Una crítica del capitalismo cognitivo

En este artículo, George Caffentzis se formula una pregunta cardinal ¿por qué nominar la actual etapa “capitalismo cognitivo” si la unión entre producción y conocimiento nos acompaña desde los inicios de la historia? ¿Qué hay de específico que amerite dicha caracterización? Abordadno los textos de Carlo Vercellone -uno de los exponentes de la corriente del capitalismo cognitivo-, y dialogando con tradiciones diversas, el autor historiza el concepto central que le da nombre a esta corriente, señalando sus aciertos y destacando sus límites e imprecisiones. Particularmente, analiza una problemática estructural que subyace en las premisas de esta corriente: se carece de una definición de la noción de conocimiento y, más aún, se pasa por el alto el problema que esta carencia representa. Para el autor, no se trata de distinguir al conocimiento en base a su carácter de verdad, sino de distinguir y definir que el conocimiento crea valor y puede ser mercantilizado, permitiéndose, incluso, dudar de la imposibilidad de su mensura en unidades de tiempo.In this article, George Caffentzis makes a cardinal question: why call the current stage "cognitive capitalism" if the union between production and knowledge accompanies us from the beginning of history? What is specific about this characterization? Approaching Carlo Vercellone’s texts, one of the exponents of the approach of cognitive capitalism, and in dialogue with diverse traditions, the author historicizes the central concept that gives its name to this approach, pointing out its successes and highlighting its limits and inaccuracies. Particularly, it analyzes a structural problem that underlies the premises of this current: a definition of the notion of knowledge is lacking and, moreover, the problem that this deficiency represents is overlooked. For the author, it is not a matter of distinguishing knowledge based on its character of truth, but of distinguishing and defining that knowledge creates value and can be commodified, allowing even to doubt about the impossibility of its measurement in units of time.Neste artigo, George Caffentzis faz uma pergunta cardinal: por que nomear o estágio atual "capitalismo cognitivo" se a união entre produção e conhecimento nos acompanha desde o início da história? O que é específico que merece essa caracterização? Dirigindo-se aos textos de Carlo Vercellone, um dos expoentes do “capitalismo cognitivo” atual, e em diálogo com diferentes tradições, o autor historiciza o conceito central que dá nome a esta tendência, apontando os seus sucessos e destacando os seus limites e imprecisões. Em particular, analisa um problema estrutural subjacente às premissas dessa corrente: falta-lhe uma definição da noção de conhecimento e, além disso, o problema que essa falta representa é negligenciado. Para o autor, não se trata de distinguir o conhecimento com base em seu caráter de verdade, mas de distinguir e definir o que o conhecimento cria valor e pode ser mercantilizado, permitindo até mesmo duvidar da impossibilidade de medi-lo em unidades de tempo.Facultad de Trabajo Socia

Una crítica del capitalismo cognitivo

En este artículo, George Caffentzis se formula una pregunta cardinal ¿por qué nominar la actual etapa “capitalismo cognitivo” si la unión entre producción y conocimiento nos acompaña desde los inicios de la historia? ¿Qué hay de específico que amerite dicha caracterización? Abordadno los textos de Carlo Vercellone -uno de los exponentes de la corriente del capitalismo cognitivo-, y dialogando con tradiciones diversas, el autor historiza el concepto central que le da nombre a esta corriente, señalando sus aciertos y destacando sus límites e imprecisiones. Particularmente, analiza una problemática estructural que subyace en las premisas de esta corriente: se carece de una definición de la noción de conocimiento y, más aún, se pasa por el alto el problema que esta carencia representa. Para el autor, no se trata de distinguir al conocimiento en base a su carácter de verdad, sino de distinguir y definir que el conocimiento crea valor y puede ser mercantilizado, permitiéndose, incluso, dudar de la imposibilidad de su mensura en unidades de tiempo.In this article, George Caffentzis makes a cardinal question: why call the current stage "cognitive capitalism" if the union between production and knowledge accompanies us from the beginning of history? What is specific about this characterization? Approaching Carlo Vercellone’s texts, one of the exponents of the approach of cognitive capitalism, and in dialogue with diverse traditions, the author historicizes the central concept that gives its name to this approach, pointing out its successes and highlighting its limits and inaccuracies. Particularly, it analyzes a structural problem that underlies the premises of this current: a definition of the notion of knowledge is lacking and, moreover, the problem that this deficiency represents is overlooked. For the author, it is not a matter of distinguishing knowledge based on its character of truth, but of distinguishing and defining that knowledge creates value and can be commodified, allowing even to doubt about the impossibility of its measurement in units of time.Neste artigo, George Caffentzis faz uma pergunta cardinal: por que nomear o estágio atual "capitalismo cognitivo" se a união entre produção e conhecimento nos acompanha desde o início da história? O que é específico que merece essa caracterização? Dirigindo-se aos textos de Carlo Vercellone, um dos expoentes do “capitalismo cognitivo” atual, e em diálogo com diferentes tradições, o autor historiciza o conceito central que dá nome a esta tendência, apontando os seus sucessos e destacando os seus limites e imprecisões. Em particular, analisa um problema estrutural subjacente às premissas dessa corrente: falta-lhe uma definição da noção de conhecimento e, além disso, o problema que essa falta representa é negligenciado. Para o autor, não se trata de distinguir o conhecimento com base em seu caráter de verdade, mas de distinguir e definir o que o conhecimento cria valor e pode ser mercantilizado, permitindo até mesmo duvidar da impossibilidade de medi-lo em unidades de tempo.Facultad de Trabajo Socia

Una Crítica del Capitalismo Cognitivo

In this article, George Caffentzis makes a cardinal question: why call the current stage "cognitive capitalism" if the union between production and knowledge accompanies us from the beginning of history? What is specific about this characterization? Approaching Carlo Vercellone’s texts, one of the exponents of the approach of cognitive capitalism, and in dialogue with diverse traditions, the author historicizes the central concept that gives its name to this approach, pointing out its successes and highlighting its limits and inaccuracies. Particularly, it analyzes a structural problem that underlies the premises of this current: a definition of the notion of knowledge is lacking and, moreover, the problem that this deficiency represents is overlooked. For the author, it is not a matter of distinguishing knowledge based on its character of truth, but of distinguishing and defining that knowledge creates value and can be commodified, allowing even to doubt about the impossibility of its measurement in units of time.En este artículo, George Caffentzis se formula una pregunta cardinal ¿por qué nominar la actual etapa “capitalismo cognitivo” si la unión entre producción y conocimiento nos acompaña desde los inicios de la historia? ¿Qué hay de específico que amerite dicha caracterización? Abordadno los textos de Carlo Vercellone -uno de los exponentes de la corriente del capitalismo cognitivo-, y dialogando con tradiciones diversas, el autor historiza el concepto central que le da nombre a esta corriente, señalando sus aciertos y destacando sus límites e imprecisiones. Particularmente, analiza una problemática estructural que subyace en las premisas de esta corriente: se carece de una definición de la noción de conocimiento y, más aún, se pasa por el alto el problema que esta carencia representa. Para el autor, no se trata de distinguir al conocimiento en base a su carácter de verdad, sino de distinguir y definir que el conocimiento crea valor y puede ser mercantilizado, permitiéndose, incluso, dudar de la imposibilidad de su mensura en unidades de tiempo.Neste artigo, George Caffentzis faz uma pergunta cardinal: por que nomear o estágio atual "capitalismo cognitivo" se a união entre produção e conhecimento nos acompanha desde o início da história? O que é específico que merece essa caracterização? Dirigindo-se aos textos de Carlo Vercellone, um dos expoentes do “capitalismo cognitivo” atual, e em diálogo com diferentes tradições, o autor historiciza o conceito central que dá nome a esta tendência, apontando os seus sucessos e destacando os seus limites e imprecisões. Em particular, analisa um problema estrutural subjacente às premissas dessa corrente: falta-lhe uma definição da noção de conhecimento e, além disso, o problema que essa falta representa é negligenciado. Para o autor, não se trata de distinguir o conhecimento com base em seu caráter de verdade, mas de distinguir e definir o que o conhecimento cria valor e pode ser mercantilizado, permitindo até mesmo duvidar da impossibilidade de medi-lo em unidades de tempo

Una crítica del capitalismo cognitivo

En este artículo, George Caffentzis se formula una pregunta cardinal ¿por qué nominar la actual etapa “capitalismo cognitivo” si la unión entre producción y conocimiento nos acompaña desde los inicios de la historia? ¿Qué hay de específico que amerite dicha caracterización? Abordadno los textos de Carlo Vercellone -uno de los exponentes de la corriente del capitalismo cognitivo-, y dialogando con tradiciones diversas, el autor historiza el concepto central que le da nombre a esta corriente, señalando sus aciertos y destacando sus límites e imprecisiones. Particularmente, analiza una problemática estructural que subyace en las premisas de esta corriente: se carece de una definición de la noción de conocimiento y, más aún, se pasa por el alto el problema que esta carencia representa. Para el autor, no se trata de distinguir al conocimiento en base a su carácter de verdad, sino de distinguir y definir que el conocimiento crea valor y puede ser mercantilizado, permitiéndose, incluso, dudar de la imposibilidad de su mensura en unidades de tiempo.In this article, George Caffentzis makes a cardinal question: why call the current stage "cognitive capitalism" if the union between production and knowledge accompanies us from the beginning of history? What is specific about this characterization? Approaching Carlo Vercellone’s texts, one of the exponents of the approach of cognitive capitalism, and in dialogue with diverse traditions, the author historicizes the central concept that gives its name to this approach, pointing out its successes and highlighting its limits and inaccuracies. Particularly, it analyzes a structural problem that underlies the premises of this current: a definition of the notion of knowledge is lacking and, moreover, the problem that this deficiency represents is overlooked. For the author, it is not a matter of distinguishing knowledge based on its character of truth, but of distinguishing and defining that knowledge creates value and can be commodified, allowing even to doubt about the impossibility of its measurement in units of time.Neste artigo, George Caffentzis faz uma pergunta cardinal: por que nomear o estágio atual "capitalismo cognitivo" se a união entre produção e conhecimento nos acompanha desde o início da história? O que é específico que merece essa caracterização? Dirigindo-se aos textos de Carlo Vercellone, um dos expoentes do “capitalismo cognitivo” atual, e em diálogo com diferentes tradições, o autor historiciza o conceito central que dá nome a esta tendência, apontando os seus sucessos e destacando os seus limites e imprecisões. Em particular, analisa um problema estrutural subjacente às premissas dessa corrente: falta-lhe uma definição da noção de conhecimento e, além disso, o problema que essa falta representa é negligenciado. Para o autor, não se trata de distinguir o conhecimento com base em seu caráter de verdade, mas de distinguir e definir o que o conhecimento cria valor e pode ser mercantilizado, permitindo até mesmo duvidar da impossibilidade de medi-lo em unidades de tempo.Facultad de Trabajo Socia

No measure for culture? Value in the new economy

This paper explores articulations of the value of investment in culture and the arts through a critical discourse analysis of policy documents, reports and academic commentary since 1997. It argues that in this period, discourses around the value of culture have moved from a focus on the direct economic contributions of the culture industries to their indirect economic benefits. These indirect benefits are discussed here under three main headings: creativity and innovation, employability, and social inclusion. These are in turn analysed in terms of three forms of capital: human, social and cultural. The paper concludes with an analysis of this discursive shift through the lens of autonomist Marxist concerns with the labour of social reproduction. It is our argument that, in contemporary policy discourses on culture and the arts, the government in the UK is increasingly concerned with the use of culture to form the social in the image of capital. As such, we must turn our attention beyond the walls of the factory in order to understand the contemporary capitalist production of value and resistance to it. </jats:p

In the wake of austerity: social impact bonds and the financialisation of the welfare state in Britain

This paper provides an analysis of the financialisation of the British welfare state. In a continuation of neo-liberal privatisation and labour market activation, the financialised welfare state pursues a policy of welfare retrenchment, while engaging in forms of social engineering aimed at producing self-responsibilised individuals and communities who are financially literate, ‘investment-ready’ and economically productive. New financial instruments such as social impact bonds are deployed to these ends, both to ‘solve social problems’ and enable cost saving. Through the use of such financial instruments, the implementation of regulatory infrastructures and tax incentives, the financialised welfare state becomes a vehicle for the transfer of wealth from the public to private investors, while subjecting the domain of social policy to the vicissitudes of global financial markets. This paper offers a critique of these developments, situating the case of Britain within the broader global context and with regard to the implications for understanding the current political economy of the welfare state

Harnessing the social: state, crisis and (big) society

The paper analyses the UK government’s plans to create a social investment market. The Big Society as political economy is understood as a response to three aspects of a multi-faceted, global crisis: a crisis of capital accumulation; a crisis of social reproduction; and, a fiscal crisis of the state. While the neoliberal state is retreating from the sphere of social reproduction, further off-loading the costs of social reproduction onto the unwaged realms of the home and the community, it is simultaneously engaging in efforts to enable this terrain of social reproduction to be harnessed for profit. Key to this process are specific government policies, the creation of new financial institutions and instruments and the introduction of the metric of ‘social value’. Policies ostensibly aimed at resolving the crisis in ways that empower local communities, actually foster further financialisation and a deepening of capitalist disciplinary logics into the social fabric

The Discourse of Digital Dispossession: Paid Modifications and Community Crisis on Steam

This article is a chronicle and analysis of a community crisis in digital space that took place on Valve Corporation’s digital distribution platform, Steam. When Valve and Bethesda (publisher and developer of Skyrim) decided to allow mods to be sold by mod makers themselves, there ensued a community revolt against the commodification of leisure and play. I put this crisis of play and work in dialogue with Harvey’s concept of “accumulation by dispossession,” firmly placing it within a longer history of disruptive capital accumulation strategies. I then conduct a discourse analysis of community members on reddit, as they make sense of and come to terms with this process of dispossession. Arising in the discourse was not class consciousness per se, but instead a pervasive feeling of helplessness and frustration as games, play, and leisure began to feel like work

“'Subaltern Victims’ or ‘Useful Resources”? Migrant Women in the Lega Nord Ideology and Politics"

Since the mid-2000s we have witnessed the emergence of a new phenomenon in several European countries: the mobilisation of issues of women’s rights and gender equality by populist radical right parties (PRR)1 in anti-immigration campaigns. Recent contributions have illustrated some aspects and contradictions of these phenomena, for instance in relation to the PRR parties’ embrace not only of women’s but also gay rights (Bracke 2011). Others have described the double standard applied to migrant men and women in the context of raising hostility towards the Muslim population, not only by PRR parties, but within the mainstream more generally; whereas Muslim men have been mostly described as representing a social and cultural danger to European societies as well as being inherently misogynist, Muslim women have been portrayed prevalently as victims to be rescued (Abu-Lughod 2013). Little however has been written on the gendered ideology and strategies of these parties, particularly when it comes to addressing the issue of migrant women. This chapter aims to address these gaps in the scholarly literature by focusing on the gendered dimensions of anti-immigration ideology, policy and politics in the case of the LN. In particular, we draw on the empirical findings of two research projects to analyse the instrumental mobilisation of women’s rights by the LN to stigmatise migrant, particularly Muslim, communities