Can't wait to read these. I just started it last night but already feel like it's very reductive and suggests that this mode of extractive capital begins in 2001 with Google where there's a huge body of theory (autonomist Marxism etc) that explores the rise of these tendencies from the 1960s/1970s onwards. I'm really curious to hear everyone's thoughts Thanks for sharing these here :)
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:13 AM Felix Stalder <fe...@openflows.com> wrote: > > On 08.02.19 03:27, Brian Holmes wrote: > > > That said, to judge by chapter 1, Surveillance Capitalism is worth > > reading. It provokes and infuriates me by what it leaves out, but > > it's fascinating at points and hopefully gets better as you go. > > Morozov has written the perfect intro for a critical read of what > > might become a landmark book- if the situation it describes does not > > again suddenly change beyond recognition, as it easily could. > > I've read bit and pieces by now, and as far as I can tell, it doesn't > get better and is in line with her earlier articles and talks you can > find online. > > Mozorov highlighted many of the problematic aspects of her approach, > which he boils down to her claim that the imbalance of power between the > individual user and corporations is a novel thing, and that prior to the > current phase, capitalism worked by making transparent offers to > rational consumers who would choose from these offers based on their > own, genuine needs and desires. > > Thus her proposals to change the situation are all about restoring this > individual autonomy, through what she calls "right to the future" (aka > the ability to change ones life without being restricted by predictions > based on past behavior) and "right to sanctuary" (which, basically, > is an elaborate version of 'my home is my castle'). > > Mozorov puts lots of emphasis on her lack of engagement with other > theories of contemporary capitalism and her unwillingness to considers > options beyond the market. And, really, not even Wikipedia is ever > mentioned (expect as a source once) and Free Software only in relation > to Android and Google's strategy to dominate it. Thus, she never asks > why such alternatives exist and what could be done to support them. So, > the only alternative we get is Apple, the company, as Richard Stallman > famously put it, that "made prison look cool". > > But not only does she barely engage with capitalism, she also does not > engage with the surveillance as a feature of contemporary life that > preceded "surveillance capitalism" by decades, if not centuries (a line > of thinking that stretches from Foucault to David Lyon et al). Strangely > enough, she also doesn't engage with the history of "behavioral > modification", which has played a major role in the history of > capitalism in the last 100 years. This ignorance is necessary to keep > her basic premise, about the sudden undermining of individual autonomy > alive. > > Of course, there is much to like on the book as well, particularly her > claim that what we are living through is really a "coup from above: an > overthrow of the people’s sovereignty." But is this really the result of > "surveillance capitalism" or, more broadly, of neo-liberalism, as > post-democracy theory has been arguing since the late 1990s? > > Nevertheless, it puts this again into the table and connects it to some > of the most powerful actors in the economy and it highlights the demands > for regulation. Which leads Mozorov to the following question: > > > Should we accept the political utility of Zuboff’s framework while > > rejecting its analytical validity? I’d argue that we can proceed down > > that path only if we understand the price of doing so: a greater > > sense of confusion with regard to the origins, operations, and > > vulnerabilities of digital capitalism. > > No. We need to come up with a better reading of the current situation > regarding informational capitalism. > > Both Zuboff and Mozorov mention in passing Polanyi, though don't make > much of it. I think that concept of a fictitious commodity can be > usefully expanded. So far, this has mainly been done in relation to > knowledge [1], but this does not work well. > > It works better with "engagement" as the commodity form of > "communication". I tried to develop this idea in a talk recently and > posted the relevant segment to nettime recently as "Engagement, a new > fictitious commodity" > > https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-1901/msg00039.html > > To expand a bit on this post: the old settlement between communication > as a social (non-market) activity and engagement as a commodity, created > by laws and ethical standards, broke down as new set of corporations > established a radical market-system for communication. Initially, this > was seen as a liberation, because the old settlement was unable to cope > with the rising diversity of cultural/political positions seeking new > forms of expression. But over time, the pressure to increase profits by > focusing solely on commodity production, and the pressures to operate in > such an environment placed on everyone, began to undermine communication > (as negotiation of shared meaning) more and more, to the degree that > within these radical market systems, almost all non-market element have > been destroyed, and hence, undermining societies ability to communicate. > > Hence, we need to ask, what kind of resistance (aka double movement) and > new institutional arrangements do we need to protect and expand our > collective capacity to communicate. There are lots of possible answers > to this, ranging from regulation of social media companies to the need > develop communication infra-structures outside the markets. > > > Felix > > > > [1] Jessop, Bob (2007): Knowledge as a Fictitious Commodity: Insights > and Limits of a Polanyian Perspective. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| http://felix.openflows.com > |Open PGP http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=0x0bbb5b950c9ff2ac > > # 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: -- http://www.rachelodwyer.com/ +353 (85) 7023779
# 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:
