Foreign Marxists’ Critique of Capitalist Modernization

Modernization in the 21st century exhibits stage-specific characteristics of rapid transformation, accelerated development, profound change, and deep adjustment. Under the impetus of the new technological revolution represented by computers, big data, and artificial intelligence, capitalist modernization has undergone new changes, with its productive forces and science and technology achieving unprecedented expansion. However, due to the inherent contradictions of capitalism itself and the problems exposed in the process of global capital accumulation, capitalist modernization, even in the digital age, remains a troublemaker in the global modernization process. Foreign Marxists, standing on the characteristics of the new era, combine the critical stance of Marxism with new theoretical resources to launch a new critique of capitalist modernization.

21世纪的现代化呈现出快速转型、加速发展、深刻变革、深入调整的阶段性特征。在以计算机、大数据、人工智能为代表的新科技革命加持下，资本主义现代化出现了新的变化，其生产力和科学技术得到了前所未有的拓展。但由于资本主义自身的固有矛盾以及资本在全球积累过程中暴露出的问题，使得资本主义现代化即使在数字化时代，仍然是世界现代化进程中的麻烦制造者。国外马克思主义立于新的时代特征，把马克思主义的批判立场与新的理论资源相结合，对资本主义现代化展开了新批判。

I. New Trends in the Critique of Capitalist Modernization

一、对资本主义现代化批判的新动向

The critique of modernization is a critique and reflection on the contradictions, ruptures, deviations, negative consequences, and loss of meaning that emerge in the process of modernization, with the aim of steering deviant modernization back onto the track of the development of human civilization. Marx described the negative consequences of capitalist modernization in the *Communist Manifesto*: “Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed. … The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of bourgeois civilization and bourgeois relations of production.” [1]1 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto* (1848). The thoroughness of Marx’s critique of modernization lies in the fact that, although he regarded the emergence of capitalism as the beginning of modern society, he never considered capitalist modernization to be the endpoint of modernization’s development. The barbaric, exploitative, predatory, profit-driven, and unequal nature of the capitalist mode of production and relations of production destined capitalist modernization to be merely a specific model of modernization, one that would eventually be replaced by a higher form of civilization and a modernization more in line with the requirements of people’s free and comprehensive development.

现代化批判是针对现代化过程中出现的矛盾、断裂、偏差、消极后果、意义丧失等问题进行的批判和反思，其目的是将偏离的现代化扳回到人类文明的发展轨道上。马克思曾在《共产党宣言》中描述了资本主义现代化的消极后果：“社会突然发现自己回到了一时的野蛮状态；仿佛是一次饥荒、一场普遍的毁灭性战争，使社会失去了全部生活资料，仿佛是工业和商业全被毁灭了。……社会所拥有的生产力已经不能再促进资产阶级文明和资产阶级所有制关系的发展。”马克思对现代化批判的彻底性就在于他虽然将资本主义的产生看作是现代社会的开端，却从不认为资本主义的现代化就是现代化发展的尽头。资本主义生产方式和生产关系所具有的野蛮性、剥削性、掠夺性、逐利性、不平等性注定了资本主义现代化只是一种特定的现代化模式，它终将被一种更高的文明形态、更符合人的自由全面发展要求的现代化所取代。

Foreign Marxists of the 20th century inherited Marx’s critical stance, conducting in-depth critiques of capitalist modernization from various perspectives, including the reconstruction of modernity, the drawbacks of industrialization, the trends of globalization, the alienation of modern society, and the crisis of the ecological environment. In their critiques, capitalist modernization was stripped of its mask as a “civilizational model,” its drawbacks fully exposed, its developmental dilemmas increasingly clear, and its negative effects increasingly evident. Entering the 21st century, “the contradiction and opposition between the content and form of the process of Western society and capital-led modernization and globalization have continuously developed, manifesting the objective demand for new forms to replace old ones.” [2]2 Source not provided in the original text. The 2008 international financial crisis was not only a manifestation of the continued deterioration of capitalism’s basic contradictions but also demonstrated that capitalist modernization had not only failed to escape the dilemmas of modernization’s development but had instead dragged the entire world into a new crisis. In response, foreign Marxists seized upon the new contradictions and new problems of capitalist modernization to conduct new analyses and critiques.

20世纪的国外马克思主义者继承了马克思的批判立场，他们从现代性的重建、工业化的弊端、全球化的趋势、现代社会的异化、生态环境的危机等不同角度对资本主义现代化进行了深入批判。在他们的批判中，资本主义现代化被揭去“文明模式”的面具，其弊端显现无遗，其发展困境越发清晰，其负面效应越发明显。进入21世纪，“西方社会和资本主导的现代化、世界化进程之内容与形式的矛盾对立不断发展，体现出新形式代替旧形式的客观要求”。2008年国际金融危机不仅是资本主义基本矛盾继续恶化的表现，更说明资本主义现代化非但没有摆脱现代化发展的困境，反而拖拽着整个世界陷入新的危机中。对此，国外马克思主义者抓住资本主义现代化的新矛盾、新问题，对其进行新的分析和批判。

(I) Critique of Digital Capitalism

（一）数字资本主义批判

Digital technologies represented by computers, big data, and artificial intelligence in the 21st century have reshaped the time and space of human society, changed the ways people produce, live, and interact, and propelled modernization into the digital age. However, “the ubiquitous computer network, combined with existing capitalism, has greatly broadened the effective scope of the market.” [3]3 Dan Schiller, *Digital Capitalism: Networking the Global Market System* (1999). Regarding the combination of digital technology and capitalism, Dan Schiller first proposed “digital capitalism” in 1990 and pointed out that the computer network and capitalist market principles are a two-way conquest. On the one hand, the computer network makes the deepening of the market possible, continuously expanding the scope of the capitalist economy; on the other hand, capitalist market principles conquer and control cyberspace, making it a core production and control tool within a highly transnational market system. [4]4 Dan Schiller, *Digital Capitalism: Networking the Global Market System* (1999). Subsequent foreign Marxists have also regarded digital capitalism as an economic form under capitalist production conditions and subjected it to critique.

21世纪以计算机、大数据、人工智能为代表的数字技术重塑了人类社会的时间和空间，改变了人们生产、生活和交往方式，推动着现代化进入数字化时代。但“无所不在的计算机网络与现存的资本主义相结合，大大拓宽了市场的有效范围”。针对数字技术与资本主义的结合，丹·席勒在1990年首次提出“数字资本主义”并指出，计算机网络与资本主义市场原则是双向征服。一方面，计算机网络使市场深化成为可能，它不断扩大资本主义经济的范围；另一方面，资本主义市场原则征服并控制了网络空间，使其成为一个跨国程度高的市场体制中的核心生产与控制工具。之后的国外马克思主义者也把数字资本主义看作是资本主义生产条件下的经济形式而加以批判。

In terms of content, the critique of digital capitalism mainly criticizes the exploitative nature of digital labor and the monopolistic nature of digital platforms. In addition to the direct exploitation of digital labor related to the production of information and communication technology, capitalism also exploits the unpaid labor of network users. Moreover, this exploitation is hidden within the “play” of social media, where entertainment and labor time intertwine, causing people to blur the boundaries between work and leisure, with all time being incorporated into the capitalist exploitation mechanism. On the other hand, data, after being organized by algorithms, becomes a repeatedly usable database, and the platforms that aggregate data gain a monopolistic advantage. Platforms not only obtain data from numerous users but can also control and formulate rules for data use. The laborers who produce the data have no say over the data they create. Platforms, however, rely on various rules to obtain ownership of the data, and then, through data analysis, extract monopoly profits through various channels.

从内容上看，数字资本主义批判主要批判了数字劳动的剥削性和数字平台的垄断性。资本主义除了对与信息和通信技术生产相关的数字劳动进行直接剥削外，网络用户的无酬劳动也是剥削对象。而且这种剥削还隐藏在社交媒体的“玩乐”中，娱乐和劳动时间相互交织，导致人类模糊了工作与休闲的界限，所有时间都被纳入资本主义剥削机制中。另一方面，数据经过算法的整理，成为可以反复利用的数据库，汇聚数据的平台就具有了垄断优势。平台不仅从众多用户中获得数据，还可以控制、制定数据使用规则。数据生产的劳动者对自己创造的数据资料没有话语权。而平台却凭借各种规则获得数据的所有权，再依靠数据分析，通过各种途径获取垄断收益。

(II) Critique of Biopolitics

（二）生命政治批判

As modern society’s control over human life becomes increasingly pervasive, the “critique of biopolitics” pioneered by Foucault has become a new angle for the critique of modernization. Biopower is a concept used by Foucault to describe capital’s manipulation of the human body, but Hardt and Negri argue that biopower is a new paradigm of power, whose basic task is to play a normative role within society. [5]5 Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, *Empire* (2000). Biopower has penetrated deeply into people’s consciousness, minds, intellect, and emotions. “Power has come to be expressed as a control that extends to the deepest recesses of the consciousness and bodies of the populace, and at the same time crosses the entirety of social relations,” [6]6 Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, *Empire* (2000). achieving capitalism’s comprehensive control over human life.

随着现代社会对人的生命控制越来越普遍。福柯开创的“生命政治批判”成为现代化批判的新角度，生命权力是福柯用来描述资本对人的肉体进行操控的概念，但哈特和奈格里认为生命权力是一个权力的新范式，它的基本任务就是在社会内部起着规范作用。生命权力已经深入到人们的意识、心灵、智力、情感中，“权力已表现为一种控制，它伸展到民众的意识和肉体最深处，同时也跨越社会关系的全部”，实现了资本主义对人生命的全面控制。

Agamben proposes a “new biopolitics” from the perspective of state sovereignty. Life is divided into biological natural life and political life at the political level. Once political life is stripped away by the “sovereign,” the person is left only with unprotected bare life, which anyone can kill with impunity. [7]7 Giorgio Agamben, *Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life* (1998). In the sovereign state, the sovereign demarcates a state of exception outside the community, making life potentially bare life at any moment, thereby demonstrating power’s control over life. Esposito, on the other hand, argues that life under the community is not only suppressed or deprived but also exempted and protected. The community creates an immune system that provides protection for individual life. For society, the immune mechanism not only expands the space of the community but also restores the positive aspect of biopolitics. [8]8 Roberto Esposito, *Bios: Biopolitics and Philosophy* (2008).

阿甘本从国家主权的角度提出“新的生命政治学”。生命被区分为生物意义上的自然生命和政治层面的政治生命，一旦政治生命被“主权者”剥夺，人就只剩下无保护的赤裸生命，人人可以得而诛之。在主权国家中，主权者在共同体外分隔出例外状态，让生命随时都可能成为赤裸生命，由此体现出权力对生命的控制。埃斯波西托则认为，共同体下的生命不是只受到抑制或剥夺，还会受到豁免和保护。共同体会打造出免疫体，享有对个体生命的保护。对社会而言，免疫机制不仅扩展了共同体的空间，还恢复了生命政治的积极面。

(III) Critique of the Modern State

（三）现代化国家批判

The capitalist states of the 21st century have undergone three major changes: the impact and challenge of globalization on the state have become greater; state governance has become the primary political means; and the capitalist world has established more powerful state systems. Accordingly, foreign Marxists have launched a “critique of the new imperialism.” They argue that the United States is a capitalist empire in the true sense. The United States implements a new form of imperial rule, dominating other countries through the use of economic trade, foreign aid, international patronage, and covert coercive means. The United States can interfere in the economic development of subordinate states either through unilateral action or with the help of transnational institutions like the International Monetary Fund, with effects no less effective than direct colonial rule but without paying high occupation costs. After the financial crisis, although the economic hegemony of the United States is no longer unchallengeable, its military hegemony, as the essential manifestation of imperialism, has been further strengthened.

21世纪的资本主义国家有三大变化：全球化对国家的影响和挑战更加巨大；国家治理已经成为主要的政治手段；资本主义世界建起了更为强势的国家制度。据此，国外马克思主义者展开了“新帝国主义批判”。他们认为，美国是真正意义上的资本主义帝国。美国实行的是一种新的帝国统治方式，它通过运用经济贸易、对外援助、国际庇护以及隐蔽的强制手段对其他国家实行支配。美国既可以通过单边行动也可以借助于像“国际货币基金组织”这样的跨国机构来干涉附属国家的经济发展，其效果并不逊于直接殖民统治而且不用支付高额的占领成本。金融危机后，虽然美国的经济霸权已经不再是不可挑战，但美国的军事霸权作为帝国主义的本质体现，得到了进一步的强化。

As the relationship between globalization and the nation-state has become a focal point, state critique theory has experienced a revival, with Jessop as its representative figure. He proposes that the state should be analyzed within a “strategic-relational” context. [9]9 Bob Jessop, *State Theory: Putting the Capitalist State in Its Place* (1990). Under globalization, when the strategy of capitalist accumulation changes, the form of the state and its decision-making will also change accordingly. Furthermore, the behavior of the nation-state is reshaped, with “governance” becoming the primary task and new functional point of the nation-state. However, state governance is not a permanent solution; governance still generates serious conflicts and creates new contradictions. Because these governance measures are merely state strategies for the globalization phase, future capitalist states still harbor various latent crises.

随着全球化与民族国家的关系问题成为焦点，国家批判理论迎来了复兴，其代表人物是雅索普。他提出要把国家置于一种“策略-关系”的脉络中进行分析。全球化下，当资本主义积累策略发生改变时，国家的形式、国家的决策也将随之改变。此外，民族国家的行为被重塑，“治理”正成为民族国家的主要任务和新的功能点。但国家治理不是永久解决之计，治理仍然会产生严重冲突，制造出新矛盾。因为这些治理手段仅仅是全球化阶段的国家策略，未来的资本主义国家依然潜藏着各种危机。

(IV) Critique of the Ecological Crisis

（四）生态危机批判

Because developed countries shift ecological contradictions to other countries, using globalization to obscure the ecological crisis, and because living environments in developed countries have improved and the ecological protection movement has become more conservative, ecological Marxism no longer shows strong development in the 21st century, but its critique continues nonetheless.

由于发达国家把生态矛盾转移到其他国家，用全球化问题掩盖生态危机，再加上发达国家的生活环境改善，生态保护运动趋于保守，生态马克思主义在21世纪不再呈现强势发展，但它的批判却仍在继续。

Ecological justice is a critical theme formed on the basis of political science and ethics. In the 21st century, ecological justice moves from a biological justice that pursues equality between humans and nature toward social justice. “Social justice, or its increasing global absence, is the most urgent of all environmental problems.” [10]10 The source of this quotation is not provided in the original text; it likely originates from a Western ecological Marxist scholar. Social justice, from the perspective of social development, identifies capitalism as the root cause of the ecological crisis. In addition, ecological justice also shifts from distributive justice to productive justice, emphasizing that justice is embodied not only in the quantitative distribution of wages, wealth, income, etc., but also in the production processes of labor, technology, division of labor, land use, and so on.

生态正义是在政治学和伦理学的基础上形成的批判主题。21世纪的生态正义从追求人与自然平等的生物正义走向社会正义。“社会正义或者它在全球范围内的日益缺乏是所有环境问题中最为紧迫的。”社会正义是从社会发展的角度指认资本主义是造成生态危机的根源所在。另外，生态正义还从分配正义转向生产正义，强调正义不仅体现在工资、财富、收入等量的分配过程中，更体现在劳动、技术、分工、土地使用等生产过程中。

There are two positions on ecological revolution: one advocates “gradual” social change, tending to view the ecological problems brought about by capitalist development from an “objective” perspective; the other combines ecological issues with socialism, advocating a radical ecological revolution. Ecological socialism emphasizes the need to reconstruct society, a reconstruction that must transform the relationship between humans and nature through the entire society’s metabolism. These two different positions also cause ecological Marxism to present a coexistence of conservatism and radicalism.

关于生态革命有两种主张：一种是主张“渐进式”的社会变革，倾向于从“客观”的角度看待资本主义发展带来的生态问题；另一种则把生态问题与社会主义相结合，主张进行激烈的生态革命。生态社会主义强调要重建社会，这种重建必须通过整个社会的新陈代谢，来变革人类和自然的关系。这两种不同的主张也使得生态马克思主义呈现出保守与激进并存的面貌。

(5) Spatial Critique

（五）空间批判

Spatial critique takes space and the production of space as a fundamental dimension of the critique of modernization. Urban and global spaces are the main arenas of struggle for spatial justice. In cities, due to speculation by capitalists, land prices rise, and space becomes a symbol of wealth. The amount of personal wealth is expressed as the amount of space one occupies. Urbanization is both a means for capitalists to accumulate wealth and a process by which workers’ wealth is plundered. In the globalization of capital, capital forms a spatial production pattern of center-periphery countries. Center countries economically exploit and oppress periphery countries, politically dominate and control them; capital shifts to periphery countries through globalization, then continuously obtains high profits from periphery countries, creating inequality between nations.

空间批判是将空间和空间生产作为现代化批判的基本维度。城市和全球空间是空间正义的主要斗争场所。在城市中，由于资本家炒作，土地价格上涨，空间成为财富象征。个人财富的多少表现为占有空间的多少。城市化既是资本家财富积累的手段，也是劳动者财富被掠夺的过程。在资本的全球化中，资本形成了中心-边缘国家的空间生产格局。中心国家在经济上剥削和压迫边缘国家，政治上支配和控制边缘国家；资本通过全球化向边缘国家转移，再从边缘国家源源不断地获得高额利润，国家间的不平等形成。

Spatial resistance aims to achieve spatial justice by resisting the spatialization of capital and unequal spatial relations. Edward Soja proposes a new space to counter capitalist domination: the “thirdspace.” In this space, “all historical geographies, all times and places, are ubiquitously presented and represented, becoming a strategic space of power and domination, power oppression and resistance.” [11]11 Edward Soja (1940–2015) was an American postmodern political geographer and urban theorist. “Thirdspace” is his concept of a space that transcends the binary of physical and mental space, serving as a site of resistance and radical openness. Soja also proposes the “right to the city,” ensuring urban residents’ right to participate in the production of space and guaranteeing their equal status within space.

空间反抗是通过反抗资本的空间化以及不平等的空间关系，达到空间正义的实现。爱德华·苏贾提出对抗资本主义统治的新空间“第三空间”。在这个空间中，“所有的历史地理，所有的时间地点，都无所不在地被呈现与表征，成为一个力量与支配、权力压迫与反抗的战略空间”。苏贾还提出“城市权”，确保城市居民对空间生产参与的权利，保证居民在空间中的平等地位。

Furthermore, cyberspace has greater fluidity and convenience, making it easier to realize the circulation and rapid turnover of capital, and thus more likely to become a target of capital control. Therefore, the critique of cyberspace mainly includes the relationship between cyberspace and physical space, the relationship between cyberspace and capitalist spatial production, and whether cyberspace has the emancipatory significance of resisting capitalist control.

此外，网络空间具有更强的流动性、便利性，更容易实现资本的流通和快速周转，更容易成为资本控制的目标。因此网络空间批判主要包括网络空间与现实空间的关系、网络空间与资本主义空间生产的关系、网络空间是否具有反抗资本主义控制的解放意义等内容。

(6) Critique of Modern Society

（六）现代社会批判

The critique of modern society in the 21st century still adheres to the method of “social diagnosis,” that is, by uncovering the characteristics of modern society and then critically analyzing those characteristics. Following this method, Rahel Jaeggi is determined to rediscover the critical power of “alienation.” She points out that alienation is a disruption of the relationship between the self and the world: “an alienated world is a meaningless world, one that is not experienced by us as a meaningful whole.” [12]12 Rahel Jaeggi (born 1967) is a German philosopher and critical theorist, known for her work on alienation and social philosophy. In alienation, humans and the world are estranged. Humans lose both power and meaning; they can neither touch and change the world nor obtain emotion and the basis of existence from it. Hartmut Rosa also interprets alienation as the relationship between the self and the world: “Alienation points to a deep, structural distortion in the relationship between self and world, that is, a distortion in the way a subject is situated or ‘placed’ in the world.” [13]13 Hartmut Rosa (born 1965) is a German sociologist and political scientist, best known for his theory of social acceleration. Alienation means the failure of human adaptation to activity, meaning the subject is detached from the world.

21世纪的现代社会批判仍坚持“社会诊断”的方法，即通过发掘现代社会的特质，再对其特质进行批判性分析。按此方法，拉埃尔·耶吉决心重新发现“异化”的批判性。她指出，异化是一种对世界和自我关系的阻断，“一个被异化的世界是一个无意义的世界，它不会被我们经验为一个有意义的整体”。在异化中人与世界是疏离的。人既丧失力量也丧失意义，既不能触动和改变世界，也不能从世界中获得情感和存在的根据。哈特穆特·罗萨也将异化解释为自我与世界的关系。“异化指出了自我与世界之间的关系的一种深层的、结构性的扭曲，亦即一种主体处于、‘坐落’于世界当中的方式遭到了扭曲。”异化意味着人适应活动的失败，意味着主体游离于世界之外。

Hartmut Rosa believes that modern society is governed, regulated, and dominated by an apolitical, strict temporal regime. This temporal regime is the “logic of social acceleration.” Under this logic, society experiences acceleration in technology, social change, and the pace of life, which form an interlocking system. Technological acceleration increases the speed of production and daily life, while accelerated social change in turn causes an acceleration of the pace of life. Social acceleration has become a self-propelling system in modern society that requires no external driving force. In an accelerated society, time flies by but leaves no trace in human memory; human life experience becomes increasingly impoverished, ultimately leading to severe self-alienation.

哈特穆特·罗萨认为，现代社会是由一种非政治性的严密的时间体制所管辖、调节和支配。这个时间体制就是“社会加速逻辑”。在此逻辑下，社会出现了科学技术、社会变迁和生活步调的加速，三者之间形成一种环环相扣的系统。科技加速增加生产和日常生活的速度，而加速的社会变迁又会造成生活步调的加速，社会加速在现代社会已经变成一种不需要外在驱动力的自我推动系统。在加速社会中，时间飞快流逝，却在人的记忆中不再留有痕迹，人的生命体验越来越贫乏，最后导致严重的自我异化。

II. New Trends in the Critique of Capitalist Modernization

二、对资本主义现代化批判的新趋势

If modernization is regarded as a historical process of global transformation with specific content, then compared to the 20th-century critique of capitalist modernization, the 21st-century foreign Marxist critique of capitalist modernization shows three trends:

如果把现代化看作是一个有特定内涵的全球大变革的历史进程，那么相较于20世纪的资本主义现代化批判，21世纪的国外马克思主义者对资本主义现代化的批判出现了三个方面的趋势：

(1) From Diachronic Critique to Synchronic Critique

（一）从历时性批判转向共时性批判

“Synchronic” and “diachronic” were originally concepts used by linguist Ferdinand de Saussure to describe the state and evolutionary stages of language. As research methods, they differ. Synchronic study emphasizes the logical and psychological relationships linking components that exist simultaneously and form a system, and these components can be perceived by the same collective consciousness; diachronic study, by contrast, emphasizes relationships that “are not perceived by the same collective consciousness, involving successive elements that replace one another without forming a system.” [14]14 Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913) was a Swiss linguist whose work laid the foundation for structuralism. The distinction between synchronic and diachronic analysis is a core element of his linguistic theory. Synchrony knows only one situation; all its methods can be reduced to the collection of facts. Diachronic linguistics can trace downward or upward through time.

“共时”和“历时”原本是语言学家索绪尔用来表示语言状态和进化阶段的概念。作为研究方法，两者是不同的。共时性研究强调的是联系各同时存在并且构成系统的成分之间的逻辑和心理的关系，而且这些成分能够被同一集体意识所察觉到；而历时性研究则强调联系并“不是同一集体意识所感觉到的相连续要素间的关系，这些要素一个代替一个，彼此间并不构成系统”。共时仅仅知道一个情景，它的一切方法可以归结为事实的收集；而历时语言学可以随着时间从上往下探究或从下往上追溯。

If this method is applied to the critique of modernization, the 20th-century critique of capitalist modernization exhibits a relatively clear “diachronic” character. Marx pointed out in *The German Ideology*: “History is nothing but the succession of separate generations… The more this development expands the spheres of mutual interaction, the more the original closed state of nations, due to increasingly perfected modes of production, intercourse, and the naturally developed division of labor between different nations, is destroyed, the more history becomes world history.” [15]15 This is a paraphrase of a passage from *The German Ideology* (1845–1846) by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. 20th-century foreign Marxists, grounded in Marx’s world-historical perspective, placed modernization within the historical process, as if making a vertical connection to modernization: starting from feudal, pre-modern times, they explored the formation and development of capitalist modernization, reflected on its characteristics and manifestations, and criticized its negatives and drawbacks.

如果用这种方法来关照现代化批判，20世纪的资本主义现代化批判会呈现出比较明显的“历时性”特征。马克思曾在《德意志意识形态》中指出：“历史不外是各个世代的依次交替。……各个相互影响的活动范围在这个发展进程中越是扩大，各民族的原始封闭状态由于日益完善的生产方式、交往以及因交往而自然形成的不同民族之间的分工消灭得越是彻底，历史也就越是成为世界历史。”20世纪的国外马克思主义者立足于马克思主义的世界历史观，将现代化置于历史发展过程，就如同对现代化进行纵向联结，从封建的、前现代化开始，去探究资本主义现代化的形成与发展，去反思资本主义现代化的特征与表现，去批判资本主义现代化的消极与弊端。

In contrast, the 21st-century critique of capitalist modernization shows a “synchronic” character. As modernization enters the 21st century, it has become a large “situation,” with various critical themes, perspectives, discourses, and concepts all reflecting new features of modernization. The 21st-century critique of capitalist modernization is like making a horizontal cut through modernization: critics no longer dwell on the ins and outs of modernization, no longer limit themselves to historical tracing; what they seek is the concentrated embodiment of modernization, its internal connections. Modernization in the 21st century has acquired powerful actuality. For the critique of capitalist modernization, what matters is its present existence, manifestations, and characteristics; importance is placed on how this modernization affects the living conditions of contemporary people. Tracing the origins of capitalist modernization is certainly important, but it is no longer the focus of the 21st-century critique of capitalist modernization, because clearly, this point is not so important for people living in contemporary society.

相比之下，21世纪的资本主义现代化批判却显现出“共时性”的特征。现代化进入21世纪后，它已经成为一个大的“情景”，各种批判主题、角度、话语、概念都反映出现代化的新特征。21世纪的资本主义现代化批判就如同对现代化进行横切，批判家们已经不再纠结于现代化的来龙去脉，不再局限于历史的追溯，他们要的是现代化的集中体现，求的是现代化的内在联系。现代化在21世纪具有了强大的现实性，对资本主义现代化批判而言，重要的是它在当下的存在、表现和特征，重视的是这种现代化对当代人生存状态的影响。追溯资本主义现代化的起源固然重要，但却不再是21世纪资本主义现代化批判的重心，因为很明显，这一点对生活在当下社会的人们而言并不是那么重要了。

(2) From a Critique of Modernity to a Critique of Modernization Itself

（二）从对现代性的批判转向对现代化本身的批判

In the 20th century, foreign Marxists focused more on the core concept of modernization—modernity. As Habermas stated, “Since the late 18th century, modernity has become the theme of ‘philosophical’ discussion.” In Habermas’s view, the concept of modernity requires self-understanding from the perspective of Western rationality; thus, starting with Hegel, modernity was defined, while Marx, Weber, Lukács, and the Frankfurt School continuously elaborated on modernity using the methods of social theory. Through the efforts of these thinkers, the self-understanding of modernity manifests not only as theoretical “self-consciousness” and a self-critical stance toward all traditions, but also as moral and ethical concepts of “self-determination” and “self-realization.” Additionally, the self-critique of modernity triggered an analysis of the crisis of modernity, making the questioning of modernity’s encounter with capitalist society a focal point of critique. The critique and reflection on modernity became an effective tool for analyzing the rational essence of capitalist society and a theme running through the entire 20th-century critique of capitalist modernization.

20世纪的国外马克思主义者更关注现代化的核心概念——现代性。正如哈贝马斯所说：“自从18世纪后期开始，现代性就已经成为‘哲学’讨论的主题。”在哈贝马斯看来，现代性概念是需要从西方理性视野中获得自我理解的，因此从黑格尔开始就对现代性进行定义，而马克思、韦伯、卢卡奇以及法兰克福学派又不断用社会理论的方法来阐述现代性。在这些思想家的努力下，现代性的自我理解不仅表现为理论的“自我意识”，表现为针对一切传统的自我批判立场，还表现为“自我决定”和“自我实现”的道德和伦理观念。另外，现代性的自我批判还引发出现代性的危机分析，追问现代性在资本主义社会的遭遇成为批判热点，对现代性的批判和反思成为分析资本主义社会合理本质的有效工具，也成为贯穿整个20世纪资本主义现代化批判的主题。

Unlike the 20th century, the 21st-century critique of capitalist modernization no longer emphasizes the issue of the rationality of modernity. This is because, after the deconstruction of postmodern discourse, the authority of the former metaphysical concept of reason has completely vanished. By emphasizing fragments, gaps, and marginalization, as well as difference, non-identity, and particularity, the critical themes of modern society have been renewed. On a global scale, most countries and regions in the 21st century have been integrated into the process of modernization, gradually moving toward more mature modern societies. The industrial civilization of modernization, along with its drawbacks, has been accepted by people; whether crises or alienation, they have become established facts of modern society. The 21st-century critique of capitalist modernization no longer judges the suffering or alienation experienced by people based on external criteria, but instead emphasizes starting from the social subject’s own feelings, beliefs, and actions to assess the negative extent of capitalist modernization. Therefore, focusing on the “present” of capitalist modernization, on its own structure, development path, power control, new contradictions, and the consequences of its global expansion, has become the main content of the 21st-century critique of capitalist modernization.

不同于20世纪，21世纪的资本主义现代化批判已经不把重点放在讨论现代性的合理性问题上。因为经过后现代话语的消解，昔日形而上学理性概念的权威性已经荡然无存。通过强调片断、缝隙和边缘化，强调差异性、非同一性和特殊性，现代社会的批判主题都被革新了。就整个世界而言，21世纪大多数国家和地区都已经被整合进现代化的进程中，逐渐走向更为成熟的现代社会。现代化的工业文明连同现代化的弊端一同被人们接受下来，危机也好、异化也罢，都成为现代社会既定的事实。21世纪的资本主义现代化批判不再是从外在的根据来判断人们所遭受的痛苦或异化，而是强调要从社会主体自己的感觉、信念、行动出发来判断资本主义现代化的消极程度。因此，关注资本主义现代化的“当下”，关注资本主义现代化自身的结构、发展道路、权力控制、新的矛盾呈现以及向世界扩展的后果，就成为21世纪资本主义现代化批判的主要内容。

(3) From Sociocultural Critique to Political Critique

（三）从社会文化批判转向政治批判

As early as the early 20th century, a group of foreign Marxists, taking it as their mission to reveal the oppression of human nature and society by capitalist modernization, proposed critical theories with far-reaching influence. Critical theory explored why, under the Enlightenment of capitalism, humanity not only failed to enter a true state of human nature but instead fell into a state of barbarism. “With the development of the bourgeois commodity economy, the dark horizon of myth was illuminated by the cold light of calculative reason, and behind this cold light, new seeds of barbarism began to take root and bear fruit.” [16]16 Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, *Dialectic of Enlightenment*, trans. John Cumming (New York: Continuum, 1972), 3. The original German text reads: “Mit der Entwicklung der bürgerlichen Warenwirtschaft wird der dunkle Horizont des Mythos von der Sonne der kalkulierenden Vernunft erhellt, unter deren eisigen Strahlen die neuen Saaten der Barbarei heranreifen.” While creating modern civilization, capitalist modernization also brought barbarism and the suppression of human nature. Critical theory inherited the critical tradition of Marxism, recognizing that it is the capitalist system that leads to social irrationality, thereby giving rise to concepts such as the critique of instrumental reason, the critique of the culture industry, the critique of capitalist ideology, and the critique of one-dimensional society. However, as Horkheimer and Adorno noted, critical theory remained confined within traditional disciplines, primarily conducting research within the domains of sociology, psychology, and epistemology. Therefore, critical theory more often appeared in the guise of a sociocultural or ideological critique.

早在20世纪初，一批国外马克思主义者就以揭示资本主义现代化对人性和社会的压迫为使命，提出了具有深远影响的批判理论。批判理论探究了资本主义启蒙之下，人类不但没有进入真正的人性状态，反而深陷野蛮状态的原因。“随着资产阶级商品经济的发展，神话昏暗的地平线被计算理性的阳光照亮了，而在这阴冷的光线背后，新的野蛮种子正在生根结果。”资本主义现代化在创造现代文明的同时，也带来了野蛮和对人性的压制。批判理论继承了马克思主义的批判传统，认识到是资本主义制度导致了社会的不合理，由此也衍生出诸如工具理性批判、文化工业批判、资本主义意识形态批判以及单向度的社会批判等诸多概念。不过，正如霍克海默、阿多诺所说，批判理论还是拘泥于传统学科之下，主要在社会学、心理学和认识论的论域下展开研究。因此，批判理论更多地是以一种社会文化或意识形态批判面目示人。

The 21st-century critique of capitalist modernization has increasingly shifted toward political critique. By “shift,” it means that the focus and domain of critique have changed. In the 20th-century critique of capitalist modernization, although political critique existed, it was only one angle among many critical themes and did not receive sufficient attention. Entering the 21st century, political critique has gradually become the core of the critique of capitalist modernization. From critiques of new imperialism under capitalist globalization, critiques of neoliberalism, to critiques of spatial politics, biopolitics, state governance, and even critiques of digital capitalism and ecological justice, all exhibit distinct characteristics of political critique. Keywords such as hegemony, power control, equality, justice, and biopower have become conceptual sources capable of inspiring a more radical critique of capitalist modernization. It is worth noting that after the 2008 international financial crisis declared the failure of neoliberalism, the theoretical threads of Marxist political critique were reactivated. Amid the increasing instability of the contemporary world political system, foreign Marxists have also combined Marxist methods of political critique to redefine the capitalist state.

21世纪的资本主义现代化批判则更多地转向了政治批判。所谓转向，就是指批判的重点、批判的领域发生了变化。在20世纪的资本主义现代化批判中，政治批判虽然有，却只是众多批判主题中的一个角度，并未得到充分的重视。进入21世纪后，政治批判逐渐成为资本主义现代化批判的核心。从资本主义全球化下的新帝国主义批判、新自由主义批判到空间政治批判、生命政治批判、国家治理批判，甚至包括数字资本主义批判、生态正义批判，都具有鲜明的政治批判的特色。霸权、权力控制、平等、正义、生命权力等核心词成为能够激发出更为激进的资本主义现代化批判的概念源泉。值得一提的是，在2008年国际金融危机宣告新自由主义的失败后，重新激活了马克思主义政治批判的理论线索。在当代世界政治体系的不稳定性加剧的情况下，国外马克思主义者们也结合马克思主义的政治批判方法，去重新定义资本主义国家。

3. New Significance of the Critique of Capitalist Modernization

三、对资本主义现代化批判的新意义

In addition to continuing to insist on critiquing capitalist modernization, 21st-century foreign Marxists are no longer confined to the distinction between “tradition and modernity” and no longer view capitalist modernization as a “single modernization.” Instead, they boldly explore the historical stage in which capitalist modernization finds itself, conducting new inquiries into the future of modernization and the possibilities of human civilization.

21世纪的国外马克思主义者除了继续坚持批判资本主义的现代化之外，不再拘泥于“传统与现代”之分，不再视资本主义现代化为“单一的现代化”，而是大胆探究资本主义现代化所处的历史阶段，对现代化的未来以及人类文明的可能性进行新的探究。

(1) Revealing New Contradictions Facing Contemporary Capitalism

（一）揭示了当代资本主义面临的新矛盾

As the “two sides of the same coin” of contemporary capitalism, neoliberalism and new imperialism together form the state and social form of the contemporary capitalist world. They jointly address the accumulation contradictions of capitalism, desperately creating conditions for the profitable absorption of surplus value, even willing to use hegemony to demolish all possible barriers. Driven by neoliberalism and new imperialism, financial monopoly capital has achieved a high degree of globalization and internationalization, forming international financial monopoly capitalism. Contemporary capitalism has correspondingly entered the stage of international financial monopoly capitalism, exhibiting new-stage characteristics such as the globalization of monopoly, the alliance of transnational corporations, and the absolutization of financial monopoly capital.

作为当代资本主义的“一体两面”，新自由主义和新帝国主义共同形成了当代资本主义世界的国家和社会形态，它们共同解决资本主义的积累矛盾，拼命为剩余价值的盈利性吸收创造条件，甚至不惜用霸权拆毁一切可能的壁垒。在新自由主义和新帝国主义的推动下，金融垄断资本实现了高度的全球化和国际化，形成了国际金融垄断资本主义。当代资本主义也相应地进入了国际金融垄断资本主义阶段，呈现出垄断的世界化、跨国公司的联盟化、金融垄断资本的绝对化等新阶段特征。

Foreign Marxists’ critique of neoliberalism and new imperialism is not only an inherent part of the critique of modernization but also represents their in-depth analysis and profound insight into contemporary capitalism. Through their critique, the basic contradictions of contemporary capitalism have taken on new forms of expression: the contradiction between the unlimited expansion of capitalist production capacity, empowered by new technologies, and the insufficient effective demand in the world; the contradiction between the financial speculation and plunder carried out by international financial monopoly capitalism and the financial sovereignty of developing countries; the contradiction between the easing of ecological contradictions in developed countries and the worsening of the global ecological environment; the contradiction between the expansion of capital into cyberspace and digital domains and the globalization of networks and digitalization; and the contradiction between the accelerated development of science, technology, and society and the modern person’s fall into existential anxiety and alienation. These contradictions, to varying degrees, exacerbate the basic contradictions of capitalism and intensify the trends of monopoly capital surplus and financial crises.

国外马克思主义者对新自由主义和新帝国主义进行批判不仅是现代化批判的应有之义，还代表了国外马克思主义者对当代资本主义进行的深入分析和深刻洞察。透过他们的批判，当代资本主义的基本矛盾具有了新的表现形式：新技术加持下资本主义的生产能力无限扩大与世界有效需求不足之间的矛盾；国际金融垄断资本主义进行的金融投机和金融掠夺与发展中国家金融主权之间的矛盾；发达国家生态矛盾的缓和与全球生态环境恶化之间的矛盾；资本向网络空间、数字领域的扩张与网络全球化、数字全球化之间的矛盾；科学技术和社会的加速发展与现代人陷入生存焦虑和异化状态之间的矛盾等。这些矛盾在不同程度上加重了资本主义的基本矛盾、加剧了垄断资本过剩和金融危机的趋势。

(2) Enriching New Understandings of the Stages of Modernization Development

（二）丰富了对现代化发展阶段的新认识

Through the critique of capitalist modernization in the 21st century, one can clearly perceive that human society has entered an era of accelerated high technology, while also entering a high-risk era fraught with crises and dangers. The characteristic of 21st-century society is “global integration.” [17]17 “Global integration” (全球一体化) refers to the intensifying interconnection of economies, cultures, and information systems worldwide, a term often used in Chinese Marxist discourse to describe the objective trend of globalization under contemporary conditions. Modernization at this stage has achieved not only the globalization of production processes, trade collaboration, capital flows, and cultural exchange, but also the globalization of network connections, information exchange, and talent mobility. Yet the form of private ownership under capitalist modernization is increasingly incompatible with the general trend of this “integration” of worldization and globalization. The unipolarity, economic hegemony, political power, military threats, and cultural invasion of capitalism—each of these manifestations runs counter to the general trend of world development. The contradiction between “globalization” and “capitalization” in the 21st century is not merely a contradiction of “form and content”; it also indicates that capitalist modernization is by no means a bright path toward human civilization. The new general trend of world development will inevitably call forth higher and better new content of modernization to adapt to it. The path and model of modernization are not limited to the single path of capitalist modernization; rather, there is multiplicity and diversity in the choice of paths.

透过21世纪资本主义现代化批判，人们能清晰地感知到人类社会已经进入到一个加速发展的高科技时代，同时也进入一个危机四伏、危险频发的高风险时代。21世纪社会的特征就是“全球一体化”。这个阶段的现代化不仅实现了生产过程的全球化、贸易协作的全球化、资本流动的全球化、文化交往的全球化，还实现了网络连接的全球化、信息交互的全球化、人才交流的全球化。但资本主义现代化私人占有的形式却与这世界化和全球化“融合”的大趋势越来越不相容。资本主义的单极化、经济霸权、政治强权、军事威胁，文化入侵，无论是哪一个方面的表现都与世界发展的大趋势相左相背。21世纪的“全球化”与“资本化”的矛盾不仅仅是“形式与内容”的矛盾，更预示着资本主义现代化绝非通向人类文明的光明之路。新的世界发展大趋势必将呼唤出更高、更好的现代化新内容来与之相适应。现代化的道路和模式不是仅有资本主义现代化一条道路可走，而是具有道路选择的多重性和多样性。

On the other hand, foreign Marxists’ critique of capitalist modernization remains a warning against the negative consequences of modernization. Although capitalist modernization has promoted the great development of productive forces, this development has come at the cost of exploiting and plundering other countries, oppressing and squeezing the working people, destroying and extracting natural resources, and exacerbating and intensifying the global gap between rich and poor. In fact, in the 20th-century critique of capitalist modernization, people had already seen the price the world paid to realize capitalist modernization—only, at that time, the world could still bear it. But in the 21st century, the Earth, whether in terms of the natural environment, population distribution, or living conditions, has become extremely fragile and can no longer bear the unbridled mode of development of capitalist modernization. The worldwide economic crises, severe natural disasters, sudden global diseases, and destructive climate catastrophes that have erupted in the more than two decades of the 21st century are all clear evidence; they all show that human modernization has reached a stage where it must engage in profound reflection on its development.

从另一方面看，国外马克思主义者对资本主义现代化的批判仍是对现代化发展消极后果的警醒。资本主义的现代化虽然促进了生产力的大发展，但这种发展是以剥削和掠夺其他国家、压迫和压榨劳动人民、破坏和榨取自然资源、加剧和加重世界贫富差距为代价的。事实上，在20世纪对资本主义现代化的批判中，人们已经看到了世界为实现资本主义现代化所付出的代价，只不过，那个时候的世界还可以承受。但是，21世纪的地球无论是从自然环境、人口布局、生存条件来说，都已经极其脆弱，无法再承受资本主义现代化那无底线的发展方式。21世纪这二十多年所爆发的世界性的经济危机、严重的自然灾害、突发的世界疾病、破坏性的气候灾难都是明证，都说明人类现代化已经到了必须深刻反思其发展的阶段。

(3) Contains new expectations for a future society

（三）蕴含了对未来社会的新期望

Compared with the 20th-century critique of capitalist modernization, 21st-century foreign Marxists, while conducting their critique, do not exude a general pessimism; instead, they put forward more expectations for the development of a future society. This is because, in the practice of human modernization in the 21st century, foreign Marxists have gained a new reference point—the socialist modernization development path and model. John Bellamy Foster, a representative of ecological Marxism, points out that humanity can have another choice: to build a truly equal, ecologically sustainable 21st-century ecological socialism that can meet the needs of the masses. David Kotz also points out that if neoliberalism continues to wreak havoc on the world, the socialist movement will regain its vitality to abolish capitalism and establish a social system that gives priority to human needs rather than private profit. There are even many scholars who envision the bright prospects of digital socialism: “Public ownership, computerized high technology, a post-scarcity society that creates wealth for all, comprehensively developed individuality, distribution according to need, participatory management, a shared culture, and an internationalist spirit are all characteristics of a socialist society.”

相较于20世纪的资本主义现代化批判，21世纪的国外马克思主义者在进行批判的同时，并没有弥漫普遍的悲观情绪，反而对未来社会的发展提出了更多的期待。因为在21世纪的人类现代化实践中，国外马克思主义者有了新的参照物——社会主义现代化发展道路和模式。生态马克思主义的代表人物约翰·B.福斯特指出，人类完全可以有另一个选择，那就是建设一个真正平等、生态可持续发展、可以满足大众需求的21世纪生态社会主义。大卫·科茨也指出，如果新自由主义继续祸乱世界，社会主义运动将再度焕发活力去废除资本主义，建立一个给予人类需要而非私有利润的社会制度。甚至还有不少学者去畅想了数字社会主义的美好前景：“公有制、计算机化的高科技、为所有人创造财富的后稀缺社会、全面发展的个性、按需分配、参与式管理、共享的文化和国际主义精神都是社会主义社会的特征。”

The reason foreign Marxists no longer harbor a general pessimism about modernization, and instead seek a more beautiful prospect for modernization in the midst of critique, also has its causes. For if we view it from the perspective of human civilization, modernization is the mode of realization of human civilization. The different paths of modernization determine the different states in which civilization appears. Capitalist modernization reinforces the negativity of modern civilization, causing modern civilization to manifest the disastrous consequences of capital supremacy, money worship, bullying the weak, and destroying nature. In contrast, Chinese-path modernization, representing socialist modernization, guides the progressiveness of modern civilization; the people-centeredness, solidarity and cooperation, peaceful development, and green development it embodies will greatly stimulate the positivity of modern civilization. If we follow this path, world modernization will ultimately break through its predicament and display a new development picture. (Notes omitted)

国外马克思主义者之所以不再具有对现代化的普遍悲观情绪，在批判之余也要探求一个更加美好的现代化前景也是有原因的。因为如果从人类文明的角度看，现代化就是人类文明的实现方式。现代化实现道路的不同决定着文明呈现的状态也不同。资本主义现代化强化了现代文明的消极性，使现代文明呈现出资本至上、金钱至上、恃强凌弱、破坏自然的灾难性后果。而中国式现代化所代表的社会主义现代化则指引了现代文明的进步性，它所体现出来的人民至上、团结合作、和平发展、绿色发展将极大激发现代文明的积极性。按照这样的道路走下去，世界现代化终将突破困境，展现出新的发展图景。（注释略）

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑