Brian Holmes on Tue, 29 May 2001 12:23:03 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
[Nettime-bold] Re: Public Electricity Production |
Ben Moretti quotes an article on Thomas Playford, the politician responsible for the industrial development of South Australia in the period from 1938 to 1965: "Playford used three public utilities - the Housing Trust, the Electricity Trust, and the Engineering and Water Supply Department - as the key development agencies of the State to provide support, at modest cost, for industrial growth." Just one sentence describes how a preoccupation with the reproduction of the labor force (housing) combined with natural-resource extraction and infrastructure provision to create the perfect formula for Fordist industrial development. The formula, at the time, could be politically successful because it adressed the crying needs of masses of people (immigrants in this case, and in many other places "immigrants" from the country to the city). It could be economically successful because it catered in every respect to the imperatives of capital. Since the crisis that began around 1965 and culminated in 1973, that formula has been politically unworkable. As popular demands shifted from basic reproductive needs to intangibles like more education, culture, free time, direct democracy in the workplace, ecological measures, and so forth, the pressure exerted on investment returns made the whole welfare-state bargain look increasingly unappetizing to capital interests. A period of relative chaos ensued, with low economic growth in all sectors, as the political formula broke apart and there were no Thomas Playfords on anyone's horizons. Finally, the fear of unemployment acted as a necessary spur to gather a new, neoliberal political majority that could cut away all the welfare-state spending programs on the strength of the promise "corporate growth = jobs," plus a good dose of conservative moralism, plus coded financial incentives legible only to those who were going to benefit by them. And benefit they did. Finance-driven turbo capitalism got rolling in the 1980s, jump-started then and periodically ever since by giving away ("selling") the publicly funded infrastructure (like power plants) to private corporations. Now after twenty years with minimal attention paid to the reproduction of the labor force - for the simple reason that the globalized labor force can be sought anywhere, when they die off or malinger or revolt there's always more somewhere else - the neoliberal compromise is going into crisis as large enough numbers of people begin to see that provision of communications infrastructure and high-end education/research for transnational corporations, plus lots of police to keep the peace at home, is not a spending formula in their best interest, even if they do have a job, or three. The power goes out, the air's polluted, you can't use the school anymore, the hospital is too expensive and the street is full of human wreckage. Unfortunately, or maybe not, the answer to all that is not going to be the return of the Thomas Playfords, because the demands from the demanding public that emerged through the experience of welfare-state services - and particularly education - are so massively at odds with capital imperatives that never the twain shall meet, or at least never until a really big conflict emerges and is played out in some great convulsion. So in the meantime, power for California to feed the information economy, consumer markets and, incidently, people's basic needs, will be extorted from Canadian suppliers by NAFTA fiat in the short run, and provided by a new nuclear power program in the middle-run, and paid for "equitably" by Californians, that is to say, the poor will pay a proportionally large part of their income for it, and the rich, a proportionally very small part. Politically, the only way to justify this will be the intensification of neoliberal media populism, means: opportunistic politicians and business leaders, gradually becoming one and the same person, will seize the media to make showy, simplistic statements that cloud the major issues and drive home the main point nonetheless, that the media itself, and the information/financial economy that is effectively powered by the electricity infrastructure, is the spearhead of the economy as a whole, and if you want to keep your job and pay for your power, shut up and support it. The ambiguous position of we who are interested in the the internet should be obvious right here. We can use our new communicative power to open up the issues and expose the different choices that have been made and could be made, we can push toward the open development of a political conflict over the course of future techno-economic development - or we can add our little feedback loops to the perfectioning of neoliberal media populism and its economic imperatives. Brian Holmes _______________________________________________ Nettime-bold mailing list Nettime-bold@nettime.org http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold