Message 04374 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT04265 Message: 16/69 L7 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] The Ideology of Free Culture and the Grammar of Sabotage

Dmytri Kleiner wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:54:06 +0100, Stefan Meretz <stefan.meretz>

Stefan seriously and carefully explained his position.

No he didn't, he made nonsensical justifications for making
irresponsible, illogical and reprehensible accusations.

His sole justification for claiming Mattea is employing an "antisemitic structure" was that Matteo uses the term "parasite," which supposedly is the same as "comparing people to animals" which Stefan connects to the character of Nazi ant-antisemitism.
This is more than a stretch.

Repetitive use of the ideas of 'parasite' and 'louse' is something very characteristic of the rhetorical style of fascists, particularly so in Italy (I wouldn't know about Germany). What do you do with lice? You crush them, because they are both trivial and subhuman. It is a term regularly used by the modern far-right (and by the police) for left wingers, people with long hair, drug users, the people who wash car windows at traffic lights, romanian gipsies, or anyone else they think should be exterminated. In this paper, the parasite permeates everything to do with the 'digital economy'; anyone you don't like can be classified with the parasites.

If you say this is an emotional reaction, not a logical one, it is. And that was my reaction to this paper - it was written with two strands, a logical one, and what I originally thought was an independent rhetorical one, concentrating on creating a mood. This mood was fascist, in fact the whole technique is quite typically fascist; it was presumably intended to be provocative, and succeeded in being so. And specifically intended to be provocative to 'digitalist' groups like oekonux, 'the grey accomplice of a parasitic mega-machine'.

Any honest and sane person would clearly see that there is nothing anti-semitic about Matteo's article, which makes it clear that Stefan is neither.

Although anti-semitism is a specific case of the attitude described above, I saw nothing specifically anti-semitic in the paper. What I did not realise, until reading Stefan Mn's reply, was quite how far the logical theme of the paper was permeated by the same attitude as the rhetorical one. That the contrast between the old-style, supposedly exploitative but personal capitalists and the new who 'suck surplus not directly but in a furtive way' is the same contrast drawn by the red-browns of the past.

I am not at all surprised that Matteo would not want to be part of community that responds to his article by claiming it to be anti-semitic, who would?

I guess he has received the reaction he desired. Why, I have no idea.

That you are defending the clearly disgusting behavior of your colleague the other Stefan is a form of gang violence and just makes bad worse, you should be rebuking your colleague for debasing this group with such garbage.

If you think that is gang violence you have a very strange idea of violence.


Contact: projekt

Thread: oxenT04265 Message: 16/69 L7 [In index]
Message 04374 [Homepage] [Navigation]