I am reading through the comments here, and realize that I am latecomer to the conversation, but I think there are a few things that I find useful when thinking through the utopian potentials of digital communications and the problems associated with capitalism.
For one thing, Myers observes that capitalism loves "free work." Secondly, Pederson mentions the role of crisis in relation to the evolution of capitalism. Third, Terranova references research by Dean and others which suggests that contemporary communication complicates the formation of subjectivity. Yet we could imagine another context in which each of these facts are understood properly. "Free" work, within the context of a just society with a commitment to dignity and from the perspective of egalitarian relationships, is what we call "helping someone." It is only when human imagination and effort is commodified that work becomes something we do for the boss to get our hands on the resources that he monopolizes. "Work" could also be something that we do for ourselves, our families, our societies. But in capitalism, you are either a boss, a hireling or a chump. But beyond this frame of commerce, unpaid work makes you a lover, a friend, a comrade, a mother, a father, a sister, a brother, etc. Totally undervalued, of course, in our society.... but vastly better to be one of these than either a boss, hireling, or chump. We need a worldview and politics that is capable of treating these other subject positions as superior to the others. Within the context of capitalism, crises, of the sort that produce massive disturbances to biological, social, and psychological existence (everything from wars to body image anxieties) become "opportunities" for profit.... rather than being measured in terms of their costs to the people they effect. Yet, again, we could imagine a society that saw "crises" for what they are, taking full account of the harm they inflict upon their victims, taking actions to avoid or soften the crisis, and assessing the positives and negatives from the perspective of those affected by the crisis. Again, within capitalism, a catastrophe is an occasion for selling shit and making money. But another worldview would say that a catastrophe is a miserable tragedy. Finally, the formation of subjectivity, from the perspective of a highly atomized, alienated culture supported by the sale of social prosthetics.... the way we deal with subjectivity against the backdrop of technological change is determined by the larger concerns of capitalism. First of all, there are certainly ways that we can use any medium of communication to contribute to the formation of subjectivity. Secondly, there might be some limitations to the way that we see subjectivity that are driven by history. For instance, we tend to view individual subjectivity as in competition with collective identity, but clearly within the network their are pathways to robust formations of subjectivity, in which individuals communicate in dialogue with a peer group that progressively elevates the level of thinking and raises the social value of these thoughts with the respect to the depth that such communities are capable of achieving over time. The problem is not the technology itself, its that we don't know how to use it to serve social desires, because we have not articulated our social desires through a well-developed political process. We, as a collective, do not have rules for using information beyond those which are provided by an undemocratic market: You pay the market price, or you are outside the law. Meanwhile the creators and workers get underpaid and/or everyone else gets over-charged. That's ethics in the 21st century. But we could imagine a social, political, and ethical organization which was geared towards a common commitment to public discourse to serve society. And the truth each of these observations suggests to me that IF capitalism continues to be the dominant mode of social organization.... then each of these perverse perspectives will continue to ruin us. The question, really, comes down to the popular will. How long will we allow this? My perspective on information is that, whatever I do to it, good ideas are not mine to own or sell. I might be able to sell a method or process, a particular container or enhanced flavor. But if something is "true," then research and reason is only capable of pointing to it. I cannot "create" transferable knowledge. And, the problem I see with intellectual property it is based on a lie.... as if I have any right to charge your for information that describes the natural world or the cultural milieu that we all share. I mean, if it were true, you could reasonably be expected to figure it out on your own... in which case, it would be scandalous for me to try to punish you for seeing what is self-evident. (Maybe that is why I am so unoriginal, or maybe that's how I soothe myself.) On the other hand, things that are not true, they can be variable and singular. Which means, perhaps, that these things are capable of being creative and original. Which is where the moral case for paying artists becomes critical. We are, when we value a work of art, we are essentially elevating an individual's subjective experience and saying that it ought to be shared across society, that it ought to become common. And then the degree to which an artist deserves to be paid ought to diminish as the work becomes so. But, once again, critical or artistic works are not treated in this way in the current social scheme. We encourage our philosophers to create "branded" thinking that can sell books and generate schools of critical fashion. We deprive our artists of food, and then when they are dead and their works are widely known, we decide that they are worth something afterall. And then we scratch our heads of what a racket the University has become and how frustrating the economy of taste has become. But we can't turn our back on philosophical truth, the value of aesthetics, the utopian potentials of new media, the immense gift of open writing, simply because capitalism perverts them. Art, thought, communication, culture are just the work of OUR hands taking place on a world that is rightfully OURS. And just as the pressures and crimes of capitalism starve and cripple the people of the world, so, too, do they strangle and deform the fruits of our existence. Fundamental change is absolutely necessary or else we will continue to experience each succeeding wave of innovation as just another nail in the coffin. On the other hand, we also need to recognize that change won't necessarily happen automatically. In effect, the occupyers and the p2p pioneers are taking the everyday social practices where we all live most of the time and attempting to scale them up. They take the sort of warm, everyday exchanges that we rely upon to survive, the conversations, the bits of help, the concern of others and for others, and try to apply them on a broader scale without depending strictly on abstraction. Even if the specific flare ups of utopian community fall apart or get gobbled up by the media monster, these people are creating an experience of an alternate economic model and training themselves on ways to refine and broaden it. With regards to the outside world, an open resource like wikipedia is providing free content for the machine, but amongst participants, they are operating in accordance with a different economy, teaching themselves how to produced sustained focus, to share valuable information, to use dialogue to improve what they do. In other words, they are practicing, the way we should all be practicing, building community and coordinating our behaviors so that we will know what to do even if the time NEVER comes. Davin _______________________________________________ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
