[ox-en] Manufacturing scarcity (was: Re: [ox] Fwd: Werthaltigkeit von Informationsguetern)
- From: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>
- Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 22:15:50 +0100
Hi Graham, Holger, Franz, Sabine(!), all!
Oh, this is cross-posted. Then I'll stay in English ;-) .
Last week (7 days ago) Graham Seaman wrote:
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.
Sabine pointed at this manufacturing of scarcity. More meat to this
topic is IMHO very interesting - though I think I can not add much at
the moment (despite of the length of this mail ;-) ). Allow me to mix
in some replies to similar topics in this thread.
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;
Why? See below for a possible answer.
knappheit of potatoes less easily (many of us are
still able to grow our own);
I think this is not true - at least not given a normal life where you
simply have no time to grow potatoes in the amount you need for a
decent living.
Scarcity of cars is a direct result of the physical needs to produce a
car. You need lots of massive means of productions to actually produce
a car from the raw materials. People can screw together a car when
they have pre-produced parts delivered (I think in Britain there once
was a hobby scene in this field - is it still?).
Given you control enough land scarcity of potatoes is a result of
having to little of the means of production time.
In both cases the means of production of know how is needed of course
which in the case of the car is much bigger.
Knappheit of digital music is hard to enforce
(though it is possible),
This is easy - and here the question becomes Oekonuxy - because the
means of (re)production are commonplace.
I'll use this for a short excursion.
Last month (51 days ago) Graham Seaman wrote:
1a. 'softwareproduktion' == writing software, 'hardwareproduktion' ==
designing hardware (see quote from silicore, above). 'produktion' is
immaterial production.
Or:
1b. 'hardwareproduktion' == manufacturing hardware, 'softwareproduktion'
== 'copying software'. 'produktion' is material produktion.
Thanks for pointing to that difference. I'm having something similiar
in my head for quite some time now - though I do not have it clear
yet.
The point is that pressing a CD or even downloading software from a
FTP server is actually *re*producing software IMHO. Copying ==
reproducing. Or to put in other terms: One of the features of
information goods is that their physical representation is neglectable
(under digital conditions even in a practical sense).
May be this makes sense: The very nature of software is that it there
is no relevant distinction between the design (taking this term
loosely - i.e. for the whole process of software development) and the
resulting product. For material goods, however, this distinction is
very clear. We need to manufacture goods and it does not suffice to
copy the design.
This brings me also back to my main point: If the means of reproducing
information goods is commonplace then the means of (re)production for
these goods are commonplace.
Also - and this is the case since computers exist - the know how
needed to operate these means of production can be part of these
means. I.e. you don't need to know how the copy process actually works
- it suffices if the program "knows" that. I think this is another big
difference to previous historical situations: The know how ultimately
*had* to be in the heads of the people using it. Software makes it
possible to put this into the machine to a unprecedented degree.
Allow me another excursion.
Last month (37 days ago) Franz Nahrada wrote:
That is where the the end of Capitalism comes from:
Only with very large capital nowadays it
is possible to successfully produce commodities.
So more and more people understand that there is a different
mode of production which needs no capital or almost no capital: ours.
The costs of development shared, the costs of production in small series
becoming affordable again: thats GPL-society.
Maybe GPL society will begin to rise in Africa??
BTW: Franz: I find setting up a Wiki or OT project like you suggested
a good idea for exactly the reasons you gave :-) .
No, I think it will not take place in Africa because the means of
production necessary to produce something are not completely
arbitrary so they can not be transplanted everywhere easily.
The best example I can think of is a steelwork. The Chinese tried to
produce steel on an individual basis and got nothing but both massive
environmental damage and unusable steel.
My point is: Some means of productions must be big - or complicated as
a chip fab - and thus less affordable by the very nature of the
manufacturing process which is to some degree driven by the physical
properties of the desired product. Of course technology comes into
play here - which will make things possible. However, not everything
is possible today and I guess this will stay this way until the
replicator fits under everyones desk.
But back to Graham.
as is Kanppheit of travel on city metros, or
parking in municipal car parks.
Hmm... These examples are a bit irritating because they are not about
products in any sense but more services. I'll skip that here.
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);
Yes...
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
...but the conditions for a challenge with a chance for success differ
from good to good as I tried to point out above. The nature of the
good and the means of production needed to produce it are a very
relevant aspect here.
c) That physical properties may make it easier to impose scarcity on
some products than others.
This is what I wanted to support and point out in more detail. I think
this question is important: How exactly does a societal system impose
scarcity - and where are super-historical limitations mankind needs to
deal with in every society.
Actually a lot of big means of productions *are* available in Western
societies - i.e. they do physically exist. However, a considerable
part of these big means of production do have a less-than-optimal
utilization ratio. That is why even a growing market does not need new
big means of production as the Eastern Germans learnt the hard way.
So actually the scarcity imposed on the goods is not a limitation any
longer but imposed by society.
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.
The legal system - or lets say any enforcement system for property
rights - is a relevant aspect here.
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.
This is true when we assume that in capitalism there is a secular
trend to get more and more "informational" - i.e. the information
sector becomes more and more important and dominates the whole process
more and more. I think this can be seen easily.
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.
Indeed.
Ahm - I guess I rambled a lot here. Sorry for not being clearer. May
be it is useful nonetheless.
Mit Freien Grüßen
Stefan
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/