www.nettime.org
Nettime mailing list archives

<nettime> WG: Fwd: Re: Forms of decisionism
Dr. Ludger Eversmann on Sun, 24 Jul 2016 20:19:32 +0200 (CEST)


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

<nettime> WG: Fwd: Re: Forms of decisionism


   Hi all,

   let me shortly introduce myself: I worked on this field of cultural and
   technological progress since my doctoral dissertation in Business
   Information Systems Engineering in 2002, with focal point on all these
   resulting questions when it is assumed that technological progress is
   stepping on and possibly set to a maximum; questions like where
   actually is a limit to automation (calculable mashines), it it
   justified to replace human work by mashines, how, what are the
   conditions, which socioeconic conditions could highly developed
   industrial production systems lead to.

   In 2014 i publshed some little scetches on this ("Projekt
   Postkapitalismus"), and i found that Felix Stalder had mentioned this
   in a foot note in his' book "Kultur der Digitalit�, which then has
   led me here to this list. You will find that my English is very bad, i
   have to apologize for this and will do my very best to give you all an
   idea of what i intent to say.

   If we find that the development of capitalism is structured into
   large-scale patterns like stated by the mentioned long wave economic
   theories, my impression is that the core factor that drives
   developments is increase of productivity, whatever factors (cultural,
   political, economical) around this are influencing the actual
   developments.. Intelligent use of advanced mashinery plus skilled
   workers plus access to energy and raw materials made societies rich,
   and the reached level of technology and knowledge (cultural-ethical as
   well as engineering knowledge) marks the characteristics of each
   historical period. The very characteristicum of the contemporary
   period, after these roughly 250 years of (successfull) history of
   industrialized capitalism, to me seems to be the fact of saturation of
   demand; the fact that the aggregated demand of top-level incomes is too
   low to fully deploy the total of offered and available production
   capacities. If societies and earnings were more equal, of course this
   lack of demand would be less grave, but i think this will have to be
   recognized as a typical strucure element of highly developed industrial
   societies, that they will reach a point of development, where fully
   employed production capacities exceed any level of demand and
   purchasing power.

   Once this level is reached, we see on one side symptoms like endless
   attempts to increase demand, the characteristic overflow of capital and
   zero ore even negative interest rates, and the increase of purely
   finacial and unproductive investments.

   One the other side, within the production mashinery, we see a change of
   the direction of development: not only increase of productivity, but at
   the same time increase of flexibility, which means: not fordistic
   uniform products in high numbers of pieces, but highly individual,
   customized products, which possible are produced not in masses on
   stock, but as lotsize-one-products, on demand.

   This development is following a different ideal of production: not the
   speed of the production of uniformed goods, but the production of
   consumer-defined goods on demand, and the separation of fabrication and
   design.

   Now if there is production technology avalable at a level development
   high enough, it is possible to transfer ptoduction of goods at acertain
   proportions from private enterprizes to public enterprizes or services.
   And if this is possible and realized, this would create a change of
   socioeconomic powers which define whats on the daily agenda.

   Currently private companies and all belated institutions, media and
   scientific organization have enormous powers, and political
   institutions are more and more helpless to impose all regulations
   necessary to keep a real wealth-creating economy going. We will see
   TTIP in place rather than some sort of regulations of working hours,
   e.g., or higher taxes on company profits.

   So, to resume, we need a strengthening of the public, and these
   developing high-sophisticated means of production now make it
   imaginable and possible, that public enterprizes and organizations
   produce goods, which then turn to be less commodities, than values of
   use. It is important to understand at this point, that public
   enterprizes in this sense would offer a sort of universal production
   capacities, which then can be used by users (or companies and product
   designers)  to have indivudualized goods produced. The designs of these
   goods would have to bought from somewhere else, from goods designers,
   which then only produce these designs, but not the complete product
   Possibly this seems a bit utopic. But it seems (to me) there is no
   alternative. Sharing "economy": is no ecenomy; an economy is an
   organized collaboration to PRODUCE wealth, but sharing does not mean to
   produce, but to SHARE (already produced) wealth. If it is possible to
   share wealth it is OK, but 1. this will sharpen the problems we already
   have with lack of demand, and 2. it will not deliver a template to
   create a new order of (wealth producing) ecenomy.

   Non-profit-organizations will not solve this scetched problems of lack
   of political power neither, not very likely. And finally
   peer-production: whole societies won't be able to rely on these types
   of organizations, which are not own legal subjects, which e. g. cannot
   develop production plans and pledge to them, or sign delivering
   contracts, and so on.

   I would like to push forward this idea: we will develope to be an
   automaton-society. Mashinery will do a more and more growing part of
   everything that has to be done to create good and sustainable living
   conditions for everyone. If these mashines are there, the question will
   come up, who owns them. We will have to develope a kind of mashinery
   that is suitable to be owned by the public.(e.g. the mashinery of
   Mercedes-Benz as it is now is NOT suitable to be owned by the public).
   Production technology is developing into this direction already, but
   this development has to be strengthened, and the resulting posibilities
   and chances have to be realized.

   So, i hope this could be or at least could contain some 'pudding' for a
   call to arms.

   Cheers, Ludger

   -----Original-Nachricht-----
   Betreff: <nettime> Fwd: Re: Forms of decisionism
   Datum: 2016-07-17T16:37:59+0200
   Von: "Felix Stalder" <felix {AT} openflows.com>
   An: "nettime-l {AT} mx.kein.org" <nettime-l {AT} mx.kein.org>

   I begin to worry about the theory of the three crises, which Brian,
   building on "regulation school" research and "long wave" economic
   theories, has put forward, which has been at the core of the
   techno-politics project in which I'm deeply involved, and which
   informed many of the the most productive threads within nettime over
   the last, say, 5 years.
 <...>

#  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 {AT} kein.org
#   {AT} nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: