ANNOUNCEMENT: Scheduled downtime - 'SOPA Strike'

Good luck. I don't know how I feel about this whole thing, but I'm quite looking forward to the discussion and hearing more about what led to your decision and what comes out of the whole movement (if such a thing can be called a movement).

Its worth noting that this legislation takes root in the US but spreads after that. While I was more of an observer in the days of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the first in the series of odious legislations now culminating in SOPA and the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement [ACTA]), eventually it spread into Canada in a series of bills who were only defeated by the collapse of coalitions in the minority government of the time.

Meanwhile I notice the European Commission and several other European agencies working towards increasingly restrictive copyright regimes. Ultimately, its just a matter of time until the draconian state expectations are the same everywhere.

From a radical perspective I think the internet and computing has allowed a certain flourishing of non-commodity relations. I am regularly able to use open source development as a model to people in my industry as alternative narratives to social darwinism and capitalist economics. Other organizations such as Telekommunisten genuinely believe certain forms of development are possible on the internet that may bring about communism (if my reading of the manifesto is right). Libcom exists as a site that doesn't charge, unlike nearly every other paper pushed by a leftist organization. At minimum, experimentation is currently possible that gives us new material to discuss and consider in our ideas for a different society.

So, while the efficacy of this protest may be in question by some I think it would be close-minded to deny that it is in the spirit of principles we all agree on.

Finally, I'm pushing around a link on safe ways to black out that don't screw you over from a webcrawler perspective: http://www.seroundtable.com/sopa-blackout-google-seo-14592.html

is it a javascript blackout?

I trust that the site will be replaced by a message saying "LibCom would like to express its solidarity with the internet in the face of this attack." 8-)

http://twitpic.com/88ueqz

That's fantastic flaneur.

So how's this all playing out in the States? Any movement or response from Congress?

Damn 24 hours without libcom and all the bitching that comes with it. What do you expect me to do at work?...my life will fall apart.

Still be interested to find out the effect "internet strikes" have on the real economy. I imagine lots of big companies rely on open source software and free info website to assist in developing their products?

Chilli Sauce

So how's this all playing out in the States? Any movement or response from Congress?

http://www.fox13now.com/news/politics/local/kstu-pipa-sen-hatch-withdraws-support-for-controversial-pipa-20120118,0,1609774.story

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/19/tech/sopa-blackouts/

http://gizmodo.com/5877219/sopa-outrage-is-breaking-the-senates-websites?tag=sopa

Chilli Sauce

So how's this all playing out in the States? Any movement or response from Congress?

Going by how media bosses are squealing, it seems to have been a success:
Ex-Senator Chris Dodd, MPAA's chief executive

[the blackouts are] an abuse of power
It's a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests.

Rupert Murdoch

Seems blogsphere has succeeded in terrorising many senators and congressmen who previously committed. Politicians all the same.

Richard Mollet, chairman of the Publishers Association, criticised the blacked-out websites for not engaging "constructively" in the piracy debate.
"They should say: 'OK, there's a problem with copyright infringement. We, as internet companies, have a role here. What can we do to fulfil that role and help rights holders reduce infringement?'"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16628143

Yeah, apparently Sens against have risen from 5 to 35, and 41 are needed to block it.

I think it's a pretty sure thing that libcom would be fucked if this law goes through… At best we'll have to change our name to 112.52.289.7 or something like that, which is a lot less catchy…

Ex-Senator Chris Dodd, MPAA's chief executive

It's a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests.

I't odd though isn't it. Large corporations using essentially activist methods. Has this happened before? Could be a problematic precedence. Next we'll see corporations "striking" for anti-union legislation ;)

Cooked

Ex-Senator Chris Dodd, MPAA's chief executive

It's a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests.

I't odd though isn't it. Large corporations using essentially activist methods. Has this happened before? Could be a problematic precedence. Next we'll see corporations "striking" for anti-union legislation ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_World_Wide_Web_protest

On February 1, 1996, U.S. Congress passed the Telecommunications Act, a telecommunications reform bill containing the Communications Decency Act. Timed to coincide with President Bill Clinton's signing of the bill on February 8, 1996, a large number of web sites had their background color turned to black for 48 hours to protest the Communications Decency Act's curtailment of free speech. The Turn the Web Black protest, also called Black Thursday, was led by the Voters Telecommunications Watch and paralleled the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign run by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Thousands of websites, including a number of major ones, joined in the protest. The campaign was noted by major media such as the CNN, TIME magazine and The New York Times.

The Communications Decency Act which gave rise to the protest was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on June 26, 1997.

(List of sites that participated; not sure how complete it is tho, reached it through a link from one of the wiki sources.)

Steven wrote:
I think it's a pretty sure thing that libcom would be fucked if this law goes through… At best we'll have to change our name to 112.52.289.7 or something like that, which is a lot less catchy…

How come?

Megaupload finished: Feds shut down file-sharing giant without SOPA

Anonymous attacks WhiteHouse.gov after taking down Department of Justice and others

Cooked

Ex-Senator Chris Dodd, MPAA's chief executive

It's a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests.

I't odd though isn't it. Large corporations using essentially activist methods. Has this happened before? Could be a problematic precedence. Next we'll see corporations "striking" for anti-union legislation ;)

Not new, ever heard of lockouts?

Peter

Not new, ever heard of lockouts?

haha, well that's a precedence I guess.

https://rt.com/usa/news/anonymous-barrettbrown-sopa-megaupload-241/

Filesonic has stopped staring and apparently Fileserve too. The amount of stuff that has just been lost.

I do not understand why a law being passed or not passed matters to communists.

This is a fight between different groups of capital. On the one hand, companies like Google or Facebook. On the other hand, the music and movie industry. Will the world be better if the former win? Many op-ed writers have argued against SOPA on the grounds that it would get in the way of innovating and expanding the economy. That sounds plausible. Certainly, China and other states have well organized and profitable 'pirating' industries.

i expect you don't see how it matters is papers/books are banned, wages are cut, workers fired, or free health care is abolished? After all it still capitalism either way right? :)

I do not think a wage cut and a law being passed are the same thing.

So I suppose you are opposed to looting?

Lettersjournal, how do you think a wage cut is impliment if not by law ?

Hi Juan,

I am not sure what looting has to do with the passage or non-passage of a law (ie. Facebook vs. Universal Music Group). I do not oppose or support looting. Certainly, I am opposed to anything police would do to looters, though when I lived in New Orleans briefly it was clear that the police looted more than anyone (a lot of them drove Cadillacs after the hurricanes). Why do you ask about looting?

Hi Croydonian,

In the US, wage cuts are not voted on by congress. Maybe it is different where you live. Wage cuts are carried out by management/ownership and unions. Struggles around wages are not parliamentary, while 'struggles' around the passage or non-passage of laws are, by definition, parliamentary. I thought it was a basic position of communists to not involve themselves in parliamentary debates, as the real struggle is at the point of production.

As far as I know, this SOPA thing is the first time Libcom has gotten involved in a congressional debate. Was there a discussion about this beforehand? Will Libcom be periodically shutting down to protest other laws? If the passage or non-passage of laws is important, should one encourage others to call or write senators?

flaneur

Filesonic has stopped staring and apparently Fileserve too. The amount of stuff that has just been lost.

Nothing has been lost. All the files on those websites still exist somewhere, and most of them are bad replicas of books, movies, and music that certainly still exist away from computers.

If the whole internet disappeared tomorrow, nothing would be lost. We would write each other letters again, like the great communists of the past (who, after all, were able to put together public meetings attended by hundreds, without the "aid" of the internet). Maybe we could publish newspapers that had a readership of more than 12.

Maybe they do, but they then require re-upping. And if not, someone has to rip it again, all of which takes time and is a pain in the arse. Though the days of bad quality rips are long gone.

Do you think it's as simple as that? That you can just roll back technology and people will go back to things like letters or radical newspapers? People abandon things like when they don't feel they're relevant or useful to their lives. You gotta bring it to them, not the other way round.

The libcom library being taken offline would ruin the endless hours of hard work people have put into preparing the documents for digital publication. Stronger ip laws and internet related takedown powers makes this a much more likely event.

It would be better to have alternative means of distributing the data, as I've mentioned before, but protesting against aggressive laws seems reasonable. You are also putting to much into the fact that it's a battle between corporations. In this very narrow case we share the interests of google but the law will affect people way beyond google.

lettersjournal

Maybe we could publish newspapers that had a readership of more than 12.

Nahhhh, doubt you could mate, sorry.

lettersjournal

I do not think a wage cut and a law being passed are the same thing.

no but this law and a cut to wages would both have a negative effect on workers, and so should be opposed by communists, if you don't understand that then your an idiot.

This law will restrict the free flowing of information. As such it will reduce the availability of free information to proletarians, who will be more likely to have to pay for information/culture. Also it puts working class/radical websites at greater risk of takedown/lawsuits. If you don't see the problem with that then I think there is a problem with you

Also, a wage increase is just as much of a reform as stopping a law getting passed. The point isn't that communists don't want reforms before the revolution, the point is how we achieve reforms. Is it through parties, politicians, and representatives or is it through self-organisation and direct action? So your example of writing to congress is absurd and not remotely synonymous.

Also probably worth noting that libcom's statement directly says:

We do not know yet if such tactics can work, if it is possible for such tactics to place economic pressure on governments, or if such movements can have any class content. But at this point, we feel it is worth a try. While we clearly have differences with many of the major websites involved, we believe there to be the potential for positive communist content, and the rejection of notions capitalist property rights in the free distribution of pirated content.

So I'd get down off your holier-than-thou soapboax.

I don't think the internet is "the free flowing of information" (that is a cliche out of Wired magazine or a Google speech to shareholders), nor do I think the internet existing is in the interest of humanity, much less proletarians. The function of the internet is selling stuff as well as social and economic reproduction (primarily advertisement and media). Its function is not anti-capitalist. Quite the opposite.

The internet is no more "free" than television. Probably less so, as it has the illusion of participation and control. It seems to be the most effective apparatus of capture ever invented (unlike television, critiques of the internet are written on the internet). There is also a bit of evidence that the internet and computers generally are incredibly bad for our health and mental abilities.

Also, a wage increase is just as much of a reform as stopping a law getting passed. The point isn't that communists don't want reforms before the revolution, the point is how we achieve reforms. Is it through parties, politicians, and representatives or is it through self-organisation and direct action? So your example of writing to congress is absurd and not remotely synonymous.

Struggles over wages and lobbying for the passage or non-passage of a law are qualitatively different. One involves working class struggle at the point of production. The other involves lobbying/petitioning/protesting to congress or parliament.

If websites like Wikipedia closing for a day is "self-organization" and "direct action", I don't know what those terms mean. I don't think my point about writing to congress is absurd. If you really want certain laws to be passed or not passed, writing to congress is probably a better bet than doing things with communist websites.

And on a most basic level - the reason some websites shutting down for a day put pressure on congress is that those websites play an important role in the economic and social reproduction. If every anarchist and communist website threatened to shut down indefinitely in protest of ____ law being passed, it would have no effect whatsoever.

radicalgraffiti

lettersjournal

I do not think a wage cut and a law being passed are the same thing.

no but this law and a cut to wages would both have a negative effect on workers, and so should be opposed by communists, if you don't understand that then your an idiot.

This does not make sense. Hundreds of laws are passed or not passed every year. Their passage or non passage are both 'bad for workers'. The senators and congressman who voted against SOPA did not vote act in the interest of workers, anymore than those who voted for it.

Pretty much everything in this society has a negative effect on everyone. If one takes the voluntarist position seriously - that pro-revolutionaries have something of value and importance to offer the working class in a future or current struggle (or say, an insurrection or revolution) - then the abdication of anti-parliamentary rigidness and the willingness of communists to adopt populist positions is far more negative than a stupid law.

lettersjournal

I don't think the internet is "the free flowing of information" (that is a cliche out of Wired magazine or a Google speech to shareholders), nor do I think the internet existing is in the interest of humanity, much less proletarians. The function of the internet is selling stuff as well as social and economic reproduction (primarily advertisement and media). Its function is not anti-capitalist. Quite the opposite.

Yes it's true that a major function -- perhaps the major function -- of the internet is selling things. It has also enabled things like attacks on government and corporate websites, the rapid circulation of information the state would rather not have exposed (wikileaks for example), the posting of abusive managers' names and phone numbers, the free acquisition of music, software, and countless educational texts, even the rapid spread of large protests and/or riots...

lettersjournal

Chilli Sauce

Also, a wage increase is just as much of a reform as stopping a law getting passed. The point isn't that communists don't want reforms before the revolution, the point is how we achieve reforms. Is it through parties, politicians, and representatives or is it through self-organisation and direct action? So your example of writing to congress is absurd and not remotely synonymous.

Struggles over wages and lobbying for the passage or non-passage of a law are qualitatively different. One involves working class struggle at the point of production. The other involves lobbying/petitioning/protesting to congress or parliament.

So? There is nothing inherently more revolutionary about struggles at the point of production than about community struggles (look at the UAW). Things like this and this, while not organized at the point of production, are still potentially revolutionary. Anyway, what about all the proletarians who aren't wage earners?

lettersjournal

If websites like Wikipedia closing for a day is "self-organization" and "direct action", I don't know what those terms mean. I don't think my point about writing to congress is absurd. If you really want certain laws to be passed or not passed, writing to congress is probably a better bet than doing things with communist websites.

And on a most basic level - the reason some websites shutting down for a day put pressure on congress is that those websites play an important role in the economic and social reproduction. If every anarchist and communist website threatened to shut down indefinitely in protest of ____ law being passed, it would have no effect whatsoever.

You might be right about it not having much of an effect. But I wouldn't condemn the tactic as such just because some major corporations were doing it. In the 1877 strikes in the US, many small business owners supported the strikers against the railroads because the railroads charged exorbitant/discriminatory rates to carry freight from or to certain places. That doesn't mean the strikes weren't worthwhile...

lettersjournal

Hi Juan,

I am not sure what looting has to do with the passage or non-passage of a law (ie. Facebook vs. Universal Music Group). I do not oppose or support looting. Certainly, I am opposed to anything police would do to looters, though when I lived in New Orleans briefly it was clear that the police looted more than anyone (a lot of them drove Cadillacs after the hurricanes). Why do you ask about looting?

I ask because the primary reason I opposed the law and why I was worried about it is because I am poor. I cannot afford to pay $6,000 for an Adobe package of programs. I like photoshop and in design. I have been trying to learn how to do graphic design and layout, both for organizing/political purposes and for personal hobby reasons. Writing is something I like to do and at some point I would like to self-learn as much as possible how to turn it into something presentable.

I also love music. Like many people, it has gotten me through hard times and serves as something that motivates me or even keeps me grounded to how I was raised and the culture I identify with. However, as I mentioned, I am poor, and have little money to spend on things that are not directly tied to basic survival.

Laws passed that would criminalize me illegally downloading or shut down with extreme prejudice areas of the internet that allow me to do so have a negative effect on my life. It certaintly isn't the same as rising food prices, unemployment or debt, but it would have a negative effect on my life regardless. I never really saw or cared about the whole tech industry VS movie/music industry angle, although I agree with you that this issue is partially about that.

ITT: lettersjournal shows how easy it is to lose touch with how people really interact with the existing conditions of society when you rely too much on your own scene for critical input.

What Juan said. Sure, losing libcom, MIA, Wikipedia and various "free sources of info" would be shitty (of course that's not why the Internet exists, but who gives a fuck? The practical consequence is I have access to vast swathes of information, history, texts that I otherwise wouldn't).

But the big thing for me is the effect of these laws would mean I didn't have access to music/games/software/TV shows/films I have now. Of course they'd still exist, but for those of us without unlimited financial resources, it'd mean we didn't get them.

I can honestly say without the hint of hyperbole that if I lost this, the effect on my immediate material standard of living (and the same for millions of young workers) would take a hit massively beyond any austerity measures we've seen in the past few years - and tbh, worse than most anything that's realistically on the cards.

Once again, the idealist underpinnings of lettersjournal's (and tbh nicom as a whole) thought comes to the fore. It seems that for some people communism really is just a nice idea.

LJ

nor do I think the internet existing is in the interest of humanity, much less proletarians.

Hypocrisy much?

lettersjournal

I don't think the internet is "the free flowing of information" (that is a cliche out of Wired magazine or a Google speech to shareholders), nor do I think the internet existing is in the interest of humanity, much less proletarians. The function of the internet is selling stuff as well as social and economic reproduction (primarily advertisement and media). Its function is not anti-capitalist. Quite the opposite.

He writes on libcom, a website jam packed with anti-cap stuffs.

On the one hand we should only care about struggles at the point of production (although I don't know why you think that, or why you think that's a communist stance - I think it's a really mad, anti-social and totally wrong stance) - or try and act to affect them at least. Presumably you'd be equally ambivalent if, say, the government tried to make abortion illegal again. On the other hand, you take a stance that these laws being passed, and even the internet as a whole shutting down would be a positive thing. Can you not see the inconsistency there?
Also,

Hundreds of laws are passed or not passed every year. Their passage or non passage are both 'bad for workers'.

is rubbish. Was the minimum wage being passed as law bad for workers? If something is bad then is that it, we don't need any nuance or need to distinguish between different 'bad' things? And, again, you reveal yourself the contradiction in your argument because you think a hypothetical law that would shut down the internet would - by inference - be in the 'interest of humanity'.

Hi mons,

I do not think 'we' should only care about struggles at the point of production. I actually do not particularly care about them, unless I encounter them in my life. What I argued is that such struggles are qualitatively different than legislative debates. Further, I contended that communists ought not involve themselves in legislative debates and proceedings. This is not a novel position. On this point I find myself in the company of (most) of the left communist, council communist, and anarchist traditions, at least on paper.

I do not think the state is capable of acting in the interest of the working class or humanity. If I did think it was capable of doing so, I would run for office or support candidates I thought would be most willing to exercise that capability. We can look at a couple centuries of political reform and politicians earnestly trying to 'help the workers' to draw this conclusion.

Shutting down the internet seems to have aided the anti-government revolts in Northern Africa. Anytime a state has shut down the internet it has been a temporary measure and has backfired. That said, I would not support or oppose legislative action re: the internet because laws are irrelevant.

As I'm sure most of you are aware, laws and law enforcement have little to do with each other, and the countries with the 'freest' laws about strikes (for example) are often the most brutal in crushing strikes. The case of abortion is similar. Abortion is currently 'legal', but there are states where extra-legal terrorism and so on has pushed out all abortion clinics. Relying on the state to guarantee anything is not a safe bet and forces one to play the legislative game.

I can honestly say without the hint of hyperbole that if I lost this, the effect on my immediate material standard of living (and the same for millions of young workers) would take a hit massively beyond any austerity measures we've seen in the past few years - and tbh, worse than most anything that's realistically on the cards.

The same could be said about your favorite restaurant up the street closing or your favorite brand of gum going bankrupt. Or maybe a bit more close to SOPA, the ban on kosher and halal slaughter in Denmark negatively affected the lives of Jewish and Muslim workers there, but communists should not have lobbied parliament there about it.

There are so few communists in the world that it does not make sense for communists to act together for causes that are already supported by huge swathes of the political spectrum. Better to do what only we can do, which isn't much, but that's our lot in life.

Yes it's true that a major function -- perhaps the major function -- of the internet is selling things. It has also enabled things like attacks on government and corporate websites, the rapid circulation of information the state would rather not have exposed (wikileaks for example), the posting of abusive managers' names and phone numbers, the free acquisition of music, software, and countless educational texts, even the rapid spread of large protests and/or riots...

That the internet enables attacks on websites is a bit like crediting syphilis with offering a use for penicillin.

The wikileaks case is a good example of how the internet (and media) operates. What came out of wikileaks does not seem to have changed anything, even on the level of official discourse. Certainly, the information that came out was not a surprise to anyone but the very naive (roughly: soldiers kill people in wars and states think mean things about each other). Wikileaks revealed that the state does not need to lie. The truth is just fine. Torture and extra-legal assassination can be openly announced policies. In the total cynicism of our age, one does not need to lie. Nothing really matters much.

The occasional posting of abusive managers phone numbers is far outweighed by the internet functioning as a sort of open-source blacklist for employers to search for the background of new hires. It is used extensively by law enforcement to gather evidence, with most people constructing elaborate and detailed files on themselves and their associates. That MIT and other major universities are offering free course materials online reveals the value of these modern 'education texts' and video lectures (none at all, or at least no more than what was already available, pre-internet, in the public library).

The last claim, about the internet speeding up the spread of protests and riots, is a hypothesis that has no evidence. One cannot say that protests/riots are larger or spread faster today than they did 30 years ago. It is more plausible to me that the internet slows the spread of riots and protests, but I don't have much evidence for this either. It is true, however, that the illusion of the internet making it easier to meet people is obviously false. Almost all social or 'public' space is now filled with people on their smart phones or listening to music through earbuds. The atomization enabled by this technological shit is really astounding.

Hi Chili Sauce,

Yes, very much.

The same could be said about your favorite restaurant up the street closing or your favorite brand of gum going bankrupt

Maybe I'm just stuck in the real world, but the idea that a (real terms) 10-15% paycut over the past 3 years isn't as bad as losing your favourite estaurant is complete fantasyland.

Guess you must really like that restaurant tho.

The same could be said about your favorite restaurant up the street closing or your favorite brand of gum going bankrupt. Or maybe a bit more close to SOPA, the ban on kosher and halal slaughter in Denmark negatively affected the lives of Jewish and Muslim workers there, but communists should not have lobbied parliament there about it.

So that first part is just mental and not even worth a response. On the second point, who's arguing that we "lobby" parliament? Once again, I think you've missed a key point here:

The point isn't that communists don't want reforms before the revolution, the point is how we achieve reforms. Is it through parties, politicians, and representatives or is it through self-organisation and direct action? So your example of writing to congress is absurd and not remotely synonymous.

Ah, found another strawman here:

If websites like Wikipedia closing for a day is "self-organization" and "direct action", I don't know what those terms mean.

Did you read the initial statement?

While we clearly have differences with many of the major websites involved, we believe there to be the potential for positive communist content, and the rejection of notions capitalist property rights in the free distribution of pirated content. This remains the case whether Wikipedia or icanhazcheeseburger like it or not.

At least if there was no internet I would never again have to read a self interview....

word

lettersjournal

Yes it's true that a major function -- perhaps the major function -- of the internet is selling things. It has also enabled things like attacks on government and corporate websites, the rapid circulation of information the state would rather not have exposed (wikileaks for example), the posting of abusive managers' names and phone numbers, the free acquisition of music, software, and countless educational texts, even the rapid spread of large protests and/or riots...

That the internet enables attacks on websites is a bit like crediting syphilis with offering a use for penicillin.

You're missing the point. I am merely pointing out that the internet is a terrain of struggle. The "point of production" is entirely "enemy territory," much like the internet, yet you are comparing it favorably to elsewhere as an arena for struggle. Yes the overall function of the internet is capitalist, just as the overall function of the manufacturing sector is capitalist. But you claim class struggle in the latter is important while discounting completely the possibility of struggle in the former. Why?

lettersjournal

The wikileaks case is a good example of how the internet (and media) operates. What came out of wikileaks does not seem to have changed anything, even on the level of official discourse. Certainly, the information that came out was not a surprise to anyone but the very naive

Well perhaps it didn't have an immediately apparent impact, but I think a good number of people were disenchanted by some of the things exposed ("collateral murder"). Yes I agree these people were probably all somewhat naive...that doesn't diminish the importance of the incident, nor the general phenomena of the availability of information on the internet the government would rather not have public. Plus, something "changing something" or not is a terrible way to judge something's significance...there were many strikes and other struggles that failed to change anything, yet they are still significant and worthy of study.

lettersjournal

The occasional posting of abusive managers phone numbers is far outweighed by the internet functioning as a sort of open-source blacklist for employers to search for the background of new hires. It is used extensively by law enforcement to gather evidence, with most people constructing elaborate and detailed files on themselves and their associates. That MIT and other major universities are offering free course materials online reveals the value of these modern 'education texts' and video lectures (none at all, or at least no more than what was already available, pre-internet, in the public library).

They use the internet, we use the internet.

lettersjournal

The last claim, about the internet speeding up the spread of protests and riots, is a hypothesis that has no evidence. One cannot say that protests/riots are larger or spread faster today than they did 30 years ago.

I never claimed riots/protests do in fact spread faster or are larger now than in the past. What I said was the internet has enabled the rapid spread of large riots and protests. In some cases. This is pretty much indisputable...many protests in recent years (the massive one in Portugal a year or so ago is a good example) have been facilitated through the internet and have been quite large at least compared to the last decade or so. Claiming the internet has no role in modern social movements is like saying paper pamphlets had absolutely no effect during, say, the American Revolution,

lettersjournal

It is more plausible to me that the internet slows the spread of riots and protests, but I don't have much evidence for this either. It is true, however, that the illusion of the internet making it easier to meet people is obviously false. Almost all social or 'public' space is now filled with people on their smart phones or listening to music through earbuds. The atomization enabled by this technological shit is really astounding.

I don't necessarily disagree with you here. But whether or not communists use these technologies they will be utilized by society at large, and the conditions you describe will still prevail. Communists gain no discernible advantage by not using such things. Us failing to do so would be the equivalent of, say, the Bolsheviks or the CNT refusing to use the written word. Several people (such as Juan) have outlined the material advantages of the internet. You actually seem to be giving the internet too much credit...it is a means, a tool, and not some all encompassing, all-corrupting entity...

lettersjournal

There are so few communists in the world that it does not make sense for communists to act together for causes that are already supported by huge swathes of the political spectrum. Better to do what only we can do, which isn't much, but that's our lot in life

This is pretty worrying, this seems to totally fly in the face of the concept of solidarity, a core anarchist/communist principle. We will not be able to do anything if we are just doing it by ourselves, if you were to have a demonstration or protest, purely consisting of just communists or anarchists, it would get brutally supressed in an instant. There is no other way but to act with people that may not be exactly anarchist/communist, but judging by what your saying, you, like the media, would claim thats "hijacking" some groups protest or demo. Anti cuts for example, can be supported by these "huge swathes of the political spectrum", should we not participate in any anti cuts campaigns then ? Last time I checked, opposing austerity measures is a mainstay of what we can do practically at the moment.

Rather than reply to everything here, I am going to write a longer article on the subject and post it to the library. I will provide a link.

Maybe this thread could be split to a new thread about the role/function/structure of the internet.

lettersjournal

There are so few communists in the world that it does not make sense for communists to act together for causes that are already supported by huge swathes of the political spectrum. Better to do what only we can do, which isn't much, but that's our lot in life.

there is nothing only "we" can do

radicalgraffiti

lettersjournal

There are so few communists in the world that it does not make sense for communists to act together for causes that are already supported by huge swathes of the political spectrum. Better to do what only we can do, which isn't much, but that's our lot in life.

there is nothing only "we" can do

in general, I agree with letters on this. But of course taking the site down for a day didn't actually take any effort on our part at all (quite the opposite actually as we got a day off moderating it). He should also note that we didn't encourage anyone to write to their representatives either

there is nothing only "we" can do

There is one thing: articulate a communist critique of capitalist social relations.

Steven.

radicalgraffiti

lettersjournal

There are so few communists in the world that it does not make sense for communists to act together for causes that are already supported by huge swathes of the political spectrum. Better to do what only we can do, which isn't much, but that's our lot in life.

there is nothing only "we" can do

in general, I agree with letters on this. But of course taking the site down for a day didn't actually take any effort on our part at all (quite the opposite actually as we got a day off moderating it). He should also note that we didn't encourage anyone to write to their representatives either

aside form the fact that i cant think of what political category me and lj would both belong to, what is there that only we can do?

lettersjournal

there is nothing only "we" can do

There is one thing: articulate a communist critique of capitalist social relations.

unless you define the category we as articulating a communist critique of capitalist social relations, than i don't see how you can say only we can do this

I understood the category "we" to be communists.

Fall Back

The same could be said about your favorite restaurant up the street closing or your favorite brand of gum going bankrupt

Maybe I'm just stuck in the real world, but the idea that a (real terms) 10-15% paycut over the past 3 years isn't as bad as losing your favourite estaurant is complete fantasyland.

Guess you must really like that restaurant tho.

Hi Fall Back,

I was not comparing the restaurant closure to a wage cut. I was comparing it to the absence of movies on the internet, which you compared to the wage cut. I prefer nice restaurants to movies, so my favorite restaurants disappearing would be worse for me than the internet disappearing. Still, I would not protest in favor of a restaurant, anymore than I would protest in favor of the internet. Protesting in favor of particular businesses or industries is not something I would ever do, even if I really liked their products.

As I wrote earlier, I characterize the anti-SOPA website shut-downs as lobbying the congress (in a definitional way - lobbying means taking action to persuade congress to act in a certain way towards particular legislation, which is what these website shutdowns were doing) in favor of one industry (internet companies) against the interests of another (music and movie companies). The former industry is ascendant or plateauing while the latter is in decline, so it makes sense that the former is 'winning'. It does not make sense for communists to join in the fight.

So I didn't personally think much of the SOPA 'strike' (really it was more of a boycott than anything else), but I also don't think it did any harm to observe it, and it took less effort than writing this post will have.

However while obviously some people have done lobbying over SOPA, and some sites were showing a message suggesting people lobby congress etc. shutting down a website in itself is not lobbying.

Or if it is, so was:

- the poll tax riot
- the UK student protests last year
- the 2005 anti-CPE movement

All of which had as a central demand stopping legislation being passed or otherwise going into effect.

Mike, you are exactly right. (Except the CPE was in 2006)

Also of course there have been big legislative struggles around length of the working day.

Letters journal, I think basically this is comparable to at the moment shoplifting being quite permitted legally, thus enabling proletarians to get many commodities for free, and the government attempting to enact stricter laws against shoplifting. So in this sense it is a class struggle, as effectively governments and corporations are attempting to stop proletarians getting commodities for free, and effectively increase their prices.

lobbying the congress (in a definitional way - lobbying means taking action to persuade congress to act in a certain way towards particular legislation

I mean, it's already been covered, but by this logic if the Wisconsin general strike had come off that would have been "lobbying then congress". I mean, it would have been the state legislature, but same difference.

Anyway, what have that Pirate Party had to say about SOPA, out of curiosity? Anyone know?