Sunday, August 15, 2010

lookee here

I was quite surprised the other week to see that the "Beller Meme" had somehow leapt the syntactic grid from Qlipoth to K-Punk abstractdynamics:

If, to use Jonathan Beller's phrase, "to look is to labour" - if, that is to say, attention is a commodity - then aren't we all "contributing", whether we like it or not?

is this true? The public's attention isn't fulfilling any useful function of itself for the advertiser. The advertiser wants the attention of the public only to achieve higher profits, by selling more or selling at a higher price. But that profit has to be realised from total social production, which is diminished by resources being allocated from production to advertising*. The advertiser's gain is the social product he's able to arrogate to himself. The advertising he commissions does not form part of this product, or anyone else's final product or make active means of production more productive. As a social phenomenon the advertiser makes a deduction from the total social product in order to privately appropriate a larger share, in absolute terms, of that product.

The use of advertising tends to diminish society's privately realised surplus product. Consequently, it tends to diminish the rate of profit on revenue. If Daffy Duck's image rights increase in value through advertising, this doesn't mean that society's total surplus product has increased. The point of advertising is the redistribution of the surplus product, not its creation. In any case, capital values in monopoly capitalism tend to be related to profit values by artificially low rates of discount**.

I don't expect anyone will be convinced by this, but really, looking at ads isn't labouring, and we aren't contributing by doing it.

*leaving aside the unlikely possibility of redistribution improving productivity beyond the deadweight advertising cost that engendered it. Index number problems come up with distribution changes, but one can hardly justify calling advertising productive on account of index number problems.

** i.e. lower than the technically determined rate of profit on the commodity value of active means of production.

3 comments:

Ⓐ said...

............./´¯/)........... (\¯`\
............/....//........... ...\\....\
.........../....//............ ....\\....\
...../´¯/..../´¯\.........../¯ `\....\¯`\
.././.../..../..../.|_......_| .\....\....\...\.\..
(.(....(....(..../.)..)..(..(. \....)....)....).)
.\................\/.../....\. ..\/................ /
..\................. /........\................../
....\..............(.......... ..)............../
......\.............\......... ../........... .

Le Colonel Chabert said...

It's not the manufacturer of cars that is exploiting attention labour but the producers of audience as a commodity, selling the audience to the manufacturer of cars. the manufacturer-advertiser - Toyota - buys the attention from CBS. Toyota doesn't make steel either, but it buys steel - someone else is exploiting the labour in the making of steel that Toyota buys, and CBS is exploiting the labour in the making of attention that Toyota buys.

But capitalists produce not only cars now, not only things like cars that a person buys and uses up. They also produce licenses. And the value of licenses and copyrights is their fame - how many people recognise the image of Homer Simpson determines the value of that image. And "how many people recognise" is simply produced by people recognising. Branding is not simply foolish and the value of the swoosh isn't magic - it's produced by some paid labour and a lot of volunteer attention labour.

Le Colonel Chabert said...

also

"But that profit has to be realised from total social production, which is diminished by resources being allocated from production to advertising*. "

Your leisure is enclosed, total social production is increased. Non (capital) productive time becomes productive of capital. The working day is lengthened when people watch tv and labour at producing the notoriety of intellectual property commodities rather than smooch or play ball.