On the Divergence of Digital Governance under the Two Systems of Capitalism and Socialism

The historical trend of “the rise of the East and the decline of the West” is becoming increasingly clear, and the divergence of civilizational forms, characterized by “China’s governance” versus “the West’s disorder,” constitutes the core issue of the present era. World-systems scholar Giovanni Arrighi believed that China’s rise heralds a historical shift in the global center of power and accumulation. However, if this grand narrative remains at the level of general political observation, it is difficult to touch upon its deep historical driving forces. Amid the global digital revolution, this divergence is taking on an even more profound and concrete form: it is the entirely different civilizational paths taken by two fundamentally distinct modes of production when confronting the same set of emerging technological productive forces.

“东升西降”的历史趋势日益明晰，以“中国之治”与“西方之乱”为表征的文明形态分野，构成了当今时代的核心议题。世界体系学者乔万尼·阿里吉认为，中国的崛起预示着全球权力与积累中心的历史性转移。然而，若将此宏大叙事仅停留在一般性的政治观察层面，则难以触及其深层的历史动因。置身全球数字革命的浪潮，该分野正呈现出更为深刻和具体的形态：它是两种根本不同的生产方式在面对同一组新兴技术生产力时，所走的截然不同的文明路径。

The 2008 international financial crisis, which originated in the United States, was not only a local shock in the financial sector but also a general eruption of the inherent contradictions of the capitalist system. It dealt a heavy blow to the capitalist world, shattering the neoliberal myth that capitalism could self-regulate and smooth out economic cycles. The root of the crisis lies in the sphere of production, embodying the fundamental contradiction between capital’s relentless pursuit of profit and the relative contraction of society’s effective demand. Following this deep systemic crisis, digital capitalism rapidly emerged as a new accumulation model, becoming a key prescription for Western capitalism to “prolong its life.”

2008年国际金融危机这场肇始于美国的危机，不仅是金融领域的局部震荡，也是资本主义制度内在矛盾的一次总爆发。它沉重打击了资本主义世界，打破了新自由主义关于资本主义能够自我调节、熨平经济周期的神话。危机根源在生产领域，是资本对利润的一味追求与社会有效需求相对萎缩这对基本矛盾的体现。在这场深重的体系性危机之后，数字资本主义作为一种新的积累模式迅速崛起，成为西方资本主义用以“续命”的关键方案。

Based on this, a question arises: Is the observed divergence of digital civilization a temporary difference in policy choices, or does it stem from two fundamentally different logics of historical genesis? In other words, in the contemporary era, how does digital capitalism, as a life-prolonging scheme for the capitalist system, move toward extraction, monopoly, and alienation? And how does China’s socialist digital governance represent a conscious construction that actively adjusts relations of production to adapt to new productive forces, thereby opening up another civilizational path? Although current academic circles have begun to pay attention to this issue, limitations still exist. On the one hand, critiques of Western digital capitalism mostly focus on the phenomenal level, such as the business model of surveillance capitalism and countermeasures in antitrust regulation. On the other hand, research on China’s digital governance tends to summarize its institutional advantages. These studies each have their insights, but most lack a unified Marxist comparative analytical framework, making it impossible to reveal the fundamental opposition in the historical genesis and the underlying logic of civilizational evolution between the two major phenomena: the crisis-driven evolution of Western digital capitalism and the consciously constructed development of China’s socialist digital governance.

基于此，一个问题浮现出来：当前所观察到的数字文明分野，究竟是一种暂时的政策选择差异，还是源于两种根本不同的历史生成逻辑?换句话说，在当代，数字资本主义作为资本主义体系的续命方案，是如何走向萃取、垄断以及异化的?而中国的社会主义数字治理，又是如何代表着一种主动调整生产关系来适应新生产力的自觉建构，并以此开辟出另一条文明道路的?当前学界虽然已经开始关注这个问题，但仍然存在着局限性。一方面，针对西方数字资本主义的批判大多集中于现象层面，比如监视资本主义的商业模式以及反垄断监管方面的对策性研究；另一方面，有关中国数字治理的研究则侧重于对其制度优势进行总结。这些研究各有洞见，但它们大多缺少一个统一的马克思主义比较分析框架，无法揭示出西方数字资本主义的危机驱动型演化以及中国的社会主义数字治理的自觉建构型发展这两大现象在历史生成和文明演进根本逻辑上存在的根本对立。

The systemic disorder exhibited by U.S. and Western digital capitalism is the inevitable result of the further intensification of the basic contradictions of capitalism through the use of digital technology in the process of seeking self-rescue in the post-crisis era. In contrast, China’s practice of socialist digital governance represents the historical initiative of consciously leveraging the advantages of the socialist system to guide the development of new quality productive forces. A profound understanding of this divergence begins with the elucidation of the theoretical framework of the mode of production in the digital era. On this basis, through an in-depth analysis of the historical genesis of digital capitalism as a crisis response, the intensification of its internal contradictions, and its latest institutional practical examples, its development trajectory can be clearly outlined. Furthermore, the exposition of the conscious construction of socialist digital governance provides a realistic basis for constructing a comparative analytical framework of capital logic versus people-centered logic, thereby revealing the internal mechanism of the divergence between the two civilizations, and ultimately elucidating the historical inevitability and world significance of the new form of socialist digital civilization.

美西方数字资本主义呈现的系统性失序，是资本主义基本矛盾在后危机时代寻求自我拯救过程中运用数字技术而进一步激化的必然结果。与之相对，中国的社会主义数字治理实践，则代表了自觉运用社会主义制度优势引导新质生产力发展的历史能动性。对该分野的深刻理解，始于对数字时代生产方式理论框架的阐明。在此基础上，通过深入剖析数字资本主义作为危机应对方案的历史生成、内在矛盾的激化过程及其最新的制度实践例证，可以清晰地勾勒出其发展轨迹。进而，对社会主义数字治理自觉建构的阐述，为构建一个资本逻辑与人民逻辑的比较分析框架提供了现实依据，从而揭示出两种文明分野的内在机理，并最终阐明社会主义数字文明新形态的历史必然性与世界意义。

I. The Mode of Production in the Digital Era and Historical Materialism

一、数字时代的生产方式与历史唯物主义

The basic principles of historical materialism point out that the mode of production, composed of the contradictory unity of productive forces and relations of production, is the decisive foundation of social structure and historical change, with the ownership of the means of production being the core element of the relations of production. To scientifically analyze the contemporary civilizational divergence, this classic theoretical framework must be applied to the reality of the 21st-century digital era, meaning the focus of analysis must shift from the factory floor of the industrial age to the new key means of production in the digital age—data and digital platforms.

历史唯物主义基本原理指出，生产方式由生产力与生产关系这对矛盾统一体构成，是社会结构和历史变迁的决定性基础，生产资料所有制是生产关系的核心要素。要科学分析当代文明分野，需将该经典理论框架运用于21世纪数字时代的现实，意味着分析的焦点须从工业时代的工厂车间转向数字时代新的关键生产资料——数据和数字平台。

Marxism holds that the essence of any mode of production depends on who possesses and controls the core means of production. In the era of industrial capitalism, the core means of production were tangible material capital such as factories and machinery; in the era of the digital economy, the most important means of production have transformed into intangible and networked data and digital platforms. Digital platforms (such as search engines and social media) are the “digital factories” that organize and control the entire process of social reproduction; they constitute the core infrastructure for data extraction, processing, and value transformation. Therefore, control over data and platforms has become the most crucial form of possession of the means of production in the digital age.

马克思主义认为，任何生产方式的本质取决于谁占有和控制了核心的生产资料。在工业资本主义时代，核心生产资料是工厂、机器等有形物质资本；而在数字经济时代，最重要的生产资料已转变为无形且网络化的数据与数字平台。数字平台(如搜索引擎、社交媒体)是组织和控制社会再生产全流程的“数字工厂”,它们构成了数据萃取、加工和价值转化的核心基础设施。因此，对数据和平台的控制权，成为数字时代最关键的生产资料占有形式。

On this basis, Marx’s theory of reification has gained a new form of expression in the digital age, evolving from “commodity reification” to “data reification.” In *Capital*, Marx revealed that the commodity economy conceals the social relations between people under the relations between things, forming a “commodity fetishism.” In the digital age, this logic has not ended but has been upgraded in a more covert manner. Data, as the new core of value, constructs new value-mediating relations through its immateriality, real-time nature, and replicability. The immaterial nature of data, combined with its abstractness and appearance of technical neutrality, creates an illusion of transparency, further obscuring the social labor and power relations hidden behind it.

在此基础上，马克思的物化理论在数字时代获得了新的表现形式，即从“商品物化”演变为“数据物化”。马克思在《资本论》中揭示，商品经济将人与人的社会关系掩盖在物与物的关系之下，形成了“商品拜物教”。在数字时代，此逻辑并未终结，反而以更隐蔽的方式升级。数据作为新的价值核心，以非物质性、实时性和可复制性构建起新的价值中介关系。数据的非物质性特征又因抽象性与技术中立的表象，制造出一种透明性幻觉，进一步遮蔽了其背后隐藏的社会劳动与权力关系。

The mystique of data, like that of commodities, originates from the extraction and concealment of countless micro-labor processes and subjective practices. Every click, browse, and share by an individual on a platform actually constitutes “digital labor” that provides raw materials for the accumulation of platform capital. The fruits of this labor are transformed into measurable, tradable data assets, while the labor process itself and its social attributes are hidden. The individual faces an information universe organized by algorithms that appears personalized, further weakening the ability to form a holistic understanding of social relations of production and even one’s own social position. This “data fetishism” obscures new labor relations, power structures, and processes of social alienation, becoming the core of the ideology of digital capitalism.

数据的神秘性，正如商品的神秘性一样，源于对无数微观劳动与主体实践的抽取与遮蔽。个体在平台上的每一次点击、浏览、分享，实际上都构成了为平台资本积累提供原材料的“数字劳动”。这些劳动成果被转化为可度量、可交易的数据资产，而劳动过程本身及其社会属性却被隐匿了。个体面对的是一个由算法组织的、看似个性化的信息宇宙，进一步削弱了人们对社会生产关系乃至自身社会位置的整体性认知能力。这种“数据拜物教”掩盖了新的劳动关系、权力结构和社会异化过程，成为数字资本主义意识形态的核心。

Therefore, an analytical framework based on historical materialism must answer a fundamental question: Is this entirely new, decisive means of production monopolized by private capital for unlimited expansion (the digital capitalism model), or is it subject to dominant governance and planning by society and the state for the public interest (the socialist digital governance model)? The different answers to this question determine the divergence of the two civilizational forms in terms of the economic base, superstructure, and even global roles. The network effect characteristic of digital means of production, namely winner-takes-all, exacerbates the sharpness of the ownership issue. It plunges the antitrust role that bourgeois states once played into an unprecedented dilemma: the state is either constrained by private monopoly platforms or must actively construct alternative infrastructure serving the public interest. This is the deep root of the divergence between the two contemporary civilizational paths. Marx profoundly pointed out: “At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or—this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms—with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. … Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.” [1]1 Karl Marx, “Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy,” in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *Selected Works* (in three volumes), vol. 1 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2012), pp. 2-3.

因此，立足于历史唯物主义的分析框架必须回答一个根本问题：这种全新的、决定性的生产资料，是由私人资本为无限增殖而垄断占有(数字资本主义模式),还是由社会和国家为公共利益而进行主导性治理与规划(社会主义数字治理模式) 对该问题的不同解答，决定了两种文明形态在经济基础、上层建筑乃至全球角色上的分野。数字生产资料的网络效应特性，即赢家通吃，加剧了所有权问题的尖锐性，它使得资产阶级国家以往扮演的反垄断角色陷入空前困境，国家要么受制于私人垄断平台，要么必须主动构建服务于公共利益的替代性基础设施，这正是当代两种文明路径分野的深层根源所在。马克思深刻指出：“社会的物质生产力发展到一定阶段，便同它们一直在其中运动的现存生产关系或财产关系(这只是生产关系的法律用语)发生矛盾……社会革命的时代就到来了。随着经济基础的变更，全部庞大的上层建筑也或慢或快地发生变革。”

II. The Historical Genesis and Internal Logic of Digital Capitalism

二、数字资本主义的历史生成与内在逻辑

The dysfunction exhibited by the U.S. and the West in the digital age is not an accumulation of isolated problems but a concentrated eruption of the inherent contradictions of the capitalist mode of production under the impact of digital productive forces. Crucially, its trajectory of genesis is closely linked to the systemic crisis of capitalism following the 2008 international financial crisis. To “prolong the life” of the capitalist system in crisis, digital capitalism stepped onto the historical stage; even so, the inherent contradictions of capitalism will still move toward intensification.

美西方在数字时代所呈现出的功能失调，并非孤立问题的堆积，而是资本主义生产方式的内在矛盾在数字生产力冲击下的集中爆发。尤为关键的是，其生成轨迹与2008年国际金融危机后的资本主义系统性危机紧密相连。为给危机中的资本主义体系“续命”,数字资本主义登上了历史舞台；即便如此，资本主义固有矛盾仍然会走向激化。

The 2008 international financial crisis declared the failure of the neoliberal model characterized by financialization, exposing the fundamental predicament of the capitalist system’s inability to escape periodic crises. After the crisis, the global economy fell into long-term stagnation, profit margins in traditional industries remained persistently low, creating a vast surplus of capital, with large amounts of capital unable to find profitable investment channels. It was precisely in this context that digitalization and the platform business model provided a new outlet for surplus capital, becoming a key scheme for the capitalist system to “prolong its life.” A typical representative of platform capitalism is, for example, Airbnb, founded one month before the outbreak of the 2008 financial crisis. It does not need to own large amounts of fixed assets such as real estate or automobiles; instead, it constructs a digital “intermediary” platform, extracting rent or commissions from others’ assets and labor. This asset-light model perfectly matched the needs of capital in the post-crisis era, namely achieving rapid expansion at extremely low marginal costs while also opening up entirely new sources of profit. When the expansion of capitalism in traditional physical territories and entity markets approached saturation, its accumulation logic began to shift to a new domain, treating human social interaction, mentality, and behavior itself as a new profit growth point.

2008年国际金融危机宣告了以金融化为特征的新自由主义模式的失败，暴露出资本主义体系难以摆脱周期性危机的根本困境。危机过后，全球经济陷入长期停滞，传统产业利润率持续低迷，造成巨大的过剩资本，大量资本找不到有利可图的投资渠道。正是在这样的背景下，数字化以及平台商业模式为过剩资本提供了一个新的出路，成为资本主义体系用来“续命”的关键方案。平台资本主义的典型代表，比如像成立于2008年金融危机爆发前一个月的Airbnb,它无需拥有像房产以及汽车这样的大量固定资产，而是构建一个数字化的“中间人”平台，从他人的资产和劳动中去抽取租金或佣金。这种轻资产模式完美地契合了后危机时代资本的需求，也就是以极低的边际成本来实现快速的扩张，并且还开辟出了全新的利润来源。当资本主义在传统物理疆域及实体市场的扩张接近饱和之后，它的积累逻辑便开始转向一个新的领域，将人类的社会交往、心智以及行为本身，当作一个新的利润增长点。

Therefore, the rise of digital capitalism is not purely technology-driven, but a profound, crisis-driven endogenous transformation of capitalism. Through the information technology revolution, digital capital provided new digital infrastructure for financialization and economic globalization, and quickly became the core of monopoly capital. The ebb and flow of digital capital serves as a historical testament to capitalism’s desperate efforts to alleviate economic crises in the post-crisis era, yet its inability to escape its fundamental contradictions. This historical logic of genesis, starting with “prolonging life through crisis,” determined from the outset that digital capitalism would inevitably develop toward a more extractive, monopolistic, and parasitic trajectory.

因此，数字资本主义的兴起，并不是纯粹的技术驱动，而是一场深刻的、由危机驱动的资本主义内生转型。数字资本通过信息技术革命，为金融化和经济全球化提供了新的数字基础设施，并迅速成为垄断资本的核心。数字资本的潮起潮落，成为资本主义在后危机时代竭力缓解经济危机却又无力摆脱其根本矛盾的历史见证。这种以“危机续命”为起点的历史生成逻辑，从一开始就决定了数字资本主义必然走向一种更具萃取性、垄断性和寄生性的发展轨道。

The core accumulation mechanism of digital capitalism is a new logic of colonization and extraction. Shoshana Zuboff’s concept of surveillance capitalism reveals this. In her view, this is a new form of capitalism that unilaterally claims human experience as free raw material that can be converted into behavioral data. Tech companies provide “free” digital services, massively capture users’ behavioral data, transform this data into “behavioral surplus,” then process it into “prediction products” using “advanced manufacturing processes” such as machine learning, and subsequently sell these as “behavioral futures” to advertisers and other clients. Its ultimate goal is to predict, shape, and control user behavior to ensure certainty in commercial outcomes.

数字资本主义的核心积累机制是一种全新的殖民以及萃取逻辑。肖莎娜·祖博夫提出的监视资本主义概念就揭示了这一点。在她看来，这是一种单方面声称人类经验可以被转化为行为数据的免费原材料的新型资本主义。科技公司提供“免费”的数字服务，大规模地攫取用户的行为数据，并且把这些数据转化为“行为剩余”,再借助机器学习等“先进制造工艺”加工成“预测产品”,继而在“行为期货市场”上出售给广告商等客户。它的最终目的就是去预测、塑造以及控制用户的行为，来确保商业结果的确定性。

Nick Srnicek’s theory of platform capitalism deepens this logic from the perspective of industrial structure. He points out that digital platforms use network effects to achieve monopoly, embed themselves in social interactions, and become gateways for data flows, thereby extracting enormous economic and political power. Meanwhile, former Greek Minister of Finance Yanis Varoufakis has put forward a more radical thesis, arguing that contemporary capitalism is degenerating into “techno-feudalism.” In his view, digital giants like Amazon and Google are no longer traditional capitalists; their profit-making methods are more like feudal lords, using control over “cloud territories” (digital platform ecosystems) to levy “cloud rent” on all entrants, such as merchants and users. Traditional industrial capitalists become new vassals, while the vast number of users, by contributing data, become “cloud serfs.” This thesis reveals that the accumulation mode of digital capitalism is shifting from market competition to more direct value extraction and rent extraction, marking capitalism’s entry into a more parasitic stage.

尼克·斯尔尼塞克的平台资本主义理论，则是从产业结构的层面上深化了这种逻辑。他指出，数字平台运用网络效应来实现垄断，并且把自己嵌入社会互动，成了数据流的闸口，从而攫取巨大的经济以及政治权力。而希腊财政部前部长亚尼斯·瓦鲁法基斯则提出了一个更为激进的论断，他认为当代资本主义正在异化为“技术封建主义”。在他看来，像亚马逊、谷歌这样的数字巨头已经不再是传统资本家，它们的牟利方式更像是封建领主，借助对“云端领地”(数字平台生态)的控制，向所有进入者，比如商家以及用户，去征收“云租金”。传统产业资本家沦为新的附庸，而广大用户则凭借贡献数据成了“云农奴”。这个论断揭示出，数字资本主义的积累方式正在从市场竞争转向更为直接的价值攫取以及租金榨取，它也标志着资本主义进入一个更具寄生性的阶段。

The accumulation logic centered on extraction and control described above inevitably leads to high market monopoly in reality, and ultimately erodes the state’s governance capacity. Once the inherent “winner-takes-all” tendency of platform capitalism takes shape, its enormous economic power transforms into political power, leaving state regulation passive, lagging, or even paralyzed. Major antitrust cases in recent years provide concrete evidence of this. In August 2024, a U.S. federal court made a historic ruling, finding that Google had entered into a series of exclusive agreements with Apple, Android device manufacturers, and other entities, thereby illegally maintaining its monopoly in the general search services and search advertising markets. Court documents show that Google occupies about 90% of the online search market, depriving competitors of the opportunity to achieve the necessary scale to improve their services, thus maintaining a “virtuous cycle” favorable to itself: more data is used to improve search quality, attracting more users, generating more advertising revenue, and then using this revenue to consolidate its default entry position. Although the court ruled that Google’s monopoly charge was established, subsequent remedial measures highlight the structural predicament of U.S. state power. While the U.S. Department of Justice proposed radical measures such as forcing Google to sell Chrome browser, it faces enormous political resistance and legal challenges; whether it can ultimately truly dismantle the monopoly’s foundation remains unknown. This confirms the judgment of “political paralysis”: before highly organized monopoly capital, even if the state apparatus achieves a legal victory, it is often powerless in terms of systemic restructuring.

上述以萃取和控制为核心的积累逻辑，在现实中必然导致市场的高度垄断，并最终侵蚀国家的治理能力。平台资本主义“赢家通吃”的内在趋势一旦形成，其巨大的经济力量便会转化为政治力量，使国家监管陷入被动、滞后甚至瘫痪的境地。近年来的一些重大反垄断案件，就为这一点提供了确凿的例证。在2024年8月，美国联邦法院作出了一项历史性的裁决，认定谷歌与苹果、安卓设备制造商等主体签订了一系列的排他性协议，并以此非法维持了它在通用搜索服务以及搜索广告市场当中的垄断地位。法庭文件显示，谷歌占据了在线搜索市场约90%的份额，这就剥夺了竞争对手获得必要规模来改进它们服务的机会，从而维持了一个有利于它自身的“良性循环”,也就是更多的数据被用来提升搜索质量，这样就能吸引到更多的用户，带来更多的广告收入，然后再运用这些收入去巩固它的默认入口地位。尽管法庭作出了谷歌垄断罪名成立的裁定，但是后续的这些补救措施，却凸显出美国国家权力方面存在的结构性困境。美国司法部虽然提议强制谷歌出售Chrome浏览器等激进方案，但它面临着巨大的政治阻力以及法律挑战，最终是否能够真正瓦解垄断根基仍然是一个未知数。这一点印证了“政治性瘫痪”的判断：国家机器在高度组织化的垄断资本面前，即便在法律上取得了胜利，在系统性重塑方面往往也是力不从心。

Furthermore, the EU’s Digital Markets Act, which took effect in 2023, defines large platforms as “gatekeepers” and imposes a series of ex-ante obligations. However, its enforcement process precisely demonstrates this as a “bureaucratic catch-up.” In March 2024, the European Commission launched formal non-compliance investigations against Apple, Google, and Meta. By April 2025, the Commission issued its first non-compliance rulings, fining Apple 500 million euros for App Store rules that hindered developers from directing users to alternative purchasing channels; and fining Meta 200 million euros for its “pay or consent” model failing to provide users with a genuine choice. Compared to their global revenues, these fines are negligible, making regulatory actions seem more like passive repairs to an established monopoly fact. In September 2025, a U.S. court overturned the request to break up Google’s search engine, citing “the competitive landscape has changed, with the main driving force coming from AI technology” and “there are sufficient reasons not to shake the system and let market forces play their role.” This shows that after private capital has established “digital sovereignty,” state power’s attempts to use complex bureaucratic procedures to regain partial control have greatly diminished in effect and force, and this precisely illustrates the failure of Western digital governance.

除此之外，欧盟在2023年生效的《数字市场法》把大型平台定义为“守门人”,并且施加了一系列的事前义务。然而，它的执法过程却恰恰证明了这是一种“官僚式追赶”。在2024年3月，欧盟委员会针对苹果、谷歌以及Meta展开了正式的不合规调查工作。到了2025年4月，委员会发布了首批不合规裁决，对苹果公司处以5亿欧元的罚款,其缘由在于App Store的规则阻碍了开发者向用户引导替代性的购买渠道；同时对Meta处以2亿欧元罚款，原因是它的付费或同意模式未能给用户提供一种真正的选择。相较于它们的全球营收，这些罚款的数额是微不足道的，使得监管行动更像是在对既成的垄断事实进行一种被动的修补工作。2025年9月，美国法院又以“市场的竞争格局已在变化，主要推动力来自人工智能技术”,“有充分的理由不动摇该系统，让市场力量自行发挥作用”为理由，推翻了分拆谷歌搜索引擎的诉求。这说明，在私人资本已经构建起“数字主权”之后，国家权力试图运用繁复的官僚程序来夺回部分的控制权，其效果和力度已经大打折扣，而这恰恰就是西方数字治理失灵的一个写照。

The inherent contradictions of digital capitalism are ultimately profoundly embodied in the total alienation of humanity. The “behavioral surplus” generated by the aforementioned “data labor” becomes a new form of surplus value appropriated without compensation by platform capital, constituting the core of digital exploitation. This exploitation breaks down the boundary between work and life, giving rise to a deeper alienation: capital’s control extends from the human body to the spiritual realm, using algorithms to shape “information cocoons,” [2]2 “Information cocoon” (信息茧房) refers to a state of intellectual isolation resulting from algorithm-driven content personalization, where users are exposed only to information that reinforces their existing beliefs, limiting exposure to diverse perspectives. continuously eroding human subjectivity and autonomy. This is precisely what Marx criticized: choices that seemingly grant individual freedom, but are “at the same time the most complete abolition of all individual freedom, and the complete subjugation of individuality to social conditions which assume the form of objective powers.” [3]3 This quotation is from Karl Marx, *Grundrisse der Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie* (1857–1858), specifically from the section on “Forms which precede capitalist production,” where Marx discusses the relationship between individuals and social conditions under capital.

数字资本主义的内在矛盾最终深刻体现在人的全面异化上。前述“数据劳动”所产生的“行为剩余”,成为一种被平台资本无偿占有的新型剩余价值，构成了数字剥削的核心。这种剥削打破了工作与生活的界限，并催生出更为深刻的异化：资本的控制从人的身体延伸到精神领域，运用算法塑造“信息茧房”,持续侵蚀人的主体性与自主性。这正是马克思所批判的，看似给予个人自由的选择，但“同时也是最彻底地取消任何个人自由，而使个性完全屈从于这样的社会条件，这些社会条件采取物的权力的形式”。

The exposure of Cambridge Analytica in 2018 revealed that, through a seemingly harmless psychological test application, it illegally obtained personal data of up to 87 million Facebook users. This data was used to construct psychological profiles of users and to conduct precise, manipulative political advertising in political events such as the 2016 US presidential election. This incident starkly exposed how “behavioral surplus” can be weaponized to interfere in political processes and tear apart social consensus, turning the public sphere into a testing ground for capital and political power to conduct behavioral manipulation—an extreme manifestation of alienation at the societal level.

剑桥分析公司在2018年被曝光，通过一个看似无害的心理测试应用，违规获取高达8700万脸书用户的个人数据。这些数据被用于构建用户心理画像，并在2016年美国总统大选等政治活动中进行精准的、具有操纵性的政治广告投放。该事件赤裸裸地揭示了“行为剩余”如何被武器化，用于干预政治进程、撕裂社会共识，它将公共领域变成资本和政治权力进行行为操控的试验场，是社会层面异化的极端表现。

The “gig economy” epitomizes the exploitative logic of digital capitalism, giving rise to a vast group of digital proletarians misclassified as independent contractors. Surveys of gig workers in the United States have found that these workers are subjected to a systematic, algorithm-driven exploitation. Platform companies (such as Uber and DoorDash) use opaque algorithms to determine work assignments and pay, leaving workers unable to predict their income or negotiate terms. Moreover, because they are classified as independent contractors, gig workers are deprived of virtually all labor protections, including minimum wage, workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance, and paid leave. They also face the risk of having their accounts “deactivated” (i.e., fired) by algorithms without warning, with almost no avenue for appeal. The International Labour Organization (ILO) has also placed the issue of decent work in the platform economy on its core agenda and plans to promote the formulation of relevant international labor standards in 2025–2026 to address this global challenge.

“零工经济”则集中彰显了数字资本主义的剥削逻辑，催生出一个庞大的、被错误归类为独立承包商的数字无产者群体。针对美国零工工人的调查发现，这些工人被置于一种由算法驱动的系统性剥削之下。平台公司(如Uber、DoorDash)使用不透明的算法来决定工作分配和薪酬，工人无法预知收入，也无法进行谈判。而且，由于被归类为独立承包商，零工工人被剥夺了几乎所有的劳动保障，包括最低工资、工伤赔偿、失业保险和带薪休假等。他们还面临着被算法毫无征兆地“停用账户”(即解雇)的风险，且几乎没有申诉渠道。国际劳工组织(ILO)也已将平台经济中的体面劳动问题列为核心议程，并计划在2025—2026年推动制定相关的国际劳工标准，以应对这种全球性挑战。

In summary, the contradictions in digital capitalism across the four aspects of extraction, monopoly, alienation, and exploitation reinforce each other, forming a self-reinforcing vicious cycle. The “life-sustaining” model centered on data extraction inevitably leads to monopoly; monopoly capital erodes public power, resulting in state governance failure; and the entire system is built upon the systematic exploitation of the digital proletariat and the comprehensive alienation of the public. Therefore, “accumulation is the reproduction of capital on an ever-expanding scale,”[4]4 Karl Marx, Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 23: “Simple Reproduction.” The full quote is: “Accumulation is the reproduction of capital on an ever-expanding scale.” inevitably leading to the systemic disorder of digital capitalism. This is by no means an accidental system malfunction, but rather the product of its historical logic of emergence as a crisis-response solution pushed to its extreme.

综上，数字资本主义在萃取、垄断、异化和剥削四个方面的矛盾相互强化，形成一个自我增强的恶性循环。以数据萃取为核心的“续命”模式必然导致垄断；垄断资本侵蚀公共权力，导致国家治理失灵；整个体系又建立在对数字无产者的系统性剥削和对社会公众的全面异化之上。因此，“积累就是资本的规模不断扩大的再生产”,必然导致数字资本主义的系统性失序。这绝非偶然的系统故障，而是其作为危机应对方案的历史生成逻辑发展到极致的产物。

III. Institutional Practice of Socialist Digital Civilization

三、社会主义数字文明的制度实践

In stark contrast to digital capitalism’s descent into systemic predicament due to its inherent contradictions, Chinese-path modernization has opened a fundamentally different path in the digital domain. Through a series of conscious and proactive institutional constructions, China strives to adjust relations of production and actively guide digital productive forces to serve the fundamental goals of socialism. This practice transcends the scope of Western mere regulation; it is a movement to create a digital civilization centered on the people’s logic, embodying a fundamental shift from passive regulation to active construction: the socialist state is no longer a repairman after market failure, but an active designer of new modes of production and a proactive builder of new forms of civilization.

与数字资本主义因内在矛盾走向系统性困境形成鲜明对照，中国式现代化在数字领域开辟了一条截然不同的道路。中国通过一系列自觉、主动的制度建构，努力调整生产关系，积极引导数字生产力服务于社会主义的根本目标。这种实践超越了西方单纯监管的范畴，是一场以人民逻辑为核心的数字文明创建运动，体现了从被动监管到主动建构的根本性转变：社会主义国家不再是市场失灵后的修补者，而是新生产方式的主动设计者、新文明形态的积极构建者。

In October 2023, the National Data Administration of China was officially established, marking a strategically significant top-level design of relations of production for the digital era. It represents a strategic measure by the socialist state, leveraging its institutional advantages, to systematically plan and coordinate the governance of data as a new type of production factor, directly responding to the predicament of governance failure in the West. The core responsibilities of the National Data Administration encompass the entire chain of governance in the digital domain, including coordinating the advancement of basic institutional construction for data factor property rights, circulation, distribution, and governance; coordinating the integration, sharing, and development and utilization of data resources; and coordinating the planning and construction of Digital China, the digital economy, and digital society. In 2024, the National Data Administration announced that it would successively introduce eight institutional documents concerning data property rights, data circulation, income distribution, and security governance within the year. The “Action Plan for the Development of Trusted Data Spaces (2024–2028),” formally issued in November 2024, proposes a goal of establishing over 100 trusted data spaces by 2028, building a data circulation and utilization infrastructure based on consensus rules and connecting multiple stakeholders, thereby supporting the construction of a national integrated data market. This plan complements the “East Data, West Computing” project[5]5 A major national project in China to channel computing power from the resource-rich western regions to the economically developed eastern regions, analogous to the South-to-North Water Diversion Project. and the construction plan for a national integrated computing power network, together forming a grand blueprint for developing digital infrastructure as a national public utility. This top-level design ensures from the source that the development direction of digital productive forces serves the public interest, thereby avoiding the monopoly and disorder caused by the unchecked expansion of capital.

2023年10月，中国国家数据局正式挂牌成立，标志着中国针对数字时代的生产关系进行了具有战略意义的顶层设计。它属于社会主义国家运用体制优势，对数据这种新型生产要素进行系统规划和统筹治理的战略举措，是对西方治理失灵困境的直接回应。国家数据局的核心职责涵盖数字领域的全链条治理工作，囊括了协调推进数据要素产权、流通、分配、治理等基础制度的建设，统筹数据资源的整合共享和开发利用，以及统筹推进数字中国、数字经济、数字社会规划和建设等多个方面。2024年，国家数据局宣布，年内会陆续推出有关数据产权、数据流通、收益分配以及安全治理等方面的8项制度文件。2024年11月正式印发的《可信数据空间发展行动计划(2024—2028年)》提出，其目标是到2028年建立超过100个可信数据空间，构建一个基于共识规则、连接多方利益相关者的数据流通和利用的基础设施，以此来支撑全国一体化数据市场的建设工作。它和“东数西算”工程以及全国一体化算力网的建设规划是相辅相成的，共同构成了把数字基础设施当作国家公共事业来加以发展的宏大蓝图。这种顶层设计从源头上确保了数字生产力的发展方向是服务于公共利益的，从而避免了由资本无序扩张所导致的垄断与失序。

While the National Data Administration is responsible for the top-level design and strategic planning of digital governance, the authorized operation mechanisms for public data actively explored by various localities constitute the key implementation link and specific realization path for putting the people’s logic into practice. This mechanism can answer a core question: how to transform the massive amounts of public data held by the government into social value that can empower the real economy and optimize public services, under the premise of ensuring security. In recent years, various forms of public data authorized operation practices have emerged across China, achieving quantifiable significant results. Taking the “data zone” model constructed by Beijing as an example, its financial data zone integrates 5 billion data entries from 14 departments and provides services to financial institutions under strict privacy computing and security controls. As of early 2025, this zone has served 68 financial institutions, supporting loans to micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) exceeding 260 billion RMB, shortening the financing service cycle from months in the past to as fast as five minutes, effectively solving the “difficult and expensive financing” problem for MSMEs due to a lack of credit data. Furthermore, Shanghai, Chengdu, Guangzhou, and other places have also established local “data groups” to coordinate the cultivation of the data factor market and the operation of data assets. The core of these practices lies in treating public data as a new type of public good or state asset, with its development and utilization taking the release of social use value as the primary goal, constructing a “digital commons” serving the public interest. This forms a fundamental institutional divergence from the Western model, where public data is privately appropriated to strengthen monopoly positions.

国家数据局负责的是数字治理的顶层设计以及战略规划，而各地所积极探索的公共数据授权运营机制，则是把人民逻辑付诸实践的关键执行环节及具体的实现路径。这个机制能够回答一个核心问题：如何把政府所掌握的海量公共数据，在确保安全的前提之下，转化为能够赋能实体经济、优化公共服务的社会价值。近年来，中国各地涌现出多种形式的公共数据授权运营实践，并且取得了可以进行量化的显著成效。以北京市所构建的“数据专区”模式为例，它的金融数据专区整合了14个部门的50亿条数据，并且在严格的隐私计算以及安全管控下向金融机构提供服务。截至2025年年初，该专区已累计为68家金融机构提供服务，支撑中小微企业贷款金额超过2600亿元人民币，将融资服务周期从过去的按月计算缩短至最快5分钟,有效破解了中小微企业因缺乏信用数据而导致的“融资难、融资贵”问题。此外，上海、成都、广州等地也纷纷成立地方“数据集团”,统筹数据要素市场培育和数据资产运营。这些实践的核心在于将公共数据视为一种新型公共品或国有资产，其开发利用以释放社会使用价值为首要目标，构建了一个服务于公共利益的“数字公域”,与西方模式下公共数据被私人攫取以强化其垄断地位的路径形成了根本性的制度分野。

In the era of the digital economy, the payment and clearing system is the underlying financial infrastructure for the entire economic operation. The sovereignty and public nature of this infrastructure are key to preventing the digital economy from being completely controlled by private capital. China’s steady progress in the research, development, and piloting of the digital renminbi (e-CNY) constitutes a far-reaching strategic deployment in this critical area, serving as a strategic countermeasure against the trend of private capital controlling key financial infrastructure. First, the digital renminbi is a strategic tool for safeguarding national monetary sovereignty, ensuring the state’s core control over base money and the payment network in the digital financial era, and avoiding the risk of currency issuance power being weakened by private payment platforms. Second, the digital renminbi provides a more efficient and inclusive public payment option for the digital economy, with its controllable anonymity feature balancing user privacy protection and financial security. Pilot work is progressing steadily; as of the end of June 2025, the digital renminbi pilot had expanded to 17 provinces. Application scenarios are continuously enriched, from retail consumption and government fee payment to exploring cross-border payments, demonstrating strong vitality. Compared with the highly privatized payment infrastructure in the West, which faces challenges from private stablecoins, China’s proactive construction of the digital renminbi ensures the public nature of the digital financial “highway.”

在数字经济时代，支付清算体系是整个经济运行的底层金融基础设施。该基础设施的主权和公共性，是防止数字经济被私人资本完全操控的关键。中国稳步推进的数字人民币(e-CNY)研发与试点，针对该战略领域的深远布局，构成对私人资本控制关键金融基础设施趋势的战略性反制。首先，数字人民币是维护国家货币主权的战略工具，保障了国家在数字金融时代对基础货币和支付网络的核心控制力，避免了货币发行权被私营支付平台削弱的风险。其次，数字人民币为数字经济提供了更高效、普惠的公共支付选择，其可控匿名特性兼顾了用户隐私保护与金融安全。试点工作正稳步推进，截至2025年6月底，数字人民币试点已扩展至17个省份。应用场景不断丰富，从零售消费、政务缴费到探索跨境支付，显示出强大的生命力。与西方支付基础设施高度私有化、面临私人稳定币挑战的局面相比，中国通过数字人民币的主动构建，保证了数字金融“高速公路”的公共属性。

These three institutional practices—the top-level planning of the National Data Administration, the value release through authorized operation of public data, and the consolidation of financial sovereignty via the digital renminbi—together constitute a mutually supportive and logically rigorous institutional system, ensuring that the key productive forces of the 21st century are firmly held in the hands of the people, serving the grand goals of national development and the well-being of the people.

国家数据局的顶层规划、公共数据授权运营的价值释放、数字人民币的金融主权夯实这三大制度实践共同构成一个相互支撑、逻辑严密的制度体系，确保21世纪关键的生产力要素牢牢掌握在人民手中，服务于国家发展和人民福祉的宏大目标。

IV. The Civilizational Divergence between the Logic of Capital and the Logic of the People

四、资本逻辑与人民逻辑的文明分野

The comparison of the two paths above reveals that their divergence originates from two fundamentally opposed logics: the logic of capital and the logic of the people. When confronting the transformation of digital productive forces, these two logics exhibit fundamental differences from value goals to institutional construction, which can be systematically summarized in the table below (Table 1).

上述两种路径的对比彰显出，其分野源于两种根本对立的逻辑：资本逻辑与人民逻辑。这两种逻辑在面对数字生产力变革时，从价值目标到制度建构都展现出根本性差异，具体可由下表(表1)进行系统性总结。

Table 1 Comparative Analysis of Two Models of Digital Civilization

表1 两种数字文明模式的比较分析

Dimension

维度

Digital Capitalism Model

数字资本主义模式

Socialist Digital Governance Model

社会主义数字治理模式

Core Logic

核心逻辑

Logic of capital: using data as raw material, pursuing the infinite expansion of private capital and behavioral control

资本逻辑：以数据为原料，追求私人资本的无限增殖与行为控制

Logic of the people: using data as a factor of production, serving the public interest of society and national development strategy

人民逻辑：以数据为要素，服务于社会公共利益与国家发展战略

Data Property Rights and Control

数据产权与控制

Private monopoly: platform giants as “gatekeepers” privatize and enclose data

私人垄断：由平台巨头作为 “看门人” 私有化、封闭化占有数据

Public dominance: public data is led by the state, guiding social data sharing and utilization under an authorized operation mechanism

公共主导：公共数据由国家主导，在授权运营机制下引导社会数据共享利用

Key Institutional Actors

关键制度行动者

Tech giants act as the dominant force, with the state reduced to a passive, lagging regulator

科技巨头充当主导者，国家沦为被动、滞后的监管者

The socialist state acts as an active and conscious top-level designer and institutional constructor

社会主义国家作为主动自觉的顶层设计者和制度建构者

Path of Value Realization

价值实现路径

Extracting massive “behavioral surplus,” producing predictive products, maximizing surveillance profits

萃取海量“行为剩余”,生产预测产品，实现监视利润的最大化

Unleashing the potential of “data factors,” empowering the real economy and public services, maximizing social value creation

释放“数据要素” 潜能，赋能实体经济与公共服务，创造社会价值最大化

Systemic Consequences

系统性后果

Intensification of internal contradictions: full-scale eruption of economic monopoly, social alienation, governance failure, etc.

内在矛盾激化：经济垄断、社会异化、治理失灵等全面爆发

Conscious construction: exploring and shaping a new form of socialist digital civilization that transcends the logic of capital

自觉建构：探索并塑造超越资本逻辑的社会主义数字文明新形态

The core of the logic of capital lies in what Marx revealed: “capital’s drive to valorize itself as much as possible.” In the digital age, this iron law drives capital to datafy all social activities as new raw materials for maximizing profits. Its starting point and end point are always the infinite expansion of capital itself, with people and their social relations treated as means to this end. In contrast, the logic of the people is anchored in promoting the comprehensive development of individuals and advancing common prosperity—the essential requirement of socialism with Chinese characteristics. It demands that the development of digital technology serve the overall interests of society and human liberation, treating economic resources as means to foster good social relations. This people-centered value orientation determines that it must take a development path fundamentally different from the logic of capital.

资本逻辑的核心在于马克思所揭示的“资本尽可能多地自行增殖”。在数字时代，这条铁律驱动资本将一切社会活动数据化，并作为实现利润最大化的新原料。其出发点和归宿始终是资本自身的无限扩张，人及其社会关系则被视为服务于此目的的手段。与此相对，人民逻辑的落脚点在于促进人的全面发展与促进共同富裕这一中国特色社会主义的本质要求。它要求将数字技术的发展服务于社会整体利益和人的解放，将经济资源视为促进良好社会关系的手段。这种以人民为中心的价值取向，决定了其必然走上一条与资本逻辑截然不同的发展道路。

Under the logic of capital, data and platforms, as core means of production, tend toward private monopoly and enclosure. Tech giants, through platform infrastructure, unilaterally declare human experience as “free raw materials” and transform it into privatized “behavioral surplus.” This exclusive control over data builds extremely high entry barriers, forming de facto “digital territories,” whose essence is a new form of private ownership of the means of production. Under the logic of the people, data is regarded as a national strategic resource and key factor of production. In particular, public data held by the government and public institutions is clearly defined as a public good or a new type of state asset. Through top-level planning by establishing the National Data Administration [6]6 The National Data Administration (国家数据局) is a Chinese government agency established in 2023 to coordinate the development, regulation, and sharing of data resources nationwide, reflecting the state’s active role in digital governance. and institutional innovations such as authorized operation of public data, the state leads the direction of data development and utilization, ensuring that data value first serves the public interest, reflecting the public-dominant attribute of the means of production.

在资本逻辑下，数据和平台作为核心生产资料，会走向私人垄断和圈占。科技巨头通过平台基础设施，单方面地将人类经验宣称为“免费的原材料”,并将其转化为私有化的“行为剩余”。这种对数据的独占，构筑了极高的进入壁垒，形成了事实上的“数字领地”,其本质是一种新型的生产资料私有制。在人民逻辑下，数据被视为国家战略性资源和关键生产要素。特别是政府和公共机构掌握的公共数据，被明确界定为一种公共品或新型国有资产。通过设立国家数据局进行顶层规划，以及公共数据授权运营等制度创新，国家主导着数据的开发利用方向，确保数据价值首先服务于公共利益，体现了生产资料的公共主导属性。

The path of value realization under the logic of capital is to extract massive “behavioral surplus,” produce predictive products, trade them on the “behavioral futures market,” and ultimately maximize profits. The core of its value creation lies in predicting and controlling human behavior. In contrast, the path of value realization under the logic of the people is to unleash the potential of data factors, thereby empowering the real economy, optimizing public services, enhancing social governance capacity, and creating inclusive social value. For example, using public data to solve financing difficulties for small and micro enterprises, and employing location data to optimize urban operations and emergency management, thereby addressing pain points and difficult issues in social development.

资本逻辑的价值实现路径，是萃取海量的“行为剩余”,生产预测产品，在“行为期货市场”上交易，最终实现利润的最大化。它进行价值创造的核心，在于对人类行为进行预测以及控制。而人民逻辑的价值实现路径，则在于释放数据要素的潜能，以此来赋能实体经济、优化公共服务、提升社会治理能力，并创造出普惠的社会价值。例如，采用公共数据来破解中小微企业融资的难题，以及运用位置数据来优化城市运行和应急管理，从而解决社会发展中的痛点以及难点问题。

Under the dominance of the logic of capital, the relationship between the state and capital exhibits a structural imbalance. The rapid expansion of digital capital and the formation of monopoly power often reduce the state to a passive, lagging regulator. Whether it is the U.S. Department of Justice facing difficulties in remedial measures after winning its lawsuit against Google, or the European Commission imposing fines for catch-up regulation after tech giants have formed monopolies, these all demonstrate the relative weakness and passivity of state power in the face of powerful private digital capital. Under the dominance of the logic of the people, the socialist state is an active and conscious top-level designer and institutional constructor. Through strategic measures such as establishing the National Data Administration, planning a national integrated computing power network, and launching the digital yuan [7]7 The digital yuan (数字人民币) is China’s central bank digital currency (CBDC), issued by the People’s Bank of China, designed to enhance monetary sovereignty and efficiency in digital payments., the state actively shapes the framework and rules of the digital economy, guiding technology and capital to serve national strategic goals. This is a manifestation of historical initiative in actively harnessing new quality productive forces.

在资本逻辑的主导之下，国家与资本间的关系呈现出一种结构性的失衡状态。数字资本的快速扩张以及垄断力量的形成，使得国家往往会沦为一种被动、滞后的监管者角色。无论是美国司法部在赢得对谷歌的诉讼之后，仍然面临着补救措施方面的困境，还是欧盟委员会在科技巨头形成垄断之后，再运用罚款来进行追赶式的监管，这些都表明国家权力在强大的私人数字资本面前所表现出的相对弱势以及被动性。在人民逻辑主导下，社会主义国家是主动、自觉的顶层设计者和制度建构者。通过设立国家数据局、规划全国一体化算力网、推出数字人民币等战略举措，国家主动塑造数字经济的框架和规则，引导技术和资本服务于国家战略目标，这是一种主动驾驭新质生产力的历史能动性的体现。

The logic of capital ultimately leads to the total alienation of human beings. On the one hand, it creates digital proletarians, subjecting them to systematic algorithmic exploitation and control, trapping them in a predicament of unstable income and deprived rights. On the other hand, through information cocoons and behavioral manipulation, it erodes the subjectivity, autonomy, and critical thinking of all members of society, turning the entire life activity of people into a tool for capital accumulation. The ultimate goal of the logic of the people is to promote the comprehensive development of human beings. It is committed to using digital technology to break down information barriers, promoting equalization of public services such as education and healthcare; creating more high-quality jobs by empowering the real economy; and enabling more people to share in development achievements through inclusive finance. Its fundamental purpose is to overcome capital’s enslavement of people and promote human progress and development.

资本逻辑最终导向人的全面异化。一方面，它创造了数字无产者，使其遭受算法的系统性剥削和控制，陷入收入不稳定、权利被剥夺的困境。另一方面，它通过信息茧房和行为操控，侵蚀所有社会成员的主体性、自主性和批判思维能力，将人的整个生命活动都转化为资本积累的工具。人民逻辑的最终目标是促进人的全面发展。它致力于运用数字技术打破信息壁垒，促进教育、医疗等公共服务的均等化；通过赋能实体经济创造更多高质量的就业岗位；通过普惠金融让更多人分享发展成果。其根本目的在于克服资本对人的奴役，促进人的进步与发展。

V. The Historical Necessity and World Significance of the New Form of Socialist Digital Civilization

五、社会主义数字文明新形态的历史必然性与世界意义

Through a systematic comparison of the historical genesis and internal logic of the two development paths of digital civilization, a fundamental conclusion can be drawn: the divergence between contemporary “China’s governance” and “the West’s disorder” in the digital domain is the inevitable sublation and historical transcendence of the logic of capital by the internal logic of the people in the former when confronting the digital revolution.

通过对两种数字文明发展路径的历史生成及内在逻辑进行系统比较，可以得出一个根本结论：当代“中国之治”与“西方之乱”在数字领域的分野，是前者在面对数字革命时，其内在的人民逻辑对资本逻辑的必然扬弃与历史性超越。

The core of the logic of capital lies in the infinite expansion of capital. The 2008 international financial crisis became a historical opportunity for the capitalist system to seek a “life-extending” solution in the digital age. Capital opened a new path for the continuation of accumulation through data extraction, but this path inevitably leads to a mutually reinforcing vicious cycle: data extraction requires scale, leading to “winner-takes-all” monopoly; monopoly capital erodes public power, causing state governance failure; “the capital accumulation mechanism, relying on algorithms, platforms, and data monopolies, constructs a new system of value extraction, with the alienation trend of wealth accumulation and distribution mechanisms becoming increasingly evident”; the entire system is built on the systematic exploitation of digital proletarians and the total alienation of the public, further exacerbating social fragmentation and political paralysis. The chaos in the digital domain of the United States and the West is the extreme manifestation of this logic of capital developed in the post-crisis era.

资本逻辑的核心在于资本的无限增殖。2008年国际金融危机成为资本主义制度在数字时代寻求“续命”方案的历史契机。资本通过数据萃取开辟了延续积累的新路径，但这条路径不可避免地导向互相强化的恶性循环：数据萃取要求规模化，导致“赢家通吃”的垄断；垄断资本侵蚀公共权力，导致国家治理失灵，“资本积累机制依托算法、平台与数据垄断，构建起新的价值攫取体系，财富积累和分配机制的异化趋势愈发明显”;整个体系建立在对数字无产者的系统性剥削和对社会公众的全面异化之上，并进一步加剧社会撕裂与政治瘫痪。美西方数字领域的乱象，是这套资本逻辑在后危机时代发展到极致的体现。

In contrast, the reason Chinese-path modernization can open a new chapter of civilization in the digital age lies in its adherence to the people-centered development logic. The state engages in top-level strategic planning (such as establishing the National Data Administration) to ensure that the development of new technologies serves the overall interests of society; it is committed to sharing and recreating public data as social wealth (such as authorized operation of public data), rather than allowing private appropriation without compensation; it safeguards the national sovereignty of digital economy infrastructure (such as promoting the digital yuan), preventing key areas from being controlled by private capital.

与此相对，中国式现代化能在数字时代开创文明新篇章，根源在于其遵循的是以人民为中心的发展逻辑。国家从顶层进行战略规划(如设立国家数据局),确保新技术发展服务于社会整体利益；致力于将公共数据作为社会财富加以共享和再创造(如公共数据授权运营),而非任由私人无偿占有；捍卫数字经济基础设施的国家主权(如推动数字人民币),防止关键领域受制于私人资本。

Based on the fundamental transcendence of the people-centered logic over the logic of capital, a scientific definition can be made of the new form of socialist digital civilization, which is the concrete manifestation in the digital domain of the new form of human civilization pioneered by Chinese-path modernization. It is rooted in the historical reality being generated by Marxist scientific theory and the great practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and achieves a fundamental sublation of digital capitalism in terms of mode of production, value orientation, and governance model: in the mode of production, it constructs a new type of relations of production with public data and national digital infrastructure as the core, public ownership as the mainstay, and multiple forms of ownership developing together, capable of consciously steering digital productive forces and preventing their alienation into a tool for a minority to profit; in value orientation, it transforms the highest goal of digital technology development from extracting profit to creating social value, ultimately serving the comprehensive development of the human person; in the governance model, it transcends the binary opposition of “state—market,” and through proactive top-level design and institutional construction, demonstrates the strong agency of the socialist state in guiding and shaping the direction of the new technological revolution.

基于人民逻辑对资本逻辑的根本性超越，可以对中国式现代化开创的人类文明新形态在数字领域的具体体现，即社会主义数字文明新形态，作出科学界定。它根植于马克思主义科学理论和中国特色社会主义伟大实践正在生成的历史现实，在生产方式、价值指向和治理模式上实现了对数字资本主义的根本性扬弃：在生产方式上，构建了以公共数据和国家数字基础设施为核心、公有制为主体并多种所有制共同发展的新型生产关系，能够自觉驾驭数字生产力，避免其异化为少数人牟利的工具；在价值指向上，将数字技术发展的最高目标从攫取利润转变为创造社会价值，最终服务于人的全面发展；在治理模式上，超越了“国家—市场”的二元对立，通过主动的顶层设计和制度建构，展现了社会主义国家在引导和塑造新科技革命方向上的强大能动性。

World history has arrived at a critical crossroads: the path that takes the unlimited expansion of capital as its guiding principle is moving toward increasingly severe systemic crises in the digital age, while the path that takes human liberation and comprehensive development as its purpose, through the conscious adjustment of socialist relations of production and institutional construction, displays a vigorous vitality that leads human civilization toward a new stage. China’s exploration of a new form of socialist digital civilization provides valuable Chinese wisdom and Chinese solutions for Global South countries to achieve autonomous development in the digital age and avoid becoming “data colonies,” further highlighting the powerful vitality and bright prospects of 21st-century scientific socialism.

世界历史已行至关键的十字路口：以资本无限增殖为圭臬的道路在数字时代走向日益严重的系统性危机，而以人的解放和全面发展为旨归的道路则通过社会主义生产关系的自觉调适与制度建构，展现出引领人类文明迈向新阶段的蓬勃生机。中国对社会主义数字文明新形态的探索，为全球南方国家在数字时代实现自主发展、避免成为“数据殖民地”提供了宝贵的中国智慧与中国方案，进一步彰显了21世纪科学社会主义的强大生命力和光明前景。