Results 1 to 20 of 21
Europe is Kaput. Long live Europe! - Slavoj Žižek, Yanis Varoufakis and Assange
I would like people to take the time to watch this, I think it is incredibly interesting - for the first time, two figures whose - let's call it - historic substance is intertwined - and of the same camp (whether they know it or not), Zizek and Varoufakis, are on the same stage. The topics covered are immensely important for us:
+ YouTube Video
Skipping towards the end, however, I was deeply shocked by what Julian Assange had to say: I a notorious here for recommending people take seriously a new threat from Silicon Valley, reading the Californian Ideology, understanding the 'dark enlightenment', rise of technocracy ETC. - but in a way, sometimes one hopes they are full of shit. Regularly, and this is not the first time, I am reminded that I am indeed - not in fact full of shit.
Assange goes on to mention how not only in terms of the power of the Silicon valley companies in particular, but the aggressive ideology that pervades Silicon Valley, which IS INDEED one of 'dark enlightenment', i.e. replacing democratic institutions with the efficiency, competency of a tech-corporation, and so on. You see this practically everywhere - all the time new blind spots are opened up which traditional political institutions simply cannot account for.
Take 'Uber'. Over night, and arguably on a global scale, the means by which so many people travel was transformed, and there's simply no regulations on it - it has transformed people's lives, but it is not recognized as part of our political-formal sphere of life. The same goes for ALL new technologies in general, a problem that encompasses the basis of present controversies regarding 'intellectual property'. Amidst everything, amidst all cheap pop-politics that pervades the internet, it is this technological sphere which is our blind alley: We tacitly designate it, we do not even acknowledge it at the level of engaged partisanship - to say nothing of even being able to comprehend it critically. These technologies, not simply devices themselves, but their relationship to our society, the conditions of their production, usage, ETC. for us are just as seamless and apolitical as nature - they are the cushioned restraints we fall back on when we shrug our arms, and say "that's it". They are the political leviathan that underpins all of our cheap, pop pseudo-politics. For an analogy, think about that horrible place, Reddit: There are various "sub-forums" for peoples of all kinds of different political persuasions, but there is a tacit acknowledgement of a virtual space that underlies them all - embodied by the website itself, it gives one the impression of a tacit spirit of "Though we have our disagreements, we are all subjects immersed in a common virtual space".
Please try to get at what I'm saying - it is difficult to flesh this phenomena out in its entirety, especially in a manner that is short enough to be readable to users.
We are not looking in the right directions - and this is such a gross understatement. I have encountered this 'Silicon Valley' ideology personally at the level of firsthand experience, it is just as raw, aggressive and rabid as one could imagine: but it is both refreshing and inducing of anxiety for others (besides of course, fringe theorists like Richard Barbook) to recognize it to - the ideology of capitalism today which we are not heeding enough attention to is reactionary modernism, practically a new kind of technological neo-Fascism. For all the talk of our epoch being one of "late capitalism", the bad news is that capitalism is on the brink of an even greater re-invigoration than imaginably possible - at the expense of bourgeois democracy, among other things.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
Very interesting video.
Yes, that was a shameless bump.
I just found it on my youtube recommendations, usually I see many of these, but I choose to watch videos shorter than 30 minutes, today I felt like watching a long one and it was totally worth it! Even if I didn't fully understand some parts (and Assange is kinda boring to listen to unlike Zizek and Varoufakis), specially this one about Silicon Valley :/
edit: btw are online petitions like these http://www.waronwant.org/say-no-ttip worth the time?
Last edited by Full Metal Bolshevik; 29th January 2016 at 08:08.
Here is an interesting video with Varoufakis more along these lines, although I am not really understanding his solution and it sounds utopian.
I'll watch this video tonight, but I would like Rafiq to answer a question - while I agree with much of your analysis about modern technological capitalism and the dangers it represents, in what way is it a form of "fascism"? I'm curious as to what you mean by that term in this instance.
Socialist Party of Outer Space
Just me or he's very vague when speaking?
I've seen that one and this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGosu2ZmGgo enjoyable and with many great points in it, but still mostly vague, like the way he talks about how EU works but never giving a clear description of it. Is it just to pass the message better?
Well I should be quite clear here -
In the same way that, one could imagine deeply reactionary members of the ruling class in the early 20th century, aristocratic or otherwise - like Julius Evola were not that thrilled with the 'Plebian' Fascism of Mussolini (but still a part of the momentum), this kind of techno-Fascism I can only envision to emerge through a mass 'plebian' movement, similar to the Trump momentum we are seeing now.
Present neo-Fascist intellectuals (i.e. Nick Land) actually don't want to identify with the emerging 'alt-right' that much - the populism turns them off. But this populism is nothing more than the dissemination of the same kind of disgusting filth but only among the discontented masses.
I call it a new Fascism because it is reactionary modernist, i.e. reactionary, but a kind of 'alternate modernity'. Fascism is reaction given a modern context (for example, the genuine reaction to the french revolution inevitably would have failed in the long run - which is why most of the pivotal reforms were retained under the new monarchy after Napoleon: But Fascism was not simply reaction, it was reaction given a modern context (something that could actually succeed liberal capitalism)).
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
why in the name of fuck are we seriously accepting these pigshits at their word on a Communist forum? One - Zizek - is a right-wing anti-immigrant conservative who's best buddies with peter sloterdijk and quotes G.K. Chesterton admiringly, the other - yani - is a bourgeois politician who is now supporting a milquetoast bastard cross between market "socialism" and Keynesianism - Even Proudhon was to the left of where that turd stands. We might also well "Feel the bern" while we're at this.
Noel Ignatiev: "Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity"
Marquis de Sade: "You young maidens, too long constrained by a fanciful Virtue's absurd and dangerous bonds and by those of a disgusting religion, imitate the fiery Eugénie; be as quick as she to destroy, to spurn all those ridiculous precepts inculcated in you by imbecile parents"
Fascism, I think, implies a Leader. In case of "Californian Ideology" leader is the Code?
Assange says that the two growing ideologies of our time are radical islam and "Californianism". I think that in global context radical islam is a type of reactionary conservatism (and that is certainly growing in Europe as well), so this means that the two dominating ideologies in our time are reactionary conservatism and reactionary modernism. But to what are they "reacting?" To each other? If so, then the actual conflict is between technocratic globalism and traditional bourgeois nationalism ("god and country"). Masses and proletariat/precariat play no role?
On the positive side, while it is true, that Left largely ignores at this point technological sphere, this sphere is fundamentally neutral at hardware level.
It becomes ideological at software level. Now, what allows "ideological code" to spread so quickly is precisely the fact that it's abstract. Yes, the software structures that enforce bourgeois ideology must be understood and criticized, but once an alternative is specified, a different techno-ideological sphere can, in theory, spread as quickly.
I believe that the Left should challenge the reactionary technocracy in it's virtual space first and then move on to countless reactionary bourgeois ideologies in material world; precisely because virtual space has room for parallel existence and what allows the existence of reactionary modernism also enables the potential space for progressive modernism.
@QueerVanguard I agree with your criticism of Varoufakis. He recently stated that "capitalism will eat democracy - unless we speak up", which is basically the same as saying that there is nothing wrong with capitalism as long as protests continue against its worst excesses. I'm afraid he's neither erratic nor a Marxist.
"If we take in our hand any volume — of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance — let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning about quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experiential reasoning about matters of fact and existence? No. Then throw it in the fire, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." ― D. Hume
28/03/2016: Not motivated to post anymore after the umpteenth purge since my registration.
Assange, Yanis and Zizek walk into a bar...
Wasn't Assange some crazy libertarian in the US sense? Iirc that was his entire theory behind wikileaks: informational transparency so that the markets can run effectively and freely.
Anyway, ignoring the messengers completely as i think all 3 are suspect there is a tendency within the tech industry towards technocratic solutions. This technocratic and reactionary ideology, the silicon valley ideology, neoreaction whatever you want to call it, isn't on its own globally. It appears the same tendencies are at work with regards to Sesame Credit in China/the proposed social credit system. This technocratic and reactionary ideology stems from the realities of the industry itself specifically the software industry which spends a hell of a long time analysing how its design affects the behaviour of the user.
I will actually full on say that it is in China with this Sesame Credit that we have its more advanced form and it's no surprise. The gaming industry in China is massive and they have a really effective means of manipulating the playerbase through their design.
I expect differing ideologies to emerge from different industries. The problem with this is not so much the ideology itself but the industry. Let's face it the tech industry is only going to face increasing global dominance over the coming decades. Their technocratic solutions to rule are going to be a reality.
"Every nationalism begins with a Mazzini, but in its shadow there lurks a Mussolini" ~ R. Rocker
Reading more into the Dark Enlightenment makes me see what you're getting at a little better. What an utterly disgusting ideology.
As someone who has encountered "silicon valley ideology" for much of my life, I can definitely see the reactionary subculture, but I think there may well be two ideologies at play - one is a particularly pernicious form of naive liberalism, and then nestled within that is the reactionary potential you identify.
If you run into your average person with an app startup (and I've met a few), what seems to characterize their ideology most of all is a kind of naive belief in increasing consumer choice, expanding the marketplace, blah blah. So I agree with you about there being a dangerous form of reactionary ideology around technocracy and illiberal management, although broader "tech culture" still seems broadly liberal.
By the way, if you want to see some of the tech world's illiberalism in action, this video is pretty good. Basically, some Dropbox bros try to kick working class youth out of a sports area in San Francisco because they reserved it online. The city changes the rules for how to play by creating an online reservation system without informing the community, then tech workers use that to validate their claim on the space over those who have always played in that field. The most telling thing is the shock and awkwardness they express, as if they're the victims.
+ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awPVY1DcupE" title="View this video at YouTube in a new window or tab" target="_blank">YouTube Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awPVY1DcupE
This is a kind of mindless ad hominem ... whatever stupid shit Zizek has said in other areas, or whatever stupidity Yani Varoufakis believes is the alternative to capitalism, doesn't invalidate everything they are saying here. These are clearly knowledgeable people.
Could say the same about Chesterton too.
If you're really going to criticize any of them, go after Assange for being a creepy rapist. Of course, even if he's a terrible person, his insights on the tech world are still valuable.
What I'm comprehending is that the whole social worldview debate boils down to 'hands-off' vs. 'hands-on' -- the conservative-sided position has always been that of the status-quo or worse (regressive), espousing a faith in economic populism, or the will of money, while the revolutionary take is that the human social world *can* interact meaningfully over matters of labor and material distribution, to effect a collectively planned economy.
In the same way that Fascism also implies a toothbrush mustache. No, this is not what defines the essential basis of Fascism - merely its aesthetic dimension in the context of the early-mid 20th century.
Cheap hollywood characterizations of Fascism, in our filthy order, do nothing to give us a clear understanding of Fascism - i.e. "a leader and a bunch a' people who dontt tink 4 themselves but say 'we are all one' omgz so scary!". In fact often times this is precisely the aesthetic dimension of Fascism that was opportunistically stolen from Communism/Social-democracy so as to appeal to working people. The attitude of Fascists, basically, was "Let's make the masses satisfied so we can retain order" and so on. One must study it carefully.
That is precisely why the actual Fascists of the present day, with variation, accuse SJW's of being Fascists. In fact, Curtis Yarvin himself said that the European antifa is the modern equivalent of the Hitler youth. Fascism - reaction - is opportunistic. What Fascism meant for society in the 1930's, they mean for our society. But they will seldom own up to this equivalence.
This is confused, regarding the nature of reaction. Reaction =/= reaction. For example, Communists 'reacted' to Fascism in Germany. But this did not make them reactionaries.
Firstly, that both are reactionary does not mean they are equivalents. One shouldn't be so immersed in abstractions. Islamism is a reaction to globalization, modern capitalism, the failure of neoliberalism in the Near East (and other places) and so on. It has its basis in elements of the disgruntled national bourgeoisie, near eastern petty bourgeoisie and attracts the near eastern dispossessed. But Islamism is broad. The Islamism of hezbollah is closer to European putinism. The Islamism of ISIS, conversely, is a global reaction to liberal globalization - there is no hegemonic dimension to it whatsoever.
The Californian Ideology represents a very real possible alternative trajectory path of this hegemonic neoliberalism - in the same way that German Fascism genuinely represented a possible alternative trajectory path for world capitalism. This trajectory path - might need to be 'pushed' in its direction, through - for example - a right-populist uprising/takeover - one that is 'plebeian' in nature. The point is that our democratic standards are eroding while mass discontent with the existing order is brewing among ordinary people. The barbarous nature of this discontent is congruent with these eroding standards. The present ills, in other words, are being channeled against liberal democracy.
What is the relationship between Californianism and Putinism? It is hard to tell. Silicon Valley, for example, is opposed to Trump. My contention is that the monster we face will be a merger between reactionary populism (i.e. Putinism) and Silicon valley counter-enlightenment. We already see the brutal merger of neoliberalism and local barbarism with the fiercely Hindu nationalist Indian prime minister - who is also in fact completely neoliberal. We see the same in Saudi Arabia and the gulf states.
No, it's not simply a matter of a vehicle of ideology. What you call the 'software level', intellectual property, these are in conventional Marxian terms 'material'. What they represent is a new kind of neo-feudalism, becasue they are fundamentally rent-oriented. They do not produce value, they simply rent out already pre-existing (NOT produced, as such) essential conditions of life - what is called the general intellect of society has now become an essential basis of the existence of society.
As I said in a previous thread, even finance begins to bow before Silicon Valley - becasue this space of 'rent' is an essential space of life which is fundamentally non-politicized. We don't even notice it. This dimension which facilitates conventional finance capitalism, is giving birth to a new kind of 'feudalism' (for lack of a better word).
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
In fact that is not what he is saying. What he is saying is that the very political space that would allow us to challenge capitalism in the first place, is eroding. The tendency for one's concrete positions to be ossified into a cheap internet identity that defines 'your ideal society', is something reserved for a Reddit subforum. It is just as silly as saying that because Lenin fought for democratic reform, one could say that "Lenin thought capitalism was fine, as long as democracy was there".
Democracy is not necessarily an inevitability of capitalism. Democracy was merely a means that which the social antagonism was confronted - and democratic reforms were fought for, they were not simply elaborations of capital's reach. And certainly, Marxists fought for democratic reform as as pre-requisite for the engagement in political struggle.
Without democracy as a pre-requisite, it is not possible to engage in the political class struggle.
It doesn't matter if Varoufakis is genuinely a Communist. In practical terms, in other words, it would not make a difference if he was a Communist or not a communist. Up to a certain point in the course of struggle, it would make a difference - but we are not yet at that point. Varoufakis does not pretend to be a revolutionary.
But he is of the Left - insfoar as it is meaningful to be a Leftist. There is not a single issue he has taken the 'right' position on - not a single controversy has developed as of now wherein Varoufakis did not take the progressive position.
The criticism of Varoufakis on these lines, therefore, is that he did not take the non-existent position.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
The animalization of man i.e. pseudoscientific survivalism - in all domains - for example, if you look up just on google "Why do we like video games" (I didnt even look this up) I am sure you will find some evolutionary psychology explanation at the very top of your search result. Effectively, life in capitalism is now being given an ontological status. All of this is congruent with what is going on in 'Silicon Valley'.
The stupidity of Leftists who think this is some fringe phenomena is really sickening. It's not. You have people like Peter Theil who are influenced by it - these neo-Fascists have literally gone out of there way to reach out to the tech scum. But even putting that aside, Silicon Valley has always been a hub of exceptional reaction and darkness. What makes it a threat is that it operates outside the standards of enlightenment values - it only pays lip service to them, and even when it does this it's usually in a contemptuous, opportunistic tone. There is some real fucked up shit going on here.
Fantasies of a 'corporate monarchy' and so on - where nations are run like corporations, with a return to 'traditional' premodern values. It's everywhere, in media (it's not a conspiracy - it is a spontaneous ideological tendency), this fascination with pre-modern values and life. Coupled with a revived mysticism, new age spiritualism, western buddhism and so on.
Because in his home country, he is known for defending the migrants - he was asked by the local media as to whether he would have taken in refugees in his own home. He said that he would out of duty alone, not out of charity, but out of duty - not because he has to like them (as he claims he doesn't like anyone), but because it would be his ethical duty.
His point, simply, is that it is also a matter of duty to condemn the backwardness of migrants - and yes, it is a very real problem. His point is that the issue encapsulated the wrongness of the multicultural position on cultural difference, the fact that backwardness is defended along the lines of "it's just their culture" and whatever.
And anyone who criticizes Zizek on grounds of his relation to Chesterton clearly doesn't understand the nature of this relation
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
I think this talk of software representing a new break-away trend of rent seeking neo-Feudalism a little overblown. Zizek claims that software is something essentially not described by Capital. While it's true in a sense that software resists private property by it's nature, intellectual property has turned it into a commodity. While software is technically 'rented' now-days, this is because that is the form that is required to keep it in commodity form (not being copied for free, and imposing a limit to the time it is used for, software does not 'wear out') and preventing it from escaping its role as a commodity.
Zizek seems to think that Bill Gates sits back and collects this new form of exploitation as rent with his intellectual property that everybody needs. It's no different from the old capitalist exploitation. Zizek seems to miss the fact that there are over 100K workers employed by Microsoft around the world. Products like the Windows 7 operating system took over 15,000 person-years of software development alone, and the products are constantly maintained, updated and rewritten by the workers. If the numbers are run, it's clear that the net profit of microsoft is not inconsistent with conceptualizing it as surplus-value extracted from the workers. Microsoft's profit portion was somewhat larger than the average, due to its monopolistic position, which has been declining in recent years on all fronts due to competition, along with its profits.
Software has become an integral part of capitalism, and yes it does have a large influence. But it's no different than oil, railroads, or whatever, commodities which are integral to the functioning of capitalism.
Also, don't forget that software development itself has followed the path of deskilling and proletarianization. The many software developers in India have an average annual salary of $5K USD. This is not some neo-feudal arena, just regular capitalism (with the large codebases protected by intellectual property laws as the constant capital), with a peculiar feature that the commodity produced could be copied for free if weren't for the legal frame of intellectual property which constrains it.
Last edited by oneday; 31st January 2016 at 22:26.
You misunderstand the point with regard to rent - the point is not that no 'work' as such goes into software, the point is that the very nature of 'digital goods and services' - no matter the amount of time put into them, cannot be qualified as commodities. A commodity is produced, as a tangible thing, when one produces commodities, one adds goods that otherwise did not exist, in tangible quantities, into the sphere of human life. Tangibility here is important insofar as one can qualify them in terms of the aggregate value produced. What you call the attempt to keep 'digital goods and services' in 'commodity form', is precisely why they do not act as commodities - this imposition of their privatization, private monopolization, is precisely the dimension of its rent-based nature.
The dimension of rent is precisely the privatization of an essential basis of life in capitalism. This is what Zizek means by rent - the difference with commodities is that they are tangible, they can be added or subtracted in determining the aggregate value produced by a society. Commodities are socially necessary, but their necessity is contingent upon their tangible existence as produced commodities. It doesn't matter if you have 1 billion workers in your employment. At the onset of producing a software, it becomes a part of the general intellect of society, something that resists commodification.
Digital goods and services, in Marx's terms, are not commodities but fall into the category of the general intellect of society.
Except there is no value produced in the first place - the dimension of value, plainly put, is non-existent here. Or let me be clear: What value is produced in the creation of digital goods and services, does not account for the profits acquired from them.
It is quite different, actually. None of these represent the renting, privatization of society's general intellect. Let me be more clear here: These things facilitate the production of commodities, are necessary for them - which is why they can accrue so much profits - but insofar as they make profits, they are dependent and contingent upon that, they bow themselves before the primacy of value and the production of tangible commodities.
Digital goods and services, conversely, come to determine, change the actual basis of human life, where commodities otherwise would. Computer hardware, smartphone hardware, or even cloud storage buildings, is what is more comparable to things like railroads - not the 'virtual space' that they facilitate.
You're right that it is still capitalism, but it is something new in capitalism. That is all I mean. I use the word 'neo-feudalism' in a very cautioned way.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
Do you think patents, copyrights, content of books, music etc, are similar in this regard?
If we think this way, it basically means we have no theory of capitalism anymore, at least at this leading edge where the privatization of the general intellect in the form of software is a major power. As Zizek says (and I think he's referring to a section in the Grundrisse), Marx pretty much thought that capitalism would end when the general intellect reached a certain level, but it hasn't. But maybe it is better to admit we have no theory?
We certainly are capable of understanding capitalism today, just as Lenin understood capitalism in his day, and so on. The 'laws' Marx referred to (a bad use of the word) is still just as true. Or should I say, his method of analysis is true - even as it pertains to value.
Capitalist society will never be able to become a totally 'information based' society, without the disillusion of private property. The point is that islands of power, social relations, have emerged outside of a smaller proportion of humans who produce value. The point is that this fundamental basis will remain, and it provides the basis for the privatization of intellectual property.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
Yes I'm more than familiar with the growth of evolutionary psychology, and the uncritical acceptance of it even by liberals. You can take any human behavior and "justify" it according to its ability to increase survivability according to these folks.
I would also add the growth of "transhumanism", as well as some worrying trends in biotech. I think the emphasis on liberating humanity through the advent of a technological "singularity" instead of through social revolution is as pernicious and dangerous as the things you identify. Not that these technologies aren't good or useful, but they are merely a tool we use to make our lives better, yet our modern society is giving an ever-increasing amount of social, economic and political power to various technology firms.
Whether or not his views on migrants are defensible I think those issues aren't even relevant to this discussion. Hence why I think QV's post was ridiculous and out of line. I think this thread might be a better one for you to make your case against him.
