By FERNANDO NOGUEIRA DA COSTA*
Digital labor and automation have reshaped capitalist relations, but the system ultimately still relies on the exploitation of human labor, whether digital, manual or intermediary.
Karl Marx argued, perhaps inadequately given the later evolution of the capitalist system, that unproductive labor – hired by unproductive capital in activities that do not generate tangible goods and, consequently, do not participate in the process of producing surplus value –, unlike productive labor, does not generate real wealth for society. It would extract wealth from the “real” working class.
He saw this distinction as part of the exploitation inherent in the capitalist system, in which the ruling class would appropriate the surplus labor of productive workers through various activities considered unproductive.
Naturally, the following question came to my mind: how does your Labor Theory of Value hold up in the face of the 4th Technological Revolution? Aren't robots, automation and platforms now saying goodbye to the industrial proletariat?
To answer, Luiz Gonzaga Belluzzo, my professor in my master's degree at Unicamp, suggested that I reread the floorplans through Appendix 2, “Knowledge, Technology and the General Intellect in his Fragment on Machines”, from the book Reading Marx in The Information Age. Explores the relevance of Marx's ideas in the Digital Age.
Marxist scholar Christian Fuchs helps readers understand whether Karl Marx’s work is appropriate for the Information Age. He believes that the “Fragment on Machines” anticipated the crucial role of knowledge, science, and technology in production, particularly in the Digital Age, where platforms like Google, Facebook, YouTube, etc. rely on the digital labor of users.
The author uses Marx's concept of productive labor because the work of users on these platforms, although unpaid, contributes to the accumulation of capital. Users generate data that is sold as a commodity to advertisers, becoming part of the productive labor in the digital economy.
Christian Fuchs discusses how transportation costs, including the transportation of commercialized ideologies through the media, are part of the production process. Commercial media “transport” ideologies to consumers, and in social media, the labor of users underpins the targeted delivery of advertisements.
He analyzes the section “Capital and the Development of the Productive Forces of Society” of the floorplans. In this section, Marx describes technology as fixed constant capital, representing the “general intellect” of society. He would thus have anticipated the growing importance of science and knowledge in production, later called the “scientific and technological revolution” of the Digital Age.
An international division of digital labor involves workers in different parts of the world. The production of digital devices, the creation of content, and the collection of data are all part of this international division of digital labor.
Completes the floorplans Marx's theories are fundamental to understanding digital labor and digital capitalism. It highlights the role of user labor in the digital economy, the concept of “general intellect,” and the relevance of Marx's theory of value.
The question of whether Marx’s labor theory of value still applies in the digital age, especially considering the unpaid digital work performed by self-employed workers, is a complex one and central to the debate on Marxist work. Although Christian Fuchs argues for its continued relevance, the answer is not a categorical “yes.” There are nuances to this relationship.
This author argues that digital work, even unpaid work, is productive in the Marxist sense, as it contributes to the accumulation of capital by companies like Facebook and Google. The creation of data and content by users becomes a commodity sold to advertisers, generating value and profit for these platforms.
This suggests that the logic of labor exploitation as a source of value continues to operate, even in digital contexts and with non-traditional forms of work. Despite this, the author himself recognizes the relevance of the debate surrounding the validity of the labor theory of value in the digital age, as authors with rational arguments question its applicability.
These include the difficulty of measuring the value of immaterial activities and the growing importance of cooperative work, of a collaborative nature, and social knowledge. They problematize the centrality of individual work time as a measure of value. This contrast highlights the need for an in-depth debate on how (and whether) the labor theory of value can be adapted or reinterpreted to encompass the complexities of digital work.
The concept of immaterial labor has been the target of criticism, especially from followers of the Marxist tradition. One of the main criticisms is the accusation that this concept incurs philosophical idealism.
Opposing a dualistic ontology that separates the world into material and immaterial substances, critics argue that all work, including digital work, has a material basis because it depends on bodies, physical infrastructures, and energy consumption. An emphasis on immateriality would obscure the materiality of labor and relations of production.
Another criticism points to the risk of technological determinism present in the notion of immaterial labor. By emphasizing the importance of general intellect and technology, the concept would lead to a view that overestimates the role of productive forces in overcoming capitalism with a systemic re-evolution and would neglect the importance of conscious political action and social struggles.
Dogmatic Marxist criticism argues that the utopian transition to communism is not an automatic result of technological development, but rather requires the organization and struggle of workers. Furthermore, Marxists criticize the notion of immaterial labor for focusing on privileged workers in the high-tech sector and ignoring the exploitation of workers in precarious conditions, such as domestic workers and even slave laborers.
They imagine the revolution coming from super-exploitation rather than political organization. The critique aims to broaden the understanding of work in the Digital Age beyond a perspective restricted to developed countries and intellectualized work.
The initial question was whether the law of value becomes inapplicable in the face of immaterial labor. Marxists say that the difficulty in measuring the value of immaterial labor does not imply its nonexistence or irrelevance. The logic of exploitation, of extracting value from labor, remains operative, even when the mechanisms of measurement need to be rethought.
Christian Fuchs recognizes the importance of these criticisms. He defends a materialist conception of cultural and digital work, capable of recognizing the need for infrastructure and physical labor, the exploitation present in different sectors of digital production, and the importance of political struggle to overcome exploitation.
Christian Fuchs' proposal seeks to integrate the material and immaterial dimensions of work in the Digital Age, without neglecting the relations of power and exploitation that still permeate the production and circulation of information. However, it does not escape the criticism of there being historical determinism in Marx's work.
Determinism appears through a negative argument – the proletariat is the most alienated, miserable and degraded. Therefore, making a revolution would be the only possible way out for those who have nothing to lose. Is this the case today?
But it also appears as a positive argument. Only the proletariat was, for Marx, entirely linked to the organization of modern production. Therefore, it was the only one organized to initiate a possible future society. Without unions?
After all, wasn’t there a “farewell to the proletariat” in the complex relations between work, technology and capital in the 21st century?
The idea of “farewell to the proletariat,” popularized by André Gorz, refers to the thesis that technological transformations, especially automation and digitalization, reduce or eliminate the central role of the working class (proletariat) in capitalist production. However, in the 21st century, analysis of the relationships between digital labor, technology, and capital reveals that this “farewell” has not yet fully occurred. The proletariat has not disappeared, but it has undergone profound transformations.
Digital work and automation have reconfigured capitalist relations, but the system ultimately still depends on the exploitation of human labor, whether digital, manual or intermediary. Whoever lives will see how long…
*Fernando Nogueira da Costa He is a full professor at the Institute of Economics at Unicamp. Author, among other books, of Brazil of banks (EDUSP). [https://amzn.to/4dvKtBb]
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE