Karl Marx and the Study of Media and Culture Today

Original · #1

Abstract

Translation

摘要

Original · #2

The task of this paper discusses the role of Marx in analysing media, communication and culture today. An analysis of three contemporary Cultural Studies works – Lawrence Grossberg’s monograph Cultural Studies in the Future Tense, John Hartley’s monograph Digital Futures for Cultural and Media Studies and Paul Smith’s edited volume The Renewal of Cultural Studies – shows that there is an agreement that the economy needs to be taken more into account by Cultural Studies, but disagreement on which approach should be taken and what the role of Karl Marx’s works shall be. The paper argues that Marx’s labour theory of value is especially important for critically analysing the media, culture and communication. Labour is still a blind spot of the study of culture and the media, although this situation is slowly improving. It is maintained that the turn away from Marx in Cultural and Media Studies was a profound mistake that should be reverted.

Translation

本文旨在讨论马克思在今日媒体、传播与文化分析中的作用。通过检视三部当代文化研究著作——劳伦斯·格罗斯伯格的专著《面向未来时态的文化研究》、约翰·哈特利的专著《文化与媒体研究的数字未来》以及保罗·史密斯主编的论文集《文化研究的更新》——可以看出，学界普遍同意文化研究需要更多地考虑经济因素；但对于应采用何种路径、卡尔·马克思的著作应发挥何种作用，则存在分歧。本文主张，马克思的劳动价值论对批判性分析媒体、文化与传播尤为关键。尽管局面正缓慢改善，但劳动仍是文化与媒体研究中的一个盲点。本文进一步认为，文化与媒体研究背离马克思是一个深远的错误，应当得到纠正。

Original · #3

Only an engagement with Marx can make Cultural and Media Studies topical, politically relevant, practical and critical, in the current times of global crisis and resurgent critique.

Translation

唯有与马克思结合，文化与媒体研究才能在当今全球危机深化、批判话语复苏的时代，变得切中时弊、政治相关、实践并具有批判性。

Original · #4

Keywords: Karl Marx, Marxist theory, culture, media, capitalism.

Translation

关键词：卡尔·马克思、马克思主义理论、文化、媒介、资本主义。

Original · #5

Fuchs, Christian: ‘Karl Marx and the Study of Media and Culture Today’, Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014: 39–76. Hosted by Linköping University Electronic Press:

Translation

福克斯，克里斯蒂安：《卡尔·马克思与今日媒介与文化研究》，载《无界文化》（Culture Unbound）第6卷，2014年，第39—76页。由林雪平大学电子出版社提供。

Original · #6

Introduction

Translation

引言

Original · #7

* ‘Marx makes a comeback’ (Svenska Dagbladet, Oct 17, 2008)

Translation

* “马克思卷土重来”（《瑞典日报》，2008年10月17日）

Original · #8

* ‘Crunch resurrects Marx’ (The Independent, Oct 17, 2008)

Translation

* “危机让马克思的身影重现”（《独立报》，2008年10月17日）

Original · #9

* ‘Crisis allows us to reconsider left-wing ideas’ (The Irish Times, Oct 18, 2008)

Translation

* “危机让我们可以重新思考左翼理念”（《爱尔兰时报》，2008年10月18日）

Original · #10

* ‘Marx exhumed, capitalism buried’ (Sydney Morning Herald, Oct 23, 2008)

Translation

“马克思重见天日，资本主义入土为安”（《悉尼先驱晨报》，2008年10月23日）

Original · #11

* ‘Marx Renaissance’ (Korea Times, Jan 1, 2009)

Translation

* “马克思复兴”（《韩国时报》，2009年1月1日）

Original · #12

These news clippings indicate that with the new global crisis of capitalism, a new interest in Karl Marx’s works has emerged. The new world economic crisis that started in 2008 is the most obvious reason for the return of the interest in Marx.

Translation

这些新闻剪报表明，随着资本主义新一轮全球危机的到来，人们对卡尔·马克思著作的兴趣再次兴起。始于2008年的新一轮世界经济危机，是人们重新关注马克思最明显的原因。

Original · #13

This shift is however multidimensional and has multiple causes: • The new world economic crisis has resulted in an increasing interest in the dynamics and contradictions of capitalism and the notion of crisis. • Neoliberalism and the precariousness of work and life can best be analysed as phenomena of class, exploitation, and commodification. • New new social movements (the anti-corporate movement, global justice movement, Occupy movement) have an interest in questions of class. • The financialization of the economy can be analysed with categories such as the new imperialism or fictitious capital. • New global wars bring about an interest in the category of imperialism. • Contemporary revolutions and rebellions (as the Arab spring) give attention to the relevance of revolution, emancipation, and liberation. • The globalization discourse has been accompanied by discussions about global capitalism. • The role of mediatization, ICTs, and knowledge work in contemporary capitalism was anticipated by Marx’ focus on the General Intellect. • A whole generation of precariously working university scholars and students has a certain interest in Marxian theory.

Translation

不过，这一转向是多维的，而且成因多重： • 新的世界经济危机使人们日益关注资本主义的动力机制、内在矛盾以及危机这一概念。 • 新自由主义以及劳动与生活的不稳定性，最好被理解为阶级、剥削和商品化的现象。 • 新的新社会运动（反企业运动、全球正义运动、占领运动）对阶级问题表现出兴趣。 • 经济的金融化可以借助“新帝国主义”或“虚拟资本”等范畴来分析。 • 新的全球战争引发了人们对帝国主义这一范畴的关注。 • 当代革命与反抗（如“阿拉伯之春”）使人们注意到革命、解放与自由的现实相关性。 • 全球化话语一直伴随着关于全球资本主义的讨论。 • 当代资本主义中媒介化、信息与传播技术以及知识劳动的作用，早已在马克思对“一般智力”的关注中有所预示。 • 整整一代处于不稳定工作状态的大学学者和学生，对马克思理论抱有某种兴趣。

Original · #14

Given that the interest in Marx’s works and the economic in general has today returned, the question arises which role Marx should play in the analysis of media, communication and culture and which role his works actually do play in such studies. In order to contribute to the discussion of this question, this paper discusses the role of Marx in current works of selected representatives of Cultural Studies and argues for a renewed reading and interpretation of Marx’s works in the context of studying the media, communication and culture.

Translation

鉴于当下人们对马克思的著作乃至经济学整体重新产生兴趣，一个问题也随之浮现：在媒介、传播与文化分析中，马克思应当扮演怎样的角色？而在此类研究中，他的著作实际上又扮演着怎样的角色？为推动围绕这一问题的讨论，本文探讨了马克思在当代部分文化研究代表人物著作中的角色定位，并主张在媒介、传播与文化研究的语境下，重新阅读和阐释马克思的著作。

Original · #15

Section 2 contextualises the paper by briefly discussing the role of Marx in

Translation

第2节通过简要讨论马克思在文化研究中的作用，为本文提供背景。

Original · #16

Cultural Studies. It lays the grounds for an analysis of the role of Marx in contemporary works in Cultural Studies that is accomplished in section 3 that discusses the role of Marx’s theory in three books published by prominent representatives of Cultural Studies: Lawrence Grossberg’s Cultural Studies in the Future Tense (section 3.1), John Hartley’s Digital Futures for Cultural and Media Studies (section contributions and was edited by Paul Smith (section 3.3). Many approaches in contemporary Cultural Studies agree that the economic has to be taken more into account, although there is no agreement on how this engagement with the economy should look like. The position taken in this paper is that the analysis of media, communication and culture requires a profound engagement with, discussion and interpretation of Karl Marx’s works. Therefore, section 4 presents a possible entry point into such a debate, namely the application of Marx’s labour theory of value to contemporary media. Finally, some conclusions are drawn.

Translation

文化研究。这为下文的分析奠定了基础。第三节将考察马克思在当代文化研究著作中的作用，具体讨论文化研究领域几位重要代表人物出版的三本书中马克思理论所发挥的作用：Lawrence Grossberg的《文化研究的未来时态》（第3.1节）、John Hartley的《文化与媒体研究的数字未来》（第3.2节），以及由Paul Smith编辑、汇集多位作者文章的《文化研究的复兴》（第3.3节）。当代文化研究中的许多路径都认为，应当更多地把经济因素纳入考察，尽管对于这种与经济的接合究竟应当采取何种方式，尚无一致看法。本文的立场是，对媒体、传播与文化的分析，需要对卡尔·马克思的著作展开深入的研读、讨论与阐释。因此，第四节提出了进入这一争论的一个可能切入点，即将马克思的劳动价值论运用于当代媒体。最后，文章给出若干结论。

Original · #17

Karl Marx and Cultural Studies The works of Karl Marx had an important influence on early Cultural Studies. So for example Raymond Williams argued in one of his earliest books, Culture & Society: 1780-1950, that he is ‘interested in Marxist theory because socialism and communism are now important’ (Williams 1958: 284). Williams argued for and worked on a ‘Marxist theory of culture’ that recognises ‘diversity and complexity’, takes |account of continuity within change|, allows ‘for chance and certain limited autonomies’, but takes ‘the facts of the economic structure and the consequent social relations as the guiding string on which a culture is woven, and by following which a culture is to be understood’ (Williams 1958: 269). 17 years later, Williams confirmed his deep commitment to Marxist thought: he argued that he has ‘no real hesitation’ to define himself as a historical materialist, if this position means demanding ‘the destruction of capitalist society’, ‘the need to supersede’ capitalist society and ‘to go beyond’ it ‘so that a socialist society’ is established (Williams 1975: 72). He wrote that Marxism that extends its scope to the totality of culture is ‘a movement to which I find myself belonging and to which I am glad to belong’ (Williams 1975: 76).

Translation

卡尔·马克思与文化研究 卡尔·马克思的著作对早期文化研究产生了重要影响。例如，雷蒙德·威廉斯在其早期著作《文化与社会：1780—1950》中曾说，他‘对马克思主义理论感兴趣，是因为社会主义和共产主义如今已具有重要意义’（Williams 1958: 284）。威廉斯主张并致力于发展一种‘马克思主义的文化理论’，这种理论承认‘多样性和复杂性’，重视变革中的连续性，容允‘偶然性以及某些有限的自主性’，但同时将‘经济结构的事实及由此产生的社会关系，视为编织文化的引线；唯有沿着这条引线，文化才能被理解’（Williams 1958: 269）。十七年后，威廉斯再次确认了他对马克思主义思想的深刻认同：他表示，如果历史唯物主义的立场意味着要求‘摧毁资本主义社会’，承认‘必须超越’资本主义社会并在其基础上‘进一步推进’，‘以建立一个社会主义社会’，那么他‘确实毫不犹豫’地将自己定义为一个历史唯物主义者（Williams 1975: 72）。他写道，那种将自身视野扩展到文化总体的马克思主义，是‘一个我发现自己身处其中，并且乐于身处其中的运动’（Williams 1975: 76）。

Original · #18

Edward P. Thompson argued for a Marxism that stresses human experience and culture. He defended such Marxism politically against Stalinism (Thompson

Translation

爱德华·P. 汤普森主张一种强调人类经验与文化的马克思主义。他在政治上反对斯大林主义（Thompson 1957）来捍卫这种马克思主义。

Original · #19

1957), theoretically on the left against Althusserian structuralism (Thompson

Translation

1957）。在理论层面，他站在左翼立场，反对阿尔都塞的结构主义（Thompson

Original · #20

1978) and against the right-wing reactions against Marx led by thinkers like

Translation

1978）以及反对那些由某些思想家所引领的、针对马克思的右翼反动。

Original · #21

Leszek Kolakowski (Thompson 1973). Thompson argued that this form of Marxist thinking was present, first, in Marx’s ‘writings on alienation, commodity fetishism, and reification; and, second, in his notion of man, in history, continuously making over his own nature’ (Thompson 1973: 165). The political perspective underlying Thompson’s political and theoretical interventions is socialist humanism, a position that ‘is humanist because it places once again real men and women at the centre of socialist theory and aspiration, instead of the resounding abstractions – the Party, Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism, the Two Camps, the Vanguard of the Working-Class – so dear to Stalinism. It is socialist because it re-affirms the revolutionary perspectives of Communism, faith in the revolutionary potentialities Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 [41] not only of the Human Race or of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat but of real men and women’ (Thompson 1957: 109).

Translation

莱谢克·科拉科夫斯基（Thompson 1973）。汤普森认为，这种马克思主义思维方式首先体现在马克思“关于异化、商品拜物教和物化的著述中”；其次体现在他关于人的观念中，即人“在历史中不断重塑自身本性”的观念（Thompson 1973: 165）。支撑汤普森政治与理论介入的政治视角，是社会主义人道主义；这一立场“之所以是人道主义的，是因为它重新把现实中的男男女女置于社会主义理论与理想的中心，而不是斯大林主义所珍爱的那些响亮的抽象物——党、马克思列宁主义—斯大林主义、两大阵营、工人阶级先锋队。它之所以是社会主义的，是因为它重申了共产主义的革命前景，相信具有革命潜能的，不只是‘人类’或‘无产阶级专政’，而且也是现实中的男男女女”（Thompson 1957: 109）。《Culture Unbound》第6卷，2014 [41]

Original · #22

In the 1990s, a controversy between Cultural Studies and Critical Political Economy developed that culminated in an exchange between Nicholas Garnham (1995a, b) and Lawrence Grossberg (1995). The basic points of criticism are summarised in table 1. Garnham (1995a: 64) summarises the criticism of Cultural Studies by saying that the latter refuses ‘to think through the implications of its own claim that the forms of subordination and their attendant cultural practices – to which cultural studies gives analytical priority – are grounded within a capitalist mode of production’. The discussion between Garnham and Grossberg is an indication that something fundamentally changed in Cultural Studies since the time Williams and Thompson had written their major works, namely a profound move away from Marx, Marxism and the analysis of culture in the context of class and capitalism.

Translation

20世纪90年代，文化研究与批判政治经济学之间爆发了一场争论，其高潮是尼古拉斯·加纳姆（Nicholas Garnham，1995a，b）与劳伦斯·格罗斯伯格（Lawrence Grossberg，1995）的相互辩驳。这些批评的基本要点概见于表1。加纳姆（1995a: 64）如此概括对文化研究的批评：它拒绝“深入思考其自身论断的意涵，即那些从属形式及其相关的文化实践——文化分析优先关注的正是这些——是扎根于资本主义生产方式之中的”。加纳姆与格罗斯伯格的讨论表明，自威廉斯和汤普森撰写其主要著作的时代以来，文化研究已经发生了某种根本性的转变，即深刻背离了马克思、马克思主义，以及在阶级与资本主义语境下的文化分析。

Original · #23

The basic difference between Cultural Studies and Critical

Translation

文化研究与批判理论之间的基本差异

Original · #24

Political Economy sees class as the key to the structure of domination: in capitalism, non-class domination is always related to class domination Cultural Studies sees class and gender, race, etc as independent, it ignores the economy and class.

Translation

政治经济学认为，阶级是支配结构的关键：在资本主义中，非阶级支配总是与阶级支配相关联。文化研究则把阶级与性别、种族等视为彼此独立的范畴，因而忽视经济与阶级的作用。

Original · #25

Political Economy is a form of class/economic reductionism and determinism.

Translation

政治经济学是一种阶级/经济还原论与决定论。

Original · #26

Cultural Studies sees a plurality of articulated differences.

Translation

文化研究看到的是诸多经过 articulation 连接起来的差异所构成的复数性。

Original · #27

Assessment of classical Cultural Studies works Williams, Hoggart and Thompson stressed working class culture and the struggle against capitalism William, Hoggart and Thompson focused on practices, by which people represent themselves and the world The analysis of production Cultural Studies gives priority to cultural practices and ignores that they are grounded in the capitalist mode of production Political Economy equates production with the cultural industries The analysis of consumption Cultural Studies focuses on cultural consumption/leisure instead of production/work/institutions Political Economy ignores studying consumption and everyday life The analysis of resistance in culture Cultural Studies sees the interpretation of culture as arbitrary and always resistant, authentic, progressive Some, but not all work in Cultural Studies celebrates popular culture as resistant.

Translation

对威廉斯、霍加特和汤普森等人的经典文化研究著作的评述，强调了工人阶级文化及反资本主义斗争。威廉斯、霍加特和汤普森关注的是人们借以表征自身及其世界的实践活动。 在对生产的分析上，文化研究优先关注文化实践，却忽视其植根于资本主义生产方式；政治经济学则将生产等同于文化产业。 在对消费的分析上，文化研究聚焦于文化消费/休闲，而非生产/劳动/制度；政治经济学则忽略对消费和日常生活的研究。 在对文化抵抗的分析上，文化研究将文化阐释视为任意的，且总是抵抗性的、本真的、进步的。文化研究中的部分——但非全部——研究颂扬大众文化，视其为抵抗性的。

Original · #28

Political Economy sees people as passively manipulated cultural dupes and culture only as commodity and ideological tool.

Translation

政治经济学将人看作被动受人操纵的文化傀儡，而文化则只被视为商品和意识形态工具。

Original · #29

Cultural Studies says that [42] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 institutions cannot control how people interpret culture.

Translation

文化研究表明，制度无法控制人们对文化的理解方式。

Original · #30

Cultural Studies sees consumers as active.

Translation

文化研究认为，消费者是能动的。

Original · #31

Truth and ethics Cultural Studies rejects the notion of truth and therefore ethics and the quest for a just society.

Translation

文化研究拒斥真理的观念，因而也拒斥伦理和对正义社会的追求。

Original · #32

Notions like truth and false consciousness are elitist.

Translation

像“真理”与“虚假意识”这类概念，带有精英主义色彩。

Original · #33

Table 1: The controversy between Nicholas Garnham and Lawrence Grossberg The return of Marx in contemporary academia was preceded by a disappearance of Marx. In 1990, it was announced that Stuart Hall’s keynote talk at the conference ‘Cultural Studies: Now and in the Future’ would have the title ‘The Marxist Element in Cultural Studies’ (Sparks 1996: 72). The programme finally announced him as talking about ‘Cultural Studies and its Theoretical Legacies’, which is also the title of the published version of the presentation (Hall

Translation

表1：尼古拉斯·加恩汉姆与劳伦斯·格罗斯伯格之争 马克思在当代学术界的回归，此前经历了一段其理论的“消失”时期。1990年，“文化研究：当下与未来”会议宣布，斯图亚特·霍尔的主题演讲题目将是“文化研究中的马克思主义因素”（Sparks 1996: 72）。但最终公布的议程显示，他的演讲题目是“文化研究及其理论遗产”，这也是该演讲发表版本的标题（Hall

Original · #34

1992/1996). Hall describes in the troubled relationship of his version of Cultural

Translation

(霍尔 1992/1996)。霍尔描述了他所提出的那种文化研究与马克思之间充满张力的关系。

Original · #35

Studies to Marx. He says that was never a moment ‘when cultural studies and marxism represented a perfect theoretical fit’ because Marx‘s work has ‘great inadequacies’: he ‘did not talk about […] culture, ideology, language, the symbolic’. A certain ‘reductionism and economism’ and ‘Eurocentrism’ would be ‘intrinsic to marxism’ (Hall 1992/1996: 265). Therefore ‘the encounter between British cultural studies and marxism has first to be understood as the engagement with a problem’ (Hall 1992/1996: 265). The 1990s and 2000s were decades of the disappearance of Marx in the humanities and social sciences in general.

Translation

霍尔在其对马克思的态度上指出，从来不存在一个文化研究与马克思主义在理论上‘完美契合’的时刻，因为马克思的著作存在‘重大的不足’：他‘没有论及……文化、意识形态、语言和符号’。某种‘还原论和经济主义’以及‘欧洲中心主义’，被他视为‘马克思主义所固有的’特质（Hall 1992/1996: 265）。因此，‘英国文化研究与马克思主义的相遇，首先必须被理解为一个与问题打交道的过程’（Hall 1992/1996: 265）。总体上，1990年代和2000年代是马克思从人文与社会科学领域普遍消失的两个十年。

Original · #36

Hall generalizes and constructs a homogeneity of British Cultural Studies that never existed. Whereas his own encounter with Marx may always have been troubled and at the time, when he felt more appealed by Marx’s works, was mainly an encounter with Althusser’s structuralism, other representatives of Cultural Studies, namely Edward P. Thompson and Raymond Williams, were much attracted by Humanist Marxism. Whereas Hall took up Althusser’s work, Edward P.

Translation

霍尔将英国文化研究泛化，建构出一种实际上从未存在过的同质性。他个人对马克思理论的接触可能始终带有某种纠结；而即便在他更受马克思著作吸引的那个时期，这种接触也主要是通过阿尔都塞的结构主义展开的。相比之下，文化研究的其他代表人物——即爱德华·P. 汤普森和雷蒙德·威廉斯——则深受人本主义马克思主义的吸引。霍尔接受了阿尔都塞的理论，而爱德华·P. ……

Original · #37

Thompson at the same time employed his theoretical and literary skills for writing a bitter satirical critique of Althusser from a Marxist-Humanist standpoint (Thompson 1978) and for writing a defence of Marx and Marxism against Leszek Kolakowski (Thompson 1973), a former Humanist Marxist, who published a book against Marx and Marxism (Kolakowski 2005). So the identification and depth of engagement with Marxism has definitely been different in various strands of Cultural Studies. Stuart Hall gives (against his own epistemology) a quite noncomplex, non-contextualized and reductionistic reading of Cultural Studies and Marxism that too much generalizes his own experiences and worldview.

Translation

与此同时，汤普森也运用其理论与文学才能，撰写了一篇对阿尔都塞的尖刻讽刺批评——秉持马克思主义人道主义立场（Thompson 1978），同时还撰文为马克思与马克思主义辩护，回击莱谢克·科拉科夫斯基（Thompson 1973）。科拉科夫斯基曾是人道主义马克思主义者，后来出版了一部反对马克思与马克思主义的著作（Kolakowski 2005）。由此可见，在文化研究的诸多流派中，对马克思主义的认同程度及其介入深度确实存在差异。斯图亚特·霍尔对文化研究与马克思主义的解读（这与他自身的认识论相悖）显得相当简略、脱离语境且流于简化，过度泛化了他自身的经验与世界观。

Original · #38

Vincent Mosco (2009) argues that Hoggart, Williams, Thompson, Willis and Hall et al. (1976) ‘maintained a strong commitment to an engaged class analysis’ (Mosco 2009: 233), but that later Cultural Studies became ‘less than clear about Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 [43] its commitment to political projects and purposes’ (Mosco 2009: 229) and that it is ‘hard to make the case that cultural studies has devoted much attention to labor, the activity that occupies most people’s waking hours’ (Mosco 2009: 214). Colin Sparks describes the relationship between Hallian Cultural Studies and Marxism as ‘move towards marxism and move away from marxism’ (Sparks 1996: 71). He argues that Stuart Hall’s ‘slow movement away from any self-identification with marxism’ (Sparks 1996: 88) in the 1980s was influenced by the uptake of Ernesto Laclau’s approach. The resulting ‘distance between cultural studies and marxism’ is for Sparks a ‘retrograde move’ (Sparks 1996: 98). ‘Marrying’ Marxism and Cultural Studies would remain ‘an important and fruitful project’ (Sparks 1996:

Translation

文森特·莫斯可（2009）指出，霍加特、威廉斯、汤普森、威利斯以及霍尔等人（1976）"始终坚定地致力于一种介入性的阶级分析"（Mosco 2009: 233）；但后来的文化研究却"对其所承诺的政治计划与宗旨变得不那么明朗了"（Mosco 2009: 229），而且"很难证明文化研究曾投注多少关注于劳动——这种活动占据着大多数人清醒时的大部分时间"（Mosco 2009: 214）。科林·斯帕克斯将霍尔式文化研究与马克思主义之间的关系描述为"走向马克思主义，又远离马克思主义"（Sparks 1996: 71）。他认为，20世纪80年代，斯图亚特·霍尔"缓慢地不再以马克思主义者自居"（Sparks 1996: 88），这一变化受到了对埃内斯托·拉克劳进路的接受的影响。在他看来，由此形成的"文化研究与马克思主义之间的隔阂"是一种"倒退"（Sparks 1996: 98）。"让马克思主义与文化研究联姻"仍将是一项"重要而富有成效的计划"（Sparks 1996:

Original · #39

99). Ernesto Laclau has in a trialogue with Judith Butler and Slavoj Žižek admit-

Translation

99). 欧内斯托·拉克劳在与朱迪思·巴特勒、斯拉沃热·齐泽克的一场三方对话中承认，在后现代主义取径中，一种常见的语言游戏便是……

Original · #40

ted that in postmodern approaches it is a common language game to ‘transform ‘class’ into one more link in an enumerative chain […] ‘race, gender, ethnicity, etc. – and class’ (Butler, Laclau & Žižek 2000: 297) and to put class deliberately as last element in the chain in order to stress its unimportance – Laclau speaks of ‘deconstructing classes’ (Butler, Laclau & Žižek 2000: 296). Slavoj Žižek has in this context in my opinion correctly said that Postmodernism, Cultural Studies and post-Marxism have by assuming an ‘irreducible plurality of struggles’ accepted ‘capitalism as ‘the only game in town’’ and have renounced ‘any real attempt to overcome the existing capitalist liberal regime’ (Butler, Laclau & Žižek 2000:

Translation

他指出，在后现代主义取向中，一种常见的语言游戏，就是把“阶级”变成枚举链条中的又一个环节，即“种族、性别、族裔，等等——以及阶级”（Butler, Laclau & Žižek 2000: 297）；并且还故意把阶级放在链条的最后，以突出其不重要性——拉克劳就曾谈及“解构阶级”（Butler, Laclau & Žižek 2000: 296）。在这一语境中，我认为斯拉沃热·齐泽克正确地指出，后现代主义、文化研究和后马克思主义由于预设了一种‘不可还原的多元斗争’，便接受了‘资本主义是‘城中唯一的游戏’'，并放弃了‘任何真正试图超越现存资本主义自由主义体制的努力’（Butler, Laclau & Žižek 2000:

Original · #41

95). Colin Sparks (1996: 92) holds that the Laclauian move in Cultural Studies

Translation

95). 科林·斯帕克斯（Colin Sparks, 1996: 92）认为，文化研究中的拉克劳式策略

Original · #42

was to ‘give equal weight to each of the members of the ‘holy trinity’ of race, class and gender’. According to Laclau himself, the task of his approach was to deliberately ignore and downplay the importance of class in favour of other forms of power.

Translation

其目的在于‘对种族、阶级和性别这一“神圣三位一体”中的每一项都赋予同等的权重’。按照拉克劳本人的说法，他的方法任务是刻意忽视并淡化阶级的重要性，转而强调其他形式的权力。

Original · #43

Given the ambivalent position of Karl Marx in Cultural Studies, the question that arises is what role for Marx and the analysis of capitalism and class Cultural Studies scholars see today and in the future. I will take up this question next.

Translation

鉴于卡尔·马克思在文化研究中的定位存在暧昧性，随之而来的问题是：如今乃至未来，文化研究学者如何看待马克思本人，以及资本主义与阶级分析在其中扮演的角色。接下来我将探讨这一问题。

Original · #44

Cultural Studies and Karl Marx Today I have looked at how three recent Cultural Studies books have discussed the relationship of Cultural Studies to Marx and Marxist theory. The books were published in the past three years, so all are relatively recent, and have set themselves the task to reflect on the future of Cultural Studies. This is already indicated in the titles of the three works: Cultural Studies in the Future Tense (Grossberg 2010), Digital Futures for Cultural and Media Studies (Hartley 2012) and The Renewal of Cultural Studies (Smith 2011b). Grossberg’s title choice indicates that the book sets the stage for the future of Cultural Studies. Hartley goes one step further and includes a specific statement on how the future of Cultural Studies should look like in the title: he wants this field to focus on the analysis of digital media. Paul Smith’s book title is also oriented on the future of Cultural Studies, but in contrast [44] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 to Grossberg and Hartley makes a quite normative statement, namely that something is wrong with Cultural Studies and that it therefore needs to be renewed.

Translation

文化研究与当代卡尔·马克思 我考察了近年来三本文化研究著作如何论述文化研究与马克思及马克思主义理论之间的关系。这三本书都出版于过去三年，因此都相对新近，且都设定了反思文化研究未来的任务。这一点从三部著作的书名中便已体现出来：《未来时态中的文化研究》（Grossberg 2010）、《文化与媒介研究的数字未来》（Hartley 2012）以及《文化研究的更新》（Smith 2011b）。格罗斯伯格的书名指明，这本书旨在为文化研究的未来奠定基础。哈特利则更进一步，在书名中就具体地表述了文化研究的未来应当如何：他希望这个领域聚焦于数字媒体的分析。保罗·史密斯的书名也指向文化研究的未来，但不同于格罗斯伯格和哈特利，[44] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 他作出了一个相当规范性的论断，即文化研究出了问题，因而需要更新。

Original · #45

I conducted a book title search covering the years 2010-2013 for the keyword produced 47 results that have both words in their title and refer to the academic field named Cultural Studies. Many of these books are introductions and have titles like Introducing Cultural Studies, Introduction to Cognitive Cultural Studies, Cultural Studies: A Practical Introduction, or American Cultural Studies: An

Translation

我对2010年至2013年间的书名进行了一次检索，使用该关键词后，共找到47个结果，这些书名都同时包含这两个词，并且都指向“文化研究”这一学术领域。其中许多是导论性著作，书名如《Introducing Cultural Studies》、《Introduction to Cognitive Cultural Studies》、《Cultural Studies: A Practical Introduction》或《American Cultural Studies: An》等。

Original · #46

Introduction to American Culture. So most of these books are oriented on docu-

Translation

《美国文化导论》。由此可见，这些书大多旨在记录文化研究史上某些具体的方面，只有少数关注评估文化研究的现状与未来可能。而所选的三本著作则恰恰相反，其目的正是批判性地评估现状并助力构建文化研究的未来，因此适合进一步分析。

Original · #47

menting specific aspects of the history of Cultural Studies, whereas only a few are concerned with assessing the current status and the potential futures of Cultural Studies. The three selected books in contrast have exactly the purpose of critically assessing the present and helping to construct the future of Cultural Studies and are therefore suited for further analysis.

Translation

相比之下，论述文化研究史某些具体侧面的著作不胜枚举，而真正着眼于评估其现状及潜在未来的却屈指可数。这里选取的三本书则恰恰相反，其目的正在于批判性地评估当下，并助力建构文化研究的未来，因此适合进一步分析。

Original · #48

The three books have in common that they see a problem in contemporary Cultural Studies and a task for the future. For Grossberg, the problem is that ‘too much of the work that takes place under the sign of cultural studies has simply become too lazy’ (Grossberg 2010: 2). For Hartley, the problem is that Media and Cultural Studies was founded on and would stick to a broadcasting model of the media that sees ‘everyday cultural practices […] beset on all sides by darker forces that seemed to be exploiting the pleasure-seeking consumer for quite different ends, both political and corporate’ (Hartley 2012: 1). For Smith, the problem is that Cultural Studies on the one hand has always had ‘this kind of residual desire for some form of political efficacy’ (Ross & Smith 2011: 245), but on the other hand by its institutionalisation this desire would have ‘turned into something like a phantom limb’ (Ross & Smith 2011: 246). So all three books have in common that they perceive a crisis of Cultural Studies and the need to change something in this field of studies. The profound crisis of contemporary society is on the academic level accompanied by a profound crisis of Cultural Studies. This is at least the impression that one gets from reading the books of these authors, who can all be considered to be among the most influential contemporary figures in Cultural Studies.

Translation

这三本书的共同点在于，它们都指认了当代文化研究当前存在的问题，并为其未来发展提出了任务。格罗斯伯格认为：“太多打着文化研究旗号的工作，似乎已变得过于懒散”（Grossberg 2010: 2）。哈特利指出，媒体与文化研究建立于一种媒体的广播模式之上，并固守这一模式，其中“日常文化实践[…]似乎处处受困于各种阴暗力量，这些力量正为了截然不同的目的——无论是政治的或是公司的——而利用追求享乐的消费者”（Hartley 2012: 1）。在史密斯看来，文化研究一方面始终存在“某种残余的、对某种形式的政治功效的渴望”（Ross & Smith 2011: 245），但另一方面，这种渴望又在体制化过程中“变成了类似幻肢的东西”（Ross & Smith 2011: 246）。因此，三本书的另一个共同点是，它们都察觉到了文化研究正面临的危机，以及改变这一研究领域的某些方面的必要性。当代社会的深重危机，在学术层面上也对应着文化研究的深重危机——这至少是阅读这些著作带来的印象，而这些作者均堪称当代文化研究领域最具影响力的人物。

Original · #49

All three books identify a future task for Cultural Studies. For Grossberg, the task is to ‘construct a vision for cultural studies out of its own intellectual and political history’ (Grossberg 2010: 3). His book is ‘an attempt to set an agenda for cultural studies work in the present and into the future’ and to ‘produce a cultural studies capable of responding to the contemporary worlds and the struggle constituting them’ (ibid.). For Hartley, the task is to reform Cultural Studies (Hartley

Translation

这三部著作都为文化研究指出了一个未来任务。在格罗斯伯格看来，这项任务是“从其自身的思想史与政治史出发，为文化研究建构一种愿景”（Grossberg 2010: 3）。他的著作“试图为当下乃至未来的文化研究工作设定议程”，并旨在“发展出一种能够回应当代世界及构成这些世界的斗争的文化研究”（同上）。对哈特利而言，此任务则是改革文化研究（Hartley

Original · #50

2012: 2) so that it takes into account digital media and the ‘dialogic model of

Translation

2012：2）以纳入数字媒介及‘对话模型’。

Original · #51

communication’ (ibid.). The task for Paul Smith’s collected volume is to ‘help define a new kind of identity for cultural studies’ (Smith 2011a: 2) and to give answers to the question: ‘What can and should cultural studies be doing right Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 [45] now?’ (Smith 2011a: 3). These tasks vary in the way they want to transform Cultural Studies, but have in common that in the situation of the crisis of Cultural Studies they want to contribute to its reconstruction.

Translation

保罗·史密斯这部论文集的任务，是“帮助为文化研究界定一种新的身份”（Smith 2011a: 2），并回答这一问题：“文化研究当下能够而且应该做些什么？”（Smith 2011a: 3）。这些任务在它们希望改造文化研究的方式上各有不同，但其共同之处在于，在文化研究面临危机的这一处境中，它们都旨在为其重建作出贡献。

Original · #52

I will here discuss the books in chronological order of publication and therefore start with Lawrence Grossberg.

Translation

下面我将按这些著作的出版时间顺序展开讨论，因此先从劳伦斯·格罗斯伯格说起。

Original · #53

Lawrence Grossberg: Cultural Studies in the Future Tense Grossberg (2010: 16) argues that Cultural Studies focuses on complexity by refusing ‘to reduce the complexity of reality to any single plane or domain of existence’, It would be ‘decidedly antireductionist’ (Grossberg 2010: 17), contextual and opposed to universalism and completeness (Grossberg 2010: 17). ‘Radical contextualism is the heart of cultural studies’ (Grossberg 2010: 20). This contextuality is expressed in the use of Stuart Hall’s concept of articulation, the ‘transformative practice or work of making, unmaking, and remaking relations and contexts, of establishing new relations out of old relations or non-relations’ (Grossberg 2010: 21). It focuses on ‘discovering the heterogeneity, the differences, the fractures, in the wholes’ (Grossberg 2010: 22). Power has ‘multiple axes and dimensions that cannot be reduced to one another’ (Grossberg 2010: 29). ‘Contexts are always in relations to other contexts, producing complex sets of multidimensional relations and connections’ (Grossberg 2010: 31). The ‘commitment to complexity, contingency, contestation, and multiplicity’ is ‘a hallmark of cultural studies’ (Grossberg 2010: 54).

Translation

劳伦斯·格罗斯伯格在其《未来时态中的文化研究》中指出：格罗斯伯格（2010: 16）认为，文化研究之所以聚焦复杂性，是因为它拒绝对“现实的复杂性进行任何单一存在平面或领域的归约”。文化研究“明确持反还原论立场”（Grossberg 2010: 17），强调语境化，反对普遍主义与完满性（Grossberg 2010: 17）。他指出，“激进的语境主义是文化研究的核心”（Grossberg 2010: 20）。这种语境性体现于对斯图亚特·霍尔“articulation”概念的运用，即一种“对关系与语境进行建构、瓦解与重构的变革性实践或工作，亦即从旧有关系或非关系中，建立起新的关系”（Grossberg 2010: 21）。文化研究的重点是“在整体中揭示其异质性、差异和断裂”（Grossberg 2010: 22）。权力是“由多重彼此不可化约的轴线与维度构成的”（Grossberg 2010: 29）。而“语境总是同其他语境处於关联之中，从而形成复杂的多维关系与联结网络”（Grossberg 2010: 31）。这种“对复杂性、偶然性、争议性及多元性的执着”被称为“文化研究的鲜明标志”（Grossberg 2010: 54）。

Original · #54

Grossberg sees an important role for economics in Cultural Studies today. He argues that Cultural Studies should ‘take on and take up economic questions without falling back into forms of reductionism and essentialism’ (Grossberg 2010:

Translation

格罗斯伯格认为，经济学在当今文化研究中具有重要作用。他主张，文化研究应当“直面并处理经济问题，同时又不重新落入各种还原论和本质主义的形式之中”（Grossberg 2010:）

Original · #55

101), which logically implies that previously there was a neglect and ignorance of

Translation

101），这在逻辑上意味着，此前一直存在着对……的忽视与无知。

Original · #56

economic questions. Grossberg (2010: 105) argues that Cultural Studies ‘does need to take questions of economics more seriously’. He says that it should do so in a way ‘which would not reproduce the reductionism of many forms of political economy’ (Grossberg 2010: 105). Looking back on the debate between Cultural Studies and Marxist Political Economy of the Media, he says that Cultural Studies opposes ‘economic and class reductionism’ and refuses ‘to believe that the economy could define the bottom line of every account of social realities’ (Grossberg

Translation

经济问题。Grossberg（2010：105）认为，文化研究“确实需要更严肃地对待经济问题”。但他也指出，这应当以一种“不会重演许多政治经济学形态中的还原论”的方式来进行（Grossberg 2010：105）。在回顾文化研究与媒介马克思主义政治经济学之间的争论时，他说，文化研究反对“经济还原论和阶级还原论”，并拒绝“相信经济能够定义关于社会现实的每一种解释的最终界限”（Grossberg

Original · #57

2010: 105). Paul Smith argues in this context from within the Cultural Studies

Translation

2010：105）。保罗·史密斯在此语境中，基于文化研究内部的立场展开论证。

Original · #58

field that the claim by certain Cultural Studies scholars that Marxism is ‘reductive’ and ‘economically determinist’ (Smith 2006: 337) is a rhetoric used ‘to eschew the economic’. The result would be an ‘anarchist or nihilistic stance in relation to the object’ (Smith 2006: 338). As a result, Cultural Studies would have followed ‘numerous dead ends and crises’ and would have been held back from ‘realizing its best intellectual and political aspirations’ (Smith 2006: 339).

Translation

某些文化研究学者声称马克思主义是‘还原论的’和‘经济决定论的’（Smith 2006: 337），而这类说法在史密斯看来，不过是一种用来‘回避经济问题’的修辞。其结果将导致在面对研究对象时形成一种‘无政府主义或虚无主义的立场’（Smith 2006: 338）。如此一来，文化研究便将陷入‘许多死胡同与危机’之中，并因此受阻，无法‘实现其最好的智识与政治抱负’（Smith 2006: 339）。

Original · #59

Grossberg’s own approach of reconciling economics and Cultural Studies starts with a discussion of Marx’s labour theory of value (Grossberg 2010: 151-165). He [46] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 argues for ‘a radically contextual theory of value and, hence, a radically contextual reading of Marx’s labor theory of value’ (Grossberg 2010: 156). Grossberg aims at decentring the value concept from the labour concept and therefore interprets it in its broader meaning as representation, desire, measure of a degree of singularity, and what is good and desirable (Grossberg 2010: 158f). He suggests a ‘general theory of value’ (Grossberg 2010: 159) that is based on the assumption of a ‘multiplicity, dispersion, and contingency of values’ (Grossberg 2010: 122) and a ‘general theory of value’ (Grossberg 2010: 159). Value would involve the production of all types of surplus so that ‘the real’ is ‘always greater than, in excess of, the actual’ (Grossberg 2010: 160). The contemporary crisis would be constituted by manifold ‘crises of commensuration’ (Grossberg 2010: 160), the inability to measure/value various differences, which would have resulted in religious, political, economic, intellectual, and financial fundamentalisms (Grossberg 2010:

Translation

格罗斯伯格本人试图调和经济学与文化研究，其进路先从讨论马克思的劳动价值论入手（Grossberg 2010: 151-165）。他主张一种“彻底语境化的价值理论，并因此要求对马克思的劳动价值論作出一种彻底语境化的解读”（Grossberg 2010: 156）。格罗斯伯格意在使价值概念脱离对劳动概念的中心依赖，从而从更宽泛的意义上理解价值，将其阐释为表征、欲望、对独特性程度的衡量，以及对何为善、何者可欲的界定（Grossberg 2010: 158f）。他提出一种“普遍价值理论”（Grossberg 2010: 159），其基础是假定价值具有“多重性、分散性和偶然性”（Grossberg 2010: 122）。价值将涉及一切类型剩余的生产，因而“实在”总是“比实际更多，超出实际之上”（Grossberg 2010: 160）。当代危机由多种“可通约性危机”所构成（Grossberg 2010: 160），即无法衡量或估价（measure/value）各种差异；而这又导致了宗教、政治、经济、智识和金融领域的原教旨主义（Grossberg 2010:

Original · #60

167f) that demand ‘the extermination of the other’ (Grossberg 2010: 168). The

Translation

167f）它要求“消灭他者”（Grossberg 2010: 168）。

Original · #61

financial crisis would have been caused ‘by the existence of an enormous set of financial (‘toxic’) assets that cannot be commensurated – that is to say, their value cannot be calculated’ (Grossberg 2010: 167), but it would just form one of many simultaneous crises of commensuration.

Translation

金融危机本应是由一大批无法通约的金融（“有毒”）资产的存在所引发——也就是说，它们的价值无法计算（Grossberg 2010: 167），但这不过是众多并存通约危机中的一例而已。

Original · #62

The Research Assessment Exercise (RAE, now called Research Excellence Framework: REF) is an assessment of research conducted in the United Kingdom that aims at producing ‘quality profiles for each submission of research activity’ (http://www.rae.ac.uk/). It tries to measure the quality of research and to thereby compare and rank higher education institutions and departments. The results have implications for budget allocation. In the 20^08 RAE, 45% of the submissions of Middlesex University in the ‘unit of assessment’ area of philosophy were classified as 3* (internationally excellent) and 20% as 4* (world-leading), which makes a total of 65% of excellent (4* + 3*) research. 7 institutions received better, 8 the same (including the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford) and 26 worse results.

Translation

科研评估工作（Research Assessment Exercise，简称 RAE，现称“研究卓越框架”，即 REF）是英国针对研究活动进行的一项评估，旨在为“每一份提交的研究成果形成质量概况”（http://www.rae.ac.uk/）。它力图衡量研究质量，并依此对高等教育机构与院系进行比较和排名。评估结果还会影响预算分配。在2008年的RAE中，米德尔塞克斯大学在哲学这一“评估单元”内提交的成果中，有45%被评为3*（国际优秀），20%被评为4*（世界领先）；也就是说，优秀研究（4* + 3*）合计达到65%。有7所机构的结果优于它，8所与它持平（其中包括剑桥大学与牛津大学），另有26所机构的结果则更差。

Original · #63

According to this assessment, philosophy at Middlesex University was very good.

Translation

按照这一评价，米德尔塞克斯大学的哲学系非常出色。

Original · #64

programmes and to terminate further recruitments in this area for ‘simply financial’ reasons and ‘based on the fact that the University believes that it may be able to generate more revenue if it shifts its resources to other subjects’1. The announcement was followed by protests, an occupation, the suspension of staff members and students, many protest letters to the university’s administration, signed by leading intellectual as e.g. Étienne Balibar, Judith Butler, David Harvey, Martha Nussbaum or Jacques Rancière, and the institutional relocation of the Centre for Research in Modern European Philosophy from Middlesex University to Kingston University. In 2012, no courses and research in the area of philosophy were indicated on Middlesex University’s website (see http://www.mdx.ac.uk; Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 [47] university. In 2011, Philosophy at London Metropolitan University and the University of Greenwich was facing similar debates as at Middlesex University.

Translation

学校以‘纯粹出于财务’原因，并‘基于这样一个事实：大学相信，如果把资源转移到其他学科，或许能够创造更多收入’^1为由，决定终止该领域的相关项目，并停止今后的招生。此项公告随即引发了抗议活动、占领行动、教职员工与学生遭停职，以及大量寄给大学管理层的抗议信。这些信件由多位重要知识分子签署，如艾蒂安·巴利巴尔、朱迪思·巴特勒、大卫·哈维、玛莎·努斯鲍姆和雅克·朗西埃。与此同时，现代欧洲哲学研究中心也从米德尔塞克斯大学正式迁至金斯顿大学。到2012年，米德尔塞克斯大学的网站上已不再列出哲学领域的任何课程或研究项目（见 http://www.mdx.ac.uk；Culture Unbound，第6卷，2014年[47]大学）。2011年，伦敦都市大学和格林尼治大学的哲学学科也面临着与米德尔塞克斯大学类似的争议。

Original · #65

Modern universities are based on an enlightenment ideal – they accumulate systematic knowledge that aims at advancing the status of human knowledge about the world as well as society. In this accumulation, universities compete with each other. Capitalist industry and governments apply the accumulated scientific knowledge, whereas the workforce and management in the modern economy apply the accumulated educational skills created by higher education. The Noble Prize, established in 1895, is characteristic for the modern competitive assessment of knowledge and universities in the areas of chemistry, economics, literature, medicine, peace and physics. Modern universities are inherently shaped by an economic logic of accumulation, competition and ranking. At the same time, the university has also been a locus and space for the formation of counterculture, critical ideas, and political protests that question the very logic of accumulation and resulting inequalities in society at large. An important step in the institutionalization of quality assessment was the establishment of the Science Citation Index in 1960 that is today owned by a commercial publishing company – Thomson Reuters. The index originated in the natural sciences, but was later extended to cover the humanities (Arts and Humanities Index) and the Social Sciences (Social Sciences Citation Index). Nation-wide research assessments (such as the RAE) and global university rankings are more recent developments. The first RAE was conducted in 1986 under the Thatcher government. The first Times Higher Education World University Ranking was published in 2004. The Academic Ranking of World Universities has been conducted since 2003.

Translation

现代大学建立在一种启蒙理想之上——它们积累系统化的知识，旨在推进人类关于世界及社会的知识水平。在这一积累过程中，大学彼此竞争。资本主义工业和政府运用这种积累起来的科学知识，而现代经济中的劳动力与管理人员则运用高等教育所创建并积累起来的教育技能。设立于1895年的诺贝尔奖，典型体现了现代社会在化学、经济学、文学、医学、和平与物理学等领域对知识和大学所作的竞争性评估。现代大学从根本上受到一种积累、竞争与排名的经济逻辑所塑造。与此同时，大学也一直是反文化、批判性思想和政治抗议得以形成的场域与空间；它们质疑的，正是积累逻辑本身，以及这一逻辑在整个社会中所造成的不平等。质量评估迈向制度化过程中的一个重要步骤，是1960年《科学引文索引》的创立；如今它归一家商业出版公司——汤森路透——所有。该索引起源于自然科学领域，但后来又扩展至人文学科（《艺术与人文引文索引》）和社会科学（《社会科学引文索引》）。全国范围的科研评估（如RAE）和全球大学排名，则是更晚近的发展。第一次RAE于1986年在撒切尔政府任内实施。第一版《泰晤士高等教育世界大学排名》发表于2004年。《世界大学学术排名》自2003年起开始发布。

Original · #66

These phenomena are indications that economic logic is one immanent feature of the modern university system and that in neoliberal times, the economization of higher education and research has become an even stronger feature of universities.

Translation

这些现象表明，经济逻辑是现代大学制度的一项内在特征；而在新自由主义时代，高等教育与研究的经济化更是成为大学愈发鲜明的特征。

Original · #67

The closing of Philosophy at Middlesex University is an indication that fields, programmes, and people engaged in areas that are difficult to subsume under the logic of revenue generation and industry are prone to being dropped. In this example, the contradictions of economization became fully apparent: Although receiving very good results in one form of economization (research assessment), Philosophy at Middlesex University was closed because of another form of economization (monetary revenue): the university management thought that the department does not generate enough monetary revenue.

Translation

米德尔塞克斯大学关闭哲学系一事表明，那些难以纳入创收和产业逻辑的领域、项目与人，都很容易被放弃。这个例子充分暴露出经济化的矛盾：虽然米德尔塞克斯大学哲学系在一种经济化形式（研究评估）中取得了非常优异的成绩，它却因另一种经济化形式（货币收入）而被关闭；大学管理层认为，该系未能创造足够的货币收入。

Original · #68

I have chosen this example because it shows how modern culture in general and contemporary culture in particular is shaped by economic logic. It shows that the central (moral) value of modern society is (economic) value. The ‘radical contextuality’ that Lawrence Grossberg propagates does not allow grasping the particular role that the economic logic of accumulation and money plays in modern society. It advances a peculiar kind of relativism disguised under headlines such as contextuality, multidimensionality, heterogeneity and difference. Modern so- [48] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 ciety definitely is complex in that it is made up of many interacting and interdependent spheres (the economy, politics, everyday life, private life, the public sphere, the media, higher education, health and care, nature, arts, entertainment, sports, etc), but there is a need for a conceptual apparatus that allows analysing the power relations between these spheres. It is unlikely that all spheres and actors in a state, phase or ‘conjuncture’ of society have the same power. There are indications that the economic sphere has in capitalism always been the dominant (although not determining) sphere. A ‘radical contextualism’ results in a dualistic relativism that cannot adequately analyse power relations and power distributions (and as a consequence power struggles) and sees power as independently constituted in multiple spheres. Rejecting such a position does not mean that struggles against capitalism and domination are impossible, but that in modern society all struggles necessarily have an economic dimension that is of particular importance.

Translation

我之所以选择这个例子，是因为它表明，现代文化总体上、尤其是当代文化，是如何被经济逻辑塑造的。它表明，现代社会的核心（道德）价值乃是（经济）价值。劳伦斯·格罗斯伯格所宣扬的“激进语境性”无法把握积累与货币的经济逻辑在现代社会中所起的特殊作用。它所宣扬的，其实是一种奇特的相对主义，只不过被包装在“语境性”、“多维性”、“异质性”、“差异性”之类的标题之下。现代社会（见[48]《文化解放》第6卷，2014）的确是复杂的，因为它由许多相互作用、彼此依存的领域构成（经济、政治、日常生活、私人生活、公共领域、媒体、高等教育、医疗与照护、自然、艺术、娱乐、体育，等等）；但我们仍然需要一套概念工具，以便分析这些领域之间的权力关系。一个社会在某种状态、阶段或“形势”中，其所有领域和行动者不太可能都拥有同等的权力。有种种迹象表明，在资本主义下，经济领域始终是占支配地位的领域（虽然不是决定性的领域）。所谓“激进语境主义”，最终会导向一种二元论式的相对主义：它无法恰当地分析权力关系和权力分布（进而也无法分析权力斗争），而是认为权力是在多个领域中彼此独立地构成的。拒绝这种立场，并不意味着反对资本主义和统治的斗争是不可能的；这只是意味着，在现代社会中，一切斗争都必然具有一个尤为重要的经济维度。

Original · #69

It is not only important that there are multiple spheres of power, but that these spheres are related to each other in variable dimensions that are determined in struggles. Radical contextualism risks conceiving and analysing power as independent containers, not as power relations.

Translation

重要的不仅在于存在多个权力领域，更在于这些领域是以多种可变的维度相互关联的，这些维度是在斗争中决定下来的。激进语境主义存在一种风险，即可能将权力设想并分析为彼此独立的容器，而非权力关系。

Original · #70

Grossberg propagates the equal importance of all societal spheres, which results in a concept of multiple values that dissolves Marxian theory into a ‘general theory of value’ and classifies all attempts to stress a particular importance and shaping role of the economic – which has in Media and Cultural Studies especially been stressed by Marxist Political Economy – as ‘economic and class reductionism’, economism, capitalocentrism, essentialism, etc. Grossberg calls for respecting ‘each other as allies’ (Grossberg 2010: 201), but at the same time continues to uphold old prejudices against Marxist Political Economy that were most fiercely expressed in the debate between him and Nicholas Garnham, in which he concluded that he ‘must decline the invitation to reconcile’ Cultural Studies and the Political Economy of Culture and the Media because ‘we don’t need a divorce because we were never married’ (Grossberg 1995: 80; see also: Garnham 1995a, b).

Translation

格罗斯伯格主张社会各个领域都同等重要，由此形成了一种多重价值的观念；在这种观念下，马克思的理论被消解为一种“价值的一般理论”，而一切试图强调经济领域的特殊重要性及其塑造作用的努力——尤其是在媒介与文化研究中，马克思主义政治经济学所着重强调的那种努力——都被归为“经济与阶级还原论”、经济主义、资本中心主义、本质主义等等。格罗斯伯格呼吁彼此“作为盟友相互尊重”（Grossberg 2010: 201），但与此同时，他仍然延续着对马克思主义政治经济学的陈旧偏见。这些偏见在他与尼古拉斯·加纳姆的论战中表现得最为激烈；在那场论战中，他最终断言，自己“必须拒绝和解的邀请”，拒绝让文化研究与文化及媒介政治经济学达成和解，因为“我们不需要离婚，因为我们从未结婚”（Grossberg 1995: 80; 另见： Garnham 1995a, b）。

Original · #71

Grossberg calls for giving more attention to the economy in Cultural Studies.

Translation

格罗斯伯格主张，文化研究应当更加重视经济。

Original · #72

He does so himself by engaging with economics, including Marx’s labour theory of value that he introduces and dismisses with the argument that the value concept needs to be broadened in order to avoid economic reductionism and to conceive, based on Marx’s dialectic, the economy as contradictory. So he sets up a Marxist camouflage argument (the importance of contradictions) in order to dismiss Marx and the labour theory of value and instead use a relativist approach on cultural economy. Toby Miller argues in this context that Grossberg caricatures the political economy approach and asks him to ‘rethink the anti-Marxism’ because it is the ‘wrong target’ (Miller 2011: 322).

Translation

他本人正是通过介入经济学来做到这一点的，其中也包括马克思的劳动价值论：他先介绍这一理论，随后又将其摒弃，理由是必须拓展价值概念，才能避免经济还原论，并以马克思的辩证法为基础，将经济把握为一个充满矛盾的场域。于是，他搭建起一种马克思主义的伪装性论证（即强调矛盾的重要性），借此来驳斥马克思及其劳动价值论，转而采用一种文化经济学的相对主义路径。托比·米勒在此语境中指出，格罗斯伯格将政治经济学路径漫画化了，并要求他“重新思考这种反马克思主义”，因为它所针对的是“错误的目标”（Miller 2011: 322）。

Original · #73

Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 [49] John Hartley: Digital Futures for Cultural and Media Studies A recent book by John Hartley represents another prominent approach that advances the idea of connecting Cultural Studies to economics. Hartley describes the emergence of a ‘dialogical model of communication’ (Hartley 2012: 2), in which ‘everyone is a producer’ (Hartley 2012: 3) and discusses the implications of this model for Media and Cultural Studies. His general argument is that with the rise of online platforms that support social networking and user-generated content production and diffusion, journalism, the public sphere, universities, the mass media, citizenship, the archive and other institutions have become more democratic because ‘people have more say in producing as well as consuming’ (Hartley

Translation

《文化无界》（Culture Unbound）第6卷，2014年［49］约翰·哈特利：《文化与媒体研究的数字未来》 约翰·哈特利最近的一本著作代表了另一条重要思路，该思路致力于将文化研究与经济学联系起来。哈特利描述了一种“对话式传播模型”的兴起（Hartley 2012: 2）。在这一模型中，“每个人都是生产者”（Hartley 2012: 3）。他还探讨了这一模型对媒体研究与文化研究的意义。他的总体论点是：随着支持社交网络以及用户生成内容生产与传播的在线平台的兴起，新闻业、公共领域、大学、大众媒体、公民身份、档案库以及其他机构都变得更加民主，因为“人们在生产和消费两方面都拥有了更多话语权”（Hartley

Original · #74

2012: 14). These developments would be advanced by the emergence of ‘consum-

Translation

2012: 14）。鉴于“消费者创业精神”（Hartley 2012: 25）、社交网络市场（Hartley 2012: 48）及微生产力（Hartley 2012: 52）的出现，这些发展将得以推进。

Original · #75

er entrepreneurship’ (Hartley 2012: 25), social network markets (Hartley 2012:

Translation

“消费者创业精神”（Hartley 2012: 25），社会网络市场（Hartley 2012:

Original · #76

48) and microproductivity (Hartley 2012: 52).

Translation

48）以及微观生产力（Hartley 2012: 52）。

Original · #77

Hartley shares with Grossberg the assessment that Cultural Studies is in crisis.

Translation

哈特利同格罗斯伯格一样，认为文化研究正处于危机之中。

Original · #78

It would have lost steam and adventurousness and would have gotten lost in ‘infinitely extensible micro-level’ analyses that do not ‘pay enough attention to the macro level’ (Hartley 2012: 28). Like Grossberg, Hartley ascertains that Cultural Studies ‘has not enjoyed a sustained dialogue with economics’ and has ‘remained aloof from the turbulent changes within economics’ (Hartley 2012: 35).

Translation

它本会失去动力与开拓性，陷入那种“可以无限延伸的微观层面”分析之中，而这种分析并没有“对宏观层面给予足够的关注”（Hartley 2012: 28）。与格罗斯伯格一样，哈特利也指出，文化研究“并未与经济学展开持续的对话”，并且一直“对经济学内部的剧烈变化保持疏离”（Hartley 2012: 35）。

Original · #79

Hartley acknowledges that Marxist Political Economy has given attention to the economics of culture (he mentions Chomsky, Garnham, Miller, Schiller; Hartley 2012, 35), but claims that this approach ‘was too challenging, knowing what was wrong in advance’ (Hartley 2012: 46) and assumes ‘single-cause determinations of entire systems’ (Hartley 2012: 55).

Translation

哈特利承认，马克思主义政治经济学已经关注到文化经济学（他提到了乔姆斯基、加纳姆、米勒和席勒；Hartley 2012, 35），但他认为，这一路径“过于具有挑战性，先入为主地认定问题所在”（Hartley 2012: 46），并且假定“整个系统都由单一原因决定”（Hartley 2012: 55）。

Original · #80

Hartley’s version of introducing economics into Cultural Studies is called ‘Cultural Science 2.0’ and wants to achieve this aim by using evolutionary economics.

Translation

哈特利提出的这个将经济学引入文化研究的方案，被称为“文化科学2.0”；它试图通过运用演化经济学来实现其目标。

Original · #81

It stresses that value in the cultural industries today emerges dynamically from the co-creativity of citizens and users in social networks. Hartley metaphorically uses the language of evolutionary systems-, complexity- and self-organization-theory, but fails to systematically apply concepts of this theory approach (such as control parameters, critical values, fluctuations, feedback loops, circular causality, nonlinearity, bifurcation, autopoiesis, order out of chaos, emergence, openness, symmetry braking, synergism, unpredictability, etc) to the Internet (for a different approach that is critical in intention see: Fuchs 2008). Hartley also does not seriously engage with the fact that thinkers like Friedrich August Hayek (the concept of spontaneous order) and Niklas Luhmann (the concepts of functional differentiation and self-reference) have used the language of self-organization and complexity for ideologically legitimatizing neo-liberalism (see Fuchs 2008: chapters 2 and like with one of Hartley’s (2005) earlier works, one gets the impression that Digital Futures for Cultural and Media Studies is ‘a Powerpoint presentation by a management consultant’ that has the goal ‘to nourish the entrepreneurial self’ (McGuigan 2006: 373).

Translation

它强调，当今文化产业中的价值，是在社会网络中由公民与用户的共同创造动态生成的。哈特利以隐喻的方式借用了进化系统理论、复杂性理论和自组织理论的术语，却未能将这一理论路径中的概念——如控制参数、临界值、波动、反馈回路、循环因果、非线性、分叉、自创生、从混沌中产生秩序、涌现、开放性、对称性破缺、协同作用、不可预测性等——系统地运用于互联网分析（关于一种意在批判的不同路径，见 Fuchs 2008）。哈特利也没有认真对待这样一个事实：弗里德里希·奥古斯特·哈耶克（“自发秩序”概念）和尼克拉斯·卢曼（“功能分化”与“自我指涉”概念）等思想家，曾运用自组织与复杂性的语言，在意识形态上为新自由主义提供正当化（见 Fuchs 2008：第2章及第3章）。此外，正如对哈特利较早的一部著作（2005）的评价一样，人们会产生这样的印象：《文化研究与媒体研究的数字未来》这本书“像是一份管理顾问制作的 PowerPoint 演示文稿”，其目的在于“滋养企业家式的自我”（McGuigan 2006：373）。

Original · #82

Hartley says that cultural analysis has been shaped on the one hand by an approach that is ‘’critical’ in the Williams/Hall tradition’ and a romantic approach represented by the ‘Fiske/Hartley’ tradition that propagates ‘as widely as possible the emancipationist potential of participatory media’ (Hartley 2012: 182). The opposition of critical and romantic logically implies that Hartley considers his own approach as being uncritical. Consequently, he propagates staying in the romantic tradition and that Cultural Studies turns ‘from ‘critique’ as a method to evolution as a methodological goal’ (Hartley 2012: 183). The focus on evolution shall according to Hartley substitute a focus on critical studies. He argues for what one could term Uncritical Evolutionary Cultural Studies.

Translation

哈特利指出，文化分析一方面受到威廉斯/霍尔传统的‘批判性’进路的影响，另一方面则受到菲斯克/哈特利传统所代表的浪漫主义进路的影响——这一进路主张‘尽可能广泛传播参与式媒体的解放潜能’（Hartley 2012: 182）。批判性与浪漫主义的对立，在逻辑上意味着哈特利将自己的方法视为非批判性的。因此，他主张坚守浪漫主义传统，并推动文化研究‘从将‘批判’作为一种方法，转向将‘演化’作为一种方法论目标’（Hartley 2012: 183）。根据哈特利的观点，对演化的关注应取代对批判研究的关注。他所提倡的，可以称之为一种非批判的演化论文化研究。

Original · #83

Hartley’s bottom line is that the Internet is a self-organizing network, in which ‘everyone is networked with everyone else’ (Hartley 2012: 196) and that this system constitutes a new source of democracy and dialogic communication. He does not take into account the simple counter-argument that not everybody has access to this ‘democratic self-organizing network’: 32.7% of the world population and does he take into account the argument that on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube etc some, especially large companies, established political actors and celebrities, are ‘more equal’ than others, have more views, clicks, friends, connections, etc., which reflects the actual power inequalities of society (for a detailed form of this argument, see: Fuchs 2011: chapter 7; Fuchs 2014b).

Translation

哈特利的基本结论是，互联网是一种自组织网络，在其中“每个人都与其他人相互连接”（Hartley 2012: 196），并且这一系统构成了民主和对话传播的一个新来源。但他没有考虑到一个简单的反驳：并非每个人都能接入这种“民主的自组织网络”——世界人口中有32.7%未能接入；他也未考虑另一种论证：在 Twitter、Facebook、YouTube 等平台上，某些人——尤其是大公司、既有的政治行动者和名人——比其他人“更加平等”，拥有更多的浏览量、点击量、好友、连接等，而这恰恰反映了社会中实际存在的权力不平等（关于这一论证的详细阐述，见：Fuchs 2011: 第7章; Fuchs 2014b）。

Original · #84

dominated by elites, but this analysis is not systematically connected to power inequalities in society. It rather seems that Hartley assumes that such markets are nonetheless a realm of democracy because many have communicative tools available that can, if they are lucky and hard working, enable them to become part of this elite, at least for a short time. This logic is at the heart of neo-liberalism’s stress on performance, individualism and personal responsibility for success, failures and downfall.

Translation

这些市场虽然由精英主导，但这种分析并未系统性地关联于社会中的权力不平等。相反，哈特利似乎假定，这类市场依然是一个民主的领域，因为许多人都拥有可用的传播工具；如果他们足够幸运且努力工作，这些工具就能使其成为精英群体的一员，哪怕是短暂的。新自由主义强调绩效、个人主义以及个人对成功、失败和衰落的自我责任，其核心逻辑正在于此。

Original · #85

Hartley shows no sympathy with the outcasts and exploits of the social media age, people like Tian Yu, a Foxconn worker, who in 2010 at the age of 17 attempted suicide by jumping from a building because he could no longer stand the bad working conditions in the factory that produces among other gadgets iPods and iPads, and as a result is now paralyzed from the waist down, or the children, who as slaves extract ‘conflict minerals’ such as cassiterite, wolframite, coltan, gold, tungsten, tantalum or tin in countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo that are used as raw materials for the production of ICTs. Such stories are not only Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 [51] missing in Hartley’s account of contemporary digital media, he rather speaks the language and conveys the same messages as business manifestos that claim that there is an emergence of ‘a new economic democracy’ (Tapscott & Williams

Translation

哈特利对社交媒体时代的弃民及其遭遇毫无同情。例如富士康工人田玉：2010年，她年仅17岁，因无法忍受生产iPod、iPad等设备的工厂中的恶劣工作条件，跳楼自杀未遂，导致腰部以下瘫痪。又如在刚果民主共和国等国家被奴役、开采“冲突矿产”的儿童，他们开采锡石、黑钨矿、钶钽铁矿、黄金、钨、钽或锡，这些矿物正是生产信息通信技术产品的原料。 这类故事不仅没有出现在哈特利对当代数字媒体的叙述中；他反倒操着商业宣言式的语言，传递同样的信息，宣称一种“新的经济民主”正在浮现（Tapscott & Williams

Original · #86

2007: 15) in times of high socio-economic inequality and youth unemployment

Translation

（2007：15）在社会经济不平等严重、青年失业率居高不下的时期

Original · #87

and thereby represent the interests of the owners of the likes of Facebook and Google.

Translation

从而代表了 Facebook（脸书）、Google（谷歌）之类公司的所有者的利益。

Original · #88

Paul Smith has edited a collected volume that also discusses, among other things, the relationship of Cultural Studies and economics.

Translation

保罗·史密斯曾主编过一本文集，其中也讨论了文化研究与经济学之间的关系，以及其他一些问题。

Original · #89

Paul Smith: The Renewal of Cultural Studies The Renewal of Cultural Studies is a collection edited by Paul Smith (2011b) that features 27 contributions. Most of the contributors share with Grossberg and Hartley the conviction that the economic needs to be taken serious by Cultural Studies and has in the past too often been neglected. But there is a profound difference between this volume and the books by Grossberg and Hartley, namely the relationship to Marx and Critical Political Economy. Smith holds that ‘British cultural studies is a narrative of ever-increasing suspicion of Marxist thinking’ (Smith

Translation

保罗·史密斯：《文化研究的更新》。《文化研究的更新》是保罗·史密斯（2011b）主编的一部论文集，收录了27篇文章。大多数撰稿人与格罗斯伯格和哈特利观点一致，认为文化研究必须严肃对待经济维度，而这一维度在过去往往被忽视了。不过，这部文集与格罗斯伯格和哈特利的著作之间存在着一个深刻差异，即它们与马克思和批判政治经济学之间的关系不同。史密斯认为：“英国文化研究的历史，就是一个对马克思主义思想的怀疑日益加深的叙事”（Smith

Original · #90

2011a: 5). Cultural Studies has ‘an extreme desire not to be seen as Marxist’

Translation

（2011a：5）。文化研究“极不愿被视为马克思主义的”。

Original · #91

(Ross & Smith 2011: 252). The result would have been an ‘increasing irrelevance of cultural studies’ practice’ (Couldry 2011: 10). Paul Smith argues that Cultural Studies has become politically irrelevant and is therefore like a ‘phantom limb’ (Ross & Smith 2011: 246). In the introduction, Smith (2011a) asks the question what Cultural Studies should be doing right now. An answer that he suggests and that many of the contributors in the volume share is that ‘an increased attention to political economy is a sine qua non for a revived cultural studies’ (Smith 2011a:

Translation

这可能导致‘文化研究实践日益边缘化’的结果（Couldry 2011: 10）。Paul Smith认为，文化研究在政治上已变得无关紧要，故而恰如一条‘幻肢’（Ross & Smith 2011: 246）。在引言中，Smith（2011a）提出了一个问题：眼下文化研究究竟应当做什么？他所建议且文集中多位撰稿人共享的一个答案是：‘政治经济学维度的强化关注，乃是文化研究得以复兴的必要条件’（Smith 2011a:）。

Original · #92

6).

Translation

6）。

Original · #93

Almost all the authors in Smith’s collected volume share the insight that Cultural Studies has ignored labour and the economic and has to take it seriously. So for example Andrew Ross says: ‘Whether or not this is a reductive narrative, it’s clear that labor, work, and the politics of the workplace have been constantly neglected’ in Cultural Studies (Ross & Smith 2011: 252). Nick Couldry supports this view:

Translation

史密斯所编文集中的几乎所有作者都秉持这样一种见解：文化研究一直忽视劳动和经济，因此必须认真对待这些问题。例如，安德鲁·罗斯就指出：“无论这是否是一种还原论式的叙事，有一点是清楚的：在文化研究中，劳动、工作以及工作场所的政治一直受到忽视”（Ross & Smith 2011: 252）。尼克·库德里也支持这一观点：

Original · #94

After three decades of neoliberal discourse and a particular version of globalization based on inequality, exclusion, and market fundamentalism, the issue of labor foregrounded by [Andrew] Ross is clearly central. It is difficult to imagine any meaningful ‘project’ of cultural studies – understood politically and socially – that does not address the broader questions of how people experience the economy and society in which they work (or seek work), perhaps vote, and certainly consume (Couldry

Translation

经历了三十年新自由主义话语，以及一种建立在不平等、排斥和市场原教旨主义之上的特定形态的全球化之后，[安德鲁]·罗斯所凸显的劳动问题，显然居于核心地位。很难想象任何在政治和社会意义上被理解、真正有意义的文化研究‘项目’会不去面对这样一些更广泛的问题：人们如何体验其置身其中的经济与社会——他们在其中工作（或寻找工作）、也许投票，并且必定消费（Couldry

Original · #95

2011: 10f).

Translation

2011年：第10页及以下）。

Original · #96

Vincent Mosco (2011a: 230) argues that ‘labor remains the blind spot of communication and cultural studies’ and that therefore ‘labor needs to be placed high on the agenda or projects for the renewal of cultural studies’. S. Charusheela (2011: [52] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014

Translation

文森特·莫斯可（Vincent Mosco，2011a：230）指出，“劳动仍然是传播研究与文化研究的盲点”，因此，“在文化研究的更新议程或项目中，必须将劳动列为优先事项”。S. Charusheela（2011：[52] Culture Unbound，第6卷，2014）

Original · #97

177) says that it ‘is a perennial claim that cultural studies does not pay enough

Translation

（177）指出，这“是一种由来已久的说法：文化研究未能给予足够关注……

Original · #98

attention to economy’.

Translation

对经济事务的关注

Original · #99

Given this analysis, many contributors in Smith’s (2011) volume hold that Cultural Studies should explicitly re-orient itself as Marxist Cultural Studies that works based on Marxist theory, the analysis of labour and class and Critical Political Economy. So for example, Max Gulias (2011) argues that Cultural Studies needs a Marxist methodology, which would require ‘to revisit Marxist labor theory’, but much ‘non-Marxist cultural studies’ would stay preoccupied with the sign systems constituted by consumer-spectators and disregard the labour of humans in capitalism (Gulias 2011: 149). Randy Martin (2011) argues that financialization is a key topic for renewing Cultural Studies and grounding it in Marxism. Marcus Breen says that in the era of neoliberalism and capitalist crisis, for Cultural Studies ‘the time has come to reassert the primacy of political economy, by rearticulating economy with culture instead of pretending that some sort of indeterminacy will magically give cultural studies credibility’ (Breen 2011: 208).

Translation

综上，史密斯（Smith, 2011）所编文集中的多位作者认为，文化研究应明确自我转向为“马克思主义文化研究”，即以马克思主义理论、对劳动与阶级的分析以及批判政治经济学为基础的研究范式。例如，马克斯·古利亚斯（Gulias, 2011）主张，文化研究需要一种马克思主义方法论，这便须“重访马克思主义劳动理论”；但许多“非马克思主义的文化研究”却仍执迷于由消费者—观众构成的符号系统，而忽视资本主义中人的劳动（Gulias 2011: 149）。兰迪·马丁（Martin, 2011）认为，金融化是革新文化研究并将其重新奠基于马克思主义之上的关键议题。马库斯·布林（Breen, 2011）则指出，在新自由主义与资本主义危机的时代，对文化研究而言，“现在已经到了重新强调政治经济学首要性的时候，这并非要假装某种不确定性会奇迹般地赋予文化研究以可信性，而是要通过将经济与文化重新衔接起来”（Breen 2011: 208）。

Original · #100

The impression that one gets from the books by Grossberg, Hartley and Smith is that paradoxically the crisis of capitalism is accompanied by a crisis of Cultural Studies. At the same time, there are indications for a renewal of Marxism in one strand of Cultural Studies. The implication is that the time is ripe for taking Marx serious, reading Marx, using Marx for thinking about media, communication, and culture, to introduce Marx and Marxism to students, and especially to institutionalize Marx and Marxist studies in the courses about media, communication and culture taught at universities as well as in the research conducted and the projects applied for and funded. It is time to no longer introduce students to small excerpts from Marx and Engels as (alleged) examples of economic reductionism, but to rather read together with them full works of Marx and Engels, such as Capital, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, Grundrisse, The German Ideology, The Communist Manifesto, The Condition of the Working Class in England, The Poverty of Philosophy, The Holy Family, The Class Struggle in France, The 18 th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, The Civil War in France, Dialectics of Nature, the articles published in Rheinische Zeitung, etc. Marx is too often seen and treated as the outside and outsider of the study of media, communication and culture. It is time that he takes central stage, which requires resources, institutions, positions – and therefore the struggle to change academia.

Translation

阅读格罗斯伯格、哈特利与史密斯的著作，会让人产生一种颇为悖谬的印象：资本主义的危机竟然与文化研究的危机同步发生。与此同时，文化研究的某个支脉中又显示出马克思主义复兴的迹象。这提示我们，当下时机已然成熟——我们应该认真对待马克思、阅读马克思、运用马克思来思考媒介、传播与文化，将马克思与马克思主义引入教学，尤其应当在大学所讲授的媒介、传播与文化相关课程、所开展的研究以及所申请并获资助的项目中，将马克思与马克思主义研究制度化。 如今，不应再把马克思和恩格斯的片段文字作为（所谓的）经济还原论范例介绍给学生，而应和他们一起通读马克思与恩格斯的完整著作，例如《资本论》《1844年经济学哲学手稿》《政治经济学批判大纲》《德意志意识形态》《共产党宣言》《英国工人阶级状况》《哲学的贫困》《神圣家族》《法兰西阶级斗争》《路易·波拿巴的雾月十八日》《法兰西内战》《自然辩证法》，以及发表于《莱茵报》的文章等等。 在媒介、传播与文化研究中，马克思常常被视为并当作一个局外人，一个学科外的存在。现在是时候让他登上中心舞台了；而这需要资源、制度、职位——因而也必须为变革学术界而斗争。

Original · #101

Smith’s (2011b) book shows that besides the class/labour-relativist approach of Grossberg and the celebratory approach of Hartley, there is also a true interest in Marx and the notions of class and labour in Cultural Studies. Speaking about Cultural Studies, Toby Miller (2010: 99) notes that although labour ‘is central to humanity’, it is overall ‘largely absent from our field’. He argues that in the cultural industries, a cognitariat has emerged that has ‘high levels of educational attainment, and great facility with cultural technologies and genres’ and is facing conditions of ‘flexible production and ideologies of “freedom”’ (Miller 2010: 98). He Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 [53] therefore suggests the equation: culture + labour = precariat. Andrew Ross (2008,

Translation

史密斯（2011b）的著作表明，除了格罗斯伯格那种立足于阶级/劳动的相对主义路径以及哈特利的颂扬式路径，文化研究内部也确实存在着对马克思、以及对阶级和劳动概念的真实兴趣。谈及文化研究，托比·米勒（2010: 99）指出，尽管劳动“对人类而言居于核心地位”，但它在我们的领域中总体来看却“基本缺席”。他认为，文化产业中已经出现了一个“认知无产阶级”，他们“受教育程度高，并且对文化技术和文化类型得心应手”，却又面临着“弹性生产与‘自由’意识形态”的处境（Miller 2010: 98）。因此，他在《Culture Unbound》第6卷（2014年）第53页提出了这个等式：文化 + 劳动 = 不稳定劳动者阶层（precariat）。安德鲁·罗斯（2008,

Original · #102

2009) in a similar vain stresses the role of precarious labour in the cultural indus-

Translation

2009）也以类似的思路强调了不稳定劳动在文化产业中的作用——

Original · #103

tries. Creativity would for many come ‘at a heavy sacrificial cost – longer hours in pursuit of the satisfying finish, price discounts in return for aesthetic recognition, self-exploitation in response to the gift of autonomy, and dispensability in exchange for flexibility’ (Ross 2008: 34). Employees in the IT industry would often describe their workplaces as ‘high-tech sweatshops’ (Ross 2008: 43, for related work see for example: Gill, 2002, 2006; Maxwell 2001, Maxwell & Miller

Translation

对许多人而言，创造力往往“要付出沉重的代价——为了求得满意的成果而延长工时，为了获得审美认可而接受折扣价，以自我剥削来回应自主性这一馈赠，并以自身的可替代性来换取灵活性”（Ross 2008: 34）。IT行业的员工常常形容自己的工作场所是“高科技血汗工厂”（Ross 2008: 43；相关研究可参见：Gill, 2002, 2006；Maxwell 2001, Maxwell & Miller）。

Original · #104

2005/2006, ). Such engagement with labour and class within Cultural Studies

Translation

相关的论述还可参见 Gill, 2002, 2006；Maxwell 2001；Maxwell & Miller 2005/2006）。文化研究内部对劳动与阶级的此种关注，

Original · #105

complements the concern within the Political Economy of the Media and Communication with issues relating to class, exploitation, value and labour in the context of the media, culture and communication that have been strongly inspired by Karl Marx’s works (see for example: Huws 2003; McKercher & Mosco 2006,

Translation

它补充了媒介与传播政治经济学内部所关注的问题，即在与媒介、文化及传播相关的语境中考察阶级、剥削、价值与劳动等问题；这类研究的灵感在很大程度上源自卡尔·马克思的著作（例如参见：Huws 2003；McKercher & Mosco 2006，

Original · #106

2007; Mosco & McKercher 2008; Burston, Dyer-Witheford & Hearn 2010; Mos-

Translation

2007；Mosco 与 McKercher，2008；Burston、Dyer-Witheford 与 Hearn，2010；Mosco、McKercher 与 Huws，2010；Mosco 2011b；Fuchs 与 Mosco，2012）。

Original · #107

co, McKercher & Huws 2010; Mosco 2011b; Fuchs & Mosco 2012).

Translation

莫斯可、麦克彻与休斯，2010；莫斯可，2011b；福克斯与莫斯可，2012）。

Original · #108

The problem of Cultural Studies is, as Robert Babe says, that its ‘poststructuralist turn [...] instigated the separation’ (Babe 2009: 9) from economics. A reintegration requires first and foremost ‘setting aside poststructuralist cultural studies’ (Babe 2009: 196) and seriously engaging with Marx and Marxism. Engaging with Marx for understanding the media and culture requires an engagement with the concepts of labour and value.

Translation

正如罗伯特·贝布（Robert Babe）所言，文化研究的问题在于，其“后结构主义转向……导致了（其）与经济学的分离”（Babe 2009: 9）。要实现重新整合，首要任务便是“搁置后结构主义文化研究”（Babe 2009: 196），并认真面对马克思及马克思主义。要借助马克思来理解媒介与文化，就必须深入探讨劳动与价值这两个概念。

Original · #109

Media, Communication and Marx’s Labour Theory of Value Media contents and media technologies do not come out of nowhere. They are objectifications of the labour of human beings working under certain conditions.

Translation

媒体、传播与马克思的劳动价值论 媒体内容和媒体技术并非凭空产生。它们是人类在特定条件下劳动的物化产物。

Original · #110

Neither these human beings nor their working conditions are generally visible to media users. There is a certain difference in media content production because journalists’ names and faces are most of the time known to the public, whereas the work of camera operators, cutters, designers, paper workers, etc. rather remains invisible. There is another significant difference in user-generated online content where the conditions of production are known to oneself and can be communicated to others. Nonetheless, the production of media content and technologies is a complex process that involves a lot of different forms of work that are to a certain degree not immediately visible and are hidden inside of things and artefacts.

Translation

这些劳动者及其工作条件通常不为媒体用户所见。媒体内容的生产在此处有其特殊性：记者的姓名与面容大多为公众所知，而摄影师、剪辑师、设计师、印刷工人等群体的工作却仍然在很大程度上是隐形的。用户生成的网络内容又显示出另一项重要差异：生产过程的条件对生产者是自知的，并且可以告知他人。尽管如此，媒体内容和媒体技术的生产是一个复杂过程，其中涉及多种不同形式的劳动，而这些劳动在某种程度上不会直接显现，而是隐藏在物品与人工制品之内。

Original · #111

Why are labour, capitalism and class important topics? The recent global crisis of capitalism has shown that class relations, precarious labour and unemployment are important aspects of contemporary capitalism. The gaps between the rich and the poor, between wage levels and profits and between the hours worked by those who have jobs and the number of unemployed people have vastly increased in the past decades in many countries. The unemployment rate of young people aged less than 25 years was 22.9% in the 2^7 EU countries in 2012 with particularly [54] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 high rates of around 50% in Greece and Spain (data source: Eurostat). At the same time, the average working hours per week are well above 40 hours for those who have full-time jobs (data source: Eurostat). Being a highly skilled knowledge worker with university education does not necessarily solve the problem: In the third quarter of 2012, 19% of EU citizens aged less than 25 who have attended a university were unemployed (data source: Eurostat). The unemployment rate of this sector of society was 53.2% in Greece and 39.5% in Spain (data source: Eurostat). The crisis of capitalism has to do with the deepening of class inequality.

Translation

为什么劳动、资本主义和阶级是重要议题？近年来资本主义的全球性危机表明，阶级关系、不稳定劳动和失业是当代资本主义的重要面向。过去几十年间，在许多国家，贫富差距、工资水平与利润之间的差距，以及有工作者的工作时间与失业人数之间的反差，都大幅扩大了。2012年，欧盟27国中25岁以下青年人的失业率为22.9%，其中希腊和西班牙的失业率尤其高，接近50%（数据来源：Eurostat）。与此同时，那些拥有全职工作的人平均每周工作时间都远远超过40小时（数据来源：Eurostat）。即便是受过大学教育的高技能知识工作者，也未必能摆脱这一问题：2012年第三季度，在欧盟25岁以下受过大学教育的公民中，有19%处于失业状态（数据来源：Eurostat）。这一社会群体的失业率在希腊高达53.2%，在西班牙则为39.5%（数据来源：Eurostat）。资本主义危机与阶级不平等的加深密切相关。

Original · #112

From 1995 to 2011, the wage share, i.e. the share of the wage sum in the gross domestic product, decreased from 74.3% in 1975 to 66.3% in 20^14 (data source:

Translation

从1995年到2011年，工资份额——即工资总额在国内生产总值中所占的比重——从1975年的74.3%下降至2014年的66.3%（数据来源：

Original · #113

AMECO – Annual Macro-Economic Database). This is an indication that wages have been relatively falling, which has resulted in rising profits. The economy matters and is an important context for studying media, communication, culture and digital media.

Translation

AMECO——年度宏观经济数据库）。这表明，工资的相对水平一直在下降，从而带来了利润的上升。经济至关重要，是研究媒体、传播、文化和数字媒体的重要背景。

Original · #114

Nicholas Garnham argued in 1990 that ‘the bibliography on the producers of culture is scandalously empty’ (Garnham 1990: 12) and that there is a focus on the analysis of media barons and their companies. Ten years later, he saw this problem as persisting: ‘The problem of media producers has been neglected in recent media and cultural studies – indeed in social theory generally – because of the general linguistic turn and the supposed death of the author that has accompanied it. If the author does not exist or has no intentional power, why study her or him?’ (Garnham 2000a: 84). Again ten years later, Vincent Mosco (2011: 230) argued that ‘labour remains the blind spot of communication and cultural studies’ and that therefore ‘labour needs to be placed high on the agenda or projects for the renewal of cultural studies’. A particular problem of contemporary Media and Communication Studies is the strong focus on the capital-side of the creative and cultural economy and the neglect of the labour side.

Translation

尼古拉斯·加纳姆在1990年指出：“关于文化生产者的文献贫乏得惊人”（Garnham 1990: 12），而研究的焦点却集中在媒体大亨及其公司的分析上。十年后，他认为这一问题依然存在：“媒体生产者的问题在近来的媒体与文化研究中——事实上，在整个社会理论中——之所以一直被忽视，是因为普遍的语言学转向，以及伴随这一转向而来的所谓作者之死。如果作者并不存在，或者不具有任何意向性力量，那么为什么还要研究她或他呢？”（Garnham 2000a: 84）。又过了十年，文森特·莫斯可（2011: 230）提出：“劳动仍然是传播与文化研究中的盲点”，因此，“必须把劳动置于文化研究复兴议程或项目的优先位置”。当代媒体与传播研究的一个突出问题在于，它过于聚焦创意与文化经济中资本的一侧，而忽视了劳动的一侧。

Original · #115

In recent years, the situation has however improved and communication labour has become the subject of a significant number of critical studies. A number of scholars has conducted important work for trying to overcome the labour blindspot of Media and Communication Studies. Vincent Mosco and Catherine McKercher have edited a series of collections about communicative labour (McKercher & Mosco 2006, 2007; Mosco, McKercher & Huws 2010) as well as a monograph (Mosco & McKercher 2008). A number of conferences has contributed to the emergence of a discourse on digital labour: ‘Digital Labour: Workers, Authors, Citizens’ (Western University, London, Otario, Canada, October 16-18,

Translation

不过，近年来情况已有所改善，传播劳动已经成为大量批判性研究的主题。不少学者开展了重要工作，试图克服媒体与传播研究中的劳动盲点。文森特·莫斯可和凯瑟琳·麦克彻编辑了一系列关于传播劳动的论文集（McKercher & Mosco 2006, 2007; Mosco, McKercher & Huws 2010），以及一部专著（Mosco & McKercher 2008）。若干次会议也推动了有关数字劳动的话语的兴起：“数字劳动：工人、作者、公民”（加拿大安大略省伦敦市西安大略大学，10月16—18日，

Original · #116

2009, see http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/digitallabour/, Burston, Dyer-Witheford & Hearn

Translation

‘数字劳工：工人、作者与公民’（加拿大安大略省伦敦市西安大略大学，2009年10月16日至18日，参见 http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/digitallabour/，Burston、Dyer-Witheford 与 Hearn 2011）。

Original · #117

journal tripleC has increasingly moved towards publishing Marxist works on digital media and informational capitalism, as the special issue ‘Marx is back – The importance of Marxist theory and research for Critical Communication Studies today’ (Fuchs & Mosco 2012) that featured 30 articles on more than 500 pages.

Translation

期刊 tripleC 近年来日益转向发表数字媒体与信息资本主义方面的马克思主义研究，这一点可从专题“Marx is back – The importance of Marxist theory and research for Critical Communication Studies today”（Fuchs & Mosco 2012）中清楚看出；该专题共收录30篇文章，篇幅超过500页。

Original · #118

The EU COST Action IS1202 ‘Dynamics of Virtual Work’ (2012-2016, creative and cultural economy on issues such as the global division of labour in this industry, the working conditions involved in the global ICT value chain, precarious cultural labour, the problem of ‘free’ digital labour and challenges to theorising digital labour’s value-creation, the challenge of prosumption (productive consumption) and playbour (play labour) for knowledge work, policy perspectives on virtual work (the role of trade unions, watchdog and civil society projects such as MakeITFair, policy problems and challenges for the regulation of virtual work, etc.) and occupational identities in knowledge work.

Translation

欧盟 COST 行动 IS1202“虚拟劳动的动力学”（2012—2016）聚焦于创意与文化经济中的一系列议题，例如：这一产业中的全球劳动分工、全球ICT价值链中的劳动条件、不稳定的文化劳动、‘免费’数字劳动的问题以及对数字劳动价值创造进行理论化所遇到的挑战；产消合一（生产性消费）与玩劳（游戏劳动）对知识工作的挑战；关于虚拟劳动的政策视角（如工会的角色、MakeITFair 一类监督性与公民社会项目、虚拟劳动监管中的政策问题与挑战等）；以及知识工作中的职业身份。

Original · #119

Examples of studies that have analysed labour in the value chain of media production include the analysis of flexible labour in Silicon Valley (Benner 2002), toxic work places in Silicon Valley’s ICT manufacturing industry (Pellow & Park

Translation

有关媒体生产价值链中劳动的分析已有若干研究实例，例如对硅谷灵活劳动的研究（Benner 2002），以及对硅谷ICT制造业中有毒工作场所的研究（Pellow & Park）

Original · #120

2002), value creation in the media industries (Bolin 2011), the unpaid digital la-

Translation

2002），媒体产业中的价值创造（Bolin 2011），以及用户的无偿数字劳动（Fuchs 2010; Burston, Dyer-Witheford & Hearn 2011; Scholz 2013），

Original · #121

bour of users (Fuchs 2010; Burston, Dyer-Witheford & Hearn 2011; Scholz

Translation

……用户的数字劳动（Fuchs 2010；Burston, Dyer-Witheford & Hearn 2011；Scholz

Original · #122

2013), labour and labour resistance in the ICT manufacturing industry in China

Translation

(Scholz 2013), 中国信息与通信技术制造业中的劳动与劳工抵抗

Original · #123

(Zhao 2007, 2008, 2010; Qiu 2009; Hong 2011), the proletarianisation of knowledge workers (Huws 2003), software engineering in India (Ilavarasan 2007,

Translation

（Zhao 2007, 2008, 2010; Qiu 2009; Hong 2011），知识工作者的无产阶级化（Huws 2003），印度的软件工程（Ilavarasan 2007，

Original · #124

2008; Upadhya & Vasavi 2008), precarious working conditions in the knowledge

Translation

（2008；Upadhya & Vasavi 2008），知识领域内不稳定的劳动条件

Original · #125

industries (Ross 2009), African slave work performed in the extraction of ‘conflict minerals’ needed for ICTs (Nest 2011). In addition, a kind of activist scholarship has developed that fostered by civil society organisations such as China Labor Watch (http://www.chinalaborwatch.org/), Finnwatch (www.finnwatch.org/), SACOM – Students & Scholars against Corporate Misbehaviour (sacom.hk), SOMO – Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (http://somo.nl/), Swedwatch (http://www.swedwatch.org) and projects like MakeITFair (http://makeitfair.org). This kind of scholarship has e.g. produced empirical research reports on conflict minerals in the ICT industry (Finnwatch 2007; SOMO

Translation

……在知识产业中的不稳定工作条件（Ross 2009）、ICT所需‘冲突矿产’开采中使用的非洲奴隶劳动（Nest 2011）。此外，一种行动主义取向的学术研究发展起来，它由诸如中国劳工观察（http://www.chinalaborwatch.org/）、Finnwatch（www.finnwatch.org）、SACOM——反企业不当行为学生学者监察（sacom.hk）、SOMO——跨国公司研究中心（http://somo.nl/）、Swedwatch（http://www.swedwatch.org）等公民社会组织和如‘MakeITFair’（http://makeitfair.org）等项目所推动。此类学术研究已产出/发布了关于信息与通信技术产业中冲突矿产的实证研究报告（Finnwatch 2007; SOMO 2007; Swedwatch 2007; Finnwatch & Swedwatch 2010）。

Original · #126

2007; Swedwatch 2007; Finnwatch & Swedwatch 2010) and working conditions

Translation

2007；Swedwatch 2007；Finnwatch 与 Swedwatch，2010）以及工作条件

Original · #127

at Foxconn in the production of iPhones and iPads (SACOM 2010, 2011a, b,

Translation

在富士康生产iPhone和iPad过程中的工作条件（SACOM 2010, 2011a, b, 2012）。

Original · #128

2012).

Translation

2012)。

Original · #129

If labour, class and capitalism matter for studying media, culture and communication, then a theoretical approach is needed that can guide the analysis. The most well-suited approach is in this context Marx’s labour theory of value. But why exactly Marx’s labour theory and not another theory of labour? In Christian philosophy, the existence of alienated labour and class relations was always considered as being God-given. In classical political economy, the idea of the Godgiven nature of toil and poverty was given up and class relations were conceived [56] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 as social relations. This relation was however considered as being necessary for progress, its potential sublation was not seen as a historical potential enabled by the development of the productive forces. Classical political economy ignored to clarify its claim that the current state of the capitalist mode of production is eternal. As a consequence, it saw the form of labour that exists in capitalism and that is characterised by a division of labour, private property and class relations, as eternal and naturalised it thereby. In contrast, Marx was critical of such views.

Translation

如果劳动、阶级和资本主义对于研究媒介、文化与传播具有重要意义，那么就需要一种能够指导分析的理论路径。在这一语境中，最合适的路径是马克思的劳动价值论。但为什么恰恰是马克思的劳动理论，而不是其他某种劳动理论呢？在基督教哲学中，异化劳动和阶级关系的存在始终被看作是上帝所赋予的。在古典政治经济学中，劳苦与贫困乃天赋所定这一观念被放弃了，阶级关系也被理解为社会关系。[56] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 然而，这种关系仍被视为是进步所必需的；它潜在的被扬弃可能性，并未被视为是由生产力发展所开启的一种历史可能性。古典政治经济学未能阐明其主张——即资本主义生产方式的当前状态是永恒的。因此，它把资本主义中那种以分工、私有财产和阶级关系为特征的劳动形式视为永恒的，并由此将其自然化了。与此相反，马克思对这类观点持批判态度。

Original · #130

Therefore his approach is a critique of political economy and not only a contribution to political economy. Marx was the first author who described the historical character of work as crucial point for understanding political economy (Marx

Translation

因此，他的进路是一种对政治经济学的批判，而不仅仅是对政治经济学的贡献。马克思是第一位将劳动的历史性特征作为理解政治经济学的关键来描述的学者（Marx

Original · #131

1867/1990: 131f). When discussing what work and labour are, Marx offers the

Translation

1867/1990: 131f）。在讨论工作与劳动究竟是什么时，马克思提出了最为全面的分析。

Original · #132

most thorough analysis that is available. In encyclopaedias and dictionaries of economics, entries such as labour, labour power, labour process or labour theory are therefore often predominantly associated with Marx and Marxist theory (see e.g. the corresponding entries in Eatwell, Milgate & Newman 1987).

Translation

这是目前最为详尽的分析。因此，在经济学百科全书和词典中，诸如“劳动”“劳动力”“劳动过程”或“劳动理论”等条目，通常主要与马克思及马克思主义理论相关联（例如，可参见 Eatwell、Milgate 与 Newman 于 1987 年的相应条目）。

Original · #133

What is the Marxian labour theory of value about? It is a theory that assumes that labour and labour time are crucial factors of capitalism. Abstract human labour is the substance of value; it is a common characteristic of commodities. The value of a commodity is the average labour time that is needed for producing it.

Translation

马克思的劳动价值论讲的是什么？它是一种认为劳动和劳动时间是资本主义关键因素的理论。抽象的人类劳动是价值的实体，也是商品的共同特征。商品的价值就是生产它所需要的平均劳动时间。

Original · #134

Labour time is the measure of value. Value has both a substance and a magnitude and is in these characteristics connected to human labour and labour time. Value is a ‘social system, which is common’ to all commodities, ‘the common factor’ in the exchange relation (Marx 1867/1990: 128). ‘A use-value, or useful article, therefore, has value only because abstract human labour is objectified [vergegenständlicht] or materialized in it’ (Marx 1867/1990: 129). The values of commodities are ‘determined by their cost of production, in other words by the labour time required to produce them’ (Marx 1867/1990: 137). The magnitude of value is measured ‘by means of the quantity of the ‘value-forming substance’, the labour, contained in the article. This quantity is measured by its duration, and the labourtime is itself measured on the particular scale of hours, days, etc’ (Marx

Translation

劳动时间是价值的尺度。价值既有实体，也有量，在这两方面都与人类劳动和劳动时间相联系。价值是所有商品“共有的社会系统”，是交换关系中的“共同因素”（Marx 1867/1990: 128）。“因此，一个使用价值，或者说有用物，之所以有价值，只是因为抽象人类劳动在其中被对象化[vergegenständlicht]或物化了”（Marx 1867/1990: 129）。商品的价值“由它们的生产成本决定，换言之，由生产它们所需要的劳动时间决定”（Marx 1867/1990: 137）。价值量是这样衡量的：“通过物品中所包含的‘形成价值的实体’——劳动——的数量来衡量。这个数量由其持续时间来计量，而劳动时间本身又是以小时、天等特定尺度来计量的”（Marx 1867/1990: 129）。

Original · #135

1867/1990: 129). To be precise, socially necessary labour is the substance of val-

Translation

(Marx 1867/1990: 129)。准确地说，社会必要劳动是价值的实体：

Original · #136

ue: ‘Socially necessary labour-time is the labour-time required to produce any use-value under the conditions of production normal for a given society and with the average degree of skill and intensity of labour prevalent in that society. […] What exclusively determines the magnitude of the value of any article is therefore the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour-time socially necessary for its production’ (Marx 1867/1990: 129). ‘The value of commodities as determined by labour time is only their average value’ (Marx 1858/1993: 137). ‘If we consider commodities as values, we consider them exclusively under the single aspect of realized, fixed, or, if you like, crystallized social labour’ (Marx 1865). Socially necessary labour determines an average commodity value that ‘is to be viewed on Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 [57] the one hand as the average value of the commodities produced in a particular sphere’ (Marx 1894/1991: 279).

Translation

“社会必要劳动时间，是指在一个特定社会中，在正常的生产条件下，以该社会通行的平均劳动熟练程度和劳动强度来生产任何一种使用价值所需要的劳动时间。……因此，任何一种物品的价值量，完全只是由社会必要劳动量，或者说，由生产该物品所必需的社会必要劳动时间来决定的”（Marx 1867/1990: 129）。 “由劳动时间决定的商品价值，只是它们的平均价值”（Marx 1858/1993: 137）。 “如果我们把商品作为价值来考察，那么我们就只是从一个单一方面来看待它们，也就是把它们看作已经实现的、固定的，或者如果你愿意，也可以说是结晶化了的社会劳动”（Marx, 1865）。 社会必要劳动决定了一种平均的商品价值，这种价值“应当一方面被看作某一特定生产领域中所生产商品的平均价值”（Marx 1894/1991: 279）。

Original · #137

Every commodity has an individual value (production time). What counts on the market and in the industry, is however the average production time. On the market in one industry, average labour times needed for producing similar commodities compete with each other. Socially necessary labour time is the average labour time that is needed in the entire economy for producing a commodity based on average skills and an average level of productivity. An individual capital has its own productivity, its workforce has a specific skill level, etc. So the average value of a commodity produced may deviate from the social necessary labour required to produce the commodity on average in the entire industry.

Translation

每一种商品都有其个别价值（生产时间）。然而在市场和行业中真正起作用的是平均生产时间。在同一行业的市场上，生产类似商品所需的平均劳动时间彼此竞争。社会必要劳动时间是在整个经济中以平均技能和平均生产率水平生产某种商品所需的平均劳动时间。单个资本有其自身的生产率，其劳动力也具有特定的技能水平等。因此，某个商品的平均价值可能会偏离在整个行业中按平均条件生产该商品所需的社会必要劳动时间。

Original · #138

The law of value has to do with the speed of production and the level of productivity: The higher the productivity used to create a commodity, the lower its value: ‘In general, the greater the productivity of labour, the less the labourtime required to produce an article, the less the mass of labour crystallized in that article, and the less its value. Inversely, the less the productivity of labour, the greater the labour-time necessary to produce an article, and the greater its value.

Translation

价值规律涉及生产速度和生产率水平：用于创造某商品的生产率越高，其价值就越低：‘一般而言，劳动生产率越高，生产一件物品所需的劳动时间就越少，凝结在该物品中的劳动量就越小，其价值也越低。反之，劳动生产率越低，生产一件物品所需的劳动时间就越多，其价值也越高。’

Original · #139

The value of a commodity, therefore, varies directly as the quantity, and inversely as the productivity, of the labour which finds its realization within the commodity’ (Marx 1867/1990: 131).

Translation

因此，一种商品的价值，与实现在该商品中的劳动量成正比，而与该劳动的生产率成反比”（Marx 1867/1990: 131）。

Original · #140

Workers are forced to enter class relations and to produce profit in order to survive, which enables capital to appropriate surplus. The notion of exploited surplus value is the main concept of Marx’s theory, by which he intends to show that capitalism is a class society. ‘The theory of surplus value is in consequence immediately the theory of exploitation’ (Negri 1991: 74) and, one can add, the theory of class and as a consequence the political demand for a classless society.

Translation

工人为求生存，被迫进入阶级关系并生产利润，这使得资本能够占有剩余。被剥削的剩余价值概念是马克思理论的主要概念，他借此表明资本主义是一种阶级社会。‘因此，剩余价值理论直接就是剥削理论’（Negri 1991: 74），并且我们还可以补充说，它也是关于阶级的理论，从而引出对无阶级社会的政治诉求。

Original · #141

Capital is not money, but money that is increased through accumulation, ‘money which begets money’ (Marx 1867/1990: 256). Marx argued that the value of labour power is the average amount of time that is needed for the production of goods that are necessary for survival (necessary labour time), which in capitalism is paid for by workers with their wages. Surplus labour time is all of labour time that exceeds necessary labour time, remains unpaid, is appropriated for free by capitalists, and transformed into money profit. Surplus value ‘is in substance the materialization of unpaid labour-time. The secret of the self-valorization of capital resolves itself into the fact that it has at its disposal a definite quantity of the unpaid labour of other people’ (Marx 1867/1990: 672). Surplus value ‘costs the worker labour but the capitalist nothing’, but ‘none the less becomes the legitimate property of the capitalist’ (Marx 1867/1990: 672). ‘Capital also developed into a coercive relation, and this compels the working class to do more work than would be required by the narrow circle of its own needs. As an agent in producing the activity of others, as an extractor of surplus labour and an exploiter of labourpower, it surpasses all earlier systems of production, which were based on directly [58] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 compulsory labour, in its energy and its quality of unbounded and ruthless activity’ (Marx 1867/1990: 425).

Translation

资本不是货币，而是经由积累而增殖的货币，是‘能够生出货币的货币’（Marx 1867/1990: 256）。马克思认为，劳动力的价值，是生产维持生存所必需的商品所需要的平均劳动时间，即必要劳动时间；在资本主义中，这部分价值通过工资支付给工人。剩余劳动时间则是超过必要劳动时间的那部分劳动时间；它不获报酬，被资本家无偿占有，并转化为货币利润。剩余价值‘实质上就是无酬劳动时间的物化。资本自行增殖的秘密，归根到底就在于：它支配着一定量的他人的无酬劳动’（Marx 1867/1990: 672）。剩余价值‘使工人付出劳动，却丝毫不使资本家付出什么’，但‘仍然成为资本家的合法财产’（Marx 1867/1990: 672）。‘资本还发展成为一种强制性关系，而正是这种关系迫使工人阶级去从事超出其自身狭隘需要范围所要求的更多劳动。资本作为生产他人活动的能动者，作为剩余劳动的榨取者和劳动力的剥削者，在其活力以及那种无边无情的活动性质方面，超过了一切以直接强制劳动为基础的早期生产制度’（Marx 1867/1990: 425）。

Original · #142

For Marx, capitalism is based on the permanent theft of unpaid labour from workers by capitalists. This is the reason why he characterizes capital as vampire and werewolf. ‘Capital is dead labour which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks’ (Marx 1867/1990:

Translation

对马克思而言，资本主义建立于资本家对工人无偿劳动的永久性掠夺之上。正是因此，他将资本描绘为吸血鬼与狼人。“资本是死劳动，它如同吸血鬼一般，唯有吸吮活劳动才能存活；吸吮的劳动越多，它便活得越旺盛”（Marx 1867/1990: 342）。

Original · #143

342). The production of surplus value ‘forms the specific content and purpose of

Translation

剩余价值的生产“构成了资本主义生产的特定内容和目的”。

Original · #144

capitalist production’ (Marx 1867/1990: 411), it is ‘the differentia specifica of capitalist production’, ‘the absolute law of this mode of production’ (Marx

Translation

“资本主义生产”（Marx 1867/1990: 411），它是“资本主义生产的种差”，是“这种生产方式的绝对规律”（Marx 1867/1990: 769）,

Original · #145

1867/1990: 769), the ‘driving force and the final result of the capitalist process of

Translation

（马克思 1867/1990: 769），它‘既是资本主义生产过程的驱动力，也是其最终结果’

Original · #146

production’ (Marx 1867/1990: 976).

Translation

“生产”（Marx 1867/1990: 976）。

Original · #147

Why do concepts such as labour time and surplus value matter for studying the media? I will try to make an argument on this issue by using several examples.

Translation

为什么劳动时间和剩余价值这类概念对媒介研究很重要？我将通过几个例子来论证这一点。

Original · #148

Muhanga Kawaya, an enslaved miner in North Kivu (Democratic Republic of Congo) who extracts minerals that are needed for the manufacturing of laptops and mobile phones, describes his work in the following way: ‘As you crawl through the tiny hole, using your arms and fingers to scratch, there's not enough space to dig properly and you get badly grazed all over. And then, when you do finally come back out with the cassiterite, the soldiers are waiting to grab it at gunpoint. Which means you have nothing to buy food with. So we're always hungry’ (Finnwatch 2007: 20).

Translation

穆汉加·卡瓦亚是刚果民主共和国北基伍一名被奴役的矿工，开采用于制造笔记本电脑和手机的矿物。他这样描述自己的工作：“当你钻进那个狭窄的小洞，全靠手臂和手指去刨挖时，根本没有足够的空间正常挖掘，浑身都会被严重擦伤。最后，当你终于带着锡石爬出洞口，士兵们早已守在那里，用枪指着你把东西抢走。这样一来，你连买食物的钱都没了。所以我们总是挨饿。”（Finnwatch 2007: 20）

Original · #149

A Chinese engineer at Foxconn Shenzhen, where computers and mobile phones that are sold by Western companies are assembled, says: ‘We produced the first generation iPad. We were busy throughout a 6-month period and had to work on Sundays. We only had a rest day every 13 days. And there was no overtime premium for weekends. Working for 12 hours a day really made me exhausted’ (SACOM 2010, 7). In Silicon Valley, a Cambodian ICT assembler exposed to toxic substances reports: ‘I talked to my co-workers who felt the same way [that I did] but they never brought it up, out of fear of losing their job’ (Pellow & Park

Translation

深圳富士康的一名中国工程师说——西方公司销售的电脑和手机正是在这里组装的——：“我们生产了第一代 iPad。那 6 个月里我们一直非常忙，星期天也得上班。我们每隔 13 天才能休息一天。而且周末加班没有加班费。每天工作 12 个小时，真的让我筋疲力尽。”（SACOM 2010, 7）在硅谷，一名暴露在有毒物质中的柬埔寨裔 ICT 组装工人报告说：“我和那些有同样感受的同事谈过，但他们从来不敢把这件事提出来，因为害怕丢掉工作。”（Pellow & Park

Original · #150

2002: 139). Foxconn shows the corporate social irresponsibility of capitalist me-

Translation

2002: 139）。富士康体现了资本主义制造业中企业的社会不负责任。

Original · #151

dia corporations (Sandoval 2014). ‘Apple […] is more than a ‘bad apple’. It is an example of structures of inequality and exploitation that characterize global capitalism’ (Sandoval 2013: 344).

Translation

跨国公司（Sandoval 2014）。‘苹果公司……并不仅仅是一颗‘坏苹果’。它是全球资本主义所特有的不平等与剥削结构的一个例证’（Sandoval 2013: 344）。

Original · #152

Mohan, a Project Manager in the Indian software industry who is in his mid

Translation

莫汉是印度软件行业的一名项目经理，年近中年。

Original · #153

30s, explains: ‘Work takes a priority. [...] The area occupied by family and others

Translation

在他三十多岁时，他解释道：“工作被摆在首位。[……] 家庭和他人所占据的空间……”

Original · #154

keeps reducing’ (D’Mello & Sahay 2007: 179). Another software engineer argues: ‘Sometimes you start at 8 am and then finish at 10–11 pm, five days a week. And anytime you can be called [...] Also you don’t develop any hobbies’ (D’Mello & Sahay 2007: 179).

Translation

“还在不断缩减”（D’Mello & Sahay 2007: 179）。另一位软件工程师则说：“有时候你早上八点开始工作，直到晚上十点或十一点才能结束，一周五天都是如此。你随时都可能被叫去工作［……］你也根本没机会发展任何个人爱好。”（D’Mello & Sahay 2007: 179）

Original · #155

A software engineer at Google describribes the working situation at Google: ‘Cons – Because of the large amounts of benefits (such as free foods) there seems to be an unsaid rule that employees are expected to work longer hours. Many peo- Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 [59] ple work more than 8 hours a day and then will be on email or work for a couple hours at home, at night as well (or on the weekends). It may be hard to perform extremely well with a good work/life balance. Advice to Senior Management – Give engineers more freedom to use 20% time to work on cool projects without the stress of having to do 120% work’ (data source: glassdoor.com).

Translation

谷歌的一名软件工程师这样描述谷歌的工作状况：“缺点——由于福利丰厚（比如免费食物），似乎存在一条不成文的规则：员工被期待延长工作时间。很多人每天工作超过8小时，晚上回到家还要花上几个小时处理电子邮件或继续工作（周末也是如此）。要在保持良好工作与生活平衡的同时又有极其出色的表现，可能很难。给高层管理者的建议——应给予工程师更多自由，让他们能够利用20%的时间去做一些有意思的项目，而不必承受必须完成120%工作量的压力。”（数据来源：glassdoor.com）

Original · #156

The Amazon Mechanical Turk is a ‘marketplace for work’ that ‘gives businesses and developers access to an on-demand, scalable workforce. Workers select from thousands of tasks and work whenever it is convenient’ (https://www.mturk.com/). Clients can advertise on the platform that they look for certain services for a certain wage, to which those who want to perform them can respond online. If the deal comes about, then the worker performs the task and submits the result to the client online. The work tasks almost exclusively involve informational work A search for speech transcription tasks (conducted on November 20th , 2012) resulted in three tasks that had (if one assumes that it takes on average six hours of work time to transcribe one hour of interview time) an hourly wage of a) US$4, b) US$4 and c) US$3. In contrast, typical professional transcription services (e.g. www.fingertipstyping.co.uk/prices_and_turnaround.htm, ly US$ 15-25 per hour.

Translation

Amazon Mechanical Turk 是一个“工作市场”，它“让企业和开发者能够获得一种按需、可扩展的劳动力。工人可以从成千上万项任务中进行选择，并在方便的时候工作”（https://www.mturk.com/）。客户可以在这一平台上发布信息，说明自己愿意以某一报酬购买某种服务；愿意承接这些工作的人则可以在线回应。如果交易达成，工人便完成任务，并将结果在线提交给客户。这里的工作任务几乎全部都是信息类工作。对语音转录任务的一次搜索（进行于 2012 年 11 月 20 日）显示，有三项任务的时薪分别为：a）4 美元，b）4 美元，c）3 美元（这里假定，平均而言，将 1 小时的访谈内容转录出来需要 6 小时工作时间）。相比之下，典型的专业转录服务（例如 www.fingertipstyping.co.uk/prices_and_turnaround.htm）的收费通常为每小时 15 至 25 美元。

Original · #157

Facebook has asked users to translate its site into other languages without payment. Translation is crowdsourced to users. Javier Olivan, Head of Growth, Engagement, Mobile Adoption at Facebook, sees user-generated platform translation as ‘cool’ because Facebook’s goal is to ‘have one day everybody on the planet on Facebook’ (MSNBC 2008). ‘Valentin Macias, 29, a Californian who teaches English in Seoul, South Korea, has volunteered in the past to translate for the nonprofit Internet encyclopaedia Wikipedia but said he won't do it for Facebook. ‘(Wikipedia is) an altruistic, charitable, information-sharing, donation-supported cause,’ Macias told The Associated Press in a Facebook message. ’Facebook is not. Therefore, people should not be tricked into donating their time and energy to a multimillion-dollar company so that the company can make millions more – at least not without some type of compensation’ (MSNBC 2008).

Translation

Facebook 曾要求用户无偿将其网站翻译成其他语言，将翻译工作众包给用户。Facebook负责增长、用户参与和移动端普及的主管 Javier Olivan 认为，由用户生成的平台翻译“很酷”，因为 Facebook 的目标是“有一天让地球上的每个人都使用 Facebook”（MSNBC 2008）。29岁的加州人 Valentin Macias 在韩国首尔教授英语，他曾自愿为非营利性网络百科全书 Wikipedia 进行翻译，但表示不会为 Facebook 这样做。Macias 在通过 Facebook 发给美联社的一则消息中说：“（Wikipedia）是一项利他、慈善、共享信息、依靠捐款支持的事业，而 Facebook 不是。因此，人们不应被欺骗，将自己的时间和精力无偿奉献给一家市值数百万美元的公司，好让它再多赚数百万——至少在没有任何补偿的情况下不应如此”（MSNBC 2008）。

Original · #158

These examples outline various forms of labour associated with the ICT industry. They differ in amount to the levels of payment, health risks, physical, ideological and social violence, stress, free time, overtime and the forms of coercion and control the workers are experiencing, but all have in common that human labour power is exploited in a way that monetarily benefits ICT corporations and has negative impacts on the lives, bodies or minds of workers.

Translation

这些例子勾勒出与信息通信技术（ICT）产业相关的各种劳动形式。它们在薪酬水平、健康风险、身体暴力、意识形态暴力与社会暴力、压力、闲暇时间、加班状况以及工人所承受的强制与控制形式等方面各不相同；但所有形式都有一个共同点：人的劳动力被以某种方式剥削，这种方式使ICT企业在金钱上获利，并对工人的生活、身体或精神产生了负面影响。

Original · #159

Labour time is so crucial for capitalism because labour power is organised as a commodity and therefore every second of labour costs money. This is the reason why capital has the interest to make workers work as long as possible for as little wages as possible and to make them labour as intensive as possible so that the highest possible profit that is the outcome of unpaid labour time can be achieved. [60] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 20^14 Value in a Marxist approach (Marx’s labour theory of value) is the amount of performed labour hours that is needed for the production of a certain commodity.

Translation

劳动时间之所以对资本主义如此关键，是因为劳动力被组织为商品，因此每一秒的劳动都意味着成本。正因如此，资本才会试图让工人在尽可能长的劳动时间里获得尽可能少的工资，同时劳动强度要尽可能高，以获取尽可能高的利润——这种利润正是无偿劳动时间的产物。[60]《Culture Unbound》第6卷，2014在马克思主义的进路中（马克思的劳动价值论），价值是生产某种商品所需的已付出的劳动时间量。

Original · #160

There is an individual labour time for the production of every single commodity that is difficult to measure. What matters economically is therefore the average labour time that is spent during a certain time period (such as one year) for producing a commodity. Average labour values can be calculated for commodity production in one company, a group of companies, an entire industry in a country or internationally. Capital strives to reduce the value of a commodity in order to increase profits. A decrease of the value of a commodity means a speed-up of production, i.e. the same labour time that costs a certain amount of money will suddenly produce a higher number of the same commodity, although the labour costs have not increased, which allows accumulating more profit per time unit.

Translation

对于每一种特定商品而言，其生产过程都存在个别的劳动时间，但这很难衡量。因此，从经济角度看，真正重要的是在特定时期内（例如一年）生产某种商品所耗费的平均劳动时间。平均劳动价值可以针对一家公司、一组公司、一国整个行业，乃至国际范围商品生产来计算。资本总是力图降低商品价值，以增加利润。商品价值的下降意味着生产速度的加快；也就是说，在花费的货币成本一定的情况下，同等劳动时间现在能突然生产出更多同一种商品，尽管劳动成本并未增加。这使得单位时间内能积累更多利润。

Original · #161

The outlined examples show the importance of labour time for the ICT industry: Slave mineral workers like Muhanga Kawaya work at gunpoint with the threat of being killed, which makes them work long hours for low or no wages so that a maximum of labour time remains unpaid. The workers at Foxconn are working long hours and unpaid overtime so that Apple and other ICT companies reduce labour costs. Foxconn workers have relatively low wages and work very long hours. Foxconn tries to lengthen the working day in order to increase the sum of hours that is unpaid. Working conditions. ICT assemblers in Silicon Valley, who are predominantly female immigrants, have quite comparable labour conditions and many of them are exposed during many working hours to toxic substances. In the Indian software industry and at Google, software engineers are overworked.

Translation

上述例子表明，劳动时间对ICT产业至关重要：像穆汉加·卡瓦亚这样的奴隶矿工在枪口威逼下劳动，时刻面临被杀死的威胁；这迫使他们长时间工作，却只能获得微薄工资甚至根本拿不到工资，从而使最大限度的劳动时间得不到报酬。富士康的工人长时间工作，并且进行无偿加班，以便让苹果及其他ICT公司降低劳动成本。富士康的工人工资相对较低，工作时间却极长。富士康试图延长工作日，以增加无偿劳动的时长总和。就劳动条件而言，硅谷的ICT装配工人——其中绝大多数是女性移民——其劳动条件与此相当类似，而且许多人长时间暴露在有毒物质之下。在印度软件业和谷歌，软件工程师同样工作过度。

Original · #162

They work very long hours and do not have much time for hobbies, relaxing, friends and family. Software developers at Google, in India and in other countries and places are highly stressed because they work in project-based software engineering with high time pressure. Their lifetime tends to become labour time. The Amazon Mechanical Turk is a method of getting work done in the same time as in the case of regular employment by irregular forms of labour that are cheaper. It helps companies to find workers, who work for the time a regular employee would take for a certain task, but for a lower payment. The idea is to crowdsource work over the Internet in order to reduce costs, i.e. to pay less for the same labour time as under regular working conditions. Facebook translation goes one step further and tries to outsource work to users, who are expected to perform the translation without remuneration. The idea is to transform usage time into work time.

Translation

他们工作时长极久，几乎没有时间兼顾兴趣爱好、休闲放松、朋友和家人。谷歌、印度以及其他国家和地区的软件开发者都承受着巨大压力，因为他们从事的是压力巨大、项目驱动的软件工程工作。他们的人生时间往往变为劳动时间。Amazon Mechanical Turk 是一种完成工作的方式：它使用更廉价的非正式劳动形式，以与常规雇佣同等的时间完成工作。它帮助企业找到这样的工人：他们为完成某项任务投入与正式员工相同的时间，但报酬较低。其理念是通过互联网进行众包以降低成本，即同样的劳动时间，支付的报酬低于常规工作条件。Facebook translation则更进一步，试图将工作外包给用户，并期望他们在没有报酬的情况下完成翻译。其理念是将使用时间转变为劳动时间。

Original · #163

The lengthening of working day, unpaid working times, overwork, spare time as labour time, overtime – the examples show that labour time is a crucial aspect of the capitalist ICT industry. Different forms of labour – mining, hardware assemblate, software engineering, callcentre work, ewaste labour, etc – come together in the international division of digital labour (Fuchs 2014a): digital labour should best be understood as an umbrella term for all acts of labour conducted in an interconnected but mostly anonymous manner in order to enable the existence Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 [61] of digital media and digital media usage. This includes forms of labour that are expressions of different modes of the organization of the productive forces (agricultural labour, industrial labour, knowledge labour) and different modes of production (as for example: slavery, feudalism, capitalism, patriarchy, communism).

Translation

工作日的延长、无偿劳动时间、过度劳动、将闲暇时间转化为劳动时间、加班——这些例子表明，劳动时间是资本主义ICT产业的一个关键面向。不同形式的劳动——采矿、硬件组装、软件工程、呼叫中心工作、电子废弃物处理劳动等——在数字劳动的国际分工中汇聚到一起（Fuchs 2014a）：数字劳动最好被理解为一个总括性概念，指的是一切以相互关联但大多匿名的方式进行、以便数字媒体及其使用得以存在的劳动行为。这其中包括体现不同生产力组织形态（农业劳动、工业劳动、知识劳动）以及不同生产方式（例如奴隶制、封建主义、资本主义、父权制、共产主义）的各种劳动形式。

Original · #164

The phenomenon of digital labour shows that capitalism incorporates other modes of production that are sublated in the capitalist mode and that the information economy as a specific mode of the organization of productive forces does not substitute agriculture and industry, but that these modes rather are interconnected in contemporary economies (Fuchs 2014a).

Translation

数字劳动这一现象表明，资本主义吸纳了其他生产方式，这些生产方式在资本主义生产方式中被扬弃；同时，信息经济作为组织生产力的一种特定方式，并不会取代农业和工业，相反，这些方式在当代经济中相互交织（Fuchs 2014a）。

Original · #165

The concept of the international division of digital labour (IDDL) shows that various forms of labour that are characteristic of various stages of capitalism and various modes of capitalist and pre-capitalist modes of production interact so that different forms of separated and highly exploited forms of double free wage labour, unpaid ‘free’ labour, feminised and ‘housewifised’ labour and slave labour form a global network of exploited labour forms that creates value and forms profits of the variety of companies involved in the capitalist ICT industry. The IDDL shows that stages of capitalist development and historical modes of production (such as patriarchal housework, classical slavery, feudalism, capitalism in general, industrial capitalism, informational capitalism) are not simply successive stages of economic development, where one form substitutes an older one, but that they are all dialectically mediated (Fuchs 2014a). The earliest form of private property was constituted in the patriarchal family. The patriarchal mode of production and housework continues to exist in the ICT value chain in the form of feminised and housewifised work of the ‘free’ online workers of Google, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter & Co and the highly controlled and exploited work of call centre agents and ICT manufacturers. Classical and feudal forms of slavery, in which workers are not double free, but rather the property of slave owners who physically coerce and almost limitlessly exploit them, persist in the extraction of conflict minerals that form the physical foundation of ICTs. Capitalism is based not only on capital accumulation, but also on double-free wage labour, which means that workers are by the threat of dying of hunger compelled to sell their labour power as commodity to capitalists, which alienates them from the process and the products of capitalist production and installs wage labour as specific form of exploitation of labour. Double-free wage labour takes on several specific forms in the ICT value chain. First, there are wage workers who work under conditions that resemble the early stage of industrial capitalism. These are manufacturing and assemblage workers, who risk their health and lives at work. Their work is no fun at all. They are subject to high levels of control, workplace surveillance and standardised work, which shows that Taylorist and Fordist factory work does not cease to exist, but continues to exist under new conditions in the information society. Also call centre agents are facing a kind of Taylorist work situation, with the difference that their labour is in contrast to ICT manufacturing and assemblage [62] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 not primarily physical, but informational in nature in respect to the circumstance that their main activities are talking, convincing with affects, typing, using phone systems and accessing databases. The IDDL also involves relatively new forms of wage labour that are forms of highly paid and highly stressful play work, as represented by the Google worker.

Translation

数字劳动国际分工（IDDL）这一概念表明：资本主义不同阶段所特有的各种劳动形式，以及资本主义与前资本主义生产方式的不同形态之间，会彼此交织、相互作用；由此，“双重自由”的雇佣劳动、无偿的“自由”劳动、女性化和“家庭主妇化”的劳动以及奴隶劳动——这些彼此分离且都受到高度剥削的形式——共同构成了一个受剥削劳动形式的全球网络。这个网络创造价值，并形成参与资本主义ICT产业的各类公司的利润。IDDL表明，资本主义发展的各个阶段和历史上的生产方式（如父权制家务劳动、古典奴隶制、封建主义、一般意义上的资本主义、工业资本主义、信息资本主义）并不是经济发展中一系列简单更替的阶段（即一种形式取代另一种），而是都处在辩证中介的关系之中（Fuchs 2014a）。 最早的私有财产形式是在父权制家庭中形成的。父权制生产方式和家务劳动在ICT价值链中至今仍然存在，其表现形式包括：谷歌、脸书、YouTube、Twitter等公司的“自由”在线劳动者所从事的女性化和“家庭主妇化”劳动，以及呼叫中心坐席和ICT制造工人那种受到高度控制和剥削的劳动。古典和封建形式的奴隶制——在这种制度下，劳动者并非“双重自由”的，而是奴隶主的财产，奴隶主通过人身强制对他们进行几乎无止境的剥削——也依然存在于冲突矿产的开采之中，而这些矿产构成了ICT的物质基础。 资本主义不仅以资本积累为基础，也以“双重自由”的雇佣劳动为基础。这意味着，劳动者在饥饿致死的威胁下，被迫将自己的劳动力作为商品出卖给资本家；这使他们同资本主义生产过程及其产品相异化，并将雇佣劳动确立为一种特殊的劳动剥削形式。“双重自由”的雇佣劳动在ICT价值链中又呈现出若干具体形态。首先，有一类雇佣劳动者是在类似工业资本主义早期的条件下工作的，他们便是制造和装配工人：他们在工作中冒着健康受损乃至生命危险，其工作毫无乐趣可言，并且承受着高度控制、工作场所监控和标准化劳动。这表明，泰勒主义和福特主义式的工厂劳动并未消失，而是在信息社会的新条件下延续了下来。 呼叫中心坐席人员同样面临某种泰勒主义式的工作处境，其不同之处在于：与ICT制造和装配劳动相比，他们的劳动（见脚注[62] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014）主要不是体力性的，而是信息性的——考虑到其主要活动是交谈、运用情感进行说服、打字、使用电话系统以及调取数据库。IDDL还包括一些相对较新的雇佣劳动形式，即一种高薪但高度紧张的“游戏式劳动”，其代表便是谷歌员工。

Original · #166

In his underestimated book Marxism and Literature, Raymond Williams questions the Marxism’s historical tendency to see culture as ‘dependent, secondary, ‘superstructural’: a realm of ‘mere’ ideas, beliefs, arts, customs, determined by the basic material history’ (Williams 1977: 19). He discusses various Marxist concepts that Marxist theories have used for discussing the relationship of the economy and culture: determination, reflection, reproduction, mediation, homology.

Translation

在那部常被低估的著作《马克思主义与文学》中，雷蒙德·威廉斯质疑了马克思主义在历史上将文化视为‘依附性的、次要的、“上层建筑的”’的倾向：一个由‘仅仅如此的’观念、信仰、艺术、习俗所构成的领域，由基础性的物质历史所决定（Williams 1977: 19）。他还辨析了马克思主义理论在探讨经济与文化关系时使用的各种概念：决定、反映、再生产、中介、同构。

Original · #167

These approaches would all assume a relationship between the economy and culture with a varying degree of causal determination or mutual causality. But all of them would share the assumption of ‘the separation of ‘culture’ from material social life’ (Williams 1977: 19) that Williams (1977: 59) considers to be ‘idealist’.

Translation

这些路径都预设了经济与文化之间存在某种关系，只不过这种关系的因果决定程度或相互因果性有所不同。但它们都共享一个假定——将“文化”与物质性的社会生活分离开来；威廉斯认为，这一假定是“唯心主义的”（Williams 1977: 19, 59）。

Original · #168

The problem of these approaches would be that they are not ‘materialist enough’ (Williams 1977: 92).

Translation

这些进路的问题在于，它们还不够“唯物主义”（Williams 1977: 92）。

Original · #169

Williams (1977: 78) argues that Marx opposed the ‘separation of ‘areas’ of thought and activity’. Production would be distinct from ‘consumption, distribution, and exchange’ as well as from social relations (Williams 1977: 91). Productive forces would be ‘all and any of the means of the production and reproduction of real life’, including the production of social knowledge and co-operation (Williams 1977: 91). Politics and culture would be realms of material production: ruling classes would produce castles, palaces, churches, prisons, workhouses, schools, weapons, a controlled press, etc (Williams 1977: 93). Therefore there would be a ‘material character of the production of a social and political order’ and the concept of the superstructure an evasion (Williams 1977: 93).

Translation

威廉斯（1977: 78）认为，马克思反对将“思想和活动的各个‘领域’割裂开来”。生产不仅区别于“消费、分配和交换”，也区别于社会关系（Williams 1977: 91）。生产力是指“现实生活得以生产和再生产的一切手段”，包括社会知识和协作的生产（Williams 1977: 91）。政治和文化同属物质生产的领域：统治阶级会生产城堡、宫殿、教堂、监狱、济贫院、学校、武器、受控制的报刊等（Williams 1977: 93）。因此，“社会与政治秩序的生产具有物质性”，而上层建筑的概念则成了一种规避性的提法（Williams 1977: 93）。

Original · #170

In order to illustrate his point that culture is material, Williams mentions a passage from Marx’s Grundrisse: ‘Productive labour is only that which produces capital. Is it not crazy, asks e.g. (or at least something similar) Mr Senior, that the piano maker is a productive worker, but not the piano player, although obviously the piano would be absurd without the piano player? But this is exactly the case.

Translation

为说明文化是物质的，威廉斯引用了马克思《政治经济学批判大纲》中的一段话：“只有生产资本的劳动，才是生产劳动。比如说——或者至少大意如此——西尼尔先生问道：‘钢琴制造者是生产工人，而钢琴演奏者却不是，这难道不荒谬吗？然而显而易见，没有钢琴演奏者，钢琴本身就失去意义。’ 但情况恰恰就是如此。”

Original · #171

The piano maker reproduces capital; the pianist only exchanges his labour for revenue. But doesn't the pianist produce music and satisfy our musical ear, does he not even to a certain extent produce the latter? He does indeed: his labour produces something; but that does not make it productive labour in the economic sense; no more than the labour of the madman who produces delusions is productive. Labour becomes productive only by producing its own opposite’ (Marx

Translation

钢琴制造者再生产资本；钢琴家却只以自己的劳动换取收入。但是，钢琴家难道不生产音乐，并满足我们的听觉吗？他难道不甚至在某种程度上也生产了后者？的确如此：他的劳动确实生产出某种东西；但这并不使它成为经济学意义上的生产性劳动，正如疯子的劳动生产出幻觉，却并不因此成为生产性劳动一样。劳动只有在生产出自身的对立物时，才成为生产性劳动。”（马克思）

Original · #172

1858/1993: 305). Williams remarks that today, other than in Marx’s time, ‘the

Translation

马克思 1858/1993：305）。威廉斯指出，如今——不同于马克思所处的时代——‘音乐的生产（而不仅仅是其乐器）已成为资本主义生产的一个重要分支’（Williams 1977：93）。

Original · #173

production of music (and not just its instruments) is an important branch of capitalist production’ (Williams 1977: 93).

Translation

“音乐的生产（而不只是其乐器的生产）是资本主义生产的一个重要分支。” (Williams 1977: 93)

Original · #174

Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 [63] The point that interests me here is not what labour is productive and unproductive, but the question what constitutes the economy and culture. If the two realms are separated, then building the piano is work and part of the economy and playing it is not work, but culture. Marx leaves however no doubt that playing the piano produces a use-value that satisfies human ears and is therefore a form of work. As a consequence, the production of music must just like the production of the piano be an economic activity. Williams (1977: 94) stresses that cultural materialism means to see the material character of art, ideas, aesthetics and ideology and that when considering piano making and piano playing it is important to discover and describe ‘relations between all these practices’ and to not assume ‘that only some of them are material’.

Translation

我在这里关注的要点，不是哪些劳动具有生产性、哪些不具有生产性，而是经济与文化究竟由何构成的问题。如果将这两个领域截然分开，那么制造钢琴属于劳动，是经济的一部分；而弹奏钢琴便不是劳动，而是文化。然而，马克思明确表示，弹奏钢琴会产生满足人耳的使用价值，因而同样是一种劳动。如此一来，音乐的生产就必须像钢琴的生产一样，属于经济活动。威廉斯（1977: 94）强调，文化唯物主义意味着要看到艺术、观念、美学和意识形态的物质性；在考虑钢琴制造与钢琴演奏时，重要的是要发现并描述“所有这些实践之间的关系”，而不是预设“只有其中某些实践才具有物质性”。

Original · #175

Besides the piano maker and the piano player there is also the composer of music. All three works are needed and necessarily related in order to guarantee the existence of piano music. Fixing one of these three productive activities categorically as culture and excluding the others from it limits the concept of culture and does not see that one cannot exist without the other. Along with this separation come political assessments of the separated entities. A frequent procedure is to include the work of the composer and player and to exclude the work of the piano maker. Cultural elitists then argue that only the composer and player are truly creative, whereas vulgar materialists hold that only the piano maker can be a productive worker because he works with his hands and produces an artifact. Both judgments are isolationist and politically problematic.

Translation

除了钢琴制造者和钢琴演奏者之外，还有音乐的作曲者。为了保证钢琴音乐的存在，这三种劳动都不可或缺，而且彼此必然相关。若将三种生产活动中的某一种断然规定为文化，而将其余排除在外，就会窄化文化的概念，也无法认识到它们彼此依存、缺一不可的事实。 伴随着这种分离而来的是对被分隔开来的活动所作的政治性评价。一种常见做法是将作曲家和演奏者的劳动纳入文化，而把钢琴制造者的劳动排除在外。于是，文化精英主义者便声称，只有作曲家和演奏者才是真正有创造性的；而庸俗唯物主义者则认为，只有钢琴制造者才算得上生产性劳动者，因为他用双手劳动，并生产出一件物品。这两种判断都是孤立主义的，而且在政治上都有问题。

Original · #176

In contrast, Raymond Williams (1977: 111) formulates as an important postulate of Cultural Materialism that ‘[c]ultural work and activity are not […] a superstructure’ because people would use physical resources for leisure, entertainment and art. Combining Williams’ assumptions that cultural work is material and economic and that the physical and ideational activities underlying the existence of culture are interconnected means that culture is a totality that connects all physical and ideational production processes that are connected and required for the existence of culture. Put in simpler terms this means that the piano maker, the composer and the piano player are for Williams all three cultural workers.

Translation

相反，雷蒙德·威廉斯（1977：111）将如下命题表述为文化唯物主义的一项重要公设：‘[c]ultural work and activity are not […] a superstructure’，因为人们会将物质资源用于休闲、娱乐和艺术。将威廉斯的两项前提结合起来——即文化工作既是物质的、经济的，并且构成文化存在基础的物质活动与观念活动又是相互关联的——便意味着：文化是一个总体，它联结了一切相互关联且为文化存在所必需的物质生产过程和观念生产过程。简言之，这意味着在威廉斯看来，钢琴制造者、作曲家和钢琴演奏者三者都是文化工作者。

Original · #177

Williams (1977: 139) concludes that Cultural Materialism needs to see ‘the complex unity of the elements’ required for the existence of culture: ideas, institutions, formations, distribution, technology, audiences, forms of communication and interpretation, worldviews (138p). A sign system would involve the social relations that produce it, the institutions in which it is formed and its role as a cultural technology (Williams 1977: 140). In order to avoid the ‘real danger of separating human thought, imagination and concepts from ‘men’s material lifeprocess’’ (Williams 1989: 203), one needs like Marx to focus on the ‘totality of human activity’ (Williams 1989: 203) when discussing culture. We ‘have to emphasise cultural practice as from the beginning social and material’ (Williams [64] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014

Translation

威廉斯（1977：139）指出，文化唯物主义必须看到文化存在所必需的“要素的复杂统一”：观念、制度、构想形式、分配、技术、受众、传播与解释的形式，以及世界观（第138页）。一个符号系统包含产生它的社会关系、它得以形成的制度，以及它作为一种文化技术所起的作用（Williams 1977：140）。为了避免“将人类的思想、想象和概念与‘人的物质生活过程’割裂开来的真正危险”（Williams 1989：203），在讨论文化时，我们需要像马克思那样，聚焦于“人类活动的总体性”（Williams 1989：203）。我们“必须强调，文化实践从一开始就是社会的和物质的”（Williams [64] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014）。

Original · #178

1989: 206). The ‘productive forces of ‘mental labour’ have, in themselves, an in-

Translation

威廉姆斯（1989: 206）指出，“‘脑力劳动’的‘生产力’自身内在地具有一种无法摆脱的物质性，因而也具有一种社会历史”（Williams 1989: 211）。

Original · #179

escapable material and thus social history’ (William 1989: 211).

Translation

因而无法避免的物质乃至社会史”（William 1989: 211）。

Original · #180

In his later works, Williams stressed that it is particularly the emergence of an information economy in which information, communication and audiences are sold as commodities that requires rethinking the separation of the economy and culture and to see culture as material. ‘[I]nformation processes […] have become a qualitative part of economic organization’ (Williams 1981: 231). ‘Thus a major

Translation

在其晚期著作中，威廉斯强调，正是信息经济的兴起——在这种经济中，信息、传播和受众都被当作商品出售——要求我们重新思考‘经济’与‘文化’的分离，并将文化视为物质性的。‘信息过程……已成为经济组织（运作）中一个质性的组成部分’（Williams 1981: 231）。‘因此，一个重大

Original · #181

part of the whole modern labour process must be defined in terms which are not

Translation

“因此，整个现代劳动过程中一个主要的部分，在界定其术语时，不得不采用那些不易从理论上与传统‘文化’活动相分离的说法。”

Original · #182

easily theoretically separable from the traditional ‘cultural’ activities. […] so many more workers are involved in the direct operations and activations of these systems that there are quite new social and social-class complexities’ (Williams

Translation

在理论上，它很容易与传统的‘文化’活动区分开来。[…] 直接参与这些系统运作与启动的工人数量如此之多，以至于出现了全新的社会和阶级复杂性。

Original · #183

1981: 232).

Translation

1981: 232)。

Original · #184

As information is an important aspect of economic production in information societies, the culture concept cannot be confined to popular culture, entertainment, works of arts and the production of meaning in the consumption of goods, but needs to be extended to the realm of economic production and value creation. The concept of cultural labour is therefore of crucial importance.

Translation

信息是信息社会中经济生产的重要方面，因此“文化”概念不能仅仅局限于大众文化、娱乐、艺术作品和商品消费中的意义生产，而必须扩展到经济生产与价值创造的领域。所以，“文化劳动”这一概念至关重要。

Original · #185

In contemporary capitalism, pianos, compositions (via intellectual property rights) and music are all three commodities. So what unites the cultural work of the piano maker, the composer and the musician is that the commodity form mediates their works. Raymond Williams argues that this circumstance requires us to think of culture as material and economic. But he adds that in the first instance all of these practices are material because they produce use-values of different kinds.

Translation

在当代资本主义中，钢琴、乐曲（通过知识产权）和音乐表演这三者都是商品。因此，将钢琴制造者、作曲家和音乐家的文化劳动联系在一起的，是商品形式对其劳动成果的中介作用。雷蒙德·威廉斯认为，这种状况要求我们从物质和经济角度来思考文化。但他又补充道，首先，所有这些实践本质上都是物质的，因为它们生产出不同类型的使用价值。

Original · #186

Taking the example of music culture and transferring it to digital media, we find correspondences: there are digital media makers who produce hardware, digital media composers who create software, and digital media users who operate software on hardware in a productive manner in order to create content, communications and social relations. Those who reduce digital labour to digital content producers just like those who reduce cultural labour to the production of meaning and ideas separate in an idealistic manner two elements that necessarily belong together. Thinking the elements that enable digital media to exist together requires a common category: the international division of digital labour (IDDL) (Fuchs

Translation

以音乐文化为例并将其迁移至数字媒介领域，我们会发现其间存在着对应关系：有生产硬件的数字媒介制造者，有创作软件的数字媒介“作曲家”，也有以富有生产力的方式操作硬件上的软件、从而创造内容、传播及社会关系的数字媒介使用者。那些将数字劳动简化为数字内容生产的人，就如同那些将文化劳动简化为意义和观念生产的人一样，都是以一种唯心主义的方式，将两个必然内在联系的要素割裂开来。要想把这些使数字媒介可能存在的要素结合在一起思考，就需要一个共同的范畴：数字劳动的国际分工（IDDL）（Fuchs

Original · #187

2014a).

Translation

2014a）。

Original · #188

The global collective ICT worker consists of many different workers: unpaid digital labour, a highly paid and highly stressed knowledge worker aristocracy, knowledge workers in developing countries, Taylorist call centre wage workers, Taylorist hardware assemblers and manufacturers, slave mine workers. This shows that ‘double free’ wage labour in the ICT industry and, as Marcel van der Linden and Karl Heinz Roth (2009) argue, in general is ‘no longer the strategic and privileged part of the global working class and that slaves, contract workers, (pseudo-) self-employment and others are equally important for theorising capitalism’ (van der Linden & Roth 2009, 24; translation from German).

Translation

全球性ICT集体劳动者由多种不同类型的工人构成：无偿的数字劳工、高薪但高压的知识工人贵族、发展中国家的知识工人、泰勒制呼叫中心雇佣劳动者、泰勒制硬件装配工与制造工人，以及奴隶般的矿工。这表明，在ICT产业中——并且，正如Marcel van der Linden与Karl Heinz Roth（2009）所主张的，一般而言也是如此——‘双重自由’的雇佣劳动‘已不再是全球工人阶级中具有战略性和特权性的部分；相反，奴隶、合同工、（伪）自雇者及其他群体，对于理论化资本主义同样重要’（van der Linden & Roth 2009, 24；译自德语）。

Original · #189

Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 [65] Certain scholars argue that the rise of a ‘knowledge society’ or ‘cognitive capitalism’ as well as of ‘social media’ has resulted in an outdatedness and nonapplicability of the labour theory of value to contemporary capitalism. Virno (2003: 100) says that the law of value is ‘shattered and refuted by capitalist development itself’. Hardt and Negri (2004: 145) argue that the ‘temporal unity of labor as the basic measure of value today makes no sense’. Vercellone (2010: 90) writes that ‘cognitive capitalism’ has resulted in the ‘crisis of the law of value’ and ‘a crisis of measurement that destabilizes the very sense of the fundamental categories of the political economy; labor, capital and obviously, value’. The rise of knowledge in production, what Marx (1858/1993) termed the General Intellect, would result in the circumstance that labour, particularly knowledge labour ‘can no longer be measured on the basis of labour time directly dedicated to production’ (Vercellone 2007: 30). Abstract labour, ‘measured in a unit of time’ would no longer be ‘the tool allowing for the control over the labor and simultaneously favouring the growth of social productivity’ (Vercellone 2010: 90). Creativity and knowledge would today form ‘the main source of value’ (Vercellone 2010: 105).

Translation

《Culture Unbound》第6卷（2014年）[65] 一些学者认为，“知识社会”或“认知资本主义”以及“社交媒体”的兴起，已使劳动价值论对于当代资本主义变得过时且不适用。维尔诺（Virno 2003: 100）称，价值规律已被“资本主义发展本身所击碎并驳倒”。哈特和奈格里（Hardt and Negri 2004: 145）则认为，当今把“劳动的时间统一性”作为价值的基本尺度“毫无意义”。维尔切洛内（Vercellone 2010: 90）写道，“认知资本主义”导致了“价值规律的危机”，以及“一场测量危机，它动摇了政治经济学基本范畴本身的意义：劳动、资本以及显然，价值”。马克思（1858/1993）称之为“一般智力”（General Intellect）的生产中知识的兴起，将导致如下情形：劳动，尤其是知识劳动，“不能再依据直接投入生产的劳动时间来衡量”（Vercellone 2007: 30）。以“时间单位”来计量的抽象劳动将不再是“那种既能实现对劳动的控制、同时又促进社会生产率增长的工具”（Vercellone 2010: 90）。创造力与知识如今正构成“价值的主要来源”（Vercellone 2010: 105）。

Original · #190

The assumption of many Autonomist Marxists that the law of value no longer applies today is not feasible because this law is a foundation of the existence of capitalism and because the assumption is based on a false interpretation of a passage from Marx’s Grundrisse (see e.g. Vercellone 2007: 29f), in which Marx says that ‘labour time ceases and must cease to be’ the measure of wealth (Marx

Translation

许多自主主义马克思主义者认为，价值规律在今天已不再适用；这一看法并不成立。因为价值规律是资本主义存在的基础，而且这一看法建立在对马克思《政治经济学批判大纲》中一段文字的错误解读之上（例如见 Vercellone 2007: 29f）。在那段文字中，马克思说，劳动时间“不再是，而且必然不再是”财富的尺度（Marx

Original · #191

1858/1993: 705). The misinterpretation is precisely that Marx here describes a

Translation

（马克思 1858/1993: 705）。此处的误解恰恰在于，人们认为马克思在这里所描述的是一个

Original · #192

transformation within capitalism. Instead Marx in the same passage makes clear that he talks about a situation, in which the ‘mass of workers’ has appropriated ‘their own surplus labour’ (Marx 1858/1993: 708). As long as capitalism exists, value is set as standard of production, although the value of commodities tends to historically diminish, which advances capitalism’s crisis-proneness. Harry Cleaver has pointed out that Marx’s passage is based on a framework that results from the circumstance that class struggle ‘explodes the system and founds a new one’ (Cleaver 2000: 92).

Translation

而不是资本主义内部的转变。相反，马克思在同一段落中清楚表明，他谈论的是这样一种情形：在这种情形中，“工人大众”已经占有了“他们自己的剩余劳动”（Marx 1858/1993: 708）。只要资本主义存在，价值就依然被设定为生产的标准；尽管商品价值在历史上趋于下降，这反而会加剧资本主义易于陷入危机的倾向。哈里·克里弗指出，马克思这段论述所依据的是这样一个框架：阶级斗争“炸毁这一体系，并创立一个新的体系”（Cleaver 2000: 92）。

Original · #193

In the specific passage in the Grundrisse, Marx says: ‘Once they have done so – and disposable time thereby ceases to have an antithetical existence – then, on one side, necessary labour time will be measured by the needs of the social individual, and, on the other, the development of the power of social production will grow so rapidly that, even though production is now calculated for the wealth of all, disposable time will grow for all’ (Marx 1858/1993: 708). Marx talks about a society, in which ‘production based on exchange value breaks down’ (Marx

Translation

在《政治经济学批判大纲》的这一特定段落中，马克思说道：“一旦他们做到这一点——从而自由支配时间也就不再以对立的形式存在——那么，一方面，必要劳动时间将由社会个人的需要来决定；另一方面，社会生产力的发展将如此迅速，以至于尽管生产现在是为了所有人的富裕而安排，自由支配时间仍将为所有人增长”（Marx 1858/1993: 708）。马克思所谈论的，是这样一个社会，在那里，“建立在交换价值基础上的生产瓦解了”（Marx 1858/1993: 705）——一个共产主义社会。

Original · #194

1858/1993: 705) – a communist society.

Translation

马克思所谈论的社会，是一个‘建立在交换价值基础上的生产瓦解了’（马克思 1858/1993：705）的社会——即一个共产主义社会。

Original · #195

In corporate ‘social media’, Facebook and other companies constantly monitor interests, usage behaviour, browsing behaviour, demographic data, user-generated content, social relations, etc. These are individual, affective, social, economic, political, cultural data about users. The more time a user spends on Facebook, the [66] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 more data is generated about him/her that is offered as a commodity to advertising clients. Exploitation happens in this commodification and production process, whereas the data commodities are offered for sale to advertising clients after the production/exploitation process. The more time a user spends online, the more data is available about him/her that can potentially be sold and the more advertisements can be presented to him/her. Time therefore plays a crucial role for corporate social media. Users employ social media because they strive to a certain degree for achieving what Bourdieu (1986a, b) terms social capital (the accumulation of social relations), cultural capital (the accumulation of qualification, education, knowledge) and symbolic capital (the accumulation of reputation). The time that users spend on commercial social media platforms for generating social, cultural and symbolic capital is in the process of prosumer commodification transformed into economic capital. Labour time on commercial social media is the conversion of Bourdieuian social, cultural and symbolic capital into Marxian value and economic capital.

Translation

在企业化经营的“社交媒体”中，Facebook 及其他公司持续监控用户的兴趣、使用行为、浏览行为、人口统计数据、用户生成内容、社会关系等等。这些都是关于用户的个体、情感、社会、经济、政治及文化层面的数据。用户在 Facebook 上停留的时间越长，生成的关于他/她的数据就越多，这些数据随后作为商品提供给广告客户。剥削便发生在这一商品化与生产过程中；而数据商品则是在生产／剥削过程完成后被出售给广告客户。用户在线时间愈久，可用的相关数据就愈多，数据被售卖的潜在可能也愈大，同时能向用户投放的广告也就更多。因此，时间对于企业化社交媒体来说具有至关重要的作用。用户使用社交媒体，一定程度上是因为他们力图取得布尔迪厄（1986a, b）所称的社会资本（社会关系的累积）、文化资本（资历、教育、知识的累积）与符号资本（声望的累积）。用户为了获取社会、文化及符号资本而耗费在商业性社交媒体平台上的时间，在“产消者”商品化过程中被转化为经济资本。商业性社交媒体上的劳动时间，即是将布尔迪厄意义上的社会、文化与符号资本转化为马克思意义上的价值与经济资本。

Original · #196

Labour that generates content, affects, likes, social relations, networks, etc. is organised in time and space and that Facebook usage time is productive labour time. All hours spent online by users of Facebook, Google, and comparable corporate social media constitute work time, in which data commodities are generated, and potential time for profit realization.

Translation

生成内容、情感、点赞、社会关系、网络等的劳动在特定时间和空间中得到组织；而用户使用 Facebook 的时间就是生产性劳动时间。Facebook、Google 及类似的企业化社交媒体用户在线停留的全部时间都构成工作时间；在这段时间里，数据商品被生产出来，同时也构成了利润实现的潜在时间。

Original · #197

Our discussion thus far shows that the labour theory of value is frequently used as a target of ideological critique that argues that Marx’s theory is out of date.

Translation

到目前为止的讨论表明，劳动价值论常被当作一种意识形态批判的靶子，这种批判认为马克思的理论已经过时。

Original · #198

Resulting claims are that value has been generalized and pluralized (Grossberg), stems from affects or social networks (Hartley), but is not constituted by labour and measured by labour time. The implications of these approaches are diverse, but they all share the consequence that the immediateness of the radical critique of capitalism and capitalist media is either reduced in importance or altogether rejected.

Translation

由此得出的主张是：价值已被普遍化和多元化（Grossberg），它源于情感或社会网络（Hartley），但并非由劳动构成，也不是用劳动时间来衡量的。这些进路隐含的意义各不相同，但它们都导致了一个共同的后果：对资本主义及资本主义媒介进行激进批判的直接性，其重要性要么被削弱，要么被全然抛弃。

Original · #199

Not all Autonomist Marxists share the assumption that there is an end of the law of value today. Karl Heinz Roth (2005: 60) stresses the large number of unpaid and underpaid workers in the world today. Examples that he mentions are reproductive work in the family, precarious and informal labour, slave workers, prison labour (Roth 2005), temporal work, seasonal workers, migrant workers and precarious self-employment (Roth & van der Linden 2009). Karl Heinz Roth and Marcel van der Linden (2009: 560) say that these workers constitute the global worker (Weltarbeiterklasse) that is ‘a multiversum of strata and social groups’.

Translation

并非所有自主主义马克思主义者都认同这样一种看法，即价值规律在今天已经终结。卡尔·海因茨·罗特（Karl Heinz Roth, 2005：60）强调，当今世界存在大量未被支付或报酬不足的劳动者。他提及的例子包括：家庭中的再生产劳动、不稳定和非正规劳动、奴隶劳动、监狱劳动（Roth 2005）、临时工、季节工、移民工人以及不稳定的自雇者（Roth & van der Linden 2009）。卡尔·海因茨·罗特和马塞尔·范德林登（Marcel van der Linden, 2009：560）指出，这些劳动者构成了全球工人阶级（Weltarbeiterklasse），它是‘一个由不同阶层和社会群体构成的多元体’（a multiversum of strata and social groups）。

Original · #200

Nick Dyer-Witheford (2010: 490) argues that the global worker is a) based on the globalization of capital, b) based on a complex division of labour, c) based on underpaid and unpaid labour (migrants, houseworkers, etc), d) embedded into global communication networks, e) facing precarious conditions, and f) has worldwide effects. Slave workers that are unpaid would also produce value, although their labour power does not have a price for which it is rented to an owner, Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 [67] but rather is the private property of a slave master (Roth & van der Linden 2009:

Translation

尼克·戴尔-威瑟福德（Nick Dyer-Witheford，2010: 490）认为，“全球工人”具有如下特征：a) 以资本的全球化为基础；b) 建立在复杂的劳动分工之上；c) 建立在低薪和无偿劳动（移民、家务劳动者等）之上；d) 嵌入全球通信网络之中；e) 面临不稳定的处境；f) 产生全球性的影响。无偿的奴隶劳动者同样也会生产价值，尽管他们的劳动力并非以某种价格出租给主人，毋宁说它是奴隶主的私人财产（Roth & van der Linden 2009: 581-587）。

Original · #201

581-587). Roth and van der Linden use the example of the slave worker in order

Translation

581–587。罗斯和范德林登以奴隶工人为例，旨在说明

Original · #202

to argue that exploitation and value production does not presuppose a wage relationship. They argue for a dynamic labour theory of value (Roth & van der Linden

Translation

主张剥削与价值生产并不以工资关系为前提。他们倡导一种动态的劳动价值论（Roth & van der Linden）

Original · #203

2009: 590-600) that assumes that all humans who contribute to the production of

Translation

(Roth & van der Linden, 2009: 590-600) 所持有的一种动态劳动价值理论认为，所有通过与资本建立关系而为利润生产作出贡献的人——在后一种关系中，资本控制并占有其人格（奴隶）、劳动力（雇佣工人）、生产资料与生计资料（外包合同工）、劳动产品（无酬或低酬劳动）或再生产领域（再生产劳动）——都属于被剥削阶级。

Original · #204

money profit by entering a relationship with capital, in which the latter controls and owns their personality (slaves), labour power (wage workers), the means of production and subsistence (outsourced contractual labour), the products of labour (unpaid and underpaid labour) or the sphere of reproduction (reproductive labour), are part of the exploited class.

Translation

凡是通过与资本建立某种关系而让货币增殖的人，都属于被剥削阶级；在这种关系中，资本控制并占有的是其人身（奴隶）、劳动力（雇佣工人）、生产资料和生活资料（外包契约劳动）、劳动产品（无偿劳动和低薪劳动），或再生产领域（再生产劳动）。

Original · #205

Capital has the inherent interest to maximize profit. For doing this, it will take all means necessary because the single capitalist risks his/her own bankruptcy if s/he cannot accumulate capital as a result of high investment costs, heavy competition, lack of productivity, etc. The wage relation is, as argued above, a crucial element of class struggle. Capital tries to reduce the wage sum as much as possible in order to maximize profits. If possible, capital will therefore remunerate labour power below its own value, i.e. below the socially necessary costs that are required for survival. The transformation of the value into the price of labour power and the difference between the two is, as Cleaver (2000) and Bidet (2009) stress, the result of class struggle. Labour legislation and an organized labour movement can struggle for wages that are higher than the value of labour power.

Translation

资本天然具有追求利润最大化的利益。为此，它会不择手段，因为单个资本家如果由于高昂的投资成本、激烈的竞争、生产率低下等原因而无法积累资本，就面临破产的风险。如上所述，工资关系是阶级斗争的一个关键环节。为实现利润最大化，资本力图将工资总额压至最低。因此，只要条件允许，资本将支付低于劳动力自身价值的报酬，即低于维持生存所必需的社会必要成本。正如克里弗（Cleaver，2000）和比德（Bidet，2009）所强调的，价值向劳动力价格的转化，以及二者之间的差异，都是阶级斗争的结果。而劳动立法和有组织的劳工运动，则可以为争取高于劳动力价值的工资而斗争。

Original · #206

If labour is, however, weak, e.g. because of fascist repression, capital is likely to use any opportunity to reduce wages as much as possible in order to increase profits. Neoliberalism is a form of governmentality that increases profits by decreasing the wage sum with the help of cutting state expenditures for welfare, care and education, privatizing such services, creating precarious wage-relations that are temporary, insecure and underpaid, weakening the power of labour organisations, decreasing or not increasing wages relatively or absolutely, outsourcing labour to low-paid or unpaid forms of production, coercing the unemployed to work without payment or for extremely low wages, etc. It is a form of politics that aims at helping capital to reduce the price of labour power as much as possible, if possible even below the minimum value that is needed for human existence. The creation of multiple forms of precarious and unpaid forms of work is an expression of the class struggle of capital to reduce the costs of labour power. The result is a disjuncture of the value and price of labour power. The disjuncture between value and price of labour power is accompanied by a disjuncture of the value and price of commodities: The financialization of the economy has established stocks and derivatives that have fictitious prices on stock markets that are based on the hope for high future profits and dividends, but are disjointed from the actual labour values and commodity prices. Contemporary capitalism is a disjuncture economy, in which values, profits and prices tend to be out of joint so that there is a high crisis-proneness. [68] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 20^14 Digital media scholars, entrepreneurs, managers, consultants and politicians often celebrate the rise of ‘social media’ like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc. as the rise of a democratic and participatory economy, in which users control the means of communication and intellectual production and consumers can actively and creatively shape the economy. Seen from the view of a dynamical labour theory of value, corporate social media are in contrast forms of the exploitation of unpaid labour: all the time users spend on such platforms is recorded, analysed and creates data commodities that contain personal and usage data and are sold to advertising clients that provide targeted ads to the users. The price of the users’ labour power is zero, they are unpaid, which allows capital to maximize profits by reducing the price of labour power as much below its value as possible.

Translation

然而，如果劳动一方较为弱势，例如遭受法西斯式镇压，资本就很可能抓住一切机会，尽可能压低工资，以提高利润。新自由主义是一种治理术，它通过削减国家在福利、照护和教育上的支出，将这些服务私有化，制造临时性、不稳定且低薪的脆弱雇佣关系，削弱劳动组织的力量，相对或绝对地降低工资或不予提高，把劳动外包给低薪或无偿的生产形式，强迫失业者无偿劳动或以极低工资劳动，等等，借由压缩工资总额来提高利润。它是一种政治形式，其目的在于帮助资本尽可能压低劳动力的价格；如果可能，甚至压到维持人生存所需最低价值以下。制造多种脆弱和无偿的劳动形式，正是资本为降低劳动力成本而展开阶级斗争的表现。其结果，是劳动力的价值与价格之间出现脱节。 劳动力价值与价格之间的脱节，还伴随着商品价值与价格之间的脱节：经济的金融化催生了股票和衍生品，它们在股票市场上具有虚构的价格。这些价格建立在对未来高额利润和股息的期待之上，却与实际的劳动价值和商品价格相脱离。当代资本主义是一种‘脱节经济’，其中价值、利润和价格往往彼此失调，因此具有高度的危机倾向。[68] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 数字媒体学者、企业家、管理者、顾问和政治家常常把 Facebook、Twitter、YouTube 等‘社交媒体’的兴起，赞颂为一种民主的、参与式经济的兴起；在这种经济中，用户控制着传播和知识生产的手段，消费者能够积极而富有创造性地塑造经济。然而，从动态劳动价值论的视角来看，企业社交媒体恰恰是一种剥削无偿劳动的形式：用户花在这些平台上的全部时间都会被记录和分析，并创造出包含个人数据和使用数据的数据商品；这些商品被出售给广告客户，由后者向用户投放定向广告。用户的劳动力价格为零，他们没有报酬；这使资本得以通过尽可能把劳动力价格压到远低于其价值的水平，来实现利润最大化。

Original · #207

The multiverse of the global worker does not consist of separate types of work and relations of production, but rather of interdependent production relations that form a whole. Nick Dyer-Witheford (2002, 2010) therefore speaks of the emergence of a global value subject that forms a value chain that is organised by multinational corporations in the form of a global factory. He stresses that the emergence of knowledge work and the global worker does not mean an end of the law of value, but rather an expansion of exploitation and the law of value from the workplace as the ‘traditional locus of exploitation’ (Dyer-Witheford 2002: 8) to the ‘factory planet’ (Dyer-Witheford 2010: 485). The exploitation of user labour on commercial Internet platforms like Facebook and Google is indicative for a phase of capitalism, in which there is an all-ubiquitous factory that is a space of the exploitation of labour. Social media and the mobile Internet make the audience commodity ubiquitous and the factory not limited to your living room and your wage work place – the factory and work place surveillance are also in all inbetween spaces. The entire planet is today a capitalist factory. The exploitation of Internet users/prosumers is not isolated, it is part of a larger value chain of computing, in which African slave workers extract raw materials, underpaid workers in developing countries (and Western countries) assemble hardware, underpaid workers in developing countries and highly paid workers in the West engineer software and precariously working service workers (e.g. in call-centres) provide support.

Translation

全球劳动者的多元宇宙，并非由彼此分离的劳动类型和生产关系构成，而是由相互依存、构成一个整体的生产关系构成的。因此，尼克·戴尔-威瑟福德（Nick Dyer-Witheford, 2002, 2010）提出“全球价值主体”的兴起，它形成了一条由跨国公司以全球工厂形式组织的价值链。他强调，知识劳动和全球劳动者的出现，并非意味着价值规律的终结，而是剥削与价值规律从作为“传统剥削场所”（Dyer-Witheford 2002: 8）的工作场所扩张到了“工厂星球”（Dyer-Witheford 2010: 485）。在 Facebook 和 Google 等商业互联网平台上对用户劳动的剥削，表明资本主义已进入这样一个阶段：工厂无处不在，整个空间都成为劳动受剥削的场所。社交媒体和移动互联网使“受众商品”无处不在，也使工厂不再局限于你的客厅与有薪劳动的场所——工厂与工作场所监控同样遍布所有中间空间。如今，整个星球就是一座资本主义工厂。对互联网用户/产消者的剥削并非孤立现象，它是计算产业一条更大价值链的一部分；在这条价值链中，非洲的奴工开采原材料，发展中国家（以及西方国家）的低薪工人组装硬件，发展中国家低薪工人与西方高薪工人开发软件，而处于不稳定就业的服务业工人（如呼叫中心工人）则提供支持。

Original · #208

The global value subjects are thus ‘subject to the law of value constituted and constrained by the logics of the world-market’ (Dyer-Witheford 2002: 9). But they also have the potential power to subvert the law of value by refusals to work (protests, strikes, occupations, in the most extreme form, as in the case of Foxconn, suicide, etc.), refusals to consume (stopping to use certain products and the use of non-commercial products) and the creation of alternative forms of valuation/production that transcend monetary values and are non-profit and noncommercial in character (e.g. non-proprietary software/operating systems, noncommercial social networking sites, self-managed alternative IT companies, etc.).

Translation

因此，全球价值主体‘受制于由世界市场逻辑所构成并加以约束的价值规律’（Dyer-Witheford 2002: 9）。但同时，他们也潜在地拥有颠覆价值规律的力量，其具体表现有：拒绝劳动（例如抗议、罢工、占领；最极端的形式则是富士康案例中的自杀等）、拒绝消费（停止使用某些产品，转而使用非商业性产品），以及创造超越了货币价值、具备非营利与非商业性质的另类估价/生产形式（例如非专有软件／操作系统、非商业性社交网站、自主管理的另类信息技术公司，等等）。

Original · #209

Göran Bolin (2010) stresses in this context that economic value is not the only Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 [69] moral value that can shape the media. Nick Couldry (2010) points out that neoliberalism reduces the possibilities for the expression of voices that constitute an alternative moral value to economic logic. Expressed in another way: The value of capitalism is value, which reduces the status of the human to a voiceless and exploited cog in the machine that although perceiving itself as permanently talking, mostly has a voice and power without real effects. What must be achieved is the sublation of economic value so that (economic) value is no longer the primary (moral) value.

Translation

Göran Bolin（2010）在此语境下强调，经济价值并非唯一能够塑造媒体的道德价值。Nick Couldry（2010）指出，新自由主义压缩了那类能体现异于经济逻辑的道德价值的声音的表达空间。换言之，资本主义的价值就是价值自身；这种价值将人贬降为机器中一个无声且受剥削的齿轮，这个齿轮虽然自觉仿佛始终在言说，但其多数时候拥有的声音与权力都并无实际效力。必须实现对经济价值的扬弃，使得（经济的）价值不再是首要的（道德）价值。

Original · #210

The law of value has not lost its force. It is in full effect everywhere in the world, where exploitation takes place. It has been extended to underpaid and unpaid forms of labour, corporate media prosumption being just one of them. Due to technical increases in productivity, the value of commodities tends to historically decrease. At the same time, value is the only source of capital, commodities and profit in capitalism. The contradictions of value have resulted in a disjuncture of values, profits and prices that contributes to actual or potential crises, which shows that crises are inherent to capitalism. This it turn makes it feasible to replace capitalism by a commons-based system of existence, in which not value, but creativity, social relations, free time and play are the source of value. Such a society is called communism and is the negation of the negativity of capitalism.

Translation

价值规律并未失效。在世界上一切存在剥削的地方，它都仍然充分发挥着作用。它已扩展到报酬过低乃至无偿的劳动形式中，企业化媒体的“产消合一”只是其中之一。由于（生产）技术促进了生产率的提高，商品的价值在历史发展中趋于下降。与此同时，在资本主义中，价值正是资本、商品和利润的唯一来源。价值的矛盾导致了价值、利润与价格之间的脱节，助长了现实或潜在的危机，这表明危机是资本主义的固有属性。这反过来使得以基于公地的生存体系取代资本主义成为可能；在这种体系中，价值的源泉不再是（交换）价值，而是创造力、社会关系、自由时间和游戏。这样的社会被称为共产主义，它是资本主义否定性的扬弃。

Original · #211

Conclusion

Translation

结论

Original · #212

Graeme Turner (2012: 158) in giving answers to the question ‘What’s become of Cultural Studies?’ argues that this field has lost power as a political project and turned into a ‘genre of academic performance’ that is ‘merely self-serving’. One of my arguments in this paper has been that one of the causes of this circumstance is that Cultural Studies has had a troubled relationship to Karl Marx’s works. Early representatives like Raymond Williams and Edward P. Thompson were strongly influenced by and contributed to Humanist Marxism, whereas Stuart Hall at times was influenced by Structural Marxism and at times moved away from Marxism. There was a significant move away from Marx in Cultural Studies during the past three decades. The analysis of three contemporary Cultural Studies works showed that there is a broad agreement that Cultural Studies needs to engage more with the economic today.

Translation

格雷姆·特纳（Graeme Turner，2012: 158）在回答“文化研究究竟变成了什么？”这一问题时指出，这一领域作为一项政治计划已经失去了力量，转而沦为一种“学术表演的体裁”，而且“不过是服务于自身而已”。我在本文中的一个论点是，造成这种状况的原因之一，在于文化研究与卡尔·马克思著作之间的关系一直颇为纠结。雷蒙德·威廉斯和爱德华·P. 汤普森等早期代表人物深受人本主义马克思主义影响，也对其作出了贡献；而斯图亚特·霍尔有时受到结构主义马克思主义的影响，有时则偏离了马克思主义。过去三十年间，文化研究明显出现了远离马克思的转向。对三部当代文化研究著作的分析表明，人们大体上都认同：今天的文化研究需要更多地介入经济问题。

Original · #213

How such an engagement shall look like and how it relates to the works of Karl Marx is contested. John Hartley argues for the replacement of a critical and Marxian approach in Cultural Studies by evolutionary economics. Lawrence Grossberg uses Marx against Marx in order to argue for a radically contextualist interpretation of the value concept and a theory of crisis that is based on a general theory of value. Paul Smith and others make a point for the renewal of a genuine Marxist Cultural Studies. I share the argument made by Smith and think that Marx is the linkage between Cultural Studies and Critical Political Economy that is needed [70] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 today. Today one need to take seriously not only how the economic interacts with culture and the media, but that much can be gained from reading, discussing and interpreting the multitude of Karl Marx’s original works. I argue for an institutional revolution that buries prejudices against Karl Marx (see Eagleton 2011 for a brilliant invalidation of the 10 most common prejudices against Marx as well as Harvey 2010 and Jameson 2011 for contemporary interpretations of Capital, Volume 1) and takes his works and theoretical legacy serious in the study of the media and culture. There is a generation of students and young scholars today, who have been growing up under post-welfarist conditions and know the reality of precarious labour and precarious life. At the same time, this is a world with multidimensional global inequalities. Interpreting and changing this world requires thinking about class, crisis, critique and capitalism. For those who in this context are interested to critically study the role of communication, the engagement with the ideas of the thinker who has had the largest intellectual and practical influence on the study of these phenomena, is an absolute necessity. Only an engagement with Marx can make Cultural and Media Studies topical, politically relevant, practical and critical, in the current times of global crisis and resurgent critique. Such an engagement requires not just interested scholars and students (that anyway already exist), but also institutional changes of universities, funding agencies, journals, conferences, academic associations and entire research fields. Academia has experience an administrative and neoliberal turn. Marxism is not just a reaction to these changes, but also offers crucial solutions to the resulting problems.

Translation

关于这种介入会呈现出何种面貌、它与卡尔·马克思著作之间究竟有何关联，学界仍存争论。约翰·哈特利主张，在文化研究中应以演化经济学取代批判性的马克思主义进路。劳伦斯·格罗斯伯格则“以马克思反对马克思”，借此为价值概念提供一种彻底的语境主义阐释，并提出一种基于一般价值理论的危机理论。保罗·史密斯等人则呼吁复兴一种真正的马克思主义文化研究。我同意史密斯的观点，并认为马克思正是文化研究与批判政治经济学之间在今天所需要的纽带[70] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014。当下，我们不仅需要认真审视经济如何与文化、媒体相互作用，更应认识到，阅读、讨论和解读卡尔·马克思卷帙浩繁的原始著述，可带来巨大收获。我主张发起一场制度上的变革，以消除对卡尔·马克思的种种偏见（关于对马克思最常见的十种偏见的精彩驳斥，可参见Eagleton 2011；关于《资本论》第一卷的当代解读，可参看Harvey 2010与Jameson 2011），并在媒体与文化研究中严肃对待其著作与理论遗产。当今有一代学生和青年学者，他们成长于后福利国家的环境中，亲身经历着不稳定劳动与不稳定生活的现实。与此同时，这也是一个存在多维全球不平等现象的世界。要理解并改变这个世界，就必须思考阶级、危机、批判与资本主义。对于那些在此背景下有志于批判性地研究传播之作用的人来说，与这位思想家的思想展开对话实为必需——因其对这些现象的研究，在智识和实践层面都产生了最为深远的影响。唯有与马克思对话，方能使文化研究与媒体研究在当今全球危机深化、批判再度兴起的时代，紧扣现实议题、具备政治相关性、富有实践性并保持批判锋芒。而这样的介入，不仅需要对此感兴趣的学者与学生——他们本就存在——还需要大学、资助机构、期刊、会议、学术协会乃至整个研究领域发生制度性变革。学术界已然经历了一场行政化与新自由主义的转向。马克思主义不仅是对这些变化的回应，也为由此产生的问题提供了关键的解决方案。

Original · #214

Christian Fuchs is professor at the University of Westminster’s Communication and Media Research Institute. His research interests lie in the fields of Critical Theory, Critical Information Society Studies, Critical Internet Research, critical social theory, media & society and the Critical Political Economy of Media, Communication & Society. He is author of numerous publications on these topics.

Translation

克里斯蒂安·福克斯是威斯敏斯特大学传播与媒体研究所教授。他的研究兴趣涵盖批判理论、批判信息社会研究、批判互联网研究、批判社会理论、媒体与社会，以及媒体、传播与社会的批判政治经济学等领域。他在这些领域著述颇丰。

Original · #215

He is editor of tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique (http://www.triple-c.at), chair of the European Sociological Association’s Research Network 18 – Sociology of Communications and Media Research and cofounder of the ICTs and Society Network. He is author of many works, including the monographs Internet and Society: Social Theory in the Information Age (2008), Foundations of Critical Media and Information Studies (2011), OccupyMedia! The Occupy Movement and Social Media in Crisis Capitalism (2014), Digital Labour and Karl Marx (2014), Social Media: A Critical Introduction (2014). E-mail: christian.fuchs@uti.at Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 [71]

Translation

他是《tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique》期刊的编辑（网址：http://www.triple-c.at），欧洲社会学协会“传播社会学与媒介研究”第18研究网络主席，以及“ICTs与学会网络”的共同创始人。他著作颇丰，已出版的专著包括《Internet and Society: Social Theory in the Information Age》（2008）、《Foundations of Critical Media and Information Studies》（2011）、《OccupyMedia! The Occupy Movement and Social Media in Crisis Capitalism》（2014）、《Digital Labour and Karl Marx》（2014）以及《Social Media: A Critical Introduction》（2014）。电子邮箱：christian.fuchs@uti.at。来源：《Culture Unbound》2014年第6卷，[71]。

Original · #216

1 http://savemdxphil.com/2010/04/28/middlesex-university-announces-the-closure-of-its-top-

Translation

1 http://savemdxphil.com/2010/04/28/middlesex-university-announces-the-closure-of-its-top-rated-department-philosophy/

Original · #217

rated-department-philosophy/

Translation

1 http://savemdxphil.com/2010/04/28/middlesex-university-announces-the-closure-of-its-top-rated-department-philosophy/

Original · #218

References

Translation

参考文献

Original · #219

Babe, Robert E. (2009): Cultural Studies and Political Economy: Toward a New Integration, Lanhman, MD: Lexington Books.

Translation

巴布，罗伯特·E. (2009): 《文化研究与政治经济学：迈向新的整合》，马里兰州兰哈姆：列克星敦图书公司。

Original · #220

Benner, Chris (2002): Work in the New Economy: Flexible Labor Markets in Silicon Valley, Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Translation

Benner, Chris (2002): 《新经济中的工作：硅谷的灵活劳动力市场》，马萨诸塞州莫尔登：Blackwell。

Original · #221

Bidet, Jacques (2009): Exploring Marx’s Capital: Philosophical, Economic, and Political Dimensions, Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books.

Translation

比代，雅克（Jacques Bidet）（2009）：《探索马克思的〈资本论〉：哲学、经济与政治维度》，伊利诺伊州芝加哥：Haymarket Books。

Original · #222

Bolin, Göran (2011): Value and the Media, Farnham: Ashgate.

Translation

博林（Göran, 2011）：《价值与媒体》，法纳姆：阿什盖特。

Original · #223

Bourdieu, Pierre (1986a): Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, London:

Translation

皮埃尔·布尔迪厄（1986a）：《区隔：对趣味判断的社会批判》，伦敦：

Original · #224

Routledge. ------ (1986b): ‘The (Three) Forms of Capital’, John G. Richardson (ed.): Handbook of Theory and Research in the Sociology of Education, New York: Greenwood Press, 241-258.

Translation

劳特利奇。——（1986b）：《资本（三）形式》，载约翰·G.理查森编《教育社会学理论与研究手册》，纽约：格林伍德出版社，第241—258页。

Original · #225

Breen, Marcus (2011): ‘Do the Math: Cultural Studies into Public Policy needs a New Equation’, Paul Smith (ed.): The Renewal of Cultural Studies, Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press,

Translation

布林，马库斯（2011）：《算清这笔账：文化研究进入公共政策需要一个新公式》，载保罗·史密斯编：《文化研究的更新》，宾夕法尼亚州费城：天普大学出版社。

Original · #226

207-218.

Translation

207-218.

Original · #227

Burston, Jonathan, Nick Dyer-Witheford & Alison Hearn (eds) (2010): ‘Digital Labour Special issue’, Ephemera, 10:3/4, 214-539.

Translation

Burston、Jonathan，Nick Dyer-Witheford 与 Alison Hearn 编（2010）：《“数字劳动”专号》，《Ephemera》，10:3/4，第214-539页。

Original · #228

Butler, Judith, Ernesto Laclau & Slavoj Žižek (2000): Contingency, Hegemony, Universality, London: Verso.

Translation

巴特勒，朱迪思；埃内斯托·拉克劳；斯拉沃热·齐泽克（2000）：《偶然性、霸权与普遍性》，伦敦：Verso。

Original · #229

Charusheela, S. (2011): ‘Where is the “Economy”? Cultural Studies and Narratives of Capitalism’, Paul Smith (ed.): The Renewal of Cultural Studies, Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press,

Translation

查鲁希拉，S.（2011）：《“经济”在哪里？文化研究与资本主义叙事》，载保罗·史密斯（编）：《文化研究的更新》，费城，宾夕法尼亚州：天普大学出版社。

Original · #230

177-187.

Translation

177–187。

Original · #231

Cleaver, Harry (2000): Reading Capital Politically, Leeds: Anti/Theses.

Translation

克利弗，哈里（2000）：《从政治上阅读〈资本论〉》，利兹：Anti/Theses。

Original · #232

Couldry, Nick (2010): Why Voice Matters: Culture and Politics after Neoliberalism, London:

Translation

克德里，尼克（2010）：《声音为何重要：新自由主义之后的文化与政治》，伦敦：

Original · #233

Sage. ------ (2011): ‘The Project of Cultural Studies. Heretical Doubts, New Horizons’, Paul Smith (ed.):

Translation

萨奇（2011）：〈文化研究的计划：异端式怀疑与新视野〉，载保罗·史密斯（编）：

Original · #234

The Renewal of Cultural Studies, Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 9-16.

Translation

《文化研究的更新》，宾夕法尼亚州费城：天普大学出版社，第9—16页。

Original · #235

D’Mello, Marisa & Sundeep Sahay (2007): ‘“I am a Kind of Nomad Where I have to Go Places and Places”: Understanding Mobility, Place and Identity in Global Software Work from India’, Information and Organization, 17:3, 162-192.

Translation

D’Mello, Marisa与Sundeep Sahay（2007）：《“我有点像个游牧者，必须不断辗转于一个又一个地方”：理解全球软件工作（印度）中的流动性、地方与身份认同》，载《Information and Organization》，第17卷第3期，第162—192页。

Original · #236

Dyer-Witheford, Nick (2002): ‘Global Body, Global Brain/Global Factory, Global War: Revolt of the Value-Subjects’, The Commoner, 3. ------ (2010): ‘Digital Labour, Species-Becoming and the Global Worker’, Ephemera, 10:3/4, 484-

Translation

戴尔-维瑟福德，尼克（2002）：《全球身体、全球大脑/全球工厂、全球战争：价值主体的反抗》，刊于《共同者》，第3期。 —— （2010）：《数字劳动、物种生成与全球工人》，刊于《Ephemera》，第10卷第3/4期，第484-503页。

Original · #237

503.

Translation

503.

Original · #238

Eagleton, Terry. (2011): Why Marx Was Right, London: Yale University Press.

Translation

伊格尔顿，特里（2011）：《马克思为什么是对的》，伦敦：耶鲁大学出版社。

Original · #239

Eatwell, John, Murray Milgate & Peter Newman (1987): The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics. Volume 3: K to P, London: Macmillan Press.

Translation

约翰·伊特韦尔、默里·米尔盖特、彼得·纽曼（1987）：《新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典》第3卷：K至P，伦敦：麦克米伦出版社。

Original · #240

Finnwatch (2007): Connecting Components, Dividing Communities: The Production of Consumer Electronics in the DR Congo and Indonesia, makeITfair-Report:

Translation

芬兰观察（Finnwatch，2007）：《连接零件，分离社群：刚果民主共和国与印度尼西亚的消费电子产品生产》，makeITfair报告：

Original · #241

Finnwatch & Swedwatch. (2010): Voices from the Inside: Local Views on Mining Reform in Eastern DRC, makeITfair Report: http://somo.nl/publications- [72] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014

Translation

Finnwatch 与 Swedwatch（2010）：《来自内部的声音：刚果（金）东部矿业改革的在地视角》，makeITfair 报告：http://somo.nl/publications-en/Publication_3586/at_download/fullfile （2013年8月27日访问）[72] 《Culture Unbound》，第6卷，2014年

Original · #242

Notes

Translation

注释

Original · #243

Fuchs, Christian (2008): Internet and Society: Social Theory in the Information Age. New York:

Translation

Fuchs, Christian（2008）：《互联网与社会：信息时代的社会理论》。纽约：

Original · #244

Routledge. ------ (2010): ‘Labor in Informational Capitalism and on the Internet’, The Information Society,

Translation

劳特利奇。——（2010）：“信息资本主义与互联网中的劳动”，载《信息社会》

Original · #245

26:3, 179-196.

Translation

26卷3期，第179-196页。

Original · #246

------ (2011): Foundations of Critical Media and Information Studies, Abingdon: Routledge. ------ (2012a): ‘Conference Report: The 4th ICTs and Society Conference: Critique, Democracy and Philosophy in 21st Century Information Society’, Nordicom Information, 34:3-4, 89-99. ------ (2012b): ‘New Marxian Times! Reflections on the 4th ICTs and Society Conference ‘Critique, Democracy and Philosophy in 21 st Century Information Society: Towards Critical Theories of Social Media’’, tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique, 10:1, 114-121. ------ (2014a): Digital Labour and Karl Marx. New York: Routledge. ------ (2014b): Social Media: A Critical Introduction, London: Sage.

Translation

——（2011）：《批判性媒体与信息研究的基础》，阿宾登：Routledge。 ——（2012a）：“会议报告：第四届ICTs与社会会议——21世纪信息社会中的批判、民主与哲学”，载《Nordicom Information》，第34卷第3-4期，第89-99页。 ——（2012b）：“新的马克思主义时代！对第四届ICTs与社会会议‘21世纪信息社会中的批判、民主与哲学：走向社会媒体的批判理论’的反思”，载《tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique》，第10卷第1期，第114-121页。 ——（2014a）：《数字劳动与卡尔·马克思》，纽约：Routledge。 ——（2014b）：《社会媒体：批判性导论》，伦敦：Sage。

Original · #247

Fuchs, Christian & Vincent Mosco (eds) (2012): ‘Marx is Back. The Importance of Marxist Theory and Research for Critical Communication Studies Today’, tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique, 10:2, 127-632.

Translation

Christian Fuchs与Vincent Mosco编（2012）：《马克思回来了：马克思主义理论与研究对当代批判传播研究的重要性》，载《tripleC：传播、资本主义与批判》第10卷第2期，第127—632页。

Original · #248

Fuchs, Christian & Marisol Sandoval (eds) (2014): Critique, Social Media and the Information Society, New York: Routledge.

Translation

克里斯蒂安·福克斯、玛丽索尔·桑多瓦尔编（2014）：《批判、社交媒体与信息社会》，纽约：劳特利奇出版社。

Original · #249

Garnham, Nicholas (1990): Capitalism and Communication, London: Sage. ------ (1995a): ‘Political Economy and Cultural Studies: Reconciliation or Divorce?’, Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 12:1, 62-71.

Translation

加纳姆，尼古拉斯（1990）：《资本主义与传播》，伦敦：萨奇。——（1995a）：《政治经济学与文化研究：和解还是分道扬镳？》，《大众传播批判研究》第12卷第1期，第62—71页。

Original · #250

Garnham, Nicholas (1995b): ‘Reply to Grossberg and Carey’, Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 12:1, 95-100. ------ (2000a): Emancipation, the Media, and Modernity, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Translation

加纳姆，尼古拉斯（1995b）：《答复格罗斯伯格与凯里》，《大众传播批判研究》第12卷第1期，第95—100页。——（2000a）：《解放、媒介与现代性》，牛津：牛津大学出版社。

Original · #251

Gill, Rosalind (2002): ’Cool, Creative and Egalitarian? Exploring Gender in Project-Based New- Media Work in Euro’, Information, Communication & Society, 5 :1, 70–89. ------ (2006): Technobohemians or the New Cybertariat?, Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures.

Translation

吉爾，羅莎琳（Rosalind Gill）（2002）：〈酷、創意與平等？探討歐洲專案型新媒體工作中的性別〉，《資訊、傳播與社會》（Information, Communication & Society）第5卷第1期，第70–89頁。——（2006）：《科技波希米亞人還是新網絡無產階級？》，阿姆斯特丹：網絡文化研究所（Institute of Network Cultures）。

Original · #252

Grossberg, Lawrence (1995): ‘Cultural Studies vs. Political Economy: Is Anybody Else Bored with this Debate?’, Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 12:1, 72-81. ------ (2010): Cultural Studies in the Future Tense, Durham, MA: Duke University Press.

Translation

格罗斯伯格，劳伦斯（1995）：《文化研究与政治经济学：还有谁对这场争论感到厌倦吗？》，载《大众传播批判研究》，第12卷第1期，第72—81页。——（2010）：《将来时中的文化研究》，达勒姆，马萨诸塞州：杜克大学出版社。

Original · #253

Gulias, Max (2011): ‘A Marxist Methodology for Cultural Studies’, Paul Smith (ed.): The Renewal of Cultural Studies, Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 143-151.

Translation

古利亚斯，马克斯（2011）：《文化研究的马克思主义方法论》，载保罗·史密斯编：《文化研究的复兴》，宾夕法尼亚州费城：天普大学出版社，第143—151页。

Original · #254

Hall, Stuart et al. (1978): Policing the Crisis, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Translation

霍尔，斯图亚特等（1978）：《管控危机》，贝辛斯托克：帕尔格雷夫·麦克米伦。

Original · #255

Hall, Stuart (1992/1996): ‘Cultural Studies and its Theoretical Legacies’, David Morley & Kuan- Hsing Chen (eds): Stuart Hall. Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies, London: Routledge, 262-

Translation

霍爾，斯圖亞特（1992/1996）：〈文化研究及其理論遺產〉，載大衛·莫利、陳光興編：《斯圖亞特·霍爾：文化研究中的批判性對話》，倫敦：勞特利奇出版社，262-275頁。

Original · #256

275.

Translation

275.

Original · #257

Hardt, Michael & Antonio Negri (2004): Multitude, New York: Penguin.

Translation

哈特，迈克尔、安东尼奥·奈格里（2004）：《众》，纽约：企鹅出版社。

Original · #258

Hartley, John (ed.) (2005): Creative Industries, Oxford: Blackwell. ------ (2012): Digital Futures for Cultural and Media Studies, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Translation

哈特利，约翰（编），2005年：《创意产业》，牛津：布莱克威尔。——，2012年：《文化与媒介研究的数字未来》，奇切斯特：威利—布莱克威尔。

Original · #259

Harvey, David (2010): A Companion to Marx’s Capital, London: Verso.

Translation

哈维，大卫（2010）：《马克思〈资本论〉导读》，伦敦：Verso。

Original · #260

Hong, Yu (2011): Labor, Class Formation, and China’s Informationized Policy and Economic Development, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Translation

洪宇（2011）：《劳动、阶级形成与中国的信息化政策及经济发展》，马里兰州兰哈姆：罗曼与利特尔菲尔德出版社。

Original · #261

Huws, Ursula (2003): The Making of a Cybertariat: Virtual Work in a Real World, New York:

Translation

休斯，乌尔苏拉（2003）：《赛博无产阶级的形成：真实世界中的虚拟劳动》，纽约：

Original · #262

Monthly Review Press.

Translation

每月评论出版社。

Original · #263

Ilavarasan, Vigneswara (2007): ‘Is Indian Software Workforce a Case of Uneven and Combined Development?’, Equal Opportunities International, 26:8, 802-822. ------ (2008): ‘Software Work in India: A Labour Process View’, Carol Upadhya & A.R. Vasavi (eds): In an Outpost of the Global Economy: Work and Workers in India’s Information Technology Industry, New Dehli: Routledge, 162-189.

Translation

Ilavarasan, Vigneswara（2007）：《印度软件劳动力：一个不平衡与综合发展的案例？》，《Equal Opportunities International》第26卷第8期，第802-822页。——（2008）：《印度的软件工作：一种劳动过程视角》，载 Carol Upadhya、A.R. Vasavi 编：《全球经济前哨中的工作与工人：印度信息技术产业中的劳动与劳动者》，新德里：Routledge，第162-189页。

Original · #264

Jameson, Frederic (2011): Representing Capital, London: Verso.

Translation

詹姆逊，弗雷德里克（2011）：《再现资本》，伦敦：Verso。

Original · #265

Kolakowski, Leszek (2005): Main Currents of Marxism: The Founders, the Golden Age, the Breakdown, New York: W.W. Norton.

Translation

科拉科夫斯基，莱谢克（2005）：《马克思主义的主要流派：创始人、黄金时代与瓦解》，纽约：W.W.诺顿。

Original · #266

Martin, Randy (2011): ‘Marxism after Cultural Studies’, Paul Smith (ed.): The Renewal of Cultural Studies, Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 152-159.

Translation

马丁，兰迪（2011）：〈文化研究之后的马克思主义〉，载保罗·史密斯编《文化研究的复兴》，费城，宾夕法尼亚州：天普大学出版社，第152—159页。

Original · #267

Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 [73] Marx, Karl (1858/1993): Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy, London:

Translation

《文化无界》（Culture Unbound），第6卷，2014年 [73] 马克思，卡尔 (1858/1993):《政治经济学批判大纲》，伦敦：

Original · #268

Penguin. ------ (1865): ‘Value, Price, and Profit’: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value- ------ (1867/1990): Capital. Volume 1, London: Penguin. ------ (1894/1991): Capital. Volume III, London: Penguin.

Translation

企鹅出版社。——（1865）：“价值、价格和利润”：http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/index.htm（访问于2013年8月27日）。——（1867/1990）：《资本论》第一卷，伦敦：企鹅出版社。——（1894/1991）：《资本论》第三卷，伦敦：企鹅出版社。

Original · #269

Maxwell, Richard (ed.) 2001. Culture Works: The Political Economy of Culture, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Translation

马克斯韦尔，理查德编，2001年：《文化的运作：文化的政治经济学》，明尼阿波利斯，明尼苏达州：明尼苏达大学出版社。

Original · #270

Maxwell Richard & Toby Miller (2005/2006): ‘Cultural Labor. Special Issue’, Social Semiotics,

Translation

麦克斯韦尔·理查德与托比·米勒（2005/2006）主编：《文化劳动》专刊，《社会符号学》，

Original · #271

15:3 & 16:1.

Translation

15:3和16:1。

Original · #272

McGuigan, Jim (2006): ‘Review of John Hartley’s Creative Industries’, Global Media and Communication, 2:3, 372-374.

Translation

麦圭根，吉姆（2006）：《评约翰·哈特利〈创意产业〉》，《全球媒体与传播》第2卷第3期，第372—374页。

Original · #273

McKercher, Catherine & Vincent Mosco (eds) (2006): ‘The Labouring of Communication’, Cana- McKercher, Catherine & Vincent Mosco (eds) (2007): Knowledge Workers in the Information Economy, Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Translation

McKercher, Catherine 与 Vincent Mosco（编）（2006）：《The Labouring of Communication》，Cana- McKercher, Catherine 与 Vincent Mosco（编）（2007）：《Knowledge Workers in the Information Economy》，马里兰州兰哈姆：Lexington Books。

Original · #274

Miller, Toby (2010): ‘Culture + Labour = Precariat’, Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 7:1, 96-99. ------ (2011): ‘Cultural Studies in an Indicative Mode’, Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 8:3, 319-322.

Translation

Miller, Toby (2010): ‘Culture + Labour = Precariat’, Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 7:1, 96-99. ------ (2011): ‘Cultural Studies in an Indicative Mode’, Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 8:3, 319-322.

Original · #275

Mosco, Vincent (2009): The Political Economy of Communication, London: Sage. 2 nd edition. ------ (2011a): ‘Communication and Cultural Labor’, Paul Smith (ed.): The Renewal of Cultural Studies, Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 230-237. ------ (2011b): ‘The Political Economy of Labor’, Janet Wasco, Graham Murdock & Helena Sousa (eds): The Handbook of Political Economy of Communications, Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell,

Translation

莫斯科，文森特（2009）：《传播的政治经济学》，伦敦：Sage，第二版。——（2011a）：《传播与文化劳动》，载保罗·史密斯编：《文化研究的更新》，宾夕法尼亚州费城：天普大学出版社，第230—237页。——（2011b）：《劳动的政治经济学》，载珍妮特·瓦斯科、格雷厄姆·默多克与海伦娜·索萨编：《传播政治经济学手册》，马萨诸塞州莫尔登：Wiley-Blackwell。

Original · #276

358-380.

Translation

358—380。

Original · #277

Mosco, Vincent & Catherine McKercher (2008): The Laburing of Communication. Will Knowledge Workers of the World Unite?, Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Translation

莫斯科，文森特、凯瑟琳·麦克彻（2008）：《传播的劳动化：全世界的知识劳动者会团结起来吗？》，马里兰州兰哈姆：列克星敦图书。

Original · #278

Mosco, Vincent, Catherine McKercher & Ursula Huws (eds) (2010): ‘Getting the Message: Communications Workers and Global Value Chains’, Work Organisation, Labour & Globalisation,

Translation

Mosco, Vincent、Catherine McKercher 与 Ursula Huws（编）（2010）：《Getting the Message: Communications Workers and Global Value Chains》，载《工作组织、劳动与全球化》。

Original · #279

4:2.

Translation

4:2.

Original · #280

MSNBC (2008): Facebook Asks Users to Translate for Free. ‘Crowdsourcing’ Aids Company’s Aggressive Worldwide Expansion: Negri, Antonio (1991): Marx Beyond Marx, London: Pluto.

Translation

MSNBC（2008）：“Facebook要求用户免费翻译。‘众包’助推该公司在全球的激进扩张。” Negri, Antonio（1991）：《超越马克思的马克思》，伦敦：Pluto。

Original · #281

Nest, Michael (2011): Coltan, Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

Translation

内斯特，迈克尔（2011）：《钽铁矿》，马萨诸塞州剑桥：Polity Press。

Original · #282

Pellow, David N. & Lisa Sun-Hee Park (2002): The Silicon Valley of Dreams: Environmental Injustice, Immigrant Workers, and the High-Tech Global Economy, New York: New York University Press.

Translation

Pellow, David N. 与 Lisa Sun-Hee Park（2002）：《梦想的硅谷：环境不公、移民工人与高科技全球经济》，纽约：纽约大学出版社。

Original · #283

Qiu, Jack L. (2009): Working-Class Network Society. Communication Technology and the Information Have-Less in Urban China, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Translation

Qiu, Jack L.（2009）：《工人阶级网络社会：传播技术与中国城市中的信息匮乏者》，马萨诸塞州剑桥：麻省理工学院出版社。

Original · #284

Ross, Andrew (2008): ‘The New Geography of Work: Power to the Precarious?’, Theory, Culture & Society, 25:7-8, 31-49. ------ (2009): Nice Work If You Can Get It. Life and Labour in Precarious Times, New York: New York University Press.

Translation

罗斯，安德鲁（2008）：《新工作地志：权力归零工？》，载《理论、文化与社会》，第25卷第7-8期，第31-49页。——（2009）：《好工作若能到手：不稳定时代的生活与劳动》，纽约：纽约大学出版社。

Original · #285

Ross, Andrew & Paul Smith (2011): ‘Cultural Studies: A Conversation’, Paul Smith (ed.) (2011):

Translation

罗斯，安德鲁与保罗·史密斯（2011）：《文化研究：一场对话》，载保罗·史密斯（编）（2011）：

Original · #286

The Renewal of Cultural Studies, Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 245-258.

Translation

《文化研究的更新》，宾夕法尼亚州费城：天普大学出版社，第245—258页。

Original · #287

Roth, Karl Heinz (2005): Der Zustand der Welt. Gegen-Perspektiven, Hamburg: VSA.

Translation

罗特，卡尔·海因茨（2005）：《世界的状况：反向视角》，汉堡：VSA。

Original · #288

Roth, Karl Heinz & Marcel van der Linden (2009): ‘Ergebnisse und Perspektiven’, Marcel van der Linden & Karl Heinz Roth (eds): Über Marx hinaus. Arbeitsgeschichte und Arbeitsbegriff in der Konfrontation mit den globalen Arbeitsverhältnissen des 21. Jahrhunderts, Berlin: Assoziation A, 557-600. [74] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 20^14 Sandoval, Marisol (2013): ‘Foxconned Labour as the Dark Side of the Information Age: Working Conditions at Apple’s Contract Manufacturers in China’, tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique, 12:1, 318-347. ------ (2014): From Corporate to Social Media: Critical Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility in Media and Communication Industries, New York: Routledge.

Translation

Roth, Karl Heinz 与 Marcel van der Linden（2009）：《成果与展望》（‘Ergebnisse und Perspektiven’），载于 Marcel van der Linden 与 Karl Heinz Roth 编《超越马克思：在遭遇21世纪全球劳动状况中的劳动史与劳动概念》（Über Marx hinaus. Arbeitsgeschichte und Arbeitsbegriff in der Konfrontation mit den globalen Arbeitsverhältnissen des 21. Jahrhunderts），柏林：Assoziation A，第557-600页。[74] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 20^14。 Sandoval, Marisol（2013）：《作为信息时代阴暗面的“富士康式”劳工：中国苹果代工厂的工作状况》（‘Foxconned Labour as the Dark Side of the Information Age: Working Conditions at Apple’s Contract Manufacturers in China’），载于《tripleC：传播、资本主义与批判》（tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique），第12卷第1期，第318-347页。 ——（2014）：《从企业媒体到社交媒体：媒体与传播产业中企业社会责任之批判视角》（From Corporate to Social Media: Critical Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility in Media and Communication Industries），纽约：Routledge出版社。

Original · #289

Scholz, Trebor (ed.) (2013): Digital Labor: The Internet as Playground and Factory, New York:

Translation

Scholz, Trebor 编，《数字劳动：作为游乐场与工厂的互联网》，纽约：

Original · #290

Routledge.

Translation

劳特利奇。

Original · #291

Smith, Paul (2006): ‘Looking Backwards and Forwards at Cultural Studies’, Toby Miller (ed.): A Companion to Cultural Studies, Malden, MA: Blackwell, 331-340. ------ (2011a): ‘Introduction’, Paul Smith (ed.): The Renewal of Cultural Studies, Philadelphia, PA:

Translation

史密斯，保罗（2006）：《回顾与前瞻：文化研究》，托比·米勒（编）：《文化研究指南》，马萨诸塞州莫尔登：布莱克维尔出版社，第331—340页。——（2011a）：《导言》，保罗·史密斯（编）：《文化研究的更新》，宾夕法尼亚州费城：

Original · #292

Temple University Press, 1-8. ------ (ed.) (2011b): The Renewal of Cultural Studies, Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Translation

天普大学出版社，第1—8页。——（编），2011b：《文化研究的更新》，费城，宾夕法尼亚州：天普大学出版社。

Original · #293

SOMO (Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (2007): Capacitating Electronics: The Corrosive Effects of Platinum and Palladium Mining on Labour Rights and Communities. makeITfair Report: http://somo.nl/publications-nl/Publication_2545-nl/at_download/fullfile Sparks, Colin (1996): ‘Stuart Hall, Cultural Studies and Marxism’, David Morley & Kuan-Hsing Chen: Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies, London: Routledge, 71-101.

Translation

SOMO（跨国公司研究中心）（2007）：《为电子产业提供支撑：铂和钯开采对劳工权利与社区的腐蚀性影响》。makeITfair报告：http://somo.nl/publications-nl/Publication_2545-nl/at_download/fullfile （2013年8月27日访问）。Sparks, Colin（1996）：“Stuart Hall, Cultural Studies and Marxism”，载于David Morley与陈光兴（Kuan-Hsing Chen）编：《Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies》，伦敦：Routledge，第71—101页。

Original · #294

Students & Scholars against Corporate Misbehaviour (SACOM) (2010): Workers as Machines:

Translation

反企业不当行为学生学者监察组织（SACOM）（2010）：《工人如机器》：

Original · #295

Military Management in Foxconn: http://sacom.hk/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/report-on- Students & Scholars against Corporate Misbehaviour (SACOM) (2011a): Foxconn and Apple Fail to Fulfill Promises: Predicaments of Workers after Suicides: http://sacom.hk/wpcontent/uploads/2011/05/2011-05-06_foxconn-and-apple-fail-to-fulfill-promises1.pdf (accessed

Translation

学生与学者反企业不当行为组织（SACOM）（2010）：《工人如机器：富士康的军事化管理》：http://sacom.hk/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/report-on-foxconn-workers-as-machines_sacom.pdf（访问于2013年8月27日）。 学生与学者反企业不当行为组织（SACOM）（2011a）：《富士康与苹果未能兑现承诺：工人在自杀事件后的困境》：http://sacom.hk/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/2011-05-06_foxconn-and-apple-fail-to-fulfill-promises1.pdf（访问于2013年8月27日）。

Original · #296

Students & Scholars against Corporate Misbehaviour (SACOM) (2011b): iSlave behind the iPhone: Foxconn Workers in Central China: http://sacom.hk/wp- Students & Scholars against Corporate Misbehaviour (SACOM) (2012): New iPhone, Old Abuses:

Translation

反企业不当行为学生学者组织（SACOM）（2011b）：《iPhone背后的iSlave：华中地区富士康工人》：http://sacom.hk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/20110924-islave-behind-the-iphone.pdf (accessed 27 August 2013)。 反企业不当行为学生学者组织（SACOM）（2012）：《新iPhone，旧虐待：中国富士康的工作条件改善了吗？》：http://www.scribd.com/doc/106445655 (accessed 27 August 2013)。

Original · #297

Have Working Conditions at Foxconn in China Improved?:

Translation

中国富士康的工作条件改善了吗？

Original · #298

Swedwatch (2007): Powering the Mobile World: Cobalt Production for Batteries in the DR Congo and Zambia, makeITfair Report: http://germanwatch.org/corp/it-cob.pdf (accessed 2^7 August

Translation

Swedwatch（2007）：《为移动世界提供动力：刚果民主共和国和赞比亚的电池用钴生产》，makeITfair 报告：http://germanwatch.org/corp/it-cob.pdf（访问于 2013 年 8 月 27 日）

Original · #299

2013).

Translation

2013）。

Original · #300

Tapscott, Don & Anthony D. Williams (2007): Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything, New York: Penguin.

Translation

Tapscott, Don 与 Anthony D. Williams（2007）：《维基经济学：大规模协作如何改变一切》，纽约：企鹅出版社。

Original · #301

Thompson, Edward P. (1957): ‘Socialist Humanism’, The New Reasoner, 1:2, 105-143. ------ (1973): ‘An Open Letter to Leszek Kolakowski’, Edward P. Thompson: The Poverty of Theory and other Essays, New York: Monthly Review Press, 303-402. ------ (1978): ‘The Poverty of Theory or An Orrery of Errors’, Edward P. Thompson: The Poverty of Theory and other Essays, New York: Monthly Review Press, 1-210.

Translation

汤普森，爱德华·P.（1957）：《社会主义人道主义》，《新理性者》，第1卷第2期，第105-143页。——（1973）：《致莱谢克·科拉科夫斯基的公开信》，载爱德华·P. 汤普森《理论的贫困及其他论文》，纽约：每月评论出版社，第303-402页。——（1978）：《理论的贫困，或错误的星象仪》，载爱德华·P. 汤普森《理论的贫困及其他论文》，纽约：每月评论出版社，第1-210页。

Original · #302

Turner, Graeme (2012): What’s become of Cultural Studies? London: Sage.

Translation

特纳，格雷恩（2012）：《文化研究怎么了？》伦敦：Sage。

Original · #303

Upadhya, Carol & A.R. Vasavi (eds) (2008): In an Outpost of the Global Economy: Work and Workers in India’s Information Technology Industry, New Dehli: Routledge.

Translation

Upadhya, Carol 与 A.R. Vasavi 编，2008年：《全球经济前哨中的工作与工人：印度信息技术产业中的劳动与劳动者》，新德里：Routledge。

Original · #304

Vercellone, Carlo (2007): ‘From Formal Subsumption to General Intellect: Elements for a Marxist Reading of the Thesis of Cognitive Capitalism’, Historical Materialism, 15:1, 13-36. ------ (2010): ‘The Crisis of the Law of Value and the Becoming-Rent of Profit’, Andrea Fumagalli & Sandro Mezzadra (eds): Crisis in the Global Economy, Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e), 85-

Translation

维切洛内，卡洛（2007）：《从形式从属到一般智力：基于马克思主义的认知资本主义命题解读要点》，《历史唯物主义》，第15卷第1期，第13-36页。——（2010）：《价值规律的危机与利润的地租化》，载安德烈亚·富马加利、桑德罗·梅扎德拉编：《全球经济中的危机》，加利福尼亚州洛杉矶：Semiotext(e)出版社，第85—

Original · #305

118.

Translation

118.

Original · #306

Virno, Paolo (2003): A Grammar of the Multitude, New York: Semiotext(e).

Translation

保罗·维尔诺（2003）：《诸众的语法》，纽约：Semiotext(e)。

Original · #307

Williams, Raymond (1958): Culture & Society: 1780-1950, New York: Columbia University Press. ------ (1975): ‘You’re a Marxist, aren’t you? ’. Raymond Williams: Resources of Hope, London:

Translation

威廉斯，雷蒙德（1958）：《文化与社会：1780–1950》，纽约：哥伦比亚大学出版社。——（1975）：《你是马克思主义者，不是吗？》，载《雷蒙德·威廉斯：希望的资源》，伦敦：

Original · #308

Verso, 65-76. ------ (1977): Marxism and Literature, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Translation

Verso，第65–76页。——（1977）：《马克思主义与文学》，牛津：牛津大学出版社。

Original · #309

Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 [75] ------ (1981): The Sociology of Culture, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. ------ (1989): What I Came to Say, London: Hutchinson Radius.

Translation

《文化无界》第6卷，2014年，第75页 ——（1981）：《文化社会学》，伊利诺伊州芝加哥：芝加哥大学出版社。——（1989）：《我想说的话》，伦敦：Hutchinson Radius。

Original · #310

Zhao, Yuezhi (2007): ‘Short-Circuited? The Communication of Labor Struggles in China’, Catherine McKercher & Vincent Mosco: Knowledge Workers in the Information Society, Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 229-247. ------ (2008): Communication in China, New York: Rowman & Littlefield. ------ (2010): ‘China’s Pursuit of Indigenous Innovations in Information Technology Develop- Žižek, Slavoj (2010): Living in the End Times, London: Verso. [76] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014

Translation

赵月枝（2007）：“短路了？中国劳工斗争的传播”，载凯瑟琳·麦克彻、文森特·莫斯科编：《信息社会中的知识工作者》，马里兰州兰哈姆：列克星敦图书公司，229—247页。——（2008）：《中国的传播》，纽约：罗曼与利特菲尔德。——（2010）：“中国对信息技术发展中自主创新的追求：希望、谬误与不确定性”，《中国传播学刊》，第 3 卷第 3 期，266—289 页。斯拉沃热·齐泽克（2010）：《生活在时代终结之际》，伦敦：Verso。[76] 《无界文化》，第 6 卷，2014 年

Original · #311

3.2) and the collected volume The Renewal of Cultural Studies that features 27 [40] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014

Translation

3.2）以及收录了27篇文章的论文集《文化研究的更新》[40]。该文出自《文化无界》第6卷（2014年）。

Original · #312

3). Hartley (2012: 57) only briefly asks if his approach is ‘stalking horses for neoliberalism’. He has a negative answer to this question, grounded in the fact that also Adbusters magazine once referred positively to evolutionary economics. Just [50] Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014

Translation

3). 哈特利（2012: 57）只是简略地提出疑问：他的方法是否在为新自由主义充当“探路石”（stalking horses）。他对这个问题给出了否定的回答，其依据是，《Adbusters》杂志也曾正面提及进化经济学。仅仅在[50]《Culture Unbound》第6卷，2014年

Original · #313

2011), ‘The Internet as Playground and Factory’ (New York, New School, November 12-14, 2009, see http://digitallabor.org/, Scholz 2013), and ‘The 4 th ICTs and Society Conference: Critique, Democracy and Philosophy in 21 st Century Information Society. Towards Critical Theories of Social Media’ (Uppsala University, Sweden, May 2-4, 2012, Fuchs and Sandoval 2014, Fuchs 2012a, b). The Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014 [55]

Translation

2011），"作为游乐场与工厂的互联网"（纽约新学院，2009年11月12—14日，参见http://digitallabor.org/；Scholz 2013），以及"第四届ICT与社会会议：21世纪信息社会中的批判、民主与哲学——迈向社会媒体的批判理论"（瑞典乌普萨拉大学，2012年5月2—4日，Fuchs and Sandoval 2014；Fuchs 2012a、2012b）。《Culture Unbound》2014年第6卷[55]