|
|
Blog Feeds
Anti-Empire
The SakerA bird's eye view of the vineyard
Public InquiryInterested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
Human Rights in IrelandPromoting Human Rights in Ireland |
The Rise of Open Source, Network-Based Movements national |
miscellaneous |
news report
 Wednesday February 19, 2003 12:23 by Graham Caswell - Various caswell at indigo dot ie
 Growing Another World The vast, coordinated protests that occurred worldwide last Saturday were just the latest manifestation of the power of the loose, non-hierarchial, evolutionary movements that have been enabled by the development of the Internet. And this fundamental social change is just beginning. Last Saturday between twelve and twenty million people around the world took to the streets to protest the rush to war with Iraq. While the millions marching in major cities received most media attention, there were also protests in thousands of smaller cities, towns and villages world-wide. Letterkenny saw 15 marching, 600 demonstrated on the Shetland Islands and even McMurdo Station in Antarctica saw 50 people voicing their opposition to war. While the numbers of people involved in the global demonstrations will never be fully known, what is clear is that these were the largest co-ordinated protests in human history. Yet the question of how these demonstrations came about has been conspicuously absent from discussion of this momentous event. What group is capable of organising such a co-ordinated human effort on such a vast scale? How can so many people from so many backgrounds in so many places work together in such a focused way towards a common goal? And why were politicians, media analysts and even the local organisers themselves so surprised at the vast scale of the protests? What's going on here? The nature of the group that called last Saturday's global demonstrations gives an indication of the forces at work. The European Social Forum (ESF), a meeting of over 60,000 trade unionists, peace campaigners, socialists, environmentalists and other activists held in Florence, Italy last November, is one of the new, network-based movements that are revolutionising civil society but which barely appear on the radar of conventional media and political discussion. These movements are non-hierarchical, processed-orientated and evolutionary and share a common distrust of large-scale corporations and establishment economic ideology and thinking. They also share a common reliance on the revolutionary communicative dynamics of the Internet for their existence and explosive growth. Consider the following: -The World Social Forum (WSF), of which the European Social Forum (ESF) is an offshoot, was first held in Porto Alegre, Brazil in 2001 to shadow the World Economic Forum of world business and political leaders held annually in Davos, Switzerland. It represents a vast variety of non-governmental organisations and groups and presents an alternative to the neo-liberal economic thinking that so many blame for environmental destruction and social inequality. In only two years regional, national and local social forums have blossomed around the world (plans for an Irish Social Forum are underway). Social forums provide an 'open space' for communication, sharing, networking and co-ordinating among diverse groups and individuals working towards environmental sustainability and social justice. -Indymedia, the non-commercial volunteer media movement that relies mostly on the Internet for publication, now has 108 national and local Independent Media Centres around the world and is growing rapidly. By several measures Indymedia is already the world's largest news organisation. Yet, as a non-commercial, non-hierarchical, evolutionary 'movement' that rejects advertising and allows anybody to publish, it is too different from Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation or the BBC to be understood in the same way. And so while many mainstream journalists use it and even participate in it, Indymedia rarely makes the news itself. -Linux and the Open Source software movement is making growing inroads into the corporate software industry. Highly skilled but mostly unpaid programmers develop and enhance a vast and growing collection of software motivated not by money but by idealism and a distrust of the corporate profit motive. They co-ordinate and disseminate their work via the Internet. -The 'anti-globalisation movement', the diverse collection of protestors that have gathered at almost every significant international economic or political meeting since the pivotal Seattle World Trade Organisation protests of November 1999, continues despite the chill following the September 11th attacks. These events highlight issues often ignored by world leaders and are almost completely organised and co-ordinated via the Internet. These are the largest and most visible of the network-based movements but are not the only ones. From virally-circulated emails to online petitions and the campaign to make 'A Nation Once Again' the world's favourite song, the huge and growing variety of Internet-mediated campaigns only rarely, if ever, break into the awareness of mainstream media. An important common denominator is that network-based movements largely operate outside of the monetary economy, and so are invisible to many conventional measurements of size and impact. For example, Indymedia does not accept advertising and does not depend on sales and so it is not seen as competing with conventional media. Music freely distributed online does not show up in the sales-based charts, and so is largely ignored by the music press. The incessant growth of open source software is not reflected in any stock market valuation and its qualities are not promoted in any advertisement. Because money is not a major part of these movements they tend to be underestimated. Yet they have very real effects. In millions upon millions of daily creative acts and informational transactions, the online community by-pass conventional media and economics to create what is almost a parallel world. It's not an exact representation of the real world, but then neither is the conventional media and economy. It's only when the effects of promotion and discussion and campaigning in this parallel world result in something unprecedented, as it did last Saturday, that the established, comfortable, commercially-dependent media and political establishment take notice. And even then only briefly. The Internet can be called a 'meta-medium'. It IS text, but it is more than text. It IS radio, but it is more than radio. It IS television, but more than television. It in fact encompasses all electronic media and more. While bandwidth restrictions constrain the possibilities of the Internet, it is already possible to see an end point in which all electronic content forms are immediately publishable by anyone and accessible to everyone, always and everywhere. One hundred years from now it may be difficult to think of the telephone, the fax machine, the radio and the television as separate technologies. Instead these isolated and immature media may be seen as mere forerunners of the development of the Internet and the centralised, controlling informational bottlenecks that accompanied them will be anachronisms. Thanks to only a few decades of mass media, human perspective has become homogenised to a greater extent than ever before, a homogenisation that is reflected in sport, in culture, in politics and in the economy. But by undermining and subverting this 'official view' of how things are, the Internet and the movements that grow from it are fundamentally changing the way in which we see the world, and thus are changing the world itself. The medium is indeed the message and just because the stock market drastically and myopically misunderstood the meaning of the Internet does not mean that it is anything less than revolutionary. Another world is not only possible -its happening. |
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (31 of 31)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31Excellent article Graham. Since Seattle '99 - which was organised through the internet - it has taken off.
It promises to continue growing & growing and hopefully it will never stop. I have emphasized the importance of contsantly e-mailing people, on this site on numerous occasions. And though it is the source of annoyance to some people, I think the importance of it, as illustrated by your article, must constantly be repeated.
Just exactly where it is going to bring the world I have not seen much discussion on yet. But judging by history and the way things constantly change, I would imagine there are big changes up ahead. But I think these changes need to be relatively quick as I believe humanity is destined to self-destruct at some stage. Again the lessons of history I think are teaching us this. Hopefully this mass worldwide (largely) left-wing / humanitarian movement, will pre-empt that ever happening and will hopefully solve a lot of the horrors of the world en route.
Let's see where it, or more importantly, we, take it.
While I think the Internet and Open Source movement and Indymedia have made great
strides forward, don't assume for even one minute that governments and their intelligence
agencies and corporations are not plotting to destroy the means to continue with this.
See for example the 'Netwars' analysis document available from the Rand Corp. which is
a technology and right-wing think tank.
The Internet and the things you mention are a direct threat to their monopoly over information,
news, formation of public opinion and many other things. The reason for the delay in the attack
by them is that they are still working it out.
However recent battles, such as Napster shows they are on the attack and many other issues on
Copyright and Patents serve to illustrate some of the fronts on which we are facing the onslaught
against our online freedoms.
You know, when Radio and TV both started off, there was great hopes, especially with regard to the
benefits for the spread of education, learning and democracy. The powers-that-be took hold of the
airwaves through licenses, the means of production and so forth with the (intended) result that we
have mostly what we have is wall-to-wall music on radio and wall-to-wall soaps and gameshows on TV,
with the odd bright spot here and there. For example up to recently in the USA, you could operate
a radio station without a license if it transmitted less than (I think) 100 watts. This token gesture
to freedom is NOW gone.
Overall then, the private sector and the State have quite successfully controlled these two very
powerful technologies over the past 50+ years.
The same is and will be attempted with the Internet, through the use of copyright, control of the
delivery via ownerships of ISPs and Cable and Telco companies and so forth. Expect all sorts of
stuff and resistrictions to be introduced. Why do you think the definition of terrorism under
recent repressive legislation both in the US and Europe widens it so much that organisations like
Greenpeace fit the people. This will be the tool to close down these sites. They will start with the
more extreme groups and work back towards the moderate ones. I hear you say we will fight back with
peer-to-peer networks and encrypt everything.
They will simply create laws that make procession of encryption software illegal under the pretense
that it can be used by terrorists or something. They will do likewise with peer-to-peer software.
A handful of arrests, court-cases and jailings, will then immediately serve to frighten off about
80% of the population. The rest can be dealt with more easily then. And using the old 20/80 rule,
once you get rid of this stuff from easy access to 80% of the population, you are well under way to
control any 'epidemics' should they break out.
Should they have success in these areas, they are likely to challenge the Open Source concept in the
Courts and hey-presto come up with a ruling that it denies your right to free speech. There are many
private Corporations which are itching to see the end of Open Source and Microsoft must be way up there.
So while I agree with the main posting, I would be extremely worried about what is coming down the
line. We cannot afford to be optimistic and must be ready to resist what will surely come.
So remember, if there is something that can be used successfully against those in power, they will
simply make that 'thing' illegal by introducing a law against it.
This is an important document, because it represents a first level analysis
by the establishment on how to deal with non-hierarhical networks.
The case example used is the Zaptista uprising in Mexico, but in many regards
it applies equally to all other forms of 'modern' protest.
You can be sure inside the intelligence agencies, they have written up the follow-on
document to this and already have planning and strategy documents to deal with the
'problem' as they would see it.
Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime, and Militancy
See related link
Open Source is a business term designed to de-emphasise FREEDOM. To use it is a slap in the face to the pioneers of Free Software and the idea that information ought to be shared, namely Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation.
Please, don't use the term "Open Source", it helps to hide the most important thing: Freedom
Absolutely brilliant link to Rand. I was completely unaware that they had a website. Thanks.
Thanks Graham for another great essay.
Below are some choice quotes from Bruce Sterling's essay in the current WIRED Magazine, 'Dumb Mobs: A million networked marchers on demand - and a preview of the P2P political future.'
'The forum is a fruitcake of every left-leaning European movement with an unredressed grievance. Pull them together, tune them all to the same URL, and make a few cell phone calls, and you can fill the streets on a moment's notice. No Global hopes to find a vivid, unifying issue in the US-led war against Iraq, and the postforum march is a dry run. If the war goes badly, demonstrations will bloom across Europe. Angry crowds could topple governments, as they did in Eastern Europe in 1989, and leave NATO as stone-cold dead as the Warsaw Pact.
....
Around 2 pm, the delegates give up jawing and take to the streets. Suddenly a million marchers dominate Florence in a snaking conga line 4 miles long. It's antiwar banners, pickets, Brazilian flags, trucks blasting the Clash and the Communist Internationale anthem. Looking awed, the armored cops quietly guard the city's biggest plate-glass windows. The population is visibly with the protest; whole middle-class families turn out with children, grannies, strollers, and even dogs in tow.
Nobody riots. That's a moral victory. Yet the march can't be called a political success. The ease of mobilizing this swarm of people is at odds with their lack of common purpose. No Global's network is porous and granular, sliding like a sand dune in the political breeze. There's no coherent demand, no one to negotiate with, no smoke-filled room in which to come to workable terms. Without a platform, No Global is all nodes and no server.'
very well written article, i am trying to further expand that network. the thread has been linked onto the main communication space for european architectural students; http://www.jell-paradeiser.at/easa/
this thread was also emailed to many friends in ireland, and a few whereever they happen to be.
i am an irish architectural student.
EASA is the european architectural students association. 21 year old similar network without the net.
i believe architecture has no longterm vision today.
recently there have been massive shifts in world view, and with that positive action. unfortunately the direction of architectural thinking has not embraced this change. hopefully it soon will
in architecturethe today the word sustainability is used, that is good, but it does not stop there. understanding the political, economic forces at play on the "sustainability" of this world today is the starting point. it is very complex, but the network you talk about is exploring and challenging those forces. in my opinion it is a very exciting time for architecture, i hope more will embrace the network and get active.
i am working in the FUSPEY direction
you conflate the many different trends of resistance with the ESF/WSF talking shops and give credit to those fora where it doesn't belong.
What _exactly_ has the ESF/WSF achieved apart from being expensive junkets for professional "alternative society" representatives?
Seriously, list me the exact achievements of the ESF/WSF and show how they have helped the lives of anyone?
You talk about the ESF "revolutionising civil society" but to those of us on the outside it looks like another formal protest movement, and what is this "civil society" thing anyway? Is it different from "society"?
This essay seems like a lot of buzzwords and hype which doesn't describe anything more than the formation of a new professional elite which describes itself as "de-centralized" but is in fact dominated by NGOs, charities and organised "left" political parties.
Please note that the Movimiento Sin Terro was highly critical of the first Porto Allegre conference for exactly this reason.
I really appreciate your article. It's been a long time since I marched in Seattle. Who ever thought we'd be 10 million (at least) strong at this point. It's really quite remarkable. I wonder what would happen if this "uncertainty" continued for another month, year? Could we really overthrow the system with this type of movement. My hope is yes.
On another note, I educate and activate on population issues. I'm convinced that we're never going to go far if we don't take a serious look at our numbers. We've slowed growth from 85 to 72 million a year in recent years, but even that is going to keep pumping up the human population over 7, 8, 9 billion in our lifetimes. Imagine traffic, global warming, species decline, etc. getting worse - well, that's part of what happens when our numbers get too great.
So, I suggest people start working population resolutions into their programs ASAP. I'm glad to share with you a resolution that the Maryland, USA chapter of the Sierra Club is putting forth. I think it makes a lot of sense.
Until then, see you in the streets!
Albert Kaufman
Portland, USA
For the first time I marched at the same time with the Peruvian indigenous woman, the Hollywood actreess, the Russian communist, the islamist from Rabat, the house-wife from South Africa, the European middle-class liberal, the European desemployed, the pacifist jew, the country-less Kurdish, my 4 year-old nephew, the gay people in Damascus, the Madre de la Plaza de Mayo in Argentina, the nobel prize, the frightened Iraqi people.
I demonstrated with millions of people whose names could never be listed. Millions of people whose languages, cities and gods (if they have any) have names I have never heard of, and I will never heard of even if I tried to learn them.
Global problems need global answer. We are part of it.
I love this kind of generalisations specially when they work so well. It gives me hope about our future, near and long. Are we finally heading towards the global village?
Peace Protests Organized by Socialists
Who Are These Anti-War Protesters?
Who organized the anti-USA and anti-war peace protest marches you might ask? The three main organizers of the London’s peace protest march are the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the Stop the War Coalition and the Muslim Association of Britain.
First, excellent article above.
Here's an online draft version of an article I am still working on that people might find interesting in this context:
http://www.regenerationtv.net/Social_Netwar_Draft_042401.pdf
Abstract:
The Independent Media Network (IMN) and the movement challenging rampant global capital are engaged in a social netwar. The information age of the late 20thCentury has enabled activists to work together globally while maintaining local autonomy. The power of this movement arises from its structure; namely, a decentralized network capable of instant communication, collaboration, coordination and action (C3A). The implications of this movement are profound and amount to what has been called an "'associational revolution' among nonstate actors that may prove as significant as the rise of the nation state." Indeed, state policy makers are taking careful notice at whomever "masters the network form," and are frantically calling for "counternetwar [and the improvement of] civil-military, inter-service, and intramilitary coordination and cooperation," and the need to create "networks to counter networks." The success of an anti-capitalist movement against state and market forces will be predicated on the ability to acknowledge, adapt, and expand the organizational paradigm of decentralized networks globally.
Great series of posts... this is what I love about indymedia.
Actually made me think of this lecture I just saw off of Indymedia, on the coming Oil crunch.
I feel that for this antiwar movement to have a true lasting effect, it must address the coming Oil production peak... 10-20 years. No blood for oil is effective,... but we all keep using oil !! We are all slaves to energy, until we truly can manifest decentralized free energy.
Check out this brilliant speech on video:
http://www.rz.tu-clausthal.de/realvideo/event/peak-oil.ram
the transcript:
http://energycrisis.org/de/lecture.html
This is sobering, to say the least, but it makes everything quite clear. Decentralized free energy should be the spear heading message of the anti war movement, because in my opinion, the whole system (including wars) runs and depends on the need for scarce energy,... and unfortunately, it comes from a resource that is running out.
Free energy is also not just about watts and light bulbs, but it is a spiritual movement too.... in realizing the human body as being the most beautiful mind boggling free energy machine ever made. We are surrounded by infinite amounts of energy right now. We should tap into it NOW>
ciao,
-K
SF-Tokyo
Compared to the group around George W Bush who is coordinating the emergence of a new world order dominated by oil companies, Christian fundamentalists such as Pat Robertson, Republican party neandethals, British vassals, and neocon Jewish zionists like Paul Wolfowitz and Elliot Abrams, and the corporate press barons like Rupert Murdoch, the anti-war forces with their diversity and emerging worldwide focus are the true hope for world peace and prosperity for all.
To be honest, I assumed that this world-wide protest would have been organized by the intelligence agencies of US rivals like Russia or China.
One thing entirely overlooked in these excellent observations is the spiritual/"esoteric" element. I have zero doubt that the main organizers, groups, and lone marchers as well were inspired or impressed upon by the great spiritual beings at work on the planet and soon to become public -- i.e. Maitreya and the other masters. May justice and peace rain down on us, and our hearts be broken. Visit www.share-interational.org.
Cheers and keep up the good fight all,
N
Phuq Hedd,
You have missed the point. Free Software is a confusing term. There's lots of 'free software' out there on the net including adware (free with advertizing), shareware (free but limited features), freeware (free but proprietary source)and warez (cracked and pirated commerical software).
The term 'open source' gets to the guts of makes Richard Stallman and co's 'Free Software' different. Although it can be bought and sold (not always free as in beer), the user is free to view and alter the code (free as in speech).
Yes it is a term that is being used to encourage adoption of Free Software by large organisations (businesses, governments, non-profits etc) but what's wrong with that? What it means is that thousands more programmers working for these organisations can add their efforts to the growing pool of free code that the rest of us can draw from.
Strypey
History has shown that every new expansion brings the promise of freedom (the industrial revolution, colonial America, radio) and then the exploiters of freedom catch up and restrict freedom. What's needed is unconditional protection of the right--either practically or legally--to speak freely on the internet. That is, if you are a "terrorist organization" you can still have a web page, since the web page itself is not a terrorist act; and if a group is using it to plan a genocide then that group is punished for the genocide, not for the exercise of speech. If the day comes when speech on the internet is substantially limited legally, still practical measures make the law unenforceable: you produce enough mirrors of your web site or other decentralized rhizomatic nodes that they can't all be blocked (block one circulated email and fifty others get through). Either scenario preserves speech.
I think it is important to build public support for the idea of decentralized, individualized publishing, free of constraints, as having more plusses than minuses.
"Cyberspace" offers advantages TV never offered.
Since "cyberspace" is cheap, it's possible to create a virtually unlimited number of political messages. Therefore, if you see a message propagated that you think is false or dangerous, you can start a counter-message, but can't censor it.
I'm not sure any of this is true, just some jumbled thoughts. It comes back to the question, "Is speech free if it's free to be ignored?"
Despite the very cogent analysis in RAND, and a few other voices on the right, most of the world's conservatives are with wert (above) in thinking that any mass movement MUST be hierarchical and must be totalitarian-communist. Check out Free Republic or the National Review--the left is still a communist conspiracy run and funded by Moscow. (I know I get my checks regularly...)
Even the RAND paper is wildly optimistic in thinking that government agencies can "go non-hierarchical" in order to fight non-hierarchical organizations. The idea that the CIA or the Army is about to transform into some kind of horizontal network belies an incredibly shallow understanding of just what that project entails.
The point here is that the right has a blind spot for non-hierarchical left organizations because they use that rhetoric themselves (e.g. democracy, free markets, deregulation) and they love to paint their opponents as utterly unlike them.
We are still under radar for a while yet.
Over here in Germany, the 'Left' is mainly bickering about the correct course to protest against the USUK war plans, but slowly, reason seems to creep in, if not prevail. Y'see, folks here, even or especially the leftest-of-the-left have a hard time getting that Nation thingie out of their minds (having spawned a Hitler once tends to distract from the fact that the future is not graven in stone, and that coming to terms with one's 'collective' past - or the past of one's 'collective' is a better way to avoid past mistakes than continuously lamenting about them).
You won't read stuff like this in de.indymedia, which is a pity, because a) I think this article just about sums its point up nice and concise and b) either me or one of my mates will have to translate it ;-P
Apart from that, I think a horizontal, non. herarchical (or non-fixed-hierarchical) network with a flexible structure is a) the way to go, b) the thing that survives times of crisis (which will come to boot) and c) will teach the participants invaluable skills, both specialist and everyday, because learning amongst equals works best, according to my experience, in such structures.
Of course, in certain situations you'll want a hierarchy, be it a spokesperson, be it a 'command infrastructure' for direct action. In such situations, a working horizontal network will create the necessary structure out of itself, as the relevant issue gets discussed and pondered. Nothing, however, says that such structures have to be permanent, that the distribution of tasks has to be fixed, and according to my experience, if they are not, the resulting network is far more functional, efficient and resilient.
I have recent experience with two anti-war groups. One was semi-hierarchical (meaning that there was no outspoken hierarchy, but it existed nonetheless - you had 'leaders' and 'rank and file'), the other was about as non-hierarchical as they get (you'll have some folks who say and do more and you'll have quiet types most of the time, but being more active one week did not translate into an obligation the next time). Now, what happened? After the initial period of interest, folks started to crumble away - at first, it was masked by the high turnover we had at these times, then you started to notice. This happened to both networks.
The hierarchical network then started to suffer from disputes (the folks most active were also those most serious about the issue, meaning that they tended to be most outspoken, meaning that there was a higher stress factor), from inhibition of the information flow (we had 3 guys digging up the information, and as 2 of them had no time to spare for some weeks or so, insufficient information was coming through). After 15 weeks or so, the network collapsed.
The non-hierarchical network was at some times down to 3-4 people for 2-3 weeks' time, but managed to do the job, plan actions, demonstrations, teach-ins, the works. And we didn't even utilize the Internet to the full extent! It was just that people felt some urge to 'do something' and, knowing what they could do best, did their thing. And the result, unsurprisingly, but still nice to see, was always the best. As jobs were not firmly assigned, people didn't keep their knowledge and expertise to themselves, but helped each other in finding information etc.
And the thing that amazed me most - it was the largest group of people (25+) I ever came across that could engage in a lively debate without the need for a speaker's list (very popular over here... you know, Germans - say about stereotypes what you will, but a lot of these guys LOVE to organize and regulate things); originally intended to overcome discrimination, but normally leading to the same-old-same-old people voicing their same-old-same-old opinion because they got on the list first, and those that got added later on were usually left wanting to refer to a discussion item long past, leading to amazing amounts of rhethoric circling. In the non-hierarchical network, folks just signalled they wanted to say something, said it (concisely) and that was that. If someone had said a lot, other people got their opportunity first etc., but we could do without a written list.
Things just worked out. Amazing.
And now, my friends, it's time for a nap, and then some translation work and off to ebook the RAND book to add it to my growing collection of interesting publications, distributed over (guess what?) P2P...
NETWORKING RULEZ.
Yes, excellent article Graham, music to my ears because you so rightly refer to the wonderful possibilities opening up for the Global Community to escape the thought control of dominant commercial media. In response, I see in comments that many express their fears and anxiety of the threats to this fledgeling change on all sides. The inscentives to smother this newfound road to freedom are beyond our power to imagine.
May I offer some answers? I have been thinking on this for some time.
We have a very brief window of opportunity in which to consolidate and secure this freedom. We must focus on the fundamentals and establish a solid, well-founded, well-organised system. What is needed is for activism everywhere to recognise that (aside from the threat of war in Iraq) there is one issue that transcends all issues and is the key to achieving goals in all other issues. That issue is Democracy. Not the "Freedom and Democracy" that terrorists seem to want to kill others for ;-) but true Democracy.
The internet offers a brief opportunity to achieve it but the dangerous abyss is chaos. Everyone talking, consensus often too nebulous to grasp and - most importantly - when there is clear majority, Governments can (maybe) ignore it.
So how do we avoid chaos?
The fundamental virtue of the internet is that it's egalitarian. So how do we get organised and focussed without being centrally controlled? We must walk the walk of democracy. To achieve this it is important first to realise that one's opinion can just as well be expressed by reading, understanding and expressing agreement/disagreement with the comments of another as by making comments of one's own. My proposal is that internet technology mediates discussion (just like this at IndyMedia - Thanks IndyMedia) BUT with the additional facility that issues and comments about issues are Democratically Rated by participants and prioritised according to these ratings.
After the threat of war is defeated (and it will be - the leaders of our 'democracies' are beginning to sense their danger) the next step important issue, urgently, because the window of opportunity will close, is to re-assert TRUE Democracy as the only morally legitimate foundation of our political system and force Governments to technologize the processes. Elections should be efficient, rapid technological events - not cumbersom, archaic rituals. The Public Opinion should be on-line, publicly available - continuously, readily ascertained and democratically determined. Most significantly, it should be the key determinant of actions of Government.
I am attempting to put my proposals into action (in my own humble way) on my own website where the ideas are discussed more fully.
Regards,
Thanks Graham.
Allen Jasson - Melbourne Australia
As a long time activist, I have some thoughts on the use of the internet.
First of all it is a good idea not to get completely dependent on one method of communication. During the Bush Selection Republican freepers were very successful in disrupting websites of those protesting the usurpation of the Presidency. The Powers that Be have tremendous technical knowledge and skills to shut down internet sites based on network difficulties or servers updating or such kinds of covers. It is important to have a multi-technology strategy including street flyering, phone trees and other traditional means as well as the internet as a back up and overlearning kind of strategy.
Second, I worry about the class-boundedness of the internet. It is still true that large masses of poor and working class people, people of color and poor whites, do not have computers. This is why polls on the internet are often so much more conservative in their percentages than polls done the old fashioned way. The people using the internet are often more middle class professionals, and those with a higher income. This is changing, but the internet is still not a reflection of the populace at large. Relying on the internet has the effect of denying large sections of the populace their justified voice. Well meaning as many of us may be, we cannot speak for the oppressed if we are not oppressed. We may be empathetic, but the real goal should continue to be getting computers into the hands of everyone especially working class and poor people.
It is very easy on the internet for government folks to disrupt and derail movements because one does not know who the person is that they are communicating with. This is a positive and negative of the internet. The negative is that someone can seem very "militant" and entrap unwise individuals in foolish, adventurous tactics and really be working for Uncle. Unknown people can give incorrect information on time and place of demos. etc.That is why cross referencing information with flyers and phone calls, face to face encounters is a good idea. It provides a check on facts.
These are just some thoughts I had. Like any technology, the internet can be positive or negative based on who is using it and for what purpose.
Sterling has never understood anarchism.
Gibson has been better. But politically, if ya want a cogent politik give the cyberbabes a slight shift to the right. Sterlings work is empty of any libertarian calculus (small "l"). His daddy was a US government policy man. He kowtows to the techno blurb, knocking his head upon the germanium floor three times. He has not and will not be denied access.
Fully agree with all your points Susan.
And all of what I had to say earlier must be tempered with these views (though not dismissed).
When things are time-critical technology always fails (perhaps giving it's best blessing to those who don't have it). However, for ongoing discussion - the formulation, expression and aggregation of Public Opinion in the ways I have proposed - there is stability. Further, if Governments were forced to take responsibility for administering such a system (technologising democracy) we could expect the beginning of an evolution. Increasing technical stability (the banking technology seems to be safe enough), a legal foundation and universal access would emerge and develop as fundamentals.
What I am talking about is not permanent relience on the anarchistic exploitation of the internet that is our current window of freedom but rather, using this window to consolidate, legitemise and institutionalise technologically-based democracy. Not just on-line elections but formally and democratically forming, collecting and publicising the Public Opinion CONTINUOUSLY.
Why do people think that socialism is a viable alternative to the fascism evidenced by my country, America?
My opinion is that socialism is as evil as fascism.
I will defend the original concept of America to the death which is:
Invest power into the individual by keeping government as small and limited in power and scope as possible. Socialism is charity and charity is best served by non-governmental agencies such as churches. When the government, which is INHERENTLY CORRUPT gets too much money, i.e. POWER, things go haywire.
I despise BOTH of these organizations.
Carol Knapp of PALS
p.s. Great Britain, including Tony Blair and the disgusting royal family is just as culpable as George W. They're as alike as "peas in a pod".
Cheers from an independent thinker in America (not "Amerikka", as it's becoming)
Carol Knapp of PALS
Great article, it's the best thing I'd read about F15 so far :-)
Some very interesting work that is being done in terms of the economic meaning of the Free software movement at Project Oekonux: http://www.oekonux.org/
"In Project Oekonux different people with different opinions and different methods study the economic and political forms of Free Software. An important question is, whether the principles of the development of Free Software may be the foundation of a new economy which may be the base for a new society."
This interview is probably the best intro:
http://subsol.c3.hu/subsol_2/contributors0/mertentext.html
--
http://chris.croome.net/
I think the author raises some good questions but may be taking a slightly deterministic line, technology will not 'naturally' go in any direction.. Also the Internet is predicated on State and Private funding. Afterall the Internet was built by the US Government and they will be loth to support a system that challenges their power...
Nonetheless the are some exciting spaces and websites that show alternatives and can be very encouraging and inspiring. Perhaps you might like to look at our project at
http://www.digitalagora.com
Where we are experimenting with the ability to debate in the online world and provide a community of likeminded people who are interested in changing it.
Great article, the penny seems to be dropping. For this great chaordic ( see http://www.chaord.org/ ) movement to be able to do more than bang a few pots and pans on the streets (that's how the Argentinian revolution started incidently) and move on to organising
means of production and finance of collectively funded production (health, education) we need financial means of organisation compatible with this chaordic (networked systems on the boundaries of chaos and order) way of doing things.
Some years experience with active working prototypes exist. Development of ideas, Free Software infrastructure for the community currencies side of all this are on: http://copsewood.net/ and various links from this site including http://www.gmlets.u-net.com/ and
http://www.openmoney.org/ .
Brookes PEACE week, Monday 10th – Sunday 16th march 2003
National week of action Monday 17th – Sunday 23rd
Brookes university as communication space,
If you are opposed to war, marched in London on feb 15th, want to find out more, want to do something..
Come to the foyer space every lunchtime this week. We will be communicating with each other, what we can do, information about existing networks, what’s on. There will be events on as the week goes on
Monday – 1.30 “what to do when war begins…”
George Roe, Stop the War Coalition
Wednesday – film screenings: “not in my name” “Gandhi”
Thursday- report from 'People's Assembly for Peace'
Construction of Art piece, quilt?
"forum about the war including debate with guest speakers" 5.00-7.00, main lecture hall off the foyer of gypsy lane
all week there will be petitions, online forums, peace ribbons, etc
Wed 12th- 'People's Assembly for Peace', forum organised by Stop the War Coalition, from 10 am to 5 pm at Westminster Central Hall. 2 students have been elected to represent you, the Brookes students.
If you marched in London you took the first major step, now get involved, get your friends, gather at lunchtime, inform yourself, do what you can
http://osstw.lautre.net/ Oxford students stop the war
please support this, oppose the war, find out what you can do, get involved, communicate with others
Great article. I was contemplation this phenomena for years and was surprised that it is paid so little attention.
The internet revolution is causing the big leap in our social evolution. It may be our only hope to survive the technological revolution. More and more power is becoming available to a single individual. It was very hard to commit a mass murder using a stone axe but now a person with a sniper rifle or a few ounces of anthrax can terrorize millions of people. People had not evolved as much as the tools they created. Our mentality have not progressed far from the stone age.
That's why we see such little progress in using the internet as the organizational tools. Instead of the revolution we get evolution. And thank God. The last thing we need is the rise of some eFuhrer and manipulation millions using the internet. The same thing that prevents people from organizing will prevent such eFuhrer to achieve the domination. This thing is Holy Mess. Any attempt to take over the world using the internet will drown is an ocean of billions of web pages.