A - I n f o s
a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists
**
News in all languages
Last 30 posts (Homepage)
Last two
weeks' posts
The last 100 posts, according
to language
Castellano_
Català_
Deutsch_
English_
Français_
Italiano_
Português_
Russkyi_
Suomi_
Svenska_
Türkçe_
All_other_languages
{Info on A-Infos}
(en) globalization & colonialism - The Third Wave II (2/2)
From
Ilan Shalif <gshalif@netvision.net.il>
Date
Sat, 21 Feb 1998 12:14:10 +0200
________________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
http://www.ainfos.ca/
________________________________________________
FWDed From: MichaelP <papadop@PEAK.ORG>
by HURINet - The Human Rights Information Network by Roberto Verzola
Cyberlords
Information monopolies may be established not only by
staking monopoly claims over information content
through IPR, but also by controlling the hardware
infrastructure for manipulating or distributing
information. This infrastructure includes computer
centers, voice and data switching centers,
communication lines, television and radio stations,
satellite networks, cable networks, cellular networks,
printing presses, moviehouses, etc. Like their software
counterparts, the owners of the hardware infrastructure
make money through monopoly rents, in the form of
subscription fees or per-use charges.
Because they earn their incomes from monopoly rents,
the propertied classes of the information sectors are
rentier classes. They are the landlords of cyberspace,
or cyberlords. The content monopolies are owned by
information cyberlords, and the infrastructure
monopolies are owned by industrial cyberlords.
The richest man in the world, as well as several others
among the ten richest, is a cyberlord. The economic
powers of cyberlords are immense, and these powers are
increasingly being felt in the political and diplomatic
arena. Among U.S. negotiators, for instance, IPR -- the
mechanism which gives software cyberlords their power
-- is invariably a non-negotiable item in their agenda.
It is the partnership between information cyberlords,
industrial cyberlords, and finance capitalists which is
the at the core of the third wave of globalization.
To sum up: an information economy is one whose
information sector has become the main source of
wealth, eclipsing its industrial and agricultural
sectors. The products of industrial and agricultural
economies are material goods; the products of an
information economy, however, are non-material goods.
The reproduction cost of information goods is very low.
This has led to the widespread social practice of
freely sharing and exchanging information. On the other
hand, it also promises extremely high profit margins,
if the seller can monopolize information. Information
monopolies have become the main form of ownership in
the information sector. The high profit margins that
they realize have led to a continuous movement of
investment capital towards the information sector,
eventually making it the dominant sector of the economy
and transforming the economy into an information
economy. The products of this information economy
spread worldwide, as people freely share and exchange
information goods. Thus an information economy needs a
global system for enforcing its monopolies as well as
for gathering information materials, tapping
intellectuals and of course collecting payments
worldwide. This leads to the globalization of the
information economy and is the engine of the third wave
of globalization. The main propertied classes within
the information economy are information cyberlords, who
control information content, industrial cyberlords, who
control information infrastructures, and finance
capitalists, who control investment funds.
First to third waves: a comparison
Let us compare the emergence of the global information
economy with the two previous waves of globalization:
- The first wave was after slaves, previous metals and
lands for raising export crops; the second wave was
after new investment acquisitions, sources of raw
materials and labor, and industrial markets. The third
wave is after sources of mental labor, sources of
information raw materials, and markets for information
products. This is why the WTO pushed very hard to
conclude as soon as possible the agreements on
information technology, telecommunications and
financial services.
- The third wave requires freer movement of information
across national boundaries. This has helped erode
further the power of the State. While the State itself
operated corporate monopolies during the first wave,
and continued to be dominant over corporations during
the second wave, it is finding itself less powerful
during the third wave. Global corporations are now
assuming the dominant role in the State-corporate
partnership, in close collaboration with supra-national
institutions like the International Monetary Fund
(IMF), the World Bank (WB) and the WTO.
- As in the first two waves, the extraction of wealth
from the rest of the world is likewise done under a
mask that hides real intentions. The third wave hides
behind such phrases as "information at your finger
tips", "world without borders", "global village",
instant access to the world's libraries", "free flow of
information", or "TV with a million channels."
- In reality, the global information economy imposes
its own global rule to facilitate the wealth transfer.
The role of the nation-state shrinks, many of its
functions taken over by private corporation. National
sovereignty is curtailed by supra-national
institutions. Global corporations continue to
strengthen their political voice and clout, and
directly enter into partnerships with local elites and
local governments, often bypassing the host government
as well as their own government. Corporate control of
information, communications, and media infrastructures
is strengthened through privatization and deregulation.
- In addition to the earlier forms of wealth extraction
practised during the first and second waves, new forms
emerge or old forms acquire new importance. Monopoly
rents become the main form of wealth extraction.
Because of the huge disparity in costs, trade between
information economies and other economies become even
more unequal. Compare, for instance, a CDROM which
might sell for three hundred dollars, but whose
production cost is around three dollars, to a typical
Philippine product like sugar, which might sell for
fifteen cents per pound. Much of the three hundred
dollars in the price of 2,000 pounds of sugar would
barely cover the cost of production, while much of the
three hundred dollars in the price of a CDROM would be
profit. Royalties from intellectual property rights
(IPRs) and other income from information rents assume
major significance; technology makes possible
high-speed, finely-tuned financial speculation. As the
importance of the nation-state recedes, corporations
are able to purchase State assets and public properties
at bargain prices.
- New technologies of exploitation are introduced.
First wave technologies were designed for the immediate
plunder of our natural resources and human communities.
Second wave technologies were based on material
exploitation and intensive energy utilization. Third
wave technologies are invariably information-based,
centered on extracting the highest monopoly rents from
the control of information infrastructure or
information content. The best example of a technology
that is at the leading edge of the third wave of
globalization is the Internet. Advanced information and
communications technologies make possible the
convergence of media, entertainment, data, and
communications. The application of information
technology to genetic engineering and biotechnologies
has transformed these fields and made them fertile
areas for information monopolies, best illustrated by
the patenting of life forms.
- We are already starting to feel the impact of the
third wave. Strengthening information monopoly
mechanisms will increase the cost and make more
difficult access to new technologies. As the global
information infrastructure now being constructed reach
the remotest corners of our countries, we will be
further flooded with all kinds of junk culture, easily
accessible with a few keystrokes, and the
homogeneization of our cultures will reach new levels.
The reckless experimentation with new life forms in the
race to introduce new commercial biotechnology products
and services will lead to biological pollution from
genetically-modified organisms. Their potential for
damage will be infinitely greater than chemical
pollutants because these organisms can reproduce by
themselves, mutate and evolve. Driven by the logic of
profit-making and rent-seeking, biotechnology will pose
the greatest threat to human health and survival.
Super-exploitation
The global information economy will also enable those
with vast resources to concentrate wealth further into
their hands. To illustrate this capacity for
super-exploitation unleashed by third wave
technologies: imagine a corporation which can afford to
automate its international financial transactions so
that its computers could do a round-the-clock,
unattended scan of the global financial markets for
opportunities, make decisions automatically, and
conclude a financial transaction within three seconds
or a buy-then-sell transaction pair within six seconds.
Such a facility, backed up by vast financial resources,
executing financial transactions and profitting from
them every 6 seconds, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year,
would be able to double its owners' investment funds,
based on the following table:
Profit Margin for every Period it takes for
buy-then-sell transaction investment to double
1% 7 minutes
0.1% 69 minutes
0.01% 11.6 hours
0.001% 4.8 days
0.0001% 1.6 months
0.00001% 1.3 years
Who but the largest financial conglomerates would have
the resources to set up and maintain such automated,
round-the-clock facilities with a global reach? We had
better think again, those among us who believe that the
Third World can leap-frog second wave economies and
ride the third wave by surfing the Web or by selling
our agricultural and manufacturing commodities and our
cheaper labor over the Internet. What we face here is
really a new personification of greed, one that has
freed itself of distracting human feelings like love,
compassion, charity, guild, fear and other emotions,
leaving only pure greed, unencumbered and free to
pursue singlemindedly the one and only thing that
motivates it: profit. It is the search for profit by
global corporations that is powering the whole process.
These corporations have even acquired their own rights,
which are often more favorably recognized than the
rights of real persons. They have learned to nourish
themselves and to grow by feeding on nature, people,
and information. They have become increasingly
aggressive in asserting their freedoms
("liberalization"), overcoming government controls
("deregulation") and in taking over government
activities ("privatization").
Corporations had earlier shared global rule with
governments. Now, they want to rule it by themselves
("globalization").
The colonization of our countries that began in the
16th century hasn't really stopped. It has just changed
forms, coming in waves of globalization that intrude
into our communities, impose their unwanted rule, and
squeeze the wealth out of our people and environment.
With each improvement in technology, with each
transformation of capital, a new way of extracting
wealth from our shores is employed, continually
enriching those who control the technology and our
economy while impoverishing us, destroying local
livelihoods, ravaging our natural resources, and
poisoning our environment. The first wave has ebbed,
but we are still deep within the second wave, and the
third wave has already started lapping our shores.
Responding to the third globalization wave
How do we respond to globalization? To the first wave,
we responded with independence struggles, ranging from
armed revolutions to peaceful lobbies for independence.
Economically, our responses ranged from outright
confiscation and nationalization of foreign property,
to negotiated purchases of foreign corporations at full
commercial prices. Thus, historically, we can identify
a period of economic nationalism worldwide, when
newly-independent countries in Asia, Africa and Latin
America tried to regain control of their economies
through a range of policies favoring local economic
interests and institutions.
Then came the post-colonial second wave of
globalization, both in response to our independence
struggles and as a consequence of internal developments
within the economies of powerful countries themselves.
Responses to this second wave have ranged from
communist-led armed struggles, to elite-led
protectionist regimes. Many of these responses have
floundered as crises upon crises beset our countries,
enabling former colonial masters to recover much of
their early privileges. In general, the second wave of
globalization remains dominant over our national and
community life, having managed so far to counter all
the various responses that have confronted it.
We're still under the second wave, and now comes the
third wave. How do we respond to this new wave, and how
should our response be related to our continuing
efforts to confront the second wave of globalization?
A Green response
We can learn from some of the responses of social
movements which have confronted specific issues
involving the information economy. An illustrative set
of responses can be seen in the program of the
Philippine Greens for a non-monopolistic information
sector. The following are the major elements of this
program (Society, Ecology and Transformation by the
Philippine Greens, 1997):
"1. The right to know. It is the government's duty
to inform its citizens about matters that directly
affect them, their families or their communities.
Citizens have the right to access these
information. The State may not use 'national
security', 'confidentiality of commercial
transactions', or 'trade secret' reasons to
curtail this right.
"2. The right to privacy. The government will
refrain from probing the private life of its
citizens. Citizens have the right to access
information about themselves which have been
collected by government agencies. The government
may not centralize these separate databases by
building a central database or by adopting a
unified access key to the separate databases.
Nobody will be forced against their will to reveal
any information they do not want to make public.
"3. No patenting of life forms. The following,
whether or not modified by human intervention, may
not be patented: life forms, biological and
microbiological materials, biological and
microbiological processes."
Life form patenting has become a major global issue, as
biotechnology corporations move towards the direct
manipulation and commercialization of human genetic
material. Biotech firms are engaged in a frantic race
to patent DNA sequences, microorganisms, plants,
animal, human genetic matter and all other kinds of
biological material, as well as in all kinds of genetic
modification experiments to explore commercial
possibilities. We much launch strong national and
international movements to block these monopolistic
moves and experiments, and to exclude life forms and
other biological material from our patent systems.
"4. The moral rights of intellectuals. Those who
actually created an intellectual work or
originated an idea have the right to be recognized
that they did so. Nobody may claim authorship of
works or ideas they did not originate. No one can
be forced to release or modify a work or idea if
he/she is not willing to do so. These and other
moral rights of intellectuals will be respected
and protected.
"5. The freedom to share. The freedom to share and
exchange information and knowledge will be
recognized and protected. This freedom will take
precedence over the information monopolies such as
intellectual property rights (IPR) that the State
grants to intellectuals."
A specific expression of the freedom to share is the
"fair-use" policy. This policy reflects a historical
struggle waged by librarians who see themselves as
guardians of the world's storehouse of knowledge, which
they want to be freely accessible to the public.
Librarians and educators have fought long battles and
firmly held their ground on the issue of fair-use,
which allows students and researchers access to
copyrighted or patented materials without paying IPR
rents. They have recently been losing ground due to the
increasing political power of cyberlords.
"6. Universal access. The government will
facilitate universal access by its citizens to the
world's storehouse of knowledge. Every community
will be enabled to have access to books,
cassettes, videos, tapes, software, radio and TV
programs, etc. The government will set up a wide
range of training and educational facilities to
enable community members to continually expand
their knowhow and knowledge.
"7. Compulsory licensing. Universal access to
information content is best implemented through
compulsory licensing. Under this
internationally-practiced mechanism, the
government itself licenses others to copy patented
or copyrighted material for sale to the public,
but compels the licensees to pay the patent or
copyright holder a government-set royalty fee.
This mechanism is a transition step towards
non-monopolistic payments for intellectual
activity."
Many countries in the world have used and continue to
use this mechanism for important products like
pharmaceuticals and books. Compulsory licensing is an
internationally-recognized mechanism specifically meant
to benefit poorer countries who want to access
technologies but cannot afford the price set by IPR
holders, but even the U.S. and many European countries
use it.
"8. Public stations. Universal access to
information infrastructure is best implemented
through public access stations, charging at
subsidized rates. These can include well-stocked
public libraries; public telephone booths;
community facilities for listening to or viewing
training videos, documentaries, and the classics;
public facilities for telegraph and electronic
mail; educational radio and TV programs; and
public access stations to computer networks."
Information infrastructures are very expensive.
Building national networks from scratch may take
several billion dollars. Providing a personal computer
to each family may take a few more billion dollars.
Yet, much of these hardware will become obsolete within
a few years of use, after which we will again be forced
to update the entire hardware infrastructure for
several billion dollars more. The act of participation
seems to entrap us at once into becoming captive
markets of information economies. How do we ensure
access at a much lower cost? The answer is in
universally-accessible public facilities. In the same
way that the problem of Third World transport is solved
by public transportation and not by a
"one-family/one-car" policy, the problem of universal
access in the information sector can be solved by
public work/access stations and not by a
"one-family/one-computer" policy.
Another approach in building public domain information
tools is to support non-monopolistic mechanisms for
rewarding intellectual creativity. Various concepts in
software development and/or distribution have recently
emerged, less monopolistic than IPRs. These include
shareware, freeware, "copyleft" and the GNU General
Public License (GPL). The latter is the most developed
concept so far, and has managed to bridge the
transition from monopoly to freedom in the information
sector. In the personal computer arena, for example,the
most significant challenger to the absolute monopoly of
Microsoft Windows is the freely-available Linux
operating system, which is covered by the GPL.
The first step in breaking up monopolies may be
competition. But competition eventually leads to
domination by the strong and those who can compete
best, leading us back to monopolies. Isn't it better to
transcend competition and move further towards
cooperation? This means a stronger public sector and
sharing meager resources to be able to afford expensive
but necessary facilities. In the information sector,
this means building information infrastructures, tools
and contents which are in the public domain.
"9. The best lessons of our era. While all
knowledge and culture should be preserved and
stored for posterity, we need to distill the best
lessons of our era, to be taught -- not sold -- to
the next generations. This should be a conscious,
socially-guided selection process, undertaken with
the greatest sensitivity and wisdom. It is not
something that can be left to a profit-oriented
educational system, circulation-driven mass media,
or consumption-pushing advertising."
These responses must also be linked with ongoing
struggles against the second wave of globalization. By
doing so, we can bring together the widest range of
people, whose unity and joint action can bring about a
political structure that can comprehensively address
the challenges of globalization.
As the Philippine Green program indicates, one of the
tasks of such struggles is to develop a
non-monopolistic information sector, where intellectual
activity is rewarded through non-monopolistic
mechanisms which are more consistent with the social
nature of information. This will involve a radical
rethinking of property concepts in the information
sector, reinforcing similar demands for property
restructuring in the industrial and agriculture
sectors.
Eventually, enough social forces should be mustered to
confront squarely the powerful forces of globalization.
We can expect this historic confrontation to demand
from us the same kind of courage, sacrifice and heroism
which the earlier anti-colonial struggles demanded from
our national heroes.
How we rise up to this challenge will determine whether
our children and grandchildren will live as neo-slaves
under a global system as cruel and heartless as the
colonial system of old, or as free citizens living in
communities where knowledge and culture are again
freely-shared social assets, where industrial machinery
is appropriately designed to serve and not to enslave
human labor, and where ecology is the organizing
principle in agriculture.
Final lesson
There is one final lesson, among so many, that our own
colonial past teaches us. The first Spanish colony was
set up in the Philippines in 1565. Over the next three
centuries, colonization would encroach on most of the
archipelago, except the Muslims of Mindanao and the
upland indigenous tribes. Isolated rebellions would
occur but could not shake Spanish rule. In 1864, a
public manifesto by a Filipino priest began a
Propaganda Movement, which eventually awakened our
people's anti-colonial consciousness. In 1896, a
full-scale revolution broke out. By 1898, the
revolution had for all intents and purposes defeated
Spanish colonialism.
It took some three hundred years before we Filipinos
shook off the colonial mentality that immobilized most
of our people and made them vulnerable to Spanish rule.
The campaign for the Filipino mind took another thirty
years to win. Within three years of anti-colonial armed
struggle against Spain, victory was in sight.
The struggle to unmask the colonial monster was ten to
a hundred times more difficult than the struggle to
bring it down.
Let us keep this lesson in mind today, when we are yet
at the early stages of unmasking the monster of
globalization. Let not the seeming immensity of this
task cloud our vision of the future, when our
communities and nations shall at last be free to chart
their own destinies guided by the principles of
ecology, social justice and self-determination.
5 February 1998
Roberto Verzola
108 V.Luna Road Extension
Sikatuna Village 1101
Quezon City, Philippines
Tel.: (63-2) 921-5165
Email: rverzola@phil.gn.apc.org
****** A-Infos News Service *****
News about and of interest to anarchists
Subscribe -> email MAJORDOMO@TAO.CA
with the message SUBSCRIBE A-INFOS
Info -> http://www.ainfos.ca/
Reproduce -> please include this section