Oliver Ressler on Wed, 2 Jan 2019 14:02:44 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: <nettime> Foundations for "Anthropocene Socialist" Movement |
I think this discussion on
the Foundations for "Anthropocene Socialist" Movement and the
quality of contributions is really amazing. I have been involved and followed the climate justice movement for several years and carried out a few artistic works on it. (This cycle of films is the most recent one: http://www.ressler.at/everythings_coming_together/) For a new project, "Barricading the Ice Sheets", I plan (among others) to convene a meeting of highly informed, internationally respected climate movement protagonists working between art and activism. Five or six artist-activists will be brought together to discuss the movements' methods, purposes, past and future in a small group setting. This group meeting will provide an occasion for collective thinking and unscripted interaction, that will result in a film and public event. The first-hand testimony and informed insights that result should stand in direct contrast to the documentary format whereby one person is interviewed in isolation after another. The format also reflects the ongoing importance of collective deliberation and speech within the movements, which actively contributes to form the yet unknown “coming community” that exceeds the current form of democracy, as we know it. While I have already several ideas of whom to include from Europe and North America, I am still looking for people from the Global South and/or people from indigenous background who can be regarded of climate movement organizers and are working between art and activism. Do people on this list have any recommendations for possible participants? Best, Oliver Am 31.12.18 um 11:04 schrieb
nettime-l-request@mail.kein.org:
Send nettime-l mailing list submissions to nettime-l@mail.kein.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to nettime-l-request@mail.kein.org You can reach the person managing the list at nettime-l-owner@mail.kein.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of nettime-l digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Foundations for "Anthropocene Socialist" Movement (Morlock Elloi) 2. Re: Foundations for "Anthropocene Socialist" Movement (Patrice Riemens) 3. Re: Foundations for "Anthropocene Socialist" Movement (tbyfield) 4. Re: Foundations for "Anthropocene Socialist" Movement (Morlock Elloi) 5. Re: Foundations for "Anthropocene Socialist" Movement (Morlock Elloi) 6. Re: Foundations for "Anthropocene Socialist" Movement (Felix Stalder) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 09:09:20 -0800 From: Morlock Elloi <morlockelloi@gmail.com> To: nettime-l@mail.kein.org Subject: Re: <nettime> Foundations for "Anthropocene Socialist" Movement Message-ID: <5C28FBC0.3050209@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed The problem is that this doesn't scale. Or at least the scaling model has not been discovered. At the same time, the opposition scales pretty well. For this scaling to involve machines (computers, programs, networks and such, and I cannot imagine competitive scaling not involving machines - anyone?) another problem has to be solved, as the current crop of the available computing machinery is heavily biased towards individualistic outcomes. The redesign would be a major effort, as it definitely does not consist of another 'app'. It involves interventions at the infrastructure level, and there are $ trillions already invested in the current one, so it's hard. How do you motivate open door crappers to lay own fiber, grow own silicon and use only P2P protocols with source routing? It's hard to even imagine this. On 12/30/18, 04:53, Keith Hart wrote:When I grew up in Manchester after the war, solidarity was a powerful weapon against privacy, the cult of being exclusive. We could not close our house doors since neighbors should be free to come and go as they please. When the men took their morning crap in the outside loos, they left the door open to converse across the low backyard walls. After sanitation was modernized, you could still accidentally run into a old lady in the bathroom who couldn't bring herself to close the door. All bedroom doors were left open. The corner pub was our living room. When the gas company started work with their machines outside too early, half a dozen women would assail them on behalf of "our street". They shut down the machines.------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 18:45:56 +0100 From: Patrice Riemens <patrice@xs4all.nl> To: Morlock Elloi <morlockelloi@gmail.com> Cc: nettime-l@mail.kein.org Subject: Re: <nettime> Foundations for "Anthropocene Socialist" Movement Message-ID: <e421aab68c417193ebf557f181521b71@xs4all.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Gr?zi Mittenand, "You do one thing" was an admonition I often heard when I lived in India. My 'thing' I'd advise you (all?) to 'do' would be : (re)read Bolo'bolo! (*) It's of course not _the_ (only) solution, but as a 'realistoc utopia' it does give a number of possible lines of thought & action. 'Gute Rutsch' to All! May 2019 be as enjoyable as it will be interesting! p+7D! (*) https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/p-m-bolo-bolo On 2018-12-30 18:09, Morlock Elloi wrote:The problem is that this doesn't scale. Or at least the scaling model has not been discovered. At the same time, the opposition scales pretty well. For this scaling to involve machines (computers, programs, networks and such, and I cannot imagine competitive scaling not involving machines - anyone?) another problem has to be solved, as the current crop of the available computing machinery is heavily biased towards individualistic outcomes. The redesign would be a major effort, as it definitely does not consist of another 'app'. It involves interventions at the infrastructure level, and there are $ trillions already invested in the current one, so it's hard. How do you motivate open door crappers to lay own fiber, grow own silicon and use only P2P protocols with source routing? It's hard to even imagine this. On 12/30/18, 04:53, Keith Hart wrote:When I grew up in Manchester after the war, solidarity was a powerful weapon against privacy, the cult of being exclusive. We could not close our house doors since neighbors should be free to come and go as they please. When the men took their morning crap in the outside loos, they left the door open to converse across the low backyard walls. After sanitation was modernized, you could still accidentally run into a old lady in the bathroom who couldn't bring herself to close the door. All bedroom doors were left open. The corner pub was our living room. When the gas company started work with their machines outside too early, half a dozen women would assail them on behalf of "our street". They shut down the machines.# 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:------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 13:27:30 -0500 From: tbyfield <tbyfield@panix.com> To: Nettime <nettime-l@kein.org> Cc: Morlock Elloi <morlockelloi@gmail.com> Subject: Re: <nettime> Foundations for "Anthropocene Socialist" Movement Message-ID: <C00C79F0-CCAE-4EE1-9B0A-05D98EBFD649@panix.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed 'Scaling' is a strange idea. It can be used to describe mom-and-pop efforts to grow some product line or whatever, but it has a more important usage that's much more ideological ? as in VC efforts to identify potential unicorns. In that sense, it's invoked as though its meaning is self-evident and its force is inevitable, like a sort of abstract manifest destiny ? which, of course, is exactly what it is. It doesn't have a Wikipedia entry, FWIW, just a disambiguation page that points to a bunch of detailed uses. When you unpack it a bit, it amounts to something a bit less sexy-sounding, like: 'deliberately designed to maximally exploit arbitrary resources as quickly as possible without regard for the consequences.' So, on a certain level, it's kissing cousins with the idea of conspiracy, mostly distinguished from that by its technocratic garb and avoidance of morality. I think that's worth noting, because instead of casting scaling as an intrinsic quality of some *thing*, the capacity to scale, it shifts our attention to the environment in which that scaling is said to take place. So, basically, it's the capacity to monopolize. It's more complicated than that, of course. I've pieced together parts of a history of the idea, and it's pretty interesting. If the idea sounds heroic and inevitable, that's mostly compensation: it arose from conflict and it aims to stave off chaos. It's a very Apollonian idea, you could say. That's why it's so bad at beginnings ('deliberately designed to') and ends ('without regard for the consequences'). Cheers, Ted On 30 Dec 2018, at 12:09, Morlock Elloi wrote:The problem is that this doesn't scale. Or at least the scaling model has not been discovered. At the same time, the opposition scales pretty well. For this scaling to involve machines (computers, programs, networks and such, and I cannot imagine competitive scaling not involving machines - anyone?) another problem has to be solved, as the current crop of the available computing machinery is heavily biased towards individualistic outcomes. The redesign would be a major effort, as it definitely does not consist of another 'app'. It involves interventions at the infrastructure level, and there are $ trillions already invested in the current one, so it's hard. How do you motivate open door crappers to lay own fiber, grow own silicon and use only P2P protocols with source routing? It's hard to even imagine this.------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 11:42:33 -0800 From: Morlock Elloi <morlockelloi@gmail.com> Cc: nettime-l@mail.kein.org Subject: Re: <nettime> Foundations for "Anthropocene Socialist" Movement Message-ID: <5C291FA9.3070504@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed The issue is not implied morality of scaling, whether it's good or bad (and I agree on the current modality of scaling for value extraction by few from the many.) The issue is that the opposition bent on atomizing the society does scale, and has no moral issues with it. The concentrated capital invested a lot in it, and has laid its hyphae, from server farms via enormous infrastructure (of fiber and terminating devices,) directly into brains of the rabble, supplanting social impulses with simulacrum, cutting lateral ties with others and routing everything through the modulating center. I don't see how isolated colonies (of open door crappers) can prevail or even thrive, when faced with the planet-sized fungal organism. They will be eaten and digested. Which is exactly what is happening today. If they do not scale (and in your words, roughly, become their own enemy) what can they do but die? Because you can't take knife to a gun fight. This battle is lost. Look around. Knives do not work. There is no better knife, which seems to be the sole focus of the so-called 'progressive community'. They are like stamp collectors - benign. Can open door crappers scale and not become their enemy? Is the hatred of guns so great that death is better? This is starting to look as a psychiatric problem. m. On 12/30/18, 10:27, tbyfield wrote:I think that's worth noting, because instead of casting scaling as an intrinsic quality of some *thing*, the capacity to scale, it shifts our attention to the environment in which that scaling is said to take place. So, basically, it's the capacity to monopolize.------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 12:25:41 -0800 From: Morlock Elloi <morlockelloi@gmail.com> Cc: nettime-l@mail.kein.org Subject: Re: <nettime> Foundations for "Anthropocene Socialist" Movement Message-ID: <5C2929C5.6040201@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Maybe it's just me, but when I recently re-watched Easy Rider, I kept rooting for someone to off the f*cking hippies. The same film now has happy ending. It's funny how death as exit strategy lost its appeal. On 12/30/18, 09:45, Patrice Riemens wrote:"You do one thing" was an admonition I often heard when I lived in India. My 'thing' I'd advise you (all?) to 'do' would be : (re)read Bolo'bolo! (*) It's of course not _the_ (only) solution, but as a 'realistoc utopia' it does give a number of possible lines of thought & action.------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 11:02:38 +0100 From: Felix Stalder <felix@openflows.com> To: nettime-l@mail.kein.org Subject: Re: <nettime> Foundations for "Anthropocene Socialist" Movement Message-ID: <f927a4ff-736c-6d44-b789-807727b7a004@openflows.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" On 30.12.18 13:53, Keith Hart wrote:But -- there has to be a but -- I believe that there is one crippling intellectual impediment above all others that undermines political initiatives generated in this network. It is the belief that more solidarity can fix excessive individualism. When I grew up in Manchester after the war, solidarity was a powerful weapon against privacy, the cult of being exclusive.That was, I hope, not my point, and whatever element of collectivity informs a humane reaction to climate change, will have to look every different from the collectivity that was produced by the experience of industrial work. We live in an "information society" hence each element, including each human being, can be (and often is) defined more extensively, and more varied ways than in an industrial context. Hence, while identity politics, in practice, often create dead ends, producing multually exclusive niches, very well-served by social media that specialize in niche-marketing, the answer cannot be, in my view, a return of simple collective. Rather, is has to lie in finding ways of create resonance across the different niches, to articulate ways to create an understanding of a shared fate on some levels while continuing to articulate multiplicity on others. I also don't want to revive the old individual-vs-society debate that haunted 20th century sociology, rather I think we have moved beyond this and can now start from a relatively well-establised ecological perspective that highlights how agent(s) and environment(s) are co-producing each other. But, for now, this all remains too abstract, not tied into a idea of collective agency. But it is not unthinkeable to combine a socially liberal idea of the self with a strong collective idea of public investment into the transformation of the energy sources of society. This can be done on all levels, local, regional, national. And it actully happens in bits and pieces in a lot of places and contexts. What is lacking in the imaginery that ties together differnet elements, that produces clear flautlines to isolate and combate those who fight this transformation. This, I think, is eminently doable, but opens up a new rift. In the same way that neo-liberalism opened a conflict between economic globalization and the global justice movement, this could open the rift between authoritarian geoingeering and democratic green economy. We are not their yet, not by far. |
# 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: