[iDC] 1. Some notes on value...
Adam Arvidsson
arvidsson at hum.ku.dk
Sat Feb 23 20:37:45 UTC 2008
Hi Johan,
thanks for the contribution.
From my perspective: Consumer and audiences don't produce value:
they produce wealth (or use value- I've written some on this, also
from a marxist perspective, se my Brands. Meaning and Value in Media
Culture, Routledge, 2006) The problem capitalism faces today is how
to valorize this wealth. This wasn't a problem in Smythe's days (or
rather in the then already outdated media economy that he wrote
about). In the 1950s, the value of an audience (the exchange value of
its labour power in reproducing the consumption norm, to be precise)
could be measured (and hence established) reasonably well by
estimating the time spent in front of the TV set. And this was the
way Nielsen and all the rest operated until, roughly the 1980s. But
with the advent of the remote control, vcr, satellite and all that
this measure lost its validity. And that's precisely the problem for
capital today, the absence of a measure that can valorize this
wealth (see all the talk of intangibles). Now the absence of a
measure is an empirical indication of the absence of hegemony (says
my nietzschian reading of Marx). Maybe this absence of hegemony is
temporary, maybe new forms of control will be able to estimate the
value of all that we do in our everyday life with sufficient validity
for that life to enter into the value chain of capital as a form of
labour (developments are certainly there, see new reliance on
analytics and data mining). But then again maybe not. Maybe a
different economy will cristalize. Or maybe,( most likely scenario I
think) capitalism will change its operational value logic, into a
through a sort of New Deal focusing on ethics and sustainability..
At any rate, wage labour as we know it is hardly the norm anymore
(look at the figures and the prognosis, in particular in southern
europe) who has a steady job? Everybody's precarious! And the work
process of Linux and Microsoft simply aren't comparable. Linux
'wastes' labour time on a host of projects that never come to
anything. They can do this because labour is an abundant resource
zero cost to them. They neither have an interest nor an incentive
(nor the ability) to tell people what to do. Microsoft must
rationalize the production process so that labour costs are minimized
in relation to market price. There simply is no linear relation
between the value (whatever that is) of Linux and the labour time the
project 'consumes'. (See also second life: if you try to estimate its
value in terms of the 'free labour time'- a contradiction in terms-
invested by its users, you'll find that this figure is astronomically
superior to Linden Labs market value)
best
adam
On 21/feb/08, at 10:23, Johan Söderberg wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have been lurking on the list for some time now, and Adam
> Arvidssons very interesting posting on the brand as a possible new
> form of value kicked me into writing a reply. I found your ideas
> about an "ethical economy" challenging when you presented them last
> autumn at the p2p conference. It certainly changes my kaleidoscope
> to start thinking of the brand as the rationalised meassurement of
> the esteem economy, instead of the normative No Logo-approach.
> However, as a complement to your framing of the question (my
> interpretation of it) as several different values opposing each
> other (starting with Marx's definition of a coercive value that is
> based on commanding labour and proceeding towards increasingly more
> ethereal, co-produced forms of value-creation, I think the same
> development could also be traced from within a closer reading of
> Marx's definition of value.
>
> Our observations on this start out from the convergence of producer
> and consumer roles, a fact that for the last two decades have been
> commented on and invested with hype by a great number of futurists,
> mainstream economists, innovation researchers etc. (A. Toffler: the
> procumer, von Hippel: user-centred innovation models, the list goes
> on). In comparison, Karl Marx noted in Grundrisse:
>
> "[...] the product becomes a real product only by being consumed.
> For example, a
> garment becomes a real garment only in the act of being worn; a
> house where no one lives is in fact not a real house; thus the
> product, unlike a mere natural object, proves itself to be,
> becomes, a product only through consumption."
>
> The newfound emphasis on consumption-as-production is predated by
> the change of heart in the 1980s wihin academia of where to look
> for acts of resistance, from industrial labour conflicts to
> consumer/audience resistance (S. Hall, de Certeau, Fiske...) As was
> pointed out at the time by the "political economist" camp in the
> debate that followed (Moscow), the decoding process by audiences
> does not offer much ground for resistance. However, as a cognitive
> and emotional investment and a source of surplus value for capital,
> we might percieve the decoding process as a sizeable factor.
>
> This idea struck Dallas Smythe in the 1980a when he tried to apply
> the Marxist law of value-concept to interpret television audiences.
> He started with a maxim known since the advent of radio, 'the
> Sarnoff Law', which states that the wealth of a broadcasting
> network stands in proportion to its number of non-paying listeners.
> Smythe deduced that the commodity sold by media networks is the
> attention of audiences. The consumer buying into this product is
> the advertiser. It follows that the audience has the role of the
> producer, together with, to a lesser extent, the paid actors making
> the tv-shows. (from the angle of mainstream economics, the same
> idea comes across as the so-called attention economy, stating that
> the scarce resource is not information but attention, thus
> audiences become more highly priced than the information they are
> looking at). Smythe, mirroring the term "labour power", introduces
> the word "audience power" to describe the work performed by audiences.
> Smythe did not expand on the similarity between the reproductive
> labour of audiences and that of women. Still, the experience of
> women demonstrates that capitalist exploitation of unwaged,
> reproductive labour is neither a marginal nor a novel phenomenon.
> In the 1970s feminist Marxists brought attention to the fact that
> housewives and children link up to capitalist circulation. Women
> devote necessary labour and surplus labour time to cleaning,
> cooking, caring, childrearing etc., out of which the surplus labour
> is appropriated by the husband. The relationship between the
> members of the family is feudal while the household relates to
> capital through the man's employment. The exploitation of the
> woman's reproductive labour affects the ratio between necessary
> labour and surplus labour at the workplace. Hence, the man is
> basically relaying surplus value from his wife to his employer.
> With women entering the labour market en masse since the 1970s,
> coupled with expanded commodification of household sevices and
> products, we may elect to say that some of that reproductive, un-
> waged labour is now carried out by audiences.
>
> Since so very little is done in the act of decoding a broadcased tv
> message, computer audiences are better suited for making this
> argument.
> A
> remark by Martin Kenney, writing on the economy of the high-tech
> sector, gives some clues: "But the software requires its users to
> learn how to use it. This means
> that the ability of software companies to capture value is related
> to our willingness to learn how to use their programs. [...] From
> this perspective, in the aggregate the users have invested far more
> time in learning how to use a software program than did the
> developers." The key strategic asset of computer firms is not their
> fixed capital, not their employees, but their user base. Increased
> interactivity in "digital media", hailed as the end of passive
> media consumption, amounts to increased exploitation of audience
> power. The desire among capitalists to establish communities
> (youtube, facebook) in order to amass value comes down to "virtual
> communities" being the best honey trap for increasing the
> willingness and the number of volunteer worker-audiences. The
> number makes up for the relative small contribution of each
> participant. Seen in terms of aggregated labour time, the time
> spent by world's Window's users by far outstrips the time spent by
> Microsoft's in-house developers to write the next version of the OS
> (which raises the question who's entitled to call whom a freerider/
> pirate).
>
> The involvement of users and audiences in the production process
> answers the question how capitalism can sustain profits despite
> approaching a state of near total automation. Extensive use of
> machinery has not abolished the law of value or made it
> immeasurable (i.e. Negri) but it certainly has changed the terms of
> its operations. Living labour has been expulsed from inside the
> production process and the jurisdiction of trade unions. But labour
> returns from the ashes with a vengeance. The investment of living
> labour must be made perpetually in order to create the setting in
> which decontextualised, mass-reproduced, digital use values are to
> be consumed. The making of the product by employees and the use of
> the product by users are intertwined into a continuous labour
> process. The importance of emotional and educational investments
> made by user communities and audiences is reinforced in proportion
> to digitalisation and the corresponding downsizing of in-housed
> workers.
>
> However, the goods produced by user-communities only has value in
> its relation to the value of waged labour working towards
> equivalent sollutions somewhere else in the economy. Hence, wage
> labour need still to be the norm in society (which goes some way
> explaining the expansion of intellectual property). Just as the
> invisible, gratis and (re?)productive labour of women in the
> feudal household creates value to capital only due to the wage
> realtion in which the man is entangled. Simplifying a bit, it is
> the wages of Microsoft's programmers that determine the value of
> Red Hat's GNU/Linux products. Gratis audience-labour organised in
> user-communities create value for capital in the same way as Marx
> described that a product found laying on the street has value to
> the finder-keeper, i.e. its value exist in relation to the same
> product being produced for sale elsewhere.
>
> Then of course it might be that there is a "germ form" of a
> different meassurement that will only come to the foreground given
> a different social relation, and that might be the surge of an
> ethical economy. It is definitly a line of inquiry worthy of
> investigation.
>
> sincerely
> Johan
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity
> (distributedcreativity.org)
> iDC at mailman.thing.net
> https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
>
> List Archive:
> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
>
> iDC Photo Stream:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/
>
> RSS feed:
> http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc
>
> iDC Chat on Facebook:
> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647
>
> Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref
Yours Sincerely,
Adam Arvidsson
Actics Profile:
http://www.actics.com/adam_arvidsson
Associate Professor, Media Studies
Department of Media, Cognition and Communication
University of Copenhagen
Njalsgade 80
2300 Copenhagen S
http://web.mac.com/adamerica/iWeb/AdamArvidsson/Intro.html
tel +45 35328124
fax +45 35328110
cell +45 26174875
+46 702416473
Skype-ID adamerica70
Blog: http://blog.actics.com
www.media.ku.dk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/attachments/20080223/b11dc0ad/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the iDC
mailing list