Comments on: Can Social Networks Finally Make #Socialism Work? http://www.kesterbrewin.com/2009/11/03/can-social-networks-finally-make-socialism-work/ // __ issues. in code. __ // Wed, 10 Mar 2010 20:16:18 +0100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: graceshaker http://www.kesterbrewin.com/2009/11/03/can-social-networks-finally-make-socialism-work/comment-page-1/#comment-2223 graceshaker Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:37:53 +0000 http://www.kesterbrewin.com/?p=1000#comment-2223 it seems to me that socialism works best outside of legislation - in communities that willingly practice acts of mercy and justice and cooperative community life. it seems to me that socialism works best outside of legislation – in communities that willingly practice acts of mercy and justice and cooperative community life.

]]> By: Nic http://www.kesterbrewin.com/2009/11/03/can-social-networks-finally-make-socialism-work/comment-page-1/#comment-2222 Nic Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:14:24 +0000 http://www.kesterbrewin.com/?p=1000#comment-2222 Kes, there’s quite a lot of thought out there already that probably answers “No” to your question— mainly due to the predatory, exploitative and mutative nature of cognitive-capitalsim and how it utilises technology Check out Jodi Dean’s stuff on ‘communicative capitaism’, where the state no-longer has to engage with the circuits of digital debate, the shear abundance and circulation of political opinion has become detrimental. She also makes the point that information and data has been leached of its ‘use value’ and now is often considered more valuable as an object of exchange. This is a classic SocNet effect— your personal associations and affects traded in one big humongous retweet! Alexander Galloway is good too, he makes the subtle but important point that the Internet is ‘distributed not decentralised’. The net appears chaotic and anarchic but at its heart, there are ‘rigidly defined hierarchies’— DNS structure being a case in point. Virtually all net traffic must submit to this inverted tree structure, the apparatus and control of protocol. Welcome to the ‘vectoralist’ classes, those who control the knowledge flows. This is all good too http://p2pfoundation.net/3.1.B._The_Communism_of_Capital,_or,_the_cooperative_nature_of_cognitive_capitalism http://subsol.c3.hu/subsol_2/contributors0/warktext.html Kes, there’s quite a lot of thought out there already that probably answers “No” to your question— mainly due to the predatory, exploitative and mutative nature of cognitive-capitalsim and how it utilises technology

Check out Jodi Dean’s stuff on ‘communicative capitaism’, where the state no-longer has to engage with the circuits of digital debate, the shear abundance and circulation of political opinion has become detrimental. She also makes the point that information and data has been leached of its ‘use value’ and now is often considered more valuable as an object of exchange. This is a classic SocNet effect— your personal associations and affects traded in one big humongous retweet!

Alexander Galloway is good too, he makes the subtle but important point that the Internet is ‘distributed not decentralised’. The net appears chaotic and anarchic but at its heart, there are ‘rigidly defined hierarchies’— DNS structure being a case in point. Virtually all net traffic must submit to this inverted tree structure, the apparatus and control of protocol.

Welcome to the ‘vectoralist’ classes, those who control the knowledge flows.

This is all good too

http://p2pfoundation.net/3.1.B._The_Communism_of_Capital,_or,_the_cooperative_nature_of_cognitive_capitalism

http://subsol.c3.hu/subsol_2/contributors0/warktext.html

]]>