Keyword

In the current consumerist society, the question about capital cannot be evaded when studying the development of contemporary literature and art. Chinese tradition believed in “The gentleman knows what is right; the small man knows what is profitable.” In addition, influenced by Kant’s notion of “purposiveness without purpose” (Kant, 2007, p. xviii), Chinese modern literary research has maintained a certain distance from money and capital, seldom touching the nature and laws of capital. However, with the advent of consumerist society, especially the rise of cultural industries, literary activities are intertwined with capital in depth inevitably, and capital has entered the vision of literary criticism research. People are gradually realizing that only by understanding the nature and role of capital in contemporary literary activities can they cope with the huge impact of consumerism on Chinese literature and culture and participate creatively in the development of China’s cultural industries. Thus, Marx’s examination of capital is particularly relevant to literary criticism.

1 Marx’s View on Capital

The study of capital and the criticism of capital began since the emergence of capitalism in the West. Before Marx, capital has already been studied by bourgeois economics (including mercantilism, physiocraticism, British classical economics, vulgar economics, etc.) and by Hegel, the master as well as epitome of German classical philosophy. Marx contributed mainly by elaborating upon his new understanding of the nature of capital from his critique of the theories put forward by classical economists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo (the so-called national economists or political economists), and to endow capital with a vital role in the proletarian revolution.

1.1 Marx’s Concept of Capital

Capital is a core concept in Marxian economics, and Marx’s research on capital has profoundly revealed the laws governing the functioning of a capitalist society, including its chronic problems. From The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, to The German Ideology, Wage Labour and Capital, The Communist Manifesto, Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858, and the first two volumes of Capital, an inherent logical evolution of Marx’s views on capital can be found—from regarding capital with the view of alienated labor, to analyzing capital with the duality of labor and the two factors of a commodity, and finally proposing the theory of surplus value, revealing that the essence of capital is the endless pursuit of surplus value and the appropriation and control of workers’ labor without paying for them. Marx’s concept of capital is substantial in its implication; here we go through only a few of his representative points on the nature of capital to examine its characteristics and concept, as well as its operation and the related issues in literary activities.

1.1.1 Capital and Money

Historically, capital first appeared in the form of money, but noticeably there is an essential difference between the two. Marx gave a specific description to the difference between them, and this comparison of the similarities and differences between capital and money initially reveals the characteristics of capital.

Marx uncovered the relationship between money and capital in Capital. “As a matter of history, capital,…invariably takes the form at first of money; it appears as moneyed wealth, as the capital of the merchant and of the usurer….All new capital, to commence with, comes on the stage, that is, on the market, whether of commodities, labour, or money, even in our days, in the shape of money that by a definite process has to be transformed into capital” (Marx 1996, p. 157). Capital starts with money, and by a definite process, money can be transformed into capital. However, “... the mere existence of monetary wealth, even its conquest of a sort of SUPREMACY, is not sufficient for this dissolution into capital to occur” (Marx 1989a, p. 430). In 1847, Marx pointed out in Wage Labour and Capital, “while all capital is a sum of commodities, that is, of exchange values, not every sum of commodities, of exchange values, is capital” (Marx 1977, p. 212). In Capital, Marx delineates the double-faceted nature of money—money as money and money as capital. In the Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858, Marx wrote, “by the mere accumulation of money does not yet imply the relationship of capitalization,” and “money as capital is a determination of money that goes beyond its simple determination as money” (Marx 1989a, p. 182).

What is the difference between money as money and money as capital? First, the value of money as money does not change in circulation, whereas the distinguishing feature of money as capital is its value increment. Second, “The simple circulation of commodities begins with a sale and ends with a purchase, while the circulation of money as capital begins with a purchase and ends with a sale” (Marx 1996, p. 159). Specifically, money as money is bought and sold mainly for use value, to satisfy needs; it does not increase in value and ends when it is bought; money as capital means buying goods for the purpose of selling it after it has increased in value in the future, and the money used for appreciation is thus money as capital, which needs to be sold to realize its value. Therefore, money bought for use is money as money, and money bought as an asset to be sold when it appreciates is money as capital, or as Marx proposed in Capital, “The circulation of money as capital is, on the contrary, an end in itself, for the expansion of value takes place only within this constantly renewed movement” (Marx 1975b, p. 246). Money as capital seeks “the expansion of value” rather than merely use value. Marx also mentioned that a certain minimum amount of money is needed for it to constitute capital; otherwise, transforming money into capital becomes difficult. By comparing and distinguishing between money as money and money as capital, Marx put forward the nature of the appreciation of value of capital in its motions.

1.1.2 Attributes of Capital

In his investigation, Marx analyzed the definition of capital and its instinct and essence to reveal the complex social relations of production and exploitation hidden by the capitalist mode of production.

In the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Marx defined “capital” as follows: “…capital, that is, of private property in the products of other men’s labour” and “Capital is stored-up labour” (Marx 1975b, pp. 246–247). Obviously, this definition was deeply influenced by Adam Smith. According to Smith,

…when he possesses stock sufficient to maintain him for months or years, he naturally endeavors to derive a revenue from the greater part of it, reserving only so much for his immediate consumption as may maintain him till this revenue begins to come in. His whole stock, therefore, is distinguished into two parts. That part which, he expects, is to afford him this revenue, is called his capital. (Smith 1981, p. 279)

Adam Smith has already dealt here with the issue of income from surplus wealth: that is, appreciation of value. In Capital, Marx clearly stated that “…capital has one single life impulse, the tendency to create value and surplus value” (Marx 1996, p. 241). The purpose of capital is not for production, let alone for people, but for its own value added. Marx proposes, “…self-expansion of capital is its only purpose” (Marx 1998, p. 240); capital can increase its value only in motion, in flow, without which it would lose its soul. The essence of capital is the insatiable, endless pursuit of surplus value: that is, the value that is gratuitously possessed by capitalists in excess of the value of labor.

Unlike general economists who studied the allocation of production resources, Marx raised the concept of capital from the material level to the level of social relations. He inquired into the capitalist mode of production and the relations of production that correspond to it and highlighted that capital is not purely a thing but a relation, or more concretely, a relation of production. Marx rejected some economists’ views of his time—that capital was simply a factor of the production—citing that “The stupidity of this procedure, whereby a definite social relation of production, which is expressed in things, is taken as the material and natural quality of these things, strikes us forcibly when we open the nearest textbook of political economy, and read on the very first page…” (Marx 1994b, p. 405). For this reason, Marx presented scathing critiques of the prevailing economic views of the time. In Wage Labour and Capital, he proposed, “Capital, also, is a social relation of production. It is a bourgeois production relation, a production relation of bourgeois society” (Marx 1977, p. 212). Marx criticized economists such as Ricardo and Sismondi because “…they do not conceive capital in its specific determinateness of form, as a relation of production, reflected in itself, and think only of its physical substance, raw material, etc.” (Marx 1989a, p. 235). Marx believed that socialists such as Thomas Hodgkin and John Francis Bray made similar mistakes, as according to them, “Capital is conceived of as a thing, not as a relationship” (Marx 1989a, p. 189). Marx affirmed Adam Smith’s definition of “productive labour as labour which is directly exchanged with capital,” noting that “These definitions are therefore not derived from the material characteristics of labour (neither from the nature of its product nor from the particular character of the labour as concrete labour), but from the definite social form, the social relations of production, within which the labour is realized” (Marx 1989b, pp. 12–13).

Capital, when related to the relations of production of bourgeois society, is a social relation between human beings that is mediated by objects. The main purpose of Marx’s Capital is not to describe the laws of economic development under capitalist conditions but to reveal the human relations that are fostered beneath this shroud of objects. Capital inherently contains the contradiction between the capitalist and the worker, namely the exploitation of the worker by the capitalist. As Marx put it:

…the capitalist, …appropriating living labour for himself—obtains two things free of charge: firstly, the surplus labour …secondly, the quality of living labour which preserves the previous labour materialised in the component parts of capital and thus preserves the previously existing value of the capital. (Marx 1989a, pp. 289–290)

As a result, the study of capital shifts from the relations of production to the social relations between human beings, and from the social relations between human beings to the opposition between capital and labor, namely, between capitalists and workers. In a capitalist society, the purpose of capital is not for the survival and development of human beings—“Right from the start, capital does not produce for use value, for immediate subsistence” (Marx 1989a, p. 508). As Lenin indicated, “Where the bourgeois economists saw a relation between things (the exchange of one commodity for another) Marx revealed a relation between people” (Lenin 1963, p. 26).

1.1.3 Capital and Its Internal Contradictions

Situating the study of capital from the viewpoint of historical materialism, Marx discovered the inevitability of the historical development of the bourgeoisie accompanied by capital as a product of a certain historical condition. He regarded capitalist production as a mode of production for a specific historical period, a historical necessity, and as well as a type of progress. At the same time, in this historical process, Marx also indicated the evils of capital and uncovered the mystery of the capitalist exploitation of workers from the perspective of surplus value. He also saw the inevitability of the capitalist mode of production, namely its historical nature or historicity. Capitalist mode of production is a specific mode of production with particular historical prescription: “…capitalist production itself…that it is relative, that it is not an absolute, but only a historical mode of production corresponding to a definite limited epoch in the development of the material conditions of production” (Marx 1998, p. 258). The capitalist mode of production is progressive under certain historical conditions. This progressiveness is evident through the fact that capital creates preconditions for employment, thereby producing free people. As Marx propounded in Capital:

The historical conditions of its existence are by no means given with the mere circulation of money and commodities. It can spring into life, only when the owner of the means of production and subsistence meets in the market with the free labourer selling his labour power. And this one historical condition comprises a world's history. Capital, therefore, announces from its first appearance a new epoch in the process of social production. (Marx, 1996, p. 180)

The employment relationship is essentially a contractual relationship, which differs widely from the relationship between the peasant and the land in a feudal society, where the peasant has nothing when he leaves the land, whereas the worker who sells his labor is free. In this sense, Marx stated:

It is one of the civilizing aspects of capital that it enforces this surplus labour in a manner and under conditions which are more advantageous to the development of the productive forces, social relations, and the creation of the elements for a new and higher form than under the preceding forms of slavery, serfdom, etc. (Marx, 1996, p. 806).

Additionally, during the creation of surplus value, capital contributes to a great increase in the forces of production and creates much more material wealth than the whole sum of previous societies, thus bringing the strong impulse to innovate, which is determined by the nature of capital. The pursuit of greater profit requires constant cost savings as well as equipment and procedure updates in order to increase efficiency and multiply profits, which promote the growth of forces of production. Marx was soberly aware of the cosmopolitan and unstoppable nature of capital. Capital “compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image” (Marx and Engels 1976, p. 488).

Marx admitted that capital did play an important role in history, but he fiercely criticized capital in the interests of the proletariat. In Capital, Marx sharply indicated the evils of capital: “Capital comes into the world with a congenital blood stain on one cheek, capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt” (Marx 1996, p. 748). The primitive accumulation of capital is a process of “blood and fire” by means of violence and plunder, and the essence of capitalism is the insatiable extraction of surplus value from workers. Since capital is profit-oriented, its logic is to maximize profits. Hence, the excesses from capital’s endless expansion inevitably lead to economic crises, and “this entire development proceeds in a contradictory way” (Marx 1989a, p. 465). However, “…by both positing a limit specific to itself (capital) and on the other hand driving beyond any limit, it is the very embodiment of contradiction…. it necessarily repels itself from itself” (Marx 1989a, p. 350). This intrinsic contradiction of capital is the paradox of its prosperity and hideousness, hope and despair, and rationality and irrationality. Marx’s analysis of the immanent contradiction of capital is crucial to understanding the root of capitalist economic crises and for investigating the present and future of capitalism.

The innate and insatiable greed of capital, while driving innovation in modern society, has also led to economic crises and even to the loss of emotion and the depravity of ethics in society. The voracity indwelling in capital dehumanizes people, leaving them on the edge of insanity. Marx wrote about the inhuman nature of capital:

In every stock-jobbing swindle everyone knows that some time or other the crash must come, but every one hopes that it may fall on the head of his neighbor, after he himself has caught the shower of gold and placed it in safety. Après moi le deluge! is the watchword of every capitalist and of every capitalist nation. Hence Capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the labourer, unless under compulsion from society. To the outcry as to the physical and mental degradation, the premature death, the torture of overwork, it answers: Ought these to trouble us since they increase our profits? But looking at things as a whole, all this does not, indeed, depend on the good or ill will of the individual capitalist. Free competition brings out the inherent laws of capitalist production, in the shape of external coercive laws having power over every individual capitalist. (Marx 1996, pp. 275–276)

Capital is “the most extreme expression” of the inhumanity (Marx and Engels 1975, p. 82). Capital exposes human greed, and in order to make money and profit, the capitalists are entirely indifferent to workers’ health and life. Such indifference of human beings is due to the essence of capital. Marx’s incisive revelation about capital remains persistently relevant even today.

Marx’s penetrating and dialectical analysis of the contradictions and problems of capital is highly pertinent for examining the nature of capital as well as the weaknesses of human nature. Despite the new changes in contemporary labor‒capital relations, the essential attributes of capital are stubborn and resistant to change. Additionally, Marx accurately prophesied the future changes of capital—the capitalist class would withdraw from the production sphere and become a class of rentiers, and financial capital such as stocks and bonds would become the new forms of capital, thus dispelling the illusion of “the universal permanent capital.” The reality and facts of contemporary social development has confirmed Marx’s predictions.

1.2 Marx’s View on Literature and Art and Capital

When exploring the relationship between literature and capital, Marx placed special emphasis on historical concreteness. Further, the artistic production he discussed is primarily the artistic production that has “direct exchange with capital” during the capitalist period: that is, the specific historical period when literary and artistic products entered the process of capital operation. In refuting the anti-historical attitude of the bourgeois political economist Henri Storch on the relationship between material and spiritual production, Marx responded with the classic statement:

In order to examine the connection between intellectual production and material production it is above all necessary to grasp the latter itself not as a general category but in definite historical form. Thus for example different kinds of intellectual production correspond to the capitalist mode of production and to the mode of production of the Middle Ages. If material production itself is not conceived in its specific historical form, it is impossible to understand what is specific in the intellectual production corresponding to it and the reciprocal influence of one on the other. (Marx 1989b, p. 182)

The “definite historical form” and “special historical form” mentioned here fully imply Marxist historical consciousness and methods. Only by examining artistic production in a specific historical period can its thesis not fall into “empty abstraction.” Always examining a specific, concrete historical period forms the basis for understanding Marx’s theory on the relationship between literature and capital.

1.2.1 Capital Provides the Material Basis and Conditions for the Progress of Literature and Art

As discussed earlier, from the standpoint of historical materialism, Marx recognized the positive effects of capital in history. The enormous social wealth created by the tremendous growth of the productive force of capitalism provides the necessary material means and technical support for the development of spiritual production, including artistic production.

Capital creates material conditions for the formation of the artists’ true free personality. Under the capitalist mode of production, personal dependence no longer existed, and poets and artists, deprived of the care and patronage of the court and nobility, had to use their labor to make “…direct exchange with capital” in order to survive, thus developing “personal independence based upon dependence mediated by things” (Marx 1989a, p. 95). Marx noted the positive side of wage labor: “Likewise, all so-called higher kinds of labour, intellectual, artistic, etc., have been turned into articles of commerce and have thereby lost their old sanctity. What a great advance it was that the entire regiment of clerics, doctors, lawyers, etc., hence religion, law, etc., ceased to be judged by anything but their commercial value” (Marx 1976, p. 436). Although the transformation of the artist into a wage laborer by capital has hindered and restricted free artistic creation to certain extent, “…certainly this objective connection is to be preferred to the lack of any connection or to a purely local connection based on primitive blood ties, nature, and relationships of lordship and bondage” (Marx 1989a, p. 98). The artists can now exchange their labor and the artistic works they create can be circulated. The notion of exchange is also implicit in the specialized division of labor and artistic autonomy, since both “division of labor” and “self-discipline” are in the operation of the market. Therefore, capital provides material conditions for the development of artists.Footnote 1

1.2.2 The Hostility Between Capital and Literature and Art

Given that the command and profit-seeking nature of capital inevitably contradicts and conflicts with the critical and transcendental nature of art, Marx examined the relationship between literary activities and capital, not only from a historical perspective but also from the value of human emancipation, indicating the hostility of the capitalist production system toward art.

He (Henry Storch) cannot get beyond meaningless general phrases. Consequently, the relation is not so simple as he presupposes. For instance, capitalist production is hostile to certain branches of intellectual production, for example, art and poetry. If this is left out of account, it opens the way to the illusion of the French in the eighteenth century which has been so beautifully satirised by Lessing. Because we are further ahead than the ancients in mechanics, etc., why shouldn’t we be able to make an epic too? And the Henriade in place of the Iliad! (Marx 1989b, pp. 182–183)

Here, Marx demonstrated the complexity of the relationship between material and spiritual production over the course of history. Since all relations in capitalist society are subject to an abstract monetary relation, “As long as the power of capital lasts, no equality between landowners will be possible, and any sort of ban on the purchase and sale of land will be impossible, ridiculous and absurd. Everything, not merely the land, but human labour, the human being himself, conscience, love, science—everything must inevitably be for sale as long as the power of capital lasts” (Lenin 1962, p. 298). This fetishism of money led directly to the alienation of human beings and art. Artists were forced to create art according to the demands of the market, as dictated by the capitalists, and “all passions and all activity must therefore be submerged in avarice” (Marx 1975b, p. 309).

Art and aesthetics are free in their nature, but in a capitalist society, literary works that should be the “expression of his own nature” (Marx 1994b, p. 136) are reduced to commodities. Therefore, according to Marx, the capitalist system of production is not a fertile ground for art, and the fundamental cause of the “hostility” of capital toward art lies in the contradiction and opposition between the nature of capitalist wage labor and the freedom that characterizes spiritual production.

1.2.3 The Aesthetic Character of Artistic Production in the Capitalist Mode of Production

Marx not only discovered the hostility of capital toward literature and art but also explored the survival and resistance of literature and art in the capitalist mode of production, as well as the possibility of aesthetic activities breaking through the limitations of capital in the capitalist mode of production. Marx’s view has left profound revelations for artistic production today.

In 1842, in “Proceedings of the Sixth Rhine Province Assembly (First Article),” Marx stated his thought in an uncompromising tone:

The writer, of course, must earn in order to be able to live and write, but he must by no means live and write to earn…The writer does not at all look on his work as a means. It is an end in itself; it is so little a means for him himself and for others that, if need be, he sacrifices his existence to its existence. (Marx, 1975b, pp. 174–175)

Although Marx recognized the exchange nature of literary activities, he did not consider it the ideal form of literary existence in terms of value judgments—“The true poet’s labour could remain—in Milton’s time at least—unalienated to the extent that he took no account of market value. Such a poet writes what he has to, from the centre of his being, and leaves it to others to convert his poem into a profit-bearing commodity” (Prawer 1976, p. 312).

When Marx discussed the “non-material production,” he also made a significant but usually neglected point: “Here capitalist production is only applicable to a very limited degree” and “Here too the capitalist mode of production only occurs to a slight extent…” (Marx 1994a, pp. 143–144). In this way, capital’s dominative power over artistic production can be limited to a certain extent. From another point of view, we might as well consider that art, as free spiritual production, can resist capital and tenaciously maintain its independence even in realms where capital rules over everything. For Marx, “one of the great virtues of art,…was precisely that through its very mode of being it offered resistance to such ‘fetishism’; just as a genuine artist would still, even under modern conditions, resist transformation into a wage-slave of the dominant social group” (Prawer 1976, p. 313).

The capitalist mode of production cannot completely erase the aesthetic character of art. Thus, literary activity can, to a certain extent, break free from the capitalist mode of production and embody an aesthetic character. In the appendix of the first volume of Theories of Surplus Value, “The Production Process of Capital. The Distinction Between Productive and Unproductive Labour,” Marx concretely analyzed the aesthetic characteristics inherent in artistic production in the capitalist mode of production. First, during the process of artistic creation, artistic production takes the form of individual labor; the intensive nature of capitalist production is not completely effective in terms of artistic production, thus enabling artistic production somewhat to get rid of the rule of capitalist mode of production. Second, the aesthetic characteristics are displayed in works of art that can exist separately from the artists. On the one hand, these works of art circulate as commodities in production and consumption, realizing the commodity mission of material exchange; on the other hand, they realize the value of human spiritual sharing as works of art. Third, for the audience, artistic production satisfies their aesthetic needs and brings enjoyment of art. For instance, when employed by the theater owner, the singer is a production worker, because the owner exchanges his or her capital for the singer’s labor capability and thus gains a fortune. For the audience, however, the singer’s singing is an active and creative activity, a free expression of her or his life, and a realization of her or his natural endowment and spiritual purpose (Marx 1994a, p. 136). It is in this sense that Marx distinguished between the piano maker and the piano player; although the latter produces music, her or his labor is not labor in the economic sense (Marx 1989a, p. 231). Thus, literary activities do not, to a certain extent, operate in full accordance with the laws of the capitalist market. The domination of capital over literary activities can be limited within a certain sphere, and literature and art can resist this domination and gain a certain degree of freedom. This view lends theoretical support for the resistance of artistic production to capital in today’s market economy.

2 Capital and Contemporary Literary Activities

The mode of production and operation of literature and art in today’s market economy in China is quite close to the artistic production with commodity characteristics that Marx described as creating value for capital. Marx’s research on literature and capital remains particularly pertinent today. Under the new historical conditions, Marx’s views on capital are of instructive and guiding significance for comprehending, recognizing, and analyzing contemporary literary activities. The Chinese form should be expanded on the basis of Marx’s theorization of capital, in order to soberly evaluate the impact of today’s consumerism on literature and culture and facilitate the progress of contemporary literature and art by the force of the market.

2.1 The Expansion of the Concept of Capital

Today, the concept of capital has expanded far beyond the realm of production to all levels of society, and has acquired a new essence in people’s interpretation. Is Marx’s theory of capital still alive and vibrant? What are the forms of capital in different fields today? All would require careful investigation.

2.1.1 Marx’s Theory of Capital Is Not Obsolete

Amidst the winds of change in the twentieth century, Daniel Bell raised the well-known idea of “The End of Ideology.” Some Western scholars believe that Marx’s capital and capitalism in Capital are demoded and even obsolete, and that the relationship between capitalists and workers has fairly improved in the twentieth century. As Michel Beaud put it:

Above all, Capital’s interpretive framework for understanding capitalism grew from observation of nineteenth-century industrial capitalism, which for Marx was the “true capitalist mode of production.” This framework was less useful for understanding other forms of capitalism—mercantile, banking, and manufacturing—and it became less and less adequate for analyzing the industrial capitalism of the twentieth century. (Beaud 2001, p. 127)

They argue that today’s capitalist system has undergone many positive adjustments and is no longer what Marx portrayed it to be in his day.

It is true that today’s society is far more developed than it had been in the nineteenth century, but does that make Marx’s concept of capital out of date? The answer is obviously no. Today, as Marx stated, “the necessary tendency of capital at every point to is subject the mode of production to itself, to its domination” (Marx 1987, p. 115). Around 2008, major financial crises broke out one after another in the United States and Europe. The financial credit bubble and the wide disparity between the rich and the poor brought Marx’s work on capital back into focus. A great many of Western scholars have been rereading Capital. One of them, Elma Altefat mentioned, “In this context, Capital has been revisited because it lends useful theoretical support for concrete analysis in the present. … The Marxist theoretical system helps to analyze the current financial and economic crises, as well as the relationship between real accumulation and financial markets” (Altefat 2013). Or as Thomas Piketty proposed in Capital in the Twenty-first Century, “Modern economic growth and the diffusion of knowledge have made it possible to avoid the Marxist apocalypse but have not modified the deep structures of capital and inequality” (Piketty 2014, p. 1). The inequalities due to the power of capital have not disappeared at all, and in some places they have dramatically intensified. According to Terry Eagleton, “The income of a single Mexican billionaire today is equivalent to the earnings of the poorest seventeen millions of his compatriots” (Eagleton 2011, p. 8). Or, as David Harvey mentioned, “So none of the predatory practices that Marx identified have gone away, and in some instances they have even flourished to a degree unimaginable in Marx’s own times” (Harvey 2010, p. 309). The American director Michael Moore’s film Capitalism: A Love Story unflinchingly portrayed the plight and misery of the lower and middle classes of American society in the wake of the financial crisis. While re-examining capitalism, people discover Marx’s immense foresight and sagacity when he studied the capitalist system at his day, and hope to find a solution to the current problem from Marx’s critique of the system.

In 2011, following the financial crisis, Yale University Press published Terry Eagleton’s book Why Marx Was Right. It is written in an argumentative style, listing and refuting ten common denials of Marxism. Eagleton criticized the fact that “He (Marx) is accused of being outdated by the champions of a capitalism rapidly reverting to Victorian levels of inequality” (Eagleton 2011, p. 3). The exit of Marxism from the stage of history presupposes the end of capitalism, but at present there are no legible signs of its rapid decline; thus, Marxism must continue to exist. Eagleton also indicates that Marxism will not die out as long as the capitalist system exists. He playfully said that “…Marxism is finished would be music to the ears of Marxists everywhere” (Eagleton 2011, p. 1), because the goal of Marxists is to make Marxism obsolete.

With the rapid advancement of technology and the expansion of the consumer market, capital has proliferated so extremely that Jameson describes its pervasive presence:

The purest form of capital yet to have emerged, prodigious expansion of capital into hitherto uncommodified areas. This purer capitalism of our own time thus eliminates the enclaves of precapitalist organization it had hitherto tolerated and exploited in a tributary way. One is tempted to speak in this connection of a new and historically original penetration and colonization of Nature and the Unconscious. (Jameson 1991, p. 36)

Jameson once believed that there were two enclaves worldwide where capital could not enter: agriculture and the human subconscious. However, he realized that capital had obliterated the existence of enclaves and that capital had not only infiltrated nature through “green agriculture” but had also penetrated into human desire through commodity consumption.

2.1.2 Bourdieu and Cultural Capital

Scholars never stop at Marx’s study of capital. With today’s highly developed information technology, capital is no more a concept that can be summarized simply by a sweatshop. Some important theorists in the West have further considered and advanced Marx’s concept and theory of capital in light of the current new conjunctures, broadening the territory of capital.Footnote 2 On the basis of Marx’s discussion of economic capital, different concepts of capital have emerged, including Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of “cultural capital,” which provides a fresh theoretical perspective for explaining cultural studies and literary activities in China.

The concept of “cultural capital” is an extension of Bourdieu’s theory of capital based on Marx’s theory, and yet it is a non-economic interpretation of capital. Some people disagree with this concept and consider it a mere metaphor, but the nomenclature of the concept has realistic pertinent. The most important reason for Bourdieu to introduce capital into the study of culture was that he noted that culture and profit were not disconnected or opposed to each other, on the contrary, the two are deeply interweaved. The concept of cultural capital enables one to look at the differences or inequalities of a capital nature that are shielded by cultural phenomena. In The Forms of Capital, Bourdieu distinguishes capital into three basic forms: economic capital, social capital, and cultural capital. Cultural capital, in Bourdieu’s words, is defined as any tangible or intangible asset related to culture and cultural activities, including cultural competence, products, institutions, and systems. Specifically, cultural competence encompasses the knowledge and self-cultivation embodied in a person under the influence of one’s family environment. Cultural products are manifested in the form of cultural commodities such as “pictures, books, dictionaries, instruments, machines, etc.” (Bourdieu 1983, p. 243), and cultural capital exists in this objectified form. Cultural systems exist in an institutionalized form, such as recognized academic certificates or educational qualifications.

Although the three types of capital proposed by Bourdieu—economic, social, and cultural—belong to different domains and have different real and fictitious characteristics, they all have in common the attribute of capital: that is, they all have added value. In addition to economic capital, social capital, including various social relationships, also generates added value, and “the aggregate of the actual or potential resources” (Bourdieu 1983, p. 21) has the potential to add value. The value added of cultural capital should not be taken lightly today. The brand of a commodity exactly is capital: The price of a silk scarf with the label “Hermes” suddenly increases dozens of times. Parents’ investment in their child’s education can also be considered cultural capital, for they are investing in their child’s future success. These forms of capital are eventually transformed into symbolic capital that demonstrates people’s social status and power.Footnote 3 Bourdieu’s elaboration of different forms of capital reveals the utilitarian nature of the actor’s pursuit of different symbolic capital, showing his wisdom and critical spirit of today’s culture.

2.2 The Power of Capital

In China, the connotation of cultural capital has moved beyond Bourdieu’s ambit, and capital is playing an increasingly vital role in contemporary Chinese literary activities. It has penetrated all aspects of culture, so much so that some literary and cultural products are directly branded as economic. In today’s world, culture and capital are so closely intertwined that it is difficult to say whether folk crafts in tourist attractions are commodity or culture. Further, economic, social, and cultural capital are mingled and have formed a cyclic process of mutual support and transformation. In film and television activities, economic capital can be transformed into social capital. With heavy investment in the establishment of film and television companies, the products of film and television companies become cultural capital; cultural capital can also be transformed into economic capital, with investors and consortia reaping the profits. As a result, video production has become a confluence of economic, social, and cultural capital. Therefore, it is particularly necessary to apply Marx’s historical and dialectical perspectives and methods when studying capital in the context of contemporary literary activities.

2.2.1 The Alliance Between Literature and Capital

In contemporary China, the prominent feature of literary activities is the alliance between literature and capital. Contemporary literary activities are mostly subject to the logic of commodity, and the domination of capital is widely evident. Literary activities, especially the cultural industry, are integrated into the production and consumption system of the entire society, and writers, artists, critics, planners, and even collectors are involved in the production and consumption of culture. Further, “not only the production but also the reception of cultural goods is already governed by the law of value” (Marcuse 2009, p. 96). This market-oriented approach and mechanism of cultural management has brought about fundamental changes to the Chinese literary and artistic activities.

With regard to the way literature is produced, it is no more merely the mechanic reproduction and mass production described by Benjamin; rather, the entire mode of production and operation has been converted. The control of capital over literature is evident in the planning of literary activities. The popularity of some television programs or cultural products relies heavily on planning and hype, in which capital investment plays a large role. Some writers no longer write novels based on sudden inspiration or accumulated experience, but rather on prior contracts based on market demand, much like the French writer Balzac. The past phenomenon of “poring over the book for ten years” as Cao Xueqin did and “hiding writings in famous mountains and passing them on to like-minded people” as Sima Qian mentioned is pretty rare. Tradition and history have also become consumer goods, and it is not alarming that over-consumption of traditional culture can lead to the death of cultural resources.

Enormous and subversive changes have taken place in the relationship between supply and demand of literature, which is rapidly becoming more consumer-oriented. Literary or cultural products have become a part of production, where the output determines the input and cost-effectiveness is a primary consideration. For a book or a play, the selling point has to be considered before commencing work on it. Intimidated by the power of capital, the pursuit of aesthetic meaning and personal creation have become profit-oriented. Authors have to take into account the market demand and selling points to ensure a balance between input and output. Film production, in particular, requires financially strong investors, and the main consideration of the producer is, as Marx said, money as capital, which is invested in order to obtain greater profit.

There is also a qualitative and substantial change in the way literature is accepted today. In the face of colorful literary or cultural products, the act of consumption has replaced the act of appreciation, and what consumers consume is no longer “art” but “fashion.” For instance, the so-called “fan economy,” in which a certain number of fans and admirers are created through planning and packaging to increase attention and attraction, is garnering popularity at the expense of undermining the cultural literacy of the nation, with the worst outcome being an overall reduction and degradation in the ability to create and consume literature.

2.2.2 Capital Impairing Literature

As the market intends to turn everything into a commodity, the threat of capital to literature is obvious. First and foremost, the purpose of literary creation is seriously distorted: Wealth has become the sole goal of people, “writing books to make a living,” and aesthetics have become a means of profit. Some writers and artists, to cater to the market and attract attention, are willing to downgrade their work, producing some vulgar and even nasty works; thus, artworks have lost their most basic attributes. Marx’s incisive critique that “labour itself, not merely in present conditions but insofar as its purpose in general is the mere increase of wealth—that labour itself, I say, is harmful and pernicious…” (Marx 1975b, p. 240) has thus become highly relevant today.

Another damage accruing from capital’s entry into artistic production is that it leads to the suppression of the author’s creativity—“Inasmuch as he produces works of art destined for a market that absorbs them, the artist cannot fail to heed the exigencies of this market: they often affect the content as well as the form of a work of art, thus placing limitations on the artist, stifling his creative potential, his individuality” (Wolff 1981, p. 18). In this way, the author faces the fact that “you can’t always do as you like,” and his creative personality and critical stance are almost diminished. These conditions also restrict the healthy growth of contemporary literature and art in China or elsewhere in the world.

Related to this is the practical application of evaluation criteria, which have changed considerably under the influence of capital, with ratings, box office value, and sales becoming the main criteria for measuring the success of works. When the degree of consumption is used to measure literary works and when literature, culture, and even human beings themselves become calculable and sellable objects, the entire society may encounter a situation in which “bad money drives out good money,” and some not so talented people can make a lot of money in the market. The emergence of these problems is related to the manipulation of capital on the one hand, and calls for improvement in the market mechanism on the other.

2.2.3 Capital Supporting and Safeguarding Literary Activities

Capital is a “double-edged sword” for literary activities; they are both hostile and supportive to each other. Unlike the Frankfurt School, which took a completely negative stance toward the “cultural industry,” the Chinese form inherited Marx’s idea of the progressive role of capital in history. In studying the issue of literature and capital, it can, on the one hand, make full and best use of capital and, on the other hand, remain vigilant against the encroachment of capital on culture.

Spiritual production in a society requires a certain material basis to ensure the survival of artists and the necessary material conditions for artistic creation. In contemporary times, it is especially tough to engage in the production and reproduction of literature and art without basic economic support. Capital is needed for the development of literature and art, or it can even be a strong impetus for literary activities. The proposition of “aestheticization of everyday life” is itself linked to the growth of social material wealth. Imagine, without the support of capital, can people see blockbuster movies, street gardens, interweaving traffic, and colorful neon lights? All these are the inevitable consequence of the operation of capital. As such, material wealth needs further development, and capital is the material force behind today’s growing aesthetic demand.

The role of capital is also presented in the promotion of innovation in the literary activities. Innovation comes first from the development needs of literature and art itself, but it is also integrally correlated to capital. To strengthen market competitiveness, some film and television productions often join hands with capital (including capital-backed technology). This revolutionizes film production through the use of high technology and brings unprecedented novel types of sensory pleasure to audiences. Creative industries, in particular, are inseparable from the injection of capital, and they have become the preferred targets for capital appreciation. Additionally, artistic innovation is also linked to the consumer market. The ever-increasing cultural demand by consumers promotes the revamping of literature, and literary works can be made more attractive only through the creation of new artistic styles and means of expression. The works of those who do not care about market demand may go unappreciated, unviewed, and obscure at last.

From the perspective of art consumption, capital has transformed art from the domain of an elite minority into something that the majority of the masses can enjoy, and has even made it a way of life for the masses. This would not have been possible without the full emergence and abundance of materials. As Eagleton discussed:

The first historical act, Marx writes in The German Ideology, is the production of the means to satisfy our material needs. Only then can we learn to play the banjo, write erotic poetry or paint the front porch. The basis of culture is labour. There can be no civilization without material production. Marxism, however, wants to claim more than this. It wants to argue that material production is fundamental not only in the sense that there could be no civilization without it, but that it is what ultimately determines the nature of that civilization. (Eagleton 2011, pp. 107–108)

When considering the dissemination of literature and art, the power of capital can also not be underestimated. Whether a work is widely circulated depends first on the quality of the work, but the breadth and depth of dissemination also depends on the operation of the market. Only with the help of the market can the product be understood and accepted by more audiences and the artistic value of the product fully realized. If dissemination is ignored, even the best works can only be “hidden in the mountains and unknown to people.”

Noticeably, when literature and culture are exchanged for capital, literature should resist and transcend when taking advantage of capital. The classical Marxist writers’ criticism of and resistance to the “fetishism” of money is a warning for today’s artistic production. A great effect of art lies precisely in its resistance to all kinds of “fetishism” through its own mode of existence. A true artist, even under the conditions of the modern market, has to resist turning himself into a wage laborer for the dominant group. Chinese literary artists should realize their detachment from and confrontation with capital through free and conscious labor. Constructing the land beneath their feet as a locus of resistance to alienated labor, and even, if necessary, choosing to “sacrifice their own survival for the survival of their works,” has made Chinese literature and art a counterweight front to alienated labor.

3 Market Economy and the Development of Literature

In contemporary China, the relationship between literary activities and capital has been staged prominently, and while there have been more opportunities for literary activities, they have also been subject to the tremendous impact of commercialization. It has been difficult or even invalid for the traditional view to explain and adapt to the current situation and development of literature, and thus it is critical to re-examine and redefine its attributes. In China, understanding clearly the impact of the market economy on literature, enhancing the spiritual and cultural construction in the market economy, and promoting the harmonious development of the artistic value of literature and market demand have become urgent issues to be inquired and answered in theory and practice. This directly involves the issue of cultural hegemony in Marxist literary criticism.

3.1 A Re-examination of the Attributes of Literature

The attributes of literature have broadened and evolved over time. It is generally believed that literature is a product of aesthetics, characterized by sensuality, passion, and imagination; it is an art expressed in images. Therefore, aesthetics is the most important attribute of literature. However, aesthetics is not the sole attribute. The aesthetic function of literature has not always existed in the history of literature, as Aristotle considered literature ethical and edifying; the aesthetic function of literature was primarily advocated for by German philosophers and aestheticians. Nowadays, the aesthetic connotation, scope, and function of literature have been quietly changing, and in Jameson’s words, aesthetics has become “garish cultural self-indulgence” (Jameson 1998, p. 86). There is also a process of recognizing the ideological attribute of literature. Although literature as a carrier of ideas and values has been realized for a long time, it was only with the emergence of Marxist literary criticism that the ideological attribute of literature was explicitly put forward. Eagleton stated: “The question of how to describe this relationship within art between ‘base’ and ‘superstructure’, between art as production and art as ideological, seems to me one of the most important questions which Marxist literary criticism has now to confront” (Eagleton 2002, p. 69). These two attributes of literature are now accepted and do not have to be repeated.

Whether literature is a commodity is a question that some people engaged in literary theory and criticism may not want to confront directly or answer squarely. In fact, it is difficult or impossible to completely separate aesthetics from capital in a market economy. The study of the multiple attributes of literature, especially the ones related to its commodification, is not only necessary for explaining contemporary literary and artistic activities, but it also leads to the generation of new understanding about the nature of literature.

3.1.1 The Commodity Attribute of Literature and Art Production

According to Marx’s capital theory, the commodity economy constrains and changes the nature of labor of writers, artists, and all spiritual workers. Their labor is no longer just to meet their own needs. Its fruits contribute to the economic operation mechanism of society, becoming a spiritual production labor “in direct exchange with capital.” Therefore, the greatest difference between the production of literature and art under market economy conditions and the literary and artistic activities in the past lies in its commodity attribute.

In the wake of capitalism, the commodification of literature or the attribute of literature has become inevitable. Although some Modernist works promote artistic autonomy and take a decisive stance to show their rejection of and resistance to commodities, the commodity factor, the “Other” of Modernist literature and art, has become a shadow they cannot get rid of, and the underlying tone of artistic self-discipline is the tense confrontation with any external factors, including capital. Postmodernism is turning back and directly re-connecting with the market, and “aesthetic production today has become integrated into commodity production generally: the frantic economic urgency of producing fresh waves of ever more novel-seeming goods (from clothing to airplanes), at ever greater rates of turnover, now assigns an increasingly essential structural function and position to aesthetic innovation and experimentation” (Jameson, 1991, pp. 3–4). Moreover, Jameson pointed out that, not only “artistic works are becoming commodities, but even theories per se are becoming commodities” (Jameson 1986, p. 148). The New Historicist Hayden White also suggests that aesthetics and economics are now tied together. Literary activities are now inclined to be marketed and industrialized, especially film and television, whose commodity value is increasingly rising. In a market economy, aesthetic activities are mostly backed by capital, and the production of some theories is also controlled by capital; what they do is endorsing and serving capital, thus capital becomes the basis and precondition for the production of aesthetics and even theories.

The lack of understanding of the commodified nature of literary activities in the past has led to bias and errors in creative practice and theoretical criticism. Some writers and artists, to cater to the market, are willing to downgrade, and literary works tend to be vulgar or even nasty. The other extreme is a complete disregard for the laws and role of the market, to persist in one’s own way, or even to go off the beaten track, resulting in the loss of readers and thus the decline of literature. These extremes have not only reversed aesthetic tastes but also caused the resentment and even resistance of consumers, and if these phenomena are not taken seriously, literary criticism will be on the verge of losing its voice in the contemporary literary world. Therefore, understanding and precisely comprehending the commodity attribute of literature is essential in guiding the healthy development of contemporary Chinese literary activities.

Acknowledging the commodity attribute of literature and art is necessary for the construction of Marxist literary criticism theory; it also adds a bit of alarm to writers, artists, and literary critics:

The question is only whether one can remain highly alert to the inducements of the market, and whether one can soberly prevent oneself from straying from the academic track and falling into the trap of the market. (Jia 2006, pp. 5–6).

To propose and analyze the commodity attribute of literature is not to wave the flag to cheer for the commercialization of art. By understanding the commodity attribute of artistic production, we can effectively widen the living space of literary and artistic activities, and be alert to the threat of capital to art, preventing it from killing the nature of art in the process of maximizing profit.

3.1.2 The Organic Unity of Literary Aesthetics, Ideology, and Commodity

In literary works, many attributes of literature are often interlaced, and they are characterized by a type of mutual tension. These attributes do not contradict each other in an ideal literary work. From the perspective of the law of value, the aesthetic and commodity attributes of literature are not incompatible with each other as fire and water. The higher the aesthetic value of a work, the higher its commercial value. Likewise, the commodified nature of a work does not completely exclude its aesthetic nature, as it circulates as a commodity in consumption. Also, the price of a work also reflects its aesthetic value. Additionally, the ideological attribute of literary works has a rectifying effect on the overemphasis of commercial value in China’s cultural industry today. The reason why some excellent works of art have achieved good social and economic benefits is that they carry profound ideas and strong emotions. In this way, the attributes of aesthetics, ideology, and commodity are unified in practice. Theoretically, the equal exchange right of the market can also make literary creation a truly “free spiritual production,” and this organic unity has partly restored the aesthetic nature of literary creation.

In today’s world, literary criticism should pay particular attention to the problem that the commodity attribute of literature and art overwhelms the aesthetic attribute of literature and art, and therefore we should prioritize the aesthetic attribute because aesthetics constitute the unique, irreplaceable feature that distinguishes literature and art from other forms of material production; it is also the prerequisite for maintaining and enhancing the spiritual character of literature and art. The purpose of literary activities is not only to meet people’s material needs but also to meet people’s aesthetic and spiritual needs, especially their sensorial needs. It is clear that literature cannot be fully in accordance with industrialized methods and standards. Through its unique production methods, it gives rise to diversified, personalized, and emotional art products. After all, literary consumption differs from ordinary material consumption, for it is a type of spiritual enjoyment and creation, seeking the spirit of the aesthetic object and aesthetic taste. Therefore, while fully considering the market factors and understanding the market operation mechanism, we should raise the artistic standard and create works with higher aesthetic value, which is the purpose of studying the attributes of literature.

The emphasis on the spiritual nature of literature and art does not oppose people’s exploration and innovation of artistic forms. As a special mode of production, literary activities require maximum use of human ingenuity, along with more innovation and openness. Free and self-conscious creativity is a fundamental characteristic of human beings, and the constant creation of new artistic styles and means of expression provides people with exquisite artistic products. Not only does this make literary works more attractive, but consequently the competitiveness of the market is also objectively increased.

To sum up, literature is a compound of aesthetics, capital, and politics, which is a contemporary expansion of the Chinese form of literary view, and this view will, to a certain extent, lead to the end of the artistic autonomy paradigm. The study of multiple attributes of literature will also add new content to the nature of literature in textbooks of literary theory for college students.

3.2 Market Economy and the Spiritual Quality of Literature

The prosperity of the cultural industry does not equal the prosperity of culture. Maintaining the spiritual character of literary activities in the market economy is both a challenge and an opportunity for contemporary writers and artists. Xi Jinping pointed out in his “Speech at the Symposium on Literary and Artistic Works”:

A good work should be one that can withstand the evaluation of the people, the evaluation of experts, and the test of the market, one that puts social benefits in the first place, and one that unifies social and economic benefits. … Excellent works of literature and art are preferably both thoughtfully and artistically successful, and also popular in the market. It is important to adhere to the aesthetic ideals of literature and art, maintain the independent value of literature and art, and reasonably set quantitative indicators reflecting market acceptance, such as distribution, ratings, click-through rates, box office revenues, etc. We can neither ignore and deny these indicators, nor can we make them absolute and be led by the market (Xi, 2015 pp. 21–21).

This speech clearly and dialectically explains the relationship between literary and artistic creation and capital. Today’s literature and art is supposed to achieve both social and economic benefits; at the same time, they should not be limited by it. Dealing with the relationship between aesthetic value, social benefit, and economic benefit, and promoting the harmonization of the artistic value of literature and market demand are issues that require both theoretical argument and further exploration in practice.

3.2.1 Adherence to the Spiritual Character of Literature in the Market Economy

Considering the particularity of spiritual production, even in a market economy, literary works should still insist on the characteristics of spiritual products, which are determined by the basic nature of literature. We should attach importance to the market, but we cannot degenerate into a slave to the market. Improving the spiritual character of literary products and enriching people’s spiritual life are crucial responsibilities of contemporary literary activities.

Despite the emergence of influential, high-quality works in the Chinese literary world, it is an undisputed fact that the spiritual dimension of literary activities has weakened, and there are not enough works with profound insight and reflections. Even for some works with huge investment, behind the magnificent and splendid scenes, the content is disproportionately pale and empty, giving audiences a sense of wonder and shock but leaving little to aftertaste and ponder. There is even less attention paid to human existence, especially to the living conditions of ordinary people, and some works even use gags to mock the underclass. This needs serious self-reflection.

A true artist should hold on to his social responsibility and transcend the limits of money to pursue his or her ideals and give people spiritual solace and inspiration. Despite his money troubles, Balzac displayed perseverance in his writing, saying: “In all professions, the artist has an insurmountable pride, an artistic feeling, an indelible human conscience about things. You cannot corrupt this conscience, nor can you ever buy it” (Balzac 1958, p. 157). Moreover, as special forms of production, literature and art, with their innate quest for freedom and urge for pleasure, constitute a negative force that drives them to resist and even transcend capital. People need ideals, and so does society. A Chinese scholar Jiang Yin once stated, “Even if literature dies, I will be the last graveyard keeper of literature. When death comes knocking at the tomb door, I will answer, ‘I am here.’” This is a quite touching and solemn statement expressing the precious perseverance as mentioned above. In literature, writers can incorporate their singular experiences and ideas into the creation of literature, give people faith and hope while touching their hearts or bringing them pleasure, and realize their own salvation through a certain kind of transcendence of reality. Although many factors are involved in the creation of great art, its kernel lies in the ideas contained in it, as well as in the reflection on and answers to the grand philosophical and existential questions raised by each era.

The creation of excellent works is the key to maintaining the spiritual character of literature and art in a market economy. Longinus expounded five major sources of sublime style in his work On the Sublime:

The first and most powerful is the power of grand conceptions…and the second is the inspiration of vehement emotion…But the other three come partly from art, namely the proper construction of figures—these being of course of two kinds, figures of thought and figures of speech—and, over and above these, nobility of language, which again may be resolved into choice of words and the use of metaphor and elaborated diction. The fifth cause of grandeur, which gives form to all those already mentioned, is dignified and elevated word-arrangement” (Longinus 1995, p. 181).

The aesthetic character of literary creation requires and deserves these elements. In addition to “the power of grand conceptions,” the author should also generate mysterious thoughts, incorporate one’s own unique existential experience of life and ideas into the process of creating literature, express one’s understanding of society and one’s emotions in a profound and graceful way, and display the inner vitality and strength of character of his works, so that people can contemplate and experience faith and hope while being moved or delighted.

3.2.2 Market Economy and the New Masses

With the change in art mechanism and communication media, literary activities are no longer the domain of an elite few but incorporating hundreds of millions of ordinary consumers. Therefore, the issues of popularization and raising standards raised at Mao’s “Talks at the Yan’an conference on literature and art” is not obsolete today. What kind of masses does literature need? This is a critical question which needs to be examined minutely. According to Marx’s proposition that “Production is directly also consumption”, literature and art are charged with the task of shaping and elevating consumer subjects through their products, and they should “create a public that has artistic taste and is capable of enjoying beauty” (Marx 1989a, p. 30).

It is undoubtedly true that the purpose of literature is not to cultivate standardized and stereotyped masses. What is equally true is that literature does not need fanatical and blind masses. In The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility, Benjamin mentions two tendencies of such blind masses: first, a fascist tendency, in which film capital “uses the revolutionary opportunities implied by this control for counterrevolutionary purposes” (Benjamin 2008, p. 33). That is, to stimulate blindness and hostility in the masses through fanaticism and violence; second, the tendency to lose oneself in the chase of celebrities and stars, to eliminate the class consciousness of the masses through the worship of so-called idols, and to cause degradation of the masses. The two hints to the public show the profundity and pertinence of Benjamin’s argument, and also calls for people to rethink about fan culture and fan economy. Literature should cultivate the masses who can understand, appreciate, and create beauty through the creation of exquisite works of art; it should allow the masses to develop certain capability of criticism and reflection through the exposure to art, so that they can acquire spiritual freedom and independent personality.

The quality of literary works is not just the root for maintaining their aesthetic spirit; it is also the guarantee for improving the cultural literacy of the public. For consumers, the true enjoyment of culture comes from reading works with intellectual and aesthetic connotations and deep thoughts. As such, writers and artists should go beyond capital while being constrained and dominated by it, and guide the nation’s healthy cultural consumption through their excellent works, and satisfy the growing spiritual needs of consumers as well as enhance people’s aesthetic ability and cultural literacy by creating greater works—in quality and quantity. In fact, many consumers are willing to spend more money to enjoy good works, as evidenced by the reprinting of classical works and the difficulty in obtaining tickets for high-class concerts. As the level of artistic cultivation of the consumer public increases, the market demand for creative and personalized spiritual products will also increase.

3.2.3 Coordinated Development Between Market and the Laws of Art

The contradictory movement of artistic production and consumption in a particular era is precisely the inner impetus for literary transformation. The process of resolving the above-mentioned contradictions is not only the process of promoting the development of literature but also the process of generating new theories. How can the coordinated development of the artistic value of literature and market demand in a market economy be promoted? The study of this issue can help strengthen the interpreting capability of the Chinese form in the contemporary literary world.

It is indeed no easy feat to balance the laws of art and that of the market, but it is not completely impossible. Contemporary literary production practices have produced a number of excellent film and television works that have both high artistic value and good market response. Artists have succeeded in presenting works with aesthetic implications to readers and audiences in a form that is quite agreeable to consumers. These works demonstrate the compatibility of the laws of art and that of the market, showing that good works of art can both enhance people’s aesthetic sensibilities and generate good economic benefits.

The exploration of the charm of cultural classics is another significant measure to explore the integration of the laws of art and the laws of the market. Despite the large amount of contemporary literary works, the classics still take up half of the contemporary mass media context and have lucrative economic benefits. These classics, with their long-lasting artistic appeal and global influence, are still an important food for thoughts or source of spiritual nourishment for people, and furthermore, cultural classics are the origins of contemporary literary activities, with some excellent writings and film adaptations deriving from them. The unity of cultural classics and popular culture revitalizes the classics and enhances the spiritual character of literature.

Fully recognizing the constraints of art consumption on literature and the effective role of the market in the production and dissemination of literature are another measure to achieve coordination between the laws of art and the ones of the market. In contemporary Chinese literary activities, the consumption process has increasingly exerted its potential dominant and manipulative power. Valuing the function of art consumption, participating in the operation of the cultural market, and the planning of art products with a proactive attitude and fresh concepts are becoming the necessary paths for contemporary literary activities. Notably, some excellent works have been well received in the market because their marketing teams have a clear market positioning and pragmatic marketing strategies, and they have an accurate grasp of the survival mentality and appreciation interests of readers or audiences in transformation. Paying attention to market forecasts and market-led consumer demand, and striving to win a wider audience, has become the condition for literature and art to flourish in the market economy.

3.3 Artistic Production in the Future

Today’s literary activity has become artistic production in Marx’s sense. The scale and position of artistic production have changed considerably compared with those of Marx’s time. We attempt to divide the transformation of artistic production into three stages: The artistic production of Marx’s time belongs to the first stage. Based on the theory of the law of surplus value, Marx defined artistic production as mental labor in exchange for capital in the middle of the nineteenth century. At that time, artistic production was subordinate to the bourgeois mode of production, and the value added to capital depended mainly on industrial production. The second stage, from the mid-twentieth century onward, witnessed considerable changes in the entire production process and mode of operation of artistic production—especially the emergence of artistic production represented by the cultural industries, with their standardized and industrialized production methods and the ideology they represent. Despite the fierce criticism of Western Marxism against cultural industry, especially the Frankfurt School, artistic production has marched to the historical forefront, becoming the mainstay of popular cultural life and one of the pillars of contemporary socio-economic development as the fastest-growing industry in terms of wealth. Art production will usher in a new stage onward. With standardized production model gradually being abandoned, art production in the future will be characterized by personalization, and diversification will become the new growth point of the market.

3.3.1 Personalization and Artistic Production

With continuous improvement in the level of artistic cultivation of consumers, the market demand for original, creative, and personalized spiritual products continues to increase; today’s artistic production is facing the “new masses,” or “numerous minorities.” These groups have various aesthetic pursuits, and considering the purpose of artistic production and the relationship between artistic production and the market, art producers must reinforce their observation of market patterns and their research of cultural fashions, and strive to provide rich, diverse, and personalized products that meet the spiritual needs of people at different levels. It can be said that precise positioning of artistic production is a rite of passage for its development.

In the case of contemporary China with a vast area and unbalanced economic development, the demand for art products is plural and distinct for people of different social status, aesthetic concepts, and artistic tastes. In fact, art production is already experimenting with peer-to-peer service. In 1979, Deng Xiaoping advocated in his “Speech Greeting the Fourth Congress of Chinese Writers and Artists” that

All creative works—whether epic or cameo, serious or humorous, lyrical or philosophical—should have their place in our garden of literature and art, so long as they help to educate and enlighten the people while providing them with entertainment and aesthetic pleasure. The deeds of heroes, the labour, struggles, joys and sorrows, partings and reunions of ordinary people, and the life of our contemporaries and of our predecessors—all these should be depicted in our works of literature and art. (Deng 1984, p. 203)

This passage highlights the way to the prosperity of culture and the individualization of artistic production. Spiritual products are the richest commodities in the world, and breaking the shackles of standardization and mass production while developing individualized artistic production is the norm for future societies.

3.3.2 Comprehensiveness and Artistic Production

Unlike traditional art creation, artistic production is a comprehensive production activity. In terms of production itself, although artistic production retains some of the characteristics of individual production, team collaboration has become a major trend with the operation of best-selling books, the planning and broadcasting of films and dramas, and especially creative industry companies. In the Internet era, information technology-based artistic production has a profound impact on art creation and reception. This greatly promotes the dissemination and popularization of art. As art and the Internet go hand in hand, art creation increasingly becomes a way of life for the masses, and the identities of producer and consumer begin to blur and overlap; each individual’s production has become a production of a certain social nature—“His manifestations of life—even if they may not appear in the direct form of communal manifestations of life carried out in association with others—are therefore an expression and confirmation of social life” (Marx 1975b, p. 299). It is no longer possible for an isolated individual to complete the entire process of artistic production.

In the case of literary criticism, when artistic production becomes an important mode of production, its operation mechanism will not only be reflected in the industrial chain formed by distribution and flow but will also enter a broader and comprehensive study. Art and culture, art and technology, and art and trade will enter the research vision of artistic production. The sound development of artistic production will be constrained or promoted to some extent by the way these relationships are handled.

3.3.3 Public Interest and Artistic Production

In today’s society, the types of capital and the scope of profitability have expanded greatly, and cultural capital, as a new type of capital, has become the market favorite. For literature and art to prosper, it is necessary to make good use of the market mechanism to enhance the vitality of artistic production while avoiding the blindness and chaos of the market; innovation, especially of institutions and mechanisms, is requisite to cultivate a sound and mature cultural market so that while artistic production is constrained by the market, it can still transcend it. In this process, the public interest aspect of artistic production is put on the agenda. Some elegant or serious artistic products that are “too refined to be popular” need to be supported by public finance. The policy-making authorities should encourage and fund serious and creative artistic production activities, giving courage, confidence, and opportunities to the creators, especially for some masterpieces that require sufficient patience and the artists’ long-term dedication and commitment. Additionally, the state and related institutions should also provide financial support to non-profit cultural sectors such as museums and libraries to improve the cultural literacy of audiences through the popularization of public cultural facilities. Accordingly, the Chinese form should actively participate in artistic production activities, use a new aesthetic concept to reckon with the nature and development of artistic production in the market economy, promote a virtuous cycle of artistic production and consumption, and use the “power of criticism” to influence and guide people’s judgment of literary and artistic phenomena.

The rapid growth of high technology and the popularity of the Internet have offered a broad platform and space for people to freely develop their talents and interests. If the production of art in the capitalist mode of production is at the expense of human alienation, the ideal artistic production would aim at the complete emancipation of human beings, so that artistic ability becomes one of the multifaceted abilities of individuals. It is conceivable that when the division of labor ceases to be compulsory, and when more and more people can enjoy the full display of their talents in the field of art, the capitalistic attributes of literature will gradually fade away; this will be linked to the complete emancipation of human beings, as envisaged by Marx, which is precisely the goal and the intended development direction of contemporary literary activities.