[iDC] Fw: Social Production and the Labor Theory of Value (2)

[Michael Bauwens]

> From: Michael Bauwens <michelsub2003 at yahoo.com>
> To: Zbigniew Lukasiak <zzbbyy at gmail.com>
> Sent: Mon, December 7, 2009 4:38:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [iDC] Social Production and the Labor Theory of Value (2)
> 
> 
> I do think peer production and peer governance bring something new to the table, 
> especially on how to deal with conflicts.
> 
> In previous modes, scarcity was assumed to exist everywhere, and so the control 
> of allocations was paired with cognitive control,
> 
> but in peer production, a polarity is recognized between what is abundant and 
> what is scarce, and the field of abundance is no longer subsumed under the 
> allocation of scarce resources,
> 
> this is why a traditional NGO is hierchical and controlling its communication, 
> but why FLOSS foundations do not command and control the peer production but 
> only the scare infrastructure of cooperation,
> 
> peer governance allows the self-allocation of abundant immaterial effort, 
> putting the allocation control as a post-production collective choice (or to 
> trusted individuals, or to a clique of editors when things go wrong as in the 
> wikipedia)
> 
> in this way, conflict is displaced to where it really belongs, while individual 
> choice and autonomy is preserved in the field of production
> 
> the problem with the old leftist programs of the sixties and seventies, i.e. the 
> dream of self management, is that mgt by committee became a very time consuming 
> model in theory open to everyone, but in practice reserved to the few who had 
> the time and willingness; it seems to me that problem is avoided; whereever 
> decision making is not threatening to others, it is left to self-selection, 
> leaving contentious democracy to those aspects where scarcity allocation cannot 
> be avoided,
> 
> 
> 
> Michel
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Zbigniew Lukasiak 
> > To: Michael Bauwens 
> > Sent: Thu, December 3, 2009 10:35:38 PM
> > Subject: Re: [iDC] Social Production and the Labor Theory of Value (2)
> > 
> > Hi Michael,
> > 
> > If I understand it well the core of what you describe here as 'social
> > business design' is about more participative decision making.  Sure
> > there is a lot to be gained - with more and more complex decisions it
> > is useful to use more of the company cognitive resources.  It is
> > important to analyse what are the things that block us in this task -
> > one obvious of such blocks is the potential for conflict of interests.
> > The command and control framework is inefficient in using the
> > cognitive resources - but it is a stable solution for the problem of
> > conflicts arising inside the organisation, in effect of the conflicts
> > of interests or other sources.  If we are to build better models we
> > need to think up new ways of coping with the conflicts.  It is one of
> > the main thoughts in my last essay that we usually underestimate the
> > potential for conflict in our new online social institutions - and
> > that this eventually leads to their demise and I think the same
> > over-optimism shows in this social business design idea.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Zbigniew
> > 
> > On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Michael Bauwens
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > From my own experience,
> > >
> > > generally speaking, corporations do not change from within, and its 
> management 
> > is most animated by the continuation of the institution, and more importantly, 
> 
> > their place in it. However, competitive threat from the outside, as well as 
> > pressure from the social world, i.e. their consumers, do eventually make them 
> > change; however, even solid institutions have lots of interstices where 
> > motivated people can do  interesting work.
> > >
> > > I would strongly recommend the reading of the following essay, a history of 
> > the waves of control and participation in management. If we are to believe the 
> 
> > authors, and I do because it fits very much with the Kondratieff timing, we 
> are 
> > at the end of a control phase, and at the beginning of a new wave of 
> > participation:
> > >
> > > see:
> > >
> > > Source: Paul S. Adler and Charles Heckscher. Towards Collaborative Community 
> / 
> > (Book: The Corporation as a Collaborative Community)
> > > URL = 
> http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~padler/research/01-Heckscher-chap01%20copy-1.pdf
> > >
> > > Their central thesis:
> > >
> > > Moreover, in the capitalist firm, there are deep structural challenges to
> > > collaborative community. First, the power asymmetry between managers
> > > and employees generates anxiety, deference, and resentment. Second, the
> > > external goals of the firm are deeply contradictory—to produce useful
> > > products and services (‘use-value’ in the parlance of classical political
> > > economy) and to create monetary profit (‘exchange-value’). In capitalist
> > > firms, collective purpose is therefore contradictory in its very nature.
> > > Nevertheless, there has been a slow elaboration of mechanisms for
> > > deliberation—forums in which employees are invited to ‘push back’
> > > against their superiors, and where the contradictory nature of the firms’
> > > goals is acknowledged and confronted."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This is an interesting passage where they discuss the timing of the 
> > collaborative waves:
> > > :Researchers who have studied the evolution of the popularity of
> > > various management techniques in management journals have consistently
> > > identified periods that alternate between a focus on employee
> > > commitment and a focus on managerial control:
> > >
> > > 1. Commitment, 1870s–1890s: welfare work.
> > > 2. Control, 1890s–1910s: scientific management.
> > > 3. Commitment, 1920–1940s: human relations.
> > > 4. Control, 1940s–1960s: systems rationalization.
> > > 5. Commitment, 1970–1990: employee involvement.
> > > 6. Control, 1990– : business process re-engineering and outsourcing.
> > >
> > > The surface pattern is one of alternation; but closer
> > > examination reveals an underlying progression. Starting from a
> > > situation of ‘competitive capitalism’ and ‘simple control,’96 the
> > > sequence of commitment approaches aims successively deeper; the
> > > sequence of control approaches aims successively broader; and the
> > > latter have become increasingly hospitable to the former. First,
> > > relative to the commitment approaches, there is a clear shift from the
> > > earlier reliance on paternalism, to relatively impersonal, bureaucratic
> > > norms of procedural justice, to an emphasis on empowerment and mutual
> > > commitment, targeting progressively deeper forms of subjective
> > > involvement of the individual worker. And this sequence engaged
> > > progressively deeper layers of work organization: welfare work did not
> > > seek to modify the core of work organization; human relations addressed
> > > mainly supervision; employee involvement brought concern for commitment
> > > into the heart of work organization.
> > >
> > > Second, the sequence of control innovations—from scientific
> > > management to systems rationalism to re-engineering—aims at
> > > successively broader spans of the value chain. Scientific management
> > > focuses on tasks and the flow of materials in the workshop. Systems
> > > rationalism aimed at a more comprehensive optimization of production
> > > and distribution activities. Re-engineering and outsourcing aimed at
> > > the rationalization of flows across as well as within firms.
> > >
> > > Third, the relation between the commitment and control
> > > approaches seems to have changed: the control approaches seem to have
> > > become increasingly hospitable to commitment. Within two or three years
> > > of publishing a text popularizing a rather brutally coercive method of
> > > business process re-engineering, both James Champy and Michael Hammer
> > > published new volumes stressing the importance of the human factor and
> > > the need for job redesigns that afford employees greater autonomy. The
> > > undeniably autocratic character of much early re-engineering rhetoric
> > > and its rapid ‘softening’ compares favorably with more unilateral and
> > > enduring forms of domination expressed in post-war systems rationalism.
> > > It compares even more favorably with the even more unilateral and rigid
> > > rhetoric in turn-of-the-century scientific management: scientific
> > > management only softened its relations with organized labor after
> > > nearly two decades of confrontation.
> > >
> > > The zigzag path of development in management technique appears
> > > to trace a vector that corresponds well to Marx’s notion of
> > > ‘socialization’: conscious control, and in particular in the form of
> > > collaborative community, characterizes progressively broader spans of
> > > activity.”
> > >
> > >
> > > So, if we are coming at the end of a control fase, what is next?
> > >
> > >
> > > The next phase may well be called "social business design":
> > >
> > > (an excerpt from 
> > 
> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/from-social-media-to-social-business-design/2009/08/05, 
> 
> > with a special tag here at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens/Social-Business-Design)
> > >
> > >
> > > “Imagine if a company like GM, was at the core “social”.
> > > Not just participating in “social media”—but through every part of
> > > their business ecosystem, were connected—plugged into a collective
> > > consciousness made up of ALL their constituents, from employees to
> > > consumers to dealers, to assembly line works etc. What if big
> > > organizations worked the way individuals now do. We’re
> > > actively using cloud services, mobile, networks and applications that
> > > offer real time dynamic signals vs. inefficient and static e-mail
> > > exchanges. In short, imagine if what makes “Web.2.0? revolutionary was
> > > applied to every facet of an organization transforming how we work,
> > > collaborate and communicate? We think this is possible. And we’re
> > > calling it “social business design“.”
> > > (Armano’s company Dachis Corp. is currently working on rolling out a
> > > set of offerings to help businesses understand and apply these
> > > constructs to achieve leveraged and emergent outcomes that are
> > > measurable.)
> > >
> > > Bruce Nussbaum confirms the work’s importance:
> > >
> > > ” This is one of the most important attempts to answer the key
> > > question of What Comes Next? What comes next after the great recession
> > > ends? What will be the New Normal for consumers, for businesses, for
> > > all global organizations.
> > > In essence, David argues that it is not sufficient for companies
> > > to merely plug into and participate in the social media of its
> > > customers. Companies must BECOME social media and be organized as
> > > social media.”
> > > ----- Original Message ----
> > >> From: Sean Cubitt 
> > >> To: Michael Bauwens ; idc at mailman.thing.net
> > >> Sent: Thu, November 19, 2009 7:03:56 AM
> > >> Subject: Re: [iDC] Social Production and the Labor Theory of Value (2)
> > >>
> > >> Morning Michel
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for the kind words, and more for the suggestion that
> > >> "showing how the corporate/hierarchical structures are themselves
> > >> responsible for sabotaging true productivity, is therefore ultimately also 
> a
> > >> very strong strategy". This is a very important argument. Without 
> belittling
> > >> the work undertaken within existing firms and institutions (my own included
> > >> ;7 ) I've tried to argue that change derives both from within and without
> > >> the existing schema, but especially from without. Pointing out that capital
> > >> is its own worst enemy, not a solid bloc, as you do is surely very 
> important
> > >> (at risk of mentioning Marx yet again, you could call them the 'internal
> > >> contradictions').
> > >>
> > >> In terms of the academic workplace, even as a head of department, the work
> > >> includes turning the vocationalist instrumentality of education towards
> > >> something more 'creative'.open, imaginative, enabling, in everything from
> > >> studio and classroom teaching to curriculum design and advising individual
> > >> students. Ultimately of course we'd all rather see a university / education
> > >> system without walls and some people work towards this as well as / instead
> > >> of working with the existing system - http://www.edu-factory.org/ for
> > >> example
> > >>
> > >> I agree overestimating the enemy is a bad idea: there used to be a
> > >> Trotskyist faction in the UK that argued that Thatcherism had to make
> > >> everything totally grim so the working class would revolt: not a very
> > >> successful analysis. On the other hand underestimating is also risky.
> > >>
> > >> Manzini is a name we should spend more time getting to know - there's a
> > >> short, fascinating recent essay in the very good 'debat' section of the
> > >> Copenhagen event Rethink
> > >> http://www.rethinkclimate.org/debat
> > >> http://www.rethinkclimate.org/debat/rethink-technology/?show=bvc
> > >> What is particular in his design approach is the local. This puzzles me - 
> in
> > >> a good way - because of the constant theme of globalisation in both 
> internet
> > >> studies and media and communications. It reflects back on your theme that
> > >> the 'Best' cannot exist without us, and the theme of autonomy. Fashion, 
> pop,
> > >> and increasingly the art world rely on street culture and the exotic global
> > >> 'periphery' for innovation: the Google/AT&T O3b network looks like doing 
> the
> > >> same. The reason I stress out-creating is the same reason you stress
> > >> out-competing: time is the dimension in which change happens - in the
> > >> future, whose conditions we (the living) are responsible for creating. The
> > >> 'new forms of the local' Manzini addresses are very significant here
> > >>
> > >> The whole iDC process keeps opening up avenues like this. As martin Roberts
> > >> said in a recent post, we are still under the long shadow of the 19thC
> > >> master-thinkers (Darwin and Nietzsche included). And indeed of the 20thC.
> > >> What the debate seems to show is that we don't need master-thinkers but a
> > >> loose web of discussion and thinking. Like the Tour de France, there may be
> > >> the stars, but the real work is done by the peloton. Long may it provide 
> the
> > >> engine of change!
> > >>
> > >> Best
> > >>
> > >> sean
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 19/11/09 8:44 AM, "Michael Bauwens" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Dear Sean:
> > >> >
> > >> > I really enjoyed your contributions in NY last weekend, thanks for that, 
> > very
> > >> > impressive command of the issues.
> > >> >
> > >> > I would like to post two main reactions to what you say below.
> > >> >
> > >> > The first is to the nature of resistance as you describe it below. While
> > >> > certainly a reality in some workplaces, it is very difficult, and also
> > >> > psychologically very self-destructive, to keep this up in many functional
> > >> > environments, in the context of knowledge work. Think of yourself as an
> > >> > academic, knowing that many jobs in corporations are now very similar, 
> how
> > >> > would you sabotabe yourself and your research!!
> > >> >
> > >> > For me, showing how the corporate/hierarchical structures are themselves
> > >> > responsible for sabotaging true productivity, is therefore ultimately 
> also 
> > a
> > >> > very strong strategy, and I think that this is what many young knowledge
> > >> > workers are now doing ,i.e. outrunning, outcompeting corporate 
> > productivity.
> > >> >
> > >> > The second remark is about resistance needing to be 'endlessly 
> inventive'.
> > >> >
> > >> > Of course we all must be creative, but I object, but perhaps misread, to
> > >> > attitudes that are obsessed with the enemy (this is why I did not like 
> the
> > >> > Exploit for example). The approach you mention at the end, Manzini's 
> SLOC, 
> > is
> > >> > the opposite, it relentlessly focuses on our own need for autonomy,
> > >> > continuously look for interstices, and relentlessly constructs more 
> > autonomous
> > >> > alternatives.
> > >> >
> > >> > I think we should cease to feed the Beast with our own illusions of its
> > >> > strength, totality and infinite capacity of cooptation ... Since it feeds 
> 
> > on
> > >> > us, cannot exist without us, we are in fact so much stronger, and in a 
> > sense,
> > >> > 'ignoring' it (in a smart way, not in a dumb way of course), takes away 
> the
> > >> > energy we feed it with,
> > >> >
> > >> > Michel
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > ----- Original Message ----
> > >> >> From: Sean Cubitt
> > >> >> To: Michael Bauwens ; Brian Holmes
> > >> >> ; idc at mailman.thing.net
> > >> >> Sent: Sat, November 7, 2009 5:29:52 AM
> > >> >> Subject: Re: [iDC] Social Production and the Labor Theory of Value (2)
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Curiously I just received a copy of a piece by colleagues from melbourne 
> 
> > on
> > >> >> the topic of resistance: Looking for the Good Soldier, �Svejk:
> > >> >> Alternative Modalities of Resistance in the Contemporary Workplace, 
> Peter
> > >> >> Fleming and Graham Sewell, Sociology Volume 36 n Number 4 n November 
> 2002
> > >> >>
> > >> >> The piece argues that looking for major spectacular resistance (strikes,
> > >> >> sit-ins) is pass�; that footdragging, flannelling, pretending ignorance,
> > >> >> skrimshanking and false compliance etc are the typical forms of 
> resistance
> > >> >> in teamwork managemed workplaces and the like. They called it Sveikism,
> > >> >> after the Good Soldier Sveik
> > >> >>
> > >> >> We know that capital historically has observed worker techniques for 
> > dodging
> > >> >> work and adopted them as efficiency techniques. (There is an analogy 
> with
> > >> >> avant garde art being observed and adapted as advertising technique). It 
> 
> > is
> > >> >> certainly possible that eg time stolen from work to play on social 
> > networks
> > >> >> is being recapitalised as creative labour. This doesn't necessarilty 
> mean
> > >> >> that it isn't resistant, or that resistance is pointless, but that
> > >> >> resistance has to be endlessly inventive to keep ahead of its cooption.
> > >> >> Which in turn makes resistant invention the driver for capital's vaunted
> > >> >> ability to innovate.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> One aspect raised in Michel Bauwens' post from Barcelona is the strictly
> > >> >> political idea that to become political (to seek large scale change 
> rather
> > >> >> than short-term opportunism) requires becoming conscious - aware that 
> the
> > >> >> stakes are political, and perhaps also motivated by a goal that is not
> > >> >> otherwise available in the political-economic system of the hour
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Marx's ideas of class consciousness were always among the weakest 
> aspects:
> > >> >> they certainly need updating to cope with the kind of seizure of
> > >> >> consciousness Michel is talking about. Ezio manzini's ideas of SLOC 
> > (small,
> > >> >> local, open, connected) innovations may also be significant here, in
> > >> >> parallel with but apart from the global projects of FLOSS?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> sean
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On 6/11/09 10:46 PM, "Michael Bauwens" wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>  Dear Brian,
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> very interesting and illuminating contribution.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> I have two remarks, Adam's point about the ethical economy does not 
> refer 
> > to
> > >> >>> any social democratic pipe dream, but to capital is reacting to new 
> > social
> > >> >>> demands. For example, when a corporation operates on a open social 
> > network,
> > >> >>> it
> > >> >>> needs to behave differently in the context of that transparency and the
> > >> >>> circulating ethical demands of network users; or, when a corporation 
> uses
> > >> >>> common code, as in GPL-based free software, it cannot but change its
> > >> >>> behaviour
> > >> >>> in accordance to these new demands. Of course, it can also destroy the
> > >> >>> commons
> > >> >>> for short term gain, but then it looses the advantage of the commonly
> > >> >>> developed code. In other words, communities, whether they are of 
> sharers 
> > or
> > >> >>> commons-based peer producers, do carry weight. More fundamentally 
> though,
> > >> >>> there is a growing new structure of desire, a new form of agency 
> > developing
> > >> >>> and emerging, which forces a mutual adaptation and a new tension 
> between
> > >> >>> community and corporation. This doesn't necessary invalidate
> > >> >>>  your pessimistic scenario, but qualifies it, and I'm also keen to 
> > dispell
> > >> >>> any
> > >> >>> superficial analysis of Adam's point.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> There is a second point I want to make. Are you sure that activists 
> from 
> > the
> > >> >>> old waves are not too wedded to particular types of spectacular 
> > resistance?
> > >> >>> What I see for example is a huge constructive shift towards new forms 
> of
> > >> >>> being
> > >> >>> that go beyond the commodity form, the building of commons of 
> knowledge,
> > >> >>> software and design, and new infrastructures based on it. Struggles 
> that 
> > are
> > >> >>> based on the old contradictions are not the only ones to look for, nor 
> > are
> > >> >>> purely antagonistic protest attitudes. Just as interesting is a 
> profound
> > >> >>> shift
> > >> >>> in values, relationships, infrastructure building, and the creation of 
> a 
> > new
> > >> >>> culture.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> If you take that into account, saying that there is 'no resistance' 
> makes
> > >> >>> less
> > >> >>> and less sense. Perhaps some people are tired of fighting 'against 
> > capital'
> > >> >>> and rather more interested in constructing what comes emerging beyond 
> it?
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Michel
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> ----- Original Message ----
> > >> >>>> From: Brian Holmes
> > >> >>>> To: idc at mailman.thing.net
> > >> >>>> Sent: Sat, October 31, 2009 3:39:54 AM
> > >> >>>> Subject: Re: [iDC] Social Production and the Labor Theory of Value (2)
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> I should stress that the critique in my previous post is not
> > >> >>>> specifically directed at Christian Fuchs (whose knowledge of the 
> Marxist
> > >> >>>> tradition I quite admire) nor is it a rejection of Marx himself (still
> > >> >>>> the most important philosopher of social existence in my view). But I 
> do
> > >> >>>> think there is a lot of time wasted trying to apply Marx's ideas
> > >> >>>> verbatim to vastly changed situations.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> It's a matter of layers, and there is always a next layer. Thus, the
> > >> >>>> ontological status of human labor as the source and measure of value 
> in
> > >> >>>> capitalist societies continues to justify the hyper-exploitation of
> > >> >>>> factory workers and sweatshop laborers all over the planet, and
> > >> >>>> therefore, to govern important aspects of the economic relations 
> between
> > >> >>>> classes, as well as the geo-economic relations between core and
> > >> >>>> peripheral states. But at the same time, at least two further types of
> > >> >>>> social relations that Marx did not directly observe are layered onto
> > >> >>>> that. The first layer came in the 1930s and reached maturity in the
> > >> >>>> 1950s: it is the welfare state, which created large tracts of 
> socialized
> > >> >>>> capital (public facilities of all kinds, redistribution mechanisms for
> > >> >>>> retirement, health care, education etc). This has been described
> > >> >>>> extensively by David Harvey as the "secondary circuit of capital" and 
> it
> > >> >>>> has made a huge change in the way capitalism works within the core
> > >> >>>> states where it was applied, creating a new mediator class between
> > >> >>>> bourgeoisie and proletariat which is commonly and perhaps rightfully
> > >> >>>> described as the "middle class." One important consequence of this for
> > >> >>>> Marxist thought was the realization that the "socially necessary labor
> > >> >>>> time" required for the reproduction of the labor force was itself a
> > >> >>>> function of the standards that apply in any given society at any given
> > >> >>>> time, a fact to which Marx does allude at one point, but whose full
> > >> >>>> implications only became visible with the rise of the welfare state.
> > >> >>>> Today, some theorists including Harvey speak not of the labor theory 
> of
> > >> >>>> value but rather of the "value theory of labor," stressing that it is
> > >> >>>> the agency of the working classes, gained through conflict and 
> struggle,
> > >> >>>> that determines what the standard wage and the minimum acceptable
> > >> >>>> standard of living will be. For this, see an excellent short piece by
> > >> >>>> Bob Jessop:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> 
> > http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/sociology/papers/jessop-limits-to-capital.pdf
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> So that's one important layer, and Marx did not theorize it because he
> > >> >>>> did not live to the 1930s. Another important layer is added from the
> > >> >>>> 1980s onward, and that is neoliberal finance. Of course, Marx has lots
> > >> >>>> of things to say about finance capital; but as he did not foresee the
> > >> >>>> vast expansion of the secondary circuit and therefore, the partial
> > >> >>>> socialization of the capitalist state, nor perforce the rise of the
> > >> >>>> "middle classes" as the mediators between what he thought was the
> > >> >>>> essential and inevitable conflict between the proletariat and the
> > >> >>>> bourgeoisie, he obviously did not foresee the emergence of a kind of
> > >> >>>> finance that would prey upon the vast amounts of capital won by 
> working
> > >> >>>> class agency. Yet this is what has happened in our time: under the 
> logic
> > >> >>>> of neoliberalism, much of what used to be welfare state entitlements 
> has
> > >> >>>> been transformed into fungible private assets (health insurance
> > >> >>>> policies, 401k accounts, private suburban homes, etc) and delivered 
> over
> > >> >>>> to the nominal control of individuals or relatively small and 
> localized
> > >> >>>> groups. These individuals and groups then find themselves at the mercy
> > >> >>>> of large, sophisticated, rapacious financial operators who offer them
> > >> >>>> further market schemes encouraging them to speculate on their tiny 
> stake
> > >> >>>> of capital, in order to expropriate some generous percentage of their
> > >> >>>> assets as we have just seen done so blatantly in the course of the
> > >> >>>> recent housing bubble. I think Marx can be used pretty successfully to
> > >> >>>> describe a lot of this, but just repeating his concepts adds nothing:
> > >> >>>> you have to get into the materiality of the social relations that have
> > >> >>>> emerged since the 1980s. For that there is a really excellent book by
> > >> >>>> James K. Galbraith, who interestingly enough is the son of the great
> > >> >>>> theorist of the welfare-warfare state, John Kenneth Galbraith. I 
> really
> > >> >>>> recommend this short and well-written book to everyone: it is called
> > >> >>>> "The Predator State."
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> OK, all that takes us far from the Internet and it's another long,
> > >> >>>> soaring post which any uninterested person has already, I trust, 
> stopped
> > >> >>>> reading. The point remains that treating Facebook users as the
> > >> >>>> nineteenth-century working class is not only absurd; it also distracts
> > >> >>>> from the enormous changes that are going on before our eyes. Adam
> > >> >>>> Arvidsson says we are moving into an "ethical economy" and he expects
> > >> >>>> that the reputation-ranking functions of social media will create a 
> new
> > >> >>>> breed of what you might call "clean and serene" corporations, to 
> replace
> > >> >>>> the old "lean and mean" ones. I would submit instead that while
> > >> >>>> intellectuals waste their time pandering to people who are fascinated 
> by
> > >> >>>> the tawdry narcissism of networked environments organized to promote 
> the
> > >> >>>> delusion of transparency and community, the major predators are
> > >> >>>> organizing the last great suicidal development of the capitalist
> > >> >>>> economy, in which a newly concentrated and now truly global banking
> > >> >>>> sector will systematize and intensify the chaotic trends of the three
> > >> >>>> preceding decades, in order to promote and realize an extreme version 
> of
> > >> >>>> neoliberal development unencumbered by any organized resistance
> > >> >>>> whatsoever. This new social order will continue to depend on large
> > >> >>>> consumer and prosumer classes to manage surplus and to waste lots of 
> it,
> > >> >>>> while laying waste to the environment at the same time; so I am afraid
> > >> >>>> you will still not have the simple face-off between bourgeoisie and
> > >> >>>> proletariat that Marx predicted. But the new social order, if it is 
> left
> > >> >>>> to establish itself without resistance as is presently being done, 
> will
> > >> >>>> also require all the trappings of an extreme security state, in order 
> to
> > >> >>>> ward off the attacks of great percentages of the population thrown 
> into
> > >> >>>> poverty even in the core states, and also great numbers of people,
> > >> >>>> initially in the underdeveloped world, whose cities will be underwater
> > >> >>>> and who will be migrating towards the golden towers. Under these
> > >> >>>> conditions, those who labor, and do not speculate on their assets or
> > >> >>>> human capital as most middle-class Internet users do -- nor much less
> > >> >>>> have access to venture capital, as was just described in the 
> interesting
> > >> >>>> post by Christopher Kelty -- will see their capacities for resistance
> > >> >>>> and agency reduced to nil, and both the "labor theory of value" and 
> the
> > >> >>>> "value theory of labor" will finally be obsolete. What's left in the
> > >> >>>> absence of organized resistance is just one thing: capital as power, 
> the
> > >> >>>> power to create social relations and impose an order upon them. This 
> is
> > >> >>>> subject of Shimshon Bichler and Jonathan Nitzan's new book, Capital as
> > >> >>>> Power: A Study of Order and Creorder, which among many other things
> > >> >>>> contains a specific refutation of the labor theory of value.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> I actually don't think we are there yet -- that is, I think there is
> > >> >>>> still some organized resistance left in the world, from the working
> > >> >>>> classes, from peasant classes unwilling to be entirely expropriated of
> > >> >>>> their traditional relations to the land, and also among middle classes
> > >> >>>> who know how to protect and develop their relative political autonomy
> > >> >>>> won over the course of centuries -- but nonetheless, I do highly
> > >> >>>> recommend reading Bichler and Nitzan if you want to understand how
> > >> >>>> corporate power is expressing itself right now, and how far we are 
> from
> > >> >>>> the social-democratic pipe dream of an "ethical economy." The first
> > >> >>>> chapter of their book can be downloaded from their archive, as can an
> > >> >>>> earlier essay including similar references to the subject of our
> > >> >>>> conversation here, the famous labor theory of value:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> http://tinyurl.com/capital-as-power
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> http://tinyurl.com/dominant-capital
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> For the next layer of capitalist power to be fully installed -- and 
> for
> > >> >>>> the economy to "recover" from its present state of uncertainty and 
> flux
> > >> >>>> -- I think the developed societies need a perfected system of
> > >> >>>> second-order cybernetic control over the consciousness of their middle
> > >> >>>> classes, exactly the kind of world-creating and attention-channeling
> > >> >>>> system that is discussed by Greg Elmer and his co-authors in their
> > >> >>>> excellent article. The initial basis of this system is contemporary
> > >> >>>> social media in its dominant corporate 2.0 forms. It really has to be
> > >> >>>> explored a little more seriously, within the existing social relations
> > >> >>>> and not in terms borrowed from the past. But that kind of exploration
> > >> >>>> remains very rare, leaving media theory in a realm of fantasy. So in 
> my
> > >> >>>> opinion, friends, we can talk all we want about the marvelous freedoms
> > >> >>>> of playlabor, or on the contrary, about the horrifying expropriation 
> of
> > >> >>>> our proletarian toil by Facebook or Orkut: so doing, we'll be shooting
> > >> >>>> the breeze, no autonomy will be won and the processes underway will 
> run
> > >> >>>> their course.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Here's hoping for a better future,
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Brian
> > >> >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >> >>>> 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
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> _______________________________________________
> > >> >>> 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
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Prof Sean Cubitt
> > >> >> scubitt at unimelb.edu.au
> > >> >> Director
> > >> >> Media and Communications Program
> > >> >> Faculty of Arts
> > >> >> Room 127�John Medley East
> > >> >> The University of Melbourne
> > >> >> Parkville VIC 3010
> > >> >> Australia
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Tel: + 61 3 8344 3667
> > >> >> Fax:+ 61 3 8344 5494
> > >> >> M: 0448 304 004
> > >> >> Skype: seancubitt
> > >> >> http://www.culture-communication.unimelb.edu.au/media-communications/
> > >> >> http://www.digital-light.net.au/
> > >> >> http://homepage.mac.com/waikatoscreen/
> > >> >> http://seancubitt.blogspot.com/
> > >> >> http://del.icio.us/seancubitt
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Editor-in-Chief Leonardo Book Series
> > >> >> http://leonardo.info
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Prof Sean Cubitt
> > >> scubitt at unimelb.edu.au
> > >> Director
> > >> Media and Communications Program
> > >> Faculty of Arts
> > >> Room 127 John Medley East
> > >> The University of Melbourne
> > >> Parkville VIC 3010
> > >> Australia
> > >>
> > >> Tel: + 61 3 8344 3667
> > >> Fax:+ 61 3 8344 5494
> > >> M: 0448 304 004
> > >> Skype: seancubitt
> > >> http://www.culture-communication.unimelb.edu.au/media-communications/
> > >> http://www.digital-light.net.au/
> > >> http://homepage.mac.com/waikatoscreen/
> > >> http://seancubitt.blogspot.com/
> > >> http://del.icio.us/seancubitt
> > >>
> > >> Editor-in-Chief Leonardo Book Series
> > >> http://leonardo.info
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Zbigniew Lukasiak
> > http://brudnopis.blogspot.com/
> > http://perlalchemy.blogspot.com/