Communicative Capitalism, Neofeudalism and the Latest Dynamics of Capitalism — An Interview with American Marxist Political Theorist Professor Jodi Dean

Jodi Dean (1962– ) is a renowned contemporary Marxist political theorist and professor in the Department of Political Science at Hobart and William Smith Colleges in the United States. Over the course of her academic career, Professor Dean has advanced numerous influential theories, such as “communicative capitalism” and “neofeudalism.” Her major works include *The Grave of Capital: Neofeudalism and the New Class Struggle*, *Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies: Communicative Capitalism and Left Politics*, *Blog Theory: Feedback and Capture in the Circuits of Drive*, *The Communist Horizon*, and *Comrade: An Essay on Political Belonging*.

乔蒂·迪恩(1962—),当代著名的马克思主义政治理论家，美国霍巴特和威廉史密斯学院政治学系教授。在其学术生涯中，迪恩教授提出了诸多具有影响力的理论，如“交往资本主义”“新封建主义”等。她的主要著述包括《资本的坟墓：新封建主义与新阶级斗争》(The Grave of Capital:Neofeudalism and the New Class Struggle)、《民主与其他新自由主义幻想：交往资本主义与左翼政治》(Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies:Communicative Capitalism and Left Politics)、《博客理论：驱力回路中的反馈与捕获》(Blog Theory:Feedback and Capture in the Circuits of Drive)、《共产主义的地平线》(The Communist Horizon)、《同志：关于政治归属的论文》(Comrade:An Essay on Political Belonging)等。

I. New Characteristics and New Trends of Communicative Capitalism

一、交往资本主义的新特征及新态势

○ (Wang Yin, Chang Yutong, same below) Hello, Professor Jodi Dean! The term “communicative capitalism” was first proposed and systematically elaborated by you in a series of articles and works in the early 2000s. As a global phenomenon today, what characteristics does communicative capitalism possess? What are its internal operating mechanisms and value implications?

○(王寅、常雨桐，下同)乔蒂·迪恩教授您好!“交往资本主义”这个术语由您在21世纪初的一系列文章和著作中首次提出并系统阐述。作为当今的一种全球性现象，交往资本主义具有什么样的特征?其内在运行机制和价值意涵是什么?

● (Jodi Dean, same below) “Communicative capitalism” is the product of the fusion of democratic ideals and the logic of capital. A key entry point for understanding this concept is Habermas’s theory of communicative action. The core of the ideal communicative state envisioned by Habermas lies in inclusivity, rational discussion, reciprocity, and guaranteeing everyone’s right to speak freely. The internet, as one of the key tools for realizing global neoliberalism, is an important contemporary carrier of this communicative ideal. It has also become one of the core modes of operation of contemporary capitalism, because capitalism attempts to incorporate the global population into its system precisely through ubiquitous communication networks. This inclusivity is crucial, as indispensable as access to modern communication networks. The design goal of communication networks is, on the one hand, to enable more and more individuals and companies to access the market and enhance competitiveness, and on the other hand, to increase participation, thereby formally promoting democracy. Consequently, this combination of democratic processes and capitalist practices is taken for granted, even losing the grounds for being questioned. Therefore, if we try to understand the current stage of capitalism where communication dominates, we find that it is precisely those seemingly identical democratic procedures and practices that are being absorbed and shaped by capitalism, forming substantive capital accumulation and capital monopoly, and democracy becomes a tool hijacked by capital.

●(乔蒂·迪恩，下同)“交往资本主义”是民主理想与资本逻辑相互融合的产物。理解这一概念的一个关键切入点就是哈贝马斯的交往行为理论。哈贝马斯所设想的理想交往状态，其核心在于包容性、理性讨论、互惠性以及保障每个人都能自由发言的权利。互联网作为实现全球新自由主义的关键工具之一，正是这种交往理想在当代的重要载体。它也成为当今资本主义运作的核心模式之一，因为资本主义正是通过无处不在的传播网络试图将全球人口纳入其体系。这种包容性至关重要，如同接入现代传播网络一样不可或缺。传播网络的设计目标，一方面在于让越来越多的个体和公司能够接入市场并提升竞争力，另一方面则旨在提升参与度，从而在形式上促进民主。于是，民主进程与资本主义实践的这种结合，被视为理所当然，甚至失去了被质疑的理由。因此，如果我们试图理解当前这个交往占据主导地位的资本主义阶段，就会发现，恰恰是那些表面上完全相同的民主程序和实践，正在被资本主义所吸纳和形塑，形成实质上的资本集聚和资本垄断，民主就成为被资本裹挟的工具。

○ You regard communicative capitalism as the product of the fusion of democratic ideals and the logic of capital and as a new stage in the development of digital capitalism. Compared with previous models of capitalism, what are the prominent features of communicative capitalism in the digital-intelligent society? What connection do you see between Habermas’s theory of communicative action and your theory of communicative capitalism?

○您将交往资本主义视为民主理想与资本逻辑相互融合的产物和数字资本主义发展的新阶段。与以往的资本主义模式相比较，数智社会的交往资本主义有哪些突出特点?您认为哈贝马斯的交往行为理论与您的交往资本主义理论存在什么样的关联?

● As I said above, communication is not something new; it is built on the foundation of Marx and Engels’s theory of world history. Contemporary communicative capitalism has two notable characteristics. On the one hand, it exists within the circulatory circuits of digitalized and intelligent modern communication networks; on the other hand, it points to an economic-political system that thoroughly absorbs the public sphere and political participation into the circuits of capitalism. In this system, massive, endless communication becomes a new form of capitalist production and accumulation, but this communication is hollow and captured; far from promoting democracy, it weakens and replaces effective political action. This issue touches on Habermas’s concept of communication free from domination, unrestricted and non-coercive. He believes that such public discussion and normative validation are necessary conditions for achieving rational social governance. The communicative rationality of democratic debate should lay the normative foundation for public life. In my 2002 book *Publicity’s Secret: How Technoculture Capitalizes on Democracy* (more than twenty years ago now, but I believe its critique of the internet and social media remains forward-looking), I argued that what Habermas elaborates is not the standard of a rational society but an ideology of “technoculture” — that is, what we understand today as the ubiquitous form of social media constructed by the large-scale application of personalized digital communication. We have continuous communication, continuous critique, but this has not led to a freer, more equal, or more rational society. On the contrary, it has spawned a group of tech billionaires and fueled the rise of the far right. Amid endless questioning, criticism, and provocation, what we see is the disintegration of trust and the spread of widespread isolation and loneliness. To put it bluntly, why would anyone think that letting everyone speak their mind anytime, anywhere is the formula for rationally validating validity claims or for democratic governance? Therefore, my understanding of communicative capitalism is a materialist reading of Habermas — that is, examining the capitalist economic and technological conditions that concretize his ideas in the real world. In digital technology, communication and capitalism merge, yet they undermine each other.

●就像我上面所说的，交往并非一种新事物，它建立在马克思恩格斯的世界历史理论基础上。当今的交往资本主义具有两个显著特征。一方面，它存在于数字化、智能化的现代交往网络循环回路中；另一方面，它指向一种将公共领域和政治参与彻底吸纳进资本主义循环的经济—政治体系。在这个体系中，大量的、无休止的交往成为资本主义生产和积累的新形式，但这种交往是空洞的、被捕获的，它非但没有促进民主，反而削弱和替代了有效的政治行动。这个问题涉及哈贝马斯所提出的免于支配、无限制且非强制的交往理念。他认为，这种公共讨论和规范验证是实现社会理性治理的必要条件。民主辩论的交往理性本应奠定公共生活的规范基础。在我2002年出版的《宣传的秘密：技术文化如何利用民主》(Publicity’s Secret:How Technoculture Capitalizes on Democracy)(距今已有20余年，但我认为，它对互联网和社交媒体的批判仍具前瞻性)一书中，我提出哈贝马斯所阐述的并非理性社会的标准，而是一种“技术文化”的意识形态，亦即我们今天所理解的，由个性化数字通信大规模应用构筑而成的、无所不在的社交媒体形态。我们拥有持续的沟通、持续的批判，但这并未导向更自由、更平等、更理性的社会。恰恰相反，它催生了一批科技亿万富翁，助长了极右翼势力的抬头。在无休止的质疑、批评与挑衅中，我们看到的是信任的瓦解、普遍的孤立与孤独感的蔓延。直白地说，为什么有人会认为，让每个人随时随地都能畅所欲言，就是理性论证有效性主张或民主治理的公式?因此，我对交往资本主义的理解，是从物质层面解读哈贝马斯，即审视使其理念在现实世界中得以具象化的资本主义经济与技术条件。在数字技术中，交往与资本主义相互融合，却彼此损害。

More specifically, communicative capitalism refers to a form of late capitalism in which those ideals touted as core democratic values (such as open access, inclusion, discussion, and participation) are materially realized through the expansion, intensification, and interconnection of global telecommunications networks. However, this has not brought about a fairer distribution of wealth and influence, nor has it promoted diversity in lifestyles and practices of freedom. Instead, the flood of visual spectacle continuously erodes the political opportunities and action efficacy of the vast majority of the global population.

更具体地说，交往资本主义指的是晚期资本主义的一种形态，其中那些被标榜为民主核心价值的理念(如开放接入、包容、讨论与参与),通过全球电信网络的扩张、强化与互联互通得以物质化实现。然而，这并未带来财富与影响力的更公平分配，也未促进生活方式与自由实践的多样性。视觉盛宴的洪流反而持续削弱着全球大多数民众的政治机会与行动效能。

II. The Development of the Digital-Intelligent Economy and the “Re-feudalization” of Capitalism

二、数智经济的发展与资本主义的“再封建化”

○ What do you see as the latest dynamics in the development of capitalism today? What are the key focuses of Western leftist scholars’ critique of capitalism?

○您认为当今资本主义发展的最新动态是什么?西方左翼学者对资本主义的批判重点体现在哪些方面?

● The latest trend is the development of artificial intelligence technology. Tech giants, with strong support from the U.S. government, are fully engaged in a hegemonic struggle over AI. This is the result of economic stagnation and collapse caused by the neoliberal economic model after the 2008 international financial crisis. Capital hopes that AI will revive the economy, drive economic growth, and consolidate U.S. global hegemony. Major tech giants have all entered the fray, excited by the huge investments promised by the government. However, their goals are merely private profit and U.S. global hegemony, and I am deeply skeptical of this AI frenzy. Millions of jobs will be eliminated (reports warn of high-risk industries weekly or even daily). The education sector will be completely upended; educators are already deeply concerned about the decline in students’ cognitive abilities such as reading, writing, summarizing, and interpreting. The environmental impact of AI is also enormous, causing massive consumption of water and electricity resources. The Trump administration has already ensured that there will be no constraints on AI development for the next ten years. The entire process is advancing in an anarchic and imperialist manner, which is a typical characteristic of Western capitalism.

●最新趋势是人工智能技术的发展。科技巨头在美国政府的大力支持下，正全力投入人工智能的霸权争夺中。这是2008年国际金融危机后新自由主义经济模式导致经济停滞和崩溃的结果。资本冀望人工智能重振经济、推动经济增长并巩固美国在全球的霸主地位。各大科技巨头纷纷入局，为政府承诺的巨额投资兴奋不已。然而，他们的目标只是私人利润和美国全球霸权，我对这场人工智能热潮保持深度怀疑。数百万个工作岗位将被淘汰(每周甚至每天均有报告警示高危行业)。教育领域将彻底被颠覆，教育工作者已对学生阅读、写作以及总结、解读等认知能力下降深表担忧。人工智能对环境的影响也是极为巨大的，造成了对水电资源的海量消耗。而特朗普政府已确保未来十年内不会对人工智能发展进行任何约束。整个进程正以无政府主义和帝国主义的方式推进，这正是西方资本主义的典型特征。

We should place this in the context of the housing crisis (not only in the United States, but in many regions globally facing shortages of affordable housing and a surge in homelessness), climate catastrophe (the Trump administration systematically dismantled all mechanisms for addressing climate change, instead boosting fossil fuel expansion through massive tax breaks for oil, gas, and coal companies), and the overall decay of public infrastructure (in major cities like New York and Philadelphia, subway systems have severely aged; similarly, our air traffic control system faces understaffing, outdated equipment, and declining reliability). Ironically, we never hear of artificial intelligence being used to solve these pressing problems – the root cause remains the anarchic and imperialist nature of American capitalism.

我们应将此置于住房危机(不仅在美国，全球许多地区都面临可负担住房短缺和无家可归者激增的问题)、气候灾难(特朗普政府系统性地拆解了所有应对气候变化的机制，反而通过向石油、天然气和煤炭公司提供巨额税收减免来助推化石燃料的扩张)以及公共基础设施整体衰退(在纽约和费城等大城市，地铁系统已严重老化，同样，我们的空中交通管制系统也面临人员不足、设备陈旧且可靠性日益下降的问题)的背景下。讽刺的是，我们从未听闻人工智能被用于解决这些紧迫问题——根源仍在于美国资本主义的无政府主义与帝国主义本质。

○ Does the current trajectory of digital economy development possess an inherent consistency with the “attention economy” you emphasized in your book *Blog Theory: Feedback and Capture in the Circuits of Drive*? Is there a tendency toward “neo-feudalism”?

○当前的数字经济发展情势与您在《博客理论：驱力回路中的反馈和捕获》一书中所强调的“注意力经济”是否具有内在一致性?是否有导向“新封建主义”的倾向?

● At the time, I did not directly use the concept of “neo-feudalism,” but the analysis already implied the rudiments of this theory. On one hand, communicative capitalism reveals the extractive exploitation of communication. Digital media seize creativity, critical spirit, and sociality, transforming them into resources and means for capital accumulation. This process intensifies wealth concentration and inequality, giving rise to “tech-lords” and the expansion of neo-feudal services. On the other hand, *Blog Theory* focuses on the deep-level impact of communicative transformation on subjectivity. I drew on the theories of Jacques Lacan and Slavoj Žižek, particularly regarding drive theory and the “decline of symbolic efficiency.” The former aims to analyze the endless reflexivity and circular communication on social media, as well as their mechanisms for ensnaring users. For example, controversial issues never reach a conclusion or solution. Instead, a pervasive questioning, suspicion, and doubt, actively generated and spread by countless individuals, continuously erodes trust and common sense. Lies spread as fast as, or even faster than, truth; completely incomparable issues and events are treated equally, alternating in the same space – fashion and genocide, sports and famine, all alike. The “decline of symbolic efficiency” is precisely what the networked form of communicative drive brings about. This term refers to words or symbols losing their former clarity and recognizability. For instance: my students increasingly lose the ability to discern irony; they find it difficult to see things from others’ perspectives, instead insisting that no one should speak for anyone else, and that words mean different things to different people. Generalized cognitive activities are questioned, yet these are necessary skills and habits in a complex society. The consequence is a phenomenon of “tribalization” – people rely on subcultures and identity for mutual attachment, seeking a degree of recognition within specific circles, i.e., that there are always others who understand them. This points to the fragmentation embodied by neo-feudalization. Therefore, artificial intelligence and the drive circuit loops in blog theory possess an inherent consistency and regularity.

●当时我并未直接使用“新封建主义”这一概念，但在分析中已经隐含这一理论的雏形。一方面，交往资本主义揭示了对传播的榨取性利用。数字媒介攫取创造力、批判精神与社会性，将其转化为资本积累的资源与手段。此过程加剧了财富集中与不平等，催生了“科技领主(tech-lords)”的崛起和新封建式服务的扩张。另一方面，《博客理论》聚焦于传播变革在主体层面的深层冲击。我借鉴了雅克·拉康(Jacques Lacan)和斯拉沃热·齐泽克(Slavoj Žižek)的理论，特别是关于驱力理论和“象征效率的衰落”。前者旨在解析社交媒体中无休止的反思性与循环交流，以及它们对用户的裹挟机制。例如，争议议题永无终结点或解决方案。取而代之的是，由万千个体主动生成并传播的普遍性质疑、猜忌与怀疑，不断侵蚀信任与常识。谎言与真相传播得一样快，甚至更快；完全不可比拟的议题与事件被等量齐观，在同一空间中交替传播——时尚与种族灭绝、体育与饥荒，都是如此。“象征效率的衰落”正是网络化交往驱动形式所带来的。这一术语指代词语或符号丧失其先前的明确性与可辨识度。举例来说：我的学生日渐丧失辨别讽刺的能力；他们很难从他人的角度看待问题，反而坚持认为没有人应该替他人发言，且词语对不同人意味着不同含义。概括化的认知活动受到质疑、但这些都是复杂社会中必要的技能和习惯。造成的后果是一种“部落化”现象——人们依靠亚文化和身份认同相互依附，以求在特定圈层中获得某种程度的承认，即总有其他人能理解自身。这便指向了新封建化所体现的碎片化。因此，人工智能与博客理论中的驱力循环回路有内在的一致性和规律性。

○ Do the various socio-economic relations shaped by the digital-intelligent society show signs of moving toward “neo-feudalism”?

○数智化社会形塑的各种社会经济关系，是否有走向“新封建主义”的端倪?

● I theorize “neo-feudalism” as a trend within capitalism, a form engendered by capitalism’s internal contradictions. Capitalism’s growth rate is increasingly declining. As the economy becomes more dependent on rent, services, and finance, capital accumulation is gradually detaching from actual production. Service economies typically have a tendency toward stagnation (as a large body of literature demonstrates), and the fact that the world’s major economies today are predominantly service-based further exacerbates this trend. Since it is no longer possible to generate the profits and growth rates of the past within the production process, the result is a “politically driven upward redistribution of wealth” – a term I borrow from Robert Brenner. Asset holders, i.e., the ruling class, increasingly use the state apparatus to directly benefit themselves. Obvious examples include Trump and Musk in the United States, and Gautam Adani and Modi in India.

●我将“新封建主义”理论化为资本主义内部的一种趋势，是资本主义内部矛盾所催生的一种形态。资本主义的增长率正在日益降低。随着经济日益依赖于租金、服务和金融，资本积累正逐渐脱离实际生产。服务型经济通常具有停滞倾向(正如大量文献所论证的那样),而当今世界主要经济体恰恰都以服务业为主，这进一步加剧了这一趋势。由于在生产过程中无法再创造过去那样的利润和增长率，其结果便是“由政治驱动的财富向上再分配”——这个术语我引自罗伯特·布伦纳(Robert Brenner)。资产持有者，即统治阶级，越来越多地利用国家机器来直接为自己牟利。显而易见的例子包括美国的特朗普和马斯克，以及印度的高塔姆·阿达尼(Gautam Adani)和莫迪。

More broadly, my analysis focuses on four interrelated domains: the state, class relations, spatiality, and subjectivity. At the state level, we see intensified fragmentation, with sovereignty replaced by suzerainty. At the class level, tech giants and a vast service class replace the traditional bourgeoisie and proletariat. At the spatial level, it is characterized by hinterlandization or marginalization, with cities surrounded by abandoned wastelands, and the residents living there neglected and abandoned. At the level of subjectivity, there is a pervasive anxiety and paranoia, a lingering catastrophism.

更广泛地说，我的分析聚焦于四个相互关联的领域：国家、阶级关系、空间性与主体性。国家层面，我们看到碎片化加剧，主权被宗主权取代。阶级层面，科技巨头和庞大的服务者阶层取代了传统的资产阶级和无产阶级。空间层面，其特征是腹地化或边缘化，城市被废弃荒地所包围，生活其中的居民被忽视、遗弃。主体性层面，则弥漫着一种普遍性的焦虑与偏执，一种挥之不去的灾难主义。

III. Reinterpretation of Basic Marxist Theory and the Path of Chinese-Path Modernization

三、马克思主义基本理论再阐释与中国式现代化道路

○ You have provided a new interpretation of the *Communist Manifesto* co-authored by Marx and Engels, namely *The Communist Manifesto: With a New Introduction*. Why did you decide to write such a new introductory essay?

○您对马克思和恩格斯共同撰写的《共产党宣言》进行了新解读，即《共产党宣言的新解读》(The Communist Manifesto:With a New Introduction)。您为何决定撰写这样一篇新的解读文章?

● Rather than a new interpretation, it is an effort to introduce the *Communist Manifesto* to a new generation of English readers. My goal is to demonstrate the enduring practical relevance of the *Communist Manifesto*, to show that it may be even more important today than in the 19th century. From the intensity of capital circulation, class struggle, revolution, to the leading role of the Party, everything Marx and Engels described remains relevant today. What I have done is simply to place their analysis within the context of communicative capitalism to illustrate this point.

● 与其说这是一种新的解读，不如说它是将《共产党宣言》引介给新一代英语读者的努力。我的目标在于证明《共产党宣言》与时俱进的实用性，证明它在今天甚至可能比在19世纪更为重要。从资本流通的强度、阶级斗争、革命到政党的领导作用，马克思和恩格斯所描述的一切在当下仍然具有现实意义。我所做的，只是将他们的分析置于交往资本主义的语境中，以阐明这一点。

○ What is your understanding and conception of Marx’s views on communism?

○您对马克思关于共产主义的观点有着怎样的认知和理解?

● As a Marxist, I consider myself to have always adhered to the basic viewpoints of Marxism. Because the Marxist methodology requires us to conduct historical materialist analysis, thereby promoting the continued development of Marxism. The world has changed since the 19th century. Has this change shaken our communist ideals? Has it altered our understanding of how to realize these ideals? I believe it has not changed the ideal of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” For me, this principle has always been the core promise of a communist society: each of us contributes our utmost to build and maintain the conditions for the free and all-round development of everyone. Perhaps the reality of climate change today prompts us to place this development more within the context of ecological balance – although Marx himself was already concerned about the impact of industrialization on the land.

●作为一名马克思主义者，我自认为一直坚持马克思主义的基本观点。因为马克思主义方法论要求我们应该进行历史唯物主义分析，从而推动马克思主义继续向前发展。自19世纪以来，世界已经发生了变化。这种变化是否动摇了我们的共产主义理想?是否改变了我们关于如何实现这一理想的认知?我认为这并未改变“各尽所能，按需分配”的理想。对我而言，这一原则始终是共产主义社会承诺的核心：我们每个人都尽己所能参与建设和维系让所有人自由全面发展的条件。或许当下气候变化的现实促使我们更多地将这种发展置于生态平衡的背景下——尽管马克思本人早已关注工业化对土地的影响。

If we view communism as a movement, then we must pay attention to all the changes that have occurred since Marx and Engels wrote the *Communist Manifesto*, such as communist revolutions worldwide that broadly mobilized the peasantry, the failure of revolution in countries with the strongest industrial working class, the success of the Russian Revolution but the eventual collapse and disintegration of the Soviet Union… All these – and more – factors inevitably affect our understanding of revolutionary transformation and the conditions required for building communism. I am particularly interested in analyzing work related to the service sector. For example, in the United States, teachers and nurses have played a leading role in labor struggles, powerfully arguing that their working conditions are directly linked to the well-being of the entire population.

如果我们将共产主义视为一种运动，那么就必须关注自马克思恩格斯写作《共产党宣言》以来发生的一切变化，如世界范围内发生的共产主义革命都广泛动员了农民阶层、在产业工人阶级最强大的国家革命却未能取得成功、俄国革命成功了但苏联却最终崩溃解体……所有这些——以及更多——因素都必然影响我们对革命性变革以及建设共产主义所需条件的理解。我对分析与服务行业相关的工作特别感兴趣。例如，在美国，教师和护士在劳工斗争中发挥了领导作用，他们有力地论证了其工作条件与全民福祉直接相关。

Ultimately, I believe communism requires the abolition of class society through public ownership and planning, and it cannot be achieved in a single country alone, because all countries are interconnected, and development in one place affects development elsewhere. This is precisely Marx’s own view.

归根结底，我认为共产主义需要通过公有制和计划来消灭阶级社会，并且它无法在单一国家中独自实现，因为所有国家都相互关联，一个地方的发展会影响其他地方的发展。这正是马克思本人的观点。

○ The theory of “comrade” you described in your book *The Comrade: An Essay on Political Belonging* – what implications and significance does it have for the building of a proletarian party?

○您在《同志：关于政治归属的论文》一书中所描述的“同志”理论，对于无产阶级政党建设有哪些启示和意义?

● The term “comrade” performs a triple function: it is a form of address, a carrier of expectation, and a symbol of belonging for those who stand in the same political struggle. This term is crucial and indispensable because it enables us to identify the specificity of comradely relations. Such relations are fundamentally different from relations among friends, relatives, neighbors, or citizens. When we address each other as “comrade,” we aim to highlight that our work and actions bear a shared political purpose. In the socialist and communist traditions, this purpose is the construction of the communist cause. Maintaining and cultivating comradely relations is of vital importance for all efforts dedicated to building communism.

● “同志”(comrade)这一术语承担着三重功能：它既是一种称谓形式，亦是一种期许载体，同时还是身处同一政治斗争阵营者的归属象征。这个术语至关重要、不可或缺，因为它使我们得以辨识同志关系的特殊性。这种关系迥异于朋友、亲属、邻里或公民之间的关系。当我们以“同志”相称时，意在凸显彼此的工作与行动承载着共同的政治目的。在社会主义与共产主义传统中，此目的即为建设共产主义事业。维护和培养同志关系对于一切致力于建设共产主义的努力而言都至关重要。

○ In your book *Comrade: An Essay on Political Belonging*, you emphasize “building relations of equality, mutual aid, solidarity, and fraternal affection.” What guiding role does this play in advancing the realization of communism?

○您在《同志：关于政治归属的论文》一书中所强调的“构建平等互助、团结友爱的同志关系”,对于推动实现共产主义有哪些指导作用?

● In *The State and Revolution*, Lenin discusses the transformation of people and society necessary for achieving communism. He points out: “People will gradually become accustomed to observing the elementary rules of social life that have been known for centuries and repeated for thousands of years in all copy-book maxims; they will observe them without force, without compulsion, without subordination, without the special apparatus for compulsion which is called the state.” [1]1 V. I. Lenin, *The State and Revolution*, Chapter 5, Section 4. The full passage discusses the withering away of the state and the gradual habituation of people to observing the basic rules of social life without coercion. Comradely relations are one pathway for cultivating this habit. Capitalist market relations are grounded in competition and egoism. Family and friend relations are confined to the private sphere and are limited. If our relations with one another are restricted to these forms, we will never be able to develop a genuine communist society. But when, in our daily practices and interactions, we are called upon to provide solidarity and support to one another, we create the social conditions for communism, and communism thereby becomes a form of freedom.

●在《国家与革命》一书中，列宁探讨了实现共产主义所需的人与社会的变革。他指出：“人们对于人类一切公共生活的简单的基本规则就会很快从必须遵守变成习惯于遵守了。”(1)同志关系是培养这种习惯的途径之一。资本主义市场关系立足于竞争与利己主义。家庭和朋友关系则囿于私人领域且具有局限性。如果我们彼此之间的关系仅限于这些形式，就永远无法发展出一个真正的共产主义社会。但是，当我们在日常实践和互动中受到感召而相互提供团结和支持时，我们便为共产主义创造了社会条件，而共产主义亦由此成为自由的形式。

○ Through your travels and observations in China, where do you see the superiority of the socialist system with Chinese characteristics?

○通过您在中国的游历与观察，您认为中国特色社会主义制度的优越性体现在哪里?

● The superiority is mainly reflected in the leadership capacity of the Communist Party of China and in its emphasis on communism as the ultimate goal of struggle. The CPC’s ability to lead such a vast society is unparalleled. It can set development goals and standards, and its governance effectiveness far exceeds that of the United States (especially against the backdrop of the current extreme division and high levels of discontent in American society). As I understand it, China’s use of market incentives and competitive mechanisms is deeply embedded within a socialist and communist framework that takes collective well-being as its ultimate objective. Within this framework, individual development and enrichment are permitted—not based on the Western notion of “primary rights” or mere expressions of goodwill, but as a policy tool aimed at promoting the overall progress of society. As an American visitor, what strikes me most is China’s forward-looking vision and its posture of building the future. In contrast, the leadership of the United States remains stuck in the past.

●优越性主要体现在中国共产党的领导力上，以及对共产主义作为最终奋斗目标的强调。中国共产党领导如此庞大社会的能力是无可比拟的。它能够确立发展目标和标准，其执政效能远超美国(尤其在当下美国社会陷入极端分裂、不满情绪极度高涨的背景下)。依我的理解，中国对于市场激励与竞争机制的运用，深度嵌入以集体福祉为终极目标的社会主义与共产主义框架。在此框架内允许个体的发展和富裕，这并非基于西方意义上的“首要权利”概念或单纯的善意表达，而是作为一种旨在推动社会整体进步的政策工具。作为一名美国访客，令我尤为震撼的是中国展现出的前瞻视野与建设未来的姿态。相比之下，美国的领导层仍然停滞于过去。

○ In your understanding, what kind of modernization path is Chinese-path modernization? What commonalities and differences does it have with the Western modernization model?

○在您的理解中，中国式现代化道路是一种什么样的现代化道路?与西方现代化模式相比，有哪些共同点和不同点?

● I must confess that my area of expertise is not modernization theory, so my answer will be relatively abstract and intuitive, based on my personal experience in the United States. Western capitalist modernization has a dual character of anarchism and imperialism. Regarding the former, it proceeds without planning, driven by competition among individuals pursuing their own interests, utterly disregarding life, communities, and the ecological environment. The imperialist factor recalls Lenin’s description of the “territorial division of the world.” [2]2 V. I. Lenin, *Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism*, Chapter 6, “Division of the World among the Great Powers.” Lenin argues that the territorial division of the world by capitalist powers is a defining feature of imperialism. The development of Western capitalism relies on colonization and conquest, and is inseparable from the systematic containment of other countries’ development. From the late 20th century to the early 21st century, this was reflected in the construction of a global financial order serving the interests of the United States and Britain, and in America’s endless wars and military expansion. In contrast, China’s path is entirely different. China’s use of market mechanisms takes place within a planned framework, and China’s development is not built on the basis of colonial expansion.

●我必须坦承，我的专业领域并非现代化理论，因此我的回答将较为抽象且基于直觉，源于我个人在美国的经历。西方资本主义现代化具有无政府主义和帝国主义的双重特质。就前者而言，它是在缺乏规划的情况下进行的，由个体逐利的竞争所驱动，完全不顾及生命、社区和生态环境。帝国主义因素令人联想到列宁所描述的“世界领土划分”。西方资本主义的发展依赖于殖民和征服，与系统性遏制他国发展密不可分。20世纪末至21世纪初，这一点体现在服务于美英利益的全球金融秩序的构建上，体现在美国无休止的战争和军事扩张上。与此对照，中国的道路截然不同。中国对市场机制的运用是在有计划的框架内进行的，中国的发展也不是建立在殖民扩张的基础上。