Keith Hart on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 05:22:02 +0100 (CET)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: <nettime> Protocols and Crises

   Looks promising, Felix. An abstract should be abstract and this one is
   not confused, just sometimes elliptical,
   Some notes:
   The three types of power (hard, soft, neo-liberal) seem to be discrete
   categories, but don't their inter-relationships blur those boundaries?
   The contrast between hard/soft and neo-liberal power seems overdrawn,
   especially given its economic model's reliance on coercive states.
   The focus on protocols is apt. Maybe spell out further how protocols,
   rules and laws are the same but different. When protocols operate
   through rules are these the same as 'rules'? Don't use 'protocolarian'
   -- it won't catch on.
   Visible/invisible and performative/representative surely crosscut each
   of your two triads above (maybe stick to two only rather than repeat
   -eg. technical, legal, normative). Not sure about 'representative'
   "to promote neo-liberal goals of competition through market exchange":
   this is the official ideology, not the reality -- all capitalists try
   to avoid competition like the plague. The main goal of neo-liberal
   �globalization is to remove barriers to the free flow of capital
   everywhere; the other factors are less mobile and capital can exploit
   price discrepancies.
   The rest of this paragraph -- the shift from describing the last three
   decades to the right-wing response now is too compressed. Strong men
   (Trump, Putin, Erdogan, Modi, maybe a Frenchwoman soon?) are only one
   type of 'right-wing' phenomena and I thought right/left had become
   blurred in recent decades. What about the British Tories (backed by the
   City). Is the Chinese CP right or left, it's certainly strong?
   So not Keynesian -- many thought the 2008 crash would let the
   nation-state back in, but that didn't happen. It seems that you are
   protocol in the IT, not diplomatic sense. But are you proposing that
   progressives should limit themselves to telecommunications? If not, how
   does that aspect of a 'progressive' response relate to other forms,
   including whatever is necessary to combat the strong men?
   So you have an argument, but there are big gaps in it. Maybe you should
   write the full argument and then summarize it.

   On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Felix Stalder <[1]>

     [This text is an abstract for a larger argument I hope to develop on how
     to frame the political character of the crisis, by understanding the
     appeal of trump and other stongmen, while trying to avoid the trap of
     leftwing nationalism (which I think is largely an illusion). I know it's
     very abstract and I'm not even sure if the argument really works, but
     it's perhaps a start.... Felix]

#  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:
#  archive: contact:
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: