Wang Xinsheng and Zhang Jianrong: Critique of the Logic of Capital from the Perspective of Marx's Theory of World History and Its Contemporary Significance
As the overarching logic of modern society, the logic of capital has exerted a profound influence on world history and human development. What, then, is the logic of capital? Why is it able to govern modern society? How can it be broken? This series of questions has made Das Kapital and the study of the logic of capital a sustained focus of domestic and international academic circles, yielding fruitful results. Building upon previous scholarship, this article attempts to adopt a new research perspective—utilizing Marx’s theory of world history as a horizon to explore the logic of capital and its critique within Das Kapital. In other words, this article situates the logic of capital and its critique within the theory of world history for investigation. This is based primarily on two considerations: on the one hand, the logic of capital is a fundamental issue concerning the theory of world history, concentrated in the fact that it governs the generation of world history and human development—a major practical task that must be addressed. On the other hand, the theory of world history contains the generative roots, historical limits, and paths for the sublation [1] of the logic of capital, constituting the theoretical basis upon which Marx unfolded his critique. Therefore, based on the perspective of Marx’s theory of world history, this article explores the logic of capital and its critique in Das Kapital and its manuscripts from three aspects: the world-historical generation of the logic of capital, the world-historical dimension of Marx’s critique of this logic, and the world-historical implications contained within said critique.
I. The World-Historical Generation of the Logic of Capital within the Horizon of the Theory of World History
Marx’s theory of world history is the intellectual fruit of his revelation of the world-historical generation of the logic of capital. In his view, the logic of capital, as the internal law of "production based on capital," constitutes the essential characteristic and realistic foundation of modern society. To scientifically explain and profoundly reveal this objective law, and thereby unlock the secret of "actual history," Marx delved deep into the reality of capitalist society, fully investigating and appropriating empirical material. In Das Kapital and its manuscripts, he comprehensively presented the internal laws of motion of this "complex social form," profoundly grasping the essence of the logic of capital in world history and providing "decisive evidence" for the critique of the logic of capital.
(1) The World-Historical Prerequisite of the Logic of Capital
The formation of world history is the realistic prerequisite for the logic of capital to break through regional and national boundaries and unfold. This implies that the logic of capital governing world history and human development is neither a natural product nor eternal, but rather the operational logic presented by capital—a historical product—under specific conditions, running through the entire process of capital’s development. How, then, was capital produced? This precisely constitutes the basic question that must be answered to deeply grasp the historical formation of the logic of capital and the subsequent critique leveled against it.
In Das Kapital and its manuscripts, Marx discussed the historical origin, historical prerequisites, and historical conditions of capital, thereby answering the fundamental question of "where capital comes from." Regarding its historical origin, Marx traced it back to primitive accumulation. Primitive accumulation did not mean a "mere change of form" in the direct transition from slave to wage laborer, but rather "the dissolution of private property based on one's own labor." In this process, capital forcibly appropriated the peasants' land through criminal means of violence and plundered vast amounts of gold and silver wealth, ultimately completing a history of dispossession written in letters of blood and fire. To this, Marx pointed out: "Capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt." Yet the "arrival of capital into the world" required certain historical prerequisites, which were none other than "commodity production and developed commodity circulation, i.e., trade." The emergence of trade successfully unveiled a history of modern life that capital had not previously displayed. However, "the existence of commodity circulation and money circulation by no means implies the presence of the historical conditions for the existence of capital. Capital arises only when the owner of the means of production and subsistence finds the free worker available on the market as the seller of his own labor-power." That is to say, due to the "separation of the laborer from the conditions of labor," the destitute worker has no choice but to sell their labor-power to sustain themselves and their family. The capitalist who purchases this labor-power then demands and drives them to produce as much surplus value as possible. Behind this transaction, which ostensibly appears equal and free, lies the capitalist's domination and control over the wage laborer. Thus, under the system of wage labor, the wage labor of the worker who "lives only to increase capital" becomes the necessary means for capital’s self-valorization, and consequently becomes the realistic foundation for the existence and development of the capitalist mode of production.
As a relation of production under a specific social formation, capital presents a state of motion in constant pursuit of surplus value; the unfolding of this law of motion forms what is called the logic of capital. It goes without saying that as long as capital exists, the logic of capital will inevitably play its role. Consequently, driven by the internal logic of capital, the bourgeoisie—as personified capital—hurries across the entire globe and establishes extensive connections in order to obtain endless profits and limitless wealth. They eventually established a world market dominated by the logic of capital, marking the prelude to the transformation of history into world history.
(2) The World-Historical Expansion of the Logic of Capital
The establishment of the world market, nurtured within the process of world history, marks the comprehensive unfolding of the logic of capital across the globe. With the global expansion of the logic of capital, the face of world history gradually emerged, which in turn provided a broader stage for the world market. Simultaneously, the continuously expanding world market further demonstrated the evolution of world history. This interactive development between the world market and world history is precisely unified in the dual expansion of the logic of capital across both time and space.
Specifically, to realize greater valorization and pursue larger profits, capital, on the one hand, strives to annihilate all local restrictions and spatial boundaries to shape the entire world into its market; "on the other hand, it strives to annihilate space with time, i.e., to reduce to a minimum the time spent in motion from one place to another. The more developed capital has become... the more does it strive for an even greater extension of the market and for the greater annihilation of space by time." In this way, spatial barriers are thoroughly broken through and constantly recast under capital's instinct for expansion. This "disembedding" of the logic of capital via the compression of time and the annihilation of space ultimately drove the full manifestation of the logic of capital and the comprehensive establishment of its dominant position, creating a "system of general utility" after its own image. This system not only constitutes the realistic foundation of capitalist world history but also lays the groundwork for the logic of capital to establish its dominance on a global scale.
It can be observed that while the logic of capital creates more and more surplus labor, it simultaneously creates more and more points of exchange. Therefore, "by its nature... the tendency to create the world market is directly given in the concept of capital itself." With the limitless expansion of capital and the continuous exploration of the world market, the logic of capital, acting as a "universal illumination" and a "particular ether," has gradually permeated every field of social life, becoming the supreme standard for judging all things. Likewise, individuals are inevitably enveloped under the domination of this ever-expanding alien power that is the logic of capital. However, Marx looked beyond this envelopment, soberly revealing that this historically necessary logic of capital also carries its own historical limits of development.
(3) The World-Historical Limits of the Logic of Capital
Although the logic of capital established its dominance within the scope of world history by virtue of its power, it will not exist eternally as the classical economists believed. Grounded in economic facts and delving into historical essence, Marx clearly pointed out the paradoxes of the development of the logic of capital, thereby profoundly revealing its world-historical limits.
Marx pointed out: "Capital is a living contradiction." This contradiction is first manifested in the fact that "the means—unconditional development of the productive forces of society—comes continually into conflict with the limited purpose, the valorization of the existing capital." To create more surplus value, capitalists continuously improve production technology and efficiency. However, as the level of science, technology, and productive forces increases, the organic composition of capital rises accordingly. What this brings is not an increase in the rate of profit, but a continuous decline, which inevitably creates a contradiction with capital dedicated to achieving value increment. Yet this is not the whole story; delving into its internal workings, one finds that "the process of capital’s valorization... appears at the same time as the process of capital’s devalorization." Undoubtedly, realizing its own valorization is the inherent and sole life-instinct of capital. Driven by this instinct, the quantity of products produced greatly exceeds the needs of society as a whole, inevitably resulting in general overproduction. Once general overproduction occurs, it leads to a general loss of value, making an economic crisis inevitable. The outbreak of economic crises "is in essence a real reflection of the internal contradictions of capitalist society," specifically the contradiction between the "concentration of the means of production and the socialization of labor," which fundamentally exposes the fact that crises are inherent in the concept of capital itself. It is evident that this series of irreconcilable internal contradictions inherent in capital fundamentally determines the historical limits of the logic of capital. However, these limits do not merely highlight a negative aspect; they also signify a positive one. This is because they not only portend the necessity of the end of the logic of capital but also nurture the historical conditions for a higher social formation that transcends the logic of capital.
In short, the series of contradictions and conflicts inherent in capital "exist in the facts, objectively, outside us, and even independent of the will or action of those who provoked this conflict." They fundamentally reveal the possible boundaries and historical limits of the expansion of the logic of capital—which contains a trend toward self-negation—as well as the historical necessity of its movement toward its own opposite.
(4) The World-Historical Impact of the Logic of Capital
The reflexivity of capital determines the reflexivity of the logic of capital, thereby indicating its historical limits. However, one must not overlook the "great civilizing influence" that the logic of capital has brought to capitalist world history. Accordingly, Marx affirmed the positive role of the logic of capital from three aspects: productive forces, social relations, and the replacement of social formations.
Regarding productive forces, the logic of capital achieved the "universal appropriation of nature and of the social bond itself by the members of society," creating unprecedentedly massive productive forces. In Marx’s view, the logic of capital, like a "sorcerer," used its spells to break existing restrictions and constraints, achieving the conquest of nature and human society, and in less than a hundred years, it achieved development "on a scale and at a speed previously unheard of." Regarding social relations, the logic of capital overcame the "deification of nature," old ways of life, and national boundaries and prejudices, driving the renewal of social relations and their related concepts. Wherever the logic of capital dominates, rigid feudal relations and the traditional concepts they produced are dissolved; people can and must look at their mutual relations and status in life with sober eyes. In terms of the replacement of social formations, the logic of capital "favors the creation of various elements for a higher new formation." Just as the seeds of capitalism were nurtured within feudal society, the conditions for the formation of a higher social formation are nurtured within capitalism. Capital’s endless pursuit of surplus value drives the continuous progress of productive forces, such that on the one hand, the whole society can appropriate general wealth in less time, and on the other hand, people no longer need to spend the time and energy they once did on labor that objects can perform or replace. In this way, people can use the time saved to develop themselves comprehensively, promoting a state that "guarantees the highest development of the productive forces of social labor, and at the same time the most complete development of every individual producer."
Admittedly, the grand historical role of the productive forces of capital merits recognition; however, Marx’s discussion of its historical rationality was precisely intended to demonstrate that it has already lost its actual rationality in the present. Therefore, we must see how “while capital has a tendency toward the boundless increase of productive forces, it also to what extent makes the main productive force, man himself, one-sided, restricted, and so forth.” In other words, beyond containing the “civilizing tendency of capital,” the logic of capital also implies an increase in the power of capital to command labor, because “all progress in civilization, or in other words, every increase in social productive forces… does not enrich the worker, but only capital; it only increases the power commanding labor.” As the power of capital grows, man becomes increasingly alienated. This paradox of development demonstrates that the logic of capital rules not only the material world of people but also their spiritual world, causing humanity to fall inevitably into the predicament of modernity. Consequently, to liberate humanity from the enslavement and rule of the logic of capital, Marx—having discerned its essence—launched a critique of it from a foundational level of principle.
II. The World-Historical Dimension of the Critique of the Logic of Capital in Capital
Marx's theory of world history is not only the intellectual fruit of his revelation of the world-historical generation of the logic of capital but also constitutes the theoretical horizon for his critique of that logic. Marx observed that while world history under the subsumption [2] of the logic of capital achieved unprecedentedly great successes, it was even more characterized by the alienated rule of that logic. Regarding this, he neither justified it like the classical economists—who believed the logic of capital possessed “natural necessity and eternal rationality”—nor limited himself to the external subjective criticism of the Utopian Socialists. Instead, he situated the critique of the logic of capital within the movement of world-historical thought, launching an internal critique of the logic of capital itself. He achieved a unity between critiquing the “old world” and discovering the “new world,” thereby presenting a world-historical dimension that his predecessors failed to grasp deeply.
(1) Dialectics in Marx’s Critique of the Old World History
As the world history of capitalism unfolded deeply, social critiques of the logic of capital and the society it drove emerged, presenting a variety of critical approaches. However, because they failed to strike at the essence and the core, these so-called critical philosophies not only failed to achieve the redemption of reality but fell into metaphysical self-consistency. Marx, who once called his own theory a “critical philosophy,” can be said to have regarded the critique of capitalism as his lifelong revolutionary cause. Building upon a critical philosophy based on practice, he placed greater emphasis on conducting a dialectical and scientific critique of present reality within the process of the practical development of world history. This critique, which altered the foundation of critical philosophy, also changed its methodology; it is an internal critique established on the basis of dialectics. This critical approach not only fundamentally distinguished Marx from other critics on essential principles but also helped him produce a scientific diagnosis that struck at the heart of the problems of capitalist reality.
As is well known, dialectics is the precious legacy Marx inherited critically from Hegel, that “giant among thinkers”; it implies that “in its positive understanding of what exists, it includes at the same time an understanding of its negation.” It must be emphasized, however, that this negation is not a simple external negation of the thing, but a dialectical internal negation—the negation of the thing by itself. So-called scientific critique emphasizes proceeding from reality itself, grasping the internal laws and operational trends of a thing’s development objectively and deeply, and revealing its own contradictions and developmental limits to find the practical possibility of changing the thing. Specifically regarding the logic of capital, Marx’s critique was neither an abstract speculation divorced from historical reality nor a simple external negation. Rather, it delved into the concrete reality of world history, sighted the operational laws and trends of capitalist world history, and grasped the self-negation of capital from its irreconcilable internal contradictions. He thereby revealed the historical necessity that capitalist world history, dominated by the logic of capital, would inevitably be replaced by a communist world history that sublate [3] the logic of capital. In short, Marx discovered the practical possibility of a new world history within the revelation of the self-negation of the logic of capital. This scientific critique, which follows the principle of objectivity and is based on the self-negation of things, not only helped Marx accurately discern where the maladies of capitalist society lay but also allowed him to scientifically propose a practical remedy.
This remedy was precisely determined by the dialectical foundation of Marx’s philosophical critique and achieved through the path of “discovering the new world by critiquing the old world.” This path highlights the essential difference between Marx and previous critics. In the horizon of Marx’s theory of world history, world history is a constantly generating historical process; it includes both the capitalist society that inaugurated world history—the old world history dominated by the logic of capital—and points toward the communist society that represents the future of world history—the new world history that sublates the logic of capital. However, the new world history is not a total repudiation of capitalist society but a practical product of its active sublation. In other words, the new world history is the potential space generated internally during the process of critiquing the old world history. Thus, it provided the theoretical lever and practical possibility for Marx’s critique of the logic of capital and, by extension, capitalism. In this sense, it was precisely the scientific critique based on dialectics that enabled Marx to fulfill the theoretical requirements and practical mission of profoundly exposing and scientifically critiquing the old world history while actively exploring and comprehensively realizing the new world history.
That is to say, Marx only began to discuss the new philosophy of “changing the world” after establishing a new standing point: not that of “civil society” [4], but of “human society or socialized humanity.” In Capital and its manuscripts, based on the standpoint of “human society,” Marx stood at the height of world history to integrate the analysis and critique of the logic of capital with the future prospects of all humanity and world history. He not only perceived that the critique of the logic of capital was the key handle for a profound critique of world history but also realized that the critique of the logic of capital was a powerful practical weapon for changing world history. Thus, one can say it was in the unity of critiquing the old world history and discovering the new world history that Marx allowed the critique of the logic of capital to truly unfold, thereby allowing its significance to be fully highlighted.
(2) The Critique of the Logic of Capital is the Key to Unlocking the Mystery of the Old World History
The logic of capital is the practical foundation and essential basis of capitalist world history; therefore, the substance and secrets of bourgeois society are hidden within the abstract rule of the logic of capital over human society. Based on this, the critique of the logic of capital constitutes the key to Marx’s profound revelation of the “mystery of world history” in capitalism.
First, the practical critique of the logic of capital. Abstraction is the masterpiece of the logic of capital. Just as the logic of capital endows commodities, money, and capital—these “things”—with a “fetishism” they do not inherently possess, it shapes the entirety of world history into an abstract reality saturated with the nature of fetishism. In such an abstract reality, “social relations between people mediated by things” are inverted into relations between things, and the meaning they acquire is viewed by people as an inherent attribute of these abstract objects. Consequently, the “mysteriousness” bestowed by people becomes, in turn, a power people worship and believe in. Especially in modern society dominated by the logic of capital, this “enchanted, perverted, upside-down world” has developed even more rapidly. Social relations of production “begin to dominate those individual laborers who are in fact the sources and creators of wealth. People and their social relations are dominated by things, or as Marx said, begin to be ‘dominated by abstractions.’” While this universal power of abstraction achieves the abstraction of all things in the real world, it also constructs a social framework of false equivalence and incorporates people into it. Regarding this, Marx pointed out that the so-called freedom and equality people enjoy therein is merely the freedom and equality of capital as an abstraction, thereby piercing the lies of capitalism. Thus, compared to the classical economists who strove to prove the rationality of this distorted world, Marx peered through the appearances, parted the mists, and launched a more profound and essential practical critique.
Second, the historical critique of the logic of capital. Marx noted that the "sole motive" of capital is to appropriate "abstract wealth" as much as possible. However, "the universality towards which capital irresistibly strives encounters limits in its own nature." Faced with these limits and contradictions, capitalist production always adopts various means of reform to strive to overcome the inherent and irreconcilable limits of its own. Although these reforms have achieved results, it must be understood that "the means it uses to overcome these limits only cause these limits to reappear before it on a larger scale. The true limit of capitalist production is capital itself." Fundamentally, therefore, the limits of capital determine the limits of the development of the logic of capital. These limits demonstrate the transience of capitalist world history and the necessity of realizing a higher form of world history. With the abdication of capitalist world history, the logic of capital can only end in a "collapse into nothingness." In this regard, Marx’s historical critique of the logic of capital is actually a pathological "verdict" on capitalism; that is, while announcing the end of capitalism’s life, it dispelled the eternal illusions surrounding capitalism.
Third, the value critique of the logic of capital. From the perspective of subjectivity, the logic of capital is one “based on the dispossession and impoverishment of the great mass of producers,” a logic that causes the partiality, homogenization, and abstraction of man. Its appearance and expansion caused massive changes in the entire world, profoundly affecting the existential condition of modern humanity. Especially in modern society under the pincers of the logic of capital, the nature of capital’s restless pursuit of surplus value leaves no connection between people other than cold monetary relations; it “suppresses the worker’s manifold productive interests and talents,” smoothing over human diversity and individual differences, making for “a general thing in which all individuality and all characteristics have been negated and annihilated.” In a word, the logic of capital shapes man into an alienated existence “ruled by abstractions.” In this way, “real individuals” have no freedom; there is only the “freedom of capital.” “Capital possesses independence and individuality, while the active individual does not.” Capital, which should serve man, becomes the object for which man serves—the “abstract power” ruling man in modern society. One could say the relationship between capital and man is completely inverted. Thus, while world history under the subsumption of the logic of capital comprehensively highlights the subjectivity of capital, it causes the subjectivity of man to be dissolved, and the history of human development to be surreptitiously replaced by the history of capital’s development.
From this view, through the multi-dimensional—practical, historical, and valuative—critique of the logic of capital, Marx achieved a scientific critique of capitalist world history. But it must be seen that this was not Marx’s ultimate goal in launching the critique of the logic of capital; rather, it was to discover the new world history contained within it through this critique, so as to achieve human liberation and freedom.
(3) Launching the Critique of the Logic of Capital is for the Purpose of Discovering a New World History
The realization of a true world history—that is, communist society—constitutes not only the value destination of Marx’s theory of world history but also the ultimate goal of his critique of the logic of capital. In Capital and its manuscripts, through the critique of political economy, Marx scientifically proved the possibility of realizing this new world history of communism. In his view, the new world history is not a separate, unrelated part from the old world history; on the contrary, the new world history is gestated within the old. As the Archimedean point for critiquing the old world history, the logic of capital simultaneously contains the limits of the old world history and the seeds of the new world history. Based on this, Marx sought to discover the new world history generated internally within the old by launching a scientific critique of the logic of capital and the old world history it dominates.
Regarding the new world history, Marx opposed both dogmatic forecasting and the unbridled [5] flights of fancy seen in the Utopians; rather, he sought to explore and establish a new world history by dissecting and critiquing the old world history of capitalism. Under capitalist world history, the logic of capital—which once, like a "sorcerer," used its spells to create a massive civilization—can no longer control the "powers of the nether world" [6] it has called up, causing the ever-strengthening productive forces to gradually reach the limits of their own development. However, "every limit appears as a restriction to be overcome." In other words, the limits of the logic of capital imply the overcoming and sublation [7] of that logic itself. The reason this overcoming and sublation is possible is precisely because the logic of capital nurtures within itself the real conditions for its own transcendence. On one hand, the logic of capital created unprecedented and staggering productive forces, providing a solid material foundation for the transition toward the higher stage of a communist world history. On the other hand, it formed the revolutionary masses that oppose the old society—the proletariat—who, in the unfolding process of world history, achieved a world-historical association. Only as a world-historical existence can the proletariat realize the communist cause it shoulders. With the realization of this cause, people will "place social contact under their own control," thereby successfully dissolving the abstract rule of the "unholy forms" [8] of the logic of capital. In that time, the entirety of world history will thoroughly realize human liberation and freedom.
Marx’s critique of the logic of capital, conducted from a world-historical perspective and from a position of "principled height," both reveals the historical transience of the capitalist era and demonstrates the real possibility of transcending it toward a communist era. This implies that modern society, dominated by the logic of capital, is merely a product of world history at a specific developmental stage. With the high-level development of productive forces and the universal formation of intercourse, world history must inevitably transition from an era where capital enslaves humanity to a true world history where capital serves humanity.
In short, as the real basis of modern society, the logic of capital contains the great secrets of capitalist society, and the critique of this logic is the key with which Marx perceives and reveals these secrets. By delving into the reality of capitalist society, Marx launched a multi-dimensional critique—encompassing the real, the historical, and the evaluative—of the logic of capital. While profoundly exposing the maladies of capital, he pointed out that a capitalist world history dominated by the logic of capital is destined to fail in realizing the free and comprehensive development of the individual. Consequently, this critique not only represents Marx’s attainment of a dual theoretical and practical grasp of capitalist world history but also provides borrowed theoretical wisdom for the current era to crack the logic of capital and examine the development of modernization. As Arif Dirlik [9] stated: "As long as the capitalist mode of production continues to exist, Marxism will remain relevant." By the same token, as long as the logic of capital continues to spread globally, Marx’s critique of the logic of capital will retain its world-historical significance.
III. The World-Historical Significance Inherent in Marx’s Critique of the Logic of Capital
Capital and its manuscripts demonstrate that Marx situated the critique of the logic of capital at a world-historical height, presenting the unity of "critiquing the old world" and "discovering the new world" through a multi-dimensional critique across reality, history, and value. Within this critique, Marx consistently linked the logic of capital with world history and human development, pursuing the true realization of world history and the free and comprehensive development of the individual, thereby manifesting a grand and rich world-historical significance.
(1) Clarifying the essence of the logic of capital and gaining insight into contemporary capitalist changes is the theoretical effect of Marx’s critique.
With the deep advancement of world history and the universal development of digital technology, the logic of capital has joined forces with digital technology to present a new manifestation of capitalist reality: digital capitalism. This form can be described as a product of the era reshaped by constant crises and capitalist self-salvage. Faced with these new changes in capitalism, some scholars view digital capitalism as the "savior" of capitalism. In their view, digital capitalism can not only help it escape crises but, more importantly, can change the "inevitable destiny" of the transition toward socialism. However, deeper reflection reveals this is not the case. As Marx stated, the logic of capital is a logic of exploitation aimed at maximizing the appropriation of surplus value at the cost of the poverty of the masses. The universal linkage between the logic of capital and digital technology allows digital capitalism to form a more concealed and mysterious force of rule, as well as new forms of exploitation in the digital age.
For instance, regarding nature, the natural world has without exception become a profitable object for the digital logic of capital, thereby exacerbating the collapse of ecosystems and the eruption of crises. Concerning social development, the digital logic of capital has taken control of every sphere; far from changing the "inverted" reality caused by the logic of capital, it has made it even more distorted. Regarding the individual, under the "magic" of digital capital’s logic, not only have "all moral and natural limits of the working day been extinguished," but the boundary between work and life has been blurred, causing most people to complete "self-exploitation" without even realizing it. It is evident that the exploitative essence of the logic of capital has not actually changed. In other words, having entered the digital age, we remain in the era identified by Marx as being ruled by the logic of capital; that is, the logic of capital remains pervasive in every corner of the world in a "spectral" real form as the dominant force ruling everything. What is different is that the logic of capital has been granted a digital form; labor, technology, and data platforms are all inevitably incorporated into the global expansionist logic of digital capital. This means that the rule of the logic of capital has not weakened; rather, it has been strengthened through an increasingly "demonized" and "mystified" expansionary mode—digital expansion.
Marx, having seen the essence of the logic of capital, did not stop there but launched a profound and comprehensive critique, taking private property as a crucial premise of this critique. Digital capitalism, as a contemporary transformation of capitalism, emerged while the foundation of private property already objectively existed. This fundamentally determines that as long as digital capitalism remains an exploitative form based on private property, the logic of capital will continue to operate, and the critique of that logic remains worthy of attention. At the same time, based on Marx’s rational analysis of the finite fate of the logic of capital, it must be noted that digital capitalism is not the only option for combining digital technology with social reality, nor is it the final form of human social development. The gaps and contradictions of capitalism growing within it doom it to a historical trend toward a higher form. Therefore, the standpoint, viewpoint, and method of Marx’s critique not only help reveal and target the laws and contradictions of capitalism in his own time but also assist in profoundly perceiving the internal essence of the global expansion of the logic of capital today and looking through the developmental trends of digital capitalism. This fully demonstrates the theoretical effect of Marx’s critique.
(2) Grasping the constitution of the logic of capital to assist in the construction of socialism with Chinese characteristics is the practical path of Marx’s critique.
In Marx’s view, the expansion of capital and its logic possesses a dual character: the "civilizing aspect" of capital as a productive factor that creates productive forces, and the "destructive aspect" of capital as a relation of production that negates human development. Regarding the former, the civilizing aspect—creating massive productive forces—is actually inherent in capital itself and constitutes the legitimate grounds for capital's existence. Meanwhile, capital’s promotion and improvement of productive forces not only realize a universal appropriation of nature and society but also unconsciously provide the material conditions and potential space for the free and comprehensive development of the individual. People no longer need to produce material conditions that can be produced by things, thereby gaining more free time to develop themselves. Consequently, capital and its logic have also become important elements for human society to move toward modernization. The latter aspect refers to the alienated existence of humanity caused by the infinite exploitation and appropriation of surplus value under capital’s specific bourgeois form. This unequal productive relationship between capital and labor fundamentally shapes the "inversion" between the "world of things" and the "world of humanity." In response, Marx launched a critique of "principled height" against capital and the modern society it dominates, revealing the inherent paradoxes of capital and its logic, and attempting to find a developmental path of "positive" sublation of capital based on drawing from the civilizing achievements of capital.
This implies that Marx’s analysis of capital and its logic is neither an abstract judgment of mental speculation nor a superficial "rational defense," but a dialectical analysis rooted in reality. This dialectic is reflected in the fact that Marx’s critique is by no means a wholesale negation of capital and its logic; it is only a profound critique of capital as a relation of production that dominates labor. He pointed out that the sublation of alienation must be built upon the foundation of the full development of capital. Furthermore, Marx demonstrated that capital as a factor of production is by no means the exclusive property of capitalist society; if it can shed its narrow capitalist form, the wealth brought by capital will possess universality. Thus, it is necessary to reasonably regulate and overcome the negative factors of the logic of capital while fully utilizing and grasping its positive factors. Only in this way can capital be transformed from a tool for enslaving humanity into a means for serving humanity.
For socialist society with Chinese characteristics, which is currently in the primary stage of socialism, developing productive forces is an urgent and vital practical task, and "to develop the productive forces of social labor is the historical mission and justification of capital." Therefore, on one hand, China regards capital as an "important force for promoting the development of social productive forces" and an "important factor of production in the socialist market economy," fully activating the positive side of capital. On the other hand, to prevent the "disorderly expansion of capital," its scope of activity is delimited, its development is guided under socialist conditions, and its negative aspects are regulated. This has deepened the understanding of capital theory under the conditions of a socialist market economy. In this sense, Marx’s scientific critique precisely explains the rationality of capital’s existence in a socialist society with Chinese characteristics and answers the necessity of "regulating and guiding the development of capital under the conditions of a socialist market economy."
(3) Breaking the myth of the logic of capital and exploring new possibilities for modernization is the practical concern of Marx’s critique.
As an internal driving force, the logic of capital broke through local shackles, promoted the transformation of history into world history, and opened up an entirely new social formation. Marx, keenly capturing this change, not only called it "modern society" to distinguish it from previous societies but—more importantly—deeply revealed the essential logic constituting this society: the logic of capital. Regarding this logic, bourgeois economists treat capital as a naturally existing, eternal category, thereby creating the myth of the immortality of the logic of capital and its society to justify the modern society it represents. Conversely, Marx "does not depict in rosy colors" [10] the nature of capital; rather, by delving into social reality, he grasped the laws of capital’s movement and mercilessly critiqued the abstract logic by which capital enslaves humanity. He revealed that the development of capital is merely a process of natural history, thereby pronouncing a finite term for the logic of capital and, more importantly, discovering the real path to breaking the capitalist myth.
The logic of capital and its unfolding constitute the essence of modernization. On one hand, the logic of capital stands above everything in modern society, making everything subordinate to it. On the other hand, the logic of capital compels all nations to adopt its mode of production—if they do not wish to perish—and has established the basic structure and universal order of modern society on a global scale according to its own needs and ideas. It has made "barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilized ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West." This coercive nature fundamentally created the "uniqueness" of modernization's development, as if modernization had no choice but to be realized through the capitalist path. However, Marx moved beyond the limitation that "Westernization equals modernization." While conducting a historical critique of the logic of capital, he found within that very logic the possibility of transcending it. Although capitalist modernization was the initiator of world history, it is not the terminator of world history. In other words, capitalist modernization is not the only choice or the inevitable path toward modernization. The possibility of realizing a new type of civilization’s modernization lies precisely within the self-negating movement of the logic of capital—the essential basis of capitalist modernization. Therefore, one can say that the path of critiquing the logic of capital opened by Marx, which is highly constructive in significance, points us toward a developmental direction and destination that is both different from and superior to capitalist modernization.
Based on this, Marx was both a critic of the modernization dominated by the logic of capital and a constructer of a modernization that transcends it. Through his critique, he revealed the historical limits of the logic of capital, shattered the myth of the eternal existence of the logic of capital and its dominated modern society, negated the idea of capitalist modernization as the sole option, and provided an alternative line of thought for exploring new possibilities of modernization. Therefore, the comprehensive and profound critique of the logic of capital developed by Marx in Capital and its manuscripts possesses significant practical value for us today as we dispel the myth of capital's logic and explore new possibilities for modernization.
(4) Overcoming the defects of the logic of capital and promoting the well-rounded and free development of the individual are precisely the contemporary demands of Marx's critique.
Achieving the free and well-rounded development of the individual is both the objective of Marx's critique of the logic of capital and the ultimate destination of his theory of world history. In Capital and its manuscripts, Marx situated the critique of the logic of capital within the cognitive framework of world history and human development. He explored the dual influence of the logic of capital on world history and its subjects, finding within the contradictions and fissures of this logic the new realistic possibilities for free and well-rounded human development that transcend capital itself.
Marx believed that the logic of capital exerts a dual influence on world history, a duality rooted in the nature of the logic itself: namely, the "civilizing logic" of capital creating immense social productive forces, and the "valorization logic" of capital pursuing the maximization of surplus value. These two logics are tightly integrated and act jointly upon human development. On one hand, driven by the logic of capital, productive forces develop at an unprecedented scale and speed, propelling further human development. On the other hand, driven by its profit-seeking essence, capital continuously extracts surplus labor and treats the personification of surplus labor—the wage laborer—as a mere means and tool for the valorization of capital. This not only leads to the abject poverty of the worker but also strips away human freedom and individuality. This so-called "independence" brought about by the logic of exploitation, built upon the oppression of others, has not granted people true independence and individuality; instead, it has led humanity into a state of "objective dependence" [11] upon things like capital. In other words, while the logic of capital certainly broke the shackles of "relations of personal dependence," fundamentally, it caused "personal independence" to once again become subordinate to a foundation of "objective dependence." Thus, in a modern society dominated by the logic of capital, people are destined to be swept up by capital, which demands valorization at every moment. Once subsumed under the rule of capital, the alienated existence of human beings is formed. Consequently, the goal of achieving human freedom vanishes like a phantom.
To this, Marx launched a "ruthless critique" of the logic of capital. However, this critique was not a simple total negation; it also involved searching for the possibility of transcendence from within the logic of capital itself. Just as "the self-estrangement follows the same path as the supersession [12] of self-estrangement," the logic of capital creates the conditions for its own supersession. Along with the "development of material productive forces—which is at the same time the development of the power of the working class—at a certain point it will supersede capital itself." This indicates that on the basis of superseding the logic of capital—that is, both actively appropriating the civilizing achievements of the logic of capital and striving to overcome its defects—it is possible to establish a higher social form that transcends the logic of capital and ultimately realizes communist society. Only then can human beings truly obtain the free and well-rounded development that makes them human, and only then can the value and significance of world history become prominent. Seen in this light, Marx's critique of the logic of capital fully demonstrates how that logic, while obstructing the realization of human freedom and emancipation, also gestates the conditions for achieving them, thereby revealing the limited historical destiny of the logic of capital and the potential space for the free and well-rounded development of the individual.
IV. Conclusion
Grounded in the heights of world history and the dimension of human development, Marx conducted a historical materialist interpretation and a profound, thorough critique of the logic of capital, achieving a transcendence over the abstract speculation previously confined to form and the "rational justifications" that remained merely external. In his view, the logic of capital is the inherent law of the continuous pursuit of surplus value presented by capital as a specific relation of production, constituting the essential foundation of world history characterized by modernization. Under the world history dominated by the logic of capital, the bourgeoisie, in pursuit of maximizing surplus value, established trade links everywhere and promoted its own mode of production and civilization everywhere, achieving a reshaping and transformation of entire human society. Thus, as world history unfolded, the logic of capital and its universal power permeated every aspect of human society. This abstract universal power not only formed an unequal pattern of "domination-subordination" throughout the world, constructing a social framework of false equivalence, but also performed an abstract equalization of the real world and individuals, erasing the differences in historical development and human individuality and freedom. Within such an abstract world, people were no longer the masters of nature, society, or themselves; instead, they became appendages of machines and slaves to capital. Human subjectivity was thereby lost, replaced by the subjectivity of capital. In this way, the history of human development was usurped by the history of capital's development.
To this, Marx argued that the essence and secret of bourgeois society lie within the abstract rule of the logic of capital over human society. Built upon the foundation of private ownership, capital leverages its advantage in occupying the means of production to find every possible way to appropriate the surplus labor of others and steal the surplus value created by workers without compensation, in order to achieve its own valorization. It is precisely this inequality of relations that grants capital the power to dominate and control people, achieving a total deprivation of the substrate of human life, a comprehensive manipulation of human internal needs, and a universal encroachment upon human free time, among other effects. In short, capital achieves its rule and enslavement of people through an exploitative logic that maximizes the appropriation of surplus value at the cost of the poverty of the broad masses. Based on this, the logic of capital became the absolute power governing the generation of world history and human development.
Marx, with his deep understanding and scientific grasp of the essence of the logic of capital, situated it within the conceptual framework of world history and carried out a multidimensional critique involving reality, history, and values. Among these, the critique of reality was primarily based on an analysis of the inverted real world, revealing the abstract nature of the logic of capital. This abstraction determined that the logic of capital would inevitably cause the homogenization and one-dimensional development of the individual, which formed the basis of Marx's value-based critique. The value-based critique of the anti-human nature of capital's logic implies that a world history dominated by capital cannot achieve human emancipation and freedom, and will inevitably be replaced by a world history that has superseded capital. This finitude of the logic of capital became a vital component of Marx’s historical critique. It is evident that these three aspects of Marx's critique—reality, value, and history—are closely linked and organically unified. It was also based on the ruthless critique inherent in the principle of dialectics that Marx achieved his theoretical exploration and practical pursuit: deeply insighting and systematically analyzing the "old world" while actively seeking and scientifically constructing the "new world."
Furthermore, Marx, whose lifelong mission was human emancipation, revealed the historical transience of the "old world" through his dialectical critique of the logic of capital while announcing the historical necessity of the "new world." This thought, which simultaneously critiques the present and heralds the future, embodies its contemporary significance through its theoretical effects, practical logic, realistic observations, and the demands of the times. First, the essence of exploitation in the logic of capital elucidated by Marx provides theoretical support for examining the contemporary digital forms of capitalism. According to Marx, the logic of capital, instinctively driven to valorize itself, is an exploitative logic that maximizes surplus value at the expense of the poverty of the majority, ultimately dominating and enslaving people. This exploitative essence fundamentally dictates that no matter what formal changes occur, the reality of human exploitation and the historical fate of capitalism remain unchanged.
Second, the constituent elements of the logic of capital analyzed by Marx provide practical strategies for advancing the development of socialism with Chinese characteristics. In Marx's view, the logic of capital has a civilizing side, where capital as a factor of production creates productive forces, and a destructive side, where capital as a relation of production negates human development. This indicates that in the process of socialist development, to transform capital that enslaves people into capital that serves people, we must rationally regulate its negative elements and fully utilize its positive factors. Third, the internal contradictions of the logic of capital revealed by Marx provide realistic possibilities for seeking new paths to modernization. Marx believed that when capital can no longer contain the bird of productive forces it has called up by its spells, it will change from a promoter of productive forces into an obstacle and gradually reach the end of its life. This logic of capital's self-negation demonstrates that, as a natural-historical process, it also has a definite historical term. In this sense, capitalism dominated by the logic of capital is not the only form of modernization, nor is it the final form of world history's development. Finally, the path to superseding the logic of capital proposed by Marx provides contemporary guidance for achieving the free and well-rounded development of the individual. Marx's profound critique did not simply negate the logic of capital; rather, he found the possibility of development within it. That is, on the basis of actively appropriating the civilizing achievements of capital and rationally overcoming its defects, one can arrive at a communist society that realizes the well-rounded development of humanity.
In short, Marx's critique of the logic of capital in Capital and its manuscripts is penetrating and thorough, constituting a "pathology of capital" with world-historical significance. Today, as the logic of capital influences the development of world history in an even more extensive manner, it remains not only a keyword and deep-seated driving force for world-historical development but also a problematic and vital link in Marx's theory of world history. In this sense, the critique of the logic of capital possesses even more important and direct theoretical value and practical significance than in the past. Therefore, we must actively draw upon the rich and profound theoretical resources and philosophical wisdom contained in Marx's critique, better analyze the new changes in contemporary capitalism, support the construction of socialism with Chinese characteristics, explore new possibilities for modernization, and further promote the free and well-rounded development of the individual.
(Institutional Affiliation: Nankai University) Source: Economic Review (经济纵横 Jingji Zongheng), 2025, No. 4 Web Editor: Paul