Immaterial labour?

[NewLeft]

Does someone who only deals with 'immaterial labour' not produce value? Or does the idea have to be passed down to someone else who actually produces the product with their labour to create value..? In that case, if the idea was effectuated by automation, would no real value be created? It would just be.. a service? If the person creating 'immaterial labour' is deprived of 'creative power,' are they not proletariat? Or am I using/understanding 'immaterial labour' incorrectly? ah!

[Ostrinski]

Are immaterial labor and service synonymous here?

[StalinFanboy]

The world as we know it is shifting away from political economy toward cybernetics. In key industries this is already noticeable, specifically the oil industry. The people who work at oil refiners dont actually produce anything anymore. They have merely become watchmen of machines. The only time "productive" labor is done at refineries anymore is when independent contractors are brought in to do maintenance work. the sphere of production and reproduction are no longer as separated as they used to be.

[NewLeft]

Are immaterial labor and service synonymous here?
I don't think so.


The world as we know it is shifting away from political economy toward cybernetics. In key industries this is already noticeable, specifically the oil industry. The people who work at oil refiners dont actually produce anything anymore. They have merely become watchmen of machines. The only time "productive" labor is done at refineries anymore is when independent contractors are brought in to do maintenance work. the sphere of production and reproduction are no longer as separated as they used to be.
Yeah, the dumbing down/de-skilling of labour..

So, could we say that there is a bigger divide in the proletariat, between more skilled and less?

[Ostrinski]

Value is determined by the social necessary labor time to produce something, including services.

And yes. If something is built solely by robots no value is created.

[NewLeft]

Value is determined by the social necessary labor time to produce something, including services.

And yes. If something is built solely by robots no value is created.
So disregard the person who deals with the 'immaterial labour,' the whole process of using knowledge..etc? No actual value is produced in this process?

[Prometeo liberado]

Value is determined by the social necessary labor time to produce something, including services.

And yes. If something is built solely by robots no value is created.

I'm confused on what the definition of value is here. Are you talking labor value or relative market value?

[NewLeft]

The labour value is zero..

[StalinFanboy]

I don't think so.


Yeah, the dumbing down/de-skilling of labour..

So, could we say that there is a bigger divide in the proletariat, between more skilled and less?
i dont think it has anything really to do with skilled vs non-skilled, as this has always been a reality in capitalism. i think it might be more accurate to say that the nature of the "working class" is changing drastically.

i am probably going to get hated on hardcore for this, but the shifting in power dynamics that began in the early 1900s, and really began to culminate in the 70s, has moved the locus of domination away from purely class domination (Bordiga in some ways came close to understanding this when we described capitalism to be a beast that even the bourgeoisie can no longer control). I think the coming politics could be best simplified as between those who want work, and those who dont; those who want governance and those who dont.

[Ostrinski]

I'm confused on what the definition of value is here. Are you talking labor value or relative market value?I'm talking the traditional Marxian conception of value.

[Lanky Wanker]

To kinda crawl around the question: regardless of whether you would actually say they do or don't produce value, they sort of do indirectly. Someone who checks the machines in a dildo factory to see if they're working properly prevents Mr Kapital's income from being disturbed by delayed/lost production and whatnot. I'm stoned so forgive me if that made no sense.

[StalinFanboy]

To kinda crawl around the question: regardless of whether you would actually say they do or don't produce value, they sort of do indirectly. Someone who checks the machines in a dildo factory to see if they're working properly prevents Mr Kapital's income from being disturbed by delayed/lost production and whatnot. I'm stoned so forgive me if that made no sense.

thats the sphere of reproduction.


its like house-wives or stay at home dads, they dont actually produce value directly, but by doing "domestic" work they make it possible for the working person in the household to continue to go to work each day refreshed and ready to work.

[NewLeft]

i dont think it has anything really to do with skilled vs non-skilled, as this has always been a reality in capitalism. i think it might be more accurate to say that the nature of the "working class" is changing drastically.
I get that, but does that not translate into less 'skilled' labour..


i am probably going to get hated on hardcore for this, but the shifting in power dynamics that began in the early 1900s, and really began to culminate in the 70s, has moved the locus of domination away from purely class domination (Bordiga in some ways came close to understanding this when we described capitalism to be a beast that even the bourgeoisie can no longer control). I think the coming politics could be best simplified as between those who want work, and those who dont; those who want governance and those who dont.
Is investment in technology itself not limited by capital..? Why invest in, say, automation when the net savings is zero.. I mean working in the service sector would still make you proletariat..

[StalinFanboy]

I get that, but does that not translate into less 'skilled' labour.. not necessarily.

using the example i used above (the oil refinery), the people who watch over the machines are not without skills. its not possible for just any joe blow to come in off the street and do their job. the nature of work itself is changing. so much so that what it means to be a worker is not the same.



Is investment in technology itself not limited by capital..? Why invest in, say, automation when the net savings is zero.. I mean working in the service sector would still make you proletariat..

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here.

[NewLeft]

not necessarily.

using the example i used above (the oil refinery), the people who watch over the machines are not without skills. its not possible for just any joe blow to come in off the street and do their job. the nature of work itself is changing. so much so that what it means to be a worker is not the same.
Less skilled might have been a poor choice of words.. I meant, not 'without skill,' but 'not as much skill.'


I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here.
I just don't get how there would be "those who want work, and those who dont"?