[p2p-research] The Thorny Triangle: Cyber Confict, Business, and the Sino-American Relationship

Sun Mar 14 15:33:13 CET 2010

Hi Athina,

Thanks for posting.

Power in a P2P world is an interesting topic.  The sort of Perry
Anderson/Benedict Anderson Marxism (or Marxism as the term was used in my
graduate study...and everyone seems to be in denial about the term these
days) is the branch I am most familiar with...and the that sort of power
study I think used to be interesting in a different technological time.
Both Andersons are amongst the finest writers in modern social science in
English.  Their influence is much deserved.  If either or both had lived in
Continental Europe, I dare say, the history of modern leftist theory would
have had two very different touch points than the usual suspects (Althusser,
Foucault, Derrida, Zizek, etc.)-- none of whom are even as remotely
interesting as either of the Anderson's in my opinion.  Britain is often
ignored on the Continent even as much as the U.S. is.

My own view is that that the Anderson brothers' work (and it is of course
very different) is dated and hegemony of the sort they saw in IR is really a
thing of the mechanical era in which the Anderson brothers mostly lived.  We
are now in a post mechanical era and I don't think they've kept up.  So, I'm
not sure their theories hold much water any more.  Imagined Communities,
however, is one of ten or so books I still regularly try to get politicians
and leaders in "the real world" to read from academia.  I have great esteem
for its insights...though I see those insights now as primarily historical,
as I mentioned.  I doubt BA would argue, frankly.

To your points:

1. What is purpose of power in the P2P enabled world?  I doubt there is
one.  There is no hope of intellectual hegemony.  That jinn is out of the
bottle.   Companies are now multi-national.  The iPod is as much an Asian
creature as it is a U.S. one.  China and India are both making major parts
of it including intellectual property driven parts.  Where is the
"nationhood" of it?

2. I don't think Asia is using any model of corporations or organizations
different than the US (or Northern Europe).  Southern Europe is still
developing by and large.  The power rests with corporations that move on
airliners or, increasingly, the airwaves.  They have offices in Singapore,
Tokyo, NY, San Francisco and London.  Their executives talk by the
Internet.  Some have cultural leanings, but the world is increasingly
mid-Atlantic and mid-Pacific in tone...the nation state is an annoyance.

3. As such, I would argue you conflate the world of the user (the subject of
control and power) with that of the controller...the multi-national
corporation.  And you confuse the power wielder of the state with the actual
power wielder which is that set of firms.  Like others here on this list,
you seem to believe the state and the corporation are co-conspirators.  I
can assure you that nothing is further from the truth (I've been on both
groups and will continue to pass back and forth as few others do...)  I'm
quite sure of what I speak.  If anything, the state has been captured by
corporations (in the China, the US and the UK, especially).  It must be so.
States are not equipped with the talent or the management skill to compete
with more nimble and more intellectual corporations. Universities debate
theories that are a generation old.  It literally leads to laughter in top
business circles.  Universities are used to identify talent...which is then
poached to business.  Our best minds are nearly totally in technology firms
and their supporting infrastructure of hedge funds, law firms, small fab
houses, etc.  That's where the bulk of the great brains are these days
especially outside of Europe.  The university/state/medical complex gets an
overwhelmingly second tier of thinkers--but that's where the best minds went
in the Anderson brothers' days.  Russia is the modern paragon of this
transformation where many great minds are now in London hedge funds or
Chinese manufacturing plants while the goons and idiots play Kremlin games.
China is similar from what I hear.  No serious Chinese thinker goes into
government any more.  That has been true in the US for a generation or
more.  The Obama's are few and far between...and Michelle Obama is a
corporate lawyer of the first order!

4. I think there are serious language issues associated with hegemony.
While people are learning about Mandarin, it will never dominate.  It is not
easy, it is not business-like and it is not a good language for supporting
technology (it is difficult to innovate with it).  This language issue (you
write in English) is key and Michel's list is in English, etc.   India has a
big long-term advantage on that front.  China is hiring every English
teacher they can...they get it.  The core Internet is in (American)
English.  That won't change.

5. China isn't a state in the old empire sense.  I think it is more a
culture.  The state apparatus there is in decline.  It will continue to be
in decline.  The American state has been in decline since at least 1953.
The real news of IR is that states don't matter...business cultures do.  The
US didn't try to win militarily in the Middle East...it tried to transform
the culture to a Western one.  In that, it has changed that part of the
world more in ten years than Britain did in 150 years.  Russia had no
cultural impact.  From what I hear, Afghan intellectuals are now reading US
mags and watching US news stations.  That's a meme that only Iran has
matched in the Middle East.  The US hegemony is (and always has been)
cultural.  10,000 troops in Japan are irrelevant.  What matters is Apple
computer and the NY Times.

I really like your emphasis on futures and wish more academic styled writing
(footnotes, etc.) would focus on speculation.  Thinkers have a
responsibility to speculate IMO.  Overall, I'm grateful for your sharing
your ideas.  I'm a bit autistic in my comments...I should be less
confrontational; Michel has yet to teach me his diplomacy.  I personally
prefer when people give it to me straight as they see it, and I try to do
the same.

Best,

Ryan

On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 5:54 AM, Athina Karatzogianni <athina.k at gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear All,
> This is an article I wrote which might be of interest to some. It explores
> the complex web of issues within which the Google-China is situated.
> Comments/criticism are very welcome, as always.
>  <http://www.e-ir.info/?p=3420>
> The Thorny Triangle: Cyber Conflict, Business and the Sino-American
> relationship in the Global System <http://www.e-ir.info/?p=3420><http://www.e-ir.info/?p=3420>
> <http://www.e-ir.info/?p=3420>http://www.e-ir.info/?p=3420
>
>
> Many Thanks
>
> Athina
>
> --
> Dr Athina Karatzogianni
> Lecturer in Media, Culture and Society
> The Dean's Representative (Chinese Partnerships)
> Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
> The University of Hull
> United Kingdom
> HU6 7RX
> T: ++44 (0) 1482 46 5790
> F: ++44 (0) 1482 466107
>
> http://www2.hull.ac.uk/FASS/humanities/media,_culture_and_society/staff/karatzogianni,_dr_athina.aspx
>
> Check out Athina's work
> http://browse.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?ath=A+Karatzogianni
>
> Check Virtual Communication Collaboration and Conflict (Virt3C) Conference
> Call
> http://virt3c.wordpress.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>

-- 
Ryan Lanham
rlanham1963 at gmail.com
Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
P.O. Box 633
Grand Cayman, KY1-1303
Cayman Islands
(345) 916-1712
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100314/be8c2c95/attachment.html>