Qin Shiya: Problem Consciousness and Realistic Significance of Critical Research on Contemporary Imperialism
Critiques of contemporary imperialism arose at the turn of the 21st century from global left-wing scholars’ holistic and critical analyses of the capitalist world following World War II—particularly since the 1970s—and their explorations into paths for transcending capitalism. These theoretical inquiries sparked an international academic boom in contemporary imperialism studies in the early 2000s. From its inception, research on contemporary imperialism has exhibited a distinct problem-consciousness and practical orientation. In the tension between "intervening in reality through theory" and "developing theory through reality," this research focuses on dissecting the new characteristics and trends of the contemporary capitalist world, propelling the development of critical theory and radical politics through new categories and analyses. Recognizing and reflecting upon the contributions and limitations of foreign left-wing scholars’ critiques of contemporary imperialism is a beneficial path toward deepening our understanding of the contemporary forms of capitalism and innovatively developing 21st-century Marxism.
I. Theoretical Contentions: Paradigms and Methodologies of the Critique of Contemporary Imperialism
Developments in reality call for innovation in theory. After World War II, and especially since the 1970s, capitalism entered a new stage of development, exhibiting new changes, characteristics, and trends across all sectors. At the start of the 21st century, foreign left-wing scholars revived imperialism studies, publishing a series of works to dissect the features and consequences of this new stage of capitalism. Examples include Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri’s Empire (2000), Leo Panitch’s The Capitalist State (2001), Samir Amin’s Imperialism and Globalization (2001), David Harvey’s The New Imperialism (2003), Ellen Meiksins Wood’s Empire of Capital (2003), and John Bellamy Foster’s The New Age of Imperialism (2003). In March 2003, the United States bypassed the UN Security Council to launch military strikes against Iraq in the name of counter-terrorism, drawing further attention to discussions on contemporary imperialism. From September 29 to October 2, 2004, the Fourth International Marx Congress [1] held in Paris took "Imperialist War, Social War" as its theme, attracting nearly a thousand scholars from around the world. Renowned international left-wing journals—including New Left Review, Monthly Review, International Socialism, Past & Present, Historical Materialism, Rethinking Marxism, and the Socialist Register—also published numerous articles critiquing contemporary imperialism. These studies and discussions pushed the critique of contemporary imperialism to the forefront of international academia, triggering various inquiries and debates.
(1) The Applicability of Classical Imperialism Theory
The "return" of imperialism to the center of critical theory in the early 21st century is defined in relation to the historical context of the early 20th century. At that time, Marxist thinkers developed classical imperialism theory to critique the "expansion of colonial empires and the fierce conflicts for expansion among capitalist industrial nations." Over the following decades, this theory became the Marxist tradition for grasping the political, economic, and cultural conditions of Third World countries and their relations with the developed capitalist countries of the First World. After World War II, the national liberation movements—through their vigorous development and ultimate victory—dismantled the imperial colonial system, causing the concept and theory of imperialism to become intellectual relics of a specific historical stage. However, the turn of the 21st century and the outbreak of the Gulf War, and particularly the Iraq War, once again focused theoretical and political discussion on imperialism.
The return of imperialism studies inevitably provoked discussions regarding the applicability of classical imperialism theory. On this issue, foreign left-wing scholars hold three distinct positions. The first, represented by scholars such as Alex Callinicos, supports inheriting and developing the categories and paradigms of classical imperialism theory. Callinicos argues that while classical theories have deficiencies, they remain "indispensable tools for understanding the contemporary world." Specifically, he contends that Nikolai Bukharin's analysis of two latent conflicting trends in the imperialist stage—the "internationalization of production, circulation, and investment" and the "interpenetration of private capital and the nation-state"—can still be applied to dissect the "economic competition between capitals" and "geopolitical competition between states" in contemporary imperialism.
The second position, represented by Harvey, suggests that while classical imperialism theory is not applicable to the present era, its inquiries possess contemporary significance. Harvey notes that writers on imperialism failed to complete the research agenda Marx outlined in the Grundrisse (including colonies, the international division of labor, international exchange, exports and imports, exchange rates, the world market, and crises), and failed to propose a spatial theory of capital accumulation and its internal contradictions alongside an analytical framework for geopolitical relations between nation-states. However, he finds their discussions on national self-determination, class alliances, primitive accumulation [2], monopoly and finance capital, relations with non-capitalist social formations, and agrarian and rural social issues to be revelatory. For instance, Harvey integrated Rosa Luxemburg’s analysis of the persistent and vital role of "primitive accumulation" in capital accumulation to propose the concept of "accumulation by dispossession" to critique the mechanisms by which neoliberal capitalism resolves the problem of surplus capital through means such as plunder and fraud.
The third position, represented by Panitch and Sam Gindin, holds a thoroughly negative view of the contemporary applicability of classical imperialism theory. Panitch and Gindin argue that following classical theory implies prioritizing economic determinants, a theoretical stance that leads to reductionism and instrumentalism. They believe this overestimates the political influence of economic factors and fails to truly reflect the important role played by "relatively autonomous" states—particularly the United States—in the formation of global capitalism.
To a large extent, the debate over the applicability of classical imperialism theory is a question of whether theories concerning colonial empires can be used to understand subsequent "informal empires"—that is, empires without colonies. A core concern of classical theory was explaining the relationship between colonial occupation and capitalist expansion, thus paying particular attention to the relationship between capitalist and non-capitalist modes of production and social formations, and the vital role played by capitalist states therein. Consequently, a problem arises: when major capitalist states no longer occupy colonies or solve the problem of surplus capital through territorial expansion, how does the new stage of capitalism achieve capital accumulation? What is the relationship between the globalization of capital and state power, and what are the interstate relations in this context? These questions constitute the core propositions for foreign left-wing scholars constructing a critique of contemporary imperialism—namely, revealing the operational mechanisms of capitalism in the post-colonial era.
(2) The Paradigm of Contemporary Imperialism Critique
Closely related to the question of applicability is the problem of the paradigm of contemporary imperialism critique. Borrowing Callinicos’s terminology, the debate revolves around whether—and how—to understand contemporary imperialism through the dual aspects of "economic competition between capitals" and "geopolitical competition between states." On this issue, Callinicos debated Panitch and Gindin over whether to use a dual-competition paradigm or a state-theory-based paradigm. Harvey and Wood also explored how to understand the "two logics" or two forces of contemporary imperialism. Meanwhile, scholars holding post-national state concepts, such as William I. Robinson, view critiques based on the dual logic of capital–state or economy–politics as a "trap of realist analysis," arguing that dual paradigms cause a split and opposition between economic and political logics and fail to correspond to changed social realities (primarily the formation of a transnational state).
Foreign left-wing scholars who oppose the dual logic have their own theoretical objectives. For example, Panitch and Gindin oppose it to adopt a capitalist-state-centered theory of imperialism, while Robinson does so to propose a transnationalist analytical paradigm. Similarly, those who support the dual logic draw from different theoretical sources. Callinicos traces the dual paradigm back to the classical imperialism theory established by Bukharin and Lenin. In contrast, Harvey draws primarily on Giovanni Arrighi’s distinction in The Long Twentieth Century between the "capitalist logic of power" and the "territorial logic of power" to discuss the two interconnected yet contradictory powers and processes driving contemporary imperialism. Harvey argues that employing two logics allows for the representation of conflicts between private and collective interests, deterritorialization and territorialization, and mobility and stability in modern society. Furthermore, it reflects the importance of state power in institutional arrangements for capital accumulation, thereby adopting a dialectical perspective to "avoid falling into purely political or economic modes of analysis." Additionally, Wood proposed analyzing the imperialist features of capitalism through "economic power" and "extra-economic power." She argues this paradigm distinguishes between traditional colonial empires (which relied mainly on extra-economic coercion) and the new capitalist empire (which rules primarily through economic laws), while demonstrating how the separation of the economic and political leads to complex relations between the global economic system and various nation-states.
More specifically, foreign left-wing scholars who apply the capital–state dual logic disagree on its interpretation. Taking Harvey and Wood as examples: in The New Imperialism, Harvey attempts to construct an analytical framework integrating the geographical process of capital accumulation with the geopolitical struggles of nation-states. He highlights the "capitalist logic of power" that achieves infinite expansion through "accumulation by dispossession" (privatization, marketization, financialization, etc.) since the 1970s, while emphasizing the "territorial logic of power" fixed in specific spaces. He characterizes Wood’s historical overview of empires of property, empires of commerce, and the new empire in Empire of Capital as a "formal typology," arguing that such comparative research fails to show the historical-geographical process of capitalist hegemonic transition or the molecular processes of capital accumulation in time and space, thus neglecting the core issue of the material conditions shaping "New Imperialism."
From Wood’s perspective, however, Harvey's view of "accumulation by dispossession" as a continuation of "primitive accumulation" (based on plunder, fraud, and violence) in contemporary capitalism fails to grasp the essence of capitalist exploitation and the specificity of capitalist society. She contends he mistakenly confuses pre-capitalist "politically-constituted" property with capitalist property—an understanding that fails to distinguish the British Empire from the American Empire, or even the Roman Empire from the American Empire. Wood argues that the uniqueness of capitalist society lies in the separation of economic and political power; this separation allows infinitely expanding capital to exceed limited territorial boundaries. Thus, capitalist imperialism maintains hegemony primarily through economic laws rather than territorial plunder or tribute. Furthermore, following Harvey’s analysis, while infinitely expanding capital accumulation requires corresponding state power as a guarantee, "a truly global state that could provide capital with meticulous and reliable management is almost unthinkable."
The debate among foreign left-wing scholars regarding the paradigm of contemporary imperialism critique revolves primarily around the rationality of the capital–state and economy–politics dual logics. These debates actually point toward the challenge that a series of changes in the capitalist world poses to existing cognitive frameworks. Inquiries into dual logic can be traced back to Hegel and Marx, who identified the separation of civil society and the political state as a characteristic of modern society. On this basis, Marx deepened his research to form historical materialism based on the dialectical relationship between the economic base and the superstructure. Therefore, the debate over the paradigm of the critique of contemporary imperialism—namely, whether the capital–state dual logic can still be used—is inevitably linked to the methodological understanding of historical materialism.
(3) Issues Regarding the Methodology of Historical Materialism
The exploration of the two aforementioned questions concerns historical materialism as a methodology. Historical materialism is the method for studying society and history established by Marx and Engels in The German Ideology, written in 1845; this method formed the foundation of their lifelong research. Historical materialism elucidates the general laws of the development of human society through the dialectical relationship between the economic base and the superstructure, and between the productive forces and the relations of production. Regarding the applicability of classical imperialist theory and the paradigm of contemporary critiques of imperialism, the issue boils down to how to understand—and whether to adopt—historical materialism to comprehend contemporary imperialism.
At the beginning of his book The New Imperialism, David Harvey notes that his goal is to use the method of "historical-geographical materialism" to "examine the current condition of global capitalism and the role that a 'nascent' imperialism might play within it." Historical-geographical materialism is Harvey’s integration of historical materialism and geographical research, emphasizing the critique of capitalism from the perspectives of geography and space. This method is fully utilized in Harvey’s critique of new imperialism, most prominently in his analysis of the "spatial fix" of capital accumulation. Some domestic scholars argue that the term historical-geographical materialism "has no strict definition, but is merely used as a general term for a research agenda in Marxist geography that differs from traditional determinism."
As Panitch and Gindin’s criticism of classical imperialist theory shows, a major challenge to historical materialism comes from economic determinism. When historical materialism is crudely equated with economic determinism, the methodology invites extensive criticism. In the debate between Alex Callinicos and Panitch/Gindin from 2005 to 2006 regarding the critique of contemporary imperialism, the primacy of the economic base was a focal point of contention. Callinicos argues that the uniqueness of the Marxist theory of imperialism lies in "placing modern imperialism within the context of the historical development of the capitalist mode of production." Panitch and Gindin accuse Callinicos of often falling into a "simple repetition of earlier historical patterns" when analyzing issues, thereby obscuring the relative autonomy of the state with economic determinants and ignoring the role the state plays in managing the contradictions and crises of global capitalism and in making its territorial space a site for capital concentration. They aim to construct a new critical theory of imperialism based on state theory to overcome the neglect of the state in previous imperialist theories. Callinicos disagrees with Panitch and Gindin, pointing out that maintaining the priority of the economic base is the fundamental position of Marxists. He argues that applying historical materialism to analyze contemporary imperialism must begin with the primacy of the economy, and emphasizes that highlighting economic priority is not equivalent to denying the important role of the state. Although Marx, Engels, and the thinkers who studied imperialism did not construct a systematized theory of the state—emphasizing instead the study of capitalism starting from the mode of production—they did not ignore or deny the state's role in capitalist development. This can be evidenced by their relevant research plans and writings. Among subsequent Marxists, we also see efforts and achievements in developing state theory. Panitch and Gindin’s understanding of historical materialism is clearly undialectical and one-sided.
Since the birth of historical materialism, criticisms of and defenses for its relationship with economic determinism have always existed. This article does not intend to review these debates, but merely seeks to demonstrate that Marxism provides the most thorough and powerful critique of capitalism. As long as the social reality of capitalism as the globally dominant economic system remains unchanged, an open and dialectical Marxism will always be a potent weapon for critiquing capitalist society. As the core essence of Marxism, historical materialism is undoubtedly the theoretical foundation for the critique of contemporary imperialism.
II. Practical Reflections: Structural Characteristics and Internal Contradictions of Contemporary Imperialism
Contemporary imperialism is often termed "new imperialism" to distinguish it from the imperialism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. From the late 19th century to the post-WWII period—particularly since the rise of neoliberalism—the development of capitalism has shown new trends. As the capitalist mode of production is pushed across the globe, the inherent contradictions of capitalism are being reproduced on an even larger scale. Revealing the "novelty" and "ailments" of new imperialism is a focal point of discussion among foreign leftist scholars. These explorations mainly revolve around issues such as capital, class, and the state, dissecting the structural characteristics and internal contradictions of contemporary imperialism from multiple dimensions including political economy, political philosophy, sociology, and philosophy.
(i) The Global Production System and Changes in Class Structure
Reflecting on the capitalist mode of production and class relations is an important component of critical research on contemporary imperialism. Since WWII, and especially since the 1970s, capitalism has entered a stage of total expansion. The rise of transnational corporations (TNCs) promoted the formation of international monopoly organizations and achieved a dominant position in the global production system. The ruling position of finance capital has been continuously consolidated; the rapid development of non-bank financial institutions has absorbed more idle social capital into global financial markets, and global financial oligarchs exert a dominant influence over the world economy. A new international division of labor has replaced the colonial international division of labor in shaping global industrial value chains, further intensifying the exploitation of global industrial workers and the North-South wealth gap. Flexible labor systems have increased the number of temporary and contract workers in the global labor market, weakening the bargaining power of workers and the practical basis for labor unions. The concentration and internationalization of production and capital have driven the global reconstruction of class relations.
Based on the internationalization of production and capital, foreign scholars in the early 21st century proposed the concept of the "transnational class" to analyze the class structure of the global capitalist system. Leslie Sklair, William I. Robinson, Jerry Harris, and William Carroll have conducted significant exploration in this area. Among them, Robinson’s book A Theory of Global Capitalism has had a major international impact. Based on the idea that mutations in the relations of production cause shifts in social structure, Robinson argues that we are in a major historical turning point; the internationalization of production and capital has caused the transnationalization of class relations, and qualitative changes in economic forms and political structures distinguish global capitalism from early capitalism. He uses the sociological analytical method of "structure and agency," pointing out that the formation of a transnational class depends not only on the possession of ownership of the means of production but also on the shaping of class consciousness. In this regard, the transnational capitalist class (TCC) has become a "class-in-and-for-itself" because transnational capital has become the dominant force in the global capitalist system, constituting the objective basis of the TCC. Furthermore, transnational mergers and acquisitions, strategic alliances, subcontracting, and outsourcing indicate that the class consciousness of this group has formed; they have united purposefully and strategically to create conditions for transnational capital accumulation to achieve a greater degree of capital valorization on a worldwide scale. The emergence of transnational capitalists simultaneously shapes its opposite—the transnational proletariat. Comparatively, however, the transnational proletariat is a "class-in-itself" but not yet "for-itself." Although small-scale, conscious resistance movements have appeared among them—such as the Zapatista movement in Mexico—they have not yet formed a unified class consciousness or global collective action.
There are disagreements among foreign scholars as to whether the formation of a transnational class is in the future tense or the present tense. Arguments questioning the reality of a transnational capitalist class mainly include two types: first, that the dominant position of the nation-state gives capitalist interests a territorial character, meaning the global expansion of capital does not equal the internationalization of capitalist interests; second, that competitive relationships exist between capitalists, and competition leads to conflicts of interest rather than unification. John Gray, in his book False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism, points out that TNCs are not "stateless transnational institutions," because currently the core businesses and most assets of TNCs remain in their home countries and express a single national culture—these characteristics are particularly evident in American TNCs. Regarding the view that TNCs exercise nation-state functions, Gray argues that "the global market has not birthed a type of corporation to take over the functions that used to belong to sovereign states, but has instead weakened and hollowed out both sovereign states and corporations." This leads to another important issue in the critique of contemporary imperialism: the status and functions of the nation-state.
(ii) The Status and Functions of the Nation-State in Transition
The nation-state emerged alongside the rise of capitalism, performing the function of "a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie." In the era of globalization, the scope of nation-state power has changed, and the development of regional organizations has reshaped the geographical space of capitalist organization. The status and functions of the nation-state within contemporary imperialism is a focal issue of debate among foreign leftist scholars. Based on different views of the nation-state in the era of globalization, Robinson distinguishes between three positions: "weak state theory," "strong state theory," and "transnational state theory." Among these, the most influential are the "strong state theory" represented by Harvey, Wood, and Callinicos, which emphasizes the dominant role of the nation-state in the developmental process of contemporary imperialism, and the "transnational state theory" represented by Robinson, Hardt, and Negri, which asserts that the nation-state has been transformed into a "transnational state" or "Empire" in the process of globalization and does not agree that the nation-state still occupies a central position at the current stage.
Scholars holding the "strong state theory" mostly adopt a dual-logic paradigm of the global economy versus the nation-state, though differences exist between their views. For example, Harvey, Wood, and Callinicos consistently emphasize the importance of state institutional arrangements for capital accumulation, arguing that the development of the global economy has not produced a "world politics" to manage economic forces. The state remains the most important territorial entity, providing an indispensable environment for capital accumulation by formulating policies and legal terms, maintaining social order, guaranteeing the credit environment, providing infrastructure, and integrating ideology.
"Transnational state theory" is closely related to the perspective of the transnational class. Scholars holding this view believe that economic globalization has caused a transformation of class structures and political forms, manifested as the transnationalization of both classes and states. Robinson opposes treating the nation-state as a transhistorical, eternal entity. He states: "The nation-state is no longer the organizing principle of capitalism, and no longer the institutional 'container' of class development and social life." The transnational state, as a specific form of the state, is a polycentric structure composed of supranational institutions that manage the global flow of capital and commodities. Robinson proposes a theory of "transnational hegemony" to oppose Arrighi’s "world hegemony theory" or "hegemonic transition theory" which is based on the nation-state. Transnational hegemony theory is a post-national state paradigm based on the globalization of the relations of production, elevating supranational institutions to the status of leading political organizations. Robinson’s transnational hegemony theory naturally makes him sympathetic to Hardt and Negri’s theory of "Empire." In his view, "Empire" is a pattern of transnational hegemony that eliminates national borders. Hardt and Negri’s imperial sovereignty is "composed of a series of national and supranational organisms united under a single logic of rule." They believe that the decline of the nation-state does not mean its disappearance, but rather that its dominant control has weakened, making it subject to the systemic dominance of the Empire. The power of the Empire resides above nation-states and supranational institutions, forming a new mode of global authority. Unlike modern sovereignty, the authority mode of the Empire is "virtual" in nature—it has no entity, no boundaries, and no center; it is an open, smooth network space.
William Robinson’s theory of the transnational state, much like Hardt and Negri’s theory of Empire, has struggled to escape criticisms of having constructed a new "myth" of the globalization era. In the view of their opponents, global politico-economic relations remain rooted in the interstate system; a complex interaction exists between economic globalization and the nation-state, wherein globalization both relies upon and contradicts the nation-state. One cannot simply replace the nation-state with a transnational state, nor replicate state-level issues on a global scale. Samir Amin argued that replacing nation-state sovereignty with transnational sovereignty is a "naive illusion of globalization." On one hand, we still live in a "class society," only one that has been integrated into world capitalism, taking on an even more pronounced imperialist character. On the other hand, the imperialist "triad" composed of the United States, Europe, and Japan occupies a dominant position in capital extraction within the new imperialist system; however, economic alignment cannot eliminate their political divisions. Surveying today’s global landscape, it is an indisputable fact that state sovereignty has not been replaced by transnational sovereignty, and geopolitical competition between states remains a vital factor in shaping international politics.
(3) Subjects and Forms of Anti-Capitalist Struggle
Since the 1970s, the global expansion of neoliberalism has pushed open the closed doors of many countries, providing a realistic basis for the establishment of an "Open Door" imperialism. This "Open Door" [7] imperialism "avoids the costs and dangers brought by direct political rule or territorial control," allowing the power of capital to be further expanded and consolidated. In this historical situation, foreign left-wing scholars research the class relations of contemporary imperialism and the relationship between capital accumulation and state power with the ultimate intent of exploring the subjects and forms of resistance.
On the question of the revolutionary subject, the concept of the "multitude" [8] proposed by Hardt and Negri in their book Empire has sparked considerable controversy. They argue that contemporary strategies of capital accumulation have changed, and that immaterial labor—which creates information, symbols, knowledge, and affect—has become the dominant path for the valorization of capital. This has reshaped the wage laborer, whose typical image was the "male industrial worker," and triggered the production of a new subjectivity. This new subjectivity is the "multitude," namely, "all those subject to exploitation and domination by capitalism." The multitude is a formless, manifold, and fluid force; moreover, it is the condition of all production and a generative force possessing the desire and potential for liberation. As communicative labor, interactive labor, and affective labor become the center of capital accumulation, language, meaning, and communication networks also become important means of struggle. Based on these analyses, Slavoj Žižek regards Hardt and Negri’s Empire as a "pre-Marxist work" because they "failed to repeat Marx's analysis under current conditions—namely, that the future of the proletarian revolution is contained within the internal contradictions of the capitalist mode of production." This limitation results from a lack of political-economic analysis. Amin pointed out that the resistance strategy based on the "multitude" as a subject is merely a product of "ideology-first" thinking and an idealist invention: "it assumes this reversal has already occurred in the world of ideas before any change has occurred in real social relations."
Regarding the form of resistance, as traditional revolution has faced a steady decline, the New Social Movements that rose in the 1960s and 70s shaped new forms and imaginaries of radical politics, presenting new topics for foreign left-wing scholars. The "newness" of New Social Movements is reflected in subjects, organizations, methods, and demands that differ from traditional class politics. These movements are primarily launched by youth groups and the middle class; they lack fixed organizations, parties, or programs; they are based on loose collective action; and their core demand is to change social behaviors and value norms to seek social recognition for specific collective identities. Hardt and Negri believe that "revolutionary thought should not escape identity politics, but should operate through it and learn from it." David Harvey, however, categorizes all forms of struggle in the new stage—including identity politics—under the umbrella of "struggles against accumulation by dispossession." These struggles are initiated by special interest groups or NGOs aimed at realizing particular cultural, ideological, or material demands, but they do not necessarily shake the existing social order. In Harvey's view, opposing the financial institutional arrangements supported by state power should be the primary goal of the movement against accumulation by dispossession. Transnational corporations, world economic organizations, and the "Wall Street-Treasury-Washington" complex—as the core of new imperialist rule—should be the primary targets of the anti-globalization movement. The internationalization of finance capital gives these resistance movements an inherently transnational character. However, because the demands of movements against accumulation by dispossession involve the interests of various disparate groups, in specific contexts, some demands may even contradict one another. These fragmented social movements lack a unified economic and political foundation, making it difficult to form an organic union. Consequently, Harvey questions the reality of the "multitude" as a homogenized revolutionary subject and worries that struggles against accumulation by dispossession "run the risk of fracturing the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements currently brewing."
Similar to Harvey’s focus on transnational corporations, William Robinson focuses on anti-transnational-hegemony movements. As previously mentioned, Robinson developed hegemony theory from a nation-state basis into a transnational hegemony theory. This post-nation-state hegemony is a top-down transnational elite agenda serving global capital accumulation. Transnational capital has become the dominant force in the global capitalist system; transnational capitalists have usurped the dominant position of national capitalists, forming a global capitalist class. Simultaneously, anti-capitalist forces are growing within global civil society. Although anti-capitalist forces in their early stages have not yet reached the "class-for-itself" [9] status of the transnational elite, organized movements of struggle have begun to appear. In Robinson’s view, anti-hegemony movements must also develop from the national level to the transnational level. First, the exploitation of global labor by transnational capital gives anti-hegemony movements an inherent transnational attribute. Second, the infrastructure used by transnational elites to arrange global activities can serve as the material basis for anti-hegemonic forces to organize their struggle. Finally, anti-hegemony movements can only launch substantive struggles against transnational capitalists on the basis of transnational alliances. Robinson states: "The real prospect for counter-hegemonic social change in the age of globalization should be a globalization-from-below movement, which seeks to challenge the power of global elites in an expanding transnational civil society by uniting counter-hegemonic forces across nations and regions." The counter-hegemonic movement is a "globalization" movement (in quotation marks); it must utilize the fruits of globalization to unite the global proletariat to the greatest extent possible to resist the super-exploitation of global capitalism, thereby turning top-down globalization into globalization-from-below. In other words, the counter-hegemonic movement is not "anti-globalization," but an "alter-globalization."
In contrast, Ellen Meiksins Wood emphasizes organization, solidarity, and struggle at the state level, arguing that state-level struggle plays a more fundamental role than transnational struggle. In her view, although anti-capitalist movements targeting transnational corporations and organizations have raised people's level of consciousness, it is a mistake to take "attacking the instruments of capital's global penetration rather than challenging the capitalist system itself" as a premise. Furthermore, many participants in such movements only hope to "domesticate" these corporations and organizations to achieve "improvement." Wood has little confidence in transnational movements, believing instead in the restructuring of political forces and resistance struggles based on regions and states. She argues that for the future of European integration and the role of the European Left in anti-capitalist struggles beyond borders, it would be more decisive for France to resolve the chaos of its left-wing parties—or for Germany or even the UK to rebuild a socialist party with a broad popular base—than to have movements against the IMF or the G7. Only by resisting on the basis of concrete action plans and forces can the anti-capitalist struggle be better advanced.
III. General Assessment and Multiple Insights from Contemporary Critical Studies of Imperialism
Contemporary critical studies of imperialism are the product of a specific era. At the beginning of the 21st century, foreign left-wing scholars actively launched critical research into contemporary imperialism, keenly grasping the transformation of the times and the urgency of theoretical construction. Conducting a holistic analysis of post-transformation capitalist society is not an easy task, and foreign left-wing scholars have made valuable attempts. We should examine these new theoretical forms dialectically. On one hand, contemporary critical studies of imperialism have developed Marxism through the study of the new stage of capitalism. First, the exploration of new means of capital exploitation has revealed the operating mechanisms of contemporary capitalism and the total control of life by capital. Second, the debate over the status and functions of the nation-state in the era of globalization has highlighted the contemporary transformation of the state and its relationship with the global economy. Finally, reflections on the forms of resistance and the production of subjectivity in the new historical context reflect the new trends and difficulties faced by anti-capitalist struggles. On the other hand, the contemporary critical studies of imperialism by foreign left-wing scholars also possess their own problems and shortcomings. For example, Negri and Hardt’s theory of Empire lacks the support of political-economic analysis and has a heavy idealist tint; the critiques of new imperialism by Harvey and Wood are powerful in their critique of neoliberalism but offer less thought on the question of the revolutionary subject; Robinson’s transnational state theory highlights the deterritorialization trends of future global development but has been accused of constructing a "globalization myth." Viewed as a whole, these theoretical explorations opened the prelude to contemporary imperialism studies in the 21st century, brought a systematic analysis of the new stage of capitalism into our field of vision, and provided multiple insights for us to better construct 21st-century Marxism.
(1) Directing Toward the Critique and Transcendence of Capitalism
Critically analyzing capitalism and seeking social change to overcome the defects and contradictions of capitalism is the starting point and foothold of Marxism. Although capitalism has undergone various forms of change in its process of global expansion since its birth, its essence has not changed. As a specific socio-economic formation, capitalism takes the maximization of profit as the ultimate goal of its production, the socialization of production vs. the private ownership of the means of production as its basic contradiction, and the unpaid exploitation of the surplus labor of the majority of workers by a minority of capitalists who own the means of production as its fundamental characteristic. From the early capitalism of Marx’s time to the imperialism critiqued by thinkers represented by Lenin, to the contemporary new imperialism analyzed by foreign left-wing scholars, there is no substantive difference in the purpose of production, the basic contradiction, or the nature of exploitation in capitalism. The British scholar Terry Eagleton pointed out: "The stability of the internal logic of capitalism determines that the majority of Marxist critiques of the capitalist system remain valid to this day." The Marxist critique of capitalism is not obsolete. At the same time, the rapid development of capitalism and the sharpening of social contradictions have posed new tasks for Marxist theory and practice. It is increasingly urgent to recognize and grasp the "changes" and "constants" of contemporary capitalism and to explore real solutions to social contradictions. Contemporary critical studies of imperialism have inherited the Marxist critical tradition, dissected the modes of capital accumulation and means of hegemonic rule in the new stage of capitalist development, exposed the more hidden and cruel means of exploitation within neoliberal capitalism, and explored the paths to transcending capitalism based on a reflection of new forms of anti-capitalist struggle. Contemporary critical studies of imperialism arose from the development of capitalism and have inherited and developed the critical spirit and value-orientation of Marxism under new historical conditions.
(2) Marxism as an Open System Oriented Toward Realistic Problems
Marxism is the spirit of the age grasped in thought. As Engels stated: "Our theory is a developing theory, not a dogma to be learned by heart and repeated mechanically." As an open theoretical form, Marxism is continuously enriched and expanded by responding to practical issues as the era develops. The theories of new imperialism constructed by foreign left-wing scholars represent a contemporary form of Marxism, developing Marxist theory through critical analysis of the new stage of capitalism. Discussing the characteristics and mechanisms of contemporary imperialism is not intended to manufacture a "rupture" between it and the imperialism of the early 20th century, but rather to better grasp 21st-century capitalism and socialism, to analyze and address various practical problems encountered today, and thereby to explore alternative schemes for building "another world." Compared with the imperialism of the early 20th century, capitalism has entered a new stage of development: changes in production modes characterized by automation, digitalization, and intelligentization have profoundly influenced the global industrial landscape; neoliberalism, with privatization, marketization, and financialization at its core, has shaped international monopoly capitalism; competition among powerful capitalist nations for the division of colonies has transformed into a contest for capital dominated by transnational corporations and financial oligarchs from capitalist states; large-scale warfare has been replaced by so-called "low-intensity warfare"; and the prevalence of consumerism has shaped new ideologies, among other shifts. Against this backdrop, capitalist society has generated numerous social problems such as a rapidly widening gap between rich and poor, overproduction, debt crises, financial speculation, the digital divide, environmental destruction, ecological imbalance, and refugee waves. One must deeply analyze the operational mechanisms of capitalist society to find the root causes and solutions for these aforementioned problems. Contemporary critical studies of imperialism emerged precisely within this historical situation to expose and resolve the pathologies of the existing social order, with the aim of moving toward a better society for the future.
(III) Promoting the construction of 21st-century Marxism through the bidirectional interaction between theory and practice
Although foreign left-wing scholars differ in the degree to which they draw upon Marxist intellectual resources in their critical studies of contemporary imperialism, and despite certain controversial assertions and categories within these theories, they generally demonstrate a proactive path for activating and developing Marxism in the contemporary context. This path consists of "intervening in actual society using theoretical analysis as a weapon" and "promoting theoretical innovation guided by practical problems"—that is, the bidirectional interaction between theory and practice. David Harvey distinguishes between two research orientations in explaining what is "new" about "new imperialism": the first orientation suggests that changes in material conditions lead to the emergence of new phenomena, rendering past theories no longer applicable and necessitating the construction of a set of new concepts adapted to modern circumstances; the second orientation involves constructing new concepts to explain fundamental changes in material conditions and imperialist practices. In reality, these two orientations are not mutually exclusive but point together toward the dialectical relationship between theory and practice, and between consciousness and reality. Understanding new phenomena is inseparable from new concepts, and constructing new theories must be based on new realities. The emergence of contemporary critical studies of imperialism is both a product of changes in material conditions—it is precisely these changes that sparked disputes over the applicability of classical imperialist theory—and the result of proposing new concepts to interpret social reality and social practice. This is the dimension of deepening the understanding of contemporary capitalism through theoretical innovation. Across these dual dimensions, contemporary critical studies of imperialism have provided exploratory answers to the major questions of "whither Marxism?" and "whither human society?" For us, these theoretical explorations are not only methods that can be drawn upon to construct 21st-century Marxism but also useful references for discussing the developmental trends of the contemporary world and the strategies for responding to contemporary imperialism.