Data, Labor, and Platform Capital

The present is an era of comprehensive digitalization, in which people’s actions, interactions, life, and work are all mediated and reconstructed by digitalization. Yet the process of societal digitalization is not a new phenomenon. The American critical theorist Michael Betancourt once conducted something like an ethnographic investigation of sampling technology. He discovered that in the 16th century there existed a terrifying musical instrument called the “katzenkavalier” (cat organ). This instrument consisted of a row of cats fixed in place, their tails stretched out beneath a keyboard. If a key on the keyboard was pressed, the corresponding tail would be forcefully pulled, producing a pitiful meow. These meows, combined, constituted the live samples of abstract musical tones. Through special recombination and manipulation, these fragmented tones could reproduce harmonious musical products. Beyond the humanitarian critique of the cat organ, Betancourt more acutely pointed out that the metaphor of the cat organ is just like today’s digital technology and celluloid film: behind the rich illusion, the inner physical reality is increasingly forgotten. From unmanned automated factories to transport services that deliver the next day with a single mouse click, the spatiotemporal boundaries of production, consumption, and circulation seem increasingly unimportant. The illusion of consumption-free production also seems to truly bring about what Bill Gates called “friction-free capitalism.” It appears that “digitalization has opened up a magical realm beyond physical limits, where the binary problem of production/consumption will be resolved in the process of allowing unlimited growth—the continuous expansion of wealth, which transcends the limits of production, matter, and labor.” [1]1 Michael Betancourt, “The Cat Organ: Sampling and the Commodification of the Real,” *Furtherfield*, 2015, http://www.furtherfield.org/the-cat-organ-sampling-and-the-commodification-of-the-real/. Yet the reality is not so simple. In fact, behind the virtual digital economy, there remains the material production base emphasized by Marx’s historical materialism. Within the seemingly intangible production process, it is still labor that plays the living productive role, just like the imprisoned cats in the cat organ. Behind the nimble and graceful waltz of digital capital are countless invisible laborers and the hidden labor processes that take place.

当前是一个全面数字化的时代，人们的行为、交往、生活与工作无一不被数字化所中介与重构，但是社会的数字化进程并非一个新鲜事物。美国批判理论家迈克尔·贝当古（Michael Betancourt）曾对采样技术做过类似于民族志的调查，他发现，在16世纪曾出现过一种叫做“猫咪风琴”（katzenkavalier）的恐怖乐器。该乐器由一排固定在原地的猫组成，它们的尾巴伸展在键盘的下方，如果按下键盘上的一个键，相应的尾巴就会被用力拉动，由此发出可悲的猫叫声。而这些猫叫声组合起来构成了抽象音乐音调的活性样本，通过特殊的重组和操纵，这些碎片化的音调能够重新产生出和谐的音乐产品。在对“猫咪风琴”展开的人道主义批判之外，贝当古更为敏锐地指出，“猫咪风琴”的隐喻正如同今天的数字技术与赛璐珞电影一样，在丰富的虚幻性背后愈渐被忘却的是内在的物理现实。从无人的自动化工厂到鼠标轻轻一点即可次日送达的运输服务，生产、消费与流通的时空界限似乎越来越不那么重要，而无消耗的生产幻觉似乎也真正带来了比尔·盖茨（Bill Gates）所说的无摩擦资本主义（friction-free Capitalism）。似乎“数字化开辟了一个超越物理限制的神奇领域，在那里，生产/消费的二元性问题将在允许无限制增长的过程中得到解决——财富的持续扩张，这超越了生产、物质和劳动的限制”。然而事实却并非如此简单，实际上，在虚拟的数字经济背后，依旧是马克思历史唯物主义所强调的物质生产基础，在看似无形的生产过程当中，依旧是劳动发挥着活的生产作用，就好像“猫咪风琴”中被禁锢的猫咪一样，在数字资本灵动曼妙的圆舞曲背后是无数看不见的劳动者，以及那些隐秘地发生着的劳动过程。

Therefore, Christian Fuchs’s assertion of “the return of Marx” is no empty talk. Marx’s theory has not lost its critical efficacy in revealing labor exploitation and carrying out class struggle today. Since Dan Schiller first sounded the clarion call of the “digital capitalism era” in 1999, in the face of constantly emerging new social realities—whether using the old to unify the new, or breaking the old to establish the new—scholars at home and abroad have continuously attempted to explore the hidden links behind digital capitalism from theoretical and practical dimensions. Admittedly, it is difficult for us to provide an authoritative explanation that ends all critical debates for the developing digital capitalism. However, clarifying its tangled logical threads and locating its functional effects within the structural system of contemporary capitalism remain the primary prerequisites for conducting research on digital capitalism. In this regard, this article attempts to respond to the following specific questions: What is data in the era of digital capitalism? With the rise of intelligent algorithms and digital platforms, how does data become a commodity? How should we define the category of labor in the digital age? Does digital labor belong to productive labor? Does the application of digital technology in capitalist society constitute a completely new mode of production? How should we view the historical evolution of this mode of production?

因此，克里斯蒂安·福克斯（Christian Fuchs）所谓“马克思归来”的论断并非虚言，马克思的理论在今天揭示劳动剥削与进行阶级斗争并未丧失其应有的批判效力。自丹·席勒（Dan Schiller）1999年首发“数字资本主义时代”之先声以来，面对不断涌现的新的社会现实，无论是以旧统新，还是破旧立新，中外学者始终在不断尝试从理论和实践的维度来勘探数字资本主义背后的隐秘环节。诚然，我们实难为正在发展中的数字资本主义提供一个终结一切批判性争论的权威说明，但澄清其中纠缠不清的逻辑脉络，定位其在当代资本主义结构体系之中的功能效应等议题，依旧是开展数字资本主义研究的首要前提。就此而言，本文试图回应以下具体问题：什么是数字资本主义时代的数据？随着智能算法和数字平台的兴起，数据如何成为一种商品？如何定义数字时代的劳动范畴？数字劳动是否属于生产性劳动？数字技术在资本主义社会的应用是否构成一种全新的生产方式？我们应该如何看待这种生产方式的历史演进？

I. Data, Algorithms, and Platforms: How Does Data Become a Commodity?

一、数据、算法与平台：数据如何成为一种商品？

As the datafication of daily life and self-quantification become increasingly popular, occupying and collecting as much continuous data as possible has also become a key link for enterprises or government agencies in decision-making and strategic deployment. In this regard, Jathan Sadowski bluntly states: “Data—and the accumulation of data—is becoming a core component of the political economy of the 21st century.” [2]2 Jathan Sadowski, “When Data Is Capital: Datafication, Accumulation, and Extraction,” *Big Data & Society*, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2019, p. 2. Nick Srnicek also points out in *Platform Capitalism*: “We should treat data as raw material that must be extracted, and user activity is the natural source of this raw material. Like oil, data is a substance that is extracted, refined, and used in various ways.” [3]3 Nick Srnicek, *Platform Capitalism*, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2017, p. 39. From Srnicek’s passage, we can gain three insights about data: (1) data is the product of user activity; (2) data is raw material to be extracted; (3) the use of data depends on a series of technical processes such as extraction, refinement, and analysis. In my view, Srnicek’s metaphor of data as oil is highly misleading, as if data exists like a natural resource that is ubiquitous and free for the taking. The reality is certainly not so. The generation and utilization of data always follow a market-oriented logic of accumulation. If Marx’s era faced “an immense accumulation of commodities,” then today we face “an immense accumulation of data.” For capital, data is first of all an undeveloped form of commodity. In this situation, how does data become a commodity?

随着日常生活的数据化和自我量化日渐流行，尽可能多地占有和收集源源不断的数据也日渐成为企业或政府机构进行决策和战略部署的关键环节。对此，杰森·萨多夫斯基（Jathan Sadowski）直言：“数据——以及数据的积累——正成为21世纪政治经济学的核心组成部分。”而尼克·斯尔尼塞克（Nick Srnicek）也在《平台资本主义》一书中指出：“我们应该把数据作为必须提取的原材料，用户的活动是这种原材料的天然来源。就像石油一样，数据是一种被提取、被精炼并以各种方式被使用的物质。”在斯尔尼塞克的这段话中，我们能够获得关于数据的三点认识：（1）数据是用户活动的产物；（2）数据是有待被提取的原材料；（3）数据的使用依赖于提取、精炼和分析等一系列技术过程。在笔者看来，斯尔尼塞克关于数据是一种石油的比喻极具误导性，好像数据的存在就像随处可见、免费索取的自然资源一般。事实当然并非如此。数据的产生与利用始终遵循着以市场为导向的积累逻辑。如果说马克思所处的时代面临的是“庞大的商品堆积”，那么我们今天面临的则是“庞大的数据堆积”，数据对于资本而言首先是一种不发达的商品形态。在这种情况下，数据又是如何成为一种商品的呢？

A commodity is a product of labor used for exchange. Abstract “labor in general,” as a certain social measure, provides a quantitative economic determination of the usefulness of commodities. Data, as a product of human activity, similarly follows analogous logical determinations. However, compared to simple commodity production, the labor links involved in data production are more complex. Whether it is the concrete production process with data as the object, or the pure process of data transmission, the value they generate or acquire is invariably the result of human labor built upon a new digital production chain. But why is data useful? If “the usefulness of a thing to human life makes it a use-value,” [4]4 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, London: Penguin Books, 1990, p. 126. then the use-value of data depends on a constructed set of institutionalized procedures: algorithms as the operational rules, platforms as the interface carriers, and various terminal devices as the reading interfaces. Once separated from this set of institutionalized procedures, the usefulness of data immediately vanishes. Therefore, data can be seen as a kind of knowledge product through which we understand the world today, but it is a product constructed according to established rules. “It is a discrete information bit recorded digitally, machine-processable, easily aggregated, and highly mobile.” [5]5 Rob Kitchin, *The Data Revolution: Big Data, Open Data, Data Infrastructures and Their Consequences*, London: Sage, 2014, p. 2. In this process, as the computer rules to be followed during computation, algorithms explain the internal reason why data is comprehensible and, to some extent, become the reason itself. Platforms, on the other hand, serve as the digital sites for data production, decoding, and exchange. Their function is to “set the conditions for participation according to fixed protocols (e.g., technical, discursive, formal protocols),” [6]6 José van Dijck, Thomas Poell, and Martijn de Waal, *The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective World*, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018, p. 9. enabling data to enter the realm of (platform) market exchange as standardized commodities (or services). The efficient operation of intelligent algorithms relies on the uploading and downloading of large amounts of data, while the massive output of data continuously nurtures and gives rise to large platforms. This flowing feedback loop actually corresponds to the flow trajectory of power and profit. Therefore, the dual character of data as a commodity lies in the fact that its value depends on the richness of use-values established by various types of digital labor and their technical intermediaries. This use-value, in turn, further promotes the valorization of data value. The secret of all data commodities is contained herein.

商品是用于交换的劳动产品，抽象化的“劳动一般”作为一定的社会尺度对商品的有用性进行了数量层面的经济规定。而数据作为人的活动的产物，同样遵循着类似的逻辑规定，只不过相较于简单的商品生产，数据生产涉及的劳动环节显得更为复杂。无论是以数据为对象的具体生产过程，还是纯粹的数据传输过程，它们所产生或被获取的价值，都无一不是建立在全新的数字生产链条之上的人力劳动的结果。但是数据何以有用？如果说“物对于人类生活的有用性使物成为使用价值”，那么数据的使用价值则是依赖于被建构出来的以算法为运算法则、以平台为界面载体、以各种终端设备为读取接口的一整套制度化程序。一旦离开了这套制度化程序，数据的有用性便立即化为乌有。因此，数据可以看作是我们今天理解世界的一种知识性产物，只不过它是按照既定规则而被建构出来的产物，“它是以数字方式记录的、可由机器处理的、容易聚集的、高度流动的离散的信息比特”。在这一过程中，作为运算时需要遵循的计算机法则，算法解释了数据何以具有可理解性的内在原因，并在某种程度上成为了原因本身。而平台则充当了数据生产、解码与交换的数字化场所，其功能在于“根据固定的协议（例如，技术的、话语的、形式的协议）设定参与条件的引擎”，使数据成为标准化的商品（或服务）进入到（平台）市场交换的领域之中。智能算法的高效运行离不开大量数据的上传下载，而大量的数据产出又不断滋养催生出大型平台，这种流动的反馈循环实际上对应了权力与利润的流动轨迹。因此，数据作为一种商品的二重性特征便在于，它的价值依赖于由各类数字化劳动及其技术中介所建立起来的使用价值的丰富性，而这种使用价值反过来又进一步促成了数据价值的增殖，一切数据商品的秘密便蕴含于此。

However, how does the data commodity differ from the general commodity that Marx analyzed in *Capital*? After all, if data is merely a certain type of commodity, then it cannot fully demonstrate the rationality of the concept of “data commodity,” even though Marx himself did not directly use concepts such as timber commodity, steel commodity, or linen commodity. Clearly, we cannot define the peculiarity of the data commodity to the contemporary capitalist mode of production solely from the external form of the commodity. Therefore, the analysis of the data commodity must not only draw on the theory of the dual character of the commodity to demonstrate its generality but also demonstrate its particularity; that is, it must explain both the commonality of the data commodity with commodities in general and elucidate the digital technological characteristics in which this commodity is manifested. On the one hand, from the perspective of the specific production process, the peculiarity of the data commodity lies in the fact that the production and addition of its use-value and value depend not only on the direct production process but also on an indirect external production process. This externality is mainly manifested in the fact that the generation of data is closely related to the number of users and user stickiness of the connected network or platform; flowing data traffic requires stable and continuous external login as its foundation, and the fundamental way to test the value of data tests the relevance of data to the external environment. Therefore, various digital platforms are all committed to constructing a complete set of technological ecosystems based on data extraction, storage, analysis, and optimization. As American scholar Amrit Tiwana put it, “the fate and existence of a platform critically depend on the diversity and vitality of its downstream ecosystem.” On the other hand, from the perspective of the overall process of data production, the data commodity is both a means of production that can be used for productive consumption and a means of circulation that can accelerate the circulation of general commodities. In the production sphere, the value of data lies in its ability to promote the iterative renewal of intelligent production machines (fixed capital) through economies of scale; in the circulation sphere, the value of data is manifested in the precise targeting of directed advertisements. Digital platforms such as Alphabet or Meta are essentially advertising platforms, where data extraction and analysis are more used to predict, guide, and manipulate the consumption desires and consumption tendencies of users (or potential consumers).

但是，数据商品又如何区别于马克思在《资本论》中所分析的一般商品？毕竟如果数据只是某一类商品，那就不能充分论证“数据商品”这一概念的合理性，即使马克思也并未直接使用木材商品、钢铁商品、麻布商品等概念。显然，我们无法仅仅从商品外在的形式来界定数据商品对当代资本主义生产方式的特殊之处。因此，对数据商品的分析不仅要借助商品二重性理论来论证其一般性，还应当论证其特殊性，也即是说，既要说明数据商品之于商品的共性所在，也要阐明这种商品呈现为数字化的技术特征。一方面，从具体的生产过程来看，数据商品的特殊之处在于，其使用价值与价值的生产与附加不仅依赖于直接的生产过程，同时也依赖于间接的外部性生产过程。这种外部性主要表现为数据的生成与连接网络或平台的用户数量和用户粘性密切相关，流动的数据流量需要以稳定且持续的外部登录作为基础，而检验数据价值的根本方式则考验着数据与外部环境的关联性。因此，各类数字化平台皆致力于建构起一整套基于数据提取、存储、分析和优化的技术生态体系。正如美国学者阿姆瑞特·蒂瓦纳（Amrit Tiwana）所言，“一个平台的命运和存在关键取决于其下游生态系统的多样性与活力”。另一方面，从数据生产的总过程来看，数据商品既是一种可用于生产性消费的生产资料，也能够充当加速一般商品流通的流通手段。在生产领域，数据的价值在于其能够以规模化的效应推动智能生产机器（固定资本）的迭代更新；而在流通领域，数据的价值则表现为定向广告的精准推送，诸如字母表（Alphabet）或元宇宙（Meta）之类的数字平台实际上就是广告平台，数据的提取与分析更多地被用于预测、引导和操纵用户（或潜在消费者）的消费欲望和消费倾向。

From this, it can be seen that data, as a commodity, both conforms to the basic definition of a general commodity and reveals the characteristics of a special commodity that integrates production, consumption, and circulation in one. The commodification of data actually expresses the internal coupling of the logic of datafication and the logic of commodification under the background of digital technology. In the process of pursuing value augmentation, capitalism driven by data provides both new avenues for contemporary capital to seek accumulation and creates new social conditions for the monopolistic upgrading of capital. Perhaps the moment when general data directly turns into capital profit may never come, but the process of sensing data and extracting data will not stop because of this. Precisely because of this, the birth of the platform economy is actually the ultimate result of the development of capitalism driven by data.

由此可以看出，数据作为一种商品，既符合一般商品的基本定义，同时也显露出集生产、消费、流通于一身的特殊商品的特征。数据的商品化实际上表达的是数字技术背景下的数据化逻辑与商品化逻辑的内在耦合。而在追求价值增殖的过程中，由数据所驱动的资本主义既为当代资本寻求积累提供了新的途径，也为资本的垄断升级创造了新的社会条件。或许由一般数据直接转向资本利润的条件可能永远都不会到来，但是感知数据，并进行数据提取的进程并不会因此而停止。正因为如此，平台经济的诞生实际上就是由数据所驱动的资本主义发展的最终结果。

II. Immaterial Labor and Digital Labor: Is Digital Labor Productive Labor?

二、非物质劳动与数字劳动：数字劳动是生产劳动吗？

Today, while some scholars are thinking about whether intelligent and automated machine systems will replace humans as a new labor subject, another group of scholars is dedicated to thinking about the contemporary transformation of labor forms. Just as the term “artificial intelligence” itself expresses, as much intelligence as there is, there is as much human labor; the replacement and transformation of human labor are different results of the same process. The difference between the two lies in the fact that intelligent machines merely take over that part of human labor used to solve complex affairs, while in the newly emerging labor forms, the abilities to interact, participate, cooperate, and express emotions are the essential core links. In this regard, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri excitedly point out: “This drastic transformation of labor power and the incorporation of science, communication, and language into productive forces have redefined the entire phenomenology of labor and the global production landscape.” [7]7 Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, *Empire* (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), p. 280. This transformation is also redefined by them as the productive characteristic of immaterial labor. Unlike Hardt and Negri, who emphasize the immateriality of labor, Fuchs provides a more material conceptual framework for describing the transformation of labor forms. In his view, the definition of digital labor should simultaneously cover various forms of labor related to information and communication technology, “because they are components of the total labor necessary for the existence, use, and application of digital media.” [8]8 Christian Fuchs, *Digital Labour and Karl Marx* (New York: Routledge, 2014), p. 25. He believes that the impact of digital technology on labor forms is reflected not only in the labor process of immaterial production but also in the international division of labor; it is this division of labor that connects labor forces that are originally unrelated and not traditionally defined into a totality of digitalized production. However, whether it is immaterial labor or digital labor, the more noteworthy question is: Are the labor forms not accommodated by traditional definitions productive labor, or are they at best a rather radical expression in the minds of thinkers?

今天，当一部分学者在思考智能化与自动化机器体系是否将取代人类成为一种新的劳动主体时，另一部分学者则致力于思考劳动形态的当代转型。正如“人工智能”这一术语本身所表达的那样，有多少智能就有多少人工，人类劳动的替代与转型是同一过程的不同结果，二者的差异在于，智能机器只是接替人类劳动中用于解决复杂性事务的那一部分能力，而在新出现的劳动形态中，互动、参与、合作和表达情感的能力才是必不可少的核心环节。对此，迈克尔·哈特（Michael Hardt）和安东尼奥·奈格里（Antonio Negri）不无兴奋地指出：“劳动力的这种激烈的转换和将科学、交流与语言融入生产力的行为业已重新定义了整个劳动的现象学和全世界的生产景象。”这种转换也被他们二人重新定义为非物质劳动的生产性特征。与哈特和奈格里强调劳动的非物质性不同，福克斯为描述劳动形态转型提供了一个更为物质性的概念框架。在他看来，数字劳动的定义应当同时涵盖与信息通信技术相关的各种形式的劳动，“因为它们是数字媒体存在、使用和应用所必需的总体劳动的组成部分”。他认为，数字化技术对劳动形态的影响不仅体现在非物质性生产的劳动过程中，也体现在国际性的劳动分工中，正是这种分工将原本互不联系以及并非传统定义的劳动力联结成为一种数字化生产的总体性范畴。然而，不论是非物质劳动还是数字劳动，更值得关注的问题在于：不被传统定义所容纳的劳动形式究竟是属于生产劳动，还是充其量只是思想家们头脑中一个较为激进的表达？

In Marx’s exposition on productive labor, production is a category of labor oriented toward capital, “because the direct purpose and genuine product of capitalist production is surplus value, therefore only labor that directly produces surplus value is productive labor, only the exercise of labor power that directly produces surplus value is a productive worker, that is, only labor consumed directly in the production process for the value augmentation of capital is productive labor.” [9]9 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. I, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 34 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1994), p. 136. However, the economic determination of labor does not detach from its essential requirement as general productive labor, namely that labor is first and foremost a purposeful activity that produces use-values; this activity rises to the status of labor only under a very specific mode of production, that is, on the basis of capitalist production. Thus, the definition of productive labor can be summarized into three levels of stipulations: (1) labor is first an activity that produces use-values; (2) this activity of producing use-values is directly internal to the capitalist mode of production; (3) the direct purpose and genuine product of labor is the production and reproduction of surplus value. If we examine immaterial labor or digital labor within this logical framework, then the primary issue is not to emphasize the immateriality or informational external form of labor, but to inquire into the specific labor process and its corresponding labor results. First, regarding the production of use-values, the emergence of new forms of labor meets the needs of the digital age for participatory social interaction and the production of information-based knowledge products. Second, as discussed above, the production of data is not a direct appropriation of nature but a product of human activity; it participates in the process of value movement in contemporary capitalism not only in the form of raw materials but also in the form of commodities, thereby forming a digital mode of production centered on data-traffic and using platform-algorithm as its technical carrier. In this regard, the emergence of new forms of labor is not external to the capitalist mode of production but is precisely a product of this mode of production. Finally, the purpose of the digital mode of production itself is not oriented toward the improvement and upgrading of social interaction but still takes the production and reproduction of surplus value as its core goal. Whether it is the platform or the algorithm, behind their institutional design lies a profit surplus based on human labor and oriented toward value augmentation.

在马克思关于生产劳动的论述中，生产是劳动面向资本而言的生产范畴，“因为资本主义生产的直接目的和真正产物是剩余价值，所以只有直接生产剩余价值的劳动是生产劳动，只有直接生产剩余价值的劳动能力的行使者是生产工人，就是说，只有直接在生产过程中为了资本的价值增殖而消费的劳动才是生产劳动”。但劳动的经济规定性说明并未脱离其作为一般性生产劳动的本质要求，即劳动首先是一种制造使用价值的有目的的活动，这种活动上升为劳动的情况仅仅只是在一种十分特殊的生产方式，即资本主义生产的基础上才会发生。由此，生产劳动的界定便可概括为三个层面的规定性要求：（1）劳动首先是生产使用价值的活动；（2）这种生产使用价值的活动过程直接内在于资本主义生产方式之中；（3）劳动的直接目的和真正产物是剩余价值的生产与再生产。如果以此逻辑框架来观照非物质劳动或数字劳动，那么首要的问题便不在于强调劳动的非物质性或信息化的外在形式，而应当追问具体的劳动过程及其相应的劳动结果。首先，就使用价值的生产而言，新型劳动形态的出现适用于数字化时代人们对参与性社会交往的需要，以及从事信息类知识产品生产的需要。其次，如上文所述，数据的生产并非是对自然的直接占有，而是人类活动的产物，它不仅以原材料的形式，也以商品的形式参与到当代资本主义价值运动的过程之中。进而形成一种以数据—流量为核心、以平台—算法为技术载体的数字生产方式。就此而言，新型劳动形态的产生并非外在于资本主义生产方式，而恰恰是这种生产方式的产物。最后，数字生产方式的目的本身也并非导向社会性交往的完善与升级，而是依旧以剩余价值的生产与再生产为核心目标。无论是平台还是算法，其制度性设计的背后依旧是以人类劳动为基础的、以价值增殖为导向的利润盈余。

Therefore, digital labour belongs to productive labour, but the delimitation of the extension of the category of digital labour should be strictly confined within the capitalist mode of production of digital capitalism. Only by proceeding from the abstract relationship between labour and capital can a contemporary definition of labour be effective. This also means that, on the one hand, as capital gradually expands into areas that were previously not marketised, such as emotion, communication and even daily leisure, we should expand the definition of modern labour and the scope of the definition of productive labour. As Axel Honneth, reviewing the brief history of the development of labour as a modern concept, has pointed out, “socially necessary labour must now include those kinds of work that appear to be of decisive value to society, regardless of whether this work is more related to objects, to symbols, or is accomplished within a framework of communication.” On the other hand, while expanding the scope of an abstract concept in accordance with its essential determinations, we should also pay attention to the boundaries of the concept’s own extension, rather than indiscriminately subsuming concrete reality under abstract concepts. As Marx pointed out in his critique of classical political economy, the definition of productive labour should avoid falling into the logical paradox of tautology, as if “all labour that produces something, that results in a product or some use-value, in short, that results in some outcome, is productive labour.” [10]10 Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, Part 1, Chapter 4. Thus, the inspiration of Marx’s theory of labour for the study of digital labour lies precisely in the fact that, whether “digital” serves as a prefix to “labour” or “labour” serves as the subject of “digitalisation”, in the dynamic derivation of essence and extension, the description of the concrete state of labour should never neglect the conceptual boundary of the essence of labour.

因此，数字劳动属于生产劳动，但对数字劳动这一范畴外延的界定应当严格限定于数字资本主义生产方式之中。只有从劳动与资本的抽象关系出发，劳动的当代定义才行之有效。这也意味着，一方面，随着资本逐渐扩展到从前并未被市场化的领域，如情感、交往乃至日常休闲等领域，我们应当扩展关于现代劳动的定义，以及关于生产劳动的界定范围。正如阿克塞尔·霍耐特（Axel Honneth）通过回顾劳动作为一个现代概念的发展简史时所指出的那样，“社会必要劳动现在必须包括那些看起来对社会具有决定性价值的工作，无论这些工作更多地是与物品相关、与符号相关还是在交流的框架内完成的”。而另一方面，在依循本质性规定而扩展抽象概念范畴的同时，我们也应当注意范畴自身的外延界限，而不是一味地用抽象的概念统摄具体的现实。正如马克思在对古典政治经济学的批判中所指出的那样，生产劳动的界定应当避免落入同义反复的逻辑怪论，好像“凡是进行生产，以产品或某种使用价值为结果，总之，以某种成果为结果的一切劳动，都是生产劳动”。由此，马克思劳动理论对数字劳动研究的启示恰恰在于，无论是“数字”作为“劳动”的前缀，还是“劳动”作为“数字化”的主语，在本质与外延的动态衍生中，对于具体劳动状态的描述始终不应忽视作为劳动本质的概念边界。

Then, within the theoretical framework of productive justification, how does digital labour differ from knowledge labour, affective labour and immaterial labour? Strictly speaking, the scope of the definition of immaterial labour can simultaneously encompass knowledge labour and affective labour. As Maurizio Lazzarato, the proponent of this concept, states, so-called immaterial labour is nothing other than “the labour that produces the informational and cultural content of the commodity”, because under the new technological and social context, production increasingly points to a subjective production of knowledge. However, the rise of knowledge labour and affective labour actually corresponds to the birth of a cognitive capitalism. This series of categories merely emphasises the key role of the “general intellect”, or in other words the “multitude intellect”, in the current capitalist mode of production, and highlights the prominent role of subjective content such as knowledge, communication and emotional output in the production process (or labour process). Therefore, whether it is knowledge labour, immaterial labour, or affective labour, these new forms of labour all attempt to describe the subjective conditions of the transformation of contemporary labour forms from the dimensions of the concrete results of activity and the labour capacity of the subject. In the view of immaterialist theorists such as Paolo Virno, Lazzarato and Negri, it is precisely these subjective conditions that foreshadow the dual character of the future of capitalism: on the one hand, immaterial labour signifies capital’s capture of labour subjectivity; on the other hand, the expansion of labour subjectivity will ultimately lead to the arrival of a free utopia for labourers. In this regard, immaterialist theorists have, to some extent, indeed revealed the dialectical movement of subjective production, but this dialectical character points only to the external form of production, not to the internal essence of production. Precisely for this reason, immaterialist theorists have both overestimated the utopian vision of “free labour” and missed the capitalist foundation of material production and valorisation, and are even less able to explain how to view the problem of the intellectual privilege class, or in other words the cognitariat, within an increasingly complex class structure.

那么，在生产性证成的理论框架之下，数字劳动又是如何区别于知识劳动、情感劳动和非物质劳动的呢？严格来讲，非物质劳动的定义范围可同时涵盖知识劳动和情感劳动，正如这一概念的提出者莫利兹奥·拉扎拉托（Maurizio Lazzarato）所言，所谓非物质劳动无非是“生产商品信息和文化内容的劳动”，因为在新的技术背景和社会背景下，生产更多指向的是一种知识的主体性生产。但是知识劳动和情感劳动的兴起实际上对应的是一种认知资本主义的诞生，这一系列范畴组合无非是强调“一般智能”（general intellect），或言之“大众智能”（multitude intellect）在当前资本主义生产方式中的关键作用，强调知识、沟通以及情绪输出等主体性内容在生产过程（或劳动过程）当中的突出作用。因此，无论是知识劳动、非物质劳动，还是情感劳动，这些新型劳动形态皆试图从具体活动结果和主体劳动能力的维度描述当代劳动形态转型的主观条件。而在保罗·维尔诺（Paolo Virno）、拉扎拉托和奈格里等非物质主义论者看来，恰恰是这种主观条件预示着资本主义未来的双重特性，即一方面，非物质劳动意味着资本对劳动主体性的捕获；另一方面，劳动主体性的扩大终将导致劳动者的自由乌托邦的到来。就此而言，非物质主义论者在某种程度上确实揭示了主体性生产的辩证运动，但这种辩证性却仅仅指向了外在的生产形式，而非内在的生产本质。正因如此，非物质主义论者既高估了“自由劳动”的乌托邦愿景，也错失了物质生产和价值增殖的资本主义基础，更无法解释如何在日益复杂的阶级关系中看待智识特权阶级，或言之知产阶级（cognitariat）的问题。

In contrast, digital labour emphasises the concrete positioning of the objective structure generated by digitalised labour from the dimensions of the current digital mode of production, the international division of labour and the mode of labour organisation. Whether under material or immaterial conditions, the relationship between labour and capital has never departed from the capitalist structure that advocates exploitation, control and the extraction of surplus value. Although there has always been a suspicion of unclear and ambiguous theoretical definition in existing studies of digital labour, the rise of the concept of digital labour at least indicates that capital is still extracting surplus value from human labour; that is, the relationship between labour and capital remains subject to an unequal relationship of domination. In this sense, the so-called disappearance of toilsome labour, or the birth of free labour, is nothing more than an intensified version of capitalist ideology in the contemporary social field.

与此不同的是，数字劳动强调从当前的数字生产方式、国际性的劳动分工和劳动组织方式的维度，去具体定位数字化劳动生成的客观结构。无论是物质性条件还是非物质性条件，劳动与资本的关系始终未脱离主张剥削、控制与榨取剩余价值的资本主义结构。尽管在现有的数字劳动研究中始终存在着在理论上界定不明、含混模糊的嫌疑，但数字劳动概念的兴起至少表明，资本依旧在从人类劳动中榨取剩余价值，也就是说，劳动与资本的关系依旧受制于不平等的支配关系。在这个意义上，所谓苦役劳动的消逝，或言之自由劳动的诞生，都不过是资本主义意识形态在当代社会领域的强化版本。

III. Digital Technology and Capitalism: Does Digital Capitalism Constitute a Completely New Mode of Production?

三、数字技术与资本主义：数字资本主义是否构成全新的生产方式？

Since the 1980s, with the advent and popularisation of personal computers and the World Wide Web, the computational rationality that re-evaluates all private life, daily life and economic life has gradually become an important dimension defining the current social structure. This point is constantly confirmed and reinforced in conceptual claims such as “information society”, “post-industrial society” and “digital age”. Consequently, amidst the wave of these endless new phenomena, the assertion that society has undergone a fundamental transformation has also greatly impacted our current understanding of the developmental trend of capitalism: that is, is the current society a capitalist society or a digital society? There is no doubt that, in terms of the state of the productive forces, contemporary society is indeed a fully digitalised society, but the people of the Western world still live in a society dominated by capitalist class relations. In capitalist society, while some changes currently taking place promote a tremendous increase in productive forces, they also strongly solidify the class structure based on the disparity between rich and poor. The emergence of the term “digital capitalism” is precisely a theoretical response to this dialectical movement between productive forces and relations of production. Therefore, the contemporary society structured by digital technology should be seen as a higher demand placed at the level of productive forces by capital accumulation and the reproduction of class relations, the purpose of which is to strengthen capital’s exploitation of labour through technological growth, thereby achieving the goal of greater capital accumulation, the result of which is manifested in an increasingly complex capitalist economic form and its class structure. So, does this further indicate that digital capitalism constitutes a completely new mode of production?

自1980年代以来，随着个人电脑以及万维网的问世与普及，重估一切私人生活、日常生活以及经济生活的计算理性逐渐成为定义当前社会结构的重要维度。在诸如“信息社会”“后工业社会”“数字化时代”等概念主张中，这一点始终被不断地印证与加强。于是，在这些新事物层出不穷的浪潮中，关于社会发生根本性转变的论断也极大地冲击着今天我们对资本主义发展趋势的理解，即当前的社会究竟是资本主义社会还是数字社会？毫无疑问，就生产力的状况而言，当代社会确实是一个全面数字化的社会，但是西方世界的民众也依旧生活在一个由资本主义阶级关系所主导的社会之中。在资本主义社会，当前正在发生的某些变化在促进生产力巨大提升的同时，也强烈地固化了基于贫富不均的阶级结构。“数字资本主义”这一术语的出现正是对这种生产力与生产关系之间所发生的辩证运动的理论回应。因此，应当将由数字技术所构架的当代社会看作是资本积累和阶级关系再生产在生产力层面所提出的更高要求，其目的在于通过技术的增长以加强资本对劳动的剥削，从而实现更多资本的积累目标，其结果表现为日益复杂的资本主义经济形式及其阶级结构。那么，这是否进一步表明数字资本主义构成了一种全新的生产方式？

In the descriptions of digital capitalism by scholars such as Bétancourt, Timo Daum, Philipp Staab, Timo Seidl, Ken Mori, and Hiroyuki Hino, digital capitalism points respectively to a new mode of production, a new business model, a new accumulation model, and a new economic system. These judgments of transformation, prefixed with “entirely new,” focus on the emergence of a new technological production system driven by automated production, big data, and artificial intelligence. In their view, the era of large-scale machine industrial production is about to pass, to be replaced by a more extraordinary intelligent production. In fact, theorists’ cheers over socio-technical change are understandable, because the effects of change occurring in the current social sphere do indeed deeply shake the foundations on which we once lived, at the cultural, technological, and conceptual levels. However, theoretical optimism does not mean that new production technologies can truly create an entirely new space of value, such that all links in production no longer relate to labor. In Volume 2 of *Capital*, Marx, when summarizing the theory of the production process, made the judgment that both the production of absolute surplus value and the production of relative surplus value determine “1. the duration of the daily labor process; 2. the entire social and technical form of the capitalist production process.” [11]11 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 2, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 24, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 60. Regarding the first point, the birth of digital technology concerns not only the digital and intelligent transformation of production but also gives rise to Digital Taylorism [12]12 Digital Taylorism: The application of Frederick Taylor’s principles of scientific management—breaking down tasks, measuring performance, and optimizing efficiency—to digitally mediated labor, often through algorithmic surveillance and micro-management. regarding how to manage labor, the purpose of which is to maximize production efficiency with minimal cost outlay. Thus, labor does not disappear from the production sphere but integrates into the management model of digital technology in a more refined and tighter manner. Regarding the second point, the relationship between capital’s production of surplus value and technological change is that the former determines the latter, not the latter determines the former. It is precisely within the competitive trend of capital’s pursuit of profit that the development of the socio-technical system obtains its due impetus. Therefore, in viewing digital capitalism through technological change, we should discard isolated and purely technical categories. In fact, technology is not neutral, nor can it be independent of the existing capital system. Corresponding to technological transformation are adaptive transformations in labor forms and capital forms. Only by basing ourselves on this can we accurately grasp the core characteristics of digital capitalism from the theoretical height of historical materialism.

在贝当古、提莫·道姆（Timo Daum）、菲利普·斯塔布（Philipp Staab）、提莫·赛德尔（Timo Seidl）、森健和日户浩之等学者对数字资本主义的描述中，数字资本主义分别指向了新的生产模式、新的商业模式、新的积累模式以及新的经济体系。这些贯之以“全新”前缀的转变论断关注的是以自动化生产和由大数据、人工智能所驱动的新技术生产体系的诞生。在他们看来，大机器工业生产的时代即将成为过去，取而代之的将是更为超凡的智能生产。事实上，理论家们关于社会技术变革的欢呼无可厚非，因为在当前的社会领域中所发生的变革效应，的的确确在文化、技术和观念层面上深深地震撼着我们曾经赖以生活的根基，但理论上的乐观并不表明新的生产技术真的能够创造出一个全新的价值空间，以至于一切生产环节都不再与劳动发生关联。在《资本论》第2卷中，马克思在总结生产过程理论时曾作过如此判断，即无论是绝对剩余价值的生产还是相对剩余价值的生产，都决定着“1.每天劳动过程的持续时间；2.资本主义生产过程全部社会的和技术的形态”。就第一点而言，数字技术的诞生不仅关乎生产的数字化与智能化转变，也催生出关于如何管理劳动的数字泰勒主义（Digital Taylorism），其目的在于以最小的成本支出实现最大化的生产效率。因而，劳动不是消失于生产领域，而是以更精巧且更严密的方式融入数字技术的管理模式当中。而就第二点而言，资本关于剩余价值的生产与技术变革之间的关系，是前者决定后者，而非后者决定前者。正是在资本逐利的竞争趋势当中，社会技术体系的发展才获得了应有的动力。因此，以技术变革来看待数字资本主义，我们应当摒除孤立且纯粹的技术范畴。实际上，技术并非中立，也无法独立于现存的资本体系。与技术转型相对应而生的是劳动形态以及资本形态的适应性转型。唯有立足于此，才能从历史唯物主义的理论高度准确把握数字资本主义的核心特质。

From this perspective, Fuchs’s definition of digital capitalism provides us with a comprehensive viewpoint that combines the theoretical tools of historical materialism with the economic reality of digital capitalism. Fuchs does not describe digital capitalism as an entirely new whole, or in other words, a new social formation. In his view, digital capitalism is merely a new feature and a new dimension of the capitalist social formation, and this new feature is closely related to the transformation of the socio-technical paradigm and the expansion process of global information capitalism. First, new digital technologies and information and communication technologies are achieving the ultimate goal of integrating the world market by constructing global network structures. This provides the basic technical conditions for the spatial expansion of capital. Second, closely linked to the global expansion of capital is the trend of accelerating the commodification of labor power. Whether it is decentralized labor under the crowdsourcing model, joint labor under the platform model, or user labor under the network participatory model, these unstable forms of labor organization “are precisely the inevitable result of the mutual penetration of digital capitalism and the flexible mechanism of the labor market.” Behind the prosperous scene of the digital economy lies both the micro-level exploitation of labor by capital and the macro-level exploitation of the less developed side by the developed side within the international division of labor structure. Finally, the expansion of capital and the generalization of labor, mediated by digital technology, ultimately give rise to more unequal power relations and hierarchical power structures. Platform monopoly and capital accumulation constitute the ultimate purpose of this expansion process. On the one hand, platforms can form comprehensive digital service integrations by relying on their powerful network effects and algorithmic capture, thereby attracting more users and their dynamic traffic. On the other hand, the basis of platform operation lies in the digital proprietary market it constructs. Whether it is raw data materials or processed digital products and their services, they can realize the conversion of commodity form and value form on the platform. Therefore, the birth of the platform takes market monopoly as its basic development trend, the purpose of which is to facilitate the ultimate form of platform capital. Behind the various emerging platform landscapes, the platform is striving to become an omnipresent mega-rentier, “it strives to embed itself into spaces, things, and interactions—especially those previously not subject to rentier relations—in order to continuously control access channels and extract value.” [13]13 Timo Daum, *Digital Capitalism*, trans. by Xiao Yan, Beijing: China Science and Technology Press, 2023, p. 36.

由是观之，福克斯关于数字资本主义的界定为我们提供了将历史唯物主义理论工具与数字资本主义经济现实相结合的综合视角。福克斯并未将数字资本主义描述为一种全新的整体，或言之全新的社会形态。在他看来，数字资本主义仅仅是资本主义社会构型的一个新的特征和新的维度，而这种新的特征与社会技术范式的转变以及全球信息资本主义的扩张过程密切相关。首先，新的数字技术与信息通信技术正通过构建全球性的网络结构以达到整合世界市场的终极目的。这为资本的空间性扩张提供了基础性的技术条件。其次，与资本全球扩张紧密相连的是劳动力加速商品化的趋势。无论是众包模式下的分散劳动，还是平台模式下的联合劳动，抑或是网络参与式的用户劳动，这些不稳定的劳动力组织方式“恰恰是数字资本主义和劳动力市场弹性机制相互渗透的必然结果”。在数字经济繁荣景象的背后，既是资本对劳动的微观剥削，也是国际劳动分工结构中发达一方对欠发达一方的宏观剥削。最后，资本的扩张与劳动的泛化最终在数字技术的中介之下催生出更为不平等的权力关系和等级化的权力结构，平台垄断与资本积累构成了这一扩张过程的终极目的。一方面，平台能够凭借其强大的网络效应和算法捕捉形成综合性的数字服务集成，以此吸引更多的用户及其动态流量。另一方面，平台运作的基础在于它所建构出的数字专有市场。无论是原始的数据原料，还是加工后的数字产品及其服务，都能在平台上实现商品形式与价值形式的转换。因此，平台的诞生是以市场的垄断作为其基本的发展趋势，其目的在于促成平台资本的终极形式。在各类新兴平台景观的背后，平台正致力于成为无所不在的巨型食利者，“它努力将自己植入空间、事物和互动——尤其是那些以前不受食利者关系支配的空间、事物和互动——之中，以期持续地控制访问渠道和获取价值”。

Therefore, from the extraction and appropriation of data, to the restructuring and transformation of labor, to the final formation of the platform ecosystem, in digital capitalism, the production of surplus value and the accumulation of capital simultaneously depend on a symbolic, immaterial, informational commodity system, as well as a cognitive, communicative, and cooperative labor system. Here, labor, commodities, capital, and surplus value still constitute a stubborn centripetal force as the basic aspects of digital capitalism. While giving rise to constantly changing production potential, they also strive to suppress this potential within a scope that can be digested by the capitalist system. Therefore, the aforementioned digital production mode, centered on data-traffic and using platform-algorithm as its technical carrier, does not describe an entirely new mode of production, nor does it completely replace previous industrial and financial models. Rather, it indicates that, under the influence of current digital technology productive forces, the digital production mode, together with industrial and financial models, plays a comprehensive role of capital. That is to say, on the one hand, “the so-called ‘digitalization’ is only a metaphorical expression; it does not mean that capitalism has truly shed its social material carrier, but rather implies that it has shed its earlier crude form and acquired a new, purer, and more refined form”; [14]14 Biliang Hu, “Digital Capitalism and the New Changes in the Mode of Production,” *Social Sciences in China*, 2023, no. 9, p. 70. on the other hand, the digital production mode does not constitute a total category; it has profound practical significance only when describing the extent to which the capitalist mode of production utilizes digital productive forces to accumulate capital within class relations. Therefore, the emergence of digital capitalism is “a transformative sublimation, but not a radical sublimation.” [15]15 Timo Daum, *Digital Capitalism*, p. 38. As Marx pointed out, “the capitalist mode of production and the development of the productive power of labor—both the cause and the result of accumulation,” [16]16 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 23, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 685. this digital productive force itself is also a historical result of capitalist development.

因此，从数据的提取与占有，到劳动的重构与转型，再到平台生态系统的最终形成，在数字资本主义中，剩余价值的生产与资本的积累同时依赖于象征性的、非物质性的、信息化的商品体系，以及认知性的、交流性的和合作性的劳动体系。在此，劳动、商品、资本和剩余价值，依旧作为数字资本主义的基本方面构成一种顽固的向心力，在催生不断变革的生产潜力的同时，又力求将这种潜力压制在能够被资本主义体制所消化的范围之内。因此，前述所谓以数据—流量为核心、以平台—算法为技术载体的数字生产方式并非描述一种全新的生产方式，也并非完全取代从前的产业与金融模式，而是表明在当前数字技术生产力的影响之下，数字化的生产模式与产业模式、金融模式一起发挥着综合性的资本作用。也即是说，一方面，“所谓‘数字化’只是一种比喻表达法，它并非意味着资本主义真的摆脱了它的社会物质载体，而是暗示着它摆脱了早期粗陋的形式而获得了新型的更为纯粹和精巧的形式”；另一方面，数字生产方式并非构成总体性的范畴存在，它只有在描述资本主义生产方式在何种程度上利用数字生产力来积累阶级关系中的资本时才具有深刻的现实意义。因此，数字资本主义的出现是“一种变革性的升华，但不是一种激进的升华”。正如马克思所指出的那样，“资本主义生产方式和劳动生产力的发展——既是积累的原因，又是积累的结果”，这种数字生产力本身也是资本主义发展的历史性结果。

IV. Conclusion

四、结 语

The perspective of historical materialism provides us with an effective analytical basis for dispelling the metaphor of the so-called digital myth today. Just like the aforementioned metaphor of the “cat organ,”[17]17 The “cat organ” (Katzenklavier) is a grotesque musical instrument described in 17th-century European writings, used here as a metaphor for how technological novelties are fetishized and turned into objects of irrational reverence. today every technological entity related to social change can seemingly become a sublime sacred object overnight, thereby bringing about a utopian vision of access to another reality. However, research on digital capitalism based on historical materialism shows that behind the myth of digital worship, the capitalist structure still plays the primary driving role, and the exertion of this driving role still relies on commodities, labor, and value as its foundation. For this reason, we should dialectically consider the transformation and upgrading of the socio-technical paradigm currently taking place in the social sphere. On the one hand, digitalization indeed offers new potential for creating a good, democratic socialist society; but on the other hand, under the existing class structure and social relations, the digital transformation does not overturn but rather intensifies the economic antagonism of exploitation between classes and the dominant social antagonism. While the digital mode of production makes the end of drudgery a possibility, it also implies the dual possibility of deepening class contradictions. Therefore, digital capitalism is first and foremost a digital class society. In this dimension, digital capitalism still shares the general commonality of the capitalist economy, emphasizing capital’s exploitation and domination of labor. This also means that to realize the transition from digital capitalism to digital socialism, it is necessary both to firmly grasp the epochal opportunity of current technological change and to promote the further development of modern civilization, and also to continuously transform the relations of production and social relations that are compatible with the productive forces of modern society. Only in this way can the civilizational vision of technology open up toward the comprehensive development of human beings and the healthy functioning of society.

历史唯物主义的视野为我们今天破除所谓数字神话的隐喻提供了一个有效的分析基础。如同前述“猫咪风琴”的隐喻一般，今天似乎一切关乎社会变革的技术存在物都能在一夜之间成为崇高的神圣之物，由此带来关于通向另一种现实的乌托邦愿景。然而，基于历史唯物主义对数字资本主义开展的研究表明，在数字化崇拜的迷思背后，资本主义结构依旧发挥着主要的驱动作用，而这种驱动作用的发挥仍旧要以商品、劳动和价值作为基础。为此，我们应当辩证地思考在当前的社会领域中发生的社会技术范式的转变与升级。一方面，数字化的确为创造一个良好的、民主的社会主义社会提供了新的潜力；但是另一方面，在既有的阶级结构与社会关系之下，数字化的转型不是颠覆而是强化了阶级间剥削的经济对立和支配性的社会对立。数字生产方式在使苦役劳动的终结成为一种可能的同时，也暗含着加深阶级矛盾的双重可能。因此，数字资本主义首先是一个数字化的阶级社会，在这一维度上，数字资本主义依旧共享着资本主义经济，强调资本对劳动的剥削与统治的一般共性。而这也意味着，若要实现从数字资本主义向数字社会主义的过渡，既需要牢牢把握当前技术变革的时代机遇，推动现代文明的进一步发展，也需要不断变革与现代社会生产力相适应的生产关系和社会关系。唯有如此，技术的文明愿景才能向人的全面发展和社会的良性运转敞开。

(Authors: Chen Meng, Center for Studies of Marxist Social Theory, Nanjing University; Department of Philosophy, Nanjing University; Lan Jiang, Center for Studies of Marxist Social Theory, Nanjing University)

（作者：陈朦，南京大学马克思主义社会理论研究中心，南京大学哲学系；蓝江，南京大学马克思主义社会理论研究中心）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心