Message 07403 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxdeT07138 Message: 8/59 L7 [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



* Graham Seaman <graham seul.org> [2003-10-03 18:57]:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Holger Weiss wrote:
Yes, you got me ;-) That's the main problem with my claim that we're
talking about fixed capital when software is used in production. I would
disagree with your assertion that the value of design does not
circulate. But you're right: The key difference is that there is no
physical depreciation. Thus, if there were no moral depreciation, the
value could theoretically be transferred "forever", the transferred
value would therefore tend towards zero for a single product.

I don't think we're ever going to find a 'true' answer to this question

Probably not within this thread ;-) But I don't see why it shouldn't be
possible to analyse this question in principle, I fail to see the
"epistemic barrier". Since the relevance of this question is to some
extent "new", it's possibly not easy to answer. But I wouldn't give up
on it by stating that we won't be able to answer it anyway.

Value is a social phenomenon, and social phenomena change over time,
there is no single, 100% coherent, system

Sure. But concluding that because the world is changing we can't analyse
these changes would be false.

So, thinking along those lines, it seems natural to me that where a
system based on exchange value is preceded and followed by systems not
based on exchange value, at the beginning and end it will be hard to
say exactly what has value and what does not. And that capitalism in
trying to survive will have to try to enforce the value system in cases
where it clearly is a bad fit - value is something which can be socially
contested (quite dramatically, in the case of 'piracy').

This seems to imply that value is a "good fit" for products other than
software, that it fits them somewhat naturally. At least it fits them
"better" due to their nature. I wouldn't agree with that. Software is a
relatively new field of value production, therefore the process of
enforcing ownership and thus "Knappheit" whithin this field is not
completed yet, _that's_ the difference to other fields of value
production. I think Sabine Nuss has made this clear very convincingly:

   http://www.oekonux.de/liste/archive/msg06903.html

BTW, I wouldn't agree that this field is critical for the _survival_ of
capitalism, therefore I don't think that the attempt to enforce value
production whithin this field (next to all the other fields) is an
indication of the nearby death of the value system.

You could say that Word 97 has had moral depreciation relative to Word
2000 - but it seems again that MS has to deliberately create this effect
by creating incompatibilities which force users to upgrade. This is not
the same as the 'real' moral depreciation of say a steam engine relative
to an electric motor, as can be seen from the fact that this tactic is
beginning to fail - users simply do not believe there has been moral
depreciation.

Actually, I believe them ;-) I don't know about Word 97 -> 2000
specifically, and you're probably right that they are forcing users to
upgrade by creating incompatibilities. However, in general, software
depreciates morally to a much higher degree than most other products. I
don't see any fundamental changes in the technique of toasters,
televisions and so on over the last, say, twenty years, but many of the
software products I use do enhance noteworthy whithin, say, two years.

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.

However, I believe this is the main problem with _your_ point. You are
claiming that the simple fact that a design does not physically
depreciate has the effect that the labour necessary for creating
software is not a value-creating task. The same thing would in fact have
to apply to the labour necessary for creating a piece of hardware which
for some cool reason does not depreciate physically. That's not very
convincing.

If the hardware were a commodity for consumers, it would have value -
circulation of the product ends with the consumer. My house was built
in 1929; I expect it to last long after I die - for me, that's effectively
infinite, but it has value all the same. Commodities don't need to
continue circulating after sale to have value.

But if the hardware were fixed capital, it would not have value. It is not
taking part in circulation. It imparts no value to the commodities it
produces

This is exactly the point we disagree about, and claiming that whether
or not the work necessary for producing this piece of hardware is a
value-creating task _depends_ on whether the product is used as a means
of production or as a means of consumtion (-> whether it is sold to a
capitalist or to a consumer) seems really weird to me.

(don't forget, in this example of 'infinitely usable hardware' you
have given hardware one of the properties of software - and we can
really have oekonux!).

Since criticising the value system has nothing to do with the _nature_
of the product but with the _social_ mode of production, I don't think
the question whether we can "have oekonux" depends on this. Exchange
value is a social, not a natural thing.

And although it takes labour to produce, once the labour is completed,
it is done forever;

True enough, but the second point doesn't mean that you can simply
ignore the first point, false conclusion.

The specific terminology of 'marginal cost' is post Marx, but the idea
of fixed costs not being taken into consideration in calculating
profit margins etc is older. Marx's theory shares a lot of elements with
the theories he was criticising; this is one of them. Fixed costs are
simply ignored in Marx, as in most large-scale economic theory.
Marx never mentions the labour that went into designing machines
in the factories he wrote about - as a fixed cost, it was irrelevant to
him. The way I would look at a computer is as a generic machine which can
be redesigned to do an infinite number of different tasks. Redesigning
this generic machine is done by writing a program. Once the design
is done, it does not need to be repeated - it is a fixed cost, the cost
does not enter into circulation. The fact that it is very difficult to
fit something like this into an economy based on value is their problem,
not ours.

It's their problem to fit this into "their" economy, but it's our
problem to _explain_ this process. I believe you're right that the work
related to design processes was largely ignored by Marx, probably simply
because it was not very relevant at that time. However, this doesn't
mean that we can ignore it now that it becomes relevant.

Maybe this is the key difference in our arguments: you are saying that
if a product requires labour in a capitalist society, it must have
value. I am saying that labour is a necessary but not sufficient
condition; values are only values when they enter into circulation.

True enough, I do of course agree that value can only be realized by
entering into circulation. Exchange value is the current mode of
organizing the division of labour, it's therefore only relevant when
commodities are _exchanged_. We also agree on the fact that software
does not depreciate physically and therefore can in theory be used
"forever". However, we don't agree on the conclusion that it's value
doesn't circulate _at all_. Software (or at least the right to use it)
_is_ exchanged against other products. I would say that, if software is
used as a means of production, the "mode of circulation" is different
compared to fixed capital that depreciates physically, since the value
assigned to each end product would be minimized (if there were no moral
depreciation). But you can't conclude from this different _mode_ of
_circulation_ that no value is _produced_.

Software only enters into circulation in the most limited, artificial
way (via licenses)

The right to use something (as opposed to owning this thing) perfectly
constitutes a "Gebrauchswert" which requires labor for it's production
and can therefore be a commodity. I don't see any magic in the fact that
a right to use but not the ownership is sold.

It has, at best, a very contested value.

Agreed :-)

Actually, I think the distinction done by Marx between value-creating
labour and work that is also necessary for creating the product, but not
value-creating, is at least not done very cleanly. The only distinction
that makes sense to me is the differentiation between labour that is
associated with the production of a commodity on the one hand and work
associated with the circulation of the commodity on the other.
Exchanging a product cannot create value. But I have no idea why
cleaning the factory floor or _producing_ software should not create
value.

I think you're right - it was a bad example, and I believe cleaning the
factory floor probably would be value-creating in Marx

Dunno. I was criticising Marx on this point because IMO he is neither
convincing nor coherent here.

Holger

-- 
PGP fingerprint:  F1F0 9071 8084 A426 DD59  9839 59D3 F3A1 B8B5 D3DE
________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.de/
Organisation: projekt oekonux.de



[English translation]
Thread: oxdeT07138 Message: 8/59 L7 [In index]
Message 07403 [Homepage] [Navigation]