Abstract: Negri and Hardt question and criticize Marx's theory of exploitation based on material production, based on the transformation of the labor paradigm from material labor to “immaterial labor” or “biopolitical production” in the postindustrial era. They believe that, on the one hand, the object of capital exploitation is no longer surplus value, but the socalled “common”; on the other hand, the subject of capital exploitation is no longer the working class, but the socalled “multitude”. As for the former, although they discuss the new changes and characteristics of capital exploitation under the conditions of emerging digital technology, they confuse not only the “deprivation” of natural resources and public property in primitive accumulation with the “exploitation” of hired workers by capitalists, but also the onedimensional determination of the value of commodities (such as urban buildings) at the essential level with the multidimensional determination of prices at the phenomenal level. As for the latter, since the exploitation relationship is essentially an economic and production relationship, the new changes and characteristics of capital exploitation in time and space, as discussed by them, have not formed a negation and deconstruction of Marxs theory of exploitation. The specific images of the socalled multitude, as portrayed by them, are nothing more than descriptions of the production and living conditions of the working class, and therefore have not formed a negation and deconstruction of Marxist category of the working class. Whether it is “the multitude” or “the common”, due to the unclear connotation and overly broad extension, these two are not scientific concepts that reveal essences and laws, but rather daily expressions that fall into the phenomenal descriptions.

Key words: immaterial labor, the common, the multitude, capital exploitation, Marx, Negri and Hardt

摘要： 奈格里和哈特以后工业时代劳动范式从物质劳动向“非物质劳动”或“生命政治生产”的转换为由，对马克思基于物质生产的剥削理论提出质疑和批评。他们认为，一方面，资本剥削的对象不再是剩余价值，而是所谓的“共同性”；另一方面，受资本剥削的主体不再是工人阶级，而是所谓的“诸众”。就前一方面而言，他们虽然论述了在新兴的数字技术条件下资本剥削的新变化、新特点，但不仅混淆了原始积累中（对自然资源和公共财产）的“剥夺”和资本家对雇佣工人的“剥削”，而且混淆了本质层面商品（如城市建筑物）价值的一元决定和现象层面价格的多元决定。就后一方面而言，由于剥削关系在本质上是一种经济关系和生产关系，所以他们所论述的资本剥削在时间和空间上的新变化、新特点，并未形成对马克思剥削理论的否定和解构；他们所罗列的所谓诸众的具体形象，都不过是对工人阶级的生产和生活状况的描述，因而并未形成对马克思工人阶级范畴的否定和解构。无论是“诸众”还是“共同性”，由于在内涵上模糊不清、在外延上过于宽泛，所以它们与其说是揭示本质和规律的科学概念，毋宁说是流于现象性描述的日常用语。

关键词: 非物质劳动, 共同性, 诸众, 资本剥削, 马克思, 奈格里和哈特