A Historical Materialist Examination of Immaterial Labour and Digital Labour

The forms of labour, the forms of production organisation, and the forms of exploitation in contemporary capitalism are all undergoing profound changes. Among these, Fuchs’s digital labour and Hardt and Negri’s immaterial labour have attracted considerable attention and sparked heated debate. The two share a “family resemblance” in terms of their background of emergence, conceptual content, and theoretical objectives. However, there are also notable differences in how they understand information, the autonomy of the subject, and the realisation of the commons and commonality.

当代资本主义的劳动形式、生产组织形式以及剥削形式都在发生深刻的变化，其中福克斯的数字劳动和哈特、奈格里的非物质劳动一直备受关注并引发了热烈的讨论。两者在兴起背景、概念内涵、理论目标上具有“家族相似性”。但在如何理解信息、主体的自主性、共享和共同性的实现等方面也存在不小的差异。

The Concepts of Immaterial Labour and Digital Labour

非物质劳动与数字劳动的概念

From the perspective of their background of emergence, Hardt and Negri primarily discuss immaterial labour against the backdrop of Empire and the republic of wealth, while Fuchs discusses digital labour on the basis of financial capitalism and the rise of the internet and new network platforms. Both involve “transnational information capitalism.” Fuchs seeks to explore, in spatial terms, a broad concept of digital labour based on the international division of labour under transnational information capitalism. Hardt and Negri also highlight the global dimension of changes in new forms of labour, with labour “fully absorbed into the great chorus of global biopolitical production.” [1]1 Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, *Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire* (New York: Penguin Press, 2004), p. 109.

从兴起背景看，哈特和奈格里主要是基于帝国和财富共和国的背景来讨论非物质劳动，福克斯则是基于金融资本主义以及互联网和新的网络平台的兴起来讨论数字劳动。两者都涉及“跨国信息资本主义”，福克斯力图在空间中探讨跨国信息资本主义之下基于国际劳动分工的广义的数字劳动概念，哈特和奈格里也突出了新劳动形式变化的全球维度，劳动“完全被吸纳到全球生命政治生产的大合唱之中”。

From the perspective of conceptual content, Hardt and Negri’s immaterial labour mainly involves the production of images, information, knowledge, affects, and codes. Fuchs also emphasises the informational characteristics of digital labour and points out that digital labour, as unpaid prosumer labour, shares many similarities with domestic labour. Therefore, both involve the production of knowledge, information, and affects; both examine the feminisation of work and the rising proportion of affective labour; both investigate changes in the means of labour, the objects of labour, and the products of labour; and both attach particular importance to the significance of free association and cooperation in networks. They also both highlight the positive and creative content of the subject in the labour process, and argue that the expropriation and appropriation of this positivity and creativity constitute the main form of exploitation under capitalism.

从概念内涵上看，哈特和奈格里的非物质劳动主要涉及图像、信息、知识、感受、符码的生产。福克斯也强调了数字劳动信息化特点，并指出数字劳动作为产消合一的无酬劳动和家务劳动有许多相似之处。因此，两者都涉及对知识、信息、情感等方面的生产，关注工作的女性化和情感化比例的上升，都考察了劳动资料、劳动对象和劳动产品方面的变化，都特别看重在网络中自由交往和协作的重要意义。他们也都突出强调了劳动过程中主体具有的积极性和创造性的内涵，并认为这种积极性和创造性被剥夺和被占有构成了资本主义的主要剥削形式。

From the perspective of theoretical objectives, both place great emphasis on the shaping of the common space and the struggle for the public sphere within the production of the commons. Both seek to realise sharing and common ownership, to achieve the common production, common ownership, and common control of the fruits of labour, thereby breaking through the rule of capital, escaping capital’s surveillance and control, and realising the production and creation of the commons.

从理论目标上看，两者都非常看重在共同性生产中对共同空间的塑造和为公共空间而斗争。两者都力图实现共享和共有，实现对劳动成果的共同生产、共同所有和共同控制，从而突破资本的统治，摆脱资本的监视和管控，实现共同性的生产和创造。

Differences between Immaterial Labour and Digital Labour

非物质劳动与数字劳动的差异

Beneath this “family resemblance,” immaterial labour and digital labour also exhibit some differences and divergences. There are also some debates between them on issues such as how to understand information, the commons, forms of struggle, the revolutionary subject, and its agency.

在这种“家族相似性”之下，非物质劳动和数字劳动也呈现出了一些差异和分歧。在如何理解信息、共同性、斗争的形式、革命主体及其能动性等问题上两者也有一些争论。

From the perspective of conceptual definition, Fuchs argues that Hardt and Negri’s “immaterial labour” would lead people to believe that “information work is detached from nature and matter,” and that the dichotomy between the material and the mental leads to a dichotomy between material labour and immaterial labour. Fuchs argues that information work is still based on the material work of the brain. He views information as a process of cognition, communication, and cooperation, all three of which require the participation of the brain. The means of labour are primarily the platform itself and the user’s brain; the objects of labour are primarily the user’s experience, which is also stored in the brain; and the products of labour are also the results of cognition, communication, and cooperation. In fact, Hardt and Negri’s immaterial labour is not detached from material labour; the production process requires both mental and physical labour, and the so-called immateriality mainly refers to the product.

从概念的界定上看，福克斯认为哈特和奈格里的“非物质劳动”会使人认为“信息工作脱离自然和物质”，并且基于物质和精神的二分导致了对物质劳动和非物质劳动的二分。福克斯认为信息工作仍然是基于大脑的物质工作。他把信息看成认知、交往、合作的过程，这三个环节都需要大脑的参与。劳动工具主要是平台本身及用户的大脑，劳动对象主要是用户的经验，也一直储存于大脑之中，劳动产品也是认知、交流和合作的结果。其实，哈特和奈格里的非物质劳动并没有脱离物质劳动，生产过程同时需要脑力和体力，所谓的非物质性主要是指产品。

From the perspective of understanding and recognising communication media, Fuchs argues that Hardt and Negri regard networks and social media themselves as democratic and public, ignoring that these networks and platforms are controlled by 1% of companies. Therefore, Fuchs argues that struggle should be used to establish a “working-class social media.” In fact, Hardt and Negri also see the role of surveillance and disciplinary techniques in platforms and media, as well as the manipulation of media by large corporations and the unequal power relations involved. However, they are more concerned that “communication is productive, not only of economic value, but also of subjectivity.” [2]2 Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, *Commonwealth* (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), p. 178. Therefore, Hardt and Negri tend to study the production of communication in connection with the subject itself.

从对传播媒介的理解和认识看，福克斯认为哈特和奈格里把网络和社交媒体本身看成具有民主性和公共性的，忽视了这些网络和平台是掌握在1%的公司手中，因此，福克斯认为应该通过斗争建立“工人阶级的社交媒体”。其实哈特和奈格里也看到了平台和传媒中的监控、规训技术的作用和大公司对媒体的操控及其不平衡的权力关系，但他们更关心的是“传播是生产性的，不只是经济价值的生产，也是主体性的生产”。因此，哈特和奈格里更多地把传播的生产和主体自身关联起来进行研究。

From the perspective of calculating and measuring surplus value, Fuchs, based on the infinite plundering of platform users’ online time, supplements Marx’s formula for the rate of surplus value. By adding the part of platform users’ unpaid labour, he concludes that the rate of surplus value tends towards infinity. Fuchs therefore also refers to commercial social media users as “digital slaves,” infinitely exploited by capital. Hardt and Negri oppose using quantitative and measurement methods to calculate surplus value and exploitation. They argue that the intensification of exploitation is mainly a “qualitative” exploitation concerning life, the commons, social relations, etc., and therefore cannot be quantified.

从剩余价值的计算和测量来看，福克斯基于平台用户的在线时间被无限掠夺，对马克思的剩余价值率的计算公式进行了补充，通过将平台用户无偿劳动的部分加入进去，得出了剩余价值率趋向于无穷大的结论。福克斯因此也将商业社交媒体用户称为“网络奴隶”，被资本无限剥削。哈特和奈格里反对用计量和量化的方法去计算剩余价值和剥削，他们认为剥削的加剧主要是关乎生命、共同性、社会关系等的“质”的剥削，因而无法量化。

From the perspective of theoretical objectives, both Hardt, Negri, and Fuchs emphasise the possibility of sharing and common ownership. Fuchs mainly analyses sharing from the three dimensions of subject, object, and subject-object, and seeks to establish publicly owned social network platforms to achieve common ownership and common control of the objects of labour, the means of labour, and the products of labour, thereby realising the transformation from digital labour to digital work. Hardt and Negri, on the other hand, are more concerned with the production of the commons of subjectivity itself.

从理论目标看，哈特、奈格里和福克斯都强调共享和共有的可能性。福克斯主要立足于主体、客体、主体—客体三个维度来分析共享，并力图建立公有的社交网络平台来实现对劳动对象、劳动工具、劳动产品的共同拥有和共同控制，实现从数字劳动向数字工作的转变。而哈特和奈格里则更关注的是主体性自身的共同性生产。

From the perspective of the forms and strategies of struggle, both emphasise that the contradiction between capitalists and workers under information capitalism is intensifying, and both highlight the significance of the concept of the collective worker for expanding our understanding of the proletariat. Fuchs emphasises the information proletariat. Hardt and Negri also regard the multitude as an open, expansive class concept, emphasising the importance of collective cooperation and action. However, they place greater emphasis on the integration of class struggle and identity politics, advocating a “revolutionary parallelism.” [3]3 “Revolutionary parallelism” refers to the idea that class struggle and identity-based struggles (e.g., around race, gender, sexuality) should be pursued simultaneously and with equal weight, rather than subordinating one to the other. Nevertheless, Fuchs remains sceptical of the automaticity and inevitability of Hardt and Negri’s multitude always struggling against capital.

从斗争形势及策略看，两者都强调信息资本主义下资本家和工人的矛盾在不断加剧，也强调了总体工人的概念对于我们扩展无产阶级概念的意义。福克斯强调信息无产阶级，哈特和奈格里也把诸众看成一个开放的、扩张性的阶级概念，强调集体协作和行动的重要性，但他们更看重阶级斗争和身份政治的融合，主张“革命的平行论”。但是，福克斯对哈特和奈格里的诸众总是与资本作斗争的自动性和必然性保持怀疑。

The Theoretical Logic behind the Differences

差异背后的理论逻辑

From the five aspects of difference outlined above, we can see that the differences between Hardt, Negri, and Fuchs in understanding the role of media and the production of the commons are not very large. However, some differences, such as whether surplus value and exploitation can be calculated, and the strategies of struggle, are relatively pronounced. So, how do these differences arise?

从以上五个方面的差异中我们可以看出，哈特、奈格里和福克斯在理解传媒的作用和共同性生产上的区别不是非常大，但有些差别如关于剩余价值和剥削是否能计算以及斗争策略等方面则有比较明显的差异。那么，两者的差异是如何产生的？

First, from the perspective of the role of living labour, the labouring subject, in shaping cognition, affect, information, and social relations, relies more on its own experience and on interaction and cooperation with others. The autonomy and creativity of the subject are playing an increasingly important role. Starting from biopolitical production, Hardt and Negri seek to demonstrate the interpenetration of economics and politics, arguing that immaterial production itself can generate the possibility of cooperation, communication, and action. Capital’s control and boundary-setting precisely break and obstruct this cooperation and the production of the commons. Therefore, Hardt and Negri engage in immanent critique from the perspective of the subject being continuously produced. The power of the subject’s critique and resistance comes from itself; on the basis of existing cooperation and the commons, it continuously produces the commons and continuously produces subjects who possess these powers. Although Fuchs also acknowledges that the free time and autonomous labour of platform users create enormous value, he does not continue to explore in this direction. Instead, he returns to a discussion of the means of communication, such as platforms and the internet, further exploring the value-generation mechanism of digital labour from the relationship between labour and the internet. Therefore, Fuchs mainly explores based on the relationship among the audience commodity, media, and advertising. Consequently, relatively speaking, Fuchs places greater emphasis on the study of the internal mechanisms of surplus value, while addressing the issue of the subject’s own agency to a lesser extent.

首先，从活劳动的作用来看，劳动主体在塑造认知、情感、信息和社会关系的生产中更多地基于自身的经验以及与他人的交往和协作。主体的自主性和创造性正在起着越来越重要的作用。哈特和奈格里从生命政治生产出发，力图表明经济和政治的互相渗透，非物质生产本身就能够产生协作、交往和行动的可能性。资本家的管控与设置边界的行为恰恰打破并阻碍了这种协作和共同性的生产。因此，哈特和奈格里从主体自身不断被生产出来进行内在批判，主体批判和反抗的力量就来自自身，他们在现有的协作和共同性的基础上不断生产共同性，不断生产拥有这些力量的主体。而福克斯虽然也承认平台用户的免费时间和自主劳动创造了巨大的价值，但是他没有继续沿着这个方向进行探讨，而是回到了对平台和互联网等交往手段的讨论上，从劳动和互联网的关系上进一步探讨数字劳动的价值生成机制。因此，福克斯主要还是基于受众商品、媒介和广告这三者的关系来探讨。所以，相对来说，福克斯更强调对剩余价值的内在机制的研究，对主体自身的能动性问题涉及较少。

Secondly, from the perspective of their differences in understanding Marx’s law of value, what Fuchs does is precisely to overcome the “labor blind spot” in the political economy of communication, further extending Marx’s law of value based on the appropriation of a large amount of platform users’ free time and the international division of digital labor. Hardt and Negri believe that labor remains the fundamental source of value, but they argue that based on immaterial labor, temporal unity no longer exists, and the boundaries between work and leisure, labor and life, have become blurred. Therefore, value cannot be quantified in fixed units of time; it should transcend the measurement and calculation of labor time based on changes in labor forms, especially the production of the common, understanding value from the perspective of life’s innovation and creation, and revealing the possible resistance and transcendence of the multitude. Compared with Fuchs, although they have a strong color of resistance and transcendence of capital, they indeed lack a detailed analysis from the perspective of the internal generative mechanism of value.

其次，从他们对马克思的价值规律理解的差异来看，福克斯所做的恰恰就是克服传播政治经济学中的“劳动盲点”，基于平台用户的大量免费时间被占有和数字劳动的国际分工进一步扩展马克思的价值规律。哈特和奈格里认为劳动依然是价值的根本源泉，但他们认为基于非物质劳动，时间上的统一性已经不复存在了，工作和休闲、劳动和生命的界限都模糊了。因此，价值无法用固定的时间单位来量化，应基于劳动形式的变化特别是共同性的生产来逾越劳动时间的衡量和计算，从生命的创新、创造的角度来理解价值，揭示诸众可能的反抗和超越。其和福克斯相比，虽然有很强的反抗和超越资本的色彩，但确实又缺少了从价值的内在生成机制进行的细致分析。

In summary, Hardt, Negri, and Fuchs all recognize the trend toward the intellectualization, communicativization, and socialization of labor under contemporary capitalist conditions, with the form of exploitation also shifting to the plunder and appropriation of the subject’s own time, experience, knowledge, emotions, social relations, and other outcomes, and the boundaries between work time and leisure time, labor and life, becoming increasingly blurred. In comparison, conceptually, immaterial labor covers a broader scope than digital labor, and digital labor always faces the dilemma of how the digital generates labor. In terms of approach, the two also reflect the distinction between the object dimension and the subject dimension in the development of Marxism.

总之，哈特、奈格里和福克斯都看到了当代资本主义条件下劳动的智能化、传播化和社会化的趋势，剥削的形式也转向了对主体自身的时间、经验、知识、情感、社会关系等成果的掠夺和占有，工作时间和业余时间、劳动和生命的界限日益模糊。相比之下，从概念上看，非物质劳动比数字劳动涵盖的范围更广，数字劳动总是面临着数字何以生成劳动的困境。从进路上看，两者又体现了马克思主义发展过程中客体向度和主体向度的区别。

The inspiration Fuchs gives us is: under contemporary capitalist conditions, continue to deepen Marx’s critique of political economy, study the value of information and the internal mechanism by which digital activities produce digital commodities; Hardt and Negri, on the other hand, inspire us to further excavate the impact of biopolitical labor on the subject itself, revealing through immanent critique how the labor subject continuously produces and creates itself in this process. We need to further deepen the excavation and interpretation of new changes and new characteristics of labor forms in the process of drawing on and critiquing immaterial labor and digital labor, reveal the production mechanisms and exploitation mechanisms of contemporary capitalism, study the resistance methods and struggle strategies of digital slaves and the multitude, and further excavate the deep connotations and possible paths of the common and the shared.

福克斯给予我们的启示在于：在当代资本主义条件下继续深化马克思的政治经济学批判，研究信息的价值和数字活动生产出数字商品的内在机制；哈特和奈格里则启发我们进一步挖掘生命政治劳动对主体自身的影响，通过内在批判的方式揭示劳动主体如何在这一过程中不断生产和创造自身。我们需要在对非物质劳动和数字劳动的借鉴和批判中进一步深化对劳动形式的新变化、新特点的挖掘和阐释，揭示当代资本主义的生产机制和剥削机制，研究网络奴隶和诸众的反抗方式及斗争策略，进一步挖掘共有、共享的深层内涵和可能路径。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗