The Political Logic of Techno-Feudalism Representing the Essence of Capital and Its Critique

Marx once pointed out: “Interest has seized upon the newly created industrial forces and uses them to achieve its own ends; due to the effect of private property, these forces, which by right ought to belong to all of humanity, become the monopoly of a few wealthy capitalists, the instrument of their enslavement of the masses.” Today, global tech giants represented by Amazon, Google, Facebook, and others, through their monopoly on digital platforms and control over data, are gradually becoming an inescapable ruling force in contemporary capitalism. “The new nobles who control cloud capital are more like feudal aristocrats; they monopolize the various resources of big-data links, intelligent algorithm platforms, and the most massive computing power. People can only produce and live through these big data, algorithms, and computing power, yet these cloud nobles produce no products and sell no means of production.” [1]1 This passage paraphrases a critique of “cloud capital” and “cloud nobles” common in Western techno-feudalism discourse, not a direct Marx quotation. As “new lords,” tech giants, through their control of technological capital, have become the dominant figures possessing “digital fiefs.” Based on this, the reshaping of the feudal system by techno-feudalism is an unavoidable issue in the digital-intelligent society. Through a general examination of digital labor, a realistic consideration of technological monopoly power, and a global investigation of data colonialism, the essential logic of this issue can be answered. At the same time, clarifying the connotation of techno-feudalism, illuminating its logic, and stating our stance toward it will help us find the answer to how to deconstruct feudalism while exploring how it is being reshaped.

马克思曾指出：“利益霸占了新创造出来的各种工业力量并利用它们来达到自己的目的；由于私有制的作用，这些按照法理应当属于全人类的力量便成为少数富有的资本家的垄断物，成为他们奴役群众的工具”。如今，以亚马逊、谷歌、脸书等为代表的全球科技巨头，通过对数字平台的垄断和对数据的控制，逐渐成为当代资本主义中不可忽视的统治力量。“掌握云资本的新贵更像是封建主义的贵族，他们垄断着大数据链接、智能算法平台以及最庞大算力的各种资源，人们只能通过这些大数据、算法和算力来进行生产和生活，而这些云贵族并不生产任何产品，也不销售任何的生产资料”，科技巨头作为“新领主”，通过对技术资本的控制，成了拥有“数字封地”的主导者。基于此，技术封建主义重塑封建体系是数智社会不可回避的问题，通过对数字劳动的一般性考察、技术垄断权力的现实性考量、数据殖民的全球化考究，可以对这一问题的本质逻辑进行回答。同时，对技术封建主义内涵的阐明、逻辑的澄明、态度的表明，有助于我们在探讨何以重塑封建中找到以何解构封建的答案。

I. Feudalism and the Ultra-Modern Form

一、封建主义与超现代形式

Techno-feudalism is a critical theory proposed in recent years by Western scholars such as Yanis Varoufakis and Cédric Durand, targeting the phenomenon that “today’s technology, driven by capital, exhibits characteristics of accelerated development but essential conservatism, and displays quasi-feudal political traits through the vehicle of tech companies.” It aims to explain how a minority of capital monopoly forces, represented by tech giants, reshape the structures of capital and power through technological means, revealing how data, platforms, and technology in contemporary society are exploited by capital to construct a hierarchical power system and exploitative model resembling the feudal era. Evgeny Morozov describes this rule as “the ultra-modern form of feudalism.” [2]2 Evgeny Morozov, a critic of digital capitalism, coined the phrase “the ultra-modern form of feudalism” to describe platform monopolies. Although both techno-feudalism and traditional feudalism essentially involve power concentration, hierarchical control, and relations of dependency, they differ markedly in their core means of production, methods of social control, forms of ruling structure, and modes of exploitation.

技术封建主义是近年来以雅尼斯·瓦鲁法克斯、塞德里克·迪朗等为代表的西方学者针对“今天的科技却在资本的推动下呈现出发展加速而本质保守的特征，并以科技公司为载体表现出类封建的政治特性”现象提出的一种批判性理论，旨在阐释以科技巨头为代表的少数资本垄断力量如何通过技术手段重塑资本与权力结构，揭示了当代社会中数据、平台和技术如何被资本所利用，构建出类封建时代的等级化权力体系和剥削模式，叶夫根尼·莫洛佐夫将这种统治描述为“封建主义的超现代形式”。尽管技术封建主义和传统封建主义在本质上都涉及权力集中、等级控制和依附关系，但二者的核心生产资料、社会控制手段、统治结构方式和剥削形式有着明显的不同。

First, the transformation of the core means of production—from land to data. In traditional feudalism, “land is the mother of wealth”; feudal lords, through their possession of land, controlled the subordinate peasant class. Peasants depended on land for survival and had to labor for the lord or pay rent to obtain the right to use the land, forming a closed, land-based economic structure. In techno-feudalism, data replaces land as the most important factor of production. Tech giants, as modern “techno-lords,” through their monopoly on data, control the economic operations on digital platforms. The personal data of users and laborers is appropriated by tech giants without compensation and serves as the primary tool for capital valorization.

其一，核心生产资料的转变 — —从土地到数据。在传统封建主义中，“土地是财富之母”，封建领主通过对土地的占有，控制着附属的农民阶级。农民依靠土地生存，必须为领主劳动或缴纳地租以获得土地的使用权，形成了一种封闭的、以土地为基础的经济结构。而在技术封建主义中，数据替代了土地，成为最为重要的生产要素。科技巨头作为现代的“技术领主”，通过对数据的垄断，掌控了数字平台上的经济运行。用户和劳动者的个人数据被科技巨头无偿占有，并作为主要的资本增殖工具。

Second, the transformation of the method of social control—from overt extraction to covert exploitation. The forms of extraction in traditional feudalism were relatively direct and overt; feudal lords controlled peasants through political, military force and legal systems, and peasants sustained themselves through corvée labor or payment of rent in kind. The forms of exploitation under techno-feudalism are more concealed and complex. “Where coercive mechanisms have lost operability, enterprises increasingly reach consensus with workers, manufacture consent, and design ‘speed-up and overwork’ through ‘voluntary submission.’” [3]3 This refers to the concept of “manufacturing consent” adapted from labor process theory, applied here to platform-mediated work. Tech giants achieve domination over users and laborers through technological means and platform rules.

其二，社会控制方式的转变— —从显性压榨到隐性剥削。传统封建主义中的压榨形式较为直接且显性，封建领主通过政治、军事力量和法律制度对农民进行控制，农民通过徭役或缴纳实物地租来维持生活。技术封建主义下的剥削形式则更加隐蔽和复杂，“在强制机制失去了可操作性的情况下，企业更多地通过‘自愿服从’的方式与工人达成共识、制造同意、设计‘赶工超额’”，科技巨头通过技术手段和平台规则实现对用户和劳动者的支配。

Third, the transformation of power rule—from feudal lords to tech giants. Power in traditional feudalism was concentrated in the hands of landed aristocrats and lords, who controlled the land and its attached peasants. “Lords would grant so-called fiefs to subordinates called vassals. These fiefs gave vassals the formal right to economically exploit part of the lord’s domain, such as planting crops or grazing cattle in exchange for a portion of the agricultural produce.” [4]4 This describes the classic feudal fief-vassal relationship, used as an analogy for platform-user dependencies. In techno-feudalism, power is concentrated in the hands of a few tech giants, with digital platforms and technology becoming important tools for these enterprises to control the social economy. The power of tech giants is not limited to the economic sphere but extends to all aspects of social life. By controlling platforms and technological infrastructure, tech giants can influence production, distribution, consumption, and even social interaction and information dissemination on a global scale, forming an unprecedented global feudal power system.

其三，权力统治的转变— —从封建领主到科技巨头。传统封建主义的权力集中于土地贵族和领主手中，他们控制着土地及其附属的农民，“领主会将所谓的封地授予被称为封臣的下属。这些封地给予了封臣在经济上开发一部分领主领地的正式权利，比如在上面种植庄稼，或者放牛以换取一部分农产品”。而在技术封建主义中，权力集中在少数科技巨头手中，数字平台和技术成为这些企业控制社会经济的重要工具。科技巨头的权力不仅限于经济领域，还扩展到了社会生活的各个方面。通过控制平台和技术基础设施，科技巨头能够影响全球范围内的生产、分配、消费乃至社会交往和信息传播，形成了前所未有的全球性封建权力体系。

Fourth, the transformation of dependency relations—from serfs to “cloud serfs.” The dependency relations in traditional feudal society were based on land as the material factor of production; peasants exchanged labor or paid rent for the necessities of survival, “being subject to the rule of ‘local masters’ through their attachment to land.” [5]5 “Local masters” (地方主人) is a term for feudal lords in Chinese historical discourse, used here to draw the parallel. In techno-feudalism, dependency relations have shifted: laborers and users no longer depend on land but on digital platforms. Platforms have become the core of modern socio-economic activity; users obtain information and consume through platforms, and laborers obtain work opportunities and income through platforms. Although they formally possess more autonomy and choice, in reality, this dependency is more intangible and complex, and laborers and users gradually become “cloud serfs” under the control of tech giants.

其四，依附关系的转变— —从农奴到“云农奴”。传统封建社会的依附关系是基于土地为物质生产要素，农民通过劳作或缴纳地租换取生存所需，“通过对土地的依附而受制于‘地方主人’的统治”。在技术封建主义中，依附关系发生了转变，劳动者和用户不再依附于土地，而是依附于数字平台。平台成为现代社会经济活动的核心，用户通过平台获取信息、进行消费，劳动者通过平台获得工作机会和收入。尽管他们在形式上拥有更多的自主权和选择权，但实际上，这种依附关系更加无形和复杂，劳动者和用户逐渐成为科技巨头控制下的“云农奴”。

II. The Creation of Digital Platforms and the Illusion of Labor Freedom

二、数字平台的创造与劳动自由的幻象

With the rise of the gig economy, laborers have gradually shifted from traditional long-term employment to flexible, short-term “gig” models. This form of work seemingly grants laborers more freedom and flexibility, but in reality, it conceals a phenomenon of the re-feudalization of labor. The autonomy of laborers is severely weakened under the manipulation of algorithms and platform rules, gradually reducing them to “cloud serfs” dependent on platforms. At the same time, a phenomenon of “play labor” gradually emerges, where the boundary between labor and entertainment is blurred on many platforms. Laborers mistakenly believe they are working while “playing,” but in fact fall into a trap of deep exploitation.

伴随零工经济的崛起，劳动者从传统的长期雇佣制逐渐转向灵活、短期的“零工”模式。工作形式看似赋予了劳动者更多的自由和灵活性，但实际上却隐藏着劳动地再封建化现象。劳动者的自主性在算法和平台规则的操控下被严重削弱，逐渐沦为依附于平台的“云农奴”。与此同时，一种“玩劳动”的现象逐渐显现，即劳动和娱乐的界限在许多平台上被模糊化，劳动者误以为他们是在“玩”中工作，但实际上却陷入了深度剥削的陷阱。

(I) The Gig Economy and the Fragmentation of Labor

（一）零工经济与劳动分割

“A company managed by a small number of managers, running machines and freelancers—this is the broad sense of the ‘gig economy.’” [6]6 This definition of the gig economy is a paraphrase common in critical platform studies. The gig economy is a new economic model that has developed in recent years with the rise of digital platforms and the popularization of internet technology. It refers to work forms based on platforms that are short-term, temporary, and primarily freelance. Compared to the fixed employment model, the gig economy is characterized by flexible working hours and the short-term nature of labor relations. Laborers receive tasks and complete them through platforms, no longer bound by long-term employment contracts. Although this economic model provides laborers with formal freedom and flexibility, it actually leads to the fragmentation, instability, and intensification of exploitation of labor. This is because “the cloud capital platform easily detaches work from the labor market, entering an economy disguised as games, opportunities, and lotteries, while in reality, it is all mechanical, repetitive, Fordist work. The seemingly modern, trendy, friendly, and neutral digital space is actually a carefully designed project aimed at stripping most paid labor from the labor market, making wages dispensable, or even completely replacing them with a series of bets.” [7]7 “Fordist work” refers to the assembly-line, standardized labor model associated with Henry Ford’s factories, here applied critically to digital platform labor.

“由少数管理人员管理机器和自由职业者的公司，这就是广义的‘零工经济’”。零工经济是近年来随着数字平台的崛起和互联网技术的普及而发展起来的一种新型经济模式，它指的是依托于平台而形成的短期、临时性、自由职业为主的工作形式。相比固定雇佣劳动模式，零工经济的特点在于工作时间的灵活性和劳动关系的短期化，劳动者通过平台接单完成任务，而不再受制于长期的雇佣合同。这种经济模式虽然为劳动者提供了形式上的自由和灵活性，但实际上也导致了劳动的分割化、不稳定性和剥削的加剧。这是因为“云资本的平台让工作轻松地脱离劳动力市场，进入一种以游戏、机会和彩票为伪装的经济，而实际上，这一切都是机械的、重复的、福特主义的工作。看似现代、时髦、友好和中立的数字空间，实际上是精心设计的项目，目的是将大部分有偿劳动从劳动力市场中剥离出来，使工资变得可有可无，甚至完全被一连串的赌注所取代”。

The rise of the gig economy is inseparable from digital platforms. Enterprises decompose labor tasks into independent “gigs” through digital platforms and publish them for workers to complete. This form of gig covers everything from simple service work (such as food delivery, ride-hailing services) to complex professional tasks (such as design, programming, translation, etc.), encompassing a large number of flexible task types that traditional labor positions cannot accommodate. Workers do not need to rely on a single employer; they can freely choose their working hours, location, and task types, thereby achieving formal labor flexibility. This flexibility ostensibly breaks the bonds of traditional labor relations: workers are no longer confined to fixed job positions provided by companies, and can even obtain more income opportunities by taking orders on multiple platforms. However, although the gig economy grants workers superficial autonomy in scheduling, their labor form is highly fragmented—that is, labor is cut into independent tasks, and workers no longer enjoy the complete labor process but are restricted to executing specific tasks. Moreover, “the rating system established through work status monitoring and customer feedback becomes the basis for evaluating workers’ long-term performance, including but not limited to: order acceptance frequency, order rejection frequency and tendency, working hours, work periods, customer ratings and complaints, and the standard deviation of these data.” [8]8 零工经济 (gig economy) refers to a labor market characterized by short-term, flexible jobs mediated by digital platforms. Any single item among these data can affect workers’ pay and performance; by constructing these evaluation systems, the platform binds workers into a feudal system.

零工经济的兴起与数字平台密不可分。企业通过数字平台将劳动任务分解为一个个独立的“零工”，并通过平台发布给劳动者完成。这种零工的形式涵盖了从简单的服务性工作（如外卖配送、网约车服务）到复杂的专业性任务（如设计、编程、翻译等），涵盖了大量传统劳动岗位所无法承载的灵活任务类型。劳动者无需依赖于单一雇主，他们可以自由选择工作时间、地点和任务类型，从而实现形式上的劳动灵活性。这种灵活性表面上打破了传统劳动关系的束缚，劳动者不再受限于公司提供的固定工作岗位，甚至能够通过多平台接单获取更多的收入机会。然而，零工经济虽然在时间安排上给予了劳动者表面上的自主权，但是劳动者的劳动形式被高度分割化，即劳动被切割成一个个独立的任务，劳动者不再享有完整的劳动过程，而是被限制于特定任务的执行。并且“由工作状态监控和顾客反馈所建立起来的评分系统成为对劳动者长期工作表现的评估依据，这当中包括却不限于：接单频率、拒单频率和倾向、工作时长、工作时段、顾客评分和投诉以及以上这些数据的标准差”。这些数据中的任意一项都能对劳动者的薪资绩效产生影响，平台通过构建这些评价体系将劳动者束缚在封建体系中。

(II) Immaterialization of Labor and the Illusion of “Play Labor”

（二）劳动非物质化与“玩劳动”错觉

In traditional capitalism, labor was mainly carried out through material production, manual labor, and handicrafts. Workers created commodities through specific material production, and capitalists exploited workers’ surplus value by controlling the means of production. “Entering the digital era, the vast number of internet users have been absorbed by various platforms, becoming a part of the collective worker.” [9]9 总体工人 (collective worker) is a concept from Marx’s *Capital*, referring to the combined labor of all workers involved in production, including those not directly handling materials. The production process gradually shifts toward immaterialization, with the main production activities moving from the material sphere to the production of information, services, and data. Many jobs no longer directly produce tangible commodities but exist in the form of information, knowledge, and symbols. Moreover, “to engage in productive labor, it is no longer necessary to do it oneself; it suffices to be an organ of the collective worker and to perform one of its subordinate functions.” [10]10 This is a paraphrase of Marx’s idea in *Capital* that the collective worker’s functions can be divided among many individuals. This is because the existence of digital platforms makes information and data the most important means of production and economic resources. The rise of social media, content creation platforms, and the gaming industry turns users into producers and consumers of data.

在传统资本主义中，劳动主要是通过物质生产、体力劳动和手工业的形式进行，工人通过具体的物质生产创造商品，资本家通过控制生产资料来剥削劳动者的剩余价值。“进入数字化时代，广大互联网用户已经被各种平台所吸纳，成为总体工人的一个部分”，生产过程逐渐向非物质化转变，主要生产活动从物质领域转向信息、服务和数据的生产。许多工作不再直接产生有形的商品，而是以信息、知识和符号的形式存在，并且“为了从事生产劳动，现在不一定要亲自动手；只要成为总体工人的一个器官，完成他所属的某一种职能就够了”。这是因为，数字平台的存在使信息和数据成了最重要的生产资料和经济资源。社交媒体、内容创作平台和游戏产业的兴起，使得用户成为数据的生产者和消费者。

Along with the immaterialization of labor, a new form of labor—the phenomenon of “play labor”—gradually emerges. “Play labor” refers to users creating economic value for platforms while engaging in entertaining and fun activities. This is “a way to make work easily detach from the labor market, entering an economic model disguised as games, opportunities, and lotteries.” [11]11 “玩劳动” (play labor) is a term used by critics like Julian Kücklich to describe user activities that generate value for platforms under the guise of play. The most typical examples include content sharing on social media, user creation on video platforms, and user participation in the gaming industry. On the surface, these activities are full of freedom and entertainment; users feel they are “playing,” rather than working or laboring. But in essence, these seemingly free behaviors have become important channels for platform capital to extract value, because digital content producers do not enjoy the benefits of ownership of the content they produce. Digital content producers and publishers are “digital sharecroppers cultivating their internet crops on allocated virtual land; their digital displays and digital interaction behaviors become free acts that earn profits and money for capital.” [12]12 “数字佃农” (digital sharecroppers) is a metaphor comparing platform users to feudal tenants who work land they do not own. The illusion of “play labor” obscures the boundary between labor and entertainment, causing users to mistakenly believe they are playing while performing labor, essentially “turning us all into cloud slaves, glued to smartphones and tablets.” [13]13 “云奴隶” (cloud slaves) is a critical term for workers whose labor is fully controlled by digital platforms.

伴随着劳动的非物质化，一种新的劳动形式— —“玩劳动”现象逐渐出现。“玩劳动”是指用户在进行娱乐性、趣味性活动的同时，实际上为平台创造了经济价值，这是一种“让工作轻松地脱离劳动力市场，进入一种以游戏、机会和彩票为伪装的经济模式”。最典型的例子包括社交媒体上的内容分享、视频平台上的用户创作以及游戏产业中的用户参与等活动。表面上，这些活动充满了自由性和娱乐性，用户感觉自己是在“玩”，而非工作或劳动。但实质上，这些看似自由的行为，已成为平台资本攫取价值的重要渠道，因为数字内容的生产者并不享有内容生产的所有权好处，数字内容的生产者和发布者是在被分配的虚拟土地上耕作自己互联网作物的‘数字佃农’，他们的数字展示和数字交往行为成为为资本赚取利润和赚钱的免费行为。“玩劳动”的错觉掩盖了劳动与娱乐的边界，使用户在进行劳动时误以为自己是在玩乐，实质是“把我们所有人都变成云奴隶，粘在智能手机和平板电脑上”。

(III) From “Cloud Proletarians” to “Cloud Serfs”

（三）从“云无产者”到“云农奴”

With the rapid development of internet technology and the platform economy, the traditional model of fixed employment labor is gradually being replaced. A group of “cloud proletarians” who rely on digital platforms to obtain work opportunities has emerged. They “are no longer employed in ‘jobs’ with long-term ties to enterprises, but are ‘flexibly’ arranged as ‘independent contractors’ or ‘consultants’ for specific tasks or work at specific times,” [14]14 “云无产者” (cloud proletarians) refers to workers who depend on digital platforms for income but lack traditional employment protections. obtaining work opportunities through digital platforms (such as Uber, Didi, food delivery platforms, freelancer platforms, etc.). Their labor form is more flexible, neither restricted by fixed workplaces nor bound by traditional factories or offices. These workers are usually engaged in temporary, gig-style work and are considered “free laborers.” They work through the technical infrastructure provided by the platforms, which in turn extract commissions or management fees. This new form of labor ostensibly breaks traditional employment relations, and workers seem to have more autonomy and work freedom. But in reality, “cloud proletarians,” like traditional proletarians, remain in a state of dependence on capital, and in some respects are even more dependent, “living increasingly unstable and stressful lives under the invisible oppression of algorithms.” [15]15 This describes the precarity and algorithmic control faced by platform workers.

随着互联网技术和平台经济的迅猛发展，传统的固定雇佣劳动模式正在逐渐被替代，出现了一批依赖数字平台获取工作机会的“云无产者”，他们“不再受雇于与企业有长期联系的‘工作’,而是作为‘独立承包商’或‘顾问’被‘灵活’安排于特定任务或在特定时间工作”，通过数字平台（如Uber、滴滴、外卖平台、自由职业者平台等）获取工作机会。他们的劳动形式更加灵活，既不受固定工作场所的限制，也不再被传统的工厂或办公室束缚。这些劳动者通常以临时性、零工式的工作为主，被认为是“自由劳动者”，他们通过平台提供的技术基础设施进行工作，平台则从中抽取佣金或管理费用。这种新的劳动形式表面上打破了传统的雇佣关系，劳动者似乎拥有更多的自主权和工作自由。但实际上，“云无产者”与传统无产者一样，依然处于对资本的依赖状态，甚至在某些方面依赖性更强，“他们在算法的无形压迫下过着越来越不稳定、压力越来越大的生活”。

The increasing monopolistic nature of digital platforms causes “every self-employed striver to be alienated into a cloud vassal, turned into a cloud serf.” [16]16 “云农奴” (cloud serfs) extends the feudal metaphor, emphasizing the complete dependency and lack of autonomy of platform workers. This process reflects the re-feudalization trend of digital labor. In traditional feudal society, serfs were attached to land and lords; to obtain survival resources, they had to pay rent or provide unpaid labor to the lords. In digital labor, “cloud serfs” are attached to platforms, which become modern “fiefs,” while tech giants become new “techno-lords,” controlling workers’ job opportunities, labor remuneration, and work processes. Workers must rely on platforms to survive, obtaining work opportunities through them, but they have almost no control over their own labor outcomes. Platforms deprive workers of autonomy invisibly through algorithms and rules. Platform monitoring and management of workers are ubiquitous; through data monitoring and algorithmic control, platforms can track workers’ work progress, efficiency, and performance in real time, determining their task allocation and payment. For example, on food delivery platforms, every delivery action, route, and customer rating of a rider is digitized; platforms use these data to precisely manage and assess workers’ performance. This management method greatly reduces workers’ freedom. Although they have no fixed employer, they are in fact tightly controlled and monitored by the platform, becoming “feudal serfs” under the platform system.

数字平台垄断性的增强，使得“每一个自雇的奋斗者都异化为一个云附庸，都变成了一个云农奴”。这一过程体现了数字劳动地再封建化趋势。传统封建社会中，农奴依附于土地和领主，他们为获得生存资源必须向领主缴纳地租或提供无偿劳动。数字劳动中的“云农奴”依附于平台，平台成为现代的“封地”，而科技巨头则是新的“技术领主”，控制着劳动者的工作机会、劳动报酬和工作过程。劳动者必须依赖平台生存，通过平台获得工作机会，但他们对自己的劳动成果几乎没有控制权，平台通过算法和规则无形中剥夺了劳动者的自主性。平台对劳动者的监控和管理是无处不在的，通过数据监控和算法控制，平台能够实时追踪劳动者的工作进度、效率和表现，决定其任务分配和报酬发放。例如，在外卖平台上，骑手的每一个送餐行为、行驶路线和客户评价都被数据化，平台通过这些数据对劳动者的工作进行精准管理和考核。这种管理方式极大地降低了劳动者的自由度，他们虽然没有固定的雇主，但实际上受到了平台的严密控制和监控，成为了平台体系下的“封建农奴”。

III. The Reality of Technological Progress and the Illusion of Individual Equality

三、技术进步的实存与个人平等的假象

Tech giants, through monopolies on data, algorithms, and other technologies, control the core resources of the digital market, reshaping the distribution of power in the contemporary economy and society. In this new power system, tech giants, as “digital lords,” control resource allocation, market access, and labor management on platforms, establishing comprehensive domination over users, workers, and markets, gradually forming a hierarchical power structure similar to feudal society. At the same time, platform capital obtains extremely high monopoly profits through technological advantages, making capital flows and market rules entirely dominated by a few tech companies, while algorithmic control becomes the core tool for consolidating this feudalized power structure.

科技巨头通过对数据、算法等技术垄断，掌握了数字市场的核心资源，重塑了当代经济与社会的权力分配。在这种新的权力体系中，科技巨头作为“数字领主”，控制了平台上的资源分配、市场准入和劳动管理，建立起对用户、劳动者和市场的全面支配，逐渐形成了类似于封建社会的权力等级结构。同时，平台资本通过技术优势获得了极高的垄断性收益，使得资本流动和市场规则完全由少数科技公司主导，算法控制则成为巩固这种封建化权力结构的核心工具。

(I) Technological Monopoly and Power Control

（一）技术垄断与权力掌控

Marx once pointed out that “with the acquisition of new productive forces, people change their mode of production; with the change in the mode of production, i.e., the way of earning a living, they change all their social relations.” This indicates that the ownership of the means of production determines the power structure of society. “The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist,” while data production gives rise to a society of techno-feudal lords. Through their control of data and technology, tech giants achieve rapid capital accumulation and concentration of power. Data and technology have become new means of production in modern capitalism, and tech giants leverage these resources to reap enormous economic benefits. Data not only reflects user behavior and preferences but is also used to predict and shape future market demand. In this context, data has become “new oil” of extremely high value. By collecting user data on a massive scale and conducting in-depth analysis, tech giants can dominate market trends, dictate user choices, and secure a monopolistic position in competition.

马克思曾指出“随着新生产力的获得，人们改变自己的生产方式，随着生产方式即谋生的方式的改变，人们也就会改变自己的一切社会关系”，这表明生产资料的所有权决定了社会的权力结构。“手推磨产生的是封建主的社会，蒸汽磨产生的是工业资本家的社会”，而数据生产产生的是技术封建领主社会。科技巨头通过对数据和技术的掌控，实现了资本的快速积累和权力的集中。数据和技术已经成为现代资本主义中的新型生产资料，科技巨头凭借这些资源获得了巨大的经济利益。数据不仅反映了用户的行为和偏好，还被用于预测和塑造未来的市场需求。在这种情况下，数据成为具有极高价值的“新石油”。通过大规模收集用户数据并进行深度分析，科技巨头能够主导市场趋势，支配用户选择，并在竞争中立于垄断地位。

Technological monopoly is not merely an economic phenomenon but also a broad process of social control and power concentration. Through their monopoly on technology and data, tech giants transcend the economic power of traditional capitalist enterprises and gradually infiltrate the political, cultural, and social spheres. The political influence of tech giants is growing; through technological monopoly, they gain influence over government policy-making, especially in areas such as data privacy, technological innovation, and cybersecurity, where they hold significant discursive power. Because tech giants control the global technological infrastructure, governments and public institutions often rely on these enterprises for technical support on technological issues, further strengthening the power of tech giants in the political sphere. At the social level, tech giants control information flow, public opinion, and social behavior through platforms and algorithms. Platforms are not only channels for information release and dissemination but also use algorithms to filter, push, and recommend information, shaping public perception and thought. This control is not limited to the push of commercial advertisements but extends to the selection and promotion of political information, social news, and cultural entertainment.

技术垄断不仅是一种经济现象，也是一种广泛的社会控制和权力集中过程。科技巨头通过对技术和数据的垄断，超越了传统资本主义企业的经济权力，逐渐渗透到政治、文化和社会领域。科技巨头在政治领域的影响力日益增强，他们通过技术垄断获得了对政府政策制定的影响力，特别是在数据隐私、技术创新、网络安全等政策制定上，科技巨头有着极大的话语权。由于科技巨头控制着全球范围内的技术基础设施，政府和公共机构在技术问题上往往需要依赖这些企业的技术支持，这进一步强化了科技巨头在政治领域的权力。在社会层面，科技巨头通过平台和算法控制了信息流通、公众舆论和社会行为。平台不仅是信息发布和传播的渠道，它们还通过算法来筛选、推送和推荐信息，塑造公众的认知和思想。这种控制不仅局限于商业广告的推送，还扩展到政治信息、社会新闻和文化娱乐的选择和推广上。

(II) Platform Capital and the Legitimization of Exploitation

（二）平台资本与剥削合法

Similar to how fiefs were the basis of production and survival in traditional feudal society, digital platforms have become the infrastructure of modern economic activity. Enterprises and individuals must rely on these platforms to obtain information and resources, conduct transactions, and engage in social interaction. Platforms are not merely intermediaries but also the dominant force in market activities, controlling the allocation and flow of economic resources. The technical infrastructure provided by platforms resembles the land provided by lords in feudal society; users must comply with platform rules, pay rent, or share profits to gain access. This type of platform possesses the characteristics of a fief, breaking the logic of free competition in traditional capitalism and replacing it with a closed market dominated by the platform. In these markets, the monopolistic position of platforms makes it difficult for enterprises and individuals to operate independently without them, to the extent that “from factory owners in the American Midwest to poets striving to sell their latest collections, from Uber drivers in London to street vendors in Indonesia, everyone now relies on some cloud computing domain to acquire customers.” The logic of this closed market turns platform owners into modern techno-lords, who, through their control of platform resources and user behavior, construct hierarchical economic dependency relationships.

与传统封建社会中封地是生产和生存的基础类似，数字平台成为了现代经济活动的基础设施。企业和个人需要通过这些平台获取信息和资源、进行交易和开展社交互动。平台不仅是中介，更是市场活动的主导者，控制了经济资源的分配和流动。平台提供的技术基础设施类似于封建社会中领主提供的土地，使用者必须通过服从平台规则、支付租金或分享利润的方式才能获得使用权。这种平台具备封地的特征，打破了传统资本主义中自由竞争的市场逻辑，取而代之的是一种平台主导的封闭市场。在这些市场中，平台的垄断地位使得企业和个人难以绕开它们进行独立运作，以至于“从美国中西部的工厂主到努力销售最新选集的诗人，从伦敦的优步司机到印度尼西亚的街头小贩，所有人现在都依赖于一些云计算领域来获取客户”。这种封闭市场的逻辑让平台所有者成为了现代的技术领主，他们通过对平台资源和用户行为的掌控，构建了等级化的经济依附关系。

In the platform economy, the “freedom” of laborers gradually dissolves, and they become “digital serfs” dependent on the platform. This dependency relationship stems from laborers’ deep reliance on the platform. Laborers in the platform economy (such as Uber drivers, food delivery riders, etc.) must depend on the platform to obtain work opportunities, while the platform exercises intangible feudal rule over laborers through algorithmic control and labor monitoring. Nevertheless, the feudal rule of platform capital is also consolidated through a set of self-legitimizing mechanisms. Tech giants package platforms as free, open, and shared economic tools, concealing the monopolistic control and exploitative logic behind them. The most common legitimizing tool used by tech giants is to package their monopoly and control as manifestations of “innovation-driven” and “technological progress.” Tech companies often proclaim that they are driving social change and technological advancement, putting forward grand goals such as “changing the world,” “connecting the globe,” and “empowering individuals and businesses,” creating a positive narrative that technology brings infinite possibilities. At the same time, they build an image of “openness and sharing” to win public trust, claiming that their platforms are open and allow anyone to participate and benefit. These self-legitimizing measures, through further propaganda, make platform monopolies appear rational and even accepted by the public.

在平台经济中，劳动者的“自由”逐渐消解，他们成为了依附于平台的“数字佃农”。这种依附关系的形成源于劳动者对平台的深度依赖。平台经济中的劳动者（如Uber司机、外卖骑手等）必须依赖平台获取工作机会，而平台通过算法控制和劳动监控，对劳动者进行无形的封建统治。尽管如此，平台资本的封建统治还通过一套自我合法化机制得以巩固。科技巨头将平台包装为自由、开放和共享的经济工具，掩盖了其背后的垄断控制和剥削逻辑。科技巨头最常用的合法化工具是将其垄断和控制包装为“创新驱动”和“科技进步”的体现。科技公司往往宣扬自己在推动社会变革和技术进步，提出诸如“改变世界”“连接全球”“赋能个人和企业”等宏大目标，营造出一种科技带来无限可能的积极叙事。同时通过打造“开放与共享”的形象来赢得公众的信任，标榜其平台是开放的，允许任何人参与并受益。这些自我合法化举措通过进一步宣传使得平台垄断显得合理化，甚至被公众所接受。

(III) Algorithmic Control and Market Domination

（三）算法控制与市场支配

“Capital has transferred the power to dominate workers and consumers to algorithms. This is a more revolutionary step than replacing automobile workers with industrial robots.” In the platform economy, algorithms dominate key links such as information flow, market behavior, and user recommendations. Through their monopolistic control of massive data, tech giants use complex algorithms to analyze user behavior, market dynamics, and advertising needs, ensuring that their platforms can effectively guide user choices and behavior. This control achieved through algorithms is not only reflected in the manipulation of information but also has a profound impact on the behavior of laborers and consumers. Essentially, algorithms are not merely simple technical tools but a form of digital power. “Tech giants, by controlling the algorithmic rules within their platforms, determine what information users see, what activities they engage in, and what resources they obtain.” This power is similar to the domination that traditional feudal lords exerted over serfs by controlling land and resources. The difference is that modern techno-lords, by controlling algorithms, achieve intangible management of data flow, information dissemination, and labor distribution, shaping a new hierarchical social structure.

“资本将支配工人和消费者的权力移交给了算法。这是比用工业机器人取代汽车工人更具革命性的一步”。在平台经济中，算法主导了信息流、市场行为、用户推荐等多个关键环节。科技巨头通过对海量数据的垄断性掌握，使用复杂的算法分析用户行为、市场动态和广告投放需求，确保其平台能够有效地引导用户的选择和行为。这种通过算法实现的控制，不仅体现在对信息的操控上，还对劳动者和消费者的行为产生了深远影响。从本质上讲，算法不仅仅是简单的技术工具，更是一种数字权力的行使形式。“科技巨头通过控制平台内的算法规则，决定了用户看到什么信息、从事何种活动，以及获取何种资源”。这种权力类似于传统封建领主通过控制土地和资源，对农奴施加的支配。不同的是，现代科技领主通过控制算法，实现对数据流动、信息传播和劳动分配的无形管理，塑造了一个新的等级化社会结构。

In the digital economy, the key to market competition is no longer simple price wars or service competition but control over data and algorithms. “The algorithms of cloud service providers concentrate the power to match buyers and sellers in their own hands—this is precisely the opposite of the market’s original intent: decentralization.” Tech giants, using technological monopoly, dominate the global digital market. In the platform economy, the behavior of both users and enterprises is managed and guided through algorithms on the platform. “Because users mistakenly believe that algorithms are unconscious, rather than real people, they are more easily deceived by a false sense of security.” However, every interaction, click, and purchase behavior of users on the platform actually follows the platform’s algorithmic rules. The dominant position and power of the platform are thus further consolidated, while users are forced to rely on the services and information provided by the platform, becoming the controlled subjects in the platform feudal system. This algorithmic control not only affects the fairness of market competition but also further strengthens the market monopoly position of tech giants. The traditional free market competition is highly algorithmized, with market rules set by the platform’s technological dominators, rather than naturally formed by market supply and demand dynamics. As platform owners, tech giants, through their control of algorithms, grasp the rules of the market game, thus becoming new “lords” in the digital market.

在数字经济中，市场竞争的关键不再是简单的价格战或服务竞争，而是对数据和算法的掌控。“云服务商的算法将撮合买家和卖家的权力集中在自己身上— — 这与市场的本意恰恰相反：去中心化”。科技巨头利用技术垄断，主导了全球的数字市场。平台经济中，用户和企业的行为都通过平台上的算法进行管理和引导。“因为用户误以为算法是无意识的，而不是真实的人，所以更容易被一种虚假的安全感所迷惑”。但是，用户在平台上的每一次互动、点击及购买行为，实际上都在遵循平台的算法规则。平台的主导地位和权力因此得到了进一步巩固，而用户则被迫依赖于平台提供的服务和信息，成为了平台封建体系中的受控者。这种算法控制不仅影响了市场竞争的公平性，还进一步增强了科技巨头的市场垄断地位。传统意义上的自由市场竞争被高度算法化，市场规则由平台的技术主导者制定，而不是由市场供需动态自然形成。科技巨头作为平台的所有者，通过对算法的控制，掌握了市场的游戏规则，从而在数字市场中成为了新“领主”。

IV. The Universality of Data Production and the Imagination of Global Connection

四、数据生产的普遍与全球链接的想象

“Just as capitalism overthrew feudalism by replacing land with capital as the primary factor of production, techno-feudalism has also replaced capitalism by means of cloud capital.” Data has become the core means of production for cloud capital and the foundational resource for value creation and capital accumulation. A small number of companies, through platform and technological monopolies, exercise comprehensive control over the generation, flow, and use of data, and extract continuous monopoly profits through the rentierization of data. Data not only serves as a tool for capital valorization but also, through constant reproduction, drives the concentration of wealth and power on a global scale. This further exacerbates digital inequality between the Global North and South, giving rise to data colonialism. Developed countries and tech giants, by controlling global data resources, exploit the data of developing countries, reducing them to “data vassals” under a feudal system.

“正如资本主义通过用资本取代土地作为主要的生产要素而推翻了封建主义一样，技术封建主义也借助云资本取代了资本主义”。数据已成为云资本的核心生产资料，成为价值创造、资本积累的基础资源。少数公司通过平台和技术垄断，对数据的生成、流动和使用进行全面控制，并通过数据的租金化来获取持续的垄断性收益。数据不仅作为资本增殖的工具，还通过不断地再生产，推动着全球范围内的财富和权力集中。这进一步加剧了全球南北之间的数字不平等，形成数据殖民主义。发达国家和科技巨头通过控制全球数据资源，对发展中国家的数据进行剥削，使其沦为封建体系下的“数据附庸”。

(I) Cloud Rent and Capital Valorization

（一）云租金与资本增殖

“In the stage of data capitalization, users’ behavioral data becomes the raw material for platforms to produce data commodities. Capital creatively breaks the boundary of exploitation through wage labor and, by privately appropriating the value of data commodities, realizes the exploitation of surplus value from non-wage digital laborers—users.” The personal data generated by users on platforms (such as browsing history, purchase records, social interactions, etc.) is collected, analyzed, and processed by tech enterprises, becoming the foundation for services like precision marketing, ad targeting, and behavioral prediction. This data is transformed into economic value without users’ awareness, and platforms further commodify data through algorithms. Because these tech giants have a monopoly on data control, users and vassal capitalists (vassal capitalists are capitalist producers who lack sufficient cloud capital and, to sell their commodities, must pay cloud rent to access the cloud fiefs of cloud capitalists) must rely on the services provided by these platforms when interacting with them. Tech giants charge fees for these services, thus forming a “cloud rent” model. This rentierization model is very similar to the land rent model of traditional feudal society: in the traditional feudal system, peasants depended on the lord’s land for survival, whereas under the modern techno-feudal system, users and enterprises depend on the platforms’ digital infrastructure to gain traffic and market opportunities. Whether advertisers, merchants, or ordinary users, all must access markets and consumers through the platforms of tech giants, and the platforms, through this monopolistic data control, continuously extract high “cloud rents.”

“在数据资本化阶段，用户的行为数据成为平台生产数据商品的原材料，资本创造性地打破了雇佣劳动的剥削界限，通过对数据商品价值的私人占有，实现了对无雇佣数字劳动者— —用户的剩余价值剥削”。用户在平台上所生成的个人数据（如浏览历史、购买记录、社交互动等），被科技企业收集、分析和处理，成为了精准营销、广告推送、行为预测等服务的基础。这些数据在用户毫无意识的情况下被转化为经济价值，平台通过算法将数据进一步商品化。由于这些科技巨头对数据的控制是垄断性的，用户和附庸资本家（附庸资本家是资本主义生产者，但缺乏足够的云资本，为了销售他们的商品，必须支付云租金才能进入云资本家的云封地）在与这些平台互动时，必须依赖其提供的服务。科技巨头通过对这些服务收取费用，从而形成了“云租金”模式。这种租金化模式与传统封建社会的地租模式非常相似：在传统封建制度中，农民依赖领主的土地生存，而在现代技术封建制度下，用户和企业则依赖平台的数字基础设施来获取流量和市场机会。无论是广告主、商家，还是普通用户，都必须通过科技巨头的平台来接触市场和消费者，而平台通过这种垄断性的数据控制，持续从中抽取高额的“云租金”。

The capital valorization of “cloud rent” lies in the fact that tech giants not only profit directly from data collection but also achieve long-term capital accumulation by controlling data flows. In traditional productive capitalism, the source of profit mainly depended on the exploitation of labor in the production process, i.e., the surplus value generated by workers during production. But in techno-feudalism, data has become a “virtual means of production” akin to land, and its logic of capital accumulation is primarily manifested in the monopolistic control of data flows and the rentier model. This process of capital valorization is multi-layered. First, by collecting massive amounts of user data, platforms can provide advertisers with precise user profiles and consumption behavior analysis. To obtain these services, advertisers must pay high advertising fees to the platforms, from which the platforms derive “rent” income. Second, platforms can also package and sell data to third-party enterprises, or provide business solutions for other industries through data analysis services, which likewise brings additional capital appreciation to the platforms. In these processes, data, as an intangible asset, is utilized and replicated without limit, while the platforms, as the controllers of data, continuously extract monopolistic profits.

“云租金”的资本增殖在于科技巨头不仅通过收集数据直接获利，还通过控制数据流动，实现长期的资本积累。在传统的生产性资本主义中，利润的来源主要依赖于生产过程中的劳动剥削，即工人在生产过程中产生的剩余价值。但在技术封建主义中，数据成为了类似于土地的“虚拟生产资料”，其资本积累逻辑主要体现在垄断控制下的数据流动和租金模式。这种资本增殖的过程是多层次的。首先，平台通过收集海量用户数据，可以为广告商提供精准的用户画像和消费行为分析，广告商为了获取这些服务，必须向平台支付高昂的广告费用，平台由此获取了“租金”收入。其次，平台还可以通过将数据打包出售给第三方企业，或者通过数据分析服务，为其他行业提供商业解决方案，这同样为平台带来了额外的资本增值。在这些过程中，数据作为一种无形的资产，被无限制地利用和复制，而平台作为数据的控制者，则持续从中获取垄断性的收益。

(II) Data Reproduction and Resource Allocation

（二）数据再生产与资源分配

In the traditional feudal economy, land was not only a source of wealth but also played a foundational role in economic reproduction. Peasants cultivated land for food production, ensuring the lord’s economic returns and the continuation of the social structure. In techno-feudalism, data has replaced land, becoming the foundational resource of the digital platform economy. Through continuous production and reproduction, data sustains the economic cycle of tech giants. Users and laborers constantly generate new data, which becomes the core material for platform operations, capital accumulation, and social control. Similar to the traditional agricultural cycle, the activities of users and laborers in the digital economy continuously provide new data for platforms. This data is collected, stored, and analyzed by tech giants, forming core resources for advertising, user behavior prediction, market analysis, etc., which are further used to enhance platform operational efficiency, attract more users and enterprises into the platform ecosystem, and form a self-reinforcing reproduction cycle.

在传统的封建经济中，土地不仅是财富的来源，还承担着经济再生产的基础角色，农民通过耕种土地进行粮食生产，保证了领主的经济收益和社会结构的延续。在技术封建主义中，数据取代了土地，成为了数字平台经济的基础资源。数据通过持续的生产和再生产，维系了科技巨头的经济循环。用户和劳动者不断产生新的数据，而这些数据成为了平台运营、资本积累和社会控制的核心材料。类似于传统的农耕循环，用户和劳动者在数字经济中的活动不断为平台提供新的数据，这些数据被科技巨头采集、存储和分析，形成了用于广告投放、用户行为预测、市场分析等的核心资源，进一步用来增强平台的运营效率，吸引更多的用户和企业进入平台生态系统，形成了一个自我强化的再生产循环。

An important characteristic of the data reproduction process is the mode of data distribution. “Data accumulation is the core of the business model of internet giants.” Through platforms, they monopolize the ownership and control of data, leading to a high degree of concentration of data resources. Similar to the concentration of land in traditional feudal society, the concentration of data resources likewise exacerbates inequality in the digital economy. Ordinary users and laborers, although they are the producers of data, cannot possess ownership of the data; data ownership is appropriated by tech giants, and the returns on capital are also concentrated in the hands of platform enterprises. At this point, data reproduction is not only an economic phenomenon but also manifests a new type of feudal resource allocation model. This unequal allocation model resembles feudal society, where peasants tilled the land but could not own it, and all returns from the land belonged entirely to the lord. Tech giants, through algorithms and platform rules, control the flow and redistribution of data, determining which data can be used for commercial purposes and which for optimizing user experience and platform operations. “The data generated by users enables these companies to improve user experience, design targeted advertisements, or sell personalized services.” In this process, the platform’s role as a “data lord” is further strengthened, while users and laborers are in a position of exploitation. Their labor and consumption behaviors are datafied and transformed into capital for tech giants, but they themselves do not benefit from it; instead, they become a subordinate class in the data reproduction cycle.

数据再生产过程中的一个重要特点是数据的分配方式。“数据积累是互联网巨头商业模式的核心”，它们通过平台垄断了数据的所有权和控制权，导致了数据资源的高度集中化。与传统封建社会中土地的集中化类似，数据资源的集中化同样加剧了数字经济中的不平等。普通用户和劳动者虽然是数据的生产者，但他们无法掌握数据的所有权，数据的所有权被科技巨头所占有，资本的收益也集中在平台企业手中。至此，数据再生产不仅是一个经济现象，还体现出了一种新型的封建资源分配模式。这种不平等的分配模式类似于封建社会中，农民耕作土地，却无法拥有土地的所有权，土地的收益完全归领主所有。科技巨头通过算法和平台规则控制数据的流动和再分配，决定了哪些数据可以用于商业用途，哪些数据用于优化用户体验和平台运营，“用户产生的数据使这些公司能够改善用户体验、设计有针对性的广告或销售个性化服务”。在这个过程中，平台作为“数据领主”的角色得到进一步强化，而用户和劳动者则处于被剥削的地位。他们的劳动和消费行为被数据化，并转化为科技巨头的资本，但自身并未从中受益，反而成为数据再生产循环中的从属阶层。

(III) Data Monopoly and Data Colonialism

（三）数据垄断与数据殖民

Data monopoly refers to the comprehensive control over global data resources achieved by a small number of tech giants through their technological advantages, platform monopolies, and market expansion. Tech companies such as Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft, through their vast user bases and technology platforms, are able to obtain personal information, behavioral data, and social interaction data from billions of users worldwide. This data not only covers users’ lifestyles, consumption, and work habits but also involves multiple dimensions such as political leanings, social relationships, and health status, encompassing nearly all aspects of modern life. This concentration of data grants these few tech companies an unparalleled position of power globally. Through their monopoly on data, these companies not only dominate the global digital economy but also possess strong market dominance and political influence. The centralized control of global data resources endows tech giants with a unique form of power—they not only shape market behavior through algorithms and big data analysis but can also influence public opinion, social cognition, and political decision-making through control over information flows. Under this digital power structure, tech giants have gradually broken free from traditional state control, becoming transnational, supra-sovereign global power subjects.

数据垄断是指少数科技巨头通过其技术优势、平台垄断和市场扩展，获得了对全球范围内数据资源的全面控制。科技公司如谷歌、亚马逊、脸书、微软等，通过其庞大的用户群体和技术平台，能够获取来自全球数十亿用户的个人信息、行为数据和社会互动数据。这些数据不仅涵盖用户的生活、消费和工作习惯，还涉及政治倾向、社交关系、健康状况等多个维度，几乎涵盖了现代生活的所有方面。这种数据的集中化使得少数科技公司在全球范围内占据了无与伦比的权力地位。通过对数据的垄断，这些公司不仅主导了全球的数字经济，还具备了极强的市场支配力和政治影响力。全球数据资源的集中掌控，赋予了科技巨头独特的权力形式— —它们不仅通过算法和大数据分析、塑造市场行为，还能够通过信息流动的控制影响公众舆论、社会认知和政治决策。在这种数字权力结构下，科技巨头逐渐脱离了传统的国家管控，成为了跨国界、超主权的全球性权力主体。

In the process of globalized penetration of data monopoly, a phenomenon of data colonialism has taken shape. “Data colonialism is the latest stage of colonial development; it uses technology to bring every person living in the digital world under the jurisdiction of its ‘empire,’ and in theory it can actually colonize every digital citizen who continuously generates data and also needs data for daily life.” [21]21 Nick Couldry and Ulises A. Mejias, *The Costs of Connection: How Data Is Colonizing Human Life and Appropriating It for Capitalism*, Stanford University Press, 2019, p. 12. Understanding big data from the “‘Global South’ (low-income countries) means understanding the current dependence of capitalism on this new model of colonization, under which every person and thing in every space is tightly connected to the infrastructure of today’s information connections.” [22]22 Ulises A. Mejias and Nick Couldry, “Datafication,” *Internet Policy Review*, Vol. 8, No. 4, 2019, p. 5. Developing countries lack sufficient technological R&D capacity, capital investment, and digital industrial foundations, and therefore have to rely on digital services provided by tech giants in developed countries. This includes areas such as internet access, data storage, cloud computing, and social media platforms. Through these technological tools, the tech giants not only obtain the personal information, behavioral data, and consumption habits of users in developing countries but also dominate the collection, storage, and processing of this data. “Digital oligarchs and developed countries can implement economic, political, and cultural hegemony by collecting and controlling data from backward and developing countries.” [23]23 Li Ming, “Data Colonialism: A New Form of Imperialism in the Digital Age,” *Journal of International Studies*, No. 3, 2021, p. 75. This phenomenon has led to an imbalance of power between the Global North and South; developing countries are in a passive and dependent position in the digital economic system, unable to autonomously control data resources, thus forming a “semi-colonial, semi-feudal society” within the digital economy.

在数据垄断的全球化渗透过程中，形成了数据殖民现象。“数据殖民是殖民主义发展的最新阶段，它利用科技将生活在数字世界中的每个人都统辖在其‘帝国’之中，理论也是实际上可以殖民每一个不断生成数据也需要数据进行日常生活的数字公民”。理解来自“‘南半球’（低收入国家）的大数据就意味着要理解当前资本主义对这种新型殖民模式的依赖，在这种殖民模式下，空间中每一处的人和物都与当今信息连接的基础设施紧密相连”。发展中国家缺乏足够的技术研发能力、资金投入和数字产业基础，因此不得不依赖发达国家的科技巨头提供的数字服务。这包括互联网接入、数据存储、云计算、社交媒体平台等领域。科技巨头通过这些技术工具，不仅获取了发展中国家用户的个人信息、行为数据和消费习惯，还主导了这些数据的采集、存储和处理。“数字寡头和发达国家可以通过收集和控制落后与发展中国家的数据来实施经济、政治和文化上的霸权”。这种现象导致了全球南北之间的权力失衡，发展中国家在数字经济体系中处于被动和依附的地位，无法自主掌控数据资源，形成了数字经济中的“半殖民地半封建社会”。

V. Conclusion and Reflection

五、结论与反思

Through data monopoly, algorithmic control, and platform capital, tech giants have caused capitalism to revert to the ruling structure of traditional feudalism, giving rise to a new hierarchical system and mode of labor exploitation—techno-feudalism. Although digital users and laborers are the primary producers of data, they gradually lose their autonomy within this system and become controlled “digital serfs.” At the same time, the global phenomenon of data colonialism exacerbates inequality between developed and developing countries, as tech giants consolidate their dominant position in global data through technological monopoly. In the digital age, understanding and limiting the technological power of tech giants has become key to building a fairer, more open, and more transparent society.

科技巨头通过数据垄断、算法控制和平台资本，使资本主义复归至传统封建制度的统治结构，形成了新的等级化制度和劳动剥削模式— — 技术封建主义。数字用户和劳动者虽然是数据的主要生产者，却在这一体系中逐渐失去自主权，成为被控制的“数字农奴”。与此同时，全球范围内的数据殖民主义现象加剧了发达国家和发展中国家之间的不平等，科技巨头通过技术垄断巩固其在全球数据中的主导地位。在数字时代，理解并限制科技巨头的技术权力成为构建更公平、开放和透明社会的关键。

First, strengthen anti-monopoly regulation. It is necessary to tighten scrutiny of mergers and acquisitions to prevent tech giants from further expanding their monopoly positions by acquiring startups and potential competitors. By raising the standards for merger review and reassessing mergers and acquisitions that have already occurred, ensure that innovative forces in the market are not eliminated by the giants. By mandating the opening of platform interfaces and data, ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises can access platforms under fair conditions, and break the practice of tech giants using closed technical standards to lock in users and markets.

第一，强化反垄断监管。必须加强对并购的审查，防止科技巨头通过收购初创公司和潜在竞争者进一步扩大垄断地位。通过提高并购审查标准，并重新评估已经发生的并购案，确保市场中的创新力量不被巨头消除。通过强制开放平台接口和数据，确保中小企业能够在公平的条件下接入平台，并打破科技巨头利用封闭技术标准锁定用户和市场的行为。

Second, enhance workers’ rights. Governments should redefine the legal status of platform workers, incorporating them into the category of formal workers through legislation, ensuring they can enjoy the same basic rights as other workers. Governments should require platform companies to disclose their labor management algorithms, ensuring that workers can understand how the algorithms operate, and set transparent and fair standards for algorithmic evaluation systems. In addition, platform companies should be required to provide workers with basic work rights, such as limits on working hours and mandatory rest periods, to prevent workers from being excessively exploited.

第二，提升劳动者权利。政府应当重新定义平台劳动者的法律身份，通过立法将平台劳动者纳入正式劳动者的范畴，确保他们能够享有与其他劳动者同等的基本权利。政府应要求平台公司公开其劳动管理算法，确保劳动者能够知晓算法的运作方式，并为算法评估系统设定透明、公正的标准。此外，平台公司还应被要求为劳动者提供基本的工作权益，如工作时间限制、强制休息时间等，以防止劳动者被过度剥削。

Third, establish a global data governance framework. Countries should formulate data localization policies, that is, requiring multinational enterprises to store data on servers within the country when processing data of domestic citizens and enterprises, or to have the data reviewed and approved by domestic regulatory agencies. Formulate unified data protection rules and ensure that all countries follow the same legal standards in data rights confirmation, preventing tech giants from exploiting loopholes for cross-border operations to evade the laws of different countries. It is necessary to improve and standardize data circulation rules, build a trading system that combines circulation in use with both on-exchange and off-exchange transactions, standardize and guide off-exchange transactions, and cultivate and strengthen on-exchange transactions.

第三，建立全球数据治理框架。国家应制定数据本地化政策，即要求跨国企业在处理本国公民和企业数据时，必须将数据存储在本国的服务器上，或者经过本国监管机构的审核和批准。制定统一的数据保护规则，并确保各国在数据确权上遵循相同的法律标准，防止科技巨头通过漏洞进行跨国操作规避不同国家的法律。要完善和规范数据流通规则，构建在使用中流通、场内场外相结合的交易制度体系，规范引导场外交易，培育壮大场内交易。

(The authors are, respectively, a doctoral student at the School of Marxism, South China Normal University; and a professor and doctoral supervisor at the School of Marxism, South China Normal University)

（作者系华南师范大学马克思主义学院博士研究生；华南师范大学马克思主义学院教授、博士生导师）

Online Editor: Ma Jingren

网络编辑：马京仁