Message 07182 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxdeT07138 Message: 5/59 L4 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox] Fwd: Werthaltigkeit von Informationsguetern



Hi Holger

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, Holger Weiss wrote:

* Graham Seaman <graham seul.org> [2003-09-12 13:38]:
Yes, but only if you give 'produktion' the same sense (1a or 1b) in both
cases. There is exactly the same ambiguity over whether hardware design
creates value as over whether software writing creates value (1a), but no
ambiguity over whether making a piece of hardware or copying software to a
CD for sale creates value (1b). Mixing the criteria confuses the argument.

Got your point, that is, focussing on the difference between design and
fabrication of a given product. This distinction wouldn't make sense in
this context, if there were no difference regarding exchange value
production. You're obviously suggesting that it at least could be
claimed that value is only created whithin the fabrication process.

Yes. And I would claim that ;-)

But I fail to see the difference. As long as the result of the design
process is proprietary (no matter whether we are talking about Windows
XP or the technical design of a toaster), that is, you're either not
able or not allowed to copy the result, the reproduction of this design
demands labour.
Thus, and that's my point, the (re)production of the
design creates value in the same manner as the actual fabrication
process does. Well, the difference is of course, that the design of a
given product model offered by a specific vendor only happens once,
whilst every single product must be fabricated. However, regarding value
production, the only effect is that the value created whithin the design
process is distributed over all fabricated products of a given model.


That is the key point: it only happens once. It is therefore either a
fixed cost or a sunk cost; the amount of work required to create this
design is a barrier to entry for other companies wishing to enter the same
market (independently of intellectual 'property' law). All this is an
accounting phenomenon which has nothing to do with creation of value and
is simply abstracted away by Marx when looking at the value creation
process. It is one of the 'faux frais' of production, which the software
companies would love to shift (and do shift where possible) to the
universities - see the recent campaign by Microsoft to ban American
univesities from using the GPL.

The design is neither circulating nor fixed capital (fixed capital
circulates more slowly than variable capital, but it also circulates -
designs do not). It is not a commodity, since it is never sold (when you
buy the right to use a copy of Office, you do not 'buy' Office).
 
Design no more creates value than cleaning the factory floor, selling the
product, advertising, etc, etc, all the many other essential,
labour-using, but non value-creating tasks associated with the product.

Proprietary software companies attempt to force software users to act as 
if it had value; for example, by enforcing unnecessary upgrades, as if
software had physical (or at least moral) depreciation, and was a kind
of fixed capital. 

Or they pretend it has value by putting it in a box as if it was being
sold to customers like any other product. But they do not sell it;
they give you the legal right to use it only. Neither free software
nor proprietary software is a commodity.

But, once more: My argument fully depends on the design beeing
proprietary. Any knowledge that is freely available, such as (but of
course not limited to) Free Software, has certainly no exchange value.

Surely. But how can you claim that proprietary software has exchange
value if it is not possible to buy it? And if it has no exchange value,
what sense does it make to say it has value at all?

Graham
 

Holger



________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.de/
Organisation: projekt oekonux.de



[English translation]
Thread: oxdeT07138 Message: 5/59 L4 [In index]
Message 07182 [Homepage] [Navigation]