Western Left-Wing Digital Socialist Theory: Dynamics, Characteristics, and Resistance

In the 21st century, the development of world socialist thought has gone hand in hand with capitalist economic crises. Against the backdrop of the digital technological revolution, socialist theory has continuously innovated, and the discourse system of socialism has expanded in the interstices of capitalist ideological hegemony. After Kevin Kelly proposed the concept of “digital socialism” in 2009, its theoretical positioning and connotations sparked intense debate in Western academia and have been continuously extended. Generally speaking, Western scholars, taking the actual conditions of digital technology development as their theoretical fulcrum, have shaped new theoretical currents under capitalist conditions. Broadly defined, various socialist currents based on digital technology development—such as cyber-communism (socialism), communicative socialism, platform socialism, and Kevin Kelly’s narrow “digital socialism”—are all theoretical forms grounded in reflections on socialist factors triggered by digital technological innovation and critiques of the capitalist system. Compared with the narrow concept of “digital socialism,” the broad category of digital socialism has richer connotations, a wider extension, and more prominent theoretical value. The logic behind the various types of digital socialist theory reflects both common value orientations and the direction and epochal characteristics of the development of world socialist theory in the era of digital transformation.

21世纪后世界社会主义思潮发展与资本主义经济危机可谓是结伴而行。在数字科 技革命的背景下，社会主义理论不断创新，社会主义话语体系也在资本主义舆论霸权的缝隙中不断拓展。2009年凯文·凯利提出“数字社会主义”概念后，其理论定位、内涵等问题引发了西方学术界的激烈探讨，并予以不断延伸。总体而言，西方学者以数字技术发展的现实条件为理论支点，塑造了资本主义条件下新的理论思潮。广义而论，各种以数字技术发展为基础的社会主义思潮，如赛博共产主义（社会主义）、交往社会主义、平台社会主义和凯文·凯利的狭义“数字社会主义”等理论类型，都是建立在数字化技术革新所引起社会主义因素思考与资本主义制度批判基础上的理论形态。相比狭义的“数字社会主义”概念，广义上的数字社会主义范畴内涵更加丰富、外延更加宽泛、理论价值也更加突出。各种数字社会主义理论类型背后的逻辑既体现着共同价值旨趣，又反映出数字化变革时代世界社会主义理论发展的指向和时代特征。

I. Historical Types and Development Dynamics of Western Left-Wing Digital Socialist Theory

一、西方左翼数字社会主义理论的历史类型与发展动力

(I) Historical Types of Western Left-Wing Digital Socialist Theory

（一）西方左翼数字社会主义理论的历史类型

1. Cyber-Communism

1. 赛博共产主义

“Cyber-communism” is a socialist theoretical concept proposed by Vicente Moreno Casas, Paul Cockshott, and others, also referred to as “cyber-socialism” or “network socialism.” Cyber-communism aims to use modern networks and digital technology to arm the market decision-making system of socialism, thereby achieving an economically efficient “communist” society. Cyber-communism is the product of the combination of digital technology and post-capitalist society, and also the inevitable result of the developmental logic of market socialism in the digital age. Cyber-communism has two prominent features: first, using the computational capacity of current high-performance computers as a means to achieve rational calculation of labor time and other market factors, promoting the effective and real-time allocation of economic resources within the framework of the socialist system; second, individuals choosing their own consumption preferences and democratic collective decision-making to solve the complexity problem of using knowledge in society.

“赛博共产主义”是维森特·莫雷诺·卡萨、考克肖特等提出的社会主义理论概念，也称作“赛博社会主义”“网络社会主义”。“赛博共产主义”旨在用现代网络、数字技术武装社会主义的市场决策体系来实现经济有效运行的“共产主义”社会。“赛博共产主义”是数字技术与后资本主义社会相结合的产物，也是数字化时代市场社会主义发展逻辑的必然结果。“赛博共产主义”有两个方面的突出特征：第一，以当前高性能计算机的计算能力为手段，实现劳动时间及其他市场要素等方面的理性计算，促进社会主义制度框架下的经济资源有效、实时分配；第二，个人选择自己的消费偏好和民主的集体决策，解决社会中使用知识的复杂性问题。

2. Digital Socialism

2. 数字社会主义

At the end of the 20th century, internet technology developed rapidly, its user base continuously increased, and the integration of the internet with production, circulation, and consumption became ever closer. Since the 21st century, the digital economy relying on internet technology has become an important type of modern economic development. The information and data flows transmitted through networks have embedded more socialist factors. Kevin Kelly’s “digital socialism” interprets, from a unique perspective, the socialist factors emerging within the contemporary capitalist system and the future communist direction of society based on this. He understands “digital socialism” as the “socialist forces” of “sharing, cooperation, collaboration, openness, free pricing, and transparency” that permeate every corner of the internet. Therefore, “digital socialism” examines the subtle changes and developmental trends in social relations within the capitalist system from a socialist perspective, with its core element being the common ownership and sharing of data and information production and distribution in the digital age.

20世纪末期，互联网技术迅猛发展，其用户群体不断增加，互联网与生产、流通、消费的结合也愈加紧密。21世纪以来，依托互联网技术的数字经济已经成为现代经济发展的重要类型。通过网络传递的信息与数据流，嵌入了更多的社会主义因素。凯文·凯利的“数字社会主义”以独到的视角诠释了当代资本主义体系中出现的社会主义因素以及在此基础上未来社会的共产主义走向。他把“数字社会主义”理解为互联网每一个角落所充斥的“分享、合作、协作、开放、免费定价和透明”的“社会主义力量”。因此，“数字社会主义”是以社会主义思维考察资本主义制度体系中社会关系的微妙变化和发展动向，其核心要素在于数字时代的数据信息生产、分配中的共有与共享。

3. Communicative Socialism

3. 交往社会主义

Communicative socialism is a type of socialism based on internet technology development proposed by left-wing theorists such as Christian Fuchs and Dimitris Boucas. Communicative socialism holds that in the digital age, capitalist society contains public service media and community media that embody values of solidarity and respect, as well as respect for diversity, and also contains media and cultural forms that differ from and oppose the logic of capital. Thus, communicative socialism describes a future possible socialist societal form built on digital technology, realizing autonomous production, leisure, and social participation.

交往社会主义是克里斯蒂安·福克斯、迪米特里斯·布卡斯等左翼理论家提出的基于互联网技术发展的社会主义类型。交往社会主义认为数字化时代资本主义社会存在着体现出团结、尊重的价值观以及尊重多样性的公共服务媒体和社群媒体，也存在着体现出有别于资本逻辑并与之相对立的媒体和文化形式。可见，交往社会主义描述的是一个建立在数字技术之上，实现自主生产、休闲和社会参与的、未来可能实现的社会主义社会样态。

(II) Development Dynamics of Western Left-Wing Digital Socialist Theory

（二）西方左翼数字社会主义理论的发展动力

1. Transformation of Traditional Socialism

1. 传统社会主义改造

In the 20th century, the Vienna School’s opposition to socialism focused on their denial of the feasibility of a planned economy, arguing that socialism’s attempt to construct a socialist economic model through planning indicators and data lacked possibility and scientific validity. Scholars of the Vienna School, such as Friedrich Hayek and John Mills, combined the insufficient computational capacity of 20th-century quantitative calculation with the complexity of the market, advocating the rationality of the price system in a liberal market economy. Precisely because of this, left-wing scholars opposing this view, such as Fred Taylor, Abba Lerner, and Oskar Lange, proposed the theory of market socialism in debate with right-wing theories. In the mid-to-late 20th century, with the development of information network technology, left-wing scholars, again confident in the progress of information technology in the digital age, applied the improvement of computer computational capacity to demonstrate the feasibility of calculating labor quantities, thereby proposing the concept of cyber-communism. The former Soviet planned economy was the first attempt to realize communism through a planned economy, but the right-wing critique of the planned economy did not promote the rapid development of Soviet computer technology, nor did it drive bold attempts at cyber-communism within the Soviet socialist system. Paul Cockshott believed that the former Soviet Union’s failure to effectively combine computer technology with the planned economy led to the economic stagnation of the Brezhnev period and the missed opportunity for cyber-communism, and he firmly believed that the computerization of the planned economy, with the emergence of new computer and information technologies, would move towards a new stage of cyber-communism. [1]1 Leonid Brezhnev led the Soviet Union from 1964 to 1982, a period often associated with economic stagnation and technological conservatism. Additionally, in the early 1970s, during the nationalization process of the Allende government, the “Cybersyn” project was launched, using the emerging computer technology and Stafford Beer’s cybernetics, employing a pioneering cybernetic model of complex systems to run the national economy. [2]2 Salvador Allende was the democratically elected socialist president of Chile from 1970 until his overthrow and death in the 1973 coup. Cybersyn was a project to network factories and manage the economy in real time using a telex-based control system. Chile’s “market socialism” practice was another important attempt at cyber-communism. Both attempts to promote socialism using computer technology ended without success, but reflection on the theory of cyber-communism did not cease.

20世纪，维也纳学派反对社会主义的焦点在于他们否认计划经济的可行性，认为社会主义试图通过计划指标、数据建构社会主义经济模式缺乏可能性和科学性。维也纳学派哈耶克、米尔斯等学者把20世纪的量化计算的算力不足和市场复杂性结合起来，倡导自由主义市场经济价格体系的合理性。正因此，反对此观点的左翼学者弗雷德·泰勒、阿巴·勒纳和奥斯卡·兰格在与右翼理论的争论中提出了市场社会主义理论。20世纪中后期，信息网络技术发展，左翼学者再次以数字化时代信息技术进步的信心，把计算机算力水平提升运用于论证劳动量计算的可行性中，提出了赛博共产主义观点。前苏联计划经济是以计划经济实现共产主义的第一次尝试，但右翼学者对计划经济的批判并未促进苏联计算机技术迅猛发展，也未推动赛博共产主义在苏联的社会主义制度体系下进行大胆尝试。保罗·考克肖特认为前苏联没有把计算机技术与计划经济有效结合，导致了勃列日涅夫时期的经济停滞，以及与赛博共产主义的失之交臂，并且坚信计划经济的计算机化在新计算机和信息技术出现的时候，会迈向赛博共产主义的全新阶段。另外，20世纪70年代初期，阿连德政府推行国有化过程中，借助刚刚兴起的计算机技术和斯塔福德·比尔的控制论，推出“Cybersyn”方案，利用复杂系统的开创性控制论模型来运行国民经济。智利的“市场社会主义”实践是赛博共产主义的又一次重要尝试。两次用计算机技术发展推动社会主义的尝试都无果而终，但对赛博共产主义理论的思考并未就此停滞。

2. Critique of Contemporary Capitalism

2. 当代资本主义批判

In the digital technological transformation of the 21st century, capitalism has not only failed to change its fate of repeatedly experiencing various crises but has also, on the basis of network information technology development, strengthened the universal values of “democracy” and “freedom,” attempting to shape an “other” to the capitalist system, promote a “background imperialist ideology,” and divert the internal contradictions of capitalist countries. To maintain political, cultural, economic, and military hegemony and industrial chain advantages, Western developed capitalist countries, led by the United States, have not hesitated to create regional armed conflicts and artificially increase the risk of nuclear war. Michael Roberts stated that capitalism in the 21st century is creating new contradictions for itself, threatening the existence of a healthy planet. [3]3 Michael Roberts is a British Marxist economist and author. It is precisely through the examination and critique of capitalism and neoliberalism that international left-wing scholars have attempted to return to the Marxist discourse system and reflect on the issue of alternatives to the capitalist system. Because Western scholars do not fully identify with traditional socialism, they seek to find a new type of socialism that differs from the 20th-century traditional socialist centralized model and from the market liberalist model of social governance, as an alternative to capitalism. Thus, participatory democracy has been integrated into the theoretical practice of 21st-century socialism. Of course, there are also skeptical voices regarding left-wing participatory democracy. These doubts often focus on distrust of the decision-making efficiency of the new socialist participatory democracy. For example, B. Guy Peters proposed that decisions in participatory democracy are not easy and cannot be made quickly, and require more time and resources. [4]4 B. Guy Peters is a prominent American political scientist specializing in comparative public policy and administration.

21世纪数字技术变革中，资本主义不仅未改变不断经历各种危机的宿命，还在网络信息技术发展基础上，强化“民主”“自由”这一普世价值观，并试图通过塑造资本主义制度的它者，推行“背景帝国主义意识形态”，转移资本主义国家内在矛盾。为维系政治、文化、经济、军事霸权和产业链优势，以美国为首的西方发达资本主义国家不惜制造地区武装冲突，人为增加核战争的风险。迈克尔·罗伯茨称，资本主义在21世纪正在为自己制造的新矛盾，威胁到一个健康的地球的存在。正是对资本主义及新自由主义的审视与批判，国际左翼学者尝试回到马克思主义的话语体系，反思资本主义的制度替代题。由于西方学者对传统社会主义的不完全认同，因此他们试图寻找不同于20世纪传统社会主义中央集权模式，也不同于市场自由主义的社会治理模式，可替代资本主义的新型社会主义。于是，参与式民主被融入21世纪社会主义理论实践中。当然，对左翼参与式民主也存在着质疑的声音。这些疑虑往往集中于对新型社会主义参与式民主的决策效率的不信任，如B·盖伊·彼得斯提出，参与式民主的决策很不容易也不可能很快做出，且需要花费更多的时间和资源。

The right wing’s skepticism toward participatory democracy stems, on the one hand, from distrust of socialism itself, and on the other hand, from a lack of effective thinking about the pathways for realizing participatory democracy. Contemporary left-wing scholars strive to find a distinctive socialist path between capitalism and traditional socialism. At this juncture, the advancement of digital technology provides valuable material conditions that open up their intellectual space. In the digital era, Western left-wing scholars uphold the important value of participatory democratic decision-making for developing socialism, and also attempt to explore the vitality of socialism through the technological progress of digitalization. Chilean theorist of “21st-century socialism” [5]5 “21st-century socialism” is a political concept promoted by Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, emphasizing participatory democracy, anti-imperialism, and a transition to socialism adapted to Latin American conditions. Harnecker, drawing on Chávez’s governing experience, advocates for establishing decision-making units based on community councils. That is, in densely populated urban areas and sparsely populated rural areas, communities and community councils composed of 150 to 400 households and 50 to 100 households, respectively, are formed to realize a decentralized, dispersed participatory decision-making system with a socialist character. Cockshott, within the paradigm of cyber-communism, examines the feasibility and effectiveness of centralized socialist decision-making from the technological route of digitalization.

右翼对参与式民主的怀疑，一方面来自于对社会主义本身的不信任，另一方面是缺乏对参与式民主实现路径的有效思考。当代左翼学者努力在资本主义和传统社会主义之间寻找一条与众不同的社会主义道路，恰逢此时数字技术的进步为其打开思维空间提供了有价值的物质条件。数字化时代西方左翼学者坚持参与制民主决策对发展社会主义的重要价值，也试图从数字化的技术进步探寻社会主义的生命力。智利“21世纪社会主义”理论家哈内克借助于查维斯的执政经验，主张建立型社区委员会为基础的决策单位，即在人口密集的城市地区和人口稀少的农村地区，分别组建150至400个、50到100个家庭构成的社区与社区委员会，以实现带有社会主义性质、去中心化、分散的参与制决策体系。考克肖特则在赛博共产主义的范式中，从数字化的技术路线，考察了社会主义集中决策的可行性和有效性。

3. Critique of Digital Exploitation

3. 数字剥削的批判

At the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st, the popularization of the internet and the application of digital technology brought great upheaval to people’s ideological sphere. American political economist of communication Dan Schiller, using the theoretical paradigm of digital capitalism as his analytical tool, opposed Bill Gates’s concept of a “friction-free society” and foresaw early on that digital society would inevitably create new forms of social inequality. At the dawn of the digital age, Schiller raised his concerns about the digital era. He argued that internet companies bear the basic functions of neoliberalism and play an important role in the distribution of social wealth.

20世纪末21世纪初，网络的普及、数字技术的运用，给人们的思想领域带来极大震荡。美国传播政治经济学家丹·席勒以数字资本主义理论范式为理论工具，反对比尔盖茨提出的“没有摩擦的社会”观点，较早地预见到数字社会必然形成新的社会不平等的局面。丹·席勒在数字时代开启时便提出自己对数字时代的担忧。他认为，网络公司承载着新自由主义的基本功能，而它在社会财富分配中扮演着重要角色。

If the claim that digital technological development inevitably causes social inequality was still a prophecy, the exploitation of contemporary digital capital is already an indisputable fact. On the one hand, digital platform capital can extract massive profits through monopolizing digital infrastructure—for example, Amazon boss Jeff Bezos’s net worth increased by 43.8 billion US dollars in the first few months of the pandemic. On the other hand, the labor force, including customers, who join digital platforms and online communities through digital labor, provides platform capitalists with a large amount of unpaid value and traffic through their own strength and labor. Their labor products become commodities in the digital world, and their originally social interactions become data traffic in the online world. Moreover, the forms and concealment of exploitation in the industrial capitalist era and the digital capitalist era show completely different states. In industrial capitalism, capitalists exploit the surplus value created by the working class through directly hiring labor. In the digital era, the particularity of digital labor often conceals the phenomenon and nature of exploitation in the digital economy within the entertainment and gift-giving activities of online communities. Western left-wing scholars keenly perceive these two different situations of capital exploitation in the digital era and conduct targeted discussions.

如果说数字技术发展必然造成社会的不平等还只是预言，当代数字资本的剥削已经是不争的事实。一方面，数字平台资本可以利用数字基础设施的垄断攫取大量利润，如亚马逊(Amazon)老板杰夫·贝佐斯( JeffBez os)的净资产在疫情暴发的头几个月里增加了438亿美元；另一方面，通过数字劳动而加入到数字平台和网络社区中的包括客户在内的劳动力群体，他们通过自己的力量和劳动付出为平台资本家提供了大量无偿的价值和流量，他们的劳动产品变成数字世界中的商品，他们原本以社交为目的的交流，变成网络世界的数据流量。而且工业资本主义时代与数字资本主义时代的剥削形式和隐秘性表现出完全不同的状态。在工业资本主义中，资本家通过直接雇佣劳动力的方式剥削工人阶级创造的剩余价值；数字化时代，数字劳动的特殊性往往把数字经济中的剥削现象及其性质掩藏于网络社区的娱乐、赠与活动中。西方主义学者敏锐地意识到数字化时代，资本剥削的两种不同情形，并进行了针对性的探讨。

Christian Fuchs and other scholars strive to return to the Marxist concept of labor to define and distinguish human activities in the digital era. He attempts to use the difference between “labor” and “work” to analyze the nature of digital labor and the logic of exploitation behind it.[5]5 “21st-century socialism” is a political concept promoted by Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, emphasizing participatory democracy, anti-imperialism, and a transition to socialism adapted to Latin American conditions. Andrea Fagioli uses the dual logic of “expropriation” and “exploitation” in digital labor as a conceptual tool for theoretical analysis, advocating for bottom-up political struggle through democratic management of data. James Muldoon, in evaluating the exploitation of the platform economy, points out that in the digital era, “this exploitation is combined with new socio-technical systems that capture and control the bonds of the community itself and extract information resources from them.” It is precisely the discussion of workers’ labor, exploitation, and other issues in the digital era that provides impetus for the development of digital socialism. Amid the various debates on digital socialism, the critique of capitalism and the vision of striving for a better socialist future are increasingly presented with clear theoretical propositions.

克里斯蒂安·福克斯等学者努力回归到马克思主义劳动概念，来对数字化时代的人类活动进行界定与区分。他试图用“劳动”（La bour）和“工作”（Work）的差异性来分析数字劳动性质和背后的剥削逻辑[5]。安德里亚·法吉奥里以数字劳动中的“剥夺”与“剥削”双重逻辑为理论分析的概念工具，主张对数据进行民主管理而进行自下而上的政治斗争。詹姆斯·穆尔顿在对平台经济的剥削进行评价时指出，数字化时代资本的“这种剥削与新的社会技术系统相结合，这些系统捕捉和控制社区本身的纽带，并从中提取信息资源” 。也正是对数字化时代工人劳动、剥削等问题的探讨，为数字社会主义发展提供了动力。在数字社会主义的各种争论中，对资本主义的批判及争取社会主义美好未来的愿景，愈发以清晰的理论主张呈现出来。

II. Characteristics of Western Left-Wing Digital Socialist Theory

二、西方左翼数字社会主义理论的特征

The digital era provides new material life conditions and intellectual space for theoretical innovation in socialism. Against the backdrop of the technological revolution, digital socialism integrates the social changes brought about by digitalization into a new theoretical paradigm. Due to the limitations of digital technology’s coverage in the spaces of production and daily life, digital socialism exhibits unique contemporary characteristics at present.

数字化时代为社会主义的理论创新提供了新的物质生活条件支持与思考空间。数字社会主义在科技革命的背景下，把数字化形成的社会变革融入到新的理论范式中。由于数字化技术在生产与生活空间中覆盖面的限制，数字社会主义在当下呈现独特时代特性。

(I) Theoretical Themes: Focus and Diversity

（一）理论主题：聚焦性与多元性

As a social trend of thought emerging in the digital era, digital socialism focuses on the new social relations developed through digital technology. Marx said: “With the acquisition of new productive forces, people change their mode of production; with the change of the mode of production, i.e., the way of earning a living, they change all their social relations.”[2]2 Salvador Allende was the democratically elected socialist president of Chile from 1970 until his overthrow and death in the 1973 coup. Cybersyn was a project to network factories and manage the economy in real time using a telex-based control system. In the digital era, new productive forces have changed the mode of production, and at the same time changed the relations of production and other social relations. Against the backdrop of the digital revolution, the internet, online platforms, digital commodity production, and other digital economies have established new types of relations of production within the capitalist system. The controllers of digital capital and the owners of data products become the capitalists of the digital era; correspondingly, digital laborers and providers of digital traffic exist as the subject of the “digital proletariat” within the logic of capital. The digital relations of production between the digital bourgeoisie and the digital proletariat in the digital era are key to considering the nature of digital socialism and the focus of the theoretical framework of digital socialism.

数字社会主义作为数字化时代产生的社会思潮，聚焦于数字技术发展起来的新型社会关系。马克思说：“随着新生产力的获得，人们改变自己的生产方式，随着生产方式即谋生的方式的改变，人们也就会改变自己的一切社会关系。”[2]数字时代新的生产力改变了生产方式，同时改变了生产关系和其他社会关系。数字革命背景下，互联网、网络平台、数字商品生产等数字经济在资本主义体系中建立起新的生产关系类型。数字资本的控制者、数据产品的拥有者形成了数字时代的资本家；相应地，数字劳动者、数字流量的提供者在资本逻辑中以“数字无产阶级”的主体身份存在。数字时代的数字资产阶级与数字无产阶级之间的数字化生产关系是考量数字社会主义性质的关键，及数字社会主义理论架构的焦点。

Western left-wing digital socialism focuses on the current digital relations of production, but is not limited to this. Centered on digital relations of production, diverse types of digital socialism have emerged. Kevin Kelly’s “digital socialism” emphasizes the emergence of new social relations with a public character in cyberspace. Dimitris Boucas and Christian Fuchs of the University of Westminster, among others, propose the thesis of “communicative socialism” based on internet data production and information exchange. Cockshott applies modern digital technology to socialist planned economy, demonstrates the feasibility of communist planned production in the digital era, and puts forward the theory of “cyber-communism.” James Muldoon’s “platform socialism” attempts to establish socialist ownership of the means of production on the material basis of digital capitalism, realizing the institutional transformation of platform private ownership. A series of types of digital socialist theory present theoretical reflections on replacing the capitalist system in the digital era.

西方左翼的数字社会主义聚焦于当前数字化生产关系，但又不局限于此。围绕着数字化的生产关系，出现了多样态的数字社会主义类型。凯文·凯利的“数字社会主义”强调了网络数字空间中出现了新的具有公共性的社会关系；威斯敏斯特大学的迪米特里斯·布卡斯和克里斯蒂安·福克斯等从互联网的数据生产和信息交往提出了“交往社会主义”命题；考克肖特把现代数字技术运用于社会主义计划经济，论证数字化时代共产主义计划生产的可行性，并提出了“赛博共产主义”理论；詹姆斯·穆尔顿的“平台社会主义”试图在数字资本主义物质基础上，建立社会主义生产资料所有制，实现对平台私有制的制度改造。一系列的数字社会主义理论类型呈现出对数字时代资本主义制度替代的理论思考。

(II) Theoretical Development: Clear Pathways, Diverse Views

（二）理论发展：进路清晰、观点多样

Although digital socialism has diverse types and complex conceptual expressions, examining the development paths behind them reveals nothing more than three types of judgments on the new social relations of capitalism in the current digital era: factual judgment, value judgment, and logical judgment. These three judgments together form and present the pathways for the generation of digital socialist theory. However, within these three theoretical generation pathways, there are also many differing views.

尽管数字社会主义存在多样化的类型和复杂的概念表达，但究其背后的发展路径，无外乎呈现出对当前 数字化时代资本主义新社会关系类型的三种判断：事实判断、价值判断和逻辑判断。三种判断共同形成并呈现着数字社会主义理论生成的路径。不过，三种理论生成路径中也存在着许多相区别的观点。

First, factual judgment. The socialist attribute of digital socialism is based on a judgment of digital social relations under the current capitalist system, namely, whether capitalist social relations in the digital age have the property of producing de-privatized public goods and non-capitalist online communities, and whether the public can obtain and use the labor products in these online communities for free and without charge. Undeniably, digital socialism theory points to the current reality of capitalist society. Because technological development has continuously lowered the cost of material reproduction[6]6 Kevin Kelly, American executive editor of *Wired* magazine, author of *New Rules for the New Economy* and other works., and digital technology has reduced the cost of reproducing and disseminating information products to near zero, Kevin Kelly believes that network resources and digital products in the digital age can be shared for free, or at least that digital products already possess the material conditions for free sharing. In daily life, people share life experiences, disseminate everyday knowledge, and other data and information, all of which can be obtained and disseminated for free on the internet. Therefore, “digital socialism” holds that the network constructs communities with a public character, forming a fact of shared public resources—that is, a non-capitalist, socialist-type relationship has already been established within online communities. However, Kelly’s theoretical confidence in “digital socialism” conceals a major judgment error. Considering only his narrow “digital socialism,” it is merely a factual statement about a new type of social relational phenomenon emerging in the digital age, rather than a constructive expression, and it neglects the capitalist private economic system foundation of the theoretical framework. The “products” in the online world that Kelly refers to belong more to the category of communication and entertainment activities within the network. Therefore, there are Western scholars who hold views diametrically opposed to Kelly’s. For example, Richard Sprague denies Kelly’s view, arguing that the participants in “digital socialism” are countless independent, free actors who construct online communities solely through individual self-motivated behavior, so Kelly’s “digital socialism” “is nothing more than an old-fashioned, decentralized, Hayekian capitalism.”

第一，事实判断。数字社会主义的社会主义属性立足于对当前资本主义制度背景下数字化社会关系的判断，即数字化时代资本主义社会关系是否具有产生去私有化公共产品和非资本主义网络社区的属性，及公众是否能免费获得和使用这些网络社区中的劳动产品。不可否认，数字社会主义理论指向为当前的资本主义社会现实。由于科技发展不断降低了物质复制的成本[4]，数字技术更是将信息产品的复制与传播成本降低至趋于零，所以凯文 ·凯利认为数字时代网络资源和数字产品可以免费共享，至少数字产品已具有了免费共享的物质条件。人们日常生活中分享生活经验，传播日常生活知识等数据信息，都能在网络上免费获得、传播。因 此，“数字社会主义”认为网络建构起具有公共性社群，形成了公共资源的共享事实，即在网络社区已建立起非资本主义的社会主义性质的关系。不过，凯利“数字社会主义”的理论自信却潜藏着重大的判断误区。仅就其狭义“数字社会主义”而言，它只是对数字化时代出现的新型社会关系现象予以事实性的陈述，而非建构性的表达，忽略了理论架构的资本主义私有经济制度基础。凯利所指称的网络世界中的“产品”更多属于网络世界中的交往和娱乐活动的范畴。因此，西方学者中存在着与凯利截然不同的观点，如理查德 ·斯普拉格否认凯利的观点，认为“数字社会主义”参加者是无数独立、自由的行动者，他们仅是以个人自我激励行为构建起网络社区，所以凯利“数字社会主义”“只不过是一种旧式的、去中心化的、哈耶克式的资本主义”。

Second, value judgment. When analyzing the socialist factors of online communities, digital socialism puts forward a value judgment on the labor state of workers after the overcoming of private ownership. Scientific socialism theory holds that communism is “the positive transcendence of private property” and is an association of free individuals; in communist society, labor is no longer the alienated labor compelled by survival, but a need of human life. Digital socialism discovers that the labor state of workers in the digital age exhibits the value attributes of “freedom” and “autonomy.” The mode of combination of labor and the production units of workers in the digital age exhibit phenomena of individualization and decentralization, and the network intermediaries based on modern logistics arbitrarily expand the physical space of production units. The “thing” in “dependence on things” is not merely a commodity, but a commodity or product combined with the network. Therefore, producers can engage in “autonomous production” relatively independently according to their own interests and skills, thereby making it possible to “transcend” the alienated labor of capitalism. Some digital socialism theory scholars even believe that its democratic free market, which provides rapid adaptation, continuous innovation, and self-production, far surpasses the top-down traditional socialism of the industrial age. However, optimists regarding digital labor tend to decouple the mode of labor from the institutional form of social production, neglecting the constraining characteristics of the material conditions of life under capitalism. Scholars who hold a negative view of the value judgment of digital socialism, such as Fuchs, specifically analyze the alienation of people in digital labor within the framework of the capitalist system, pointing out that digital labor still exhibits the alienation of labor products, objects, and tools that Marx described.

第二，价值判断。数字社会主义对网络社区的社会主义因素分析时，提出了对克服私有制后的劳动者劳动状态的价值判断。科学社会主义理论认为共产主义是“对私有财产 的积极的扬弃”，是自由人的联合体；共产主义社会劳动已不是生存所迫的异化劳动，而是人类生活的需要。数字社会主义发现数字化时代劳动者劳动状态表现出“自由”“自主”的价值属性，数字化时代的劳动者劳动的结合方式及生产单位存在着个体化、分散化现象，且建立在现代物流基础上的网络中介使生产单位的物理空间被任意扩大，“物的依赖性”中“物”不仅仅是商品，而是商品抑或产品与网络组合。因此生产者可按照自身兴趣和技能相对独立地进 行“自主生产”，从而使“扬弃”资本主义异化劳动成为可能。数字社会主义理论学者甚至还认为其民主自由市场所提供的快速适应、不断创新和自我生产远远超越工业时代的自上而下的传统社会主义。不过，数字劳动的乐观主义者存在着把劳动方式与社会生产的制度形态脱钩的情形，忽略了资本主义的物质生活条件制约特性。对数字社会主义价值判断持否定态度的学者，如福奇斯等则是具体分析了资本主义制度框架下数字劳动中人的异化情况，提出了数字劳动依旧存在着马克思所说的劳动产品、对象、工具等异化情形。

Third, logical judgment. From the processual perspective of the Western left-wing digital socialism theoretical system, digital socialism points toward the future of capitalism, expressing the possible transformation of new social relations and institutional forms. As a theoretical trend, digital socialism cannot be merely the “logos” of theory, but should rather become “a science that arises from historical movements and fully consciously participates in historical movements.” Regarding the inevitable historical trend of capitalism, digital socialism not only focuses on the present, but also needs to transform into socialist change and movement—that is, digital socialism theory needs to become a social practice that changes capitalism, transforming contingent phenomena of reality into an inevitable historical trend. Within the inevitable logic of theory transforming into reality, there are two judgments among the Western left: the theory of spontaneity and the theory of conscious action. The spontaneity view is keen on blind confidence in existing socialist factors, and therefore lacks a critical spirit toward capitalism, consequently lacking consideration of issues such as the practical path in the process of replacing the capitalist system. Richard Barbrook attempts to shape a cyber-communism different from both traditional socialism and neoliberal capitalism. He believes that the subjects jointly shaping American cyber-communism, including right-wing groups, “spontaneously adopted a more pleasant and more effective mode of cooperation.” Barbrook evaluates social change in the United States from the perspective of its digital network technology development, directly pointing to the spontaneity of future capitalist social change. The spontaneity view denies that digital socialism proceeds through violent qualitative change; according to Barbrook, Americans have not destroyed the market economy, but are slowly replacing capitalism in a spontaneous manner. In contrast, the conscious action view of digital socialist change is accepted by more Western left-wing scholars. They understand digital socialism as a constructive historical activity process, and therefore as a conscious transformation activity of the social system that requires the active intervention of the subject. For example, Evgeny Morozov’s economic proposals, such as the public transformation of market feedback systems and the promotion of platform cooperativism and the “new municipalism” movement in the platform economy, reflect that the process of replacing the capitalist system is a conscious process of promoting social publicness; only in this way can future digital socialism be realized.

第三，逻辑判断。从西方左翼数字社会主义理论体系的过程性视角来看，数字社会主义指向资本主义未来，表达了新的社会关系与制度形态可能发生的转变。作为理论思潮的数字社会主义不能只是理论的“罗格 斯”，而更应成为“由历史运动产生并且充分自觉地参与历史运动的科学”。就资本主义的历史必然趋势而言，数字社会主义不仅着眼于现实，更需要转变为社会主义的变革、运动，即数字社会主义理论需要变成改变资本主义的社会实践，把现实的偶然现象转变为历史的必然趋势。在理论向现实转变的必然逻辑中，西方左翼存在着自发论和自觉论两种判断。自发论观点热衷于对现实存在社会主义因素盲目自信，因此对资本主义缺乏批判精神，从而缺乏对资本主义制度替代过程中实践路径等问题的思考。理查德 ·巴布鲁克试图塑造不同于传统社会主义，也完全不同于新自由主义资本主义的赛博共产主义。他认为共同塑造美国赛博共产主义的主体包括右翼在内的群体是“自发地采用了更愉快、更有效的合作方式”。巴布鲁克从美国的数字网络科技发展评价其社会变革，直接指明未来资本主义社会变革的自发性。自发性观点否认数字社会主义是通过暴力质变的方式进行，按照巴布鲁克的观点，美国人没有破坏市场经济，而是以自发的方式缓慢地去取代资本主义。与此不同，数字社会主义变革的自觉论观点为更多的西方左翼学者所接受。他们把数字社会主义理解为建构性历史活动过程，因此属于需主体积极介入的自觉的社会制度体系改造活动。如叶夫根尼 ·莫罗佐夫对市场化反馈系统公共化变革、平台经济中推行平台合作主义与“新市政主义”运动等经济方案，反映出替代资本主义制度的过程是有意识地推行社会公共性的过程，只有这样才能实现未来数字社会主义。

(III) Theoretical Practice: Possibility and Constraint

（三）理论实践：可能性与制约性

The conscious action view of digital socialist change reflects the constructive character of digital socialism, meaning it not only points toward the future but also seeks transformative factors within existing material conditions to construct that future. Dan Schiller once predicted from the material foundation of digital capitalism: the internet is not a new, freer, better, more democratic alternative world created by humanity. The soil in which the theoretical trend of digital socialism grows is the capitalist system of the digital age. The realistic foundation of capitalism inevitably constrains the realization of digital socialism, restricting the development path of digital socialism. This is specifically manifested as follows:

数字社会主义变革的自觉论观点反映出数字社会主义的建构性特征，即它不仅指向未来，还在现实的物质条件中寻找变革因素以构建未来。丹 ·席勒曾从数字化的资本主义物质基础预判过：互联网不是人类新建的更自由、美好、民主的另类天地。数字社会主义理论思潮生长的土壤是数字化时代的资本主义制度。资本主义现实基础必然对数字社会主义的实现造成掣肘，制约着数字社会主义发展进路，具体体现为：

First, the origin of digital socialism lies in the capitalist network cultural sphere. Digital technological change involves all aspects of the capitalist system, including the economic, political, social, and cultural fields of capitalism and the overlapping spaces they form. Although cyber-communism takes the issue of the planning system within the relations of production as its main line, its judgment of future society carries a strong value-laden character. The socialist factors unearthed by the narrow “digital socialism” theory and communicative socialism are even more confined to the cultural sphere within digital capitalism, thereby forming a value judgment of socialism. Platform socialism belongs to a relatively radical and also relatively realistic theoretical category within digital socialism theory; it is constructed on the basis of platform capitalism and has clear directions for the construction of publicness in economic fields such as digital labor and network platforms, but its critique of capitalist platform ownership and capitalist private ownership is relatively mild. Other theoretical debates on digital socialism mainly focus on digital labor, product distribution, network communication, and the like, while discussions of political change are rare.

其一，数字社会主义生成的源头是资本主义网络文化领域。数字化技术变革涉及资本主义体系的方方面面，包括资本主义经济、政治、社会和文化领域以及它们形成的叠加空间。尽管赛博共产主义以生产关系中的计划体制问题为主线，但它对未来社会的预判却带有浓厚的价值评判色彩。而狭义的“数字社会主义”理论和交往社会主义所发掘的社会主义因素，更是局限于数字化资本主义中的文化领域，并由此形成了社会主义的价值判断。平台社会主义属于数字社会主义理论中较为激进，也比较现实的理论范畴，它建构于平台资本主义的基础之上，对经济领域中如数字劳动、网络平台的公共性建设等方面有明确指向，但对资本主义的平台所有制以及资本主义私有制批判较为温和。其他数字社会主义理论论争主要集中于数字劳动、产品分配、网络交往等方面，至于进行政治变革则鲜有论述。

Second, from the historical perspective of institutional substitution, the theory of scientific socialism holds that socialist revolution is about “revolutionizing the existing world, practically opposing and changing existing things.” It entails a thorough transformation of the capitalist institutional system, necessitating the destruction of existing social relations, the smashing of the bourgeois state apparatus, and the experience of a genuine revolution before a new state system can be established. For digital socialism to develop from theory into practical activity, it must break the capitalist ownership structure in the digital age, establish a socialist institutional system, and use digitalization to advance socialist construction. Current digital socialist thought elaborates on the possibilities of future socialism but has not yet been able to shape the revolutionary fervor of netizens or mold digital laborers into a genuine digital proletariat capable of transforming social material forces. In the socialist movement, digital socialism is more reflected in left-wing forces using online platforms for mobilization activities in social movements, and its potential to produce historical transformative effects is relatively limited.

其二，从制度替代的历史视角而论，科学社会主义理论主张社会主义革命是“使现存世界革命化，实际地反对并改变现存的事物”，是对资本主义制度体系进行彻底地改造，必须破坏现行社会关系，打破资产阶级的国家机器，经历真正地革命方能建立新的国家制度。数字社会主义从理论发展成为现实的实践活动，须打破数字化时代的资本主义所有制结构，建立社会主义制度体系，用数字化推动社会主义建设。目前的数字社会主义思想，阐发了未来社会主义可能，还没有能塑造网民革命热忱，没能把数字劳动者塑造成为真正的、 可以变革社会物质力量的数字无产阶级。在社会主义运动中，数字社会主义则更多地体现在左翼力量利用网络平台在社会运动中进行动员活动，其可发挥的历史变革效应较为有限。

III. Western Left-Wing Digital Socialist Theory’s Resistance to Capitalism

三、西方左翼数字社会主义理论对资本主义的抗争

Digital socialism is a social theoretical thought that arises from changes in social relations brought about by the development of digital technology under the capitalist system. Digital socialist theory both contains a description of the state of capitalist development and embodies a critique and reflection on the capitalist social system and economic type. It expresses a desire for the institutional substitution of capitalism with socialism, as well as resistance to the colonization of digital production and online communities by the logic of capital and liberalism. From a forward-looking theoretical perspective, digital socialism, while resisting capitalism, indicates the inevitable historical transience of capitalism.

数字社会主义是资本主义制度下数字科技发展引起社会关系变化产生的社会思想理论。数字社会主义理论既包含对资本主义发展状态的描述，也蕴含着对资本主义社会制度、经济类型的批判与反思，表达出用社会主义对资本主义进行制度替代的渴望，以及对资本逻辑、自由主义向数字生产、网络社区殖民的反抗。数字社会主义以前瞻性的理论视角，在反抗资本主义的同时，表明其历史暂时性的必然趋势。

(I) The Hypocrisy of Capitalist Ideology

（一）资本主义意识形态的虚伪性

In the digital age, capitalist ideology maintains the inequality between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat through the reified forms of digital data, making class antagonism and exploitation more concealed. Fuchs understands the new forms of reification manifested in digital-era cultural and media labor as: “by fostering creativity and autonomous labor, creating an atmosphere of non-alienated labor, thereby diverting attention from the fact that such labor is usually extremely precarious and unstable.” [7]7 Christian Fuchs, “Digital Labour and Karl Marx,” p. 211. The hypocrisy of capitalist ideology in the digital age is expressed through the commodification of the digital products of labor, the entertainment-oriented nature of digital production methods, and the traffic-oriented nature of digital social interaction. Digital socialist theory attempts various efforts to overcome the hypocrisy of capitalist ideology, such as: restoring digital labor that has been commodified by capitalism, transforming colonized digital labor achievements into products shareable by the digital proletariat, and shaping a socialist public digital sphere; in digital labor, the unconscious, entertainment-based forms of alienation may, in the future development of digital socialism, evolve into autonomous parallel production with shared goals. Digital socialism attempts to break through the ideological control of capitalist ideology, rescue the labor force drawn into internet crowdsourcing, and promote the awakening of their consciousness as unpaid value contributors, such as fans serving capital by providing traffic.

数字化时代，资本主义意识形态通过数字的物化形式维系着资产阶级与无产阶级之间的不平等现象，使阶级对立和剥削更加隐蔽。福克斯把数字时代的文化和媒体劳动表现出的新物化形式理解为：“通过培养创造力和自主劳动，营造一种非异化劳动的氛围，进而转移人们对如下事实的关注，即此类劳动通常是极其没有保障和不稳定的。”数字化时代资本主义意识形态的虚伪性通过劳动对象的数字产品商品化、劳动方式的数字生产娱乐化、数字社会交往的流量化等形式表现出来。数字社会主义理论尝试进行各种努力，战胜资本主义意识形态的虚伪性，如：恢复被资本主义商品化的数字劳动，把被殖民的数字劳动成果转变成数字无产阶级可共享的产品，塑造社会主义公共性数字领域；数字劳动中以无意识、娱乐性的异化形式，在数字社会主义未来发展中可能演变为有共同目标的、自主的并行生产。数字社会主义试图突破资本主义意识形态的思想控制，拯救被卷入互联网众包的劳动力大军，促进他们作为服务于资本，为其提供流量的粉丝等无偿的价值贡献者身份的意识觉醒。

(II) The Predatory Nature of Capitalism

（二）资本主义掠夺性

Although digital socialist theory captures the new social relations occurring in the digital age, it cannot eliminate or deny the basic fact that digital-age capitalism, through the capitalization of digital products, appropriates the value created by digital labor in a cheap or unpaid manner. Digital socialist theory holds that users of social media and online platforms are active digital information producers engaged in social activities who are creative. The main types of their production activities include participating in sharing, producing online information data, constructing digital-age network culture, and creating social use value in these work activities. Christian Fuchs and Sebastian Sevignani point out that on corporate social media using targeted advertising, digital labor is the source of value for digital commodities. [8]8 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, p. 249. However, the value generated by the data commodities created by digital laborers does not belong to them but is appropriated by platform capitalists to generate profits for them. For this reason, scholars such as Fuchs propose that the only option to avoid the internet crisis and exploitative economy is to withdraw from digital labor, overcome alienation, replace the logic of capital with the logic of the commons, and transform digital labor into interesting digital work. [9]9 Christian Fuchs, “Digital Labour and Karl Marx,” p. 293. At the same time, digital socialists like Fuchs and Morozov advocate overcoming capital’s colonization of the internet public sphere and resisting the predatory nature of capitalism through means such as transforming digital infrastructure and promoting the publicization of digital production processes.

尽管数字社会主义理论捕捉到了发生在数字化时代的新型社会关系，但它无法杜绝也不可否认数字化时代资本主义通过数字产品的资本化，以低廉或无偿的方式占有数字劳动创造的价值这一基本事实。数字社会主义理论认为社交媒体、网络平台的用户是从事社交活动的且具有创造性的、活跃的数字信息生产者。他们生产活动的主要类型是参与分享、制作网络信息数据和构建数字时代的网络文化，并在这些工作活动中创造社会使用价值。克里斯蒂安 ·福克斯、塞巴斯蒂安 ·塞维尼亚尼指出，在使用定向广告的企业社交媒体上，数字劳动是数字化商品的价值来源。但是数字劳动者创造的数据商品所带来价值并不归属于数字劳动者所有，而是为平台资本家所占有并为其创造利润。正因为如此，福克斯等学者提出，规避互联网危机和剥削经济的唯一选择是退出数字劳动，克服异化，用公共性逻辑取代资本逻辑，将数字劳动转变为有趣的数字工作。同时，福克斯、莫拉左夫等数字社会主义者主张通过变革数字基础设施，促进数字生产过程公共化等手段，克服资本对互联网公共领域的殖民，反抗资本主义的掠夺性。

(III) The Constraining Nature of the Logic of Capital

（三）资本逻辑的制约性

As discussed earlier, the practical value of digital socialist theory has a dual dimension of possibility of realization and realistic constraint. Capitalism’s constraint on the practical path of digital socialism reflects digital socialism’s negation of capitalist private property and its resistance to the logic of capital. In response to capital’s colonization of the public sphere that may exist or will be shaped in the digital age, digital socialist theory attempts to resist from two aspects: First, starting from the ownership of digital products and the democratization of governance in the digital-age network society, it resists the universal invasion of living space by capital, returns digital products to netizens, and promotes the sharing of digital products. James Muldoon advocates for data-owning democracy, proposing that citizens control digital services and participate in digital governance to realize the vision of common interests. [10]10 James Muldoon, “Data-Owning Democracy: Citizen Control of Digital Services,” Renewal: A Journal of Social Democracy, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2020, pp. 42-52. Second, it emphasizes opposing the logic of capital and its foundation, which is profit-oriented and based on the privatization of digital information infrastructure. Yevgeny Morozov’s proposition is the most representative. He proposes that the left should seize control of the “feedback mechanism.” [11]11 Yevgeny Morozov, “Digital Socialism? The Left Must Seize Control of the ‘Feedback Mechanism’,” The Guardian, 2019. Additionally, he believes that when it is impossible to achieve the substitution of the capitalist system, the focus of struggle should be placed on cultivating diverse forms of social coordination. Furthermore, Dimitris Boucas proposes resisting the monopoly of digital platforms over digital labor, product distribution, and data power, arguing that this monopoly harms digital commonality, mainly manifested in the manipulation and subjective colonization of behaviors such as work, production, and leisure in the digital age by private feedback infrastructure. [12]12 Dimitris Boucas, “The Digital Commons and the Struggle against Platform Capitalism,” in The Digital Commons and the Struggle against Platform Capitalism, 2020. Thus, scholars such as Yevgeny Morozov and Dimitris Boucas attempt to establish digital infrastructure with socialist commonality to resist the logic of capitalist capital. These resistances have already touched upon the capitalist system itself.

如前文所述数字社会主义理论的实践价值具有实现可能性与现实制约性的双重维度。资本主义对数字社会主义实践进路的制约，折射出数字社会主义对资本主义私有制的否定和对资本逻辑的反抗。针对数字化时代资本对可能存在或将会塑造起来的公共性领域的殖民，数字社会主义理论试图从两个方面进行反抗：第一，从数字产品的所有权和数字化时代网络社会的治理民主化入手，反抗资本对生活空间的普遍入侵，还数字产品于网民，促进数字产品的共享。詹姆斯 ·穆尔登提倡数据拥有型的民主，主张公民掌控数字化服务，参与数字治理以实现共同利益的构想。第二，强调反对以利润导向和数字信息基础设施私有化的资本逻辑及其根基。叶夫根尼 ·莫罗佐夫的主张最具代表性。他提出左翼应夺取对“反馈机制”的控制权。另外，他认为在无法实现对资本主义制度替代的时候，把斗争重点放在培育多样化的社会协调方式上。此外，迪米特里斯·布卡斯提出反抗数字平台对数字劳动、产品分配、数据权力的垄断，认为这种垄断对数字公共性造成了伤害，其主要表现为私人反馈基础设施对数字时代工作、生产和休闲等行为的操纵和主体性殖民方面。由此可见，叶夫根尼·莫罗佐夫、迪米特里斯 ·布卡斯等学者尝试建立具有社会主义公共性的数字基础设施，以反抗资本主义资本逻辑。这些抗争已经触及资本主义制度本身。

IV. The Value and Limitations of Western Left-Wing Digital Socialist Theory

四、西方左翼数字社会主义理论的价值与局限

(I) Forward-Looking Thinking on Socialism

（ 一）对社会主义的前瞻性思考

Since the 21st century, the development of science and technology represented by digital technology has demonstrated the rapid advancement of productive forces. The resulting changes in relations of production and network social relations have also laid the material foundation for digital socialism. Western left-wing scholars have keenly perceived the changes in social relations brought about by the development of productive forces in the digital age and have used the theoretical paradigm of socialism to seek a historical substitution for the capitalist system, pointing out the direction of future social development. Digital socialism regards the online community as a leading domain for social change and explores the possibility of social change in this special field with socialist characteristics. Digital socialism offers highly forward-looking thinking on the direction and path of change, providing valuable clues for progressive forces worldwide to advance the socialist movement.

21世纪以来，以数字技术为代表的科技发展彰显出生产力水平的突飞猛进，由此产生的生产关系、网络社会关系等方面的变化也奠定了数字社会主义的物质条件基础。西方左翼学者敏锐地觉察到数字化时代生产力发展带来的社会关系变化，并用社会主义的理论范式寻求对资本主义制度的历史替代，指明了未来社会发展的方向。数字社会主义将网络社区视为社会变革的一个具有引领性的领域，并探讨了在这个具有社会主义性质的特殊场域进行社会变革的可能性。数字社会主义从变革的方向和实现路径等方面给出极具前瞻性的思考，为世界进步力量推动社会主义运动提供了有价值的线索指引。

(II) The Critical Value of Capitalism

（二）对资本主义的批判价值

Digital socialism is rooted in the soil of capitalism. Under the dual erosion of liberalism and the logic of capital, digital socialism cannot unify the progressive effects of history with the principles of scientific socialism. However, the theoretical reflection of digital socialism on the historical replacement of capitalism, while pointing to the future direction of history, contains a critique of the contradictions and conflicts of capitalist society. Digital socialism uses value systems such as “sharing” and “publicness” to criticize the erosion of digital production and online communities by capitalist private ownership and the logic of capital; it uses the “free” and “gift” economy to accuse capitalist commodities of colonizing the online world, that is, turning the products created by digital laborers into commodities, while simultaneously accusing the reality that the value of these commodities is appropriated by digital capitalists; it uses labor concepts with a socialist character such as “freedom” and “autonomy” to criticize the ideological control of digital labor by capitalism and the situation of new alienation it creates, reducing digital users to a digital proletariat without class consciousness. In short, while narrating the possibility of a better future development, digital socialism creates immense critical value against capitalism, and prompts it to become a new, higher condition gradually developed by capitalism itself, making capitalism “outdated and devoid of reason for existence.”

数字社会主义根植于资本主义的土壤。在自由主义和资本逻辑双重侵蚀下，数字社会主义无法将历史的进步效应与科学社会主义原则统一起来。但是数字社会主义对资本主义历史替代的理论思考，在指出未来历史方向的同时，包含了对资本主义社会矛盾、冲突的反思。数字社会主义以“共享”“公共性”等价值体系批判资本主义私有制与资本逻辑对数字生产及网络社区的侵蚀；用“免费”“礼物”经济控诉资本主义商品对网络世界的殖民化，即把数字劳动者创造的产品变为商品，同时控诉该商品价值由数字资本家占有的现实；用“自由”“自主”等带有社会主义性质的劳动观念批判资本主义对数字劳动的意识形态掌控及造成新异化的情形，让数字用户沦为无阶级意识的数字无产阶级。总之，数字社会主义在诉说美好未来发展可能性的同时， 创造出极大的对资本主义的批判价值，并促使其成为资本主义自身逐渐发展起来的、新的、更高的条件，让资本主义“变成过时的和没有存在的理由了”。

(III) The Historical Limitations of Digital Socialism Theory

（三）数字社会主义理论的历史局限

Digital socialism is a theoretical achievement of the digital age, and its historical progressive significance is self-evident. How digital socialism can transform from theoretical reflection into a driving force of historical progress, and how it can effectively integrate into the contemporary world socialist movement to become a blueprint for transforming capitalism, still faces insurmountable gaps. Lenin once understood the transition from capitalism to a higher stage of socialism as the “forward development” of history, and proposed that to achieve “forward development,” it “must pass through the dictatorship of the proletariat; there is no other road.” [13]13 Lenin, “The State and Revolution,” in *Lenin Collected Works*, vol. 25 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1964), p. 418. Marxist classical writers all affirmed the role of the proletarian movement in replacing the capitalist system. The revolutionary spirit of digital socialism theory is embodied in: on the one hand, advocating the reshaping of de-capitalized online communities; on the other hand, attempting to transform the digital infrastructure of capitalism to realize socialism. Regarding the latter, it neglects how to cultivate the class consciousness of the working class in the digital age and stimulate the participatory awareness of class struggle to initiate a socialist movement that overthrows capitalism. Therefore, the rich revolutionary spirit inherent in digital socialism is largely confined to the narrow space of theory.

数字社会主义是数字化时代的理论成果，其历史进步意义不言而喻。数字社会主义如何从理论思考转 化为历史前进动力，又如何有效地融入当代世界社会主义运动中，成为变革资本主义的蓝本，尚存在难以跨越的沟壑。列宁曾把资本主义走向更高阶段的社会主义理解为历史的“向前发展”，并提出要“向前发展”就 “必须经过无产阶级专政，不可能走别的道路” 。马克思主义经典作家无不肯定无产阶级运动在替代资本主义制度中的作用。数字社会主义理论革命精神体现在：一方面主张重新塑造去资本化的网络社区，另一方面试图改造资本主义的数字基础设施来实现社会主义。就后者而言，它忽略了如何培育数字化时代工人阶级的阶级意识，激发阶级抗争的参与意识，来发起推翻资本主义的社会主义运动。因此，数字社会主义内在丰富的革命精神更多地圈囿于理论的狭隘空间。

(Author profiles: Li Quan, doctoral candidate at the School of Marxism, Yunnan University, and associate professor at the School of Marxism, Kunming University; Du Min, professor and doctoral supervisor at the School of Marxism, Yunnan University)

（作者简介：李泉，云南大学马克思主义学院博士研究生，昆明学院马克思主义学院副教授；杜敏，云南大学马克思主义学院教授、博士生导师）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心