Wang Xia and Wang Linxia: New Trends in the Critical Theory of Ecological Crisis in Western Capitalism
The occurrence and evolution of the ecological crisis, as a typical manifestation of the continuous gamesmanship between humanity and nature, has forced Western academia to place questions concerning the future path of humanity, the construction of an ecological-civilizational home, and the development of the entire planet as a community with a shared future for humanity and nature onto a more urgent agenda. Western scholars utilize the ecological crisis as a vital fulcrum for the critique of capitalist theory; through the dynamic monitoring and critique of the ecological crisis, they have extended theoretical trends and practical strategies for ecological construction in Western society. Taking the theoretical perspective of Western scholars' judgments on the "new alienation," "new subjects," "new objects," and "new paths" presented by the capitalist ecological crisis, this article researches and examines the theoretical landscape and brand-new visage of their critique of capitalist modernity. With the ultimate value-orientation of forging an ecological civilization theory and an ecological civilization path with Chinese characteristics, this work endeavors to reflect upon and reference their theoretical content, striving to provide intellectual inspiration and theoretical reference for constructing a self-asserted and self-authorized Chinese ecological discourse.
I. From Eco-Accelerationism to Eco-Controlism: The "New Alienation" Derived from the Ecological Crisis
The ecological crisis has undergone several significant transformations within the developmental context of late capitalism. Namely, accompanied by the rise of accelerationism and digital capitalism, the ecological crisis has, through the cunning of modernity, lapsed into a state of "new alienation" characterized by eco-accelerationism, eco-digitalism, and eco-controlism. Eco-accelerationism conveys an ecological crisis permeating all spheres of life, exhibiting traits of rapid encroachment and continuous mutation; eco-digitalism and eco-controlism characterize the slippage of the human living environment into an alienated state of domination governed by digital surveillance and machine calculation.
On one hand, accelerated ecological alienation is the latest manifestation of the capitalist ecological crisis. As Hartmut Rosa emphasized in Social Acceleration: A New Theory of Modernity: "Modern social actors are not just helpless victims in the face of uncontrollable acceleration dynamics. They are not merely forced to adapt to an acceleration gamble in which they have no stakes. On the contrary, I want to point out that the driving mechanisms of acceleration are also empowered by cultural promises." [1] The continuous "involution" [2] (nèijuǎn) exhibited in contemporary life is a typical microcosm of accelerationism. It is both a historical self-consciousness of human society's constant reshaping and updating of its cultural context, and a dual social and psychological manifestation of the ecological crisis in which humanity and nature increasingly move toward conflict and opposition. In response, Rosa uses the "acceleration feedback loop" to reveal the symptoms of the era's ecological crisis and sketch our existential picture: humanity is falling into a three-dimensional space constructed by technological acceleration, the acceleration of social change, and the acceleration of the pace of life. Faced with the contemporary situation where the ecological crisis permeates our lives at full speed and from all directions, revealing the epochal relationship between the ecological crisis and accelerationism requires an understanding rooted in an in-depth analysis of accelerationism itself.
First, accelerationism posits that capital, by successfully forming an alliance and collusion with the digital realm, leads to a production process requiring the continuous consumption and addition of more raw materials to maintain the abundance and diversity of commodities and the thickness of profit and surplus value. This results in a massive increase in energy consumption and carbon emissions, which have become major causes for the concentrated outbreak of ecological crises. Digital capitalism, having taken flight on the "wings" of accelerationism, exacerbates resource consumption and carbon emissions in media, platforms, devices, and various infrastructure projects. That is, "digital media platforms spare no effort in promoting a culture of over-consumption, which not only consumes vast amounts of non-renewable natural resources but also causes certain ecological disasters to break out periodically." [3] Second, accelerationism argues that capital has turned consumerism into its "vehicle," establishing a new set of consumption mechanisms to constantly manufacture and update commodity content, persuading people to purchase more goods than originally intended, thereby leading to excessive resource consumption and the occurrence of ecological crises. Rosa emphasizes that the emergence of accelerationism has led to a situation in the capitalist world where "attitudes and values, fashions and lifestyles, social relations and obligations, and forms of groups, classes, environments, social lexicons, practices, and habits are all changing at a continually increasing rate." [4] This change does not lead to a more ideal "good life"; it merely ensures that the brand-new consumption mechanisms born within acceleration operate more rationally and rapidly, using the additional input of resources and the continuous expansion of production to mask the excessive destruction of the ecological environment. Third, accelerationism emphasizes that capital has not only brought about the generalization of accelerated control over human social relations but has also extended this state into nature and ecology, demonstrating capital's capacity and proficiency in controlling, utilizing, and accelerating the extraction of resources from nature. It can be said that accelerationism has not only "cast a spell" on human society but has also released effects of accelerated consumption and ecological destruction upon the natural environment, prompting the capitalist ecological crisis to move toward a process of accelerated development.
On the other hand, we are experiencing an eco-digitalist crisis of digital discipline and data control. The coincidence of capitalism’s accelerated advance and digitalism has directly birthed a "newly alienated" world marked, utilized, and ruled by data. To gain insight into this new change in the capitalist ecological crisis—how the ecological crisis has shifted from a modernity crisis of physical space to a digital ecological crisis—the analysis of issues such as digital capitalism becomes vital and key. Capitalism’s development at the current stage has exposed its deep-seated scheme to plunder and even dominate nature through the digital; it vainly seeks to establish a brand-new development system for ecological nature by means of symbols, systems, links, stacks, the Internet, and cloud platforms. This system operates under the guise of making nature run better, develop more effectively, and coexist more stably, yet it merely glosses over the ugly face of making ecological nature serve the capitalist logic of profit maximization and high surplus value. Similarly, network systems established by the digital are comprehensively and profoundly permeating and covering our real lives, accelerating their influence and control over human social structures from all sides, stipulating social activity and interaction patterns, and particularly guiding human attitudes toward nature and transforming the relationship between humanity and nature. Nick Srnicek points out: "As society’s reliance on digital infrastructure grows and as platform capital penetrates more deeply into this infrastructure, it is vital that we understand its functions and the countermeasures"; "We ought to view data as a raw material to be extracted, and user activities as the natural resources for these raw materials. Just like oil, data is a raw material that is extracted and refined, and can be used in many ways." [5] This passage confirms that whether it is ecological nature or human social activity and ecological footprints, all are recorded, processed, and extracted by digital capitalism or platform systems in the form of data symbols. They are reduced to a usable raw material solely as a digitized existence, solidified by symbols as a resource that can create value, masking the latent ecological crisis with a new identity: "Around the new social media pulses a new political economy: forms of grey market labor, environmental dispossession, neo-colonial sweatshops... This is the case for most cultural activities under the new media." [6] Clearly, in the process of digital capitalism's accelerated development, neither humanity nor nature can escape the alienated situation of being disciplined, dominated, and utilized. This is why Jean Baudrillard, as early as in For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign, issued the indictment: "Authenticity, the referent, and the substance of value can no longer escape the shadow of the sign; there is only the symbolic with a capital S." [7] It is evident that digital capitalism has intensified this crisis, and ecological nature inevitably falls into a deeper state of alienation within its accelerated dominance.
Furthermore, digital capitalism’s discipline of nature is leading ecology toward a more comprehensive form of control, pushing the ecological crisis into an alienated state of eco-controlism. Just as the rapid spread of the ecological crisis is under the dynamic reporting of digital control, its defense and termination will also be accomplished through digital control. This is what Gilles Deleuze meant: "Control societies are replacing disciplinary societies. The word 'control' is used to refer to the new monster"; "We are entering control societies, which no longer operate by means of monitoring, but through continuous control and immediate information dissemination." [8] Therefore, addressing the ecological crisis from the perspectives of cybernetics, computers, computing systems, and integrated analysis has already become the most typical existential mode and thinking characteristic of this era. German ecological scholar Benjamin Bratton, following the logic of the control society, reflects on the capitalist ecological crisis. In The Revenge of the Real, he points out: "When reality—in the form of viruses, our vulnerability to them, and our inadequate managerial responses—crashes through those comforting illusions and ideologies, we must learn these most difficult lessons." [9] Here, he reveals the insignificance and fragility of humanity in the face of crisis, proposing that we must step out of the illusions of capitalist ecological harmony and the hazards of ineffective crisis management. However, in The Stack, he indicates that the arrival of the control society has not shown signs of facilitating crisis resolution; on the contrary, it has exacerbated the possibility of the systemic spread of the crisis. This is because "the cloud, networks, regions, social graphs, ecologies, megacities, formal and informal violence, and weird theologies are all superimposed upon one another. This massive composite machine, according to the attributes and boundaries of spatial order, is evolving into a technology of a super-system." [10] This super-control technology not only incorporates the ecological crisis into systemic management but even dictates that humanity’s exit from the ecological crisis and escape from existential predicaments must be completed under the system's control. Therefore, the systemic control of the ecological crisis does not represent the resolution of the crisis or a change in the relationship between humans and the environment; rather, it represents humanity itself gradually sinking into eco-controlism. To some extent, it is the control of humanity itself. Regarding this, Byung-Chul Han once mentioned: "Digital surveillance will now be promoted as a successful model for fighting the pandemic. It will take this opportunity to display its system even more proudly." [11] Because "once the biotechnological revolution merges with the information technology revolution, Big Data algorithms may be better able to monitor and understand my feelings than I am, and the authority to control everything may shift from human hands to the hands of computers." [12] Evidently, the ecological crisis and even the alienation of humanity are increasingly submitting to a growing system of control.
On the whole, Western scholars' revelation of the "new alienation" perspective under the crises of eco-accelerationism, eco-digitalism, and eco-controlism points out various alienated predicaments in the current development of the capitalist ecological crisis. This achieves, to a certain extent, the deepening, extension, and contemporary response to Marxist ecological crisis and alienation critique theories—namely, that "the great transformation facing our century" [13] is "the reconciliation of humanity with nature and the reconciliation of humanity with itself" [14]. Furthermore, it prompts us to closely monitor and seriously reflect on the new changes and trends of the capitalist ecological crisis, seeking references and critical targets for the construction of our own ecological theory.
II. From the "Proletariat" to the "New Proletariat": The "New Subject" of Ecological Crisis Governance
Some Western scholars believe that because the resolution of the ecological crisis requires new saviors and leaders, Marx’s theory regarding the proletarian revolution needs to be adjusted concerning the ecological crisis. That is, by including the resistance groups represented by the "new proletariat," the class revolution should give way to mass ecological resistance. This viewpoint indicates a distinct shift in Western scholars' judgment of the subjects of ecological construction, manifesting as a new "subjective view"—namely, the belief that the "new proletariat," possessing sufficient radicalism, resistance, and a sense of community, is the ideal subject for ecological governance.
The acceleration of the ecological crisis and social problems has made people’s perception of their current existential conditions and state of alienation more intuitive and vivid. It has also led left-wing scholars—represented by Slavoj Žižek, Alain Badiou, Jacques Rancière, and Antonio Negri—to historically engage in discussions on the ecological crisis, climate change, and the construction of new ecological subjects. They propose that, when faced with the multiple fears dominating life in the capitalist world—the ecological crisis, new forms of slums, the ethical shocks brought by new technologies, sharp ideological antagonisms, and deepening racism and national conflicts—the impact of the ecological crisis is the most prominent. As the "most urgent threat" to all of humanity, it dictates the mode of interaction between humanity and nature from the height of sustainable development; it determines the rational boundaries between ethics and ecological protection; and moreover, it determines whether humanity "can sincerely struggle for the protection of the environment." [15] These left-wing scholars point out that the profit-seeking nature of the bourgeoisie exposes its inherent anti-ecological character. Furthermore, the shift in eras means that the subject of ecological governance cannot be the proletariat in its original ecological sense. To construct a true subject of ecological governance, one must perform a radical transformation of the proletariat—possessing greater significance for the present era—while maintaining its subjective status. That is to say, the true subject of ecological governance should be a "new proletariat" that is currently emerging, manifesting, and gradually growing.
Before understanding the meaning and composition of the "new proletariat," it is first necessary to distinguish between the two related concepts of "proletariat" and "working class" to clear this foundational theoretical ground. In Žižek’s view, the "working class" and the "proletariat" belong to two different realms: the former, as a simple category, represents a neutral social stratum with substantive content; the latter, as a category of truth, manifests as the thorough actor of revolutionary struggle. Therefore, it is necessary to "discern a clear tendency" [16] within the "synonymous use" of proletariat and working class to draw a line for the construction of a true ecological subject. That is, "we should certainly not abandon the concept of the proletariat or the proletarian position; on the contrary, the current situation forces us to radicalize it to a level of existence far beyond what Marx imagined. We need a more radical concept of the proletarian subject." [17] Based on this, through a radicalization of the "proletariat," Žižek transforms it into a "subject without substance" and an "excluded" group with "community consciousness"—namely, the "new proletariat."
First, the "new proletariat" is "a subject reduced to the Cartesian 'cogito,' approaching the zero point." [18] Through the application of Jacques Lacan's psychoanalysis, Žižek proposes that the intensification of the capitalist ecological crisis has led to the destruction of the external natural environment upon which the subject depends for survival. The irrational private ownership of intellectual property has stripped "general intellect" from the subject; combined with the rapid progress of biotechnological and genetic engineering, this has rendered the subject a more easily manipulated object. Consequently, the foundations of human existence have been seriously threatened, eroded, and deprived. The subject is forced to retreat into an abstract, hollow subject in the Cartesian sense—that is, a "subjectivity without substance" [19] that has lost its essence and content. Second, as the "part of those who have no part" (the excluded), the "new proletariat" possesses a potential for challenging the traditional political order and governing the ecological crisis that is constantly being released. Rancière points out: "Politics exists wherever the count of the parts and components of society is disturbed by the counting-in of those who have no part." [20] Their existence poses a challenge to the existing political order. Rather than acquiescing to and enduring capitalist rule, they seek to establish a new territory amidst the homogenization and totalizing control of existing society, existing in a posture of negation, resistance, and development—this is what Žižek emphasizes as the "part of those who have no part," which "belongs to this society, but does not belong to any of its sub-groups." [21] This means they are not fixed by "legitimized specific characteristics" and are "not a positive category of social reality," [22] but are regarded as the "excluded" in a posture of resistance. Thus, they are the new subject with a resistant spirit in the era of ecological crisis. In the view of some left-wing scholars, the typical real-world manifestations of the "new proletariat" are the poor, refugees, and migrants, because the latter possess revolutionary potential for political change and ecological maintenance. This makes them both hopeful candidates for the revolutionary subject of political liberation and potential new leaders in resolving the capitalist ecological crisis. Finally, the "new proletariat" is a new subject endowed with community consciousness. Badiou believes that following the ecological crisis, the capitalist lie that "everyone is equal before the virus" was heartlessly exposed, further revealing that the proletariat, as an object of exploitation and abandonment, remains the internal logic of the capitalist system's self-preservation. Therefore, it is impossible to hope for a resolution to the ecological crisis through the bourgeoisie; the only true hope for surmounting the ecological crisis lies in re-establishing the proletariat as a community. On this point, Negri notes: "What is a strike? A strike is the destruction of a production system that brings about objective obstacles. Because these neo-capitalist machines are filthy, they are machines that shut down desire; but once these machines are destroyed, it is necessary to reawaken the desire for solidarity, the desire for production." [23] It is evident that Negri clearly realizes the importance of the "new proletariat" re-appropriating production in a posture of solidarity and through the mode of community, so as to re-realize leadership over social development and governance of the ecological crisis, finding a harmonious balance between survival and ecology. Thus, only the "new proletariat" as a community constitutes a possible force for resolving ecological crises and social problems.
Generally speaking, Western scholars' assessments of the "new proletariat" as an ecological subject have undergone a transformation in the Marxian sense, exploring a radical way to advance so-called class struggle or the construction of a new order, ultimately moving toward a utopian vision of ecological maintenance. Therefore, this radical subject, currently growing and being constructed, does not exceed the theoretical horizon of Marx's critique of modernity; that is, the proletariat remains the core force for breaking the old world and building a new one, always "representing the interests of the movement as a whole," [24] and serving as the backbone force leading toward the organic unity of "the accomplished naturalism of man and the accomplished humanism of nature." [25]
III. From the Unity of Subject and Object to Community: The "New Object" of the Human-Nature Ecological Relationship
In rethinking and resolving the difficult problem of the conflict and confrontation between humanity and nature, the approach of abandoning the "behavioral and thinking modes of 'overthrowing all naturalism'" [26] and reconstructing an ecological "new object" as a community has gradually become a new line of thought for solving the ecological crisis. Some Western scholars believe that the concept of a binary dualism between humanity and nature should be discarded, and that humanity and nature should be understood from the perspective of a community within the framework of the unity of subject and object; that is, an ecological society should be a "community of communities" conveying an interest in harmony and reconciliation, or a "holistic community" with a consciousness of symbiotic prosperity.
As representative figures in Australian ecology, Arran Gare and Andrew Brennan have conducted in-depth reflections on promoting the harmonious coexistence of humanity and nature, highlighting the diversity of ecological civilization, and building an ecological home for all humanity from the perspective of "community." Gare believes that a "community of communities" focuses on the joint construction and development of humanity and nature through "life-creation" and "home-creation," opening up cultural care and ecological pursuits within the dimension of the unity of subject and object. Brennan emphasizes that a "holistic community" pursues inquiries into environmental protection, biodiversity, and the harmonious coexistence of humanity and nature within a broader framework of global cooperation, similarly demonstrating an integrated way of thinking and international vision regarding humanity and nature as an ecological community.
Influenced by ideas such as the "Great Harmony" [27] (dàtóng) and "common well-being," Gare established his ecological theory with the "community of communities" as its core idea, emphasizing that this "community of communities" is the key to building a society of human ecological civilization. First, an ecological civilization based on community manifests "the place of humans in the world and the ultimate goal worth striving for." [28] Ecological civilization understands the harmonious coexistence of humanity and nature as follows: regardless of whether humans or nature are "themselves" or components of "the state" or "the global ecosystem," they are all "participants in historical and natural generation." They are communities that exist to "enhance the life and adaptive capacity of these communities," [29] and are indispensable parts of the entire planetary ecosystem, playing a fundamental role in promoting the development of nature and history. Second, the development of human ecology and ecology has established the theoretical foundation for the construction of a "community of communities." Gare believes that the progress from ecology to human ecology conveys that the two share common content in construction and space for development regarding the "community of life" and the creation of an "ecological home system." Ecology focuses on reflecting upon the relationship between humanity and nature, the individual and society, and cultural communities and ecological communities, sublimating the role of culture to the height of ecological civilization to foster the "community of communities" mode of thinking required for building such a civilization. Human ecology further presents the two-way influence of nature and humanity as the "humanization of nature" and the "naturalization of man." This demonstrates the charm of a "dynamic and creative nature," highlighting nature that is "constituted by culture and creates culture," while also showing that humanity, as a "community within nature constituted by culture," [30] always transforms and develops nature through productive practical activities such as labor. Therefore, whether it is ecology or human ecology, both place the analysis of humanity and nature, society and ecology, and culture and civilization within the horizon of an "ecological community" or a "community of communities" as the theoretical cornerstone for constructing an ecological civilization society. Finally, an ecological civilization society is committed to creating a "community of life" as "ecological creation" and "home creation." The community is built on the basis of mutual care for shared interests, takes mutual respect for life and common progress as its value goal, and uses the opening of a relationship of symbiotic prosperity as its practical path, striving to achieve harmonious coexistence in a community home. This community consciousness is the effort to achieve the ecologization of the human home and the "homification" of the ecological environment. In a certain sense, Gare’s ideas of a "community of communities" and "ecological community" have been influenced by the concepts of a "community with a shared future for humanity" and a "community of life for humanity and nature." This is why he actively praises how "China’s rise will be accompanied by its global promotion of ecological civilization," believes that China "plays a leading role in the struggle to create a global civilization," and argues that we should learn from China's ecological civilization construction in the New Era to "create an eco-socialist socio-economic form." [31]
Brennan has also systematically investigated the social values of nature and ecology. On the basis of criticizing deep ecology, he expounded the "Natural System Value Theory," proposing that nature and ecology should be viewed through a larger category, distinguishing between the ecological and the non-ecological, and resolving human confusion about nature to reduce related mystical discussions. On this basis, Brennan emphasizes the relationship between ethical polymorphism and environmental protection, highlighting that for humans to lead a meaningful and valuable life, they must consider their position within the natural system they inhabit and the impact they have on that system. He believes that establishing the concept of a "holistic community" upon the framework of scientific ecology and practical ecology, and constructing a community conducive to environmental protection through international cooperation, is of great significance for achieving the holistic progress of the human ecological home. [32]
It can be said that from Gare’s "community of communities" to Brennan’s "holistic community," both attempt to improve the relationship between humanity and nature through a "new object" view (i.e., the unity of subject and object), re-examining humanity and nature with a new posture and mindset. This new cognition achieves a breakthrough over the traditional Western philosophical anthropocentrism, exhibiting the theoretical tendencies of postmodern anti-centrism, anti-essentialism, and anti-monism. In a certain sense, as a new view of nature emerging from constructive postmodernism, these ideas carry a constructive character rather than purely iconoclastic or deconstructive colors. They thus represent the new reflections of foreign scholars on the "new object" relationship between humanity and nature during the process of criticizing capitalist "new alienation" and reconstructing "new subjects."
It must be pointed out that both Gale and Brennan possess inevitable internal flaws in their theories. The former’s contemplation of a community based on the unity of subject and object remains largely within the dimension of cultural speculation and downplays practical application. The latter, by insisting that "ethical value can be assigned to natural beings regardless of whether they possess life," falls back into the mystical quagmire of "ecocentrism"; furthermore, Brennan fails to propose a concrete, feasible plan for a global alliance for ecological environmental protection, leaving it as a theoretical vision. Moreover, beyond the inherent anti-ecological nature of the capitalist system, the surge of racism, xenophobia (the rejection of community), authoritarianism, and historical nihilism [33] in the West has similarly resulted in a practical impotence among foreign ecological scholars when it comes to constructing an ecological community. Therefore, their new conceptualizations of a community based on the "unity of subject and object" between man and nature remain a form of exploration within the sense of Marx's concepts of man and nature as each other's "inorganic body" [34] and "organic body," and even the "reconciliation of humanity with nature," failing to transcend Marx's own theoretical horizon.
IV. From Neoliberalism to Communism: A "New Path" for Building an Ecological Society
Regarding the choice of path to escape the ecological crisis, there has long been a theoretical debate between capitalism and socialism. Judging from the current reality, however, the effectiveness of these two different systems in resolving the ecological crisis is poles apart. Following the in-depth exposure and critique of the capitalist ecological crisis, many scholars—represented by the Western Left—have further begun to critique neoliberalism and revitalize socialism/communism.
The capitalist neoliberal programs for responding to the ecological crisis are stretched thin, and their institutional solutions have been refuted by leftist scholars as inefficient and incompetent. Particularly since the onset of the ecological crisis, the capitalist system has attempted to achieve public safety and respond to the crisis by intensifying neoliberalism and consumerism. However, the repeated failure of these practical measures has become the "last straw" for its existence. David Harvey emphasizes that neoliberalism, as an internal mechanism for capitalist self-preservation, is not entirely beneficial; it reveals an unignorable destructive tendency during ecological crises, dealing a fatal blow to capitalism. Notably, the governments of many capitalist countries have unhesitatingly adopted double standards when facing ecological disasters, choosing to sacrifice the interests of the proletariat and the broad masses to maintain the interests of the bourgeoisie and a small upper-class elite. This is why major capitalists and the wealthy strata are still able to obtain medical resources and emergency rescue channels in a short time, while the broad masses must continue to face the danger of direct exposure to the crisis, enduring the predicament of being "thrown" by society into "bare life" [35]. Consequently, Agamben indignantly critiques that the crisis has further torn the foundations of capitalist society. A society that should be driven by democracy, freedom, equality, and fraternity is being pushed into an abyss of surging class contradictions, amplified hatred and conflict, and widening social divides—"Everything points to the fact that the foundation of our present society is no longer love; it has been replaced by distance, separation, suspicion, and even hatred." The class divides and conflicts in capitalist society are irreconcilable; their amplification during crises continuously destroys its operational mechanisms. That is, the proletariat can no longer afford to buy or pay for commodities created by the bourgeoisie; their meager and pitiful income is insufficient to maintain their own survival, let alone continue to guarantee the operation of consumerism for the entire capitalist society. The proliferation of difficulties—reduced jobs, skyrocketing unemployment, unequal distribution of medical resources, and the seizure or deprivation of living resources—all mean that capitalist society no longer possesses any means to stimulate or awaken the proletarian desire for consumption. The problems exposed by the interruption or stagnation of the consumption chain demonstrate that capitalist society cannot continue the smooth operation of production, distribution, exchange, and consumption—nor the advancement of expanded reproduction and the extraction of surplus value—under conditions of antagonistic class contradictions and surging social conflict. On the contrary, it can only signify a regression in social development and a contraction of the economic state. It is evident that neoliberalism is not only powerless to resolve the disasters brought by the ecological crisis but will, in the process, lead capitalism into an even more precarious situation. In this regard, Noam Chomsky critiques neoliberalism through the conflict between the free market and government intervention. He emphasizes that the free market in capitalist society has neither directed the economic operation toward guaranteeing freedom and equality to provide for social development, nor has it chosen to include government intervention, opting instead for a path of development without safeguards. This free market is one controlled by capitalists and massive financial cartels; it is not a market of the people, nor a market with a government. It is a market that easily falls into chaos and reveals its self-destructive tendencies once a crisis occurs—essentially an unfree, unequal, and unjust market. Thus, the framework of the neoliberal free market possesses fundamental flaws due to its rejection of government intervention mechanisms. On one hand, it faces the reality that "the massive failure of the market is the root of social problems," while on the other, it falls into the trap of its own claim that "government itself is the problem and can do nothing," ultimately amplifying the failure of neoliberalism within this double bind. Karl Polanyi responds to Chomsky's viewpoint, arguing that neoliberalism only considers the masses when maintaining the mechanisms of consumerism and extracting surplus value, allowing them to survive only when they need to be utilized and dominated. Once a crisis occurs, it first chooses to ruthlessly abandon its own "foundation upon which the various groups of civil society reside and act," leaving the masses to their fate in the ecological crisis. Clearly, the destruction of its own foundations by neoliberalism inevitably means it cannot obtain the momentum for sustainable operation, leading only to self-destruction through successive crises. Consequently, while critiquing the failure of neoliberal solutions, foreign scholars have also issued a theoretical call for the revitalization of socialism/communism.
The revitalization of socialism/communism is the heartfelt aspiration of the Left for escaping the ecological crisis. Through an analysis of the ecological crisis response measures of capitalist countries, Slavoj Žižek proposed a vision for building an ecological society within "socialization" and "implicit communism." He points out that the Trump administration's disdain for "communism" stood in stark contrast to its actual measures. On one hand, it publicly disparaged the harmfulness of government intervention, yet on the other, it persisted in increasing government control over private enterprises, continuously injecting funds during the crisis to help businesses survive. Specifically, the injection of two trillion dollars into private enterprises is an expression of this self-contradiction—dividing lives into those "worthy of protection and mourning" and those "unworthy of protection and mourning," profoundly demonstrating the ruthless double standard capitalism applies to capitalists versus the masses. Judith Butler has also offered support for this view, arguing that the "double-standard behavior" of capitalism in the global ecological crisis has rapidly awakened a "socialist imagination" for escaping the crisis: "Solidarity, justice, and internationalism are the early signs of a rising new society. Now, the pandemic points directly to it. More than 150 years ago, Marx and Engels called it the 'realm of freedom,' namely communism," and "only through collective action can we overcome this disaster." Therefore, escaping the ecological crisis requires formulating a future socialist framework anew, and this hope resides in "ecosocialism."
In addition to the theoretical analysis of Western ecological scholars and the Left, Kohei Saito, a representative of Japanese Ecological Marxism, has also proposed a possible way out of the ecological crisis, suggesting that solutions must be sought within Marx's ecological thought and the socialist program. He points out that the capitalist mode of production is a major root cause of the ecological crisis, and Marx provided an analysis of this crisis as a "metabolic rift" between man and nature. This analysis still possesses important theoretical validity for our grasp of the changes in the relationship between the material world and economic development today, serving as an important methodological basis for analyzing the global ecological crisis. He notes that the excessive environmental burden on the Earth and ecological disasters reveal that capitalism, with its unrestrained pursuit of economic growth, can hardly solve practical problems such as global warming and the widening gap in economic development between different countries and regions. The chronic maladies and defects caused by capitalism alongside the development of human civilization are becoming increasingly prominent, prompting more people to consider moving beyond the capitalist horizon of ecological analysis and toward ecosocialism. Here, Saito, starting from the perspective of political economy and actively incorporating Marx’s ecological thought, proposes a preliminary vision of using Marxist ecology to realize ecosocialism, providing a reference path for escaping the ecological crisis. Clearly, when the capitalist system cannot provide a way out, the solution to the ecological crisis must be proposed and promoted by forces such as the Left, which is precisely why Marx’s concept of ecosocialism has become more important than ever before.
In a certain sense, the new calls for ecological critique originating from Western ecological scholars and the Left demonstrate to the world that the ideal path for escaping the ecological crisis is ecosocialism or ecocommunism. Their theoretical visions and outlined programs are beautiful, yet because they are tightly enveloped within the capitalist system and its modernity, their adherence to ecosocialism and "green communism" remains merely an emergent implicit or a cultural-speculative metaphysical exploration. It is destined to fall short of the height of Marx's construction of a communist ecological society: "Communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism, equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man."
In summary, foreign scholars have discovered the new alienation of the capitalist ecological crisis in the evolution from accelerationism and digitalism to controlism. They have established a new subject of ecological governance represented by the "new proletariat" through the radical transformation of the traditional proletariat, constructed a new concept of ecological development from "the community of subject-object unity," and attempted to explore a new path for ecological social construction by critiquing neoliberalism and revitalizing socialism/communism. These new theories collectively present a new dynamic and landscape of the critique of capitalist ecological crisis, revealing the complicity of modernity in the transformation of the capitalist ecological crisis. They also inspire and drive us to demonstrate more Chinese wisdom and Chinese solutions in the building of a socialist ecological civilization in the New Era, thereby winning international discourse power in the construction of human ecological civilization.