Wang Fengming: Labor, Commodity, and Capital Under the Conditions of Digital Economy
The development of digital technologies such as the Internet, big data, and cloud computing is not only changing people's actual modes of production and lifestyles but also transforming their ways of thinking and cognitive patterns; a so-called "digital economy" era has quietly arrived. Being situated within it, one faces the impact of various new objects and concepts that are difficult to digest—such as digital labor, digital commodities, digital value, digital capital, and digital capitalism—as well as a series of perplexing new conditions and problems. For example: What are digital products? Are digital products commodities? What is digital labor? Does digital labor create value? What is digital capital? What is the mechanism through which digital capital achieves exploitation? What are the developmental trends of digital capitalism? It could be said that these concepts and questions all touch upon the fundamentals of Marx’s theory of political economy. They test not only the contemporaneity and practical explanatory power of Marx’s economic thought but also the extent to which we understand and grasp that thought. Grounded in Marx's Capital and its manuscripts, and taking the book Digital Capitalism (hereafter referred to as the "Mori volume") authored by Ken Mori and Hiroyuki Nitto as a case study, this article analyzes and differentiates questions regarding commodity production, value creation, and capital exploitation under the conditions of the digital economy.
I. Digital Commodities and Commodity Value
1. Distinguishing Commodities from Products
The "Mori volume" argues that in industrial capitalist society, human labor-power is transformed into a commodity to be traded on the market; however, in digital capitalist society, the information generated and emitted by all things, including humans, is used for exchange, becoming an "existence that outputs value," with various types of information themselves becoming value-bearing commodities. It can be said that digital capitalism has inaugurated a new era: "the era in which humans sell their own 'activity information' as a commodity." One industry experiencing the disruptive effects of digitalization is music publishing. Musical works themselves have achieved digitalization, first by transforming records into CDs, and later further developing into digital distribution formats that do not rely on physical media. Furthermore, since the reproduction costs of digital products like music and video are nearly zero, the "Mori volume" distinguishes commodities existing in the form of free digital services from conventional commodities and services outside that realm. How, then, should we view the concepts of "information commodities" or "digital commodities"? Are digital products—such as digital music that can be downloaded for free on a computer (actually, in general, if something is free, it is by no means a commodity; if it is a commodity, it will never be provided for free—or rather, free provision is merely a form)—and the so-called "digital services" that provide such music actually commodities?
In Marx's view, first, the commodity is the "unity of use-value and exchange-value." Therefore, a commodity is a unified entity of use-value and exchange-value (strictly speaking, value). Second, regarding the use-value of a commodity, for a person "to produce a commodity, he must not only produce use-value, but use-value for others, i.e., social use-value." Thus, the use-value of a commodity possesses a quality of "self-exclusion" [1] for the commodity producer. A product can directly satisfy the producer's own needs, but a commodity is different; the producer must go through exchange to obtain products that satisfy their own needs. Third, regarding the value of a commodity, the magnitude of value is determined by the socially necessary labor time (rather than individual labor time) required to produce it. Consequently, the calculation of the magnitude of commodity value has a temporal "boundary" [2]; if this boundary is exceeded, the labor expended will not form commodity value and constitutes a type of invalid labor.
Viewed from this perspective, on the one hand, regarding the lyrics, melody, and spiritual content (information) of a song—whether performed by a singer, burned onto an optical disc, or saved on a computer—no matter how many times it is performed or listened to, there is not only no loss but also a reinforcement and deepening of people's memory of the lyrics and melody and their grasp of the song's meaning. In this sense, as an information product or digital product, because the use-value of a song (satisfying the need to "hear a song") does not possess self-exclusion and can simultaneously satisfy the needs of the "performer-producer" and the "listener-consumer," it is not a commodity. In fact, all spiritual products [3] and spiritual activities possess such characteristics. On the other hand, no information product or digital product can, as the "Mori volume" claims, dispense with physical media; on the contrary, they are all inseparable from a certain material carrier. Regarding such carriers: every time a singer performs, they consume their body (singing capacity); for every additional performance given to others, there is less left for oneself. If one keeps a CD for oneself to hear, it cannot be sold or lent to others; or, if it is lent to someone once, the owner's opportunity to hear it decreases by one. Every time digital music is downloaded, the computer experiences wear and tear; what is given to others is subtracted from what is left for oneself. All of these demonstrate the "self-exclusion" possessed by the use-value of information products or digital products. However, because this self-exclusion originates from the material carrier of the information or digital product (rather than its spiritual content), they are actually no different from other commodities that serve as material products (the "conventional commodities" of the "Mori volume"). They are simply the sale of the singer's singing capacity and performance equipment, the sale of labor-power and other material materials used to burn CDs, or the sale of labor-power and various material facilities used to manufacture digital music. It goes without saying that these material carriers are subject to boundary constraints in terms of production and manufacturing time.
This differs from the information commodities or digital commodities understood in the "Mori volume." That work treats information or data itself, and thus the spiritual processes or spiritual products containing this data or information, as commodities. In reality, however, spiritual products and spiritual activities are essentially different from material products and material activities. When a song, a CD, or digital music is a spiritual product, it is by no means a commodity but a product; when it is a commodity, it is by no means a spiritual product but a material product. As a spiritual product, a song is composed of information such as lyrics, melody, and meaning, while the performance process is the process through which the use-value of the singer's "singing capacity-commodity" is realized. When the audience purchases the "singing capacity-commodity," they purchase the performance process as its use-value; otherwise, the singer's singing capacity is merely a potential commodity. Clearly, the singing capacity embedded in the singer's body is a commodity, but the song or the information itself is not. Singing capacity is a material force or a measurable physical quantity, but the song itself is not a physical-natural existence; it is a spiritual existence containing symbols and meaning. Of course, as a commodity, the singer's singing capacity is formed through the consumption of means of subsistence (commodities) created by material production laborers. This is the essential difference between material products and spiritual products, and between commodities and products. In short, it is the material carrier (body, disc, computer) that determines the self-exclusion of the use-value (i.e., the performance or playback process) of a song, a CD, or digital music; to obtain its value (money), one must alienate its use-value.
As for the relationship between digital services and commodities discussed in the "Mori volume," the following analysis by Marx may serve as a reference. As products of the production process, commodities are seen by some as a "material thing, an object that exists independently of the production process and has a form of use different from the use-form of the factors of production." However, there are some products of the production process which—because they are not use-objects distinct from the production process that only function as tradeable items after being produced (i.e., circulating as commodities), but can only be consumed during the production process—are viewed by some (such as Janson [4]) as "not new material products, not commodities," but as a "service." Thus, they juxtapose service and commodity, viewing them as two different types of tradeable items. In Marx's view, this service itself is a commodity. If we say the former type of commodity is one existing in physical form—a physical commodity—then a service is a commodity existing in the form of a process—a "process commodity."
Taking the transport industry as an example, it includes both the transport of commodities and non-commodity transport. Regarding the latter, first, whether it is passenger or freight transport, the result is a change in the location of the passengers or goods, and what the transport industry sells is the change of location itself. In other words, this spatial movement itself is a material product, a commodity. Second, regarding its use-value, the utility produced by this displacement is inseparable from the transport process—that is, the production process of the transport industry. This is because passengers and goods travel together with the means of transport, and the operation of the means of transport—its change of location—is the production process it carries out. Moreover, this utility satisfies a certain need of the buyer, such as the need for displacement when a passenger goes sightseeing or a client moves house—satisfying the human need for "travel." Clearly, this displacement effect (use-value) during sightseeing or moving has "self-exclusion" for the transport worker; that is, it cannot simultaneously satisfy the displacement needs of both the transport worker and the client. Third, regarding its value, "the exchange-value of this utility, like the exchange-value of any other commodity, is determined by the value of the elements of production consumed (labor-power and means of production) plus the value... created by... the transport workers." Furthermore, the magnitude of this value is determined by the socially necessary labor time of the transport labor; in other words, transport labor has a "boundary" in terms of time, and exceeding this boundary results in invalid labor that receives no remuneration. Thus, Marx says: "The useful effect, i.e., the change of location, produced by the means of transport while it is performing its production function and thus staying within the sphere of production, can simultaneously enter into individual consumption, for example, the individual consumption of a passenger. At this point, the passenger uses the means of transport just as he uses other means of consumption, and must pay remuneration for it." The same applies to the postal and telecommunications industry, where the (service) process of transmitting messages, letters, telegrams, etc., is itself a commodity—a process commodity—for which the client must pay remuneration. The postal and telecommunications industry and the transport industry are collectively referred to as the "communications industry" [5], which is an independent industrial or manufacturing sector. It is evident that there exist not only physical commodities but also process commodities. However, this type of service commodity is limited to the communications industry. If one were to extend it to the information or digital service industries as the "Mori volume" does, it would be an overreach, because the services provided by the latter are not material results and utilities like spatial displacement, but rather the preservation and transmission of information and data.
2. Distinguishing Commodity Value from Price
To explain the impact of digital technology on economic growth and GDP, the "Mori volume" borrows the concepts of "producer surplus" and "consumer surplus" from economics. Producer surplus is the difference between price and cost—i.e., the producer's profit; relatively speaking, consumer surplus is the difference between the price and the amount the consumer is willing to pay—simply put, the "sense of getting a bargain." For convenience, it interprets consumer surplus as client surplus or client satisfaction, and producer surplus as corporate profit. The difference between the two lies in the fact that producer surplus can be expressed in a certain amount of currency, while consumer surplus usually cannot be converted into a specific monetary sum. In other words, producer surplus can be included in GDP, whereas consumer surplus cannot be reflected in it. Finally, the "Mori volume" refers to the sum of producer surplus and consumer surplus as "total surplus." Therefore, total surplus includes both objectively measurable producer surplus and subjectively measurable consumer surplus. In its view, total surplus is the "added value" of a commodity or service output in the true sense.
Marx noted: "The expression of the value of a commodity in gold—x quantity of commodity A = y quantity of the money commodity—is the money-form of the commodity, or its price." Although the determination of price is certainly based on the determination of value, "new elements" are nonetheless added to the price. If the expenditure of labor in general is the sole factor determining value—meaning value determination is monadic—then price determination is pluralistic; changes in any factor on the market will affect the price of a commodity. In view of the difference between commodity value and price, Marx repeatedly emphasized: "The price of a commodity is the index of the magnitude of its value," and "Price, as the index of the magnitude of a commodity's value, is the index of its exchange ratio with money." What this "index" expresses is the variation and degree of the commodity's price around its value under the influence of various factors.
Viewed from this perspective, the understanding of commodity value, price, and their relationship in the "Mori text" [6] is extremely superficial. First, the "Mori text" confuses the value of a commodity with its price. It treats the total surplus—composed of producer surplus and consumer surplus—as the added value of a commodity or service. However, both producer surplus and consumer surplus are merely expressions of price, not value. On the one hand, producer surplus can be expressed as a definite amount of money; once expressed in money, it constitutes the price of the commodity rather than its value. Thus, producer surplus is essentially the price differential between a commodity’s actual price and its cost price. On the other hand, the "willingness to pay" depends on the degree of satisfaction derived from a commodity or service. Since this satisfaction is difficult to measure, the willingness to pay is also difficult to determine. Nevertheless, like producer surplus, consumer surplus is ultimately a price phenomenon rather than a value phenomenon—specifically, the price differential between a consumer's willingness to pay (the bid) and the actual price of the commodity. In this way, the "Mori text" conflates value with price. In its view, "price can be said to be the blade that carves the total surplus (value) between the producer and the consumer." It is not wrong to see the price mechanism as a mechanism for the partition of value; however, the "total surplus" it describes is merely an aggregation of prices, not an aggregation of values—that is, it is a total price, not a total value.
Second, regarding the relationship between the willingness to pay and price determination: (1) The actual price of a commodity is determined by multiple factors, and consumer satisfaction (and the resulting willingness to pay) is undoubtedly one important factor. Therefore, isolating satisfaction from the price determination of a commodity and bifurcating the willingness to pay from the actual price is itself illogical. (2) Even setting the first point aside, for the consumer, the lower the price of a commodity, the better, and the lower the price, the higher the satisfaction. In other words, the consumer will always try to drive the price down as much as possible. While cases where the willingness to pay exceeds the actual price do exist, they are by no means the norm for ordinary people (perhaps with the exception of the wealthy). (3) Even if there are instances where the willingness to pay is higher than the actual price, there are simultaneously instances where it is lower; the two will eventually be leveled out through the bargaining process between supply and demand, rendering the "consumer surplus" mentioned in the "Mori text" a purely imaginary construct.
Third, one might ask: why must we distinguish between price and value? What are the drawbacks of failing to do so, and what is the necessity of the distinction? On the one hand, "although money is only the value-form of commodities, price can be entirely independent of the expression of value... therefore, things that have no value can formally possess a price. In such cases, the price expression is imaginary" [7]. On the other hand, "imaginary price-forms... can conceal real value relations or relations derived from them." Therefore, if value and price are conflated, one will mistakenly believe that anything obtaining a price possesses value, thereby conflating commodities with non-commodities. At the same time, this obliterates the distinction between the essence (value) and the phenomenon (price), rendering economic science—the fundamental purpose of which is to grasp the essence through phenomena—superfluous. If these are the theoretical implications of distinguishing value from price, the practical significance lies in the following: because the price mechanism is a mechanism for value partition, it is precisely because things without inherent value take on the form of price that commodities with inherent value find it difficult to sell, or find their value unachievable or only partially realized. Furthermore, this disrupts the proportional relationships in economic life, leading at least to the decline of certain commodity productions and economic sectors, and at worst, detonating an economic crisis.
The "Mori text" not only confuses the value and price of commodities but also exhibits extreme conceptual confusion regarding the concept of value. For example, when envisioning the prospects of the used car market in the era of AI and the Internet of Things (IoT), it introduces baffling concepts such as "functional value" and "emotional value"; the latter is a "subjective value" while the former is an "objective value." Moreover, the so-called "functional value" is actually the "recommended purchase price" generated by AI. The "Mori text" also proposes so-called "scarcity values," namely "time," "individualized requirements," and "trust." In its view, time is finite and therefore scarce; because replicating another’s "individualized requirements" cannot provide self-satisfaction, "in the sense that one’s own individualized requirements can only be produced by oneself, they are indeed scarce"; and "trust cannot be simply replicated; it can only be accumulated step-by-step through down-to-earth efforts." Thus, it argues that "'time,' 'individualized requirements,' and 'trust' remain scarcity values in today's society, becoming even more precious in the digital age." In reality, while it is true that scarce things are often expensive, expensive things are not necessarily commodities, nor do they necessarily possess value—unless the "value" referred to here is not commodity value (but value in another sense). Regarding time, even assuming that people could purchase time, since commodity value represents the expenditure of human labor in the abstract, labor or labor-time itself has no value; time in any other sense likewise possesses no value. Furthermore, commodity value is essentially a social relation; only within specific social relations does the expenditure of human labor, measured by time, transform into commodity value.
3. Correctly Understanding the Relationship Between the Digital Economy and Commodity Production
Regarding commodity production, Marx argued: on the one hand, "social division of labor is a condition for the existence of commodity production, although commodity production is not conversely a condition for the social division of labor"; for commodity producers, "their labor is based on the division of labor, so they must exchange with each other; whether their products can satisfy their needs depends on this exchange." On the other hand, "only products of independent private labors, conducted independently of one another, confront each other as commodities"; "if they labored as joint owners, exchange would not occur, but rather collective consumption." This indicates that two conditions are necessary for the existence of commodity production: first, the division or differentiation of labor; second, the private ownership of the means of production. Without the division of labor, labor products have no possibility of being exchanged as commodities; and without private property, such exchange loses its necessity. Even in the earliest commodity exchanges occurring at the boundaries of primitive communities, the exchanging parties "tacitly treat each other as private owners of those alienable things, and thereby confront each other as independent persons." Moreover, it is precisely this individual and accidental commodity exchange that, in turn, becomes a significant factor in the dissolution of primitive communal ownership and primitive communities.
However, the "Mori text" posits that "as long as scarcity and difference persist, exchange value will inevitably be bred, prompting subjects with different value systems to conduct transactions." In other words, it views scarcity and difference as the preconditions for the existence of commodity production and exchange. In fact, scarce things do not necessarily possess "exclusivity" in their use-value. For example, as spiritual or cultural products, excellent literary or artistic works are always scarce, but because sharedness (rather than exclusivity) is their common characteristic, they never transform into commodities. Even for things that are both scarce and consumed/used exclusively, they must be based on the division of labor and private ownership of the means of production to become commodities. If there is no necessity for the "exclusive" use or consumption of a labor product, it will not be "exclusively" possessed and monopolized by private individuals; and if it is not privately possessed and monopolized, it will not transform into a commodity. Similarly, where differences (such as different use-values) exist, if there is no necessity for exclusive use or consumption, or if private ownership of the means of production does not exist, commodity production and exchange will not emerge. Therefore, the "Mori text’s" abstract establishment of scarcity or difference as the preconditions for commodity production and value creation is itself highly questionable.
Viewed historically: First, primitive ancestors situated in different natural conditions and environments produced different products, giving rise to the initial natural division of labor. Based on this natural division of labor, the aforementioned commodity exchanges occurred at the boundaries of primitive communities, and the first seeds of private property appeared. Second, in the process of the dissolution of primitive communities—triggered by this commodity exchange and nascent private property—not only did a social division of labor distinct from the natural division arise, but individual private ownership and slave-owner private ownership also emerged. The combination of the division of labor and slave-owner private ownership allowed commodity exchange to continue; the combination of the social division of labor and individual private ownership produced the earliest commodity production. Thus, commodity exchange preceded commodity production. Third, subsequently, the combination of the social division of labor and feudal private ownership continued the commodity exchange found in slave-owning communities; with the emergence of capitalist private ownership and the development of the social division of labor, the commodity economy replaced the natural economy, achieving a historical transformation of economic forms. Therefore, commodity production preceded the emergence of the commodity economy. Fourth, in the era of the digital economy, for commodity production and exchange to exist, they must likewise possess the two conditions: division of labor and private ownership of the means of production. The "Mori text" clearly lacks this historical perspective, leading it to completely misunderstand the historical conditions of commodity production and value creation.
II. Commodity Value and Digital Labor
1. Distinguishing Between Value-Creating Labor and Non-Value-Creating Labor
The concept of "digital labor" is related to digital commodities and digital value. In the "Mori text," digital labor refers to free search services (such as price searches) provided by digital platforms. Because these digital services can bring consumer surplus to consumers, the text argues they are a form of value-creating digital labor. The "Mori text" states: "We use free digital services every day," and "free digital services create... consumer surplus." Furthermore, "the consumers referred to here include not only final consumers in B2C business but also corporate clients in B2B business."
One scenario is: platform "users only need to pay for network connection fees to use Google's search services, route planning services provided by map apps, SNS like Facebook, and photo-sharing services on Instagram for free." Because these services improve the convenience of life and contribute to time-saving and quality-of-life improvements, they increase people's sense of benefit and their willingness to pay, thereby creating consumer surplus. Another scenario is: "With the appearance of price-comparison websites and e-commerce websites, consumers can easily compare the price gap for the same product sold by different sellers"; additionally, "the development of digitalization has drastically reduced the search costs of commodities." Although this "reduces producer surplus," it can "increase consumer surplus." This suggests either that—by using digital services provided by price-comparison and e-commerce websites to compress the margin between commodity price and cost—the commodity price can be lowered below the consumer's willingness to pay, thereby creating consumer surplus; or that, although digital services or digital labor are provided to consumers for free and do not cause an increase in the actual price, they enhance consumer satisfaction and the sense of benefit—consumers "derive a certain satisfaction (termed 'utility' in economics)"—thereby increasing the willingness to pay and producing consumer surplus. According to surveys, "72% of consumers will first go to the Amazon website to gather information before buying commodities on Amazon or in physical stores."
How should we view the perspective of the "Mori text"? First, in reality, free services or labor that create value do exist. For example, the labor of cleaning machinery mentioned by Marx. This is a type of additional labor; without it, the machinery would become unusable. Thus, this refers to labor that, in the strictest sense, maintains the machine in a working state. Clearly, this cleaning labor is value-creating labor. However, "in actual industry, this cleaning labor is completed for free by workers during their rest time... this labor is not calculated in the price of the product. In this sense, the consumer receives it for no cost. On the other hand, the capitalist also saves on the maintenance costs of the machinery" [8]. It is evident that this cleaning labor provided for free to the consumer is provided by wage laborers; it cannot be said abstractly to be provided by capitalist enterprises, much less by the capitalists themselves.
Secondly, if digital services or digital labor are said to create value, this occurs neither because consumers purchase commodities they favor, nor because it saves the consumers' time, and even less so because it improves the quality of life for consumers. Rather, it is because it is objectified or congealed in the commodity as social labor. Saving a consumer’s time does not mean creating commodity value, just as a reduction in circulation time [9] does not mean creating commodity value—even though it increases the time available for commodity production and value creation, i.e., production time. Therefore, pure costs of circulation not only add no value to the commodity but also will not exist in the economic operations of a future new society. From this perspective, first, as far as the platform user functions as a consumer, buying the cheapest commodity through a price search is not equivalent to creating value, just as saving costs is not equivalent to creating value. This is because the price level of a commodity and the creation of value are two different things. Second, regarding the price of a commodity, what one person pays less is simultaneously what another person pays more. This is because the total price of a commodity is equal to its total value, and the price of a commodity is consistent with its value in the aggregate. Third, of course, viewed solely at the individual level, buying a relatively cheap commodity is indeed "turning a profit," but this is merely a surface phenomenon. Because a person has times when they profit due to low prices and times when they lose due to high prices, these two [deviations of] price will cancel each other out when viewed from the long-term trends and holistic characteristics at the level of essence.
Thirdly, among the services provided by digital platforms, some forms of labor—such as maintenance labor—are both labor that truly creates value and labor that is difficult to provide for free. This requires specific analysis. In Marx’s view: First, for the user-capitalist of a certain means of labor [10] such as a machine (this is a distinction between the different roles assumed by the same capitalist; the actual user of the machine is, of course, the worker), suppose he advances £10,000 for this fixed capital with an expected lifespan of 15 years; the expected annual wear and tear would be £2,000/3. Second, the actual calculation method for recovering the machine's value (i.e., the bookkeeping method) is: recover £2,000/3 per year (actual wear and tear) + £1,000/3 (maintenance reserve) = £1,000, rather than just £2,000/3. In this way, he can recover the value of the advanced constant capital within 10 years. However, within this, only £2,000/3 × 10 = £20,000/3 is depreciation, while the remaining £1,000/3 × 10 = £10,000/3 constitutes the reserved maintenance costs. Furthermore, this maintenance cost is determined based on "experience." Third, during the final five years of using the machine, with the addition of maintenance labor and maintenance costs, the actual wear and tear or depreciation of the machine is £2,000/3 × 5 = £10,000/3. Thus, the depreciation of the latter five years plus the depreciation of the first ten years exactly equals the £10,000 advanced in fixed capital. Fourth, the £10,000/3 maintenance cost reserved during the first ten years becomes extra value, part of which is used to purchase the material elements required to repair the machine, and part of which is used to purchase maintenance labor-power. This cost is naturally paid by the machine user-capitalist; for him, it belongs to the transfer of value of constant capital. Maintenance labor neither creates value nor surplus value and is thus a "general unproductive expense." Fifth, as far as the capitalist acting as the party providing machine repairs is concerned, the portion of this expense used to purchase labor-power belongs to variable capital; maintenance labor not only creates value but also creates surplus value, and is thus a production expense. In this way, the new value added by maintenance labor to the machine's product is: £10,000/3 (c+v) and the surplus value (m) created according to a certain rate. Thus, Marx says: "Every fairly large factory employs, in addition to the actual factory workers, engineers, carpenters, mechanics, joiners, etc. (i.e., maintenance workers—Author's note). Their wages are part of the variable capital, and the value of their labor is distributed over the products." From this perspective, for digital platforms like Google to provide digital (search) services, they must employ equipment maintainers or repairmen. Their maintenance labor is value-creating labor, and this value is contained within the process of using the digital equipment (i.e., the service). If it is said that this part of maintenance labor is free, that is merely a surface phenomenon; in reality, it is compensated through various channels and in various ways. This is one aspect.
On the other hand, in the process of using digital platforms, platform users consciously or unconsciously leave various types of information and data. Since the "Mori book" [11] treats this information and data as digital commodities, this process becomes "digital labor" that creates value.
One scenario is: selling search keyword services to potential advertisers. For example, "Google produces consumer surplus in search services and producer surplus in the business of selling search keywords." That is to say, in the process of using a platform’s keyword search service, users of digital platforms (such as Google) unconsciously leave behind various information and data, such as gender, age, address, occupation, consumption preferences, and even value orientations. Platform enterprises package this information and data into commodities and sell them to advertisers. For the platform enterprise, it can determine the selling price of this digital commodity according to the advertiser's willingness to pay or a price close to it, thereby obtaining producer surplus. For the advertiser, because their willingness to pay is equal or close to the actual price, their consumer surplus will decrease or even disappear. Another scenario is: "data is provided by the customer, and the producer provides customized goods and services based on it, or the producer provides a platform that gives customers the opportunity to participate autonomously in the design of goods and services." This means that the development of digital and platform technologies has greatly reduced the cost of traditional "customized services," solving the trade-off between private customization and profit rates that has long plagued enterprises. At the same time, private customization relying on platform technology increases the consumer's willingness to pay by stimulating "individualized demands," and the price of commodities increases accordingly, thereby creating more producer surplus for the producer.
In both cases, platform users are both consumers and producers. In the first case, the user's process of using the platform for keyword searches is both a process of consuming platform services and a production process of creating digital commodities. In the second case, the user who utilizes the digital platform to provide personalized information and data is both a producer of the commodity and the final consumer who purchases this personalized commodity. Based on this, the "Mori book" proposes the concept of the "prosumer" [12] and notes: "Regarding the value produced under this mechanism, it is difficult for us to judge how much belongs to the producer and how much belongs to the consumer (customer)." Because "with the development of digitalization, the boundary between producer and consumer is becoming increasingly blurred." Since "we are both producers and consumers," "the concepts of consumer surplus and producer surplus are becoming increasingly unclear."
It is not difficult to see that, regarding the first case, the "Mori book" confuses different economic relations and the different economic roles people assume within these relations. First, as producers, industrial laborers produce commodities and create value in the sphere of production. Second, as exchangers, commercial laborers appear in the sphere of circulation as "buyers" and "sellers"; their function is to realize the value of the commodity by completing its metamorphosis [13]. Therefore, commercial workers do not create value or surplus value; their wages come from a portion of the value created by industrial workers, just as commercial profit is a portion of the surplus value created by industrial workers. Third, as consumers, the function of people in the sphere of consumption is to realize the use-value of the commodity, which has nothing to do with the production or realization of value. Marx says: "Use-value is realized only in use or in consumption"; "The use-value of a commodity only begins to be realized, only begins to function, after the commodity has entered the sphere of consumption." Therefore, the sphere of consumption does not create value, and the consumer is not a producer of commodities or a creator of value. Fourth, with the completion of the transaction, once the commodity is in the hands of the consumer, it is no longer a commodity and no longer possesses value, but is transformed into a consumption good. Therefore, the process of a platform user using a digital platform as a consumer does not produce any commodity, nor does it create any value. In this sense, the "prosumer" concept in the "Mori book" is untenable. Regarding the second case, the previously mentioned "self-excluding" nature [14] of a commodity's use-value demonstrates that if one produces for one's own consumption, it is by no means commodity production, nor will it create any value. Because "He who satisfies his own need with the product of his own labor, creates, indeed, use-values, but not commodities." At the same time, achieving a direct linkage between consumption-demand and production-supply is impossible under capitalist conditions. Because capitalism is a commodity economy; producing for one's own consumption is either a natural economy or a product economy. In this sense, the "prosumer" concept is likewise untenable.
2. The need to distinguish between the sphere of labor and the sphere of non-labor
In the view of the "Mori book," the reason free digital services provided by platform enterprises produce consumer surplus is that they increase the consumer's willingness to pay; the latter increases because it enhances the consumer's "utility." Consumers will always "take actions that maximize 'utility,' while utility comes from consumption and (free) leisure activities. The time spent using free digital services is part of leisure activities." The "Mori book" attributes the generation of consumer surplus—that is, value—not only to the free digital services provided by digital platforms but also to the platform user's use and consumption of these services during leisure time. In particular, although it distinguishes between labor/labor-time and leisure/leisure-time, when it asserts that the latter also produces commodities and creates value, it precisely confuses the essential distinction between the two in an economic sense.
Marx distinguished between the realm of necessity and the realm of freedom. The former refers to the sphere of material production, i.e., the labor process and labor-time of man; the latter refers to free time, which is distinct from labor-time. Insofar as labor is a realm of necessity, it 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." Regarding free time and the realm of freedom, Marx believed that free time consists of "leisure time" and "time for higher activity." If the latter refers to time used for scientific research and artistic creation, then leisure time refers to time used for entertainment and relaxation. When discussing Robinson Crusoe's life on the island, Marx decisively excluded spiritual activities such as prayer from material production like "making tools and furniture, taming llamas, fishing and hunting," considering that "Robinson derives pleasure from them and treats such activities as rest." Therefore, one must never conflate labor and labor-time with non-labor and leisure-time; these are two human activities and durations of activity differing in nature.
Following this logic, the time people spend shopping online using their leisure time is essentially and clearly different from labor-time. Commodity value is the congealment or objectification of abstract human labor; therefore, only labor produces commodities and creates value. Shopping during leisure time, whether through a digital platform or by going to a physical store, does not constitute labor; therefore, it has nothing to do with commodity production or value creation. Of course, while it is said that commodity value is created by labor, it cannot be said conversely that all labor is value-creating labor. Setting aside the self-sufficient natural economy, even under the conditions of commodity production and a commodity economy, some labor creates value while other labor does not. Therefore, not all labor is labor that creates value and produces commodities; one must distinguish between these two types of labor that possess different natures. So, which labor exactly creates value? Which labor does not? And what is the criterion for whether value is created or not?
Regarding labor utilized in the transportation of commodities, Marx points out: "The result of the labor expended in transportation is a change in the use-value [of the commodity]. That is to say, this result is a change in the spatial existence of the commodity. This is a determination pertaining to the use-value of the commodity." It is evident that the reason transportation labor is value-creating labor is that this labor forms a technically necessary connection with the use-value of the commodity. Without transportation labor, the commodity's use-value remains "incomplete"; it does not constitute a use-value and thus does not constitute a commodity. As Marx said: "Products only become commodities when they appear on the market." Thus, although the transportation industry resides within the sphere of circulation, it is actually an additional production process—a continuation of the commodity production process within the sphere of circulation. Therefore, one can neither categorize commodity transportation labor under the rubric of commercial labor, nor categorize commodity transportation costs as pure circulation costs (i.e., non-productive costs). The same applies to labor such as storage and preservation during commodity circulation, which belongs to productive labor that creates value because "the value of the commodity is preserved or increased here only because the use-value, the product itself... must undergo those operations where additional labor acts upon the use-value." Since "they are related to the use-value of the commodity," then in terms of labor spent "on storage, preservation, prevention of destructive influences, etc.," they are "to a certain extent, a supplementary process of production."
It is clear that any labor that constitutes a technical connection with the use-value of a commodity is value-creating labor and productive labor, even if it is merely mental labor (such as the labor of a commodity designer). While spiritual production [15] does not create value, one must not conclude from this that all mental labor fails to create value. On this issue, the concept of the "collective worker" (Gesamtarbeiter) proposed by Marx deserves attention. On the one hand, because "the various members of the collective worker act upon the object of labor more directly or more indirectly," their labor all forms a technical link with the product of labor and its use-value, and is thus technically indispensable to the production of the product. On the other hand, because "the various functions of the collective worker are some simpler, some more complex, some lower-level, some higher-level," his "organs, i.e., the individual labor-powers, require very different degrees of education and thus possess very different values."
The "Mori book" [16] mentions the issue of "domestic labor." Regarding this issue, a concrete analysis of specific circumstances is required; one cannot generalize. Some domestic work is labor: for instance, cooking is equivalent to processing labor, and washing clothes is equivalent to maintenance labor. Other activities are not labor, such as looking after the elderly or nursing infants. Domestic work can be shared by a couple or completed by elders or children. But regardless of the situation, domestic labor neither creates value nor produces commodities. The reason lies in the fact that domestic relations are distinct from relations of production and economic relations. The former are relations of blood, love, and affection between spouses, parents, and children; the latter are relations of ownership over the means of production and the power to distribute the products of labor. Domestic relations are based on "affection" and manifest selflessness and dedication in terms of labor expenditure; economic relations are based on "interests" and involve bargaining and petty calculations [17] over labor expenditure. Even if one hires someone for domestic work—such as washing, cooking, or cleaning—it is at most an exchange relationship between the commodity of labor-power and the commodity of money; it absolutely does not form commodity production or relations of production.
Marx once spoke of the "educational factory" in which a capitalist employs teachers, but this neither means that teachers are laborers who produce commodities and create value, nor that educational activity is an economic activity or that educational relations are economic relations. Marx intended to explain that the concepts of productive labor and productive workers have different determinations under two conditions: when the specific historical form of the labor process is not considered, and when the capitalist form of this process is considered. These must not be conflated. In the first case, anyone who produces a product through labor is a productive worker engaged in productive labor. Furthermore, as the cooperative nature of the labor process itself develops, the extension of the concepts of productive labor and productive worker necessarily expands. In the second case, the concept of the productive worker includes not only the relationship between activity and effect, and between the worker and the product of labor, but also a historically produced, specific relation of production—the latter turning the worker into a direct means for the valorization of capital. Moreover, the extension of the concept of productive labor narrows, because it is no longer sufficient for the worker merely to produce; "he must produce surplus value."
Producing surplus value and thereby realizing the valorization of capital value is the essential determination of capitalist productive labor and productive workers, decided by capitalist relations of production and the purpose of production. Whether a capitalist invests in the sphere of material production or spiritual production, this point does not change. What teachers engage in is spiritual production; spiritual products are not and cannot become commodities, and spiritual production does not belong to commodity production. In this sense, teachers are not and cannot become "productive workers" for the capitalist. However, in the field of education, within the process of capitalist investment in education (such as opening private schools), there exist many activities related to commodity production and exchange—for example, the construction and repair of classrooms, the sale of various goods, the purchase of teaching equipment, etc.—from which capitals can obtain considerable profits (alongside other forms of profit). Furthermore, these profits ultimately stem from the value and surplus value created by industrial workers. In this sense, the teacher serves as a means and tool for capital to acquire surplus value; or rather, the exploitation of productive laborers by capital is realized through an external form: the pedagogical relationship between teacher and student. Thus, the teacher acting as a productive worker is merely a surface phenomenon; or, teacher is a productive worker only in the sense of realizing valorization for the individual capitalist who employs him.
- Correctly understanding the relationship between the digital economy and human labor
On the question of the relationship between digital technology and human labor, the "Mori book" argues that two types of digital technology exist. First, human-replacement digital technology. This digital technology is unaffected by differences in individual human capacity and can achieve a stable state of operation even without human participation; it can thus be called "de-humanized" digital technology. Second, human-expansion digital technology. This is further divided into two cases: one is human-perfecting digital technology, and the other is human-strengthening digital technology. The former refers to digital technology that, after varying degrees of training, can be mastered by humans to substantially improve their labor skills, thereby making humans more "perfect." The latter refers to strengthening human labor capacity by connecting digital devices to the human body, making the body part of digital technology. If the former is the "humanization of digital technology," the latter is the "digitization of humans." Of course, in the view of the "Mori book," whether a digital technology like AI becomes which type depends on "how humans use" that technology. Furthermore, it makes a judgment: if industrial capitalism gave birth to a "labor society," then digital capitalism will gradually give birth to an "activity society." In the former, labor that must be performed for survival is the most valuable active power; in the latter, "all activities of people and things (and corresponding information) will become the driving force for society." Digital technology causes human society to "transform from a labor society to an activity society."
One can say that by emphasizing how digital technology is used, the "Mori book" distinguishes between technology and the social application of technology, which is commendable. This is because technology is neutral; technology itself does not possess the issue of excluding or catering to people. What kind of impact a technology will have on people, especially on laborers, depends entirely on the social environment and conditions in which the technology is situated, and on what kind of people control the technology—the latter being dependent on the economic relations and relations of production in which those people are situated. Marx repeatedly emphasized the need to distinguish between machinery and its "capitalist application"; this point applies equally to digital technology. Therefore, one must never discuss the social role of digital technology in the abstract; one must distinguish between digital technology and the capitalist application of digital technology. This is one aspect.
On the other hand, in Marx’s view, human labor—the sphere of material production—is always a "realm of natural necessity." To obtain the means of subsistence for survival, people must engage in material production; therefore, human labor will never vanish. Moreover, because human needs are constantly expanding, this realm of necessity will "expand with the development of man." However, at different stages of human social development, because the social form of labor differs, it will exhibit different characteristics. For example, under capitalist conditions, with the help of large-scale machine industry, human labor achieved scientific status and socialization in the narrow sense. In the future new society, along with the improvement of the productive forces of labor—since the purpose of production is no longer valorization but the increase of use-value—the laborers will be completely liberated from the labor process. The labor process becomes a social process: it does not need to rely on any specific human individual, yet every individual contributes to it. Labor transforms into a process of applied science, and science becomes a social undertaking. This is the realization of the socialization of labor in the broad sense. A society based on this fully socialized labor is, of course, different from the "activity society" of the "Mori book." The latter is a society where everyone produces information commodities, whereas the former realizes the historical transition from a commodity economy to a product economy.
From this perspective, human labor in the digital economy has not only realized the automation of labor but also the intellectualization (智能化) of labor. Under conditions of automation, man still acts as supervisor and regulator, "standing beside the production process"; under conditions of intellectualization, it is the intelligent machine that stands beside the production process. From the perspective of technical relations alone, this is undoubtedly a giant leap; it presents laborers with a world of infinitely bright and extremely beautiful possibilities. Whether these possibilities can become reality depends on the transformation of relations of production and social relations, which in turn depends on the objective requirements and impetus of the development of material productive forces. As we shall see, this is precisely what the "Mori book" fails to understand.
III. Digital Labor and Capitalist Exploitation
- Money and capital, non-capitalists and capitalists, must not be conflated
The "Mori book" distinguishes four different forms of exchange. In the third form of exchange—namely, "commodity exchange (money and commodities)"—the "party holding money (capital) possesses stronger power, and with the continuous accumulation of capital by the money (capital) holding party, a wealth gap arises, creating an inequality distinct from status differences." It is evident that it views capital as money, thereby conflating capital with money. In Marx’s view, as long as it is capital, it will necessarily pursue valorization—that is, the uncompensated appropriation of surplus value created by workers. Since money is the independent representative of value, capital always manifests initially as a "sum of money," i.e., a certain quantity of money. But capital is not equal to money; "not every sum of money or sum of value can be transformed into capital." Money is transformed into capital only when it serves as a means for the uncompensated appropriation of worker's surplus value—that is, as a means of exploiting workers.
In the view of the "Mori book," the "main social constituent of the third form of exchange is the capitalist (and the enterprise)." Here, it understands the capitalist only at the level of commodity production and exchange, equating the capitalist with the commodity exchanger. This not only conflates simple commodity production with capitalist commodity production, and small private ownership with large-scale private ownership (i.e., capitalist private ownership), but also conflates the individual laborer with the capitalist, and the non-capitalist with the capitalist. In reality, while capitalist production is certainly based on commodity production and exchange, the essential determination of capitalist production does not lie in commodity production and exchange but in valorization and wage labor. While the capitalist is indeed a producer and exchanger of commodities, he is more importantly the uncompensated appropriator—that is, the exploiter—of the worker's surplus value. The "Mori book" states: "Money is not the only capital; the skills each person possesses and idle assets (private cars, etc.) can similarly become capital that yields value. With the increasing diversification of sharing economy platforms and the growing ubiquity of digital devices like smartphones, everyone can become a micro-capitalist, creating value with their own capital." Clearly, it regards everything that creates value—in addition to money, also human skills, private items, etc.—as capital, and regards everyone who possesses these things as a capitalist, thus treating non-capitalists as capitalists.
Marx acknowledged that, in reality, individuals can shift and transform between different economic roles. Guild masters and individual artisans may become "small capitalists"—or "intermediate figures between the capitalist and the worker," namely "small proprietors"—by employing others to produce surplus value for them. They may even become "full-blown capitalists" who are entirely detached from labor by expanding exploitation and capital accumulation. In reality, individual workers also have "more opportunity, as an exception, to make considerable savings and, through particularly lucky circumstances, turn themselves into... capitalists." However, on one hand, "such cases, by the nature of the thing, are rare." That is, a worker becoming a capitalist is only an individual and accidental occurrence; in practice, it is extremely difficult. The differentiation and antagonism between capital (the capitalist) and labor (the worker) is thus a solidified and hardened structural existence. On the other hand, since the capitalist is the personification of capital—an economic role acquired within the capital relation—in essence, the capitalist is the capitalist and the worker is the worker. The essential difference between the two lies in the fact that, although a capitalist may vary in "grade" (e.g., small capitalist or large capitalist) based on whether they perform more or less labor, what defines a capitalist as a capitalist is not their labor but the fact that they "can afford not to" work. In contrast, the worker "has no choice but to" (i.e., must) work for the capitalist. In essence, so long as one is a worker, one possesses no capital. Some argue that because an individual is frequently forced to constantly resell their own labor-power—that is, to sell themselves to a third party—this proves they are a capitalist and that their labor-power is capital. To this, Marx pointed out: "Labor-power is merely the property of the laborer... not his capital. Labor-power is the only commodity he can and must constantly sell in order to survive. It only functions as capital (variable capital) once it reaches the hands of the buyer, the capitalist." How could a worker's labor skills or labor capacity possibly be his capital?
Mori’s Book [18] argues that in the fourth form of exchange, even "private enterprises temporarily halt the pace of capital accumulation to carry out pure gifts of commodities, services, and knowledge/skills without payment of equivalent money." Here, by linking capital accumulation with private enterprise, the book clearly conflates capitalist enterprises with non-capitalist enterprises. For example, enterprises based on individual private ownership and those based on capitalist private ownership are two types of enterprises with different economic natures. On one hand, phenomenologically, the two share identical external characteristics: for instance, both aim to earn more money and both are inseparable from commodity production and exchange. On the other hand, the two possess essential differences. For an enterprise based on individual private ownership, the purpose of production is "subsistence" [19], achieved through one’s own labor; the production process is therefore finite and free of exploitative relations. For a capitalist enterprise, the purpose of production is "profit," achieved through the labor of others; the production process is thus infinite and characterized by exploitation.
2. Correctly Understanding the Source of Capital Profits
Mori’s Book defines capitalism as "a system that obtains profit and pursues the continuous accumulation of capital (money) by discovering, utilizing, and creating differences." That is, it views the discovery, utilization, and creation of differences—specifically value or price differences—as the source of capital profit. Therefore, if producer surplus is producer profit, the "difference" serving as the source of profit is actually the margin between a commodity's actual price and its cost price. Capital profit originates from price or value differences; capitalism is an economic system that obtains profit by exploiting these differences. Furthermore, in the view of Mori’s Book, because the concrete forms of price or value differences vary, capitalism can be divided into three different forms or developmental stages: commercial capitalism, industrial capitalism, and digital capitalism.
Regarding commercial capitalism, Mori’s Book considers it the initial form of capitalism, encompassing commercial capital and interest-bearing capital. The characteristic of commercial capitalism can be summarized in one sentence: it is a system of seeking profit by finding already existing value differences. A typical case is the British East India Company, which purchased pepper at low prices in India and sold it in Europe at prices equivalent to gold and silver, earning a profit in the process. Just like commercial capital, because interest-bearing capital "converts the margin into profit by lending money at interest rates higher than the cost of capital turnover," it is "likewise an activity of earning profit from differences within the monetary value system." In Marx’s view, however, both interest-bearing capital and merchant capital "exploit the existing mode of production rather than creating it." Consequently, they can only exist parasitically between various obsolete modes of production; there is a "capitalist mode of exploitation, but no capitalist mode of production." At best, they are precursors to capitalism and cannot be considered a specific stage of capitalist development. The history of capitalism begins with handicraft production based on simple cooperation, where "the same capital simultaneously employs a relatively large number of workers, thereby expanding the scale of the labor process and providing a larger volume of products."
In the view of Mori’s Book, the profits of digital capitalism likewise come from value or price differences. This is because, in digital capitalism, more assets and services related to "time" and "personalized requirements" will be introduced into the market. Applying the definition of capitalism, this means obtaining profit from the differences in customers' time-value and their personalized requirements. This manifests either as "providing matchmaking services between those in urgent need of a commodity or service and those who do not currently need it, and extracting profit therefrom," or as "creating differences and thus obtaining profit through mass customization for different customers in markets that originally only provided uniform specifications." Therefore, unlike industrial capitalism, digital capitalism does not rely on the production of a vast quantity of identical products for profit, but rather on providing personalized customization services for different customers. The key lies in how to obtain more "subjective" information from customers through explicit or implicit means. Building on this, Internet of Things (IoT) technology is used to link all information from design to sales, constructing a production system that satisfies every customer's needs as much as possible. In this system, private customization not only increases product value but also avoids redundant inventory accumulation, thereby bringing massive profits to producers. In other words, in private customization, by stimulating "personalized requirements" and increasing the consumer's "willingness to pay," the possibility and space for price increases are expanded, allowing producers to obtain more profit. In short, in the era of digital capitalism, "humans discover price differences in digital space, use various digital technologies to build cost advantages, and create differences in the willingness to pay through customized goods and services." Briefly put, this means using digital technology to manufacture value or price differences through private customization, thereby creating profit margins and acquiring profit.
The aforementioned views in Mori’s Book are undoubtedly a contemporary carbon copy of the "profit upon alienation" [20] theory in bourgeois economics. This theory once attributed merchant profit to "comparing monetary prices and pocketing the difference," or "explaining the rate of profit, and thus profit, as a surcharge determined in an incomprehensible way." To this, Marx argued: from surface appearances, commercial profit seems to be obtained through buying cheap and selling dear—that is, through unequal exchange—and thus appears to be a transfer of profit, where the seller cedes a portion of profit to the buyer. However, looking at the essence and laws revealed through continuous exchange, the price of a commodity is consistent with its value; equivalent exchange is the fundamental law of commodity exchange. Furthermore, this law is precisely realized through the phenomenal form of unequal exchange, and the merchant’s profit is, and can only be, a portion of the value and surplus value created by industrial workers (rather than a transfer of profit).
How, then, is this partitioning realized? Or what is the concrete mechanism of this partitioning? Marx believed that, under normal circumstances, it is realized through the production price mechanism (i.e., equal capital obtaining equal profit), and production prices are in turn realized through free competition. Of course, there are other forms of obtaining profit or partitioning surplus value, such as "profits occasionally obtained through fraud," profits obtained through speculative behavior like repeated buying and selling, or profits obtained through monopoly prices. However, speculative profit and fraudulent profit were not within Marx's "scope of investigation." Regarding monopoly profit, Marx said: "A monopoly price is determined neither by the production price of the commodities nor by their value, but rather by the needs and purchasing power of the buyers." This does not mean that monopoly profits obtained through monopoly prices come from the buyers or consumers; rather, it means that the level of the monopoly price and the size of the monopoly profit depend on the buyer's effective demand, while the source remains the value and surplus value created by industrial workers. Marx stated: since "the monopoly price of certain commodities merely transfers a portion of the profit of other commodity producers to the commodities with a monopoly price," under conditions of (natural or artificial) monopoly, "the limits determined by the value of commodities will not disappear because of this."
Regarding the source of digital capital's profit, although concrete analysis of specific situations is required and one cannot generalize, current evidence suggests that because most of these are commercial platforms, Marx's discourse on merchant capital and commercial profit is the more suitable analytical tool. Which industrial labors, then, constitute the normal form or source of digital capital profit? First is industrial labor in production sectors such as agriculture, processing industries, construction, mining, and post and telecommunications. For example, regarding platform advertisers: if they are self-employed individuals engaged in productive labor, a portion of the value they create is transformed into the platform capitalist's profit; if they are industrial capitalists themselves, a portion of the surplus value created by their wage laborers is transformed into the platform capitalist's profit. Second is industrial labor in the sphere of circulation, such as commodity or non-commodity transportation, and the maintenance and management of digital platforms. For instance, the labor of couriers, food delivery drivers, and ride-hailing drivers (formally or informally) employed by platform capital belongs to (commodity or non-commodity) transport labor. Meanwhile, platform maintenance and management personnel are not only numerous but also highly educated; their labor thus constitutes complex labor, and the value and surplus value they create have a self-multiplying effect, representing multiplied simple labor. If the former portion of profit is the platform capitalist’s indirect uncompensated appropriation of surplus value created by industrial labor, then the latter portion of profit is the direct appropriation of such surplus value. Of course, whether the former or the latter, the realization of this uncompensated appropriation is inseparable from the pure commercial labor of the commercial workers employed on the digital platform. It is evident that the source of digital capital profit is neither the platform users as consumers, nor the advertisers as functional capitalists and individual laborers, nor the platform capitalists themselves. Rather, it is, and can only be, the material production laborers situated within the spheres of production or circulation.
3. Correctly Viewing the Relationship between the Digital Economy and Capitalism
The "Mori work" [21] posits: "Digital technology was nurtured within capitalism, driving capitalism from its second stage of industrial capitalism into a third stage that can be termed digital capitalism." Where, then, is digital capitalism headed? In the work’s view, digital technology could allow capitalism to persist, because "as long as 'differentiation' and 'scarcity' exist, opportunities to capture profit will not disappear, and these two points are not eliminated by digitalization." Alternatively, it could drive a transformation toward a society of common ownership because "in a 'zero marginal cost society,' scarcity will disappear from a vast array of fields and prices will infinitely approach zero. Consequently, the presence of the capitalist system—aimed at profit capture and capital accumulation—will weaken." However, the work suggests this latter scenario is a result of social choice and therefore lacks historical necessity. On one hand, this choice depends on who employs digital technology and in which fields, which is a choice regarding the form of exchange. On the other hand, it depends on the culture and values guiding the application of digital technology; this is a choice regarding the leadership of "technological culture," which determines the value-orientation or goal-orientation of digital use.
In short, whether digital technology is used to strengthen relevant fields or applied based on a specific technological culture will be the key to digital development. The "Mori work" asserts that what it provides "is not the sole answer for the future form of a digitalized society; rather, the future of digital development depends on humanity, and along with the process of digitalization, the influence of human subjective consciousness will become increasingly prominent."
How should we view the perspectives in the "Mori work"?
First, regarding the fate of digital capitalism, the "Mori work" appears deeply conflicted, exhibiting a contradictory mentality: it recognizes that the digital economy will precipitate the decline of capitalism, yet believes capitalism can persist within it. This conflicted state is linked to its conceptual framework. If any output of value is considered "capital," then everyone can be a capitalist, and in this sense, capitalism could certainly persist. However, if with digital development, free digital services (the so-called "sharing economy") produce only consumer surplus while producer surplus disappears, then capitalism will lose its foundation for existence.
Second, regarding the social role of technology, the work fails to understand that a technology conducive to the development of productive forces will eventually cause existing relations of production and economic relations to transform from "forms" of development into "fetters" [22] upon it. At that point, they will be replaced by more advanced economic and social relations suited to the development of the productive forces. That is to say, at the level of the essence and laws of historical development, an advanced technology will sooner or later trigger a qualitative change in the relations of production and economic relations, thereby opening a path for the development of social productive forces. In this sense, whether capitalist relations of production are suited or adaptable to the requirements of the productive forces driven by digital technology is itself a question.
Third, social development does not, in the final analysis, depend on the role of social consciousness such as culture and values as the "Mori work" claims; rather, it depends on the contradictory movement between the productive forces and relations of production, and on the role of the economic and interest relations in which people are situated. Without economic and interest relations, ideas, consciousness, and culture would make a fool of themselves! [23] The "Mori work" clearly inverts the relationship between culture and economy, unilaterally inflating the historical role of values and social consciousness. Furthermore, what will the future picture of human society look like? While we cannot provide a definitive answer as to "what it is" (lest we engage in religious prophecy), this does not preclude scientific predictions of the future. We can base ourselves on "what is" in present society (i.e., objective existence) to provide a negative answer regarding "what the future is not." It is on this basis that Marx made the scientific judgment that capitalism must perish—that is, the future of human society will necessarily "not be" capitalism.
In Marx’s view, capitalism is built on the foundation of commodity production, and the real value of a commodity is not its individual value but its social value. The former is determined by the time actually spent producing the commodity (individual labor-time), while the latter is determined by the time necessary to produce it (socially necessary labor time). Under capitalist conditions, the difference between the two forms extra surplus value or extra profit. To obtain extra profit, every capitalist enterprise competes to increase individual labor productivity, the ultimate result of which is a general increase in social productive forces. The rise in the organic composition of capital is consistent with the development of social productive forces; however, as the organic composition of industrial capital continues to rise, the general rate of profit for industrial capital tends to fall, and profit margins continually shrink. Meanwhile, as commercial and banking capital join the competition, they participate in the division of the surplus value created by industrial workers. This division causes a further decline in the general rate of profit and intensifies capital competition. Finally, as competition intensifies, the investment threshold for industrial and commercial capital continually rises. Large numbers of small and medium capitals are either swallowed by large capital or exit the sphere of functional capital to turn toward speculation and fictitious capital, which further drags down the general rate of profit. This process advances continually; once the general rate of profit falls below a certain point, capitalism will collapse. This is one aspect.
On the other hand, what capital pursues is neither value nor, even less so, use-value, but rather the self-valorization of value. To this end, it must undergo two processes and engage in two behaviors: first, the production of surplus value; second, the realization of surplus value. Regarding the former, the capitalist is very successful; he employs various means, particularly relying on science, technology, and the forces of nature to produce surplus value to the maximum extent. But regarding the latter, he is a total failure; moreover, the more successful he is in the former, the more he fails in the latter. Because he subjectively views wages as a cost (rather than income) and strives to suppress them, and objectively must limit them within a certain range to maintain the capitalist system, he creates a severe deficiency in effective demand and social purchasing power, rendering the realization of surplus value impossible. Although capitalists try every means—such as capital export, industrial relocation, and technical or product innovation—they ultimately cannot solve this problem; instead, the problem accumulates and becomes increasingly grave. The direct result is the periodic outbreak of economic crises. Looking at the actual history of development, it is precisely within the unique historical environments and conditions created by economic crises that some countries have actively chosen non-capitalist paths of development. This can be called an effective model for human society to sublate [24] capitalism. Thus, even putting aside the logic of capital collapse inherent in the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, under the pressure of global and epochal issues, humanity is forced to adopt newer social systems to replace capitalism; indeed, if humanity wishes to persist, it must do so.
Phenomenally, digital platform enterprises are currently crowding out a large number of traditional commercial enterprises (brick-and-mortar stores) in the sphere of circulation, making their monopolistic nature self-evident. They have relegated a vast number of traditional commercial workers to unemployment or semi-unemployment, while simultaneously pushing a vast number of workers in digital commerce and industry into the abyss of overwork, highlighting the paradoxical capitalist co-existence of unemployment and death from overwork (karoshi). By relying on monopoly prices, they secure massive monopoly profits, thereby creating and continuously deepening the so-called "digital divide." Domestically, this manifests as a widening income gap between a few platform capitalists and other classes; internationally, it manifests as a widening wealth gap between the few capitalist countries that control digital technology and platforms and other developing nations. Furthermore, digital technology causes the organic composition of capital to rise continually. Coupled with the commercial nature of digital platform enterprises—which do not create value or surplus value but rather divide or transfer it—this leads to a continuous decline in the general rate of profit of social capital. Even relying on the acquisition of extensive profits, it remains difficult to escape a state of "secular decline" or "stagnation" in average profit. Both of these aspects portend the demise of digital capitalism.
Regarding the first aspect, as Marx said: "The restriction of free competition is at the same time the prediction of the dissolution of capital and of the mode of production founded on capital." [25] This is because "whatever is contained in the nature of capital only as a potentiality is first shown as an external necessity through competition, which is nothing more than the imposition upon each other and upon themselves by many capitals of the inner dictates of capital." This shows that without free competition, there is no capitalism; to eliminate free competition means to eliminate capitalism. Regarding the second aspect, it is also as Marx said: the deepening of the "economic, social, and political gulf between the workers and those who stand above them" is the "wonderful prospect and very enviable result that the development of the productive power of labor will bring to the worker." As for the capitalists: once "man no longer does the work which he can leave to things to do for him," then "the historical mission of capital is fulfilled."
Capital depends on the purchasing power of laborers yet strives to limit it; it depends on the expenditure of general labor yet is constantly eliminating that expenditure; just as it depends on free competition yet seeks every means to exclude it. It is precisely these paradoxical contradictions inherent to capital that send the capitalist mode of production to the historical guillotine. Of course, while the collapse and demise of capital is an inevitable trend, the length of this process will depend on the degree to which capitalist economic contradictions intensify and the degree to which humanity can endure the social problems caused by these contradictions.