Matze Schmidt on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 20:24:06 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: <nettime> Means of production: The factory-floor knowledge economy (le monde diplo) |
Hello, as far as I can see (read) the text is about the relationship tech : new tech : tech control : exploitation but the economical reasons felt behind. Leaving beside the question of the universality of the "universal fubber" and whether a DIY-die casting can become a new biz model for masses (artists, makers, hobbyists, pseudo self-employed/make-believe entrepreneurs) meating at media art or techno fairs and festivals forcing back taylorism/fordism for the weekends, it is an old story of the machine-tool--and machines that create machines--which subsequently hit the old structure of economy and technology. Automation can be regarded as the likewise old enemy of the unions--but in fact Unions know that it gained knowledge of workers as well. Funny but not surprising that very often engineers are not able to handle the machinery in the production flow but workers are. But what's most important here might be the question, if "the balance of power shifted", one can ask which power? The one of knowhow at the machine or the knowhow at the design? Or the knowhow of the investment for the design? If only the power of worker's knowhow becomes part of the stock that evokes a power shift it might be boring, 'cause this leads back to knowhow as commodity (stock) and more knowhow (mean). As far as I know established industries desperately need new production lines which will end the factory (as building, place and topic) as cost factor. Every flexibilisation of the product of the added-value will keep profits up and hold averaged wages down. Crowdsourcing will be the future in production and services even in factory building looking like assemblages packed with workers like the established merchants they are, as they are merchandising mainly their work, inclusive knowlegde (brain) and strength (body). But this statement is not without problems. It is constructed as if technology and its management would be _the_ drives of economical process(es). This has effects on the thinking of a big compromise of the classes, like sharing "decisions about, and the gains from, new technology." that reduces the field to tech (machines of machines) and distribution of tech and power of knowledge. This reductionism can be seen as the main position of people like for instance Paulo Virno (and followers like Matthew Fuller): As if the general intellect in terms of knowhow itself or the general intellect in terms of a political control of knowhow itself may be enough for a _balance of power shifted_. Yes, one should remember that Babbage's drive was the decreasing of labor costs (_*Economy* of Machinery and Manufactures_) followed by social technologies for the differentiation of labour. Quoting negativing his opinion about the dishonesty of humans reproduces the machine-man complex only. By turning this figure the 'dishonesty' of labor can be virtually zero with automation, averaged and freed from wage but not singularised and freed from bad decisions about new technology and its gains as revenues. Best, Matze > (CNC) > bicycles can be downloaded from the > net. <...> # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org