A Contemporary Reconsideration of Marx’s Labour Theory of Value under the Challenge of Artificial Intelligence

The relationship between labour and value is the theoretical core of Marx’s labour theory of value. Marx held that labour is the sole source of value creation. In Volume I of *Capital*, he pointed out: “All labour is, on the one hand, the expenditure of human labour-power in the physiological sense; and, in this quality of equal or abstract human labour, it forms the value of commodities.” [1]1 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 1, Section 2. The translation follows the standard English edition. However, with the rapid development of science and technology today, the emergence of artificial intelligence such as ChatGPT and Sora has led some to argue that Marx’s labour theory of value is no longer applicable to the age of artificial intelligence, and on this basis they criticise Marx’s labour theory of value. The core premise of this view is to understand artificial intelligence as an unprecedented “qualitative change” in the history of machine development—a change embodied in the degree to which machines replace human labour. Since the invention of tools by humans, through handicraft industry, manufacture, and large-scale machine industry, the degree to which tools, machines, and other technological products penetrate the production process has continuously increased, and the specific content and nature of human labour have changed accordingly, yet human labour has always remained the sole source of value. However, the entirely new production scenes brought about by the development of artificial intelligence—such as the “mechanisation” of the production subject and the “unmanned” production process—seem to have completely “expelled” human labour from the production field.

劳动与价值的关系是马克思劳动价值论的理论内核。马克思认为劳动是价值创造的唯一源泉，他在《资本论》第一卷中指出：“一切劳动，一方面是人类劳动力在生理学意义上的耗费；就相同的或抽象的人类劳动这个属性来说，它形成商品价值。”然而，在科学技术飞速发展的今天，出现ChatGPT、Sora等人工智能，导致一些观点认为马克思劳动价值论已不再适用于人工智能时代，并就此指摘马克思劳动价值论。这种观点的立论核心在于，将人工智能理解为一种机器发展史上前所未有的“质变”，这种“质”体现在机器对人类劳动的替代程度。从人类发明工具以来，经手工业、工场手工业和机器大工业，工具、机器等技术产物渗入生产过程的程度不断增强，人类劳动的具体内容与性质也随之不断变化，但人类劳动始终是价值的唯一来源。然而，由人工智能发展带来的生产主体“机器化”、生产过程“无人化”等全新生产景象，似乎将人类劳动彻底“驱逐”出生产场域。

The view that the emergence of artificial intelligence has altered the principle that “labour creates value” follows two mutually reinforcing lines of reasoning: First, in the production process, the absolute superiority displayed by artificial intelligence in both physical and mental labour enables it to continuously replace human labourers, attempting to completely monopolise the position of the production subject. This situation did not arise suddenly; rather, it is a qualitative change formed by the quantitative accumulation of machines being continuously applied in the production process since the era of manufacture. Second, after artificial intelligence may completely replace human labour to engage in production independently, it will start from the premise of changing the subject of value creation, alter the process of value formation and distribution, negate “labour creates value,” and thereby completely dismantle Marx’s labour theory of value. If the emergence of artificial intelligence could truly overturn Marx’s labour theory of value, the consequence would not only be humanity’s fanatical worship of capital as an “automatic fetish” [2]2 “Automatic fetish” (自动的物神) is Marx’s term in *Capital* for capital as a self-valorising value that appears to possess a life of its own, independent of the labour that creates it. but would also plunge humanity itself into a state of being “surplus,” “redundant,” and “useless.” In response to this, it is necessary to analyse and respond to the challenges on the basis of a scientific understanding of the essence of artificial intelligence, to uphold Marxist theory, and at the same time to continuously develop and innovate in the face of the issues of the times.

认为人工智能的出现改变了“劳动创造价值”这一原则的观点遵循了两条相互递进的思路：第一，在生产过程中人工智能从体力和脑力两方面所展现出的绝对优势，使其不断替代人类劳动者，试图彻底霸占生产主体地位，这种局面并非突然形成的，而是自工场手工业以来机器在不断应用于生产过程中量的积累所形成的质的变化。第二，在人工智能可能彻底替代人类劳动独立从事生产之后，将由改变价值创造主体这一前提出发，改变价值形成过程与分配过程，否定“劳动创造价值”，从而彻底瓦解马克思劳动价值论。假设人工智能的出现真的可以颠覆马克思劳动价值论，那么其后果就不仅是人对于资本这个“自动的物神”的狂热崇拜，更使人本身陷入一种“过剩”“多余”“无用”的境地。对此，必须在科学认识人工智能本质的基础上分析挑战、回应挑战，坚守马克思主义理论，同时面对时代问题不断发展创新。

I. The Quantitative and Qualitative Change Process of Machine Application in Production since Manufacture

一、自工场手工业以来机器应用生产的量变质变过程

Engels pointed out in the preface to the 1888 English edition of the *Manifesto of the Communist Party* that “the whole history of mankind (since the dissolution of primitive tribal society, holding land in common ownership) has been a history of class struggles, contests between exploiting and exploited, ruling and oppressed classes.” [3]3 The quotation is from Engels’s 1888 preface to the *Manifesto of the Communist Party*. The Chinese text here slightly condenses the original; the translation follows the standard English version of the preface. In different stages of the development of human society, the continuous change in the mode of labour has also caused the role played by labour in the production process to constantly transform, rooted in different social conditions and levels of technological development. The comprehensive replacement of human labour by artificial intelligence is essentially a decline in the status of human labour in the production process and a loss of labour power, accompanied by the disintegration of the integrity of production skills caused by the division of labour. Specifically, the process of machines replacing human labour has gone through three stages.

恩格斯在《共产党宣言》1888年英文版序言中指出，“每一历史时代主要的经济生产方式和交换方式以及必然由此产生的社会结构，是该时代政治的和精神的历史所赖以确立的基础，并且只有从这一基础出发，这一历史才能得到说明”。在人类社会不同的发展阶段中，劳动方式的不断变化使劳动在生产过程中所扮演的角色也不断转变，这根源于不同的社会条件与技术发展水平。人工智能对人类劳动的全面替代，本质上是人类劳动在生产过程中地位的降低与劳动权力的丧失，这与由分工造成的生产技艺整体性瓦解相伴随。具体而言，机器替代人类劳动的过程经历了三个阶段。

1. The Period of Manufacture: The Worker Becomes a One-Sided “Organ” of the “Collective Worker”

1.工场手工业时期：工人成为“总体工人”的片面“器官”

With the urgent demand of capitalist development for increased labour productivity, driven by the division of labour, the form of production gradually transitioned from handicraft industry to manufacture. Compared with the handicraft period, on the one hand, manufacture combined the skills of various traditional handicrafts into a form of labour serving the same commodity simultaneously. This combination made the mutual cooperation among workers possessing different skills the main content of the production process and also promoted the emergence of commodities requiring complex skills. On the other hand, manufacture also split the production process of the same handicraft into several links, further developing each worker’s specialisation in their labour movements and fixing them as their “one-sided functions.” Marx believed that the reason for this form was that in manufacture, “the handicraft skill remains the foundation of the process of production, so that each worker is only suited to a partial function, and his labour-power is transformed into the lifelong organ of this partial function.” [4]4 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 14, Section 1.

伴随资本主义发展对劳动生产率提高的迫切需求，在分工的促使下生产形式由手工业逐步过渡到工场手工业。与手工业时期相比，一方面，工场手工业将多种传统手工业的技艺结合为同时服务于同一商品的劳动形式，这种结合使怀揣不同技艺的工人彼此间的相互协作成为生产过程中的主要内容，也促进了复杂技艺商品的出现。另一方面，工场手工业又将以往同一手工业的生产过程拆分为若干环节，使每一个工人在其劳动动作的专门性上得到进一步发展，并固定为其“片面的职能”。马克思认为，造成这种形式的原因是，在工场手工业中“手工业的熟练仍旧是生产过程的基础，所以每一个工人都只适合于从事一种局部职能，他的劳动力就转化为终身从事这种局部职能的器官”。

In a certain sense, manufacture is an assembly of the handicraft production process based on the principles of time and space: “every partial process of the product must be capable of being carried out as a partial handicraft labour.” [5]5 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 14, Section 1. The profound change brought about by manufacture is that, for the production of a product, it can no longer be completed by an independent worker, no matter how skilled he may be; it must follow the stipulations of the division of labour. In this regard, production activity takes on a holistic form, and the nature of the worker abstracts a totality on the basis of his independence, that is, the formation of the “collective worker.” Marx believed that the “collective worker” is composed of one-sided partial workers, its essence being “combined labour-power,” with each “partial worker” forming the “collective worker” as an “organ.” Although the contradiction between the “partial worker” and the “collective worker” formed by the development of manufacture does not directly manifest as the replacement of humans by machines, it does, while increasing labour productivity, change the irreplaceability of labour due to skill. The independence of labour is broken, and production no longer depends solely on any one individual. At the same time, this combined form of production also laid the foundation for the emergence of the “assembly line” form of production in large-scale machine industry.

在一定意义上，工场手工业是以时间和空间的规定性为原则对手工业生产过程的集合，“产品所经过的每一个局部过程都必须能够作为局部的手工业劳动来完成”。工场手工业带来的深层次改变是，对于生产一个产品而言，再不能由一个独立的工人来完成，哪怕他的技艺再高超，也必须依据分工的规定性，就此，生产活动具有了一种整体形式，工人的性质也在其独立性的基础上抽象出了总体性，即形成“总体工人”。马克思认为，“总体工人”是由片面的局部工人组成的，其实质是“结合劳动人员”，每一个“局部工人”都以“器官”的形式组成“总体工人”。由工场手工业发展形成的“局部工人”与“总体工人”之间的矛盾虽未直接表现出机器对人的替代性，但却在提升劳动生产率的同时，改变了劳动因技艺而具有的不可替代性。劳动的独立性被打破，生产再不只依赖于某一个人。同时，这种结合的生产形式也为机器大工业“流水线”生产形式的出现打下了基础。

2. The Period of Large-Scale Machine Industry: The Worker Becomes a “Conscious Limb” of the Machine

2.机器大工业时期：工人成为机器的“有意识肢体”

In the stage of manufacture, the complex labour of traditional skills was reduced to a number of simple labours, and labour tools were correspondingly simplified and specialised. This was an important prerequisite for the emergence of the tool machine, the essence of which is the recombination on the machine of the various simple links of the decomposed complex labour: “As soon as the tool proper is transferred from man to a mechanism, the machine replaces the mere tool.” [6]6 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 15, Section 1. At this point, the cooperation based on the division of labour in manufacture manifested as the combination of various partial tool machines. The degree of perfection of labour tools directly affected labour productivity. With the mutual coordination of the tool machine, the transmission mechanism, and the motive machine, the machine system was generated, and capitalist production entered the stage of large-scale machine industry. Marx believed that the emergence of capitalist large-scale machine industry reversed the relationship of workers’ use of tools and machines in manufacture and handicraft industry into one where workers serve the machines: “the continuous, uniform motion of the machine imposes the strictest discipline on the worker.” [7]7 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 15, Section 4. First, capitalists simplified the content of workers’ labour through mechanised large-scale production, which in a certain sense can be regarded as a “sacrifice” of the workers’ labour capacity. Second, in the process of mechanised large-scale production, the “subjective principle of the division of labour” was replaced by “objective partial processes,” and workers’ labour had to presuppose the “scientificity” of machine operation; workers gradually lost their dominance over the entire labour process. Third, mechanised large-scale production promoted the urbanisation process of capitalist society while simultaneously reconstructing the workers’ way of life. Engels, in *The Condition of the Working Class in England*, vividly depicted the living spaces and hierarchical systems of the workers; the reconstruction of the lifeworld directly affected the workers’ psychological structures and ideological concepts. In this sense, the workers’ physical bodies were reduced to component parts of the machine, while their consciousness was synchronised with the laws of machine motion, becoming “conscious limbs” attached to the machine.

在工场手工业阶段，传统技艺的复杂劳动被还原为若干简单劳动，劳动工具也随之简单化、专门化，这是工具机出现的重要前提，其实质是将被分解的复杂劳动的各个简单环节在机器上重组，“在真正的工具从人那里转移到机构上以后，机器就代替了单纯的工具”。此时，工场手工业中以分工为基础的协作表现为各个局部工具机的结合。劳动工具的完善程度将直接影响劳动生产率，在工具机、传动机、动力机的共同配合下，机器体系生成，资本主义生产进入机器大工业阶段。马克思认为，资本主义机器大工业的出现使工场手工业和手工业中工人对工具、机器的利用关系颠倒为工人服侍机器，“工人要服从机器的连续的、划一的运动，早已造成了最严格的纪律”。其一，资本家通过机器化大生产简化工人的劳动内容，这在一定意义上可视为工人劳动能力的“牺牲”。其二，在机器化大生产过程中，“主观的分工原则”被“客观的局部过程”代替，工人的劳动必须以机器运行的“科学性”为前提，工人逐渐丧失了对整个劳动过程的主导权。其三，机器化大生产推动了资本主义社会的城市化进程，同时也重建了工人的生活方式。恩格斯在《英国工人阶级状况》中详细描绘了工人们的生活场所与等级制度，生活世界的重建直接影响了工人的心理结构与思想观念。在此意义上，工人的肉体沦落为机器的组成部件，意识则同步于机器的运动规律，成为附属于机器的“有意识的肢体”。

Marx held that “in manufacture and handicraft the worker makes use of a tool; in the factory the machine makes use of him. There the movements of the instrument of labour proceed from the worker; here it is the movements of the worker that follow those of the instrument. In manufacture the workers are the limbs of a living mechanism; in the factory we have a lifeless mechanism which is independent of the workers, and they are incorporated into it as its living appendages.” In the stage of manufacture, the worker still occupied a dominant position in the production process, though each individual worker had to be subordinate to the “collective worker”; in the stage of large-scale machine industry, all workers gradually lost their dominant position and their “skill” advantage in the production process, becoming appendages of the machine, because human physical labour and manual dexterity could no longer keep pace with the machine’s work efficiency. This transformation of identity, from a partial “organ” of the “collective worker” to a “conscious limb” of the machine, both reveals the development of productive forces brought about by tools and machines in their capitalist application and explains the lowering of the worker’s status and position as they increasingly penetrate the capitalist production process. In this process, tools and machines have already, to a certain extent, gradually squeezed out human labourers — this is a partial qualitative change in the substitution of machines for human labour.

马克思认为，“在工场手工业和手工业中，是工人利用工具，在工厂中，是工人服侍机器。在前一种场合，劳动资料的运动从工人出发，在后一种场合，则是工人跟随劳动资料的运动。在工场手工业中，工人是一个活机构的肢体。在工厂中，死机构独立于工人而存在，工人被当做活的附属物并入死机构”。在工场手工业阶段，工人仍占据生产过程的主导性，只是每个个体的工人要从属于“总体工人”；在机器大工业阶段，全体工人已经逐渐丧失生产过程中的主导地位与“技艺”优势，成为机器的附庸，因为人类的体力劳动与技艺娴熟度逐渐难以追赶机器的工作效率。由“总体工人”的局部“器官”到机器“有意识肢体”的身份转变，既显示了工具、机器在其资本主义应用过程中所带来的生产力发展，又说明了在其不断渗入资本主义生产过程的同时造成的工人身份地位的降低。在此过程中，工具、机器已经在一定程度上逐步挤压人类劳动者，这是机器替代人类劳动的局部质变。

3. The Age of Artificial Intelligence: Humans Reduced to a “Useless Class” in Capitalist Production

3.人工智能时代：人沦为资本主义生产的“无用阶级”

In the period of large-scale machine industry, the superiority of machines over humans in terms of physical strength had already become fully apparent. The capitalist application of the machine system, in the course of continuously replacing human labour, also greatly increased the relative surplus population. Although human labourers felt the threat from machines, at this stage a portion of simple human labourers still had to intervene in the machine production process in an “auxiliary” role, while another portion of complex mental labourers had to be engaged in the production and research-and-development processes of the machines. This shows that, although machines squeezed human labour, human labour still possessed an irreplaceable character. Marx held that “the instrument of labour passes through various metamorphoses, whose final form is the machine, or rather, an automatic system of machinery.” In the age of artificial intelligence, as a fusion of the automatic machine system and the factor of human intelligence, artificial intelligence — because of its “human-like intelligence” and autonomous systems — is developing rapidly in every field of social production and life, gradually displaying a tendency toward the complete replacement of human labourers. First, the machine attribute of artificial intelligence replaces physical labour. Artificial intelligence further strengthens the material logic of the machine attribute; the human body, as a product of nature, will gradually be crushed by the labour efficiency of the machine system due to the physiological limits of its natural functions, and will be unable to satisfy capital’s demand for the efficiency of valorisation. In this sense, artificial intelligence may completely replace human physical labour. Second, the intellectual factor of artificial intelligence replaces mental labour. Traditional artificial intelligence needed to unilaterally satisfy human needs on the basis of massive data storage, and its operating principle was a simple empirical method. With the emergence of generative artificial intelligence, the technology for generating text, images, sound, video, code, and other content based on algorithms, models, and rules has been greatly strengthened, enabling artificial intelligence to develop rapidly from single language generation toward multimodality and embodiment, generating new original knowledge content in the process of deep learning. This “empiricist” “displays astonishing ‘thinking’ ability.”

在机器大工业时期，机器相较于人的体力优势已充分显现。机器体系的资本主义应用也在不断替代人类劳动的过程中激增了相对过剩人口，人类劳动者虽感受到了来自机器的威胁，但此时，人类劳动中的一部分简单劳动者必须以“辅助”的身份继续介入机器生产过程，而另一部分复杂的脑力劳动者则需要投入机器生产、研发的生产过程之中。这说明，机器虽然挤压人类劳动，但人类劳动仍具有不可替代性。马克思认为，“劳动资料经历了各种不同的形态变化，它的最后的形态是机器，或者更确切些说，是自动的机器体系”。在人工智能时代，作为自动机器体系与人类智慧因素的融合体，人工智能因其“类人智能”与自主系统在社会生产生活的各个领域飞速发展，逐渐呈现出对人类劳动者完全替代的趋势。其一，人工智能的机器属性替代体力劳动。人工智能进一步强化了机器属性的物性逻辑，作为自然产物的人类身体因其自然机能的生理上限，将逐渐被机器体系的劳动效率碾压，不能更好地满足资本对价值增殖效率的要求，在此意义上人工智能可能彻底替代人类体力劳动。其二，人工智能的智慧因素替代脑力劳动。传统人工智能需要在海量数据存储的基础上单向性地满足人类需要，其运行原理是朴素的经验方式。伴随生成式人工智能出现，基于算法、模型、规则生成文本、图片、声音、视频、代码等内容的技术被极大强化，使人工智能可从单一的语言生成逐步向多模态、具身化快速发展，在深度学习的过程中生成新的原创知识内容。这个“经验论者”，“却显示出惊人的‘思维’能力”。

Compared with humans, another advantage of artificial intelligence lies in its image as the “perfect labourer.” On the one hand, the material attribute of artificial intelligence means it has none of the various physical or psychological problems of human labourers; it works more efficiently and is easier to manage. On the other hand, the economic character of artificial intelligence makes it more conducive to capital’s valorisation in the process of its application; human labourers, because they can no longer satisfy capital’s insatiable drive for valorisation, will be expelled from the production field and lose their right to labour. In the machine age, the rise in the organic composition of capital greatly increased the relative surplus population relative to capital’s need for valorisation, and caused a certain degree of “technological unemployment.” In the age of artificial intelligence, the unemployment problem brought about by technological development will continue to expand. Under the power of capital, the absence of human participation in the production process is not a liberation of the labourer; on the contrary, it will turn them into a “useless class” of society. The thoroughness of artificial intelligence’s replacement of human labour indicates the possibility of human labour’s complete “exit” — this is the overall qualitative change triggered by the quantitative accumulation of machine substitution for human labour since the era of manufacture.

相较于人类而言，人工智能的另一个优势在于其“完美劳动者”的形象。一方面，人工智能的物属性使其没有人类劳动者的各类身体问题与心理问题，工作效率更高且易于管理；另一方面，人工智能的经济性使其在应用过程中更利于资本增殖，人类劳动者将因无法继续满足资本无限增殖的欲望而被驱逐出生产场域，丧失劳动权利。在机器时代，由于资本有机构成提高激增了相对于资本增殖需要的相对过剩人口，并造成了一定程度的“技术性失业”。在人工智能时代，这种由技术发展带来的失业问题将继续扩大，在资本权力的作用下，生产过程的无人参与并非一种对劳动者的解放，反而将使他们成为社会的“无用阶级”。人工智能对人类劳动替代的彻底性，标志着人类劳动完全“离场”的可能性，这是自工场手工业以来机器替代人类劳动量的积累所引发的整体质变。

II. From Changing the Subject of Value Creation to Denying that “Labour Creates Value”

二、从改变价值创造主体到否定“劳动创造价值”

Artificial intelligence causes human labour to “exit.” In the sense of comprehensively excluding human labour, this also brings a series of deeper problems: when human labour withdraws entirely from the production sphere, how is the meaning and出路 of human labour to be defined? And how is value created? This is the second theoretical basis on which artificial intelligence challenges Marx’s labour theory of value — namely, by denying the premise of value creation, which is human labour, it denies that “labour creates value.” In concrete terms, this line of argument, by challenging the subject of value creation (the labour subject) in actual production, attempts to alter the process of value formation and dissolve the exploitation of value, and thereby challenges Marx’s labour theory of value by overturning the principle that “labour creates value.”

人工智能使人类劳动“离场”，这在全面排斥人类劳动的意义上也带来了一系列深层次问题：当人类劳动全面撤离生产领域，如何定义人类劳动的意义与出路？价值又是怎样被创造的？这是人工智能挑战马克思劳动价值论的第二条理论根据，即通过否定人类劳动这一价值创造的前提，否定“劳动创造价值”。在具体过程中，这条线索通过对现实生产中价值创造主体（劳动主体）的挑战，试图改变价值形成过程、消解价值剥削，进而通过颠覆“劳动创造价值”这一原则挑战马克思劳动价值论。

1. Attempting to Alter the Process of Value Formation

1.试图改变价值形成过程

Marx’s labour theory of value holds that the formation of value “does not take place in the sphere of circulation, for circulation merely prepares the process of valorisation, which takes place in the sphere of production.” Concretely, when capital is invested in production, the total advanced capital G is divided into constant capital C and variable capital V. Constant capital is used to purchase the means of production Pm, and variable capital is used to purchase “living labour” A, i.e., the commodity labour-power. The peculiarity of the commodity labour-power lies in the fact that its use value, in the process of being used, can create a value greater than its own value (the wage). This explains why the processes G–W and W–G′ both follow the principle of equivalent exchange, yet in the complete process G–W–G′ there is valorisation: because in the process of producing W, the participation of the worker’s labour causes W to develop in fact into W′, i.e., W–P–W′. Labour-power becoming a commodity is the precondition for the transformation of money into capital. The difference between money and capital lies in the fact that capital is money that can bring about valorisation; the reason it can bring about valorisation is that, in the production process, the variable capital in total capital is exchanged for “living labour,” while constant capital only transfers value; only the “living labour” exchanged for variable capital can create new value.

马克思劳动价值论认为，价值的形成“不在流通中进行，因为流通只是为价值增殖过程作准备，而这个过程是在生产领域中进行的”。具体而言，在资本投入生产时，预付总资本G分为不变资本C与可变资本V，不变资本用于购买生产资料Pm，可变资本用于购买“活劳动”A，即劳动力商品。劳动力商品的特殊性在于，其使用价值在被使用的过程中能够创造出比其自身价值（工资）更大的价值，这就可以解释为什么G-W与W-G＇的过程都遵循等价交换原则，但在G-W-G＇的完整过程中却出现了增殖，因为在生产W的过程中，由于工人劳动的参与使W事实上发展为W＇，即W-P-W＇。劳动力成为商品是货币转化为资本的前提，货币与资本的区别就在于资本是能带来价值增殖的货币，而其之所以能带来价值增殖就是因为在生产过程中，总资本中的可变资本与“活劳动”相交换，不变资本只发生价值转移，可变资本所交换的“活劳动”才能创造新价值。

However, the emergence of artificial intelligence seems to make the variable capital in the total advanced capital disappear, because the comprehensive substitution of human labor by artificial intelligence in the production process causes human labor to completely “leave the scene,” so that no “living labor” participates in the entire production process. The problem this creates is that, assuming G-W-G’ still holds, two possibilities arise. The first is that new value (valorization) arises in the sphere of circulation, that is, in the process W-G’. This possibility first affirms the constant-capital attribute of artificial intelligence, holding that it merely transfers value in the production process without creating new value, and that W can no longer be divided into Pm and A. Total capital (money) is exchanged for means of production (raw materials and AI machines), and throughout the production stage the value transfer of the wear and tear of raw materials and AI machines is completed, forming the commodity W (not W’). In this way, the appearance of G’ can only occur in the commodity-selling stage of W-G’, but although this deduction follows the principle of equivalent exchange in the purchase stage, it violates the principle of equivalent exchange in the selling stage. The second is that if it must be ensured that both the G-W and W’-G’ processes follow the principle of equivalent exchange, then the second possibility is that new value (valorization) still arises in the sphere of production, that is, the production process W-P-W’ still holds. We assume that at this point W is divided into Pm and AI (artificial intelligence machines); Pm, as raw materials, only completes value transfer, while AI replaces workers (living labor) to complete valorization, meaning AI can create “surplus value.” The above views attempt to fundamentally alter the process of value formation on the basis of abstracting away human labor.

但是，人工智能的出现似乎使预付总资本中的可变资本消失了，因为在生产过程中人工智能对人类劳动的全面替代，使人类劳动完全“离场”，因此整个生产过程中不再有“活劳动”参与。由此造成的问题是，假设G-W-G＇还成立，那么将产成两种可能性。一是新价值（价值增殖）产生于流通领域，即W-G＇的过程中。这种可能性首先肯定人工智能的不变资本属性，认为其在生产过程中只是发生价值转移，并未产生新价值，W也不能再划分为Pm和A。总资本（货币）交换为生产资料（生产原材料与人工智能机器），在整个生产阶段完成生产原材料与人工智能机器价值损耗的价值转移，形成商品W（非W＇）。如此一来，G＇的出现只可能发生在W-G＇的商品售卖阶段，但这种推论虽然在购买阶段遵循了等价交换原则，却在售卖阶段违背了等价交换原则。二是如果必须保证G-W和W＇-G＇的过程都遵循等价交换原则，那么第二种可能性则是新价值（价值增殖）仍然产生于生产领域，即W-P-W＇的生产过程仍然成立。我们假设此时W划分为Pm和AI（人工智能机器），作为生产原材料的Pm只完成价值转移，而AI则替代工人（活劳动）完成价值增殖，即AI可以创造“剩余价值”。以上观点，试图在抽离人类劳动的基础上对价值形成过程进行彻底改变。

2. Attempts to Deny the Principle of Exploitation of Value

2.试图否定价值剥削原理

In Marx’s view, the fundamental contradiction of capitalist society is the contradiction between the private ownership of the means of production and socialized large-scale production. As the personification of capital, the capitalist ceaselessly pursues surplus value, while the worker, because he is free in the double sense that he is free from the means of production and free to dispose of his own labor-power, must sell his commodity of labor-power to make a living. The worker exchanges his labor-power to the capitalist, and the capitalist, by virtue of his “ownership” of the commodity of labor-power, naturally obtains the surplus value created in its use; “surplus value is merely the result of the change in value of v, the portion of capital transformed into labor-power.”

在马克思看来，资本主义社会的基本矛盾是生产资料私人占有与社会化大生产之间的矛盾。作为资本的人格化，资本家不断追求剩余价值，劳动者因自由得一无所有而必须出卖自身的劳动力商品以维持生计。工人将劳动力交换给资本家，资本家因其对劳动力商品的“所有权”天然获得其在使用过程中创造的剩余价值，“剩余价值只是v这个转变为劳动力的资本部分发生价值变化的结果”。

When artificial intelligence causes human laborers to completely “leave the scene,” the exploitation of human laborers by capital seems to leave the scene as well. Because in the assumed formula where W is divided into Pm and AI, the commodity of labor-power is no longer a unique existence of human beings; artificial intelligence replaces “living labor,” while “exploitation” is specific to the exploiting class and the exploited class, a description of the state of existence between the capitalist and the worker. If we say that exploitation still exists at this point, we can only reluctantly explain it as the capitalist exploiting artificial intelligence. This not only changes the human-specific character of “exploitation,” but is also clearly illogical, because in fact artificial intelligence has at this point already become a part of capital (fixed capital), so we cannot draw the conclusion that total capital is exploiting a part of capital. This creates difficulties on two theoretical fronts: on the one hand, artificial intelligence appears in the role of “machine worker,” replacing humans in performing productive labor, which blurs the source and boundary of value creation, making it a problem whether value exploitation still exists. On the other hand, the emergence of the new type of production site of the “unmanned factory” under the background of artificial intelligence changes the basic logic of previous value distribution, namely, value seems no longer to need distribution. Because in the traditional production process, the factory is the actual site of value formation, and the factory’s organizational structure and work allocation are also the main basis for value distribution under given relations of production; however, whether the objects of value distribution are capitalists, managers, or workers, they are always premised on human beings.

当人工智能使人类劳动者彻底“离场”后，资本对人类劳动者的剥削似乎也将一并离场。因为在W分为Pm和AI的假定公式中，劳动力商品不再是人类独有的存在，人工智能代替了“活劳动”，而“剥削”是专属于剥削阶级与被剥削阶级的，是对资本家与工人之间存在状态的描述。如果说此时仍存在剥削，那我们只能勉强地解释为资本家在剥削人工智能，这不但改变了“剥削”的属人特性，而且显然也是不合逻辑的，因为事实上此时人工智能已经成为资本的一部分（固定资本），因此不能得出总资本在剥削部分资本的结论。这造成了两方面理论的困难：一方面，人工智能以“机器工人”的身份出现，替代人类从事生产劳动，这模糊了价值产生的来源与边界，使价值剥削是否仍然存在成为难题。另一方面，人工智能背景下“无人工厂”这种新型生产场域的出现改变了以往价值分配的基本逻辑，即价值似乎不再需要分配了。因为在传统生产过程中，工厂是价值形成的现实场域，工厂的组织结构与工作分配也是价值分配在既定生产关系下的主要依据，然而，价值分配的对象无论是资本家、管理者还是工人，始终是以人为前提的。

Marx believed that the income of capitalists of different attributes originates in essence from the distribution of surplus value and is income from exploitation. In Volume III of *Capital*, he points out, “the individual members of the capitalist class distribute the total surplus value among themselves.” But when the exploited subject disappears, the reshaping of the structure of value distribution makes the capitalist’s income appear to be “income without exploitation.” This would negate Marx’s theory of surplus value and the principle of value exploitation, thereby completely overturning the understanding of the mode of production and social nature of capitalist society.

马克思认为，不同属性的资本家收入本质上来源于对剩余价值的分配，是剥削的收入。他在《资本论》第三卷中指出，“资本家阶级的各个成员把这全部剩余价值在他们自己中间进行分配”。但是，当被剥削主体消失后，对价值分配结构的重塑使得资本家的收入看上去成了“无剥削收入”。这将否定马克思的剩余价值论与价值剥削原理，从而彻底颠覆对资本主义社会生产方式与社会性质的认识。

3. Attempts to Subvert “Labor Creates Value”

3.试图颠覆“劳动创造价值”

The labor theory of value is the theoretical foundation of Marxist political economy, and the basic principle of this theory is “labor creates value.” It is precisely on the basis of the labor theory of value that Marx profoundly exposed the existence and production process of surplus value, completing his great critique of political economy. Marx’s labor theory of value was gradually formed on the basis of sublating classical political economy. In the *Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy*, Engels first affirmed Adam Smith’s view in *An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations*, holding that “labor is the main element of production, the ‘source of wealth’”; he also pointed out that labor “is man’s free activity, but it has received little attention from economists.” Influenced by the *Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy*, in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, Marx had already shown concern for the issues of labor and value; he accused “political economy of treating the worker only as a working animal, as a beast of burden with only the most necessary physical needs,” and also raised the issue of the worker’s impoverishment being related to “the product of his labor and the product of the wealth he produces.” But at this time, Marx was more concerned with the essence of labor and the problem of alienated labor. In *The Holy Family*, Marx and Engels clearly analyzed the relationship between value and labor time, holding that “in the sphere of direct material production, whether a certain article should be produced, i.e., the determination of its value, depends mainly on the labor time required to produce it.”

劳动价值论是马克思主义政治经济学的理论根基，这一理论的基本原则是“劳动创造价值”。正是在劳动价值论的基础上，马克思深刻揭露了剩余价值的存在与生产过程，完成了其伟大的政治经济学批判。马克思的劳动价值论是在扬弃古典政治经济学的基础上逐渐形成的。在《国民经济学批判大纲》中，恩格斯率先肯定了亚当·斯密在《国民财富的性质和原因的研究》中的观点，认为“劳动是生产的主要要素，是‘财富的源泉’”，他同时指出劳动“是人的自由活动，但很少受到经济学家的重视”。受《国民经济学批判大纲》的影响，在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中，马克思已经表现出对劳动与价值问题的关注，他指责“国民经济学把工人只当做劳动的动物，当做仅仅有最必要的肉体需要的牲畜”，也提出了工人的贫困化与“他的劳动的产物和他生产的财富的产物”相关。但此时，马克思更为在意的是劳动本质与异化劳动的问题。在《神圣家族》中，马克思恩格斯明确分析了价值与劳动时间的关系，认为 “在直接的物质生产领域，确定某物品是否应当生产，即确定这种物品的价值，这主要取决于生产该物品所需要的劳动时间”。

In the process of writing *Capital* and its manuscripts, Marx’s labor theory of value became increasingly mature and complete. At the beginning of Volume I of *Capital*, Marx starts from the commodity, the most central element of society under the dominance of the capitalist mode of production, analyzes the profound connection between the two factors of the commodity and the dual character of labor, reveals the inner logic of the relationship between value and labor from the perspective of abstract labor, and fully demonstrates that “labor creates value.”

在《资本论》及其手稿的写作过程中，马克思的劳动价值论日趋成熟完善。在《资本论》第一卷的开篇，马克思就从商品这个资本主义生产方式占统治地位的社会最核心元素出发，分析了商品二因素与劳动二重性的深刻关联，从抽象劳动的视角揭示了价值与劳动关系的内在逻辑，充分论证了“劳动创造价值”。

Marx’s labour theory of value underwent a concrete historical process of formation. Marx not only distinguished the different functions and roles of elements such as capital, machinery, and human labour in the production process, but also clearly and completely presented to us the process of value formation and the process of valorisation. However, the emergence of artificial intelligence has increasingly blurred the identity of the labouring subject. By challenging the subject of value creation, the process of value production, and the process of exploitation, it creates a production “spectacle” in which no one participates in labour, no one exploits, and no one is exploited. This not only attempts to negate the necessity of human labour but may also overturn the principle that “labour creates value.” Specifically, this unfolds in two aspects: On the one hand, in the challenge to the process of value formation, we find that if new value is still produced under the premise of the complete “exit” of human labour, then according to existing reasoning, this new value absolutely cannot be created by human labour, and the principle that “labour creates value” could be rewritten as “machines create value” or “artificial intelligence creates value.” Analysed from the perspective of artificial intelligence as a means of production, if this view holds, it would not only negate Marx’s labour theory of value under the new changes brought by artificial intelligence, ending its scientific character, but could also dismiss Marx’s labour theory of value as a “perennial” false proposition. On the other hand, in the challenge to the process of exploitation, we find that even if we do not agree that new value is still produced after the complete “exit” of human labour—that is, we insist that value is created by human labour and that production activities carried out by artificial intelligence merely transfer value—we must also simultaneously acknowledge the dissolution of the necessity of human labour and the disappearance of the logic of capital exploitation. Moreover, we cannot explain the meaning of production and the purpose of capital in production activities that only involve value transfer. Otherwise, we must stand on the position of artificial intelligence as constant capital and conclude that “capital creates value,” which would turn the “automatic fetish” from a conceptual existence into a real one, threatening Marx’s historical materialism at a deeper level.

马克思劳动价值论的形成经历了具体历史的发展过程。马克思不仅区分了资本、机器、人类劳动等要素在生产过程中的不同职责与功能，同时清晰完整地向我们呈现了价值形成过程和价值增殖过程。然而，人工智能的出现使得劳动主体的身份愈发模糊，通过对价值创造主体、价值生产过程以及价值剥削过程的挑战，形成了一种无人参与劳动、无人剥削、无人被剥削的生产“景观”。这不仅试图否定人类劳动的必要性，更可能颠覆“劳动创造价值”，具体而言分为两个方面：一方面，在对价值形成过程的挑战中我们发现，假设在人类劳动彻底“离场”的前提下仍有新价值产生，那么依据现有的推论，新价值绝不可能由人类劳动所创造，“劳动创造价值”这一原则将可能被改写为“机器创造价值”或“人工智能创造价值”。从人工智能的生产资料属性分析来看，假设这一观点成立，则不仅是在人工智能所带来的新变化下否定马克思劳动价值论，终结其科学性，更可能将马克思劳动价值论认定为一种“一直以来”的伪命题。另一方面，在对价值剥削过程的挑战中我们发现，即便我们不赞同人类劳动彻底“离场”后仍有新价值产生，也就是说坚持价值是由人类劳动创造的，认为人工智能从事生产活动只是价值转移。但是我们也必须同时承认人类劳动必要性瓦解与资本剥削逻辑的消失，且无法解释在只是价值转移的生产活动中，生产的意义与资本的目的。否则，我们就必须站在人工智能不变资本属性的立场上，得出“资本创造价值”的结论，这将使“自动的物神”从观念中的存在成为真实的存在，在更深层次威胁马克思历史唯物主义理论。

III. A Theoretical Response to the Challenge of Artificial Intelligence Based on Marx’s Labour Theory of Value

三、基于马克思劳动价值论对人工智能挑战的理论回应

As discussed above, the hypothesis that artificial intelligence challenges Marx’s labour theory of value follows two theoretical threads. From the workshop handicraft era through large-scale machine industry to the age of artificial intelligence, the quantitative and qualitative transformation of the mechanisation of production is the precondition for the hypothesis that artificial intelligence attempts to replace human labour as the main subject of production. This supports the assumption that artificial intelligence completely replaces human labour in production. On this basis, the logical contradiction between the process of value formation and the process of valorisation, derived from the premise of the complete “exit” of human labour, then attempts to overturn Marx’s labour theory of value and historical materialism. The first thread is the premise of the second; the second thread is the purpose of the first. This conception reflects the desire of capital for development and the manifestation of capital’s ruling power. A theoretical response to this view must start from Marx’s labour theory of value itself, focus on the fundamental question of “whether labour is the sole source of value creation,” directly confront the two threads supporting this erroneous hypothesis, fundamentally resolve the theoretical dilemma of “artificial intelligence challenging Marx’s labour theory of value,” and defend the scientific character of Marxist theory. In fact, no matter how intelligent artificial intelligence becomes, it is itself a product and result of human labour, ultimately inseparable from human labour. Human labour includes not only physical labour but also mental and intellectual labour. Especially in the age of artificial intelligence, the status of mental labour becomes more important and prominent. Artificial intelligence cannot become an independent subject of labour, nor has it overturned Marx’s labour theory of value.

如上所述，人工智能挑战马克思劳动价值论这一假设遵循了两条理论思路，自工场手工业经机器大工业到人工智能时代，生产的机器化程度的量变质变过程是人工智能试图取代人类劳动生产主体地位的前提，这是人工智能彻底替代人类从事生产这一假设的支撑。在此基础上，由人类劳动全面“离场”这一假设前提而得出价值形成过程与价值增殖过程中的逻辑悖反，进而试图颠覆马克思劳动价值论与历史唯物主义。第一条根据是第二条根据的前提，第二条根据是第一条根据的目的，这种观念的目的是资本发展的渴望，也是资本统治权力的表征。对这一观点的理论回应必须从马克思劳动价值论本身出发，将重点聚焦于“劳动是否是价值创造的唯一源泉”这一根本问题，直面支撑这一错误假设的两条线索，从根本上化解“人工智能挑战马克思劳动价值论”这一理论困境，捍卫马克思主义理论的科学性。事实上，即便人工智能再智能化，它本身也是人类劳动的产物和结果，归根到底离不开人类劳动。人类劳动不仅包括体力劳动，也包括脑力劳动和智力劳动，尤其在人工智能时代脑力劳动的地位更加重要和突出。人工智能不能成为独立的劳动主体，更没有颠覆马克思劳动价值论。

1. Artificial Intelligence Has Not Caused the Complete “Exit” of Human Labour

1.人工智能并未使人类劳动彻底“离场”

The theoretical basis for the hypothesis that artificial intelligence causes the complete “exit” of human labour lies in the dual reinforcement of its automatic machine attributes and quasi-human intellectual factors, which supposedly enable it to fully replace human physical and mental labour. But in fact, at least at the present stage, this inference does not hold. The term “artificial intelligence” originates from the English “artificial intelligence” (abbreviated as AI), referring to artificial, man-made, human-created intelligence, and by extension, false (human) intelligence. The *Cihai* dictionary [10]10 *Cihai* (《辞海》) is a major comprehensive Chinese dictionary and encyclopedia. defines it as using machines to simulate certain intelligent activities and functions similar to those of humans. Currently, judging from the application performance of artificial intelligence, including generative AI (GenAI), it has not changed its man-made nature and human factors in the process of production and research and development. In other words, artificial intelligence still depends on human labour and human intelligence. Therefore, artificial intelligence is not yet capable of forcing the complete “exit” of human labour. The view that artificial intelligence might cause the complete “exit” of human labour is erroneous in the following three aspects.

人工智能使人类劳动彻底“离场”这一假设的理论依据在于，人工智能因其自动机器属性与类似于人的智慧因素的双重加持，可实现对人类体力和脑力的全面替代。但事实上，至少在现阶段，这种推论是不成立的。“人工智能”一词来源于英文“artificial intelligence”（简称AI）的直译，指人工的、人造的、人为的智力，同时引申为虚假的（人类）智力。《辞海》将其解释为用机器模拟类似于人类的某些智能活动和功能。目前，从人工智能包括生成式人工智能（GenAI）的应用表现来看，仍未改变在生产研发过程中的人造属性与人为因素。质言之，人工智能仍依赖于人类劳动和人类智慧。因此，人工智能尚无法逼迫人类劳动彻底“离场”。认为人工智能可能使人类劳动彻底“离场”这一观点的错误主要有以下三方面。

First, it neglects the transformation of physical labour into mental labour. In his speech at the anniversary of the *People’s Paper*, Marx, while criticising the capitalist application of technology, said: “All our invention and progress seem to result in endowing material forces with intellectual life, and in stultifying human life into a material force.” [11]11 Karl Marx, “Speech at the Anniversary of the *People’s Paper*,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 14 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1980), p. 655. But Marx then continued: “To make the new social forces work well, they need only be mastered by new men—and such are the workers.” [12]12 Ibid. The development of artificial intelligence precisely confirms Marx’s view: as an objectified product of human essential forces, it cannot completely detach itself from humans and “grow freely.” Although the highly developed automatic machine attributes of artificial intelligence have replaced a large area of human physical labour, its quasi-human intellectual abilities are likewise an objectified manifestation of human mental labour. “The value ‘created’ by artificial intelligence is fundamentally the value created by the workers who develop and use it.” [13]13 This is a paraphrase of a common argument in Chinese Marxist scholarship on AI and labour. Mental labour can be understood as a form of complex labour, and “a small amount of complex labour equals a large amount of simple labour.” [14]14 Karl Marx, *Capital*, vol. 1, trans. Ben Fowkes (London: Penguin, 1990), p. 135. In the process of social development, human physical labour is constantly transformed into mental labour. This is an inevitable trend accompanying the increase in the organic composition of capital and a realistic manifestation of the continuous progress of human society. “As machines become generally applied in the same branch of production, the social value of the machine product falls to the level of its individual value, and the following law then takes effect: surplus value does not arise from the labour-power that the capitalist replaces with the machine, but, on the contrary, from the labour-power he employs to operate the machine.” [15]15 Karl Marx, *Capital*, vol. 1, p. 531.

第一，对体力劳动向脑力劳动转化的忽视。《在〈人民报〉创刊纪念会上的演说》中，马克思在批判技术的资本主义应用时说：“我们的一切发明和进步，似乎结果是使物质力量成为有智慧的生命，而人的生命则化为愚钝的物质力量。”但随后，马克思继续指出：“要使社会的新生力量很好地发挥作用，就只能由新生的人来掌握它们，而这些新生的人就是工人。”人工智能的发展恰恰证实了马克思的观点，作为人本质力量的对象化产物，其不可能彻底脱离人类“自由生长”。虽然人工智能高度发达的自动机器属性替代了大面积的人类体力劳动，但其类似于人的智慧能力同样是人脑力劳动的对象化体现。“人工智能‘创造’的价值根本上是研发和使用它的工人创造的。”脑力劳动可理解为复杂劳动的一种，“少量的复杂劳动等于多量的简单劳动”。在社会发展过程中，人类的体力劳动也不断向脑力劳动转化，这是伴随资本有机构成提高的必然趋势，也是人类社会不断进步的现实表现。“随着机器在同一生产部门内普遍应用，机器产品的社会价值就降低到它的个别价值的水平，于是下面这个规律就会发生作用：剩余价值不是来源于资本家用机器所代替的劳动力，而是相反地来源于资本家雇来使用机器的劳动力。”

Second, it confuses concrete labour with abstract labour. Marx’s labour theory of value holds that concrete labour produces use-value, abstract labour produces value, and the substance of value is the congealed abstract human labour. The view that artificial intelligence might completely replace human labour is essentially a confusion of concrete labour with abstract labour. For productive labour, concrete labour and abstract labour are not two separate or distinct types of labour, but two aspects of the same labour process. From the transformation of physical labour into mental labour, we know that artificial intelligence currently only changes the form of concrete labour. The concrete labour originally engaged in specific production is transformed, with the assistance of artificial intelligence, into labour that manages, directs, and applies artificial intelligence. Concrete labour exists, and abstract labour also exists. The phenomenon of the disappearance of concrete labour in individual production processes cannot be equated with the disappearance of the entire social mechanism of abstract labour. Artificial intelligence, in the guise of a labour subject, conceals its essence as a labour instrument. By changing the form of concrete labour, it attempts to create an appearance of the disappearance of human concrete labour, obscuring abstract labour, and thereby trying to negate that human labour creates value. This is an erroneous understanding of phenomenon and essence. In Marx’s view, labour is the essence of man, and “labour is, first of all, a process between man and nature, a process by which man, through his own actions, mediates, regulates and controls the metabolism between himself and nature.” [16]16 Karl Marx, *Capital*, vol. 1, p. 283. That is to say, labour belongs to man and necessarily exists in the process of interaction between man and nature. Therefore, as long as human beings still exist and still interact with nature, labour still exists.

第二，对具体劳动与抽象劳动的混淆。马克思劳动价值论认为，具体劳动生产使用价值，抽象劳动生产价值，价值的实体就是人类抽象劳动的凝结。认为人工智能可能彻底替代人类劳动这种观点，本质上是对具体劳动与抽象劳动的混淆。对于生产性劳动而言，具体劳动与抽象劳动不是两次或两种劳动，而是同一劳动过程的一体两面。在体力劳动向脑力劳动转化的过程中我们知道，目前人工智能不过是改变了具体劳动的形态，原本从事具体生产的具体劳动在人工智能的协助下转变为管理、指挥、应用人工智能的劳动。具体劳动存在，抽象劳动也同样存在。个别生产过程中具体劳动的消失现象，并不能等同于整个社会抽象劳动机制的消失。人工智能以劳动主体的形式掩盖了其劳动工具的实质，通过对具体劳动形式的改变，试图营造出人类具体劳动消失的景象，遮蔽抽象劳动，进而试图否定人类劳动创造价值，这是对现象与本质的错误认识。在马克思看来，劳动是人的本质，同时“劳动首先是人和自然之间的过程，是人以自身的活动来中介、调整和控制人和自然之间的物质变换的过程”。这就是说，劳动既从属于人，又必然存在于人与自然的交往过程中。因此，只要人类仍然存在，仍然与自然交往，劳动就仍然存在。

Third, a mistaken understanding of the identity of the subject of production in artificial intelligence. “Technology is a means for realizing human purposes”; it is the intermediary through which humanity transforms nature. As a concrete manifestation of the level of human technology, artificial intelligence displays multiple identities, obscuring its essential nature. Since the era of manufacture, the proportion of machinery applied in capitalist production has continuously increased, and with the addition of intelligence resembling human wisdom, artificial intelligence has created the illusion that it might completely replace human labor in production. Consequently, some viewpoints have granted artificial intelligence the identity of a subject of production, which is a mistaken understanding of its identity attributes. In the production process, artificial intelligence in fact possesses three identities: first, artificial intelligence as means of production; second, artificial intelligence as capital; third, artificial intelligence as a commodity. In the link where artificial intelligence is applied to produce commodities, its attribute is that of productive capital, but prior to this, artificial intelligence is the “result” of the previous commodity production link, i.e., commodity capital. “A commodity is first of all an external object, a thing which through its qualities satisfies human needs of some kind or another.” It is precisely because artificial intelligence, on the basis of the automatic system of machinery, has also integrated human-like intelligence that it has been widely researched, developed, and applied. Thus it can be seen that artificial intelligence is itself a product or result of human labor; it cannot create itself and must depend on human labor. The erroneous view that artificial intelligence replaces humans in creating value essentially fails to recognize its falsity as a subject of production. This is a neglect of human mental labor and a mistaken understanding of the nature of labor and the production process, and it cannot be sustained. At least at the present stage, artificial intelligence cannot truly become a subject of production and completely replace human labor.

第三，对人工智能生产主体身份的错误认识。“技术是实现人的目的的一种手段”，是人类改造自然的中介，人工智能作为人类技术水平的现实表现，却展现出多重身份，遮蔽了其本质属性。自工场手工业以来，机器应用于资本主义生产的比重不断加大，并因类似于人的智慧能力的加持，使人工智能呈现出可能彻底替代人类从事生产的假象。因此，一些观点赋予了人工智能生产主体的身份，这是对人工智能身份属性的错误认识。在生产过程中，人工智能事实上具有三方面身份：其一，作为生产资料的人工智能；其二，作为资本的人工智能；其三，作为商品的人工智能。在应用人工智能生产商品的环节中，其属性为生产资本，但在此之前，人工智能是上一个商品生产环节的“结果”，是商品资本。“商品首先是一个外界的对象，一个靠自己的属性来满足人的某种需要的物。”正是因为人工智能在自动机器体系的基础上又融入了类人智能，所以被广泛研发应用。由此可见，人工智能本身就是人类劳动的产物或结果，不能自己创造自己，必须依赖人类劳动。人工智能替代人类创造价值这一错误观点，本质上没有认识到其作为生产主体的虚假性。这是对人类脑力劳动的忽视，以及对劳动本质与生产过程的错误认识，并不能够成立。至少在现阶段人工智能不可能真正成为生产主体并完全替代人类劳动。

2. Artificial intelligence cannot change the fact that labor is the sole source of value

2.人工智能不能改变劳动是价值的唯一源泉

In the responses above, we find that at present artificial intelligence still cannot completely replace human labor; therefore, the fundamental principle of Marx’s labor theory of value—that labor is the sole source of value—has not been broken. Next, we still need to address two questions: First, if artificial intelligence itself does not create new value in the production process, what new impacts does it have on value formation and value exploitation as it continuously squeezes out human labor? Second, while artificial intelligence at the current stage indeed cannot make human labor completely “exit the stage,” will the emergence of future artificial general intelligence (AGI) change the fact that “labor creates value”?

在以上回应中我们发现，目前人工智能仍无法彻底替代人类劳动，因此劳动是价值的唯一源泉这一马克思劳动价值论的基本原则并未被打破。接下来，我们仍需解决两个问题：其一，如果人工智能在生产过程中本身不创造新价值，那么它在不断挤压人类劳动的过程中对价值形成和价值剥削造成了哪些新影响？其二，目前阶段的人工智能的确不能使人类劳动彻底“离场”，但未来通用人工智能（AGI）的出现是否会改变“劳动创造价值”？

First, the fixed capital attribute of artificial intelligence accelerates value formation. Marx held that “the development of fixed capital also indicates the degree of development of wealth generally, or the degree of development of capital.” Under the dominance of the logic of capitalist competition, the survival principle of the survival of the fittest permeates every dimension of social production and life. Producers must continuously utilize high-tech to raise labor productivity and achieve accelerated production in order to maintain their competitiveness, which causes “the speed of change in the organic composition of capital and in the technical form of capital to also continuously accelerate.” More human labor is replaced by artificial intelligence as fixed capital. On the one hand, this causes more workers to become a relative surplus population; on the other hand, it accelerates value formation. The emergence of this phenomenon is directly related to the nature of capital’s self-expansion. In Marx’s view, “the production of surplus value, or the making of profit, is the absolute law of this mode of production.” In this sense, the capitalist application of artificial intelligence accelerates value formation; this is the purpose of capital, and even more so the nature of capital, because accelerating value formation is the precondition for accelerating value expansion.

第一，人工智能的固定资本属性加速价值形成。马克思认为：“固定资本的发展也表明财富一般发展的程度，或者说资本发展的程度。”在资本主义竞争逻辑的主导下，优胜劣汰的生存法则渗透于社会生产生活的各个维度，生产者必须不断利用高新科技提高劳动生产率，实现生产加速以维持其竞争力，这造成“资本有机构成和资本技术形式的变化速度也不断加快”，更多的人类劳动被作为固定资本的人工智能替代。这一方面造成了更多工人成为相对过剩人口，另一方面也加速了价值形成，这种现象的出现是与资本的增殖本性直接相关的。在马克思看来，“生产剩余价值或赚钱，是这个生产方式的绝对规律”。在此意义上，人工智能的资本主义应用加速了价值形成，这是资本的目的，更是资本的本性，因为加速价值形成是加速价值增殖的前提。

Second, the capitalist application of artificial intelligence intensifies capital exploitation. The squeezing out of human labor by artificial intelligence is essentially the squeezing out of people by capital. The power of capital prescribes the labor capacity of workers, and there is only one standard for this: to satisfy the self-expansion of capital to the greatest extent. “As soon as the worker’s activity is no longer required by [capital’s] needs, the worker becomes superfluous.” In the process of self-expansion, capital needs to reduce workers’ necessary labor as much as possible and increase surplus labor. “Raising the productivity of labor and maximizing the negation of necessary labor—as we have already seen—is the necessary tendency of capital. The transformation of the instruments of labor into a system of machinery is the realization of this tendency.” And today’s artificial intelligence is no different. Therefore, artificial intelligence itself can be regarded as a means of liberating labor (the elimination of alienated labor, not the elimination of labor itself), a conquest of natural forces by humanity, yet because of its capitalist application, it becomes a means of controlling, dominating, exploiting, and enslaving people. As “high-level automation,” artificial intelligence does not serve people but rather serves the self-expansion of capital to the greatest extent, because under the rule of capital’s power, certain new technologies themselves emerge precisely from the needs of capital’s self-expansion. In short, in the capitalist application of artificial intelligence, although it does not directly create surplus value, it objectively accelerates the self-expansion of capital. Not only does it not dissolve the logic of capital’s exploitation, but it intensifies capital’s exploitation of people, because the rate of surplus value is itself a manifestation of the degree of social exploitation. This consequence is precisely the qualitative change produced by the quantitative accumulation of the capitalist application of tools, machinery, and technology since the era of manufacture.

第二，人工智能的资本主义应用加剧资本剥削。人工智能对人类劳动的挤压本质上是资本对人的排挤。资本权力规定着劳动者的劳动能力，这个标准只有一条：最大限度满足资本增殖。“只要工人的活动不是［资本的］需要所要求的，工人便成为多余的了。”在增殖过程中，资本需要尽可能地减少工人的必要劳动、增加剩余劳动，“提高劳动生产力和最大限度否定必要劳动，正如我们已经看到的，是资本的必然趋势。劳动资料转变为机器体系，就是这一趋势的实现”。而如今的人工智能同样如此。因此，人工智能本身可视为解放劳动（对异化劳动的消除，而非消除劳动本身）的手段，是人对自然力的征服，但却因其资本主义应用，成为控制人、宰制人、剥削人、奴役人的手段。作为“高阶自动化”，人工智能并未服务于人而是最大限度地服务于资本增殖，因为在资本权力统治下，某些新技术本身就是因资本增殖需要而出现的。总之，在人工智能的资本主义应用中，虽未直接创造剩余价值，却在客观上加速了资本增殖，不仅没有消解资本的剥削逻辑，反而加剧了资本对人的剥削，因为剩余价值率本身就是社会剥削程度的表现，这一后果才正是自工场手工业以来工具、机器、技术资本主义应用量的积累所产生的质变。

Third, the future application of artificial intelligence in production and future society. With the in-depth development of generative artificial intelligence, some viewpoints hold that the emergence of artificial general intelligence, as the ultimate goal of artificial intelligence, seems imminent. Artificial general intelligence aims to create machines with intelligence comparable to that of humans; on the basis of solving specific problems, it can also engage in autonomous learning and reasoning, understand complex scientific concepts, create artistic works at a human level, and possess cross-domain cognitive abilities. Can we then understand this as meaning that it is not that artificial intelligence cannot completely replace humans, but rather that the current “qualitative change” of artificial intelligence is not yet sufficient? When artificial general intelligence emerges, will humans have no place left to stand?

第三，未来人工智能的生产应用与未来社会。随着生成式人工智能的深入发展，一些观点认为，作为人工智能终极目标的通用人工智能的出现似乎已指日可待。通用人工智能旨在创建具有与人类相当智力的机器，在解决特定问题的基础上，还可自主学习、推理，可理解复杂的科学概念、创作出具有人类水平的艺术作品，并且具备跨领域的认知能力。那么我们可否理解为不是人工智能不能彻底替代人类，而是当前人工智能的“质变”程度还不够，当通用人工智能出现时，人类再无立身之所？

Even if the level of intelligence of artificial general intelligence is ever so high and its scope of application ever so broad, we still need to clarify whether its production and research and development depend on human labor. This is a foundational question for any kind of artificial intelligence attempting to challenge Marx’s labor theory of value. Suppose that in the future, artificial intelligence indeed achieves a complete surpassing of human intelligence and no longer needs to rely on humans to complete its own research and development. Then we need to ask: whom does this artificial intelligence serve? If artificial intelligence continues to serve capital, it will go through two stages.

即便通用人工智能的智慧程度再高、应用范畴再广，我们仍需明确其生产研发是否依赖人类劳动，这是任何一种人工智能试图挑战马克思劳动价值论的基础性问题。假设未来人工智能果真实现了对人类智慧的彻底超越，且不再需要依靠人类完成自主研发，那么我们需要追问，此时人工智能的服务对象是谁？如果人工智能继续服务于资本，那么将经历两个阶段。

First, capital continues to obtain surplus value through the average rate of profit. “A capitalist who in his own branch of production employs no variable capital at all, and therefore employs no workers at all (in fact this is an extreme assumption), would be just as interested in the exploitation of the working class by capital, and would just as much derive his profit from unpaid surplus labor, as a capitalist who employs only variable capital and therefore lays out all his capital on wages (another extreme assumption).” That is to say, although there is no human labor involved in a particular branch of production, human labor still exists in the sphere of total social production. Therefore, the capitalist in that particular branch of production will share in the total surplus value created by total social labor together with other capitalists.

首先，资本继续通过平均利润率获取剩余价值。“一个在本生产部门内完全不使用可变资本，因而完全不使用工人的资本家（事实上这是一个极端的假定），会像一个只使用可变资本，因而把全部资本都投到工资上面的资本家（又是一个极端的假定）一样地关心资本对工人阶级的剥削，并且会像后者一样地从无酬的剩余劳动获取他的利润。”也就是说，虽然在某一个生产部门内没有人类劳动介入，但在社会总生产领域中仍存在人类劳动，因此某一生产部门内的资本家将同其他资本家一道瓜分社会总劳动创造的总剩余价值。

Secondly, when there is no human labour engaged in production anywhere within the entire society—in this extreme hypothetical scenario—artificial intelligence can replace the productive subjectivity of humans, but it cannot replace the consumptive subjectivity of humans. Because under the premise that artificial intelligence is subordinate to capital, this situation amounts to capital’s “self-production and self-consumption.” On the surface, it appears to complete the circuit of capital accumulation, but in reality both sides of the commodity exchange are subordinate to capital, so it carries no significance for valorisation whatsoever. This will also, at a deeper level, dissolve the existing commodity economy, thereby causing the collapse of the capitalist mode of production. For the so-called automatic valorisation of capital—the mode of existence of this “automatic fetish” [20]20 “Automatic fetish” (自动的物神) is a reference to Marx’s concept of the fetishism of commodities, where capital appears to valorise itself automatically, as if endowed with a life of its own, obscuring its dependence on the exploitation of living labour.—still relies in essence on external exploitation. When there is no “externality” at all, capital loses the fuel for continued valorisation. As Marx himself said: “If the machine were to destroy the whole working class, that would be a terrible thing for capital, for capital without wage-labour ceases to be capital!” [21]21 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse* (Notebook VII), in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 29 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1987), p. 91. Capital, wage-labour, and commodity value are all products of specific stages of socio-historical development, and they will ultimately disappear in the course of socio-historical development.

其次，当整个社会内部都不存在从事生产的人类劳动，在这种极端假设的情况中，人工智能可以替代人类的生产主体性，但不能替代人类的消费主体性。因为在人工智能从属于资本的前提下，这种情况是资本的“自产自销”，看上去是在完成资本循环积累，但实际上商品交换的双方都从属于资本，所以并不具有任何增殖意义，这也将在深层次上瓦解现有的商品经济，进而造成资本主义生产方式的崩溃。因为所谓资本的自动增殖，这种“自动的物神”的存在形态，其本质上仍然依靠对外在的剥削，当没有任何“外在”存在时，资本也就丧失了继续增殖的动力燃料。正如马克思所言：“如果机器消灭了整个雇佣工人阶级，那么这对资本来说将是一件十分可怕的事情，因为资本没有雇佣劳动就不成其为资本了！”资本、雇佣劳动与商品价值都是社会历史发展的阶段性产物，也终将在社会历史的发展过程中消失。

In the future society envisioned by Marx, when machines truly serve humanity, “people no longer engage in the kind of labour that can be performed by things in their place—once that point is reached, capital’s historical mission is fulfilled,” [22]22 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse* (Notebook VII), in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 29 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1987), p. 91. and the historical mission of Marx’s labour theory of value is likewise completed. At that time, the purpose of labour will no longer be the forced struggle for subsistence, but rather a means of each individual’s active self-realisation. “This immeasurable productive capacity, once consciously applied and used for the benefit of the masses, will very quickly reduce the labour burdened upon humanity to a minimum.” [23]23 Friedrich Engels, *Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy* (1844), in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 440. Artificial intelligence may achieve the substitution of human productive activity, but it cannot achieve the substitution of human free and conscious labour, because labour and production are not identical concepts. Labour is the essence of humanity; the transition from alienated labour to free labour is the leap from the “realm of necessity” to the “realm of freedom.”

在马克思所畅想的未来社会中，当机器真正服务于人之时，“人不再从事那种可以让物来替人从事的劳动，——一旦到了那样的时候，资本的历史使命就完成了”，而马克思劳动价值论的历史任务也就完成了。彼时，劳动的目的将不再是被迫地维持生计，而是每个人主动地自我实现的方式。“这种无法估量的生产能力，一旦被自觉地运用并为大众造福，人类肩负的劳动就会很快地减少到最低限度。”人工智能可能实现对人生产活动的替代，但无法实现对人自由自觉劳动的替代，因为劳动与生产不是同一的概念。劳动是人的本质，从异化劳动到自由劳动，这是从“必然王国”到“自由王国”的飞跃。

IV. The Deepening Development and Contemporary Significance of Marx’s Labour Theory of Value in the Context of Artificial Intelligence

四、人工智能背景下马克思劳动价值论的深化发展与时代意义

As the core component of Marxist political economy, the labour theory of value bears an important historical mission. It is not a rigid, ossified theory, but one that develops with the times, grasps the pulse of the era, and responds to the questions of the age. This is reflected not only in its profound revelation of the laws governing the operation of the capitalist socio-economy, but also in its sober anticipation of the increasingly concealed, complex, and diversified forms of capital exploitation. In the face of new problems of the times, we should deepen our understanding of this theory, apply it flexibly, continuously innovate and develop it, and at the same time excavate its contemporary significance.

劳动价值论作为马克思主义政治经济学的核心组成部分，承载着重要的历史使命。它不是固化的、僵死的理论，而是伴随时代发展、把握时代脉搏、回应时代之问的理论。这不仅体现在对资本主义社会经济运行规律的深刻揭示，还体现在对资本剥削愈发隐匿化、复杂化、多样化的清醒预见。在面对时代新问题的过程中，我们更应该对这一理论深入认识，灵活运用，不断创新发展，同时挖掘其时代意义。

1. Deepening the Development of a Contemporary Marxian Labour Theory of Value

1.深化发展时代化的马克思劳动价值论

In the era of artificial intelligence, the fact that human labour is the sole source of value creation has not changed. Marx’s labour theory of value can still scientifically guide us in understanding the complex economic forms of today’s world and correctly grasping the deep relationship between labour and material production. While adhering to the scientific and contemporary character of Marx’s labour theory of value, we must also, in light of major changes in socio-economic conditions, rationally extend the specific conceptual categories that Marx proposed in the age of the steam engine during early industrialisation, deepen our understanding, continuously discover new problems, and advance the theory through practical testing.

在人工智能的时代背景下，人类劳动是创造价值的唯一源泉没有改变，马克思劳动价值论仍能科学地指引我们认识当今世界复杂的经济形式，正确理解劳动与物质生产的深层关系。我们在坚持马克思劳动价值论科学性时代性的基础上，也要根据社会经济条件的重大变化，对马克思面对工业化初期的蒸汽机时代所提出的具体概念范畴进行合理延伸，深化认识，不断发现新问题，并通过实践检验使理论发展前进。

First, the development of the understanding of the category of productive labour. Marx discussed the issue of productive labour in many works, including *Capital* and its manuscripts. He held that, on the one hand, “this productive wage-labour is precisely the basis of capital, the basis of capital’s existence.” [24]24 Karl Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, Part I, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 31 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1989), p. 16. On the other hand, “productive labour is labour that is directly exchanged with capital.” [25]25 Karl Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, Part I, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 31 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1989), p. 16. Specifically, the distinction between productive and unproductive labour lies in its productiveness, which does not refer to the external form of the productive activity but to its inner essence—namely, whether it brings about the valorisation of capital. Therefore, in Marx’s labour theory of value, the two criteria for judging whether a type of labour is productive are: first, whether that labour contributes to the valorisation of capital; second, whether that labour has the nature of wage-labour.

第一，对生产性劳动范畴的认识发展。马克思在《资本论》及其手稿等多部著作中都谈到了生产劳动问题，他认为：一方面，“这种生产的雇佣劳动也就是资本的基础，资本存在的基础”。另一方面，“生产劳动是直接同资本交换的劳动”。具体而言，生产劳动与非生产劳动的区别在于其生产性，这并不特指生产活动的外在形式，而是针对其内在本质，即是否带来资本增殖。因此，在马克思劳动价值论中，判断一种劳动是否为生产性劳动的两个标准是：其一，该劳动是否有助于资本增殖；其二，该劳动是否存在雇佣性质。

In the era of artificial intelligence, due to the widespread application of intelligent technology, many new forms of “unpaid labour” or “free labour” have emerged in the digital-intelligent sphere. This labour is still performed by humans, but its content consists mainly of providing raw data for artificial intelligence or “digital intelligence” in the digital domain. This new form of labour, which accompanies the development of digital capital and platform capital, often places the labourers themselves in an unconscious state, covertly serving the valorisation of capital. The British scholar Christian Fuchs, in his book *Digital Labour and Karl Marx*, describes this state as an “exploitation hidden behind ‘play’.” [26]26 Christian Fuchs, *Digital Labour and Karl Marx* (New York: Routledge, 2014), p. 100. Under the fundamental constraints of capitalist relations of production, owing to the gap in cognitive levels and the hegemonic forms of digital and platform capital, capital exploitation becomes ever more concealed. This hidden labour is difficult to define as productive labour, because although we can deduce its specific role in the process of capital valorisation, in most cases this labour lacks a clear wage-labour relationship. This results in many fruits of human labour being appropriated by capital and by intelligent technology as capital. Therefore, we should correctly understand the many new forms of labour brought about by the development of artificial intelligence, accurately analyse the specific process of value formation under these new forms of labour, make new determinations of productive labour, and render new judgments on so-called “unpaid labour.”

在人工智能时代，因智能技术的广泛应用，在数智领域中出现了许多新兴的“无酬劳动”或“免费劳动”。这些劳动仍由人来完成，只不过劳动的内容主要是为数字领域的人工智能或者“数字智能”提供数据原材料。这种伴随数字资本与平台资本发展所出现的新劳动形式，很多时候使劳动者自身都处于一种不知不觉的状态，隐性地服务于资本增殖。英国学者克里斯蒂安·福克斯（Christian Fuchs）在《数字劳动与卡尔·马克思》一书中将这种状态描述为一种“隐藏在‘玩’背后的剥削”。在资本主义生产关系的根本限制下，由于认知水平的差距与数字、平台资本的霸权形式，使资本剥削愈发隐匿，这种隐性的劳动难以被定义为生产性劳动，因为我们虽然可以推导出其在资本增殖过程中的具体作用，但大多数情况下这种劳动不具备明确的雇佣关系。这使得许多来自人类的劳动成果被资本与作为资本的智能技术占有了。因此，我们应当正确认识因人工智能发展所带来的诸多新劳动形式，准确分析在新劳动形式下价值形成的具体过程，对生产性劳动作出新的界定，对所谓的“无酬劳动”作出新的判断。

Second, the development of the understanding of the labour contribution of scientific and technical personnel. In the discussion of the “collective worker” in Volume I of *Capital*, Marx points out that “the various functions of the collective worker are sometimes simpler, sometimes more complex, sometimes lower, sometimes higher.” [27]27 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 35 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1996), p. 508. Among these, the “more complex” and “higher” functions include mental labour. Marx consistently affirmed that both manual labour and mental labour are significant, holding that in many cases manual labour and mental labour cooperate with each other: “the labour process combines mental labour and manual labour together.” [28]28 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 35 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1996), p. 508. But at that time, Marx’s focus of study was on manual labour in the sphere of material production. With the development of social productive forces, the division of labour has continuously deepened, and the specialisation of functions has also continuously increased; manual labour and mental labour have formed a clear distinction. In the context of artificial intelligence, mental labour (complex labour) highly related to scientific and technological research and development and technological innovation has become increasingly important. In a certain sense, the value it creates is higher than that of manual labour (simple labour). Therefore, the importance of the mental labour expended by scientific and technical personnel in the production process should be fully clarified, their significant contribution in the process of value creation should be affirmed, their understanding of the nature of their labour should be deepened, and this should be matched in the mode of distribution.

第二，对科技人员劳动贡献的认识发展。在《资本论》第一卷关于“总体工人”的论述中，马克思指出，“总体工人的各种职能有的比较简单，有的比较复杂，有的比较低级，有的比较高级”。其中，“比较复杂”“比较高级”的职能就包含脑力劳动。马克思一直肯定体力劳动与脑力劳动都具有重要意义，认为很多时候体力劳动与脑力劳动是相互协作的，“劳动过程把脑力劳动和体力劳动结合在一起了”，但此时马克思重点研究的是物质生产领域的体力劳动。伴随社会生产力发展，分工不断细化，职能的专门性也不断增强，体力劳动与脑力劳动已经形成了明确的区分。在人工智能背景下，与科技研发、技术创新高度相关的脑力劳动（复杂劳动）愈发重要，在一定意义上，其所创造的价值要高于体力劳动（简单劳动）。因此，应充分明确科技人员在生产过程中所付出的脑力劳动的重要性，肯定其在价值创造过程中的重要贡献，深化对其劳动性质的认识，并在分配方式上与之相匹配。

Third, the development of the understanding of the process of value creation. Value creation always originates from human labour and takes shape in the sphere of production, but the capitalist application of artificial intelligence has made people’s understanding of this issue increasingly blurred. Under the power of capital, artificial intelligence attempts to intervene in the production process in the capacity of an “intelligent labourer,” replacing human labour, so that the process of value transfer to a certain extent obscures the process of value production. This is a false “spectacle” under the rule of capital power. In response, the essence of artificial intelligence as an “intelligent instrument of labour” should be correctly understood. In the production process, the emergence of the “intelligent instrument of labour” has indeed greatly raised production efficiency and enhanced productive forces, but in itself it also possesses the attribute of a commodity, i.e., an “intelligent commodity.” In the process of producing the “intelligent commodity,” human labour’s creation of value is clear and definite; this link must also be understood within the overall process of value creation. Therefore, the understanding of the process of value creation in the context of artificial intelligence should be deepened, and on this basis the mechanism of value distribution should be improved.

第三，对价值创造过程的认识发展。价值创造始终来源于人类劳动，形成于生产领域，但因人工智能的资本主义应用，使人们对这一问题的认识愈发模糊。人工智能在资本权力的作用下，试图以“智能劳动者”的身份介入生产过程，取代人类劳动，使价值转移过程在一定程度上遮蔽了价值生产过程。这是资本权力统治下的一种虚假“景观”，对此，要正确认识人工智能的“智能劳动工具”本质。在生产过程中，“智能劳动工具”的出现的确极大提高了生产效率，提升了生产力，但就其本身而言，同样具有商品属性，即“智能商品”。人类劳动在生产“智能商品”的过程中，对价值的创造是清晰明确的，这个环节同样需要被置于整体价值创造过程之中去理解。因此，应深化认识人工智能背景下价值创造的过程，在此基础上完善价值分配机制。

Fourth, the development of the understanding of the capitalist application of machinery. Since the age of machinery, the capitalist application of machinery has made it not only serve capital but even be treated as capital itself, which has inverted the relationship among machinery, technology and human beings, and this has continued into the era of artificial intelligence. As the latest manifestation of modern technology, artificial intelligence has not only failed to achieve the liberation and alleviation of human labour but has instead become an alien force that squeezes human beings. This is because, under the rule of capital’s power, human beings, machinery and nature have all become instruments for the valorisation of capital. “The form in which the capitalist mode of production makes the conditions of labour and the product of labour independent of and alien to the worker develops into a complete antithesis with the development of machinery.” [29]29 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 15, Section 5. (Translator’s note: The English translation follows the standard Penguin edition.) From the age of machinery to the age of intelligent machinery, not only has the sophistication of machinery advanced, but the contradiction between machinery and human beings has also intensified. This is an inevitable consequence of the capitalist application of machinery and an inevitable trend in the development of capitalist society. In response to this, we must see the essence through the phenomena, clearly identify the two opposing sides of the contradiction, and scientifically anticipate its process of movement; otherwise, we will blindly fall into the opposition between human beings and machinery while ignoring the logic of capital hidden behind the “spectacle.” [30]30 “Spectacle” (景观) here alludes to Guy Debord’s concept of the “society of the spectacle,” in which social relations are mediated by images and appearances that obscure underlying capitalist relations. As Marx himself said: “Machinery is in no way itself to blame for the ‘separation’ of the worker from the means of subsistence … For these contradictions and antagonisms are not themselves generated by machinery, but by its capitalist application!” [31]31 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 15, Section 6. Deepening the understanding of the capitalist application of machinery is an important prerequisite for correctly understanding capital, correctly understanding artificial intelligence, and correctly understanding the predicament of the subject in the era of artificial intelligence.

第四，对机器的资本主义应用的认识发展。自机器时代以来，机器的资本主义应用使其不仅服务于资本，甚至被作为资本，这颠倒了机器、技术与人的关系，并一直延续到人工智能时代。人工智能作为现代技术的最新表征，不仅没有实现对人类劳动的解放与缓解，反而成为挤压人类的异己力量，这是因为在资本权力的统治下，人、机器、自然都成为资本增殖的工具。“资本主义生产方式使劳动条件和劳动产品具有的与工人相独立和相异化的形态，随着机器的发展而发展成为完全的对立。”从机器时代到智能机器时代，不仅机器的先进程度得到发展，更使机器与人之间的矛盾加剧，这是机器资本主义应用的必然后果，也是资本主义社会发展的必然趋势。对此，我们必须透过现象看到本质，明确矛盾的对立两面，科学预见其运动过程，否则将盲目地陷入人与机器的对立，而忽视隐藏于“景观”背后的资本逻辑。正如马克思所言：“机器本身对于工人从生活资料中‘游离’出来是没有责任的……因为这些矛盾和对抗不是从机器本身产生的，而是从机器的资本主义应用产生的！”深化对机器的资本主义应用的认识，是我们正确认识资本、正确认识人工智能以及人工智能时代主体困境的重要前提。

2. The Contemporary Significance of Marx’s Labour Theory of Value in the Context of Artificial Intelligence

2.人工智能背景下马克思劳动价值论的时代意义

In the context of artificial intelligence, the forms of production and the modalities of labour have undergone enormous changes, but Marx’s labour theory of value has not become obsolete or invalid; its theoretical value and theoretical significance have become increasingly prominent through the test of practice. Adhering to this theory and applying it in a contemporary manner can not only help us correctly understand the new forms and new characteristics of contemporary capitalism but also safeguard the flourishing development of the socialist market economy, and, moreover, enable us to correctly handle and benignly develop the human-machine relationship when facing the challenges of artificial intelligence.

在人工智能背景下，生产的形式与劳动的样态等都发生了巨大变化，但是马克思劳动价值论没有过时或失效，其理论价值与理论意义在实践的检验中愈发凸显。对于这一理论的坚持与时代化运用，既可以正确认识当代资本主义新形态、新特征，又可以为社会主义市场经济的繁荣发展保驾护航，更能够在面对人工智能挑战时正确处理、良性发展人机关系。

First, adhering to Marx’s labour theory of value helps to correctly understand the new characteristics of contemporary capitalism. Although Marx’s labour theory of value examined and sublated certain aspects of the relevant theories of classical economists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo, its direct target remains the capitalist system and the class-exploitative relations of capitalist society. This theory helps to understand the new characteristics of contemporary capitalist development. First, from applying machinery to utilising machinery. In the age of large-scale machine industry, capital applied machinery to increase labour productivity; in the era of artificial intelligence, capital utilises machinery to squeeze out human labour. The purpose of capital has never been human development but endless value and profit; therefore, it will use every condition to achieve its own valorisation. Second, from exploiting surplus value to depriving the right to labour. Capital achieves its valorisation by exploiting the surplus value created by labourers. At this stage, although human labourers are “free in the double sense” [32]32 “Free in the double sense” refers to Marx’s description of the proletarian as free from direct feudal ties of bondage and free from any ownership of the means of production, thus compelled to sell labour-power. and possess nothing, they still have the qualification to be exploited. When human labour can no longer satisfy capital’s thirst for the growth of surplus value, capital uses artificial intelligence to exclude human labour, redefine labour capacity, and deprive human beings of the right to labour. Although artificial intelligence cannot completely replace human beings at present, it nonetheless causes “one part of the working class to be condemned to overwork, while the other part is condemned to forced idleness.” [33]33 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 15, Section 3(c). Third, from the power of capital to the power of technology. Power can be understood as a force of domination, manifested as a relationship of control. “The capitalist possesses this power not on account of his personal or human qualities, but in so far as he is an owner of capital.” [34]34 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 14, Section 2. In this sense, the power of capital is the power of the owner or controller of capital to dominate or control others, and the power of technology is the power of the owner or controller of technology to dominate or control others. With the technological empowerment of artificial intelligence, the power of capital constantly utilises the power of technology to achieve the domination and control of human beings. As technology develops and its application becomes universal, capital’s rule over human beings becomes increasingly entrenched. The power of capital, which towers above individual power, attempts to develop into an unlimited power in order to safeguard the unlimited valorisation of capital.

第一，坚持马克思劳动价值论有助于正确认识当代资本主义新特征。马克思的劳动价值论虽然在某些方面考察并扬弃了古典经济学家如亚当·斯密、大卫·李嘉图等人的相关理论，但其理论的直接目标仍是资本主义制度和资本主义社会阶级剥削关系。这一理论有助于认识当代资本主义发展的新特征。其一，从应用机器到利用机器。在机器大工业时代，资本应用机器提高劳动生产率，在人工智能时代，资本利用机器挤压人类劳动。资本的目的从不在于人的发展，而在于无尽的价值利益，因此将利用一切条件实现自身的增殖。其二，从剥削剩余价值到剥夺劳动权力。资本通过剥削由劳动者所创造的剩余价值实现资本增殖，在此阶段，人类劳动者虽然“自由得一无所有”，但仍具有被剥削的资格。当人类劳动无法满足资本对剩余价值增长的渴望时，资本就利用人工智能排斥人类劳动，重新定义劳动能力，剥夺人类劳动权利。虽然目前人工智能不能彻底替代人类，但其却使更多的“工人阶级的一部分从事过度劳动迫使它的另一部分无事可做”。其三，从资本权力到技术权力。权力可理解为一种统治的力量，表现为一种支配关系。“资本家拥有这种权力并不是由于他的个人的特性或人的特性，而只是由于他是资本的所有者。”在此意义上，资本权力就是资本所有者或操控者所拥有的支配或控制他人的力量，技术权力就是技术所有者或操控者所拥有的支配或控制他人的力量。在人工智能的技术加持下，资本权力不断利用技术权力实现对人的支配和控制。随着技术发展与应用的普遍化，资本对人的统治愈发根深蒂固，凌驾于个体权力之上的资本权力，试图发展成为一种无限权力，以维护资本的无限增殖。

Second, adhering to Marx’s labour theory of value helps to guide the development of the socialist market economy. In the course of developing socialism with Chinese characteristics, the basic tenets of Marxism have been continuously integrated with China’s specific realities and with the best of traditional Chinese culture. The contemporary application of Marx’s labour theory of value plays an important role in guiding the development of the socialist market economy. First, it helps to correctly understand the essence of the socialist market economy. A market economy is not equivalent to capitalism, nor is socialism equivalent to a planned economy. Marx’s labour theory of value reveals the general laws of the commodity economy, which are equally applicable to understanding the socialist market economy. Xi Jinping believes: “Our understanding of the nature of capital has gradually deepened, our understanding of the role of capital has become more comprehensive, our grasp of the laws of capital has become more thorough, and our ability to govern the operation of capital has continuously improved.” [35]35 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the 38th Collective Study Session of the Political Bureau of the 19th CPC Central Committee,” April 29, 2022. The orderly development of China’s economy and society fully proves that the relations of production based on public ownership of the means of production can rationally harness capital and fully coordinate labour. Second, it helps to prevent risks in the development of the socialist economy. In the process of understanding the essence of capitalism based on Marx’s labour theory of value, we find that when the power of capital becomes sufficiently strong and becomes trapped in its own logic, no force can any longer stand above capital; capital becomes the supreme power, which inevitably intensifies social contradictions. In response, we should draw scientific lessons. In the process of developing the socialist economy, we must both utilise the civilising aspect of capital and regulate its barbaric aspect, better harness capital, rationally use capital, and prevent economic development risks. “We must regulate and guide the healthy development of capital in our country according to law, strengthen theoretical research on capital under the conditions of the new era, deeply understand and grasp the characteristics and behavioural laws of capital, and use scientific theory to guide practice, promoting the benign development and common development of all types of capital.” [36]36 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the 38th Collective Study Session of the Political Bureau of the 19th CPC Central Committee,” April 29, 2022. Third, it helps to improve the socialist market economy system. Socialism with Chinese characteristics adheres to the basic economic system in which public ownership plays a dominant role and diverse forms of ownership develop side by side. On the basis of adhering to state leadership, it has fully stimulated market vitality. This is an important achievement in the development of the socialist system and has been gradually perfected in the process of sublating the operational mechanism of private capital. The general theory of commodity production and commodity exchange revealed by Marx’s labour theory of value has important practical guiding significance for China’s further deepening of economic system reform, improving the socialist market economy system, and realising the grand goal of building China into a great modern socialist country in all respects.

第二，坚持马克思劳动价值论有助于指导社会主义市场经济发展。在中国特色社会主义的发展过程中，不断将马克思主义基本原理同中国具体实际相结合，同中华优秀传统文化相结合。马克思劳动价值论的时代化，对于指导社会主义市场经济发展具有重要作用。其一，有助于正确认识社会主义市场经济的本质。市场经济不等于资本主义，社会主义也不等于计划经济。马克思劳动价值论揭示了商品经济一般规律，这对理解社会主义市场经济同样适用。习近平认为：“我们对资本性质的理解逐步深化，对资本作用的认识更趋全面，对资本规律的把握更加深入，对资本运行的治理能力不断提高。”中国经济社会的有序发展充分证明了，以生产资料公有制为基础的生产关系对资本的合理驾驭以及对劳动的充分协调。其二，有助于预防社会主义经济发展风险。在立足马克思劳动价值论认识资本主义本质的过程中我们发现，当资本的力量足够强大并陷入自身的逻辑时，就再没有任何力量能凌驾于资本之上，资本成为最高权力，这必然激化社会矛盾。对此，我们应当科学借鉴，在发展社会主义经济的过程中，既要利用资本的文明面，又要规制资本的野蛮面，更好地驾驭资本，合理利用资本，防范经济发展风险。“依法规范和引导我国资本健康发展，要加强新的时代条件下资本理论研究，深入认识和把握资本的特性和行为规律，用科学理论指导实践，促进各类资本良性发展、共同发展。”其三，有助于完善社会主义市场经济体制。中国特色社会主义坚持以公有制为主体、多种所有制经济共同发展的基本经济制度，在坚持国家主导的基础上充分激发了市场活力，这是社会主义制度发展的重要成果，也是在扬弃私有资本运行机制的过程中逐步完善的。马克思劳动价值论所揭示的关于商品生产和商品交换的一般理论，对于我国进一步深化经济体制改革，完善社会主义市场经济体制，实现全面建成社会主义现代化强国宏伟目标，具有重要现实指导意义。

Third, adhering to Marx’s labour theory of value helps to construct a harmonious human-machine relationship. Artificial intelligence is a contemporary symbol of today’s technological development and a concrete manifestation of the objectification of human essential forces. The direct purpose of technological development is to help human beings solve various problems in production and life and to meet the historical needs of human beings; human beings always use new technologies to solve new problems. However, in different forms of human society, the subject served by technology is not always human beings or all human beings. In class society, technology serves the absolute power represented by the ruling class, which is also the reason why capital rules over human beings through technology in capitalist society.

第三，坚持马克思劳动价值论有助于构建和谐的人机关系。人工智能是当今技术发展的时代化标志，也是人类本质力量对象化的具体表现，技术发展的直接目的在于帮助人类解决生产生活中的各类问题，满足人类历史性的需要，人类总是利用新技术解决新问题。但是，在不同形态的人类社会中，技术服务的主体却不总是人或全体人。在阶级社会中，技术服务的是统治阶级所代表的绝对力量，这也是在资本主义社会中资本通过技术统治人的原因。

In fact, technology is merely the result of discovering, integrating and applying objective laws; it inherently possesses no tendency whatsoever. Looking instead at the application of science and technology such as artificial intelligence in socialist development, we can see a qualitative difference from their capitalist application. This difference originates in different modes and principles of application, and fundamentally in different social-system essences. In capitalist society, capital is absolute power and the valorisation of capital is the sole purpose; technology, people and natural resources are all tools for capital’s valorisation. When technology can replace people, people lose the meaning of their existence — this is determined by the logic of capital’s valorisation. Compared with capitalist society, where the logic of capital holds sway, the socialist system always serves the entire people; technology, capital and natural resources should all take the all-round development of the human person as their precondition. Of course, in the present stage of socialist development capital likewise plays an important role, but under the fundamental guarantee of the socialist system capital is no longer a power that dominates people; it should be a force that promotes the development of people and society. In the process of scientifically guiding the healthy and sound development of capital, technology is no longer an accomplice in capital’s valorisation. No matter how high the level technology reaches, it will not become a means of squeezing people out; it will become a means of liberating people. The purpose of technological development is not to enable capital to complete its valorisation to the maximum extent, but to enable people to achieve the maximum liberation and obtain sufficient free time to develop themselves in an all-round way. Therefore, the widespread application of artificial intelligence will not render humanity useless, still less will it obliterate the meaning and value of human labour.

事实上，技术不过是对客观规律发现、整合、运用的结果，本不具有任何倾向性。反观人工智能等科学技术在社会主义发展中的应用，我们可以看到与其资本主义应用的本质区别，这种区别来源于不同的应用方式、原则，根本上在于不同的社会制度本质。在资本主义社会中，资本是绝对权力、资本增殖是唯一目的，技术、人、自然资源都是资本增殖的工具，当技术可代替代人时，人就丧失了存在意义，这是由资本增殖逻辑决定的。与资本逻辑占统治地位的资本主义社会相比，社会主义制度始终服务于全体人民，技术、资本、自然资源都应该以人的全面发展为前提。当然，在社会主义现阶段的发展过程中资本同样发挥着重要作用，但是在社会主义制度的根本保障下，资本不再是统治人的权力，而应是促进人与社会发展的力量。在科学引导资本健康良性发展的过程中，技术也不再是资本增殖的同谋，无论技术发展到怎样的高度，都不会成为排挤人的手段，而将会成为解放人的方式。技术发展的目的不是使资本最大限度完成增殖，而是使人最大限度解放，获得充分的自由时间以全面发展自身。因此，人工智能的广泛应用也不会使人类无用，更不会抹杀人类劳动的意义和价值。

In the process of Chinese-path modernization, scientific and technological development and scientific and technological innovation play an important role. At the National Science and Technology Conference, the National Science and Technology Awards Conference, and the Conference of the Two Academies of Sciences [37], General Secretary Xi Jinping stressed the importance of science

在中国式现代化的进程中，科技发展与科技创新具有重要作用。在全国科技大会、国家科学技术奖励大会、两院院士大会上，习近平总书记强调了人工智能等科学技术的重要性，他指出：“要瞄准未来科技和产业发展制高点，加快新一代信息技术、人工智能、量子科技、生物科技、新能源、新材料等领域科技创新，培育发展新兴产业和未来产业。”在以科技创新引领新质生产力发展、建设现代化产业体系的过程中，人工智能应发挥“头雁”作用，坚持以人为本、智能向善，更好地促进经济增长、拓宽就业环境、助力科学分配等，充分体现了社会主义科学技术发展的使命和初心。

In sum, the fundamental issue in resolving the contradiction between humans and machines lies in restoring technology to its mediating attribute, which is realized in the process of the struggle between the logic of capital and the logic of the human-centered approach. Only by clarifying the subject that technology serves can the development of technology be made more conducive to human development, actively promoting the green transformation of technologies such as artificial intelligence, and thereby fostering a harmonious coexistence between human society and machine technology. The claim that artificial intelligence falsifies Marx’s labor theory of value is an erroneous conclusion drawn from a one-sided understanding of Marx’s labor theory of value. In a certain sense, it is also a means by which the power of capital attempts to conceal the fact that labor creates value and to erase human subjectivity. Artificial intelligence cannot replace the subject position of human beings, nor can it replace humans in creating value. Adhering to a contemporary version of Marx’s labor theory of value can help correctly understand the complex relationships among machines, humans, and capital, clarify the root causes of the human-machine contradiction, and thereby provide methodological guidance to a certain extent for achieving a harmonious human-machine symbiotic relationship.

总之，解决人机矛盾的根本性问题在于使技术回归其中介属性，这是在资本逻辑与人本逻辑的博弈过程中实现的。明确技术的服务主体，才能使技术的发展更有利于人的发展，积极推进人工智能等技术的绿色转型，从而促进人类社会与机器技术的和谐共生。所谓人工智能证伪了马克思劳动价值论，是因片面理解马克思劳动价值论得出的错误结论，在某种意义上，也是资本权力试图掩盖劳动创造价值、抹杀人主体性的手段。人工智能不能代替人的主体地位，更不能代替人创造价值。坚持时代化的马克思劳动价值论可有助于正确认识机器、人、资本之间的复杂关系，明确人机矛盾的问题根源，进而在一定程度上为实现和谐的人机共生关系提供方法论指导。

(Author’s bio: Yu Tianyu, Professor at the School of Marxism, Jilin University)

（作者简介：于天宇，吉林大学马克思主义学院教授）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心

Source: *Studies on Marxism*, Issue 2, 2025

来源《马克思主义研究》2025年第2期