[iDC] Class and the Internet, New Capitalism, and (True New) Socialism for the 21st Century

Thu Jun 25 15:39:44 UTC 2009

The lack of a self-identifying working class has vexed labor activists  
in the US for many decades, and countless theories have arisen to  
explain this phenomenon.  There is no doubt that it has also been part  
of a conscious strategy pursued by US manufacturers and businesses.   
One extremely simple yet effective tactic was the widespread adoption  
of so-called "flex-time" in the 1970s/1980s that gave workers the  
option to arrive at work at different times but within a limited  
window and all but eliminated punching into the time clock.  This  
seemingly progressive reform gives the illusion of individual agency  
and served to atomize the workforce.  Standing with your co-workers  
hundreds strong in a time card line is vastly different than everyone  
sneaking into work one by one.  The internet and computer-based work  
greatly accentuates the illusion that there is no "class" of workers,  
just individuals pursuing the American dream.

Jesse

On Jun 24, 2009, at 8:52 PM, Sean Cubitt wrote:

> I read some stat in the dim past to the effect that 90% (or some  
> equally
> compelling number) of US citizens identify themselves aa middle class.
>
> This wd suggest that class consciousness has also been colonised as a
> hegemonic regime.
>
> On the other hand, more explicitly class-conscious models can be  
> divisive.
> Debate raged in Socialist Worker circles in the 1980s (following the
> establishment of the Party, as opposed to the looser group that  
> existed
> before) as to whether teachers and civil servants were working- 
> class. Those
> coming in from the 'workerist' perspective saw them as culturally  
> different.
> Those form the class-analysis perspective (Christian's 'objective')  
> saw them
> as lacking control over their means of production. Two  
> interpretations: a)
> keeping class solidarity (cultural, 'subjective') maintains the  
> coherence of
> a revolutionary / radical program b) excluding potential allies who  
> share
> the same objective conditions weakens the same program numerically.
>
> In the case of internet, what exactly are the means of production?  
> In the
> case of computers, 'control' need not imply ownership. In the case of
> networks, ditto (regarding distinctions between bandwidth providers,  
> ISPs,
> regulatory bodies etc). Here ownership is always elsewhere (as in the
> protected zone sof  proprietary software), and control meticulously
> displaced. Ergo there is an objective class structure.
>
> The production of a class consciousness is precluded by the  
> atomisation and
> individuation of terminals. The language issue also raises itse;f: and
> suggests that classic class analysis is premised on something very  
> like a
> national base, with solidarity at inter-national level- unlike our  
> current
> translocal condition. Ergo the networkers of the world constitute a  
> class
> without a consciousness.
>
> (Against my own argument: perhaps in a knowledge economy we also shd
> include knowledge as means of production. The objective analysis  
> becomes
> difficult, and opens up on the perspective of 'general intellect' as  
> an
> organising principle in addition to traditional class analysis)
>
> I really shd be marking . . .
>
> Sean
>
>
>
> On 25/06/09 11:20 AM, "Christian Fuchs" <christian.fuchs at sbg.ac.at>  
> wrote:
>
>> Brian brought up an interesting question:
>>
>>> Is it possible to conceive a class as Marx did,
>>> without a notion of a potential class consciousness?
>>>
>>>
>>> Is it important
>>> in your theory to understand the audience as, at least
>>> potentially, a class with a consciousness, a class for
>>> itself? If so, how would you -- or do you -- see such
>>> consciousness developing and expressing itself?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I think you can conceive class in subjective terms based on class
>> consciousness and in objective terms based on the position in the
>> relations of production. In Hegelian Marxism, this distinction is  
>> based
>> in the distinction between being-in-itself, being-for-itself,
>> being-in-and-for-itself. Marx distinguished between class-in-itself  
>> and
>> class-for-itself.
>>
>> For me, the fundamental aspect is the class-in-itself that exists  
>> even
>> if there is no class consciousness. The important political  
>> question is
>> how a class-in-itself becomes a class-in-and-for-itself. People like
>> Ulrich Beck have a purely subjective, idealistic notion of class,  
>> which
>> allows them to argue that a lack of class consciousness means that we
>> live in a post-class-age, a risk society that is not a class society,
>> etc. I think class is more important than ever, becaue the objective
>> class differences are so huge. My analysis is that objectively
>> (concerning the means of production) we are as close to communism as
>> never before, the means of production have a highly socialized and
>> co-operative character - the Internet is characteristic of it -, but
>> subjectively (concening class consciousness and ideology) we are so  
>> far
>> from communism as never before. This is a highly paradox situation.  
>> The
>> question therefore is how a class-in-itself can become a
>> class-in-and-for-itself. This can only be the result of a politcal
>> process, and there is no automatic transition to this state, it can  
>> only
>> be self-organized by human subjects. It is a question of political
>> strategy and of class struggle, to which there are no pre-given or
>> pre-defined answers. So the question boils down to: What are the
>> perspectives for class struggles today? And in respect to media:  
>> Which
>> role can ICTs besides their dominative character have  
>> constructively in
>> class struggles?
>>
>> It is hard to generalize asusmptions about the class consciousness of
>> Internet users from theory - here empirical research is also needed  
>> in
>> order to identify potentials. For me it is rather hard to see and
>> identify radical class consciousness on the Internet, so I think  
>> these
>> are more objective potentials than subjective ones, which is to say  
>> that
>> there are more co-operative potentials in technology than critical
>> consciousness on the Internet. There are huge potentials for human
>> development, but they are not-yet realized, today they remain largely
>> unrealized. Many question are opening up here that cannot be answered
>> easily...
>>
>> Best, Christian
>>
>>
>>
>>> best, Brian
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity
>>> (distributedcreativity.org)
>>> iDC at mailman.thing.net
>>> https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
>>>
>>> List Archive:
>>> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
>>>
>>> iDC Photo Stream:
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/
>>>
>>> RSS feed:
>>> http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc
>>>
>>> iDC Chat on Facebook:
>>> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647
>>>
>>> Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity  
> (distributedcreativity.org)
> iDC at mailman.thing.net
> https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
>
> List Archive:
> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
>
> iDC Photo Stream:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/
>
> RSS feed:
> http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc
>
> iDC Chat on Facebook:
> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647
>
> Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref

Jesse Drew, Ph.D.
Director, Technocultural Studies
University of California at Davis
Art Building, Room 316
One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616

530-752-9674
jdrew at ucdavis.edu