Any existing structures and all the conditions of doing business are always in a process of change. Every situation is being upset before it has had time to work itself out.
Schumpeter, in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942, p. 31-32), obviously plagiarizing one of the early chapters of the Communist Manifesto, in which I believe the phrase was about relations that become “antiquated before they can ossify.”
As a matter of fact, capitalist economy is not and cannot be stationary. Nor is it merely expanding in a steady manner. It is incessantly being revolutionized from within by new enterprise, i.e., by the intrusion of new commodities or new methods of production or new commercial opportunities into the industrial structure as it exists at any moment. Any existing structures and all the conditions of doing business are always in a process of change. Every situation is being upset before it has had time to work itself out. Economic progress, in capitalist society, means turmoil.
Schumpeter, in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942, p. 31-32, emphasis included).
If I understand correctly, a good way to become a hugely influential economist is to plagiarize Marx while you repudiate Marx.
To any mind not warped by the habit of fingering the Marxian rosary it should be obvious that…
Joseph Schumpeter, in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942, p. 19).
Yep, still waiting on that nuanced, “neutral” (p.xxi) appraisal of Marxism that was promised in the book’s introduction.
The possibility of the privatisation of the general intellect was something Marx never envisaged in his writings about capitalism (largely because he overlooked its social dimension). Yet this is at the core of today’s struggles over intellectual property: as the role of the general intellect – based on collective knowledge and social co-operation – has increased in post-industrial capitalism, so wealth accumulates out of all proportion to the labour expended in its production. The result is not, as Marx seems to have expected, the self-dissolution of capitalism, but the gradual transformation of the profit generated by the exploitation of labour into rent appropriated through the privatisation of knowledge.
…spec work devalues the communication design profession. It reduces communication design to a commodity, rather than to a specialized service.
NO!SPEC.
Commodities are here understood in their simplest sense, as undifferentiated goods such as wheat or oil, which are exchanged in a market according to supply and demand, such that their prices are generally determined without the consideration of qualitative differences in their production, e.g. wheat is wheat, no matter where or by what methods it is grown and harvested, and oil is oil, no matter where or by what methods it is extracted and refined; the key term in this definition of a commodity is ‘undifferentiated good,’ which is contrasted against the definition of communication design as ‘a specialized service.’ The seeming triviality of commodities, famously remarked upon by Marx, allows its use in this pejorative sense, as a sphere of production somehow less ‘valuable’ than that of communication design services.
It is surprisingly difficult to engage with this commonsensical understanding of commodities!
I am looking for another success story for crowdsourcing like Goldcorp and Toyota, that have opened up there information pathways to people for the company's for humanities greater good. Do you have any other success stories?
Anonymous
Success stories comprise the whole of the crowdsourcing literature; that sort of uncritical, anecdotal, cyber-utopian thing is not really what I am trying to do here. Best of luck in your search for social media gurus.
Marx is not only selling well, he has also been praised most recently by German Finance Minister Peer Steinbrück, who recently told the weekly magazine Der Spiegel, ‘Certain parts of Marx’s thinking are really not so bad.’
To confront these issues, we, along with many others, have proposed possible initial steps, such as establishing a guaranteed income, the right to global citizenship, and a process of the democratic reappropriation of the common. But we are under no illusion that we have all the answers. Instead we are encouraged by the fact that we are not alone asking the questions. We are confident, in fact, that those who are dissatisfied with the life offered by our contemporary neoliberal society, indignant about its injustices, rebellious against its powers of command and exploitation, and yearning for an alternative democratic form of life based on the common wealth we share – they, by posing these questions and pursuing their desires, will invent new solutions we cannot yet even imagine. Those are some of our best wishes for 2012.