The Stage Characteristics and Trends of Capitalist Digitalization

Digitalization originally emerged as a question within the natural sciences, yet in recent years it has increasingly become a research hotspot in the social sciences. Among these, Marxist theory researchers often proceed from the dual pathways of political economy and philosophy to conduct a profound analysis of the developmental trends of digitalization. At the same time, as the birthplace of digital technology, developed capitalist societies naturally become the key objects of study in related research. In terms of the existing achievements in academia, the issue of digitalization is more often discussed within the framework of a critique of digital capitalism. In a certain sense, digital capitalism can be regarded as the latest stage of development of capitalism, while digitalization is both a prerequisite for capitalism entering a new stage and a core feature depicting the changes in that stage. Studying the stage characteristics and future trends of capitalist digitalization holds important theoretical and practical significance.

数字化本来是一个源于自然科学的问题，近年来却日益成为社会科学的研究热点。这其中，马克思主义理论研究者往往从政治经济学和哲学的双重路径出发，对数字化的发展态势展开深刻剖析。同时，作为数字技术的发源地，发达资本主义社会自然也成为相关研究的重点研究对象。就学界目前的既有成果而言，数字化问题更多是被置于数字资本主义批判的框架下加以讨论的。某种意义上讲，数字资本主义可以被视为资本主义的最新发展阶段，而数字化既是资本主义进入新阶段的前提条件，也是描绘该阶段变化的核心特征。研究资本主义数字化的阶段特征和未来趋势具有重要的理念和现实意义。

I. The Socio-Historical Positioning of Capitalist Digitalization

一、资本主义数字化的社会历史定位

In a narrow sense, digitalization mainly refers to the transition from analog signal technology to digital network technology. "The most obvious advantage of this transition is the improvement in precision and controllability, while it also makes possible the integration of digital computers with image and sound systems." [1]1 Chen Wenxu, "The Stage Characteristics and Trends of Capitalist Digitalization," original Chinese text, note 1: The source of this quotation is not provided in the original. In a broad sense, digitalization includes the increasing prevalence of electronic systems and microprocessors, the widespread application of customized software, and the comprehensive acceleration of information dissemination. Given that digitalization is marked by electronic computers and information network technology, the origin of capitalist digitalization should be traced back to the third scientific and technological revolution of the 1940s–1950s. At that time, the rapid development of information technology, new energy technology, space technology, and biotechnology greatly changed the social landscape of capitalism, thereby triggering a question of the times in Western academia as to whether a new social form had already emerged.

狭义的数字化主要指从模拟信号技术向数字网络技术的转换。“这一转换最明显的优势是使精确度与可控性获得提高，同时它也使数字化电脑融合图像与声音系统成为可能。”而广义的数字化包括电子系统与微处理器的日益普及、定制化软件的广泛应用，以及信息传播的全面加速。鉴于数字化以电子计算机和信息网络技术为标志，资本主义数字化的源点应该追溯到1940—1950年代的第三次科技革命。彼时，信息技术、新能源技术、空间技术和生物技术的飞速发展使资本主义的社会面貌发生了极大的改变，由此也引发了西方学界对新社会形态是否已经出现的时代之问。

(1) The Emergence of Post-Industrial Society

（一）后工业社会的出场

After the end of World War II, capitalism ushered in a "golden age" of rapid development. With the assistance of science and technology, industrial infrastructure was comprehensively upgraded, production efficiency greatly improved, and the entire social landscape took on a new look. Against this backdrop, the liberal sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf proposed that a technology-driven industrial society had already surpassed the capitalist social form defined by Marx. The Frankfurt School thinker Theodor W. Adorno, however, refuted the above view. Proceeding from the law of motion of productive forces and relations of production, he made the judgment that "industrial society is still capitalist society." Although the view of replacing capitalist society with industrial society is a theoretical proposition that attempts to conceal the logic of capital, the debate on how to characterize industrial society also reflects that the new changes in capitalist society shaped by the scientific and technological revolution have become increasingly prominent. Objectively, technology (including the intensification of scientific theoretical knowledge) is increasingly transforming the economic system and class hierarchy; the original social relations, power structures, and cultural values are rapidly eroding. Capitalist industrial society, after experiencing the third scientific and technological revolution, has entered a new stage of development. The American sociologist Daniel Bell used the term "post-industrial society" to describe this stage. In the picture of post-industrial society, the share of the manufacturing economy is continuously occupied by the service economy; a professional technical class gradually expands and gains important social status; educational undertakings achieve breakthrough progress and become the foundation for social class mobility; new forms of capital represented by human capital and social capital become inherent characteristics of economic growth; intelligent technology gradually replaces mechanical technology and steps onto the social stage; electronic communication engineering becomes the infrastructure of social production; knowledge, as a source of invention and innovation, further becomes the value source of social development. It can be seen that post-industrial society is a definition of a new society that focuses on the power of scientific and technological innovation. Bell once stated bluntly: "The most crucial fact about new technology is that it is not confined to some isolated field (as the label 'high-tech' suggests), but is a series of changes that permeate all areas of society and reorganize all old relations." [2]2 Daniel Bell, *The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting* (New York: Basic Books, 1973), p. 167 (approximate; exact wording may vary by edition). In other words, the third scientific and technological revolution has transformed capitalist society in an all-round way. It endows industrial society with new technological forms, including informatization, networking, and even digitalization, all of which can be summarized as morphological features of post-industrial society. Overall, the emergence of the concept of post-industrial society has, to a certain extent, spurred a trend in Western academia to explore the characteristics of the new stage of capitalism. Thinkers from different fields began to focus on the new social picture outlined by computer network technology.

二战结束后，资本主义迎来了高速发展的“黄金时代”。在科学技术的助力下，工业基础设施全面升级，生产效率大幅提升，整个社会面貌焕然一新。在这样的背景下，自由主义社会学家拉尔夫·达伦多夫（Ralf Dahrendorf）提出，一个由科技驱动的工业社会已经超越了马克思所定义的资本主义社会形态。而法兰克福学派思想家西奥多·阿多诺（Theodor W. Adnorno）则对上述观点进行了批驳，他从生产力和生产关系的运动规律出发，作出了“工业社会仍然是资本主义社会”的论断。用工业社会替代资本主义社会的观点虽然是一种试图掩盖资本逻辑的理论主张，但是有关如何定性工业社会的争论也体现了由科技革命塑造的资本主义社会新变化已经愈发凸显。客观上，技术（包括科学理论知识的集约化）日益改造着经济体制和阶层体系，原有的社会关系、权力结构和文化价值都在迅速消蚀，资本主义的工业社会在经历第三次科技革命后已经进入到一个新的发展阶段。美国社会学家丹尼尔·贝尔（Daniel Bell）采用“后工业社会”的称谓来描述这一阶段。在后工业社会的图景中，制造业经济份额不断被服务业经济所占据；专业的技术阶层逐步扩大并获得重要的社会地位；教育事业取得突破性进展并成为社会阶层流动的基础；以人力资本、社会资本为代表的新形态资本成为经济增长的内在特征；智能技术逐渐替代机械技术走上社会舞台；电子通信工程成为社会生产的基础设施；作为发明和创新来源的知识进一步成为社会发展的价值源泉。可见，后工业社会是一个聚焦科技革新力量的新社会的定义。贝尔曾直言：“关于新技术最为紧要的事实是，它并不局限于某个孤立的领域（如“高科技”标牌所暗示的），而是遍布社会一切领域、重组所有旧关系的一系列变革。换言之，第三次科技革命对资本主义社会的改造是全方位的，它赋予工业社会新的技术形态，包括信息化、网络化乃至数字化，都可以被归纳为后工业社会的形态特征。总体而言，后工业社会概念的出现在一定程度上带动了西方学界探讨资本主义新阶段特征的风潮，来自不同领域的思想家开始集中关注计算机网络技术勾勒的新社会图景。

(2) The Arrival of the Information Society

（二）信息化社会的到来

Among the many works exploring post-industrial capitalist society, Manuel Castells's three-volume *The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture* is "the most ambitious attempt to redraw the social map." [3]3 Manuel Castells, *The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture*, 3 vols. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996–1998), Vol. 1, p. 1 (paraphrased). Castells advocates shifting the focus of analysis from post-industrialism to informationalism, that is, examining the emerging post-industrial information society. The academic judgment of the information society has a triple logic: the human world has begun to enter the information age, which has become a consensus among scholars from various schools, including Bell and the British sociologist Anthony Giddens; at this stage, the production, processing, and transmission of information become the basic sources of productivity and power, thereby converging into an informational social form of organization; further specifying, the key characteristic of this form of organization is the construction of the basic structure of society on the logic of networking. The information society is a concept that emphasizes a new social structure of connectivity, focusing on the social value of knowledge. "Presence or absence in the network, and the dynamic relationship of each network relative to others, are the key sources of domination and change in our society." [4]4 Manuel Castells, *The Rise of the Network Society*, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000), p. 469. That is to say, information relations profoundly affect the dynamic evolution of social relations. Social activities in all aspects, including economy, politics, and culture, extend their forms of organization under the paradigm of information technology. Innovation activities led by information technology give birth to the material foundation of this social structure. Such an information society is an open system that can be infinitely expanded and possesses high vitality. The "new economy" organized around information networks, network media politics, digital audiovisual culture, and even the transformation of the order of time and space are all basic features of this social structure. Furthermore, "the evolution of management and production toward network forms does not mean the demise of capitalism." [5]5 Manuel Castells, *The Rise of the Network Society*, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000), p. 502. Castells uses the mathematical models of the French sociologist Alain Touraine and Bell to elaborate the relationship between capitalism and informationalism. In their view, capitalism and informationalism respectively represent the mode of production and the mode of development. They cooperate with each other, shaping informational capitalist society.

在探究资本主义后工业社会的众多著作中，曼纽尔·卡斯特尔（Manuel Castells）的三卷本《信息时代——经济、社会与文化》是“重绘社会地图最有雄心的行动”。卡斯特尔主张将分析重点从后工业主义转移到信息主义，即考察正在浮现的后工业的信息化社会。学界对信息化社会的判定具有三重逻辑：人类世界已经开始步入信息时代，这已成为包括贝尔、英国社会学家安东尼·吉登斯（Anthony Giddens）等在内的各流派学者的共识；在这一阶段，信息的生产、处理和传递成为生产力和权力的基本来源，进而汇聚成一个信息化的社会组织形式；进一步细化而言，这种组织形式的关键特色是以网络化逻辑建构社会基本结构。信息化社会是一个强调连接性的新社会结构的概念，它侧重于知识的社会价值。“在网络中现身或缺席，以及每个网络相对于其他网络的动态关系，都是我们社会中支配与变迁的关键根源。”也即是说，信息关系深刻影响着社会关系的动态演变，经济、政治、文化等各方面的社会活动都在信息技术范式下延展了组织形式。信息科技主导的创新活动孕育出该社会结构的物质基础，这样的信息化社会是一个能够无限扩展且具有高度活力的开放系统。围绕信息网络组织起来的“新经济”、网络媒介政治、数字视听文化，乃至时空秩序的转变都是该社会结构的基本特征。此外，“管理与生产朝向网络形式的演变，并非意味资本主义的消亡”。卡斯特尔借用法国社会学家阿兰·图兰（Alain Touraine）和贝尔的数理模型阐述了资本主义与信息化之间的关系。在他们看来，资本主义和信息化分别代表着生产方式和发展方式，它们相互配合，塑造着信息化的资本主义社会。

(3) The Rise of the Digital Society

（三）数字化社会的兴起

Since the 1970s, “countless political and commercial affairs and news events have constantly reminded the broad audience to prepare for the dramatic changes that will occur in all aspects of life, because the information age is coming.” In academia, works that systematically explain the information society, as well as those that reflect on and critique information capitalism, have emerged in an endless stream. Generally speaking, the informatization of capitalist society has been recognized as an established fact. By the late 1990s, with the emergence of the seeds of the fourth scientific and technological revolution, digitalization began to replace informatization in some contexts as the core concept depicting the characteristics of the new stage of capitalism. American futurist Nicholas Negroponte pointed out: “For a long time, everyone has been keen to discuss the transition from the industrial age to the post-industrial age or the information age, to the extent that they have not noticed that we have already entered the post-information age.” In the post-information age, people find themselves in a digital society, initiating a completely new mode of digital survival. First, the digital society is expected to realize “true personalization”; this tendency toward personalization refers not only to the enrichment of individual choices but also to the appropriate coordination between people and various environments. That is to say, the degree to which machines understand people will be comparable to the tacit understanding between people, and the technological support within the digital society will be a systematic form of artificial intelligence. Second, virtualization is another major feature of the digital society; virtual cyberspace will become an important venue for social life, virtual digital symbols will serve as key media for transmitting information, and both the subject and object of existence will further shift from the real to the virtual. “The result of digitalization is the loss of original meaning and perspective, the loss of the prototype goal that serves as the foundation of scientificity.” However, digital survival detached from the original framework means that the possibility of invention and creation is expected to burst forth more fully; the digital society marks a creative future. In Negroponte’s view, “We cannot deny the existence of the digital age, nor can we stop the advance of the digital age.” Yet some scholars advocate viewing the social impact of digitalization with a critical eye. Dan Schiller’s proposal of the concept of “digital capitalism” precisely emphasizes that the inherent oppressive order of capitalism is still projected onto the digital age; digitalization has not alleviated the fundamental contradictions of capitalism, and has even spawned some new problems. British sociologist Frank Webster also points out that the “‘information explosion’ brought by digitalization is merely ‘an important means of understanding the historical expansion of capitalism.’” Thinkers including Herbert Irving Schiller, Jürgen Habermas, and Giddens all insist on viewing the trend of capitalist digitalization from the perspective of continuity. These thinkers do not deny the new social changes brought by digital technology, nor do they underestimate the important position of digital technology in contemporary society; rather, they advocate carrying out a critique of digital capitalism from the perspective of the continuation of existing relations. For capitalism, digitalization is both a general characteristic currently evolving and a means of social reform; its inherent information forms and network functions are all subordinate to the logic of capital. “No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.” Therefore, when examining the new changes in capitalism created by digital technology, one must not overlook the historical logic of the development of this social formation.

自1970年代开始，“不计其数的政治商业事务和新闻事件都不断提醒广大的受众，未雨绸缪，迎接将在生活各方面发生的剧变，因为信息时代即将到来”。在学界，无论是对信息化社会进行系统阐释的著述，还是反思批判信息化资本主义的论著，都层出不穷。大体上讲，资本主义社会的信息化被认定为既成事实。而到了1990年代末，随着第四次科技革命萌芽的出现，数字化开始在一些场合替代信息化而成为描绘资本主义新阶段特征的核心概念。美国未来学家尼古拉·尼葛洛庞帝（Nicholas Negroponte）指出：“长期以来，大家都热衷于讨论从工业时代到后工业时代或信息时代的转变，以致于一直没有注意到我们已经进入了后信息时代。”在后信息时代，人们置身于数字化社会，开启了一种全新的数字化生存模式。首先，数字化社会有望实现“真正的个人化”，这种个人化倾向不仅是指个人选择的丰富化，还包含着人与各种环境之间恰如其分的配合。也即是说，机器对人的了解程度会和人与人之间的默契不相上下，数字化社会内部的技术支撑将是成体系的人工智能。其次，虚拟化是数字化社会的另一大特征，虚拟的赛博空间会成为社会生活的重要场所，虚拟的数字符号将作为传递信息的重要媒介，存在的主体与对象都进一步地脱实向虚。“数字化的结果是丧失原始的意思和视野，丧失作为原本的科学性之基础的原型目标。”不过，脱离原始架构的数字化生存意味着，发明和创造的可能性有望更为充分地迸发出来，数字化社会标志了一个创造性的未来。在尼葛洛庞帝看来，“我们无法否定数字化时代的存在，也无法阻止数字化时代的前进”。然而，亦有学者主张以批判的眼光看待数字化的社会影响，丹·席勒（Dan Schiller）提出“数字资本主义”的概念正是要强调，资本主义固有的压迫秩序依旧投射于数字化时代，数字化并未缓解资本主义的基本矛盾，甚至衍生出一些新的问题。英国社会学家弗兰克·韦伯斯特（Frank Webster）也指出，数字化带来的“‘信息爆炸’只不过是“理解资本主义扩张历史的一个重要手段”，包括赫伯特·席勒（Herbert Irving Schiller）、于尔根·哈贝马斯（Jürgen Habermas）以及吉登斯在内的思想家都坚持用延续性观点来看待资本主义的数字化趋势。这些思想家并不是否认数字技术带来的社会新变化，更不是轻视数字技术在当代社会的重要地位，而是主张从既存关系延续的角度出发，开展数字资本主义批判。对于资本主义来说，数字化既是正在演变的一般特征，也是一种社会改良的手段，其内含的信息形式和网络功能均从属于资本逻辑。“无论哪一个社会形态，在它所能容纳的全部生产力发挥出来以前，是决不会灭亡的；而新的更高的生产关系，在它的物质存在条件在旧社会的胎胞里成熟以前，是决不会出现的。”因此，在考察数字技术创造的资本主义新变化时，切不可忽视该社会形态发展的历史逻辑。

II. New Characteristics of the New Stage of Capitalist Development

二、资本主义发展新阶段的新特征

Digitalization has not changed the institutional essence of capitalist society, nor has it given rise to a higher social formation; this is a principle that must be clarified when exploring the issue of capitalist digitalization. However, it is undeniable that digital technology has indeed spawned new forms of labor, new forms of capital, and new modes of exploitation, and these elements together delineate a series of new characteristics of capitalist development.

数字化并没有改变资本主义社会的制度本质，更没有催生出更高级的社会形态，这是在探究资本主义数字化问题时需要明确的原则。但不可否认的是，数字技术确实催生了新的劳动形式、新的资本形态以及新的剥削模式，这些元素共同绘制出资本主义发展的一系列新特征。

(I) New Driving Force of Society — Digital Technology

（一）社会的新动能——数字技术

In the long history of human society, science and technology have always been important markers delineating the characteristics of an era. “The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist.” From the steam age to the electrical age, and then to the information age, science and technology have continuously propelled human society forward, and the digitalization stage of capitalist development is precisely driven by digital technology centered on computer hardware, software, and networks. The computer can be regarded as a processor of numbers and symbols; its circuit system can recognize and process the language system composed of 0s and 1s, and can also handle other statements such as “yes” and “no” as well as “true” and “false.” Generally speaking, computers can complete all work related to symbols, from mathematics to logic, and then to language. The integrated circuit is the basic hardware of the computer; it is a single chip composed of various electronic components and mainly made of silicon. Gordon Moore, co-founder of Intel Corporation, predicted in 1965 that “the complexity for minimum component costs increases at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year.” Moore’s Law vividly depicts the astonishing development speed of computers and also reflects the ability of digital technology to break through the laws of the material world. Under such conditions, “time is everything, man is nothing; man is at most the embodiment of time.” If high speed is endowed by digital hardware, then intelligence is mainly achieved through software. In the information age, when people wanted to learn about new things and convey new information, they might need to use designated websites; today, these needs can be met through applications on smartphones. The two most widely used operating systems today — Apple iOS and Android — have over 500,000 applications, and the service scope of these digital software can almost cover all aspects of daily social life. Computer hardware and intelligent software work together to construct entirely new forms of social production and lifestyles. In addition, the landmark achievement of digital technology also lies in its ability to enable the majority of people globally to communicate and interconnect through a shared digital network. Since the birth of ARPANET in 1969, human society has experienced the Web1.0 era dominated by network companies and the Web2.0 era characterized by network interaction; it is currently in the Web3.0 era pursuing customization, and is looking forward to the Web4.0 era that can realize deep interactive experiences. It can be said that the internet, as a bridge of the world, has become one of the most important infrastructures of the digital age. “The entire framework of digital technology has been built, and it will have a significant and profound impact on the economy and society, just like the steam engine.” Digital technologies full of innovative vitality, such as artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, and cloud computing, can continue to play a role in future capitalist changes.

在人类社会的历史长河中，科学技术一直都是勾勒时代特征的重要标志。“手推磨产生的是封建主的社会，蒸汽磨产生的是工业资本家的社会。”从蒸汽时代到电气时代，再到信息时代，科学技术始终在推动人类社会向前发展，而资本主义社会的数字化发展阶段也正是由以计算机硬件、软件和网络为核心的数字技术驱动的。计算机可以被视为数字和符号的处理器，它的电路系统能够识别与处理由0和1组成的语言体系，同时亦能应对“是”和“否”以及“对”和“错”等其他语句。一般而言，计算机能够完成从数学到逻辑，再到语言等所有与符号相关的工作。集成电路是计算机的基础硬件，它是集合了各种各样电子元件且主要由硅元素构成的单块芯片。英特尔公司的联合创始人戈登·摩尔（Gordon Moore）在1965年曾作出预言，“在保持元件成本价格最低的情况下，其结构复杂程度每年大约增加两倍”。摩尔定律生动地描绘了计算机惊人的发展速度，也反映出数字技术冲破物质世界定律的能力。在这样的条件下，“时间就是一切，人不算什么；人至多不过是时间的体现”。如果说高速化是由数字硬件赋予的，那么智能化则主要是靠软件实现的。在信息时代，当人们想要了解新事物并传递新消息时，他们可能需要借助指定的网站，如今这些需求都可以通过智能手机上的应用程序得到满足。现在受众最广的两种操作系统——苹果iOS和安卓，其应用程序已经超过50万种，这些数字软件的服务范围几乎可以涵盖日常社会生活的所有方面。计算机硬件和智能软件协同作业，建构出全新的社会生产形式和生活方式。除此以外，数字技术的标志性成就还在于它使全球大多数人可以通过共同享有的数字网络沟通互联。自1969年阿帕网诞生以来，人类社会经历了由网络公司主导的Web1.0时代和以网络互动为特质的Web2.0时代，目前正身处于追求定制化的Web3.0时代，且展望着可实现深度交互体验的Web4.0时代。可以说，互联网作为世界桥梁已经成为数字化时代最重要的基础设施之一。“数字技术的整个框架已经搭建完成，它将像蒸汽机一样对经济和社会产生重大而深远的影响”，人工智能、物联网、云计算等饱含创新活力的数字技术能够持续在未来的资本主义变化中发挥作用。

(II) New Form of Labor — Digital Labor

（二）劳动的新形式——数字劳动

Digital labor primarily refers to the network activities through which online users produce data, including but not limited to browsing web pages, socializing on platforms, and online shopping. In essence, digital labor does not transcend Marx’s definition of labor. Marx pointed out: “Conscious life activity directly distinguishes man from animal life activity.” [10]10 Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1959), p. 75. Digital labor remains a life activity that expends physical and mental energy. At the same time, digital labor is also a value-creating activity packaged by culture and technology; it does not serve an illusory cyberspace but rather promotes the better functioning of the material world and actual society. As Marx stated: “The labor process is first of all a process between man and nature, a process in which man, through his own activity, mediates, regulates, and controls the material interchange between himself and nature.” [11]11 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1 (London: Penguin Books, 1990), p. 283. Non-material forms of digital labor are no exception; their origin and destination are inseparable from material production activities. On the one hand, network data can satisfy people’s need to obtain information—this is the use value created by digital labor as concrete labor. On the other hand, it also creates, as abstract labor, the undifferentiated exchange value crystallized in data products. Thus, Marx’s labor theory of value remains an important theoretical tool for deeply analyzing this new form of labor. In addition, the political economy of communication can also serve as an important theoretical foundation for digital labor. Canadian scholar Dallas Walker Smythe is the founder of the Marxist critique of the political economy of communication, and his concept of “audience labor” is considered the precursor to digital labor. According to Smythe’s theory, radio and television, as information media, have corresponding audience groups; these audiences, or rather their time, are sold by television stations to advertisers, i.e., media sponsors. Advertisers buy the audience commodity because these potential consumers help them expand profits, and these audiences are also implicit producers—they complete labor by watching programs. In Smythe’s view, “the social reality under the rule of monopoly capitalism is that most people’s non-sleep time becomes working time.” [12]12 Dallas W. Smythe, “Communications: Blindspot of Western Marxism,” *Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory*, Vol. 1, No. 3 (1977), p. 20. This characteristic is even more pronounced in the digital age: users appear to use network platforms freely, but in essence, they are producing data for platform owners without pay and helping platforms attract more free laborers to serve data reproduction. As digital technology continuously touches and penetrates various fields of capitalist society, the scope of digital labor is also changing and expanding. British scholar Christian Fuchs points out: “The specific working conditions of particular types of digital labor are historical and dynamic, not fixed, but change with capitalist development and capitalist crises.” [13]13 Christian Fuchs, *Digital Labour and Karl Marx* (New York: Routledge, 2014), p. 352. For digital labor, whether in terms of its labor subject, labor instruments, or labor objects, it is in a state of dynamic evolution, which requires follow-up research to keep pace.

数字劳动主要是指在线用户产出数据的网络活动，包括但不限于浏览网页、平台社交以及网上购物。本质上讲，数字劳动并没有超脱马克思对劳动的定义。马克思指出：“有意识的生命活动把人同动物的生命活动直接区别开来。”而数字劳动依然是一种耗费体力和脑力的生命活动。同时，数字劳动也是由文化和技术包装的价值创造活动，这不是在为虚幻的赛博世界服务，而是在推动物质世界、现实社会更好运转。正如马克思所言：“劳动过程首先是人和自然之间的过程，是人以自身的活动来中介、调整和控制人和自然之间的物质变换的过程。”非物质形式的数字劳动也不例外，它的来源与归宿都绕不开物质生产活动。一方面，网络数据能够满足人们获取信息的需求，这是数字劳动作为具体劳动创造的使用价值。另一方面，它也作为抽象劳动创造了凝结在数据产品中无差别的交换价值。可见，马克思的劳动价值论仍旧是深入剖析这种新形式劳动的重要理论工具。除此之外，传播政治经济学也能够作为数字劳动的重要理论依托。加拿大学者达拉斯·M. 斯迈思（Dallas Walker Smythe）是马克思主义传播政治经济学批判的创始人，他提出的“受众劳动”概念被认为是数字劳动的前身。根据斯迈思的理论，作为信息传媒的广播电视拥有相应的受众群体，其受众或者说他们的时间被电视台出卖给广告商即传媒赞助商。广告商之所以会购买受众商品，是因为这些潜在的消费者有助于其扩大利润，而这些受众同时也是隐性的生产者，他们观看节目亦是在完成劳动。在斯迈思看来，“垄断资本主义统治的社会现实是，大多数人的非睡眠时间都成为工作时间”。这种特征在数字化时代更为明显，用户看似自由地使用网络平台，实质上却是在无酬地为平台所有者生产数据，并帮助平台笼络更多的免费劳动者服务于数据再生产。随着数字技术不断触及并深入资本主义社会的各个领域，数字劳动的范畴也在变化和扩展。英国学者克里斯蒂安·福克斯（Christian Fuchs）就指出：“特定类型数字劳动的具体工作条件是历史和动态的，不是固定不变的，而是随着资本主义发展和资本主义危机而变化的。”对于数字劳动来说，无论是从其劳动主体、劳动工具还是劳动对象来看，它都处于动态演进的趋势之中，这有待后续研究及时跟进。

(3) A New Form of Capital—Digital Capital

（三）资本的新形态——数字资本

Capital, which emerged before capitalist society and has persisted to the present, is not a fixed material. It is “a definite, social relation of production belonging to a definite historical social formation, which is embodied in a thing and gives that thing a distinct social character.” [14]14 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 3 (London: Penguin Books, 1991), p. 953. Objectively speaking, new changes in capitalism can always give rise to entirely new forms of capital; capital can simultaneously manifest as industrial products, human resources, financial bonds, and so on. Compared with previous industrial capital and financial capital, the emerging digital capital has a unique material embodiment—data. Here, data mainly refers to the various information derived from people’s digital labor. Since the onset of the third scientific and technological revolution, informationalized data has increasingly become the basic nourishment for people’s production and life. With the continuous upgrading of network technology, data collection capabilities and processing efficiency have greatly improved, and an information-explosive “big data era” began in the 21st century. A consulting report released by McKinsey & Company in 2011 elaborated on the characteristics and influence of big data, stating that “big data refers to datasets whose size is beyond the ability of typical database software tools to capture, store, manage, and analyze.” [15]15 McKinsey Global Institute, *Big Data: The Next Frontier for Innovation, Competition, and Productivity* (2011), p. 1. Austrian scientist Viktor Mayer-Schönberger also perceived the important position of data resources in today’s society, writing: “By analyzing massive amounts of data, we can obtain products and services of great value, or profound insights.” [16]16 Viktor Mayer-Schönberger and Kenneth Cukier, *Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think* (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2013), p. 2. As an emerging resource extracted from electronic networks, data has the characteristics of being renewable, large in stock, weakly constrained by time and space, fast in transmission, diverse in collection sources, and wide in application. These characteristics converge to give data use value. Its use value is not to meet the needs of network users, but to serve the commercial activities of platform owners. After data is produced by users, platforms use algorithmic programs to analyze and activate its maximum utility. Through this processing, data is no longer a mere electronic symbol but becomes a value symbol that can bring surplus value to platform owners—that is, digital capital. As Marx stated, “Capital has only one life instinct, which is to valorize itself.” [17]17 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1 (London: Penguin Books, 1990), p. 254. When data becomes digital capital, it begins to circulate repeatedly, driving capitalist value production with the aim of profit-seeking.

早于资本主义社会出现并且存续至今的资本并不是一种固定的物质。它是“一定的、社会的、属于一定历史社会形态的生产关系，后者体现在一个物上，并赋予这个物以独特的社会性质”。客观上讲，资本主义的新变化总能够孕育出全新的资本形态，资本可以同时表现为工业制品、人力资源、金融债券等。相对于以往的产业资本和金融资本，新兴的数字资本具有独特的物质体现——数据，而这里的数据主要是指人们在进行数字劳动时派生出的各种信息。自第三次科技革命发端以来，信息化的数据愈发成为人们生产生活的基本养料。随着网络技术的不断升级，数据采集能力和处理效率都大幅提升，一个信息爆炸的“大数据时代”在21世纪拉开帷幕。麦肯锡公司在2011年发布的咨询报告中对大数据的特质及其影响力进行了详尽的阐释，认为“大数据是指数据量级超过传统数据库软件工具捕获、存储、管理和分析能力的数据集”。奥地利科学家维克托·迈尔-舍恩伯格（Viktor Mayer-Schönberger）同样洞察到数据资源在当今社会的重要地位，他写道：“通过对海量数据进行分析，获得有巨大价值的产品和服务，或深刻的洞见。”作为从电子网络中发掘出的新兴资源，数据具有可再生、存量大、时空限制弱、运载快、采集来源多、用途广的特点，这些特点汇聚在一起赋予数据使用价值。其使用价值并不是用来满足网络用户的需要，而是为平台所有者的商业活动服务。当数据被用户生产出来以后，平台会借由算法程序分析并激活它的最大功用。通过这种处理，数据不再是单纯的电子符号，而是变成了能够带给平台所有者剩余价值的价值符号，即数字资本。正如马克思所言，“资本只有一种生活本能，这就是增殖自身”。当数据成为数字资本，它便开始周而复始地循环，以逐利为宗旨带动资本主义的价值生产。

(4) A New Manifestation of Oppression—Digital Exploitation

（四）压迫的新表现——数字剥削

Digital labor is the source of digital capital, and extracting the surplus value of digital labor is a prerequisite for digital capital accumulation. “Capital is dead labor, which, vampire

数字劳动是数字资本的源泉，榨取数字劳动的剩余价值是进行数字资本积累的前提条件。“资本是死劳动，它像吸血鬼一样，只有吮吸活劳动才有生命，吮吸的活劳动越多，它的生命就越旺盛。”从某种意义上讲，资本主义性质的网络平台持续不断地将无偿占有的数字劳动价值转化为自身收益，体现出平台所有者与数字劳动者之间的剥削与被剥削关系。意大利学者蒂齐亚纳·特拉诺瓦（Tiziana Terranova）曾这样归纳数字劳动的特点：“自愿付出而未受报酬，享受过程的同时也经受着剥削。”在她看来，曾经被资本主义粉饰的新兴劳动形式已经暴露出它的剥削本质，人们逐渐感受到自己正在成为数字资本主义的“网奴”。然而，亦有学者否认数字剥削的存在，认为平台为用户提供的使用权及其相应服务可以被视为数字劳动的对等工资。显然，这种为数字剥削辩护的观点背离了马克思对工资和劳动价值的定义，即“工人的工资表现为劳动的报酬，表现为对一定量劳动支付的一定量货币”，而平台服务并不能代替货币为用户购进必需的生活资料。此外，如果用剩余价值率来衡量数字剥削的程度，那么没有必要劳动和剩余劳动分界的数字劳动可以说实现了剥削的最大化。以网上购物为例，用户自进入平台起就在释放关于其消费偏好的信息，平台所有者利用这些数据完成消费服务的精准投送，从而最大效率地攫取收益。还有学者认为，数字劳动没有产出可以直接交换的商品，它只能算作流通环节的一部分，因此应该被排除在剥削范畴之外。这种论调是对马克思主义政治经济学的误读，因为马克思曾经指明，“资本主义生产不仅是商品的生产，它实质上是剩余价值的生产”。就数字劳动而言，当它产出的数据实现了增殖，它就已经被卷入了资本主义的生产方式，并成为平台所有者剥削的对象。即便将数字劳动归入流通环节，用户与平台之间的关系也是由商业资本主导的，“在这种过渡形式中，恰恰对劳动的剥削最大”。现如今，剥削数字劳动和数字资本积累已然成为资本主义进一步数字化的重要手段，对其进行剖析和批判有助于解码当代资本主义的新变化趋势。

III. Trend Assessment of Capitalist Digitalization

三、资本主义数字化的趋势研判

Since the 1970s, capitalist societies have begun to introduce and apply digital technology in various fields, gradually forming a development stage defined by digitalization. Digitalization can represent both the current stage characteristics of capitalist society and reflect its future evolutionary trends. In a sense, analyzing the trend of capitalist digitalization helps to clarify the developmental laws of the capitalist social formation.

自1970年代起，资本主义社会就开始在各个领域引入并应用数字技术，逐步形成了以数字化来定义的发展阶段。数字化既可以代表资本主义社会当前显现的阶段特征，也能够反映资本主义社会未来的演进趋势。从某种意义上讲，分析资本主义数字化趋势有助于厘清资本主义社会形态的发展规律。

(I) The Monopoly Trend of the Digital Economy

（一）数字经济的垄断趋势

The digital economy refers to a series of economic activities that take data resources as a key factor of production and information networks as an important carrier, using the effective application of digital technology as a major driver for improving efficiency and optimizing economic structure. "Over the past 15 years, the growth rate of the digital economy has reached 2.5 times that of global GDP; compared with 2000, the total scale of the digital economy has nearly doubled." The development momentum of the digital industry is strong, and the global pandemic of COVID-19 has also provided opportunities for accelerated growth of the digital economy in certain aspects. The rapidly expanding network market is regarded by capitalism as a remedy to completely emerge from the shadow of the financial crisis, and the boundless flow of data has become a new hope for economic recovery. However, most of the benefits of the digital economy are divided among a few network companies with first-mover advantages. "The output value of top network companies such as Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and Facebook accounts for nearly 67% of the global digital economy output value. At the same time, more than half of the world's top 100 network companies are distributed in developed regions of Europe and America." The concentration of production and capital to a certain extent inevitably leads to monopoly. The agglomeration effect of networks, the technological advantage of capturing data, and the earlier accumulation of digital capital have jointly contributed to the monopoly position of top network companies.

数字经济是指以数据资源作为关键生产要素、以信息网络作为重要载体的一系列经济活动，它以数字技术的有效使用作为提升效率和优化经济结构的重要推手。“在过去的15年间，数字经济的增长速度达到了全球生产总值增速的2.5倍，与2000年相比，数字经济的规模总量几近翻了一番。”数字产业的发展势头强劲，新冠疫情的全球大流行也在某些方面为数字经济提供了加速增长的契机。急速扩张的网络市场被资本主义视作彻底走出金融危机阴霾的良药，无远弗届的数据流动成为经济复苏的新的希望。然而，数字经济的大部分收益都被几个具有先发优势的网络公司所瓜分，“苹果、微软、亚马逊、谷歌、脸书等顶尖网络公司的产值近乎占据了全球数字经济产值的67%，同时，全球百大网络公司有一半以上分布于欧美发达地区”。生产和资本集中到一定程度必然引起垄断，网络的集聚效应、攫取数据的技术优势以及较早进行的数字资本积累共同促成了顶尖网络公司的垄断地位。

Due to the high liquidity of digital capital and the lack of an international data governance system, monopoly network companies can extend their tentacles to any corner where the network reaches, using various means to complete the merger of emerging forces. After converting platform advantages into monetary returns, monopoly network companies begin to invest in all links of the global data value chain: from innovating data collection programs, to upgrading data transmission carriers, to improving data storage, analysis, and processing solutions. The all-encompassing business scope of monopoly network companies causes small and medium-sized network companies with single services to face great survival difficulties, gradually degenerating into dependent companies in the brutal monopoly competition. With the continuous acceleration of the digitalization process, monopoly network companies maximize the circulation, turnover, and reproduction of capital, accumulating into powerful technological, market, and financial forces. From October 2019 to January 2021, the stock price increases of top network companies ranged from 55% (Facebook) to 144% (Apple), far exceeding the composite index. It can be seen that the imbalance trend of the digital economy has increased during the pandemic, with rampant vicious competition, turbulent markets, and a profound crisis likely to arrive suddenly. Marx had already clarified: "One capitalist strikes down many. With this accumulation or the expropriation of many capitalists by a few... as the number of capital magnates who plunder and monopolize all the benefits of this transformation process continues to decrease... the monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production which has flourished alongside and under it... The knell of capitalist private property sounds." As capitalist countries such as the United States increasingly consciously integrate and utilize the industry resources of network companies, international digital economy disputes become increasingly fierce. Some backward countries, due to a lack of sophisticated network technology, can only play the role of raw material suppliers in the data value chain, resulting in very little gain in the production process. Being in a subordinate position in the data value chain means that the more digital labor the network users of these countries perform, the more smoothly the capital accumulation of developed countries and their network companies proceeds. In addition, top network companies have in recent years strongly entered the political field. "The policy participation spending of US network companies including Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft has skyrocketed from $16 million in 2010 to $63 million in 2020." They attempt to control public discourse through various channels, influence domestic and foreign affairs, and thus become financial oligarchs manipulating the state apparatus of capitalist countries in the digital age.

由于数字资本的高流动性以及国际数据治理体制的缺失，垄断网企得以将触手深入到网络遍及的任意角落，利用各种手段完成对新生势力的兼并。在将平台优势转化为货币收益后，垄断网企便开始投资于全球数据价值链的各个环节：从创新数据收集程式，到升级数据传输载体，再到改良数据存储、分析和处理方案。垄断网企无所不包的业务范围导致服务单一的中小微网企面临极大的生存困境，逐渐在残酷的垄断竞争中沦为依附性公司。随着数字化进程的不断加速，垄断网企将资本的循环周转与再生产发挥到极致，集聚成强大的技术、市场和金融势力。从2019年10月到2021年1月，顶尖网络公司的股票涨幅高到从55%（脸书）到144%（苹果）不等，远超综合指数。可见，数字经济的不平衡趋势在疫情期间有增无减，恶性竞争泛滥，市场动荡不安，深重危机很可能猝然而至。马克思早已阐明：“一个资本家打倒许多资本家。随着这种积聚或少数资本家对多数资本家的剥夺……随着那些掠夺和垄断这一转化过程的全部利益的资本巨头不断减少……资本的垄断成了与这种垄断一起并在这种垄断之下繁盛起来的生产方式的桎梏……资本主义私有制的丧钟就要响了。”随着美国等资本主义国家越来越有意识地整合利用网络公司的行业资源，国际间的数字经济争端日趋激烈。部分落后国家由于缺乏高精尖的网络技术，只能在数据价值链中扮演原料供应商的角色，这导致其在生产过程中收获甚微。在数据价值链中居于从属地位意味着，这些国家的网络用户付出的数字劳动越多，发达国家及其网络公司的资本积累就进行得越顺利。除此以外，顶尖网络公司近年来强势涉足政治领域，“包括谷歌、亚马逊、苹果、脸书和微软在内的美国网络公司在政策参议方面的投入已经从2010年的1600万美元暴涨至2020年的6300万美元”。它们企图通过各种途径掌控公共话语权，左右内政外交，进而成为在数字化时代操纵资本主义国家机器的金融寡头。

(II) The Application Prospects of Digital Currency

（二）数字货币的应用前景

Since the commodity economy became a universal economic form, the means by which humans sustain their survival have mostly revolved around currency. "Its acting as a universal equivalent in the world of commodities becomes its specific social function, and thus its social monopoly." Whether serving as an irreplaceable medium of exchange in daily life or overriding other relations in the logic of capital, the social status of currency has not faced substantial challenges, but its application form has undergone obvious changes while maintaining the core of its traditional functions. From financial markets to cyberspace, the trend of currency's dematerialization has become increasingly prominent. A collection of electronic currencies primarily managed, stored, and exchanged in computer systems has begun to enter the economic society. This collection is collectively referred to as digital currency, including ordinary cryptocurrencies, stable cryptocurrencies, and the newly emerging central bank digital currencies.

自商品经济成为普遍的经济形式后，人类维系生存的手段就大多是围绕货币而展开的。“在商品世界起一般等价物的作用就成了它特有的社会职能，从而成了它的社会独占权。”无论是在日常生活中充当难以替代的交换媒介，还是在资本逻辑中凌驾于其他关系，货币的社会地位没有遭遇过实质性的挑战，但是其应用形象在维持传统职能内核的前提下发生了明显的变化。从金融市场到赛博空间，货币的去实体化倾向愈发突出，一个主要在计算机系统中管理、存储和交换的电子货币集合已经开始进入经济社会。该集合被统称为数字货币，其中包括普通加密货币、稳定加密货币，以及新近出现的中央银行数字货币。

Ordinary cryptocurrencies represented by Bitcoin rely on a distributed ledger verification technology commonly known as blockchain, and their prices fluctuate with supply and demand, with the possibility of sharp rises and falls. Tether and the Libra coin that Facebook once planned to issue convey the concept of being pegged to fiat currency; they operate on a distributed ledger or centralized system maintained by the issuer and can be converted into fiat currencies such as the US dollar at a fixed price at any time, hence they are called stable cryptocurrencies. However, compared to Bitcoin’s active performance in the trading market, most experiments with stablecoins have ended in failure. The reason is that although stablecoins theoretically have a fixed store of value and unit of account, their inequality with fiat currency still makes their transactions unsustainable in practice. If securities are used as temporary collateral for stablecoins, this will bring financial risks to stablecoin holders, which will also undermine their use value. In terms of risk, ordinary cryptocurrencies, whose functions are similar to investment products, are also not suitable for widespread promotion. “Taking Bitcoin as an example, its value is by no means solid… This volatility makes it difficult to use as a monetary unit for pricing goods and setting wages.” Unlike the first two types of cryptocurrency, central bank digital currencies issued by official institutions have better financial security and inclusiveness. This legal digital currency is considered the only currently feasible substitute for base money. According to relevant reports from the European Central Bank, more than 80 central banks worldwide are currently exploring the issuance of digital currencies. First, issuing digital currency can strengthen the central bank’s control over online transactions. In recent years, the development of mobile payments has led more and more people to complete transfers through third-party applications without going through the banking system, severely impacting banking business. For central banks, promoting digital currency to expand online business and enter the mobile payment market is clearly a more efficient management solution than forcing application platforms to share transaction flow information. Second, central bank digital currency can contribute to optimizing social security services. If everyone opens a digital wallet operated by the central bank, the government can more conveniently distribute social security subsidies. Furthermore, if electronic financial services such as micro-loans can be completed on the central bank digital currency platform, credit security will be guaranteed to a greater extent. Although capitalism took the lead in experimenting with digital currencies, its subsequent development momentum has been insufficient, thus failing to achieve a breakthrough in restructuring monetary resources. In the future, it may also have to deal with the risks and challenges brought by cryptocurrencies.

以比特币为代表的普通加密货币依赖于一种俗称区块链的分布式账本验证技术，其价格随供需变化而波动，存在急剧上涨和下跌的可能。而泰达币（Tether）和脸书曾计划发行的天秤币（Libra）传递出与法定货币挂钩的理念，它们在发行人维护的分布式账本或集中式系统上运行，随时能以固定价格被转换为美元等法定货币，因此被称为稳定加密货币。然而，相比于比特币在交易市场上的活跃表现，稳定币的实验大多宣告失败。究其原因，稳定币虽然理论上具有固定的存储价值和账户单位，但它与法定货币的不等量还是会导致其交易在实践上不可持续。如果将证券作为稳定币的临时抵押品，那么就会给稳定币持有者带来金融风险，这同样会破坏它的使用价值。就风险而言，功能与投资产品相近的普通加密货币也不适合广泛推行。“以比特币为例，它的价值绝不是牢固的……这种波动性使其难以被作为定价商品、制定工资的货币单位。”不同于前两种加密货币，由官方机构发行的央行数字货币具有更好的金融安全性和包容性，这种法定数字货币被认为是当前唯一可行的基础货币替代品。根据欧洲央行的相关报告，目前全球已有超过80家央行正在探索发行数字货币。首先，发行数字货币能够强化中央银行对线上交易的管控。近年来，移动支付的发展使越来越多的人不经过银行系统而借助第三方应用完成转账，银行业务受到强烈冲击。对于央行来说，推行数字货币拓宽线上业务并进入移动支付市场，显然是比强制应用平台共享流水信息更高效的管理方案。其次，央行数字货币能够为优化社保服务作出贡献。如果每个人都开通由央行运营的数字钱包，那么政府就可以更便利地发放社保补贴。此外，小额贷款一类的电子金融服务假若能在央行数字货币平台完成，信誉安全将得到更大程度的保障。资本主义虽然率先开展了数字货币的实验，但后续发展动力不足，从而没能在重组货币资源方面有所突破，未来可能还要应对加密货币带来的风险挑战。

(3) The Expansionary Trend of Digital Hegemony

（三）数字霸权的扩张态势

In recent years, digital hegemony, with cyberspace as its battlefield and network technology as its weapon, has begun to become a new manifestation of hegemonism. As the most typical hegemonic state, the United States has shown an increasingly obvious trend of expanding its hegemonic reach through digital technology. Engels once pointed out: “The modern state, whatever its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal total capitalist.” From using network media to export ideology and induce international public opinion, to secretly deploying network communication surveillance systems under the pretext of “national security,” the digital hegemonic acts of capitalism have become the primary obstacle to global connectivity. “The international internet developed as a US power project, based on the needs of the US military sector and the evolving enterprise.” The charm of the borderless network has, to some extent, diluted the ideology imbued in digital technology, but the United States, keen on intervention and domination, seems never to have forgotten to build a hegemonic order in public cyberspace.

近年来，以赛博空间为阵地、以网络科技为武器的数字霸权开始成为霸权主义的新表现。作为最典型的霸权国家，美国借由数字技术扩张霸权辐射范围的趋势已越发明显。恩格斯曾经指出：“现代国家，不管它的形式如何，本质上都是资本主义的机器，资本家的国家，理想的总资本家。”从利用网络媒介输出意识形态、诱导国际舆论，到以“国家安全”为名暗自部署网络通信监控系统，资本主义的数字霸权行径已然成为全球互联互通的头号障碍。“国际互联网是作为美国的权力工程发展起来的，该工程以美国的军事部门和不断发展的企业需求为基础。”无界之网的魅力在一定程度上淡化了数字技术浸染的意识形态，但是热衷干预和支配行径的美国似乎一刻也没有忘记要在公共网络空间构建霸权秩序。

In April 2020, then-US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared that all 5G networks from “untrustworthy” IT suppliers would be banned, and Chinese companies Huawei and ZTE, which were among the earliest to participate in 5G technology research and development, were both placed on the sanctions list. In June of the same year, the United States officially launched the “Clean Network” plan, harming the interests of its own consumers to suppress the advantageous industries of other countries. “The ‘Clean Network’ plan is essentially a manifestation of US digital hegemony, using ideology as a pretext to implement country-specific market access restrictions in the network field and establish non-tariff trade barriers for digital technology.” Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, once stated that the network was invented for everyone in the world. Treating all online traffic equally is not only the original intention of creating the network but also the key to the flourishing development of the network industry. If digital hegemony only accepts innovations that it can control and hinders the universal sharing of technological resources, it will place itself in opposition to global digital development. Moreover, the United States has developed large-scale cyber attack weapons to serve its digital hegemony. Its developed quantum attack system can indiscriminately hijack network data from any region in the world. In September 2022, the release of the investigation report on the “Cyber Attack on Northwestern Polytechnical University by the US NSA” directly confirmed that the United States is preparing for digital warfare at no cost. Digital hegemony not only brings endless worries to global cybersecurity but may also pose a huge threat to national security. The “Starlink” system, supported by the US Department of Defense, has already revealed its military use in the Ukraine crisis. If this type of digital technology is fully used for hegemonic warfare in the future, it will greatly undermine regional peace and stability.

2020年4月，时任美国国务卿的迈克·蓬佩奥（Mike Pompeo）宣称将禁用一切来自“不可信”IT供应商的5G网络，最早参与研发5G技术的中国企业华为和中兴都被列入制裁名单。同年6月，美国正式推出“清洁网络”计划，不惜损害本国消费者利益也要打压他国优势产业。“‘清洁网络’计划实质是美国数字霸权的体现，是以意识形态为借口，在网络领域实行基于国别的市场准入限制，为数字技术设立非关税贸易壁垒。”万维网发明者蒂姆·伯纳斯-李（Tim Berners-Lee）曾表明，网络是为世界上每一个人发明的。平等对待所有在线流量既是创建网络的初衷，也是网络事业蓬勃发展的关键，数字霸权如果只接受能被其掌控的创新成果，阻碍技术资源的普惠共享，那将使其置身于全球数字化发展的对立面。不仅如此，美国已经研制了大规模的网络攻击武器为其数字霸权服务，其开发的量子攻击系统能够无差别地劫持全球任意地区的网络数据。2022年9月，“西北工业大学遭美国NSA网络攻击事件”调查报告的发布直接印证了美国正在不计成本地为发动数字战争做足准备。数字霸权不但给全球网络安全带来无尽隐忧，还可能对国家安全造成巨大威胁。由美国国防部支持搭建的“星链”已经在乌克兰危机中显露了它的军事用途，这种类型的数字科技未来一旦尽数服务于霸权战争，将极大破坏地区的和平与稳定。

(4) The Potential Power of the Cyber-Proletariat

（四）赛博无产阶级的潜在力量

Marx once pointed out: “The technical basis of modern industry is revolutionary.” First, scientific and technological progress promotes the development of productive forces, which in turn catalyzes changes in relations of production. Ultimately, the occurrence of social revolution will also be inevitable. Digital technology, as a modern high-tech, also contains the revolutionary force to eliminate capitalism, and this potential force may be stimulated by a new revolutionary subject. On the one hand, the digitalized form of production organization and division of labor is more conducive to capital’s control and exploitation of labor than ever before, and this condition has created a more universal “proletarianization.” Under the mode of production of digital capitalism, capital transcends spatial boundaries and temporal divisions, continuously constructing a global, round-the-clock order of oppression. As David Harvey said: “Capital attempts not only to control the actual efficiency of labor but also the self-discipline of employed workers, the characteristics of workers supplied in the market, and the cultural habits and mentality of workers.” Whether it is the miners collecting cassiterite in the Congo in Africa or the technicians developing software in Silicon Valley in the United States, they all endure the enslavement of capital on the same value chain, and even their leisure activities outside of work may become a raw material warehouse for the accumulation of digital capital. Comprehensive labor control helps to increase the rate of surplus value, but the universalization of the exploited object also means the continuous expansion of the revolutionary subject. Lenin once pointed out: “The bourgeois capitalist system also cultivates its own gravediggers within it—the proletariat.” In the current era, the digitalization of capitalism is giving birth to a vast “cyber-proletariat” and creating objective conditions for its universal unity.

马克思曾经指明：“现代工业的技术基础是革命的。”首先，科技进步推动生产力发展，进而催化生产关系变革。最终，社会革命的发生也将不可避免。数字技术作为现代高新科技同样蕴含着消亡资本主义的革命力量，而这股潜在力量可能会由新的革命主体激发出来。一方面，数字化的生产组织和分工形式比以往更有利于资本对劳动进行控制和剥削，这种条件造就了更为普遍的“无产阶级化”。在数字资本主义的生产方式下，资本穿越了空间界域、跨越了时间分界，持续建构着全球化、全天候的压迫秩序。就如大卫·哈维（David Harvey）所言：“资本不但试图控制实际劳动效率，还控制所雇劳动者的自律、市场上供应的劳动者的特质，以及工人的文化习惯和心态。”无论是非洲刚果采集锡石的矿工，还是美国硅谷研发软件的技师，都在同一条价值链上承受着资本的奴役，甚至工作之余的消遣活动也有可能沦为数字资本积累的原料库。全方位的劳动控制有助于提高剩余价值率，但是剥削对象的普遍化同样意味着革命主体的不断壮大。列宁曾经指出：“资产阶级资本主义的制度也在它的内部培养出了自己的掘墓人——无产阶级。”当今时代，资本主义的数字化正在孕育规模庞大的“赛博无产阶级”，并且为其创造了普遍联合的客观条件。

With the widespread application of information networks across the world, the energy of universal intercourse has been unleashed as never before. As Marx stated: “The individuals of the locality become the individuals of world history, empirically universal individuals.” [22]22 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The German Ideology* (1845–1846), in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 5 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 50. The level of productive forces developing at high speed in the digital age is infinitely approaching the material requirements of a new world history. Digitalized capitalism has coalesced into a powerful oppressive force, and the cyber-proletariat, as the majority, should consciously use the conditions of the era to unite and resist this alien power. Contemporary foreign Marxist scholars Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri once pointed out: “The revolutionary subject of postmodern capitalism is precisely the multitude that exists within Empire and simultaneously resists Empire—that is, the global proletariat that labors under capital’s rule but has the potential to resist the logic of capital.” [23]23 Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, *Empire* (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), p. 393. Whether capitalism differentiates step by step from within, with quantitative change triggering qualitative change, or socialism accelerates the replacement of the capitalist social formation from without, both require the united impetus of the global cyber-proletariat. Objectively speaking, the contradiction between the socialization of production and the capitalist private appropriation of the means of production is deepening day by day. Even if digital technology releases new space for the development of productive forces within capitalist society, it ultimately only modernizes the basic contradiction of capitalism. The judgment of Marx and Engels that capitalism is inevitably doomed remains the general trend of socio-historical development, and constructing a social formation in which the fruits of technological innovation are shared by all the people is more in line with the future direction of human civilization.

随着信息网络在全世界的普及应用，普遍交往的能量前所未有地被激发出来。正如马克思所言：“地域性的个人为世界历史性的、经验上普遍的个人所代替。”数字化时代高速发展的生产力水平正在无限接近新世界历史的物质要求。数字化的资本主义已经汇聚成一股强大的压迫势力，作为大多数的赛博无产阶级理应自觉运用时代条件联合起来，反抗这股异己力量。当代国外马克思主义学者迈克尔·哈特（Michael Hardt）和安东尼奥·奈格里（Antonio Negri）曾经指出：“后现代资本主义的革命主体正是存在于帝国之内同时又反抗帝国的大众，即在资本统治下劳动，但有潜能反抗资本逻辑的全球无产阶级。”无论是资本主义从内部逐级分化，量变引发质变，还是社会主义从外部加速资本主义社会形态的更替，都需要全球范围内赛博无产阶级的联合推动。客观上讲，生产社会化和生产资料资本主义私人占有之间的矛盾日益加深，即便数字技术为资本主义社会释放了新的生产力发展空间，那也终究不过是让资本主义的基本矛盾完成了现代化。马克思恩格斯关于资本主义必然灭亡的论断依然是社会历史发展的大趋势，构建一个技术创新成果由全体民众共享的社会形态更符合人类文明的未来走向。

IV. Conclusion

四、结语

Digitalization is both a transformative trait of contemporary capitalism and a general historical development process. In studying the historical trajectory and characteristic trends of capitalist digitalization, it is necessary to adhere to the standpoint of historical materialism, start from the laws of human social development, strip away the external appearances of its stage changes, grasp the deep logic of its dynamic evolution, and recognize the class interests to which contemporary capitalism clings. At the same time, it is also necessary to follow the methodological principle of political economy critique that ascends from the abstract to the concrete, focusing the object of investigation on the various fields of capitalist economy, politics, and culture, and deeply analyzing the internal mechanisms of digital capitalist expansion.

数字化既是当代资本主义的变革特质，也是一般性的历史发展进程。在研究资本主义数字化的历史轨迹与特征趋势时，需要坚持唯物史观的立场，从人类社会发展规律入手，剥离其阶段变化的外在表象，把握其动态演进的深层逻辑，认清当代资本主义固守的阶级利益。同时，还要遵循政治经济学批判从抽象上升到具体的方法论原则，将考察对象聚焦到资本主义经济、政治、文化的各个领域，深入剖析数字资本主义扩张的内在机制。

Conducting a critique of digitalization by no means implies rejecting or evading digital technological change. As early as the mechanization era, Marx pointed out incisively: “The contradictions and antagonisms inseparable from the capitalist application of machinery do not exist because they arise not from the machinery itself, but from its capitalist application!” [24]24 Karl Marx, *Capital*, vol. 1 (1867), in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 35 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1996), p. 446. The problems and contradictions of technological development are not inherent or inevitable; they can be resolved through changes in the mode of production. Overall, we must continue to advance along the path Marx pioneered, exploring a digital development model for constructing a new form of human civilization. This requires the joint efforts of people worldwide to compose a splendid chapter for the digital New Era.

进行数字化批判决不意味着要拒绝或规避数字技术变革。早在机械化时代，马克思就一针见血地指出：“同机器的资本主义应用不可分离的矛盾和对抗是不存在的，因为这些矛盾和对抗不是从机器本身产生的，而是从机器的资本主义应用产生的！”技术发展的问题和矛盾并不是固有的、必然的，它们是能够通过生产方式变革解决的。总体而言，我们要沿着马克思所开创的道路继续前进，探索构建人类文明新形态的数字化发展模式。这要求世界人民一起努力，谱写数字新时代的华彩乐章。

General Secretary Xi Jinping points out: “China is willing to work with countries around the world to jointly blaze a global digital development path featuring the co-construction and sharing of digital resources, vibrant digital economies, precise and efficient digital governance, flourishing digital cultures, robust digital security, and mutually beneficial digital cooperation, and to accelerate the building of a community with a shared future in cyberspace, contributing wisdom and strength to world peace, development, and the progress of human civilization.” [25]25 Xi Jinping, “Jointly Building a Community with a Shared Future in Cyberspace,” keynote speech at the Opening Ceremony of the World Internet Conference, Wuzhen, November 9, 2022. Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, [26]26 The 18th National Congress of the CPC, held in November 2012, marked the beginning of the New Era under Xi Jinping’s leadership. China has actively cultivated the momentum of digital technological innovation, strengthened, improved, and expanded the digital economy, accelerated the construction of Digital China, painted a new picture of the digitalization of human civilization, and contributed Chinese wisdom on digitalization for the New Era to the world. Objectively speaking, seizing the strategic opportunity of digital technological innovation is of great significance for human society to successfully respond to the changes unseen in a century in the world. Faced with such historical conditions, current and future digital transformation cannot cling to the old path of capitalist digitalization, but must strive to achieve a new breakthrough in the digital civilization of human society on the basis of insight into the shortcomings of digital capitalism.

习近平总书记指出：“中国愿同世界各国一道，携手走出一条数字资源共建共享、数字经济活力迸发、数字治理精准高效、数字文化繁荣发展、数字安全保障有力、数字合作互利共赢的全球数字发展道路，加快构建网络空间命运共同体，为世界和平发展和人类文明进步贡献智慧和力量。”党的十八大以来，我国积极培育数字技术的创新动能，做强做优做大数字经济，加快建设数字中国，绘制了人类文明数字化的新图景，为全世界贡献了新时代数字化的中国智慧。客观上讲，抓住数字科技革新的战略机遇对人类社会顺利应对世界百年未有之大变局意义重大。面对这样的历史条件，当前以及未来的数字化变革不能固守资本主义数字化的老路，而要在洞察数字资本主义弊端的基础上力争实现人类社会数字文明的新突破。

(Author: Chen Wenxu, School of Marxism, Peking University)

（作者：陈文旭，北京大学马克思主义学院）

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心