<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt">My responses to Christian are inline. Thanks by the way, Christian, for your excellent summary of the 3 main thought trends at the conferece.<br><div><blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> "Christian.Fuchs@sbg.ac.at" <Christian.Fuchs@sbg.ac.at><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> idc@mailman.thing.net<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Fri, November 6, 2009 12:13:30 PM<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> [iDC] Answers to Postings
about Marx, Labour Theory of Value<br></font><br>
<title>Answers to Postings about Marx, Labour Theory of Value</title>
<p><font size="2">Dear list members,<br>
<br>
<br>
Michael Bauwens wrote:<br>
> I think we do have to accept that we are no longer in a mercantile, nor<br>
> industrial capitalist logic, but in a third phase of cognitive capitalism.<br>
><br>
><br>
I do not think it is "cognitive capitalism", "communicative capitalism", etc, but "new imperialistic capitalism". I would use the term "information capitalism" only for that part of new imperialism that is based on information, which is important, but not dominant. These are important questions that can only be answered by empirical studies. I have engaged in this work in the past year and some publications on these issues will be forthcoming. If someone says we live in a "cognitive capitalism", then evidence is needed that cognition is the dominant phenomenon.</font></p><p><font size="2"><br></font></p><p><span>I HAVE collated some material here: <a target="_blank" href="http://p2pfoundation.net/Cognitive_Capitalism">http://p2pfoundation.net/Cognitive_Capitalism</a>, but I'm not sure, 'cognition is the dominant phenomenom' describes that thesis well.</span><br></p><p><font size="2"><br></font></p><p><font size="2"><br></font></p><p><font
size="2"><br></font></p><p><font size="2"><br></font></p><p><font size="2">
<br>
> But what if we observe that, not socialism is occuring, but a new<br>
> hyperproductive system, in which both the capital and managerial class, and the<br>
> producing class, see different advantages to move towards. A section of capital<br>
> becomes netarchical, and starts monetizing these practices. It appears at first<br>
> hand to create a new economic sector, but it is embraced also by the producing<br>
> classes, for different reasons.<br>
> The point is, while it originally appears to strengthen the<br>
> capitalist totality, it at the same time creates post-capitalist logics, such<br>
> as the direct production for value, forms of participatory governance that are<br>
> practiced outside corporate formats, and commons oriented property formats.<br>
> Commons-based peer production, the sharing platforms, and crowdsourcing are<br>
> three main forms of this mutual adaptation.<br>
I agree with you that the Internet advances communist potentials, but these are today at the same time subsummed under capital. One and the same technology seems to undercut capitalist interests, but frequently also becomes part of a new business strategy. Take file sharing: It is considered as a threat by the music and film industry, but at the same time there is iTunes or new file sharing business models in the music industry (examples are albums by Radiohead or Nine Inch Nails).<br>
<br>
> The paradox is that it both creates new forms of capitalism,<br>
> and new forms of post-capitalism. It is both immanent and transcendent, and we<br>
> have to resist any either/or logic but rather see them both occurring at once.<br>
I completely agree. This is the thesis that I have advanced in my book "Internet and Society". The problem that I see is that many people overestimate the post-capitalist aspects and forget about the capitalist aspects. The second are a very powerful reality, the first are still more precarious potentials of resistance that are much harder to realize. So this dialectic is an asymmetric one.</font></p><p><font size="2"><br></font></p><p><font size="2">Christian, I agree with you. But what if we add a temporal dimension. Since these practices are emergent, they are weak and therefore more easily integrated. But already they create powerful new social possibilities and cultural shifts, many of which go against the grain of previously existing neoliberalism. Do yo agree then, that the issue is: how do we strengthen those post-capitalist aspects, how do we strengthen peer and sharing communities, how do we protect commony protected value from private
appropriation. On the other side of the coin, what do you think of the Crisis of Value hypothesis, i.e. that these trends create a crisis for capital's monetization as well?<br></font></p><p><font size="2"><br></font></p><p><font size="2"><br></font></p><p><font size="2">
> My thesis is that the marxist thesis, of a organized working class taking power<br>
> and then changing society, has been discredited. Not only because it didn't<br>
> happen in the last 200 years, but because it is based on a misreading of<br>
> history<br>
><br>
> Capitalism is not dead, but it is dying, and as infinite<br>
> growth is not compatible with a limited natural world, it has to die. Though it<br>
> could conceivably be replaced by something worse, and though it is unlikely<br>
> that 19th century socialist scenarios will come to fruition, the<br>
> phase transition towards a fully commons-orientated mode of peer production, is<br>
> a strong historical opportunity, and we should not idly stand by while it is occurring.<br>
I think capitalism will only "die", if it is overthrown by an "organized working class". To assume that there will be an automatic breakdown is a form of functionalist structuralism that neglects the role of agency. In this situation, an organized working class that includes all exploited classes (including prosumers) is needed more than ever.<br>
<br>
Michael Bauwens wrote:<br>
> It seems to me that the logic of Christian's arguments ends up laying the blame totally at the supposed >victim, i.e. the working volunteers ...<br>
>The industrial worker could be excused for being exploited, indeed because of the enclosures, the >alternative to working for pay is usually starvation ...<br>
>but the facebook volunteer, extremely exploited because he works totally for free, has no such excuse, >he is totally and entirely responsible for his own exploitation, the more so that usually open and free >alternatives exist ...<br>
>so I say we launch a new political movement to fight against these people, because they are much worse >than their exploiters,<br>
I do not understand the logic of this argument. The central aspect and scandal is that capital exploits wage labour and other workers and that therefore a movement against capital is needed. Facebook produsage exploitation is not "voluntary", there are no viable non-commercial non-profit alternatives to it, users therefore are forced to use it, otherwise they would hae less fun and less satisfaction and less social relations and therefore more problems, etc. And even if some consumption is voluntary because there are different products you can consume, even non-commercial ones, or if some labour is voluntary, then the scandal is not that someones lets someone else exploit him/her, the scandal is that in capitalism there are groups and individuals that pursue (and have to pursue) the interest of exploitation in order to accumulate profit.</font></p><p><font size="2"><br></font></p><p><font size="2"><br></font></p><p><font size="2">Here I must disagree.
Facebook usage is voluntary and I know many people who refuse to use it. The truth for me is that there are compelling reasons to that 1) third party platforms exists; 2) and that they are currently 'better' than independent platforms. You have to see this as a acceptable social contract from the user's point of view. They get a lot out of it, which makes the quid pro quo valuable enough. Especially in the context of the value crisis, Howard Rheingold's quip, "I get more out of Flickr, than they do out of me", rings true.<br></font></p><br><br>Michel<br><p><font size="2"><br>
</font>
</p>
</div></div></blockquote></div>
<!-- cg3.c2.mail.ac4.yahoo.com compressed Wed Nov 18 00:38:19 PST 2009 -->
</div><br>
</body></html>