Adventures in value

The New York Times ran a story on December 9, "Ogre to Slay? Outsource It to Chinese" about the latest development in the strange interpenetration of virtual worlds and this world. Designers of "massive multi-player online role-playing games" like EverQuest, Ultima Online and Lineage, aka MMORPGs, built into the games little economies. Players are willing to pay "real" money to buy things that they use in the online games. In the latest twist described by David Barboza in the NYT article, game-playing factories have popped up in China. Young Chinese play the online games to accumulate game points, scrip and tools that can be sold to other players willing to pay for to get to higher game levels more quickly.

The first reference I saw to this odd twist on the Internet economy was an April, 2000 Los Angeles Times article "Virtual Loot for Real Cash". In Ashley Dunn's LA Times article, southern Californians were doing the collecting. Clive Thompson's clever and fascinating article "Game Theories" (date unclear, May, 2004 I think) mentions a factory in Mexico; now this odd form of production has moved to China.

Economists have fastened on these game worlds as economic petri dishes. Game player behaviors, markets, production, currency, interventions (by game designers and the companies that host the games) have counterparts in these worlds. Edward Castronova, wrote a paper that gained some notoriety, "Virtual Worlds: A First-Hand Account Of Market And Society On The Cyberian Frontier", he expanded on this in his book Synthetic Worlds: The Business and Culture of Online Games published last month by the University of Chicago Press. Robert Shapiro, an undersecretary of commerce in the Clinton administration and now with the Brookings Institution, commented on these virtual economies in his 2003 Slate article "Fantasy Economics: Why economists are obsessed with online role-playing games", but Clive Thompson's "Game Theories" article is the best overview of the evolution of these economies.

These economies are fascinating for all of the reasons that have drawn the above writers to them, and rich pickings for anyone who wants to analyze how and why they work the way they do. One dimension I thought of was value in the age of electronics, in relation to the virtual commodities and virtual money used in these games. One paradox of electronics-based production under capitalism is that a labor-replacing technology can result in the expansion of the production of value. I tried to look at this in a paper I did for the Marxism 2000 conference, "The End of Value". Basically, counter-tendencies arise under capitalism that blunt or counteract the value-destroying property of new technologies.

A commodity that exists only in a fantasy space does not in any way make it less of a commodity. There is no such thing as an "immaterial commodity", in this case these commodities exist as aligned molecules in the RAM or on the hard disk of the game servers. These virtual objects are like other goods that take on an existence within the brain (again, material) like ideas and emotions. The virtual goods satisfy the two basic requirements of a commodity: they are produced for exchange (the exchange value dimension), and they satisfy a want (the use value dimension). In this case, the primitive accumulation of game gold or rarities or the production of things in the game world consume human labor, and they satisfy a want of other game players willing to pay money for them. (The New York Times article reports that the player-workers are putting in 12-hour shifts seven days a week to meet quotas for slaying monsters.)

The universe of desire is infinite; "abundance" is only a relative concept, a philosophic outlook, and so there is no limit to what regions -- physical or virtual -- capitalism will spread to, what markets it will organize when it gets there, and what new expressions of exploitation it will devise to wring surplus value out of it. But the polarization of wealth is an emergent property of capitalism.

While desire may be infinite, the ability of the planet to sustain the free range of capital's desire is not. And one hopes that the willingness of human beings to suffer the immiseration that inevitably accompanies the satisfaction of capital's desire is not infinite either.

jd