|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Flow of Ideas: articles - New Ideas in Ruth Rikowski's Book - Part 1 |
|||||||||||||||||
 A Capital Friendly Culture for Further EducationAcademy ChainsAfter the Hillcole GroupAgainst What We Are WorthAmbassadors of Capital in SchoolsAn Educational Mansion House for BusinessApprenticeship and the Use-value Aspect of Labour PowerArtistic OutlookAyers Rocked In His Own UniverseB GenerationBourdieu on CapitalBourdieu on Cultural CapitalBourdieu on Social CapitalBrown PFI MonsterBusiness Sponsorship of SchoolsBusiness Takeover of Further EducationCambridge University OccupationCaught in the Storm of CapitalCo-payment in Hospitals and SchoolsCold Hands and Quarter MoonCommunitarianism for SchoolsCompulsory Consumption and Uni-NannyConforming Schools Conforming KidsCopy/South DossierCreating MonstersCreeping Privatisation in Higher EducationCritical MassCritical Pedagogy and CapitalismCritical Space in EducationDelivering E-LearningDigital Rights ManagementDistillationDorothy L. SayersDouglas Kennedy: best-selling novelistE-learning for Free at the BBCEdison Schools in the UKEducation and Inspections Bill (2006)Education As Culture MachineEducation FireworksEducation for DebtEducation IncorporatedEducation Markets and Missing ProductsEducation RepetitionEducation the HSBC WayEducation White PaperEducation, Globalisation and the Learning SocietyEmployers and School LeaversEvaluating Different Teaching MethodsEverything Louder Than Everything ElseFinance and FearFive Endings of DesiresFoibles, Frolics and PhantasmsFreedomFreewillFrench New Wave CinemaFull Report Ruth Rikowski's Book Launch for Globalisation, Information and LibrariesGender and Spokesperson in Group Work IssuesGlobal TradingGlobalisation and Education RevisitedHabituation of the NationHigher Education and Confused Employer SyndromeHitchcock: classic auteurHuman capital, the knowledge economy and businessIn Retro GlideIn the Dentist's ChairKids in the Land of No DreamsKM CritiqueLazy Brit KidsLearning in the Earthworks of CapitalLearning InvestmentsLearning to the MaxLibrarianship and Human RightsLifelong Learning and the Political Economy of ContainmentLSBU StrategyMarketisation of the Schools System in EnglandMarx and Education RevisitedMarx and the Future of the HumanMarxism and Education RevisitedMarxist Educational Theory UnpluggedMaturity and FreedomMcDonaldization and EducationMichael JacksonMichele RobertsMiss Allison and Novel WritingMoneythought in Higher EducationMrs Thatcher and Holes in the Kitchen FloorMulticulturalism and Faith SchoolsMy Tony BlairNew Ideas in Ruth Rikowski's Book - Part 1New Ideas in Ruth Rikowski's Book - Part 2New Labour Policy for SchoolsNietzsche's SchoolNihilism and Educational ValuesNo Learner Left UnhassledNotes on the Confessions of John DenhamOn Education for Its Own SakeOn Education StudiesOn the Capitalisation of Schools in EnglandOn Transhumanism and EducationOpen AccessOutsourcing Public ServicesPeter Wilby on School PrivatisationPlanet of the CapitorgPlatoPlaygound Risks and Handcuffed KidsPoems by Gregory RikowskiPoems by Victor RikowskiPost-Fordism and SchoolsPost-Fordism in Primary SchoolsPostmodern Dereliction in the Face of Neoliberal Education PolicyPowerPointlessness in Higher EducationPrivate Schools as CharitiesPrivatisation of Schools in EnglandPrivatisation of Student DebtRaces in the Imperial WarReadings for Teaching CourseRecruitment and Labour PowerRevealed Recruitment Criteria through the Use-value Aspect of Labour-powerRobotic EthicsRuth Rikowski Updates (Archives)Ruth Rikowski Updates (Archives)School Fees and the 1944 Education ActSchools: Building for BusinessScience Fiction Films and HorrorSecond Time as FarceSnowballs and Risk in SchoolsSocial Contract Theory and Political ObligationsSocialism is not DeadSpeed of Life - Part OneSpeed of Life - Part TwoStroppy Individuals and Oppositional Cultures in SchoolsSustainability Policy at London South Bank UniversityTen Points on Marx, Class and EducationThe Business of Becoming a Business for AcademiesThe Capitalisation of Schools - Federations and AcademiesThe CBI and the Business Takeover of SchoolsThe Commodification of EducationThe Education White Paper and the Marketisation of SchoolsThe Evolution of Federations of SchoolsThe Last Parents EveningThe New Japanisation of SchoolsThe Profit Virus - The Business Takeover of SchoolsThe Standards Language-game for Schools in EnglandThe Which Blair ProjectThree Types of Apprenticeship - Three Forms of MasteryTony and Caroline BennTony Benn: Letters to GrandchildrenTransportTurney's and PPUUninspiring TowersUniverse of Capital and My SpaceUniversities in a Neoliberal WorldUtopia and EducationWhat Can Nietzsche Teach YaWhen Bullies Roam the SchoolWhen the Bowers BreakWhy Employers Can't Ever Get What They WantWill Hutton and His E-FossWolf on Marx Without SparksWomen in World Wars
| NEW IDEAS in Globalisation, Information and Libraries: the implications of the World Trade Organisation’s GATS and TRIPS Agreements, Part 1 At the speech that I gave at my book launch I did not talk specifically about the new ideas that were in my book, as that did not seem to be the right platform or the right environment for explaining and expanding on the new ideas that I have developed. Neither did I highlight them as a separate category in my book, as I wanted them to flow freely throughout the book. However, it is very important to draw people’s attention to these new ideas, in order to be able to deepen our analysis and understanding of global capitalism. It is important to develop new ideas, and push theory forward, in order to be able to effectively understand, analyse, explain and critique the global capitalist world that we find ourselves in today, and then seek to move beyond it. New ideas also enrich life, and enable one to live life at a higher level and in a more rewarding way, just as wonderful music does. In particular, my book provides an Open Marxist theoretical analysis of the GATS and TRIPS in global capitalism. Thus, below is a summary of the main new ideas that are in my book. CONTENTS 1. What constitutes a new idea? Why new ideas are so important 2. Evolutionary nature of social, economic and political systems needs to be established as a definite fact/theory and taught in schools, in same way as Darwin’s theory of the evolution of the species is accepted as a fact – only then can we seek to transcend capitalism 3.Social systems go through evolutionary phases in themselves, before they evolve into a different complete system and the full realisation of fact that the knowledge revolution is an evolutionary phase of capitalism and is the latest phase of capitalism 4.The extension of the commodification process 4.1 The commodity 4.2 Services, through the GATS, are being transformed into international tradable commodities 4.3 Intellectual property rights, through TRIPS, are being transformed into International tradable commodities 5. Value that is extracted from labour (and largely from intellectual labour) becomes embedded in these commodities that have been created by the GATS and TRIPS 6. Intellectual labour and manual labour divide in the knowledge revolution 7. Balance in copyright – three parts to the balance, and not just one, and the impossibility of achieving this balance 8. Glenn Rikowski’s ideas that Ruth Rikowski refers to and develops in her book 8.1Capitalism is sustained by value and not by morals 8.2 National Faces of the GATS 9. Practical, theoretical and personal perspectives – and the gender dimension 10 Conclusion 11 References (N.B. This document has been split up into 2 parts - Part 1 and Part 2. Sections 8-11 are in Part 2, on the Articles section of this website New Ideas in Ruth Rikowski's Book, 'Globalisation, Information and Libraries', Part 2) 1. What constitutes a new idea? Why new ideas are so important First of all, I think it is necessary to give a little consideration to what actually constitutes a new idea and why new ideas are so important. In regard to the new idea that I develop about the evolutionary nature of social systems, for example. Some people might say that there is nothing new in this, because this has been discussed and written about by various different people in the past. However, what I am saying is new, because I am saying that it has not been established as a clear fact/theory and that we cannot really move on until it is accepted as an established fact. Similarly, in regard to the knowledge revolution and the manual and intellectual labour divide. The approach that I have taken in regard to these areas is somewhat different to approaches that have been taken before. Ideas and innovations are development processes – indeed, they are evolutionary processes in themselves to some extent. But we need to recognise the difference between someone that is just relaying information that is already out there in the public domain to someone that is actually taking that information and moving ideas and theories forward. I am very much doing the latter – at least, that is my long-term goal. Indeed, I am developing a whole body of work and theory in relation to globalisation and the knowledge revolution. And several of these new ideas are in my book. Developing new ideas and discovering new truths is vital for deepening our understanding of the world that we live in and in order to make progress. However, new ideas are also about saying something in a slightly different way, and thereby making some original contribution, so it does not have to be something completely new and disconnected to anything that has gone before (indeed, it is very unlikely that it would be). The evolutionary nature of social systems is not a new idea as such, but what I am saying in regard to it is – because I am saying that this needs to be established as a definite fact/theory and then needs to be taught in schools. It needs to be firmly entrenched in peoples’ consciousness and so far that is certainly not the case. The majority of people have not even thought about it, and out of those that have, most would probably not agree with it. Never-the-less we need to battle on regardless, until the truth is accepted. Getting new ideas accepted as definite facts has always been difficult, and an uphill struggle. Getting people to accept that the world was round and not flat is one very good example of this. Furthermore, new ideas also enrich life – this element should not be forgotten. They add wonder and fulfilment, and take us to new heights, in a similar way to that in which music can. As far as I am concerned it is these things that enrich life, rather than simply buying the next commodity that capitalism wants us to buy. Many people seem somewhat loathe to go down this path. There can almost be a puritan attitude to it. Some people seem to think that politics is about striving and not actually about really enjoying the process. But if we are not enjoying the process of working towards socialism/communism, I do not see how we can possibly hope to enjoy any socialist/communist state that might result from such deliberations and actions. Just as you cannot build socialism/communism out of bloodshed, I would argue that, by the same token, you cannot build socialism/communism on a purely puritan work ethic approach to it all. No, in order to find fulfilment humans should aim for something higher, and ideas and music take us to new, undiscovered heights. The main new ideas in my book can be summarised as follows. First of all, there is a need for the evolutionary nature of social systems to become an established fact/theory and then to be taught in schools. Secondly, that each social system goes through evolutionary phases in themselves. Thirdly, that services (through GATS) and intellectual property rights (through TRIPS) are being transformed into international tradable commodities. Fourthly, value that is extracted from labour (particularly from intellectual labour) becomes embedded in these commodities. Through this process, profits are derived, capitalism is sustained and labour is exploited. Fifthly, the importance of recognising the difference between intellectual and manual labour divide (and that both forms of labour are needed) and that in the knowledge revolution (this being the latest phase of capitalism) extracting value from intellectual labour becomes increasingly important. Sixthly, that there are three parts to the balance in copyright, and not just one. Furthermore, I also develop two of Glenn Rikowski’s ideas, in particular – namely, that capitalism is sustained by value and not by morals and Glenn Rikowski’s concept- the ‘National Faces of the GATS’. I conclude by making the point that there is a need to combine practical, theoretical and personal dimensions more, and I endeavour to do this in my book. It is only by such means that we can begin to effectively start to move beyond capitalism, I would suggest. There is an urgent need to bring theory and practice together more. We might not like to see various parts of our public services being privatised, for example (the practical dimension), but we then need to consider why this is happening (the theoretical dimension). It is somewhat generalising but the left can be rather too pre-occupied with the practical dimension, whereas academics can be rather too pre-occupied with the theoretical dimension, it seems to me. All this needs to be overcome. The personal dimension is, in many ways, a gender issue, particularly as females are still largely responsible for the production of labour power, by which I mean that they nurture their children and that by this process they help to nurture and produce the next lot of labour-power. Having cared for and nurtured their children, giving them enough food and drink, teaching them many skills etc, their children are then able to go out and sell their labour power as a commodity, they then labour and are given a wage and in this way capitalism is sustained and perpetuated. This production of labour-power often largely goes unrecognised and therefore much female work is often unrecognised in capitalism. One way to try to overcome this is to introduce a personal dimension into ones writing, and so this is what I do in my book. Allow me now, then, to further explore the main ideas that are in my book. 2. Evolutionary nature of social, economic and political systems needs to be established as a definite fact/theory and taught in schools, in same way as Darwin’s theory of the evolution of the species is accepted as a fact – only then can we seek to transcend capitalism In terms of moving our thinking forward in a fundamental way, so that we are well-positioned to be able to look beyond capitalism to a better world, we need to fully appreciate the fact that social systems evolve, I would argue. Thus, we need to accept the evolutionary nature of social systems. Although there have been various discourses on this subject, it has not been accepted as an established fact/theory. It needs to be established as a fact in a similar way to which Darwin’s evolutionary theory of the species is accepted as a fact/theory. There are a few religious fundamentalists that still do not accept Darwinism obviously, but most people today accept Darwin’s evolutionary theory of the species. Darwinism is taught in schools as part of the school curriculum. The evolutionary nature of social systems also needs to be established as a theory and needs to be taught in schools, in the same sort of way. This is a new idea that I developed whilst writing my book. What then do I mean, exactly, by the evolutionary nature of social systems? In the course of history there have been different economic, social and political systems. As Marx pointed out there was, for example, ancient slaved-based systems and later feudalism. And now we have capitalism. These systems have evolved – this is what needs to be more clearly understood. One system exists for a certain period of time. Then, as society changes and progresses, the system gradually changes and eventually evolves and becomes a different system – one that more accurately represents the needs of the people at that particular time. Thus, just as apes undertook various activities and used their brains more and more, they gradually evolved into human beings, as these bodies were more appropriate for their needs – i.e. they did not need to climb trees so much, but they needed to be able to use their brain more. By the same token, feudalism no longer became an appropriate system, as factories started to be built up and people moved from rural areas to urban areas, and so capitalism emerged/evolved out of this feudal system. The important point to fully appreciate is the fact that capitalism has evolved from other economic, political and social systems and that it is not a system that we have worked out and chosen by using our intellect. Only once we fully appreciate and understand this can we start to appreciate why capitalism can seem to be such a madhouse, and why there is so much death and misery in it. In essence, capitalism is a crazy system and it is a system that is based on irreconcilable contradictions. It is not a system that we have worked out by using our intellect. Even supporters of global capitalism cry ‘TINA’ (There Is No Alternative) rather than ‘IDEAL’. So, here the argument is that ‘There is No Alternative’, that global capitalism is the best possible social, economic and political system that we can ever possibly have, so we just have to put up with it. However, no-one really argues that it is the best possible, ‘IDEAL’ system that we could ever hope for. In my book, I give various possible explanations for this ‘TINA’ mentality. It is important to consider why people want to accept ‘TINA’, but in this piece I am focusing, in particular, on the new ideas that are in my book, rather than on the ‘TINA’ mentality itself. It is strange though, why people think that we have to just tolerate a less than adequate system. Others have argued that capitalism is essentially a bad system and is ruled by nasty capitalists. This notion also has to be challenged. This is because, once again, social, economic and political systems are evolving processes. So, capitalism is not a bad, nasty system, and capitalists are not simply bad and nasty people. This goes back to a simplistic understanding of good and bad. This is linked to religious notions, I would suggest, and which I also explore in my book. No, capitalism is a better system than previous systems. It has provided a far better health and education service than other systems could have provided, for example. There was a need to find a better system, and so capitalism evolved out of previous systems, in order to cope with this need. This can be compared to the way in which humans have evolved from apes. Humans are a more advanced species – the survival of the fittest. Similarly, capitalism is the social, political and economic system that has survived. However, just because capitalism is a better system than previous systems this is no reason to conclude that it is the best possible economic, social and political system that we could ever possibly have. Indeed, proponents of ‘TINA’ are not even saying that. But we have good intellects, so why are we arguing from this ‘TINA’ mentality? We can use our intellect to travel in space, to create wonderful I.T. systems etc but we cannot seem to find it within ourselves to use our intellect to try to create a better economic, political and social system for ourselves. Now that we have accepted the evolution of the species we can be pro-active and try to design and change our bodies for ourselves, rather than waiting for evolutionary processes to take their course. There is a very active transhuman movement that is working on this area (see for example, G. Rikowski, 2003). So, for example, today with the ever increasing use of computers, good eyesight becomes very important. We now have the beginnings of the technical ability to be able to design better eyes for ourselves that can cope with this computer age, rather than waiting for evolutionary processes to take their course, and for better eyes to evolve gradually, which could take hundreds of years. And given the pace of change in the computer world, the need to be able to be pro-active in this way becomes ever more important. So, we have the ability to take control of our bodies. Choosing the sex of our babies is another example here, as is the patenting of genes and cloning. We might not like all these changes, or want them to come into effect, and there might be various moral objections etc, but the point is that we now have this capability. However, what I am arguing is that we would not have been able to have arrived at the position of realising our capability here if we had not accepted Darwin’s evolutionary theory of the species. If we had not accepted this, then we would still have been stuck in the dark age of a religious mentality. And we are only just now starting to take control of our bodies in this way and yet, Darwin’s theory is over 150 years old. This shows the slow pace at which change takes place. This, in itself, is another area which needs to be given further consideration. Social change can take hundreds of years. We need to exercise some patience in our quest and desire for a better social system and not just cry ‘TINA’ when things seem to get a little tough. I also emphasise this point in my book. It is interesting to note that Professor Charles Oppenheim, in his review of my book in the Journal of Documentation (2005), argues that I am developing conspiracy theories in my book, but that: "...conspiracy theories are not appropriate for a book such as this, and her claims certainly don’t convince me, who tends to believe in cock ups rather than conspiracies as being the main driver of world events." (Oppenheim, 2005) I do not develop conspiracy theories at all. I say that certain outcomes might be the result of certain decisions, such as the fact that the UK Best Value initiative can help to bring in the GATS. I also make it clear, though, that these various scenarios might not come to pass. But I then also emphasise that capitalism is basically a madhouse, and that it has evolved from previous systems, and so I quite agree with Oppenheim that it is based on ‘cockups’. It seems that he has not read my book properly! He also says that I argue that the answer to the problems I raise is not to readjust the treaties, or even to readjust capitalism, "...but a world-wide movement towards Marxist economics. (Oppenheim, 2005) However, I do not say that Marxist economics is the solution. Instead, I say that Marxist economics provides us with a better and more adequate explanation and analysis of global capitalism than any other theory does. Indeed, Einstein recognises the need for more rigorous economic theory, and in this regard says that: "Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future." (Einstein, 1949, p. 2) He also emphasises that this is necessary in order to move beyond the ‘predatory phase of human development’, and indeed, evolutionary processes. Thus, we need to develop economic theory more, in order to understand capitalism, and that means developing Marxist economic theory, as far as I am concerned. If Charles Oppenheim thinks that a different theory provides a more adequate explanation and analysis of capitalism, then let us hear what he thinks that is! Once we have done this, we can then seek to move beyond the predatory, evolutionary ‘phase of human development’ and indeed, to move beyond the evolutionary nature of social systems. Once we have this clear analysis, we can then proceed to try to create a better, kind and fairer world for ourselves – i.e. to work towards a communist system. But all that will take a very long time, and can only be arrived at by using our intellect, and thinking about how to create a better world for themselves. It cannot be done by having a bloody revolution – it is impossible to build a wonderful world out of bloodshed, I would argue. If Oppenheim does not think that Marxist economics provides an adequate explanation of capitalism, then what theory does he think provides an adequate explanation? Or is he saying that we do not need a theoretical analysis of capitalism? If this is his opinion, then why does he think this and how does he justify that position? These are all questions that desperately need to be tackled and answered. It is no good trying to ‘bury our heads in the sand’ and avoiding these questions just because they are difficult or unpleasant. I myself have sometimes questioned the need for an analysis of capitalism (it all seems so difficult), but I live in and through capitalism on a daily basis, as we all do, so I am forced to think about these issues, and have to try to cope with capitalism in some way. Thus, there is no escape! It is just that some of us are prepared to accept the reality of this situation more than others. However, getting beyond religion and religious notions is essential in order to be able to accept the evolutionary process in itself. So, as I say in my book although we have got rid of religion on a formal basis in many ways (or at least we have in the developed world), we have not got rid of religious notions, and we still cling on to notions of ‘good’ and ‘bad. Marx emphasised the need to criticise religion in A contribution to the critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right saying: "For Germany, the criticism of religion has been essentially completed, and the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism." (Marx, 1975, p. 243) Furthermore, that: "Religious suffering is at one and the same time the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." (Marx, 1975, p. 244) It is, indeed, ‘the opium of the people’ and we must get beyond it. As I then go on to say in my book: "If we were to accept the evolutionary nature of social systems as an established theory and an established fact, in the same way as we accept Darwin’s theory of the origin of species through natural selection, we could then consider how to break free from this evolutionary process. We could then seek to be proactive (rather than just letting evolutionary processes take their course) and work towards creating a better social, economic and political system." (R. Rikowski, 2005, p. 291) So, the fundamental point to realise is this. The evolutionary nature of social, economic and political systems needs to be established as a fact and a theory in the same way as Darwin’s evolutionary theory of the species is accepted as a fact. This then needs to be taught in schools. This will only ever be achievable once we have got beyond religious notions, as well as religion itself. In many ways we have got beyond formal religion itself, although obviously not completely – in fact, there has been some backward movement recently with the emergence of Creationism and the insistence that this be taught in some schools. But in many ways we have moved beyond formal traditional religion, otherwise Darwinism would never have been accepted in the first place. We now need to get beyond religious notions. Once all this is accepted, we can then pro-actively seek to change our system, rather than waiting for evolutionary processes to take their course. We can do this by using our intellect. This involves developing a Marxist theoretical analysis of capitalism, or more specifically an Open Marxist theoretical analysis, which challenges the somewhat deterministic, box-like approach of traditional Marxism. Once we have a clear understanding of capitalism we can then think about how to create a better world for ourselves, where as Marx says: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his/her needs!" (Marx, 1858, p.17) Marx and Engels themselves refer to evolutionary processes, and how communism seeks to get beyond these, (which once again, shows their great foresight), saying: "Communism differs from all previous movements in that it overturns the basis of all earlier relations of production and intercourse, and for the first time consciously treats all naturally evolved premises as the creations of hitherto existing men., strips them of their natural character and subjects them to the power of the united individuals." (Marx and Engels, 1846, p. 89-90) Furthermore, Einstein also emphasised that humans are dependent on society and cannot live in isolation from it. However, humans are different from other species because they can think and be pro-active and influence and change the society in which they live. Einstein said that: "…the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished – just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change…This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part." (Einstein, 1949, p. 3) Thus, let us look towards a better future and a better world, where we can be pro-active and do not just have to wait for evolutionary processes to take their course. 3. Social systems go through evolutionary phases in themselves, before they evolve into a different complete system and the full realisation of fact that the knowledge revolution is an evolutionary phase of capitalism and is the latest phase of capitalism However, not only do social systems in themselves evolve, such as the feudal system evolving into the capitalist system, but there are also phases within one social system, so any one social system is an evolving and a changing process. A social system will go through different phases, one phase will evolve into another, as the system adapts to the changing world that it finds itself in. It will do this until the changes become so significant that it actually evolves into another system entirely. This can also be compared to the evolution of the species. A species changes, adapts and evolves until the changes become so significant that they actually constitute a new type of species, such as the ape changing and evolving until it eventually evolved into a human. The same principle applies to the evolutionary processes of economic, social and political systems. Thus, capitalism as a system is continually changing, moving and evolving and going through various phases, as it adapts and progresses and continually seeks new ways of creating value, new commodities and new markets. There was the agricultural revolution, then the industrial revolution, and now we are moving into the knowledge revolution – all these are different phases of capitalism. As Schumpeter (1951) says the fundamental impulse for the development of capitalism is ‘new combinations’ (p.66). Furthermore, that: "Capitalism…is by nature a form or method of economic change and not only is but never can be stationary." (Schumpeter, 1952, p. 82) Stephen Byers, the then UK Trade and Industry Secretary described these revolutions in the following way, when speaking at the Confederation of British Industry in 1999 (CBI), saying that: "The first industrial revolution was based on investment in capital and machinery. The revolution we are going through now requires investment in human capital – skills, learning and education." (Byers, 1999) Tony Blair, the UK Prime Minister voiced similar sentiments when he also gave a speech to the CBI Conference in Brighton. He said that in the industrial revolution: "…capital was in short supply and labour was comparatively cheap. In the twenty-first century…intellectual capital will be in short supply." (Blair, 1999b) On another occasion Blair also refers to a ‘new industrial revolution’ saying that: "…knowledge and the ability to innovate…are the raw materials of this revolution." (Blair, 1999b) The fact that the knowledge revolution is the latest phase of capitalism is something that first became very clear to me when I wrote my second and third published articles in Business Information Review, back in 2000 (R. Rikowski, 2000a and 2000b). The need for this continual change is absolutely essential for capitalism. This is because in order to continue to survive and flourish it must be forever seeking to commodify more and more aspects of social life. Furthermore, the drive to extract value from labour (and value can only ever be extracted from labour), which then becomes embedded in these commodities, is infinite. Value becomes embedded in the commodity, and then these commodities are sold in the market-place, profits are made (and profits can only ever be derived from value), companies thrive, and capitalism is sustained and perpetuated. Various people have questioned whether the ‘knowledge revolution’ is really something real, and whether concepts like ‘knowledge management’ are actually something that is useful. Ironically, on these counts I find myself very much agreeing with various supporters of the neo-liberal agenda, such as Blair, Byers and Leadbeater. Leadbeater, for examples, speaks about the knowledge economy saying that: "Our institutions, public and private, will all have to change quite fundamentally for us to release the potential of the knowledge-driven economy." (Leadbeater, 1999, p. 52) The knowledge revolution is certainly something very real, and I have emphasised this fact time and time again in my various published articles. Interestingly, when Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848, workers in capitalist enterprises in Europe were very much in the minority, whereas by 1851 they formed a majority of workers in England. Thus, parallels can be drawn here with knowledge workers. Knowledge workers are currently very much in the minority just as industrial workers were much the minority in Europe when Marx and Engels were writing. But England was at the forefront of the industrial revolution, pushing capitalism forward, so the numbers of industrial workers in England rapidly increased. Similarly, there might only be a relative small number of knowledge workers at the current time, but this does not mean that these workers are insignificant or irrelevant – instead, they indicate future trends, the way in which capitalism is developing and moving forward. In the not-too-distant future the number of knowledge workers will probably increase quite dramatically in the developed world, particularly in the USA, given that the USA is at the forefront of global capitalism. Thus, the knowledge revolution is very much something real. In the industrial revolution the emphasis was on extracting value from manual labour, such as labourers working down the mines, and later on, labourers making various products such as cars and washing machines. However, capitalism is and never can be static. So, having squeezed value out of manual labour, there is now a need to squeeze more value out of intellectual labour – the knowledge, ideas and information that people have. Effective knowledge management practices assist with this process. Thus, we are moving into the knowledge revolution. Obviously, there is still a need to produce basic manufacturing goods, but this is increasingly taking place in the developing world, whereas at the sharp end of capitalism, in the developed world, the emphasis is shifting to knowledge and to intellectual labour. When labourers labour they always undergo both types of labour – manual and intellectual labour, but the emphasis is changing, and there is a greater exertion of intellectual labour and less exertion of manual labour. It should also be noted that if and when hopefully we do arrive at a communist state, this communist system might itself change – this is not something that I actually cover in my book. Here, I am also saying something quite different to many others. Hopefully, this communist state will be arrived at by us ‘taking hold’ of the situation and not by a continually evolving process. However, even if it is something that we have ‘worked out’ for ourselves, this does not mean that it will be static. Communism is the “real movement” of society, and not a state of affairs. I think that we need to remove ourselves from heaven/nirvana conceptions – i.e. religious notions. And this might well mean that even I have to change some my own thinking - religion and religious notions are still very powerful, as I emphasis in my book, and perhaps are even still embedded in my subconscious in some way. However, the horrors of capitalism are so severe that we can sometimes just long to look for quick and happy solutions – we hope that there is some sort of nirvana. We desperately need to hold on to this dream whilst we witness such death, destruction and misery all around us every day all over the world. Yet, we need to bear in mind Marx’s quote, which Dave Black in his talk at my book launch also draws our attention to, that: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his/her needs!" (Marx, 1858, p.17) This suggests that there is a need for a continuing process of change and adaptation, as we endeavour to understand what people’s different needs are and then try to cater for them. But this can be something that we are pro-active about – continually working towards a better and a richer life, rather than waiting for evolutionary processes to simply take their course. That is the big difference. This can be compared to music. Music is not static; it is a wonderful, enriching flow that makes life worth living. We would not want to live in a world where no new music was composed. Similarly, we might well not want to live in a world where other areas were unnecessarily static – indeed, this is surely one of the reasons that people have rejected communism in the past. The important point is not that we say that communism can be summed up as representing equality, for example, but rather that communism represents the sort of life that we want to live in. Communism should represent a life where people can find self-expression and fulfilment. A rich life, that caters for peoples’ different wants and needs, and where people labour for this purpose, and not to enable value to be extracted for the perpetuation of capitalism. The result of the latter is that labour becomes alienated, exploited and objectified. As Marx said: "Having seen that in relation to the worker who appropriates nature by means of his labour, this appropriation appears as estrangement, his own spontaneous activity as activity for another, vitality as a sacrifice of life, production of the object as loss of the object to an alien power, to an alien person…" (Marx, 1844, p. 80) Thus, humans labour, but rather than being able to labour spontaneously to enrich their own life, in capitalism labourers become estranged and alienated. They find themselves living in an alien world, where their labour is exploited. This, then, is what we are up against, and what needs to be overcome. Once again, we come back to the importance of being pro-active. We want to pro-actively be deciding what type of world we want to live in. If we decide that Marx is right, that we want to live in a society where the underlying philosophy is – ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need’, then clearly this will require a lot of flexibility of thinking, and change and adaptation is bound to be a natural part of any such society. New humans are born every day, each with different needs and abilities, and striving to cater for this will be an ongoing, flexible process. I know this from my own experience - as I have endeavoured, over the years, to cater for the wants and needs of my children – difficult though, to aim for this, in a capitalist society! In a communist society, though, human wants and needs will be placed at the forefront, rather than being subservient to the needs of capital. That is the essential difference. Let us then think about and work towards creating a communist world. To return to the basic point in regard to the second new idea in my book which I have outlined in this section – each social system changes and evolves within itself, before it evolves into a completely new system. This can be compared to apes changing. Furthermore, the knowledge revolution is one of the stages of capitalism and it has evolved out of the industrial revolution and, indeed, it is the latest phase of capitalism – this needs to be fully appreciated. 4. The extension of the commodification process: 4.1. The commodity Marx begins his analysis of capitalism with the commodity, and this, indeed, is where our analysis must begin. Marx began Volume 1 of Das Capital, by examining the commodity, saying that: "The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as an ‘immense accumulation of commodities’, its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity." (Marx, 1887, p. 43) Furthermore, in the Grundisse, Marx spoke about the commodity towards the end of the book (and not at the beginning), in a section on Value, but he said that: "This section to be brought forward. The first category in which bourgeois wealth presents itself is that of the commodity." (Marx, 1858, p. 881) Thus, he realised that his earlier thinking needed to be changed to some extent, as his understanding of capitalism deepened, and he realised that an effective analysis of capitalism must begin with the commodity. Endeavouring to understand capitalism is not an easy task. There have been occasions when I have thought to myself – why am I trying to understand and explain this madhouse and that, indeed, perhaps it is not really possible to really intellectually analysis this mad system anyway. But then again, my thinking tells me that we have no option. We live and breathe in capitalism on a daily basis, and in order to live and cope with it, we have to try to make some sort of sense of it. So, I am driven by the need to analyse it and in order to be able to analyse it effectively we must begin our analysis with the commodity. Thus, the logic of capitalism is the commodifcation of all that surrounds us. It is very important that we grasp this basic fact. This is impossible to achieve in reality but this is because capitalism is essentially a madhouse, and as I said in the previous section, it is a system that has just evolved. It is not a system that we have chosen to live in – it is not a system that we have designed and worked out by using our intellect. We have not sat down and thought about, and tried to work towards creating a better, kinder and fairer economic, political and social system for ourselves. No, instead, capitalism has evolved, and there are many contradictions within it. So, the commodification of all that surrounds us is impossible, in reality, but capitalism still strives to achieve this, never-the-less. In the same way, it aims to be forever creating value, and extracting this value from labour. Today, we witness the commodification of many areas of life such as the beaches and water. The WTO is very much about the extension of this commodification process, and this includes the commodification of services and intellectual property rights, and once it has helped to create more commodities it then seeks to trade them. We must keep firmly in our mind what the WTO is – it is the World Trade Organisation. 4.2. Services, through the GATS, are being transformed into international tradable commodities The GATS is about the liberalisation of trade in services, and the placing of more and more services into the market-place. This includes both public services, such as health, education, libraries and social services and other services such as mobiles, financial services and tourism. Some of the wording in the GATS document is ambiguous, especially in regard to the definition of ‘services’. Do public services fall in the definition of ‘services’ as defined in the GATS? This is a question that many people have raised. However, it is now clear that they do, as most public services now have elements of competition and privatisation in them, and I consider this further in my book. As Krajewski concludes: "The goal of these negotiations is to eventually achieve full commitments in all sectors including those sectors where public monopolies still exist. It is therefore safe to conclude that GATS mandates the liberalisaton of public monopolies." (Krajewski, 2002, p. 21) So, in essence, all services, including public services are being transformed into international tradable commodities. Thus, services, through the GATS, are being transformed into international tradable commodities and sold in the market-place. 4.3. Intellectual Property Rights, through TRIPS, are being transformed into international tradable commodities Understanding the TRIPS Agreement proved to be very demanding, particularly given the fact that before I embarked on my investigation of TRIPS, I was not very familiar with the whole area of intellectual property rights. Was the TRIPS agreement concerned with the rights of creators of works, with maintaining some notion of the free flow of information, was it protectionist to the extent that it sought to benefit large corporations at the expense of creators and individuals or was it about the trading of intellectual property rights? These were the types of questions that I posed when I first started examining TRIPS. However, I discovered, upon a careful reading of the agreement, that the TRIPS, essentially, is purely and simply about the trading of intellectual property rights (and so in this way TRIPS is very much part of the WTO). This is its own real remit; it is not concerned with moral and humane issues, or indeed, with anything much other than trade. Neither is it concerned about maintaining the balance in copyright – this being about endeavouring to maintain a balance between the free flow of information and the giving of rights to creators of works and copyright holders. This is a principle which the library and information profession holds very dear to its heart and which I consider further in section 4.7 below. TRIPS only seems to be concerned with issues that might appear to be outside of the trade agenda, (such as short-term protection), to the extent that this will help to exacerbate the trading of intellectual property rights in the long-term. So, in a fundamental sense, intellectual property rights, such as patents, copyright, trademarks and geographical indications are being transformed into international tradable commodities through TRIPS, and then sold in the market-place. 5.Value that is extracted from labour (and largely from intellectual labour) becomes embedded in these commodities that have been created by the GATS and TRIPS Capitalism is sustained by value - it is not sustained by anything other than value, and this value can only ever be created from labour. As Marx said: "…human labour creates value, but is not itself value. It becomes value only in its congealed state, when embedded in the form of some object." (Marx, 1887, p. 57) So, value becomes embedded in the commodity. Having given this a lot of thought when writing my book it suddenly came to me in a ‘flash of inspiration’ that services and intellectual property rights were being transformed into international tradable commodities, and that value that is extracted from labour (and largely from intellectual labour) then becomes embedded in these commodities, that have been created by the GATS and TRIPS. By this process of value creation from labour, labour becomes exploited, alienated and objectified. 6.Intellectual labour and manual labour divide in the knowledge revolution It is also very important to really appreciate the fact that when labourers labour they undergo two types of labour – manual labour and intellectual labour. However, whereas in the industrial revolution the emphasis was more on manual labour, and the extraction of value from this manual labour, in the knowledge revolution the emphasis is much more on intellectual labour – extracting knowledge, information and ideas out of the workforce. This can even include peoples’ unconscious knowledge – knowledge that they did not know they had. Milton (2000), for example, says that we need to distinguish between two types of tacit knowledge – conscious (what you know that you know) a) and unconscious (what you do not know that you know). He suggests undertaking brain mining to extract the unconscious tacit knowledge from people’s minds. Thus, in this knowledge revolution, it is not the case that workers no longer undertake manual labour, but just that the emphasis has changed. A computer programmer provides a good example of this. A computer programmer undertakes manual labour to the extent that he/she types into a keyboard, for example, but it is the intellectual labour that exhausts him/her - the creation and formulation of computer code. And the value that is extracted from this labourer is largely extracted from their intellectual labour. Thus, there is a need to try to fully grasp the fact that labourers undertake two types of labour and that in the knowledge revolution, the emphasis is on intellectual labour, and it is the process of intellectual labouring that exhausts the labourer. Furthermore, that this intellectual labour is being transformed into intellectual capital. In this knowledge revolution the emphasis is then on areas such as services, intellectual property rights, intangible assets, brand names, skills, knowledge, information and ideas. And this all obviously very much ties up with the GATS and the TRIPS. 7. Balance in copyright – three parts to the balance, and not just one, and the impossibility of achieving this balance The five ideas that I have outlined above all fit into a coherent whole in terms of developing my own Open Marxist theoretical analysis of global capitalism. However, this sixth new idea of mine initially appears to be somewhat disconnected from all these other points. However, as I will demonstrate, it does actually fit into the bigger picture, but it also shows the level of primitive thinking that still exists in many areas of society today. The ‘balance in copyright’ is an issue/principle that the library and information profession feels very passionate about, and seeks to defend. Thus, as I was writing my book primarily for the library and information profession, and within that process of looking at intellectual property rights in general, and copyright in particular, an examination of this notion of the ‘balance in copyright’ clearly became necessary. The balance in copyright is concerned with trying to maintain a balance between the rights of creators of works and copyright holders and the free flow of information. As the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) makes clear, when writing about the balance in copyright it: "…supports balance copyright law that promotes the advancement of society as a whole by giving support and effective protection for the interests of rightsholders as well as reasonable access in order to encourage creativity, innovation, research, education and learning." (IFLA, 2000, revised 2001, p. 1) Furthermore, the Committee on Copyright and Other Legal Matters (CLM) of IFLA says that: "The greater public interest is served in two ways: firstly, by giving authors an incentive to create; and secondly, by encouraging the dissemination of new knowledge." (CLM, 2002, p. 2) These are grand statements and they sound quite wonderful! But when we start to unravel this, the complexities become clear. First of all, the copyright literature suggests that there is just one balancing act that needs to be performed, when in fact, there are 3 parts to the balance and not just one. I was stunned to find that this basic fact has not been made by those writing about copyright in general, or by those writing about copyright in the library and information profession, in particular, but that instead the focus is only on the main balance. So, what are these three parts to the balance then? Firstly, there is the main balance, as has been emphasised by IFLA and the CLM committee of IFLA above, but there is also a need for a balance for each half of the balance. In regard to the giving of rights to creators of works and copyright holders (one half of the balance), there are two main basic rights – moral rights and economic rights. There are 4 moral rights and 6 economic rights, and I consider these in some detail in my book. So, clearly there is a need to try to balance moral and economic rights. Similarly, in regard to the free flow of information – there are various aspects of this, such as free access to information, freedom of information, freedom of expression and intellectual freedom. However, the different aspects of this are not clearly laid down, in the way that moral and economic rights are. But these aspects all need to be balanced in some way. So, clearly, there are three parts to the balance, and not just one. However, once we are clear about the fact that there are three parts to the balance, there is then the need to consider how this can actually be achieved. It quickly became clear to me that it was impossible to achieve this balance. In regard to moral and economic rights, for example, moral rights are often excluded from much of the copyright legislation, or if they are included they can, and often are, waived. Moral rights were only incorporated in British copyright legislation for the first time in the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (CDPA), for example. However, there is a waiver facility, and moral rights in reality are often waived. As Bently says: "In practice, the effect of the waiver facility is that ‘moral rights’ do in fact tend to be waived by authors, composers, photographers and directors, when they assign their rights. The 1988 Act may have given creators moral rights, but the waiver provision means that in nearly all cases the creator is forced to give them up." (Bently, 2002, p. 9) However, even if this could be sorted out, there is a more fundamental problem – the weighting problem, and this is considered further below. The third part of the balance is the need to try to balance these various aspects of the free flow of information. However, whilst at least there are clear categories in regard to the rights for creators of works and copyright holders, there are no such clear categories in regard to the free flow of information. In my book, I suggest that there are 4 main categories, but others might suggest that there are more or less or different categories. Also, what sub-categories should there be within these categories? It is a very watery area. This leads on the weighting problem. Even if clear categories can be formulated, how do we decide how much weight to give to each category? Should the 4 aspects that I outline all be giving the same weighting, for example – i.e. 25% each? Or should free access to information be considered to be more important than freedom of expression, say? In which case, how much weighting should be given to each – 30% for free access to information, say, and 20% for freedom of expression? But then, how are we going to measure this weighting? Are we going to develop some sort of fancy scale? The difficulty of trying to achieve all this quickly becomes apparent to see. Gradually, we start to realise that the whole thing is actually impossible to achieve. This weighting problem would also apply when endeavouring to balance moral and economic rights for creators of works and copyright holders. Professor Charles Oppenheim, in his review of my book in the Journal of Documentation (forthcoming), looks in particular at this area that I address and laughably concludes that: "At times…the author ties herself in knots in over-convoluted arguments – her text on pages 226 and 260 are examples of this." (Oppenheim, 2005) (p.226 and p. 260 being the pages that refer to my deliberations on this topic in regard to the category and weighting problem etc.) However, Oppenheim gives no justification for saying that I ‘tie myself up in knots’. Apparently, it is acceptable to just talk about Marxists in this way – or at least, it seems to be, in particular, within the library and information profession. People are obviously entitled to their own opinion, but in my book I have gone to tremendous lengths to outline clear arguments with many references, in order to try to convince the reader that my theoretical perspective is right. However, others apparently, feel no such need to justify and explain themselves so clearly, in this way. Oppenheim gives no reasoned argument outlining why he thinks that I ‘tie myself up in knots’. It seems that the inequalities that exist in society know no boundaries at all. So, not only do those at the higher echelons of society have more status, power and money (such as Oppenheim) but they also do not need to be so accurate and precise in their arguments or even reference so much apparently. Furthermore, they do not even need to be so courteous, it seems, because at times, Oppenheim’s review verges on the edge of being rude. At one point, for example, he says that: "Rikowski doesn’t seem to realise that libraries have been charging for access to electronic information for decades now (or has she not heard of DIALOG?)…" Where does he think I have been for the last few years? Of course I have heard of DIALOG, and indeed DIALOG was included on the MSc that I studied for at University College London in the early 1990s. However, I could not include everything in my book, as I subsequently pointed out to him – it was big enough as it was! (indeed, in essence, he seemed to want me to write a different book entirely – one that would, no doubt, have been of greater benefit to him and to the library and information profession at large). Fundamentally, though, Oppenheim completely misses my basic point, which is that capitalism is about the extension of the commodification process. So, we had DIALOG, and other online commodities, but what I am seeking to illustrate in my book is that this commodification is being continually extended and exacerbated into the infinite, and that this is because this is the logic of capitalism. Furthermore, that the WTO in general, and the GATS and TRIPS agreements, in particular, assist with the extension of this commodification process. Oppenheim’s lack of understanding and/or lack of desire to wish to engage with the points that I raised was quite astonishing, given that he is a Professor. Fundamentally, I am not engaging with ‘over-convoluted’ arguments. It is not my fault if capitalism is basically a madhouse and where various ‘cock-ups’ abound, as Oppenheim himself says. Precisely because of this ‘cock-up’ scenario, we find ourselves trying to work with principles that though worthwhile in theory, are quite impossible to achieve in reality and have no social validity. Thus, rather than ‘tieing myself up in knots’ I am trying to explain, understand and theorise about the notion of the balance in copyright, and indeed to understand capitalism in general. We live in and through capitalism, so have to try to make some sort of sense of it. I suggest that Oppenheim would benefit from trying to do the same. If as an intellectual he can prove me wrong, then that is fine – I am all for moving intellectual debate forward. Indeed, in order to understand capitalism and to expose its inner workings it becomes very necessary that we do this. But he needs to engage with the process, and think through the notion of the balance in copyright on a theoretical level himself, I would suggest. However, he will probably not want to do this, because if he does, it might well call into question much of the work that he has been engaged with in regard to copyright, over many years. There is a lot at stake, when people’s career paths are being fundamentally questioned. Instead, we need to move out of this way of thinking altogether, if we are to avoid going round in circles and tieing ourselves up in knots. Similarly, we need to challenge other similar impossible principles that people seek to achieve within capitalism. Principles that lie largely outside of the capitalist agenda, but that people think can be implemented within capitalism. Capitalism will only implement such principles if it seems to be in its interest in the long-term – i.e. if it seems to be working towards the extension of the commodification process, the extraction of value from labour, the enhancement of the market, and thus the perpetuation of capitalism itself. This can only be achieved by conceptualising things in a completely different way – basically by moving on to a Marxist analysis and by using Marxist concepts. Doing this is difficult, but it prevents us from going round in circles, getting frustrated, and ultimately getting nowhere. And all this is where an examination of the balance in copyright fits into my Open Marxist theoretical analysis. Working towards trying to maintain the balance in copyright wastes time, and ultimately gets us nowhere. Instead, we need to move out of this mode of thinking altogether and to pose all these questions within a Marxist framework, by using Marxist terminology and Marxist concepts. References are in Part 2 of this document. New ideas in Ruth Rikowski's book 'Globalisation, Information and Libraries', Part 2 Ruth Rikowski, June 2005, London © Copyright, 2005 Print Friendly - Print Friendly with links |
|||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
