________________________________________________________________________________ The Rise of Dot-Communism ================================================================================ From: nettime's_roving_reporter ================================================================================ [Yes, the end of history is rapidly coming closer. Less than two months after the cybercommunism manifesto, the arch-enemies and mouthpieces of the Californian Ideology, J.P. Barlow and Wired, declare unconditional surrender and hail the rise of cybercommunism, though they still don't get the terminology right and call it stupidly "dot-communism." But these are details, already for the dustbin of history! We can all go to sleep now, Disney is taking care of us.] http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,31922-1,00.html The Rise of Dot-Communism by Theta Pavis 3:00 a.m. 25.Oct.99.PDT CAMDEN, Maine -- The dawn of popular culture is just beginning, John Perry Barlow said in a speech at the annual Camden Technology Conference over the weekend. And it's the Internet that has made it possible. Barlow, vice chairman of the Electronic Freedom Foundation, argued that because the media sells an audience's attention to advertisers, society has been fed something that looked like pop culture but really wasn't. "The people did not create this culture. This culture was created by power. Now, people can manifest their culture and send it anywhere," he said. On the Web, truth will have a bigger megaphone than money and "dotcommunism" will win out. "The Internet gives all a voice, but maybe not direction," said Alan Kay, vice president for research and development at the Walt Disney Company. "It is extreme democratization, but we need to find a way to criticize these voices. We have to understand now what the benefit or disaster of these new technologies will be." The Pop!Tech conference on popular culture in the digital age was also notable for some of the things it lacked. Several speakers mentioned MP3s, for example, but nobody discussed the format in depth. And only snippets of pop and alternative music were played. "I was like, where are the young people?" said Erika Dalya Muhammad, who spoke on a panel about identity and is completing a PhD at New York University on what she calls "cut-and-mix culture," including digital film, contemporary and cyborg art, and music. The young, urban artists Muhammad studies are devouring mass culture to do "digital combat against mental colonization." Her hope, she said, is that technology will allow some disenfranchised youth to learn their history and "map their own identity instead of having it mapped for them." <.....> ================================================================================ From: Mark Stahlman ================================================================================ Yo! It's true. Tonite, in front of the subcribers to the GilderReport, at the Gilder-Forbes "The New Economy" conference in New York, the most capitalist of capitalist tools, JP did it again. He spoke of Dot-Communism. And, I have it on video-tape. Streaming video at 10. He said that he (re-)read Marx and Engels and they were right. Then he announced that they had been "hijacked" by various "butchers." Sound familiar? So . . . it's official . . . we are certainly dealing with some form of "cyber-socialism" here. But . . . which kind? Left or Right? Communism (Left Socialism) = the government is the business. Fascism (Right Socialism) = the business is the government. We have assembled a team, a squad, a dedicated group of praxis-masters to examine the question . . . is the "New Economy" really "cyber-fascism"? All are welcome. This is front-burner, thanks to Richard Barbrook (and JP Barlow) and deserves some serious resources. Sieg File!, Mark Stahlman ================================================================================ From: Mitchell Orlowsky ================================================================================ An old Telos aand Lukacs reader (who else has read his *Ontology*) turned software executive (ah, the family obligations), I have found a forum for my mind. Anyway, I am jumping into the fray not knowing who is reading this, but my intellect is crying out for criticism. In response to Mark Stahlman's question about the rise of cyber-socialism, the answer really is that what we are facing is "friendly fascism." The reason is it so friendly is that it purports to be democracy, not unlike ancient Greece. People are *feeling* more and more like they are able to influence and participate but their influence and participation is like Steve Martin celebrating his name's entrance into the phone book in the *Jerk*. So what you have a web site. ================================================================================ From: Ronda Hauben ================================================================================ "Mitchell Orlowsky" wrote: >An old Telos aand Lukacs reader (who else has read his *Ontology*) turned >software executive (ah, the family obligations), I have found a forum for >my mind. Anyway, I am jumping into the fray not knowing who is reading >this, but my intellect is crying out for criticism. Good to hear you are welcoming some discussion. >In response to Mark Stahlman's question about the rise of cyber-socialism, >the answer really is that what we are facing is "friendly fascism." The >reason is it so friendly is that it purports to be democracy, not unlike >ancient Greece. People are *feeling* more and more like they are able to >influence and participate but their influence and participation is like >Steve Martin celebrating his name's entrance into the phone book in the >*Jerk*. So what you have a web site. But having a web site isn't the guts of being online. The online world has been developed through a participatory process that is democratic. While there is an effort to change the nature of the online process by those trying to commercialize and privatize the Internet, the 30 year development is one of a democratic achievement. And people online have had a way of participating in and influencing what has been developed online, especially those who have been willing to participate in online forms like mailing lists, Usenet newsgroups etc. Not so long ago commercial activity was limited via an acceptable use policy, and that was a situation where the growth of the online processes grew and flourished as people were encouraged to have a public and educational process online and to contribute to it. Government policy is important in determining what will be the future of this online medium, and what role government needs to play is a question that needs discussion and then to have a way of being implemented. The U.S. government policy of as much private as possible, is a harmful policy for public development of the Internet. The web is relatively recent and is a form of distributed file system, which is available to all, but not dynamic in the way that the online discussion and contributions to the online forums have been dynamic. The ntia online forum in Nov 1994 which was a model for a government form where the public was invited to discuss an important public policy issue and did. The forum showed that the online process provides a means for input into government decisions. How to get government to recognize hear that input is the next challenge. The forum stands as a demonstration that the online participatory nature of the Internet is such that it makes it possible for the public to participate in important issues in a means that was in the past unprecedented. (See chapters 11 and 14 of Netizens: http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ ) Democracy isn't something that is automatic. The Internet makes it possible for there to be participatory forms of an important new means and it has itself grown up through democratic processes being developed. People have found it is possible to be citizens online, to be netizens, to participate and have a voice in a new and interesting way in issues being introduced and discussed. Habermas talks about how the public sphere is where people get to introduce the issues to be discussed, they are not at the mercy of how the old sectors of society frame the issues. That there is an attack on such democracy by those who are not so happy to have such a participatory process is *not* something that comes as a surprise. The question is what will be the result of the contest is still to be determined. Cheers Ronda --------------- See http://www.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/ ================================================================================ From: Mark Stahlman ================================================================================ Ronda (Mitchell): I believe (since we had some off-net discussion of this) what Mitchell was getting at is that "democracy" itself is suspect under current circumstances. On multiple counts. One level of that suspicion stems from the inherently "simulated" nature of so much of our lives. "Is it real or is it Internet?" The expression of "popular will" -- what some think of as "democracy" -- has always been a serious issue but, with the addition of technology (i.e. the capacity for mass-scale social "simulation"), the problem becomes much worse. Dick Morris (the always-rebounding, hooker-dating political manipulator) has just teamed up with "Dickie" Scruggs (the whip-'em up and cash-in-yer-chips, populist Big Tobacco litigator) in their latest scheme, www.vote.com. They paid $250,000 for the URL (some report) and they are going to turn "democracy" loose. Perhaps you've heard of it. Is that what you mean by "democracy"? Bert Gross, a very interesting and well respected social historian (also recently deceased), wrote the controversial book titled "Friendly Fascism" in 1980. Perhaps you know it. In it he paints a very bleak picture which would be useful for those who are concerned about, let's say ICANN, to understand and incorporate. Maybe you should buy up the remaining copies and pass them out . . . or negotiate for the e-publishing rights. In any event, read it, for all our sakes. Then write a book review. The alliance between "Big Government" and "Big Business" -- or in political-economic terms, the "corporativism", or business-acting-as-government, which is the textbook definition of "fascism" -- is his target. That sounds familiar enough, in "progressive" circles. Right? But, he goes an important next step by unhooking "authoritarian" from "fascist." This is very important because Gross' colleagues, the Social Psychologists, welded "authority" to "fascism" -- falsely -- following WW II. To be precise, the Frankfurt School did the welding, in their 1948 "The Authortarian Personality." Gross does the brave thing and breaks that weld. For this he deserves a medal. Or, maybe a parade. This un-welding of "authority" from "fascism" is important precisely because the "simulation" of being free and the "simulation" of being in control are exactly the characteristics of "fascism" in our times. This is a mistake that is still being made every day of the week. Falling for the "simulation." Fighting the old battle inside the new "simulation." Instead of questioning anything fundamental about the current situation -- in which you merely substitute PGOs (post-governmental organizations) for "Big Government" and trans-nationals for "Big Business" to update Gross' 1970's pre-Internet analysis -- various "citizens" organizations are falling right into the "democracy" trap. You see it in "human rights." You see it in the fight about "genetic engineering." The same trap; the same mistakes. You don't stop "Friendly Fascism" -- or its updated Internet version, Cyber-Fascism -- with "democracy." That's the old mistake of equating "fascism" with "authority." That's a 1930's, "modernist" version of all this. It's hopelessly out-of-date. Cyber-Fascism demands "democracy" and "liberation." It thrives on "friendliness" and "tolerance." It requires "participation" and "freedom of expresssion." It battles "hate" and "prejudice." Thus, the "progressives" with their cries for "democracy" are making the situation worse, not better. Dick Morris and "Dickie" Scruggs are laughing all the way to the bank. Cyber-fascism is gaining every day. Leftists are still fighting the "fascism" of the 1930's. Not the "fascism" of the 1990's. They are, in fact, defeating themselves. They are falling for the "simulation." Dot-Communism is Cyber-Fascism. Which is why Barlow gets away discussing it in front of a right-wing audience. Acid-head Republicanism is "Friendly Fascism." Get it? What do you do? Well, how do you step out of the "simulation"? Not by championing everything that the "simulation" (aka the Internet) has given us, that's for sure. And, not by falling into the "democracy" trap, either. That's playing into Dick Morris' hands. Norbert Wiener, the "father" of cybernetics (and my father's mentor), knew the problem we would be facing when he wrote his "Human Use of Human Beings" in 1950. He saw the coming of "Friendly Fascism", of "simulated" everything, long before most others. Way ahead of the game. He spent enormous time with many of the leading "progressives" of his day, particularly various labor leaders, and came up empty-handed. Some people even try to pretend that Wiener was excited about all that technology would bring. They should read his last book, "God and Golem, Inc.", published after his death in 1963, to understand the depths of his concerns about the full-scale "simulation" of humanity. The "Golem." And, its relationship to the "Inc." Wiener knew that you needed to go way back, before electricity, to get some clues about all this. Pre-simulation. So did McLuhan, among others. Without a "classical" pre-simulation training, you are lost. Your humanity is lost, to be precise. And, what do you learn about "democracy", by dailing-in the situation as it was, pre-simulation? That "democracy" was invented by and deployed in a slave society where women never spoke in public. Indeed, women rarely left the house. "Democracy" should be suspect on many levels. Both the "simulated" sort and the original. Mitchell has raised a very important point. Is there a danger of fooling ourselves that the "simulation" of "democracy" will help, when it might be the worst thing going? Yes, there is, Mark Stahlman ================================================================================ From: Mitchell Orlowsky ================================================================================ Ronda Thanks for the thoughtful and helpful response. I agree with you that within the context of the online experience the online experience has been democratic and participatory. Truly, it is a great human achievement. The threats are very real to it from BOTH industry motives and government failure to act, failure to act appropriately, etc. I think the greater question that I come back to is that while more individuals can participate and influence the online experience, we need to distinguish the online experience from *experience* and the public sphere. We can't reflexively equate the public sphere and online experience can we? And we certainly cannot equate the online experience with the entire lebensvelt, which I think is the great risk. You wrote... "The forum showed that the online process provides a means for input into government decisions. How to get government to recognize hear that input is the next challenge. The forum stands as a demonstration that the online participatory nature of the Internet is such that it makes it possible for the public to participate in important issues in a means that was in the past unprecedented." and I think this is the most important truth in what you have to say. As someone who works in the commercial world commercializing the Internet, I have to say that even within the context of commercial organizations the Internet has done wonders to democratize the workplace and to make collaboration possible (another discussion, another time). Your point about Habermas' point is a good reminder. We also need to be wary of Vonnegut's conclusion in the "Player Piano:" lets not let managers and engineers be the ones to frame the relevance of any question. Regards, Mitchell ================================================================================ From: Russell Pearson ================================================================================ > An old Telos aand Lukacs reader (who else has read his > *Ontology*) turned > software executive (ah, the family obligations), I have found > a forum for > my mind. Anyway, I am jumping into the fray not knowing who is reading > this, but my intellect is crying out for criticism. In a world of where Lukacs' concept of reification now holds full sway, even the slightest detour from its usual trajectory gets celebrated- hence dot-communism. ================================================================================ From: Mitchell Orlowsky ================================================================================ Ronda and Mark, Part of what is so disconcerting about Ronda's position is it reminds of what I call "bad postmodernism." In bad postmodernism, everything becomes the text, everything refers to something within a closed system, everything is analyzable within a system defined by the author as "the world." For Foucault, this was methodologically useful, for Derrida it was philosophically relevant, for almost everyone else, it is an excuse to not be rigorous. So, what you are saying Ronda is that because so many people get to contribute to the on-line experience (the world as you define it), the world is democratic. But in fact, YOUR world FEELS democratic. There is a whole big world out there that is not going to participate in the way you like, and that is very undemocratic. Frankly, your position scares me. You are unselfconscious about your premises. Most importantly, you substitute the public sphere with your definition of it. Too often, under words like "open" and "tolerant" (and "friendly"), we can be chastised out of discourse. Look forward to more, Mitchell ================================================================================ From: Jeff Gandy ================================================================================ > The expression of "popular will" -- what some think of as "democracy" -- > has always been a serious issue but, with the addition of technology (i.e. > the capacity for mass-scale social "simulation"), the problem becomes much > worse. If you consider the expression of popular will to be a problem, then yes, the current trends towards increased involvement by a diverse population would certainly be deemed worse. Of course, if someone does not a problem, then it's better. > Dick Morris (the always-rebounding, hooker-dating political manipulator) > has just teamed up with "Dickie" Scruggs (the whip-'em up and > cash-in-yer-chips, populist Big Tobacco litigator) in their latest scheme, > www.vote.com. They paid $250,000 for the URL (some report) and they are > going to turn "democracy" loose. Perhaps you've heard of it. > > Is that what you mean by "democracy"? What do you find so offensive about a site which attempts to gather public opinion? The commercial viability is somewhat dubious at this stage. Someday when accuracy is verifiable it may show some promise. But your point throughout this posting seems to be a genuine fear of what will happen when the masses have easier access to determining public policy. And if that is the case, the thought of online voting should petrify you. Sincerely, Jeff G. ================================================================================ From: Mark Stahlman ================================================================================ Jeff: Yup, the prospect of direct popuar voting on any complex issue terrifies me and anyone else who has written and/or thought about this much over the past few thousand years. As I've mentioned, in Attic Greece, only the "Demos" voted and they did not include the slaves who did the work or the women who kept their mouths shut. The idea of direct general voting would have certainly terrified the original "democrats." I once thought about launching an anti-opinion-polling campaign under the slogan, "Just Say, I Don't Know." If anyone ever asked you what your opinion was on, say, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, or Gays in the Military, you would say, "I just don't know." You would then continue, "But, I'll make you a deal. I'll quit my job and study the issue really hard for a year -- if you'll agree to pay me during that time -- and after the year is up, I'll give you my opinion." If you're involved with public opinion polling, you might already know that the percentage of people who refuse to answer such polls is approaching 50%. Add to this the number of people who are "undecided" -- i.e. don't know but are too polite to tell the pollster to bugger off -- and you've got 75% of the population who know that they don't know. Now imagine who would "vote", if you had direct- (or what is often called hyper-) democracy. Who are the 25% who pretend they do know? The idiots! Now, don't get me wrong, I mean that term in the best of all possible ways. Look it up in the dictionary if you don't believe me. An idiot is simply someone who prizes their own opinions. "Idio . . ." as in "idiosyncracy." So, thanks to your query, I'd like to propose a new name for "direct/hyper-democracy", since that name is clearly getting far to long for anyone to remember it. Ugh! Too long. The new name is "idiocracy" -- rule by idiots. Personally, I prefer "xenocracy" -- rule by strangeness, but that's a personal idiosyncracy. Best, Mark Stahlman ================================================================================ From: Mitchell Orlowsky ================================================================================ Jeff, I think it is difficult to understand the extent to which you have written with so little self-consciousness, especially around as phrase such as "the expression of popular will." On the one hand, we find out what many people think by THE expression of popular will and who should be included in that. It is a problem not so much in "gathering public opinion" but the absurdity -- given the medium -- of assuming it "popular." Second, even if we assume "popular" could be somewhat accurate given the medium (let me tell you, I don't), do you not see a greater danger in asserting it as popular with such certainty back through such a powerful medium. Tocqueville might be considered old-fashioned, but is it possible you are not even aware of the dangers in our so-called democratic frenzy (demo it ain't) of dampening even more potentially universal valid viewpoints through such certainty? I would love to have a more diverse population participating. What you consider popular is fairly narrow (do you really think us 5% are really such an expression -- come on now). I have an adopted son from Guatemala who would find your certainty about popular wills the single most dangerous thought phenomenon of the internet. I think you have confused filling out a form on the web with easier access to determining public policy. First of all, you do know that we live in a republic. Second, that republic is governed by people who govern, not the masses (whatever you mean by that -- what do you mean by that by the way). Third, why do you think filling out a form on the web could be construed to be a more generalized view of the masses The thought of voting online only scares me (I don't know about Mark) when people confuse it with real access, unselfconsciously consider it an expression of some popular will, are willing to reflect it back through that medium as popular and think the masses is so easily definable. Otherwise, I love it. Mitchell P.S. Someone once said that the market starts out as a voting machine but over time becomes a weighing machine. It is fairly simple to be worthy of getting a "vote" cast in the short term, far more difficult to be worth it in the weighing stage. ================================================================================ From: scotartt ================================================================================ > As I've mentioned, in Attic Greece, only the "Demos" voted and they did not > include the slaves who did the work or the women who kept their mouths shut. > The idea of direct general voting would have certainly terrified the original > "democrats." Mark, as I think Mckenzie Wark once made a point about; that very Attic Democracy was very fickle -- Socrates, after resisting the Tyrants most of his life, was later forced by the ungrateful democrats to drink hemlock for "religious corruption" of the youth. Living in a country which just voted to keep a foreign monarch it's head of state, on the basis that maintaining the status quo will magickally allow a directly elected head of state at some indeterminate date in the future -- always an option no matter if we get of the Queen now anyway -- but, the thought of debates with such willing ignorance (the arguments for the 'no i'll keep the queen now and vote for the president later' case are entirely 100% specious)having the transmission speed of the internet, scares me. Anyway, I'd sooner keep a foreign monarch than a directly elected president as a further centre of populist power whcih usurps the power of the Parliament and creates massive constitutional instability! Will internet-voting make any difference to the intellectual level of this type of uninformed debate? NO! Therefore it does not improve democracy. I like the antiquated nonsense of the voting booth. scot. # distributed via : no commercial use without permission # is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net ________________________________________________________________________________ no copyright 1999 rolux.org - no commercial use without permission. is a moderated mailing list for the advancement of minor criticism. more information: mail to: majordomo@rolux.org, subject line: , message body: info. further questions: mail to: rolux-owner@rolux.org. archive: http://www.rolux.org