The Property-Rights Logic of Technological Colonialism and Its Critique

In the current changes in the world situation, Western capitalist countries attempt to maintain their dominant position in the political, economic, cultural and other spheres through the property-rights advantages of technology. Consequently, a “technological cold war” situation has emerged, centering on the core interests of intellectual property rights, invention patents, and scientific copyrights. Some Western capitalist countries use the advanced technology they hold to carry out political intervention, economic sanctions, and cultural erosion against late-developing countries, thereby further achieving the goal of capital expansion. This is in fact a form of technological colonialism. To reveal the essence of this technological colonialism, it is necessary to delve into the property-rights logic upon which technological colonialism relies. A profound analysis and critique of the property-rights logic of technological colonialism is conducive to curbing the hegemonic attempts of Western capitalist countries to crush other nations through a “technological cold war,” and also helps to develop international relations of equal, democratic, and win-win cooperation in technological property rights.

在当今世界变局中，西方资本主义国家试图通过技术的产权优势维持自己在政治、经济、文化等领域的强势地位。于是，就出现了以知识产权、发明专利权和科学著作权为核心利益的“科技冷战”局面。一些西方资本主义国家利用手中掌握的先进技术对后发国家进行政治干预、经济制裁、文化侵蚀，从而进一步达到资本扩张的目的，这实则是一种技术殖民主义行径。揭示这种技术殖民主义的本质，必须深入到技术殖民主义所倚仗的产权逻辑中。对技术殖民主义产权逻辑的深刻剖析及批判，有利于遏制西方资本主义国家v通过“科技冷战”来击垮他国的霸权企图，也有助于发展国际间的平等、民主、共赢的技术产权合作关系。

I. The Origins and Characteristics of Technological Colonialism

一、技术殖民主义的起源及特征

Colonialism originates from the global expansion of capitalism. Marx and Engels pointed out: “The markets of East India and China, the colonization of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known.” [1]1 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto* (1848). Colonialism is the control of backward countries by capitalist powers for the purpose of capital expansion, and in traditional old colonialism this control was often achieved by means of military aggression. Looking at the entire history of capitalist development, traditional old colonialism appeared from the very birth of capitalism and continued until the end of the Second World War. With the perfection of the nation-state system and the establishment of a new world order, traditional old colonialism subsequently withdrew from the historical stage. But colonialism did not exit; it merely changed its means of colonization. The main characteristic of neocolonialism is “outwardly recognizing the right of independence of the formerly colonized and dependent peoples, while in fact adopting various deceptive methods to control and infiltrate politically independent countries from political, economic, and military aspects, serving their struggle for world hegemony and spheres of influence.” [2]2 This definition of neocolonialism is a standard formulation in Chinese Marxist scholarship, often cited from textbooks or official documents on international relations. Although political colonialism by means of military intervention is no longer the main manifestation of neocolonialism, economic colonialism, cultural colonialism, and even ecological colonialism have become important ways for developed capitalist countries to control and exploit developing countries. Some developed countries, by utilizing their own first-mover advantages and the urgent development needs of backward countries, create a one-sided and strong dependency relationship in these countries awaiting development. However, after more than half a century, neocolonialism has not brought the expected results for capitalism; on the contrary, it has fostered a new situation—the independent and autonomous consciousness of colonized regions and peoples has become stronger. Therefore, for developed capitalist countries, it became necessary to find a new form of colonization to maintain their position in the world order. And technological colonialism formally stepped onto the stage as an independent entity against this background.

殖民主义源于资本主义的全球扩张。马克思、恩格斯指出：“东印度和中国的市场、美洲的殖民化、对殖民地的贸易、交换手段和一般商品的增加，使商业、航海业和工业空前高涨。”殖民主义是资本主义强国以资本扩张为目的对落后国家的控制，而这种控制在传统的旧殖民主义中常常以军事侵略的手段实现。从整个资本主义的发展史来看，传统的旧殖民主义从资本主义诞生之日起就已出现，一直持续到第二次世界大战结束。随着民族国家体系的完善和新世界秩序的确立，传统的旧殖民主义随之退出历史舞台。但殖民主义并没有退场，而只是改变了殖民的手段。新殖民主义的主要特征是“表面上承认原殖民地附属国人民独立的权利，而实际上却采取种种欺骗手段，从政治、经济和军事各方面，对已获得政治独立的国家实行控制和渗透，为他们争夺世界霸权和势力范围服务”。虽然以军事干预为手段的政治殖民已不再是新殖民主义的主要表现，但经济殖民、文化殖民甚至是生态殖民已成为发达资本主义国家控制和剥削发展中国家的重要途径。一些发达国家利用自身的先发优势和落后国家亟待发展的需求，使这些待发展的国家产生单方面的强依赖关系。然而，经历半个多世纪后，新殖民主义并没有给资本主义带来预期的结果，相反却促成了一个新的局面——被殖民地区和民族的独立自主意识更加强烈。因此，对于发达资本主义国家来说，就需要找到一种新的殖民方式来维持自己在世界秩序中的地位。而技术殖民主义就是在这一背景中以独立的身份正式登场的。

The reason it is said that technological colonialism only formally stepped onto the stage as an “independent entity” at this time is that technological colonialism has in fact always existed throughout the entire historical process of neocolonialism, and even traditional old colonialism. When capitalism was opening up the world market, Marx and Engels already observed: “The old national industries have been destroyed and are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized nations.” [3]3 Marx and Engels, *The Communist Manifesto*. In neocolonialism, the economic colonial activities of developed capitalist countries included the monopoly and control of knowledge and technology. For example, the World Bank, dominated by the United States, “can not only mobilize and transfer huge material resources, but also possesses enormous research capabilities and rich academic resources.” [4]4 This characterization of the World Bank reflects a common critical perspective in Chinese academic discourse, emphasizing its role in maintaining Western dominance. The World Bank itself is a huge economic and technological institution. From this perspective, while capitalist countries completed political, economic, and cultural colonization, they also effectively completed the capitalist “primitive accumulation” of technology. But this “primitive accumulation” did not directly manifest itself in the form of material objects like means of production; rather, it was implicit in each colonial stage, running through them in a conceptual or intangible manner. At the present stage, however, technological colonization increasingly presents itself in an independent and direct posture. In the process of capital expansion, the mode of colonization has shifted from control over the economy and culture to control over technology. This control is premised on absolute dependence on technology. In other words, the social development of late-developing countries has reached a stage where they must break through the bottleneck of old technology to create a new technological civilization in order to transform the entire social status quo. At this point, developed capitalist countries have established a technological colonial system centered on strong technological linkages. Therefore, technological colonization manifests as a relationship of technological subordination between countries and regions. As Marx and Engels pointed out, the capitalist relations of production “make barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on civilized ones, make peasant nations dependent on bourgeois nations, make the East dependent on the West.” [5]5 Marx and Engels, *The Communist Manifesto*. Capitalist technological colonization makes technologically backward countries dependent on technologically advanced countries.

之所以说技术殖民主义是在此时才以“独立的身份”正式登场，是因为技术殖民主义实则一直存在于整个新殖民主义，甚至是传统的旧殖民主义历史进程中。在资本主义开辟世界市场时，马克思、恩格斯就看到：“古老的民族工业被消灭了，并且每天都还在被消灭。它们被新的工业排挤掉了，新的工业的建立已经成为一切文明民族的生命攸关的问题。”在新殖民主义中，发达资本主义国家的经济殖民活动就包含着对知识和技术的垄断和控制。例如，由美国主导的世界银行，“不仅可以动员和转移巨大的物质资源，而且拥有巨大的研究力量和丰富的学术资源”。世界银行本身就是一个庞大的经济技术机构。由此而言，资本主义国家在完成政治殖民、经济殖民、文化殖民的同时，实际上也完成了技术的资本主义“原始积累”。但这种“原始积累”并不是像生产资料一样以物的形式直接呈现的，而是隐含在各殖民阶段中，以观念或无形的方式贯穿其中。而在现阶段，技术殖民则越来越以独立且直接的姿态呈现。在资本扩张的过程中，殖民方式从对经济文化的控制转变为对技术的控制。这种控制是以对技术的绝对依赖为前提的。换言之，后发国家的社会发展已经到了这样一个阶段，即必须突破旧技术的瓶颈，从而创造新的科技文明才能变革整个社会现状。这个时候，发达资本主义国家建立了以技术的强关联为中心的技术殖民体系。因此，技术殖民呈现出国家和地区之间的技术从属关系。正如马克思、恩格斯所指出的，资本主义的生产关系“使未开化和半开化的国家从属于文明的国家，使农民的民族从属于资产阶级的民族，使东方从属于西方”。资本主义的技术殖民使技术落后的国家从属于技术先进的国家。

The subordinate relationship brought about by technological colonialism has the following characteristics. First, deep concealment. Developed capitalist countries maintain technological subordinate relationships with developing countries by signing a series of technological cooperation agreements, thereby gaining an advantageous position in legal theory and cloaking technological colonialism in a guise of “legitimacy.” Moreover, this colonial activity operates under the banner of “voluntary cooperation,” weakening its hegemonic overtones. The independence of political power conceals the subordination of technology. Under the camouflage of political freedom, developed capitalist countries in fact hold the discourse power over technology. Universal technical standards, the prospects for future technological development, the principles for distributing technological property, and a series of rules for technological research, development, and application are all dominated by developed capitalist countries and based on their value criteria. In addition, the global penetration of consumerist culture increases the concealment of this hegemonic technological discourse. In particular, the circulation and promotion of technological products have gradually made people around the world feel the convenience and efficiency that science and technology bring to production and daily life. The fetishism of technology is an extreme manifestation of contemporary consumerist thought; its essence is the socialized form of technological colonialism. Second, strong control. Against the backdrop of the information and digital industrial revolution, people’s production and daily life increasingly depend on high-end, core, and key technologies. Whoever masters these high-end, core, and key technologies not only leads the direction of this industrial revolution at the macro level but also dominates people’s actual lives at the micro level. Therefore, technological colonialism is a systemic form of colonialism. It breaks the earlier colonial model in which developed capitalist countries colonized developing countries in single areas such as the economy, culture, and ecology, instead forming a colonization of the entire social system of other countries by means of technological control. As one can imagine, its control far exceeds that of earlier single-area forms of colonialism. More importantly, this control intensifies with the formation of Western “technology alliances.” Third, extreme oligopolization. The capitalist “primitive accumulation” of technology has led to a high degree of technological concentration, and the processes of economic and cultural colonialism have further widened the global “wealth-poverty” gap in technology. The production of technology has gradually become the patent and strong suit of developed capitalist countries. On one pole, developed capitalist countries use strong-arm measures such as political hegemony, economic sanctions, and even military intervention to maintain and consolidate the unilateralism and “Western priority” principle of technological development, in order to control and hold the advantageous conditions for scientific and technological resources and their production; on the other pole, the technological impoverishment of colonized countries means that more and more countries and regions are reduced to technological colonies. On the one hand, the spread of technology directly promotes the interconnection of humanity as a community, with everyone drawn into the process of the industrial revolution; on the other hand, technological competition within developed capitalist countries can reshape the existing world order, and some slower-developing capitalist countries may become colonized countries. These three characteristics of technological colonialism distinguish it both from traditional old colonialism and from the new colonialism dominated by economic and cultural colonialism. Technological colonialism is the contemporary form of Western colonialism and a new link in the capitalist colonial system.

技术殖民所带来的这种从属关系具有以下几个特点：一是深度的隐匿性。发达资本主义国家通过签订一系列技术合作协定与发展中国家保持技术从属关系，从而在法理上占据有利条件，使技术殖民披上了“合法性”的外衣。而且这种殖民活动又打着“自愿合作”的旗号，弱化了其强权的色彩。政权的独立性掩盖了技术的从属性。在政治自由的掩饰下，发达资本主义国家实际掌握了技术话语权。普遍的技术标准、未来技术的发展前景、技术财产的分配原则等一系列技术研发应用规则，都由发达资本主义国家主导，并以它们的价值准则为依据。另外，消费主义文化的全球渗透加强了技术话语强权的隐匿性。特别是技术产品的流通和推广，使世界各国人民逐渐感受到科技给生产生活带来的便利与高效。技术拜物教是当今消费主义思潮的极端表现，其实质是技术殖民的社会化样态。二是强控制力。在信息化、数字化的产业革命背景下，人们的生产生活越来越离不开高端的关键核心技术。谁掌握了这些高端的关键核心技术，谁就不仅在宏观层面引领这场产业革命的方向，而且在微观层面主导人们的现实生活。因此，技术殖民是一种系统性的殖民。它打破了原来发达资本主义国家对发展中国家在经济、文化、生态等单方面领域的殖民模式，而是形成以技术控制为手段，对他国整个社会体系的殖民。可想而知，其控制力远远超出了以往单方面殖民的形式。更重要的是，这种控制力随着西方“技术联盟”的形成愈演愈烈。三是极端寡头化。技术的资本主义“原始积累”导致了技术的高度集中化，加之经济殖民和文化殖民的过程更拉开了世界范围内在技术上的“贫富”差距。技术的生产逐渐变为发达资本主义国家的专利和强项。其中，一极表现为发达资本主义国家为掌握和控制科技资源及其生产的有利条件，利用政治强权、经济制裁甚至军事干预等强硬手段，保持和巩固技术发展的单边主义和“西方优先”原则；另一极则是被殖民国家的技术贫困化，这意味着越来越多的国家和地区沦为技术的殖民地。一方面，技术的普及直接促进了人类这一共同体的相互关联，每个人都被卷入产业革命的进程中；另一方面，发达资本主义国家内部的技术竞争会改变原有世界秩序的格局，一些发展较慢的资本主义国家会沦为被殖民国家。技术殖民主义的三个特征既区别于传统的旧殖民主义，也有别于以经济殖民和文化殖民为主导的新殖民主义。技术殖民主义是西方殖民主义的当代形态，是资本主义殖民体系的新环节。

II. Technological Property Rights and Capital Power: The Logical Structure of Technological Colonialism

二、技术产权与资本权力：技术殖民主义的逻辑结构

As a new link in the capitalist colonial system, technological colonialism is more adapted to the changes in the contemporary world pattern dominated by the logic of capital and to the transformations in people’s actual lives; it is a new means of capital expansion suited to the changes in the contemporary world situation. Because of the unique position of technology in social development, more and more countries and regions, whether as victims or beneficiaries, consciously or unconsciously become involved in this new colonial system. This is mainly because technological colonialism has a unique and seemingly self-evident basis: technological property rights. In general legal theory, the meaning of property rights is very clear; it usually refers to property rights or real rights, that is, the right to own and dispose of property or objects. This includes the right to decide who owns a certain property or object, who uses it, and who controls it. In terms of content, it embodies the relationship between people and objects. Similarly, technological property rights are the right to own and dispose of technology. But beyond embodying the relationship between people and objects, it also embodies the relationship between people and themselves. Because technology is the objectification of human capacity, when we say “we possess a certain technology,” this not only means that we possess a certain object, but more importantly, that we have mastered the capacity to create that object. From this perspective, technological property rights refer to a kind of ownership and disposal right with a subjective character. This subjective attribute unfolds as a process of subject objectification and object subjectification. Subject objectification refers to the realization of human ideational capacity (knowledge) into an object, while object subjectification refers to endowing an object with an ideational form and imprinting it with “the stamp of personality.”

技术殖民主义作为资本主义殖民体系的新环节，它更适应以资本逻辑为主导的当代世界格局的变化和人们现实生活的变迁，是适应当今世界变局的资本扩张新手段。因为技术在社会发展中的独特地位，越来越多的国家和地区都自觉或不自觉地，或作为受害者或作为受益者，而卷入这一新殖民体系中。这主要是由于，技术殖民主义有着独特的、看上去理所当然的依据，即技术产权。在一般的法的理论中，产权的意指是非常明确的，它通常指的是财产权或物权，即对于财产或物的所有权和处置权。这包含了决定某一财产或物归谁所有、由谁使用、由谁支配的权利。在内容上，它体现的是人和物的关系。同理，技术产权是对技术的所有权和处置权。但它除了体现为人与物的关系之外，还体现为人与自身的关系。因为技术是人的能力的对象化，当我们说“我们拥有某项技术”时，这不仅指的是我们拥有某物，更重要的是指我们掌握了创造某物的能力。由此而言，技术产权是指一种具有主体性特征的所有权和处置权。这种主体属性展开为主体客体化和客体主体化的过程。主体客体化指的是把人的观念化的能力（知识）实现为某物，而客体主体化指的是赋予某物以观念的形式并打上“人格的烙印”。

Like the emergence of all law, the relationship of rights and its concepts also originate from specific social existence. When we examine technological property rights, we must likewise follow the principle proposed by Marx: “In the study of economic categories, as in the study of any historical science or social science, it must always be kept in mind that the subject—here, modern bourgeois society—is given, both in reality and in the mind; hence the categories express the forms of existence, the determinations of existence, and often only individual aspects of this specific society, this subject.” The emergence and use of the category of technological property rights cannot be separated from the concrete conditions of technological development. Therefore, the concept of technological property rights that technological colonialism follows is expressed, throughout the development of the colonial system, as an ideology serving as its theoretical basis. Its substantive content has not departed from the capitalist view of rights. This view of rights takes the abstract natural person as its premise: the abstract view of rights treats the natural characteristics of human beings as innate, eternal, and unconditionally guaranteed human nature. Since the Western Enlightenment, political philosophers represented by Rousseau and Hobbes have regarded property rights as a unique right of human beings. Although property or objects are necessary conditions for human survival, they “are equally products of historical conditions, and only for these conditions and within these conditions do they have full applicability.” The key lies in the social basis of this abstract property right, which is based on the following fact: “the corresponding abstract categories, in accordance with the regularity of their logical structure, reflect those social relations that lie hidden behind the individual and exceed individual consciousness.” The study of technological property rights cannot depart from such a principle of analysis.

与一切法的产生一样，权利的关系及其观念也来源于特定的社会存在。我们在看待技术产权时，同样要遵循马克思所提出的原则：“在研究经济范畴的发展时，正如在研究任何历史科学、社会科学时一样，应当时刻把握住：无论在现实中或在头脑中，主体——这里是现代资产阶级社会——都是既定的；因而范畴表现这个一定社会即这个主体的存在形式、存在规定、常常只是个别的侧面。”技术产权这一范畴的产生和使用离不开技术发展的现实条件这一具体情境。因此，技术殖民主义所依循的技术产权观念是在整个殖民体系发展过程中，作为其理论依据的意识形态表达出来的。它的实体性内容仍没有脱离资本主义的权利观。这种权利观以抽象的自然人为前提：抽象的权利观把人的自然特性当成先天的、永恒的、必须无条件保障的人性。自西方启蒙运动起，以卢梭、霍布斯等为代表的政治哲学家就把财产权看作人类特有的权利。虽然财产或物是人类生存的必要条件，但它“同样是历史条件的产物，而且只有对于这些条件并在这些条件之内才具有充分的适用性”。关键在于这种抽象的财产权的社会基础，它基于以下的事实：“相应的抽象范畴按其逻辑结构的合规律性，反映出隐藏在个体背后且超出个体意识的那些社会关系。”对于技术产权的研究也离不开这样一种分析的原则。

Technological property rights embody the social relations between humans and themselves. However, when the capitalist concept of technological property rights abstracts humans into natural persons transcending history, thereby abstracting human rights into natural rights transcending society, then human subjectivity manifests as an independent atomic personality. Of course, this individual-centered consciousness of subjectivity once played a very important revolutionary role in history; it is the ideological premise of the rise of modernity. In Marx’s view, it is also the fundamental starting point of capitalist ideology. The capitalist concept of technological property rights is likewise rooted in this deep soil. Only, in the process of the objectification of this concept, it sublates the originally simple form of the thing. The “simple form of the thing” referred to here denotes all the material factors of capitalist production, such as capital, means of production, and commodities. On the one hand, these things represent the accumulation of workers’ labor; on the other hand, they represent private property. The former is the objectification of the worker’s independent personality, the latter the objectification of the capitalist’s independent personality. In other words, from the perspective of the social relations between humans and themselves, the worker confirms the existence of subjectivity in the thing, and the capitalist likewise confirms the modality of capital’s subjectivity in the thing. As a general form of property, technological property naturally also possesses the above characteristics of things. But in the capitalist concept of technological property rights, the substance of technological property, or the essence of this kind of thing, is a system of ideas, i.e., what we commonly call knowledge. Therefore, technological property rights are equated with intellectual property rights, and consequently the production of technology becomes the production of knowledge. This universal cognition has become the consensus of today’s technological civilization. However, reality is not so simple. Setting aside for now the difference between technology and knowledge, regarding technological production itself, when we regard it as the objectification of an independent personality, we have already fallen into the trap of what Marx called the “alienation of labor,” namely, “the object which labor produces – labor’s product – confronts it as something alien, as a power independent of the producer.” [7]7 Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, in *Marx Engels Collected Works* (MECW), vol. 3, p. 272. This opposition is already highlighted when the product of labor manifests as the objectification of the worker’s independent personality and the objectification of the capitalist’s independent personality. Under these circumstances, the entire system of human rights, including property rights, generated by society also manifests as an alien power, i.e., “possession appears as alienation, and alienation as possession, and alienation appears as truly obtaining civil rights.” [8]8 Karl Marx, *Comments on James Mill*, in *MECW*, vol. 3, p. 213.

技术产权体现为人与自身的社会性关系，但当资本主义技术产权观念把人抽象化为超越历史的自然人，从而把人的权利抽象化为超越社会的自然权利时，那么人的主体性就表现为独立的原子式的人格。当然，这种以个人为中心的主体性意识，在历史上曾经起到过非常重要的革命性的作用，它是现代性崛起的思想前提。在马克思看来，它也是资本主义意识形态的根本出发点。资本主义技术产权观念也同样根植于这一深层的土壤。只不过在这一观念的对象化过程中，它扬弃了原本单纯的物的形式。这里所说的“单纯的物的形式”指的是资本、生产资料、商品等资本主义生产的一切物的因素。这些物一方面代表了工人劳动的积累，另一方面代表了私人财产。前者是劳动者之独立人格的对象化，后者是资本家之独立人格的对象化。换言之，从人与自身的社会性关系来说，劳动者在物中确证了主体性的存在，资本家同样也在物中确认了资本的主体性的样态。技术财产作为一般的财产形式，当然也具备以上的物的特点。但在资本主义技术产权观念中，技术财产的实质或这一种物的本质是一个观念体系，即我们通常说的知识。因此，技术产权就与知识产权画上了等号，从而技术的生产就成了知识的生产。这一普遍性的认知已成为当今技术文明的共识。然而，现实却并没有这么简单。这里暂且先抛开技术与知识的差别不谈，就技术生产本身而言，当我们把它看成是独立人格的对象化时就已经落入马克思所说的“劳动异化”的窠臼中，即“劳动所生产的对象，即劳动的产品，作为一种异己的存在物，作为不依赖于生产者的力量，同劳动相对立”。这种对立实则在劳动产品表现为劳动者之独立人格的对象化和资本家之独立人格的对象化时就已经凸显出来。在此情形下，所生成的整个社会的包括财产权在内的人的权利系统也呈现出异己的力量，即“占有表现为异化、外化，而外化表现为占有，异化表现为真正得到公民权”。

Technological colonialism takes the above concept of property rights as its theoretical premise. But for technological colonialism to achieve the goal of capital expansion, the intervention of another factor is required: capital power. In modern society, the relationship between technology and capital is the same as the relationship between all other things and capital: technology arises from capital and is subordinate to capital. Under the rule of capital, “the machine becomes the form of capital, the power of capital over labor, the means for capital to suppress all demands of labor for independence. Here, in its very mission, the machine also becomes a form of capital hostile to labor.” [9]9 Karl Marx, *Capital*, vol. 1, in *MECW*, vol. 35, p. 425. As an important component of the means of production in capitalist society, technology is itself an indispensable element of capital. Since modern times, technological progress and capital expansion have been the same process. Among this, the popularization and large-scale application of technological production depend on capital drive. Capitalists continuously improve production tools to obtain high profits, thereby objectively promoting technological progress. Additionally, the vast wealth and resources brought by capital create material conditions for technological progress. Therefore, from the outset, technology is closely linked with capital at the level of production. And when the capitalist system becomes the political basis of modernity, technological property gains the guarantee of coercive force; the establishment and consolidation of technological property rights likewise rely on capital. Marx pointed out: “Capital is not a thing, but a definite social relation of production belonging to a definite historical social formation.” [10]10 Karl Marx, *Capital*, vol. 3, in *MECW*, vol. 37, p. 814. More precisely, capital embodies the relations of production between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The right basis for maintaining these relations is the ownership of private property. This means that all objectified products of humans existing in the form of things are subject to the domination of capital, and take the possession and domination of capital as their premise. Technological property can only function by means of the power of capital; only through the collusion of capital and technology can the powerful control of technology be realized.

技术殖民主义正是以上述的财产权观念为其理论前提的。但若要使技术殖民实现资本扩张的目的，则还需要另一因素的介入，即资本权力。在现代性社会中，技术与资本的关系和其他一切物与资本的关系一样，技术产生于资本并从属于资本。在资本的统治下，“机器成了资本的形式，成了资本驾驭劳动的权力，成了资本镇压劳动追求独立的一切要求的手段。在这里，机器就它本身的使命来说，也成了与劳动相敌对的资本形式”。技术在资本主义社会中作为生产资料的重要组成部分，本身就是资本不可或缺的要素。近代以来，技术的进步与资本的扩张是同一个过程。其中，技术生产的普及及其大规模应用依赖于资本驱动。资本家为了获取高额利润而不断改进生产工具，从而客观上推动了技术的进步。另外，资本所带来的大量财富和资源为技术的进步创造物质条件。因此，技术一开始就在生产层面与资本紧密关联。而当资本主义制度成为现代性的政权依据时，技术财产则有了强制力的保障，技术产权的确立和巩固同样依靠资本。马克思指出：“资本不是物，而是一定的、社会的、属于一定历史社会形态的生产关系。”更确切地说，资本体现的是资产阶级与无产阶级的生产关系。维持这种关系的权利基础是私有财产的所有权。这意味着，一切以物的形式存在的人的对象化产品都受到资本的支配，并以资本的占有和支配为前提，技术财产必须借助资本的力量才能发挥作用，只有通过资本与技术的共谋才能实现技术的强大控制力。

The result of the collusion between technology and capital is that “science, the immense natural forces, and the social mass of labor are all embodied in the system of machinery, and together with the system of machinery constitute the power of the ‘master’.” [11]11 Karl Marx, *Capital*, vol. 1, in *MECW*, vol. 35, p. 425. Whether this power manifests as relations between humans or relations between humans and things, in essence it can be reduced to capital power. Only, under different historical conditions, it manifests as economic power, political power, cultural power, or technological power. Clearly, in an era of social transformation dominated by technological revolution, capital power is more embodied in the power of technology. Under this premise, technological colonialism brings about the global division of technological property under the operation of capital power. This is a process in which capital occupies the world through the means of technological expansion. First, capital power forms a global monopoly on technology. Marcuse argued: “The technology of industrialization is political technology.” [12]12 Herbert Marcuse, *One-Dimensional Man* (Boston: Beacon Press, 1964), p. xvi. In capitalist society, industrialization and modernization do not merely signify simple technological progress, but a means. In terms of obtaining profit, it is an economic means; in terms of consolidating political power, it is a political means. When industrialization and modernization become an unavoidable step in the process of human civilization, the sphere of influence of capital power breaks through the boundaries of nation-states and dominates this industrialization and modernization in various backward countries and regions. Technological production and application also thereby break through geographical limitations and become universalized as a global civilization. In this process, technologically backward countries are firmly tied to technologically advanced countries and are subject to them. Once this relationship of dependence and subordination is formed, capital can further utilize all available wealth, resources, labor power, and even some power institutions to serve the consolidation of the original technological property. Moreover, with these convenient conditions, capitalism proceeds even more unimpeded on the path of maintaining technological leadership. Because they understand that “knowledge is power, and power is knowledge.” [13]13 A paraphrase of Francis Bacon’s aphorism “knowledge itself is power” (*Meditationes Sacrae*, 1597). Finally, capital power controls the distribution of technological property. Capital’s control over the social production process includes the principle of product distribution. Similarly, when technological property manifests as a type of commodity, its distribution principle is already embedded in the entire rules of capitalist production. This rule is that the ownership of the means of production determines the right to distribute products, and distribution serves the reproduction of capital. Therefore, the distribution of technological property is in fact the distribution of technological property rights. Whoever possesses technology holds the power to decide how technology is applied, who uses it, and how technological achievements are distributed. From this perspective, the completion of technological colonialism ultimately manifests as the domination of the distribution of technological property rights through capital power, thereby controlling the entire social sphere of other countries.

技术与资本共谋的结果是“科学、巨大的自然力、社会的群众性劳动都体现在机器体系中，并同机器体系一道构成‘主人’的权力”。无论这种权力体现为人与人的关系还是人与物的关系，本质上来讲都可归结为资本权力。只不过在不同的历史条件下，它表现为经济权力、政治权力、文化权力或技术权力。显然，在技术革命主导的社会变革时代，资本权力更体现为技术的力量。在此前提下，技术殖民带来的是资本权力运作下技术财产的世界瓜分。这是一个资本通过技术扩张的手段占有世界的过程。首先，资本权力形成技术的世界性垄断。马尔库塞认为：“工业化的技术就是政治的技术。”在资本主义社会，工业化与现代化并不只是意味着单纯的技术进步，而是一种手段。就获取利润来说，它是经济手段；就巩固政权来说，它是政治手段。当工业化与现代化成为人类文明进程不可避免的一步时，资本权力的影响范围就会突破民族国家的界限在各落后国家和地区中主导这种工业化和现代化。技术生产和应用也随之打破了地域的限制，并普及为世界性的文明。在此过程中，技术落后的国家被牢牢地捆绑于技术先进的国家，并受制于它。在这种依赖和受制的关系形成后，资本便可进一步利用一切可以利用的财富、资源、劳动力甚至一些权力机构，为巩固原有的技术财产服务。而且，有了这些便利条件，资本主义在保持技术领先的道路上更畅通无阻。因为他们懂得“知识就是权力，权力就是知识”。最后，资本权力控制技术财产的分配。资本对于社会生产过程的控制包含产品的分配原则。同理，当技术财产表现为一类商品时，它的分配原则就已蕴含在资本主义生产的整个规则之中了。这一规则便是，生产资料的所有权决定产品的分配权，且分配为资本主义再生产服务。所以，技术财产的分配实则是技术产权的分配。谁拥有了技术，谁就掌握了如何应用技术、谁使用技术、如何分配技术成果的权力。由此而言，技术殖民的完成最终表现为通过资本权力支配技术产权的分配，从而控制他国整个社会领域。

The mutual penetration of technological property and capital power, along with their interconnection on a world-historical scale, constitutes the property logic of contemporary Western technological colonialism. Technological property can maximize its monopolistic effect within a world exchange system dominated by capital logic only with the endorsement of capital power. It is increasingly difficult for individual countries and regions to independently achieve innovative breakthroughs in technological civilization. “The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization.” [14]14 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto* (1848). The Chinese text quotes a standard translation of this passage. This situation has been entirely formed under the control of capital. Therefore, the production, circulation, and distribution of technology also cannot escape the control of capital power. At the same time, the capitalist production of technology in turn enhances the colonial efficacy of capital power. Since the emergence of information technology and digital technology, traditional capital existing in natural forms (land, natural resources, and the means of production based on them) has gradually transformed into capital existing in spiritual or abstract forms (such as knowledge, technology, patents, or digital information, also called digital capital or technological capital). Capital existing in digital form can, through technological means, master and control means of production such as land and natural resources, thereby efficiently, conveniently, and precisely controlling the entire process of capitalist production. It is precisely because of this irreplaceable role of technology in production and daily life that capital is driven to expand into every corner of the world, thus making “the law of capitalist progress embodied in the formula: technological progress = increase in social wealth = intensification of enslavement.” [15]15 The source of this quotation is not identified in the original text; it appears to be a paraphrase or summary of a critical observation on capitalist development, possibly from the Frankfurt School tradition.

技术财产与资本权力的相互渗透及其在世界历史意义上的勾连，构成了当代西方技术殖民主义的产权逻辑。技术财产只有在资本权力的加持下，才能在以资本逻辑为主导的世界交往体系中，最大程度地发挥其垄断效果。各个国家和地区要单独完成技术文明的创新突破也越来越困难。“资产阶级，由于开拓了世界市场，使一切国家的生产和消费都成为世界性的了。”这一局面是完全在资本的掌握下形成的。因此，技术的生产、流通、分配也难逃资本权力的控制。与此同时，技术的资本主义生产也反过来增强了资本权力的殖民效力。自信息技术、数字技术创生以来，传统以自然形式存在的资本（土地、自然资源及以此为基础的生产资料）逐渐转变为以精神或抽象形式存在的资本（如知识、技术、专利或数字化信息，又称为数字资本或技术资本）。以数字化形式存在的资本，可以通过技术手段掌握和支配土地、自然资源等生产资料，从而高效、便捷、精准地控制资本主义生产的整个过程。正是因为技术在生产生活中的这种无可替代的作用，推动资本扩张到世界的每一个角落,从而使“资本主义进步的法则寓于这样一个公式：技术进步=社会财富的增长=奴役的加强”。

III. Technological Property and Its Concept of Rights: A Critique of the Property Logic of Technological Colonialism

三、技术财产及其权利观念：技术殖民主义的产权逻辑批判

The collusion between technological property and capital power constitutes the logical basis on which technological colonialism relies. On the surface, the relationship between the two seems interlocking, but the crux of the issue lies in how we understand the meaning of technological property itself and the fundamental nature of the concept of rights established upon it. To explore what technological property is, we must first return to a historical materialist analysis of property. It is generally understood that property, whether as means of production or means of subsistence, is the result of human labor and the product of social production activities. Of course, this is understood from the perspective of the objectification of labor. But this easily falls into the following misconception: since property or the product of labor is the objectified product of labor, the property of the entire society should be distributed according to the elements constituting labor or the contributions to labor (capital and labor power). However, property is not only a result “realized through production itself,” but also a relationship: “he regards the natural conditions of his production as belonging to him, as his own, as prerequisites that come into being together with his own existence.” [16]16 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse* (1857-1858), Notebook V, section on “Forms which precede capitalist production.” In other words, property is both the result of labor and the prerequisite of labor. In the initial process of human productive labor, land and natural resources were the “inorganic body” of humans. Humans regarded the means of production as extensions of their own bodily organs, but it was itself the objective condition of productive labor, unified with the laborer’s bodily functions. Only in a society with private property are the two forcibly separated. Technological property also possesses the same historical content. Although technology did not develop to a considerable extent in pre-private-property societies, it still existed as part of bodily functions. Therefore, technological property has always been a prerequisite for productive labor, and with the development of society, this prerequisite role becomes increasingly evident. When Marx described modern society’s dependence on science and technology, he pointed out: “to what degree general social knowledge has become a direct force of production, and to what degree, hence, the conditions of the process of social life itself have come under the control of the general intellect and been transformed in accordance with it. It shows to what degree the social productive forces are produced, not only in the form of knowledge, but also as immediate organs of social practice, of the real life process.” [17]17 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse* (1857-1858), Notebook VII, section on the “Fragment on Machines.”

技术财产与资本权力的共谋构成了技术殖民主义所倚仗的逻辑依据。从表面上看，两者的关系似乎环环相扣，但问题的关键在于我们该如何理解技术财产本身的意义及建立在其之上的权利观念的根本性质。若要探讨什么是技术财产，首先要回到对财产的历史唯物主义分析中。一般认为，财产无论是作为生产资料还是生活资料，都是人类劳动的结果，是社会生产活动的产物。当然，这是从劳动的对象化层面来理解的。但这容易陷入以下误区：既然财产或劳动产品是劳动的对象化产物，那么整个社会的财产应按照构成劳动的要素或对劳动的贡献（资本和劳动力）来进行分配。然而，财产不仅是“通过生产本身才实现的”结果，而且它也是一种关系：“把他的生产的自然条件看做是属于他的、看做是自己的、看做是与他自身的存在一起产生的前提。”质言之，财产既是劳动的结果，也是劳动的前提。在人类最初的生产劳动过程中，土地和自然资源是人的“无机身体”。人把生产资料看作自身身体器官的延伸，但它本身就是生产劳动的客观条件，且与劳动者的身体机能统一在一起。只有到私有制社会，两者才被强行分离开来。技术财产也具有同样的历史内容。虽然在前私有制社会技术并没有相当程度的发展，但它仍作为身体机能的一部分存在。因此，技术财产始终是生产劳动的前提条件，而且随着社会的发展，这种前提性的作用越来越明显。马克思在描述现代社会对科学技术的依赖关系时指出：“一般社会知识，已经在多么大的程度上变成了直接的生产力，从而社会生活过程的条件本身在多么大的程度上受到一般智力的控制并按照这种智力得到改造。它表明，社会生产力已经在多么大的程度上，不仅以知识的形式，而且作为社会实践的直接器官，作为实际生活过程的直接器官被生产出来。”

Another fallacy in the property logic of technological colonialism is that, driven by the expansion of capital, it regards technological property only as the product of private labor. The characteristic of private labor is that it aims at private interests and needs, carrying a strong private coloration in production. This so-called “private coloration” includes two aspects: On the one hand, with regard to the production process of a single sector, the entire production process is governed by private will. In the production process of a specific special commodity, due to the effect of individual rights conferred by private property, the possessor of the means of production holds the autonomy of production. Thus, subjectively, how to produce, how much to produce, and how to distribute the products of labor are all determined by the actual needs of the private individual. The production of technology is the same. Under the capitalist mode of production, technology naturally becomes a product of labor that can be exchanged. Under conditions where capital controls modern resources, the creation of technological property also takes on the nature of private labor. On the other hand, with regard to the relationships between various production sectors, differences in private labor are related to the private conditions of production, which are mainly the size, scope, and capacity of the capital held by private individuals. In the stage of free competition capitalism, the capital held by private individuals was roughly equal, but after a series of “survival of the fittest” among capitals, individual private individuals and private groups gradually came to possess the vast majority of society’s capital, followed by the emergence of monopoly capitalism. From this developmental process, it can be seen that private labor is closely related to the pre-existing production conditions of private individuals. Especially in the process of technological production, the degree to which a private individual possesses natural and social resources is a key condition for their possession of a monopolistic technology. Thus, on the manifest side, all labor products, including property and commodities, are directly related to private labor. However, drawing the conclusion that “private individuals can arbitrarily dispose of and possess all labor products” is divorced from production reality. The one-sidedness of technological colonialism lies precisely here. We know that since humanity emerged from the state of nature and began the history of human civilization, production has never been separated from social labor. Even production in its primitive form presupposed a natural community. When describing the nature of property in its primitive state, Marx stated: “His property, i.e. the relation in which he regards the natural prerequisites of his production as belonging to him, as his own, is mediated by his being a natural member of the community.” [18]18 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse* (1857-1858), Notebook V, section on “Forms which precede capitalist production.” When human history developed to capitalist society, this social attribute of production became even more pronounced than in pre-capitalist times. The reason is that because private labor carries a “private coloration” and is limited by sectoral nature, the social division of labor becomes increasingly complex, leading to ever closer connections between sectors and between private individuals. And whether this connection is competition or cooperation, it forms a vast system of social production. Private labor is a link in the system of social production; it becomes a part of social labor. Therefore, the product of labor is also the product of social labor. This implies social restrictions on private labor. First, the production of any product is constrained by actual social conditions. Social conditions include the overall state of social production, the relationships of competition and cooperation between sectors and between countries, etc. Second, the actual state of production at the present time is constrained by conditions accumulated from history. Especially in the process of technological production, the degree of development of human civilization profoundly affects technological progress, because people “make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past.” [19]19 Karl Marx, *The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte* (1852), opening lines.

技术殖民主义产权逻辑的另一个偏谬在于，在资本扩张的驱动下，只把技术财产看作私人劳动的产物。私人劳动的特点是以私人的利益需求为目的，带有强烈私人色彩的生产。所谓“私人色彩”包含两个方面：一方面，就单一的部门生产过程而言，整个生产过程由私人的意志支配。在具体的某一特殊商品的生产过程中，因私有制所赋予的个人权利的作用，生产资料的占有者掌握了生产的自主权，所以从主观上来说，如何生产、生产多少、怎样分配劳动产品都由私人的现实需要决定。技术的生产也是如此。在资本主义的生产方式下，技术也自然成为可以用来交换的劳动产品，在资本掌握现代资源的情况下，技术财产的创生也具有私人劳动的性质。另一方面，就各生产部门之间的关系来看，私人劳动之间的差异与私人的生产条件有关，这一条件主要是私人掌握资本的大小、范围和能力。在自由竞争资本主义的阶段，私人之间所掌握的资本相当，但经过一系列的资本之间的“优胜劣汰”后，个别私人与私人团体逐渐占有了社会绝大多数资本，随之出现的就是垄断资本主义。从这一发展过程中就可以看到私人劳动与私人既有的生产条件密切相关。尤其是在技术生产的过程中，私人所占有的自然资源和社会资源的程度，是其占有一项垄断性技术的关键条件。由此而言，在显性的一面，包括一切财产、商品在内的劳动产品都与私人劳动有着直接关联，但由此而得出“私人就可以任意处置、占有一切劳动产品”的结论却是脱离生产现实的。技术殖民主义的片面性就在于此。我们知道，自人类摆脱自然状态，开启人类文明史以来，生产就从未离开过社会性的劳动，即使是原始形态的生产也是以自然共同体为前提的。在描述原始状态下的财产性质时，马克思论述道：“他的财产，即他把他的生产的自然前提看做属于他的，看做他自己的东西这样一种关系，是以他本身是共同体的天然成员为中介的。”当人类历史发展到资本主义社会时，这种生产的社会属性比前资本主义更明显。原因在于，私人劳动因带有“私人色彩”和受部门性质的限制，社会的分工会越来越复杂，这就导致部门之间、私人之间的联系越来越密切。而无论这种联系是竞争还是合作，都形成了一个庞大的社会生产体系。私人劳动是社会生产体系中的一个环节，它成了社会劳动的一部分。因此，劳动产品同时也是社会劳动的产物。这隐含着对私人劳动的社会限制。一是任何产品的生产受到实际的社会条件的制约。社会条件包括总的社会生产状况，部门与部门、国家与国家之间的竞争与合作的关系等。二是当下的实际生产状况受到历史积累下来的条件限制。特别是在技术生产过程中，人类文明的发展程度深刻影响着技术的进步，因为人们“不是在他们自己选定的条件下创造，而是在直接碰到的、既定的、从过去承继下来的条件下创造”历史的。

The technological colonialist understanding of the form of technological property is also one-sided. In contemporary society, with the increasing degree of digitalization and informatization, technology is increasingly reduced to a system of knowledge or a system of science. This can lead us into a cognitive misconception, namely, that the fundamental form of technology is the human spirit and the series of concepts arising from it. Hence, a common misunderstanding is to directly equate the degree of development of a society’s technological civilization with the level of development of that society’s scientific knowledge, believing that as long as one masters the relevant knowledge, one can break through the relevant technology. On the one hand, we must indeed acknowledge that technology is the practical application of scientific knowledge in the process of production and life, and that technological progress must necessarily presuppose advanced scientific knowledge. However, for technology to truly become a real productive force driving historical development, certain material conditions are also required. An intuitive example is that certain high-precision and cutting-edge technological products presuppose the discovery and production of special materials. Mastering this technology requires not only mastering the relevant scientific knowledge but also possessing the material conditions to produce or obtain these special materials. Therefore, technology is, in both form and content, a unity of spirit and matter. Technological property is a unity of intangible property and tangible property. But in capitalist society, technological property has always been understood as “the individual’s special spiritual property,” and this spiritual property is integrated into the operation of capital from the very beginning. “The accumulation of knowledge and of skill, of the general productive forces of the social brain, is thus absorbed into capital, as opposed to labour, and hence appears as a property of capital.” [20]20 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy* (Rough Draft), trans. Martin Nicolaus (London: Penguin Books, 1973), p. 694. Capitalists usually claim to own the patent rights for a certain technology or intellectual property rights in a certain field, thereby dominating and controlling the production process of that sector. The rationale is that this technology, as a form of knowledge or concept, represents the independent personality of his individual spirit, and personality rights are innate. However, once we analyze technological property as a unity of conceptual form and material form, we can discover the erroneous orientation of this concept. Because as a real productive force, technology can only function when it occupies the material conditions that satisfy the transformation of scientific knowledge into technology. Capital’s appropriation of technology is the appropriation of the material means for realizing technology, the appropriation of things. In other words, the essence of technological property is things, not concepts. When Marx discussed the emergence of machinery, he explained that machinery “is the product of human industry; natural material transformed into organs of the human will over nature, or of human participation in nature.” [21]21 Karl Marx, *Capital: A Critique of Political Economy*, Volume I, trans. Ben Fowkes (London: Penguin Books, 1976), p. 493. The bias in the technological colonialist understanding of the concept of technological property inevitably leads it astray in its view of the rights of technological property.

技术殖民主义对于技术财产的形式的理解也是片面的。当今社会，随着数字化、信息化程度的提高，技术越来越被还原为知识体系或科学体系。这就会使我们陷入一个认知误区，即认为技术的根本形式是人的精神和由此产生的一系列观念。因此，一个普遍的误解就是，把一个社会的技术文明发展程度，直接与这个社会的科学知识发展水平等同起来，以为只要掌握了相关知识，就能突破相关技术。我们一方面确实要承认技术是科学知识在生产生活过程中的实际应用，技术的进步必然要以先进的科学知识为前提，但若要使技术真正成为推动历史发展的现实生产力，还需要一定的物质条件。一个直观的例子就是，某些高精尖的科技产品是以特殊材料的发现和生产为前提的，掌握这项技术不仅要掌握相关科学知识，还需要具备生产或获取这些特殊材料的物质条件。所以，技术在形式和内容上都是精神与物质的统一。技术财产是无形财产与有形财产的统一。但在资本主义社会，技术财产一直被理解为是“个体的特殊的精神财产”，而且这种精神财产一开始就融入资本的运作中。“知识和技能的积累，社会智慧的一般生产力的积累，就同劳动相对立而被吸收在资本当中，从而表现为资本的属性。”资本家通常会宣称自己拥有某项技术的专利权或某一领域的知识产权，从而来支配并控制这个部门的生产过程。理由是，这种作为知识或观念形式的技术代表他个人的精神的独立人格，而人格权又是天赋的。然而，一旦我们把技术财产分析为观念形式和物的形式的统一，就可以发现这种观念的错误导向。因为作为现实的生产力技术，只有在占有满足科学知识向技术转化的物质条件时才能起作用。资本对技术的占有是对实现技术的物质资料的占有，是对物的占有。换言之，技术财产的实质是物，而不是观念。马克思在论述机器的产生时就说明了，机器“是人的产业劳动的产物，是转化为人的意志驾驭自然界的器官或者说在自然界实现人的意志的器官的自然物质”。技术殖民主义对技术财产概念的理解偏误，必然导致它在技术财产的权利观上误入歧途。

First, the capitalist concept of rights is itself founded on abstract human nature, that is, taking human desire for things as a universal characteristic of humanity. Therefore, in the concept of property rights, capitalism understands the ownership of property as the relationship of human beings’ appropriation of things. Undeniably, human survival and development are inseparable from material conditions and presuppose the production of material means. But the problem lies in the fact that the “things” referred to here are not natural objects or objects external to humans, but rather the products of human activity. This requires investigating how humans produce “things.” Under the capitalist concept of property rights, the relationship of human appropriation of things is actually a kind of “illusion,” “as if private property itself were based solely on personal will, i.e., on the arbitrary disposition of things.” [22]22 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *The German Ideology* (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 99. Technological colonialism is built on such an “illusion” of property rights, using the appropriation of things to infringe upon the interests of other countries. In fact, concealed beneath this “legitimate” appropriation of things, technological colonialism creates unequal relations among people. In other words, behind the relationship of human appropriation of things lies the relationship of human appropriation of humans. This relationship is hidden within capitalist relations of production; it is the rightified embodiment of the relationship between capital and labor. “The worker loses ownership, while objectified labour has ownership over living labour, or capital appropriates the labour of others.” [23]23 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, p. 458. According to Marx’s theory of surplus value, capital’s ownership of labor is unjust, because capital exploits the labor of others (surplus labor) without compensation, and thus capital’s ownership of property is illegitimate.

其一，资本主义的权利观念本身就建立在抽象人性的基础上，即把人对物的欲望看作人的普遍特性，所以在财产权的观念上，资本主义把财产的所有权理解为人对物的占有关系。不可否认，人的生存和发展离不开物质条件，并以物质资料的生产为前提，但问题在于这里所说的物并不是自然物或在人之外的物，而是人的活动的产物。这就要去追究人是如何生产出“物”的。在资本主义财产权观念下，人对物的占有关系实则是一种“错觉”，“仿佛私有制本身仅仅以个人意志即以对物的任意支配为基础”，技术殖民主义就建立在这样一种对财产权的“错觉”上，并以对物的占有来侵犯他国的利益。其实，在这种对物的“合法性”占有的掩盖下，技术殖民主义造成了人与人的不平等关系。换言之，在人对物的占有关系背后，是人的占有关系。这种关系就隐藏在资本主义生产关系内部，是资本与劳动的关系的权利化体现。“工人丧失所有权，而对象化劳动拥有对活劳动的所有权，或者说资本占有他人劳动。”根据马克思的剩余价值学说，资本对劳动的所有权是不正义的，因为资本无偿地剥削了他人的劳动（剩余劳动），因而资本对财产的所有权是非法的。

Second, technological colonialism regards property rights merely as a special private right, opposing them to public social rights. With the awakening of modern Western subjectivity, the concept of individualistic rights gradually became a universal Western ideology, and the capitalist system elevated individual rights to the will of the state. Among these, property rights are the right-based foundation of private ownership. In the concept of rights under private ownership, private property is equated with state property, and protecting private property is protecting the state. Stirner said: “My private property is only what the state cedes to me from its own; it is merely what the state thereby compresses (deprives) other members of the state of: it is state property.” [24]24 Max Stirner, *The Ego and Its Own*, ed. David Leopold (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), p. 248. Clearly, Stirner elevates private property above the state, thereby elevating individual property rights above public social rights. In Marx’s view, this concept of property rights is the concept of “the property of the petty bourgeoisie and the small peasant,” because this concept regards “every relationship, whether it is caused by economic conditions or by direct coercion, as a ‘contractual’ relationship.” [25]25 Karl Marx, “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte,” in *Marx/Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 11 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1979), p. 187. A “‘contractual’ relationship” implies compromise, alliance, cooperation, or exchange between individuals to satisfy their own needs. The capitalist concept of property rights deduces public social rights from individual rights. But as Marx said: “The essence of man is not an abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality, it is the ensemble of the social relations.” [26]26 Karl Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach,” in *Marx/Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 5 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 4. Clearly, human social relations constitute a community. In this community, the most fundamental social relations are the relations of production. The concept of rights arises only when people deal with the relations of production. The concept of property rights also arises from this. Therefore, property rights are established on the basis of certain social relations and are embedded in the community of a specific historical period. They represent the public will of the community and serve the development of the community. The same principle should apply to technological property rights.

其二，技术殖民主义把财产权仅仅看作一种特殊的私人权利，并与公共的社会权利对立起来。近代西方主体性意识的觉醒，个人主义的权利观念逐渐成为西方普遍的意识形态，资本主义制度把个人权利上升为国家意志。其中，财产权是私有制的权利基础。在私有制的权利观念中，私有财产等同于国家财产，保护私有财产就是保护国家。施蒂纳就说：“我的私有财产只是国家从它自身的东西中让与我的东西，这只不过是国家为此而压缩（剥夺）其他国家成员的东西：它是国家财产。”显然，施蒂纳把私有财产凌驾于国家之上，从而把个人的财产权凌驾于公共的社会权利之上。在马克思看来，这种财产权观念是“小资产阶级和小农的所有制”观念，因为这种观念把“每种关系，无论它是由经济条件还是由直接的强制所引起的，都被看成‘协议’的关系”。“‘协议’的关系”意味着个人之间为满足自身的需要而进行妥协、联盟、合作或交换。资本主义的财产权观念是从个人权利中推出公共的社会权利的。但正如马克思所言：“人的本质不是单个人所固有的抽象物，在其现实性上，它是一切社会关系的总和。”显然，人的社会关系构成了一个共同体，在这个共同体中，最根本的社会关系是生产关系，人们在处理生产关系的时候才产生了权利的观念。财产权的观念也由此产生。因此，财产权是建立在一定的社会关系之上的，并寓于一定历史时期的共同体中，它代表的是共同体的公共意志，为共同体的发展服务，技术财产权同样也应遵循这一原则。

Third, technological colonialism regards technological property rights as an advantageous right exclusive to individual countries and uses various means to maintain this right. Two historical prejudices in the capitalist concept of property rights are Western-centrism and the theory of the superiority and inferiority of civilizations. The former positions the center of world civilizational development in the West, believing that the primary driving force of human progress lies in the developmental mechanism of capitalist civilization, and that the future of human civilization lies in Western capitalist countries. The latter views the development and future of non-Western civilizations with a one-sided perspective, believing that backward countries can only develop under the leadership of advanced countries and can only follow in their footsteps. These two prejudices have enabled the first-developing Western capitalist powers to master the discourse power over the distribution of technological property worldwide, creating the ideological soil for the growth of technological colonialism. Throughout history, the capitalist mode of production has opened the path of modern civilizational development for humanity, bringing modern science and technology marked by the machine system. Moreover, the ongoing information revolution and digital revolution also originated in the West. These are indisputable facts. But the problem is that the capitalist mode of production also initiated the process of world history; it “makes the satisfaction of the needs of every civilized country and every individual in it dependent on the whole world.” [27]27 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *The Communist Manifesto* (London: Penguin Books, 2002), p. 224. Therefore, the creation and development of modern civilization cannot be separated from human labor in the process of world history, and this human labor is by no means accomplished by Western capitalist countries alone. We can see this from the colonial history of Western developed countries toward backward countries: the development of modern civilization under the dominance of the logic of capital came at the cost of vast amounts of land, natural resources, and human labor in backward countries and nations. The so-called “advantageous right” has no fundamental historical basis. Conversely, the distribution of the fruits of human civilization should be based on a concept of rights that is equal and open.

其三，技术殖民主义把技术财产权看作是个别国家独享的优势权利并用各种手段维持这种权利。资本主义财产权观念的两个历史观偏见是西方中心主义和文明优劣论。前者把世界文明发展的中心定位在西方，认为人类进步的原生动力在于资本主义文明的发展机制，且人类文明的未来在西方资本主义国家；后者则以片面的眼光看待非西方文明的发展及其未来，认为文明落后的国家必然只能在先进国家的主导下发展，而且只能跟在先进国家后面亦步亦趋。这两种偏见使先发展起来的西方资本主义大国掌握了世界范围内的技术财产分配的话语权，为技术殖民主义的滋长创造了思想土壤。纵观历史，资本主义的生产方式为人类开辟了现代文明发展之路，给人类带来了以机器体系为标志的现代科学技术，而且当下正在发生的信息革命与数字革命也同样开端于西方，这些都是不争的事实。但问题在于，资本主义的生产方式同时也开启了世界历史的进程，它“使每个文明国家以及这些国家中的每一个人的需要的满足都依赖于整个世界”。所以，现代文明的创造和发展离不开世界历史进程中的人类劳动，而这种人类劳动绝不是西方资本主义国家单独完成的。这一点我们从西方发达国家对落后国家的殖民历史中就可以看到：在资本逻辑主导下的现代文明的发展是以牺牲落后国家和民族的大量土地、自然资源和人力为代价的，所谓的“优势权利”是没有根本历史依据的。反之，对于人类文明成果的分配，应建立在平等开放的权利观念上。

Although contemporary Western capitalist technological colonialism has rarely used military violence, replacing it with “agreement”-style economic means, the negative consequences of technological colonialism are far more severe than those of previous colonialism. First, technological colonialism systematically damages colonized countries. Because technological colonialism has a systemic character, once the development of various social fields in colonized countries—such as politics, economy, culture, and ecology—depends on the advanced technology of Western capitalist countries, the operation of their entire social system falls under the monitoring and manipulation of Western capitalism. This monitoring and manipulation, driven by the impetus of capital expansion, does not bring long-term benefits to colonized countries; it merely transfers the internal contradictions of capitalist countries to colonized countries and shifts crises to other nations. Second, technological colonialism is detrimental to the development of capitalist countries themselves. Technology belongs to the category of productive forces and should cooperate with labor and workers to jointly create material and spiritual wealth. But in the hands of technological colonizers, technology is private property, a tool for controlling others. The bourgeoisie “turned education and science, the highest achievements and essence of capitalist civilization, into instruments of exploitation and patents, placing the majority of people in a state of slavery.” [28]28 V. I. Lenin, “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism,” in *Collected Works*, vol. 22 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1964), p. 276. The original quotation is from Lenin’s critique of capitalist monopoly. This sets technology and labor in opposition, making the instruments of labor and the laborers contradictory opposites, thereby intensifying the tense relationship between capital and labor. This not only worsens relations between capitalist countries and backward countries, but this tension ultimately backfires on the development of capitalist countries themselves. Moreover, because technological colonialism involves property rights, the negative consequences it brings to capitalism extend from the economic sphere to the political sphere. This situation has long appeared in the rights disputes between governments and their people in capitalist countries in recent years. Third, technological colonialism hinders technological progress. When technological colonialism treats technological property as part of capital, in order to form economic monopolies, it artificially obstructs the exchange and circulation of technology. To this end, Lenin pointed out: “Within the limits of (even temporarily) fixed monopoly prices, the motive for technological progress, and hence for all other progress and forward movement, disappears to a certain extent; secondly, it becomes economically possible to artificially obstruct technological progress.” [29]29 Ibid., p. 276. According to Marx’s view of practice, the truth of knowledge can only be proven in the process of practice. Similarly, the reality and value of technology can only advance human civilization through widespread application. The monopoly of technological property by technological colonialism is not only a suppression of technological progress but also a destruction of the development of human civilization.

虽然当代西方资本主义的技术殖民已较少使用军事暴力方式进行，取而代之的是“协议”式的经济手段，但技术殖民主义所产生的消极后果与以往的殖民主义相比有过之而无不及。首先，技术殖民主义对被殖民国家的破坏是系统性的。因为技术殖民具有系统性特点，所以被殖民国家政治、经济、文化、生态等社会各领域的发展一旦依赖于西方资本主义国家的先进技术，那么它的整个社会系统的运作运转就会在西方资本主义的监控和操纵之下。这种监控和操纵因资本扩张的驱动力，并不会给被殖民国家带来长远的利益，只会把资本主义国家内部矛盾转嫁到被殖民国家，把危机转嫁于他国。其次，技术殖民主义不利于资本主义国家自身的发展。技术属于生产力的范畴，应与劳动和劳动者相互协作共同创造物质财富、精神财富。但在技术殖民者那里，技术是私有财产，是控制他人的工具。资产阶级“把教育和科学、把资本主义文明的最高成就和精华变成了剥削工具和专利品，使大多数人处于奴隶地位”。这就使技术和劳动对立起来，劳动工具和劳动者成了矛盾的对立双方，从而加剧了资本与劳动的紧张关系。这不仅恶化了资本主义国家与落后国家的关系，而且这种紧张状态最终会反噬资本主义国家自身的发展。并且由于技术殖民主义涉及财产权，所以它给资本主义所带来的消极后果，会从经济领域延伸到政治领域。这种状况早已出现在资本主义国家近几年来的政府与人民之间的权利纷争中。再次，技术殖民主义会阻碍技术的进步。当技术殖民主义把技术财产作为资本的一部分的时候，为了形成经济垄断，就会人为地阻碍技术的交往和流通。为此，列宁指出：“在规定了（即使是暂时地）垄断价格的范围内，技术进步因而也是其他一切进步的动因，前进的动因，就在一定程度上消失了；其次在经济上也就有可能人为地阻碍技术进步。”根据马克思的实践观，知识的真理性只有在实践的过程中才能得到证明。同理，技术的现实性及它的价值也只有在普遍的应用中才能推动人类文明的发展。技术殖民主义对技术财产的垄断不仅是对技术进步的遏制，而且是对人类文明发展的破坏。

(The author is a lecturer at the School of Marxism, Zhejiang University)

（作者系浙江大学马克思主义学院讲师）

Online editor: Ma Jingren

网络编辑：马京仁