Li Jian: The Problem of "Real Movement" in Communist Theory
Understanding and grasping the question of the "actual movement" within communist theory—particularly the rich connotations embedded therein—is a vital task for studying contemporary trends in Marxism and innovating Marxism for the 21st century. In The German Ideology, a flagship work elucidating communist thought, Marx and Engels put forward a critical judgment: "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things." Although Marx and Engels defined the concept of communism as an "actual movement" and explained its realization as a process of historical becoming that continuously abolishes the present state of things, what kind of communism can be termed the communism of the "actual movement"? How can communism be grounded in actual history today, in the 21st century? These two questions require further exposition at both the theoretical and practical levels. Based on this, this article takes influential Western radical left-wing scholars as examples to provide a holistic interpretation of their differing understandings of the "actual movement" of communism. It aims to centrally demonstrate the sense in which they have reconstructed communist theory, with the hope of providing a certain ideological reference for developing a new form of human civilization.
I. From the "Idea" of Communism to the "Actual Movement" of Communism
Western radical left-wing scholars hold varying understandings of communism; however, they have all adopted the return to communism as a new political discourse to brandish their radical positions, forming a dual logical approach that interprets the concept of communism through "the Idea" and "the actual movement." For them, while the "Idea" is important, the "actual movement" constitutes the essential character of communism. How to ground the "Idea" of communism within actual history under changing contemporary conditions, thereby making it truly an "actual movement," constitutes the core problem of Western left-wing communist theory.
In the view of Western radical left-wing scholars, communism refers first to an Idea. The radical left regards the Manifesto of the Communist Party as a key text for interpreting Marx's communist doctrine. In their view, to grasp the original meaning of communism, it is first necessary to return to the period when the doctrine was founded. In the works of Marx and Engels, communism possesses multiple meanings. However, its most original and basic definition refers to the Idea of achieving human liberation. As early as The Meaning of Sarkozy and The Communist Hypothesis, Alain Badiou reached an important conclusion: the revival of communism in the 21st century is a revival of the Idea. He maintains that we cannot derive a conclusion of what an actual communist society would look like from the dialectics of Marxist philosophy or the critical analysis of political economy; what we can grasp of communism is merely an Idea, a hypothesis. Slavoj Žižek further points out: "To remain faithful to the communist Idea is not enough: one should locate within historical reality the antagonisms which give to this Idea a practical urgency."
Secondly, communism is essentially an actual movement that breaks the established capitalist order. Starting from an idealized understanding of communism, the Western radical left views it as an actual movement that continuously breaks the established capitalist order through the exertion of human subjectivity, thereby achieving human liberation. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, in Labor of Dionysus, propose that communism is a "real movement of destruction" based on the analysis of "actually existing things." They state, "Communism is not formal, but ontological; not teleological, but real." Situated in the era of digital capitalism, the Western radical left starts from the new social reality in which immaterial productive activities play a dominant role. Beginning with capitalist relations of production, they argue that due to the opposition between the public and the private brought about by the development of capitalist globalization, the capitalist mode of production will create direct real conditions for the realization of communism. Michael Hardt asserts: "With the increasing concentration of 'the common' in capitalist production—the production of ideas, affects, social relationships, and forms of life—the conditions and weapons for a communist project are emerging. In other words, capitalism is creating its own gravediggers."
From the dual perspectives of "the Idea" and "the actual movement," the Western radical left has clarified the fundamental question of what communism actually refers to. For them, the "Idea" and the "actual movement" of communism are not separate, but organically fused; that is, an interactive relationship where the "Idea" is reproduced within the "actual movement." This "actual movement" of communism is a critique of the reality of capitalist society and a historical movement process to abolish the present state of capitalist things; the goal of this "actual movement" is to realize the Idea of human liberation and the actual appropriation of the human essence. By activating and transforming concepts such as "biopolitics," "the common," "intellectual equality," and "the proletariat," and by linking these to the internal contradictions of the capitalist mode of production, the Western radical left hit the mark regarding the problem of the "actual movement" in Marx’s communist doctrine. They further formed new modes of critique for abolishing the present state of capitalist things and grounded the reproduction of communism within actual history in the revolutionary subject, providing an innovative perspective and theoretical window that cannot be ignored for our understanding of the "actual movement" in Marx’s communist doctrine today.
II. From the "Actual Movement" of Abolishing the Present State of Capitalism to the "Actual Movement" of Subjective Production
According to the formulation by Marx and Engels in The German Ideology, communism is the actual movement that abolishes the present state of things in capitalism. The Western radical left has constructed an interpretive framework for understanding and grasping communist theory in the 21st century through the dual narrative logic of "the Idea" and "the actual movement." Building on this, they have advanced the problem to be solved by the "actual movement" from the abolition of the present state of capitalism to "subjective production," providing theoretical annotations for the preconditions, main line of development, and value objectives of this shift. Marx once noted: "Of all the instruments of production, the greatest productive power is the revolutionary class itself." As the revolutionary subject, the process of the proletariat carrying out subjective production is also the historical unfolding of the "actual movement" of communism. Some Western radical left scholars regard subjectivity as the distinguishing feature of communism. Negri argues: "Communism possesses the form of subjectivity; it is also a specific practice. In the rapid development of new subjects, there is no part of capital that is not destroyed. This subject displays a power of subjective upheaval and sweeps away all remnants of the old order."
First, the precondition for the shift from the "actual movement" of abolishing the present state of capitalism to the "actual movement" of subjective production is the change in class relations and the balance of forces. With the development of digital and intelligent technologies, capitalism has entered a new round of privatization. This neoliberalism not only plunders common natural wealth but also attempts to further plunder common immaterial wealth, transforming cultural products—such as information, ideas, and affects—into private property. In the view of the Western radical left, while there are many understandings of the "actual movement" that abolishes the present state of capitalism, it primarily refers to the question of class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. They provide a view of class struggle based on biopolitical production. Negri, for instance, mentions that today's labor produces not only material products but also social relations and forms of life. Biopolitical production no longer relies purely on material production; instead, it relies more on the conscious, creative labor of the subject. The reason for making this judgment stems from their profound insight into the changing balance of forces between the subject of capital and the subject of labor in the era of digital capitalism.
Today, the structures of capitalist rule and their forms of control no longer stand above the social field to determine the process of exploitation as they once did; rather, they must be rooted within the internal structure of capitalist social production, particularly within the contradictory relationship between the subject of capital and the subject of labor. The reasons are two-fold: on the one hand, class relations remain grounded in the historical stipulations of capitalist social reality and the production of subjectivity (of capital and labor); on the other hand, the balance of class forces has undergone significant changes. The immense progress of the productive forces empowered by digital technology has increasingly brought about a new trend of liberating the labor subject from capital valorization—that is, a communist developmental trend toward the continuous self-actualization of the subject. The fact here is that "the history of capitalist development is not a structured narrative of the unfolding of capital; on the contrary, the structure of capital is determined by the productivity and organizational power of labor." In this sense, the "actual movement" of communism must focus on the changes in class relations and the balance of forces in capitalist society, and theoretically recapture the proposition that "the subjection of labor to the ruling class is not inevitable," thereby more profoundly revealing the preconditions for the transition of the communist "actual movement" from abolishing the present state of capitalism to subjective production.
Second, the main line of development in the shift from the "actual movement" of abolishing the present state of capitalism to the "actual movement" of subjective production is the mutual promotion between heterogeneous subjects and the community. "If communism takes the form of a transition, for us this means we must follow a main line, and this main line is the antagonism of subjects." The Western radical left generally believes there is a mutual promotion between the revolutionary subject and the community. The revolutionary subject of communism is not the proletariat in the traditional sense, nor is it a homogenized "people," but rather a subject possessing individual-life heterogeneity. What they call the opening of "true politics" signifies the generation of an entirely new community. Jacques Rancière calls this revolutionary subject "the part of those who have no part" (la part des sans-part) [1], referring to those excluded from the community. He argues that for today's communist movement, the focus is not on analyzing the internal contradictions and tensions of class struggle, but on confirming the capacity for resistance and the ability to build a new aesthetic community among "the part of those who have no part." Hardt argues that the working class, in the context of transformed relations of production and political struggle, has generated a new revolutionary subject—the "multitude"—re-emerging as a heterogeneous collection for establishing a community. Here, the question the Western radical left must emphatically answer is: how can the relationship of mutual promotion between the revolutionary subject and the community be established? That is, how can a new communist movement favorable to the association of subjects emerge from the antagonisms of the existing system? Hardt and Negri point out that the essence of the association of the multitude is collective resistance against unfree and unjust control and hierarchy, as well as against forms of exploitation and appropriation in capitalist globalization. Rancière also believes that the association of subjects will form a political community, the result of which is to break the sensory "distribution of the sensible" [2] imposed by the "police" [3] on what people are, say, and do, enabling those who are "the part of those who have no part" to achieve subjectivization. This subjectivization is not a simple imitation of the existing order, but a redefinition of the self and a verification of equality. In their view, the production of the community and the production of the subject itself are complementary; the subject needs to penetrate the fog of the "false community" to confirm their subjective identity, while the community needs to continuously innovate the institutions and momentum of subjective association to promote that association. It can be seen that the Western radical left's interpretation of the "actual movement" of communism has undergone a logical change from a focus on the objective scale (the critique of capitalism) to a focus on the subjective scale (subjective production). The interactive relationship between the collective resistance of subjects and the generation of a political community undoubtedly constitutes the main line of development behind this shift.
Third, the value objective of the "real movement" has shifted from the abolition of the existing conditions of capitalism to the production of subjectivity: the return of human subjectivity and the realization of human liberation. The Western Radical Left shares this basic conclusion of Marx's doctrine of communism—that the return of human subjectivity signifies that people living in a community have achieved free and conscious labor. Based on this, they have offered different interpretations of how human liberation is possible. Antonio Negri provided this explanation of communism: "Communism is an end to labor, even if this end manifests as a process: communism is a society that takes labor as a constituent part of social production and enables the liberation of the subject." The action of the laboring subject resisting the capital subject is not merely a potentiality, but a deterministic necessity. This deterministic necessity will form a new social formation—the "communism of the common"—based on common wealth created by "immaterial labor" and practicing self-management. This represents a positive negation of the negative relationship between capital and labor; it is a process in which the laboring subject overwhelms the capital subject and restores the human essence. Can we, therefore, assume that communism is merely a simple hypothesis of human nature regarding the return of subjectivity? Jacques Rancière provided an answer in Does Communist Art Exist? and Dissensus: On Politics and Aesthetics. He refuted the claims of certain Western scholars who view Marx’s discussions of communism in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 as evidence that communism is a hypothesis of human nature; instead, he regards communism as an empirical, sensuous reality. He pointed out that communism in Marx's doctrine should be understood from the perspective of reality and process: "The formulation 'communist actuality' [4] means that communism is not only desirable—as a response to the violence, injustice, or irrationality of capitalism—but that, in a sense, it already exists. The actuality of communism is not only a task but also a process." Here, the result of the "real movement" of communism implies the achievement of a dual goal: first, the true community is not an ideal but an actual form of life; second, this form of life realizes intellectual liberation—that is, a common capacity established on the assumption of equality for everyone. In this sense, Rancière’s "intellectual liberation" approximates Marx’s "human liberation."
Generally speaking, the Western Radical Left has further enriched the value dimension of Marx’s doctrine of communism under changed capitalist conditions. They have not only reaffirmed the return of the human essence found in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 but also revealed that the goal of the subject—striving for human liberation through the real movement of continuous self-production and self-creation—is not a utopia but a reality. However, the Western Radical Left’s discourses—unfolded through the production of subjectivity—concerning the confrontation between the laboring subject and the capital subject, the mutual promotion of the subject and the community, and human liberation, still remain at the level of discursive critique of capitalism and logical argumentation for communism. At the theoretical foundation, there are fundamental differences between them and Marx’s doctrine of communism. Why reach this conclusion? This requires us to develop an evaluation from the standpoint, viewpoint, and method of historical materialism.
III. A Brief Evaluation of the Western Radical Left’s Interpretation of the "Real Movement" of Communism
Although the Western Radical Left emphasizes the importance of understanding and grasping the "real movement" of communism in the 21st century and has endowed the "real movement" with rich connotations, they have abandoned historical materialism in their reconstruction of the preconditions, the main thread of development, and the value objectives of communist theory. They fail to understand that "the basis of the concept of communism is its economic and social theory regarding what capitalist society actually is and how it is developing—namely, historical materialism." Consequently, their explanation of communist theory cannot produce significant practical effects and may even degenerate into mere empty talk.
The Western Radical Left corroborates that communism is a real movement that continuously abolishes the dominant relationship of the capital subject over the laboring subject, thereby achieving the true appropriation of the human essence; however, they do not ground this antagonistic relationship in the fundamental issue of "abolishing private property." In the view of the Radical Left represented by Michael Hardt, Antonio Negri, and Slavoj Žižek, the forms of social labor have undergone significant changes today: material labor is gradually losing its dominant position, while immaterial labor is increasingly becoming the predominant form of production. Negri mentioned in Empire [5] that "compared to other forms of production, a hegemony of immaterial production has now emerged." Based on the epochal judgment that immaterial labor forms are dominant, the Western Radical Left takes labor as the ontological basis, re-examines the relationship between labor and capital, endows the laboring subject with autonomy and cooperativeness, and replaces the proletarian social movement at the center of global order construction. This reflects their theoretical persistence regarding the "true appropriation of the human essence." Hardt, Negri, and Žižek analyzed the new changes in capitalist relations of production in the era of digital and intelligent technology, believing they found a new form of labor hidden behind capital relations—immaterial labor. However, Hardt and Negri replaced historical materialism with a biopolitical research paradigm, restricting the class basis of the laboring subject to a "contingent encounter" [6] in production. When understanding the "real movement" of communism, they avoid discussing the decisive role of economic factors in political revolution and historical development, and they do not acknowledge that the "abolition of private property" constitutes the fundamental cause and ultimate goal of the subject's revolution. For Marx, the "abolition of private property" constitutes the precondition for the realization of communism and the liberation of the proletariat: "the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." It is precisely in the sense of the "abolition of private property" that Engels stated "communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat." Although the era of digital capitalism has seen many new changes compared to the industrial era—particularly that immaterial production has to some extent replaced the dominance of material production—the essence has still not departed from the background of the logic of capital and technological dominance that has prevailed since the Industrial Revolution. It has not departed from the antagonistic relationship between labor and capital inherent in historical materialism. The goal of the proletarian revolution remains the "most radical rupture with traditional property relations" and the re-appropriation of the means of production. Hardt and Negri proposed the "communism of the common," but the "common" here is a relationship of "commonality" based on the premises of openness and sharing, not the public ownership of the means of production based on the premise of appropriation in the sense meant by Marx and Engels. Žižek pointed out that the reality of communism is manifested as a process of collective action among "the excluded" against capitalist privatization and the new enclosure movement. This communist vision of the Western Radical Left lacks the leadership of a proletarian vanguard and lacks the goal of overthrowing the old ownership of the means of production; it is merely a radical fantasy of a political subject and therefore cannot become a reality.
The Western Radical Left corroborates that communism is a real movement that continuously abolishes existing capitalist relations through the association of subjects, thereby achieving human liberation; however, they fail to better integrate the inevitable laws inherent in the historical process with actual human agency. Historical materialism "reveals the general laws of the development of human society and the general process of the evolution of social formations, proving the historical law by which old social formations are replaced by new ones." The key to interpreting the "real movement" of communism lies in grasping "these tendencies working with iron necessity towards inevitable results." Merely regarding communism as a process of the true appropriation of the human essence, without revealing the law of "iron necessity" by which a new social formation replaces the old, will undoubtedly lead people to doubt the certainty of the concept of communism itself. The Western Radical Left describes the general characteristics of the future society from the perspective of subjectivity, but they do not view the developmental trend of communism as a historical necessity. They mention that communism means returning what is common to the masses; its essential feature is the realization of human liberation through the association of subjects and the formation of a true community. Alain Badiou proposed that, in its most general sense—starting from the classic Communist Manifesto—communism first of all means that the arrangement which has been taken for granted since antiquity (the class logic wherein the laboring class is subordinated to the ruling class) is by no means necessary but can be overcome. However, their problem lies in overemphasizing accidental elements such as "events" and "autonomy," failing to recognize that "where on the surface accident holds sway, it is actually always governed by inner, hidden laws and the only question is to discover these laws." For example, Rancière overemphasizes the role of sensuous liberation and ignores how the power of sensuous liberation can act upon actual history; thus, his theoretical propositions only emphasize human subjective agency and do not verify whether they conform to the laws of historical development. From the perspective of historical materialism, the communist theory of the Western Radical Left fails to see the interaction between the revolutionary subject and actual history. When answering the question of whether the proletariat can still serve as the revolutionary subject, their attitude is also ambiguous. Žižek pointed out: "A new emancipatory politics will no longer emerge from a particular social agent, but from an explosive combination of different agents." Therefore, whether it is the "multitude" [7] constructed by Hardt and Negri, Rancière’s "part of no part" [8] with revolutionary consciousness, or Žižek’s "excluded," these subjective concepts are all political discursive constructions that drift outside the concept of the proletariat and ignore the grasp of actual historical laws; they are different from Marx’s "real individuals." Marx defined "real individuals" as practical, living individuals determined by "material conditions of life." The Western Radical Left, with the aim of reviving communism, pins its hopes on pluralistic and accidental subjects. They fail to fundamentally recognize that the class antagonism behind the new changes in capitalism has not undergone a fundamental shift, and they fail to see that the proletariat remains the truly revolutionary class, which leads to their departure from the path of proletarian revolution. In this sense, only by viewing the issue of the revolutionary subject in communist theory from the perspective of historical materialism can the new path to realizing communism be scientifically elucidated.
The Western Radical Left corroborates the idea that communism is a "becoming-movement that is understood and recognized," thereby confining this movement of becoming to the realm of ideas and failing to ground this "activity of becoming" in the "act of birth of empirical existence." As Engels stated, "Modern materialism looks upon history as the process of development of humanity, and its task is to discover the laws of motion of this process." To "discover the laws of motion of this process" is to create the real conditions for the liberation of the proletariat. Answering what the real conditions for proletarian liberation are is equivalent to elucidating the historical premises upon which communism is established. In answering what communism is, Western Radical Leftist theories of communism often grasp the word "movement" while neglecting the importance of "reality," leading to an inability to truly take hold of the historical premises for the realization of communism. Marx and Engels once provided a brilliant exposition regarding such important formulations as the "movement of becoming" and the "act of birth": "The entire movement of history, just as its [communism’s] actual act of genesis—the birth-act of its empirical existence—is, therefore, for its thinking consciousness the comprehended and known process of its becoming." From the logical progression of this passage, it is insufficient merely to understand the "movement of becoming as understood and recognized" in thought; one must also ground this movement of becoming in "the birth-act of its empirical existence." The birth-act of empirical existence is the prerequisite for the movement of becoming in thought. The reason communism is a real movement and a birth-act of empirical existence is determined by its real premises. Marx repeatedly emphasized that the proletariat must transform the philosophy in its head into a revolutionary practice that changes reality; if philosophy is not translated into reality, the proletariat can neither abolish itself and its real conditions nor abolish the bourgeoisie. Facing the developmental trends of communism in the 21st century, the Western Radical Left, while not evading reality, has fallen into the idealist trap of resolving contradictions within the realm of ideas during their further interpretations. For instance, Gavin Walker once bluntly criticized Badiou’s vision of communism, arguing that for Badiou, communism can only appear as "a historicity of thought, in which these two aspects oscillate in a continuous way of dialectical reversal, movement as theory, theory as movement." Although Žižek adheres to the research methodology of the Marxian critique of political economy—demonstrating the logical paradox of the internal contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production as the driving force for the development of capitalism—he nevertheless abandons the principles of historical materialism in his arguments regarding the "real movement" of communism. Specifically, he discards the principles that the superstructure must adapt to the state of the economic base and that the relations of production must adapt to the state of the productive forces. Instead, he highlights the role of ideology in the politics of liberation, confining communism to the ideological sphere.
In short, compared to Marx’s future-oriented goal of holistic human liberation, the goal of human liberation for the Western Radical Left is the liberation of the individual. From the perspective of historical materialism, human liberation must rely on the holistic transformation of the social mode of production and its social systems. Yet for Rancière, "liberation can happen at any moment, whenever and wherever an individual produces a disturbance in the existing sensible space"; for Hardt and Negri, if individuals use the form of love to induce the living subject to consciously participate in the construction of the community, they can then achieve free liberation. Consequently, Rancière’s "intellectual equality" and Hardt and Negri’s "liberation of the multitude" weaken the nature of proletarian revolution and the real conditions for proletarian liberation. This results in their subject of liberation remaining solely at the theoretical level, unable to shoulder the historical mission of human liberation.
IV. Enlightenment from the Problem of "Real Movement" in Western Radical Leftist Communist Theory for Developing the New Form of Human Civilization
The New Form of Human Civilization created by socialism with Chinese characteristics is a stage in the real movement of communism. Today, the Communist Party of China has successfully created a New Form of Human Civilization with Chinese characteristics, displaying a new civilizational landscape distinct from that of capitalist civilization. Although the Western Radical Left’s theory of communism lacks a foundation in historical materialism and its explanations cannot produce a significant real-world impact, their way of interpreting the "real movement" problem in communist theory can provide some theoretical references for our development of the New Form of Human Civilization today. It helps us better grasp the foundational issues related to developing the New Form of Human Civilization and answers the key question of how this new form of civilization can achieve human liberation within the continuous real movement toward communism. Generally speaking, by clarifying to a limited extent the relationship between capitalist and communist civilizations, the historical and value dimensions of communism, and the relationship between communist thought and communist reality, the Western Radical Left’s theory of communism provides us with a new perspective for examining and developing the New Form of Human Civilization.
First, it helps clarify misunderstandings regarding the concept of communism and provides new viewpoints on capitalist and communist civilizations for the development of the New Form of Human Civilization. Since the beginning of the 21st century, various discourses regarding the "rebirth of communism" have been heard incessantly in Western academia, yet many ambiguities persist in people’s understanding of the concept of communism itself. For example, should communism be understood from the perspective of a system of thought, a historical development, or a social system, and what exactly is the relationship between these understandings? These confusions stem from an insufficient grasp of the real movement of communism, particularly an unclear understanding of the relationship between communism and capitalism contained within that real movement. From the perspective of historical materialism, if the "real movement" problem in communist theory is not correctly interpreted, it will inevitably be difficult to achieve a truthful understanding of the concept of communism.
During the process of founding scientific socialism, Marx and Engels formed a holistic understanding of communism. Communism is not only a scientific system of thought and the actual process by which the proletariat and the masses struggle to realize the communist ideal under the leadership of a proletarian party; it is also the ideal social system established upon the realization of the communist ideal. The concept of communism also contains an understanding of the relationship between communism and capitalism, specifically expressed as the "Two Inevitabilities"—the inevitability of the demise of capitalism and the inevitability of the victory of communism. In practice, however, people often lack a scientific understanding of these "Two Inevitabilities," either leading the proletarian revolution—prompted by the basic contradictions of capitalism—down the path of reformism, or advocating that capitalism will spontaneously transform those relations of production and superstructures that do not meet the requirements of the development of productive forces, thereby achieving a natural transition to communism. Such views fail to understand the demise of capitalism and the victory of communism as the real manifestation and final destination of human liberation. The Western Radical Left raises the "real movement" problem in communist theory with the intention of correctly grasping the relationship between capitalism and communism within the "real movement," thereby avoiding the severance of the critique of capitalism from the construction of communism. Communist civilization was discovered by Marx and Engels through the process of critiquing capitalist civilization; only within the "critique of the old world" can one "discover the new world." The Western Radical Left has inherited Marx and Engels’ essential understanding of communism, viewing it as a "real movement" that abolishes the existing state of capitalism. At the same time, their analytical perspective further shifts from a "real movement" that abolishes the existing state of capitalism to a "real movement" of subjective production. They view communism as a real movement that continuously abolishes existing capitalist relations through the association of subjects, thereby restoring the essential powers of man and realizing human liberation. This clarifies many one-sided and non-critical understandings of the relationship between communism and capitalism, providing new evidence and viewpoints for developing the New Form of Human Civilization and understanding why communist civilization must inevitably replace capitalist civilization.
Second, it helps return to the original aspiration of Marx’s doctrine of communism, providing new testimony for developmental efforts to firm up communist ideals and beliefs and to establish a new communist civilization. Marx’s doctrine of communism advocates not only "critiquing the old world" but also "discovering the new world" within that critique. "Critiquing the old world" highlights the historical dimension of communism, while "discovering the new world" highlights its value dimension. If "critiquing the old world" is merely taken as the primary historical task of communism without recourse to establishing a future new society, the critique itself loses its proper value and meaning, failing to point out the future direction of human society. The theoretical contribution of the Western Radical Left lies in their return to the original aspiration of Marx’s doctrine, highlighting the reciprocal role between human subjectivity and the development of the community, corroborating that communism is a real movement of liberation achieved through man, for man, and of the essence of man.
Based on the specific historical environment of digital capitalism, the Western Radical Left does not simply restate the concept of human liberation but internalizes this concept within the real movement of communism, specifying it as the problem of the restoration of human subjectivity, the association of subjects, and the construction of a true community. Žižek argues that Marx was convinced that "the communist 'synthesis' is the overcoming of all history to date," and that a communist society means the re-appropriation of the alienated substance by the subject as a collective. While there are imaginary elements in the Western Radical Left’s analysis of communism that are detached from material production, they nonetheless unify the value and historical dimensions of communism. They perceive the new changes in class relations and the balance of power brought about by the transformation of the capitalist mode of production and social structure, intuiting a new trend in modern society conducive to the development of the laboring subject. They see human society as being in a state of transition from the stage of antagonism between labor and capital toward a communist stage of free human development. These points corroborate the value goal of achieving human liberation, helping us to firm up our ideals and beliefs in realizing communism and to strengthen our historical confidence in creating a new communist civilization as we develop the New Form of Human Civilization.
Third, it helps in profoundly grasping the latest trends in the development of communism, providing theoretical programs for the development of the New Form of Human Civilization. Marx pointed out: "For the practical materialist, i.e., the communist, the whole problem is to revolutionize the existing world, to practically attack and change existing things." In his view, to carry out communist practice, "it is not enough that thought should seek its realization, reality must itself strive toward thought." The theoretical developments of communism by figures such as Žižek, Badiou, Negri, and Hardt have not caused great waves at the level of practice, but in their logical interpretation of communism, they have implemented the principle that thought reflects reality and reality strives toward thought, providing new ideological resources for the development of the New Form of Human Civilization.
The realization of communist civilization cannot be achieved overnight; it requires sufficient objective and subjective conditions. Generally speaking, the Western Radical Left’s vision for communist civilization covers both objective and subjective levels. Regarding the objective conditions for building communist civilization, Hardt and Negri point out that the key to abolishing the existing conditions of capitalism lies in abolishing the social structures, social systems, and the conditions of proletarian subordination that maintain privilege and power. Only in this way can the foundations of capitalism be fundamentally shaken, creating a favorable objective environment for the birth of communist civilization. Regarding the subjective conditions for building communist civilization, Rancière’s idea of "intellectual equality" is quite influential. This idea is based on the assumption of equality, holding that all people naturally and collectively possess a certain sensible capacity. This capacity emphasizes the equal status of every individual in perceiving and understanding the world, serving as an indispensable subjective foundation for communist civilization. Badiou holds a similar view, arguing that the role of communism in reality is to process egalitarian principles through symbolization. By means of encoding and dissemination, this lays the subjective foundation for the collectivization and common ownership of resources, the elimination of inequality and difference, the recognition of the equal rights of subjects, and peaceful development. This means that at the ideological level, egalitarianism must be deeply rooted in people’s hearts, enabling them to internally identify with and actively pursue the equality and justice advocated by communist civilization.
Developing a new form of human civilization [13] represents both a significant theoretical innovation and a great social practice; it must adhere to the principle that thought embodies reality and reality trends toward thought. The communist theories of the Western radical Left [14] offer certain reference value for developing this new form of human civilization, primarily reflected in two points. First, in the process of actualizing this new form of human civilization, we must continuously engage in institutional innovation, using the developmental direction of communism to lead the cause of socialist reform. Through comparison with capitalist countries, we must demonstrate the superiority of the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics and consolidate the institutional foundation for achieving human liberation. Second, in the process of actualizing this new form of human civilization, we must proactively exert the spirit of historical initiative [15] among the masses. We must ensure that the subjective consciousness and subjective power of the masses as the creators of history are fully unleashed, pursuing the principles of democracy, equality, and justice to realize the free and well-rounded development of every individual. In short, today we must link the development of a new form of human civilization with Marx’s discourses on communism, critically draw upon the beneficial perspectives of Western leftist scholars, and—within the era-defining context of digital capitalism—develop a new form of civilization that conforms to the laws of human social development, thereby truly realizing the rejuvenation of communism.
(The author is a lecturer at the School of Marxism, Fudan University) Source: World Socialism Studies, Issue 3, 2025 Web Editor: Ma Jingren