A Critique of the Ideological Logic of Cognitive Capitalism

The concept of “cognitive capitalism” originates from the French scholar Yann Moulier Boutang. Boutang argues that cognitive capitalism is a transformed form of capitalism from traditional productive labor to immaterial labor, where immaterial elements such as knowledge, information, and data replace material resources as the primary means of production, cognitive labor becomes the dominant force in value creation, and the logic of capital accumulation is restructured around the appropriation and exploitation of cognitive resources. “Cognitive capitalism not only produces knowledge but also produces the way of life of contemporary people; the construction of the way of life of contemporary people by cognitive capitalism is called ‘the production of life’,”[1]1 Yann Moulier Boutang, *Cognitive Capitalism*, trans. Yang Yimin (Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press, 2022), p. 45. therefore, cognitive capitalism is also referred to as “cognitive life capitalism.” Cognitive capitalism has achieved a transformation of ideology from explicit coerciveness to implicit productiveness, and the degree of refinement of its logic of capital rule far exceeds that of the era of industrial capitalism. Industrial capitalism, centered on machine-based mass production, constructed its ideology around a productivist narrative of labor creating value. In the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, Marx profoundly revealed this capitalist ideology characterized by “alienated labor”: on the one hand, capital, by appropriating the means of production, alienates concrete labor into abstract labor; on the other hand, workers participate in value creation by selling their labor power, disguising the exploitative relationship as an equivalent exchange between labor and capital. The ideology of industrial capitalism is oppressive; its mechanism of rule is visible. Workers perceive, through bodily experience, the discipline of labor by machines and the deprivation of value by wages, which provides the cognitive basis for the awakening of proletarian consciousness. Cognitive capitalism takes data/knowledge as its core means of production. The essence of its ideological construction is to alienate knowledge into a commodity for market exchange and, through the symbolic packaging of a liberation narrative, to make workers actively participate in the production of surplus value. Industrial capitalism manifests as the alienation of labor; cognitive capitalism manifests as the alienation of knowledge on the basis of the alienation of labor. Workers not only produce datafied commodities but also produce a datafied self; platforms, through algorithms, transform the process of knowledge production into a process of user-generated content, leading workers to mistakenly believe that knowledge creation is self-realization. Compared to the industrial capitalist era’s “labor is the species-being of man,” cognitive capitalism superficially presents a liberation narrative of “knowledge changes destiny.” Through the narrative of intellectual property, it ostensibly raises the knowledge level of workers, but in reality, through capital’s cognitive enclosure movement, it privatizes knowledge originally belonging to the public sphere, thereby replacing the non-rivalrous nature of public knowledge with the exclusivity of capital. Compared to the external discipline of industrial capitalism’s panopticism, cognitive capitalism, through algorithmic governance, internalizes the power of capital into the self-discipline of workers. The subtlety of this self-discipline lies in the fact that workers internalize the exploitative logic of capital as a rational choice, thereby completing their own exploitation within a “fantasy of freedom.” The ideological transformation from industrial capitalism to cognitive capitalism is, in essence, an evolution of capital’s rule from “hard control” to “soft penetration.” The carrier of capital’s rule shifts from factory machinery to digital platforms and algorithms, achieving a dematerialized and concealed control of capital; the logic of capital’s rule shifts from external discipline to self-governance, making workers “voluntarily” submit to capital through ideology; the form of capitalist exploitation shifts from the explicit appropriation of labor time to the implicit plunder of cognitive value, with the subjectivity of workers becoming a new tool for capital’s valorization. In this regard, only by returning to Marx’s critique of political economy can we penetrate the fog of the so-called “liberation narrative” of cognitive capitalism and reveal the deepest logic of its rule—it no longer coercively oppresses the subject, but makes the subject willingly oppressed, achieving a more concealed and more efficient exploitation. In short, the deep logic of making the subject willingly oppressed in cognitive capitalism is not the “benevolence” of capital’s rule, but an upgrade of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, adapting to the new forms of knowledge production, cognitive labor, and digital technology, shifting the logic of rule from external coercion to cognitive internalization. If the ideology of industrial capitalism belongs to the binary framework of “oppression—resistance,” then the ideology of cognitive capitalism belongs to a composite framework that is both oppressive and productive. It not only disciplines the subject but also reproduces the subject’s “voluntariness,” thereby constructing a more stable, more concealed, and more efficient ideological structure of bourgeois rule.

“认知资本主义”概念源自法国学者雅安·莫里耶·布当。布当认为，认知资本主义是资本主义从传统生产劳动向非物质劳动的转型形态，知识、信息、数据等非物质要素取代物质资源成为主要生产资料，认知劳动成为价值创造的主导力量，资本积累逻辑围绕认知资源的占有与剥削实现重构。“认知资本主义不仅生产知识，而且生产当代人的生活方式，认知资本主义对于当代人的生活方式的建构叫作‘生命的生产’”,因此，认知资本主义又被称为“认知生命资本主义”。认知资本主义实现了意识形态从显性压制性向隐性生产性的转型，其资本统治逻辑的精密化程度远超工业资本主义时代。工业资本主义以机器大生产为核心，其意识形态构建围绕劳动创造价值的生产主义叙事展开。马克思在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中深刻揭示了这种以“异化劳动”为特征的资本主义意识形态：一方面，资本通过占有生产资料将具体劳动异化为抽象劳动；另一方面，工人通过出卖劳动力参与价值创造，将剥削关系伪装为劳动与资本的等价交换。工业资本主义的意识形态具有压迫性，其统治机制是可见的，工人通过身体经验感知机器对劳动的规训、工资对价值的剥夺，这为无产阶级意识的觉醒提供了认知基础。认知资本主义以数据/知识为核心生产资料，其意识形态构建的本质是将知识异化为市场交换的商品，并通过解放叙事的符号包装，使劳动者主动参与剩余价值的生产。工业资本主义表现为劳动异化，认知资本主义表现为劳动异化基础上的知识异化，劳动者不仅生产数据化的商品，更生产数据化的自我；平台通过算法将知识生产过程转化为用户生成内容的过程，使劳动者误以为知识创作是自我实现。相较于工业资本主义时期“劳动是人的类本质”,认知资本主义表面上是“知识改变命运”的解放叙事，通过知识产权叙事表面上提升劳动者知识水平，而实际上通过资本的认知圈地运动，将原本属于公共领域的知识私有化，从而使公共知识的非竞争性被资本的排他性所取代。相较于工业资本主义的全景敞视主义的外部规训，认知资本主义通过算法治理将资本权力内化为劳动者的自我规训。这种自我规训的精妙之处在于：劳动者将资本的剥削逻辑内化为理性选择，从而在“自由幻象”中完成对自身的剥削。从工业资本主义到认知资本主义的意识形态转型，在本质上是资本统治从“硬控制”向“软渗透”的进化，资本统治载体从工厂机器变为数字平台与算法，实现资本去实体化隐蔽控制；资本统治逻辑从外部规训变为自我治理，通过意识形态让劳动者“自愿”服从于资本；资本剥削形式从显性的劳动时间占有变为隐性的认知价值掠夺，劳动者的主体性成为资本增殖的新工具。对此，我们只有回到马克思的政治经济学批判，方能穿透认知资本主义所谓的“解放叙事”迷雾，揭示认知资本主义最深层的统治逻辑——它不再是强制性地压迫主体，而是让主体自愿被压迫，实现更隐蔽、更高效的剥削。质言之，认知资本主义中让主体自愿被压迫的深层逻辑，并非资本统治的“仁慈化”,而是资产阶级专政为适应知识生产、认知劳动、数字技术的新形态，将统治逻辑从外部强制转向认知内化的升级。如果说工业资本主义意识形态属于“压迫—反抗”的二元对立框架，那么认知资本主义意识形态则属于既压迫又生产的复合框架，它不仅规训主体，而且再生产主体的“自愿性”,从而构建起更稳定、更隐蔽、更高效的资产阶级意识形态统治结构。

I. A Reinterpretation of the Essence of Ideology: The Specific Positioning of Cognitive Capitalist Ideology

一、意识形态的本质重释：认知资本主义意识形态的特殊定位

If Marx and Engels’ definition of the concept of ideology in *The German Ideology* belongs to a scientific “judgment of truth or falsehood,” then Mannheim’s definition of the concept of ideology belongs to the “situational analysis” of the sociology of knowledge. In Mannheim’s view, ideology is a system of thought and cognitive framework formed by a particular social group (class, stratum, professional group, etc.) in a specific historical situation, reflecting its conditions of existence and interests. If the ideology of industrial capitalism takes tangible means of production as its material basis, with capital’s valorization originating from capital’s external coercion over labor, and the laboring subject still maintains a cognitive distance from the logic of rule, forming an ideological mechanism of coercive rule, then cognitive capitalism takes data/knowledge as its basis of means of production. Through technological intermediaries such as algorithms and platforms, the logic of capital’s rule is internalized into the intrinsic needs of the laboring subject, completing a closed loop from external coercion to internal identification, forming a new type of ideological mechanism of non-coercive rule. The difference between the ideology of industrial capitalism and the ideology of cognitive capitalism lies in whether the rule is visible. The visibility of the rule of industrial capitalist ideology provides workers with a clear fulcrum for resistance; capital’s rule is anchored in a centralized physical space, meaning workers can identify “who is oppressing,” “how they are being oppressed,” and “how to resist.” The invisibility of the rule of cognitive capitalist ideology dissolves the workers’ fulcrum for resistance; capital’s rule is anchored in a de-bordered digital space, making it difficult for workers to perceive “who is oppressing,” “how they are being oppressed,” and “how to resist.” This difference reflects the evolution of capital’s rule from the direct manifestation of external violence to the implicit internalization of self-discipline, with the goal of weakening workers’ consciousness of resistance and capacity for action by reducing the visibility of rule. It must be pointed out that whether it is the ideology of industrial capitalism or the ideology of cognitive capitalism, both are, in essence, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

如果说马克思恩格斯在《德意志意识形态》中对意识形态概念的界定属于科学意义上的“真假判断”,那么曼海姆对意识形态概念的界定则属于知识社会学的“情境分析”。在曼海姆看来，意识形态是某个社会群体(阶级、阶层、职业团体等)在特定历史情境中形成的、反映其生存条件与利益诉求的思想体系与认知框架。如果说工业资本主义意识形态以实体性生产资料为物质基础，资本增殖来源于资本对劳动的外部强制性，劳动主体与统治逻辑依然保持认知距离，形成压制性统治的意识形态机制，那么认知资本主义以数据/知识为生产资料基础，通过算法、平台等技术中介，资本统治逻辑内化为劳动主体的内在需求，完成从外部强制到内在认同的闭环，形成非压制性统治的新型意识形态机制。工业资本主义意识形态与认知资本主义意识形态的差异在于统治是否可见。工业资本主义意识形态统治的可见性为劳动者提供了明确的反抗支点，资本统治锚定集中化的物理空间，即劳动者能识别“谁在压迫”“如何被压迫”“如何反抗”。认知资本主义意识形态统治的不可见性消解了劳动者的反抗支点，资本统治锚定去边界化的数字空间，劳动者难以察觉“谁在压迫”“如何被压迫”“如何反抗”。这种差异反映了资本统治从外部暴力的直接显现到自我规训的隐性内化，其目标是通过降低统治的可见性，削弱劳动者的反抗意识与行动能力。需要指出，无论是工业资本主义意识形态还是认知资本主义意识形态，它们在本质上都是资产阶级专政。

1. The Theoretical Legacy of Traditional Ideological Critique

1.传统意识形态批判的理论遗产

The theoretical legacy of traditional ideological critique constitutes the basic framework for understanding the operation of power in modern society. From Marx’s “how to identify false consciousness,” to Althusser’s “how to institutionalize ideology,” to Foucault’s “how to make ideology effective,” the theory of ideological critique presents an evolutionary logic from macro-level class rule to meso-level institutional mechanisms to micro-level subject construction, gradually revealing the complete logical chain of how ideology shifts from the concealment of external exploitation to the production of internal subjectivity. This genealogy is not only an academic historical accumulation of theory but also a response to the deep transformation of the forms of bourgeois ruling power.

传统意识形态批判的理论遗产构成了理解现代社会权力运作的基础框架。从马克思的“如何辨别虚假意识”,到阿尔都塞的“如何使意识形态体制化”,再到福柯的“如何使意识形态生效”,意识形态批判理论呈现出从宏观阶级统治到中观体制机制再到微观主体建构的演进逻辑，逐步揭示了意识形态如何从外部性剥削遮蔽转向内在性主体生产的完整逻辑链条。这一谱系不仅是理论的学术史积累，更是对资产阶级统治权力形态深层转型的回应。

In *The German Ideology*, Marx and Engels first systematically proposed the theory of “false consciousness,” laying the cornerstone of ideological critique. “Consciousness [das Bewußtsein] can never be anything else than conscious being [das bewußte Sein], and the being of men is their actual life-process. If in all ideology men and their relations appear upside-down as in a camera obscura, this phenomenon arises just as much from their historical life-process as the inversion of objects on the retina does from their physical life-process.”[2]2 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *The German Ideology*, in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 5 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 36. In the view of Marx and Engels, “false consciousness” is, in essence, an inverted representation of social relations. “False consciousness” is not erroneous ideas but conceptual tools actively constructed by the ruling class, providing a so-called cloak of legitimacy for class rule through conceptual packaging, transforming exploitation from violent coercion into moral justification.

马克思恩格斯在《德意志意识形态》中首次系统提出“虚假意识”理论，奠定了意识形态批判的基石。“意识[das Bewußtsein]在任何时候都只能是被意识到了的存在[das bewußte Sein],而人们的存在就是他们的现实生活过程。如果在全部意识形态中，人们和他们的关系就像在照相机中一样是倒立成像的，那么这种现象也是从人们生活的历史过程中产生的，正如物体在视网膜上的倒影是直接从人们生活的生理过程中产生的一样。”在马克思恩格斯看来，“虚假意识”在本质上是社会关系的颠倒性表征，“虚假意识”并非错误的观念，而是统治阶级主动建构的观念工具，经过概念包装为阶级统治提供所谓合法性外衣，使剥削从暴力压迫转化为道德正当。

Althusser concretized Marx and Engels’ theory of “false consciousness,” proposing that ideology is not merely a system of ideas but a material practice realized through state apparatuses. Schools, churches, and other institutions not only disseminate the ideology of the ruling class but also, through institutionalized daily rituals and practical behaviors, shape individuals into subjects under a specific social structure through repetition. The core breakthrough of Althusser’s theory of ideological state apparatuses lies in this: ideology, through the mechanism of interpellation, summons individuals into subjects who conform to the ruling order, transforming class rule from external oppression into internal identification. It shifts ideological critique from a critique of ideas to a critique of institutions, from class instrument to subject production, and from violent rule to rule by identification.

阿尔都塞将马克思恩格斯的“虚假意识”理论具体化，提出意识形态不仅是观念体系，更是通过国家机器实现的物质性实践。学校、教会等不仅传播统治阶级的意识形态，而且通过制度化的日常仪式与实践行为，在重复中将个体塑造为特定社会结构下的主体。阿尔都塞的意识形态国家机器理论的核心突破在于：意识形态通过询唤机制，将个体召唤为符合统治秩序的主体，使阶级统治从外部压迫转化为内在认同。它实现了意识形态批判从观念批判到制度批判、从阶级工具到主体生产、从暴力统治到认同统治的转变。

Foucault turned Althusser’s mechanism of ideological interpellation toward daily practice, transforming ideology from external oppression into internal need. His core argument is that rule in modern society no longer relies on the mechanism of interpellation but, through the symbiosis of knowledge and power, enables individuals to achieve self-governance through active discipline, whereby ideology shifts from being a tool of the other to a technology of the self. The individual is no longer a passive subject being interpellated but an active subject who participates in rule through technologies of the self, thereby making the rule of bourgeois ideology more concealed and more entrenched.

福柯将阿尔都塞的意识形态询唤机制转向日常实践，将意识形态从外部压迫转化为内在需求。其核心观点是：现代社会的统治不再依赖询唤机制，而是通过知识与权力的共生，使个体通过主动规训实现自我治理，意识形态由此从他者的工具转化为自我的技术。个体不再是被询唤的被动主体，而是通过自我技术主动参与统治的积极主体，进而使资产阶级意识形态的统治更隐蔽、更牢固。

2. The Specific Breakthrough of the Ideology of Cognitive Capitalism

2.认知资本主义意识形态的特殊性突破

The core breakthrough in ideological control under cognitive capitalism lies in the shift of its carrier from traditional media to digital platforms. Under cognitive capitalism, digital platforms construct distributed networks through algorithmic recommendations, social relationship chains, and contextualized services. From digital platforms recommending homogenized content based on user profiles, to digital platforms transforming social relationship chains as means of production into social capital graphs, to digital platforms embedding users’ digital behaviors as their autonomous choices through contextualization, a qualitative change in ideological control from explicit discipline to implicit shaping is achieved.

认知资本主义意识形态控制的核心突破在于载体从传统媒体转向数字平台。认知资本主义下的数字平台通过算法推荐、社交关系链、场景化服务构建分布式网络。从数字平台通过用户画像推荐同质化内容，到数字平台将社交关系链作为生产资料转化为社交资本图谱，再到数字平台通过场景化嵌入将用户数字行为内化为其自主选择，实现了意识形态控制从显性规训到隐性塑造的质变。

The logic of ideological control under cognitive capitalism has achieved a shift from concealing forced exploitation to actively rationalizing exploitation. Cognitive capitalism uses immaterial labor to dissolve the visibility of exploitation, through the ideological packaging of knowledge sharing, the mythic narrative of the de-alienation of creative labor, and the expectation of self-realization through investment in human capital, causing laborers to incorporate capital’s demands into their own value coordinate system and even actively participate in and maintain the mechanism of exploitation. Thus, exploitation shifts from exploitation by the other to self-exploitation. This control is completed under the appearance of so-called free choice: users actively accept information cocoons within personalized recommendations, abandon deep thinking in interactions with AI assistants, and lose their authentic selves in digital social interaction.

认知资本主义意识形态的控制逻辑实现了从掩盖被迫性剥削到主动合理化剥削的转向。认知资本主义运用非物质劳动消解剥削可见性，通过对知识共享的意识形态包装，对创造性劳动的去异化神话叙事，对人力资本投资自我实现的期许，使劳动者将资本需求纳入自我价值坐标系，甚至主动参与并维护剥削机制，这样，剥削就从他者剥削转变为自我剥削。这种控制在所谓自由选择的表象中完成，用户在个性化推荐中主动接受信息茧房，在与AI助手的互动中放弃深度思考，在数字社交中迷失真实自我。

The value core of the ideology of cognitive capitalism has achieved a substitution of legitimacy from traditional sacred narratives to cognitive-rational narratives. The core of this substitution lies in knowledge being elevated from a tool to a value, becoming the ultimate standard for measuring the legitimacy of all social behavior. Cognitive capitalism forcibly associates knowledge production with narratives of liberation, shaping a cognitive inertia that “technology necessarily brings freedom” through disruptive technologies such as AI, blockchain, and gene editing. Cognitive capitalism, by monopolizing scientific discourse, tilts the power of knowledge production entirely toward capital, forming a ruling pattern where capital defines knowledge and knowledge controls humanity.

认知资本主义意识形态的价值内核实现了从传统的神圣性叙事到认知理性叙事的合法性替代，这种替代的核心在于——知识从工具升格为价值，成为衡量一切社会行为合法性的终极标准。认知资本主义将知识生产与解放叙事强行关联，通过AI、区块链、基因编辑等颠覆性技术，塑造“技术必然带来自由”的认知惯性。认知资本主义借助科学话语垄断使知识生产的权力彻底向资本倾斜，形成资本定义知识、知识控制人类的统治格局。

However, the liberation narrative of cognitive capitalism must still follow Marx’s dialectical laws concerning human liberation. Advancing political liberation, such as digital rights equality, algorithmic transparency, and data sharing, constitutes the necessary prerequisite for the liberation narrative of cognitive capitalism; breaking data monopolies, dissolving algorithmic control, and abolishing private knowledge ownership constitute the core foundation of the liberation narrative of cognitive capitalism; achieving cognitive liberation, such as comprehensive knowledge sharing, algorithms under social control, and cognitive labor becoming free and conscious activity, constitutes the ultimate goal of the liberation narrative of cognitive capitalism. In other words, political liberation is the necessary prerequisite, requiring expansion from traditional formal rights to digital political rights; economic liberation is the core, requiring deepening from the public ownership of material means of production to the comprehensive sharing of cognitive means of production; cognitive liberation is the goal, requiring, on the basis of eliminating the economic alienation of digital capitalism, the further elimination of cognitive colonization, ultimately realizing Marx’s envisioned “free and comprehensive development of the individual.”

然而，认知资本主义的解放叙事仍要遵循马克思关于人类解放的辩证法则。推进数字权利平等、算法透明、数据共享等政治解放构成认知资本主义解放叙事的必要前提，打破数据垄断、消解算法控制、破除知识私有等经济解放构成认知资本主义解放叙事的核心基础，实现知识全面共享、算法由社会共同控制、认知劳动成为自由自觉的活动等认知解放构成认知资本主义解放叙事的最终目标。换言之，政治解放是必要前提，需从传统形式权利扩展至数字政治权利；经济解放是核心，需从物质生产资料公有化深化为认知生产资料全面共享；认知解放是目标，需在消除数字资本主义经济异化的基础上，进一步消除认知殖民，最终实现马克思设想的“人的自由而全面的发展”。

II. The Generative Basis of Ideology: The Transformation of the Mode of Production in Cognitive Capitalism

二、意识形态的生成基础：认知资本主义的生产方式变革

Marx and Engels pointed out in *The German Ideology* that “it is not consciousness that determines life, but life that determines consciousness.” The fundamental transformation of cognitive capitalism lies in the new form of the means of production: data replaces land, machinery, factories, and other objective conditions of labor as the core means of production, and its non-rivalrous nature and infinite reproducibility subvert the traditional logic of property rights. The reason why the logic of data property rights gives rise to the ideology of cognitive capitalism based on knowledge sharing is that the non-rivalrous nature of data means its monopolization must be packaged discursively as open sharing. If data privatization were directly proclaimed, it would trigger user resistance and regulatory intervention; whereas the so-called narrative of knowledge democratization both conceals the inequality of data possession and stimulates users to actively cede the fruits of their cognitive labor. In essence, this ideology serves to defend the legitimacy of the enclosure movement for data. The generation of the ideology of cognitive capitalism is, in essence, the necessary projection of data monopolization, cognitive exploitation, and the colonization of attention into the realm of ideas, because only by disguising capital accumulation as the cognitive liberation of humanity can the legitimacy of capital’s rule be maintained in the era of cognitive capitalism.

马克思恩格斯在《德意志意识形态》中指出，“不是意识决定生活，而是生活决定意识”。认知资本主义的根本变革在于生产资料的新形态：数据取代土地、机器、厂房等劳动的客观条件成为核心生产资料，其非竞争性、无限复制性颠覆了传统产权逻辑。数据产权逻辑之所以催生知识共享的认知资本主义意识形态，是因为数据的非竞争性导致其垄断必须以开放共享为话语包装。若直接宣称数据私有，将引发用户抵制与监管干预；而所谓的知识民主化叙事既掩盖数据占有的不平等，又刺激用户主动让渡认知劳动成果。在本质上讲，这种意识形态是为数据圈地运动的合法性作辩护的。认知资本主义意识形态的生成在本质上是数据垄断、认知剥削、注意力殖民等在观念领域的必然投射，因为只有将资本增殖伪装成人类认知解放，才能在认知资本主义时代维系资本统治的合法性。

1. The “Knowledge-ization” of the Means of Production

1.生产资料的“知识化”

The transformation of the form of the means of production has always been the core driving force of the evolution of the capitalist mode of production. In the era of industrial capitalism, the contradiction in the ownership of the means of production manifested as the opposition between the monopolistic possession of the objective conditions of labor and living labor. As Marx stated, from the perspective of capital, it is not that one element of social activity becomes an increasingly massive body of another element, but that the objective conditions of labor acquire an ever greater independence vis-à-vis living labor, and an ever greater portion of social wealth confronts labor as an alien and ruling power. By possessing the objective conditions of labor, such as land, machinery, and factories, the capitalist achieves the quantitative division of the labor time of living labor and the structural extraction of surplus value.

生产资料的形态变革始终是资本主义生产方式演进的核心驱动力。在工业资本主义时代，生产资料所有制的矛盾体现为劳动的客观条件垄断性占有与活劳动的对立。正如马克思所言，从资本的角度看，不是社会活动的一个要素成为另一个要素的越来越庞大的躯体，而是劳动的客观条件对活劳动具有越来越巨大的独立性，而社会财富的越来越巨大的部分作为异己的和统治的权力同劳动相对立。资本家通过占有土地、机器、厂房等劳动的客观条件，实现对活劳动的劳动时间的量化分割与剩余价值的结构性榨取。

In the era of cognitive capitalism, the revolution in the means of production presents a dual variation of dematerialization and knowledge-ization. Data, algorithmic models, and intellectual property become the core forms of the new means of production. The non-rivalrous nature of data, the self-iterative nature of algorithms, and the legal exclusivity of intellectual property construct the institutional barriers of the enclosure movement for knowledge. This cognitive monopoly creates a more concealed control mechanism than in the era of industrial capitalism—no longer relying on physical coercion, but shaping the cognitive framework of labor subjects by controlling the process of knowledge production.

在认知资本主义时代，生产资料的革命呈现非物质化与知识化的双重变奏。数据、算法模型、知识产权成为新型生产资料的核心形态，数据的非竞争性、算法的自我迭代性、知识产权的法律排他性，构建起知识圈地运动的制度壁垒。这种认知垄断形成了比工业资本主义时代更隐蔽的控制机制——不再依赖物理强制，而是通过控制知识生产过程塑造劳动主体的认知框架。

If industrial capitalism exploits the labor time of the subject, then cognitive capitalism achieves a cognitive turn in the object of exploitation. Foucault’s disciplinary society evolves in the digital age into algorithmic discipline. This cognitive standardization extends exploitation to the level of modes of thinking, forming a technology of the self in the Foucauldian sense, where laborers actively discipline themselves according to the cognitive framework set by capital, completing the self-implementation of exploitation. In a sense, cognitive capitalism not only monopolizes the means of production but also, by defining “how knowledge is produced” through algorithms, incorporates the entire social cognitive system into the track of capital accumulation.

如果说工业资本主义剥削的是主体的劳动时间，那么，认知资本主义就实现了剥削对象的认知转向。福柯笔下的规训社会在数字时代演变为算法规训，这种认知标准化使剥削深入到思维方式层面，形成福柯意义上的自我技术，劳动者主动以资本设定的认知框架规训自身，完成剥削的自我实施。在某种意义上讲，认知资本主义不只是垄断生产资料，更是通过算法定义“如何生产知识”,将整个社会认知体系纳入资本增殖的轨道。

From the steam engine to generative artificial intelligence, the knowledge-ization of the means of production marks the escalation of capitalist contradictions at the cognitive dimension. The contradiction between the non-rivalrous nature of data and data monopolization, the contradiction between the public nature of algorithms and algorithmic privatization, and the contradiction between cognitive universality and cognitive enclosure constitute the evident contradictions of cognitive capitalism. When data becomes a more core means of production than land, and when algorithms determine the value of labor more than machines, the socialist movement must consider cognitive liberation. Reconstructing the public ownership of data, the democratization of algorithms, and the sharing of knowledge thus becomes the historical necessity for transcending the logic of capital in the digital age.

从蒸汽机到生成式人工智能，生产资料的知识化标志着资本主义矛盾在认知维度的升级。数据非竞争性与数据垄断的矛盾、算法公共性与算法私有的矛盾、认知普遍性与认知圈地的矛盾构成认知资本主义显而易见的矛盾。当数据成为比土地更核心的生产资料，当算法比机器更能决定劳动价值，社会主义运动必须考虑认知解放，重建数据公有制、算法民主化、知识共享化便成为数字时代超越资本逻辑的历史必然。

2. The “Cognitivization” of the Form of Labor

2.劳动形态的“认知化”

The labor form in the era of industrial capitalism belongs to the disciplinary labor form of the body. It achieves physical control over labor through the spatial enclosure of the factory system, completely depriving the labor process of its autonomy; it reduces workers’ labor to mechanical operations such as “tightening screws” and “mounting tires” through deskilling assembly lines; and it skillfully conceals the essence of capital exploitation through ideological construction, transforming class contradictions into differences in individual ability, thereby completing the deep control of labor. From the textile mills of Manchester to the automobile assembly lines of Detroit, industrial capitalism constructed a four-dimensional disciplinary system of labor integrating “space, time, body, and cognition.”

工业资本主义时代的劳动形态属于身体规训型劳动形态，通过工厂制度的空间封闭实现对劳动的物理控制，彻底剥夺了劳动过程的自主性；通过去技能化的生产流水线将工人的劳动简化为“拧螺丝”“装轮胎”等机械操作；通过意识形态建构巧妙掩盖了资本剥削的本质，将阶级矛盾转化为个人能力差异，从而完成对劳动的深层控制。从曼彻斯特的纺织厂到底特律的汽车流水线，工业资本主义构建了一套“空间—时间—身体—认知”四维一体的劳动规训体系。

The labor form in the era of cognitive capitalism exhibits heterogeneity: new types of labor such as knowledge creation, emotional service, and data annotation are defined by the Italian autonomist Marxist scholar Maurizio Lazzarato as “immaterial labor,” that is, labor that produces the informational and cultural content of commodities. The concept of “immaterial labor” profoundly reveals the operational logic of cognitive capitalism: when data becomes the core means of production, when algorithms define the value of labor, and when computing power becomes capitalized means of production, capitalist exploitation has shifted from bodily control to cognitive colonization.

认知资本主义时代的劳动形态呈现出异质性：知识创造、情感服务、数据标注等新型劳动形式，被意大利自治主义学派学者毛里齐奥·拉扎拉托定义为“非物质劳动”,即生产商品信息内容与文化内容的劳动。“非物质劳动”概念深刻揭示了认知资本主义的运作逻辑：当数据成为核心生产资料，当算法定义劳动价值，当算力成为资本化的生产资料，资本主义剥削已从身体控制转向认知殖民。

When the labor form shifts from material labor to immaterial labor, the standard of value measurement based on “socially necessary labor time” faces a systemic challenge. As Marx predicted, “once labor in its direct form has ceased to be the great source of wealth, labor time ceases and must cease to be its measure, and hence exchange value ceases to be the measure of use value.” [6]6 Karl Marx, Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie (1857–1858), Notebook VII. The source of value in cognitive labor lies in the “general intellect” as the overall knowledge system of society. Every programmer’s code, every bank teller’s transaction, and every data annotator’s judgment is a concrete application of the cognitive resources accumulated by human civilization.

当劳动形态从物质劳动转变为非物质劳动，价值度量的“社会必要劳动时间”标准遭遇系统性挑战。正如马克思所预言的，“一旦直接形式的劳动不再是财富的巨大源泉，劳动时间就不再是，而且必然不再是财富的尺度，因而交换价值也不再是使用价值的尺度”。认知劳动的价值根源在于作为社会整体知识体系的“一般智力”,每个程序员的代码、每个柜员的交易、每个数据标注员的判断，都是人类文明积累的认知资源的具体应用。

From Amazon’s cognitive piecework wages to Manila’s data annotation factories, millions of cognitive proletarians are converting the impulses of their neural synapses into the binary code of algorithm training. The cognitive transformation of the labor form drives a geometric leap in cognitive productive forces, while also constructing an embedded mechanism of exploitation at the neurocognitive level. This fragmentation and deskilling of cognitive labor degrades uniquely human judgment, emotional resonance, and creative thinking into computational units of “biological algorithms.” This phenomenon of “play labor” [7]7 “Play labor” (玩劳动) refers to the phenomenon in digital capitalism where leisure activities such as gaming, social media use, or content creation are simultaneously forms of unpaid value-producing labor for the platform. allows capital exploitation to penetrate every scene of symbolic interaction in daily life. When emotions become commodities, inspiration becomes a KPI, thinking becomes training data for algorithms, and users are immersed in the pleasure of “liking, commenting, and sharing,” cognitive resources are thereby transferred to digital capital.

从亚马逊的认知计件工资到马尼拉的数据标注工厂，数百万认知无产者正将神经突触的脉冲转化为算法训练的二进制代码，劳动形态的认知化转型催生认知生产力几何级数跃升，也在神经认知层面构建起剥削嵌入机制。这种认知劳动的碎片化与去技能化，使人类独有的判断力、情感共鸣与创造性思维降格为“生物算法”的计算单元。这种“玩劳动”现象使资本剥削渗透到日常生活的每个符号互动场景，当情感成为商品、灵感成为KPI、思维成为算法训练数据、用户沉浸在“点赞—评论—分享”的快感中时，认知资源便完成了向数字资本的让渡。

3. The “Concealment” of Capital Valorization

3.资本增殖的“隐蔽化”

The most fundamental transformation in the mode of production under cognitive capitalism lies in the shift of the means of production from tangible matter to intangible symbols. This shift blurs the boundaries of capital ownership. From now on, capital’s enclosure of data no longer relies on violent expropriation but achieves the peaceful occupation of cognitive means of production through the digital contracts of user agreements. In this process, the ideology of property rights plays a key role. The myth of “labor creates ownership” in the era of industrial capitalism transforms in the era of cognitive capitalism into the myth that “technological innovation determines property rights.” This ideology of property rights skillfully conceals the non-rivalrous nature of cognition.

认知资本主义最根本的生产方式变革，在于生产资料从有形物质向无形符号转变。这种转变使得资本所有权的边界变得模糊，从此资本的数据圈地运动不再依赖暴力剥夺，而是通过用户协议的数字契约，完成对认知生产资料的和平占有。在此过程中产权意识形态扮演了关键角色，工业资本主义时代“劳动创造所有权”的神话，在认知资本主义时代转变为“技术创新决定产权”的神话，这种产权意识形态巧妙掩盖了认知的非竞争性的本质。

The exploitation of industrial capitalism relied on the explicit mechanism of “factory walls plus time-and-piece wages,” while cognitive capitalism, through the ideological disguise of “prosumption,” [8]8 “Prosumption” (产消合一) is a portmanteau of “production” and “consumption,” describing the blurring of these roles in digital economies where users both create and consume content. achieves the complete concealment of capital exploitation, from content production to data annotation to social media dissemination. The concealment of this capital exploitation lies in the blurring of the boundary between labor time and leisure time, the interweaving of production space and living space, and the fusion of the roles of producer and consumer. In this process, the ideology of algorithmic technological neutrality plays a key role. The plunder of capital within the algorithmic black box is transformed into the natural outcome of so-called fair competition, and workers attribute capital exploitation to market laws or individual ability, thereby concealing the true source of surplus value, which comes from the living labor of the worker.

工业资本主义的剥削依赖“工厂围墙+计时计件工资”的显性机制，而认知资本主义通过“产消合一”的意识形态伪装，从内容生产，到数据标注，再到社交传播，实现了资本剥削的彻底隐蔽化。这种资本剥削的隐蔽性在于：劳动时间与休闲时间的界限被模糊，生产空间与生活空间被交错，生产者与消费者的角色被融合。在此过程中算法的技术中立性意识形态扮演了关键角色，算法黑箱中的资本掠夺转化为所谓公平竞争的自然结果，劳动者将资本剥削归咎于市场规律或个人能力，这样就掩盖了剩余价值来自劳动者活劳动的真正源泉。

The core of the ideology of cognitive capitalism is the construction of a value myth that cognitive labor is special, portraying designers, programmers, and content creators as a privileged group transcending alienated labor. Their high incomes are attributed to creative talent rather than to the exploitative distribution of capital. Through success-story narratives and skill worship, it shifts the attention of cognitive workers from class exploitation to individual competition, dissolving their class consciousness. Even more deceptive is the ideology of knowledge sharing. From the post-capitalist production model of open-source communities to the ideal of free knowledge on Wikipedia, all of these aestheticize capital’s appropriation of the cognitive commons as “charitable acts.”

认知资本主义意识形态的核心是构建了认知劳动具有特殊性的价值神话，将设计师、程序员、内容创作者塑造为超越异化劳动的特权群体，其高收入被归因于创意天赋而非资本剥削性分配，并且通过成功学叙事、技能崇拜等，将认知劳动者的注意力从阶级剥削转向个体竞争，消解其阶级意识。更具欺骗性的是知识共享意识形态，从开源社区的后资本主义生产模式到维基百科的免费知识理想，都是将资本对认知共同性的占有美化为“慈善行为”。

Althusser’s concept of ideological state apparatuses has acquired a new material carrier in the algorithmic age. Traditional ideological state apparatuses relied on the explicit dissemination of symbolic violence, while the algorithmic ideological state apparatus, through a triple nesting of the symbolic plunder of cognitive raw materials via data violence, the ideological implantation of algorithmic logic through code discipline, and the symbolic manipulation of interaction design through interface illusions, transforms ideological penetration into a “naturalized” cognitive mechanism. The essence of this transformation lies in the fact that ideology evolves from a represented system of ideas into a computable behavioral script, and algorithms become the neural hub connecting capital logic with individual cognition.

阿尔都塞所言意识形态国家机器，在算法时代获得了全新的物质载体。传统的意识形态国家机器依赖符号暴力的显性传播，而算法意识形态国家机器则通过数据暴力对认知原料进行符号性掠夺、通过代码规训对算法逻辑进行意识形态植入、通过界面幻觉对交互设计进行符号性操控的三重嵌套，将意识形态渗透转化为“自然化”的认知机制。这种转型的本质在于：意识形态从被表征的观念体系演变为可计算的行为脚本，算法成为连接资本逻辑与个体认知的神经中枢。

III. The Generative Mechanism of Ideology: The Conspiratorial Network of Knowledge, Power, and Capital

三、意识形态的生成机制：知识—权力—资本的共谋网络

If the generation of industrial capitalist ideology was based on the private monopoly of material means of production such as machines and factories, then the generation of cognitive capitalist ideology is based on the private possession of implicit digital devices such as user agreements, recommendation algorithms, and APIs. If industrial capitalist ideology relied on a dual disciplinary mechanism of “violence and contract” for its realization, then cognitive capitalist ideology is accomplished through a refined mechanism of self-discipline. If the ideology of industrial capitalism manifested as a discourse of sharp class antagonism, then the ideology of cognitive capitalism presents itself as a de-classed symbolic disguise. If industrial capitalist ideology took the alienated interpretation of the labor theory of value as its core defense strategy, then cognitive capitalist ideology constructs a value myth of monopoly over cognitive rent. If resistance to industrial capitalist ideology was characterized by bodily resistance, then resistance to cognitive capitalist ideology turns toward symbolic decryption. When knowledge packages capital logic as scientific law, power disguises the need for control as public interest, and capital transforms the mechanism of exploitation into user experience, ideology evolves from a questioned concept into an unquestioned reality. In essence, this naturalized transformation of cognitive capitalist ideology is the “de-ideologization of ideology.”

如果说工业资本主义意识形态的生成是以机器与工厂的物质生产资料的私人垄断为基础，那么认知资本主义意识形态的生成则是以用户协议、推荐算法、API接口等隐性数字装置的私人占有为基础；如果说工业资本主义意识形态依赖“暴力—契约”双重规训机制来实现，那么认知资本主义意识形态则以自我规训的精细化机制来完成；如果说工业资本主义的意识形态表现为鲜明的阶级对立话语，那么认知资本主义的意识形态则呈现为去阶级化的符号性伪装；如果说工业资本主义意识形态是以劳动价值论的异化解释为核心辩护策略，那么认知资本主义意识形态则构建认知租金垄断的价值神话；如果说工业资本主义意识形态的反抗以身体性反抗为特征，那么认知资本主义意识形态的反抗则转向符号性破解。当知识将资本逻辑包装为科学规律，权力将控制需求伪装成公共利益，资本将剥削机制转化为用户体验，意识形态便从被质疑的观念转变为不被反思的现实。质言之，这种认知资本主义意识形态自然化转换的本质是“意识形态的去意识形态化”。

1. The “Depoliticization” Packaging of Knowledge Production

1.知识生产的“去政治化”包装

In the era of cognitive capitalism, knowledge is not a value-neutral objective truth but a carrier of ideological symbols shaped by the conspiracy of power and capital. The core function of knowledge production is to provide cognitive legitimacy for capital valorization and power domination. This ideologization of knowledge production is essentially capital’s transformation of the latent logic of capital domination into so-called scientific common sense through the monopoly of the power to define problems, making knowledge itself a tool for the production of capitalist ideology.

在认知资本主义时代，知识并非价值中立的客观真理，而是权力与资本共谋塑造的意识形态符号载体。知识生产的核心功能是为资本增殖与权力统治提供认知合法性。这种知识生产的意识形态化，实质上是资本通过问题定义权的垄断，将资本统治的潜在逻辑转化为所谓科学常识，使知识本身成为资本主义意识形态的生产工具。

The most successful ideological strategy of cognitive capitalism is none other than packaging digital technologies such as AI and big data as value-neutral tools, concealing their essence as a medium of capital power through a closed-loop argument that technology solves technological problems. This narrative is rooted in Max Weber’s tradition of instrumental rationality, but in the era of cognitive capitalism it has been transformed by capital into a hegemonic discourse of technological determinism—Silicon Valley giants proclaim that “algorithms are just collections of code,” yet deliberately evade the ideological judgments centered on capital embedded in the selection of training data, the design of feature engineering, and the setting of optimization objectives. This myth of technological neutrality leads the public to overlook the structure of capital power implicit in technological design—whoever controls technology controls the power to define cognitive frameworks.

认知资本主义最成功的意识形态策略，莫过于将AI、大数据等数字技术包装为价值中立的工具，通过技术解决技术问题的闭环论证，掩盖其作为资本权力媒介的本质。这种叙事植根于马克斯·韦伯的工具理性传统，但在认知资本主义时代却被资本改造为技术决定论的霸权话语——硅谷巨头宣称“算法只是代码的集合”,却刻意回避训练数据的选择、特征工程的设计、优化目标的设定等环节中内嵌的以资本为核心的意识形态判断。这种技术中立性的迷思，使公众忽视了技术设计中隐含的资本权力结构——谁控制了技术，谁就控制了认知框架的定义权。

The colonization of knowledge production by cognitive capitalism is more profoundly embodied in the systematic penetration of capital into the academic system. By sponsoring research directions, controlling publication channels, and domesticating evaluation systems, capital transforms the knowledge community into a patent incubation base for capital, alienating knowledge production from the pursuit of truth into the production of technological patents that can be absorbed by capital—when the MIT Media Lab defines “ethical AI” research as a solution to reduce corporate compliance costs, academia has completely degenerated into a risk control department for capital. Even more subversive is the revolving-door identity mechanism between enterprises and universities; this dual identity makes scholars both knowledge producers and spokespersons for capital interests: when they declare at academic conferences that “AI regulation will hinder innovation,” they are in essence packaging the pursuit of monopoly profits by enterprises as an inevitable law of scientific development. The most exquisite art of rule in cognitive capitalism is to make intellectuals actively write the interests of capital into the DNA of knowledge production.

认知资本主义对知识生产的殖民，更深刻地体现为资本对学术体系的系统性渗透，通过赞助研究方向、控制发表渠道、驯化评价体系，将知识共同体改造为资本的专利孵化基地，使知识生产从追求真理异化为生产可被资本吸收的技术专利——当MIT媒体实验室将“伦理AI”研究定义为降低企业合规成本的解决方案时，学术已彻底沦为资本的风险控制部门。更具颠覆性的是企业—高校旋转门身份机制，这种双重身份使学者既是知识生产者，又是资本利益代言人：当他们在学术会议上宣称“AI监管会阻碍创新”时，实质是将企业对垄断利润的追求包装为科学发展的必然规律。认知资本主义最精妙的统治术，是让知识分子主动将资本的利益写进知识生产的DNA。

The depoliticized packaging of knowledge production ultimately results in the public’s cognitive numbness toward technological power and the systematic deconstruction of critical thinking. When AI decision-making is proclaimed as objective and neutral, ordinary people attribute algorithmic discrimination to technological imperfections rather than capital’s extreme pursuit of efficiency; when academic research repeatedly emphasizes technological optimism, the public gradually accepts capital narratives such as data colonization as the price of progress and cognitive exploitation as a necessity for innovation. This cognitive state confirms the contemporary form of Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony: the ruling class need not resort to violent oppression; it only needs to internalize capital logic as natural common sense through the depoliticization of knowledge production. The depoliticized packaging of knowledge production, precisely by transforming capital demands into the inevitability of technology, shapes cognitive capitalism as the “end of history.”

知识生产的去政治化包装，最终后果是公众对技术权力的认知麻木与批判性思维的系统性解构。当AI决策被宣称客观中立时，普通人会将算法歧视归咎于技术不完善而非资本对效率的极致追求；当学术研究反复强调技术乐观主义时，公众会逐渐接受数据殖民是进步的代价、认知剥削是创新的需要等资本叙事。这种认知状态印证了葛兰西文化霸权理论的当代形态：统治阶级无需暴力压迫，只需通过知识生产的去政治化，就能将资本逻辑内化为自然常识。知识生产的去政治化包装，正是通过将资本需求转化为技术的必然性，将认知资本主义塑造为“历史的终结”。

2. The “Algorithmic” Transfer of Power Operations

2.权力运作的“算法化”转移

The generation of cognitive capitalist ideology is realized through the construction of cognitive frameworks. Algorithmic cognition reconstructs the way humans perceive the world through the priority of data representation, simplifying complex reality into calculable digital symbols, thereby shaping the cognitive foundation of ideology. Algorithmic cognition, in essence, replaces existential thinking with computational thinking, converting non-market values into cognitive commodities priced by the market. Through the presupposition of identity between “digits = truth,” it forcibly transforms qualitative differences into quantitative hierarchies, creating a closed cognitive ecology that makes users actively submit to the cognitive discipline of algorithms under the illusion of so-called free choice. By encoding ideology into a “naturalized” symbolic system, it turns power relations into common sense. This unconscious symbolic identification enables Althusser’s ideological state apparatus to achieve the ultimate penetration of micro-power in the digital age.

认知资本主义意识形态的生成是通过认知框架建构来实现的。算法化认知通过数据表征优先性重构人类认知世界的方式，将复杂现实简化为可计算的数字符号，进而塑造意识形态的认知基础。算法化认知在本质上就是以计算思维取代存在思维，就是将非市场价值转化为市场定价的认知商品，通过“数字=真理”的同一性预设，将质的差异强行转化为量的等级，打造封闭的认知生态，使用户在所谓自由选择的幻觉中主动臣服于算法的认知规训，通过将意识形态编码为“自然化”的符号系统，使权力关系转化为常识，这种无意识的符号认同，使阿尔都塞意义上的意识形态国家机器在数字时代实现了微观权力的极致渗透。

The capture of behavioral data by algorithmic power marks the transformation of cognitive capitalism from the exploitation of material labor to the exploitation of cognitive labor. Algorithmic power, through new forms of labor such as “play labor,” “prosumption,” and “affective labor,” converts users’ cognitive activities into data capital while completely concealing exploitative relations beneath the surface of “life,” “leisure,” and “social interaction.” When likes, shares, and searches are all reconstructed by algorithms as so-called voluntary leisure activities, exploitation has risen from the economic level to the cognitive level. The capture of behavioral data by algorithms does not stop at the behavioral level but penetrates to the neurophysiological level. Through mechanisms of intermittent reinforcement and neuroplasticity, cognitive labor shifts from forced participation to physiological need, achieving biopolitical control over cognitive laborers. From then on, capital no longer suppresses bodies through violence but makes bodies actively submit to capital logic by “optimizing” life processes. Algorithms construct user identities as data archives and, through “tag-commodity” associative recommendations, simplify fluid, plural human identities into calculable sets of tags, implanting consumerist ideology into users’ identity cognition, turning “I consume, therefore I am” into “I am tagged by algorithms, therefore I am,” thereby facilitating capital’s screening of qualified cognitive laborers.

算法权力对行为数据的捕获，标志着认知资本主义从物质劳动剥削向认知劳动剥削的转型。算法权力通过“玩劳动”“产消合一”“情感劳动”等新型劳动形态，将用户的认知活动转化为数据资本，同时使剥削关系彻底隐匿于“生活”“休闲”“社交”的表象之下。当点赞、转发、搜索都被算法重构为所谓自愿参与的休闲活动时，剥削已从经济层面上升至认知层面。算法对行为数据的捕获并未止步于行为层面，而是深入神经生理层面，通过间歇性强化与神经可塑性机制，使认知劳动从被迫参与转向生理需求，实现对认知劳动者的生物政治控制。从此，资本不再通过暴力压制身体，而是通过“优化”生命过程使身体主动臣服于资本逻辑。算法将用户身份构建为数据档案，并通过“标签—商品”的关联推荐，将流动的、多元的人类身份简化为可计算的标签集合，将消费主义意识形态植入用户的身份认知，使“我消费故我在”异化为“我被算法标签故我在”,进而为资本筛选合格的认知劳工提供便利。

Algorithms are not only carriers of ideology but have also become the “meta-governance” tool of capitalist ideology—by encoding social relations, they directly participate in policy formulation and institutional design, transforming cognitive capitalist ideology into “hard law norms” and “soft law consensus.” Algorithms, through social network analysis technology, convert offline social relations into online data nodes and reshape social structures through functions such as relationship recommendations and community partitioning; through functions like mutual-friend recommendations and interest-group matching, the closeness and distance of social relations are defined by the recommendation weights of algorithms; through attention politics rules such as heat weighting and timeliness ranking, anti-capitalist public issues are marginalized; the digital colonization of affective labor by algorithms reverses human emotional relationships into relationships between humans and algorithmic commodities. In sum, the encoding of social relations by algorithms ultimately serves the biopolitical diffusion of cognitive capitalist ideology, enabling capital discourse to replicate automatically through social relationship chains like a computer virus, forming a cognitively polarized ecological environment.

算法不仅是意识形态的载体，更成为资本主义意识形态的“元治理”工具——通过编码社会关系，直接参与政策制定与制度设计，使认知资本主义意识形态转化为“硬法规范”与“软法共识”。算法通过社会网络分析技术，将线下社会关系转化为线上数据节点，并通过关系推荐、社群划分等功能重塑社会结构；通过共同好友推荐、兴趣社群匹配等功能，社会关系的亲疏远近被算法的推荐权重所定义；通过热度加权、时效排序等注意力政治规则，将反资本主义的公共议题边缘化；算法对情感劳动的数字化殖民，使人与人的情感关系颠倒为人与算法商品的关系。总之，算法对社会关系的编码，最终服务于认知资本主义意识形态的生命政治扩散，使资本话语像计算机病毒一样通过社交关系链自动复制，形成群体极化的认知生态。

Algorithms reshape human temporal-spatial experience through time acceleration and space folding, providing ontological support for the generation of capitalist ideology. From the 15-second completion rate of short-video platforms to the real-time push mechanisms of social media, authentic time is compressed into calculable instantaneity. The real-time worship of algorithms immerses users in an eternal present, gradually eroding their ability to understand historical context, forming what Paul Virilio calls the colonization of human cognition by dromology. Platforms, through heat-map scheduling algorithms, electronic fence technology, and the like, transform physical space into calculable spatial data texts—from the digital monopolization of perceptual space, to the class-based encoding of urban space, to the algorithmic colonization of global space—all are essentially capital’s micro-governance of life through the algorithmic manipulation of time and space, upgrading Marx’s exploitation of labor time by capital into capital’s comprehensive occupation of life time, and upgrading class-based physical spatial segregation into group-based algorithmic interval segregation.

算法通过时间加速与空间折叠重塑人类的时空体验，为资本主义意识形态生成提供存在论层面的支撑。从短视频平台的15秒完播率，到社交媒体的实时推送机制，将本真时间压缩为可计算的瞬时性，算法的实时性崇拜使用户沉浸在永恒的当下，逐渐丧失对历史脉络的理解能力，形成维利里奥所言的竞速学对人类认知的殖民。平台通过热力图调度算法、电子围栏技术等将物理空间转化为可计算的空间数据化文本，从感知空间的数字化垄断，到城市空间的阶级化编码，再到全球空间的算法殖民，在本质上都是资本通过时空的算法化操控实现对生命的微观治理，使马克思所说的资本对劳动时间的剥削升级为资本对生命时间的全面占有，阶级的物理空间隔离升级为群体的算法区间隔离。

3. The “Interest Binding” of Capital Logic

3.资本逻辑的“利益绑定”

In the context of the global capitalist cognitive turn, cognitive labor replaces productive labor as the main source of surplus value. Unlike the productive labor of the industrial capitalist era, the production of surplus value in the cognitive capitalist era depends primarily on the “immateriality” of cognitive labor. Cognitive capitalism not only expropriates material resources but also commodifies cognitive capacity itself through legal, technological, and discursive means. Cognitive capitalism completes the interest binding of cognitive capacity with capital logic through institutional cognitive enclosure, algorithmic rent extraction, and the symbolic violence of cognitive value.

在全球资本主义认知转向的语境下，认知劳动取代生产劳动成为剩余价值的主要来源。与工业资本主义时代的生产劳动不同，认知资本主义时代的剩余价值生产主要取决于认知劳动的“非物质性”。认知资本主义不仅剥夺物质资源，更通过法律、技术与话语手段将认知能力本身商品化。认知资本主义通过制度性认知圈地、算法租金掠夺、认知价值的符号暴力来完成认知能力与资本逻辑的利益绑定。

Cognitive capitalism, through institutional cognitive enclosure, incorporates knowledge labor, affective labor, and relational labor into the system of private property, thereby enabling capital to own the cognitive process itself. Platform capital, through standard-form contracts, disguises the exploitative relations of cognitive labor as a product of “autonomy of will,” causing laborers to lose their capacity for cognitive resistance under the appearance of consent. Cognitive capitalism’s incorporation of cognitive data into the system of private property is, in essence, the “second enclosure movement” of primitive accumulation in the digital age. The fundamental contradiction of cognitive capitalism manifests as the antagonism between the socialization of cognitive labor and the privatization of cognitive outcomes.

认知资本主义通过制度性认知圈地将知识劳动、情感劳动、关系劳动纳入私人财产体系，这样就使资本能够对认知过程本身拥有所有权。平台资本通过格式合同将认知劳动的剥削关系伪装为“意思自治”的产物，使劳动者在同意的表象下丧失认知反抗能力。认知资本主义将认知数据纳入私有财产体系，本质上是资本原始积累在数字时代的“第二次圈地运动”,认知资本主义的基本矛盾表现为认知劳动的社会化与认知成果的私有化之间的对抗。

Cognitive capitalism transforms users’ cognitive activities into quantifiable and exploitable cognitive labor through algorithmic rent extraction. Platform algorithms reshape users’ attention mechanisms by monitoring real-time changes in pupils, brainwave reactions, and the like, converting users’ free time into surplus labor time. Platform algorithms use data indicators such as “like rate,” “completion rate,” and “share rate” as value signals to construct a hierarchical system of cognitive labor, defining content that aligns with capital’s interests as high-value while marginalizing critical cognitive achievements directed at capital. Through behavioral data mining and predictive modeling, algorithms upgrade cognitive labor from post-hoc exploitation to pre-emptive control, achieving precise discipline of users’ cognitive behavior. In essence, algorithmic rent is the surplus value generated when “general intellect” is appropriated by capital; its degree of exploitation far exceeds the “formal subsumption” of industrial capitalism, realizing a “real subsumption” of the entire process of cognitive production. Henceforth, “the organizational form of capital’s absorption of labor has completed a magnificent transformation.”

认知资本主义通过算法租金掠夺将用户的认知活动转化为可量化、可剥削的认知劳动。平台算法通过实时监测用户的瞳孔变化、脑电波反应等重塑用户的注意力机制，将用户的自由时间转化为剩余劳动时间。平台算法将“点赞率”“完播率”“分享率”等数据指标作为价值信号，构建认知劳动的等级体系，将符合资本利益的内容定义为高价值内容，而边缘化对资本的批判性认知成果。算法通过行为数据挖掘与预测性建模等，将认知劳动从事后剥削升级为事前控制，实现对用户认知行为的精准规训。质言之，算法租金本质上是“一般智力”被资本占有后产生的超额剩余价值，其剥削程度远超工业资本主义的“形式从属”,实现了对认知生产全过程的“实质从属”,从此“资本对劳动吸纳的组织形式完成了‘华丽的蜕变’”。

Cognitive capitalism, through cognitive symbolic violence, naturalizes capital’s logic of exploitation into a seemingly natural cognitive order, inducing laborers to actively participate in the discipline of their own cognition. Platforms reconstruct the exploitative relationship between capital and cognitive labor as a fair game of individual ability competition, thereby concealing the monopoly of structurally privileged positions over the distribution of cognitive resources. By invoking the authority of science, platform capital disguises elitist cognition as objective cognitive laws, achieving a gentle domination over cognitive labor: users not only voluntarily consent but also internalize this domination as a pursuit of self-improvement. By constructing a myth of intergenerational cognitive differences, platforms induce the younger “Generation Z” to voluntarily surrender cognitive autonomy, transforming platform exploitation into a necessary investment in digital survival skills. This self-discipline means that laborers participate in their own domination through self-cognitive transformation. In essence, cognitive symbolic violence is the most concealed and fundamental tool of domination under cognitive capitalism; capital achieves deep domination over cognitive labor, exploiting not only the cognitive products of laborers but also appropriating their cognitive capacity itself.

认知资本主义通过认知符号暴力将资本的剥削逻辑转化为自然化的认知秩序，使劳动者主动参与对自身认知的规训。平台通过将资本对认知劳动的剥削关系重构为个体能力竞争的公平游戏，掩盖社会结构性优势对认知资源分配的垄断。平台资本通过科学权威的背书，将精英主义的认知伪装成客观认知规律，实现对认知劳动的温柔统治，用户不仅自愿同意，更将这种统治内化为自我提升的追求。平台通过建构代际认知差异的神话，使年轻的“Z世代”主动让渡认知自主权，将平台剥削转化为数字生存技能的必要投资。这种自我规训使劳动者通过自我认知改造参与对自身的统治。质言之，认知符号暴力是认知资本主义最隐蔽、最根本的统治工具，资本实现了对认知劳动的深度统治，资本不仅剥削劳动者的认知成果，更占有其认知能力本身。

The ideological collusion of “knowledge–power–capital” in cognitive capitalism is not a static structure but a dynamic process in which capital provides material impetus, power grants institutional guarantees, and the knowledge community completes the legitimation, jointly constructing an ideological control chain of “false needs–collective cognition–exploitation loop–historical inevitability.” First, capital manufactures false needs by linking commodity symbols with values such as self-realization; power endows these with political legitimacy through policy endorsement; and the knowledge community confers theoretical rationality upon them. Second, platform algorithms transform false needs into collective cognition through personalized recommendations; power incorporates this collective cognition into curricula through the education system; and the knowledge community provides scientific justification for it. Third, power legalizes data enclosure through law; platforms extract cognitive rent through data monopolies; and users obtain identity certification by paying cognitive rent. Finally, power institutionalizes the exploitation of cognitive labor through legislation; the knowledge community writes capital’s preferences into the history of technological development; and through the dual co-optation of institutions and knowledge, capital’s logic is transformed into a law of historical development, completing the closed-loop ideological control of cognitive capitalism. It is through this strategy of “naturalization” that the collusive network of “knowledge–power–capital” turns the latent logic of capital’s domination into a real control that permeates everyday life. This is both the generative mechanism of cognitive capitalism’s ideology and its most profound technique of domination.

认知资本主义“知识—权力—资本”的意识形态共谋并非静态的结构，而是资本提供物质动力，权力赋予制度保障，知识界完成合法性论证，共同构建起“虚假需求—集体认知—剥削闭环—历史必然”的意识形态控制链条。首先，资本通过将商品符号与自我实现等价值绑定来制造虚假需求，权力通过政策背书赋予其政治合法性，知识界则赋予其理论合理性。其次，平台算法通过个性化推荐将虚假需求转化为集体认知，权力通过教育系统将集体认知纳入课程体系，知识界为集体认知提供科学性论证。再次，权力通过法律为数据圈地确权，平台通过数据垄断获取认知租金，用户通过支付认知租金获取身份认证。最后，权力通过立法将认知劳动剥削制度化，知识界将资本偏好写入技术发展史，通过制度与知识的双重收编，使资本逻辑转化为历史发展规律，完成认知资本主义意识形态的闭环控制。“知识—权力—资本”的共谋网络，正是通过这种“自然化”策略，将潜在的资本统治逻辑转化为渗透日常生活的现实控制，这既是认知资本主义意识形态的生成机制，也是其最深刻的统治术。

IV. Practical Infiltration of Ideology: The Comprehensive Colonization of “Economy–Politics–Culture”

四、意识形态的实践渗透：“经济—政治—文化”的全面殖民

The ideology of cognitive capitalism is not confined to penetration at the level of ideas and concepts; rather, through multi-domain colonization of “economy–politics–culture,” it achieves deep control over social reproduction. This process of cognitive capitalist colonization takes the commodification of cognition as its core driving force and digital platforms as its spatial vehicle, extending capital’s logic from the economic sphere into the political and cultural spheres, thereby forming a tripartite cognitive capitalist colonial system of “economic exploitation–political control–cultural identification.”

认知资本主义的意识形态并非局限于思想观念层面的渗透，而是通过“经济—政治—文化”的多领域殖民，实现对社会再生产的深度控制。这种认知资本主义殖民过程以认知商品化为核心驱动力，以数字平台为空间载体，将资本逻辑从经济领域扩展到政治领域和文化领域，形成“经济剥削—政治控制—文化认同”三位一体的认知资本主义殖民体系。

1. Economic Sphere: The “Legitimization” of Surplus Value Exploitation

1.经济领域：剩余价值剥削的“合法化”

Cognitive capitalism, by reconstructing the meaning system of cognitive labor, transforms capitalist exploitative relations into a naturalized outcome of self-realization or market exchange. By converting cognitive capacity into quantifiable and tradable cognitive commodities, cognitive capitalism relies on the monopoly position of digital platforms to extract excessive cognitive surplus value. By defining users’ unpaid cognitive activities as “prosumer” non-productive labor, cognitive capitalism blurs the boundaries between “production–consumption” and “labor–leisure,” rendering capital’s exploitation invisible. By constructing a narrative of cognitive elitism, cognitive capitalism portrays a tiny minority of top producers as exemplars of success determined by ability; this “cognitive capital fetishism” conceals the structural exploitation of laborers by capital.

认知资本主义通过重构认知劳动的意义体系，将资本主义剥削关系转化成自我实现或市场交换的自然化结果。认知资本主义通过将认知能力转化成可量化、可交易的认知商品，凭借数字平台的垄断地位实现认知剩余价值的超额榨取。认知资本主义通过将用户的无偿认知活动定义为“产消合一”的非生产性劳动，模糊了“生产—消费”“劳动—休闲”的界限，使资本剥削失去了可见性。认知资本主义通过构建认知精英叙事，将极少数头部生产者塑造为能力决定成功的典范，这种“认知资本拜物教”掩盖了资本对劳动者实施结构性剥削的事实。

Cognitive capitalism, by exploiting the value-neutral intermediary character of digital technology, shifts capital’s exploitative relations from the explicit to the implicit. Through algorithmic “Taylorism,”[10]10 “Algorithmic Taylorism” refers to the application of Frederick Taylor’s principles of scientific management—breaking down labor into measurable, controlled tasks—to digital labor via algorithms, intensifying control over workers. cognitive capitalism reduces cognitive laborers to appendages of algorithms, with the intensity, rhythm, and content of labor entirely controlled by platform algorithms. Through data enclosure movements, cognitive capitalism appropriates users’ cognitive labor products as private property; this is essentially a reenactment of primitive accumulation of capital in the digital age, its violence masked by the legal veneer of user consent. Through digital colonialism, cognitive capitalism allocates cognitive labor to the low end of the global value chain; this is essentially a continuation of the “center–periphery” division of labor from the era of industrial capitalism into the era of cognitive capitalism, except that the object of exploitation has shifted from material labor to cognitive labor.

认知资本主义借助数字技术价值中立的中介特性，使资本剥削关系从显性转为隐性。认知资本主义通过算法“泰勒主义”,使认知劳动者沦为算法的附庸，劳动强度、劳动节奏、劳动内容完全由平台算法控制。认知资本主义通过数据圈地运动将用户的认知劳动成果确权为私有财产，这在本质上就是资本原始积累在数字时代的重演，其暴力性被用户同意的法律外衣所掩盖。认知资本主义通过数字殖民主义将认知劳动分配到全球价值链的低端，这在本质上是工业资本主义时代“中心—边缘”分工在认知资本主义时代的延续，只是剥削对象从物质劳动转向认知劳动。

Cognitive capitalism constructs institutional barriers through intellectual property law, labor law, tax policy, and the like, transforming the exploitation of cognitive labor by cognitive capital into a consented domination. Intellectual property law assigns ownership of cognitive labor products to platforms rather than to laborers; labor law, by classifying cognitive laborers as self-employed, exempts platform capitalists from labor law obligations; and tax policy, by robbing the poor to give to the rich in the realm of cognitive labor, exacerbates the concentration of cognitive capital and the impoverishment of cognitive laborers. This institutional coercion provides rigid institutional guarantees for the relations of production of cognitive capitalism.

认知资本主义通过知识产权法、劳动法、税收政策等构建制度壁垒，将认知资本对认知劳动的剥削转化为被同意的统治，知识产权法将认知劳动成果的所有权赋予平台而非劳动者，劳动法通过确证认知劳动者归类为自雇者来规避平台资本家的劳动法义务，税收政策对认知劳动的劫贫济富加剧了认知资本的集中与认知劳动者的贫困化。这种制度强制为认知资本主义生产关系提供了刚性制度保障。

2. Political Sphere: The “Cognitive Monopoly” of the Techno-Elite

2.政治领域：技术精英的“认知垄断”

The penetration of cognitive capitalist ideology into the political sphere occurs primarily by converting cognitive advantages into political dominance, forming a cognitive monopoly centered on technocracy. The cognitive monopoly of the techno-elite is essentially capital’s dual monopoly over “living knowledge” and “dead knowledge,”[11]11 “Living knowledge” and “dead knowledge” are terms derived from Marx’s distinction between living labor (active, creative human labor) and dead labor (accumulated, objectified labor, i.e., capital). Here, “living knowledge” refers to active cognitive capacities; “dead knowledge” refers to codified, commodified knowledge. transforming economic cognitive advantages into political dominance and thereby realizing a bourgeois dictatorship in the cognitive domain. Marx’s concept of “general intellect,” as developed in the *Grundrisse*, provides a core analytical tool for understanding the political power structure of cognitive capitalism. Cognitive capitalism, through capital’s monopoly over “general intellect,” achieves a restructuring of political power.

认知资本主义意识形态在政治领域的渗透主要是通过将认知优势转化为政治支配权，形成以技术至上为核心的认知垄断。技术精英的认知垄断在本质上是资本通过对“活知识”与“死知识”的双重垄断，将经济领域的认知优势转化为政治支配权，从而实现在认知领域的资产阶级专政。马克思在《政治经济学批判大纲》中提出的“一般智力”概念，为理解认知资本主义的政治权力结构提供了核心分析工具。认知资本主义通过资本对“一般智力”的垄断，实现了政治权力的重构。

Cognitive capitalism packages capital’s interests as cognitive necessities, and through means such as influencing elections, lobbying for legislation, and shaping public opinion, it converts its own cognitive preferences into social consensus and national strategy. This cognitive monopoly diverts public policy formulation away from the public interest, turning it into a tool for large tech companies to maintain their monopoly positions, while simultaneously embedding capital’s logic into global governance frameworks through structural selection. “As an important tool and manifestation of the new imperialism, cognitive capitalism uses technological monopoly and the platform economy to construct a global exploitative system, achieving capital accumulation through the advantage of cognitive capital, maintaining the unequal structure of global capitalism, and realizing influence and control over other countries.”[12]12 This is a quotation from the original Chinese text; the source is not provided. This reveals the new imperialist character of cognitive capitalism—monopolizing the global means of cognitive production through political means.

认知资本主义将资本利益包装为认知必要性，通过影响选举、游说立法、塑造舆论等方式，将自身认知偏好转化为社会共识和国家战略，这种认知垄断使公共政策制定偏离公共利益，沦为大型科技公司维护垄断地位的工具，同时还借助结构性选择将资本逻辑嵌入全球治理框架。“作为新帝国主义的重要工具和表现形式，认知资本主义借助技术垄断和平台经济构建起一个全球化的剥削体系，以认知资本的优势实现资本增殖的目的，维护全球资本主义的不平等结构，实现对其他国家的影响和控制。”这体现了认知资本主义的新帝国主义属性——通过政治手段垄断全球认知生产资料。

Cognitive capitalism strengthens the issues endorsed by capital through algorithmic recommendation mechanisms, while simultaneously restricting critical voices such as the critique of digital labor exploitation. The cognitive monopoly achieved by cognitive capitalism through algorithmic recommendation mechanisms is, in essence, the technological colonization of public discussion space by the logic of capital. Its core mechanism is the transformation of information distribution into the private appropriation of the means of cognitive production, thereby achieving structural control over agenda-setting. To break the cognitive monopoly of algorithmic recommendations, it is necessary to return to Marx’s core proposition of the socialization of “general intellect” and promote the socialized appropriation of the means of cognitive production. This is precisely the significance of Marx’s proposition of “abolishing private property” in the era of cognitive capitalism.

认知资本主义通过算法推荐机制强化资本认可的议题，同时限制数字劳动剥削等批判性声音。认知资本主义通过算法推荐机制实现的认知垄断，在本质上就是资本逻辑对公共讨论空间的技术化殖民，其核心机制是将信息分发转化为认知生产资料的私人占有，从而实现对议题设置的结构性控制。破解算法推荐的认知垄断，需回归马克思“一般智力”社会化的核心命题，推动认知生产资料的社会化占有。这正是马克思“消灭私有制”命题在认知资本主义时代的意义体现。

3. Cultural Sphere: The “Cognitive Colonization” of Subjectivity

3.文化领域：主体性的“认知殖民”

Compared with the alienation of the “culture industry” in the sense of Horkheimer and Adorno in the era of industrial capitalism, cognitive capitalism, through the triple mechanisms of datafication, algorithmization, and platformization, achieves the comprehensive private monopolization of the transformation of human cognitive, emotional, and mnemonic means of cognitive production, ultimately completing the colonization of cognitive subjectivity. The cultural alienation of cognitive capitalism is, in essence, the comprehensive private appropriation and colonial reconstruction of the means of cognitive production by the logic of capital under the empowerment of digital technology. The cultural alienation of cognitive capitalism marks the shift of the logic of capital from appropriating material means of production to appropriating cognitive means of production.

相较于工业资本主义时代霍克海默与阿多诺意义上的“文化工业”异化，认知资本主义通过数据化、算法化、平台化三重机制，实现对人类的认知、情感、记忆等认知生产资料转化进行全面私人垄断，最终完成对认知主体性的殖民。认知资本主义的文化异化在本质上是数字技术赋能下资本逻辑对认知生产资料的全面私人占有与殖民化重构。认知资本主义的文化异化标志着资本逻辑从占有物质生产资料向占有认知生产资料的转向。

Through the operational logic of the algorithmic recommendation feedback loop, cognitive capitalism domesticates human cognitive pathways into data-driven procedures that capital can predict and control. In essence, this reconstructs the human cognitive operating system through recommendation algorithms: in terms of cognitive goals, it shifts from the pursuit of truth to data adaptation; in terms of cognitive processes, it shifts from dialectical thinking to pattern matching; in terms of cognitive outcomes, it shifts from subjective knowledge to datafied commodities. The alienation of technological rationality criticized by Marcuse in *One-Dimensional Man* reaches its peak in the algorithmic age. Algorithms are not merely tools but an ideology; through the discourse of efficiency supremacy, they cause people to voluntarily abandon cognitive autonomy and embrace the “one-dimensional cognition” domesticated by capital.

认知资本主义通过算法推荐反馈闭环的运作逻辑，将人类认知路径驯化为资本可预测、可控制的数据驱动程序。这在本质上就是以推荐算法重构人类的认知操作系统，在认知目标上从真理探索转向数据适配，在认知过程上从辩证思维转向模式匹配，在认知结果上从主体性知识转向数据化商品。马尔库塞在《单向度的人》中批判的技术理性异化在算法时代达到顶峰，算法不仅是工具，更是一种意识形态，它通过效率至上的话语，使人们主动放弃认知自主权，拥抱被资本驯化的“单向度认知”。

Cognitive capitalism transforms diverse and heterogeneous human subjects into calculable and controllable data objects through standardized data profiling. Through data tags such as interest labels, consumption preferences, and behavioral trajectories, it compresses individuals’ historical experiences, emotional experiences, and value concepts into standardized data. Through tag similarity, it classifies users into data categories such as “high-value/low-value,” “active/silent,” and “mainstream/marginal,” essentially implanting class logic into the data system. Cognitive capitalism uses historical tag data to predict users’ future needs and converts the prediction results into behavioral instructions, trapping individuals in a cognitive closed loop determined by tags, ultimately causing them to lose the ability to independently choose information.

认知资本主义通过标准化数据画像将多元异质的人类主体转化为可计算、可控制的数据客体，通过兴趣标签、消费偏好、行为轨迹等数据标签，将个体的历史经验、情感体验、价值观念压缩为标准化数据，通过标签相似度将用户归入“高价值/低价值”“活跃/沉默”“主流/边缘”等数据类别，实质是将阶级逻辑植入数据体系。认知资本主义通过历史标签数据预测用户的未来需求，并将预测结果转化为行为指令，使个体陷入标签决定的认知闭环，最终丧失信息的自主选择能力。

Cognitive capitalism, by means of platforms, carries out an enclosure movement of digital space, incorporating human cognitive production activities into a “core-periphery” exploitative system dominated by capital. Platforms control the “digital checkpoints” of cognitive flow by monopolizing the power of algorithmic distribution, steering cognitive production toward the optimal path for capital accumulation; they achieve the privatized plunder of the means of cognitive production by monopolizing data ownership, completing the enclosure movement of the cognitive commons; they control the exploitative meter of cognitive labor by monopolizing the pricing power of traffic, systematically depriving creators of surplus value. In short, by privatizing public cognitive resources, platforms construct a “core-periphery” colonial division of labor that is more concealed than that of industrial capitalism: platforms become digital landlords, creators become digital tenant farmers, and users become data serfs.

认知资本主义借助平台实现数字空间的圈地运动，将人类认知生产活动纳入资本所主导的“核心—边缘”剥削体系。平台通过垄断算法分发权来把控认知流动的“数字关卡”,将认知生产导向资本增殖的最优路径；通过垄断数据所有权实现对认知生产资料的私有化掠夺，完成对认知公地的圈地运动；通过垄断流量定价权来把控认知劳动的剥削计量器，实现对创作者剩余价值的系统性剥夺。质言之，平台通过私有化公共认知资源，构建起比工业资本主义更隐蔽的“核心—边缘”殖民式分工体系，平台成为数字地主，创作者成为数字佃农，用户成为数据农奴。

V. Resistance Strategies against Cognitive Capitalism’s Ideology

五、认知资本主义意识形态的抵抗策略

The resistance strategies against cognitive capitalism’s ideology are, in essence, a systematic decolonization movement in the cognitive sphere: fundamentally negating the logic of capital in data privatization, restoring data, algorithms, and traffic from the private domain of capital to social public resources, and ensuring the public nature of cognitive resources; fundamentally ending the “center-periphery” colonial division of labor in the cognitive production sphere, cultivating a knowledge production ecology not dominated by capital, and rebuilding equal and collaborative shared cognitive relations of production; fundamentally breaking capital’s algorithmic domestication of cognitive subjects, promoting the transformation of individuals from passive algorithmic prisoners to active cognitive subjects. Cognitive capitalism is, in essence, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, manifested in data oligarchs’ manipulation of political agendas, monopolization of the means of cognitive production, and control over cognitive social relations. Therefore, the core of resistance strategies against cognitive capitalism’s ideology is to transform spontaneous cognitive laborers into a self-conscious digital proletarian association through the establishment of digital trade unions, cognitive labor cooperatives, and digital class alliances; to break the private monopoly of data and the capitalist dictatorship of algorithms through the establishment of public ownership of data, democratization of algorithms, and open-source collaboration, achieving the sharing of the means of cognitive production by the whole society; to reconstruct digital social relations through the establishment of cognitive workers’ committees and user self-governing committees, promoting the realization of the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” in the cognitive sphere, ultimately moving toward human emancipation.

认知资本主义意识形态抵抗策略在本质上就是认知领域的系统性去殖民化运动：从根本上否定数据私有化的资本逻辑，将数据、算法、流量从资本私域还原为社会公共资源，确保认知资源的公共属性；从根本上终结认知生产领域的“中心—边缘”殖民式分工，培育非资本主导的知识生产生态，重建平等协作的共享型认知生产关系；从根本上打破资本对认知主体的算法驯化，推动个体从被动的算法囚徒转变为主动的认知主体。认知资本主义在本质上是资产阶级专政，表现为数据寡头对政治议题的操控，对认知生产资料的垄断，对认知社会关系的控制。因此，认知资本主义意识形态抵抗策略的核心是通过建立数字工会、认知劳动合作社、数字阶级联盟等，将自发的认知劳动者转化成自为的数字无产阶级联合体；通过建立数据公有制、算法民主化、开源协作等打破数据的私人垄断与算法的资本专政，实现认知生产资料的全社会共享；通过建立认知劳动者委员会、用户自治委员会等来重构数字社会关系，推动“各尽所能，按需分配”原则在认知领域的实现，最终走向人类解放。

1. Institutional Constraints: Building a Global Governance System against Capitalist Monopoly

1.制度约束：构建反资本垄断的全球治理体系

Legislation for the publicization of knowledge to resolve the predicament of knowledge privatization is, in essence, an institutional response to the core contradictions of cognitive capitalism. In response to capital’s so-called legal enclosure through intellectual property rights, it is necessary to establish the meta-principle that use value takes precedence over exchange value, dismantling the monopoly foundation at the legal level through compulsory transfer clauses and anti-enclosure review mechanisms; in response to the exploitative logic of platforms plundering users’ cognitive labor through free-use models, it is necessary to reconstruct the value distribution paradigm of knowledge production, establishing a system of remuneration for data labor and sovereign management of public data; in response to the academic trusts formed by oligopolistic academic publishers, it is necessary to break the exploitative chain of “authors contribute for free—academic institutions subscribe at high prices,” relying on blockchain technology to build a decentralized, distributed global knowledge commons, mandating immediate open access for publicly funded papers and implementing open access compensation mechanisms. In short, through legislation for the publicization of knowledge, the boundary between the reasonable private sphere and the public sphere is demarcated, achieving a reconstruction of the relations of production in the cognitive sphere, ending capital’s monopolistic possession of knowledge, and through the creative reconstruction of the social ownership of the means of cognitive production, ending the rule of cognitive capital over cognitive labor, laying the institutional foundation for human emancipation in the digital age.

以知识公共化立法破解知识私有化困局在本质上是对认知资本主义核心矛盾的制度性回应。针对资本以知识产权实施所谓合法圈地行为，需确立使用价值优先于交换价值的元原则，通过强制让渡条款与反圈地审查机制来瓦解法律层面的垄断基础；针对平台以免费使用模式掠夺用户认知劳动的剥削逻辑，需重构知识生产的价值分配范式，建立数据劳动报酬化制度与公共数据主权化管理；针对学术出版寡头形成的学术托拉斯，需打破“作者免费供稿—学术机构高价订阅”的剥削链条，依托区块链技术构建去中心化分布式全球知识公共池，强制公共资金资助论文即时开放获取并实施开放获取补偿机制。质言之，通过知识公共化立法划定合理私域与公共领域的边界，实现对认知领域生产关系的重构，终结资本对知识的垄断性占有，通过对认知生产资料社会所有制的创造性重构，终结认知资本对认知劳动的统治，为数字时代的人类解放奠定制度基础。

Legislation for cognitive labor rights to reconstruct the institutional boundaries of uncompensated cognitive labor in the digital age is, in essence, a systematic correction of the exploitative mechanisms of cognitive capitalism. Platforms redefine knowledge production activities as voluntary contributions through user agreements, but in reality, they transform users’ cognitive activities into the colonization of behavioral data, forming an alienation of cognitive labor concealed under “prosumption.” At the level of value confirmation, relying on blockchain metering technology and data dividend systems, cognitive labor is transformed from unpaid contribution to paid labor; at the level of defining exploitation, through legislation for algorithmic transparency and regulation of labor hours, cognitive exploitation is shifted from a legal gray area to rigid constraints; at the level of global governance, relying on the International Labour Organization, the introduction of relevant international conventions on digital cognitive labor is promoted, building a transnational collaborative regulatory mechanism, achieving a leap from unilateral protection to transnational co-governance. This institutional reconstruction by no means negates the innovative vitality of the digital economy; rather, by establishing the legal status of the right to cognitive labor as a fundamental human right, it returns workers from being data raw materials to the position of cognitive subjects. Only when each user’s knowledge contribution can be fairly measured and reasonably compensated can cognitive sovereignty truly revert to the workers themselves. This is both a theoretical extension of Marx’s “labor theory of value” in the digital age and an institutional cornerstone for building cognitive justice in the algorithmic era.

以认知劳动权益立法重构数字时代非补偿性认知劳动的制度边界在本质上是对认知资本主义剥削机制的系统性矫正。平台通过用户协议将知识生产活动重新定义为自愿贡献，实则将用户的认知活动转化为行为数据殖民化，形成“产消合一”掩盖下的认知劳动异化。在价值确权层面，依托区块链计量技术与数据分红制度实现认知劳动从无偿贡献到有偿劳动的转型；在剥削界定层面，通过算法透明化立法与劳动时长规制，推动认知剥削从法律灰色地带到刚性约束的转换；在全球治理层面，依托国际劳工组织，推动数字认知劳动相关国际公约的出台，构建跨国协同监管机制，实现从单边保护到跨国共治的跃升。这种制度重构绝非否定数字经济创新活力，而是通过确立认知劳动权作为基本人权的法律地位，使劳动者从数据原料重新回归认知主体本位。只有当每位用户的知识贡献都能获得公平计量与合理补偿，认知主权才能真正复归劳动者自身，这既是马克思主义“劳动价值论”在数字时代的理论延伸，也是构建算法时代认知正义的制度基石。

Restricting the transgressive expansion of platform power through institutional regulation is, in essence, the systematic domestication of the “digital Leviathan” within a “technology-institution” interactive framework. At the level of algorithmic governance, a full-lifecycle accountability system for algorithms must be constructed: through mandatory pre-implementation impact assessments, tiered transparency mechanisms during implementation, and the principle of post-implementation reversed burden of proof, a paradigm shift from technological autonomy to institutional discipline is achieved. At the level of data property rights, a revolution in property rights definition must be implemented: public data establishes a national health data trust, personal data implements data asset certificates, and data regulation constructs a penetrative sandbox, forming a decentralized checks-and-balances system of socialized ownership, marketized usage rights, and publicized regulatory power. At the level of institutional innovation, public interest boards are embedded within the platform governance structure, cross-national collaboration is promoted, and blockchain audit tools are developed to realize technology-empowered governance. Ultimately, through regulatory innovation, platform power is incorporated into the institutional framework of the digital public sphere. In short, when algorithmic transparency becomes a fundamental right, data property rights return to social public ownership, and governance networks achieve pluralistic coordination, the “digital Leviathan” can be truly domesticated within the framework of the socialist system.

以平台权力的制度规制限制其越界扩张在本质上是通过“技术—制度”互动框架对“数字利维坦”的系统性驯化。在算法治理层面，需构建算法全生命周期问责体系：通过事前强制性影响评估、事中分级透明机制、事后责任倒置原则，实现从技术自治到制度规训的范式转换；在数据产权层面，需实施产权界定革命：公共数据设立国家健康数据信托，个人数据推行数据资产凭证，数据监管构建穿透式沙盒，形成所有权社会化、使用权市场化、监管权公共化的分权制衡体制；在制度创新层面，在平台治理架构中嵌入公共利益董事会、推进跨国协同、开发区块链审计工具实现技术赋权治理，最终通过规制创新将平台权力纳入数字公共领域的制度框架。质言之，当算法透明度成为基本权利、数据产权回归社会公有、治理网络实现多元协同，“数字利维坦”方能真正被驯化于社会主义制度框架之内。

2. Technological Countermeasures: Developing De-Capitalized Digital Tools and Ecosystems

2.技术反制：开发去资本化的数字工具与生态

As the hegemonic form of late capitalist ideology, cognitive capitalism’s technological hegemony has been elevated to the symbolic violent rule of algorithmic ideology. Platforms, as monopolists of digital infrastructure, exchange free services for user data, transforming immaterial labor into cognitive capital and incorporating it into the capital valorization system. The core contradiction of cognitive capitalism is the fundamental opposition between the public appearance of knowledge and the essence of private appropriation. Data, as the core carrier of cognitive surplus value, reconstructs the spatiotemporal logic of capital accumulation through the monopolization of possession rights and control rights. Algorithms, as a new form of “digital Taylorism,” achieve refined control over the labor process through behavioral prediction algorithms and emotional manipulation technologies, forming the cognitive paradox of “voluntary exploitation.” From data to algorithms, the ideology of cognitive capitalism reduces systemic capital exploitation to a technical problem, rather than the inherent contradiction of capital accumulation in the Marxist sense, diverting public demands for transforming the capitalist system itself and forming the cognitive trap of technological determinism. The essence of de-capitalized digital tools and digital ecosystems is the material weapon of ideological struggle. It must start with a clear definition of de-capitalization, break capital’s monopoly over core digital means of production such as data, algorithms, and platforms, and reconstruct cognitive relations of production based on the principles of “publicness,” “decentralization,” and “user sovereignty,” providing labor subjects under cognitive capitalism with a technological fulcrum for ideological resistance.

认知资本主义作为晚期资本主义意识形态的霸权形态，其技术霸权已升维为算法意识形态的符号性暴力统治。平台作为数字基础设施的垄断者，通过免费服务换取用户数据，将非物质劳动转化为认知资本，纳入资本增殖体系。认知资本主义的核心矛盾是知识的公共性表象与私人占有本质之间的根本对立。数据作为认知剩余价值的核心载体，通过占有权与控制权的垄断，重构了资本积累的时空逻辑。算法作为“数字泰勒主义”的新形态，通过行为预测算法与情感操控技术，实现劳动过程的精细化控制，形成“自愿被剥削”的认知悖论。从数据到算法，认知资本主义意识形态将系统性的资本剥削简化为技术问题，而非马克思主义意义上的资本积累的内在矛盾，转移公众对资本主义制度本身进行变革的诉求，形成技术决定论的认知陷阱。去资本化数字工具与数字生态的本质是意识形态斗争的物质武器，需以对去资本化的清晰界定为起点，打破资本对数据、算法、平台等核心数字生产资料的垄断，重构以“公共性”“去中心化”“用户主权”为原则的认知生产关系，为认知资本主义下的劳动主体提供意识形态反抗的技术支点。

The basic path of data de-capitalization takes Deleuze’s “rhizome” theory as a starting point for reconstruction. Through distributed ledger technology, data is decomposed into encrypted fragments stored on a global node network. Via decentralized storage protocols, decentralized storage achieves the market-oriented allocation of storage resources. Thus, data flow, like a rhizomatic plant, is centerless and hierarchical, achieving risk confrontation through multiple connections. At the same time, this confirms the warning of Hardt and Negri: the rule of cognitive capitalism has shifted from macro-level control to micro-level penetration, and technological resistance must simultaneously achieve a “capillary” deconstruction of power. The revolutionary significance of data de-capitalization lies in reconstructing the value logic of data collaboration, transforming data from a resource of possession into a resource of relation, and reconstructing the value distribution mechanism through a data usage rights market. Data de-capitalization reconstructs the cognitive framework of data subjectivity through “counter-conduct,” transforming Foucault’s self-governance into a strategy of resistance. Users transform from the governed into self-governing subjects, forming a power of passive resistance against surveillance capitalism. The ultimate significance of data de-capitalization lies not in the optimization of technological tools, but in reconstructing the biopolitics of the digital age. Users are no longer carriers of data but weavers of data relations, transforming data from a tool for capital valorization into the material foundation for the free and comprehensive development of the individual.

数据去资本化的基本路径以德勒兹“块茎”理论为重构起点，通过分布式账本技术，数据被分解为加密片段存储于全球节点网络，通过去中心化存储协议，以去中心化存储实现存储资源的市场化配置，这样数据流动就如块茎植物般无中心、无等级，通过多元连接实现风险对抗。同时，这也印证了哈特与奈格里的警示：认知资本主义的统治已从宏观管控转向微观渗透，技术反抗也需同步实现“毛细血管式”的权力解构。数据去资本化的革命性意义在于重构数据协作的价值逻辑，数据从占有性资源转化为关系性资源，通过数据使用权市场重构价值分配机制。数据去资本化通过“反治理术”重构数据主体性的认知框架，将福柯意义上的自我治理转化为反抗策略，用户从被治理者转化为自我治理者，形成对监视资本主义的消极抵抗权力。数据去资本化的终极意义不在于技术工具的优化，而在于重构数字时代的生命政治，用户不再是数据的载体，而成为数据关系的编织者，将数据从资本增殖的工具转化为实现人的自由全面发展的物质基础。

The fundamental contradiction of algorithm de-capitalization lies in the eternal struggle between technological autonomy and the logic of capital absorption. Lawrence Lessig’s proposition that “code is law” has developed into “algorithm is power” in the era of cognitive capitalism. The algorithmic black box achieves behavioral manipulation and data exploitation through opaque rules. The adversarial development of open-source algorithms, through reverse coding practices, reconstructs algorithms from private property into a knowledge commons, making algorithms serve the public interest rather than capital valorization. The technological struggle of algorithm de-capitalization must confront a core question: can transparency truly achieve power redistribution? Only through the adversarial design of bias detection tools, transforming the decision-making logic of complex models into human-understandable rules, can implicit discrimination in algorithmic decision-making be prevented. Through governance innovations such as blockchain evidence preservation and algorithmic traceability, the hash of the algorithm version, the summary of training data, and the parameters of the decision logic are recorded on the chain, forming an algorithm identity card, achieving full-lifecycle evidence preservation for algorithms, and shifting algorithmic governance from post-hoc accountability to process controllability. Algorithmic transparency is not only a technical issue but also a political practice of power redistribution. Its goal is to break the platform enterprise’s monopoly over the right to interpret algorithms and achieve the “democratization of algorithmic accountability.” The true algorithmic revolution lies not in tool optimization, but in liberating algorithms from capital’s logic of control and re-embedding them in humanity’s emancipatory practice.

算法去资本化的基本矛盾在于技术自主性与资本吸纳逻辑的永恒博弈。劳伦斯·莱斯格提出的“代码即法律”命题在认知资本主义时代已发展为“算法即权力”,算法黑箱通过不透明规则实现行为操控与数据剥削。开源算法的对抗性开发则通过反向编码实践，将算法从私有财产重构为知识公地，使算法服务于公共利益而非资本增殖。算法去资本化的技术抗争需要直面一个核心问题：透明性能否真正实现权力再分配?只有通过偏见检测工具的对抗性设计，将复杂模型的决策逻辑转化为人类可理解的规则，以此来预防算法决策中的隐性歧视。通过区块链存证与算法溯源的治理创新，将算法版本的哈希、训练数据的摘要、决策逻辑的参数上链存证，形成算法身份证，实现算法全生命周期存证，将算法治理从事后追责转向过程可控。算法透明不仅是技术问题，更是权力再分配的政治实践，其目标是打破平台企业对算法解释权的垄断，实现“算法问责的民主化”。真正的算法革命不在于工具优化，而在于将算法从资本的控制逻辑中解放出来，重新嵌入人类的解放性实践。

The deep contradiction of platform de-capitalization lies in the transformation of the legitimacy basis of governance power, that is, from the unidirectional rule of capital sovereignty to the distributed collaboration of pluralistic co-governance. Traditional capital platforms take shareholder sovereignty as the core, constructing a governance order of rational calculation through hierarchical management and data monopolization. Its essence is the colonization of the public sphere by the logic of capital. Decentralized autonomous organizations, with blockchain technology as the medium for “code as collaboration” governance, are essentially a digital reconstruction of public space, shifting governance power from capital possession to contributor consensus. This marks an ontological change in the legitimacy basis of governance from ownership monopoly to collaborative community. Marx and Engels proposed “expropriating the expropriators” in the *Communist Manifesto*; in the era of cognitive capitalism, this manifests as a revolution in the ownership of digital means of production.

平台去资本化的深层矛盾在于治理权合法性基础的转型，即从资本主权的单向度统治转向多元共治的分布式协作。传统资本平台以股东主权为核心，通过层级化管理与数据垄断构建理性算计的治理秩序，其本质是资本逻辑对公共领域的殖民化。去中心化自治组织以区块链技术为媒介的“代码即协作”治理，实质上是对公共空间的数字再造，使治理权从资本占有转向贡献者共识，这标志着治理合法性基础从所有权垄断到协作共同体的存在论变革。马克思恩格斯在《共产党宣言》中提出“剥夺剥夺者”,在认知资本主义时代呈现为数字生产资料所有制的革命。

3. Subject Awakening: Cultivating Individual Critical Cognitive Skills and Collective Action Capabilities

3.主体觉醒：培育个体批判性认知技能与集体行动能力

The ideological violence of cognitive capitalism has shifted from the technological enframing of industrial capitalism to a cognitive enframing, thereby achieving an epistemological capture of the subject—internalizing datafied existence, attention exploitation, and cognitive labor alienation as a priori conditions of technological progress. The fragmented cognitive feeding system constructed by platform capitalism is, in essence, the concretization of Althusser’s ideological state apparatus in the digital age. Through the “micro-content—instant feedback” loop of algorithmic recommendation, it shapes the subject’s cognitive habits, ultimately leading to the degradation of the subject’s capacity for deep thinking and the dissolution of critical consciousness. When algorithms not only produce knowledge but also produce the conditions of possibility for knowledge, when platforms not only control information but also control the form of information’s existence, how can the subject, in the predicament of cognitive colonization, break free from the confinement of the cognitive enframing through the deconstruction of cognitive resistance and the biopolitical reconstruction of collective action, achieving a breakthrough from the governed subject to the self-constructing subject?

认知资本主义的意识形态暴力已经从工业资本主义的技术性座架转变为认知性座架，以此来实现对主体的认识论捕获——将数据化生存、注意力剥削与认知劳动异化内化为技术进步的先验条件。平台资本主义所构建的碎片化认知投喂系统，实质上是阿尔都塞意义上的意识形态国家机器在数字时代的具象化，其通过算法推荐的“微内容—即时反馈”闭环，塑造主体的认知习惯，最终导致主体深度思考能力的退化与批判意识的消解。当算法不仅生产知识更生产知识的可能性条件，当平台不仅控制信息更控制信息的存在形式，主体如何在认知被殖民的困境中，通过认知性抵抗的解构与集体行动的生命政治重构，打破认知性座架的禁锢，实现从被治理的主体到自我建构的主体的突围?

The cultivation of critical cognitive skills is by no means a training in instrumental rationality; rather, it is a reconstruction of cognitive subjectivity. That is, through a reflective suspension of the process of technological embodiment, the subject re-seizes the power to construct the conditions of possibility for cognition. The method of tracing cognitive objects reveals how data constructs cognitive objects through the cognitive violence of “correlation = causation,” restoring the fact that recommended objects are in fact the symbolic reconstruction of user behavioral data by algorithms. The method of memory comparison exposes the power bias in platform memory selection, re-seizing the subjective right to memory and transforming digital memory from a tool of control back into a narrative construction of existence. The practice of cognitive deceleration refuses passive involvement in the cognitive closed loop of “swipe-click-feedback,” restoring the original meaning of cognition as an active inquiry into existence. When the subject can refuse the cognitive path recommended by the algorithm, it achieves a leap from cognitive puppet to cognitive sovereign. The essence of this leap is that the subject is no longer an object of algorithmic governance but becomes the legislator of its own conditions of possibility for cognition.

批判性认知技能的培育绝非工具理性层面的能力训练，而是认知主体性的重构，即通过对技术具身化过程的反思性悬置，重新夺回主体对认知可能性条件的构建权。通过认知对象溯源法揭示数据如何通过“相关性=因果性”的认知暴力构造认知对象，还原推荐对象实为算法对用户行为数据的符号化重构。通过记忆对比法揭露平台记忆筛选的权力偏向，重新夺回记忆的主体权利，使数字记忆从控制工具复归为存在的叙事性建构。通过认知减速实践拒绝被动卷入“滑动—点击—反馈”的认知闭环，恢复认知作为存在的主动追问的本来意义。当主体能够拒绝算法推荐的认知路径时，便实现了从认知傀儡到认知主权者的飞跃。这种飞跃的本质是：主体不再是算法治理的对象，而成为自身认知可能性条件的立法者。

Cognitive capitalism, by monopolizing the technological infrastructure of knowledge as “co-being” (Mitsein), distorts “co-being” into “algorithmically mediated atomized connection.” Collective action requires the reconstruction of technological co-being, restoring the original meaning of co-being as free coexistence within difference. Through distributed technologies such as blockchain and P2P networks, it breaks through the geographical limitations of traditional communities and constructs a world-historical co-being. Through decentralized storage technologies such as IPFS (InterPlanetary File System) and Arweave (often called the “permanent web” or “blockchain storage protocol”), it builds a “public memory archive,” storing fragmented content—such as narratives of marginalized groups, histories of social movements, and alternative knowledge production—on global nodes. By establishing a global-local knowledge graph blockchain, it incorporates indigenous oral histories, local craft knowledge, and non-Western philosophical histories, forming a symbolic co-being space of differential resonance. In a certain sense, this collectivity is not a negation of individuality but a digital reconstruction of Heidegger’s “co-being”—each cognitive subject, while maintaining its own uniqueness, realizes the basic conditions for a “free association of individuals” through the construction of distributed technological infrastructure.

认知资本主义通过平台垄断知识“共在”的技术基础设施，将“共在”扭曲为“算法中介的原子化连接”。集体行动需重构技术共在性，恢复共在作为差异中的自由共存的本来意义。通过区块链、P2P网络等分布式技术，突破传统共同体的地域限制，构建世界历史性共在。通过IPFS(InterPlanetary File System, 星际文件系统)、Arweave(常称“永久网络”或“区块链存储协议”)等去中心化存储技术，构建“公共记忆档案库”,将边缘群体叙事、社会运动史、替代性知识生产等内容碎片化存储于全球节点。通过建立全球本土知识图谱区块链，收录原住民口述史、地方工艺知识、非西方哲学史等，形成差异共振的符号共在空间。在某种意义上讲，这种集体性不是对个体性的否定，而是海德格尔意义上“共在”的数字化重构——每个认知主体在保持自身独特性的同时，通过分布化技术基础设施建设实现“自由人联合体”的基础条件。

4. Transnational Collaboration: Breaking Through Capital’s Global Mobility Barriers

4.跨国协作：突破资本的全球流动性壁垒

Transnational capital achieves unimpeded valorization through spatial arbitrage, technological monopoly, and ideological penetration, while cognitive laborers, constrained by the judicial boundaries of nation-states, technological access barriers, and cultural divides, find it difficult to form effective resistance. Transnational collaboration, as a key dimension of resistance strategy, breaks down institutional arbitrage spaces, breaches technological monopoly channels, eliminates cognitive isolation mechanisms, and constructs a “transnational cognitive community,” forming a systematic breakthrough against capital’s mobility barriers.

跨国资本通过空间套利、技术垄断、意识形态渗透等实现无阻碍增殖，而认知劳动者却受限于民族国家的司法边界、技术接入壁垒与文化隔阂，难以形成有效抵抗。跨国协作作为抵抗策略的关键维度，打破制度性套利空间，突破技术性垄断通道，消除认知性隔离机制，构建起“跨国认知共同体”,形成对资本流动性壁垒的系统性突破。

Institutional arbitrage spaces are systemic loopholes through which transnational capital achieves surplus accumulation by exploiting institutional differences between states; their essence is the transformation of the fragmentation of national sovereignty into a tool for capital valorization. Data arbitrage is the most concealed form of institutional arbitrage in cognitive capitalism. It exploits the arbitrage logic of separating the place of registration from the place of value creation, severing the value created by cognitive labor from tax jurisdiction, forming an unfair pattern of “global value creation—local tax payment.” To address the severance of value creation from tax jurisdiction, the principle of taxation based on the user’s location should be established, along with a data value-sharing mechanism that allocates taxes weighted by the proportion of the user population and data usage in each location. To address the severance of data control rights from value distribution rights, it is necessary to break through the mechanical understanding of “data localization = data sovereignty,” construct an autonomous framework for data sovereignty, embed data value-sharing clauses, and establish penetrating supervision of data flows. To address the severance of institutional discourse power from rule enforcement power, it is necessary to use technological means to build a decentralized regulatory network, weakening the rule enforcement advantages of central states.

制度性套利空间是跨国资本通过国家间制度差异实现超额积累的系统性漏洞，其本质是将国家主权分割转化为资本增殖工具。数据套利是认知资本主义最隐蔽的制度性套利形式，利用注册地与价值创造地分离的套利逻辑，将认知劳动创造的价值与税收管辖权割裂，形成“全球价值创造—局部税收缴纳”的不公平格局。针对价值创造与税收管辖权的割裂，确立用户所在地征税原则，建立数据价值分成机制，按用户所在地人口比例与数据使用量加权分配税收。针对数据控制权与价值分配权的割裂，需突破“数据本地化=数据主权”的机械认知，构建数据主权自主框架，嵌入数据价值分成条款，建立数据流动的穿透式监管。针对制度话语权与规则执行权的割裂，需要利用技术手段构建去中心化监管网络，削弱中心国家的规则执行优势。

Technological monopoly channels are capital’s monopolistic occupation of technological pathways. Transnational capital, by controlling cross-border payments, cloud services, and communication infrastructure, constructs a “digital feudalism.” Technological access rights are defined by capital as “grace,” and cognitive subjects are forced to achieve data flows, value transmission, and knowledge production through capital-controlled infrastructure, falling into the passive predicament of “if you don’t depend, you are eliminated.” Building a decentralized payment network establishes a real-time linkage between data and value, forming a cyborg symbiotic system of “data-value-subject” and achieving co-being value flows without capital intermediation. Building distributed storage and cloud services breaks Amazon Web Services’ monopoly on data possession, achieving a symbiotic possession of subject-data-storage technology, elevating data from capital goods to a knowledge commons shared by cognitive subjects. Building a decentralized communication network breaks the communication hegemony of “central states—peripheral regions,” so that cognitive subjects are no longer terminal users of capital’s communication networks but co-constructors of communication space.

技术性垄断通道就是资本对技术通道的垄断性占有，跨国资本通过控制跨境支付、云服务、通信基础设施，构建“数字封建制”,技术接入权被资本定义为“恩赐”,认知主体被迫通过资本控制的基础设施实现数据流动、价值传输与知识生产，陷入“不依附即淘汰”的被动困境。构建去中心化支付网络，建立数据与价值实时联动，形成“数据—价值—主体”的赛博格共生系统，实现无资本中介的共在性价值流动。构建分布式存储与云服务，打破亚马逊网络服务的数据占有垄断，实现主体—数据—存储技术的共生性占有，数据从资本品升维为认知主体共有的知识公地。构建去中心化通信网络，打破“中心国家—边缘地区”的通信霸权，认知主体不再是资本通信网络的终端用户，而是通信空间的共同建构者。

The cognitive isolation mechanism is the core ideological mechanism through which cognitive capitalism maintains global domination. Its essence is to prevent cognitive subjects from forming effective solidarity across regions and identities by amplifying cultural differences, fragmenting identity politics, and isolating information cocoons. The ultimate goal of this mechanism is to lock cognitive subjects into the predicament of “atomized cognition—fragmented resistance,” maintaining capital’s monopolistic exploitation of cognitive labor. To dismantle the cognitive isolation mechanism, efforts must be coordinated from the dual perspectives of organizational network reconstruction and ideological decolonization, achieving co-being solidarity while acknowledging difference, and ultimately constructing a co-being order of cognitive subjects. Through the distributed reconstruction of organizational networks, the identity opposition and geographical segregation dominated by capital are broken, and the differential co-being practice of cognitive subjects is constructed. Through ideological decolonization, the symbolic violence of capital-dominated cultural superiority and identity opposition is dismantled, and an ethics of co-being within difference is reconstructed. The dismantling of the cognitive isolation mechanism is not only an innovation in resistance tools at the strategic level but also a revolution in cognitive subjectivity at the ontological level, realizing a transformation from a capital-dominated cognitive order to a co-being order of cognitive subjects, ultimately transcending capital-dominated cognitive isolation.

认知性隔离机制是认知资本主义维系全球统治的核心意识形态机制，其本质是通过文化差异放大、身份政治割裂、信息茧房隔离等阻止认知主体形成跨地域、跨身份的有效团结，这种机制的终极目标是将认知主体锁定在“原子化认知—碎片化抵抗”的困境中，维系资本对认知劳动的垄断性剥削。破解认知性隔离机制从组织网络重构与意识形态解殖双重视角协同发力，在承认差异的前提下实现共在团结，最终构建认知主体共在秩序。通过组织网络的分布式重构，打破资本主导的身份对立与地域隔离，构建认知主体的差异共在性实践。通过意识形态解殖，瓦解资本主导的文化优劣论、身份对立论符号暴力，重构差异中的共在伦理。认知性隔离机制的破解不仅是策略层面的抵抗工具创新，更是存在论层面的认知主体革命，实现从资本主导的认知秩序到认知主体共在秩序的转换，最终超越资本主导的认知隔离。

Conclusion

结 语

Cognitive capitalism is essentially an extension of bourgeois dictatorship into the cognitive domain. Cognitive capitalism, through the algorithmic framework (Gestell), alienates the proletariat’s being-in-the-world into cognitive Dasein, dissolving the cognitive subjectivity of the proletariat. It reduces the common intellectual wealth of cognitive labor to private data assets, plundering the cognitive sovereignty of the proletariat through user agreements. Through the cognitive enclosure movement implemented by the intellectual property system, it privatizes the socialized cognitive achievements that should belong to the proletariat. In short, the systematic reconstruction of cognitive relations of production by cognitive capitalism is essentially an ideological domestication carried out by the bourgeois dictatorship to maintain capital valorization. To dismantle the ideological domination of cognitive capitalism, it is necessary to break capital’s monopoly on cognitive pathways through decentralized technology, enabling cognitive subjects to regain control over the symbiotic relationship between cognition and technology through data sovereignty and algorithmic audit rights, so that cognitive subjects affirm existence in co-being within difference rather than being homogenized by algorithms. By constructing a knowledge commons and breaking the monopoly of intellectual property through open-source collaboration and distributed knowledge production, knowledge is reconstructed from a product of capital into a co-being cognitive achievement. Cognitive labor must be liberated from data exploitation, so that knowledge production serves the free and comprehensive development of the human person, using a people-centered approach to govern technological rationality, affirming that the value standard of technological progress is the realization of the essential powers of humanity. In sum, dismantling the ideological domination of cognitive capitalism is essentially the class struggle waged by the proletariat in the cognitive domain: by seizing control of the means of cognitive production, abolishing the cognitive form of bourgeois dictatorship, and constructing a communist knowledge commons, it advances human civilization from capitalist civilization to socialist and communist civilization.

认知资本主义本质上是资产阶级专政在认知领域的延伸。认知资本主义通过算法座架将无产阶级的在世存在异化为认知性此在，实现对无产阶级认知主体性的消解；通过将认知劳动的共同知识财富降为私有数据资产，以用户协议形式对无产阶级的认知主权进行掠夺性占有；通过知识产权制度实施的认知圈地运动，将本应属于无产阶级的社会化认知成果私有化。质言之，认知资本主义对认知生产关系的系统性重构在本质上就是资产阶级专政为维护资本增殖而进行的意识形态驯化。要破解认知资本主义意识形态统治，需通过去中心化技术打破资本对认知通道的垄断，使认知主体通过数据主权、算法审计权重新掌控认知与技术的共生关系，使认知主体在差异中的共在中确证存在，而非被算法同质化。通过构建知识公地，打破知识产权垄断，以开源协作、分布式知识生产打破知识产权壁垒，将知识从资本产物重构为共在的认知成果。要将认知劳动从数据剥削中解放出来，使知识生产服务于人的自由全面发展，以人民性驾驭技术理性，确证技术进步的价值标准是人类本质力量的实现。总之，破解认知资本主义的意识形态统治在本质上就是无产阶级在认知领域开展的阶级斗争：通过夺取认知生产资料控制权、消灭资产阶级专政的认知形式、构建共产主义的知识公地，推动人类文明从资本主义文明走向社会主义和共产主义文明。

About the author: Deng Bojun, Professor and Doctoral Supervisor at the School of Marxism, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

作者简介：邓伯军，南京航空航天大学马克思主义学院教授、博士生导师。