Yang Huimin and Guo Yuwen: Moving Beyond the Myth of "Digital Socialism" — The Theoretical Construction and Critique of Contemporary Western Digital Socialism
In recent years, critical research on digital capitalism by scholars both at home and abroad has been flourishing, carving out several highly attractive theoretical spaces. Digital socialism is one of the newer alternative proposals within this critical sequence. Whether one looks at the multifaceted research landscape constructed by foreign scholars—revolving around the realistic foundations, strategic significance, rhetorical dissemination, and transitional strategies of digital socialism—or the research approaches of domestic scholars—interpreting the possibility of Western digital socialism, tracing its theoretical lineages, exploring practical paths, and clarifying value misconceptions—all demonstrate the academic vitality and value of this research field [1]. However, looking at current academic research on digital socialism, its constructive logic remains without a clear explanation. Several fundamental and scholarly questions urgently require further clarification and investigation. For example: How did digital socialism emerge? Does digital socialism and its construction truly reflect a transformation of digital capitalism, or is it a theoretical misrecognition? What are the core narrative discourses and theoretical genealogies of digital socialism? Does digital socialism constitute an immanent transcendence of digital capitalism? Does digital socialism spill over the boundaries of Marx’s critique of political economy? Is the destination of this vision capitalism or socialism? Furthermore, is it possible to realize the imagination of a reality or "another world" detached from the construct of digital capitalism? Can the theoretical claims of digital socialism truly reach the roots of human liberation and open a new realm of human emancipation? The explanation of these questions necessarily involves an understanding of digital capitalism’s mechanism for self-perpetuation, especially reflection on capitalist realism [2] as a symptom of the era. Thus, this article intends to focus on the emergence logic, narrative dimensions, and inherent limitations of digital socialism. Through this contextualized tracing and analysis, it hopes to provide a focal point for discussing alternatives to digital capitalism, puncturing the "cunning" and illusory nature of digital socialism’s political calculations, and revealing the empowering mechanisms and isomorphic relationship between digital technology and the principles of scientific socialism, so as to better grasp the essence of social changes in contemporary capitalism.
I. The Emergence Logic of Digital Socialism
Digital socialism is not a new stage in the development of digital capitalism, but rather one of the critical approaches to the current stage of the capitalist mode of production, and one of the newer entries in the critical sequence of digital capitalism. As a logical alternative intended to "save" digital capitalism, this theoretical claim emerged from a dual reality: the intensifying internal contradictions and conflicts of digital capitalist society and the continuous manifestation of digital technology’s emancipatory endowment.
(1) Digital capitalism, as an adjustment scheme to alleviate the contemporary crisis of capitalism, has further intensified its basic contradictions while delaying the process of capitalist crisis. The reality of being trapped calls for a scientific solution to replace digital capitalism.
With the rise of a new round of scientific and technological revolution and industrial transformation, the deep integration of capital and digital technology has successfully achieved an effective transfer of the crisis of capital surplus and further monopolized global emerging industries. In this process, the antithetical contradiction between the logic of digital technology and the logic of capital accumulation has become increasingly prominent, leading capitalism into the dual "trap" of techno-feudalism and digital imperialism, which in turn triggers a "lagged" risk crisis for capitalism. On the one hand, capitalists as "technological lords" use their dominance over digital technology to reshape the historical logic of technological development, gradually abandoning traditional modes of exploitation in favor of more concealed means of technological control and feudal political means relying on relations of personal transition. Through these means, capitalists compel modern people to form an all-encompassing personal dependence on capital in various fields such as production and life, constructing a "hyper-modern form of feudalism" power structure to maintain their own survival and development. On the other hand, capitalism has constructed a new global ruling order—digital imperialism—through a system of digital colonialism, exhibiting an extreme form that infinitely approaches the highest stage of capitalism. Numerous large tech companies dominated by Western countries, relying on their ownership and control over software, hardware, and network connectivity, have seized immense economic and social power within the existing digital ecosystem. They exploit and manipulate technologically disadvantaged countries, represented by the "Global South," forming a new colonial form that does not aim to plunder land but uses the occupation of digital technology as a means.
Capitalism, in its one-sided pursuit of technological control and power monopoly, is gradually falling into a stagnation dilemma of "prioritizing acquisition over creation." Although the series of power strategies implemented by digital capitalism regarding the internal structure and external system of capitalism provided the possibility for capital’s survival in the short term, they ultimately transformed into new incentives that intensified social contradictions, triggering more severe economic hardships, class conflicts, ecological crises, and human alienation. This phenomenon exposes the fundamental limitations of the capitalist system, verifying the prophecy of Marx and Engels that "the fall of the bourgeoisie and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable," and objectively activating the theoretical interest of the contemporary Western Left in reconstructing the organizational framework of digital capitalism.
(2) Digital capital drives the digital transformation of modern production and lifestyles. The emergence of new labor paradigms and new political subjects constitutes a transformative force to subvert digital capitalism, opening a brand-new social imagination.
Driven by the wave of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, digital technology, combined with the "civilizing effect" of capital, has demonstrated revolutionary qualities in driving the progress of social productive forces and promoting the liberation of labor time. As a brand-new labor paradigm in the era of the digital economy, digital labor has shown significant advantages in enhancing labor flexibility and improving production efficiency. The possibility of a form of free labor where "nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes" has been initially realized. Based on the shift in labor paradigms, human knowledge, intelligence, data, and other forms of "general intellect" have gradually become important factors influencing productive forces and the core source of wealth accumulation, extending Marx's concept of labor into a broader field of social activity. "In a highly automated society, value creation increasingly relies on collectively produced knowledge." Immaterial labor occupies a vital position in modern life; it not only creates immaterial products such as information and codes but also gives rise to a "common" mode of production. This mode of production is based on the idea that "producers possess the capacity to escape capital and achieve autonomous production due to the continuous enhancement of mutual cooperation," thus forming a new type of collaborative relationship among workers. The "common" mode of production not only possesses the characteristic of shared wealth that can replace the capitalist mode of private appropriation but also inherently contains a brand-new mode of association for contemporary digital laborers, demonstrating huge potential to comprehensively transcend the existing capitalist order.
The traditional proletariat can no longer accurately summarize the labor groups under the conditions of the digital economy; they have been replaced by new political subjects that go far beyond the scope of the traditional proletariat. They are nascent subject forces endogenous to the era of digital capitalism, possessing the revolutionary potential to subvert capitalist relations of production. Contemporary Western Leftist scholars such as Jodi Dean, Slavoj Žižek, and Jacques Rancière have incorporated a wide range of digital activity participants and those marginalized by the current capitalist order into the category of contemporary subjects from a new theoretical perspective, greatly expanding the scope of political subjects in the era of digital capitalism, in hopes of building a powerful social force to confront digital capital. Based on the emergence of new modes of production prompted by digital technology and the debut of the "new proletariat" as a brand-new political subject, the vision of reconstructing socialism has gradually appeared, opening a brand-new "social imagination." This "social imagination" is not merely a social theory or concept, but a collective imagination rooted in the foundation of real social practice that makes common practice possible. It possesses the constructive function of bestowing meaning upon social practice and promoting the realization of social practice goals.
(3) The "emancipatory endowment" of digital technology continues to manifest, driving the opportunity for the revival of the concept of 21st-century world socialism. Technical elites take this opportunity to vigorously propagate a narrative discourse that the era of digital socialism is approaching.
In the process of adapting to the enormous productive forces released by the continuous development of science and technology, contemporary capitalism undergoes continuous internal self-adjustment, nurturing "new social factors" and "elements of a new economic system," and gradually accumulating socialist factors within the capitalist system. The development of digital technology has significantly accelerated the dissemination efficiency of contemporary advanced revolutionary theories, causing the "specter of socialist revival" wandering the world to gather quickly and condense into subversive factors for digital capital that are "more dangerous than citizens like Barbès, Raspail, and Blanqui" [3]. In the digital economy environment, the logic of capitalist exploitation is applied to digital laborers with extreme severity; the historical law that "where there is oppression, there is resistance" has become increasingly prominent. Mass social movements such as "Occupy Wall Street" and "Nuit Debout" [4] have risen one after another worldwide, and the world socialist movement has ushered in new historical opportunities.
The rapid development of digital technology has led to a continuous reduction in the production process's dependence on living labor, and the creation of social wealth no longer depends solely on the exploitation of labor. To a certain extent, this change has weakened the influence of capitalist private ownership and laid the foundational conditions for the birth of digital socialism. Based on the enormous emancipatory potential released by digital technology, entrepreneurs of large tech companies, represented by Silicon Valley capitalists, portray technological innovation as a panacea capable of solving all social problems; thus, technological solutionism has become fashionable. Tech elites "recast all complex social situations either as neatly defined problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized—if only the right algorithms are in place!" This technological solutionism "constitutes the value principles representing the era of digital capitalism and has become the supporting belief for today's digital elites to legitimize their own actions." Tech elites claim that it is precisely because of their existence that people living on the margins of society can obtain tangible material benefits from the treacherous market. The new round of digital revolution has created beautiful expectations of a "digital democratic utopia" for the masses. Even intellectuals within Silicon Valley have declared that an era of "digital socialism" based on traits such as sharing, cooperation, collaboration, and openness has arrived. As Kevin Kelly stated: "Digital socialism can be viewed as a third way (other than free-market individualism and central planning) that renders past arguments meaningless." Truly, contemporary science and technology release emancipatory potential that can promote the free and comprehensive development of human beings. However, whether the "digital socialism" depicted by digital elites—much like the narrative of the "Fourth Industrial Revolution" they once vigorously promoted—essentially implies the logic of market economy discipline and becomes a "cunning" capitalist narrative to deceive the public remains an important issue of the era that requires in-depth exploration.
II. The Multi-dimensional Construction of Digital Socialism
The ideological content of contemporary Western digital socialism is complex and lacks systematicity; the academic community has not yet formed a clear method of definition. However, taken as a whole, these ideological contents share a common narrative foundation: first, resisting capitalist private ownership and advocating for the reconstruction of individual ownership; second, calling for the restoration of a socialist planned economy system relying on digital infrastructure and algorithmic technology; third, advancing the process of democratization, taking "bottom-up" and "decentralization" as collective association methods and organizational principles; fourth, concerning themselves with the real life experience of modern people, using "intentional disconnection" as an action strategy to resist capital exploitation.
(1) A digital socialism production mode based on the "digital commons."
Contemporary Western Leftists, based on...
The concept of the "digital commons" constructs a program for digital socialism aimed at transforming the current economic base, nurturing and developing socialist elements, and forming a transitional path that progressively evolves toward a socialist mode of production through ownership reform. Marx long ago demonstrated the significance of the development of science and technology in reducing necessary labor time, developing well-rounded personalities, and creating the conditions for communism; however, the crux of the matter "depends not only on the development of productive forces but also on whether the productive forces are owned by the people." As the core factor of production in the era of digital capitalism and the primary resource for digital capital accumulation, data—with its inherent characteristics of near-zero marginal cost and non-rivalry—constitutes the prerequisite for breaking through the framework of private property rights. Numerous scholars, represented by Adam Arvidsson, have keenly captured this point. From the immateriality and shared characteristics of data resources, they discern a digital social paradigm based on commons theory and reveal a potential path toward digital socialism grounded in the negation of capitalist private ownership. This theoretical innovation both continues Marx's basic judgment that technological revolutions drive the evolution of social formations and reveals the internal contradictions of digital capitalism: while the digital economy extracts data surplus value, it objectively creates socialized factors of production, providing the material basis for the growth of socialist elements.
The transformation of the digital commons from a theoretical paradigm to institutional practice requires resolving the governance conflict between private and public ownership in the digital realm. Some Western scholars argue that cases of digital commons [5], such as Wikipedia and open-source software projects, have already verified the feasibility of collaborative production. However, the construction of the digital commons is currently still restricted by legal absences and capital monopolies. The private infrastructure of tech giants controls the lifeblood of data, and individual control over data is suspended within the current system—factors that continually weaken the accumulation of commons resources. Breaking this deadlock requires a government-led, dual-track transformation: at the material level, the government must lead the construction of public digital infrastructure and break the current dependence of the digital commons on the private infrastructure of Big Tech through "public investment in computing power." At the level of rights, it is necessary to enhance the transparency and fairness of shared data processes through a series of external measures—such as promoting the open data movement, implementing Creative Commons licenses, and improving citizens' digital literacy—to ensure the genuine democratization of data generation and usage. This institutional design is neither a simple return to traditional public ownership nor a mere repair of the free market; rather, it is the concretization of what Marx called the "association of producers" in the digital age through the establishment of closed-loop democratic procedures for data production, distribution, and use. Its ultimate goal is to restructure the relations of possession regarding data factors, making the digital commons a practical vehicle for incubating socialist relations of production, and finally achieving the historical leap from private to public ownership.
(2) A Digital Socialist Economic System Based on "Digital Accounting"
The continuous optimization of highly intelligent and automated digital technologies has reignited heated discussions on the ancient topic of socialist economic calculation, giving rise to a series of new perspectives. These views hold that digital technology can thoroughly overcome the limitations of the planned economy model and, based on the concept of "digital accounting," ultimately achieve the goals of digital socialism. The debate over socialist economic calculation, which originated in the early 20th century, focused on the feasibility of a socialist economy and the specific roles played by knowledge, information, and prices within the national economic system. Economists of the Austrian School, represented by Mises and Hayek, questioned Marx's concept of a socialist economy. They argued that attempting to replace the "anarchy" of the market with a bureaucratic management system was destined to fail in coordinating supply and demand or allocating resources; a socialist economic system relying on central planning would inevitably lead to inefficiency, and only the market and price mechanism could serve as indispensable conditions for social-economic coordination. Hidden behind the booming development of big data and artificial intelligence are the elements to replace the market system. As feedback systems, Great Information Systems (GSI) can create databases containing individual characteristics and past preference information, thereby providing products that better match individual desires, preferences, and needs, alongside detailed product characteristics and price information. Moreover, these systems can continually learn and self-correct over time. The information infrastructure of digital capitalism has inadvertently sown the seeds of socialism. Contemporary Western Leftist scholars such as Evgeny Morozov [6], Kier Brennan-Marquez, and Daniel Susser view this as a tool capable of remedying the defects of the socialist planned economy and replacing the market system, thereby constructing a brand-new alternative to capitalist political economy.
The uniqueness of a digital socialist economic system relying on "digital accounting" lies in its ability to replace market functions with an automated planning "feedback infrastructure," thereby achieving a balance between market supply and demand and guaranteeing social welfare. Simultaneously, this economic system can subvert the relationship between value and use-value, eliminating the relations of wage labor and market competition. In this way, the actions of economic agents under an automated planning market mechanism are no longer profit-oriented; instead, by providing use-value to others in exchange for other use-values, the value of commodities is made truly "subordinate" to use-value and the real needs of the people. In the view of Daniel Saros, constructing an information platform capable of connecting producers and consumers is an important way to realize this economic system. In his book Information Technology and Socialist Construction: The End of Capital and the Transition to Socialism, he proposes a specific strategy: the construction of a dynamic "General Catalogue." This "General Catalogue" is an economic operating model where consumers submit preference lists and "workers' councils" submit product lists, which are then matched by algorithms in an optimal, dynamically updated manner to carry out social production. On the surface, this model seems capable of effectively overcoming many market economy maladies such as commercial monopolies, market failures, and unequal distribution; however, whether it will ultimately lead to a "new planned economy" based on digital technology, a "frictionless capitalism," or a "market socialism" remains an open question.
(3) Digital Socialist Organizational Principles Based on "Autonomism"
Digital socialist programs rooted in the concept of "Autonomism" [7] have reconstructed the principles of proletarian struggle in the digital age through the emergence of new labor subjects and new modes of association. By practicing "bottom-up" and "decentralized" autonomous activities, these programs demonstrate the power of contemporary revolutionary subjects and provide strong support for building a social formation to replace digital capitalism. The theoretical focus of Autonomist Marxism lies in the subjective dimension of Marx’s historical dialectics, viewing the self-activity of the working class as the core element driving social change and emphasizing the decisive role of working-class self-organization in countering capitalist movements. Consequently, it leans toward decentralized, grassroots democratic forms of organizational activity. With the development of digital platforms, the gig economy, and forms of digital labor, the working class under digital capitalism has been drawn into entirely new labor paradigms, workplaces, and organizational forms. Emerging labor platforms have opened new spaces of activity for the modern working class and provided a new realistic foundation for practical activities moving toward digital socialism.
Platform socialism and platform cooperatives are representative programs for resisting digital capitalism constructed on "autonomist" organizational principles. Both are committed to "critically thinking about how a digital society can be built by the people and for the people," aimed at highlighting the revolutionary role of the people against the hegemonic structures of capitalism. Adhering to the principle of "autonomy," James Muldoon points out that platform socialism should be seen as a systemic strategy to replace the status quo of digital capitalism. He advocates for "organizing the digital economy through social ownership of digital assets and democratic control over the infrastructure and systems that govern our digital lives." Muldoon further emphasizes that the platform socialism movement does not rely on the regulation of technical elites or top-down supervision by government departments; rather, it is a liberation movement to reclaim the collective right of self-determination through participatory governance mechanisms, thereby ensuring that profit no longer takes precedence over human needs. The platform cooperative model is a brand-new application of the cooperative model in the digital economy, striving to meet the common needs of members by establishing collectively owned and democratically controlled enterprises. In the view of Raymon Saner, platform cooperatives can provide the same services as platform capitalist enterprises, but their goals and missions are fundamentally different. The former can attract more workers to actively participate in democratic practices through operational advantages such as share-ownership models, inclusive decision-making processes, fair distribution of gains, and strong interpersonal relationships. By better meeting the needs of the broad masses of workers while ensuring enterprise profitability, they can thoroughly transcend the platform capitalist model.
(4) Digital Socialist Resistance Strategies Based on "Decelerationism"
The digital socialist resistance strategy based on the concept of "decelerationism" is a response strategy led by an ideology and cultural paradigm that resists the acceleration trends of contemporary digital society. The acceleration of the rhythm of production and life has become a tangible lived experience for modern people. Drawing on Hartmut Rosa’s theory of social acceleration, Jamie Ranger points out that social acceleration constitutes an important condition for maintaining and consolidating the capitalist status quo in the context of social media. Therefore, socialist politics corresponding to capitalist politics can be viewed as a politics capable of achieving social "deceleration." This "decelerating" socialist politics can undermine the logic of capital that pursues infinite growth while further weakening the subjective anxiety driven by "frenetic standstill." The action choices of individuals often possess strong emotional and moral motivations; the "deceleration strategy" strengthens the focus on individual choice, thereby highlighting the autonomy of the modern working class as a revolutionary subject. Unlike the collective resistance actions of the traditional proletariat, "decelerationism" in the digital age emphasizes the driving role of individual value orientations and behavioral decisions in social transformation. By breaking free from the ideological shackles imposed by the capitalist spirit on modern people—where "the atom of time is the element of profit"—it seeks to balance the relationship between work and life, thereby restoring the authentic rhythm of life. It is evident that digital socialist strategies based on "decelerationism" pay closer attention to the lived experiences of concrete, real individuals, and their essence is a humanitarian value orientation aimed at safeguarding the digital well-being and equal status of modern people.
In the context of regulating digital capital power, "deceleration" means individuals actively adopting strategies such as "disconnecting," "escaping," "exiting," and "non-cooperation" to counter capital’s exploitation and refuse to serve capital’s value valorization. In the eyes of decelerationists, turning toward "deceleration" is not a form of passive resistance taken once an individual realizes that capital has converted its own desire for valorization into individual needs, nor is it a one-sided rejection of social economic growth. Rather, it is an active means of struggle for individuals to refuse "self-exploitation" and engage in "self-healing" after recognizing their entrapment in the predicament of capital’s domination. Achieving "digital deceleration" requires a virtuous interaction between the individual and society. At the individual level, one should consciously refuse to accept capitalist values; this requires the broad masses of digital laborers to temporarily or permanently exit the digital ecosystem, refrain from using digital devices, and decline participation in online platform interactions, thereby "restoring and improving issues like mental health, low productivity, and impaired privacy rights caused by excessive internet use." At the social level, it requires the collaborative efforts of government agencies, public organizations, and tech enterprises. Through intervention measures such as "digital detox," they can limit the time and space people spend using digital devices, assisting individuals in temporarily "abstaining" from electronic devices and reducing the negative impact of digital capitalism on individual health and digital well-being.
III. A Critical Examination of the Construction Logic of Digital Socialism
Within the framework of criticizing digital capitalism, contemporary Western Leftist scholars have proposed diverse programs for the construction of digital socialism. These programs are aimed at the development of digital capitalism...
The "scorched earth stage" nurtures entirely new digital productive forces, corresponding new types of digital relations of production, a sophisticated digital financial system, a high-quality digital ecological environment, co-built and shared digital media platforms, and open-source digital public goods. These not only demonstrate the profound theoretical consciousness of Western Leftist scholars but also objectively promote the formation of a positive and constructive force. However, the reason these socialist schemes struggle to truly "take root" and achieve success is not merely restricted by the current level of technological development. A deeper investigation reveals that the contemporary Western Left is constrained by its own class limitations, leading to insurmountable inherent defects in both its theoretical vision and value orientation. Consequently, it is unable to propose a set of feasible and effective schemes for the construction of digital socialism.
(I) Solutions are confined to a solutionist ethical paradigm that attempts to tame technology with technology, which is essentially an objective reflection of the spirit of digital capitalism trapped in technological determinism.
Technological solutionism is vividly described by Morozov as the "To save everything, click here" mindset [8], a doctrine which holds that science and technology have already become the master key to solving all social problems. Digital socialists have recognized that intelligent feedback systems based on "digital accounting" will become the core of future struggles, explicitly pointing out that the crux of the matter lies in the ownership and control of large-scale information feedback systems. However, despite gaining insight into a rational direction, they ultimately pin the construction of digital socialism upon the continuous perfection of digital feedback systems, falling once again into the vicious cycle of attempting to resolve technological dilemmas through technological means. While the limitations of these solutions manifest as gaps in individual subjective thinking, they possess a profound class basis. Within the framework of the contemporary capitalist narrative, digital technology is often packaged as a "neutral tool" or a "pro-benefit platform," while its inherent institutional dependence and value orientation are often deliberately obscured. This causes contemporary Western Leftist scholars, when discussing relevant theoretical issues, to easily fall into a cognitive inertia and mindset that prioritizes technological rationality, ignoring the institutional arrangements, class relations, power dynamics, and ideological attributes hidden behind the development of digital technology. Their critical theory will ultimately degenerate into an adjunct or tool for the generative exploitation and valorization of digital capital. In essence, technological solutionist thought, as the core of the emerging spirit of digital capitalism, is deeply rooted in the thinking of Western Leftist scholars influenced by the logic of capital, thereby becoming a class shackle from which they struggle to break free.
Driven by this spirit of digital capitalism influenced by technological determinism, Western Leftist groups instinctively tend to rely on technology to solve all problems, while ignoring technology's non-neutrality and its inability to resolve moral dilemmas. This tendency not only masks the social and ethical problems that truly need to be addressed but actually further exacerbates them. Technological solutions are typically dominated by Big Tech companies; implementing these schemes will not only further consolidate the monopoly status and influence of these firms, but the phenomenon of excessive reliance on algorithms and data analysis is bound to lead to excessive technological intervention in human behavior and social life. This consequence will inevitably weaken the fairness of democratic decision-making, the participatory capacity of the public, and human autonomy and creativity. As a brand-new form of the elements of productive forces in the digital era, digital technology can only release its revolutionary emancipatory potential within the specific relations of production characterized by the capitalist antagonism between labor and capital. Currently, however, it is viewed by capitalism as a tool for self-perfection and a handle to escape real social crises. Therefore, only by completely detaching digital technology from capitalist relations of production can modern people leap out of the ethical paradigm of technological solutionism and proceed to contemplate the scientific path for constructing digital socialism at the level of political institutions.
(II) New social conceptions merely satisfy themselves with mimicking general principles of socialism, ignoring the construction of systemic strategies and causing a rupture between theoretical conception and realistic practice.
Although digital socialism is portrayed as a more equitable and just economic model, Western scholars have simplified it into an endless pursuit of values, narrowing the socialist struggle to overthrow capitalist rule to one-sided issues of economic mechanisms and technological development. They tend to adopt reformist romantic critical strategies under the contemporary capitalist framework. The principles emphasized in many digital socialism schemes—such as resource sharing, public ownership, and decentralized governance—remain only at the level of moral ideals. Their digital socialist strategies have not truly touched upon the realistic foundation of abolishing the private ownership of the means of production, nor can they effectively resolve the structural contradictions inherent in capitalist society. For example, digital socialism schemes based on "digital commons" [9] aimed at reforming social ownership forms merely use the outward appearance of "public use" to mask the essence of capitalist private ownership. This is essentially a "false" socialist movement that attempts to replace individual private property with universal private property. Regardless of the specific content of the Western Left's socialist schemes, they cannot thoroughly break through the fundamental limitation of subordinating themselves to the logic of capital within their own theoretical horizon. This ultimately results in digital socialism only being able to mimic the core concepts of scientific socialism on the level of general principles, while lacking the revolutionary spirit and practical significance of scientific socialism.
In reality, socialist movements often struggle to bridge the chasm between ideal and reality, and digital socialism is similarly plagued by the disconnect between grand visions and insufficient implementation capacity. Based on the principles of scientific socialism, the Western Left has proposed a series of seemingly enlightening ideas; however, in the process of specifically applying these ideas to social, economic, and technological practices, there is a distinct lack of feasible operational strategies. For instance, while decentralized platforms and data sharing can theoretically serve as alternatives, the theoretical conceptions of the Western Left still lack sufficient operability regarding how to counter digital capital giants and break their monopoly status, leading the theory into a quagmire during the process of practice. This rupture between theory and practice stems from the fact that Western Leftist scholars find it difficult to eradicate their inherent class limitations in both theoretical vision and methodological paths. Therefore, they are inevitably unable to construct a digital socialist society that can both eliminate the defects of private ownership and target the free and comprehensive development of the person. Only by standing at the height of world history, thoroughly eliminating digital capital relations, truly returning the sovereignty over digital production and life to the people, and ensuring that digital wealth effectively belongs to all individuals, can a digital socialism consistent with the concepts of scientific socialism be truly constructed, thereby leading modern humanity toward true liberation.
(III) Policy advocacy for social transformation is actually an empty "Moderate Left" resistance narrative, remaining a makeshift measure to defend the existing capitalist system.
The critique of digital capitalism is not the ultimate goal of the Western Left; its theory tends more toward exploring effective ways to mitigate class conflict in the digital era. Even when the Western Left explicitly points out the inherent limitations of the solutionist methodology advocated by the capitalist ruling class and sees through the narrative trickery hidden behind their depiction of digital socialism, they nonetheless focus their critical weight on Big Tech companies and use this as the key step toward the practical conception of digital socialism. Meanwhile, these Western intellectuals, represented by the American elite class, superficially claim they must resolutely oppose Big Tech companies and the logic of capital operation behind them. Yet, in the end, they only focus on a series of issues that avoid the core for the sake of the peripheral—such as resisting algorithmic bias, protecting user privacy and data security, preventing "problematic information" like misinformation and disinformation, and constructing anti-monopoly legal systems. Consequently, their schemes ultimately degenerate into a hollow "resistance" narrative of the "Moderate Left." The struggle strategy of the "Moderate Left" is essentially a mild and harmless process of social change dominated by digital elites. Although they claim to aim at changing old social structures to build a socialist order of freedom and equality, their fundamental purpose is to maintain existing social structures to ensure the legitimization of their own methods of profit acquisition. This precisely reflects the cunning nature of the capitalist system.
Whenever it encounters a crisis, capitalism always attempts to use nationalism, racism, and even fascism to cover up deep-seated class contradictions, thereby obstructing the growth of true Leftist forces and weakening the influence of socialism. Today, the resistance strategy of the "Moderate Left" has also become a narrative means used by digital capitalism to mask contemporary labor-capital conflicts and win the recognition and support of the digital working class. They deliberately emphasize the positive significance of grassroots autonomous movements but intentionally ignore the scientific path of achieving socialism by establishing a proletarian regime through the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. Compared to formulating practical and revolutionary social transformation strategies, they are more obsessed with competing for political discourse power. Therefore, the socialist vision of true freedom and equality they proclaim is, in substance, nothing more than a narrative trick used to conceal the truth of social inequality and dissolve the revolutionary intent of the working class. From this, it can be seen that the digital socialist transformation strategies advocated by the Western Left inevitably fall into being reformist schemes for maintaining the current capitalist operation model, causing the revolutionary intention of building a socialist society they promised to gradually dissipate.
(IV) Misjudging the logic of the presence of the subject of socialist revolution in the digital era dissolves the contemporary proletariat’s historical mission of liberating all humanity.
In the face of grassroots movements against financial capital—such as "Occupy Wall Street" and the "Yellow Vests"—falling into chaos and failure, some Western Leftist scholars believe the traditional working class can no longer bear the heavy responsibility of resisting capitalism. They point toward the "new proletariat" as the subject upon which political solutions rely. However, the "new proletariat" is actually a misjudgment by Western Leftist scholars of the logic of the presence of the contemporary revolutionary subject. They have changed the conditions for the emergence of the proletariat in the Marxist context, replacing the concept of "labor power" with "general intellect" [10] activities, and blindly expanding the scope of the proletarian group. This kind of "new proletariat" is not only unable to promote the communist movement but instead degenerates into the "to-be-liberated." Only the "class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not derive profit from any kind of capital" is the true revolutionary force and political subject resisting capitalism. Only by clarifying the viewpoint that "of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class," and through the joint revolution of the proletariat led by the Communist Party, can the establishment of an "association of free individuals" be ultimately facilitated.
Socialism is not an abstract moral demand but a historical necessity realized by the proletariat through concrete class struggle. The Western Left perceives the revolutionary potential possessed by digital labor subjects but fails to provide a specific plan to transform this potential into a realistic material force. The lack of a scientific and effective practical path and guarantee mechanism is an important reason for their final entrapment in theoretical dilemmas. The Western Left relies on autonomous movements of individual voluntary participation but ignores the necessity of promoting change through effective organization, causing their social movement schemes to eventually degenerate into general group activities. These spontaneous, loose group actions focus only on solving the current existential dilemmas and interest demands of a small portion of modern people, rather than dedicating themselves to the elimination of private property to realize the proletarian revolutionary ideal of truly liberating all humanity. Due to the lack of scientific organizational forms necessary for proletarian revolution, the so-called "new proletariat" reform movements have neither a leadership force representing the common interests of all members nor a scientific revolutionary goal consistent with the historical materialist conception of history. In the final analysis, it is a regression in socialist theory and practice. The digital socialism schemes of the contemporary Western Left are, at most, internal adjustments under capitalist conditions; they cannot constitute a powerful response to digital capital power, let alone break the mechanism of capital's domination over human society. "Building a global socialist order requires a completely different kind of solidarity, a conscious alliance formed in struggle, placing the productive forces under the control of workers and serving them." Only by correctly identifying and uniting the forces of new and old laborers, restoring the subjectivity and organizational principles of the proletariat, and further exploring realistic schemes to ensure that the inherent revolutionary power of the subject is effectively exerted, can we find the key to truly resolving the deep-seated contradictions brought by capitalism and realizing fundamental social transformation in the digital era.
Conclusion
Since Kevin...
Since Kevin Kelly proposed the brand-new concept of "digital socialism," discussions surrounding digital socialism have become increasingly intense; yet, in a certain sense, these discussions have not yet yielded substantive results. They are characterized by speculative modes of thought, anti-essentialist research methodologies, and technical terminology that remains obscure to the general public. They claim that "another world" truly exists, yet fail to delve deeply into the complex connections between this theoretical stance and the realities of contemporary capitalism. Although this profound conception captures the transformative potential of digital technology—stimulating enthusiasm within domestic and foreign academic circles to re-evaluate and explore the potential roles of digital technology in public resource allocation, the reconstruction of labor relations, and mechanisms of democratic governance—it provides a new theoretical opportunity to break through the imaginary landscape of digital technology under the rule of neoliberalism. For a time, it even reached a level of integration with the basic principles of scientific socialism, injecting new theoretical meaning into the innovation of the discourse system of scientific socialism and harboring unique implications for political practice.
However, its discursive critique, anti-essentialist methodology, and blueprint for a "stateless socialism," combined with an improper understanding of the inherent emancipatory potential of digital technology, are destined to fail in deeply revealing the objective, universal, and necessary connection between digital technology and the principles of scientific socialism. This also dooms it to fall into a quagmire of radical reformism, filled with techno-utopian fantasies and romanticist tendencies, causing contemporary capitalism to fall into the delusional predicament of "new nihilism" [11] and increasingly highlighting its lack of an exit and its ultimate limitations. Such a theoretical conception of striving for "another world" has long since overflowed the bounds of scientific socialism and, to some extent, acts as a complicit agent in the spiritual reproduction of digital capitalism. In this sense, the so-called transcendence of digital capitalism by digital socialism does not hold.
Although digital socialism finds it difficult to achieve a subversive breakthrough against capitalist realism, clearly pointing out the unfeasibility of a certain path is also a positive revelation. This provides possible guidance for exploring deeper theoretical conceptions and realistic paths.
"Do the transformations in production techniques and social conditions released by digital technology represent a qualitative change in the capitalist mode of production? The answer is necessarily yes. We are facing a brand-new capitalist reality; therefore, Marxists must propose their own concepts and analytical frameworks to grasp it." Currently, digital technology is integrating into all fields and the entire process of human economic, political, cultural, social, and ecological civilization construction [12] through new concepts, new business forms, and new models, exerting a broad and profound influence on human production and life. How to break through the existing paths of the digital capitalist civilization narrative, how to achieve the mutual empowerment and narrative integration of digital technology and the principles of scientific socialism, and how to construct a scientific form of "digital socialism" to endow human civilization with a new narrative logic—this is both an important theoretical proposition and, more importantly, a major practical task that urgently needs to be solved.