Critique of Capitalism under the Deepening of Technological Monopoly and the Fracturing of Global Order: Responses and Reconstructions

Abstract: In 2024, the profound changes in the global political and economic landscape have driven further development of overseas Marxist studies. In the field of traditional theoretical research, scholars have deepened their studies of early Western Marxism, the Frankfurt School, and post-Marxism, offering new interpretations in conjunction with contemporary social issues. In terms of practical problems, critiques of ecology, space, and digital capitalism have become hot topics, revealing exploitation and alienation by capitalism in the realms of ecology, urbanization, and digital technology. Facing new changes in contemporary capitalism, scholars have conducted in-depth critiques of neo-imperialism and neoliberalism, while new phenomena such as the rise of the Global South and digital colonialism have also been explored. This year, overseas Marxist studies have strengthened both theoretical critique and practical reconstruction, demonstrating new vitality in areas such as digital capitalism. However, its theoretical research suffers from fragmentation, and its explanatory power and practical guidance regarding global crises need improvement. Future efforts must further integrate theory to better meet the challenges of the times.

摘要：2024年，全球政治经济格局的深刻变化推动了国外马克思主义研究的进一步发展。在传统理论研究领域，学者们深化了对早期西方马克思主义、法兰克福学派和后马克思主义等的研究，结合当代社会问题作出新阐释。在现实问题方面，生态、空间和数字资本主义批判成为热点，揭示出资本主义在生态、城市化及数字技术领域的剥削和异化。面对当代资本主义新变化，学者们对新帝国主义和新自由主义进行了深入批判，全球南方崛起、数字殖民主义等新现象也被探讨。这一年，国外马克思主义研究在理论批判与实践重构上双双强化，在数字资本主义等领域展现新活力。不过，其理论研究存在碎片化问题，对全球危机的解释力和实践指导性有待提升，后续需进一步整合理论，更好地应对时代挑战。

As the global political and economic landscape continues to change, in 2024, where technological monopoly and the fracturing of global order are intertwined, the capitalist system is undergoing an unprecedented structural crisis. The deep penetration of digital technologies such as artificial intelligence and big data has not only reshaped modes of production and communication but has also given rise to a new form of exploitation—algorithmic exploitation. Meanwhile, intensified geopolitical conflicts, deepening ecological crises, and the rise of the Global South have further shaken the global ruling foundations of capitalism. Against this backdrop, overseas Marxist studies have not only deepened research on early Western Marxism, the Frankfurt School, and post-Marxism but have also provided new theoretical interpretations of contemporary social issues in light of major practical problems and new changes in capitalism. These studies exhibit distinct characteristics of the times: while continuing the theoretical tradition of criticizing capitalism, they have responded to the challenges of technological revolution and civilizational transformation, carrying out systematic innovations in methodology, research topics, and practical pathways. This year, in the process of responding to the crises of the era, overseas Marxist studies have demonstrated both theoretical resilience and innovative vitality, while also offering multidimensional perspectives for understanding capitalism in the digital age. Their developmental trajectory shows that Marxism, as a theoretical weapon for criticizing capitalism, continues to radiate vitality in the contemporary era.

随着全球政治经济格局的不断变化，在技术垄断与全球秩序裂变交织的2024年，资本主义体系正经历着前所未有的结构性危机。人工智能、大数据等数字技术的深度渗透，不仅重塑了生产与交往方式，更催生了算法剥削这种新型剥削形态；而地缘政治冲突加剧、生态危机深化与全球南方的崛起，则进一步动摇了资本主义的全球统治根基。在此背景下，国外马克思主义研究不仅深化了对早期西方马克思主义、法兰克福学派和后马克思主义等的研究，还结合重大现实问题和资本主义新变化对当代社会问题进行了新的理论阐释，呈现出鲜明的时代特征：既延续了对资本主义批判的理论传统，又因应技术革命与文明转型的挑战，在方法论、研究议题与实践路径上展开了系统性创新。这一年国外马克思主义研究在回应时代危机的过程中，既展现了理论的韧性与创新活力，也为理解数字时代的资本主义提供了多维视角。其发展轨迹表明，马克思主义作为批判资本主义的理论武器，持续焕发着时代生命力。

I. Research on Traditional Theoretical Schools and Issues

一、对传统理论流派和问题的研究

In 2024, overseas academic circles further deepened their research on early Western Marxism, the Frankfurt School, post-Marxism, and related schools and issues, achieving significant progress in both theoretical depth and practical response.

2024年国外学界进一步深化了对早期西方马克思主义、法兰克福学派、后马克思主义等相关流派和问题的研究，在理论纵深与现实回应上均取得显著进展。

(A) Research on Early Western Marxism

(一)对早期西方马克思主义的研究

In 2024, overseas academic research on figures such as Lukács and Gramsci continued to deepen. Violeta Garrido, a researcher in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Granada, Spain, examined Lukács’s theory of the unconscious. Through a detailed analysis of the intersection between Marxism and the unconscious, she provided new insights into how unconscious processes influence the subject and consciousness within historical and social frameworks. This study situates Lukács’s theory of the unconscious within the dialogue between Marxism and psychoanalysis, opening new pathways for exchange between Marxism and the psychoanalytic school. Furthermore, in the book *The Long Retreat: Strategies to Reverse the Decline of the Left*, the renowned Russian sociologist Boris Kagarlitsky argues that Western radical left theorists condemn the working class for preferring consumption over revolution. Drawing on Lukács’s theory of class consciousness, he contends that in such historical periods, workers need to be liberated from actions that delay, weaken, and restrict them in order to actively change society. Kagarlitsky, grounded in Lukács’s framework of class consciousness, critiques the erosion of the revolutionary character of the working class by the alienation of consumer society, emphasizes the urgency of reconstructing radical change strategies to break through the barriers of ruling elite interests, and highlights the practical explanatory power of Lukács’s theory in analyzing capitalist crises and the predicaments of leftist practice.

2024年国外学术界对卢卡奇、葛兰西等的研究不断深化。西班牙格拉纳达大学哲学系研究员维奥莱塔·加里多(Violeta Garrido)考察了卢卡奇的无意识理论，通过对马克思主义和无意识之间的交叉点进行细致的分析，为无意识过程如何在历史和社会框架内影响主体和意识提供了新的见解。这一研究将卢卡奇的无意识理论置于马克思主义与精神分析对话场域，为马克思主义与精神分析学派的对话开辟了新路径。此外，在《漫长的退却：扭转左派衰落的策略》一书中，俄罗斯著名社会学家鲍里斯·卡加尔利茨基(Boris Kagarlitsky)认为，西方激进左翼理论家谴责工人阶级宁愿消费而不愿革命，依据卢卡奇的阶级意识理论，在这样的历史时期，工人需要从拖延、削弱、限制行动中解放出来以积极改变社会。卡加尔利茨基立足卢卡奇的阶级意识理论框架，批判消费社会异化对工人阶级革命性的消解，强调重构激进变革策略以突破统治精英利益壁垒的紧迫性，凸显了卢卡奇理论在分析资本主义危机与左翼实践困境中的现实解释力。

In Gramsci studies, there has been a shift from theory toward international communist movements and the analysis of social issues. Isak Frumin, Director of the Institute of Higher Education Innovation at the National Research University Higher School of Economics in Russia, and others have used Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony to reconstruct a socialist model of higher education, emphasizing the mission of universities as engines of social transformation and advocating for breaking existing orders and stimulating community vitality and creativity through educational innovation. Their research both continues Gramsci’s emphasis on ideological change and provides a practical pathway for reshaping social equity through contemporary education. Matthana Rodyim, a scholar at the Institute of Asian Languages and Cultures, Mahidol University, Thailand, applied Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony to examine how cultural hegemony accompanied by fear is created, perpetuated, and maintained in Thai political life. She analyzed the systematic planning and reinforcement mechanisms of fear as a tool of ideological control, revealing the hidden operational logic of authoritarian rule in Thailand. This both validates the explanatory power of Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony in non-Western capitalist contexts and exposes the deep coupling of emotional manipulation and symbolic violence in the legitimation process of monarchical autocracy and ruling class power. Tymura Mchellen, a researcher at Clark Atlanta University in the United States, extended Gramsci’s ideological analysis framework to the study of racial privilege by distinguishing between the concepts of “domination” and “hegemony.” She argues that “Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony refers to a state in which a system of values, attitudes, beliefs, and morality is comprehensively permeated throughout society,” and that this permeation plays a role in supporting the status quo within power relations, highlighting the ongoing critical value of Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony for the power dynamics of contemporary capitalism.

在葛兰西研究方面，则呈现从理论向国际共产主义运动和分析社会问题转向的特点。俄罗斯国立高等经济大学高等教育创新研究所所长伊萨克·弗鲁明(Isak Frumin)等以葛兰西文化霸权理论重构社会主义高等教育模式，突出大学作为社会转型引擎的使命，主张通过教育创新打破既有秩序、激发社区活力与创造力,其研究既延续了葛兰西对意识形态变革的重视，又为当代教育重塑社会公平提供了实践化路径。泰国玛希隆大学亚洲语言和文化研究所学者玛哈娜·洛迪姆(Matthana Rodyim)运用葛兰西文化霸权理论考察了在泰国政治生活中伴随恐惧所产生的文化霸权是如何被创造、延续和维持的，分析了恐惧作为意识形态控制工具的系统性策划与强化机制，揭示了泰国威权统治的隐性运作逻辑,既验证了葛兰西文化霸权理论在资本主义非西方语境下的解释力，又暴露了君主专制与统治阶级权力合法化进程中情感操纵与符号暴力的深层耦合。美国克拉克亚特兰大大学研究员蒂穆拉·麦克伦(Tymura Mchellen)则通过区分“统治”与“霸权”概念，将葛兰西的意识形态分析框架延伸至种族特权研究，认为“葛兰西的文化霸权理论指的是一种价值体系、态度、信仰和道德在社会的全面渗透状态”,这种渗透在权力关系中起到了支持现状的作用，凸显了葛兰西文化霸权理论对当代资本主义权力动态的持续批判价值。

In 2024, overseas research on early Western Marxism underwent a paradigm shift from textual interpretation to the diagnosis of practical problems, exhibiting characteristics that emphasize both theoretical expansion and practical critique. This demonstrates the strong vitality and explanatory power of the Marxist critical tradition in dynamically responding to new crises of capitalism.

2024年国外学界对早期西方马克思主义的研究从文本阐释到现实问题诊断的范式转换，呈现理论纵深拓展与实践批判并重的特征，彰显了马克思主义批判传统对资本主义新危机动态回应的强大生命力与解释力。

(B) Research on the Frankfurt School

(二)法兰克福学派研究

In research on the Frankfurt School, there has been a “new interpretation” of “old themes,” meaning a re-elaboration of original important theoretical issues in the contemporary context, forming a problem-oriented, open, cross-school, cross-disciplinary, and pluralistically integrated research characteristic. For example, Paul Erxleben, a scholar at the University of Leipzig, Germany, in his book *The Renewal of Critical Theory: Adorno and Foucault in the Force Field of Subject, Power, and Ideology*, reveals deep consensus between Theodor Adorno and Michel Foucault in areas such as “ideology critique” and “modes of subjectivation” through a comparison of the two. His analysis both continues the critical theory tradition of deconstructing capitalist power structures and infuses it with cross-temporal practical vitality, highlighting the reflective power and historical continuity of core concepts in theoretical renewal.

在法兰克福学派的研究方面，呈现出对“旧主题”的“新诠释”,即在当代语境下重新阐发原有重要理论问题，并形成问题导向的、开放的、跨流派跨学科的、多元融合发展的研究特点。如德国莱比锡大学学者保罗·埃克尔本(Paul Erxleben)在《批判理论的更新：主体、权力和意识形态力场中的阿多诺与福柯》一书中通过对西奥多·阿多诺(Theodor Adorno)与米歇尔·福柯(Michel Foucault)二者的比较来揭示两者在“意识形态批判”“主体化方式”等方面的深层共识,其分析既延续了批判理论对资本主义权力结构的解构传统，又为其注入了跨时空的实践活力，凸显了理论更新中核心概念的反思力与历史延续性。

In 2024, overseas academic research on various representative figures of the Frankfurt School and their ideas continued, as did research on the thinkers themselves. The most significant among these was the series of seminars titled “101 Years of Critical Theory: Future Directions and New Challenges,” aimed at exploring the prospects of critical theory as it enters its second century and thereby pointing the way forward for its development. Axel Honneth, Professor of Humanities at Columbia University in the United States and former Director of the Institute for Social Research at Goethe University Frankfurt, and Nancy Fraser, Professor in the Departments of Philosophy and Political Science at the New School for Social Research in the United States, delivered keynote speeches.

2024年国外学界有关法兰克福学派各代表人物及其思想的研究仍在继续，思想家本人的研究也在继续。其中最重要的是“批判理论101周年：未来方向与新挑战”系列研讨会的召开，旨在探讨批判理论进入第二个百年的前景，进而为批判理论的发展指明未来前进方向。美国哥伦比亚大学人文学教授、德国法兰克福大学社会研究所原所长阿克塞尔·霍耐特(Axel Honneth),美国社会研究新学院哲学与政治学系教授南茜·弗雷泽(Nancy Fraser)先后作了主题演讲。

In his keynote speech “One Step Forward or Two Steps Back: Postcolonialism and the West,” Honneth put forward his judgment on the future development direction of critical theory as it enters its second century. Honneth explored the ways in which European culture must change its self-understanding of the past, present, and future. Honneth argued that today, in order to apologize for the colonial crimes committed by “our ancestors” in the past, “our” collective memory, “our” conception of the institutional system, and “our” moral universalism need to be transformed. First, it will show that “our” critical theory in the future must not only engage in a postcolonial rereading of the research and works of classical Western authors but also examine these traditional studies and works from the perspective of colonial experience. Second, to be able to describe the institutional conditions that belong to “us” and even to “ourselves,” it is necessary to fundamentally reposition “our” key political-historical concepts. Third, it is necessary to revise “our” moral universalism, because it presupposes a kind of anthropocentrism that, from the perspective of the descendants of the formerly colonized, appears unacceptable. Honneth’s views not only challenge the interpretive approach of the Western classical tradition but also advocate a repositioning of political-historical concepts and a revision of moral universalism.

霍耐特在《向前一步还是后退两步：后殖民主义和西方》的主题演讲中，提出了其对于批判理论进入第二个百年未来发展方向的判断。霍耐特探讨了欧洲文化需要以何种方式改变其对过去、现在和未来的自我理解。霍耐特认为，今天为了向“我们的祖先”在过去犯下的殖民罪行致歉，“我们的”集体记忆、“我们的”对制度体系的构想、“我们的”道德普遍主义，需要进行转变。第一，它将表明“我们的”批判理论未来不仅要对西方经典作家的研究和作品进行后殖民时代的重读，还需要以殖民经验视角审视这些传统的研究和作品。第二，为了能够描述属于“我们”甚至归属于“我们自己”的制度条件，有必要从根本上重新定位“我们”关键的政治历史概念。第三，有必要修正“我们的”道德普遍主义，因为它预设了一种人类中心主义，从过去被殖民者的后代的角度看，这种人类中心主义似乎不可接受。霍耐特的观点不仅挑战了西方经典传统的解读方式，还倡导了对政治历史概念的重新定位与对道德普遍主义的修正。

In her keynote speech “The Three Faces of Capitalist Labor: The Hidden Links between Gender, Race, and Class,” Fraser argued that in the future, based on dissatisfaction with identity politics, a larger paradigm capable of unifying different forms of struggle should be sought. In this, labor is the hidden link between gender, race, and class. Fraser pointed out that her inspiration comes from W. E. B. Du Bois’s argument in *The Souls of Black Folk*, namely that Du Bois described the abolitionist movement as a labor movement, arguing that the anti-slavery forces and the free white workers’ movement failed to recognize each other. Fraser argued that a third type—feminism—needs to be added, and that feminism must also be regarded as a labor movement. Capitalist society relies on three different types of labor: tamed labor, dispossessed labor, and exploited labor. The structural interweaving of these three different types of labor constitutes the intrinsic, systematic connection between gender, race, and class. Fraser believed that exposing these hidden connections can reveal the relationships among the three types of labor and assess the prospects for uniting them. Fraser’s analysis profoundly reveals the intrinsic connections between gender, race, and class in capitalist society, proposing that feminism be regarded as part of the labor movement to unify different forms of struggle, providing a new perspective for understanding and responding to the structural injustices of capitalist society. Her theory is not only enlightening but also provides a theoretical basis for the unification of future social movements.

弗雷泽在《资本主义劳动的三张面孔：性别、种族和阶级的隐秘联系》的主题演讲中认为未来基于对身份政治的不满，应寻找能够统一不同斗争形式的更大范式。这其中，劳动是性别、种族和阶级之间隐藏的纽带。弗雷泽指出其灵感来自威艾·伯·杜波伊斯(W.E.B.Du Bois)在《黑人的灵魂》中的主张，即杜波依斯将废奴运动描述为一场劳工运动，认为反奴隶制力量与自由的白人工人运动未能相互承认。弗雷泽认为需要增加第三种类型——女权主义，需要将女权主义也视为一种劳工运动。资本主义社会依赖于三种不同类型的劳动，即被驯服的、被剥夺的和被剥削的劳动，这三种不同类型的劳动的结构性交织构成了性别、种族和阶级之间内在的、系统性的联系。弗雷泽认为，揭露这些隐性联系，可以揭示三种劳动之间的关系，并评估将它们联合起来的前景。弗雷泽的分析深刻揭示了资本主义社会中性别、种族和阶级的内在联系，提出将女权主义视为劳工运动的一部分，以统一不同斗争形式，为理解并应对资本主义社会的结构性不公提供了新视角。其理论不仅富有启发性，也为未来的社会运动联合提供了理论基础。

This series of seminars brought together the strongest voices in the contemporary world of critical theory, and is of great significance for addressing the new challenges facing critical theory, formulating the future development direction of critical theory, reflecting on the ability of critical theory to participate in current social and political change, and contemplating the basic principles for future research in critical theory.

此次系列研讨会汇集了当今世界批判理论界的最强音，为解决批判理论面临的新挑战，制定批判理论未来发展方向，反思批判理论参与当前社会和政治变革的能力，思索批判理论未来研究的基本原则都具有重要意义。

(III) Critical Research on Post-Marxism

(三)对后马克思主义的批判研究

Since its rise in the 1970s, foreign post-Marxism has continuously solidified its prejudice against the “essentialism” of “traditional Marxism,” emphasizing issues of contingency, discursive construction, and cultural politics. Against the backdrop of drastic changes in the global political and economic landscape, post-Marxist research in 2024 has exhibited new characteristics in terms of overall cognition, theoretical deepening, and responses to reality.

国外后马克思主义自20世纪70年代兴起以来，持续固化对“传统马克思主义”的“本质主义”偏见，强调偶然性、话语建构和文化政治等问题。在全球政治经济格局剧烈变动的背景下，2024年后马克思主义研究在整体认知、理论深化、现实回应等方面呈现出新的特点。

Regarding the overall cognition of post-Marxism, Clyde W. Barrow, Professor of Political Science at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, argues in the *Critical Political Encyclopedia* that the most fundamental difference between post-Marxism and other “post-theories” lies in the fact that Marxist concepts, even if insufficient, remain necessary for understanding post-industrial society and global capitalism. Specifically, Antonio Negri, André Gorz, and others, through their analysis of the capitalist economy based on Marx’s *Grundrisse*, have elaborated a unique theoretical foundation for post-Marxist politics. However, among post-Marxists, the core position of the working class has been weakened, and emphasis has shifted to alliances of multiple subjects; the working class is no longer the sole revolutionary subject. “Post-Marxists have consistently failed to successfully find a new revolutionary subject capable of assuming the historical mission previously borne by the proletariat.” Barrow’s analysis reveals the rupture between theoretical innovation and practical feasibility in post-Marxism.

关于后马克思主义的整体认知。美国得克萨斯大学里奥格兰德河谷分校政治学教授克莱德·W.巴罗(Clyde W.Barrow)在《批判政治百科全书》中认为，后马克思主义与其他“后理论”之间最根本的区别在于，马克思主义概念对于理解后工业社会和全球资本主义而言，即便是不充分的，但仍是必要的。具体而言，安东尼奥·奈格里(Antonio Negri)、安德烈·高兹(André Gorz)等人通过对建立在马克思《政治经济学批判大纲》基础上的资本主义经济的分析研究，阐述了一种独特的后马克思主义政治理论基础。然而，在后马克思主义者那里，削弱了工人阶级的核心地位，转而强调多元主体的联盟，工人阶级不再是唯一的革命主体，“后马克思主义者一直未能成功地找到一个能够承担起此前由无产阶级所肩负的历史使命的新革命主体”。巴罗的分析展示了后马克思主义在理论创新性与实践可行性上的断裂。

María Constanza Moretti, a scholar at the National University of Lanús in Argentina, reveals the theoretical tension in post-Marxism’s attempt to reconcile “deconstruction” and “inheritance.” Moretti argues that the “post-” dimension of post-Marxism refers to the proposal to “critique and transcend” Marxism, while the “Marxism” dimension means that it retains Marxist materialist analysis. Post-Marxism reflects on the historical process of leftist movements fraught with setbacks, and its core viewpoints are actually three: first, it no longer regards the economic determinism of class as a necessary concept; second, besides class, there are transformative actors, such as feminists, anti-racists, and environmental activists; third, it holds that there is a class essentialism, meaning that class membership determining political subjectivity in an a priori manner will no longer be possible. These various post-Marxist cognitive logics innovate ways of constructing collective identity and political feasibility. This shows that post-Marxism has deviated from the Marxist paradigm of class analysis, fallen into the shackles of identity politics, and rather than “critiquing and transcending” Marxism, it is increasingly moving away from the dimension of materialist analysis.

阿根廷拉努斯国立大学学者玛丽亚·康斯坦萨·莫雷蒂(María Constanza Moretti)则揭示了后马克思主义试图调和“解构”与“继承”的理论张力。莫雷蒂认为后马克思主义的“后”这一维度指的是“批判并超越了”马克思主义的提议，而“马克思主义”这一维度意味着它又保留了马克思主义唯物主义的分析。后马克思主义反思了充满挫折的左翼运动的历史进程，其核心观点实际有三个：一是不再将阶级的经济决定论视为一种必然的观念；二是除了阶级之外，还存在变革性的行动者，如女权主义者、反种族主义者以及环保运动者等；三是认为存在一种阶级本质主义，即阶级成员身份以一种先验的方式决定政治主体性将不再可能。诸种后马克思主义的认识逻辑创新了构建集体身份和政治可行性的方式。这表明，后马克思主义背离了马克思主义的阶级分析范式，陷入身份政治的桎梏中，并非“批判并超越了”马克思主义，而是日益远离了唯物主义的分析维度。

Regarding radical plural democracy. Building on the theory of “radical plural democracy” by Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, scholars have further explored how to reconstruct democratic politics against the backdrop of the resurgence of right-wing populism (such as the rise of far-right parties in Europe and America) and the return of authoritarianism, thereby reinterpreting the theory of radical plural democracy. For example, Giorgi Tskhadaia, a scholar at Caucasus University in Georgia, retains the post-structuralist critique of essentialized identity while attempting to respond to the fragmentation of political identity and the crisis of institutional legitimacy in capitalist society in the era of economic globalization through a radical democratic strategy of “universalized particularity.” Alex Yates, a scholar at the University of Bath in the UK, argues that Laclau and Mouffe’s “radical plural democracy” should be described as a universal non-belonging, reducing plurality to a lack essential to all subjects, emphasizing possible forms of pluralization and counter-hegemony, thereby enabling “us” to propose the concept of “the people” and thus reconstruct the form of democratic politics. Yates’s analysis exposes the risk of vacuity in post-Marxist democratic theory within antagonistic mobilization.

关于激进多元民主。以恩斯特·拉克劳(Ernesto Laclau)和尚塔尔·墨菲(Chantal Mouffe)的“激进多元民主”理论为基础，学者们进一步探讨如何在右翼民粹主义(如欧美极右翼政党崛起)和威权主义回潮的背景下重构民主政治的问题，由此作出了对激进多元民主理论的再诠释。如格鲁吉亚高加索大学学者佐吉·茨哈达亚(Giorgi Tskhadaia)既保留了后结构主义对本质化同一性的批判，又试图以“普遍化特殊性”的激进民主策略回应经济全球化时代资本主义社会政治认同碎片化与制度合法性危机。英国巴斯大学学者亚历克斯·耶茨(Alex Yates)则认为应该将拉克劳和墨菲的“激进多元民主”描述为普遍的非归属性，将多元性归结为基于所有主体共有的本质缺失，强调可能出现的多元化和反霸权形式，由此使“我们”能够提出“人民”概念，从而重构民主政治形式。耶茨的分析暴露了后马克思主义民主理论在对抗性动员中的空泛化风险。

On biopolitics. Biopolitics is a concept proposed by Michel Foucault in his 1976 lecture series at the Collège de France, *Society Must Be Defended*. In subsequent lectures, Foucault elaborated in detail on how biopolitics, as a “new power” targeting the human body, influences modern society. However, this concept did not attract sufficient attention at the time. It was not until the publication of Giorgio Agamben’s *Homo Sacer* that the status of “biopolitics” within Western Marxist studies became increasingly prominent, especially during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, when it became an important topic in post-Marxist discussions and was widely applied to critiques of modern capitalist governance, revealing the logic of power and mechanisms of domination behind capitalism. For example, Daniele Lorenzini, a scholar at the University of Pennsylvania in the United States, critiques the differential forms of vulnerability caused by capitalist biopolitical power, arguing that these forms of differential vulnerability were particularly pronounced during the COVID-19 pandemic. He explores conceptual and methodological issues related to Foucault’s study of biopolitics, contending that one of Foucault’s most valuable insights is that biopolitics in capitalist society is a politics that necessarily entails differential vulnerability, and that the critical theory of biopolitical power constitutes an effective strategic response to the current injustices of capitalist society.

关于生命政治。生命政治，是由福柯1976年在法兰西学院的讲座《必须保卫社会》中提出的概念。在后续的演讲中，福柯详细地诠释了生命政治作为一种瞄准人之肉体的“新的权力”是如何影响现代社会的。但这一概念在当时并没有引起足够关注，直到吉奥乔·阿甘本(Giorgio Agamben)的《神圣人》出版，“生命政治”在国外马克思主义研究中的地位才日益凸显，特别是在新冠疫情期间及其后成为后马克思主义讨论的重要论题，并被广泛运用于对现代资本主义治理方式的批判，揭示资本主义背后的权力逻辑和统治机制。如美国宾夕法尼亚大学学者丹尼尔·洛伦齐尼(Daniele Lorenzini)对资本主义生命政治权力所造成的差异性脆弱形式进行批判，认为这种差异性脆弱形式在新冠疫情期间尤为突出。其探讨了与福柯生命政治研究相关的概念和方法论问题，认为福柯最有价值的见解之一是认为资本主义社会的生命政治是一种必然包含差异性脆弱的政治，生命政治权力批判理论构成了对资本主义社会当前不公正现象的有效战略回应。

In 2024, Western post-Marxist research, in its overall orientation, continued the Marxist critical stance on the injustice of capitalism, emphasizing cultural politics and multiple subjects, attempting to respond to the challenge of authoritarianism and explore new paths of political practice. This research has both deepened the explanatory power of post-Marxist theory and highlighted its theoretical tensions and practical dilemmas in addressing contemporary complex social problems. However, because it weakens and evades issues such as class politics, it undermines the core critical force of Marxism against capitalist contradictions, making it difficult to form effective practical paths to counter capitalist hegemony. Therefore, it should be understood dialectically.

2024年国外后马克思主义研究在整体认知上延续了马克思主义对资本主义非正义性的批判立场，强调文化政治与多元主体，试图回应威权主义挑战，探索新型政治实践路径，研究既深化了后马克思主义理论的解释力，也凸显了其在应对当代复杂社会问题时的理论张力与实践困境。但因其对阶级政治等问题的弱化和回避削弱了马克思主义对资本主义矛盾的核心批判力，难以形成对抗资本霸权的有效实践路径，因此应对其进行辩证地认识。

II. Theoretical Research Oriented toward Major Practical Issues

二、以重大现实问题为导向的理论研究

In 2024, Western Marxist academic circles conducted research centered on major practical issues closely related to social development, such as ecological critique, spatial critique, and digital capitalist critique, achieving rich results. These three critical genealogies together demonstrate the epochal explanatory power and practical guiding value of Marxist theory in responding to technological revolution and civilizational transformation. They both continue the philosophical inquiry into the essence of capitalism and, through interdisciplinary integration, construct a three-dimensional analytical framework for explaining the crises of capitalist society, injecting new epochal content into the critique of capitalism.

2024年国外马克思主义学界围绕生态批判、空间批判、数字资本主义批判等与社会发展息息相关的重大现实问题展开研究，取得了丰富的成果，三大批判谱系共同展现了马克思主义理论在应对技术革命与文明转型时的时代阐释力与实践指导价值，既延续了对资本主义本质的哲学追问，又通过跨学科融合构建起解释资本主义社会危机的立体分析框架，为资本主义批判注入了新的时代内涵。

(I) Critique of Ecological Capitalism

(一)生态资本主义批判

The critique of ecological capitalism is a theory that deeply analyzes and criticizes the capitalist mode of production and the ecological crises it triggers. This year, in the face of the worsening global ecological crisis, Western Marxist scholars continued the tradition of critiquing capitalist ecological problems, conducting theoretical analyses of ecological crisis issues from perspectives such as the critique of fossil capitalism and the critique of green capitalism, attempting to explore the roots of the ecological crisis and provide new pathways for solving it.

生态资本主义批判是对资本主义生产方式及其引发的生态危机进行深刻剖析和批判的理论。这一年，面对全球生态危机不断加重的社会现实，国外马克思主义学者延续了对资本主义生态问题批判的传统，从化石资本主义批判、绿色资本主义批判等方面对生态危机问题展开理论分析，试图探寻生态危机背后的根源，并为解决生态危机提供新的路径。

Critique of fossil capitalism. Fossil capitalism refers to a capitalist production model formed on the basis of high dependence on fossil energy, which is inefficient and environmentally unfriendly. The critique of fossil capitalism is not only a questioning of the capitalist production model but also an interrogation of its environmental ethics and social responsibility. William K. Carroll, a professor of sociology at the University of Victoria in Canada, published the book *Refusing Ecocide: From Fossil Capitalism to a Liveable World*, which critically analyzes the pernicious role of fossil capitalism in causing climate change. Building on historical materialist concepts—capitalist accumulation, imperialism, hegemony—Carroll attributes the existential crisis triggered by climate change to a development paradigm driven by capital valorization as its core impetus, which achieves economic growth through predatory resource extraction and exploitation of cheap labor, while also criticizing the permissive attitude of Global North countries toward the systemic exploitation of capitalism.

对化石资本主义的批判。化石资本主义是指在高度依赖化石能源基础上形成的资本主义生产模式，效率低且不环保。对化石资本主义的批判不仅是对资本主义生产模式的质疑，更是对其环境伦理和社会责任的拷问。加拿大维多利亚大学社会学教授威廉·K.卡罗尔(William K.Carroll)出版《拒绝生态灭绝：从化石资本主义到宜居世界》一书，对化石资本主义在引发气候变化方面所起的恶劣作用进行了批判性分析，在运用历史唯物主义的概念——资本主义积累、帝国主义、霸权——的基础上，卡罗尔将气候变化引发的生存危机，归因于以资本增殖为核心驱动力的发展范式——通过掠夺性资源开发与廉价劳动力剥削实现经济增长，同时批判了全球北方国家对资本主义制度性剥削的纵容态度。

Critique of green capitalism. Green capitalism is an economic model within the capitalist system that attempts to solve environmental problems through market mechanisms and technological progress. In September 2024, the Global and European Studies Institute at Humboldt University of Berlin and Leipzig University jointly held an academic conference titled “Green Capitalism—A New Accumulation Regime?” Participants argued that green capitalism cannot reconcile the contradictions between capitalism and the Earth system. Although some believe capitalism is the root cause of today’s environmental crisis, certain economists still maintain that it is precisely the pursuit of private profit that will ultimately bring about common ecological benefits, and that with the right incentives, capitalism can achieve a “green economy” more efficiently and with lower consumption than any other economic system. In reality, because capitalist accumulation leads to overexploitation of natural resources and environmental destruction, it is impossible to resolve the ecological crisis within the existing framework of capitalist society. What the world needs today is not only to redefine the nature of the contradiction between capitalism and the Earth system by drawing on Marxist theory, but also to observe how this contradiction unfolds in real time, how it interacts with other capitalist contradictions and crisis tendencies, and how it shapes today’s political economy and social conflicts, so as to respond effectively.

对绿色资本主义的批判。绿色资本主义是在资本主义体系下，试图通过市场手段和技术进步来解决环境问题的经济模式。2024年9月，德国柏林洪堡大学和莱比锡大学全球与欧洲研究所联合举办“绿色资本主义——一种新的积累制度?”学术会议，与会者认为绿色资本主义没有办法调和资本主义与地球系统之间的矛盾。虽然一些人认为资本主义是当今环境危机的根源，但某些经济学家仍然认为，正是对私人利润的追求最终将带来共同的生态利益，通过正确的激励机制，资本主义可以比任何其他经济体系更有效、更低耗地实现“绿色经济”。实际上，由于资本主义社会的资本积累对自然资源的过度开发和环境破坏，在资本主义社会的现有框架内，是无法解决生态危机的。今天世界所需要的不只是参考马克思主义的理论重新定义资本主义与地球系统之间这种矛盾的性质，而且还要观察矛盾如何实时展开，如何与其他资本主义矛盾和危机趋势相互作用，以及它如何塑造今天的政治经济和社会冲突并加以有效应对。

Critique of the metabolic rift crisis of capitalism. To sustain its economic growth and capital accumulation, capitalism continuously extracts and utilizes natural resources, leading to environmental destruction and pollution that exceed nature’s capacity for recovery, thereby causing a rift in the metabolic interaction between human society and nature. John Bellamy Foster, a professor of sociology at the University of Oregon and editor of *Monthly Review*, argues in his 2024 book *Ecological Socialism and the Dialectics of Nature* that Marx’s masterpiece *Capital* constructs the economic and ecological basis for reflecting on capitalism as a social metabolic system. The “ecological dialectics” discussed in this book presupposes classical historical materialism and dialectical naturalist methods and analysis. According to Marx, humans are both part of nature and a force of nature, and there is no rigid division between natural history and social history. However, with the emergence of “capitalist production,” a systemic dislocation has occurred in the metabolic interaction between humans and the Earth, creating a metabolic rift, i.e., an ecological crisis. In this latest work, Foster examines the contradictions between current predatory capitalist development and the quantification and financialization of nature, as well as the radical challenges posed by emerging visions of ecological civilization and planned degrowth. He points out that if revolutionary change is prepared, the reunification of humanity and the Earth remains possible. *Ecological Socialism and the Dialectics of Nature* is a product of contemporary ecosocialist debates. Building on Foster’s earlier works such as *Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature* and *The Return of Nature: Socialism and Ecology*, it explores the potential of ecosocialism to counter capitalist environmental degradation, aiming to develop a dialectical naturalism and open a path for sustainable human development.

对资本主义代谢断裂危机的批判。资本主义为了维持其经济增长和资本积累，不断开采和利用自然资源，导致其对自然环境的破坏和污染，这种破坏和污染超出了自然界的恢复能力，从而引发了人类社会与自然界之间新陈代谢关系的断裂。美国俄勒冈大学社会学教授、《每月评论》期刊主编约翰·贝拉米·福斯特(John Bellamy Foster)在2024年出版的《生态社会主义与自然的辩证法》一书中认为，马克思的杰作《资本论》构建了反思资本主义作为社会代谢系统的经济和生态基础，该书所讨论的“生态辩证法”的前提是经典的历史唯物主义、辩证的自然主义方法和分析，按照马克思的观点，人类既是自然的一部分，同时也是自然力量的一部分，并不存在自然史与社会史之间的僵化划分。而随着“资本主义生产”的出现，人与地球之间的新陈代谢互动出现了系统性错位，造成了新陈代谢断裂，即生态危机。为此，在这部最新作品中，福斯特审视了当前资本主义掠夺式发展与自然被量化并被金融化之间的矛盾，以及新兴的生态文明和计划性缩减增长愿景对这些矛盾所提出的激进挑战，他指出如果准备作出革命性改变，人类与地球的重新统一仍是可能的。《生态社会主义与自然的辩证法》是当代生态社会主义争论的产物，它以福斯特早期作品如《马克思的生态学：唯物主义与自然》《自然的回归：社会主义与生态》等为基础，探索生态社会主义对抗资本主义环境退化的潜力，旨在发展一种辩证自然主义，并为人类可持续发展开辟道路。

The thought of “degrowth communism.” Kohei Saito, Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of the University of Tokyo, inspired by Marx’s later thought, has put forward the view of “degrowth communism.” He argues that capitalism’s pursuit of near-infinite profits is driving humanity to destroy the earth, and that only through “degrowth” can the pace of social production and the flow of wealth be slowed, thereby repairing the damage humans have inflicted on the environment. In 2024, Saito stated in a magazine interview that the ecological behavioral concepts often promoted in the media, such as reducing the use of plastic products, cycling more, and buying electric vehicles, merely reduce individual behavioral changes to a certain extent, making people’s lives more sustainable. Such discussions actually overlook an important fact: the ecological crisis is not individual but systemic. “Capitalism is a system that constantly pursues profit, accompanied by the continuous expansion of production, consumption, and waste, which impacts the earth. If we do not challenge this desire for infinite growth and capitalism, then all proposals for sustainable development cannot be effectively implemented. Furthermore, it is necessary to advocate for reducing economic inequality, because the super-rich not only exploit workers but are also the main responsible parties for the current ecological crisis.” Saito’s analysis directly points to the systemic roots of the ecological crisis, embodying the Marxist profound critique of the capitalist mode of production and class relations, and providing new perspectives and directions for the development and application of Marxist theory in the contemporary era. At the same time, it must be noted that his interpretation of Marx’s thought is subjective; linking “degrowth communism” with Marx’s later thought lacks a basis, and he especially neglects Marx’s dialectical understanding of the development of productive forces. Furthermore, Saito fails to clearly define the meanings of “growth” and “degrowth,” which affects the scientificity and rigor of this theory. His envisioned pathways for achieving “degrowth communism” are relatively simplistic and idealistic, ignoring the complexity of social change and the strong resistance of the capitalist system, and lacking concrete and feasible action strategies and practical plans, bearing a clear utopian character.

“去增长共产主义”思想。日本东京大学研究生院综合文化研究科副教授斋藤幸平(Kohei Saito)受马克思晚年思想的启发提出了关于“去增长共产主义”观点。他认为，资本主义对近乎无限利润的追求正在驱动人类摧毁地球，只有通过“去增长”才能减缓社会生产、财富流动的速度，进而修复人类对环境造成的伤害。2024年斋藤幸平接受杂志专访表示，媒体中常常宣扬的生态行为理念，往往只是关于减少塑料制品使用、多骑自行车出行以及购买电动汽车等，这些都只是将个人行为的改变缩减到一定程度，从而让人们的生活变得更具可持续性。在这样的论述中，实际都忽视了一个重要事实，即生态危机并非个体的，而是系统性的问题。“资本主义是一个不断追求利润的系统，伴随着生产、消费和废弃物的不断扩张，对地球产生影响。如果我们不挑战这种无限增长的欲望以及资本主义，那么所有可持续发展的提议都无法得到有效推行。此外，要倡导减少经济不平等，因为超级富豪不仅剥削工人，而且他们也是当前生态危机的主要责任者。”斋藤幸平的分析直指生态危机的系统性根源，体现了马克思主义对资本主义生产方式和阶级关系的深刻批判，为马克思主义理论在当代的发展和应用提供了新的视角和方向。同时也要看到，其对马克思思想的解读存在主观性，其将“去增长共产主义”与马克思的晚年思想联系在一起缺乏依据，尤其是他忽视了马克思对生产力发展的辩证认识。此外，斋藤幸平未能清晰界定“增长”及“去增长”的含义，影响了该理论的科学性和严谨性。而其对实现“去增长共产主义”的途径设想较为简单和理想化，忽视了社会变革的复杂性和资本主义制度的强大阻力，更缺乏具体可行的行动策略和实践方案，带有明显的乌托邦色彩。

In 2024, foreign Marxist ecological critique theory focused on the systemic ecological crisis of capitalism, revealing the predatory nature of capital accumulation through the critique of fossil capitalism, deepening the analysis of the alienation of the human-nature relationship with the theory of metabolic rift, refuting the reformist schemes of green capitalism, and proposing alternative paths such as eco-socialism and “degrowth communism,” demonstrating the theoretical value of Marxism in the era of ecological crisis.

2024年国外马克思主义生态批判理论聚焦资本主义系统性生态危机，通过化石资本主义批判揭示资本积累的掠夺本质，以新陈代谢断裂理论深化对人与自然关系异化的分析，驳斥绿色资本主义改良方案，提出生态社会主义与“去增长共产主义”等替代路径，展现了马克思主义在生态危机时代的理论价值。

(II) Critique of Spatial Capitalism

(二)空间资本主义批判

The critique of spatial capitalism mainly focuses on the spatial turn of the capitalist mode of production and its impact on social relations. In 2024, foreign Marxist scholars developed their critique of contemporary capitalism from the perspectives of urban space, production space, social space, and the relationships between physical space and virtual space, revealing how capitalism maintains and expands its rule through different types of spatial production, as well as the impact of this spatial production on human social relations, cultural identity, and daily life. This not only deeply analyzes the political economy and sociological significance of space but also provides us with a new perspective for understanding modern society, with their theoretical reflections advancing further.

空间资本主义批判主要关注资本主义生产方式的空间转向及其对社会关系的影响。2024年国外马克思主义学者从城市空间、生产空间、社会空间，实体空间和虚拟空间等的关系方面展开对当代资本主义的批判，揭示了资本主义如何通过不同类型的空间生产来维持和扩大其统治，以及这种空间生产对人类社会关系、文化认同和日常生活等方面的影响，不仅深入剖析了空间的政治经济学和社会学意义，还为我们提供了理解现代社会的全新视角，其理论思考进一步走向深入。

For example, Grégory Busquet, Professor at Paris Nanterre University in France, through an analysis of Lefebvre’s spatial theory, reveals the inseparable connection between urban rights and social revolution, proposing that fundamental changes in spatial production under the capitalist system depend on a comprehensive transformation of social relations. In November 2024, the Twelfth World Urban Forum (WUF12), convened by the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), was held in Cairo, Egypt, marking its return to the African continent after more than 20 years since the forum was held in Nairobi, Kenya, in 2002. David Harvey, a prominent contemporary Western geographer and Distinguished Professor of Anthropology and Geography at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, delivered a video speech at the forum on “Housing is Our Future.” From the perspective of Marxist political economy, Harvey profoundly analyzed the impact of the logic of capital accumulation on the housing market and its reinforcement of social inequality, calling on people worldwide to organize against the improper behavior of the billionaire class in the housing market. This call has a distinct action-oriented character, aiming to stimulate attention to housing issues across society and promote consensus to jointly seek solutions.

如法国巴黎南泰尔大学教授格雷戈里·布斯凯(Grégory Busquet)通过对列斐伏尔空间理论的分析，揭示了城市权利与社会革命不可分割的联系，提出了资本主义制度下空间生产的根本变革需依赖于社会关系全面改造的观点。2024年11月由联合国人类住区规划署(UN-Habitat)召集的第十二届世界城市论坛(WUF12)在埃及开罗举行，这是自2002年该论坛在肯尼亚内罗毕举办以来，时隔20多年再次回到非洲大陆。当代西方著名地理学家、美国纽约市立大学研究院人类学和地理学特聘教授大卫·哈维(David Harvey)在该论坛上发表关于“住房是我们的未来”的视频演讲，哈维从马克思主义政治经济学的角度，深刻剖析了资本积累逻辑对住房市场的影响、对社会不平等的强化，呼吁全世界组织起来反对亿万富豪阶层在住房市场上的不当行为,这一呼吁具有鲜明的行动导向，旨在激发社会各界对住房问题的关注，并推动形成共识，共同寻求解决方案。

Manuel Castells, Professor at the University of Southern California and a renowned Marxist urbanist, published a new book, *Introduction to the Digital Society*, which deeply studies the role of social media in capitalist social life in the digital age. He argues that while social media provides opportunities for marginalized groups to voice their opinions, it also carries risks such as exposure of personal information, lack of privacy, and the spread of fake news. Social networks give rise to transnational social movements and new decision-making methods, forming virtual communities that can quickly establish global connections and generate widespread influence. However, the digital space also has risks: information is easily manipulated and misled, and its speed of dissemination can lead to a lack of depth in debate and hinder consensus-building. Ultimately, Castells elucidates how digital technology has become the foundation of the “digital society” today. Castells’ analysis profoundly reveals the duality of capitalist digital society: technology provides tools for capital to manipulate information, exacerbate alienation, and spread false ideology, while simultaneously, in the context of class antagonism, it gives rise to new arenas for transnational proletarian struggle, offering potential theoretical support for future transformation.

美国南加利福尼亚大学教授、著名马克思主义城市学家曼纽尔·卡斯特尔(Manuel Castells)出版新著《数字社会进阶导论》,深入研究了数字时代社交媒体在资本主义社会生活中的作用，认为社交媒体虽然给边缘群体提供了发声机会，但存在个人信息暴露、缺少隐私、传播虚假新闻等风险。社交网络催生跨国社会运动与新决策方式，形成虚拟社区，能快速建立全球联系、产生广泛影响。不过，数字空间也有风险，即信息易被操纵、误导，其传播速度还会让辩论缺乏深度、阻碍共识达成。最终，卡斯特尔阐明了当今数字技术是如何成为“数字社会”的基础的。卡斯特尔的分析深刻揭示了资本主义数字社会的双重性：技术既为资本操控信息、加剧异化与虚假意识形态提供工具，又在阶级对抗中催生跨国无产阶级斗争新场域，这为未来变革提供可能理论支持。

In 2024, foreign Marxist research on the critique of spatial capitalism expanded the Marxist framework for spatial analysis, highlighting the logic of capital’s rule through the dual expansion of physical and virtual space, providing a critical perspective for understanding the spatial contradictions of contemporary society.

2024年国外马克思主义空间资本主义批判研究拓展了马克思主义空间分析框架，凸显资本通过实体与虚拟空间双重扩张的统治逻辑，为理解当代社会空间化矛盾提供了批判性视角。

(III) Critique of Digital Capitalism

(三)数字资本主义批判

The critique of digital capitalism focuses on the role of digital technologies (such as the internet, big data, and artificial intelligence) in contemporary capitalism, systematically reflecting on issues such as new forms of exploitation, concentration of power, and social alienation triggered by the deep embedding of digital technology into the capitalist system, revealing the escalation and mutation of traditional capitalist contradictions in the digital age. In the critique of digital capitalism, this object of critique is also sometimes referred to as “platform capitalism,” “techno-feudalism,” “surveillance capitalism,” “data capitalism,” “information capitalism,” or “network capitalism.” In 2024, the critique of digital capitalism continued to heat up, with foreign scholars conducting critiques around the exploitative essence of digital capitalism, the social problems it triggers, and new forms of geopolitical competition, yielding substantial results.

数字资本主义批判，聚焦数字技术(如互联网、大数据、人工智能)在当代资本主义中的作用，对数字技术深度嵌入资本主义体系后所引发的新型剥削、权力集中、社会异化等问题进行系统性反思，揭示传统资本主义矛盾在数字时代的升级与变异。在数字资本主义批判中，这一批判对象有时也被称为“平台资本主义”“技术封建主义”“监控资本主义”“数据资本主义”“信息资本主义”“网络资本主义”等。2024年，数字资本主义批判持续升温，国外学者围绕数字资本主义剥削实质、所引发社会问题、新型地缘政治竞争等问题展开批判，成果颇丰。

Critique of social problems triggered by digital capitalism. The essence of exploitation in digital capitalism is the concealment, complication, and global extension of the exploitative logic of traditional capitalism under the conditions of digital technology. Its core lies in transforming users’ daily behavior, labor, and creativity into capitalizable resources through data control, algorithmic power, and platform monopoly, thereby reshaping the mechanism for extracting surplus value. Since the 2008 international financial crisis, class, ethnic, and religious contradictions in Western societies have become increasingly acute, extreme political forces such as right-wing populism have developed rapidly, and the “liberal democracy” system vaunted by the West has increasingly fallen into crisis. At the same time, with the development of the internet and artificial intelligence technologies, some new changes have also emerged in Western capitalism. These technological innovations have not only failed to alleviate the crisis of capitalism but have instead, under the effect of capital, given rise to phenomena that some foreign Marxists call “techno-feudalism,” further exacerbating class contradictions and social crises in capitalist societies. Since 2020, a critical trend of thought on techno-feudalism, represented by Yanis Varoufakis, Cédric Durand, Jodi Dean, and others, has emerged. On the basis of research on issues such as data exploitation, algorithmic control, the digital divide, the algorithmic black box, and the gig economy, the analysis of the exploitative essence of digital capitalism in 2024 has mainly focused on the perspective of techno-feudalism. For example, in February 2024, former Greek Finance Minister and left-wing economist Yanis Varoufakis published a new book, *Technofeudalism: What Killed Capitalism*, arguing that the current form of exploitation has actually shifted from profit-driven capitalism to rent-driven feudalism. Because cloud capital and algorithmic capital create new digital territories, they form a new system with feudal characteristics that is more advanced, weakening the market and profit pillars of capitalism. Algorithms undermine dialogue and are detrimental to democracy, and this form of exploitation also reinforces oppression such as patriarchy. To this end, Varoufakis advocates integrating “cloud proletarians” (platform gig economy workers), “cloud serfs” (platform consumers controlled on the territory of cloud capital, who produce data and profits for it without compensation), and some dependent capital forces (third-party enterprises that rely on the ecosystem and must endure systemic exploitation) to form a cross-class digital alliance to confront the digital hegemony of “cloud lords” (platform-based tech giants such as Amazon, Apple, and Steam). Varoufakis reveals a new form of exploitation in which power is highly concentrated in the hands of “cloud lords” in the digital age. Although his proposed cross-class digital alliance is critical and innovative, its implementation path still faces deep challenges of interest integration under the monopoly structure of the digital economy.

对数字资本主义引发社会问题的批判。数字资本主义剥削的实质是传统资本主义剥削逻辑在数字技术条件下的隐蔽化、复杂化与全球化延伸。其核心在于通过数据控制、算法权力与平台垄断等，将用户的日常行为、劳动力和创造力转化为可资本化的资源，并重塑剩余价值的攫取机制。2008年国际金融危机以来，西方社会的阶级、种族与宗教矛盾日益尖锐，右翼民粹主义等极端政治势力快速发展，西方所标榜的“自由民主”制度日益陷入危机。与此同时，伴随着互联网和人工智能技术的发展，西方资本主义也出现了一些新变化。这些技术上的革新不仅没有缓解资本主义的危机，反而在资本的作用下形成了一些国外马克思主义者所谓的“技术封建主义”等现象，进一步加剧了资本主义社会的阶级矛盾和社会危机。自2020年以来，以亚尼斯·瓦鲁法基斯(Yanis Varoufakis)、塞德里克·迪朗(Cédric Durand)、约迪·迪恩(Jodi Dean)等人为代表的技术封建主义批判思潮兴起。在数据剥削、算法控制、数字鸿沟、算法黑箱、零工经济等问题研究的基础上，2024年对数字资本主义剥削实质的分析主要集中于从技术封建主义角度展开。如2024年2月，希腊财政部前部长、左翼经济学家亚尼斯·瓦鲁法基斯出版新书《技术封建主义：是什么扼杀了资本主义》,认为现在的剥削形式实际上已经从利润驱动的资本主义转向租金驱动的封建主义，因云资本、算法资本创造新数字领地，形成具封建特征且更先进的新制度，削弱了资本主义的市场和利润支柱。算法破坏对话、不利民主，这种剥削形式还强化父权制等压迫。为此，瓦鲁法基斯主张整合“云无产者”(平台零工经济从业者)、“云农奴”(被控制在云资本的领地上、无偿为其生产数据和利润的平台消费者)及部分附庸资本力量(依赖生态系统不得不承受系统性剥削的第三方企业),建立跨阶层数字同盟，对抗“云领主”(如亚马逊、苹果、Steam等平台型科技巨头)的数字霸权。瓦鲁法基斯揭示了数字时代权力高度集中于“云领主”的新型剥削形态，其主张的跨阶层数字同盟虽具批判性和创新性，但实施路径仍面临数字经济垄断结构下利益整合的深层挑战。

In a 2024 interview, the renowned Western philosopher Slavoj Žižek argued that with the development of the internet and artificial intelligence technologies, many leftists in the West are obsessed with criticizing neoliberal capitalism while neglecting a major change: the transformation from neoliberal capitalism to a strange kind of capitalism, which some analysts call “corporate neo-feudalism.” Due to the key role of “general intellect” in wealth creation, when the wealth produced becomes increasingly disproportionate to the direct labor time spent producing it, the result is not the disintegration of capitalism as Marx expected, but the gradual transformation of profits extracted from the exploitation of the working class into rents. This rent is the product of the privatization of “general intellect” and other public resources. Virtual space will transcend people’s fragmented and scarred reality. In this virtual space, people will interact with “augmented reality” (AR) through their avatars. Therefore, it will be nothing less than the actualization of metaphysics: a metaphysical space that fully encompasses reality, into which reality can enter only in fragments when it is overlaid with digital codes that manipulate people’s perceptions. But the problem is that what people will get is a public space controlled by private interests, a space where “feudal lords” supervise and manage people’s interactions.

西方著名哲学家斯拉沃热·齐泽克(Slavoj Žižek)在2024年的专访中认为，伴随着互联网和人工智能技术的发展，西方的许多左派人士沉迷于对新自由主义资本主义的批判，而忽视了一个重大变化，即从新自由主义资本主义到一种奇怪的资本主义的转变，一些分析家称之为“企业新封建主义”(Corporate Neo-feudalism)。由于“一般智力”在财富创造中的关键作用，当财富与生产这些财富所花费的直接劳动时间越来越不成比例时，其结果就不是马克思所预期的资本主义的解体，而是剥削工人阶级所获得的利润被逐渐转化为租金，这种租金是“一般智力”及其他公共资源被私有化的产物。虚拟空间将超越人们支离破碎、伤痕累累的现实，在这个虚拟空间中，人们将通过他们的虚拟化身与“增强现实”(augmented reality, AR)互动。因此，它将不亚于形而上学的现实化：一个完全包容现实的形而上学空间，只有当它被操纵人们感知的数字准则所覆盖时，现实才能以碎片的形式进入其中。但问题是，人们得到的将是一个被私人控制的公共空间，一个由“封建主”来监督和管理人们的互动。

The capital model driven by digital technology is triggering a profound restructuring of the global economic landscape, yet the value increment it creates has not achieved inclusive sharing. Regarding this situation, Hany Besada, Senior Research Advisor at the United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation, points out that while this new economic paradigm is reshaping the form of industrial chains and the mechanism of wealth creation, it is simultaneously exacerbating regional gaps and group differentiation in the distribution of technological dividends, forming a digital divide between center and periphery, hindering inclusive development, and impeding people’s access to basic services, participation in the digital economy, and ability to contribute to innovation. Gaps in policy and institutions mean that many Global South countries lack the institutional capacity and regulatory frameworks needed to support digital innovation and protect user rights, particularly the lack of strong data protection and privacy laws, which poses serious risks to vulnerable groups. When users perceive digital platforms as unsafe or prone to abuse, they are less likely to participate in online activities, thereby hindering the growth of the digital economy in Global South countries. Furthermore, international enterprises and organizations often make strong data protection a prerequisite for investment, and countries lacking such frameworks may be further constrained in their ability to develop digitally and integrate into the global digital economy, thereby further exacerbating the center-periphery digital divide.

数字技术驱动的资本模式正在引发全球经济格局的深刻重构，然而其创造的价值增量并未实现普惠性共享。对于该状况，联合国南南合作办公室资深研究顾问哈尼·贝萨达(Hany Besada)指出，这种新型经济范式在重塑产业链形态与财富创造机制的同时，正加剧着技术红利分配的区域断层和群体分化，形成中心与边缘的数字化鸿沟，阻碍包容性发展，阻碍人们获取基本服务、参与数字经济以及为创新作出贡献。在政策与制度方面存在的差距导致许多全球南方国家缺乏支持数字创新和保护用户权利所需的制度能力及监管框架，特别是缺乏强有力的数据保护和隐私法，这给弱势群体带来了严重风险。当用户认为数字平台不安全或容易被滥用时，他们更不可能参与在线活动，从而阻碍全球南方国家数字经济的增长。此外，国际企业与组织通常将强大的数据保护作为投资的前提条件之一，缺乏此类框架的国家可能会进一步被限制数字化发展以及融入全球数字经济的能力，由此中心-边缘的数字鸿沟进一步加剧。

In 2024, foreign scholars’ critique of digital capitalism deepened further, not only revealing the concealment and complication of its exploitative essence as it extends from traditional capitalism to techno-feudalism, but also criticizing the social problems and the exacerbation of inequality among nations triggered by this. These studies have not only deepened the understanding of digital capitalism but also provided theoretical support for seeking a more just and inclusive path for digital social development.

2024年，国外学者对数字资本主义的批判进一步深入，不仅揭示了其剥削实质从传统资本主义向技术封建主义的隐蔽化、复杂化延伸，还批判了由此引发的社会问题和国家间不平等加剧的现象。这些研究不仅深化了对数字资本主义的理解，也为寻求更加公正、包容的数字社会发展路径提供了理论支持。

III. Tracking Research on New Changes in Contemporary Capitalism

三、当代资本主义新变化的追踪研究

Today, as generative AI reshapes global value chains, geoeconomic fragmentation accelerates institutional competition, and the financialization of climate change restructures the logic of capital accumulation, contemporary capitalism is undergoing a systemic transformation that is more complex and contradictory. Against this backdrop, foreign Marxist theoretical circles focus on critical analyses of issues such as new imperialism and neoliberalism, revealing the characteristics of capitalism’s changes in the dimensions of time and space and its inherent limits.

在生成式人工智能重塑全球价值链、地缘经济裂变加速制度竞争、气候金融化重构资本积累逻辑的今天，当代资本主义正经历着更具复杂性与矛盾性的系统性蜕变。在此背景下，国外马克思主义理论界聚焦新帝国主义、新自由主义等问题展开批判性分析，揭示资本主义在时空维度上的变化特点及其内在限度。

(A) Inheritance and Development of Lenin’s Theory of Imperialism

(一)对列宁帝国主义论的继承和发展

A century ago, Lenin passed away in Gorki, southeast of Moscow. This revolutionary mentor, who burned the fire of life through 54 years of spring and autumn, pierced the gloom of the old world with the ideological blades of *The State and Revolution* and *Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism*, illuminated the cause of human liberation with the practical torch of the October Revolution, and built a beacon of thought and a cornerstone of institutions for the socialist movement from the 20th century onward. A century later today, as the dark clouds of neocolonialism once again envelop the globe, Lenin’s theses on imperialism still thunder through the long river of history, penetrating time and space.

百年前，列宁在莫斯科东南的戈尔基村与世长辞。这位用54载春秋燃尽生命之火的革命导师，以《国家与革命》《帝国主义是资本主义的最高阶段》等的思想利刃刺破旧世界阴霾，用十月革命的实践火炬照亮人类解放事业，为20世纪以降的社会主义运动构筑了思想灯塔与制度基石。百年后的今天，当新殖民主义的阴云再度笼罩全球，列宁关于帝国主义的论断仍在历史长空中发出穿透时空的雷鸣。

John Bellamy Foster, in a commemorative article published in *Monthly Review*, reviewed the development of Lenin’s theory of imperialism. He argued that although the more Eurocentric tendencies within Western Marxism have long attempted in various ways to weaken the theory of imperialism, Lenin’s classic work *Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism* has remained central to all discussions of imperialism for over a century. This is not only because of its precise explanation of the First and Second World Wars but also because of its usefulness in interpreting the imperial order after the Second World War. However, Lenin’s overall analysis does not exist in isolation; it has been supplemented and updated at different times by dependency theory, unequal exchange theory, world-systems theory, and global value chain analysis to adapt to new historical developments.

约翰·贝拉米·福斯特在《每月评论》发表纪念性文章回顾了列宁帝国主义论的发展历程，认为尽管西方马克思主义中更具欧洲中心论倾向的部分长期以来一直试图以各种方式削弱帝国主义理论，但列宁的经典著作《帝国主义是资本主义的最高阶段》在超过一个世纪的时间里，仍在所有关于帝国主义的讨论中占据核心地位，这不仅是因为其对第一次和第二次世界大战的精准解释，还因为它对第二次世界大战后的帝国秩序的阐释十分有用。然而，列宁的整体分析并非孤立存在，而是不同时期被依附理论、不平等交换理论、世界体系理论以及全球价值链分析所补充和更新，以适应新的历史发展。

Furthermore, Foster argues that erroneous views now frequently emerge from the Western left, such as the claim that both China and the United States are “imperialist states” leading “hostile imperialist blocs.” This new imperialist argument depends on treating the People’s Republic of China as an imperialist power in the same sense as the United States, while ignoring the role of “socialism with Chinese characteristics” and China’s entire development path, as well as the global center-periphery inequality pattern. As a Global South country, China’s foreign policy has been committed to promoting national self-determination while opposing bloc geopolitics and military intervention, rather than seeking to join the US-led imperialist order based on hegemonic rules or replace it with a new imperialist order. The three major initiatives [25]25 The three major initiatives refer to the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative, and the Global Civilization Initiative, proposed by Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2021, 2022, and 2023 respectively. proposed by China together constitute the main proposals for world peace in our era. Apart from matters related to defending its own borders, China has not participated in war at all. China has become an economic power, particularly in terms of actual economic production, challenging US global hegemony by virtue of its enormous scale and its own internal growth momentum. However, the United States and other major powers at the center of the capitalist world system as a whole still retain (even if rapidly diminishing) global technological, financial, and military hegemony, and continue to rely on extracting resources and wealth from the Global South.

此外，福斯特认为，现在经常出现来自西方左派的错误观点，如认为中国和美国都属于“帝国主义国家”,领导着“敌对的帝国主义集团”,这一新帝国主义论点取决于将中华人民共和国视为与美国相同意义上的帝国主义大国，而忽视了“中国特色社会主义”的作用和整个中国的发展道路，以及全球中心-边缘的不平等格局。作为全球南方国家，中国的外交政策一直致力于促进民族自决，同时反对集团地缘政治和军事干预，而不是寻求加入美国主导的基于霸权规则的帝国主义秩序，或用新的帝国主义秩序取而代之。中国所提出的三大倡议共同构成了我们这个时代世界和平的主要建议。中国除了与保卫自己的边界有关，根本没有参与战争。中国已成为一个经济大国，特别是在实际经济生产方面，凭借其庞大的规模和自身的内部增长动力，挑战着美国的全球霸权。然而，美国和资本主义世界体系中心的其他巨头作为一个整体，仍然保留着(即使迅速减少)全球的技术、金融和军事霸权，并继续依赖从全球南方攫取资源和财富。

In 2024, multiple Marxist political parties and left-wing political organizations held commemorative thematic conferences, and left-wing progressive figures published commemorative articles marking the 100th anniversary of Lenin’s death, highly evaluating Lenin’s position in the history of the international communist movement and his theory of imperialism. For example, the official website of the Labor Party of the United States reprinted in full the view of the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations (CIPOML), which holds that on the 100th anniversary of Lenin’s death, communists and revolutionaries around the world need to carry out commemorative activities to defend Marxism-Leninism. Marx and Engels had already provided incisive explanations of the foundations of capitalism and its evolution. In the stage of monopoly capitalism, only by relying on Lenin’s theory of imperialism can it be vigorously combated. Lenin’s contribution as the teacher and leader of the international working class is irreplaceable, especially in an era like the present, when the comprehensive crisis of the capitalist system is deepening, with imperialist powers constantly conflicting, sometimes reaching agreements and sometimes diverging, in their struggle for territories, resources, and geostrategic regions around the world. Today, as in the past, the general crisis of the capitalist system once again confirms the correctness of the October Revolution, Lenin, and his legacy. Following Lenin’s thought and behest has become urgently necessary.

2024年多个马克思主义政党、左翼政党政治组织召开纪念性专题会议，左翼进步人士发表纪念性文章纪念列宁逝世100周年，对列宁在国际共运史上的地位，对其帝国主义论给予了高度评价。如美国劳动党官网全文转载了马列主义政党和组织国际会议(CIPOML)的观点，即认为在列宁逝世100周年之际，世界各地的共产党人和革命者有必要开展纪念活动，捍卫马克思列宁主义。马克思恩格斯对资本主义的基础及其演变已作了精辟的阐释。在垄断资本主义阶段，只有依据列宁关于帝国主义的理论，才能对其予以有力的斗争。列宁作为国际工人阶级的导师和领袖，其贡献是不可替代的，尤其是在当今这样一个帝国主义列强为了争夺世界各地的领土、资源和地缘战略区域，相互之间冲突不断，时而达成协议，时而产生分歧的资本主义体系全面危机不断加深的时代，列宁的贡献更是不可替代的。如今和过去一样，资本主义制度的普遍危机再次证实了十月革命、列宁及其遗产的正确性，遵循列宁的思想和遗志已迫在眉睫。

In 2024, foreign scholars reviewed Lenin’s theory of imperialism and its continuation and development in the contemporary era, emphasizing the profundity of Lenin’s analysis of the stage of monopoly capitalism and its guiding significance for the critique of contemporary new imperialism. At the same time, the critique of erroneous views from the Western left, particularly the defense of China, demonstrates a profound insight into global power structures and the path of socialist development.

2024年国外学者回顾了列宁的帝国主义论及其在当代的延续与发展，强调了列宁对垄断资本主义阶段分析的深刻性和对当今新帝国主义批判的指导意义。同时，对西方左派错误观点的批判，特别是对中国的辩护，展现了对全球权力结构和社会主义发展道路的深刻洞察。

(II) Critique of New Imperialism

(二)新帝国主义批判

In 2024, with drastic changes in the global political and economic landscape (such as the protracted Russia-Ukraine conflict, the United States intensifying its containment of China, and the rise of the Global South), the critique of new imperialism became a hot topic in international academia and the public sphere. Scholars broke through the traditional framework of military-colonial analysis, focusing on new forms of control such as economic financialization, technological monopoly, and cultural penetration, with particular attention to the generative mechanisms of digital imperialism. They conducted in-depth analyses of the new forms, operational mechanisms, and global impacts of contemporary imperialism. While critiquing, research on the antagonism between “empire” and “anti-imperialism,” such as digital resistance and the rise of Southern countries, was further strengthened. Additionally, interdisciplinary cross-analysis deepened. However, how to transcend the “center-periphery” binary framework and construct a truly equal global governance paradigm remains a common challenge for both theory and social practice. For example, Omar Zahzah, a scholar at San Francisco State University, critiqued the new developments of imperialism from a digital perspective, pointing out that “digital platforms that claim to be accessible alternatives to corporate media have themselves become new censors.” Although these popular digital platforms engage in numerous seemingly ordinary communication activities, they are no less adept than their institutional predecessors at maintaining the imperialist status quo and its accompanying acts of suppression and repression. Digital platforms claim to serve as an immediate and widely accessible corrective to content omitted by corporate media, but in reality, this is not the case. Under new imperialism, large technology companies have taken the baton from mainstream media in a shockingly egregious manner, erasing authentic voices. Digital suppression is actually an extension of deadly colonial violence and racism. Large technology companies act as instruments of today’s digital colonialism, helping imperialist states engage in dispossessive appropriation targeting other parts of the world to sustain profits and ensure their dominance. For this reason, merely raising awareness of the ways in which imperialism develops digitally has its limitations. Resisting digital colonialism in pursuit of liberation remains a critically urgent task.

2024年，随着全球政治经济格局的剧烈变动(如俄乌冲突长期化、美国加紧围堵中国、全球南方崛起等),新帝国主义批判成为国际学术界和公共领域的热点议题。学者们突破传统军事殖民分析框架，聚焦经济金融化、技术垄断与文化渗透等新型控制手段，尤其关注数字帝国主义的生成机制，对当代帝国主义的新形态、运作机制及其全球影响展开深入分析，在批判的同时对“帝国”与“反帝”的对抗性，如数字抵抗、南方国家的崛起等的研究进一步加强。此外，跨学科交叉分析进一步深化。然而，如何超越“中心-边缘”二元框架，构建真正平等的全球治理范式，仍是理论与社会实践的共同挑战。如美国旧金山州立大学学者奥马尔·扎哈(Omar Zahzah),从数字化视角对帝国主义的新发展进行批判，指出“那些自称是企业媒体的替代品而变得易于获取的数字平台，却自身成为新的审查者”。尽管这些热门的数字平台进行了大量看似普通的传播活动，但它们与之前的机构同行相比，在维护帝国主义现状及其随之而来的压制和镇压行为方面毫不逊色。数字平台声称能够作为企业媒体遗漏内容的即时且广泛可及的纠正手段，但实际上并非如此，新帝国主义之下的大型科技公司以一种令人震惊的恶劣方式从主流媒体手中接过接力棒，正在抹去真实的声音。数字压制行为实际上是实施致命殖民暴力和种族主义的延伸。大型科技公司充当了当今数字殖民主义的手段，用于帮助帝国主义国家参与针对世界其他地区的剥夺性占有，以支撑利润并确保其主导地位。为此，仅仅提高对帝国主义数字化发展方式的防范意识有其局限性，抵抗数字殖民主义以追求解放仍然是一项至关重要的紧迫任务。

In 2024, the critique of new imperialism became a hot topic. Scholars conducted in-depth analyses from perspectives such as economic financialization, technological monopoly, and cultural penetration, with particular attention to the critique of digital imperialism. However, how to transcend the “center-periphery” binary framework and construct a truly equal global governance paradigm remains a common challenge for both theory and social practice.

2024年，新帝国主义批判成为热点议题，学者们从经济金融化、技术垄断、文化渗透等视角展开深入分析，特别是数字帝国主义批判备受关注。然而如何超越“中心-边缘”二元框架，构建真正平等的全球治理范式，仍是理论与社会实践的共同挑战。

(III) Critique of Neoliberalism

(三)新自由主义批判

Since its rise in the late 1970s, neoliberalism has had a broad and profound impact globally. This trend of thought, typified by the “Washington Consensus,” advocates liberalization, marketization, and privatization, and for a considerable period dominated the economic policies and development paths of many countries. However, over time, the inherent defects of neoliberalism have gradually been exposed, sparking increasing questioning and critique. In 2024, foreign academia and public opinion circles critiqued neoliberalism from multiple dimensions—economic, political, social, and cultural—presenting a more in-depth and diverse trend. The aim is to analyze the negative effects of neoliberalism on global development and explore possible directions for the post-neoliberal era.

新自由主义自20世纪70年代末兴起以来，在全球范围内产生了广泛而深远的影响。这一思潮以“华盛顿共识”为典型代表，倡导自由化、市场化、私有化，在相当长时期内主导了许多国家的经济政策与发展路径。然而，随着时间推移，新自由主义的内在缺陷逐渐暴露，引发了越来越多的质疑与批判。2024年，国外学界与舆论界围绕新自由主义从经济、政治、社会、文化等多个维度对其进行批判，呈现出更为深入、多元的态势，旨在剖析新自由主义对全球发展造成的负面效应，并探索后新自由主义时代的可能走向。

With the deepening of the critique of neoliberalism, academia has begun to consider development pathways for the post-neoliberal era. Hagen Schulz-Forberg, Associate Professor of Global and European History at Aarhus University in Denmark, argues that after being impacted by the 2008 international financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, the legitimacy of the neoliberal paradigm has been called into question, and the influence of neoliberalism is gradually waning. To this end, Schulz-Forberg mentions a series of concepts that transcend neoliberalism, such as the OECD’s research on going beyond GDP-centric economic thinking, indicating a growing emphasis on social and environmental factors beyond economic growth, breaking through neoliberalism’s narrow reliance on GDP as a measure of economic development, and pursuing more comprehensive development goals; the IMF’s Resilience and Sustainability Trust, specifically introduced for low-income countries severely affected by climate change and vulnerable to external shocks, aims to enhance these countries’ resilience and sustainable development capacity when facing various challenges, which is seen as a correction to neoliberalism’s neglect of vulnerable groups and environmental factors. The above analysis reflects Schulz-Forberg’s reflection on the limitations of neoliberalism and his exploration of economic governance models that are more sustainable, equitable, and adaptable.

随着对新自由主义批判的深入，学界开始思考后新自由主义时代的发展路径。丹麦奥胡斯大学全球与欧洲史副教授哈根·舒尔茨-福尔贝格(Hagen Schulz-Forberg)认为，在受到2008年国际金融危机和新冠疫情冲击后，新自由主义范式的合法性遭受质疑，新自由主义的影响力渐失。为此福尔贝格提到了一系列超越新自由主义的理念，如经济合作与发展组织(OECD)对超越GDP经济思维的研究，表明开始重视除经济增长之外的其他社会和环境因素，突破新自由主义单纯以GDP衡量经济发展的局限，追求更全面的发展目标；国际货币基金组织(IMF)特别针对受气候变化影响严重且易受外部冲击的低收入国家引入的韧性与可持续性信托(Resilience and Sustainability Trust),旨在增强这些国家在面对各种挑战时的韧性和可持续发展能力，这被认为是对新自由主义下忽视弱势群体和环境因素的一种修正。以上分析反映了福尔贝格对新自由主义局限性的反思以及对更具可持续性、公平性和适应性的经济治理模式的探索。

Since its rise, although neoliberalism has dominated the economic policies of many countries, its inherent defects have gradually become apparent, sparking widespread questioning and critique. In 2024, foreign academia and public opinion circles reflected deeply on neoliberalism from multiple dimensions, pointing out its impact on economic inequality, and exploring economic governance models in the post-neoliberal era that emphasize sustainability, equity, and adaptability, reflecting a systematic reflection on and demand for reconstruction of the traditional capitalist development paradigm.

新自由主义自兴起以来，虽主导了多国经济政策，但其内在缺陷逐渐显现，引发广泛质疑与批判。2024年，国外学界与舆论界从多维度深入反思新自由主义，指出其对经济不平等的影响，并探索后新自由主义时代注重可持续性、公平性和适应性的经济治理模式，反映出对资本主义传统发展范式的系统性反思与重构诉求。

Conclusion

结语

In 2024, a year full of change and challenge, the profound transformations in the global political and economic landscape have injected new vitality into foreign Marxist studies. From deepening research on traditional theoretical schools to in-depth analysis of major practical issues, to keen tracking of new changes in contemporary capitalism, foreign Marxist scholars have demonstrated the strong vitality and contemporary value of Marxist theory in the interweaving of theory and practice. Against the backdrop of deepening technological monopoly and the fracturing of the global order, scholars have not only provided new interpretations and expansions of classical theories such as traditional Western Marxism, the Frankfurt School, and post-Marxism, but have also combined practical issues such as ecological crisis, spatial production, and digital capitalism to propose profound critiques and reconstruction pathways. Facing the global influence of neo-imperialism and neoliberalism, foreign Marxist scholars have not evaded the issue but have stood at the forefront of critique, courageously revealing the logic of capital and power structures behind these phenomena. At the same time, they have also paid attention to the rise of the Global South, proposing possible pathways for constructing an equal global governance paradigm. Overall, in 2024, foreign Marxist studies made certain progress in theoretical innovation and practical response, not only deepening the understanding of the essence of capitalism but also providing valuable theoretical resources and practical guidance for addressing global crises. At the same time, it must be noted that its theoretical innovation still needs to break through the limitations of academic institutionalization and strengthen its explanatory power and practical guidance for contemporary global crises. Furthermore, the fragmentation of its theories and the problem of wavering positions remain prominent, urgently requiring the enhancement of holism and practice orientation within the framework of historical materialism.

在2024年这一充满变革与挑战的年份，全球政治经济格局的深刻变化为国外马克思主义研究注入了新的活力。从对传统理论流派的深化研究，到对重大现实问题的深入剖析，再到对当代资本主义新变化的敏锐追踪，国外马克思主义学者在理论与实践的交织中，展现了马克思主义理论的强大生命力和时代价值。在技术垄断深化与全球秩序裂变的背景下，学者们不仅对传统西方马克思主义、法兰克福学派和后马克思主义等经典理论进行了新的阐释与拓展，还结合生态危机、空间生产、数字资本主义等现实问题，提出了深刻的批判与重构路径，而面对新帝国主义和新自由主义的全球影响，国外马克思主义学者没有回避，而是站在了批判的前沿，勇敢地揭示了这些现象背后的资本逻辑与权力结构。同时，他们也对全球南方的崛起给予了关注，提出了构建平等全球治理范式的可能路径。总体而言，2024年国外马克思主义研究在理论创新与现实回应上取得了一定进展，不仅深化了对资本主义本质的理解，也为应对全球危机提供了宝贵的理论资源与实践指导。同时，也要看到其理论创新仍需突破学院化局限，强化对当代全球危机的解释力与实践指导性。此外，其理论的碎片化与立场摇摆问题依然突出，亟须在历史唯物主义框架下增强整体性与实践导向。

(Fund: Phased result of the National Social Science Fund Major Project “Compilation, Translation, and Research of Foreign Marxism’s Discourses on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” (21&ZD023))

（基金：国家社会科学基金重大项目“国外马克思主义关于中国特色社会主义的论述编译与研究”(21&ZD023)的阶段性成果）

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心