The Comprehensive Crisis of Contemporary Capitalism and an Analysis of Its Harms

After the 1970s, the phenomenon of polarization between rich and poor in capitalist countries, especially developed capitalist countries, became increasingly severe. Entering the 21st century, the Occupy Wall Street movement and the Tea Party movement, Trumpism and the Sanders phenomenon, the Yellow Vest movement and pension protests, the Black Lives Matter movement and the “Algerian Lives Matter” movement, among others, swept across Europe and America. Financial-economic crises, the COVID-19 pandemic, the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and other disruptions have continuously disturbed the world. The endless stream of chaos indicates that capitalism is by no means experiencing merely temporary or partial crises, as mainstream Western opinion suggests, but has instead erupted into a comprehensive crisis across the fields of politics, culture, economy, and the international order, exhibiting new characteristics different from the past. This comprehensive crisis has led to major shifts in the domestic and foreign policies of capitalist countries, which will inevitably alter the balance of power between world capitalism and socialism, and is an important manifestation of the changes unseen in a century. Therefore, combining the latest realities to analyze layer by layer the mechanisms of contemporary capitalism’s comprehensive crisis and the disasters it inflicts on the world holds significant practical importance for deepening our understanding of the current state and future of capitalism, and for strengthening our confidence in socialism and its prospects.

1970年代后，资本主义国家特别是发达资本主义国家的贫富分化现象日趋严重。进入21世纪，占领华尔街运动与茶党运动、特朗普主义与桑德斯现象、黄马甲运动与养老金抗议、“黑人的命也是命”运动与“阿尔及利亚人的命也是命”运动等席卷欧美，金融—经济危机、新冠疫情、俄乌冲突等持续扰乱世界。层出不穷的乱象表明，资本主义绝非西方主流舆论认为的，只是出现了暂时性、局部性危机，而是在政治、文化、经济及国际秩序等领域爆发了全面危机，体现出与以往不同的新特点。全面危机导致资本主义国家内外政策发生重大变动，必将引起世界资本主义与社会主义力量对比的变化，是世界百年未有之大变局的重要表现。因此，结合最新现实，层层解析当代资本主义全面危机的发生机理及对世界造成的灾难，对深入认识资本主义的现状与未来，坚定我们对社会主义及其前途命运的信心，具有重要现实意义。

I. Polarization and the New Class Conflict of “Left” and “Right” Rifts

一、两极分化及“左”“右”撕裂的新阶级冲突

Under the capital-centered distribution pattern of interests shaped by globalization and the technological revolution, the wealth gap in capitalist societies has widened sharply, forming complex class conflicts and leading to institutional and cultural crises.

在全球化与技术革命所形成的以资本为中心的利益分配格局下，资本主义社会的贫富差距急剧扩大，形成复杂的阶级冲突，导致制度与文化危机。

(I) Neoliberal Globalization and New Technological Change: Inequality and Class Polarization

（一）新古典自由主义全球化与新技术变革：不平等与阶级分化

Specifically, two major causes have led to the widespread and intensifying inequality in contemporary capitalism.

具体而言，有两大原因导致当前资本主义广泛且不断加剧的不平等。

First, neoliberal globalization. It drives wealth and class polarization through three mechanisms—corporate production restructuring, financialization, and government policy responses to economic crises—thereby reinforcing capital’s domination over labor.

第一，新自由主义全球化。它主要通过企业生产重组、金融化及政府对经济危机的应对政策这三重机制推动贫富分化与阶级分化，加固资本对劳动的统治。

First, corporate production restructuring enhances the power of transnational capital and oppresses labor, especially domestic labor. After the 1970s, neoliberal globalization actively promoted corporate production restructuring centered on deindustrialization and offshoring. This provided capital with cheap labor, but more importantly, through “geographic expansion and geographic reorganization,” surplus capital crossed the barriers of nation-states, opening up new spaces for accumulation where surplus value could be continuously extracted, thereby creating a powerful transnational capitalist class. At the same time, due to the outsourcing of manufacturing and management service jobs, the number of blue-collar and some white-collar positions decreased, weakening the bargaining power of unions with capital. Domestic labor also had to compete with immigrant labor flowing into the country, thereby facing greater exploitation by transnational capitalists.

一是企业生产重组增强跨国资本权力，对劳工特别是本土劳工造成压迫。1970年代后，新古典自由主义全球化积极推动以去工业化及离岸外包为主的企业生产重组，这为资本找到了廉价劳动力，但更重要的是，通过“地理扩张和地理重组”，过剩资本跨越民族国家藩篱，开辟出一个个可以不断榨取剩余价值的新积累空间，从而造就了一个强势的跨国资本家阶级。同时，由于制造业及管理服务岗位的外包，蓝领及部分白领的岗位减少，工会与资方谈判的能力减弱；本土劳工还要同涌入本国的移民劳工展开竞争，进而受跨国资本家更大剥削。

Second, financialization gives rise to finance capitalists. Finance capitalists, in alliance with transnational industrial capitalists, strengthen the rule of the bourgeoisie and further encroach on workers’ rights. Currently, the structure of capital accumulation has become deeply financialized, with both the financial sector and real enterprises dominated by the “logic of financialization.” Fundamentally, financialization is a “class struggle” waged by finance, transnational, and industrial capitalists united against workers, intensifying inequality mainly through three methods: (1) The disorderly expansion of the financial sector squeezes the profitability of non-financial sectors, reducing the income of the middle and lower classes. (2) Financialization emphasizes maximizing shareholder value, enabling capitalists and many corporate executives to obtain huge profits and compensation. (3) Financialization, together with deindustrialization, offshoring, and the shrinkage of the real economy, has become an important cause of the decline of trade unions. Additionally, because the share of labor income has sharply decreased, to prevent a demand-side crisis, neoliberalism has also created “privatized Keynesianism,” encouraging personal mortgage loans and the like to further exploit labor.

二是金融化催生金融资本家。金融资本家同跨国产业资本家联合，强化资产阶级的统治，进一步侵夺工人权益。当前，资本积累结构已深度金融化，金融部门及实体企业都被“金融化逻辑”所支配。从根本上说，金融化就是金融、跨国及产业资本家联合起来对工人开展的“阶级斗争”，主要通过三种方式加剧不平等：（1）金融部门无序扩张挤压非金融部门盈利能力，使中下层阶级收入下降；（2）金融化强调股东利益最大化，资本家和不少企业高管据此获得巨额利润及薪酬；（3）金融化同去工业化、离岸外包、实体经济萎缩等现象，成为工会衰落的重要原因。另外，由于劳工收入份额急剧减少，为防止出现需求侧危机，新古典自由主义还创设“私有化凯恩斯主义”，鼓励个人抵押贷款等，以便进一步剥削劳工。

Third, contemporary capitalist economic crises mainly manifest as financial crises. Western governments adopt neoliberal crisis-response measures, which typically benefit transnational monopoly finance capital. For example, during the 2008 financial crisis, the U.S. government first bailed out financial institutions such as Citibank and JPMorgan Chase. After the crisis ended, these institutions’ market shares further expanded, and the personal assets of capitalists and many corporate executives grew faster, while the general public bore most of the consequences of the crisis, such as unemployment and unstable employment. Furthermore, after the crisis, European and American countries implemented even harsher “austerity capitalism,” cutting welfare spending and accelerating the privatization and marketization of public services, further worsening the plight of the middle and lower classes already hit by the financial crisis.

三是当代资本主义经济危机主要体现为金融危机。西方政府奉行新古典自由主义的应对危机措施，但这通常有利于跨国垄断金融资本。例如，在2008年金融危机中，美国政府首先救助的是花旗银行、摩根大通等金融机构，危机结束后，这些机构的市场份额进一步扩大，资本家与不少企业高管的个人资产增长更快，但社会大众却承担了危机的大部分恶果，如失业和不稳定就业等。此外，美欧国家在危机后还实行更为严苛的“紧缩资本主义”，削减福利开支，加速公共服务的私有化、市场化，使在金融危机中遭受冲击的中下层阶级的处境更加艰难。

Second, emerging technologies, through automation and the digitization of the labor process, exacerbate class divisions among workers and deepen the gap between the bourgeoisie and the working class.

第二，新兴技术通过自动化、劳动过程的数字化加剧工人的阶级分化，加深资产阶级与工人阶级的鸿沟。

First, automation increases the risk of unemployment for workers and exacerbates inequality. When machines are introduced into the capitalist production process, workers initially operate the machines, then monitor them, and may eventually be replaced by machines at the stage of the “automatic machine system.” Currently, the production automation driven by the information technology revolution is rapidly eliminating jobs in specific industries—first and foremost in manufacturing and services. At the same time, mid-skilled jobs or some simple white-collar positions are being replaced. With the development of artificial intelligence, higher-level labor such as managers and technical experts will also be replaced. Automation is also accompanied by algorithm- and biometric-driven workplace surveillance, allowing capitalists to use “digital ropes” to bind the bodies and minds of blue-collar and white-collar workers, achieving extreme exploitation of them.

一是自动化增加工人失业风险，加剧不平等。机器被引入资本主义生产过程中，工人最开始是操作机器，之后是看管机器，最后就可能在“自动机器体系”阶段被机器取代。当前，信息技术革命造成的生产自动化正使特定行业岗位快速消失——首当其冲的是制造业及服务业；同时，中等技能岗位或一些简单白领工作正被取代；随着人工智能发展，经理人、技术专家等更高级的劳动力也将被取代。自动化还伴随着算法和生物识别驱动的工作场所监控，令资本家可以借助“数字绳索”捆缚蓝领、白领工人的身体及精神，实现对他们的极致剥削。

Second, the close integration of the labor process with digital technology into digital labor intensifies the binary division of labor and strengthens capital’s domination over labor. On the one hand, digital labor is a form of knowledge and intellectual labor, leading to divisions within the working class: the “multitude” engaged in cognitive work such as data processing, possessing “general intellect,” constitutes the main part of the working class; a minority of workers engaged in creative work, possessing “tacit knowledge” that is difficult to disseminate and easily monopolized, are at the upper level of the working class. On the other hand, digital labor is rife with “digital exploitation.” This is carried out mainly through three methods: (1) Forming digital prosumerism, erasing the boundary between digital laborers and consumers, forcing the masses to contribute unpaid digital labor time. (2) Establishing a platform gig economy, implementing flexible and “free and independent” employment models that actually create a large number of low-skilled, insecure employment groups, while using algorithm-based management systems to impose tight and extensive “spatiotemporal control” over workers. (3) Constructing a “social factory,” eliminating the boundaries between factories, offices, and the entire society as well as workers’ personal lives, so that the production of value relations and the power of capital “pervade all social fields,” turning workers into “cyber-slaves” locked in “24/7 electronic sweatshops.”

二是劳动过程与数字技术紧密结合为数字劳动，加剧了劳动力二元分化，强化了资本对劳动的统治。一方面，数字劳动是一种知识和智力劳动，会造成工人阶级的分化：具有“一般智力”、从事数据处理等认知型工作的“诸众”是工人阶级的主体部分；掌握难以传播且易被垄断的“隐性知识”、从事创造性工作的少数劳动者则处于工人阶级上层。另一方面，数字劳动充斥着“数字剥削”。这主要通过三种方式进行：（1）形成数字产消主义，抹掉数字劳动者与消费者的界限，使大众付出无偿数字劳动时间。（2）建立平台零工经济，实行弹性、灵活且具有“自由独立”假象的用工模式，实际上创造出大量低技能、无保障的就业群体，同时通过算法管理系统对劳动者进行严密广泛的“时空控制”。（3）构建“社会工厂”，消除工厂、办公室与整个社会及劳动者个人生活的界限，使价值关系的生产及资本的权力“遍布一切社会领域”，劳动者由此成为被关入“全天候电子血汗工厂”的“网络奴隶”。

(II) New Class Structure and New Forms of Class Conflict: Polarization and “Left” and “Right” Rifts

（二）新阶层结构与新形态阶级冲突：两极分化与“左”“右”撕裂

The aforementioned inequality and class polarization, especially the class division between capitalists and workers, are reshaping the class structure of capitalist societies, leading to intense and complex conflicts.

上述不平等及阶级分化特别是资本家与工人的阶级分化，正重塑资本主义社会的阶层结构，导致激烈且错综复杂的冲突。

First, inequality and class polarization have led to a new polarized class structure in capitalist societies. It is generally believed that after World War II, the class structure of Western countries was mainly “olive-shaped.” The middle class, primarily composed of the working class, formed the main body of society, enjoying a strong sense of economic security and, like the bottom of society—the lowest stratum of the working class—having considerable upward mobility. However, with increasing inequality, the middle class and the lower strata find it difficult to move upward and may even experience downward mobility. Earl Wysong defines this new class structure as a “double diamond”: the “small diamond” at the top represents the bourgeoisie, and the “large diamond” at the bottom represents the working class, with a population ratio of “20 to 80,” and the middle class—this “new working class”—is continuously shrinking. Additionally, some scholars describe the class or income structure of contemporary capitalist societies as “hourglass-shaped” or “M-shaped.”

第一，不平等与阶级分化使资本主义社会形成两极分化的新型阶层结构。一般认为，第二次世界大战后，西方国家的阶层结构主要是“橄榄型”的。以工人阶级为主的中产阶层是社会主体，经济上享有较强安全感，同社会底层即工人阶级最下层一样，拥有较大的向上流动空间。然而，随着不平等加剧，中产阶层及底层人群很难再向上流动，甚至地位下跌。厄尔·怀松（Earl Wysong）将这种新阶层结构界定为“双钻石型”：顶部的“小钻石”代表资产阶级，底部的“大钻石”代表工人阶级，两者人口占比为“二八分”，且中产阶层这一“新工人阶级”还在持续萎缩。此外，还有学者将当代资本主义社会的阶层或收入结构描述为“沙漏型”或“M型”。

Second, capitalist society is staging a class conflict marked by bipolar opposition and a "left"-"right" rift. First, there is the opposition and conflict between the bourgeoisie and the working class. Marx and Engels pointed out that capitalist society "is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat." This is precisely the reality in contemporary European and American capitalist countries: the middle class is continuously being "proletarianized," the working class is continuously being "impoverished," and both white-collar and blue-collar workers feel they are living in an "age of insecurity," dissatisfied with their external environment. Second, there is the "left"-"right" rift and conflict within the bourgeoisie and especially within the working class. Currently, due to differing gains from globalization and the technological revolution, both capitalists and workers have experienced a clear "left"-"right" split internally. On one hand, financiers, high-tech and large industrial capitalists, corporate executives, those engaged in transnational trade and high-tech R&D, as well as immigrants, women, and highly educated groups who have benefited from globalization, mainly constitute the left wing of the class structure and are more supportive of center-left political parties. On the other hand, some small and medium-sized real-economy capitalists impacted by globalization, financialization, and high taxes; low-education, low-skilled white-collar and especially blue-collar workers who have lost their jobs or are in unstable employment due to deindustrialization, offshoring, and automation; as well as native (predominantly white) populations, the elderly, and residents of decaying urban areas, small towns, and rural regions, mainly constitute the right wing of the class structure and are more supportive of right-wing political parties.

第二，资本主义社会正上演着一场两极对立且“左”“右”撕裂的阶级冲突。一是资产阶级与工人阶级的对立与冲突。马克思、恩格斯指出，资本主义社会将“日益分裂为两大敌对的阵营，分裂为两大相互直接对立的阶级：资产阶级和无产阶级”。这正是当前欧美资本主义国家的现实，中产阶层不断“无产阶级化”，工人阶级不断“贫困化”，无论是白领还是蓝领，都认为处于“不安全时代”，对所处的外部环境感到不满。二是资产阶级特别是工人阶级内部的“左”“右”撕裂与冲突。当前，由于在全球化及技术革命中获益不同，资本家与工人群体内部均发生明显的“左”“右”分裂。一方面，金融、高科技、大型产业资本家、企业高管、从事跨国贸易和高新技术研发的人群，以及受益于全球化的移民、女性、高学历群体，主要成为阶级结构中的左翼，更支持中左翼政党。另一方面，受全球化、金融化及高税收等冲击的部分中小实体行业资本家，在去工业化和离岸外包及自动化过程中失业或处于不稳定就业中的低学历低技能的白领特别是蓝领人群，以及本土（以白人为主）、老年人群体及破败都市区、中小城镇、农村地区的人口，主要成为阶级结构中的右翼，更支持右翼政党。

Overall, the globalization and technological innovation wave led by Western capitalist countries has not only caused domestic economic inequality, class differentiation, and class antagonism but has also led to the rampant hegemony of international monopoly capital. Wherever monopoly capital goes, polarization between rich and poor and class conflict follow. Therefore, strong capital, weak masses, and social polarization have become a global phenomenon, breeding unrest and turbulence.

总的来看，西方资本主义国家主导的全球化及技术革新浪潮，既导致其国内经济不平等与阶级分化、阶级对立，也造成国际垄断资本主义横行霸道。垄断资本所到之处，贫富分化与阶级冲突便随之而来。因此，资本强势、民众弱势及社会两极化已成为全球现象，酝酿着不安和动荡。

II. The Rise of Populist Democracy and Polarized Politics and the Rigidity of the System of Checks and Balances

二、民粹民主、极化政治崛起与分权制衡体制僵化

Contemporary capitalism primarily implements elite politics through the electoral system, promotes consensus politics through the party system, and uses the system of checks and balances to achieve balance within the bourgeoisie and between the state and society. However, neoliberal policies have excessively deviated from the interests of the people, leading to the rise of populism and polarized politics and the rigidity of the system of checks and balances.

当代资本主义主要通过选举制实行精英政治，借助政党制推行共识政治，并借由分权制衡体制来实现资产阶级内部及国家与社会的平衡。新古典自由主义政策却过分背离民众利益，导致民粹主义、极化政治的崛起及分权制衡体制的僵化。

(A) Electoral Crisis: Populist Rebellion Against Elite Politics

（一）选举危机：民粹主义反叛精英政治

Western countries have long formally implemented mass elections while substantively practicing elite politics. From the end of World War II to the 1970s, European and American elites constructed a "Keynesian regime." During this period, the masses were more inclined to believe that elections could compel elites to implement policies aligned with popular interests. After Keynesianism failed, European and American elites created a "neoliberal regime." However, its practice over more than half a century has driven elite politics into a predicament. First, from 1979 to 1992, right-wing elites represented by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan in the UK and US took the lead in implementing privatization, tax cuts, deregulation, and globalization policies, establishing a capital-centered economic system that attacked the working class, and prompting center-left elites to accept neoliberalism. Next, from 1992 to 2007, right-wing elites stepped down, and center-left elites successively launched a "Third Way" or "progressive" neoliberalism, continuing to promote globalization and economic growth while advancing welfare development and cultural tolerance. Finally, from 2008 to the present, right-wing elites have partially returned to power, largely converging with left-wing elites. However, factors such as the financial crisis, extreme inequality, and immigration shocks have led the masses to begin questioning and strongly opposing both left-wing and right-wing elites.

西方国家长期在形式上推行大众选举，在实质上实行精英政治。第二次世界大战结束后至1970年代，欧美精英构建了“凯恩斯主义政体”。这一时期，民众较相信可通过选举促使精英实行符合大众利益的政策。凯恩斯主义失效后，欧美精英创设了“新古典自由主义政体”，然而，其半个多世纪的实践却将精英政治推入困境。首先，1979年至1992年，以撒切尔、里根为代表的英美右翼精英率先实施私有化、减税、放松管制及全球化政策，建立了以资本为中心、打击工人阶级的经济体制，促使中左翼精英接受新古典自由主义。接着，1992—2007年，右翼精英下台，中左翼精英纷纷推出“第三条道路”或“进步化”的新古典自由主义，继续推动全球化及经济增长，促进福利发展及文化宽容。最后，2008年至今，右翼精英部分回归权位，基本与左翼精英合流，但金融危机、极端的不平等及移民冲击等因素已使民众开始质疑并强烈反对左翼和右翼精英。

Currently, the destructive consequences of neoliberalism have sparked a wave of populism, shaking elite rule. Among the lower and middle classes, the left demands direct democracy or "square politics," while the right turns to "emotional politics" and "post-truth politics." Populism has also challenged another important condition of elite politics: the masses' tacit acceptance of elite rule through low voter turnout or political apathy. Marked by the 2016 and 2020 US presidential elections, voter turnout and political participation have increased, shaking elite rule.

当前，新古典自由主义的破坏性后果激起了民粹主义浪潮，冲击了精英统治。在中下层民众当中，左翼要求实行直接民主或“广场政治”，右翼则转向“情感政治”“后真相政治”。民粹主义还挑战了精英政治的另一重要条件：民众以低投票率或政治冷漠来默许精英统治。以美国2016年、2020年大选为标志，民众投票率及政治参与度提高，震动了精英统治。

Scholars such as David Harvey argue that populism, especially the right-wing masses' rebellion against elite politics, has been exploited by elites. This is manifested in two ways: first, right-wing masses oppose elites but cannot do without them, even gravitating toward fascist elites; second, far-right elites are forming an "alliance" with neoliberalism. Therefore, Harvey denies the significance and role of right-wing populism. However, on one hand, the main purpose of populism is to oppose elites; on the other hand, the prevalence of populism itself is a manifestation of the crisis of the capitalist electoral system. At the same time, left-wing masses and elites are essentially relative beneficiaries of the globalization promoted by neoliberal elites. Therefore, the rebellion of right-wing masses is more important than that of the left. In short, viewing the rebellion of left-wing and right-wing populism against elite politics from a Marxist standpoint reveals that it is essentially a common rebellion of the working class against the bourgeoisie, a common rebellion of the powerless class against the plutocratic class.

大卫·哈维（David Harvey）等学者认为，民粹主义特别是右翼民众对精英政治的反叛已被精英利用，主要表现为：一是右翼民众反对精英却离不开精英，甚至投向了法西斯主义精英，二是极右翼精英正同新古典自由主义结成“同盟”，因此，哈维否定右翼民粹主义及其作用。然而，一方面，民粹主义的主要目的是反对精英，另一方面，民粹主义盛行本身就是资本主义选举制危机的体现。同时，左翼民众和精英实质上是新古典自由主义精英所推动的全球化的相对受益者，因此，右翼民众反叛的重要性大于左翼。总之，站在马克思主义立场看待左翼和右翼民粹主义对精英政治的反叛，就能看出实际上是工人阶级对资产阶级的共同反叛，是无权阶级对金权阶级的共同反叛。

(B) Party Crisis: Polarized Politics Overturning Consensus Politics

（二）政党危机：极化政治颠覆共识政治

After World War II, the expansion of the middle class in European and American societies led political parties to compete for centrist voters to implement consensus politics. Specifically, in the United States, the Democratic and Republican parties engaged in widespread cross-party cooperation around the "New Deal consensus." Europe was similar: right-wing parties moved toward the center, and while social democratic parties relied more on the working class, they also transformed into "catch-all parties." However, this consensus politics, which had relatively tilted toward popular interests, soon degenerated into a neoliberal consensus politics. Mainstream left-wing and right-wing parties increasingly served the interests of the bourgeoisie, especially monopoly capital, with little regard for the demands of the lower and middle classes. Consequently, the masses began to overturn consensus politics with polarized politics, causing a crisis in party politics.

第二次世界大战后，欧美社会的中产阶级规模扩大，为赢得选举，各政党都在争取中间选民，以推行共识政治。具言之，在美国，民主党和共和党围绕“新政共识”展开普遍的跨党合作。欧洲则相似，右翼政党向中间靠拢，社会民主党虽更依赖工人阶级，但也变为“全民党”。然而，这种相对向民众利益倾斜的共识政治，不久就蜕化为新古典自由主义共识政治。左翼和右翼主流政党日益无所顾忌地服务于资产阶级特别是垄断资本的利益，愈发忽视中下层民众的诉求，因此民众就开始以极化政治颠覆共识政治，造成政党政治危机。

In the United States, the masses' method of overturning consensus politics was to transform the mainstream parties. Although the masses still identified with the Democratic and Republican parties, the left pressured the Democrats by supporting Bernie Sanders and radical progressives, while the right reshaped the Republican Party with "Trumpism." Division and confrontation led to an unprecedented "stalemate" in the 2020 US election, and the "Capitol Hill incident" [1]1 The "Capitol Hill incident" refers to the storming of the United States Capitol building on January 6, 2021, by supporters of then-President Donald Trump in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. turned the party electoral crisis into a power transition crisis. Ultimately, "civil war-style" political conflict was forcibly suppressed by the state's violent apparatus, and Joseph Biden held his inauguration under military protection. Currently, struggles over the pandemic, inflation, racial hatred, and especially the 2024 election campaign are continuously intensifying political polarization in the United States. In Europe, the masses overturn consensus politics by choosing far-right parties outside the mainstream. In Germany, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) has been making continuous gains, winning its first local election in 2023. In France, Marine Le Pen, leader of the National Rally, has run for president three times, reaching the second round in the last two elections. In Italy, in 2022, the Brothers of Italy became the largest party and formed the most conservative government since World War II. Sweden, long considered a bastion of social democracy, saw the right-wing Democrats become the second-largest party in the 2022 election. Additionally, far-right fringe parties in Finland, Belgium, Austria, Hungary, and other countries have been rising rapidly in recent years.

在美国，民众颠覆共识政治的方式是改造主流政党。民众虽仍认同民主党与共和党，但左翼以支持伯尼·桑德斯（Bernie Sanders）及激进进步派的方式倒逼民主党，右翼则用“特朗普主义”（Trumpism）重塑共和党。分裂与对抗使美国在2020年出现史无前例的大选“难产”，“国会山事件”使政党选举危机一度演化为权力交接危机。最终，“内战式”的政治冲突被国家暴力机器强行压制，约瑟夫·拜登（Joseph Biden）在军队保护下举行就职仪式。目前围绕疫情、通胀、种族仇恨特别是2024年选战的斗争，使美国政治极化持续加重。在欧洲，民众则以在主流政党之外选择极右翼政党来颠覆共识政治。在德国，选择党不断攻城略地并在2023年首次赢得地方选举。在法国，“国民联盟”领导人玛丽娜·勒庞（Marine Le Pen）连续三次竞选总统，后两次均进入大选第二轮。在意大利，2022年，兄弟党成为第一大党并组成第二次世界大战后立场最保守的政府。瑞典被认为是社会民主主义的堡垒，但在2022年选举中，右翼民主党一跃成为第二大党。此外，芬兰、比利时、奥地利、匈牙利等国的极右翼边缘政党，近年来都在快速崛起。

(C) Constitutional Crisis: Imbalance and Rigidity in the System of Checks and Balances

（三）宪政危机：分权制衡体制失衡僵化

After long-term development, the US constitutional arrangement of checks and balances now refers not only to the narrow separation of powers among the three branches but also to the broad check exercised by the mass media, representing society, as the "fourth estate," on the state government represented by the three branches. However, currently, both the narrow and broad systems of checks and balances have become rigid.

经过长期发展，美国分权制衡的宪制安排，已不仅指狭义的三权分立制衡，还指代表社会的大众媒体即“第四权”对三权所代表的国家政府的广义制衡。但当前，无论狭义还是广义的分权制衡都已僵化。

First, the separation of powers and checks and balances have degenerated into a veto system. The separation of powers and checks and balances is an institutional arrangement in which capitalism divides power to achieve internal balance within the bourgeoisie and to split the people so that they become dependent on the ruling class. It inherently contains the gene of mutual opposition among different classes and groups. In recent years, this mutual opposition has evolved into hostile vetoing. At every “veto point,” the ruling elite can seize public opinion and exploit it. Furthermore, the U.S. civil service system has also reinforced the veto system. Civil servants are the implementers of regulatory policies on finance, welfare, immigration, environmental protection, etc., and they identify in values with the “political correctness” championed by the elite. Civil servants shuttle among “veto points” such as the president, Congress, and the courts, and have intricate connections with interest groups, thereby forming “iron triangles,” “revolving doors,” “deep state,” etc., with the political, economic, and academic circles. Hence, the civil service system has made U.S. constitutional government even more unbalanced.

第一，三权分立且制衡蜕变为否决制。三权分立且制衡是资本主义对权力进行分割，以实现资产阶级内部平衡，使人民内部分裂而依附于统治阶级的一种制度安排，本身就蕴含着不同阶级及群体互相反对的基因。近年来，这种互相反对演变成敌对式否决。在每一个“否决点”，统治精英都能挟民意而利用之。此外，美国文官系统也强化了否决制。文官是金融、福利、移民、环保等监管政策的执行者，在价值观上认同精英推崇的“政治正确”。文官穿梭于总统、国会、法院等“否决点”之间，与利益集团有千丝万缕的联系，借此与政经学各界组成“铁三角”“旋转门”“深层政府”等，故文官系统使美国宪政更加失衡。

Second, the “fourth estate,” i.e., society’s check on the state government, has clearly become rigid and degenerated. Although the mass media is a component of the capitalist ideological apparatus, during most of the 19th and 20th centuries, the media was also a helper for the working class in its struggle against capitalists and rulers. However, currently, the mass media is deeply mired in “political correctness” in terms of values, and has increasingly become the mouthpiece of neoliberal elites and political parties, with its credibility continuously declining. It can be said that the function of the mass media representing society to check the state “Leviathan” has significantly degraded compared to the past. Moreover, due to the development of digital media technology and the financialization of digital media, digital enterprises have become powerful “accomplices” in supporting the cultural hegemony of the bourgeoisie and assisting the “digital Leviathan” in ruling over the populace.

第二，“第四权”即社会对国家政府的制衡明显僵化蜕变。尽管大众媒体是资本主义意识形态机器的要件，但在19—20世纪大部分时期，媒体也是工人阶级与资本家及统治者开展斗争的帮手。然而，当前大众媒体在价值观上深陷“政治正确”，更多成为新古典自由主义精英及政党的喉舌，公信力不断降低。可以说，大众媒体代表社会来制衡国家“利维坦”的功能相较以往退化不少。而且，由于数字传媒技术的发展及数字媒体的金融化，数字企业已成为支撑资产阶级文化霸权、辅助“数字利维坦”对民众进行统治的有力“帮凶”。

Overall, for decades, Western countries have used military force or soft power to promote the so-called third wave and even fourth wave of “democratization,” instigating “color revolutions” in developing countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America and in the Soviet region, and vigorously exporting their liberal democratic systems. However, non-Western countries that have actively or passively accepted “freedom” and “democracy” have continuously experienced chaos such as electoral fraud, political corruption, military coups, armed conflict, national division, and the proliferation of extremist forces and terrorism, triggering political instability, hindering economic development, and exacerbating the gap between rich and poor. Today, the West itself is trapped in institutional difficulties, and it has further exported its domestic populism and political polarization to non-Western countries, exacerbating political instability in these countries and further threatening the production, livelihood, and even the safety of life of their people.

总体来说，几十年来，西方国家以武力或软实力来推动所谓第三波乃至第四波“民主化浪潮”，在亚非拉发展中国家及苏联地区策动“颜色革命”，竭力输出其自由民主制度。然而，主动或被迫接受“自由”“民主”的非西方国家，不断出现选举舞弊、政治腐败、军事政变、武装冲突、国家分裂、极端势力及恐怖主义泛滥等乱象，引发政局动荡，阻碍经济发展，加剧贫富分化。如今，西方自身陷入制度困境，更将其国内的民粹主义、政治极化等输出到非西方国家，加剧了这些国家政治不稳定，使民众的生产生活乃至生命安全都遭受进一步威胁。

III. Spiritual Collapse and Value Fragmentation after the Rupture of the Post-Class Narrative

三、后阶级叙事破灭后的精神崩塌与价值观分裂

Contemporary capitalism uses ideological indoctrination and digital technology to shape a post-class narrative, but the class divide in reality continues to deepen, causing both spiritual collapse among people and value fragmentation.

当代资本主义借助意识形态灌输和数字技术塑造后阶级叙事，但现实中的阶级鸿沟却不断加深，既引发人们的精神崩溃，也造成价值观分裂。

(I) The Exhausted Utopia: Spiritual Collapse after Shelving Class Politics

（一）枯竭的乌托邦：屏蔽阶级政治后的精神崩溃

After World War II, class conflict in capitalist societies somewhat eased. In response, Anthony Giddens proposed “life politics,” and Louis Althusser and others advocated for the struggle for “cultural hegemony,” which in effect downplayed class conflict. Daniel Bell directly stated that the most serious conflict in post-industrial society is not class conflict, but the conflict between industrial culture and modernist culture. In Bell’s view, industrial culture contains both “ascetic puritanism” and “rapacious acquisitiveness.” Its primitive impulses, constrained by Puritan morality, mainly exhibited a rational, progressive side. However, economic development broke religious bonds, allowing modernist culture, with extreme individualism at its core, to “dominate all things” and combine with the market, thereby commodifying culture and morality, plunging society into a spiritual crisis.

第二次世界大战后，资本主义社会的阶级冲突有所缓和。对此，安东尼·吉登斯（Anthony Giddens）提出“生活政治”，路易·阿尔都塞（Louis Pierre Althusser）等提倡争夺“文化霸权”，实际上都是在淡化阶级冲突。丹尼尔·贝尔（Daniel Bell）则直言，后工业社会中最严重的冲突不是阶级冲突，而是工业文化同现代主义文化之间的冲突。在贝尔看来，工业文化既有“禁欲苦行主义”，又有“贪婪攫取性”，其原始冲动因有着清教道德的约束而主要体现出理性、进步的一面，但经济发展打破了宗教束缚，使以极端个人主义为内核的现代主义文化“君临万物”并同市场结合，从而使文化与道德商品化，社会由此陷入精神危机。

The above spiritual and cultural conflicts are essentially the reflection of the intensified fundamental contradictions of capitalism in the spiritual world of people, and thus remain class conflicts. Evading this point prevents understanding the root causes of spiritual and cultural conflicts, does not help resolve them, and may even drive their development. In recent decades, capitalism has further shelved class politics through ideological indoctrination and the application of digital technology, accelerating the collapse of the spiritual world of the masses amid spiritual and cultural conflicts.

上述精神文化冲突实质上是激化的资本主义基本矛盾在人的精神世界的反映，故而仍是阶级冲突。回避这点，既不能认识精神文化冲突的产生根源，亦无助于化解冲突，甚至还会推动它的发展。近几十年来，资本主义通过意识形态灌输和数字技术应用进一步屏蔽阶级政治，精神文化冲突加速大众精神世界的崩塌。

First, neoliberalism promotes a “post-class promise,” i.e., that the future society is an ideal world of high mobility, abundant wealth, and orderly culture, but in reality, it leads to the loss of value direction for individuals and society. On the one hand, the “post-class promise” contains an extreme logic of “individual responsibility,” meaning that in the free competition of a post-class society, success or failure, self-restraint or indulgence, are personal matters unrelated to the government or society. As a result, achieving success and evaluating it evolves into a “tyranny of merit,” becoming an important mechanism for inciting resentment and populism. At the same time, the pursuit of stimulation and instant gratification becomes a symbol of individual liberation, while “altruistic ethics such as moral ideals and collectivism are often marginalized or criticized,” leading to the spiritual collapse of individuals and society, and also causing dissatisfaction among traditionalists, fueling the debate between conservatism and progress. On the other hand, the collapse of the “post-class promise” leads to a loss of public confidence in the future. Persuaded by right-wing elites, left-wing elites and the masses began to believe in the neoliberal social blueprint and engaged in “depoliticization” of their own discourse. However, in recent years, the widening gap between rich and poor and the solidification of class strata have declared the bankruptcy of the “post-class promise.” The public attempts to “repoliticize” through populism, but finds it difficult to shake neoliberalism, thus falling into “left-wing melancholy” or “right-wing moral panic.”

第一，新古典自由主义宣扬“后阶级承诺”，即未来社会是高度流动、财富丰裕、文化有序的理想世界，但在现实中却导致个人及社会丧失价值方向。一方面，“后阶级承诺”中蕴含着极端的“个人负责”逻辑，即在后阶级社会的自由竞争中，成功或失败、约束自我或放纵欲望，都是与政府或社会无关的个人事务。结果，获得成功及对成功的评价就演变为“功绩暴政”，成为激发怨恨情绪及民粹主义的重要机制。同时，追求刺激、及时行乐成为个性解放的象征，而“道德理想、集体主义等利他性伦理往往被边缘化或遭批判”，这导致个体及社会的精神崩塌，也使传统人士不满，造成保守和进步之争。另一方面，“后阶级承诺”破灭导致公众丧失对未来的信心。在右翼精英的说服下，左翼精英及大众开始相信新古典自由主义的社会蓝图，并对自身话语进行“去政治化”操作。但近年来，贫富分化、阶层固化宣告“后阶级承诺”的破产，民众意图通过民粹主义“再政治化”，却很难撼动新古典自由主义，因而陷入“左翼忧郁症”或“右翼道德恐慌”。

Second, in the reality of polarization, the “de-classed” “post-materialist values theory” reveals its hypocritical side, leaving people at a loss. This theory holds that the values of Western people are shifting from materialist values emphasizing economic welfare to post-materialist values emphasizing altruism, and since young people who have experienced prosperity will continuously replace the elderly who have experienced material scarcity, post-materialism will become mainstream, and political differentiation will depend more on values than on class attributes. However, as inequality intensifies, the economic foundation of post-materialist values is hollowed out. European and American countries that tout tolerance and diversity and loudly advocate “political correctness” have recently revealed an intolerant and non-post-materialist side. Furthermore, the first generation of post-materialists, after experiencing unemployment, aging, and a decline in class status, have sparked a “cultural backlash” of right-wing populism, while the younger generation has become social democrats or left-wing populists, becoming the main body of populism and polarized politics.

第二，在两极分化的现实中，“去阶级”的“后物质主义价值观论”暴露出其伪善一面，使人们无所适从。该理论认为，西方民众的价值观正从强调经济福利的物质主义价值观转向更强调利他主义的后物质主义，且由于经历繁荣的年轻人会不断代替经历物质匮乏的老年人，后物质主义将成为主流，政治分化也将更多地取决于价值观而不是阶级属性。但是，随着不平等程度加剧，后物质主义价值观的经济基础被掏空。标榜宽容与多元、高呼“政治正确”的欧美诸国，近来却暴露出不宽容及非后物质主义的一面。此外，第一批后物质主义者在失业、衰老及阶级地位下降后，掀起了右翼民粹主义的“文化反弹”，年轻一代则变为社会民主主义者或左翼民粹主义者，成为民粹主义与极化政治的主体。

Third, as capitalism enters the digital age, the virtual “classless” appearance in digital space confuses the masses. From the perspective of human existence, as digital products increasingly penetrate daily life, humans are transforming from real, physical beings into abstract virtual beings, step by step detaching from the real world, becoming code and data, and existing virtually in the digital world. From the perspective of human identity, due to the deep integration of capital and digital technology, humans are further “reified.” People with rights and identities are reduced in the digital world to “impersonal” “purely biological data,” which simultaneously endows people with various “virtual identities” and allows for the unlimited construction of digital relationships. In this way, in the digital world, there seems to be an equal “network republic” or even a “classless” society. However, as mentioned earlier, digital capitalism actually creates a society with more severe class differentiation and exploitation. People fantasize about equality and classlessness in the virtual world, but when they return to the real world, they face inequality with the social “ladder” removed, which undoubtedly triggers confusion and resentment among the middle and lower strata of society.

第三，当资本主义进入数字时代，数字空间中虚拟的“无阶级”表象使大众迷惑不已。从人的存在方式上看，由于数字产品日益深入生活，人正从现实的实体人转变为抽象的虚拟人，一步步脱离真实世界，变为代码和数据，在数字世界中虚拟存在着。从人的身份上看，由于资本与数字技术深度融合，人又被进一步“物化”。拥有权利和身份的人，在数字世界中被降为“无人格”的“纯粹的生物学数据”，而这同时赋予人以各种“虚拟身份”并可无限制地构建数字关系。这样，在数字世界中，似乎会存在一种平等的“网络共和国”乃至“无阶级”社会。然而，如前所述，数字资本主义实际上创造了一个阶级分化及剥削更严重的社会，人在虚拟世界中幻想平等与无阶级，但当回归真实世界，面对的却是撤去社会上升“阶梯”的不平等，这无疑会引发社会中下层阶层的茫然与怨恨。

(II) Fragmented Political Creed: Liberalism Degenerated into Tribal Culture

（二）分裂的政治信条：自由主义沦为部落文化

The post-class narrative and its bankruptcy have not only plunged some people into spiritual collapse but also caused a considerable number to form fragmented values, turning liberalism into tribal culture, and thereby leading to political confrontation.

后阶级叙事及其破产既使部分人陷入精神崩溃，又使相当一些人形成分裂的价值观，令自由主义变成部落文化，进而导致政治对抗。

After the Second World War, and especially from the 1970s onward, three overlapping cultural values prevailed in European and American societies. First, the assimilationist concept of multiculturalism. The United States long used the “American Creed,” formed on the basis of Anglo-Protestant culture, to assimilate European immigrants. After the Second World War, large numbers of non-European immigrants poured into the United States. The Frankfurt School held that when assimilating immigrants, Eurocentrism should be discarded and immigrants should be encouraged to retain the cultural traits and values of their home countries. Second, the norms and policies of political correctness. Political correctness, together with multiculturalism, drove European and American societies to formulate a comprehensive set of linguistic, educational, and academic norms opposing discrimination based on race, gender, and sexual orientation, and to promote the implementation of “affirmative action” policies. Third, secularist values. Secularism questioned the status of traditional Christianity, arguing that Christianity constituted an oppression of minority ethnic cultures.

第二次世界大战尤其是1970年代后，欧美社会盛行三重互叠的文化价值观：一是多元文化主义的同化理念。美国长期以在盎格鲁—新教文化基础上形成的“美国信条”来同化欧洲移民，第二次世界大战后，大批非欧洲移民涌入美国，法兰克福学派认为，在同化移民时应摒弃欧洲中心主义，鼓励其保留母国文化特质及价值观。二是政治正确的规范及政策。政治正确与多元文化主义共同推动欧美社会制定了一整套反对种族、性别、性向歧视的语言、教育及学术规范，并推动实施“肯定性行动”政策。三是世俗主义价值观。世俗主义质疑传统基督教地位，认为基督教对少数族群文化构成了压迫。

For more than half a century, in the European and American social atmosphere of “de-classing,” multiculturalism, secularism, and especially “political correctness” once became mainstream values. Although there were opposing currents of conservatism, traditional religion, and anti-“political correctness,” in the mid-to-late 20th century, when economic conditions were relatively equal, European and American whites, men, and Christians, who had ample opportunities for upward mobility, tended to be more tolerant of demands from immigrants, women, homosexuals, and other vulnerable groups for equality and preferential treatment. The better economic situation led the dominant strata to believe that cultural “political correctness”—that is, “diversity” and “progress”—conformed to the “freedom” and “equality” championed by capitalism. However, as inequality intensified, the formerly dominant strata began to experience downward mobility, and therefore they ceased to be tolerant and began to strongly oppose values such as “political correctness.” For example, conservatism held that multiculturalism, by allowing Latino and Muslim immigrants to flaunt their original cultures, would internalize civilizational conflict, exacerbate ethnic contradictions in Europe and America, and lead to an identity crisis. Those who opposed “political correctness” regarded it as a value of “cosmopolitan elites,” embodying a kind of linguistic and cultural “hegemony.” Religious moralists believed that the left’s opposition to religion and traditional morality had led to rising divorce rates, the prevalence of abortion and homosexuality, and accelerated the decline of their own nations.

半个多世纪以来，在欧美“去阶级”的社会氛围中，多元文化主义、世俗主义特别是“政治正确”一度成为主流价值观。虽然也存在与之相对的保守主义、传统宗教与反“政治正确”，但在经济相对平等的20世纪中后期，对于移民及女性、同性恋等弱势群体要求平等和倾斜性照顾的诉求，上升机会充足的欧美白人、男性及基督徒等更倾向于包容。较好的经济状况使占优势地位的阶层认为，文化上的“政治正确”即“多元”和“进步”符合资本主义倡导的“自由”和“平等”。然而，随着不平等加剧，以往处于主导地位的阶层开始向下流动，因此他们不再宽容并开始强烈反对“政治正确”等价值观。例如，保守主义认为，多元文化主义允许拉美裔、穆斯林移民等张扬其原有文化，将使文明冲突内部化，加剧欧美种族矛盾并导致认同危机；反“政治正确”的人认为“政治正确”是“世界主义精英”价值观，体现了一种语言文化“霸权”；宗教卫道士认为，左翼反对宗教与传统道德，却导致离婚率上升、堕胎和同性恋盛行，加速本国衰落。

Thus, once the false face of post-class narratives is punctured by the cruel reality of class polarization, it triggers value conflicts and dissolves the liberal political creed. Regarding “freedom” and “equality,” the left emphasizes breaking down restrictions of race, gender, and traditional norms, striving to extend “equality” to “equality of outcome” and even “cultural equality,” which in essence demands more policy attention from the government. The right, in the socio-cultural sphere, values the moral and religious foundations of “freedom,” calling on the government to intervene to save declining religion, while in the economic sphere it places the individual first, opposes government intervention, and emphasizes equality of opportunity, which in essence opposes social policies that favor immigrants, blacks, and other groups. In short, anxiety over class status and competition for social resources have created a chasm in how different groups interpret concepts such as “freedom” and “equality,” leading to an increasingly polarized value system.

可见，将后阶级叙事的虚假面目一旦被阶级分化的残酷现实戳穿，就会引发价值观冲突，瓦解自由主义的政治信条。就“自由”与“平等”而言，左翼强调破除种族、性别及传统规范等限制，力图将“平等”拓展为“结果平等”乃至“文化平等”，实质是想让政府予以更多的政策关照。右翼在社会文化领域看重“自由”的道德与宗教基础，呼吁政府通过干预挽救衰落的宗教，在经济领域又将个人放在首位，反对政府干预，强调机会平等，实质上是反对社会政策对移民、黑人等群体的倾斜。质言之，对阶级地位的焦虑及对社会资源的争夺，使不同群体在解读“自由”“平等”等理念时形成了鸿沟，导致价值观日趋两极化。

Furthermore, to extract more profit, capital has also developed “enhanced collaborative filtering recommendation” algorithm technology, which recommends to public users of social media content they are more interested in or that aligns with their values, producing an “echo chamber” effect. This makes it difficult—and even more unwilling—for people to encounter different viewpoints, causing the online public sphere to become “Balkanized.”

另外，为榨取更多利润，资本还发展出“增强协同过滤推荐”算法技术，向使用社交媒体的公众推荐他们更感兴趣或与之价值观接近的内容，产生“回音室”效应。这使人们很难也更不愿接触不同观点，使网络公共领域变得“巴尔干化”。

At present, due to the rapid development of globalization and digital media, spiritual breakdown and value fragmentation have spread widely in capitalist countries. Value nihilism and moral relativism prevail; people lose their ideals, beliefs, and spiritual faith, either becoming listless or turning to religious superstition. Social distrust intensifies; on almost every political and social issue, the public holds opposing views, lacking a spirit of consultation and tolerance.

当前，由于全球化及数字媒体的极速发展，精神崩溃及价值观分裂已在资本主义国家广泛传播。价值虚无主义、道德相对主义盛行，人们失去理想信念、精神信仰，要么萎靡不振，要么倒向宗教迷信；社会不信任加剧，几乎在每一个政治社会议题上，民众都持相互对立的观点，缺乏协商精神及宽容态度。

IV. The Resurgence of Extreme Nationalism and the Intensification of Geopolitical Conflict

四、极端民族主义回潮与地缘政治冲突加剧

(A) The Resurgence of Extreme Nationalism Exposes the Anti-Human Nature of Western Free Trade and Universal Values

（一）极端民族主义回潮暴露西方自由贸易与普世价值的反人类本质

The free trade system and the system of “universal values” represent the economic and cultural dimensions of the contemporary capitalist order.

自由贸易体系与“普世价值”体系代表当代资本主义秩序的经济与文化面向。

On the one hand, after the collapse of the “Bretton Woods system” in the 1970s, the United States led a globalization movement to expand the free trade system. The results of globalization accelerated after the Cold War, enabling the United States to dominate international trade rules and global industrial allocation, and to become the center of finance, technology, and high-end precision manufacturing. Past globalization maintained the core position of developed capitalist countries in Europe and America within the world system. However, international trade and technological progress promoted the development of productive forces and the transformation of relations of production in developing countries, enabling both European and American multinational financial and high-tech capitalists to reap huge profits and the economies of backward countries to develop. Thus, for a long period, it created a “win-win” situation, concealing the imperialist nature of the major capitalist powers.

一方面，20世纪70年代“布雷顿森林体系”解体后，美国主导发动了一场扩张自由贸易体系的全球化运动。全球化的结果在冷战后加速扩散，使美国主导国际贸易规则及全球产业配置，并成为金融、科技与高精尖制造业的中心。既往的全球化维护了欧美发达资本主义国家在世界体系中的核心地位。不过，国际贸易和技术进步推动了发展中国家的生产力发展和生产关系变革，既使欧美跨国金融、高科技资本家获得巨额利润，也使落后国家的经济得到了发展，因而在较长时期内制造了“双赢”局面，掩盖了资本主义大国的帝国主义本色。

On the other hand, the United States and other capitalist countries have vigorously promoted “universal values” such as “freedom,” “democracy,” and “human rights,” believing that with the advancement of economic globalization, developing countries like China should not only fully marketize but also implement liberalism in their institutions and values. In essence, “universal values” serve the interests of the bourgeoisie and are not truly universal. In the process of globalization, “universal values” are often linked to economic development and the diffusion of civilization, making them deceptive and therefore sought after by some countries.

另一方面，美国等资本主义国家还极力推广“自由”“民主”“人权”等“普世价值”，认为随着经济全球化的推进，像中国这样的发展中国家不仅应全方位市场化，也要在制度和价值观层面推行自由主义。本质而言，“普世价值”服务于资产阶级的利益，并不具有真正的普世性。在全球化进程中，“普世价值”往往同经济发展、文明扩散相联系，具有欺骗性，因而也受到一些国家追捧。

However, marked by Trump’s rise to power in 2016, the wave of extreme nationalism has fully exposed the imperialist nature of the free trade system and “universal values.”

然而，以2016年特朗普上台为标志，极端民族主义浪潮充分暴露了自由贸易体系与“普世价值”的帝国主义本质。

First, starting with the Trump administration, the United States has practiced economic nationalism under the guise of free trade, bringing great risks to the international economic and trade order. The Trump administration attributed deindustrialization and the shrinking middle class to the multilateral free trade system championed by the establishment of both parties, arguing that “America First” should be implemented. At the same time, to divert domestic contradictions, the United States accused China of not abiding by free trade rules and harming U.S. interests, thus provoking a trade war with China. However, although the U.S. government claims to uphold free trade, its real intention is to prevent China’s rise. When the trade system is favorable for the United States to extract benefits, it is “free”; once U.S. profits decrease, it accuses trade of being “unfair.”

第一，从特朗普政府开始，美国以自由贸易为名行经济民族主义之实，为国际经贸秩序带来巨大风险。特朗普政府将产业空心化、中产阶层萎缩等归咎于两党建制派推崇的多边自贸体系，认为应实行“美国优先”。同时，为转移国内矛盾，美国指责中国不遵守自由贸易规则，损害了美国利益，因而挑起对华贸易战。然而，美国政府虽声称维护自由贸易，但真实意图是防止中国崛起。当贸易体系有利于美国攫取利益时，它就是“自由”的，一旦美国获利减少，便指责贸易“不公平”。

The Biden administration mainly implements a “foreign policy for the middle class.” Driven by political polarization, the U.S. Democratic and Republican parties compete to invoke the “China threat theory,” continuing to suppress China, carrying out “friend-shoring,” technological containment through “small yard, high fence,” promoting the “de-Sinicization” of industrial and supply chains, and issuing bans to contain China, further deteriorating Sino-U.S. relations. Although the Biden administration has returned to multilateralism to win over allies, it essentially still pursues an economic nationalism of “America’s interests first,” aiming to “outcompete” China and maintain hegemony.

拜登政府主要实行“中产阶级外交政策”。在政治极化推动下，美国民主党和共和党竞相祭出“中国威胁论”，继续打压中国，开展“友岸外包”“小院高墙”的科技围堵，推行产业链及供应链“去中国化”，发布禁令遏制中国等，使中美关系进一步恶化。拜登政府虽回归多边主义拉拢盟友，但实质上仍推行“美国利益优先”的经济民族主义，意在“竞赢”中国、护持霸权。

Second, deglobalization, wrapped in cultural nationalism, has led the West to brazenly commit anti-human acts, unprecedentedly exposing the hypocrisy of “universal values.” When troubled by their domestic problems, the United States and other Western countries do not seek reasons within themselves, nor do they reflect on their exploitation of developing countries. Instead, they go against globalization and accuse developing countries’ efforts to pursue development paths suited to their own conditions as a threat to “universal values.” This cultural nationalism precisely reflects that “universal values” are not universal, revealing the lack of confidence in Western countries when facing non-Western paths to modernization.

第二，逆全球化裹挟文化民族主义，使西方肆无忌惮实施反人类行为，空前暴露了“普世价值”的虚伪性。美国等西方国家被其国内问题困扰时，不从自身找原因，不反思其对发展中国家的剥削，反而逆全球化而行，指责发展中国家追求适合自身发展道路的努力是对“普世价值”的威胁。这种文化民族主义恰恰反映了“普世价值”并不普世，体现出西方国家在面对非西方的现代化道路时的不自信。

More critically, the United States and other capitalist countries loudly proclaim “freedom,” “democracy,” and “human rights,” yet they themselves are the problem creators and the biggest obstacles to addressing common human challenges. For example, the expansion of contemporary capitalism has led to the overexploitation of natural resources, the ruthless destruction of the environment, and a great threat to the global ecosystem. Under such circumstances, all countries should uphold the concept of a community with a shared future for mankind and work together to solve the existential crisis of humanity, but the United States once withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement, continuously intensified confrontation, and obstructed international cooperation.

更关键的是，美国等资本主义国家高喊“自由”“民主”“人权”，但其自身才是问题制造者，是应对人类共同挑战的最大障碍。例如，当代资本主义扩张使自然资源被过度开发，环境被无情破坏，全球生态系统面临极大威胁。这种情况下，各国应秉持人类命运共同体理念，携手解决人类生存危机，但美国却一度退出巴黎气候协定，持续强化对抗，阻挠国际合作。

(B) Geopolitical Conflict Threatens World Peace and Security

（二）地缘政治冲突威胁世界和平与安全

After the end of the Cold War, the international configuration moved toward multipolarity, global governance took on pluralistic features, and the world entered a new era of peaceful development, with peace and development becoming the world’s themes. However, the United States is unwilling to abandon hegemonism and Cold War thinking, and strives to control institutions such as the United Nations, turning them into part of a US-led transnational security system. The United States believes that after the Cold War it should actively play the roles of arbiter, international police officer, and world leader, and has drawn a few allies into constructing a unipolar international order. Yet the Russia-Ukraine conflict has brought destructive geopolitics back to the European continent, weakening US control over the international order.

冷战结束后，国际格局趋向多极化，全球治理呈现多元化特征，世界进入和平发展的新时代，和平与发展成为世界主题。然而，美国不愿放弃霸权主义和冷战思维，力图控制联合国等机构，使之成为由美国主导的跨国安全体系的一部分。美国认为冷战后其应积极扮演仲裁者、国际警察和世界领袖的角色，并拉拢少数盟友参与建构单极国际秩序。然而，俄乌冲突使破坏性的地缘政治重归欧洲大陆，削弱了美国对国际秩序的掌控。

First, European countries long pursued pacifism after the end of the Second World War, taking it as an important pillar for maintaining their international status. However, the Russia-Ukraine conflict has rekindled war in Europe, causing Europe’s once-prized pacifism to be questioned and ridiculed, and dealing a blow to its international reputation and standing. Second, the heart and economic engine of the European Union is Germany, which has long sought to shake off US control and make the EU a pole in a multipolar world. For years Germany worked to deepen ties with Russia, attempting to use Russian energy to drive Germany’s economic development and green transition, while also hoping to promote Russia’s integration into Europe, so as to achieve European unity, security, and prosperity. However, after the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the United States forcibly strapped Germany and the EU onto the chariot of “supporting Ukraine and containing Russia,” turning the long-cultivated Russia-Germany relationship tense and hostile. Finally, the Russia-Ukraine conflict has had destructive effects on the economies of Europe, the United States, and the world. After the conflict erupted, production and living costs in European countries soared, and their economies fell into “stagflation.” The US military-industrial complex has made a killing, yet inflation there is also high. The United States took the opportunity to introduce the Inflation Reduction Act, which in essence uses dollar hegemony to exploit its allies and other countries, sparking discontent among many nations and exacerbating tensions in the international situation. Since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, more and more countries hope it will end soon. China’s peace proposal has been widely praised by the international community, but the United States and European countries have ignored it. It can be foreseen that the intensification or prolongation of the Russia-Ukraine conflict will bring more negative impacts on the world economy and security, trigger more serious human rights disasters, and cause greater damage to the common interests of all humanity.

首先，欧洲各国在第二次世界大战结束后后长期奉行和平主义，将它作为维护自身国际地位的重要支柱。但是，俄乌冲突使欧洲重燃战火，这使欧洲引以为荣的和平主义遭到质疑与嘲笑，其国际声誉与地位受到了打击。其次，欧盟的心脏和经济发动机是德国，其一直想摆脱美国控制，使并欧盟成为多极化世界中的一极。德国多年来努力与俄罗斯加深联系，试图借助俄罗斯的能源推动德国的经济发展及绿色转型，同时也希望推动俄罗斯融入欧洲，以实现欧洲的团结、安全与繁荣。然而，俄乌冲突爆发后，美国硬把德国及欧盟绑上“挺乌制俄”的战车，使经营多年的俄德关系变得紧张并走向敌对。最后，俄乌冲突给欧美及世界经济带来了破坏性影响。冲突爆发后，欧洲国家的生产生活成本剧增，经济陷入“滞胀”。美国军工复合体赚得盆满钵满，却也通货膨胀高企。美国借此出台《通胀削减法案》，实质上是借美元霸权对其盟友及其他国家进行剥削，引发各国不满，加剧国际局势的紧张程度。俄乌冲突爆发至今，越来越多的国家期望其早日结束。中国提出的和平方案备受国际社会赞誉，但美欧国家却不予理睬。可以预见，俄乌冲突的不断加剧或持久化，将给世界经济与安全带来更多负面影响，引发更严重的人权灾难，对全人类的共同利益造成更大损害。

Does capitalism still have a future? From a long historical perspective, the inherent contradictions of capitalism foretell its inevitable demise. However, from a medium-term perspective, digital and artificial intelligence technologies are still raising the productive forces of capitalist countries; the class consciousness of workers in developed capitalist countries has not yet fully awakened; and the bourgeoisie still firmly controls the capitalist world through transnational alliances and complexes such as “military-industrial-oil-media-technology.” In Western capitalist countries, although class struggle has made a certain return, sparking widespread questioning of capitalism, it has not yet pushed capitalism to complete collapse. We should have a clear understanding of this. Of course, more importantly, the comprehensive crisis of contemporary capitalism and its extensive harms have raised expectations for socialism, especially among developing countries. Therefore, we should all the more uphold socialism with Chinese characteristics, firmly take the path of Chinese-path modernization, and make due contributions to world peace and development and to the progress of human civilization. (Notes and references omitted)

资本主义还有未来吗？从长历史角度看，资本主义的固有矛盾预示着其必然灭亡的命运。然而，从中观看，数字及人工智能技术仍提升着资本主义国家的生产力；发达资本主义国家工人的阶级意识尚未完全觉醒；资产阶级仍通过跨国联盟和“军事—工业—石油—媒体—科技”等综合体牢牢掌控着资本主义世界。在西方资本主义国家，阶级斗争虽有所回归，引发了人们对资本主义的广泛质疑，但还未将资本主义彻底推向崩溃。对此，我们应有清醒认识。当然，更重要的是，当代资本主义的全面危机及其广泛危害提升了各国特别是发展中国家对社会主义的期待。因此，我们更应坚持中国特色社会主义，坚定走中国式现代化道路，为世界和平与发展及人类文明进步作出应有贡献。（注释、参考文献略）

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑