Re: Mute article on Bitcoin
Hey Jaromil! Great to see you too, too bad I couldn't hang out longer, no doubt we'll bump into each other again sooner, rather than later. I fully understand that DYNDY and your research is not focused only on BitCoin, however this thread, and the mute article it references is specifically about BitCoin, as where my comments that BitCoin is nothing more (or less) than digital specie. So I'll stick to BitCoin as a topic here, although I do agree a much larger topic is related. The two direct questions I asked, which I don't feel your response really addressed in any direct way, was what reason do we have to believe that BitCoin (or any specie new or old, digital or physical) would affect the structure of wealth and income in society in such a way as to bring about more fairness and equality? I'm not looking for a macroeconomic "prediction" here, merely an argument that has macroeconomic consistency. Meaning an economically logical argument. In simple terms, how can a digital specie change the structure of wealth or income? In the most basic macroeconomic terms: total income is equal to profits plus wages, so for BitCoin to have a macroeconomic effect, are you suggesting that it will lower profits or raise wages? If so, how? Or perhaps are you suggesting that BitCoin will redirect profits from private to social forms? And again, if so, how? The other direct question was: in what way is BitCoin democratic? Your response was directed at being "state-centered," yet, this was not the point or implication of the question. The question was: in what way can BitCoin (or any other specie) perform "democratic" economic functions, such as the provisioning of public goods, leveling of accumulation and moderation of price fluctuations. In other words, what are the mechanisms for making collective social choices about economic outcomes? You raise a point of wether accumulation of capital is a consequence of capitalism or an obstacle to a freer society, yet, it is of course both, so this is a false dilemma. Clearly the structure of wealth and income today is a consequence of capitalism, just as clearly, it is an obstacle to new economics modes as well. Not only because of the coercive requirement that the majority of us work for, and thus continue to enrich, capital, and not only because the accumulated wealth available to capitalist interests is used to capture and direct social and public institutions, compelling the to put the interests of the elite above the interests of the masses, but also very directly in that, the current division of income in society means that the amount of wealth that is available for non-capitalist productive modes is simple too negligible to bring about major changes as is. Best, -- Dmyri Kleiner Venture Communist # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #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: nett...@kein.org
Re: The $100bn Facebook question: Will capitalism survive 'value abundance'?
Hallo Ana Dear John I am not sure if we are talking in parallell ways. When I am talking potlach I am talking from an anthropologist view (I am a trained anthropologist) and we are definitely talking about exchanges both in the symbolical view and in the physical form. I understand that much of anthropological is involved in seeing the world from that material/semiotic split. I'd recommend a reading of Leslie White's (anthropologist) work (one source here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/663173 - "Energy and Evolution of Culture") and maybe White, L.A., 1975. "The concept of cultural systems: a key to understanding tribes and nations", Columbia University Press. If exchange has no perceived or real value to enhance individual or tribal viability, it cannot be sustained. Potlatch exchange is rooted in real (energy) viability questions which only later became somewhat (only partially) 'symbolic'. And as you were referring to real people in 'virtual' sweatshops, the expenditure of life-time which is correlated to life-energy, is not virtual at all -- it takes a certain minimum amount of calories to maintain a living body for a day, regardless of activity and when the day is done, whether you are a wall st. banker or a ditch-digger, you cannot get that day back. Virtuality is only the situation where some sensory/energy inputs to the body are attenuated, it does not erase the energized presence and negentropic energy consumption necessary for any and all life... The most gifts exchanged were not included in the tribe's economy but were burned in a very ritualized ceremony at the end of the exchange festival. Which particular tribal grouping are you speaking of? Of course there are many varying customs, but if viability is threatened, you can be sure that burning was not an option. Burning (destruction) of reserves can only take place in a glut / energy reserve excess situation. Okay, sure, when the perceived 'sacrifice' will bring more 'stuff' sooner than later, people who were locked into a set of tribal religious rules would do so, but if starvation becomes endemic, you can be sure that those gods so faithfully invoked would be quickly removed from their position of power! (a 'reversal of perspective: http://tech-no-mad.net/blog/archives/7458 !!) cheers, John # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #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: nett...@kein.org
Digital Vertigo update
[Resent-From: Geert Lovink ] Hello Everyone, A quick update on my appearance at South By South West this coming Saturday (March 10) at 9.30 am in Ballroom G of the Austin Convention Center. This will be my very first public reading of the book and, if you are going to SXSW, I hope you'll come to hear me. I'll also be available after the reading for press interviews. And don't worry if you can't make it. My US publisher, St Martins Press, is running a sweepstakes which is not only giving away 100 copies of the e-book but is also featuring its first two chapters. So please read and then tell me what you think. Early responses to the book have been amazing. Nicholas Carr noted that I've "found the off switch for Silicon Valley's reality distortion field". Sir Martin Sorrell said that "Digital Vertigo may be one of the few books on the subject that, twenty years from now, will be seen to have got it right." Peter Bale, CNN International's GM of Digital, described it as "part-William Gibson and part-Christopher Hitchens", while Sherry Turkle called it a "bracing read... that clarifies and enlightens." For other early reviews, as well as an overview of the book, please go here. Digital Vertigo is released both in the US and UK on May 22 and I've already got a very busy schedule of speeches and media appearances planned for late May, June and July. So if you do want me to speak about the book over the summer, please let me know as soon as possible. I hope to see you bright and early on Saturday morning in Austin. v. best, Andrew dd. # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #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: nett...@kein.org
