[iDC] Fwd: Class and the Internet, New Capitalism, and (True New) Socialism for the 21st Century

Christiane Robbins cpr at mindspring.com
Thu Jun 25 17:58:22 UTC 2009


As a quick follow-up to my earlier email - and by way of  
explanation.   I am currently working on a cross disciplinary media  
project - which, in part,  is predicated on the historical - in the  
States- in California - and deals with it little known history of the  
socialists ( in Southern California.)

I have been fascinated by this little known history ( some might say  
repressed ) that was fueled by various 20thc utopian drivers.   And,  
yes, I've been conducting innumerable interviews with people in their  
90's - who are impressively lively, lucid and, yes, have embodied the  
role of the non-recognized public intellectual.

One thing that I have been struck by is the shifting definition of  
socialism - of communism - and the marketplace during the 20th c to  
this day.  When asking 93 yr. old Betty ( who, to those who are  
familiar with American TV from the 50's,  does  bear a remarkably  
uncanny resemblance to Betty White of Father knows Best ) what it  
meant to to be communist in Los Angles during the 1940's, her reply  
was:  "  Well... we were for health care, we were for social security  
and we were against segregation."

Now ... this is from that "little ole lady from Pasadena" who may  
easily be seen by data filters as representing that 90% middle class  
to whom Sean was referring.  This may well be a quotidian aside to  
this online discussion, however ... by the implication of Betty's  
definition, and as Trebor/IDC has posited, how do we define ourselves  
today - how we define socialism, collective, labor issues, et all both  
within the shifting historical and theoretical frames and to augment  
this conversation with the quotidian - as to how we live our lives on  
ground level ( wherever that may be found.)   There are far more  
"public intellectuals" than we give credit or allow for .... and  
perhaps an initiative such as IDC could greatly benefit from such  
perspectives.  I urge us not to fall into the self-pleasuring cocoon  
of technocracy ourselves, as we are continually offered such complex  
and fascinating worlds to help us wade through this morass that has  
been constructed.

Chris
.
P.S.  And, yes, Danah, my research clearly exemplifies the complicity  
of nascent corporate entities w/ government in melding economical and  
culturally ideological drivers for common "profit."  What a  
surprise ....



Begin forwarded message:

> From: Christiane Robbins <cpr at mindspring.com>
> Date: June 25, 2009 9:36:16 AM PDT
> To: Jesse Drew <jdrew at ucdavis.edu>
> Cc: idc at mailman.thing.net
> Subject: Re: [iDC] Class and the Internet, New Capitalism, and (True  
> New) Socialism for the 21st Century
>
> Thanks all, once again, for a fascinating discussion.
>
> And ... not to go off point here .... just to tangentially follow  
> Jesse's/Sean's thread as it may prove to be a salient factor for  
> consideration.  How does one define the pursuit of the  
> ( illusionary ) American dream  + the permutations thereof into the  
> globalopolis  during this time frame of the early 21st century and  
> the concretization of a technocracy ?  And during an era where  
> "ownership" is a moving target, shifting at the rate of a nano- 
> second- where corporate structural displacement serves as one base  
> mechanism of our collective foundation - not to mention  
> consciousness ?
>
> Chris
>
>
> On Jun 25, 2009, at 8:39 AM, Jesse Drew wrote:
>
>> The lack of a self-identifying working class has vexed labor  
>> activists
>> in the US for many decades, and countless theories have arisen to
>> explain this phenomenon.  There is no doubt that it has also been  
>> part
>> of a conscious strategy pursued by US manufacturers and businesses.
>> One extremely simple yet effective tactic was the widespread adoption
>> of so-called "flex-time" in the 1970s/1980s that gave workers the
>> option to arrive at work at different times but within a limited
>> window and all but eliminated punching into the time clock.  This
>> seemingly progressive reform gives the illusion of individual agency
>> and served to atomize the workforce.  Standing with your co-workers
>> hundreds strong in a time card line is vastly different than everyone
>> sneaking into work one by one.  The internet and computer-based work
>> greatly accentuates the illusion that there is no "class" of workers,
>> just individuals pursuing the American dream.
>>
>> Jesse
>>
>>
>> On Jun 24, 2009, at 8:52 PM, Sean Cubitt wrote:
>>
>>> I read some stat in the dim past to the effect that 90% (or some
>>> equally
>>> compelling number) of US citizens identify themselves aa middle  
>>> class.
>>>
>>> This wd suggest that class consciousness has also been colonised  
>>> as a
>>> hegemonic regime.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, more explicitly class-conscious models can be
>>> divisive.
>>> Debate raged in Socialist Worker circles in the 1980s (following the
>>> establishment of the Party, as opposed to the looser group that
>>> existed
>>> before) as to whether teachers and civil servants were working-
>>> class. Those
>>> coming in from the 'workerist' perspective saw them as culturally
>>> different.
>>> Those form the class-analysis perspective (Christian's 'objective')
>>> saw them
>>> as lacking control over their means of production. Two
>>> interpretations: a)
>>> keeping class solidarity (cultural, 'subjective') maintains the
>>> coherence of
>>> a revolutionary / radical program b) excluding potential allies who
>>> share
>>> the same objective conditions weakens the same program numerically.
>>>
>>> In the case of internet, what exactly are the means of production?
>>> In the
>>> case of computers, 'control' need not imply ownership. In the case  
>>> of
>>> networks, ditto (regarding distinctions between bandwidth providers,
>>> ISPs,
>>> regulatory bodies etc). Here ownership is always elsewhere (as in  
>>> the
>>> protected zone sof  proprietary software), and control meticulously
>>> displaced. Ergo there is an objective class structure.
>>>
>>> The production of a class consciousness is precluded by the
>>> atomisation and
>>> individuation of terminals. The language issue also raises itse;f:  
>>> and
>>> suggests that classic class analysis is premised on something very
>>> like a
>>> national base, with solidarity at inter-national level- unlike our
>>> current
>>> translocal condition. Ergo the networkers of the world constitute a
>>> class
>>> without a consciousness.
>>>
>>> (Against my own argument: perhaps in a knowledge economy we also shd
>>> include knowledge as means of production. The objective analysis
>>> becomes
>>> difficult, and opens up on the perspective of 'general intellect' as
>>> an
>>> organising principle in addition to traditional class analysis)
>>>
>>> I really shd be marking . . .
>>>
>>> Sean
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 25/06/09 11:20 AM, "Christian Fuchs" <christian.fuchs at sbg.ac.at>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Brian brought up an interesting question:
>>>>
>>>>> Is it possible to conceive a class as Marx did,
>>>>> without a notion of a potential class consciousness?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it important
>>>>> in your theory to understand the audience as, at least
>>>>> potentially, a class with a consciousness, a class for
>>>>> itself? If so, how would you -- or do you -- see such
>>>>> consciousness developing and expressing itself?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think you can conceive class in subjective terms based on class
>>>> consciousness and in objective terms based on the position in the
>>>> relations of production. In Hegelian Marxism, this distinction is
>>>> based
>>>> in the distinction between being-in-itself, being-for-itself,
>>>> being-in-and-for-itself. Marx distinguished between class-in-itself
>>>> and
>>>> class-for-itself.
>>>>
>>>> For me, the fundamental aspect is the class-in-itself that exists
>>>> even
>>>> if there is no class consciousness. The important political
>>>> question is
>>>> how a class-in-itself becomes a class-in-and-for-itself. People  
>>>> like
>>>> Ulrich Beck have a purely subjective, idealistic notion of class,
>>>> which
>>>> allows them to argue that a lack of class consciousness means  
>>>> that we
>>>> live in a post-class-age, a risk society that is not a class  
>>>> society,
>>>> etc. I think class is more important than ever, becaue the  
>>>> objective
>>>> class differences are so huge. My analysis is that objectively
>>>> (concerning the means of production) we are as close to communism  
>>>> as
>>>> never before, the means of production have a highly socialized and
>>>> co-operative character - the Internet is characteristic of it -,  
>>>> but
>>>> subjectively (concening class consciousness and ideology) we are so
>>>> far
>>>> from communism as never before. This is a highly paradox situation.
>>>> The
>>>> question therefore is how a class-in-itself can become a
>>>> class-in-and-for-itself. This can only be the result of a politcal
>>>> process, and there is no automatic transition to this state, it can
>>>> only
>>>> be self-organized by human subjects. It is a question of political
>>>> strategy and of class struggle, to which there are no pre-given or
>>>> pre-defined answers. So the question boils down to: What are the
>>>> perspectives for class struggles today? And in respect to media:
>>>> Which
>>>> role can ICTs besides their dominative character have
>>>> constructively in
>>>> class struggles?
>>>>
>>>> It is hard to generalize asusmptions about the class  
>>>> consciousness of
>>>> Internet users from theory - here empirical research is also needed
>>>> in
>>>> order to identify potentials. For me it is rather hard to see and
>>>> identify radical class consciousness on the Internet, so I think
>>>> these
>>>> are more objective potentials than subjective ones, which is to say
>>>> that
>>>> there are more co-operative potentials in technology than critical
>>>> consciousness on the Internet. There are huge potentials for human
>>>> development, but they are not-yet realized, today they remain  
>>>> largely
>>>> unrealized. Many question are opening up here that cannot be  
>>>> answered
>>>> easily...
>>>>
>>>> Best, Christian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> best, Brian
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity
>>>>> (distributedcreativity.org)
>>>>> iDC at mailman.thing.net
>>>>> https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
>>>>>
>>>>> List Archive:
>>>>> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
>>>>>
>>>>> iDC Photo Stream:
>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/
>>>>>
>>>>> RSS feed:
>>>>> http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc
>>>>>
>>>>> iDC Chat on Facebook:
>>>>> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647
>>>>>
>>>>> Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity
>>> (distributedcreativity.org)
>>> iDC at mailman.thing.net
>>> https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
>>>
>>> List Archive:
>>> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
>>>
>>> iDC Photo Stream:
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/
>>>
>>> RSS feed:
>>> http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc
>>>
>>> iDC Chat on Facebook:
>>> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647
>>>
>>> Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref
>>
>> Jesse Drew, Ph.D.
>> Director, Technocultural Studies
>> University of California at Davis
>> Art Building, Room 316
>> One Shields Avenue
>> Davis, CA 95616
>>
>> 530-752-9674
>> jdrew at ucdavis.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

> C h r i s t i a n e   R o b b i n s
>
>
> 1000 Sq. Ft.
> aka
> The Bauhaus Ranch
> a film / media project about
> an architect, a utopian vision
> and something called home.
>
> " There is no space without event, no architecture without  
> programme; the meaning of architecture, its social relevance and its  
> formal invention, cannot be dissociated from the events that "  
> happen " in it. "
> Bernard Tschumi, 1984
>
>
> A production of
>
> J E T Z T Z E I T  S T U D I O S
> Los Angeles - San Francisco
> CA
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/attachments/20090625/0a1a1aee/attachment-0001.htm 


More information about the iDC mailing list