Marxist analysis of the internet: read up b4 coming to my session...

I have taken this straight from Counterfire.    

We have posted this as a way to get people thinking about the various issues that are usually not considered with the internet. Read up before coming to my session on the internet - does anyone fancy helping to co-facilitate using Hoot suite or Scribble Live? (or something similar)

Christian Fuchs analyses the complexities of the relationship between the internet, revolutionary theory and the struggle for socialism.

Does the Internet mainly harm or advance socialist emancipation? Does it mainly destabilize or stabilize capitalism and exploitation? In my view, these questions are incorrectly asked and imply one-sided answers.The task for a critical analysis of the role of media and technology in capitalism is to conceive these phenomena as dialectical and antagonistic.
Neither neo-Luddism nor techno-utopianism are adequate left-wing reactions to the fact that digital media to a certain extent shape the ways we work, live, communicate, act, and think.
The Marxian notion of the antagonism between the productive forces and the relations of production is helpful for analyzing the role of knowledge and the media in contemporary capitalism in a more complex manner.
Marx formulated this antagonism in the following words: “The contradiction between the general social power into which capital develops, on the one hand, and the private power of the individual capitalists over these social conditions of production, on the other, becomes ever more irreconcilable, and yet contains the solution of the problem, because it implies at the same time the transformation of the conditions of production into general, common, social, conditions”.
In one of the most well-known passages of his works, Marx says that the “material conditions for the existence” of “new superior relations of production” mature “within the framework of the old society” and that the “productive forces developing within bourgeois society create also the material conditions for a solution of this antagonism”.
Information systems and knowledge in production are economic factors that influence and enable the creation of knowledge goods and services that are sold as commodities.
On the Internet, knowledge is commodified in several ways: it is either directly sold as commodity (you for example pay for downloading music on iTunes) or is provided for free by companies in order to attract a large number of users to platforms so that the users can be commodified and sold as a user/prosumer commodity to advertising clients.
This shows that within capitalist society, knowledge and information systems are subsumed under the capitalist relations of production. But this fact does not allow the conclusion that technologies and media in general are only means of exploitation and means for the production of relative surplus value. It is due to three specific characteristics of information networks that networked productive forces come in contradiction with the capitalist relations of:

1. Information as a strategic economic resource is globally produced and diffused by networks. It is a good that is hard to control in single places or by single owners.
2. Information is intangible. It can easily be copied, which results in multiple ownerships and hence undermines individual private property.
3. The essence of networks is that they strive for establishing connections. Networks are in essence a negation of individual ownership and the atomism of capitalism.

The specific antagonism of networked information systems (such as the Internet) is that they at the same time have the potential to threaten and reproduce private property and capitalist class relations. The openness, connectivity, communicability, co-operation, and sociality supported by the Internet on the one hand makes information a good that can easily be made available without payment.
Legal mechanisms (intellectual property rights, privacy statements, terms of use) and online advertising strategies on the other hand enable companies to criminalize information sharing and to accumulate capital by opening up platforms without payment to users, setting advertising rates according to the attracted amount of users, storing, analyzing, assessing, and selling user data and usage behaviour data to advertising clients (economic surveillance).
The Internet in capitalist society is therefore highly antagonistic. It is an expression of networked productive forces that anticipate the idea of a co-operative participatory economy, in which the means of production or co-operatively controlled by the immediate producers. The Internet is therefore also, but not only, a Keimform (germ cell) of communism.
But the very principles of networking, openness, decentralization that are at the heart of the Internet are also principles that enable new accumulation strategies. The Internet opens up and closes down possibilities for communism at the same time.
This analysis cast doubts on the assumption that political action can operate outside of antagonisms. It implies that progressive politics are, at least as long as we live in a capitalist society, in most instances antagonistic themselves. Given the antagonistic Internet, what can socialist net politics look like?
Communism most likely will not arrive tomorrow, it is not knocking on our doors in the current time of global crisis. This is at least what can be observed by the reactions of most citizens to the fact that capital has once again shipwrecked and has been saved by states with the help of taxpayers’ money.
The reaction has not been a wave of mass protests, but a shift towards the political right in many countries and a wait-see-hope-attitude in others (let’s wait until the crisis is over, let’s see if I will be affected, let’s hope that not I, but others will be damaged).
This shows that dreaming of revolution is today rather utopian – it is only an idea that has no mass support. A politics of radical reformism is needed that aims at changing the institutions in such a way that critical action can become more likely.
For net politics this means that the likelihood that the antagonism between the networked productive forces and the relations of production will have predominantly socialist and not capitalist effects can only be increased by left wing political actions, both in parliament, civil society, and as a combination of both. Elements of socialist net politics could for example include:

• the legalization of file sharing
• the introduction of a guaranteed basic income for cultural producers, financed by increasing capital taxation
• state subsidies for non-commercial, advertising-free, non-profit Internet projects
• the introduction of the legal requirement that commercial Internet platform providers operate based on opt-in advertising mechanisms
• the introduction of an Internet tax on online advertising revenues
• affirmative action mechanisms that increase the visibility of alternative online media on the Internet, make the existence of these platforms known to the people, and make the usage of alternative Internet platforms fun and attractive

Many more potential elements of socialist net politics are imaginable. My argument is that progressive net politics require the connection to a movement for the renewal of a true social democracy. Such a social democracy cannot be a form of Bliarism or a kind of politics that is brown instead of red. It must recover and renew its own socialist roots.
The British elections 2010 will unfortunately not improve the possibilities or realities of socialist politics and socialist net politics, it will instead bring more of the same uniform neoliberal one-dimensionality, disguised and media-hyped as being young, fresh, and dynamic.
From a socialist perspective, the difference between Cameron, Glegg, and Brown is marginal. British neoliberalism will continue after just like before the elections. And this does not promise good times for net politics either.

Christian Fuchs is associate professor at the University of Salzburg and member of the executive board of the Unified Theory of Information Research Group. His fields of interest are: social theory, critical theory, media and society, information society studies, ICTs and society. He is author of more than 120 publications, including “Internet & Society” (Routledge 2008) and “Foundations of Critical Media and Information Studies” (Routledge 2010). Website: http://fuchs.uti.at,

A successful start

I'm nicking this from Luna 17 coz he has written it so succinctly that it is hardly worth me re-writing (good ole creative commons!)

All I shall add at the mo is that if you want to get involved, DO. You can send any thing of interest to content@counterfire.org, you can come to events and you can suggest things for us to do differently. Do keep looking out for changes-this is a Work in Progress and, due to the nature of the new technologies we have at our disposal, always will be.

A successful start

I'm part of the editorial team for the Counterfire website which was launched last Monday. During its first week the site had around 10,000 visits, an extremely promising start.

News stories include new revelations of abuses of migrant workers, the decision to allow BNP members in teaching, left-wing campaigner Clare Solomon's victory in the London student elections, and the truth behind media myths about NATO operations in Afghanistan.

Feature articles includean insightful look at 'Why kids kill kids' (in the wake of controversy about Jon Venables), Michael Moore's new film reviewed, an overview ofthe crisis in Greece and why it has global implications, and an account of how the internet was used to mobilise against Berlusconi in Italy.

There'slots more already in the pipeline, which will be working its way online in the coming days and weeks. And if you have a report, pictures or video footage to contribute yourself, please get in touch.

Penny Red makes shortlist of Orwell Prize-YEY

I am chuffed that our good friend, Mutiny contributer and F.A.B. blogger Penny Red has now made it one step further in the Orwell Prize to the shortlist...

And true to her style she doesn't let them off the hook-read her report from said event HERE

Good luck Laurie-i wish we could vote :-(

Facebook help group for Volcano strandees

You can join the group HERE

What a brilliant use of facebook. People are offereing free accomodation and food and more. This is exactly the sort of thing the internet is good for and why we should campaign to keep access to it free and for all.

This is the Tweet going round: Nearly 1000 stranded travelers&locals networking on Facebook: JOIN US! http://bit.ly/bjyzPq #getmehome #putmeup

Follow those two hashtags for information, advice and help.

Hello iPad, Goodbye Internet As We Know It

Cheers to Richard from the excellent Third Estate blog for alerting me to this fab piece. He promises he's going to write more in the Internet, and from an Arendtian position (?!) - is that a sort of post-Heideggarian technology/nature stance then? Anyway, totally looking forward to it.

The US launch of the iPad marks a historic moment. Not ‘the end of books’ as some doomsayers would have it, or the even the start of the great Books vs Internet wars. No, today Apple has reversed the flow of their business model. And with it, the internet.

Some explanation. Ever wondered why most people have PCs, even though Apple Macs look nicer, work better and are more cutting edge technologically? There’s a very simple answer. It’s because when Microsoft and Apple were starting up, they used two different business models. Microsoft franchised: they’d produce the software, and would actively help anyone else build the hardware. Apple, on the other hand, was to always make the software and the hardware together, and allow no sharing or copying of either part of the design. This is exemplified by the iPod and iTunes.

This started to change a few years ago with the release of the MacBook (bear with me here, all will be revealed). The switch from Motorola to Intel microchips means that any Mac can run Microsoft Windows as well as Apple’s own software. Today, the iPad is released on the US market – and expressly enables other companies to develop their own software (‘Apps’) for the iPad. While Apple has got its own ‘iBooks’ (yes, really), there’s also going to be Apps from Amazon, Barnes & Noble and, when the iPad gets released in Britain later this month, undoubtedly iWaterstones and eFoyles will make appearances as well.

All those best sellers just lining up to be best sold

As you can tell, the big plus about the iPad is that it supports ebooks like never before. Even though Amazon released the Kindle last year, whose screen is actually seen by many as superior to the iPad’s, the book über-emporiorum stated that they “look forward to making Kindle available for iPad very soon.”

What? ‘But Kindle’s a piece of hardware!’ I hear you say. ‘How can a piece of hardware be made available on another piece of hardware?’ A very good question indeed. What Amazon means by this enigmatic little nugget is that they’re going to be releasing software called something naff like iKindle, to be used on iPads to buy eBooks. This burgeoning market of small letter software is about two main things: adverts and publishers.

What the Times sees as a great deal for consumers, in which a price war makes ebooks cheaper and cheaper, is actually a really good method for ensuring that big publishing houses increase their control in the market, not just be being able to offer ebooks at a price that cuts below that needed by any publisher to support writers and researchers. I don’t want to give an impression here that this is about starving novellists, poets writing in the garret by the light of the moon and the glow of the screen. This is about journals, newspapers, magazines. It’s about high quality independent research and cutting comment.

Already we’ve seen over the past 6 months alone all sorts of clamp downs on the unadulterated free content promised by the internet. From the Digital Economy Bill to Google Books, from Sky News to the New Yorker, the days of free online content are coming to an end. ‘Hey, there are always ways to get round these things!’ I hear you interject again. ‘I mean Napster and Pirate Bay might be hounded by big governments and corporations, but we’ll find a way, right?’

Wrong. Because, just like with big book stores, most people aren’t going to be using the small independent software on their iPad – their going to be relying on big business to give them access to the world of words. But this time it’s all digital, which means its a lot, lot easier to control and manipulate.

When I read history essays or NEF reports online, no one interferes with my experience at the moment. But just as we’ve seen that change with music, so it might well change with books. Youtube videos now come with pop up adverts and dollar signs; Spotify seems to be increasing its advert to music ratio each day. All these new ebook reading applications are going to support these kinds of tie-ins: buy three volumes of Freud and get a pop-up ad for Lady GaGa.

The Communist Manifesto ebook: now with added rotation!

But most importantly, the technological control of information allows for the clawing away of that access in a state of emergency. This doesn’t just mean the effective banning of radical texts, something which, remember, we’ve seen in the last few years both on the left and on the right. It can also be for the smallest, most ridiculous-seeming reasons: it’s worth recalling that the first call for state monopoly of the printing presses came from an Italian humanist to the Pope in 1471 (a mere ten years after Gutenberg’s invention), complaining that the quality of the Latin texts produced were so poor that the Vatican should legislate all printing activity immediately.

While the rest of the world is Pope bashing, maybe we should stop and examine the activities of our own growing church of ideas – all hail the Corporations of the Text! Maybe to elucidate a bit more where I’m coming from on this, here’s the excellent James Boyle:

“I care about the Web not because I want to live my life there, but because of what it has allowed us to achieve, what it represents for the potential of open science and culture… In place of what we have today, I think…we are trying to reinvent a tamer, more controlled Web and to change the nature of the underlying networks on which it operates. We would restrict openness of access, decrease anonymity, and limit the number of actions that a network participant could perform.

“The benefits would be undeniable. It would cut down on spam, viruses, and illicit peer-to-peer file sharing. At the same time, it would undercut the iconoclastic technological, cultural and political potential the Web offer, the ability of a new technology, a new service to build on open networks and open protocols, without needing approval from regulators or entrenched market players, or even the owner of the Web pages to which you link.”

I’m not saying there’s anything in particular we can do about all this: at least, no one’s told me a course of grass-roots action we could take yet. I’m certainly not about to go on a bout of boycotting. But at the least we should be aware of this almost inevitable drive towards the restriction of the free information age.

Related Posts:

• How can philosophers change history if they can’t read it?
• Coercion and the defunct
• Murdoch’s proposals are good for journalism and good for us
• The Price of Philanthro-Capitalism
• We need to talk about the future of the creative industries.

Internet for Activists mtg at Soas

Filmshowing and discussion-all welcome.

 Do spread the word. Note, the date is wrong on the poster. It is on November 5 (not October).


Click, copy, print and put up!

Cyberspace Lenin...absolutely

Thanks to Luna 17 for his well presented argument HERE

Following on from my continuing calls for better use of the new technologies that are at our disposal, in the implementing of the Internet for Activists conference that I helped set up in March, and also from the way ICT was employed in the recent occupations I am currently writin a paper on the political uses of the internet vis a vis the revolutionary paper for Historical Materialism conference in November.

Please add any useful links and advice below.

So relevant is the 'quote of the day' below to our situation today that I want to flag it up as a post as well...

Solomon Quotes Marxists (and friends)

Quote for the Day: 22 August 2009

any army which does not train to use all the weapons, all the means and methods of warfare that the enemy possesses, or may possess, is behaving in an unwise or even criminal manner. This applies to politics even more than it does to the art of war.

Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder (1920)

Campaign victory: FREE Communism for ALL!!

We are delighted to announce that our campaign to allow the masses into the On the Idea of Communism Conference has been successful.

A campaign which combined practical action mirrored online has lead the organisers of the conference to do the following:

1) Organise an overflow room with live linkup
2) Provide time to launch the Free Our Books Campaign in Logan Hall at 1pm.

We would like to thank the organisers for being so understanding and for supporting our action.

More details soon.

I just need to do something but I will write a full report in a bit.

On the Practice of Communism: we have an idea...

The On the Idea of Communism conference being hosted by Zizek's department and Birkbeck college has attracted more that a murmur of criticism over the £100 (£45 if you are a Birkbeck student) entrance fee. 

The mass intellect, argues Toni Negri (one of the speakers), needs to appropriate the general intellect and it was by this argument that the 'On the Commodification of Communism' motion I submitted to the recent UGM was passed unanimously. 

I couldn't believe we didn't get a single vote against-not even a snigger from the Tories about 1) communism, 2) education not being for the masses or 3) educational institutions needing to cover their costs by charging. 

The motion resolved to challenge Birkbeck and for the SU exec to back any action that may result if the mass intellect is not listened to.

As far as I know none of the speakers are getting paid. Having organised fundraisers in the Logan Hall before and only charging £7 entrance I am fully aware of the cost of hiring said hall. If we say that 50% of the 933 attendees are paying £45, and allocate £1,000 speaker expenses per speaker, by my generous calculations Bbk will be making around £45,000. And that's without even taking into consideration the money made from undoubtable postconference book deal.

We understand that goverment cutbacks have left these institutions with massive financial holes but it  should not be us who are paying for their crisis. They could at least offer some concessions to those who really cant afford it.

Rejoicing in our smoking area I was talking about peoples plans to disrupt the conference. It turned out that I was chatting to someone from the Zizek department. Ooops! 

Whilst I am totally in favour of direct action under most circumstances (being the first uni to occupy and having a hand in the Queen Mary occupation, occupying NUS stage at conference and BBC HQ's), I am not in favour of storming the stage at this prestigious 'left-wing' conference. Not only is it not a good idea to attack the left, which, even though we would be critising Birkbeck, is how it would appear, but I would prefer positive action to come out of our protests. 

So, it is on this basis that we are proposing for academics to take affirmitive action. We call all academics to commit to allowing their publications to be available online for free. 

We would like to invite participants of the Communism conference to attend our Internet for Activists conference where we will be launching the Free Our Books Campaign. 

BREAKING NEWS: Our first speaker Hicham Yezza has been charged and sentenced to 9 months.

Our first speaker for our Internet for our Internet for Activists conference has been sentenced to nine months

I have just received a call from his agent who has given me the small bit of information above. Of his nine month sentence they expect him to be incarcerated for 4 1/2. The charge is “securing avoidance of immigration control using deception” and comes under the Immigration Act.

This is an absolute outrage. What sort of civil liberties do we have when a well known activist and columnist is charged with this farce of an excuse.

His blog will be updated soon.

We would like to send a message of solidarity to him and thank him so much for going out of his way to find time for us for our conference.

Please also send messages to: emailaprisoner.com

NEW, but still, provisional line-up for Internet for Activists Conference 2009

See blog HERE for more info.

Provisional Line up for conference
	Room G2	Room B102: workshops
10.00-10.30am	Registration
10.30-11.45am	Opening plenary: On the political uses of the internet Speakers: Hicham Yezza. Ex-Nottingham student and Guardian columnist Fiona Osler of Red Pepper and author of "The Activist's Guide to the Internet" Dr. Kevin Gillan, Sociologist, http://www.antiwarresearch.info/
11.45-12.00	Break
12.00-13.00	Internet Security Speakers: George Danezis, Microsoft Research Security Group Rep from the Open Rights Group	Effective online organisation: Widgets, live and micro-blogging & co-ordination Speaker by live link-up from Egypt: Hossam el-Hamalawy of Arabawy blog
13.00-13.30	Lunch. Available in common room
13.30-14.30 Please arrive by 13.00 as there may be unscheduled changes to this session.	Free Our Books Campaign Launch: Speakers so far: Toni Prug. More soon. See http://www.freeourbooks.org.uk/ More info will be added soon	Workshop: Using Humour Effectively Online Speaker: Kate Smurthwaite, Cruella Blog
14.30-14.45	Break
14.45-15.45	Blogging for Building Campaigns Speakers: Richard Seymour of Lenin's Tomb Tim Ireland of Bloggerheads Laurie Penny of Penny Red	Workshop: Video Activism Speaker: Ady Cousins Bring equipment if you want to get started straight away
15.45-16.00	Break
16.00-17.00	Effective Online Campaigning - Success Stories Rep from Encyclopedia Dramatica on the anti-Scientology movement David Semple from ThoughCowardsFlinch and Liberal Conspiracy Karin Robinson, Political Consultant, blogger and regional director of the Americans Abroad for Obama campaign.	Workshop: "Be the Media" With members of Indymedia UK.
Laptop surgery will be run all day in SOAS JCR. Please bring your own equipment to participate in the workshops and your own experiences or questions to participate in the plenaries.
17.00-22.00	Entertainment, food and networking in SOAS bar
Stalls and bookshops all day