{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"50b7f922-b940-4a05-8eb0-c4dc0d8ec9ed","title":"Digital Capitalism","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"2021022153","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"50b7f922-b940-4a05-8eb0-c4dc0d8ec9ed","id":"50b7f922-b940-4a05-8eb0-c4dc0d8ec9ed","uuid":"50b7f922-b940-4a05-8eb0-c4dc0d8ec9ed","title":"Digital Capitalism","normalized_title":"digitalcapitalism","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"2021022153","isbns":["2021022153","9781032119182","9781032119205","9781003222149","2405518376"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":343,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/50b7f922-b940-4a05-8eb0-c4dc0d8ec9ed","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/Digital%20Capitalism","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/50b7f922-b940-4a05-8eb0-c4dc0d8ec9ed/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/50b7f922-b940-4a05-8eb0-c4dc0d8ec9ed/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/50b7f922-b940-4a05-8eb0-c4dc0d8ec9ed","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/50b7f922-b940-4a05-8eb0-c4dc0d8ec9ed/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/50b7f922-b940-4a05-8eb0-c4dc0d8ec9ed/search"},"page":{"printed_page":234,"pdf_page":248,"physical_index":248,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"0208ee4457031da7ceab44154824c8288a9fa1e24bd2478b77f66d515487c8a4"},"chapter":"DIGITAL CAPITALISM","content":"Digital housewives “express themselves, their opinions and generate social solidarity with others in commercial digital media while, at the same time, adding economic value to those sites” (p. 4).\n\nNancy Fraser (1989, 116) argues that child-rearing is a dual aspect activity and at the same time an activity of material and symbolic reproductions, economic and cultural. One must caution in this respect that the symbolic and cultural realms are not immaterial because materiality in society means that humans socially produce results. So, it is better to speak of physical reproduction. Fraser (1989, 116) says that all work, including industrial food production and software engineering, reproduces social identities and physical existence. The difference is that both in reproductive labour and Facebook labour humans directly produce two use-values, whereas in software engineering and industrial food production conducted as paid jobs there is one main usevalue, and sustained social relations between colleagues may or may not result as an indirect by-product of the labour process. Humans have a family and use Facebook for sustaining their social relations, whereas they have to have a paid job in order to earn money to be able to survive.\n\nOne should stress that the two use-values (created by both reproductive labour and Facebook labour) are not independent. Social relations and affects are key resources for the reproduction of labour-power in the case of housework and the creation of personal relations data in the case of Facebook. Social relations are the means of subsistence for houseworkers and Facebook workers.\n\nBoth housework and Facebook labour have a relation to commodity consumption: purchased consumer goods are part of the goods that housework transforms into the means of subsistence that sustain life and labour-power. In consumer capitalism, consumers learn about the existence of particular commodities via advertisements by looking at shelves in a shop. Audience labour and user labour generate attention and data that are used for presenting and targeting ads and selling commodities. Audience labour and commercial digital labour are therefore that part of reproductive labour that generates commodities that help advertisers to make profits so that consumer goods are sold and consumed. Housework transforms consumer goods into the means of subsistence that enable survival and the saleability of labour-power.\n\nMarx argues that capital has aspects of living and dead labour. He therefore introduces the distinction between variable and constant capital. Both are key factors in the capitalist production process, but it is only living labour that creates value. The organic composition of capital is the relationship of constant to variable capital: “As value, it is determined by the proportion in which it is divided into constant capital, or the value of the means of production, and variable capital, or the value of labour-power, the sum total of wages” (Marx 1867, 762). Marx describes a tendency of the organic composition of capital to increase, that is an expression of the automation and technification of capitalism, by which the capitalist class tries to replace labour by technology. To offset increasing costs for constant capital, capital tends to be forced to also increase the exploitation of unpaid labour. Marx (1867, chapter 9) introduced for this purpose the rate of surplus-labour. It is the ratio of profit to wages, typically calculated at the level of monetary prices, not labour-time, and thereby leaving out forms of unremunerated labour such as reproductive labour. It operates in respect to waged labour. The organic composition of labour is a new complementary variable that operates at the level of labour-time. It calculates the relationship of the total of unpaid labour hours to paid labour hours. Unpaid labour-time includes both unwaged labour-time and surplus-labour-time in waged labour.\n\n234\n\nThemes","previous_page":233,"next_page":235}