ࡱ>  bjbj 4xx RR( ( ((((((8)Tl)4( 9f)^))))***C8E8E8E8E8E8E8$r;(>Ti8](*****i85(())8555*N ()()C85*C85577Ԯ!547/880 97|>U5v|>75(78***i8i85*** 9****|>*********R* |':   Chapter 2 Communicative action in the light of the onlife Katarina Peovi Vukovi Faculty of Philosophy Rijeka, Cultural studies department, University of Rijeka, Croatia Abstract Advocating communicative action in online interactions has become a model for understanding the political aspect of new media technology. More interactions, more communication, and more traffic on social networks often stands as a form of Internet Democracy. This chapter questions a contemporary notion of the politics in the public sphere. This will be done by challenging Manuel Castells view on the politics of social networks firstly, followed by a discussion on a Habermasian notion of communicative action and the power of communication, and finally, Hardt and Negris notion of the multitude which both substitutes politics and communication. This theoretical context functions as an abstract for the questions proposed in The Onlife Manifesto: Being Human in a Hyperconnected Era. The material and materialistic sphere, on the other hand, brings antagonisms and conflicts into the picture (the notion of Laclau and Mouffes understanding of the antagonism). Taking on a materialistic approach replaces the matters of the declarative political pluralism and tolerance, communication, and interaction with focus on the conditions of the production of the new media social reality. Keywords: communicative action, public sphere, multitude Introduction In his introduction to The Onlife Manifesto: Being Human in a Hyperconnected Era, Luciano Floridi (2015) describes the writing process for the aforementioned book. A group of scholars gathered in order to investigate the challenges brought about by new digital technologies and the impact that Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) are having on human life. Floridi and others started from a presumption that technologies have a deep impact on society and human life. I will try to challenge the framework of this influence and the idea that technologies autonomously change societies. Far from negating the importance of ICTs, I will try to focus on material aspects of digital technologies in order to demonstrate the complex ways it interferes with society. The concept of the onlife is especially interesting if we focus on the dialectic of complex relationships between society, subjects, and technologies. Indeed, the subject is present and lives in the technologically mediated realm; however, the subjectivity is not simply changed by a new technological tool. The ICT tools themselves are produced in the context of democratic and liberal societies with a focus on the politics of individual freedoms. Yet the impacts of ICTs are political, and at the present moment in Western societey relate to the political economy andits shape, Were currently witnessing the fettering of new media technology. These days, once open and democratic, platforms are centralized and hegemonic. They produce profit and thusly function as a profit-making machine. The onlife must, therefore, be related to both liberalism as political world view, and to the neoliberal political economy as a way of producing profitin the era of the late-capitalism. In its preface, The Onlife Manifesto states four foundational transformations of the subject in the online context: i. The blurring of the distinction between reality and virtuality ii. The blurring of the distinctions between human, machine and nature iii. The reversal from information scarcity to information abundance iv. The shift from the primacy of entities to the primacy of interactions (The Onlife Initiative, 2015, p. 2) Such transformations should be interpreted through the lenses of the political economy. The processes that are taking a form of personal transformations (the blurring of the distinction between reality and virtuality; between human, machine and nature); as well as the shift from the primacy of entities to the primacy of interactions, (The Onlife Initiative, 2015, p.2) are related to transformations of political economy (the reversal from information scarcity to information abundance, The Onlife Initiative, 2015, p.2). Such reversal is technologically introduced but transformed by the political economy. This chapter will try to show different views and interpretations that focus on the importance of the communication and the debate in the public sphere, and how theses often blur the initial relevance of the political economy. If there is a determinative influence of new media technologies, they have the power to intensify human communication. Communication through Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other social media platforms, can be described as interactive tools of human interaction. The notion of progress relies on an understanding the new media in question and its social networking in the public sphere. However, in addition to communication there exists a material sphere of online protocols, such as TCP/IP protocols, that allow two computers to connect without hierarchical intermediary. Conversely, restrictions are further imposed on the level of the material sphere. Imposed laws and implemented commercial systems aim at limiting the free distribution of information. Examples of this are the legislative proposition SOPA and PIPA acts that tried to provide legal framework for limiting the distribution opportunities of copyrighted materials (McSherry, 2011). These legislations provoked worldwide reactions. Even Wikipedia went dark for 24 hours in protest. If such laws were implemented, they would force Internet providers to look through the content that is distributed through their social networks. Although Facebook and other companies already play the role of the supervisors and censors, those laws would surely push providers to edit content even more. Contemporary theoretical understanding of the technological power focuses on new media as a tool in the hands of the people. On the other hand, conflicts such as authors rights and surveillance policies should be a matter of the technological material sphere, not a matter of the declarative political pluralism and tolerance. There exist symptomatic points in the discursive elaborations of the positive values of new media technologies, such as the notion of the communicative action (Habermas, 20042006). These notions and positive descriptions tend to circumvent conflictual examples, such as free sharing, wide distribution of the copyrighted artefacts, open culture agencies, and legal actions against activists and whistleblowers. The continued focus on the positive values of communication through online technology is only one side of the story. This chapter will try to address the material foundations of technological change, as well as the question of the political economy ways of producing and reproducing the social reality in capitalism. Torrent technology is one example that shows how technology can challenge the existing economy base on copyright laws. Laws and legal actions are focused on the delimiting of material technological solutions (such as torrent technology), because those technologies are endangering the copyright laws (Tan, 2010). This chapter debates the concept of communicative action, where the public sphere is a normative model for new media technologies put forward by Habermasian proponents with the oppositional point of view that is founded in the critique of political economy. The argument follows the material and materialistic aspects, identifying technologies as forces of production, with a specific focus on the relations of productions that accompany them. Luciano Floridi writes in the commentary to The Onlife Manifesto how rethinking and developing new forms of education are certainly among the most exciting challenges of our time. He acknowledges the fact that we are still missing a postGuttenberg way of approaching pedagogy (2015, p. 22.). However, taking into account what has been said on the matter of copyright for instance, it is difficult to conclude that the main constraint is mental constrain imposed by the overbearing presence of the book (2015, p. 22). Possible mental constraint is minor problem in relation to material conditions of production of technology material in the sense of the restrictions that are imposed because of the imperative of capitalism to produce profit. Curiously this makes Floridis technical note at the end of his chapter the greater value (Open Access This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License, which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.) (2015, p. 23). Technology and society In their most basic, simplified forms, there are two opposite understandings of the relationships between technology and society. Firstly, there is the conservative view on the modernistic progress that is active in the whole spectrum of the political orientations. It is the understanding of the influence of technology on society that focuses on negative aspects of the progress, such as the degradation of the human communication, limitations of the virtual form of the interaction, failures of literacies and similar schoolings (see for example, Postman, 1993). Secondly, at the first sight, an opposite view stresses the positive aspects of the influence of technology on society. It presents the classical technocratic elaboration of the positive values of an implementation of various technological solutions. The most extreme position of this kind is to be found in the transhumanism, a movement that advocates the human transformation and historical transgression into the new period of human existence called the singularity. Transhumanists claim that we will reach the singularity, a point in history in which humans will merge with technology (see for example Kurzweil, 2005). Both views, although heading in opposite directions, present a similar path. Both are shaped by technological determinism: the limited view of the unstoppable and autonomous technological development that influences society, changes social customs and human behaviors. Such understandings of the cause and effect are not only problematic, but could be dangerous since they do not provide any insight into how social injustices and inequalities arise with progress (Simon, 2015, p. 145; Ess, 2015, p. 89). Both visions neglect the fundamental impetus of technological progress. First, the question of the fundamental aim of the technological progress must be addressed. Positive visions usually neglect social differences that create the creative technologies while the negative ones are obsessed with accentuating the social effects of the uses of technologies, as if those social differences did not exist before hyperconnected technology. Poor choice of vocabulary of social network users for example, is seen as a result of the uses of this specific technology, a simple outcome of the use of social media tools. Consensus on technological progress accompanied by new forms of labour and economy is taken as unquestionable fact and as an unstoppable force, as if technology is kind of natural force that cannot be controlled. For that reason, there is no substantial difference between the two visions of the impact; between the view on how technologies have improved our sociality, or the counter-argument that technologies have degraded our society. Such understanding sees technology as a powerful tool for the democratisation of communication. It also notes that there are also material reasons for the democratisation of the communication; the emergence of the Internet protocols during the 90s that allowed the immediate connection between two subjects, computers, or hubs. Such instant connection related to the political aspects of the communication. The concept of cyberdemocracy accompanied such a view (Poster, 1996). However, there are issues that are not addressed. Very often, such a view leaves aside problems of the political economy i.e. aspects of the capitalist-market-oriented ways of production that also determine the ways in which we communicate today (Ess, 2015, p. 89; Broadbent and Lobet-Maris, 2015, p. 111-124). Marx described how the instruments of labour are converted from tools into machines and how such machines in capitalism have specific purposes. Machines are for producing surplus-value (Marx, 1976, p. 492-508). Technological aspects of the change are crucial in Marxs descriptions, as well as in contemporary cases. The advance of IT, and especially communicational protocols (internet protocols), is responsible for future political and economic changes. The democratic or totalitarian nature of the Internet does not emerge from political institutions or political ideas related to some institutions, but instead emerge primarily from the mainly technological aspects of the medium itself. For that reason, I will first address the issue of the technical specifications and their relation to social changes. The distributive human communication cannot carry on without this technical aspect of digital technology (for the elaboration of the process of digitalisation see for example Lev Manovichs work (2002) The Language of New Media; and for the protocological control of the network communication that is related to distributive structure of the Internet, see Alexander Galloways (2004). But materiality is also to be addressed through the understanding of the broader, abstract, de-materialised form of existence, where we are to find out that the material aspects of life in contemporary societies are not much different from the earlier periods, and that the progress of the technology is a fact of the political and economic context. In Marxist philosophy, materialism is used in in opposition to idealism that stands for the isolation of one feature of knowledge from the whole and the turning of it into something absolute, namely the power of ideas to reveal the nature of reality and enable us to control it, the power to abstract from the complexity of life and single out special aspects (Shirokov, 2009, p.37). In context of hyperconnectivity, that would mean that the change in mind is not isolated from all other features, namely material conditions of life. This chapter will rely on the dialectical materialism that does not believe in the dualism of soul and body, and does not deny the existence of the mind (Shirokov, 2009, p.35).Instead, it proposes the relation of those issues to material conditions of life. Dialectical materialism analyses the laws of evolutionary change and applies them to society as well as to nature" (Shirokov, 2009, p.17). It addition to psychical phenomena, dialectical materialism refers to social change, namely the dialectic of social change and material foundation of such change. In dialectical materialism, materialism refers to economic base of the conditions of our life, where the political economy determines to certain degree the conditions for our online lives. Here, Manuel Castells work is very insightful. Manuel Castells and communication power Manuel Castells, who started his career as a Marxist urban sociologist focused on the role of social movements in conflictive transformation of the city (2009), is a Spanish theoretician who is thought to be one of the most important sociologists of new media. Castells provided the extended overview of the network society (1996/2000). He critiques simple technological determinism presented in McLuhanite notions of autonomous technology (a reference here), which denotes a common perspective thattechnology is an autonomous and active agent of change. At the same time, Castells focuses on the social, economic, and cultural factors of contemporary change. The Castellsian view of new media technologies implies the notion of a tool for overcoming particularities of primary identities, such as religious, ethnic, territorial or national. Such notions are well elaborated in in the now classic first volume of Manuel Castells' study The Rise of the Network Society, published in 1996. Here, Castells offered the basic formula of the opposition between the Internet and its abstract, universal instrumentalism, and the Self that is particular and historically rooted (2010, p.3). The underlying mission of this opposition is a belief in liberating power of identity, without accepting the necessity of either its individualization or its capture by fundamentalism (2010, p.4). Castells introduces a notion of positive identity politics that he sees as related to, but not an outcome of, the technological tools. His project of social change starts with locating the process of revolutionary technological change in the social context in which it takes place and by which it is being shaped (2010, p.4). Castells's formula technology as a tool for empowerment is further elaborated in his study Communication Power from 2009 where he radicalizes his positive view off the power of networks, which evolved toward the mass self-communication media. Mass self-communication media, such as a video on YouTube, a blog with RSS links to a number of web sources, or a message to a massive e-mail list (Castells, 2009, p. 55), can potentially reach a global audience while simultaneously reaching the individual user who is in control of the message. The production of the message is self-generated, the definition of the potential receiver(s) is self-directed, and the retrieval of specific messages or content from the World Wide Web and electronic communication networks is self-selected (Castells, 2009, p. 55). Although Castells claims that he is skeptical about defining the content and the purpose of social change, he values the rise of mass self-communication that enhances the opportunities for change (2009, p. 8). Castells critique relies on the wider notion of progress, human rights and personal freedoms. He believe that technology will empower society and lighten democratic processes. Such view is related to the poststructuralist notion of disidentification as such a view that shaped his notion of technology as a neutral instrument, yet a tool that could however, be used for political and social change. Poststructuralism introduced an idea, which originates from Ferdinand de Saussures structural linguistic, that things and subjects do not have some essential meaning or that they do not carry any essential truths, but are instead constructed in the social context. Poststructuralism implies an empty signifier/subject on the Internet is to be constructed over and over in a context that allows different identities and different shapes. Next, I address the broader socio-economic origins of such view. Habermas and communicative action There is a sociological understanding of the public sphere related to Castellsian version of the sociality of the Internet. Jrgen Habermas developed the concept of communicative action, a sociological understanding of the public sphere and related to Castellsian version of the sociality of the Internet (Habermas, 20042006). Communicative action is a tool for overcoming the problems that emerge from instrumental action (20042006). While the instrumental action is governed by technical rules based on empirical knowledge (1971, p. 92), communicative action aims to function as symbolic interaction (1971, p. 92). Habermas writes: While the validity of technical rules and strategies depends on that of empirically true or analytically correct propositions, the validity of social norms is grounded only in the intersubjectivity of the mutual understanding of intentions and secured by the general recognition of obligations (Habermas, 1971, p. 92). In other words, although the instrumental action is oriented towards certain aims or causes, it cannot rule over social practices and relations. Only communicative action can structure the social life (Habermas, 20042006). In a more profound way the digitalisation and protocological control of the communication cannot be understood from the point of view of the material aspects of the transition, but instead from the point of view of the communal action in the public sphere. For Habermas, there exists a difference between social norms on the one hand and technical rules on the other, as if social norms are a matter of the social consensus, while technical rules are not, since they are only an outcome of instrumental reason. Thus, communicative action serves to overcome the negative sides of the instrumental action that is responsible for all of the outcomes of technologisation, calculation, and rational progress. Only communicative action can be oriented toward certain aims or causes, or what Plato criticised under the notion of techn (opposed to pistm), or what Heidegger acknowledges under the notion of technological enframing (1977). Habermasian distinction between the instrumental and the communicative action is a variant of another distinction, the distinction he made between the work and the interaction (1971, p. 91-92). With this dialectic he tried to replace Marx's fundamental categories of class struggle and ideology (1971, p. 113). However, in insisting on such distinctions, Habermas regresses Marx's vision both in his urge to replace work with the interaction, as well as in replacing the instrumental with the communicative action. This regression is structured in a twofold way. Firstly, it diminishes the role of the pure technology (structure related to the production) which is, for the point of view of the Marxian theory, the determinative element. Even for later interpreters of Marx that stressed the relative autonomy of the superstructure, the material sphere functions as determinative in the last instance (Althusser, 1971, p. 165). Secondly, Habermas overemphasises the positive and harmonious communication, a language and interaction in the public sphere that aims to surpass negative sides of instrumental action, while at the same time negating the positive force of the conflict and antagonism in the fight for the equality in the society. Marxs dialectical description of technology (1976) as a material sphere of production presents the fundamental element from which we find that both interaction and communication are inseparable. Habermas, on the other hand, transcends the material sphere and accents the political dimension as an autonomous and active dimension. However, as Benjamin concluded, the class struggle... is a fight for the crude and material things without which no refined and spiritual could exist (1968, p. 254). There is no class struggle without the material sphere. The emancipation of one social group cannot be proper emancipation without the effects in the material sphere since the real conditions of living determinate the level of social justice in a society. The concept of communicative action developed by Jrgen Habermas was conceptualised as a Marxist offshoot of Heideggerian thinking on the question concerning technology. As such, it aimed to present a different ontological understanding of technology (Stiegler, p. 10). Stiegler writes that the thesis on technics presented by Herbert Marcuse determines Habermas position on modern technics, a position that is dependent in other respects on the thematic introduced in the Frankfurt School by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, and that in turn; this position furthers a dialogue already underway during the lifetime of Walter Benjamin. Stiegler sees Habermas as an opponent to Marcuse since he takes the positive attitude towards modern technology. There are numerous other examples of similar positive attitudes toward technology, especially in new media technology, described through the concept of communication action. The most interesting of these is the Marxian critique of new media technology that is structured around the opposition between good communicative action, and evil dogmatism of the instrumental action. The result of suchundermining of the material sphere is the critique of technology. Thus, it is necessary to elaborate on the notions that are fundamental for the critique of the political economy, and for historical materialism as a specific point of view that interprets the history with a special focus on technology. In relation to other approaches to technology and its role in society, historical materialism presents a rare interest in technology (Dusek, 2006). Historical materialism is the method and historical analysis developed by Karl Marx that demonstrates how society, economics, and history are determined by forces of production. Every historical period relies on a specific mode of production, means of that production, specialised machinery, and specific technologies that are used to produce goods and services. Historical materialism sees technologies as a material base of the progress which is then followed by the superstructure; the political, economic, and cultural forces in society. On a more abstract scale, historical materialism is a understadning on the history of mankind as determined by material conditions of life that are class conditions (food supplies, clothing, housing conditions, transport, etc). Nevertheless, contemporary media studies usually undermine the material base, meaning the means of production, stressing that the superstructural elements, as it was the case illustrated here, focuses on communicative action. Hardt and Negri: Empire Empire (Hardt & Negri, 2000) is one of the most important studies in political philosophy that elaborates some crucial aspects of the post-industrial societies. However, this study shows inconsistencies on the matter of the materialistic understanding of history that functions as its blueprint. At the same time, it introduces an important theme of materialistic concerns: the copyright issue that is among a few of the most interesting themes of the historical materialism we see today. As a matter of fact, Hardt and Negri announced that they will overcome the out-dated Habermasian notion of the communicative action since it cannot describe biopolitical aspects of the new age, the informational colonization of being (2000, p. 34). The source of imperial normativity is born of a new machine, a new economic-industrial-communicative machine (2000. p. 40) - globalised biopolitical machine. They note that analyses of biopolitical processes of social construction rely on the communication action, that they presented it almost exclusively on the horizon of language and communication (2000, p. 29). However, they themselves rely on the Foucaults theory of biopower, only objecting that today's horizon did not take into account the body and corporeality. They do not see the detachment from the matters of the material life (materialistic conditions of life that determine the consciousness of the subject) as the main problem with the concept of communicative action but instead they focus on the fact that there is no more opportunity to step outside the system and establish communicative action. As a longer elaboration of basic postulates of Gilles Deleuzes 1990 essay Postscriptum sur les socits de contrle, in which Deleuze detected the end of disciplinary societies that Foucault located in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries with their height at the outset of the twentieth which demonstrated the disciplinary control of Panopticon model (Deleuze, 1990) they focused on the emergence of the societies of control where the power does not rely on the surveillance of the physical spaces, instead being established through the modular spaces in constant change. Refering to Foucault, especially his later work on biopower as a form of power that regulates social life from its interior, following it, interpreting it, absorbing it, and rearticulating it (2000, p. 23). the production and reproduction of life itself (2000, p. 23), they follow Foucaults almost religious attachment to power. Foucault says Life has now become . . . an object of power (2000, p. 24).Hard and Negri follow such a postulation to its ultimate consequence. In their understanding of the contemporary life as controlled production and reproduction of life, they see power to beexpressed as a control that extends throughout the depths of the consciousness and bodies of the population (2000, p. 24). They include another important element which is of the crucial concern for the here proposed analyses of the technology as determined by its material conditions the description of the political constitution of the apparatus that comes in specific juridical form. TPublished only two years after Alain Badious Ethics (published in France, in 1998) that strives to achieve something quite similar, they describe the inconsistencies of the universalism of the ethics that rely on the differences and human rights, tThey show many similarities between those studies, although there are no direct references in Hardt and Negris Empire on the previously published Badious book. The relation between moral interventionism and imperialism is among those similarities. Moral intervention has become a frontline force of imperial intervention (Hardt & Negri, 2000, p. 36). NGOss such as Amnesty International, Oxfam, and Mdecins sans Frontires are focused on the symbolic production of the Enemy (2000, p. 36). Jus ad bellum (the right to war) presents one of the key shifts in political philosophy. In order to intervene, military actions must gain social consensus that is manufactured in the public sphere. The imperative of the moral discreditation of the enemy is the element in the war against piracy. It is not only relevant to wage the legal battle against those that are sorted as the economic parasite, but corporations must legitimise the battle as an ethically righteous war. The intention is clearly visible in the legal actions against pirates, as mentioned above, the SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA cases, but also in the advertisements. There are also semantical battles around the terminology, such as in the case of the term hacker (term that used to stand for the skilful programmer, today implies the morally corrupted technician or at least somebody that does some unaccepted, although technically skilled, things). A central concept in their work is multitude. Multitude is the central term that subsumes all three elements of Hardt and Negris Empire elaborated on above: the changes that lead to the societies of control, biopower, and the jus ad bellum. It must be noted that Hardt and Negri insisted on the description of the new technological paradigm as a field of antagonism. They describe such conflict as the outcome of two oppositional forces. On the one hand there is multitude, on the other, the Empire. The problem emerges from the purely binary relationship between the two: From the ontological perspective, imperial command is purely negative and passive (2000, p. 361), the parasite (2000, p. 359361) while the multitude only presents the positive, active, nomadic power, and virtual powers (2000, p. 361). Hardt and Negri write: The ontological fabric of Empire is constructed by the activity beyond measure of the multitude and its virtual powers. These virtual, constituent powers conflict endlessly with the constituted power of Empire. They are completely positive since their being-against is a being-for, in other words, a resistance that becomes love and community (Hardt & Negri, 2000, p.361). It The final evaluation of the new ethics of the multitude does not come as a surprise:Nomadism and miscegenation appear here as figures of virtue, as the first ethical practices on the terrain of Empire (2000, p. 362). Material aspect However, the matter brings unpleasant questions. Can we say that this moral issue is applicable to the copyright or contemporary piracy that threatens the copyright? Is it not the multitude, precisely the one instance that from the point of view of the neoliberal economy, parasitises the products of the cultural industries, stealing copyrighted products? Here, we are not dealing with the creative practices such as cut-up, bricolage, patchworks or other practices of the creative multitude, but the literal appropriations of the products of cultural, and other, industries that are continually taking place with the help of the (torrent) technology. Is it not exactly the other way around? With the negative power of the appropriation at work here, and not the positive and creative power of the multitude? Today, revolutionary force is precisely the oppositional force of destruction. The truly negative forces of the material base of the decentralised protocols (TCP/IT protocol) allow the copyright infringement, while the positive signifiers of the superstructure are reactionary. The war that is taking place includes all actors, on both sides now, the Empire and the multitude; they all participate, but in an ambiguous way, constantly change their strategies and tactics, forever changing sides and crossing borders. There are two major problems with common afirmative approach to Multitude. The first is non-conflict vision which starts from positive signifiers and relates this study to the Habermasian understanding of the positive values of the communicative action. The second is the non-dialectical explanation of the fight between the Empire and the multitude. Conflict is depicted as static opposition between positive and negative forces where the multitude is ultimately positive with exclusively positive ethical values. Also, the conflict is depicted around the creative energy of the multitude. The understanding of the materiality is problematic. While on the matter of the human body materiality is invoked as something positive, the technological paradigm is described without the addressing the material technology that stands behind the positive values of the multitude. While on the one hand (on the Foucaultian side), materialism is valued as a positive thing, on the other (on the side of the historical understanding of the materialism), the one of the historical materialism, it is discarded. From the point of view of dialectical materialism, the notion of power functions as deterministic force, and at the same time it tends to limit the argumentation to only the superstructural elements, neglecting the material base of the power. Besides, the real description of the technological paradigm neglects the material aspects of technologies. Following late Foucaultian interpretation of materialism is not appropriate for a focus on the materiality of the material base, concrete technologies, protocols, technological rules, codes, and algorithms in short, the understanding of technological paradigm as material forces. Foucaultian understanding of the term technology does not leave the space for the elaboration from the point of view of the historical materialism, or the materialistic understanding of the technology and history. It can be related to Deleuze and Guattaris concept of machinic assemblage the abstract Machine, or abstract Machines as they construct the body or draw the plain of diagram what occurs in the lines of deterritorializations (1987, p. 7). It can even be related to Latourian actor-network, that has little to do with networks in the engineer's sense, and lack all the characteristics of a technical network (2005, p. 44). However, Foucauldian meaning of the word technology remained closely related the Greek word tekhn, and Latin word ars, both referring to  craft , or a  technique . Word technique still preserves such ancient meaning, specially in expressions such as  technique of running or  technique of painting , or in Foucault's sense the technique of self-analyses. The current understanding of technology arose in modern era, it dates to second half of 19th century, days of industrial revolution, and it refers to application of science to production, in the form of engineering and the design of industrial systems (Morphie/Potts, 2003, p. 4). Using the term in pre-industrial meaning relating the term to the meaning it had in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, we easily end up with description and classification of the technologies of the Self, ways "in which people organise their lives", "the techniques they apply to themselves, to their attitudes, their bodies and their psyche (Rehmann, 2013, p. 302) as form of understanding technology. Such non-material materialism replaces interest in the material base with the interest in the materiality of the individual politics on the level of the (private) body. By focusing on the non-material aspect of the technology as a specific technique, the Foucaultian notion of technology is more appropriate for explaining the personal usage of technology and not its political and economic aspect. Such usage can be related to ones body as a material aspect of the personal mental occupation. Historical materialism stressed the fact that our consciousness is formed by material aspects of our life, material conditions for our survival. However, the later understandings of materialism regressed to identity politics related to ones body, a body, which plays the role of the political subject. I Marxs notion of the body (as machine that capitalism aims to reproduce only as it provides it with the work, as only commodity that can produce surplus value) is supplemented with the materiality of the individual body with its individuality as a force for individual growth. This circumvention of the concrete technology erases the reason for the critique of the political economy. It is clearly visible in Hardt and Negris critique of the general intellect. Although they noticed that new forces of production carry something of the Marxs description of the general intellect, they removed the general intellect as it neglects new powers of labour to be purely corporeal, and not only intellectual (2000, p.364). Although it seems that Hardt and Negri push toward more material materialism, they actually stress the corporeal dimension of the individual body, which signalises different understandings of the materiality, besides technological materiality. Although stressing the intellect and the body of the submissive classes, they circumvent the Marxs understanding of the material conditions of life, replacing it with the individual perspective of each body as fragmented element of the society. Methodological approaches that Hardt and Negri follow are already co-opted as todays fundamental postulates of the Empire - specially constructive and ethico-political approach seeking to lead the processes of the production of subjectivity toward the constitution of an effective social, political alternative, a new constituent power (Hardt & Negri, 2000, p. 47, authors added emphasis). Our understanding of the parasite and parasitism should be inversed. If there is one positive thing in the Multitude, then it would be the parasitism (in a Michel Serress notion of the term, 1982). As already mentioned by Hardt and Negri, Empire is a parasite that draws its vitality from the multitudes capacity to create ever new sources of energy and value (2000, p. 361). On the other hand, they believe that the multitude is authentic and self-sufficient. The parasitic power is the power of the appropriation of the creative values, the surplus value is produced exactly through the process of such appropriation. However, who can argue that there are no authentic values within the Empire? Who can take the role of an arbiter between positive values of the multitude and negative, vampiric expropriators, if we are not to make judgements on the grounds of the only valuable division between the class that is producing value, and the class that is extrapolating the surplus? Sometimes it is exactly the other way around. The multitude is extracting the creative values from the Empires production/ The only difference is in the status of the surplus. While the pirate culture is interested in the used value, the corporative culture is interested in the exchange value. Exactly such parasitism, although negative or exactly because of its negativity, produces a conflict deep enough to challenge capitalist modes of production. It is not only the positive value, but a dialectical one, since the same conditions produce both revolutionary alternative cultures that want to be left out from the rules of the market economy (pirate cultures, share-a-like models, etc.) and emergent modes of production that no longer rely on the physical products but on the prosumer modes on production (producers are at the same time consumers of the products). In both cases, the outcome is the modification of the conditions of the production and the reproduction of the life in capitalism. In the first case such questioning would be revolutionary. In the second case, critique of the surplus would trigger revolutionarisation of the surplus and strengthening of the capitalist mode of production (since now production of the surplus partially no longer depends on the paid labour, and it does not need to produce a physical product). Marx described such moments in the history of the production forces as potentially revolutionary, since they can bring the end to the capitalist mode of production (Marx, 1971, p. 690-712). If such radical outcomes can emerge from the progress of the forces of production, and if such a moment is actualised, perhaps we can rephrase the well-known saying about the end of capitalism. It is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism (the sentence is usually ascribed to Jameson) because such end is imagined in the terms of multitude, love, creativity, communication, tolerance, and not in the terms of conflict and antagonism. The idea of parasitism should be accompanied with the idea of antagonism, closely described by Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe in their Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. They write on the points of divergence and the central role of the notion of antagonism that forecloses any possibility of a final reconciliation, of any kind of rational consensus, of a fully inclusive 'we'. Conflicts and divisions are neither disturbances that unfortunately cannot be eliminated nor empirical impediments that render impossible the full realization of a harmony that we cannot attain because we will never be able to leave our particularities completely aside in order to act in accordance with our rational self (Laclaue & Mouffe, 1985, p. xvii) Empire successfully presented the positive and negative values of the multitude and transformed them in order to produce the surplus. Even the emblems such as piracy are co-opted into the new ways of the production. Sharing data for low prices, like Apples ITunes, presents the distortion of the original idea of sharing and radical distributivity. Open access is now closed with the low price (that always can be raised) and makes a redefinition of the material base. The only approach that cannot be appropriated in any form is the imperative of the production without the surplus. Although the production in capitalism can carry on without immediate surplus (profit do not necessarily need to be pocketed by the owner of the company or by shareholders), surplus can be invested in new technologies, or even into the labour force. Such production cannot be limited to labour time necessarily, which is production without extra-value. The materialist point of view lightens the fact that in the contemporary world one cannot praise the nomadism as any form of positive power of circulation, postmodern circulation (2000, p. 363). Domination of cultural aspects over the economical aspect calls for materialistic interpretation of the influence of the technology over the contemporary society. The material aspect of the technology should be exempted from the non-material materialism - that focuses on the individual politics on the level of the individual body. Instead of the self-oriented usage of the specific technology the materialistic aspect provides us with the economic aspect of the technological influence. Such aspects focus on the relationship between the economic sphere and the political sphere in capitalism and derivate the role of the technology in contemporary society not from its positive cultural and ethnological aspect of the usage, but from the negative, antagonistic aspect that could bring the end to the existing relations in production. Marx shows that in capitalist market societies, human ends and human flourishing are systematically subordinated to the end, the good, and the flourishing of capital (Smith, p. xii). Since the goal-determining activity of capital can only be that of growing wealthier, i.e. of magnification, of increasing itself (Lebowitz, p. 206), capital is for Marx like the vampire. Workers and nature are capitals diposable products, since those are two living forces that are capable of producing value. Materialistic aspects shine new light on the human-machine relationship, but also exposes the broader perspective of the role of technology in the global relations of the geo-political power. In global capitalism, the neomercantilism function as a new form of mercantilism national economic policy that is designed to maximise the exports of nation since it focuses on the rapid economic growth based on advanced technologies. Contemporary immigration flows as a result of inequalities between the Third and the First World, imbalances that force the poor to change their residence could be a case for the flow of national legal systems to be strengthened with information technology tools (Pagallo, 2015, p.161). But without understanding that such imbalance has its material causes the problem cannot be solved. Those imbalances between center and periphery come as a result of uneven development that cannot be challenged without some form of effective technology transfer between wealthier regions underdeveloped regions, as we must see that technology as a major weapon in inter-capital competition (Smith, p. 158). Conclusion To conclude, this paper focuses on the contextualization of the question proposed in The Onlife Manifesto; the impact that ICTs are having on human life. The paper examines the material aspects of such influence, mainly the material aspect of the technological change, but also the material conditions of life under late capitalism that determines the uses of technology (namely the copyright issue). This paper elaborates on the concept of the communicative action, the views and attitudes on social values of the communication over the new media platforms, also present in a specific form in The Online Manifesto, especially in the notions of the importance of the communication, and notions of the flexibility of the subject. Such notion is grounded in the works of Manuel Castells, Jrgen Habermas, Michael Hardt, and Antonio Negri. Here such view is contested with the work of Alain Badiou, primarily his notion of ethnicity that circumvents the problems of the communicative action (such as culturalisation of politics). Castells's work demonstrated the problems with the positive notion of the technology as a tool for political empowerment. Such a view originated in Habermasian distinction between the instrumental and the communicative action that paper problematised as such views reject the material conditions of the technology (forces of production) in replace Marx's fundamental categories of the class struggle. Through distinction between the work and the interaction Habermas inaugurated the weak Marxian theory of communication. Finally, the paper finds its motivation in Hardt and Negris work. Their most prominent study, Empire, described how biopolitical processes of the social construction rely strongly on the communication action. Far from negating the influence of the communicative action on concrete individuals and systems, the paper demonstrated how such dedication to power and forms of power that various symbolical authorities force on the people (from Foucault to Hardt and Negri) circumvents the historical and dialectical materialism, and reinstalls the binarism of good multitude and bad Empire. The indisputable status of the multitude is grounded in the Utopian vision of the processes in the realm of the superstructure, while Hardt and Negri are reluctant to approach the formal and real subsumption of capital. This proves the thesis proposed in the introduction. The positive or negative sides of technological progress cannot be understood without the insight into the material forces of production. Thus, Habermasian problems related to the public sphere are not resolved with his proposition of the institution of the communication action. The abandoning of the dialectical method and materialistic interpretation of the history, introduced in Habermas, finally led Hardt and Negri to misconceptions and profanities of multitude. References Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes towards an Investigation). In: Lenin and Philosophy, New York & London: Monthly Review Press, pp. 127194. Benjamin, W. (1968). Theses on the Philosophy of History, In: Illuminations, New York: Schocken Books, pp. 253264. Broadbent, S., & Lobet-Maris, C. (2015). Towards a Grey Ecology. InFloridi, L. (Ed.), The Onlife Manifesto(pp. 111-124). Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London: Springer International Publishing. Castells, M. (2009). Communication Power, New York: Oxford University Press. Castells, M. (1996/2000). The Rise of the Network Society, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Ess, C. (2009). The Onlife Manifesto: Philosophical Backgrounds, Media Usages, and the Futures of Democracy and Equality, In Floridi, L. (Ed.), The Onlife Manifesto (pp. 89-109). Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London: Springer International Publishing. Deleuze, G. (1990/2003). Postscriptum sur les socits de contrle, In: Pourpalers, 19721990, Les ditions de Minuit, pp. 216223. http://www.lesediti-onsdeminuit.fr/ Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (1987). A Thousand Plateaus. Capitalism and Schizophrenia, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis & London. Dusek, V. (2006). Philosophy of technology. An Introduction, Oxfort UK: Blackwell Publishing. Floridi, L. (2015). Commentary on The Onlife Manifesto. In Floridi, L. (Ed.), The Onlife Manifesto: Being human in a hyperconnected era. Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London: Springer International Publishing. Floridi, L. (2015). Introduction, In Floridi, L. (Ed.), The Onlife Manifesto: Being human in a hyperconnected era. Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London: Springer International Publishing, pp. 1-7. Galloway, A. R. (2004). Protocol: How Control Exists after Decentralization, Leonardo Books. Habermas, J. (1971). Technology and Science as Ideology, In Toward a Rational Society. London: Heinemann Educational Books, pp. 81123. Habermas, J. (20042006). The Theory of Communicative Action 12, Cambridge: Polity Press. Hansen, M. B. N. (2004). New Philosophy for New Media, The MIT Press. Hardt, M. & Negri A. (2000). Empire, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Heidegger, M. (1977). The Question Concerning Technology. In Basic Writings from Being and Time (1927) to The Task of Thinking (1964), New York, Hagerstown, San Francisco. London: Harper & Row Publishers, pp. 287-317. Kurzweil, R. (2005). The Singularity is Near, Viking. Laclau, E. & C. Mouffe (1985). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Towards a Radical Democratic Politics, sec. ed. London/New York: Verso. Latour, B. (2005). An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford & New York. Lebowitz, M. A. (2015). The Socialist Imperative. From Gotha to Now. New York: Monthly Review Press Marx, K. (1976). Capital. A Critique of Political Economy. Volume 1, New York: Penguin Books. Marx, K. (1971). Grundrisse, ed. and trans. By David McLellan. New York, Hagerstown, San Francisco, London: Harper & Row, Publishers. McSherry, C. (2011). Disastrous IP Legislation is Back And Its Worse than Ever, October 26, In Electronic Frontier Foundation,  HYPERLINK "https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/10/disastrous-ip-legislation-back-"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/10/disastrous-ip-legislation-back--and-its-worse-ever Manovich, L. (2002). The Language of New Media, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Murphie, A.& J. Pots (2003). Culture and Technology, Palgrave Macmillan. Poster, M. (1996). CyberDemocracy: Internet and the Public Sphere, ed. David Porter. In Internet Culture, New York: Routledge. Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, New York: Vintage Books.Rehmann, J. (2013). Theories of Ideology. The Powers of Alienation and Subjection, Leiden/Boston, Brill. Serres, M. (1982). The Parasite, The Johns Hopkins University Press. Simon, J. (2009). Distributed Epistemic: Responsibility in a Hyperconntected Era, In Floridi, L. (Ed.), The Onlife Manifesto: Being human in a hyperconnected era. Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London: Springer International Publishing, pp. 145-160. Shirokov, M. (2009). Textbook of Marxist Philosophy, prepared by Leningrad Institut of Philosophy, London: Camelot Press; Marxists Internet Archive.  HYPERLINK "https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/subject/left-book-club/1937/textbook/index.htm"https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/subject/left-book-club/1937/textbook/index.htm Smith, T. (2017). Beyond Liberal Egalitarianism. Marx and Normative Social Theory in the Twenty-First Century, Boston: Brill Leiden Stiegler, B. (1998). Technics and Time. The Fault of Epimetheus, 1, Stanford University Press. Tan, L. (2010). The Pirate Bay. Countervailing power and the problem of state organized crime, In CTheory,  HYPERLINK "http://ctheory.net/the-pirate-bay-countervailing-power-and-the-"http://ctheory.net/the-pirate-bay-countervailing-power-and-the- HYPERLINK "http://ctheory.net/the-pirate-bay-countervailing-power-and-the-problem-of-state-organized-crime/"problem-of-state-organized-crime HYPERLINK "http://ctheory.net/the-pirate-bay-countervailing-power-and-the-problem-of-state-organized-crime/"/ Tuman, M. (1992). Word Perfect: Literacy in the Computer Age, Pittsburg: Pittsburg University Press. vX j Zdұn[L>:&'h|hZ[+5CJOJQJaJnHtHhZ[+hZ[+CJOJQJ^JaJhZ[+5CJOJQJ^JaJ$h9hZ[+CJOJQJaJnHtH'h9hZ[+5CJOJQJaJnHtH,h9hZ[+CJOJQJaJmH nHsH tH/h9hZ[+5CJOJQJaJmH nHsH tH@h9hZ[+5B*CJ OJPJQJ^JaJ mH nHphsH tHh9h9nHtH!hZ[+5CJ OJQJaJnHtH!h55CJ OJQJaJnHtH vX j Zw-t[$d*$5$7$`a$ $d*$5$7$a$ Z8$H$`gd|F$d*$5$7$8$H$a$gd9Y8$H$gd9X8$H$gd9W8$H$gd9V8$H$gd9gd9 U8$H$gd9vw()uv ! !!! %!%E%Y%&& ''))8+9+P+//1166%9&9;;Q>S>1?2?@BgDhDDϭϭ0h9hZ[+CJOJQJ^JaJmH nHsH tH"hZ[+OJQJ^JmH nHsH tH'h|hZ[+5CJOJQJaJnHtHhZ[+CJOJQJ^JaJhZ[+-hZ[+6CJOJQJ^JaJmH nHsH tH*hZ[+CJOJQJ^JaJmH nHsH tH3()v !!%&)9+P+/16&9;2?hDD$G=K=ORReUV Z8$H$`gd|$d*$5$7$`a$ $d*$5$7$a$F[D#G$G8HWHmrs $4[!TUTUh̵̾̾̾̾̾̾̾ jhZ[+UmHnHuhhymHnHuhYhymHnHuh HhymHnHuhymHnHuhyhZ[+6mHnHuh|hZ[+mHnHu jhZ[+UmHnHuhZ[+mHnHujhZ[+UmHnHu2V:8M$\gd|9:J3534567Ju$dܽܬܛܙ܋}u}u}u}u}jh4Uh4 hZ[+0J!hZ[+jhZ[+0JOJQJUU jhZ[+UmHnHu jQhZ[+UmHnHu j`hZ[+UmHnHujhZ[+UmHnHuhZ[+mHnHuhyhZ[+6mHnHuh|hZ[+mHnHu.}i~ek, S. (2009). First as Tragedy, Then as Farce, London/New York: Verso.  Habermas did detect major processes in contemporary capitalism, such as  sicentifisation of politics or new zones of class fight. Conversely, he did not manage to circumvent the Marx's fundamental discovery of the nature of the progress in the capitalism that is driven by the imperative of surplus value, i. e. the class fight. Habermas believes that public sphere is a sphere where conflicts can be resolved, and later, conclusions of public debates can be implemented on the matter of material forces of production i.e. technology.     20pf1. A!0 "i # $ % DyK yK https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/10/disastrous-ip-legislation-back-cDyK yK https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/subject/left-book-club/1937/textbook/index.htmDyK yK http://ctheory.net/the-pirate-bay-countervailing-power-and-the-3DyK yK http://ctheory.net/the-pirate-bay-countervailing-power-and-the-problem-of-state-organized-crime/3DyK yK http://ctheory.net/the-pirate-bay-countervailing-power-and-the-problem-of-state-organized-crime/*]~666666666vvvvvvvvv66666686666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666p66666666662&6FVfv2(&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv8XV~ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@66_HmH nH sH tH @`@ Normal *$9D_HmH sH tH X "X  Heading 1$$ & F*$1$@&_HmH sH tH \ "\  Heading 2 $$ & Fx*$1$@&_HmH sH tH DA D Default Paragraph FontViV 0 Table Normal :V 44 la (k ( 0No List */* WW8Num1z0*/* WW8Num1z1*/* WW8Num1z2*/!* WW8Num1z3*/1* WW8Num1z4*/A* WW8Num1z5*/Q* WW8Num1z6*/a* WW8Num1z7*/q* WW8Num1z8DA D Default Paragraph FontJ/J WW-Default Paragraph FontL/L WW-Default Paragraph Font1N/N WW-Default Paragraph Font11D/D Comment Reference1CJaJB/B Footnote CharactersH*P/P WW-Default Paragraph Font1116o6 Znakovi fusnote.X . Emphasis6]@o@ footnote referenceH*8/!8 Endnote SymbolH*N/1N WW-Znakovi zavrane biljeakeH/AH annotation referenceCJaJB/QB Comment Text CharCJaJ@/a@ Comment Subject Char:/q: Balloon Text Char:/: Footnote anchorH*8/8 Endnote anchorH*6/6 Grafi ke oznake6/6 ListLabel 1PJ^J2/2 ListLabel 2^J2/2 ListLabel 3^J2/2 ListLabel 4^J@& @ Footnote ReferenceH*L/L Znakovi zavrane biljeakeH*P/P WW-Znakovi zavrane biljeake1f/!f %Znakovi ozna avanja zavranih biljeakiH*4/14 ListLabel 24^J*U A* Hyperlink2/Q2 Internet Link*W a* Strong5\B' qB Comment ReferenceCJaJ</< Comment Text Char1B/B Comment Subject Char1F/F WW-Footnote ReferenceH*D/D WW-Endnote ReferenceH*HoH WW-Footnote Reference1H*l/l (WW-Znakovi ozna avanja zavranih biljeakiH*>* > Endnote ReferenceH*@& @ Footnote ReferenceH*>* > Endnote ReferenceH*@a"@ Stil naslova Ax$<B"< Body TextBd (/q2( ListC^J6"B6 Caption Dxx $0aR0 IndeksE $^J@ob@ StandardF*$_HmH sH tH <ar< Text bodyGd 6"6 Caption Hxx $<< WW-Caption Ixx $>> WW-Caption1 Jxx $6a6 caption Kxx $@a@ WW-Caption11 Lxx $<Oa< FootnoteM^S]` $BaB annotation textNCJaJ@@ annotation subjectO4a4 Balloon TextP** p1 Q1$*$9D6"6 Footnote TextR@2@ Comment TextS CJ^JaJ@j12@ Comment SubjectT5\POP  1Udh$ 7$5$$$8O8 p1aV$d*$5$7$a$<O< authorWd7$5$ROR affiliation"Xd7$5$^]`xJOJ abstractY$d*$5$7$a$NObN heading1$Zd$ 7$5$X@$FOF quotation[^]`xxm$tOt | references-\$d*$5$7$8$H$^`a$CJOJQJmH sH tHPK!pO[Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢]yl#!MB;.n̨̽\A1&ҫ QWKvUbOX#&1`RT9<l#$>r `С-;c=1g3=KjK爉ŬʉaqHwo?x}>6!N J?6v?w_Z3tç$y/,YVϲYLcDt~q"9⧣E"g 36AxgKA,ƉwV=&D-䧘a"FEG<+)/騳2YfEA5i5r{F2rhnz*kU̘aby&Z4MtoKnwu[K@Y5Fm3AM2ޕaŨ; uۭ=: ުv|TV_>%^/*!C!=I.pŭG2#=u{A*?xMVfȯ׆h,"N~e /w$wmBTRUzcn5fwЪtq:nT=q k:V=*^&whv3om <"^PK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-!pO[Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 -_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!Atheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] R' D&qsuwyz{}~V QVrtvx|=ecXXXXX8@0(  < C  4:DJKRGMRZ N V " , $&  ((**++N-]---..//0 0L0R033D4R435?577778899=&===(>3>=BGB&G7GII,J7JiJqJJJK"KSL[LM+MMMqNyNNNNNOOQ%QQQQQQQ R)R2R=RSSUUUUWW>ZFZKZYZsZZ[ [[[h[p[ \\\\\\~^^7`<`Ra]abbAcDccc*d/d4d9dJdOdRdWdAfFfKfPfwffffffgggggghhjjjjjkkkkkklll mm{nn.o9oppppqq rrrrArIrrrrsssAsIsOsYsttIuSuvvwwww xxAxFxKxPxgzlzqzvz{{{{L|^|} ~GQ΂ق'؇ΉՉډNJЊƋ׋ڋȍύЎ؎GN@EJQ-3~ș͙ҙי (;ϡա5? ""( AGֹ̹`kƺ P\ǿҿ /33 8;h; &P^`P@^@`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`4Z[+4;5q4|9y@  XQR]88@8Z8@880@8Unknown G*Ax Times New Roman5Symbol3 *Cx Arial3Times? *Cx Courier NewiLiberation SerifTimes New RomanY FreeSansTimes New Roman5MangalA$BCambria Math" hs's'm <  0J#q P0$Pq4!xxع( KTPKathrin Otrel-Cass  Oh+'0x  ( 4 @ LX`hp'KTP Normal.dotmKathrin Otrel-Cass3Microsoft Macintosh Word@@@ k@̎m < ՜.+,D՜.+, `hpx  '  Title P _PID_HLINKS AppVersion DocSecurityHyperlinksChangedLinksUpToDate ScaleCrop ShareDoc'AM ahttp://ctheory.net/the-pirate-bay-countervailing-power-and-the-problem-of-state-organized-crime/M ahttp://ctheory.net/the-pirate-bay-countervailing-power-and-the-problem-of-state-organized-crime/B>@http://ctheory.net/the-pirate-bay-countervailing-power-and-the- yhttps://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/subject/left-book-club/1937/textbook/index.htm+Fhttps://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/10/disastrous-ip-legislation-back-15.0000   !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry FծData 1Table>WordDocument4SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjr  F Microsoft Word 97-2004 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q