"Capital" and the "996" Work Schedule: Historical Echoes and Contemporary Challenges

Everyone, there’s certainly been a lot of discussion lately about *Capital* and the crisis of capitalism—especially on the Chinese internet, where many people have begun to reexamine Marx’s ideas. I’ve noticed that over in the U.S., they’re desperately trying to save capitalism by replacing human labor with AI and automation, which is a bit absurd. But in reality, the root cause here may be that technology has failed to break through the limitations of the laws of physics. The physical world remains stuck in the Einstein era, with no fundamental paradigm shifts in fields like quantum mechanics. As a result, the only way to exploit workers is through the “996” work schedule—which combines “intensive” and “extensive” approaches. The prevalence of the “996” work schedule actually reflects the lag in technological development. If technology could make a breakthrough, labor relations might ease somewhat. However, the “996” schedule has indeed become a microcosm of the tense labor-management relations in the current economic environment. I remember when I was in graduate school, I had a classmate who worked for a government agency. Once, when he heard that we were still studying *Capital*, he blurted out, “You’re still studying *Capital*? That’s so reactionary!” At that moment, I sensed there were deeper underlying reasons behind this issue. The word “reactionary” left a deep impression on me because, at the time, we were all studying Marxism and political economy, and *Capital* was, of course, a critical revolutionary theory. But why do some people now call it reactionary? There have indeed been changes in the historical and contemporary context. Beginning in the mid-to-late 1990s, our country shifted toward a market economy, whereas *Capital* argues that there are inherent contradictions within the market economy and therefore socialism should pursue planned, proportionate development. The introduction of the market economy did indeed create a cognitive dissonance for many people. At the time, many people found it difficult to use *Capital* to explain why the planned economy had been abandoned. We had no choice but to turn to studying Western neoclassical economics. Yet those who truly study Marxism can still appreciate the practical significance of *Capital* from a historical perspective. This is because Marx identified the issue of surplus value throughout history, from primitive society to modern industrial society. After 1978, peace and development became the themes of the era, but at the time, people did not place much emphasis on these theories. However, looking at these issues again after 2018, we find that they remain highly significant. Those veteran revolutionaries who have lived through historical upheavals have not been completely misled by superficial trends; rather, they are able to step back and see the essence of the issues. Today, we see that Trump’s policies, the situation in Iran, and even China’s reform and opening-up all reflect the practical significance of these theories. The “996” phenomenon, in particular, falls precisely into the category of what Marx termed “absolute surplus value production”—the extraction of surplus through the extension of working hours. Marx argued that after the Industrial Revolution, the production of relative surplus value became dominant—meaning that the production of surplus increasingly relied on technological progress rather than extending working hours. Marx maintained that following the Industrial Revolution, the production of relative surplus value became the primary mode of production, with surplus generated mainly through technological progress rather than by extending labor time. The methods used by feudal lords and slave owners—forcing people to work long hours while eating little and taking all the surplus for themselves—belong to the “absolute” category, just like the “996” practice in some companies today. As history progresses, the role of technology becomes increasingly significant, while the reliance on sheer sweat and toil diminishes. This trend is indeed evident throughout history. Marx’s theory does indeed provide a profound understanding of capitalism’s internal contradictions, but he also emphasized that relations of production not only adapt to the development of productive forces but can also hinder that development. Lenin further developed this idea, pointing out that capitalism exacerbates its internal contradictions, ultimately leading to the emergence of a new mode of production. During the era of the Third International, the contradictions between capitalism and colonial and Third World countries were further emphasized. Therefore, the Chinese Revolution and the revolutions in other underdeveloped countries are all concrete manifestations of this theory. In short, the current increased attention on *Capital* indicates that we still need to gain a deeper understanding of the significance behind this theory. The “996” phenomenon is merely a concrete manifestation of this theory in the contemporary era.