[p2p-research] Prospect Magazine: After Capitalism

[Michel Bauwens]

corporations and governments may be dysfunctional, but they have been
dominant for a long time, there are other reasons for that,

but this being said, Ryan makes an important argument: totalitarian states
were supported by very active social movements, which I do not see now,

Michel


On 4/14/09, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Just commenting quickly on the wording in one of Ryan's statements:
>
> Having been the Chief Architect twice for 300+ person companies (one
> of which was absorbed by a 20,000+ person company) I can confirm
> Ryan's statements when it comes to corporations.
>
> The governments that we have today are just a kind of business entity
> that gets to operate above both the domestic and international law
> (and Obama protecting Bush's breaches of domestic and international
> law is evidence that the US is that kind of government, too, not just
> totalitarian regimes), i.e. it's like a noble mafia or enforcer.
>
> When it comes to the few rare individuals that keep things going at a
> major corporation, I would not word it as "highly competent
> individuals" but "highly manipulative individuals" or "individuals who
> are highly competent at manipulation" which ties in with what I was
> saying about "the truth, the story or the lie" in that it's impossible
> in this society (the way it's setup now) to get to the top by sticking
> to the truth or at least being *morally transparent* (definition: to
> let yourself and others judge your morality without obfuscation.)
>
> In addition, hierarchies which are common to both governments and
> corporations do not permit the existence of unpaid (egalitarian)
> cooperation. Only meshes allow that. I am working on clarifying this
> argument. It's based on game theoretical work that was done by others,
> which I'm studying atm.
>
> My 2.221 cents.
>
> Marc
>
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Andy:
> >
> > I do not assume bad faith either.  At some risk to myself, I would say
> the
> > following about governments:  Nearly all those who don't participate in
> them
> > at a relatively high level far overestimate their capacity to function.
> > This is true of the US, China,  Russia, etc.  All those governments hang
> on
> > for dear life every day.
> >
> > Without an extremely complicit population, any sort of totalitarianism is
> > impossible.  Governments just are not that clever, and their efforts at
> > power must be very heavy-handed and almost absurd.  Even corporations are
> > usually dependent on a relatively few highly competent
> individuals.  Those
> > people are stunningly rare.  You really need a population that
> continuously
> > buys into Chinese statist communism or Taliban autocracy --or whatever.
> >
> > It is a Hollywood fantasy that governments can be effective and
> efficient.
> > I think the same big corporations, banks or law firms.  Instead, t's a
> > continuous battle against chaos with a very few plundering and exploiting
> > the weaknesses for their own advantages.
> >
> > Ryan Lanham
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Michel Bauwens <
> michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Andy,
> >>
> >> I'm not assuming any bad faith on your part, as I said in my previous
> >> reply, I recognize you have given a lot of serious thought about this,
> and
> >> again, most of what you say about what is happening, I have no beef
> with.
> >> But try as I might, I cannot equate even the current China with Nazism
> and
> >> Stalinism, though there for historical reasons, the term might be
> applied as
> >> a weakening of the previous 'total' regime.
> >>
> >> In the West for me, recognizing the attempts at control, and especially
> >> your analysis in the paragraph below, I'd call it indeed a new version
> of
> >> the national security state.
> >>
> >> For me, it's an insecure model, partly realisable because it also is
> >> acceptable to many people (most people accept CCTV), most internet users
> >> have no beef with privacy matters etc..). There has been a drift, and it
> is
> >> a dangerous one, we agree on that, and I would call it indeed a national
> >> security state or some such thing.
> >>
> >> Unlike Ryan's point, though I broadly share the optimism, I would leave
> >> the future 'open' and not derive it from the technology alone, and
> future
> >> developments will depend on the social struggles developing in the
> coming
> >> years, when the social rage caused by the meltdown will come to
> fruition. It
> >> could lead to more reforms, or to authoritarian setbacks. If the latter
> >> occurs, but only then, real dangers of neototalitarianism could occur.
> >>
> >> By the way, the p2p approach I advocate is not about being passive in
> the
> >> face of such dangers, but to actively link technology with conscious
> social
> >> ideals and interests, so as to embed them more strongly in society, and
> made
> >> authoritarian trends increasingly dificult to maintain,
> >>
> >> The state and those that benefit from unequal societies have always
> tried
> >> to tamper with democracy, with an ebb and flow of these tentative
> attempts
> >> depending on the strength and mobilization of civil society,
> >>
> >> Michel
> >>
> >> Also, the growing speed and power of networks of all kinds (activism,
> >> reactive and "terrorist" networks, capitalist networks) is seriously
> >> threatening to the state.  Networks have speed which states can't
> match.  To
> >> try to match it, states speed up.  The only way states can speed up is
> by
> >> simplifying procedures and eliminating checks and balances and other
> >> "subtleties".  Another temptation is to cut down open space per se, so
> as to
> >> deny it to networks.  Still another, that as effective, successful state
> >> action becomes increasingly difficult (e.g. identifying perpetrators of
> >> "crimes"), states sacrifice precision for clumsier forms of
> "effectiveness"
> >> (criminalising "preparatory" action, loosening evidential standards,
> >> performing collective punishment, declaring certain groups to be deviant
> in
> >> advance of any action).  I see it as a kind of "statist integralism" -
> >> states lashing out against their future irrelevance by
> acting-out.  (This is
> >> actually similar to the origins of classical totalitarianism, which fed
> off
> >> a similar declining or besieged status of certain strata or regimes).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4/13/09, Andy Robinson <ldxar1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Ryan (and maybe Michel), I assure you guys it's not hyperbole on my
> part,
> >>> I have serious conceptual reasons for what I'm saying.  Please don't
> assume
> >>> bad faith.
> >>>
> >>> I'd also add that I'm referring specifically to America (under Bush),
> >>> Britain and a few other cases here (Israel, maybe Australia, to some
> degree
> >>> Italy and Spain but without the capacity to really realise the model),
> as
> >>> well as perhaps a few cases of dictatorships (e.g. China, Iran), NOT to
> the
> >>> whole of western Europe - Sarkozy, Rasmussen, Karamanlis and their ilk
> would
> >>> certainly LIKE to realise this social form but will have to smash some
> very
> >>> strong and impressive social movements to manage it.  There are some
> sectors
> >>> of the EU which seem to aspire to turn the whole of Europe into an
> instance
> >>> of this model, but this remains a future matter.
> >>>
> >>> The dispute seems to be twofold - first of all, I'm using the term
> >>> "neototalitarianism" to mean the reproduction of totalitarian traits in
> all
> >>> but a few spheres - exceptions being the maintenance of media freedom,
> >>> multiparty systems, some rights protections.  Secondly there is a
> >>> substantive dispute over how intrusive or powerful the regime is, or
> can
> >>> become (and whether this is relevant to its designation).
> >>>
> >>> Taking the first point first.  You guys seem to be saying that these
> >>> exceptions are actually fundamental to the concepts concerned, that
> >>> something can't be totalitarian without for instance prohibiting all
> >>> dissident speech.  In a sense, fair enough - it's about fixity of
> language
> >>> vs conceptual slippage or expansion - but the choice of terms does not
> >>> negate the concept - perhaps you would rather use the term "national
> >>> security state" or "control society" or whatever; then
> simply  translate my
> >>> term "neototalitarianism" as the same concept under a different name.
> >>> Personally I think my name for it is good for three reasons - firstly
> the
> >>> big similarities in spite of the differences, secondly that the ethical
> >>> position of dissent and of the subject is similar in this form as in
> >>> totalitarianism, and thirdly that the strategic field for dissent is
> very
> >>> similar, i.e. that writings on resistance in totalitarian regimes seem
> to me
> >>> to be rather closer to the situation of residual dissent in Britain
> today
> >>> than writings on social movements in liberal-democracies or
> authoritarian
> >>> regimes.  I think there are A LOT of similarities.  I have in mind
> things
> >>> like the terror arrest regime, ASBOs, the prohibition of "harassment"
> (taken
> >>> to mean offensive speech), the corrosion of professional autonomy
> across a
> >>> range of spheres, "control orders", various imprecise legal categories,
> >>> flooding city centres with police and "wardens", the ID database and ID
> card
> >>> plans, expanded police impunity, etc.  Also the way the government has
> fused
> >>> with the police, security services and managers, and the ways civil
> society
> >>> and micro-institutions of the state have been turned into organs of
> state
> >>> policy.  Personally I'm very afraid here.  I remember
> >>> authoritarian-degenerated liberal-democracy from the 1990s, and it just
> >>> doesn't FEEL like that any more, it feels a lot more sinister.
> >>>
> >>> I have to say I'm perplexed as to why, given the other similarities,
> the
> >>> neototalitarians haven't shut down the independent press, opposition
> >>> parties, and human rights protections.  Part of the reason is that they
> >>> don't need to - they aren't sufficiently threatened to want to.  But a
> >>> classical totalitarian might shut them down anyway.  Another part is
> that
> >>> their plausibility is increased if pliant opposition media, parties etc
> are
> >>> allowed to operate.  But this is more what one would expect an
> authoritarian
> >>> regime seeking democratic legitimacy to do.  Actually I think they've
> got
> >>> more clever this time - they divide political groups, the media and
> "civil
> >>> society" into those which accept the dominant ideology and those which
> >>> don't.  Those which do, are tolerated and allowed to operate largely
> >>> unharassed, though with a threat over their heads (c.f. the raids on
> the
> >>> Tories' offices in the Commons in Britain, and on Democrat Congressmen
> in
> >>> America); those who don't, and who look big enough to be any kind of
> >>> irritant, are subjected to a prolonged campaign of demonisation and
> >>> harassment - either they're banned (e.g. al-Muhajiroun), their leaders
> or
> >>> spokespeople are locked up (e.g. SHAC) or their infrastructure is
> disrupted
> >>> (e.g. Indymedia).  Dissidents aren't necessarily shut down but are made
> to
> >>> feel under siege and under threat.  If you aren't part of the (very
> >>> right-wing) "consensus" you're made to feel like an enemy of the
> people.
> >>>
> >>> On the second point.  I'm not sure that classical totalitarian regimes
> >>> were actually as total in their power (in terms of thought control,
> >>> censorship etc) as you seem to be assuming.  As I've said before,
> nearly
> >>> everyone in Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia was listening to
> foreign
> >>> radio broadcasts.  Information was getting in and out through samizdat
> >>> dissident networks.  So I wouldn't want to make EFFECTIVE total
> >>> thought-control a criterion of totalitarian regimes.  On the other
> hand, the
> >>> classical totalitarianisms do ATTEMPT total control of information,
> which
> >>> "neototalitarian" regimes would seem not to.  Actually I wonder if they
> >>> don't regulate flows by other means instead - they channel and plant
> >>> information instead of visibly censoring it.  What reaches the
> conformist
> >>> reader/viewer is usually very close to what the information managers
> want to
> >>> reach them, so they seem to settle for this.  What I would observe
> however,
> >>> is that the public (mainstream) space is flooded with manufactured
> >>> information which is propagandistic and tautological.  In particular,
> >>> reports on responses to alleged threats (terror raids, number of
> >>> prosecutions or ASBOs or crime reports, number of children excluded
> from
> >>> school or number of schools using some control technology or other)
> which
> >>> are read off as evidence of the scale of the threat/problem and
> therefore of
> >>> the necessity of the response; and statements from police, security
> services
> >>> etc, distributed directly through the media without critical comment
> (e.g.
> >>> the rather implausible "4000 Pakistani-trained terrorists in Britain"
> story
> >>> - which is directly taken from a statement by the head of MI5 - one
> does not
> >>> even need to look for a conspiracy to recognise this as a planted
> story!)
> >>> In the British case, there is also a strong tension between what the
> British
> >>> government wants to do and what the European Court will let it.  It's a
> bit
> >>> like the way the threat of foreign sanctions makes it hard for Southern
> >>> regimes to maintain full-scale dictatorships nowadays, the way people
> like
> >>> Gnassingbe are forced to hold elections whether they like it or not.
> >>>
> >>> Here's how I'd link it to technology.  First off, information
> technology
> >>> can be used in two ways.  This is clearly shown in the workplace
> >>> applications studied by Zuboff - information technology can be used to
> >>> create a totally mapped and surveilled space, or it can be used to
> speed up
> >>> and enable horizontal connections.  So while the potential is there for
> it
> >>> to be used in the kind of way peer-to-peer networks and the Open Source
> >>> movement use it, it also has the potential to be used in nightmarish
> ways
> >>> such as the cameras watching every corner of major cities and the
> massive,
> >>> instantly checkable databases set up by the police.  This sinister
> potential
> >>> feeds into the fantasies of the "deep state", the agents within the
> state
> >>> who want something like totalitarianism (the term they use is "full
> spectrum
> >>> dominance"), while the emancipatory potential feeds their fears - every
> open
> >>> space or network is something that can be used by terrorists,
> subversives,
> >>> criminals (their tropes are very revealing here: the Internet is
> portrayed
> >>> as a terrifying space overrun with child-abusers and abducters,
> bomb-makers
> >>> and identity thieves, down to misattributions like the "Facebook
> Killer").
> >>> So the new frightening world of netwar and cybercrime becomes the
> imputed
> >>> "cause" of the crisis, and the same technologies turned the other way
> become
> >>> its solution.
> >>>
> >>> Also, the growing speed and power of networks of all kinds (activism,
> >>> reactive and "terrorist" networks, capitalist networks) is seriously
> >>> threatening to the state.  Networks have speed which states can't
> match.  To
> >>> try to match it, states speed up.  The only way states can speed up is
> by
> >>> simplifying procedures and eliminating checks and balances and other
> >>> "subtleties".  Another temptation is to cut down open space per se, so
> as to
> >>> deny it to networks.  Still another, that as effective, successful
> state
> >>> action becomes increasingly difficult (e.g. identifying perpetrators of
> >>> "crimes"), states sacrifice precision for clumsier forms of
> "effectiveness"
> >>> (criminalising "preparatory" action, loosening evidential standards,
> >>> performing collective punishment, declaring certain groups to be
> deviant in
> >>> advance of any action).  I see it as a kind of "statist integralism" -
> >>> states lashing out against their future irrelevance by
> acting-out.  (This is
> >>> actually similar to the origins of classical totalitarianism, which fed
> off
> >>> a similar declining or besieged status of certain strata or regimes).
> >>>
> >>> Actually, in the last instance I suspect Ryan is right -
> >>> horizontal-inclined technologies and techniques have gone too far for
> the
> >>> state to really reimpose control.  Equally, the old feudal aristocracy
> had
> >>> seen its day by the eighteenth century - this didn't stop it causing
> all
> >>> kinds of horrors in its swansong.  I don't think the state is going to
> >>> surrender, or even let itself "wither away" through hybridisation with
> the
> >>> growing networks.  It's going to fight to the death, and it's going to
> use
> >>> every means at its disposal to do it - including those it has
> previously
> >>> held back to maintain legitimacy or to integrate itself with other
> social
> >>> forces.  Not every state will do this, to be sure, since a process of
> >>> hybridising may well be a more stable strategy for the state to survive
> for
> >>> a time, but at certain places and times, "statist integralism" will
> wreak a
> >>> terrible toll.  The nightmare Michel refers to will only come to pass
> if the
> >>> project is generalised, and actually overruns the capabilities of
> networks.
> >>> But the people who run regimes like Britain's are constantly trying to
> do
> >>> this.
> >>>
> >>> bw
> >>> Andy
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> p2presearch mailing list
> >>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> >>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
> >> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
> >> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
> >>
> >> Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
> >> http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
> >> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
> >>
> >> Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
> >>
> >> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
> >> http://www.shiftn.com/
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> p2presearch mailing list
> >> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> >> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > p2presearch mailing list
> > p2presearch at listcultures.org
> > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
> >
> >
>



-- 
Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com

Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
http://www.shiftn.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090414/8d24857a/attachment-0001.html>