Debates among Foreign Left-Wing Scholars on the Theory of Digital Socialism

In 2009, Kevin Kelly proposed the concept of “Digital Socialism,” which attracted widespread attention in academia. The theory of digital socialism, through its critique of the institutional crisis of contemporary capitalist society, aims to examine alternatives to capitalism and future development trends in the era of big data and the internet. Overall, scholars have diverse and sharply divided classifications of digital socialist theory. Some scholars, from the perspective of communication studies, argue that public communication built on sharing constitutes an alternative to capitalist communication methods, and the resulting “communication socialism” is an important dimension of socialism.[1]1 This refers to the concept of “communication socialism” as discussed by scholars such as Christian Fuchs, who argue that communication and information sharing under digital conditions can form a socialist dimension. Other scholars propose the concept of “platform socialism,” advocating for the establishment of social ownership that grants workers and users the right to participate in the governance of digital platforms.[2]2 “Platform socialism” is a concept proposed by scholars like Trebor Scholz, advocating for platform cooperatives owned and governed by workers and users. In addition, foreign left-wing scholars have engaged in heated discussions on the attributes and practical characteristics of digital socialism. The focus of their debates centers on the following aspects: Does digital socialism possess a socialist nature? Can digital socialism drive social change? Can digital socialism move toward practice? Can digital socialism promote the free and comprehensive development of individuals?

2009年，凯文·凯利(Kevin Kelly)提出了“数字社会主义”(Digital Socialism)的概念，引起了学术界的广泛关注。数字社会主义理论通过对当前资本主义社会制度性危机的批判，目的是为了在大数据、互联网时代审思资本主义的替代方案和未来发展趋势。总体而言，学者们对数字社会主义理论分类多样且分歧巨大。有学者从传播学角度指出建立在共享基础上的公共通讯成为资本主义社会的通讯方式的替代方案，由此形成的“传播社会主义”是社会主义的一个重要维度；1有的学者提出“平台社会主义”的概念，主张建立赋予工人和用户以参与数字平台治理的权利的社会所有制2。此外，国外左翼学者还对数字社会主义的属性、实践特征等问题展开了热烈的讨论。其论争的焦点主要集中在以下几个方面：数字社会主义是否具有社会主义性质?数字社会主义能否推动社会变革?数字社会主义能否向实践迈进?数字社会主义能否推动人的自由全面发展?

I. Does Digital Socialism Possess a Socialist Nature?

一、数字社会主义是否具有社会主义性质

Does digital socialism belong to scientific socialism, or does its essential nature point to something else? Foreign left-wing scholars hold sharply differing views on this. The debates among foreign left-wing scholars on the characteristics of digital socialism mainly focus on whether the theory itself has a communist nature.

数字社会主义是否属于科学社会主义，抑或它的本质属性另有所指?国外左翼学者对此看法迥异。国外左翼学者关于数字社会主义特征的论争主要聚焦于其理论本身是否具有共产主义性质。

(1) Does the Sharing Attribute of Digital Socialism Belong to the Theoretical Category of Communism?

(一)数字社会主义的共享属性是否属于共产主义的理论范畴

Network data, collective labor, and sharing are the main features of the digital capitalist era, and sharing also constitutes the logical premise of digital socialism. Regarding whether sharing belongs to the theoretical category of communism, the views of foreign left-wing scholars differ greatly.

网络数据、集体劳动和共享是数字资本主义时代的主要特征，而共享也构成了数字社会主义的逻辑前提。对于共享是否属于共产主义的理论范畴，国外左翼学者的见解存在很大差异。

Kelly regards sharing as an important attribute and theoretical foundation of digital socialism. In 2016, in his book *The Inevitable*, he profoundly explained the impact of digital socialism on human society from twelve themes, including becoming, cognifying, flowing, screening, and sharing. Kelly proposes that the vast number of people who possess some digital means of production work hard toward common goals, contribute their labor without compensation, and share their products together. These constitute the sharing characteristics of digital socialism. On the one hand, network users can edit, correct, and upload information materials on user platforms like Wikipedia, reflecting collectivism; on the other hand, websites such as Tor and Digg provide users with articles, photos, and even ideas free of charge, offering ordinary people opportunities for shared learning through this digital information. Kelly further points out that, although not everyone agrees and some even oppose it, the coming sharing society belongs to “new socialism.”[3]3 Kelly’s “new socialism” is a term he uses to describe a decentralized, sharing-based digital society, distinct from traditional state socialism. The new socialism Kelly refers to is digital socialism, and sharing is its most important attribute, to the point that the two can even be equated. Kelly believes that in the online world, people have an unimaginable willingness to share. Sharing is a milder expression of digital socialism and the foundation for all higher levels of public participation,[4]4 Engels’ *Principles of Communism* (1847) outlines the basic principles of communism, including common ownership of the means of production. forming the basic component of the entire digital socialist online world. Therefore, according to Kelly’s view, digital socialism is a digitalized socialism unique to the online world, built on a collective cyberspace, embodying the spirit of collectivism, and being decentralized.[5]5 This refers to the concept of “wikieconomics,” a term popularized by Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams, describing collaborative production models like Wikipedia.

凯利把共享视为数字社会主义的重要属性和理论基础。2016年，他在《不可避免》(The Inevitable)一书中从变化、认知、流动、屏显、共享等12个主题出发，深刻阐释了数字社会主义给人类社会带来的影响。凯利提出，拥有部分数字生产资料的广大民众朝着共同的目标努力工作，无偿贡献自己的劳动，共同分享他们的产品。这些构成了数字社会主义的共享特征。一方面，网络用户在类似维基百科这样的用户平台上可以自己编辑、修正、上传信息资料，体现了集体主义；另一方面，Tor、Digg等网站为用户无偿提供了文章、照片甚至是创意，这些数字信息为普通人提供了共享学习的机会。凯利进一步指出，尽管不是每个人都认同，甚至还有人反对，但正在到来的共享社会属于“新社会主义”。3凯利所称的新社会主义指的就是数字社会主义，而共享则是数字社会主义最重要的属性，两者甚至可以等同起来。凯利认为，在网络世界中，民众有着难以想象的分享意愿。共享是数字社会主义较为温和的表达形式，也是所有更高层次的公共参与的基础，4是整个数字社会主义的网络世界的基本组成部分。因此，按照凯利的观点，数字社会主义是建立在网络集体空间，体现了集体主义精神并去中心化了的、网络世界特有的数字化的社会主义。5

Christian Fuchs, based on Marx’s theory of communism, questions Kelly’s above views on digital socialism. He argues that, as a type of consumption, the ownership basis of sharing is “the Commons.” In fact, Engels, in *Principles of Communism*, set the precondition of implementing public ownership for the new social system: “the common use of all the instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to a common plan.”[6]6 This quote is from Fuchs’ critique of digital socialism, emphasizing the subsumption of commons under capitalist relations. Accordingly, Fuchs denies from the theoretical source that sharing has a socialist nature, and further questions the truth of digital socialism from the perspective of scientific socialism. Fuchs believes that the “commons” proposed by digital socialism does not refer to the common property Marx and Engels spoke of. The cooperative forms, collective ownership potential, common goods, and other elements within the category of digital socialism as understood by Fuchs are all new phenomena created under the material conditions of capitalist life. As he states, “Common goods are often subsumed under the commodity form, class relations, and capital,”[7]7 Friedrich Hayek (1899–1992), an Austrian-British economist and philosopher, was a leading figure of the Austrian School and a prominent advocate of free-market capitalism, opposing centralized planning and socialism. constrained by capitalist class relations and the means of exploitation and domination.

克里斯蒂安·福克斯(Christian Fuchs)根据马克思主义的共产主义理论，对凯利关于数字社会主义的上述观点提出了质疑。他认为，作为消费类型，共享的所有权基础是“共有”(the Commons)。实际上，恩格斯在《共产主义原理》中，为新的社会制度中“共同使用全部生产工具和按照共同协议来分配全部产品”6设定了实行公有制的前提。据此，福克斯从理论源头上否定了共享具有社会主义性质，进而在科学社会主义的视角下质疑数字社会主义的真理性。福克斯认为，数字社会主义提出的“共有”并不是指马克思恩格斯所说的共有财产。福克斯所理解的数字社会主义范畴中的合作形式、集体所有制潜力、共有物品等要素，均是在资本主义物质生活条件下创造的新现象。正如他所说的，“共有物品往往被归入商品形式、阶级关系和资本之下”7,受到资本主义阶级关系和剥削、统治手段的限制。

Donatella Della Ratta, from the perspective of knowledge sharing, questions the digital commons of digital socialism. The digital commons is the field of existence for the shared value attribute of digital socialism and the logical premise for the realization of shared value. Ratta argues that, under the conditions of capitalist private ownership, although the digital revolution has brought about the socialization of knowledge and the digital commons, we cannot equate it with socialism; open access to knowledge on network platforms and “wikieconomics” will not lead to digital socialism. Ratta’s pessimism toward the digital commons stems from her reflection on the colonization of the online world by capitalist private ownership. Ratta recognizes that emerging social media like Instagram and TikTok, and emerging online encyclopedias like Infogalactic, provide space for “sharing and caring”; at the same time, platform capitalism in Silicon Valley is eroding the legitimacy of the digital commons theory of digital socialism. Therefore, Ratta concludes that, against the backdrop of “turning once-happy volunteer cooperative peer groups into frustrated unpaid or low-paid labor forces,”[8]8 Lata refers to an author cited in the original text; full reference not provided. the digital commons has evolved into a disastrous consequence of commodification and digital exploitation space, and the socialist attribute and significance of the “sharing economy” no longer exist.

多纳泰拉·德拉·拉塔(Donatella Della Ratta)从知识共享的视角对数字社会主义的网络公地提出质疑。网络公地是数字社会主义共享价值属性的存在场域，是共享价值得以实现的逻辑前提。拉塔认为，在资本主义私有制条件下，尽管数字革命带来了知识社会化和网络公地，但我们不可能将其等同于社会主义，网络平台知识的开放性访问以及“维基经济学”不会走向数字社会主义。拉塔之所以对网络公地持悲观态度，这源自她对资本主义私有制殖民网络世界的反思。拉塔意识到，Ins、TikTok等新兴社交媒体与Infogalactic等新兴网络百科为“分享和关怀”提供了空间；同时，硅谷的平台资本主义又在侵蚀着数字社会主义网络公地理论的合法性。因此拉塔得出结论：在“将曾经快乐的志愿者合作同伴群体变成了沮丧的无薪或低薪劳动力大军”8的背景下，网络公地已经演变为商品化和数字剥削空间的灾难性后果，“共享经济”的社会主义属性和意义不复存在。

(2) Does the Theory of Digital Socialism Itself Have a Communist Nature?

(二)数字社会主义理论本身是否具有共产主义的性质

Kelly’s concept of digital socialism explicitly expresses its connotation as different from state socialism, which is based on a socialist institutional system and grounded in the theory of scientific socialism. In May 2009, Kelly published an article in *Wired* magazine titled “The New Socialism: Global Collectivist Society Is Coming Online,” pointing out that digital socialism is a socialism that operates in the cultural and economic spheres and is de-nationalized. He argues that digital socialism operates through a borderless internet and a tightly integrated global economic network, with the aim of enhancing individual autonomy. By introducing the concept of digital socialism, Kelly enumerates the characteristics of relations of production emerging in the virtual world of the internet in the era of big data, such as “common labor,” “sharing,” and “collectivism.” He believes that these characteristics indicate that, in the era of the digital revolution, new “sprouts” of socialism have emerged in the online world.

凯利的数字社会主义概念明确表达了其不同于以社会主义制度体系为内容、建立在科学社会主义理论基础上的国家社会主义的内涵。2009年5月，凯利在《连线》(Wired)杂志上发表《新社会主义：全球集体主义社会即将上线》一文，指出数字社会主义是在文化和经济领域运行、去国家化的社会主义。他认为，数字社会主义通过一个无国界的互联网和一个紧密整合的全球经济网络来运行，目的是提高个人自主权。凯利通过引入数字社会主义的概念，列举了大数据时代网络虚拟世界中出现的生产关系具有“共同劳动”“共享”“集体主义”等方面的特征。他认为，这些特征表明，在数字革命时代，网络世界出现了新的社会主义的“萌芽”。

Since the advent of the theory of digital socialism, there has been no shortage of scholars in foreign academia who question its connotation and historical positioning. In addition to denying that digital socialism has a socialist nature, some foreign scholars attempt to correct the issue of the domain attribution of digital socialism.

自从数字社会主义理论问世后，国外学术界不乏有人对数字社会主义理论的内涵、历史定位提出质疑。除否定数字社会主义具有社会主义的性质以外，还有国外学者试图纠正数字社会主义的论域归属问题。

Regarding the former, scholars who oppose Kelly’s view argue that his thinking on social relations and modes of production in the capitalist digital age is overly optimistic, and thus digital socialism still retains a capitalist character. Richard Sprague, based on an understanding of “free” in the two senses of the classical socialist principle of public ownership and capitalist “free choice,” rejects Kelly’s claim that digital socialism is a third social form combining the advantages of both socialism and capitalism.[7]7 Friedrich Hayek (1899–1992), an Austrian-British economist and philosopher, was a leading figure of the Austrian School and a prominent advocate of free-market capitalism, opposing centralized planning and socialism. Sprague argues that the digital socialism proposed by Kelly is merely a simple, outdated, decentralized, Hayekian form of capitalism, and therefore does not possess a socialist character.

就前者而言，反对凯利观点的学者认为，其对资本主义数字化时代的社会关系和生产方式的思考过于乐观，因而数字社会主义依旧具有资本主义的性质。理查德·斯普拉格(Richard Sprague)基于经典社会主义的公有原则与资本主义“自由选择”两种意蕴中“免费”(Free)的理解，否定了凯利提出的数字社会主义是兼具社会主义与资本主义优势的第三种社会形态的观点。9斯普拉格认为，凯利提出的数字社会主义只不过是简单、陈旧、去中心化、哈耶克式的资本主义，因此不具有社会主义的性质。

Furthermore, proponents of the theory of knowledge socialism attempt to use the concept of knowledge socialism to correct the misapplied concept of digital socialism. According to their view, the digital socialism proposed by Kelly only inherits the concept of socialism semantically; in reality, it should belong to the category of knowledge socialism. Although digital socialism has attributes consistent with socialism, such as free sharing, free use, and free production, these are all based on the capitalist private ownership of digital platforms—that is, on the basis that platform capitalists own network infrastructure and network data ownership. In Lata’s view, networks promote the development of knowledge socialization and knowledge socialism, but they are not equivalent to socialism.[8]8 Lata refers to an author cited in the original text; full reference not provided.

此外，知识社会主义理论倡导者尝试借助知识社会主义的概念纠偏被误用的数字社会主义概念。按照他们的观点，凯利提出的数字社会主义只是在语义上继承了社会主义的概念而已，实际上，它应当属于知识社会主义的范畴。尽管数字社会主义具有免费共享、免费使用、免费生产等符合社会主义的属性，但这些皆立足于数字平台资本主义私有制，即平台资本家拥有网络基础设施、网络数据所有权的基础之上。在拉塔看来，网络推动了知识社会化和知识社会主义的发展，但它们并不等同于社会主义。10

Compared with scholars like Sprague, Michael A. Peters’s critique of Kelly’s concept of digital socialism is more moderate. Peters argues that whether knowledge socialism promotes the public nature of knowledge through a mechanism of free intellectual exchange,[9]9 Michael A. Peters (b. 1948), a New Zealand educational theorist known for his work on knowledge socialism and open education. and whether digital socialism expresses the public nature of knowledge through a “knowledge commons,” still require discussion. Peters is also skeptical about the realization of digital socialism; he believes that even from the difficult process of promoting open knowledge and science, one can see that a “digital socialist revolution” will take time.[10]10 Ibid. Therefore, Peters advocates replacing the concept of “digital socialism” with the concept of “knowledge socialism” in order to more accurately describe the socialist values emerging in the networked dissemination of knowledge.

与斯普拉格等学者相比，迈克尔·彼得斯(Michael A.Peters)对凯利的数字社会主义概念的批判较为温和。彼得斯认为，知识社会主义是否通过自由的思想交流机制来促进知识的公共性，11数字社会主义是否借助于“知识公地”来表达知识公共性，这些还需要商榷。对于数字社会主义的实现问题，彼得斯也持怀疑态度，他认为仅从推动开放知识、科学的艰难过程中就可以发现，“数字社会主义革命”尚需时日。12因此，彼得斯主张用“知识社会主义”概念代替“数字社会主义”概念，以便更准确地描述在知识网络化传播中显现的社会主义价值。

II. Can Digital Socialism Drive Social Change

二、数字社会主义能否推动社会变革

The internet, big data, and the burgeoning technology of artificial intelligence have pushed human social production into a new industrial era. The elevation of new levels of productive forces, the formation of network social relations, and the expansion of modes of communication between people have quietly altered the ways in which people connect with one another. Data production and network links contain both the capitalist logic of capital’s domination of networks and its appropriation of digital products, as well as new, potential breakthroughs in the capitalist commodity production model. Information sharing, the ease of replicating public resources, and the non-profit public spaces formed by digital labor bring digital socialist theorists a wealth of information and hope for transforming current society. Marxist theory holds that the communist movement, for the first time consciously, places the “premises” created by previous generations under the control of associated individuals, “turning existing conditions into conditions of association.”[11]11 This is a paraphrase of a passage from Marx and Engels’s *The German Ideology* (1845–1846), where they discuss the conditions for communist association. Currently, can the partial fields of digital socialism develop into an effective alternative to the capitalist system? Can the beautiful vision of digital socialism become reality? Foreign academic circles mainly focus on the “inorganic conditions”[12]12 The term “inorganic conditions” likely refers to Marx’s concept of the material conditions of production that are external to the direct producer, such as natural resources and means of production. generated by production and intercourse in their debates, manifesting as two opposing tendencies: first, the positive factors of digital socialism are continuously increasing; second, realizing digital socialism is fraught with difficulties.

互联网、大数据和方兴未艾的人工智能技术把人类社会生产推向了新工业时代。新的生产力水平的提升、网络社会关系的形成、人与人之间交流方式的拓展，已经悄然改变了人与人之间的联系方式。数据生产和网络链接既包含着资本主义的资本逻辑对网络的支配、对数字产品的占有，也包含着对资本主义商品生产模式的新的、潜在的突破。信息共享、公共资源复制的便利化、数字劳动形成的非盈利的公共空间等，给数字社会主义理论家带来了大量的信息和变革当前社会的希望。马克思主义理论认为，共产主义运动第一次自觉地把前人创造的“前提”,置于联合起来的个人的支配下，“把现存的条件变成联合的条件”13。目前，数字社会主义的局部场域能否发展为替代资本主义制度的有效方案?数字社会主义的美好愿景能否成为现实?国外学术界主要聚焦于生产和交往所产生的“无机的条件”14展开争论，并表现为两种相反的倾向：其一，数字社会主义的积极因素不断增加；其二，实现数字社会主义困难重重。

(1) The Positive Factors of Digital Socialism Are Continuously Increasing

(一)数字社会主义的积极因素不断增加

Scholars confident in digital socialism are full of expectations for the socialist factors within capitalist reality, believing that even within the capitalist system, the factors of digital socialism are continuously increasing. Digital socialism arises from the organizational structure of the internet, which relies on digital labor, and is a “pioneering” condition of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, with its scale growing ever larger. It is predicted that globally, by 2025, professional white-collar information services provided by on-demand work platforms alone are expected to increase by $2.7 trillion, accounting for about 2% of global GDP.[13]13 Source not specified in the original text. Furthermore, the ease of replicating network products, their low cost or even zero cost, has fostered a development model of “gift-giving,” opening up new, shared public spaces in the commodity era, thereby preparing the material conditions for digital socialism. Kelly uses digital socialism to replace the “cyber-communism” proposed by Richard Barbrook, pointing out that the “sharing model” is a viable alternative to capitalist for-profit companies and civic institutions. Kelly emphasizes that the “forces of sharing, cooperation, collaboration, openness, free pricing, and transparency that pervade every corner of the internet” continuously drive the growth of “socialist forces.”[14]14 Kevin Kelly (b. 1952), an American writer and co-founder of *Wired* magazine, known for his techno-optimistic views on digital culture and the “sharing economy.” Thus, Kelly holds a firm belief in the ideal of digital socialism.

对数字社会主义充满信心的学者对资本主义现实中的社会主义因素充满期待，认为即使是在资本主义制度体系内部，数字社会主义的因素也在不断增加。数字社会主义产生于依赖数字劳动的互联网组织架构，是第四次工业革命的“先驱”条件，且体量愈发庞大。据预测，在全球范围内，到2025年，仅按需工作平台提供的职业白领信息服务就预计会增加2.7万亿美元，约占全球GDP的2%。15此外，网络产品的易复制、低成本甚至无成本，促成了“礼物馈赠”的发展模式，在商品时代开辟了新的、共享的公共空间，这为数字社会主义的产生准备了物质条件。凯利用数字社会主义替代理查德·巴布鲁克(Richard Barbrook)提出的网络共产主义，指出“共享模式”是资本主义营利公司和公民机构的可行替代方案。凯利强调，充斥在互联网“每一个角落的分享、合作、协作、开放、免费定价和透明的力量”,不断推动着“社会主义力量”的增长。16可见，凯利对数字社会主义理想有着坚定的信念。

Compared with Kelly, other foreign left-wing scholars seem more implicit in their support for digital socialism. They extol the convenient conditions created by the digital age for people’s democracy, arguing that the internet era weakens “authority” in the chain of vertical power systems. Vincent Mosco, based on the characteristics of the power space granted by the power system constructed by the internet, points out that rich and extensive horizontal online connections impact the “authority” in the chain of vertical power systems.[15]15 Vincent Mosco (b. 1948), a Canadian scholar of media and communication, known for his critical analysis of the political economy of communication and the “digital sublime.” Mosco, using the “Star Wars program” and the “Progress and Freedom Foundation” as examples, analyzes the mobilizing role of modern network technology for the masses and its important role in breaking through existing human order frameworks, suggesting that network technology may potentially “create a world where everyone can freely realize their life values like entrepreneurs.”[16]16 The “Star Wars program” refers to the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) announced by U.S. President Ronald Reagan in 1983, a missile defense system that also spurred technological development. The “Progress and Freedom Foundation” is a U.S. think tank associated with the “digital revolution” and free-market internet policies.

相较于凯利，国外其他左翼学者似乎对数字社会主义的支持较为隐晦。他们讴歌数字化时代为人民民主创造的便利条件，认为互联网时代弱化了纵向权力体系链条中的“权威”。文森特·莫斯可(Vincent Mosco)以互联网建构的权力系统赋予的权力空间特征为根据，指出丰富广阔的线上横向联系冲击了纵向权力链条体系中的“权威”。17莫斯可以“星球大战计划”和“进步与自由基金会”为例，分析了现代网络技术对民众的动员作用、对技术突破人类现有的秩序框架的重要作用，暗示网络技术有可能潜在地“创造出一个人人都能像企业家那样自由地实现人生价值的世界”18。

After the concept of digital socialism was proposed, the network connections, algorithms, and mobilization functions on which digital socialism relies have played an important role in new social movements. For example, during the “Arab Spring” movements from 2010 to 2012, the number of self-media users surged by nearly ten million, forming a powerful “network empowerment” effect that impacted the political landscape.[17]17 The “Arab Spring” refers to a series of anti-government protests and uprisings across the Arab world that began in late 2010, notably in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Syria, often facilitated by social media. In 2018, the screening function of internet algorithms accelerated the aggregation effect of the “Yellow Vests” movement in France. The “15M” movement in Spain in May 2021 was carried out simultaneously in a parallel mode combining online propaganda and agitation with offline practice. In the “Occupy Wall Street” movement in 2011, network forces, already populist, directly charged at bourgeois state power within the online public space created by social media like Twitter and Facebook. Due to their potential powerful impact, digitalized social movements are regarded by bourgeois governments as serious social threats.

数字社会主义概念被提出之后，数字社会主义依托的网络连接、算法、动员等功能在新社会运动中发挥了重要作用。例如，在2010年至2012年的“阿拉伯之春”运动中，自媒体用户暴增近千万，形成了冲击政治格局形势的强大的“网络赋权”效应19;2018年，互联网算法筛选功能加速了法国“黄马甲”运动群体的聚合效应；2021年5月发生在西班牙的“15M”运动以线上宣传鼓动与线下实践相结合的平行模式同时进行；在2011年的“占领华尔街”运动中，本已民粹化的网络力量在推特、脸书等社交媒体营造的网络公共空间中，直接冲向资产阶级政权。由于其潜在的强大冲击力，数字化的社会运动被资产阶级政府视为严重的社会威胁。

Although digital mobilization in the network age has shown tremendous driving force in social movements, unlike other social movements, digital socialism has a strong ideological difference. Its replacement of the capitalist system still needs to return from “cyberspace” to reality and break free from the constraints of the capitalist system. Fuchs and Sebastian Sevignani affirm the ability of digital technology to drive social change in terms of labor methods, platform infrastructure construction, etc., as well as its potential to give rise to “sprouts” of communism and promote the transition to socialism.

尽管网络时代的数字化动员在社会运动中显现出了巨大的推动力，但与其他社会运动不同，数字社会主义具有强烈的意识形态差异，其对资本主义制度的替代还需要从“赛博空间”回归现实，需要突破资本主义制度体系的束缚。福克斯和塞巴斯蒂安·塞维尼亚尼(Sebastian Sevignani)肯定了数字技术在劳动方式、平台基础设施建设等方面推动社会变革的能力，以及催生共产主义“萌芽”和促使向社会主义转型的可能性。

(2) Realizing Digital Socialism Is Fraught with Difficulties

(二)实现数字社会主义困难重重

Unlike the optimists, the realists do not endorse an idealized depiction of digital socialism, holding that blind optimism toward digital socialism is merely a constructivist fantasy. To turn fantasy into reality, the material conditions of capitalist life must be transformed, because “material force can only be overthrown by material force.” [18]18 Karl Marx, “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law: Introduction,” in Marx and Engels, Collected Works, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 182. Therefore, if digital socialism is to replace the capitalist social formation, it must possess a realist spirit capable of carrying out social change within the capitalist institutional system. The realists’ cautious attitude stems from their recognition of the realities of information technology, big-data capitalism, and liberal values since the beginning of the twenty-first century. They realize that digital socialism can be realized only when it becomes a revolutionary practical action that transforms capitalist ownership. The Belarusian scholar Evgeny Morozov attempts to explore, against the background of digitalization, a digital feedback system beyond the “price” indicator of capitalism, and to establish a socialist “feedback infrastructure” based on digital technology that can make the market mechanism more effective and feasible. This is a market-information collection channel supported by modern digital terminals, the internet, and big data, built on public ownership and controlled by a socialist state rather than by capitalists, so as to replace the value-feedback mechanism of the liberal market economy in making market decisions. Morozov’s reflection is of great theoretical significance. Nevertheless, he also recognizes that digital socialism is constrained by “Silicon Valley private ownership,” and that the prerequisite for its institutional transformation is to break through the barrier of private ownership.

与乐观主义者不同，现实主义者不赞成把数字社会主义进行理想化的描述，认为对数字社会主义的盲目乐观只是建构主义的一种幻想，要想让幻想成为现实，必须变革资本主义的物质生活条件，因为“物质力量只能用物质力量来摧毁”20。因此，数字社会主义若要替代资本主义社会形态，就需要具备在资本主义制度体系中进行社会变革的现实主义精神。现实主义者的审慎态度源自于对进入21世纪以来信息技术、大数据资本主义以及自由主义价值观等现实的认知，意识到数字社会主义只有成为变革资本主义所有制的革命实践行动时才能实现。白俄罗斯学者叶夫根尼·莫罗佐夫(Evgeny Morozov)试图在数字化的技术背景下探寻资本主义“价格”指标之外的数字反馈系统，建立以数字技术为基础、能促进市场机制更加有效可行的社会主义性质的“反馈基础设施”,即建立在公有制基础上的、由社会主义国家而非资本家掌控的，并由现代数字终端、互联网和大数据为基础支撑的市场信息收集渠道，以代替自由主义市场经济的价值反馈机制来进行市场决策。莫罗佐夫的这一思考极具理论意义。尽管如此，他也意识到数字社会主义受到“硅谷私有制”限制，其发生制度转型的前提是突破私有制的障碍。

Scholars who support Morozov’s “feedback infrastructure” theory agree that it has the potential to transform the market system. For example, digital-socialism scholars represented by Dimitris Boucas clearly point out that the promise of digital socialism’s liberation through technological development has not been fulfilled. Drawing intellectual resources from the technological philosophies of Radovan Richta and André Gorz, Boucas locates the material conditions of digital socialism in “the thorough transformation of the existing infrastructure of digital capitalism and the participation of users in the transformation of digital technology.” [19]19 Dimitris Boucas, “Digital Technologies and the Future of Socialism: A Contribution to the Debate,” in The Digital Age and the Future of Socialism (London: Routledge, 2021), p. 45. Boucas’s proposal for transformation addresses multiple levels, including social structure, material resources, and social organization, and examines the possibility of replacing the capitalist internet organization with digital socialism. He argues that the internet organizational system architecture based on capitalist private ownership and its liberal economic foundation inevitably produces an asymmetric, one-dimensional power model between network-infrastructure owners and users, which leads to internet capitalists controlling, monitoring, and monopolizing commercial operations. These network effects constitute a major obstacle on the path to realizing the transformation to digital socialism. However, Boucas does not completely deny the possibility of realizing digital socialism. In his view, every interaction between users and internet platforms, search engines, social networks, and software codes contains the possibility of negotiation, thereby potentially breaking the unequal power model between users and internet capitalists and, in turn, subverting digital capitalism. Overall, Boucas’s theory of digital socialism does not go further than Morozov’s; its theoretical significance lies mainly in reaffirming the possibility and direction of digital socialism’s efforts to promote social change.

支持莫罗佐夫“反馈基础设施”理论的学者认同该理论具有变革市场体系的潜在价值。例如，以迪米特里斯·布卡斯(Dimitris Boucas)为代表的数字社会主义学者非常明确地指出，以技术发展来实现数字社会主义解放的承诺并未实现。他尝试从拉多万·里奇塔(Radovan Richta)和安德烈·高兹(Andre Gorz)的技术哲学中汲取思源资源，将数字社会主义的物质条件定位于“对数字资本主义现有的基础设施的彻底改造，以及用户参与数字技术变革”21。布卡斯的变革主张指向社会结构、物质资源和社会组织等多个层面，并考察以数字社会主义替代资本主义互联网组织的可能性。他认为，资本主义私有制及其自由主义经济基础上的互联网组织系统架构必然形成网路基础设施所有者与用户之间的不对称、单向度的权力模式，这会导致互联网资本家控制、监管、垄断商业运营。这些网络效应是横亘在数字社会主义变革实现路径中的一大障碍。不过，布卡斯没有完全否定实现数字社会主义的可能性。在他看来，用户与互联网平台、搜索引擎、社交网络、软件代码等的每一次接触都存在着协商的可能，从而它们有可能打破用户与互联网资本家之间不平等的权力模式，进而颠覆数字资本主义。总体而言，布卡斯的数字社会主义理论并没有比莫罗佐夫走得更远，其理论意义集中于重申数字社会主义推动社会变革的可能性和努力方向上。

Of course, some scholars have also leveled sharp criticisms at the practicality of the “feedback infrastructure” proposal, arguing that even though Morozov offers highly realistic theoretical ideas in his design for digital socialism, he still has not escaped the illusion of capitalist private ownership. Among them, Rata’s criticism is the most trenchant. He accuses Morozov of still being biased in his claim for ownership in the “feedback infrastructure,” ignoring the fact that the “feedback infrastructure” is controlled by a handful of tech giants. Unlike Morozov’s theory of digital socialism, which emphasizes ideological discourses such as non-competitiveness, discreteness, and unlimited expansion, and which remains confined within the commodity symbolism and immateriality of capitalist language and imagination, Rata argues that digital socialism must transcend immateriality and abstraction, engage in physical contact with current capitalism, return to the main battlefield of “the body,” “the subject,” and “subjectivity,” and shape an ethics of care that focuses on the material production of subjectivity and its mode of existence in the world. [20]20 Rata’s critique draws on the concept of an “ethics of care” associated with feminist theory, emphasizing embodied and relational subjectivity.

当然，也有学者针对“反馈基础设施”方案的实践性提出了尖锐的批评，认为即使莫罗佐夫在他关于数字社会主义的设计方案中给出了极具现实意义的理论设想，但他还是没有脱离资本主义私有制的幻境。其中，拉塔的批评最为犀利，他指责莫罗佐夫在“反馈基础设施”中争取所有权的主张依旧偏颇，忽略了“反馈基础设施”是由少数科技巨头控制的事实。与莫罗佐夫的数字社会主义理论强调非竞争性、离散、无限扩展等意识形态话语，始终圈囿于资本主义语言和想象力之中的商品象征性和非物质性不同，拉塔主张数字社会主义必须超越非物质性和抽象性，要与当前的资本主义进行物理性的接触，回到“身体”“主体”“主体性”的主战场，塑造关注主体性的物质生产及其在世界上的存在方式22的关怀伦理。

III. How Digital Technology Can Advance Digital Socialism

三、数字技术如何推进数字社会主义

Digital socialism reflects the “sprouts” of new relations of production within the capitalist institutional system. The debates on the revolutionary nature of digital socialism have promoted reflection on the transformation from theory to reality. Although foreign left-wing scholars recognize that there is a certain distance between the theoretical development of digital socialism and political change, they have never ceased to explore its potential to promote social change and replace capitalism. Their debates on digital socialism’s advance from theory to practice have shifted from “whether” to “how”—that is, how to propel digital socialism from theory to reality. In summary, these debates manifest themselves mainly in the following three aspects.

数字社会主义反映了资本主义制度体系中新生产关系的“萌芽”。有关数字社会主义革命性问题的论争，推动了理论向现实转变的思考。尽管国外左翼学者意识到数字社会主义的理论发展与政治变革存在着一定距离，但他们从未停止挖掘其推动社会变革和替代资本主义的潜能。他们关于数字社会主义从理论向实践迈进的论争从“能否”发展为“如何”,即如何才能推进数字社会主义从理论向现实的转变。总结起来，这些论争主要表现为以下三个方面。

First, information technology will promote an increase in social wealth and spontaneously realize communism. In 2019, Aaron Bastani depicted the enormous social changes brought about by the rapid development of productive forces in the information age. Bastani pointed out the intergenerational changes and trends in industrial development and, based on the foundational conditions of information technology driving the development of productive forces, proposed the concept of a “fully automated luxury communism” society. Bastani argues that technological development offers us the possibility of realizing communism. Although we live in a century beset by overlapping crises such as “climate change, resource scarcity, a growing surplus population, aging, and technological unemployment caused by automation,” [21]21 Aaron Bastani, Fully Automated Luxury Communism: A Manifesto (London: Verso, 2019), p. 3. digital technology, following the trend of Moore’s Law, will inevitably break the scarcity of resources, including information, in a finite world. The value and cost of information are both declining, ultimately leading to the free use of information, and this law will also operate in the fields of labor, energy, and resources. [22]22 Moore’s Law is the observation that the number of transistors on a microchip doubles approximately every two years, often used to predict exponential growth in computing power. On this basis, Bastani confidently believes that, driven by technological change, communist relations of production will inevitably take shape. Bastani focuses on the enormous practical role that the technological factor within productive forces may play, but he does not mention how relations of production are to be broken through in the development of productive forces, nor does he realize that “the new forces of society … require that the men who wield them should be new men.” [23]23 Karl Marx, “Speech at the Anniversary of the People’s Paper,” in Marx and Engels, Collected Works, vol. 14 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1980), p. 656. Bastani’s blindly optimistic view suffers from the major defect of “lacking a theory of power, class struggle, and revolution to explain the sociological transition from capitalism to communism,” [24]24 This criticism is summarized by the authors from the scholarly literature; the specific source is not given in the original text. and therefore is not recognized by the academic community.

第一，信息技术将促进社会财富增加，自发实现共产主义。2019年，亚伦·巴斯塔尼(Aaron Bastani)描绘了信息化时代生产力的高速发展带来的巨大社会变革。巴斯塔尼指出了工业发展的代际变化与趋势，并依据信息技术推动生产力发展的基础条件，提出了“全自动奢侈共产主义”社会的概念。巴斯塔尼指出，技术发展为我们提供了实现共产主义的可能性，尽管我们处在一个“气候变化、资源稀缺、过剩人口日益增多、老龄化和自动化导致技术性失业”23等危机叠加的世纪，但是数字技术按照摩尔定律的发展趋势，必将打破有限世界包括信息在内的资源稀缺性。信息的价值和成本都呈现下降趋势，最终将实现信息的免费使用，而这种规律还将在劳动力、能源和资源等领域发挥作用。24基于此，巴斯塔尼信心满满地认为，在技术变革的推动下，共产主义的生产关系必将形成。巴斯塔尼关注生产力中的技术因素可能发挥的巨大实践作用，但却没有提及生产关系如何在生产力的发展中被突破，也没有意识到“要使社会的新生力量很好地发挥作用，就只能由新生的人来掌握它们”25。巴斯塔尼盲目乐观的观点存在着“缺乏权力、阶级斗争和革命的理论来解释从资本主义到共产主义的社会学转变”26的重要缺陷，因此并不被学界所认同。

Second, the enormous advantages of digital technology systems in driving market-economy change have laid a technical foundation for the production of a communist society. In the process of market allocation of resources, information-based and digital technology systems can play a role in information supply and decision-making support. In their reflections on how information technology and digital feedback systems serve economic operations, foreign left-wing scholars have put forward the following two views: one is that within the capitalist system, information delivery systems can prevent the emergence of capitalist crises, thereby achieving the effect of reshaping capitalist society. Viktor Mayer-Schönberger and Thomas Ramge expounded this view in their book *Reinventing Capitalism in the Age of Big Data*. The second is to use big data and network technology to form data-collection and feedback systems to repair the defects of a system like the Soviet planned economy, thereby demonstrating the feasibility of applying new technologies to future communist economic production. This theoretical approach continues the discussion from the early 1930s on the quantitative calculation of the Soviet socialist price system. On the question of the socialist planned economy, foreign right-wing scholars argue that the large number of “non-specific” resources in real economic life and the subjectivity of human activity increase the complexity of decision-making in the process of extensive production. Paul Cockshott, in the context of digitalization, has responded to the right-wing scholars’ denial of the rationality of the planned economy. He argues that computing resources were too scarce in the early 1930s, but that after the 1990s, computers became capable of handling the relevant work and solving the problem of insufficient computing power.[25]25 The reference to the early 1930s debate concerns the “socialist calculation debate,” in which economists such as Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek argued that rational economic calculation was impossible under socialism due to the absence of market prices, while Oskar Lange and others proposed trial-and-error price-setting mechanisms. Cockshott’s argument updates this debate by claiming that modern computing power resolves the informational and computational challenges.

第二，数字化技术系统推动市场经济变革的巨大优势，为共产主义社会的生产奠定了技术基础。信息化、数字化的技术系统在市场配置资源的过程中可以发挥信息供给和决策支撑的作用。国外左翼学者在关于信息技术与数字化的反馈系统服务于经济运行的构思中，提出了如下两种观点：一是在资本主义制度体系中通过信息输送系统可以防止资本主义危机的产生，进而达到重塑资本主义社会的作用。维克托·迈尔-舍恩伯格(Viktor Mayer-Schönberger)和托马斯·拉姆什(Thomas Ramge)在《大数据时代资本主义的重塑》一书中阐述了上述观点。二是通过大数据和网络技术形成数据收集和反馈系统来修复类似苏联计划经济体制那样的弊端，论证新技术适用未来共产主义经济生产的可行性。这一理论进路延续了1930年代初期关于苏联社会主义价格体制量化计算问题的探讨。在关于社会主义计划经济的问题上，国外右翼学者认为，现实经济生活中大量的“非特定”资源及人类活动的主观性，在广泛生产的过程中增加了决策的复杂性。保罗·考克肖特(Paul Cockshott)在数字化背景下回应了右翼学者对计划经济合理性的否定。他认为，1930年代初期的计算资源过于匮乏，但到了1990年代之后，计算机已经可以胜任相关工作，解决算力不足问题。27

Third, promoting digital socialism by leveraging the autonomy of digital communication platforms. Foreign left-wing scholars’ optimism and confidence in digital socialism come from the “de-capitalist logic” of product sharing among workers in the digital network world. For the actual socialist movement, digital socialism is not only symbolic but also represents a mobilization path for the socialist movement. However, the contradiction between capitalist private ownership and the socialist factors in the digital network world squeezes the living space of digital socialism. To achieve the replacement of capitalism by digital socialism, foreign left-wing scholars advocate establishing autonomous, non-bourgeois digital platforms to serve the socialist revolutionary movement. For example, scholars such as Fuchs propose that through network communication, the potential for realizing socialism can be explored, the role of digital media in social revolutionary movements can be expanded, class struggle of the digital proletariat can be carried out, and a comprehensive political strategy with both breadth and depth can be formed. James Muldoon’s proposal is more radical. In his 2022 book *Platform Socialism*, he directly suggests achieving socialism by publicly owning and transforming digital platforms into public utility companies.

第三，发挥数字交流平台的自主化来推动数字社会主义。国外左翼学者对数字社会主义的乐观和信心来自数字网络世界劳动者的“去资本逻辑”的产品共享。对现实社会主义运动而言，数字社会主义不仅具有象征性，更代表着社会主义运动的一种动员路径。然而，资本主义私有制与数字化网络世界社会主义因素之间的矛盾，挤压着数字社会主义的生存空间。为实现数字社会主义对资本主义的替代，国外左翼学者主张建立自主的、非资产阶级的数字平台，以服务于社会主义革命运动。例如，福克斯等学者提出，可通过网络交流来发掘实现社会主义的潜在能力，扩大数字媒体在社会革命运动中发挥的作用，开展数字工人阶级的阶级斗争，形成既有广度又有深度的综合政治战略。詹姆斯·马尔登(James Muldoon)的主张则更为激进，他在其2022年出版的《平台社会主义》一书中直接建议通过对数字平台进行公有化改造，将其转变为公用事业公司的方式来实现社会主义。

IV. Can Digital Socialism Promote the Free and Comprehensive Development of the Human Person?

四、数字社会主义能否推动人的自由全面发展

Human development is an important marker of social progress. Marxist theory criticizes the alienation of labor in the sphere of production under capitalist conditions and proposes that communism is a historical stage in which the alienation of the human person is sublated and the free and comprehensive development of the human person is realized. However, the Marxist conception of the free and comprehensive development of the human person is premised on a genuine community, that is, “only within the community does each individual have the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions.”[26]26 This quotation is from Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The German Ideology* (1845–1846), where they argue that individual development is possible only within a genuine community, as opposed to the illusory community of the capitalist state. Yet digital socialism is not a genuine community that has already been realized; rather, it is a theoretical trend of thought, based on the theoretical paradigm of communism, that explores the characteristics of freedom and spontaneity in production and life in the age of the network and information. The debates among foreign left-wing scholars on whether digital socialism can promote the free and comprehensive development of the human person focus on the following three aspects.

人的发展是社会进步的重要标志。马克思主义理论批判了资本主义条件下生产领域的劳动异化，提出共产主义是扬弃人的异化、实现人的自由全面发展的历史阶段。不过，马克思主义关于人的自由全面发展的设想是建立在真正共同体的前提之下，即“只有在共同体中，个人才能获得全面发展其才能的手段”28。然而，数字社会主义并非是已然实现的真正共同体，而是以共产主义的理论范式为基础，对网络信息时代的生产、生活自由自觉的特性进行了探讨的理论思潮。国外左翼学者关于数字社会主义能否推动人的自由全面发展的论争，主要集中在以下三个方面。

First, digital socialism enhances human subjectivity and promotes human autonomy.

第一，数字社会主义增强了人的主体性，促进了人的自主性。

In the digital age, people’s modes of labor and communication have changed. Scholars who insist that digital socialism possesses the theoretical attributes of communism take the digital mode of labor and the characteristics of the subject as criteria for manifesting its progressive significance and surpassing capitalism. This view holds that digital socialism achieves freedom in labor and communication, and that digital labor in the digital age and the network world differs from the forms of labor in the sphere of industrial production; this form of labor breaks free from the constraints of time and space and possesses more free and spontaneous characteristics. On this point, Kelly is a typical optimist. He argues that digital labor in the internet age and non-digital labor attached to the internet bring temporal-spatial convenience and autonomy of participation to the workers engaged in such labor. Furthermore, the labor output in the age of digital commodities may escape the control of the commodity logic under the capitalist system. For example, users of Wikipedia can edit autonomously and open the products of their editing to society as network resources, sharing the products of labor. Richard Barbrook calls such labor products “free gifts.” The labor that produces “free gifts” is not aimed at profit but is based on interest and mutual support, and it can promote workers’ labor autonomy.

在数字化时代，人们的劳动方式和交流方式发生了改变。坚持数字社会主义具有共产主义理论属性的学者把数字劳动方式、主体属性特征作为其进步意义的显现和超越资本主义的判断标准。这种观点认为，数字社会主义在劳动和交往方面实现了自由，数字时代、网络世界中的数字劳动有别于工业生产领域的劳动形式，这种劳动形式突破了时间、空间的束缚，更具自由自觉特性。在这一点上，凯利是典型的乐观主义者。他认为，互联网时代的数字劳动及依附于互联网的非数字劳动给参与这类劳动的劳动者带来了时空便利和参与的自主性。此外，数字化商品时代的劳动产出有可能不受资本主义制度下商品逻辑的控制。例如，维基百科的用户可以进行自主编辑，并将编辑出来的产品作为网络资源向社会开放，共享劳动产品。理查德·巴比鲁克(Richard Barbrook)将上述劳动产品称为“免费礼物”。生产“免费礼物”的劳动不以盈利为目的，而是基于兴趣和相互支持，能够促进工人的劳动自主性。

Second, digital labor conceals alienated labor.

第二，数字劳动隐蔽了异化劳动。

Digital labor is the theoretical cornerstone of digital socialism. The judgment on digital labor determines the perception of the attributes of digital socialism. Foreign left-wing scholars analyze digital labor from two levels. First, it is a holistic judgment on digital labor. This perspective manifests as a negative evaluation of digital labor, holding that digital socialism cannot promote the free and comprehensive development of the individual, and linking digital labor with the bourgeoisie’s control over digital network infrastructure. Fuchs and Sevignani, from the aspects of labor products, labor objects, and labor tools, argue that digital labor remains alienated labor, and is even more concealed and less easily detected. [27]27 Christian Fuchs and Sebastian Sevignani, “What is Digital Labour? What is Digital Work? What’s their Difference? And Why Do These Questions Matter for Understanding Social Media?” *TripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique*, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2013. Regarding the issue of the lack of subjectivity in digitally alienated labor, Steffen Krüger and Jacob Jahanssen have raised the phenomenon of digital laborers being “instrumentalized,” [28]28 Steffen Krüger and Jacob Johanssen, “Thinking (with) the Unconscious in Media and Communication Studies: An Introduction,” *Communication and the Public*, Vol. 4, No. 3, 2019. exposing the fact that workers’ digital labor creates surplus value for capitalists. Hristo Prodanov examines the efficient production and convenient dissemination of the digital age in conjunction with the subjective care of laborers, arguing that the digital age has not promoted the free and comprehensive development of the individual, but has instead generated new anxieties, manifested as “busyness” and “impatience” in production and daily life. [29]29 Hristo Prodanov, “The Digitalization of the Economy and the Problem of Alienation,” *Dialogue and Universalism*, Vol. 28, No. 3, 2018. Second, it is the construction of the connotation of digital labor. Fuchs and Sevignani attempt to use “play labor” to indicate its difference from digital labor, thereby demonstrating that digital labor has the illusion of being free and autonomous. In his work *Digital Labour and Karl Marx*, Fuchs, from a Marxist standpoint and viewpoint, proposes that “play” and “labor” are two different spheres of activity: “play” exists in private and public spaces, but often occurs during non-working hours; “labor” is associated with productive activities and therefore occurs during working hours. Fuchs further defines the essence of “play labor,” arguing that “play labor” is more suitable for describing digital labor because it creates an ambiguous paradigm between “play” and “labor”: labor appears as play, while play becomes a form of value creation. In Fuchs’s view, “play labor” does not promote the free development of the individual; it still contains the implication of class exploitation. Fuchs uses the work of Google employees to illustrate the essence of “play labor,” pointing out that Google’s offices look like playgrounds, but are in fact factories with long hours of overtime and high-pressure work. The use of social media such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter increases the fun of labor, but behind the “fun use” of these platforms lies the fact that these platforms are operated by enterprises that earn huge profits and exploit the labor of users. [30]30 Christian Fuchs, *Digital Labour and Karl Marx*, New York: Routledge, 2014.

数字劳动是数字社会主义的理论基石。对数字劳动的判断决定了对数字社会主义属性的认知。国外左翼学者从两个层面分析数字劳动。其一，是对数字劳动的总体性判断。该视角表现为对数字劳动的否定性评价，认为数字社会主义不能推动人的自由全面发展，将数字劳动与资产阶级掌控数字网络基础设施关联起来。福克斯和塞维尼亚尼从劳动产品、劳动对象、劳动工具等方面提出，数字劳动依旧是异化劳动，而且更加隐秘，不易被察觉。关于数字异化劳动的主体性缺失问题，史蒂芬·克鲁格(Steffen Krüger)和雅各布·约翰森(Jacob Jahanssen)提出了数字劳动者“被工具化”的现象，29揭露了工人的数字劳动是为资本家创造剩余价值的事实。赫里斯托·普罗丹诺夫(Hristo Prodanov)将数字时代的高效生产和便捷传播与劳动者的主体关怀结合在一起进行考察，认为数字时代并没有促进人的自由全面发展，而是产生了新的焦虑，表现为生产、生活中的“忙碌”和“不耐烦”。30其二，是对数字劳动内涵进行建构。福克斯和塞维尼亚尼尝试用“消遣劳动”表明其与数字劳动的差异，从而论证数字劳动具有自由、自主的假象。福克斯在他的著作《数字劳动和马克思》中，从马克思主义立场观点出发，提出了“玩耍”和“劳动”是两个不同活动领域：“玩耍”存在于私人和公共场所，不过常发生在非工作时间；“劳动”与生产活动相关联，所以发生在工作时间。福克斯进一步界定了“消遣劳动”的本质，认为“消遣劳动”之所以更适合描述数字劳动，是因为它在“游戏”和“劳动”之间创造了模糊的范式：劳动表现为游戏，而游戏则成为一种创造价值的形式。在福克斯看来，“消遣劳动”并没有促进人的自由发展，它依旧包含着阶级剥削的意蕴。福克斯用谷歌公司员工的工作来说明“消遣劳动”的本质，指出谷歌公司的办公室看起来像游乐场，但实际上却是长时间加班高压工作的厂房。脸书、谷歌、推特等社交媒体的使用增加了劳动的趣味性，但“有趣地使用”这些平台的背后却隐藏了这样一个事实：这些平台是由企业运营的，这些企业赚取了大量利润，剥削了用户的劳动。31

Third, digital socialism can promote human development through specific means.

第三，数字社会主义可以通过特定的方式促进人的发展。

Although there are differences on the issue of digital labor, foreign left-wing scholars actively explore paths to sublate alienation in the digital age. Don Tapscott systematically discusses the characteristics of the digital economy era in *The Digital Economy*. He borrows the “entertainment” activities of the industrial economy era to “repair” the “damage” to subjectivity, and extends the powerful historical inertia of “entertainment” into the digital age. Tapscott argues that the possession and control of the means of production by others in the industrial economy caused dilemmas in human development, which are “compensated” by enhancing the sense of work achievement of the working class in the digital economy. Subsequently, in his book *The Digital Economy: Promise and Peril in the Age of Networked Intelligence*, Tapscott reiterates: “In the old economy, workers tried to gain satisfaction through leisure. The means of production owned and controlled by others caused worker alienation. In the new economy, happiness can be achieved through work and the transfer of the means of production into the producer’s brain.” [31]31 Don Tapscott, *The Digital Economy: Promise and Peril in the Age of Networked Intelligence*, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 307.

尽管在数字劳动问题上存在分歧，但国外左翼学者还是积极探寻数字化时代扬弃异化的路径。唐·塔普斯科特(Don Tapscott)在《数字经济》中系统论述了数字经济的时代特征。他借用工业经济时代的“娱乐”活动来对主体性“损伤”进行“修复”,并把“娱乐”强大的历史惯性延伸至数字时代。塔普斯科特认为，工业经济中生产资料被别人占有和控制造成了人的发展困境，通过在数字经济中增强工人阶级工作成就感而获得“弥补”。之后，塔普斯科特在《数字经济：网络智能时代承诺与危机的再思考》一书中再次重申：“在旧经济中，工人们试图通过休闲来获得满足感。他人拥有和控制的生产资料而造成工人异化。在新经济中，幸福可以通过工作和生产资料转移到生产者的大脑中来实现。”32

Compared to Tapscott’s self-absorption, Bastani’s optimistic attitude toward digital socialism focuses on the possibilities of digital technology creating abundant material wealth, shortening labor time, and raising the level of productive forces. However, Bastani’s confidence in the development of productive forces brought about by the digital revolution does not eliminate the problem of alienation in the theory of digital socialism. Fuchs and Sevignani delve deeply into the Marxist concept of labor, arguing that it is inaccurate to use the situation of free labor emerging in the digital revolution and digital labor with “entertainment” attributes to sublate alienated labor within the Marxist paradigm of thought. Some scholars also argue that although digital socialism has not fully formed the institutional conditions for sublating alienation, the application of digital technology, the development of industrial structure, and the changes in people’s labor methods are accumulating the material conditions and potential driving forces for achieving human emancipation. Digital socialism indicates that human society is in a transition from the stage of labor alienation within the capitalist system to the historical stage of sublating alienated labor under communism, gradually promoting social emancipation through the realization of human emancipation. The early Czech Marxist theorist Radovan Richta particularly emphasized that human development, especially the growth of laborers’ creativity, is the most effective means of raising social productive forces. Fuchs has also expressed similar views, arguing that in the capitalist digital age, technology can make labor more socialized, bring new forms of cooperation, enhance the potential for collective ownership, create new common goods (such as digital commons), and reduce necessary labor time—these are all foundations for the possibility of achieving communism, or what some call capitalized “communism.” [32]32 Radovan Richta, *Civilization at the Crossroads: Social and Human Implications of the Scientific and Technological Revolution*, White Plains, NY: International Arts and Sciences Press, 1969.

相对于塔普斯科特的自我陶醉，巴斯塔尼对数字社会主义的乐观态度集中在数字科技创造丰富的物质财富、缩短劳动时间、提升生产力水平等的可能性上。然而，巴斯塔尼对数字革命的生产力发展的信心并未消除数字社会主义理论的异化问题。福克斯和塞维尼亚尼则深入挖掘马克思主义的劳动概念，认为以数字革命中出现的人的自由劳动情形、具有“娱乐”属性的数字劳动来扬弃马克思主义思维范式中的异化劳动是不准确的。也有学者主张数字社会主义尽管没有完全形成扬弃异化的制度条件，但是数字技术的运用、产业结构的发展和人们劳动方式的改变，正累积着实现人类解放的物质条件和潜在动力。数字社会主义表明，人类社会正处于资本主义体系中劳动异化阶段逐步向共产主义扬弃异化劳动历史阶段的转变，通过逐步实现人的解放促进社会解放。捷克早期马克思主义理论家拉多万·里奇塔(Radovan Richta)特别强调人的发展尤其是劳动者创造力的增长是提高社会生产力的最有效手段。福克斯也曾表达类似的观点，他认为在资本主义数字时代，技术能够使劳动更加社会化，带来新的合作形式，提升集体所有制的潜力，创造新的共有物品(如数字共有),减少必要劳动时间——这些都是实现共产主义的可能性奠基，或者有些人称之为资本化的“共产主义”。33

V. Conclusion

五、结 语

With the development of the technological revolution in the 21st century, the theory of digital socialism quietly emerged after the outbreak of the global financial crisis in 2008. At the same time, broader concepts of digital socialism, such as cyber-communism and communication socialism, were also proposed. These theories of digital socialism share commonalities but also exhibit significant differences, and their similarities and differences have sparked extensive debates among foreign left-wing scholars. Additionally, various types of new socialist forms and left-wing politics maintain relevance under common revolutionary demands. Theoretical forms such as cyber-communism, platform socialism, and communication socialism contribute wisdom and strength to the socialist movement of the 21st century. New socialist theories not only exist as symbolic images in cyberspace, but their demand to replace the capitalist system also drives them to exert greater momentum in practice.

伴随着21世纪科技革命的发展，数字社会主义理论在2008年全球金融危机爆发后悄然兴起。与此同时，赛博共产主义、传播社会主义等广义上的数字社会主义概念也被提了出来。这些数字社会主义理论既有共通之处，也存在巨大差异，其异同引发了国外左翼学者的广泛论争。另外，各种类型的新社会主义形态与左翼政治在共通的革命诉求下保持着关联性。赛博共产主义、平台社会主义、传播社会主义等理论形态为21世纪的社会主义运动贡献着智慧和力量。新型社会主义理论不仅在网络空间中以符号化形象存在，而且其替代资本主义制度的诉求也促使其在实践中发挥更大的动能。

Online Editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑