Yu Weidong and Wang Nan: Three Interpretations of the Marxist Concept of Productive Forces by Contemporary Western Scholars
"Productive forces" is a foundational concept in Marxism, and an in-depth study of this concept holds significant theoretical and practical importance. From the perspective of China's current developmental status, accelerating the development of new quality productive forces has become a key development strategy. As noted, "New quality productive forces have already taken shape in practice and demonstrated a strong drive and support for high-quality development; we need to summarize and generalize this theoretically to guide new developmental practices." Although Marx made numerous statements regarding the nature of productive forces in response to specific issues under different circumstances, he never provided a definitive, "final word" definition. "No concept appears as simple as that of productive forces—or more precisely, the level (or degree of development) of productive forces—while in reality containing so many difficulties." Consequently, contemporary Western scholars have offered various interpretations of the Marxist concept of productive forces (hereafter referred to as "the concept of productive forces"), the most influential of which are three approaches: technological determinism, nature-based conservationism, and wealth creationism. A deep analysis of these three primary modes of interpretation is of great significance for our thorough understanding of the concept of productive forces and the scientific connotation of new quality productive forces.
I. The Technological Determinism Interpretation by Contemporary Western Scholars
Contemporary Western scholars have interpreted the concept of productive forces through the lens of technological determinism. The core view is an emphasis on the vital role of science and technology within the productive forces, going so far as to regard science and technology as the sole decisive element.
In the view of William Shaw, the interaction between productive forces and relations of production is the theoretical touchstone for understanding Marxism, wherein the productive forces play the decisive role: "What corresponds to the primacy of material production is nothing other than the fact that only the productive forces can be the determining factor for the relations of production." Having affirmed the importance of productive forces, Shaw argues, through an examination of their development, that the advancement of science and technology is the fundamental factor driving the growth of productive forces. He further contends that the history of the development of productive forces is, in essence, the history of the evolution and transformation of science and technology. Marvin Harris holds a similar view: "The concept of productive forces seems quite clear; it refers to the interaction between technology and environment in etic behavior." He believes the concept of "productive forces" actually expresses the reciprocal relationship between science, technology, and the natural environment. The more powerful science and technology become, the greater the power of human beings to transform the natural environment using that technology, thus allowing the productive forces to develop more rapidly. James O'Connor likewise posits: "Marxist scholars generally define technical relations—including industrial technology, machinery, tools, and workers' skills—as 'productive forces.'" For Slavoj Žižek, the development of productive forces is "usually reduced to technological progress." Clearly, in the eyes of O'Connor and Žižek, the connotation of Marx’s concept of productive forces is very clear: science and technology are the core content because the development of productive forces fundamentally depends on technological progress.
Jürgen Habermas’s view is even more representative. He argues that productive forces consist of the labor power of producers, knowledge of production techniques, and organizational knowledge for coordinating the division of labor and cooperation among workers. However, Habermas contends that as science and technology play an increasingly large role in modern society, technology has become the decisive element in the productive forces relative to labor power and organizational knowledge. "Science, technology, and their application have formed a system. ... Thus, technology and science have become the primary productive force. As a result, the conditions for applying Marx’s labor theory of value no longer exist." He argues that for modern capitalist states, state interventionism plays a pivotal role in technological progress. The capitalist state "increases labor productivity and thereby increases the use-value of capital" by "creating and improving the conditions for utilizing surplus capital." Therefore, "the state-managed technological progress itself" is the "primary productive force." From this, Habermas concludes that the existence of the capitalist state and its system of ownership is rational, because the criteria for judging whether a state or system is legitimate are science, technology, and their applications.
Interpreting the concept of productive forces through technological determinism reveals two distinct characteristics. First, technological determinism simplifies Marx’s three elements of productive forces into two, and ultimately into one. According to Marx, the basic elements of the labor process are purposeful activity (labor itself), the object of labor, and the instruments of labor—represented as the laborer, the instruments of labor (or means of labor), and the object of labor. These three elements constitute an inseparable, dialectically unified whole, in which the most active and subjective element is the laborer. However, due to differing understandings of the concept of productive forces, Western scholars have gradually simplified these three elements into two (the laborer and the means of labor represented by science and technology). This tendency is not without precedent; it existed among some earlier Marxists. For instance, Stalin believed the components of productive forces were "the instruments of production with which material values are produced, and the people who operate the instruments of production and effect the production of material values thanks to a certain production experience and labor skill." Nikolai Bukharin, meanwhile, viewed the category of productive forces as a "technical category." Therefore, "when examining society, its developmental conditions, forms, content, etc., one should begin with an analysis of the productive forces or the technical basis of society." This view is clearly similar to technological determinism. When Western scholars emphasize the fundamental status of science and technology in the development of productive forces, then—as Habermas suggests—the laborer is no longer important. The sole decisive factor is science and technology (the means of labor). In this way, Western scholars simplify the three elements of productive forces into a single element (where science and technology determine everything), which largely weakens the significance of the laborer and labor practice.
Second, technological determinism serves as a defense of the existing capitalist system to a certain extent. A fundamental reason Marx proposed the concept of productive forces was that he had identified the fundamental power driving social development, thereby exposing the secrets of capital exploitation and demonstrating the objective trend toward the inevitable collapse of capitalism. Capitalism is destined to perish because of the chronic contradiction between private ownership and socialized mass production. However, in technological determinism, the fundamental reason for the progress of productive forces lies in science and technology rather than in capitalist private ownership itself. More crucially, by exaggerating the role of science and technology and devaluing the role of the laborer and their labor, technological determinism actually denies that labor is the source of value creation, and even denies Marx’s theory of surplus value, thereby objectively maintaining the existing capitalist system. As Habermas stated: "When the progress of science and technology becomes an independent source of surplus value... the source of surplus value identified by Marx himself in his investigations—namely, the labor power of the direct producer—becomes increasingly unimportant." It can be said that technological determinism weakens the role of the laborer (and their labor practice) as a subjective element, simplifying productive forces into a technical power. This strips the productive forces from the level of historical materialism and turns them into a pure scientific concept devoid of any ideological color—"this new form of legitimacy has clearly lost the old form of ideology." Starting from this premise, Western scholars argue that when the capitalist state masters this technical power, the state’s rationality is beyond doubt, and the capitalist system breaks through the fetters of the relations of production described by Marx.
However, regarding Marxism itself, Marx believed that science and technology under the capitalist system were not a pure technical category, because "natural science has invaded and transformed human life practically through the medium of industry; and has prepared human emancipation, although its immediate effect had to be the furthering of the dehumanization of man." From this point of view, although the interpretation of the concept of productive forces by Western scholars based on technological determinism has a certain rationality—helping us to fully value the role of science and technology in promoting the development of productive forces—regarding "productive forces" solely as a scientific category undoubtedly deviates to some extent from the basic principles of historical materialism.
II. The Nature-Based Conservationism Interpretation by Contemporary Western Scholars
Contemporary Western scholars have also interpreted the concept of productive forces through the lens of nature-based conservationism. Their core view is that the essence of the concept of productive forces is the control of nature, and it lacks the necessary content for ecological protection; they argue this mode of thought is a major theoretical root of the ecological crisis that has erupted in modern times.
In the 19th century when Marx lived, a universal consensus on protecting the ecological environment had not yet formed. It was not until after the mid-20th century, with the frequent eruption of ecological crises, that people began to reflect on the mode of social development, leading to the emergence of various ecological theories. In the view of some Western scholars, Marxist theory of productive forces is a typical form of anthropocentrism and a major theoretical source of natural environmental destruction. Under the guidance of this theory, they argue, the more the productive forces develop, the more severe the damage to the natural environment becomes. For example, in Theodor Adorno’s view, Marx’s development of productive forces is closely linked to the intent to control nature; with every step the productive forces advance, the violent plunder of nature deepens: "This domination may temporarily retreat, but without it, the concept of productive forces is unthinkable, let alone the liberation of productive forces." According to O'Connor, "Marx’s view indeed does not contain the idea of a so-called ecological society that identifies nature not only as a productive force but also as an ultimate end." He argues that the concept of productive forces focuses only on human society itself while completely ignoring the intrinsic value of the natural environment or ecosystems. "Nature is not regarded as a productive force for wealth as exchange value." Due to this neglect of nature, "Marx undoubtedly failed to make a systematic inquiry into capitalist productive forces in Capital and other works."
Driven by opposition to anthropocentrism, non-anthropocentrism has become very popular in the contemporary West. Scholars advocating non-anthropocentrism argue that because Marx believed nature has no intrinsic value, the development of productive forces means controlling, conquering, and plundering nature. Therefore, the development of productive forces inevitably leads to the destruction of the natural environment, and the emergence of ecological crises stems precisely from the "unplanned, social, and cultural consequences" of "placing natural processes under our control." In William Leiss’s view, Marx believed that with the development of industry and technology, machines would liberate humans from labor. "This aspect of Marx’s theory can be seen as a deepening and development of Saint-Simon's [1] views." However, in essence, Leiss believes that the core of the concept of productive forces remains the control of nature; as long as this concept persists, the ecological crisis can never be fundamentally resolved. For Alfred Schmidt, Marx's error lay in not viewing nature as an element of the productive forces, but rather as an object of conquest with which humans struggle. Nevertheless, "in terms of their own productive forces used against nature, humans have still not become masters." Therefore, given the significant influence of Marx’s theory of productive forces, contemporary Western scholars believe that it is precisely because the concept of productive forces lacks necessary content for nature-based conservation that it has largely reinforced anthropocentrism and thus bears an inescapable responsibility for the destruction of the natural environment and the emergence of ecological crises.
Interpreting the concept of productive forces from the perspective of conservationism manifests two distinct characteristics. First, it understands the core of the concept as the control of nature and creates a stark opposition between the development of productive forces and environmental protection. Western scholars, led by William Leiss, emphasize the independent intrinsic value of nature and place the development of productive forces in total opposition to nature conservation. While this certainly prompts people to recognize the importance of environmental protection, how can social development and human freedom be realized if human subjectivity is discarded? On the one hand, these Western scholars argue that the concept of productive forces lacks content regarding nature conservation and believe the core of developing productive forces is the domination of nature, thereby blaming the outbreak of ecological crises on Marx's theory of productive forces. On the other hand, they cannot find a rational way to both protect the natural environment and realize social development and individual freedom; consequently, they are forced to retreat into non-anthropocentrism. The core proposition of non-anthropocentrism is to abolish the status of the human being as the sole subject, holding that nature (including animals, plants, and even mountains and rivers) possesses intrinsic value that deserves respect and protection. Therefore, they argue that the development of productive forces must be restricted to achieve coexistence between man and nature in a negative sense. This is, in fact, an advocacy for turning back the wheels of history. Coexistence in a positive sense involves vigorously developing productive forces and achieving the coexistence of man and nature through the advancement of tools of labor and the transformation of the laborer's lifestyle. This positive coexistence relates to Marx's idea of "humanized nature" [2].
Second, Western scholars lack a sufficiently deep understanding of Marx's idea of "humanized nature." Marx's thought on "humanized nature" profoundly reveals the close relationship between humanity and the natural environment, embodying the inherent link between the development of productive forces and environmental protection. Marx attached great importance to the role of nature, believing that "nature provides labor with the means of life in the sense that labor cannot live without objects on which to operate; on the other hand, it also provides the means of life in the narrower sense, namely, the means for the physical subsistence of the worker himself." However, Marx maintained that a so-called "independent" nature divorced from the labor practice of real individuals does not exist. That is to say, the nature that Western scholars describe as existing independently and possessing intrinsic value simply does not exist in reality. In The German Ideology, Marx criticized Feuerbach, arguing that he ignored the active [3] role of humans toward nature. In Marx's view, because of the existence of real individuals and their labor practice—which are the subjective factors of productive forces—nature separated from man becomes a theoretical illusion. The development of productive forces is the manifestation of essential human powers: "the history of industry and the established objective existence of industry are the open book of man’s essential powers." Marx further explained, "If industry is conceived as the exoteric revelation of man’s essential powers, we also understand the human essence of nature or the natural essence of man." In other words, the fundamental reason why nature is called "humanized nature" is that the laborer is the active core element in the productive forces; "labor is the only thing by which man increases the value of the products of nature, labor is man's active property." Clearly, scholars such as Adorno and Leiss have neither valued nor understood Marx's concept of "humanized nature." They merely regard nature as an objective thing with intrinsic value independent of human society, rather than an existence closely related to and inseparable from human society. Consequently, they believe that the cause of environmental destruction is not the abuse of science and technology or the alienation of human lifestyles, but rather attribute it all to the deviations in Marx's theory of productive forces. Clearly, Western scholars have not deeply recognized the subjective position of the laborer within the productive forces, nor have they recognized that "humanized nature" stems from the laborer's practice [4], and that labor practice links human society and nature into a unified whole. From this point of view, while the interpretation of the concept of productive forces by Western scholars from the perspective of conservationism has its rationality and helps us fully realize the importance of protecting the environment, the practice of explaining its core solely as the control of nature and setting the development of productive forces against nature conservation is imprecise.
III. The Wealth-Creationist Interpretation by Contemporary Western Scholars
Contemporary Western scholars have simultaneously conducted a wealth-creationist interpretation of the concept of productive forces. Its core view is: emphasizing the inevitable connection between productive forces and wealth creation, and treating the concept of productive forces as an economic category.
The view of treating the concept of productive forces as an economic category has a long history. For instance, after Marx's death, bourgeois scholars such as Paul Barth argued that historical materialism was economic determinism and that the essence of the development of productive forces was economic development. Paul Lafargue even pointed out in The Economic Determinism of Karl Marx that "Economic determinism is the new tool Marx handed to socialists to help bring order into the chaos of historical events." In the contemporary era, some Western scholars still adhere to this view, with Jean Baudrillard’s perspective being quite representative. In Baudrillard's view, "all the fundamental concepts of Marxist analysis must be questioned"; therefore, after reinterpreting the core Marxist concept of "productive forces," he argued that Marxism is merely an economic theory. Economics and politics have strictly different boundaries; thus, the development of productive forces is essentially economic development and has nothing to do with "human liberation" achieved through class struggle as described by Marx. Baudrillard therefore believed that the greatest problem with Marxism lies in "confusing the liberation of productive forces with the liberation of man," and basing "all revolutionary hope on the Promethean myth of productive forces." Baudrillard equated the development of productive forces with the creation of material wealth: "Production means the expanded reproduction of productive forces; the truth of production is productivity, which is a function of quantitative growth." In short, "the Gross National Product is the imaginary mirror of productive forces." Since "the needs and satisfaction of consumers are productive forces," in a consumption-led society, "labor is less and less a productive force and more and more a product." From this, Baudrillard concluded that although "Marx carried out a radical critique of political economy, it remained within the form of political economy." Joseph Schumpeter held a similar view. He first questioned Marxist philosophy from the standpoint of philosophical ontology: "Marx's philosophy is no more materialistic than Hegel's, and his theory of history is no more materialistic than any other attempt to explain the historical process by means of the empirical sciences." On the basis of questioning the philosophical truth of Marxism, he argued that the materialist conception of history, with productive forces as its basic category, is actually an economic conception of history: "The economic interpretation of history is often called the materialist interpretation of history. Marx themselves called it so." Regarding the question of "what are productive forces," he advocated that they only need to be understood from the perspective of economics, because productive forces are related only to wealth creation or economic growth. Although the view of treating "productive forces" as an economic category and equating their development with wealth creation has a long history, this view remains quite popular in the contemporary era.
Interpreting the concept of productive forces from the perspective of wealth creation manifests two distinct characteristics. First, the essence of this interpretation is in the same strain as classical political economic thought. In this sense, the view of treating productive forces merely as an economic category is "old wine in new bottles," because the views of these contemporary Western scholars do not differ essentially from the thoughts of classical political economists such as Petty, Quesnay, Smith, and Ricardo. Regarding the origin of the concept of productive forces, it was not a Marxist original; William Petty was an early scholar to discuss concepts such as "production," "value," and "labor." He stated in A Treatise of Taxes and Contributions: "All things ought to be valued by two natural Denominations, which is Land and Labour; that is, we ought to say, a Ship or garment is worth such a measure of Land, with such a quantity of Labour." François Quesnay seems to have been the first to use the concept of "productive forces" (force productive). He said: "Contrary to the way a massive army would lay waste to the fields, a large population and great wealth can allow productive forces to be properly exerted." Quesnay placed particular emphasis on the study of the spheres of production and circulation and formulated the famous Tableau Économique of reproduction. Marx once gave this a positive evaluation, regarding it as the most brilliant idea ever proposed in political economy. Adam Smith attached great importance to the significance of labor and the division of labor within the concept of productive forces: "The greatest improvement in the productive powers of labour, and the greater part of the skill, dexterity, and judgment with which it is any where directed, or applied, seem to have been the effects of the division of labour." David Ricardo conducted a more detailed study of the capitalist mode of production, explaining productive forces as "the original and indestructible powers of the soil," and believing that labor and land constitute the main sources of wealth. These ideas later became the habits [5] of economic determinism. Therefore, the wealth-creationist interpretation of the concept of productive forces by contemporary Western scholars has its intellectual origins; Schumpeter even summarized it by saying that the classical political economists "saw nothing but 'wealth' in their eyes." In this sense, wealth creation is the traditional approach for Western scholars to explain the category of productive forces; however, although the tradition is old, it continues to be inherited today.
Second, while wealth-creationism has conducted in-depth research on the relationship between productive forces and economic development or wealth creation, it has to a certain extent ignored the great significance of the "Copernican Revolution" in the field of Marxist political economy. Objectively speaking, the development of productive forces cannot be separated from the creation of wealth; therefore, focusing research on the labor that creates wealth and its division of labor is of positive significance. However, if "productive forces" are seen only as an economic category, the institutional factors behind wealth creation are seriously neglected. After a deep analysis of the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production, Marx proposed the theory of surplus value, revealing the "relations between people (alienated)" that were concealed under the relations between things (commodities), and exposing the exploitative nature of the capitalist system, thereby setting political economy "upright" (the Copernican Revolution). Therefore, Marx believed that the replacement of societies and the development of history lie in the contradictory movement between forms of intercourse (relations of production) and productive forces: "The old form of intercourse, which has become a fetter, is replaced by a new one which corresponds to the more developed productive forces and, hence, to the advanced mode of the self-activity of individuals—a form which in its turn becomes a fetter and then is replaced by another." Therefore, while the development of productive forces certainly creates wealth, its ultimate goal must be to give rise to a social system most suitable for its development. The wealth-creationist interpretation of productive forces by Western scholars clearly fails to recognize this.
IV. Analysis and Evaluation of the Three Interpretations of the Marxist Concept of Productive Forces by Contemporary Western Scholars
What exactly is the relationship between science and technology and the productive forces? While it is beyond reproach to emphasize the significance of science and technology for the productive forces—given that they can vastly accelerate their development—it is biased to absolutize the power of science and technology or to view them as the decisive or sole factor determining the development of the productive forces. Marx did not deny the important role of science and technology as drivers of the productive forces, but he never considered them the decisive force of social development. In Marx's view, "this development of productive power [productive forces] is always traceable in the last analysis to the social nature of the labour engaged in, to the division of labour in society, and to the development of intellectual labour, especially of the natural sciences." In other words, the development of the productive forces is closely linked to three factors: the social nature of labor, the division of labor within society, and the development of the natural sciences. While the development of natural science is certainly an important revolutionary force, it cannot be divorced from the relations of production. Furthermore, the application of scientific and technological achievements is inevitably constrained by different classes and their associated institutions: "The original task of any machinery is always only to change the initial motion produced by the motive power, and to transform it into another form corresponding to a certain purpose of labor and the transmission of power to the working machine." Therefore, the driving effect of science and technology on society still occurs within the framework of the contradictory movement between the productive forces and the relations of production. The reason science and technology can play a major role is that they are manifested through labor practice. There is no isolated scientific and technological power that transcends everything or determines everything independently of the relations of production; the core of promoting the development of the productive forces remains the labor practice of real individuals and their generation and development within relations.
Technological determinism reminds us that when understanding the concept of productive forces, we must always grasp the core element of the laborer (the labor practice of real individuals). The laborer is the subjective factor possessing subjective agency [6] within the productive forces and is the decisive force driving the productive forces and social development. Moreover, when Jürgen Habermas and others argue that science and technology are the primary productive forces—thereby suggesting that only capitalist states or a "minority of scientists and inventors" who master technological innovation can drive social progress—they have actually turned "productive forces" into a purely scientific category. This technological determinism, divorced from the laborer and their practice, cancels the subjective position of the laborer and constitutes an improper deconstruction of the Marxist historical materialist outlook, objectively defending the rationality of the capitalist system’s existence. However, no matter how science and technology develop, the problem of human alienation in capitalist society always persists; indeed, with the application of modern technology, the exploitation and oppression of laborers by capitalists have become more severe and concealed. A system that still contains human alienation, exploitation, and oppression is clearly not a rational one; the most rational system is the one Marx described: achieving human liberation and the free and comprehensive development of every individual.
What exactly is the relationship between nature conservation and the productive forces? While researching the relationship from the perspective of protecting the natural ecosystem is a good starting point, pitting the development of the productive forces against nature conservation—and thereby criticizing Marxist thought on productive forces—is a misreading of Marx’s ideas on the relationship between man and nature. Marx viewed the relationship between man (real individuals characterized by labor practice) and nature from the perspective of materialist dialectics, holding that natural forces can only be transformed into actual productive forces through the subject (the laborer). "Labour is, in the first place, a process in which both man and Nature participate, and in which man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material re-actions between himself and Nature... By thus acting on the external world and changing it, he at the same time changes his own nature." Precisely based on this dialectical developmental relationship between man and nature, Marx did not advocate for "draining the pond to catch the fish" [7] regarding nature, but rather advocated for the rational utilization of natural forces: "The necessity of socially controlling a natural force of nature, of economising it, of appropriating or subduing it as far as the work of man's hand is concerned, on a large scale, has a most decisive part to play in the history of industry." In Marx's view, the human liberation to be achieved through the development of productive forces is inseparable from the correct handling of the relationship between man and nature. Freedom can only consist in the fact that socialized man "rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by some blind power; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature." Admittedly, in the 19th century when Marx lived, ecological harmony in the modern sense had not yet emerged, but Marx brilliantly provided a rational interpretation of the relationship between man and nature, which is worthy of reference for today's society. Western scholars represented by William Leiss attack the theory of productive forces from the perspective of ecological protection, viewing the control of nature as the core of productive forces and claiming Marx failed to notice the intrinsic value of nature; this is clearly a misreading. Furthermore, although the original intention of the "nature conservation" view is to realize the protection of the environment by negating the current development model of controlling and plundering nature, this passive harmony—which negates the subjective agency of man (the laborer)—clearly lacks a practical foundation, because an independent, self-existing nature untouched by human influence simply does not exist. There is no so-called "objective nature," only "humanized nature." Human freedom or liberation is certainly inseparable from ecological harmony, but the foundation or subject for constructing this harmony can only reside in humanity itself; only in this way can human society achieve sustainable development under "conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature."
What exactly is the relationship between wealth creation and the productive forces? In essence, productive forces and wealth creation are closely related; however, equating the development of productive forces solely with wealth creation commits the error of "vulgar economics" that Marx criticized. Engels once pointed out: "According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life... Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase." The inevitable trend of the development of productive forces is to establish relations of production that can fully liberate them, along with the social system built upon them: "In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." Clearly, only in a community (communist society) with the optimal relations of production and forms of ownership can the productive forces be developed to their maximum and human liberation be fully realized. Therefore, regarding the concept of productive forces itself, the attempt by Jean Baudrillard and others to weaken productive forces—from the fundamental power driving history and determining social forms of ownership—into a method of wealth creation unrelated to ownership is clearly a vulgarized distortion. In essence, wealth creation is an important component of the concept of productive forces; however, equating productive forces merely with wealth creation obscures the more fundamental human issue within them—namely, the problem of alienated labor hidden beneath the relations of commodity production and exchange, which is also a chronic malady [8] that the capitalist system cannot overcome. Contemporary Western scholars only study the surface phenomena of economic activity, equating productive forces with wealth creation (often reifying them as corporate profits or social GDP growth) and simplifying the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production into wealth creation in the economic field; this remains a bourgeois vulgar economic theory (as once advocated by Smith, Ricardo, and others). Just as Marx and Engels criticized vulgar economics and economic determinism, a correct concept of productive forces is needed. Any interpretation that departs from the horizon of historical materialism or strips away the interest in human liberation from the productive forces will deviate from the original intent of Marxism.
After analyzing the three interpretation methods of Western scholars and combining them with the historical generation of the concept of productive forces, we believe that understanding the scientific connotation of the concept of productive forces requires grasping four points: First, the productive forces are a generative resultant force [9] based on the labor practice of real individuals, representing a dialectical unity of reality, productivity, and relationality. The labor practice of real individuals is the starting point for understanding this concept and for correctly understanding the relationship between man and nature. Second, the three elements of the productive forces are the laborer, the means of labor, and the object of labor; these three are dialectically unified in the labor practice of the real individual (the laborer). Third, from the perspective of the relationship between objects and people, the human factor in the productive forces is primary (the laborer is the most active and fundamental element in the productive forces, and the only subjective factor), while the factor of objects is secondary. The factor of objects must pass through the human factor to become actual productive forces. Fourth, the concept of productive forces is not a purely scientific or economic category. Because the theory of productive forces proposed by Marx is the foundation upon which scientific socialism is built—and since scientific socialism has a clear teleological value [10] of human liberation—a correct understanding of the concept of productive forces must be combined with this teleology. With the labor practice of real individuals as the starting point, whether it is the sublation and transcendence of classical political economic thought, the analysis of the human and object factors in the productive forces, or the critique of the capitalist system and its ownership through the contradictory movement of productive forces and relations of production, Marx’s ultimate expectation was always the realization of human liberation. If this is abandoned, the interpretation of the concept of productive forces will fall into the error of "seeing objects but not people" committed by technological determinism, nature conservationism, and wealth creationism. For technological determinism, Western scholars believe that those who master the power of technology are not the laborers, but the capitalist state or a "minority of scientists or inventors," arguing that "the labor power of the immediate producer becomes increasingly unimportant." This causes human liberation to be obscured by the haze of technological supremacy (seemingly detached from capitalist ownership). While scientists or inventors certainly play a role that cannot be ignored, technological power must be actualized through labor practice; otherwise, it cannot have a significant impact on society. In the modern laboring class, whose cultural level is increasingly rising, the application and development of technology are even more inseparable from the practice of the laborers. Nature conservationism criticizes Marx's theory of productive forces with a seemingly impartial attitude, arguing that labor practice based on the concept of controlling nature has destroyed the natural environment; nature thus becomes an independent, self-existing entity with intrinsic value, while man becomes a passive, negative factor in the face of nature. Once the most active and fundamental element in the productive forces (the laborer) is negated, the hope for humanity to obtain freedom or liberation before nature also becomes a pipe dream. As Marx said, in a context where human productive forces are increasingly developed, there is no so-called objective nature, only "humanized nature." There is no essential contradiction between the protection of nature and the liberation of man; the realization of both depends solely on man himself. Wealth creationism turns the concept of productive forces entirely into an economic category related only to the creation of material wealth and completely unrelated to forms of ownership. Wealth creationism covers up human relations with the relations between objects (commodities); thus, human alienation is drowned in the bubbles of the market economy. Certainly, the development of productive forces is closely related to wealth creation, but its orientation is toward the full realization of human freedom rather than human alienation. Only in a socialist (communist) society that eliminates capitalist private ownership can "individuals obtain the means of developing their capacities in all directions; only in the community, therefore, is personal freedom possible."
V. Conclusion
Contemporary Western scholars have interpreted the concept of productive forces through three modes: technological determinism, nature conservationism, and wealth creationism. These three modes have a certain degree of rationality but also contain many biases. Technological determinism values the power of science and technology but treats it as the sole decisive element in the productive forces, ignoring the important role of the laborer as the subjective element, thus drifting to some extent into a defense of the existing capitalist system. Nature conservationism censures Marx’s theory of productive forces in the name of ecological protection, but is actually trapped in a misreading of Marx’s relationship between man and nature. Wealth creationism understands "productive forces" merely as an economic category for creating material wealth, still following the old path of classical political economy: "seeing objects but not people."
The Marxist concept of productive forces contains rich scientific connotations and a distinct teleological value, which helps us profoundly understand the concept of "new quality productive forces" currently proposed by our country.
First, the Marxist concept of productive forces can provide a value-based definition and guidance for new quality productive forces. Since the scientific connotation of the concept of productive forces signifies not only the creation of wealth but also the teleology of human liberation, we must oppose the erroneous practice of understanding productive forces merely as a scientific or economic category, and of distorting historical materialism into economic determinism. While drawing lessons from the logic of capital (the supremacy of capital), we must simultaneously emphasize the logic of the person (the supremacy of the people), achieve a balance between equity and efficiency, and—while accelerating the development of productive forces—always remain people-centered and persist in putting the people first. From a value-based perspective, this is precisely why these productive forces are "new quality" in terms of their progressiveness.
Second, the Marxist concept of productive forces can provide theoretical support for the ecological connotations of new quality productive forces. In Marx's view, giving full play to the active factor within the productive forces (human beings) is the basic point for achieving harmony between humanity and nature. Non-anthropocentrism, theories regarding the "original sin of civilization," and historical pessimism are all unrealistic, while the proposal to return to the so-called "unity of heaven and humanity" [11] of ancient Chinese agrarian society is even more of a "moon in the water or flower in the mirror" [12]. Achieving the free and well-rounded development of every individual includes not only the elimination of alienated labor but also liberation from the constraints of the natural world. However, this does not mean viewing nature as an object to be conquered and plundered; therefore, the construction of ecological civilization is an inherent necessity for the development of productive forces. This is just as Xi Jinping stated: "Green development is the defining feature of high-quality development, and new quality productive forces are themselves green productive forces."
Finally, the Marxist concept of productive forces can provide theoretical support for the superiority of the relations of production under our country's socialist system, which serves as the foundation for the development of new quality productive forces. Xi Jinping noted: "Relations of production must adapt to the requirements of the development of productive forces. To develop new quality productive forces, we must further deepen reform across the board and create a new type of relations of production compatible with them." The superiority of the relations of production under our country’s socialist system can provide an institutional guarantee for the development of new quality productive forces. A typical tendency among Western scholars is to use a misread or distorted Marxist category of productive forces to defend the capitalist system, even arguing that capitalism is the most rational and optimal system. In fact, regardless of how the GDP of capitalist countries grows or how science and technology develop, what is remains concealed under the guise of so-called "capital justice" is still the essence of exploitation; the oppressed condition of the working people cannot be fundamentally resolved. Once the role of the capitalist form of ownership in promoting productive forces reaches a bottleneck, it will inevitably face the fate of being broken through or transformed. The great achievements made in the construction of socialism with Chinese characteristics have already proven that our socialist system is superior and capable of vigorously promoting the development of productive forces. On the new journey of developing new quality productive forces and achieving high-quality development, this advantage will continue to play a vital role.