The network of global corporate control

The structure of the control network of transnational corporations affects global market competition and financial stability. So far, only small national samples were studied and there was no appropriate methodology to assess control globally. We present the first investigation of the architecture of the international ownership network, along with the computation of the control held by each global player. We find that transnational corporations form a giant bow-tie structure and that a large portion of control flows to a small tightly-knit core of financial institutions. This core can be seen as an economic “super-entity” that raises new important issues both for researchers and policy makers.

PDF

Share/Bookmark

Postcapital Archive (1989-2001)

Edited by Hans D. Christ, Iris Dressler, texts by  Iris Dressler, Iván de la Nuez, Valentín Roma, graphic design by Nieves und Mario Berenguer Ros

German/English

2011. 344 pp., 523 ills.

17.00 x 24.00 cm clothbound

pub. date: September 2011 by Hatje Cantz

ISBN 978-3-7757-3170-6

Price: 35 Euro (Amazon Online)

In conjunction with the exhibition Postcapital Archive (1989-2011). Württembergischer Kunstverein Stuttgart

| A political art project in the form of a multimedia installation, open database, and interactive laboratory

The project Postcapital Archive 1989–2001 by Spanish artist Daniel García Andújar centers on the profound changes that have occurred around the world on social, political, economic, and cultural levels. Key issues are the fall of the Berlin Wall and the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York. Here, Andújar examines developments after the collapse of the Wall not from the aspect of postcommunism, but postcapitalism. He is concerned with the question of how “Western” societies have changed without their former counterpart, communism, and what kinds of new walls were built through global politics after 1989 and 2001. The foundation of the project is a digital archive containing over 2,500 files the artist has gathered from the Internet over the course of the past decade.

| Ein politisches Kunstprojekt als multimediale Installation, offene Datenbank und interaktives Labor

Das Projekt Postcapital. Archive 1989–2001 des spanischen Künstlers Daniel García Andújar kreist um die tief greifenden Veränderungen, die sich in den letzten zwei Jahrzehnten weltweit auf gesellschaftlicher, politischer, ökonomischer und kultureller Ebene ereignet haben und als deren Eckpunkte der Fall der Berliner Mauer sowie der Terroranschlag auf das World Trade Center am 11. September 2001 gelten. Dabei betrachtet Andújar die Entwicklungen nach dem Mauerfall nicht unter Aspekten des Postkommunismus, sondern des Postkapitalismus. Es geht ihm um die Frage, inwiefern sich die »westlichen« Gesellschaften ohne ihr ehemaliges Gegenstück – den Kommunismus – verändert haben und welche neuen Mauern durch die globale Politik nach 1989 und 2001 gezogen wurden. Das Projekt basiert auf einem digitalen Archiv mit über 2500 Dateien, die der Künstler in den letzten zehn Jahren aus dem Internet zusammengetragen hat.

Share/Bookmark

In this short RSA Animate, renowned philosopher Slak investigates the surprising ethical implications of charitable giving.

Share/Bookmark

Share/Bookmark

We already participate in cloud computing when we run searches and get millions of results in a fraction of a second — the search process is performed by thousands of connected computers sharing resources in the cloud. Similarly, Google Books makes millions of digitized works available any time, anywhere around the world. Not to mention the new level of socialization opened up by smartphones: today a smartphone will typically include a more powerful processor than that of the standard big box PC of only a couple of years ago. Plus it is connected to the Internet, so that I can not only access multiple programs and immense amounts of data, but also instantly exchange voice messages or video clips, and coordinate collective decisions, etc.

This wonderful new world, however, represents only one side of the story, which as a whole reads like the well-known doctor joke: “first the good news, then the bad news.” Users today access programs and software maintained far away in climate-controlled rooms housing thousands of computers. To quote from a propaganda-text on cloud computing: “Details are abstracted from consumers, who no longer have need for expertise in, or control over, the technology infrastructure ‘in the cloud’ that supports them.”

There are two tell-tale words here: abstraction and control. In order to manage a cloud, there needs to be a monitoring system which controls its functioning, a system which is by definition hidden from the end-user. The paradox is thus that, as the new gadget (smartphone or tiny portable) I hold in my hand becomes increasingly personalized, easy to use, “transparent” in its functioning, the more the entire set-up has to rely on the work being done elsewhere, on the vast circuit of machines which coordinate the user’s experience. In other words, for the user experience to become more personalized or non-alienated, it has to be regulated and controlled by an alienated network.

This, of course, holds for any complex technology: a TV viewer typically will have no idea how his remote control works, for example. However, the additional twist here is that it is not just the core technology, but also the choice and accessibility of content which are now controlled. That is to say, the formation of “clouds” is accompanied by a process of vertical integration: a single company or corporation will increasingly have a stake at all levels of the cyberworld, from individual machines (PCs, iPhones, etc.) and the “cloud” hardware for program and data storage, to software in all its forms (audio, video, etc.).

Everything thus becomes accessible, but only as mediated through a company which owns it all — software and hardware, content and computers. To take one obvious example, Apple doesn’t only sell iPhones and iPads, it also owns iTunes. It also recently made a deal with Rupert Murdoch allowing the news on the Apple cloud to be supplied by Murdoch’s media empire. To put it simply, Steve Jobs is no better than Bill Gates: whether it be Apple or Microsoft, global access is increasingly grounded in the virtually monopolistic privatization of the cloud which provides this access. The more an individual user is given access to universal public space, the more that space is privatized.

Apologists present cloud computing as the next logical step in the “natural evolution” of the Internet, and while in an abstract-technological way this is true, there is nothing “natural” in the progressive privatization of global cyberspace. There is nothing “natural” in the fact that two or three companies in a quasi-monopolistic position can not only set prices at will but also filter the software they provide to give its “universality” a particular twist depending on commercial and ideological interests.

True, cloud computing offers individual users an unprecedented wealth of choice — but is this freedom of choice not sustained by the initial choice of a provider, in respect to which we have less and less freedom? Partisans of openness like to criticize China for its attempt to control internet access — but are we not all becoming involved in something comparable, insofar as our “cloud” functions in a way not dissimilar to the Chinese state?

Share/Bookmark

Share/Bookmark

Click here to view the embedded video.

En esta entrevista, Georges Didi-Huberman, comisario de la exposición “ATLAS. ¿Cómo llevar el mundo a cuestas?”, plantea el modelo del atlas como un dispositivo para reconfigurar la ordenación sensible del mundo, así como las relaciones establecidas en la formación del conocimiento. A partir del trabajo de Aby Warburg, se plantea la producción artística como un trabajo de montaje en el que reconfigurar las cosas, los lugares y el tiempo.

Share/Bookmark

Daniel García Andújar describes the condition and the period after the “fall of the Berlin Wall” as an aspect of post-capitalism, rather than of post-communism. That condition, the period covered in Andújar’s project “Postcapital. Archive 1989-2001” also features the advance in information technologies and the phenomenon of the Internet.

When the students began ripping of the paving stones to throw them to the police during the events of May 1968 in Paris, they realized the yellow sand underneath the paving stones; the cobblestones. And when they also turned on the water pumps, the sand got wet. Yes, this was the “beach”. The beach of freedom, covered up by the pavement of the modern civilization of property and control. The “beach” was the “another world”, ”under the paving stones”.

In his 1998 essay “Cyber-communism”, Richard Barbrook stated “the Americans are superseding capitalism in cyberspace”. This was also the time Andújar describes as an aspect of post-capitalism. According to Barbrook, the Americans were having a different experience than that of capitalism in their daily Internet practice. This experience, which he relates to that of communism, was a consequence, an aspect of capitalism. According to Barbrook, it was capitalism itself which made the “digerati” a powerful class with high salaries, and it was the digerati who developed the information technologies, the Internet and the idea of free/open source software, as well as many other possibilities that enabled the individuals to “supersede” capitalism in “cyberspace”. Just like the scenario Karl Marx proposed for the end of the capitalism: “At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or — this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms — with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.”  

The Internet, which used to be a “beach” (for a very brief period) for those who believed in the “possibility of another world” (if we happen to use the slogan of today), is not a different space than the “Babylon” we live in. Not anymore. It used to be a beach which was only visible to those with a vision, but also  to those who became aware of this vision and tried invading this beach to make the possibilities invisible by filling the holes in the pavement covering the beach; the holes that enabled those to be aware of the beach.

The Internet used to a “beach”!

For some, the Internet used to be a beach when we had another life there other than our daily lives.

The Internet used to be a beach for some when we were all anonymous on the Internet with the nicks we chose for ourselves. When we had our peers with their nicks they had chosen for themselves in our contact lists, instead of our high school friends and families with their ID names they didn’t even choose.

For some, the Internet used to be a beach until the time when netizens became masses that needed to be tracked, controlled and censored when “needed”.

The Internet used to be a beach for some until we became valuable customers on the Internet that needed to be “personalized” for Internet advertising while our “data bodies” were being tracked , captured and traded for this “personalization”, completely ignoring our privacy.

For some, the Internet used to be a beach when sharing our wireless Internet connection with our neighbors was regarded as a “new form of hospitality”. Until the time that we were frightened by the threat that everybody, even our neighbors, could be “criminals” who would exploit this connection we share for “illegal” actions such as “p2p file sharing” and put the blame on us.

For some, the Internet used to be a beach when people were asking for “free, public wireless Internet connection” for everybody from local governments as a social service. Until the time that we were targeted as customers for personal broadband Internet (wireless high-speed Internet access) by GSM operators, which also simplified the tracking and personalization process for them to capture our “data body” and match it with our identity. We are even being charged separately for this Internet usage which is matched one to one with our identity.

The Internet used to be a beach for some until the time when Metallica sued Napster for enabling illegal file sharing of their songs.

The Internet used to be a beach for some when there was an alternative to what Derrida calls “the impossible possibility of the gift”, for kids on the p2p networks, who were “incriminated, accused, charged and busted” for sharing the “digital gifts” (which are not subject to scarcity), without even knowing who their peers were.

For some, the Internet used to be a beach until the kids who share their photos online were targeted for selling convenient products of “printer docks” to “easyshare” their digital photographs by “printing” them.

The Internet used to be a beach for some until the time when some young people who had innovative ideas and projects for the Internet began realizing these projects not to “realize themselves”, but with the “American dream” of becoming rich by selling these projects one day to big corporations that were already monopolizing the Internet.

The Internet used to be a beach for some until software engineering students at the universities (the universities which are also encouraged to cooperate with the industry to get patents instead of creating free/open standards and knowledge for the public) were depoliticized and educated to become capitalist entrepreneurs, without having any idea of what “GNU General Public License (GNU GPL)” is.

For some, the Internet used to be a beach until the time when the idea of “open source” arrogated the idea of “free software” and depoliticized its social context and rendered the idea and the promise of “free software” invisible.

The Internet used to be a beach for some until the Creative Commons arrogated the idea of “free culture” overlooking the importance of the “share alike” and the “derivative works” approaches of the “copyleft” attitude and the economic model of the “free software” based on creating added value that also enabled the work’s commercial use.

The Internet used to be a beach for some until the “crowdsourcing” approach depoliticized the idea of “commons-based peer production” by reducing the social, economical and political context of being “peers” to the idea of being “crowded” and until the time when the idea of p2p was reduced to bare “pirate file sharing”.

For some, the Internet used to be a “beach” until the time when the “sand” was covered with the “pavement”.

It may be too late for the possibility of another world in the capitalist world we live in. It is too difficult to throw away all the paving stones on the beach without the aid of some “technology” such as a political approach to information technologies. But we can start with struggling for the “possibility of another Internet”. A “free, p2p distributed Internet” where we can be “anonymous” if we want. A free Internet like that of the “Freenet”. A free Internet where we have the right to produce, distribute, access, appropriate and share information to “build culture”. “Free culture”, not the open “source” culture. Not culture as a bare “source” of “crowdsourcing” for profit, but culture as the “commons” for peers. Not with “commons without commonality” like the Creative Commons but with copyleft commons.

Political approach to information technologies is crucial to render its potentials visible for making another world possible. If the “base”, which is the “mode of production”, determines the “superstructure”, which is culture, then “the commons based peer production” as defined by Yochai Benkler offers “a new mode of production” as stated by Michel Bauwens. Also for the case of individual production, an artist, who no longer needs the capitalistic relations of the “culture industry” to produce, reproduce and share/distribute her/his productions, provides an alternative to the capitalist mode of production based on the financial capital.  Because the artist can produce using information technology tools such as “digital duplication” (even using other “digital multiplication” methods of “digitizing” and “transcoding”) and “distributed p2p networks” that democratize the production, multiplication and sharing of that production. This “base” can determine the “superstructure” of free culture.

If “the superstructure can determine the base”, then we can begin to consider the “free culture” movement, which is influencing more and more artists to make their productions “free” (as in freedom). This also forces the “culture industry” to change the way it operates. A culture based on “donation” with free will can also constitute the real “use value” of cultural productions instead of their “exchange values”.

No matter if “the base determines the superstructure” or “the superstructure can determine the base”, we are witnessing a change in both the “base” and the “superstructure” in certain areas.

The promise of capitalism that advocates for itself through the economic problem of distributing limited resources among unlimited human desires is being attacked by both sides of the equation. First of all, the sources are not limited anymore in terms of information (once it is produced). The digital information on the Internet, which can be duplicated in infinite numbers with a “marginal cost approaching zero”, also abolishes the problem of “scarcity”, except for “artificial scarcity”. On the other hand, the idea that the human desires are unlimited is nonsense for the “commons based peer production”, where peers contribute to the production with their free will according to their own capabilities and they also benefit from the production according to their needs. Because peers do not consume more than they need. Joseph Beuys says that everybody can be an artist; everybody can be productive if they have economical and political freedom to decide what and how to produce. Both of those freedoms are granted by information technologies, if they are interpreted politically. Capitalism itself gave the economic freedom to the “digerati” that enabled them to decide what to produce and they produced the tools and ideas that constituted the “digital culture”.

The beach of “cyber-communism” as discussed by Richard Barbrook was a consequence, an aspect of capitalism. “Cyber-communism” of Barbrook was also a period of “inter-capitalism”; a period when only those with a vision realized the holes in the pavement and saw the beach underneath. It was an invisible communist interval in the period Andújar describes as an aspect of postcapitalism. But our Internet experience today is no longer what it used to be when Barbrook wrote about its potential (even practice) of cyber-communism in 1998. The Internet is being utilized by capitalism day by day. The holes in the pavement are being filled one by one. The promise of the possibility of another world on the Internet, the “beach”, is being rendered invisible again. This state of the Internet we are experiencing now is the consequence of the post-”post-capitalism”. The potential of a communist interval in “post-capitalism”; the potential of the “cyber-communism”, the beach, which has been buried under the pavement, has not been evaluated politically.

First of all,  “another Internet is possible” both as a “base” and an “infrastructure” to determine the “possibility of another world” that would be inspired by the holes in the pavement and the veiled promise of “cyber-communism”.

Even though there are still unfilled holes in the pavement, our captured “life on the networked archives” now is post_cyber-communism.

This printed version of this text contains no references since the reader may search on the Internet for any word and concept that s/he is not familiar with if s/he wants to have more information. However, online version(s) of this text that the reader can also find by searching on the Internet, are hyperlinked to the references and may have also been improved.

.copyleft!_ , 31.03.2010

.you are free to appropriate the related content as you wish, as long as you use a copyleft license to redistribute_ .however giving credits and choosing free/open formats are nice_

http://httpdot.net/copyleft_

Share/Bookmark

Share/Bookmark

In a just world, the idea of wealth–be it money derived from the work of human hands, the resources and natural splendor of the planet itself–and the knowledge handed down through generations belongs to all of us. But in our decidedly unjust and imperfect world, our collective wealth is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few. There is be a better way–the notion of the commons–common land, resources, knowledge–is a common-sense way to share our natural, cultural, intellectual riches.

In this innovative animation, filmmaker Laura Hanna, writer Gavin Browning and video artists/animators Dana Schechter and Molly Schwartz examine the concept of “The Commons” as a means to achieve a society of justice and equality.

Video licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/b… to view the license.

Inspiration from the film came from four provocative books:

Unjust Desserts: How the Rich Are Taking Our Common Inheritance and Why We Should Take it Back by Gar Alperovitz and Lew Daly ( http://www.thenewpress.com/index.php?… )

Blue Covenant: The Global Water Crisis and the Coming Battle for the Right to Water, by Maude Barlow ( http://www.thenewpress.com/index.php?… )

Viral Spiral: How the Commoners Built a Digital Republic of Their Own, by David Bollier ( http://www.thenewpress.com/index.php?… )

The Magna Carta Manifesto: Liberties and Commons for All, by Peter Linebaugh ( http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10… )

In cyberspace, the “viral spiral” is a way ideas and innovations grow and be shared with ever-larger numbers of people. That spiral path could be the way the ideas of the commons can help shape a more just society. Learn more at OnTheCommons.org.

Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license” in a prominent
place near the video frame.

You should also insert a web link to the Creative Commons page for the
Attribution license, which is: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/b…

Share/Bookmark