Re: [ox] Die Anwendbarkeit der Werttheorie in der Informatik
- From: Stefan Meretz <stefan.meretz hbv.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 17:33:28 +0100
Hi Graham and all,
graham belegost.mit.edu schrieb:
Now imagine a world in which any product design is copylefted. This would
mean the maximum of imaginable competition. So the profits of each company
would be minimalistic. "This does not mean a breakdown of capitalism, but it
would at least make it much more value-exempt."(St.Mz.)
This is the part I don't understand. It would mean the removal of the
part of profit generated by monopolistic control of designs (eg Intel
would not have had their huge profits, because an AMD would have been
possible immediately). In a marxist scheme, assuming that design work
IS productive labour, it would mean the removal of the part of surplus
value involved in the design.
It is not only surplus value, but value in general. Copylefting
design (of products and production) means making productive labour
unproductive. Labour is then general work (allgemeine Arbeit) - the
term which I asked for.
So, a decrease in profits for
specific firms (like Intel), an increase for some (like mine), and
an overall decrease for capital as a whole. But why 'minimalistic'?
I understand: "drop to a minimal level" - which is only given by the
residual material work.
Any increase in productivity decreases the value of individual goods;
becoming increasingly value-exempt is the normal tendency of capitalism.
But it is a tendency which affects invidual goods, not necessarily
the rate of profit, nor a company which can compensate for lack of
value of individual goods by increased value of their total mass (ie producing
larger quantities) (eg. mobile phones).
Increasing productivity affects all economic parts in more or less
the same way. Roughly said all values decrease. But copylefting the
informational part of economy only affects this part. But Rifkin
says, that in future capitalists will only get their income
(revenue) from _this_ part (with leasing and selling ideas etc. -
not with material products), and I think, he is right. And this is a
contradiction: Making money with informational products (Rifkin) and
freeing this part via copylefting which implies loss of value.
I personally like the idea of a value-exempt capitalism, because that would
mean that democratic entities could take over the whole material production
for a small amount of money and reorganize it the way the people wants it to
be.
That assumes that not only the individual chip loses value
( and also loses value in relation to the value of our wages),
but that so does the chip factory, not only the car, but the car
factory. Or not?
That is true, IMO, because all these steps (from the idea to the
final product) include informational parts.
I would expand Thomas' picture of a value-exempt capitalism to a
picture of a value-free society - which in fact is the same what
free software does. Taking over the material production for a small
amount of money can be a step in this direction, but the goal has to
be reorganizing our live in a way that value does not force us any
more to produce more value in order to exist. We must jump out of
G-G', and this is the simple thing, which is hard to do.
{I know my argument is confused, but so am I! I am not trying to
argue a fixed position, but sort out my own ideas]
Me too, so forgive me for my utopism... (...and my english;-))
Ciao,
Stefan
--
Gewerkschaft Handel, Banken und Versicherungen
HA II, Abteilung Datenverarbeitung
Kanzlerstr. 8, 40472 Duesseldorf
--
stefan.meretz hbv.org
maintaining: http://www.hbv.org
private stuff: http://www.meretz.de
--
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.de/
Organisation: projekt oekonux.de