On 03.07.22 18:51, Brian Holmes wrote:
I am curious if other people see the same problems, and if there are
theorists and practitioners resolving them...


Finally, I also got around reading both texts.

in my view, Mozorov's analysis is surprisingly weak and inconsistent. I agree, as Brian does, with his core argument: the current wave of "post-capitalism" theory is rather shallow. For example, what are we to make of Mckenzie Wark's basic argument: Capitalism is over because the new elites no longer own the means of production, but the means of organizing the production. According to this line of thinking, outsourcing would be a "post-capitalist" practice and NIKE has never been capitalist. Not really.

But beyond that, Mozorov's take gets really confusing, not the least because he operates with strange dichotomies, e.g. extraction (feudal) vs production (capitalist), or rent (feudal) vs profit (capitalist). Then, to argue against neo-feudalist theories, he need to come down hard on the side of production/profit.

But then again, he seems to agree with Jason More that capitalism is an island of commodification relying for cheap resources on an ocean of non-commodified (re)production. But this really means that production and extraction need to be thought together.

This in turn, makes it easy to see that large parts of capitalism has always been extractive. First, and still foremost, of the natural commons, but increasingly also of the social commons. But extraction doesn't mean it's effortless. On the contrary, capitalist competitive pressures require transforming the environment for optimal extractability. This work started, arguably, with the colonial plantation and extends all the way to fracking.

The same is true for the social commons (including, as Jaromil pointed out, the software commons). Corporate social media might be an extreme case of reconstituting the environment to increase extraction, but it's merely the tip of the iceberg. Google (and an entire SEO-industry) giving you tips on how the set-up you website for optimal indexicability is not that different, or neither are our own attempts to tailor our social media posts to what we assume to be algorithmic sorting.

I can greatly recommend Vladan Joler's work called "new exractivism" on this topic

https://opensecret.kw-berlin.de/artwork/new-extractivism


What extraction allows capitalists to achieve are super-profits by working with resources which are produced at no costs. Collecting and commodifying, on the other hand, can be quite costly and requiring innovation (hence even oil companies do R&D).

The same is with the rent and production. These are not necessarily opposites, rather, they come together in the classic concept of 'monopoly rent'. And if you look at the tech sectors, monopolies or quasi-monopolies (e.g. Apple) are standard. And a monopoly is the basis to achieve super-profit. Peter Thiel is upfront in this. His book is called from Zero to One, ie. a start-up (zero) which creates a monopoly (market of one). He's even more blunt when saying "competition is for losers".

And, this need for super-profits (be they extractive or monopoly-based) is driven by the power of the financial markets, it self an extractive processes that proceeds by transforming its environment for optimal extractability (ie. financialization, or, in web3, tokenization).


Takes makes the Ström piece so interesting, because he manages to think all of these processes together through the lense of cybernetic abstraction. (Which, also helps to understand why so many oppositional projects are about 'entanglement', 'bio-regions', or 'reterritorialization' more generally. Ethno-nationalism is the far-right version of this).

He also doesn't construct a false distinction between informational and industrial capitalism. Let's not forget, the oil industry was an early and very influential customers of the tech-industry, much like the military and financial industry. Rather, one is a means to upgrade the other and in fusing of the two, both sides extends their reach.

I tried to formulate a similar idea -- less comprehensive than Ström -- in a recent small booklet called "Escape Velocity. Computing and the Great Acceleration." Available in OA here

https://aksioma.org/escape-velocity.computing-and-the-great-acceleration

And in terms of social power, I don't think "informational capitalism" is yet a match for "fossil capitalism". Just look at the what the US supreme court is doing: red meat for the declining white middle classes and free reign to fossil capitalism. I wouldn't be surprised if this court would come down against the social media giants at some point.


all the best. Felix







--
| |||||||||||||||| http://felix.openflows.com |
| for secure communication, please use signal |
#  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:

Reply via email to