New Characteristics of Capital Movement in Western Developed Countries since the 21st Century

“Correctly understanding and grasping the characteristics and behavioral laws of capital” is a major theoretical and practical issue raised for us by General Secretary Xi Jinping. General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out that problems such as the disorderly expansion of capital, arbitrary manipulation, and profiteering that have emerged in some areas of our country in recent years are closely related to our insufficient understanding of capital and lack of supervision. Under market economy conditions, although capital in capitalist society and capital in socialist society are fundamentally different, both will follow the same logic of accumulation when facing external competitive pressure and internal drive for expansion. Therefore, systematically reviewing Western scholars’ new theories on capital movement and accurately grasping the new characteristics of capital movement in Western developed countries can, on the one hand, deepen our understanding of the laws of capital movement, and on the other hand, provide useful insights for regulating capital behavior, promoting benefits, and avoiding harms.

“正确认识和把握资本的特性和行为规律”是习近平总书记为我们提出的重大理论和实践问题。习近平总书记指出，近年来我国一些领域出现的资本无序扩张、肆意操纵和牟取暴利等问题，与我们对资本的认识不足和监管缺位密切相关。在市场经济条件下，资本主义社会的资本和社会主义社会的资本虽然存在根本不同，但面对外部竞争压力和内在增殖冲动，二者都会遵循同样的积累逻辑。因此，系统梳理西方学者关于资本运动的新理论，准确把握西方发达国家资本运动的新特点，一方面能够深化我们对资本运动规律的认识，另一方面可以为规范资本行为、趋利避害提供有益启示。

I. Introduction

一、引 言

Capital accumulation is the core driving force of capitalist economic development. The actual evolution of the capitalist economy undergoes periodic cycles of boom and bust, and capital movement exhibits different characteristics at different stages of development. According to the Social Structure of Accumulation (SSA) theory, each expansionary phase of the capitalist economy is linked to a unique, supportive social structure of accumulation, which is a set of institutional systems that can promote capital accumulation. Since the 1990s, Western developed capitalist countries, represented by the United States, have established a new social structure of accumulation. Its core components include seven aspects: the enhanced power of capital relative to labor; changes in the financing system conducive to investment; deregulation; institutional changes in corporate nature through restructuring, downsizing, and reengineering, along with continuous reform of corporate governance; limited government; the continuous increase in international agreements accelerating international trade and investment; and capital markets favorable to small, entrepreneurial firms. However, under the interaction of internal contradictions and external changes, this neoliberal social structure of accumulation gradually exhausted its potential to support capital accumulation, ultimately triggering the first great depression of the 21st century.

资本积累是资本主义经济发展的核心动力。资本主义经济的现实演进会经历繁荣与萧条的周期性切换，在不同发展阶段，资本运动呈现出不同特点。根据积累的社会结构理论（SSA），资本主义经济的每一个扩张阶段都与某个独特的、支持性的社会积累结构联系在一起，后者为一套能够促进资本积累的制度体系。20世纪90年代以来，以美国为代表的西方发达资本主义国家建立起一个新的社会积累结构，其核心要件包括七个方面：资本相对于劳动力实力增强；有利于投资的融资制度变革；去管制化；公司性质方面通过重建、缩小规模和再造等手段的制度性变革，以及公司治理的持续性改革；有限政府；加速国际贸易和投资的国际协定持续增多；有利于小型、创业型企业的资本市场。然而，在内部矛盾与外部变革的相互作用下，这套新自由主义社会积累结构逐渐耗尽了支持资本积累的潜能，最终引发了21世纪的第一次大萧条。

Since the beginning of the 21st century, especially after the outbreak of the global financial crisis in 2008, against the backdrop of intensified international trade frictions, the rapid development of digital technology, and the worsening ecological crisis, global capitalism has entered a new stage of development, and capital movement in developed capitalist countries has also undergone some new changes. In terms of capital forms, the rapid development of the digital economy has made the importance of digital capital increasingly prominent; natural capital (or green capital, ecological capital) has been vigorously promoted with the hope of addressing the ecological crisis; financial capital, which suffered a heavy blow in the 2008 financial crisis, has made a comeback and is closely integrated with the former two forms of capital. In terms of the mechanism for extracting surplus value, capital has increasingly moved away from value creation in the production sphere, extracting surplus value through economic rents and redistribution, degenerating into “rentierism.” Finally, the advancement of digital technology and the deepening of financialization have driven the logic of capital to unfold more comprehensively and deeply, dominating everything from daily life to ideology.

进入21世纪以来，特别是2008年全球金融危机爆发之后，在国际贸易摩擦加剧、数字技术迅猛发展、生态危机不断恶化等背景下，全球资本主义进入一个新的发展阶段，发达资本主义国家的资本运动也随之出现一些新的变化。在资本形态方面，数字经济的迅猛发展使数字资本的重要性日益凸显，自然资本（或绿色资本、生态资本）被寄予应对生态危机的厚望而被极力鼓吹，2008年金融危机中遭受重创的金融资本卷土重来，并与前两种资本形态紧密结合在一起。在剩余价值的榨取机制方面，资本日益远离了生产领域的价值创造，通过经济租金和再分配的方式攫取剩余价值，沦为“食利主义”。最后，数字技术的进步和金融化的深入发展推动资本逻辑更加全面、深入地展开，主导了从日常生活到意识形态的一切领域。

Although capital movement exhibits different characteristics at different stages of capitalism, capital accumulation always follows three basic logics: the logic of scale, the logic of space, and the logic of power. First, capital endlessly pursues the expansion of its own scale. The scale logic of capital expansion manifests in different ways across different historical eras and spatial fields. The scale expansion of capital has its own evolutionary logic and development trends: the speed of expansion tends to accelerate, the magnitude of expansion tends to increase, and the dominant form of capital tends to shift “from real to virtual.” Second, the scale expansion of capital is inevitably accompanied by the spatial expansion of capital. Moreover, after completely occupying geographical and physical space, capital increasingly penetrates social and living spaces. Finally, the process of capital’s scale expansion and spatial expansion is always accompanied by the expansion of capital’s power. Capital as a power manifests as economic power, political power, social power, cultural power, and a structured overall power. The new changes in capital movement in developed capitalist countries since the 21st century are the result of the full unfolding of the logic of capital expansion—achieving accumulation on an unprecedented scale, opening up more spaces for expansion, and becoming a power that dominates everything.

虽然在资本主义的不同发展阶段，资本运动呈现出不同特点，但资本积累始终遵循规模逻辑、空间逻辑和权力逻辑这三重基本逻辑。首先，资本永无止境地追求扩大自身规模，资本扩张的规模逻辑在不同的历史时代和空间场域有不同的表现方式。资本的规模扩张有其自身的演进逻辑和发展趋势：扩张速度趋向加速、扩张幅度趋向增大，占据主导地位的资本形态趋向“脱实向虚”。其次，资本的规模扩张必然伴随着资本的空间扩张，而且资本在彻底占领地理空间和物理空间后，日益向社会空间和生活空间渗透。最后，资本的规模扩张和空间扩张过程总是伴随着资本的权力扩张，资本作为一种权力表现为经济权力、政治权力、社会权力、文化权力以及一种结构化的总体性权力。21世纪以来发达资本主义国家资本运动的新变化是资本扩张逻辑全面展开的结果——实现空前规模的积累、开辟更多增殖空间、成为支配一切的权力。

II. Capital Forms: Digital Capital, Natural Capital, and Financial Capital

二、资本形态：数字资本、自然资本和金融资本

Faced with a persistent crisis of overaccumulation, capital is bound to continuously open up new investment fields, creating entirely new forms of capital. The vigorous development of the digital economy in the 21st century has produced a corresponding form of capital—digital capital. Some scholars even believe that digital capital has replaced financial capital as the dominant form of capital. With the intensification of the capitalist ecological crisis, the capitalization of nature has become a way to cope, opening the path for the accumulation of natural capital. Financial capital quickly recovered from the blow of the 2008 financial crisis and became closely integrated with digital capital and natural capital, which also makes it more difficult to judge the dominant form of capital.

面对持续存在的过度积累危机，资本势必不断开辟新的投资领域，创造出全新的资本形态。21世纪数字经济的蓬勃发展产生了与之相应的资本形态——数字资本，有学者甚至认为数字资本已经取代了金融资本成为主导资本形态。随着资本主义生态危机的加剧，自然的资本化成为应对之道，为自然资本的积累开辟了道路。金融资本迅速从2008年金融危机的打击中恢复，并与数字资本、自然资本紧密结合在一起，这也使得对主导资本形态的判断变得更加困难。

(I) Digital Capitalism and Digital Capital

（一）数字资本主义与数字资本

The American political economist of communication Dan Schiller proposed the concept of “digital capitalism” in 1999, arguing that digital capitalism is the latest stage of capitalist development. Each stage of capitalist development necessarily has a dominant form of capital; commercial capital, industrial capital, and financial capital have successively occupied dominant positions. If the vigorous development of the digital economy has brought the 21st century into the stage of digital capitalism, then digital capital becomes the dominant form of capital in digital capitalism. Lan Jiang believes that digital capital refers to companies that possess general data. General data is a vast relational system formed by data and cloud computing. Digital capital will inevitably rise to comprehensive control over industrial capital and financial capital in the future, becoming the complete form of digital capitalism. “Digital capital is actually an actor network composed of behavioral trace data of all internet participants. However, once this network is formed, it seems to possess a power independent of each actor. The power of this network lies not only in guiding consumers’ consumption behavior but also in directly acting on industrial capital and financial capital; that is, once the big data network is transformed into a power that can be possessed and used, it becomes a new kind of digital capital, which is precisely the latest form of capitalism today.”

美国传播政治经济学家丹·席勒在1999年提出了“数字资本主义”的概念，认为数字资本主义是资本主义发展的最新阶段。资本主义的每个发展阶段必然有一种主导资本形态，商业资本、产业资本和金融资本曾依次占据主导地位。如果说数字经济的蓬勃发展使21世纪进入数字资本主义阶段，那么数字资本就成为数字资本主义的主导资本形态。蓝江认为，数字资本即掌握了一般数据的公司，一般数据是由数据和云计算形成的庞大的关联体系，数字资本在未来一定会上升为对产业资本和金融资本的全面掌控，成为数字资本主义的完整形态，“数字资本实际上就是由所有互联网的参与者的行为痕迹数据组成的行动者网络，但是这种网络一经形成，就仿佛具有了一种独立于各个行动者的权力。这种权力的厉害之处，不仅仅在于可以引导消费者的消费行为，而且可以直接作用于产业资本和金融资本；也就是说，大数据网络一旦转型为可以被占有和使用的权力，它就成为一种新的数字资本，这种数字资本正是今天资本主义的最新形态”。

Digital capital has a unique mode of exploitation. Building on Dallas Smythe’s concepts of audience labor and audience commodification, Christian Fuchs proposed the concept of “prosumer” to explain the mechanism of social media’s exploitation of users. Fuchs argues that all online activities of social media users are recorded by the platform, creating a data commodity. “Corporate social media sell users’ data commodities to advertisers at prices higher than the constant capital and variable capital they have invested. The surplus value contained in this commodity is partly created by users and partly by corporate employees. The difference is that users are unpaid labor, so from a monetary perspective, users are infinitely exploited.” Digital capital adopts a hidden mode of exploitation. “Users are productive consumers who produce commodities and profits—their user labor is exploited. But this exploitation does not feel like work; it feels more like playbor. It occurs in leisure time outside of wage labor—it is unpaid labor and playbor labor. Therefore, labor time extends into leisure time, and leisure time becomes labor time.”

数字资本具有独特的剥削方式。在达拉斯·史麦兹提出的受众劳动和受众商品化概念的基础上，克里斯蒂安·福克斯提出了“产消者”的概念，用于解释社交媒体对用户的剥削机制。福克斯认为，社交媒体用户的所有在线活动都被平台所记录，创造出一种数据商品，“企业社交媒体将用户的数据商品出售给广告客户，价格高于他们投资的不变资本和可变资本。这种商品中包含的剩余价值部分是由用户、部分是由企业员工创造的。区别在于，用户都是无酬劳动，因此从货币的角度来讲，用户在被无限地剥削”。数字资本采取了一种隐蔽的剥削方式，“用户是生产商品和利润的生产性消费者——他们的用户劳动被剥削了。但这种剥削不像是劳作，更像是玩工，它发生在雇佣劳动之外的闲暇时间——它是无偿劳动和玩工劳动。因此，劳动时间延伸到休闲时间，休闲时间变成劳动时间”。

A new economic model will inevitably produce a corresponding form of capital, which retains the commonality of capital while also possessing the characteristics endowed by the new economic model. Therefore, digital capital has a dual nature. On the one hand, from the perspective of productive forces, digital capital is a form of capital integrated with digital technology. The accumulation of digital capital can, to a certain extent, promote the improvement of productive forces, thereby creating the material foundation for a higher form of society. On the other hand, from the perspective of relations of production, digital capital uses digital technology to establish a completely new mode of exploitation, breaking all temporal, spatial, and physiological limits on the exploitation of labor by capital. The words Marx spoke when analyzing the capitalist application of machinery are fully applicable to digital capital. Marx pointed out: “For in itself, machinery shortens labor time, while its capitalist application lengthens the working day; in itself, machinery lightens labor, while its capitalist application intensifies labor; in itself, machinery is a victory of man over the forces of nature, while its capitalist application subjects man to the forces of nature; in itself, machinery increases the wealth of the producer, while its capitalist application transforms the producer into a pauper in need of relief, and so on…” [1]1 This is a direct quotation from Marx’s *Capital*, Volume 1, Chapter 15, Section 6, “The Struggle between Worker and Machine,” where he discusses the contradictory effects of machinery under capitalism.

一种新的经济模式必然会产生与之相应的资本形态，这种资本形态既保留了资本的共性，也有新经济模式赋予的特性。因此，数字资本具有两面性。一方面，从生产力的角度看，数字资本是结合了数字技术的资本形态，数字资本的积累一定程度上能够促进生产力提高，从而为更高级的社会形态创造出物质基础。另一方面，从生产关系的角度看，数字资本利用数字技术建立起一套全新的剥削方式，使资本对劳动的剥削打破了一切时间、空间和生理的限制。马克思在分析机器的资本主义应用时说过的话对数字资本也完全适用。马克思指出：“因为机器就其本身来说缩短劳动时间，而它的资本主义应用延长工作日；因为机器本身减轻劳动，而它的资本主义应用提高劳动强度；因为机器本身是人对自然力的胜利，而它的资本主义应用使人受自然力奴役；因为机器本身增加生产者的财富，而它的资本主义应用使生产者变成需要救济的贫民，如此等等⋯⋯”

(2) Ecological Crisis and Natural Capital

（二）生态危机与自然资本

In order to cope with the deepening ecological crisis, mainstream economics in developed capitalist countries has introduced the concept of natural capital. The concept of natural capital emerged in the 19th century, initially mainly concerning matter and use-value. For example, in *The German Ideology*, Marx examined the “naturally evolved capital” of the Middle Ages, emphasizing its distinction from “capital reckoned in money”: “The capital in these cities was naturally evolved capital; it consisted of houses, manual labor tools, and naturally evolved, hereditary customers, and, due to the underdevelopment of intercourse and insufficient circulation, it could not be realized, but was passed from father to son, from generation to generation. This capital differs from modern capital not in that it is capital reckoned in money—with money calculation, it does not matter what object capital is embodied in—but rather in that it is directly linked to the specific labor of its possessor, completely inseparable from it.” However, in recent decades, neoclassical economics and corporate finance have completely separated the concept of natural capital from its original critique based on use-value, instead interpreting it entirely from the perspective of exchange-value, treating it as a form of financialized capital. John Bellamy Foster argues that the period from September to November 2021 was a turning point for the financial expropriation of the earth, coinciding with the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference. Three important changes occurred during this period: the establishment of the “Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero”; consensus reached at the UN Climate Change Conference on the main content of Article 6 of the *Paris Agreement*, creating unified financial rules for the global carbon trading market; and the New York Stock Exchange’s announcement of the issuance of a new type of security related to natural asset companies. Foster points out: “These changes indicate a major shift in the capitalization of nature, where all natural processes involving ecosystem services to the economy are increasingly dominated by profit-seeking market transactions under the banner of environmental protection and climate change. The mainstream economic paradigm, which seeks the unlimited accumulation of total capital, now also includes natural capital.”

为了应对日益加深的生态危机，发达资本主义国家主流经济学界引入了自然资本的概念。自然资本的概念出现于19世纪，最初主要涉及物质和使用价值。比如，马克思在《德意志意识形态》中考察了中世纪“自然形成的资本”，强调了其与“以货币计算的资本”之间的区别，“这些城市中的资本是自然形成的资本；它是由住房、手工劳动工具和自然形成的世代相袭的主顾组成的，并且由于交往不发达和流通不充分而没有实现的可能，只好父传子，子传孙。这种资本和现代资本不同，它不是以货币计算的资本——用货币计算，资本体现为哪一种物品都一样——，而是直接同占有者的特定的劳动联系在一起、同它完全不可分割的资本”。然而，近几十年来，新古典经济学和公司金融学将自然资本概念与其最初基于使用价值的批判完全分离开来，转而完全从交换价值的角度进行解读，将其视为金融化资本的一种形式。约翰·贝拉米·福斯特认为，2021年9月到11月是对地球的金融掠夺（financial expropriation）的转折点，2021年联合国气候变化大会也在这段时间召开。这段时间发生了三个重要变化：“格拉斯哥净零排放金融联盟”成立；联合国气候变化大会就《巴黎气候协定》第六条款的主要内容达成共识，为全球碳交易市场创造统一的金融规则；纽约证券交易所宣布发行一种与自然资产公司相关的新型证券。福斯特指出：“这些变化表明对自然的资本化发生了重大转变，所有涉及对经济的生态系统服务的自然过程都在环境保护和气候变化的旗号下，日益被追求利润的市场交易所支配。主流经济学范式试图实现总资本的无限积累，现在也将自然资本包括在内。”

The book *Natural Capital: Valuing the Planet* epitomizes the mainstream economic approach to natural capital. Oxford professor Dieter Helm vigorously promotes the concept of natural capital in the book, stating that “refusing to put an economic price on natural capital could lead to environmental catastrophe. If carbon emissions are not priced, then the persistent over-emission will continue, producing disastrous consequences.” He argues that natural capital is one category among many assets, and introducing the concept of natural capital is a method of embedding natural value into the economic system. Helm not only advocates for the capitalization of nature but also proposes “financing natural capital” to achieve the financialization of nature. “The scale of revenue generated solely from the consumption of oil and natural gas by the United States or even the United Kingdom could establish a massive natural capital fund, far exceeding the imagination of most environmental groups. With these financial resources as a guarantee, there is no reason why the environmental problems we face today cannot be solved, and the general rules will necessarily be satisfied. Our economy can and should grow on a sustainable basis.” In response, American Marxist economist David Harvey points out that monetary valuation methods are inherently anti-ecological. “If the environment is viewed organically, ecologically, and dialectically, rather than as a Cartesian machine with replaceable parts, then this monetary valuation method is inapplicable. In fact, an overemphasis on monetary valuation leads us into the Cartesian-Newtonian-Lockean ‘anti-ecological’ ontological error regarding the natural environment.”

《自然资本：为地球估值》一书集中体现了主流经济学对待自然资本的态度。牛津大学教授迪特尔·赫尔姆在书中极力鼓吹自然资本的概念，指出“拒绝为自然资本进行经济定价可能会导致环境灾难。如果不为碳排放定价，那么一直以来的过度排放就会继续，从而产生灾难性的后果”。他认为自然资本是众多资产中的一类，引入自然资本的概念是一种使自然价值嵌入经济体系的方法。赫尔姆不仅鼓吹自然的资本化，还主张“为自然资本融资”，实现自然的金融化，“仅由美国甚至英国消耗石油和天然气所产生的收入规模就可以建立一支庞大的自然资本基金，基金的规模将远远超出大部分环保团体的想象。有这些金融资源作为保障，今天我们所面临的环境问题没有理由不被解决，总规则也必然满足。我们的经济能够也应该在一个可持续的基础上增长”。对此，美国马克思主义经济学家大卫·哈维指出，货币估值方法天生就有反生态的属性，“如果以有机、生态和辩证的角度看待环境，而不是将环境视为零件可替换的笛卡儿式机器，那么这种货币估值方法就不适用了。实际上，对货币估值过度重视会让我们陷入笛卡儿—牛顿—洛克式的‘反生态’自然环境本体论错误”。

The concept of natural capital reflects the attempt to capitalize nature. Its core claim is to solve the ecological crisis through market means, and its main purpose is to open up new spaces for the accumulation of surplus capital. Harvey points out: “Much of what we see regarding environmental stress and environmental degradation is a manifestation of the problem of absorbing capital surplus in search of solutions. Thus, the core issue is the absorption of surplus. Once this absorption capacity fails, it leads to a crisis of value loss.” To address the environmental crisis, Western capitalist countries once introduced the concept of the “environmental state,” but this concept was ultimately replaced by the neoliberal “environmental governance” concept, which consistently ensures the priority of capital accumulation. “Environmental governance means that private interests play a greater decisive role in the field of environmental regulation. These private interests include corporations, corporate foundations, non-governmental organizations, international financial institutions, and intergovernmental organizations. The field of environmental regulation includes various certification processes, carbon markets, and the financialization of nature conservation. By legitimizing so-called green capitalism, environmental governance creates new markets for capital accumulation.” The concept of natural capital is part of the neoliberal ecological governance technique, essentially saving capitalism under the guise of saving the ecological environment. “Nature is in fact subordinated to capital, becoming an important strategic field for capital accumulation. Capital, wrapped in a green cloak, continues to seek the maximization of surplus value, that is, to ‘repair’ its own inherent contradictions and crises through the ‘ecological’ field.”

自然资本的概念反映了将自然资本化的企图，其核心主张是通过市场方式解决生态危机问题，其主要目的是为过剩资本开辟新的积累空间。哈维指出：“我们关于环境压力和环境恶化所看到的许多东西都是资本剩余的吸收问题在寻求解决方案时的表现。可见，核心问题是对剩余的吸收。一旦这种吸收的能力失效了，就会导致价值丧失的危机。”为了应对环境危机，西方资本主义国家曾引入“环境国家”的理念，但这一理念最终被新自由主义的“环境治理”理念所取代，后者始终确保资本积累的优先性。“环境治理意味着私人利益在环境监管领域中发挥更大的决定作用。这些私人利益包括公司、企业基金会、非政府组织、国际金融机构和政府间组织。环境监管领域则包括各种认证过程、碳市场和自然保育的金融化等。通过将所谓的绿色资本主义合法化，环境治理为资本积累创造了新的市场。”自然资本概念是新自由主义生态治理术的一部分，本质上是以拯救生态环境之名行拯救资本主义之实，“自然在实际上从属于资本，变成了资本积累的重要战略场域，资本包裹着绿色的外衣继续谋求剩余价值最大化，也就是通过‘生态’这一场域来‘修复’其本身的内在矛盾危机”。

(3) Modern Financial Capital

（三）现代金融资本

The traditional concept of finance capital mainly involves the fusion of industrial capital and bank capital, with bank capital occupying a certain advantage. In Hilferding’s view, finance capital is “capital at the disposal of banks and used by industrial capitalists.” Lenin pointed out, “The concentration of production; the monopolies arising from concentration; the merging or growing together of banks and industry—this is the history of the emergence of finance capital and the content of this concept.” After Hilferding and Lenin, Sweezy advocated replacing finance capital with “monopoly capital,” and his successor Foster called monopoly capital in the financialization phase “monopoly-finance capital.” Since the 1980s, with the deepening of financialization, the movement of finance capital has undergone changes in three aspects: capital in the sphere of material production has engaged in more financial activities for profit, i.e., the financialization of non-financial enterprises has emerged; finance capital, driven by information technology and financial innovation, has greatly enhanced its capacity for self-accumulation and valorization within the financial sphere; finally, finance capital has increasingly penetrated non-material production spheres, opening up more channels for profit sources. These changes clearly exceed the traditional concept of finance capital in the sense of “fusion,” requiring a new connotation for this concept. We believe that modern finance capital has transformed into a pure mode of capital possession and income extraction, i.e., existing in the form of financial assets and obtaining profits through financial channels. Marx once pointed out: “We may regard the accumulation of money-capital as the accumulation of wealth in the hands of bankers (professional lenders), i.e., of intermediaries between private money-capitalists and the state, groups, and borrowers engaged in reproduction; for the entire credit system’s astonishing expansion, in short, all credit, is used by them as their own private capital. These people always possess capital and income in the form of money or direct claims on money.” Modern finance capital is increasingly detached from actual value creation, appropriating and accumulating capital and income in the forms of money capital and fictitious capital.

传统的金融资本概念主要涉及工业资本与银行资本的融合，且银行资本占据一定的优势。在希法亭看来，金融资本是“归银行支配的和由产业资本家使用的资本”。列宁指出，“生产的集中；从集中生长起来的垄断；银行和工业日益融合或者说长合在一起，——这就是金融资本产生的历史和这一概念的内容”。在希法亭和列宁之后，斯威齐主张用“垄断资本”替代金融资本，其继任者福斯特则将金融化阶段的垄断资本称为“垄断金融资本”。20世纪80年代以来，随着金融化的深入发展，金融资本的运动发生了三个方面的变化：物质生产领域的资本从事了更多以获利为目的的金融活动，即出现了非金融企业的金融化；金融资本在信息技术和金融创新的推动下，极大增强了在金融领域内自我积累和增殖的能力；最后，金融资本日益向非物质生产领域渗透，开辟更多利润来源渠道。这些变化显然超出了“融合”意义上的传统金融资本概念，需要赋予这一概念新的内涵。我们认为，现代金融资本已经转变为一种纯粹的资本占有方式和收入榨取方式，即以金融资产的形式存在并通过金融渠道获取利润。马克思曾指出：“我们不妨把货币资本的积累，理解为银行家（职业贷款人）手中的，即私人货币资本家和国家、团体以及从事再生产的借款人之间的中介人手中的财富的积累；因为整个信用制度的惊人的扩大，总之，全部信用，都被他们当作自己的私有资本来利用。这些人总是以货币的形式或对货币的直接索取权的形式占有资本和收入。”现代金融资本日益远离了实际价值创造，以货币资本和虚拟资本的形式进行资本和收入的占有与积累。

Finance capital, which suffered a heavy blow in the 2008 global crisis, did not remain prostrate; the massive injection of bailout funds by capitalist states quickly restored its strength. After the outbreak of the financial crisis, developed capitalist countries implemented “reindustrialization” policies, but neoliberalism still firmly held a dominant position. Therefore, “the trend of financialization in the U.S. economy has not reversed after the crisis; finance capital remains strong. Having failed to find a successful accumulation model driven by industrialization, the original capitalist accumulation model dominated by finance capital continues to function stably.” [2]2 The Great Depression refers to the severe worldwide economic depression of the 1930s, the longest and most widespread depression of the 20th century. When the COVID-19 pandemic broke out in early 2020, the U.S. stock market crashed, and the Federal Reserve once again acted as the savior of finance capital, not only promising unlimited purchases of government bonds but also unprecedentedly buying corporate bonds. The result was that “just as the U.S. unemployment rate soared to its highest level since the Great Depression, with nearly 17 million unemployed, the U.S. stock market experienced its biggest weekly gain since 1974 from April 6 to 10. Wall Street’s profits in the first half of 2020 alone were 82% higher than the previous year.” [3]3 Wall Street is a metonym for the U.S. financial industry, centered on the street of that name in New York City. Wang Weiguang believes that the economic foundation of contemporary capitalism remains international finance-monopoly capital; technological innovations such as digitalization and intelligence have greatly promoted the aggregation and concentration of international finance-monopoly capital, strengthening its penetration, fusion, and control over all global industries. [4]4 Wang Weiguang is a Chinese Marxist scholar and former president of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

在2008年全球危机中遭受重创的金融资本并未因此一蹶不振，资本主义国家的大规模救市资金的注入使其迅速恢复实力。金融危机爆发后，发达资本主义国家推行了“再工业化”政策，但新自由主义仍然牢牢占据主导地位，因此“危机后美国经济金融化趋势尚未逆转，金融资本依然强势，在试图寻找以工业化为动力的积累模式未能成功后，原有的以金融资本为主导的资本主义积累模式依然稳定发挥作用”。2020年初新冠疫情暴发后，美国股市发生暴跌，美联储再次充当了金融资本的拯救者，不仅承诺无限量购买政府债券，更史无前例地出手购买企业债。其结果是，“正当美国的失业率飙升至大萧条以来的最高水平，失业人口将近一千七百万的时候，美国股市却在4月6日至10日这一周经历了1974年以来的最大涨幅。华尔街仅2020年上半年的利润就比前一年增长了82%”。王伟光认为，当代资本主义的经济基础仍然是国际金融资本垄断，数字化、智能化等技术创新极大地促进了国际金融垄断资本的聚集和集中发展，强化了国际金融垄断资本对全球一切产业的渗透、融合和控制。

(4) The Nature of the Three Capital Forms and Their Combination

（四）三种资本形态的性质及其结合

From the perspective of capital circulation, these three forms of capital have all detached from the sphere of material production and belong to what Marx called “circulating capital.” According to Marx’s definition, circulating capital “exists in forms belonging to the circulation process, i.e., in forms mediated by exchange (the transformation of matter and the transformation of owners), and therefore in the forms of commodity capital and money capital, as opposed to its form belonging to the production process, i.e., productive capital.” Specifically, finance capital is the product of the movement of money capital and interest-bearing capital. Digital capital, represented by platform capital, mainly belongs to the category of commercial capital, profiting through targeted advertising or by matching transactions and extracting commissions. Green capital essentially belongs to fictitious capital; the object of carbon trading is the emission right of carbon dioxide, behind which there is no actual value creation, but rather the capitalization of a stream of income. The rise of these three forms of capital indicates that contemporary capitalism is increasingly shifting from emphasizing the production of value to emphasizing the distribution of value.

从资本循环的角度看，这三种资本形态都脱离了物质生产领域，属于马克思所说的“流通资本”。根据马克思的定义，流通资本“处在属于流通过程的形式上，即处在属于以交换（物质的变换和所有者的变换）为中介的形式变换的形式上，因而是处在商品资本和货币资本的形式上，而同它的属于生产过程的形式即生产资本的形式相对立”。具体而言，金融资本是货币资本、生息资本运动的产物。以平台资本为代表的数字资本则主要属于商业资本的范畴，其通过发放定向广告，或者通过撮合交易并抽取佣金而获利。绿色资本实质上属于虚拟资本，碳交易的对象是二氧化碳的排放权，其背后并没有实际价值的创造，而是涉及将一笔收入流进行资本化。这三种资本形态的兴起表明，当代资本主义日益从强调价值的生产转向强调价值的分配。

Digital capital, natural capital, and finance capital are increasingly tightly interwoven, sometimes even difficult to distinguish from each other. The development of the digital economy and ecological governance has provided new investment fields for finance capital. The combination of finance capital and digital capital has produced the “financialization of the digital economy,” while the combination of finance capital and natural capital has given rise to so-called “green finance.” Felipe Poza Ferreira argues that the connection between the digital economy, the Internet of Things, and financialization establishes a feedback system—the movement of finance capital appropriates the profits created by the digital age and its immense tool development capabilities, which in turn enable finance to expand into new areas. [5]5 Felipe Poza Ferreira is a scholar of political economy and digital capitalism. Finance capital, represented by venture capital, has played a significant role in the development of the platform economy. Some scholars have proposed the concept of “financialization of the platform economy.” [6]6 Venture capital is a form of private equity financing provided to early-stage, high-potential companies. Finance capital invests in platform enterprises with the aim of obtaining entrepreneurial profits, thus striving to boost the market value of platform enterprises after their future listing, causing platform enterprises to exhibit a characteristic of “accumulation for valuation,” manifested in blind expansion of market share, land-grabbing in new fields, and predatory production of data. Mathieu Montalban et al. believe that the platform economy does not represent a new accumulation regime but is endogenous to the financialized neoliberal accumulation regime, merely an internal transformation and enhanced version of the financialized accumulation regime; financialization has created the preconditions for the development of the platform economy, while the platform economy is based on a similar institutional hierarchy, and technologies such as blockchain and cryptocurrencies have also promoted the development of financialization. [7]7 Mathieu Montalban is a French economist specializing in financialization and platform capitalism.

数字资本、自然资本和金融资本日益紧密地交织在一起，有时甚至难以区分彼此。数字经济的发展和生态环境治理为金融资本提供了新的投资领域，金融资本与数字资本的结合产生了“数字经济的金融化”，金融资本与自然资本的结合则产生了所谓的“绿色金融”。菲利佩·波萨·费雷拉认为，数字经济、物联网和金融化之间的联系是建立起一种反馈系统——金融资本的运动占有了数字时代创造的利润及其巨大的工具开发能力，这些工具则使金融能够扩展到新的领域。以风险资本为代表的金融资本在平台经济的发展中发挥了重要作用，有学者提出了“平台经济的金融化”概念。金融资本投资平台企业的目的是获得创业利润，因此极力提升平台企业未来上市后的市值，使平台企业呈现出“为估值而积累”的特征，表现为盲目扩大市场份额、圈地式抢占新领域和掠夺式生产数据。马蒂厄·蒙塔尔班等认为，平台经济并不代表一种新的积累体制，而是内生于金融化新自由主义积累体制，仅仅是金融化积累体制的内在转型和加强版本；金融化为平台经济的发展创造了前提条件，平台经济则基于与之类似的制度等级结构，区块链和加密货币等技术也推动了金融化的发展。

III. Surplus Extraction: Rentierism, Economic Rent, and the New Enclosure Movement

三、剩余榨取：食利主义、经济租金与新圈地运动

Harvey’s concept of “accumulation by dispossession” has taken on new manifestations in the 21st century. His proposed accumulation by dispossession mainly includes four aspects: privatization and commodification, financialization, crisis management and manipulation, and state redistribution. These four aspects can be reduced to two accumulation strategies: opening up new accumulation spaces or accumulating through redistribution. The accumulation of finance capital is mainly achieved through redistribution; natural capital treats nature as a new accumulation space; digital capital adopts both accumulation strategies simultaneously—both opening up new accumulation spaces by enclosing the digital commons and extracting income in forms such as rent. The 21st-century version of “accumulation by dispossession” far exceeds that of the 20th century in both depth and breadth, causing capitalism to degenerate into “rentier capitalism.” Harvey points out in his latest work: “To some extent, industrial capitalism is increasingly subordinated to commercial capitalism and rentier forms of capitalism. The operational mechanisms of rentier capitalism and commercial capitalism are increasingly about dispossessive appropriation and accumulation, rather than organizing production and exploiting living labor in production. This is the kind of capitalist society we have entered.” [8]8 David Harvey is a prominent Marxist geographer and theorist of capitalist accumulation.

哈维提出的“掠夺性积累”在21世纪有了新的表现。他提出的掠夺性积累主要包含四个方面：私有化和商品化、金融化、危机的管理与操控、国家再分配。这四个方面可以归结为两种积累策略：开辟新的积累空间或通过再分配进行积累。金融资本的积累主要通过再分配实现，自然资本将自然作为新的积累空间，数字资本则同时采取了两种积累策略——既通过圈占数字公地开辟新的积累空间，也以租金等形式攫取收入。“掠夺性积累”的21世纪版本在深度和广度方面都远远超过了20世纪，使资本主义退化为“食利者资本主义”。哈维在其最新著作中指出：“在某种程度上，工业资本主义越来越屈从于商业资本主义和食利形式的资本主义。食利资本主义和商业资本主义的运作机制越来越多地关于剥夺式占有和积累，而不是组织生产和在生产中剥削活劳动。这就是我们已经步入的那种资本主义社会。”

(1) The Revival of Rentierism

（一）食利主义的复兴

Financialization reflects the tendency of capital to seek valorization while detaching itself from the process of creating value and surplus value. This reveals an important shift in contemporary capitalism: capital has opened up many new types of income sources outside the sphere of production, increasingly transforming into rentier capital that directly appropriates profits in the form of interest, rent, and the like. Paramjit Singh holds that the overall economic activity of contemporary capitalism has been controlled by the logic and rules of interest-bearing capital, ultimately degenerating into speculative capital, while actual capital accumulation in the real economy or the sphere of commodity production has become subordinate to finance. Some scholars refer to the above transformation of capitalism as "new extractivism," arguing that "new extractivism" is not a new stage of capitalism but a reflection of the existing limitations and contradictions of capitalism, and an indispensable part of contemporary global capitalist accumulation.

金融化体现了资本试图脱离价值和剩余价值的创造过程而实现增殖的趋势。这反映了当代资本主义的一个重要转变，即资本在生产领域之外开辟了许多新型的收入来源，日益转化为食利资本，以利息、租金等形式直接获取利润。帕拉玛基特·辛格认为，当代资本主义的总体经济活动已经被生息资本的逻辑和规则所把控，最终蜕变为投机资本，实体经济或商品生产领域中的实际资本积累已经成为金融的从属物。有学者将资本主义的上述转变称为“新榨取主义”，认为“新榨取主义”不是资本主义的新阶段，而是现有资本主义局限性和矛盾的反映，是当今全球资本主义积累不可或缺的一部分。

It should be pointed out that "rentier" status is not exclusive to financial capital; digital capital and natural capital can also adopt the same mode of valorization. In 2020, Brett Christophers published *Rentier Capitalism*, arguing that contemporary capitalism has completely degenerated into rentier capitalism. Today's rentiers are not only financiers and landlords; rentiers also extract rents from natural resources, intellectual property, digital platforms, contracts, and infrastructure. "Rentier capitalism is an economic system dominated by rents and rentiers, a system essentially built around the assets that generate these rents and sustain these rentiers." The distinction between capitalism and pre-capitalist modes of production lies in capitalism's internal dynamic mechanism that drives the continuous expansion of production. In terms of the mode of surplus extraction, capitalist society primarily employs economic means, whereas pre-capitalist societies mainly rely on political, legal, or direct violent means. Javier Moreno Zacarés argues that contemporary capitalism has lost the dynamic mechanism that drives the development of productive forces; the rise of rentierism means that capitalism's distinctive form of surplus extraction has given way to legal and political forms of exploitation, increasingly obtaining capital gains through royalties, leases, and the like. The rise of rentierism erodes capitalism's capacity to drive technological progress. Taking the current most advanced innovation system—the Silicon Valley innovation system—as an example, Raúl Delgado Wise and Mateo Crossa Niell argue that the Silicon Valley innovation system has transformed into a powerful patent-production machine. This system enables large corporations to control the scientific and technological labor of a large number of knowledge workers and to profit by purchasing or appropriating patents, thereby promoting the private appropriation and concentration of products created by general intellect.

需要指出的是，“食利”并非只是金融资本的专利，数字资本和自然资本也可以采取同样的增殖方式。布雷特·克里斯托弗斯于2020年出版了《食利者资本主义》一书，认为当代资本主义已经彻底沦为食利者资本主义，今天的食利者不只是金融家和地主，食利者也从自然资源、知识产权、数字平台、合约和基础设施中榨取租金，“食利者资本主义是一个由租金和食利者支配的经济系统，这个系统实质上是围绕产生这些租金并支撑这些食利者的资产建立起来的”。资本主义与前资本主义生产方式的区别在于具有驱动生产持续扩张的内部动力机制。在剩余榨取方式方面，资本主义社会主要采用经济手段，前资本主义社会则主要依靠政治、法律或直接的暴力手段。哈维尔·莫雷诺·扎卡里认为，当代资本主义已经丧失了驱动生产力发展的动力机制，食利主义的兴起意味着资本主义独有的剩余榨取形式让位于法律和政治剥削形式，日益通过使用费和租约等方式取得资本收益。食利主义的兴起侵蚀了资本主义驱动技术进步的能力。以当前最先进的创新体系——硅谷创新体系——为例，劳尔·德尔加多·怀斯和马特奥·克罗萨·尼尔认为，硅谷创新体系已经转变为强大的专利生产机器，这一体系使大型企业能够对大量知识工人的科技劳动进行控制，并通过购买或侵占专利获利，从而促进了对一般智力所创造产品的私人占有和集中。

(II) The New Enclosure Movement and Economic Rent

（二）新圈地运动与经济租金

Just as the establishment of the capitalist mode of production required a process of primitive accumulation to separate the means of production from the laborer, the establishment of the digital capitalist mode of exploitation also requires an "enclosure movement," in which digital capital seizes the core means of production of the digital economy. Rodrigo Alves Teixeira and Tomas Nielsen Rotta propose the concepts of "knowledge-commodity" and "knowledge-rent," arguing that with the rapid development of knowledge-commodity production, knowledge-rent plays an increasingly important role in profit creation and redistribution. Knowledge-commodities include privatized ideas, commodified knowledge, proprietary technology, information, and instructions for use. Although the research and development of knowledge-commodities requires a large input of highly skilled labor time, the fact that they can be easily replicated at nearly zero cost means such commodities do not possess value. Knowledge-commodities do not constitute a definite quantity of value and therefore cannot become interest-bearing capital. Teixeira and Rotta point out: "The profit motive creates a demand for intellectual property rights, patents, and copyrights, which can bring persistent or at least long-lasting surplus profits. Obtaining privatized knowledge is like renting land; using it for productive purposes requires permission from the knowledge owner. The license price paid by the user to the knowledge owner becomes the source of the surplus profit created by this particular technology and idea. What we call knowledge-rent is the rent paid by the knowledge user to the knowledge producer—a new type of social differential rent." Take a machine with the latest patent as an example: because this machine has higher efficiency, the capitalist who puts it into the production process can obtain surplus profit. Just like the capitalist who rents superior land, the capitalist using this machine must pay part of the surplus profit to the owner of the knowledge-commodity in the form of knowledge-rent. The appropriation of land rent depends on legally protected monopoly over land; knowledge-rent depends on a "new enclosure movement" centered on patents and intellectual property rights, which negates labor's access to knowledge as a means of production. Teixeira and Rotta argue that even if all capitalists in a production sector use the same knowledge-commodity to increase productivity, thereby eliminating individual surplus profit and differential rent, the existence of intellectual property protection laws still enables knowledge-commodity producers to obtain absolute knowledge rent, which is part of production profit.

正如资本主义生产方式的确立需要经历一个原始积累过程，实现生产资料与劳动力的分离，数字资本主义剥削方式的确立也需要一场“圈地运动”，由数字资本掌握数字经济的核心生产资料。罗德里戈·阿尔维斯·泰谢拉和托马斯·尼尔森·罗塔提出了“知识商品”（knowledge-commodity）和“知识租金”（knowledge-rent）的概念，认为随着知识商品生产的迅速发展，知识租金在利润创造和再分配中发挥了越来越重要的作用。知识商品包括私有化的创意、商品化的知识、专有技术、信息和使用说明等。尽管知识商品的研发需要投入大量的高技能劳动时间，但几乎零成本就可以轻松复制使这种商品并不具有价值。知识商品并非一定数量的价值，因而无法成为生息资本。泰谢拉和罗塔指出：“利润动机创造了对知识产权、专利和著作权的需求，它们能带来持久或至少长久的超额利润。获取私有化的知识就像租地一样，将其用于生产目的需要获得知识所有者的许可。使用者支付给知识所有者的许可价格成为这种特殊技术和创意所创造的超额利润的来源。我们所说的知识租金就是知识使用者付给知识生产者的租金——一种新型的社会级差租金。”以一台拥有最新专利的机器为例，由于这台机器具有更高的效率，将这台机器投入生产过程的资本家能够取得超额利润。与租种优等土地的资本家一样，使用这台机器的资本家需要将超额利润的一部分以知识租金的形式支付给知识商品的所有者。地租的取得依赖于受法律保护的土地垄断，知识租金则依赖于围绕专利和知识产权进行的“新圈地运动”，后者是对劳动获取知识这种生产资料的否定。泰谢拉和罗塔认为，即使生产部门的所有资本家都使用相同的知识商品来提高生产力，从而使个别的超额利润和级差租金消失，但由于知识产权保护法的存在，知识商品生产者仍然能够获得绝对知识租金（absolute knowledge rent），绝对知识租金是生产利润的一部分。

Stan Harrison examines the enclosure movement launched by capital against the most basic means of production of the digital economy—the internet. Unlike Teixeira and Rotta, Harrison argues that after successfully enclosing the digital common, capital revived a feudal agricultural mode of exploitation—establishing digital sharecropping, collecting digital rent, and extracting tribute. On April 30, 1995, the U.S. government handed over control of the internet to capital (abandoning the National Science Foundation Network NSFnet), and capital began to undertake the construction of internet infrastructure. From that point on, capital giants such as Facebook and internet service providers became digital landlords, while their account holders were transformed into digital tenants. Digital tenants produce digital crops containing necessary labor and surplus labor, and digital landlords extract income in the form of shares, rent, and tribute. Jodi Dean also argues that contemporary capitalism exhibits characteristics of neo-feudalism: accumulation is increasingly achieved through rent, debt, and power, and the valorization process increasingly relies on surveillance, coercion, and violence. "We need to consider why we are no longer in capitalism but in something worse—neo-feudalism. This does not mean there are no longer capitalist production and exploitation relations; it means that other aspects of capitalist production, such as expropriation, domination, and coercion, have become so powerful that organizing free and equal subjects to confront each other in the labor market is meaningless. It means that the role of rent and debt in accumulation equals or even exceeds the role of profit, and work increasingly exceeds the wage relation." In Dean's view, neo-feudalism is the continuation of imperialism under the conditions of digital capitalism; our lives and communicative interactions are transformed into sources of capital accumulation. Platform capital cannot directly control the labor process of users, which leads it to adopt exploitation methods different from those in the sphere of material production.

斯坦·哈里森考察了资本对数字经济最基本的生产资料——互联网——所发起的圈地运动。不同于泰谢拉和罗塔，哈里森认为资本在成功圈占数字公地（digital common）之后，复兴了一种封建农业剥削模式——建立数字分成制、收取数字地租和榨取贡品。美国政府于1995年4月30日将互联网的控制权交给资本（放弃了国家科学基金会网络NSFnet），资本开始承担起互联网基础设施的建设工作。从那时起，“脸书”（Facebook）等资本巨头和互联网服务提供商成了数字地主，其账户持有者则转变为数字佃农。数字佃农生产出包含必要劳动和剩余劳动的数字作物，数字地主通过分成、地租和贡品的形式榨取收入。约迪·迪安也认为当代资本主义出现了新封建主义的特征，积累日益通过租金、债务和权力来实现，增殖过程日益依赖监控、强迫和暴力，“我们需要考虑为什么我们不再处于资本主义，而是更糟糕的新封建主义。这并不意味着不再有资本主义生产和剥削关系，而是意味着征用、支配和强制等资本主义生产的其他方面已经变得如此强大，以至于组织自由和平等的主体在劳动力市场进行对抗已经没有意义。它意味着租金和债务在积累中的作用相当于甚至超过利润的作用，工作日益超过工资关系”。在迪安看来，新封建主义是帝国主义在数字资本主义条件下的延续，我们的生活和交流互动被转变为资本积累的来源。平台资本无法直接控制用户的劳动过程，这使其采取了不同于物质生产领域的剥削方式。

IV. Logical Unfolding: From Daily Life to Ideology

四、逻辑展开：从日常生活到意识形态

In capitalist society, capital is the power that dominates everything, "a kind of all-illuminating light that masks all other colors and alters their characteristics. It is a special ether that determines the specific gravity of everything that appears within it." [12]12 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy* (Rough Draft), trans. Martin Nicolaus (London: Penguin Books, 1973), p. 107. [13] John Bellamy Foster and Brett Clark, *The Robbery of Nature: Capitalism and the Ecological Rift*, trans. Liu Rensheng and Wu Yijun (Beijing: China Environmental Science Press, 2023), p. 3. [14] David Harvey, *The New Imperialism*, trans. Chu Lixin (Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press, 2009), p. 118. [15] Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *The German Ideology*, in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 5 (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1976), p. 59. [16] Louis Althusser, *On the Reproduction of Capitalism: Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses*, trans. G. M. Goshgarian (London: Verso, 2014), p. 243. [17] Ibid., p. 249. [18] Hu Leming and Li Lianbo, "Digital Capitalism and Its Critique," *Journal of the Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences*, no. 4 (2022). [19] Byung-Chul Han, *In the Swarm: Digital Prospects*, trans. Guan Yuwei (Beijing: CITIC Press, 2019), p. 27. [20] Terry L. Anderson and Donald R. Leal, *Free Market Environmentalism*, trans. Peng Song et al. (Beijing: China Social Sciences Press, 2019), p. 1. [21] Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and L. Hunter Lovins, *Natural Capitalism: The Next Industrial Revolution*, trans. Wang Yiling et al. (Shanghai: Shanghai Scientific & Technical Publishers, 2000), p. 2. [22] Sun Tianqi, "Asset Securitization in the Field of Environmental Protection," *China Finance*, no. 3 (2016). [23] David Harvey, *Spaces of Hope*, trans. Hu Daping (Nanjing: Nanjing University Press, 2006), p. 167. [24] Ibid., p. 168. [25] Meng Jie, "The Political Economy of the Primary Stage of Socialism and the Ideological State Apparatuses," *Economic Research Journal*, no. 3 (2023). With the full unfolding of capital's scale, space, and power logic, capital has not only completely seized economic and political power but also dominated all fields from daily life to ideology. After the outbreak of the 2008 financial crisis, the economies of developed capitalist countries fell into the quagmire of long-term stagnation. When accumulation in the sphere of material production suffered setbacks, capital opened up more spaces for valorization. "Capital must do everything in its power to privatize, commodify, monetize, and commercialize all aspects of nature. Only in this way can it absorb more and more natural things (now extending to human DNA) and turn them into a form of capital (this is a strategy of capital accumulation)… Capital is accelerating its colonization of the human lifeworld. As capital accumulates ever more blindly at an exponential rate, capital's ecology also blindly expands in our lifeworld." [13] It is still difficult to determine whether the unlimited expansion of capital has reached its limit, but "many regions of the world have few resources left to enclose and privatize. Moreover, many signs indicate that further enclosure of public resources and further commodification of life forms have encountered political resistance." [14]

在资本主义社会，资本是支配一切的权力，“这是一种普照的光，它掩盖了一切其他色彩，改变着它们的特点。这是一种特殊的以太，它决定着它里面显露出来的一切存在的比重”。随着资本规模、空间和权力逻辑的全面展开，资本不仅彻底掌握了经济权力和政治权力，而且主导了从日常生活到意识形态的一切领域。2008年金融危机爆发后，发达资本主义国家经济陷入长期停滞的泥潭。在物质生产领域的积累受挫的情况下，资本开辟了更多的增殖空间。“资本不得不尽其所能，将自然的各方面私有化、商品化、货币化和商业化。唯有如此，它才能吸纳越来越多自然事物（如今已延伸至人类的DNA），使它们变成一种资本（这是资本的一种积累策略）。⋯⋯资本正加快它对人类生活世界的殖民。随着资本日趋盲目地以指数型增长的方式不断积累，资本的生态也日趋盲目地在我们的生活世界中不断扩张。”目前还难以判定资本的无限扩张是否已经达到极限，但“世界许多地区已没有多少资源可供圈占和私有化。此外，许多迹象显示，进一步圈占公有资源、生命形态进一步商品化已遇到政治阻力”。

(I) The Ideological Construction of Digital Capital and Natural Capital

（一）数字资本和自然资本的意识形态建构

Just as neoliberalism cleared obstacles for financial capital accumulation by constructing discourses such as market, freedom, private property, and openness, digital capital and natural capital have also constructed their own discourse systems or ideologies, aiming to clear obstacles for capital accumulation. Marx pointed out in *The German Ideology*: "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling *material* force of society, is at the same time its ruling *intellectual* force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it." [15] Althusser proposed the concept of "Ideological State Apparatuses," including the educational apparatus, the family apparatus, the religious apparatus, the political apparatus, the trade-union apparatus, the communications apparatus, the publishing-distribution apparatus, and the cultural apparatus. [16] Digital capital and natural capital will inevitably construct ideologies aligned with their own interests from these eight aspects. He pointed out: "The ideology of the state is suited to the fundamental interests of the class (or classes) holding state power. The politics of the class holding state power, and the ideology of the state (the ruling ideology = the ideology of the ruling class), both aim to guarantee the conditions for the exploitation of the exploited classes by the ruling class, first and foremost the reproduction of the relations of production in which that exploitation takes place, because in the class social formations we are discussing, the relations of production are relations of exploitation." [17]

正如新自由主义通过构建市场、自由、私有、开放等话语为金融资本积累扫清障碍，数字资本和自然资本也构建了自己的话语体系或意识形态，意图为资本积累扫清障碍。马克思在《德意志意识形态》中指出：“统治阶级的思想在每一时代都是占统治地位的思想。这就是说，一个阶级是社会上占统治地位的物质力量，同时也是社会上占统治地位的精神力量。支配着物质生产资料的阶级，同时也支配着精神生产资料，因此，那些没有精神生产资料的人的思想，一般地是隶属于这个阶级的。”卢卡奇提出了“意识形态国家机器”的概念，包含教育机器、家庭机器、宗教机器、政治机器、工会机器、传播机器、出版—发行机器和文化机器。数字资本和自然资本势必会从这八个方面构建符合自身利益的意识形态。他指出：“国家的意识形态是与掌握政权的那个（或那些）阶级的根本利益相适合的。掌握政权的阶级的政治，以及国家的意识形态（占统治地位的意识形态=统治阶级的意识形态），它们的目标都是保障统治阶级对被剥削阶级进行剥削的条件，首先是保障那种剥削得以在其中发生的生产关系的再生产，因为在我们讨论的阶级社会形态中，生产关系就是剥削关系。”

We often hear the mainstream discourse that the digital economy is a "frictionless economy" that can bring democracy, equality, and sharing. Individuals indulge in the lies woven by digital capital, claiming to be privileged knowledge workers walking on the path to freedom and liberation, while exploitative relations are completely obscured. "Digital technology, with its embedded progressiveness, shapes new modes of discourse, making capitalist discursive hegemony, labor exploitation, reification, and alienation more concealed." [18] Digital capital links labor with "play," further masking its exploitative behavior: "Labor becomes like 'play'; exploitation and pleasure thus become inseparable. Today, 'play' and labor are indistinguishable in some cases: Eros has been fully incorporated into the repressive reality principle; 'play' has been commodified; space and free time not exploited by capital hardly exist today; they are difficult to create and defend. Today, 'play' is productive, it is labor exploited by capital to create surplus value. All human activities, including all forms of play, under contemporary conditions become and are incorporated under the exploitation of capital." [19]

我们经常听到的主流话语是数字经济为“无摩擦经济”，能够带来民主、平等和共享。个体沉溺于数字资本编织的谎言中，自诩为拥有特权的知识工作者，行走在通往自由和解放的道路上，剥削关系被完全遮蔽。“数字技术以其内嵌的进步性塑造了新的话语方式，致使资本主义的话语霸权、劳动剥削、物化与异化现象变得更加隐蔽。”数字资本将劳动和“玩”联系在一起，进一步掩盖了其剥削行为，“劳动变得就像在‘玩’一样；剥削和乐趣也因此变得不可分割。在当今，‘玩’和劳动在某些情况下是无法区分的：爱神已经完全纳入了压抑的现实原则；‘玩’已经被商品化；没有被资本剥削的空间和自由的时间在当今几乎是不存在的，它们是很难创建和为自己辩护的。当今，‘玩’是生产性的，是被资本剥削的创造剩余价值的劳动。人类的一切活动，包括所有的玩乐，在当代条件下成为并纳入资本的剥削之下”。

The mainstream view on environmental protection holds that environmental protection depends on introducing market mechanisms and consciously utilizing financial instruments. "Because market mechanisms can provide people with economic incentives, they may in fact be the best way to protect the environment." [20] "People will surely find business opportunities in ecological protection behaviors." [21] "In the field of environmental protection, asset securitization has been applied to improve energy efficiency." [22] Capital is particularly adept at disguising its profit-seeking behavior as serving the interests of all humanity. Harvey argues that concepts about the environment, population, and resources are not neutral, and many terms used in contemporary environmental debates unconsciously incorporate capitalist values: "The ruling groups try with incredible enthusiasm to contain, shape, confuse, and muddy contemporary debates about nature and the environment… The dominant power system can propose and protect a hegemonic discourse, a set of discourses on environmental management and resource allocation that are sufficiently effective and reasonable for capital accumulation (to some extent, even creating policies, institutions, and material practices based on that discourse)." [23] Once capital gains dominance over ecological discourse, it can "define nature in its own way (usually monetized, with the help of cost-benefit analysis) and attempt to handle the contradictions between capital and nature in a manner consistent with the broad interests of the bourgeoisie." [24]

关于环境保护的主流观点认为，环境保护依赖于引入市场机制并自觉利用金融工具，“由于市场机制能够给人们带来经济激励，它或许其实是环境保护的最佳方式”，“人们一定会从生态保护的行为中寻找到商机”，“在环境保护领域，资产证券化已经被运用于提高能源效率”。资本特别擅长将追逐利润的行为伪装成为全体人类谋利。哈维认为，关于环境、人口和资源的观念并非中性的，当代环境争论中使用的许多术语都无意识地融入了资本主义的价值，“统治集团以难以置信的热情试图包容、塑造、迷惑并搞混当代有关自然和环境的争论。⋯⋯占统治地位的权力系统能够提出并保护一种霸权话语，这是一套对资本积累来说充分有效又合理的环境管理和资源配置的话语（在某种程度上，甚至依据那种话语创建了政策、制度和物质实践）”。资本在取得对生态话语的支配权后，就能“以自己的方式定义自然（通常是货币化的，会借助成本效益分析），并试图以符合资产阶级广泛利益的方式，处理资本与自然之间的矛盾”。

The ideological barriers constructed by digital capital and natural capital hinder the development of struggles against capital. As China utilizes capital on a large scale to develop its economy, the ideology corresponding to capital will inevitably emerge, develop, and erode mainstream thought. In this regard, Meng Jie believes that with the spread of neoliberal economics in China, a situation of coexistence and competition between two economic knowledge systems or truth regimes has emerged within the ideological state apparatuses—neoliberal economics and socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics. "The coexistence and mutual competition of these two economic knowledge systems are inevitable phenomena in the primary stage of socialism that practices a market economy. They reflect the coexistence of two different economic powers—on the one hand, the state's economic governance under the leadership of the Party, and on the other hand, private capital pursuing its own interests. For knowledge governance in the primary stage of socialism, the problem is not to use one knowledge system to eliminate the other, but to restrict and induce the production of knowledge systems associated with capital power, and to establish and consolidate the leadership of socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics within various ideological state apparatuses." [25]

数字资本和自然资本所构造的意识形态壁垒，阻碍了反抗资本斗争的开展。随着中国大规模利用资本发展经济，与资本对应的意识形态必然会产生、发展并侵蚀主流思想。对此，孟捷认为，随着新自由主义经济学在中国的传播，意识形态国家机器内部出现了两种经济学知识体系或真理体制并存的格局——新自由主义经济学与中国特色社会主义政治经济学。“这两种经济学知识体系的并存和相互竞争，在奉行市场经济的社会主义初级阶段是不可避免的现象，它反映了两种不同的经济权力之间的并存关系——一方面是党领导下的国家经济治理，另一方面是追逐自身利益的私人资本。对于社会主义初级阶段的知识治理而言，问题不在于用一种知识体系消灭另一种知识体系，而在于限制和诱导与资本权力相关联的知识体系的生产，在各种意识形态国家机器内部确立和巩固中国特色社会主义政治经济学的领导权。”

(II) Financialization and Digitalization of Daily Life

（二）日常生活的金融化、数字化

With the help of digital technology, financial capital has increasingly and extensively penetrated into the sphere of daily life, taking households and individuals as objects for extracting profit, leading to the financialization of daily life. “So-called financialization of daily life is nothing more than the increasingly extensive penetration of a portion of capital from the financial sphere and the material production sphere into the non-material production sphere, taking households and individuals as objects for extracting profit. The financialization of daily life reflects a systemic shift in capital accumulation.” According to Agnes Heller’s definition, daily life is the sphere of social reproduction: “We can define ‘daily life’ as the set of elements of individual reproduction that simultaneously make social reproduction possible.” Therefore, the financialization of daily life essentially embodies the financialization of labor-power reproduction. The financialization of daily life is the result of multiple factors working together. The neoliberal economic restructuring set the macro-level inevitability of individual financialization—against the backdrop of stagnant real wages, worsening income distribution, job instability, and increased financial risk, individuals are forced to maintain labor-power reproduction through debt. The ideological reshaping of neoliberalism provided the internal impetus for individual financialization—neoliberalism uses governance techniques such as debt, risk, and government intervention to constrain or discipline individual behavior, making it conform to the expectations of financialization; at the same time, through political and media discourse, economic and financial knowledge, financial instruments, and technological devices, it reshapes the culture of daily life and guides individual daily practices. Neoliberal ideology and governance techniques together shape self-disciplining financialized subjects, driving the comprehensive financialization of the sphere of daily life. This new subject has the following characteristics: it is a rational subject, a *homo economicus*; it is an investor subject, actively engaged in financial activities; it is a responsible individual, bearing all the consequences of personal choices on its own.

在数字技术的帮助下，金融资本日益广泛地渗透到日常生活领域，将家庭和个体作为榨取利润的对象，导致了日常生活的金融化。“所谓日常生活金融化，无非是金融领域和物质生产领域的一部分资本日益广泛地渗透到非物质生产领域，将家庭和个体作为榨取利润的对象。日常生活金融化体现了资本积累方面的系统性转变。”按照阿格妮丝·赫勒的定义，日常生活是社会再生产的领域，“我们可以把‘日常生活’界定为那些同时使社会再生产成为可能的个体再生产要素的集合”。因此，日常生活的金融化本质上体现了劳动力再生产的金融化。日常生活的金融化是多种因素共同作用的结果。新自由主义的经济重构设定了个体金融化转变的宏观必然性——在实际工资停滞、收入分配恶化、工作不稳定性与金融风险增加的背景下，个体通过负债来维持劳动力的再生产成为必然的选择。新自由主义的意识形态重塑则为个体的金融化转变提供了内在动力——新自由主义使用债务、风险和政府干预等治理技术约束或规训个体行为，使他们的行为符合金融化的预期；同时通过政治与媒体话语、经济与金融知识、金融工具和技术装置重塑了日常生活文化，引导了个体的日常实践。新自由主义的意识形态和治理技术共同塑造了自我规训的金融化主体，推动了日常生活领域的全面金融化。这个新的主体有以下特征：它是一个理性的主体，是一个经济人；它是一个投资者主体，积极从事金融活动；它是一个负责的个体，自己承担个人选择的一切后果。

The penetration of digital capital into the sphere of daily life has led to the digitalization of daily life. Kang Di argues that the digitalization of daily life manifests in three aspects: the digitalization of need satisfaction, the transformation of leisure time into labor time, and the digitalization of ideological construction. The progress of digital technology and the development of the digital economy have brought almost all human activities into the operational orbit of digital capital, enabling capital’s exploitation of labor to transcend the original boundaries of time and space. The digitalization of daily life has also produced new subjectivities and new forms of governance: “The pastoral power of digital technology reinforces this by making individuals believe that the choices they make in expressing their selves are their own autonomous acts, and that the choices they make are expressions of their individuality. We are becoming subjects who are willing and capable of self-governance.”

数字资本向日常生活领域的渗透导致了日常生活的数字化。康翟认为日常生活的数字化表现在三个方面：需求满足的数字化、休闲时间转化为劳动时间和意识形态建构的数字化。数字技术的进步和数字经济的发展几乎将一切人类活动都纳入数字资本的运行轨道，使资本对劳动的剥削超出了原有的时空界限。日常生活的数字化也产生了新的主体性和新的治理形式，“数字技术的牧领权力通过如下方式加强了这一点：使个体相信他们在表现其自我时所做的选择是其自主所为，并且他们做出的选择是对其个性化的表达。我们正在成为自愿且有能力自我治理的主体”。

V. Conclusion and Implications

五、结论与启示

This article systematically reviews Western scholars’ new theories on capital movement from three aspects—the evolution of capital forms, the transformation of surplus extraction mechanisms, and the comprehensive unfolding of capital’s logic of expansion—and summarizes the new characteristics of capital movement in Western developed countries since the 21st century. Capital movement and capital accumulation always follow the three fundamental logics of scale, space, and power. In different stages of capitalist development, the “technical structure” and “social structure” of capital accumulation take different forms, causing capital movement to exhibit different characteristics. Since the 21st century, against the backdrop of a continuously intensifying crisis of overaccumulation, capital movement in Western developed countries, aided by digital technology and financialization, has achieved accumulation on an unprecedented scale, opened up more spaces for valorization, and become an all-dominating power. There is no doubt that with the continuous development of digital technology, financial instruments, and the digital economy, capital movement in Western developed countries will inevitably undergo new changes. Accurately grasping these trends can further deepen our understanding of the general laws of capital movement.

本文从资本形态演变、剩余榨取机制转变和资本扩张逻辑的全面展开三个方面系统梳理了西方学者关于资本运动的新理论，总结了21世纪以来西方发达国家资本运动的新特点。资本运动和资本积累始终遵循规模、空间和权力这三重基本逻辑。在资本主义的不同发展阶段，资本积累的“技术结构”与“社会结构”具有不同形态，使得资本运动呈现出不同特点。21世纪以来，在过度积累危机持续加剧的背景下，西方发达国家的资本运动借助数字技术和金融化手段实现了空前规模的积累，开辟出更多增殖空间，并成为支配一切的权力。毫无疑问，随着数字技术、金融工具和数字经济的不断发展，西方发达国家的资本运动也必将出现新的变化，准确把握其变化趋势可以进一步加深我们对资本运动一般规律的认识。

For correctly understanding and grasping the characteristics and behavioral laws of capital, the latest changes in capital movement in 21st-century Western developed countries can offer us the following implications.

对于正确认识和把握资本的特性和行为规律来说，21世纪西方发达国家资本运动的最新变化能给我们以下几点启示。

First, correctly understand various forms of capital. Analysis of various forms of capital shows that mainstream Western thought always tries to cloak capital in a sacred halo—for example, touting digital capital as bringing equality, freedom, and liberation, or natural capital as the only way to address the ecological crisis, and so on. Once these halos are stripped away, capital is left with nothing but naked relations of exploitation. We must recognize that capital is not a ferocious beast; we should not flee from it in panic. The emergence of any form of capital is a product of socio-economic evolution and will play a certain progressive role at a specific historical stage. Nor is capital a panacea that can cure all ills, as if any social problem can be perfectly solved by handing it over to capital. On the contrary, most social problems in capitalism are inseparable from capital in their emergence and intensification. As a factor of production, capital possesses immense potential to promote the development of productive forces, thereby exerting a “great civilizing influence.” However, as a relation of production, the progressive role of capital is inevitably constrained by its own limits. At the same time, we must recognize that capital as a factor of production and capital as a relation of production essentially reflect the relationship between the production of material wealth and the production of value wealth. Only from the perspective of the production of material wealth do various non-labor factors come into play; but on the issue of the production of value wealth, only labor is the sole entity and source of value, while everything else is merely a condition.

第一，正确认识各类资本形态。对各种资本形态的分析表明，西方主流思想总会设法给资本披上神圣的光环，比如鼓吹数字资本能带来平等、自由和解放，自然资本是应对生态危机的不二法门，等等。一旦褪去这些光环，资本就只剩下赤裸裸的剥削关系。我们必须认识到，资本不是洪水猛兽，不能唯恐避之不及，任何资本形态的产生都是社会经济演变的产物，都会在特定历史阶段起到一定的进步作用；资本也不是包治百病的灵丹妙药，似乎任何社会问题交给资本就能完美解决，相反，资本主义大部分社会问题的产生和加剧都与资本密不可分。作为一种生产要素，资本具有推动生产力发展的巨大潜能，从而发挥“伟大的文明作用”。但是，作为一种生产关系，资本进步作用的发挥会不可避免地受到自身的限制。同时，我们要认识到，作为生产要素的资本与作为生产关系的资本实质上反映了物质财富生产与价值财富生产之间的关系。只有从物质财富生产的角度看，各种非劳动要素才会发生作用；但在价值财富生产问题上，只有劳动是价值唯一的实体和来源，其他的只是条件。

Second, give play to the regulatory role of the market and the government. In order to extract surplus value, capital disregards all legal, moral, and environmental limits, because “the production of surplus value, or the making of profit, is the absolute law of this mode of production.” Capital’s boundless drive for surplus labor pushes the working day beyond the physical and moral limits of the worker, so that capital accumulation is always accompanied by the accumulation of workers’ poverty. At the same time, the expansion of capital is a process of creative destruction. From a micro perspective, the expansion of individual capital, having passed the test of the market, is undoubtedly rational. But from a macro perspective, in the absence of effective guidance and regulation, the expansionary behavior of countless individual capitals often leads to disorder and chaos—that is, “market failure.” Therefore, it is necessary to further improve market mechanisms, perfect the market system, strengthen relevant laws and regulations, and create an open and transparent market environment, so as to fully leverage the regulatory role of the market. At the same time, government supervision and management must be strengthened—anti-monopoly, anti-excessive profits, anti-sky-high prices, anti-malicious speculation, anti-unfair competition—and regulation and adjustment of high incomes must be strengthened to promote the orderly development of capital.

第二，发挥市场和政府的调节作用。资本为了攫取剩余价值，会无视一切法律、道德和环境的限制，因为“生产剩余价值或赚钱，是这个生产方式的绝对规律”。资本无限度地追逐剩余劳动，使工作日突破了工人的身体极限和道德极限，使得资本的积累总是与工人贫困的积累相伴。同时，资本的扩张是一个创造性毁灭的过程。从微观来看，单个资本的扩张经受了市场的考验，无疑是合乎理性的。但从宏观来看，在缺乏有效引导和规范的情况下，无数个体资本的扩张行为往往会导致无序和混乱，即出现“市场失灵”。因此，必须进一步完善市场机制，健全市场体系，健全相关法律法规，营造公开透明的市场环境，从而充分发挥市场的调节作用。同时，必须加强政府的监督管理，反垄断、反暴利、反天价、反恶意炒作、反不正当竞争，加强对高收入的规范和调节，促进资本有序发展。

Third, give play to the guiding role of social value norms. As the logic of capital unfolds comprehensively, capital will dominate everything from daily life to ideology, leading to “dual failure” of the market and the government. Therefore, curbing the disorderly expansion of capital cannot rely solely on market forces and government regulation; society should also be built as the last line of defense against capital’s erosion. It is necessary to strengthen social construction and give play to the guiding role of social value norms, so as to compensate for the limitations of market rationality and government rationality. “Value-based or justice-based social regulation, in addition to playing an important role in the narrow social sphere, can also function where the market and government fail, thereby better constraining the disorderly expansion of capital. The experience of modern market economy development shows that a successful market economy is one that combines the power of capital with the power of morality.” Furthermore, social organization construction should be regulated and strengthened, social value norms and social solidarity mechanisms should be perfected and reshaped, and the regulatory role of core socialist values should be fully utilized, forging them into a strong fortress to resist the expansion of capital, especially monopoly capital, in the social and cultural spheres.

第三，发挥社会价值规范的引领作用。随着资本逻辑全面展开，资本会主导从日常生活到意识形态的一切领域，导致市场和政府“双重失灵”。因此，遏制资本无序扩张，仅凭市场力量和政府调节是不够的，还应将社会构筑成抵挡资本侵蚀的最后一道防线。必须加强社会建设，发挥社会价值规范的引领作用，以弥补市场理性与政府理性的局限，“基于价值或正义的社会调节除了可以在狭义的社会领域发挥重要作用之外，也能够在市场和政府失灵的场所发挥作用，从而更好地约束资本的无序扩张。现代市场经济发展经验表明，成功的市场经济是将资本力量与道德力量结合起来的市场经济”。此外，还应规范和加强社会组织建设，完善和重塑社会价值规范与社会团结机制，充分发挥社会主义核心价值观的调节作用，将其打造为抵抗资本尤其是垄断资本在社会领域和文化领域扩张的坚强堡垒。

Fourth, only the socialist market economy can successfully harness capital. The governments of capitalist countries are essentially in service of capital, bearing the mission of clearing obstacles for the accumulation of private capital; therefore, they cannot successfully harness capital. Capitalism cannot curb the disorderly expansion of various forms of capital, nor can it prevent capital from extracting profits through various means, and it will not relinquish capital’s power to dominate everything. The digital economy, environmental governance, and the financial sector constitute different investment fields, into which any capital can freely enter, but the entry of capital is not aimed at promoting the development of the digital economy or solving social problems such as the ecological crisis; rather, it is for the purpose of extracting maximum profits. The socialist market economy inevitably contains various forms of capital, but the fundamental difference from capitalism lies in the fact that the socialist market economy is based on public ownership, and the dominant form of capital is public capital. Public capital eliminates exploitative class relations and establishes equal labor relations. At the same time, public capital serves the socialist production purpose, becoming a powerful lever for the state to regulate the economy and implement the national development strategy. Private capital in the socialist market economy cannot control the lifelines of the national economy, nor can it dominate political power and ideology; it can only participate in competition as an equal market entity, subject to effective state supervision and the value norms of society. Therefore, only the socialist market economy can successfully harness capital, both giving full play to the positive role of capital as a factor of production and effectively controlling its negative effects. (Notes omitted)

第四，只有社会主义市场经济才能成功驾驭资本。资本主义国家政府本质上是为资本服务的，承担了为私人资本积累扫清障碍的使命，因此不可能成功驾驭资本。资本主义无法抑制各类资本的无序扩张，也不可能阻碍资本通过各种方式榨取利润，更不会放弃资本支配一切的权力。数字经济、环境治理和金融部门构成了不同的投资领域，任何资本都可自由进入，但资本的进入不是为了推动数字经济发展或解决生态危机等社会问题，而是为了攫取最大利润。社会主义市场经济必然存在各种资本形态，但与资本主义的根本区别在于，社会主义市场经济以公有制为基础，主导资本形态为公有资本。公有资本消除了剥削性阶级关系，建立了平等的劳动关系。同时，公有资本服务于社会主义生产目的，成为国家调控经济和贯彻国家发展战略的有力杠杆。社会主义市场经济中的私有资本不可能掌握国民经济的命脉，更不能主导政治权力和意识形态，只能以平等的市场主体地位参与竞争，并接受国家的有效监督和社会的价值规范。因此，只有社会主义市场经济才能成功驾驭资本，既发挥资本作为生产要素的积极作用，又能有效控制其消极作用。（注释略）

(Author bios: Hu Leming, Distinguished Professor and Doctoral Supervisor, School of Economics, University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Li Lianbo, Associate Researcher, Institute of Economics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences)

（作者简介：胡乐明，中国社会科学院大学经济学院特聘教授、博士生导师；李连波，中国社会科学院经济研究所副研究员）

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑