Nu credeam c'o s'am de ce pomeni v'odată v'un artist contemporan român, da' iaca, se mai întâmplă:
Teatrul SubPământ. Valea Jiului după 1989 vă invită la:
Spectacolul Sub Pământ
- a doua reprezentație în București în proiectul Muzeu în Mișcare -
Alice Monica Marinescu, Katia Pascariu, Alexandru Potocean, Andrei Șerban, Bobo Burlăcianu, Adrian Cristea, Vlad Petri, Ana Colțatu, Ștefania Ferchedău, Cătălin Rulea
Coordonatori: Mihaela Michailov și David Schwartz.
Parteneri: Asociația Alburnus Maior, Dianei 4, Teatrul de Artă Deva, Teatrul Municipal Baia Mare
Since 1997 I understood that Internet is making publishing on paper obsolete. That, on the assumption that whatever is published is culture, knowledge.
Whatever you see now published on paper is not culture and is not knowledge, is a publishing industry "product".
I am concerned only with the scholarly communication here, namely that one that's being paid out of public money, that is, its largest part.
The pre-Internet process of communicating a scientific result, called "publishing", consisted of authoring-->peer-reviewing+editing-->acceptance, then followed by:
render on paper-->store at the classical library,
which, in the Internet era, the normal process should become, instead:
store at the digital library-->render on paper, etc.
It is obvious that, currently, the scholarly communication seems to ignore the existence of Internet, and, in the process, public money end up, as usual, in the private pockets of "publishers"=rendereres on paper, for no justifiable reason.
The governments are funding science so that it should be available to the public, but that science ends up under a paywall in some private companies, that is, the public has to pay a second time to acccess the results it paid for already.
This was obvious to me (and others) since 1997, a public money theft is continuing unabated meanwhile.
Why the fuck nothing has changed since?
Here are some reasons:
1. the relationships of an editorial board (which works as such also on public money) with the "publishers"=renderers on paper were having a history of their own, they built slowly and achieved, as a side-effect, a commercial profit for the "publishers". Obviously, the "publishers" are interested in maintaining this relation.
2. the structures, or "publishing circuits", above, are also structures of power, where scientific editors and reviewers keep themselves on the edge of information in their field, which makes them competitive in the race for the public money funding the research. Obviously, the editorial boards are interested in maintaining this structure of power.
3. there are these fake concepts, like "impact factor", which say that, if you didn't publish in a high-impact journal, you won't be competitive in the race for the public funding. This is what I would call a self-hole: young researchers are forced to sing the tune the editorial boards of these high/impact factor journals expect from them, otherwise they won't be recognized as researchers; no real challenge to the current understanding of the field will be published unless it serves a new group of power ready to get a chunk of public funding. So science is no longer science, is a race for power and money, like any other society of ignorant people.
All these can be fixed in one move: a law mandating publishing at the digital library in open-access mode: there is no reason for publicly funding the rendering on paper at the current private publishers, at most, such public funding should be limited for long-term archiving purposes, and only if that archive is publicly accessible.
Are there enough real scientists left to make this happen?
This message is long overdue (cca. 10 years) but this delay was necessary to check and double-check my impressions.
This message is for those who never experienced living effectively in socialism and for the few of those who lived in it but missed grasping its meaning.
There's no doubt left in my mind now, when closing to the age of 50 and having lived in both the socialist and capitalist worlds: I lived in a better world.
The world I'm talking about is a socialist, communist aspiring, world. That world assumed a human is built, not born. One's born an animal, but the socialist society around understood and took responsibility to educate any such animal and see to its healthcare. One's gender, race(??), height or wealth did not matter. We were bound to live a lifetime with each other, therefore the social commitment was recognized as necessary and written in the Constitution.
In comparison, capitalism is poverty, a failure, to put it mildly.
1.Education is a merchandise
2.Science is a merchandise
3.Healthcare is a merchandise
4.People are, naturally, given the above, scarcely educated, and, when they "are", they only have a set of "skills". You need a few tens of "educated" individuals surviving in capitalism to cover the horizon of one properly educated in socialism.
5.Magical thinking and wishful thinking are endemic: that's what you get when education is for sale.
You also get to live in a new sort of religion: the numerical religion, aka capitalist economy (a bulshitting discourse formulated in meaningless numbers).
6.You get to be born and to live under a few private dictatorships: the monopolies, the natural outcome of the points above; all this while you're being told you're free, yes, free to serve the sociopath of your choice. Capitalism is mobile feudalism.
7.Capitalism is the result of sociopaths keeping tabs on each other.
8.The basic principles of capitalism are fundamentally wrong and the result is unphysical: this kind of "society" has no chance of surviving.
8.a A tragedy of the commons is possible only among uneducated people, or people educated over the counter, that is, only among people grown in capitalism or in something similar to it (see the points above).
8.b The "rational self-interest" is in fact the sociopathic self-interest of the uneducated.
8.c The "free market" does not exist, in fact it is a continuous coercion exercised by those who happen to become wealthy upon the rest;
8.d To be wealthy is only a post random-factum tag without content, it has nothing to do with wisdom, intelligence, or anything rational or belonging to human "nature"; it may have to do with sociopathy, i.e. with the lack of some basic human building blocks.
8.e If you make money out of something it doesn't mean you proved anything; you've just been "lucky" or savage enough to snatch them from somebody else, there's no other virtue to it.
8.f You have to earn a living only when you were asked if you want to live by "earning" it and answered yes.
8.g egoism is just an ignorant's take on the world, it's not a feature, it's a bug, and probably clinical at that
8.h. ...it's actually not worth going further with such a derisory subject, it really spoils my evening, you may continue filling these points after you pop your head off your own ass or your facebook account.
As for the socialism, I'll let you research the subject on your own, after all, it's about your and your children's future; the only hint I'm going to give you is that it's nowhere near to what you learned in a capitalist "school" and nowhere near the crap enumerated above: imagine a world where, after some time spent in the public school, you understand you are an organic part of the society, anybody's life has a meaning, a historically heroic one, albeit locally mundane most of the time, by emancipating the human from its animal condition. Socialism, and then Capitalism: the Internet, and then facebook.
I lived in a better world and I'm happy I had the luck to have been a part of it: the humans can do it, I saw it. You'll have to rebuild it to get a glimpse of what its meaning is. Socialism is where the capitalist "freedom" bullshit ends and the meaningful human freedom, the real history, the history that has a future, begins.