Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 23:01:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Carl Davidson <cdavidson-AT-igc.apc.org>
Subject: Re: M-I: Castells and stuff


Our Theoretical Journal, cy.Rev, has been wrestling with these issues for
several years now.  We call information a commodity, but a commodity of a
new type.  In a regular commodity, when you sell it, possession transfers to
the buyer, and is legally codified as "ownership"  When the commodity of
information is sold, possession of exact copies are in the hands of buyer,
seller and many bystanders as well. Just think of all the bootleg software
on your hard drive. 
Take a look at our Web site for more discussion in depth. Here's the URL:
http://www.eff.org/pub/Publications/E-journals/CyRev/ 

Regards, Carl Davidson, Chicago



At 07:51 PM 12/18/96 +1000, Rob Schaap wrote:
>Since the Castells thread, I've not been able to stop thinking about the
>economic characteristics of 'information'.  I'd like to try a couple of
>half-baked ideas out here for which I can find no specific references -
>this may not be at all new, or it may be bollocks - I dunno.  It's a bloody
>interesting idea to me just now anyway.
>
>1) information, as commodity, must have an exchange value.  But what fixes
>that value?
>
>2) if the buyer is a cable TV watcher, s/he decides to buy a given
>genre-specific channel on, inter alia, the criterion of knowledge s/he
>currently possesses (ie. not just the knowledge of price, substitutes,
>opportunity cost etc, but *also the knowledge s/he would need to benefit
>from the information on offer*).
>
>3) what this means is that the exchange value of the information is
>significantly a function of socially produced knowledge in the buyer.
>
>4) this means that public education, broadcasting, libraries etc have as
>part of their role under capitalism the production of a capital form that
>adds value to subsequent, privately vended information.
>
>5) The private vendor can charge extra because of a quality in the buyer
>for which s/he has not duly paid.
>
>6) Now there is a surplus to be extracted from labour at the point of data
>production (the wage/piece worker) AND at the point of data interpretation
>(the paying viewer labours at applying his/her schema to the information).
>
>7)  Taken as an atomised individual (as neoclassical economics does take
>people), the buyer is paying extra because s/he has already
>laboured/invested in acquiring the cultural capital to make something
>interesting, accessible and beneficial.  Taken in his/her social setting,
>the viewer has acquired through social investment a quality which
>effectively enhances the price society now pays the private vendor.
>
>8) Added to my speculations of earlier posts, this yet again highlights the
>beauty of information as a commodity.  On all fronts, the capacity for
>exploitation rises exponentially, doesn't it?  There are technical problems
>with commodifying information, but is it possible we see in the category of
>information another lifeline for capitalism?
>
>Any thoughts?
>
>Rob
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
Keep On Keepin' On



     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---