Re: The German "Open Letter" on Ukraine

[Michael Goldhaber]

“A ceasefire as soon as possible, A compromise both sides can accept”

Brian and everyone,

The German open letter offers the simple solution to the Ukraine crisis of  “A 
ceasefire as soon as possible, A compromise both sides can accept,” as if the 
road to this were somehow easy to see and likely to occur anytime soon. Though 
I consider myself a pacifist, I wonder what events in the recent histories of 
wars makes this goal seem even remotely realistic. 

Wars end in the following conditions:
When one side clearly has won and the other sides is utterly depleted, as in 
(to mention only wars in the past century or so) World Wars I and II or the 
1948 and 1967 Arab-Israeli wars or the Viet-Nam war  (where the anti-draft and 
anti-war movement in the US helped produce the realization of effective 
depletion) or either the Soviets or Americans in Afghanistan or the Sinhalese 
defeat of Tamils in Sri Lanka;
When a fairly long-term stalemate has occurred, as in the Korean War, which was 
left pretty much in status quo ante, and in several long wars in Africa or the 
50-year civil war in Colombia;
When the war has been pretty much a border skirmish and each side understands 
it is not in its own interest to allow the war to widen, as in various short 
conflicts between India and either China or Pakistan;
When dominant outside powers force the much weaker war participants to accept a 
peace, as in the 1956 Sinai War or the Bosnian war;
When  real war could  easily occur but the two sides realize clearly that it 
must be avoided, as in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

Only in case 5 has diplomacy been effective in ending things; in the other 
cases actual belligerence or restraint or threats of stronger outside-power 
intervention, more than diplomacy of any sort, actually determined the outcome. 
Diplomacy has come to the fore after the wars, for instance in peace congresses 
organized among the victors, not during the wars and not even usually to end 
them. 

The US and EU could decide to stop helping Ukraine, in which case it would 
probably eventually and painfully lose to Russia, but why should we believe 
that even that degree of pressure on Ukraine would enable it to make any kind 
of reasonable peace with Russia? It seems pretty clear to me that Ukrainians 
would and should feel horribly abandoned if that happens , but that they would 
still fight on a long time, even if hopelessly.  That path would increase the 
likelihood of further war  in Eastern Europe or elsewhere. 

As for putting pressure on Russia, that’s what the US and EU are trying to do 
with sanctions and arming Ukraine, but unless Putin has a change of heart, we 
can’t expect that to lead to peace soon. 

In neither case is diplomacy likely to help much since the history of Russia, 
probably for centuries, is of type 1 almost exclusively. There have been no 
peace talks that amounted to anything in Syria or in Chechnya, or in WWII. The 
surrender by Lenin to Germany and Austria in WWI was because the revolution 
couldn’t succeed while fighting on in what was anyway a losing cause. 

Unless some new form of pressure for peace is invented, the only  hope for any 
reasonable end to the fighting is if Russians somehow turn against Putin or if 
he can find some way to come out heroically while withdrawing. Otherwise he 
will continue what may be a losing battle while still inflicting great damage 
on Ukraine. 

Calling for diplomacy is easy to do but, sadly, highly unrealistic. 

Best,
Michael

> On May 17, 2022, at 8:50 AM, Brian Holmes  
> wrote:
> 
> Below is a machine translation of the “Open Letter” to Scholz, signed by over 
> 200,000 German personalities including Alice Schwartzer, Alexander Kluge and 
> Siegfried Zielinski. The source is here:
> 
> https://www.emma.de/artikel/offener-brief-bundeskanzler-scholz-339463 
> 
> 

#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#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:

Re: nettime-l Digest, Vol 174, Issue 40

[Michael Goldhaber]

See also this, today from Yair Rosenberg  who is probably not that progressive, 
but still: 



Douglas Macgregor is a retired U.S. Army colonel who has become Fox News host 
Tucker Carlson’s go-to foreign policy expert. In recent appearances on the 
channel, he has argued 

 that the U.S. should not sanction Russia and that Vladimir Putin should be 
allowed to annex as much of Ukraine as he wants, which is why many today 
consider 
Macgregor
 to be less a neutral observer than a Russia apologist 
.
 What they may not know is that he’s also a longtime purveyor of anti-Semitic 
ideas.

“We have a huge problem with a class of so-called elites, the people who are 
wealthy, very wealthy in many cases and they are, as the Russians used to call 
certain individuals many, many years ago, rootless cosmopolitans,” he told the 
Serbian American Voters Alliance in an October 2021 speech 
uncovered
 

 by Matt Gertz at MediaMatters.

For those understandably unfamiliar with this terminology, “rootless 
cosmopolitans” is an anti-Semitic euphemism 

 for Jews that was popularized 
under
 Stalin in the Soviet Union. Adolf Hitler also repeatedly referred 

 to Jews as disloyal cosmopolitans, lamenting in his manifesto Mein Kampfthat 
“it is no longer princes or their courtesans who contend and bargain about 
state frontiers, but the inexorable cosmopolitan Jew who is fighting for his 
own dominion over the nations.” In other words, there is exactly one type of 
person who uses this sort of language in everyday conversation.

In case his audience missed the point, though, Macgregor added: “They live 
above all of this, they have no connection to the country. There is nothing 
there that holds them in place, and they are largely responsible, in my 
judgment, for the condition that we are in today.”


Best,
Michael

> On Mar 17, 2022, at 4:00 PM, Ted Byfield  wrote:
> 
> This is my favorite debate strategy: when you don’t have a substantive 
> argument, just say your interlocutors are incapable of understanding the 
> truth.  It works for Macgregor’s fanboys on Fox, no reason it shouldn’t work 
> on nettime. 
> 
> Cheers,
> Ted
> On Mar 17, 2022, 18:26 -0400, Stefan Heidenreich , 
> wrote:
> it's a double bind + cognitive dissonance problem:
> 
> for most western intellectuals, after years of fighting for the right
> causes (which I also supported and keep supporting) it is very difficult
> to 

Re: The War to come ...

[Michael Goldhaber]

An interesting discussion, but I’d like to come at it from another angle.

My father was born in Lviv—then known as Lemberg, Galicia, Austro-Hungary, 
pre-WWI–and one of my  new granddaughter’s other grandparents was born in the 
same city —then Lvov, Ukraine SSR. In between it was Lwów, Poland. It’s 
substantial Jewish population has been emptied out twice, once via Holocaust, 
once via emigration in the face of Soviet anti-Semitism. Now it has somehow 
been partially refilled again. 

All this points to incessant flexibility of where and who Ukraine actually is; 
with seemingly any empire able not only to cut and shape it to fit but to 
decide just who belongs in it. All  of this turns it into a key fulcrum of 
international relations (of which, distantly, I am one). That helps explain why 
it looms so large as a country to sympathize with on the part of Westerners. 

It’s vital to peace that all boundaries are inviolate; it’s vital to democracy 
that elections not be trampled on by outside dictators; it’s vital to 
nationhood that countries can define for themselves who they are (unless that 
involves persecuting minorities—or even majorities). (Brian, please don’t 
lightly speak of  new borders, as if such changes meant nothing; they have to 
be honored or we’ll have a hundred Ukraines.) 

Another element I’ve missed in this discussion is Syria, especially Aleppo and 
Homs, bombed to smithereens by Putins’s planes to keep Assad in unloved power. 
Does the bombing of Libya excuse that? 

Best,
Michael

> On Mar 10, 2022, at 10:45 AM, Brian Holmes  
> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for your response Prem. I am glad to hear an outside perspective in 
> the first person. We are entering a geopolitical age where new borders and 
> spheres of influence will be set up whether one likes it or not. When war 
> becomes a whole-of-society effort, as it is now, the consequence can only be 
> the formation of blocs in which language and belief are tightly controlled. 
> In this dangerous context I agree with Ted that one has to make the best out 
> of what exists, although that could include getting rid of some things... One 
> cannot make the best by ignoring all the rest. Your critique of the US is 
> broadly the same as mine - for example, I live in the farm belt and am 
> painfully aware of the subsidy structure you point to, with the ecological 
> damage it does at home and the radically unequal commercial relations it 
> supports abroad, in the most sensitive of all existential arenas: food. But I 
> do perceive a big difference from your perspective, because no country is 
> monolithic, and in the US, those who are inching toward change are under 
> attack by a set of ideologies that are supported by Russia. These are white 
> nationalist, homophobic and military/sovereignist ideologies and it's no mere 
> detail. The worst of revanchist White Russian thought has now been translated 
> into both military force and internationalist ideology, by a leader and a 
> ruling clique who seem to be possessed by a powerful affect of historical 
> humiliation. That feeling could, and does, spread to other cliques and 
> associated groups who see themselves losing hegemony. When I see the most 
> ignorant and aggressive types of Americans appealing to a particularly 
> bellicose state that has just brutally invaded another one, it changes my 
> perspective. Particularly when major appeasement efforts have actually been 
> made, in the wake of Georgia and Crimea, and also in terms of extensive trade 
> integration on relatively favorable terms, which was supposed to, and did 
> not, keep the peace. It should be taken on board by people in the West that 
> war represents a failure. At the same time, I support the Ukrainians in this 
> war.
> 
> Nato has reasons to be perceived as an imperial, or at least, Euro-American 
> war machine, to the extent that Afghanistan was a Nato war. The recent 
> unilateral seizure of Afghanistan's foreign-exchange assets by the US (and 
> this is the Biden admin that I have to support, in view of the other side) is 
> a typical abuse of the supposed rules-based framework, with the results of 
> starving millions of people. The attack on Kyiv is terrifying, but so was 
> Fallujah, and indeed, the whole war in Iraq. If the citizens of the US - and 
> I think also, in many respects, of the EU with its extractivism and its 
> sealed borders - don't understand that some of their actions are not only 
> arbitrary projections of power, but also, recognized as such by others, then 
> it becomes a major problem in the geopolitical age and it contributes to the 
> threat of wider war. In a context where there is an emerging Russia-China 
> relationship, this is not a problem that will go away. Russia is now 
> committing crimes on the scale of the Americans, and that too needs 
> recognizing. Again I agree with Ted that the typical Left debates on 
> geopolitics are always useless, because when you examine 

Re: The Dawn of Everything (very short review)

[Michael Goldhaber]

As a one-time theoretical physicist, I find this quote from Gosden to be  
out-dated, overly reductive, and incorrect, at least as far as the most 
thoughtful scientists go. 

Scientific understanding doesn’t “derive from abstraction,” but rather the 
other way round. It doesn’t separate humans from the world , but rather 
emphasizes our total embededness in it. It is no coincidence that almost all 
aspects of the current environmental movement, whether against the destruction 
of species , the concerns about global warming, the dire effects of plastics, 
etc.,  come from scientific observations. Nor is it  any coincidence that 
scientists for the most part are instigators and fervent supporters of that 
movement. 

Darwin, after all, is generally considered a scientist, yet the most basic and 
originally shocking point of evolutionary theory is that we are related to all 
other living things.  Ethologists constantly emphasize how close we are in 
behavior to other animals , etc., etc., etc. And, by the way, since Einstein 
physicists have agreed that matter and energy are the same.

Best,

Michael



> On Dec 8, 2021, at 2:15 PM, mp  wrote:
> Scientific understanding
> derives from abstraction, through the quantification of matter, energy
> and force by means of mathematics, but also through logical reasoning
> from elementary starting points, such as Newton’s Laws, towards the true
> profusion of the world. Science separates people from the world, whereas
> magic immerses us in it, raising also questions of our moral
> relationship with the universe in a way that science does not..." (2020: 8).

#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#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:

Re: re art & monetary value -- "art in the information economy"

[Michael Goldhaber]

g>
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> nettime-l-ow...@mail.kein.org <mailto:nettime-l-ow...@mail.kein.org>
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of nettime-l digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>1. Re: what does monetary value indicate? (Molly Hankwitz)
>2. Re: what does monetary value indicate? (Brian Holmes)
> 
> 
> ----------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2021 18:50:30 -0700
> From: Molly Hankwitz  <mailto:mollyhankw...@gmail.com>>
> To: Michael Goldhaber mailto:mich...@goldhaber.org>>
> Cc: nettime-l@mail.kein.org <mailto:nettime-l@mail.kein.org>
> Subject: Re:  what does monetary value indicate?
> Message-ID:
>  <mailto:kxgknej_1keo49o4w_...@mail.gmail.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> Hi Michael,
> 
> Or, maybe, originality has been all along, a fictional history, and a
> signifier for fictional social relations in much art history, if only to
> justify value through ?scarcity? (genius and originality are rare) or
> create its justification (there is only one original) and to obscure modes
> of artistic production not about ?sole? authorship and individual
> creativity? Somewhere along the line, ?originality? was seen to be a
> valuable asset in art making, taught, told, produced, encouraged, and then
> it died many deaths as a concept; as something to strive for or achieve or
> practice or expect? ?Death of the author?, digital reproducibility,
> post-medium conditions, AI Art, all seemingly question or consider at least
> art without ?originality?.
> We have replaced this expectation instead with collectivity, collaboration,
> stakeholders, or, much more importantly, maybe, the artist as an ?original?
> interpreter of systems. So, I?m thinking that the new artist might be more
> akin to an economist who comprehends the communication of value or an
> artist who digs deeply into AI enough to transform it...originally. This
> appears to me by way of Paglen, Steryel, and others to be a trend. Artist
> as ?administrative author? or initiator of a system, through which
> communities can act, somewhat recursively to establish value, and/or
> prosper via, for instance, a shared currency?
> 
> (Fresh from MoneyLab events)
> 
> Molly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 4:02 PM Michael Goldhaber  <mailto:mich...@goldhaber.org>>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Mar 27, 2021, at 1:27 PM, Molly Hankwitz  > <mailto:mollyhankw...@gmail.com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > ..how original is original when originality died long ago ?
> >
> >
> > Yes, originality died with the second cave painting, but has been reborn
> > many times since, even if only evident to new generations. Depending  on
> > the fineness of your mesh, it is always relatively rare, and thus, with so
> > many trying for it today, perhaps easily not seen. But I bet still around.
> >
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> 
> 
> molly hankwitz - she/her
> http://bivoulab.org <http://bivoulab.org/>
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <http://mx.kein.org/pipermail/nettime-l/attachments/20210327/1483fa99/attachment-0001.html
>  
> <http://mx.kein.org/pipermail/nettime-l/attachments/20210327/1483fa99/attachment-0001.html>>
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2021 23:28:14 -0500
> From: Brian Holmes  <mailto:bhcontinentaldr...@gmail.com>>
> To: Molly Hankwitz mailto:mollyhankw...@gmail.com>>
> Cc: a moderated mailing list for net criticism
> mailto:nettime-l@mail.kein.org>>
> Subject: Re:  what does monetary value indicate?
> Message-ID:
>  <mailto:canuitgwqjvwcrzinuz6z51jyrwwzng0jw-gxohdbtstzmev...@mail.gmail.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 8:51 PM Molly Hankwitz  <mailto:mollyhankw...@gmail.com>>
> asked:
> 
> Artist as ?administrative author? or initiator of a system, through which
> > communities can act, somewhat recursively to establish value, and/or
> > prosper via, for instance, a shared currency?
> >
> 
> I am fascinated by the concept of the artist as "initiator of a system,"
> it's the most profound and still-relevant notion of art to come out of the
> late 20th century. To initiate a system is to open up the field in which
> something like orienta

Re: what does monetary value indicate?

[Michael Goldhaber]

> On Mar 27, 2021, at 1:27 PM, Molly Hankwitz  wrote:

> ..how original is original when originality died long ago ? 
> 

Yes, originality died with the second cave painting, but has been reborn many 
times since, even if only evident to new generations. Depending  on the 
fineness of your mesh, it is always relatively rare, and thus, with so many 
trying for it today, perhaps easily not seen. But I bet still around. 

Best,
Michael

> 

#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#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:

Re: what does monetary value indicate?

[Michael Goldhaber]

Dear Felix, Ted, Bryan, and Dymitri,

I have some differences of opinion about the nature of money, its meaning 
today, and what it says about digital art, etc. 

First, money is primarily a social construct, resting on a whole host of 
institutions and arrangements. These inevitably change depending on time and 
circumstance. The Austrian school is certainly over-simple in its notion that 
money rests on something unchangeable with definite use, such as gold. So is 
the  simple Marxian view  that the value of money is somehow conferred by the 
socially necessary labor time to produce it. (Marx introduced the concept of 
labor time to argue that workers under capitalism were being systematically 
robbed, not as some sort of essential fact.) 

After all, though it takes more than a penny’s worth of effort to make a penny, 
it takes about the same amount effort to make a thousand-dollar bill as a 
ten-dollar bill. The effort it can take to have x million dollars in stocks or 
in a bank account may not be appreciably different from having 2x million or 
.5x million. There’s a lot of looseness.

If, as I have argued elsewhere, we increasingly live in an economy based on the 
scarcity and desirability of (human) attention, then one of the values of 
having a lot of money and somehow making the fact known is that our learned 
fascination with money itself leads the flaunters of it to get additional 
attention, which sometimes can be further monetized. On the other hand, at 
times, having very little money can also be a way to get attention, which can 
sometimes  also be monetized. 

On to art. Art can get attention for its maker or possessor in a variety of 
ways: being beautiful, being novel, being revelatory, etc. The difference 
between a famous Picasso painting and a very good copy of it lies ultimately in 
the fact that Picasso actually worked on one but not the other. Picasso’s 
paintings made him Picasso, but being Picasso, anything he worked on took on 
his aura. Of course, now that he’s dead, authenticating which is which is a 
complicated social process, with margins of error. Only when the art world—or 
the relevant part of it—is more or less in agreement can we tell real from 
fake, and thus help determine the apparent worth to collectors. The fact that 
the catalogue raisonnée for Picasso has only a limited number of works, while 
the number potential collectors keeps climbing, tends to increase the value of 
the authenticated ones. If you have the money you might buy it just to bask in 
his aura, or to admire it, or to get attention for yourself, or—or perhaps 
also—as an investment more likely to go up in value than down. It can be 
somewhat like buying a house that you expect to relish living in as well as 
having as a good investment. 

In recent decades, digital art has opened up new possibilities for artists, but 
there is no sense of the artist’s actually having bodily touched any particular 
avatar. There are still possibilities of making money, somewhat similar to 
portions of Christo’s various gates or curtains being cut into small fabric 
pieces and then sold. Which in turn is not that different from the added value 
Abraham Lincoln’s actual pocket watch would have over another 
identical-appearing watch made by the same maker. A slightly older era of 
digital art might make something like the original CD-Rom available for 
collectors. But obviously something completely digital that nonetheless could 
carry the aura of the artist somehow would be very appealing to the community 
of such artists and their admirers and would-be collectors. Hence NFT’s. 

Just as the very first significant Italian Renaissance oil painting  might 
carry special meaning and hence value by being first, it should not be too 
surprising that the first significant piece of digital art ever sold as an NFT 
would carry special value. So the price may not be outrageous. 

However, even though it can be authenticated as long as the computer train used 
to record the unique attribution survives, the value of the authentication is 
seemingly less than say  the signature on the painting or the individuality of 
the particular painter’s brushstroke. For the ten-thousandth digital art work 
the specialness of being a true NFT most surely will have diminished. The aura 
is just too faint. 

One can surely argue that there are far too many artists, entertainers and what 
are now simply called “creators,” and that most of their work adds too little 
to our lives or culture beyond banality. Digital art mostly adds to that 
oversupply, I’d suppose. But how can greatness emerge except from a sea of 
mediocrity? We may not want the sea but we should want the greatness. In fact 
we very much need it. 

We should wish for other ways to support great and potentially great art than 
sales to collectors who may or may not have any feeling for what they are 
buying. We perhaps should also want a way to preserve the aura, the sense of 

Re: why is it so quiet (in the US)

[Michael Goldhaber]

It’s hard to think of any actual, successful  military coups or anything 
similar except in Africa anytime recently. Certainly not in any country 
remotely as “advanced” and complex as the US. However, The Republican party has 
certainly been high methodical and quite successful in setting the 
stage—abetted by outmoded provision of the Constitution—to extend minority 
power unfitting for a true democracy. In addition, the Democratic Party, as is 
well-known, has been much too cozy with corporate interests at the expense of 
most people. Much of this will continue post-Trump.

What I think is somewhat hopeful now is that the anti-democratic elements  are 
more visible and being more actively opposed. While it’s certainly possible 
that Biden would have won without the pandemic, his increase in votes—close to 
80 million total— despite the pandemic and all the efforts at voter 
suppression,  is quite extraordinary. The Republicans were more adroit in 
getting votes of new voters by vast disinformation and  careful manipulation of 
internet data. But the Democrats could clearly catch up with that, and 
left-wing Democrats may be in the lead. 

Further, anti-racism is showing real , new strength, as is environmentalism and 
greater recognition and opposition to economic inequality….

 All reasons not to succumb to too much pessimism.


Best,
Michael

> On Nov 15, 2020, at 7:02 PM, tbyfield  wrote:
> 
> "Words have meanings" is one of those sayings that needs to go away. It 
> sounds so sure, so blunt, but it obscures so very much. Yes, words have 
> meanings: they have lots of meanings, many of them ambiguous or contrary, and 
> those meanings change to keep pace with historical circumstances.
> 
> This thread is trying to describe the murky area between things working 
> normally and things breaking hopelessly. More specifically, we're at a moment 
> when the president of the US is spewing torrents of claims that are 
> upside-down and backwards. And he's supported in large part by widespread 
> silence across his party and rabid supporters who've completely lost their 
> grip. What we're seeing is a profound breakdown in the language we use to 
> describe our world.
> 
> The definitions of a word like "coup" in a US or UK dictionary evolved in a 
> world where it was assumed (as they say) it can't happen here — so *of 
> course* those definition will all but insist that the leaders wear aviator 
> shades, ridiculous regalia, and all the rest.
> 
> The US is breaking down, so it's not at all surprising that some of its 
> language for describing the world would as well.
> 
> If you think that consulting dictionaries and insisting on definitions is the 
> best way to make sense of this, go for it. Myself, I think that kind of 
> prescriptive tendency is part of the problem. Think about all the inane, 
> endless debates we've seen about whether Trump is "really" a fascist: what 
> exactly did they accomplish, except discouraging people from seeing what was 
> in front of their face?
> 
> As for the "nuclear codes," that's a standard lefty fetish. The US nuclear 
> command-and-control decision tree includes entire branches for scenarios in 
> which civilian authority is uncertain: nonexistent, unreachable, contested, 
> unverifiable, and/or incompetent. Little or nothing is publicly known about 
> the criteria and procedures involved in switching to one of those branches. I 
> think there's a good chance that a president firing the Secretary of Defense, 
> purging the DOD, raving about imagined conspiracies, contesting the election, 
> and threatening to never leave would meet those criteria. If it didn't, it 
> will within four years.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ted
> 
> On 15 Nov 2020, at 16:51, Kurtz, Steven wrote:
> 
>> Interesting perspective Ted, but I can’t call the examples you cite a coup. 
>> The use of political power to reorganize institutions to better solidify a 
>> person’s or party’s advantage or even to gain a political monopoly is most 
>> of what politics is. Machine politics or the attempt to build a machine is 
>> not a coup. And Trump attempting to reorganize institutions to his advantage 
>> in an obvious and half-baked way doesn’t make a coup. If that is what a coup 
>> is then a coup is ongoing everywhere, all the time from the local to the 
>> international. Words have meanings. This word refers to an illegal, 
>> unconstitutional, removal of a party or individual from power through the 
>> use of force. That is not what has happened or is presently happening no 
>> matter how much Trump might wish it so.
>> 
>> The only event I can think of that could potentially resemble a (bloodless) 
>> coup will be when the military gives Biden the nuclear codes on January 
>> 20th, without a care for what legislatures or courts might think about it. 
>> It will even better resemble a coup if they give them to Trump (which is 
>> very unlikely). If the shenanigans get too wild the military could decide 
>> 

Re: The Zombie Public – Or, how to revive ‘the public’ and public space after the pandemic.

[Michael Goldhaber]

Eric, in your diatribe  about openness, which seems to me quite silly and 
against the reality that perfectly legal assemblies have taken place, you also 
make a scientific statement of doubtful validity, that since the virus will 
continue to mutate there is no possible protection against it, such as that 
provided by lowering the transmission rate through SIP and masking, etc.. This 
is, as far as I can tell, a made-up fact. No decisions should be based on 
something that has simply not been clearly demonstrated about such a dangerous 
pathogen. 

Best,
Michael

> On Oct 8, 2020, at 4:04 PM, Eric Kluitenberg  wrote:
> 
> OK - hello lizvlx,
> 
> It was meanwhile pointed out to me whom I was talking to - pardon my 
> misconception about Uebermorgen, it was simply not clear to me who I was 
> talking to..
> 
> You are entirely justified to point out any issues in the text you do not 
> agree with. Thank you for that, it helps to see a broader context and any 
> possible misconceptions that might be there.
> 
> I have answered your questions as concise as I could in my previous mail - 
> nothing to add. You are supposing all kinds of things in my text and answers 
> that aren’t there. I leave it to the reader to make up their own mind.
> 
> -e.
> 
>> On 8 Oct 2020, at 23:53, lizvlx > > wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello ‘lizvix’ - don’t know who this is - the ‘Hans’ of Übermorgen?
>> 
>> Ahhh — Are you trying to be rude or are you really not aware that Ubermorgen 
>> consists not only of one man? I find that quite amusing :D - you are funny 
>> man.
>> 
>> So to clear that up, I am lizvlx, the lizvlx of Ubermorgen. 
>> 
>> Why do you use so many words! 
>> You are hard for me to understand.
>> 
>> Anyway.
>> 
>> Let me rephrase & comment (after all we do want to discuss this right):
>> 
>> 1. What do you mean the freedom of assembly has been suspended?
>> (Not true in Kenya, Nigeria, Germany, Austria, Italy, Switzerland, USA, - I 
>> am only citing countries that are coming to my mind right now)
>> 
>> 2. How can you refer to “no particular” country - that is illogical when you 
>> are trying to make a point on legal issues which are always decided locally. 
>> There is a hge amount of democratic countries on this planet, on all 
>> continents. I am quite perplexed that you seem to think that a nice 
>> Eurocentric position will explain the Covid rules and changes in let’s say - 
>> Taiwan, Uganda or Columbia.
>> 
>> 3. Thank you for your answer to question 3 - even tho you really use many 
>> many words, but then, that is a male trait that maybe is to be not to made 
>> fun of.
>> Are you not concerned that your views on public health might come across as 
>> proto-fascist and medically-naive?
>> 
>> 4. Data - as much as I appreciate the academic thought on this - btw I 
>> usually use a Samsung, which unfortunately just broke down - but there is 
>> not A (1) corona app, but there are many. And they vary in their technology. 
>> But summa summarum, most are sharing less data then your average datamining 
>> gaming app. So from a programmer’s perspective I cannot see anything 
>> relevant added to the again huge data fields of the 21th century.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> lizvlx 
>> 
>> Ps: why are you talking about the weather? I don’t understand the relevance 
>> to your above points. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
 1. what do u mean by (mass) gatherings have been suspended? 
>>> 
>>> I wrote “The freedom of assembly has been suspended.” - under corona rules 
>>> virtually anywhere now only limited amounts of people are allowed to 
>>> assemble, which in effect means that this basic freedom is suspended. Mass 
>>> gatherings still happen, as I explained in some length in the piece, but 
>>> they are then in violation of these rules.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
 2. What countries r u referring to?
>>> 
>>> Not any country in particular, but the countries that have or pretend to 
>>> have some form of basic ‘democratic’ or civic governance (neoliberal 
>>> phantasy or not). Probably we must assume that ‘democratic rights’ are 
>>> always under threat / pressure, but with the covid-19 crisis I feel there 
>>> is a qualitatively different situation. 
>>> 
 3. do u have an issue with a lockdown per se or is this coz u don’t think 
 the pandemic necessitates such a thing?
>>> 
>>> I am writing in the essay about the question of ‘public space’ and the 
>>> erosion of ‘publicness’ and ’the public’ not about the politics of the 
>>> lockdowns.
>>> 
>>> My private opinion, which is outside the scope of this essay, is that in 
>>> some initial stage of the pandemic the lockdowns were maybe necessary, 
>>> given the overburdened care system, but in essence they are 
>>> counter-productive. The virus will not go away, it will stay around like 
>>> the flu and mutate regularly. Thus any vaccine will need to be updated 
>>> regularly and we will have to get it like the flu shot, or even in a 
>>> cocktail, probably 

Re: A question in earnest

[Michael Goldhaber]

Thanks, Molly, for  a relatively cheering summing up. However, I’m not quite 
ready to cheer until the election results are in and more or less accepted. 

US election laws still favor just two parties, and left ideas are just 
beginning to take a very partial hold among Dems nationally.. It’s a slow slog; 
progressives are extremely bad tacticians, it seems, outside of a very few 
multi-ethnic city neighborhoods. I remember voting (supposedly unprogressively) 
for the New American  Movement to join DSA in 1979, for example. And, equally 
quixotically, voting for Dick Gregory in 1968. But if Biden wins, I’ll feel as 
happy as I did the first time I voted, “all the way with LBJ.” Biden is less of 
a new -dealer than Johnson, but he may get talked into it, hopefully without a 
parallel war. 


Best,
Michael

> On Oct 4, 2020, at 11:59 PM, Molly Hankwitz  wrote:
> 
> Hello! 
> 
> Now that DT has Covid-19, it is as if some kind of sense has descended upon 
> this nation, a place recurrently gripped by sensations of flackery, fakery, 
> and flack. It is all quiet on the White House lawn...Left candidates 
> *have*retreated to the sidelines...sure. Biden wants us in the Paris 
> accord...wow!
> 
> What has become evident after that first debate and now with Covid is how 
> Trump didn’t want his job — and only as he got a taste for greater power - 
> look wistfully into the distance and say, “...greater power”...did he start 
> to like it. 
> 
> He’s gone. His believers see that through his own personal irresponsibility 
> he got the virus. Hes transparent. A ghost. A trouble making ghost. 
> Historical facts and figures are now outweighing any tripe he comes up with. 
> His model is old. It cannot sustain us. 
> 
> More importantly these last few days have exposed his cowardice. He wasn’t 
> going to say anything. I just hope Joe Biden doesn’t come down with Covid, 
> then there would be more upheaval. 
> 
> Biden is a “decent guy”. We need a decent guy for a while. We can’t take the 
> bombastic and we don’t have anyone else right now - ironically - to beat DT. 
> Honestly, I don’t care that Biden is the last husk of neoliberalism and the 
> Clinton effect. He’s capable, at least of civil discourse and collaboration. 
> He won’t shaft women. He is planning to rejoin the Paris Accord and fund 
> education so that our schools have enough money to reopen. He doesn’t stomp 
> around on his teeny tiny hobby horse screaming threats and sanctions. If we 
> never have to hear that kind of civil abuse again, perhaps we can as a nation 
> pull ourselves together to fight climate change because scientists (who know 
> more than DT) are real. 
> 
> We’ve been putting up with a gross uncle for the last 4 years. A deeply 
> cynical unhappy boorish sort of man who knows so much, he lacks all curiosity 
> which is the essence of the capacity to learn. Such a know it all and a no 
> nothing. 
> 
> Our election is teetering. Why isn’t Europe writing about it? 
> 
> I wonder...lay it on...right-wing groups in Europe are emboldened by DT 
> support for white nationalists? 
> 
> Is Europe waiting to see him voted out? What does Europe think about our 
> violent protests? Trumps use of Antifa...how backward he is? 
> 
> Surely you must all be as eager as I for social change? The good that has 
> arisen is all the young smart progressive politicians that have been voted 
> in, the flipping of the Senate, Sanders and Warren working on 
> committees...the life breathed into the Dem party, alongside 
> #BlackLivesMatter and huge support for that movement. The times have changed 
> in do many ways socially that the economy is going to have to change. 
> Macroeconomics. Money is going to have to be put into new budgets. The whole 
> place is a conversation that’s been trying to happen. What is the 
> conversation in other countries? 
> 
> Molly 
> 
>> On Oct 4, 2020, at 5:26 PM, Vincent Gaulin  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> The election is a sorry excuse for politics, let alone democracy.
>> 
>> There is no Left candidate. Biden is a human placeholder for the washed up 
>> hollow promises of neoliberal “normalcy”, and Trump is the cartoon version 
>> of a rich person with equally cartoonish ideas around governance (which 
>> isn’t to belittle the vast and very concrete destructiveness he has/is 
>> enacting).
>> 
>> There is very little room in “the election” and mainstream discourse to 
>> attend to the pressing issues bearing down on everyday life.
>> 
>> On Sun, Oct 4, 2020 at 5:16 AM Max Herman > > wrote:
>> 
>> Why is there nothing appearing here about the US election?
>> 
>> I sound like a jerk to myself typing this but the silence is unexpected.
>> 
>> Are we all too afraid to say anything, or all just busy with other platforms?
>> 
>> 
>> #  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
>> #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
>> #  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics 

Re: The Covid Pandemic: Seven Lessons to be Learned for a

[Michael Goldhaber]

Thanks for these clarifications, Prem. But I don’t think even your revisions 
take account of what the pandemic actually teaches. 

Start with Wuhan. While the lack of any sort of free press in China certainly 
contributed to the delayed response, local officials' first instinct was 
apparently and disastrously to cover up. This is, worldwide, a common reaction 
by local officials to all sorts of problems. In the case of the virus, around 
the world it includes hiding deaths, making utterly wrong local decisions on 
the amount of social distancing needed, how to provide for the transient 
populations that were so maltreated in India—and elsewhere—and on and on. 

The problem of localism or nationalism persists even at the nation-state level, 
of course. Is anything at all gained by the US’s head-in-the-sand response at 
the national level? What about the UK or even Spain and Italy? I’m sure there 
are many ways the EU’s bureaucracy is sclerotic, but I suspect that public 
health measures advocated more centrally and then followed locally would have 
been more timely. 

Here in the US, where I live in Berkeley, it so happens the response was very 
quick, and the state of California nearly as quick, but the absence of freedom 
to act on a national level, by organizations such as the Centers for Disease 
Control, led to the tens of thousands of deaths so far in this country. The 
WHO, had it had real independence, would probably have declared a pandemic 
sooner than it did, but even that late, it wasn’t heeded in many places where 
it should have been. Had air travel and cruise voyages been halted and 
quarantines put in place globally right away, the worldwide pain would have 
been much less. 

When it comes to steps to ameliorate the dislocations, the US’s federal system 
keeps local officials easily able to divert funds and attention from the most 
in need of it. And the lack of anything remotely like a global response of 
course injures the poorest most. 

Looking beyond COVID-19, here on the very wealthy outskirts of Silicon Valley, 
another aspect of localism is NIMBYism, which operates to to prevent sufficient 
housing for  the huge number of  homeless. While, in Berkeley there is at least 
a high-level of concern, whether effective or not, just an hour away in even 
richer Palo Alto, the policies are completely terrible. More rural parts of 
California treat migrant labor as nearly as slaves as they can get away with. 

Finally, consider the world scientific community. The degree of international 
cooperation has been intense, and seems most likely to lead to better treatment 
protocols and clearer understanding of the appropriate protective steps, if not 
to working medications and a possible vaccine more quickly than anything in the 
past would have allowed. (To be sure, Big Pharma acting to increase profits, 
may well be more of a hindrance than a help in this.) 

We are probably stuck with localism and the nation-state model for some time to 
come, but we should not be at all happy with that. Finding better ways to 
ensure a sense of global citizenship and struggling for the loose but effective 
means of internationalizing governance and networks that truly exclude none 
should be goals. 


Best,
Michael

> On May 7, 2020, at 12:06 AM, Prem Chandavarkar  > wrote:
> 
> Thanks Michael,
> Perhaps I was not clear.  I do not propose an isolationist self-reliance - 
> that is not feasible at all.  International scales of operation are still 
> necessary.  I only argue that in the attempt to define what should be done at 
> the local level and what should be done at the national or international 
> level, we should go by the principle of subsidiarity.  So it is more the 
> question of a layered hierarchy of scales than isolating any specific scale.
> 





#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#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:

Re: The Covid Pandemic: Seven Lessons to be Learned for a

[Michael Goldhaber]

Thanks for these clarifications, Prem. But I don’t think even your revisions 
take account of what the pandemic actually teaches. 

Start with Wuhan. While the lack of any sort of free press in China certainly 
contributed to the delayed response, local officials' first instinct was 
apparently and disastrously to cover up. This is, worldwide, a common reaction 
by local officials to all sorts of problems. In the case of the virus, around 
the world it includes hiding deaths, making utterly wrong local decisions on 
the amount of social distancing needed, how to provide for the transient 
populations that were so maltreated in India—and elsewhere—and on and on. 

The problem of localism or nationalism persists even at the nation-state level, 
of course. Is anything at all gained by the US’s head-in-the-sand response at 
the national level? What about the UK or even Spain and Italy? I’m sure there 
are many ways the EU’s bureaucracy is sclerotic, but I suspect that public 
health measures advocated more centrally and then followed locally would have 
been more timely. 

Here in the US, where I live in Berkeley, it so happens the response was very 
quick, and the state of California nearly as quick, but the absence of freedom 
to act on a national level, by organizations such as the Centers for Disease 
Control, led to the tens of thousands of deaths so far in this country. The 
WHO, had it had real independence, would probably have declared a pandemic 
sooner than it did, but even that late, it wasn’t heeded in many places where 
it should have been. Had air travel and cruise voyages been halted and 
quarantines put in place globally right away, the worldwide pain would have 
been much less. 

When it comes to steps to ameliorate the dislocations, the US’s federal 
system keeps local officials easily able to divert funds and attention from the 
most in need of it. And the lack of anything remotely like a global response of 
course injures the poorest most. 

Looking beyond COVID-19, here on the very wealthy outskirts of Silicon Valley, 
another aspect of localism is NIMBYism, which operates to to prevent sufficient 
housing for  the huge number of  homeless. While, in Berkeley there is at least 
a high-level of concern, whether effective or not, just an hour away in even 
richer Palo Alto, the policies are completely terrible. More rural parts of 
California treat migrant labor as nearly as slaves as they can get away with. 

Finally, consider the world scientific community. The degree of international 
cooperation has been intense, and seems most likely to lead to better treatment 
protocols and clearer understanding of the appropriate protective steps, if not 
to working medications and a possible vaccine more quickly than anything in the 
past would have allowed. (To be sure, Big Pharma acting to increase profits, 
may well be more of a hindrance than a help in this.) 

We are probably stuck with localism and the nation-state model for some time to 
come, but we should not be at all happy with that. Finding better ways to 
ensure a sense of global citizenship and struggling for the loose but effective 
means of internationalizing governance and networks that truly exclude none 
should be goals. 


Best,
Michael

> On May 7, 2020, at 12:06 AM, Prem Chandavarkar  > wrote:
> 
> Thanks Michael,
> Perhaps I was not clear.  I do not propose an isolationist self-reliance - 
> that is not feasible at all.  International scales of operation are still 
> necessary.  I only argue that in the attempt to define what should be done at 
> the local level and what should be done at the national or international 
> level, we should go by the principle of subsidiarity.  So it is more the 
> question of a layered hierarchy of scales than isolating any specific scale.
> 




#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#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:

Re: The Covid Pandemic: Seven Lessons to be Learned for a

[Michael Goldhaber]

Prem has some worthwhile points as a response to the pandemic, but I question 
the idea that “local government is the core.” Surely an effective international 
system, rather than the hodgepodge we had, would  have dealt better with an 
international crisis such as the virus and its spread. Local governments have 
clearly been shown quite often to be utterly incompetent or downright evil in 
countering the disease toll. 

While I doubt that a vibrant economic recovery is at all likely,  again, a 
truly internationalist mindset would be the best guarantor of it. Every 
locality for itself would only make matters worse. 

Rather than delegating upwards, effective downwards delegation would make far 
more sense. 

Of course, I recognize we have no such (viable) system to fall back on. But we 
don’t have anything approximating the upwards delegation system either. 

Best,

Michael
---
Michael H. Goldhaber

mich...@goldhaber.org


> On May 4, 2020, at 2:41 AM, Prem Chandavarkar  wrote:
> 
> 3.   Local government is the core:
> 
> The pandemic has shown that feet on the ground and on-the-spot assessment are 
> crucial in creating resilience. This is the only means by which the situation 
> can be dealt with, whether it is in providing healthcare or in making the 
> assessment to classify neighbourhoods by the extent of spread of infection in 
> order to devise containment strategies appropriate to context.  While 
> aggregating data at a larger scale is important in discerning wider patterns, 
> the reliability of the data and the successful implementation of any response 
> is only possible by a close linkage between governance and citizenry at a 
> decentralised and localised level.  The last mile problem 
>  > is not confined to communication 
> networks, also applies to government, and can be resolved only by resilient 
> localised systems. 


#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#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:

Re: Why I won't support the March for Science

[Michael Goldhaber]

   I took part on Saturday in the March for Science in SF. It wast a bit
   of d�ja vu for me, since, about 47 years ago,  I helped organize and
   participated in the March 4, scientists' movement that became "Science
   for the People" (SftP),  and then the first Earth Day the next year.
   Slightly earlier, in 1968, I  was a founder of what eventually became
   "SftP". We objected to science being used for war , especially in
   Viet-Nam, and not only weapons science but anthropology and medicine as
   well, in that context. We opposed a whole range of science for the
   corporations, or for racist ends, and so on. Of course these are still
   valid and important concerns. But they have little to do with the
   origins of the current marches, which are the Trump administration's
   strident opposition to non-corprorate-aiding, non-military research
   which goes right along with its opposition to the humanities and the
   arts as well as public broadcasting.

   Of course, on the whole, the organizers of the current event might be
   accused of being a  bit naive, both as to the likely effects of the
   march as well as the purity of science. For some, the primary reasons
   for marching are  selfish: they want their grants renewed or simply
   want to have a job, as well of course, as wanting to be able to carry
   out the research projects that interest them. That's no more selfish
   though than typical strikers .When they speak in favor of
   'evidence-based"   efforts they are referring in large measure to
   climate science or medicine, where , despite perhaps going a bit too
   far, the approach has mostly been beneficial.

   As far as the philosophical implications or, perhaps equivalently, the
   claims to universality, it's certainly easy for science as well as
   philosophers to claim too much. No overarching view is unproblematic.
   With climate science for example, absolute certainties are out of the
   question. There is only one earth, and in general., at best, scientific
   precautions are statistical or probabilistic in nature. One is simply
   too small a sample. For the right, that is an entirely fallacious
   dodge, but it cannot be logically refuted.

   I myself doubt that the marches will change much of anything, though
   they may add some esprit de corps. They were hardly covered even in
   what should have been the most sympathetic press. But to rail against
   them on Nettime strikes me as absurd to the point nearly of idiocy,
   being principled about utterly the wrong thing.

   Best,

   Michael

   On Apr 25, 2017, at 12:32 PM, carlo von lynX  
wrote:

   I'll try a deconstruction from the perspective of having
   "designed" a leaderless political organization...

   On 04/23/2017 06:54 PM, Florian Cramer wrote:

 1) The central demand of the 'March for Science', "evidence-based
 policies and regulations", is toxic and dangerous.

   This approach has certainly been abused strategically in
   the past, like declaring economics a kind of science. It's
   interesting you mention Popper because in my understanding
   of Popper I would define politics as the space of possible
   choices of action remaining if you remove all the proven
   false options.
 <...>

#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#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:

Re: Armin Medosch (1962-2017)

[Michael Goldhaber]

   I'm so sorry to hear of Armin's premature death. As far as I know, I
   never had the pleasure of meeting him, nor did I know was one of the
   founders of Telepolis where I had a column years ago. But his remarks
   on nettime were very often of great interest. To al those who knew him
   better, and to those who will miss his writing here, my condolences.

   Best,

   Michael

   On Feb 24, 2017, at 12:12 AM, Felix Stalder <[1]fe...@openflows.com>
   wrote:

   Armin Medosch died yesterday, on the day two months after being
   diagnosed with cancer. I'm sure many people on nettime knew him very
   well. He was a long-time mover and shaker in the media arts and
   network culture scene in Europe. Indeed for much longer than even
   nettime exists.

#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#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:

Re: Protocols and Crises

[Michael Goldhaber]

   I admit to being slightly mystified by what you say, Felix. Let's start
   with protocols. An example used decades ago in discussions of
   artificial intelligence was the protocol for restaurant dining: you go
   in the door, wait to be seated, are shown to table, sit down, examine
   the menu , eventually order, ...etc. (Incidentally, in my book
   "Reinventing Technology", 1986, I suggested that technological
   innovation is like legislation, in effect creating what you call would
   presumably call new protocols, and that therefore innovation should be
   subject to democratic oversight.) Obviously all human cultures have
   numerous protocols, but  local protocols risk losing ground to the
   protocols introduced by  forces of globalization that you speak of,
   apparently, as neo-liberalism.

   So are you ascribing the search for nationalist strongmen as simply an
   attempt to save or revert to older protocols?  In the case, say, of
   Poland, something like that might well make sense. Perhaps also in the
   case of ISIS. I am less sure it makes sense in the US "rust belt" that
   gave rise to Trumpism. The people there want their good jobs back, jobs
   predicated, in reality, on the post-WWII ascendancy of the US that came
   about in large measure from the fact that other industrial countries
   had been battered by the war. Is that wish really about protocols? I
   suppose one could make the case, but the protocols in question would
   have to include women's rights, anti-racism, etc.(I guess that also
   could be argued for the case of Poland and ISIS.)

   Women's rights and anti-racism were perhaps carried along by
   neo-liberalism, but seem to me hardly central to it.( if they are
   central, that would make anti-neo-liberalism much less dismissible, I
   think. )

   Finally, it seems to me that ISIS, Trumpism,  and Brexit at least, owe
   a lot to the protocols of the Internet, including Facebook, Twitter,
   etc. How does the fit into your argument?

   Best,

   Michael

   On Jan 30, 2017, at 4:12 AM, Felix Stalder  wrote:

   [This text is an abstract for a larger argument I hope to develop on how
   to frame the political character of the crisis, by understanding the
   appeal of trump and other stongmen, while trying to avoid the trap of
   leftwing nationalism (which I think is largely an illusion). I know it's
   very abstract and I'm not even sure if the argument really works, but
   it's perhaps a start Felix]
 <...>

#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#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:

Re: What is the meaning of Trump's victory?

[Michael Goldhaber]

Brian and others,

Now is a time for painful gnashing of teeth, moaning , and beating of chests in 
despair. All that I can agree with... 

It may feel fine to come up with  the instant analysis you’ve been nurturing, 
most probably, for quite a while, but it starts off factually wrong. The 
majority did not vote for Trump. In fact, Hillary won a plurality of the 
popular vote, with probably a larger margin than Gore in 2000, once the 
California tally becomes final in a few days (absentee ballots mailed on 
election day have three days to arrive and still be counted). 

It’s also absurd hyperbole to say that Bill Clinton sold out “all that remained 
of  social democracy”;  he subtracted from it in some degree but added to it in 
other areas, such as the Children’s Health Insurance  Program,  midnight 
basketball and similar measures. The majority you keep referring to, or the 
working class, as you use it, is neither; it is parts of the white working 
class. 

Let’s remember that the rise of Hitler followed on a period of social 
democratic rule in Germany. Sure, some pent-up hostilities may have their roots 
in capitalistic unfairness, but antagonism to equal rights for minorities would 
exist anyway. 

In my view, your simplified ranting critique neither explains Trump adequately 
nor gets us very far towards a sense of a reasonable program now. 




Best,
Michael

> On Nov 9, 2016, at 12:44 AM, Brian Holmes  
> wrote:
> 
> The shock that now assails the ruling classes is in direct proportion
> to their blindness. If you were shocked, then you shared in that
> blindness.
> 


<>


#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#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:

Re: Lacanian meets Trumpian

[Michael Goldhaber]

   You are right about all the positives of LBJ, and I concur.
   Unfortunately, you minimize his role in enormously escalating the
   Viet-Nam war, which led, quite probably to the stagflation that put
   Nixon in power and created the conditions that helped sweep Reagain in
   an undid much of the GreatSociety.

   Best,

   Michael

   On Aug 10, 2016, at 11:39 AM, Lunenfeld, Peter B.   
wrote:

 An interesting question is how [Hillary Clinton] would govern should she 
win in a
 landslide. LBJ redux? That didn't work out so well.
 Best,
 Michael

 --

   Dear Michael --
is an international list, and I hate to hijack it for an
   internecine dispute about the legacies of American leaders. But given
   the fact that Donald Trump is a clear and present danger if ever there
   were one, it's more important than ever to keep our historical memories
   straight. If we're going to talk about Lyndon Baines Johnson and the
 <...>

#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#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: