Digital Labor from the Perspective of Marx’s Concept of Labor

The Internet of Things, cloud computing, big data, 5G, AI and other modern digital information technologies have propelled humanity into the digital age. The production and consumption of digital products have become one of the main modes of human existence and life, and the “digital labor” that creates and produces digital products has also become a concept of high concern, even forming a distinct academic research field. However, there remains considerable controversy in academia over issues such as the connotation and extension of digital labor, and its productive versus unproductive nature. Based on Marx’s concept of labor, and employing the methods of dialectical materialism and historical materialism, it is necessary to clarify the connotation, characteristics, and extension boundaries of digital labor, scientifically grasp the “changes” and “unchanged” aspects of digital labor, and resolve the “epistemological crisis” concerning digital labor. Only in this way can we avoid the dissolution of the common characteristics of Marxist labor cognition and the loss of the essence of labor cognition caused by the generalization, vulgarization, and even the gamification and trivialization of digital labor, thereby laying the necessary academic foundation for in-depth research on digital labor and providing a solid theoretical reference for the development of the contemporary digital economy.

物联网、云计算、大数据、5G、AI等现代数字信息技术推动人类进入数字时代，数字产品的生产和消费成为人类主要生存和生活方式之一，而创造和生产数字产品的“数字劳动”也成为人们高度关注的一个概念，甚至成为一个独特的学术研究领域。但对于数字劳动的内涵与外延、生产性与非生产性等一些问题，学术界仍然存在不小争议。基于马克思的劳动观，运用辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义方法，明晰数字劳动的内涵特征与外延边界，科学把握数字劳动的“变”与“不变”，化解关于数字劳动的“认识论危机”，这样才能避免因泛化和庸俗化甚至是玩乐化、消遣化数字劳动而导致人们对马克思主义劳动的共性特征认知消解和劳动本质认知丧失，从而为数字劳动的深入研究奠定必要的学术基础，为当代数字经济发展提供坚实的学理借鉴。

Misunderstandings in the Definition of Digital Labor in Western Academia

西方学界对数字劳动的界定误区

Looking at the current definitions of the concept of digital labor in Western academia, they can be roughly divided into two approaches. The first, from the perspective of cultural communication and biopolitics, represented by Italian scholar Tiziana Terranova, holds that digital labor is “immaterial labor” significantly different from traditional material labor. The site of this labor is the Internet supported by digital technology, the labor subject is the Internet user, the labor object is the subject’s emotions, cognition, experiences, etc., and the labor product is the content generated by the subject on the Internet. Some other scholars call it “audience labor,” “play labor,” “prosumer labor,” or “prosumption labor of the Internet and social media,” but these are different names for the same thing. The core meaning is that the online knowledge or cultural consumption activities of Internet users, because the data generated from going online can become digital raw materials that create value, are thereby transformed into additional productive activities, bringing profits to capitalists and realizing the valorization of capital. The problem with this definition lies in treating all online information consumption or digital entertainment activities conducted in front of digital screens as “digital labor” with labor attributes, leading to the misunderstanding that “going online equals labor.”

从目前西方学界对数字劳动概念的界定看，大致可分为两种路径：一是从文化传播、生命政治学角度，以意大利学者蒂齐亚纳·泰拉诺瓦为代表，认为数字劳动是和传统物质劳动有显著区别的“非物质化劳动”，这种劳动的发生场所是以数字技术为支撑的互联网，劳动主体是互联网用户，劳动对象是主体的情感、认知、经历等，劳动产品是主体在互联网上生成的内容。还有些学者将其称为“受众劳动”“玩劳动”“产用劳动”“互联网与社交媒体的产消劳动”，不过是异名同谓，其核心要义都是指互联网用户线上的知识或文化方面的消费活动，由于上网数据能成为创造价值的数字原料，从而转化为额外的生产性活动，为资本家带来利润，实现资本增殖。这种界定的问题在于将线上的或面对数字化屏幕的那些信息消费或数字化消遣活动都视为具有劳动属性的 “数字劳动”，导致“上网即劳动”的误区。

The second approach, from the perspective of Marx’s labor theory of value, represented by British scholar Christian Fuchs, holds that all activities involved in the value chain of digital information and communication technologies or related to the manufacturing and content production of digital media technologies constitute digital labor. Although Fuchs links digital labor with material labor, he confuses the essential difference between the digital and the non-digital, incorporating some traditional material labor that is merely “related” to the digital industry and its value chain (such as mining and the manufacturing of digital hardware equipment, as he lists) into the category of digital labor. This leads to the notion that any labor related to digitalization is digital labor, even falling into the misunderstanding that “all labor is digital labor.”

二是从马克思劳动价值论角度，以英国学者克里斯蒂安·福克斯为代表，认为凡是参与数字信息和通信技术价值链或涉及数字媒体技术的制造和内容生产的相关活动都是数字劳动。福克斯虽然将数字劳动与物质劳动相联系，但混淆了数字化与非数字化的本质区别，将一些仅仅与数字产业及其价值链“相关”的传统物质劳动（如他所列举的采矿、数字化硬件设备的制造等），也都纳入数字劳动的范畴，从而导致只要与数字化相关的劳动就是数字劳动，甚至陷入“一切劳动皆数字劳动”的误区。

The two conceptual definitions and theoretical frameworks mentioned above indiscriminately throw many non-digitalized labor activities or non-labor digital activities into the “basket” of digital labor. Regardless of which misunderstanding, both represent a vulgarization and generalization of Marx’s concept of labor. The deconstruction of the essence of labor inevitably leads to confusion in the concept of labor, thereby creating theoretical difficulties. The fundamental reason is that they have neither grasped the commonality of “labor” in digital labor, nor grasped the digital individuality of digital labor that distinguishes it from other forms of labor (manual labor, machine labor).

上述两种概念界定和理论框架，将许多非数字化的劳动或非劳动性质的数字化活动都被“一刀切”扔进“数字劳动”这个筐中。无论哪种误区，都是对马克思劳动概念的庸俗化和泛化，对劳动本质的解构必然会造成劳动观上的杂乱，从而带来理论层面的难题。其根本原因在于既没有把握住数字劳动的“劳动”共性，也没有把握住数字劳动不同于其他劳动（手工劳动、机器劳动）的数字化个性。

The Commonality of “Labor” in Digital Labor

数字劳动的“劳动”共性

Digital labor, born from the deep integration of digitalization, networking, and intelligent technologies with human labor, presents new characteristics in the entire labor process—including the labor object, means of labor, and labor results—that are markedly different from traditional forms of labor. However, digital labor has not exceeded the initial scope of Marx’s labor theory. The prefix “digital” in digital labor is a digital determination of the means of labor

数字化、网络化和智能化技术与人类劳动深度结合而催生的数字劳动，虽然在劳动对象、劳动资料、劳动结果等整个劳动过程中，均呈现出与传统劳动形态迥异的新特征，但数字劳动并没有超出马克思劳动理论的初始论域。数字劳动的“数字”前缀是对劳动资料

and, in the final analysis, it is still labor. Since it is labor, it must satisfy Marx’s general conditions and boundaries for the commonality of labor. This distinction separates digital activities from digital labor.

的数字化规定，归根结底还是劳动。既然是劳动，就必须满足马克思关于劳动的一般共性条件界限，这样就把数字化活动与数字劳动区别开来。

The purposiveness of digital labor. Marx defined labor as a material production activity that manifests the essence of human beings and possesses a free, conscious purpose, stating: “Conscious life activity directly distinguishes man from animal life activity.” “At the end of the labor process, a result emerges which had already been conceived by the worker at the beginning, hence already existed ideally.” Purposiveness is a necessary attribute of labor; the labor process is the process of using the intended purpose to control and direct the corresponding behavior. Activities without this purposiveness are not labor. All human activities, whether productive or consumptive, leave traces. Once recorded on a medium, these become data with relative stability. The traces left by consumers’ activities can only be collected through algorithms pre-written by programmers to form orderly data with commercial and analytical value. Consumers do not leave data purposefully; the truly purposive labor in the process of data collection is the digital labor of annotators and programmers. The browsing data traces, or “information products,” generated by Internet users’ consumption and entertainment activities on platforms are not the product of their purposeful action, but merely “behavioral surplus” outside their purpose. Such activities are not conscious, purposeful labor aimed at “producing data products”; they lack the labor characteristic of a “purposeful” tendency toward the formation of labor results, and therefore do not fall within the category of labor.

数字劳动的目的性。马克思把劳动规定为表现人类本质的、具有自由自觉目的的物质生产活动，指出：“有意识的生命活动把人同动物的生命活动直接区别开来。”“劳动过程结束时得到的结果，在这个过程开始时就已经在劳动者的表现中存在着，即已经观念地存在着。”目的性是劳动的必要属性，劳动的过程就是用所要趋向的目的来控制和支配相应行为的过程，没有这种目的性的活动就不是劳动。一切人类活动，无论是生产活动还是消费活动都会留下痕迹，一旦被记载在媒介物上，就成了具有相对稳定性的数据。人们消费活动留下的痕迹通过程序员预先编写的算法收集起来，才可形成具有商业性和解析性的有序数据。消费者并不是目的性地留下数据，收集数据的过程中真正目的性的劳动是标注员和程序员的数字劳动。而互联网用户在平台上的消费、消遣活动所产生的浏览数据痕迹或曰“信息产品”，并非他们有目的为之的产物，只是目的之外的活动“行为剩余”。这类活动不是有意识、有目的地去“造成数据产品”的劳动，不具备“有目的”趋向劳动成果形成的劳动特征，因此就不属于劳动范畴。

The productiveness of digital labor. Productive labor is an important category in Marx’s labor theory of value. At the level of the material determination of labor in the general sense, “labor is, first of all, a process between man and nature, a process by which man, through his own actions, mediates, regulates and controls the metabolism between himself and nature.” Labor itself is productive labor, capable of creating wealth or use value and realizing value augmentation. From the determination of the social form of labor, “only that labor which is consumed directly in the production process for the valorization of capital is productive labor.” “Only that labor which preserves and valorizes the value of objectified labor that has become independent and confronts labor capacity is productive labor.” From these dual dimensions, productive digital labor can be clearly distinguished from unproductive consumption activities. The productiveness of digital labor is manifested in “creating information,” i.e., forming “information products” or “data products,” and creating spiritual wealth. In the digital information age, the object of digital labor has become “intangible” raw materials such as information or data; the means of labor have become digital technologies and digital platforms; the form of labor is the collection, coding, storage, and valuation of data and information; the labor product is digital products and digital services; and the purpose of labor is to realize the value creation of digital labor and the valorization of digital capital. Although digital labor breaks down the site and spatiotemporal boundaries of labor, in essence, digital labor has not changed the fundamental characteristics of labor; it remains “productive labor.” If non-productive activities such as daily Internet users browsing web pages, scrolling through Douyin [1]1 Karl Marx, *Critique of the Gotha Programme* (1875)., watching movies online, online shopping, and other entertainment and consumption activities are all included as labor, then there is no way to distinguish labor from non-labor. The disappearance of the boundary of labor leads to the dissolution of the essence of labor.

数字劳动的生产性。生产劳动是马克思劳动价值论的一种重要范畴，就一般意义上的劳动物质规定性层面，“劳动首先是人和自然之间的过程， 是人以自身的活动来中介、调整和控制人和自然之间的物质变换的过程”。劳动本身就是生产劳动，能够创造财富或使用价值，实现价值增值。从劳动社会形式规定性出发，“只有直接在生产过程中为了资本的价值增殖而消费的劳动才是生产劳动”。“只有使那种同劳动能力相对立的、独立化了的对象化劳动的价值保存并增殖的劳动，才是生产劳动。”从以上双重维度可以清晰地将生产性的数字劳动与非生产性的消费活动区别开来。数字劳动的生产性就表现为“造信息”，即形成“信息产品”或“数据产品”，创造出精神财富。在数字信息时代，数字劳动的对象变成了信息或数据等这些“无形”的原材料，劳动资料变成了数字技术与数字平台，劳动形式是对数据信息的采集、编码、储存和赋值，劳动产品是数字产品与数字服务，劳动目的是实现数字劳动的价值创造和数字资本的增殖。尽管数字劳动打破了劳动的发生场域和时空场所，但从本质上看，数字劳动并没有改变劳动的根本特征，仍然是“生产性劳动”。如果把日常网络用户浏览网页、刷抖音、网上观影、网购等消遣娱乐消费等非生产性活动都纳入劳动，那么劳动与非劳动无从划分，劳动边界的消失造成劳动本质的消解。

The work-nature of digital labor. Marx believed that in communist society “labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want.” [1]1 Karl Marx, *Critique of the Gotha Programme* (1875). That is to say, in all historical stages of humanity before the arrival of communist society—whether capitalist or socialist society, whether the age of machinery, electricity, or the digital age—no form of labor has yet become what Marx called “life’s prime want” or an activity willingly undertaken without compensation. Labor retains its work-nature; its primary function is a means of subsistence for human beings, an activity they must engage in to obtain the necessities of life. Digital labor undoubtedly also belongs to work rather than pastime or entertainment. Activities such as software development, data collection, data coding, video production, web design, and platform maintenance—which rely on new technological carriers to create digital products—are all labor with a work-nature. Activities that use digital technology and digital platforms for online entertainment and leisure, even if they generate data traces that could serve as objects of labor, do not have a work-nature, produce no effect of work or labor, and therefore cannot be regarded as labor with practical significance. Digital labor is the use of digital tools to work, not the use of digital tools for play or leisure.

数字劳动的工作性。马克思认为，到了共产主义社会“劳动已经不仅仅是谋生的手段，而且本身成了生活的第一需要”。也就是说，在到达共产主义社会之前的人类历史阶段，无论是资本主义社会还是社会主义社会，无论是机器时代、电气时代还是数字时代，任何形式的劳动都没有成为马克思所说的 “人的第一需要”和不计报酬心甘情愿投入的活动，劳动都具有工作性，其主要功能是人的谋生手段，是人为获取一定的生存生活资料而不得不进行的活动。数字劳动毫无疑问也属于工作而非消遣或娱乐。软件开发、数据收集、资料编码、视频制作、网页设计、平台维护等依托新型技术载体，创造数字化产品的活动，都是具有工作性质的劳动。而运用数字技术与数字平台进行网络娱乐消遣的活动，即使能产生可作为劳动对象的数据留痕，也不具有工作性质，没有工作或劳动的效果，从而也不能视为具有现实意义的劳动。数字劳动是使用数字化工具进行工作，而不是使用数字化工具进行的玩乐或消遣活动。

The creative nature of digital labor. Marx held that “labor is a positive, creative activity.” [2]2 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse* (1857–1858). In terms of labor outcomes, it manifests quantitatively as an increase in material and spiritual wealth, and qualitatively as the enhancement of the subject’s capacities and the innovative transformation of labor methods resulting from the renewal of the various elements of labor. Unlike “passive” leisure-type digital activities, digital labor is an activity in which digital subjects, using digital technology on digital platforms, process intangible, virtual raw materials such as data and information to creatively produce data products and data services. Compared with traditional material production labor, although the means of production have changed from “tangible objects” to “intangible objects,” digital labor remains in essence a conscious, purposeful productive and creative activity of human beings.

数字劳动的创造性。马克思认为，“劳动是积极的、创造性的活动”。从劳动结果看，它在量上表现为物质财富和精神财富的增加，在质上表现为主体能力的提升以及劳动诸要素更新所导致的劳动方式的创新性变革。不同于“消极”的娱乐消遣式数字活动，数字劳动是数字主体在数字平台上运用数字技术，对数据信息等无形化、虚拟化的原始资料进行加工，创造性产出数据产品和数据服务的活动。相较传统的物质生产劳动，尽管生产资料从“有形物”变为“无形物”，数字劳动在本质上还是人类有意识有目的的生产性和创造性活动。

From the above, it can be seen that the labor defined by Marx refers to a creative activity in which human beings purposefully produce labor products. That is, only those human activities that satisfy the common characteristics of purposefulness, productiveness, work-nature, and creativity can be called labor. The above common characteristics of labor revealed by Marx can undoubtedly also be used to distinguish, in the digital world, which activities are labor and can thus be called “digital labor,” and which activities are not labor and must therefore be excluded from the category of digital labor, providing us with clear boundaries.

综上可以看出，马克思界定的劳动是指人类有目的地生产劳动产品的一种创造活动，亦即只有满足目的性、生产性、工作性、创造性这些共性特征的人类活动才能被称之为劳动。马克思所揭示的劳动的上述共性特征，无疑也可以用来判别在数字世界中哪些活动是劳动从而可称之为 “数字劳动”，哪些活动不是劳动从而需要被排除于数字劳动的范畴，为我们提供明晰的边界。

The “digital” particularity of digital labor

数字劳动的“数字化”个性

Marx pointed out that “the instruments of labor are not only the measure of the development of human labor power, but also the indicator of the social relations within which labor is carried on.” [3]3 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I (1867), Chapter 13. The means of labor, marked by the instruments of labor, are the main yardstick for determining the economic epoch and labor form of a society. Unlike manual labor and machine labor, digital labor is a new form of labor that relies on new technological carriers such as big data, cloud computing, and artificial intelligence. The fundamental difference lies in the different instruments of labor. Clearly, digital labor is a purposeful activity in which digital workers use digital technology platforms (in a digitalized virtual space) to create digital products. It is dominated by intelligence and creativity, with digitalization as its core characteristic. Therefore, for a labor to be digital labor, it should not merely be “tangentially related” to digital technology, or only “relevant” to the digital industry and its value chain, or simply involve being a registered user of a digital technology platform. Rather, based on its typical digital characteristics, digital labor emphasizes substantive “digitalization” rather than relational “digitalization.” Taking digital platforms as an example, those internet professional and technical personnel who use digital platforms to engage in work such as internet website design, software application development, and internet programming are digital workers. However, those new forms of gig-economy employment derived from digital technology platforms (such as food delivery riders, ride-hailing drivers, etc.) are essentially still traditional forms of labor and therefore do not belong to the category of digital workers.

马克思指出，“劳动资料不仅是人类劳动力发展的测量器，而且是劳动借以进行的社会关系的指示器”。以劳动工具为标志的劳动资料是判定一个社会的经济时代和劳动形态的主要标尺。不同于手工劳动和机器劳动，数字劳动是依托大数据、云计算、人工智能等新型技术载体的新型劳动形态，其根本区别是劳动工具的不同。显然，数字劳动是数字劳工利用数字技术平台（在数字化的虚拟空间）创造数字产品的有目的性的活动，它以智力和创造力为主导，以数字化为其核心特征。因此，一个劳动是数字劳动，不应只是与数字技术 “沾边”，或只与数字产业及其价值链“相关”，或者只是数字技术平台注册用户，而是应根据其典型的数字化特征，数字劳动强调的是实质性“数字化”而非关联性“数字化”。以数字化平台为例，那些利用数字平台从事互联网网站设计、软件应用开发、编写互联网程序等工作的互联网专业技术人员属于数字劳动者，而那些基于数字技术平台衍生出来的零工式新就业形态劳动者（比如外卖配送员、网约车司机等）等，本质上仍属于传统劳动形态，则不属于数字劳动者。

Based on the above analysis, genuine digital labor can be roughly divided into two categories: one is the digital labor of software engineers, web designers, and system maintenance personnel engaged in algorithm design, software programming, and online game development within the digital industry; the other is digital labor that uses digital technology for spiritual and cultural creation to provide digital content, such as online novel authors writing and uploading novels.

基于以上分析，真正的数字劳动大致分为两类：一类是数字产业中从事算法设计、软件编程、网游开发的软件工程师、网页设计人员及系统维护人员的数字劳动；另一类是借助数字化技术进行精神文化创造从而提供数字内容的数字劳动，比如网络小说作家写作并上传小说。

Digital technology has not only shaped the form of labor but also reconstructed specific social relations, greatly changing our modes of production, life, and thinking. Digital labor based on digital technology is a new form of labor different from traditional material labor. It possesses both the essential attributes of general labor and exhibits typical digital characteristics. Only by understanding and grasping the two key intrinsic attributes and extrinsic boundaries of digital labor—its “labor-nature” and its “digital-nature”—from the deep dimension of Marx’s labor theory can we avoid falling into the theoretical predicament and practical confusion of “pan-digital labor.”

数字技术不仅实现了对劳动形态的形塑，而且重构了特定的社会关系，极大地改变了我们的生产方式、生活方式与思维方式。数字技术基础上的数字劳动是一种不同于传统物质性劳动的新型劳动形态，既具有一般劳动的本质属性，又呈现出典型的数字化特征。只有从马克思劳动理论的深层维度去认识和把握数字劳动的“劳动性”“数字性”两个关键的内涵属性与外延边界，才能避免陷入“泛数字劳动”的理论困境和实践迷惘。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗