Digital Information and Value: A Response to Jakob Rigi

In a series of recent articles, Jakob Rigi has formulated an articulate and sophisticated Marxian view about the relationship between digital production and value theory. Anyone interested in the economic dynamics of FAMGA (Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Google and Amazon) needs to come to terms with t...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Bryan Parkhurst
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: tripleC 2019-02-01
Series:tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique
Online Access:https://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/1078
id doaj-8b8e3f8ad7154bc8b34ab10517f6088d
record_format Article
spelling doaj-8b8e3f8ad7154bc8b34ab10517f6088d2020-11-24T21:42:46ZengtripleCtripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique1726-670X1726-670X2019-02-01171728510.31269/triplec.v17i1.10781078Digital Information and Value: A Response to Jakob RigiBryan Parkhurst0Oberlin CollegeIn a series of recent articles, Jakob Rigi has formulated an articulate and sophisticated Marxian view about the relationship between digital production and value theory. Anyone interested in the economic dynamics of FAMGA (Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Google and Amazon) needs to come to terms with the position Rigi stakes out. In this article, I challenge Rigi’s thesis that profits from the sale of digital information (DI) constitute rent. I do so by calling into question his conclusions concerning the valuelessness of DI. After summarising Rigi’s core position and sketching out its entailments, I make the case that (1) Rigi’s assertions about the intrinsic valuelessness of DI are not supported by the model of production he invokes; that (2) Rigi’s valuelessness argument in fact presupposes that DI has value; that (3) far from furnishing evidence that DI is valueless and therefore a source of rent income, as Rigi holds, the existence of the intellectual property regime is precisely what allows DI to act as a congealment of value (i.e. labour time) in commodity form; and that (4) Rigi misapplies Marx’s notion of reproduction to the sale/copy/distribution of DI. I offer this critique as an invitation for us to rethink, from a Marxian perspective, the status of the digital economy within the order of global capitalist value production.https://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/1078
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Bryan Parkhurst
spellingShingle Bryan Parkhurst
Digital Information and Value: A Response to Jakob Rigi
tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique
author_facet Bryan Parkhurst
author_sort Bryan Parkhurst
title Digital Information and Value: A Response to Jakob Rigi
title_short Digital Information and Value: A Response to Jakob Rigi
title_full Digital Information and Value: A Response to Jakob Rigi
title_fullStr Digital Information and Value: A Response to Jakob Rigi
title_full_unstemmed Digital Information and Value: A Response to Jakob Rigi
title_sort digital information and value: a response to jakob rigi
publisher tripleC
series tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique
issn 1726-670X
1726-670X
publishDate 2019-02-01
description In a series of recent articles, Jakob Rigi has formulated an articulate and sophisticated Marxian view about the relationship between digital production and value theory. Anyone interested in the economic dynamics of FAMGA (Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Google and Amazon) needs to come to terms with the position Rigi stakes out. In this article, I challenge Rigi’s thesis that profits from the sale of digital information (DI) constitute rent. I do so by calling into question his conclusions concerning the valuelessness of DI. After summarising Rigi’s core position and sketching out its entailments, I make the case that (1) Rigi’s assertions about the intrinsic valuelessness of DI are not supported by the model of production he invokes; that (2) Rigi’s valuelessness argument in fact presupposes that DI has value; that (3) far from furnishing evidence that DI is valueless and therefore a source of rent income, as Rigi holds, the existence of the intellectual property regime is precisely what allows DI to act as a congealment of value (i.e. labour time) in commodity form; and that (4) Rigi misapplies Marx’s notion of reproduction to the sale/copy/distribution of DI. I offer this critique as an invitation for us to rethink, from a Marxian perspective, the status of the digital economy within the order of global capitalist value production.
url https://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/1078
work_keys_str_mv AT bryanparkhurst digitalinformationandvaluearesponsetojakobrigi
_version_ 1725917158343442432