique of knowledge capitalism. Based on the works of Lyotard, Foucault, Derrida, and Deleuze, he outlines three related claims: first, the knowledge economy is a form of neoliberal globalization; second, education has become a form of knowledge capitalism; third, post-structuralism provides a "Post-Marxist" critique of the neoliberal globalization of knowledge capitalism. Philosophers such as Lyotard, Foucault, Derrida, and Deleuze all viewed themselves as Marxist or "Post-Marxist" thinkers. Inspired by them, Peters proposes another form of educational globalization, which he calls "knowledge socialism," based on the principles of openness, an ethic of cooperation, and the rise of peer-to-peer production: together, these three constitute a powerful mode of transnational networked intelligence.
There exists a common suspicion and concern regarding "Post-Marxism," namely that some "Post-Marxists" clearly exhibit characteristics that deviate from Marxism. This is indeed an issue that must be given high priority in research, requiring Marxist scholars to provide necessary clarification and critique. At the same time, it should be recognized that the emergence of "Post-Marxism" reflects the conflict and replacement within Western multiculturalism; it is not only a challenge to Marxism but also serves as a "whetstone." Under the hammering and tempering of "Post-Marxism," world Marxism may be reborn through fire, finding new developmental paths and manifesting a new appearance.
IV. Critique of Digital Capitalism
Productive forces are first and foremost scientific and technological [3]. Contemporary science and technology are developing rapidly, with fields such as automation engineering, internet technology, advanced algorithms, and artificial intelligence quickly and profoundly changing human material life, consciousness, and even social organization and systems, thereby continuously presenting new research topics. Marxists have a tradition of valuing practice and science and cannot remain outside the global tide of science and technology. Many foreign Marxist scholars have explored the issues of exploitation and inequality in digital capitalism from a critical perspective.
In the book Marx, Alienation and Techno-Capitalism (translated into English for the first time), Lelio Demichelis of the University of Insubria in Italy reinterprets the views of Marx, Nietzsche, and Foucault—and particularly Critical Theory and the Frankfurt School—on the managed society (where everything is controlled by automation and machines). He shows that humans are increasingly being led to delegate their autonomy, freedom, responsibility, and consciousness of life to "the other." Thus, the view that techno-capitalism is in crisis or decline is erroneous. In fact, it continues to create hegemony and domination for itself, over society, individuals, and the environment. Everything is well-masked by the system itself, as no one resists or seeks alternatives; everyone adapts to the dynamics of the system and the various forms of alienation produced by techno-capitalism. People feel restricted physically, but most importantly, they are restricted in their thinking. This is because, through technology, people seek omnipotent power and control over others and the environment. This is not the victory of the Anthropocene (a new era where humans become the force determining the environment), but the victory of the Technocene. In the Technocene, technology creates the environment and makes humans believe they are free subjects rather than objects designed by technology and neoliberalism, delegating their every thought and action to technology. Delegation is the ultimate form of human alienation. In fact, people are increasingly ruled by techno-capitalism. Techno-capitalism is now a global non-state and a global religion—it rules the world, replacing legitimate and controllable power (democracy) with its own unchecked force. This is a delirium of the entire West, and it has also become the delirium of the globalized world.
Christian Fuchs of the University of Westminster in the UK builds on Habermas’s concept of the public sphere and links it to Marx’s concept of alienation. Based on the fusion of these two concepts, Fuchs points out that digital capitalism and capitalist social media do not form a public sphere but instead constitute a threat to democracy. Social media has become an indispensable part of political and public communication, and right-wing politicians often use internet platforms to spread fake news. The Arab Spring and the Occupy movement showed that social media plays an important role in social movements. Today, no politician, party, NGO, or social movement can function without social media, which raises the question of the connection between social media and the public. Fuchs utilizes the concept of the public sphere to critique capitalist internet platforms, while arguing that a public-service internet is the manifestation of a digital public sphere and digital democracy.
James Muldoon of the University of Exeter in the UK contrasts two reform proposals put forward in the debate on how to democratize the digital economy: data-owning democracy and digital socialism. Data-owning democracy is a political-economic system characterized by the wide distribution of data as capital among citizens, whereas digital socialism requires social ownership of productive assets in the digital economy and popular control over digital services. Although there is a degree of complementarity between the two, the theory of data-owning democracy has significant limitations that have not yet received significant attention in the literature. Muldoon mainly emphasizes three aspects where digital socialists believe data-owning democracy fails to achieve a more just digital economy: the lack of workplace democracy, restrictions on scope, and the absence of democratic control over long-term investment decisions for new technologies.
The global economy of the 21st century is largely driven by big tech companies and a pervasive digital capitalism. Michael Kwet, a visiting fellow at Yale University, points out that this is a global phenomenon centered on the United States, plundering global markets through a process of digital colonialism. The mainstream antidotes to the ills of digital capitalism are centered on the US and Europe, revolving around a series of liberal and progressive capitalist reforms. These include antitrust measures, limited privacy laws, the unionization of Big Tech, algorithmic differentiation, and content moderation. However, all of these are proposed within a capitalist framework, ignoring both digital colonialism and the ecological crisis of the 21st century. Kwet argues for a combination of political, economic, and social alternatives based on digital technology protocols, aiming to achieve the socialization of knowledge and infrastructure to reverse the trend of digital colonization. Simultaneously, it is necessary to refine ideologies regarding technological ecosystems by supporting laws for digital socialism. These solutions are all formulated within an anti-colonial eco-socialist framework that encompasses environmental sustainability and socio-economic justice.
Holger Pötzsch of the UiT The Arctic University of Norway has studied labor struggles within digital capitalism. Based on a series of interviews with German union representatives, Pötzsch traces recent developments in an increasingly digitized economy and outlines the challenges and opportunities facing trade unions. The research results indicate that the large-scale deployment of digital technologies has fragmented the workforce, lowered social standards, worsened working conditions, exacerbated power imbalances, and harmed the interests of employees. While digital communication technologies can raise public awareness and connect or mobilize workers, they can only partially mitigate the aforementioned adverse factors. Pötzsch’s research shows that specialized technical knowledge is becoming increasingly important for unions; there is a need to respond to global capital by strengthening international and regional cooperation between labor organizations; and it is also vital to unite established unions and grassroots workers' movements in a joint effort to improve worker conditions under the circumstances of technology-enhanced global exploitation and control.
Sarah Lenz of the University of Hamburg, Germany, explores how actors in the political, economic, and civil society sectors are working toward the legitimation of a green-digital economic modernization. Both digital modernization and green modernization face crises of legitimacy. On one hand, green modernization is criticized for its market-based strategies, which create new inequalities and ecological problems while failing to adequately address existing ones. On the other hand, global digital capitalism faces criticism not only for increased surveillance but also for the negative impact of digital technology on the natural and social environment (considering the energy consumption of data centers and extractivism in the Global South). Given the importance of tracking and sensing data, the process of sharing data information risks giving rise to the problem of digital colonialism. Developing countries often face the risk of being reduced to providers of raw data while being forced to pay for the use of digital intelligence generated from that same data.
Foreign Marxist scholars offer deep insights into the new changes of the digital era, which are of significant heuristic value for helping people see through the capitalist social reality hidden beneath digital illusions. However, the criticism of many scholars remains confined to digital technology itself and fails to touch upon the relations of production, lacking a critique at the level of the capitalist system. Their deficiencies are thus quite apparent.
V. Research in Other Fields and Issues The research content of foreign Marxism is multifaceted and complex, and its developmental dynamics are difficult to exhaust in a single article; one can only select the most significant aspects and discuss them in general terms. In addition to the important areas mentioned above, research also involves several other fields and practical issues.
(1) Capitalist Economy and Market Socialism Sol Picciotto of Lancaster University, UK, traces the philosophical, political, sociological, and economic foundations of socialist advocacy for progressive taxation, linking it to the goal of socializing the ownership of the means of production. Their attitude toward taxation reflects their view of how capitalism is built upon private property and state power, and how capitalism should be transcended through progressive taxation. These theories were formed in the context of the actual political engagement of their advocates in struggles against authoritarian capitalist states. Picciotto also discusses Keynesian variants of socialism, arguing that the wealth gap leads to increasing inequality and proposing tax measures aimed at social ownership and the equalization of property.
Rémy Herrera of the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) offers a fierce critique of mainstream economics in contemporary Western capitalist countries, viewing it as a one-sided, unscientific form of ideology. He applies this critique to fields such as growth, development, institutions, national defense, and the environment to illustrate the necessity of transcending mainstream economics—and especially capitalist economics. This critique is directed at both neoclassical economics and weak reformist trends, ranging from neo-institutionalists to New Keynesians, including figures such as Thomas Piketty and Amartya Sen. In the process, he rejects Keynes’s theories on money, crises, and the state, and then provides a Marxist explanation for the current capitalist crisis. He considers it a systemic crisis without an internal logic or dynamic solution, emphasizing the link between this capitalist crisis and imperialist wars, as well as capital’s destruction of the environment and natural resources. Herrera concludes that we must find necessary alternatives from a Marxist perspective, shifting from a capitalist economy to socialism to protect humanity and the environment.
John Roemer, a renowned analytical Marxist at Yale University, uses Kant and John Nash as examples to discuss models of cooperation and market socialism. In his view, socialism relies on cooperation just as capitalism relies on competition; this has always been an inherent concept of socialism. However, precise models of market socialism—that is, those sufficiently articulated to allow for the discussion and calculation of economic equilibrium—do not simulate production cooperation or, more generally, cooperation in economic behavior. Roemer introduces a "Kantian optimization" protocol which, compared to Nash optimization, simulates how individuals cooperate in labor and investment decisions. Roemer proves that the "cooperative equilibrium" constructed this way is Pareto efficient, provided that in addition to receiving wages and rent, profits are not distributed solely to shareholders but to workers and investors in proportion to their contribution to the firm. Pareto efficiency is achieved in cases where the firm distributes the entirety of its output to the owners of the factors of production.
The idea of combining some form of social equality with the market can be traced back to the origins of the socialist tradition and forms the basis of many current alternatives to capitalist society. However, Maxi Nieto of Miguel Hernández University, Spain, regards market socialism as an "impossible socialism." He argues that by using the organic relationship between commodity circulation and capital as revealed by Marx as an axis, it is possible to critique market socialism to demonstrate its inconsistency with a program of social emancipation from the capitalist mode of production. This is because: first, the market is economically inefficient in terms of allocation and tends toward social polarization; second, the market politically obstructs citizen autonomy and the free development of human capacities; and third, on ecological issues, the market is incompatible with the social metabolism of sustainable natural development. Nieto concludes that a market-based production structure is incompatible with conscious, rational, and democratic economic regulation.
(2) Social Issues such as Class, Women, and Race Eirik Owesen and Connor Kelly of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology point out that over the past decade, class analysis has been revitalized as a response to growing economic inequality, social fragmentation, and political upheaval. However, somewhat paradoxically, the theory traditionally most closely associated with class analysis—Marxism—has been largely absent from these debates. Owesen and Kelly reconstruct Marxist class analysis by reflecting on the relationship between social class and alienation. They argue that by integrating insights from the theory of alienation, the concept of class can be expanded and economism avoided, while preserving the uniqueness of Marxist theory compared to other methods. Their central argument is that Marxist class analysis cannot be reduced to an explanation of economic inequality but must be seen as a struggle for the conditions of social development.
Jennifer Cohen of the University of Miami and Heidi Hartmann of the Institute for Women's Policy Research (IWPR) discuss the importance of feminist political economy. They believe that feminists have contributed greatly to thinking about an economy in which the purpose of social reproduction—the maintenance of life and human well-being—is not subordinated to the purpose of capitalist production: capital accumulation. Cohen and Hartmann argue that an economic analysis that does not consider human reproduction is not only incomplete but incorrect. Feminist political economy needs to look at economic activity as a whole; therefore, it is impossible to ignore oppression. In linking exploitation with oppressive social structures, the different dimensions of gender, race, and class together constitute key components of a holistic political-economic analysis.
A common view is that economic forms exist which do not conform to the capitalist mode of production. Adam Bledsoe of the University of Minnesota, Tyler McCreary of Florida State University, and Willie Wright of Rutgers University agree with this but point out that such views often overlook the racial issues that must be addressed when establishing a non-capitalist economy. Racialization is the foundation of capitalism; ignoring this may lead to a failure to fully understand the role gender and race play in alternative configurations of capitalist forms. Analysis of different economies must note the fact that capitalism and its alternatives are shaped by racial differences. Racial capitalism shows that the marginalization of racialized populations is a core component of capitalist reproduction. Examples from Canada and the United States demonstrate that Black and Indigenous communities recognize the role their oppression plays in capital accumulation and have found ways to create economic alternatives to these forms of accumulation. Thus, Bledsoe and others provide a nuanced method for discussing the possibilities of diverse economies.
Susan Koshy (University of Illinois), Lisa Cacho (University of Virginia), Jodi Byrd (Cornell University), and Brian Jefferson (University of Illinois) focus on land as a site for the deployment of and resistance to modern power. They discuss issues such as the oppression of Black people, the commodification of humans, slave labor, the history of Indigenous dispossession, and the uneven development of global colonies. They demonstrate the coexistence and entanglement of slavery and colonialism in the development process from the conquest of the New World by industrial capitalism to contemporary finance capitalism. Their analysis of colonial racial capitalism builds a new framework for understanding the persistent violence, instability, and inequality in modern society.
VI. Conclusion Surveying the developmental dynamics of foreign Marxism in 2022, one can find a distinct characteristic among foreign Marxist researchers: the combination of an academic sensibility rooted in the academy and a sense of reality concerned with the fate of the world. Their expositions are theoretical, yet their focus is on issues of universal concern to the present era and the world. This is reflected, for example, in the study of normative themes such as recognition, democracy, justice, tolerance, and justification, as well as in the study of the ecological crisis and digital control in contemporary capitalism. Meanwhile, issues such as the gap between rich and poor, class struggle, gender, and race have long been pain points and difficulties in Western capitalist societies. This high degree of concern for and intervention in practical issues is the source of the long-standing vitality of foreign Marxism.
While non-Chinese Marxism aims at transforming irrational societies—continuously critiquing the capitalist attributes and various problems inherent in Western nations while formulating plans for alternative ideal societies—its content is multifaceted and its viewpoints are inconsistent, containing many anti-Marxist and non-Marxist elements. These critiques and proposals are frequently assimilated and absorbed [7] by the mainstream ideology of Western nations, which to a certain extent and within a certain scope dissipates the dissatisfaction and hostility of some members of society; therefore, objectively, it has instead assisted in the stability of the Western pluralistic social order. It is evident that the role of non-Chinese Marxism within Western capitalist countries possesses a dual nature. The study and development of non-Chinese Marxism also require greater research into and understanding of Western mainstream ideology and academic thought; only then can one more accurately grasp Marxist theory itself as its antithesis and avoid falling into the narrow position of "knowing one thing but not the other" [8].
(The author is a researcher at the Institute of Marxism Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences) Online Editor: Zhang Jian Source: World Socialism Studies, Issue 6, 2023