Wang Yin and Chang Yutong: Communicative Capitalism, Neofeudalism, and Latest Trends in Capitalism—An Interview with American Marxist Political Theorist Professor Jodi Dean
Jodi Dean (1962–), a renowned contemporary Marxist political theorist, is a professor in the Department of Political Science at Hobart and William Smith Colleges in the United States. Throughout her academic career, Professor Dean has proposed numerous influential theories, such as "communicative capitalism" and "neofeudalism." Her major works include The Guardian of Capital: Neofeudalism and the New Class Struggle, Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies: Communicative Capitalism and Left Politics, Blog Theory: Feedback and Capture in the Circuits of Drive, The Communist Horizon, and Comrade: An Essay on Political Belonging.
I. New Characteristics and Trends of Communicative Capitalism
○ (Wang Yin and Chang Yutong, hereafter the same) Professor Dean, hello! The term "communicative capitalism" was first proposed and systematically expounded by you in a series of articles and books in the early 21st century. As a global phenomenon today, what are the characteristics of communicative capitalism? What are its internal operating mechanisms and value implications?
● (Jodi Dean, hereafter the same) "Communicative capitalism" is the product of the fusion of democratic ideals with the logic of capital. A key entry point for understanding this concept is Habermas’s theory of communicative action. The core of the ideal speech situation envisioned by Habermas lies in inclusivity, rational discussion, reciprocity, and the guarantee of everyone's right to speak freely. As one of the key tools for realizing global neoliberalism, the internet is precisely the important contemporary carrier of this communicative ideal. It has also become one of the core modes of capitalist operation today, because capitalism seeks to incorporate the global population into its system precisely through ubiquitous communication networks. This inclusivity is vital, as indispensable as access to modern communication networks. The design goal of communication networks is, on the one hand, to allow more and more individuals and companies to access the market and enhance competitiveness, and on the other hand, to increase participation, thereby formally promoting democracy. Consequently, this combination of democratic processes and capitalist practices is taken for granted, even losing any grounds for being questioned. Therefore, if we attempt to understand the current stage of capitalism where communication holds a dominant position, we find that it is precisely those ostensibly identical democratic procedures and practices that are being subsumed and shaped by capitalism, forming substantive capital concentration and monopoly. Democracy thus becomes a tool coerced by capital.
○ You regard communicative capitalism as a product of the fusion of democratic ideals and capital logic, and as a new stage in the development of digital capitalism. Compared with previous capitalist modes, what are the prominent features of communicative capitalism in a digital-intelligent society? What connection do you see between Habermas’s theory of communicative action and your theory of communicative capitalism?
● As I mentioned above, communication is not something new; it is built upon the foundation of Marx and Engels’ theory of world history. Today's communicative capitalism possesses two distinct characteristics. On the one hand, it exists within the circulatory loops of digitalized and intelligent modern communication networks; on the other hand, it points toward an economic-political system that completely subsumes the public sphere and political participation into the circuits of capital. In this system, massive and endless communication becomes a new form of capitalist production and accumulation, but this communication is empty and captured. Far from promoting democracy, it weakens and replaces effective political action. This issue involves the idea of communication free from domination, unlimited and unconstrained, as proposed by Habermas. He argued that such public discussion and normative validation are necessary conditions for the rational governance of society. The communicative rationality of democratic debate was supposed to lay the normative foundation for public life. In my book Publicity’s Secret: How Technoculture Capitalizes on Democracy, published in 2002 (over 20 years ago, though I believe its critique of the internet and social media remains prescient), I argued that what Habermas expounded was not a standard for a rational society, but rather a "technoculture" ideology—that is, the ubiquitous form of social media we understand today, constructed by the large-scale application of personalized digital communications. We have constant communication and constant critique, yet this has not led to a freer, more equal, or more rational society. On the contrary, it has spawned a group of tech billionaires and fueled the rise of far-right forces. Amidst endless questioning, criticism, and provocation, what we see is the collapse of trust and the spread of universal isolation and loneliness. To put it bluntly, why would anyone think that letting everyone speak their mind anytime, anywhere, is a formula for the validity claims of rational argumentation or democratic governance? Therefore, my understanding of communicative capitalism is a materialist reading of Habermas—that is, examining the capitalist economic and technical conditions that allow his ideas to be reified in the real world. In digital technology, communication and capitalism merge, yet they undermine one another.
Specifically, communicative capitalism refers to a form of late capitalism in which those ideas championed as core democratic values (such as open access, inclusion, discussion, and participation) are materialized through the expansion, intensification, and interconnection of global telecommunications networks. However, this has not brought about a fairer distribution of wealth and influence, nor has it promoted a diversity of lifestyles and practices of freedom. Instead, the flood of the "society of the spectacle" [1] continues to weaken the political opportunities and the efficacy of action for the vast majority of people globally.
II. The Development of the Digital-Intelligent Economy and the "Refeudalization" of Capitalism
○ What do you consider the latest dynamics in the development of contemporary capitalism? In what areas is the critique of capitalism by Western Leftist scholars mainly reflected?
● The latest trend is the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology. Tech giants, with the vigorous support of the US government, are going all out in the struggle for hegemony over AI. This is the result of the stagnation and collapse of the neoliberal economic model following the 2008 international financial crisis. Capital hopes AI will revitalize the economy, drive growth, and consolidate US global hegemony. Major tech giants have entered the fray, excited by the massive investments promised by the government. However, their goals are merely private profit and US global hegemony; I remain deeply skeptical of this AI craze. Millions of jobs will be eliminated (with reports warning of high-risk industries appearing every week or even every day). The field of education will be completely disrupted; educators have already expressed deep concern over the decline in students' cognitive abilities such as reading, writing, summarizing, and interpreting. The environmental impact of AI is also enormous, resulting in massive consumption of water and electricity resources. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has ensured that there will be no constraints on AI development for the next decade. The entire process is advancing in an anarchic and imperialist manner, which is the typical characteristic of Western capitalism.
We should place this against the backdrop of the housing crisis (not only in the US, but many regions globally face shortages of affordable housing and surges in homelessness), climate catastrophe (the Trump administration systematically dismantled all mechanisms for dealing with climate change, instead boosting fossil fuel expansion by providing massive tax breaks to oil, gas, and coal companies), and the overall decay of public infrastructure (in major cities like New York and Philadelphia, subway systems are severely aged; similarly, our air traffic control system faces understaffing, obsolete equipment, and declining reliability). Ironically, we never hear of AI being used to solve these pressing problems—the root remains the anarchic and imperialist nature of American capitalism.
○ Is the current situation of digital economic development consistent with the "attention economy" you emphasized in the book Blog Theory: Feedback and Capture in the Circuits of Drive? Is there a tendency leading toward "neofeudalism"?
● At that time, I did not directly use the concept of "neofeudalism," but the embryonic form of this theory was already implicit in the analysis. On the one hand, communicative capitalism reveals the extractive use of communication. Digital media captures creativity, the critical spirit, and sociality, transforming them into resources and means for capital accumulation. This process exacerbates wealth concentration and inequality, giving rise to the ascent of "tech-lords" and the expansion of neofeudal services. On the other hand, Blog Theory focuses on the deep impact of communicative changes at the level of the subject. I drew on the theories of Jacques Lacan and Slavoj Žižek, particularly regarding drive theory and the "decline of symbolic efficiency." The former aims to analyze the endless reflexivity and circular exchange in social media, as well as the mechanisms by which they entrap users. For example, controversial issues never reach a conclusion or solution. Instead, they are replaced by a pervasive questioning, suspicion, and doubt actively generated and spread by countless individuals, which constantly erodes trust and common sense. Lies spread as fast as truth, or even faster; completely incomparable issues and events are treated as equal, circulating alternately in the same space—fashion and genocide, sports and famine, are all treated this way. The "decline of symbolic efficiency" is precisely what the drive-form of networked communication brings about. This term refers to words or symbols losing their previous clarity and recognizability. For instance: my students are increasingly losing the ability to discern irony; they find it difficult to see problems from others' perspectives, instead insisting that no one should speak for others and that words mean different things to different people. Generalized cognitive activities are questioned, yet these are necessary skills and habits in a complex society. The resulting consequence is a "tribalization" phenomenon—people rely on subcultures and identity politics to cling to one another, seeking a degree of recognition within specific circles, i.e., there are always others who can understand them. This points toward the fragmentation embodied in neofeudalization. Therefore, there is an inherent consistency and regularity between AI and the drive loops in Blog Theory.
○ Do the various socio-economic relations shaped by digital-intelligent society show signs of moving toward "neofeudalism"?
● I theorize "neofeudalism" as a trend within capitalism, a form birthed by the internal contradictions of capitalism. The growth rate of capitalism is increasingly declining. As the economy becomes more dependent on rent, services, and finance, capital accumulation is gradually decoupling from actual production. Service economies typically have a tendency toward stagnation (as argued in a vast body of literature), and today's major global economies are precisely dominated by the service industry, further exacerbating this trend. Because profits and growth rates of the past can no longer be created in the production process, the result is "politically driven upward redistribution of wealth"—a term I borrow from Robert Brenner. Asset holders, the ruling class, increasingly use the state apparatus to profit themselves directly. Obvious examples include Trump and Musk in the US, as well as Gautam Adani and Modi in India.
More broadly, my analysis focuses on four interrelated areas: the state, class relations, spatiality, and subjectivity. At the state level, we see increased fragmentation, with sovereignty being replaced by suzerainty. At the class level, tech giants and a massive servant class replace the traditional bourgeoisie and proletariat. At the spatial level, it is characterized by hinterlandization or marginalization, where cities are surrounded by abandoned wastelands, and the residents living therein are ignored and forsaken. At the level of subjectivity, a generalized anxiety and paranoia permeates, a lingering catastrophism.
III. Reinterpretation of Basic Marxist Theory and the Path of Chinese-Path Modernization
Q: You have produced a new interpretation of the Manifesto of the Communist Party co-authored by Marx and Engels, titled The Communist Manifesto: With a New Introduction. Why did you decide to write such a new interpretive piece?
A: Rather than calling it a "new interpretation," it would be more accurate to describe it as an effort to introduce the Manifesto to a new generation of English-speaking readers. My goal was to prove the contemporary utility of the Manifesto and its capacity to advance with the times [2], demonstrating that it may be even more important today than in the 19th century. From the intensity of capital circulation and class struggle to revolution and the leading role of the political party, everything Marx and Engels described retains its practical relevance in the present. What I have done is simply situate their analysis within the context of communicative capitalism to clarify this point.
Q: What is your cognition and understanding of Marx’s perspectives on communism?
A: As a Marxist, I consider myself to have always upheld the fundamental viewpoints of Marxism. This is because the Marxist methodology requires us to conduct historical materialist analysis to push Marxism continually forward. The world has changed since the 19th century. Has this change shaken our communist ideals? Has it changed our understanding of how to realize those ideals? I believe it has not changed the ideal of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." To me, this principle has always been the core of the promise of a communist society: that each of us does our utmost to participate in building and maintaining the conditions for the free and well-rounded development of all people. Perhaps the current reality of climate change prompts us to more deeply situate this development within the context of ecological balance—though Marx himself had long ago paid attention to the impact of industrialization on the soil.
If we view communism as a movement, then we must pay attention to all the changes that have occurred since Marx and Engels wrote the Manifesto, such as the fact that communist revolutions worldwide extensively mobilized the peasantry; that revolutions failed to succeed in those countries where the industrial working class was strongest; and that the Russian Revolution succeeded but the Soviet Union ultimately collapsed and disintegrated... all these—and more—factors must necessarily influence our understanding of revolutionary change and the conditions required to build communism. I am particularly interested in analyzing labor related to the service industries. For example, in the United States, teachers and nurses have played a leading role in labor struggles, powerfully arguing that their working conditions are directly related to the well-being of the entire population.
Ultimately, I believe communism requires the abolition of class society through public ownership and planning, and it cannot be achieved in a single country alone, because all countries are interconnected; development in one place affects development elsewhere. This was precisely Marx’s own view.
Q: In your book Comrade: An Essay on Political Belonging, you describe a theory of the "comrade." What are its enlightenments and significance for the building of proletarian parties?
A: The term "comrade" performs a triple function: it is a form of address, a vehicle for expectations, and a symbol of belonging for those in the same camp of political struggle. This term is vital and indispensable because it allows us to discern the specificity of the comradely relationship. This relationship is fundamentally different from that between friends, kin, neighbors, or citizens. When we address one another as "comrades," we intend to highlight that our mutual work and actions carry a common political purpose. In the socialist and communist tradition, this purpose is the building of the cause of communism. Maintaining and cultivating comradely relations is of paramount importance for all efforts dedicated to building communism.
Q: In Comrade, you emphasize "constructing comradely relations of equality, mutual aid, solidarity, and friendship." What guiding role does this play in promoting the realization of communism?
A: In The State and Revolution, Lenin discussed the transformation of people and society required to realize communism. He noted: "people will gradually become accustomed to observing the elementary rules of social intercourse... without force, without coercion, without subordination." [3]
Comradely relations are one way to cultivate this habit. Capitalist market relations are based on competition and egoism. Family and friendship relations are confined to the private sphere and possess limitations. If our relations with one another are limited to these forms, we will never be able to develop a true communist society. However, when we are inspired in our daily practices and interactions to provide one another with solidarity and support, we create the social conditions for communism, and communism thereby becomes a form of freedom.
Q: Through your travels and observations in China, where do you believe the superiority of the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics is manifested?
A: The superiority is mainly manifested in the leadership of the Communist Party of China, as well as the emphasis on communism as the ultimate goal of struggle. The CPC's ability to lead such a massive society is unparalleled. It is capable of establishing development goals and standards, and its governance efficacy far exceeds that of the United States (especially against the current backdrop of American society falling into extreme division and highly intensified resentment). As I understand it, China’s utilization of market incentives and competitive mechanisms is deeply embedded within a socialist and communist framework that takes collective well-being as its ultimate goal. Within this framework, allowing for individual development and prosperity is not based on the Western concept of "primary rights" or mere expressions of goodwill, but serves as a policy tool aimed at promoting the overall progress of society. As an American visitor, what particularly struck me was the forward-looking vision and the posture of building the future displayed by China. By contrast, the leadership of the United States remains stagnant in the past.
Q: In your understanding, what kind of modernization path is the Chinese-path modernization? Compared with Western modernization models, what are the similarities and differences?
A: I must confess that my professional field is not modernization theory; therefore, my answer will be relatively abstract and based on intuition derived from my personal experience in the United States. Western capitalist modernization possesses the dual characteristics of anarchism and imperialism. Regarding the former, it proceeds in the absence of planning, driven by the competition of individuals for profit, with a total disregard for life, community, and the ecological environment. The imperialist element brings to mind the "division of the world's territory" described by Lenin. The development of Western capitalism relied on colonization and conquest and was inseparably linked to the systematic suppression of other countries' development. In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, this was manifested in the construction of a global financial order serving US and British interests, and in the endless wars and military expansion of the United States. In contrast, China’s path is fundamentally different. China’s use of market mechanisms is conducted within a planned framework, and China’s development is not built upon the foundation of colonial expansion.