Digital Socialism or Digital Utopia?

Since ancient times, humanity has never ceased its quest for an ideal society. In 1516, Thomas More, with a highly satirical pen, laid bare the oppressive reality of European feudal society and depicted the beautiful social vision on the island of Utopia, bringing utopian socialism into human view for the first time. More than three hundred years later, through a profound analysis of the contradictions of capitalist society, Marx discovered historical materialism and the theory of surplus value, transforming socialism from a utopia into a science. To this day, the theory and practice of socialism continue to exert a profound influence worldwide. However, in stark contrast, the ruling logic of capitalism also continues to operate, “not only carrying out plans of expansion, hegemony, and domination, but also, by driving digital-intelligent technology, enclosing big data network resources, and encroaching upon human intelligence and creativity, ultimately achieving unprecedented hegemony.” The “conspiracy” of capital and technology is giving rise to “platform capitalism,” “data capitalism,” “surveillance capitalism,” and other new forms of capital. In response to this situation, left-wing scholars abroad have successively explored how to break free from the plunder and discipline of these new capital forms. Criticizing contemporary capitalism, they have turned their attention to the integration of new technology with socialism, forming various versions of digital socialism, which they regard as an ideal blueprint for transcending the rule of digital capitalism. However, are these alternative schemes realistically feasible? Can they truly break free from the domination of capital and push socialism from theory into practice? Or are these conceptions ultimately nothing more than utopian fantasies? All this requires us to base ourselves on the fundamental position of Marxism and conduct a systematic examination and in-depth analysis.

自古以来，人类从未停止探索理想社会的步伐。1516年，托马斯·莫尔（ThomasMore）以极具讽刺意味的笔触揭示出欧洲封建社会的压迫现实，描绘了乌托邦岛上的美好社会愿景，使空想社会主义首次映入世人眼帘。300余年后，马克思通过对资本主义社会矛盾的深刻剖析，发现了唯物史观和剩余价值学说，使社会主义由空想变为科学。直至今日，社会主义的理论与实践依然在世界范围内产生着深远的影响。然而，与之形成鲜明对照的是资本主义的统治逻辑也在持续发挥作用，“资本逻辑不仅依然实施着扩张、霸权和宰制计划，而且还通过驱动数字—智能技术、圈占大数据网络资源、侵染人的智力和创造力，最终实现了前所未有的霸权”。资本与技术的“合谋”正催生出“平台资本主义”“数据资本主义”“监控资本主义”等多种新型资本形态。针对这一现状，国外左翼学者相继探讨如何突破新型资本形态的掠夺与规训，他们在批判当代资本主义的基础上，转而关注新技术与社会主义的融合，形成了多种版本的数字社会主义方案，并将其视为超越数字资本主义统治的理想蓝图。然而，这些替代方案是否具有现实合理性？能否真正挣脱资本的支配、推动社会主义从理论走向现实？抑或这些构想终究只是乌托邦式的空想？这都需要我们立足马克思主义基本立场，对其进行系统审视与深入辨析。

I. The Theoretical Genealogy of Digital Socialism

一、数字社会主义的理论谱系

In the digital age, left-wing scholars abroad have attempted to return to the Marxist discourse system, exploring paths to realize socialism by relying on digital technology, in order to respond to the issues of alienation and domination brought about by digital capitalism. Current theories of digital socialism have not yet formed a unified paradigm; instead, they exhibit a rich theoretical genealogy across multiple dimensions, reflecting the complex and diverse overall landscape of contemporary left-wing socialist thought abroad.

在数字时代，国外左翼学者试图重返马克思主义话语体系，探索依托数字技术实现社会主义的路径，以此回应数字资本主义带来的异化与支配问题。当下的数字社会主义理论尚未形成统一范式，而是在多重维度上展现出丰富的理论谱系，折射出当代国外左翼社会主义思潮复杂多元的整体图景。

(1) The Critical Communication School’s New Conception Centered on Media Democracy and Digital Commons

（一）批判传播学派以媒介民主与数字公地为核心的新构想

The critical communication school’s digital construction of socialist theory primarily originates from the Marxist political economy and critical communication tradition, with its intellectual roots traceable to the Frankfurt School of the 20th century. Adorno and Horkheimer pointed out in *Dialectic of Enlightenment* that mass media in capitalist society “is infecting everything with sameness,” consolidating the existing order through a unified mechanism of entertainment and information. Entering the digital age, the rise of the internet and social media has meant that communication and media are no longer merely ideological apparatuses but have become, to a considerable extent, a central link in capital accumulation. It is against this backdrop that critical communication scholars have combined the Marxist critique of political economy with the communication system under digital capitalist conditions. This school argues that the so-called “free and open” facade of social media conceals the commodification of user data and attention, a mechanism that constitutes a new form of exploitation. Precisely because of this, they have also begun to contemplate the social emancipatory potential of digital networks, proposing alternative schemes centered on “media democracy” and “digital commons.” Christian Fuchs believes that free, equal, and open communication through information and communication technologies (ICT) can promote social democratization and broad participation, and that digital technology provides tools for realizing media democracy and collective decision-making, “computers and their networks have opened new avenues for organizing information, communication, and cooperation.” He thus calls his alternative scheme “digital/communication socialism.” Similarly, Yale University visiting scholar Michael Kwet has also glimpsed the possibility of realizing socialism from the rapid development of social media, proposing a socialist model based on “digital commons.” He advocates “replacing the core pillars of digital capitalism with the politics of digital technology of a socialist alternative,” constructing digital commons directly controlled by the people, breaking down the “walled gardens” built by big tech companies, and promoting a global digital socialist movement. In summary, the critical communication school envisions a digital socialist scheme in which technology and information are no longer privatized by capital but are opened to all members of society like public infrastructure.

批判传播学派对社会主义理论的数字化建构，主要源自马克思主义政治经济学与批判传播学传统，其思想渊源可以追溯到20世纪的法兰克福学派。阿多诺与霍克海默早在《启蒙辩证法》中就指出大众传媒在资本主义社会中“正在以同一性浸染一切”，通过娱乐与信息的统一机制巩固现存秩序。进入数字时代，互联网与社交媒体的兴起使得传播与媒介不再只是意识形态装置，而是在相当程度上成为资本积累的中枢环节。批判传播学者正是在此背景下将马克思主义的政治经济学批判与数字资本主义条件下的传播体系相结合。该学派认为，社交媒体所谓“免费开放”的表象背后是对用户数据与注意力的商品化，这种机制构成了新的剥削关系。正因如此，也促使他们开始思考数字网络的社会解放意蕴，提出了以“媒介民主”“数字公地”等为主张的替代方案。克里斯蒂安·福克斯（ChristianFuchs）认为通过信息与通信技术（ICT）进行自由、平等和开放的传播能够促进社会民主化与广泛参与，数字技术为实现媒介民主与集体决策提供了工具，“计算机及其网络为组织信息、传播与合作开辟了新途径”，因而将其替代方案称为“数字/传播社会主义”。与之相似，耶鲁大学访问学者迈克尔·奎特（MichaelKwet）也从社交媒体的迅速发展中窥见了实现社会主义的可能，提出一种基于“数字公地”的社会主义模式，主张“用社会主义替代方案的数字技术之政取代数字资本主义的核心支柱”，构建由民众直接掌控的数字公地，打破大型科技公司构筑的“围墙花园”，并推动全球范围内的数字社会主义运动。总而言之，批判传播学派设想了一种技术与信息不再被资本私有化，而是像公共基础设施一样向全体社会成员开放的数字社会主义方案。

(2) The “New Planned Economy” Reconstructing a Planned Economy with Algorithmic Calculation and Feedback Mechanisms

（二）以算法核算与反馈机制重构计划经济的“新计划经济”

The “new planned economy” current of thought discusses digital socialism mainly by taking up the 20th-century debate on the “socialist economic calculation problem.” The Austrian School, represented by Hayek, once asserted that only the capitalist system is “the only conceivable socio-economic form that can satisfy the demands any economic organization makes on society,” and that a planned economy has fundamental defects in information processing and price formation, making it unable to replace the decentralized coordination mechanism of the market. However, with the development of computer science and big data technology, some scholars have proposed that modern algorithms and network feedback systems could potentially overcome this limitation. Scottish Marxist economist William Paul Cockshott is one representative of this current. He attributes the failure of the Soviet planned economy to the limitations of computing and communication technology at the time and argues that technological progress now offers new possibilities for computer-assisted economic planning. Cockshott and Allin Cottrell point out: “Using a distributed computing system, each production unit can obtain estimates of the social labor costs of current production alternatives. This is far faster than what a capitalist market can achieve.” This line of thinking has been expanded upon in the works of subsequent scholars. For example, Belarusian scholar Evgeny Morozov provides a modern interpretation of the socialist economic calculation problem, proposing a socialist model based on a “digital feedback infrastructure.” Morozov argues that the price mechanism championed by Hayek and others performs a social coordination function without requiring comprehensive knowledge, and that feedback facilities such as platforms and real-time data flows in the digital age extend and supplement this mechanism of transmitting “tacit knowledge,” theoretically overcoming the difficulties in the debate. Thus, the “new planned economy” current attempts to use big data and algorithms as tools to address the feasibility of a planned economy and make it a fulcrum for the digital construction of socialism, representing a digital socialist scheme with utopian overtones.

“新计划经济”思潮讨论的数字社会主义，主要承接了20世纪关于“社会主义经济核算问题”的争论。以哈耶克为代表的奥地利学派曾断言只有资本主义制度才是“满足社会对任何经济组织提出的要求的唯一可以想象的社会经济形态”，而计划经济在信息处理与价格形成上存在根本缺陷，无法取代市场的分散协调机制。但是，随着计算机科学与大数据技术的发展，一些学者提出，现代算法与网络反馈系统有可能突破这一限制。苏格兰马克思主义经济学家威廉·保罗·科克肖特（WilliamPaulCockshott）是该思潮的代表之一，他把苏联计划经济的失败归因于计算和通信技术水平的局限，并认为如今技术的进步为计算机辅助经济计划提供了新的可能。科克肖特与奥林·科特雷尔（AllinCottrell）指出：“使用分布式计算系统，每个生产单位都能获得当前生产备选方案的社会劳动成本估算。这远比资本主义市场所能达到的速度要快得多。”这种思路在后续学者的论述中得到拓展。例如，白俄罗斯学者叶夫根尼·莫罗佐夫（EvgenyMorozov）对社会主义经济核算问题进行了现代解读，提出一种基于“数字反馈基础设施”的社会主义模型。莫罗佐夫认为，哈耶克等人支持的价格机制是在不需要全盘知识的前提下实现社会协调功能，而数字时代的平台和实时数据流等反馈设施对这种“隐含知识”传递机制进行扩展和补充，这在理论上克服了辩论中的难点。由此可见，“新计划经济”思潮试图以大数据和算法为工具，回应计划经济的可行性问题，并将其作为社会主义数字化建构的支点，是一种具有乌托邦色彩的数字社会主义方案。

(3) Left-Wing Accelerationism’s Full Automation and “Platform Socialism”

（三）左翼加速主义的全面自动化与“平台社会主义”

Left-wing accelerationism emerged in the early twenty-first century. This school of thought advocates using the technological progress bred by capitalism itself to accelerate the transition of society toward a non-capitalist society. Its difference from the traditional left lies in the fact that it does not resist modern technology; on the contrary, it emphasises that one should master and promote the development of automation, artificial intelligence and digital platforms, transforming them into forces of social liberation. For example, Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams, in their co-authored book *Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work*, state: "The left must liberate the utopian impulse from the shackles of neoliberalism in order to expand the space of possibility, stimulate a critical perspective on the present, and cultivate new desires." They criticise contemporary left-wing politics for often being confined to local resistance and short-term action, neglecting the possibility of using technological conditions on a global scale to realise a new system. From the perspective of left-wing accelerationism, neoliberal capitalism, on the one hand, uses automation and digital technology to increase production efficiency, while on the other hand, it deliberately suppresses the full release of technological potential through private ownership in order to safeguard the capital accumulation of the bourgeoisie. Therefore, left-wing accelerationism is first and foremost a critical theory, revealing the "duality" of capitalism in the development of automation and digital technology. In responding to this distorted logic of capitalism, left-wing accelerationism puts forward two core proposals: one is "full automation", and the other is "platform socialism". Aaron Bastani is a pioneer in envisioning the use of automation technology to realise a non-capitalist society. He argues that modern society, through transistors, integrated circuits and similar technologies, has achieved a so-called "third disruption", characterised by increasingly abundant information, marking humanity's entry into an era in which machines are increasingly capable of performing both cognitive and manual tasks. This all-round automation of production can greatly reduce human labour time, allowing humanity to enter a "post-labour era". British scholar James Muldoon, influenced by Srnicek, proposes "platform socialism" as a concrete practical path for technological acceleration, advocating the transformation of large platforms into forms of public ownership or cooperatives, making them social infrastructure serving public needs. Muldoon defines "platform socialism" as "organising the digital economy through the social ownership of digital assets and democratic control over the infrastructure and systems that dominate our digital lives". It can be seen that left-wing accelerationism generally starts from the ownership of technology, focusing on how platforms and technology can serve broader social needs and democratic goals, rather than the capitalist logic of simply pursuing profit.

左翼加速主义兴起于21世纪初，该流派主张利用资本主义自身孕育的技术进步来加速推动社会向非资本主义社会过渡。它与传统左翼的不同之处在于其并不抵制现代科技，反而强调应当掌握并推动自动化、人工智能与数字平台的发展，将其转化为社会解放的力量。例如，尼克·斯尔尼塞克（NickSrnicek）与亚历克斯·威廉姆斯（AlexWilliams）在其合著的《发明未来：后资本主义与无工作的世界》中指出：“左翼必须将乌托邦的冲动从新自由主义的枷锁中解放出来，以拓展可能性的空间，激发对当下的批判视角，并培育新的愿望。”他们批判当代左翼政治常常局限于地方性抵抗与短期行动，忽视了在全球范围内利用科技条件实现新制度的可能性。在左翼加速主义看来，新自由主义资本主义一方面利用自动化与数字技术提高生产效率，另一方面却通过私有制刻意压制技术潜能的充分释放，以维护资产阶级的资本积累。因此，左翼加速主义首先是一种批判性理论，揭示出资本主义在自动化与数字科技发展上的“双重性”。在回应资本主义这种扭曲逻辑时，左翼加速主义提出了两大核心方案，一是“全面自动化”，二是“平台社会主义”。亚伦·巴斯塔尼（AaronBastani）是设想利用自动化技术实现非资本主义社会的先驱，他认为现代社会通过晶体管、集成电路等技术实现了所谓“第三次颠覆”，其特征是信息越来越丰富，标志人类进入一个机器越来越能够执行认知和体力任务的时代。这种生产的全方位自动化可以极大地减少人类劳动时间，让人类进入“后劳动时代”。英国学者詹姆斯·马尔登（JamesMuldoon）受斯尔尼塞克影响，提出“平台社会主义”作为技术加速的具体实践路径，主张将大型平台以公共所有制或合作社的形式加以改造，使其成为服务公共需求的社会性基础设施。马尔登将“平台社会主义”定义为“通过数字资产的社会所有权以及对支配我们数字生活的基础设施与系统的民主控制来组织数字经济”。可见，左翼加速主义普遍从技术的所有权出发，关注平台、技术如何服务于更广泛的社会需求和民主目标，而非单纯追求利润的资本逻辑。

(4) Digital Social Democracy and the "Post-Capitalist" Social Blueprint

（四）数字社会民主主义与“后资本主义”社会蓝图

Digital social democracy continues the basic concern of traditional social democracy with ameliorating the contradictions of capitalism through institutional reform, and puts forward a gradualist "post-capitalist" proposal in the context of digitalisation and the development of the knowledge economy. This school of thought holds that the increased inequality and the decline of the welfare state caused by neoliberalism have plunged capitalism into a crisis of legitimacy, and that the rise of information technology provides a new opportunity to break through this predicament. For example, Jeremy Rifkin proposes that the free and shared attributes of information goods further reduce marginal costs, bringing them close to zero, and that capitalism is evolving towards a new economic paradigm. British scholar Paul Mason argues that the fundamental contradiction of modern capitalism has already transformed into "the contradiction between the possibility of free goods being produced in abundance by society and the efforts of monopolistic corporations, banks and governments to maintain control over power and information". Mason expresses two meanings: first, at the technological level, capitalism is driving the process of digitalisation of goods, leading to the emergence of zero-marginal-cost goods, forms of labour that are difficult to measure, exponential leaps in productive forces, and generalised automation. Second, at the level of relations of production, these technological changes have made the existing relations of production under capitalism unable to adapt effectively, ultimately causing digital information technology to continuously erode the operational basis and legitimacy of the market mechanism. In this process, social structure gradually evolves into a vast factory "permeated by communication networks", giving rise to a huge digital working class, thereby providing the real social potential for realising post-capitalism. Also focusing on the transformation of the knowledge economy is New Zealand scholar Michael A. Peters. Starting from the relationship between education and knowledge, he analyses the positive and negative roles the market mechanism plays in them. Peters names his proposal "knowledge socialism", pointing out that "digital capitalism contains within it a socialist tendency, which, through new technology, expresses a self-evident truth: that knowledge and its value are fundamentally rooted in social relations". In other words, Peters both considers "knowledge socialism" to be nurtured within the internal logic of digital capitalism and views it as a critique and transcendence of the logic of capitalist privatisation and monopoly, aiming to construct new forms of social organisation through the openness and sharing of knowledge. In this regard, the vision of digital social democracy is not to overthrow the capitalist system, but to promote gradual reform through the combination of digital technology and social democratic institutions, in order to realise a "post-capitalist" social blueprint centred on public interest and information sharing.

数字社会民主主义延续了传统社会民主主义通过制度改良缓和资本主义矛盾的基本关切，并在数字化与知识经济发展的背景下提出了一种渐进式的“后资本主义”方案。该流派认为，新自由主义导致的不平等加剧与福利国家衰退，使资本主义陷入合法性危机，而信息技术的兴起为突破这一困境提供了新的契机。例如，杰里米·里夫金（JeremyRifkin）提出，信息商品的免费与共享属性进一步降低边际成本，使之趋近于零，资本主义正在向一种新的经济范式演变。英国学者保罗·梅森（PaulMason）则认为，现代资本主义的根本矛盾已经转化为“社会生产出大量免费商品的可能性与垄断企业、银行和政府努力保持对权力和信息的控制之间的矛盾”。梅森表达了两种含义：其一，在技术层面，资本主义正推动着物品的数字化进程，由此导致零边际成本商品的涌现、难以度量的劳动形态、生产力的指数级跃迁以及普遍化的自动化。其二，在生产关系层面，这些技术变迁已使资本主义原有的生产关系无法有效适应，最终导致数字信息技术不断侵蚀市场机制的运行基础与合法性。在此过程中，社会结构逐渐演化为一个“被通信网络所充斥”的巨大工厂，催生出庞大的数字工人阶级，从而为实现后资本主义提供了现实的社会潜能。同样关注到知识经济转型的还有新西兰学者迈克尔·彼得斯（MichaelA.Peters），他从教育和知识的相互关系出发，分析市场机制在其中所起到的正反作用。彼得斯将其方案命名为“知识社会主义”，指出“数字资本主义中蕴含着一种社会主义的倾向，它通过新技术表达了一个不言自明的真理，即知识及其价值本质上根植于社会关系”。换言之，彼得斯既认为“知识社会主义”孕育于数字资本主义的内部逻辑之中，又视之为对资本主义私有化与垄断逻辑的批判与超越，旨在通过知识的开放与共享构建新的社会组织形式。就此而言，数字社会民主主义的设想并非要推翻资本主义制度，而是通过数字技术与社会民主制度的结合，推动渐进式改良，以实现以公共利益和信息共享为核心的“后资本主义”社会蓝图。

2. Digital Socialism or Digital Utopia?

二、数字社会主义还是数字乌托邦？

Foreign left-wing scholars have conducted in-depth explorations of the possibility of realising socialism in the digital age, striving to reactivate socialist theoretical discourse under new technological conditions. To a certain extent, this demonstrates their value pursuit of and theoretical self-awareness regarding a society free from exploitation. However, such theoretical constructs generally deviate from the laws of the evolution of socio-economic formations revealed by historical materialism, detach from the objective historical conditions necessary for the transformation of social systems as indicated by scientific socialism, and fall into a one-sided optimism regarding digital tools in their understanding of technology. In this sense, so-called digital socialism ultimately cannot avoid becoming a utopian digital illusion.

国外左翼学者在数字时代对社会主义的实现可能展开深入探讨，力求在新技术条件下重新激活社会主义理论话语，这在一定程度上彰显了其对无剥削社会的价值追求与理论自觉。然而，此类理论构想普遍背离唯物史观所揭示的社会经济形态演进规律，脱离科学社会主义所指明的社会制度变革必需的客观历史条件，在技术认知上陷入对数字工具的片面乐观主义。就此而言，所谓数字社会主义，最终不免沦为一种乌托邦式的数字幻象。

(1) Theoretical Confusion: A Misinterpretation of the Laws Governing the Succession of Socio-Economic Formations

（一）理论迷思：对社会经济形态更替规律的曲解

The various types of digital socialist alternatives put forward by foreign left-wing scholars do not conform to the basic laws of the evolution of socio-economic formations revealed by historical materialism, and differ fundamentally from socialism as defined by Marxism. From the perspective of historical materialism, socialism, as a new social formation, must necessarily be explained and understood within the unified process of the development of productive forces and the transformation of relations of production. Marx pointed out: "My view is that the development of the economic formation of society is to be understood as a process of natural history." Lenin also pointed out: "Only by reducing social relations to relations of production, and relations of production to the level of the productive forces, can one have a reliable basis for regarding the development of social formations as a natural-historical process." It can be seen that in the writings of the classical Marxist authors, the emergence and development of socialism are regarded as a natural-historical process following objective laws, and this process always revolves around the dialectical movement of the material mode of production and human practical activity. When the relations of production of an old social formation can no longer adapt to the development of the productive forces and become an obstacle to them, this will drive society to evolve from a lower stage to a higher stage, causing one social formation to be replaced by another, more advanced social formation.

国外左翼学者推出各种类型的数字社会主义替代方案，不符合唯物史观揭示的社会经济形态演进的基本规律，与马克思主义所界定的社会主义有着本质上的差异。在唯物史观视域中，社会主义作为一种新的社会形态，必然要在生产力发展与生产关系变革的统一进程中得到阐释和理解。马克思指出：“我的观点是把经济的社会形态的发展理解为一种自然史的过程。”列宁也指出：“只有把社会关系归结于生产关系，把生产关系归结于生产力的水平，才能有可靠的根据把社会形态的发展看做自然历史过程。”可见，在马克思主义经典作家的著述里，社会主义的产生和发展被视为一种遵循客观规律的自然历史过程，且这个过程始终围绕着物质生产方式和人类实践活动的辩证运动而展开。当旧社会形态的生产关系无法适应生产力的发展而成为其阻碍时，便会推动社会从低阶段向更高阶段演进，使得一种社会形态被另一种更高级的社会形态所取代。

In comparison, the various digital socialist schemes proposed by foreign left-wing scholars generally deviate from the internal logic and objective laws of socio-economic formation evolution, reducing the realization of socialism to the autonomous evolution of digital technology or the rational reconstruction of technical means. This is a misinterpretation and distortion of the essence of socialism. In fact, digital technological innovation is, to a large extent, a continuation and deepening of the internal contradictions of the capitalist mode of production. On the basis of private ownership of the means of production, it further strengthens capital's control and surveillance over the labor process, causing the inherent exploitative relations of capitalism to assume a more concealed and subtle operational form. As some commentators have pointed out: "The digital revolution is a watershed event in human history, but within the evolutionary history of capitalism, it is merely a phase-based and structural change within this social formation. Far from breaking free of capitalism's order of domination, digital technology is instead being controlled by this social nature and state system."

相较于此，国外左翼学者提出的各类数字社会主义方案，普遍偏离了社会经济形态演进的内在逻辑与客观规律，将社会主义的实现简化为数字技术的自主演进或技术手段的理性重构，这是对社会主义本质的误读与曲解。事实上，数字技术的革新在很大程度上是资本主义生产方式内部矛盾的延续和深化，它在生产资料私有制的基础上进一步强化了资本对劳动过程的控制和监视，使资本主义固有的剥削关系呈现出更加隐秘、精微的运作形态。正如有论者所指出的：“数字革命在人类历史中是一个划时代的事件，但在资本主义演进史中，这只是这一社会形态内部的阶段性和结构性变化。数字技术非但没能挣脱出资本主义的宰制秩序，反而正在被这种社会性质和国家制度控制。”

(II) Realistic Misconceptions: Erroneous Understandings of the Motives for Social Revolution

（二）现实迷思：对社会革命动因的错误认知

From a realistic perspective, the digital socialism proposed by foreign left-wing academic circles exhibits clear cognitive biases regarding the subject and path of social revolution.

从现实境遇看，国外左翼学界所提出的数字社会主义在社会革命的主体与路径等问题上存在明显的认知偏差。

First, these theories replace the traditional proletarian political subject with an abstract subject in the digital sense. For example, Fox includes the "playbour" [n1] — the digital worker aristocracy created by monopoly platforms like Google — within the category of the working class. In reality, they all, to varying degrees, confuse the concrete and substantive existence of the proletariat as a historical subject, replacing the revolutionary subject formed in specific historical contexts with an abstract, symbolic political image, thereby obscuring the real driving force of social revolution. As long as the nature of capitalist relations of production has not undergone a substantive transformation, the proletariat remains the class that Marxist classical authors defined as "having nothing but their own labor power."

首先，这些理论以数字化意义上的抽象主体取代了传统意义上的无产阶级政治主体。如福克斯将谷歌等垄断平台催生的数字工人贵族“玩工”纳入工人阶级的范畴之内。实际上，他们都在不同程度上混淆了无产阶级作为历史主体的具体性与实体性存在，将具体历史语境中形成的革命主体置换为一种抽象化、符号化的政治意象，从而遮蔽了社会革命的真实动力。在资本主义生产关系的性质未发生实质转变的前提下，无产阶级仍然是马克思主义经典作家所界定的那个“除了自己的劳动力之外一无所有”的阶级。

Second, digital socialism abandons classical socialist revolutionary theory, replacing the thorough abolition of capitalist relations of production with gradualist reform. Contemporary foreign left-wing scholars mostly downplay the idea of achieving digital socialism through revolutionary paths, instead leaning towards gradualist schemes such as platform democratization and digital governance reform, maintaining an attitude of estrangement and avoidance towards classical socialist revolutionary theory. Although Fox reveals the "class struggle of digital workers" and calls for "a real social media revolution," Mardon advocates that digital workers should "resist, regulate, and recode existing digital platforms," and Morozov and others urge the left to "reclaim control over feedback mechanisms," these discussions remain confined to the digital economy sphere. Furthermore, digital socialism demands a redivision of ownership over new means of production, such as digital infrastructure, yet largely overlooks traditional means of production like land and factories; it criticizes the accumulation mechanisms of digital capital but rarely touches upon the position of industrial capital, financial capital, and other traditional capital forms in the overall accumulation of capitalism. Thus, it can be said that digital socialism does not touch the foundations of capitalist relations of production.

其次，数字社会主义抛弃了经典的社会主义革命理论，以渐进式改良取代了对资本主义生产关系的彻底废除。当代国外左翼大多弱化了以革命路径实现数字社会主义的主张，转而倾向于平台民主化、数字治理改良等渐进方案，对经典社会主义革命理论持疏离与回避态度。尽管福克斯揭示了“数字工人的阶级斗争”，并呼吁展开“一场真正的社交媒体革命”，马尔登主张数字工人应“抵制、监管和重新编码现有数字平台”，莫罗佐夫等人倡议左翼应“重新夺取对反馈机制的控制权”，但这些论述依旧局限于数字经济领域。进一步看，数字社会主义要求对新兴生产资料如数字基础设施的所有权重新进行划分，却相当程度上忽视了土地、工厂等传统生产资料；数字社会主义对数字资本的积累机制进行批判，却很少触及工业资本、金融资本等传统资本形态在资本主义总体积累中的地位，因而可以说，数字社会主义并未触及资本主义生产关系的根本。

Finally, various digital socialist alternatives, lacking the organizational leadership of a centralized, unified proletarian party, struggle to coalesce into an effective force capable of realistically transforming the capitalist system. Currently, most digital socialist theories are armchair theoretical constructs of foreign left-wing scholars, failing to effectively connect with and ignite the real struggles of the proletariat and other exploited groups. Their theories are more like flowers that bear no fruit, unable to give birth to a genuine socialist movement.

最后，各类数字社会主义替代方案由于缺乏集中统一的无产阶级政党的组织领导，难以凝聚为具有现实变革资本主义制度的有效力量。当前，大部分数字社会主义理论是国外左翼学者书斋式的理论设想，未能切实连接和激发无产阶级及其他被剥削群体的现实斗争。他们的理论更像是不结果实的花，难以催生出真正意义上的社会主义运动。

(III) Technological Misconceptions: The Narrative Paradox of Technological Optimism and "Institutional Convergence Theory"

（三）技术迷思：技术乐观主义与“制度趋同论”叙事悖论

Digital socialism attempts to realize a new social form by leveraging cutting-edge technological applications, falling into an excessive technological optimism while failing to recognize the contradictions and risks inherent in digital technology itself. Furthermore, this optimistic tendency, in its logical deduction, easily falls into the trap of "institutional convergence theory" — the belief that the universal characteristics of digital technology will push different types of social systems (such as capitalism, socialism, or other economic models) towards convergence into a new, technology-based institutional form. The result is that the fundamental differences between socialist and capitalist systems are gradually obscured and dissolved, causing socialism to lose its specific political connotations and historical characteristics under the paradigm of technological governance.

数字社会主义试图借助前沿技术应用实现新社会形态，陷入了一种过度的技术乐观主义，而未能认识到数字技术自身所内含的矛盾与风险。进一步看，这种乐观主义倾向在逻辑推演中极易落入“制度趋同论”陷阱，即认为数字技术的普适性特征会推动不同类型的社会制度（如资本主义、社会主义或其他经济模式）向一种以技术为基础的新制度形态靠拢。结果是社会主义与资本主义制度之间的根本差异逐渐被掩盖和消解，使社会主义在技术治理的范式下丧失其特有的政治内涵与历史特质。

Specifically, digital technology itself harbors a series of unpredictable and destructive risks and problems. Technologies developed under conditions of private ownership are naturally embedded with capitalism's unique accumulation logic and control mechanisms. Digital platforms, algorithmic recommendation systems, big data analysis, and other technologies, through the collection, analysis, and reproduction of data, deepen capital's precise surveillance and hidden exploitation of the labor process. In the process of data mining and algorithmic application, they replicate and reinforce existing social inequality structures, giving rise to new problems such as "algorithmic discrimination" and "data oppression." The ethical and moral risks of digital technology are equally undeniable. The "black-box" nature of artificial intelligence decision-making and the inherent inexplicability of algorithmic systems can easily trigger unpredictable decision-making errors and social injustices. Technologies like gene editing, biometric identification, and emotion computing, once misused, will inevitably bring about ethical conflicts and systemic risks to social order. Technology philosopher Nick Bostrom warned early on that highly autonomous AI systems, if their goal-setting becomes misaligned with human values, could lead to so-called "value lock-in" or "goal misalignment" problems. He pointed out: "Once an unfriendly superintelligence appears, it will prevent us from replacing it or changing its preference settings, and our fate will be locked in." If digital technology has failed to realize "frictionless capitalism" in its decades of application, then fully "digitalizing" socialism is equally untimely.

具体而言，数字技术本身存在一系列难以预见且具有破坏性的风险和问题。在私有制条件下发展起来的技术内部天然嵌入了资本主义特有的积累逻辑与控制机制。数字平台、算法推荐系统、大数据分析等技术，通过数据的采集、分析和再生产，深化了资本对劳动过程的精准监控与隐形剥削，在数据挖掘与算法应用过程中复制并强化了既有的社会不平等结构，催生出诸如“算法歧视”“数据压迫”等新型问题。数字技术在伦理道德层面的风险同样不容忽视。人工智能决策的“黑箱化”特征及算法系统内在的不可解释性，极易诱发不可预期的决策错误和社会不公正现象。基因编辑、生物识别、情绪计算等技术一旦被滥用，势必带来伦理上的冲突与社会秩序的系统性风险。技术哲学家尼克·波斯特洛姆（NickBostrom）很早就提醒人们，高度自主的AI系统如果出现目标设定与人类价值之间的错位，就会导致所谓“价值失控”或“目标偏离”问题。他指出：“一旦不友好的超级智能出现，它就会组织我们将其替换或者更改其偏好设置，而我们的命运就因此被锁定了。”如果说数字技术在此前数十年的应用中未能实现“没有摩擦的资本主义”，那么，将社会主义完全“数字化”同样是不合时宜的。

Digital socialism also runs the narrative risk of falling into "institutional convergence theory." If technology is seen as the primary driver of institutional evolution, and is assumed to possess universal adaptability or value neutrality, then the society shaped by technology tends towards a globally isomorphic, institutionally uniform utopian landscape. One must understand that the evolution of social systems is always the result of the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production, and between the economic base and superstructure. This logic of technological generalization by foreign left-wing scholars not only fails to overcome capitalism's new forms of alienation but also dissolves socialism's unique political subjectivity and value core, potentially reducing socialism to a mere technocratic governance tool. In this way, digital socialism could become a mild reformist scheme for capitalism, degenerating into a neutralized, deradicalized decorative discourse, destined to remain at the level of an illusory utopia.

数字社会主义也存在着落入“制度趋同论”的叙事风险。倘若技术被视为制度演进的主要驱动力，并且假定拥有某种普遍适配性或价值中立性，那么由技术塑造的社会也就趋向于一种全球同构、制度统一的乌托邦景观。要知道，社会制度的演变始终是生产力与生产关系、经济基础与上层建筑矛盾运动的结果。国外左翼的这种技术泛化逻辑不仅无法克服资本主义新的异化问题，反而消解了社会主义特有的政治主体性与价值内核，将会使社会主义蜕变为某种技术化的治理工具。如此一来，数字社会主义可能成为对资本主义的温和改良方案，沦为一种中立化、去激进化的装饰性话语，注定只能停留在虚幻的乌托邦层面。

III. Realistic Paths to Break Through the Digital Socialism Myth

三、突破数字社会主义迷思的现实路径

Digital capitalism has drawn the human subject into a new logic of alienation, profoundly changing capitalist social relations and its forms of domination. In response, is a transition from digital capitalism to socialism realistically possible? Can a practical path towards human liberation be opened within the highly disciplined society constructed by the "capital-technology" complex? To address these questions, one must not "become enamored with contemporary utopian theories, believing that new technologies like AI will liberate humanity." Instead, one must return to the fundamental standpoint of Marxism: it is necessary to move from a "digital revolution" back to an "institutional revolution," to rebuild the political subjectivity of the proletariat from the spectacle of "class voicelessness," to shift from relying solely on "Western experience" to drawing on "Global South experience" (especially the experience of digital modernization in socialist countries), and to move from theoretical critique towards organized movements with real-world force.

数字资本主义将人类主体卷入了新的异化逻辑之中，深刻地改变了资本主义的社会关系及其统治形式。对此，从数字资本主义向社会主义的转变是否具备现实可能性？能否在“资本—技术”复合体所构建的高度规训社会中开辟通往人类解放的实践路径？要回应这些问题，就不能“醉心于当代乌托邦理论，认为人工智能等新技术会解放人类”，而是应回归马克思主义的基本立场，必须从“数字革命”回归“制度革命”，从“阶级失语”的景观中重建无产阶级的政治主体性，从唯“西方经验”转向吸取“全球南方经验”（尤其是社会主义国家的数字现代化建设经验），从理论批判转向具有现实力量的组织化运动。

(I) From "Digital Revolution" Back to "Institutional Revolution"

（一）从“数字革命”回归“制度革命”

When foreign left-wing scholars explore how to achieve socialism through the digital revolution, they often exaggerate its role and efficacy. On the one hand, the digital revolution is deeply embedded within the capitalist system and is continuously subjected to the material domination and control of the logic of capital; relying solely on partial changes in the digital technology sphere can hardly touch the ruling foundations of capitalism. On the other hand, digital technology itself does not possess an inherent logic of liberation; the notion that technological evolution will automatically lead to institutional transcendence is a misunderstanding of the mutually constitutive mechanism of the relationship between technology and society. In fact, the arrival of the digital revolution does not mean the automatic arrival of socialism; progress at the technological level cannot replace transformation at the institutional level. Therefore, it is necessary to return from the “digital revolution” to an “institutional revolution,” directing the critique at capitalist relations of production.

国外左翼学者在探讨如何通过数字革命实现社会主义时，往往过于夸大其作用与效能。一方面，数字革命的发生深植于资本主义体制内，持续受到资本逻辑的物役和宰制，仅依赖数字技术领域的局部变革很难触及资本主义的统治根基。另一方面，数字技术本身并不具有自发的解放逻辑，寄希望于技术自身演进自动导向制度超越的设想，是对技术与社会关系相互建构机制的误解。事实上，数字革命的到来不意味着社会主义的自动到来，技术层面的进步无法取代制度层面的变革。因此，必须从“数字革命”回归“制度革命”，将批判的矛头指向资本主义生产关系。

(2) From “Class Aphasia” to “Class Presence”

（二）从“阶级失语”迈向“阶级在场”

As noted above, the theoretical narrative of digital socialism exhibits a tendency toward “class aphasia,” claiming that the traditional working class is “disappearing” and accordingly asserting that its status as the revolutionary subject is disintegrating. Some scholars introduce concepts such as the “non-income class,” the “playbour,” and the “multitude,” which lack a clear class orientation, in an attempt to redefine the subject of social revolution, even reaching the pessimistic conclusion that “the future of socialist struggle remains extremely uncertain.” In fact, as General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “From the broad perspective of 500 years of world socialism, we are still in the historical era indicated by Marxism.” [2]2 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Conference Commemorating the 200th Anniversary of Marx’s Birth,” 2018. The phrase “500 years of world socialism” refers to the period from Thomas More’s *Utopia* (1516) to the present. The analysis by classical Marxist writers of the class structure and essence of capitalist society remains applicable to contemporary society. Marx once noted: “The proletariat’s proclamation of the dissolution of the existing world order merely reveals the secret of its own existence, for it is the actual dissolution of that world order.” [3]3 Karl Marx, “Introduction” to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy* (1859), paraphrasing the argument of *The Communist Manifesto* (1848). No matter how the fusion of digital technology and capital renovates forms of exploitation, the inherent pattern of class antagonism within the capitalist system has not undergone any substantive change; no matter how foreign left-wing scholars reconstruct the concept of the proletariat at the semantic level, they cannot alter the objective fact that the proletariat, as a “class-for-itself,” is gradually revealing its historical mission and essential existence. The British Marxist economist Michael Roberts has provided a clear definition of the proletariat in the digital age: “Classes still exist, and are in fact more concentrated… in emerging industries such as media, technology, and communications, they are becoming aware of this as mental workers.” Therefore, it is necessary to move from the “aphasia” of the proletariat to its “presence,” to return to the Marxist theory of class analysis, and to reveal the logic of material domination concealed behind the forms of digital labor.

如前所述，数字社会主义的理论叙述呈现出“阶级失语”的倾向，认为传统意义上的工人阶级正在“消失”，并据此断言其作为革命主体的地位正趋于瓦解。一些学者引入“无收入阶级”“玩工”“诸众”等不具备明确阶级指向的概念，试图重新界定社会革命主体，甚至得出“社会主义斗争的未来仍然极不明朗”的悲观论断。事实上，正如习近平总书记指出的：“从世界社会主义500年的大视野来看，我们依然处在马克思主义所指明的历史时代。”马克思主义经典作家对资本主义社会阶级结构及其本质的分析仍适用于当代社会。马克思曾指出：“无产阶级宣告迄今为止的世界制度的解体，只不过是揭示自己本身的存在的秘密，因为它就是这个世界制度的实际解体。”无论数字技术与资本的合体如何翻新剥削形式，资本主义制度内在的阶级对立格局都未发生实质改变；无论国外左翼学者如何在语义层面重构无产阶级概念，都无法改变无产阶级作为“自为阶级”逐步揭示自身历史使命与存在本质的客观事实。英国马克思主义经济学家迈克尔·罗伯茨（MichaelRoberts）对数字时代的无产阶级作出了清晰的界定：“阶级仍然存在，而且实际上更加集中……在媒体、科技、通讯等新兴行业中，他们正以脑力劳动者的身份意识到这一点。”因此，必须从无产阶级的“失语”迈向“在场”，重新回归马克思主义的阶级分析理论，揭示数字劳动形式背后隐匿的物役逻辑。

(3) From “Western Experience” to “Global South Experience”

（三）从“西方经验”转向“全球南方经验”

Most contemporary foreign left-wing conceptions of digital socialism take as their frame of reference social practices endogenous to Western capitalist countries. While this responds to various contradictions of digital capitalism, it inevitably carries a certain “Western-centric” perspective. First, it presupposes the priority of technological conditions and democratic institutions in developed capitalist societies, thereby conceiving of digital socialism as a possible plan for “reform” and “reshaping” within the framework of the capitalist system. Second, it lacks an examination of the uneven development of the global capitalist system and fails to adequately respond to the problems of digital colonization and technological dependency caused by digital capitalism in the Global South. Therefore, breaking the myth of digital socialism requires a shift from relying solely on “Western experience” to drawing on “Global South experience,” incorporating the historical circumstances and actual explorations of Global South countries into the analysis. At the theoretical level, the visions of full automation or “post-capitalism” championed by foreign left-wing scholars have no real soil in Global South countries; digital socialism should instead respond to the urgent demands of developing countries in areas such as basic education, healthcare, and digital equity. At the practical level, Western countries are incorporating the Global South into the chain of capital accumulation in a manner similar to colonial expansion, forming data colonialism in the digital age. Those theoretical conceptions that hope to realize digital socialism through “open-source sharing” or “digital commons” find it difficult to resolve the problems of dependency and inequality in the South, and may even obscure the further expansion of digital capital on a global scale. In contrast, the development and exploration of the Global South, especially in socialist countries, demonstrate approaches different from those of the West, providing a reference path for digital socialism.

当代国外左翼关于数字社会主义的诸多构想，大多以内生于西方资本主义国家的社会实践为参照系，这固然回应了数字资本主义的各种矛盾，却不可避免地带有某种“西方中心论”的视角。首先，它预设技术条件与民主制度在发达资本主义社会中具有优先性，进而将数字社会主义设想为在资本主义制度框架内实现“改良”与“重塑”的可能性方案。其次，它缺少对全球资本主义体系不平衡发展的考察，未能充分回应数字资本主义在全球南方所造成的数字殖民化与技术依赖等问题。因此，破解数字社会主义的迷思，需要实现从唯“西方经验”转向吸取“全球南方经验”，将全球南方国家的历史处境与现实探索纳入分析之中。在理论层面，国外左翼学者所推崇的全面自动化或“后资本主义”愿景，在全球南方国家并无现实土壤，数字社会主义更应回应发展中国家在基础教育、医疗以及数字公平权益等方面的迫切诉求。在现实层面，西方国家正以类似于殖民扩张的方式，将全球南方纳入资本积累链条，形成数字时代的数据殖民主义。那些寄希望于通过“开源共享”或“数字公地”来实现数字社会主义的理论构想，难以解决南方国家的依附和不平等问题，甚至可能掩盖数字资本在世界范围内的进一步扩张。与此相对，全球南方尤其是社会主义国家的发展和探索展现出不同于西方的方式，为数字社会主义提供了可供参考的路径。

(4) Achieving the Organic Unity of “Theoretical Critique” and “Practical Movement”

（四）实现“理论批判”与“实践运动”的有机统一

Contemporary foreign left-wing academic explorations of digital socialism are mainly scattered, scholarly interpretations formed spontaneously by individual scholars. They have not coalesced into a unified theoretical school, nor can they be truly put into practice. Although they have keenly perceived the contradictions and crises of capitalism in the digital age and subjected them to relatively profound critique, overall their theory has never broken through the boundaries of knowledge production. Moreover, foreign left-wing forces have failed to form effective political organizations. Lenin once pointed out: “The independent, uncompromising Marxist party of the revolutionary proletariat is the only guarantee of the victory of socialism.” [4]4 V. I. Lenin, “The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination” (1914). In contrast, foreign left-wing forces have generally overlooked the important role of the proletarian party. Nick Srnicek comments on this, saying that the current left lacks systematic strategic reflection in political action: “Numerous protests, marches, and occupations usually lack any strategic awareness; they exist only as scattered and isolated signals of resistance.” [5]5 Nick Srnicek, *Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work* (2015), Chapter 1. Therefore, the theory of digital socialism urgently needs to realize a transformation from “the weapon of critique” to “the critique of weapons” [6]6 A reference to Marx’s dictum in the “Introduction” to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*: “The weapon of critique cannot replace the critique of weapons, and material force must be overthrown by material force.” — that is, “to mobilize actual material forces and transform theoretical critique into practical struggle.”

当代国外左翼学界对数字社会主义的理论探索主要是学者自发形成的分散的学理化阐释，他们没有形成统一的理论流派，也难以真正付诸实践。尽管他们敏锐地洞察了数字时代资本主义的矛盾与危机，对其进行了较为深刻的批判，但总体而言，其理论始终未能突破知识生产的边界。此外，国外左翼也未能在组织上形成有效的政治力量。列宁曾指出：“革命无产阶级的独立的、毫不妥协的马克思主义政党，是社会主义胜利的唯一保证。”相反，国外左翼普遍忽视了无产阶级政党的重要作用。斯尔尼塞克对此评论说，当前左翼在政治行动上缺少系统性的战略反思，“众多的抗议、游行和占领行动通常没有任何战略意识，它们只是作为分散和独立的抵抗信号存在”。因此，数字社会主义理论迫切需要实现从“批判的武器”向“武器的批判”转换，即“动员起现实物质力量，将理论批判转化为实践斗争”。

Conclusion

结语

Digital socialism, as a theoretical attempt by foreign left-wing academia to “re-occupy” the fruits of scientific and technological progress, possesses both positive and negative theoretical implications. On the one hand, it brings thinking about future social systems in the digital age back, to a certain extent, under the discourse system of Marxism. It not only profoundly reveals the real essence of the collusion and exploitation between digital technology and capital but also explores new paths and methods for the realization of socialism, reflecting the innovative thinking of the contemporary left on socialist theory. On the other hand, it harbors a tendency toward utopianism. In the theoretical dimension, it deviates from the basic position of historical materialism in analyzing changes in social systems; in the practical dimension, it departs from the objective social conditions and the basis of class struggle that scientific socialism indicates are necessary for the realization of socialism; in its attitude toward technology, it one-sidedly exaggerates the autonomous agency of technology, ignoring the fact that technology is always dominated by the logic of capital, deeply encoded by platform structures, and thereby intensifies labor alienation and social control within the capitalist system. Thus, should we denounce all changes brought about by digital technology and fantasize about “returning to a pre-digital society undefiled by big data and algorithms”? The answer is undoubtedly no. Faced with the new changes in capitalism, we can neither romantically expect technological development to automatically achieve institutional transcendence nor completely deny the revolutionary potential inherent in digitalization. The key lies in returning to the Marxist theoretical standpoint, critically revealing the role technology plays in society, and guiding the potential of technological progress toward the direction of social liberation. From this perspective, the theory of digital socialism proposed by foreign left-wing scholars, which upholds the dual stance of integrating critique and construction, expands the theoretical horizon for re-exploring the forms of realization of socialism.

数字社会主义作为国外左翼学界试图对科技进步成果加以“再占领”的理论尝试，兼具积极与消极双重理论意蕴。一方面，它使数字时代关于未来社会制度的思考在一定程度上重新回到马克思主义的话语体系之下，既深刻揭示了数字技术与资本之间共谋剥削的现实本质，也为社会主义的实现探索了新的路径和方法，折射出当代左翼对社会主义理论的创新性思考。另一方面，它又潜藏着乌托邦的倾向。在理论维度上，它背离了唯物史观对社会制度变迁分析的基本立场；在现实维度上，它偏离了科学社会主义所指明的关于实现社会主义所应具备的客观社会条件和阶级斗争基础；在对待技术的态度上，它片面夸大技术的自主能动性，忽视了技术始终受资本逻辑支配、被平台结构深度编码，进而在资本主义体系中不断加剧劳动异化与社会控制的现实。由此，我们是否要斥责数字技术带来的一切变化，并幻想“回归一个没有被大数据和算法玷污的前数字社会”？答案无疑是否定的。面对资本主义的新变化，我们既不能以浪漫主义的姿态期待技术的发展自动实现制度超越，也不能全然否定数字化所蕴含的革命潜力。关键在于回到马克思主义的理论立场，批判性揭示技术在社会中所扮演的角色，将技术进步的潜能引导至社会解放的方向。从这一角度来看，国外左翼学者提出的数字社会主义理论秉持批判与建构相统一的双重立场，为重新探索社会主义的实现形式拓展了理论视野。