The Capitalist Production Logic of Digital Labor and Its Subjectivity Alienation

With information technologies such as the internet, artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and blockchain extensively embedded in every aspect of human life, a landscape of digital existence has taken shape. Empowered by these technologies and manipulated by capital, a new capitalist form driven by digital capital to propel social development has emerged—digital capitalism. The arrival of the era of digital capitalism updates the technological means of enterprise development, transforms the operational mechanisms of capitalism, and reshapes humanity’s modes of production. Behaviors such as production, life, and consumption, which were traditionally difficult to quantify, can now be converted into quantifiable indicators through data integration and analysis technologies. Thus, a new labor model—digital labor—has emerged as the times require. As one of the core topics in the study of digital capitalism, digital labor epitomizes the complex relationship between information technology and labor power in the contemporary capitalist socioeconomic structure. Under the wave of digitalization, clarifying the essence of digital labor and revealing the operational logic behind it holds significant practical importance for breaking technological monopolies, alleviating the social pains accompanying the “birth” of digital capitalism, and thereby moving toward digital socialism.

随着互联网、人工智能、云计算、区块链等信息技术广泛嵌入人类生活的方方面面，形成了数字化生存景观。在这些技术的赋能和资本的操纵下，形成了一种全新的以数字资本推动社会发展的资本主义形态——数字资本主义。数字资本主义时代的到来更新着企业发展的技术手段，变革着资本主义的运行机制，重塑着人类的生产方式，传统上难以量化的人类生产、生活、消费等行为，现可通过数据集成与分析技术转化为可量化的指标。由此，一种全新的劳动模式——数字劳动应运而生。数字劳动作为数字资本主义研究的核心议题之一，集中体现了当代资本主义社会经济结构中信息技术与劳动力之间的复杂关系。在数字化浪潮下，厘清数字劳动的本质，揭示其背后的运行逻辑，对于打破技术垄断、减轻数字资本主义“分娩”过程中伴生的社会阵痛，从而迈向数字社会主义具有重要现实意义。

I. Conceptual Analysis of Digital Labor

一、数字劳动的概念辨析

A review of current research findings shows that scholars tend either to place the concept of digital labor entirely within the digital system, exploring the labor forms adopted by various digital technology enterprises closely linked to the process of digital capital accumulation, arguing that digital work and digital labor are broad categories encompassing all activities involved in digital media technology and content production; or to define it as the free, unpaid labor existing on internet platforms, which facilitates the formation of a unified paradigm for the concept of digital labor. With the development of the digital economy, the understanding of the essence of digital labor also needs to be continuously deepened. In this regard, only by grasping the intrinsic connection between labor in general and the particularity of digital labor can we better understand the essential connotation of digital labor.

纵观当前研究成果，学者们或倾向于将数字劳动概念完全置于数字化体系之下，探究与数字资本积累进程紧密相关的各类数字技术企业所采用的劳动形态，认为数字工作和数字劳动是涉及数字媒体技术和内容生产过程中所有活动的广泛类别，或倾向于将其定义为互联网平台中存在的免费无偿劳动，这有利于对数字劳动概念形成统一的范式。随着数字经济的发展，对于数字劳动本质的认识也需要不断深化。对此，只有把握劳动一般与数字劳动特殊之间的内在联系，才能更好地认识数字劳动的本质内涵。

(I) Existing Scholarly Approaches to Defining Digital Labor

（一）学界已有的数字劳动界定方式

Defining digital labor ultimately comes down to understanding what digital labor is. If the concept of digital labor is not clearly defined, it can easily lead to a tendency to overgeneralize digital labor, resulting in the loss of the essence of labor and the dissolution of the meaning of labor within digital labor. Regarding digital labor, the earliest reference can be traced back to the “audience commodity theory” proposed by Canadian communication scholar Dallas Smythe in the 1970s, which is one of the early theoretical foundations for the study of digital labor. In the early 21st century, Italian scholar Tiziana Terranova, in *Free Labor: Producing Culture for the Digital Economy*, first explicitly proposed the concept of digital labor, arguing that all activities on network platforms in the digital economy constitute labor, and a considerable portion is voluntary and unpaid free labor, with this free nature reflected in the provision of data and information. Subsequently, British scholar Christian Fuchs, in his 2014 book *Digital Labour and Karl Marx*, further extended the scope of digital labor to all areas and links of the value chain involving traditional media and information and communication technologies. These research findings laid the foundation for subsequent theoretical development and academic discussion on digital labor. Academia began to adopt the basic views of Terranova, Fuchs, and others to define digital labor, forming a notion that any activity directly or indirectly related to digital technology constitutes digital labor, and focusing on the study of free, unpaid labor by internet users. This led to two classification methods for digital labor, namely, the distinction between broad and narrow senses. Broadly defined digital labor is roughly divided into three types: first, digital labor with stable employment relationships, where the main labor force includes traditional professional and occupational workers such as software developers and website designers; second, digital labor under non-employment relationships, namely, a series of media consumption behaviors by general users through digital devices; third, digital labor under flexible employment relationships, mainly including a range of gig services represented by groups such as ride-hailing drivers and delivery workers, whose labor force composition mostly consists of flexibly employed groups. Narrowly defined digital labor refers to unpaid labor using internet platforms and other digital information terminals as social media. Depending on the research perspective, academia has formed various terms such as “prosumer labor,” “play labor,” and “audience labor.”

界定数字劳动，归根到底是要理解什么是数字劳动。如若对数字劳动的概念界定不清，则极易形成数字劳动泛化的观念，从而导致数字劳动中劳动本质的丧失和劳动意义的消解。关于数字劳动，最早可以追溯到20世纪70年代加拿大传播学者达拉斯·斯麦兹(Dallas Smythe）提出的“受众商品论”，这是数字劳动研究的早期理论基础之一。21世纪初，意大利学者蒂兹纳·泰拉诺瓦(Tiziana Terranova）在《免费劳动：为数字经济生产文化》中首次明确提出了数字劳动的概念，认为数字经济中所有网络平台的活动都是劳动，而且相当一部分是自愿且无偿的免费劳动，这种免费性体现在对数据信息的提供上。随后，英国学者克里斯蒂安·福克斯(Christian Fuchs）在2014年出版的《数字劳动与卡尔·马克思》一书中，将数字劳动的范围进一步外延至涉及传统媒体和信息通信技术的价值链的全部领域及环节。这些研究成果为后续数字劳动的理论发展和学术探讨奠定了基础。学术界开始采纳泰拉诺瓦、福克斯等人的基本观点来界定数字劳动，形成了一种凡是与数字技术存在直接或间接相关性的活动都属于数字劳动的观念，并着重对互联网用户的免费无偿劳动进行研究，由此形成了对数字劳动的两种分类方式，即广义与狭义的区分。广义的数字劳动大致分为三种类型：一是拥有稳定雇佣关系的数字劳动，主要劳动力构成包括软件开发、网站设计等传统的专业性、职业性劳动者；二是非雇佣关系下的数字劳动，即广大用户通过数字设备进行一系列媒介消费等行为；三是灵活雇佣关系下的数字劳动，主要包括以网约车司机、外卖员等群体为代表进行的一系列零工服务，其劳动力构成多为灵活就业群体。狭义的数字劳动指以互联网平台等数字信息终端为社交媒介的无偿劳动，根据研究角度不同学术界形成了“产消劳动”“玩劳动”“受众劳动”等各种提法。

For understanding the basic digital characteristics of digital labor and the phenomenal representation of consumers providing useful data to digital capital, the academic definition of digital labor is appropriate. For example, Nie Yang argues that digital labor is labor that includes data as a special production material, with the internet as its technical support, internet users as the labor subjects, and digital technological achievements as the labor products. Wu Huan and Lu Lige argue that digital labor realizes the sharing and consumption of data and information; it is based on the input of intangible elements of human intellectual forms, creating a series of data including numbers, text, images, video, and audio. These isolated, one-sided data, after being processed by technical means, achieve the transformation and leap of “data—information—knowledge,” forming the final knowledge form. Although Marx’s era was a period of rapid development of the modern industrial revolution in the West, vastly different from today’s digital age, and his works do not directly discuss the concept of digital labor, his ideas and principles provide a profound theoretical perspective for interpreting issues of the digital economy. In fact, the digital economy and the commodity economy exhibit consistency at the core level of production relations. Even against the backdrop of the digital age, capitalist production relations have not transcended the scope defined by Marx’s labor theory of value. Therefore, Marx’s theory of productive labor not only continues to play an important theoretical guiding role in the field of material production but is equally applicable to the analysis of the current field of immaterial production.

对于理解数字劳动的数字化基本特征和消费者对数字资本提供有用数据的现象表征而言，学术界对数字劳动的定义是恰当的。如，聂阳认为，数字劳动就是包含数字这种特殊生产材料的劳动，其技术支撑是互联网，劳动主体是互联网用户，劳动产品是数字技术成果。吴欢和卢黎歌认为，数字劳动实现的是数据信息的共享与消费，它基于人类智力形态的无形要素投入，创造出包括数字、文本、图像、视频、音频等在内的一系列数据，这些孤立、片面的数据通过技术手段处理后实现了“数据—信息—知识”的转化和飞跃，形成最终的知识形态。虽然马克思所处的时代是西方近代工业革命迅速发展的时期，与如今的数字时代有很大不同，其著作中也没有直接讨论数字劳动这一概念，但其思想和原理为解读数字经济问题提供了深刻的理论视角。实际上，数字经济与商品经济在生产关系的核心层面上展现出一致性。即便在数字时代的背景下，资本主义的生产关系也未能逾越马克思劳动价值论所界定的范畴。因此，马克思关于生产劳动的理论不仅在物质生产领域继续发挥其重要的理论指导作用，而且同样适用于当前非物质生产领域的分析。

(II) Limitations of Existing Scholarly Approaches to Defining Digital Labor

（二）学界已有的数字劳动界定方法的局限

Although scholars define digital labor based on the basic characteristics of digitalization and the phenomenal representations of the materialization and dematerialization of the labor process, emphasizing both the importance of data in the digital age and revealing the dual exploitation of workers’ emotions and time by capital, this level of abstraction is still far from sufficient. For instance, from the perspective of labor results and the labor process, Dallas Smythe argues that media package their audience’s attention and loyalty to advertisers, and the audience is forced to watch advertisements during their leisure time, providing unpaid audience labor to advertisers. This only notes the importance of data in the digital age but does not analyze the value creation process of digital commodities in digital capitalism, nor does it clarify the boundary between “labor” and “activity,” thus easily falling into misconceptions such as “going online is labor” or “all labor is digital labor.” From the perspective of the production process, Marx’s concepts of productive labor and unproductive labor are far more capable than material labor and immaterial labor of revealing the full picture of the value production process of capitalist digital commodities.

虽然学者们从数字化的基本特征及劳动过程的物质化、无形化现象表征出发来界定数字劳动，既强调了数字时代数据的重要性，又揭示了资本对劳动者在情感和时间上的双重剥削，但是这种抽象程度还远远不够。如，从劳动结果和劳动过程的角度看，达拉斯·斯麦兹认为，媒介将其注意力与忠诚度打包卖给广告商，受众被迫在休闲时间观看广告，为广告商提供无酬的受众劳动。这只是注意到了数字时代数据的重要性，却没有分析数字资本主义中数字商品的价值创造过程，也没有厘清“劳动”与“活动”之间的界限，从而极易陷入“上网即劳动”“一切劳动皆数字劳动”等误区。从生产过程的角度看，马克思的生产劳动与非生产劳动的概念远比物质劳动与非物质劳动更能揭示资本主义数字商品价值生产过程的全貌。

Thus, even though digital labour possesses a high degree of generality, it cannot be equated with the concept of basic labour. The essence of digital labour is labour, and its conceptual definition should focus more on “labour.” Domestic scholars have used Marx’s relevant theories to deeply analyse the connotation of digital labour. For example, Meng Fei and Cheng Rong have conducted a political economy analysis of digital labour itself, arguing that digital labour essentially possesses a material nature and a labour nature. Although these explanations have important reference value for revealing the essence of digital labour and understanding its basic attributes, existing research rarely distinguishes the specific forms of digital labour, that is, which belong to digital labour and which do not. In particular, there is no direct discussion of the academically controversial unpaid labour on the internet. This method of classification, which weakens the distinction between “labour” and “activity,” is sufficient for describing characteristics of the digital era such as the digitalisation of labour instruments, the diversification of labour forms, and the flexibilisation of labour processes. However, to truly clarify the preconditions for data becoming a source of use-value and to understand the causes of the alienation of users’ consumption activities, it is necessary to start from Marx’s basic theory of productive labour and reveal the essence of digital capitalist production.

可见，即使数字劳动具有高度的概括性，也无法将其与基本劳动的概念等同。数字劳动的本质是劳动，其概念界定更应聚焦在“劳动”上面。国内学者运用马克思的相关理论深度剖析了数字劳动的内涵。如，孟飞和程榕对数字劳动本身进行了政治经济学分析，认为数字劳动本质上具有物质属性和劳动本性。尽管这些阐释对于揭示数字劳动的本质、了解数字劳动的基本属性具有重要参考价值，但已有研究罕有区分数字劳动的具体表现形式，即哪些属于数字劳动，哪些不属于数字劳动，尤其是针对学术界具有争议的互联网无偿劳动并没有展开直接讨论。这种弱化“劳动”与“活动”之间区分的划分方式，对于描述数字时代劳动工具数字化、劳动形态多样化、劳动过程灵活化等特征是足够的，但若想真正厘清数据成为使用价值源泉的前提条件，了解用户消费活动异化的成因，还需从马克思关于生产劳动的基本理论入手，揭示数字资本主义生产的本质。

(III) Labour in General and the Particularity of Digital Labour

（三）劳动一般与数字劳动特殊

Before defining the concept of digital labour, it is first necessary to understand the distinction between labour in general and the particularity of digital labour. For this, one can only turn to Marx’s most fundamental theory of productive labour.

在界定数字劳动的概念之前，首先需要理解劳动一般与数字劳动特殊的区别。对此，只能从马克思对生产劳动最基本的理论中去寻找。

In Marx’s analysis, labour is regarded as “a purposeful production activity that appropriates particular natural materials to particular human needs… it is the universal condition for the metabolic interaction between man and nature, the everlasting nature-imposed necessity of human life, and is therefore independent of every form of that life, or rather, is common to all forms of society in which human beings live.” [1]1 Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 7, Section 1. The quotation is a standard rendering of Marx’s definition of the labour process. Thus, labour is an activity, and a specific kind of human activity; it embodies the relationship between humans and nature and is also the foundation for the formation of human social relations. Furthermore, labour has the following three prominent attributes: First, objectivity. Labour is not for the sake of labour itself, but is an activity that purposefully and planfully transforms natural objects to meet human needs. In other words, the labour process already exists in the labourer’s conception before it begins. Second, productivity. Labour is first and foremost a productive activity, that is, an activity through which humans create new value or use-value. Third, work character. Labour is a basic component of human social life; it is not an isolated individual act, but a behavioural activity of humans established within certain social relations. Marx pointed out that labour has a dual character: “On the one hand, all labour is an expenditure of human labour-power, in the physiological sense, and it is in this quality of being equal, or abstract, human labour that it forms the value of commodities. On the other hand, all labour is an expenditure of human labour-power in a particular form and with a definite aim, and it is in this quality of being concrete useful labour that it produces use-values.” [2]2 Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 1, Section 2. The quotation is a standard rendering of Marx’s concept of the dual character of labour embodied in commodities. This means that labour, as a form of work and a means of livelihood, inevitably brings a sense of “toil” and “exertion”; otherwise, it can only be called activity. These constitute the basic criteria for distinguishing the concepts of “labour” and “activity.”

在马克思的分析中，劳动被视为“专门的、使特殊的自然物质适合于特殊的人类需要的、有目的的生产活动……是不以一切社会形式为转移的人类生存条件，是人和自然之间的物质变换即人类生活得以实现的永恒的自然必然性”。可见，劳动是一种活动，并且是一种特殊的人类活动，它体现了人与自然之间的关系，也是人类社会关系形成的基础。进一步地，劳动具有以下三个突出属性：一是对象性。劳动不是为了劳动本身，而是有目的、有计划地改造自然物，使之适应人类需要的活动。换言之，劳动过程在开始进行时就已经在劳动者的观念当中存在了。二是生产性。劳动首先是一种生产活动，即人类能创造出新的价值或使用价值的活动。三是工作性。劳动是人类社会生活的基本组成部分，它不是孤立的个人行为，而是建立在一定社会关系中的人类的行为活动。马克思指出，劳动具有二重性，“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。一切劳动，另一方面是人类劳动力在特殊的有一定目的的形式上的耗费；就具体的有用的劳动这个属性来说，它生产使用价值”。这意味着，劳动作为一种工作和谋生手段，也必然会带来“劳累”感和“付出”感，否则只能称之为活动。这些构成了区分“劳动”与“活动”概念的基本标准。

The three elements of productive forces are indispensable parts of the labour process: the labourer, the instruments of labour, and the subject of labour. Together, they constitute the complete system of labour. In the digital era, these three basic elements exhibit particularity through the labour process of digital labour. Regarding the subject of labour, labourers display diversified characteristics. In the field of internet platforms, besides the operators and maintainers of the platforms, this also includes internet users who seemingly “produce” certain information products. At the same time, the development of digital technology has given rise to many new forms of business, such as online food delivery workers, internet marketers, ride-hailing drivers, and so on. These occupations are typically characterised by high flexibility, relatively low entry barriers, and diverse forms of work; hence, such labourers are also called digital gig workers. As for the instruments of labour and the subject of labour, data exhibits particularity in the digital era: it can serve both as an instrument of labour, combining with other instruments of labour to participate in production, and as a subject of labour, being processed and integrated by enterprises and put on the market as a product.

生产力三要素是劳动过程中不可或缺的部分，即劳动者、劳动资料、劳动对象，它们共同构成了劳动的完整体系。在数字时代，这三个基本要素通过数字劳动的劳动过程表现出特殊性。就劳动主体而言，劳动者呈现多样化特点。在互联网平台领域，除了平台的运营和维护者之外，还包括看似“生产”出某种信息产品的互联网用户。同时，数字技术的发展催生出了诸多新兴业态，如网约外卖员、互联网营销师、网约车司机等。这些职业通常具有灵活性高、门槛相对较低、工作形式多样等特点，因而也将此类劳动者称为数字零工。而就劳动资料和劳动对象而言，数据在数字时代表现出特殊性，既可充当劳动资料，与其他劳动资料结合并共同参与生产，也可作为劳动对象，通过企业的加工和整合，作为一种产品投入市场。

Thus, by examining labour in general and the particularity of digital labour, we can further clear the fog surrounding the issue of internet users’ online activities. In fact, the two stages into which current academic circles divide the production process of digital capitalism can be used as a standard to specifically distinguish internet users’ online activities: the “unpaid” stage and the “paid” stage. Internet users’ online activities are complex and diverse; two common types are: first, various entertainment and leisure activities of ordinary users on the internet. The well-known “prosumption labour” and “play labour” can both be classified under this category. Second, the activities of professional content creators, freelancers, and others who attract audiences and generate income on the internet through various forms such as text, video, and audio. These activities can be classified under the category of traditional digital labour in a broad sense. Obviously, the latter, along with gig service labour in traditional digital labour, belong to “digital activities” in the “paid” stage, exhibiting characteristics of employment or flexible employment. The characteristics exhibited by this kind of digital activity conform to labour in general and therefore belong to labour. The former, however, is in the “unpaid” stage of digital capitalist production, where it is more of an entertainment activity without a production purpose; it belongs neither to labour nor to productive labour. First, although the various entertainment and leisure activities of ordinary users on the internet generate a large amount of data, they are more based on personal interests, needs, or social motives, rather than for the purpose of producing data for exchange. Second, the data created by digital activities in the “unpaid” stage, before being screened, sorted, and processed by enterprises, possesses neither value nor use-value; from this perspective, it does not conform to the productive attribute of labour. Finally, this type of activity is more for the purpose of pastime and entertainment, lacking a sense of “toil” and “exertion,” and therefore does not have the nature of “work.” From this, it can be seen that whether an internet user’s online activity constitutes digital labour needs to be judged based on the specific behavioural context of that activity. Generally speaking, simple browsing, entertainment, and similar behaviours do not fall within the category of digital labour, while behaviours such as professional content creators and freelancers publishing information and creating content, which possess a certain degree of subjective purposefulness, productivity, and value creation, can be classified as a form of digital labour.

由此，通过考察劳动一般与数字劳动特殊，可以进一步拨开关于互联网用户在线活动问题上的迷雾。事实上，可以把目前学术界为数字资本主义生产过程所划分的两个阶段作为标准，以具体区分互联网用户的在线活动，即“无酬”阶段和“有酬”阶段。互联网用户的在线活动复杂多样，较为常见的有两类：一是普通用户在互联网上的各类娱乐、休闲活动，我们所熟知的“产消劳动”“玩劳动”皆可归入此类。二是专业的内容创作者、自由职业者等在互联网上以文字、视频、音频等多种形式吸引观众、建立品牌，从而获得收入的活动，可以把这类活动归入广义分类中的传统数字劳动范畴。显然，后者与传统数字劳动中的零工服务类劳动都属于“有酬”阶段的“数字活动”，呈现雇佣或灵活雇佣的特征。这种数字活动呈现的特征符合劳动一般，因而属于劳动。而前者处于数字资本主义生产的“无酬”阶段，在这里更多的是一种无生产目的的娱乐活动，既不属于劳动，也不属于生产劳动。首先，普通用户在互联网上的各类娱乐、休闲活动虽然产生了大量数据，但更多的是基于个人兴趣、需求或社交动机进行的，而非出于生产出数据以用来交换的目的。其次，“无酬”阶段的数字活动创造出的数据在未经企业筛选、整理、加工前，是不具备价值和使用价值的，从这个角度上说并不符合劳动的生产属性。最后，这类活动更多带有消遣娱乐的目的，并没有“劳累”感和“付出”感，因此也不具有“工作”的性质。由此可知，互联网用户的在线活动是否属于数字劳动，需要根据该活动的具体行为情境进行判断。一般来说，简单的浏览、娱乐等行为不属于数字劳动范畴，而专业的内容创作者、自由职业者发布信息和创作内容等具有一定的主观目的性、生产性和价值创造性的行为，则可归为数字劳动的一种形式。

In summary, guided by Marx’s basic theory of productive labour, on the basis of clarifying labour in general and the particularity of digital labour, and combined with previous research results, digital labour can be defined as: a purposeful human activity that relies on digital technology and equipment, or uses digital technology and equipment as core production tools, to process and transform labour subjects such as data and information, thereby creating digital wealth. This specifically includes professional and vocational technical labour such as software development and website design, as well as gig service labour such as ride-hailing drivers and food delivery workers.

综上所述，以马克思关于生产劳动的基本理论为指导，在厘清劳动一般与数字劳动特殊的基础上，结合前人的研究成果，可将数字劳动界定为：数字劳动是一种依托数字化技术与设备，或以数字化技术与设备为核心生产工具，对数据、信息等劳动对象进行加工和改造，进而创造出数字财富的有目的的人类活动。具体包括软件开发、网站设计等专业性、职业性技术劳动，以及网约车司机、外卖员等零工服务劳动。

II. The Operation of Digital Capital: Analysing the Deep Logic Behind Digital Labour

二、数字资本的运行：剖析数字劳动背后的深层逻辑

The above definition of the concept of digital labour clarifies the boundary between “labour” and “activity” and summarises the specific forms of digital labour. It is still necessary to further reveal its deep essence and the underlying logic of its operation. Currently, “digital” and “platform” constitute the fulcrum of digital capitalism. Digital productive forces have induced new forms of exploitation and alienation in digital labour relations, and the labour process is precisely the production process of material goods. To this end, it is necessary to start from the perspective of the platform production process, combine the elements of data, labour, and capital that construct digital capitalist production and their interrelations, deeply analyse the capital operation process behind digital labour, reveal its internal logic, and elevate the analysis of digital labour from perceptual cognition to the level of rational scrutiny and critique.

以上对数字劳动概念的界定厘清了“劳动”与“活动”之间的界限，概括了数字劳动的具体表现形式，还需要进一步揭示其深层本质及背后的运行逻辑。当前，“数字”与“平台”构成了数字资本主义的支点，数字生产力诱发了数字劳动关系新的剥削形式和异化形式，而劳动过程正是物质资料的生产过程。为此，需要从平台生产过程的视角出发，结合建构数字资本主义生产的数据、劳动、资本等要素及其相互关系，深入剖析数字劳动背后的资本运作过程，揭示其内在逻辑，将对数字劳动的分析从感性认知上升到理性审视与批判层面。

(I) Preset Foundation: The “Marriage” of Digital Technology and Capital Forms the Digital Platform and Digital Algorithms

（一）预置基础：数字技术与资本的“联姻”形成了数字平台与数字算法

Digital labor under digital capitalism depends on digital capitalist production; the two, to a certain extent, reflect the relations of production of the digital capitalist social formation. An important prerequisite for digital capitalist production to proceed is the existence of digital capital; otherwise, digital capitalist production would lose its analyzable object, and, further, the legitimacy of digital capitalism’s domination of production would be shaken or undermined. To escape periodic economic crises and prolong its own lifespan, capitalism continuously undertakes self-repair and self-improvement. At present, digital technology is developing rapidly and is entering a completely new Web 3.0 era. Information such as audio and images on internet platforms can be represented through binary digital encoding, thereby providing a technical foundation for “enhanced” big-data platforms. Consequently, digital technology and capital have rapidly “married,” giving rise to digital platforms and digital algorithms.

数字资本主义下的数字劳动依赖于数字资本主义生产，二者在一定程度上反映了数字资本主义社会形态的生产关系，而数字资本主义生产得以进行的一个重要前提是数字资本的存在，否则数字资本主义生产就失去了可分析的对象物，进一步讲，数字资本主义支配生产的合法性就会遭到动摇或破坏。为了摆脱周期性经济危机并延长自身寿命，资本主义不断进行自我修复和改良。当前，数字技术飞速发展，正步入全新的Web 3.0时代，互联网平台上的音频、图像等信息都可通过二进制数字编码加以呈现，从而为“加强版”的大数据平台提供了技术基础。于是，数字技术与资本迅速“联姻”，形成了数字平台与数字算法。

The construction process of digital platforms and digital algorithms is a complex manifestation of the interaction between technological evolution and capitalist relations of production. It is not only a direct outcome of technological innovation but also a modern extension of the capitalist production model. The construction process of digital platforms first originates from capital’s thorough exploration of the platform’s target market, user needs, and functional positioning, which lays the foundation for technical implementation and architectural design. Subsequently, in the phase of technology selection and architectural design, key elements such as hardware infrastructure, software systems, network architecture, and data management are comprehensively considered. On the premise of ensuring hardware reliability, software scalability, network performance and security, and data management efficiency, the technical foundation of the digital platform is built. In the platform construction and deployment phase, the deployment of distributed computing clusters and the integration of big-data ecosystem components mark the concretization of technical implementation. The full-process realization of the development and testing phases, along with continuous performance iteration, ensures system stability and algorithmic accuracy. Finally, the deployment and application of the digital platform, on the basis of ensuring its compliance within legal and market frameworks, completes the transition from technical conception to social practice. The generation of digital algorithms first involves in-depth research, improvement, or innovation of existing algorithms, while fully considering algorithmic efficiency, accuracy, and scalability. Mathematical modeling then serves as a key step, especially in the fields of signal processing and data analysis, where mathematical tools and theories precisely describe the problem, providing a solid theoretical foundation for algorithm production. Subsequently, the design is transformed into specific code; an appropriate programming language and development environment are selected for coding, debugging, and testing. Through a series of operations such as parameter adjustment, data structure improvement, and code optimization, the algorithm’s operational efficiency and accuracy are enhanced, facilitating its implementation. Finally, after rigorous testing and verification, the algorithm is deployed in practical applications and adjusted and optimized based on data and environmental conditions. The entire process is iterative and dynamic, requiring multiple cycles of the above steps until the algorithm achieves the expected performance and effect. It must be emphasized that these processes are completed on the basis of capital hiring a large number of specialized technical personnel at each link, yet the core technology is owned by capital.

数字平台与数字算法的构建过程，是技术演进与资本主义生产关系相互作用的复杂体现，不仅是技术革新的直接成果，也是资本主义生产模式的现代延伸。数字平台的建构过程首先发轫于资本对平台在目标市场、用户需求和功能定位等方面的充分挖掘，这为技术实施和架构设计奠定了基础。随后，在技术选型和架构设计阶段，综合考量硬件基础设施、软件系统、网络架构和数据管理等关键要素，在确保硬件的可靠性、软件的可扩展性、网络的性能与安全性及数据管理效能的前提下，构筑数字平台的技术基础。在平台搭建与部署阶段，分布式计算集群的部署和大数据生态系统组件的集成，标志着技术实施的具体化。开发与测试阶段的全流程实现及性能的持续迭代，确保了系统的稳定性和算法的精确性。最终，数字平台的部署和应用在确保其在法律和市场框架下合规性的基础上，完成了从技术构想到社会实践的转变。而数字算法的生成首先涉及对现有算法的深入研究、改进或创新，同时充分考量算法的效率、准确性与可扩展性，再以数学建模作为关键步骤，尤其是信号处理和数据分析领域，通过数学工具和理论精确描述问题，为算法的生产提供了坚实的理论基础。随后将设计转化为具体的代码，选择合适的编程语言和开发环境进行编码、调试和测试，再通过调整参数、改进数据结构和代码优化等一系列操作，提升算法的运行效率和准确性，促进算法的实现。最终，经过严格测试和验证的算法被部署到实际应用中，并根据数据和环境条件进行调整和优化。整个过程是迭代和动态的，需要多次循环上述步骤，直至算法达到预期的性能和效果。需要强调的是，这些过程是资本在各个环节上雇用大量专业技术人员的基础上完成的，而核心技术却归资本所有。

At root, the “marriage” of digital technology and capital stems from capital’s nature of pursuing profit. Marx pointed out that “capital has only one life-drive, that is, to valorize itself.” [3]3 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 8, Section 1. The standard Chinese translation of the passage is: “资本只有一种生活本能，这就是增殖自身.” From this perspective, capitalism completes primitive accumulation of capital through violent plunder, and its development process is filled with exploitation, oppression, and inequality. From the perspective of the ownership of the means of production, capitalists own key means of production such as data and digital platforms. Through the “marriage” of digital technology and capital, they create digital algorithms, realize the connection between people and things across the entire process of digital capitalist production and the entire industrial chain, firmly control and dominate the operation of the modern capitalist system, and make data algorithms an important force structuring the capitalist order. It is worth mentioning that although digital capitalism can, to a certain extent, improve production efficiency, boost consumer demand, and promote technological progress, as long as capital’s profit-seeking nature persists and the inherent contradictions of capitalist society remain, economic crises will be unavoidable.

从根源上说，数字技术与资本的“联姻”源于资本逐利的本性。马克思指出，“资本只有一种生活本能，这就是增殖自身”。从这个角度来说，资本主义通过暴力掠夺完成资本原始积累，发展过程充满了剥削压迫与不平等。从生产资料的占有上说，资本家占有数据、数字平台等关键生产资料，通过数字技术与资本的“联姻”创造出数字算法，实现数字资本主义生产全过程、全产业链上人与物之间的连接，牢牢地掌控和支配着现代资本主义体系的运转，使数据算法成为架构资本主义秩序的重要力量。值得一提的是，数字资本主义虽然能在一定程度上提高生产效率、提振消费需求、促进技术进步，但是只要资本的逐利性依然存在、资本主义社会的内在矛盾依然存在，经济危机将不可避免。

(2) Upgraded Transition: Digital Capital Covertly Completes Capital Valorization through “Living Labor”

（二）升级跃迁：数字资本以“活劳动”隐蔽地完成了资本增殖

The digital footprints generated by internet users’ online activities are captured by social media platforms, forming data commodities and helping them complete the process of capital valorization. This appears to be unpaid “labor” provided by users that creates the value of data commodities, which is then exploited by capital. In reality, however, the production process of digital platforms obscures the process by which the living labor of hired technical workers creates value. Admittedly, the data generated by internet users’ online activities does help platforms obtain high profits, but the crux of the issue lies not in exploring the surface phenomenon of data being generated during users’ internet use, but in tracing the source of data value—further, in tracing the source of data value for digital platforms’ capital valorization. In the digital platform production process, the capitalist uses original monetary capital G1 to establish digital platform W. At this point, the digital platform realizes value valorization through two pathways: first, by realizing its own commodity value G1’ through methods such as charging fees to advertisers. This part of the value comes, on the one hand, from the transfer of the value of the means of production and, on the other hand, from the value created by the hired workers who design, produce, and maintain the platform—that is, the valorized portion of value. Second, it continues into the next production process in the form of consumer goods. The vast number of internet users, as consumers S, automatically generate data information T in their “digital activities.” It must be emphasized that this irregular data information cannot directly enter the next production process of the digital platform. Only when combined with the living labor of hired technical workers—that is, only through operations such as sorting, analysis, and processing by hired technical workers—can it form regular data information T1. At this point, data information T1, on the one hand, realizes value G11 as a data commodity; on the other hand, it combines with new monetary capital G22 invested by the capitalist to establish a more advanced digital platform W’ with higher operational efficiency and a stronger user experience. The more advanced digital platform W’ then realizes value through two pathways: first, by realizing its own commodity value G2’ through methods such as charging fees to advertisers; second, by continuing into the next production process in the form of consumer goods… In this cyclical process, capital continuously completes valorization. The production process hidden behind the platform connects advertisers with the vast network user groups in real life, opening up new spaces for capital valorization and new logics of capital accumulation. It is evident that the living labor of hired technical workers under digital capitalism remains the source of capital valorization for digital platforms.

互联网用户的网络活动所生成的数字足迹被社交媒体平台获取，形成数据商品，助其完成资本增殖过程。这看似是用户提供的无偿“劳动”创造了数据商品价值，从而被资本剥削，实则是数字平台生产过程遮蔽了雇佣技术工人活劳动创造价值的过程。诚然，互联网用户的网络活动所产生的数据确实助推了平台获取高额利润，但问题的关键不在于探究数据由用户上网过程中产生的表象，而在于数据价值的溯源，进一步讲，在于数字平台进行资本增殖的数据价值溯源。在数字平台生产过程中，资本家利用原始货币资本G1建立数字平台W，此时的数字平台分别以两种途径实现价值增殖：一是以向广告商收费等方式实现自身的商品价值G1’，这部分价值一方面来自生产资料价值的转移，另一方面来自对该平台进行设计、生产和维护的雇佣工人所创造的价值，即价值增殖部分；二是以消费品的形式继续进入下一步生产过程，广大互联网用户作为消费者S在“数字活动”中自动生成数据信息T。需要强调的是，这种不规则的数据信息并不能直接进入数字平台的下一步生产过程中，只有与雇佣技术工人的活劳动相结合，即只有通过雇佣技术工人的整理、分析、加工等操作，才能形成规则的数据信息T1。此时的数据信息T1一方面作为数据商品实现价值G11，另一方面又与资本家投入的新的货币资本G22相结合，建立起运行效率更高、用户体验感更强的更高级的数字平台W’。更高级的数字平台W’又分别以两种途径实现价值：一是以向广告商收费等方式实现自身的商品价值G2’；二是以消费品的形式继续进入下一步生产过程……在如此循环往复的过程中，资本不断完成增殖。平台背后隐藏的生产过程则将广告商与现实生活中的广大网络用户群体连接在一起，开拓了资本增殖的新空间和资本积累的新逻辑。可见，数字资本主义下雇佣技术工人的活劳动仍然是数字平台资本增殖的源泉。

The above main production process of digital platforms is particularly applicable to social media platforms. Another type of logistics platform involving gig labor also basically follows this logic in its production process, but its profits mainly come from commissions drawn from gig workers. This can be classified under G1’, G2’, G3’… At this point, the platform’s production process transforms into a gig labor process external to the platform; the platform uses gig labor to complete capital valorization. When commissions exceed normal service fees, this, in a certain sense, takes on the characteristics of monopoly profit. This is also another source of capital valorization beyond the value created by living labor. Digital platforms continuously increase investment in technological research and development to form competitive advantages, thereby occupying a monopoly position in the market. To maximize the extraction of high profits, digital platforms even resort to means such as “choose one or the other” [4]4 “Choose one or the other” (二选一) refers to a practice by dominant digital platforms requiring merchants to exclusively list on their platform, excluding competitors. and “big data price discrimination against regular customers” [5]5 “Big data price discrimination against regular customers” (大数据杀熟) refers to the practice of using consumer data to charge higher prices to existing or loyal customers compared to new users. to further deepen capital exploitation. It is evident that while this monopoly increases user stickiness, it also brings the risk of damage to user rights and interests.

以上数字平台的主要生产过程尤其适用于社交媒体平台。而另一种涉及零工劳动的物流平台，其生产过程也基本遵循了这个逻辑，但它的利润主要来自对零工进行的抽成，可以把它归入G1’、G2’、G3’……这时，该平台的生产过程则转化为平台以外的零工劳动过程，平台利用零工劳动完成了资本增殖。而当抽成超过了正常服务费用时，从某种意义上讲，便具有了垄断利润的特征。这也是资本的增殖中除活劳动创造的价值以外的另一部分来源。数字平台通过不断加大技术研发投入，形成竞争优势，从而在市场中占据垄断地位。为了最大限度地获取高额利润，数字平台甚至不惜采用“二选一”“大数据杀熟”等手段进一步深化资本剥削。可见，这种垄断在增加用户粘性的同时，也带来了用户权益受损的风险。

Figure 1: Basic Operational Process of Digital Platform Capital

图1 数字平台资本的基本运行过程

(3) Empowerment and Accumulation: Digital Control Consolidates the Power Base of Digital Capital

（三）赋能蓄力：数字化控制巩固了数字资本的权力基础

With the development of digital capitalism, the power of digital capital has been continuously consolidated, further taming digital labor, depriving it of more labor time, and increasing the difficulty of organized resistance by laborers, thereby reducing them entirely to instruments for capital’s self-valorization. During the stage of the second industrial revolution, enterprises achieved standardized and systematic management through standardized assembly-line production and vertical integration strategies, gradually establishing the Fordist labor process. At that time, the capitalists’ control and exploitation of wage laborers were mainly manifested in harsh working conditions, unfair wage treatment, excessively long working hours, and the like. Faced with “capital’s boundless drive for self-valorization necessarily extending the working day to unnatural lengths, thereby shortening the worker’s lifespan,” laborers engaged in joint resistance. However, the inherent logic of capital accumulation continued to drive capitalists to constantly explore and adopt new technologies or management strategies, in order to achieve more covert and efficient control over labor power and to consolidate and enhance their dominant position in the production process.

随着数字资本主义的发展，数字资本的权力得到不断巩固，进而进一步驯顺数字劳动，剥夺更多劳动时间，并增加劳动者组织化反抗的难度，使其彻底沦为资本增殖的工具。第二次工业革命阶段，企业通过标准化流水线生产与垂直一体化策略实现标准化、系统化管理，逐步确立福特制劳动过程。此时，资本家对雇佣劳动者的控制和剥削主要体现在恶劣的工作条件、不公平的薪酬待遇、过长的劳动时间等方面。面对“资本无限度地追逐自行增殖，必然使工作日延长到违反自然的程度，从而缩短工人的寿命”，劳动者进行了联合抵制。然而，资本积累的内在逻辑依然驱动着资本家不断探索和采纳新技术或管理策略，以实现对劳动力更为隐蔽和高效的控制，巩固和增强其在生产过程中的支配地位。

Today, a new round of technological revolution and industrial transformation is deepening. With the rapid development of efficient logistics, information and communication technologies, and the like, the traditional model of capitalists supervising and controlling laborers has gradually been replaced by an invisible digital control model. Although this shift in model appears mild, even tinged with a liberal humanist hue, it has not changed the fact that laborers are absolutely controlled by digital capital. Digital capital uses algorithmic technology to comprehensively collect labor data, intelligently analyze labor indicators from multiple angles, conduct real-time monitoring and feedback on the entire labor process, and thereby implement personalized rewards and punishments for laborers, further intensifying the exploitation of laborers and the extraction of their surplus value. The intervention of algorithmic control technology in the supervision process breaks the limitation that supervisors and laborers must be gathered in the same physical space, achieving dual spatial control over the physical-space behavior and virtual-space behavior of digital laborers. At the same time, digital supervisory control has gradually eliminated the traditional people-based bureaucratic management mechanism, pushing it toward a flattened structure. The result is a further optimization of the production process, an increase in production efficiency, a consolidation of the power base of digital capital, and an expansion of the space for capital to continuously obtain high profits.

如今，新一轮科技革命和产业变革深入发展，高效物流、信息通信等技术迅速发展，资本家传统的监督控制劳动者的模式已逐渐被隐形的数字化管控模式取代。尽管这种模式的转变看似温和，甚至略带自由人文主义色彩，但并未改变劳动者绝对受控于数字资本的事实。数字资本利用算法技术可以全方位收集劳动数据，多角度智能分析劳动指标，对整个劳动过程进行实时监控和反馈，从而对劳动者实施个性化奖惩，进一步强化对劳动者的剥削及其剩余价值的获取。算法控制技术对监督过程的介入，打破了监督者与劳动者必须聚集在同一物理空间的限制，实现了对数字劳动者物理空间行为和虚拟空间行为的双重空间控制。同时，数字化的监督控制也逐渐淘汰了传统的以人为主的科层管理机制，使其向扁平化方向发展，其结果是进一步优化生产过程，提高生产效率，巩固数字资本的权力基础，扩大了资本持续获取高额利润的空间。

III. The Three-Dimensional Nature of Digital Laborers and the Alienation of Human Subjectivity

三、数字劳动者的立体性进而人的主体性异化

The emergence of digital labor has transformed human subjectivity into quantifiable, tradable data, subject to algorithmic monitoring, management, and control, gradually losing its inherent creativity and autonomy. Under the logic of capital, digital labor inflicts an unrelenting pain of alienation on people at both the temporal and spiritual levels, causing human subjectivity to be continuously distorted and alienated under the combined action of capital, digital technology, and digital labor. Through digital labor, capital not only deprives people of the fruits of their labor but also invisibly weakens their subjective consciousness and capacity for self-realization. This alienation is not only manifested in the process of digital labor but also profoundly affects interpersonal relationships, leading to the gradual dissolution of human subjectivity in the digital wave.

数字劳动的出现使人的主体性被转化为可量化、可交易的数据，受到算法的监控、管理和控制，逐渐失去了其固有的创造性和自主性。资本逻辑主导下的数字劳动从时间和精神两个层面对人造成了难以缓解的异化之痛，使人的主体性在资本、数字技术、数字劳动三者的共同作用下不断扭曲和异化。资本通过数字劳动不仅剥夺了人的劳动成果，更在无形中削弱了人的主体意识和自我实现的能力。这种异化不仅体现在数字劳动过程中，更深刻影响着人与人之间的关系，导致人的主体性在数字化浪潮中逐渐消融。

(1) Manifestations of the Alienation of Digital Laborers’ Subjectivity

（一）数字劳动者主体性异化的表现

First, the digital “deskilling” control of digital labor leads to the loss of laborers’ subjective value. Although the vigorous development of digital technology has enabled digital labor, with the support of science and technology, to break through the constraints of time and space, exhibiting certain characteristics such as flexibility and autonomy, and although digital capital has replaced the enslavement method of large-scale industrial production, which caused “the worker’s own body to be tortured and his spirit devastated,” with a “simmering” form of digital control, looking beyond the surface, the phenomenon of laborers’ “deskilling” has become increasingly pronounced with the evolution of digital technology. This trend not only deconstructs the skill requirements of traditional occupations but also reinforces the dominant position of technology as a factor of production. With the penetration of technologies such as artificial intelligence, the technical threshold for some occupations has been lowered, the role of laborers’ living labor has been rendered invisible, and the importance of technology has been elevated. As Harry Braverman pointed out: “The more science is incorporated into the labor process, the less the worker understands the process; the more complex the machine as an intellectual product, the less the worker can control and understand it.” When digital laborers perform labor tasks, they no longer need to rely on deep work experience or specific professional skills. The popularization of intelligent technologies such as smart navigation and automatic order-taking has greatly reduced society’s demand for laborers’ traditional skills. For example, in the ride-hailing industry, supported by advanced navigation and dispatch systems, drivers do not need a comprehensive grasp of urban traffic conditions and passenger flow to efficiently complete pick-up and drop-off tasks; the low entry barrier means that food delivery riders do not need to master complex road information, but only need to deliver goods along the routes planned by the platform application. In this process, the time laborers truly use for independent calculation, thinking, and analysis is infinitely compressed. While strengthening control over digital labor, digital capital also weakens part of laborers’ subjective initiative. At this point, laborers are no longer a vital force capable of fully exercising their subjective initiative, but gradually become appendages of capital, resulting in the loss of their subjective value.

一是对数字劳动的数字“去技能化”控制带来劳动者主体价值的丧失。虽然数字技术的蓬勃发展使数字劳动在科技的加持下突破了时空限制，表现出一定的灵活性、自主性等特点，并且数字资本以“文火”式的数字化管控取代了大工业生产时期使劳动者“自己的肉体受折磨、精神遭摧残”的奴役方式，但跳出表象来看，劳动者的“去技能化”现象在数字技术的演进中愈发显著，而这一趋势不仅解构了传统职业的技能要求，还强化了技术作为生产要素的主导地位。随着人工智能等技术的渗透，一些职业的技术门槛降低，劳动者的活劳动作用隐蔽化，而技术的重要性得到提升。正如哈里·布雷弗曼(Harry Braverman）指出的：“科学越是被纳入劳动过程之中，工人就越不了解这种过程；作为智力产物的机器越复杂，工人就越不能控制和理解这些机器。”数字劳动者在执行劳动任务时，不再需要依赖深厚的工作经验或特定的专业技能，智能导航、自动接单等智能化技术的普及极大降低了社会对劳动者传统技能的要求。例如，在网约车行业，在先进的导航和调度系统的支持下，驾驶员无需对城市路况和客流量有全面的掌握，即可高效地完成接送任务；较低的准入门槛使外卖骑手无需掌握复杂的路况信息，只需按照平台应用程序规划的路线配送货物即可。在这个过程中，劳动者真正用来独立计算、思考和分析的时间被无限压缩，数字资本在加强对数字劳动控制的同时，也弱化了劳动者的部分主观能动性。此时，劳动者已然不是能够充分发挥主观能动性的有生力量，而是逐步沦为资本的附庸，带来的是其主体价值的丧失。

Second, the digital algorithmic obscuring of digital labor leads to the reification of labor relations. In the reified world, “the commodity form and the value relation of the products of labor in which it is expressed have absolutely nothing to do with the physical nature of the products of labor or with the material relations arising from this. It is nothing but a definite social relation between people themselves, which assumes the fantastic form of a relation between things for them.” Marx called this phenomenon “fetishism.” The advent of the digital age has fully exposed laborers’ labor process to the control of digital algorithms, while the process of collecting and analyzing laborers’ behavioral data often involves proprietary technologies that are not disclosed to the public, further highlighting the mystique of digital algorithms. At the same time, due to the complexity of algorithms, most laborers lack the necessary professional skills to understand how algorithms manipulate and analyze their data, and thus find it difficult to decipher the results of algorithmic control. The emergence of digital algorithms has, to a certain extent, satisfied people’s pursuit of flexible and efficient working methods through digital labor, increasing people’s dependence on algorithms and machines, and forming a blind worship of digital terminals, namely digital fetishism. This worship appears to be a worship of digital technology, but is in fact a worship of the capitalist groups who control this technology. This reified relationship leads to the neglect of social relations between people, while the relationship between things is overemphasized. In this relationship, the value and subjectivity of laborers are marginalized, while the value of algorithms and data is excessively amplified, and the virtual self will “dominate” the original self. In fact, the valorization logic of capital has not fundamentally changed. Digital labor is essentially a tool for capital to reconfigure and expand in the digital wave, embodying a “new stage” of the capitalist production model. Its core driving force remains capital’s comprehensive control and domination over human living labor, except that this relationship of exploitation and oppression has become more concealed and dispersed under the disguise of digitalization.

二是对数字劳动的数字算法遮蔽带来劳动关系的物化。在物化的世界中，“商品形式和它借以得到表现的劳动产品的价值关系，是同劳动产品的物理性质以及由此产生的物的关系完全无关的。这只是人们自己的一定的社会关系，但它在人们面前采取了物与物的关系的虚幻形式”。马克思将这种现象称为“拜物教”。数字时代的到来使劳动者的劳动过程全面暴露在数字算法的控制之下，而劳动者行为数据的收集与分析过程往往涉及专有技术，这些技术并不对外公开，从而进一步凸显了数字算法的神秘性。同时，由于算法的复杂性，大多数劳动者缺乏必要的专业技能来理解算法是如何操控和分析其数据的，进而也难以对算法的控制结果进行破译。数字算法的出现使数字劳动在一定程度上满足了人们对灵活、高效工作方式的追求，人们对于算法和机器的依赖性增强，形成了一种对数字终端的盲目崇拜，即数字拜物教。这种崇拜看似是对数字技术的崇拜，实则是对控制这些技术的资本家群体的崇拜。这种物化的关系导致了人与人之间的社会关系被忽视，而物与物之间的关系被过度强调。在这种关系中，劳动者的价值和主体性被边缘化，而算法和数据的价值被过度放大，虚我将“主宰”本我。事实上，资本的增值逻辑并没有发生根本改变，数字劳动本质上是资本在数字化浪潮中重新配置和扩张的工具，体现了资本主义生产模式的“新阶段”。其核心驱动力仍是资本对人类活劳动的全面控制和支配，只是这种剥削和压迫的关系在数字化的掩饰下变得更加隐蔽和分散。

Furthermore, this digital algorithmic obscuring not only leads to the replacement of laborers whose production efficiency is lower than that of intelligent machines, but also greatly increases the workload for those laborers who have not yet been replaced by machines in their positions. For example, laborers are required to wear monitoring devices that can record their movements and positions in real time during the labor process, and intelligently analyze their work rhythm and leisure time from multiple angles. This tight monitoring by intelligent machines invisibly increases the work intensity and workload of laborers. In the eyes of capital, laborers are regarded as a kind of labor-power commodity used to earn profits, whose value needs to be squeezed to the maximum; in the eyes of laborers, capital owners are regarded as inhumane “moneybags.” The exchange between the two parties is based on commodities and money, reflecting an unequal interest relationship, and further leading to laborers being in a weak position in labor relations, lacking autonomy and voice, resulting in the reification of labor relations.

此外，这种数字算法遮蔽不仅会使生产效率低于智能机械的劳动者被替代，而且对那些尚未被机械取代的岗位上的劳动者来说，其工作负担也会大大增加。例如，劳动者被要求佩戴监控设备，这些监控设备可以实时记录其在劳动过程中的动作和位置，多角度地智能分析其工作节奏和闲暇程度。这种智能机械的严密监控会在无形中增加劳动者的工作强度和工作量。在资本眼中，劳动者被视为一种用于赚取利润的劳动力商品，需要最大限度地榨取其价值；而在劳动者眼中，资本所有者则被视为缺乏人性的“金主”。双方的交换基于商品和货币展开，体现了一种不平等的利益关系，并进一步导致劳动者在劳动关系中处于弱势地位，缺乏自主性和话语权，造成劳动关系的物化。

(2) Manifestations of the Alienation of Human Subjectivity

（二）人的主体性异化的表现

Within capitalist relations of production, digital labor exhibits a distinctive developmental trajectory and undergoes a phenomenon of alienation, among which the alienation of the laborer is a key manifestation. However, the laborer is not only the subject of digital labor but also possesses the identity attributes of an individual human being. In view of this, this alienation of subjectivity at the level of labor is by no means isolated; rather, it spreads like ripples, further triggering the alienation of subjectivity of human beings, as the sum total of social relations, within the context of digital existence.

在资本主义生产关系中，数字劳动呈现独特的发展态势，并发生异化现象，其中劳动者异化是关键表征。然而，劳动者不仅是数字劳动的主体，还具有作为个体的人的身份属性。鉴于此，这种在劳动层面的主体性异化绝非孤立存在，而是会如涟漪般扩散，进一步引发作为社会关系总和的人在数字生存情境中的主体性异化。

First, the inversion of the relationship between subject and object. Digital algorithms, which arise in the process of digital labor, ought to serve human beings, but have gradually become tools used by capital to control and dominate people. Capital utilizes digital algorithms to penetrate intensively into the daily life of humanity, constructing a "digital prison" and a "digital spectacle" to maximize profits. Within the "digital prison," every individual faces the panoptic domination of digital capital on spiritual, psychological, and other levels. For example, when shopping online, each act of consumption provides raw data for the platform to analyze the individual consumer's behavior and preferences. Capital uses digital algorithms to precisely predict the consumer's next consumption behavior, constructing a "digital spectacle" that conforms to the user's wishes and preferences, stimulating the consumer's gaze, thereby further reinforcing their desires and consumption psychology, and enticing the consumer to make purchases. In this way, users, within seemingly free and enjoyable consumption activities where they can choose goods or services that meet their needs, gradually weaken their capacity for self-selection, serving not only as providers of raw data but also as "instrumental beings" dominated by digital algorithms. Humanity in the era of digital algorithms still faces the risk of "reducing itself to the weak, ruled by machines."

一是主客体间关系的颠倒。在数字劳动过程中产生的数字算法本应是为人而服务的，却逐步变成了资本用来控制和支配人的工具。资本利用数字算法紧锣密鼓地向人类的日常生活渗透，以构筑“数字监狱”和“数字景观”，实现利润最大化。在“数字监狱”中，每个人都面对着数字资本在精神、心理等层面上的全景统摄。例如，在线上购物时，每进行一次消费行为，都相当于为平台分析消费者个体行为和偏好提供了原始数据。资本通过数字算法对用户下一步的消费行为进行精准预测，构造出符合用户意愿和偏好的“数字景观”，刺激消费者视线，从而进一步强化其欲望和消费心理，引诱消费者进行购买。如此，用户在看似自由、愉快的能够挑选符合自己需要的商品或服务的消费活动中，逐渐弱化了自我选择的能力，不仅充当了原始数据的提供者，还充当了被数字算法支配的“工具性存在物”。人类在数字算法时代仍然面临使“自己沦为弱者而被机器统治”的风险。

Second, the estrangement of relationships between subjects. On the one hand, if an individual remains for a long time in a specific information environment filtered by digital technology, their ability to accept new things will gradually weaken, leading them into the predicament of an "information cocoon."[n9] Capital, with the help of digital algorithms, deeply analyzes user data and pushes information content that matches the user's preferences with extremely high precision, causing users to frequently encounter highly homogenized information flows that align with their own tastes. In this situation, information interaction between users and their own community becomes increasingly efficient and convenient, but different communities find it difficult to break down barriers and achieve open communication through information technology, thereby deepening the estrangement between communities and giving rise to a deeper sense of loneliness. On the other hand, digital technology, by virtue of its powerful architectural capacity, constructs virtual spaces, employing precise quantitative methods to express people and society—originally rooted in the soil of reality and full of the texture of life—through the linguistic symbols of "0" and "1." Its stringent quantitative laws require that all behavioral activities in the real world undergo a process of conversion into digital codes, which is tantamount to a subversive deconstruction of traditional real space, forcibly dragging people into an unfamiliar and uncertain digital environment. In this process, individuals fall into a dilemma of choice: from the perspective of subjective will, individuals harbor a deep attachment to the profound emotional communication and genuine interpersonal interaction inherent in traditional real-world socializing, attempting to adhere to their original social models and holding an instinctive resistance to digital social tendencies; however, facing the overwhelming surge of the digital wave, individuals also fear being eliminated by the times if they fail to adapt promptly, thus hesitating on the question of whether to actively transform themselves to fit the survival logic of digital space. The new environment created by the digital wave exerts a form of soft violence, severing the deep bonds between individuals and their familiar surroundings in a subtle yet irresistible manner. Many freelancers engaged in digital labor, in order to precisely adapt to the frequently changing rule systems and complex algorithmic logic of digital platforms, must continuously immerse themselves in digital space for extended periods, inevitably and significantly reducing the frequency of real-world interactions with family and friends, leading to the estrangement of relationships between subjects. Facing the expansion of digital interfaces and platforms, every living individual encounters a situation similar to that of a tick lurking in a laboratory, that is, on the digital interface, turning their life into bare life.[n10] This phenomenon not only brings negative psychological distress such as loneliness and anxiety to individuals but also causes a strong impact on many key areas, such as the construction of social cohesion and the stability of the cultural inheritance system. Therefore, how to reshape close, warm, and vibrant inter-subjective relationships against the backdrop of the flourishing digital economy has become an important issue that urgently needs to be addressed.

二是主体之间关系的疏离化。一方面，倘若个体长期处于经数字技术筛选下的特定信息环境中，其对新事物的接纳能力将渐趋弱化，进而陷入“信息茧房”的困境。资本借助数字算法深度解析用户数据，以极高的精准度向用户推送契合其偏好的信息内容，使用户频繁接触高度同质化且贴合自身喜好的信息流。在这种情境下，用户与所属社群内部的信息交互愈发高效便捷，但不同社群之间却难以凭借信息技术打破壁垒，实现开放性沟通，由此进一步加深了社群间的隔阂，滋生出更深层次的孤独感。另一方面，数字技术凭借其强大的架构能力搭建起虚拟空间，运用量化的精密手段，将原本根植于现实土壤、充满生活质感的人、社会以“0”“1”为语言符号表达出来。其严苛的量化法则要求现实世界中的一切行为活动均需历经数字编码的转化流程，而这无异于一次对传统现实空间的颠覆性解构，强行将人们拖拽至一个陌生且充满不确定性的数字环境之中。在此过程中，个体会陷入一种两难的抉择困境：从主观意愿层面上看，个体内心深处对传统现实交往所蕴含的深度情感交流、真实人际互动抱有深切眷恋，试图坚守原有的社交模式，对数字化交往倾向持有本能的抵制态度；然而，面对数字浪潮的汹涌席卷，个体又恐因未能及时顺应潮流而被时代所淘汰，故而在是否要主动改造自我以契合数字空间生存逻辑这一问题上踟蹰不前。数字化浪潮所营造的全新环境施展着一种软性暴力，以潜移默化却又难以抗拒的方式割裂了个体与其所熟悉环境之间的深厚纽带。诸多投身于数字劳动的自由职业者，为精准适配数字平台频繁更迭的规则体系和复杂多变的算法逻辑，不得不持续性地长时间沉浸于数字空间中，从而不可避免地大幅削减与身边亲友的现实互动频次，导致主体之间关系的疏离化。面对数字界面和平台的扩张时，每一个生命个体都面临着实验室里蛰伏的蜱虫类似的境况，即在数字界面上，让自己的生命变成赤裸生命。这种现象不仅给个体带来孤独感、焦虑感等负面心理困扰，更对社会整体的凝聚力建构、文化传承体系的稳固等诸多关键领域造成强烈冲击。因而，如何在数字经济蓬勃盛行的时代背景下重塑紧密、温暖且富有活力的主体间关系，已然成为当下亟待攻克的重要课题。

IV. Conclusion

四、结语

As a new form of the development of productive forces in modern society, digital labor marks a profound transformation of human society in the digital age. Under digital capitalism, digital labor is essentially a form of realization of capital exploitation, and the deep logic behind it is precisely the production logic of digital capitalism. Digital capital, under the cover of digital technology, conceals the exploitation of living labor, obscures the true source of its high profits, and at the same time brings about the problem of the alienation of subjectivity. The unpaid "digital activities" of internet users are more of a consumption behavior satisfying physiological and psychological needs than a production behavior; the data generated by such behavior can only form a value carrier—that is, a data product—when combined with employed "living labor." At the same time, this behavior is not the cause of the alienation of user consumption; the capital logic behind it is the true reason for the alienation of more laborers. Within the framework of capital logic, people are increasingly trapped in the process of digital labor and gradually reduced to production tools of capital, with their individuality and creativity suppressed by standardized, homogenized algorithms. Under the triple oppression of capital, technology, and labor, laborers are gradually marginalized and instrumentalized, losing their应有的 richness and diversity. The vitality released by digital labor will ultimately be devoured by the relations of production of digital capitalism under the "marriage" and "collusion" of digital technology and capital. In the process of realizing labor justice, humanity must disenchant the digital "fetishism,"[n11] recognize that only human beings are the subjects of labor, and proceed from human beings themselves and from the relationships between human beings to restore humanity's subjective position in labor. The critical examination of digital labor under digital capitalism does not aim to persuade people to abandon digital civilization, but to discard the drawbacks of digital capitalism, alleviate the social pains accompanying the "birth" of digital capitalism, and build digital socialism, thereby realizing the beautiful vision of harmonious coexistence between humans and digital technology.

数字劳动作为现代社会生产力发展的一种新形态，标志着人类社会在数字时代的一次深刻转型。数字资本主义下数字劳动本质上是资本剥削的一种实现形式，其背后的深层逻辑即为数字资本主义的生产逻辑。数字资本在数字技术的遮蔽下隐藏了对活劳动的剥削，模糊了其获得高额利润的真正来源，同时带来了主体性异化问题。互联网用户的无偿“数字活动”更多的是一种满足生理与心理需求的消费行为，而非生产行为，这种行为所产生的数据只有与雇佣“活劳动”结合才能形成价值载体，即数据产品。同时，这种行为也并非构成用户消费异化的原因，其背后的资本逻辑才是造成更多劳动者异化的真正原因。在资本逻辑框架下，人们越来越困于数字劳动过程之中，并逐渐沦为资本的生产工具，其个性和创造性被标准化、同质化的算法所压制。在资本、技术、劳动的三重压迫下，劳动者逐渐被边缘化、工具化，失去了其应有的丰富性和多样性。数字劳动所释放的活力终将在数字技术与资本的“联姻”和“共谋”下遭到数字资本主义生产关系的反噬。人类在实现劳动正义的过程中，必须祛魅数字“拜物教”，认识到只有人才是劳动的主体，要从人自身出发，从人与人之间的关系出发，恢复人对劳动的主体地位。对数字资本主义下数字劳动的批判性考察，不在于劝诫人们摒弃数字文明，而在于摒弃数字资本主义的弊端，减轻数字资本主义“分娩”过程中伴生的社会阵痛，建设数字社会主义，从而实现人与数字技术和谐共生的美好愿景。

Our country is a socialist country. On the one hand, it is necessary to accelerate the formation of new quality productive forces, comprehensively construct new types of production relations compatible with them, strengthen labor supervision and oversight of digital enterprises, and ensure that the legitimate rights and interests of digital laborers such as data engineers and digital gig workers are fully protected; on the other hand, it is necessary to intensify antitrust and anti-unfair competition law enforcement to adapt to the new competitive landscape of the digital age, ensuring the rational flow of capital and fair market competition. The "Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Further Deepening Reform Comprehensively to Advance Chinese-Style Modernization," adopted at the Third Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the CPC, proposes: "Accelerate the construction of institutional mechanisms to promote the development of the digital economy, and improve the policy system for promoting digital industrialization and industrial digitalization." It is necessary to thoroughly implement the spirit of the Third Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee, build a high-level socialist market economy system, fully leverage the institutional advantages of socialism with Chinese characteristics, adhere to the direction of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and provide Chinese experience and Chinese wisdom for creating a new form of human civilization. "Facts have repeatedly told us that Marx and Engels' analysis of the basic contradictions of capitalist society is not outdated, nor is their historical materialist view that capitalism will inevitably perish and socialism will inevitably triumph." History will ultimately break out from digital capitalism, enabling digital concepts to benefit the world and truly realize the ultimate goal of the development of human society.

我国是社会主义国家，一方面要加快形成新质生产力，全面构建与之相适应的新型生产关系，强化对数字企业的劳动监察和监管，确保数据工程师、数字零工等数字劳动者的合法权益得到充分保护；另一方面，要加大反垄断和反不正当竞争执法力度，以适应数字时代新的竞争格局，确保资本的合理流动和市场的公平竞争。党的二十届三中全会通过的《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》提出：“加快构建促进数字经济发展体制机制，完善促进数字产业化和产业数字化政策体系。”要深入贯彻落实党的二十届三中全会精神，构建高水平社会主义市场经济体制，充分发挥中国特色社会主义制度优势，坚持中国特色社会主义方向，为创造人类文明新形态提供中国经验和中国智慧。“事实一再告诉我们，马克思、恩格斯关于资本主义社会基本矛盾的分析没有过时，关于资本主义必然消亡、社会主义必然胜利的历史唯物主义观点也没有过时。”历史终将会从数字资本主义中突出重围，使数字理念惠及世界，并真正实现人类社会发展的终极目标。

(Author affiliations: Northwest University; Inner Mongolia Academy of Social Sciences Magazine)

（作者单位分别为：西北大学、内蒙古自治区社会科学院杂志社）

Online Editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗