The Contemporary Dimension Upgrade of Capital: The Dominance Revolution from "Means of Production" to "Labor Power Production"

As the rule of capital in the digital age becomes increasingly concealed, and as life dimensions such as education, health, and time have all been reduced to arenas of value extraction, this work, rooted in Marxist political economy, breaks free from the traditional analytical framework centered on "ownership of means of production" and puts forward a groundbreaking core thesis—contemporary capital has completed an ascended rule from "possessing things" to "colonizing life," with its core object of domination shifting from "means of production" to "the production and reproduction of labor power."

A distinctive highlight of this work lies in constructing a triadic dialectically linked framework of "Actual Control Capacity over the Means of Production—Production Integrity—Actual Control Capacity over the Production of Labor Power." It profoundly analyzes the alienated nature of the commercialization of labor power, reveals the core contradiction between the capitalist socialized large-scale production and the capitalist private control over labor power production, and provides a brand-new theoretical perspective for understanding the new forms of exploitation under digital capitalism. Meanwhile, centering on the core goal of "abolishing the commercialization of labor power," the work systematically outlines a two-stage emancipatory program of "political revolution + social revolution." Grounded in the specific practical context of nation-states while embracing the dimension of class solidarity from a global perspective, it closely integrates theoretical criticism with emancipatory paths, boasting both ideological depth and practical enlightenment.

Important Declaration

This work is currently an unpublished research manuscript and remains in the stage of improvement and development. All views, frameworks, and expressions herein are preliminary research results, which will be continuously revised and optimized based on academic exchange feedback.

Chapter 1: Historical Starting Point and Core Categories

(A) From the Primitive Accumulation of Capital to the Formation of Capitalist Private Appropriation

When the horn of capital pierces the dome of the old world, land, gold, silver, minerals, and even the most unique and rare lives in human society converge like a tide toward the areas dominated by capital—this seemingly magnificent journey is underpinned by blood-stained violence.
As the pioneers of capital sing triumphantly on the enclosed fertile fields, generations of farming peasants wander with their luggage in the winds of foreign lands; as they raise their glasses at the tide of the Atlantic Ocean, the whimpers of African slaves in the holds of slave ships struggle to find room to breathe; as they step onto colonial lands and shout "freedom," poppies covering the mountains and plains have long woven sin into a net of profits.
The "feats" they boast of are the sad songs of the world's people. This history written in deprivation is not only the starting point of capitalism's upgrading but also an indispensable proposition for studying its essence: it represents a leap forward in human civilization in material production, yet a degradation in morality and dignity.
This history—known as the primitive accumulation of capital—not only brought widespread hardship to workers of that era but also harbors the historical root of the widespread sense of powerlessness felt by every labor comrade today. All of this can be traced back to the fundamental fact on which all the mysteries of capitalist production relations are rooted: the commercialization of labor power[1].
The transformation of labor power into a commodity is not a result of natural evolution, but a historical rupture in the name of "primitive accumulation of capital." The essence of so-called primitive accumulation is the forced separation of producers from the means of production[2]. In England, it manifested as the "Enclosure Movement" that lasted for centuries: landlords and the new aristocracy, through legislation and violence, converted common lands and peasant holdings into private sheep pastures. The dispossessed peasants not only lost their means of livelihood but also all their foundations as independent producers[3]. Meanwhile, overseas colonial plunder brought enormous amounts of gold, silver, and primitive capital to Europe[4]. The outcome of this process was the formation of two opposing classes: on one side, a small number of people who concentrated land, money, and means of production; on the other, a vast multitude of "free" workers who had been stripped of everything except their own labor capacity[5].
It is precisely this duality of "freedom"—freed from personal dependence yet free in having nothing—that makes the universal transformation of labor power into a commodity possible and prerequisite. Selling one's labor power is no longer a choice, but the sole means of survival[1][5]. When workers sell their labor capacity as a commodity on the market, a fundamental transformation occurs: their labor is no longer aimed at directly producing use-value, but at exchanging for wages; what governs their labor process is no longer their own will, but the capital that purchases their labor power. The commercialization of labor power marks the birth of a brand-new social relation—the wage-labor relation.
This new relation has completely transformed the nature of the private ownership of means of production. In pre-capitalist societies, private ownership of means of production mainly served the owner's personal labor and consumption. Under the wage-labor relation, however, the owners of means of production purchase labor power for production, whose purpose is no longer use-value but the valorization of value. Means of production are thus transformed into capital, and their private ownership correspondingly evolves into capitalist private appropriation—a form of ownership centered on possessing and dominating the labor of others and exploiting surplus value.
Therefore, the violent dispossession of primitive accumulation, the pivotal transformation of labor power into a commodity, and the establishment of the mutually locked production relations of capitalist private ownership and wage labor constitute a complete historical and logical chain. It clearly reveals that the entire class structure, contradictions, and movements of capitalist society are built on the cornerstone that "labor power is a commodity"[1][6].
Today, with the emergence of new forms of capital such as algorithms and platforms, the potential inherent in the commercialization of labor power[1] is being unleashed and amplified in an unprecedented manner. Digital capital exhibits three fundamental characteristics distinct from traditional industrial capital, forcing our analytical perspective to undergo a dual transformation. Yet this dual transformation ultimately points to the same conclusion.
First, flexibility and dynamism: the high flexibility of production and capital flow. In traditional forms of capital, production and capital flow are fundamentally relatively static. Production takes place in fixed locations, at fixed times, and according to fixed processes; even in the circulation sphere, it mainly manifests as the physical transfer of commodities in space. Digital capital, however, has completely subverted this spatio-temporal structure. Its production can occur instantaneously, collaborate globally, and operate 24 hours a day; its circulation proceeds at the speed of light in virtual networks, and the transformation of capital forms (from data to computing power to financial derivatives) happens in the blink of an eye. This extreme flexibility and dynamism render obsolete the perspective that simply understands means of production as "static things" such as factories and machines, as it can no longer grasp the true pulse of capital movement.
Second, virtuality: the virtuality of capital forms and value creation. This not only refers to the transformation of means of production from tangible ones such as lathes and assembly lines to virtual ones such as data, algorithms, and platform protocols, but more profoundly, the virtualization of value creation and value carriers themselves. In the industrial age, value was embodied in tangible manufactured goods such as steel and cotton yarn. In the digital age, however, value is increasingly manifested as access rights, attention duration, network effects, and even expectations of future data monetization capabilities. Value is increasingly divorced from heavy material entities, floating in a virtual space constructed by code and consensus. Traditional analyses that cling to "tangible means of production" appear increasingly narrow and outdated in the face of the platform economy.
Third, bubble prosperity: the bubble-driven prosperity characteristic of capital accumulation. The prosperity of contemporary digital capital is often driven by financial market valuation games, user growth myths, and monopolistic control of traffic, rather than stable profits from physical products. This prosperity is highly speculative and bubble-prone, with a profound disconnect between the process of capital accumulation and the support of the real economy. If we merely focus on cultural interpretations of this bubble prosperity (such as the "involution" mentality) or temporal critiques (such as "social acceleration"), we are likely to remain superficial and fail to touch the core of the capital logic that drives everything. It also warns us that if we merely shift our perspective from traditional tangible means of production to virtual ones such as data and platforms, we will not only fail to overcome the limitations of the traditional perspective but may even be deceived by this bubble prosperity.
These three characteristics collectively issue an unavoidable challenge and call to our critical theory:

- Its flexibility and dynamism require us to shift our perspective from static "things" to dynamic "processes," from the possession of fixed means of production to the analysis of the control of fluid production and reproduction processes.
- Its virtuality requires us to elevate our perspective from tangible "entities" to intangible "relations," "capabilities," and even "potentialities," questioning what new power structures organize production and distribute value in virtual space.
- At the same time, its bubble prosperity demands that if we cannot penetrate the bubble of prosperity to trace the ultimate source of value and power, any analysis will be reduced to a description of appearances.
Thus, a seemingly contradictory requirement for perspective transformation lies before us: on the one hand, we must "upgrade our dimension"—elevating the analysis to a more dynamic, abstract level that focuses on "processes" and "capabilities"; on the other hand, we must "return to fundamentals"—penetrating the fog of all new technologies and forms to unwaveringly revert to the oldest and most solid questions of political economy: Where does value come from? Why does power arise?
The answer ultimately points to the unchanging fundamental: labor power[1], and the control over its production process. All the new characteristics of digital capital—its dynamic scheduling serves to extract living labor more efficiently; the source of its virtual value remains the condensation of human attention, creativity, and datafied labor; the foundation of its bubble is still the surplus value production supported by the total social labor time. What has changed is only the form and technology of domination; what remains unchanged is the essence and object of domination.
Therefore, our theoretical reconstruction must precisely begin with this set of core categories centered on "labor power" and its "control."

(B) The Triadic Dialectically Linked Analytical Framework[7]

Having identified "labor power" and "control" as the core categories, we need to propose a new analytical framework around them.
Before constructing the framework itself, it is necessary to define several key concepts.

(I). Actual Control over the Means of Production

Refers to the sustainable potential of actors to functionally dominate and utilize the means of production (land, tools, machines, data, platforms, algorithms, etc.) endowed by their objective position in the given relations of production. It constitutes the structural foundation determining power relations in the production process.

(II). Production Integrity

Refers to a state of labor where the worker can relatively independently complete the entire process from conceiving an intention to outputting a complete commodity, and personally witness the objectification of labor in the final product. It is the direct external manifestation and phenomenological representation of "actual control over the means of production" in the labor process. Labor power, as a special commodity, deserves special mention here. Marx notes in Capital that the capitalist first advances the price of labor power[8], after which the worker labors under the capitalist’s direction. Furthermore, the production of the worker’s own labor power must depend on the capitalist—on individuals or organizations that exercise absolute control over the means of production. Without the capitalist’s advance payment of the price of labor power, the worker cannot completely and independently produce their own labor power. Therefore, the worker still lacks the production integrity for producing this special commodity of labor power. Simply put, the worker does not first produce labor power and then sell it on the market; instead, only after another person (the capitalist) purchases their yet-to-be-produced labor power can they produce this special commodity under the other’s direction. Thus, labor power, as a special commodity, still falls within the scope of our concept of production integrity.

(III). Actual Control over the Production of Labor Power

Refers to the fundamental potential and institutional right of workers, based on their subjectivity, to possess autonomous definition rights, process leadership rights, and outcome disposition rights over the full life-cycle process of their own labor power—this special commodity. This process includes its production (skill acquisition and shaping), maintenance (physical and mental reproduction and health), development (capacity upgrading and transformation), deployment (time allocation and labor input), and output (labor results and derived data).

This capacity comprises three inseparable layers:

1. Individual Potential Layer: The actual, transferable skills and awareness that workers possess to autonomously arrange their labor and reproduction.
2. Social Rights Layer: Statutory rights guaranteed by social institutions to independently determine labor conditions and life rhythms free from capitalist coercion (e.g., working hours, leave, data privacy).
3. Collective Power Layer: The capacity of workers, through organized forms, to exercise democratic co-determination over the social conditions affecting labor power reproduction (e.g., education systems, medical resources, platform algorithms).

In essence, it is the core of the struggle between workers and capital over "dominance of the life process." The logic of capital accumulation inevitably attempts to compress this capacity into an adaptive, commodified "human capital" investment capability; whereas the goal of emancipatory politics is to restore and develop it into a complete, creative "life sovereignty." Therefore, the degree of preservation or loss of this capacity is the ultimate yardstick for judging the depth of a worker’s alienation and the possibility of liberation.

It is necessary to clarify that the core categories proposed in this paper—especially "actual control over the production of labor power—derive their strength precisely from their dialectical, relational essence, rather than being a static attribute that can be standardized and measured. They aim to reveal the existential state and direction of change of a power relation. Just as Marx’s analysis of the value form was not to price commodities but to uncover the secret of fetishism[9], the purpose of this framework is to dissect the dynamic game structure of "control" and "loss," providing a qualitative rather than quantitative, trend-identifying rather than metric-calculating critical analytical tool for understanding class formation, the escalation of exploitation, and the spread of alienation. Rigidifying it into an index system would itself be a betrayal of its dialectical spirit.

A rigorous dialectical linkage exists among these three categories, forming a progressively advancing explanatory framework:

- First Linkage Layer (Historical Dispossession): Loss of [Actual Control over the Means of Production] (I) → Leads to loss of [Production Integrity] (II)
The historical origin of capitalism (primitive accumulation) lies at its core in the systematic dispossession of workers’ [Actual Control over the Means of Production] (I). The direct consequence of this structural dispossession is the universal disintegration of workers’ [Production Integrity] (II). Peasants losing their land cannot independently complete the farming cycle; artisans separated from their tools cannot produce complete products. This linkage clearly explains the generative logic of alienation in the classical industrial era: the transfer of control over the means of production necessarily manifests externally as the fragmentation of the labor process and the loss of control over the product.
- Second Linkage Layer (Essential Transformation): Loss of [Production Integrity] (II) → Signifies loss of [Actual Control over the Production of Labor Power] (III)
The disintegration of [Production Integrity] (II) is not the endpoint but a symptom of a more profound transformation. It signifies that a fundamental qualitative alienation has occurred in the worker’s [Actual Control over the Production of Labor Power] (III). This is because labor power, as a special commodity, has its "production" and "consumption" (i.e., the labor process) inseparable in time and space. When the worker, due to the disintegration of (II), is unable to "consume" their own labor power in autonomous production, the only "production" they can realize must occur after its sale, under the direction of capital. Consequently, their [Actual Control over the Production of Labor Power] (III) is alienated from a complete potential oriented toward use-value creation into a deficient, commodified potential oriented solely toward the realization of exchange value. Its only outlet is to sell labor power as a commodity. At this point, this "capacity" is compressed and distorted from a complete, autonomous potential into a commodified, dependent formal potential—namely, the "capacity" to sell one’s own labor power only under market rules. Therefore, the state of production integrity (preservation, disintegration, or distortion) is a key phenomenological indicator for judging the essence of a worker’s control over their own labor power (autonomy or alienation).
- Third Linkage Layer (Contemporary Deepening): Loss of [Actual Control over the Production of Labor Power] (III) becomes the core domain of domination
Under contemporary conditions, the dominating logic of capital has achieved a crucial leap: it is no longer satisfied merely with dispossessing (I) and utilizing the disintegration of (II), but directly targets and systematically colonizes [Actual Control over the Production of Labor Power] (III) itself. This is because, when control over material means of production (I) becomes stable and globally distributed, capital’s anxiety over valorization inevitably shifts toward deeper excavation of "living labor"—namely, the meticulous, all-around extraction of the life process of labor power itself. Through algorithmic scheduling, flexible employment, performance monitoring, and biopolitical governance, capital intends to meticulously control the reproduction rhythms, skill development directions, physical and mental states, and even leisure time of labor power, thereby dispossessing workers of their autonomy at a deeper level. Here, we have completed the outline of the "historical logic." However, capitalist rule is by no means a one-time historical setting; it is a continuous process of reproduction. In the contemporary era, a more profound dialectical reversal is occurring: capital’s systematic colonization of (III) is no longer merely the passive result of the loss of (I) and (II); instead, it has ascended to become the core mechanism and dynamic source that actively and continuously reproduces the latter two states of loss. This means that the analysis of true capitalist domination must focus on the specific forms of loss of (III).