ArticlePDF Available

Voices from silicon valley expose the polarization of knowledge in the information age

Authors:

Abstract

The article is part of a research agenda that adopts the lenses of Political Economy to discuss the following question. What is the role of information and knowledge in the socioeconomic dynamics of the twenty-first century? Firstly, the article confronts two different theoretical perspectives: the cognitive capitalism and the polarization of knowledge approaches. Given the lack of agreement between these interpretations, the article also presents some results of an empirical investigation conducted in Silicon Valley (California), where semi-structured interviews with local workers’ representatives were adopted as an instrument of investigation. The voices of those who live the reality represented by the theories expose some contradictions in the local educational system, where the phenomenon of polarization of knowledge strengthens socioeconomic inequalities.
DOI: 10.20396/etd.v21i4.8652898
© ETD- Educação Temática Digital
Campinas, SP
v.21
n.4
p.960-978
[960]
ENSAIO
VOICES FROM SILICON VALLEY EXPOSE THE POLARIZATION OF
KNOWLEDGE IN THE INFORMATION AGE
VOZES DO VALE DO SILÍCIO EXPÕEM A POLARIZAÇÃO DO CONHECIMENTO
NA ERA DA INFORMAÇÃO
VOCES DEL VALLE DEL SILICIO EXPONEN LA POLARIZACIÓN DEL
CONOCIMIENTO EN LA ERA DE LA INFORMACIÓN
Rodrigo Moreno Marques
1
; Marta Macedo Kerr Pinheiro
2
ABSTRACT
The article is part of a research agenda that adopts the lenses of Political Economy to discuss the following
question: what is the role of information and knowledge in the socioeconomic dynamics of the twenty-first
century? Firstly, the article confronts two different theoretical perspectives: the cognitive capitalism and the
polarization of knowledge approaches. Given the lack of agreement between these interpretations, the article
also presents some results of an empirical investigation conducted in Silicon Valley (California), where semi-
structured interviews with local workers’ representatives were adopted as an instrument of investigation. The
voices of those who live the reality represented by the theories expose some contradictions in the local
educational system, where the phenomenon of polarization of knowledge strengthens socioeconomic
inequalities.
KEYWORDS: Polarization of knowledge. Silicon Valley. Education. Cognitive capitalism.
RESUMO
O artigo está inserido em uma agenda de pesquisa que adota as lentes da Economia Política para discutir a
seguinte questão: qual é o papel da informação e do conhecimento nas dinâmicas socioeconômicas do século
XXI? Primeiramente, o artigo confronta duas perspectivas teóricas diferentes, a saber, as abordagens do
capitalismo cognitivo e da polarização do conhecimento. Dada a falta de acordo entre essas interpretações, o
artigo também apresenta alguns resultados de uma investigação empírica conduzida no Vale do Silício
(Califórnia), onde entrevistas semiestruturadas com representantes dos trabalhadores locais foram empregadas
como instrumento de investigação. As vozes daqueles que vivem a realidade representada pelas teorias expõem
algumas contradições no sistema de educação local, onde o fenômeno da polarização do conhecimento expande
desigualdades socioeconômicas.
PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Polarização do conhecimento. Vale do Silício. Educação. Capitalismo cognitivo.
1
Doutor em Ciência da Informação - Escola de Ciência da Informação da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais
(ECI/UFMG). Professor e pesquisador da Universidade FUMEC - Belo Horizonte, MG - Brasil. E-mail:
rodrigomorenomarques@yahoo.com.br
2
Doutorado em Ciência da Informação - IBICT/CNPq-ECO-UFRJ (2001) com período sanduíche em Sociologie
pelo Centre dÉtudes des Mouvements Sociaux (1999).
Pós-doutorado em Ciência da Informação e da Comunicação pela Universidade Paul Sabatier/IUT/Toulouse III
(2008). Professora e pesquisadora da Universidade FUMEC FUMEC - Belo Horizonte, MG - Brasil. E-mail:
martakerr@gmail.com
Submetido em: 09/07/2018 - Aceito em: 23/04/2019
DOI: 10.20396/etd.v21i4.8652898
© ETD- Educação Temática Digital
Campinas, SP
v.21
n.4
p.960-978
[961]
ENSAIO
RESUMEN
El artículo es parte de una agenda de investigación que adopta las lentes de la Economía Política para discutir la
siguiente cuestión: ¿cuál es el papel de la información y del conocimiento en las dinámicas socioeconómicas del
siglo XXI? En primer lugar, el artículo confronta dos perspectivas teóricas diferentes: los enfoques del capitalismo
cognitivo y de la polarización del conocimiento. Dada la falta de acuerdo entre estas interpretaciones, el artículo
también presenta algunos resultados de una investigación empírica conducida en el Valle del Silicio (California),
donde entrevistas semiestructuradas con representantes de los trabajadores locales fueron empleadas como
instrumento de investigación. Las voces de aquellos que viven la realidad representada por las teorías exponen
algunas contradicciones en el sistema de educación local, donde el fenómeno de la polarización del
conocimiento expande desigualdades socioeconómicas.
PALABRAS-CLAVE: Polarización del conocimiento. Valle del Silicio. Educación. Capitalismo cognitivo
1 INTRODUCTION
One question challenges society nowadays: What is the role of information and
knowledge in the socioeconomic dynamics of the twenty-first century? To face this problem,
this article adopts the lenses of Political Economy to shed light on this complex problem.
Firstly, the article confronts two different theoretical approaches: the cognitive
capitalism and the polarization of knowledge frameworks. However, the new frontiers of the
Political Economy do not reveal a single path to apprehend the dynamics of society in the so-
called information age. There is no consensus about some fundamental phenomena of our
times, such as the interrelation between knowledge and creation of value, as well as the
processes of creation of value within the realm of intangible commodities. Controversies also
dominate the debate on the social relations of production that rule the sphere of immaterial
goods. The lack of agreement is a stimulus to cross the limits of the theoretical universe and
confront the academic discourses with the voices of those who live the reality represented by
the theories.
Therefore, after the theoretical discussion, the article presents the results of an
empirical research conducted in Silicon Valley (California, United States), where semi-
structured interviews with representatives of the local workers were adopted as an
instrument of investigation.
The selection of Silicon Valley, located on San Francisco Bay, as the locus of the
research, is due to the fact that the region is historically related to the development of
innovative knowledge, scientific advances, and intellectual work. Moulier Boutang (2011a, p.
6) says that “it was in Silicon Valley that the new world economy was being forged, the new
historical and contemporary capitalism”. As the author states, the entrepreneurs of the
region have a significant role in this new economy, since “they have discovered and invented
the new form of value” (MOULIER BOUTANG, 2011a, p. 49). Over the past decades, with the
outsourcing of the production plants to low-wage countries, there has been an economic
restructuring in Silicon Valley. Instead of producing hardware, the local companies
DOI: 10.20396/etd.v21i4.8652898
© ETD- Educação Temática Digital
Campinas, SP
v.21
n.4
p.960-978
[962]
ENSAIO
increasingly invest in conceiving products and web applications, while the physical production
plants are outsourced and offshored.
In fact, for decades Silicon Valley has been a cradle of disruptive technological
advances and one of the most innovative regions of the world. Nevertheless, one who tries
to grasp the essence of Silicon Valley’s reality must avoid falling into the traps of technological
determinism. The confrontation of the academic discourses with the voices of those who live
the reality represented by the theories suggests that the cognitive capitalism approach
disregards some fundamental contradictions of contemporary society. As the respondents
reveal, within the decaying and uneven Silicon Valley’s education system, the polarization of
knowledge becomes a phenomenon that strengthens socioeconomic inequalities.
2 COGNITIVE CAPITALISM
In order to present some central arguments of the cognitive capitalist framework, this
session focus on the works of the French economist Yan Moulier Boutang (2003, 2011a,
2011b, 2012). After briefly presenting his theory, we point out some blind spots of his
approach.
Cognitive capitalism has strong affinities with autonomism and post-operaism, two
schools of thought whose authors, although tend to endorse the idea of general intellect
proposed by Marx in the Grundrisse (MARX, 1987), consider the classical Political Economy
theories, including the Marxian and Smithian conceptions, outdated frameworks which are
useless to understand what it is going on in our times.
3
The central idea of cognitive capitalism approach is that there is an ongoing radical
and structural mutation in the capitalist mode of production. Within this new paradigm, the
socioeconomic relations born during the industrial revolution in the 18th century no longer
describe the current reality in which the creation of value is supposed to be mainly related to
immaterial goods, such as information and knowledge, instead of the old material
commodities of the industrial age.
Moulier-Boutang proposes a new Political Economy that, albeit still using the classical
categories like labor, value, and capital, presents some controversial propositions.
3
Other examples of this school of thought are: LAZZARATO, Maurizio. Immaterial labour. In: VIRNO, Paolo,
HARDT, Michael (orgs.). Radical thought in Italy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996; GORZ, André.
O Imaterial: Conhecimento, Valor e Capital, São Paulo: Annablume, 2005; VERCELLONE, Carlo. From Formal
Subsumption to General Intellect: Elements for a Marxist Reading of the Thesis of Cognitive Capitalism, Historical
Materialism, v. 15, n. 1, 2007; NEGRI, Antônio. Reflections on empire. Cambridge: Polity, 2008.
DOI: 10.20396/etd.v21i4.8652898
© ETD- Educação Temática Digital
Campinas, SP
v.21
n.4
p.960-978
[963]
ENSAIO
From Moulier Boutang’s perspective, cognitive capitalism is a new system of
accumulation based on transformations that change the form of value, the substance of value
and the surplus value. In this scenario, accumulation is supposed to come from knowledge,
creativity and from some forms of immaterial investment. The “material labour does not
disappear, but loses its central role as a strategic asset” (MOULIER BOUTANG, 2011a, p. 51),
and the “hegemony of the paradigm of industrial labour and manual labour power” is “coming
to an end” (MOULIER BOUTANG, 2011a, p. 53).
In cognitive capitalism, the externalities
4
play an increasingly important economic
role. The capture of positive externalities is considered the primary source of value. To
illustrate the idea of a positive externality, the metaphor of the beekeeping is taken. The bees
produce, in addition to honey and wax, a much more important positive externality which is
the pollination of plants and, consequently, make human food production possible. From this
perspective, our society is considered a digitally instrumented pollen society (MOULIER
BOUTANG, 2011a, 2011b, 2012).
The author also states that what characterizes cognitive capitalism is not uniquely the
emergence of the immaterial, since this phenomenon was also present in the industrial
capitalism. To explain some of the main aspects of cognitive capitalism, the intangible goods
are classified as “immaterials” of type 1 and type 2. Knowledge which can be codified in the
form of oral language, writing, and digital media is included in the immaterials of the first
type. In this case, the intellectual property rights can be fully applied, such as patents, brands,
copyrights and certificates of origin. The immaterials of the second type are the intangible
goods that cannot be codified or are difficult to be codified, such as non-externalizable tacit
knowledge, the ability to interpret data and symbols, confidence, cooperation, care,
technique, and talent. The immaterials of type 2 are also associated with the capacities of
contextualization, learning, and intelligence, which allow workers to find answers to
questions that cannot be previously predicted (MOULIER BOUTANG, 2011b, 2012).
Although Moulier Boutang (2011a, p. 34) recognizes that the accumulation of profit
requires investment in education and training, the author also claims, in a different direction,
that in cognitive capitalism, the main source of value is the exploration of intangibles of the
second type, instead of knowledge reified in commodities and sold as classical goods and
services (MOULIER BOUTANG, 2011b). The appropriation of positive externalities, as well as
of immaterial activities of type 2, can be accomplished through technologies created to track
cognitive activities developed in networks, such as search engines, like Google, and Web 2.0
4
According to the author, the production of an externality occurs when any transaction (not necessarily a
mercantile one) between two agents results in an effect on other agents that were not originally involved.
DOI: 10.20396/etd.v21i4.8652898
© ETD- Educação Temática Digital
Campinas, SP
v.21
n.4
p.960-978
[964]
ENSAIO
tools. This trend reflects, as the author explains, a new logic of value and a new logic of
economy.
Cognitive capitalism mainly explores the inventive force instead of the old labor force,
and the value of knowledge is supposed to depend on the level of cooperation between brains
interconnected in networks.
If the core of the value to be extracted is based on intelligent, inventive and
innovative labour, and if the latter mobilises the cooperation of brains in networks,
then capturing positive externalities becomes the number one problem of value. In
other words, what needs to be uncovered and addressed is work done outside
working hours, and implicit knowledge, and capacities for contextualization
(MOULIER BOUTANG, 2011a, p. 55).
As maintained by the author, the Internet, as well as information and communication
technologies, provides an unhindered network, without barriers to the circulation of
information and knowledge, allowing the cooperative mediation of users. The World Wide
Web is considered the main element of the world of common goods, which is supposed to be
much more productive than the world of commercial exchanges. The web is also described as
an instrument that enables a new and revolutionary economic logic based on a gift economy.
The examples presented by the author are the production of open source operating systems
like Linux, the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia, and the exchange of files through peer-to-
peer communities and social networks (MOULIER BOUTANG, 2011a, 2011b, 2012).
Because cognitive capitalism is based on the appropriation of the collective
intelligence that emerges in interactive networks and needs to accumulate intellectual
capital, it requires the human activity of pollination; that is, necessitates access to common
goods available for free in non-commercial activities, even if this necessary freedom clashes
with the restricting logic of intellectual property rights (MOULIER BOUTANG, 2011a, 2011b).
Furthermore, according to this theory, it is impossible for capital to expropriate
worker’s collective knowledge since knowledge is supposed to flow freely through the new
technological platforms (MOULIER BOUTANG, 2003). The Internet is described as the new
global common good of the collective intelligence” (MOULIER BOUTANG, 2011a, p. 53) within
a world of information and knowledge-goods “no longer characterized by scarcity” (MOULIER
BOUTANG, 2011a, pp. 65-66). In other words, “the cognitive division of labour that is
increasingly being practiced in learning companies and on the Internet is a society in which
knowledge and culture are disseminated widely and shared, and where this raw material
becomes abundant” (MOULIER BOUTANG, 2011a, p. 68). This supposed open character of the
Internet and the belief in an unlimited flow of knowledge inside and outside of the “learning
companies” bring the possibility of the emancipation of workers. In this sense, the knowledge
worker becomes
DOI: 10.20396/etd.v21i4.8652898
© ETD- Educação Temática Digital
Campinas, SP
v.21
n.4
p.960-978
[965]
ENSAIO
conscious of his role in the formation of value and, unlike the industrial salaried
proletariat, he possesses, in his knowledge and in his skills, a production instrument
that cannot be expropriated. The predator company becomes, in its knowledge, a
prey (MOULIER BOUTANG, 2003, p. 44, translated from Portuguese).
From our point of view, the theory of cognitive capitalism flirts with technological
determinism since it takes the advances of technology as elements that revolutionize society,
although no explicit political project drives this hypothetical transformation. More
specifically, it echoes a dominant kind of contemporary technological determinism since the
flow of information and knowledge through the Web is supposed to be stimulating a
revolution in the socioeconomic dynamics, although no conscious political action guides this
alleged radical change.
Marx (1996) sheds light on this obscure discussion about the role of technology,
science, and knowledge in capitalist social relations. Analyzing the great technological
advances of his time, especially in the production processes, he did not establish a direct
correlation between technological innovations and the emancipation of the oppressed
classes. The Marxian works do not present the advances in technology as the key to
overcoming capitalism. In a different direction, Marx stresses the decisive role of the
contradictions between productive forces and social relations of production. Nevertheless,
the mere existence of contradictions is not enough. According to him, the revolutionary
transformations of humankind require class struggle and political action.
In agreement with the ideas of Antunes (2009) and Amorim (2009), our perspective
advocates that the discourses of cognitive capitalism present the technical aspects of the
productive forces as the elements that drive radical transformations of society, whereas the
social relations of production are neglected by the cognitivists. Contrary to some fundamental
principles of Political Economy, the cognitive capitalism school of thought disregards the
relevance of political action and class struggle in the socioeconomic dynamics. Paraphrasing
Braga (2009), we can say that this approach has succumbed to the enchantment of techno-
scientific progress.
In the same vein, McChesney (2013) asserts that the Internet and the so-called digital
revolution are not inexorably determined by technology. What determines the structure and
the social use of the Web are the decisions taken by society as a whole, considering the
struggles and complex conflicts of interest involved, as well as the hegemonic capitalist logic
that rules our times.
These arguments provide a preamble to discussing the polarization of knowledge
approach, an alternative proposition that avoids some misconceptions of the cognitive
capitalism framework.
DOI: 10.20396/etd.v21i4.8652898
© ETD- Educação Temática Digital
Campinas, SP
v.21
n.4
p.960-978
[966]
ENSAIO
3 POLARIZATION OF KNOWLEDGE
The idea of polarization of knowledge is an alternative proposition that aims to discuss
the role of information and knowledge in the socioeconomic dynamics of the twenty-first
century. One of the main principles that guide our point of view is the necessity to avoid the
beautified and idealistic perspectives that elide the contradictions of the material bases of
social production and social reproduction. Our perspective stresses that the current
asymmetric distributions of information and knowledge are increasingly becoming
instruments for exploitation and source of socioeconomic inequalities.
The polarization of knowledge approach has two key arguments. The first one is
sustained by a historical perspective, according to which knowledge, science, and technology
have always been central elements in the struggles between capital and labor.
As history demonstrates, the use of information and knowledge as instruments of
domination or emancipation is not a novelty, but it has become increasingly relevant since
the early days of the capitalist mode of production, in the 18th century. From its birth to
present, capitalism has not manifested any commitment to the universalization of
information and knowledge, especially in the workplace. The progressive character of capital,
a priori, is not regarded as an educating force. On the contrary, capitalists have always been
struggling against workers in order to control the use of information and knowledge in the
production process (PAULA, 2011).
In the early days of capitalism, when the ideological elements of the emerging
bourgeois mentality were very evident, the decision about which kind of knowledge would
be available to workers was explicitly based on restrictive and functional criteria. Workers’
literacy should be limited only to the knowledge that was applicable to their labor. Other
kinds of knowledge were explicitly considered useless, harmful and dangerous. The words of
Mandeville (1732, p.288) illustrate this point of view:
To make the society happy and people easy under the meanest circumstances, it is
requisite that great numbers of them should be ignorant as well as poor. Knowledge
both enlarges and multiplies our desires [...] The welfare and felicity therefore of
every State and Kingdom, require that the knowledge of the working poor should
be confined within the verge of their occupations, and never extended (as to things
visible) beyond what relates to their calling. The more a shepherd, a plowman or
any other peasant knows of the world, and the things that are foreign to his labour
or employment, the less fit he will be to go through the fatigues and hardships of it
with cheerfulness and content. Reading, writing and arithmetic are very necessary
to those whose business requires such qualifications, but where people’s livelihood
has no dependence on these arts, they are very pernicious to the poor.
DOI: 10.20396/etd.v21i4.8652898
© ETD- Educação Temática Digital
Campinas, SP
v.21
n.4
p.960-978
[967]
ENSAIO
According to Babbage (1832), the division of work in the capitalist production should
be conceived aiming at the minimization of learning and skills required in labor processes, in
order to increase the child labor and reduce wages. The author, who was a pioneer proponent
of the “division of mental labour” (BABBAGE, 1832, p. 191), says:
The facility of acquiring skill in a single process, and the early period of life at which
it can be made a source of profit, will induce a greater number of parents to bring
up their children to it; and from this circumstance also, the number of workmen
being increased, the wages will soon fall (BABBAGE, 1832, pp. 170-171)
Analysing the production process of his times, Marx (1994a [1863], 1994b [1864], 1996
[1867]) describes science and technology as productive powers of capital, dominated and
applied by the capitalist class through the relations of production in order to produce value
and surplus value. In Marx (1994b, p. 457) words,
Science, the general intellectual product of social development, [...] appears here as
directly incorporated into capital [...] and the general development of society,
because it is exploited by capital against labour, because it acts as a productive
power of capital over against labour, appears as the development of capital.
As a result of the division of labor in manufactures, Marx (1996, p. 366) argues, the
alienation of workers from the production process “is completed in modern industry, which
makes science a productive force distinct from labour and presses it into the service of
capital”. In this sense, Marx (1996, p. 367) agrees with Ferguson (1783 [1767], p. 305)
according to whom “ignorance is the mother of industry as well as of superstition”.
In the early 20th century, the “scientific management” proposed by Taylor (1911), an
engineer who was not a Marxist, adopted a radical conception of work control, based on the
idea that all decisions in the labor process, especially its subjective factors, should be
attributed to managers and directors, but not to workers. In order to achieve this goal, he
recommended the collection, registration, and systematization of all knowledge about the
production processes that was dominated by the workers. He prescribed that managers
should avoid strategies that led them to become dependent on the initiatives and ideas of
workers. Therefore, the deskilling of workers is a central element of what Taylor terms
“scientific management”.
Developing Marx’s ideas, Braverman (1998 [1974]) also problematizes the role of
information and knowledge in the universe of working relations of the late 20th century.
According to him, the mass of workers does not benefit from the fact that production has
become more dependent on science and knowledge. As he explains, “the more science is
incorporated into the labour process, the less the worker understands the process; the more
sophisticated an intellectual product the machine becomes, the less control and
comprehension of the machine the worker has” (BRAVERMAN, 1998, p. 295).
DOI: 10.20396/etd.v21i4.8652898
© ETD- Educação Temática Digital
Campinas, SP
v.21
n.4
p.960-978
[968]
ENSAIO
Furthermore, the polarization of knowledge approach has also a second key argument.
Information and knowledge have a central role not only in the contradictions between capital
and labor, but also in the contradictions within the working class. This argument draws from
the ideas of Braverman (1998), Rubin (1972 [1924]), Huws (2001) and Marx (1994b, 1996), as
follows.
For Braverman (1998), the detailed division of work that characterizes capitalism is
not limited to the division of simple activities on the shop floor but is also present in all the
hierarchical levels of the firm. Each phase of the productive process is “divorced, so far as
possible, from special knowledge and training and reduced to simple labour” (1998, p. 295).
The relatively few workers for whom knowledge and skills are reserved are freed from the
obligations of simple work. In extreme cases, a polarization is created which Braverman calls
the “general law of the capitalist division of labour”. This phenomenon, that “polarizes those
whose time is infinitely valuable and those whose time is worth almost nothing”, is considered
the most powerful and general force acting upon the organization of work (1998, pp. 57-58).
Against the arguments of those who reduce Braverman’s conceptions to the simplistic
idea of general deskilling, Foster (1994) emphasizes that the author does not affirm that the
average skill level of workers would be reduced as a consequence of the capitalist
development. In a different direction, Braverman realizes a tendency towards expanding
inequalities and knowledge gaps in the working class. As a consequence, a polarization
emerges in the working conditions which harms the vast majority and benefits relatively few.
In Braverman’s terms (1998, pp. 294),
Since, with the development of technology and the application to it of the
fundamental sciences, the labor processes of society have come to embody a
greater amount of scientific knowledge, clearly the "average" scientific, technical,
and [...] "skill" content of these labor processes is much greater now than in the
past. But this is nothing but a tautology. The question is precisely whether the
scientific and "educated" content of labor tends toward averaging, or, on the
contrary, toward polarization.
As stated by Rubin (1972 [1924]), the uneven access to knowledge and to professional
qualification enlarges the contradictions in the universe of labor. In professions that require
long qualification periods and have expensive learning costs, obstacles arise with regard to
the distribution of works between different economic sectors, as well as barriers to the
transference of jobs between different professions. So, the difficulties to be admitted in some
occupations that require a high level of skills turn these activities into professional
monopolies.
DOI: 10.20396/etd.v21i4.8652898
© ETD- Educação Temática Digital
Campinas, SP
v.21
n.4
p.960-978
[969]
ENSAIO
Contrary to the supposition that new information and communication technologies
inexorably tend to emancipate the working class, nowadays there is an increasing gap within
the contemporary workforce. Some working processes have become more complex and
require multiple qualifications, whereas other ones have been taylorized and require fewer
skills. Although new opportunities for workers are arising, there is also evidence of emerging
new forms of exclusion and exploitation (HUWS, 2001).
The idea of polarization of knowledge also establishes an interlocution with the
concept of the collective laborer adopted by Marx (1994b, 1996). Through the notion of the
collective laborer, Marx describes the advanced capitalist production as a complex process
that integrates eminently manual activities with intellectual ones, i.e., integrates skilled and
unskilled occupations, within a logic that aims to produce value and surplus value. In this
context, the single worker ceases to be the real agent of the working process as a whole and
is replaced by a socially combined capacity for work. Thus, the labor productivity is due to the
combination of manual and intellectual activities executed by different individual workers
who constitute the organs of the collective laborer. As Marx (1996, p.510) explains, “in order
to labour productively, it is no longer necessary for you to do manual work yourself; enough,
if you are an organ of the collective laborer, and perform one of its subordinate functions.
For him, the subject of the productive labor is not a homogeneous mass of workers, but a
heterogeneous and complex collective laborer constituted by employees with different
capacities for work, qualifications, and skills. Some of them have superior education and high
technical skills, such as engineers, and others are unskilled and perform mainly manual duties.
Therefore, through the notion of collective laborer, Marx rejects the simplistic
dichotomy between intellectual and manual activities that characterizes the cognitive
capitalism discourse. Given the growing importance of the contemporary global production
chains, when the production processes are fractioned in many phases and allocated in
different regions of the world, the Marxian notion of collective laborer becomes even more
relevant. In this context, it is essential to consider the complete production processes,
wherever its phases are distributed across the globe. As Jeon (2010) correctly points out,
production necessarily requires the previous stages of design and project, and design and
project can only be realized through execution. In this sense, according to our point of view,
there is an unavoidable dialectical unity between the design of an iPhone by a labor
aristocracy in Silicon Valley and its production in the horrendous sweatshops of Shenzhen in
China.
Although the Marxian concept of collective laborer advocates the integration between
skilled and unskilled labor, his dialectical approach also exposes some contradictions among
the occupations that compose the collective laborer. His description of the division of labor
in the factory system presents the engineers, mechanics, and joiners as a superior class of
DOI: 10.20396/etd.v21i4.8652898
© ETD- Educação Temática Digital
Campinas, SP
v.21
n.4
p.960-978
[970]
ENSAIO
workers that is distinct from the factory operative class: “this is a superior class of workmen,
some of them scientifically educated, others brought up to a trade; it is distinct from the
factory operative class, and merely aggregated to it” (MARX, 1996, p. 423). The contradictions
between manual and intellectual occupations are also presented by Marx in a passage in
which he states that, when labor assumes a social scale and the collective laborer emerges,
the labor of the hand and of the head “part company and even become deadly foes” (MARX,
1996, p. 509).
In another manuscript, Marx returns to this point and advocates the necessity to
overcome the antithesis between mental and physical labor. As he states, in order to build a
communist society and cross “the narrow horizon of bourgeois right [...] in its entirely”, it
would be necessary to vanish the “the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division
of labour, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labour” (MARX,
1989, p. 87).
In sum, although both cognitive capitalism and polarization of knowledge approaches
aim to apprehend the dynamics of information and knowledge in society, they diverge in
some central issues. On the one hand, the cognitivists emphasize the belief in an increasing
spread of information and knowledge through sociotechnical networks. According to them,
this phenomenon results in crises in contemporary capitalism and foments workers’
emancipation. On the other hand, from the polarization of knowledge perspective,
knowledge has always been a central element not only in the contradictions between capital
and labor, but also in the internal contradictions of the working class. If knowledge can be
considered a germ for overcoming inequality and uneven development, the effective
realization of this possibility still resides in a distant future and will require political struggles
in order to come true.
Given the lack of agreement between the cognitive capitalism and polarization of
knowledge approaches, the next section exposes some non-academic discourses. Let’s hear
the voices from Silicon Valley.
DOI: 10.20396/etd.v21i4.8652898
© ETD- Educação Temática Digital
Campinas, SP
v.21
n.4
p.960-978
[971]
ENSAIO
4 VOICES FROM SILICON VALLEY
5
In the second semester of 2012, semi-structured interviews were conducted with
representatives of Silicon Valley workers. As a criterion to select the potential interviewees,
we decided to contact professionals who have taken part in the board of directors of non-
governmental institutions headquartered in this region, and who also have been involved in
the universe of labor within this locus. Our initiatives resulted in seven interviews with
unionists and activists that fulfilled these criteria.
The respondents can be briefly presented as follows: (1) the ex-president of a union
self-entitled “the Union for the Information Age”, which represents more than seven hundred
thousand workers, public and private, from the segments of telecommunications,
broadcasting, cable TV, news, education and others; (2) a member of the executive board of
the San Francisco Labor Council, which represents nineteen unions and more than a hundred
thousand workers from the south of San Francisco Bay; (3) a former employee of one of the
world’s main semiconductor production companies, ex-president of a workers committee of
the electronic industry; (4) an engineer, labor activist, which projects are dedicated to the
emancipatory use of information and communication technologies, to international
integration of workers organizations, as well as to the diffusion of content through Internet
and broadcasting; (5) a coordinator of the International Campaign for Responsible
Technology, an international network that promotes the accountability in the global
electronic industry, evaluating the impact of these activities on the environment and on the
working relations; (6) the president of a union of service workers, which belongs to the
Service Employees International Union, an international trade union that represents more
than two million members in North America; (7) a member of the executive committee of a
health services union, and a board member of the Service Employees International Union.
In general terms, despite the diversity of the arguments given by the respondents, all
of them emphasize many contradictions that question the capacity of this economic logic to
induce the society towards a future with economic opportunities available to most people,
less uneven income distribution and improvements on welfare for the less fortunate.
As the respondents report, the offshoring of production plants to Asia and to other
low-wage countries abandons an army of unemployed people, since most of those who used
to work in the outsourced electronic industry were not incorporated in the production
process of the “new economy”.
5
The research was submitted to the Brazilian Research Ethics Committee (COEP - Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa).
CAAE: 03524012.3.0000.5149.
DOI: 10.20396/etd.v21i4.8652898
© ETD- Educação Temática Digital
Campinas, SP
v.21
n.4
p.960-978
[972]
ENSAIO
Although the respondents recognize the centrality of information and knowledge in
Silicon Valley’s ongoing socioeconomic dynamics, they argue that the local education system
is suffering a process of severe deterioration. It is said that the pronounced reduction of public
funds spent on the education system and its increasing privatization are dramatically
damaging it. Accordingly, this situation contributes to the creation of a workforce which is
peripherally inserted into the so-called information society, and which is likely to be blocked
from intellectual activities considered more economically relevant nowadays. The following
speeches exemplify these arguments.
Respondent 5 affirms that the local “educational system is a mess, really. It used to be
the best in the world”. When he moved to California in 1969, it was “honestly the best public
educational system in the country. And it has fallen considerably since then”. As he explains,
considering that the education system has been defunded, it is harder for people to study in
the universities and community colleges. In kindergarten, the classrooms are crammed with
children, seriously harming the learning process. The deterioration of the educational system
is also emphasized by Respondent 3:
The higher education institutions are being defunded. [...] We have more and more
privatized, less and less well-funded education establishments. [...] The educational
system underneath the higher educational system is in crisis as well and increasingly
unable to produce graduates who will go to those [technology] schools.
Criticizing the ongoing privatization of education in the United States, and specifically
in California, Respondent 4 asserts that “the commodification of education in capitalist
America and in California is going to be harmful to the development of a thoroughly educated
population”. He explains:
The schools are falling apart in California. Education is under a massive assault. They
are selling off the libraries that used to be in California. They raise the tuition to
levels that hinder the students (RESPONDENT 4).
Faced with this situation, Respondent 4 asks: “How are you going to prepare and
develop young people to do these jobs if the education is being privatized and they can’t pay
for education?” His following assertions suggest an answer that points toward a dark future:
The ability of the working class and the mass of young people to get in the education
is being treated [...] The lack of education, the shutdown of education for working
class people, for the mass of people in the United States, is going to be devastating.
[Nowadays] there is more money spent in California for prisons than for education
(RESPONDENT 4).
According to him, this problem “is going to be, over the long run and immediately,
very harmful for society and for the development of technology and industry”.
DOI: 10.20396/etd.v21i4.8652898
© ETD- Educação Temática Digital
Campinas, SP
v.21
n.4
p.960-978
[973]
ENSAIO
As Respondent 7 alleges, the local education system has a very limited capacity to
generate the kind of professionals required by the economy nowadays and it does not “mirror
what the new economy is”. Given the competition with the production that comes from
countries where the workforce is cheap and skilled, the American Government should
develop the educational system and sustain the “investment in education and development
of the workforce that can continue to develop new ideas and new products”. Nonetheless,
the respondent says, the United States does not have “enough people creating enough ideas
that can really drive our times”. The Government has failed “in creating policies that really
look at what the jobs of the future are and how to train people to move into those jobs”.
Besides the alleged decay of the Silicon Valley’s educational system, the discourses of
the respondents also reveal another contradiction that questions the emancipatory character
of information and knowledge in the local reality. All the respondents emphasize that the
regional educational system is extremely uneven. On the one hand, some of the best
educational institutions of the United States are located in Silicon Valley. On the other hand,
the local poor communities have some of the worst ones. The following quotations present
these arguments.
As Respondent 1 says, in addition to the problem of insufficient funding for education,
there is also the problem of inequality of the distribution of resources, because the main
financial resource that each school receives comes from taxes on the properties where the
school is located. This funding system creates enormous disparities: “Palo Alto has very good
schools, the best in the country. And then, right across the county, [in the] east side, where a
lot of the poor people live, they have some of the worst. And both are in Silicon Valley”.
Respondent 5 agrees. In Silicon Valley the educational institutions of some
communities are “some of the best in the country”, but in other local communities they are
“down in the bottom”. He explains: “the students who grow up in the wealthy communities
get an excellent education and students who grow up in the poor communities have to fight
to get even a decent eligible education”. This contradiction, he adds, “is directly correlated
with the income” and it “got worse over the years, not better” (RESPONDENT 5).
For Respondent 7, the new economy is characterized by high inequality, which
represents a serious problem for the United States. He asserts that the best work
opportunities in the technology field are unreachable for those who come from the poor
communities. Although the children from these neighborhoods have great learning capacity,
they will never occupy a place in this labor market due to the place they come from and their
precarious education.
DOI: 10.20396/etd.v21i4.8652898
© ETD- Educação Temática Digital
Campinas, SP
v.21
n.4
p.960-978
[974]
ENSAIO
Inequality in this new economy is a big problem in the United States. If you come
from a certain sector of society, you will have access to the new jobs, to the new
markets. [But] if you don’t, your choices are limited. Your choices, instead of going
into these fields, are going to the services areas (RESPONDENT 7).
The increasing inequality in the United States is associated with the different origins
of the workers. The social and educational experiences of the individuals determine their
position in the labor market. He exemplifies:
Where do the Walmart workers come from? Where do the Google workers come
from? What is their educational background? The Walmart workers come from poor
communities, they have a worse education. They have little or no education. [...] If
you go from a school in the suburbs of San Francisco to a school in the suburb of
Oakland, it’s like night and day. I can tell you where Google is going to be recruiting
from. [...] There is a greater chance that somebody who comes from the suburbs of
San Francisco can be hired for a Google job than somebody from Oakland. [...]
Google is trying to find the best people, the most trained people, and they are not
getting trained in Oakland (RESPONDENT 7).
The crisis in the educational system, as Respondent 4 explains, causes the stratification
of North American workers, dividing them into highly skilled workers and those who do not
have such qualifications. According to him, society does not benefit when it has an oligarchy
of a small group of people that is highly recompensed while the second group, which is the
majority of people, loses their benefits and see their living conditions deteriorate.
Although the ones who have high skilled jobs are in a secure situation, the service
workers, in general, are increasingly more vulnerable. Albeit that they are part of the
community, these workers “were left behind in the so-called new economy” (RESPONDENT
1). Concerning the levels of inequality in the Silicon Valley region, respondent 3 has a similar
opinion:
The technology industry in the San Francisco Bay area is an unsustainable
environment for most people. It is an environment in which few people make a lot
of money, but it is not necessarily a sustainable environment, especially for people
at the bottom (RESPONDENT 3).
The same respondent asserts that, instead of providing a minimum level of education
for the whole population, the North American education system does not educate people
equally, but with great disparity, depending on some social aspects such as race, national
origin, and economic class.
The educational system is very fragmented and also reflects the existence of social
inequalities that we have. So, some people, in this country, do receive an education
that prepares them to take a place in an economy in which the skill demands are
raising. But an enormous number of people don’t. And, generally speaking, the lines
between those who do and those who don’t are lines of race, national origin and
economic class (RESPONDENT 3).
DOI: 10.20396/etd.v21i4.8652898
© ETD- Educação Temática Digital
Campinas, SP
v.21
n.4
p.960-978
[975]
ENSAIO
This disparity determines the work opportunities and the future of each individual. In
the words of Respondent 3, “that is a way to shape the destiny of the students”. This context,
he exemplifies, “impacts on [sic] who is able to go to Google and who is able to go to
Facebook. If you go to a Palo Alto school, this is an easy ticket for any of those, because your
education will be very good, the skills will be by far better” (RESPONDENT 1).
Respondent 6 also acknowledges a deterioration of the North American educational
system and advocates the necessity of changing it, starting from “the elementary school level,
where we start preparing our children for the new economy”. According to her, the
comparison of the higher educational system of the United States with the Mexican, Indian
and Chinese, reveals that they are better and more reliable than the North American one. In
addition to raising its funding, she claims that a reformulation of the education system is
necessary in order to create more than a workforce, but “to create the future minds and to
encourage those minds that will conceive the next great ideas, the ones which will come after
Google and Facebook” (RESPONDENT 6).
For Respondent 2, one of the best aspects of the education system of the Silicon Valley
region is its innovative capacity, that is, the capacity to “create people who think innovatively
and creatively”, and this characteristic comes from the positive influence of top universities
like Stanford, Berkley, and San Jose State University. However, the respondent adds, the
education system has a lot of challenges. One of the main ones is to “figure out how to create
a system that educates a non-homogenous community”. She argues that “there are a lot of
problems with getting kids to college, in four-year degrees, especially kids of color”. And there
are also “a lot of poor kids who need education, who don’t come from backgrounds where
people study, don’t read and are not ready to learn when they are in kindergarten”.
5 FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
Exposing the contradictions of the local reality, the voices from Silicon Valley unveil
some misconceptions and blind spots of the cognitive capitalism framework.
In this locale, the social appropriation of information and knowledge, that is, the
general spreading of these fundamental intangible goods, is far from being achieved. Nothing
similar to a “digitally instrumented pollen society” is present in the discourses of those who
belong to the investigated universe, where the pollination perspective is substituted by the
polarization of knowledge. This phenomenon harms the vast majority and benefits relatively
few workers who have the opportunity to fully take part in the information society.
The respondents contradict a central point of the cognitivist approach. Using Moulier
Boutang’s (2011a, 2012) categories to present the respondents’ discourses, we can affirm
that their claims are focused on the immaterials of type 1 instead of type 2. Primarily, their
DOI: 10.20396/etd.v21i4.8652898
© ETD- Educação Temática Digital
Campinas, SP
v.21
n.4
p.960-978
[976]
ENSAIO
necessity belongs to the sphere of formal education (immaterials of type 1). Albeit they
recognize the necessity of developing a creative and innovative work force (immaterials of
type 2), they advocate that this kind of skills are outcomes of educational experiences
(immaterials of type 1).
As the speeches of the respondents also suggest, the emancipation of workers by
means of a supposed free flow of information and knowledge through cooperative
sociotechnical networks is an idealistic conception. For them, the decaying and uneven local
educational system does not offer most people the opportunity to take an active part in the
economy of the information age, as well as to reap the wealth it generates.
Our analysis suggests that cognitive capitalism has some questionable arguments,
such as the characterization of knowledge and skills as a “production instrument that cannot
be easily expropriated" and the belief that, currently, “the predator company becomes, in its
knowledge, a prey” (MOULIER BOUTANG, 2003, pp. 43-44). Moreover, it does not seem
reasonable to portrait the Internet as “the new global common good of the collective
intelligence” and it is also questionable if in fact “there is now a dissolving of the traditional
dividing lines between capital and labour and between skilled and unskilled labour” (2011a,
p.53). These idealized situations are not under way in Silicon Valley, and it is hard to figure
out in which locus it is a reality, except for a privileged stratum of society. Such a radical
sociotechnical revolution is unlikely to take place spontaneously, by means of a harmonious
transition, without contradictions and in the absence of political organization.
In Silicon Valley, the material basis of social reproduction exposes a shocking reality.
In 2012, almost 30% of Silicon Valley’s households were living in poverty and below self-
sufficiency standards. As revealed by a recent report, “nearly 30% of all Silicon Valley
households do not make enough money to meet their basic needs without public or private,
informal assistance”. According to the report, “self-sufficiency varies significantly by
race/ethnicity; nearly 59% (81,245) of all Silicon Valley households with a Hispanic or Latino
householder live below the Self-Sufficiency Standard” (JOINT VENTURE SILICON VALLEY, 2017,
p. 27). Therefore, the local reality is quite different from the discourses that advocate the
emergence of a beautified information age. Indeed, we should call our times the age of
polarization of knowledge.
It would be better to give attention to some Marxian warnings. Without political action,
technological development does not lead to emancipation. The main social and economic
transformations do not occur harmonically but through the conscious political intervention of the
oppressed classes.
DOI: 10.20396/etd.v21i4.8652898
© ETD- Educação Temática Digital
Campinas, SP
v.21
n.4
p.960-978
[977]
ENSAIO
REFERENCES
AMORIM, Henrique. Trabalho imaterial: Marx e o debate contemporâneo. São Paulo:
Annablume. 2009.
ANTUNES, Ricardo. Os sentidos do trabalho. São Paulo: Boitempo. 2009.
BABBAGE, Charles. On the economy of machinery and manufactures. London: Charles
Knight. 1832.
BRAGA, Ruy. A vingança de Braverman: o infotaylorismo como contratempo. In: ANTUNES,
R.; BRAGA, R. (Org). Infoproletários: degradação real do trabalho virtual. São Paulo:
Boitempo. 2009.
BRAVERMAN, Harry. Labour and monopoly capital. New York: Monthly Review, 1998.
FERGUSON, Adam. An essay on the history of civil society. London: T. Cadell, 1783.
FOSTER, John Bellamy. Labor and monopoly capital twenty years after: an introduction.
Monthly Review. v. 46, n. 6, pp. 01-13. 1994.
HUWS, Ursula. The making of a cybertariat? Virtual work in a real world. Socialist Register.
v. 37, n. 1, pp. 01-23. 2001.
JEON, Heesang. Knowledge economy. In: FINE, B.; SAAD-FILHO, A. (Org.). The Elgar
Companion to marxist economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2012. p. 180-186.
MANDEVILLE, Bernard. The fable of the bees or private vices, public benefits, Oxford:
Clarendon, 1732.
MARX, Karl. Economic works 1857-1861: economic manuscripts of 1857-1858 (Grundrisse).
In: MARX, K.; ENGELS, F. Collected Works. London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1987. v.29
MARX, Karl. Critique of the Gotha programme. In: MARX, K.; ENGELS, F. Collected Works.
London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1989.v.24
MARX, Karl. Economic works 1861-1864. Economic manuscript 1861-1863 (Theories of
surplus value). In: MARX, K.; ENGELS, F. Collected Works. London: Lawrence & Wishart,
1994a. v. 34
MARX, Karl. Economic works 1861-1864 (Chapter Six - Results of the Direct Production
Process). In: MARX, K.; ENGELS, F. Collected Works. London: Lawrence & Wishart,
1994b.v.34
DOI: 10.20396/etd.v21i4.8652898
© ETD- Educação Temática Digital
Campinas, SP
v.21
n.4
p.960-978
[978]
ENSAIO
MARX, Karl. Capital - a critique of political economy. In: MARX, K.; ENGELS, F. Collected
Works. London: Lawrence & Wishart. 1996. v.35
McCHESNEY, Robert Waterman. Digital disconnect: how capitalism is turning the internet
against democracy. New York: The New Press. 2013.
MOULIER BOUTANG, Yan. O território e as políticas de controle do trabalho no capitalismo
cognitivo. In: COCCO, G. (Org.). Capitalismo cognitivo: trabalho, redes e inovação. Rio de
Janeiro: DP&A, 2003.
MOULIER BOUTANG, Yan. Cognitive capitalism. London: Polity, 2011a.
MOULIER BOUTANG, Yan. Wikipolítica e economia das abelhas. Informação, poder e política
em uma sociedade digital. In: ALBAGLI, S.; MACIEL, M. L. Informação, conhecimento e
poder: mudança tecnológica e inovação social. Rio de Janeiro: Garamond, 2011b.
MOULIER BOUTANG, Yan. Revolução 2.0, comum e polinização. In: COCCO, G.; ALBAGLI, S.
Revolução 2.0 e a crise do capitalismo global. Rio de Janeiro: Garamond, 2012.
PAULA, João Antônio. Conference presented. In: SEMINÁRIO A INFORMAÇÃO E O
CONHECIMENTO SOB AS LENTES DO MARXISMO, 1., 2011, Belo Horizonte. Anais… Belo
Horizonte: ECI/UFMG, 2011.
JOINT VENTURE SILICON VALLEY. Silicon Valley Index 2017. San Jose: Institute for Regional
Studies. 2017. Available at: http://www.jointventure.org/download-the-2017-index
RUBIN, Isaak Illich. Essays on Marx's theory of value. Detroit: Black and Red, 1972.
TAYLOR, Frederick Winslow. The principles of scientific management. Nova York: Harper &
Row, 1911.
Grammar review by:
Mr. Kieran Nelson
E-mail: editorkieran@yahoo.com .
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
The research was funded by CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível
Superior), Process Number: BEX 0255/12-2.
Article
Full-text available
RESUMO No trecho dos Grundrisse, conhecido como Fragmento sobre as máquinas, Marx discute o papel do conhecimento coletivo, que ele chama de intelecto geral, em processos de produção da grande indústria, onde a automação industrial tende a expulsar do processo de trabalho o único agente capaz de criar valor: o trabalhador. Nesse exercício de reflexão, Marx imagina que essa contradição poderia abalar as bases do modo de produção capitalista e abrir uma janela para sua superação. O intelecto geral de Marx é o ponto de partida do artigo, que tem como objetivos: (i) analisar a controversa hipótese acerca do intelecto geral que Marx registra nos Grundrisse; (ii) apresentar a origem da expressão intelecto geral, que data do começo do século XIX, décadas antes do seu registro nesse manuscrito; e (iii) revelar como Marx supera aquela interpretação alguns anos depois, ao expor suas conclusões sobre o papel da ciência e da técnica nos processos de produção capitalistas. Este artigo estabelece uma interlocução com algumas reflexões de Matteo Pasquinelli e Michael Heinrich, entre outros autores, em confronto com os escritos que Marx nos legou.
Article
It is a measure of the influence of Harry Braverman and radical labor process analysts generally that only two decades after the publication of Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century (1974) it is difficult to recall the absolute confidence with which the orthodox view of work relations was espoused in the early post-Second World War years. At that time the preeminent interpretation of work in modern society was the one presented by Clark Kerr, John Dunlop, and others in a book entitled Industrialism and Industrial Man (1960). This article can also be found at the Monthly Review website, where most recent articles are published in full. Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.
Article
This book first took shape in my mind as little more than a study of occupational shifts in the United States. I was interested in the structure of the working class, and the manner in which it had changed. That portion of the population employed in manufacturing and associated industries—the so-called industrial working class—had apparently been shrinking for some time, if not in absolute numbers at any rate in relative terms. Since the details of this process, especially its historical turning points and the shape of the new employment that was taking the place of the old, were not clear to me, I undertook to find out more about them. And since, as I soon discovered, these things had not yet been clarified in any comprehensive fashion, I decided that there was a need for a more substantial historical description and analysis of the process of occupational change than had yet been presented in print. This article can also be found at the Monthly Review website, where most recent articles are published in full. Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.