Western Left-Wing Re-examination of Media Imperialism Theory in the Digital Age

Entering the second decade of the 21st century, a body of literature has emerged in which Western left-wing scholars re-examine media imperialism theory. These scholars focus on the new changes in the capitalist world brought about by technological innovation in media, concentrating on research topics and categories including media monopoly, digital labor, and a new media order, while also exploring the new academic growth points these topics and categories present in the context of the digital age. In a context where the critique of digital labor has become a trend in social science criticism, Western left-wing scholars take digital labor as the focal point of their critique of media imperialism, thereby filling the gap in the critique of labor within the political economy of communication, and analyzing the role of digital labor in imperialism in the era of digital capitalism. Furthermore, Western left-wing scholars adhere to the original mission of media imperialism in establishing a new international information order, and in the digital age they have formulated conceptions of a new order in the media sphere. Sorting through the new research by Western left-wing scholars on media imperialism based on digital labor in the era of digital capitalism, and assessing their new conceptions for the future development of the media sphere, not only helps to clarify academic doubts about imperialism theory and thereby expose new forms of imperialist digital hegemony, but also helps to provide Chinese academia with a theoretical reference that is closer to the current situation for understanding and responding to the new changes in contemporary media imperialism.

进入21世纪的第二个10年，涌现了许多西方左翼学者重新审视媒介帝国主义理论的文献。西方左翼学者关注媒介技术革新引发的资本主义世界的新变化，聚焦包括媒介垄断、数字劳动、媒介新秩序等在内的研究议题与研究范畴，同时注重挖掘这些议题和范畴在数字时代语境下呈现出的新的学术生长点。在数字劳动批判成为社会科学批判潮流的语境下，西方左翼学者将数字劳动作为媒介帝国主义批判的着力点，从而弥补了传播政治经济学领域对劳动的批判空缺，分析了数字资本主义时代数字劳动在帝国主义中的作用。此外，西方左翼学者坚持媒介帝国主义对建立国际信息新秩序的最初使命，在数字时代作出了对媒介领域新秩序的构想。梳理西方左翼学者在数字资本主义时代基于数字劳动对媒介帝国主义的新研究，研判西方左翼学者对未来媒介领域发展的新构想，不仅有助于澄清学术界对帝国主义理论的质疑，进而揭露帝国主义的数字霸权新形式，而且也有助于为我国学术界认识和应对当代媒介帝国主义的新变化提供更加贴近现状的理论借鉴。

I. Western Left-Wing Scholars’ Defense and Reflection on Media Imperialism Theory

一、西方左翼学者对媒介帝国主义理论的捍卫与反思

Media imperialism theory dominated international communication thought in the 1970s and early 1980s, serving as a theory for studying the expansion of capitalism and the cultural dominance relations between developed and underdeveloped countries. By the 1980s and 1990s, the challenges posed to Marxist theory by the upheavals in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe weakened imperialism research in the field of communication. At the same time, with the development of economic globalization, terms such as “globalization,” “reverse flow,” “interconnectivity,” and “hybridity” challenged the concept of imperialism, becoming new slogans for international relations in the media and communication field. However, entering the 21st century, especially after the 2008 financial crisis triggered a depression in the capitalist world economy, Western left-wing scholars sparked a wave of reflection on the inherent defects of the capitalist system itself from a Marxist paradigm. Furthermore, the development of social media in the digital age has promoted the diversified development of information exchange, and the contradictions between developed capitalist countries and developing countries in the media sphere have gradually escalated. Western left-wing scholars argue that the internet has not changed the imperialist practices of information hegemony and cultural invasion by developed capitalist countries. At the same time, developed capitalist countries control the dominant power of the attention economy in the internet age, keeping the economic development of developing countries in a state of containment and bringing various problems such as new cultural identity and cultural conflicts to developing countries. Therefore, Western left-wing scholars have sorted through the evolutionary logic and practical pathways of media imperialism, summarized experiences and reflected on shortcomings, and defended and revised media imperialism theory.

媒介帝国主义理论主导了20世纪70年代和80年代初期的国际传播思想，是研究资本主义的扩张及发达国家与欠发达国家之间的文化统治关系的理论。到了20世纪80年代和90年代，苏东剧变给马克思主义理论带来的诘难削弱了传播界的帝国主义研究。同时，随着经济全球化的发展，“全球化”与“逆向流动”“互联性”“杂交性”等其他相关术语挑战了帝国主义的概念，成为媒介和传播领域的国际关系的新口号。然而，进入21世纪，尤其是在2008年金融危机引发了资本主义世界经济的萧条之后，西方左翼学者掀起了从马克思主义范式反思资本主义制度自身所固有的缺陷的热潮。此外，数字时代社交媒体的发展促使信息交流多元发展，发达资本主义国家与发展中国家在媒介领域的矛盾也逐步升级。西方左翼学者认为，互联网并没有改变发达资本主义国家信息霸权和文化入侵的帝国主义行径。同时，发达资本主义国家掌控着互联网时代的注意力经济主导权，使发展中国家的经济发展仍然处于被遏制的状态，给发展中国家带来了新的文化认同和文化冲突等种种问题。因此，西方左翼学者梳理了媒介帝国主义的演进逻辑和现实路径，总结经验反思不足，对媒介帝国主义理论进行了捍卫与修订。

(A) Responding to Academic Doubts, Defending the Analytical Framework of Media Imperialism Theory

（一）回应学术界质疑，捍卫媒介帝国主义理论分析框架

Western left-wing scholars have responded to the view that the development of internet platforms in developing countries, which has diversified information exchange, renders the analytical framework of media imperialism invalid. Traditional media imperialism theory holds that global information inequality manifests as information flowing mainly from developed countries to developing countries, and that imported cultural products exert ideological influence on developing countries. In the era of digital capitalism, the development of social media has promoted the diversification of information exchange. Some critics of media imperialism theory therefore argue that the traditional analytical framework of media imperialism is outdated. For example, Munawar Sabir argues that the development of the internet and social media has neutralized media imperialism, enabling internet users in developing countries to better accept and maintain multiculturalism rather than absorbing and promoting Western culture. In *Media Imperialism and Developing Countries*, he points out: “Due to the influence of the internet or social media, the barriers of time and distance have been eliminated, and people continue to participate in their ‘local’ culture. Therefore, the internet or social media can become a tool for preserving and praising domestic culture, because the receiver or viewer of information on social media is not a passive listener. Therefore, the desired or designed information cannot be imposed on him.”

西方左翼学者回应了认为发展中国家互联网平台的发展带来的信息交流多元使媒介帝国主义分析框架失效的观点。传统的媒介帝国主义理论认为，信息全球不平等表现为信息主要从发达国家流向发展中国家，且进口文化产品对发展中国家施加了意识形态影响。而在数字资本主义时代，社交媒体的发展促使信息交流多元化。一些媒介帝国主义理论的批判者便认为，传统的媒介帝国主义分析框架过时了。例如，穆纳瓦尔•萨比尔（Munawar Sabir）认为，互联网和社交媒体的发展已经中和了媒介帝国主义，使发展中国家的互联网用户能够更好地接受和维持多元文化而不是吸收和推广西方文化。他在《媒介帝国主义和发展中国家》中指出：“由于互联网或社交媒体的影响，时间和距离的障碍已经消除，人们继续参与他们的‘本地’文化。因此，互联网或社交媒体可以成为保存和赞扬国内文化的工具，因为社交媒体上信息的接收者或观看者不是被动的倾听者。因此，所期望的或设计的信息不能强加给他。”

Western left-wing scholars have defended the analytical framework of media imperialism theory and refuted this view. Peter Sekloca, in “Center and Periphery: Productive Forces and the Global Network Public Sphere,” points out that internet platforms are not an equal medium of communication; in the era of digital capitalism, “platforms, by virtue of their monopoly position, can shape global communication more than ever before.” Sekloca argues that although the internet provides reversibility for users in developing countries, this reversibility does not necessarily imply reciprocity. He analyzes the infrastructure development of internet platforms in developing countries and further points out, “In developing countries, infrastructure in the form of fixed broadband connections is mainly established for commercial purposes, while mobile broadband connections via cellular phones are already available to end consumers. Globally, capital still has a large space for colonization.” This view indicates that the essence of internet platform development in developing countries is to provide conditions for capitalism to pursue profit. Therefore, the development of internet platforms has not solved the problem of media imperialism, and the analytical framework of media imperialism theory remains valid.

西方左翼学者捍卫了媒介帝国主义理论的分析框架，对这种观点进行了驳斥。彼得•塞克洛查（Peter Sekloca）在《中心与外围：生产力与全球网络公共领域》中指出，互联网平台并不是一个平等的交流媒介，在数字资本主义时代，“平台凭借其垄断地位，比以往任何时候都更能塑造全球交流。”塞克洛查认为，虽然互联网为发展中国家的用户提供了可逆性，但这种可逆性不一定意味着互惠。他分析了发展中国家互联网平台的基础设施发展，并进一步指出，“在发展中国家，以固定宽带连接形式存在的基础设施主要是为商业目的而建立的，而蜂窝电话的移动宽带连接已经可供最终消费者使用。在全球范围内，资本仍有很大的殖民空间。”这一观点表明，互联网平台在发展中国家发展的实质是为资本主义逐利提供条件。因此，互联网平台的发展并未解决媒介帝国主义的问题，媒介帝国主义理论的分析框架依然有效。

(B) Reflecting on Their Own Problems, Discussing the Scope of Media Imperialism Theory Research

（二）反思自身问题，讨论媒介帝国主义理论研究范围

Some Western left-wing scholars have reviewed the historical circumstances of media imperialism, pointing out that in the past 20 years, much work on international communication has been dominated by intellectual currents that tend to downplay the role of the state. Colin Sparks argues that, given the increase in private economic activity brought about by economic globalization, the role of the state in international communication has been underestimated, “to the extent that the state is considered an important factor in cultural exchange, it is recognized through the lens of ‘soft power’ rather than ‘imperialism’.” In the cultural and media sphere, “globalization,” along with other related terms such as “reverse flow,” “interconnectivity,” and “hybridity,” has become a new slogan for international relations in the media and communication field. “We can note a central element common to many variants: it systematically marginalizes the role of the state.” In response, Sparks analyzes the reasons for this change from the perspective of media imperialism theory itself, arguing that “the most important internal problem of the imperialist paradigm is the passive situation it creates by focusing on the international level. The most original formulation of the paradigm explicitly recognized internal differentiation, that is, the struggle between classes within the state… (now) the important understanding of internalization is completely abandoned, or its importance is reduced.”

一些西方左翼学者回顾了媒介帝国主义的历史境遇，指出在过去的20年里，许多关于国际传播的工作都被倾向于贬低国家的作用的思想潮流所主导。科林•斯巴克斯（Colin Sparks）认为，鉴于经济全球化带来的私人经济活动的增多，国家在国际交流中的作用被轻视，“就国家被认为是文化交流中的一个重要因素而言，它是通过‘软实力’而不是‘帝国主义’的视角被承认的。”在文化和媒介领域，“全球化”与“逆向流动”“互联性”“杂交性”等其他相关术语一起成为了媒介和传播领域的国际关系的新口号。“我们可以注意到许多变体共有的一个中心要素：它系统地边缘化了国家的作用。”对此，斯巴克斯从媒介帝国主义理论本身出发分析了发生这一变化的原因，认为“帝国主义范式最主要的内在问题是由于它把重点放在国际层面上而给该范式带来被动局面。该范式最原始的构成中明确承认内部的分化，即国家内部阶级之间的斗争……（而现在）完全抛弃对内部化的重要认识，或者说将其重要性降低了”。

However, Kaarle Nordenstreng, in his article "The New World Order and How Imperialism Challenges Communication Studies," criticizes Sparks’s view. Nordenstreng argues that Sparks confines media imperialism to state action, "overlooking the foundation driving the forefront of imperialist theory, namely the universalization of capitalist demands through the combined action of both state and capital." Scholars such as Marko Ampuja also contend: "We find Sparks’s recent defensive analysis of media imperialism too limited." They seek to avoid a narrow understanding of media imperialism, believing that "a more comprehensive theory of imperialism and media imperialism must consider the dialectical and often tense coexistence of capitalist (economic) imperialism and territorial (geopolitical) imperialism." That is, imperialism includes not only competition among states but also competition among capitals and capitalists. Alex Callinicos shares this view: "From a Marxist perspective, imperialism is the result of the fusion of two forms of competition—economic struggle between capitals and geopolitical competition between states."

然而，卡勒•诺登川（Kaarle Nordenstreng）在《世界新秩序与帝国主义如何挑战传媒学》一文中对斯巴克斯这一说法进行了批判。诺登川认为，斯巴克斯把媒介帝国主义限定于国家的行动，“忽视了帝国主义理论在最前沿推动的基础，即通过国家和资本的两种行动的共同作用，使资本主义的要求普遍化。”马尔科•安普贾（Marko Ampuja）等学者也认为：“我们发现斯巴克斯最近对媒介帝国主义的辩护分析过于局限。”他们希望避免对媒介帝国主义的狭隘理解，认为“一个更全面的帝国主义和媒介帝国主义的理论必须考虑到资本主义（经济）帝国主义和领土（地缘政治）帝国主义的辩证和经常充满张力的共存”。也就是说，帝国主义不仅包括国家之间的竞争，还包括资本及资本家之间的竞争。亚历克斯•卡利尼科斯（Alex Callinicos）对之也有同样的看法，“从马克思主义的角度来看，帝国主义就是两种形式的竞争——资本之间的经济斗争和国家之间的地缘政治竞争——融合的结果。”

Some Western left-wing scholars propose that media imperialism also occurs within states. Munawar Sabir argues: "Media imperialism does not always occur at the international or global level. If a media group or organization dominates within a country, this is also a form of media imperialism." Moreover, Sabir believes that domestic media also create imperialism: "Even within the same country, a few media organizations or specific local television centers control the quantity, quality, content, and flow of news and other programs. Before addressing global imperialism, communication imperialism within states should be resolved and dealt with."

一些西方左翼学者提出，媒介帝国主义还在国家内部发生。穆纳瓦尔•萨比尔（Munawar Sabir）认为：“媒介帝国主义并不总是在国际或全球范围内发生的。如果一个媒体集团或组织在一个国家占主导地位，这也是媒介帝国主义的一种形式。”不仅如此，萨比尔认为，国家内部的媒体也创造了帝国主义：“即使在同一国家，也有少数媒体组织或特定的本地电视中心控制新闻和其他节目的数量、质量、内容和流量。在解决全球帝国主义之前，应该解决和处理国家内部的传播帝国主义。”

Other Western left-wing scholars argue that contemporary media imperialism should be studied from multiple angles and comprehensively. Oliver Boyd-Barrett and Tanner Mirrlees point out: "Research on 21st-century media imperialism should be a comprehensive study of ‘media’ against the backdrop of old imperialism, new imperialism, and emerging imperialism." They believe that the focus of studying media imperialism may include media financing, media ownership and intellectual property control, media enterprise business models, and the organization and management of specific internationalized media products, including cross-border media production, distribution, and exhibition. Western left-wing scholars note that it is worth paying attention to: "Research on media imperialism should increasingly focus on the intersection of media corporate economics and state geopolitics, as well as the global coordination and conflict of propaganda campaigns and information operations."

还有一些西方左翼学者认为，要从多角度全方位去研究当代的媒介帝国主义。奥利弗•博伊德•巴雷特（Oliver Boyd-Barrett）、坦纳•米尔雷斯（Tanner Mirrlees）指出：“对21世纪传媒帝国主义的研究，应该是在旧帝国主义、新帝国主义和新兴帝国主义的背景下，对‘媒介’的全方位研究。”他们认为，研究媒介帝国主义的重点可能包括媒体融资、媒体所有权和知识产权控制，媒体企业商业模式，以及包括跨境媒体制作、发行和展示在内的特定国际化媒体产品的组织和管理。西方左翼学者指出，值得注意的是，“对传媒帝国主义的研究应该越来越关注传媒公司经济学与国家地缘政治学的交融，以及宣传运动和信息运作的全球协调与冲突。”

The expansion and supplementation of the scope of media imperialism research by Western left-wing scholars represent a positive effort to adapt media imperialism theory to the development of the contemporary era.

西方左翼学者对媒介帝国主义研究范围的扩大和补充，是为媒介帝国主义理论适应当代时代发展作出的积极努力。

(3) Exploring the Role of Media in the Historical Development Stages of Capitalism Based on Classical Marxist Theory

（三）依据马克思主义经典理论，探讨媒介在资本主义历史发展阶段中的作用

Western left-wing scholars have explored whether the current stage of world historical development can be called media imperialism, or whether media plays a primary role in the new imperialism of the present stage.

西方左翼学者探讨了当前的世界历史发展阶段是否可以被称为媒介帝国主义，或者说媒介是否在现阶段的新帝国主义中起到了主要的作用。

Western left-wing scholars represented by Sparks believe that the role of media in imperialism is not decisive. In *Globalization, Social Development, and the Mass Media*, Sparks states: "If we accept the traditional Marxist definition of imperialism as a policy of conquest through finance capital, then how can we talk about cultural and media imperialism?" In his view, the core of imperialism is the coercive use of economic, political, and military forces to compel the people of one country to accept the will of another. The meaning of media imperialism, however, is quite different. The definition of media imperialism has been unclear from the past to the present, and many scholars have adopted mutually contradictory interpretations. Therefore, he believes it is necessary to avoid using the concept of media imperialism. "It is difficult to imagine any example where a country’s domination over another is implemented solely by cultural or media institutions. Therefore, it is best to avoid using concepts like cultural or media imperialism, as they can lead people to overlook the substance of the issues under discussion."

以斯巴克斯为代表的西方左翼学者认为，媒介在帝国主义中的作用不是决定性的。在《全球化、社会发展与大众媒体》中，斯巴克斯指出，“如果我们接受传统的马克思主义者对于帝国主义就是通过金融资本进行征服的政策的定义，那又怎么可能谈到文化和媒介帝国主义?”在他看来，帝国主义的核心是强迫性地使用经济、政治和军事力量使一个国家的民众被迫接受另一个国家的意愿。而媒介帝国主义的意义却不太一样。媒介帝国主义的定义从过去到现在都是不明确的，而且不少学者采纳了相互矛盾的解释。因此，他认为需要避免使用媒介帝国主义的概念。“很难想象任何一个用文化或媒体机构单独地实施一个国家对另一个国家统治的例子。因此最好避免使用像文化或媒介帝国主义这样的概念，因为它会使人们忽视那些正在探讨的问题的实质。”

Western left-wing scholars represented by Christian Fuchs argue that although the role of media in imperialism is not dominant, we can still discuss the imperialist nature of media within imperialism. In his 2010 article "Is the New Imperialism an Information-Media Imperialism?", Fuchs, based on Lenin’s summary of the five features of imperialism, [1]1 Lenin’s five features of imperialism: (1) concentration of production and capital leading to monopolies; (2) fusion of bank capital with industrial capital, forming finance capital and a financial oligarchy; (3) export of capital, as distinct from export of commodities; (4) formation of international monopolist capitalist associations sharing the world; (5) territorial division of the world among the great capitalist powers is completed. examines the role of media in imperialism under globalization point by point. First, the financial industry remains the most concentrated sector, while the information industry is only one of the most concentrated economic sectors; second, information companies hold an important position in the global capitalist economy, but their importance is far less than that of the financial industry and the oil and gas industry; third, although financialization, hyper-industrialization through continued reliance on fossil fuels and automobiles, and informatization are the three major economic trends of the new imperialism, the dominant sector for capital export is the financial industry, not the information industry; fourth, Western companies dominate industries encompassing the production and dissemination of information products and services; fifth, information warfare is an important feature of new imperialist warfare. However, the primary nature of war is not and has never been informational, but rather aimed at annihilating and defeating the enemy. Through this comparative study of the five aspects, Fuchs concludes that we cannot assert that the new imperialism is media imperialism or information imperialism, as this would necessarily mean that media and information are the most important features of today’s capital concentration, capital export, world trade, and warfare. Although media and information indeed play an important role in the new imperialism, they do not play a dominant role. Therefore, he argues that media and information possess imperialist characteristics such as centralization and transnationalization, which allows us to discuss the imperialist nature of media and information within the new imperialism.

以克里斯蒂安•福克斯（Christian Fuchs）为代表的西方左翼学者认为，虽然媒介在帝国主义中的作用不是主导性的，但我们依然可以在帝国主义内部讨论媒介的帝国主义性质。福克斯在2010年发表的《新帝国主义是信息媒介帝国主义吗?》一文中，依据列宁对帝国主义五个特征的概括，逐一探究了媒介在全球化背景下的帝国主义中的作用。其一，金融业仍是最集中的部门，而信息产业只是最集中的经济部门之一；其二，信息公司在全球资本主义经济中占有重要地位，但其重要性远不及金融业和油气工业；其三，尽管金融化、通过持续依赖化石燃料和汽车的超工业化和信息化是新帝国主义的三大经济趋势，但资本输出的主导部门是金融业而不是信息业；其四，西方公司主导了涵盖信息产品和服务的生产和传播的行业；其五，信息战是新帝国主义战争的一个重要特征。然而，战争的主要性质不是也从来不是信息性的，而是旨在消灭和战胜敌人。通过这五个方面的对比研究，福克斯认为，我们不能断定新帝国主义是媒介帝国主义或信息帝国主义，因为这必然意味着媒体和信息是当今资本集中、资本输出、世界贸易和战争的最重要特征。尽管媒体和信息在新帝国主义中确实发挥了重要作用，但不起主导性作用。因此，他认为，媒体和信息具有集中化、跨国化等帝国主义性质，这使我们可以在新帝国主义内部谈论媒体和信息的帝国主义性质。

II. Western Left-Wing Scholars’ Supplementation of Labor Theory in Media Imperialism Research

二、西方左翼学者对媒介帝国主义劳动理论研究的补白

In traditional media studies, research on labor by Western left-wing scholars was a blank space. Vincent Mosco, in his 2011 article "Communication and Cultural Labor," pointed out: "Labor remains a blind spot in communication and cultural studies." [2]2 Mosco, Vincent. "Communication and Cultural Labor." 2011. In response, Fuchs, in his 2014 article "Karl Marx and Media and Cultural Studies Today," stated: "A particular problem in contemporary media and communication studies is… the neglect of the labor aspect. However, in recent years, this situation has improved, and communication labor has become the subject of a large amount of critical research. To overcome the labor blind spot in media and communication studies, many scholars have undertaken important work around this theme, including publishing monographs, organizing conferences, and participating in conferences." Among them, researchers of media imperialism theory have not been absent from the study of labor. Western left-wing scholars argue that entering the digital age, "there has been a significant increase in research on labor issues in media and journalism, the commodification of privacy and mass surveillance, and the unpaid labor provided by audiences to companies on digital platforms." Western scholars have analyzed imperialism in the international division of labor, focusing on the critique of unpaid digital labor, attempting to critique it using the Marxist labor theory of value.

在传统的媒介研究中，西方左翼学者对劳动的研究是一片空白。文森特•莫斯科（Vincent Mosco）2011年在《交流和文化劳工》一文中指出，“劳动仍然是传播和文化研究的盲点。”10对此，福克斯在2014年发表的《卡尔•马克思和今天的媒体与文化研究》一文中作出了回应：“当代媒体和传播学研究的一个特殊问题是……对劳动方面的忽视。然而，近年来，这种情况有所改善，通信劳动已成为大量批判性研究的主题。为了克服媒介传播学研究的劳动盲点，许多学者围绕这个主题展开了包括出版专著、组织、参加会议等重要的工作。”其中，不乏媒介帝国主义理论的研究者对劳动的研究。西方左翼学者认为，进入数字时代，“针对媒体和新闻业的劳动力问题，隐私和大规模监视的商品化以及受众在数字平台上为公司提供的无酬劳动的研究有了显著增长。”西方学者分析了国际劳动分工中的帝国主义，并聚焦于对无报酬的数字劳动的批判上，试图用马克思主义劳动价值对之批判。

(1) The International Division of Labor in the Media Field in the Digital Age

（一）数字时代媒介领域的国际劳动分工

Western left-wing scholars have explored the forms of labor contained in the international division of labor in the media and information sphere under the conditions of the new information society. In his 2014 work *Karl Marx and Media and Cultural Studies Today*, Fuchs analyzed the forms of labor in the media sphere in the digital age, arguing that some laborers are still engaged in the physical labor of the early stages of industrial capitalism: “They are manufacturing and assembly workers who risk their health and lives at work… accepting highly controlled, supervised, and standardized workplaces.” At the same time, new types of laborers have also emerged, “whose main activities are talking, persuading with emotion, typing, using telephone systems, and accessing databases.” Furthermore, “the international digital division of labor also involves a relatively new form of paid labor, namely high-paid, high-pressure technical work.” In his 2016 article “Digital Labor and Imperialism” published in *Monthly Review*, Fuchs argued that “digital labor, as the latest field of capitalist innovation and exploitation, is crucial to the structure of contemporary imperialism.” Fuchs further illustrated this with examples, including miners extracting minerals in the Congo for use in electronic components, workers in Foxconn factories, low-paid software engineers in India, high-paid, high-pressure software engineers at Western companies like Google, precarious digital freelancers in the cultural sphere, and workers dismantling electronic waste exposed to toxic substances. “Today, most of these digital relations of production consist of wage labor, slave labor, unpaid labor, precarious labor, and freelancer labor, making the international division of digital labor a vast and complex network of interconnected global exploitation.” In this way, the development of digital media causes various forms of labor characteristic of different stages of capitalism, as well as various forms of labor from capitalist and pre-capitalist modes of production, to interact. This forms a globally exploited network of different forms of labor in the media sphere, enabling imperialism to better utilize cheap global labor in the international division of labor in the media sphere and obtain high profits. Regarding this, Antonio A. Casilli believes that “the asymmetric geography of these different economic sectors allows for the deployment of the main characteristics of imperialism by creating dependence and imbalance in wealth and power between the Global North and the Global South.”

西方左翼学者探讨了在新的信息社会条件下，媒介信息领域的国际劳动分工包含的劳动形式。在2014年发表的《卡尔•马克思和今天的媒介和文化研究》中，福克斯分析了数字时代媒介领域的劳动形式，认为一些劳工仍在从事着工业资本主义早期阶段的体力劳动，“他们是制造和装配工人，他们在工作中冒着健康和生命危险……接受高度控制、工作场所被监督和标准化的工作。”同时，也出现了一些新的劳工，“他们的主要活动是交谈、用情感说服、打字、使用电话系统和访问数据库。”此外，“国际数字劳动分工还涉及一种相对较新的带薪劳动形式，即高薪、高压力的技术性工作。”在2016年《每月评论》上发表的《数字劳动和帝国主义》中，福克斯认为“数字劳动作为资本主义创新和剥削的最新领域，对当代帝国主义的结构至关重要”。福克斯进一步举例指出，包括从刚果开采矿物以用于组件电子产品的矿工，富士康工厂中的工人以及印度的低薪软件工程师、谷歌等其他西方公司的高薪高压力软件工程师、不稳定的传播文化的数字自由职业者，以及暴露于有毒物质中拆散电子垃圾的工作者等，“如今，这些数字生产关系中的大多数都由雇佣劳动、奴隶劳动、无偿劳动、不稳定劳动和自由职业者的劳动构成，使数字劳动的国际分工成为一个由相互联系的全球剥削组成的庞大而复杂的网络。”这样，数字媒介的发展使具有资本主义不同阶段特征的各种劳动形式以及资本主义和前资本主义生产方式的各种劳动形式相互作用，从而使媒介领域不同形式的劳动形成了一个被剥削的全球网络，促使帝国主义在媒介领域的国际劳动分工中更好地利用了全球廉价的劳动力而获得了高额利润。对此，安东尼奥•卡西里（Antonio A.Casilli）认为，“这些不同经济部门的不对称地理环境允许通过在全球北方和南方之间创造财富和权力的依赖和不平衡来部署帝国主义的主要特征。”

Furthermore, Western left-wing scholars argue that due to the lack of regulation of digital production in the current era, media imperialism exacerbates the exploitation of digital labor in global value chain production. Casilli emphasizes that due to the opacity of global value extraction chains, internet-mediated production in developing and emerging countries is largely outside the regulatory framework. This can exacerbate the loss of bargaining power and job insecurity for digital laborers. Digital laborers do not know for whom they are performing digital tasks, nor is there a standard for evaluating their pay, insurance, and other aspects.

此外，西方左翼学者认为，由于数字生产在当今时代缺乏监管，媒介帝国主义加剧了对全球价值链生产中的数字劳动的剥削。卡西里强调，由于全球价值提取链的不透明，在发展中国家和新兴国家，以互联网为媒介的生产基本上不在监管框架之内。这会加剧数字劳工议价能力的丧失和工作的不安全感。数字劳工不知道他们在为谁执行数字任务，也不存在一个评估数字劳工薪酬、保险等方面的标准。

(2) The Labor Theory of Value and the Unpaid Labor of Internet Users

（二）劳动价值论与互联网用户的无酬劳动

Western scholars have also intensively debated whether the labor theory of value can analyze the digital labor of internet platform users. Some Western scholars judge that the labor theory of value is no longer applicable based on the fact that the digital labor of internet platform users is unpaid. Adam Arvidsson argues: “The labor theory of value only holds when labor has a price, provided that labor has been transformed into a commodity that can be bought and sold in some way on the market. Clearly, on this point, it is difficult to apply the labor theory of value to production practices that do not have a given price and that unfold outside the wage relation.”

西方学者还集中讨论了劳动价值论是否能够分析互联网平台用户的数字劳动的问题。一些西方学者根据互联网平台用户的数字劳动是无报酬的来判断劳动价值论已经不适用了。亚当•阿维德森（Adam Arvidsson）认为：“劳动价值论只有在劳动有价格的情况下才成立，前提是劳动已经转变成可以在市场上以某种方式买卖的商品。很明显，在这一点上，很难将劳动价值论应用到没有给定价格的生产实践中，这些生产实践是在工资关系之外展开的。”

In response to and critique of this view that Marx’s labor theory of value cannot explain digital labor in the media sphere, Fuchs responded and criticized it. He argues that “digital labor is not the only historically unpaid work; one can also consider housework or slave labor.” He criticizes Arvidsson’s assumption that exploitation only exists when wages are paid, arguing that this assumption downplays the horror of exploitation and also implies that classical slaves and domestic workers were not exploited: “Arvidsson’s approach implies that unpaid Congolese slave workers engaged in extracting the material basis of information and communication technology are not exploited, which is completely incorrect.”

对于这种认为马克思的劳动价值论不能解释媒介领域的数字劳动的观点，福克斯进行了回应与批判。他认为，“数字劳动并不是历史上唯一没有报酬的工作，人们还可以考虑家务劳动或奴隶劳动。”他批判了阿维德森的剥削只有在工资得到支付的情况下才存在的假设，认为这一假设淡化了剥削的恐怖，也暗示了古典奴隶和家庭工人没有受到剥削：“阿维德森的方法意味着从事提取信息和通信技术物质基础的无报酬刚果奴隶工人没有受到剥削，这是完全不正确的。”

Fuchs further points out that there are crucial distinctions and connections between traditional slaves, housewives, and corporate internet users. Because the first type is repressed by physical violence – if they stop working, they are likely to be killed; the second type is coerced to a certain extent by physical violence and emotional pressure; and the third type is coerced ideologically – they are forced to use dominant corporate internet platforms to maintain social relations and reputation. If they stop using the platforms, they will not die or be killed, but they may become more isolated. “The value generated by these three forms of labor is appropriated by others (slave owners, capitalists and the wage-earning class, corporations). Their labor is unpaid. Others exploit all of their working time.” Furthermore, Fuchs argues that the usage data generated by all the time social platform users spend on such platforms is recorded, analyzed to be created into data commodities, and sold to clients who provide targeted advertisements to users. The price of the user’s labor power is zero, allowing capital to maximize profits by reducing the price of labor power below its value. In summary, he believes that “the multiverse of global workers is not composed of different job types and production relations, but of a whole composed of interdependent production relations.” The emergence of internet platform work and global workers does not signify the end of the labor theory of value, but rather the extension of exploitation from traditional sites of exploitation to internet platforms. In the view of Western left-wing scholars, internet platforms turn the entire world into a capitalist factory, subjecting internet platform users worldwide to exploitation.

福克斯进一步指出，传统的奴隶、家庭主妇和企业互联网用户之间有着至关重要的区别与联系。因为第一种人受到身体暴力的压抑，如果他们停止工作，他们很可能会被杀害；第二种人在一定程度上是受到身体暴力和感情的胁迫；而第三种则是意识形态上的胁迫，他们被迫使用占主导地位的企业互联网平台来维持社会关系和声誉，如果他们停止使用平台，他们不会死亡，也不会被杀死，但可能会更加孤立。“这三种形式的劳动所产生的价值都被其他人（奴隶主、资本家和工薪阶层、公司）所占有。他们的劳动是无偿的。其他人剥削了他们所有的工作时间。”除此之外，福克斯认为，社交平台用户在此类平台上花费的所有时间所产生的使用数据都被记录、分析以被创建成数据商品，并出售给向用户提供有针对性广告的客户。用户的劳动力价格为零，使得资本可以通过将劳动力价格降低到低于其价值的程度来实现利润最大化。综上，他认为，“全球工人的多元宇宙不是由不同的工作类型和生产关系组成的，而是由相互依存的生产关系组成的一个整体。”互联网平台工作和全球工人的出现并不意味着劳动价值论的终结，而是将剥削从传统剥削场所扩展到了互联网平台。在西方左翼学者看来，互联网平台使整个世界都成为资本主义工厂，使世界范围内的互联网平台用户处于被剥削之中。

III. Western Left-Wing Scholars’ New Explorations of Reform in the Media Sphere

三、西方左翼学者对媒介领域改革的新探索

A crucial aspect of media imperialism theory is discussing what kind of change is needed and how to bring it about; that is, seeking an effective political program is the ultimate goal of media imperialism theory. Entering the era of digital capitalism, Western left-wing scholars have proposed new visions for the future development of the media sphere. John Bellamy Foster points out that “in the past 10 years, with the rise of the global corporate media empire and the internet, radical media reform has become a major political issue in countless countries.” Western left-wing scholars have made new explorations into reform in the media sphere. Some scholars believe we need to establish new public principles and values in internet platforms to deal with media imperialism, while others believe we need to overthrow existing capitalist media and establish alternative media.

媒介帝国主义理论一个至关重要的方面就是讨论需要何种变革以及怎样去变革，也就是说，寻求一种有效的政治纲领是媒介帝国主义理论的最终目的。进入数字资本主义时代，西方左翼学者对媒介领域的未来发展提出了新的构想。约翰•贝拉米•福斯特（John Bellamy Foster）指出，“在过去的10年中，随着全球公司媒介帝国和互联网的兴起，激进的媒介改革已成为无数国家的重大政治问题。”西方左翼学者对媒介领域的改革作出了新的探索，一些学者认为我们需要在互联网平台中建立新的公共原则和价值观来应对媒介帝国主义，也有一些学者认为我们需要推翻现有的资本主义媒体而建立替代性媒体。

(1) Establishing Media Public Values in the Internet

（一）建立互联网中的媒介公共价值观

Western left-wing scholars believe that media giants in developed countries now hold the power to set public values for media based on commercial values. In their view, the current global media sphere has been dominated by five major US technology giants, namely Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft. These foundational platforms together constitute a platform ecosystem “based on commercial values and rooted in a neoliberal worldview.” Dal Yong Jin argues that “over the past 20 years, this powerful platform ecosystem has spread to other regions of the world and has become dominant in Europe, most of Asia (except China), Africa, and South America.” Jose van Dijck points out that “the five major technology giants are increasingly becoming the gatekeepers of all online social and economic activities; their services affect the structure of society and democratic processes. In other words, they have acquired the power to make the rules.” Western left-wing scholars represented by van Dijck have put forward positive suggestions on how to establish and defend public interests within internet platforms. Van Dijck argues that, in addition to principles directly related to the internet as a digital environment—such as protecting one’s private information, ensuring access to secure and accurate information, and pursuing transparency in services—“it is also necessary to articulate public values related to broader social issues, such as democratic control of the public sphere, a level playing field for participants, anti-discrimination practices, tax and labor fairness, and accountability.”

西方左翼学者认为，现在是发达国家的媒体巨头掌握着基于商业价值来制定媒介公共价值观的权力。在他们看来，当前全球媒介领域已经被美国的五大科技巨头主导，即谷歌、脸书、亚马逊、苹果和微软。这些基础平台共同构成了一种“基于商业价值观的，并且植根于新自由主义的世界观中”的平台生态系统。金大永（Dal Yong Jin）认为，“在过去20年里，这种强大的平台生态系统已经蔓延到世界其他地区，并且在欧洲、亚洲大部分地区（中国除外）、非洲和南美洲占主导地位。”何塞•范迪克（Jose van Dijck）指出，“五大科技巨头日益成为所有在线社交和经济活动的守门人；他们的服务影响着社会的结构和民主进程。换句话说，他们已经获得了制定规则的权力。”以范迪克为代表的西方左翼学者对如何在互联网平台中建立和捍卫公共利益提出了积极的建议。范迪克认为，除了保护自己的私人信息，确保互联网接入安全、准确的信息，并在服务方面追求透明度这些与互联网作为数字环境直接相关的原则之外，“还需要阐明与更广泛的社会问题相关的公共价值观，如公共领域的民主控制、参与者的公平竞争环境、反歧视做法、税收和劳动公平以及责任。”

On this basis, taking the European Union as an example, van Dijck proposes recommendations for establishing public values in online media at five levels. First, at the supranational level, i.e., recommendations addressed to the EU, it is necessary to confront existing internet rule-making power to protect public values in the platform market, forming more principled guidelines on platform status, data flow ownership, and government governance. Second, platform companies should incorporate public values as part of their platform architecture strategy and design. He believes that “the explicit articulation and recognition of public values should not be the result of external pressure and temporary remedial measures, but should be clearly integrated into the platform’s policies and algorithmic design.” At the same time, this requires the courage and sense of responsibility of some entrepreneurs to promote the practice of public values. Third, regulatory agencies need to be updated and restructured. This is because current legal discourse often lacks the appropriate vocabulary to capture the techno-economic changes of the online world. The sum of each set of laws may be insufficient to deal with the entire platform ecosystem. Fourth, national governments should stimulate and promote the development of non-profit platforms and public platforms. The commercial ecosystem of platforms currently has no public space and few non-private competitors. National governments should invest in the public sector and the non-profit sector to seek a balance among the three forces of the market, the state, and civil society. Fifth, academia can help formulate an interdisciplinary, multi-faceted agenda, design a responsible platform system, and build and maintain a responsible digital society, adapting to the enormous challenges we face in the era of datafication, platformization, and digitalization.

基于此，范迪克以欧盟为例，从五个层面为建立网络媒介中的公共价值观提出了建议。一是基于超国家层面，即对欧盟提出的建议，要与现有的网络规则制定权相对抗以保护平台市场中的公众价值，形成关于平台状态、数据流所有权和政府治理的更具原则性的指导方针。二是平台公司要将公共价值观作为平台架构策略和设计的一部分。他认为，“公众价值观的明确表达和认可不应该是外部压力和临时补救措施的结果，而应该被清晰地整合到平台的政策和算法设计中。”同时这需要一些企业主的勇气和责任心来推动公共值观的践行。三是监管机构需要更新和重组。这是因为目前法律话语往往缺乏恰当的词汇来捕捉网络世界的技术经济变化。每一套法律的总和可能不足以处理整个平台生态系统。四是国家政府应该刺激和推动非营利平台和公共平台的发展。平台的商业生态系统目前没有公共空间，也很少有非私人竞争对手。国家政府应投资于公共部门和非营利部门，以在市场、国家和公民社会三方力量之间寻求平衡。五是学术界可以帮助制定一个跨学科、多方面的议程，设计一个负责任的平台系统，建立并维护一个负责任的数字社会，以适应我们在数据化、平台化和数字化时代所面临的巨大挑战。

Regarding the question of who should defend public values in a digital society, van Dijck argues that a joint effort is needed from three levels: the state, the market, and civil society. “If we want the internet to remain a democratic and open space, it requires multi-level, multi-disciplinary, and multi-stakeholder efforts from governments, companies, citizens, and researchers.”

对于数字社会中谁来捍卫公众价值观的问题，范迪克认为，需要从国家、市场和公民社会三个层面共同努力。“如果我们希望互联网保持民主和开放的空间，它需要政府、公司、公民和研究人员进行多层次、多学科和多利益相关的努力。”

(2) Establishing genuine public service media requires overthrowing capitalism through class struggle

（二）建立真正的公共服务媒体，需要通过阶级斗争推翻资本主义来实现

Political economist of communication Graham Murdock argues that the three political-economic possibilities for the media and cultural sector are capital ownership, state ownership, and civil society ownership. In his view, the two most important forms of social communication operating outside of capital are public service media and community media. Both operate on a non-profit basis. However, Western left-wing scholars represented by Fuchs argue that although current public service media are independent of capital and the state and tend to reject the logic of the commodity, “the reach of these platforms is low, and operating and maintaining them requires substantial resources.” Besides the problem of mobilizing resources without state funding and advertising support, alternative media also face the power of media monopolies and oligarchs. The oligarchic structure of social media leads to a situation where a small number of large multinational corporations control the vast majority of social media usage. Van Dijck points out: “There is a tense and contradictory relationship between public service and community media and capitalist media. Capitalism is expansionary, imperialist, and colonialist; it seeks to bring everything under the commodity form and destroy life domains that do not comply with the logic of the commodity.” Therefore, today’s public service media and community media find it difficult to survive within capitalism.

传播领域的政治经济学家格雷厄姆•默多克（Graham Murdock）认为，媒体和文化部门的三种政治经济可能性是：资本所有、国家所有和公民社会所有。在他看来，运作于资本之外的两种最重要的社会传播形式是公共服务媒体和社区媒体。两者均以非营利为基础运作。然而，以福克斯为代表的西方左翼学者认为，尽管目前的公共服务媒体独立于资本和国家，倾向于拒绝商品的逻辑，但“这些平台的覆盖面很低，操作和维护它们需要大量资源”。除了在没有国家资助和广告支持的情况下调动资源的问题以外，替代性媒体还面临着媒体垄断和寡头的力量。社交媒体的寡头结构导致了这样的情况，即少数大型跨国公司控制着绝大多数的社交媒体使用。范迪克指出：“公共服务和社区媒体与资本主义媒体之间存在着紧张和矛盾的关系。资本主义是扩张性的、帝国主义的和殖民主义的，它试图将一切归于商品形式之下，并摧毁不遵守商品逻辑的生活领域。”因此，当今的公共服务媒体和社区媒体很难在资本主义中生存。

In Fuchs’s view, what we need is not media platforms that include markets and advertising, but a media that truly provides public service independent of state, economic, and ideological forces. “We need the decolonization of the world and the internet, so that they are no longer based on bureaucratic and economic power, but more on communicative rationality and the logic of the public sphere.” He further points out that public service media should be socialist collective media, stripped of owners’ capital and established for the people. “In such a society, groups of citizens need to have the right, as well as the technical and organizational opportunities, to create their own media, which are collectively owned and operate as non-profit, self-managed enterprises pursuing goals of information and education.”

在福克斯看来，我们需要的不是存在着市场和广告的媒体平台，而是一个真正独立于国家、经济力量和意识形态力量而提供公共服务的媒体。“我们需要世界和互联网的非殖民化，使它们不再基于官僚和经济权力，而更多地基于交往理性和公共领域的逻辑。”他进一步指出，公共服务媒体应该是剥夺了所有者的资本、为人民建立的社会主义集体媒体。“在这样的社会中，公民群体需要有权利以及技术和组织上的机会来创建自己的媒体，这些媒体是集体所有并作为非营利性经营的自我管理公司而运作的，以追求信息和教育的目标。”

To establish socialist public service media, it is necessary to fundamentally overthrow media imperialism. Fuchs argues that the goal of digital labor struggle should be to overthrow the capitalist organization of these fields and capitalist society itself. To achieve victory over capitalism, workers in media companies must engage in united class struggle. “Socialist communication politics supports the solidarity of digital laborers and media workers around the world. To make this struggle effective, we need national and international trade unions that unite all different communication workers, breaking down barriers of sector, occupation, country, company, culture, etc., into a union of communication workers.” At the same time, because “governing the platform society is ultimately a geopolitical struggle for influence and power,” Western left-wing scholars believe that it is necessary not only to unite forces within the media sphere but also to unite with the general forces of global capital struggle, formulating strategies for international solidarity and common struggle. Looking to the future, Western left-wing scholars predict that movements triggered by media issues will become an important part of the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist struggle.

而要想建立社会主义的公共服务媒体，必须要从根本上推翻媒介帝国主义。福克斯认为，数字劳工斗争的目标应该是推翻这些领域的资本主义组织以及资本主义社会本身。要想取得对资本主义的胜利，媒介公司的工人必须要进行联合的阶级斗争。“社会主义传播政治支持世界各地的数字劳工和媒介工作者的团结。为了使这一斗争有效，我们需要国家和国际工会，将所有不同的通信工人，打破部门、职业、国家、公司、文化等的阻碍，团结成一个通信工人的联盟。”同时，由于“治理平台社会最终是一场争夺影响力和权力的地缘政治斗争”，西方左翼学者认为，不仅要联合媒介领域的力量，还要联合一般的全球资本斗争力量，制定国际团结和共同斗争的战略。展望未来，西方左翼学者预测到，媒体问题引发的运动将成为反资本主义、反帝国主义重要的一部分。

IV. Conclusion

四、结 语

Focusing on the latest labor-production models of media imperialism and the paths to dismantle them is a common concern of many contemporary Western left-wing scholars. Western left-wing scholars have recognized the fact that digital labor is exploited within the value chain of transnational media production. However, they currently stop at the surface level, failing to conduct a profound exposure and critique of imperialism’s contemporary actions, and thus have not reached the depth of imperialist theoretical critique. They have designed their own alternative plans for how to break through the media obstacles of imperialism. Although these plans are difficult to escape a utopian character, this theoretical and practical exploration also possesses a certain positivity and rationality. Nevertheless, the revival of the imperialist paradigm in media studies by Western left-wing scholars constitutes an effective defense of imperialist theory. At the same time, the Western left-wing re-examination of media imperialism and research on digital labor represent important theoretical achievements of imperialist critique in the media field. They provide a theoretical framework that is closer to the current situation for understanding the new changes of imperialism in the contemporary media field, and to a certain extent enrich Marxist theory. Andreas Wittel believes that “in the era of digital media, Marxist theory can and should be applied to research in this field in a broader sense.” Media imperialism theory still has considerable space for research in academia.

聚焦媒介帝国主义的最新劳动生产模式及破解路径是诸多当代西方左翼学者的共同关注。西方左翼学者看到了跨国媒体生产价值链中数字劳动被剥削的事实，但目前仅停于表面，未能对帝国主义的当代行径进行深刻揭露与批判，因而未达到帝国主义理论批判的深度。他们对如何破除帝国主义的媒介障碍，设计了自己的替代方案，这一方案虽难以摆脱乌托邦性质，但这一理论和实践探索又具有一定的积极性和合理性。尽管如此，西方左翼学者对帝国主义范式在媒介研究中的复兴是对帝国主义理论的有效捍卫。同时，西方左翼学者对媒介帝国主义的重新审视及对数字劳动的研究是媒介领域帝国主义批判的重要理论成果，为认识当代媒介领域帝国主义的新变化提供了更加贴近现状的理论框架，在一定程度上丰富了马克思主义理论。安德烈亚斯•维特尔（Andreas Wittel）认为，“在数字传媒时代，马克思主义理论可以而且应该在更广泛的意义上应用于该领域的研究。”媒介帝国主义理论在学术界仍有很大的研究空间。

(The author is a doctoral student at the School of Marxism Studies, Renmin University of China)

（作者系中国人民大学马克思主义学院博士研究生）

Online Editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑