The Issue of Ownership in the Digital Age: From Digital Capitalism to Digital Socialism

The theory of ownership is the most clearly identifiable foundational pathway to the analytical paradigm of historical materialism. At its root, it determines the nature of human society and the prospects of human civilization. To avoid the consequence of putting the cart before the horse in the analysis of all social reality, one must not wander outside the problem domain of ownership and its surrounding concepts. To deeply grasp the specific social form of each era, the concrete economic structure, and the various relationships constructed by each historical individual in real life, ownership is always the foremost major theoretical and practical issue. This is especially true regarding how to interpret the form of ownership inherent in the new digital civilization — this is not only an old question of returning to the classics but also a new and genuine question urgently needing exploration. However, while academic circles are fervently discussing the epochal changes brought about by the digital revolution, the anchoring of the theoretical connotation of ownership in the digital age and its historical evolution as a "glimpse into the future" have yet to receive systematic, timely, and progressive inquiry. How is the contemporary form of ownership to be determined? Is it moving toward digital capitalism or digital socialism? How exactly should the vision of a new digital civilization be planned? In this sense, understanding digital civilization presupposes, first of all, a detailed and analytical consideration of the constituent elements of the concept of ownership, its operational mechanisms, and the digitalized evolution of different civilizational directions based on these. And this, in a certain sense, will determine the world of tomorrow.

所有制理论是通往历史唯物主义分析范式最明确可辨的基础性通道，它在根基处决定着人类社会的性质和人类文明的前景。如果要避免使一切社会现实的分析出现本末倒置的后果，就必然不能在所有制问题域及其周边概念之外游离打转。想要深刻把握每一时代特定的社会形式、具体的经济结构及其每一历史个体在现实生活中所建构起的各种关系，所有制始终是首当其冲的重大理论问题和现实问题。尤其是寓于新的数字文明的所有制形态该如何阐释，这不仅是一个回归经典的老问题，还是亟需探索的新问题与真问题。然而，在学界围绕数字革命所引起的时代巨变讨论得如火如荼之际，数字化时代的所有制理论内涵的锚定及其向“未来一瞥”的历史性流变，仍未得到系统的、应时的、推进性的追问。所有制的当代形态如何甄定？它是走向数字资本主义还是数字社会主义？数字新文明的憧憬究竟该如何筹划？在这个意义上，理解数字文明的前提也就意味着，首先得对所有制概念的诸构成要素、运作机制以及在此基础上不同文明走向的数字化演绎，进行条分缕析的考量。而这在某种意义上将决定明天的世界。

I. The Connotation of Ownership Theory and Its Digitalization Trends

一、所有制理论的内涵及数字化动向

In Chinese expression, ownership (所有制) refers to the situation in the entire social production process where the means of production belong to a certain individual or group, and are thereby self-directed, used, distributed, and exchanged by the latter. It determines the basic economic system, economic relations, and social nature of the social production process. The Chinese native word "所有" (suǒ yǒu) is not equivalent to the universal quantifiers "全部" (all) or "一切" (everything), but rather carries the verbal attribute of being "occupied" or "possessed" by a certain subject. The phrase from *Mencius, Gongsun Chou II* — "exchange what one has for what one lacks" (以其所有，易其所无) — is the Chinese native word source for this modern term. In terms of terminological translation, its corresponding German root word is *Eigentum*, composed of the root *Eigen* (one's own) and the noun suffix *-tum*. The concept of ownership points to the "economic system" as a concept of political economy; it represents, in the form of a system, the social organizational form of the possession and control of the means of production formed among people in the social production process. In this sense, ownership is a category encompassing a series of dynamic relationships. It is the foundational structure of the relations of production, not merely a static entity category of dead property or a narrow expression of legal rights (property rights, ownership rights). Ownership in its entity state, as well as property, can be derivative manifestations of ownership, but ownership as a premise cannot possibly be a derivative of ownership rights or property. Because ownership is the premise and foundation of social production, not the result, discussing better social development without this foundation would be putting the cart before the horse.

在汉语的表述中，所有制意指在整个社会生产过程中，某一生产资料归属某一个体或群体，从而被后者进行自我支配、使用、分配、交换等，它决定了社会生产过程中的基本经济制度、经济关系及社会性质。而“所有”作为汉语的原生词，并不等同于全称量词所指称的“全部”“一切”，而是动词属性的“被”或“归”某一主体“占据”“拥有”之义。《孟子·公孙丑下》中的“以其所有，易其所无”即是此现代术语的汉语原生词来源。在术语对译上，它对应的德语母词是Eigentum，由词根Eigen（自己的）和名词后缀tum组合而成。所有制概念指向的是作为政治经济学概念的“经济制度”，它以制度的方式表征着人与人之间在社会生产过程中形成的生产资料的占有和支配的社会组织形式。在这个意义上，所有制就是囊括着一系列的动态关系性范畴，它是生产关系的基础架构，而不单单是僵死的财产的实体范畴和狭义的法权（财产权、所有权）体现。实体状态的所有权以及财产可以是所有制的衍生性体现，而作为前提的所有制却不可能是所有权以及财产的分化物。因为所有制是社会生产的前提和基础，而不是结果，所以探讨更好的社会发展就是本末倒置。

Engels once criticized that "Mülberger's article distorted economic relations in Proudhon's way by translating these relations into legal language." [1]1 A reference to Engels's critique of the Proudhonist writer Mülberger, found in Engels's work *The Housing Question* (1872). The legal language Engels refers to here originates from the conditions of material life. The ultimate reason why issues like digital ownership rights, digital privacy rights, and digital bare life — discussed fervently in the era of digital civilization — remain persistently unsolvable lies in the neglect of this "correct understanding" of digital ownership. For example, no matter how much legislation is enacted regarding digital privacy rights, the platforms and applications of digital capitalism will still disguise themselves to infringe upon privacy. This is the result of failing to examine the issue at the level of digital ownership. Of course, "this is not to say that improving privacy laws is not a good thing, but that it is insufficient to stop the new forms of exploitation and alienation brought about by surveillance capitalism in the digital age." [2]2 The source of this embedded quotation is not provided in the original text; it appears to be a paraphrase or citation from a contemporary critical theorist of digital capitalism.

恩格斯曾指责“米尔柏格的文章按照蒲鲁东的方式歪曲了经济关系，办法是把这种关系翻译成法律用语”。恩格斯在此处所称的这种法律用语起源于物质生活条件。数字文明时代讨论得如火如荼的数字所有权、数字隐私权和数字赤裸生命这些难题始终无法彻底破解的最终原因就在于遗忘了数字所有制这种“正确认识”。例如，即便针对数字隐私权的立法再多，数字资本主义的平台和应用程序仍会乔装打扮去侵犯隐私。这是未深入数字所有制层面看待问题的结果。当然，“并不是说完善隐私法不是一件好事，而是说，它不足以阻止数字时代的监控资本主义所带来的新的剥削和异化”。

Within the perspective of Marx's critique of political economy, the constituent elements of the concept of ownership include: the object of labor, the means of labor, the worker, the non-worker, and human beings' own purposeful activity or labor itself. Regarding the object of labor, it is what the worker does not directly possess before engaging in productive labor; it requires the worker to transform and appropriate it in the process of productive labor. First, the object of labor includes "the object of labor provided directly by nature"; land and nature are the most original and direct manifestation of this object of labor, such as felled trees, mined ore, and extracted petroleum. Second, with the development of production technology, the object of labor is not limited to the "object of labor provided directly by nature" in agricultural civilization but also includes secondary industrial "raw materials." "An object of labor which has, so to speak, been filtered through previous labor, we call raw material. For example, ore which has been extracted and is now being washed." [3]3 A quotation from Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 7, Section 1. Regarding the means of labor, it is the intermediary between the worker and the object of labor, such as machinery. Only through this intermediary can the worker transmit their purposeful activity onto the object of labor. In this sense, the means of labor extends the worker's natural limbs. The different forms of the means of labor serve as the "measurer" and "indicator" of human civilization in terms of the indicators of productive forces and relations of production. In *Capital*, Marx compared modern mechanical devices with stone tools to illustrate the "skeletal" and "muscular" systems of different civilizational forms. "The distinction between economic epochs is not what is produced, but how it is produced, by what means of labor. The means of labor are not only the measurer of the development of human labor power, but also the indicator of the social relations within which labor is carried on. Among the instruments of labor, those of a mechanical nature, which, taken as a whole, may be called the bones and muscles of production, offer much more decisive characteristics of a given social epoch of production than those which serve merely as receptacles for the object of labor (such as pipes, barrels, baskets, jars, etc., which, taken as a whole, may be called the vascular system of production)." [4]4 A quotation from Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 7, Section 1.

在马克思政治经济学批判视域中，所有制概念的诸构成要素包括：劳动对象、劳动资料、劳动者、非劳动者以及人自身有目的的活动或劳动。其中，就劳动对象而言，它是劳动者在生产劳动之前不直接掌握的东西，它需要劳动者在生产劳动的过程中对其进行改造和占有。首先，劳动对象包括“天然存在的劳动对象”，土地和自然界就是这一劳动对象的最原初、最直接显现，如砍伐的树木、开采的矿石、提炼的石油；其次，随着生产技术的发展，劳动对象不仅限于农业文明中“天然存在的劳动对象”，还包括次生性的工业“原料”。“已经被以前的劳动可以说滤过的劳动对象，我们称为原料。例如，已经开采出来正在洗的矿石。”就劳动资料而言，它是劳动者与劳动对象之间的中介，如机器等。只有凭此中介，劳动者才能把自己有目的的活动作用传导到劳动对象身上。在此意义上，劳动资料延伸了劳动者自然的肢体。而劳动资料的不同形态，是人类文明在生产力、生产关系的指标上的“测量器”和“指示器”。在《资本论》中，马克思曾以现代机械装置对比石制工具，从而说明不同文明形态的“骨骼”和“肌肉”系统。“各种经济时代的区别，不在于生产什么，而在于怎样生产，用什么劳动资料生产。劳动资料不仅是人类劳动力发展的测量器，而且是劳动借以进行的社会关系的指示器。在劳动资料本身中，机械性的劳动资料（其总和可称为生产的骨骼系统和肌肉系统）远比只是充当劳动对象的容器的劳动资料（如管、桶、篮，罐等，其总和一般可称为生产的脉管系统）更能显示一个社会生产时代的具有决定意义的特征。”

These two elements (the object of labor and the means of labor) together constitute the means of production. The so-called ownership of the means of production is, in essence, ownership encompassing both the object of labor and the means of labor. It should be noted that the means of labor and the object of labor are two essential elements within the "labor process," while the means of production are considered from the perspective of the "result" of labor, i.e., the "product of labor," or from the perspective that "the labor process disappears into the product." "If we examine the whole process from the point of view of its result, the product, it is plain that both the instruments of labor and the object of labor are means of production, and that the labor itself is productive labor." [5]5 A quotation from Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 7, Section 1. In other words, the means of production are means of production, and they are the material core element of ownership, precisely because they can perform the function of production, and this function can only be consistently demonstrated from the perspective of the "result." Therefore, these two elements can only become means of production when placed within productive labor. That is, they must pass through the worker's purposeful activity and ultimately realize this process as the "product" — the result — to become means of production. Otherwise, they cannot enter the production system, can only be regarded as non-productive and irrelevant elements, and thus will not be anchored by the concept of ownership.

这两种要素（劳动对象和劳动资料）共同构成了生产资料。所谓生产资料所有制，实质上是囊括着劳动对象和劳动资料的所有制。需要注意的是，劳动资料和劳动对象是“劳动的过程”中的两个必备要素，而生产资料则是从劳动的“结果”，即“劳动产品”的角度或“劳动的过程消失在产品中”的角度作出的考量。“如果整个过程从其结果的角度，从产品的角度加以考察，那么劳动资料和劳动对象二者表现为生产资料，劳动本身则表现为生产劳动。”换言之，生产资料之为生产资料，以及其之为所有制核心的物性要素，是因为它能够履行生产的职能，而这一职能在“结果”的角度才能得以自洽的显示。所以这两种要素，必须放置在生产劳动中才能成为生产资料，也就是说，必须经由劳动者有目的的活动过程并将其过程最终实现为结果的“产品”，才能成为生产资料。否则二者进入不了生产体系中，且只能被视为非生产性的无关紧要的要素，也就不会被所有制概念锚定。

Once the objects of labor and the means of labor are placed within the general system of social production for analysis, it means that the material means of production must be brought into relation with the human elements of laborers and non-laborers. The question of the attribution and possession of the means of production thus arises, and it thereby also determines the question of the attribution and possession of the products as “results.” If the means of production belong to non-laborers, and laborers lose the means of production, with non-laborers thereby appropriating the products produced by the combination of laborers and the means of production in the direct labor process, this is private ownership of the means of production. The ownership systems of slave society, feudal society, and capitalist society are like this. If individual laborers fully possess the means of production and engage in free associated labor, this is the public form of ownership, namely the social ownership or the reconstruction of individual ownership that Marx pointed to, which matches the concentration of the means of production and the socialization of labor.

一旦将劳动对象和劳动资料放置在一般社会生产体系中进行分析，也就意味着物性的生产资料必须与劳动者、非劳动者这样的人的要素产生关联。生产资料的归属和占有问题就此发生，它因而也决定着作为“结果”的产品的归属和占有问题。如果生产资料归属非劳动者，劳动者丧失生产资料，非劳动者以此占有直接劳动过程中劳动者与生产资料结合而生产的产品，这就是生产资料私有制。奴隶社会、封建社会和资本主义社会的所有制就是如此。如果劳动者个人充分占有生产资料，进行自由的联合劳动，这就是所有制的公有形态，即马克思所指明的社会所有制或重建个人所有制，这与生产资料的集中和劳动的社会化相匹配。

But the crux of the issue is that the social forms of private ownership where the means of production belong to non-laborers manifest as slave society, feudal society, and capitalist society. Yet how are these specific social forms distinguished? That is, all three are private ownership, but how are the different forms of private ownership among these three manifested? Relying solely on the logic of the attribution and possession of the means of production cannot penetrate this question.

但是问题的关键在于，生产资料归属非劳动者的私有制社会形式，表现为奴隶社会、封建社会和资本主义社会，但此种具体社会形式是如何被甄定的？也就是说，它们三者都是私有制，但此三者的私有制的不同形态是如何表现的？仅依靠生产资料的归属和占有逻辑，并不能透视此问题。

Going further, we must delve into the specific operational mechanisms of ownership for inquiry. The operational mechanisms of ownership in different epochs of civilization are different. Their operational mechanisms are embodied in the specific modes of combination between the means of production and laborers, and different modes of combination constitute different operational mechanisms of ownership, thereby also characterizing the basic nature of different societies. “The relationship of attribution is merely the premise and condition for forming a specific socio-economic system… The mode of combination between the means of production and laborers determines the nature of ownership from a deep level.” [6]6 Source not provided in the original text; likely a reference to a Chinese scholarly work on ownership theory. It is in highlighting this dimension of deep connotation that Marx emphasizes the importance of the mode of combination: “Wherever production takes place, they must be combined. The particular mode and method of effecting this combination distinguishes the different economic epochs of the social structure.” [7]7 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume II, Chapter 1, Section 1. In essence, the specific operational mechanisms of the concept of ownership, or the special modes of combination among its elements, constitute the ownership structures of different social natures. Among these, “the relationship between the direct laborer and the means of production is different in each type of ownership.” [8]8 Source not provided in the original text. In the ownership system of slave society, the slave as a direct laborer was no different from the means of production, because the slave was merely a “speaking tool.” [9]9 A phrase used in ancient Roman law and classical political economy to describe the status of slaves. The combination of the slave, whose personality was completely lost, with the means of production was a combination of thing with thing, and all the results of production were handed over to the slave owner for disposal. This mode of combination of thing with thing mainly took forms such as mining, plundering, herding, hunting, and farming, based on tribal covenants, clan traditions, or city-state systems. In the ownership system of feudal society, the mode of combination between the direct laborer, the tenant farmer, and the means of production was corvée labor. Ownership manifested itself through the operational mechanism of corvée labor; the tenant farmer needed to pay land rent and provide labor services. In the ownership system of capitalist society, the mode of combination between the two is modern wage labor. When analyzing “the function of productive capital,” Marx identified that ownership at this time meant “the capitalist can no longer sell the worker as a commodity, because the worker is not the capitalist’s slave, and what the capitalist buys is merely the use of the worker’s labor power for a definite period. On the other hand, the capitalist can only use labor power in this way, namely, by using labor power to use the means of production as elements for forming commodities.” [10]10 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume II, Chapter 1, Section 1. The universalization of the modern wage labor system, or rather the universalization of capitalist ownership, brought with it the fate that all means of production would become commodities. This caused a revolution in the mode of production, and at the same time a modern transformation of the mode of exploitation. This is the operational mechanism of modern ownership; it laid the basic economic structure of the civilizational form of capital.

进一步而言，我们必须深入到所有制的具体运作机制中进行探寻。不同文明时代的所有制的运作机制是不同的，其运作机制体现为生产资料与劳动者之间特定的结合方式，而不同的结合方式构成了所有制不同的运作机制，也因此表征了不同社会的基本性质。“归属关系，仅仅是形成一定社会经济制度的前提和条件……生产资料与劳动者的结合方式从深层次上决定所有制的性质。”正是在突出这一点深层内涵的维度上，马克思强调结合方式的重要性：“凡要进行生产，它们就必须结合起来。实行这种结合的特殊方式和方法，使社会结构区分为各个不同的经济时期。”质言之，所有制概念的具体运作机制或诸要素之间的特殊结合方式，构成了不同社会性质的所有制结构。其中，“每一种所有制中直接劳动者与生产资料的关系都是不同的”。在奴隶社会所有制中，作为直接劳动者的奴隶与生产资料并无二致，因为奴隶仅仅是“会说话的工具”。作为人格彻底丧失的奴隶与生产资料的结合是物与物的结合，其生产的成果全部交由奴隶主支配。这种物与物的结合方式主要根据部落的契约、氏族的传统或城邦的制度采取开采、掠夺、放牧、捕猎、耕种等形式。在封建社会所有制中，直接劳动者佃农与生产资料的结合方式是徭役劳动。所有制以徭役劳动的运作机制表征自身，佃农需要缴纳地租并提供劳役。在资本主义社会所有制中，二者的结合方式是现代雇佣劳动。马克思在分析“生产资本的职能”时，指认此时的所有制意味着“资本家不能再把工人当做商品出售，因为工人不是资本家的奴隶，并且资本家买到的仅仅是在一定时间内对工人的劳动力的使用。另一方面，资本家只能这样来使用劳动力，就是通过劳动力把生产资料作为商品形成要素来使用”。现代雇佣劳动制的普遍化，或毋宁说资本主义所有制的普遍化，带来的就是一切生产资料都将成为商品的命运。这造成了生产方式的革命，同时也是剥削方式的现代转型。这就是现代所有制的运作机制，它奠定了资本的文明形态的基本经济结构。

The logic of the dynamic morphological history of ownership is a basic characterization of different economic forms and social natures. In today’s digital economy era, the digital form of ownership has become the underlying logic of digital civilization, defining the direction of development and future prospects of digital civilization. Regarding the digital form of ownership, the commodity raw materials, production tools, logistics systems, and monetary systems encompassed by modern ownership, as well as the mode of combination between laborers and the means of production, have already undergone qualitative changes in the shift to the new economic form. Because “in the era of the digital economy, data has already become an indispensable key raw material, algorithms have already become essential tools for the new world, the Internet of Things has become the logistics pipeline connecting digital space with physical space, and blockchain will become the financial infrastructure of the new era.” [11]11 Source not provided in the original text. This means that what Marx called the “indicators” and “measuring rods” [12]12 A reference to Marx’s statement in *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 1, Section 4, that the “relics of bygone instruments of labor” are “indicators of the degree of development of human labor power” and “measuring rods of the social conditions under which labor is carried on.” of civilizational forms need to be re-examined in terms of ownership.

所有制动态的形态史逻辑，是对不同的经济形态和社会性质的基本刻画。在当今数字经济时代，所有制的数字化形态成为数字文明的底层逻辑，规定着数字文明的发展方向及未来图景。就所有制的数字化形态而言，现代所有制所囊括的商品原材料、生产工具、物流系统和货币体系，以及劳动者与生产资料的结合方式等，已在新的经济形态的切换中发生了质的变化。因为“在数字经济时代，数据已然成为不可或缺的关键原材料，算法已然成为新世界的必备工具，物联网则成为数字空间联通物理空间的物流管道，而区块链则将成为新时代的金融基础设施”。这意味着马克思所说的文明形态的“指示器”“测量器”需要在所有制的意义上重新审视。

In the digital age, the object of labor has, in a certain sense, broken away from the characteristics of the “natural form of existence” of nature, such as the natural commonality of land, rivers, mountains, and oil, and instead manifests more as the artificial commonality of codes, information, values, emotions, and leisure, as elaborated by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri in their book *Commonwealth*. [13]13 Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, *Commonwealth* (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009). And this kind of artificial commonality is essentially generated by digital coding within the “digital commons.” All virtual traces (data) of people on digital platforms become the raw materials for digital production, and these raw materials can be further processed through digital technology into commodities containing digital content, thereby generating exchange value. This means that in cyberspace or on digital platforms, the former “natural form of existence” of the object of labor has been transformed into virtual cyberspace or the “digital commons,” and the former secondary “filtered objects of labor” or “raw materials” have been transformed into virtual data (because data is necessarily generated through user behavior; it is the virtualized form of the “filtered object of labor”). Nick Srnicek points out in his book *Platform Capitalism*: “We should treat data as raw material that must be extracted, and user activity is the natural source of this raw material. Like oil, data is a substance that is extracted, refined, and used in various ways.” [14]14 Nick Srnicek, *Platform Capitalism* (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2017), p. 40. It is precisely in this way that user data constitutes the “filtered object of labor.” As for the means of labor, the digital ecosystem structured by cloud computing, intelligent algorithms, blockchain, 5G communication engineering, and generative artificial intelligence like ChatGPT not only extends the natural limbs of the laborer, such as “bones” and “muscles,” but also extends their thought organs, such as the “brain” and “mind.” Moreover, compared to tangible machines, they suffer almost no wear and tear. Therefore, the human elements of ownership, laborers and non-laborers, have also transformed from natural humans into non-naturalized “humanoids.” If these non-naturalized “humanoids” wish to avoid being excluded or marginalized in the era of digital civilization, their purposeful activities must enter cyberspace to engage in digital production. Consequently, the digital objects of labor and digital means of labor will inevitably, in the dimension of “results,” create digital means of production.

在数字时代，劳动对象在某种意义上脱离了“天然存在形态”的自然界的特性，如土地、河流、山川、石油这样的自然共同性，而更多地表现为迈克尔·哈特（Michael Hardt）和安东尼奥·奈格里（Antonio Negri）在《大同世界》一书中所阐述的符码、信息、价值、情感、休闲的人工共同性。而这样的人工共同性实质上是由“数字公地”中的数字编码生成的。人们在数字平台上的一切虚拟轨迹（数据）都成为数字生产的原材料，并且这些原材料能够通过数字技术的加工，进一步成为包含数字内容的商品，以此产生出交换价值。这意味着，在赛博空间或数字平台中，以往“天然存在形态”的劳动对象转换成了虚拟的赛博空间或“数字公地”，以往次生性的“滤过的劳动对象”或“原料”转换成了虚拟的数据（因为数据必定是通过用户行为产生的，它是被“滤过的劳动对象”的虚拟化形态）。尼克·斯尼尔塞克（Nick Srnicek）在《平台资本主义》一书中指出：“我们应该把数据作为必须提取的原材料，用户的活动是这种原料的天然来源。就像石油一样，数据是一种被提取、被精炼并以各种方式被使用的物质。”正是这样，用户的数据构成了被“滤过的劳动对象”。而对于劳动资料来说，云计算、智能算法、区块链、5G通讯工程以及生成式人工智能ChatGPT等构架的数字生态系统，不仅延伸了劳动者“骨骼”和“肌肉”等自然肢体，还延伸了其“大脑”和“心灵”等思想器官。并且，较之于有形的机器，它们几乎没有任何损耗。因此，作为所有制人力要素的劳动者和非劳动者，也从自然人类变成了非自然化的“类人”。如果非自然化的“类人”在数字文明时代想要避免被排斥、被边缘化的状态，其有目的的活动必须进驻到赛博空间中从事数字生产，数字劳动对象和数字劳动资料也就必然在“结果”的维度上造就数字生产资料。

But more importantly, the ownership form of the digital age, in its possession, use, and internal operational logic, will have more far-reaching significance: will it move towards the ownership form of digital capitalism or digital socialism? This will characterize different prospects for digital civilization. Because the so-called digital trend of ownership means that the constituent elements of ownership have undergone a huge transformation, and its attribution problem and specific operational mechanism can ultimately confirm the basic nature of ownership itself. But there is no doubt that ownership has already shown a digital trend. So how to further confront the real-world encounter of the digital ownership form in the present era, and how to anticipate the new civilizational logic of the digital ownership form, becomes the key issue to be resolved next.

但更重要的是，数字时代的所有制形态在其占有、使用及内在运作逻辑上，将产生更深远的意义：走向数字资本主义还是数字社会主义的所有制形态？这将表征不同的数字文明图景。因为所谓的所有制的数字化动向，意味着所有制的构成要素发生了巨大转换，而它的归属问题和具体运作机制能最终确证所有制自身的基本性质。但毫无疑问的是，所有制已然出现数字化动向，那么如何进一步面对数字化所有制形态在当今时代的现实遭遇，如何期待数字化所有制形态的新文明逻辑，就成为接下来要解决的问题的关键所在。

II. Digital Capitalist Ownership, Common Use, and Self-Exploitation

二、数字资本主义所有制、公共使用与自我剥削

Ownership in the digital age has achieved a new leap in its objective constituent elements through digitalized forms. Digitalized means of production have become the new "skeleton" and "muscle" system, the new "brain" and "mind" organ of the digital civilization, serving as its "intelligent measuring instrument" and "intelligent indicator." However, the theory of ownership in its digital movement, in its actuality—or, more precisely, in the further mode of attribution and concrete combination of the means of production—finds itself at a "crossroads" of digital civilization. Where should digital civilization go? Where do its fate and trajectory point? Undoubtedly, when it is embedded in the track of digital capitalism, new and more concealed forms of surplus-value production and exploitation are thereby born. "We are often not dealing with a techno-political system outside capitalism or its 'deformations,' but with a variant of capitalism that now operates on some new hardware and software foundations." [15]15 Athan Sadowski, *The Too Smart City: Why Technology Alone Is Not Enough* (Chinese translation), p. 15. [Original English: Athan Sadowski, *The Too Smart City: Why Technology Alone Is Not Enough*] This is precisely the case for digital capitalist ownership: some things have changed, some have not truly changed, and this is exactly what Athan Sadowski calls the "too clever" capitalism's practical application of ownership in the digital age: a refurbished ownership, when steered onto the track of modern high-level capitalist private ownership, will perpetuate capital's unchanging pursuit of civilization and its enslavement. Thus, a new kind of pleasure and sorrow will begin to ferment under the domination of digital capitalist ownership. Therefore, when discussing the proper direction of digital civilization today, one must confront its actual predicament, so as to better respond to its future aspirations.

数字时代的所有制在其客观的构成要素上，以数字化形态实现了新的飞跃。数字化的生产资料成为数字文明形态新的“骨骼”和“肌肉”系统、新的“大脑”和“心灵”器官，它是数字文明形态的“智能测量器”和“智能指示器”。然而，数字化动向的所有制理论在其现实性上，抑或说在其进一步的生产资料的归属与具体结合方式上，正处在数字文明的“十字路口”。数字文明该何去何从？它的命运与轨迹指向何方？毋庸置疑，当它嵌入到数字资本主义的轨道中，新的、更加隐秘的剩余价值的生产与剥削形式也由此诞生。“我们很多时候并不是在同资本主义之外的技术政治制度或其‘畸变’打交道，而是同一个资本主义的变体打交道，只是它现在运行在一些新的硬件和软件基础之上。”对于数字资本主义所有制而言正是如此，一些发生了改变，一些并未真正改变，而这恰恰是阿坦·萨多斯基（Athan Sadowski）所谓的“过于聪明”的资本主义对数字时代所有制的实际运用：改头换面的所有制在导向现代高阶的资本主义私有制轨道上时，将延续资本的文明不变的追求与奴役。那么，一种新的享乐与悲辛，将在数字资本主义所有制的宰制下开始发酵。所以，当下在探讨数字文明的应然走向时，必然要直面它的现实遭遇，这样才能更好地回应它的未来憧憬。

Overall, the ownership form on which digital capitalism relies has undergone a tremendous change in the mode of attribution and concrete combination of the means of production. It replaces the exclusive use mode of traditional private ownership with the beautiful lie of "public use," and replaces the antagonism of exploitation by others with the willingness of self-exploitation, thereby continuing to maintain its own stable position. This constitutes the trump card of the operational mechanism of digital capitalism.

在总体上，数字资本主义所依赖的所有制形态，在生产资料的归属与具体结合方式上发生了巨变。它以“公共使用”的美丽谎言代替了传统私有制的排他性使用方式，以自我剥削的甘愿性代替了他者剥削的对抗性，从而继续维持自身的稳固地位。这构成了数字资本主义运作机制的拿手好戏。

Digital capitalist ownership is the necessary prerequisite and foundation of digital capitalist production. On the surface, digital capitalism uses a series of technologies such as big data, cloud computing, and artificial intelligence to update the mode of social production into a digital existence, thereby realizing capital's dominance in the new digital domain. As Lan Jiang states: "The typical characteristic of the digital age or digital capitalism is to digitize everything, transforming it into data that can enter the cloud computing interface." [16]16 Lan Jiang, "Digital Capitalism, Data Labor, and the Alienation of the Everyday," *Jiangxi Social Sciences*, 2018, no. 3. But further, these typical characteristics of digital capitalism are only the appearance or result; its deep prerequisite and foundation is the actual application of digital ownership. That is, only when the digital constituent elements of ownership adopt a capitalist organizational structure in the further mode of attribution and concrete combination of the means of production can capitalism successfully perpetuate itself in a new variant form—digital capitalism. Hence, "as long as capitalist society cannot fundamentally resolve the unequal issue of ownership, it cannot truly escape the fundamental contradiction of capitalism." [17]17 Reference to the fundamental contradiction of capitalism between the socialization of production and private ownership of the means of production.

数字资本主义所有制是数字资本主义生产的必要前提和基础。表面上看，数字资本主义是利用大数据、云计算、人工智能等一系列技术，将社会生产方式更新为数字化的存在，从而在新的数字领域实现资本的统治权。正如蓝江所言：“数字化时代或者数字资本主义的典型特征，是将一切都数字化，转化为一个可以进入到云计算界面的数据。”但进一步而言，数字资本主义的这些典型特征还只是表象或结果，其深层的前提和基础乃是数字化所有制的实际运用。也就是说，只有当所有制的数字化构成要素在进一步的生产资料的归属与具体结合方式上采取资本主义的组织架构之际，资本主义才能成功地以新的变体的方式——数字资本主义——延续自身。所以，“只要资本主义社会不能从根本上解决不平等的所有制问题，就不可能真正摆脱资本主义的根本矛盾”。

As described above, the digital ecosystem composed of user behavior data and the architecture of cloud computing, intelligent algorithms, blockchain, 5G communication engineering, and generative artificial intelligence like ChatGPT respectively constitute the "filtered objects of labor" and means of labor in the digital age. The ultimate purpose of digital objects of labor and digital means of labor is to enter the digital production system and be converted into digital surplus profit; only then can they exist as a form of digital means of production. Moreover, the raw data of user behavior must be extracted, quantified, analyzed, and utilized through the means of labor in technological form (such as algorithmic logic); otherwise, the raw data would be meaningless. Therefore, the two must be combined in the capital production process to form systematized digital means of production. However, once digital means of production take shape, they become the "constant capital" privately owned by the digital platform, belonging to the owners of the digital platform, not to the public—the users—who participate in this behavior. In other words, the shareholders or capitalists of the digital platform, rather than the users, possess the digital means of production and the digital surplus profit derived from them. Imagine that when digital giants like Facebook, Google, and YouTube sell, transfer, or distribute the digital means of production of the platform, users are not informed, and their opinions and rights are not considered. Because users are not the owners of the digital means of production, they have no right to possess them. Even though platforms like Facebook often create a digital culture that claims: users are the masters of the platform; it is users, not the platform, who create content; the Facebook revolution is democratic communication, and so on. Christian Fuchs, in his book *Digital Labour and Karl Marx*, points out that Facebook's shares and control are entirely in the hands of 12 executives and board members: "Facebook is not owned by the users, but by some directors and companies... Facebook's economic poor, who have no control over ownership, but create the wealth that is controlled and owned by shareholders." [18]18 Christian Fuchs, *Digital Labour and Karl Marx* (Chinese translation), p. 138. Thus, whether it is the raw material of user behavior data or the production technology of intelligent algorithms, in terms of ownership attribution, they all point to the platform capitalist. "This is an asymmetry like a one-way mirror: on one side is infinite power, on the other is infinite concession." [19]19 A metaphor for the asymmetrical power relationship in digital platforms, where capitalists have full control and users have none.

如上所述，用户行为的数据与云计算、智能算法、区块链、5G通讯工程以及生成式人工智能ChatGPT等构架的数字生态系统，分别构成了数字时代被“滤过的劳动对象”和劳动资料。数字劳动对象和数字劳动资料的最终目的是要进入到数字化的生产体系中，转换成数字超额利润，只有这样才能作为数字生产资料的形态而存在。并且，用户行为的原始数据必须通过作为技术形态的劳动资料（如算法逻辑）进行提取、量化、分析和调用，否则原始数据将是无意义的。所以，二者必须在资本的生产过程中结合起来，形成体系化的数字生产资料。然而，数字生产资料一旦成型，就将成为数字平台私有的“不变资本”，归属于数字平台的所有者，而非参与这一行为的公众——用户。换言之，数字平台的股东或资本家而非用户占有数字生产资料，以及由数字生产资料带来的数字超额利润。想象一下，当脸书、谷歌、优兔等数字巨头出售、转让或分配平台的数字生产资料时，用户并不会被告知，他们的意见及权利也不会被考虑到。因为用户不是数字生产资料的所有者，他们对其没有占有的权利。即便脸书这样的平台常常营造的数字文化是：用户是平台的主人；是用户而非平台在创造内容；脸书革命是民主式交往，如此等等。克里斯蒂安·福克斯（Christian Fuchs）在《数字劳动与卡尔·马克思》一书中指出，脸书的股份及控制权完全在12个执行官和董事局手里，“脸书并不归用户所有，而是由一些董事和公司拥有……脸书的经济穷人，他们没有控制所有权，但却创造了被股东控制和拥有的财富”。所以，无论是原材料的用户行为数据，还是生产技术的智能算法，在所有制的归属上都指向了平台资本家。“这是一种单面玻璃式的不对称: 一面是无限权力，另一面是无限让渡。”

More importantly, in the specific mode of combining digital means of production with users, the ownership system of digital capitalism adopts a more flexible “non-standard” digital wage-labor system. The so-called standard wage-labor system refers to the process in which workers are purchased by capitalists in the free market as a special commodity, sign long-term employment contracts with capitalists, and receive stable wages. According to Marx’s analysis, the formation of the standard wage-labor system enables employed workers to use the means of production as elements for the formation of commodities. In the capitalist mode of production, as long as production takes place, the two must be combined, and the specific mode of combination constitutes the criterion for distinguishing different economic periods. This is also the basic function of the wage-labor system within capitalist ownership: “The means of production themselves become the material form of productive capital, or productive capital, only when labor-power, as the human form of existence of productive capital, can be combined with the means of production.” Therefore, only by clarifying the specific, concrete mode of combination of digital capitalist ownership — the “non-standard” digital wage-labor system — can we confirm the digital economic period derived from capitalism. In fact, since the 1970s, with the flexibilization of production methods, the standard wage-labor system has gradually appeared in a new guise, and this is even more true today. The so-called “non-standard” digital wage-labor system means that users, as wage laborers, engage in digital behavior, produce digital surplus value, and receive a certain “wage.” On the surface, this judgment seems unreasonable, because users have never sold themselves in the free market, signed contracts with specific platform capitalists, let alone received wages. However, as Milkman Ruth stated in her article “Work Intensification in the Age of Surveillance Capitalism”: “The fact that capitalists do not pay users for using their services seems similar to the fact that industrial capitalists could not pay workers wages. But this does not mean that no transaction is taking place. Just as workers cannot receive wages without working, users cannot access the services and platforms they need without giving up important rights to their data.” In the digital age, new work intensification and new exploitation have long forced “wages” to be paid in the form of “free services.” Moreover, today, the consequence of having no “free services” is like early workers having no “wages” — they cannot lead a normal socialized life. “Free services” ultimately, in the manner of early “wages,” compel the masses to be absorbed as loyal users of the platform, and the “labor power” economy of the body is replaced by the “attention” economy of the eyeballs. It can be said that “this is a wage-labor that is non-traditional wage-labor and a wage that is non-traditional wage, a higher-order form of wage-labor and wages, and by no means their negation.”

更重要的是，在数字生产资料与用户的具体结合方式上，数字资本主义所有制采取的是更为灵活的“非标准化”的数字雇佣劳动制。所谓标准的雇佣劳动制，是指劳动者在自由市场以特殊商品的形式被资本家购买，并与资本家签订长期的雇佣合同，获得稳定的工资。按照马克思的分析，标准雇佣劳动制的形成，使被雇佣的劳动者能够把生产资料作为商品形成要素使用。在资本主义生产方式中，只要进行生产，二者必须结合，而结合的特殊方式构成了具体经济时期的区分标准。这也是雇佣劳动制在资本主义所有制中的基本功效：“生产资料本身，只有在劳动力作为生产资本的人的存在形式，能够和生产资料相合并时，才成为生产资本的物的形态或生产资本。”所以，厘清数字资本主义所有制的特定的、具体的结合方式——“非标准化”的数字雇佣劳动制，才能够确证出资本主义所衍生的数字经济时期。实际上，自1970年代开始，随着生产方式的弹性化，标准的雇佣劳动制逐渐以新的面相示众，在今天更是如此。所谓“非标准化”的数字雇佣劳动制，是指用户作为雇佣劳动者从事数字行为，生产数字剩余价值，并获取一定的“工资”。表面上看，这一判断不合常理，因为用户从未在自由市场出卖自身，并与特定的平台资本家签订合同，更遑论获取工资。然而正像米尔克曼·鲁斯（Milkman Ruth）在《监督资本主义时代的工作强化》一文中所说的那样：“资本家不向用户支付使用其服务的费用，这似乎类似于工业资本家可以不向工人支付工资。但这并不意味着没有正在进行的交易。正如工人不工作就得不到工资一样，用户在不放弃对其数据的重要权利的情况下也无法访问他们需要的服务和平台。”在数字时代，新的工作强化与新的剥削早已迫使“工资”以“免费服务”的方式支付。更何况，在今天没有“免费服务”的后果，就像早期工人没有“工资”一样无法进行正常的社会化生活。“免费服务”最终以早期“工资”的方式，迫使大众被吸纳为平台的忠实用户，身体的“劳动力”经济也被眼球的“注意力”经济所取代。可以说，“这是一种非传统雇佣劳动的雇佣劳动与非传统工资的工资，是雇佣劳动和工资的高阶形态，而绝非它们的否定形态”。

The traditional or standard wage-labor system has undergone an important transformation in today’s digital age: from labor power being purchased in a physical market to attention being “recruited” on a virtual platform. The former receives traditional wages, while the latter receives new-type services. Only in this sense can we deeply understand why social platforms like Facebook always claim that “it is users, not us, who produce digital content.” But no matter how it changes, the extraction of surplus value is always ongoing.

传统的或标准的雇佣劳动制度，在今天的数字时代已发生了重要转变：从劳动力在实体性的市场被购买，转变成注意力在虚拟性的平台被“招募”，前者获得的是传统的工资，后者获得的是新型的服务。只有在这个意义上，我们才能深刻理解为何像脸书这样的社交平台总是在宣称“是用户而不是我们在生产数字内容”。但无论如何变化，剩余价值的攫取始终在进行中。

Within the concept of ownership, the attribution of the means of production and their mode of combination determine the disposition, use, distribution, and exchange of products. Among these, the “use” link has become the breakthrough point for the dramatic changes in ownership in the digital age. The formation of the wage-labor system in the digital age relies heavily on the “public use” model of digital platforms. “Public use” is a commercial tactic of “free economics.” Its original meaning is to “manufacture consent,” obscuring the confrontational model of exclusive use under traditional ownership. Within the fate of digital capitalism, the ownership system in its digital form has seen its internal “use” model undergo self-renewal and transformation first. In traditional capitalist private ownership, use is merely the use by others of the owner of the means of production, not the self-use by the wage laborer; it is exclusive. The relationship between private ownership and privileged use has long been closely linked in human civilization. But in the digital age, with the further expansion of the socialization of production and digital technology, the “self”-use of the masses precisely provides a new avenue for the exploitation of surplus value. We see that digital video providers, digital music streaming companies, digital social platforms, digital book subscription service platforms, and digital shopping platforms all reflect the decline or even disappearance of exclusive use under digital ownership. Any user can download and use them online for free. In cyberspace, the possession of things and the privileged use it brings are no longer as important as before, whereas the popular use of things is different; this use model creates the business model of the digital market.

在所有制概念中，生产资料的归属及其结合方式，决定了产品的支配、使用、分配、交换。其中，“使用”这一环节在今天成为了数字时代所有制发生巨变的突破口。数字时代雇佣劳动制的成型，非常依赖于数字平台的“公共使用”模式。“公共使用”是“免费经济学”的商业伎俩，它的本义是要“制造甘愿”，遮蔽传统所有制排他性使用的对抗模式。而数字形态的所有制在数字资本主义的命运中，其内部的“使用”模式率先进行了自我更新与变革。在传统的资本主义私有制中，使用仅仅是生产资料归属者的他者使用，而非雇佣劳动者的自我使用，具有排他性。私有制与特权使用的关系，在人类文明中长久地紧密关联在一起。但在数字时代，随着生产社会化和数字技术化的进一步扩大，大众的“自我”使用恰恰为剩余价值剥削赋予了新的途径。我们看到，数字视频供应商、数字音乐流媒体公司、数字社交平台、数字书籍的订阅服务平台、数字购物平台等，都体现了数字化所有制的排他性使用的式微甚至消泯，任何用户都可以免费下载并在线使用。在赛博空间中，对事物的占有及其带来的特权使用不像以往那么重要，而对事物的大众化使用则不同，这种使用模式创造了数字市场的商业模式。

This is the digital innovation from “owning what you buy” to “using what you subscribe to.” Kevin Kelly, in his book *The Inevitable*, points out that the new use model is opening up new economic fields because when consumers choose to use services rather than purchase products, they develop a stronger sense of identification. More importantly, “the use model brings consumers and producers closer together, and consumers often also play the role of producers,” and “as new prosumers, you will be encouraged to find bugs and report them to the company, seek technical help from other consumers in forums, and develop your own extensions and improvements.” According to this explanation, only by clarifying the transformation in the digital age’s ownership system — where “public use” replaces traditional “privileged use” — can we recognize the essence of digital capitalism or platform capitalism: social platforms, short videos, and retail websites are by no means merely performing functions like socializing, entertainment, and shopping; they shape prosumer-unified digital labor through the “public use” model, thereby essentially still functioning as means of production. Therefore, these platforms are by no means the public-spirited, free social tools depicted by their owners; rather, they are means of production that produce and extract surplus value in the new cyberspace-time, rapidly concentrating digital capital and wealth in the hands of digital platform owners and monopolizing the production of general intellect. Facebook, YouTube, etc., never actively present digital content; instead, they encourage users to be “recruited” through “public use” or “free services.” This “recruitment” through “public use” or “free use” is the new wage-labor system of digital capitalist ownership, just as Facebook promotes: “Facebook is free and always will be,” “If you share more, the world will be a better place,” and so on. But in reality, users, as voluntary “recruits,” are constantly producing digital surplus value and are ubiquitously exploited by the “public use” model. Because the ultimate beneficiary of “public use” remains the owner of the means of production, i.e., the increase in the wealth of the platform capitalist, “free economics” does not mean there is no profit to be made. “The rise of free economics is driven by technological progress in the digital age. Today, the most interesting business is using ‘free’ to make money.” Therefore, “public use” is actually a production paradigm, a profit-making digital production paradigm, not a leisure activity of free entertainment.

这就是从“拥有你所购买的”到“使用你所订阅的”的数字创新。凯文·凯利（Kevin Kelly）在《必然》一书中指出，新的使用模式正在开辟新的经济领域，因为当消费者选择使用服务而非购买产品时，会产生更加强烈的认同感。更重要的是，“使用模式将消费者与生产者的距离拉得更近，消费者通常也会扮演生产者的角色”，“作为新的产消者，你会被鼓励去发现漏洞并报告给公司，到论坛里的其他消费者那里寻求技术帮助，还要去开发自己的扩展插件和改进措施”。按照这样的解释，只有明晰数字时代所有制中的“公共使用”代替了传统的“特权使用”这一转变，才能认识到数字资本主义或平台资本主义的本质：社交平台、短视频、零售网站绝非仅仅发挥社交、娱乐、购物等功能，它们以“公共使用”的方式形塑产消合一的数字劳动，从而在本质上仍发挥着生产手段的作用。因此，这些平台绝非是平台所有者所描绘的公益的、免费的社交手段那么简单，而是在新的赛博时空中生产与攫取剩余价值的生产手段,其将数字资本与财富迅速地集中到数字平台的所有者手中，垄断了普遍智能的生产。脸书、优兔等从未主动呈现数字内容，而是鼓励用户以“公共使用”或“免费服务”的方式，将其“招募”其中。这种“公共使用”或“免费使用”的“招募”，就是数字资本主义所有制的新型雇佣劳动制，正如脸书所宣传的：“脸书是免费的而且总将如此”，“如果您分享得更多，这个世界将会更美好”，如此等等。但实际上，用户作为自愿的被“招募者”，无时无刻不在生产着数字剩余价值，无所不在地受到“公共使用”模式的剥削。因为“公共使用”最终受益的仍是生产资料所有者，即平台资本家财富的增加，“免费经济学”并不意味着无利可图。“免费经济学的兴起是数字时代的科技进步来推动的。如今，最有意思的商业就是利用‘免费’来赚钱。”因此，“公共使用”实际上是一种生产范式，一种盈利的数字生产范式，而非免费娱乐的休闲活动。

Further, the profit from “public use” or “free economics” within the ownership track of digital capitalism is realized through self-exploitation; it is precisely amid such “laughter and joy” that users are effortlessly stripped of everything. The self-exploitation presented by digital capitalist ownership is an evolution of exploitation by others. “Public use” or “free economics” produces an affirmative culture of “strong identification,” which dilutes the antagonistic and negating labor-capital contradictions of traditional capitalism, and also reflects both the innovation of capital’s drive for增殖 [n22] and the increased efficiency of capital增殖. “Exploitation no longer proceeds in an alienated and derealizing manner, but becomes freedom and self-realization. There is no other as exploiter here; rather, the self willingly squeezes itself.” In digital society, what users take for “freedom and self-realization” is actually “self-exploitation”; within the publicness of use, users appear unconstrained, and the coercive “you should” characteristic of previous private ownership gives way to the encouraging “you can.” It should be noted that, according to Byung-Chul Han’s explanation, the worker is shaped into an “entrepreneur,” and “in immaterial production, everyone owns their own means of production.” In fact, Han fails to realize that digital laborers in digital society do not “own” “their own means of production,” but merely “use” “their own means of production”; users are not “entrepreneurs” but a new type of hired laborer who has been “recruited.” Only in this sense does “freedom and self-realization” lead to the self-exploitation of surplus value.

进一步而言，数字资本主义所有制轨道中的“公共使用”或“免费经济学”的盈利，是以自我剥削的方式实现的，用户正是在这样的“欢声笑语”中被轻松地褫夺了一切。数字资本主义所有制呈现出的自我剥削，是他者剥削的进化。“公共使用”或“免费经济学”制造的是“强烈认同”的肯定性文化，它淡化了传统资本主义对抗性、否定性的劳资矛盾，也反映了资本增殖欲望的创新与资本增殖效率的提高。“剥削不再是以异化和去现实化的方式进行，而变成了自由和自我实现。这里没有作为剥削者的他者，而是自我心甘情愿地压榨自身。”在数字社会中，用户自以为的“自由与自我实现”实际上是“自我剥削”，用户在使用的公共性当中俨然是无拘无束的，以往私有制所表征的强制性的“你应该”让位于鼓励式的“你能够”。需要注意的是，按照韩炳哲（Byung-Chul Han）的解释，工人被塑造成了“企业主”，“在非物质生产中，每个人都拥有属于自己的生产资料”。实际上韩炳哲没有意识到的是，数字劳动者在数字社会并不“拥有”“自己的生产资料”，而仅仅是“使用”“自己的生产资料”，用户并非“企业主”，而是“被招募”的新型雇佣劳动者。只有在这种意义上，“自由与自我实现”才导向了剩余价值的自我剥削。

But it must be seen that the “freedom and self-realization” signified by “you can” is in fact only a new conquest and a new exploitation: under the conditions of digital capitalist ownership, the behavior of the owner is internalized as the behavior of the non-owner, and the means of this internalization is self-exploitation. At the same time, external exclusionary violence becomes systemic internal violence, from which users cannot escape; users’ freedom, self-realization, and their liberation remain illusory and unattainable. This is by no means the true future of digital civilization; otherwise, digital civilization can only continue to forge ahead stubbornly within the fate of capitalism.

但必须看到，“你能够”所意指的“自由与自我实现”实际上只能是新的征服与新的剥削：在数字资本主义所有制条件下，所有者的行为将被内化为非所有者的行为，其内化的手段便是自我剥削。同时，外在的排斥性暴力变成了系统性的内在暴力，用户无法从中逃遁，用户的自由、自我实现及其解放，在幻象中无从谈起。这绝不是数字文明的真正未来，否则数字文明只能继续在资本主义的命运中硬着头皮前进。

III. Digital Socialist Ownership and a New Digital Civilization

三、数字社会主义所有制与数字新文明

For digital civilization, digital capitalist ownership is by no means its final fate, but merely a trajectory. The trend of change in ownership in any era is determined by the level of development of the productive forces. Today, the transformation of productive forces led by digital intelligent technology is highlighting and empowering a high-level evolution of ownership with an unforeseen force. Digital capitalist ownership not only seizes digital surplus value in new ways, but also creates the material potential energy or digital singularity that subverts itself, just as Slavoj Žižek said: “The prospect of the singularity opens up a path beyond capitalism.” At the level of social structure, to guard against the emergence of digital dictatorship and a digital Leviathan, to transcend the path of digital capitalism, and to move beyond the digital capitalist application of ownership, means the exploration and construction of digital socialist ownership. The latter precisely provides a substantive and foundational explanation for digital socialism and a new digital civilization.

对于数字文明而言，数字资本主义所有制绝非是其最终的命运，而仅仅是轨迹。任何时代所有制变化的趋势都是由生产力发展水平所决定的。今天，数字智能技术引领的生产力变革正在以不曾料想到的力量凸显与赋能所有制的高阶演绎趋势。数字资本主义所有制不仅以新的方式攫取数字剩余价值，同时也制造出了颠覆自身的物质势能或数字奇点，正如斯拉沃热·齐泽克（Slavoj ?i?ek）所言：“奇点的前景开辟了一条超越资本主义的道路。”在社会结构层面上，警惕数字独裁和数字利维坦的出现，超越数字资本主义的道路，走出所有制的数字资本主义应用，也就意味着对数字社会主义所有制的探寻与建构，而后者恰恰给予了数字社会主义与数字新文明一种实体性、根基性的说明。

First, regarding the question of the attribution of digital means of production under digital socialist ownership—that is, the attribution of user behavior data (digital objects of labor) and cloud computing, digital platforms, 5G communication projects, generative artificial intelligence like ChatGPT, etc. (digital means of labor)—it should follow public or socialized attribution, rather than the exclusive or privatized attribution of digital capitalist ownership. Today, digital capitalist ownership has cleverly altered the “use” aspect of ownership theory; it numbs the masses with “public use,” creating an illusion among them of possessing and belonging to the digital means of production. But it must be understood that when digital excess profits flow only to the digital capitalists at the top of the pyramid, and when the fog of “self-exploitation” is dispelled, the false attribution of the digital means of production is pierced. Because the true attribution of the digital means of production is not a matter of appearance but an issue of the internal structure of ownership, no matter how high the degree of socialization or how pronounced the characteristics of collectivism that the digital means of production exhibit, as long as they remain within the structure of digital capitalist ownership, they cannot be equated with digital socialism.

首先，走向数字社会主义所有制的数字生产资料的归属问题，即用户行为的数据（数字劳动对象）与云计算、数字平台、5G通讯工程、生成式人工智能ChatGPT等（数字劳动资料）的归属问题，应遵循公共性或社会化归属，而非数字资本主义所有制中的排他性或私有化归属。在今天，数字资本主义所有制巧妙地改变了所有制理论中的“使用”面相，它以“公共使用”的方式麻痹大众，这让大众几乎对数字生产资料产生了占有与归属的假象。但是要知道，当数字超额利润仅仅流向金字塔顶端的数字资本家手中时，当“自我剥削”的迷雾被拨开时，数字生产资料的虚假归属也就被刺穿了。由于数字生产资料的真正归属不是一个表象问题，而是所有制的内在结构问题，所以无论数字生产资料表现出的社会化程度有多高、集体主义的特征有多明显，只要处于数字资本主义所有制的结构中，它就不能同数字社会主义划等号。

It is precisely for this reason that Donatella Della Ratta, in her article “Digital Socialism Beyond the Digital Society,” points out that the economics of the “Wikipedia” paradigm and “free access” digital platforms will by no means automatically lead to digital socialism. On the contrary, they are accelerating capitalism’s “digital colonization” and “digital primitive accumulation.” “Silicon Valley’s platform capitalism has not only dramatically changed the overall meaning of the sharing economy, turning once happily collaborating volunteer peer groups into a demoralized army of unpaid or low-paid laborers, but now must also contend with an unexpected situation—the disastrous consequences of the commodification and exploitation of the commons.” This means that digital socialism cannot simply wait for or rely on the automatic transformation of digital capitalism; rather, it requires continuous self-construction in the process of critiquing digital capitalist ownership. In terms of the structural orientation of digital socialist ownership, the aim should be to develop and maintain digital means of production as a public utility and public interest, avoiding their seizure and operation as an absolute and sole factor for capital增殖. Replacing the capital model that prioritizes digital traffic with the people’s possession of digital benefits is a prerequisite for the true attribution of digital means of production—achieving the socialization or public attribution of digital means of production. When analyzing the issue of socialist possession of the means of production, Marx pointed out: “The direction of our efforts should be to ensure that no instrument of production becomes private property. … All means of production should be socialized, so as to guarantee that everyone has both the right and the possibility to use their own labor power.” Digital socialist ownership is precisely the theoretical reflection of this direction of effort; this effort is to ground “public use” on the “public attribution” or “social attribution” of digital means of production, making true attribution and true use in the digital age possible. Otherwise, “public use” is a new type of fraud in the era of digital civilization, and digital civilization itself cannot open up a new form of civilization; it remains a form of civilization subordinate to capitalist private ownership—capital still dominates everything in a new, concealed guise. As Tom Slee observed: “The value of TripAdvisor may lie in the content provided by users, but TripAdvisor itself is owned by its shareholders and investors.” TripAdvisor is not an isolated case; digital platforms wrapped in digital capitalist ownership all “selflessly” throw out the “use” link in the ownership chain, thereby reaping even more selfish and exploitative consequences. The chain of ownership, in the era of digital capitalism, continues the same logic of capital增殖 in a fractured guise. Digital socialist ownership’s stance on the issue of attribution should be clear: users or digital laborers both use and create the digital means of production, and also own the digital means of production.

正是这样，多纳泰拉·德拉·拉塔（Donatella Della Ratta）在《超越数字社会的数字社会主义》一文中指出，“维基百科”范式的经济学以及“免费访问”的数字平台，绝不会自动导向数字社会主义。相反，它们正在加速资本主义的“数字殖民”和“数字原始积累”。“硅谷的平台资本主义不仅戏剧性地改变了共享经济的整体意义，将曾经快乐地合作的志愿者同伴群体变成了沮丧的无薪或低薪劳动力大军，而且现在不得不应对意想不到的情况——公地被商品化和剥削的灾难性后果。”这意味着数字社会主义并不能一味地等待或寄希望于数字资本主义的自动转型，而是需要在批判数字资本主义所有制中不断地自我建构。在数字社会主义所有制的结构指向上，应瞄准的是将数字生产资料作为公共事业和公共利益去开发、维护，避免将其作为绝对的、唯一的资本增殖要素去攫取、运作。以数字利益的人民占有替换数字流量至上的资本模式，是数字生产资料的真正归属——实现数字生产资料社会化或公共性归属的前提要件。马克思在分析生产资料的社会主义占有的问题时指出：“我们努力的方向应该是使任何生产工具都不再成为私人的财产。……一切生产资料都应该公有化，以便保证每个人都既有权利，又有可能来使用自己的劳动力”。数字社会主义所有制正是这一努力方向的理论反映，这一努力是让“公共使用”奠基在数字生产资料的“公共归属”或“社会归属”之上，让数字时代真正的归属与真正的使用成为可能。否则，“公共使用”就是数字文明时代的新型骗局，数字文明本身并不能开辟出新的文明形态，它仍旧是隶属于资本主义私有制的文明形态——资本仍以新的隐蔽的面相主宰一切。正如汤姆·斯利（Tom Slee）所看到的：“到到网（TripAdvisor）的价值可能在于用户提供的内容，但到到网本身则是由其股东和投资者所拥有的。”“到到网”不仅仅是个案，数字资本主义所有制裹挟的数字平台都是如此“无私”地抛出所有制中的“使用”环节，从而换来更加自私自利的剥削后果。所有制的链条在数字资本主义时代以断裂的面相延续同样的资本增殖逻辑。而数字社会主义所有制对归属问题的态度应是明确的：用户或数字劳动者既使用与创造数字生产资料，又拥有数字生产资料。

Secondly, on the basis of the “public ownership” or “social ownership” of digital means of production, the tendency toward the direct combination of digital means of production and digital laborers, relying on a higher level of digital intelligent productive forces, should also be a focus of exploration in the digital age. In *Capital*, Marx made the following analysis of the coordinates of civilization history for ownership in different societies: “The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of production, produces capitalist private property. This is the first negation of individual private property, as founded on the labor of the proprietor. But capitalist production begets, with the inexorable necessity of a natural process, its own negation. This is the negation of the negation. This does not re-establish private property for the producer, but gives him individual property based on the acquisition of the capitalist era: i.e., on co-operation and the possession in common of the land and of the means of production.” “Individual private property based on one’s own labor” exists in a state of low productive forces, where isolated, individual laborers and the means of production are simply and directly combined. With the development of productive forces driven by the Industrial Revolution, capitalist private property negated this simple direct combination; its mode of combination is universal, socialized wage labor — an indirect mode of combination where laborers are first separated from the means of production and then recombined. This made the systematic production process of capitalism possible. The “negation of the negation” that Marx envisioned in the reconstruction of individual property means a direct combination at a higher level of productive forces. “Common possession” or “public ownership” at a higher level of productive forces serves as the foundation for this higher-stage direct combination. The reconstruction of individual property transcends the private property of labor’s subordination to capital; it is autonomous associated labor carried out on the basis of the common possession of the means of production. So-called autonomous associated labor means that the combination of laborers and the means of production possesses direct sociality. This higher-order mode of direct combination enables laborers to actively participate in every link of social production, distribution, and management, transcending the ills of capitalist society. Of course, socialist ownership, as a transitional stage between capitalist ownership and the reconstruction of individual property in the stage of the association of free individuals, requires a long historical process of struggle and development to ultimately realize the form of public ownership. Digital technology today empowers the new development of socialism and human civilization with unprecedented force. In contrast, the indirect mode of combination in digital capitalist ownership — namely, the “non-standardized,” new type of wage labor described above, where attention is recruited on virtual platforms to obtain free services — means that users suffer exclusion and exploitation by digital capitalist private property at all times, just as in the factory of the traditional capitalist era. The only difference is that today, an invisible electronic confinement cell has replaced the whip and the fine book. For example, “The rating system is a pretext; with it, companies can ‘blacklist’ users and enforce their own disciplinary rules: as long as it is politically advantageous for them, Airbnb will kick hosts off the platform (as recently happened in Los Angeles), and Uber will arbitrarily fire drivers when executives have a whim.” In fact, the most typical characteristics of digital means of production are their openness, shareability, cooperativeness, and democratization — these characteristics are also the basic forms of expression of the entire online world. It is precisely because of these characteristics that raw data can continuously develop spirally into useful massive data. Digital means of production inherently and a priori reject the tendency toward privatization, because the monopolistic structure of privatization contradicts these characteristics, hindering the release of their potential and the realization of social benefits. The direct mode of combination between digital-age laborers and digital means of production is a higher-order mode of combination that targets the exclusionary and monopolistic ills of the indirect combination under digital capitalist private property.

其次，在数字生产资料“公共归属”或“社会归属”的基础上，数字生产资料与数字劳动者在依托更高的数字智能生产力水平上的直接结合趋势，也应是数字时代的探索重点。在《资本论》中，马克思曾对不同社会的所有制的文明史坐标作出了如下分析：“资本主义的私有制，是对个人的、以自己劳动为基础的私有制的第一个否定。但资本主义生产由于自然过程的必然性，造成了对自身的否定。这是否定的否定。这种否定不是重新建立私有制，而是在资本主义时代的成就的基础上，也就是说，在协作和对土地及靠劳动本身生产的生产资料的共同占有的基础上，重新建立个人所有制。”“以自己劳动为基础的私有制”处于生产力低下的状态，孤立的、单个人的劳动者与生产资料是简单的直接结合。随着工业革命推动的生产力的发展，资本主义私有制否定了这种简单的直接结合，其结合方式是普遍的、社会化的雇佣劳动——劳动者与生产资料先分离再结合的间接结合方式，这让资本主义的系统的生产过程成为可能。马克思设想的重建个人所有制所意指的“否定的否定”，就是在更高生产力水平上的直接结合。更高生产力水平的“共同占有”或“公共归属”就是作为更高阶段直接结合的基础。重建个人所有制超越的是劳动从属于资本的私有制，它是在生产资料共同占有的基础上所实行的自主联合劳动。所谓自主联合劳动，也就是劳动者与生产资料的结合具备了直接社会性。高阶的直接结合方式能让劳动者主动参与到社会生产、分配、管理的各个环节中，超越资本主义社会的弊病。当然，社会主义所有制，作为资本主义所有制与自由人联合体阶段的重建个人所有制之间的过渡阶段，需要经过长期历史性博弈与发展，从而最终实现公有制形式。数字技术在今天以前所未有的力量，赋能社会主义与人类文明的新发展。反观数字资本主义所有制中的间接结合方式，即上文所述的注意力在虚拟性的平台被招募从而获得免费服务的“非标准化”的、新型雇佣劳动，用户无时无刻不在遭受着数字资本主义私有制的排斥和剥削，这种情况正如处于传统资本主义时代的工厂中一样。只不过今天无形的电子禁闭室代替了以往的鞭子和罚金簿。比如，“评价系统是一个幌子，用它企业就能‘拉黑’用户，实施它们自己的纪律条例：只要在政治上对自己有利，空中食宿（Airbnb）就会将房东从平台上踢走（如最近洛杉矶发生的事情），优步也会在高管们心血来潮的时候随意解雇司机”。事实上，数字生产资料最典型的特征是它的开放性、共享性、合作性和民主化，这些特征也是整个网络世界的基本表现形式。也正是由于这些特征，原始数据才能不断地螺旋式发展为有用的海量数据。数字生产资料本身先天地排斥私有化趋势，因为私有化的垄断结构与其特征相悖，阻碍了其潜力的释放和社会效益的发挥。数字时代的劳动者与数字生产资料的直接结合方式，就是以超越数字资本主义私有制间接结合的排斥性、垄断化弊端为靶子的高阶结合方式。

In the real logic of digital socialist ownership, the basic economic system of socialism with Chinese characteristics deepens and advances the development of digital socialist ownership, and also nurtures new possibilities for the digital form of social ownership or the reconstruction of individual property.

在数字社会主义所有制的现实逻辑中，中国特色社会主义基本经济制度深化并推进了数字社会主义所有制的发展，也为社会所有制或重建个人所有制的数字形态孕育了新的可能。

General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasizes: “We have entered a historic period of convergence between a new round of global technological revolution and industrial transformation and China’s transformation of its development mode,” and “We must be clearly aware that some such historic periods of convergence may produce resonance, while others may pass us by.” [23]23 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the 19th Academician Conference of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the 14th Academician Conference of the Chinese Academy of Engineering” (May 28, 2018), in *Xi Jinping: The Governance of China*, vol. 3 (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 2020), p. 247. The historic period of convergence brought by the digital revolution is also nurturing a new digital civilization different from that under private ownership. Digital new civilization is essentially a composite new civilization of symbiosis and integration, not an isolated type of civilization. It is a more efficient presentation of material civilization, political civilization, cultural-ethical progress, social civilization, and ecological civilization on the basis of digital technology, and a digital representation of a new form of human civilization. At the present stage, the new form of human civilization and its digital representation, digital new civilization, are based on the basic socialist economic system. The report of the 20th National Congress of the CPC, grounded in the New Era, emphasizes: We must “build a high-standard socialist market economy system. Uphold and improve the basic socialist economic system, unswervingly consolidate and develop the public sector of the economy, unswervingly encourage, support, and guide the development of the non-public sector of the economy, give full play to the decisive role of the market in resource allocation, and better play the role of the government.” [24]24 Xi Jinping, “Hold High the Great Banner of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics and Strive in Unity to Build a Modern Socialist Country in All Respects — Report to the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China” (October 16, 2022), section IV, subsection 1. The 20th National Congress also explicitly proposed building a “Digital China.” “Digital China” is the “Chinese scenario” of the digital age, and even more so, the digital civilization form of the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, rooted in the foundation of the ownership structure of socialism with Chinese characteristics.

习近平总书记强调：“我们迎来了世界新一轮科技革命和产业变革同我国转变发展方式的历史性交汇期”，“我们必须清醒认识到，有的历史性交汇期可能产生同频共振，有的历史性交汇期也可能擦肩而过”。数字革命带来的历史性交汇期，也在孕育不同于私有制状态下的数字新文明。数字新文明实质上是共生共融的复合型新文明，而非孑然独立的文明类型。它是物质文明、政治文明、精神文明、社会文明、生态文明在数字技术的基础上获得的更高效的文明形态的呈现，是人类文明新形态的数字化表征。在现阶段，人类文明新形态及其数字化表征的数字新文明，是立足于社会主义基本经济制度之上的。党的二十大报告立足于新时代强调：我们要“构建高水平社会主义市场经济体制。坚持和完善社会主义基本经济制度，毫不动摇巩固和发展公有制经济，毫不动摇鼓励、支持、引导非公有制经济发展，充分发挥市场在资源配置中的决定性作用，更好发挥政府作用”。党的二十大还明确提出了推进“数字中国”建设。“数字中国”是数字时代的“中国场景”，更是中国特色社会主义道路的数字文明形态，它植根于中国特色社会主义所有制基础之上。

In the digital age, the original explorations of the ownership structure of socialism with Chinese characteristics provide institutional guarantees for the concentration of digital means of production and the socialization of digital labor. “We must adhere to a people-centered development philosophy, promote ‘Internet + education,’ ‘Internet + healthcare,’ ‘Internet + culture,’ etc., so that the people run fewer errands and data runs more, continuously raising the level of equalization, universal accessibility, and convenience of public services.” [25]25 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the 36th Collective Study Session of the Political Bureau of the 18th CPC Central Committee” (October 9, 2016), in *Xi Jinping: The Governance of China*, vol. The focus of digital new civilization is a socialist civilization that benefits the people, not a capitalist civilization that chases traffic and profit. The digital socialist ownership represented by “Digital China” upholds the position of public ownership as the mainstay. In the primary stage of socialism, mixed-ownership and privately controlled digital economies still exist and play an important role, but they are influenced by the dominant public ownership, and their development trajectory and civilizational attributes will unfold under this influence. For mixed-ownership and privately controlled digital economies, if the mixed ownership is controlled by a state-owned enterprise, the relationship of direct combination between laborers and the means of production will more prominently reflect the requirements of public nature; for cases of private enterprise control, although the enterprise tends toward the operational mechanisms and modes of combination of private ownership, it will inevitably be regulated by the socialist public ownership economic structure. It is precisely in this way that the digital new civilization contained in “Digital China” reverses and transcends the trajectory of digital capitalist civilization, endows human civilization with a new narrative logic, and provides a Chinese paradigm for digital socialism. In short, the new chapter of digital civilization not only displays Chinese characteristics but also highlights global significance.

在数字时代，中国特色社会主义所有制结构的原创性探索，为数字生产资料的集中和数字劳动的社会化提供了制度性保障。“要坚持以人民为中心的发展思想，推进‘互联网+教育’、‘互联网+医疗’、‘互联网+文化’等，让百姓少跑腿、数据多跑路，不断提升公共服务均等化、普惠化、便捷化水平。”数字新文明的着眼点是造福人民的社会主义文明，而非追逐流量与利益的资本主义文明。“数字中国”所表征的数字社会主义所有制秉持以公有制为主体的立场。在社会主义初级阶段混合所有制与私有企业控股的数字经济体仍存在且发挥着重要作用，但是它受到占据主体地位的公有制的影响，它的发展航道及文明属性也将在此影响中展开。对于混合所有制与私人控股的数字经济体而言，如果混合所有制属于国有企业控股，那么劳动者与生产资料直接结合的关系则更突出公有性质的要求；对于私有企业控股的情况而言，虽然该企业偏向私有制的运作机制及结合方式，但它必定会受到社会主义公有制经济结构的规约。正是这样，“数字中国”所蕴含的数字新文明，扭转并超越了数字资本主义文明的运行轨迹，赋予了人类文明新的叙事逻辑，并为数字社会主义提供了中国范式。总之，数字文明的新篇章不仅显示出了中国特色，更彰显着世界意义。

(Author: Hao Zhichang, School of Philosophy and Sociology, Jilin University)

（作者：郝志昌，吉林大学哲学社会学院）

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心