José Luiz Aidar Prado 144 two historical transformations illustrate well how capital actually creates its particular time-space, and they are central to exemplifying the complex relationships between production, circulation, and value distribution that have been radically recon- figured over the past forty years, but which main- tain their center in the extraction of surplus value from work (idem, p. 16). On the trail of financialization, brands became cognitive maps, systems of meaning, and ways of life “from which the world would come to be understood and evaluated” (ibid., p. 17). Thus, “the immaterial capital that brands represent must indicate their capacity to produce value, and, therefore, comprises a set of symbols [...]” (ibid.). We need to understand how the extracting surplus value process intensifies and changes. It is important to emphasize that, through brand construction and its semiotic/economic operation, the surplus value extraction, arising from the division of labor, can be returned “in the form of monopoly income” (ibid.). For Fontenelle, Although the value of labor belongs to the fixed time domain of the commodity production – the mate- rial fixed capital so evident in the production out- sourcing processes – it is subordinate to immaterial capital, the space-time of the global capital of the brands, the domain of symbolic capital, in which the values become relational, and ‘change with the market’s feelings, moods, confidence, expectations, and anticipations.’ This logic starts to define a different temporality in which the future time – of the valorization of brands – defines that, in production, what counts is the intensity of work and no longer the measurement of work time in hours” (ibid., p. 21). 3. Drives and consumer culture From the consumer’s point of view, the creation of surplus value must also appear in circulation as a communicational
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjEzNzYz