Cybermarx is an interesting jump within this class and it was probably good that we took a break to let our minds cool. The jump is that we were talking about Fascism, one of the most influential dogmas of the 20th century, and now we going to talk about one of the other influential dogmas: Marxism. First off, it is interesting to note that as we leave the Frankfurt school and their anti-fascist lives, we are presented with a somewhat less philosophical book. Cybermarx is certainly easier to read than D&G and Foucault, but it is no less pertinent to our society. This true for a few reasons: its immediacy, the prose is less complicated, and the subject matter is written about now, or at least the not too distant past. This allowed me instant attachment to the book and a much easier time adapting the text to my life.
Although I am still formulating my thoughts on this text, there are a few ideas that really stand out. On pg. 24, Dyer-Witheford lies out on the table, what I think, is one of the most important pieces of the information age doctrine; “These techno-economic changes are accompanied by far-reaching and fundamentally positive social transformations.” Basically, any change in technology is essential and positive and cannot be seen in any other light. Dyer-Witheford lays his thoughts on this somewhat emotionlessly, basically stating that according to groups that possess this new information or technology they have to be eternal optimists. Never possessing a single doubt as to the worth of this product and how it will change our society for the good. DW also states that the negatives are often downplayed and sometimes not even considered. I think that most of DW’s thoughts are in the manufacturing and cybernetics departments but what about other technological advances?
In 2005 the music industry was at the end of its rope when it came to illegal downloading. How do they combat the millions of disgruntled customers that were sick of paying ridiculous prices for their favorite band’s new record? How did they protect that music (information) under a single unified system? Well, the jury is still out on that one, but Sony thought that they had it figured out. They started pressing their records with a program called Mediamax configured into their system. Mediamax made CDs unavailable to copy onto a hard drive and therefore un-sharable via online networks or through CD burns. The reason why Mediamax did not survive to the present day is that, according to BBC news, “anyone putting a music CD bearing the MediaMax software in their PC introduced a vulnerability that malicious hackers could hijack to win control of a machine.” Or basically, the music industry by saving their information (the music) they left your information (documents, credit card numbers, social security numbers, etc.) open to the world.
This brief anecdote displays the struggle that I have with the modern “Cybermarx” society. DW does a good job making his case for Marxism in the technological age, however, the picture is incomplete; much like Animal Farm, we all start out equal in the technological era, once we are acclimatized to technology, but as we get further down the rabbit hole, that same equality falls to ash. The music industry will always look for ways to screw with their customers and, honestly, that is why it is a failing industry. If one person, high up in the music industry, would just come out and say that they messed up and they are trying to do better than they have, I would be a much less jaded individual. As it stands, I will have to continue to be jaded for a very long time. The base, though it has some say on what the superstructure looks like, will always draw the short end of the stick. To the society that we live takes some of the scariest elements of both Marxism and Capitalism and creates a new monster that is, to some extent, eating our society alive.
BBC. (2005, December 05). Anti-piracy CD problems vex Sony. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4511042.stm
matt, a couple of thoughts:
ReplyDeletefirst, your quote from p. 24 is DW on the information revolutionists, not cyber-marxists. DW does not see all technological advances as positive. in fact, most advances serve capital but open the possibilities for labor to struggle creatively and provide some of the material for micro-revolutions.
i'm not sure what a "'cybermarx' society" is. can you elaborate?
your example from the music industry supports DW's claims perfectly. as the music consumers fashioned a revolution against the powerful music publishing industry, using the technology of networked computers to share their music (see DW's discussion of piracy on p. 119), capital reacted with another technology (mediamax) that was designed to reterritorialize the revolution. [catch the reference to D&G?] that reaction facilitated another micro-revolution, this time by hackers, which happened to be more malicious.
your example is a good one, but i read it as one that supports DW's claims rather than refutes them. is that what you were trying to do here?