How Do West’s Most Famous Thinkers Criticize Capitalism- Derrida, Jameson, Habermas, Giddens, Chomsky

May 2010

Author Prof. Chen Xueming is Director Western Marxism Studies in the Shanghai Fudan University

Derrida, Jameson, Habermas, Giddens, and Chomsky are the five most influential thinkers in the contemporary world. They have inextricable ties with contemporary capitalist society. Most of these thinkers have always been defenders of capitalism rather than critics. Some are even known as “bedside doctors” and “massage therapists” of capitalist society. Therefore, all these new understandings of contemporary capitalist society from them should be extremely convincing and thought-provoking.

 A part from the book Titanic Heading for the Iceberg: Capitalism in the Eyes of Western Left-wing Thinkers- Renmin Press, Beijing

Derrida, Jameson, Habermas, Giddens, and Chomsky are undoubtedly the five most famous thinkers in the contemporary West. First, let us take a look at how these people with outstanding human wisdom view contemporary capitalism.

    1. Derrida: “Today’s capitalism is full of darkness, threats and being threatened”

    In 1989, the international situation changed suddenly. The socialist countries in Eastern Europe changed their flags one after another. The Soviet Union, as the first socialist country, was also in deep crisis and was about to disintegrate. It was at this moment that Fukuyama, a 36-year-old Japanese-American scholar who was then the deputy director of the US State Department’s think tank, published an article entitled “The End of History?” in the American neo-conservative journal “National Interest”. In 1992, he published the book “The End of History and the Last Man” based on this article. In the book, the author spread such a “gospel” to people: the concept of freedom and democracy is unmatched, and the evolution of history has come to completion. The current world situation is not only the end of the Cold War, but also the end of ideological evolution. The Western liberal democratic system is the best choice for human politics, and it is about to become the system of all mankind.

    The publication of Fukuyama’s book has caused a strong response throughout the world. From the East to the West, some people who are intoxicated by the failure of socialism and the victory of capitalism have followed Fukuyama’s tune and sang: Marxism is dead, communism is dead, long live capitalism, long live the market economy! However, there are also some people who sing the opposite tune from Fukuyama and criticize Fukuyama’s views. Among these people, Derrida is particularly eye-catching. This is mainly related to Derrida’s identity. He is a master of deconstructionist thought, not a Marxist. He was just angered by Fukuyama’s “inflammatory” words (Fukuyama himself said that he hoped his words would have an “inflammatory” effect) based on his “academic conscience”. He stood up and attacked Fukuyama. In the process of attacking Fukuyama, he clearly stated his basic attitude towards modern capitalism.

    Fukuyama asserted: The Western liberal democratic system is infinitely beautiful, and it is spreading to the whole world and becoming a system for all mankind. Derrida believes that Fukuyama spoke here in the tone of describing an objective fact, and he conveyed a “gospel of facts” to people. Because of this, to explore Fukuyama’s gospel, we must first analyze the factual basis of this gospel, that is, to see whether the liberal democratic system in the West today is really as “infinitely beautiful” as Fukuyama said? Is this system really “becoming the system of all mankind” as Fukuyama said?

    Derrida clearly pointed out that Fukuyama’s gospel “is based on doubtful and paradoxical grounds”, and that the capitalism and free world that Fukuyama believed to have won a great victory are actually “full of darkness, threats and being threatened”.

    Derrida listed the ten major drawbacks of capitalism and the free world in one fell swoop to refute Fukuyama’s “factual gospel”. They are:

    First, unemployment. Unemployment in today’s capitalist world is a new kind of unemployment, just as poverty in today’s capitalist world is a new kind of poverty. This new kind of unemployment is brought about by new markets, new technologies and new global competition. It is a “calculated imbalance” in advance. One of its important characteristics is that it is between “work and no work” and “employment and unemployment”, which is particularly evident in the telecommunications industry. Derrida said: “The non-working, unemployed or underemployed functions of society are entering a new era.” He also pointed out that the pain caused by this new kind of unemployment is no less than that of traditional unemployment. He said: “This regular disorder, while being controlled, calculated, and ‘socialized’, once it no longer recognizes itself in the old word of unemployment, in the scene that this word has long been designated, it will experience greater and more uncomfortable pain caused by the loss of its accustomed model language.”

    Second, the massive deprivation of the right of homeless citizens to participate in the democratic life of the country, the expulsion or exile of so many exiles, stateless people and immigrants from a so-called national border. Derrida believes that this “has foreshadowed a new experience of national borders and identities.”

    Third, the ruthless economic war between the European Community countries, between the European Community countries and Eastern European countries, between Europe and the United States, and between Europe, the United States and Japan. He pointed out: “This war began with other wars and now dominates everything because it controls the actual interpretation of international law and its inconsistent and unequal application.”

    Fourth, the inability to control contradictions in the concept, norms and reality of the free market. Capitalist countries are building protectionist barriers and conducting interventionist auction wars to protect their citizens from becoming cheap labor. Derrida asks: “How should people protect their own interests in the global market while claiming to protect the ‘social rights’ of their citizens, etc.?”

    Fifth, the deterioration of foreign debt and other related mechanisms has left the majority of humanity in a state of hunger or despair. These mechanisms thus automatically exclude most people from entering the market, and this logic seeks to expand the market. Derrida points out: “This contradiction has an impact on many geopolitical changes, even when these changes seem to be determined by the discourse of democratization or human rights.”

    Sixth, the arms industry and trade (both “conventional” weapons and precision weapons at the forefront of electronic technology) are included in the regular regulation of scientific research, economy and labor socialization in Western countries. Derrida believes that “without an unthinkable revolution and without taking great risks, which begin with the increase in unemployment mentioned above, people cannot stop these industries and trades, or even reduce them. As for the illegal trade in weapons, to the extent that people can still distinguish it from “normal” trade, it is still the largest trade in the world, even larger than the drug trade that is always inseparable from it.” Seventh

    , the expansion of nuclear proliferation is no longer controllable even by state institutions. Derrida pointed out that the countries that are currently frantically carrying out nuclear expansion are “those countries that claim to need to protect themselves from it.” “This proliferation is not only beyond the control of the state, but also beyond the scope of all open markets.”

    Eighth, driven by an ancient illusion, an illusion of the primitive concepts of community, nation-state, sovereignty, borders, native and blood, and the intensification of inter-ethnic wars. Derrida said: “Antiquity itself is not a bad thing. It undoubtedly preserves some irreversible resources. But how can people deny that this conceptual illusion can be said to be made more obsolete than ever by the mispositioning of electronic technology in the sense of the ontological topology it assumes?”

    Ninth, the mafia and drug cartels are spreading day by day. They have become a worldwide force. Derrida pointed out that they “have penetrated into every corner and have completely universalized themselves, so that people can no longer strictly distinguish them. Sometimes it is even impossible to clearly separate them from the process of democratization.” They “have invaded not only the general circulation of social and economic organizations and funds, but also the government and intergovernmental institutions.”

    Tenth, international organizations are subject to various restrictions. There are at least two restrictions: the first and most critical restriction comes from the fact that the norms of these international organizations, their charters, and the definition of their missions depend on a certain historical culture; the other restriction is closely linked to the first restriction: the so-called global international law envisioned is still mainly manipulated by specific nations-states in its specific implementation. Derrida said: “There are countless examples, recent or more recent, that fully demonstrate this, both in terms of the issues considered and resolved by the United Nations and in terms of the concrete implementation or ‘reinforcement’ of these decisions: inconsistencies, discontinuities, inequality of States before the law, the hegemony of certain States over military power in matters of international law, etc., which we have to admit year after year, day after day.”

    Derrida directly listed the ten major drawbacks of the Western capitalist world and repeatedly said that the current capitalist world is indeed not as beautiful as Fukuyama described, but is “very sick, getting worse day by day”, “decline is spreading and growing on its own”, and this decline is not “decline in growth” or “a new stage of development”, because the growth of the current capitalist world itself is “pathological”. The title of the third chapter of his “Specters of Marx” that specifically exposes the contemporary capitalist world is “Exhaustion”. He believes that the “optimistic picture” of the contemporary capitalist world drawn by Fukuyama “has a taste of cynicism”. He emphasized that economic wars, ethnic wars, wars between ethnic minorities, the spread of racism and xenophobia, racial conflicts, cultural and religious conflicts are tearing apart the so-called democratic Europe and the world today.

    Derrida knows that Fukuyama’s praise of the Western world is, in a certain sense, mainly a praise of the Western parliamentary democratic system. So Derrida focused on analyzing the Western parliamentary democratic system. He said: “Is it necessary to point out that parliamentary liberal democracy is in such a rare and isolated state in the world? Is it necessary to point out that what we call Western democracy has never been so dysfunctional? Elective representation or parliamentary life is not the only one – as is usually the case – distorted by a multitude of socio-economic mechanisms, but it has become increasingly difficult to move in an extremely chaotic public space, a chaos caused not only by the media tools of television technology, the new rhythm of information and communication, and the speed of various devices and the various forces represented by the latter, but also by the various new modes they have appropriated, the new structures of events and the ghosts of events.” Derrida not only pointed out that the Western parliamentary democracy system is in a state of “isolation” and “dysfunction”, but also believed that this state is not caused by external reasons but by internal reasons, that is, by the new structure it has produced. Intervention under the

    banner of protecting human rights is the main way for Western countries, led by the United States, to extend the Western liberal democratic system to the whole world. In order to reveal the essence of the “universalization” of the Western liberal democratic system, Derrida also analyzed the human rights discourse of Western countries. He pointed out that human rights discourse has inevitable limitations. “As long as market laws, ‘foreign debt’, and the imbalance in the development of science and technology, military and economy continue to maintain a real inequality, as long as this inequality is as terrible as the inequality that is more prevalent today than ever before in human history, that kind of human rights discourse will remain inappropriate, sometimes even hypocritical, and in any case formalistic and self-contradictory.” Derrida said angrily that it is very hypocritical for advocates of the “new gospel” such as Fukuyama to claim that all human beings on earth and in human history will never be affected by violence, inequality, exclusion, hunger and the resulting economic oppression. They do this “not by cheering the advent of liberal democracy in the carnival of the end of history, not by celebrating the ‘end of ideology’ and the end of the grand discourse of liberation, but by letting us never ignore the existence of this obvious, visible fact, which has constituted countless special scenes: no progress will allow us to ignore the fact that so many men, women and children are enslaved, starving and exterminated on the earth in absolute numbers that are unprecedented.” Derrida also proposed that as long as there is a debt problem in the world and the distinction between “creditor countries” and “debtor countries”, it will be impossible to truly realize human rights. He said: “… all questions about democracy, all questions about universal discourses on human rights, the future of mankind, etc., will only give rise to some formal, orthodox and hypocritical excuses, as long as the “foreign debt” is not viewed positively in the most responsible, internally consistent and systematic way possible. With the help of this name (referring to “foreign debt” – author’s note), with the help of this symbolic image, we are pointing to the general interests, and first of all the interests of capital, which in today’s world order, that is, in the global market, puts the majority of people under its shackles and constrains them in a new form of slavery.” Derrida said very clearly that if the “foreign debt” is not eliminated, the interests of capital will inevitably put the interests of the majority under its shackles, and the realization of human rights will only be a pipe dream, an empty talk.

    In Fukuyama’s eyes, of course, the United States and the European Community countries are the paradise of mankind today, and the ideal social model that mankind has longed for. Derrida pointed out that “neither the United States nor the European Community countries have reached the perfect state of a universal state or a liberal democratic state, nor have they even come close to it.” Therefore, Fukuyama’s use of the United States and the European Community countries as examples to illustrate that the Western liberal democratic system is a paradise on earth is also unconvincing. He said: “How can people ignore the economic wars going on between the two groups and within the European Community today? How can people ignore the conflicts caused every day by the GATT and everything it represents, and the comprehensive strategy of protectionism? Not to mention the economic war with Japan, the various trade disputes between rich countries and other countries, the phenomenon of poverty, the viciousness of “foreign debt”, the “single plague of overproduction” mentioned in the Communist Manifesto, and the “monetary barbarism” that occurs in civilized society, etc.” Derrida believes that as long as we use the traditional Marxist “questioning” method, it is not difficult to see what kind of state the United States and the European Community countries are in.

    Derrida pointed out that the failure of the liberal democratic system in reality is quite different from what Fukuyama praised. It is not accidental, but inevitable, and therefore it is the essential characteristic of the Western liberal democratic system. He said: “The failure of the liberal democratic system in reality shows the rupture between the facts and the ideal essence, but it is too rash to say that this rupture only exists in the primitive forms of these so-called regimes, theocracy and military dictatorships… This failure and rupture also inherently become the characteristics of all democracies, including the oldest and most stable so-called Western democracy, by definition.” As a non-Marxist thinker, it is indeed very difficult to recognize this.

    Derrida emphasized that Fukuyama’s purpose is to cover up the fact that the Western liberal democratic system is in an objective crisis, so Fukuyama’s book has been strongly welcomed by some people who also attempt to cover up this fact. He said: “People had better ask themselves: Why has this book and the ‘gospel’ it claims to bring become such a mass media trap? Why is it so popular in the turbulent Western ideological supermarket, just like when the rumor of the outbreak of war first came, housewives rushed to buy all the sugar and butter on the shelves? Why is the mass media making such a fuss? How pleasing such a discourse is to those who celebrate the victory of liberal capitalism and its predestined alliance with liberal democracy, and they do this to cover up, first of all to cover up the fact that this victory has never been as critical, fragile, and full of crises as it is now, and even in some respects it is in disaster. In short, it is facing the threat of death. Its demise is not only because the ghost of Marx still exists today, but also because it itself has actually died. By covering up all these failures and all these threats, people try to cover up the potential power of the principles and Marxist critical spirit that we are talking about – the power and reality.” Derrida here not only describes the objective fact that Western society is “critical, fragile, full of crises, and even in some respects in disaster”, but also reveals that the real intention of Fukuyama and his followers is to cover up this fact.

    Derrida was very dissatisfied with Fukuyama’s practice of completely ignoring facts and telling lies with open eyes. He pointed out that when Fukuyama gave a definite answer to the question of whether “the continuous and purposeful history of mankind” would eventually lead “the majority of mankind” to “liberal democracy”, he also allowed people to doubt this conclusion based on objective facts. He also listed a series of facts that contradicted his conclusion, and people believed that he would “further expand” this list of facts. “However, he did not do so. Why? Is this pause accidental or insignificant? However, according to the entire argumentation mode of this strange apologetic, all these disasters (terror, oppression, repression, genocide, etc.), these ‘events’ or these ‘facts’ belong to experience, to the ’empirical flow of events in the second half of this century’, and they are nothing more than ’empirical’ phenomena recognized by ’empirical evidence’.” Derrida believes that Fukuyama himself is actually impossible to deny these objective facts, but only according to his “entire argumentation mode of the strange apologetic”, he wipes them out on the grounds that these facts belong to “empirical phenomena”. Therefore, in Fukuyama’s entire argument, “the accumulation of these empirical events or facts will never change the ideal direction of most of humanity towards the liberal democratic system. Therefore, as the purpose of progress, this direction has an ultimate ideal form, and anything that contradicts it belongs to historical experience, no matter how many they are, how tragic their endings are, how they are spread all over the world, how complex and diverse they are, and how they recur.” Derrida concludes: “Even if we grant that this general distinction between empirical reality and ideal finality is simple and clear, we still do not know how this absolute direction, this unhistorical finality in history, has led precisely in our own time, in these days, in our own era to an event that Fukuyama calls ‘Fukuyama’ and that he dates very accurately according to ‘the most remarkable evolution of the last 25 years of the 20th century.'” Derrida

    goes on to point out that Fukuyama’s trick of “negating the death threat of capitalism” through “channel jamming” seems clever to some and clumsy to others because “it is a trick, a sleight of hand.” This is mainly manifested in the following: “On the one hand, whenever there is a problem with the proof that the failure of the so-called Marxist state is inevitable, it needs to believe in the logic of an empirical event; on the other hand, in the name of a supra-historical and natural ideal, it doubts the same logic of the so-called empirical facts, so it has to suspend it in order to avoid contaminating this pure ideal and its concept with the cruel and ruthless things that contradict it: in a word, all the evils that exist in capitalist countries, in liberalism, and in a world dominated by other forces whose hegemony is related to this imagined supra-historical or natural (or rather naturalized) ideal, and all the things that are not getting better and better.”

    Facts speak louder than words. In the face of the “gospel” preached by Fukuyama, the best refutation is to analyze the objective facts and see if this is the case. Derrida did just that. Here we not only see Derrida’s well-founded refutation of Fukuyama, but also his convincing exposure of the contradictions and crises of contemporary capitalism.

    2. Jameson: “It is illogical to declare the decisive victory of capitalism and the market system”

    After the dramatic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, Jameson insisted that Marxism was not outdated, and the main basis he used to prove that Marxism was not outdated was that “capitalism today has not undergone fundamental changes.” We can understand his basic views on modern capitalism from his argument that Marxism is still suitable for the present era on the grounds that “capitalism today has not undergone fundamental changes.”

    Jameson pointed out: “Whenever the object of study of Marxism – capitalism – changes or undergoes unexpected changes, the Marxist paradigm will be in crisis. Since the old statement of the controversial issue is not adapted to the new reality, it is easy to conclude that this paradigm itself has been surpassed and outdated.” In Jameson’s view, using the change of capitalism as an excuse to promote the obsolescence of Marxism is the most common way to deny the practical significance of Marxism.

    He pointed out that Bernstein did this in history. In his “The Preconditions of Socialism and the Tasks of the Social Democratic Party”, Bernstein proposed that Marxism should be fundamentally revised based on the so-called failure of Marxism to make it conform to the complexity of modern social classes and the adaptability of contemporary capitalism. Thus, Bernstein advocated abandoning the dialectics derived from Hegel, abandoning revolution, and reorganizing the Second International according to mass democracy and the electoral process. The first generation of “post-Marxist” representatives in the 1970s also did this. Some of them argued that class-based capitalism no longer exists and has given way to “post-capitalism.” The various characteristics listed by Marx no longer exist in this “post-capitalist” society. Some of them also tried to defend the view that although something similar to capitalism still exists, it has become better for some reasons and more suitable for the will of the people and the collective needs, so there is no need to make a thorough institutional change, let alone a revolution. Some of them even argued that capitalism does still exist, but its ability to create wealth and correct mistakes has been greatly underestimated by Marxists; from the current perspective, capitalism is the only visible path to modernization and universal reform.

    He further pointed out that the representatives of “post-Marxism” in the 1990s after the dramatic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were also doing this. He said: “Post-Marxism usually appears in such periods, during which capitalism itself is undergoing structural changes.” If Bernstein’s revisionism is a reaction to the changes in capitalism from “domestic capitalism” to “modern capitalism or imperialism”, and the first generation of “post-Marxism” was born in the period of modernization or modernism, then contemporary “post-Marxism” appeared in the period when the modern stage of capitalism gave way to the postmodern stage.

    Precisely because both Bernstein’s revisionism and contemporary “post-Marxism” have linked the obsolescence of Marxism with the changes in capitalism, in Jameson’s view, the key to knowing whether Marxism still has practical significance today is to find out whether capitalism has undergone fundamental changes today. Jameson

    clearly stated: “My core point is that capitalism today has not undergone fundamental changes. These changes are not beyond the scope of what people in Bernstein’s time imagined.” He made a detailed analysis of this.

    Jameson pointed out that according to Marx’s point of view, the fundamental characteristic of capitalism is the unlimited expansion of capital. And this characteristic has not undergone fundamental changes in today’s capitalism. He said: “Marx believed that the fundamental characteristic of capitalism is the endless expansion of capital, which will never stop or retreat because of its achievements.” As long as it is a capitalist society, capital accumulation will continue to increase, and productivity will continue to improve. Capitalism is also considered to be self-contradictory, and it faces the law of declining profit rates. Since these consequences basically come from overproduction and market saturation, Ernst Mandel pointed out in his “Late Capitalism” that not only will capital itself be freed by technological innovation to open up a new commodity market, but the entire system will also survive the crisis and gain vitality. Giovanni Ali found in his “The Long 20th Century” that the kind of speculation and financial capital that can be seen in the first world today exists at the end of almost every century expansion cycle. Jameson credited Mandel and Ali’s analysis to conclude that although new technological innovations have saved capitalism from cyclical crises to a certain extent, they have not changed but have instead contributed to the catastrophic expansion of its entire system.

    Some people desperately emphasize that capitalism has changed, which means that capitalism has eliminated crises. Therefore, tracing whether capitalism has undergone fundamental changes is, in the final analysis, tracing whether capitalism has eliminated crises. Jameson pointed out that “capitalism is not only a production system or mode of production, but also a most flexible and adaptable mode of production.” Capitalism does try every means to eliminate its crisis. The basic strategies of capitalism to eliminate its crisis are nothing more than two: one is the expansion of the system; the other is the introduction of new commodities. In Jameson’s view, analyzing whether capitalism has eliminated its crisis is actually analyzing whether these two strategies have and can eliminate the crisis of capitalism. In this way, Jameson further explored the role of these two strategies in today’s capitalist society.

    He analyzed the first strategy “expansion of the system” and said that capitalism has always had a center. In the past, the British had the final say, and now the United States dominates. In terms of space, each new center occupies a wider range than the previous center. For the sake of commercialization, for new markets, and for new products, the capitalist center of each period has opened up a wider market for itself. He traced the history of capitalism and said: “According to more or less different historical accounts, we can say that national capitalism emerged from the industrial revolution in the 18th century. This was the first period, which Marx personally experienced and theoretically summarized. It was followed by the imperialist period at the end of the 19th century, during which the boundaries of domestic markets were broken down and a world-wide colonial system was formed. Finally, after the Second World War, in our era, the old imperial system collapsed and was replaced by a new “world system” in which the so-called multinational corporations occupied a dominant position.” He further pointed out that among these three periods, the third period was of course the one with the highest degree of “system expansion”. “This third period (which was not fully entered until the end of the Cold War) was much more “globalized” than the previous imperialist period. With turmoil in India, Brazil and large areas of Eastern Europe, the scope of capital and market expansion far exceeded that of previous stages of capitalism.” The problem is that in this third period, capital and markets expanded so much, and “globalization” was so high, so did the crisis of capitalism be eliminated? Jameson believes that it was not. He pointed out that “in the current era of ‘transnational corporate’ capitalism (even after the collapse of the Soviet Union), it is difficult to achieve a balance between the three centers of Europe, the United States and Japan, each of which has its satellite countries as a shield.” He asked in return, “Can the advent of “globalization” be said to have realized the world market predicted by Marx, and thus the final stage of capitalist development, namely, the ‘universal commodification of labor’, has arrived?” He concluded: “This is doubtful.”

    He analyzed the second strategy, “the introduction of new commodities”, saying that this is another basic premise for capitalism to overcome the crisis, and its main way is to resort to technological innovation and technological revolution. That is to say, capitalism relies on the continuous promotion of technological innovation and technological revolution to launch a large number of new commodities to save capitalism from the crisis. Mandel once described the changes in various stages of capitalism in this way: steam engine technology is adapted to national capitalism; electronic technology and internal combustion engine technology are adapted to imperialism; atomic energy and cybernetics are adapted to the current multinational capitalism and globalization used as an important symbol of postmodernization. He especially drew people’s attention to the role of the latest technological forces such as atomic energy and cybernetics: “These technologies are both productive forces for the introduction of new commodities and tools for opening up new world space, thereby ‘shrinking’ the earth and allowing capitalism to be reorganized on a new scale.” On the one hand, Jameson highly affirmed the role of science and technology in the process of saving contemporary capitalism, but on the other hand, he pointed out that no matter how science and technology develop, it can never fundamentally free capitalism from crisis. In his view, the key to everything is that the role of science and technology is inseparable from economic motivation, and contemporary capitalism lacks such economic motivation. He said: “This means that it is appropriate to describe the characteristics of late capitalism with terms such as information theory and cybernetics, but such descriptions need to be readjusted with economic dynamics, which are easily separated from the characteristics of late capitalism in terms of language, knowledge, and ideology.”

    Jameson believes that since these two strategies cannot fundamentally eliminate the crisis of capitalism, contemporary capitalism must still be in crisis. And it must be pointed out that “this crisis is systemic.” In

    Jameson’s view, proving that the crisis of contemporary capitalism is still there and that the basic characteristics of contemporary capitalism have not changed is equivalent to proving that Marxism is not outdated. He said: “Marxism is the science of capitalism, or more precisely, the science of the internal contradictions of capitalism. … This means that it is illogical to celebrate the ‘death of Marxism’ and declare the decisive victory of capitalism and the market system.”

    Although Jameson tried his best to emphasize that contemporary capitalism has not exceeded the basic scope of capitalism in order to prove that Marxism still has practical significance, he also admitted that compared with classical capitalism, today’s capitalism has new characteristics.

    He specifically summarized the following three new characteristics of contemporary capitalism:

    First, “commodification.” He said: “The increasing cultural significance of politics and economy is not the result of these fields’ tendency to split and differentiate, but the result of the increasingly widespread and thoroughgoing commodification itself, which is now fully capable of colonizing large cultural areas that have always resisted universal commodification and have always been basically in opposition and contradiction with the logic of this commodification. Today, culture has basically become commercial, and the consequence of this fact is that what was usually regarded as economic and commercial in the past has also become cultural, and various diagnoses of the so-called “ideal society” and consumerism must ignore this feature.” He believes that “commodification” has become serious enough to engulf large cultural fields, which has made culture commercial on the one hand and what was previously regarded as economic and commercial on the other hand. Therefore, today’s economic and commercial things have cultural significance. He emphasized that the cultural significance of economic and commercial things is not the result of their split, but the result of commodification.

    Second, “consumerism”. He said: “As for consumerism, many people may expect that as a way of life, it has far-reaching historical significance and is necessary for human society to transcend the experience of consumerism, if this is done in order to choose something fundamentally different from its purpose. However, for the vast majority of regions in the world, the consumerist hobby objectively no longer has such a function. It seems that the following prediction of radical theory in the 1960s: capitalism is itself a revolutionary force because it constantly breeds new needs and desires that its system cannot satisfy, has now been fulfilled on a global scale in the new

world system.” Jameson disagrees with people’s evaluation of the role of the current popular consumerism. He emphasized that consumerism has objectively lost this positive effect. He appreciates the criticism of consumerism by the radical theory of the New Left in the 1960s.

    Third, “globalization” and “informatization”. He said: “On a theoretical level, it can be said that current urgent issues such as structural unemployment, financial speculation, uncontrolled capital flows, and ideal society are deeply linked in that they all lack substantive content and are relatively abstract (as distinguished from the term ‘alienation’ used in another era). When we touch on the theme of globalization and informatization again, we will face the dialectical paradox. When the political and ideological possibility of establishing a new world network is accompanied by the loss of autonomy in today’s world system, when no country or nation can gain its own independence, and when no country or nation can compete, separate, or confront the world market, insurmountable difficulties will arise. Intellectuals cannot find a shortcut based on their own imagination. It is the mature structural contradictions in reality that generate expectations for new possibilities: we can at least grasp this existing dilemma through what Hegel called the ‘negative perspective’, by paying attention to those places where new things can be expected to emerge.” Jameson’s words are a bit obscure, but the meaning is clear as long as you read them carefully. He discussed the content, essence and harm of “globalization” and “informatization” as important characteristics of late capitalist society. He clearly pointed out that “globalization” and “informatization” are linked to structural unemployment, financial speculation, and uncontrolled capital flows, and the establishment of a world network is based on the loss of national autonomy.

    It must be pointed out that his analysis of these new characteristics of contemporary capitalism is not to illustrate the disappearance of the inherent crisis of capitalism, but to demonstrate the intensification of its crisis. Therefore, even if new changes have taken place in contemporary capitalism, it does not mean that Marxism can be abandoned, but only that Marxism needs to face new situations, needs to be changed, and a new Marxism suitable for the postmodern era needs to be created.

    When he talked about the trend of “globalization” and “informatization” in contemporary capitalism, he said: “Globalization and information technology are indeed the main innovations of the new ‘postmodern’ stage of capitalism. Marxism is willing to analyze these developments from the perspective of knowledge and politics. Only from the perspective of the world system itself can we understand that the theory of reification is consistent with the crisis theory of economists and the new structural unemployment, which is an inseparable part of the same whole as financial speculation and postmodernism after popular culture. Only by looking at the problem from this perspective can we develop a new international political practice that promises to maintain the independence of the nation-state in the new world system and find a way to draw strength from the declining labor movement and the rapid transfer of capital.” Jameson not only pointed out that Marxists should shoulder the historical mission of analyzing “globalization” and “informatization”, but also described the prospects that will inevitably arise after doing so.

    He also pointed out that only those who think that Marxism is dead and thus abandon Marxism will be surprised when faced with the ambiguous phenomenon of “globalization” and “informatization”, while for those who confirm that Marxism still exists in the existing society and apply it in practice, this phenomenon is already clear in their minds. Please see his concluding remarks: “Only those who think that Marxism is ‘dead’ or that it survives only in a degenerated form will be surprised by this phenomenon. But celebrating the death of Marxism is just as untenable as celebrating the final victory of capitalism. For Marxism is the only science about capitalism; its epistemological mission lies in its unlimited ability to describe the historical origins of capitalism. This is why postmodern capitalism inevitably leads to a postmodern Marxism that is opposed to itself.” Since there is postmodern capitalism, there must be a postmodern Marxism that is opposed to it. This is the conclusion drawn by Jameson.

    3. Habermas: “Politics in Western democratic rule of law societies has lost its sense of direction and self-confidence”

    Habermas did not regard the dramatic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe as a failure and a victory for capitalism. In his view, the success of capitalism over state socialism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe was precisely because the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries violated the principles of socialism, while capitalist countries, driven by workers’ parties, mainly socialist parties, included certain principles of socialism in themselves. However, this does not mean that the principles of socialism have achieved complete victory in capitalist countries. We should continue to criticize capitalism in response to new problems that have emerged in capitalist society until the principles of socialism are thoroughly realized. It is in this sense that Habermas believes that criticism of state socialism is necessary, but criticism of contemporary capitalism is more important. The bankruptcy of state socialism is a process that everything must go through, and criticism of it is a necessary step towards future socialism. State socialism will only disappear when the development of history progresses to the realization of true socialism and state socialism is no longer an object of criticism. Market economy, democratic politics, all these things that have been highly developed in capitalist society are of extremely important practical significance to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. But for people living in developed capitalist countries that have surpassed the stage of state socialism, the criticism of capitalism is more urgent than the criticism of state socialism. He emphasized that the main task of the left is to criticize the shortcomings of capitalism and lay the foundation for future socialism. Habermas practiced what he preached and continued to use Marxism as a critical side to criticize capitalism. This is mainly reflected in some of his works published during and after the dramatic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and in his views on a series of major events that occurred on the world stage.

    In 1990, Habermas published his collection of essays, The Retroactive Revolution. This collection of essays, especially the two essays “The Moment of National Awakening” and “The Retroactive Revolution and the Need for Revision of the Left”, not only analyzed the reasons for the failure of socialism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, but also criticized contemporary capitalism in the new historical context. He believes that the critical left has no reason to abandon the goal of socialism, “no reason to regret, but also can’t pretend that nothing has happened.” They should resolutely accept the facts that have happened, determine the perspective of criticism in observing and analyzing reality, and advance history towards the future of socialism. He encouraged the leftists, saying, “In this regard, the socialist left will find their best position and their political role. They can become the ferment of political exchanges that can prevent the institutional framework of a democratic legal state from withering. The non-communist left does not need to be depressed. Perhaps the situation is this: many East German intellectuals will have to adapt themselves to the situation that the Western European left has been in for decades, that is, they must transform socialist ideas into reformist self-criticism of a capitalist society that has both demonstrated its strengths and exposed its weaknesses in the form of mass democracy in a rule of law and a welfare state.” Habermas clearly pointed out here that while contemporary capitalism has demonstrated its strengths in the form of mass democracy in a rule of law and a welfare state, its weaknesses have also been fully exposed. Habermas opposes various anti-socialist explanations of the causes of the dramatic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Anti-socialists believe that the dramatic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe are “the victory of ending the global civil war declared by the Bolsheviks in 1917: a revolution that turned against its own origins.” He disagrees with this view and believes that this view does not look at the problem from the essence. The most essential thing is the logic of capitalism’s inevitable self-negation. He stressed that market economy, democratic politics and multiculturalism are certainly the things that capitalism is superior to national socialism, but they also have their own limitations. Especially in contemporary times, economic power and political power have eroded the life world, and the one-sided development of instrumental rationality has turned people into monsters subordinate to the market and power. The various problems unique to Western society have not been completely solved with the fall of the Berlin Wall. “The market economic system is indifferent to its external costs that are transferred to society and the natural environment. As before, it is accompanied by crisis-ridden economic growth in our country – this growth is accompanied by well-known inequality and marginalization in the core, with economic decline, even shrinkage and degradation, and therefore accompanied by barbaric living conditions in the Third World, deprivation of cultural heritage and hunger disasters in the Third World, especially accompanied by global risks brought about by excessive exploitation of nature, etc.” In his view, this is the reality of Western capitalism after the dramatic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and it is this reality that tells people: In the face of the challenges of the 21st century, the development of Western society requires socialism.

    In 1992, Habermas published his most influential work after the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, Between Facts and Norms: On the Ethics of Negotiation in Law and Democratic Rule of Law. This is an academic monograph on legal philosophy, but it also touches on Habermas’s basic attitude towards contemporary capitalism. He said in the “Preface” that after the collapse of the Soviet model of “national socialism” and the end of the “international civil war”, the theoretical mistakes of the losing side were obvious, that is, “it confuses the socialist cause with the design of a specific lifestyle and the violent realization of this lifestyle.” In fact, “if ‘socialism’ is understood as a set of necessary conditions for various liberated lifestyles, then we will see that the democratic self-organization of the legal community also constitutes the normative core of this cause.” After making the above summary comments on the theory of Soviet-style socialism, he immediately pointed out: “On the other hand, the side that considers itself the victor is not excited by its great victory. At the moment when it can monopolize the legacy of modernity’s moral-practical self-understanding, it is discouraged and retreats in the face of the task of actively promoting the welfare state and ecological taming of capitalism at the level of global social crisis. It is respectful to the system logic of the market-oriented economy; it is at least cautious in the face of the excessive burden of the power medium of the state bureaucracy. However, it turns a deaf ear to the resource that is actually threatened – social solidarity stored in the legal structure and in urgent need of continuous renewal, lacking even a little similar sensitivity.” Habermas’s description of the current situation of contemporary capitalism is both appropriate and vivid. He first pointed out that when the rulers of capitalist society did not feel excited because of their great victory in the struggle with socialism. Then, he critically analyzed the incompetence and cowardice of contemporary capitalism from three aspects: first, although it has the exclusive right to interpret and practice the legacy of modernity, it “shrank back” when it was needed to promote the welfare state and ecological line to deal with the global social crisis; second, it was too “respectful” in front of the logic of the market economy and too “cautious” in front of the excessive burden of the power medium of the state bureaucracy; third, when the resources on which it depends for survival are threatened, it actually “turned a deaf ear” and even lacked the minimum “sensitivity”. He also listed four “terrible situations” facing contemporary capitalism in one breath: the ecological limit of economic growth and the differential interest growth between the living conditions in the northern and southern hemispheres have posed obvious challenges; the transformation of national socialism into a differentiated economic system mechanism has posed a unique historical task; the immigration wave from the impoverished areas in the south and the east has formed serious pressure; the resurgence of racial wars, ethnic wars and religious wars, nuclear blackmail and international resource allocation disputes are full of crises. He asserted: “Faced with this terrible situation, politics in Western democratic rule-of-law societies has lost its sense of direction and self-confidence.” He further pointed out that behind the “gorgeous clichés” of Western capitalist countries, “cowardice prevails” and “even in mature democratic countries, the current liberal system is not all right.” As a thinker living in modern capitalist society and regarded as having a strong reformist tendency for quite some time, it is not easy for him to point out the dilemma of contemporary capitalism so sharply.

    In 1996, Habermas published his political philosophy book “Inclusion of the Other”, which is the main theoretical result of Habermas’ thinking around “discourse politics” since the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. It naturally also contains a series of critical comments on contemporary capitalism. In particular, the fourth part “On Kant’s Perpetual Peace Concept” was written to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the publication of Kant’s “Perpetual Peace”. He put Kant’s desire for “perpetual peace” in the historical context of today’s globalization and made many sharp criticisms of today’s capitalist society. The perpetual peace envisioned by Kant is not the end of any conflict, but a state of no war between countries. To this end, a voluntary alliance of countries must be established. This alliance of countries no longer uses violence as a means of resolving conflicts. In Habermas’ view, the wave of globalization is connecting the world into a whole, and all nations in the world are unknowingly being unified as members of a world family. The situation of each country in the process of globalization is very different. Developed capitalist countries are actually in a dominant position in this wave of globalization, while developing countries are at a disadvantage. Many developing countries did not join the wave of globalization voluntarily, but were drawn into it. This imbalance of global interests, coupled with the existing conflicts of culture and civilization, makes the process of globalization full of various uncertain risks, the most serious of which is the risk of war. Please see his original words: “Today, on a global scale, the media, networks and systems that are connected in all directions have formed close symbolic and social relations, resulting in the interaction and mutual response of local events with distant events. These globalization processes make complex societies that are vulnerable to destruction increasingly fragile. On the one hand, due to the huge risks, military conflicts between nuclear powers have become increasingly unpredictable; on the other hand, regional conflicts have become more and more frequent, resulting in a large number of casualties. In addition, globalization has also caused problems with some of the main premises of classical international law – such as the sovereignty of the state and the strict distinction between domestic and foreign policies.” Habermas’s words not only point out the main characteristics of globalization, but also reveal the main harm brought about by globalization, which is mainly promoted by Western developed capitalist countries, that is, intensifying conflicts and undermining the principles of classical international law. In Habermas’ view, the most serious consequence of globalization is the weakening of the nation-state, that is, “depriving the independent foundation of the subject of the free state alliance as Kant said.” He specifically revealed that “non-governmental actors, such as multinational corporations and private banks with global influence, have weakened the sovereignty of formally recognized nation-states.” Today, the annual income of any of the world’s 30 largest multinational corporations is much higher than the annual GDP of any of the 90 members of the United Nations. “Even the most economically powerful governments today feel that there is a great contrast between the limited space for national activities and the requirements of production relations that are closely linked not to world trade but to the global scope.” “With the denationalization of the economy, especially with the increasing connection between financial markets and industrial production on a global scale, national policies have lost control over general production conditions – and therefore are no longer a lever for maintaining the level of social development that has been achieved.” Habermas clearly pointed out here that in the wave of globalization, the state is “no longer a lever for maintaining the level of social development that has been achieved.” This is very profound. There are many people in Western countries who are critical of globalization, but there are few who are as accurate as Habermas. He emphasized that anyone who truly attempts to grasp the essence of today’s capitalist world must face up to the fact that all the evils and misfortunes in today’s world stem from capitalist globalization. He said: “The harm caused by ecological imbalance, inequality of welfare and economic power, arms trade, especially the proliferation of atomic and biological weapons, terrorism, drug crimes, etc., is obvious. Anyone who is not disappointed with the learning ability of the international community from the beginning must place his hope on the fact that these dangerous globalizations have objectively united the entire world into an involuntary risk community.”

    Compared with The Inclusion of the Other, Habermas’s other political philosophy monograph Post-National Structures published in 1998 is more direct and sharp in its criticism of contemporary capitalism. In the “Preface” of the book, he clearly pointed out that he wrote this book to explore such a question: “Can the democratic system of the welfare state be maintained and developed across national boundaries?” The “democratic system of the welfare state” he mentioned refers to the contemporary capitalist system; the “across national boundaries” he mentioned refers to the situation of globalization. It is very obvious that what he wants to explore in this book is whether the modern capitalist system “can be maintained and developed” under the situation of globalization. His entire book gave a negative answer from all angles. He quoted a passage written by Hobsbawm “in the style of late romanticism” to express his views on the contemporary world after the end of the Cold War: “The short 20th century ended, leaving behind a bunch of problems that no one can solve, and no one claims to be able to solve. People at the end of the century have opened up a path to the third millennium in the global fog. All they know is that a history has ended. They know nothing about the rest.” He pointed out that since 1989 at the latest, people have realized the end of an era, but at the same time people have not felt that the world has been peaceful and the future is extremely bright. People still feel that they live in fear and anxiety, and are still shrouded in a sense of disappointment and frustration. “In those countries where the social welfare state system has at least achieved historical social and political achievements, disappointment is spreading. At the end of the century, capitalism tamed by the social welfare state system has experienced a structural crisis, and neoliberalism without any social care has begun to rise again.” It is meaningful that Habermas links “the resurgence of neoliberalism without any social care” with “the structural crisis of capitalism.” It is not only necessary to see that some old problems still exist in today’s world, such as world peace and international security, the imbalance between the north and south of the world economy, and the destruction of ecological balance, but also to see that, on the one hand, these old problems are “global” today; on the other hand, “new problems have emerged and have exceeded the scope of past challenges, making these old problems more acute.” The “new problems” he mentioned are the sharp decline in the vitality of the capitalist world. In his view, it is precisely by relying on this vitality that the developed capitalist countries in the West “can maintain their relative independence compared with the economically dependent third world countries.” However, today, the globalization of capitalism is seriously “limiting the ability of the Group of Seven to operate” and “economic globalization poses a major challenge to the political and social order formed in post-war Europe.” He particularly pointed out that, ironically, at the end of the 20th century, an old problem in Western developed societies had resurfaced. “This problem seems to have been solved in the process of institutional competition, and it can be said that it is as old as capitalism itself.” The “old problem” he mentioned was: “How can the self-regulating market effectively play its allocation and discovery functions without causing unfair distribution and rising social costs?” He emphasized that this old problem can only become more and more serious in today’s capitalist society. He drew people’s attention to some of the current shifts in the OECD countries: welfare spending has been cut, it has become difficult to enter the social security system, and the pressure of unemployment has increased. He believes that “the transformation and weakening of the social welfare state is the direct consequence of supply-oriented economic policies, which advocate not intervening in the market, reducing subsidies, and improving investment conditions; mainly including monetary and interest rate policies to curb inflation, reducing direct taxes, privatizing state-owned enterprises, and other similar measures.” In his view, these policies currently implemented in developed capitalist countries are all leading to the weakening of their power. “The end of the compromise of the welfare state has led to the resurgence of the crisis trend that was originally controlled by the welfare state. The resulting social costs are constantly rising, and there is a dangerous trend that exceeds the integration capacity of liberal society.” He wants people to clearly realize that various indicators have shown that with polarization, poverty is expanding and society is becoming more and more unstable. Economic instability is inevitably linked to political instability. He reminds people to pay attention to the situation of the “lower class” in today’s capitalist society: “These ‘lower classes’ are on the poverty line and continue to be squeezed out by other social classes. They can no longer rely on their own strength to change their social situation.” The increasingly deteriorating social situation of this “lower class” is the root cause of the “disunity trend” in today’s capitalist society. “This disunity trend will inevitably endanger the free political culture, and democratic society is based on the universalist self-understanding of this political culture.” In his view, the majority decision-making democratic system currently implemented in Western capitalist society is only formally correct, and it is actually eroding the legitimacy of this system. Please read a wonderful passage by Habermas that reveals the essence of the Western parliamentary democracy system: “The majority decision has only a formal correctness. If it only reflects the concerns and defense of the status of the class threatened by the decline of its status, that is, if it only reflects the ideas of right-wing populism, it will erode the legitimacy of the procedure and the system itself.”

    Habermas’ attitude towards modern capitalism is also reflected in his comments on a series of major events:

    First, let’s take a look at how he views the Gulf War. He distinguishes four dimensions of the Gulf War, namely the dimension of power politics, the dimension of colonialism, the dimension of modern warfare, and the moral dimension of war. He believes that from the moral dimension of war, despite the authorization of the United Nations, it is “by no means a police action” because it does not stand on the position of the United Nations, but becomes a tool for the United States and the West to realize their own interests. This war was not carried out under the order of the United Nations, and the countries leading the war did not even report their actions to the United Nations. It is difficult for the state society to stop them from doing whatever they want, let alone prevent them from taking the opportunity to realize their own selfish desires. From the dimension of modern warfare, in order to avoid repeating the mistakes of the Vietnam War, the Gulf War was carefully organized and planned. The use of high-tech means ensured the precise implementation of the plan, and the news media was under strict control. People could only see what the military wanted them to see on television, radio and newspapers. All inhuman aspects were screened out. “To this day, the casualty figures remain in the shadows; we can only guess for ourselves: are there 100,000 dead? 200,000? Or more?” On the one hand, he proposed that although the war conducted by the United States and its allies seemed somewhat suspicious compared to the direct military action taken by the United Nations, it was legitimate after all. On the other hand, he emphasized that this legitimacy was only nominal. In his view, “the implementation of international law depends on the organized cooperation of the international community, not on a utopian world government.”

    Let’s take a look at how he views NATO’s air strikes on Yugoslavia. A Chinese scholar once visited Habermas to ask for his opinion on NATO’s air strikes on Yugoslavia. Habermas said happily: “Using killing to stop killing and using violence to oppose violence should obviously be criticized and will not work. Milosevic and the Yugoslav regime used violence to deal with ethnic conflicts, which resulted in the killing of many innocent civilians and triggered a refugee crisis. They must be condemned. But NATO used more violent military means to attack the Milosevic regime, causing a greater disaster, and should also be condemned. Now it seems that the number of casualties in NATO’s air strikes is greater than the number of deaths in the Kosovo conflict. If NATO charges Milosevic as a war criminal to the International Court of Justice, then NATO leaders have more reason to be tried as war criminals.” Habermas emphasized that “NATO’s self-authorization should not become a routine.” In his view, the United States carried out air strikes on Yugoslavia under the banner of human rights, but in fact the United States had ulterior motives. He said: “Like other nations, the United States also considers its own interests first, and its interests are not always consistent with the normative goals it proclaims.” He asked the kind-hearted people who naively approved of the United States’ behavior: “According to this very American, that is, a certain nation’s normative power politics, it should be reasonable to fight the war against Yugoslavia to the end regardless of all troubles and compromises, and even send ground troops if necessary. At least this has the advantage of consistency. However, if one day a military alliance in another region, such as Asia, uses force to promote human rights politics, and this Based on their interpretation of international law and the UN Charter, which is very different from ours, what should we say? “Habermas’s meaning is very clear: NATO, led by the United States, interprets international law and the UN Charter according to its own will, regardless of the opposition of people in other countries and regions; you, the United States, can do this, and other countries can do this. If one day, other regional military alliances (for example, assuming that a military alliance is formed with a certain country as the core) also ignore “our” opposition and forcibly promote their understanding of human rights politics here according to their interpretation of international law and the UN Charter, which is different from ours, what can we say?

    Finally, let’s take a look at how he views the “9.11” incident. He characterized the “9.11” incident as “the suicide murderers used the means of transportation as a symbol of civilization as a weapon of killing to oppose the capitalist bastion of Western civilization.” He believes that the suicide murderers and planners in the “9.11” incident were targeting Western modern civilization, that is, contemporary capitalism. This can be seen from the will of the suicide murderer Mohammed Atta, who said that it was religious beliefs that prompted them to do so. For them, globalization is the biggest Satan. The images on the TV screen also made people who witnessed this doomsday disaster involuntarily think of the images in the Bible. The revenge language used by the US president in his initial reaction also had the color of the Old Testament. Habermas believes that the key is why they oppose modern capitalist civilization? He said: “There is an obvious mismatch between motivation and means in the Islamic murderers. This reflects the incoordination between the cultural and social development of the murderers’ hometowns, which is caused by rapid and thorough modernization. Here, this modernization process is fortunately considered a creative destruction process, but in Islamic countries, the disintegration of traditional lifestyles has brought great pain to people, and no way of compensation has been found. Improving material living conditions is certainly one of the ways. But the key is that due to emotional condescension, the spirit has undergone profound changes, which is manifested in politics as the separation of religion and the state. In Europe, it took us several centuries to fully realize the dual characteristics of modernity.” From this passage, it can be seen that Habermas believes that the fundamental reason why these Islamic murderers are hostile to Western capitalism is that Western capitalist modern civilization has brought them disasters. In his view, even people living in capitalist society have realized that capitalist modernity is inherently two-sided. When this modernity is extended to non-Western countries, it disintegrates the original way of life there, and its negative effects bring great pain to the people there. This pain cannot be compensated by simply improving material life. Habermas believes that terrorism should be opposed, but it cannot be opposed by war. In a sense, “the ‘war on terrorism’ is not a war.” He said: “Faced with the globalization that has spread due to the unrigid market, many of us hope that politics can return in another form. Of course, the return is not the original global security state, that is, the state form represented by the police, secret police, and now also the army, but the state image that shapes civilization throughout the world.” Obviously, Habermas neither agrees with “globalization that has spread due to the unrigid market” nor with the “global security state” that is compatible with it. The following passage can be regarded as Habermas’s criticism of contemporary capitalism through his reflection on the “9.11” incident: “Since the morality of liberal countries comes from religion, liberal countries should be able to realize that in the face of new challenges at a higher level, the ‘common human culture’ (Hegel’s words) no longer exists. Today, the language of the market penetrates every pore, reducing all interpersonal relationships to a selfish model. However, social ties based on mutual recognition cannot be summarized by the concepts of contract, reasonable choice, and maximization of interests.” Like Derrida, Habermas

    also disagrees with Fukuyama’s statement about the “end of history.” When someone asked him how he viewed the end of the East-West confrontation brought about by the dramatic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, he took the opportunity to say that Fukuyama’s statement about the “end of history” was once popular, but “I have to declare that I disagree with the assertion that history has ended.” It is not that history has reached its end point, but that “the manipulated world has reached a point of collapse.” Habermas pointed out that modern thinkers believed that the establishment of a democratic, free, equal and fraternal country was the end of history, but Marx found that this was only political liberation, not human liberation, because legal equality did not mean de facto equality. Marx’s assertion is still applicable even to modern capitalist society. He said: “For the first time, capitalism did not hinder the realization of the republican promise of equality for all citizens, but made it possible. Democratic constitutional states do guarantee equality in the following sense: every citizen has the same opportunity to use their rights”; “However, when we see the silent growth of homeless people in front of us, we can’t help but think of Anatole France’s words: people want more than just the equal right of everyone to ‘sleep under the bridge’.” In Habermas’ view, when people only have formal equality, that is, only have the equal right to “sleep under the bridge”, how can we talk about the “end of history”?

    4. Giddens: “The capitalist world we live in is a world out of control”

    Compared with the above three, Giddens is undoubtedly much more closely related to contemporary capitalism. As the main designer of the “Third Way” and the theoretical advisor of the Blair Labour Party government in the UK, his mission is mainly to “domesticate” capitalism. However, when he argued the necessity and specific ways of this “domestication”, we still found that he was full of dissatisfaction with contemporary capitalism and had many criticisms, although this criticism was obviously based on the position of “social democracy”. After the dramatic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, on the one hand, he was more eager to design the “Third Way”, and on the other hand, his dissatisfaction with contemporary capitalism became increasingly strong. This is mainly reflected in a series of works he published after the dramatic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

    Next, let us focus on his criticism of contemporary capitalism in his major work The Third Way: The Revival of Social Democracy, published after the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. In the first chapter of the book, the author wrote a very eye-catching sentence: “Socialism and communism have disappeared, but their ghosts still haunt us. We cannot simply abandon the values ​​and ideals that drove them forward, because some of these values ​​and ideals are essential to the good life we ​​want to create for our social and economic development. The challenge we face now is how to make these values ​​reappear in places where socialist economic planning has lost its credibility.” This sentence can be regarded as the main basis for Giddens’ criticism of contemporary capitalism. In his view, although the Soviet model of socialism and communism has disappeared with the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the values ​​that dominate this socialism and communism are still the banner of human progress. Using this value concept to compare with contemporary capitalism, the shortcomings of contemporary capitalism are clear at a glance. What needs to be done now is to use this value concept to criticize and transform contemporary capitalism so that it can show its great significance again. He uses this value concept to measure contemporary capitalism and has made many criticisms of it:

    First, criticism of contemporary capitalism’s belief in market fundamentalism. He said: “Due to the limitations and internal contradictions of market fundamentalism, it has been forced to withdraw from domestic politics. However, it still dominates at the global level, although the problems it has in a more local context still exist in the global context.” He believes that market fundamentalism, which believes in the omnipotence of the market, has inherent limitations and contradictions. These limitations and contradictions originally only existed in the “local context”, but with the advancement of globalization, these limitations and contradictions have also unfolded at the “global level”. He emphasized: “Crisis, erratic fluctuations, and the sudden injection or withdrawal of capital into specific countries and regions – these are the core characteristics of the unruly market rather than its marginal characteristics.” The Mexican crisis in 1994 and the subsequent Southeast Asian crisis were the most obvious results of the belief in the omnipotence of the market. He particularly criticized the serious currency speculation caused by the liberalization of capital markets on a global scale. Of the trillions of dollars in currency transactions that take place around the world every day, only 5% is trade and other substantive economic transactions, while the remaining 95% is made up of speculation and carry trades. In these activities, traders with huge amounts of money target exchange rate fluctuations and interest rate differences to seek rapidly growing profits. These activities distort the signals that the market gives for long-term factors and trade. Book capital has considerable liquidity: hundreds of billions of dollars of “hot money” can be withdrawn from a market or country in a single day. Central banks do not have enough reserves to withstand the collective pressure of many speculators who are desperate to bet on weak market depreciation. Asian countries have almost fallen from a model of successful industrialization to a struggling economy overnight.

    Second, criticism of the chaotic ecological management of contemporary capitalism. Giddens pointed out: “The problem of global ecological management largely overlaps with the problem of serious economic disparity in global society.” There is a parallel relationship between national and regional exclusion and global exclusion. The growing prosperity of many countries and regions makes other countries increasingly poor and neglected. The world’s richest 20 countries have entered a period of steady economic growth since 1980. A quarter of the world’s population lives in these countries. Economic stagnation and even absolute economic recession are occurring in some poor countries. 30% of the world’s population lives below the poverty line, that is, their income is only equivalent to 1 US dollar (a day). Sub-Saharan Africa, except for parts of southern Africa, is almost entirely a continent of exclusion. Even in poor countries, there is a phenomenon of the upper class excluding the lower class. A small number of elites – who are very rich by any standard – live in a material and cultural environment isolated from the majority of the society. In many cases, their income comes from blatant money laundering, arms trading or drug trafficking. In Giddens’s view, to solve the problem of backward countries and the exclusion of the lower class, a more equitable distribution system must be implemented while developing the economy. The problem is, if there are adverse consequences of economic development in poor countries, how can they be controlled? He said, “The issues involved in efforts to reduce global inequality often make people shrink back.” “As far as the current understanding is concerned, ecological modernization does not provide a strategy for the transition from an agricultural country to an industrial country.” The modernization of developed countries is based on the destruction of the ecology. Now that they have developed, they can naturally promote ecological modernization. What about those developing countries? Giddens clearly realizes that “global ecological management (at the very least) will be very difficult, not only because of the pressure of environmentally destructive economic growth, but also because ecological risks and the wider scope of technological change are themselves controversial.” “Since no one can accurately calculate the risks and future technological changes are impossible to predict, no one can outline a convincing picture.”

    Third, criticism of contemporary capitalism’s weakening of the nation-state. He said: “The emerging world order cannot maintain its existence as a ‘pure market’ alone. The market is integrated into one while also fragmenting into fragments: this is a world with a thousand city-states, some of which are predicted to be unstable and dangerous. As a force of stability and as a counterbalance to the process of continuous fragmentation, it is very important to reaffirm the role of the nation-state.” Giddens believes that the countless city-states created by globalization are an unstable and dangerous model, and the nation-state weakened by globalization should be restored. He pointed out that the formation of the nation-state began when they developed clear “borders” to replace the vague “frontiers” that are unique to more traditional countries. Borders are precise lines drawn on maps, and any violation of them is seen as a violation of the integrity of the state’s sovereignty. Now, states once again have frontiers rather than borders, but for different reasons than in the past. Early states had frontiers because they lacked adequate political machinery; they could not extend the state’s authority to remote areas far from the political center. Contemporary states’ borders have gradually evolved into frontiers because they are increasingly connected to other regions and are increasingly involved in the exchanges of various transnational groups. The weakening of borders means the weakening of nation-states. Giddens is deeply worried about the “fragmentation” of the world that has emerged with the weakening of nation-states. He said: “…Isn’t fragmentation the current reality? This fragmentation is accompanied by the collapse of national identity under the impact of ethnic and tribal cultures on the one hand, and the division of regional countries on the other. In Europe, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia have already broken up. Who knows whether Belgium can remain united, whether northern Italy will separate from the south, or whether the Basques will form a separate country?” He also pointed out that as borders become more and more blurred and demands for local autonomy become more and more persistent, old-fashioned national identities have to be reconstructed. Questions like “Who are we?” are becoming more and more puzzling, but there is still a great need for a self-consistent answer.

    After the publication of Giddens’s book “The Third Way: The Resurgence of Social Democracy”, his “third way” and his attitude towards contemporary capitalism were fiercely criticized from both the left and the right. The left said that his criticism of contemporary capitalism was not enough and was actually whitewashing contemporary capitalism, while the right accused him of not fully demonstrating the vitality of contemporary capitalism. So he published another book, “The Third Way and Its Critique”, to fight back against the criticism from both the left and the right. In this book, which is actually mainly aimed at the left, Giddens tried his best to defend contemporary capitalism. Although in this case, he still had to face up to a series of contradictions in contemporary capitalism, he still used a considerable amount of space to expose the reality that contemporary capitalism has fallen into a deep crisis. Here are a few of them:

    When talking about the dependence of contemporary capitalist society on the market, he pointed out: “There are clear reasons to abandon excessive dependence on the market. The market caters to the desires of consumers, but in doing so, it also endangers other demands or needs. The market fosters a commercialism that threatens other life values. Without external control, the market itself has no self-regulatory mechanism – any restrictions on what can be traded in market exchanges. In addition, ethical standards or aesthetic standards must come from the outside – from public ethics and guaranteed in law.” He admitted that the market economy is more dynamic than any other type of economic system, but he also pointed out that this inherent vitality in wealth creation has produced greater social costs that the market itself cannot cope with, such as social divisions caused by unemployment due to economic downturns or technological changes. The market cannot cultivate the human capital it needs. The market economy produces externalities, and other means must be used to deal with the social impact of these externalities. For example, environmental damage cannot be solved by market mechanisms alone. In addition, the market cannot regulate itself, and the cyclical fluctuation trend of the market needs to be solved by external intervention. In a market economy, the competition process itself will produce monopolies. Economic entities often seek to establish monopolies because this can protect them from the threat of potential opponents. In this case, external forces must be used to maintain competition.

    When talking about the increasing loss of popular support for governments in contemporary capitalist societies, he said: “Government and state reforms need to meet not only efficiency goals, but also respond to voters’ political indifference. Even the most developed democracies have this problem. In many countries, trust in political leaders and other government figures has declined, and voter turnout and the proportion of interests expressed in parliamentary politics have also declined.” He cited some public opinion surveys in industrialized countries to illustrate that in all these countries, trust in politicians is declining. In Germany, the proportion of people who claim to believe that their representatives in the Federal Parliament can represent their interests fell from 55% in 1978 to 34% in 1992. The proportion of Swedes who agree with the statement that “political parties are only interested in people’s votes, not their ideas” rose from 49% in 1968 to 72% in 1994. In 1996, only 19% of Swedish citizens trusted the national parliament. Many people believe that the government has been far away from their daily lives and ignored their vital interests. They believe that government has become a corrupt enterprise, betraying the democratic ideas that should have driven it forward. Giddens stressed that these views of ordinary people are “difficult to eliminate” because “in an era of globalization, domestic politicians have less control over the factors that affect their citizens than in the past.”

    When talking about the increasing inequality in contemporary capitalist society, he pointed out: “It is generally believed that income and wealth inequality in most industrialized countries declined from 1950 to 1970, but since the early 1970s, inequality has increased again in most, if not all, developed countries. According to official statistics, the situation of inequality in developed countries is also very different. The Nordic countries, Belgium and Japan have the most equal income, and countries such as Britain, France, the Netherlands and Germany are in the middle, while the United States, Israel, Italy and Australia are the countries with the highest income inequality.” He used the United States as an example to illustrate that in the past 20-30 years, the proportion of income owned by the top 1% of the population has increased significantly, while the average income of the lower population has stagnated or declined. Taking 50% or less of median income as the poverty line, the proportion of the American population living in poverty in the early 1990s was five times that of Norway or Sweden – 20% in the United States and 4% in the latter two countries. He also used the example of the European Union countries: although the average level of income inequality in the EU countries is lower than that in the United States, according to official figures and standards, poverty is also widespread in the EU. Taking 50% or less of median income as the standard, in 1998, 57 million

people in the EU countries were living in poverty, and two-thirds of them lived in the large countries: France, Italy, the United Kingdom and Germany.

    When talking about the rich countries getting richer and the poor countries getting poorer caused by contemporary capitalism, he pointed out: “The current global economic manipulation mechanism is heavily biased towards richer countries, especially the industrialized democracies in the Group of Seven and the Group of Eight. Brazil’s GDP is $80 billion, and Sweden’s GDP is far less than one-third of Brazil’s, but the former has less formal power in the international economic system than the latter.” He specifically analyzed that in the past 30 years, although the average growth of per capita income in developing countries has been higher than that in industrialized countries, the growth rate of those countries with the smallest economic scale has either been negative or zero. In 1965, the average per capita income of the Group of Seven countries was 20 times that of the seven poorest countries in the world. By 1997, the ratio was 40:1. He specifically mentioned Africa, believing that the deterioration of Africa’s situation is related to the expansion of the global economy and has a causal relationship. In the past 20 years, the status of the global information economy has been established, and it is during this period that sub-Saharan Africa has experienced an increase in relative poverty. Africa has been more thoroughly excluded from the global information revolution than the former Soviet bloc. In 1950, Africa produced more than 3 percent of world exports, but by the early 1990s that had fallen to just over 1 percent. The import ratio has also fallen. Even with South Africa included, Africa’s exports are still largely limited to primary agricultural and mining products, especially agricultural products. Foreign debt and international aid have become important components of most major African economies. In some countries, aid revenues accounted for more than 50 percent of their GDP in 1995.

    Giddens’ critical attitude towards contemporary capitalism can be confirmed in another book published at about the same time as the above two books, Modernity: Interviews with Giddens. In this book, Giddens borrowed the relevant concepts of American economist Michael Mandel and German sociologist Ulrich Bell, and called the world controlled by contemporary capitalism a “risk society.” In his view, in today’s world, human beings have various means of controlling their living conditions and external environment, but the changes in social life often go beyond human expectations and control. In this way, human beings live in a “risk society” and risk has become an inherent part of people’s lives and careers. He particularly mentioned that the core of this risk is financial risk. He said: “Market fundamentalists believed that financial markets were self-regulating and would always tend towards equilibrium, even in the short term. But Keynes was much more realistic, and so was George Soros. Like me, Soros adopted the concept of reflexivity. He said that financial markets tend to be unstable because of the reflexive acquisition of information – markets can move in unexpected ways, become chaotic, and may be affected by bandwagon effects, herd behavior, panic. I agree with this view – global financial markets belong to the category of serious risks, which we have created ourselves. The kind of markets we find today did not exist before. We cannot even rule out the possibility that the economy may collapse completely.” Giddens clearly pointed out here that today’s financial markets belong to the category of serious risks, and this risk is very likely to lead to a complete collapse of the economy. Based on this basic assessment, he repeatedly stressed, “I do think we live in a world that is out of control,” and “it is this situation, coupled with the globalization of scientific and technological innovation, that has created this out-of-control world.” Giddens particularly emphasized that the risks in the contemporary world controlled by today’s capitalist society are different from the hazards or dangers that appear in traditional society, because the latter are often regarded by people as objective, inevitable, and even destined. He specifically analyzed the two major characteristics that distinguish the former from the latter: First, the risks that appear in today’s world are closely related to people’s ambitions, especially the concept of controlling the future. “Risk involves a positive assessment of future hazards. The more a society seeks to live in the future and actively shape the future, the more popular the concept of risk is.” Second, the risks that appear in today’s world are not external risks, but “artificial risks”, that is, they are caused by humans. “Artificial risks are caused by human development, especially by the progress of science and technology. Artificial risks refer to new risk environments for which history has not provided us with precedents. In fact, we often do not know what these risks are, let alone accurately calculate them from the perspective of probability tables.” He described in detail the dilemma of people in today’s world caused by such artificial risks: “As artificial risks spread… as we live more and more in a risk society, risks have been intensified. New technologies have long-term effects on us, and with them come almost endless revisions to various ways of doing things that people have taken for granted. In such a social order, the future is increasingly tiring, but also increasingly obscure. There are few direct clues to grasp the future, only a variety of ‘future possibilities’.”

    Giddens’s book “The World Out of Control” published in 2000 provides another powerful proof of his attitude towards contemporary capitalism. In this book, he once again called for a strict distinction between the risks in contemporary capitalist society and the various risks in traditional society, emphasizing that the risks in modern capitalist society are not naturally formed risks, not “external risks”, but “man-made risks”, that is, “risks caused by the impact of our evolving knowledge on the world”; the negative side of risks in modern capitalist society is far greater than that in traditional society. He said: “Just as the risks created expand, they also become dangerous. … The emergence of the concept of risk is closely linked to the possibility of calculation. Most forms of insurance are directly based on this connection. … This is not the case with manufactured risks. We have no idea of ​​the size and extent of the risk, and in many cases, we cannot know the size of the risk until very late.” Some people believe that the most effective way to prevent the emergence of manufactured risks is to limit liability by adopting the so-called “precautionary principle.” Giddens believes that as a way to solve the problem of risk and responsibility, the precautionary principle is not always useful or even applicable. He said: “The real danger is doing many known and unknown things, if I can say so, because the world has shown a trend that surprises us. There may be results that no one could have predicted before.” He concluded: “We live in such a society that the danger comes more from ourselves than from the outside world.” The risks he mentioned include “major disasters” such as the global environmental crisis, nuclear fission and the collapse of the global economy, as well as threats to individuals in areas such as food, medicine, and marriage. He focused on analyzing the results of globalization in the contemporary world. Giddens would not oppose globalization according to his identity, but he also had to face up to a series of negative effects caused by globalization. In his view, the biggest feature of globalization is the extensive flow of finance and capital, which is why the previous economy cannot be compared with the current one. He sharply criticized the current world’s “electronic money economy”: “In the new global electronic economy, fund managers, banks, companies and thousands of individual investors can transfer large amounts of capital from one end of the world to the other with just a click of the mouse. When they do this, they can shake the seemingly rock-solid economy, which is how the Asian financial crisis occurred.” He firmly opposed understanding globalization as just economic globalization, and emphasized that globalization includes not only economic globalization, but also political, technological and cultural globalization. He believes that the direct consequence of globalization dominated by developed capitalist countries for today’s human beings is the intensification of inequality. He said: “Globalization is not developing in a fair way, and the results it brings are definitely not completely benign. For many people living outside Europe and North America, globalization seems to be Westernization or Americanization, because the United States is now the only superpower and occupies a dominant economic, cultural and military position in the global order. Many of the most obvious cultural manifestations of globalization are American, such as Coca-Cola, McDonald’s and CNN.” He proposed that as long as we look around the world today, which is striding towards globalization, it is not difficult to find that “this is not a global village, but more like global plunder”, “the ever-widening inequality and the related ecological and environmental dangers are the most serious problems facing the world society”, and “this world society is not fixed and safe, but full of anxiety and affected by deep divisions. Many of us feel controlled by many forces that we cannot control.” There are many people who have made such criticisms of globalization, but the problem is that these words come from Giddens, which is worth our deep consideration.

    5. Chomsky: “The United States is the world’s leading terrorist country”

    As the founder of the “Transformational Generative Grammar” system, Chomsky is one of the most famous linguists of our time. In a sense, he is a standard scholar. Now let’s take a look at how this standard scholar views contemporary capitalism led by the United States.

    In the month after the “9.11” incident, Chomsky accepted seven interviews from different media. He paid close attention to a series of changes after the incident. In the dialogue with the interviewers, he fiercely criticized the US government and its foreign policy and even the entire Western democratic system. Later, someone compiled these interview records and published the book, which was named “9.11”. People who want to understand Chomsky’s attitude towards contemporary capitalism can start with this booklet.

    Chomsky talked about his views on the “9.11” incident in a comprehensive way here, and his criticism of contemporary capitalism led by the United States is deeply permeated in these views.

    There is no doubt that the “9.11” incident left a huge shock to people. So why did it have such a great shock? Where exactly did it shock people? Chomsky believes that the shocking thing about what happened on September 11 is not its scale, but its target, that is, it is an atrocity directly aimed at the United States. For the United States, this is the first time since the War of 1812 that it has been attacked and threatened. This incident cannot be compared with the Pearl Harbor incident. In fact, the attack in the Pearl Harbor incident was on the military base of the United States in its colonies, and the United States’ mainland was not threatened at all. He said: “In the past hundreds of years, the United States has exterminated millions of indigenous people, conquered half of Mexico, intervened in neighboring areas by force, and conquered Hawaii and the Philippines. What’s more, it has expanded its military power to most parts of the world in the past hundreds of years, and the number of victims is incalculable. Now, for the first time, the muzzle of the gun has turned around.” The muzzle of the gun turned around and pointed at the United States, which has always been in an attacking position. The United States, which has always posed a threat to others, is also threatened. This is why the “9.11” incident has such a shocking effect. And it is not only Americans who are horrified, but also Europeans. In Chomsky’s view, this is understandable. Although Europe has experienced many wars, and it can be said that Europe has suffered from bloodshed and devastation, all these wars originated from various internal wars, rather than external attacks. In other words, people have only seen European powers conquer most of the world in an extremely barbaric way, but have never seen them being attacked by foreign victims. Now, Europeans have seen the conquerors themselves being attacked in the “9.11” incident. How can they not be shocked? Chomsky did not attribute the shock of the “9.11” incident to the scale of the crime, but emphasized that the target of the attack was the United States and the Western world. This is indeed a profound insight. Of course, it contains criticism of the United States and the Western world. Chomsky’s criticism naturally reminds people of Chinese expressions such as “shooting oneself in the foot”, “doing too much evil will eventually kill oneself”, and “evil will be punished, good will be rewarded, it is not that there is no retribution, but the time has not come. Once the time comes, everything will be repaid.”

    How did the “9.11” incident happen? What is its root cause? This is a question that people generally pay attention to and discuss the most. Chomsky pointed out clearly that the attackers of “9.11” were undoubtedly criminals, but it is indisputable that it was the great pain and anger brought to the people in the region by the Middle East policies of the United States and its European predecessors that supported the actions of these criminals. In his view, the “9.11” incident ultimately stems from the dictatorship and power of the United States and the Western world over the Middle East. Although it cannot be said directly that the “9.11” incident is the product of American policy, “indirectly speaking”, “9.11” is the product of American policy “This is almost indisputable.” He cited a survey conducted by the Wall Street Journal on “rich Muslims” in the Arab region after the incident. Most of the respondents were bankers, professionals and businessmen who had close ties with the United States. The survey proved that “they were very helpless and indignant about the United States’ support for brutal dictatorships and its practice of setting obstacles to independent development and political democratization by “supporting those oppressive regimes.” The rich are like this, and the poor are even more so. “Similar emotions are more intense among the large number of poor and suffering lower-class people.” “They don’t want to see the wealth of the region flow into the hands of the West or a small group of Westernized elites, and they are even more opposed to those corrupt, brutal but Western-supported rulers.” Therefore, terrorists drew huge emotional resources from the despair, anger and frustration of the people in the region, and “all this should be largely attributed to US policies, which is obvious to those who are willing to know the truth.”

    Chomsky firmly opposes attributing the cause of the “9.11” incident to globalization and cultural hegemony. In his view, this is the statement that intellectuals are most likely to believe, and it is also a statement to evade responsibility. One only needs to look at the current situation of wealthy Muslims in McDonald’s restaurants in the Middle East wearing fashionable American clothes and fiercely criticizing American policies to know that the 9/11 incident has nothing to do with globalization, McDonald’s or jeans. In fact, Bin Laden’s terrorist organization has no interest in the issue of globalization and cultural hegemony. “What they have expressed to us in a loud and clear voice is that their jihad is aimed at the corrupt, oppressive and non-Islamic regimes in the region and their supporters, just as they fought against the Soviets through jihad in the 1980s.” Bin Laden himself may never have heard the word “globalization”, and those who have conducted in-depth interviews with him reported that he actually knows nothing about this world and does not care to know it. Chomsky pointed out that in this situation, if we ignore all facts and indulge in our own imagination, that is, we still insist that “the actions of these criminals are out of hatred for the values ​​cherished by the West, including freedom, tolerance, prosperity, religious diversity and universal suffrage”, then this will only make people take greater risks under existing risks, and “the possibility of future atrocities will be greatly increased.” The horror of the atrocities against the United States is likely to make the “9.11” incident pale in comparison. Precisely because Chomsky opposes linking the “9.11” incident with globalization, he also disagrees with calling the United States an “innocent victim.” He said: “If the United States is an ‘innocent victim’, it is only possible if we ignore the historical records of this country and its allies.” What he meant was that as long as we understand the evil records of the United States and its allies’ foreign expansion and aggression, we will not think that the United States is an “innocent victim.”

    The question of what the root cause of the “9.11” incident is closely linked to the question of what the real intentions of the planners of the “9.11” incident are. Answering the former is equivalent to solving the latter. Citing the materials provided by some people who interviewed Bin Laden, Chomsky pointed out that Bin Laden was very angry about the US military presence in Saudi Arabia, its support for Israel’s anti-Palestinian atrocities, and the devastating damage it caused to Iraqi civilian society. “We can summarize his purpose: his main targets are Saudi Arabia and other corrupt and oppressive regimes in the region, none of which are truly ‘Islamic.’ In addition, he and his terrorist organization tried to support Muslims against ‘infidels’ in any region, whether in Chechnya, Bosnia, Kashmir, South Asia, North Africa, or anywhere else. They invested in and won the ‘holy war’ to drive the Soviets out of Muslim Arabia. In their eyes, these Europeans are no different from the British and Americans. Their greater goal is to drive the United States out of Saudi Arabia – a country that is much more important to them because it is the home of the most sacred figure in Islam.” In Chomsky’s view, it is not

unreasonable . Indeed, Bin Laden’s series of crimes have greatly harmed the poorest and most oppressed people in the Middle East. However, what seems completely absurd from the outside may look completely different from the inside. Chomsky concluded: “To a considerable extent, it can be said that he has been fearlessly opposing the oppressors. Therefore, no matter how much harm his actions have caused to the majority of poor people, he looks like a hero. If the United States succeeds in killing him, then as a martyr, he may become even more powerful.”

    If the “9.11” incident was indeed planned by the terrorist organization headed by Bin Laden, then how did this “devil” come into being? Chomsky pointed out clearly that this “devil” was actually cultivated by Western countries led by the United States. Tracing back to the source, Bin Laden’s terrorist organization “was established by the United States and its allies for their own purposes. As long as it serves these purposes, it can obtain the support of the United States.” Now, because it does not serve the purposes of the United States, it is given all kinds of bad names and even called the devil. The actual situation is that the United States first dragged the Soviet Union into the “Afghan trap” for the so-called “some noble purpose”, that is, it induced the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan, and then organized a terrorist armed force composed of Islamic fanatics to serve the United States. Bin Laden’s terrorist organization was formed in this way. Chomsky specifically mentioned that Brzezinski once boasted about this as a masterpiece.

    In Chomsky’s view, as long as the above questions are clarified, the question of what the nature of the “9.11” incident is, specifically, whether the “9.11” incident is a conflict between two civilizations, can also be solved. In order to correctly answer whether the “9.11” incident is a conflict between two civilizations, Chomsky first reviewed a period of history to illustrate that the United States never chooses enemies and friends based on whether the other party is of the same ancestry as itself. Even if it is an extreme Islamic fundamentalist country, it will strongly support it and even form an alliance as long as it is beneficial to it. Indonesia is the country with the largest Muslim population. In 1965, it was with the support of the United States that Suharto’s army massacred tens of thousands of people. Although the Suharto regime accumulated a large number of heinous massacres in the second half of the 20th century, this did not prevent the Clinton administration from calling him “a guy like us.” Saudi Arabia is the most extreme Islamic fundamentalist country, but it has been a vassal of the United States since its founding. In the 1980s, the United States recruited, armed and trained the most extreme Islamic fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia in order to cause great harm to the Soviet Union that invaded Afghanistan. Chomsky used a passage from Jenkins’ article published in the London Times to illustrate: “These armed forces funded by the Americans (most of the funds may come from Saudi Arabia) destroyed a moderate regime and created a fanatic regime. One of the beneficiaries is Osama bin Laden.” Let’s look at the war launched by the United States in Central America in the 1990s. This war left 200,000 mutilated bodies of local people and four countries were ravaged by the war. At that time, the main target of the United States was the Catholic Church. In the eyes of the United States, it committed terrible crimes because of its “policies that favor the poor.” Based on these historical facts, Chomsky said: “Needless to say, this is what we have found as a ‘clash of civilizations’. Can we say that there is a ‘clash of civilizations’ with Latin American Catholics on one side and the United States and the Muslim world (including the most brutal and fanatical religious elements) on the other side? Of course, I don’t want to imply such an absurd conclusion.”

    Based on the above discussion, Chomsky further pointed out that no civilized society tolerates these evil acts, and these facts are just a small sample in American history. European history is even worse than this. That is to say, the entire Western world, led by the United States, has always taken the protection of its own interests as the highest principle. As long as the interests are there, it will not hesitate to stand with the most vicious people and commit all kinds of crimes. Chomsky’s following passage is indeed very wonderful: “For those extreme Islamic elements organized by the CIA and its colleagues, they express hatred. When this hatred and violence are directed at the enemies of the United States, the United States is happy to support them. Once this hatred cultivated by it turns to itself and its allies, it is not so happy. This has happened again and again in the past 20 years.” It is very clear that the reason why the United States is so unhappy this time is nothing more than because the Islamic extremists it cultivated turned the spearhead of hatred towards itself. This has nothing to do with the “clash of civilizations”. The reason why these Islamic extremists turned their hatred towards the United States is not because the United States represents another civilization, and the reason why the United States retaliated against these Islamic extremists crazily is definitely not out of hatred for the Islamic world.

    So how can we prevent terrorist activities like the “9.11” incident from happening again? In other words, what appropriate steps should be taken to reduce or eliminate this danger? This is the most concerned and discussed issue after the September 11 incident. Chomsky also stated his opinion very frankly. He first used the example of how the UK chose to deal with the Northern Irish Republican Army bombing in London. In the face of this bombing, one option was to send the Royal Air Force to bomb their financial sources, such as Boston; or to secretly send commandos to capture suspects involved in their financial system, kill them, or send them back to London for trial. Chomsky pointed out: “Let alone the feasibility of these options, doing so is a stupid crime in itself.” Another possibility is to realistically consider the rational and emotional reasons that lead to the crime, try to heal these problems, and punish the criminals according to the law. He said: “In a sense, this is wise. People do try to understand the painful reasons behind this crime and try to solve it. If we care about true justice to some extent and hope to reduce rather than increase the possibility of similar crimes, then this is the path we should at least follow.” The actual situation now is that the US government is making the first choice. The US government has actually declared war on all forces that do not participate in Washington’s military actions. “We are already familiar with the state of responding to violence with extreme violence, hoping to escalate the cycle of violence, leading to greater atrocities that may further arouse calls for revenge.”

    After the “9.11” incident, the United States implemented a large-scale mobilization against terrorism and launched a war against terrorism. So what consequences will this mobilization and war have? This is also what Chomsky focuses on. He believes that there are coercive and oppressive forces in the Western world, and this force just took advantage of this incident to intensify coercion and oppression. In this sense, the crimes committed by the terrorists on September 11 are a “good gift to the coercive and oppressive forces” that already exist in the West, because it will definitely be used to “accelerate the process of militarization and centralization, reverse the process of social democratization, make wealth flow to smaller sectors, and disintegrate various forms of democracy.”

    When talking about the US policy of not responding to violence with violence, Chomsky also pointed out that this will not only come at a heavy price of a large number of innocent sacrifices, but will also make Bin Laden’s fanatical followers and his terrorist organization feel happy. Bin Laden and his people are actually very “grateful” for the US policy of responding to violence with violence. They have indeed obtained a huge resource of anger, fear and despair. Bin Laden’s terrorist organization “is praying for a violent response from the United States, which will mobilize more people to join their horrible cause.” Because of this, the “rich Muslims” in the Middle East, these staunch pro-Americans, are also severely criticizing the US Middle East policy. This is true for the rich in the Middle East, and even more so for the ordinary people in the Middle East. The people in the Middle East generally believe that “US policies have completely destroyed civilized society there in the past decade, and at the same time, it has strengthened Saddam Hussein’s rule.” People there know that when the worst atrocities occurred there, including the massacre of Kurds with poison gas in 1988, they were strongly supported by the United States. Therefore, when Bin Laden made all this public on his radio station covering the region, his audience felt the same way, even those who hated him very much.

    In the process of making the above analysis of the “9.11” incident, Chomsky asked people who is the biggest terrorist in the world today. He believes that the biggest terrorist in the world today is the United States. So he launched a fierce criticism of American terrorism. This criticism shocked the entire Western world. In fact, it is this criticism that constitutes a major feature of Chomsky’s criticism of contemporary capitalism, and also puts him at the commanding heights of criticizing contemporary capitalism.

    As to what terrorism is, Chomsky stated that he strictly followed the official documents of the United States, which are: “the plan to use or threaten to use violence to achieve essentially political, religious or ideological purposes. Such violence is carried out by means of intimidation, coercion or spreading fear.” At the same time, he strongly opposed the pragmatic use of this concept by the US government, that is, the term “terrorism” is only used to indicate the terrorist acts committed by the enemy against the United States and its allies. A direct consequence of this is that as long as the spearhead of terror is not directed at oneself, it is not considered terrorism. He specifically pointed out that the Nazis did this in the past. The Nazis strongly condemned terrorism and carried out what they called “anti-terrorist actions” against the resistance forces. The US government does the same now. He pointed out that the United States deliberately consulted Nazi German officers and the action manuals they used when designing the action plan to suppress resistance around the world after the war. Countless facts show that in the US government, even the very same person or action can quickly change from a “terrorist” to a “freedom fighter” and vice versa. The attitude towards the Kosovo Liberation Army is a clear example. At first, the United States publicly condemned the Kosovo Liberation Army as a “terrorist organization” on the grounds that the organization constantly attacked Serbian police to stimulate Serbia to make excessive and brutal responses. But when the US policy towards Serbia changed later, the United States and Britain decided to launch a strike against Serbia, and the Kosovo Liberation Army suddenly changed from a “terrorist organization” to a “freedom fighter”. Later, because the organization carried out what they considered to be the same actions on the territory of Macedonia, an ally of the United States, they changed from “freedom fighters” to “terrorists”, “thugs” and “murderers”.

    Faced with the US government and its propaganda machine’s pragmatic treatment of the concept of “terrorists”, Chomsky emphasized that he “consistently adheres to the inherent meaning of the definition” and “condemns all terrorist acts, not just those that are considered “terrorism” for propaganda motives.” He concluded that the biggest terrorist in the world today is the US government based on the inherent meaning of “terrorism”.

    Chomsky clearly said: “Once the United States Code or the Armed Forces Regulations are compared, the United States is the world’s leading terrorist state.” Although the United States often uses the banner of “humanitarian intervention” when carrying out terrorism abroad, this cannot conceal its terrorist nature. The bombing of Serbia is called “humanitarian intervention.” In Chomsky’s view, this is not a new term. European imperialism often used this trick in the 19th century. To cite some recent examples, there were three examples of “humanitarian intervention” on the eve of World War II: Japan’s invasion of Northeast China, Mussolini’s invasion of Ethiopia, and Hitler’s occupation of the Taiwan-Soviet-German region. All these crimes were masked by a “humanitarian” mask. What surprised Chomsky was that there was almost no debate about the “humanitarian” intentions of the United States’ intervention in Kosovo. It seemed to be true. In fact, “it is not enough to rush to declare that an intervention is ‘humanitarian’, because any use of force can be legitimized by these words.” The terrorism carried out by the United States is often disguised as “humanitarian intervention” and thus gains legitimacy. People must fully understand this point in order to see the true face of American terrorism.

    Chomsky especially reminded people not to forget that in 1986 the International Court of Justice condemned the United States for “illegal use of force”, that is, condemned the United States for “international terrorism”. He said: “The United States is the only country condemned by the International Court of Justice as an international terrorist, and the only country that has rejected the resolution proposed by the Security Council requiring all countries to abide by international law.” In fact, in most parts of the world today, the United States is regarded as the leading terrorist country, “and there are good reasons for this.” He listed various terrorist acts of the United States:

    In 1980, Nicaragua was attacked by the United States. The death toll exceeded 10,000, and the entire country was completely destroyed, and it is difficult to recover. This terrorist attack was also accompanied by a devastating economic war. A weak country has almost no way to survive under the isolation of that cruel and vengeful big country. The effects of economic warfare in this country are extremely harsh, far exceeding the tragedy that New York experienced on another day. In

    1985, the Reagan administration created a terrorist explosion in Beirut. A car bomb outside a mosque exploded as people were leaving, killing more than 80 people and injuring 250 people. Most of them were women and children. The target of the attack was a Muslim cleric who was disliked by the United States, but he survived. The Gulf War launched by the United States

    caused the deaths of about 1 million civilians and 500,000 children in Iraq. According to the US Secretary of State, this was the price the United States was willing to pay. Such things are really hard to describe.

    The United States supported Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, killing more than 18,000 Lebanese and Palestinian civilians. Since then, this crime has been repeated under the direct direction of the United States. Since 1982, more than 20,000 civilians have died in Lebanon alone due to US-supported atrocities. The

    Clinton administration provided important support to Turkey to suppress the Kurdish people in its country. 80% of Turkey’s equipment comes from the United States. It was a mass atrocity, one of the worst campaigns of ethnic cleansing and genocide to occur in the 1990s. Whenever anyone has the temerity to bring it up, the United States downplays it as a minor “lapse” in its global commitment to “stopping inhumane crimes.”

    In East Timor, Indonesian troops, backed by the United States, exterminated a third of the population.

    Successive U.S. governments have done little more than provide significant military and diplomatic support to the killers. The Clinton administration referred to the brutal Suharto as “brother.”

    Its bombing of Sudan’s Al-Sifa pharmaceutical factory in April 1998 was a minor note in the record of U.S. aerial terror, and was quickly forgotten, but it was highly instructive. Sudan has sought a United Nations judicial inquiry into the bombing, but even that request has been blocked by Washington. There has been little attempt to investigate further. It is difficult to assess how many people died in the bombing of the Al-Sifa plant in this impoverished African country, but there is reason to guess that the number is at least tens of thousands. The crimes committed by the United States in Sudan can be equated with the assassination of Lumumba, which plunged Congo into decades of killing and brutal rule, and with the overthrow of the democratic regime in Guatemala in 1954, which led to 40 years of bloody crimes;

    as for the situation in Afghanistan; the reason why large areas of its land have become ruins and the people are in a desperate situation is not only due to the Soviet invasion, but also mainly due to the devastation of the war instigated by the United States. This is obviously the most serious humanitarian crisis in the world. The US attack on Afghanistan killed many innocent civilians. Killing civilians for no reason is terrorism, not anti-terrorism.

    After listing the various terrorist acts of the United States mentioned above, Chomsky pointed out righteously that the United States is committed to the so-called “low-intensity war”. He also added that although the term “low-intensity war” comes from the official, if you read it in comparison with the official definition of terrorism in the US Armed Forces Regulations and the US Code, you will find that they are almost identical. Terrorism is by no means a “weapon of the weak” as people usually understand it. Terrorism refers to the use of threatening means against civilians in order to achieve certain political, religious or other goals. Terrorism in the United States is completely part of state behavior. In this way, is there any doubt that the United States is regarded as a leading terrorist country? Chomsky also pointed out that the targets of American terrorism are all directed at the weak. As an American citizen, he expressed such emotion: “No matter how these people deny it, in their view, our crimes against the weak are as unworthy of fuss as breathing air. However, we are responsible for the following sins: as taxpayers, we failed to provide large-scale compensation for the disasters caused by us; we recognized the shelter and exoneration of criminals; we allowed ourselves to forget those terrible facts.”

    In Chomsky’s view, the serious problem is that the United States not only implements international terrorism itself, but also organizes a large camp to implement terrorism around the world. The Bush administration is offering countries around the world such a choice: “Join us; or face destruction.” That is to say, countries in the world can either join the terrorist camp headed by the United States or be destroyed by this camp. It is in such a situation that an international terrorist alliance is taking shape. “In this alliance, which includes the United States, Russia, Indonesia, Egypt and Algeria, all other allies are happy to see an international system led by the United States. Because this system enables them to legally carry out their respective terrorist crimes.” Russia is very happy to wage a brutal war in Chechnya with the support of the United States, Indonesia will also be happy to accept the support of the United States for its massacre in the Aiche region, and Algeria will also be happy to obtain permission to expand the scale of its state terrorism. The problem is that the United States always puts on a humanitarian cloak when organizing such an international terrorist alliance. Chomsky described it as follows: “There are signs that the US government will be committed to the silent mass killing plan being implemented. But it will definitely make a humanitarian gesture to arouse people’s applause. People will praise those noble leaders for their unprecedented contribution to “principles and values”. They are committed to “eliminating inhuman crimes around the world” and thus leading the world to an idealistic “new era.” In this case, people can only see its essence by opening their eyes. Chomsky believes that it is his mission to help people open their eyes and recognize that the US government is not eliminating but creating inhuman crimes. Indeed, in today’s world, only scholars with a sense of justice and conscience like Chomsky can fulfill such a mission. Judging from his incisive exposure and analysis of American terrorism mentioned above, he has indeed fulfilled his mission well. People all over the world should be grateful to him. Looking around the world today, people are either blinded by the humanitarian cloak of the United States, or they dare not speak the truth even if they recognize the true face of American terrorism due to the need for interests. Fortunately, there are scholars like Chomsky, otherwise our world would really be completely living in a state of black and white.

    It must be pointed out that Chomsky’s exposure of the face of American terrorism is connected with his criticism of capitalism as a whole, especially his criticism of neoliberalism as the theoretical pillar of contemporary capitalism. In a sense, his exposure of the face of American terrorism is an important part of his criticism of neoliberalism. His profound understanding of neoliberalism will inevitably lead to his clear understanding of the face of American terrorism. Therefore, his exposure of the face of American terrorism should be placed in the overall background of his criticism of neoliberalism for analysis.

    Chomsky’s criticism of neoliberalism began in the 1970s. He and Edward Herman launched the book “Manufacturing Identity” in 1988, which launched the criticism of neoliberalism, and his book “Profits Above People” published in the 1990s became his representative work of criticizing neoliberalism. Robert McChesney of the University of Illinois in the United States wrote an article highly praising Chomsky’s struggle against neoliberalism. In his opinion, Chomsky is a “leader of intellectuals who are fighting for democracy and against neoliberalism in the world today who has stood up in time” and praised Chomsky for “making the most incisive analysis of how American foreign policy undermines democracy, suppresses the majority and protects the interests of the minority”.

    Judging from the content of the book “Profits Over People”, Chomsky’s criticism of neoliberalism has at least the following three points that are particularly inspiring:

    First, he proposed that the myth of the free market believed by neoliberalism and the corresponding profit-first principle can only lead to further exploitation of the poor. As a political and economic paradigm of our time, the basic purpose of neoliberalism is to allow a small number of private interests to control social life to the maximum extent in order to maximize their personal interests. The concept of liberalism is transformed into specific policies, that is: implement free market policies, support private enterprises and consumer choices, encourage individuals to take responsibility and start businesses, reduce taxes on the rich, abolish environmental protection regulations, and abolish public education and social welfare. Neoliberals want people to believe that unregulated markets are infallible. Chomsky uses a lot of facts to illustrate that these neoliberal ideas and policies have brought unprecedented opportunities for the rich to make money, but at the same time, people have seen a significant increase in social and economic inequality, a significant increase in the serious exploitation of the world’s poorest countries and people, the formation of a catastrophic global environment, and the emergence of a turbulent global economy. Neoliberals promised people that as long as neoliberal policies are not interfered with, most people will eventually enjoy a wealthy life, but in fact this promise has not been realized at all. Most people are either trapped in absolute poverty or in relative poverty. Robert McChesney said that Chomsky “explained it very clearly” in the book, “Neoliberalism is not a new thing. It is just a modern version of the trick of restricting the political and civil rights of the majority of people for the benefit of a few rich people.” Chomsky named his book “Profits Over People” which is really meaningful. Through the title of this book, he wants to tell people that the profits generated by the market principles advocated by neoliberalism may not necessarily benefit the general public, but on the contrary may very well become a sword hanging over the heads of the general public.

    Secondly, he proposed that the laissez-faire economy advocated by neoliberalism is false, and that Western governments that advocate neoliberalism are actually unwilling to truly act according to market rules. As Robert McChesney pointed out, “Chomsky is also an outstanding critic of the myth of the ‘free’ market.” The myth of the “free” market constantly instills in people how the market economy is competitive, reasonable, effective, and fair. Chomsky pointed out that the market has never been competitive. Under market economic conditions, the economy is often controlled by large companies, and there is no truly competitive market at all. Moreover, a company is a totalitarian organization that operates in an undemocratic manner internally. If a society is constructed with such an effective totalitarian organization as the center, what democracy can there be in the entire society? Neoliberals keep demanding that the power of the government be restricted on the grounds that the government is inefficient, so as not to destroy the magic of the “laissez-faire” natural market. Chomsky pointed out that the facts are contrary to the hypocritical demands of neoliberals. When have Western countries, led by the United States, who believe in neoliberalism, ever reduced government control and intervention in the market? What people see is that the government has subsidized companies in large quantities and tried its best to help them achieve their maximum profits. In this regard, those companies that hold neoliberal arguments are particularly disgusting. On the one hand, they sing the high tune of liberalism, and on the other hand, they hope that the government will allocate a large amount of funds to protect their monopoly position, and hope that the government will not tax them or seek benefits for the poor and the working class. The actual situation is that as the voice of neoliberalism becomes stronger and stronger, the government is also larger and more powerful than ever before. In addition, neoliberalism claims that globalization is the natural extension of the free market economy, but in fact, it is the opposite. Globalization is the result of the promotion of strong governments, especially the US government. In the process of the emergence of the global market economy, it is the government that is at the center. Chomsky pointed out more clearly on another occasion: “The Western model, especially the American model, is based on large-scale state intervention in the economy. The ‘laws of neoliberals’ are very similar to the liberal views of previous eras. They hold a dual position: market rules are good for you, but not necessarily for me… unless it helps me gain an immediate advantage and puts me in a certain advantageous position to win the competition.” Chomsky not only pointed out that the Western economic model represented by the United States is actually based on large-scale government intervention in the economy, but also revealed a bad method they used when doing so, that is: the so-called market rules that they have always talked about are just for others to implement, and they never want to sincerely implement them unless they can bring them great benefits at the moment.

     Third, he proposed that the social system established according to the principles of neoliberalism is definitely a non-democratic system, and neoliberalism is anti-democratic in essence. Chomsky believes that neoliberalism is the most direct enemy of true shared democracy, whether in the United States or elsewhere in the world. Participatory democracy and neoliberalism are incompatible. Neoliberalism is authoritarian as an economic system, and anti-democratic as a social life. Some of the basic principles of neoliberalism are accepted as universal axioms, and they will not be discussed honestly and fairly. Robert McChesney pointed out that it is precisely in the undemocratic atmosphere of neoliberalism that “Chomsky’s criticism of the neoliberal order was ‘effectively’ excluded from mainstream thought, although his analysis has empirical power and is faithful to democratic values.” Neoliberalism is anti-democratic, so why does it have a democratic cloak? In Chomsky’s view, the corporatized news media, public relations industry, academic theorists and intellectual culture in capitalist society have played a very bad role here. It is they who have created a “necessary illusion” for neoliberalism and the social system established according to neoliberal principles, making this social system seem reasonable, benevolent and necessary. A byproduct of the so-called democracy of neoliberalism is the depoliticized citizenry marked by indifference and cynicism. The social system of neoliberalism creates consumers rather than citizens, and large supermarkets rather than communities.

    Fourth, he proposed that the neoliberal argument that “there is no alternative to the status quo” is aimed at maintaining the existing system, but in fact it is entirely possible to build another society. Robert McChesney’s evaluation of Chomsky is correct: “In fact, Chomsky’s greatest contribution is that he revealed the desire of the people of the world for democracy and the revolutionary potential immersed in this vision.” Chomsky constantly reminds people that the big companies and their spokespersons who have gained endless benefits from neoliberalism actually know that their system only caters to the needs of a few people, so they don’t hesitate to fund public media to create the illusion that the current system is the most perfect. Recently, the most advocated point of neoliberals is to emphasize that there is no alternative to the status quo and that mankind has developed to the highest level. Chomsky severely refuted this theory of the end of history. He pointed out that in the history of mankind, there have been several periods called “the end of history”, such as in the 1920s, 1950s and 1990s. But in fact, anyone who advocates the end of history is extremely stupid. Especially in today’s era, when technology that improves human living conditions is developing so rapidly, it is far-fetched to advocate that there is no other choice but to maintain the status quo. Chomsky admits that it is not clear how to establish a viable, free and noble post-capitalist order today, and this desire even has a bit of utopianism, but at the same time he emphasizes that the prospect of replacing the current system does not exist. Every progress in history must overcome the so-called idea that it is impossible to do something that has not been done before. Today’s human beings are going to do things that have never been done before. Human beings must transcend neoliberalism and the current social system established in accordance with neoliberal ideas. Human beings should consider the establishment of a political and economic system based on the principles of cooperation, equality, autonomy and personal freedom as a starting point. This kind of social and economic system is the post-capitalist social and economic system.

    As Robert McChesney pointed out, Chomsky is a “liberal socialist”. It is from this standpoint that Chomsky “tells people that democracy is the foundation of a post-capitalist society that people deserve to live in and fight for”, and it is from this standpoint that Chomsky “shows how absurd it is to equate capitalism with democracy or to believe that a capitalist society will allow people to have information and decision-making power”. Although Chomsky considers issues and launches criticisms of neoliberalism from such a standpoint, this does not hinder the depth and sharpness of his criticisms.

    Among Chomsky’s various criticisms of contemporary America, his criticism of American nationalism has also left a deep impression. His criticism of American nationalism is an indispensable part of his criticism of Western capitalist countries represented by the United States. In the book “The Political Thought of Noam Chomsky” mentioned above, the fifth chapter of the discussion on Chomsky’s analysis and criticism of American nationalism is both summarized and correct.

    At present, there are various opinions on what nationalism is in the international community, with mixed praise and criticism. Chomsky believes that the United States is an ideal case for studying nationalism. He found that in the United States, “policies are driven by a pair of twin goals: one is to consolidate the interests of the big private owners who control the country, and the other is to maintain an international environment in which big private owners can prosper and develop.” In his view, the premise of studying American nationalism is that we must first see that American policies are always driven by these two goals: one is to consolidate the interests of big private owners; the other is to maintain an international environment in which big private owners can prosper and develop. Without these two goals, it is impossible to recognize the essence of American nationalism.

    In analyzing American nationalism in connection with these two major goals of American policy, Chomsky summarizes the following three characteristics of American nationalism, or launches the following three criticisms of American nationalism:

    First, the United States is a typical example of reactionary nationalism.

    Kamenka once divided nationalism into progressive nationalism and reactionary nationalism. Progressive nationalism is born from the newly oppressed nations, which attempt to use nationalism to achieve modernization. These oppressed nations confirm that modern society provides conditions for progress, consensus and harmony. As long as a nation establishes a country, it can no longer be intoxicated by its historical and cultural pride, but can settle down to work on economic and political progress and cooperate with other nations and countries in a friendly manner. Reactionary nationalism appears in nations that have had stable governments and territories for a long time. The typical manifestation of this reactionary nationalism is to appeal to primitive hatred and chauvinism. Chomsky uses Kamenka’s standards to measure American nationalism, and first concludes that American nationalism is not progressive nationalism. It is questionable whether the United States sincerely cooperates with various nations (countries) in a friendly manner. One of the most typical manifestations is that the United States looks at the process of European integration with increasing uneasiness.

    As long as we use Kamenka’s reactionary nationalism standard to measure American nationalism, it is clear that American nationalism is a typical reactionary nationalism. Chomsky said, “There is no better case study of this reactionary nationalism than the attitude of the American ruling class towards the so-called communists.” What is actually happening in the United States now is that any country that wants to seek true independence or find new development outside the influence of the United States and the West will automatically be labeled as “communist” or “extreme nationalist” in the eyes of the United States. What else can this be if not a reactionary nationalist attitude? Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, labeling a country as communist or nationalist meant that these countries were linked to the Soviet Union. This also created the impression that the Soviet Union was expanding and trying to control the entire world. Chomsky pointed out that “throughout the ages, the consistent means of mobilizing unwilling people has been to establish an evil enemy that the people fear.” The current American rulers are using such means, and the United States continues to provoke “primitive hatred.” The US government is creating a need for “defense” among the public by blurring the truth of the matter, so that they continue to support and maintain huge military spending. All the US actions called “defense” but actually aggressive have become just actions to liberate the local people from the terror of totalitarian communism. The reason why the US government has been able to stimulate and maintain great power chauvinism for a long time is mainly because of the idea that the United States is the leader of the free world, the bearer of progress, and the embodiment of the spirit of freedom in the Enlightenment. Since the Kennedy administration, US cabinet ministers have constantly declared that where other countries have interests, there are responsibilities for the United States. If this is not a reactionary nationalist argument, what is it?

    Second, the United States is a typical example of narrow nationalism.

    Plamenac once divided nationalism into two types: broad nationalism and narrow nationalism. The typical example of broad nationalism he mentioned was the nationalism shown by Germany and Italy in the 19th century in pursuit of political unity, and the most extreme expression of narrow nationalism he mentioned was the fascist movement in the 20th century.

    Chomsky compared the two sides in the Vietnam War according to Plamenaz’s division and concluded that the South Vietnam National Liberation Front represented the former, while the United States represented the latter. He said that if the Enlightenment theory is used to define broad or progressive nationalism, then the South Vietnam National Liberation Front fits the definition. It is not difficult to make this judgment if we understand the following actions of the Front: the Front organized the rural population by establishing self-management organizations, and established mutual assistance organizations with both discipline and free discussion and secret voting, so that people had a sense of community. At the same time, Chomsky pointed out that the United States repeatedly accused the South Vietnam Liberation Front of being narrow nationalism, but in fact the United States was the typical example of narrow nationalism. He said: “What is surprising is the illusion that we have the right to continue the work of reorganizing the South Vietnamese government, and this is said by us to be in the interests of Vietnamese nationalism.” The United States initially exported ideas, and when this effort failed, it resorted to force, and repeatedly stated that their actions were in line with Vietnam’s national and ethnic interests. They repeatedly propagate the assumption that China is an agent of Moscow, the Vietcong is an agent of North Vietnam, and North Vietnam is a puppet of Moscow and Beijing. Based on this assumption, they think and want people to believe that what they are doing in South Vietnam is helping the South Vietnamese people to fight for self-determination and democracy. The actions of the US government are indeed not much different from those of fascism in Europe.

    Third, the United States is a typical example of ethnocentric nationalism.

    Smith divides nationalism into two types: ethnocentric and polycentric. Ethnocentric nationalism finds cohesion among the people through God’s grace, power and values. This nationalism emphasizes that their culture and religion hold absolute truth, and those outside their culture are inferior and ignorant. This kind of nationalism was widely present in ancient and medieval times. Polycentric nationalism recognizes the existence of multiple power centers and recognizes that other nations also have values ​​worth learning. This kind of nationalism seeks to become a nation like other nations under conditions of dignity and equality, and to make its own nation a member of the “family of nations.” This kind of nationalism has never appeared in ancient times. It is a modern form of nationalism.

    The modern era should be dominated by multi-centered nationalism. Ethnocentric nationalism mainly existed in ancient and medieval times, and it still remains in modern times. Chomsky pointed out that American nationalism is precisely that kind of ethnocentric nationalism. In the United States, not only ordinary people, but also intellectuals worship the secular religion of the state. “The worship of the state has become a secular religion, and intellectuals play the role of priests.” American intellectuals believe in the US government and believe that the US government only acts for moral reasons and always defends freedom, while turning a blind eye to the US government’s criminal history. They can turn a blind eye to the US overthrow of Allende’s democratic government in Chile, and they can also turn a blind eye to the US’s support for dictatorships in many parts of the world. In their eyes, the most important thing is whether the international economic order is in line with the interests of the United States. As for whether the political form of other countries is dictatorial, it is not what the United States should care about. In Chomsky’s view, this is a genuine ethnocentric nationalism.

    American nationalism is obviously ethnocentric nationalism, but sometimes the United States pretends to maintain multi-centered nationalism. For example, when the United Nations passes relevant resolutions, the United States sometimes directly vetoes the resolutions because the content of the resolutions conflicts with its own interests. At this time, it shows naked ethnocentric nationalism. But sometimes when the United States can use the United Nations resolutions to intimidate other countries, it pretends to be maintaining multi-centered nationalism. If a country attempts to challenge the privileges of the United States, or tries to develop independently of the United States or its development is inconsistent with the “national interests” of the United States, the United States will abuse the concept of human rights and then use the United Nations resolutions to deal with them. Obviously, on the surface, this is to maintain multi-centered nationalism, but in essence it is still ethnocentric nationalism.

    As Chomsky himself said, his exposure of the reactionary, narrow-minded and ethnocentric nature of American nationalism is of practical significance. The actual situation before us is that it is obvious that the national behavior of countries like the United States has obvious nationalist characteristics, and it is reactionary, narrow-minded and ethnocentric, but people often put these derogatory nationalist titles on the heads of those third world countries. The nationalism of the United States and the first world has indeed successfully disguised itself. In this case, Chomsky’s reapplying the term “reactionary nationalism, narrow nationalism, and ethnocentric nationalism” that is usually used to refer to the Third World to the United States, which is the most suitable for this term, is indeed a just and respectable move.

    As mentioned above, Derrida, Jameson, Habermas, Giddens, and Chomsky are the five most influential thinkers in the contemporary world. They have inextricable ties with contemporary capitalist society. Most of them have always been defenders of capitalism rather than critics. Some are even known as “bedside doctors” and “massage therapists” of capitalist society. Therefore, all these new understandings of contemporary capitalist society from them should be extremely convincing and thought-provoking.