Abstract
This chapter provides a theoretical perspective on contemporary cognitive capitalism. A Marxist analysis of the relation between the inside and outside of capital is presented; Marxist theories on cognitive capitalism and concepts such as capitalism of communism and communism of capital are explained, together with a presentation of the study’s methodology, the ideological analysis. Key models that structure the analysis on the micro level and in the comparisons of the concluding chapter are presented. Finally, the informants and applied interview methods are presented.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
A concept is needed for activities perceived as socially necessary by their producers but that still have not achieved that status on a societal level.
- 2.
Fleischer uses the Swedish word församhälleligande in this context with its connotation of society rather than the social in general.
- 3.
The notion commonsly necessary opens up space for a new form of socialisation of necessity that occurs in-between the state and the market, between commoners, and therefore exists outside of both the state and the market. The deeper meaning being that the social could be reconstructed bottom-up through a multitude of commons, and commons-based peer production projects (PPP) forming ever more interacting and encompassing networks in society. But such a concept could also confine the peer production to the commons’ realm and preclude the idea of expanding commons that increasingly become socially necessary in a societal sense.
- 4.
The productive/improductive binary used here deviates from traditional Marxism where productive labour normally means value-producing labour. We need to use the concept of productive in new ways related to use value production and new forms of valorization of the socially or commonsly necessary. Likewise the concept of exploitation can be used in broader terms than as only built on a direct extraction of surplus value.
- 5.
Capitalism’s inside, when analysing peer production as an outside to capital, is defined as concrete labour subordinated under the logic of abstract labour and producing its opposite: capital (Marx 1973, p. 305). Capital’s outside can be understood as concrete labour per se, in the sense that Marx sees it as capital’s opposite. The outside can also be portrayed as alternative social practices and struggles based in alternative forms of valorization (De Angelis 2007, pp. 29–30). However, the interface between capital’s inside and outside is not a clear-cut one and should be investigated and discussed further.
- 6.
Polanyi states about work/labour: “Labor is only another name for a human activity which goes with life itself, which in its turn is not produced for sale but for entirely different reasons, nor can that activity be detached from the rest of life, be stored or mobilized” (Polanyi 2001, p. 75).
- 7.
A market is a meeting place where you exchange, buy and sell. If such places do not exist, at least in patches, people’s will to barter will only be limited, without the power to build prices. When the market pattern is established with its connection to the exchange motive, this institution dominates the whole of society. The regulation of society starts to be an appendix to the market, instead of the economy being embedded in society (Polanyi 1989, pp. 69–70, 86–87, 192).
- 8.
Author’s translation from Swedish.
- 9.
In the Porcelain Workshop from 2005 Antonio Negri expresses this succinctly that the world we live in is defined by society’s subordination to capital; capital no longer has an outside (Negri 2008, p. 29).
- 10.
The designation cognitive is criticised by Lazzarato, who emphasises the crisis of subjectivity that characterises modern capitalism. Subjectivities and their changes are not primarily to do with knowledge, information and culture, as non-discursive cores exist at their centre. Changes to subjectivities are an existential confirmation and understanding of the self, others and the world. It is this non-discursive, existential and affective foundation where new languages, discourses, knowledge and politics proliferate (Lazzarato 2014, p. 16). I agree in many respects with Lazzarato’s criticism, but understand the formation of the subjectivities as a combination of discursive and non-discursive practices. I use the term cognitive when language and other character systems appear to be the means actively used by capital at a superficial level to influence, manipulate and profit from the existential and affective subjectivities, which results in the typical semiotic surface of the modern mediated world. However, the subjectivities are of course at a deeper level subordinate to practices that are every day, non-discursive, and bearing the stamp of capitalism. Lazzarato’s reasoning becomes most interesting when he argues about the preconditions for creating new subjectivities and politics. Capital has no role here, instead moments must pass when the dominant meaning is dissolved in events exemplified by strikes, struggle, revolts and rioting, where the chronological time ceases to exist together with the dominant ideas. In the free spaces created, the relationship between production and the beginnings of existential subjectification are articulated (Lazzarato 2014, pp. 18–19). Engagement within peer production could be added to this list. See also the critical discussion of the concept of immaterial labour in footnote 13 and the discussion about the importance of non-discursive elements in ideology analysis later in this chapter.
- 11.
Economic peripheries can further more be used as a buffer when crisis periods strike the system. If relatively more funds are loaned to the periphery during expansive phases, this lending is reduced to a greater extent when a crisis hits the economy (Marazzi 2011, Capital and language, pp. 72–73).
- 12.
The concept of immaterial labour was created in order to replace Negri’s earlier term the social worker. In many ways, the latter concept is more exact and direct in its communication about the issue at hand: human communication and interaction. The social worker is an autonomist Marxist term developed out of the social struggles in Italy in the late 1960s and 1970s. Italian autonomist Marxists assert that the social worker replaced the mass worker, which had been developed during Fordism, and in turn was a response to the earlier successful organising and struggle of the skilled craftsmen of the labour aristocracy (Negri 1988, pp. 205–8).
- 13.
In conjunction with the publication of Hardt’s and Negri’s Empire, there was a critical discussion about the concept of immaterial labour. Dyer-Witheford sees three main objections. First, it appeared that the concept excluded some very physical components in high-technology labour: digital paralysis, repetitive stress, terminal isolation and a number of other diseases were linked to this. Second, the authors were accused of diminishing the continuing fundamental importance in post-Fordism of material and physical labour at the centre of the global economy but perhaps even more in its periphery. Caffentzis thinks they ignored the renaissance of slavery. Third, the concept was criticised for merging very different categories in a single term. What actually united a network technician, a barista and a sex worker? Above all the gender component, with women active in low-status professions in affective labour rather than in high-status symbol analyst professions, tends not to be given the consideration it deserves. The authors replied that immaterial does not mean non-material (rather non-tangible), that immaterial labour was hegemonic in qualitative terms in leading segments of the economy, rather than quantitatively leading. But they used the term more sparingly in following books (Dyer-Witheford 2010, pp. 266–67).
Wolfgang Fritz Haug writes in a dictionary article that the term immaterial labour was coined by Henri Storch in the early nineteenth century. Storch attempted in the wake of Jean-Baptiste Say and the French ideologists to criticise Adam Smith’s reasoning that labour among some of the most respected strata in society was “unproductive of any value” (Smith quoted through Haug). Within the neo-liberalist discourse in the new economy, the concept gained a second life. Haug contends that it is a non-concept with at best a polemical content against notions of labour as only industrial labour. The concept has been used as an umbrella term for all post-Ford labour. “In this way, not only is the concept of labour expanded beyond the boundaries of formal social labour, but it is also stretched out to include all possible intellectual, communicative, and emotional aspects of activity or dimension of production—from financial speculation to giving birth to children” (Haug 2009). I agree with Haug’s criticism that the value-creating abstract labour for autonomist Marxists no longer is limited to the capital and wage relationship. The polemic value of the concept should, however, not be underestimated as its non-tangible materiality has consequences that the autonomist Marxists have been alone in problematising and theorising about from a Marxist perspective.
- 14.
The author refers here to an early article on the subject by Mauricio Lazzarato from 1993 “Le ‘Cycle’ de la Production Immatérielle” in Futur Antérieur, 16: 111–20.
- 15.
He names nurses who monitor ECG diagrams, bank clerks who take care of online transactions, teachers in computer labs or digital librarians, as examples.
- 16.
Negri does not think here that information replaces wage relations, rather that the regulation of the flow of information is as important in post-Fordism as the regulation of wage levels during Fordism.
- 17.
As is shown later, I do not agree with the idea that “the non-labour of a few” would cease to exist in the social factory, and the concept productive can have other meanings.
- 18.
The problem for capital in Terranova’s model is how it can valorize as many activities as possible. From my perspective, it can be translated into the problem to include as many as possible of these relatively independent activities into the capital relation, or alternatively to valorize these indirectly by extracting a value from the value production of another capital.
- 19.
- 20.
It is not necessary to link the concepts of productive and unproductive exclusively with value production. In Marxist tradition, productive labour often equals value-producing labour, but work that creates use value is also productive, though in a different sense. Kathi Weeks writes: “Feminists insisted that the largely unwaged ‘reproductive’ work that made waged ‘productive’ work possible on a daily basis was socially necessary labor” (my italics; Kathi Weeks, The Problem with Work, p. 24). This view can also be applied to successful projects in peer production. My use of the concepts productive and unproductive is therefore different from the most traditional Marxist use.
- 21.
Nick Dyer-Witheford concluded his keynote speech at The Fourth ICTs and Society-Conference, Uppsala University, on 3 May 2012, with this remark.
- 22.
Johan Söderberg noted this choice at the conference ICT and Work: The United States at the Origin of the Dissemination of Digital Capitalism at the Université Paris-Sorbonne, on 29–30 May 2013.
- 23.
The general intellect is a concept that goes back to a text by Marx in Grundrisse where he describes an era where scientific work by the social brain, and its objectivication in machine systems, is the dominant productive force. The idea was raised and developed within autonomist Marxism in the 1960s and 1970s. In 1996, Virno criticises Marx for his narrow focus on dead labour and its manifestation in the form of machines and claims that a general intellect during post-Fordism has commodified social life itself and reshaped its public character into productive living labour (Marx 1973a, pp. 690–712; Virno 1996b; 2004, pp. 37–38, 2007, p. 5). The fact that the general intellect cannot be fixed to the constant capital causes some disorder. What he refers to as mass intellectuality can be understood as a “depository of cognitive competencies that cannot be objectified in machinery”. He emphasises that he is referring to skills and not the works produced through thought when he speaks of general intellect. Mass intellectuality has therefore nothing to do with the so-called labour aristocracy, rather the opposite (Virno 2007, p. 6).
- 24.
Virno points out the culture industry’s creation of forms of communication, or means of production, by using communication, but Söderberg here shows that it is possible to turn around Virno’s critical comments about the culture industry as a matrix for the virtuosic performance in the presence of others within post-Fordism (Virno 2004, p. 61). Söderberg instead sees peer production’s forming of us people into new types of means of production.
- 25.
However, the result is that capitalism could be expected to become more brutal and extra-economic in its methods, at the same time as financial methods are to a greater extent used to capture profit from surplus value generated elsewhere. Despite this observation, it is possible to criticise Vercellone for excessively toning down the class aspect. All workers employed in the “immaterial sphere” are not involved in intellectual tasks but rather with fairly repetitive tasks. One can also ask whether the consequences of the growth of the middle class during Fordism really led to progressive results. Could Vercellone’s scientific workers, just as the middle class in the twentieth century, gradually identify themselves with business and capital interests?
- 26.
Despite criticism of the post-operaist value theory, which underpins the statement about free speech and labour, Virno points out something important here. Conversation is embraced as an increasingly important part of the capital relation today. People are employed in order to socialise and converse, which in equal measure calls into question the level of freedom in the process.
- 27.
The first case scenario could also experience indirect value redistribution through commercial crowdsourcing, which does not generate surplus value in itself, and would threaten value growth in the system as a whole and reinforce the exploitation of those in wage relations in other sectors.
- 28.
Those corporations that cooperate with peer production are often not the largest market actors, but instead are competing with a capital that is dominant and which in turn is relying on closed software that generates extra or monopoly profits.
- 29.
Pouwelse et al. has counted to seven generations of P2P platforms. Through all of these platforms, there is a conflict line between more centralised and more decentralised P2P platforms in the technological/architectural sense. The centralised are often commercial and use closed source code (the authors do not distinguish between peer production and commercially controlled crowdsourcing, despite the fact that this runs contrary to their own definition). The decentralised use licences similar to copyleft at the same time as they try to find rules and a new technological order with a view to rewarding a generous stance on sharing content and bandwidth (Pouwelse et al. 2008). Wikipedia and Project Runeberg, however, are not based on an equal sharing of computing power, instead in the case of Wikipedia the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation manages and controls the data centres.
- 30.
Each individual who writes an article in Wikipedia which is then changed by someone else can become involved with this other person about the edited changes to the now jointly created article. Sharing information (sharing mechanism) leads to a joint creation of information (commons mechanism). It should, however, be pointed out that most users (readers in the case of Wikipedia) of these services are individual users who do not contribute to the common production (van Dijk and Nieborg 2009, p. 862). The hierarchical division between an inner segment of participants consisting of close working groups in peer production and an outer more peripheral segment is less obvious in projects such as Wikipedia and Project Gutenberg than in projects concerning free and open-source software (FOSS). The former is based on a looser and more horizontal network structure offering greater influence to the “crowd”, a structure that has been criticised for resulting in quality-control problems (Duguid 2006). But this difference in how projects are steered is important if we begin to see the projects as a germ for a new mode of production. Karatzogianni and Michaelides point out that what is really interesting with the political romanticisation that is typical for this field under the banners of communism, anarchism and libertarianism (or the idea of an ethical capitalism) is that these ideas are exchanged in the interface between hierarchy and network and the increasingly tight link between these two models (Karatzogianni and Michaelides 2009, p. 154).
- 31.
Stefan Meretz claimed in 2012 that peer production is not about seizing power and introducing socialism, but that it is beyond politics (Meretz 2012).
- 32.
Yochai Benkler defines peer production as a new modality within the production organisation. This modality is “radically decentralized, collaborative, and non-proprietary; based on sharing resources and outputs among widely distributed, loosely connected individuals who cooperate with each other without relying on either market or managerial commands” (Benkler 2006, p. 60).
- 33.
The position of Bauwens and Kostakis takes a step back from Bauwens’ earlier position when he emphasised that peer production projects that looked for alliances, “benefit sharing” with commercial businesses, would outcompete those who were not doing this (in part as the project’s key core of participants would then more easily find solutions that made their involvement sustainable) (Bauwens 2009, p. 128). A stance that is similar to the capitalism of communism.
- 34.
Bauwens and Kostakis mostly stress the evolutionary motif (Kostakis and Bauwens 2014, pp. 65–68), but in another context Bauwens placed more emphasis on conflicts and struggles in the relationship between peer production and capitalism. In order for peer production to lead to progressive results beyond capitalism, a social mobilisation is needed “of progressive social forces (i.e. politics and even ‘revolution’ are crucial remaining aspects of social evolution), and political/policy oriented movements that are capable of creating new institutions” (Bauwens 2012).
- 35.
If there is a suggestion for perhaps citizen’s income (basic income) then this sparks interesting questions about whether the main motivation lies in the element of play, the non-profit and undemanding activities, or in the self-organising work activities or in forms that approach abstract labour.
- 36.
Laclau and Mouffe deny according to Eagleton the distinction between discursive and non-discursive practices, as the latter is structured on the former. Eagleton: “The short reply to this is that a practice may well be organized like a discourse, but as a matter of fact it is a practice rather than discourse”. Nothing is gained by obscuring and homogenising practices: “A way of understanding an object is simply projected into the object itself, in a familiar idealist move. In notably academicist style, the contemplative analysis of a practice suddenly reappears as its very essence” (Eagleton 2007, p. 219).
Bibliography
Althusser, L. (2014). On the reproduction of capitalism: Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. London: Verso.
Anderson, C. (2013). Makers: Den nya industriella revolutionen, Modernista.
Anderson, P. (2013). Lineages of the absolutist state, London: Verso.
Antunes, R. (2013). The meanings of work: Essays on the affirmation and negation of work. Chicago: Haymarket Books.
Barbrook, R. (2000). Cyber-communism: How Americans are superseeding capitalism in cyberspace. Science as Culture, 9(1), 5–40.
Barbrook, R. (2005). High-tech gift economy. First Monday, (Special Issue Update nr. 3). Retrieved February 7, 2014, from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1517.
Barbrook, R. (2006). The class of the new. London: OpenMute.
Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity.
Bauwens, M. (2009). Class and capital in peer production. Class & Capital, 33(1): 121–141.
Bauwens, M. (2012). From the theory of peer production to the production of peer production theory. Journal of Peer Production, (1). Retrieved July 24, 2013, from http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-1/invited-comments/from-the-theory-of-peer-production-to-the-production-of-peer-production-theory/.
Bauwens, M., & Kostakis, V. (2014). From the communism of capital to capital for the commons: Towards an open co-operativism. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 12(1), 356–361.
Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Berardi, F. (2009). The soul at work: From alienation to autonomy. Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e).
Bergström, G., & Boréus, K. (2005). Textens mening och makt. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Boltanski, L., & Chiapello, E. (2007). The new spirit of capitalism. London: Verso.
Caffentzis, G. (2010). The future of the ‘commons’: Neoliberalism’s ‘Plan B’ or the original disaccumulation of capital? New Formations, 69(69), 23–41.
Caffentzis, G. (2013). In letters of blood and fire: Work, machines, and the crisis of capitalism. Oakland, CA: PM Press.
Day, R. E., & Lau, A. J. (2010). Psychoanalysis as critique in the works of Freud, Lacan, and Deleuze and Guattari. In G. J. Leckie, L. M. Given, & J. Buschman (Eds.), Critical theory for library and information science: Exploring the social from across the disciplines. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.
De Angelis, M. (2007). The beginning of history: Value struggles and global capital. London: Pluto.
De Angelis, M. (2008). Marx and primitive accumulation: The continuous character of capital’s ‘enclosures’. In W. Bonefeld (Ed.), Subverting the present, imagining the future: Class, struggle, commons. New York: Autonomedia.
Deleuze, G. (1998). Postskriptum om kontrollsamhällena. Nomadologin. Stockholm: Raster förlag.
van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Editorial: Discourse and ideology. Discourse & Society, 9(3), 307–308.
van Dijk, T. A. (2007). Ideology and discourse analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(2). doi:10.1080/13569310600687908.
van Dijk, J., & Nieborg, D. (2009). Wikinomics and its discontents: A critical analysis of Web 2.0 business manifestos. New Media & Society, 11, 855–874.
Duguid, P. (2006). Limits of self-organization: Peer production and “laws of quality”. First Monday, 11(10). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1405/1323.
Dyer-Witheford, N. (2009). Cycles of net struggle, lines of net flight. In G. J. Leckie & J. Buschman (Eds.), Information technology in librarianship: New critical approaches. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Dyer-Witheford, N. (2010). Antonio Negri on information, empire, and commonwealth. In G. J. Leckie, L. M. Given, & J. Buschman (Eds.), Critical theory for library and information science: Exploring the social from across the disciplines. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.
Eagleton, T. (2007). Ideology: An introduction. London: Verso.
Endnotes. (2013). Subsumtionens historia. In Sakernas tillstånd och tillståndet för sakernas förstörelse. Malmö: Eskaton. Retrieved March 19, 2014, from http://eskaton.se/files/sakernas_tillstand.pdf.
Firer-Blaess, S., & Fuchs, C. (2014). Wikipedia an info-communist manifesto. Television & New Media, 15(2), 87–103.
Fisher, E. (2013). Media and new capitalism in the digital age: The spirit of networks. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fleischer, R. (2011a). En bakgrund till värdeavspaltningskritiken. COPYRIOT. Retrieved January 8, 2015, from http://copyriot.se/2011/09/10/enbakgrund-till-vardeavspaltningskritiken/.
Fleischer, R. (2012). Musikens politiska ekonomi: lagstiftningen, ljudmedierna och försvaret av den levande musiken, 1925–2000. Stockholm: Ink.
Fleischer, R. (2014a). Postoperaismens värdeteori: några kritiska anteckningar. Rasmus Fleischer. Retrieved October 24, 2014a, from http://www.rasmusfleischer.se/2014a/07/postoperaismens-vardeteori-nagra-kritiska-anteckningar/.
Fleischer, R. (2014b). Värdekritisk kristeori: att tänka kapitalets sammanbrott. In K. Borgnäs & J. Örestig (Eds.), Fronesis, (46–47 (Kris)), pp. 88–97.
Fuchs, C. (2014). Digital labour and Karl Marx. London: Routledge.
Gorz, A. (2010). The immaterial. London: Seagull Books.
Graeber, D. (2011). Debt: The first 5000 years. New York: Melville House.
Gye, L. (2007a). Michel Bauwens part one. Swinburne University i Melbourne, Australien. Retrieved February 14, 2017, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn929K_jVQI.
Gye, L. (2007b). Michel Bauwens part two. Swinburne University i Melbourne, Australien. Retrieved February 14, 2017, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-J3G6sbvaac&feature=related.
Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2000). Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2009). Commonwealth. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Haug, W. F. (2009). Immaterial labour. Historical-Critical Dictionary of Marxism.
Head, M. (2008). Evgeny Pashukanis: A critical reappraisal. Oxon, UK: Routledge-Cavendish.
Heller, H. (2011). The birth of capitalism: A twenty-first-century perspective. London: Pluto Press.
Hess, C., & Ostrom, E. (2003). Ideas, artifacts, and facilities: Information as a common-pool resource. Law and Contemporary Problems, 66(1–2). Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol66/iss1/5.
Hess, C., & Ostrom, E. (2007a). A framework for analyzing the knowledge commons. In C. Hess & E. Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding knowledge as a commons: From theory to practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hess, C., & Ostrom, E. (2007b). Introduction: An overview of the knowledge commons. In C. Hess & E. Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding knowledge as a commons: From theory to practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hilton, R. H. (1978). Introduction. In P. Sweezy & R. H. Hilton (Eds.), The transition from feudalism to capitalism. London: Verso.
info@lists.igopnet.cc. (2014). Launch and data jam of the p2pvalue directory of commons based peer production.
Jakobsson, P. (2012). Öppenhetsindustrin. Örebro: Örebro universitet. Retrieved February 4, 2014, from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-21298.
Jameson, F. (1989). The political unconscious: Narrative as a socially symbolic act. London: Routledge.
Johansson, I., & Liedman, S.-E. (1987). Positivism och marxism. Stockholm: Norstedt.
Karatzogianni, A., & Michaelides, G. (2009). Cyberconflict at the edge of chaos: Cryptohierarchies and self-organisation in the open-source movement. Class & Capital, 97, 143–157.
Kleiner, D. (2010). The telekommunist manifesto, G. Lovink & S. Niederer (Eds.), Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures.
Kliman, A. (2012). The failure of capitalist production: Underlying causes of the Great Recession. London: Pluto Press.
Kostakis, V., & Bauwens, M. (2014). Network society and future scenarios for a collaborative economy. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved October 25, 2014, from http://www.palgrave.com%2fpage%2fdetail%2fnetwork-society-and-future-scenarios-for-a-collaborative-economy-vasilis-kostakis%2f%3fk%3d9781137406897.
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Larrain, J. (1979). The concept of ideology. London: Hutchinsons.
Larsson, R., & Lund, A. (2008). Upphovsrätten i det generella intellektets era: en ideologikritisk analys av fyra svenska aktörer. Master Thesis. Borås: College University of Borås. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2320/4073.
Lazzarato, M. (1996). Immaterial labor. In P. Virno & M. Hardt (Eds.), Radical thought in Italy: A potential politics (pp. 133–148). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Lazzarato, M. (2014). Signs and machines: Capitalism and the production of subjectivity. Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e).
Lehdonvirta, V., & Castronova, E. (2014). Virtual economies: Design and analysis. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Liedman, S.-E. (1989). Om ideologier. In S.-E. Liedman & I. Nilsson (Eds.), Om ideologier och ideologianalys. Institutionen för Idé- och lärdomshistoria: Arachne.
Lotringer, S. (2004). Foreword: We, the multitude. In P. Virno (Ed.), A grammar of the multitude: For an analysis of contemporary forms of life. Semiotext(e) foreign agents series, 7–19. New York: Semiotext(e).
Lovink, G. (2006). Out-cooperating the Empire?—Exchange with Christoph Spehr. net critique by Geert Lovink. Retrieved March 6, 2014, from http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/geert/out-cooperating-the-empire-exchange-with-christoph-spehr/.
Lund, A. (2014). Playing, gaming, working and labouring: Framing the concepts and relations. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 12(2), 735–801.
Lund, A. (2017, April). A critical political economic framework for peer production’s relation to capitalism. Journal of Peer Production, (10).
Lund, A., & Venäläinen, J. (2016). Monetary materialities of peer production: The case of Wikipedia and its controversies with paid labour. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 14(1), 78–97.
Luxemburg, R. (1951). The accumulation of capital. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Marazzi, C. (2011). Capital and affects: The politics of the language economy. Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e).
Marcovic, M. (1991). Transition to socialism. In T. B. Bottomore & L. Harris (Eds.), A dictionary of Marxist thought. Oxford: Blackwell.
Marx, K. (1859). Preface of a contribution to the critique of political economy. Economic Manuscripts: A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (Preface Abstract). Retrieved March 28, 2014, from https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface-abs.htm.
Marx, K. (1969). Kapitalet: kritik av den politiska ekonomin. In Bok 1, Kapitalets produktionsprocess. Lund: A-Z.
Marx, K. (1973). Grundrisse: Foundations of the critique of political economy: (rough draft). London: Penguin.
Maxigas. (2012). Hacklabs and hackerspaces: Tracing two genalogies. Journal of Peer Production, 2, 1–10.
Meretz, S. (2012). Ten patterns developed by the Oekonux project. Journal of Peer Production, (1). Retrieved March 1, 2014, from http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-1/debate-societal-transformation/ten-patterns-developed-by-the-oekonux-project/.
Merten, S., & Meretz, S. (n.d.). Germ form theory: Peer production in a historical perspective. Retrieved February 14, 2017, from http://oekunux.org/texts/GermFormTheory.html.
Moulier-Boutang, Y. (2011). Cognitive capitalism. Cambridge: Polity.
Negri, A. (1988). Revolution retrieved: Writings on Marx, Keynes, capitalist crisis and new social subjects (1967–83). London: Red Notes.
Negri, A. (1989). The politics of subversion: A manifesto for the twenty-first century. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Negri, A. (2008). Porslinsfabriken. Hägersten: Tankekraft.
Nepper Larsen, S. (2014). Compulsory creativity: A critique of cognitive capitalism. Culture Unbound: Journal of Current Cultural Research, 6, 159–177.
Pashukanis, E. B. (1983). The general theory of law and Marxism. London: Pluto Press.
Polanyi, K. (1989). Den stora omdaningen: marknadsekonomins uppgång och fall. Lund: Arkiv.
Polanyi, K. (2001). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Postone, M. (1993). Time, labor, and social domination: A reinterpretation of Marx’s critical theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pouwelse, J. A., et al. (2008). Pirates and samaritans: A decade of measurements on peer production and their implications for net neutrality and copyright. Telecomunications Policy, 32, 701–712.
Purvis, T., & Hunt, A. (1993). Discourse, ideology, discourse, ideology, discourse, ideology…. The British Journal of Sociology, 44(3), 473–499.
Rigi, J. (2013). Peer production and Marxian communism: Contours of a new emerging mode of production. Capital & Class, 37(3), 397–416.
Scholz, R. (2014). Patriarchy and commodity society: Gender without the body. In N. Larsen et al. (Eds.), Marxism and the critique of value. Chicago: M-C-M’ Publishing.
Siefkes, C. (2012). Beyond digital plenty: Building blocks for physical peer production. Journal of Peer Production, (1). Retrieved March 1, 2014, from http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-1/invited-comments/beyond-digital-plenty/.
Söderberg, J. (2008). Hacking capitalism: The free and open source software movement. New York: Routledge.
Terranova, T. (2004). Network culture: Politics for the information age. London: Pluto Press.
Terranova, T. (2013). Free labor. In T. Scholz (Ed.), Digital labor: The Internet as playground and factory. New York: Routledge.
Terranova, T., & Fumagalli, A. (2015). Financial capital and the money of the common: The case of commoncoin. In G. Lovink, N. Tkacz, & P. de Vries (Eds.), MoneyLab reader: An intervention in digital economy. Inc Reader. Amsterdam: Institute of network cultures.
Trost, J. (2010). Kvalitativa intervjuer. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Vercellone, C. (2007). From formal subsumption to general intellect: Elements for a marxist reading of the thesis of cognitive capitalism. Historical Materialism, 15(1), 13–36.
Vercellone, C. (2010). The crisis of the law of value and the becoming-rent of profit. In A. Fumagalli & S. Mezzadra (Eds.), Crisis in the global economy: Financial markets, social struggles, and new political scenarios. Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e).
Virno, P. (1996a). Exodus. In P. Virno & M. Hardt (Eds.), Radical thought in Italy: A potential politics. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Virno, P. (2004). A grammar of the multitude. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Virno, P. (2007). General intellect. Historical Materialism, 15(1), 3–8.
Virno, P. (2011). Multitudens grammatik. Hägersten: Tankekraft.
Virno, P., & Hardt, M. (1996). Radical thought in Italy: A potential politics. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Volosinov, V. N. (1986). Marxism and the philosophy of language. Cambridge, MA: Harward University Press.
Wark, M. (2004). A hacker manifesto. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wark, M. (2007). Gamer theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wark, M. (2013). Considerations on a hacker manifesto. In T. Scholz (Ed.), Digital labor: The internet as playground and factory. New York: Routledge.
Williams, R. (1977). Marxism and literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lund, A. (2017). The Outside of Cognitive Capitalism Understood Through Ideology Analysis. In: Wikipedia, Work and Capitalism. Dynamics of Virtual Work. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50690-6_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50690-6_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-50689-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-50690-6
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)