its still capitalism. we just have information capital on top of finance and industrial capital. industrial capital owns the means of production, finance capital owns the rights to allocate the goods produced, and information capital owns receptacles of data and methods of communication
That’s pretty similar to the thesis presented, but there more emphasis on the differences in class relations of the different kinds and their antagonisms and contradictions.
I think there’s some clear examples when you see how much small business bourgeoisie are politically against many of the new formations of info and financial capitalists, but they have no theory with which to express it. So it becomes nonsense like Zuck or CitiBank is implementing communism.
This is part of the new leverage of the flows of info (vectors) that allow for different strategies of controlling political economy, and it often involves negotiations between the classic capitalist formations and these newer info and financial formations. This is what is markedly different from the classic understanding. Ownership of the means of production of informational synthesis is a new kind of class relation on top of and often in friction with the classic mode.
i agree that the information sector warrants an updated view on political economy, but i dislike the hard distinction between capitalists and “vectorialist.” ultimately the “vectorialist” would be the owners of a firm that produces, aggregates, or disseminates information; and all of this requires the input of labor. distinguishing between “laborer” and “hacker” is strange bc (assuming “hackers” are those working for vectorialists) both sell their labor. the landlord/capitalist distinction exists bc, although they both extract surplus value, the capitalist extracts it by selling the product of labor (textiles, grocery service, NYT article) while the landlord extracts it directly from the laborer (or capitalist) in the form of rent.
its still capitalism. we just have information capital on top of finance and industrial capital. industrial capital owns the means of production, finance capital owns the rights to allocate the goods produced, and information capital owns receptacles of data and methods of communication
That’s pretty similar to the thesis presented, but there more emphasis on the differences in class relations of the different kinds and their antagonisms and contradictions.
I think there’s some clear examples when you see how much small business bourgeoisie are politically against many of the new formations of info and financial capitalists, but they have no theory with which to express it. So it becomes nonsense like Zuck or CitiBank is implementing communism.
This is part of the new leverage of the flows of info (vectors) that allow for different strategies of controlling political economy, and it often involves negotiations between the classic capitalist formations and these newer info and financial formations. This is what is markedly different from the classic understanding. Ownership of the means of production of informational synthesis is a new kind of class relation on top of and often in friction with the classic mode.
i agree that the information sector warrants an updated view on political economy, but i dislike the hard distinction between capitalists and “vectorialist.” ultimately the “vectorialist” would be the owners of a firm that produces, aggregates, or disseminates information; and all of this requires the input of labor. distinguishing between “laborer” and “hacker” is strange bc (assuming “hackers” are those working for vectorialists) both sell their labor. the landlord/capitalist distinction exists bc, although they both extract surplus value, the capitalist extracts it by selling the product of labor (textiles, grocery service, NYT article) while the landlord extracts it directly from the laborer (or capitalist) in the form of rent.