The Innovative Development of the Marxist Theory of Ownership in the Era of the Digital Economy

The Marxist theory of ownership is a major theoretical and practical proposition. Innovative research on the Marxist theory of ownership inevitably requires, on the basis of reaffirming the classics, combining new modes of production, new economic conditions, and new modes of distribution to study its new changes. The digital economy precisely provides such a new context. General Secretary Xi Jinping points out, “In the present era, digital technology and the digital economy represent the vanguard of the world’s scientific and technological revolution and industrial transformation.” [1]1 Marx and Engels, *Manifesto of the Communist Party* (1848). The digital economy is a new economic form following the agricultural economy and the industrial economy. It is an economic form that takes data as a key factor of production, information networks as its carrier, and the integrated application of digital technology and the digital transformation of all factors of production as its driving force. “The transition from the era of the industrial economy to the era of the digital economy has brought profound changes in productive forces, relations of production, and modes of production.” [2]2 Marx, *Capital*, Volume 3, Chapter 23. Based on the normative reflection of academic research, to discuss in what sense the innovative development of the Marxist theory of ownership in the era of the digital economy, it is first necessary to clarify several theoretical issues: First, the issue of theoretical perspective, that is, whether it is a structural investigation or a factor-based investigation. This specifically concerns whether the Marxist theory of ownership (including its viewpoints, methods, and values) is treated as an organic whole, or whether it is developed by closely adhering to its key elements (for example, focusing on the means of production, the owner, and the worker from the perspective of the subject and object of the production process). Second, the issue of the theoretical starting point, that is, from which theory or principle to begin the investigation. This specifically concerns the worldview and methodology of the Marxist theory of ownership. Third, the issue of the theoretical outcome, that is, what is the practical significance of studying the innovative development of the Marxist theory of ownership today. The resolution of these three issues, especially the first, essentially constitutes the problem domain and frame of reference for this article. If previous research has been a phenomenological analysis of the changes in the elements of the labor process in the digital economy, then on this basis, it is necessary to further conduct a structured analysis of the “change” and “constancy” of the Marxist theory of ownership in the era of the digital economy at the level of the overall theoretical form, thereby presenting the general outline of its innovative development.

马克思主义所有制理论是一个重大的理论和实践命题，对于马克思主义所有制理论的创新研究，势必要求在重申经典基础上结合新生产方式、新经济条件、新分配方式来研究其新变化。数字经济恰恰提供了这样一种新的语境，习近平总书记指出，“当今时代，数字技术、数字经济是世界科技革命和产业变革的先机”。数字经济是继农业经济、工业经济之后的新经济形态，它是以数据作为关键生产要素，以信息网络为载体，以数字技术融合应用、全要素数字化转型为推动力的经济形态。“工业经济时代向数字经济时代的转变，带来了生产力、生产关系和生产方式的深刻变化。”基于学术研究的规范省思，在何种意义上讨论数字经济时代马克思主义所有制理论的创新发展，首先需要厘清几个理论问题：一是理论视角问题，即究竟是结构性考察还是要素性考察，具体关涉是将马克思主义所有制理论（包括观点、方法、价值）作为一个有机整体，还是紧扣其关键要素（例如从生产过程的主客体角度出发重点讨论的生产资料、所有者、劳动者）来展开；二是理论原点问题，即从何种理论或原理出发加以考察，具体关涉马克思主义所有制理论的世界观和方法论问题；三是理论出路问题，即今天研究马克思主义所有制理论创新发展的现实意义究竟何在。对于上述三个问题特别是第一个问题的求解，实质上构成了本文探讨的问题域和参照系。如果说以往研究是对数字经济劳动过程要素变化作现象分析，那么在此基础上，有必要进一步对马克思主义所有制理论在数字经济时代的“变”与“不变”作整体理论形态上的结构化分析，以此呈现其创新发展的总体轮廓。

I. “Change”: Three Manifestations of the Overall Shift in the Theoretical Form of the Marxist Theory of Ownership in the Era of the Digital Economy

一、“变”：数字经济时代马克思主义所有制理论形态整体转向的三种表现

Previous narrow understandings of the Marxist theory of ownership have treated it merely as a matter of the attribution of the means of production. However, the Marxist theory of ownership essentially contains not only the two core propositions of “who owns the means of production” and “how workers and the means of production are combined,” but also, as relations of distribution are an extension of relations of ownership, “how products are distributed and appropriated” should also be considered an integral part of the Marxist theory of ownership. This indirectly reflects that the Marxist theory of ownership runs through the entire labor process, that is, through the prerequisites of labor, the labor process itself, and the results of labor. In recent years, academia has produced a large number of research results on topics related to the Marxist theory of the labor process and new changes in the labor process of the platform economy. On this basis, it becomes possible to explore the “change” of the Marxist theory of ownership in the era of the digital economy by combining the new changes in the entire labor process.

以往对马克思主义所有制理论的狭义化理解，仅仅把它当作生产资料的归属问题，然而马克思主义所有制理论实质上不仅包含着“生产资料归谁所有”和“劳动者与生产资料如何结合”两大核心命题，分配关系作为所有制关系的延伸，“产品如何分配和占有”也应当属于马克思主义所有制理论的整体性部分。这从侧面反映出马克思主义所有制理论是贯穿劳动全过程的，即贯穿劳动前提、劳动过程、劳动结果。近年来，学界关于马克思主义劳动过程理论以及平台经济劳动过程新变化等相关议题形成了大量研究成果。在此基础上，结合劳动全过程新变化来探究马克思主义所有制理论在数字经济时代之“变”得以可能。

1. The Level of “Who Owns the Means of Production”

1.“生产资料归谁所有”层面

The change at this level lies in the fact that data, as a new type of means of production, has sparked a discussion about “private” versus “public” ownership. “Who owns the means of production” is the first core proposition of the Marxist theory of ownership. Clarifying the characteristics of change at this level essentially grasps the contextual conditions required for the contemporaneous interpretation of the Marxist theory of ownership. Marx profoundly pointed out: “The distinction between different economic epochs is not what is produced, but how it is produced, by what instruments of labor.” [3]3 The author cites a contemporary Chinese Marxist scholar’s formulation; the specific source is not identified in the original text. Therefore, the mode of production and the instruments of labor become the main indicators for examining economic epochs. Placed within the analytical framework of “economic epoch – mode of production – instruments of labor,” the classical Marxist writers distinguished the “hand-mill” of the feudal economic epoch from the “steam-mill” of the industrial capitalist economic epoch in the course of human social history. Then, entering the era of the digital economy, can the “digital mill” become a new type of instrument of labor? At the same time, the content of “who” in “who owns” is also changing. Clans, slave owners, landlords, and capitalists are the subjects of ownership of the means of production described by the classical writers. So, who is the owner today? Based on the above analysis, in the dimension of “who owns the means of production,” two aspects deserve special attention: first, the change in the content of the means of production, and second, the change in the subject of the owner.

这一层面的变化在于，数据作为一种新的生产资料引发了关于“私有”还是“公有”的讨论。“生产资料归谁所有”是马克思主义所有制理论的第一大核心命题。厘清这一层次的变化特征，也就基本把握住了马克思主义所有制理论内在要求时代化阐释的情境条件。马克思深刻指出：“各种经济时代的区别，不在于生产什么，而在于怎样生产，用什么劳动资料生产。”因此，生产方式和劳动资料就成了考察经济时代的主要标志。置于“经济时代－生产方式－劳动资料”的分析框架，马克思主义经典作家在人类社会历史进程中区分出封建经济时代的“手推磨”和工业资本主义经济时代的“蒸汽磨”，那么，进入数字经济时代，“数字磨”是否有可能成为一种新的劳动资料呢？与此同时，“归谁所有”中的“谁”的内容也在发生变化，氏族、奴隶主、地主、资本家是经典作家笔下所描述的生产资料所有者主体，那么，今天的所有者是“谁”？基于上述分析，在“生产资料归谁所有”这一维度，两方面值得特别关注：一是生产资料内容变化，二是所有者主体的变化。

First, the change in the content of the means of production. The means of production in the industrial economic era in which Marx and Engels lived mainly included specific material forms such as land, factories, machinery and equipment, tools, and raw materials. In the era of the digital economy, data has become a new factor of production. Within the analytical framework of the three elements of productive forces, based on different functional contexts in the labor process, data can become an object of labor and, after processing, be upgraded into an instrument of labor (labor tools, technical means). Therefore, data as a new type of means of production specifically includes non-material forms such as information, code, language, text, and images. It is precisely due to the emergence of this new form of means of production—that is, the means-of-production-ization of digital information and the digital informatization of the means of production—that the initial conditions for the innovative development of the Marxist theory of ownership in the era of the digital economy have been established.

其一，生产资料内容变化。马克思恩格斯身处的工业经济时代的生产资料主要包括土地、厂房、机器设备、工具、原料等具体物质形态。数字经济时代的数据成为一种新的生产要素，在生产力三要素的分析框架中，基于劳动过程中不同功能情境，数据可以成为劳动对象并经过处理加工后升级成为劳动资料（劳动工具、技术手段），因而作为一种新的生产资料的数据，具体包括信息、代码、语言、文字、图像等在内的非物质形态。正是由于生产资料新形态的出现，即数字信息的生产资料化和生产资料的数字信息化，数字经济时代马克思主义所有制理论的创新发展具备了初始条件。

Second, the change in the subject of the owner. Taking ownership of the means of production as their theoretical starting point, Marx and Engels profoundly revealed the inherent contradiction under capitalist conditions of production between the private appropriation of the means of production and socialized large-scale production. The critical target of the Marxist theory of ownership is the private appropriator of the means of production, the capitalist as the “personification of capital.” Entering the era of the digital economy, the diversity of sources of data production and the non-excludability of data use mean that the classical “capitalist” no longer seems to be the sole owner of data as a means of production. Different types of data ownership structures, such as platform ownership of data and public ownership of data, have correspondingly emerged. At the same time, the platform carrier is becoming an intermediate link in the production organization, seemingly replacing or obscuring the role of the classical capitalist. However, careful examination reveals that the equity structure of platform enterprises reflects the main types of subjects of ownership. The “bourgeois private property” that Marx and Engels profoundly criticized in the *Communist Manifesto* as “the final and most complete expression of the production and appropriation of products” [4]4 Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1, Chapter 24. is unfolding in new forms in the era of the digital economy. These issues await further analysis in the following discussion.

其二，所有者主体的变化。马克思恩格斯以生产资料所有制作为理论原点，深刻揭示了资本主义生产方式条件下生产资料的私人占有同社会化大生产之间的固有矛盾。马克思主义所有制理论的批判对象指向生产资料的私人占有者即“资本的人格化表达”资本家。进入数字经济时代，数据生产来源的多元性和数据使用的非排他性，使得经典意义上的“资本家”似乎不再是数据生产资料的唯一所有者，数据平台所有、数据公众所有等不同类型的数据权属结构相应出现。同时，平台载体正在成为生产组织的中间环节，似乎正在取代或隐匿经典意义上的资本家角色，但是仔细考察便会发现，平台企业的股权结构反映了所有者主体的主要类型。马克思恩格斯在《共产党宣言》中深刻批判的“资产阶级私有制”这一“产品生产和占有的最后而又最完备的表现”，正在数字经济时代以新的形式展开，这些问题有待下文分析进一步展开。

2. The Level of “How Workers and the Means of Production Are Combined”

2.“劳动者与生产资料如何结合”层面

The change at this level lies in the shift from the “state of alienation” under industrial capitalism to a “semi-combined state” in the era of the digital economy, broadening the specific connotation of the owner of the means of production. “How workers and the means of production are combined” is the second core proposition of the Marxist theory of ownership. The Marxist theory of ownership not only focuses on the issue of the attribution of the means of production but also attaches importance to the issue of production, because only when workers and the means of production are combined can production take place and possess socio-historical significance. From the industrial economic era to the digital economy era, the labor process exhibits new characteristics, the mode of combination of workers and the means of production has also undergone significant changes, and to a certain extent, the scope of the owner of the means of production has been broadened.

这一层面的变化在于，从工业资本主义条件下的“异化状态”到数字经济时代的“半结合状态”的转变，拓宽了生产资料所有者的具体内涵。“劳动者与生产资料如何结合”是马克思主义所有制理论的第二大核心命题。马克思主义所有制理论不仅关注生产资料归属问题，而且重视生产问题，因为只有劳动者与生产资料相结合才能进行生产，才具备社会历史意义。从工业经济时代到数字经济时代，劳动过程呈现出新特点，劳动者与生产资料的结合方式也发生了明显变化，并在一定程度上拓宽了生产资料所有者的范围。

In the era of the industrial economy, under the conditions of the capitalist mode of production, the process of combining laborers with the means of production faced dual constraints of time and space. Labor control and management efficiency were the keywords of the enterprise labor process in the industrial economy era, reflecting behind them the "alienated state" of the combination of laborers with the means of production. By analyzing the transformation from simple cooperative labor in manufacture to machine-based large-scale industry labor, Marx revealed the basic characteristics of the capitalist labor process in early industrial capitalism. The classical Marxist writers focused on explaining the "alienated state" of the combination of laborers with the means of production under capitalist conditions through the lens of capital's exploitation of labor and the relationship between production and distribution: in the process of surplus value production, the means of production belong to the capitalist, and the laborers combine with the means of production by providing their labor power, thereby engaging in production and expanded reproduction. In the standard Taylor system, the ideal site for the combination of laborers with the means of production was the factory assembly line, because it facilitated the calculation of working hours and the study of the most economical and most efficient standard operating methods.

在工业经济时代，在资本主义生产方式条件下，劳动者与生产资料的结合过程面临着时空双重约束，劳动控制和管理效率是工业经济时代企业劳动过程的关键词，这背后反映了劳动者与生产资料相结合的“异化状态”。马克思通过分析工场手工业中的简单协作劳动向机器大工业劳动的转变，揭示了工业资本主义初期的资本主义劳动过程的基本特点。马克思主义经典作家侧重从资本对劳动的剥削、生产与分配的关系来解释资本主义条件下劳动者与生产资料结合的“异化状态”：在剩余价值生产过程中，生产资料归资本家所有，劳动者通过提供自己的劳动力与生产资料结合从而进行生产和扩大再生产。在标准泰罗制中，劳动者与生产资料结合的理想场所是工厂流水线，因为这里便于计算工时并研究出最经济而且生产效率最高的标准操作方法。

In the era of the digital economy, with the rise of flexible employment, the combination of laborers with the means of production exhibits new characteristics, shifting from the single factory assembly line to a structured platform system. This reflects behind it a "semi-combined state" of laborers with the means of production under digital conditions. This "semi-combined state" mainly refers to the situation where part of the means of production belongs to the laborers, rather than all belonging to the capitalist. Today, the combination of the data element with laborers, objects of labor, and means of labor enhances production efficiency. Laborers are dispersed in different spaces rather than fixed in the same location. This is based on new means of labor control brought by digital technology, which no longer requires manual supervision but replaces it with algorithmic control. Although digital laborers have gained so-called "free time," they are actually simultaneously subject to the dual labor process supervision of customers and the platform. In the digital labor process, the crowdsourcing of digital economy platforms deepens the division of labor to a certain extent. The method of contracting out and subcontracting makes it possible for laborers to become a new type of owner. Taking ride-hailing drivers as an example, ordinary car owners register on the platform to become service providers, offering their private cars as part of the means of production, while another part of the means of production is provided by the platform. The car owner is both a laborer and, in a certain sense, an owner. This "semi-combined state" is a new phenomenon worthy of study.

在数字经济时代，伴随着弹性雇佣工的兴起，劳动者与生产资料的结合呈现出新特点，从单一的工厂流水线到结构化的平台系统，这背后反映的是在数字条件下劳动者与生产资料的“半结合状态”，这种“半结合状态”主要是指部分生产资料归劳动者所有，而非全部归资本家所有。今天，数据要素与劳动者、劳动对象、劳动资料相结合提高生产效率，劳动者分散在不同的空间而不是固定在同一场所，这是基于数字技术带来的劳动控制新手段，即不再要求人工监督而代之以算法控制，尽管数字劳动者获得了所谓“自由时间”，但实际上同时受到顾客和平台的双重劳动过程监督。在数字劳动过程中，数字经济平台众包在一定程度上深化了分工，发包与承包的方式使得劳动者有可能成为一种新的所有者。以网约车司机为例，普通车主利用平台注册成为服务供应商，提供私家车作为一部分生产资料，另一部分生产资料则由平台提供，车主既是劳动者又是一定意义上的所有者，这种“半结合状态”是一种值得研究的新现象。

3. The "How Products Are Distributed and Appropriated" Dimension

3.“产品如何分配和占有”层面

The change at this dimension lies in the shift from "the product is the property of the capitalist" to "the recalculation of the distribution of income from data products." "How products are distributed and appropriated" is the third core proposition of the Marxist theory of ownership. Relations of distribution are an extension of relations of ownership. Marx profoundly explained the determining relationship between "production and distribution" in the "Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy": "Distribution is itself a product of production, not only in its object, but also in its form. In its object, what is distributed is only the results of production; in its form, the specific mode of participation in production determines the specific form of distribution, determines the form of participation in distribution." Today, a primary reason people are so concerned with the issue of ownership in the era of the digital economy is that they care about the distribution of their own products. As an extension of ownership relations in the digital age, the distribution of products in the era of the digital economy also exhibits new characteristics of change.

这一层面的变化在于，从“产品是资本家的所有物”到“数据产品收益分配的重新计算”。“产品如何分配和占有”是马克思主义所有制理论的第三大核心命题。分配关系是所有制关系的延伸，马克思在《〈政治经济学批判〉导言》中对“生产－分配”的决定关系进行了深刻阐释：“分配本身是生产的产物，不仅就对象说是如此，而且就形式说也是如此。就对象说，能分配的只是生产的成果，就形式说，参与生产的一定方式决定分配的特殊形式，决定参与分配的形式”。今天，人们之所以如此关注数字经济时代的所有制问题，一个主要原因就在于人们关心自己的产品分配问题。作为数字时代所有制关系的一种延伸，数字经济时代产品分配同样呈现出新的变化特征。

In the era of the industrial economy, "the product belongs to the capitalist, not to the direct producer, the worker." In the "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844," Marx profoundly criticized the alienated relations reflected behind capitalist private property: "If the product of labor does not belong to the worker, but confronts him as an alien power, this can only be because it belongs to someone other than the worker." This "someone other" is the "capitalist" in the classical context. "The product is the property of the capitalist" directly led to the emergence of polarization at the level of social phenomena. Marx further profoundly revealed the internal roots of the coexistence of capital accumulation and poverty accumulation under the conditions of capitalist private ownership, pointing out that the capitalization of surplus value, i.e., the process of capital accumulation, tends towards the concentration and centralization of capital. The concentration and centralization of capital raise the organic composition of capital, causing the demand for labor to decline, leading to a relative surplus population, and the resulting unemployment problem causes increasing poverty among the proletariat. This is precisely the internal logic of the coexistence of wealth accumulation and poverty accumulation under the conditions of capitalist private ownership.

在工业经济时代，“产品是资本家的所有物，而不是直接生产者工人的所有物”。马克思在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中对资本主义私有财产背后反映的异化关系进行了深刻批判：“如果劳动产品不是属于工人，而是作为一种异己的力量同工人相对立，那么这只能是由于产品属于工人之外的他人。”这里的“他人”就是经典语境中的“资本家”。“产品是资本家的所有物”在社会现象层面直接导致了两极分化的出现。马克思进一步深刻揭示了资本主义私有制条件下资本积累与贫困积累的内在根源，指出剩余价值资本化即资本积累过程趋向资本积聚和资本集中，资本的积聚和集中提高了资本的有机构成，使得生产对劳动力的需求下降，导致了人口相对剩余，由此带来的失业问题造成无产阶级的贫困日益增加。这恰恰是财富积累与贫困积累在资本主义私有制条件下并存的内在逻辑。

In the era of the digital economy, the "recalculation of the distribution of income from data products" is being placed on the agenda. Digital information and knowledge "permeate the process of value creation and value realization extensively, and their ownership and appropriation relations affect the final link of value distribution." Whether the digital economy has produced a mode of distribution more favorable to laborers, and whether the income generated by data products can be partially shared by "prosumer" type laborers, are all hotly debated topics currently. Generally speaking, new factors of production participating in production and product distribution will inevitably utilize their own existing resource conditions, confirm and protect their related rights, and strive to make distributions favorable to themselves as much as possible in the distribution link. A noteworthy phenomenon is that from "big data-enabled price discrimination against existing customers" to the "digital divide" and the "information poor" behind it, precisely because differences in the distribution of production conditions cause differentiation and divergence in product distribution, the ownership of the means of production and its structure and form in the era of the digital economy have become important new topics. Therefore, exploring the ownership structure of platform organizations and the resulting issues of income distribution from data products has become necessary.

在数字经济时代，“数据产品收益分配的重新计算”正在被提上议程。数字化信息和知识“广泛渗入价值生产和价值实现过程，其归属和占有关系影响着最终的价值分配环节”。数字经济是否产生了更加有利于劳动者的分配方式，数据产品带来的收益是否有可能为“产消合一型”的劳动者所部分共享，这些都是目前热议的话题。总的来说，新的生产要素参与生产和产品分配，势必利用自身既有的资源条件，对其相关权利进行确认和保护，尽可能多地在分配环节作出有利于自身的分配。值得注意的现象是，从“大数据杀熟”到“数字鸿沟”及其背后的“信息贫困者”，正因为生产条件的分配差异引起产品分配的分化差异，数字经济时代的生产资料所有制及其结构和形式成为新的重要议题。因此，探究平台组织所有权结构及其带来的数据产品的收益分配问题成为必要。

II. "The Unchanged": A Historical Materialist Examination of Marxist Theory of Ownership in the Era of the Digital Economy

二、“不变”：数字经济时代马克思主义所有制理论的历史唯物主义审视

Based on the analysis of the new changes in the labor process, the overall "change" in the Marxist theory of ownership in the era of the digital economy has gradually become clear. On this basis, using historical materialism to deeply analyze and excavate the "unchanged" aspects can further demonstrate the applicability of the Marxist theory of ownership in the era of the digital economy. It should be made clear that the era of the digital economy encompasses both a capitalist context and a socialist context. Regarding the capitalist context, the Marxist theory of ownership possesses thorough criticality towards the capitalist mode of production, and this point remains unchanged in the capitalist context of the digital economy era. The classical writers, using the theory of ownership as an important fulcrum, profoundly revealed the inherent contradiction between the private appropriation of the means of production embedded within the capitalist mode of production and socialized large-scale production. Based on their analysis of the historical tendency of capitalist accumulation, they made the profound judgment that "the knell of capitalist private property sounds" and "the expropriators are expropriated." This remains highly pertinent for the critique of digital capitalism today.

基于对劳动过程新变化的分析，数字经济时代马克思主义所有制理论的整体之“变”逐渐明晰，在此基础上，运用唯物史观对“不变”的方面进行深入剖析和挖掘，有可能进一步呈现马克思主义所有制理论在数字经济时代的适用性。应当明确，数字经济时代既有资本主义语境又有社会主义语境。就资本主义语境而言，马克思主义所有制理论对资本主义生产方式具有彻底的批判性，这一点在数字经济时代资本主义语境下同样没有变化。经典作家以所有制理论作为重要支点，对资本主义生产方式及其内嵌的生产资料私人占有同社会化大生产之间的固有矛盾作出深刻揭示，并基于资本主义积累的历史趋势分析作出“资本主义私有制的丧钟就要响了”“剥夺者就要被剥夺了”的深刻研判，这对今天的数字资本主义批判仍然具有很强的针对性。

1. The Level of Productive Forces and Relations of Production

1.生产力与生产关系层面

The question of the ownership of digital productive forces is the core issue of concern for the Marxist theory of ownership in the era of the digital economy. Historical materialism reveals that the production of material goods is the premise and foundation of human social life. The Marxist theory of ownership concerns itself with the problem of production, fundamentally revealing the law of the contradictory movement between digital productive forces and the relations of production corresponding to them. Although many formal changes have occurred in the production process of digital capitalism, analysis from the level of productive forces and relations of production reveals that its essence has not changed, i.e., the essence of capital employing labor under the capitalist mode of production has not changed.

数字生产力的归属问题是马克思主义所有制理论在数字经济时代关切的核心议题。历史唯物主义揭示了物质资料的生产是人类社会生活的前提和基础，马克思主义所有制理论关心生产问题，从根本上揭示了数字生产力同与之相适应的生产关系的矛盾运动规律。尽管数字资本主义的生产过程发生了诸多形式变化，但是从生产力与生产关系层面加以分析发现其实质没有变，即资本主义生产方式下的资本雇佣劳动的本质没有变化。

First, in the era of the digital economy, digital laborers combine with digital means of production to form digital productive forces, and the question “to whom do digital productive forces belong” becomes a practical issue. The Marxist theory of ownership profoundly reveals that digital productive forces are “the social labor productive forces of the era of the digital economy” rather than “digital capital productive forces.” In a general sense, “data, algorithms, and computing power” constitute the specific content of digital productive forces in the era of the digital economy. An important contribution of the Marxist theory of ownership lies in revealing that “the bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces” [1]1 Marx and Engels, *Manifesto of the Communist Party* (1848). are in fact “social labor productive forces” rather than “capital productive forces.” Marx pointed out: “As ‘capital’ it confronts the worker, and the social form of labor appears as the form of development of capital; thus the social labor productive forces developed in this way appear as the productive forces of capital.” [2]2 Marx, *Capital*, Volume 3, Chapter 23. In this sense, digital productive forces belong to digital laborers, not exclusively to capitalist platform enterprises.

其一，在数字经济时代，数字劳动者与数字生产资料相结合形成数字生产力，“数字生产力归谁所有”成为一个现实问题。马克思主义所有制理论深刻揭示了数字生产力是“数字经济时代的社会劳动生产力”而非“数字资本生产力”。在总体意义上，“数据、算法、算力”构成了数字经济时代数字生产力的具体内容，马克思主义所有制理论的一个重要贡献在于，揭示“资产阶级在它的不到一百年的阶级统治中所创造的生产力”实际上是“社会劳动生产力”而非“资本生产力”。马克思指出：“作为‘资本’同工人相对立，而且劳动的社会形式表现为资本的发展形式，因此，这样发展起来的社会劳动生产力表现为资本的生产力。”从这个意义上说，数字生产力归数字劳动者所有，而非资本主义平台企业所独有。

Second, data elements, by influencing the evolution of the means of production, cause changes in the relevant labor process and thereby exert an effect on the mode of production, while the Marxist theory of ownership, through the formal renewal of the mode of production, grasps the essential issues of production relations in the digital era. The logic of production is the core concept of the historical materialist interpretation. Marx, through the logic of production, presents a key set of categories of historical materialism, namely “productive forces/relations of production”: on the one hand, productive forces refer to the relationship between humans and nature, closely linked to the technical form of labor; on the other hand, relations of production refer to the relationship between humans and humans, closely linked to the social organizational form of labor. It should be noted that “the instruments of labor are the intermediary connecting the technical form of labor and the social organizational form of labor.” [3]3 The author cites a contemporary Chinese Marxist scholar’s formulation; the specific source is not identified in the original text. The renewal of the instruments of labor promotes the innovation of the technical form of labor, drives and generates a new social division of labor, and the new social division of labor further affects the relationships between humans in economic activities; the above is the internal mechanism through which data elements act on the mode of production. Going a step further, under capitalist conditions, the generation of digital capitalism and the operation of its mode of production are sustained through the process of digital capital valorization and the process of digital capital circulation. When data is transformed into digital capital, it is inevitably inseparable from the key condition of employing digital labor. On this basis, when the private ownership of digital means of production coexists with the employment relationship of digital labor, the Marxist theory of ownership hits the essence of production relations in the digital era.

其二，数据要素通过影响生产资料的演进使得相关劳动过程发生变化进而对生产方式产生作用，而马克思主义所有制理论则透过生产方式的形式更新把握住了数字时代生产关系的本质问题。生产逻辑是历史唯物主义阐释的核心概念，马克思透过生产逻辑呈现了历史唯物主义的一组关键范畴即“生产力/生产关系”：一方面，生产力指涉人与自然的关系，与劳动的技术形式紧密关联；另一方面，生产关系指涉人与人之间的关系，与劳动的社会组织形式紧密关联。应当关注到，“劳动资料是连接劳动的技术形式和劳动的社会组织形式的中介”，劳动资料的更新推动了劳动的技术形式革新，推动并生成了新的社会分工，新的社会分工又进一步影响经济活动中人与人之间的关系，上述便是数据要素对于生产方式发生作用的内在机理。更进一步地，置于资本主义条件下，数字资本主义的生成及其生产方式的运行通过数字资本增殖过程、数字资本循环过程得以维系，当数据转化为数字资本时必然离不开雇佣数字劳动这一关键条件。在此基础上，数字生产资料的私人占有与数字劳动雇佣关系并行存在时，马克思主义所有制理论便切中了数字时代生产关系的本质。

Third, although the expansion of the boundaries of digital productive forces has become an indisputable fact, the extent to which the new mode of production promotes what Marx referred to as “the free and full development of each individual” [4]4 Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1, Chapter 24. still awaits further resolution. In its original sense, the Marxist theory of ownership answers the question of the limitations of labor emancipation under conditions of digital capitalism. In the context of digital capitalism, when digitalized platform system networks increasingly replace the production assembly line, a further question arises: does the new mode of production overcome the “alienation” caused by the division of labor on the production assembly line? In other words, does the digital economy or artificial intelligence promote human emancipation or exacerbate the state of human isolation? If disposable free time is taken as a measure, new technological conditions have, to a certain extent, liberated laborers from heavy physical labor. However, examining the matter by penetrating the phenomenal level and delving into the level of the mode of production, if the former capital-labor relationship was realized through the management of technical experience on the production assembly line, then the current situation further extends the “assembly line” into a “platform network.” Platform organizations supervise and control labor time and make specific requirements for labor efficiency through algorithms. This formal “free time” stands in stark contrast to the substantive “labor time.” Under monopoly conditions, “digital labor productivity” is packaged as “platform capital productivity,” further expanding the income of platform capital and widening the income gap between capital and labor. This powerfully confirms the limitations of labor emancipation under conditions of digital capitalism.

其三，尽管数字生产力的边界拓展已经成为不争事实，但是新生产方式在多大程度上促进马克思所指的“每个人的自由而全面的发展”仍有待进一步求解，而在原初意义上，马克思主义所有制理论回答了数字资本主义条件下劳动解放的有限性。在数字资本主义语境下，当数字化的平台系统网络日渐替代生产流水线时，进一步的追问便在于：新的生产方式是否克服了生产流水线分工所造成的“异化”？换言之，数字经济或人工智能促进了人的解放还是加剧了人的孤立状态？如果以可支配的自由时间作为衡量尺度的话，新技术条件一定程度上将劳动者从繁重的体力劳动中解放出来。然而，透过现象层面深入生产方式层面进行考察，如果说曾经的劳资关系是通过生产流水线上的技术经验管理来实现的话，那么当前情境则进一步将“流水线”拓展成为“平台网络”。平台组织监督和控制劳动时间，并通过算法对劳动效率作出具体要求，这种形式上的“自由时间”与实质上的“劳动时间”形成鲜明反差。在垄断条件下“数字劳动生产力”被包装成“平台资本生产力”，进一步扩大了平台资本的收益，加大了劳资收入差距，由此有力确证了数字资本主义条件下劳动解放的有限性。

2. The Level of Economic Base and Superstructure

2.经济基础与上层建筑层面

The economic base and superstructure of digital capitalism are the objects of application of the Marxist theory of ownership in the critique of the era of the digital economy. Marx once compared society to a building and distinguished social relations into two parts: the economic base and the superstructure. Under conditions of digital capitalism, it is necessary to further analyze the contradictory movement of its economic base and superstructure. So, what are the economic base and superstructure of digital capitalism? In short, the former refers to the sum total of production relations of digital capitalism, and the latter refers to the ideology and the corresponding systems, organizations, and facilities built upon the economic base of digital capitalism. According to the principle of the dialectical unity of the economic base and superstructure, digital capitalism constructs a set of political, economic, and cultural orders that conform to its own operational norms. The economic base of digital capitalism inherently requires its superstructure to provide political and ideological conditions for its economic base, and the political superstructure of digital capitalism actively adapts to the state of the economic base. Then, a further question arises: how are the economic base and superstructure of digital capitalism formed?

数字资本主义的经济基础和上层建筑是马克思主义所有制理论在数字经济时代批判的应用对象。马克思曾把社会比喻成一座大厦，并把社会关系区分为经济基础和上层建筑两部分。在数字资本主义条件下，有必要就其经济基础与上层建筑的矛盾运动作进一步剖析。那么，什么是数字资本主义的经济基础和上层建筑呢？简言之，前者是指数字资本主义生产关系的总和，后者是指建立在数字资本主义经济基础之上的意识形态及其与之相适应的制度、组织和设施。按照经济基础与上层建筑辩证统一的关系原理，数字资本主义建构了一套符合自身运行规范的政治经济文化秩序。数字资本主义的经济基础内在要求其上层建筑为其经济基础提供政治、思想条件，数字资本主义的政治上层建筑积极适应经济基础状况。那么，更进一步的追问在于：数字资本主义的经济基础和上层建筑何以形成？

On the one hand, the economic base on which digital capitalism relies is based on the following facts. First, digital platforms seize massive amounts of raw data through “digital enclosure,” [5]5 “Digital enclosure” (数字圈地) is a term used in Chinese Marxist digital-economy scholarship to describe the process by which digital platforms, like the historical enclosure of common lands, privatize and capture publicly generated or collectively produced data. using it to provide digital infrastructure and digital services, and obtain seemingly legitimate “ownership of raw data” through the asymmetrical power form of “user license agreements.” Second, digital platforms use algorithmic technology and employed labor to collect, organize, clean, and preliminarily process massive amounts of raw data, obtaining “ownership of derived data.” Third, digital platforms promote the valorization of data resources and the commodification of data products, constructing huge data flows and data ecosystems, continuously strengthening data monopolies, and participating in value distribution by virtue of ownership to obtain rental income. Based on the above operational system, from “ownership of raw data” to “ownership of derived data” to “data ecosystem” and “data monopoly,” the economic base of digital capitalism is constructed. The high income of digital platforms mainly originates from value distribution, and the key to obtaining this distribution lies in their actual possession of data.

一方面，数字资本主义赖以支撑的经济基础基于以下事实。第一，数字平台通过“数字圈地”攫取海量原始数据，用以提供数字基础设施与数字服务等，并以“用户许可协议”这一不对称的权力形态取得了看似合法的“原始数据所有权”。第二，数字平台利用算法技术与雇佣劳动等收集、整理、清洗数据，对海量原始数据进行初步加工，获得了“衍生数据所有权”。第三，数字平台推动数据资源价值化与数据产品商品化，构建了巨大的数据流与数据生态，并不断加强数据垄断，凭借所有权参与价值分配，获得租金收入。基于上述运行系统，从“原始数据所有权”到“衍生数据所有权”再到“数据生态”“数据垄断”，数字资本主义的经济基础被建构起来了，数字平台的高额收入主要源于价值分配，而获取这种分配的关键在于其对数据的实际占有。

If examined from the perspective of factual outcomes, then the basic principles of Marxism clearly reveal that the mode of production determines the mode of distribution, especially that the structure and form of ownership of the means of production determine the structure and form of the mode of distribution. This outcome narrative is just as Marx pointed out in the *Critique of the Gotha Programme*: “The basis of the capitalist mode of production is that the material conditions of production are in the hands of non-workers in the form of capital and land, while the masses are only the owners of the personal conditions of production, i.e., labor power. If the elements of production are distributed in this way, then the present distribution of the means of consumption follows automatically.” [6]6 Marx, *Critique of the Gotha Programme* (1875). The production process and distribution process of digital capitalism are a typical reproduction of this mode of production. In this process, the power of monopoly capital drives the construction of digital infrastructure and the open access to data elements. The “digital platform capitalist” generated on the basis of digital capitalism is emerging. Accompanying this is the unfair appropriation of data means of production and the income from digital products. This is the application scenario of the Marxist theory of ownership in the era of the digital economy.

如果从事实结果角度来考察的话，那么马克思主义基本原理清晰揭示了生产方式决定分配方式，特别是生产资料所有制的结构和形式决定了分配方式的结构和形式，这种结果叙事一如马克思在《哥达纲领批判》中所指出的，“资本主义生产方式的基础是：生产的物质条件以资本和地产的形式掌握在非劳动者手中，而人民大众所有的只是生产的人身条件，即劳动力。既然生产的要素是这样分配的，那么自然就产生现在这样的消费资料的分配”。数字资本主义的生产过程与分配过程，是这一生产方式的典型复写。在这个过程中，垄断资本的力量推动着数字基础设施的建设和数据要素的开放获取，基于数字资本主义而生成的“数字平台资本家”呼之欲出，与之伴随的是数据生产资料和数字产品收益的非公平占有，这便是马克思主义所有制理论在数字经济时代的应用场景。

On the other hand, the superstructure of digital capitalism undergoes corresponding changes based on the proportion of new types of digital economy, such as the platform economy and the gig economy, within the economic structure. Here, we focus on the political superstructure of digital capitalism. The inquiry in this regard is: Do digital platform capitalists put forward demands for the legitimization of platform monopoly based on their own interests? In *Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism*, Lenin revealed the prerequisite for the emergence of monopoly, namely, the concentration of production and capital. Placed in the context of digital platform monopoly, this "concentration of production and capital" manifests as "the concentration of the production of data commodities under platform conditions" and "the concentration of small-scale platform capital by large-scale platform capital." In reality, platforms lobby governments to relax antitrust regulation and influence legislative and regulatory decisions. For example, in 2020, an antitrust report released by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee showed that companies like Google and Facebook had been lobbying the government for years, attempting to change the interpretation standards of antitrust laws, advocating for the "consumer welfare standard" as the sole criterion, because under the free service model, this standard makes it difficult to prove that consumers have been harmed. On this basis, as the monopoly scale of large capitalist platform enterprises further expands, in terms of organizational design, digital platform capitalists, in the process of pursuing the valorization of digital capital, inevitably put forward demands for the legitimization of platform monopoly. This has specific manifestations at the technical operational level. For instance, besides requiring users to "choose one out of two" based on their dominant market position, it is also common for platforms to use technical means to require merchants to "choose one out of two." Consequently, at the level of the political superstructure, particularly in institutional design, platforms use the guise of so-called "market mechanisms" to engage in "market monopoly." Problems violating fair competition, such as "choose one out of two," "big data-enabled price discrimination against existing customers," [7]7 "Big data-enabled price discrimination against existing customers" (大数据杀熟): A practice where platforms use collected user data to charge existing or loyal customers higher prices than new users for the same product or service. "poaching acquisitions," [8]8 "Poaching acquisitions" (掐尖并购): A term describing the practice of large platform companies acquiring smaller, innovative startups primarily to eliminate potential future competition, rather than for synergistic integration. and "huddling together for warmth," [9]9 "Huddling together for warmth" (抱团取暖): A Chinese idiom used here to describe anti-competitive collusion or alliances formed between companies to collectively strengthen their market position against competitors or regulators. are becoming increasingly prominent.

另一方面，数字资本主义的上层建筑依据经济结构中平台经济、零工经济等数字经济新类型的占比而发生相应变化。在这里，我们重点关注数字资本主义的政治上层建筑。这一方面的追问在于：数字平台资本家有没有基于自身利益提出平台垄断合法化的诉求呢？列宁在《帝国主义是资本主义的最高阶段》中揭示了垄断得以出场的前提条件即生产和资本的集中，放置于数字平台垄断的语境中，这种“生产和资本的集中”表现为“数据商品的生产在平台条件下得以集中”和“大型平台资本实现同类小型平台资本的集中”。在现实中，平台通过游说政府放松反垄断监管，影响立法监管决策。比如，2020年，美国众议院司法委员会发布的反垄断报告显示，谷歌和脸书等公司多年来一直在游说政府，试图改变反垄断法的解释标准，其主张将“消费者福利标准”作为唯一标准，因为在免费服务模式下，这一标准很难证明消费者受到了伤害。在此基础上，随着资本主义大型平台企业垄断规模的进一步扩大，在组织设计上，数字平台资本家在追求数字资本增殖的过程中，势必提出平台垄断合法化的诉求。这在技术操作层面有着具体表现，比如，除了基于市场支配地位要求用户的“二选一”行为外，平台方利用技术手段要求商户“二选一”的行为也比较常见。因而在政治上层建筑层面特别是制度设计层面，平台借助所谓“市场机制”之名行“市场垄断”之实，“二选一”“大数据杀熟”“掐尖并购”“抱团取暖”等违反公平竞争的问题愈发凸显。

III. General Trends and Further Prospects for Research on the Marxist Theory of Ownership in the Era of the Digital Economy

三、数字经济时代马克思主义所有制理论研究的总体动向与进一步展望

Based on the two aspects of research discussed above, at least one basic conclusion can be drawn: Along with the renewal of production methods brought about by the digital economy, the content embedded in the Marxist theory of ownership at the levels of the premise of labor, the labor process, and the results of labor has undergone significant changes. In the critical analysis of digital capitalism, the Marxist theory of ownership demonstrates its theoretical thoroughness, revealing its applicability. Returning to the research itself, strengthening the interpretation of classical Marxist theories under the new conditions of the era has become a breakthrough direction for research innovation. The same holds true for research on the Marxist theory of ownership.

基于前述两方面研究，至少能得出一条基本结论：伴随着数字经济带来的生产方式更新，马克思主义所有制理论内嵌的劳动前提、劳动过程、劳动结果等层面内容发生明显变化，在对数字资本主义的批判性分析中，马克思主义所有制理论又极具理论彻底性，呈现出马克思主义所有制理论的适用性。回到理论研究本身，加强新的时代条件下马克思主义经典理论阐释已成为研究创新点的突破方向，对于马克思主义所有制理论研究而言同样如此。

Judging from the existing literature, the current academic community has conducted in-depth research on the two major topics of "digital economy" and "Marxist theory of ownership" separately, but has not yet formed a systematic study of "digital economy + Marxist theory of ownership." Specifically: First, there is the political economy research on the digital economy. Relevant domestic research mainly unfolds from three aspects: "analysis of the labor process in the digital economy," "critique of digital capitalism," and "analysis of data as a factor of production." Related research topics include "digital capitalism," "platform economy globalization," "platform economy monopoly," "new imperialism," and "digital colonialism." Second, there is the holistic research on the Marxist theory of ownership. The current academic community has basically formed a research pattern of "one body with three wings" [10]10 "One body with three wings" (一体三翼): A Chinese academic metaphor describing a research structure with one core theme ("one body") and three supporting or related sub-themes ("three wings"). around its key issues, mainly focusing on four aspects of ownership: "basic theory," "nature and structure," "forms of realization," and "production efficiency." Specific topics involve "the abolition of private property," "the reconstruction of individual property," "social property," "socialist public ownership," "the non-public sector of the economy," "the joint-stock system," and "mixed ownership." On this basis, the research on the innovative development of the Marxist theory of ownership in the era of the digital economy is a new proposition worth exploring. In recent years, whether it is the continuously heated discussions on platform labor issues like "riders trapped in the system," or the policy direction of "accelerating the development of the digital economy" clarified in the report of the 20th National Congress of the CPC, [11]11 The 20th National Congress of the CPC: The 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, held in October 2022, which set out the Party's guiding principles and policy directions for the following five years. both have pushed the research on "digital economy + Marxist theory of ownership" to the forefront. Combining existing academic research and the previous analysis of "change" and "constancy," the innovative development of the Marxist theory of ownership in the era of the digital economy can also be expanded from the following three aspects.

从既有文献来看，当前学界分别对“数字经济”和“马克思主义所有制理论”这两大议题进行了深入研究，但尚未对“数字经济+马克思主义所有制理论”形成系统研究，具体而言：一是关于数字经济的政治经济学研究。国内相关研究主要从“数字经济劳动过程分析”“数字资本主义批判”“数据生产要素分析”三方面展开，相关研究议题包括“数字资本主义”“平台经济全球化”“平台经济垄断”“新帝国主义”“数字殖民”等。二是关于马克思主义所有制理论的整体研究。当前学界围绕其关键性议题已经基本形成了“一体三翼”的研究格局，即主要关注所有制的“基础理论”“性质结构”“实现形式”“生产效率”四个方面，具体议题涉及“消灭私有制”“重建个人所有制”“社会所有制”“社会主义公有制”“非公有制经济”“股份制”“混合所有制”等。在此基础上，数字经济时代马克思主义所有制理论的创新发展研究是一个值得探索的新命题。近年来，无论是持续引发热议的“困在系统里的骑手”等平台用工问题，还是党的二十大报告中明确的“加快发展数字经济”的政策导向，都将“数字经济+马克思主义所有制理论”研究推到了前沿位置。结合学界既有研究和前文关于“变”与“不变”的分析基础，数字经济时代马克思主义所有制理论的创新发展还可以从以下三个方面进行拓展。

First, further understand and grasp the impact and influence of the digital economy on traditional ownership relations. The digital economy has become a new economic characteristic, profoundly impacting the traditional labor process and economic relations. While digital information has become a means of production, there has also been the emergence of "riders trapped in the system." Therefore, understanding how the restructuring of the labor process impacts and influences relations of production is crucial. Following Marx's research path, it is evident that he not only conducted a general investigation of the labor process in different social formations throughout human history but also specifically analyzed the particular content involved in the capitalist labor process, such as labor, capital, and ownership. Based on historical materialism, he concluded that every new mode of production inevitably has a significant impact on traditional relations of production, especially traditional ownership relations. Thus, exploring the manifestations and coping strategies of the digital economy's impact on traditional ownership relations holds significant theoretical and practical importance. The current academic community has actually conducted extensive in-depth research on the "analysis of the labor process in the digital economy," reaching some basic consensus on the new characteristics of the labor process. For example, a major characteristic of the labor process under the conditions of the digital economy is the "gradual disintegration of the standard employment relationship." Platform carriers exhibit the characteristics of "three highs and one low": high competitiveness, high surveillance, high dispersion, and low stability. Some scholars have also directly stated that the capitalist application or capitalization of digital technology directly leads to new forms of labor alienation, and that digital technology "has not ended capital's control and exploitation of labor."

第一，进一步认识和把握数字经济对于传统所有制关系的冲击和影响。数字经济已经成为新的经济特征，对传统劳动过程和经济关系产生深刻影响。数字信息生产资料化的同时出现了“困在系统里的骑手”，由此如何理解劳动过程重构对生产关系的冲击和影响至关重要。沿着马克思的研究路径不难发现，他既对人类社会历史进程不同社会形态的一般劳动过程进行了总体考察，又特别针对资本主义劳动过程所涉及的劳动、资本、所有制等特定内容进行深入分析，基于唯物史观得出一条结论：每一种新的生产方式的出现必然会对传统生产关系特别是传统所有制关系产生重大影响。由此，探讨数字经济对传统所有制关系影响的问题表现与应对策略，就具有重要的理论和现实意义。当前学界实际上已就“数字经济劳动过程分析”进行了大量的深入研究，特别就劳动过程新特点达成了一些基本共识，比如：数字经济条件下劳动过程的一大特点就是“标准雇佣关系逐渐走向解体”，平台载体具有竞争性高、监视性高、分散性高、稳定性低的“三高一低”特征，也有学者直言数字技术的资本主义应用或资本化直接导致了劳动新异化，数字技术“并没有终结资本对劳动的控制和剥削”。

On this basis, further focusing on the issue of ownership, understanding and grasping the impact and influence of the digital economy on traditional ownership relations involves at least two key issues worthy of in-depth study. On the one hand, from the perspective of the owner, platform capital owners have become a new type of owner. The current era of the digital economy, within the capitalist context, can be referred to as digital capitalism with its dominant characteristics, yet it has not transcended the era of financial monopoly capitalism revealed by Lenin. Instead, it complexly couples within the association of a series of characteristic terms and elements like digital, capital, and finance, thereby generating a collective of digital capital, financial capital, and technological capital, internally driving breakthroughs in digital technological innovation and platform economy monopoly to seek the maximization of private capital profits. Therefore, in the era of the digital economy, studying the ownership structure of platform organizations and the issue of capital monopoly holds extremely strong practical significance. On the other hand, from the perspective of the worker, the mode of combination between workers and the means of production under new labor forms has become a focal point. Changes in this mode of combination have already been touched upon in the previous analysis. For the focus of research on the Marxist theory of ownership, more attention should be paid to the reconstruction of the worker's subjectivity behind the new labor forms. This reconstruction of the worker's subjectivity, analyzed based on the theory of ownership, includes two issues: first, the issue of the attribution of digital productive forces; second, the issue of protecting the rights and interests of digital workers. It should be made clear that reaffirming the subjectivity of workers is a basic principle revealed by historical materialism, and that technological progress promoting the free and comprehensive development of individuals is an inherent requirement of the healthy development of the digital economy.

在此基础上，进一步聚焦到所有制议题上，理解和把握数字经济对于传统所有制关系的冲击和影响，至少有两方面关键问题值得深化研究。一方面，从所有者角度出发，平台资本所有者成为新的所有者类型。今天所处的数字经济时代，在资本主义语境中，既可以指称为具有主导特征的数字资本主义，又没有跳脱列宁当年所揭示的金融垄断资本主义时代，反而在数字、资本、金融等一系列特征名词及要素的关联中复杂耦合，进而生成数字资本、金融资本与技术资本的集合体，内在驱动数字技术创新突破和平台经济垄断以谋求私人资本的利润最大化。因此，在数字经济时代，研究平台组织的所有制结构与资本垄断问题就具有极强的现实意义。另一方面，从劳动者角度出发，新劳动形式下的劳动者与生产资料的结合方式成为焦点。这种结合方式的变化在前文的分析中已有所涉及，而对于马克思主义所有制理论研究的关注点而言，则应更关注新劳动形式背后劳动者的主体性重构。这种基于所有制理论分析而形成的劳动者主体性重构包含两个问题：一是数字生产力归属问题，二是数字劳动者权益保护问题。应当明确，重申劳动者的主体性是历史唯物主义揭示的一条基本原理，技术进步促进人的自由全面发展是数字经济健康发展的题中之义。

Second, further explore the applicability of the Marxist theory of ownership in the digital economy era from the perspective of historical materialism. In particular, closely adhere to the basic principles of the Marxist theory of ownership and further excavate and elucidate its constructive role for socialist ownership in the digital economy era. The Marxist theory of ownership holds fundamental significance for upholding and improving the basic socialist economic system, for upholding the dominant position of public ownership, and for exploring the forms of realization of public ownership. This applicability extends equally to the construction and specification of socialist ownership in the digital economy era.

第二，进一步从唯物史观角度挖掘马克思主义所有制理论在数字经济时代的适用性。特别是紧扣马克思主义所有制理论基本原理，进一步挖掘和阐释其对数字经济时代的社会主义所有制的建构性。马克思主义所有制理论对于坚持和完善社会主义基本经济制度、对于坚持公有制主体地位和探索公有制实现形式具有重要的原理性意义，这对于数字经济时代的社会主义所有制的建构和规定同样具有适用性。

With regard to the research outlook on this topic, it broadly encompasses the following propositions: First, reaffirm that the Marxist theory of ownership is the foundation of political economy analysis. The Marxist theory of ownership provides a basic framework for analyzing the relations of production and exchange across different social formations and outlines the objective trend of the succession and evolution of human social formations. Therefore, it remains necessary to reaffirm and clarify the core tenets and value implications of the Marxist theory of ownership. Second, apply the basic principles of the Marxist theory of ownership to better guide the healthy development of China's digital economy. At present, there have been many discussions on the "benefits" and "harms" of platform economic development, with the digital divide, algorithmic chaos, and platform monopoly becoming hot topics of concern across society. Thus, in the socialist context, strengthening anti-monopoly efforts and preventing the disorderly expansion of capital has become a basic consensus. The Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Further Deepening Reform Comprehensively to Advance Chinese-Path Modernization, deliberated and adopted at the Third Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the CPC, explicitly states: "Promote the innovative development of the platform economy and improve the system for routine regulation of the platform economy." [12]12 The Third Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the CPC, held in July 2024, adopted a decision on further deepening reform comprehensively to advance Chinese-Path modernization, setting out reform tasks through 2029. From a theoretical perspective, the causal mechanisms underlying platform monopoly and the disorderly expansion of capital can be profoundly revealed by recourse to the theory of ownership, particularly by examining the ownership structure of platform organizations, and further exploring the synergistic effects generated by the combination of public capital and digital technology in the socialist context. Finally, examine the realization of classical propositions of the Marxist theory of ownership in the digital economy era. If the digital economy triggers a chain reaction at the level of the mode of production and thereby at the level of relations of production, then can basic conceptions such as "social ownership" possibly be realized in the digital economy era? This proposition still awaits further theoretical exploration and practical verification.

就这一议题的研究展望而言，大体上包含以下命题：首先，重申马克思主义所有制理论是政治经济学分析的基础。马克思主义所有制理论提供了分析不同社会形态生产关系和交换关系的基本框架，勾勒了人类社会形态更新演进的客观趋势。因此，重申和阐明马克思主义所有制理论的核心要义和价值意蕴仍然十分必要。其次，运用马克思主义所有制理论基本原理更好指导我国数字经济健康发展。当前，针对平台经济发展的“利”与“弊”的讨论已有很多，数字鸿沟、算法乱象、平台垄断成为全社会关注的热点议题，因此，在社会主义语境下强化反垄断和防范资本无序扩张成为基本共识。党的二十届三中全会审议通过的《中共中央关于进一步全面深化改革、推进中国式现代化的决定》明确提出：“促进平台经济创新发展，健全平台经济常态化监管制度。”从理论考察的角度来看，平台垄断和资本无序扩张问题的原因机制，可以诉诸所有制理论加以深刻揭示，特别是从平台组织的所有制结构的角度加以切入，并进一步探讨社会主义语境下公有资本与数字技术相结合所产生的协同效应。最后，考察马克思主义所有制理论经典论断在数字经济时代的实现问题。数字经济在生产方式层面进而在生产关系层面引发连锁反应，那么，“社会所有制”等基本设想是否有可能在数字经济时代得以实现呢？对于这一命题，还有待进一步的理论探索和实践检验。

Third, further excavate a new topic of the Marxist theory of ownership in the digital economy era, namely "data ownership." As a brand-new concept in the modernization of the Marxist theory of ownership, data ownership has been touched upon in some existing research, but the more in-depth question of the ownership of data as means of production still requires further discussion and research through classification and stratification.

第三，进一步挖掘马克思主义所有制理论在数字经济时代的新议题即“数据所有权”。数据所有权作为马克思主义所有制理论时代化的一个全新概念，已有部分研究有所涉及，但是就其更深入的数据生产资料所有制问题还有待进一步分类分层加以讨论和研究。

Current relevant academic research mainly revolves around two aspects: "the necessity and feasibility of confirming data element rights" and "the structural design of data ownership." On the one hand, regarding the necessity and feasibility of confirming data element rights, there are mainly two types of views: some hold that "the realization of data rights is difficult" due to reasons such as real-world application scenarios and the inherent attributes of data itself, while others hold that clarifying data ownership is conducive to "reshaping the unreasonable distribution pattern of data element returns." On the other hand, regarding the structural design of data ownership, the legal academic community holds that a "dual structure of data ownership and usufruct" should be constructed, distinguishing different data ownership structures such as "individual data ownership, platform data ownership, individual-platform co-ownership of data, and public data ownership." Some researchers have also proposed structural designs such as "classified protection of raw data, public ownership of data infrastructure as means of production, and attribution of data products as the fruits of labor to all laborers." At present, with the promulgation of documents such as the Opinions of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council on Building a Basic Data System to Better Leverage the Role of Data Elements (hereinafter referred to as the "Twenty Measures on Data"), [13]13 The "Twenty Measures on Data" refers to a policy document issued by the CPC Central Committee and the State Council in December 2022, establishing a foundational institutional framework for data as a production factor in China. accelerating the pace of data rights confirmation and promoting the construction of the data element market have become a basic consensus, further highlighting the importance of research on data ownership.

当前学界相关研究主要围绕“数据要素确权的必要性和可行性”与“数据所有权结构设计”两个方面展开。一方面，就数据要素确权的必要性与可行性而言，主要存在两类观点：既有认为基于现实应用场景与数据的自身属性等原因而导致“数据权利化难以实现”的观点，又有认为明确数据所有权问题有利于“重塑数据要素收益不合理的分配格局”。另一方面，就数据所有权结构设计而言，法学界认为应当构建“数据所有权与用益权的二元结构”，区分出“数据个人所有、数据平台所有、数据个人与平台共有、数据公众所有”等不同数据权属结构，也有研究者提出“原始数据分类保护、数据基础设施作为生产资料实行公有、数据产品作为劳动产品归属全体劳动者”的结构设计。当前，随着《中共中央国务院关于构建数据基础制度更好发挥数据要素作用的意见》（以下简称“数据二十条”）等文件的出台，加快数据确权步伐，推动数据要素市场建设已成为基本共识，进一步凸显了数据所有权研究的重要性。

As mentioned earlier, from the perspective of means of production, data as means of production itself possesses flexibility in terms of ownership due to the particularities of its possession and use. Data is not naturally means of production; data only acquires practical significance when it becomes a factor of production and enters the circulation process, and only then does the ownership nature of data as means of production acquire practical significance. It is worth noting that the "Twenty Measures on Data" further clarifies the approach of confirming rights and authorizing use through hierarchical classification according to public, enterprise, and individual categories, and the issue of data rights confirmation is gradually becoming clearer. In real society, there is both enterprise ownership of platform data and government ownership of public data. At present, China is actively promoting the construction of data administration bureaus and big data groups, the purpose of which is to promote the better use of public data. From a more macroscopic perspective, research on data ownership, especially data rights confirmation, also needs to further clarify how to promote the circulation and trading of data elements, realize the governance of data elements, and ensure the security of data elements, among many other topics worthy of further excavation.

如前文所言，从生产资料角度出发，数据生产资料本身因其占有和使用的特殊性而在权属方面存在弹性空间。数据并非天然就是生产资料，数据只有成为生产要素并进入流通环节才具有现实意义，由此数据生产资料的所有制性质才有现实意义。值得关注的是，“数据二十条”进一步明晰了按照公共、企业、个人进行分级分类的确权授权思路，数据确权问题逐步清晰。在现实社会中，既有平台数据企业所有，又有公共数据政府所有。当前，我国正在积极推动数据管理局和大数据集团建设，其目的在于推动公共数据的更好使用。从更宏观的角度来看，数据所有权研究特别是数据确权还需要进一步明确如何推动数据要素流通和交易、实现数据要素治理和保障数据要素安全等，诸多议题值得进一步挖掘。

Furthermore, in studying the issue of data ownership, it is necessary not only to study the attribution of raw data to clarify the rights and obligations of all parties, but also to study the attribution of intermediate data and final data products with added economic value. Today, from big data to artificial intelligence, there is an accompanying open-ended proposition: to whom do the products created by artificial intelligence belong? Embedded within the discussion of the above issues is a fundamental proposition: in the socialist context of the digital economy era, on the basis of upholding the "universal light" [14]14 "Universal light" (普照的光) is a metaphor from Marx's Grundrisse referring to the dominant relation of production that colors and determines the character of all other relations within a given social formation. of public ownership, researching and elucidating the proposition of data ownership not only helps at the theoretical level to promote the new development of the Marxist theory of ownership in the digital economy era, but is even more conducive at the practical level to exploring mechanisms for the accumulation and sharing of digital wealth, thereby truly enabling all the people to share in the dividends of digital economy development.

此外，研究数据所有权问题，既要研究原始数据的归属问题以明确各方的权利与义务，又要研究中间数据和最终数据创造出来的带有经济附加值的产品的归属问题。今天，从大数据到人工智能，与之伴随的一个开放式命题，即人工智能创造的产品到底归谁所有？在上述问题的讨论中，内嵌一个根本命题，即在数字经济时代的社会主义语境中，在坚持公有制“普照的光”的基础上，研究阐释数据所有权命题，不仅仅在理论层面有助于推动马克思主义所有制理论在数字经济时代的新发展，更有利于在现实层面探索数字财富积累和分享机制，从而真正做到让全体人民共享数字经济发展红利。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗