<nettime> The Rise of dot-communism (2x)

[nettimes_digestive_system <nettime-l@bbs.thing.net>]

1.... "Mitchell Orlowsky" <MOrlowsk@g2x.com>
2.... "scotartt" <scot@autonomous.org>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Mitchell Orlowsky" <MOrlowsk@g2x.com>
To: nettime-l@bbs.thing.net
cc: Jeff@mindspear.com, newmedia@aol.com
Message-ID: <85256820.007A8017.00@mail.g2x.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 17:01:00 -0500
Subject: The Rise of dot-communism

Jeff,

I think it is difficult to understand the extent to which you have written
with so little self-consciousness, especially around as phrase such as
"the expression of popular will." 

On the one hand, we find out what many people think by THE expression of
popular will and who should be included in that. 

It is a problem not so much in "gathering public opinion" but the
absurdity -- given the medium -- of assuming it "popular." 

Second, even if we assume "popular" could be somewhat accurate given the
medium (let me tell you, I don't), do you not see a greater danger in
asserting it as popular with such certainty back through such a powerful
medium.  Tocqueville might be considered old-fashioned, but is it possible
you are not even aware of the dangers in our so-called democratic frenzy
(demo it ain't) of dampening even more potentially universal valid
viewpoints through such certainty? 

I would love to have a more diverse population participating. What you
consider popular is fairly narrow (do you really think us 5% are really
such an expression -- come on now).  I have an adopted son from Guatemala
who would find your certainty about popular wills the single most
dangerous thought phenomenon of the internet. 

I think you have confused filling out a form on the web with easier access
to determining public policy.  First of all, you do know that we live in a
republic. Second, that republic is governed by people who govern, not the
masses (whatever you mean by that -- what do you mean by that by the way).
Third, why do you think filling out a form on the web could be construed
to be a more generalized view of the masses

The thought of voting online only scares me (I don't know about Mark) when
people confuse it with real access, unselfconsciously consider it an
expression of some popular will, are willing to reflect it back through
that medium as popular and think the masses is so easily definable. 

Otherwise, I love it. 

Mitchell

P.S. Someone once said that the market starts out as a voting machine but
over time becomes a weighing machine. It is fairly simple to be worthy of
getting a "vote" cast in the short term, far more difficult to be worth it
in the weighing stage. 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "scotartt" <scot@systemx.autonomous.org>
To: "nettime's_digestive_system" <nettime-l@bbs.thing.net>
References: <199911051707.MAA28825@bbs.thing.net>
Subject: Re: <nettime> The Rise of dot-communism [2x]
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 12:13:51 +1100
Organization: Autonomous Organisation


> As I've mentioned, in Attic Greece, only the "Demos" voted and they did
not
> include the slaves who did the work or the women who kept their mouths
shut. The
> idea of direct general voting would have certainly terrified the original
> "democrats."

Mark, as I think Mckenzie Wark once made a point about; that very Attic
Democracy was very fickle -- Socrates, after resisting the Tyrants most of
his life, was later forced by the ungrateful democrats to drink hemlock
for "religious corruption" of the youth. 

Living in a country which just voted to keep a foreign monarch it's head
of state, on the basis that maintaining the status quo will magickally
allow a directly elected head of state at some indeterminate date in the
future -- always an option no matter if we get of the Queen now anyway --
but, the thought of debates with such willing ignorance (the arguments for
the 'no i'll keep the queen now and vote for the president later' case are
entirely 100% specious)having the transmission speed of the internet,
scares me.  Anyway, I'd sooner keep a foreign monarch than a directly
elected president as a further centre of populist power whcih usurps the
power of the Parliament and creates massive constitutional instability! 

Will internet-voting make any difference to the intellectual level of this
type of uninformed debate? NO! Therefore it does not improve democracy. I
like the antiquated nonsense of the voting booth. 

scot.




#  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