The important goals of Digital China construction are to overcome the shortcomings of Western digital capitalism and big data capitalism…
数字中国建设的重要目标恰是要克服西方数字资本主义、大数据资本主义的弊端…
Shan Xiaoxi (单小曦), “Digital Modernity: The Discourse Paradigm of Chinese New Media Literary Theory” (数字现代性: 中国新媒介文论话语范式), Social Sciences in China (中国社会科学), March 10, 2025, pp. 147-165
Digital China is not just a technical project or a developmental plan. It is an ideological system that seeks to define the nature of modernity itself.
I’m often struck by how deeply Chinese social scientists have woven the Party’s concept of Digital China into their work, even in fields far afield from policy analysis. A recent example is a paper by Professor Shan Xiaoxi from the School of Humanities at Hangzhou Normal University, published in the March 2025 issue of Social Sciences in China, the flagship journal of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
Shan’s article on “digital modernity” and new media literary theory, treats Digital China not as a policy program but as a practical expression of digital socialism, and a conceptual framework that explains why China’s digital evolution differs fundamentally from that of the West.
Drawing on Marxist historical materialism, Professor Shan defines “digital modernity” as a distinct form of modernity that arises in post-industrial societies. According to Shan, the contrasting successes and failures in digital modernity between China and the West stem from fundamentally different visions for post-industrial society. In essence, he sees the strength of China’s digital cultural production as evidence of the practical success of digital socialism, in stark contrast to the visible shortcomings of digital capitalism in the West.
Digital Modernity: A Marxist Reading
Drawing on Marxist historical materialism, Shan defines “digital modernity” as a distinct form of modernity emerging in post-industrial societies. In his view, the divergent trajectories of China and the West reflect different visions of post-industrial social order. Western countries, he argues, have allowed capitalism to shape the digital age:
…in the West, digital modernity is a prominent manifestation of the capitalist crisis in the digital age … namely, “digital capitalism” has emerged, which is “computer networks connected with the existing capitalism.”
在西方，数字现代性是资本主义危机在数字时代的突出表现 … 即出现了“计算机网络与现有的资本主义联系在一起”的“数字资本主义”。
In contrast, Sham frames China’s digital evolution, anchored in Digital China and Chinese Style Modernization, as proof of the strengths of digital socialism.
New Media Literature as Evidence of Systemic Difference
Shan argues that the structural differences between digital capitalism and digital socialism are visible in each side’s “new media literature and art.”1 According to Shan, Western forms of new media often display characteristics such as infantilization, naive experiential modes, surface realism, and what he calls a “rigid yet pseudo-sincere” style. In contrast, Chinese new media works focus on serious themes, sincere storytelling, direct engagement with lived realities, and the articulation of Chinese experiences.
These differences, he claims, emerge from the ideological and structural “breakthrough space” (突破空间) created by Chinese Style Modernization and expanded by Digital China. As the Party’s practical vision for digital socialism, Digital China seeks to overcome the shortcomings of digital capitalism.
Shan is exclicit:
The important goals of “Digital China” construction are to overcome the shortcomings of Western “digital capitalism” and “big data capitalism;” to eliminate the digital divide; to achieve the coordinated development of digital economy, digital management, and digital culture; and to ultimately move towards Common Prosperity.
“数字中国”建设的重要目标恰是要克服西方“数字资本主义”“大数据资本主义”的弊端，以消弭数字鸿沟，实现数字经济、数字管理、数字文化的协同发展，最终走向共同富裕。
Digital China Shapes the Emergence of an Intelligent Society
Using the framework of Marxist materialist historiography, Professor Shan explains the theoretical basis of Digital China and the guidance it provides for leaders in the post-industrial era. While the emergence of digitalized production and a digital society is inevitable in both socialist and capitalist countries, the “relations of production” will ultimately determine whether a digital society evolves as an expression of digital capitalism or digital socialism.
Shan provides guidance:
In 2021, China proposed the development strategy for building “Digital China.” These studies and strategy are all based on similar practical considerations, namely, that both capitalist and socialist countries, as classified along the axis of productive relations, are experiencing and will inevitably undergo a transformation toward digitalized production. [Similarly] On the axis of productive forces, the transition into a digital society (which may also be referred to as a “network society,” “data society,” or “intelligent society,” depending on the stage and perspective) represents an irreversible historical trend. Naturally, the different character of productive relations will shape distinct manifestations and developmental trajectories of the digital society, leading to the differentiation between “digital capitalism” and “digital socialism.”
2021年, 中国提出建设 “数字中国” 发展战略。这些研究和战略都立足于类似的现实考量，即生产关系轴线上被划分出的资本主义国家、社会主义国家都在经历和必将经历数字化生产变革，在生产力轴线上进入数字社会（ “网络社会” “数据社会” “智能社会” 都是从不同阶段、不同视角做出的命名）是一个不可逆转的历史大势。当然，不同性质的生产关系会使数字社会呈现出不同的具体面貌及发展走向，从而出现 “数字资本主义” 与 “数字社会主义” 的区别。
A Critique of Western “Digital Socialism”
In a noteworthy section, Shan critiques the speculative nature of Western Marxist theories of digital socialism, such as “cyber communism.” These theories imagine that digital computing might one day enable an effective system for socialist planning. While acknowledging their theoretical value, Shan dismisses them as ungrounded in actual social practice, merely “castles in the sky.”
“Digital capitalism” and “big data capitalism” have already highlighted the negative aspects of Western digital modernity. To solve the problem, Western academia has proposed concepts such as “cyber communism” and “digital socialism”, believing that digital computing could lead to “an effective socialist planning system”. These assumptions have certain theoretical value, but because they are not based on social practice, they either lack the rationality of practical verification or are just reasonable castles in the air.
“数字资本主义”“大数据资本主义”已经使西方数字现代性的消极方面不断凸显。为了解决问题，西方学术界曾提出过“赛博共产主义”“数字社会主义”等构想，认为数字计算可能带来“一个有效的社会主义计划体系”。这些设想有一定的理论价值，不过由于没有建立在社会实践基础之上，或者缺乏实践检验的合理性，或者只是合理的空中楼阁。
Why this matters
This paper is a revealing example of how Digital China is expanding far beyond policy circles into China’s broader intellectual ecosystem. Digital China now anchors cultural and literary theory, shapes academic debate about modernity, provides ideological legitimacy rejecting Western digital models, and is framed as the practical embodiment of digital socialism.
Shan’s work reinforces something essential about Digital China: It is not just a technical project or a developmental plan. It is an ideological system that seeks to define the nature of modernity itself.
Understanding Digital China requires understanding this ideological dimension. Chinese scholars, across disciplines, are not framing China’s digital transformation as an imitation of the West, but as an alternative civilizational model for the digital age.
Footnote
- “New media literature and art” refers to creative works, including literature, art, and performance, that are both produced and consumed through digital platforms and technologies. ↩︎