Feng Wangzhou: A Summary of Foreign Research on "Political Marxism"
"Political Marxism" is a significant academic school within contemporary foreign Marxism. Rising in the 1970s and gaining popularity among Anglo-American Marxist circles, it exerts a major influence on the Western Left. Its primary founders, Robert Brenner and Ellen Meiksins Wood, adhered to the fundamental viewpoints and methods of Marxism to construct a unique theoretical system of "political-historical materialism." They oppose ahistorical modes of traditional Marxist analysis and maintain that historical materialism remains the best theoretical weapon for critiquing capitalism. However, they also argue that historical materialism should not be understood as a set of general laws for socio-history, but rather primarily as a critique of capitalist society. They place great emphasis on the role of class relations and social property relations in explaining historical development. In recent years, research on "Political Marxism" in both domestic and foreign academic circles has entered a stage of steady development. Scholars have studied "Political Marxism" from multiple perspectives, profoundly elucidating its fundamental theoretical issues, primary content, and contemporary value.
I. The Connotation and Formation of "Political Marxism"
Formed in North America, "Political Marxism" has undergone over 40 years of development and established a three-generation academic community. [1] David McNally noted: "Wood’s theoretical orientation was bestowed with the title 'Political Marxism' by the French historian Guy Bois. Wood undoubtedly grants greater significance to social and political struggles than many Marxist historians; however, she also maintains certain reservations regarding this title. She agrees on the importance of political economy and the process of economic development, but she simply believes that these alone fail to explain major historical changes, thus requiring more attention to the political events that have occurred." [2] Vivek Chibber pointed out that while Wood played a crucial role in the development of "Political Marxism," the initial discussions revolved around the works of Robert Brenner, focusing on the analysis of the origins of capitalism and its structure. [3]
Regarding the connotation of "Political Marxism," the academic community has basically reached a consensus and formed relatively accurate conclusions. Some scholars point out that the connotation of "Political Marxism" primarily includes four aspects: First, "Political Marxism" is the product of the collision, fusion, and competition of various foreign Marxist intellectual trends of the 1970s (such as the British Marxist Historians, Structuralist Marxism, Post-Marxism, etc.) within a specific historical context. Second, "Political Marxism" is the collective wisdom of its two founders, Brenner and Wood, and their students, developed through independent exploration, mutual influence, and joint progress in a specific historical context. Third, "Political Marxism" has developed into a theoretical school possessing two or three generations of theoretical lineage, multiple academic strongholds, and influence across numerous disciplines. Fourth, the core categories and methods of "Political Marxism" are historical specificity, class relations, and class analysis; to a certain extent, it constitutes an important deepening of the historical-political dimensions of historical materialism. [4] Some scholars argue that "Political Marxism" places history at the core of theoretical analysis, emphasizes the role of social subjects and class conflict in explaining history, and opposes ahistorical traditional Marxist analytical models. They believe historical materialism cannot be understood as a general law of social history but must first be understood as a critique of capitalist society. [5] Other scholars point out that the theoretical viewpoints of "Political Marxism" emphasize the critique of capitalist society and the reinterpretation of historical materialism. [6] "Political Marxism," as pioneered by Brenner and Wood, discards the models of historical change found in classical Marxism and prioritizes explanations of history that are closely integrated with production. [7] Committed to the critique of capitalism, "Political Marxism" has not departed from Marxism; on the contrary, it has clarified a series of issues regarding the origin, essence, and developmental forms of capitalism in traditional Marxism. By reconstructing models of socio-historical analysis, it has strengthened Marx’s historical materialist method of analysis and highlighted the contemporary value of Marxism. [8]
II. Theories on the Origins of Capitalism and Forms of Social Development
First, from the perspective of totality: some researchers point out that while the "Political Marxist" analysis of the origins of capitalism provides extremely useful references for exploring Marx’s theory of history, it tends to swing from one extreme (productive forces determinism) to another (class agency). [9] "Political Marxism" emphasizes that capitalism originated in English agriculture, rooted in the transformation of social property relations. [10] On the basis of a comprehensive reflection on universalized concepts of capitalism—such as the commercialization model or the demographic model—Political Marxism constructed a theoretical premise of "market imperatives" as the rationalizing factor for the origin of capitalism through three presuppositions: "capitalist specificity," the "persistence of class relations," and the "pivotal status of the peasantry." [11] "Political Marxism" constructed a model for the transition from feudalism to capitalism; however, in the process of explaining social transformation, it focused one-dimensionally on class exploitation and struggle. Class struggle alone cannot explain the transition from one mode of production to another; the manifestation or concealment of conflict between the exploiter and the exploited is a universal characteristic of all class societies. [12]
Second, from Wood’s perspective: some researchers point out that Wood believes capitalism was not a historical necessity as depicted by the commercialization model, but was formed accidentally under very specific conditions. Wood's views on the origins of capitalism directly inherited and subsequently enriched and developed Brenner's viewpoints. [13] Wood analyzed and critiqued the widely circulated commercialization model, demographic model, and the theory of the absolutist state; based on the reality of British agriculture, she established the theory of the origins of agrarian capitalism. [14]
Third, from Brenner’s perspective: some scholars believe that Brenner triggered the discussion on the transition from feudalism to capitalism. Brenner's critique of Neo-Malthusianism, as well as his use of comparative methods to examine the class structures and class struggles of different European countries, received support from several scholars in Britain and France. [15] Brenner critiqued the "demographic model" and the "commercialization model," proposing that the transformation of the natural economy was determined by "rural class structure," though his "class structure model" also encountered difficult challenges. [16] Brenner argues that capitalism emerged contingently, based on the transformation of social property relations triggered by class struggle, revealing two major factors in the origin of Western European capitalism. [17] Brenner constructed theories of social property relations, transition, and economic crisis, notably sparking the famous "Brenner Debate." [18] Furthermore, some researchers have revealed the characteristics of the transformation of social property relations in Brenner's work on the transition from feudalism to capitalism. [19] Brenner believes that social property relations are a more standardized form of the relations of production; thus, Brenner's theory on the origin of capitalism is also called the "social property relations model." [20] Brenner argues it was precisely the differences in social property relations that led to the divergence in the development of European countries during the same period and under similar circumstances. [21]
III. New Imperialism Theory
First, the essence of the "newness" of New Imperialism: some researchers point out that the "newness" of Wood’s New Imperialism lies in the implementation of hegemony through purely economic means, whereas David Harvey remains confined to the old colonial model and fails to distinguish the essence of old and new imperialism. [22] US imperialism rules through the power of the market (or capital) rather than through military autocracy or tyranny. [23] US hegemony and the valorization of US capital are achieved through the implementation of international economic and geopolitical strategies, the vast majority of which also serve the interests of its economic partners and even its competitors. [24]
Second, the logic of power in New Imperialism: some researchers, explaining from a comparative perspective between Wood and Harvey, point out that within the capital logic and territorial logic of power, Wood emphasizes the logic of capital, while Harvey attaches more importance to the intersection of capital and territorial logics, emphasizing the importance of accumulation by dispossession. [25] Wood critiqued Harvey’s logic of power regarding New Imperialism; she distinguished between economic power and extra-economic power, the former corresponding to Harvey’s capital logic and the latter to the territorial logic. On one hand, the geographical expansion of capital does not necessarily require state support at the political level, and even less requires the state to expand its own territory through colonization; on the other hand, the state does not necessarily support the geographical expansion of its domestic capital. The uncertainty of this relationship highlights the territorial logic, or the independence of extra-economic power from the logic of capital; capital logic and territorial logic are in conflict during the period of New Imperialism. [26]
Third, the contradictions, crises, and struggles of resistance in New Imperialism: some scholars point out that Wood believes New Imperialism possesses multiple contradictions, mainly including: the contradiction between the global expansion of New Imperialism and the weakening of competitors; the contradiction between New Imperialism’s breakthrough of geographical spatial boundaries and the pursuit of social order and stability; the contradiction between New Imperialism’s pursuit of profit maximization and the continuous decline of the purchasing power of the common people; the contradiction between New Imperialism’s requirement for global regulation and the absence of a global state; and the contradiction between New Imperialism’s reliance on military means by a single territorial state to maintain the globalized system of capital and the infinite expansion of capital. [27] In the process of implementing globalization, New Imperialism can never escape a fundamental contradiction: the contradiction of needing to continuously open markets while preventing competitors from becoming powerful. [28] The nation-state remains the most critical arena and the most powerful subject in opposing New Imperialism. Wood advocates for a path of resistance with socialism as the direction, the nation-state as the platform, and the working class as the primary force. [29] New Imperialism is capitalist imperialism as typically represented by the United States. The crisis of New Imperialism manifests as a democratic deficit in politics and a surplus in the military. The root of the New Imperialism crisis lies in the inherent logic of capital expansion and the power configuration relations dominated by it. [30]
IV. Historical Materialism Theory
Domestic scholarship on the historical materialist theory of "Political Marxism" has primarily focused on Wood, conducting research from the following perspectives. First, from the perspective of totality. The monograph A Study of Ellen Meiksins Wood’s Historical Materialist Thought has been published domestically; as the first work in China to study Wood’s historical materialism, it centers on the theoretical theme of reconstructing historical materialism and reveals Wood's thought in a holistic manner. [36] Second, from the perspective of the mode of production. Some scholars have pointed out that Wood opposes both "orthodox" Marxism and critiques post-Marxism; on this basis, drawing on the analyses of Thompson and Brenner, she "reconstructs historical materialism" around the core concept of the mode of production and proposes the propositions of "Political Marxism." [37] Third, from the perspective of clarifying the basic concepts of historical materialism. Some researchers note that Wood believes the "base-superstructure" metaphor used by Marx in 1859 was distorted by "orthodox" Marxism; by drawing on Thompson's ideas, Wood reconstructs the relationship between the economic base and the superstructure. [38] To resolve the theoretical separation of the "economic" and the "political," Wood rethinks the relationship between the "base" and the "superstructure" as vital categories of historical materialism. [39] Fourth, from the functional perspective of historical materialism. Some scholars point out that Wood primarily proposes and demonstrates that the core of historical materialism is the insistence on the historicity and specificity of capitalism, rather than universal laws of history. [40] By examining the important function of human agency within historical materialist theory, Wood critiques various forms of "determinism" and offers a profound critique of contemporary capitalist-imperialist social formations, exemplified by the United States. While Wood’s historical materialism inherits Marx’s thought, it innovates the narrative mode for explaining the characteristics of capitalism, providing a new horizon and methodology for understanding and critiquing contemporary capitalist ideological trends. [41] "Political Marxism" emphasizes the role of social class conflict in explaining history, argues that historical materialism is first and foremost a critical theory of capitalist society, and advocates for reinterpreting historical materialism in conjunction with real-world social issues. [42] Wood’s reconstruction of historical materialism actually understands it as a theory of democratic politics, focusing on the construction of democratic politics in modern capitalist states as an entry point to explore the contemporary theoretical innovation of historical materialism. [43] Other researchers have conducted comparative studies of Wood’s and Habermas's theories on reconstructing historical materialism, revealing the significant theoretical and practical implications of Wood's approach. [44]
V. Theory of the Nation-State The academic community has primarily interpreted this from the perspectives of the origin, function, and multifaceted nature of the nation-state. Some researchers point out that Wood discusses the functions of the state in detail, arguing that the state cannot be defined simply as an instrument of class rule or a product of irreconcilable class contradictions. Instead, the state should be defined as any form of public power. The capitalist state does not possess class neutrality; exploitation and despotic rule still exist at the state level. [45] The role of the nation-state in the process of globalization has not weakened but has instead strengthened, playing an irreplaceable role. The global accumulation and expansion of capital require the nation-state, which continues to perform functions that transnational economic organizations cannot replace. [46] "Political Marxism" holds that capitalism is closely linked to the modern nation-state; the history of the development of capitalism is the history of the formation of the modern nation-state, and the capitalist state is the typical representative of the modern nation-state. [47] From the perspective of the relationship between the state and imperialism, other scholars have pointed out that Political Marxism uses a logic of power to analyze capitalist political forms. However, the conclusion that the nation-state is the sole unit of the international system not only obscures the causes of power struggles but also contradicts objective facts and ignores the positive role of international organizations. [48] Within the lineage of Leftist thought, the theoretical reflections of Wood and Brenner on the nation-state are representative and provide intellectual leadership. [49]
VI. Theories of Capitalist Social Crisis and Class Struggle Academic discourse has centered on capitalist class struggle, economic crises, and social crises. Some researchers have interpreted Wood’s theory of class struggle from the perspective of the separation of politics and economics in capitalism. Wood points out that this separation makes the extraction of surplus an economic issue rather than a political one. The result of this separation is a disconnect between the militancy of the working class and its political consciousness, causing class struggle to devolve into a struggle for better working and living conditions. [50] Other scholars have analyzed Brenner’s theory of capitalist crisis. They believe Brenner’s analysis of contemporary capitalist social crises—particularly the crisis of the 1970s—is highly influential and distinctive. He focuses on the level of capitalist competition, explaining the negative impact of competition on manufacturing output prices and profit rates, thereby revealing the long-term decline in the rate of profit and the chronic stagnation of the capitalist economy. However, his analysis neglects to discuss the various premises upon which competition unfolds. [51] By re-examining the origins of capitalism to highlight class relations and class struggle, Brenner and Wood actively defend the dominant position of class struggle in the process of human historical development. [52] Some scholars believe that Brenner provides a different reading of Marx's crisis theory; based on Marx’s theory and using the "social property relations" framework, he analyzed the transition of developed capitalist economies from long-term post-WWII prosperity to subsequent decline. [53] Brenner believes the current economic crisis is rooted in the continuous decline of the profit rate. Once Brenner’s explanation for the long-term sluggishness of post-war capitalist profit rates was released, a debate erupted in Western academia. This includes detailed examinations of critiques by Michel Aglietta and others, as well as the affirmations and developments of Brenner's theory by Western Leftist scholars represented by Chris Harman. [54]
VII. Theories of Globalization and Modernity The academic community has provided interpretations regarding the essence of globalization and the relations between globalization, modernity, and capitalism. Some scholars point out that Wood correctly explains the essence of capitalist globalization, arguing that the globalization of capitalism is both a mark of its success and the beginning of its failure; globalization is the internationalization of capital and the universalization of capitalism, the purpose of which is to achieve the global hegemony of capital-imperialism. [55] Modernity and capitalism are not the same thing; the history of capitalism cannot be divided into two stages of modernity and postmodernity, as the essence of capitalism does not change due to historical development. [56] Some scholars point out that globalization marks the point where the spatial expansion of capitalism has reached its zenith, which also means that the systemic contradictions of capitalism are becoming increasingly universalized; the possibility of socialist politics in the era of global capitalism is not smaller, but greater. [57] Other scholars have studied the modern international relations theory of Benno Teschke, a representative of "Political Marxism," from the perspective of international relations. Political Marxist scholars represented by Teschke have conducted critical research on the modern international relations established by the 1948 Peace of Westphalia. Teschke critically analyzes the misreadings of this major international shift by theories such as neo-realism, constructivism, and historical sociology, using the methods of dialectical materialism and historical materialism to redraw historical boundary lines. [58] Wood demonstrates that all problems emerging under the rule of global capitalism are primarily caused by basic capitalist laws—such as the principles of competition, profit maximization, and capital accumulation—rather than by globalization as commonly understood. Globalization merely intensifies these laws; it is a result of these laws rather than their cause. The substance of globalization includes four aspects: First, globalization is the manipulation of world trade by "capital-imperialism," represented by the United States. Second, globalization and free trade are two different things; under globalization, only underdeveloped countries are encouraged to open to developed ones, while the reverse is not permitted. If genuine two-way openness were implemented, it would violate the original intent of the designers of globalization. Third, the result of globalization is, on the one hand, the formation of a subordinate market economy subject to the capital empire, and on the other, the capital empire’s attempt to remain unaffected by the negative effects of globalization. Fourth, the root of the problems arising in the process of globalization is not a question of the degree of globalization, but rather the vulnerability of poor countries' markets when facing imperial capital. Because of this, Wood demands that when people attack global capitalism, they must aim their fire directly at capitalism itself rather than focusing on globalization. [59]
VIII. Critical Theories of Post-Marxism and Postmodernism Some scholars point out that in response to postmodernism's questioning of the scientific nature of Marxist theory and the feasibility of its practice, Wood offers a rebuttal from four aspects: first, defending historical materialism against the ahistorical view of postmodernism; second, emphasizing a holistic epistemology against the fragmented deconstruction of postmodernism; third, confirming the revolutionary subject status of the working class against the postmodern dissolution of the subject; and fourth, emphasizing the specificity of capitalism against the "ruptured" interpretations of postmodernism. As a major representative of anti-postmodernism, Wood's critique helps defend Marxist orthodoxy, though it also displays a certain narrowness and extremism. [60] In Wood’s view, the essence of post-Marxism and postmodernism is identical: they dissolve Marx’s theory of class, promote radical democratic politics, and advocate for Western liberal democracy. [61] Targeting the erroneous trends of postmodernism, Wood points out that postmodernism is essentially "the product of a consciousness formed during the so-called Golden Age of capitalism" and represents the waning of the critique of capitalism. She critiques postmodernism from the perspectives of temporal and historical views, a holist research horizon, and the subjective status of the working class, thereby defending and developing Marxism. [62]
IX. Critical Theory of Capitalist Ideology The academic community has interpreted "Political Marxism's" critique of capitalist ideology from four aspects. Rooted in the historical development of capitalist society, "Political Marxism" explains the essence, function, and effects of capitalist ideology. Looking at the concept of "progress" as a capitalist ideology, it is directly related to property rights and bears the imprint of capitalist power discourse, causing people to view the so-called progress of capitalism only in the abstract, even regarding capitalist colonial plunder as progressive and just. Regarding democracy as a capitalist ideology, capitalist democracy has become a tool of its rule, inherent to the capitalist system of governance, and even an indispensable component for maintaining imperial hegemony. Regarding the "infinite war" of new imperialism as capitalist ideology, the new imperialism represented by the United States, under the banner of "just war" and using the excuses of fighting terrorism and eliminating "rogue states," attempts to achieve its goal of global hegemony. Regarding liberalism as capitalist ideology, liberalism has become not only an important intellectual weapon for capitalism to resist feudal absolutism but also the core content of capitalist political rule. By applying the critical method of Marx’s historical materialism, "Political Marxism" reveals that the four aforementioned capitalist ideologies have become illusions in the reality of capitalist global expansion and will inevitably be dissolved by the actual revolutionary movement of the proletariat. [63]
[This article is a staged result of the 2021 National Social Science Fund of China General Project "Research on Foreign 'Political Marxism'" (Project No. 21BKS130), the 2023 Zhongnan University of Economics and Law Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities Project "Research on the Critical Theory of 21st Century New Imperialism" (Project No. 2722023BY001), and the 2021 Hubei Provincial Higher Education Institutions Young and Middle-aged Marxist Theoretician Cultivation Program Major Project (Hubei Provincial Social Science Fund Preliminary Project) "Research on New Imperialism Theory in 21st Century Foreign Marxism" (Project No. 21ZD210).]
Since the beginning of the New Era [34], general secretary Xi Jinping has repeatedly emphasized that "the foundation of our Party's life and the secret to its continued growth lie in its commitment to truth and the pursuit of truth." The core of "upholding the fundamentals and break new ground" is to continuously promote the Sinicization of Marxism while adapting it to the contemporary context. This holds profound enlightening significance for how we should view the "Political Marxism" [35] current within international academia.
First, we must adopt the stance of historical materialism to dialectically analyze the theoretical gains and losses of Political Marxism. Its proponents, such as Robert Brenner and Ellen Meiksins Wood, provide a valuable corrective to "technological determinism" by highlighting the centrality of the relations of production and class struggle in the transition from feudalism to capitalism. This resonates with the Marxist insistence that the development of productive forces never occurs in a vacuum but is always mediated by specific social forms. However, we must remain vigilant against their tendency toward "politicism"—the risk of reducing the objective movement of the economic base to purely subjective political contingencies. From the perspective of Chinese-path modernization, we understand that the liberation and development of productive forces remain the ultimate standard for social progress.
Second, the critique of "Eurocentrism" within Political Marxism offers a theoretical reference point for constructing a discourse on a community with a shared future for humanity. By deconstructing the myth that capitalism was a "natural" or "inevitable" outgrowth of universal human commerce, these scholars demonstrate that the capitalist path was a specific, historically contingent trajectory. This assists us in articulating the historical legitimacy of Chinese-path modernization as a new form of human civilization. We must use the methodology of "seeking truth from facts" to extract the rational kernels of their critique of global capital while firmly grounding our analysis in the specificities of China’s national conditions.
Finally, we must persist over the long term in deepening our research into the internal contradictions of global North-South relations. While Political Marxism excels at micro-level analysis of social property relations, it sometimes lacks the macro-spatial dimension found in world-systems theory or dependency theory. Under the guidance of the Five-Sphere Integrated Plan and the Four Comprehensives, China is currently navigating the demands of high-quality development and common prosperity. This requires a theoretical framework that can integrate the "political" and the "economic" without sacrificing one for the other. As we promote the Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation, our task is not merely to "import" Western Marxist trends, but to utilize the "Two Establishments" and the "Two Upholds" as the political guarantee for theoretical innovation, ensuring that we advance with the times and continue to write a new chapter in the Sinicization of Marxism.