Message 07411 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxdeT07138 Message: 9/59 L8 [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,

Another marathon...

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003, Holger Weiss wrote:

* 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.

No, I'm not giving up. We seem to have a fundamentally different opinion
on what it means to say that value is a social phenomenon (although we
both agree that it IS social); all our differences throughout this thread
seem to come from this point. For me, it implies at least the following:

1. Whether something has value can always be contested. So a simple
statement 'x has value' or 'x does not have value' for some x may not
always be possible (it is in this sense I'm saying there may not be a 
'true' answer).

2. Value is not a substance. Work does not inject a substance 'value'
into products. So if the attempt to enforce value fails for some x,
that x never had value: it's not a case of the value being added by
work but mysteriously disappearing during circulation (or from lack
of circulation). If I polish grapes, but can't sell them, then my
polishing has added no value to the grapes.

3. The question of whether x has value is not just a theoretical one, but
also a practical one. On one side, there are people_a who would like (or
who need) x to have value; on the other, there are people_b who would like
(or need) x not to have value. Saying 'x has value' as a theoretical
statement means 'people_a have won'. When Marx was writing, he was largely
saying 'people_a' (the capitalists) had won, or would win, and trying to
analyse the resulting system. Now it is no longer clear in every case -
and especially in the case of software - whether they will win. There
is no point in us now trying to rewrite Das Kapital to fit modern times.


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.

The idea that 'Knappheit' [scarcity] of x needs to be enforced before
value governs production of x seems very similar to what I'm saying. But
in that case, I find it hard to understand why you think there are no
natural properties that influence value production. Knappheit of cars is
enforced quite easily; knappheit of potatoes less easily (many of us are
still able to grow our own); Knappheit of digital music is hard to enforce
(though it is possible), as is Kanppheit of travel on city metros, or
parking in municipal car parks. Where I live it is quite clear that most
people do not believe in the value of car parking (although the car parks
take labour to maintain), since it is normal for people to pass their
parking ticket on to other people when they leave. A minority (but not a
small one) do not believe that transport has value, and will travel on the
metro without paying. Attempts are being made to stop this by installing
ticket machines everywhere; but where they are installed, passengers will
often give their tickets to others. Clearly in these cases it is possible
to enforce scarcity, and thus value production, but it is not so easy as
it to enforce the insertion of cars into value production.

Your comment above implies you think there is a natural sequence:
new field appears; attempt is made to impose scarcity; once scarcity
is imposed, the new field is fully part of value production. I am
saying 

a) that the imposition of scarcity can be contested (which
I think you agree with); 

b) that it can be contested successfully (which I think you deny?), and
specifically in the case of software it looks possible that it has
been/will be contested successfully

c) That physical properties may make it easier to impose scarcity on 
some products than others. This is not a binary digital/non-digital 
thing - travel on public transport is not digital, but at least in one
case that I have witnessed, imposing scarcity is not simple. Imposing
scarcity on butter is easier when most people live in cities, and
butter-mountains can be locked and guarded.

d) That the range of products which it is hard to impose scarcity
on is both becoming larger, and is in more new areas of the economy -
measured as a percentage of the total economy it may be relatively
small (eg. in terms of numbers employed) but these are precisely the
NEW areas - and without new areas capitalism is not growing, and it 
cannot survive without growth.

Certainly in my lifetime I have not seen value so widely contested
(software, music, books, films, medicine, agriculture), and certainly
not in the organised rather than solely personal way it is being contested 
now.

I think Sabine Nuss has made this clear very convincingly:

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

Yes, I think we both agree with her :-)


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.

I don't think this particular field is necessarily critical, but the 
continual creation of new fields is critical, and if all new fields are
successfully contested then death of the value system is near. I must
admit that there are some new fields where it does not seem to be 
contested at all - mobile phones in particular, where the ludicrous
enforcement of bandwidth scarcity and random charges for messages 
are generally accepted without question (yet the same people mostly
use email!). Though even in this case the value of 3rd-generation phones
seems to be being contested by the simple expedient of refusal to 
purchase them (as with the estimated 40% of the UK population who intend
never to buy a digital TV).


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.

I think this is a weak point in my argument. Here's another: software
companies do not only consist of programmers, but also help desks. The
help desk is as important in people being able to use the product as
the original programmers are. But their work IS proportional to the 
number of users.

<snipping a lot about 'infinitely usable hardware' since I find this
completely imaginary topic confusing>
 
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.

I don't understand this. I assume you don't mean the license takes
labour to produce (by lawyers), but that the distinction between 'right to 
use' and 'ownership' is unimportant. To me it seems to make all the 
difference in the world: I can imagine a society where all economic
transactions would be based on rent, rather than buying and selling, but
it would not be capitalism. It's a possible (dystopian) future, but
not one which Marx's analysis of commodities and value applies to.
 
Graham

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



[English translation]
Thread: oxdeT07138 Message: 9/59 L8 [In index]
Message 07411 [Homepage] [Navigation]