He could have welcomed and opposed it at the same time, I think his focus could have been on social economic intergration, heavy regulation and centralized platform economy as opposed to decentralized, as karl economic ideology was more of a socialist economy hence government interference can be heavily championed by him with the sole purpose of government controlling digital platforms for a social economic benefit for its citizen locally

K. Marx did follow the classical production factor model of land, labor and capital, i.e. in terms of the industrial age. The emerging information society and economy was out of sight, with respect to his economic thought. However, Fatma Guneri , as Henry George, K.Marx was very much aware of economic rent and societal rent-seeking, i.e. he would regard the platform economy as tech-know-logical kind of rentier capitalism, driven by automated information (Informatization of economic rent).

Am in agreement with the observations of Benjamin Musumali

——

https://www.henrygeorgefoundation.org/the-science-of-economics/economic-rent.html

K. Marx could not have envisioned a network-based virtual economy. However, he observed the evolution of a capitalist economy towards financialization (at its early stages), as expressed in the ‘Capital: Volume 3’. His general criticism of a rentier economy, while limited by Hegelian dialectics, is also appropriate for criticizing the pursuit of rent-seeking behaviour by achieving the network effects (de facto monopoly position) of an IT solution.

He could have welcome it, is an innovation. a new economic system driven by digital platforms, that is connecting different users, such as consumers, service providers and developers. It is an adoption of different digital technologies.

AI just answered: Karl Marx, a German philosopher, political economist and one of the ideologues of Marxism who lived in the nineteenth century, probably would have had an interesting perspective on modern platform economy. The platform economy is a new phenomenon that has to do with the internet and technology. It includes companies that act as intermediaries between providers and users, such as Uber, Airbnb or Amazon. These platforms provide an opportunity for people to share assets, services or information. As a Marxist, Karl Marx would have paid attention to the inequality and social aspects of the modern economy. He might have been critical of the platform economy for the following reasons: Inequality: Marx would have observed that the platform economy can exacerbate inequalities between providers and consumers. Some people make higher profits, while others remain with lower incomes. Working Conditions: Marx would have been interested in working conditions in the platform economy. Most providers work freelance, with no guaranteed working hours or social guarantees. Critique of Capitalism: Marx criticized capitalism for its economic inequality and exploitation of workers. He might have seen the platform economy as yet another manifestation of the capitalist system. However, it is important to note that this is only speculation, since Marx lived in a different historical context. His views on the modern platform economy would have depended on many factors, including technological development and societal.

Thank you very much for your point of views. About the topic, I have a second question: What would Karl Marx have thought about the working conditions under green growth, particularly in light of the pervasive impact of digitalization? Stasys Paulauskas Chuck A Arize Szymon Piotrowski Stephen I. Ternyik Benjamin Musumali

Copilot just answered:

📷

Naršyti

Karl Marx’s ideas on the relations between humans and nature remain relevant today, especially given the challenges posed by modern capitalism. While his critique of exploitation and inequality in capitalism is well-known, his focus on the environment is often overlooked. Here are some key points:

In summary, Marx’s insights on the relationship between humans and nature provide valuable context for understanding the impact of green growth and digitalization on working conditions. His ideas prompt us to consider not only economic factors but also the broader ecological implications of technological advancements.123

The quest for profit and higher productivity leads, in a competitive environment, to innovation, as Marx has already described. But the underlying capitalistic mechanisms continue to exist in digital capitalism, and the categories for analysis – private ownership, market, profit, remunerated work – retain their significance. Only those who have that in mind can understand and shape digital capitalism, dear Fatma Guneri .

In the process of digitalisation, we are now experiencing the emergence of a few quasi monopolies, such as Google or Amazon, which practically span the globe. In the end, this also confirms the Marxist analysis that capitalism is increasingly becoming transnational and therefore must also be structured in an international framework.

This new prevalence of digital capitalism also transcends physical boundaries. On the one hand, it does this by going far beyond national borders and having a really global dimension with very few exceptions. On the other hand, it does so by being about to overcome physical borders.

Conclusion:

Everything we think, feel and know is being integrated into value chains !

In terms of political governance, it is important that, with this dynamic change and expansion of capitalism, the tried and tested protection and structuring mechanisms of the workers’ movement are being knocked on the head.

Stephen I. Ternyik How would you characterize this mechanism in the context of green growth?

Not compatible Fatma Guneri Green growth ideology vs. sustainability science. In reality, the materialist consumer ideology dominates, with respect to value preferences and priorities of the masses or population. A full paradigm change is required, with respect to a next generation economic system (earth sharing/caring=geonomics).

----------

Obviously by now, economics is flawed. If science historian Thomas Kuhn is right, a flawed field can not be fixed. It must be replaced, and replaced by outsiders and an upcoming generation. Just as astrology yielded to astronomy and alchemy yielded to chemistry, so must economics yield to geonomics.

What does geonomics have going for it? What makes it a science while economics is not? For starters, geonomists notice how economies are part of the embracing ecosystem, sharing at least a dozen key features. One is filling every niche.

Economists call what they do “the study of scarce resources”. Yet that worldview—poverty consciousness—ignores reality (one of the requirements for being an economist). Check out economies. They can not help but churn out a surplus.

Indeed, that’s why we have economies instead of each person doing all the producing one needs by oneself. Instead, human societies divvy up the work (members specialize), enabling each to crank out more than they could alone, then trade with other producers to get what all they need.

Some societies progress. They produce bigger surpluses. Not just from techno-progress (capital in the physical, not fiscal, sense). Not just from education (improved labor). And not just from climate change lengthening growing seasons (land in the old triad). But also from social progress (the Order factor economists turn a blind to). Like more equality of opportunity and less crime, etc. All four allow fatter surpluses.

Interestingly, economists borrowed “rent” (land output surplus) to refer to privilege output surplus. So there is a conventional sense of earned vs unearned, so to speak, albeit speak incorrectly. All output is earned. Sometimes by individuals, sometimes by community, the creator of location, location, location.

Land, of course, needs nobody’s labor or capital to exist. Nor does privilege, outside of the labor of lobbying and the capital of political contributions. While society does not make land, community does generate its value, by their mere presence!

Letting rent—location value—collect in the few pockets of speculators and lender distorts the price of land and that distorts the prices of labor, capital, and order. Price is to production what genes are to reproduction—distort the former, mutate the latter. Markets work better when prices precisely reflect true value.

Thus geonomics suggests a fundamental policy of revenue reform. Mainly, require government—society’s agent—to recover socially generated values, mainly the values of location, and also of privilege, like monopoly patents (flags on the field of knowledge). Then disburse the revenue as dividends to citizens. Everyone getting a fair share would lengthen everyone’s leisure. That, not GDP, should be the key indicator.

________________________________________________

Book Economics of Social Justice: Handbook for Sudents

Book Philosophy of Social Justice/Green Economics Institute

Article Growth for Sustainability/Research Article: Unveiling the Ec...

Data THE FACTORS OF PRODUCTION

Data Money To Capital?