Brian et al, 

What a great and hopeful last paragraoh, Brian. Perhais, as you say, now that 
neoliberalism is attacking itself, there will be change…can be a more 
productive critique if the beast than hipster slants. 

I will mention that Nobel’s book, which I’ve read very closely, not only 
analyzes the regimes behind search, but provides ideas; is a clarion call for 
what is needed to resurrect a 90s era value in public information - 
transparency, literacy, and accessibility to a wide range of sources rather 
than the singularity of google’s authority - and this from a black information 
scholar who is already versed in how information skews history. 

Thank you…lots more to read.


Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 6, 2022, at 10:07 AM, Brian Holmes <> 
> wrote:
> The thing to conclude from this thread is that capitalism is a beast. You 
> hope it's gonna change, and then it just adds new fangs. We all watched this 
> happen despite (or even to some extent, because of) Nineties-era hopes that 
> decentralized networks would translate into a distributed productive basis 
> for a new society. took this hope on board in the most pragmatic way 
> possible, and Jaromil, your conclusions after two decades of sustained effort 
> are definitely heard on this end. It's sad to be the one who gives them a 
> theoretical framework, but this is where resistance comes from, right? I 
> don't think there's any way to share struggles, to socialize resistance, 
> without updating the critical analysis of power. And we're overdue for a 
> reboot on that account.
> Felix, your pamphlet does something fundamental in that regard, which is 
> basically to ask, is the mining in data-mining the same as the mining in 
> South America? Or in other words, has the raw expropriation of colonialism 
> ever been separable from the rule-governed exploitation of factory labor? The 
> answer that has emerged everywhere, and especially in the Americas, is no, 
> the beast of capitalism has those two heads. The pamphlet is particularly 
> interesting because it tries to grasp them together, and to see how they have 
> together caused the Great Acceleration of climate change, rather than 
> defaulting back to one or the other as the prime explanation. To me it is 
> certain that the Great Acceleration of the 1950s would have never happened 
> without the postwar spread of the cybernetic regime, which includes not just 
> computers but a vast organizational form, the corporate state. It takes a 
> willful ignorance not to see that this has always been a neocolonial, 
> extractive regime (the example of oil extraction, one of the biggest 
> consumers of CPU cycles, is there for all to see). Okay, that ignorance was 
> deliberately practiced by many of us for decades, out of hope, as a kind of 
> constructive wager - no regrets about it. But now is a time of resistance, 
> and it's really getting urgent to have more precise observations and stronger 
> theories about where the double-headed and heavily fanged beast of capitalism 
> is going. That's why I came out against the idea of techno-feudalism, and all 
> the reductive hipster concepts that now just limit our understanding, with no 
> political benefit in return.
> Since 2008 there has been huge uncertainty about how cybernetic capitalism 
> would evolve, because of insuperable contradictions within its financial 
> core. After Trump and Brexit, the just-in-time system of globalization came 
> equally into question. Now the Ukraine war, including China's qualified 
> support for Russia, has made it clear that this system of 
> production-distribution will not stand. We are headed for a major 
> restructuring, further influenced by the fearsome encroaching reality of 
> climate change. How is the existing system, the beast, cybernetic capitalism, 
> going to morph under these new conditions?
> For years on nettime we speculated about exactly that question, but each 
> crisis, from the dot-com bust onwards, was quelled by the injection of 
> central-bank money into the system. Now it seems that the free-money strategy 
> has reached its limits. All the world saw that China was able to use direct 
> state control of the economy to solve a major financial crisis on a 2008 
> scale, centered in real estate and particularly around the Evergreen 
> corporation. Apparently they dealt with it, you don't hear any more about it. 
> This is definitely a clue. It is apparently possible to combine cybernetic 
> capitalism with a strong state. Whether or how that combination might come 
> into being in the so-called West is a real question.
> In any event I am certain that the thing we speculated about for so long is 
> now really happening. The neoliberal paradigm is being hit by all the 
> monsters that it has created - Russia, precarity, climate change - and at the 
> same time, AI is coming out of the box. A new production-distribution system 
> is both technically imaginable and widely desired. The next decade will see, 
> either generalized war and entropic breakdown, or a reformulation of the 
> exploitative/extractive combo. I reckon that option 2 is more likely, 
> although definitely with limited war, of the kind we're seeing now or maybe 
> worse. If you don't want to leave the right-wing ideologists in charge of the 
> question of a state-led, protective cybernetics, then now is the time to give 
> up the hipster concepts and restart the pragmatic analysis of what is indeed 
> a very ugly beast. How to grasp it as it emerges?
> courage to all,
> Brian
>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 5:27 AM Jaromil <> wrote:
>> dear Brian, Felix and nettime readers,
>> coincidentally, let me share some recent news, small but relevant to 
>> complete the analysis:
>> let me complete with what this magazine (historically pro-systemd and 
>> aggressively posed against all critics) is perhaps afraid to tell: the 
>> master of systemd now works for Micro$oft. 
>> I hope you don't mind 
>> me per-using your quote Brian.
>> On Sun, 03 Jul 2022, Brian Holmes wrote:
>> > This is totally on point, Jaromil. The tech industry has always been able 
>> > to think cybernetically - it has to, in order to handle interactive 
>> > networks with millions of users - but what you're pointing out, in a very 
>> > specific situation, is how it's now able to carry out integrated 
>> > strategies affecting entire fields or "modes of practice." In your 
>> > example, it means reshaping all the factors that condition the software 
>> > development process, including institutional ones such as the literature 
>> > on standards and the processes for their validation.
>> > 
>> > On the global level both Google and Microsoft are notorious for 
>> > transforming governance through the introduction of particular types of 
>> > software and information-processing services that reshape the activity of 
>> > corporate officials and bureaucrats, and in that way, affect entire 
>> > societies. However I had never considered that Red Hat would be doing the 
>> > same within social-democratic spheres where FOSS development is supported 
>> > by public money. It's somewhat depressing news, because FOSS development 
>> > for public use is really one of the few places where the social-steering 
>> > capacities of Silicon Valley are challenged... I don't have the expertise 
>> > to fully evaluate what you're saying (although I have read about Devuan 
>> > and the systemd controversies!) - but anyway, yes, I think we are talking 
>> > about exactly the same thing here.
>> I love how the research and works by Florian Gottke remind us about the 
>> importance of topping statues, an act operating through the language of 
>> liturgy, and firmly preluding radical changes in governance.
>> And so there is a symbolic event last year worth mentioning: the topping of 
>> RMS from his role as prophet: we wrote about it here 
>>  - an open letter written together with Christina Derazenski, a big loss as 
>> I believe she'd be able to describe much better than me what is happening 
>> and through the lenses of feminism.
>> Today we have the not-so-symbolic event of Linux development being steered 
>> by Micro$oft, with all implications enounced in this thread.
>> So now let me once again use nettime to mark an event in time - this list is 
>> the best literary blockchain around! :^D
>> Today we witness the epilogue of what was the F/OSS movement with all its 
>> dreams of glory and democracy or do-ocracy or whatever fascinated our friend 
>> Biella so much when describing Debian. Today we observe what you mention as 
>> a "classic cybernetic takeover" vastly overlooked by academic literature 
>> about governance and free software.
>> I am fascinated by all this, but somehow relieved there will be no more a 
>> global F/OSS movement, just pockets of resistance.
>> Foucault, Deleuze, Caronia... they have seen all this already.
>> And they were right: being and becoming marginal, feels good.
>> Also some security experts were right from the beginning, about using 
>> OpenBSD.
>> ciao
>> -- 
>>   Denis "Jaromil" Roio think &do tank
>>   Ph.D, CTO & co-founder    software to empower communities
>>   ✉ Haparandadam 7-A1, 1013AK Amsterdam, The Netherlands
>>   𝄞 crypto κρυπτο крипто क्रिप्टो 加密 التشفير הצפנה
>>   ⚷ 6113D89C A825C5CE DD02C872 73B35DA5 4ACB7D10
>> #  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:
>> #  archive: contact:
>> #  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
> #  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:
> #  archive: contact:
> #  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
#  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:
#  archive: contact:
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:

Reply via email to