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 deciphered and dismantled? This series of questions has made the study of Capital and the logic of capital a sustained focus of academic circles both in China and abroad, generating a wealth of scholarly achievements. Building upon previous research, this article seeks to adopt a new perspective—taking Marx’s theory of world history as its horizon—to explore the logic of capital and its critique within Capital. In other words, this article situates the logic of capital and its critique within the theory of world history for investigation. This is primarily based 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 the logic of capital governs the generation of world history and the development of humanity—a major practical issue that demands attention. On the other hand, the theory of world history contains the origins, historical limits, and paths for the sublation 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 discusses the logic of capital and its critique in Capital and its manuscripts from three aspects: the world-historical generation of the logic of capital, the world-historical dimension of Marx’s critique of the logic of capital, and the world-historical implications inherent in this critique.

I. The World-Historical Generation of the Logic of Capital from the Perspective of World History Theory

Marx’s theory of world history is the intellectual achievement through which he revealed the world-historical generation of the logic of capital. In his view, the logic of capital, as the immanent 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 “real history,” Marx delved deep into the reality of capitalist society. By fully researching and appropriating empirical materials, he comprehensively presented the internal laws of motion of this “complex social form” in Capital and its manuscripts, deeply 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 prerequisites of the logic of capital

The formation of world history is the practical prerequisite for the logic of capital to break through regional and national boundaries and unfold. This implies that the logic of capital, which governs world history and human development, is neither a natural product nor an eternal existence; rather, it is the operational logic exhibited by the historical product of capital under specific conditions, running through the entire process of capital’s development. How, then, did capital arise? This is precisely the fundamental question that must be answered to deeply grasp the historical formation of the logic of capital and the subsequent critique leveled against it.

In Capital and its manuscripts, Marx discussed the historical origins, historical prerequisites, and historical conditions of capital, thereby answering the basic question of “where does capital come from.” Regarding its historical origins, Marx traced it back to the primitive accumulation of capital. Primitive accumulation does not signify a “mere change in form” 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 nefarious means of violence and plundered vast amounts of gold and silver wealth, eventually completing a history of capital expropriation written in letters of blood and fire. Regarding this, Marx noted: “Capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt.” Yet “capital’s arrival in the world” possesses certain historical prerequisites, which are precisely “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 shown. However, “the circulation of commodities and money does not by any means imply the existence of the historical conditions for the existence of capital. It 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 propertyless worker has no choice but to sell their labor-power to sustain the survival of themselves and their families. The capitalist, having purchased labor-power, will then demand and compel the production of as much surplus value as possible. Behind this transaction—which superficially appears equal and free—actually lies the capitalist’s dominance and control over the wage laborer. Thus, under the system of wage labor, the labor of the wage worker, who “lives only to augment 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 exhibits 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 the personification of capital—hurries across the entire globe and establishes extensive connections in order to obtain endless profits and unlimited wealth, eventually establishing a world market dominated by the logic of capital, which raised the curtain on 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. Along with the global expansion of the logic of capital, the face of world history gradually comes into view, which in turn provides a broader stage for the world market. Simultaneously, the constantly expanding world market further demonstrates 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 time and space.

Specifically, to realize greater valorization and pursue larger profits, capital on the one hand strives to eliminate 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 required to move commodities from one place to another. The more capital develops, the more the market expands—the market that constitutes the spatial pathway for capital circulation—the more capital simultaneously strives for a greater spatial expansion of the market and strives to annihilate space with time even more.” In this way, spatial barriers are thoroughly broken through and constantly recast under capital’s instinct for expansion. This “disembedding” of capital from time and space—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.

As can be seen, while the logic of capital creates more and more surplus labor, it subsequently 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 infinite expansion of capital and the continuous development of the world market, the logic of capital, acting as a “general illumination” and a “special ether,” gradually permeates every field of social life and becomes the supreme standard for judging all things. Similarly, people are inevitably enveloped under the dominance of this ever-expanding alien power of the logic of capital. However, Marx looked beyond this envelope and soberly revealed that this historically necessary logic of capital also has its historical limits of development.

(3) The world-historical limits of the logic of capital

Although the logic of capital has established its dominance within the scope of world history by virtue of its power, it will not exist eternally as classical economists believed. Basing himself on economic facts and delving into the essence of history, Marx clearly pointed out the paradox of the development of the logic of capital, thereby profoundly revealing its world-historical limits.

Marx noted: “Capital is a living contradiction.” This contradiction is first manifested as the conflict between the “means—the unconditional development of the social productive forces—and the limited purpose, the valorization of the existing capital.” To create more surplus value, capitalists continuously improve production technology and labor efficiency. However, as the level of science, technology, and productive forces rises, the organic composition of capital increases accordingly; this brings about not an increase in the rate of profit, but its continuous decline, which inevitably creates a contradiction with capital’s commitment to achieving value valorization. Yet this is not the whole story; looking deeper into its interior, one finds that “the process of the valorization of capital… appears simultaneously as a process of the devalorization of capital.” Without a doubt, realizing its own valorization is capital’s inherent and singular vital instinct. Driven by this instinct, the quantity of products produced greatly exceeds the needs of society as a whole, thus inevitably causing general overproduction. Once general overproduction occurs, it leads to a general loss of value, and an economic crisis inevitably breaks out. The outbreak of an economic crisis is “in essence a realistic reflection of the internal contradictions of capitalist society,” namely, the reflection of the contradiction between the “concentration of the means of production and the socialization of labor,” which fundamentally exposes the fact that crisis is inherent in the concept of capital itself. It is evident that back-to-back irreconcilable internal contradictions inherent in capital fundamentally determine the historical limits of the logic of capital. However, these limits do not merely highlight its negative character, but also manifest its positive side. 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 form that transcends it.

In short, the series of contradictions and conflicts inherent in capital “exist in facts; they exist objectively, outside of us, and even independently of the will or actions of those who caused such conflicts.” 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 influence of the logic of capital

The reflexivity of capital determines the reflexivity of the logic of capital, and thus indicates its historical limits. However, one must not for this reason ignore the “great civilizing influence” that the logic of capital has brought to capitalist world history. Based on this, Marx affirmed the positive role of the logic of capital from three perspectives: productive forces, social relations, and the transition of social forms.

Regarding productive forces, the logic of capital achieved the “universal appropriation of nature and of social connections themselves by the members of society,” creating immense productive forces as never before seen. In Marx’s view, the logic of capital, like a “sorcerer,” used its spells to break existing restrictions and shackles, achieving the conquest of nature and human society, and in less than a hundred years, achieved unprecedented development “at an unheard-of speed and on an unheard-of scale.” As for 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. Where the logic of capital predominates, rigid feudal relations and the traditional ideas they produced are dissolved; people can and must look at their mutual relations and positions in life with a sober eye. Regarding the transition of social forms, the logic of capital is “conducive to the creation of the various elements of a new, higher form.” Just as the seeds of capitalism were nurtured within feudal society, the conditions for the formation of a higher social form are nurtured within capitalism. Capital’s endless pursuit of surplus value drives the continuous progress of productive forces, such that on the one hand, society as a whole can appropriate general wealth in less time, and on the other hand, people no longer need to spend time and energy on labor that can be performed or replaced by objects, as they did in the past. In this way, people can use the time saved to develop themselves comprehensively, promoting “the most complete development of every individual producer alongside the highest development of the social productivity of labor.”

Admittedly, the great historical role of the productive forces of capital deserves affirmation, yet Marx’s discussion of its historical rationality was intended precisely to demonstrate that it has already lost its actual rationality in the present. Therefore, it is necessary to see how "while capital has a tendency toward the boundless increase of productive forces, to what extent it also makes the main productive force, namely man himself, one-sided, restricted, etc." 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, all increase in social productive forces... does not enrich the worker, but only capital, which is to say it only further increases the power commanding labor." As the power of capital grows, man becomes increasingly alienated. This paradox of development indicates that the logic of capital not only rules people's material world but also controls their spiritual world, making it inevitable for individuals to fall into the predicament of modernity. Therefore, in order to liberate humanity from the enslavement and rule of the logic of capital, Marx, having seen through its essence, launched a critique of the logic of capital from a principled height.

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 achievement of his revelation of the world-historical generation of the logic of capital; it also constitutes the theoretical horizon of his critique of that logic. Marx saw that while world history under the subsumption of the logic of capital achieved unprecedentedly great accomplishments, it was more fundamentally subjected to the alienated rule of that logic. In response, 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 cogitation of world history, launching an internal critique of the logic of capital itself. This realized the unity of critiquing the "old world" and discovering the "new world," thereby presenting a world-historical dimension that 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 forces it propelled emerged accordingly, presenting a variety of critical approaches. However, due to their failure to strike the essence and the vital core, these so-called critical philosophies not only failed to achieve the redemption of reality but instead fell into metaphysical self-consistency. Marx, who once referred to his own theory as "critical philosophy," can be said to have regarded the critique of capitalism as his lifelong revolutionary cause. Building upon a critical philosophy grounded in practice, he placed greater emphasis on conducting a dialectical and scientific critique of contemporary reality within the process of the world-historical development of practice. This critique, which changed the foundation of critical philosophy, also transformed its methodology: it is an internal critique ^[6] based on dialectics. This critical approach not only fundamentally distinguished Marx from other critics in terms of essential principles but also helped him make a scientific diagnosis that hit the crux of the actual problems of capitalism.

As is well known, dialectics is the precious legacy Marx inherited critically from that "giant of a thinker," Hegel; it implies that "in its rational form it includes in its positive understanding of what exists a simultaneous recognition of its negation." However, it must be emphasized that this negation is not a simple external negation of the thing, but a dialectical internal negation—that is, the self-negation of the thing itself. So-called scientific critique emphasizes proceeding from reality itself, grasping the internal laws and operational trends of things objectively and deeply, and revealing their own contradictions and developmental limits to find the actual possibility of transforming them. Specifically regarding the logic of capital, Marx’s critique was not an abstract speculation divorced from historical reality, nor a simple external negation. Rather, it delved into the concrete reality of world history, discerned the laws of motion and trends of capitalist world history, and grasped the self-negation of capital from its irreconcilable internal contradictions. He further revealed the historical necessity that capitalist world history, dominated by the logic of capital, must be replaced by communist world history, which sublate ^[7] the logic of capital. In short, Marx discovered the actual 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 the maladies of capitalist society but also enabled him to scientifically propose an actual remedy.

This remedy is precisely determined by the dialectical foundation of Marx’s philosophical critique and achieved through the critical path of "discovering the new world by critiquing the old." This path highlights the essential difference between Marx and previous critics. In the horizon of Marx’s world-historical theory, 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 representing the future of world history—the new world history that sublates the logic of capital. Yet the new world history is not a complete repudiation of capitalist society, but its actual product via active sublation (aufheben). In other words, the new world history is the possible space internally generated during the process of critiquing the old world history. Thus, it provided the theoretical leverage and actual possibility for Marx to critique the logic of capital and, by extension, capitalism. In this sense, it was precisely the scientific critique based on dialectics that allowed Marx to fulfill the theoretical requirements and actual 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 standpoint of "human society or socialized humanity," as distinct from "civil society" ^[8]. In Capital and its manuscripts, based on the standpoint of "human society," Marx stood at the height of world history and combined the analysis and critique of the logic of capital with the future prospects of all humanity and world history. He not only discerned that the critique of the logic of capital is the key handle for profoundly critiquing world history but also realized it is a powerful actual weapon for changing world history. Thus, it can be said that Marx enabled the critique of the logic of capital to truly unfold and its significance to be fully highlighted precisely within the unity of critiquing the old world history and discovering the new.

(2) The Critique of the Logic of Capital is the Key to Unlocking the Riddle of Old World History

The logic of capital is the actual foundation and essential basis of capitalist world history; therefore, the essence 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 for Marx to profoundly reveal the "riddle of world history" of capitalism.

First, the actual critique of the logic of capital. Abstraction is the masterpiece of the logic of capital. Just as the logic of capital endows "things" such as commodities, money, and capital with a "fetishism" they do not possess in themselves, it shapes the entire world history into an abstract reality permeated by the nature of fetishism. In such an abstract reality, "social relations between persons mediated by things" are inverted into relations between things, and the meaning they acquire is regarded by people as an attribute inherent to these abstract objects. Consequently, the "mystery" endowed by humans becomes a power of worship and faith. Especially in modern society dominated by the logic of capital, "this enchanted, perverted, topsy-turvy world" has developed even more rapidly. Social relations of production "begin to dominate those individuals who are in fact the sources and creators of wealth. Humans 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 enjoyed therein are merely the freedom and equality of the abstraction of capital, thereby puncturing 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, cleared the mist, and launched a more profound and essential critique of reality.

Second, the historical critique of the logic of capital. Marx pointed out that the "sole motive" of capital is to "appropriate abstract wealth" as much as possible. However, "the universality towards which capital irresistibly strives encounters barriers in its own nature." Facing these limits and contradictions, capitalist production always adopts various means of reform to strive to overcome its inherent and irreconcilable restrictions. Although these reforms achieve results, it must be recognized that "the means by which it overcomes these limits only reappear before it on an even more massive 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. This limit demonstrates 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 "void collapse." In this regard, Marx’s historical critique of the logic of capital is actually a pathological "sentencing" of capitalism; it breaks the eternal illusion of capitalism while announcing its death.

Third, the value critique of the logic of capital. From the perspective of subjectivity, the logic of capital is a logic "based on the deprivation and impoverishment of the great mass of producers," causing the one-sidedness, homogenization, and abstraction of human beings. Its appearance and expansion have caused huge changes in the whole world and profoundly affected the existential condition of modern humanity. Especially in modern society under the pincers of the logic of capital, the nature of capital's endless pursuit of surplus value leaves no other connection between people except cold monetary relations. It "represses the worker's manifold productive interests and talents," flattens human diversity and individual differences, and creates "a general thing in which all individuality and all characteristics have been negated and extinguished." In a word, the logic of capital shapes man into an alienated existence "ruled by abstractions." Consequently, "real individuals" have no freedom; there is only the "freedom of capital." "Capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality." Capital, which should serve humanity, becomes the object that humanity serves—it becomes the "abstract power" ruling modern society. It can be said that the relationship between capital and man is completely inverted. Thus, while world history under the subsumption of the logic of capital fully highlights the subjectivity of capital, human subjectivity is dissolved, and the history of human development is surreptitiously replaced by the history of the development of capital.

As it can be seen, through the multi-dimensional critique of the logic of capital—actual, historical, and value-based—Marx achieved a scientific critique of capitalist world history. However, it must be seen that this was not Marx's ultimate goal in launching the critique. Rather, through this critique, he aimed to discover the new world history immanent within it, so as to achieve human liberation and freedom.

(3) Launching the Critique of the Logic of Capital to Discover a New World History

The realization of a true world history—namely, communist society—constitutes not only the value destination of Marx’s world history theory 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. Based on this, Marx attempted to discover the new world history that is internally generated 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 ^[9] flights of fancy characteristic of the Utopians; instead, 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 colossal civilization—can no longer control the "powers of the nether world" ^[10] it has called up. This has caused the ever-strengthening productive forces to gradually reach the boundaries of their own development. Yet, "every boundary appears as a restriction to be overcome." In other words, the boundary of the logic of capital implies the overcoming and sublation (Aufhebung) of that logic itself. This overcoming and sublation are possible precisely because the logic of capital nurtures within itself the actual conditions for its own transcendence. On one hand, the logic of capital has created astonishing and massive productive forces, providing a solid material foundation for the transition toward a higher stage of communist world history. On the other hand, it has formed the revolutionary masses—the proletariat—who resist the old society and gain a world-historical union through the unfolding process of world history. Only when the proletariat exists as a world-historical entity can the communist cause it shoulders be realized. With the realization of this cause, people will "place social contact under their own control," thereby successfully dissolving the abstract rule of the logic of capital, that "unholy figure." ^[11] At that point, the entirety of world history will move toward the complete realization of human emancipation and freedom.

Marx’s critique of the logic of capital, conducted from a world-historical perspective and from a "height of principle," both reveals the historical transience of the capitalist era and demonstrates the practical possibility of transcending it toward a communist era. This implies that modern society, dominated by the logic of capital, is merely a product of a specific stage of world history. With the high-level development of productive forces and the universal formation of social intercourse, world history must inevitably move from a stage where capital enslaves humanity to a true world history where capital serves humanity.

In short, as the realistic 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 observes and reveals these secrets. By delving into the reality of capitalist society and launching a multi-dimensional critique of the logic of capital—encompassing reality, history, and value—Marx profoundly exposed the ills of capital while pointing 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 signifies Marx’s dual mastery of the theory and reality of capitalist world history but also provides theoretical wisdom for cracking the code of the logic of capital and examining modernized development in the present era. As Arif Dirlik observed, "Marxism remains relevant as long as the capitalist mode of production persists." By the same token, as long as the logic of capital continues to spread globally, Marx’s critique of it 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 of reality, history, and value. In 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 perspective on contemporary capitalist changes constitutes the theoretical effect of Marx’s critique.

With the deepening of world history and the universal development of digital technology, the logic of capital has allied with digital technology to present a new manifestation of capitalist reality: digital capitalism. This form can be described as a product of the era shaped by constant crisis-restructuring and capitalist self-salvation. Facing these new changes in capitalism, some scholars view digital capitalism as the "savior" of capitalism, believing it can not only help the system escape crisis but, more importantly, change the inevitable fate of moving toward socialism. However, deeper reflection reveals this is not the case. As Marx stated, the logic of capital is a logic of exploitation that maximizes 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 has allowed digital capitalism to form a more concealed and mysterious power of rule, along with 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. Regarding 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 the digital logic of capital, not only have "all moral and natural boundaries of the working day been extinguished," but the boundaries between work and life have 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, entering the digital age today, we are still in the era identified by Marx as being ruled by the logic of capital; it pervades every corner of the world in a "specter-like" ^[12] reality, serving as the dominant force ruling everything. The difference is that the logic of capital has been endowed with a digital form; labor, technology, and data platforms are all inevitably incorporated into the global expansion logic of digital capital. This means the rule of the logic of capital has not weakened but has instead been strengthened through an increasingly "demonized" and "mystified" form of expansion: digital expansion.

Having seen through the essence of the logic of capital, Marx did not stop there but launched a profound and comprehensive critique, taking private ownership as a crucial premise of this critique. As a contemporary transformation of capitalism, digital capitalism emerged on a foundation of private ownership that was already an objective reality. This fundamentally dictates that as long as digital capitalism remains an exploitative form based on private ownership, the logic of capital will continue to function, and the critique of this logic remains essential. Meanwhile, based on Marx’s rational analysis of the limited destiny of the logic of capital, we must see that digital capitalism is not the only choice for the combination of digital technology and social reality, nor is it the final form of human social development. The fissures and contradictions of capitalism growing within it doom it to a historical trend toward a higher form. Therefore, the standpoint, viewpoints, and methods of Marx’s critique of the logic of capital not only help reveal the laws and contradictions of capitalism in his own time but also assist in profoundly perceiving the inner essence of capital’s global expansion today, and in comprehensively analyzing the developmental trends of digital capitalism, fully demonstrating the theoretical effect of Marx's critique.

(2) Grasping the composition of the logic of capital to assist in the construction of socialism with Chinese characteristics is the practical logic of Marx’s critique.

In Marx’s view, the expansion of capital and its logic has a dual role: the "civilizing aspect" of capital as a factor of production 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 of capital in creating massive productive forces is actually inherent within capital itself, constituting the legitimate reason for its existence. Simultaneously, capital’s promotion and improvement of productive forces not only realizes the universal appropriation of nature and society but also unconsciously provides the material conditions and potential space for the free and comprehensive development of the individual. People no longer need to produce those material conditions that can be produced by objects, thereby gaining more free time to develop themselves. Consequently, capital and its logic also become important elements for human society to move toward modernization. The latter aspect refers to the alienated existence of the individual caused by the infinite exploitation and appropriation of surplus value under specific bourgeois forms of capital. This unequal relation of production between capital and labor fundamentally shapes an inversion between the "world of things" and the "world of men." In response, Marx launched a critique of "principle height" against capital and the modern society it dominates, revealing the inherent paradoxes of capital and its logic, and attempting to find a path for the "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 that goes deep into reality. This dialectic is reflected in the fact that Marx’s critique is by no means an wholesale negation of capital and its logic, but rather a profound critique of it 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 showed that capital as a factor of production is by no means exclusive to capitalist society; if the narrow capitalist form can be discarded, the wealth brought by capital will achieve universality. Therefore, there is a need to rationally 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 people into a means for serving them.

For socialism with Chinese characteristics, which is currently in the primary stage of socialism, developing productive forces is an urgent and vital practical task, and "the development of the productive forces of social labor is the historical task 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," China demarcates its scope of activity and guides its development under socialist conditions, regulating the negative side of capital. This has deepened the understanding of the theory of capital under the conditions of a socialist market economy. In this sense, Marx’s scientific critique of the logic of capital precisely explains the rationality of capital’s existence in a society of socialism 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 to explore new possibilities for modernization is the practical concern of Marx’s critique.

As an endogenous driving force, the logic of capital broke through local constraints and pushed the transition from history to world history, thereby opening 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 the logic of capital, bourgeois economists treated capital as a naturally existing, eternal category, thereby creating the enduring myth of the logic of capital and its society to justify the modern society they represented. Conversely, Marx "decidedly did not paint capital in rose-colored hues" ^[13] but, by going deep into social reality, grasped the laws of the movement of capital and ruthlessly critiqued the abstract logic of capital enslaving humanity. He revealed that the development of capital is merely a natural-historical process, thereby pronouncing a limited term for the logic of capital and, more importantly, discovering the practical 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 requires all nations to adopt its mode of production—on pain of extinction—and has institutionalized the basic structure and universal order of modern society worldwide according to its own needs and ideas, making "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 of the logic of capital fundamentally created the "uniqueness" of modernization, as if there were no choice for modernization except through the capitalist road. However, Marx stepped outside the limitations of "Westernization equals modernization." While conducting a historical critique of the logic of capital, he found the possibility of transcending that logic from within it. Although capitalist modernization was the precursor of world history, it is not the terminator of world history. In other words, capitalist modernization is not the only choice or the mandatory path to modernization. The possibility of realizing modernization as a new type of civilization lies precisely within the self-negating movement of the logic of capital—the essential foundation of capitalist modernization. Therefore, it can be said that the path of the critique of the logic of capital opened by Marx, which is of great constructive significance, points us toward a developmental direction and destiny that is different from capitalist modernization and superior to it.

Based on this, Marx was both a critic of the modernization dominated by the logic of capital and a constructor of a modernization that transcends it. Through his critique of the logic of capital, he revealed its historical limits, shattered the myth of the eternal existence of the logic of capital and the modern society it dominates, negated the idea of capitalist modernization as the sole option, and provided an alternative train of thought for exploring new possibilities for modern development. Consequently, 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 myths of the logic of capital and explore new possibilities for modernization.

(IV) Overcoming the maladies of the logic of capital and promoting the well-rounded and free development of the individual is precisely the contemporary demand of Marx’s critique of the logic of capital.

Achieving the well-rounded and free development of the individual is both the objective of Marx's critique of the logic of capital and the 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, and identified new realistic possibilities for transcending the logic of capital for the sake of free and well-rounded human development from within the contradictions and fissures of that logic.

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 jointly act 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 regards the personification of surplus labor—the wage laborer—as a mere means and tool for the valorization of capital. This leads not only to the destitution of the worker but also robs the individual of freedom and personality. This so-called "independence" brought about by the logic of exploitation, built upon the oppression of others, does not grant people genuine independence and personality; rather, it leads them into a state of "dependence upon things" (such as capital). In other words, while the logic of capital certainly broke the fetters of "relations of personal dependence" ^[14], fundamentally speaking, it caused "personal independence" to become subordinate once again to a basis of "objective dependence." Therefore, 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 humanity is formed. In this way, the goal of achieving human freedom vanishes like a phantom, disappearing without a trace.

In response, Marx launched a "ruthless critique" of the logic of capital, yet this critique was not a simple, total negation; it also involved searching within the logic of capital for the possibility of transcendence. Just as the "supersession ^[15] of self-estrangement follows the same path as self-estrangement," the logic of capital creates the conditions for its own supersession. As the "development of material productive forces—which is simultaneously the development of the power of the working class—reaches a certain point, it will supersede capital itself." This indicates that on the basis of superseding the logic of capital—that is, actively appropriating the civilizing achievements of the logic of capital while striving to overcome its maladies—it is possible to establish a higher social formation that transcends the logic of capital and ultimately realize a 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 be fully manifested. Viewed thus, Marx’s critique demonstrates how the logic of capital, while obstructing the realization of human freedom and liberation, simultaneously breeds the conditions for achieving them, thereby revealing the limited historical fate of the logic of capital and the potential space for the well-rounded and free 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 of previous abstract speculations confined to form and the "rational justifications" that remained merely superficial. 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 as characterized by modernization. Under a world history dominated by the logic of capital, the bourgeoisie, in pursuit of maximizing surplus value, establishes trade links everywhere and promotes its own mode of production and civilization everywhere, achieving the reshaping and transformation of human society as a whole. Consequently, alongside the unfolding of world history, the logic of capital and its universal power permeate every aspect of human society. This abstract universal power not only formed an unequal pattern of "domination-subordination" throughout the world and constructed a social framework of false equivalence, but also performed an abstract equalization of the real world and individuals, obliterating the differences in historical development and the personality and freedom of human beings. Within such an abstract world, people are no longer the masters of nature, society, or themselves, but have instead become appendages of machines and slaves to capital. Human subjectivity is thus lost, replaced by the subjectivity of capital. In this way, the history of human development is usurped and becomes the history of capital’s development.

To this, Marx argued that the essence and secret of bourgeois society are hidden within the abstract rule of the logic of capital over human society. Capital, based on private ownership and utilizing its advantage in the possession of the means of production, uses every possible means to appropriate the surplus labor of others and steal the surplus value created by workers without compensation, all to achieve its own valorization. It is precisely this inequality in relations that grants capital the power to rule and dominate people, realizing the total deprivation of the essential substrate of human life, the comprehensive manipulation of internal human needs, and the universal encroachment upon human free time. In short, through its logic of exploitation—maximizing the appropriation of surplus value at the cost of the poverty of the masses—capital achieves its rule and enslavement of humanity. Based on this, the logic of capital became the absolute force governing the generation of world history and the development of the individual.

Marx, possessing a deep understanding and scientific grasp of the essence of the logic of capital, placed it within the considerations of world history and conducted a multi-dimensional critique involving reality, history, and values. Among these, the critique of reality was primarily based on a perspective of the inverted real world, revealing the abstract nature of the logic of capital. This abstraction dictates that the logic of capital inevitably causes the homogenization and one-sided development of the individual, which constitutes the basis for Marx's critique of values. The value-based critique of the anti-human nature of the logic of capital implies that a world history dominated by the logic of capital cannot achieve human liberation and freedom and must be replaced by a world history that has superseded capital; this finitude of the logic of capital became a vital component signaled by Marx’s historical critique. It is evident that these three aspects of Marx's critique are closely linked and organically unified. It was precisely this ruthless critique based on the essential principle of dialectics that enabled Marx to achieve the theoretical exploration and practical pursuit of deeply insighting and systematically analyzing the "old world" while actively seeking and scientifically constructing a "new world."

Furthermore, Marx, whose lifelong mission was human liberation, revealed the historical transience of the "old world" through his dialectical critique of the logic of capital, while signaling the historical necessity of the "new world's" emergence. This thought, in which the critique of reality and the signaling of the future coexist, contains theoretical effects, practical paths, realistic observations, and contemporary demands that epitomize its modern significance.

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’s discourse, the logic of capital, with its instinct for self-valorization, is an exploitative logic that maximizes the appropriation of surplus value at the cost of the poverty of the majority, ultimately ruling and enslaving people. This exploitative essence fundamentally determines that no matter what formal changes occur, the reality of human exploitation and the historical fate of capitalism cannot be altered.

Second, the constituent elements of the logic of capital analyzed by Marx provide practical strategies for advancing the construction of socialism with Chinese characteristics. In Marx's view, the logic of capital possesses both 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 immense productive forces it has conjured up through "sorcery," it will change from a promoter of productive forces to an obstacle and gradually approach the end of its life. This logic of capital's "self-negation" demonstrates that, as a natural-historical process, it likewise has a certain historical shelf life. In this sense, capitalism dominated by the logic of capital is not the only form of combination with modernization, and certainly not the final form of world-historical development.

Finally, the path to the supersession of 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 was not a blind negation; rather, he found the possibility of development within the logic of capital—that is, on the basis of actively appropriating the civilizing achievements of capital and rationally overcoming its maladies, reaching a communist society where the well-rounded development of the individual is realized.

In a word, Marx’s critique of the logic of capital in Capital and its manuscripts is penetrating and thorough, serving as a "pathology of capital" with world-historical significance. Today, as the logic of capital exerts a profound influence on the development of world history in an even more extensive manner, it remains not only a keyword and deep driving force for world-historical development but also the problematic and vital link of 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 to better perceive the new changes in contemporary capitalism, support the construction of socialism with Chinese characteristics, explore new possibilities for modern development, and thereby promote the free and well-rounded development of the individual.