Internet work

[Delenda Carthago]

I think Internet is a very good tool for revolution,cause it makes easy for people to be heard.Books,music,movies can be shared,text to be readen by anyone,hacking to be done:D.What are you doing online to promote the revolution?Lets share ideas...

[cenv]

Yeah, figuring out how to use the Internet as an organizing tool will help make or break our movement in the coming years. Unfortunately, most communists don't consider Internet organizing "serious work," so we continue to neglect the web's potential. Here are a few ideas I have on how we can use the Internet:

- "Hacktivism": attacking online beacons of bourgeois ideology. This could range from attacking smaller sites to trying to organize attacks on larger news outlets and such -- an ambitious project, but one that could give us a big boost by raising awareness among non-revolutionary workers.

- Creating easy-to-understand sites about our ideas: we need to create easy-to-understand introductions to our ideas that aren't saturated with ideological abstractions. I think some of prole.info's pamphlets are a good example of the introductory stuff we should aim for. In general, sites about communism are by communists for communists. We need to make sites that are by communists for future communists.

- Building online communities: large communities organized around the desire to create communism are very helpful. They provide a place for people to clear up misconceptions and explore new ideas as well as find a place where they can fit in with their political beliefs and be part of a group.

- Online autonomous organizing: the Internet also gives us an opportunity to build alternative organizations and institutions free from the shackles of bourgeois political mediations like unions and parties. It lets people coordinate projects on a global scale and could provide the bases for what syndicalists call "building the new society in the shell of the old." One example could be creating an online gift economy, like I talked about in another topic (http://www.revleft.com/vb/creating-online-gift-t121728/index.html), but the possibilities are pretty much limitless.

Personally, I'd be in favor of creating some sort of network to explore the possibilities of online organizing, agitating, and propaganda. We need to turn the Internet into a weapon, even if that makes us "armchair revolutionaries" in the eyes of traditionalists.

[Delenda Carthago]

I think that the question "internet or real life" is a false one.You need both.You have to use all the weapons you have,or else you are done.Revolution is not about who is the toughest...

I like your ideas.I have some thougts on how to create sites for future communists:Label it as your town residency.I mean,create "-Your area- peoples movement" and use this to promote communism indirectly.Or make a site on sth like anti-drugs to promote again indirectly.

[mikelepore]

even if that makes us "armchair revolutionaries" in the eyes of traditionalists

Such a charge would be inaccurate. The traditionalists tried for about 150 years to recruit the working class to the left, and produced no permanent gains. That indicates that new methods have to be tried.

[CommunistWaffle]

Not really, considering just about anyone can post on the internet. A lot of crazy people too. A lot.

[Q]

While internet certainly has its value, the revolution is not going to be made online, but on the streets and workplaces. The simple fact that countries which have strong workers movements (Venezuela, Greece, Italy, Nepal, Sri Lanka, etc.) are underrepresented on this board is also telling that internet is not the solution. Just a tool.

[ellipsis]

Just a tool.
Like most of the people who use it. Except for revleft.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

While internet certainly has its value, the revolution is not going to be made online, but on the streets and workplaces. The simple fact that countries which have strong workers movements (Venezuela, Greece, Italy, Nepal, Sri Lanka, etc.) are underrepresented on this board is also telling that internet is not the solution. Just a tool.

Saying that the revolution is not going to be made online is like saying that the revolution is not going to be made on the telephone. How many comrades' phone numbers from Venezuela, Greece, etc. do you have? How many addresses? Certainly you have more international emails than either of those. Of course the revolution isn't going to take place online; we're not just going to be hacking into the CNN database and boom, socialism, but that doesn't mean that it can't play an integral role. Besides, what's to say the internet is not "real life"? I exist, you exist, we're talking about real issues that exist in the real world. This shit ain't World of Warcraft folks, just because we're connected over a global network of cables and airwaves doesn't mean that somehow we now exist in a separate dimension.

[Pogue]

While internet certainly has its value, the revolution is not going to be made online, but on the streets and workplaces. The simple fact that countries which have strong workers movements (Venezuela, Greece, Italy, Nepal, Sri Lanka, etc.) are underrepresented on this board is also telling that internet is not the solution. Just a tool.

Plus 90% of the world don't have access to a computer.

[Delenda Carthago]

While internet certainly has its value, the revolution is not going to be made online, but on the streets and workplaces. The simple fact that countries which have strong workers movements (Venezuela, Greece, Italy, Nepal, Sri Lanka, etc.) are underrepresented on this board is also telling that internet is not the solution. Just a tool.


I can only talk on Greece.And I can tell you that if we didnt had indymedia(btw athens.indymedia.org is the first indymedia in the world in hit numbers)things would have been much more difficult for us.Its no wonder that the far right consernatives are trying to shut it down for the last year...

Dont get it twisted,of course you wont make it the top priority.But its a tool.

Just think that if someone back in the days had to buy a book or a documentary,now it can be found online.If you share e-books,its the same thing with selling books on the street...And you still might wanna do that,cause some things cannot be substituded,but why not share knowledge through the wire?

[Q]

Saying that the revolution is not going to be made online is like saying that the revolution is not going to be made on the telephone. How many comrades' phone numbers from Venezuela, Greece, etc. do you have? How many addresses? Certainly you have more international emails than either of those. Of course the revolution isn't going to take place online; we're not just going to be hacking into the CNN database and boom, socialism, but that doesn't mean that it can't play an integral role. Besides, what's to say the internet is not "real life"? I exist, you exist, we're talking about real issues that exist in the real world. This shit ain't World of Warcraft folks, just because we're connected over a global network of cables and airwaves doesn't mean that somehow we now exist in a separate dimension.
The tone of your post implies that you disagree with me, while on the other hand you simply repeat my point: No the revolution isn't going to be online, yes it is a tool that aides us in our cause.


Plus 90% of the world don't have access to a computer.

More like 75% I think, but that is still a valid point of course. Then again, where is the French working class here on revleft? ;)

[革命者]

A lot of students in many (mostly European) countries use the web a lot (most notably twitter) now to organise uprisings against the commodification of the educational systems.

Austria has a popular/now pivotal site at: http://unsereuni.at . Germany at: http://www.bildungsstreik.net

In support of the dutch student movement and for more sites, please also visit: www.onderwijscrisis.nl/wiki (http://www.onderwijscrisis.nl/wiki) .

I am also reluctant to say the internet is all but bliss, but it does open up many new channels of communication (and which can be very secure). And I wasn't expecting that twitter was gonna play a major role in organising protests (Iran, Europe), at all, frankly.

Apparently, any movement nowadays needs to use the popular (and highly commercial) channels, as well.

[Ben Seattle]

Hi Cenv,


Online autonomous organizing: the Internet also gives us an opportunity to build alternative organizations and institutions free from the shackles of bourgeois political mediations like unions and parties. It lets people coordinate projects on a global scale and could provide the bases for what syndicalists call "building the new society in the shell of the old." One example could be creating an online gift economy, like I talked about in another topic, but the possibilities are pretty much limitless.

I do not believe it will be possible to build the new society within the shell of the old. It has been tried a million times. What we can build, within our existing society, are the social movements, communities, tools and organizations that millions will use for the overthrow of the currently existing system of bourgeois rule. After this overthrow, humanity will begin to build a material gift economy capable of providing food, shelter, community and everything else to all.


Personally, I'd be in favor of creating some sort of network to explore the possibilities of online organizing, agitating, and propaganda. We need to turn the Internet into a weapon, even if that makes us "armchair revolutionaries" in the eyes of traditionalists.

You may be interested in my proposal for a revolutionary news service which I believe holds potential to unite all the warring factions of the left and build a powerful channel between activists and a mass audience. I have written about my proposal in many places, including "how to build the party of the working class". I discuss this proposal in more detail at my "News Refinery" site.

[cenv]

Hi BenSeattle,
I gotta disagree with you on a couple points...


I do not believe it will be possible to build the new society within the shell of the old. It has been tried a million times. What we can build, within our existing society, are the social movements, communities, tools and organizations that millions will use for the overthrow of the currently existing system of bourgeois rule. After this overthrow, humanity will begin to build a material gift economy capable of providing food, shelter, community and everything else to all.We have to be very cautious when we start drawing strict boundaries between the "tools and organizations that the millions will use for the overhrow of the currently existing system" and the institutions that arise "after this overthrow." In fact, any cut-and-dry delimitation between the two is strictly theoretical because it assumes that it's possible to separate the destructive and constructive aspects of revolution.

It's impossible to smash capitalism without simultaneously building its negation. To imagine that the working class will decide to organize itself into a neat revolutionary organization, with the sole purpose of overthrowing the bourgeoisie, and then begin organizing post-revolutionary institutions only once bourgeois power has been decisively abolished is to live in a world of fantastical abstractions. Every historical experience shows us that either revolutionary institutions continue into the post-revolutionary society (eg. Russia) or working-class struggle is unable to transcend capitalism because the basis for new institutions does not exist (eg. May '68). Never does the transformation of society take place in tidy "revolutionary" and "post-revolutionary" stages.

You can also think about this from the perspective of raising consciousness: right now, most workers see communists and anarchists as people who just whine about capitalism and write abstract theoretical articles. Sure, their complaints are valid, but they offer no practical solutions. We can leap onto soapboxes and yell about wage slavery until we pass out, but until we start building self-managed institutions that demonstrate the power our ideas have to change people's everyday lives, the vast majority of the working class will awkwardly look the other way as we rail about the evils of capitalism.


You may be interested in my proposal for a revolutionary news service which I believe holds potential to unite all the warring factions of the left and build a powerful channel between activists and a mass audience.Hasn't every party, sect, and network since Lenin tried to unite the left by building a revolutionary news service? Besides, saying that the Internet is useful because it allows us to build a revolutionary news service seems to be trying to superimpose the 1917 Bolshevik revolutionary paradigm (with the paper as the basis of the party) onto the material conditions of the 21st century, instead of realizing the potential inhererent in the Internet for radically new and exciting forms of revolutionary activity.

[cska]

I think y'all might be interested in this thread (I can't post links yet): revleft.com/vb/wikipedia-watch-t117199/index.html

[Ben Seattle]

Hasn't every party, sect, and network since Lenin tried to unite the left by building a revolutionary news service?

Clearly you are not familar with my proposal.

[cenv]

Clearly you are not familar with my proposal.
I was going off this quote:



The central task that will unite revolutionary activists will be the creation of a revolutionary news service that will offer comprehensive news, analysis and discussion from the perspective of the material interest of the working class. This news service will be open to contributions from all progressive trends (and from ordinary people) and will
(http://newsrefinery.com/)
also provide a platform for the struggle of trends.


I'm still having trouble seeing how this is different than any other of the 5,000,000,000 attempts to create "revolutionary news services" in the last 100 years, besides the fact that your model strives to be less sectarian, which of course assumes that "all progressive trends" and "ordinary people" (whatever that means) would support such a project in the first place. Qualitatively, it resembles the cliched formula that places the paper at the center of political work.

If you feel like I'm misunderstanding your idea, then by all means explain it -- but don't just tell me how "clear" it is that I'm "not familiar with your proposal" and expect me to go digging through your website in hopes of correcting my oh-so-flawed understanding.

[rebelmouse]

I think Internet is a very good tool for revolution,cause it makes easy for people to be heard.Books,music,movies can be shared,text to be readen by anyone,hacking to be done:D.What are you doing online to promote the revolution?Lets share ideas...

I think internet is good and cheap tool to spread opinion and news. at least in industrial developed countries. in any case idea of anarchists is not to make revolution in the name of others, so, internet is good for us to spread idea and to get people to think about it. after they start to like it, it is easy to find contact and meet in reality. anarchists in serbia don't hide themselves, we are open for public (anarchists in sweden and germany are full of fear from new people, you must have connections to find them and they will not help even about sleeping for 2-3 days). in any case, different mentality, different people. but internet can serve us. although anarchists forums are very offen place for conflicts among anarchists, but again, in that way we meet each other and try to find people with whom we can work. for example, people at anachistnews.org are totally hegemonic, I am not against technology like they are, so I was not welcomed there anymore. but I think real reason was that I didn't glorified rebellion in greece than I said my opinion why rebellion did not become revolution, so, the state survived. but they fly too high in their heads so they can't accept opinion which don't glorify their rebellion. their problem in any case, my problem is that I will not live 80 years like others than very much shorter because present system keep me in poverty. it means some people really need anarchist revolution, at least to live longer in such society, while other people will not be in trouble even if nothing is changed. some people live quite good in present system.

so, it is surely not possible to make revolution with internet, but it is possible to spread news and opinion, to meet other people, to find people like you need, to do something together, etc. global/internet information help us to understand better tendencies in present global capitalism also. it should lead us to make our fight better, but as you see, we just get conflicts because of differences in the way of thinking. therefore capitalist system win, for now. we will see what will be in the future.

[Delenda Carthago]

another thing you can do through internet is actually,talk to people!
if you have a forum that has topics about politics,let them know what is the communist/anarchist view on things.Inform them about your movements and manifestations.Post texts.Post pictures,videos etc.

Talking in here with each other is cool,but you need to be heard outside!

[Ben Seattle]

Hi Cenv,


If you feel like I'm misunderstanding your idea, then by all means explain it -- but don't just tell me how "clear" it is that I'm "not familiar with your proposal" and expect me to go digging through your website in hopes of correcting my oh-so-flawed understanding.

My proposal is discussed in some detail at (http, etc) NewsRefinery.com

It is also discussed in my article on how to build the party of the working class.

None of the 5 billion previous attempts to do this that you claim have been made are open to contributions from opposing trends and have the other features which are necessary. My general impression is that you are basing your conclusions on assumptions without investigation. If so, that is your choice.

It is probably best if I do not attempt to explain it to you at any greater length at this time. Since I have written about it at length and my time is precious to me--I leave things there.

-- Ben

[革命者]

As I see it, technology has always been a driving force behind change. The internet, as the press, the newspaper, the radio and the television before it, has made access to information (both to spread information and to get to information) more egalitarian—it is now easier than ever to publish/broadcast information to a mass audience.

I think developments as these have given rise to social movements demanding more equality and democracy. It has, as I see it, given rise to an egalitarian view that has shaped postmodernity, and consequently, has changed our economy into one dominated by free market ideology and libertarianism (as a perverted form of direct democracy—everyone is supposed to have direct influence on the economy by the freedom of choice). And to be frank, if you are a believer in capitalism, today, with neoliberalism, we might we living in the best/fairest version/mutation of it thus far.

Consequently, the postmodern era has more so than ever changed the focuspoint of our values to form instead of content—You can no longer win an argument, because everyone has equal right to his or her opinion, they say. All products and services on the market have equal value because one may be better fit to some than others—again, a matter of opinion. Since many people have this stricly egalitarian view, the only way to sell a product or to convince someone of your point, you have to focus on marketing and rethoric, as opposed to quality and sound arguments—form, not content.

And if you target the youngest generations, the most cost-effective way of marketing stuff and convincing others is the internet—access to this medium is cheaper than all that became before it. Consequently, it gets harder to distinquish between quality products and services and sound arguments/quality content and those of poor quality, because the primary focus is on form and form is easily replicable.

The moral of this story, as I see it: if we want to get our message across in todays society, we should focus on form in the most cost-effective way possible—via the internet. We have good arguments, now we should frame them and package them to reach and convince a wide audience.

And this is not about giving in to market capitalism, but about understanding the environment we operate in. This form of capitalism is decaying anyway, the only way we can help in this progress is voicing our alternatives as loud and clear as possible, by the most effective means possible.

Best,

Scotty

[Ben Seattle]

I have achieved the magic number of 25 posts and can now post links and images.
My proposal for the News Refinery is at http://NewsRefinery.com
http://struggle.net/ben/images/refinery_animated.gif

[Walt]

Hacktivism seems like a good... yet malicious idea. I've done my fair share of website intrusion, I'd just need some targets first.

[dongur]

you know what the greatest things about the internet is that nobody really owns it. it is a global collection of networks, both big and small.these networks connect together in many different ways to form the single entity .

[革命者]

you know what the greatest things about the internet is that nobody really owns it. it is a global collection of networks, both big and small.these networks connect together in many different ways to form the single entity .it's basically owned by the market. Backbones and most other infrastructure is put in place by companies which are led only by profits—market capitalism.

So, it's not like ownership is a pluralism, for the most part. But their still are a number of universities and research institutes who add to the infrastructure. As long as those aren't until their necks into neoliberalism. And, of course, they more and more are.

We could set up our own "crowd-funded" universities and rebuild a more democratic infrastructure (again).

But since the rise of the Internet it has basically intentionally been left over to all sorts of forces. In the beginning these were quite benign (as far as the scientific endeavour went), but when the Internet became interesting for business, market forces have been in near-total control.

The DNS (domain name system) is a good example of the lack of democratic or even fair regulation—the best names are taken by those with the biggest pocketbook (and matching interests). Me.com is owned by Apple, Live.com by Microsoft, to name just a few.

[Ben Seattle]

Drace sent me a private msg with some questions about this.
I went ahead and created a clean thread to discuss it:

Steps towards a Revolutionary News Service with an active audience of millions
http://www.revleft.com/vb/steps-towards-revolutionary-t125508/index.html

[革命者]

I totally agree with Red Scum. More so, moulding is inevitable; it will be done by parents and society (of which it is education's duty to make insightful).

I propose to find funding and build our own educational institutions, to supplant the old institutions, once our alumni have created and have supplanted the State with our own democratic institutions.

The tax burden of most rich countries is around 40%. I bet we can do better with half that money. If all people are willing to have their tax burden be increased by 20%, we could supplant the entire State with our own. If only a few of the super-rich would help us, we are there much sooner.

Start believing in what seems impossible. There will be a tipping point, where critical mass will support us. In the meantime, such a proportion of people participating in the old democratic system will support us that they will vote to decrease and eventually abolish the old institutions and taxation.

If we support workers to work freelance/efforts to make it easier to work for oneself, we can decrease the tax burden a lot sooner.

I'd first start a bank for taxation and for targeting the present economy, followed by erecting educational institutions. The marketisation of pretty much everything in the public sector can even get all our institutions accredited by the State/multinational accreditors if they abide by their low standards.I think we can take this proposition I've posted in another thread, since this Internet thread gives us a means, but not really a concrete end. The Internet was once created by connecting the US-government's arpanet with the network of the NSF, which both used the same technology. NSFnet gave access to private network nodes; creating a more open network (but still licenses were needed to take part).


NSFnet was then still owned by a non-profit organisation owned by some public universities of the NSF (most in California). But in 1995 it was sold to the highest bidder (like everything public; leaking the fruits of publically funded research to the private sector).

What we could do is the following:

- start a new network which is accessible from the Internet, but ask people to pay a fee for access to resources on the network. The network could provide for online services (such as aiding in education), good communication methods, the filtering of information on the Internet, privacy and the access to offline services we can provide from the fees paid. We can ask all leftist scholars to work on the technology and information resources if they support the effort.

- start a banking system for the collection of fees and for providing a non-profit alternative to the for-profit financial sector (which inevitably will collapse because of the shortage of customers paying interests due), which is completely isolated from the market, so doesn't compensate for inflation, but does provide microlending to people wanting to start a project to improve our network and to make money in the for-profit sector (contributors are not expropriated, even when they've borrowed money; they are freelancers).

When the for-profit financial services industry collapses and destroys the governments of the Western world, we can provide for the people. The people will then vote us into power in the constitutional way, and we change the constitutions.

It's not something we'd do in one or two decades, but with enough commitment we can make it happen; governments are completely supported by an industry which will collapse if not supported by governments. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that this won't last; it's not private homes which will be foreclosed in the next crises, but governments. And goverment budgets are also put on the market, so who is to buy them? It's absurd.

We, the impoverished, will take over from there.