[bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br

[parminder]

On Wednesday 03 December 2014 10:40 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> Can I introduce some rationality to this discussion?
>

What would we do without Prof Milton Mueller! Please do lead and direct 
us! More seriously, just stop being arrogant. It is simply annoying.

Now to the content of your email. But before that, I thank and 
congratulate you for fully and clearly responding to the 'Internet is 
neo-liberal' issue when I specifically asked you this question, which I 
agree is something you will in any case normally do.

> First, neo-liberalism is not per se a “vile label” unless you think 
> liberalism is vile, in which case you need to explain to me why you 
> think freedom of thought, expression, association, choice, popular 
> sovereignty and free trade are vile, all of which are the key features 
> of liberalism as an ideology or movement.
>

  Since there is a direct question, nay challenge, let me respond fully. 
Please be so good as to see IT for Change's latest annual report 
<http://www.itforchange.net/ITfC_Annual_Report_2013-14/index.php/Main_Page> 
. At least read the covering statement as the director's report 
<http://www.itforchange.net/ITfC_Annual_Report_2013-14/index.php/Main_Page> 
.
Do we look like we have to defend or justify ourselves with regard to 
freedom of expression, association, choice, popular sovereignty and so 
on. There are specific deep works here with regard to each of them. Yes, 
each one of these ideals that you speak of.  Just to toneake  example, 
we developed a full, new theoretical framework of how digital 
capabilities can enhance informational power, communicative power and 
associational power (our theoretical formulations) of marginalised 
women, especially in terms of their political environments. And this 
framework was worked  and validated through action research in three 
countries over three continents. And that was just one example.

Now, about why would we still rally against neoliberalism, which if the 
above is true you kind of find schizophrenic? Because it is not just us 
but I claim that the majority of 'global' civil society actors today 
both work for these values and rally against neoliberalism. You sure 
know that the World Social Forum was born with anti- neoliberalism as 
its rallying cry. If you dont, see for instance this - 
http://www.wsfindia.org/ , and I quote its very first sentence

"*The World Social Forum is not an organisation,not a united front 
platform, but "…an open meeting place for reflective thinking, 
democratic debate of ideas, formulation of proposals, free exchange of 
experiences and inter-linking for effective action, by groups and 
movements of civil society that are opposed to neo- liberalism and to 
domination of the world by capital and any form of imperialism, and are 
committed to building a society centred on the human person".*

The wikipedia entry on World Social Forum describes it thus

"The World Social Forum prefers to define itself as "an opened space – 
plural, diverse, non-governmental and non-partisan – that stimulates the 
decentralized debate, reflection, proposals building, experiences 
exchange and alliances among movements and organizations engaged in 
concrete actions towards a more solidarity, democratic and fair 
world....a permanent space and process to build alternatives to 
neoliberalism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism>."

It also says "some consider the World Social Forum to be a physical 
manifestation of global civil society".

Now, Milton, you do not have to agree to all this, but to dismiss it all 
as irrational, and someone's fancy etc would hardly be appropriate, dont 
you think. This is the meaning in which a very huge number of civil 
society  groups and people use the term, and employ it for there 
political activities, and you simply cannot dismiss this fact.
>
> Neo-liberalism in literal terms
>

It is more of a political term solidly embedded in contemporary history, 
and is best seem in that meaning and text, rather giving it any literal 
interpretations.

> simply refers to the revival of liberal thought that occurred in the 
> 1970s and 1980s (i.e., “neo” + “liberal”) following the economic 
> stagnation brought on by the excesses of the social democracy and 
> regulatory state that emerged in the 1920s and 30s. Whatever you think 
> of the economic liberalizations of that period, it’s pretty hard to 
> argue with the record of stagflation, budget crises of the welfare 
> state, slowing or declining growth, and a record of complete failure 
> by socialist/communist economies that occurred in that period.
>

Yes, it emerged in that period, but you have a very different 
interpretation of 'how and to what end' which is very different from 
that of many others, including mine. There has been welcome 
liberalisation of economies in many places and in many areas, but 
neo-liberalism refers to an extreme and virulent version of a 
marketisation process, which is resisted by most civil society.

> Thus, neo-liberalism does not mean indiscriminate application of 
> market principles to everything, but it did reflect a recognition that 
> many parts of society or the economy which had been exempted from 
> market forces were failing and could be improved through the 
> introduction of competition and market forces.
>

Please see above. Neoliberalism is the extreme virulent kind/ level of 
marketisation of sectors that are not best suited for this purpose - or 
the extent to which they are sought to be marketised is not suitable. 
And with marketisation here we mean also a corresponding erosion of 
policy and regulation in these sectors.

> The centerpiece of neoliberalism was globalization of the economy and 
> free trade. The term neoliberalism was coined as part of the backlash 
> again st trade liberalization and the attempt by certain international 
> institutions to enforce budget constraints and sectoral liberalization 
> policies on developing countries as a condition for receiving loans or 
> aid. This is where some of the abuses or harder hands of the 
> Washington approach to liberalization could be felt; sometimes the 
> cookie-cutter approach to policy that was imposed was inappropriate. 
> But for the most part, that period saw rapid worldwide growth and 
> development. In particular, China and India opened their economies to 
> market forces and grew tremendously as a result.
>

Yes, but their is a difference between genuine controlled opening up, as 
in subject to due policy/ public interest processes, and the desire to 
be liberated from the latter, more or less entirely, which would be 
entering the space of what is called as neoliberalism. Milton, you will 
simply have to make this distinction. You cannot claim all the good that 
has happened in the last few decades as benefits of neoliberalism, in a 
take-all-or-leave-all approach.

> When I say that the Internet was a product of neoliberal policies I am 
> referring to several largely indisputable facts:
>
> a)Prior to ‘neoliberal’ policies the telecom system was the epitome of 
> social democracy: it was run as a state-owned monopoly, market forces 
> were largely absent.
>

Yes, communications infrastructure was expensive, with inconsistent 
revenue opportunities, had a natural monopoly characteristic, and so 
on... For this reason it being run as by the public sector was often the 
norm. Most of them did not change fast enough as rapid, and often 
transformational, technology changes took place, and were washed away 
because of it. This happened almost everywhere across the world, which 
does not means that in that decade or two all the concerned governments 
become neoliberal. The same governments made so much lesser changes in 
other sectors. So there was something also quite unique to the ICT 
sector, and I suspect, everyone knows that, a technology windfall did 
happen.

> b)The developmental record of state-owned PTT monopolies was abysmal, 
> there were 1% - 10% penetration rates, 6 months waiting lists for 
> service, massive inefficiency and protectionism. Opponents of 
> neoliberalism need to own up to this.
>

Yes and so, See above.. Neolibs cannot claim all the benefits of digital 
technologies windfall for themselves... It is more of tech windfall that 
made the huge transformation, and also changed  the organisational 
requirements around ICT infrastructure, for instance wireless 
technologies significantly reduced the 'natural monopoly' characteristic 
of ICT infrastructure. Those who made those organisational adjustments 
faster gained more, but as you have seen, an overwhelming countries have 
done it, without declaring themselves as fully neolib.

> c)Competition stimulated rapid improvements in technology and massive 
> decreases in pricing for telecom services
>
> d)Free trade agreements for IT equipment and “information services” 
> made it possible for TCP/IP based services to spread rapidly across 
> the world regardless of state censorship or regulation
>

Again, the picture is mixed. Brazil never signed the IT Agreement that 
you refer to, but isnt doing badly. India signed but have recently been 
ruing  the fact becuase its electronic hardware import today is next 
only to oil import, and there is practically zero local hardware 
industry. India is now making full use of the exceptions clauses in the 
ITA.

> In short, if you care about prosperity, growth, economic development 
> and freedom,
>

I will leave unsubstantiated rhetoric aside...

> and you want to have an intelligent discussion
>

:).. Sorry, we down here are generally daft, you just have to put up 
with us...

> of the role of public policy in the internet economy, all these things 
> need to be taken into account.
>



> If you want to call people names, I’m not interested.
>

Milton, first, saying that the WEF centred NMI is a neoliberal thing is 
not name calling, we never referred to any person here. And second, do 
you realise that you frequently do name calling directly for specific 
persons, using terms like leftist, or even communist, and in fact in 
this email making references to lack of rationality and intelligence of 
some... That is name calling.

parminder

> --MM
>
> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 2, 2014 1:47 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br
>
> On 02-Dec-14 07:38, parminder wrote:
>
>     Neoliberalism is defined as the application of market principles
>     to everything, including those areas in which such principles are
>     not normally applied. The above is a perfect case of the
>     application of market principles to governance, as I said , the
>     pristine neoliberal governance model.
>
>
> You may feel it is your privilege to villify others by tarring and 
> feathering them with the vile label of neoliberalism sometimes and 
> imperialism at other times. I accept that you do so, yet I reject the 
> label you apply to me.
>
> I generally do not support market principles, but rather believe in 
> the tussle among those with different set of principles.
>
> avri
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20141205/52fcf589/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t