Marxism Research Network
Unofficial English Translation

Xu Zhixiang: Super Digital Platforms and New Trends of New Imperialist Monopoly

International Communist Movement

Against the backdrop of the accelerating evolution of "major changes unseen in a century" [1], General Secretary Xi Jinping has specifically emphasized the need to "strengthen the study of contemporary capitalism, and analyze and grasp the various changes occurring within it as well as its essential nature" (1). According to existing research, two major new changes have emerged in the developmental process of contemporary capitalism: on one hand, the rapid development of the digital economy has given birth to a new organizational form known as the "super-digital platform" (2); on the other hand, monopoly capitalism has transitioned from traditional imperialism to a stage of "New Imperialism," exhibiting new monopolistic characteristics (3). What, then, is a super-digital platform? How do super-digital platforms drive New Imperialist monopoly? What is the essence and what are the consequences of the new changes in New Imperialist monopoly propelled by these platforms? How should China respond? Answering this series of questions will not only help deepen our systematic understanding of the laws governing new changes in contemporary capitalism but is also of great significance for China in promoting the regulated, healthy, and sustainable development of the platform economy while better safeguarding national interests.

I. The Super-Digital Platform as a New Organizational Form in the Development of Contemporary Monopoly Capitalism

The so-called "super-digital platform"—drawing on the definition of "super-platforms" by [Gautam] Raiji and [Maurice E.] Stucke—refers to a platform enterprise with powerful market power that uses the internet as a medium and digital technology as support, enabling it to benefit from network effects and thereby control entire ecosystems (4). U.S. digital giants such as Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Meta (Facebook) are all typical representatives of super-digital platforms.

The super-digital platform is a new model of capital accumulation dominated by the logic of capital. Following the stagflation crisis of capitalism in the 1970s, internet technology began to shift from military use to civilian and general-purpose use to counter the decline in manufacturing profitability. This shift pushed for the formation of global industrial chains based on the international division of digital labor. Led by developments in information technology, information transmission achieved a breakthrough from one-way conduction to decentralized discovery and diffusion. Data became a factor of production, and its importance has grown increasingly prominent, providing the dual conditions of hardware (technologicalization) and software (informatization) for the construction of digital platforms. Simultaneously, the outbreak of the stagflation crisis signaled the failure of Keynesianism and fueled the rise of Neoliberalism. As Neoliberal trends became rampant, finance capital began to aggressively explore new investment opportunities globally. Digital platforms, with their inherent advantage of zero marginal cost, became the optimal choice, continuously pushing the scale of digital platforms from small to large and toward "super-scale" status.

Unlike the organizational models of traditional enterprises, the super-digital platform, as a new organizational form of contemporary monopoly capitalism, leverages the characteristics and advantages of high-tech integration, strong penetration, and wide coverage inherent in new networked, informational, and digital technologies. It displays significant new features and has formed a three-dimensional synergistic operational system of "algorithmic control + data aggregation + cross-domain integration."

First, powerful algorithmic control is the core driving force behind the development of super-digital platforms. For these platforms, "the real threat usually comes from innovative power that can impact and subvert the entire market" (5). To effectively stifle competition and ensure the stable fulfillment of complex needs—such as simultaneous access by massive user bases, payment transactions, and communications—super-digital platforms must rely on powerful algorithms and computing power throughout the processes of construction, operation, and profit generation, eventually forming a pattern of technological monopoly. The core of technological monopoly for a super-digital platform lies in establishing a "technological stranglehold" through control over operating systems, algorithms, computing power, advanced technical standards, and intellectual property rights. The basic paths include: 1) enhancing internal R&D capabilities while controlling technical workers and appropriating their research results; 2) strengthening the acquisition of complementary, emerging, and key technology firms to seize the advanced technologies of others; and 3) abusing the intellectual property system to reinforce technological lock-in (6).

Second, large-scale data aggregation is the key productive force for the development of super-digital platforms. Technological monopoly provides the "other leg" for achieving data monopoly (7). Once a super-digital platform is formed, it functions like a massive "central aggregator" acting as a central engine. At this point, the dependency between users and merchants is entirely tied to the platform. Platform expansion and the massive increase in users generate immense attraction and creativity. Each additional user essentially increases the potential connections between that user and all existing and potential users; thus, the data-driven network effect grows larger, causing user resources and numbers to increase exponentially. Consequently, the characteristics of data—non-physicality, replicability, infinite growth, and timeliness—make it the key production factor for digital platform development and competition. Control over data implies the exclusive possession of data—the privatization of data (8). Under algorithmic manipulation, the behavioral logic of data monopoly follows a sequence: obscured data collection → privatized data property rights → "black box" data usage. It is precisely by virtue of their monopoly over data that super-digital platforms "can freely monitor the operations of global manufacturing, from the smallest actuators to the largest factories, using this data to further consolidate their monopoly position" (9).

Finally, powerful cross-domain integration capability is the vital supporting force for the development of super-digital platforms. The underlying logic of the "super-scaling" of digital platforms lies in breaking through the constraints of traditional industrial organizational structures, possessing the advantage of achieving larger-scale cross-domain integration. Unlike traditional top-down hierarchical organizational structures, super-digital platforms can enhance autonomy and professionalism in service zones through "decentralized" operations and modular design, while improving integrity and coordination through networked and systematic multi-node interconnection. The integrated, open platform ecosystem thus constructed reinforces the platform's cross-domain integration capabilities. On one hand, super-digital platforms possess a powerful capacity for cross-industry integration. To expand market share and avoid the disconnect between production and consumption, they usually use their core business as a benchmark to continuously expand their business scope, forming a diversified business matrix including digital payments, financial services, e-commerce, logistics, advertising, and social media, thereby achieving multi-dimensional integration of online and offline activities, upstream and downstream industrial chains, and other industries. On the other hand, super-digital platforms possess a powerful capacity for cross-border integration. They often utilize cross-industry resources and network support to implement internationalization strategies, integrating international markets locally through acquisitions and partnerships, thereby achieving the dual integration goals of global layout and deep local cultivation.

Driven by this three-dimensional synergistic system of "algorithmic control + data aggregation + cross-domain integration," super-digital platforms continue to grow and expand. The resulting "productive force enhancement effect" and "adjustment of relations of production effect" have, to a certain extent, temporarily mitigated the contradictions between labor and capital [2] (10). Nevertheless, super-digital platforms have not escaped the logic of the rule of finance capital. In essence, they represent a new form of finance capital in the era of the digital economy and exhibit a powerful capacity for global expansion.

In essence, as new types of monopoly organizations, super-digital platforms are a new manifestation of finance capital in the digital economy era, with the actual controlling force behind them being finance capital. Lenin clearly pointed out that "finance capital created the era of monopolies" (11), and "Imperialism, or the era of finance capital, is the highest stage of capitalism" (12). Lenin also highly endorsed Rudolf Hilferding’s assertion that "finance capital does not want freedom, but domination" (13). This profoundly reveals the status of finance capital as the ruler and dominant force in monopoly capitalism. Since the 1970s, as the dominance of finance capital has continuously strengthened (14), its tendency to shift into and penetrate enterprises representing advanced productive forces to achieve control has become increasingly prominent. Super-digital platforms, as carriers of advanced productive forces relying on networked and digital technologies, naturally became the optimal choice for finance capital investment. In fact, finance capital achieves actual control over super-digital platforms through various methods: supporting "loss-leading" expansion strategies, pushing platforms to form "head" monopolies (market leaders), occupying high proportions of platform ownership, and intervening in personnel and management decisions (15). This drives the transformation of monopoly organizations manipulated by finance capital from traditional forms like cartels, syndicates, and trusts into the new form of the super-digital platform.

From the perspective of developmental trends, super-digital platforms use powerful network effects to continue global expansion, thereby driving new developments in New Imperialism. Dan Schiller argues that "the ubiquitous computer network, combined with existing capitalism, has greatly widened the effective range of the market" (16). Relying on the generation and application of algorithmic technology and the construction of global network infrastructure, the global expansion of capital will subsequently shift from physical geographic space to virtual network space. Unlike the vertical expansion logic of traditional industries (first domestic, then foreign), the expansion of super-digital platforms is more horizontal and simultaneous; they can simultaneously achieve penetration or domination of the same industry at home and abroad, and even across all related industries. Existing research shows that "92% of internet users in Turkey have visited Facebook... and the majority of the 944 million worldwide internet users use Google" (17). Therefore, along with the global expansion of super-digital platforms, the powerful network effects generated by massive international "data pools" will further drive new changes in New Imperialism.

In short, as Lenin revealed, "concentration... at a certain stage of its development, can be said to lead directly to monopoly" (18). Driven by the logic of capital and relying on their own advantages, super-digital platforms have not only entered a frenetic stage of monopoly themselves but have also laid an important foundation for further driving New Imperialist monopoly toward new trends.

II. Super-Digital Platforms Promote New Trends in New Imperialist Monopoly

As a new organizational form of contemporary monopoly capitalism, what driving role will super-digital platforms play in New Imperialist monopoly? Below, after defining "New Imperialism" and the "New Trends of New Imperialist Monopoly," I will further summarize the new trends driven by super-digital platforms.

With the development of monopoly capitalism, imperialism transitioned from traditional imperialism to New Imperialism. The original intent behind the proposal of "New Imperialism" was a form of "value imperialism"—that is, an imperialism built upon the liberal-democratic values generally accepted by Westerners (19). However, because this theory happened to align with the outward goals of the "New Imperial Strategy" of Europe and the U.S., it was praised by the Western Right and critiqued by the contemporary Western Left from various perspectives. As Ellen Meiksins Wood revealed, "New Imperialism is 'new' because it is a product of capitalism" (20); compared to traditional imperialism, New Imperialism achieved a shift from "extra-economic" rule to economic control. On this basis, most Western Leftists view New Imperialism as a "globalized capitalist world system," "U.S. capitalist hegemony after WWII or the end of the Cold War" (21), or "imperialism as accumulation by dispossession" [3] (22). Based on this, a consensus has basically been reached among Chinese scholars that New Imperialism is the new stage of imperialist evolution arising from the accelerated expansion of international monopoly capital in the post-Cold War era (23). It is evident that after Lenin, although the historical context has changed, the monopolistic essence of New Imperialism has not changed (24); only the monopolistic characteristics have diverged. Unlike traditional imperialism, which primarily relied on military conquest and direct occupation of colonies, New Imperialism—in the context of globalization and informatization—achieves a monopoly over global resources and markets through non-military means such as multinational corporations, finance capital, and technological control. It possesses even stronger integration, transnationality, and hiddenness. Along with the deepening of economic financialization and globalization, the new characteristics of New Imperialist monopoly are mainly reflected in the internationalization of production and circulation and the formation of giant multinational monopoly companies, the decisive role of finance monopoly capital in the global economy, the reinforcement of dollar hegemony and intellectual property monopolies, and the emergence of international oligarchic alliances such as the G7 and NATO (25).

Based on the above analysis, "New Imperialism" represents a new stage in the development of contemporary monopoly capitalism. This "newness" is primarily reflected in the emerging changes to the characteristics of monopoly. However, upon the foundation of the existing monopoly features exhibited by New Imperialism, the emergence and development of the "super digital platform"—a novel form of monopoly organization—is bound to exert a deeper and broader influence on the current monopolies of New Imperialism. Therefore, the so-called "new trends in New Imperialist monopoly" refer to the new developmental directions of New Imperialist monopoly triggered by the growth of super digital platforms, building upon the existing foundations of such monopolies. These "new trends" are mainly reflected in four dimensions: the form, means, scope, and function of monopoly.

1. Changes in the form of monopoly: Advancing from partial-molecular monopoly to global-aggregate monopoly Unlike the fragmented "molecular" monopoly [4] formed over a single commodity or service within a local scope under traditional forms, super digital platforms emerge within a networked market environment characterized by high information transparency. With features such as low marginal costs and rapid formation, these platforms can utilize network effects and economies of scale to quickly aggregate global resources, driving the formation of a new pattern of global-aggregate monopoly.

On the one hand, regarding the global aggregation of production and circulation, super digital platform monopolies are based on network carriers that organically link the side of value production with the side of value realization, enabling the simultaneous provision of diversified goods or services. By utilizing algorithms to achieve a "connectivity revolution" within complex cyberspace, super digital platforms aggregate producers and consumers into a network. This shifts the unidirectional, linear value chain of traditional business models toward a complex "platform value matrix" under the new model, thereby forming an "aggregate" monopoly. Under this model, super digital platforms can not only use their technological dominance and the cross-network externality advantages of aggregating massive numbers of users in a short period to break the constraints of traditional geography, transportation, and natural conditions—thereby shortening production and circulation time—but they can also make rational decisions based on user data analysis to improve the matching of supply and demand. On the other hand, super digital platforms form a "rhizomatic" [5] monopoly by reshaping the division of labor in the global value chain, promoting the total-domain aggregation of these chains. Leveraging the inherent advantages of technological empowerment, data-driven operations, and resource integration, super digital platforms can realize a formal evolution from "outsourcing" to "crowdsourcing" on a global scale. This further constructs a "rhizomatic" monopoly where parallel monopolies (monopolies over substitutes or complements) and vertical monopolies (monopolies over the upstream and downstream of the supply chain) intertwine under a "multi-layered competitive structure." The goal is to implement a monopoly over the entire global digital platform ecosystem centered on core value, thereby achieving centralized control over the profits and core power of global value chains.

2. Shift in the means of monopoly: Advancing from the combination of production and capital concentration to relying primarily on capital concentration The monopoly within the sphere of production constituted the starting point of Lenin's theory of imperialism; capital concentration was based on the concentration of production. However, with the emergence and development of super digital platforms characterized by speculativeness, the logic of production has further yielded to the logic of speculation, beginning to "view predation rather than production as the primary mode." To a vast extent, finance capital has directly broken free from productive investment, strengthening the realization of monopoly directly through capital concentration.

The speculativeness of super digital platforms is reflected in multiple dimensions. First, in terms of operating models, "platform firms do not possess the means of production, but rather create the means of connection"; as "intermediaries of exchange," super digital platforms do not directly participate in the production of physical commodities, exhibiting non-productive characteristics. Second, in terms of capital operations, super digital platforms can create growth expectations by continuously expanding user scale rather than relying on actual profitability, using leveraged operations to attract capital inflows, drive up valuations, and form speculation. Third, in terms of market competition, once a super digital platform forms a monopoly, it can use its dominant position to raise fee standards and squeeze out other competitors. Fourth, in terms of value extraction, as a vital link in the creation of digital wealth, super digital platforms can utilize the uncertainty of expected future returns from data usage to speculate on data resources as assets for valuation. Fifth, in terms of international expansion, super digital platforms can exploit policy differences and tax incentives between different countries to obtain speculative gains. The speculativeness of super digital platforms has attracted massive inflows of financial monopoly capital and has reinforced the characteristics of financial monopoly capital and the dominance of capital concentration.

Relying on the technological advantages, big data resources, and cross-domain integration capabilities of super digital platforms, financial monopoly capital is able to achieve deep control over the value chain and extract enormous profits through various financial means. These include: first, obtaining returns from the expansion of super digital platforms through lending, debt investment, and equity investment; second, profiting by facilitating the integration, merger, consolidation, and acquisition of super digital platforms; third, collecting service fees and interest margins by providing financial products such as payments, lending, and wealth management, while earning high investment returns by deploying funds into various financial assets; fourth, engaging in short-term arbitrage by manipulating the listing process and stock price fluctuations of super digital platforms. In this way, not only is the control of financial monopoly capital over the global economy further strengthened, but its parasitic, expansive, and decaying nature becomes more prominent, driving capital concentration to become the absolute means of monopoly.

3. Expansion of the scope of monopoly: Advancing from "time-space limited" monopoly to "trans-time-space" monopoly Traditional monopolies were based on limited, realistic physical time and space. Created within market environments with relatively low information transparency, they were formed through long-term capital accumulation relying on the scale effects of production and capital volume. Their core lay in the control of traditional factors of production, tools of production, scale of production, and physical forms of products or services, making them easily constrained by the finiteness of time and space. In contrast, super digital platforms focus on the monopoly of algorithms, information, and data resources on virtual network platforms. By extending realistic time and space into virtual network time and space to create a global digital network space, they break through traditional spatial-temporal limitations, exhibiting a trend toward "trans-time-space" monopoly.

On the one hand, from the temporal dimension, this is manifested as all-weather and full-life-cycle monopoly. By utilizing global network infrastructure, automation technology, and distributed computing to provide 24/7 service, super digital platforms possess the possibility of round-the-clock monopoly. Compared to the long and limited process traditional enterprises undergo to obtain market dominance and monopoly status, super digital platforms can cater to user needs across multiple dimensions by relying on cyberspace, big data, and digital technology. This allows them to flexibly update, increase, or switch their business scope, achieving monopoly by rapidly seizing market share. At the same time, by designing products or services that match user needs, super digital platforms can keep users within the platform ecosystem they have constructed for long periods, thereby extending the user's platform usage time and occupying the user’s consumption decision-making process, achieving a monopoly over the user’s attention and time resources. Furthermore, through precise market guidance, continuous user dependence, and control over the entire transaction process, super digital platforms can maintain strong influence and dominance at every stage of a user's life, achieving comprehensive control over the user’s life cycle, transaction life cycle, and data behavior.

On the other hand, from the spatial dimension, super digital platforms will use their powerful penetration effect to continuously promote the "platformization of daily life," implementing all-encompassing monopoly on a global scale. Driven by the dual logic of capital and competition, super digital platforms will remain in a state of continuous algorithm optimization and refinement. This will reinforce the penetration of super digital platforms into daily life, gradually guiding individual daily consumption, social interaction, and daily concepts toward platformization. So-called "daily life" is the most general, frequent, and indispensable way of existence that constitutes an individual's life-world. Super digital platforms will constantly promote and accelerate the commodification of global public goods and resources—basic areas essential to people’s daily lives. This ensures that comprehensive data on people’s basic physical and psychological activities—including food, clothing, housing, transportation, education, medical care, social interaction, leisure, entertainment, and even modes of thinking—are widely collected by the platform. This achieves the platform’s comprehensive mastery of people’s static information (identity, gender, nationality, etc.) and dynamic information (location, age, preferences, etc.).

4. Extension of the function of monopoly: Advancing from economic monopoly to extra-economic monopoly The development of super digital platforms will drive New Imperialism to advance from economic monopoly toward a deeper level of "extra-economic" monopoly that covers multiple dimensions: economic, technological, political, cultural, and ideological.

The foundation for the formation of "extra-economic" monopoly lies in the monopoly of discourse power [6] by super digital platforms. The so-called monopoly of discourse power refers to the highly centralized control formed globally by super digital platforms through the construction of a progressive monopoly hierarchy: "technological monopoly → data monopoly → discourse power monopoly." This is mainly reflected in the following aspects. First, information flow distribution and search control under the dominance of algorithms. Super digital platforms can rely on AI and big data algorithms to control the propagation paths and priorities of information, determining the content users receive and forming an "information cocoon" effect. Second, the centralized control of data traffic. Utilizing their massive user base, super digital platforms can form powerful network effects to enhance control over information dissemination, while also creating strong lock-in effects to increase user dependence and achieve control over user attention resources. Third, control over platform content and discourse auditing. By virtue of their control over platform auditing mechanisms, super digital platforms can selectively disseminate information and manipulate global standards of speech and the direction of public opinion, while also using their advantages to actively generate and disseminate content. Fourth, control over rule-making and market standards. With the power to formulate platform usage rules, super digital platforms can arbitrarily set and change commercial rules and market standards from a self-serving perspective.

Cultural and ideological hegemony, dominated by Western "universal values," is the most typical feature of "extra-economic" monopoly. Western developed countries, by virtue of the discourse power monopoly of super digital platforms and leveraging the platforms' cultural production and dissemination functions as well as their multi-language support advantages, dominate the global output of culture and ideology. They continuously weaken the diversity of the public discourse space and consolidate their international monopoly status through digital colonialism. On the one hand, platform content usually takes Western culture as the standard, directly or indirectly reflecting Western liberal values, thereby enabling the platform's operation itself to strengthen the dissemination capacity of Western culture. On the other hand, through algorithmic optimization, platforms prioritize the recommendation of content containing Western cultural symbols, value concepts, and entertainment forms, locking in the attention of global users to Western culture and conducting latent ideological infiltration. Simultaneously, the rise of super digital platforms has accelerated the pace of "surveillance capitalism." In particular, the United States has long utilized its unique advantages in internet technology and governance to monitor and intercept global network data; the "PRISM" program and the "Snowden incident" are the best examples. However, "extra-economic" monopoly, represented by the output of culture and ideology, appears on the surface to be a way of gaining consent, but in essence, it can never conceal its acts of hegemony and monopolistic coercion. The "internet freedom" advocated by Western developed countries led by the United States is, in essence, nothing more than "a call for us to entrust basic human rights to a group of deeply influential, self-interested social actors."

III. The Essence and Impact of the New Trends in New Imperialist Monopoly Driven by Super Digital Platforms

The new trends in New Imperialist monopoly driven by super digital platforms merely use the super digital platform as a medium to change the expressive characteristics of traditional imperialist monopoly. In essence, it is a collusion between "techno-feudalism" and "digital imperialism" dominated by the logic of capital in the context of digital technological development. This will reshape the global system of accumulation by dispossession and further exacerbate the internal contradictions of capitalist society, ultimately triggering a "super digital platform crisis."

1. The Essence: Collusion between techno-feudalism and digital imperialism

The super-digital platform, as a new "fix-growth" model of capital accumulation formed on the foundation of traditional industries, appears to be an emerging product of a new round of technological revolution and industrial transformation. In substance, however, it follows the logic of techno-feudalism. The core of techno-feudalism lies in the fact that "the purpose of investment is no longer to develop productive forces, but to develop the power of plunder" [7]. On this basis, the New Imperialism promoted by super-digital platforms superficially fosters global "digital prosperity," but in essence, it drives the strengthening of digital imperialism [8]. Therefore, viewed as a whole, the essence of the New Imperialism promoted by super-digital platforms is a collusion between techno-feudalism and digital imperialism, where the two are nested within and reinforce one another.

First, the techno-feudal logic of super-digital platforms is manifested in new changes in the productive forces and relations of production. On the one hand, the foundation of the productive forces of super-digital platforms is constituted by the displacement of the logic of production by the logic of speculation. Just as Hans-Jürgen Lüsebrink [9] refers to Facebook as a "data robber," "data supremacy" is the direct value orientation of super-digital platforms. By virtue of their possession and use of digital technology, super-digital platforms construct powerful global data-capture mechanisms and continuously enhance their own discourse power. They thereby obtain high monopoly profits globally by formulating corresponding rules to charge and increase service fees—such as the leasing fees charged by service platforms like Amazon and the monopoly rents charged by platforms like Uber. On the other hand, the foundation of the relations of production of super-digital platforms is constituted by the individual's dependence on the monopolistic control structures of algorithms and data. The monopoly of super-digital platforms has caused traditional monopoly methods—which were dominated by human intervention—to be replaced by monopolies of technology and data hidden behind algorithms. This presents the illusion that artificial intelligence has replaced human intelligence as the mastermind of manipulation, resulting in the gradual alienation of "man" into "man defined by algorithms." By utilizing algorithms to process and analyze the data of fully digitized individuals, the characteristics of man as a human being are dissolved, and the individual is continuously pulled along by algorithmic presuppositions. Man increasingly takes on the image of a "techno-serf."

Second, the essence of the new trends in New Imperialist monopoly promoted by super-digital platforms is digital imperialism. Although some scholars argue that it is premature to view digital imperialism as a new stage of New Imperialism [10], the new trends in New Imperialist monopoly promoted by super-digital platforms still substantially reflect the essential characteristics of digital imperialism. By constructing a progressive hierarchy of "technological monopoly → data monopoly → discourse power monopoly," super-digital platforms, on the one hand, reinforce the dependence of underdeveloped countries on the digital infrastructure of developed countries. This facilitates the expansion of digital imperialism by developed countries through the control of global data resources. On the other hand, they can promote specific values globally by dominating the production and dissemination of global digital culture, weakening the local cultural traditions and social values of other countries, and strengthening the ideological infiltration of digital imperialism. The digital imperialism promoted by super-digital platforms is often draped in the gorgeous robes of "human rights," "equality," and "freedom." On the surface, it claims to be building so-called "large-scale centrally planned markets" [11], but in reality, the controllers behind it are international monopoly alliances formed by a rentier privileged class. For government departments in capitalist states in particular, they are themselves important drivers of monopoly; even when they take anti-monopoly measures, these carry distinct class objectives. In the final analysis, these are temporary internal reconciliations of the relations of production made within the framework of the capitalist system for the long-term interests of the bourgeoisie [12].

Finally, techno-feudalism and digital imperialism do not exist independently; rather, they are nested within and reinforce one another. Their collusion is manifested in the following aspects: first, the combination of technological hegemony and the control of global power structures. The virtual network spaces established by techno-feudalism provide new tools for the global expansion of digital imperialism. For example, companies such as Microsoft and Amazon control the data of global enterprises through cloud computing technology, providing a foundation for their dominance of global markets. Second, the mutual assistance of capital accumulation and profit flows. Digital imperialism harvests global profits through the export of digital capital, while techno-feudalism can ensure these profits are firmly concentrated in the hands of international oligarchic alliances by manipulating the direction of profit flows. Third, the coordination of algorithmic rule and data exploitation. Techno-feudalism uses algorithms to control the behavior of workers, consumers, and enterprises, while digital imperialism can extend this algorithmic control globally to capture the data of global users. Fourth, the coordination of rule-reshaping and the weakening of sovereignty. While digital imperialism promotes its own rules globally (such as electronic payment standards and data flow protocols), techno-feudalism can ensure the implementation of these rules through technological means, thereby weakening the sovereignty of other countries. In short, the mutual reinforcement of techno-feudalism and digital imperialism profoundly reveals the high concentration of information, data, technology, and capital in modern society, as well as the true purpose of super-digital platforms in reshaping the global system of accumulation by dispossession based on this concentration.

2. Influencing Effects: The Reshaping of the Global System of Accumination by Dispossession

While the new trends in New Imperialist monopoly promoted by super-digital platforms consolidate their own monopoly positions through continuous creative destruction in the field of technological innovation, they always strive to aggravate inequality effects. Their goal is to achieve long-term, sustained accumulation by dispossession on a global scale.

First, super-digital platforms continuously generate creative destruction effects to achieve and consolidate their monopoly positions. According to the developmental characteristics of super-digital platforms, both their internal developmental drive and their potential threats stem from technological innovation. Therefore, for super-digital platforms, they will, on the one hand, accelerate the pace of innovation, generating a "creative" effect. Super-digital platforms must rely on their own technological constraints and data-scale advantages to carry out continuous innovation. By maintaining long-term control over industry standards and restricting the promotion and application of innovative achievements, they form and reinforce a mechanism of "competition → innovation → monopoly → re-innovation → sustained monopoly." On the other hand, they suppress the innovation of other enterprises, generating a "destructive" effect. This is specifically manifested as: first, weakening the motivation for industrial innovation. Faced with the powerful discourse power established by super-digital platforms, even if small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) truly achieve innovation, they cannot escape the fate of being acquired or marginalized. Second, reducing industrial innovation capacity. To achieve the goal of technological constriction, super-digital platforms usually choose to collude with financial sectors, government departments, and platform merchants. This not only blocks the sources of funding and policy support for SMEs to innovate but also blocks the application channels for their innovative achievements. Third, expanding the scope of industry competition. The "creative destruction" of the innovation capacity within a single industry by a super-digital platform will cause competition between super-digital platforms in the same industry to evolve into competition between super-digital platforms across different industries. For example, by leveraging its advantages in search engines and mapping technology, Google developed its own autonomous vehicles and provided ride-hailing services, thereby weakening Uber's market competitive position.

Second, the New Imperialist monopoly driven by super-digital platforms aggravates inequality effects. Dan Schiller clearly pointed out that "digital capitalism has not eliminated, but rather fueled, the various ills that have long plagued market institutions: inequality and the bullying of the weak" [13]. As a new product of the development of digital capitalism, super-digital platforms have made "inequality" even more prominent. This inequality is mainly reflected in the inequality of network rights and the resulting inequality in exchange relations. The global "digital divide" created by the monopoly of super-digital platforms has weakened the access to network rights for underdeveloped countries, as well as for startup platforms and offline enterprises in developed countries, reinforcing "center-periphery" dependencies. As the makers of network rules, super-digital platforms, on the one hand, force startup platforms to be controlled via nesting by establishing product and service ecosystems that are isolated from competitors [14]. On the other hand, more and more offline enterprises are absorbed into super-digital platforms, aggravating their dependence on these platforms and weakening their rights of choice, discourse, and control. Consequently, the direct connection between traditional buyers and sellers has been transformed into an indirect exchange between users and sellers dominated by super-digital platforms. The internal competitive relations between traditional sellers and between buyers have been transformed into a relationship of dependency of all sellers and buyers on the platform, thereby aggravating the inequality in production-marketing relations and exchange relations.

Finally, the New Imperialist monopoly promoted by super-digital platforms reinforces the effects of global accumulation by dispossession. Looking first at the direct dispossession of wealth, as the core of commercial media, super-digital platforms always occupy a dominant position. They can extend this dominance into the spheres of production and consumption, which significantly increases the distribution power of platform capitalists. This reinforces the platform capitalists' dispossession of wealth from other capitalists (such as product manufacturers), as well as from directly employed workers, "non-employed workers" under "participatory" production models, and the entire consumer base of the platform. Furthermore, the alliance of capitalists not only extends its reach to the plunder of public goods, public resources, and public services in their own countries but also plunders the resources and wealth of other countries through the establishment of multinational corporations, direct investment, technology transfer, and mergers and acquisitions. David Harvey pointed out that "the power of money is used to dominate cultural production and influence cultural values" [15]. Super-digital platforms have further provided a powerful boost for the rendering of "cultural imperialism" and "media imperialism." For example, by controlling media dissemination platforms, the United States vigorously exports bourgeois ideology and behavioral norms while shaping and portraying the so-called "pinnacle of human civilization," "American values," and "American-style nationalism." Some scholars believe that "super-platforms and other stakeholders are investing heavily in guiding political voices" [16]. These "political voices" are mainly manifested as a monopoly of discourse power, attempting not only to control domestic politics and ideology but also to deprive other countries of their political power in an attempt to intervene in the evolution of the global landscape.

3. Impact and Consequences: The Super-Digital Platform Crisis

Marx pointed out: "The development of the productive power of labor causes the rate of profit to fall as a law, which at a certain point comes into the most striking conflict with the development of the productive power of labor itself and must therefore be constantly overcome through crises" [17]. As an inevitable product of the development of capitalist productive forces, the New Imperialist monopoly promoted by super-digital platforms will not eliminate the chronic ills of capital accumulation; instead, it will further aggravate the internal contradictions of capitalist society by constructing a new system of exploitation, leading to a super-digital platform crisis.

The ultimate goal of the new trends in New Imperialist monopoly promoted by super-digital platforms is to construct an "all-time and all-round" global system of exploitation. As a new product of the transformation in the mode of capital accumulation, super-digital platforms have not escaped the governance of the law of surplus value; instead, they have further intensified exploitation. First, by virtue of continuous technological innovation and "algorithmic pressure," super-digital platforms continuously extend surplus labor time while relatively shortening the necessary labor time of workers. This is especially true for "independent contractors" or "freelancers" on platforms who are forced to take on the responsibility of "self-management"; to maintain income levels, they often have to extend their working hours. Second, the monopoly of super-digital platforms expands the scope of exploitation from direct exploitation of value to the dual exploitation of value and power. With the help of the monopoly of discourse power, super-digital platforms gradually achieve comprehensive control over the rights to production, development, freedom, choice, bargaining, and privacy. Finally, by constructing a global network digital space that combines physical and virtual spaces, the monopoly of super-digital platforms has formed a super-digital colonial ecosystem that is shifting from the instantaneous to the permanent, from the local to the total, and from the regional to the global. On a global scale, the monopoly of super-digital platforms has accelerated changes in the global economic and trade landscape and the formation of a global industrial reserve army.

The "all-time and all-dimensional" system of global exploitation is bound to exacerbate the internal contradictions of capitalist society, leading to relative overproduction and triggering a "super digital platform crisis." While the new imperialist monopoly promoted by super digital platforms expands the scope of exploitation, it simultaneously enhances the efficiency of production, exchange, and consumption through the optimized allocation of productive factors, promoting the continuous socialization of production. On the other hand, through the despoiling of small and medium-sized private owners, it has led to a higher concentration of private ownership of the means of production [18]. Correspondingly, on one side is the international monopoly alliance of the bourgeoisie, reaping immense profits, and on the other is the vast proletariat whose livelihoods are difficult to maintain due to wage suppression and the alienation of consumption.

In the era of "traffic is king," the form of wages has evolved from the traditional combination of time-based and piece-rate wages to a more outcomes-oriented, pure piece-rate form. This is particularly dominant in the field of sales, where receiving so-called piece-rate wages based on final sales performance has become the leading model. Furthermore, "de-labor-relationship-ization" has led to a continuous increase in the number of the "precariat" [19], further intensifying employment instability. Moreover, under the background of the "platformization of daily life," the "alienation of leisure" and "alienated consumption" have made intertemporal consumption, advance consumption, and overdraft consumption prevalent, seriously weakening the consumption levels of workers across their entire life cycle. Thus, following Marx’s view, "The ultimate reason for all real crises always remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses" [20]. With the increasing sharpening of the antagonistic distribution relations of capitalism and the resulting polarization, the relative overproduction of commodities will inevitably emerge. In essence, this crisis—which breaks out on the surface of super digital platforms but remains in substance the relative overproduction of goods—can be termed the "super digital platform crisis."

IV. Consciously Regulating the Maladies of Digital Platform Development under the Logic of Capital

According to the above analysis, the capitalist system is the root cause of the new trends in the new imperialist monopoly promoted by super digital platforms and the resulting "super digital platform crisis." Currently, China's digital technology and digital platforms are flourishing. This requires us to correctly grasp the dialectical relationship between the development of digital platforms, serving the public, and the new model of capital accumulation. We must promote the standardized, healthy, and sustainable development of China’s digital platforms and prevent the trend toward digital platform monopoly, while effectively responding to the adverse impacts that the new imperialist monopoly driven by super digital platforms may impose on our country.

1. Correctly grasping the dialectical relationship between digital platform development, serving the public, and the new model of capital accumulation

A digital platform is the carrier for the movement of digital platform capital [21]. The inherent characteristics of digital platform capital itself determine the developmental characteristics of the digital platform. In fact, as a complex new form of capital containing the multiple attributes of productive capital, commercial capital, and money capital [22], digital platform capital also possesses the "duality where the 'civilized and barbaric sides' of capital belong together" [23]. It simultaneously possesses the attribute of the productive function of capital and the attribute of the relations of production of capital [24], leading to dual accumulation effects of both positive and negative aspects.

On the one hand, digital platform capital possesses productive functional attributes and positive accumulation effects. From the perspective of digital platform capital as a factor of production, it represents advanced productive forces and will greatly liberate and expand the breadth and depth of human productive forces [25]. Furthermore, as the subject of innovation in the new round of scientific and technological revolution and industrial transformation, digital platform capital demonstrates clear innovativeness and network externalities [26]. Thus, the productive functional attributes of digital platform capital enable digital platforms to provide various conveniences to the public. Positive effects are particularly evident in fields serving the public, such as creating jobs, promoting technological innovation, optimizing resource allocation, improving people's well-being, and facilitating socialized large-scale production.

On the other hand, digital platform capital possesses the attributes of relations of production and negative accumulation effects. Marx once noted that "capital is also a social relation of production" [27]. As a new form of capital governed by the logic of capital, digital platform capital still carries the inherent tendency toward capital valorization and expansion. The essence of the new model of digital platform capital accumulation remains "a social relation in which production dominates people, objects dominate people, and people dominate people" [28]. The construction of digital platforms provides the conditions for digital platform capital to achieve expansion in the dual dimensions of scale and space. Driven by the profit-seeking nature of capital, digital platform capital can use its discourse power over the operation of digital platforms to expand in a disorderly fashion, continuously pushing digital platforms toward "super-scale" to achieve monopoly goals, which in turn causes a series of negative effects.

Therefore, a dialectical relationship of the unity of opposites exists between digital platform development, serving the public, and the new model of capital accumulation. This is specifically reflected in the fact that the two are united throughout the entire process of digital platform development while simultaneously being opposed to one another. That is, the development of digital platforms has a positive functional role in serving the public on the one hand, but on the other hand, it will act as a new model of capital accumulation, forming monopolies and producing negative impacts. This "opposition" is irreconcilable under the capitalist system. However, as a socialist country, China's ownership structure—with public ownership as the mainstay—inherently determines that we can realize categorized guidance for different types of digital platforms through sound top-level design. This allows us to consciously regulate the maladies of digital platform development under the logic of capital and resolve this "opposition."

2. Following the principle of categorized guidance and promoting the construction of a digital community with a shared future

At a time when global digital platforms are developing with strong momentum, China must both follow the principle of categorized guidance to promote the standardized, healthy, and sustainable development of its own digital platforms, and accelerate independent innovation in key core digital technologies while promoting the construction of a digital community with a shared future to effectively respond to international challenges.

First, follow the principle of categorized guidance to promote the standardized, healthy, and sustainable development of China's digital platforms. Given the positive functional roles and negative accumulation effects existing in digital platform development, different digital platforms can be categorized, and targeted guidance can be provided following the principle of categorized guidance. By ownership type, they can be divided into public-owned and non-public-owned digital platforms; by function, they can be divided into public welfare service platforms and profit-oriented platforms; by the nature of competition, they can be divided into generally competitive platforms and platforms that have already formed or are about to form monopolies. Targeted guidance should be implemented based on these categories. First, from the perspective of ownership, we must break the root of private ownership in the formation of digital platform monopolies, strengthen the "socialist public ownership attribute of the platform economy" [29], and ensure that the control over data resources remains firmly in the hands of the state and the people. Second, from the perspective of functional roles, it is suggested to build a national comprehensive big data management platform centered on "Digital Central SOEs" (中央企业). By combining market orientation and user needs, a "trinity" data collaborative management platform involving the government, enterprises, and users should be created to specifically undertake the coordination, allocation, management, and categorized supervision of big data. This ensures both the continuous development of public welfare service platforms and that profit-oriented platforms remain aligned with national development strategies. Third, from the competitive perspective, to clarify the behavior boundaries of digital capital, it is suggested to issue a Digital Labor Law, a Data Circulation Law, Guidelines for the Valuation of Data Factors, as well as a Digital Capital Management Law and Administrative Penalty Regulations for Digital Capital. The Anti-Monopoly Law of the People's Republic of China should be revised to address platform monopoly behavior, and Standards for the Identification of Digital Platform Monopolies should be formulated and released.

Second, accelerate independent innovation in key core digital technologies. The new trend of new imperialist monopoly promoted by super digital platforms has intensified the polarization of the world system: one pole is the few or individual developed capitalist countries where super digital monopoly platforms dominate, and the other pole is the other countries being constrained. Given that the core and foundation of this new monopoly trend is technological monopoly, China must accelerate independent innovation in key core digital technologies. To this end, China must persist in taking the path of independent innovation with Chinese characteristics and strengthen the "dual-wheel drive" of technological and institutional innovation. Taking the construction of a national innovation system as the orientation, we must deepen the reform of the scientific and technological system, fully release the innovative vitality of the entire society, and comprehensively enhance innovation capabilities.

  1. We must unite the forces of government, universities, research institutes, and enterprises to establish high-level national laboratories, national research institutions, research universities, and leading technology enterprises, as well as high-level national innovation platforms and national technology management platforms.
  2. We must establish and improve mechanisms for the aggregation and integration of technological innovation resources, relax market access, and break down monopolies and market fragmentation.
  3. We must establish and improve mechanisms for the transformation of scientific and technological achievements, focusing on the effective connection between technological innovation policies and economic and industrial policies, and fostering a favorable innovation pattern that integrates production, education, and research while connecting upstream, midstream, and downstream sectors and coordinating large, medium, and small enterprises.
  4. We must establish and improve systems and mechanisms for the discovery, cultivation, use, management, flow, introduction, competition, and incentives of talent, as well as the evaluation index system for technological innovation, vigorously promoting quality-oriented education and the popularization of science.
  5. We must gather the world's best talents and use them, adhering to the combination of "bringing in" and "going out" for technological talent, actively integrating into the global innovation network, making good use of international innovation resources, and jointly constructing a timely and efficient risk warning and emergency mechanism with all countries.

Third, promote the construction of a digital community with a shared future for humanity based on extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits. Currently, while the new imperialist monopoly promoted by super digital platforms undergoes international expansion, it continuously exports culture and ideology. To break the new imperialist system and seek new paths and models to promote the standardized, healthy, and sustainable development of global digital platforms, the key lies in promoting the construction of a digital community with a shared future for humanity based on extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits.

First, we must adhere to the principle of joint construction of digital platforms. Only through the universal participation and full cooperation of all countries can a good start be created for the construction of a digital community with a shared future. On this basis, we must further deepen international cooperation in global cyberspace and accelerate the construction of network information and digital infrastructure. Taking the "Belt and Road" initiative as an opportunity, we should proactively build international technological innovation cooperation platforms around digital infrastructure challenges, leverage the comparative advantages of all parties, accelerate the implementation of global digital innovation cooperation action plans, and promote the construction of the "Digital Silk Road."

Next, we must adhere to the principle of joint governance of digital platforms. The growth and strengthening of digital platforms is a common choice for all countries seeking new economic growth points in the digital economy era; therefore, when facing problems in the development process, governance rules should be formulated jointly. Based on the principle of seeking common ground while reserving differences, we should jointly construct a global governance model that meets the interests of multiple parties and jointly manage key internet resources. Particularly in terms of safeguarding data security, all countries should jointly participate in the formulation of a Global Information Protection Law and a Global Data Security Law. Under the Global Data Security Initiative, the successful experiences of Global Security Initiative experimental zones should be summarized and promoted.

Finally, in the process of accelerating the reform of the global internet governance system, we must adhere to the principle of sharing digital platforms. As General Secretary Xi Jinping has stated, "The world belongs to the peoples of all countries" [72]; the fruits of digital platform development should likewise be shared by the people of the whole world.