Qiao Ruihua: A Critique of Capitalism Amid Deepening Technological Monopoly and Global Order Fission: Response and Reconstruction
Abstract: In 2024, profound shifts in the global politico-economic landscape propelled further developments in the study of foreign Marxism. In the realm of traditional theoretical research, scholars deepened their inquiry into Early Western Marxism, the Frankfurt School, and Post-Marxism, offering new interpretations integrated with contemporary social issues. Regarding practical issues, critiques of ecological, spatial, and digital capitalism became focal points, revealing the exploitation and alienation inherent in capitalism across ecology, urbanization, and digital technology. Facing new transformations in contemporary capitalism, scholars engaged in deep critiques of New Imperialism and neoliberalism, while exploring new phenomena such as the rise of the Global South and digital colonialism. Throughout the year, foreign Marxist research was strengthened in both theoretical critique and practical reconstruction, manifesting new vitality in fields such as digital capitalism. However, theoretical research remains fragmented, and its explanatory power regarding global crises and its capacity for practical guidance require improvement; subsequent efforts must further integrate theory to better respond to the challenges of the age.
As the global politico-economic landscape continues to shift, 2024 has seen the capitalist system undergo an unprecedented structural crisis intertwined with technological monopolies and the fission of the global order. The deep penetration of digital technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence and Big Data, has not only reshaped modes of production and social interaction but has also given rise to a new form of exploitation: algorithmic exploitation. Meanwhile, the intensification of geopolitical conflicts, the deepening of the ecological crisis, and the rise of the Global South have further shaken the foundations of capitalist global hegemony. Against this backdrop, foreign Marxist research has not only deepened the study of Early Western Marxism, the Frankfurt School, and Post-Marxism but has also provided new theoretical interpretations of contemporary social issues by engaging with major practical problems and the new transformations of capitalism. This research exhibits distinct characteristics of the age: it both continues the theoretical tradition of the critique of capitalism and responds to the challenges of technological revolution and civilizational transformation by launching systematic innovations in methodology, research topics, and practical paths. In the process of responding to the crises of the era, foreign Marxist research this year has demonstrated both theoretical resilience and innovative vitality, providing multidimensional perspectives for understanding capitalism in the digital age. Its trajectory of development indicates that Marxism, as a theoretical weapon for criticizing capitalism, continues to radiate contemporary vitality.
I. Research on Traditional Theoretical Schools and Issues
In 2024, foreign academia further deepened research into schools and issues related to Early Western Marxism, the Frankfurt School, and Post-Marxism, achieving significant progress in both theoretical depth and practical responsiveness.
(1) Research on Early Western Marxism
In 2024, foreign academic research on Lukács, Gramsci, and others continued to deepen. Violeta Garrido, a researcher in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Granada, Spain, examined Lukács’s theory of the unconscious. Through a meticulous analysis of the intersection between Marxism and the unconscious, she provided new insights into how unconscious processes influence the subject and consciousness within historical and social frameworks. This research situates Lukács’s theory of the unconscious within the field of dialogue between Marxism and psychoanalysis, opening new paths for engagement between the Marxist and psychoanalytic schools. Furthermore, in the book The Long Retreat: Strategies to Reverse the Decline of the Left, the renowned Russian sociologist Boris Kagarlitsky argues that while Western radical leftist theorists condemn the working class for preferring consumption over revolution, according to Lukács’s theory of class consciousness, in such a historical period, workers need to be liberated from procrastination, enfeeblement, and restricted action to actively change society. Basing himself on Lukács’s theoretical framework of class consciousness, Kagarlitsky critiques the dissolution of the working class’s revolutionary nature by the alienation of the consumer society and emphasizes the urgency of reconstructing radical transformation strategies to break through the interest barriers of the ruling elites. This highlights the practical explanatory power of Lukács’s theory in analyzing the crisis of capitalism and the dilemmas of leftist practice.
In Gramsci studies, there is a marked shift from theoretical interpretation toward the international communist movement and the analysis of social problems. Isak Frumin, Director of the Institute for Innovation in Higher Education at the National Research University Higher School of Economics in Russia, and his colleagues use Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony to reconstruct the model of socialist higher education. They emphasize the mission of the university as an engine for social transformation and advocate for breaking the existing order and stimulating community vitality and creativity through educational innovation. Their research both continues Gramsci’s emphasis on ideological change and provides a practical path for contemporary education to reshape social equity. Matthana Rodyim, a scholar at the Institute of Asian Languages and Cultures at Mahidol University, Thailand, utilized Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony to examine how the cultural hegemony accompanied by fear in Thai political life is created, extended, and maintained. She analyzed the systematic orchestration and reinforcement mechanism of fear as a tool of ideological control, revealing the hidden operational logic of authoritarian rule in Thailand. This not only verifies the explanatory power of Gramscian cultural hegemony in a non-Western capitalist context but also exposes the deep coupling of emotional manipulation and symbolic violence [1] in the process of legitimizing the power of the absolute monarchy and the ruling class. Tymura Mchellen, a researcher at Clark Atlanta University in the United States, extended Gramsci’s ideological analytical framework to the study of racial privilege by distinguishing between the concepts of "rule" and "hegemony." Mchellen argues that "Gramsci's theory of cultural hegemony refers to a state of total penetration of a system of values, attitudes, beliefs, and morals throughout society." This penetration serves to support the status quo within power relations, highlighting the ongoing critical value of Gramscian cultural hegemony theory regarding the power dynamics of contemporary capitalism.
The paradigm shift in foreign research on Early Western Marxism in 2024—from textual interpretation to the diagnosis of practical problems—exhibits the characteristic of emphasizing both the expansion of theoretical depth and practical critique. This demonstrates the powerful vitality and explanatory power of the Marxist critical tradition in its dynamic response to the new crises of capitalism.
(2) Frankfurt School Research
Research on the Frankfurt School has presented "new interpretations" of "old themes," namely, the re-articulation of original important theoretical issues within a contemporary context. This has formed a research character that is problem-oriented, open, trans-school, interdisciplinary, and multidimensionally integrated. For instance, Paul Erxleben, a scholar at Leipzig University in Germany, in his book The Renewal of Critical Theory: Adorno and Foucault in the Force Field of the Subject, Power, and Ideology, compares Theodor Adorno and Michel Foucault to reveal their deep consensus on "the critique of ideology" and "modes of subjectivation." His analysis both continues the tradition of Critical Theory’s deconstruction of capitalist power structures and injects it with trans-temporal practical vitality, highlighting the reflexive power and historical continuity of core concepts within theoretical renewal.
In 2024, research by foreign academia on various representative figures of the Frankfurt School and their thoughts continued, as did research on the thinkers themselves. Most significant among these was the convening of the symposium series "101 Years of Critical Theory: Future Directions and New Challenges," aimed at exploring the prospects for Critical Theory as it enters its second century and identifying future directions for its development. Axel Honneth, Professor of Humanities at Columbia University and former Director of the Institute for Social Research (IfS) at Frankfurt University, and Nancy Fraser, Professor in the Departments of Philosophy and Politics at the New School for Social Research, delivered keynote addresses.
In his keynote speech, "One Step Forward or Two Steps Back: Postcolonialism and the West," Honneth offered his judgment on the future developmental direction of Critical Theory in its second century. Honneth explored how European culture needs to change its self-understanding of the past, present, and future. He argued that today, in order to apologize for the colonial crimes committed by "our ancestors" in the past, "our" collective memory, "our" conceptions of institutional systems, and "our" moral universalism must undergo a transformation. First, this indicates that the future of "our" Critical Theory must involve not only post-colonial re-readings of the studies and works of classic Western authors but also an examination of these traditions and works from the perspective of colonial experience. Second, in order to describe institutional conditions that belong to "us" or even to "ourselves," it is necessary to fundamentally reorient "our" key politico-historical concepts. Third, it is necessary to revise "our" moral universalism because it presupposes an anthropocentrism that appears unacceptable from the perspective of the descendants of those colonized in the past. Honneth’s views not only challenge the interpretive modes of the Western classical tradition but also advocate for the reorientation of politico-historical concepts and the revision of moral universalism.
In her keynote speech, "The Three Faces of Capitalist Labor: The Hidden Links Between Gender, Race, and Class," Fraser argued that in the future, based on dissatisfaction with identity politics, a larger paradigm should be sought that can unify different forms of struggle. Within this, labor is the hidden bond between gender, race, and class. Fraser noted her inspiration came from W.E.B. Du Bois’s claim in The Souls of Black Folk, where he described the abolitionist movement as a labor movement and argued that anti-slavery forces and the movement of free white workers failed to recognize one another. Fraser argued for the addition of a third type—feminism—which needs to be viewed as a labor movement as well. Capitalist society relies on three different types of labor: domesticated, dispossessed, and exploited labor. The structural interleaving of these three types of labor constitutes the internal, systemic connection between gender, race, and class. Fraser believes that by exposing these hidden links, one can reveal the relationship between the three kinds of labor and evaluate the prospects for uniting them. Fraser’s analysis profoundly reveals the internal connections of gender, race, and class in capitalist society, proposing that feminism be viewed as part of the labor movement to unify different forms of struggle, thereby providing a new perspective for understanding and responding to the structural injustices of capitalist society. Her theory is not only inspiring but also provides a theoretical foundation for the future unification of social movements.
The voices of the world’s leading figures in Critical Theory converge in this symposium series. It is of great significance for resolving the new challenges facing Critical Theory, formulating its future development directions, reflecting on its capacity to participate in current social and political transformations, and considering the basic principles of its future research.
(3) Critical Research on Post-Marxism
Since its rise in the 1970s, foreign Post-Marxism has continuously solidified an "essentialist" prejudice against "traditional Marxism," emphasizing issues such as contingency, discursive construction, and cultural politics. Against the backdrop of drastic changes in the global politico-economic landscape, Post-Marxist research in 2024 has displayed new characteristics in terms of overall cognition, theoretical deepening, and practical responsiveness.
Regarding the overall cognition of Post-Marxism: Clyde W. Barrow, Professor of Political Science at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, states in the Encyclopedia of Critical Political Science that the most fundamental difference between Post-Marxism and other "post-theories" is that Marxist concepts, even if insufficient, remain necessary for understanding post-industrial society and global capitalism. Specifically, figures such as Antonio Negri and André Gorz have elaborated a unique foundation for Post-Marxist political theory through their analysis of the capitalist economy based on Marx’s Grundrisse. However, among Post-Marxists, the central status of the working class has been weakened in favor of emphasizing an alliance of pluralistic subjects; the working class is no longer the sole revolutionary subject. "Post-Marxists have never successfully found a new revolutionary subject capable of undertaking the historical mission previously carried by the proletariat." Barrow’s analysis demonstrates the rupture between Post-Marxism’s theoretical innovativeness and its practical feasibility.
María Constanza Moretti, a scholar at the National University of Lanús in Argentina, reveals the theoretical tension in Post-Marxism’s attempt to reconcile "deconstruction" with "inheritance." Moretti argues that the "post-" dimension of Post-Marxism refers to having "critiqued and transcended" the propositions of Marxism, while the "Marxism" dimension implies that it retains Marxist materialist analysis. Reflecting on the historical trajectory of left-wing movements fraught with setbacks, Post-Marxism actually holds three core views: first, the economic determinism of class is no longer regarded as an inevitable concept; second, beyond class, there exist transformative actors such as feminists, anti-racists, and environmental activists; third, it holds that "class essentialism"—the idea that class membership determines political subjectivity in an a priori manner—is no longer possible. These epistemological logics of Post-Marxism innovate the ways in which collective identity and political feasibility are constructed. This indicates that Post-Marxism has departed from the Marxist paradigm of class analysis and fallen into the shackles of identity politics. Rather than having "critiqued and transcended" Marxism, it is increasingly distancing itself from the dimension of materialist analysis.
Regarding radical pluralist democracy. Based on the theory of "radical and plural democracy" by Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, scholars have further explored how to reconstruct democratic politics against the backdrop of rising right-wing populism (such as the rise of far-right parties in Europe and America) and the resurgence of authoritarianism, thereby producing a reinterpretation of radical pluralist democratic theory. For instance, Giorgi Tskhadaia, a scholar at Caucasus University in Georgia, both retains the post-structuralist critique of essentialized identity and attempts to respond to the fragmentation of socio-political identity and the crisis of institutional legitimacy in the era of economic globalization through a radical democratic strategy of "universalizing particularity." Alex Yates, a scholar at the University of Bath in the UK, argues that Laclau and Mouffe's "radical and plural democracy" should be described as universal non-belonging, attributing plurality to the lack of essence shared by all subjects. By emphasizing potential pluralized and anti-hegemonic forms, this enables "us" to propose the concept of "the people," thereby reconstructing the forms of democratic politics. Yates's analysis exposes the risk of vacuity within Post-Marxist democratic theory during antagonistic mobilization.
Regarding biopolitics. Biopolitics is a concept proposed by Foucault in his 1976 lecture series at the Collège de France, Society Must Be Defended. In subsequent lectures, Foucault interpreted in detail how biopolitics, as a "new power" aimed at the human body, affects modern society. However, this concept did not receive sufficient attention at the time; it was not until the publication of Giorgio Agamben’s Homo Sacer that the status of "biopolitics" in foreign Marxist studies became increasingly prominent. It became a significant topic of Post-Marxist discussion particularly during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, and has been widely applied to the critique of modern capitalist governance, revealing the power logic and mechanisms of rule behind capitalism. For example, Daniele Lorenzini, a scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, critiques the forms of differential vulnerability caused by capitalist biopolitical power, arguing that these forms were particularly salient during the COVID-19 pandemic. He explores conceptual and methodological issues related to Foucault’s biopolitical research, asserting that one of Foucault’s most valuable insights is the view that biopolitics in capitalist society is a politics that necessarily entails differential vulnerability. The critical theory of biopolitical power constitutes an effective strategic response to current injustices in capitalist society.
In 2024, foreign Post-Marxist research, in its overall cognition, continued the Marxist critical stance toward capitalist injustice while emphasizing cultural politics and plural subjects. It attempted to respond to the challenges of authoritarianism and explore new paths for political practice. This research both deepened the explanatory power of Post-Marxist theory and highlighted its theoretical tensions and practical dilemmas when dealing with complex contemporary social issues. However, because its attenuation and avoidance of class politics weakened the core critical force of Marxism against capitalist contradictions, it is difficult for it to form an effective practical path to counter capital hegemony. Therefore, it should be understood dialectically.
II. Theoretical Research Oriented Toward Major Real-World Issues
In 2024, the foreign Marxist academic community conducted research centered on major real-world issues closely related to social development, such as ecological critique, spatial critique, and the critique of digital capitalism, achieving rich results. These three major critical lineages jointly demonstrate the contemporary explanatory power and practical guiding value of Marxist theory in responding to the technological revolution and the transformation of civilization. They both continued the philosophical inquiry into the essence of capitalism and constructed a multi-dimensional analytical framework for explaining the crisis of capitalist society through interdisciplinary integration, injecting new contemporary meaning into the critique of capitalism.
(1) The Critique of Ecological Capitalism
The critique of ecological capitalism is a theory that provides a profound analysis and critique of the capitalist mode of production and the ecological crises it triggers. This year, faced with the social reality of a worsening global ecological crisis, foreign Marxist scholars continued the tradition of critiquing capitalist ecological issues. They launched theoretical analyses of the ecological crisis from the perspectives of critiquing fossil capitalism and green capitalism, attempting to explore the roots behind the ecological crisis and provide new paths for its resolution.
Critique of fossil capitalism. Fossil capitalism refers to a capitalist production model formed on the basis of high dependence on fossil energy, which is inefficient and environmentally unfriendly. The critique of fossil capitalism is not only a questioning of the capitalist production model but also an interrogation of its environmental ethics and social responsibility. William K. Carroll, Professor of Sociology at the University of Victoria in Canada, published Refusing Ecocide: From Fossil Capitalism to a Liveable World. This book provides a critical analysis of the nefarious role played by fossil capitalism in causing climate change. Utilizing the concepts of historical materialism—capitalist accumulation, imperialism, and hegemony—Carroll attributes the existential crisis caused by climate change to a development paradigm driven by the valorization of capital as its core engine. This paradigm achieves economic growth through predatory resource extraction and the exploitation of cheap labor, while also critiquing the indulgent attitude of Global North countries toward capitalist institutional exploitation.
Critique of green capitalism. Green capitalism is an economic model that attempts to solve environmental problems through market mechanisms and technological progress within the capitalist system. In September 2024, Humboldt University of Berlin and the Institute for Global and European Studies at the University of Leipzig jointly hosted an academic conference titled "Green Capitalism—A New Accumulation Regime?" Participants argued that green capitalism has no way to reconcile the contradictions between capitalism and the Earth system. Although some believe that capitalism is the root cause of today's environmental crisis, certain economists still maintain that the pursuit of private profit will ultimately bring about common ecological benefits; through correct incentive mechanisms, capitalism can achieve a "green economy" more efficiently and with lower consumption than any other economic system. In reality, because the capital accumulation of capitalist society involves the over-exploitation of natural resources and environmental destruction, the ecological crisis cannot be resolved within the existing framework of capitalist society. What the world needs today is not just to redefine the nature of this contradiction between capitalism and the Earth system by referencing Marxist theory, but also to observe how the contradiction unfolds in real-time, how it interacts with other capitalist contradictions and crisis trends, and how it shapes today's political economy and social conflicts in order to respond effectively.
Critique of the crisis of capitalist metabolic rift. To maintain its economic growth and capital accumulation, capitalism continuously extracts and utilizes natural resources, leading to the destruction and pollution of the natural environment. This destruction and pollution exceed the restorative capacity of nature, thereby triggering a rift in the metabolic relationship between human society and the natural world. John Bellamy Foster, Professor of Sociology at the University of Oregon and editor of the journal Monthly Review, argued in his 2024 book Ecosocialism and the Dialectics of Nature that Marx’s masterpiece Capital constructed the economic and ecological foundations for reflecting on capitalism as a social metabolic system. The premise of the "ecological dialectics" discussed in the book is classical historical materialism and dialectical naturalist methods and analysis. According to Marx’s view, humans are both a part of nature and a part of the forces of nature; there is no rigid division between natural history and social history. With the emergence of "capitalist production," a systemic displacement appeared in the metabolic interaction between humans and the Earth, creating a metabolic rift—that is, an ecological crisis. To this end, in this latest work, Foster examines the contradiction between the current predatory development of capitalism and the quantification and financialization of nature, as well as the radical challenges posed to these contradictions by the emerging vision of ecological civilization and planned degrowth. He points out that if we are prepared to make revolutionary changes, the reunification of humanity and the Earth remains possible. Ecosocialism and the Dialectics of Nature is a product of contemporary ecosocialist debates; it builds upon Foster's earlier works, such as Marx's Ecology: Materialism and Nature and The Return of Nature: Socialism and Ecology, to explore the potential of ecosocialism to combat capitalist environmental degradation, aiming to develop a dialectical naturalism and open a path for sustainable human development.
"Degrowth Communism" thought. Kohei Saito, an Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at the University of Tokyo, inspired by Marx’s late-period thought, proposed ideas regarding "degrowth communism." He believes that the capitalist pursuit of near-infinite profit is driving humanity to destroy the Earth, and only through "degrowth" can the speed of social production and wealth circulation be slowed down, thereby repairing the damage humans have caused to the environment. In a 2024 magazine interview, Saito stated that the ideas of ecological behavior often promoted in the media are usually just about reducing plastic use, cycling more, and buying electric cars. These merely reduce individual behavior changes to a certain level to make people's lives more sustainable. Such discourses actually overlook an important fact: the ecological crisis is not an individual problem but a systemic one. "Capitalism is a system that constantly pursues profit, accompanied by the continuous expansion of production, consumption, and waste, impacting the Earth. If we do not challenge this desire for infinite growth and capitalism, then all proposals for sustainable development cannot be effectively implemented. Furthermore, we must advocate for the reduction of economic inequality, because the super-rich not only exploit workers but are also the primary parties responsible for the current ecological crisis." Saito’s analysis points directly to the systemic roots of the ecological crisis, embodying the profound Marxist critique of the capitalist mode of production and class relations, and providing new perspectives and directions for the development and application of Marxist theory in the contemporary era. At the same time, it must be noted that there is subjectivity in his interpretation of Marx’s thought; his linking of "degrowth communism" with Marx’s late-period thought lacks a basis, especially since he overlooks Marx’s dialectical understanding of the development of productive forces. Moreover, Saito fails to clearly define the meanings of "growth" and "degrowth," which affects the scientific rigor and precision of the theory. His vision for the path to achieving "degrowth communism" is relatively simple and idealized, ignoring the complexity of social change and the powerful resistance of the capitalist system, and it lacks specific, feasible action strategies and practical plans, possessing a clear utopian character.
In 2024, foreign Marxist ecological critical theory focused on the systemic ecological crisis of capitalism. Through the critique of fossil capitalism, it revealed the predatory nature of capital accumulation; through metabolic rift theory, it deepened the analysis of the alienation of the relationship between humans and nature. It refuted the reformist schemes of green capitalism and proposed alternative paths such as ecosocialism and "degrowth communism," demonstrating the theoretical value of Marxism in the era of ecological crisis.
(2) The Critique of Spatial Capitalism
The critique of spatial capitalism primarily focuses on the spatial turn of the capitalist mode of production and its impact on social relations. In 2024, foreign Marxist scholars launched critiques of contemporary capitalism regarding the relationships between urban space, production space, social space, physical space, and virtual space. They revealed how capitalism maintains and expands its dominance through different types of spatial production, as well as the effects of such production on human social relations, cultural identity, and daily life. These analyses not only provided an in-depth dissection of the political-economic and sociological significance of space but also offered a brand-new perspective for understanding modern society, with theoretical reflections moving toward greater depth.
For instance, Grégory Busquet, a professor at Paris Nanterre University in France, analyzed Lefebvre’s spatial theory to reveal the inseparable link between the right to the city and social revolution. He proposed that the fundamental transformation of spatial production under the capitalist system depends on the comprehensive reconstruction of social relations. In November 2024, the 12th World Urban Forum (WUF12), convened by UN-Habitat, was held in Cairo, Egypt. This marked the forum's return to the African continent after more than 20 years since it was held in Nairobi, Kenya, in 2002. David Harvey, a renowned contemporary Western geographer and Distinguished Professor of Anthropology and Geography at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, delivered a video keynote titled "Housing is Our Future" at the forum. From the perspective of Marxist political economy, Harvey provided a profound analysis of how the logic of capital accumulation impacts the housing market and reinforces social inequality. He called for global organization to oppose the misconduct of the billionaire class in the housing market—a call with a clear action-oriented focus aimed at stimulating social concern for housing issues and promoting a consensus to seek collective solutions.
Manuel Castells, a professor at the University of Southern California and a famous Marxist urbanist, published a new work titled Advanced Introduction to Digital Society. He conducted an in-depth study on the role of social media in capitalist social life during the digital age, arguing that while social media provides marginalized groups with opportunities to speak out, it carries risks such as exposure of personal information, lack of privacy, and the spread of fake news. Social networks give rise to transnational social movements and new modes of decision-making, forming virtual communities capable of rapidly establishing global connections and generating widespread impact. However, digital space also entails risks—namely, that information is easily manipulated and misleading, and its speed of dissemination can lead to a lack of depth in debate and hinder the reaching of consensus. Ultimately, Castells elucidated how today's digital technology serves as the foundation of the "digital society." Castells’ analysis profoundly reveals the duality of capitalist digital society: technology provides both the tools for capital to manipulate information and exacerbate alienation and false ideology, and the birth of a new arena for transnational proletarian struggle within class antagonism, providing potential theoretical support for future transformation.
The 2024 foreign Marxist research on the critique of spatial capitalism expanded the Marxist framework of spatial analysis, highlighting the logic of capitalist dominance through dual expansion in both physical and virtual spaces. This provided a critical perspective for understanding the spatialized contradictions of contemporary society.
(3) The Critique of Digital Capitalism The critique of digital capitalism focuses on the role of digital technologies (such as the internet, big data, and artificial intelligence) in contemporary capitalism. It conducts a systematic reflection on new forms of exploitation, concentration of power, and social alienation triggered by the deep embedding of digital technology into the capitalist system, revealing the escalation and mutation of traditional capitalist contradictions in the digital age. In the critique of digital capitalism, the object of critique is sometimes referred to as "platform capitalism," "techno-feudalism," "surveillance capitalism," "data capitalism," "informational capitalism," or "cyber-capitalism." In 2024, the critique of digital capitalism continued to heat up, with foreign scholars producing prolific work critiquing the essence of digital capitalist exploitation, the social problems it triggers, and new types of geopolitical competition.
Critique of social problems triggered by digital capitalism: The essence of digital capitalist exploitation is the concealed, complex, and global extension of the traditional capitalist logic of exploitation under the conditions of digital technology. Its core lies in transforming users' daily behaviors, labor power, and creativity into capitalizable resources through data control, algorithmic power, and platform monopolies, thereby reshaping the extraction mechanism of surplus value. Since the 2008 international financial crisis, contradictions of class, race, and religion in Western society have become increasingly acute, and extreme political forces such as right-wing populism have developed rapidly, leading the "liberal democratic" system vaunted by the West into an increasing crisis. Simultaneously, along with the development of the internet and AI technology, new changes have appeared in Western capitalism. These technological innovations have not alleviated the crisis of capitalism; rather, under the influence of capital, they have formed phenomena termed by some foreign Marxists as "techno-feudalism," further exacerbating class contradictions and social crises in capitalist society. Since 2020, a trend of techno-feudalist critique represented by Yanis Varoufakis, Cédric Durand, and Jodi Dean has emerged. Building on research into data exploitation, algorithmic control, the digital divide, algorithmic "black boxes," and the gig economy, the 2024 analysis of the essence of digital capitalist exploitation primarily focused on the perspective of techno-feudalism. For example, in February 2024, Yanis Varoufakis, the former Greek Finance Minister and left-wing economist, published a new book Technofeudalism: What Killed Capitalism. He argues that current forms of exploitation have actually shifted from profit-driven capitalism to rent-driven feudalism. Because cloud capital and algorithmic capital create new digital fiefdoms, a new system with feudal characteristics yet more advanced has formed, weakening the market and profit pillars of capitalism. Algorithms undermine dialogue and are detrimental to democracy; this form of exploitation also reinforces oppressions such as patriarchy. To this end, Varoufakis advocates for integrating the "cloud proles" (platform gig workers), the "cloud serfs" (platform consumers controlled within the fiefdoms of cloud capital who produce data and profit for it for free), and some vassal capital forces (third-party enterprises that must endure systemic exploitation due to their dependence on the ecosystem) to establish a cross-stratum digital alliance against the digital hegemony of the "cloudalists" (platform-based tech giants such as Amazon, Apple, and Steam). Varoufakis reveals a new form of exploitation where power is highly concentrated in the "cloudalists" during the digital era. Although his proposal for a cross-stratum digital alliance is critical and innovative, its implementation path still faces deep challenges regarding the integration of interests under the monopolistic structure of the digital economy.
The famous Western philosopher Slavoj Žižek argued in a 2024 interview that, with the development of internet and AI technology, many on the Western left are obsessed with critiquing neoliberal capitalism while ignoring a major change: the transition from neoliberal capitalism to a strange kind of capitalism that some analysts call "corporate neo-feudalism." Due to the key role of "general intellect" in wealth creation, when wealth becomes increasingly disproportionate to the direct labor time spent producing it, the result is not the disintegration of capitalism as Marx expected, but rather the gradual transformation of profits obtained from exploiting the working class into rent. This rent is the product of the privatization of the "general intellect" and other common resources. Virtual space will transcend people's fragmented and scarred reality. In this virtual space, people will interact with "augmented reality" (AR) through their virtual avatars. Therefore, it will be nothing less than the realization of metaphysics: a metaphysical space that completely encompasses reality, into which reality can only enter in fragments when covered by digital codes that manipulate human perception. The problem, however, is that what people will get is a privately controlled public space, a space where "feudal lords" oversee and manage human interaction.
Digital technology-driven capital models are triggering a profound restructuring of the global economic landscape; however, the incremental value they create has not achieved inclusive sharing. Regarding this situation, Hany Besada, a senior research advisor at the United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation, pointed out that while this new economic paradigm reshapes the forms of industrial chains and wealth creation mechanisms, it is exacerbating regional faults and group divisions in the distribution of technological dividends. It forms a digital divide between the center and the periphery, hindering inclusive development and obstructing people's access to basic services, participation in the digital economy, and contributions to innovation. Gaps in policy and institutions mean that many Global South countries lack the institutional capacity and regulatory frameworks required to support digital innovation and protect user rights, particularly the lack of robust data protection and privacy laws, which poses serious risks to vulnerable groups. When users perceive digital platforms as unsafe or prone to abuse, they are less likely to participate in online activities, thereby hindering the growth of the digital economy in Global South countries. Furthermore, international corporations and organizations often cite strong data protection as a prerequisite for investment; countries lacking such frameworks may find their ability for digital development and integration into the global digital economy further restricted, thereby exacerbating the center-periphery digital divide.
In 2024, the critique of digital capitalism by foreign scholars deepened further, revealing not only the concealed and complex extension of its exploitative essence from traditional capitalism toward techno-feudalism, but also critiquing the resulting social problems and the intensification of inequality between nations. This research not only deepened the understanding of digital capitalism but also provided theoretical support for seeking a more just and inclusive path for digital social development.
III. Tracking Research on New Changes in Contemporary Capitalism In an era where generative artificial intelligence is reshaping global value chains, geoeconomic fission is accelerating institutional competition, and the financialization of climate is restructuring the logic of capital accumulation, contemporary capitalism is undergoing a systemic metamorphosis characterized by greater complexity and contradiction. In this context, the foreign Marxist theoretical community has focused on critical analysis of issues such as neo-imperialism and neoliberalism, revealing the changing characteristics and inherent limits of capitalism in the dimensions of time and space.
(1) Inheritance and Development of Lenin's Theory of Imperialism A century ago, Lenin passed away in the village of Gorki, southeast of Moscow. This revolutionary mentor, who exhausted the fire of his life over 54 springs, used the conceptual blades of The State and Revolution and Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism to pierce the haze of the old world. He used the practical torch of the October Revolution to illuminate the cause of human liberation, constructing an ideological lighthouse and institutional foundation for the socialist movement from the 20th century onward. Today, a hundred years later, as the clouds of neo-colonialism once again shroud the globe, Lenin’s assertions on imperialism still resonate through the long sky of history like thunder piercing through time and space.
John Bellamy Foster published a commemorative article in Monthly Review reviewing the development of Lenin’s theory of imperialism. He argued that although the more Eurocentric portions of Western Marxism have long attempted in various ways to weaken the theory of imperialism, Lenin's classic work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism has remained central to all discussions of imperialism for over a century. This is not only because of its accurate explanation of the First and Second World Wars but also because its elucidation of the imperial order after World War II is extremely useful. However, Lenin’s overall analysis does not exist in isolation; it has been supplemented and updated in different periods by dependency theory, the theory of unequal exchange, world-systems theory, and global value chain analysis to adapt to new historical developments.
Furthermore, John Bellamy Foster believes that erroneous views frequently emerge from the Western Left, such as the claim that both China and the United States belong to the category of "imperialist countries" and lead "rival imperialist blocs." This new argument for imperialism depends on viewing the People's Republic of China as an imperialist power in the same sense as the United States, while ignoring the role of "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics," the entirety of China's developmental path, and the unequal global center-periphery structure. As a country of the Global South, China’s foreign policy has consistently been committed to promoting national self-determination while opposing bloc geopolitics and military intervention, rather than seeking to join the US-led imperialist order based on "hegemonic rules" or replacing it with a new imperialist order. The three major initiatives [9] proposed by China together constitute the main proposals for world peace in our time. Aside from defending its own borders, China has fundamentally not participated in wars. China has become an economic power—especially in terms of real economic production—challenging US global hegemony by virtue of its massive scale and internal growth drivers. However, the United States and other giants at the center of the capitalist world system as a whole still retain (even if rapidly diminishing) global technological, financial, and military hegemony, and continue to rely on the extraction of resources and wealth from the Global South.
In 2024, multiple Marxist parties and left-wing political organizations held commemorative special meetings, and left-wing progressives published articles to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Lenin’s death, highly evaluating Lenin's status in the history of the international communist movement and his theory of imperialism. For example, the website of the American Workers' Party [10] reprinted in full the views of the International Conference of Marxist–Leninist Parties and Organizations (CIPOML), which held that on the 100th anniversary of Lenin's death, it is necessary for communists and revolutionaries around the world to carry out commemorative activities to defend Marxism-Leninism. Marx and Engels provided a brilliant explanation of the foundation and evolution of capitalism. In the stage of monopoly capitalism, an effective struggle can only be waged on the basis of Lenin's theory of imperialism. As a mentor and leader of the international working class, Lenin's contribution is irreplaceable, especially in today’s era of deepening comprehensive crisis of the capitalist system—an era where imperialist powers continuously conflict, occasionally reach agreements, and frequently diverge in their scramble for territories, resources, and geostrategic regions across the globe. Today, as in the past, the general crisis of the capitalist system has once again confirmed the correctness of the October Revolution, Lenin, and his legacy; following Lenin's thought and final wishes has become a matter of extreme urgency.
In 2024, foreign scholars reviewed Lenin's theory of imperialism and its contemporary continuation and development, emphasizing the profundity of Lenin's analysis of the monopoly capitalist stage and its guiding significance for the critique of contemporary neo-imperialism. At the same time, the critique of the erroneous views of the Western Left, especially the defense of China, demonstrates a profound insight into global power structures and the socialist developmental path.
(2) The Critique of Neo-imperialism
In 2024, along with the drastic changes in the global political and economic landscape (such as the protracted Russia-Ukraine conflict, the intensified US containment of China, and the rise of the Global South), the critique of neo-imperialism became a hot topic in international academic and public spheres. Scholars broke through traditional military-colonial analytical frameworks to focus on new forms of control such as economic financialization, technological monopoly, and cultural infiltration. They paid particular attention to the generative mechanisms of digital imperialism, conducting in-depth analyses of the new forms, operational mechanisms, and global impacts of contemporary imperialism. Alongside this critique, research on the antagonism between "Empire" and "Anti-imperialism"—such as digital resistance and the rise of Southern nations—was further strengthened. Furthermore, interdisciplinary cross-analysis deepened further. However, how to transcend the "center-periphery" binary framework and construct a truly equal global governance paradigm remains a common challenge for both theory and social practice. For example, Omar Zahzah, a scholar at San Francisco State University in the United States, criticized the new developments of imperialism from a digital perspective, pointing out that "digital platforms that became accessible by claiming to be alternatives to corporate media have themselves become new censors." Although these popular digital platforms engage in a large number of seemingly ordinary communication activities, they are no less effective than their institutional predecessors in maintaining the imperialist status quo and its attendant acts of suppression and repression. Digital platforms claim to serve as instant and widely accessible correctives for content omitted by corporate media, but in reality, this is not the case. Big Tech companies under neo-imperialism have taken the baton from mainstream media in a shockingly egregious manner, erasing authentic voices. Acts of digital repression are essentially an extension of the implementation of lethal colonial violence and racism. Big Tech acts as the contemporary instrument of digital colonialism, used to help imperialist states engage in the dispossession of the rest of the world to shore up profits and ensure their dominance. To this end, merely raising awareness of the digital development of imperialism has its limitations; resisting digital colonialism in the pursuit of liberation remains a vital and urgent task.
In 2024, the critique of neo-imperialism became a focal issue. Scholars launched in-depth analyses from the perspectives of economic financialization, technological monopoly, and cultural infiltration, with the critique of digital imperialism receiving particular attention. However, how to transcend the "center-periphery" binary framework to construct a truly equal global governance paradigm remains a common challenge for theory and social practice.
(3) The Critique of Neoliberalism
Since its rise in the late 1970s, neoliberalism has exerted a broad and far-reaching influence on a global scale. This trend of thought, typically represented by the "Washington Consensus," advocates for liberalization, marketization, and privatization, and dominated the economic policies and developmental paths of many countries for a considerable period. However, over time, the inherent flaws of neoliberalism have gradually been exposed, triggering increasing questioning and criticism. In 2024, foreign academic and public circles critiqued neoliberalism from multiple dimensions—economic, political, social, and cultural—presenting a deeper and more diverse posture aimed at analyzing the negative effects caused by neoliberalism on global development and exploring possible directions for the post-neoliberal era.
As the critique of neoliberalism deepened, the academic community began to consider developmental paths for the post-neoliberal era. Hagen Schulz-Forberg, Associate Professor of Global and European History at Aarhus University in Denmark, argues that after being hit by the 2008 international financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, the legitimacy of the neoliberal paradigm has been called into question, and its influence is gradually fading. To this end, Schulz-Forberg mentioned a series of concepts for transcending neoliberalism, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) research on economic thinking "beyond GDP." This indicates a shift toward valuing social and environmental factors beyond economic growth, breaking through the neoliberal limitation of measuring economic development purely by GDP to pursue more comprehensive developmental goals. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) introduced the Resilience and Sustainability Trust (RST), specifically targeting low-income countries severely affected by climate change and vulnerable to external shocks. This aims to enhance the resilience and sustainable development capabilities of these countries in the face of various challenges and is considered a correction to the neglect of vulnerable groups and environmental factors under neoliberalism. The above analysis reflects Schulz-Forberg's reflection on the limitations of neoliberalism and his exploration of more sustainable, equitable, and adaptive economic governance models.
Since its rise, neoliberalism has dominated many countries' economic policies, but its inherent flaws have gradually appeared, triggering widespread questioning and critique. In 2024, foreign academic and public circles reflected deeply on neoliberalism from multiple dimensions, pointing out its impact on economic inequality and exploring economic governance models in the post-neoliberal era that emphasize sustainability, equity, and adaptability. This reflects a systematic reflection on and demand for the reconstruction of the traditional developmental paradigm of capitalism.
Conclusion
In 2024, a year full of transformation and challenges, profound changes in the global political and economic landscape injected new vitality into foreign Marxist research. From the deepening study of traditional theoretical schools to the in-depth analysis of major practical issues, and the keen tracking of new changes in contemporary capitalism, foreign Marxist scholars have demonstrated the powerful vitality and contemporary value of Marxist theory through the interweaving of theory and practice. Against the backdrop of deepening technological monopoly and the fission of the global order, scholars have not only provided new interpretations and extensions of classic theories such as traditional Western Marxism, the Frankfurt School, and Post-Marxism, but have also proposed profound critiques and paths for reconstruction in connection with real-world issues like the ecological crisis, the production of space, and digital capitalism. Facing the global impact of neo-imperialism and neoliberalism, foreign Marxist scholars did not retreat; instead, they stood at the forefront of critique, bravely revealing the capital logic and power structures behind these phenomena. At the same time, they paid attention to the rise of the Global South and proposed possible paths for constructing an equal global governance paradigm. Overall, foreign Marxist research in 2024 made certain progress in theoretical innovation and practical response, not only deepening the understanding of the essence of capitalism but also providing valuable theoretical resources and practical guidance for addressing global crises. At the same time, it must be noted that its theoretical innovation still needs to break through the limitations of "academicization" and strengthen its explanatory power and practical guidance for contemporary global crises. Furthermore, problems regarding theoretical fragmentation and shifting positions remain prominent, necessitating an enhancement of integrity and practical orientation within the framework of historical materialism.
(Funding: This article is a staged result of the National Social Science Fund of China Major Project "Compilation and Research of Foreign Marxist Discourse on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" [21&ZD023])
Source: World Socialism Studies, Issue 5, 2025. Web Editor: Tongxin