Great piece, and super excited to people taking about value theory. It fell out of favor because people either didn't understand the stakes at play, or thought it was about ethical/moral perspections of what should be 'valued'. I have a few comments:
I think the movemet from 'software' to 'hardware' shouldn't be see as a movement from sort of 'fictious' to real value (don't think you're implying that but many do). I think the shift isn't towards production, but rather maybe the production of goods vs services, as there's reason I think the former may be more stable in some senses due to the material differences that both production processes entail.
Software is a good, but it's a good that doesn't fit as well into capitalist relations in some senses. On the one hand as you state, software like knowledge takes little to reproduce and thus can be applied productively (what marx would call a free gift). This requires the rise of intellectual property, because there's so much threat of theft. Therefore, the production of physical goods and serivces allows for better control of private property. But the issue is that we do need software often, and it's an advacement that capitalism has brought. The blurring lines between software as a good v service are important to making these sectors continually profitable.
Also, in terms of the 'value' of companies, I do think we need to also seperate the fact that market-value of firms is always future oriented, and thus, creates a project of what the future 'value produced' might be. Unlike a lot of crude heterodox approaches that see this as fictitious, it is not completely based in a fictious (not much more than capitalist value in general is, which is misunderstood by th capitalist). If we look some examples of platforms, they are larger reoganizations of the labor process which allow for the extraction of value. Because you can't really make travel more productive, Uber is really about increases surplus extraction and thus profits. But some platform companies produce intellectual knowledge from which they then seek to extract surplus. It's a mix, but I thik the naunce is important nonetheless.
I agree that the shifts are due to political and class conflicts that are requiring the reconstitution of our current regime of accumulation. I think the hegemony of tech firms in their current form was based on the stability of the geoplitical system which allowed for industrial manufacturing to safely exist within a national-based international division of labor. As you show, this is rapidly changing. It's incredible how the division of ownership and control within the industrial circuit that has constituted the platform economy is very close to what Stephen Hymer predicted, in particular the value capturing by the global north. He argues this in his groundbreaking essay on the internationalization of capital https://www.jstor.org/stable/4224124.
Finally, I want to make some corrections about Marx's value theory, which I think needs to be seperated from the labor theory of value. First, Marx doesn't think that surplus value comes from an unequal (formal) exchange between capital and labor, in fact, it's the opposite. That's because the laborer doesn't sell their labor (the value of the full product as a result of their laboring) and just gets screwed. No, they sell their labor-power i.e. their capacity to labor. That's why the capitalist in paying workers doesn't steal their value in exchange, it's the fact that they are the owners of the means of production and have the right to the end products of the capitalist production process that they can appropriate surplus value.
This is important, because as Marx is trying to show, Smith and Ricardo often have a contradictory theory because don't see that the laborer is paid the value of their labor-power and not labor. Smith for example goes back and forth between labor being paid its 'value' like capital and land, and then back to labor being the only source of value. The issue is that detractors today simply say "well the wage is the value of labor, capitalist are paid for their work" when in fact the capitalist isn't necessary but the worker is (in terms of the labor process). The exchange is formally equally, but in essence, the capitalist accumulates surplus that is taken from labor.
While I think there's a lot of interesting nuances, I don't think we can say we are returning to production, but that production is again changing its content (the type of use-values being made). I think the pure deliniation between 'extractive' and 'productive' capitalists is problematic, and needs to be challenged a little more. I hope to add to this conversation soon, keep up the stuff I love reading your work!
Thanks for this super detailed comment! So much of which I find myself agreeing with and enriching/correcting my analysis. I intentionally, albeit crudely, put marx and smith/ricardo on the same side of this debate, since the broader point I'm making is that both (despite normally being portrayed as opposites) consider labor (or as you correctly note, labor power for marx) as a source for value. I've updated the piece to add a note telling folks to check out your comment for greater clarification on the distinction between Marx and Smith, and your very good point on the differce between labor vs labor power.
Your point on software is also well taken. I've fudged the value of software and platforms, and perhaps something I'll revisit in the future. But i think your point about software and intellectual property rights is absolutely correct and illustrates why it may be a little different from platforms (that don't benefit as much from IPR).
Your point on the stability of the geopolitical system giving rise to the nations-based international division of labor on which tech firms became hegemons is also well taken and I'm excited to check out the Hymer piece- as always, thanks for your recs.
and I don’t think you’re wrong at all to put them on the same side of the debate, I’m just a proponent of placing him in a unique space because there are real differences. And this isn’t even to get into his theorization of money.
I suggest checking out Hymer’s pieces on the international economy and firms. he tragically died in a car crash but he was still one of the most influential scholars on the international corporation. It’s actually really insane because you read his paper that he’s writing from the 1970s and he basically predicts everything that happens with the liberalism, the fact that you have the managerial value added parts of the firm in the west and the manufacturing in the global south. What he didnt predicted was that somebody like China would be able to benefit from that structure!
Keep up the great work, really loving the pieces! I think you’ll like the piece I have coming this week slightly about China!
Great piece, and super excited to people taking about value theory. It fell out of favor because people either didn't understand the stakes at play, or thought it was about ethical/moral perspections of what should be 'valued'. I have a few comments:
I think the movemet from 'software' to 'hardware' shouldn't be see as a movement from sort of 'fictious' to real value (don't think you're implying that but many do). I think the shift isn't towards production, but rather maybe the production of goods vs services, as there's reason I think the former may be more stable in some senses due to the material differences that both production processes entail.
Software is a good, but it's a good that doesn't fit as well into capitalist relations in some senses. On the one hand as you state, software like knowledge takes little to reproduce and thus can be applied productively (what marx would call a free gift). This requires the rise of intellectual property, because there's so much threat of theft. Therefore, the production of physical goods and serivces allows for better control of private property. But the issue is that we do need software often, and it's an advacement that capitalism has brought. The blurring lines between software as a good v service are important to making these sectors continually profitable.
Also, in terms of the 'value' of companies, I do think we need to also seperate the fact that market-value of firms is always future oriented, and thus, creates a project of what the future 'value produced' might be. Unlike a lot of crude heterodox approaches that see this as fictitious, it is not completely based in a fictious (not much more than capitalist value in general is, which is misunderstood by th capitalist). If we look some examples of platforms, they are larger reoganizations of the labor process which allow for the extraction of value. Because you can't really make travel more productive, Uber is really about increases surplus extraction and thus profits. But some platform companies produce intellectual knowledge from which they then seek to extract surplus. It's a mix, but I thik the naunce is important nonetheless.
I agree that the shifts are due to political and class conflicts that are requiring the reconstitution of our current regime of accumulation. I think the hegemony of tech firms in their current form was based on the stability of the geoplitical system which allowed for industrial manufacturing to safely exist within a national-based international division of labor. As you show, this is rapidly changing. It's incredible how the division of ownership and control within the industrial circuit that has constituted the platform economy is very close to what Stephen Hymer predicted, in particular the value capturing by the global north. He argues this in his groundbreaking essay on the internationalization of capital https://www.jstor.org/stable/4224124.
Finally, I want to make some corrections about Marx's value theory, which I think needs to be seperated from the labor theory of value. First, Marx doesn't think that surplus value comes from an unequal (formal) exchange between capital and labor, in fact, it's the opposite. That's because the laborer doesn't sell their labor (the value of the full product as a result of their laboring) and just gets screwed. No, they sell their labor-power i.e. their capacity to labor. That's why the capitalist in paying workers doesn't steal their value in exchange, it's the fact that they are the owners of the means of production and have the right to the end products of the capitalist production process that they can appropriate surplus value.
This is important, because as Marx is trying to show, Smith and Ricardo often have a contradictory theory because don't see that the laborer is paid the value of their labor-power and not labor. Smith for example goes back and forth between labor being paid its 'value' like capital and land, and then back to labor being the only source of value. The issue is that detractors today simply say "well the wage is the value of labor, capitalist are paid for their work" when in fact the capitalist isn't necessary but the worker is (in terms of the labor process). The exchange is formally equally, but in essence, the capitalist accumulates surplus that is taken from labor.
While I think there's a lot of interesting nuances, I don't think we can say we are returning to production, but that production is again changing its content (the type of use-values being made). I think the pure deliniation between 'extractive' and 'productive' capitalists is problematic, and needs to be challenged a little more. I hope to add to this conversation soon, keep up the stuff I love reading your work!
Thanks for this super detailed comment! So much of which I find myself agreeing with and enriching/correcting my analysis. I intentionally, albeit crudely, put marx and smith/ricardo on the same side of this debate, since the broader point I'm making is that both (despite normally being portrayed as opposites) consider labor (or as you correctly note, labor power for marx) as a source for value. I've updated the piece to add a note telling folks to check out your comment for greater clarification on the distinction between Marx and Smith, and your very good point on the differce between labor vs labor power.
Your point on software is also well taken. I've fudged the value of software and platforms, and perhaps something I'll revisit in the future. But i think your point about software and intellectual property rights is absolutely correct and illustrates why it may be a little different from platforms (that don't benefit as much from IPR).
Your point on the stability of the geopolitical system giving rise to the nations-based international division of labor on which tech firms became hegemons is also well taken and I'm excited to check out the Hymer piece- as always, thanks for your recs.
and I don’t think you’re wrong at all to put them on the same side of the debate, I’m just a proponent of placing him in a unique space because there are real differences. And this isn’t even to get into his theorization of money.
I suggest checking out Hymer’s pieces on the international economy and firms. he tragically died in a car crash but he was still one of the most influential scholars on the international corporation. It’s actually really insane because you read his paper that he’s writing from the 1970s and he basically predicts everything that happens with the liberalism, the fact that you have the managerial value added parts of the firm in the west and the manufacturing in the global south. What he didnt predicted was that somebody like China would be able to benefit from that structure!
Keep up the great work, really loving the pieces! I think you’ll like the piece I have coming this week slightly about China!