Tech for good or evil: Pls help me collect readings, bibliographies, & syllabi
Hi All, Could you help me collect any and all info that may be available on the use of technology for good and evil? I'm looking for readings, bibliographies, syllabi, media articles, and any other resources you may know of. Below is a list of topics that I have mapped so far. If I'm missing any or you believe there's a better way to organizing them, please let me know. Thanks, Yosem - Accountability, Corruption, Openness, and Transparency (e.g., Open Data, Freedom of Information - FOI) - Activism, Protests, and Movements (e.g., Occupy, Anonymous, Hacktivism) - Agriculture, Farming, and Food Security (e.g., eAgri, Fishing, Mariculture, Aquaponics, Aquaculture) - Censorship, Repression, and Freedom (e.g., Freedom of Expression - FoE, Free Speech, NetFreedom, Right to Information - RTI) - Conflict, Disasters, and Resilience (e.g., Crisis Mapping, Robotics, Cyber Attacks/Defense, Cyber War, Harassment, Hate Crimes) - Construction, Housing, and Real Estate (e.g., Smart Homes, Internet of Things) - Democracy, Politics, Elections, and Voting (e.g., Netroots, Tea Party, eVoting) - Development (e.g., Information and Communication Technologies for Development - ICT4D, Tech for Development - Tech4Dev, Global Development - GlobalDev) - Economics (e.g., Participatory Economy, Peer-to-Peer Economy, Commons, Unemployment, Job Creation/Destruction, Consumer Rights) - Education (e.g., Information and Communication Technologies for Education - ICT4E, Open Education, eLearning, MOOCs) - Ethics (e.g., how the design and use values of technology determine whether they're used for good or evil) - Energy and Power (e.g., Microgrids) - Entrepreneurship (e.g., Social Entrepreneurship - socent, Social Innovation) - Environment (e.g., Brownfields, Landfills, Superfund Sites, Climate Change, and Land, Water, and Air Preservation) - Finance (e.g., Microfinance, FinTech, Blockchain, Cryptocurrencies, Participatory Budgeting, Crowdfunding) - Governance (e.g., eGovernance - eGov, Open Governance - OpenGov, Governance 2.0 - gov20, Internet Governance Forum, Civic Tech) - Health (e.g., eHealth, mHealth, Telemedicine) - Human rights - Inequality & Bias (e.g., Digital Divide, Cost of Living, Discrimination, Harassment) - Manufacturing (e.g., Additive Technologies, 3D Printing, Do-It-Yourself - DIY, Robotics, Open Innovation) - Media (e.g., Journalism, Social Media) - Organizing and Organizations (e.g., Nonprofits, Community-Based Organizations, Cooperatives, Labor Unions) - Physical Spaces and Locations (e.g., Libraries, Coworking Spaces, Makerspaces, Hackerspaces, Fab Labs, Tool Sharing Libraries, Smart Cities, Mapping) - Policy and Law (e.g., Policy Innovations, Legal Innovations) - Privacy (e.g., Rules, Regulations, Laws, Frameworks) - Security, Physical or Cyber (e.g., Cybersecurity, Internet of Things, Sexual Harassment and/or Violence, Security by Design) - Social Science (e.g., Impact of Technology on Society) - Transportation and Supply Chain on Land, Water, and Air (e.g., Hyperloop, Autonomous Vehicles, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Drones, Smart Roads) - Volunteering (e.g., Crowdsourcing, Participatory Mapping) - Water Security (e.g., Watersheds, Water Purification) # 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 # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
Grand narratives vs Identitarianism
Yes yes yes, dear Jan Hendrik, this is precisely the way to go! We need to fundamentally reunderstand social relations to then make smithereens of western individualism (Descartes and Kant) to then present the relationalist or network-dynamical model for the 21st century society, for man and machine, for economy and ecology, and the universal rather than the particular condition for being human. This is where the call for a return to the tribe comes in. I haven't worked with Australian aboriginals but when Jan Söderqvist and I researched for our book "Digital Libido" we traveled to Brazil, Peru, Colombia, Botswana, New Guinea, northern Canada, to interview hundreds of tribal elders and collect the data by which we could make data anthropology out of tribal anthropology. And naturally universal patterns soon began to emerge out of the data. A matriarchy (inner circuit) matching a patriarchy (outer circuit) with clear male, female and androgynous contributive archetypes (forget work, what is deeply human and social is contribution, in whatever shape it comes) making it possible for us to guarantee that all living human beings today have had contributive social archetypes (whether they still will do so remains to be seen once robotization and automatization have played their cards). And not a single trace of individualism anywhere, but tons of personal responsibility (returned with autonomy) following the always returning and all-important rite of passage. Tundra or savannah had no effect, the tribe works the same everywhere we looked. I believe this is a formidable foundation for a thriving eco-socialism. And I certainly want to be part in building it in whatever way I can. Please note how the rite of passage and the journey from childhood to adulthood is fundamental for any thriving and functioning culture. It is consequently The Left that should embrace and cherish adulthood as ideal. Why our western identitarianism has done so much damage is because like all Rousseauian movements before it, it has celebrated childhood over adulthood, infantilized western society on a massive scale both through consumerism, welfare-state dependency, instagram narcissism, and pure capitalist greed. And you can just check the data coming out of Google for understanding the true tragedy of our times: Each generation only talks to itself, the relationships between the elders and youth have broken down. This is what is historically new and so utterly dangerous with the social media revolution, we have never had a generationalist society before. And besides the ecology this is the most dangerous thing we are playing with in contemporary western society. So I argue that an Australian aboriginal elderly matriarch really teaches us what our own elders would have taught us, had they still been around or listened to. However if we can manage to create a grand narrative based on our fundamental tribalness, ecological sustainability, equality and respect between tribal members (the only hierarchy we found within tribes is that the older decide over the younger, strictly from a maximized wisdom ideal), then we can focus on the two major challenges that await us: The move from intratribalism to intertribalism (which is going to be incredibly hard, we are essentially born programmed to kill strangers no matter what Derrida and Levinas think) and the move from the human relationality to the human-machine relationality. Tough stuff indeed. But without a new grand narrative (a return to the real rather than the good tribe) we will utterly fail. Postmodernism and identitarianism served their purposes but are of no or little use in this struggle. Class analysis and sociobiology though mean absolutely everything. Best intentions Alexander Den fre 2 nov. 2018 kl 05:40 skrev jan hendrik brueggemeier : > Dear nettime list - > > a little late to the party (and it seems the conversation has already > moved on …) i do like to pose some observations/ questions that this > thread has triggered for me — although i must admit that i have not read > marx (nor rosseau) myself. that’s probably me just being lazy as i did > inherit a copy of “grundrisse” from my dad and i was impressed that he > had sat down and used a ruler to underline important parts throughout > the whole book. Btw jean amery writes about going through the waves not > having had read marx in 1930s and again in 1960s … > > a little while ago i helped facilitate a conversation about eco-feminism > from an australian-aborignial and a western perspective between two > philosophers: mary graham, a kombumerri elder from queensland and freya > mathews from victoria. mary made a comment that for her western > philosophy is pretty much the intellect of the arena (and this recent > thread on nettime did bring her point home in a way). > > however, how i interpret her observation is that one difference of > aboriginal intellectuality to a western (academic) one is that it stems > from within
Re: Tech for good or evil: Pls help me collect readings, bibliographies, & syllabi
Great idea for a compilation Yosem. About categorization and organization, I think it is possible to find an example of a use of technologies for good and for evil for every field of human activity. That's why you might follow a general line of categories of fields (like of Wikipedia's) as you are doing here. You might like to add; military, police, intelligence, covert-special operations, terrorism/counter terrorism, and the use of technology for the sciences themselves. Best! Orsan On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 at 08:59, Yosem Companys wrote: > Hi All, > > Could you help me collect any and all info that may be available on the > use of technology for good and evil? > > I'm looking for readings, bibliographies, syllabi, media articles, and any > other resources you may know of. > > Below is a list of topics that I have mapped so far. If I'm missing any or > you believe there's a better way to organizing them, please let me know. > > Thanks, > Yosem > >- Accountability, Corruption, Openness, and Transparency (e.g., Open >Data, Freedom of Information - FOI) >- Activism, Protests, and Movements (e.g., Occupy, Anonymous, >Hacktivism) >- Agriculture, Farming, and Food Security (e.g., eAgri, Fishing, >Mariculture, Aquaponics, Aquaculture) >- Censorship, Repression, and Freedom (e.g., Freedom of Expression - >FoE, Free Speech, NetFreedom, Right to Information - RTI) >- Conflict, Disasters, and Resilience (e.g., Crisis Mapping, Robotics, >Cyber Attacks/Defense, Cyber War, Harassment, Hate Crimes) >- Construction, Housing, and Real Estate (e.g., Smart Homes, Internet >of Things) >- Democracy, Politics, Elections, and Voting (e.g., Netroots, Tea >Party, eVoting) >- Development (e.g., Information and Communication Technologies for >Development - ICT4D, Tech for Development - Tech4Dev, Global Development - >GlobalDev) >- Economics (e.g., Participatory Economy, Peer-to-Peer Economy, >Commons, Unemployment, Job Creation/Destruction, Consumer Rights) >- Education (e.g., Information and Communication Technologies for >Education - ICT4E, Open Education, eLearning, MOOCs) >- Ethics (e.g., how the design and use values of technology determine >whether they're used for good or evil) >- Energy and Power (e.g., Microgrids) >- Entrepreneurship (e.g., Social Entrepreneurship - socent, Social >Innovation) >- Environment (e.g., Brownfields, Landfills, Superfund Sites, Climate >Change, and Land, Water, and Air Preservation) >- Finance (e.g., Microfinance, FinTech, Blockchain, Cryptocurrencies, >Participatory Budgeting, Crowdfunding) >- Governance (e.g., eGovernance - eGov, Open Governance - OpenGov, >Governance 2.0 - gov20, Internet Governance Forum, Civic Tech) >- Health (e.g., eHealth, mHealth, Telemedicine) >- Human rights >- Inequality & Bias (e.g., Digital Divide, Cost of Living, >Discrimination, Harassment) >- Manufacturing (e.g., Additive Technologies, 3D Printing, >Do-It-Yourself - DIY, Robotics, Open Innovation) >- Media (e.g., Journalism, Social Media) >- Organizing and Organizations (e.g., Nonprofits, Community-Based >Organizations, Cooperatives, Labor Unions) >- Physical Spaces and Locations (e.g., Libraries, Coworking Spaces, >Makerspaces, Hackerspaces, Fab Labs, Tool Sharing Libraries, Smart Cities, >Mapping) >- Policy and Law (e.g., Policy Innovations, Legal Innovations) >- Privacy (e.g., Rules, Regulations, Laws, Frameworks) >- Security, Physical or Cyber (e.g., Cybersecurity, Internet of >Things, Sexual Harassment and/or Violence, Security by Design) >- Social Science (e.g., Impact of Technology on Society) >- Transportation and Supply Chain on Land, Water, and Air (e.g., >Hyperloop, Autonomous Vehicles, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Drones, Smart >Roads) >- Volunteering (e.g., Crowdsourcing, Participatory Mapping) >- Water Security (e.g., Watersheds, Water Purification) > > # 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 > # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: # 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 # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
Re: Tech for good or evil: Pls help me collect readings, bibliographies, & syllabi
On 11/2/18 8:57 AM, Yosem Companys wrote: Hi All, Could you help me collect any and all info that may be available on the use of technology for good and evil? I'm looking for readings, bibliographies, syllabi, media articles, and any other resources you may know of. Yasha Levine: Surveillance Valley is a good start. One of the works it refers to is Fred Turner: From Counterculture to Cyberculture which describes many surprising and problematic aspects of the "Californian ideology". Then there is *"*/All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace", a TV series by Adam Curtis./ Especialle episode 2, "The Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts", on the influence of cybernetics on the 60s countercultural movement, is interesting (and chilling). Adam Curtis' BBC program "The Trap" is also worth seeing, about the use (and abuse) of game theory in politics (and politicking). // # 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 # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
Hatice Cengiz: Jamal Khashoggi deserves justice. (Guardian)
Original to: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/02/jamal-khashoggi-justice-unite-hatice-cengiz Jamal Khashoggi deserves justice. The world must unite to pursue his killers Those responsible for taking the life of my kind, generous and compassionate fiance should not escape accountability Hatice Cengiz The Guardian, Fri 2 Nov 2018 06.00 GMT It has been exactly one month since my fiance, the celebrated journalist Jamal Khashoggi, entered Saudi Arabia’s consulate in Istanbul never to return. Today is also United Nations International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists. The coincidence is tragic and painful. Until a month ago, Jamal sent me articles that he was writing. I would enthusiastically read them and then call him with my thoughts. He would listen attentively, and then we would debate. But now I am writing about him and how I feel now he is gone. I am really finding it difficult to comprehend whether it has been a month or a lifetime since I lost Jamal. As I waited in hope that he would come out of the consulate, every hour, every day, felt like a year. They have been filled with anguish. No matter how long I waited, the joyful Jamal did not return. All that came was news of his death. As I write this, Istanbul’s chief public prosecutor’s office has made an official statement. They strangled Jamal and dismembered and destroyed his body. How brutal, barbaric and ruthless. What crime did he commit for them to do this? What was the reason for them to murder him so brutally? There is no explanation for this hate. It is important to remember Jamal, the person. A man of kindness, patience, generosity, compassion and love. All he wanted was a fresh start to ease his longing for his homeland. To live a lonely life with some happiness. And on this journey I would have been a companion and friend. I hope he knew just how precious it was for me as well to begin a new life with him. Jamal’s brutal murder has shaken the world. That is because we have lost a globally significant voice. Above all, he championed goodness and decency. He helped us understand the complex relations of the Middle East, but always put the lives and rights of its people first. Now in death, the principles for which he so passionately fought in life have been brought into the limelight: democracy, freedom and human rights; the fundamental belief that every person should choose their political masters through the ballot box. As we witness the international outrage at his killing, the perpetrators should know that they can never erase his vision for his beloved country. They have only emboldened it. It is now left to the international community to bring the perpetrators to justice. Of all nations, the United States should be leading the way. It was founded on the ideals of liberty and justice for all, the first amendment enshrining the ideals personified by Jamal. With this tragedy, the Trump administration has taken a position that is devoid of moral foundation. Some have approached this through the cynical prism of self-interest – statements framed by fear and cowardice; by the fear of upsetting interstate deals or economic ties. Some in Washington are hoping this matter will be forgotten with simple delaying tactics. But we will continue to push the Trump administration to help find justice for Jamal. There will be no cover-up. Today I am inviting the international community to take serious and practical steps to reveal the truth and to prosecute those involved in a court of law. And to deliver Jamal’s body, which is still missing, to his loved ones. I am not naive. I know that governments operate not on feelings but on mutual interests. However, they must all ask themselves a fundamental question. If the democracies of the world do not take genuine steps to bring to justice the perpetrators of this brazen, callous act – one that has caused universal outrage among their citizens – what moral authority are they left with? Whose freedom and human rights can than credibly continue to defend? We are now going through a test of humanity. And it requires leadership. The biggest responsibility lies on the heads of the governments. My president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and everyone in the political, legal and judicial branches of Turkey are managing this matter in the best way possible. So I invite the leaders of all European countries and the US to pass this test. Justice must be served. I demand that those who committed this premeditated and savage assassination are brought to justice. Those who ordered this murder – even if they stand in the highest political office – should also be prosecuted. I demand justice for my beloved Jamal. We must all send a clear message that authoritarian regimes cannot kill journalists ever again. Jamal had just bought a house. He had a dream to build a family. He was selecting household items with
Re: Identity and difference
Trust me, race and gender are not social ghosts. They have extremely material consequences. On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 12:48 AM Alexander Bard wrote: > Dear Justin > > Was Karl Marx an idealist or a materialist? I'm perfectly happy to leave > that for you and others to decide. Because I'm a pragmatist and my ideas > are pragmatist and the rest is just wordplay to me. I'm interested in > factual truth and in whether something works or does not work. I'm also > interested in opinion being challenged on its own merit. Therefore I > radically separate person and opinion. The whole idea that who speaks > affects the value of what is being said is just value relativism of the > worst kind. I know this is a popular kindergarden game among identitarians > of both the extreme right and the extreme left (as if "being seen and > heard" must be divided equally among some five-year-olds). Because I can > see no other value in this habit than infantile attention-seeking. Which > means it is in itself victim-seeking and therefore victimhood-encouraging > and certainly not heroic and empowering for anybody. And I can't think of > anything less Marxist than that. As I said, identitarianism is Rousseau > through and through. How it even sneaked into "The Left" beats me. > > Everybody should radically be allowed to speak and each argument should be > judged on its own merits, not according to who forwards it. That > strengthens the overall the debate the most. That is if you're interested > in debates having successful and productive outcomes. At least I am. > Anything else is just a waste of valuable time. So does race exist? Yes, it > does, undeniably, but only as a social ghost. My brother and I had no idea > one of us was black and of us was white until we where 14. We had no idea > we ought to have cared. Now we can spend our entire lives going on and on > about social ghosts and, like David pointed out, end up being the very > people who defend and keep the social ghosts the most and the longest. > However I find that tragic. I want to move on. And class being firmly tied > to capital and power is therefore the factual overarching category under > which we can then deal with minor issues like race and gender. Effectively. > Now if that is not a materialist argument as much as an activist one, then > I don't know what is. If anything is idealist and not materialist it must > certainly be the obsession with social ghosts. But sure, the I and the M > labels are yours to decide. I could not care less. > > Best intentions > Alexander > > Den fre 2 nov. 2018 kl 04:00 skrev Justin Charles < > justinrobertchar...@gmail.com>: > >> Coming in late to this thread but the anti-identity current that's >> growing more and more prevalent on the left lately seems to be somewhat in >> opposition to contrary to materialism. To say that "class is class and >> only class has universal validity" strikes me as pretty idealist, not >> materialist. OneWhile race may not exist to Alexander Bard and Candace >> Owens, I'd argue that maybe it doesn't exist for them because materially it >> need not. Alexander is a white man. Candace Owens, while a black woman, has >> a class position that allows her to skip some over much of what it looks >> like to be black for most black people, who aren't well-compensated >> conservative (or liberal) commentators. Most black people's class position >> is deeply intertwined with the color of their skin. I don't think I need to >> go into the historical reasons for this. I'd also say that Asad Haider's >> book was in no way championing victimhood. If that's what one takes away >> from it then they've read an entirely different book than I did. >> >> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 12:05 PM tbyfield wrote: >> >>> Ian, this idea of 'civility' should be unpacked a bit, because the ~word >>> lumps together a disparate range of concerns. At its worst, a lot of >>> babble about civility boils down to is tone-policing, which relies on >>> etiquette as an all-purpose tool for micromanaging rhetoric — and in >>> doing so, limiting and even delegitimizing positions of every type >>> (subjective, relational, political, whatever). In other contexts — >>> notably, in 'centrist' politics in the US — it serves as a rationale >>> for institutionalist pliability: 'bipartisan' cooperation, etc. But >>> those two uses are very different from its function as a foil for the >>> frightening prospect of outright political violence. These different >>> strands, or layers if you like, are hopelessly tangled, and that >>> confusion in itself has serious consequences — hence the culturalist >>> use of the word 'strategy,' which often is used to get at the nebulous >>> realm in which individual behavior aligns with (or 'is constitutive of') >>> abstract, impersonal forces. That's a very roundabout way to get at the >>> obvious problem, which is the direct way that increasingly uncivil >>> political discourse foments violence. And, in a way, that's
Identity and difference
Dear Alice If you refer to what I wrote, then please let me correct you. I never said that gender is a social ghost. I said that race is a social ghost. There is no such thing as race outside of bigoted people's limited imagination. Skin color makes us no different from one another than hair or eye color. Which is why all forms of racism are invalid. Prejudices are best fought with empowerment and facts, not with infinite (self)victimization. Call the prejudiced out on their ignorance, not on some kind of banal moralism. Gender exists ontically and not just ontologically. As does androgynity between the genders. And all three categories serve excellent and equally important roles in the community. I'm a radical egalitarian for good and sold scientific reasons. Tribal mapping theory even includes a forth category labeled "the shamanic caste" for added tribal queerness, the go-betweens of all genders that walk between tribes. There you go, pretty much all people included in that model, my favorite model for future socialism. However class beats everything else when it comes to political struggle. I just read and found out both Slavoj Zizek and Alain Badiou agree strongly with me on this note. Not that namedropping is an argument, just another example of how there is a major backlash brewing against identitarianism's claim toward becoming the core of the left. I firmly believe such a Rousseauian turn would be a devastating mistake. Back to Marx, please! Best to fight sexism and racism (of all kinds) through facts and empowerment. Subordinated to that one factor that overdetermines the social arena as a whole, the good old well-performed class analysis. With violence too if needed. You're certainly not going to find people like me among the passive-aggressive trolls in the pacifism camp. Best intentions and I believe over and out for now Alexander Den fre 2 nov. 2018 kl 17:52 skrev Alice Yang : > Trust me, race and gender are not social ghosts. They have extremely > material consequences. > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 12:48 AM Alexander Bard > wrote: > >> Dear Justin >> >> Was Karl Marx an idealist or a materialist? I'm perfectly happy to leave >> that for you and others to decide. Because I'm a pragmatist and my ideas >> are pragmatist and the rest is just wordplay to me. I'm interested in >> factual truth and in whether something works or does not work. I'm also >> interested in opinion being challenged on its own merit. Therefore I >> radically separate person and opinion. The whole idea that who speaks >> affects the value of what is being said is just value relativism of the >> worst kind. I know this is a popular kindergarden game among identitarians >> of both the extreme right and the extreme left (as if "being seen and >> heard" must be divided equally among some five-year-olds). Because I can >> see no other value in this habit than infantile attention-seeking. Which >> means it is in itself victim-seeking and therefore victimhood-encouraging >> and certainly not heroic and empowering for anybody. And I can't think of >> anything less Marxist than that. As I said, identitarianism is Rousseau >> through and through. How it even sneaked into "The Left" beats me. >> >> Everybody should radically be allowed to speak and each argument should >> be judged on its own merits, not according to who forwards it. That >> strengthens the overall the debate the most. That is if you're interested >> in debates having successful and productive outcomes. At least I am. >> Anything else is just a waste of valuable time. So does race exist? Yes, it >> does, undeniably, but only as a social ghost. My brother and I had no idea >> one of us was black and of us was white until we where 14. We had no idea >> we ought to have cared. Now we can spend our entire lives going on and on >> about social ghosts and, like David pointed out, end up being the very >> people who defend and keep the social ghosts the most and the longest. >> However I find that tragic. I want to move on. And class being firmly tied >> to capital and power is therefore the factual overarching category under >> which we can then deal with minor issues like race and gender. Effectively. >> Now if that is not a materialist argument as much as an activist one, then >> I don't know what is. If anything is idealist and not materialist it must >> certainly be the obsession with social ghosts. But sure, the I and the M >> labels are yours to decide. I could not care less. >> >> Best intentions >> Alexander >> >> Den fre 2 nov. 2018 kl 04:00 skrev Justin Charles < >> justinrobertchar...@gmail.com>: >> >>> Coming in late to this thread but the anti-identity current that's >>> growing more and more prevalent on the left lately seems to be somewhat in >>> opposition to contrary to materialism. To say that "class is class and >>> only class has universal validity" strikes me as pretty idealist, not >>> materialist. OneWhile race may not exist to Alexander Bard and
Re: Identity and difference
If you think that race is skin color, you're mistaken. Race is a social reality. Class, race, and gender are all "real" because people believe in them, so they have material consequences. If you think that "pure class struggle" exists and that class hasn't been commodified and sold back to you, let me refer you to Donald Trump. On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 1:08 PM Alexander Bard wrote: > Dear Alice > > If you refer to what I wrote, then please let me correct you. I never said > that gender is a social ghost. I said that race is a social ghost. There is > no such thing as race outside of bigoted people's limited imagination. Skin > color makes us no different from one another than hair or eye color. Which > is why all forms of racism are invalid. Prejudices are best fought with > empowerment and facts, not with infinite (self)victimization. Call the > prejudiced out on their ignorance, not on some kind of banal moralism. > Gender exists ontically and not just ontologically. As does androgynity > between the genders. And all three categories serve excellent and equally > important roles in the community. I'm a radical egalitarian for good and > sold scientific reasons. Tribal mapping theory even includes a forth > category labeled "the shamanic caste" for added tribal queerness, the > go-betweens of all genders that walk between tribes. There you go, pretty > much all people included in that model, my favorite model for future > socialism. > However class beats everything else when it comes to political struggle. I > just read and found out both Slavoj Zizek and Alain Badiou agree strongly > with me on this note. Not that namedropping is an argument, just another > example of how there is a major backlash brewing against identitarianism's > claim toward becoming the core of the left. I firmly believe such a > Rousseauian turn would be a devastating mistake. Back to Marx, please! > Best to fight sexism and racism (of all kinds) through facts and > empowerment. Subordinated to that one factor that overdetermines the social > arena as a whole, the good old well-performed class analysis. > With violence too if needed. You're certainly not going to find people > like me among the passive-aggressive trolls in the pacifism camp. > > Best intentions and I believe over and out for now > Alexander > > Den fre 2 nov. 2018 kl 17:52 skrev Alice Yang : > >> Trust me, race and gender are not social ghosts. They have extremely >> material consequences. >> >> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 12:48 AM Alexander Bard >> wrote: >> >>> Dear Justin >>> >>> Was Karl Marx an idealist or a materialist? I'm perfectly happy to leave >>> that for you and others to decide. Because I'm a pragmatist and my ideas >>> are pragmatist and the rest is just wordplay to me. I'm interested in >>> factual truth and in whether something works or does not work. I'm also >>> interested in opinion being challenged on its own merit. Therefore I >>> radically separate person and opinion. The whole idea that who speaks >>> affects the value of what is being said is just value relativism of the >>> worst kind. I know this is a popular kindergarden game among identitarians >>> of both the extreme right and the extreme left (as if "being seen and >>> heard" must be divided equally among some five-year-olds). Because I can >>> see no other value in this habit than infantile attention-seeking. Which >>> means it is in itself victim-seeking and therefore victimhood-encouraging >>> and certainly not heroic and empowering for anybody. And I can't think of >>> anything less Marxist than that. As I said, identitarianism is Rousseau >>> through and through. How it even sneaked into "The Left" beats me. >>> >>> Everybody should radically be allowed to speak and each argument should >>> be judged on its own merits, not according to who forwards it. That >>> strengthens the overall the debate the most. That is if you're interested >>> in debates having successful and productive outcomes. At least I am. >>> Anything else is just a waste of valuable time. So does race exist? Yes, it >>> does, undeniably, but only as a social ghost. My brother and I had no idea >>> one of us was black and of us was white until we where 14. We had no idea >>> we ought to have cared. Now we can spend our entire lives going on and on >>> about social ghosts and, like David pointed out, end up being the very >>> people who defend and keep the social ghosts the most and the longest. >>> However I find that tragic. I want to move on. And class being firmly tied >>> to capital and power is therefore the factual overarching category under >>> which we can then deal with minor issues like race and gender. Effectively. >>> Now if that is not a materialist argument as much as an activist one, then >>> I don't know what is. If anything is idealist and not materialist it must >>> certainly be the obsession with social ghosts. But sure, the I and the M >>> labels are yours to decide. I could not care less. >>>
Re: Identity and difference
What would Marxist answer to those who like Berkley do argue against the existence of Matter in the struggles ? Le ven. 2 nov. 2018 à 6:08 PM, Alexander Bard a écrit : > Dear Alice > > If you refer to what I wrote, then please let me correct you. I never said > that gender is a social ghost. I said that race is a social ghost. There is > no such thing as race outside of bigoted people's limited imagination. Skin > color makes us no different from one another than hair or eye color. Which > is why all forms of racism are invalid. Prejudices are best fought with > empowerment and facts, not with infinite (self)victimization. Call the > prejudiced out on their ignorance, not on some kind of banal moralism. > Gender exists ontically and not just ontologically. As does androgynity > between the genders. And all three categories serve excellent and equally > important roles in the community. I'm a radical egalitarian for good and > sold scientific reasons. Tribal mapping theory even includes a forth > category labeled "the shamanic caste" for added tribal queerness, the > go-betweens of all genders that walk between tribes. There you go, pretty > much all people included in that model, my favorite model for future > socialism. > However class beats everything else when it comes to political struggle. I > just read and found out both Slavoj Zizek and Alain Badiou agree strongly > with me on this note. Not that namedropping is an argument, just another > example of how there is a major backlash brewing against identitarianism's > claim toward becoming the core of the left. I firmly believe such a > Rousseauian turn would be a devastating mistake. Back to Marx, please! > Best to fight sexism and racism (of all kinds) through facts and > empowerment. Subordinated to that one factor that overdetermines the social > arena as a whole, the good old well-performed class analysis. > With violence too if needed. You're certainly not going to find people > like me among the passive-aggressive trolls in the pacifism camp. > > Best intentions and I believe over and out for now > Alexander > > Den fre 2 nov. 2018 kl 17:52 skrev Alice Yang : > >> Trust me, race and gender are not social ghosts. They have extremely >> material consequences. >> >> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 12:48 AM Alexander Bard >> wrote: >> > Dear Justin >>> >>> Was Karl Marx an idealist or a materialist? I'm perfectly happy to leave >>> that for you and others to decide. Because I'm a pragmatist and my ideas >>> are pragmatist and the rest is just wordplay to me. I'm interested in >>> factual truth and in whether something works or does not work. I'm also >>> interested in opinion being challenged on its own merit. Therefore I >>> radically separate person and opinion. The whole idea that who speaks >>> affects the value of what is being said is just value relativism of the >>> worst kind. I know this is a popular kindergarden game among identitarians >>> of both the extreme right and the extreme left (as if "being seen and >>> heard" must be divided equally among some five-year-olds). Because I can >>> see no other value in this habit than infantile attention-seeking. Which >>> means it is in itself victim-seeking and therefore victimhood-encouraging >>> and certainly not heroic and empowering for anybody. And I can't think of >>> anything less Marxist than that. As I said, identitarianism is Rousseau >>> through and through. How it even sneaked into "The Left" beats me. >>> >>> Everybody should radically be allowed to speak and each argument should >>> be judged on its own merits, not according to who forwards it. That >>> strengthens the overall the debate the most. That is if you're interested >>> in debates having successful and productive outcomes. At least I am. >>> Anything else is just a waste of valuable time. So does race exist? Yes, it >>> does, undeniably, but only as a social ghost. My brother and I had no idea >>> one of us was black and of us was white until we where 14. We had no idea >>> we ought to have cared. Now we can spend our entire lives going on and on >>> about social ghosts and, like David pointed out, end up being the very >>> people who defend and keep the social ghosts the most and the longest. >>> However I find that tragic. I want to move on. And class being firmly tied >>> to capital and power is therefore the factual overarching category under >>> which we can then deal with minor issues like race and gender. Effectively. >>> Now if that is not a materialist argument as much as an activist one, then >>> I don't know what is. If anything is idealist and not materialist it must >>> certainly be the obsession with social ghosts. But sure, the I and the M >>> labels are yours to decide. I could not care less. >>> >>> Best intentions >>> Alexander >>> >>> Den fre 2 nov. 2018 kl 04:00 skrev Justin Charles < >>> justinrobertchar...@gmail.com>: >>> >> Coming in late to this thread but the anti-identity current that's growing mo
Re: Identity and difference
Thanks, Laura. This is why I keep saying that identity politics *is* class struggle. It's just class struggle from perspectives that don't have the privilege of assuming a non-racial (white) and non-gendered (male) point of view. Anyone who thinks that identity politics is overly branded, mass produced, and commodified should really be saying that class struggle is overly branded, mass produced, and commodified instead of jumping on women of color for just existing! On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 1:30 PM Johnatan Petterson < internet.petter...@gmail.com> wrote: > What would Marxist answer to those who like Berkley do argue against the > existence of Matter in the struggles ? > > Le ven. 2 nov. 2018 à 6:08 PM, Alexander Bard a > écrit : > >> Dear Alice >> >> If you refer to what I wrote, then please let me correct you. I never >> said that gender is a social ghost. I said that race is a social ghost. >> There is no such thing as race outside of bigoted people's limited >> imagination. Skin color makes us no different from one another than hair or >> eye color. Which is why all forms of racism are invalid. Prejudices are >> best fought with empowerment and facts, not with infinite >> (self)victimization. Call the prejudiced out on their ignorance, not on >> some kind of banal moralism. >> Gender exists ontically and not just ontologically. As does androgynity >> between the genders. And all three categories serve excellent and equally >> important roles in the community. I'm a radical egalitarian for good and >> sold scientific reasons. Tribal mapping theory even includes a forth >> category labeled "the shamanic caste" for added tribal queerness, the >> go-betweens of all genders that walk between tribes. There you go, pretty >> much all people included in that model, my favorite model for future >> socialism. >> However class beats everything else when it comes to political struggle. >> I just read and found out both Slavoj Zizek and Alain Badiou agree strongly >> with me on this note. Not that namedropping is an argument, just another >> example of how there is a major backlash brewing against identitarianism's >> claim toward becoming the core of the left. I firmly believe such a >> Rousseauian turn would be a devastating mistake. Back to Marx, please! >> Best to fight sexism and racism (of all kinds) through facts and >> empowerment. Subordinated to that one factor that overdetermines the social >> arena as a whole, the good old well-performed class analysis. >> With violence too if needed. You're certainly not going to find people >> like me among the passive-aggressive trolls in the pacifism camp. >> >> Best intentions and I believe over and out for now >> Alexander >> >> Den fre 2 nov. 2018 kl 17:52 skrev Alice Yang : >> >>> Trust me, race and gender are not social ghosts. They have extremely >>> material consequences. >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 12:48 AM Alexander Bard >>> wrote: >>> >> Dear Justin Was Karl Marx an idealist or a materialist? I'm perfectly happy to leave that for you and others to decide. Because I'm a pragmatist and my ideas are pragmatist and the rest is just wordplay to me. I'm interested in factual truth and in whether something works or does not work. I'm also interested in opinion being challenged on its own merit. Therefore I radically separate person and opinion. The whole idea that who speaks affects the value of what is being said is just value relativism of the worst kind. I know this is a popular kindergarden game among identitarians of both the extreme right and the extreme left (as if "being seen and heard" must be divided equally among some five-year-olds). Because I can see no other value in this habit than infantile attention-seeking. Which means it is in itself victim-seeking and therefore victimhood-encouraging and certainly not heroic and empowering for anybody. And I can't think of anything less Marxist than that. As I said, identitarianism is Rousseau through and through. How it even sneaked into "The Left" beats me. Everybody should radically be allowed to speak and each argument should be judged on its own merits, not according to who forwards it. That strengthens the overall the debate the most. That is if you're interested in debates having successful and productive outcomes. At least I am. Anything else is just a waste of valuable time. So does race exist? Yes, it does, undeniably, but only as a social ghost. My brother and I had no idea one of us was black and of us was white until we where 14. We had no idea we ought to have cared. Now we can spend our entire lives going on and on about social ghosts and, like David pointed out, end up being the very people who defend and keep the social ghosts the most and the longest. However I find that tragic. I want to move on. And class being firmly tied to capital and powe
Re: (no subject)
Greetings Nettimers, For me, the question of identity politics–--what it is, where it comes from, what problems it creates or exacerbates, its political efficacy and purchase?cannot be addressed in any useful way without putting primary significance on what both Brian and Keith, in their different ways, emphasized. Which is to say, the concrete labor of organizing political formations. Modern identity politics--?for convenient periodization, let's say post-1968?--did not come out of abstract debates. Rather, it was the growing realization, happening in many parts of the mass movements then mobilized with the wind at their backs, that the movement work was itself undemocratic in so many ways. One of the originary myths of second wave feminism, for example, is the coming to consciousness among the women of early SDS (long before '68), who noticed that the female cadres always ended up serving the coffee while the male members went straightaway to the debates about strategy. Casey Hayden’s story of coming to feminist consciousness basically begins with this very story. She was already a vet of SNCC organizing, already had thought through the systemic issues vis racial segregation and Jim Crow. But the language for the rather more informal politics of interpersonal behaviors?--which basically governed the so-called private domain of the household, especially--?was yet to be invented. So, in that moment, with the fresh (but familiar) irritation of a tableful of dishes left by a bunch of white male so-called radicals hashing out movement plans, is it a debate about Marx vs Rousseau? Or is it a group of women looking at each other and thinking, what the hell is wrong with these dudes?? And then...hey, maybe WE should have our OWN meeting?! Identity politics? Why, Yes, I do mind dying! Asad Haider takes as his inspirational templates the Combahee River Collective and the late communism of Amiri Baraka. Keith writes of the pre-'68 masses in political motion in young African nations. Brian writes of the resistance in Chicago today. For my part, I’ve been taking memory trips to that poorly understood political interregnum we call the United States of the 1980s, the campus cauldrons from which identity politics grew teeth. This was the coming of political age for my cohort, Gen X. Identity politics was our achievement, but also, in the way that those politics were transmitted to the current youth without a context, our generational failure. And what was that context? It was a period in which the youth-driven Sixties and Seventies mass movements conclusively disintegrated, for a host of reasons both internal and external. Also, the decade advanced a parallel retrenchment of capital, at all scales. Examples– Macro: Volcker putting the stranglehold on inflation, with punishing interest rates, forcing austerity and massive industrial restructuring. Micro: elite institutions reclaiming authority eroded in the 60s, each in their own way, such as Stanford University deliberately reducing the admissions of humanities-oriented applicants and increasing their engineering enrollments as way to manage campus activism. Molecular: the individual who moves into responsible “straight" life, disawowing their youthful ideals?--a narrative much reinforced in the mass media products of the time (The Big Chill, thirtysomething, the Ballads of Rubin/Horowitz/Cleaver, etc). In the Reagan-Bush-Thatcher era, with wars fought by proxy, an obviously sclerotic Soviet bloc, and a total rollback agenda targeting every progressive achievement of the previous two decades?and no mass movements producing pressure for new initiatives?--battles over new terms and concepts like "sexual harassment" (the term itself hardly existed up until then) and LGB recognition (no wide use of T or even Q yet) came to the fore as productive grounds for organizing--?a process that of course further exposed the inherited dysfunctions of the activists themselves. In that time, as I recall, activist work meant a good deal of introspection and application of care to one's ways of speaking. So, for example, in addition to getting up to speed on the pros and cons of the Sullivan principles and the various tactics of disruption and escalation in the campus divestment movement, we took care to think through what, exactly, were our stakes (being privileged college students of the day) in the anti-apartheid struggle of black South Africa, and how to engage without patronizing those with whom we felt called to stand in allegiance. The latter being an identity politics problem, one that made the movement stronger. The one thing is, those struggles created space for real power, for making real changes. Until the campus activism of the 80s, colleges and universities, not to mention corporations and government, were almost wholly without sexual harassment policies. Ethnic Studies was born in the late 60s but Ethnic Studies *requirements* did not take hold until students demande
#Googlewalkout employee interviews | Vox
https://snuproject.wordpress.com/2018/11/02/googlewalkout-employee-interviews/ Nearly 17,000 Google employees walked off the job yesterday. The Google walkout was about sexual harassment as well as a lack of transparency and accountability at the company, employees said. Google employees in Cambridge, Massachusetts, join a worldwide walkout in protest of company policies on sexual harassment.Lane Turner/Boston Globe via Getty Images Nearly 17,000 Google employees walked off the job yesterday as part of a massive, worldwide protest against the company’s mishandling of sexual harassment cases. The walkout, which was organized by seven Google employees, was a response to a New York Times report on the multimillion-dollar payouts offered to high-level employees who had been accused of sexual misconduct. Some protesters carried signs that read, “Happy to quit for $90m,” a reference to the exit package Google gave Andy Rubin, the creator of Android, who was forced to leave the company in 2014 after an employee accused him of forcing her to perform oral sex on him. “What do I do at Google? I work hard every day so the company can afford $90,000,000 payouts to execs who sexually harass my coworkers,” read another. It was also an opportunity for Google employees — who have repeatedly clashed with senior management on a number of topics, from censorship in China to the company’s role in government projects — to put forth a vision for a better, more equitable company. “A company is nothing without its workers,” the organizers wrote in a piece for the Cut. “From the moment we start at Google, we’re told that we aren’t just employees; we’re owners. Every person who walked out today is an owner, and the owners say: Time’s up.” Some of the employees who chose to speak with me about why they protested asked to be referred to by a pseudonym and to not specify which campus they work at, but felt that it was important to come forward. Two of the three people who agreed to speak with me are men, as are nearly 70 percent of all Google employees, according to the company’s annual diversity report. All of them emphasized that despite enjoying their jobs, they felt responsible for creating an environment where anyone could thrive, regardless of gender, race, or ethnicity, and where no one was afraid to report harassment or assault. They also referred to past Google controversies, like the sexual harassment reported by former Google software engineer Kelly Ellis, who quit the company in 2014 because of its “sexist culture”; and the fact that internal company communications, including a video from an all-hands meeting, were leaked to the right-wing website Breitbart. Despite the massive size of the protests and the fact that Google sanctioned the walkout, support for it wasn’t universal. One employee told me that there were “people in the company who are against the walkout” and disagree with the organizers’ demands. (It’s worth noting that James Damore, the author of an “anti-diversity” manifesto who was fired in 2017, had plenty of ideological allies at the company.) Those who did participate in the walkout, though, view it as a necessary step in the ongoing fight toward equity and transparency at one of the world’s biggest companies. Their responses have been condensed and edited for clarity. Ashley*, a major US campus that isn’t Mountain View I’ve worked here for 11 years. I’m now a manager with around two people in my group. I have never experienced direct gender-based discrimination at Google, which I count myself lucky for. I have heard many other people’s stories, however — enough to make me sure that there’s an overall problem. I decided to participate because I wanted the execs to get the message that this is something a lot of people care about. Whether I participated was going to be visible to the people in my office, because there are literally five women at my site at this level. “I’ve been seeing more and more of a rift between the top-level execs and the rest of the company” We need to end forced arbitration in case of harassment and discrimination. I would also like a real commitment to end pay and opportunity inequity. I would be okay with starting with pay, which is easier. Transparent data on gender, race, and ethnicity compensation across all levels — accessible to all Google employees — would be really nice. This is something the US Department of Labor asked Google for, and [Google claims] it’s too expensive to provide while also claiming there is no gap. That doesn’t make sense to me or a lot of other people. I’ve been seeing more and more of a rift between the top-level execs and the rest of the company, and I’ve seen it growing slowly over time. It seems like some people are actively trying to make it worse. We have a real problem with [people] leaking internal communications, especially to right-wing sites, in a way that’s extremely divisive [and] corrosive to the idea of trust and open co
