Re: <nettime> Where did the Internet revolution go?

[toaster@pvv.ntnu.no]

revolution n. _1_ the forcible over-throw of a government or social
order, in favor of a new system. _2_ any fundamental change or reversal
of conditions.
  -- [The Concise Oxford Dictionary, New Edition]


Ronda Hauben <ronda@umcc.ais.org> wrote:
>It's hard to know what you are complaining about. 

Complaining was the style, the message was: 

It is time we all wake up and smell the mustard (I guess that's not
entirely how the idiom goes). For almost half a decade we've been talking
about how the Internet will revolutionize almost all of our culture (from
politics, through litterature and sciences, to the economy). Taking a step
back and looking at the Internet from a perspective, things have not
changed all that much. There never was and there never will be an Internet
revolution. It is time to start considering the Internet in a more sober
way, not with over-enthusistic technophilia and not with dystopian
technophobia. 

Politics and democracy is just one part of the so-called Internet
revolution that never came true. Let's follow that thread. It is quite
interesting. 

>However, if your complaint is, as you mention briefly, that
>more democracy hasn't materialized, then I'm afraid you
>and I disagree about what is democracy.

We disagree, which is great! Progress can only stem from conflicting
opinions. 

The essential question to ask is: what kind of democracy are we talking
about here? To me political democracy is not the extension of the
bureaucrat-democratic system of the Western world. It is the people's
rule, for the people by the people. There can be no true democracy -- and
I'm talking in the broader sense, not just politically -- as long as that
which is so fundamental to our society, the economy, is governed through
facistic structures. Our corporate world is still fashioned like a
military organization, with a strong leader at the top expecting almost
total obediency from his underlings throughout the corporation. 

>To me democracy is when the citizens or netizens are able to >participate
in the deliberations that will affect their lives. 

I challenge you to give me examples of how this is happening today.  Where
are these arenas where we as citizens and netizens can participate in the
deliberations that affect our lives? Can you give me any real, concrete
evidence that this is happening? If you cannot, I'm afraid the
democratizing factor of the Internet is all but a dream at this point in
time. 

I can only see that the Internet is yet an arena where the powers that be
-- both political and economical -- have fortified their current
positions, making it even harder to bring about political and economic
change.

>And that kind of democracy is indeed what the Internet makes
>possible, just as it makes it possible to be a netizen, or 
>one who is taking on the challenge to participate in these
>situations so that the Internet will be something that will
>be available for all as a means of global communication and 
>so that it will make it possible for citizens to have more
>say in the decisions that will influence their lives.

I'm not following your train of thought entirely. Are you saying that
because the Internet makes global communication for the masses possible it
will be the catalyst for increased democracy? If so, there are two things
I'd like to comment. 

First of all, the Internet is not global. Not even remotely global. The
most recent figure I've seen is that approximately 10% of the world's
population has access to the Internet. The Internet is mostly available in
the industrialized western hemisphere. As such it cannot, and will not
become a global computer network because those not yet connected will most
probably never afford to get connected. As long as the global economic
system remains the same (back to my point that the current economic
structures have used the Internet to fortify their positions), they will
not be able to afford it in the future. This makes me conclude that the
Internet, if it ever is going to have the democratizing ability, is only
going to give that to those who already have a certain degree of democracy
(the bureaucrat-democracy of Europe and the US). 

My second comment: I have all my life had the opportunity to express my
views in public forums. This is not any different in the US or the rest of
Western Europe, for that matter. I have always had the opportunity of
proclaiming my views in public -- on the streets, in parks, on school, at
university, etc. People use this right all the time (like the
demonstrators during the super summit in Seatle not long ago). Not that
anyone would bother listening to me. People would most probably consider
me a lunatic (which might be a correct assumption, for that matter) for
standing up on the street talking about the new world order. 

That the Internet gives me the *potential* of reaching more people doesn't
mean that any more people would listen to my views than if I was
proclaiming them on the streets. In addition, the *potential* of reaching
more people does not mean that I would be able to reach the right people,
those who agreed with me and wanted to join me in my struggle. If I
understand you correctly, you also imply that you will be able to reach
those who make the decisions. I find that highly unlikely, as the Internet
is too vast a communication space for being able to reach the powers that
be. 

As I said above, maybe I'm missing out on something of your argument here. 

>Last month there was a conference in Finland taking on this
>issue. It as a conference sponsored by the European Union.
>I was invited to participate in a seminar on how the 
>Internet makes it possible for citizens and netizens to 
>find ways to make such greater means of participation 
>possible.

My point exactly. The powers that be are already using the Internet to
fortify their positions of power. The EU, an economic alliance that has
assumed political power at the cost of European democracy. 

Another point is that participation does not mean influence. Take the
European parliament, while we're talking about the EU. The European
parliament is made up of representatives elected by each member country. 
Their power is only advisory. Which proves that while the parliament is
allowed to participate, what they amounts to nothing. If ever the Internet
would become a forum for participation, how do you see it assuming
anything but an advisory role? 

>That there could be such a seminar and that there would be one
>is indeed a sign of the promise of our times,

There were quite a number of socialist internationals (socialist meetings
for those of you who didn't know) during the 19th century without anything
ever coming out of those. Was it a sign of the promise of the 19th century
industrial society that these meetings were being held? My point is that
meetings amount to nothing. Books and writings amount to nothing. In the
real world of politics and power only action matters. As long as there is
no action, there is no promise of change.  Change does not happen in the
corridors of universities, or in the assembly halls of political
movements. That's why the global socialist movement has failed. They still
haven't taken the step from the assembly halls, from the discussion about
what the revolution truly is and what Marx really meant, into action.
Change happens where action is. Action is to be found in the Western
bureaucracies, in the halls of government, in the corporate world, and on
the streets. 

My concluding point must be that as long as the powers that be does not
participate in the democratic force on the Internet, nothing is going to
change. Only through forcing the powers that be to participate, can we
change them and create a better world. Currently we have no such power to
force them to participate. 

Thomas Oesterlie
E-mail: toaster@pvv.ntnu.no
URI: www.pvv.ntnu.no/~toaster/
Student by the masters degree program
Institute of Computer Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and
Technolocy

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net