In their article "Ideas and Symbolic Technologies in International Relations," Mark Laffy and Jutta Weldes introduce the concept of "ideas as capital," drawing on the "ideas as commodities" metaphor they believe is characteristic of the rationalist approach to ideas. The process of labeling ideas as either capital or commodities comes from Marx's "account of the social production of commodities." [1] Laffy and Weldes refer to the Marxist claim that human labor ultimately produces and reproduces social life; that through production, commodities came to govern men's social life.
The process by which social interaction becomes commodity-based is of especial relevance now due to the increasingly important role technology plays in our lives. Back when Marx was writing, the "commodities" he described were tangible things, crafted by men's hands and often essential to their everyday lives. The value of objects was closely linked to the amount of labor they took to make, as well as their ability to satisfy human needs in some way. Yes, mass production and class stratification threatened to alienate men from their labor, but they nonetheless had a close relationship with their labor in the sense that they were actually interacting with objects. And the value of products had some correlation to their concrete usefulness and the effort required to produce them.
Since the 1800s, a new class of workers has emerged, whose work does not require them to engage with tangible products in nearly the same way. Technology has transformed many aspects of Marx's equation: machines are responsible for a great deal of production, consumers are often not required to physically interact with goods before purchasing them, and a whole new Internet-driven market has emerged for the dissemination of both products and ideas.
I would like to focus on a computer programmer as a specific example of the ways in which the notion of "worker" and his/her relationship to labor has changed over the past two centuries. For a programmer working on a website or an app, the majority of his/her work goes unseen by the consumer. Many websites are accessible to the public, meaning there is no limit to who can view it or interact with it.
In Marx's framing, the alienation of a worker from his labor was representative of a power discrepancy between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Now, a worker like a tech developer can be in many ways alienated from his labor (not knowing who consumes it, or the uses they may put it to), but he or she nonetheless maintains a kind of ownership over the labor that cannot be taken away.
Where this shallow comparison becomes more complex is in the question of material profit, or capital. A key difference between Marx's worker and the web developer is bargaining power. A web developer working independently might create a popular website and then choose to monetize it by selling advertising space, or simply sell the site to an interested buyer. Even a developer who works within a company has highly valued specialty skills and is likely to be well-compensated. He or she may be alienated from the labor itself, but not alienated from the profits generated thereby. On the other hand, Marx's worker represented a member of the lower class, one whose members became alienated from their labor not by choice, but by economic necessity.
[1] Laffy and Weldes, p. 212.
The process by which social interaction becomes commodity-based is of especial relevance now due to the increasingly important role technology plays in our lives. Back when Marx was writing, the "commodities" he described were tangible things, crafted by men's hands and often essential to their everyday lives. The value of objects was closely linked to the amount of labor they took to make, as well as their ability to satisfy human needs in some way. Yes, mass production and class stratification threatened to alienate men from their labor, but they nonetheless had a close relationship with their labor in the sense that they were actually interacting with objects. And the value of products had some correlation to their concrete usefulness and the effort required to produce them.
Since the 1800s, a new class of workers has emerged, whose work does not require them to engage with tangible products in nearly the same way. Technology has transformed many aspects of Marx's equation: machines are responsible for a great deal of production, consumers are often not required to physically interact with goods before purchasing them, and a whole new Internet-driven market has emerged for the dissemination of both products and ideas.
I would like to focus on a computer programmer as a specific example of the ways in which the notion of "worker" and his/her relationship to labor has changed over the past two centuries. For a programmer working on a website or an app, the majority of his/her work goes unseen by the consumer. Many websites are accessible to the public, meaning there is no limit to who can view it or interact with it.
In Marx's framing, the alienation of a worker from his labor was representative of a power discrepancy between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Now, a worker like a tech developer can be in many ways alienated from his labor (not knowing who consumes it, or the uses they may put it to), but he or she nonetheless maintains a kind of ownership over the labor that cannot be taken away.
Where this shallow comparison becomes more complex is in the question of material profit, or capital. A key difference between Marx's worker and the web developer is bargaining power. A web developer working independently might create a popular website and then choose to monetize it by selling advertising space, or simply sell the site to an interested buyer. Even a developer who works within a company has highly valued specialty skills and is likely to be well-compensated. He or she may be alienated from the labor itself, but not alienated from the profits generated thereby. On the other hand, Marx's worker represented a member of the lower class, one whose members became alienated from their labor not by choice, but by economic necessity.
[1] Laffy and Weldes, p. 212.
No comments:
Post a Comment