[Nettime-bold] RE: <nettime> myths, democracy, reactivism, network and hierarchy

["Paul Hilder" <paul.hilder@opendemocracy.net>]

we can argue till the cows come home about which is stronger or better, the
network or the hierarchy, and the answer will never be accurate in the
abstract or at the level of the global system - because at that level the
abstract distinction is void of content.

Yes, RAND, the CIA and the Pentagon are worried about netwar. They're
worried about it because it has the capacity to tie them down, to diffuse
their energies, to undermine them, and to be unbeatable (precisely because
its "underground network" (rhizome for those of you who like that language)
"spreads" faster than it can be destroyed ("the wasteland spreads"...).

But that doesn't mean netwar is the silver bullet to destroy the whole
complex, differentiated, hierarchy-cum-network which constitutes the West's
military and security architecture. It can infuriate that
hierarchy-cum-network, sting its behind, maybe even begin to transform its
mode of operation. But destroy it? How, exactly and concretely?

Nor does it mean that netwar is better than hierarchical warfare. Netwar is
just a formal description of modes of operation which the IRA and the CIA
have used for decades. Some would even say that the globalising network
economy is a subtle form of distributed netwar aimed at maintaining status
quo distributions of wealth and power (I'd prefer to see it not as war -
which flattens it - but as a distinctive field within which economic
struggle - and terrible suffering - take place).

We have a distributed network-cum-hierarchy power structure already. Can I
ask how exactly one prevents hierarchies from emerging out of networks (to,
e.g., provide universal health care or basic income? - or, more worryingly -
see Diamond's Guns, Germs & Steel - to conquer neighbouring and weaker
networks?).

It's a piece of piss to pick apart the poor and double-edged eugenics
analogy. But I'd like to see nik take on the strongest elements of Kermit's
argument, rather than the weakest. For instance, the argument that much
anarchist/autonomist/soft-Deleuzean thinking is a theoretical justification
for mob rule...

<quote Kermit:>
----
Centuries of political theory and experience have established that
democracy has three natural enemies:  mob rule, empire and war.  And these
three are not unrelated.  In fact, they usually work as one insidious
system through which democracies are destroyed, just as Athens was
destroyed by the Peloponnesian War.  The same thing is probably happening
to us right now. And today's "anti-state brand of idealism", allied with
neo-liberalism and worse, is riding all three of these to yet another
Spartan victory.

It apparently did not occur to anybody until the modern industrial period
to come up with a theoretical justification for mob rule.  According to
this argument, the "many" are the actual engine of economic production.
As such, their economic and political activity can establish a political
order autonomously from any institution, much less government.
Therefore, any government is superfluous and parasitic, established to
enrich the few by the labors of the many through a legal monopoly on
confiscation by physical force.  For a popular exposition of this
argument, I'd recommend either Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" or Hardt and
Negri's "Empire", depending on the style of hectoring you prefer.
-----
<endquote>


Not that mob rule ever "exists". Nor does "democracy". We know this. They're
political concepts which are used and abused. The fact is that there are
powerful syndicalist political experiments going on at the local level, and
powerful multilateral political experiments going on at the global level,
and neither of them looks like it works to me at the moment, but both of
them are worth thinking about in detail and in practice.

But I have to say I still find the concept of democracy useful for thinking
about our complex world. Not representative democracy. The rule of the
many - and critically (too often forgotten) the questioning of all by all.

Don't you?

Paul
-------------
Paul Hilder
www.openDemocracy.net

-----Original Message-----
From: nettime-l-request@bbs.thing.net
[mailto:nettime-l-request@bbs.thing.net]On Behalf Of n ik
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 2:48 AM
To: nettime-l@bbs.thing.net
Subject: RE: <nettime> the myth of democracy + christianity


<begin reply to Kermit Snelson>

>The term "democracy" has been around since the fifth century BC.  So as a
>concept, or "myth", it far predates Christianity, the nation-state and
>especially capitalism.  And no, democracy hasn't always been the exclusive
>propaganda weapon of capitalism.  Remember the German Democratic Republic?

actually, you misrepresent my point - the point i made was that
democracy *has never existed* as it is 'described' to be: i.e, it has
never been about "the rule of the many". Yes it does pre-date
capitalism, but it does not pre-date mercantilism or imperialism
(both points i made in the post you are referring to).

I keep asking for an example of a nation, state, society, etc that
has *actually* been a democracy, in the sense that it is "ruled by
the people" (for what that's worth) - but none has been provided. And
I cannot find a single example of one. In fact, I'd say examples like
Athens and the German Democratic Republic are further proof of my
point - that the myth of democracy is used to hide the fact that the
many are ruled by the few, and that the promise of democracy is held
out as an ideal to be worked towards under the 'current democratic
system' - that is, it is a tool to channel desires for freedom,
autonomy, life, etc into vague reformist projects of the current
(then and now) fundamentally inequitable political system that have
no chance of actualising their modest aims.

And seeing as Negri et al keep coming up, its worth noting their
point that "the people" is as much a political construction as an
actual thing - a people is the political construction that the
nation-state is built upon. To be "ruled by the people", is to be
ruled by a fiction created to maintain the nation-state. This would
indicate that 'democracy' is an even more profound lie than if it
were just a matter of straight deception - not only is the sense of
participation a lie, not only is the idea that the people who live
within a nation-state have the power to rule over themselves a lie,
but the notion that they are even *one people* a lie. But maybe the
word lie here is inappropriate - a much better notion I feel would be
Baudrillard's notion of simulacra - "the truth that hides the fact
there is none".

>Of course, "democracy" meant different things to Pericles, Jefferson, JFK
>and Walter Ulbricht.  But the main idea remains the same:  that the many
>should rule instead of the few, or the one.

this much is true - i do not dispute it. but the reality is that the
many have never ruled, only ever the few (or the one).

>Centuries of political theory and experience have established that
>democracy has three natural enemies:  mob rule, empire and war.  And these
>three are not unrelated.  In fact, they usually work as one insidious
>system through which democracies are destroyed, just as Athens was
>destroyed by the Peloponnesian War.

its too bad the slaves, foreigners and women didn't get together and
destroy it. They sure as hell didn't get a chance to 'vote' or be
represented in Athenian society. Perhaps you should add one more
'nateral enemy' to that list - those that are subjugated by the
simularca of democracy - the dispossessed, the indigenous, women, the
unemployed, the homeless....

>The same thing is probably happening
>to us right now. And today's "anti-state brand of idealism", allied with
>neo-liberalism and worse, is riding all three of these to yet another
>Spartan victory.

this move to align counter-globalisation protesters (a much better
term than anti-globalisation IMHO) with right-wing christans (and
militas), Islamic fundamentalists, and nationalists (protectionists
in the neo-liberal terms of reference) is a public relations move -
not a logical one. It makes sense to lump all of 'globalisations'
opponents together, to take the reasonable and rational ground for
themselves. To say 'they all oppose the state' means they are all the
same is a facile critique - they are no more united in what they
oppose than in what they would wish to see (making the distinction
between a 'counter' and the 'anti' camps makes this abundantly
clear). To say otherwise is either poor scholarship or propaganda.

But all this and more has already been said on this list many times
over: "Indeed, I would have thought that the term antiglobalization
was invented by the mainstream press to isolate, humiliate, and
belittle 'progressive activists.'"

<end Kermit Snelson>

And on Ian Andrews reply <Christianity and the myth of democracy>, i
would ask - how does the similarities between right-wing christians
and neo-liberals ...

"The end of big Government is also the agenda of the neo-liberals who
want to see government reduced to a minor administrative role in a
world dominated by corporate decision making. But unlike the
born-agains, the neo-liberals see big government as the natural enemy
of the free market, not God."

...equate with, say, the meshwork of groups, individuals,
organisations, unions, etc, that were protesting the Asia-Pacific
World Economic Forum meeting in Melbourne, during September last
year? The 'left' has always had strong anti-authoritarian 'strands' -
Negri and Hardt (as Kermit said, few activists have probably read
them. And as I've been told by an Italian friend, they are probably
read more by activists outside of Italy (home of the body of the
autonomist-marxists) than inside) don't exemplify
anti-authoritarianism. The major political theory amongst
counter-globalisation protesters that is anti-authoritarian would be
anarchism...but then, there would be so many species of it, so many
types and new kinds invented off the cuff while engaged in
resistance, that even the word anarchism is probably too vague and
broad.

There is no equating counter globalisation protesters (which is, to
say the least, a very hetrogeneous mix of bodies, groups, peoples,
organisations, movements, etc) with those that would institute some
form of 'fascistic' rule - right wing christians, neo-liberalists,
fascists, etc. The two 'groupings' aims run completely counter to one
another. To use an analogy from one of the organisations that played
a massive role in initiating this most recent 'round' or resistances
- the right wing christians, neo-liberalists, fascists, etc would
want many worlds, each where they rule over all within them as they
see fit. The counter globalists on the other hand, would see "a world
were many worlds fit". Would this be best described as a 'global
democratic order'? Well, descriptions will have to wait till it
appears (or rather, is made), but i would say no - one, for democracy
is a myth that we can well do without, and secondly, because i would
hope that future networks of locally autonomous groupies of bodies
and peoples would not be based on parliamentary representation, but
on direct participation.


<end Ian Andrews reply>

< begin Kermit Snelson>

>And as a result,
>well-intentioned people are likely to be misled and neutralized until
>historical events shame them.  The past is full of similar cases.
>Eugenics, for instance, was once perfectly respectable in countries such
>as the United States and Great Britain. Membership in a Eugenics Society
>was considered the ultimate sign of a progressive intellectual.  It was
>considered a humanitarian application of modern scientific methods to ease
>human suffering.  And then Hitler came along and lent some clarity as to
>what such ideas really amount to.

how does the good intentions of people (say, like the Brazilian
Landless Peasants movement) equate to eugenics? I would have thought
that the policies of neo-liberals, and the 'fall out' of those
policies (ie, the debt crisis, mass privatisation, stringent border
control coupled with the mass destabalisation of whole populations,
etc) would equate to eugenics?

>Now, somebody very much like Hitler has come along again.  And suddenly,
>breaking windows at a downtown Starbucks doesn't look so good.  And a
>popular, imprisoned guru in Italy who writes about martyrs and saints and
>the purifying effect of violence in the name of the world's dispossessed
>against a corrupt, worldly empire is starting to sound a lot like a
>certain millionaire caveman in Afghanistan.

this is ridiculous - Negri equals Osama? Seattle equals broken
windows equals 9-11? S, let me get this straight (because im having a
hard time following your logic):

a Saudi political dissident, who's primary enemy is the political
structure of Saudie Arabia, and who wishes to "free" the most holy of
places from the "grip" of the USA (just a little sarcasm there..) is
the same as a mixed bag of individuals, groups, and organisations
that oppose the exploitation of the planet and the peoples that
populate it, and oppose the displacement of power from them to a
select group of politicians, bureaucrats, economists, and corporate
CEO's, and would institute, not a fundamentalism, but political
system where decisions are made my the people that must live with the
effects?


>Amazingly enough, he discovered that doing so requires the very opposite
>of a decentralized, deterritorialized network that "autonomously" creates
>a politics of "deploying myths against symbols."  Instead, it requires a
>highly centralized, cadre-based organization of hard-nosed materialists.
>Atoms, not bits.  It wasn't accidental that Marx's very first serious
>writing, his doctoral dissertation, was on the ancient Greek atomists.

interestingly enough, police, security, and military analysts would
disagree with you. Perhaps the RAND corporations books on Netwar
would be good reading. They talk exactly of the power and
effectiveness of decentralised networks of autonomous 'actors'
against centralised structures and organisations, and especially of
the importance of the 'infowar' aspects of netwar. But, of course
netwar doesnt just involved the destruction of myths (which is quite
different to the deployment of myths against symbols - which is also
important). If the last few years have shown us anything, it is that
direct action - the act of deploying the body against that which you
must resist - is back.


nik
--
-->
I was such an optimistic kid. I'm an anarchist because I'm angry
about not being able to be an astronaut
<--

#  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

_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold