I think you are referring to the claim, "software itself is does not participate in the commodity structure, per se." Yeah, you got me. That was probably wrong.
I think I do want to say that software is not strictly speaking a commodity, however, in many of its contemporary incarnations. Agreeing on a definition of "commodity" would be helpful here, but for now I'm working from various things Lukacs says about commodities and, because I'm not trying to impress anyone, the wikipedia article. Feel free to educate me, if you are so inclined.
With that concession, I would respond to this:
Even if you're designing widgets for facebook (which is a capitalist enterprise that uses the attention of its 'clients' as a sort of labor power) that are 'freely available', or if you're designing open source software that is freely downloadable, which drives up site traffic and allows advert revenue, you're entering into capitalist production.
by saying: yes, sure, the business practices you describe do take part in capitalist production. However, I disagree with your characterization of facebook's users (I'm sure they would call them 'users'--the 'clients' are almost certainly the advertizers) as "a sort of labor power." That's sounds like ad hocery to me. And I think that by admitting that these sorts of enterprises exist within a capitalist society, it amounts to admitting that in the information age there is a lot of production which is not commodity production. I probably should have thought to say it this way in the OP, but by and large what I'm getting at in the OP is that software engineers are not really producing commodities, and that is interesting and distinguishes them as a class that falls outside of Lukacs' analysis.
I highly doubt your company is not make a profit off of your labor
Well, wrong again, since it's a non-profit. You _really_ ought to stop making guesses about me. You have done it a lot--about my philosophical ideas before, now about my work. What's with that? It just makes interactions weird on this end.
if it isn't it will soon cease to exist and then you will re-enter the labor market.
So, this is one of those other things that my impression is that Marxists up until Lukacs didn't really anticipate well--the economic viability of civil society, which is another part of capitalist society which is doing an awful lot of work which isn't commodity production. My question is: what are these people, as a class? They don't seem to fall under any of Lukacs' analysis either.
And so is the designing of Industrial Machines; I fail to see how the manner in which it is employed is not capitalist.
I think this might just be a semantic argument at this point. If you agree that software engineering (and, sure, the design of industrial machines) is not rationalizable, then that is at least 70% of what I've been trying to get across.
Now, does this deserve to be called "non-capitalist"? If you really want to fight about it, probably not. However, it does, I think, pose a threat to Lukacs' understanding of the capitalist system, since he seems to think that the capitalist system is characterized by a qualitative shift in society that occurs when rationalizability and commodification permeates all of it.
What I'm trying to point out is a class in the economy that this kind of rationalizability does not and cannot extend to. So, at least to the extent we are sticking to Lukacs, this class, because of its unpredictability, is opposed to the expansion of capitalism, because predictability is a precondition for capitalism.
I think I do want to say that software is not strictly speaking a commodity, however, in many of its contemporary incarnations. Agreeing on a definition of "commodity" would be helpful here, but for now I'm working from various things Lukacs says about commodities and, because I'm not trying to impress anyone, the wikipedia article. Feel free to educate me, if you are so inclined.
A commodity is something that is produced to be sold. Marx analyzes it in terms of a tripart structure of value as well, but that is another rather long conversation. You can read the first several chapters of Capital or find a decent secondary text if you like.
Now, lets consider something less mysterious than software engineering: security guards. Are they not within the capitalist mode of production? I think they are. But what are they producing? What commodity is produced by them? This seems to throw a monkey wrench into the whole Marxist apparatus! Well, not really. Production drives capitalist society, it is the source of value, yada yada, but it also requires secondary support industries (I forget the technical term for them at the moment). These industries might be writing code to make the Digitron Supercrompress XG56000 work properly or they might be the fatass who sits in my building on weekends wearing a security guard outfit. These things are part of production and are subsumed under costs of production; but they are parts of the total process of capitalist social reproduction and so are imbricated in it.
I mean, you don't even have to look to software engineering: what about truckers? What commodity are they producing? They just move shit that other people made around.
We can agree to disagree on the facebook thing. I have a feeling when the economy tanks many such social networking sites will cease to be profitable anyway.
Well, wrong again, since it's a non-profit. You _really_ ought to stop making guesses about me. You have done it a lot--about my philosophical ideas before, now about my work. What's with that? It just makes interactions weird on this end.
Seriously! What the hell was I thinking! If you go back and read my post you'll see I put a little aside in their about NGOs and nonprofits. I doubt you think they are the motor of the economy or that they could survive without the dominant motor but if you like I could get into it.
Now, lets consider something less mysterious than software engineering: security guards. Are they not within the capitalist mode of production? I think they are. But what are they producing? What commodity is produced by them? This seems to throw a monkey wrench into the whole Marxist apparatus!
Of course it doesn't. Security guards provide a rationalizable service for sale on the market.
As do truckers.
If you go back and read my post you'll see I put a little aside in their about NGOs and nonprofits. I doubt you think they are the motor of the economy or that they could survive without the dominant motor but if you like I could get into it.
This is a non-sequitor. No, nonprofits are not the "motor of the economy." But that doesn't mean that the people working in the nonprofit sector are "toiling under a capitalist mode of production, and ... still producing commodities," which is what you originally asserted I was doing. Rather, it seems clear that people working for non-profits very often not producing commodities since often their goods and services aren't sold on the market. And are they "toiling" in this case? Depends on what you mean. But it's hard to see how in most cases the surplus value of these laborers is being snatched up by anyone.
While we are on the topic, you said something earlier about non-profits that I didn't bother to challenge you on, but which I think I will now that you've brought it up again:
Now, if you were working for a NGO that runs off of donations there might be more to say. But the thing is is that such things ... rely on the need to dump overproduction out of the market, etc, to keep working.
This seems like more ad hocery to me, but I'm willing to listen. What is the Marxist explanation for this need? Whose need is it? What is the mechanism by which it is unleashed?
Of course it doesn't. Security guards provide a rationalizable service for sale on the market.
As do truckers.
And you seem to think that software engineers do not. I'm not going to take your word for it.
This seems like more ad hocery to me, but I'm willing to listen. What is the Marxist explanation for this need? Whose need is it? What is the mechanism by which it is unleashed?
AN interpretation would go along lines of looking at NGOs as a way of dumping overproduction, of creating ways to release the pressure as a result of the struggle between capital and labor, as absorbing technological change, etc. But if understanding the commodity relation and the process of primitive accumulation is Marx 090, something like this would be Marx 487, and I'm not going to worry about going into it so that you can so 'well, that's implausible, it's ad hocery, I'll take the bourgie interpretations'. You gather to yourself an understanding of commodity production and the way surplus value is realized and we'll talk.
And you seem to think that software engineers do not. I'm not going to take your word for it.
I don't expect you to just take my word for it. However, I have made an argument as to why the labor of software engineers is not rationalizable in the OP.
So, this is one of those other things that my impression is that Marxists up until Lukacs didn't really anticipate well--the economic viability of civil society, which is another part of capitalist society which is doing an awful lot of work which isn't commodity production.
The security guard/trucker example should help you here. The point of these things, from the capitalist perspective, is that they help realize surplus value.
However, it does, I think, pose a threat to Lukacs' understanding of the capitalist system, since he seems to think that the capitalist system is characterized by a qualitative shift in society that occurs when rationalizability and commodification permeates all of it.
Since you haven't established that software engineering as it is motivated under capitalism (for christs sake you've defended Microsoft too), I think you are still missing the bigger picture. Just because you yourself think that you are not producing commodities does not mean that your job is tied to commodity production as a whole. You do not live (I assume, again) in a socialist software engineering utopia where, after writing code for three hours, you perform wrist exercises to avoid carpal tunnel and then pick fruit from the orchard for dinner; you live in a capitalist society where your relation to pretty much everyone else in it is mediated by money.
What I'm trying to point out is a class in the economy that this kind of rationalizability does not and cannot extend to. So, at least to the extent we are sticking to Lukacs, this class, because of its unpredictability, is opposed to the expansion of capitalism, because predictability is a precondition for capitalism.
Think of it this way: it doesn't matter if an individual enterprise collapses and dies so long as the total social reach of capital expands. You might have some stunningly amazing innovations 'on the frontier', say, in telecommunications; and at first it is unpredictable and businesses might fold. Eventually it stabilizes and then starts to look enticing to Wall Street. Well, it is the way of capital to subsume this new area under capitalist relations and then 'rationalize' it. Of course you can't rationalize the entire world (this is why physicalists are crazy!), but you sure can whip the vast known majority of it under capitalist relations. Think about the big net neutrality broohaha. I doubt that it will be much longer before capital works very very hard to secure the net as a means of production. But the net! it is irrational! It is creative! etc. Well, it will be rationalized via force.
Since you haven't established that software engineering as it is motivated under capitalism (for christs sake you've defended Microsoft too), I think you are still missing the bigger picture.
This is pretty arrogant. OF COURSE software engineering is motivated by capitalism. I haven't "established" it because it's completely fucking obvious. It is a non-point.
And defending Microsoft? Are you serious? You know now that I write open source software for a non profit for a living. Think. THINK. Do you think I go around defending Microsoft all day?
No. But I am capable of maintaining a nuanced attitude towards it an evaluate its production process and notice that there is a qualitative difference between it and the production process of factory workers, security guards, and truckers. And, it's true: it's not rationalized.
I think you need to stop working on an associative level here (criticizing Lukacs = anti-Marx = pro-wage slavery = pro-Microsoft = ...) and realize that there are several distinct lines of argument going on here. As it is, you keep dropping non-sequitors and red herrings. Do I purchase commodities? Of course. Is that relevant to what I've argued for? Not at all. Can I perform wrist exercises at work? Yeah, sure. Does that matter at all for anything we are talking about? No.
Now, here's where I would disagree substantively with you:
you live in a capitalist society where your relation to pretty much everyone else in it is mediated by money.
Yes, that's mostly true. However, saying that denies that there are spaces within the economy where social relations are only peripherally mediated in this way. An example would be my relationship with the user of some of the software I work on. Yes, we are both participating in a capitalist system; there are other commodities around us, we eat them, etc. But as far as the actual software is concerned, it's not produced for the market and it has no exchange value and hence no price. Moreover, the user doesn't have any kind of exclusive access or rationalizable possession of it. That's way different from most 'economic' relations, and needs to be acknowledged in a non ad hoc way by any economic or social theory that claims to be true in our era.
Think of it this way: it doesn't matter if an individual enterprise collapses and dies so long as the total social reach of capital expands. You might have some stunningly amazing innovations 'on the frontier', say, in telecommunications; and at first it is unpredictable and businesses might fold. Eventually it stabilizes and then starts to look enticing to Wall Street. Well, it is the way of capital to subsume this new area under capitalist relations and then 'rationalize' it. Of course you can't rationalize the entire world (this is why physicalists are crazy!), but you sure can whip the vast known majority of it under capitalist relations. Think about the big net neutrality broohaha. I doubt that it will be much longer before capital works very very hard to secure the net as a means of production. But the net! it is irrational! It is creative! etc. Well, it will be rationalized via force.
This is pretty arrogant. OF COURSE software engineering is motivated by capitalism. I haven't "established" it because it's completely fucking obvious. It is a non-point.
And defending Microsoft? Are you serious? You know now that I write open source software for a non profit for a living. Think. THINK. Do you think I go around defending Microsoft all day?
You're cute when you're angry; do me a favor and either take yourself or me less seriously.
Now, since you've seen the obvious point that software engineering is motivated by capitalism, I want you to reconsider the stance that software engineering is 'rationalizable'. Do you see the connection between capitalist production and rationalization? If not then you will not understand the entire premise behind Lukács argument.
And, it's true: it's not rationalized.
Tell me this: do you think that Microsoft would keep employing some lard ass software engineer who could not produce a profit for them? It just wouldn't notice that this guy or that guy wasn't doing as well as someone else within the company? How do people get promoted in this magical unrationalized land? The point of 'rationalization' has less to do with the actual process than with one's relation to his labor: wage-laborers are remunerated with a wage: that is the rationalization of labor. Now, if you had understand Lukács you would have known that he used the position of the proletariat as one that forced the laborer to realize he was alienated from his labor. This new situation, the unrationalized dreamworld of software engineering is a bad one: they might think they are not alienated, that they are the masters of their labor, but software engineers are merely components of production in the machinations of capital. I actually think Lukács has something to say about htis in his essay, if you take another look.
But as far as the actual software is concerned, it's not produced for the market and it has no exchange value and hence no price. Moreover, the user doesn't have any kind of exclusive access or rationalizable possession of it. That's way different from most 'economic' relations, and needs to be acknowledged in a non ad hoc way by any economic or social theory that claims to be true in our era.
Again, this is not software engineering in general, or even anything that is bound to software engineerings as a process-in-itself. If farmers were engaged in their labor under non-capitalist relations, then it would be a different mode of production. It's not software engineering that is the way forward, but a different form of social relations. Which was my original point in trying to get you to understand what a mode of production was.
Whatever. Irrelevant to my point
I think you were actually confused about your point. Do you agree?
Tell me this: do you think that Microsoft would keep employing some lard ass software engineer who could not produce a profit for them?
No.
The point of 'rationalization' has less to do with the actual process than with one's relation to his labor: wage-laborers are remunerated with a wage: that is the rationalization of labor.
That's not actually the process Lukacs describes in, for example, the passages quoted in the OP, where he clearly is taking about the actual process.
Now, if you had understand Lukács you would have known that he used the position of the proletariat as one that forced the laborer to realize he was alienated from his labor. This new situation, the unrationalized dreamworld of software engineering is a bad one: they might think they are not alienated, that they are the masters of their labor, but software engineers are merely components of production in the machinations of capital.
So are you conceding my point here that the process of labor isn't rationalized in the way Lukacs was saying was an inevitable effect of capitalism?
Because you are right; this may be a bad thing, if we think the proletariat's position is the only one that can be progressive. I actually made a comment about this in the OP. It's the part that starts with "(2) Looking ahead, if programmers do not have their mediate status inflicted on their consciousness via their mode of production, the prospects for class consciousness here are grim..."
I think you were actually confused about your point. Do you agree?
That's not actually the process Lukacs describes in, for example, the passages quoted in the OP, where he clearly is taking about the actual process.
No. Lukacs should be interpreted in the way I am trying to show you. Otherwise he makes no sense. Because even before software engineers, even in Lukac's time, there was labor that was not rationalizable in the sense that you are using: consider the guys who designed the first automobiles, or the people who designed equipment for steel mills, etc. Lukacs is trying to show that capitalism's abstract rationalization of labor is made manifest in the condition of certain processes of production.
So are you conceding my point here that the process of labor isn't rationalized in the way Lukacs was saying was an inevitable effect of capitalism?
No, I am saying that it still is. This all goes back to the notion of a mode of production: as long as anyone labors under capitalism, no matter what the labor, he is alienated in a specific way.
I can do nothing but refer to the text on this. Take virtually every instance of the use of "rationalisation" in the first section:
"If we follow the path taken by labour in its development from the handicrafts via cooperation and manufacture to machine industry we can see a continuous trend towards greater rationalisation, the progressive elimination of the qualitative, human and individual attributes of the worker. On the one hand, the process of labour is progressively broken down into abstract, rational, specialised operations.... On the other hand, the period of time necessary for work to be accomplished (which forms the basis of rational calculation) is converted, as mechanisation and rationalisation are intensified, from a merely empirical average figure to an objectively calculable work-stint that confronts the worker as a fixed and established reality."
"We are concerned above all with the principle at work here: the principle of rationalisation based on what is and can be calculated. The chief changes undergone by the subject and object of the economic process are as follows: (1) in the first place, the mathematical analysis of work-processes denotes a break with the organic, irrational and qualitatively determined unity of the product. Rationalisation in the sense of being able to predict with ever greater precision all the results to be achieved is only to be acquired by the exact breakdown of every complex into its elements and by the study of the special laws governing production."
"In consequence of the rationalisation of the work-process the human qualities and idiosyncrasies of the worker appear increasingly as mere sources of error when contrasted with these abstract special laws functioning according to rational predictions."
"The capitalist process of rationalisation based on private economic calculation..."
In each case Lukacs is concerned with one or both of two things:
(a) The work-process itself (e.g., abstraction of tasks, specialization, work-stints, Taylorism),
(b) Calculability and predictability.
And interpretation which holds that "The point of 'rationalization' has less to do with the actual process than with one's relation to his labor: wage-laborers are remunerated with a wage: that is the rationalization of labor" is absurd if you look at what Lukacs is actually saying. No doubt he doesn't think highly of wage labor. But that's just not how he's using the term. No doubt he thinks that rationalization in a broader sense was happening all around him. But the text is screaming that the relevant sense of rationalization for Lukacs' analysis is the rationalization of the work process. It comes up again and again, just like in the quote passages, throughout the work.
Because even before software engineers, even in Lukac's time, there was labor that was not rationalizable in the sense that you are using: consider the guys who designed the first automobiles, or the people who designed equipment for steel mills, etc.
Right. Which means we are left with a question of how generous a reading we want to make of Lukacs. One reading would be that he did manage to overlook this sort of thing, and so his analysis of the society was just wrong.
But there's a more generous reading that I'm inclined to give him: he saw that this work existed, but saw it as an insignificant part of the social world because of their relative rarity and also the transitory nature of the work. Ok, so you invent a better mousetrap-machine. What do you do next? Sit on the patent and make a killing. Enter the bourgeoisie. There's nothing sustainable about the cutting edge, if you see the work-process as being asymptotically rationalized away.
But both theoretical and economic realities showed up after Lukacs have dictated that the innovating class is now a stable and growing one. There are things Lukacs just didn't know about rationalizability which blinded him to this possibility. The interesting question, for me, is what happens when you try to update him to the historical present.
Alright, now what drives this process of rationalisation? It is the number crunching economists, the mythological bean-counters of accounting departments. This is how 'productivity' is measured. What is important, according to Lukács--and you quote him on it here, so you make my point for me--is that this rationalisation has no use for the qualitative aspect of life. It is rationalisation in terms of the imperatives of capital. I assume we agree thus far, no?
Where you make you error is that you assume there is some difference of substance between the situation that Lukács describes and a software engineer. There is not: the software engineer may think that his life and work are not based on the rationalized of imperatives of capital, but they are. That is the whole point of pointing out rationalisation. Do you think this is wrong? And, as a side note, the actually interesting part about the essay, the notion of reification sort of grows out of this. At any rate, back to the task at hand.
Now, if you wanted to criticize Lukács you could do a whole bunch of things. But thinking that control over the 'process' of the way one sells his labor is not the way to go about it. By arguing the way you are you are essentially making his point: you are claiming that you are the authentic master of your labor when in fact that labor is controlled and dictated by the same economic imperatives that govern some chump pulling a lever. It just appears different.
Now to your points:
(No doubt he thinks that rationalization in a broader sense was happening all around him. But the text is screaming that the relevant sense of rationalization for Lukacs' analysis is the rationalization of the work process.
But what drives the rationalisation of the work process? It isn't just done for its own sake: it is done according to economic imperatives. You can't take one without the other, which is why you can't say that the 'irrational' nature of software engineering has much to say about Lukács point. Lukács analysis of the standpoint of the proletariat is problematic for other reasons, but this isn't really a concern.
When you think about Marxist critiques of society you can't let the fact that it is a critique of capitalism out of sight.
I think you are referring to the claim, "software itself is does not participate in the commodity structure, per se." Yeah, you got me. That was probably wrong.
I think I do want to say that software is not strictly speaking a commodity, however, in many of its contemporary incarnations. Agreeing on a definition of "commodity" would be helpful here, but for now I'm working from various things Lukacs says about commodities and, because I'm not trying to impress anyone, the wikipedia article. Feel free to educate me, if you are so inclined.
With that concession, I would respond to this:
Even if you're designing widgets for facebook (which is a capitalist enterprise that uses the attention of its 'clients' as a sort of labor power) that are 'freely available', or if you're designing open source software that is freely downloadable, which drives up site traffic and allows advert revenue, you're entering into capitalist production.
by saying: yes, sure, the business practices you describe do take part in capitalist production. However, I disagree with your characterization of facebook's users (I'm sure they would call them 'users'--the 'clients' are almost certainly the advertizers) as "a sort of labor power." That's sounds like ad hocery to me. And I think that by admitting that these sorts of enterprises exist within a capitalist society, it amounts to admitting that in the information age there is a lot of production which is not commodity production. I probably should have thought to say it this way in the OP, but by and large what I'm getting at in the OP is that software engineers are not really producing commodities, and that is interesting and distinguishes them as a class that falls outside of Lukacs' analysis.
I highly doubt your company is not make a profit off of your labor
Well, wrong again, since it's a non-profit. You _really_ ought to stop making guesses about me. You have done it a lot--about my philosophical ideas before, now about my work. What's with that? It just makes interactions weird on this end.
if it isn't it will soon cease to exist and then you will re-enter the labor market.
So, this is one of those other things that my impression is that Marxists up until Lukacs didn't really anticipate well--the economic viability of civil society, which is another part of capitalist society which is doing an awful lot of work which isn't commodity production. My question is: what are these people, as a class? They don't seem to fall under any of Lukacs' analysis either.
And so is the designing of Industrial Machines; I fail to see how the manner in which it is employed is not capitalist.
I think this might just be a semantic argument at this point. If you agree that software engineering (and, sure, the design of industrial machines) is not rationalizable, then that is at least 70% of what I've been trying to get across.
Now, does this deserve to be called "non-capitalist"? If you really want to fight about it, probably not. However, it does, I think, pose a threat to Lukacs' understanding of the capitalist system, since he seems to think that the capitalist system is characterized by a qualitative shift in society that occurs when rationalizability and commodification permeates all of it.
What I'm trying to point out is a class in the economy that this kind of rationalizability does not and cannot extend to. So, at least to the extent we are sticking to Lukacs, this class, because of its unpredictability, is opposed to the expansion of capitalism, because predictability is a precondition for capitalism.
Reply
A commodity is something that is produced to be sold. Marx analyzes it in terms of a tripart structure of value as well, but that is another rather long conversation. You can read the first several chapters of Capital or find a decent secondary text if you like.
Now, lets consider something less mysterious than software engineering: security guards. Are they not within the capitalist mode of production? I think they are. But what are they producing? What commodity is produced by them? This seems to throw a monkey wrench into the whole Marxist apparatus! Well, not really. Production drives capitalist society, it is the source of value, yada yada, but it also requires secondary support industries (I forget the technical term for them at the moment). These industries might be writing code to make the Digitron Supercrompress XG56000 work properly or they might be the fatass who sits in my building on weekends wearing a security guard outfit. These things are part of production and are subsumed under costs of production; but they are parts of the total process of capitalist social reproduction and so are imbricated in it.
I mean, you don't even have to look to software engineering: what about truckers? What commodity are they producing? They just move shit that other people made around.
We can agree to disagree on the facebook thing. I have a feeling when the economy tanks many such social networking sites will cease to be profitable anyway.
Well, wrong again, since it's a non-profit. You _really_ ought to stop making guesses about me. You have done it a lot--about my philosophical ideas before, now about my work. What's with that? It just makes interactions weird on this end.
Seriously! What the hell was I thinking! If you go back and read my post you'll see I put a little aside in their about NGOs and nonprofits. I doubt you think they are the motor of the economy or that they could survive without the dominant motor but if you like I could get into it.
Reply
Of course it doesn't. Security guards provide a rationalizable service for sale on the market.
As do truckers.
If you go back and read my post you'll see I put a little aside in their about NGOs and nonprofits. I doubt you think they are the motor of the economy or that they could survive without the dominant motor but if you like I could get into it.
This is a non-sequitor. No, nonprofits are not the "motor of the economy." But that doesn't mean that the people working in the nonprofit sector are "toiling under a capitalist mode of production, and ... still producing commodities," which is what you originally asserted I was doing. Rather, it seems clear that people working for non-profits very often not producing commodities since often their goods and services aren't sold on the market. And are they "toiling" in this case? Depends on what you mean. But it's hard to see how in most cases the surplus value of these laborers is being snatched up by anyone.
While we are on the topic, you said something earlier about non-profits that I didn't bother to challenge you on, but which I think I will now that you've brought it up again:
Now, if you were working for a NGO that runs off of donations there might be more to say. But the thing is is that such things ... rely on the need to dump overproduction out of the market, etc, to keep working.
This seems like more ad hocery to me, but I'm willing to listen. What is the Marxist explanation for this need? Whose need is it? What is the mechanism by which it is unleashed?
Reply
As do truckers.
And you seem to think that software engineers do not. I'm not going to take your word for it.
This seems like more ad hocery to me, but I'm willing to listen. What is the Marxist explanation for this need? Whose need is it? What is the mechanism by which it is unleashed?
AN interpretation would go along lines of looking at NGOs as a way of dumping overproduction, of creating ways to release the pressure as a result of the struggle between capital and labor, as absorbing technological change, etc. But if understanding the commodity relation and the process of primitive accumulation is Marx 090, something like this would be Marx 487, and I'm not going to worry about going into it so that you can so 'well, that's implausible, it's ad hocery, I'll take the bourgie interpretations'. You gather to yourself an understanding of commodity production and the way surplus value is realized and we'll talk.
Reply
I don't expect you to just take my word for it. However, I have made an argument as to why the labor of software engineers is not rationalizable in the OP.
Reply
The security guard/trucker example should help you here. The point of these things, from the capitalist perspective, is that they help realize surplus value.
However, it does, I think, pose a threat to Lukacs' understanding of the capitalist system, since he seems to think that the capitalist system is characterized by a qualitative shift in society that occurs when rationalizability and commodification permeates all of it.
Since you haven't established that software engineering as it is motivated under capitalism (for christs sake you've defended Microsoft too), I think you are still missing the bigger picture. Just because you yourself think that you are not producing commodities does not mean that your job is tied to commodity production as a whole. You do not live (I assume, again) in a socialist software engineering utopia where, after writing code for three hours, you perform wrist exercises to avoid carpal tunnel and then pick fruit from the orchard for dinner; you live in a capitalist society where your relation to pretty much everyone else in it is mediated by money.
What I'm trying to point out is a class in the economy that this kind of rationalizability does not and cannot extend to. So, at least to the extent we are sticking to Lukacs, this class, because of its unpredictability, is opposed to the expansion of capitalism, because predictability is a precondition for capitalism.
Think of it this way: it doesn't matter if an individual enterprise collapses and dies so long as the total social reach of capital expands. You might have some stunningly amazing innovations 'on the frontier', say, in telecommunications; and at first it is unpredictable and businesses might fold. Eventually it stabilizes and then starts to look enticing to Wall Street. Well, it is the way of capital to subsume this new area under capitalist relations and then 'rationalize' it. Of course you can't rationalize the entire world (this is why physicalists are crazy!), but you sure can whip the vast known majority of it under capitalist relations. Think about the big net neutrality broohaha. I doubt that it will be much longer before capital works very very hard to secure the net as a means of production. But the net! it is irrational! It is creative! etc. Well, it will be rationalized via force.
Reply
This is pretty arrogant. OF COURSE software engineering is motivated by capitalism. I haven't "established" it because it's completely fucking obvious. It is a non-point.
And defending Microsoft? Are you serious? You know now that I write open source software for a non profit for a living. Think. THINK. Do you think I go around defending Microsoft all day?
No. But I am capable of maintaining a nuanced attitude towards it an evaluate its production process and notice that there is a qualitative difference between it and the production process of factory workers, security guards, and truckers. And, it's true: it's not rationalized.
I think you need to stop working on an associative level here (criticizing Lukacs = anti-Marx = pro-wage slavery = pro-Microsoft = ...) and realize that there are several distinct lines of argument going on here. As it is, you keep dropping non-sequitors and red herrings. Do I purchase commodities? Of course. Is that relevant to what I've argued for? Not at all. Can I perform wrist exercises at work? Yeah, sure. Does that matter at all for anything we are talking about? No.
Now, here's where I would disagree substantively with you:
you live in a capitalist society where your relation to pretty much everyone else in it is mediated by money.
Yes, that's mostly true. However, saying that denies that there are spaces within the economy where social relations are only peripherally mediated in this way. An example would be my relationship with the user of some of the software I work on. Yes, we are both participating in a capitalist system; there are other commodities around us, we eat them, etc. But as far as the actual software is concerned, it's not produced for the market and it has no exchange value and hence no price. Moreover, the user doesn't have any kind of exclusive access or rationalizable possession of it. That's way different from most 'economic' relations, and needs to be acknowledged in a non ad hoc way by any economic or social theory that claims to be true in our era.
Think of it this way: it doesn't matter if an individual enterprise collapses and dies so long as the total social reach of capital expands. You might have some stunningly amazing innovations 'on the frontier', say, in telecommunications; and at first it is unpredictable and businesses might fold. Eventually it stabilizes and then starts to look enticing to Wall Street. Well, it is the way of capital to subsume this new area under capitalist relations and then 'rationalize' it. Of course you can't rationalize the entire world (this is why physicalists are crazy!), but you sure can whip the vast known majority of it under capitalist relations. Think about the big net neutrality broohaha. I doubt that it will be much longer before capital works very very hard to secure the net as a means of production. But the net! it is irrational! It is creative! etc. Well, it will be rationalized via force.
Whatever. Irrelevant to my point.
Reply
And defending Microsoft? Are you serious? You know now that I write open source software for a non profit for a living. Think. THINK. Do you think I go around defending Microsoft all day?
You're cute when you're angry; do me a favor and either take yourself or me less seriously.
Now, since you've seen the obvious point that software engineering is motivated by capitalism, I want you to reconsider the stance that software engineering is 'rationalizable'. Do you see the connection between capitalist production and rationalization? If not then you will not understand the entire premise behind Lukács argument.
And, it's true: it's not rationalized.
Tell me this: do you think that Microsoft would keep employing some lard ass software engineer who could not produce a profit for them? It just wouldn't notice that this guy or that guy wasn't doing as well as someone else within the company? How do people get promoted in this magical unrationalized land? The point of 'rationalization' has less to do with the actual process than with one's relation to his labor: wage-laborers are remunerated with a wage: that is the rationalization of labor. Now, if you had understand Lukács you would have known that he used the position of the proletariat as one that forced the laborer to realize he was alienated from his labor. This new situation, the unrationalized dreamworld of software engineering is a bad one: they might think they are not alienated, that they are the masters of their labor, but software engineers are merely components of production in the machinations of capital. I actually think Lukács has something to say about htis in his essay, if you take another look.
But as far as the actual software is concerned, it's not produced for the market and it has no exchange value and hence no price. Moreover, the user doesn't have any kind of exclusive access or rationalizable possession of it. That's way different from most 'economic' relations, and needs to be acknowledged in a non ad hoc way by any economic or social theory that claims to be true in our era.
Again, this is not software engineering in general, or even anything that is bound to software engineerings as a process-in-itself. If farmers were engaged in their labor under non-capitalist relations, then it would be a different mode of production. It's not software engineering that is the way forward, but a different form of social relations. Which was my original point in trying to get you to understand what a mode of production was.
Whatever. Irrelevant to my point
I think you were actually confused about your point. Do you agree?
Reply
No.
The point of 'rationalization' has less to do with the actual process than with one's relation to his labor: wage-laborers are remunerated with a wage: that is the rationalization of labor.
That's not actually the process Lukacs describes in, for example, the passages quoted in the OP, where he clearly is taking about the actual process.
Now, if you had understand Lukács you would have known that he used the position of the proletariat as one that forced the laborer to realize he was alienated from his labor. This new situation, the unrationalized dreamworld of software engineering is a bad one: they might think they are not alienated, that they are the masters of their labor, but software engineers are merely components of production in the machinations of capital.
So are you conceding my point here that the process of labor isn't rationalized in the way Lukacs was saying was an inevitable effect of capitalism?
Because you are right; this may be a bad thing, if we think the proletariat's position is the only one that can be progressive. I actually made a comment about this in the OP. It's the part that starts with "(2) Looking ahead, if programmers do not have their mediate status inflicted on their consciousness via their mode of production, the prospects for class consciousness here are grim..."
I think you were actually confused about your point. Do you agree?
No. I still don't. Sorry.
Reply
No. Lukacs should be interpreted in the way I am trying to show you. Otherwise he makes no sense. Because even before software engineers, even in Lukac's time, there was labor that was not rationalizable in the sense that you are using: consider the guys who designed the first automobiles, or the people who designed equipment for steel mills, etc. Lukacs is trying to show that capitalism's abstract rationalization of labor is made manifest in the condition of certain processes of production.
So are you conceding my point here that the process of labor isn't rationalized in the way Lukacs was saying was an inevitable effect of capitalism?
No, I am saying that it still is. This all goes back to the notion of a mode of production: as long as anyone labors under capitalism, no matter what the labor, he is alienated in a specific way.
Reply
"If we follow the path taken by labour in its development from the handicrafts via cooperation and manufacture to machine industry we can see a continuous trend towards greater rationalisation, the progressive elimination of the qualitative, human and individual attributes of the worker. On the one hand, the process of labour is progressively broken down into abstract, rational, specialised operations.... On the other hand, the period of time necessary for work to be accomplished (which forms the basis of rational calculation) is converted, as mechanisation and rationalisation are intensified, from a merely empirical average figure to an objectively calculable work-stint that confronts the worker as a fixed and established reality."
"We are concerned above all with the principle at work here: the principle of rationalisation based on what is and can be calculated. The chief changes undergone by the subject and object of the economic process are as follows: (1) in the first place, the mathematical analysis of work-processes denotes a break with the organic, irrational and qualitatively determined unity of the product. Rationalisation in the sense of being able to predict with ever greater precision all the results to be achieved is only to be acquired by the exact breakdown of every complex into its elements and by the study of the special laws governing production."
"In consequence of the rationalisation of the work-process the human qualities and idiosyncrasies of the worker appear increasingly as mere sources of error when contrasted with these abstract special laws functioning according to rational predictions."
"The capitalist process of rationalisation based on private economic calculation..."
Reply
(a) The work-process itself (e.g., abstraction of tasks, specialization, work-stints, Taylorism),
(b) Calculability and predictability.
And interpretation which holds that "The point of 'rationalization' has less to do with the actual process than with one's relation to his labor: wage-laborers are remunerated with a wage: that is the rationalization of labor" is absurd if you look at what Lukacs is actually saying. No doubt he doesn't think highly of wage labor. But that's just not how he's using the term. No doubt he thinks that rationalization in a broader sense was happening all around him. But the text is screaming that the relevant sense of rationalization for Lukacs' analysis is the rationalization of the work process. It comes up again and again, just like in the quote passages, throughout the work.
Because even before software engineers, even in Lukac's time, there was labor that was not rationalizable in the sense that you are using: consider the guys who designed the first automobiles, or the people who designed equipment for steel mills, etc.
Right. Which means we are left with a question of how generous a reading we want to make of Lukacs. One reading would be that he did manage to overlook this sort of thing, and so his analysis of the society was just wrong.
But there's a more generous reading that I'm inclined to give him: he saw that this work existed, but saw it as an insignificant part of the social world because of their relative rarity and also the transitory nature of the work. Ok, so you invent a better mousetrap-machine. What do you do next? Sit on the patent and make a killing. Enter the bourgeoisie. There's nothing sustainable about the cutting edge, if you see the work-process as being asymptotically rationalized away.
But both theoretical and economic realities showed up after Lukacs have dictated that the innovating class is now a stable and growing one. There are things Lukacs just didn't know about rationalizability which blinded him to this possibility. The interesting question, for me, is what happens when you try to update him to the historical present.
Reply
Where you make you error is that you assume there is some difference of substance between the situation that Lukács describes and a software engineer. There is not: the software engineer may think that his life and work are not based on the rationalized of imperatives of capital, but they are. That is the whole point of pointing out rationalisation. Do you think this is wrong? And, as a side note, the actually interesting part about the essay, the notion of reification sort of grows out of this. At any rate, back to the task at hand.
Now, if you wanted to criticize Lukács you could do a whole bunch of things. But thinking that control over the 'process' of the way one sells his labor is not the way to go about it. By arguing the way you are you are essentially making his point: you are claiming that you are the authentic master of your labor when in fact that labor is controlled and dictated by the same economic imperatives that govern some chump pulling a lever. It just appears different.
Now to your points:
(No doubt he thinks that rationalization in a broader sense was happening all around him. But the text is screaming that the relevant sense of rationalization for Lukacs' analysis is the rationalization of the work process.
But what drives the rationalisation of the work process? It isn't just done for its own sake: it is done according to economic imperatives. You can't take one without the other, which is why you can't say that the 'irrational' nature of software engineering has much to say about Lukács point. Lukács analysis of the standpoint of the proletariat is problematic for other reasons, but this isn't really a concern.
When you think about Marxist critiques of society you can't let the fact that it is a critique of capitalism out of sight.
Reply
Leave a comment