Re: <nettime> morlock elloi

[Örsan Şenalp <orsan1234@gmail.com>]

Jaromil, Soros is in us, he is everywhere don't you see that :)

Suicide bunny..  funny.. though I don't really get in what sense what
I do here would bring my end himm may be you're right..

I wish, instead, you would think of me being spastic or autistic, or
too naive in insisting on authenticity of radical politics. Then I
wouldn’t mind.

Well.. even in case of extremely well planned and organized
revolutionary counter-conspiracy, which I don't think neither possible
or desirable, it would be almost impossible to be so close to Soros as
Evgeny is, (which he is not hiding) and be able to seriously pursue
any radical politics. Which is claimed or attributed to him here, and
other places, mainly mainstream and liberal media.

The booklet you refer, I shared on the other thread, by Evgeny and
Bria shows that Evgeny and Bria are collaborating, in and on
Barcelona, and other cities. where there are lots of stuff happening
about cities (movements), digit rights (movements), independence
movements etc. So it should not come as a surprise that Soros pops up
from somewhere.

This is what Evgeny says in his wiki-page: he is involved in Online
Transitions (of Eastern Europe and beyond), he is a fellow at the New
America Foundation (chaired by Eric Schmidt and Ann Marry Slaughter),
he sits in a OSF fellowship chair, he is blogging for the 'Foreign
Policy', he is a Yahoo fellow at 'Walsh School of Foreign Service'..
you name it.

Moreover Morozov's role in all these places, as in Barcelona, and in
broader Europe makes him one of the most influential persons of 2018
right, according to some Italian magazine (bet it is not an ordinary
one)? Do you really think he is such influential? Does anyone else?
Anyone without Soros funding-income relation ties him to do so? Can
you see or feel such influence when he is around you? in his link to
Francesca for instance, or may be Ada Colau or in Catalan Movement of
independence? or the rising cities movement?

If one would say Morozov’s is a genuinely radical internet critic, and
he has an amazingly bright brain and the creativity in his critics is
like Picasso painting.. and that is what brought him to where he is
now, others would probably lough at it and claim the opposite. One can
easily claim that those who are crediting him are doing that because
they have feel obliged, by consent and for self-interest, to be able
to get access to the next round of funding etc. And they can only be
radical as a liberal can, not further than that. A person from outside
would either see Morozov as part of Soros' inner circle, or would
think that Soros is really a radical-critical even a leftist one. Or
if Evgeny is a really radical left critic, then Soros is a suicide
bunny J

Seriously, I do think that these guys are playing a suicidal game, but
I don’t think in bunny's  way.

There is a clear connection, a good hacker cannot miss here.

Probably an individual, and his individual political vision could be
able to keep sort of autonomy or independence while working in Soros
circle. Yet it can only be a modest one, a liberal kind. What we read
from Calin Dan's 97 email to net-time list, even that was quite not
possible. Morally, in my opinion it is not even an issue, being part
of conspiracies of Soros (not the Soros conspiracy) is not a simple
thing, or joke.

He does not rely only on soft-velvet glows to fist countries down; or
only deploys tech tools for online transitions. The guy has involved
and does involve in dirty stuff too; in his tool kit there are
assassinations, spying, military coups, civil wars, or financing
armament and war parties, you name it.

Worse of all about not having a proper theory of class fractions and
Soros place in fractured class struggle is deadly. Soros’ operations,
as a class actor, have contributed massively in regenerating fascism
in Hungary, Russia, Turkey, Egypt.. and Trump too is partly of his
creation -and partly of the other fractions of finance capital against
which he might be struggling or resisting, but they have built a
transnational ‘deep state’ during the 80s and 90s. Of course fascists
own creativity and the despair of the masses too are part of the
story. Still one can make a sad collection of standardized Alex Jones
stories, in every language now; Jones became millionaire but almost in
each country where Soros operated there emerged many Joneses, Soros’
class operations fed conspiracy theories, and in return they enriched
the right wing bases. When seeing the involvement of liberal / radical
left-civil society coalitions with Soros’ operations masses bought
conspiracy theories and Ergodan, Orban, Putin, gained and consolidated
their power. They are growing on the fear of external threat and they
too create their own conspiracies; then national leftists and
ultra-right merges at the bottom again against the Soros led (plus NWO
conspiracy as a bonus)... This shit almost everywhere. And liberal and
libertarian nativity, liberal-left alliances against secular state
classes (sometimes formed with anti-secular forces like Muslim
Brothers, or Gulen in Turkey, of salafi or wahabi sort and others
leaves us what we look at as world now..

... now should we close our hacker eyes and not to see the burning
implications such relationships would have in terms of politics
-forget about the radical one; just plain politics.

And not develop any analysis of Soros, and his politics, to link all
these things being discussed on the list and he is linked to; because
fascists and neo-Nazis are targeting him..

At least Geert has been asking the right questions and calling for a
reasonable theory. Shouldn’t have he, and others ask those questions,
or did you, we found an answer?

Well to me, what underlies this Soros phenomenon is not the evil, or
not a Popperrian fallacy in ‘open society’ vision, or any conspiracy
of an esoteric kind. But it is purely and neatly about classes and
class struggle. It is systemic, about class act, and real
'conspiring'. Soros is related to a crack that emerged, back in time,
the Month Pelerin Society period. Between the good governance guys so
so-called neo-institutionalist on the one hand; and monetarist
neoliberals on the other. Actually the division goes further back to a
century ago. Roland Coase and his fellows are the successors of Dewey,
Veblen, Ford so on names of the progressive/efficiency era (at the end
19cc) representing 'the Industrialist' . Hayek, Friedman and their
fellows are then the successors of Carl Menger and Bhöm Bawerk, the
marginalist revolutionaries of 'the rentier' or 'the leisure classes'.

Modern time successors of these two camps have clashed in Chile, in
Turkey, and other military coups and in civil wars as in Vietnam and
Korea, till the end of 70s. At the time Reagan and Thatcher came to
power, and Paul Volcker put in charge as head of FED, at first a
neoliberalism-neo-institutionalism synthesis got formed. This was a
sort of systemic neo-liberalism what they started to build, something
akin to ‘ultra-imperialism’  theory of Kautsky. This one of the
reasons why liberal-left is this much in favour of Soros, since he was
playing a key role in the marriage of intellectuals and class agency
of two main finance capital fractions.

With the collapse of USSR and the NIEO bloc at the end of 80s and with
the shift of China to State capitalism, industrialist wing of the
finance capital became dependant more and more on the finance for new
investments, capturing privatisations in Eastern Europe, Africa, Asia
massive space opened up, freed from communists and alike. When the
Industrialist class fraction, represented by neo-institutionalists
lost their influence Volcker lost his position to Greenspan. Thus
Hayekian vision (exactly as it happened at the end of 1880s with the
Marginalist revolution) came to the fore and captured the commanding
heights. The replacement of neo-neo synthesis called Washington
Consensus. What was happening both in 1880s and 1980s were almost
identical. The loss of systemic grasp of the industrialist wing of
finance capital and capture of the commanding heights by money dealing
and interest bearing capital fractions.

As his patron Popper, Soros too had been playing a middle man role,
bridging between these two clicks -for the sake of the system. Here
comes in his 'reflexivity theory' in, which Soros claims to apply to
financial markets in explaining how he wins. Yet where he also applies
his theory is trasformismo: co-opting left critical reflections, for
systemic survival purposes.

The above gives a brief synthesis of Gerard Dumenil & Dominique Levi’s
and Kees Van der Pijl’s analyses (which I referred in earlier email).
To my knowledge, and in my opinion, these present best available
fractional analysis of intra-class struggle that has been shaping the
global-transnational capitalisms and its crisis since 20st cc. In
class and fraction terms, totality of the mentioned above represents
the transnational monopoly/finance capital; which is divided into two
fractions. Those tied to giant industrial businesses and investments
on the one hand, and those others who are more, if not totally,
independent from industry -thus dominating it.

The workers and managerial classes needs to be added into broader
picture and then you have national capitalists resisting to these
globalists at their back yards, if they can by playing to the hand of
one or other side, or forming a strong hold nationalist base, as
Putin, Erdogan, Orban etc.

In this picture, Soros is, unlike Volcker, not only an organic
intellectual (as a reflexive-system theorist) but he also is an active
class agency and structure in flesh and blood, between the fractions
of finance capital. He is a money dealing capitalist, which might have
investor clients with closer ties to the industry, putting his money
both in giant industrial investments etc. This puts him into contact
with the OBOR and Industrial Internet consortium, Cisco and IBM, Intel
etc. vs. Googles, Facebooks, and others. Yet he still has the ability
to play like the letter fraction, which is the owners of Wall Street
giants like Morgan, Sachs, part of Rockefeller and Rothschild etc. So,
I bet if one go through Soros’ largest investors, one would find those
corporations that have closer ties to the industry, while their money
is also invested whatever brings more and easier money including wars
and military industrial complex, or Google.

well I am sure I can’t change Jaromil your view but I hope this would
sound better to others; more like a class analysis of a conspiracy
then a stupid conspiracy-theory..
#  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: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: