Li Yan: Knowledge Monopoly Is an Important Feature of Contemporary Capitalism
Ever since the establishment of the capitalist mode of production, the appropriation and utilization of scientific and technological knowledge has been a vital means of capital accumulation. Since the second half of the 20th century, the development of contemporary science and technology has driven the global expansion of the capitalist mode of production, while the monopoly over the latest achievements in technological development has become a significant tool for international monopoly capital to exploit laborers and extract high monopoly profits on a worldwide scale. The implementation of knowledge monopoly by international monopoly capital in global economic activities is a defining feature of contemporary capitalism. This contemporary knowledge monopoly manifests as transnational corporations and strategic alliances monopolizing the conditions of knowledge production—such as intellectual property rights and specialized talent—to control the production and reproduction of core scientific and technological knowledge. This allows them to secure dominance over non-core production links and extract surplus value from global fields such as processing and manufacturing.
I. How Knowledge Combines with Capital: The Analyses of Marx and Braverman
Science and technology are not isolated or spontaneous; they require embedding within a social system to develop. Not only is the development of science and technology based on the state of economic and social development at a specific historical stage, but the modes of producing and using technological knowledge are also acted upon by the prevailing social relations of production. Marx did not use a one-way determinism to explain the relationship between science and technology and society, but rather recognized their mutual interaction. On one hand, Marx affirmed that the development of science and technology plays a decisive role in social development; on the other hand, he pointed out that science and technology are applied and developed under specific social relations of production and are constrained by those relations. Science, technology, and capital are interdependent and co-evolve; their combination exhibits different manifestations at different stages of capitalist development.
1. Marx’s Analysis of the Relationship Between Knowledge and Capital
In human history, the widespread application of scientific knowledge in material production was a phenomenon that first emerged under the capitalist mode of production. Conversely, the development of capitalist production also provided the conditions for and promoted the progress of science and technology. From the second half of the 18th century through the 19th century, following the Industrial Revolution, the establishment of the large-scale industrial machinery production system laid the material and technical foundation for the establishment of the capitalist mode of production. Marx provided a profound exposition of the relationship between knowledge and capital under this mode of production. Under the capitalist mode of production, scientific and technological knowledge, as a key element of the productive forces, is an important means for capital to produce wealth. As Marx pointed out, to meet the needs of the production process, capital "takes science into its service" and "appropriates science." The production and use of scientific and technological knowledge serve the profit-seeking needs of capital. Regarding the production of knowledge, Marx noted that invention becomes a specific profession, and science is consciously and extensively developed to adapt to the needs of capitalist production. Regarding the capitalist use of knowledge, Marx pointed out that knowledge in the material production process is separated from direct labor and becomes a tool for the capitalist to exploit workers: "Science becomes an independent force in opposition to labor and at the service of capital, falling generally under the category of the conditions of production becoming an independent force in opposition to labor." Capital dominates the knowledge embodied in machinery and production methods, making "science appear as an alien, hostile power that rules over labor." The way capital utilizes science and technology leads to the intellectual and skill-based degradation of the worker: "the application of science to production... is realized only through the subordination of labor to capital, only through the suppression of the worker's own intellectual and professional development." In the factory, machinery replaces manual labor; the knowledge, experience, and skills previously accumulated by workers in production are replaced by "mechanical skill," and the labor process is broken down into several steps, turning labor into an unintelligent activity adapted to machinery operation. The application of machinery enables capitalists to replace skilled labor with unskilled labor, drawing women and children into the capitalist production system and causing the devaluation of labor power. Capitalists extend the working day and intensify the continuity and intensity of labor, utilizing science and technology to resist strikes. The production and life of the worker are in a state of extreme instability. On one hand, the application of machinery constantly repels workers, turning them into a redundant population cast into the streets; on the other hand, it constantly absorbs workers to expand the scale of production. In this process, the power of capital to dominate labor is strengthened. The relationship between capital and the worker is one of the "head" dominating the "limbs." Borrowing the words of Ure, an apologist for the factory system, Marx pointed out that with the help of science, capitalists could "legally" exercise the "right of the head to dominate the other parts of the body."
The separation of science and technology from labor as an independent productive capacity is a phenomenon unique to the capitalist mode of production. This separation presupposes a certain level of development of the productive forces. In analyzing the historical development of this separation, Marx noted: "It is a result of the division of labor in manufacture that the intellectual potencies of the material process of production confront the individual as the property of another and as a power which rules over him. This process of separation begins in simple cooperation, is developed in manufacture, and is completed in large-scale industry. In simple cooperation, the capitalist represents to the individual worker the unity and the will of the social body of labor; manufacture mutilates the worker into a detail worker; large-scale industry separates science as an independent productive potency from labor and forces it into the service of capital." By contrast, in pre-capitalist stages of production, "limited knowledge and experience were directly linked to labor itself and had not developed into an independent power separated from labor."
2. Braverman’s Analysis of the Combination of Knowledge and Capital
From the second half of the 19th century to the 20th century, the technological revolution—marked primarily by breakthroughs in electricity and petroleum—promoted the concentration of production and capital, and capitalist monopoly organizations began to emerge. Harry Braverman [1], a Western Marxist economist, analyzed how capitalism combines knowledge with the needs of capital to separate scientific and technological knowledge from the worker and set it in opposition to them, based on the new conditions of capitalist development. During this period, along with the development of the technological revolution, science proved to be a vital means of promoting capital accumulation and was systematically applied to production. Braverman argued that science was transformed from a "general social property" into the core property of capitalist production: "the entire technological revolution must be seen as a mode of production... the transformation of science itself into capital is the key innovation of the technological revolution." Capitalism increasingly develops science in a planned and socialized manner, commodifying scientific knowledge and making its production more aligned with the needs of capital. Regarding the capitalist use of knowledge, Braverman analyzed how capitalist management combines the new achievements of technological development, new machinery, and production methods with comprehensive control over the labor process, making labor a subordinate element of capital. During this period, Frederick Taylor initiated the Scientific Management movement, applying scientific methods to analyze and control the labor process to make labor subservient to the needs of capitalist management. Taylor believed that the labor process should not rely on the knowledge and initiative of the workers; instead, knowledge should be concentrated in the hands of management, with managers planning the labor process in its entirety and giving workers detailed instructions for execution. Braverman analyzed Taylor's basic principles of scientific management: management collects and studies the knowledge of the labor process, separating the process from the worker's skills so it does not rely on their knowledge or craft; it breaks the unity of the labor process, separating mental labor from manual labor; and it utilizes monopolized knowledge to control every step of the labor process and its mode of execution. Science is concentrated in the hands of management, which gathers the craft knowledge scattered among workers, thereby stripping workers of their craft knowledge and autonomous control over the production process. Although the labor process becomes increasingly complex and scientific, workers are excluded from the process of developing and applying science, unable to understand the labor process in which they participate. Braverman pointed out that during the rise of scientific management, the remaining links between science and the laborer were almost completely severed as craftsmanship was destroyed. In early capitalism, science was closely linked with craftsmanship; the development of science was rooted in the development of technology, and craftsmen or artisans possessed a certain degree of scientific knowledge—craft was the link between science and work, and many inventions came from craftsmen. Braverman noted that the "separation of hand and brain is the most decisive step taken by the capitalist mode of production in the division of labor," and scientific management continued the logic of the "head" and "limbs" separation in the capitalist division of labor and made it more systematic and institutionalized. A limited portion of laborers specialized in mental work such as design, planning, and calculation, while the majority of laborers became executors who had lost their knowledge and skills. The general law of the capitalist division of labor manifests as a polarized structure of the labor process and the population: one pole consists of a small number of people with specialized knowledge and training, while the other consists of the majority engaged in simple labor.
3. The General Process of Combining Knowledge with Capital and its Contemporary Manifestations
Under the capitalist mode of production, capitalists must not only transform material conditions of production into capital but also utilize and appropriate scientific and technological knowledge. Knowledge itself is not capital; however, its capitalist appropriation and utilization endow it with the attributes of capital. The essence of the capitalization of knowledge is the transformation of knowledge into the power of capital, separated from and placed in opposition to the worker. Marx believed that conscious, free, and purposeful labor is the species-characteristic of humans, but under the capitalist mode of production, labor is dominated by capital, and laborers cannot freely exercise their physical and intellectual powers in their work. Because "intellectual potency is transformed into the power of capital to dominate labor," scientific and technological knowledge has not become a means for ordinary workers to develop their own labor capacity, but has instead caused the decline and one-sidedness of laborers' intellectual and skill development. As Marx pointed out: "the intellectual potencies of production expand in one direction because they vanish in many others." The more science and technology develop, the more capitalism establishes comprehensive control in these fields, and the deeper the exploitation and domination of workers by capital becomes. The general process of the combination of knowledge and capital can be summarized as follows: first, scientific and technological knowledge is separated from labor; it is dominated by capitalists and stands in opposition to workers as a means of exploitation and oppression, making labor a subordinate element of capital. Second, the production and use of scientific and technological knowledge are subordinated to capital's need for valorization [2]. Finally, the division of labor corresponding to the combination of knowledge and capital manifests as a polarized "head" and "limbs" structure, where a small minority concentrates on developing science and technology while the vast majority of ordinary workers engage in simple labor.
Knowledge capital is a product of capitalism reaching a certain stage of development. With the development of capitalist productive forces and the establishment and improvement of the intellectual property system, scientific and technological elements began to become a special form of capital and were developed as such. Knowledge capital is a specific form of productive capital, manifesting concretely as capital in the form of intellectual property, such as patents and copyrights. Science and technology can only function as a real productive force when combined with material production. In the process of capital valorization, science and technology can only perform the function of productive capital when they enter the commodity production process, becoming the capitalist's productive force and a means to extract surplus value from workers; only then can the capital invested in technological production activities achieve valorization. The production and reproduction of technological knowledge under the control of capital are subordinated to capital's valorization, ensuring that the goals of knowledge production and the application of its results serve the requirements of capital's pursuit of profit.
In the past, knowledge capital primarily attached itself to physical production capital during the process of capital accumulation. With the development of science and technology and the arrival of the era of the knowledge economy, the importance of knowledge capital in capital accumulation has become increasingly prominent. Since the second half of the 20th century, the economic structures of developed capitalist countries have undergone a transformation; traditional industrial sectors have gradually declined while the tertiary sector has grown stronger. Knowledge, with modern science and technology at its core, is regarded as the most important factor of production in economic production, and the knowledge economy has become the dominant force in contemporary world economic activity. Relying on their advantages in knowledge capital, the monopoly capital of developed capitalist countries implements knowledge monopoly in global economic activities; knowledge monopoly has thus become the decisive factor for contemporary monopoly capital to achieve accumulation. The development of the intellectual property rights (IPR) system provided the institutional foundation for international monopoly capital to implement knowledge monopoly. By promoting IPR protection domestically and internationally, developed capitalist countries have granted so-called legitimacy to the implementation of knowledge monopoly by capital in the global economy, allowing scientific and technological knowledge to be extensively privatized and transformed into the most important property of capitalist enterprises.
II. Characteristics of Knowledge Monopoly in Contemporary Capitalism
1. International monopoly capital combines knowledge monopoly with the globalization of production By monopolizing scientific and technological knowledge, international monopoly capital combines a division of labor model centered on its own interests with the globalization of production. The application of information technology has made the degree of specialization within the production process increasingly refined. The production process can be segmented into a series of operational links; as production becomes increasingly standardized, routinized, and modularized, transnational corporations (TNCs) are able to coordinate and control production activities on a global scale. On this basis, dominant enterprises that master core technologies control key links such as research and development (R&D) and design, while transferring non-core links with lower technical levels to subsidiaries and external suppliers scattered across the globe, thereby extracting surplus value from non-core links such as processing and manufacturing. Dominant enterprises occupy a commanding position in global production activities by virtue of their monopoly over core technologies. Outsourcing is an important way for international monopoly capital to employ labor on a global scale. Outsourcing has expanded across borders over the past few decades and has become a major global economic activity. The fundamental drive behind outsourcing is the minimization of costs, especially labor costs; TNCs in developed countries can utilize cheap labor in developing countries through outsourcing. On one hand, dominant enterprises can reduce internal labor-management problems and externalize certain production costs and operational risks through outsourcing, allowing them to concentrate on developing their core business and strengthening investment in core technologies. On the other hand, dominant enterprises can replace non-critical suppliers according to their needs, forcing competition among outsourced firms and subordinating them to the needs of the dominant enterprise. Through this strategy, dominant enterprises further depress production costs and strengthen control over the supply chain. In the unequal relationship between the dominant enterprise and the suppliers at the bottom of the supply chain, the latter can both serve the operational expansion of the former and be "sacrificed" at any time.
In this process, the power of monopoly capital to command the labor of workers on a global scale is continuously strengthened, subordinating workers to globalized production dominated by the interests of international monopoly capital. First, the standardization and modularization of the production process allow enterprises to strengthen control over the labor process, permitting the use of semi-skilled and unskilled workers. Second, competition among workers intensifies, leading to instability in employment relations. Outsourcing allows TNCs to replace high-wage domestic labor with cheap labor from developing countries, creating competition between workers in developed and developing countries. At the same time, the externalization of risks and costs by dominant enterprises is eventually passed on to the laborers; competition between enterprises is transformed into competition between laborers. Increased competition leads to job instability, further worsening the situation of workers, especially those in the bottom rungs of production. Finally, the geographical dispersion of production activities and the divergence of workers' interests hinder the unification of workers.
2. Developed capitalist countries strengthen knowledge monopoly by promoting IPR protection worldwide Since the 1970s, as the commodification of capitalism expanded into the fields of science and technology, and as developed capitalist countries continuously advanced IPR protection domestically and internationally, the control of capital over science and technology has been strengthened. Intellectual property is the legal expression of the private appropriation of knowledge; conversely, the IPR system also promotes the commodification and capitalization of knowledge. IPR grants the rights holder exclusive rights over a certain knowledge product—namely, a legal monopoly—for a certain period, enabling the "owner of intellectual property to enjoy the rights of possession, use, benefit, and disposal over the object of their rights." The IPR system is intended to protect the fruits of intellectual labor, encourage invention and innovation, and promote scientific and technological progress, thereby providing momentum for economic development. Under the capitalist mode of production, IPR actually serves the appropriation and control of science and technology—this core factor of production—by capital. IPR restricts the freedom of non-rights holders in economic activities to use specific knowledge; even if someone happens to produce the same knowledge, their right to use the same or similar intellectual achievements in commercial activities is restricted as a result. Teixeira and others argue that through the IPR system, knowledge is transformed into a monopoly commodity that can be privatized, preventing free access to and reproduction of knowledge commodities. Ganon, meanwhile, argues that granting value to knowledge is not a matter of creating knowledge, but of making knowledge scarce by restricting opportunities for access.
Knowledge monopoly under the protection of the IPR system is self-reinforcing. Most technologies are cumulative and interdependent, with each technology linked to another in the production chain. Therefore, Lok and Pagano point out that IPR owners not only have the right to exclude others from using a technology, but are also able to hinder non-rights holders from investing and innovating in industrial activities that require that patented technology. They argue that under the global IPR protection system, the privatization of knowledge has become a major factor affecting the specialization of enterprises and countries; both are forced to engage in fields not restricted by the privatization of knowledge, leading to a self-reinforcing pattern of innovation. Enterprises and countries with more IPR will have more investment opportunities and the chance to obtain even more IPR, while those lacking IPR remain stagnant in a state of low investment and few patents. Overall, this may cause a polarization in innovation capacity between enterprises and between countries. Relying on their advantages in IPR, international monopoly capital excludes or restricts competition and implements monopolistic behavior. Monopolists elevate their own technologies into standards to implement "standard monopolies," engage in IPR patent pools, refuse to deal, impose licensing restrictions, and limit the mobility of professional talent under the guise of IPR protection, all of which strengthen knowledge monopoly. IPR protection has become a tool for developed countries to constrain each other and especially to contain the technological development of developing countries. Developed countries such as the United States exploit the weak position of developing countries in IPR and the institutional gaps in related fields to implement monopolies and extract high monopoly profits.
3. Transnational corporations and strategic alliances are the main subjects implementing knowledge monopoly in world economic activities To maintain international competitiveness and obtain the high profits brought by knowledge monopoly, international monopoly capital has the drive to continuously develop advanced technologies and strengthen knowledge monopoly. International monopoly capital, represented by TNCs, on one hand invests massive amounts in R&D activities to control core technologies, and on the other hand exercises strict control over the use and transfer of technology to hinder the external diffusion of core technologies. Strategic alliances developed on the basis of TNCs are an important organizational form of contemporary international monopoly capital, and cooperation in technological R&D is the primary content of these strategic alliances. Alliance enterprises share knowledge resources and split costs and risks in R&D cooperation to overcome the limitations of a single enterprise in developing new technologies. Leading enterprises also form technical standard alliances and promote their technical standards globally, strengthening their monopoly advantage by controlling technical standards. Furthermore, to better utilize the advantages of IPR concentration and defend against the harm of knowledge monopoly to themselves, patent pooling models have emerged in developed countries like the UK and the US; large enterprises capable of joining these alliances have more opportunities for investment and patent application. These alliances of interest further strengthen the control of international monopoly capital over R&D activities and its monopoly over technology. Since the mid-1990s, international monopoly enterprises have controlled 80% of the world's patents and technology transfers, as well as the vast majority of internationally renowned trademarks.
4. State power is the supporting force for international monopoly capital to implement knowledge monopoly As scientific and technological strength becomes the focus of competition between international monopoly capital and between states, the importance of state power—as the political representative of the monopoly bourgeoisie—in promoting technological progress and supporting the development of knowledge capital has become increasingly prominent. Private monopoly capital plays a certain positive role in the development of modern science and technology, yet for the purpose of ensuring the self-valorization of capital, it also restricts the development and application of science and technology, or is unwilling to bear the costs and risks of modern scientific and technological research. Modern technological innovation is characterized by long cycles, high investment, and the fusion of different disciplines. The state bears the costs and risks of R&D, which to a certain extent breaks through the limitations of the private sector in technological innovation and alleviates the contradiction between the socialization of scientific research and the limited capacity of the private sector to develop science and technology. Since World War II, developed capitalist countries have closely integrated technological development with economic and national interests, playing a leading role in the process of promoting revolutionary technological development. This is specifically manifested in the state's establishment of scientific research institutions, the subsidizing of basic and applied science research, encouraging and supporting the private sector's scientific research, leading explorations into frontier technological fields, promoting the commercialization of research results, organizing and integrating technological innovation resources, promoting the reform and development of education, and nurturing and supporting scientific and technological talent, among other actions. Developed capitalist countries, represented by the United States, have guaranteed the appropriation and control of core scientific and technological achievements by capital through the promotion of IPR protection, transforming the advantages accumulated in technological development into technological advantages for enterprises in global competition. Not only that, they also use the power of the state to carry out technological containment against other countries to maintain knowledge monopolies. State power functions as "a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie," [3] consciously and organizedly maintaining the long-term and overall interests of monopoly capital.
5. Knowledge monopoly deepens the unbalanced development of the capitalist international division of labor Knowledge monopoly is predicated on the unbalanced development of the world economy and further exacerbates that imbalance. Huang Yajun and others point out that knowledge has become the decisive factor in the international division of labor; the new international division of labor is essentially a division between the "brain" and the "hands and feet," forming a new "center-periphery" international division of labor system. The relationship in the world division of labor between countries and enterprises that master advanced technology and possess knowledge capital and those that are backward in technological development and lack knowledge capital is essentially one of the "head" dominating the "limbs." There is a significant gap between the two in terms of the quality and quantity of IPR, the intensity of R&D investment, and the reserves of professional talent. Knowledge monopoly causes the production of core technological knowledge to be increasingly concentrated in the former, while the latter lacks investment in R&D and professional talent, remains dependent on the technology provided by the former, and reproduces this relationship of dominance, exacerbating the unbalanced development of the capitalist international division of labor. The unbalanced development of capitalist science and technology inevitably leads to the unbalanced development of labor power. A limited portion of knowledge-based workers benefit from high professional capacity, high wages, more professional training opportunities, and relatively stable jobs, while ordinary workers lack professional knowledge and skills, have low incomes, lack job security, and endure harsh working conditions. This creates differences in the conditions of reproduction of labor power and its unbalanced development, further intensifying the internal differentiation among workers. Kim Heon-gi believes that a polarization between knowledge workers and ordinary workers has emerged in the labor market, which will produce a new form of adversarial relationship at the social level between those who have knowledge and those who do not.
In summary, the combination of knowledge and capital in contemporary capitalism manifests as international monopoly capital implementing knowledge monopoly in global economic activities. By dominating the core factor of production—science and technology—it masters structural power in global economic activities and exploits workers worldwide. Science and technology, as "the property of another and the power that rules the worker," [4] has achieved unprecedented development in contemporary capitalism.
III. Contemporary Capitalist Knowledge Monopoly and Its Harms from the Perspective of U.S. Technological Hegemony
The United States is the dominant actor in intellectual monopoly capitalism. As a global superpower and technological powerhouse, the U.S. has adopted a "two-handed" policy regarding technological development: internally, it promotes the development of science and technology through systematic planning and advances intellectual property protection to maintain the monopoly advantages of its domestic firms; externally, it leverages its superpower status and technological superiority to impose technological monopolies, blockades, and suppression against other nations. Looking at past contests between the U.S. and its international competitors in the field of technology, domestic promotional policies and external containment strategies have complemented one another, working in synergy to maintain American global hegemony in science and technology.
1. Internally promoting technological progress and fostering the development of intellectual capital
Since the end of World War II, the U.S. government has consistently played a key role in driving frontier technological development to maintain its leading position in world science and technology. Behind the American technological revolution lies the state’s use of rational planning to invest in the entire chain of innovation, including basic research, applied research, and innovative enterprises. Government involvement has facilitated the development of key technologies across broad fields such as computing, aviation and space technology, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and energy. During World War II, in order to ensure that the successful experience of state-organized and mobilized technological development could continue in the postwar era, Vannevar Bush submitted a report to the President titled Science: The Endless Frontier, laying the ideological foundation for government support of scientific research. Following the war, with the onset of the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, American tech policy primarily served national military competitiveness. By combining mission-oriented goals with support for basic research, the government fostered a range of advanced technologies that laid the foundation for U.S. industrial development. After the 1970s, the focus of U.S. tech policy gradually shifted from the military to the economic realm. Under the pressure of domestic economic stagnation and intensifying international competition, the U.S. government in the 1980s promoted the privatization and commercialization of government-funded research. Through a series of proactive measures including legislation and funding, the government advanced the transfer of technological achievements and facilitated cooperation between government agencies, universities, and enterprises to enhance the technological competitiveness of American firms. In the 1990s, against the backdrop of the end of the Cold War and heightening international economic competition, U.S. tech policy was even more explicitly directed toward economic growth, with government agencies actively nurturing and supporting revolutionary technologies vital to future growth. In recent years, faced with rapid technological progress in China and other nations, the U.S. has increasingly treated technological development as the highest priority of its national strategy. In May 2020, members of both parties in both houses of Congress proposed the "Endless Frontier Act" [5], intending to maintain U.S. leadership in the global technological arena throughout the 21st century.
Given that human talent plays a decisive role in technological innovation, the U.S. has integrated its talent strategy with its national strategic goals for technological development. This talent advantage is a vital factor in its global monopoly over technological resources and its maintenance of technological hegemony. Regarding talent cultivation and support, the U.S. has used legislation and educational appropriations to promote reform and increase the reserve of technical personnel—ranging from postwar support for scientific research to the National Defense Education Act [6] passed during the U.S.-Soviet arms race, to the America 2000: An Education Strategy aimed at national competitiveness, and the American Competitiveness Initiative and Strategy for American Innovation at the start of the 21st century. Attracting foreign talent is a core component of this strategy; the U.S. lead in technology is inseparable from the contributions of a vast number of high-quality foreign professionals. To maximize its share of the world’s scientific talent, the U.S. uses immigration policy, preferential policies for international students, recruitment by multinational corporations, and international cooperation. Leveraging its advantages in education, research conditions, and generous compensation, the U.S. purposefully and systematically extracts intellectual resources on a global scale, recruiting high-end talent and retaining outstanding international students.
In terms of intellectual property (IP) protection, the U.S. has not only established a mature and comprehensive domestic system but has used IP protection as a critical tool for maintaining its global technological hegemony. In the late 1970s, IP protection was adopted as a national development strategy. Domestically, Congress passed a series of acts to strengthen IP protection. On one hand, it refined legal provisions and expanded the scope of IP protection based on practical needs, establishing a unified federal patent judicial system that improved the functionality and stability of the IP system and spurred rapid growth in patent volume. On the other hand, relevant acts promoted the privatization of publicly funded R&D results. By redistributing the ownership of IP resulting from federally funded research since the war, the government incentivized the commercialization of these results to advance the "transformation" of technology into capital. The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 is a quintessential example; it provided a unified policy allowing performers of federally funded research to enjoy patent filing and ownership rights, and permitted federal agencies to grant exclusive licenses for government-funded research results to enterprises. By establishing a powerful domestic IP protection system, the U.S. laid the groundwork for participating in the international IP protection system, transforming its long-accumulated scientific achievements into an intellectual monopoly advantage. As economic globalization progressed, control over technology began to dictate the production and distribution of global wealth. Driven by the interests of international monopoly capital, the U.S. gradually strengthened its influence over international IP protection rules. Most significant was the U.S.-led 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The U.S. utilized its dominant position to internationally mandate IP protection standards that reflected its own interests. The U.S. plays a leading role in advancing the international IP system; indeed, "the process of globalizing IP protection standards is also the process of their Americanization," intended to solidify its technological monopoly.
Intellectual property protection inevitably brings about the problem of knowledge monopoly. To limit the damage that IP monopolies cause to innovation and competition, the U.S. government opposes the abuse of intellectual property and monopoly within its own domestic economic life. Examples include the 1995 Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property and its revisions, and the 2007 report Antitrust Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights: Promoting Innovation and Competition. By absorbing research and practical experience, the U.S. has gradually refined antitrust rules regarding IP, aiming to achieve a synergy where IP protection and antitrust measures complement one another.
2. Implementing external monopoly policies of blockade and suppression
In stark contrast to its domestic policies of fostering innovation, the U.S. employs any means necessary to blockade and suppress other nations in international technological competition.
(1) After World War II, while the U.S. maintained global technological leadership, the Soviet Union and Japan both attempted to challenge this dominance, only to be struck down by the U.S. and end in failure.
To win the Cold War, the U.S. adopted a strategy of technological containment against the Soviet Union. Early in the Cold War, the U.S. established a strict export control mechanism targeting the socialist camp led by the USSR. Domestically, the Export Control Act of 1949 was passed to embargo technical data closely related to strategic materials. Internationally, the U.S. spearheaded the creation of the "Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls" (COCOM), uniting Western developed industrial nations to restrict the export of strategic equipment, raw materials, and cutting-edge technology to the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. This utilized American economic and technological advantages to contain Soviet military and economic development. The Soviet Union’s achievements in military technology once posed a threat to the U.S. lead; in response, the U.S. used state power to drive strategic technological development while maintaining a strict embargo, laying the foundation for its technological superiority in the late Cold War. By that stage, the U.S. had achieved overwhelming technological accumulation while tightening controls on the transfer of sophisticated technology to the USSR. The U.S.-Soviet tech war ended with the economic collapse and disintegration of the Soviet Union.
During the U.S.-Japan tech war centering on semiconductors, Japan once crowded the U.S. out of the semiconductor market, threatening the American technological monopoly. Consequently, the U.S. launched a trade and tech war against Japan, employing various means of suppression: strengthening IP protection, sanctioning key enterprises, forcing Japan to sign agreements to strike at its export advantages, weakening its industrial policies, and fostering Japan’s competitors. Under the weight of external blows and insufficient internal innovation capacity, the Japanese semiconductor industry fell into decline. Meanwhile, the U.S. adjusted its competition strategy, mimicked the Japanese model, and saw the government fund the Sematech (Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology) alliance to reclaim the global market.
(2) Since the beginning of Reform and Opening-up, China has persisted in developing its science and technology based on its national conditions. From the early strategy of "exchanging market for technology" [7] to introduce, learn from, and imitate advanced foreign technology, to contemporary efforts to integrate domestic and foreign resources and enhance independent R&D, China has made significant progress. In 2018, China's R&D expenditure reached 1.9657 trillion yuan, with 1.542 million domestic patent applications and 5.35 million scientific researchers. However, China still faces gaps compared to developed countries in frontier technologies such as high-end chips, precision instruments, and foundational hardware and software. China’s leap-frog development in technology posed a real or potential threat to the U.S. dominant position. Consequently, the U.S. elevated its containment strategy against Chinese technology to the level of national security, launching a trade and tech war whose methods and scope far exceed those of the previous wars with the Soviets or Japanese.
The first tactic is attacking China’s independent innovation and industrial policies. Although government departments in major economies like the U.S. play an indispensable and leading role in fostering technology, the U.S. applies a double standard to Chinese policy, using legislative and diplomatic means to attack China’s industrial policies. In 2018, the U.S. released the Section 301 Investigation Report and How China’s Economic Aggression Threatens the Technologies and Intellectual Property of the United States and the World, accusing industrial policies such as "Made in China 2025" and alleging that China acquires advanced technology through unfair technology transfer regimes, discriminatory licensing restrictions, outbound investment policies, and state-sponsored IP theft. It further claimed that China intends to control advanced technologies to achieve military and economic goals, using these as pretexts to implement sanctions against China.
Second, a series of restrictive and suppressive measures have been taken against Chinese high-tech enterprises. These primarily include: First, strengthening technical protection under the pretext of national security to restrict the technical investment activities of Chinese firms in the United States. In 2018, the U.S. Congress passed the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA) and the Export Control Reform Act (ECRA), continuously expanding the scope and strengthening the intensity of controls over critical and emerging technologies. These measures mainly target and restrict the technical investment activities of Chinese enterprises in the U.S., creating obstacles to the flow of technology. Second, severing core supply chains and using state power to strike at key Chinese technology companies. The U.S. has placed specific Chinese high-tech enterprises and scientific research institutions on the "Entity List" [8] for export controls to restrict the export of important controlled items, technology, and software. Leveraging its monopoly advantage in critical nodes of the supply chain, the U.S. has not hesitated to sacrifice the interests of its own suppliers and sabotage the cooperation and mutual trust of global industrial chains. It has attempted to block the channels through which key Chinese tech firms obtain critical technologies and core components in a manner that leaves almost no corner untouched, aiming to paralyze the operations of the targeted companies. The U.S. believes that 5G communication technology is vital to national security and economic prosperity; consequently, Huawei and ZTE, as representatives of China's advanced communication technology enterprises and powerful competitors to the U.S., have become primary targets of suppression. Taking the suppression of Huawei as an example, in May 2019, the U.S. Department of Commerce added Huawei and its subsidiaries to the "Entity List," prohibiting U.S. companies from providing core components and technology to Huawei. In May 2020, this suppression escalated further when the U.S. Department of Commerce announced restrictions on Huawei’s use of U.S. technology and software to design and manufacture semiconductor products abroad, attempting to completely sever Huawei's chip supply chain. Third, colluding with allies to squeeze the survival space of Chinese high-tech enterprises in the international market. In the process of encircling Huawei, the U.S. has not only restricted the latter’s entry into its domestic market by banning product procurement and obstructing cooperation with telecom operators, but has also pressured its trading partners—uniting with countries such as Japan, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand to boycott Huawei and intervene in the global market. These actions run counter to the spirit of the free market that the U.S. purports to uphold.
Third, suppressing scientific and technological talent and obstructing educational and academic exchanges. The U.S. maintains that China uses international students and researchers to steal U.S. technical intelligence and intellectual property. It has coordinated multiple government departments to take measures preventing China from utilizing U.S. frontier scientific research and educational resources, setting unprecedentedly strict restrictions on Chinese nationals studying and conducting academic exchanges in the United States. Since June 2018, the U.S. government has shortened visa validity periods for Chinese students in certain high-tech majors; visas for sensitive fields such as robotics, aviation, and advanced manufacturing have been reduced to one year. Furthermore, the U.S. government has repeatedly and groundlessly prohibited Chinese scholars from conducting academic exchanges in the U.S., with the scope expanding from the natural sciences to the social sciences, even hindering normal academic activities. Beyond this, U.S. government agencies have extended technology competition with China into the realm of scientific research, launching large-scale targeted investigations into Chinese scholars in the U.S. to marginalize and suppress the Chinese research community. In August 2018, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) launched investigations into more than 10,000 research institutions it funds, with Chinese-American and Chinese researchers as the primary targets. Under the heavy pressure of these investigations, many researchers have resigned or been dismissed by their institutions, which has also negatively impacted R&D cooperation between scholars in the U.S. and Chinese researchers.
The essence of the U.S. technological suppression of China is the maintenance of its monopoly over core technologies to safeguard the dominant position of its domestic monopoly capital groups within the world production system. The U.S. adheres to a zero-sum mentality in technological competition, openly attacking China's industrial policies as a threat to the U.S. and global economies, and actively propagating the idea that China's industrial upgrading will weaken U.S. intellectual property-intensive industries and negatively affect employment in related sectors. The series of suppressive measures taken by the U.S. against China directly target the "Made in China 2025" [9] strategy; the goal is to slow down or even force China to abandon its manufacturing upgrade plans, and to prevent China from taking the lead in the conversion of old and new growth drivers [10] during the new round of scientific and technological revolution. As Chinese scholars have judged, the U.S. technology embargo aims not only to push Chinese high-tech enterprises out of the U.S. system but also out of the developed nations' system, "locking China into the low-to-medium end of the global industrial chain" and solidifying the hierarchy of the global supply chain by blocking the flow of technology.
3. The Harms of Knowledge Monopoly
Capitalist knowledge monopoly is leading itself into a predicament. Knowledge monopoly contradicts the developmental trend of the socialization of production [11]. A knowledge monopoly centered on maintaining the interests of international monopoly capital increasingly obstructs the development of science and technology. The internationalization of scientific and technological innovation activities is a trend in the development of economic globalization. The British scholar Rajneesh Narula has pointed out that technology and economic globalization are inextricably linked, co-evolving and depending on each other to a certain extent; the development of economic globalization makes it increasingly necessary for firms and states to seek sources of knowledge from abroad, and most economic actors within an innovation system are becoming increasingly interdependent with various economic actors outside their borders. Meanwhile, modern technology has a dual-use (military-civilian) nature; science and technology function as productive forces but can also serve as tools of war. The development of frontier technology brings revolutionary impacts to human production, life, and ethical systems, and navigating technological development based on the common well-being of humanity requires cooperation between nations. The globalization of production is the highest form of the socialization of production. The internationalization of scientific and technological innovation is an inherent requirement and developmental trend of the economic globalization process. A knowledge monopoly centered on maintaining the interests of monopoly capital is restricting international cooperation in technological innovation, while also bringing negative impacts to cooperation across global production chains. Regarding the consequences of the China-U.S. tech war, a considerable number of scholars have noted that the U.S. and China possess many complementary advantages in technological resources. The development of U.S. high-tech enterprises also requires Chinese capital, markets, and supply chains; severing technological ties is not only detrimental to bilateral cooperation but will also impose limits on the development of the U.S.'s own technology and tech enterprises.
Capitalist knowledge monopoly is built upon the uneven development of the world economy. Developed capitalist countries exploit developing countries and shift their internal contradictions of accumulation by monopolizing technology, while emerging nations challenge the world pattern where technology is monopolized by developed capitalist countries during their own development process. Andrew Kennedy has pointed out that emerging nations must overcome structural problems by acquiring and developing technology, thereby posing a challenge to the international order maintained by existing dominant nations. As the focus of world economic competition increasingly centers on technological competition, the competitive rules of capitalist knowledge monopoly will inevitably lead to more intense technological competition, continuously intensifying the contradictions of accumulation for monopoly capital.
In explaining the decadence of monopoly capitalism, Lenin pointed out that monopoly capitalists obstruct the application of inventions by taking possession of patents and, in order to maintain monopoly prices, artificially hinder technical progress. Under the dominance of monopoly, the degree of socialization of production increases, and the process of scientific and technological development becomes increasingly socialized, but the contradiction between the socialization of production and capitalist private appropriation becomes even more acute. Lenin noted that the bourgeoisie "has turned education and science, the highest achievement and the cream of capitalist civilization, into an instrument of exploitation and a patent, putting the majority of the population in a position of slaves." Driven by the motive of capital accumulation, capitalism obtained a continuous impetus for the development of science and technology, greatly promoting their progress; however, capitalism simultaneously limits the mode of scientific and technological development. Knowledge is shareable and non-rivalrous, and its use-value increases with the expansion of its dissemination and scope of use. Nevertheless, in order to possess and utilize scientific and technological knowledge, capital defines knowledge as a form of private property, thereby causing knowledge closure in science, technology, and even the basic sciences. In the latest stage of the development of monopoly capitalism, transnational corporations and strategic alliances use knowledge monopoly as a means of exploiting laborers worldwide, exacerbating the uneven development of the world system and bringing about excessive concentration of power and a massive waste of resources. With the advancement of economic globalization, science and technology increasingly require socialized production that is systematic and planned. Capitalist knowledge monopoly increasingly obstructs the development of science and technology, becoming a fetter on scientific and technological progress.
(The author is a doctoral student at the School of Marxism, Renmin University of China, and an assistant researcher at the Institute of Marxism Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.)
Editor: Tong Xin
Source: Marxism Studies (《马克思主义研究》), Issue 6, 2021.