|Morlock Elloi on Sat, 3 Sep 2016 10:58:14 +0200 (CEST)|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|Re: <nettime> On Accelerationism (Fred Turner)|
One possibly crucial difference (between then and now) is forced verticalization of communications. While the media always existed, the ratio of unmediated communication (between humans, using air as conduit) vs. mediated communication (newspapers, web pages, mail lists) has significantly gone down in the past several decades. The form does influence the content, and with strict templating into 130 characters and other social media formats, forced explicit 'sharing' vs. private communication (for example nettime) which modulates everything to the lowest common denominator, and implicit sharing with various agencies of everything that's not end-to-end encrypted, perhaps it has simply become impossible to say some things. I don't think that successful movements in the past were generated by mob screaming mike checks and simple slogans (which is exactly what mediated communication stimulates: there is a direct connection between seeing your post on a web forum, imagining that all others read it, and unison shouting in the crowd.) It's more likely that these past successes were effected by preparing in small groups, then slowly propagated via personal communication to larger numbers. This provided the opportunity for more complex ideas to emerge, than screaming out about percentages can. The discourse around movements in 19th and 20th century was not focused on rally slogans. Let me make it clear: NO ONE GAVE A FLYING FUCK TO ENDLESSLY RUMINATE OVER STUFF SHOUTED AT RALLIES, SUCH AS "99 PERCENT". Rallies were tools, not points of creation. Infantilization of social movements, expectations that something would emerge from the crowd, all reports how everyone "felt" (as if it makes any difference, this obsession about personal "feelings" is probably the most nauseating recent phenomenon), ensures that exactly nothing can happen. There will be no change without persistent, ultimately artificial and non-trivial ideological component, which majority of the crowd does not really understand (what the crowd immediately gets is certain to fail.) This is a time-tested mechanism - just look at the success stories, for example how powers that be operate. They don't scream "we are the 1 %". No, it's a very hierarchical structure, and very small number gets to set the course. The obverse phenomenon, where various leaks turn this hierarchy into flat broadcast, further proofs the point. This could be the real reason why they hate leaks, because they annihilate the hierarchical approach. Wikileaks has abandoned the idea of strengthening the majority - instead, it works on weakening the minority. It's uncertain whether this will work in the long run. To conclude, the currently prevailing social communication model, which follows the consumerism paradigm of instant, broadcast, ready to wear ideology, may be the thing that guarantees failure of "movements".Maybe they should start talking in private, and something may happen in few decades.
On 9/2/16, 13:48, nettime's slow reader wrote:
One thing that Srnicek and Williams make abundantly clear is that the tactics the left has inherited from the social movements of the 1960s and 1970s no longer work. The antiglobalization actions of the 1990s, various student uprisings in Europe and North Africa, and, above all, the Occupy Movement in the United States—Srnicek and Williams argue that all have failed because of the left’s preoccupation with what they call, with the hint of a sneer, “folk politics.” This mode emerged in the late
<...> # 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: firstname.lastname@example.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: