The “Woke” Turn of Liberalism in the United States and Europe and Its Developmental Trends

Since the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there has always been a division and opposition between the right wing and the left wing within liberalism. Broadly speaking, the right wing is mainly represented by classical liberalism or neo-liberalism, while the “left wing” is mainly represented by social liberalism or progressive liberalism. This opposition is widespread in European and American countries and manifests itself in multiple dimensions, such as party competition and ideological debate. Compared with the certainty of the liberal right wing, the left wing has had various expressions in different historical stages, such as progressivism and social democracy. Although each has its own emphasis, their main commonalities can be distilled into an acceptance of mixed economies, social market economies, and the expansion of political and social rights. Welfare liberalism, New Deal liberalism, and Keynesianism are all representative examples.

自19世纪末20世纪初，自由主义内部就始终存在右翼与左翼的分化与对立。大致来看，右翼主要以古典自由主义（ClassicalLiberalism）或新自由主义（Neo-liberalism）等为代表，“左翼”主要以社会自由主义（SocialLiberalism）或进步自由主义（ProgressiveLiberalism）等为代表。这一对立在欧美国家普遍存在，且在政党竞争、思想争论等多个维度表现出来。相对自由主义右翼的确定性，左翼在不同历史阶段存在多种表达，如进步主义（Progressivism）、社会民主主义等。尽管各有侧重，但主要共性可以提炼为认同混合经济、社会市场经济（SocialMarketEconomy）、扩大政治与社会权利等，福利自由主义、新政自由主义、凯恩斯主义等均是代表。

After the 1960s and 1970s, with the retreat of the liberal left wing, represented by Keynesianism, the trend of convergence between the liberal left and right wings became more apparent, with both sides absorbing each other’s propositions and ideas to a limited extent. This convergence trend simplified the use of the concept of “liberalism,” and to a certain extent blurred and obscured its internal left-right division. However, this does not mean that the complex characteristics within liberalism have been eliminated. After the outbreak of the international financial crisis in 2008, the complex features embedded in the concept of liberalism once again came to the fore, recreating the historical opposition between left and right wings, with both sides showing a trend toward polarization. Accompanying this phenomenon is the intensification of party opposition and competition in major Western capitalist countries, the prevalence of identity politics, and the deepening of social division. Among these, the right wing explicitly opposes left-wing positions on the cultural level; the left wing, holding fast to its own cultural stance, is transforming into a progressive new left, using wokism as its banner to unify various propositions and attempt to promote comprehensive social change. Western media and public opinion refer to the above series of phenomena as an “internal cold war” or “culture war,” and the rise of wokism is the core feature of this contemporary phenomenon. Therefore, understanding and analyzing wokism has become a key entry point for grasping the new trends in the current development of liberalism and for gaining insight into the current state of social thought and ideology in the United States and Europe.

20世纪六七十年代后，伴随凯恩斯主义等自由主义左翼的退却，自由主义左翼与右翼的合流发展趋势较为明显，双方均有限度吸收对方的主张与理念。这一合流趋势使“自由主义”概念的使用日趋简化，甚至在一定程度上模糊、掩盖了其内部的左右分化，但这并不意味着自由主义内部的复杂特征已然消除。2008年国际金融危机爆发后，自由主义概念蕴含的复杂特征再度凸显，重现了历史上曾出现的左右翼对立态势，且双方均呈现出极化发展的趋势。与这一现象相伴的是欧美主要资本主义国家政党对立与竞争加剧、身份政治大行其道、社会分裂不断加剧。其中，右翼在文化层面明确反对左翼立场；左翼则坚守自身文化立场，向进步主义新左翼（ProgressiveNewLeft）转型，并以觉醒主义（Wokeism）为旗帜统合各类主张，试图推动社会的全面变革。美西方舆论将上述一系列现象称为“内冷战”“文化战争”，而觉醒主义的兴起正是这一时代现象的核心特征。因此，理解并分析觉醒主义，已然成为把握当前自由主义发展新趋势、洞悉美西方社会思想与意识形态现状的关键切入口。

I. Wokism and the New Changes in Liberalism

一、觉醒主义与自由主义的新变化

Wokism is a complex concept. Some scholars have pointed out that the conceptual evolution of wokism has roughly gone through three stages: first, from the early 20th century to the first decade of the 21st century, the use of the concept “woke” aimed to call on the Black community to “stay awake and aware” of the racial discrimination they suffered; second, after the “Mike Brown incident” in 2014, wokism, as a progressive new left trend of thought, began to be used on a large scale on the internet and in social and cultural movements; third, around the 2024 U.S. presidential election, both the left and right wings of the liberal camp strengthened their interpretations of the concept of “woke,” using it to refer to groups and practices that hold progressive positions on issues such as race and gender. Currently, wokism has become the most popular and divisive term in Western societies, with profound social influence. Overall, wokism is an important manifestation of the increasing polarization of the liberal left wing. It uses progressive values as its standard of division, absorbs intellectual resources such as cultural Marxism, and aims to win the recognition and support of broader social groups, especially the youth.

觉醒主义是一个复杂的概念。有学者研究指出，觉醒主义的概念演变大体经历了三个阶段：一是从20世纪初到21世纪头十年，“觉醒”（woke）概念的使用意在呼吁黑人群体对自身遭受的种族歧视“保持清醒认知”；二是2014年“迈克·布朗事件”爆发后，觉醒主义作为一种进步主义新左翼思潮开始在互联网和社会文化运动中大规模使用；三是2024年美国大选前后，自由主义阵营左右两翼均对“觉醒”概念进行强化阐释，用以指代在种族、性别等议题上秉持进步主义立场的群体与实践。目前，觉醒主义已成为美西方社会中最流行、最具分裂性的词语，有着深刻的社会影响。总体而言，觉醒主义是自由主义左翼日趋极化的重要表征，它以进步主义价值为划分标准，吸纳文化马克思主义等思想资源，意在争取更广泛社会群体、特别是青年群体的认同与支持。

(A) New Form: Strengthening Progressive Values

（一）新形态：强化进步主义价值观

In terms of its ideological form, wokism belongs to the category of the progressive new left. It originates from a reflection on traditional progressive values and related social movements, as well as from dissatisfaction with the existing liberal left-wing line. Consequently, it puts forward a series of more radical ideological propositions, arguing that racism, sexism, and oppressive hierarchical structures have been deeply embedded in the fabric of American society. The distinct presence of wokism can be seen in political and cultural events such as the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, the “Black Lives Matter” movement, and multiple rounds of U.S. presidential elections. In the narrative of wokism, American society urgently needs and is undergoing a “great awakening,” taking identity dimensions such as race, ethnicity, and gender as the core yardsticks for judging social affairs, and advocating for the widespread implementation of “critical race theory” training and “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) programs in government agencies, enterprises, and campuses. Wokism can be understood from four dimensions.

觉醒主义在思想形态上归属于进步主义新左翼范畴。它源于对传统进步主义价值观及相关社会运动的反思，也源于对既有自由主义左翼路线的不满。由此提出一系列更为激进的思想主张，认为种族主义、性别歧视与压迫性等级结构已深度嵌入美国社会肌体。在“占领华尔街”运动、“黑人的命也是命”运动以及多轮美国大选等政治文化事件中，均可见觉醒主义的鲜明身影。在觉醒主义的叙事中，美国社会亟须并正在经历一场“大觉醒”，将种族、族裔、性别认同等身份维度作为评判社会事务的核心标尺，并主张在政府机构、企业与校园普遍推行“批判性种族理论”培训，实施“多样性、公平性、包容性”（DEI）项目等。可以从四个维度来理解觉醒主义。

First, in terms of its connotation, wokism mainly contains three layers of meaning.

第一，从内涵来看，觉醒主义主要包含三重意蕴。

One is taking justice and fairness as its value basis, committed to eliminating social injustice and discriminatory prejudice; two is taking intersectionality as its characteristic, focusing on interwoven social issues such as race, gender, and class, and gradually incorporating issues like climate change and economic fairness into its discourse system; three is pointing toward model substitution, emphasizing social justice, ecological environmental protection, and sustainable development models, ultimately forming a comprehensive framework to address systemic challenges and becoming a “catalyst” for social change.

一是以正义与公正为价值基点，致力于消解社会不公与歧视偏见；二是以交叉性为特点，聚焦种族、性别、阶级等相互交织的社会议题，并逐步将气候变化、经济公平等议题纳入其话语体系；三是指向模式替代，强调社会正义、保护生态环境、可持续发展模式等，最终形成应对系统性挑战的综合框架，成为社会变革的“催化剂”。

Second, in terms of its motivation, wokism possesses a “trinity” of internal driving forces.

第二，从动机来看，觉醒主义具备“三位一体”的内在驱动力。

One is empathy, concerning the rights, interests, and well-being of the oppressed minority groups it identifies; two is a sense of social mission, striving to provide social members with value support and action plans to cope with the uncertainty and insecurity of the times; three is moral conviction, taking justice as its banner, adhering to the principle of fairness, and fulfilling its perceived moral obligations.

一是共情心理，关切其所认定的被压迫少数群体的权益与福祉；二是社会使命感，力图为社会成员应对时代不确定性与不安全感提供价值依托与行动方案；三是道德信念，以正义为旗帜，坚守公平原则并履行其认定的道德义务。

Third, in terms of its principles, wokism is concentratedly embodied in three core propositions.

第三，从原则来看，觉醒主义集中体现为三大核心主张。

One is the denial of “American exceptionalism,” arguing that minority and marginalized groups have long been under the structural oppression of white, male, heterosexual, and mainstream religious culture; two is opposition to systemic and structural discrimination, advocating for the dismantling of hierarchical orders based on identity differences; three is the critique of capitalism and consumerism, believing that both are inherently exploitative and unsustainable, severely damaging the ecological environment and eroding basic human rights.

一是否定“美国例外论”，认为少数群体与边缘群体长期处于白人、男性、异性恋及主流宗教文化的结构性压迫之下；二是反对系统性与结构性歧视，主张破除基于身份差异的等级秩序；三是批判资本主义与消费主义，认为二者具有内在剥削性与不可持续性，严重破坏生态环境并侵蚀基本人权。

Fourth, in terms of its tradition, wokism highlights three logics of historical narrative.

第四，从传统来看，觉醒主义凸显三重历史叙事逻辑。

One is valuing historical and political legacies, consciously linking its own intellectual lineage with left-wing radical traditions and even communist thought; two is highlighting differentiated historical tasks, with Western European wokism focusing on intergenerational equity issues, while American wokism focuses more on racial discrimination; three is strengthening the narrative of anti-colonialism and anti-imperialist critique, advocating for the liberation of people from historical oppressions such as class, race, and gender, and calling for a complete break with the old order and historical legacies.

一是重视历史政治遗产，自觉将自身思想谱系与左翼激进传统乃至共产主义思潮相勾连；二是突出差异化历史任务，西欧觉醒主义侧重代际公平议题，美国觉醒主义则更聚焦种族歧视问题；三是强化反殖民主义与帝国主义批判叙事，主张将民众从阶级、种族、性别等历史压迫中解放出来，倡导与旧有秩序和历史遗产彻底决裂。

(B) New Characteristics: Absorbing Intellectual Resources such as Cultural Marxism

（二）新特点：吸纳文化马克思主义等思想资源

Wokism attempts to activate Marxism, especially the intellectual resources, discourse narratives, and value positions of cultural Marxism, taking anti-hierarchy, anti-oppression, and anti-privilege as its core orientation, thereby endowing itself with stronger “scientificity” and “theoretical rigor,” clearly distinguishing itself from liberal right-wing trends of thought, and reshaping the narrative system of the liberal left wing. From a historical perspective, liberalism itself has repeatedly absorbed left-wing intellectual resources such as Marxism; in the current context, wokism’s absorption of Marxist intellectual resources mainly presents three features.

觉醒主义试图激活马克思主义，尤其是文化马克思主义的思想资源、话语叙事与价值立场，以反等级、反压迫、反特权为核心导向，赋予自身更强的“科学性”与“学理性”，从而清晰区别于自由主义右翼思潮，重塑自由主义左翼的叙事体系。从历史脉络来看，自由主义本身就曾多次吸纳马克思主义等左翼思想资源；在当前语境下，觉醒主义对马克思主义思想资源的吸收，主要呈现为三重面貌。

First, absorbing the Marxist narrative of anti-oppression.

第一，吸收马克思主义反压迫叙事。

Wokeism holds that traditional liberalism, whether in theoretical construction or in practical movements, has been unable to effectively respond to the problem of “social oppression,” and even exhibits a deliberate disregard for this phenomenon. On this basis, wokeism actively absorbs the narrative logic of Marxism centered on “anti-oppression and anti-exploitation,” but discards the traditional criterion of class division based on ownership of the means of production, instead adopting cultural and social issues such as race, gender, and the ecological environment as the core basis for defining oppressors and the oppressed, and on this foundation carries out struggles. Its struggles focus on three core conflicts: the opposition between “white supremacy” and minority groups, the contest between “patriarchy” and feminism, and the contradiction between “heteronormativity” and LGBTQ groups. In the broadest sense, wokeism can be understood as a worldwide anti-racist, anti-fascist movement. Its core is to rely on the emancipatory logic of progressivism and egalitarianism to confront all kinds of oppressive forces such as racism and fascism. The central anchor point of this struggle is always innate identity characteristics that individuals cannot autonomously control, such as race, gender, and ethnic lineage.

觉醒主义认为，传统自由主义无论在理论建构还是现实运动中，均无法有效回应“社会压迫”问题，甚至存在刻意无视这一现象的局限。基于此，觉醒主义主动吸纳马克思主义以“反压迫与剥削”为核心的叙事逻辑，但抛弃以生产资料占有状况划分阶级的传统标准，转而将种族、性别、生态环境等文化与社会议题作为界定压迫者与被压迫者的核心依据，并以此为基础展开抗争实践。其抗争重点集中于三类核心冲突：“白人至上主义”与少数群体的对立、“父权制”与女性主义的博弈、“异性恋规范”与LGBTQ群体的矛盾。从最广泛的意义上而言，觉醒主义可被理解为一场世界性的反种族主义、反法西斯主义运动。其核心是依托进步主义、平等主义的解放逻辑，对抗种族主义、法西斯主义等各类压迫性力量。这场斗争的核心锚点，始终是种族、性别、民族血统等与生俱来、个人无法自主掌控的先天身份特征。

Second, absorbing the resources of Marxist critical theory.

第二，吸收马克思主义批判理论资源。

Wokeism actively excavates the legacy of critical theory in the history of Marxist development, even positioning itself as a form of neo-Marxism, cultural Marxism, or anti-racist Marxism. The core theoretical resources it absorbs mainly include three dimensions: first, the radicalization of self-consciousness, emphasizing the individual’s clear awareness of their own oppressive situation and active resistance; second, a profound suspicion of existing theoretical propositions and even “truth,” refusing to regard any established cognition as absolute authority; third, a theory of “oppositional” social relations, extending the oppositional relations in the economic sphere to broader social fields such as history and culture. At the level of critical orientation, wokeism believes that the economic base will construct around itself a solid superstructure composed of other social fields, forming a “protective shell” for itself. Therefore, the anti-capitalist struggle needs to “break through” from the cultural and social spheres, dismantling the support of the economic base by breaking this “protective shell,” thereby defining current struggles as a “culture war” with economic struggle as its ultimate goal.

觉醒主义积极挖掘马克思主义发展史上的批判理论遗产，甚至将自身定位为新马克思主义、文化马克思主义或反种族主义的马克思主义形态。其吸收的核心理论资源主要包括三个维度：一是自我意识的激进化，强调个体对自身压迫处境的清醒认知与主动反抗；二是对既有理论主张乃至“真理”的深刻怀疑，拒绝将任何既定认知奉为绝对权威；三是“对立性”社会关系理论，将经济领域的对立关系拓展至历史、文化等更广泛的社会领域。在批判指向层面，觉醒主义认为，经济基础会在自身周围构建起由其他社会领域构成的坚固上层建筑，形成保护自身的“防护壳”，因此，反资本主义斗争需从文化与社会领域“破题”，通过打破这一“防护壳”瓦解经济基础的支撑，进而将当前的各类抗争实践界定为以经济斗争为终极指向的“文化战争”。

Third, absorbing the communist ideal of Marxism.

第三，吸收马克思主义的共产主义理想。

Wokeism echoes the ultimate ideal of Marxism at many levels, which also leads to it often being equated with “communism” in popular public discourse. Wokeists define “patriarchy” and “white supremacy” as core “class enemies,” and their ultimate vision is to construct a utopian society free from identity discrimination, prejudice, oppression, and exploitation, achieving what Thomas Sowell describes as “cosmic justice” and realizing true equality among people. In terms of theoretical framework, wokeism borrows the core conceptual system of Marxism, reshaping class identity cognition with group identity as the core, believing that liberalism is inherently necessarily oriented toward egalitarianism, and that an individual’s group identity directly determines their social status and work-life standards.

觉醒主义在诸多层面呼应了马克思主义的终极理想，这也使其在公共流行话语中常被等同于“共产主义”。觉醒主义者将“父权制”与“白人至上主义”界定为核心“阶级敌人”，其终极愿景是构建一个不存在身份歧视、偏见、压迫与剥削的乌托邦社会，实现托马斯·索维尔（ThomasSowell）所描述的“宇宙正义”，达成人与人之间真正的平等。在理论框架上，觉醒主义借用马克思主义的核心概念体系，以群体身份为核心重塑阶级身份认知，认为自由主义本质上必然指向平等主义，而个体的群体身份直接决定了其社会地位与工作生活水平。

II. Wokeism Prompts Liberalism to Initiate an “Internal Cold War”

二、觉醒主义推动自由主义开启“内冷战”

The rise of wokeism marks a polarization of the liberal left, forming a sharp binary opposition with the polarized form of the liberal right. This pattern of opposition reached its peak around the 2024 U.S. presidential election and continues to ferment to this day. The public discourse spaces of the U.S. and Western internet public opinion fields and academia call this phenomenon an “internal cold war” or “culture war,” with both sides confronting each other tit-for-tat and engaging in fierce debate on a series of core issues.

觉醒主义的兴起，标志着自由主义左翼呈现出极化态势，并与自由主义右翼的极化形态形成鲜明的二元对立。这一对立格局在2024年美国大选前后达到顶峰，并持续发酵至今。美西方互联网舆论场、学术界等公共话语空间，将这一现象称作“内冷战”或“文化战争”，双方在一系列核心议题上针锋相对、激烈争辩。

(I) The Struggle over Identity: Liberalism or “Neo-Communism”

（一）身份之争：是自由主义还是“新共产主义”

A prominent feature of the “internal cold war” is the sharp opposition between the liberal left and right, even moving toward extremism. The left denounces the right, which has absorbed populist propositions, as neo-fascism; the right argues that the left, co-opted by wokeism, has degenerated into “neo-communism.”

“内冷战”的一大突出特征，便是自由主义左翼与右翼的尖锐对立，甚至走向极端化。左翼将吸纳民粹主义主张的右翼分子斥为新法西斯主义；右翼则认为裹挟觉醒主义的左翼已沦为“新共产主义”。

First, wokeism believes that the liberal right has become a neo-fascism with racism, “white supremacy,” etc., as its core, while the right counters tit-for-tat, proposing that wokeism equals “communism.” The representative propositions of the liberal right mainly have three aspects: first, that a society dominated by left-wing policies will inevitably move toward “communism.” For example, the U.S. right-wing think tank the Claremont Institute proposes that educational institutions, media, the entertainment industry, large corporations, and especially large technology companies, “to varying degrees, align with the Democratic Party controlled by wokeism,” and have already degenerated into “communist” forces. Second, it denounces Democratic Party representatives as “communists,” claiming the Democratic Party has become an umbrella for “fanatical Marxists.” Third, in terms of discourse construction, it transforms the opposition between the 1% and the 99% into an opposition between “woke communism” and “grassroots people struggling to make a living.”

第一，觉醒主义认为自由主义右翼已经成为以种族主义、“白人至上主义”等为内核的新法西斯主义，而右翼则针锋相对，提出觉醒主义等于“共产主义”。自由主义右翼的代表性主张主要有三个方面：一是认为左翼政策主导下的社会必然走向“共产主义”。如美国右翼智库克莱蒙特研究所（ClaremontInstitute）提出，教育机构、媒体、娱乐业、大企业，尤其是大型科技公司，“不同程度与由觉醒主义控制的民主党保持一致”，已然沦为“共产主义”势力。二是斥责民主党的代表人物是“共产主义者”，称民主党已经沦为“狂热马克思主义者”的保护伞。三是在话语建构上，将社会1%与99%的对立，转换为“觉醒的共产主义”和“维持生计的草根民众”的对立。

Second, the left advocates that enterprises should take wokeism as a practical value standard, criticizes the right for blindly pursuing profit and placing capital interests above the public interest, and reinterprets the contemporary connotations of social welfare, public services, and social rights. In response to this trend, the right has launched a comprehensive counterattack. On the one hand, the right directly labels enterprises that practice wokeist ideas as “communist,” believing this forces people to choose between capitalism and communism. On the other hand, at the level of values, the left vigorously advocates the values of “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” continuously deconstructing the traditional order; while the right criticizes such trends for eroding the civilizational foundations on which the bottom-level groups such as peasants and industrial workers rely for survival, constantly dismantling core orders such as private property, family ethics, religious belief, and the nation-state, exhibiting distinct “communist” characteristics. Thus, “anti-communism” has become part of the right’s ideological arsenal against wokeism and its “elites.”

第二，左翼主张企业应以觉醒主义作为价值实践准则，批判右翼一味追逐利润、将资本利益凌驾于公共利益之上，并重新诠释社会福利、公共服务与社会权利的时代内涵。针对这一趋势，右翼展开全面反击。一方面，右翼将践行觉醒主义理念的企业直接贴上“共产主义”的标签，认为这导致人们必须在资本主义和共产主义之间进行选择。另一方面，在价值观念层面，左翼大力倡导“多样性、公平性、包容性”的价值观，持续解构传统秩序；而右翼则批评此类思潮正在侵蚀农民、产业工人等底层群体赖以生存的文明根基，不断瓦解私有财产、家庭伦理、宗教信仰、民族国家等核心秩序，呈现出鲜明的“共产主义”特征。由此，“反共产主义”成为右翼针对觉醒主义及其“精英”的意识形态武器库的一部分。

Third, wokeism regards many core values of neoliberalism as opposing targets and objects of criticism, and relying on theoretical resources such as cultural Marxism, it continuously spreads its own ideas in public spaces such as enterprises, campuses, and communities. The right believes that this trend constantly erodes the fundamental values of the free market system and Western civilization, ultimately dissolving individual freedom and shaking the underlying foundations of social prosperity. The right further points out that wokeism, under the guise of social justice, attempts to forcibly restructure the rules of wealth distribution and dismantle the underlying logic of wealth creation. Accordingly, the right judges wokeism as the primary threat in the current ideological field of the U.S. and the West, believing that this trend has deeply penetrated public institutions such as governments, universities, international organizations, and online media, using identity politics to dissolve universal democratic principles, distorting objective scientific cognition with ideological dogma, strengthening content censorship through victim narratives, altering the core connotation of equality with radical demands, deliberately guiding youth to deny Western historical traditions, and systematically stigmatizing the mainstream values of Western civilization. Based on this judgment, the right advocates reshaping the authority of traditional liberal values, building a global alliance of liberal values, and comprehensively resisting government expansion, censorship mechanisms, and state economic control, in order to counter the comprehensive expansion of wokeism.

第三，觉醒主义将新自由主义的诸多核心价值视作对立目标与批判对象，并依托文化马克思主义等理论资源，在企业、校园、社区等公共场域持续扩散自身理念，而右翼认为这一思潮不断侵蚀自由市场体系与西方文明的根本价值，终将消解个体自由、动摇社会繁荣的底层根基。右翼进一步指出，觉醒主义假借社会正义之名，试图强行重构财富分配规则、瓦解财富创造的底层逻辑。据此，右翼将觉醒主义判定为当下美西方意识形态领域的首要威胁，认为该思潮已深度渗透政府、高校、国际组织、网络媒体等公共机构，以身份政治消解普遍民主原则，用意识形态教条扭曲客观科学认知，借受害者叙事强化内容审查，以激进诉求篡改平等的核心内涵，刻意引导青年否定西方历史传统，系统性污名化西方文明的主流价值。基于这一判断，右翼主张重塑自由主义传统价值的权威，构建全球性自由价值联盟，全面抵制政府扩张、舆论审查机制与国家经济管控，以此抗衡觉醒主义的全面扩张。

(II) The Struggle over Connotation: Liberal “Civilization” or Marxist “Culture”

（二）内涵之争：是自由主义“文明”还是马克思主义“文化”

Wokeism believes that capitalism will eventually collapse under the continuous accumulation of its internal contradictions, ultimately degenerating into a fascism that oppresses minorities and marginalized groups, and considers this the final stage of capitalist development. On this basis, a completely new paradigm of liberal civilization will replace it. In contrast, the liberal right points out that wokeism has provoked a “culture war,” aiming to gradually dismantle the capitalist system, the liberal value system, and the foundations of Western civilization, completing a thorough reconstruction of social order and ideology.

觉醒主义认为，资本主义终将在内在矛盾的持续积压下走向崩塌，最终蜕变为压迫少数与边缘群体的法西斯主义，并认为这是资本主义发展的终极阶段。在此基础上，一套全新的自由主义文明范式将会取而代之。与之相对，自由主义右翼则指出，觉醒主义挑起了“文化战争”，旨在逐步瓦解资本主义制度、自由主义价值体系与西方文明根基，完成社会秩序与意识形态的彻底重构。

First, wokism holds that the entire history of capitalism is a history of colonization, exploitation, and oppression, while the liberal right believes that wokism is dismantling the historical legitimacy of capitalism. Wokism argues that the mainstream history of English-speaking countries is colonialism, that capitalism is built on violent expropriation, and that the “freedom and democracy” discourse propagated by the bourgeoisie has long served as an ideological tool to whitewash colonial plunder and rationalize racial oppression and brutal exploitation. As neoliberalism became the dominant paradigm, traditional ethical norms were comprehensively abandoned, the market was deified as the ultimate solution to all social problems, and the utilitarian logic of profit-seeking became the consensus of the era. Against this backdrop, the liberal right has returned to conservative traditional values and ethical appeals, concentrating its resistance against the “re-moralization” narrative promoted by wokism. In the view of the right, wokism, by relying on a multicultural agenda, erodes the core traditions of liberalism, profoundly reshapes the value perceptions and ideological stances of the youth generation, and continuously undermines the historical legitimacy of capitalism.

第一，觉醒主义认为整个资本主义历史就是一部殖民、剥削、压迫的历史，自由主义右翼认为觉醒主义正瓦解资本主义的历史合法性。觉醒主义认为，英语国家历史主流是殖民主义，资本主义建立在暴力剥夺之上，资产阶级所宣扬的“自由民主”话语长期沦为粉饰殖民掠夺、合理化种族压迫与野蛮剥削的意识形态工具。随着新自由主义成为主流范式，传统伦理规范被全面抛弃，市场被神化为解决一切社会问题的终极方案，功利化的逐利逻辑成为时代共识。在此背景下，自由主义右翼重新回归保守主义传统价值与伦理诉求，集中抵制觉醒主义推动的“再道德化”叙事。在右翼看来，觉醒主义依托多元文化议程消解自由主义核心传统，深度重塑青年群体的价值认知与意识形态立场，并不断消解资本主义的历史合法性。

Second, wokism reduces the core thread of American history to racism and systemic racial oppression, while the liberal right warns that this narrative will fundamentally erode and destroy the historical traditions and cultural foundations of the United States. Currently, the wokism movement is advancing comprehensively through a “positional warfare” [n9] approach, aiming to seize cultural leadership and awaken the consciousness of marginalized and oppressed groups. Relying on the education system, it instills in the youth the following perception: the United States is a country mired in structural, systemic racism; many people enjoy racial privilege; and the ideals of the founding fathers are merely a rhetorical embellishment of a racial-privilege order. In response to this trend, the liberal right deconstructs the core struggle path of wokism, criticizing it for reconstructing social cognition through rewriting historical narratives, monopolizing public discourse space, and enforcing ideological censorship in the public sphere. The liberal right further points out that cultural Marxism has become the core ideological guide for the contemporary liberal left movement. Compared with the economic sphere, where classes are constantly mobile and boundaries are continuously shifting, innate identities such as race, gender, and ethnicity have fixed attributes that cannot be chosen and are difficult to change. Therefore, the cultural dimension has replaced the economic dimension, becoming a more efficient and sustainable field of struggle for the left. The liberal right believes that, if this continues, the identity politics narrative of wokism will give Marxism unprecedented space for dissemination and real influence in the American context.

第二，觉醒主义将美国历史的核心脉络归结为种族主义与系统性种族压迫，而自由主义右翼则警告，这套叙事会从根本上侵蚀并摧毁美国的历史传统与文化根基。当前，觉醒主义运动正以“阵地战”的方式全面推进，旨在夺取文化领导权，唤醒边缘群体与被压迫群体的反抗意识。他们依托教育体系向青年群体灌输如下认知：美国是深陷结构性、系统性种族主义的国度，许多人享有种族特权，建国先贤的价值理想不过是对种族特权秩序的话语美化。针对这一思潮，自由主义右翼解构觉醒主义的核心斗争路径，批判其通过重写历史叙事、垄断公共话语空间、推行公共领域意识形态审查等方式重构社会认知。自由主义右翼进一步指出，文化马克思主义已成为当代自由主义左翼运动的核心思想指引。相较于阶层不断流动、边界持续变动的经济领域，种族、性别、族裔等与生俱来的先天身份具有不可选择、难以改变的固定属性，因此文化维度取代经济维度，成为左翼更为高效、更具持续性的斗争场域。自由主义右翼认为，长此以往，觉醒主义的身份政治叙事将使马克思主义在美国语境中获得前所未有的传播空间与现实影响力。

Third, wokism holds that “white supremacy” pervades the United States and Western countries, while the liberal right believes that this is an act by wokism, through seizing the “means of ideological production,” to comprehensively stigmatize the civilizational foundations of these countries. The liberal right argues that the goal of wokism is not reform but, under the pretext of eliminating “white supremacy,” to subvert the existing order, reshape the content of civilization, and reinterpret history and reality. In their view, wokism, by seizing the “means of ideological production” and their ownership, is comprehensively infiltrating public institutions, dominating the formulation of social rules, monopolizing the public opinion sphere, and forcing enterprises and various organizations to passively align and actively cater to it, ultimately achieving a comprehensive occupation of the means of production and core resources in the economic sphere.

第三，觉醒主义认为“白人至上主义”贯穿美西方国家，自由主义右翼则认为这是觉醒主义通过掌握“意识形态生产资料”，全面污名化美西方国家文明基础的行为。自由主义右翼认为，觉醒主义的目标不是改革，而是以消除“白人至上主义”为理由，颠覆现有秩序，重塑文明内涵，重新诠释历史与现实。在他们看来，觉醒主义正通过掌握“意识形态生产资料”及其所有权，全面渗透公共制度、主导社会规则制定、垄断公共舆论场域，倒逼企业与各类机构被动靠拢、主动迎合，最终实现对经济领域生产资料与核心资源的全面侵占。

(3) The Dispute over Direction: Opposing Right-Wing Cultural Hegemony or Establishing Left-Wing Cultural Hegemony

（三）导向之争：是反对右翼文化霸权还是建立左翼文化霸权

One of the core demands of wokism is to oppose the “cultural hegemony” of the liberal right by promoting “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” However, the liberal right believes that, in order to achieve its value goals, wokism resorts on a large scale to ideological “censorship” and public criticism, using “one kind of cultural hegemony” to oppose “another kind of cultural hegemony.” For this reason, wokism has encountered strong resistance from groups adhering to traditional liberal values, and the liberal right has seized on this discursive handle to concentrate its attacks on left-wing trends and social movements represented by wokism.

觉醒主义的核心诉求之一，就是通过宣扬“多样性、公平性、包容性”，反对自由主义右翼的“文化霸权”。但自由主义右翼则认为，觉醒主义为了实现其价值目标，大规模诉诸意识形态“审查”和舆论批判，是在用“一种文化霸权”反对“另一种文化霸权”。正因如此，觉醒主义遭到坚守自由主义传统价值群体的强烈抵制，自由主义右翼势力亦借此话语抓手，集中抨击以觉醒主义为代表的左翼思潮与社会运动。

First, wokism criticizes the liberal right for becoming increasingly extreme, constantly providing justifications for various forms of oppression and discrimination, while the liberal right, in turn, defines wokism as an extremist trend. The liberal right summarizes the extremism of wokism in seven aspects. First, “power and control”: the desire to influence, dominate, coerce, and manipulate others, maintaining one’s own authority and sense of superiority. Second, “anger and aggression”: generating aggressive emotions such as anger in response to perceived threats and injustices. Third, “intolerance and intensifying conflict”: ideologically polarizing people, leading to mutual hostility. Fourth, “undermining academic freedom and diversity of opinion”: restricting academic freedom and ideological diversity, punishing those who deviate from wokist discourse. Fifth, “imposing narrow views and condemning dissent”: imposing a single viewpoint on social issues, oversimplifying problems, and demonizing individuals who challenge its assumptions. Sixth, “damaging standards and integrity”: distorting facts to fit its narrative, ignoring scientific methods and peer review, and prioritizing ideology over academic rigor. Seventh, “neglecting the repair and bridging of structural inequalities”: unilaterally serving corporate profit growth and capital accumulation and expansion.

第一，觉醒主义批判自由主义右翼日趋极端化，不断为各类压迫与歧视现象进行合理化辩护，自由主义右翼则反过来将觉醒主义定义为一种极端思潮。自由主义右翼将觉醒主义的极端性归纳为七个方面。一是“权力与控制”，即渴望影响、支配、胁迫、操纵他人，维护自身权威与优越感。二是“愤怒与攻击”，因感知到威胁和不公而产生愤怒等攻击性情绪。三是“不宽容、加剧冲突”，使人们在意识形态上分化，导致互相敌对。四是“破坏学术自由和观点多样性”，限制学术自由与思想多元，惩罚偏离觉醒主义话语的人。五是“强加狭隘观点、谴责异议”，对社会议题强加单一观点，过度简化问题，妖魔化挑战其假设的个人。六是“损害标准和诚信”，歪曲事实以符合其叙述，忽视科学方法和同行评审，优先考虑意识形态而非学术严谨。七是“漠视结构性不平等的修复与弥合”，片面服务于企业利润增长和资本积累扩张。

Second, the wokist camp believes that the liberal right constantly and deliberately creates social antagonism, shaping immigrants, ethnic minorities, gender-diverse groups, and value pluralists as opposing forces, continuously tearing apart social consensus. The liberal right, however, believes that wokism is the root cause of identity fragmentation and hostility, deliberately delineating opposing groups that need to be settled with and retaliated against. In the view of the liberal right, the “inclusiveness” advocated by wokism has been completely alienated into a pejorative term; its anti-racist justice demands have been alienated into new forms of discrimination and prejudice; and, under the guise of “democracy,” it continuously erodes the boundaries of public education and public discourse, compressing the space for expression through censorship mechanisms and supporting legislation. The liberal right argues that the value framework of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” promoted by wokism is used to delineate friend from foe and anchor targets of criticism, while the media amplifies controversies with extreme, labeled, one-sided judgments, layer by layer screening and directionally shaping the narrative of public opinion, ultimately constructing a single discourse system aligned with the wokist position.

第二，觉醒主义阵营认为自由主义右翼不断刻意制造社会对立，将移民、少数族裔、多元性别群体及价值多元主义者塑造为对立面，持续撕裂社会共识。自由主义右翼则认为觉醒主义才是制造身份割裂与敌对的根源，刻意划定需要被清算与报复的对立群体。在自由主义右翼看来，觉醒主义所宣扬的“包容性”被彻底异化沦为贬义词，其主张的反种族主义的正义诉求异化为新式的歧视与偏见，并借“民主”之名不断侵蚀公共教育与公共话语的边界，通过审查机制与配套立法压缩表达空间。自由主义右翼认为，觉醒主义所谓“多样性、公平性、包容性”的价值框架，被用以划定敌我、锚定批判对象，媒体再以极端化、标签化的片面论断放大争议，层层筛选、定向塑造舆论叙事，最终构建起契合觉醒主义立场的单一话语体系。

Third, wokism accuses the liberal right of continuously provoking culture wars, absorbing the core of populism and other trends, and deliberately attacking dissenters. The liberal right, in turn, criticizes wokism for deliberately tampering with political narratives and historical memory, constantly tearing society apart and intensifying group antagonism. The liberal right believes that wokism constrains small and micro enterprises, family businesses, medium-sized banks, and local operators, while tacitly protecting the vested interests of large corporations and super-rich individuals who endorse its values, alienating value advocacy and moral discipline into tools for capital profit-seeking; that the wokist trend deeply influences Generation Z and millennials, leading to high rates of depression and increased willingness to quit jobs among this group, who generally face downward mobility and shrinking wealth, breeding widespread loneliness and mental exhaustion; and that wokism promotes a cosmopolitan value orientation, eroding local foundations and undermining national identity. Around issues such as “nation,” “tradition,” and “national history,” the liberal left and right remain locked in a tug-of-war of criticism and counter-criticism, which has become a core component of the fully fermented culture wars in the public opinion sphere of the United States and Western countries today.

第三，觉醒主义指责自由主义右翼持续挑起文化战争，吸纳民粹主义等思潮内核并刻意攻讦异见者。自由主义右翼则批判觉醒主义刻意篡改政治叙事与历史记忆，不断撕裂社会、加剧群体对立。自由主义右翼认为，觉醒主义约束中小微企业、家族企业、中型银行及本土经营者，变相维护认同其价值理念的大型企业与超级富豪的既得利益，将价值标榜与道德规训异化为资本逐利的工具；觉醒主义思潮深度影响Z世代与千禧一代，致使这一群体抑郁高发、离职意愿上升，普遍面临阶层下滑、财富缩水的困境，滋生普遍的孤独感与精神内耗；觉醒主义推崇世界主义价值取向，消解了本土根基、侵蚀民族认同。围绕“国家”“传统”和“民族历史”等议题，自由主义左翼与右翼持续陷入批评与反批评的拉锯，成为当下美西方国家公共舆论场中全面发酵的文化战争的核心组成部分。

III. The Recurrence of Division, the Shattering of Ideals, and the Inevitable Emergence of a New Ideology

三、分裂复现、理想破裂与新意识形态的必然生成

The rise and development of wokism have further widened the ideological gap between the liberal left and right, pushing Western social ideology toward renewed polarization, ultimately resulting in a deep rift between the left-wing camp represented by wokism and the right-wing camp centered on populism. This deep ideological split is simultaneously projected into the political landscape and social life. This reality is not only a historical recurrence of the ongoing confrontation between the two major ideological traditions within liberalism but also a concentrated manifestation of the widespread spiritual confusion among the general public following the collapse of the utopian ideal of modernity constructed by liberalism. More deeply, it exposes the inherent structural contradictions of the capitalist system that it cannot resolve on its own.

觉醒主义的兴起与发展，进一步拉大了自由主义左翼与右翼的思想鸿沟，推动西方社会意识形态再度极化，最终形成以觉醒主义为代表的左翼阵营和以民粹主义为核心的右翼阵营的深度割裂。思想层面的深度撕裂，同步投射于政治格局与社会生活之中。这一现实既是自由主义内部两大思想传统持续对抗的历史重演，也是自由主义构筑的现代性乌托邦理想走向破灭后，社会大众普遍陷入精神迷茫的集中体现，更深层地暴露出资本主义体系固有且无法自我消解的结构性矛盾。

(1) Explanation of the Phenomenon: The Recurrence of the Liberal Left-Right Dispute

（一）现象解释：自由主义左右之争的再现

The current left-right split within liberalism is not an accidental new phenomenon but a recurrence of historical contradictions, the latest contemporary manifestation of a long-standing opposition between two major intellectual currents within it. This differentiation is not only reflected in the partisan games and camp confrontations in the political arenas of the United States and the West; it points more deeply to divisions within the ideological system of liberalism itself. The extreme opposition between the liberal left and the liberal right described earlier is, in essence, the inevitable result of two liberal traditions re-establishing their own value positions and solidifying their ideological boundaries. Within the theoretical framework of liberalism, various parties have gradually evolved three major points of divergence around issues such as the boundaries of freedom’s realization, the paths of its practice, and its value orientation.

当下自由主义呈现的左右割裂并非偶然出现的全新态势，而是历史矛盾的再度复归，是其内部两大思潮长期对立在当代的最新表现。这种分化不只体现为美西方政坛的党派博弈与阵营对峙，更深层次指向自由主义思想体系内部的分歧。前文所述自由主义左翼与右翼的极端对立格局，本质上是两种自由主义传统重新确立自身价值立场、固化思想边界所催生的必然结果。在自由主义理论框架内部，各方围绕自由的实现边界、实践路径与价值取向等问题，逐渐演化出三大分歧。

First, in defining the connotation of freedom, the liberal right adheres to the concept of negative liberty, highly consistent with the connotation of negative liberty as expounded by Isaiah Berlin. It advocates that freedom is the right of individuals to choose and act autonomously within the boundaries of their own capabilities, with the core being to maximize the satisfaction of individual demands and release instinctual desires. It emphasizes broadening the space for private action by regulating government power, liberating individuals from various external constraints. In contrast, the liberal left advocates reconstructing the modern liberal paradigm, proposing to integrate elements such as social orientation, public values, cooperative principles, and collective principles, absorbing ideological elements from social democracy and even liberal socialism, thereby reconciling individual development with overall social development and promoting the socialized transformation of the concept of freedom. Second, regarding the carrier of freedom, the liberal right takes the free market as its cornerstone, resolutely defending unregulated market order, viewing the market mechanism as the fundamental support for maintaining individual freedom and ensuring equality of opportunity; the liberal left, on the other hand, places more emphasis on strengthening public power and the effectiveness of government governance, relying on policy adjustments to compensate for market shortcomings, focusing on narrowing economic disparities and maintaining social equality. Third, in the path to realizing freedom, the divergence between the two sides further manifests as a fundamental difference in governance models. The right adheres to the logic of market primacy, advocating that market forces dominate resource allocation, limiting state intervention and adhering to the principle of laissez-faire; the left affirms the regulatory value of government, believing that public power can transcend the inherent limitations of the market and distribute social benefits more fairly, thus advocating for expanding government governance functions. Fourth, in terms of value orientation, the left leans towards social reform, with freedom, equality, and social progress as its core goals; the right, on the other hand, focuses on preserving the existing social structure, maintaining traditional ethics, established order, and class hierarchy. The divergence in their value positions further solidifies the binary opposition within liberalism.

第一，在自由的内涵界定上，自由主义右翼秉持消极自由理念，与以赛亚·伯林（IsaiahBerlin）所阐释的消极自由内涵高度契合，主张自由是个体在自身能力边界内自主选择与行动的权利，核心在于最大限度满足个体诉求、释放本能欲望，强调以规范政府权力为前提拓宽私人行动空间，将个体从各类外在束缚中解放出来。与之相对，自由主义左翼倡导重构现代自由主义范式，主张融入社会本位、公共价值、合作理念与集体性原则，吸纳社会民主乃至自由社会主义等思想要素，以此调和个体发展与社会整体发展，推动自由理念的社会化转型。第二，在自由的依托载体上，自由主义右翼以自由市场为核心基石，坚决捍卫不受规制的市场秩序，将市场机制视作维系个体自由、保障机会平等的根本依托；自由主义左翼则更侧重强化公共权力与政府治理效能，依托政策调节弥补市场短板，着力缩小经济差距、维护社会平等。第三，在自由的实现路径上，双方分歧进一步凸显为治理模式的根本差异。右翼坚持市场本位逻辑，主张以市场力量主导资源配置，限制国家干预、恪守自由放任原则；左翼则肯定政府的调节价值，认为公共权力能够超越市场的固有局限，更为公平地分配社会利益，因而主张扩大政府治理职能。第四，在价值取向上，左翼偏向社会改革，以自由、平等与社会进步为核心目标；右翼则侧重守护既有社会架构，维护传统伦理、既定秩序与阶层结构，二者价值立场的分野进一步固化了自由主义内部的二元对立。

Currently, the sharp confrontation between the woke-ist left and the populist right essentially inherits and continues the internal split and fundamental opposition between the two major intellectual traditions of liberalism.

当前，觉醒主义左翼与民粹主义右翼的尖锐对峙，实质上承接并延续了自由主义两大思想传统的内在分裂与根本对立。

The left-wing trend centered on wokism inherits and transforms the progressive ideological lineage. In the reconstruction of the concept of freedom, it combines emerging issues such as minority group rights and identity politics with classic values like social democracy and cooperatism, transforming the traditional context’s demand for balanced development between society and individuals into value goals of equal pluralistic identities and fair distribution of rights. It extensively absorbs left-wing ideological resources such as cultural Marxism and democratic socialism, forming a composite ideology with both pluralistic identity demands and socialist elements. In contrast, the right-wing camp dominated by populism explicitly denies the liberal nature of wokism, directly labeling it as “communism” and viewing it as an external threat eroding the foundations of liberalism. The right advocates for adhering to traditional liberal values, maintaining the historical roots and cultural subjectivity of Western civilization, and fiercely criticizing the cosmopolitan narrative championed by wokism. In its view, cosmopolitanism continuously erodes the uniqueness and legitimacy of Western civilization, and the abstract “universal values” detached from civilizational foundations are backlashing against the ideological and cultural soil from which they emerged. Accordingly, the liberal right proposes reshaping a liberal order based on national identity and ethnic community, thereby resisting the value penetration of the woke-ist left and defending local civilization and traditional order.

以觉醒主义为核心的左翼思潮，承袭并改造了进步主义思想脉络。在自由观念的重构中，其将少数群体权益、身份政治等新兴议题，同社会民主、合作主义等经典价值相结合，把传统语境下社会与个体的平衡发展诉求，转化为多元身份平等、权利分配公正的价值目标，并广泛吸纳文化马克思主义、民主社会主义等左翼思想资源，形成兼具多元身份诉求与社会主义要素的复合意识形态。与之相对，民粹主义主导的右翼阵营明确否定觉醒主义的自由主义属性，将其直接贴上“共产主义”标签，视之为侵蚀自由主义根基的外部威胁。右翼主张固守自由主义传统价值，维系西方文明的历史根基与文化主体性，激烈批判觉醒主义所推崇的世界主义叙事。在其看来，世界主义不断消解西方文明的独特性与正当性，脱离文明根基的抽象“普世价值”，正在反噬其赖以生成的思想与文化土壤。据此，自由主义右翼提出重塑民族本位与族群共同体意义上的自由秩序，以此抵御觉醒主义左翼的价值渗透，捍卫本土文明与传统秩序。

Therefore, at the level of the carrier and realization path of freedom, the woke-ist left and the populist right exhibit diametrically opposed practical logics. The left, represented by wokism, takes “diversity, equity, and inclusion” as its core values, frequently relying on the public discourse sphere to carry out ideological discipline, even implementing academic censorship in universities and research institutions. It resorts to “statist” coercive constraints to suppress opposing viewpoints, judges corporate social responsibility and business conduct based on the degree of implementation of woke principles, and advances equality and progress goals through mandatory institutional arrangements; simultaneously, it uses institutionalized means such as judicial regulation and public opinion guidance to protect the rights of minority groups, reinterpreting and even rewriting the historical narrative of Western civilization. In essence, the woke-ist left actively utilizes state power in practice, deeply integrating cultural identity politics, and views the protection of minority rights and their liberation as the key intermediary and core path to achieving universal freedom. In contrast, the liberal right, represented by populism, advocates returning to constitutional principles and liberal traditions, reclaiming the Western value system inherited from John Locke and John Stuart Mill. Within its theoretical horizon, the core essence of freedom is realized by relying on an open commercial order: accumulating material wealth through free market trade, expanding individual needs, stimulating social vitality, and achieving individual liberation through a spontaneously evolving social order, thereby repairing the liberal foundations upon which Western civilization depends for its survival.

因此，在自由的承载载体与实现路径层面，觉醒主义左翼与民粹主义右翼呈现出截然相反的实践逻辑。以觉醒主义为代表的左翼，以“多样性、公平性、包容性”为核心价值，频繁依托公共话语场域开展意识形态规训，甚至在高校与科研机构推行学术审查。其诉诸“国家主义式”的强力约束压制对立观点，以觉醒理念的践行程度评判企业社会责任与经营行为，依靠强制性制度安排推进平等与进步目标；同时借助司法调控、舆论引导等制度化手段，保障少数群体的各项权利，重新阐释乃至改写西方文明的历史叙事。质言之，觉醒主义左翼在实践层面主动借助国家权力，深度融合文化身份政治议题，将少数群体的权利保障与自由解放视作实现普遍自由的关键中介与核心路径。反观以民粹主义为代表的自由主义右翼，则主张回归宪政原则与自由主义传统，重拾自约翰·洛克（JohnLocke）、约翰·斯图尔特·密尔（JohnStuartMill）以来一脉相承的西方价值体系。在其理论视域中，自由的核心要义依托开放的商业秩序得以实现，即以自由市场贸易积累物质财富、拓展个体需求、激发社会活力，并依靠自发演化的社会秩序实现个体解放，以此修复西方文明赖以存续的自由主义根基。

(2) Historical Judgment: The Capitalist Mode of Production Leads to the Periodic Emergence of Ideological Opposition

（二）历史判断：资本主义生产方式导致意识形态对立的周期性出现

The current social撕裂 [tearing apart] and value opposition in the United States and the West can be further traced within the intellectual history of liberalism. Since its inception, liberalism has been deeply bound to the development process of capitalism, becoming the core ideology that sustains and maintains the capitalist system. The inherent structural contradictions of the capitalist mode of production inevitably lead to periodic economic and social crises. With the repeated outbreak and deepening of crises, the value ideals and practical promises on which liberalism relies continuously collapse and disintegrate, thereby triggering internal differentiation within the ideological system, ultimately giving rise to sustained social opposition and division.

当前美西方的社会撕裂与价值对立，可进一步置于自由主义的思想发展史中加以溯源。自由主义自诞生之初，便与资本主义发展进程深度绑定，成为承载与维系资本主义体系的核心意识形态。资本主义生产方式固有的结构性矛盾必然引发周期性经济与社会危机。随着危机的反复爆发与持续深化，自由主义赖以维系的价值理想与现实承诺不断崩塌裂解，进而诱发思想体系的内部分化，最终催生社会持续对立与分裂。

First, the opposition between classical liberalism and progressive liberalism.

第一，古典自由主义与进步自由主义的对立。

From the late 19th century to the early 20th century, the laissez-faire principles advocated by classical liberalism led to a series of structural problems such as severe social differentiation and the widening gap between rich and poor. With the concentrated outbreak of various crises in Western Europe and North America at that time, phenomena such as xenophobia, narrow nationalist sentiments, and public anger spread, and early populism also began to sprout. At the same time, a progressive liberalism with distinct socialist tendencies emerged in Britain. John Dewey pointed out in *Individualism Old and New* that only by eliminating the individualism of “old” liberalism could a truer and better individuality be produced, liberating individuals from poverty and economic inequality, and creating a cooperative society that promotes the freedom of all individuals. This view essentially indicates that the inherent defects of classical liberalism must be overcome to truly realize universal freedom. Some also collectively refer to the above ideological propositions as progressivism, whose core demand is to pursue social democracy and equality, pushing society towards a more just direction. The polarized forms of these two tendencies became more prominent during the two world wars and the Great Depression, specifically manifesting as two opposing forms: “progressive authoritarianism” and “liberal militarism.” The former pursues social progress through illiberal coercive means, especially focusing on economic development; the latter defends the liberal order through war, countering power with power and coercion with coercion.

19世纪末至20世纪初，古典自由主义所倡导的自由放任原则引发了严重的社会分化、贫富悬殊等一系列结构性问题。伴随当时西欧、北美地区各类危机的集中爆发，排外主义、狭隘民族情绪、民众愤怒等蔓延，早期民粹主义亦随之萌芽。同时，英国兴起了带有鲜明社会主义倾向的进步自由主义。约翰·杜威（JohnDewey）在《新旧个人主义》中指出，只有消除“旧”自由主义的个人主义，才能产生更真实、更好的个体性，将个人从贫穷和经济不平等中解放出来，创建能促进所有个体自由的合作主义社会。这一观点实质上指明，古典自由主义的内在缺陷必须得到克服，才能真正实现普遍意义上的自由。也有观点将上述思想主张统称为进步主义，其核心诉求在于追求社会民主与平等，推动社会向更公正的方向发展。二者的极化形态，在两次世界大战与大萧条时期进一步凸显，具体表现为“进步型威权主义”与“自由军国主义”两大对立形态：前者以非自由的强制手段追求社会进步，尤其聚焦于经济领域的发展；后者则通过战争手段捍卫自由主义秩序，以权力制衡权力、以强制对抗强制。

Second, the opposition between progressivism and neoliberalism.

第二，进步主义与新自由主义的对立。

After the end of the Second World War, progressivism, with the New Deal system and the welfare state system as its core carriers, rose to become the mainstream paradigm of liberalism, and capitalist society in the United States and the West thus entered a period of stability and prosperity lasting more than twenty years. However, with the outbreak of the oil crisis and the stagflation crisis, the progressivist development model was comprehensively called into question. Neoliberalism and neoconservatism rose in response, once again dominating Western thought and policy direction. Progressivism was seen as the cause of multiple social crises, and all sectors of society engaged in widespread reflection on and deep suspicion of the modernist narrative of “endless progress.” This ideological turn manifested itself intensively in several areas: in the economic sphere, it appeared as reflection on and critique of the welfare state; in the ecological sphere, as the green movement resisting unlimited development; in the sphere of values, as a return to traditional values such as the family and religion, and the promotion of narrow nationalism and patriotism. A new generation of populism thus emerged.

第二次世界大战结束后，以新政体系与福利国家制度为核心载体的进步主义，跃升为自由主义的主流范式，美西方资本主义社会也由此步入长达20余年的稳定繁荣阶段。然而，随着石油危机与滞胀危机的爆发，进步主义发展模式遭到全面质疑，新自由主义与新保守主义顺势崛起，重新主导西方思想与政策走向。进步主义被视作多重社会危机的诱因，社会各界对“无止境进步”的现代性叙事产生普遍反思与深度怀疑。这一思潮转向在多个领域集中显现：在经济领域表现为对福利国家的反思和批判，在生态领域表现为抵制无止境发展的绿色运动，在价值观领域表现为重返家庭、宗教等传统价值观，宣扬狭隘的民族主义与爱国主义。新一代民粹主义由此产生。

In stark contrast to the previous pattern of ideological confrontation, after the Cold War ended, the two great liberal traditions did not move toward a zero-sum contest of one or the other. Against the historical backdrop of major setbacks for the international communist movement, liberalism no longer needed to confront a powerful external ideological opponent, nor did it need to absorb heterogeneous ideas to consolidate its own legitimacy. The originally sharp opposition between its internal lines gradually eased and turned toward compromise and convergence. In this process, the liberal left and right each absorbed the other’s theoretical propositions and policy programs, jointly giving rise to a neoliberal order whose main form was the “Washington Consensus,” and further constructing a discourse system of “universal values.” The two sides attempted to reconcile the inherent tensions between freedom and democracy, market and society, state intervention and individualism, achieving a temporary balance among multiple elements for a period, and thereby also giving rise to the thesis of the “end of history.”

与前一轮意识形态对立格局截然不同，冷战落幕之后，两大自由主义传统并未走向非此即彼的胜负对决。在国际共产主义运动遭遇重大挫折的历史背景下，自由主义不再需要直面强大的外部意识形态对手，也无需吸纳异质思想以巩固自身合法性，其内部原本尖锐的路线对立逐步缓和，并转向妥协与合流。在此过程中，自由主义左翼与右翼相互吸纳彼此的理论主张与政策方案，共同催生了以“华盛顿共识”为主要形式的新自由主义秩序，并进一步建构起“普世价值”话语体系。二者试图调和自由与民主、市场与社会、国家干预与个体主义之间的内在张力，在一段时期内实现多重要素的短暂平衡，也由此催生了“历史的终结”这一论调。

Third, the opposition between neoliberalism and wokism.

第三，新自由主义与觉醒主义的对立。

After the outbreak of the 2008 international financial crisis, the capitalist system once again fell into systemic crisis, and the liberal left and right once again moved toward deep opposition. Looking at the two major splits in the history of liberalism, the root cause of the first crisis was attributed to classical liberalism, and the second to progressivism. In the current crisis, however, both liberal traditions simultaneously lost legitimacy, becoming joint targets of social criticism and public condemnation. Against the background of entrenched neoliberal economic policies and stalled deep reform, the inherent contradictions of the capitalist mode of production were long obscured. Traditional class conflict was gradually displaced by identity politics and cultural conflict, and the cultural and social sphere consequently became the core arena for contestation among all parties. In this context, the liberal right actively turned to the cultural front, drawing a clear value boundary with the liberal left, striving to reclaim the traditional ethics of liberalism, while simultaneously absorbing ideological elements from conservatism, populism, and even extremist currents to reshape its own cultural stance. Correspondingly, the liberal left, while consolidating its core cultural values of identity inclusion, diversity, and equality, also began to reconstruct its economic narrative and practical programs, broadly absorbing theoretical resources from democratic socialism, cultural Marxism, cooperativism, and collectivism. The liberal left attempted to discipline large capital and multinational corporations at the ideological level, to break free from right-wing discursive constraints in the economic dimension, and thereby put forward a series of structural reform proposals: promoting the participation of workers and consumers in the control of core resources, exploring models of social ownership, constructing democratized economic regulation mechanisms, using public reason to constrain large-scale social investment, and gradually breaking through the shackles of pure market logic.

2008年国际金融危机爆发后，资本主义体系再度陷入系统性危机，自由主义左翼与右翼之间再度走向深度对立。纵观自由主义史上的两次重大分裂，第一次危机的根源被归咎于古典自由主义，第二次则被归因于进步主义，而在本轮危机中，两大自由主义传统同时丧失合法性，一并沦为社会批判与舆论讨伐的共同对象。在新自由主义经济政策固化、深层改革陷入停滞的背景下，资本主义生产方式的内在矛盾被长期遮蔽，传统阶级冲突逐步被身份政治与文化冲突所置换，文化与社会领域随之成为各方博弈的核心场域。在此背景之下，自由主义右翼主动转向文化阵线，与自由主义左翼划清价值边界，力图重拾自由主义传统伦理，同时吸纳保守主义、民粹主义乃至极端思潮的思想要素，重塑自身文化立场。与之相应，自由主义左翼在巩固身份包容、多元平等的核心文化价值之外，也开始重构经济叙事与现实方案，广泛吸纳民主社会主义、文化马克思主义、合作主义与集体主义等理论资源。自由主义左翼试图从意识形态层面规训大型资本与跨国企业，在经济维度挣脱右翼话语束缚，进而提出一系列结构性变革主张：推动劳动者与消费者参与核心资源管控，探索社会所有制模式，构建民主化的经济调节机制，以公共理性约束大型社会投资，逐步突破纯市场化逻辑的桎梏。

Therefore, from the brief post-Cold War compromise and convergence to today’s sharp confrontation, from mutual absorption of each other’s advantageous propositions to mutual attack, the development trajectory of liberalism has undergone a turn. In terms of its form of expression, liberalism has now entered a new stage of comprehensive opposition between the left, represented by wokism, and the right, represented by populism, breaking free from the previous pattern of unilateral right-wing polarization and entering an entirely new form of dual polarization and two-way confrontation between left and right.

因此，从冷战后短暂的妥协合流到如今的尖锐对峙，从相互吸纳优势主张到彼此攻讦，自由主义的发展轨迹已发生转向。在表现形式上，自由主义当下已步入以觉醒主义为代表的左翼与以民粹主义为代表的右翼全面对立的新阶段，摆脱了此前单一右翼极化的格局，进入左右翼双重极化、双向对峙的全新形态。

(III) Trend Assessment: The Inevitability of the Emergence of a New Ideology

（三）趋势研判：新意识形态生成的必然性

The current split and opposition within liberalism is essentially the inevitable result driven by the cyclical economic crises of capitalism. At present, 70% of Americans believe the country is heading in the wrong direction, and half the population believes the good times are over and that their children will live in a society with fewer opportunities and less prosperity than their grandparents. At the same time, government credibility continues to decline, the political system is increasingly fragmented, class estrangement and partisan opposition are intensifying, and various social contradictions such as the gap between rich and poor, racial conflict, and civilizational clashes are concentrated and continuously fermenting. This current crisis of division and polarization may present three possible directions in the future.

当前自由主义内部的分裂与对立，本质上仍是资本主义周期性经济危机驱动下的必然结果。当下，70%的美国人认为国家正走向错误的方向，半数民众认为好日子已经过去，自己的孩子将生活在比祖辈更缺少机会、更不繁荣的社会里。与此同时，政府公信力持续走低，政治体系日益碎片化，阶层隔阂与党派对立不断加剧，贫富分化、种族矛盾、文明冲突等各类社会矛盾集中凸显、持续发酵。当下这场分裂与极化危机，未来或将呈现三种走向。

First, a new left-wing or right-wing ideology will occupy a dominant position.

第一，新的左翼或右翼理念占据主导地位。

Looking at the historical thread, in the successive oppositions and differentiations within liberalism, the left once gave birth to progressivist thought, which was realized in the New Deal model and the welfare state system; when its effectiveness in resisting crises declined and it gradually failed, it then reconciled with neoliberalism, giving rise to the “Third Way.” The right has always relied on theoretical forms such as classical liberalism and neoliberalism, continuously completing institutional practice and practical construction. The two major ideological traditions have alternately gained the upper hand in different historical periods, and after each split and opposition, they have reshaped their own practical forms and real-world influence. At the present stage, the left, guided by the value orientation of wokism, is striving to explore new paths of economic construction suited to its own concepts; the right, relying culturally on populism, is continuously shaping value narratives and civilizational discourses that fit its conservative stance. The two sides are engaged in a sustained struggle over social discursive power and ideological leadership. This tug-of-war contest could cause one of these ideologies to rise and become the mainstream ideology dominating Western society.

从历史脉络来看，在自由主义的历次对立与分化过程中，左翼曾孕育出进步主义思想，并落地为新政模式与福利国家制度；当其抵御危机的效能衰减、逐步走向失败后，又与新自由主义相互调和，催生“第三条道路”。右翼则始终依托古典自由主义、新自由主义等理论形态，持续完成制度实践与现实建构。两大思想传统在不同历史时期交替占据上风，每一次分裂与对立过后，都会重塑自身的实践形态与现实影响力。现阶段，左翼以觉醒主义为价值导向，着力探索适配自身理念的新型经济建构路径；右翼则以民粹主义为文化依托，不断塑造契合保守立场的价值叙事与文明话语，双方围绕社会话语权与意识形态领导权展开持续博弈。这种拉锯式的争夺，有可能使其中一种理念跃升为主导西方社会的主流意识形态。

Second, a new fusion of left and right will emerge.

第二，走向左翼与右翼的新融合。

Looking at historical practice, the two major liberal traditions are not completely opposed; there is underlying consensus, and there is often a deviation between their theoretical discourse and practical reality. Although the right advocates laissez-faire on the surface, in practice it follows a logic of statism—continuously expanding state power to safeguard the orderly operation of the free market. In contrast, although the left champions social equality and public values, in practice it focuses excessively on individual freedom in terms of cultural identity, thereby promoting a borderless atomized individualism and further exacerbating social inequality. In essence, there is an inherent compatibility in the core demands of left and right: both are implicit supporters of statism, both believe the state should play a central role in guaranteeing and expanding individual freedom, acting as the institutional agent of individualism. The interweaving and mutual empowerment of statism and individualism constitute the endogenous driving force of liberal development—that is, by strengthening and continuously expanding state power, promoting the unlimited extension of markets and commerce, thereby consolidating consensus and overcoming common external or internal “enemies.” This inherent compatibility means that a new fusion of left and right has realistic possibility. Specifically, what the right “conserves” is in fact a kind of “new aristocracy,” the core of which is to protect the vested interests of its own class and nation; the “equality” pursued by the left ultimately often evolves into “rule by the strong,” in reality safeguarding the interests of the elite stratum within the global system. The two sides appear to hold opposing positions, but in the end they reach the same goal by different routes: both advocate that the “excellent” should rule the “ordinary,” that “civilization” should dominate “barbarism,” and the core yardstick defining “excellence” and “civilization” is precisely the logic of “presentism” pioneered by liberalism—taking the legitimate and unceasing pursuit of self-interest as the highest value principle.

从历史实践来看，两大自由主义传统并非完全对立，而是存在底层共识，且其理论话语与现实实践往往存在偏差。右翼虽表面倡导自由放任，但在实践中则践行一种国家主义逻辑——通过持续扩张国家权力，为自由市场的有序运行保驾护航。与之相对，左翼虽标榜社会平等与公共价值，但在实践中却过度聚焦于文化身份层面的个人自由，反而助推了无边界的原子化个人主义，进一步加剧了社会不平等。本质而言，左右翼在核心诉求上存在内在契合性：二者均是国家主义的隐性支持者，都认为国家应在保障和拓展个人自由方面发挥核心作用，充当个人主义的制度代理人。国家主义与个人主义的相互交织、彼此赋能，构成了自由主义发展的内生动力——即通过强化并持续扩张国家力量，推动市场与商业的无限延伸，进而凝聚共识、战胜共同的外部或内部“敌人”。这一内在契合性意味着，左右翼走向新融合具备现实可能性。具体而言，右翼所“保守”的，实则是一种“新贵族制”，核心是维护本阶级、本国的既得利益；左翼所追求的“平等”，最终往往演变为“强者统治”，实则是保障全球体系中精英阶层的利益。二者看似立场对立，实则殊途同归，均主张让“优秀者”统治“普通人”、让“文明”凌驾于“野蛮”之上，而定义“优秀”与“文明”的核心标尺，正是自由主义所开创的“当下主义”逻辑——将合法且无休止地追求利益视为最高价值准则。

Third, a new alternative ideology is likely to emerge.

第三，新的替代性意识形态有望出现。

The current split and opposition show a tendency to expand from the socio-cultural sphere into the economic sphere. If a new fusion or new consensus cannot bridge the gap between liberal ideals and reality, then this opposition will undoubtedly persist indefinitely, and an alternative new ideology will emerge. This situation has also appeared historically. During the two world wars and the Great Depression, an alternative theoretical proposition and practice had already emerged, namely “non-capitalist modernization” represented by socialist industrialization. Its background was the decline in the recognition of the liberal civilizational paradigm at the time, which caused society to become increasingly composed of “winners” and “losers,” the former gathering in affluent central cities and their peripheries, while the latter remained in “remote and backward areas,” forming globally a civilizational hierarchy in which “elites” flowed toward central countries and a pattern of differential development of modern civilization.

目前的分裂和对立，有从社会文化领域走向经济领域的扩大化趋势。如果新融合或新共识无法弥补自由主义理想与现实之间的差距，那么这种对立无疑将无限期持续，且出现替代性的新意识形态。这一局面同样在历史上出现过。在两次世界大战和大萧条期间，已经有一种替代性的理论主张和实践出现，即以社会主义工业化为代表的“非资本主义现代化”。其生成背景是当时自由主义文明范式认同度下降，使社会越来越由“成功者”与“失败者”组成，前者聚集在富裕中心城市及其周边，后者则停留在“穷乡僻壤”，在全球范围内形成“精英”向中心国家流动的文明等级现象与现代文明的差序发展格局。

The dissolution of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the disintegration of what was once a unified social democracy, and the neoliberal order that once swept the globe, mainly in the form of the “Washington Consensus,” have all fallen into a predicament of split and opposition. Beneath this series of upheavals, an illusion has quietly spread: as if what is coming to an end is not the ideology of a specific historical stage of capitalism, but capitalist ideology itself. The wheel of history rolls forward; people will neither turn back to retread old paths nor can they replicate past development trajectories. Those once-dominant existing ideologies can no longer use their own stale discourse systems to narrate new ideal visions, let alone evoke in people’s hearts that passion for pursuing progress and that sentiment for upholding the sublime. The fragmentation of ideology is not the end of history, but an important signal of the arrival of a new historical period. The present history more urgently requires, in practical reality, the construction of new concepts capable of supplying the best life for the vast majority of the people, and the exploration of new development models that are more aligned with the direction of human civilizational progress, enable the majority of people to share the fruits of modern civilization, and allow the majority of countries to march together toward modernization. Therefore, only by refining entirely new theoretical propositions and discursive narratives, and shaping a belief system that possesses both full reality and sublime ideals, can the many complex and thorny practical problems left behind by liberalism be effectively resolved. This new ideology, which conforms to the trend of history and responds to the needs of the times, will certainly not be liberalism, which cycles periodically between split and fusion and cannot break through its own limitations, nor can it be populism or fascism, which deviate from the direction of human civilizational development. It can only be 21st-century scientific socialism, which truly stands on the people’s standpoint and pursues the realization of people’s free and comprehensive development and human emancipation. This is the necessity of history.

苏联解体、苏共亡党，曾经统一的社会民主主义分崩离析，一度席卷全球的以“华盛顿共识”为主要形式的新自由主义秩序也陷入分裂对立的困境。这一系列变局之下，一种错觉悄然蔓延：仿佛走向终结的不是资本主义特定历史阶段的意识形态，而是资本主义意识形态本身。历史的车轮滚滚向前，人们既不会回头重走老路，也不可能再复刻过往的发展轨迹。那些曾经主导时代的既有意识形态，已然难以用自身陈旧的话语体系讲述出新的理想图景，更无法唤起人们心中那份追求进步的激昂与崇尚崇高的情怀。意识形态的破碎化并非历史的终结，而是新历史时期到来的重要信号。当下的历史，更迫切需要的是在现实实践中，构建起能够供给最广大人民美好生活的新理念，探索出更契合人类文明进步方向、让多数人能共享现代文明成果、让多数国家能携手迈向现代化的新发展模式。因此，只有提炼全新的理论主张与话语叙事，塑造出兼具充分现实性与崇高理想性的理念信仰，才能切实破解自由主义遗留的诸多复杂棘手的现实难题。这种顺应历史潮流、回应时代需求的新意识形态，绝不会是在分裂与融合中周期性循环、难以突破自身局限的自由主义，更不可能是背离人类文明发展方向的民粹主义或法西斯主义。它只能是真正立足人民立场、追求实现人的自由全面发展与人类解放的21世纪科学社会主义。这是历史的必然。