Stepping Out of the Myth of “Digital Socialism”——The Theoretical Construction of Contemporary Western Digital Socialism and Its Critique

In recent years, critical research on digital capitalism in both domestic and international academic circles has been burgeoning, opening up some highly attractive theoretical spaces. Digital socialism is one of the newer alternative proposals within this critical sequence. Whether it is the research landscape with diverse perspectives constructed by foreign scholars around issues such as the realistic basis, strategic significance, rhetorical dissemination, and transformation strategies of digital socialism, or the research approaches of domestic scholars, including explanations of how Western digital socialism is possible, sorting out its theoretical lineage, exploring its practical paths, and clarifying its value misunderstandings, all demonstrate the academic vitality and value existence of this research domain. However, looking at the current academic research on theories related to digital socialism, the construction logic of this theoretical proposition itself has not yet been clearly elucidated. There are still some fundamental and theoretical issues that urgently need further clarification and exploration, such as: How did digital socialism emerge? Does digital socialism and its construction truly reflect the transformation of digital capitalism, or is it a theoretical misrecognition? What are the core narrative discourses and theoretical genealogies of digital socialism? Does digital socialism constitute an immanent transcendence of digital capitalism? Has digital socialism overflowed Marx’s critique of political economy? Is the end point of this vision capitalism or socialism? Furthermore, is it possible to imagine a reality detached from the construction of digital capitalism, or “another world”? Can the theoretical propositions of digital socialism truly touch the foundations of moving toward human liberation and open up a new realm of human emancipation? And so on. The elucidation of these issues necessarily involves an understanding of the self-sustaining mechanisms of digital capitalism, especially a reflection on the symptom of the times known as capitalist realism. Therefore, this paper intends to focus on the logic of the emergence, narrative dimensions, and inherent limits of digital socialism. Through this contextual sorting and analysis, we aim to provide a focal point for discussing alternatives to digital capitalism, exposing the “cunning” and illusory nature of digital socialism’s political scheme, and revealing the enabling mechanisms and isomorphic relationships between digital technology and the principles of scientific socialism, so as to better grasp the essence of contemporary capitalist social change.

近年来，国内外学界对数字资本主义的批判性研究方兴未艾，开拓出一些极富吸引力的理论空间，数字社会主义就是这一批判序列中较新的替代方案之一。不论是国外学者围绕数字社会主义建构的现实基础、战略意义、修辞传播、转型策略等问题展开的视角多元的研究图景，还是国内学者对西方数字社会主义何以可能的阐释、理论流脉的梳理、实践路径的探讨和价值误区的澄明等研究进路，无不彰显出这一研究论域的学术生命力和价值存在。但纵观当前学界对数字社会主义相关理论的研究，这一理论主张本身的建构逻辑尚未得到清晰地阐释，仍有一些基础性、学理性问题亟待进一步澄明和探察，诸如数字社会主义是如何出场的？数字社会主义及其建构是真实地反映了数字资本主义的转型，还是一种理论的错认？数字社会主义最为核心的叙事话语和理论谱系有哪些？数字社会主义是否构成了对数字资本主义的一种内在超越？数字社会主义有没有溢出马克思的政治经济学批判？这一愿景的终点是资本主义还是社会主义？更进一步地，想象一个脱离数字资本主义构造的现实或“另一个世界”有无可能实现？数字社会主义的理论主张能否真正触及迈向人的解放的根基处，开启人类解放的新境界？等等。对这些问题的阐释必然牵涉到对数字资本主义自我存续机制的理解，尤其是对资本主义现实主义这一时代症候的思考。由此，本文拟聚焦于数字社会主义的出场理路、叙事向度及其内在限度，藉此脉络性的梳理和分析，以期为探讨数字资本主义的替代方案，戳穿数字社会主义政治策划的“狡计”和虚妄性，揭示数字技术与科学社会主义原则主张之间的赋能机理和同构关系等问题提供一个着力点，以更好地把握当代资本主义社会变迁的本质。

I. The Logic of the Emergence of Digital Socialism

一、数字社会主义的出场理路

Digital socialism is not a new stage in the development of digital capitalism, but rather one of the critical approaches to the current stage of development of the capitalist mode of production, and also a relatively new one in the critical sequence of digital capitalism. This theoretical proposition, as a seemingly logical alternative scheme intended to save digital capitalism, emerges in the dual realistic circumstances of the intensifying internal contradictions and conflicts of digital capitalist society and the continuous manifestation of the liberating potential of digital technology.

数字社会主义不是数字资本主义发展的一个新阶段，而是对资本主义生产方式当前发展阶段的批判进路之一，也是数字资本主义批判序列中较新的一种。这一理论主张作为意在拯救数字资本主义的合乎逻辑的替代性方案，在数字资本主义社会内在矛盾冲突不断加剧和数字技术解放性禀赋持续彰显的双重现实境遇中出场。

(1) Digital Capitalism, as an Adjustment Scheme to Mitigate the Crisis of Contemporary Capitalism, While Delaying the Process of Capitalist Crisis, Also Further Intensifies Its Basic Contradictions. Realistic Predicaments Call for a Scientific Scheme to Replace Digital Capitalism.

（一）数字资本主义作为缓和当代资本主义危机的调整方案，在延缓资本主义危机进程的同时又致使其基本矛盾进一步加剧，现实困陷呼唤替代数字资本主义的科学方案

With the rise of the new round of technological revolution and industrial transformation, the deep integration of capital and digital technology has successfully achieved an effective transfer of the capitalist crisis of overaccumulation and further monopolized global emerging industries. In this process, the contradictory antagonism between the logic of digital technology and the logic of capital accumulation has become increasingly prominent, causing capitalism to fall into the dual “trap” of techno-feudalism and digital imperialism, thereby triggering “postponed” risk crises of capitalism. On the one hand, capitalists, as “techno-lords,” rely on their dominant position in digital technology to reshape the historical logic of technological development, gradually abandoning traditional forms of exploitation and adopting more covert means of technological control, as well as feudalistic political means dependent on personal dependency relations. Through these means, capitalists compel modern people to form an all-round personal dependency on capital in various fields such as production and daily life, constructing a power structure of a “hypermodern form of feudalism” to maintain their own survival and development. On the other hand, capitalism, through the digital colonial system, constructs a new type of global ruling order—digital imperialism—exhibiting an extreme form infinitely approaching the highest stage of capitalism. Numerous large technology companies dominated by Western countries, by virtue of their ownership and control over software, hardware, and network connections, have seized enormous economic and social power within the existing digital ecosystem, exploiting and manipulating technologically weaker countries, represented by those in the “Global South,” thereby forming a new type of colonial form that does not aim at plundering land but at occupying digital technology as a means.

随着新一轮科技革命和产业变革的兴起，资本与数字技术的深度融合成功实现了资本过剩危机的有效转移，并进一步垄断了全球新兴产业。在这一过程中，数字技术逻辑与资本积累逻辑之间的背反性矛盾愈发凸显，导致资本主义陷入技术封建主义与数字帝国主义的双重“陷阱”，进而引发资本主义的“后置性”风险危机。一方面，作为“技术领主”的资本家凭借自身数字技术主导权重塑科技发展的历史逻辑，逐步摒弃传统的剥削方式，转而采用更为隐蔽的技术控制手段，以及依赖人身依附关系的封建主义政治手段。通过这些手段，资本家促使现代人在生产、生活等各个领域形成对资本的全方位人身依附，构建出“封建主义的超现代形式”权力结构，以维系自身的存续与发展。另一方面，资本主义借助数字殖民体系构建起新型全球统治秩序——数字帝国主义，展现出无限趋近于资本主义最高阶段的极端形态。由西方国家主导的众多大型科技公司，凭借其对软件、硬件和网络连接的所有权与控制权，在现有数字生态系统中攫取了巨大的经济和社会权力，并对以“全球南方”国家为代表的技术弱势国家进行剥削与操控，从而形成了一种不以掠夺土地为目的，而是以占领数字技术为手段的新型殖民形态。

Capitalism, which unilaterally pursues technological control and power monopoly, is gradually falling into a stagnant predicament of “emphasizing acquisition over creation.” The series of power strategies implemented by digital capitalism on the internal structure and external system of capitalism, while providing possibilities for the survival of capitalism in the short term, ultimately transform into new triggers that exacerbate the contradictions of capitalist society, leading to more severe economic difficulties, class conflicts, ecological crises, and problems of human alienation. This phenomenon exposes the fundamental limitations of the capitalist system, verifying the prophecy of Marx and Engels: “The fall of the bourgeoisie and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable,” and objectively activates the theoretical interest of contemporary Western leftists in reconstructing the organizational framework of digital capitalism.

片面追求技术控制和权力垄断的资本主义正逐步陷入一种“重获取、轻创造”的停滞困境。数字资本主义对资本主义内部结构和外部体系所实施的一系列权力策略，虽然在短期内为资本主义存续提供了可能性，但最终又都转化为加剧资本主义社会矛盾的新诱因，引发了更为严峻的经济困境、阶级冲突、生态危机以及人的异化问题。这一现象暴露了资本主义制度的根本局限性，验证了马克思恩格斯的预言：“资产阶级的灭亡和无产阶级的胜利是同样不可避免的”，也在客观上激活了当代西方左翼重构数字资本主义组织框架的理论旨趣。

(2) Digital Capital Drives the Digital Transformation of Modern Production and Lifestyle. The Emergence of New Labor Paradigms and New Political Subjects Constitutes a Transformative Force to Overturn Digital Capitalism, Opening Up a New Social Imagination.

（二）数字资本驱动现代生产与生活方式数字化转型，新劳动范式与新政治主体出场构成颠覆数字资本主义的变革力量，开启全新的社会想象

Driven by the wave of the fourth technological revolution, digital technology, combined with the civilizing effects of capital, exhibits highly revolutionary characteristics in driving the progress of social productive forces and promoting the liberation of labor time. Digital labor, as a new labor paradigm in the era of the digital economy, shows significant advantages in enhancing labor flexibility and improving production efficiency. The form of free labor, where “nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes,” has obtained the possibility of preliminary realization. Based on the transformation of the labor paradigm, human “general intellect,” such as knowledge, intelligence, and data, has gradually become an important influencing factor of productive forces and a core source of wealth accumulation, extending Marx’s concept of labor to broader fields of social activity. “In a highly automated society, value creation increasingly depends on collectively produced knowledge.” Immaterial labor occupies a crucial position in modern life; it not only creates immaterial labor products such as information and codes but also gives rise to a “common” mode of production. This mode of production is based on “the ability of producers to break free from capital and achieve autonomous production due to the continuous enhancement of mutual cooperation,” thus forming a new type of cooperative relationship among laborers. The “common” mode of production not only possesses the characteristic of common wealth, which can replace the capitalist mode of private appropriation, but also inherently contains a new form of alliance among contemporary digital laborers, demonstrating enormous potential to comprehensively surpass the existing capitalist order.

在第四次科技革命浪潮的推动下，数字技术结合资本的文明效应，在驱动社会生产力进步和促进劳动时间解放等方面，展现出极具革命性的特质。数字劳动作为数字经济时代的全新劳动范式，在增强劳动灵活性、提升生产效率等方面展现出显著优势。“任何人都没有特殊的活动范围，而是都可以在任何部门内发展”的自由劳动形式，获得了初步实现的可能性。基于劳动范式的转变，人类的知识、智力、数据等“一般智力”已逐渐成为生产力的重要影响因素和财富积累的核心来源，并将马克思的劳动概念延伸至更为广阔的社会活动领域。“在高度自动化的社会中，价值创造越来越依赖于集体生产的知识。”非物质劳动在现代生活中占据了至关重要的地位，它不仅创造了信息、符码等非物质形态的劳动产品，还催生了“共同性”的生产方式。这种生产方式基于“生产者因相互协作的不断增强而具备摆脱资本、实现自主生产的能力”，从而形成了劳动者之间的新型协作关系。“共同性”生产方式不仅具备替代资本主义私人占有模式的财富共有特性，更内在地蕴含着当代数字劳动者的全新联合模式，展现出全面超越现有资本主义秩序的巨大潜力。

The traditional proletariat can no longer precisely encompass the laboring groups under the conditions of the digital economy; it has been replaced by entirely new political subjects that far exceed the scope of the traditional proletariat. These are new subjective forces endogenous to the era of digital capitalism, possessing the revolutionary potential to subvert capitalist relations of production. Contemporary Western leftist scholars such as Jodi Dean, Slavoj Žižek, and Jacques Rancière, from a new theoretical perspective, incorporate a broad range of digital activity participants and those marginalized by the existing capitalist order into the contemporary category of the subject, greatly expanding the scope of political subjects in the era of digital capitalism, with the aim of constructing a powerful social force to counter digital capital. Based on the emergence of new modes of production spurred by digital technology, and the arrival of the “new proletariat” as a new political subject, the conception of rebuilding socialism has gradually taken shape, inaugurating a new “social imaginary.” This “social imaginary” is not a mere social theory or concept, but a collective imagination rooted in the foundation of real social practice, capable of making common practice possible. It possesses the constructive function of endowing social practice with meaning and promoting the realization of the goals of social practice.

传统无产阶级已难以精准概括数字经济条件下的劳动群体，取而代之的是远超传统无产阶级范畴的全新政治主体。他们是内生于数字资本主义时代，具备颠覆资本主义生产关系革命潜力的新生主体力量。乔迪·迪恩、齐泽克以及朗西埃等当代西方左翼学者以全新的理论视角将广泛的数字活动参与者及那些被现行资本主义秩序边缘化的群体一并纳入当代主体范畴，极大地拓展了数字资本主义时代的政治主体范围，以期构建起一股强大的、对抗数字资本的社会力量。基于数字技术所催生的新型生产方式的出现，以及作为全新政治主体的“新无产阶级”的登场，重建社会主义的构想逐渐显现，开启了一种全新的“社会想象”。这种“社会想象”并非单纯的社会理论或观念，而是根植于现实社会实践基础之上，能够使共同实践成为可能的一种集体想象。它具备赋予社会实践以意义，并推动社会实践目标实现的建构性功能。

(III) The “emancipatory endowment” of digital technology is increasingly manifest, propelling the 21st-century world socialist idea towards an opportunity for revival, and technological elites use this to loudly propagate the narrative discourse that the era of digital socialism is imminent.

（三）数字技术的“解放性禀赋”不断彰显，推动21世纪世界社会主义理念迎来复兴机遇，技术精英借此大肆宣扬数字社会主义时代即将来临的叙事话语

In the process of adapting to the immense productive forces released by the continuous development of science and technology, contemporary capitalism constantly undergoes internal self-adjustment, gestating “new social factors” and “new elements of the economic system,” and gradually accumulating socialist factors within the capitalist system. The development of digital technology has significantly accelerated the dissemination efficiency of advanced revolutionary theories, rapidly gathering the scattered “specter of socialist revival” across the world, and condensing it into a subversive factor for digital capital that is “a hundred times more dangerous than citizens Barbès, Raspail, and Blanqui.” [1]1 A reference to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ *The Communist Manifesto*, where they describe the “specter of communism” haunting Europe and later refer to the “dangerous” revolutionary figures Barbès, Raspail, and Blanqui. In the digital economy environment, the logic of capitalist exploitation is imposed on digital laborers with extreme severity, and the historical law that “where there is oppression, there is resistance” becomes increasingly evident. Mass social movements such as “Occupy Wall Street” and “Nuit Debout” [2]2 “Occupy Wall Street” was a 2011 protest movement against economic inequality; “Nuit Debout” (French for “Standing Night”) was a 2016 French social movement against labor law reforms. have surged one after another across the globe, and the world socialist movement has ushered in a new historical opportunity.

当代资本主义在适应科学技术持续发展所释放的巨大生产力的过程中，不断进行内部自我调整，孕育出“新社会因素”和“新经济制度要素”，并在资本主义体系内部逐步积累社会主义因素。数字技术的发展显著加速了当代先进革命理论的传播效率，使世界范围内飘零的“社会主义复兴的幽灵”迅速聚集，并凝结成为对于数字资本来说“比巴尔贝斯、拉斯拜尔和布朗基诸位公民更危险万分”的颠覆性因素。在数字经济环境下，资本主义剥削逻辑以极端苛重的程度施加于数字劳动者，“哪里有压迫，哪里就有反抗”的历史法则表现得愈发显著。诸如“占领华尔街”“黑夜站立”等群众性社会运动在全球范围内此起彼伏，世界社会主义运动迎来了新的历史机遇。

The rapid development of digital technology has led to a continuous decrease in the dependence of the production process on living labor; the creation of social wealth no longer relies solely on the exploitation of labor. This change has, to a certain extent, weakened the influence of capitalist private ownership, laying the foundational conditions for the birth of digital socialism. Based on the immense liberating potential released by digital technology, entrepreneurs from large technology companies, represented by Silicon Valley capitalists, depict technological innovation as a universal remedy capable of solving all social problems, and thus technological solutionism has become fashionable. Technological elites “reshape all complex social situations into clearly defined problems with definite, calculable solutions, or reshape them into transparent, self-evident, easily optimizable processes—provided the right algorithm exists!” This technological solutionism “constitutes the value principle representing the era of digital capitalism, becoming the supporting belief for today’s digital elites to legitimize their own actions.” The technological elites claim that it is precisely because of their existence that people on the fringes of society can obtain tangible material benefits from the treacherous market. The new round of digital revolution has created for the masses the beautiful expectation of a “digital democratic utopia.” Intellectuals within Silicon Valley even declare that the era of “digital socialism,” based on characteristics such as sharing, cooperation, collaboration, and openness, has already arrived. Just as Kevin Kelly stated: “Digital socialism can be seen as a third way (aside from free-market individualism and central planning), rendering past debates meaningless.” [3]3 Kevin Kelly is a founding executive editor of *Wired* magazine and a prominent technology writer and futurist. Indeed, contemporary science and technology release liberating potential that can promote the free and comprehensive development of individuals. However, whether the “digital socialism” depicted by digital elites, like the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” narrative they once vigorously promoted, essentially implies the disciplinary logic of the market economy and becomes a capitalist narrative “ruse” to deceive the masses, remains an important contemporary issue requiring in-depth exploration.

数字技术的迅猛发展导致生产过程对活劳动的依赖不断降低，社会财富的创造不再仅仅依赖于对劳动的剥削。这一变化在一定程度上弱化了资本主义私有制的影响，为数字社会主义的诞生奠定了基础条件。基于数字技术所释放的巨大解放潜力，以硅谷资本家为代表的大型科技公司的企业家们，将科技革新描绘为能够解决所有社会问题的万能良方，技术解决主义因而风靡一时。科技精英“将所有复杂的社会状况重塑为具有明确、可计算解决方案的清晰定义的问题，或者重塑为透明、不言自明、可轻松优化的过程——只要有正确的算法！”这种技术解决主义“构成了代表数字资本主义时代的价值原则，成为当今数字精英合法化自身行为的支撑信念。”技术精英们宣称正是由于自身的存在，游离在社会边缘的人群才得以从险恶的市场中获得切实的物质利益。新一轮数字化革命为大众制造了“数字民主乌托邦”的美好期待，硅谷内部知识分子甚至宣称基于分享、合作、协作、开放等特质的“数字社会主义”时代已然到来。恰如凯文·凯利所言：“数字社会主义可以被看作（除自由市场个人主义和中央集权以外的）第三条道路，它使过去的争辩变得毫无意义。”诚然，当代科学技术释放出能够促进人自由全面发展的解放潜能，但是数字精英所描绘的“数字社会主义”是否如同其曾大肆宣扬的“第四次工业革命”叙事一样，本质上暗含市场经济规训逻辑，成为一种迷惑大众的资本主义叙事“狡计”，仍是一个需要深入探讨的重要时代议题。

II. The Multidimensional Construction of Digital Socialism

二、对数字社会主义的多维建构

The ideological content of contemporary Western digital socialism is complex and lacks systematicity; academia has not yet formed a clear definitional method. However, broadly speaking, these ideological contents share a common narrative foundation: first, resisting capitalist private ownership and advocating for the reconstruction of individual ownership; second, calling for the restoration of a socialist planned economy system based on digital infrastructure and algorithmic technology; third, advancing the democratization process, taking “bottom-up” and “decentralization” as the methods of collective association and organizational principles; fourth, concerning itself with the real-life experiences of modern people, using “active disconnection” as a strategy of action to resist capital exploitation.

当代西方数字社会主义的思想内容繁杂且缺乏系统性，学术界尚未形成一种明确的界定方法。但概括来看，这些思想内容存在共同的叙事基础：一是反抗资本主义私有制，主张重建个人所有制；二是呼吁以数字基础设施和算法技术为依托，复建社会主义计划经济体系；三是推进民主化进程，将“自下而上”和“去中心化”作为集体联合方式和组织原则；四是关切现代人真实生活体验，以“主动断联”作为反抗资本剥削的行动策略。

(I) The Digital Socialist Production Model Based on the “Digital Commons”

（一）基于“数字公地”的数字社会主义生产模式

Contemporary Western leftists construct a digital socialist scheme based on the concept of the “digital commons,” aiming to cultivate and develop socialist elements by transforming the existing economic base, forming a transition path that gradually evolves towards a socialist production mode through ownership reform. Marx had already demonstrated the significance of the development of science and technology for reducing necessary labor time, developing a comprehensive personality, and creating the conditions for communism. However, the crux of the issue “depends not only on the development of productive forces, but also on whether the productive forces belong to the people.” [4]4 A paraphrase of Marx’s argument in *The Civil War in France* and other works, emphasizing that the social character of productive forces must be matched by social ownership. Data, as the core factor of production in the era of digital capitalism and the main resource for digital capital accumulation, constitutes a prerequisite for breaking through the framework of private property rights due to its inherent characteristics of near-zero marginal cost and non-rivalry. Scholars represented by Adam Arvidsson keenly captured this point. They see, from the immateriality and sharing characteristics of data resources, a digital social paradigm based on commons theory, and reveal a possible path towards digital socialism on the basis of negating capitalist private ownership. This theoretical innovation both continues Marx’s basic judgment on the role of the technological revolution in promoting the evolution of social forms and reveals the inherent contradiction of digital capitalism: while extracting data surplus value, the digital economy objectively creates publicized factors of production, providing a material basis for the growth of socialist factors.

当代西方左翼基于“数字公地”理念构建数字社会主义方案，旨在通过改造现行经济基础，培育和发展社会主义元素，形成一条通过所有制改革逐步向社会主义生产模式演进的转型路径。马克思早已论证科学技术发展之于减少必要劳动时间、发展全面人格以及创造共产主义条件等方面的重要意义，但问题的关键“不仅仅决定于生产力的发展，而且还决定于生产力是否归人民所有。”数据作为数字资本主义时代的核心生产要素和数字资本积累的主要资源，以边际成本的趋零性和非竞争性的内在特征构成了突破私有产权框架的先决条件。以亚当·阿尔维森为代表的诸多学者敏锐地捕捉到这一点，他们从数据资源的非物质性和共享特征中看到一种基于公地理论的数字社会范式，并揭示出在否定资本主义私有制基础上迈向数字社会主义的可能路径。这种理论创新既延续了马克思对科技革命推动社会形态演进的基本判断，又揭示了数字资本主义的内在矛盾，即数字经济在榨取数据剩余价值的同时，客观上创造了公共化的生产要素，为社会主义因素的生长提供了物质基础。

The transformation of the digital commons from a theoretical paradigm to an institutional practice requires resolving the governance conflict between private ownership and public ownership in the digital domain. Some Western scholars believe that digital commons cases such as Wikipedia and open-source software projects have already verified the feasibility of collaborative production. However, the current construction of the digital commons is still constrained by legal deficiencies and capital monopolies. The private infrastructure of technology giants controls the lifeline of data, and individual data control rights are suspended within the existing system; these factors continuously weaken the accumulation of commons resources. Breaking this deadlock requires a government-led dual-track transformation: at the material level, the government needs to take the lead in constructing public digital infrastructure and, through “public investment in computing power,” break the current dependence of the digital commons on the private infrastructure of large technology companies. At the rights level, it is necessary to enhance the transparency and fairness of shared data processes through a series of external measures such as promoting open data movements, implementing knowledge-sharing agreements, and improving citizens’ digital literacy, ensuring the genuine democratization of the data generation and use process. This institutional design neither simply returns to traditional public ownership nor is it a patch-up of the free market; rather, by establishing a closed-loop democratic procedure for data production, distribution, and use, it realizes the concretization of Marx’s “association of producers” in the digital age. Its ultimate goal is to make the digital commons a practical carrier for incubating socialist relations of production by restructuring the relations of possession over data elements, ultimately achieving the historical leap from private ownership to public ownership.

数字公地从理论范式向制度实践转变，需在数字领域化解私有制与公有制的治理冲突。一些西方学者认为维基百科、开源软件项目等数字公地案例已经验证了协同生产的可行性。但目前数字公地的建设仍受限于法律缺失和资本垄断，科技巨头的私有基础设施掌控着数据命脉，个人数据控制权在现行制度中被悬置，这些因素都在持续削弱公地资源的积累。破解这一困局需政府主导的双轨变革：在物质层面，政府需要主导建设公共数字基础设施，并通过“计算能力公共投资”来打破当前数字公地对大型科技公司私有基础设施的依赖。在权利层面，则需要通过推动开放数据运动、实施知识共享协议、提升公民数字素养等一系列外部措施，增强共享数据流程的透明度和公正性，确保数据生成和使用过程的真正民主化。这种制度设计既非简单回归传统公有制，也不是对自由市场的修补，而是通过建立数据生产、分配与使用的闭环式民主程序，实现马克思所说的“生产者联合体”在数字时代的具象化。其终极目标是通过重构数据要素的占有关系，使数字公地成为孵化社会主义生产关系的实践载体，最终实现从私有制到公有制的历史跨越。

(II) The Digital Socialist Economic System Based on “Digital Calculation”

（二）基于“数字核算”的数字社会主义经济体系

The continuous optimization of highly intelligent and automated digital technology has rekindled a heated discussion on the ancient issue of socialist economic calculation, and a series of new viewpoints have subsequently emerged. These viewpoints hold that digital technology can completely overcome the limitations of the planned economy model and, based on the concept of “digital calculation,” ultimately achieve the goal of digital socialism. The debate on socialist economic calculation, which originated in the early 20th century, focuses on the feasibility of a socialist economy and the specific roles played by knowledge, information, and prices in the national economic system. Economists of the Austrian School, represented by Mises and Hayek, questioned Marx’s concept of a socialist economy. They argued that attempts to replace the “disorderly” state of the market with a bureaucratic management system were doomed to fail in coordinating supply and demand and allocating resources, and that a socialist economic system relying on central planning would inevitably lead to inefficiency; only the market and the price mechanism are indispensable conditions for coordinating the social economy. Behind the vigorous development of big data and artificial intelligence technology lie elements that could potentially replace the market system. A large-scale information system (GSI) functioning as a feedback system can create databases containing information on individual characteristics and past preferences, thereby providing products and detailed product features and price information that better align with individual desires, preferences, and needs, and these systems can continuously learn and self-correct over time. The information infrastructure of digital capitalism has inadvertently sown the seeds of socialism. Contemporary Western left-wing scholars such as Eric Lymas, Keir Brennan Marks, and Daniel Susser regard this as a tool capable of compensating for the defects of the socialist planned economy system and replacing the market system, thereby constructing a new alternative to capitalist political economy.

高度智能化和自动化的数字技术持续优化，重新激发了关于社会主义经济核算这一古老议题的热烈讨论，并随之涌现出一系列新观点。这些观点认为借助数字化技术能够彻底克服计划经济模式的局限性，并基于“数字核算”理念，最终实现数字社会主义的目标。起源于20世纪初的社会主义经济核算讨论，其核心议题聚焦于社会主义经济的可行性，以及知识、信息和价格在国民经济体系中所扮演的具体角色。以米塞斯和哈耶克为代表的奥地利学派经济学家对马克思的社会主义经济概念提出了质疑。他们认为，试图以官僚管理系统取代市场的“无序”状态，注定在协调供需和资源配置等方面难以取得成功，依赖中央计划的社会主义经济体系必然导致效率低下，唯有市场和价格机制才是协调社会经济不可或缺的条件。大数据和人工智能技术蓬勃发展的背后潜藏着取代市场体制的要素。作为反馈系统的大型信息系统（GSI）能够创建包含个人特征及其过往偏好信息的数据库，并以此提供更符合个人欲望、偏好和需求的产品以及详细的产品特征和价格信息，且这些系统能够随着时间的推移不断学习和自我校正。数字资本主义的信息基础设施无意中播下了社会主义的种子，埃里克· 利马斯、基尔·布伦南·马克斯以及丹尼尔·苏瑟等当代西方左翼学者将这视为能够弥补社会主义计划经济体系缺陷和取代市场体系的工具，进而建构了一种替代资本主义政治经济的全新方案。

The peculiarity of the digital socialist economic system based on “digital calculation” lies in its ability to replace the role of the market with an automatically planned “feedback infrastructure,” thereby achieving a balance of market supply and demand and ensuring social welfare. At the same time, this economic system can also overturn the relationship between value and use value, eliminating the relationship between wage labor and market competition. In this way, the actions of economic agents under the automatically planned market mechanism are no longer profit-oriented, but rather exchange use values with others by providing use values to them, thereby causing the value of commodities to truly “submit” to use values and people’s real needs. In Daniel Saros’s view, constructing an information platform that connects producers and consumers is an important way to realize this economic system. In his book *Information Technology and Socialist Construction: The End of Capital and the Transition to Socialism*, he proposes a specific strategy: building a dynamic “universal catalog.” The so-called “universal catalog” is an economic operation model in which consumers submit preference lists, “workers’ councils” submit product lists, and then algorithms match the two in an optimal, dynamically updated manner to carry out social production. On the surface, this model seems to effectively overcome many drawbacks of the market economy, such as business monopolies, market imbalances, and uneven distribution. However, whether it will ultimately lead to a “new planned economy” based on digital technology, “frictionless capitalism,” or “market socialism” remains an unresolved issue.

依托于“数字核算”的数字社会主义经济体系的特殊之处，在于它能以自动规划的“反馈基础设施”替代市场作用，从而实现市场供需的平衡、社会福祉的保障。同时，这一经济体系还能够颠覆价值和使用价值之间的关系，消除雇佣劳动和市场竞争的关系。如此一来，经济主体在自动规划的市场机制下的行动就不再以利润为导向，而是通过提供使用价值给他人来从他人那里换取其他使用价值，从而促使商品的价值真正“服从”于使用价值和人们的真实需求。在丹尼尔·萨罗斯看来，建构一个能够联通生产者和消费者的信息平台是实现这一经济体系的重要方式。在《信息技术和社会主义建设：资本的终结和向社会主义的过渡》一书中，他提出了一个具体方略：建设动态的“通用目录”。所谓“通用目录”，就是一种由消费者提交偏好清单，“工人委员会”提交产品清单，然后再通过算法以最优、动态更新的方式对两者进行匹配来进行社会生产的经济运行模式。这一模式表面上似乎能有效克服商业垄断、市场失调、分配不均等众多市场经济弊端，但是它最终将导向基于数字技术的“新计划经济”“无摩擦的资本主义”还是“市场社会主义”，依然是一个悬而未决的议题。

(III) The Organizational Principle of Digital Socialism Based on “Autonomism”

（三）基于“自治主义”的数字社会主义组织原则

The digital socialist scheme rooted in the concept of “autonomism,” by virtue of the emergence of new labor subjects and new forms of association, reconstructs the principles of proletarian struggle in the digital age. This scheme, by practicing “bottom-up” and “decentralized” autonomous activities, highlights the power of contemporary revolutionary subjects and provides strong support for constructing a social form that replaces digital capitalism. The theoretical focus of autonomist Marxism lies in the subjective dimension of Marx’s historical dialectics. It regards the self-activity of the working class as the core element driving social change, emphasizing the decisive role of the working class’s self-organization in the movement against capitalism, and therefore tends to adopt decentralized, grassroots democratic forms of activity organization. With the development of digital platforms, the gig economy, and digital labor forms, the working class under digital capitalism has been drawn into new labor paradigms, workplaces, and organizational forms. Emerging labor platforms have opened up entirely new spaces for activity for the modern working class and provided a new practical basis for moving toward digital socialist practices.

根植于“自治主义”理念的数字社会主义方案，凭借新劳动主体的涌现和新联合方式的出现，重新构建了数字化时代无产阶级斗争的原则。该方案通过践行“自下而上”和“去中心化”的自治活动，彰显了当代革命主体的力量，为构建替代数字资本主义的社会形态提供了有力支撑。自治主义马克思主义的理论关注点在于马克思历史辩证法的主体维度，其将工人阶级的自我活动视为推动社会变革的核心要素，强调工人阶级的自我组织在对抗资本主义运动中的决定性作用，因而倾向于采取去中心化、基层民主的活动组织形式。随着数字平台、零工经济和数字劳动形式的发展，数字资本主义条件下的工人阶级被卷入全新的劳动范式、工作场域和组织形式之中，新兴劳动平台为现代工人阶级开辟了全新的活动空间，并为迈向数字社会主义的实践活动提供了新的现实基础。

Platform socialism and platform cooperatives are representative schemes for resisting digital capitalism constructed based on the “autonomist” organizational principle. Both are committed to “critically thinking about how to build a digital society by and for the people,” thereby highlighting the revolutionary role of the people in resisting the hegemonic structure of capitalism. James Muldoon adheres to the principle of “autonomy,” pointing out that platform socialism should be regarded as a systematic strategy to replace the status quo of digital capitalism, and advocates “organizing the digital economy through social ownership of digital assets and democratic control over the infrastructure and systems that manage our digital lives.” Muldoon further emphasizes that the platform socialist movement does not rely on the control of technological elites or top-down supervision by government departments, but is a liberation movement that reclaims the collective self-determination of the people through participatory governance mechanisms, thereby ensuring that profit no longer overrides human needs. The platform cooperative model is a new application of the cooperative model in the digital economy, striving to meet the common needs of members by forming collectively owned and democratically controlled enterprises. In the view of Raymond Sana, platform cooperatives can provide the same services as platform capitalist enterprises, but their goals and missions are fundamentally different. The former can attract more workers to actively participate in democratic practices through operational advantages such as share ownership models, inclusive decision-making processes, fair income distribution, and strong interpersonal relationships, thereby better meeting the needs of the broad working class on the basis of ensuring enterprise profitability, thus completely transcending the platform capitalist model.

平台社会主义和平台合作社是基于“自治主义”组织原则而建构的反抗数字资本主义的代表性方案，它们都致力于“批判性地思考如何由人民建立一个数字社会，并为人民服务”，以彰显人民作为抵抗资本主义霸权结构的革命作用。詹姆斯·马尔登恪守“自治”原则，指出应将平台社会主义视为替代数字资本主义现状的系统性方略，并主张“通过社会对数字资产的所有权以及对管理我们数字生活的基础设施和系统的民主控制来组织数字经济”。马尔登进一步强调，平台社会主义运动并不依赖技术精英的管制和政府部门自上而下的监督，而是一场通过参与式治理机制以夺回民众的集体自决权，进而确保利润不再凌驾于人类需求之上的解放运动。平台合作社模式则是合作社模式在数字经济中的全新应用形式，力求通过组建集体所有和民主控制的企业来满足成员共同需求。在雷蒙德·萨纳）看来，平台合作社能够提供与平台资本主义企业相同的服务，但二者的目标与使命是根本不同的，前者能够通过股份所有制模式、包容性的决策过程、公平的收益分配和牢固的人际关系等运作优势吸引更多工人积极参与民主实践，在确保企业盈利能力基础上更好地满足广大工人群体的需求，从而彻底超越平台资本主义模式。

(IV) The Resistance Strategy of Digital Socialism Based on “Slowdownism”

（四）基于“减速主义”的数字社会主义抵抗策略

The digital socialist resistance strategy based on the concept of “slowdownism” is a coping strategy led by ideological and cultural paradigms that resist the acceleration trend of contemporary digital society. The acceleration of the pace of production and life has become a tangible life experience for modern people. Based on Rosa’s theory of social acceleration, Jamie Ranger points out that social acceleration constitutes an important condition for maintaining and consolidating the status quo of capitalism in the context of social media. Therefore, socialist politics corresponding to capitalist politics can be regarded as a politics that promises to achieve social “deceleration,” and this “decelerated” socialist politics can, while undermining the capital logic of pursuing infinite growth, further weaken the subject anxiety driven by “frantic stagnation.” Individual action choices often have stronger emotional and moral motivations. The “deceleration strategy” strengthens the focus on individual choices, thereby highlighting the autonomy of the modern working class as a revolutionary subject. Unlike the collective resistance actions of the traditional proletariat, “slowdownism” in the digital age emphasizes the role of individual value orientations and behavioral decisions in promoting social transformation. By breaking free from the ideological shackles imposed by the capitalist spirit on modern people—that “the atom of time is the element of profit”—it balances the relationship between work and life, thereby restoring the authentic rhythm of life. It can be seen that the digital socialist strategy based on “slowdownism” pays more attention to the life experiences of concrete, real individuals, and its essence is a humanistic value orientation aimed at safeguarding the digital well-being and equal status of modern people.

基于“减速主义”理念的数字社会主义抵抗策略，是由抵制当代数字社会加速趋势的意识形态和文化范式所引领的应对策略。生产生活节奏的加速已然成为现代人切实的生活体验。杰米·兰杰基于罗萨的社会加速理论视域，指出社会加速构成社交媒体背景下维持和巩固资本主义现状的重要条件，故而可将与资本主义政治相对应的社会主义政治视为一种有望实现社会“减速”的政治，而这种“减速”的社会主义政治能够在破坏追求无限增长的资本逻辑的同时，进一步削弱由“疯狂停滞”所驱动的主体焦虑。个体的行动选择往往具有更强的情感和道德动机，“减速策略”强化了对个人选择的关注，从而彰显了现代工人阶级作为革命主体的自主性。不同于传统无产阶级的集体反抗行动，数字化时代的“减速主义”着重发挥个体价值取向和行为决策之于社会转型的推动作用，通过摆脱资本主义精神对现代人施加的“时间的原子即利润的要素”这一意识形态束缚，平衡工作与生活之间的关系，从而恢复生命的本真节奏。由此可见，基于“减速主义”的数字社会主义策略，更加关注具体现实个体的生活体验，其本质是一种旨在维护现代人数字福祉和平等地位的人道主义价值导向。

Within the context of the regulation of digital capital power, “deceleration” means that individuals actively adopt strategies such as “disconnecting,” “escaping,” “withdrawing,” and “non-cooperation” in order to resist the exploitation of capital and refuse to provide services for the valorization of capital. In the view of decelerationists, turning to “deceleration” is not a form of passive resistance adopted by individuals who have realized that capital has transformed its own drive for valorization into individual needs, nor is it a one-sided rejection of social economic growth. Rather, it is a positive means of struggle by which individuals, having recognized their own predicament of being deeply trapped in the domination of capital, refuse “self-exploitation” and engage in “self-healing.” Achieving “digital deceleration” requires maintaining a benign interaction between individuals and society. At the individual level, there should be a conscious refusal to accept capitalist values. This requires the vast number of digital laborers to temporarily or permanently withdraw from the digital ecological environment, refrain from using digital devices, and not participate in online platform interactions, thereby “restoring and improving problems such as mental health, low work efficiency, and damage to personal privacy rights caused by excessive use of the Internet.” At the social level, it requires coordinated promotion by government agencies, public organizations, and technology enterprises, using intervention measures such as “digital detox” to limit the time and space in which people use digital devices, thereby assisting individuals in temporarily “quitting” electronic devices and reducing the negative impact of digital capitalism on individual health and digital well-being.

在数字资本权力规制背景下，“减速”意味着个人主动采取“断开”“逃离”“退出”以及“不合作”等策略，以对抗资本的剥削，拒绝为资本的价值增殖提供服务。在减速主义者看来，转向“减速”并不是个人意识到了资本将自身增殖欲望转化为个体需求后所采取的消极抵抗形式，也不是对社会经济增长的片面拒斥，而是一种个人在认清自身深陷资本宰制的困境后拒绝“自我剥削”和进行“自我治愈”的积极抗争手段。实现“数字减速”需要个人和社会之间保持一种良性互动。在个人层面，应有意识地拒绝接受资本主义价值观，这需要广大数字劳动者暂时或永久性退出数字生态环境，不使用数字化设备，不参与平台线上互动，从而“恢复和改善个人因过度使用互联网而造成的心理健康、工作效率低下以及个人隐私权受损等问题。”在社会层面，则需要政府机构、公共组织和科技企业等协同推进，通过“数字排毒”等干预措施限制人们使用数字设备的时间和空间，以辅助个人暂时“戒除”电子设备，减少数字资本主义对个体健康和数字福祉产生的负面影响。

III. A Critical Examination of the Construction Logic of Digital Socialism

三、对数字社会主义建构逻辑的批判性检视

Within the critical framework of digital capitalism, contemporary Western left-wing scholars have proposed diverse plans for constructing digital socialism. These plans aim to, in the “scorched-earth stage” of digital capitalist development, nurture new digital productive forces, new peer-to-peer digital relations of production, a perfect digital financial system, a high-quality digital ecological environment, co-constructed and shared digital media platforms, and open-source digital public goods, etc. They not only demonstrate the profound theoretical consciousness of Western left-wing scholars but also objectively promote the formation of a positive and constructive force. However, it is difficult for these socialist plans to truly “land” and achieve success, and the reason is not limited solely to the current level of technological development. In-depth exploration reveals that contemporary Western left-wing scholars are constrained by their own class limitations, leading to inherent defects in their theoretical perspectives and value orientations that are difficult to overcome. Consequently, they are unable to propose a set of practical, feasible, and effective plans for constructing digital socialism.

当代西方左翼学者在数字资本主义的批判框架内，提出了多样化的数字社会主义建设方案。这些方案旨在于数字资本主义发展的“焦土阶段”，孕育全新的数字生产力、对等的新型数字生产关系、完善的数字金融体系、优质的数字生态环境、共建共享的数字媒体平台以及开源的数字公共产品等，它们不仅展现了西方左翼学者深刻的理论自觉，也在客观上推动形成了一股积极且具有建设性的力量。然而，这些社会主义方案难以真正“落地”并取得成功，其原因并非仅受限于当前的科技发展水平。深入探究发现，当代西方左翼受制于自身的阶级局限性，导致其理论视野和价值取向均存在难以克服的内在缺陷，因而无法提出一套切实可行、行之有效的数字社会主义建构方案。

(I) The solutions are confined to a solutionist ethical paradigm that attempts to tame technology with technology, which is essentially an objective reflection of the spirit of digital capitalism trapped in technological determinism

（一）解决方案局限于试图以技术驯服技术的解决主义伦理范式，本质是对囿于技术决定论的数字资本主义精神的客观反映

Technological solutionism is vividly described by Morozov as a mindset of “to save everything, click here,” which holds that science and technology have become the master key to solving all social problems. Digital socialists have recognized that intelligent feedback systems based on “digital calculation” will become the core of future struggles, and they clearly point out that the key issue lies in the ownership and control of large-scale information feedback systems. However, although they have discerned a reasonable direction, they ultimately place the construction of digital socialist plans once again on the continuous improvement of digital feedback systems, falling back into a vicious cycle of attempting to solve technological dilemmas with technological means. Although the limitations of these solutions manifest as deficiencies in individual subjective thinking, they have a profound class basis behind them. Within the contemporary capitalist narrative framework, digital technology is often packaged as a “neutral tool” or “inclusive platform,” while its inherent institutional dependency and value orientation are deliberately obscured. This makes it very easy for contemporary Western left-wing scholars, when discussing related theoretical issues, to fall into the habitual thinking and mindset of prioritizing technological rationality, neglecting the institutional arrangements, class relations, power relations, and ideological attributes hidden behind the development of digital technology. Their critical theory will ultimately degenerate into an appendage or tool of the generative exploitation and valorization of digital capital. In essence, technological solutionism, as the core of the emerging spirit of digital capitalism, has been deeply rooted in the thinking of Western left-wing scholars influenced by the logic of capital, thereby becoming a class shackle from which they find it difficult to break free.

技术解决主义被莫罗佐夫形象地描述为“为了拯救一切，点击这里”的思维模式，该主义认为科学技术已然成为解决一切社会问题的万能钥匙。数字社会主义者已经认识到，基于“数字核算”的智能反馈系统将成为未来斗争的核心，并明确指出，问题的关键在于大型信息反馈系统的所有权和控制权。然而，尽管他们洞察到了合理的方向，却最终又将数字社会主义方案的构建寄托于不断完善的数字反馈系统之上，再次陷入了试图以技术手段解决技术困境的恶性循环。这些解决方案的局限性虽然表现为个体主观思维的缺漏，但其背后却有着深刻的阶级基础。在当代资本主义叙事框架下，数字技术往往被包装为“中立工具”或“普惠平台”，其内在的制度依附性与价值导向却往往被刻意遮蔽了，这就得当代西方左翼学者在论述相关理论问题时极易陷入技术理性优先的思维惯性和定势，忽视数字技术发展背后隐匿的制度安排、阶级关系、权力关系和意识形态属性，其批判理论也终将沦落为数字资本生成性剥削和增值的附庸或工具。究其本质，技术解决主义思想作为新兴数字资本主义精神的核心，已深深植根于受资本逻辑影响的西方左翼学者的思维之中，进而成为他们难以挣脱的阶级枷锁。

Driven by this spirit of digital capitalism influenced by technological determinism, Western left-wing groups instinctively tend to rely on technology to solve all problems, while ignoring the non-neutrality of technology and its limitations in resolving moral dilemmas. This tendency not only obscures the social and ethical issues that truly need to be addressed but instead exacerbates them further. Technological solutions are usually dominated by large technology companies. Implementing these solutions will not only further consolidate the monopoly position and influence of these companies, but phenomena such as excessive reliance on algorithms and data analysis will inevitably lead to excessive technological intervention in human behavior and social life. This consequence will inevitably weaken the fairness of democratic decision-making, the ability of public participation, and human autonomy and creativity. As a new form of existence of the elements of productive forces in the digital era, digital technology can only unleash the revolutionary liberation potential of productive forces within the specific capitalist relations of production characterized by the opposition between labor and capital. However, it is currently regarded by capitalism as a tool for self-improvement and a lever to escape from real social crises. Therefore, only by completely stripping digital technology away from capitalist relations of production can modern people break free from the ethical paradigm of technological solutionism and then think about constructing a scientific path for digital socialism at the level of political systems.

在这种受技术决定论影响的数字资本主义精神驱动下，西方左翼群体本能地倾向于依赖技术解决所有问题，却忽视了技术的非中立性和无法解决道德困境的局限性。这种倾向不仅掩盖了真正需要解决的社会和伦理问题，反而使其进一步加剧。技术解决方案通常由大型科技公司主导，实施这些方案不仅会进一步巩固这些公司的垄断地位和影响力，而且过度依赖算法和数据分析等现象，势必导致技术对人类行为和社会生活的过度干预。这种后果将不可避免地削弱民主决策的公正性、公众的参与能力，以及人类的自主性和创造性。数字技术作为数字时代生产力要素的全新存在形式，只有在特定的资本主义劳资对立的生产关系之中，才能释放出生产力革命性的解放潜力，但其当下却被资本主义视为进行自我完善的工具和摆脱现实社会危机的抓手，因此唯有使数字技术彻底抛离资本主义生产关系，才能使现代人跳脱出技术解决主义的伦理范式，进而在政治制度层面思考建构数字社会主义的科学路径。

(II) The new social conception merely satisfies itself with imitating the general principles of socialism, and neglecting the construction of systematic strategies causes a rupture between its theoretical conception and practical reality

（二）新社会构想仅仅满足于模仿社会主义的一般性原则，忽视建构系统性策略造成其理论构想与现实实践的断裂

Although digital socialism is depicted as a more fair and just economic model, Western scholars have simplified it into an endless process of pursuing value, and from a narrow perspective, they have confined the socialist struggle to overthrow the rule of capitalism to one-sided economic mechanisms and issues of technological development. They tend to adopt a reformist romantic critical strategy within the contemporary capitalist framework. The principles emphasized by many digital socialist plans, such as resource sharing, public ownership, and decentralized governance, remain only at the level of moral ideals. Their digital socialist strategies have not truly touched the real basis of abolishing private ownership of the means of production, let alone effectively resolving the structural contradictions inherent in capitalist society. For example, the digital socialist plan based on “digital commons” to change the form of social ownership merely uses the external manifestation of “public use” to conceal the essence of capitalist private ownership. This is essentially a “false” socialist movement that attempts to replace individual private property with universal private property. Regardless of the specific content of Western left-wing socialist plans, they cannot completely break through the fundamental limitation of subordinating to the logic of capital within their own theoretical horizons. Ultimately, digital socialism can only imitate the core concepts of scientific socialism in terms of general principles, while lacking the revolutionary spirit and practical significance of scientific socialism.

尽管数字社会主义被描绘为一种更为公平正义的经济模式，但是西方学者却将其简化为一种永无止境的价值追求过程，并以狭隘的视角将社会主义推翻资本主义统治的斗争局限于片面的经济机制和科技发展问题。他们倾向于在当代资本主义架构下采取改良式的浪漫主义批判策略。诸多数字社会主义方案所强调的资源共享、公共所有制以及去中心化治理等原则，仅停留在道德理想的层面。其数字社会主义策略并未真正触及废除生产资料私有制的现实基础，更无法有效化解资本主义社会所固有的结构性矛盾。例如基于“数字公地”的变革社会所有制形式的数字社会主义方案，仅仅是用“公共使用”的外在表现形式来掩盖资本主义私有制的实质，这本质上是一种试图以普遍的私有财产来取代个别的私有财产的“虚假”社会主义运动。无论西方左翼的社会主义方案具体内容如何，它们都无法彻底突破自身理论视域中服从资本逻辑的根本局限，最终导致数字社会主义仅能在一般性原则上效仿科学社会主义的核心理念，而缺乏科学社会主义的革命精神和实践意义。

Socialist movements often struggle to bridge the gap between ideals and reality in practice, and digital socialism is likewise plagued by the disparity between grand visions and insufficient implementation capacity. Western leftists, grounded in the principles of scientific socialism, have put forward a series of seemingly inspiring concepts. However, when these concepts are concretely applied to social, economic, and technological practices, they clearly lack feasible operational strategies. For instance, decentralized platforms and data sharing can theoretically serve as alternatives, but in terms of how to counter digital capital giants and break their monopoly positions, the theoretical constructs of Western leftists still lack sufficient operability, causing the theory to fall into difficulties in practice. This rupture between theory and practice stems from the inherent class limitations that Western leftist scholars cannot eradicate from their theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches. Therefore, they are inevitably unable to construct a digital socialist society that both eliminates the drawbacks of private ownership and takes the free and comprehensive development of human beings as its goal. Only by standing at the height of world history, thoroughly eliminating digital capital relations, truly returning the sovereignty of digital production and life to the people, and ensuring that digital wealth genuinely belongs to all individuals, can a digital socialism conforming to the principles of scientific socialism be truly constructed, thereby leading modern people toward genuine liberation.

社会主义运动在现实中往往难以跨越理想与现实的鸿沟，而数字社会主义亦同样受到远大愿景与现有实施能力不足的困扰。西方左翼基于科学社会主义原则，提出了一系列表面上富有启发性的理念，然而在将这些理念具体应用于社会、经济和技术实践的过程中，却明显缺乏切实可行的操作策略。比如，去中心化平台和数据共享等理论上可以作为替代方案，但在如何抗衡数字资本巨头、打破其垄断地位方面，西方左翼的理论构想扔缺乏足够的可操作性，导致理论在实践过程中陷入困境。这种理论与实践之间的断裂，源于西方左翼学者在理论视野和方法路径上均难以根除其固有的阶级局限性。因此，他们必然无法构建一个既能消除私有制弊端、又以人的自由全面发展为目标的数字社会主义社会。唯有站在世界历史的高度，彻底消除数字资本关系，将数字化生产和生活的主权真正归还于人民，确保数字财富切实归属于全体个体，方能真正构建起符合科学社会主义理念的数字社会主义，进而引领现代人走向真正的解放。

(3) The policy proposals for social transformation are in fact empty narratives of resistance by the “moderate left,” still expedient measures that defend the existing capitalist system

（三）社会转型的政策主张实则是“温和左翼”空洞的抵抗叙事，依旧是为现行资本主义制度进行辩护的权宜之计

The critique of digital capitalism is not the ultimate goal of the Western left; their theory tends more toward exploring effective ways to alleviate class conflicts in the digital age. Even though the Western left explicitly points out the inherent limitations of the solutionist methodology advocated by the capitalist ruling class, and discerns the narrative tricks hidden behind the digital socialism they depict, they still focus their critique on large technology companies, taking this as a key step toward the practical conception of digital socialism. At the same time, these Western intellectuals, represented by the American elite, ostensibly claim to resolutely oppose large technology companies and the logic of capital operation behind them, but ultimately they only focus on issues such as resisting algorithmic bias, protecting user privacy and data security, preventing misinformation and disinformation, and constructing antitrust legal systems—a series of issues that evade the real problems—so that their proposals ultimately degenerate into an empty narrative of “resistance” by the “moderate left.” The resistance strategy of the “moderate left” is essentially a moderate and harmless process of social change led by digital elites. Although they claim to aim at changing the old social structure to build a free and equal socialist order, their fundamental purpose is to maintain the existing social structure, thereby legitimizing the means by which they secure their own interests. This precisely reflects the cunning nature of the capitalist system.

对数字资本主义的批判并非西方左翼的终极目标，其理论更倾向于探寻缓解数字时代阶级冲突的有效途径。即便西方左翼明确指出资本主义统治阶级所倡导的解决主义方法论存在内在局限性，并洞悉其描绘的数字社会主义背后隐藏的叙事诡计，然而他们依旧将批判重点放在大型科技公司上，并以此作为迈向数字社会主义实践构想的关键步骤。同时，这些以美国精英阶层为代表的西方知识分子表面上声称应坚决反对大型科技公司及其背后的资本运作逻辑，但最终却只关注诸如抵制算法偏见、保护用户隐私和数据安全、防止误讯和谬讯等“问题信息”，以及进行反垄断法律制度建设等一系列避实就虚的问题，以致其方案最终沦为一种“温和左翼”的空洞“抵抗”叙事。“温和左翼”的抗争策略本质上是由数字精英主导的温和且无害的社会变革过程。尽管他们宣称旨在改变旧有的社会结构，以构建自由平等的社会主义秩序，但其根本目的却是维持现有的社会结构，以确保自身获取利益的方式合法化。这恰恰体现了资本主义制度的狡黠本质。

Whenever a crisis occurs, capitalism always attempts to use nationalism, racism, and even fascism to cover up deep-seated class contradictions, thereby hindering the growth and strengthening of genuine leftist forces and weakening the influence of socialism. Today, the resistance strategy of the “moderate left” has also become a narrative device used by digital capitalism to conceal contemporary conflicts between labor and capital, thereby winning the recognition and support of the digital working class. They deliberately emphasize the positive significance of popular autonomous movements, yet intentionally ignore the scientific path to achieving socialism through the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat to establish proletarian political power. Compared to formulating feasible revolutionary strategies for social transformation, they are more obsessed with competing for political discourse power. Therefore, the socialist vision they proclaim, aimed at achieving genuine freedom and equality, is in essence a narrative trick used to cover up the truth of social inequality and dissolve the revolutionary intentions of the working class. Thus, the digital socialist transformation strategy advocated by the Western left ultimately inevitably degenerates into a reformist plan that maintains the existing capitalist mode of operation, thereby gradually eroding the revolutionary intention of building a socialist society that they promise.

每当遭遇危机时，资本主义总会试图借助民族主义、种族主义乃至法西斯主义来掩盖深层次的阶级矛盾，以此阻挠真正左翼力量的成长壮大，削弱社会主义的影响力。如今，“温和左翼”的抵抗策略亦成为数字资本主义为掩盖当代劳资矛盾冲突，进而赢得数字工人阶级认可与支持所采用的叙事手段。他们刻意强调民众自治运动的积极意义，却有意忽略通过无产阶级的革命专政来建立无产阶级政权，从而实现社会主义的科学路径。相较于制定切实可行的革命性社会转型策略，他们更加执着于争夺政治话语权。因此，他们所宣称的旨在实现真正自由、平等的社会主义愿景，实质上不过是用以掩盖社会不平等真相和消解工人阶级革命意图的叙事诡计。由此可见，西方左翼所倡导的数字社会主义转型策略，最终难免沦为维护现行资本主义运行模式的改良方案，从而使他们所承诺的构建社会主义社会的革命意图逐渐消弭。

(4) Misjudging the logic of the presence of the socialist revolutionary subject in the digital age, dissolving the historical mission of the contemporary proletariat to liberate all humanity

（四）误判数字化时代社会主义革命主体的在场逻辑，消解当代无产阶级解放全人类的历史使命

Faced with the eventual chaos and failure of popular movements against financial capital, such as “Occupy Wall Street” and the “Yellow Vests” movement, some Western leftist scholars believe that the traditional working class can no longer bear the burden of resisting capitalism, and they point to the “new proletariat” as the subject on which political solutions rely. However, the “new proletariat” is in fact a misjudgment by Western leftist scholars of the logic of the presence of the contemporary revolutionary subject. They have altered the conditions for the emergence of the proletariat in the Marxist context, replacing the concept of “labor power” with “general intellect” activities, and blindly expanding the scope of the proletarian group. Such a “new proletariat” cannot promote the communist movement but instead degenerates into the “liberated.” Only “a class that lives entirely by selling its labor, not by drawing profit from some kind of capital” is the truly revolutionary force and political subject resisting capitalism. Only by clarifying the view that “of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class,” and by having the Communist Party lead the proletariat in united revolution, can the establishment of the “association of free individuals” ultimately be achieved.

面对“占领华尔街”和“黄马甲”运动等反抗金融资本的民众运动最终陷入混乱和失败的境地，部分西方左翼学者认为传统工人阶级已难以承担反抗资本主义的重任，并将政治解决方案所依托的主体指向了“新无产阶级”。然而，“新无产阶级”实际上是西方左翼学者对当代革命主体在场逻辑的误判。他们改变了马克思主义语境中无产阶级的出场条件，用“一般智力”活动取代了“劳动力”概念，盲目扩大了无产阶级群体的范畴。诸如此类的“新无产阶级”不仅无法推动共产主义运动，反而沦为“被解放者”。只有“完全靠出卖自己的劳动而不是靠某一种资本的利润来获得生活资料的社会阶级”才是真正反抗资本主义的革命力量和政治主体。唯有明确“在当前同资产阶级对立的一切阶级中，只有无产阶级是真正革命的阶级”这一观点，通过共产党领导无产阶级进行联合革命，才能最终促成“自由人的联合体”的建立。

Socialism is not an abstract moral appeal, but a historical necessity realized by the proletariat through concrete class struggle. The Western left has perceived the revolutionary potential of digital labor subjects, but has failed to provide concrete plans to transform this potential into actual material force. The lack of scientific and effective practical pathways and safeguard mechanisms is an important reason why they ultimately fall into theoretical difficulties. The Western left relies on autonomous movements based on individual voluntary participation, yet neglects the necessity of promoting change through effective organization, causing their social movement proposals to ultimately degenerate into general group activities. This kind of spontaneous, loose group action only focuses on solving the current survival difficulties and interest demands of a small portion of modern people, rather than striving to abolish private property in order to realize the proletarian revolutionary ideal of truly liberating all humanity. Lacking the scientific organizational form necessary for proletarian revolution, the transformative movement of the so-called “new proletariat” has neither a leading force representing the common interests of all members, nor a scientific revolutionary goal consistent with historical materialism. In the final analysis, it is a regression in socialist theory and practice. The contemporary Western left’s digital socialist program is at most an internal adjustment under capitalist conditions; it cannot constitute a powerful response to digital capital power, let alone break the mechanism of capital’s domination over human society. “Building a global socialist order requires a completely different kind of solidarity, a conscious alliance formed in struggle, placing the productive forces under the control of workers and serving them.” Only by correctly identifying and uniting the forces of old and new workers, restoring the subjectivity and organizational principles of the proletariat, and further exploring concrete plans to ensure the effective exertion of the subject’s inherent revolutionary force, is the key to truly solving the deep-seated contradictions brought by capitalism and achieving fundamental social change in the digital age.

社会主义并非抽象的道德诉求，而是无产阶级通过具体阶级斗争所实现的历史必然。西方左翼察觉到数字劳动主体所具有的革命潜能，但却未能提供将这一潜能转化为现实物质力量的具体方案，缺失科学有效的实践路径和保障机制是其最终陷入理论困境的重要原因。西方左翼依赖于个体自愿参与的自治运动，却忽视了通过有效组织推动变革的必要性，导致其社会运动方案最终沦为一般性的团体活动。这种自发的、松散的群体行动，仅聚焦于解决小部分现代人当前的生存困境和利益诉求，而非致力于消灭私有制，以实现真正解放全人类的无产阶级革命理想。由于缺乏无产阶级革命所必要的科学组织形式，所谓的“新无产阶级”的变革运动既没有代表全体成员共同利益的领导力量，也缺失符合唯物史观的科学革命目标。归根结底，它是一种是社会主义理论和实践的退步。当代西方左翼的数字社会主义方案至多只是一种资本主义条件下的内部调节，其无法构成对数字资本权力的有力回应，更难以破除资本对人类社会的宰制机制。“建设全球社会主义秩序需要一种完全不同的团结，一种在斗争中形成的自觉联盟，将生产力置于工人的控制之下，并为他们服务。”只有正确识别和团结新旧劳动者的力量，恢复无产阶级的主体性和组织原则，并进一步探索确保主体内在革命性力量切实发挥出来的现实方案，才是数字时代真正解决资本主义带来的深层次矛盾和实现社会根本变革的关键所在。

Conclusion

结语

Since Kevin Kelly proposed the novel concept of “digital socialism,” discussions surrounding digital socialism have become increasingly heated; yet, in a certain sense, these discussions have not yielded substantive results. Their characteristics are manifested in speculative modes of thinking, anti-essentialist research methods, and technical jargon that is obscure to the general public. They proclaim that “another world” indeed exists, but fail to delve into the complex relationship between this theoretical stance and the realities of contemporary capitalism. Although this profound conception captures the transformative potential of digital technology, it has inspired enthusiasm in both domestic and international academic circles to reassess and explore the possible roles digital technology might play in the allocation of public resources, the restructuring of labor relations, and mechanisms of democratic governance. It provides a new theoretical opportunity to break the imagined landscape of digital technology under the dominance of neoliberalism, and at one point delved into a level of integration with the basic principles of scientific socialism, injecting new theoretical connotations into the innovation of the discourse system of scientific socialism, and containing unique political practical implications. However, its discourse critique, anti-essentialist methods, and blueprint for “stateless socialism,” combined with an improper understanding of the inherently liberating potential of digital technology, are doomed to fail in revealing the objective, universal, and necessary connection between digital technology and the principles of scientific socialism. This also inevitably plunges it into a quagmire of radical reformism filled with techno-utopian fantasies and romantic tendencies, leading contemporary capitalism into the delusional predicament of a “new nihilism,” increasingly highlighting its dead-end state and ultimate limitations. Such a theoretical conception striving for “another world” has long since overflowed beyond scientific socialism and, to some extent, serves as an accomplice in the new spiritual reproduction of digital capitalism. In this sense, the so-called transcendence of digital capitalism by digital socialism is untenable.

自凯文·凯利提出“数字社会主义”这一全新概念以来，围绕数字社会主义的讨论已愈发激烈，然而从某种意义上讲，这些讨论尚未取得实质性成果。它们的特点体现在投机性的思维方式、反本质主义的研究方法以及对普通大众而言晦涩难懂的技术术语上，并宣称“另一个世界”确实存在，却未深入探讨该理论立场与当代资本主义现实之间的复杂关联。尽管这一深刻构想捕捉到了数字技术的变革潜力，激发了国内外学界重新评估和探讨数字技术在公共资源分配、劳动关系重构以及民主治理机制中可能扮演的角色的热情，为打破新自由主义统治下的数字技术想象图景提供了新的理论契机，并一度深入到与科学社会主义基本原则相结合的层面，为科学社会主义话语体系创新注入新的理论意涵，蕴含着独特的政治实践内涵。但其话语批判、反本质主义方法以及“无国家社会主义”的蓝图，加之对数字技术内在解放性潜质的不当理解，注定无法深入揭示数字技术与科学社会主义原则之间客观普遍的必然联系。这也注定使其陷入一种充满技术乌托邦幻想和浪漫主义倾向的激进改良主义泥潭，导致当代资本主义陷入“新虚无主义”的妄想困境，日益凸显其无出路状态和最终局限。这样一种争取“另一个世界”的理论构想早已溢出科学社会主义之外，并在某种程度上充当了数字资本主义新的精神再生产的同谋。在这个意义上，数字社会主义所谓的对数字资本主义的超越并不成立。

Although digital socialism struggles to achieve a subversive breakthrough against capitalist realism, clearly pointing out the infeasibility of a certain path is also a positive inspiration. This provides a guiding possibility for exploring more profound theoretical conceptions and practical pathways. “Do the changes in production technology and social conditions unleashed by digital technology represent a qualitative change in the capitalist mode of production? The answer is necessarily yes. We are facing an entirely new capitalist reality, so Marxists must put forward their own concepts and analytical frameworks to grasp it.” [11]11 This quotation is attributed by the authors to a Marxist scholar, but the original source is not provided in the text. Currently, digital technology is comprehensively integrating into all fields and the entire process of human economic, political, cultural, social, and ecological civilization construction with new concepts, new business forms, and new models, exerting a broad and profound impact on human production and life. How to break through the existing paths of the civilizational narrative of digital capitalism, how to achieve mutual empowerment and narrative integration between digital technology and the principles of scientific socialism, construct a scientific form of “digital socialism,” and endow human civilization with a new narrative logic—these are both important theoretical propositions and major practical issues urgently awaiting resolution.

尽管数字社会主义难以对资本主义现实主义实现颠覆性的突破，但明确指出某条道路的不可行性也是一种积极的启示。这为探索更为深入的理论构想和现实路径提供了可能性的指引。“数字技术所释放出的生产技术和社会条件的转变是否代表了资本主义生产方式的质变？答案是必然的。我们正面临着一个全新的资本主义现实，因此马克思主义者必须提出自身的概念和分析框架来把握它。”当前，数字技术正以新理念、新业态、新模式全方位融入人类经济、政治、文化、社会及生态文明建设各领域和全过程，对人类生产生活产生了广泛而深远的影响。如何突破数字资本主义文明叙事的既有路径，如何实现数字技术与科学社会主义原则的相互赋能及叙事融合，构建科学形态的“数字社会主义”，赋予人类文明新的叙事逻辑，既是重要的理论命题，更是一个亟待解决的重大实践课题。

Online editor: Jing Mu

网络编辑：静穆