Re: <nettime> Strom vs Morozov: knockdown punch

This is totally on point, Jaromil. The tech industry has always been able to think cybernetically - it has to, in order to handle interactive networks with millions of users - but what you're pointing out, in a very specific situation, is how it's now able to carry out integrated strategies affecting entire fields or "modes of practice." In your example, it means reshaping all the factors that condition the software development process, including institutional ones such as the literature on standards and the processes for their validation.

On the global level both Google and Microsoft are notorious for transforming governance through the introduction of particular types of software and information-processing services that reshape the activity of corporate officials and bureaucrats, and in that way, affect entire societies. However I had never considered that Red Hat would be doing the same within social-democratic spheres where FOSS development is supported by public money. It's somewhat depressing news, because FOSS development for public use is really one of the few places where the social-steering capacities of Silicon Valley are challenged... I don't have the expertise to fully evaluate what you're saying (although I have read about Devuan and the systemd controversies!) - but anyway, yes, I think we are talking about exactly the same thing here.

From my expertise, I am shocked that someone like Morozov does not think cybernetically, or at least, not when he puts his Marxist glasses on. In a way such thinking is completely banal: we've all been talking about "media ecologies" for decades, and Morozov understands that kind of thing perfectly. How can the leading mainstream net critic, who's a leftist to boot, not even see *political ecologies* and the strategies that are used to steer them? In Marxist terms that means one is reasoning only on the basis of production, only on the logic that's covered in Book I of Capital. With all the sophisticated work that's been done more recently, I thought it had become clear that research and development, distribution, financing, usership and legal/institutional structures constituted the enlarged field of capital-as-power. Indeed, this has become obvious for corporate strategists. But over and over again, I see the leftist critics adopting simplified schemas worthy of the 1930s. To me this indicates a gaping hole or blind spot in the critique of political economy.

I am curious if other people see the same problems, and if there are theorists and practitioners resolving them...

best, BH

On Sun, Jul 3, 2022 at 3:53 AM Jaromil <jaromil@dyne.org> wrote:

dear Brian,

many thanks for this review! I admit would never had the time to read through the articles and less than ever spot the tension you highlight, your dedication makes it possible for many of us to follow interesting debates as this one. I guess we are all familiar with Morozov's ideas by now, certainly more than Strom's...

On Thu, 30 Jun 2022, Brian Holmes wrote:

> This is much better than Morozov: it cuts straight to the chase, rather than beating around the theoretical bush. Strom is saying that the new standard model of contemporary capitalism emerges when technoscience is applied to produce and condition the environments in which business operations are carried out and consumer choices are made. This is a classic cybernetic strategy: to become the master of a feedback loop you do not attempt to directly control all the participating nodes. Instead, you create and continuously adjust the framework in which those nodes interact.

reading what you write here really strikes a chord in me, to the point I'll shamelessly put forward a link to my much dumber and less theoretical witnessing here, from the shores of practice: https://medium.com/think-do-tank/lead-or-follow-the-dilemma-of-ict-industry-for-the-coming-decade-4f83ee1851bc

what I propose is to look at this "small simulation" of what is happening already since some years in the free and open source (F/OSS) world, around the landmark acquisition of RedHat by IBM and following the politics of the Linux Foundation in imposing (by means of lobbying) new immature software components like systemd as a "standard".

> So to wrap it up, the "standard model" of contemporary capitalism is definitely not a firm selling advertising widgets. Nor even less is it a mere parasite feeding on *your* boundless creativity. Instead, the standard model now entails an expansive "mode of practice" that actively builds, monitors and adjusts the productive/communicative frameworks in which the individual's tastes and productive potentials will be expressed, actualized and satisfied, ideally with no leftover energies of dissent.

in F/OSS too, this is not done anymore by competition, like 20 years ago at the time Ubuntu desertified the artisanal GNU/Linux distro panorama with its "global philantropy" approach. Today this is done by
1. taking control of the "standard making literature" and processes
2. turning competition into an R&D playing field to "test standards" and "fail fast" (cit. startup economy) at the expense of those who play

this is not anymore about an oligopoly of unfair competitors, but a standard establishing presence steering the playing field. the hegemony on point 1. is crucial and it can be compared to other contexts (try s/standard/law/). The standard making entry point is not anymore based on technical expertise, but is fenced by lobbying and a steep price to be paid by active presence through the meanders of democracy (the literature) something that only very big organizations can afford today in terms of labor and seniorship.

> Still, one large and timely question remains unasked: What are the Googles and Amazons and all their political allies going to do in the face of an emergent governing logic that is not cybernetic at all, but instead, aims at ideological and police control of individual bodies characterized by sex, class and race? In short, what is cybernetic capitalism going to do about the new fascism?

they are going to pose as a democratic presence in the rooms of power, while being assured they will be gaining power over guinea pigs who were once competitors and nation states since standards and conditions of infrastructure access are in their full control and laws just follow (with the golden exception of anti-trust laws). For instance see the "kind move" by APPL and GOOG to offer access to the BTLE infrastructure on their phones for the techno-fascist initiatives of "corona-pass" applications. Those were ultimately of no use to defend anyone from the syndemic crisis, while pouring emergency funds in the pockets of the tech industry, and activating a number of state actors for the R&D of technologies that are now "mature enough" (both technically and legally) to be used by their original gatekeepers.

ciao

--

Denis "Jaromil" Roio https://Dyne.org think &do tank
Ph.D, CTO & co-founder software to empower communities
✉ Haparandadam 7-A1, 1013AK Amsterdam, The Netherlands
𝄞 crypto κρυπτο крипто क्रिप्टो 加密 التشفير הצפנה
⚷ 6113D89C A825C5CE DD02C872 73B35DA5 4ACB7D10

# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org
# @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: