http://www.e-flux.com/journal/view/232Hans Ulrich ObristIn Conversation with Julian Assange, Part IJA: "Censorship is not only a helpful economic signal; it is always an opportunity, because it reveals a fear of reform. And if an organization is expressing a fear of reform, it is also expressing the fact that it can be reformed.""In places where speech is free, and wherecensorship does not exist or is not obvious, the society is so sewn up — so depoliticized, so fiscalized in its basic power relationships — that it doesn’t matter what you say. And it doesn’t matter what information is published. It’s not going to change who owns what or who controls what. "Forwarded conversation Subject: <nettime> free speech and financialisation ------------------------ From: *nettime's avid reader* <[email protected]> Date: Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:21 PM To: [email protected] http://www.e-flux.com/journal/**view/232<http://www.e-flux.com/journal/view/232> <....> JA: Censorship is not only a helpful economic signal; it is always an opportunity, because it reveals a fear of reform. And if an organization is expressing a fear of reform, it is also expressing the fact that it can be reformed. So, when you see the Chinese government engaging in all sorts of economic work to suppress information passing in and out of China on the internet, the Chinese government is also expressing a belief that it can be reformed by information flows, which is hopeful but easily understandable because China is still a political society. It is not yet a fiscalized society in the way that the United States is for example. The basic power relationships of the United States and other Western countries are described by formal fiscal relationships, for example one organization has a contract with another organization, or it has a bank account, or is engaged in a hedge. Those relationships cannot be changed by moderate political shifts. The shift needs to be large enough to turn contracts into paper, or change money flows. HUO: And that’s why you mentioned when we last spoke that you’re optimistic about China? JA: Correct, and optimistic about any organization, or any country, that engages in censorship. We see now that the US State Department is trying to censor us. We can also look at it in the following way. The birds and the bees, and other things that can’t actually change human power relationships, are free. They’re left unmolested by human beings because they don’t matter. In places where speech is free, and where censorship does not exist or is not obvious, the society is so sewn up — so depoliticized, so fiscalized in its basic power relationships — that it doesn’t matter what you say. And it doesn’t matter what information is published. It’s not going to change who owns what or who controls what. And the power structure of a society is by definition its control structure. So in the United States, because of the extraordinary fiscalization of relationships in that country, it matters little who wins office. You’re not going to suddenly empty a powerful individual’s bank account. Their money will stay there. Their stockholdings are going to stay there, bar a revolution strong enough to void contracts. <....> # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/**listinfo/nettime-l<http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l> # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected] ---------- From: *John Young* <[email protected]> Date: Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 6:02 PM To: [email protected] "Free speech" has come to mean to protect your wallet for that enterpise has been "financialized" by media, academia and NGOs -- and whistleblowers, not to overlook documentary makers and once honorable alt media. Assange is a courageous and creative person, don't smirk at the journo-formulaic cheap shot, but from the beginning he has put fund-raising first on the WL agenda, exaggerated WL uniqueness, overstated (with coy understatement) its influence, and misrepresents WL's inept security. My early critique of those fatal flaws is still valid. Although Julian now has a PR team of ghostwriters, bloggers and quasi-intellects (authorized spokespeople WL brays) providing material to advance the crypto-free-speech brand he set out to establish with the carny-corny-copyist Wiki + Leaks. The e-flux pieces are epitomes of that lucre-driven genre of unctuous fancy branding. The cliche of artist interlocutors stroking one another with sappy artworks and puff-ball questions for masterful ghost-scripted pontificating by Julian is pure NYC world capitals of capitalism stagecrafting of how commerce undergirds the high-branded, prize-winning! culture for consumption by blockbuster addicts. Zizekism fits the bill. ---------- From: ** <[email protected]> Date: Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 9:05 PM To: [email protected] As one of those cliched artist interlocutors you do not bother to name, i would like to observe, john, that your own linguistically painful post seems to exist merely to make you feel better about something or other. Are you more upset by Julian Assange, by documentary makers and once honorable alt media,

or perhaps zizek, or or or stagecrafting

or yours, martha rosler <...>