www.nettime.org
Nettime mailing list archives

Re: <nettime> New Media Education and Its Disconnects [2x]
nettime's digest on Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:17:27 +0200 (CEST)


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

Re: <nettime> New Media Education and Its Disconnects [2x]




Table of Contents:

   Re: <nettime> New Media Education and Its Disconnects                           
     Ian Dickson <ian {AT} iand.demon.co.uk>                                              

   Re: <nettime> New Media Education and Its Disconnects                           
     joseph rabie <joe {AT} overmydeadbody.org>                                           



------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 09:02:29 +0100
From: Ian Dickson <ian {AT} iand.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: <nettime> New Media Education and Its Disconnects

In message <200310171214.h9HCEdX02314 {AT} bbs.thing.net>, joseph rabie 
<joe {AT} overmydeadbody.org> writes
>
>
>A better idea? Call it post-Capitalism (or whatever else).
>
First of all you like to use the term "in a perfect world". Which is 
great, except of course that rules designed for perfect worlds tend to 
be unable to cope with smart, ruthless and imperfect human beings.

Communism, for example, works "in a perfect world". Sadly every time it 
has been tried it has been found that human beings are imperfect, and 
the result is a mess, normally exacerbated by the fact that the most 
imperfect people tend to take control of it.
>A company is built on four foundations:
>
>The Clients:
>Are the company's raison d'Ítre. In a perfect world, the company treats
>them with respect, providing them with useful products that are well
>made. Not as in our world, where the client is to be carpet bombed with
>advertising so that he buys whatever he is told to buy.

Do you buy everything you are told to buy?

Who does?

Are other people, but obviously not you, or me, or anyone else on 
Nettime, so weak willed that they buy what they are told to buy?

Should there be restriction on adverts, yes (no spam, to children, of 
products that are known to be major causes of harm - cigs, alcohol and 
perhaps fast food), but other than that, if a TV company wants to put 
15mins of ads in it can. I''ll go and read a book. If a business 
magazine wants to have 100 pages of ads, it can. I'll skip them.
>
>The Employees:
> From the top to the bottom, they are the company's real wealth. In a
>perfect world, the company treats them with respect, allowing them to
>feel truly the dignity of doing a useful job, and living comfortably in
>so doing, because they are paid a decent wage. If possible, all
>participate in collegial fashion in the working of the company. They are
>motivated and give their best.

Actually most people agree that the only reason companies exist (and 
people becomes employees) is because for most people that is the way to 
maximise their income/lifestyle.

Once of the reasons that company size is falling is that communications 
make smaller units more viable.

In a world of perfect information everyone would be their own agent.

Re wages etc. Those wages need to be paid by income, which means money 
from outside the organisation which comes from where?

If a company makes X for $10, and then in India a company makes it for 
$1, which is the right thing for a US customer to do?

Buy from the US, to keep the US worker in comfort but leave the Indian 
worker starving and destitute, or buy from India and leave the US 
worker, at best facing wages cuts, at worst, out of a job?
>
>Society:
>Is what allows the company to exist, by providing conditions in which it
>can function and fructify, and by allowing the same of the company's
>clients. In a perfect world, corporations respect the state, and pay
>taxes willingly, because the common good is fortified by solidarity
>between all.

 From each according to his ability, to each according to their need?
>
>The investors:
>The investors provide the means for the company to develop. In a perfect
>world, they respect the company for what it does, the good that it
>provides, and not simply as a cash cow for dividends that should be as
>high as possible and fuck the rest. The investor is a supplier for the
>company that supplies it with  capital (amongst the company's other
>suppliers, which supply raw materials, computer equipment, and staples),
>thus a commercial partner, and is entitled to reasonable profits for
>what it provides. Indeed, the investor is itself a company which treats
>its clients (our company, for example) with respect.

This already happens in some sectors, (mainly those which are natural 
monopolies - for example in the UK the Gvt determines investment rates 
and price limits in the water industry).

However I am in business, and I will be seeking investors soon. I expect 
that they will only invest if they respect our company for what we do. 
But unless I respect them enough to deliver the return they need for 
their other purposes (which, since most equity investment is collective 
investment funds, means ordinary people keeping a roof over their head, 
their medical bills paid, and food on their table) they would be right 
to feel annoyed.

Always remember that a company or any organisation is nothing more than 
a legal fiction, an invented tool and rule set designed to balance 
frequently conflicting interests. Whenever anyone starts talking about 
"respecting a company" or "companies respecting the state" I get 
worried. Companies cannot respect or be respected, only PEOPLE can do 
that
>

Cheers
- -- 
ian dickson                                  www.commkit.com
phone +44 (0) 1452 862637                    fax +44 (0) 1452 862670
PO Box 240, Gloucester, GL3 4YE, England

           "for building communities that work"


------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 20:14:23 +0200
From: joseph rabie <joe {AT} overmydeadbody.org>
Subject: Re: <nettime> New Media Education and Its Disconnects

> First of all you like to use the term "in a perfect world". Which is 
> great, except of course that rules designed for perfect worlds tend to 
> be unable to cope with smart, ruthless and imperfect human beings.


One can have two views on human beings. The first is that by evolution 
and genetics, we are naturally rapacious creatures in a kill or be 
killed world - in other words "smart, ruthless and imperfect". The 
second is that we are capable of inventing a humanist moral conception 
to structure our lives, in which societies function on the basis of 
solidarity and responsibility. The second is more difficult, since it 
means that we have to constantly oppose our "survival of the fittest" 
nature with altruistic behaviour. Generally corporations and the right 
wing political forces that second them prefer the former, since they 
favour personal gain before social progress.

- ----

> Who does?
>
> Are other people, but obviously not you, or me, or anyone else on 
> Nettime, so weak willed that they buy what they are told to buy?
>
> Should there be restriction on adverts, yes (no spam, to children, of 
> products that are known to be major causes of harm - cigs, alcohol and 
> perhaps fast food), but other than that, if a TV company wants to put 
> 15mins of ads in it can. I''ll go and read a book. If a business 
> magazine wants to have 100 pages of ads, it can. I'll skip them.

The problem lies with a system of market domination which favours the 
rich and powerful, and bankrupts those who do not have the size that 
allows them to survive. Kids need shoes, but they force their parents to 
buy Nike not because they are better or cheaper, but because they are 
constantly brainwashed to do so.

- ----

> In a world of perfect information everyone would be their own agent.

Do you mean like in the New Economy? RIP. Lots of independent people 
working as their own bosses? Please explain, I am perplexed.

- ----

> Re wages etc. Those wages need to be paid by income, which means money 
> from outside the organisation which comes from where?

This has been dealt with in "clients".

- ----

> Buy from the US, to keep the US worker in comfort but leave the Indian 
> worker starving and destitute, or buy from India and leave the US 
> worker, at best facing wages cuts, at worst, out of a job?

Even better, buy from a US company using cheap Asian child labour, and 
help drive the US company's share price up. Even better, buy some of the 
company's shares!

- ----
 

> From each according to his ability, to each according to their need?

Well said!

- ----

> This already happens in some sectors, (mainly those which are natural 
> monopolies - for example in the UK the Gvt determines investment rates 
> and price limits in the water industry).

The privatisation of water distribution throughout the world is leading 
to higher prices for consumers and a drop in the quality service. Ask 
the people of Atlanta how they are faring with Vivendi. In general, the 
difference between a public service and a private company in our brave 
corporate world is that the latter serves to create value for its 
shareholders, and its clients are merely the means for arriving at this. 
Another good example is British Rail.

- ----

> However I am in business, and I will be seeking investors soon. I 
> expect that they will only invest if they respect our company for what 
> we do. But unless I respect them enough to deliver the return they 
> need for their other purposes (which, since most equity investment is 
> collective investment funds, means ordinary people keeping a roof over 
> their head, their medical bills paid, and food on their table) they 
> would be right to feel annoyed.

Well, I have just raised money for the company that I direct. I was 
forced to accept extreme conditions because they've got the money, while 
I am afire to get to work on my project. They didn't even come see what 
we are doing, all that interested them were the figures in the business 
plan.

- ----

> Always remember that a company or any organisation is nothing more 
> than a legal fiction, an invented tool and rule set designed to 
> balance frequently conflicting interests.

No, a company or any organisation is a group of people who have a common 
aim, project, or passion. The company allows them to pool ressources 
(financial, intellectual) to get the job done and also to get some 
satisfaction out of their meagre three score and ten of earthly 
presence. Please stop with the jungle bullshit.

- ----

> Whenever anyone starts talking about "respecting a company" or 
> "companies respecting the state" I get worried. Companies cannot 
> respect or be respected, only PEOPLE can do that

That is your mistake, putting PEOPLE in that position. The whole point 
of society is that the sum of people, the whole, is greater than its 
constituent parts. We are individuals, but our dignity as individuals 
can only be expressed through our social integration.


Joe
http://www.overmydeadbody.org




------------------------------

#  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