[Reader-list] <nettime> new rules for the new actonomy

[Jeebesh Bagchi]

Apologies to those who are on the nettime list for this 
cross-posting. But for those who are not, I would think this text is 
a very necessary antidote to the deep pessimism that conversation 
about the control modes of new technologies tending to set in.

The last decade has seen a very rapid move away from certain fixed 
ideas (and certainties) about  modes of `social activism`.  Alongwith 
a  deep and radical skepticism of centralised macro political 
mobilisation (performative games in some cases, dangerous in some 
others), a new constellation of ideas and practices based on 
recognition of multiplicity, acknowledgement of anti- hierarchical, 
de-centralised, plural actions as well as the proliferation of 
subject positions, has emerged. This specific text speaks to and 
about this constellation, and i think it is a significant text to 
engage with.

(to be frank the word `rules` in the title did make me wonder about 
the text, but on reading, i thought maybe with  travel, on gathering 
more participants, it will modify itself and appear with a more 
actonomic title)

Happy reading, Jeebesh


>Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 23:17:13 +0200
>From: florian schneider <fls at kein.org>
>To: "nettime-l at bbs.thing.net" <nettime-l at bbs.thing.net>
>Subject: <nettime> new rules for the new actonomy
>
>NEW RULES OF THE NEW ACTONOMY
>By Geert Lovink & Florian Schneider
>
>That the world is changing wasn't really noticed for a while, and if at
>all, only in positive ways - at least for a long as the fall of the Berlin
>Wall and the overcoming of the Cold War gave rise to great hopes, the Boom
>of the New Economy hid its bad points, as long as the post modern fun
>spread nothing but good vibes. Nowadays the signs have become more
>obvious, that there are many political, cultural, economic and social
>conflicts simmering under the cover of digitalization, infotization and
>globalization, the extent and breadth of these conflicts can not yet be
>estimated.
>
>Seattle, Melbourne, Prague, Nice, Davos - Quebec has just been added to
>this list, and Genova soon will be, where the G-8 meeting will take place
>at the end of July, and Qatar, where the next WTO will be, and a global
>day of action will be carried out. At the first glance it seems as if a
>new global protest generation is emerging, which endeavors to equal,
>include and battle against that of 1968.
>
>However no-one should yield to this illusion: The great social movements
>of the past centuries from labour to environment seem to be exhausted.
>Simple recipes have lost all credibility, of course. The way back to
>familiar models is obstructed, and the complex cohesion of an ever more
>closely networking global economy and of ever more differentiated living
>conditions seem to be immune against any form of criticism.
>
>The field of the political has collapsed into thousands of single
>fragments, but it is exactly in this chaos that a new activism with new
>ways of political articulation and action is breaking through. All these
>new beginnings are extremely flexible and operate with tactical and
>strategic plurality. They strive for up-to-date notions of solidarity and
>self-determination, and they try to link and to short-cut immediate and
>local conflicts with global ones.
>
>So what has changed?
>
>In former times, it was all about imprisoning people somewhere in order to
>discipline them (in schools, the army, factories, hospitals). Nowadays
>people are monitored in real time practically everywhere. In all
>political, social and cultural fields networking techniques of control
>replace the former techniques of power exertion. Chip-cards, biometric
>systems, electronic collars control the access to proprietary and
>privileged areas. Borders are subjected to a special change of meaning in
>this context. At electronic frontiers and virtual borders everything is
>about matching user-profiles and instead of in- or exclusion: networking
>against one's will.
>
>There is no outside anymore and that is why the archimedical point of
>criticism has vanished, to settle exactly on the border and to risk a
>glance into the circumstances without really being a part of the
>controversy. The "New Left", as it emerged from the student settings of
>the 1960s and 70s had made their ideological criticism from these safe
>positions. Little wonder that the remains of such a protest culture excel
>at complaining, winging, griping and if it really gets radical, at making
>someone feel guilty.
>
>Work that is no longer calculable and measurable anymore is certainly
>nothing really new. But their meaning for production process is pivotal.
>What some call "Affect Industry" covers work in hospitals and in the film
>industry, in software sweat-shops and kindergartens, in the entertainment
>industry and in nursing homes. Classic reproduction work which aims to
>stir emotions and create a feeling of well-being. The newest development
>in the emotion industry opens up a biopolitical dimension where the most
>riddling aspect which exists on earth - life itself - becomes the object
>of production.
>
>Nowadays, almost all habits of political thinking and action are more or
>less radically questioned. Necessary is, a redefinition of the political
>practice and its theorizing, not starting from point zero, but from where
>we are now. In this context it is extremely exciting not to abandon all
>insights, but on the contrary: to investigate experience from a new
>historical upheaval and to recapitulate and to develop new terms and
>refuel old ones; to let struggles communicate with each other, regardless
>of if they are old or new, regardless of where they are physically
>located, and how they will end.
>
>Resistance always comes before Power and sabotage derives from the French
>word sabot, which is a wooden shoe that is secretly introduced into a
>machine and blocks the production temporarily. This interruption aims to
>reduce the efficiency of the machine to such an extent that the emerging
>material damage underlines the concrete demands or a general disgust of
>the condition of exploitation.
>
>As the normal strike, sabotage as a means of direct action aims directly
>at the pickpocket of the corporation in order to achieve the realization
>of certain conditions. Particularly when workers are robbed of their right
>to strike, sabotage was appropriate although an illegal means of struggle
>within the factories. Sabotage is a direct application of the idea that
>property has no rights that its creators are bound to respect. That way
>sabotage can be seen as a sort of anticipated reverse engineering of the
>open source idea.
>
>Indeed, in the current political debate about direct action there are
>several parallels to the situation of the late 19th Century, which can be
>made. Sabotage is radically antagonistic to the representative discourse,
>i.e. in the institutionalized contexts of the working class or social
>movements. Those representative forms have always referred to a nation
>state while spontaneous, un- or better organized forms of resistance (e.g.
>the Industrial Workers of the World IWW) have expressed a global class
>consciousness. What is nowadays called direct action re-presents sabotage.
>>From "No Logo" to "Ruckus Society", from wild strikes in the hardware,
>Hi-Tech- and service industries to the semiotic guerilla of Indymedia,
>RTmark or Adbusters.
>
>We suspect: current forms of activism attempt a redefinition of sabotage
>as social practice, but not in the usual destructive sense, rather in a
>constructive, innovative and creative practice. Such a constructive
>approach results in a movement without organs or organisation. In a
>variety of perspectives - self-determined cybernetic thinking, that spurs
>on different approaches and connections; that refers to a social
>antagonism refers to the level of production; and that is constituting a
>collective process of appropriation of knowledge and power.
>
>So far three layers of net.activism appeared in a still rudimentary way:
>
>- Networking within a movement: The first level of net.activism consists
>of facilitating the internal communication inside the movement. It means
>communication on and behind mailinglists, setting up websites, which are
>designed as a toolbox for the activists themselves. It leads to creating a
>virtual community, whose dynamics do not so much differ from romantic
>offline-communities, besides the fact that people do not necessarily need
>to meet physically, but very often they do afterwards.
>
>- Networking in between movements and social groups: The second level of
>net.activism is defined by campaigning and connecting people form
>different contexts. It means joining the forces, collaborative and
>cooperative efforts, creating inspiring and motivating surroundings, in
>which new types of actions and activities may be elaborated.
>
>- Virtual movements: The third level of net.activism means using the
>internet vice versa as a platform for purely virtual protests, which refer
>no longer to any kind of offline-reality and which may cause incalculable
>and uncontrollable movements: E-protests like online demonstrations,
>electronic civil disobedience or anything which might be seen as digital
>sabotage as a legitimate outcome of a social struggle: counter-branding,
>causing virtual losses, polluting the image of a corporation.
>
>Time is Running Out for Reformism.
>
>This is the golden age of irresistible activism. Accelerate your
>politices. Set a target you can reach within 3 years--and formulate the
>key ideas within 30 seconds. Then go out and do it. Do not despair. Get
>the bloody project up and then: hit hit hit. Be instantly seductive in
>your resistance. The moral firewalls of global capitalism are buggy as
>never before. Corporations are weakened because of their endemic dirty
>practices, mad for profits. The faster things are changing, the more
>radical we can act. The faster things are changing, the more radical we
>have to act.
>
>The green-liberal idea of slowly changing capitalism from within no longer
>works. Not because the Third Way parties powers have "betrayed" the cause.
>No. Simply because their project is constantly running out of time. Global
>systems are in a state of permanent revolution, and so is subversive
>politics. Society is changing much faster than any of its institutions,
>including corporations. No one can keep up. There is no time anymore for
>decent planning. The duration of a plan, necessary for its implementation
>is simply not longer there. This mechanism turned the baby boomers into
>such unbearable regressive control freaks. There is no more time to go
>through the whole trajectory from research to implementation. Policy is
>reduced to panic response.
>
>Government policy is reduced to panic response. For the complex society
>its enemies are the blueprints of five years ago. The future is constantly
>being re-defined, and re-negotiated. Global systems are in a state of
>permanent flux between revolution and reaction--and so is subversive
>politics. Society is changing much faster than any of its institutions can
>handle. In short: no one can keep up and here lies the competitive
>advantage of today's mobile actonomists.
>
>Instead of crying over the disappearance of politics, the public, the
>revolution, etc. 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. Shortcut the common deliberations about the
>dichotomy between real and virtual. Get into more sophisticated
>dialectics. It's all linked anyway, with power defining the rules of
>access to resources (space, information or capital). Throw your pie, write
>your code. Visit their annual stockholders meeting, and do your goddamned
>research first. What counts is the damage done on the symbolic level,
>either real or virtual.
>
>The new actonomy, equipped with pies and laptops, consists of thousands of
>bigger and smaller activities, which are all by themselves meaningful,
>manageable and sustainable. For this we do not need a General Plan, a
>singular portal website, or let alone a Party. It is enough to understand
>the new dynamics--and use them. Create and disseminate your message with
>all available logics, tools and media. The new actonomy involves a
>rigorous application of networking methods. It's diversity challenges the
>development of non-hierarchical, decentralized and deterritorialized
>applets and applications.
>
>Laws of semiotic guerilla: hit and run, draw and withdraw, code and
>delete. Postulate precise and modest demands, which allows your foe a step
>back without losing it's face. Social movements of the last century were
>opposing the nation state and disclaimed it's power. In the new actonomy
>activists struggle against corporations and new forms of global
>sovereignty. 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. Let others do that
>job, if they wish so. There is no need for a direct dialogue in this
>phase. Exchanges on mediated levels will do. Complex societies have got
>plenty mediators and interfaces. Use them. Indirect contact with the power
>to be does not effect your radical agenda as long as you maintain and
>upgrade your own dignity, both as an acting individual and as a group.
>
>Radical demands are not by default a sign of a dogmatic belief system
>(they can, of course). If formulated well they are strong signs,
>penetrating deeply into the confused postmodern subjectivity, so
>susceptive for catchy phrases, logos and brands. Invent and connect as
>much intentions, motivations, causalities as possible.
>
>These days a well-designed content virus can easily reach millions
>overnight. Invest all your time to research how to design a robust meme
>which can travel through time and space, capable to operate within a
>variety of cultural contexts. The duality between 'small is beautiful' and
>'subversive economies of scale' is constantly shifting. Low-tech
>money-free projects are charming, but in most cases lack the precision and
>creative power to strike at society's weakest link. Be ready to work with
>money. You will need it for the temporary setup.
>
>Think in terms of efficiency. Use the staff and infrastructure on the site
>of your foe. Acting in the new actonomy means to cut the preliminaries and
>get to the point straight away. A campaign does not rely on ones own
>forces, but on those of your allies and opponents as well. Outsourcing is
>a weapon. It is a means of giving someone else the problems you cannot
>solve yourself. Remember that you won't get very far without a proper
>infrastructure such as offices, servers, legal frameworks to receive and
>pay money, etc. However, you can also treat these institutional
>requirements as flexible units. You do not need to own them, the only
>thing you need is temporary access so that you can set up the machine
>ensemble you need for that particular project.
>
>Radical demands are not by default a sign of a dogmatic belief system
>(they can, of course). If formulated well they are strong signs,
>penetrating deeply into the confused postmodern subjectivity, so
>susceptive for catchy phrases, logos and brands.
>
>Invent and connect as much intentions, motivations, causalities as
>possible. Nowadays activists use multi-layered and multiple voice
>languages that reach out far beyond the immediate purpose of a campaign or
>a concrete struggle, and in doing so, they create a vision much larger
>than what is accessible right at the moment. This mechanism needs a
>re-assessment of rhizomatic micro-politics which sprung up in a response
>to the centralized macro politics of the decaying communist parties in the
>seventies.
>
>Act in a definite space and with a definite force. Dramaturgy is all that
>matters. Precision campaigns consists of distinct episodes with a
>beginning and an ending, an either smooth or harsh escalation and a final
>showdown. Accept the laws of appearance and disappearance. Don't get stuck
>in structures which are on the decline. Be ready to move on, taking with
>you the (access to) infrastructure of the previous round. Action is taking
>place in a variety of locations and thus refers in a positive way to a new
>stage of people's globalization from below. One that is not just an empty,
>endlessly extended market, but full of energy.
>
>Refuse to be blackmailed. If attacked, make one step aside or ahead. Don't
>panic. Take all the options into account. No one needs cyberheroes, you
>are not a lone hacker anymore. The attack maybe be done by a single person
>but remember we are many. The corporate response may be harder than you
>expect. It may be better to evade a direct confrontation, but don't trust
>the media and the mediators. Ignore their advice. In the end you are just
>another news item for them. If trouble hits the face, scale down, retreat,
>re-organize, get your network up, dig deep into the far corners of the
>Net--and then launch the counter campaign.
>
>Program and compile subject oriented campaigns! These days a lot of people
>talk about a global upraising, which is only in the very beginning and
>definitely not limited to running behind the so called battles of the
>three acronyms: WTO, WB and IMF. But the urgent question of that movement
>is: what new types of subjectivity will raise out of the current
>struggles? Everybody knows, what's to be done, but who knows, what are we
>fighting for and why? Maybe it doesn't matter anymore: net.activism is of
>a charming fragility. In the end it means permanently revising and
>redefining all goals.
>
>The revolution will be open source or not! Self determination is something
>you should really share. As soon as you feel a certain strength on a
>certain field, you can make your power productive as positive, creative
>and innovative force. That power opens up new capacities, reducing again
>and again unexpected and incalculable effects.
>
>Ignore history. Don't refer to any of your favorite predecessors. Hide
>your admiration for authors, artists and familiar styles. You do not need
>to legitimize yourself by quoting the right theorist or rapper. Be
>unscrupulously modern (meaning: ignore organized fashion, you are anyway
>busy with something else). Create and disseminate your message with all
>available logics, tools and media. The new actonomy involves a rigorous
>application of networking methods. It's diversity challenges the
>development of non-hierarchical, decentralized and deterritorialized
>applets and applications. In the meanwhile leave the preaching of the
>techno religion to others. Hide your admiration for everything new and
>cool. Just use it. Take the claim on the future away from corporations.
>Remember: they are the dinosaurs.
>
>Read as many business literature as possible and don't be afraid it may
>effect you. It will. Having enough ethics in your guts you can deal with
>that bit of ideology. Remember that activism and entrepreneurial spirit
>have a remarkably lot in common. So what? Benefit from your unlimited
>capacity of metamorphosis. With the right spirit you can survive any
>appropriation. Free yourself from the idea that enemy concepts are
>compromising the struggle. You don't have to convince yourself, nor your
>foe. The challenge is to involve those, who are not yet joining the
>struggle. The challenge is to use resources, which may not belong to you,
>but which are virtually yours.
>
>Sydney/Munich, June 2001
>
>
>
>
>#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
>#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
>#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
>#  more info: majordomo at bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
>#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at bbs.thing.net