the myth of the techno-utopia

[bcbm]

article can be found here (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703983004575073911147404540.html?m od=WSJASIA_newsreel_lifeStyle), i'm not going to post the whole thing since it is pretty long.

aside from the nonsense about us foreign policy interests, i think this article has some relevant things to say about the relationship between protest movements and the internet, for example:


Contrary to the utopian rhetoric of social media enthusiasts, the Internet often makes the jump from deliberation to participation even more difficult, thwarting collective action under the heavy pressure of never-ending internal debate.i've seen a lot of talk on here about using the internet more effectively and while i don't think there is no potential to use the internet, i think it is dwarfed by the necessity of interacting face to face. certainly the ruling class would much rather have us venting our anger onto internet message boards, instead of fomenting rage and organizing among our coworkers in the streets.

what do y'all think?

[Dimentio]

article can be found here (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703983004575073911147404540.html?m od=WSJASIA_newsreel_lifeStyle), i'm not going to post the whole thing since it is pretty long.

aside from the nonsense about us foreign policy interests, i think this article has some relevant things to say about the relationship between protest movements and the internet, for example:

i've seen a lot of talk on here about using the internet more effectively and while i don't think there is no potential to use the internet, i think it is dwarfed by the necessity of interacting face to face. certainly the ruling class would much rather have us venting our anger onto internet message boards, instead of fomenting rage and organizing among our coworkers in the streets.

what do y'all think?

That depends mostly on the form of organisation. Moreover, internet tend to activate people which otherwise wouldn't be activated in any form of IRL political movement. Revleft is pretty good compared with for example "The Cosmic Engineers", who think that because none of them individually could establish their ideal society, they need to sit and wait.

[vyborg]

Internet is a great help, if you do not pretend that Internet can substitute a bolshevik organization. It is like to think that a telephone or a fax or a telex can substitute real political activity.

[ZombieGrits]

I don't really know I always go back and forth on the issue of whether the internet is, on the whole, a good thing or not. On the one hand its a great resource, just about everything i know i owe to the internet. On the other hand its really devalued face-to-face human communication and organization; some people seem to think that participating in a forum every once in a while qualifies as "revolutionary action" :rolleyes:

[bricolage]

That's an interesting article. I think it works both ways so the internet does give greater flexibility and possibility in how to organise but at the same time it gives greater power of surveillance and control to the state. There is no denying that the amount of personal information people have on the internet and the ease at which this can be accessed gives enormous east to track activity and monitor trends from which you can either be kept watch on or, perhaps more nefariously, better targetted as a consumer. The Iranian case is an interesting example because twitter etc was used to a large degree (also the case of people in other countries trying to jam twitter by changing location to Tehran) but at the same time it made tracking people easy. On the other hand you can use the internet to communicate with people half way across the world or transfer funds to organisations that need it. Additionally it makes getting word out about things a lot easier, so for example in promoting a meeting, a facebook event and some emails can be used to reach people with great ease. That being said it doesn't negate the necessity of face to face flyering or posters. In more important circumstance technological shifts can used both ways too, so while in the First Gulf War the US broadcasted false info on CNN because they knew the Iraqi command were watching it, in Iraq this time around;


An American security expert explains the defeat in Iraq as a result of the guerillas’ ability to take advantage of new ways of communicating. The US invasion didn’t so much import democracy to Iraq as it did cybernetic networks. They brought with them one of the weapons of their own defeat. The proliferation of mobile phones and internet access points gave the guerillas newfound ways to self-organise, and allowed them to become such elusive target

Allocation is also a major issue too, only 25% of the worlds 6+billion inhabitants have access to the internet, only in Europe, N. America and Oceania do over 50% of the population have access to the internet and in Africa the figure is as low as 6%. So to speak of universal internet access is completely erroneous and displays intense chauvinism. This on its own however is not a critique of the internet per se, more the way it is organised;


We are for the technologies that allow us to connect with people more easily - cellphones, internet and so on. We like them. But the problem, is that the rich have access to these technologies - producing, selling and using them and so they are most often used against us (even though we do use them in our struggles too - especially cellphones and now that we have our own website too). We have to find a way to put these technologies in common so that they can be for everyone.

One last point is that organising on the internet has downfalls in other areas, for example people are much more likely to act in an arrogant/sexist/elitist/racist etc fashion than in real life encounters. You also feel very disconnected from others and people might well ignore comments. I think regular meetings of groups in real life, not on the internet, are essential for the longevity of any such group. David Graeber writes quite a lot of this in Direct Action but I can't remember where, it's very interesting though.

[Sean]

Internet is a great help, if you do not pretend that Internet can substitute a bolshevik organization. It is like to think that a telephone or a fax or a telex can substitute real political activity.
Yeah, yeah, nothing worse than technocrats. I wish you people would get up of your arses and stop having a kinky worker fetish!

Its not my cup of tea either, but we have lots of people saying you should march at the drop of a hat but its only a handful that bother their asses. I know certain members want to tear my head off for saying so, but there is an element of mobilization which verges on luddite.

Aye people dont get up off their asses and do stuff, and armchair politics is a real issue but recognise that you're scaring off a lot of solid people with this kind of talk.

[Robocommie]

The internet is great for sharing information, like addresses, times, dates, maps of where to meet up. It's also very good for sharing things like literature, sharing your thoughts with people of like mind - I mean, that's why I came here in the first place.

But ultimately, face time is crucial. You should never believe you've connected with another person until you've done so in person.

In particular, the internet causes a real jump in the level of "bullshit" in communication, simply because online, it's so much easier to forget our common humanity, and easier to misunderstand or be less courteous to one another.