| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
|
| | He does of course mean this only with respect to those out of power. In power, he is just as much aware of the advantages of comprehensive non-exposure as, for example, his successor Czar Vladimir. Mere democrats, on the other hand, might mean something else by the idea.
|
|
>
> |
I agree with that, in case it was not clear. But I think the two are necessarily related, hence the desire to politicise the creator class, who arguable know the most about how the powerful operate in the internet society. Though I would add that I imagine that mere democrats would find common cause with me in comprehensive political exposure of the oppressed. |
| | |
|
>
> | |
| | -- By LizzieOShea - 30 Oct 2015
As power relations begin to ossify in our networked society, activists and critical thinkers are faced with an opportunity and a challenge. A world of unparalleled potential is within the grasp of humanity. Central to this possibility becoming reality, a new class of people is coalescing; this is a future generation in which considerable social and materialist power will reside. This nascent class does not fit with traditional left definitions of class. It is the duty of the left to seize the opportunity to collaborate politically with this class and develop technologically in pursuit of a just society. Failure to do so will lead to a world being built with catastrophic power concentrated in the hands of a few, while the many are left in a squalor that should be a relic of history. |
| | The opportunity |
|
<
< | The modern internet society presents a choice between socialism and barbarism. This choice comes at the zenith of a transformation is not unlike what occurred during the industrial age, when Marx wrote: ‘Not only have we here an increase in the productive power of the individual, by means of co-operation, but the creation of a new power, namely, the collective power of masses. This power, and how it is harnessed and exercised, will have a significant impact on how this particular conflict between productive forces and productive relations is resolved. |
>
> | The modern internet society presents a choice between socialism and barbarism. This choice comes at the zenith of a transformation is not unlike what occurred during the industrial age, when for the first time, the world began to understand the the collective power of the masses. In the internet society, this has involved collective power of design and production, but also its application to consumption and data collection. This power, and how it is harnessed and exercised, will have a significant impact on the future of our society. |
| | |
|
<
< | But this is not the traditional Marxist concept of class of revolutions past. Information technology creators are arguably a new kind of class. They are a minority with the power to create highly valuable capital for the propertied class. They have the capacity to dictate the direction of human endeavour. Currently, they are handsomely remunerated for doing so. But they also have the power to use their labour so that others may no longer have to labour. They sit in a privileged position: they can untether technology from its proprietary fetters, destroy the value of technological capital, and expose the emperor in his horrific nakedness. |
>
> | Information technology creators are arguably a new kind of class. They are a minority with the power to create highly valuable capital for the propertied class. They have the capacity to dictate the direction of human endeavour. Currently, they are handsomely remunerated for doing so. But they also have the power to use their labour so that others may no longer have to labour. They sit in a privileged position: they can untether technology from its proprietary fetters, destroy the value of technological capital, and expose the emperor in his horrific nakedness. |
| | |
|
<
< | Among this class is where we need to have discussions and debate about what a free society looks like, what potential for human liberation is on offer. Among this collective power, we can build the spectre haunting Europe (and other seats of power and privilege), we can be part of the awful roar of the ocean’s many waters, we can build the little things from which big things grow. |
>
> | Among this class is where we need to have discussions and debate about what a free society looks like, what potential for human liberation is on offer. |
| |
The challenge |
| | A primary goal must be to map the corporate control of the internet and longitudinally trace alliances which strive to subordinated human emancipation to the pursuit of profit. This is a technical question of actively creating ways for people to live in the internet society without the tax of proprietary software or the dominance of data miners. But it is also a political one of exposing the collaboration of supposedly democratic organs of power with the propertied class. As social and material relations in the internet society are shifting and territory is being claimed, there are opportunities for disruption and agitation. It is possible to set competing, powerful interests off against each other and in doing so, provide insights to the many into the thinking of a few. |
|
<
< | From a legal perspective, we have a duty to defend the creator class when they seek to exercise their power for the betterment of humanity. Is it possible to imagine a day in which we defend equivalents of Edward Snowden, prepared to reveal the widespread, insidious wrong that Facebook is doing to and on the internet? Would any member of the creator class gainfully employed by Microsoft be prepared to tell the truth about the NSA key, or any other skeletons hiding in proprietary closets? Will there be a class of creators who realise that proprietary interests are a millstone around the neck of human potential? The job of lawyers is to offer a structure for the creator class: to create, agitate and strive to maximise the benefits of a networked society for the many. Critically, if we want to encourage these kinds of truth tellers, we must commit to defending them when they speak to power. |
>
> | From a legal perspective, we have a duty to defend the creator class when they seek to exercise their power for the betterment of humanity. Is it possible to imagine a day in which we defend equivalents of Edward Snowden, prepared to reveal the widespread, insidious wrong that Facebook is doing to and on the internet? Would members of the creator class gainfully employed by Microsoft be prepared to tell the truth about the NSA key,? Can we convince more corporate whistleblowers to expose other skeletons hiding in proprietary closets? And when they do come forward, how can the law serve to give corporate misconduct the same political weight in the minds of citizens as government overreach? The job of lawyers is to offer a structure for the creator class: to create, agitate and strive to maximise the benefits of a networked society for the many. Critically, if we want to encourage these kinds of truth tellers, the profession must commit to defending them when they speak to power. |
| | |
|
<
< | This process will not be linear. The apiary demonstrates that bees make decisions using swarm intelligence democratically. In bee democracy, “the process is built upon disagreement.” Democracy is not about consensus. Just like a sustainable future is not about depravity. A networked society has the capacity for abundance that is democratic, but we will have to fight for it. |
>
> | This process will not be linear. The apiary demonstrates that bees make decisions using swarm intelligence democratically. Democracy is not about consensus. Just like a sustainable future is not about depravity. A networked society has the capacity for abundance that is democratic, but we will have to fight for it. |
| |
|
| | what the stake is. I think the idea you are seeking to convey is
clear enough and forcefully enough put. The remaining editorial
question, I think, is whether it would be clearer with less |
|
<
< | theoretical machinery rather than more. We do have corporate |
>
> | theoretical machinery rather than more.
Duly noted and I have sought to trim away some of this in response, for what it is worth.
We do have corporate |
| | whistleblowers, actually, and the question of how lawyers can help
them pursue their activities is less a theoretical and more a
practical subject, on which many lawyers are directly and |
|
<
< | consistently engaged. For them, the question might be posed, how |
>
> | consistently engaged.
I take that point, but would argue that the understanding many people have of the internet has been shaped much more by Edward Snowden than any corporate whistleblower (the nuance of this I should have allocated more space to and have thus edited as best I can). I am interested in why this is the case. And how such revelations could be transformed into a campaign for change. I am arguing that increased corporate whistleblowing would help.
For them, the question might be posed, how |
| | much does Lenin know about what is to be done?
|
|
>
> |
Of course, Lenin sees little hope in the State, so I think I'm going to struggle to convince many lawyers of his particular cause. But that does not detract from the usefulness of his critique. I think better organisation of the creator class and a greater effort by the left to do this would be some good first steps that flow from this critique. There is more that can be done that is worth discussing, though probably not within the space I have.
|
| |
|