Simon G Penny on Tue, 7 Oct 1997 01:57:32 +0200 (MET DST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> re: Uneven Development |
Armin Medosch and Niko Waesche I want to compliment you on broaching this issue in Telepolis. You are absolutely correct that 'the nation state is in trouble'. It has been apparent to me for some years that the politico-economic autonomy of the nation state cannot endure a trans-national economics in which corporations, uprooted from any geographical location or national allegiance, move sources of raw materials, labor, plant _and_ markets at whim about the planet. In this context all nationally based democratic processes; from democratically elected governments to labor organisation; are undermined and potentially, can be rendered powerless. A new global medievalism looms, in which nation states are reduced to the role of serfs in the new order. Swifts' image of the 'floating island' in Gullivers Travels comes to mind. The rise of multinational capitalism could not have happened without high speed global data transfer (ie 'the net') and we must always remember that the libertarian playground of the internet is just the frilled edge of International Data Capitalism. Indeed, it was John Perry Barlow who many years ago said: "the first thing to go virtual was your money". Not that the issue is _new_, my 91/92 installation Big Father focused on this issue, and papers by Maria Fernandez of those years addressed related issues such as 'technology transfer' from first to third world as a kind of neo-colonialism, carrying cultural values along with the (ostensibly) 'neutral' technology. (cf: Globalisation of Culture, Maria Fernandez, 1991/2, presented at TISEA Sydney 1992; and: Technological Diffusion and the Construction of a Universal Aesthetic...1993/4, presented at Future Languages, Adelaide Jan94 and ISEA94 Helsinki.) That 'development is consistently uneven' should come as a surprise to no-one. Only the most naive of techno-utopians could conceive that international data communications networks established (largely) by and for big business would support any ideology other than the one that they emerged from. As colonialism was the 'dark' component of the industrial revolution (an exploitable source of resources and markets), so the net-result (pun intended) of the net is, as we have seen, increased concentration of wealth. As many of us have been saying for years: net-utopianism is a dellusion of the disaffected of the developed nations. Lets acknowledge (again) that the vast majority of the worlds population has neither reliable electricty nor telephones. Although Utopians seem to imagine that the net is just 'there' in the ether, in fact it rides on an expensive and high-tech hardware infrastructure, at worst: reliable phone lines. If optical fibre isn't laid in your part of town (ie: south central LA) you just fell off the map into the marginal zone of the net-poor. You just lost your voice and your ability to share in this new wealth production. Similarly, although free net services may exist in some places, you'd better have some serious disposable income if you're dialing up from Uzbekistan. Simon Penny --- # distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@icf.de and "info nettime" in the msg body # URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner@icf.de