[Reader-list] Net activism and rules of the new actonomy

[Joe Joe Harding]

This is in response to three related documents in the
list spanning over a month. All the three deals with
some extent on the what, why and how of free net
activity. Of something to fight against and something
to fight for. The three displays an interesting 
transition from a practitioner’s advice to attempts at
theorisation and then to rhetorical overstatement.
This transition possibly has parallelism with many
fields of resistance.


One was “COPS, CRIMES and HAL2001 or ScRiPt KiDdY
MaNuAl To HaL2001”

“We feel there are important things going on in the
world today. 
Things worth fighting against. Governments and large
corporations are
basically taking over and are in the process of
building mechanisms 
of control.”

“While it may seem cool to have powerful people think
of
you as dangerous, you're only serving their purpose if
you deface
websites from here, or perform the mother of all dDOS
attacks. You're
helping the hardliners that say we are no good. They
don't care about
the websites you deface. They don't care about the
dDOS attacks.” 

“They care about making us all look like a threat, so
they can get the public support needed to lock us all
up.”

“So do us all and yourself a favour, and please don't
be stupid.
If you have it in you, now would be an excellent time
to grow up. 
Live a life in the hacker community that goes beyond
defacing websites and performing dDoS attacks.” 

It is refreshing to see a mind negotiating what can be
and should be done. What needs to be avoided. It is a
practitioners word of caution.  
It is an earnest request to grow up. 

What is not to be done is clarified, but what one can
do remains unclarified.

But I think if the ‘why’ and ‘what for’ clears up then
‘what’ and ‘how’ will take shape. One needs to be
clear about what one is fighting for. Here the free
software movement has lot to give. It is a movement
which cannot be easily denigrated morally or
ethically. And yet surely and softly cuts at root of
the present order. Net activism will have to find the
‘why’. To be sure about ‘what one is fighting against’
does not necessarily mean what one is ‘fighting for’
is clarified. And here lies the twilight zone. 


The second was the  
NEW RULES OF THE NEW ACTONOMY By Geert Lovink &
Florian Schneider

It is an extension in thought from the activity of
practitioners. Here what resistance is at hand is used
to theorise. It is stimulating and inspiring. One has
to agree with Jeebesh that it is “a very necessary
antidote to the deep pessimism that conversation 
about the control modes of new technologies tending to
set in.”

Though one can only but agree with the authors, but
still there are some trivial but important doubts.

It is difficult to share the surety of the authors
regarding ‘what is to be done’ : “What counts is the
damage done on the symbolic level, either real or
virtual”. 

“Everybody knows, what's to be done, but who knows,
what are 
we fighting for and why?”

Isn’t ‘what’s to be done’ and ‘what are we fighting
for’ related? Granted that it is very difficult to be
clear about ‘what are we fighting for’ but some hazy
outline is required to clarify the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of
activity.

Even the idea that is presented as ‘what is to be
done’ needs further interrogation.  

What our practitioner would call as dangerous kids
activity (though agreed it needs qualification) is
here valorised viz. “today's activists are focussing
on the weakest link defining the overall performance
of the system: the point where the corporate image
materializes in the real world and leaves its ubiquity
and abstract omnipresence.” Leave alone surety, in the
absence of any significant historical example it is
very difficult even to gauge the effectiveness of this
kind of activity as an instrument of resistance. 

Since the ‘what’ is firm the ‘how’ appears to be
clear, which interesting, practical but needs
expansion and extension. 

"hit and run, draw and withdraw, code and delete.
Postulate precise and modest demands, which allows
your foe a step
The goal is obviously not so much to gain
institutional
>political power, rather to change the way how things
are moving--and 
why.
>The principle aim is to make power ridiculous, unveil
its corrupt 
nature >in the most powerful, beautiful and aggressive
symbolic language, then >step back in order to make
space for changes to set in.”
Leaving aside the technical specificities this kind of
activity is true for all kinds of hidden resistances
in all other fields. The difference is that technology
has helped this kind of activity to proliferate in the
digital world and with breathtaking effectiveness. The
technological possibilities of virtual movements has
yet to transcend the boundaries of the technologically
initiated lot. Since this is technology dependent it
becomes knowledge dependent and till that knowledge is
disseminated even networking within and without
movements would remain an activity within a selected
lot.    

The third document is a response to the second {Re:
New Rules for the New Actonomy} by  Mr S Sengupta

It is further extension from the attempt at
theorisation of the earlier document. Though it has
its bright points, with due apologies it can be said
that it goes beyond reasonableness and deep into the
realm of rhetorical overstatement. Let me explain with
some quotes.

“Major nation states are nervous about the times that
we live in. it
is heartening to see the anxiety in the faces of the
powerful about the people they govern.”  

Is this a totally subjective viewpoint – or has it got
an objective validity? In others words how is this to
be tested. I do not see this supposed special
nervousness or anxiety. The uneasiness of the rulers
have always existed. There is nothing special in that
about the times we live in. 

“massive surveillance mechanisms … are also symtomatic
of their profound vulnerability”

Again how is this to be tested? The straight logical
derivation of massive surveillance is that it is a
mechanism of squeezing the orange as dry as possible.
And this can be tested. Lot of acts we could do
earlier without impunity is no longer tolerated now.
The permissible illegalities have decreased
historically. 

“genuinely worried about protecting themselves”. When
were they not genuinely worried?

“Power is scared of its adversaries, because we are
witnessing the emergence of a  new kind of adversary,
who does not seek power, or speak power's language.”
There has always been this kind of adversaries but
always as hopeless minorities. But still one would
like to know of such adversaries. If the aim is not
clear and stated, i.e. what is one fighting for, then
it is very difficult to evaluate the play of power.  

“both the state and corporate faces of the chimera of
power and its adversaries are on some sort of equal
ground because the emerging adversarial positions care
less for legality and more for effectiveness.”

The concrete faces of power is surely more than a
chimera. Power has an objective existence and it has
increased over time. Resistance and control both have
always cared “less for legality and more for
effectiveness”. Legality is a net through which the
controlling power has always tried to constrain
resistance. But both the resistors and the controllers
have cared more for effectiveness than for legality.
The very fact that most resistance is hidden attest to
this fact.

“It is no longer possible for power …. level
accusations of  treason,or to distract  those it
governs with insinuations that the adversaries are ' 
on the payroll of', or  ' lackeys of ' any 'other'
power.”

Why not? Rather it is as much possible today as it was
yesterday. And what more the insinuations might also
be actually true. What one person does for resistance
another can surely do for competition and the market.
It only makes the work of the resistances still more
complicated. 

“The market must be rejected ultimately because it
bores us to death”

“We must reject the existing order not because we want
to return to a more modest way of living, but because
we demand more”

“a far greater assertion of desire than even the
consumer economy can accommodate.”

Market I am sure, is detestable due to more cogent
reasons than boredom. Beside boredom is too subjective
to be comfortable with. For lots, me including, the
market is viciously interesting. It is continuously
changing and keeps you constantly on the defensive. It
is definitely not boring. But ofcourse its all
subjective.

Regarding increased desires, one does not how know far
is it feasible. If the load of necessary labour for
survival is to decrease than life has to simplify. If
the ecology, environment and earth have to exist in a
sustainable way then too our lives has to simplify.
When we would learn to be then we will not require to
have more.
Besides what material desires can the market not
satisfy? The market survives on creation and
satisfaction of desires. Market cannot satisfy the
desire for freedom from ---- exploitation, alienation,
suppression, fear, material insecurities and disaster.
And these are not material desires.
 
“Neo-luddites, can rest and rust in peace, nothing
that they can do will ever affect anything.” Why not?
And how does one know? Resistance cannot be fit into a
straight jacket. 

Hidden transcripts of resistances have many varied
strands. We work and wait for those magical moments
when the hidden resistances come out in the open and
stares at power eyeball to eyeball. For this both
interlinking of resistances and theorisation is a
must. In this all the three texts are contributions. 


Joe Joe


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/