Alexander Bard on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 13:09:59 +0100 (CET)

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

<nettime> Digital leftism in a globalised world?

Dear Carlo & Co

I love how Nettime easily explodes into a debate forum for hundreds
of issues simultaneously. The brainpower here is magnificent. However
there are just too many different threads here all at once for me to
be able to respond to decently.

Glad we agree though that crypto currencies are a major problem to
nation-state-based taxation. It is not now. But it certainly will
be. Cyberspace with encryption has plenty of room for new panamas.
Ethereum is soon to be found in every web browser. Just like Telegram
is killing text messaging as we speak. Especially among smartphone
users on boats crossing the Mediterranean "illegally".

Plus that there is a constant on-going political struggle between a
liberal cosmopolitanism and a socialist nationalism. Where my hopes
for a socialist cosmopolitanism either can not find support on this
forum, or is simply unrealistic to begin with. I guess I need to work
on that myself. However, birth rates are way higher in Sweden and
France these days than they are in Italy. So for the research you are
asking for in that department, Carlo, you had better ask women what
motivates them to give birth to kids in the first place. In Africa and

In Sweden and France, women find plenty of affordable creches and can
therefore keep having careers and kids at the same time. In Korea
and Italy, it is either a career or housewifing next. You should not
be surprised that most women then opt for the first rather than the
latter. Consequently, Korean and Italian birth rates have imploded
(currently 1.2 kids per woman). While Sweden and France keep at least
replacement rates (2.1 kids per woman). So pensions issues alone
do not explain birth rates. Neither does blaming "neoliberalism"
for neither this nor that. Unless it is "neoliberal" to just ignore
women, in which case neoliberalism ironically seems to coincide with
the growth and success of feminism. ;-) However I would agree that
Goldman Sachs of course is "a neoliberal institution" that wields
enormous power. Ironically more so under Trump than under any previous
president. But I personally just refer to that as "capitalism" per
se. Since when there is nothing new about something, there is also
no need to attach a "neo" prefix. Or to invent a "protocolism" for
that matter, for our otherwise brilliant brother Felix, when there is
already something called the worship of "the rule of law". Which is in
turn where the socialist nationalism, which I have such problems with,
always seems to return. Is that really the only option? Then why not
China as our model for the future?

I guess I had better ask my therapeut if I'm a closet
anarcho-libertarian then. Does anybody here have access to Peter
Thiel's private drug binges? ;-)

Best intentions, from a sunny Cape Town
Alexander Bard

2017-01-31 2:09 GMT+01:00 carlo von lynX <>:

> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 01:01:09PM +0100, Alexander Bard wrote:
> > Thank you for an excellent expose of your position on world politics and
> > your defense of the term "neoliberalism".
> I was just exercising empathy towards people that use it more than me.  ;)


#  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: