Re: Not One

[Keith Sanborn]

Dear Ryan et al.

You needn’t apologize for anything.

In an sense I felt your post, Ryan, extended what I considered the 
proliferation of received and somewhat opaque terminology with which I felt 
Eric’s earlier post was riddled. I should have spoken to that. Now is not the 
time. Considering the history of the suppression of voting rights is indeed 
relevant as is settler colonialism. But those should not become meaningless 
mantras. Americans seem to forget their history more easily than most—given as 
so many of us are to millenialist illusionism—so it is important to remind them 
of it and of the need to change it. If those phrases get you into the street, 
they are working. If not…

My concern is that the proliferation of theoretical jargon does not advance us 
towards preserving the United States from the continuing slide towards, for 
lack of better words, “nationalist authoritarianism,” of the sort we have seen 
in Poland, Hungary, Russia, India and to a certain degree even in Britain. 
Italy has also shown that potential. The list is long, but the European 
examples seem more important, with their declining lip service to even 
bourgeois democratic values, let alone a shared historical project. With some 
exceptions, the virus has brought forward the tendency towards nationalist 
cocooning trending widely as well as violent reactions more in sympathy with it 
than against it. In Belarus and Kyrghyzstan, at least they are rebelling 
against it, even within a limited framework. We have even seen those actions in 
the street here, though more as provocation than as dissent. Mao, Lukashenko, 
Andrew Jackson, and Trump sent in the Army. Putin perfers poison. The point is: 
we, as citizens of the United States, have a responsibility to cut off the link 
between Trump and the Army and the Supreme Court as soon as possible and the 
most direct route at the moment is the election in a month. Maybe Covid will 
help in its own special way, if roid-rage doesn't buoy Trump up until the 
election.

We need vital action now, even if that means dirtying our hands with bourgeois 
democracy and voting, yes even in the face of historical voter suppression. We 
need to support those fighting against that and help where we can. We need a 
pragmatic, empirical approach rather than a strictly theoretical one. I refuse 
to give in to the “always already” endgaming of so much historical, social 
theorizing. Call it naive. I don’t care. I felt you were continuing the 
discussion in that direction.

I am not arguing against theory, but it should arise out of and be informed by 
practice—immediate experience—more than by other theory. Right now we are 
sorely in need of theory from praxis—or should I say immediate experience—and 
more praxis from that theory. And more praxis than theory.

As Brecht, no lover of bourgeois democracy, who faced historical Fascism, said: 
“Erst kommit das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral.” Very approximately, “First 
comes feeding, then comes morality.” No doubt I have decontextualized the 
original.

Keith



> On Oct 6, 2020, at 9:31 PM, Ryan Griffis  wrote:
> 
> Hi Keith and all,
> I’m confused as to why you’d interpret my comment as an *appeal to the 
> history of settler colonialism and the continued history of slavery* as *a 
> reductio ad absurdum*. Just to be clear, this isn’t some kind of academic 
> discussion to me.
> 
> I certainly never suggested that voting for Biden/Harris (or any number of 
> other electoral decisions against the GOP and fascists) was somehow 
> antithetical to long-term struggles for liberation. Nor did I minimize the 
> enacted and potential violences of the Trump regime.
> (I mean, are any US voters on nettime *not* voting against Trump? Does that 
> even need to be asked here?)
> 
> My specific reference to the election of 1920 in Florida, for example, is not 
> one that easily lends itself to a falsely simplistic binary pitting 
> revolution against a compromised bourgeois democracy. Nor is it some distant, 
> irrelevant historical story in the current moment. The Proud Boys (and all 
> their white nationalist friends) are not historical outliers, after all. You 
> know, the “again” in MAGA and all.
> 
> If anything, I figured my comments would encourage situating electoral 
> politics more completely into struggles for liberation. To do otherwise would 
> be to completely disregard that history and those that fought (and died) to 
> simply exercise the most basic rights that supposedly define democracy, in 
> 1920 and before/after.
> 
> To try to restate the main reasons I responded in the first place: for many 
> in this country, even the *semblance* of democracy has been a fraught (at 
> best) lived experience and recognizing that is part of the struggle for those 
> of us who have a normalized experience of bourgeois democracy (that’s why I 
> responded to Frederic’s post). I guess what I’m saying is that this is not a 
> new fight for many, and I think 

Re: Not One

[Ryan Griffis]

Hi Keith and all,
I’m confused as to why you’d interpret my comment as an *appeal to the history 
of settler colonialism and the continued history of slavery* as *a reductio ad 
absurdum*. Just to be clear, this isn’t some kind of academic discussion to me.

I certainly never suggested that voting for Biden/Harris (or any number of 
other electoral decisions against the GOP and fascists) was somehow 
antithetical to long-term struggles for liberation. Nor did I minimize the 
enacted and potential violences of the Trump regime.
(I mean, are any US voters on nettime *not* voting against Trump? Does that 
even need to be asked here?)

My specific reference to the election of 1920 in Florida, for example, is not 
one that easily lends itself to a falsely simplistic binary pitting revolution 
against a compromised bourgeois democracy. Nor is it some distant, irrelevant 
historical story in the current moment. The Proud Boys (and all their white 
nationalist friends) are not historical outliers, after all. You know, the 
“again” in MAGA and all.

If anything, I figured my comments would encourage situating electoral politics 
more completely into struggles for liberation. To do otherwise would be to 
completely disregard that history and those that fought (and died) to simply 
exercise the most basic rights that supposedly define democracy, in 1920 and 
before/after.

To try to restate the main reasons I responded in the first place: for many in 
this country, even the *semblance* of democracy has been a fraught (at best) 
lived experience and recognizing that is part of the struggle for those of us 
who have a normalized experience of bourgeois democracy (that’s why I responded 
to Frederic’s post). I guess what I’m saying is that this is not a new fight 
for many, and I think it’s important to keep that front-and-center. If that 
seems somehow reductive, well, I’m not sure what else to say.

Maybe I’d say to ask those leading the fight in the US right now, with BLM and 
the Poor People’s Campaign (for example), whether they think this is about 
*preserving* democracy or *creating* democracy for their constituencies. I 
think it’s possible to recognize the difference and it matters in understanding 
what you are fighting for and with whom.

Apologies for any crossed-wires, misunderstandings.

best,
Ryan

> On Oct 6, 2020, at 6:00 PM, Keith Sanborn  wrote:
> 
> Dear Nettimers,
> 
> An appeal to the history of settler colonialism and the continued history of 
> slavery is appropriate and accurate but at this moment used as a reductio ad 
> absurdum is just dangerous. I am not a believer in justice through bourgeois 
> democracy but the violence promoted and actualized under the Trump regime 
> must be stopped. Think of Biden/Harris as a tourniquet applied to staunch 
> fatal bleeding. 
> 
> Let me end with this: the day after Trump was elected, my students at the New 
> School, most of them women, were in a state of shock and for good reason: one 
> shared with the class that after Trump’s win had been announced she was 
> walking down the street near the “campus” in New York City and a young guy 
> walked up to her and said, “Now I can grab your pussy whenever I want.” And 
> disease entity called Trump was not even inaugurated yet. The irresponsible 
> minimization of covid which has lead directly to deaths and the work of the 
> “Proud Boys” as agents provocateurs, which again lead to deaths. 
> 
> We are talking about the death of even the semblance of bourgeois democracy. 
> And in its place not revolutionary socialism, or an anarchist utopia, but 
> death-dealing fascism. Given the choice, I will vote for bourgeois democracy 
> any time. 
> 
> Keith Sanborn

#  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: Not One

[Keith Sanborn]

Dear Nettimers,

An appeal to the history of settler colonialism and the continued history of 
slavery is appropriate and accurate but at this moment used as a reductio ad 
absurdum is just dangerous. I am not a believer in justice through bourgeois 
democracy but the violence promoted and actualized under the Trump regime must 
be stopped. Think of Biden/Harris as a tourniquet applied to staunch fatal 
bleeding. 

Let me end with this: the day after Trump was elected, my students at the New 
School, most of them women, were in a state of shock and for good reason: one 
shared with the class that after Trump’s win had been announced she was walking 
down the street near the “campus” in New York City and a young guy walked up to 
her and said, “Now I can grab your pussy whenever I want.” And disease entity 
called Trump was not even inaugurated yet. The irresponsible minimization of 
covid which has lead directly to deaths and the work of the “Proud Boys” as 
agents provocateurs, which again lead to deaths. 

We are talking about the death of even the semblance of bourgeois democracy. 
And in its place not revolutionary socialism, or an anarchist utopia, but 
death-dealing fascism. Given the choice, I will vote for bourgeois democracy 
any time. 

Keith Sanborn 

> On Oct 6, 2020, at 2:42 PM, Ryan Griffis  wrote:
> 
> Tue, 6 Oct 2020 11:12:55 -0500, Frederic Neyrat wrote:
> 
>> A subject, be it collective or individual, is always divided. The One is an
>> imposture.
> 
> Thank you Frederic, for stating what I would have hoped was a shared 
> understanding of nation-state politics, especially on an international list 
> focused on “networked culture.” 
> 
> I wrote the following just before receiving Frederic's message, then decided 
> not to send it. But, maybe it’s worth adding to Frederic’s rightful call to 
> dispense with the collapsing of people into nation-states? Anyway, here it 
> is...
> 
> I don’t mean to overstate the point here, but discussions of “democracy in 
> the US” (as with discussions of the political economy anywhere in the world) 
> should really be more responsible to actual history. Personally, I think such 
> responsibility is necessary to have a meaningful international leftist 
> perspective on solidarity.
> For starters, the settler-colonial status of the US as an ongoing form of 
> occupation can’t be simply glossed over.
> But specifically to the question of democracy, it might be more useful to 
> understand the situation as the *continued prevention* of democracy, rather 
> than its collapse, as if it was somehow ever stable or even meaningfully 
> democratic in some historical sense.
> Just to provide *some* specifics.
> It would be ridiculous to consider the rollback of voting rights for formerly 
> incarcerated individuals (essentially a poll tax) in my settler home state of 
> Florida without recognizing that the very rights being undermined *were just 
> recently granted* to begin with.
> Exactly 100 years ago there, leading up to the 1920 election, there was 
> widespread mass violence perpetrated against black residents to re-solidify 
> an anti-democratic, white supremacist regime.
> For anyone interested in this specific history who is not familiar, I’d 
> recommend Paul Ortiz’s excellent book “Emancipation Betrayed.”
> 
> Trump may be a glaring and garish example of white supremacist 
> anti-democratic/fascism in the US, but it’s not like the foundation wasn’t 
> already set. 
> IF we’re able to move the US in a more democratic direction, it will be 
> through continued struggle that builds on the history of such struggles that 
> have been occurring for well over 100 years (some would say it’s more like 
> 500 years). IMHO, these struggles are not best understood as trying to 
> *perfect* the US as a democracy, but as part of a movement to achieve (and 
> maintain) liberation for all people (which is no simple concept in a 
> settler-colonial state). Our foundation as a nation-state built on 
> internationally coordinated, genocidal violence (that predates the actual US 
> nation-state, obviously) seems like it begs for us to understand the US 
> beyond the exceptional, cohesive case put forward by the ruling classes (i.e. 
> settler white supremacists and neoliberal oligarchs).
> 
> Apologies if this is all pedantic… I’m just frustrated by the tone of 
> discussions about “American Democracy” that maintains imaginary clean 
> spatio-temporal boundaries that prevents us from talking about actual 
> struggles for liberation, both “inside” and “outside” any enforced borders.
> 
> Best,
> Ryan
> #  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:
#  di

Re: The Zombie Public – Or, how to revive ‘the public’ and public space after the pandemic.

[Eric Kluitenberg]

Thank you Brian for these great comments reflecting the US situation right now.

And yes the situation in the US is markedly different than on the old continent.

There’s many things to say, but a few quick responses to what you write:

First of all the whole concept of affect space was never intended as describing 
a benign condition. It started with wondering how the so-called ‘movement(s) of 
the squares’ were simultaneously so incredibly successful at mobilising people 
and yet politically so inefficacious? So basically, why didn’t these massive 
mobilisations result in substantive political change?

The ‘right’ has indeed come into this affect space very powerfully as you 
write, and it has not been a pleasant experience for most of us. The experience 
of Arab populations has been beyond description - particularly if we think 
about what was dubbed back in 2011 the Syrian cyber revolution - see f.i. this 
archived classic that at the time fronted the Guardian website without any 
substantive critique: 
http://www.tacticalmediafiles.net/videos/4582/Syria_s-cyber-revolution 
 
What happened next defied belief and understanding and persists as an absolute 
tragedy, perhaps even an 'absolute negativity’, till this day.. 

Crucial to understand is also that when we began exploring this idea of affect 
space collectively in The Netherlands, so roughly from 2015 onwards, we still 
assumed that this was a speculative notion that might capture some of the 
contradictory dynamics we were seeing around us - only to find out that the 
security industries right here in The Netherlands, most notably ATOS networks 
and the Dutch Institute for Technology, Safety and Security, were implementing 
all the ideas we were proposing ‘speculatively’ into a public space and crowd 
control platform – though they were obviously not using that name and those 
terms for it. In a session at Het Nieuwe Instituut the head of global business 
development of ATOS outlined this work and our jaws were on the floor… The 
(Re-)Designing Affect Space text was an attempt to absorb what we had learned 
there. 
 
Now this observation of yours is particularly concerning:

> I think the concept of Affect Space is brilliant. It describes contemporary 
> social experience very well. However, from my perspective in Chicago there is 
> only one problem. It describes a nightmare with no end in sight.


This and the preceding paragraph in your response indeed sounds like a complete 
nightmare. And I agree the end is not yet in sight.

In Europe it seems that for now some of the structures of deliberation still 
persist and are able to counter some of these dynamics of affect space. Massumi 
observed about the relation of affect and language that it is twofold: 
resonance and interference. Some language (such as the permanent campaign 
language of Trump) is designed to resonate with affect, while other forms of 
language interfere with affect, lock us in cognitive processes that curtail the 
free flow of affect. So we are not entirely helplessly at the mercy of these 
massive flows of affect, but it does require a conscious ‘design’ effort to 
counter those forces.

Occupy Wall Street was surfing the waves of affect too much, and assumed too 
quickly that mobilisations of massive crowds would translate more or less 
automatically into political change - but they did not. Of course the activist 
groups knew exactly why they were in the streets and squares, but the large 
bubble around them (Massumi also refused to call them ‘publics’ when I had the 
chance to talk briefly with him) followed other rules.

The political right has unfortunately better understood how to bend these 
forces to strategic aims..

Then on your last question:

> Can European democracies withstand the surging pressures of Affect Space?

That remains to be seen. I am not overly confident, nor overly pessimistic. One 
thing that a crisis like covid-19 can do is engender new forms of solidarity, 
following these waves of aggression and desperation, and perhaps new forms of 
‘care. I found myself lecturing about this in the video-conf environment to 
students for the first time in my life about the notion of ‘care’. The care of 
self, including our somatic condition (of course building on Foucault’s 
technologies of the self and so on), and the care of others - particularly the 
only hopeful political figure of recent times, the commons and its expanding 
discussion. That just seemed right and necessary now, where before I would have 
stopped at ’sovereignty’ maybe...

So take care and let’s hope our dystopian scenarios exceed the actual course of 
things.

take care,
Eric

> On 6 Oct 2020, at 20:14, Brian Holmes  wrote:
> 
> Greetings Eric -
> 
> Congratulations on a significant piece of writing. You really have followed a 
> public research trajectory. It is great to see this all put together, both 
> retrospec

Re: Not One

[Ryan Griffis]

Tue, 6 Oct 2020 11:12:55 -0500, Frederic Neyrat wrote:

> A subject, be it collective or individual, is always divided. The One is an
> imposture.

Thank you Frederic, for stating what I would have hoped was a shared 
understanding of nation-state politics, especially on an international list 
focused on “networked culture.” 

I wrote the following just before receiving Frederic's message, then decided 
not to send it. But, maybe it’s worth adding to Frederic’s rightful call to 
dispense with the collapsing of people into nation-states? Anyway, here it is...

I don’t mean to overstate the point here, but discussions of “democracy in the 
US” (as with discussions of the political economy anywhere in the world) should 
really be more responsible to actual history. Personally, I think such 
responsibility is necessary to have a meaningful international leftist 
perspective on solidarity.
For starters, the settler-colonial status of the US as an ongoing form of 
occupation can’t be simply glossed over.
But specifically to the question of democracy, it might be more useful to 
understand the situation as the *continued prevention* of democracy, rather 
than its collapse, as if it was somehow ever stable or even meaningfully 
democratic in some historical sense.
Just to provide *some* specifics.
It would be ridiculous to consider the rollback of voting rights for formerly 
incarcerated individuals (essentially a poll tax) in my settler home state of 
Florida without recognizing that the very rights being undermined *were just 
recently granted* to begin with.
Exactly 100 years ago there, leading up to the 1920 election, there was 
widespread mass violence perpetrated against black residents to re-solidify an 
anti-democratic, white supremacist regime.
For anyone interested in this specific history who is not familiar, I’d 
recommend Paul Ortiz’s excellent book “Emancipation Betrayed.”

Trump may be a glaring and garish example of white supremacist 
anti-democratic/fascism in the US, but it’s not like the foundation wasn’t 
already set. 
IF we’re able to move the US in a more democratic direction, it will be through 
continued struggle that builds on the history of such struggles that have been 
occurring for well over 100 years (some would say it’s more like 500 years). 
IMHO, these struggles are not best understood as trying to *perfect* the US as 
a democracy, but as part of a movement to achieve (and maintain) liberation for 
all people (which is no simple concept in a settler-colonial state). Our 
foundation as a nation-state built on internationally coordinated, genocidal 
violence (that predates the actual US nation-state, obviously) seems like it 
begs for us to understand the US beyond the exceptional, cohesive case put 
forward by the ruling classes (i.e. settler white supremacists and neoliberal 
oligarchs).

Apologies if this is all pedantic… I’m just frustrated by the tone of 
discussions about “American Democracy” that maintains imaginary clean 
spatio-temporal boundaries that prevents us from talking about actual struggles 
for liberation, both “inside” and “outside” any enforced borders.

Best,
Ryan
#  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: The Zombie Public – Or, how to revive ‘the public’ and public space after the pandemic.

[Brian Holmes]

Greetings Eric -

Congratulations on a significant piece of writing. You really have followed
a public research trajectory. It is great to see this all put together,
both retrospectively and prospectively, in a short essay.

On a quick read I see two big gaps between experiences in the US and what
you recount.

First, the notion of Affect Space does describe the BLM protests perfectly,
especially the somatic deficit. With the outpouring of micro-media
expressions, millions felt compelled to join the marches. But the problem
arising from all that has not been surveillant control. Nor has it mainly
been traditional police repression, though there has been way too much of
that. Rather, the right wing of civil society has come into this affect
space very powerfully, flooding the networked media, shaping the public
events toward violence (agents provocateurs) and then agitating the threat
of armed conflict (militias). Police have openly cast off their official
role of civil servants to act in a partisan manner, as fascists, on the
streets. The President has used Twitter like an individual seizing state
power for his own wholly narcissistic purposes, and creating an impressive
somatic yearning among his followers, who have frequently come out to
experience armed togetherness. The leadership capacity of BLM, which had
such great potential, has basically collapsed because their appeal to
defund the police could not immediately be made political -- it's an
all-or-nothing demand that has tremendous aspirational meaning, but as yet,
no feasibility. All of this was foretold during the presidential primaries.
Biden became the candidate of the center-left because mainstream Black
people feared Bernie would lose, or set off more conflict. Affect space has
not been kind to us. It turns out that the other whom you long to meet in
the street might actually long to kill you. Of course, affect space was not
very kind to Arab populations either...

Second, most of us never experienced any real lockdown in the form of a
prohibition against leaving the house or the neighborhood, although I think
there was a curfew in NYC for a while. Sure, in Chicago there were moves to
break up soccer games in the park, but nowhere was there any question of
prohibiting political assembly. What we have experienced, to the contrary,
is the problem of our fellow citizens' freedom... their incessant demands
for freedom... freedom to move about unhindered, freedom to run a business
whatever the consequences, freedom to shoot, freedom to drill for oil,
freedom to pollute, all symbolized and enacted by the freedom not to wear a
mask. What emerges most prominently from this experience is a huge deficit
in the social contract. Our problem is not a lack of freedom. It is a lack
of responsibility. The center-left attributes this lack entirely to the
right, but in fact, it has been the mainstay of the whole society since the
development of the networked communications system. Just recall the slogans.

Perhaps the questions of surveillance and state control will return
powerfully to the fore later on. For sure these are serious questions. But
right now, there is basically no contact tracing happening, except within
certain corporations. What the Covid crisis in the US has revealed is a
more fundamental split in society - not between freedom and control, but
between vastly different understandings of how free people organize
themselves as a collectivity. Under the pressure of events and of the
emotions they generate, these understanding remain inchoate, practically
inexpressible, and so they devolve into repetition compulsions that are
very far from democratic. To be sure, there is a lot of intense activity
happening behind the scenes right now, in preparation to resist what many
of us see as a highly probable and extended attempt at a coup to block the
transfer of power after election day. Additionally, there is a lot of work
continuing, both officially and in intensive groups, to make the BLM
demands render more tangible results. This undercurrent could have major
effects next year, and I don't know anyone who has given up on it. What
remains to be seen - the crucial interim - is how all that will look during
the next big occupations of public space, which are likely to happen next
month.

I think the concept of Affect Space is brilliant. It describes contemporary
social experience very well. However, from my perspective in Chicago there
is only one problem. It describes a nightmare with no end in sight.

What does this US experience mean for Europe, and more specifically the
Netherlands? To what extent have the great European civil wars of the
twentieth century put to rest the collective passions of reciprocal
aggression? Is there any dark side to individual freedom on the Old
Continent? Can European democracies withstand the surging pressures of
Affect Space?

As an old friend I am sure you will understand that what I offer is not a
polemic. It's an exte

Re: The Zombie Public – Or, how to revive ‘the public’ and public space after the pandemic.

[Eric Kluitenberg]

Hello ‘lizvix’ - don’t know who this is - the ‘Hans’ of Übermorgen?

Anyway a few answers  / corrections on your questions:

> On 6 Oct 2020, at 16:47, lizvlx  wrote:
> 
> Hi there 
> 
> A few questions- I don’t want to misunderstand yr text
> 
> 1. what do u mean by (mass) gatherings have been suspended? 

I wrote “The freedom of assembly has been suspended.” - under corona rules 
virtually anywhere now only limited amounts of people are allowed to assemble, 
which in effect means that this basic freedom is suspended. Mass gatherings 
still happen, as I explained in some length in the piece, but they are then in 
violation of these rules.

> 2. What countries r u referring to?

Not any country in particular, but the countries that have or pretend to have 
some form of basic ‘democratic’ or civic governance (neoliberal phantasy or 
not). Probably we must assume that ‘democratic rights’ are always under threat 
/ pressure, but with the covid-19 crisis I feel there is a qualitatively 
different situation. 

> 3. do u have an issue with a lockdown per se or is this coz u don’t think the 
> pandemic necessitates such a thing?

I am writing in the essay about the question of ‘public space’ and the erosion 
of ‘publicness’ and ’the public’ not about the politics of the lockdowns.

My private opinion, which is outside the scope of this essay, is that in some 
initial stage of the pandemic the lockdowns were maybe necessary, given the 
overburdened care system, but in essence they are counter-productive. The virus 
will not go away, it will stay around like the flu and mutate regularly. Thus 
any vaccine will need to be updated regularly and we will have to get it like 
the flu shot, or even in a cocktail, probably annually.

It is necessary to build up a certain measure of biological resistance in the 
general population, but this can only be done in a responsible way by radically 
extending the care system to protect vulnerable sections of the population - 
and the main argument against that is staggering costs - so the lockdown has 
been the preferred option. Problem is once you end it the virus starts 
circulating like before again, which is what we now see.

Hoping that a vaccine is the silver bullet is to me exactly that: hope and as a 
Russian saying says so beautifully: Hope dies last.

> 4. what specifically doch deem privacy infringing with corona apps as most 
> either collect a lotta less data than Facebook or don’t collect any data on a 
> central server? Which app r u referring to?

That is the misconception I’m trying to address with this text. The app seems 
not so bad in comparison to all the other data draining techniques from the 
social media swamp, or simply from mobile / ‘smart’ phone users (i.e. more or 
less all of us, you replied from an iphone and I use that thing as well - 
though not for mailing lists..).

It is the correlation of data from all these apps, the integration into the 
operating systems as a default, in combination with the radical expansion of 
somatic sensing technologies built into these mobile / wearable devices that 
creates an unprecedented level of scrutiny wherever we take these devices, i.e. 
that thing formerly designated as ‘public space’, but this condition is exactly 
what renders the necessary conditions for publicness null and void. I find that 
a troubling situation and I think it needs to be reversed. 

> 5. again, what parts of the world r u thinking of when u wrote this text?

I answered that question already.

Enjoy the evening! 
(though weather here in NL is terrible at the moment, maybe it is better 
wherever you are..?)

-Eric


> CHEERS! LIZ! Vote!
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On 06.10.2020, at 13:31, Eric Kluitenberg  wrote:
>> 
>> dear nettimers, please note:
>> 
>> This for me rather unusually opinionated text has just been published on the 
>> Open! platform. The essay explores the insistent somatic turn in 
>> technologically enabled scrutiny of public spaces and its acceleration in 
>> response to the COVID-19 crisis. It argues that the very core of public 
>> space and the public domain is under threat as it is anonymity that allows a 
>> collection of individuals to transform into 'a public', One of the most 
>> vital corner stones of open and democratic civic governance is thus under 
>> imminent threat. 
>> 
>> An edited and slightly shortened version of this text has been published on 
>> the Open! platform for art, culture and the public domain (September 18, 
>> 2020), and can be found here: https://www.onlineopen.org/the-zombie-public 
>> 
>> ––
>> 
>> The Zombie Public
>> 
>> Or, how to revive ‘the public’ and public space after the pandemic.
>> 
>> Our media channels have been flooded with projections about possible 
>> futures, with or without ‘the virus’. [1] Not surprising given the 
>> unprecedented 2020 lockdown across large parts of the planet. In both 
>> dystopian and utopian accounts, as well as more leve

Not One

[Frédéric Neyrat]

Dear nettimers:

A kind request: I beg to stop speaking about the USA as a consistent,
homogeneous, entity, hence judgements about loving or hating "the USA." It
really does not make any sense. Should we really utter something like USA =
Trump or whoever/whatever?

As a French citizen, should I say: France = Macron = neoliberal
authoritarianism? No, I will not do that because I know about the forces
and spirits that in France reject this lethal equation.

We should not forget that Trump and his unmasked clones only represent one
dimension of the US.

Reducing a country to those who steal its representation is the best way to
strengthen their power, the power of the One.

I think it is more interesting, truer and politically useful, to divide
countries, be it the USA, Italy (is Berlusconi or Salvini the essence of
Italy?), Spain (Franco's ghost is not the essence of Spain, right?), etc.,
in order to make alternative possibilities appear.

A subject, be it collective or individual, is always divided. The One is an
imposture.

Best,

Frederic Neyrat

__
 Website: Atopies 
___ ALienstagram 
#  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: New Trend? Surveillance Denial.

[Patrice Riemens]

On 2020-10-04 23:04, carlo von lynX wrote:

<...>


These folks have been criticizing 'Social Dilemma' in a style much
like we saw a decade ago doubting the existence of a global planetary
heating crisis. Much like when Al Gore's documentary came out, which
then turned out to be mostly accurate.



<...>

(Not so) surprisingly, the same appears to happen with 'the health 
situation', where it is not only the clown-in-chief who downplays the 
dangerousness of Covid19, but also a certain class of professionals, a 
few medical, if most not, dubbed by the French daily Libération 
yesterday 'the reassurists', the people telling you it's not that bad, 
that ever stricter measures are exxagerated, and thereby stirring up the 
kind of 'resistance' one is witnessing 'on the other side of the 
Atlantic' in caricatural form.


https://www.liberation.fr/france/2020/10/04/covid-19-rassurez-vous-qu-ils-disaient_1801403

& more, it was the theme of the day.


Ciaoui,p+2D!
"Don't Happy, Be Worry" -Rambo Amadeus

#  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:

Telecommunications Reclaimed is out!

[Félix Tréguer]

Dear nettimers,

netCommons (www.netcommons.eu), the European project on network
infrastructure as commons, is proud to announce the release of
"Telecommunications Reclaimed: A Hands-On Guide to Networking Communities".

This book is a guide on how to build a community network, a shared local
telecommunications infrastructure, managed as a commons, to access the
internet and other digital communications services. It was written
collectively by a group of community network pioneers in Europe,
activists and researchers during a writing residency week held in Vic,
Catalonia in October 2018. It was a time of hard work and fast writing,
but also of discussions in a friendly environment.

Meant for a wide audience, the book includes practical knowledge
illustrated by several hands-on experiences – a set of 32 real-life
stories – as well as legal, technical, governance, economic and policy
material extracted from netCommons, a three-year-long research project
supported by the European Commission. Its goal is to guide the reader
through a set of actions aimed at setting up and fostering the growth of
a community network, but also, for policy makers, local administrations
and the general public, to create the right conditions to let community
networks bloom and flourish.

Download the Open Access book PDF at
https://www.netcommons.eu/?q=telecommunications-reclaimed

Many thanks to all those who made this possible, and in particular to
ISOC and APC who supported the book production after the European
project funding of the writing.

It can be purchased at
https://www.amazon.com/Telecommunications-reclaimed-hands-networking-communities/dp/929511311X
Suggestions of a commons-based or cooperative print-on-demand platform
are welcome, as we are looking for an alternative to Amazon (choice of
our publisher) for a print-on-demand solution.

The book's editors, Mélanie Dulong de Rosnay and Félix Tréguer

PS: Sorry for cross-posting!
#  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: The Zombie Public – Or, how to revive ‘the public’ and public space after the pandemic.

[lizvlx]

Hi there 

A few questions- I don’t want to misunderstand yr text

1. what do u mean by (mass) gatherings have been suspended? 

2. What countries r u referring to?

3. do u have an issue with a lockdown per se or is this coz u don’t think the 
pandemic necessitates such a thing?

4. what specifically doch deem privacy infringing with corona apps as most 
either collect a lotta less data than Facebook or don’t collect any data on a 
central server? Which app r u referring to?

5. again, what parts of the world r u thinking of when u wrote this text?

CHEERS! LIZ! Vote!







Sent from my iPhone

> On 06.10.2020, at 13:31, Eric Kluitenberg  wrote:
> 
> dear nettimers, please note:
> 
> This for me rather unusually opinionated text has just been published on the 
> Open! platform. The essay explores the insistent somatic turn in 
> technologically enabled scrutiny of public spaces and its acceleration in 
> response to the COVID-19 crisis. It argues that the very core of public space 
> and the public domain is under threat as it is anonymity that allows a 
> collection of individuals to transform into 'a public', One of the most vital 
> corner stones of open and democratic civic governance is thus under imminent 
> threat. 
> 
> An edited and slightly shortened version of this text has been published on 
> the Open! platform for art, culture and the public domain (September 18, 
> 2020), and can be found here: https://www.onlineopen.org/the-zombie-public 
> 
> ––
> 
> The Zombie Public
> 
> Or, how to revive ‘the public’ and public space after the pandemic.
> 
> Our media channels have been flooded with projections about possible futures, 
> with or without ‘the virus’. [1] Not surprising given the unprecedented 2020 
> lockdown across large parts of the planet. In both dystopian and utopian 
> accounts, as well as more level-headed attempts at taking stock and 
> extrapolating future scenarios, a recurrent motive is the attempt to describe 
> a possible future in definite terms based on a set of extreme contingencies 
> that essentially preclude a clear judgement – given the tide of uncertainties 
> such predictions are up against. Rather than simply writing these accounts 
> off as nonsensical they should be understood as what they are, ideological 
> projections that attempt to shape rather than predict possible futures. As 
> such traditional questions can then be asked: Who is ‘shaping’? Under what 
> prerogative? In service of which ideological a-priori? Serving which material 
> (political / economic) interests?
> 
> Any critical reader can fill in this ‘questionnaire’ for themselves, and 
> answers will undoubtedly overlap and to some extent be predictable. It may, 
> however, yet be more productive to shift away from these predicted 
> (contingent) futures altogether and focus instead on that what has already 
> happened. We can then ask ourselves the question what can be done right now 
> to thwart the ‘shapers’ endeavours? How can we open up this contingent future 
> to the public interest, that is to say to that which concerns us all and 
> which should be subject of an open, critical, and truly public debate, rather 
> than the object of flawed and illegitimate attempts at social engineering.  
> Another way of stating the same would be to say, let’s trace the associations 
> of all the agents involved in determining these contingent futures (human and 
> non-human), and try to establish the most beneficial forms of living together 
> in a continuous feedback loop of ‘composing the good common world’ (Latour, 
> 2004). [2]
> 
> Given the complexity of this question it is clear that such an undertaking 
> needs to be a collective effort, comprised of an infinite assemblage of 
> individual actions, not necessarily at all points coherent, nor even 
> commensurable. Rather, it involves an explication of an unending succession 
> of ‘matters of concern’ that bring us together exactly because they divide us 
> (Latour, 2005). As such this essay is not an attempt at (another) 
> comprehensive analysis. I will focus here on an interrogation of the shifting 
> spatial dynamics and regimes of urban space, as they pertain in particular to 
> a specific ‘matter of concern’; the demise of public space and the 
> zombie-status of ‘the public’ that still tries to inhabit this ‘disassembled’ 
> space. The shifting spatial dynamics I am referring to have been underway for 
> a long time, but have been greatly intensified and accelerated by the spread 
> of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the (state and corporate) policy responses 
> towards the ‘global pandemic’.
> 
> The shifting spatial dynamics and the potentially lethal effects they have, 
> amplifying the demise of public space, result from the increasing 
> entanglement of physical (urban) space, digital networks, and the biological 
> body, and the ways in which these dynamics are operationalised politically. 
> In the context of Open! we have a

Re: A Question in Earnest

[Allan Siegel]

Dear Liz,
Thanks for a timely condensed and basically spot-on history lesson. 
Herbert Marcuse was right: "repressive sublimation" has a long-afterlife 
deeply embedded in the America's delusional dreams... and the 
progressive left in the U.S. has yet to find its way of the tunnel 
vision of two-party politics...


"Keep on pushin..." it's the only way right now.

allan
#  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:

The Zombie Public – Or, how to revive ‘the public’ and public space after the pandemic.

[Eric Kluitenberg]

dear nettimers, please note:
 
This for me rather unusually opinionated text has just been published on the 
Open! platform. The essay explores the insistent somatic turn in 
technologically enabled scrutiny of public spaces and its acceleration in 
response to the COVID-19 crisis. It argues that the very core of public space 
and the public domain is under threat as it is anonymity that allows a 
collection of individuals to transform into 'a public', One of the most vital 
corner stones of open and democratic civic governance is thus under imminent 
threat. 

An edited and slightly shortened version of this text has been published on the 
Open! platform for art, culture and the public domain (September 18, 2020), and 
can be found here: https://www.onlineopen.org/the-zombie-public 

––

The Zombie Public

Or, how to revive ‘the public’ and public space after the pandemic.

Our media channels have been flooded with projections about possible futures, 
with or without ‘the virus’. [1] Not surprising given the unprecedented 2020 
lockdown across large parts of the planet. In both dystopian and utopian 
accounts, as well as more level-headed attempts at taking stock and 
extrapolating future scenarios, a recurrent motive is the attempt to describe a 
possible future in definite terms based on a set of extreme contingencies that 
essentially preclude a clear judgement – given the tide of uncertainties such 
predictions are up against. Rather than simply writing these accounts off as 
nonsensical they should be understood as what they are, ideological projections 
that attempt to shape rather than predict possible futures. As such traditional 
questions can then be asked: Who is ‘shaping’? Under what prerogative? In 
service of which ideological a-priori? Serving which material (political / 
economic) interests?

Any critical reader can fill in this ‘questionnaire’ for themselves, and 
answers will undoubtedly overlap and to some extent be predictable. It may, 
however, yet be more productive to shift away from these predicted (contingent) 
futures altogether and focus instead on that what has already happened. We can 
then ask ourselves the question what can be done right now to thwart the 
‘shapers’ endeavours? How can we open up this contingent future to the public 
interest, that is to say to that which concerns us all and which should be 
subject of an open, critical, and truly public debate, rather than the object 
of flawed and illegitimate attempts at social engineering.  Another way of 
stating the same would be to say, let’s trace the associations of all the 
agents involved in determining these contingent futures (human and non-human), 
and try to establish the most beneficial forms of living together in a 
continuous feedback loop of ‘composing the good common world’ (Latour, 2004). 
[2]

Given the complexity of this question it is clear that such an undertaking 
needs to be a collective effort, comprised of an infinite assemblage of 
individual actions, not necessarily at all points coherent, nor even 
commensurable. Rather, it involves an explication of an unending succession of 
‘matters of concern’ that bring us together exactly because they divide us 
(Latour, 2005). As such this essay is not an attempt at (another) comprehensive 
analysis. I will focus here on an interrogation of the shifting spatial 
dynamics and regimes of urban space, as they pertain in particular to a 
specific ‘matter of concern’; the demise of public space and the zombie-status 
of ‘the public’ that still tries to inhabit this ‘disassembled’ space. The 
shifting spatial dynamics I am referring to have been underway for a long time, 
but have been greatly intensified and accelerated by the spread of the 
SARS-CoV-2 virus and the (state and corporate) policy responses towards the 
‘global pandemic’.

The shifting spatial dynamics and the potentially lethal effects they have, 
amplifying the demise of public space, result from the increasing entanglement 
of physical (urban) space, digital networks, and the biological body, and the 
ways in which these dynamics are operationalised politically. In the context of 
Open! we have already investigated different aspects of this dynamic in depth, 
mostly through our successive engagements with the emerging ‘techno-sensuous 
spatial order’ of Affect Space.[3] But what must be emphasised more decidedly 
here is the increasing shift towards the somatic, the tendency to bind the 
biological body ever more tightly into this emerging spatial order, which also 
connects this exploration more or less directly to the current Open! research 
on touch and feel in the digital age.
 
The lockdown in many countries in response to the COVID-19 pandemic might seem 
at first to contradict everything that we had so far theorised about Affect 
Space. One of our crucial areas of attention had been the increased 
densification of urban public spaces as they become overlaid with mobile media 

Re: A question in earnest

[JNMRom]

Le 05/10/2020 à 19:31, Brian Holmes a écrit :



Our election is teetering. Why isn’t Europe writing about it?


Europe is writing a lot on it.

I summarize : we are afraid for you.

4 years ago, when an uneducated clown, financial loser, and pathological 
liar, was elected with the support of Russia through social networks 
algorithms, (we remember also that H. Clinton had 3 million more votes 
than BT), we have seen a confirmation of the collapse of democracy in US.


This collapse started years ago with the possibility to use social 
networks to manipulate voters. Obama initiated the method in 2008, and 
all the planet is now practising the same way.


This collapse started long time ago in US with the huge amount of money 
gathered by each candidate during the campaigns, bigger and bigger each 
year, allowing many possibilities of manipulation of voters. Impossible 
to buy democracy.


But this collapse is not only the collapse of democracy, but also the 
collapse of US society. We are afraid of the growing ignorance, people 
don't inform themselves trough real journalism work, but trough social 
networks algorithms construction. US digital and mediatic system 
magnifies all the toxic components of this destructuration: bigotry, 
racism, armed violence, irrationality, ignorance. No cultural cement 
holds the building anymore.


Worst, social networks algorithms have chopped the people in hundred 
thousands gated communities, non communicating with each others. 
Artificial collective identities. Micro-nazisms. We are afraid of the 
divisions of your nation, and of course afraid of the amount of guns in 
your country. The amount of guns in US has reached a summit of stupidity 
and danger. Just compare:

https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/194/number_of_privately_owned_firearms/66,69,192

The more people are divided and angry, the more they want to use their gun.

Civil war is possible.  If DT refuses to leave the power during the 
election chaos in november, any spark can launch a long period of 
chaotic armed troubles. With Covid prowling around the house.



In the Left and Green parties, in Europe, we were very happy, in 2019, 
to see Sanders almost elected as Dem candidate. Sanders/AOC would have 
been a so good refreshing spring. Biden is physically and intellectualy 
too old. I was personnaly confident in Sanders vs Trump, despite many 
analysis describing the contrary. It's the shame that the US left can 
not "invent" a better candidate years before the election. I hope AOC 
will emerge as a natural leader in the future, if any.


If Biden is elected, we hope that Kamala Harris can take the power 
and/or provide a good support and advices to Biden.
But, for the results of this election, we think that Russia is the 
master of the game. For many reasons, Putin is very happy of the US 
collapse, that's why he supports Trump re-election. He perfectly knows 
that Trump is destroying the country. And Putin can also directely 
manipulate Trump. In french, we say, about Putin on Trump " il le tient 
par les couilles". Putin can release the golden showers tapes, or any 
other kompromat documents involving Trump, anytime.


One positive point in this dark landscape around election blocking, is 
the possibility of the biggest world financial collapse ever, following 
the election troubles, an essential cure for the planet's atmosphere.
We don't forget that the main topic is that the planet is on fire, and 
that all usual resources will be exhausted in this century (energy, 
metals, biodiversity-food, etc).


The collapse of US in this elections could sign the inevitable & 
ultimate global collapse of capitalism, and start a long period of 
troubles and recomposition. In my opinion, it's better to assist to this 
collapse now, rather than later, because of the lack of resources if we 
wait more and accelerate ever more in front of the wall.



Cheers,
JN










I wonder...lay it on...right-wing groups in Europe are emboldened by DT
support for white nationalists?

Is Europe waiting to see him voted out? What does Europe think about our
violent protests? Trumps use of Antifa...how backward he is?

Surely you must all be as eager as I for social change? The good that has
arisen is all the young smart progressive politicians that have been voted
in, the flipping of the Senate, Sanders and Warren working on
committees...the life breathed into the Dem party, alongside
#BlackLivesMatter and huge support for that movement. The times have
changed in do many ways socially that the economy is going to have to
change. Macroeconomics. Money is going to have to be put into new budgets.
The whole place is a conversation that’s been trying to happen. What is the
conversation in other countries?

Molly

On Oct 4, 2020, at 5:26 PM, Vincent Gaulin 
wrote:


The election is a sorry excuse for politics, let alone democracy.

There is no Left candidate. Biden is a human placeholder for the washed up
hollow promises