[Marxism] hackerspaces and socialism
j.alan.masko at gmail.com
Thu May 2 10:24:32 MDT 2013
"A bunch of chucklehead media trollers popping accounts and websites, or
not?, do not make a "hacking collective" with revolutionary potential..."
I don't think I equated the rustle league with revolutionary potential and
while they may be deluded in your eyes or in fact, my use of the term
'hacking collective' is based on how they see themselves, nothing else. You
may of course, attack that presumption, but I'm not attached to any notion
that they are a collective or not.
"This "rebranding" of hackerdom is not something that started in the
media, but is a consistent and long-standing effort amongst hackers
going back several decades to recover the term *from* the media which
had portrayed hackers as badguys."
In my experience in the SF bay area of over twenty years, the idea that you
can reduce hacker or cracker identity so neatly is mistaken. Hackers cannot
"rebrand" themselves as media is the means by which rebranding occurs. They
can use media to do so, but how many hackers go to H+K for their
rebranding? Frankly what hackers or crackers do is besides the point.
It seems you are confused between representations of hackers in mainstream
media, (what I'm talking about) and actual people, their sense of agency
and how they use they media (what you are talking about).
I can't tell if you're pissed off because you think that believe hackivism
is the next revolutionary hero (I don't) or because you think my outlook on
media, mainstream or otherwise comes from folks like McChesney and Bettig
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Craig Brozefsky <craig at red-bean.com> wrote:
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> Jeffrey Masko <j.alan.masko at gmail.com> writes:
> > I don't think I was missing your point, but perhaps wasn't clear. I was
> > trying to underline the reasons we see these kinds of stories in the
> > and why hacking collectives like the Rustle League get little air time or
> > exposure.
> A bunch of chucklehead media trollers popping accounts and websites, or
> not?, do not make a "hacking collective" with revolutionary potential
> that is shunned by big-time media in order to stop them from revealing
> to the yutes a new way of hacking the planet.
> > These types of stories (and those detailing hacking competitions)
> > precisely undermine any possibilities that technologies may have for
> > good by consigning them to lifestyle choices or worse yet, job skills to
> > attained for the labor market. Hacking in the eyes of capital must be
> > rehabilitated in order to remove it as a tool for revolutionary change
> > that is done through media by equating it with criminality or rebranding
> > as this story does.
> This "rebranding" of hackerdom is not something that started in the
> media, but is a consistent and long-standing effort amongst hackers
> going back several decades to recover the term *from* the media which
> had portrayed hackers as badguys. This is something one might be
> inclined to do when you see your friends going to jail and being raided
> by FBI agents and charged with felonies for doing little things like
> typing in a URL with a slightly changed userid.
> Hacker spaces are another iteration of original hacker culture based on
> the history of places like the MIT AI Lab.
> So it seems your critique of these stories about these spaces which give
> people access to some new means of production, help them self-train new
> skills and learn, repair commodities that are otherwise difficult to
> repair, and organize themselves to share resources and reponsibilties --
> is that they take the gloss off the bad boy revolutionary potential of
> "hacking the gibson, man"
> This critique of course conflates hacker and cracker, and is based on an
> utter misunderstanding of what hacking was, and is as defined by it's
> practitioners. Yah, god forbid anyone have agency here other than media
> and capital in your critico-theoretic snow globe.
> > You are certainly correct in saying this "won't happen through glorifying
> > them as 'prefigurative' institutions, but will rather depend on first
> > destroying the old society and its state from root to branch," but being
> > mindful of how alternative lifestyles are presented will enable us to
> > counter the agendas of the mainstream press.
> Hold on now, is it being consigned to a lifestyle choice by media, or is
> it an "alternative lifestyle" -- I'm so fucking confused.
> Sorry, you are both wrong. this fucked up fantasy of "destroying the
> old society and its state from root to branch" is, well laughable, and
> yah, I'll say it, un-fucking-(Mm)arxist, un-fucking-scientific, and just
> more delusional role-playing.
> Craig Brozefsky <craig at red-bean.com>
> Premature reification is the root of all evil
> Send list submissions to: Marxism at greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
> Set your options at:
College of Communications
Penn State University
State College, Pa 16801
More information about the Marxism