Re: <nettime> Strom vs Morozov: knockdown punch

[Felix Stalder <felix@openflows.com>]

On 03.07.22 18:51, Brian Holmes wrote:
> I am curious if other people see the same problems, and if there are
> theorists and practitioners resolving them...


Finally, I also got around reading both texts.

in my view, Mozorov's analysis is surprisingly weak and inconsistent. I 
agree, as Brian does, with his core argument: the current wave of 
"post-capitalism" theory is rather shallow. For example, what are we to 
make of Mckenzie Wark's basic argument: Capitalism is over because the 
new elites no longer own the means of production, but the means of 
organizing the production. According to this line of thinking, 
outsourcing would be a "post-capitalist" practice and NIKE has never 
been capitalist. Not really.

But beyond that, Mozorov's take gets really confusing, not the least 
because he operates with strange dichotomies, e.g. extraction (feudal) 
vs production (capitalist), or rent (feudal) vs profit (capitalist). 
Then, to argue against neo-feudalist theories, he need to come down hard 
on the side of production/profit.

But then again, he seems to agree with Jason More that capitalism is an 
island of commodification relying for cheap resources on an ocean of 
non-commodified (re)production. But this really means that production 
and extraction need to be thought together.

This in turn, makes it easy to see that large parts of capitalism has 
always been extractive. First, and still foremost, of the natural 
commons, but increasingly also of the social commons. But extraction 
doesn't mean it's effortless. On the contrary, capitalist competitive 
pressures require transforming the environment for optimal 
extractability. This work started, arguably, with the colonial 
plantation and extends all the way to fracking.

The same is true for the social commons (including, as Jaromil pointed 
out, the software commons). Corporate social media might be an extreme 
case of reconstituting the environment to increase extraction, but it's 
merely the tip of the iceberg. Google (and an entire SEO-industry) 
giving you tips on how the set-up you website for optimal indexicability 
is not that different, or neither are our own attempts to tailor our 
social media posts to what we assume to be algorithmic sorting.

I can greatly recommend Vladan Joler's work called "new exractivism" on 
this topic

https://opensecret.kw-berlin.de/artwork/new-extractivism


What extraction allows capitalists to achieve are super-profits by 
working with resources which are produced at no costs. Collecting and 
commodifying, on the other hand, can be quite costly and requiring 
innovation (hence even oil companies do R&D).

The same is with the rent and production. These are not necessarily 
opposites, rather, they come together in the classic concept of 
'monopoly rent'. And if you look at the tech sectors, monopolies or 
quasi-monopolies (e.g. Apple) are standard. And a monopoly is the basis 
to achieve super-profit. Peter Thiel is upfront in this. His book is 
called from Zero to One, ie. a start-up (zero) which creates a monopoly 
(market of one). He's even more blunt when saying "competition is for 
losers".

And, this need for super-profits (be they extractive or monopoly-based) 
is driven by the power of the financial markets, it self an extractive 
processes that proceeds by transforming its environment for optimal 
extractability (ie. financialization, or, in web3, tokenization).


Takes makes the Ström piece so interesting, because he manages to think 
all of these processes together through the lense of cybernetic 
abstraction. (Which, also helps to understand why so many oppositional 
projects are about 'entanglement', 'bio-regions', or 
'reterritorialization' more generally. Ethno-nationalism is the 
far-right version of this).

He also doesn't construct a false distinction between informational and 
industrial capitalism. Let's not forget, the oil industry was an early 
and very influential customers of the tech-industry, much like the 
military and financial industry. Rather, one is a means to upgrade the 
other and in fusing of the two, both sides extends their reach.

I tried to formulate a similar idea -- less comprehensive than Ström -- 
in a recent small booklet called "Escape Velocity. Computing and the 
Great Acceleration." Available in OA here

https://aksioma.org/escape-velocity.computing-and-the-great-acceleration

And in terms of social power, I don't think "informational capitalism" 
is yet a match for "fossil capitalism". Just look at the what the US 
supreme court is doing: red meat for the declining white middle classes 
and free reign to fossil capitalism. I wouldn't be surprised if this 
court would come down against the social media giants at some point.


all the best. Felix







--
| |||||||||||||||| http://felix.openflows.com |
| for secure communication, please use signal |
#  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: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: