Jaromil, Soros is in us, he is everywhere don't you see that :) Suicide bunny.. funny.. though I don't really get in what sense what I do here would bring my end himm may be you're right..
I wish, instead, you would think of me being spastic or autistic, or too naive in insisting on authenticity of radical politics. Then I wouldn’t mind. Well.. even in case of extremely well planned and organized revolutionary counter-conspiracy, which I don't think neither possible or desirable, it would be almost impossible to be so close to Soros as Evgeny is, (which he is not hiding) and be able to seriously pursue any radical politics. Which is claimed or attributed to him here, and other places, mainly mainstream and liberal media. The booklet you refer, I shared on the other thread, by Evgeny and Bria shows that Evgeny and Bria are collaborating, in and on Barcelona, and other cities. where there are lots of stuff happening about cities (movements), digit rights (movements), independence movements etc. So it should not come as a surprise that Soros pops up from somewhere. This is what Evgeny says in his wiki-page: he is involved in Online Transitions (of Eastern Europe and beyond), he is a fellow at the New America Foundation (chaired by Eric Schmidt and Ann Marry Slaughter), he sits in a OSF fellowship chair, he is blogging for the 'Foreign Policy', he is a Yahoo fellow at 'Walsh School of Foreign Service'.. you name it. Moreover Morozov's role in all these places, as in Barcelona, and in broader Europe makes him one of the most influential persons of 2018 right, according to some Italian magazine (bet it is not an ordinary one)? Do you really think he is such influential? Does anyone else? Anyone without Soros funding-income relation ties him to do so? Can you see or feel such influence when he is around you? in his link to Francesca for instance, or may be Ada Colau or in Catalan Movement of independence? or the rising cities movement? If one would say Morozov’s is a genuinely radical internet critic, and he has an amazingly bright brain and the creativity in his critics is like Picasso painting.. and that is what brought him to where he is now, others would probably lough at it and claim the opposite. One can easily claim that those who are crediting him are doing that because they have feel obliged, by consent and for self-interest, to be able to get access to the next round of funding etc. And they can only be radical as a liberal can, not further than that. A person from outside would either see Morozov as part of Soros' inner circle, or would think that Soros is really a radical-critical even a leftist one. Or if Evgeny is a really radical left critic, then Soros is a suicide bunny J Seriously, I do think that these guys are playing a suicidal game, but I don’t think in bunny's way. There is a clear connection, a good hacker cannot miss here. Probably an individual, and his individual political vision could be able to keep sort of autonomy or independence while working in Soros circle. Yet it can only be a modest one, a liberal kind. What we read from Calin Dan's 97 email to net-time list, even that was quite not possible. Morally, in my opinion it is not even an issue, being part of conspiracies of Soros (not the Soros conspiracy) is not a simple thing, or joke. He does not rely only on soft-velvet glows to fist countries down; or only deploys tech tools for online transitions. The guy has involved and does involve in dirty stuff too; in his tool kit there are assassinations, spying, military coups, civil wars, or financing armament and war parties, you name it. Worse of all about not having a proper theory of class fractions and Soros place in fractured class struggle is deadly. Soros’ operations, as a class actor, have contributed massively in regenerating fascism in Hungary, Russia, Turkey, Egypt.. and Trump too is partly of his creation -and partly of the other fractions of finance capital against which he might be struggling or resisting, but they have built a transnational ‘deep state’ during the 80s and 90s. Of course fascists own creativity and the despair of the masses too are part of the story. Still one can make a sad collection of standardized Alex Jones stories, in every language now; Jones became millionaire but almost in each country where Soros operated there emerged many Joneses, Soros’ class operations fed conspiracy theories, and in return they enriched the right wing bases. When seeing the involvement of liberal / radical left-civil society coalitions with Soros’ operations masses bought conspiracy theories and Ergodan, Orban, Putin, gained and consolidated their power. They are growing on the fear of external threat and they too create their own conspiracies; then national leftists and ultra-right merges at the bottom again against the Soros led (plus NWO conspiracy as a bonus)... This shit almost everywhere. And liberal and libertarian nativity, liberal-left alliances against secular state classes (sometimes formed with anti-secular forces like Muslim Brothers, or Gulen in Turkey, of salafi or wahabi sort and others leaves us what we look at as world now.. ... now should we close our hacker eyes and not to see the burning implications such relationships would have in terms of politics -forget about the radical one; just plain politics. And not develop any analysis of Soros, and his politics, to link all these things being discussed on the list and he is linked to; because fascists and neo-Nazis are targeting him.. At least Geert has been asking the right questions and calling for a reasonable theory. Shouldn’t have he, and others ask those questions, or did you, we found an answer? Well to me, what underlies this Soros phenomenon is not the evil, or not a Popperrian fallacy in ‘open society’ vision, or any conspiracy of an esoteric kind. But it is purely and neatly about classes and class struggle. It is systemic, about class act, and real 'conspiring'. Soros is related to a crack that emerged, back in time, the Month Pelerin Society period. Between the good governance guys so so-called neo-institutionalist on the one hand; and monetarist neoliberals on the other. Actually the division goes further back to a century ago. Roland Coase and his fellows are the successors of Dewey, Veblen, Ford so on names of the progressive/efficiency era (at the end 19cc) representing 'the Industrialist' . Hayek, Friedman and their fellows are then the successors of Carl Menger and Bhöm Bawerk, the marginalist revolutionaries of 'the rentier' or 'the leisure classes'. Modern time successors of these two camps have clashed in Chile, in Turkey, and other military coups and in civil wars as in Vietnam and Korea, till the end of 70s. At the time Reagan and Thatcher came to power, and Paul Volcker put in charge as head of FED, at first a neoliberalism-neo-institutionalism synthesis got formed. This was a sort of systemic neo-liberalism what they started to build, something akin to ‘ultra-imperialism’ theory of Kautsky. This one of the reasons why liberal-left is this much in favour of Soros, since he was playing a key role in the marriage of intellectuals and class agency of two main finance capital fractions. With the collapse of USSR and the NIEO bloc at the end of 80s and with the shift of China to State capitalism, industrialist wing of the finance capital became dependant more and more on the finance for new investments, capturing privatisations in Eastern Europe, Africa, Asia massive space opened up, freed from communists and alike. When the Industrialist class fraction, represented by neo-institutionalists lost their influence Volcker lost his position to Greenspan. Thus Hayekian vision (exactly as it happened at the end of 1880s with the Marginalist revolution) came to the fore and captured the commanding heights. The replacement of neo-neo synthesis called Washington Consensus. What was happening both in 1880s and 1980s were almost identical. The loss of systemic grasp of the industrialist wing of finance capital and capture of the commanding heights by money dealing and interest bearing capital fractions. As his patron Popper, Soros too had been playing a middle man role, bridging between these two clicks -for the sake of the system. Here comes in his 'reflexivity theory' in, which Soros claims to apply to financial markets in explaining how he wins. Yet where he also applies his theory is trasformismo: co-opting left critical reflections, for systemic survival purposes. The above gives a brief synthesis of Gerard Dumenil & Dominique Levi’s and Kees Van der Pijl’s analyses (which I referred in earlier email). To my knowledge, and in my opinion, these present best available fractional analysis of intra-class struggle that has been shaping the global-transnational capitalisms and its crisis since 20st cc. In class and fraction terms, totality of the mentioned above represents the transnational monopoly/finance capital; which is divided into two fractions. Those tied to giant industrial businesses and investments on the one hand, and those others who are more, if not totally, independent from industry -thus dominating it. The workers and managerial classes needs to be added into broader picture and then you have national capitalists resisting to these globalists at their back yards, if they can by playing to the hand of one or other side, or forming a strong hold nationalist base, as Putin, Erdogan, Orban etc. In this picture, Soros is, unlike Volcker, not only an organic intellectual (as a reflexive-system theorist) but he also is an active class agency and structure in flesh and blood, between the fractions of finance capital. He is a money dealing capitalist, which might have investor clients with closer ties to the industry, putting his money both in giant industrial investments etc. This puts him into contact with the OBOR and Industrial Internet consortium, Cisco and IBM, Intel etc. vs. Googles, Facebooks, and others. Yet he still has the ability to play like the letter fraction, which is the owners of Wall Street giants like Morgan, Sachs, part of Rockefeller and Rothschild etc. So, I bet if one go through Soros’ largest investors, one would find those corporations that have closer ties to the industry, while their money is also invested whatever brings more and easier money including wars and military industrial complex, or Google. well I am sure I can’t change Jaromil your view but I hope this would sound better to others; more like a class analysis of a conspiracy then a stupid conspiracy-theory.. # 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: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: