With the introduction of computer as a labor process the work has radically transform. What was driven by the labor workforce in terms of ability and exclusively communal labor is now more intensively automatized and machine related. Labor is no more conditioned by workload and force standards but how the machine should do the tasks. The machine as a generator of economy and subsequently as a producer of goods that increase and duplicate the Capital necessary to continue the process.

When we study the original ideal of Marxism we can see how it try to make a difference between the value of the labor and the value it can create vs the struggles present in the working classes as a whole. For Marx every merchandise have an added value correspondent to the time of labor socially necessary for its production. With this premise on production and social-laboral identity, the role that this theory assume is one where the worker or the work-force is the protagonist of the capitalization of the object as merchandise. There is nothing wrong with this conception of the real because this way of though gave relevance to other details of the industrial process like for instance the enslavement preassured on the subject by his(her) work surrounding.

But… as Dyer-Witherford says on his paper (Autonomist Marxism and the Information Society) the collapse is attributed to irretrievable archaisms in a Marxist word-view hopelessly out of step with this emergent reality-price of adherence to a labour theory of Value in a era of smart machines. This notion (Marxism) is not optimized to the present era where most of the production is mainly developed by computerized equipment. The Worker is no more the performer of an action-labor but an extension of the same system that not only get into his(her) production process but on his(her) social environment as well.

On the other hand, there’s the autonomist, whose conceptualization include the believe that the diffusion of information technologies appears not as linear and universal scientific progress as a moment in the cycle of struggle between capital and labour. here again we can see demonization of the industrial process. The struggle is invariably subject by technology. The labor force that is continually restructured by the capital in order to achieve more control over it. But as changes were implemented so too, the labor force recomposition itself with more capabilities, strategies and organizational skills. It’s an everlasting cycle that never end.

And her is that Information Society enter the game. As the problematic and struggles of labor of capital increases, a new player is on the rise innovation and automatization, a labor-force that do not rely on workers to pursue, complete and produce capital. Its the soft side of labor, one that do not necessarily require workers on a mill or brute force to accomplish a production but the one that is somewhat related with the technological process.

These paper in some way are redundant over the concept that to produce an object, the material on itself becomes the catalyst that make it possible its manufacture. The object as a mean of production on itself.

In some way is about the discourse of Man vs Machine or as the paper is specifying Machine over Subject. The Object-Machine as a mean to exploit the human labor and in some ways to get ways beyond his employee condition to his social environment. For Marx the machine is not like an instrument that depends on the virtuosity of its manipulator but a controller on its own.

One of the negative aspects of this situation is that machines revert the roles of its own activities, like for instance, the wo(man) is no longer able to transmit his (her) expertise and control over the material because the machine is now the owner and the expert on the line of production that turn the material into capital. The subject is now subjugated to the mere role of an assistant, someone whose action are predeterminated by the mechanisms that control the production process. Thus, power and ability are now servicing the mechanic laws of capital, in other words, enslavement as a mean for production.

As Hannah Arendt says, politics has taken to imitating labor. The new politics in her judgment has become a sort of fabrication of new objects. But Virno dismiss this premise by stating that is is not that politics has conformed to labor as Hanna believes but labor has acquired the traditional features of political action. He maintains that the subordinated labor brings into play the talents and the qualifications that had more to do with political action. Political action is now a superfluous replica of the experience of labor. This statement is by no means strange to our natural condition because no matter where we come from, be it a totalitarian system, democratic, socialist or even seudo-fascist we can find that the symbols and the prognosis of its discourse have the labor argument into it’s spectacle. It’s like the semiotic of its conceptualization were structured after a laboral-social thought. Politics servicing the labor and labor retro-alimenting political action.

For Virno virtuositism rely on the spectators to achieve it’s ultimate state, that if for the activity to get past author. Because it lack a specific extrinsic product or object it may seem somewhat ephemeral. This is where the activity turn into political action (Praxis). Political action may be seen as virtuosity as politics shares with the concept the unavoidable presence of others.

Immaterial labor can be expressed as a recomposition of the roles assigned to a worker and how it transform the very aspect of their laboral-social environment. What was initially mean to separate like for instance, social classes, are becoming a unified spectre that are irremediably disappearing the frontiers of their difference. The reason… Manual labor is increasingly coming to involve procedures that could be defined as intellectual and the new communications technologies increasingly requires subjectivities that are rich in knowledge. The roles and functions within a specific working class and their activities writing society are merging into an individual incapable, at least at some point, to separate those actions from his(her) social-being. The labor is somewhat no more conditioned to a specific working-place but to the subject on him(her) self. If the take, for example, a self-employed we can see that even when not required to be at a particular place to perform the labor, the labor on itself are always inherent to the subject and more often it’s a condition that stays with him(her) even at home. The thing with this is that as manual or material the immaterial labor is still subjected to exploitation by an employer or by the same market where the labor is capitalized.