Read any of the classic cypherpunk or crypto-anarchist writings and one thing is clear: the internet offered us freedom. While the open source and peer-to-peer (p2p) movements are still alive and well in certain corners of the internet, most of us have chosen corporate rule instead.

While cryptocurrency offered us a medium of exchange that could be independent of Wall Street, Big Banks, and the dreaded state, many flock to exchanges that require you to confirm your identity to the state, and some even link their bank accounts, instead of using resources such as Local Bitcoins that would allow for more anonymous transactions.

While the p2p movement offered us a vision of the sharing economy that was truly peer-to-peer, many instead praise the likes of corporate apps which act as a third party between peers, setting the rules and taking a cut of the profits while providing little more than an app in return; an app that could have just as easily been crowdfunded into existence, owned cooperatively by its users, and made open source for all to utilize as they please. We hail the likes of Uber, Lyft, AirBnB, etc. as examples of the “sharing economy” instead of looking towards true sharing economy options such as Cell 411 ridesharing or Couchsurfing.org which operate in a truly peer-to-peer anti-corporate fashion.

While we were offered decentralized and encrypted forms of communication and social media, many of us still flocked to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Discord, and Tik Tok instead of the likes of Mastodon, Minds, MeWe, Element, and Signal, thus allowing our data to be farmed for profit and handed over to government agencies under the guise of security. We could have easily chosen our privacy but instead chose “convenience,” although I’m unsure about what exactly is convenient about willingly letting others invade our privacy when perfectly functional alternatives exist. And then after willingly handing these Big Tech platforms so much power, some act surprised and betrayed when these same platforms censor and ban people for their political views or other metrics which they have chosen to enact via hierarchical decree.

While we were offered open source and/or encrypted options such as Linux, GIMP, Icedrive, CryptDrive, Open Office, CryptPad, Riseup, Protonmail, etc., many still chose options like Windows, Photoshop, Google Drive, Google Docs, Gmail, etc. thus lining the pockets of corporate fatcats and further centralizing their control over the internet instead of embracing decentralization and empowering smaller creators and communities to share and collaborate with each other to create a multitude of amazing platforms.

At a time where video conferencing is much more necessary, Zoom is making money hand over fist and continuously flaunting the fact that they don’t care at all about consumer privacy and having the audacity to provide encryption services only to those who pay extra after they were outed for not encrypting at all despite claims that they were. All this while safer truly encrypted alternatives such as Jitsi and Agora.io go largely unused by comparison.

Hell, even here at C4SS, we self-proclaimed anarchists still can’t help but give ourselves over to corporate rule. We operate out of a Google Group, we do our editing on Google Docs, we use Zoom for our meetings, we sell through Amazon… and we should know better (by the way, you can purchase our books from our personal store instead of buying via Amazon, so no need to support a company who contracts with ICE).

The internet offered us freedom from corporate control and yet we threw that offer away to gladly continue the tradition of licking corporate boots. Many claim to do it out of convenience, but since when is it convenient to hand over all of our personal data to Big Tech companies willingly?

The internet offered us freedom and we squandered it. Yet the offer is still there. It’s within our reach. We still have the chance to cash in on that offer and make the internet the bastion of freedom it was prophesied to be by our cypherpunk and crypto-anarchist forebearers. It’ll be a process. It won’t always be the easiest or smoothest transition. It will take time and research. But damn if it’s not worth it in the end. So let’s get to work creating the internet we long to see.

Насильственное вторжение государственной власти в человеческие взаимоотношения создаёт иррациональность и систематическую глупость. Роберт Энтони Уилсон в “Тринадцати стихах Божественному Маркизу” убеждает нас в этом:

Цивилизация, основанная на власти и повиновении — это цивилизация, лишённая средств самоисправления. Эффективная коммуникация протекает только в одном направлении – в направлении от правящей группы в сторону подчиненной группы. Любой кибернетик знает, что подобный односторонний коммуникационный канал лишён обратной связи и не может вести себя “разумно”.

Олицетворением власти-повиновения является армия – контрольно-коммуникационная сеть армии имеет все дефекты, которые только могут присниться кибернетику в его кошмарном сне. Типичные армейские поведенческие паттерны обрели бессмертие в армейском фольклоре, вроде SNAFU (всем кранты – ситуация под контролем!)[*]…  В менее экстремальной, но в столь же нозологической форме, подобные обстоятельства можно наблюдать в любой авторитарной группе, будь то корпорация, нация, семья или цивилизация в целом.[1]

Те же идеи выдающимся образом представлены в трилогии “Иллюминат!”, которую Уилсон написал в соавторстве с Робертом Ши. “… В жёсткой иерархии никто не подвергает сомнению приказы, поступающие как будто бы сверху, а те, кто находятся на самом верху, настолько изолированы от действительной рабочей ситуации, что они никогда не видят того, что происходит внизу.” [2]

Человеку с ружьём люди говорят только то, что, по их мнению, не спровоцирует его на нажатие на курок. Так как все правительства и власти опираются на насилие, то класс правителей, отягощённый претензией на всеведение, взирает на обременённый неведением класс повинующихся, точно так же, как разбойник с большой дороги встречает свою жертву. Коммуникация возможна только среди равных. Правящий класс никогда не получает полноты информации от класса подчинённых для понимания реально происходящего в мире настоящей производительности в обществе… Результатом здесь может быть только ухудшение положения правителей.[3]

Эта неспособность находящихся во власти собрать достаточную информацию снизу и восприятие вышестоящих как разбойников нижестоящими приводит к сокрытию такой информации теми, кто находится снизу и к использованию ими этой ситуации в качестве источника некоей ренты. Властный дифференциал, создавая отношения игры с нулевой суммой, делает пирамиду непрозрачной для тех, кто находится на её вершине.

Кеннет Боулдинг, теоретик радикальных организаций, похожим образом говорит “о характере воздействия, которое организационная структура оказывает на поток информации

 и, следовательно, она оказывает влияние  на информацию, поступающую лицу принимающему решение, и, далее, влияет на его картину будущего и будущие его решения… Существует большой объём свидетельств того, что почти все организационные структуры стремятся к производству ложных представлений, и чем более авторитарна и многочисленна организация, тем больше шансов, что высшее её руководство будет действовать в рамках полностью вымышленного мира.” [4]

В своей дискуссии о метисе (это распределённое, ситуативное, относящееся к работе знание или навык) Джеймс Скотт проводит связь между этим феноменом и мутуальностью – “как противоположностью императивной, иерархической координации”, он признаёт источниками этого понимания труды таких анархистских мыслителей как Кропоткин и Прудон.[5] Метис требует двусторонней коммуникации между равными, теми, кто напрямую связан с ситуацией – людьми, реально делающими работу – теми, кто пребывает в равенстве.

Что интересно, Уилсон ранее уже отмечал эту взаимосвязь между мутуальностью и точностью информации в своих “Тринадцати Стихах”. Более того, он даже включил в текст свои аллюзии к Прудону:

[Прудоновская] система добровольных ассоциаций (анархия) основывается на простом коммуникационном принципе понимания того, что авторитарная система использует одностороннюю коммуникацию, или попросту глупость, а либертарианская система использует коммуникацию двустороннюю, или рациональность. Сущностью власти ему виделся Закон – …это действующая коммуникация, протекающая только односторонне. Сущностью же либертарианской системы он видел Контракт – взаимное соглашение, то есть двусторонне действующую коммуникацию.

Чтобы назвать иерархическую организацию систематически глупой, достаточно лишь признать, что эта система не способна эффективно использовать знание всех её членов, её знание меньше, чем сумма знания всех её частей. Клэй Ширки цитирует Джона Сили Брауна и Пола Дагвида:

  “Что было бы, если бы НР знала всё, что знает НР?” Было замечено, что сумма всех индивидуальных умов в НР содержит гораздо больше информации нежели чем та информация, к которой эта компания имеет доступ, несмотря на то что есть возможность управлять действиями этих работников.[6]

Так как иерархический институт не способен агрегировать интеллект своих членов и привнести его как эффективный компонент в процесс принятия решений, политика таких институтов приводит к неожидаемым последствиям, а различные направления политики имеют непредсказуемо противоречивые цели. В довершение к этому, транзакционная стоимость доставки информации менеджменту о последствиях его политики в реальном мире имеет запретительный уровень, как раз по причине того, что, прежде всего, стоимость транзакции агрегирования информации, необходимой для эффективного принятия решений, является запретительно высокой.

Однако, нет повода для беспокойства. Старший менеджмент не живёт под воздействием последствий своей политики, а их подчинённые боятся сообщать о том, какое скопище дерьма они сотворили – один гендиректор радостно сообщит гендиректору другой организации о том, как волшебно сработала его новая “лучшая управленческая стратегия”. Но так как эти “конкурирующие” организации в действительности существуют на олигопольном рынке особых наценок и ценового планирования, разделяя одинаковую патологическую институциональную культуру, они не страдают от реально существующих негативных последствий мира конкуренции за их бюрократическую иррациональность.

Иерархия — это прибор, предназначенный для того, чтобы говорить голым королям о том, как великолепно выглядит их наряд. Профессор физики, по понятным причинам пишущий в своём блоге анонимно под ником “Thoreau”, в контексте своего общения с администрацией, описывает это так:

Скажем так, мы делали кое-что…субоптимальное. Все знают, что это субоптимально… 

Я наблюдал за этой субоптимальной деятельностью и нам не следовало бы распространять наши результаты, однако, она всё время двигает нас в сторону постоянного производства нами отчётов о том, как хорошо работают наши результаты. Да, мы так и делаем. Эти отчёты содержат подтасовки и преувеличения. Мы все знаем это. Тем не менее, она живёт в мире полностью основанном на этих отчётах…[7]

Когда Вы действуете постоянно допуская, что Вам придётся интернализировать последствия Ваших действий, то у вас есть побуждение к предвидению возможности неудач. Когда Вы принимаете решение, то Вы постоянно сверяете его с последующим опытом. Нормально функционирующее человеческое существо – всегда находящееся в контакте с нашей окружающей действительностью и не изолированное от неё иерархиями – всегда корректирует свой образ действий. 

Власть закорачивает этот процесс: она смещает негативные последствия своих решений вниз по иерархии, а бенефиты вверх, из-за чего лица принимающие решения действуют основываясь на искажённых расчётах прибыли и расходов, власть блокирует негативную обратную связь и поэтому траектория организационного управления становится подверженной функциональному эквиваленту психотического отрыва от реальности. 

Когда политика не является результатом систематической глупости, она находит искусную реализацию внушающего доверие отрицания, поэтому менеджмент всегда может сказать “но они же знали о заранее прописанной нами политике”, когда неизбежные сокращения для компенсации ошибочной кадровой неукомплектованности и иррациональные вмешательства приводят к катастрофе в общественных отношениях. 

Отсутствие обратной связи означает, что большинство организаций “успешны” в достижении во многом искусственных целей – целей, определяемых интересами правящих иерархий этих организаций, а не прямыми потребителями или теми, кто напрямую участвует в обслуживании интересов потребителей. С другой стороны, организационные сетевые структуры, основанные на двусторонней обратной связи между равными, подвержены высокому уровню “неудач”. Как объясняет Клэй Ширки, открытые источники являются угрозой, так как они приводят к истощению проприетарных систем. Открытый источник может экспериментировать и терпеть неудачи по гораздо меньшей цене. И по причине того, что неудача для иерархии обходится гораздо дороже, иерархии заранее ориентированы “в направлении предсказуемых, но субстандартных результатов.” [8]  

В этой неудаче также содержится наличие прав и возможностей у работников и потребителей, в корпоративной экономике большинство продуктов считаются “достаточно хорошими” только потому, что потребители бесправны.

Кристия Фриланд утверждает, что истеблишмент Республиканской Партии и её сторонники были предельно убеждены в том, что Обама проиграет в 2012 году и результаты выборов стали для них сногсшибательным сюрпризом, как раз из-за того, что в корпорации, которую они представляют, превалируют всё те же типы информационной фильтрации и группового мышления. 

По его же собственному определению, у Ромни единственным сильнейшим качеством для занятия поста президента было его опирающееся на аналитику управленческое мастерство. Если бы избирательная кампания была бы для этого проверкой, и даже если Вы идеологической его сторонник, то Вам следовало бы согласиться с тем, что он проиграл. И как же такое могло произойти? Моя первая мысль о том, что как раз те самые умнейшие парни, сидящие в этом кабинете, умудрились растратить огромное количество денег в 2008 году и каким-то образом они смогли убедить себя в целом наборе ошибочных представлений о том, в каком направлении продолжат своё движение рынки…

…Когда ты богатый и влиятельный парень, то очень трудно видеть реальность, особенно, когда ты платишь работникам своего штаба крутые зарплаты, прямо как Ромни.[9]

Повторимся, неважно насколько интеллектуальны сотрудники крупных институтов индивидуально – иерархия оставляет их интеллект неиспользуемым. Если институт не существует как средство доставки к целям своих сотрудников, то не возникает сущностная связь между мотивацией персонала и его ролью в организации, а информационные и представительские проблемы иерархии предотвращают плохие последствия из-за полной интернализации их исполнителями, индивидам просто не предоставляется доверие на их свободное действие по их усмотрению, согласно их разумению и интеллекту. Вот основная причина для формирования правил работы, должностных инструкций и всех прочих Веберианских моделей бюрократической рациональности: кто-то где-то может использовать инициативу, приводящую к результатам вредоносным для интересов организации, Вам на месте нужен свод правил предотвращающих чью-либо деятельность вообще. В отличие от сетей, которые используют мозги как актив, в системах с иерархическими правилами бытует отношение к мозгам как риску, который надлежит снижать.

Должностные инструкции и профсоюзные правила работы — это другая сторона монеты Веберианских/Тейлористских правил работы. И то и другое – результат иерархии. Власть, по определению, создаёт отношения игры с нулевой суммой. Высшие пытаются экстернализировать возникающее бремя на нижестоящих и при этом поснимать для себя все сливки возросшей продуктивности; подчинённые, в свою очередь, стараются минимизировать затраты на усилия и выполнять лишь необходимый минимум во избежание увольнения. И вышестоящие, и подчинённые фильтруют или утаивают информацию о своих бенефитах для противоположной стороны и пытаются максимизировать выгоду от удержания друг друга в таком неведении. В этих отношениях игры с нулевой суммой, где каждая сторона может получать выгоду только за счёт убытка другой стороны, каждая сторона ищет механизмы уменьшения злоупотреблений с противоположной стороны.

Пол Гудман иллюстрирует проблему введения ограничений свободы действий и замораживания частной инициативы при непосредственном принятии наиболее благоразумного и самого дешёвого решения насущной проблемы на примере замены дверной защёлки в системе публичных школ Нью-Йорка: 

…Демонтаж дверной защёлки, которая препятствует пользованию туалетом, требует подачи долгих заявок в управления, так как это “собственность города” …

…Определено оборудование старого образца для всех новых зданий, и производство этого оборудования сохранено только для школьной системы Нью-Йорка…[10]

Когда общественная инфраструктура связана с подобной сложной организацией, то становится чрезвычайно сложно, и подчас даже невозможно, делать простые вещи напрямую, даже если эти действия основаны на здравом смысле и встретят безусловное всеобщее одобрение, так что ни дети, ни родители, ни завхоз, ни директор школы не смогут заменить сломавшуюся дверную защёлку.[11]

Корпоративная иерархия вмешивается в решения тех, кого Фридрих фон Хайек называет “людьми на местах”, и в сбор рассеянного знания о реальных обстоятельствах, точно так же, как это делает государство. 

Большинство производственных работ содержат некое количество рассеянного специфического для этой работы знания и зависят от инициативы работника к импровизации, к применению умений новыми способами в обстоятельствах, которые либо полностью непредсказуемы, либо не могут быть ожидаемыми во всей полноте. Жёсткие иерархии и жёсткие правила работы работают только в полностью предсказуемой обстановке. Когда обстановка непредсказуема, ключ к успеху может находиться в расширении полномочий и автономии для тех, кто находится в прямом контакте с ситуацией.

Иерархические организации, как замечательно выразились Марта Фельдман и Джеймс Марч – систематически глупы.[12] По тем же самым Хайекианским причинам, которые делают плановую экономику нежизнеспособной, нет такого достаточно “смышленого” индивида для того, чтобы управлять крупной иерархической организацией. Никто, ни Эйнштейн, ни Джон Голт – не обладают способностями заставить бюрократическую иерархию работать рационально. Весь смысл в том, что нет никого, кто настолько умён, что даже умнее тех, кто управлял Госпланом эффективно. Как сказал Матт Иглесиас:

Мне кажется, важно будет отметить, что класс бизнесменов, как группа, имеет странный и где-то непоследовательный взгляд на капитализм и на то, почему он хорош. Да, во многом это перевернутый взгляд, сильно контрастирующий с политологическим и экономическим пониманием того, почему рынки работают.

Основы мировоззрения бизнеса сильно сфокусированы на ключевой роли руководителя. Хорошие, прибыльные, растущие фирмы управляются блестящими руководителями. Способность фирмы расти и быть прибыльной является свидетельством великолепия её руководителя. Это одна из причин почему зарплаты гендиректоров должны постоянно повышаться, ведь найм лучших – неотъемлемая часть успеха. Лидеры больших фирм становятся почитаемыми фигурами… Их успех основан на их всеохватывающем великолепии…

Дело в том, что если бы это было правдой – если бы гендиректоры фирм из списка «Fortune 500» были выдающимися экономическими провидцами, то тогда возникли бы серьёзные причины установить социализм. Настоящий социализм. Не какое-то там прогрессивное налогообложение для финансирования мягких перераспределительных социальных госпрограмм, но самое настоящее “а давайте-ка Викрам Пандит и Джефф Иммельт централизованно спланируют нам экономику – они же, в конце концов, реально выдающиеся люди!”

Но в реальном мире на рынке нет такого, что директора умны, а бюрократы тупы. Правда рынка в том, что на нём нет выдающихся.[13]

Не имеет значения и индивидуальный уровень интеллекта менеджеров – бюрократическая иерархия изолирует тех, кто наверху, от реальности, протекающей внизу, она делает их интеллект менее используемым. Крис Диллоу описывает это так:

Почему фирмы не совершенствуют свою работу также, как совершенствуется индивидуальное исполнение музыкантов или спортсменов? Вот четыре возможных отличия:

1. Внутри фирм нет механизма трансляции личного совершенствования или взращивания знаний в корпоративное знание. Как сказал Хайек, иерархии ужасны в использовании фрагментарного, скрытого, рассеянного знания.

2. Текучка кадров влечёт утрату специфического для данной работы человеческого капитала.

3. Начальство отбирается по признаку самоуверенности. Самоуверенность всегда противостоит обучению.

4. В компаниях важная для развития обратная связь искажается враждебными стимулами или эгоистическими устремлениями. Если я играю мелодию или аккорд плохо, то мои уши говорят мне о том, что надо заниматься ещё. Но если в компании возникает негативная обратная связь, скажем, упали продажи, то ни у кого не возникнет желания сказать “это я всё испортил – мне нужно совершенствоваться!” Формальные же попытки сгенерировать обратную связь, такие мероприятия как обзоры производительности, часто встречают противодействие.

То, что я говорю, знает каждый методологический индивидуалист: компании – вовсе не индивидуальные личности. Различия между этими двумя могут выступать препятствием для практического обучения.[14]

Когда институт разрастается и начинает испытывать увеличение расходов и бюрократическое окостенение, он одновременно становится всё более и более уязвимым к колебаниям окружающей действительности и менее способным на реакцию на эти изменения. Поэтому, чтобы выжить, институту необходимо контролировать свою окружающую действительность.

Единственное решение проблем сложности и непредсказуемости, как уверяет нас Брюс Шейнер, эксперт по безопасности — это дать свободу действий тем, кто находится в прямом контакте с ситуацией.

За хорошую безопасность всегда кто-то лично отвечает. Люди гибки. Люди могут импровизировать. Они могут быть креативны. Они способны вырабатывать решения на месте… В процессе установления безопасности люди всегда самое сильное звено. Если система успешна перед лицом новой, скоординированной или разрушительной атаки, то это как правило заслуга людей.[15]

Проблема властных отношений в иерархии лежит в том, что, учитывая, что при наличии власти возникает конфликт интересов, те, кто при власти, не могут себе позволить свободу действий для тех, кто находится в прямом контакте с ситуацией. Систематическая глупость неизбежно происходит в ситуации, в которой бюрократическая иерархия должна развивать свои собственные измерительные системы для оценки способностей или качества работы персонала, о реальной работе которого бюрократия не знает ничего, а материальные интересы персонала находятся в противоречии с устранением невежества менеджмента.

Большая часть всё возрастающей бумажной работы существует только для формирования иллюзии прозрачности и контроля у бюрократии, которая находится вне связи с актуальным рабочим процессом. Каждый новый слой бумажной документации добавляется для решения предполагаемой проблемы, которую персонал ещё не решил так, как этого хочет менеджмент, несмотря на рост бумаг, утверждающих, что всё сделано в соответствии с указаниями. В иерархии менеджеры вынуждены регулировать процесс, который всегда непрозрачен для них, так как они в него не вовлечены. Они вынуждены выполнять невозможную задачу по разработке точных систем измерений, позволяющих оценить поведение подчинённых, основываясь на самоотчётности людей, с которыми у них есть фундаментальный конфликт интересов. Бумажная ноша, которую менеджмент взваливает на работников, отражает попытку сделать понятным набор социальных отношений, который, в силу его природы, должен оставаться непрозрачными и закрытыми, так как менеджмент находится снаружи набора этих отношений.

Каждая новая форма нацелена на компенсацию недостатков ранних самоотчётов подчинённых. Необходимость в новых бумажных отчётностях основывается на предположении о том, что соответствие должно быть проверено, так как те, кого мониторят, имеют фундаментальный конфликт интересов с теми, кто утверждает политику, и посему к ним нет доверия, но в то же самое время, сам бумагооборот сам же и опирается на самоотчётность как основной источник информации. Каждый раз когда появляется новое свидетельство того, что та или иная задача не выполнена удовлетворительно для менеджмента, или, что никто не последовал той или иной политике, несмотря на существующие кипы бумажных инструкций, единственным ответом менеджмента может быть разработка ещё одной бумажной формы, и столь же бессмысленной формы.

Веберианские правила работы неизбежно возникают тогда, когда выполнение работы и измерения качества не привязаны напрямую к отзывам обратной связи исходящих непосредственно из самого процесса. Эти измерения выполнения работы не принадлежат ни тому, кто создатель/провайдер, ни тому, кто конечный потребитель. И эти измерения неизбежны, потому, повторюсь, что те, кто находится на вершине не могут себе позволить свободу действий согласно здравому смыслу для тех, кто находится внизу. Бюрократия не может позволить своим подчинённым такую свободу действий, так как тот, у кого есть свобода делать работу более эффективно, имеет также свободу сделать что-нибудь плохо. И так как подчинённый имеет фундаментальный конфликт интересов с вышестоящим, и он не интернализирует бенефиты от применения своего интеллекта, то невозможно доверить ему использовать свой интеллект на благо организации. В подобных отношениях игры с нулевой суммой возможно любое злоупотребление свободой действий.  

Но проблема также состоит и в том, что свобода действий и не может быть полностью удалена из любого организационного процесса. Джеймс Скотт пишет, что это невозможно – по природе вещей, так как нужно дистиллировать всё, что вовлечено в процесс производства, формализовать или кодифицировать это в формы, понятные менеджменту.

…Формальный порядок, закодированный в социально-инженерных проектах, неизбежно не включает в себя элементы сущностно важные для действительного функционирования этих проектов. Если бы фабрика [в Восточной Германии], была бы вынуждена работать только в рамках и в роли определённых в упрощённом проекте, то она очень быстро пришла бы к остановке. Коллективистской командной экономике повсеместно удавалось хоть как-то ковылять только лишь благодаря отчаянной импровизации в русле неформальной экономики, находящейся полностью за пределами установленных ранее схем.

Говоря иными словами, все социально-инжинированные системы формального порядка по факту являются подсистемами больших систем, от которых они зависимы, если не сказать, что они паразитируют на большей системе. Подсистема зависит от ряда процессов, зачастую неформальных или обуславливающих её, которые сама она создать или поддерживать не может. Чем более схематичен, тонок и упрощён формальный порядок, тем менее он эластичен и более уязвим для повреждений исходящих из-за пределов его узких параметров….

Это, как мне думается, просто характеристика больших, формальных систем координации – кажется, что они сопровождаются тем, что обычно называют аномалиями, но при более пристальном рассмотрении выясняется, что такие аномалии являются неотъемлемой частью формальных порядков. Многие аномалии можно назвать “спасательным метисом…”  Формальная командная экономика…зависит от мелкой торговли, бартера и как правило нелегальных сделок… В каждом случае присутствует несоответствующая практика как неотъемлемое условие для формального порядка.[16] 

…В каждом случае, непременно тонком, схематическая модель социальной организации и производства, на которое ориентируется планирование, оказывается недостаточной, чтобы быть набором инструкций, создающих успешный социальный порядок. Сами по себе упрощённые правила никогда не смогут сгенерировать функционирующее общество, город или экономику. Формальный порядок, скажем прямо, всегда до значительной меры паразитирует на неформальных процессах, которые формальные схемы не распознают, без которых невозможно существование этих схем и которые эти формальные схемы не могут созидать или поддерживать.[17]

Как я с настойчивостью пытаюсь показать, совсем иное верно в отношении сетевых и стигмергических организаций – их красота в том, что они позволяют интеллекту всех своих индивидуальных членов быть используемым более широко. В то время как односторонняя коммуникация создаёт непрозрачность вида сверху, двусторонняя коммуникация создаёт горизонтальную ясность. Процитируем Мишеля Баувенса: 

Способность к кооперации подтверждается в процессе проявления самой же кооперации. Поэтому, проект открыт для всех желающих, при условии, что они обладают необходимыми знаниями для участия в проекте. Эти знания верифицируются и совместно утверждаются в процессе производства. Подобное можно наблюдать в открытых издательских проектах, таких как городская журналистика: все могут размещать сообщения, и все могут проверить правдоподобие статей. Репутационные системы используются для коллективного утверждения. Фильтрование происходит апостериорно, а не априорно. Антикреденциализм, таким образом, противопоставляется традиционному экспертному ревьюированию, где уже заранее имеющиеся полномочия являются предварительным условием для входа участника в проект.

P2P проекты характеризуются голоптизмом. Голоптизм – это присущая способность и устройство одноранговых процессов, которые дают участникам свободный доступ ко всей информации об остальных участниках, не с точки зрения приватности участников, но с точки зрения самого факта их существования, их участия (т. е. горизонтальная информация) и их доступа к средствам, параметрам и документации проекта в целом (т. е. вертикальное измерение). Это можно противопоставить паноптизму, одной из характеристик иерархических проектов: процессы организованы для сохранения «тотального» знания только для элиты, тогда как простые участники имеют доступ только к тому «что следует знать». В P2P проектах коммуникация не имеет направления сверху вниз и не базируется на докладах по определённым правилам, в них обратная связь системна, она интегрирована в протокол системы кооперации.[18]

В тюрьмах, управляемых с помощью паноптицизма, надзиратель может видеть всех заключённых, а заключённые не могут видеть друг друга. Смысл этого в том, чтобы заключённые не могли координировать свои действия друг с другом независимо от надзирателя. Голоптицизм прямо противоположен: члены группы горизонтально представлены друг другу и могут координировать свои действия. И «у всех есть понимание целостности, все могут подстраивать свою активность на максимальную эффективность.»[19]

С лёгкостью может возникнуть предположение о том, что иерархии существуют для реализации целей управленцев, а голоптические ассоциации служат целям своих членов. Люди на вершинах иерархических пирамид не могут доверять людям, непосредственно выполняющим работу, так как интересы этих групп людей диаметрально противоположны. Доверять друг другу в горизонтальных организациях безопасно, так как общность интересов вытекает из факта соучастия в этих организациях.

[*] Армейский фольклор, аббревиатуры солдатских поговорок. (Прим. перев.)

[1] R. A. Wilson, “Thirteen Choruses for the Divine Marquis,” from Coincidance—A Head Test (1988). 

[2] Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson, The Illuminatus! Trilogy (New York: Dell Publishing, 1975), p. 388. 

[3] См. там же, стр. 498.

[4] Kenneth Boulding, “The Economics of Knowledge and the Knowledge of Economics,” American Economic Review 56:1/2 (March 1966), p. 8. 

[5] James Scott, Seeing Like a State (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), pp. 6-7. 

[6] Clay Shirky, Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations (Penguin Books, 2008), p. 100.

[7] Thoreau, “Going up against the pointy-haired bosses,” Unqualified Offerings, February 6, 2013. 

[8] См. там же, стр. 245. 

[9] Ezra Klein, “‘Romney is Wall Street’s worst bet since the bet on subprime,’” Washington Post Wonkblog, November 28, 2013.

[10] Paul Goodman, People or Personnel, in People or Personnel and Like a Conquered Province (New York: Vintage Books, 1964, 1966), p. 52. 

[11] См. тамже, стр. 88. 

[12] Martha S. Feldman and James G. March, “Information in Organizations as Signal and Symbol,” Administrative Science Quarterly 26 (April 1981); Справедливости ради, следует отметить, что Фельдман и Марч предпринимали попытки, неудачные, по моему мнению, защитить отсутствие у корпораций свойства систематической глупости.

[13] Matthew Yglesias, “Two Views of Capitalism,” Yglesias, November 22, 2008. 

[14] Chris Dillow, “Organizational Stupidity,” Stumbling and Mumbling, September 23, 2011.

[15] Bruce Schneier, Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World (New York: Copernicus Books, 2003), p. 133.

[16] James Scott, Seeing Like a State, pp. 351-352.

[17] См. там же, стр. 310.

[18] Michel Bauwens, “The Political Economy of Peer Production,” Ctheory.net, December 1, 2005. 

[19] Alan Rosenblith, “Holopticism” (accessed January 22, 2012).

In the early 1900s, an anonymous book known as The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion more commonly known simply as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion began circulating. It was a blatantly antisemitic publication falsely claiming to be written by the “elders of Zion” themselves and detailing their alleged plans for world domination despite being obviously plagiarized from several other historical sources, some of which were not even antisemitic in origin. Most notably, The Protocols copied entire sections from Der Judenstaat: Versuch einer modernen Lösung der Judenfrage (The Jewish State: Proposal for a modern solution to the Jewish question) originally titled Address to the Rothschilds by Theodor Herzl, Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu ou la politique de Machiavel au XIXe siècle (The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu) by Maurice Joly, and Biarritz by Hermann Goedsche.

Maurice Joly was a French republican who served as a low rank member of the radical socialist Paris Commune, a project which precipitated the split between Marxists and anarchists. His novel Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu ou la politique de Machiavel au XIXe siècle was a political satire criticizing the political ambitions of Napoleon III aka Charles-Louis Napoléon Bonaparte who was represented in the novel by Niccolò Machiavelli and was depicted as having a political dialogue in hell with Charles Montesquieu. The reason for having Machiavelli stand-in for Napoleon III was due to the illegality of criticizing the state at the time although this substitution did not spare Joly from having to serve 15 years in prison for his “crimes.” While none of the characters depicted in the book were Jewish, the book does serve as a thinly veiled critique of Napoleon’s desire for world domination.

In 1968, four years after the publication of Joly’s book, Hermann Goedsche heavily plagiarized Joly’s book for his own novel Biarritz, adding a chapter titled “At the Jewish Cemetery in Prague and the Council of Representatives of the Twelve Tribes of Israel” which described a centennial midnight meeting of a secret cabal of Rabbis known as the Council of Representatives of the Twelve Tribes of Israel to report on the progress of their own plans for world domination through the infiltration of politics and the media, acquisition of land, industrialization, and so on. This chapter itself was heavily plagiarized from another novel by Alexandre Dumas père entitled Joseph Balsamo which portrayed a fictional account of an alleged meeting between Joseph Balsamo also known as Alessandro Cagliostro and others to plot the “Affair of Queen Marie Antoinette’s Necklace” which was one of the causes of the French Revolution. Neither novel Goedsche blatantly plagiarized were antisemitic in nature by any means but Goedsche was himself notoriously antisemitic and thus decided to portray this fictional plot of Jewish world domination in his novel. It should be noted that Goedsche not only wrote this as a fictional story but was also completely unaware that only two out of the twelve original tribes of Israel even were left in existence during the time period in which he was writing his novel making it completely inaccurate even as a plausible piece of historical fiction.

Theodor Herzl originally wrote Address to the Rothschilds in 1891 as a speech to be delivered to the Rothschild family advocating for the creation of a Jewish state, a plan which was rejected by Baron Edmond de Rothschild who saw it as a threat to the Jewish diaspora and to another settlement which he himself was attempting to establish. The speech was later retitled Der Judenstaat for publication and has since become one of the seminal works of the Zionist movement, having actually popularized the term Zionism itself. The work was also known by another name in its original French and Russian editions: Zionist Protocols.

The unknown author(s) of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion ripped off this name for their own title and heavily plagiarized from Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu ou la politique de Machiavel au XIXe siècle while taking inspiration from Goedsche’s antisemitic twist, even quoting directly from the Rabbi’s speech during the fictional meeting of the Council of Representatives of the Twelve Tribes of Israel and combining it with an exaggeration of the goals of Zionism. Despite blatantly ripping off fictional sources, this book was claimed to be an actual account of a real meeting written by the Council members themselves, detailing their alleged real plot to take over the world. In addition to their alleged plot to take over the world via politics, banking, media, capitalism, communism, etc. the book also “revealed” their participation in a ceremony known as the blood libel in which they supposedly kidnapped and murdered Christian children to use their blood for ritualistic purposes, including mixing it in the dough used to make matzos to be consumed during religious holiday celebrations.

On October 30, 2016, a Twitter account claiming to be run by a New York lawyer known for posting white supremacist material claimed that the NYPD had uncovered a child sex trafficking ring run by the Democratic Party itself via Anthony Weiner’s leaked emails despite providing no proof to back up these claims. The NYPD denied these accusations but that did no more to stop conspiracy theorists from believing this baseless conspiracy than proving the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was plagiarized from fictional sources stopped conspiracy theorists from believing Hitler when he used the claims in the book to further his plan, claiming he planned to save German Christian children from the Jewish blood libel.

Throughout October and November of that year, Wikileaks published John Podesta’s emails which many of those same conspiracy theorists claimed also discussed the same Democrat-run child sex trafficking operation using the popular code word used in child porn circles, pizza, along with other supposed code words such as hot dogs which are not known for being used in those same circles historically. It should be noted that most of the uses of the term pizza were in expense reports for campaign staff where the amounts spent on pizza seem like very reasonable amounts to spend on actual pizza and not the price of child sex slaves which would likely cost significantly more. It should also be noted that pizza is typically code for child porn and not the purchasing of child sex slaves as these conspiracy theorists claim although it is not a stretch to consider the idea that they were using this popular code in a slightly different manner than it is normally used. It did not help that one of the pizza places mentioned in the emails, Comet Ping Pong used to have a logo of a pizza slice which very much resembled the popular “boy lover” symbol used by both MAPs (minor-attracted people; a more all-encompassing term that includes pedophilia as well as hebephilia and ephebophilia) and actual child molestors (the difference being that while MAPs struggle with attraction to underage children, a majority of MAPs do not act on that attraction and a majority of child molesters are not actual MAPs but rather rapists looking for easy victims, not that MAPs can’t also sometimes be child molesters as well). There were also claims of Satanic ritual cannibalism and abuse mirroring those made against the Jewish peoples in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

While there is little evidence that the Democratic Party itself was running a child sex trafficking ring out of Comet Ping Pong and other pizzerias, that did not stop a conspiracy theorist named Edgar Maddison Welch from entering the restaurant on December 7th of that year and opening fire on partons while demanding to see their basement which was allegedly being used as a sex dungeon; a basement which likely does not even exist according to blueprints of the building and investigations by the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia.

Despite the lack of proof surrounding the particulars of the “pizzagate” conspiracy as it was later dubbed, it is understandable that people would distrust both Snopes and the police in claiming the conspiracy had been entirely debunked considering Snopes’ history as an unreliable “fact checker” and known shilling for the Democratic Party and the very real amount of police in various departments busted for consumption of child porn and participation in sex trafficking operations and child porn rings. The fact that the Podesta emails involved Hillary Clinton — whose husband Bill is a well-known repeat rapist and associate with Jeffrey Epstein who was later busted for running an actual child sex trafficking operation involving a large number of political figures, celebrities, and business leaders — in no way helped to dispel these suspicions either.

Almost a year later, on October 28th, 2017, “Q Clearance Patriot” more commonly known as “QAnon” emerged, posting a thread on 4chan entitled “Calm Before the Storm.” They implied that they were a government agent in the Trump administration with Q level clearance to top-secret information and that they were aware of a secret plot by Trump to investigate supposed Democratic Party-run child sex trafficking rings, culminating in “The Storm” which will allegedly be the mass arrest, imprisonment, and execution of thousands involved in this supposed operation. Q has continued to post since then, sometimes making straight forward predictions and other times offering supposed coded messages on 4chan and later 8chan after they claimed 4chan had been infiltrated and offering no explanation as to how. These messages have been variously deciphered by their various followers, who excuse these predictions’ failure to come true by claiming the alleged deep state conspiracy against Trump is interfering with Trump’s plans.

These rumors seem to be a part of a long storied history of trolls on 4chan posting baseless conspiracy fodder, mostly for the lulz, which as Fox put it in a hilarious badly researched “exposé” on 4chan and Anonymous in 2007, “is a corruption of lol which stands for laugh out loud.” 4chan and related chans are well known for elaborate trolling such as when they posed as feminists on twitter to promote a fake feminist campaign to #EndFathersDay. Despite being well known for purposely spreading false information and trolling gullible idiots, it seems as if some people still can’t help but fall for their pranks time and time again. It doesn’t help that 4chan and 8chan, through their problematic senses of humor, have also become a safe haven for actual neo-nazis and related bigots who truly do seem to believe in various conspiracy theories including those laid out in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Like any good conspiracy theory, there is always a grain of truth to it. While the accusations of Satanic ritual abuse likely stem from the same antisemitic blood libel conspiracies spouted in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the #MeToo movement has exposed numerous sexual abuse scandals in Hollywood, politics, and elsewhere and the arrest of notorious child sex trafficker and sexual abuser Jeffrey Epstein has exposed even more high profile people who took part in his abuse of children, including Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton, and even Trump himself.

This is not new news for many who had already been paying attention. Trump had previously referred to Epstein’s love for young girls while praising him as a great friend and claiming that they both like their women on the younger end. Trump was also accused of raping a 13 year old girl at one of Epstein’s notorious sex parties. This lines up well with the claims made by underaged contestants in Trump-owned beauty pageants who complained about him regularly walking into their dressing rooms while they were changing, something Trump has literally bragged about doing. This also fits with the long pattern of sexual abuse accusations made against Trump and his buddy Bill Clinton through the years. Yet, QAnon followers believe his friendship with Epstein and the Clintons was him acting as an undercover agent since at least the 90s and that the abuse accusations are another deep state conspiracy. As to his own words? Well they seem to usually just ignore that almost entirely.

We know there are elite child sex trafficking operations, abuse cover ups, and online “red rooms” and similar situations in which children are murdered for the pleasure of truly twisted people, but it is not just tied to one political party or set of politics. Trump was part of the same Hollywood circles alongside abusers like Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey for decades before becoming a politician. He visited Epstein’s island and invited Epstein to Mar-a-Lago on multiple occasions, only kicking him out after a business deal gone bad, and only later claiming it was due to Epstein’s sexually abusive behavior. Trump is not trying to take these people down, he is one of them. He’s not trying to drain the swamp, he’s part of the swamp.

But the cult of statism is strong for some and the particular breed of statism in the so-called united states breeds hyperpartisanship which leads people to see their side as the heroes and the other side as the enemies no matter how much the evidence says differently. Nevermind the fact that it was the largely leftist #MeToo movement that outed many of the people that the QAnon conspiracists use as proof that Trump’s campaign to out abusers is working, #MeToo is still dismissed as awful feminist propaganda and Trump gets all the credit instead. Nevermind that Q’s predictions regularly fall flat or are disproven just like nearly every other prank from Anonymous, the deep state is just interfering with Trump’s plan and this time Anonymous is telling the truth, unlike every other time. These people look like fools and entirely lack the self-awareness to realize it. 4channers and 8channers have always pulled these types of pranks and this is just more of the same, the only difference being is that they found a much more gullible audience than usual. And the worst part is, they’re now holding #SaveTheChildren rallies which are obscuring the real fight against child sex trafficking by infusing it with utter bullshit.

Yes, we need to be out there demanding justice for the victims of politicians, celebrities, and business elites. Yes we need to be investigating more into Epstein’s connections and taking down those involved. Yes, we need to be holding Netflix accountable for the Cuties scandal. Yes, we need to abolish Child Protective Services whose foster program is allegedly responsible for the abuse of at least 88% of missing child sex trafficking victims. Yes, we need to do all these things but mixing that with antisemitic claims that there is an evil Satanic cabal of elites drinking baby blood to preserve their youth just serves to discredit anything real coming from that movement and claiming Trump is trying to take these scum down merely serves to boost Trump’s power and preserve the status and statist quo while mirroring Hitler’s exploitation of similar theories to secure his own power grab.

Despite the huge amount of police officers being outed for child sex abuse and accusations that many police are involved in various child trafficking operations, Trump is out there throwing his full support behind the police and trying to take down the very movement trying to defund them and lessen their power and ability to continue their abuse. Despite ICE agents being caught sexually abusing children and a large amount of immigrant children winding up missing, Trump is continuing to spout xenophobic nonsense and throwing his full support behind ICE, while drowning out the call to divest from and abolish the agency entirely. Trump is criticizing the #MeToo movement and the very activists attempting to out these abusers and hold them accountable. While he is wishing Ghislaine Maxwell the best and showing support for misguided QAnon supporters, the real activists tackling these abuse cases are being harassed and threatened by the very same QAnoners claiming they wish to stop this abuse.

QAnon is just an attempt to keep people supporting the state at a time when its worst aspects are being exposed to the public at large. As long as people believe Trump is helping to solve these issues, people will continue to support the state instead of tearing it down and that’s why Trump has thrown his support behind a 4chan prank spun absolutely out of control. If these gullible people were to realize the truth, they would be teaming up with the #MeToo movement and such a movement rightly directed by leftist thought would be more likely to realize that these power structures themselves allow for such abuse on such a mass scale. Such realization would mean that people would have to confront not just the individuals involved but the power structures themselves, threatening the entire function of the state. The only way to truly end this abuse is to tear down the state and capitalist hierarchies and to create a more horizontal system based on consent and accountability. The only way to end the abuse and truly save the children is anarchy.

Di Kevin Carson. Originale pubblicato il 16 settembre 2020 con il titolo And Yet You Use Those Evil Big Tech Platforms. Curious! Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

Capita spesso che un libertario di destra denunci, con qualche giustificazione, la stupidità di chi pensa che opporsi a qualche legge o istituzione statale significhi opporsi a qualche valore o a qualche fine da raggiungere in nome di tale valore. Voler abolire il ministero dell’istruzione, ad esempio, non significa volere l’ignoranza. Ma sono poi gli stessi libertari di destra, come vedremo, a fare un errore molto simile.

Un errore simile, la cui colpa ricade perlopiù sui sostenitori del capitalismo, è riassunta dall’espressione “anticapitalista con l’iPhone” diffusa sui social. Matt Bors ci ha fatto sopra una vignetta molto nota in cui un contadino dice: “Questa società fa schifo”, al che un troll di destra gli risponde da un pozzo: “Però anche tu fai parte della società. Io sono molto intelligente.”

Implicito nella risposta del troll è che se vogliamo i vantaggi, dobbiamo accettare anche gli arrangiamenti istituzionali che li rendono possibili. Ma così facendo si impedisce qualunque critica delle strutture sociali o delle istituzioni di qualsivoglia società, dato che l’unico modo per avere quei vantaggi passa dall’accettazione del sistema sociale che li rende possibili. Un sostenitore dell’economia pianificata sovietica avrebbe potuto sfidare un sostenitore del libero mercato con le stesse parole: “Però hai una casa, vestiti, mobili e elettrodomestici prodotti in industrie di stato che dipendono dai ministeri dell’industria e producono seguendo un Piano Quinquennale. Strano!”

Elizabeth Nolan Brown, in due articoli pubblicati su Reason a distanza di qualche giorno, casca in entrambi gli errori. In “Democrats Hate Facebook. Republicans Want To Ban TikTok. The Bipartisan Backlash Against Big Tech Is Here and It’s a Disaster” (13 agosto), scrive:

La gente comincia a considerare internet, e le opportunità che crea, una seccatura. Anche se i loro prodotti hanno cambiato pressoché ogni aspetto della quotidianità, le grandi aziende tecnologiche sono oggetto di critiche e di attacchi politici.

Per contro, spiega, la primavera scorsa c’è stato un momento in cui gli americani sembravano apprezzare ciò che queste aziende facevano per loro.

…mentre il paese chiudeva tutto e stava a casa a causa del virus, le aziende tecnologiche statunitensi sembravano godere di una rinata reputazione. Mentre tutti erano rinchiusi in casa, le aziende tecnologiche venivano in aiuto offrendo alimentari, divertimento, lavoro e possibilità di comunicare. Ma la tregua è stata breve. Cinque mesi di pandemia sembrano aver cancellato qualsiasi simpatia per la Silicon Valley.

“C’è stata una breve finestra temporale in cui tutti ringraziavano le tecnologie che permettevano di continuare a funzionare come società nonostante l’impossibilità di riunirsi in uno spazio fisico,” dice a Reason Eric Goldman, docente di diritto all’università di Santa Clara. “Ma la gratitudine è presto evaporata. Presto è ripreso l’odio verso le aziende di internet dimenticando i vantaggi che offrono.” …

…Proprio quando le aziende tecnologiche offrono innumerevoli vantaggi alla gente, ecco che torna più forte che mai la critica per le dimensioni e il loro potere, critica che qualcuno in gergo chiama “techlash” …

Pensiamo ai tanti modi in cui strumenti digitali e aziende tecnologiche hanno garantito l’accesso ad informazioni aggiornate e diversificate durante la pandemia. Pensiamo ai servizi di streaming, ai videogiochi interattivi, ai fornitori di libri digitali, a chi fa i podcast e alle applicazioni che ci hanno permesso di passare il tempo. I tanti servizi di messaggeria gratuita con cui abbiamo potuto mantenere i contatti con amici, famiglia, colleghi. Quegli strumenti online che garantiscono perlomeno la fattibilità dell’istruzione. Tutti quei servizi che permettono di fare donazioni, i mercati virtuali come Etsy e eBay, le applicazioni della gig economy da Uber a Patreon che aiutano a sbarcare il lunario.

Certo non è l’ideale. Ma senza la tecnologia attuale, sarebbe molto peggio …

Pensiamo ai tanti [abusi della polizia] evitati dagli smartphone e le videocamere, ma anche da chi permette la libera diffusione dei video.

Da notare come sia per lei che per Eric Goldman ad un insieme di cose (internet e le opportunità che esso crea, la possibilità di acquistare alimentari e altro, la tecnologia, lo streaming, i videogiochi eccetera, gli smartphone, i video digitali, le tecnologie attuali) corrisponda un altro insieme (Big Tech, Silicon Valley, le aziende di internet, le principali aziende tecnologiche statunitensi).

Se non stai attento, ti frega. Perché le due cose non corrispondono, così come gli alloggi, i vestiti e gli elettrodomestici non corrispondevano all’industria di stato sovietica. Le stesse funzioni tecniche di base possono essere offerte con un gran numero di arrangiamenti istituzionali diversi. Ogni società di classe sceglie un suo particolare arrangiamento. E quest’ultimo riflette gli interessi della classe dominante. Come scrive Paul Goodman, “un sistema distrugge i sistemi avversari vanificandone la possibilità di manovra per poi dimostrare che il suo è l’unico sistema possibile.”

Il fatto che beni e servizi di cui ci serviamo vengano da un particolare insieme di arrangiamenti istituzionali scelto dalle strutture di potere – e da chi sennò? – non legittima quegli arrangiamenti.

In “Anti-Tech Warriors Are Coming For Your Food Delivery Apps” (17 agosto) Brown applica lo stesso ragionamento alle applicazioni per la consegna a domicilio dei negozi di gastronomia.

Negli Stati Uniti, moltissimi consumatori e aziende si servono di applicazioni che permettono alla gente di ottenere servizi altrimenti inaccessibili e alle attività di ampliare la clientela, offrendo al contempo un piccolo lavoro flessibile a chi fa le consegne…

Non sorprende il fatto che le agguerrite attività tradizionali non ne vogliano sapere. Non sono disposte a condividere i propri guadagni con chi ha le applicazioni, né vogliono dare ai loro clienti la possibilità di servirsi altrove. È una guerra. E da quando è iniziata la pandemia, con la gente a casa e i ristoranti chiusi, l’uso delle applicazioni si è diffuso.

Chi vorrebbe eliminare le applicazioni, ovviamente, non dice apertamente così. Dice che le applicazioni “sfruttano i ristoranti, i lavoratori, i consumatori”, che drenano “soldi dall’economia locale”.

Ma la loro campagna “Protect Our Restaurants” è sostanzialmente lobbismo, chiede l’intervento dello stato a favore di una categoria protetta, affinché le vecchie gastronomie continuino ad incassare senza migliorare il proprio servizio. Abbiamo visto altre crociate simili lanciate da giornali, alberghi e altre aziende il cui modello economico obsoleto è stato minato da internet …

…Le loro soluzioni si riducono sostanzialmente alla richiesta di regole più stringenti.

Qui, tutto ciò che esprime positività e libertà (i vantaggi che le applicazioni “forniscono”, “permettono” e così via) si riferisce alle benevole applicazioni. Mentre ciò che esprime negatività (agguerrite aziende tradizionali, non vogliono [detto più volte], far scomparire, lobbismo, categoria protetta, modello economico obsoleto) è attribuito a chi si oppone. Se vi sentite un po’ presi in giro, non è colpa vostra.

Anche la questione normativa è ugualmente inquadrata in maniera parziale. Ad offrire “libertà” e “scelta” sono sempre le applicazioni, mentre i cattivi – le “vecchie gastronomie” che odiano la “concorrenza” – vogliono più regole.

Chiariamo alcune cose. Prima di tutto, il modello di profitto di queste applicazioni – che, cosa che Brown non dice mai, sono proprietarie, chiuse, monopolio di certe aziende – dipende interamente da un monopolio della proprietà intellettuale. E, cosa scomoda per Brown che gioca a fare il moralista, la proprietà intellettuale è una normativa governativa che blocca la concorrenza.

E nonostante tutto il gran parlare di libertà – con parole che significano possibilità, offerta, cambiamento, scelta, flessibilità – la mano che libera può anche incatenare. Grazie al controllo monopolistico delle applicazioni sulle piattaforme, si possono imporre unilateralmente le tariffe a gastronomie, tassisti e clientela. Si sa che le applicazioni fanno la cresta alle gastronomie e rubano le mance ai tassisti, in quest’ultimo caso contribuendo a ridurne la paga. Son sicuro che Brown risponderebbe che il mercato limita il loro potere di agire così perché clientela, tassisti e gastronomie hanno la possibilità di rifiutare il prezzo; ma il potere di impostare il prezzo ad un livello che massimizza il profitto sulla base dell’utilità per il consumatore, impostandolo ad un livello appena al di sopra delle capacità di gran parte delle persone, è la definizione esatta di tariffa monopolistica.

Quanto alla finzione dei lavoratori “liberi professionisti”, non sta in piedi neanche un secondo. Come dice Cory Doctorow a proposito di Amazon Flex, si tratta di

un sistema di consegna che rientra nella “gig economy” fingendo che gli autisti siano liberi professionisti, anche se poi ogni loro minimo movimento viene registrato da un’applicazione controllando il lavoratore come mai capitava coi padroni del passato.

Quanto alla gig economy in generale, la storia del “libero professionista” è solo un trucco che serve a trasferire rischi e costi dal datore di lavoro al lavoratore, che non è affatto indipendente come i veri liberi professionisti.

Gli autisti di Amazon Flex sono lavoratori “addomesticati” la cui paga è determinata da un algoritmo a scatola chiusa impostato in modo da tenerli un po’ più su del fallimento (ed è per questo che hanno cominciato ad APPENDERE I CELLULARI AGLI ALBERI).

In parole povere, se un’azienda possiede l’applicazione che “gestisce” il tuo lavoro, e se può licenziarti unilateralmente, allora è il tuo datore di lavoro. Punto. Chiunque sostenga il contrario è un imbonitore.

Brown inquadra la questione nei termini ingannevoli di “vecchio e clientelare” opposto a “nuovo e di rottura”, ma se c’è qualcosa che dev’essere rotto qui sono proprio queste applicazioni proprietarie, quelle che un sincero sostenitore dell’economia della condivisione chiamerebbe “piattaforme della morte nera”. Il loro monopolio basato sulla proprietà intellettuale non è affatto diverso dal protezionismo garantito dallo stato che impone l’obbligo della licenza ai tassisti.

Dire che bisognerebbe ringraziare le aziende tecnologiche per i vantaggi offerti è come dire che il contadino medievale avrebbe dovuto ringraziare il feudatario per la possibilità di accedere alla terra da cui traeva vantaggi e sostentamento. Sembra di vedere Brown che spunta da un pozzo e dice: “E però tu stranamente usi i prodotti di quelle cattive aziende tecnologiche.”

Il consumatore deve rendere omaggio alle aziende tecnologiche in cambio dei servizi per la stessa ragione per cui i contadini dovevano trattare con i proprietari terrieri per potersi servire della terra: le aziende tecnologiche hanno un monopolio legale che permette loro di controllare l’accesso ai servizi tecnologici grazie ai diritti artificiali di proprietà intellettuale garantiti dallo stato. Così come i feudatari, anche le aziende tecnologiche possono fare a meno del freno costituito dalle “normative statali”. Perché le normative sono la base del loro potere.

Possiamo rompere il loro potere o annullando o ignorando le leggi sulla proprietà intellettuale – le normative statali – alla base del loro potere. Un modo per farlo passa da quella che Doctorow chiama “interoperabilità avversaria”. In poche parole, significa togliere le protezioni da codici e protocolli di applicazioni proprietarie, togliere le protezioni ai segreti industriali relativi ai codici sorgente, togliere tutte le altre barriere legali imposte alle applicazioni open-source, per servirsene senza dover ottenere il permesso.

Una possibilità allettante sarebbe creare una difesa legale assoluta per quelle aziende che fabbricano parti “interoperabili” utilizzabili con prodotti di aziende dominanti, dall’inchiostro di terze parti per le stampanti ai lettori di Facebook che intercettano i messaggi e li filtrano secondo le tue specifiche, e non quelle di Zuckerberg. Questa difesa metterebbe al riparo i piccoli sviluppatori da accuse di contraffazione, elusione del copyright, violazione di brevetto e, ovviamente, violazione dei termini di servizio.

Nel caso di social a gestione opaca come Twitter e Facebook, una qualsiasi alternativa open-source gestita dall’utente potrebbe, passando Twitter e/o Facebook, importare elenchi di contatti e creare post interpiattaforma senza dover chiedere il permesso a Jack Dorsey o Mark Zuckerberg.

Alternative a Facebook, come Diaspora, permettono, servendosi del login dell’utente, di scaricare i messaggi in arrivo da Facebook e rispondere direttamente da Diaspora eludendo i controlli di Facebook. Gli utenti di Mastodon possono leggere e pubblicare su Twitter senza passare mai dai suoi server. Potrebbero nascere centinaia o migliaia di servizi che permettono agli utenti di bloccare le interferenze e attirare interessanti contributi da parte di altri utenti, che si tratti di quelli già esistenti sui social o di altri nuovi.

Invece di persone scontente costrette a rivolgersi a Mastodon su Fediverse che ha meno dell’uno percento degli utenti di Twitter, vedremo Twitter diventare una piattaforma aperta come Fediverse, con tutto l’effetto rete di Twitter.

Facebook trae vantaggio dall’“effetto rete”, per cui il suo valore aumenta ad ogni utente iscritto (perché più utenti significano più probabilità che la persona che cerchi sia su Facebook). L’interoperabilità avversaria può permettere ai nuovi partecipanti al mercato di appropriarsi dell’effetto rete, lasciando che i loro utenti restino in contatto con i loro amici su Facebook anche dopo essersi cancellati.

Nel caso specifico di quelle che erroneamente vengono chiamate applicazioni di “ride-sharing”, spiega Doctorow come l’interoperabilità avversaria potrebbe dar vita ad un ride-sharing vero:

Immaginiamo un’applicazione distruttiva che distrugge i distruttori.

Poniamo che io abbia una applicazione di ride-sharing (chiamiamola Meta-Uber) connessa a tutte le cooperative di tassisti al mondo. Quando atterro, cerco un taxi con Uber o Lyft, ma una volta che il tassista ha risposto, la mia Meta-Uber gli chiede: “Hai una applicazione della cooperativa sul cellulare?” Se sia il tassista che io abbiamo quella applicazione, cancelliamo la prenotazione con Uber e la trasferiamo su Meta-Uber.

Si potrebbe così sfruttare quella base costituita dai tassisti al servizio di Uber e Lyft, i miliardi gettati per legalizzare il servizio nelle varie città del mondo e gli altri miliardi spesi in marketing per inculcare l’idea del ride-sharing nella testa della gente.

Questo ipotetico Meta-Uber opererebbe una transizione dolce da un servizio di proprietà di azionisti alle cooperative di lavoratori. Quando hai bisogno di un taxi, lo trovi, senza incappare nel dilemma della gallina e dell’uovo dei tassisti che mancano perché non ci sono passeggeri che mancano perché non ci sono tassisti. Una corsa dopo l’altra, Lyft e Uber potrebbero essere cannibalizzate e portate all’ospizio.

I miliardi spesi per assicurarsi il “vantaggio della prima mossa” non rappresenterebbero più una muraglia eretta a protezione delle loro attività: sarebbero invece una pietra al collo. Lyft e Uber si ritroverebbero con un’eccedenza di capitale per miliardi da cui i loro investitori si aspettano un rientro, mentre le cooperative, avendo semplicemente cavalcato le due aziende, non avrebbero nessun peso sulle spalle.

Possiamo farlo?

Sì. Tecnicamente, non è molto difficile. Il servizio abbina a tassista e cliente un codice unico relativo alla corsa, Meta-Uber verifica che il codice unico del tassista corrisponda a quello del cliente, quindi cancella la prenotazione usando la funzione apposita di Uber o Lyft e ne crea un’altra uguale con Meta-Uber…

Si possono immaginare centro altre Meta: una Meta-Amazon che reindirizza l’ordine alla più vicina libreria; una Meta-OpenTable che rimanda la prenotazione ad una cooperativa.

Queste cooperative finirebbero per distruggere i monopoli digitali arrivati al potere predicando il mantra della distruzione [cioè quei monopoli che Brown e altri su Reason difendono tanto calorosamente, K.C.]. Ognuno di quei monopolisti digitali si ridurrebbe ad un belato, diventerebbe un superpredatore sconcertato che ringhia e si contorce impotente mentre viene ridotto a brandelli da mille minuscoli morsi da parte di uno sciame di nuovi arrivati veloci e altamente evoluti.

Il vero ostacolo, come spiega lui stesso, non è tecnico ma legale:

Il diritto tecnologico è una pletora di norme desuete sistematicamente distorte da aziende “di rottura”, che le usano prima per farsi largo nella vecchia industria e poi per proteggersi dai nuovi arrivati o per cercare di distruggerli.

La prima è la Legge sull’abuso e le frodi informatiche (FCAA), teoricamente una normativa anti-intrusione che punisce l’uso “oltre il limite autorizzato” di un computer altrui. Già ai tempi dell’approvazione, oltre quarant’anni fa, esperti e operatori dissero che era troppo generica e che un giorno avrebbe potuto essere usata per criminalizzare il normale uso del proprio computer, perché per certe attività occorre connettersi ad un server il cui proprietario potrebbe imporre pesanti “condizioni d’uso” e “termini di servizio”. Se questo atteggiamento avesse preso piede, si diceva allora, le condizioni imposte avrebbero potuto acquisire la forza di una legge penale, e la loro violazione avrebbe potuto portare all’arresto.

Quarant’anni dopo, le paure sono realtà: la CFAA è usata per minacciare, intimidire, denunciare e anche arrestare persone impegnate in attività altrimenti perfettamente legali, semplicemente perché hanno violato qualche termine di servizio. Il fatto che i termini di servizio si siano metastatizzati in poemi scritti in impenetrabile gergo giuridico ha creato un mondo in cui ogni tentativo di ostacolare le ambizioni commerciali dei monopolisti è un potenziale crimine.

C’è poi l’articolo 1201 del Digital Millennium Copyright Act del 1998, voluto da Bill Clinton per criminalizzare “l’aggiramento dei controlli dell’accesso” (la gestione dei diritti digitali, o drm) nelle opere coperte da copyright…

Messi assieme, CFAA e DMCA hanno dato la possibilità alle aziende digitali di creare un sistema legale ombra mai approvato da nessun parlamento ma regolarmente applicato dai giudici sotto forma di spregio criminale del modello aziendale.

Il CFAA e il DMCA 1201 sono stati accuratamente distorti fino a farne uno schermo difensivo, antidisturbo, a vantaggio esclusivo delle aziende digitali. I tassisti tradizionali, ad esempio, non possono servirsene per tenere Uber e Lyft fuori dalla loro città.

Ma Uber e Lyft possono servirsi di questi strumenti legali per tenere Meta-Uber lontano dai loro profitti. Prolissi termini di servizio stabiliscono le regole con cui una persona può comunicare con i loro server. Ad esempio, vietano l’uso dei server per localizzare i tassisti per fini che non siano la prenotazione di una corsa. E ovviamente non permettono di localizzare un taxi per poi cancellare la prenotazione e rifarla con l’applicazione di una cooperativa.

E l’applicazione è criptata sul tuo telefonino, e per entrarci con l’ingegneria inversa dovresti prima decriptarla (magari catturando un’immagine del codice decriptato mentre viene eseguito su un telefono virtuale simulato su un computer). Decriptare un’applicazione senza permesso è “aggiramento dei controlli di accesso” di materiale protetto da copyright (il codice dell’applicazione è coperto da copyright).

Uber e Lyft possono usare DMCA 1201 per impedire a chiunque di utilizzare l’applicazione per localizzare un tassista di una cooperativa, mentre CFAA permette loro di impedire che la prenotazione sia spostata da Uber a Meta-Uber.

Queste barriere legali – ancora una volta, norme statali protezioniste – sono al cuore del modello aziendale su cui si basano tutte le applicazioni proprietarie, non solo quelle di “ride-sharing”.

Riassumendo, ogni singola parte del ragionamento di Brown, che inquadra la cosa in termini di Davide contro Golia, è falsa. È il Big Tech che è blindato e clientelare, e usa le norme statali per soffocare la concorrenza. Dovrebbero essere le gastronomie, i taxi, i clienti e tutti gli altri utenti di queste cosiddette piattaforme della Morte Nera ad espropriarne la proprietà intellettuale, romperne il monopolio e mandare a quel paese i loro sostenitori.

The fundamental tenet of anarchism is the resistance to an Archos, Greek for “master.” To advocate for anarchism is to position oneself in opposition to a master, i.e., to claim the fundamental right of self-determination, autonomy, and freedom from a centralized system of (especially coercive) control. To act anarchically simply means to act independently of a master. It does not mean acting in an uncoordinated or unorganized fashion, nor does it always mean a total absence of layered responsibilities, more commonly known as “hierarchy.”

The Internet is anarchist because the above describes not only the actual operation of basic Internet network protocols such as Ethernet and TCP/IP, but also its designers’ original intentions. When Bob Metcalfe invented Ethernet in the 1970’s, he intentionally designed his system in a way that would function anarchically. Unlike competing technologies of the day such as Token Ring, in which individual participants deferred to one another based on which one held all the power to speak at that time (the network’s “token” holder), Metcalfe’s Ethernet instead purposefully permitted any participating device to say anything on the network at any time it wanted. Collisions and conflicts were handled independently, by the individual devices creating the conflict through a simple set of rules (carrier sense multiple access with collision detection, or CSMA/CD), a process unmediated by external controllers.

Many engineers believed this approach was too chaotic to succeed. How could a system of coordination function with no command center? It would be pure anarchy!

Today, every Internet connection, local network, telephone uplink, datacenter backhaul, and Wi-Fi signal to your computer uses Ethernet. The anarchist approach proved simpler, more efficient, and ultimately more successful. This is no surprise to any practicing anarchist, although many practicing anarchists still won’t recognize the anarchism in action when they post their next Tweet.

Most people, including and arguably especially most digital technologists, can intuitively understand the principles of anarchic coordination. There are myriad examples of modern technologies with names such as consensus algorithms, cluster orchestration, and distributed ledgers (like “blockchains”) that are, when you actually stop to examine them, fundamentally anarchic approaches to solving complex problems in environments with various degrees of trust between participants.

Large-scale cluster orchestration tools like Kubernetes, a Google invention, function primarily thanks to a coordinating set of components each with very specific, horizontally organized responsibilities that act autonomously of one another, merely responding to changes in their environment as they occur. The Internet’s own Certificate Transparency Log (CTL), which audits the issuance of website security certificates such as those offered for free to website owners by Let’s Encrypt, is a massively distributed consensus database run by many independent organizations that uses the same underlying technology as Bitcoin. The backbones of the Internet itself, like the Domain Name System (DNS) and the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), are each delegatable systems in which anyone, at any time, can participate simply by connecting a computer with free and open source software to the Internet and claiming responsibility over a new autonomous region, called a “domain” in DNS’s lingo or an “autonomous system number” (ASN) in the language of BGP.

To the newly initiated, this all seems remarkably fragile. And yet, somehow, the Internet has proven surprisingly resilient. But most technologists aren’t able to see the parallels between their beloved technology and the anarchist viewpoint largely because they simply do not spend much of their time thinking about social organization or politics. At least, not beyond the next four-year election cycle.

This must change. And we’re going to change it.

How? Such a change will not happen through the proliferation of code bootcamps or “learn to code” initiatives. It will not happen through diversity campaigns sponsored by and centered within the tech industry. Technologists, like most people in a comfortable and financially privileged societal position and class stratification, are not generally willing to examine their biases or change their worldview. It is both unreasonable of us and strategically foolhardy of us to ask them to.

Simply put, the cost of radicalizing technologists is enormous. Changing an individual’s worldview is a very heavy lift. As a strategy writ large, it is a failing one. The “battle over hearts and minds” is not a battle worth fighting, at least not directly, because what changes hearts and minds is not reason, but experience. Not reciting facts about the present, but taking actions that inspire imagination about the future. Not engaging in debates, but actually making concrete changes in someone’s material circumstances.

Meanwhile, the cost of training radicals in modern information technology, on the other hand, is negligible. It is of course also difficult, but it is nowhere near as difficult to learn a new set of skills as it is to learn an entirely new and paradigmatically different worldview. As a strategy writ large, “technicalizing radicals” is one with boundless potential, while “radicalizing techies” has proven to be a disastrous waste of time.

Today’s activist landscape looks very different from the days of Civil Rights marches, the Anti-War Movement, or even the Anti-Globalization Movement prior to 9/11. If we are to traverse this different terrain, we require a different kind of vehicle.

This is not a particularly new idea. Some will remember the Crypto Wars in the 1980’s and 1990’s, in which governments reserved encryption technology solely for military use. Cypherpunk and early “Hacker” culture sprang from this era. But neither cypherpunk nor “Hacker” communities were particularly anarchist, in either ideology nor practice. Instead, they largely imported and mirrored mainstream ideas such as gender, economic, and racial stereotypes, spending most of their time naively imagining themselves in a far-flung utopia in which the mere existence of technologies relying on anarchic methods would inevitably lead to a reformation of society with equality and justice for all even as reality turned increasingly towards nightmarish dystopias.

By and large, technically skilled hackers wrapped themselves in the glow of their terminals the way politicians wrap themselves up in their country’s flags. They mostly ignored the forces of industrialization re-centralizing the Internet and turning it into massive digital strip malls like Facebook. By the time they awoke from their Matte-fueled reveries several decades later, their world had been colonized and their comrades would be targeted as criminals under laws like the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act enacted a decade or more earlier. Famous exceptions such as Pirate Bay founder Peter Sunde notwithstanding, the earlier generation of hackers fumbled because they failed to recognize and center the importance of the anarchist principles underlying the very technologies they wrongly treated as inherently liberating.

If they had brought a more explicitly anarchist lens with them, they would have recognized that neither anarchy nor liberation are states that can be described by their state machines, but rather they are constant processes in which individuals must repeatedly take action to reaffirm their resistance against the formation of an Archos.

Today that means politically conscious anarchists must take responsibility for the operation and administration of interconnected networks of communication, if not also the capital-I Internet itself, in order to ensure that fascism is constantly beaten back. This goes beyond merely “no-platforming” fascists and coding the next much-hyped Web app, social network platform, or encrypted messenger. That’s not enough. Not by a long shot.

Instead, anarchists must make ourselves capable of physically running networking cable from one neighborhood into another. We must learn to administer critical internet functions like the Domain Name System ourselves, independently from commercial providers. We must work to scale out, rather than scale up, massive datacenter operations and place them physically in the communities that rely on them instead of halfway around the globe, for exactly the same reason we must abolish police departments whose patrols are often conducted by personnel who don’t live in the neighborhood they are responsible for policing.

This is a lot of work, but not as much as one may at first think. Best of all, the resources it actually requires in terms of money and equipment are minimal and becoming ever more ubiquitous. There is also no need to write new code or build new apps to make this happen. We already have all the raw materials we need to get the job done. The only thing we lack is broader commitment from anarchists, themselves.

In New York City, several anarchist and anarcho-autonomist collectives have been slowly converging to provide technological and digital infrastructure support services to anti-fascist, anti-racist, and anti-capitalist organizations in a repeatable, reproducible way. These services range from computer training for activists and advocacy groups to direct assistance with digital components of advocacy efforts, and even private audits of an ally’s security posture when requested.

Some groups, like Anarcho-Tech NYC, are entirely volunteer-run organizations operating without any licensing or legal recognition and a financial budget intentionally as close to zero as possible.

Others, like Tech Learning Collective, provide frequent free, by-donation, and low-cost technical training to otherwise underserved communities and organizations advancing social justice causes in an effort to help fund projects for radical social good while simultaneously “upskilling” politically motivated and technologically-curious students. An apprenticeship-based and security-first technology school founded and operated exclusively by radical queer and femme technologists, Tech Learning Collective hosts virtual (remote/online) computer classes on topics ranging from fundamental computer literacy to the same offensive computer hacking techniques used by national intelligence agencies and military powers.

Together with technology-centered community groups like Shift-CTRL Space who connect local, grassroots organizers with free resources on technology, this growing “digital rainbow coalition” focusing on a range of IT and telecoms infrastructure and education initiatives is demonstrating how to have an outsized impact on anti-fascist organizing in the 21st century.

As anarchists, we like to say that another world is possible. The truth is, another world has been here all along. It’s in the palm of our hand every time we read a text from our friends. All we have to do is learn how it actually works.

I have long been a part of the southern Ohio and northern Kentucky punk scene, and I have always considered my involvement in the punk ‘movement’ (meaning the mass conglomeration of all scenes across the United States and the world) as inseparable from my ideology and activism as an anarchist. This is nothing unique to my own experience. As Crimethinc. write in their piece “Music as a Weapon:”

A large proportion of those who participated in the anarchist movement between 1978 and 2010 were part of the punk counterculture at some point; indeed, many were first exposed to anarchist ideas via punk. This may have been merely circumstantial: perhaps the same traits that made people seek out anarchism also predisposed them to enjoy aggressive, independently produced music. But one could also argue that music that pushes aesthetic and cultural boundaries can open up listeners to a wider spectrum of possibility in other spheres of life as well.

In light of this connection, I’m proud to announce that my most recent project—a powerviolence/grindcore band called Consumerist—is officially collaborating with the Cincinnati chapter of Food Not Bombs so that all our profits from the Consumerist self-titled debut EP (whether made through purchases on Bandcamp or through our label Floorjazz Recordings) will be donated toward their efforts. So, whether you like extreme music or not, please consider buying our EP (or donating directly to Cincy Food Not Bombs)!

While anarchists have incorporated insights from economics, anthropology, psychology, and some macro-sociology, there is a notable absence when it comes to micro-sociology. This is puzzling as the very core of anarchist thought is about hierarchy, a sociological phenomenon. The standard anarchist conception of hierarchy focuses almost exclusively on structural power. Generally speaking, anarchists claim to be against all hierarchy, yet appear to be unaware of the hierarchies they themselves are reproducing in their everyday lives. The ignorance of micro-sociological processes is nearly universal in contemporary anarchist thought. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the explanatory power of analyzing the social situations in which individuals are embedded rather than just narrowly focusing on individuals.

Georges Gurvitch, a sociologist who built on both Proudhon and Marx while incorporating insights from physics, argued that the universe can no longer be understood as a machine made up of individual parts. Instead, it must be understood as an indivisible, dynamic whole with interrelated parts. Some unacquainted with sociology still generally view individuals as independent and distinct from each other. In so doing, they are able to claim that some individuals are “good” and others “bad.” In essence, they view the social struggle as “good guys versus bad guys.” This is an erroneous worldview. As Gurvitch argued, the we exists ontologically prior to the I. Or in other words, the group exists prior to the individual. The individual is an outgrowth of society, not the other way around (Bosserman 1968). 

Relatedly, humans are one of the handful of species that regularly pass the mirror test, which examines if an animal can recognize themselves as the object in the mirror. If an animal passes the test, it is inferred that they have what sociologists refer to as “a self.” An individual is thought to acquire a self only once they have taken on “the attitude of the other” and become an object to themselves. Interestingly, while chimpanzees regularly pass the mirror test, those who are kept in isolation since birth are unable to pass the test. Once isolated chimps are able to socialize with others though, they then can pass the test (Gallup 1977). These findings align with George H. Mead’s social behavior theory, later termed symbolic interactionism, that the acquisition of self requires interaction with others. “The self, as that which can be an object to itself, is essentially a social structure, and it arises in social experience (Mead 1934: 140).” How society acts towards an individual completely shapes the individual’s understanding of self.  Hence, the self is a social construction. This should not be that surprising as all language and symbols are inherently social constructs and comprise most mental activity.

The understanding of self as social construct is an important insight because it demonstrates how entrenched society’s grip is in our minds. Our interactions with others are fundamentally shaped by unconscious social processes which we have learned since infancy. While we like to think of ourselves as rational, we are clearly bounded in our rationality. We regularly use heuristics, or mental shortcuts, to facilitate interaction. The sheer amount of information flowing between two people interacting is mind-boggling and generally taken for granted. In our voice alone, tone, volume, pitch, inflection, and pace all attach significant symbolic meanings to whatever words are being spoken.  As Randall Collins (1992: 12) wrote “Society works precisely because people don’t have to rationally decide what benefits they might get and what losses they might incur. People do not have to think about these things and that is what makes society possible.” Everyone encapsulated in society unknowingly abides by an enormous amount of social heuristics which facilitate interaction with others.

Unsurprisingly then, over the course of a normal day, we enact a multitude of cultural scripts, which includes rules for deference and demeanor, which are embedded within our psyche. “Like professional actors on a stage, social actors enact roles, assume characters, and play through scenes when interacting with one another. In short, they put on “performances” (Trevino 2003: 18).” These performances allow for the smooth flow of interaction and derive from culturally-shared beliefs which influence how we interact with others. As hierarchy is entrenched in our society, so is it in all of our behavior. Dominance and prestige hierarchies take place in everyday interaction without needing to appeal to conscious thought. For example, as early as preschool, kids have been found to be able to accurately infer dominance hierarchies simply by observing others (Charafeddine et al. 2015). Although anarchists want to minimize, if not abolish, these hierarchies, they generally lack a clear understanding of what hierarchy actually is within society. 

Importantly, society not only shapes how we understand ourselves, but it also shapes how we define a situation. All individual behavior is shaped by their understanding of the situation. In contrast to methodical individualism then, the emphasis should be placed on what I term methodological situationism. It is situations which predominantly shape individual actions. “The individual is the precipitate of past interactional situations and an ingredient of each new situation. An ingredient, not the determinant, because a situation is an emergent property. A situation is not merely the result of the individual who comes into it, nor even of a combination of individuals (although it is that too). Situations have laws or processes of their own (Collins 2004: 5).” In the same way that the game makes the hero, it is the situations, or the chains of situations, which make the individual. In Asylums, Erving Goffman (1968) illustrates how total institutions like mental asylums try to impose, often successfully, certain understandings of the self onto inmates simply by forcing the inmates into particular situations. 

As all social life boils down to concrete situations, it is these situations which should be given the focus. An attention to situations can be extended to understand how individuals take on counterintuitive beliefs. For example, Ludwig Gumplowicz (1899), whose work Franz Oppenheimer (1922) built on to create the conquest theory of the state, argues that when a group is conquered by another, it is initially through pure domination. However, over time, and through interaction between the two groups, this imposed hierarchy becomes understood as more and more legitimate until the two formerly independent societies are incorporated as one. Dominance recedes and prestige takes root. A tacit agreement emerges between the two groups. Generally, the idea used to legitimize the situation is the argument of “divine right” or, nowadays, “merit.” By legitimizing the inequality between the two, it adds considerable complexity to society by synthesizing two societies into one. Over the course of the past 12,000 years, the entire planet has gradually come under one super stratified global society, with the US military at the very top, through similar situational processes (Malešević 2017). Hence, we ALL now find our “self’s” embedded within a society which has its foundation rooted in sheer domination and submission. 

Alexander Rustow (1980: 38), a conquest theorist of the state, describes our situation:

All of us, without exception, carry this inherited poison within us, in the most varied and unexpected places and in the most diverse forms, often defying perception. All of us, collectively and individually, are accessories to this great sin of all time, this real original sin, a hereditary fault that can be excised and erased only with great difficulty and slowly by an insight into pathology, by a will to recover, by the active remorse of all.

As situations determine the vast majority of individual behavior, it is in the interest of the anarchist to turn their focus towards social situations. By narrowly focusing on the individual, they are missing a key part of how structural arrangements shape individual behavior. Even more, I would argue that the social disintegration we are currently witnessing has less to do with individual actors as with the social situations and roles themselves. The only reason Trump can now play a tyrant, for example, is because the situation was first made available. The notion of “good guys versus bad guys” only serves to stroke the egos of the so-called “good guys” while alienating those whom they have deemed irredeemable of the so-called “bad guys.”  Therefore, incorporating micro-sociological insights allows for a more nuanced understanding of social reality as well as adds considerable explanatory power to the anarchist framework.

References

• Bosserman, Phillip. 1968. Dialectical Sociology: An Analysis of the Sociology of Georges Gurvitch. Porter Sargent Publisher.
• Charafeddine, Rawan, Hugo Mercier, Fabrice Clément et al. 2015. “How preschoolers use cues of dominance to make sense of their social environment.” Journal of Cognition and Development 16(4): 587-607.
• Collins, Randall. 1992. Sociological Insight: An Introduction to Non-Obvious Sociology. Oxford University Press.
• Collins, Randall. 2004. Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton University Press.
• Gallup, Gordon G. 1977. “Self recognition in primates: A comparative approach to the bidirectional properties of consciousness.” American Psychologist 32(5): 329-338.
• Goffman, Erving. 1968. Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. Aldine Transaction.
• Gumplowicz, Ludwig. 1899. The Outlines of Sociology. American Academy of Political and Social Science.
• Malešević, Siniša . 2017. The Rise of Organised Brutality: A Historical Sociology of Violence. Cambridge University Press.
• Mead, George Herbert. 1934. Mind, Self and Society. University of Chicago Press.
• Oppenheimer, Franz. 1922. The State: Its History and Development Viewed Sociologically. Vanguard Press.
• Rustow, Alexander. 1980. Freedom and Domination: A Historical Critique of Civilization. Princeton University Press.
• Treviño, Javier A. 2003. Goffman’s Legacy. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

It was brought to our attention recently that a one-time contributor to C4SS has been outed as a member of a racist and misogynistic chat group. Toby Fitzsimmons, a student at Durham University in the UK, submitted one article in May 2020, titled “ANTi-Capitalism: The Use of Knowledge in the Nest.” At the time, we were unaware of Toby’s involvement in such communities and published the article after a quick vetting on Twitter. 

We were notified on September 26th, 2020 that Toby was revealed to be a member of at least one of these chats, and we removed his piece shortly after. You can read the Durham University newspaper The Tab for more on this collection of group chats and the vile things being discussed there. 

In light of the severity of some of the things said: including conversations making light of or even encouraging sexual assault, we’ve also decided to post this disclaimer stating that we won’t be working with Toby in the future nor publishing any more of his work. 

We are also discussing ways to improve our vetting process for guest writers and new submissions moving forward. Many thanks to the Durham students who uncovered this activity and took the time to reach out and let us know about this behavior as well.

You might remember the May Day poetry feature last year, centered around remembrance and emotional release. This year, we thought probably everyone (at least those in the US) could do with some election-related self-expression. So we’re doing another poetry feature, this time centered on election day. I’m selfishly naming this one after what I’ve been told is my best podcast roundtable quote: “Rage is a positive emotion.” (Found in this episode of Mutual Exchange Radio.)

You can of course, however, write on whatever you’re feeling. Fear, grief, tenderness, hope. The idea is to get a snapshot of what it feels like to live in this time. It’s part of why anarchists have historically written poetry: to keep an emotional timeline of our history as well as an academic one. 

Who’s ready to get angry? View all poems here.

Fall 2020 Poetry Feature

• Two Limericks, David Gross
• Untitled I, Hugh Crane
• Another Lost Comrade, Logan Marie Glitterbomb
• 2020 September 13, Jeff Popovich
• Malison Against Tyrants, Fascists, and Enslavers, Damian Stephens
• No TERFS, No Patriarchy, Prax
• April 28, 2020, Melissa Minkoff
• Forged in Fire, Alex McHugh
• Creatio Ex Nihilo, Can Standke
• Daugters of the American Revolution, Laurel Palmer
• Isn’t Being Doomed the Whole Point?, John Harbour Devlin
• An Arch Why, Josef Pritchard
• yr highness, John Harbour Devlin
• Monster, Prax
• 2020 September 8, Jeff Popovich

We all have biases, and for many people nationalism (even the smallest degree of it) is one of them. However, if your goal is to understand the world, nationalist sentiments won’t give you the sturdiest foundation to do so. Nationalism shortcuts our thinking about the world. It awards a disproportionate amount of virtue points to “our” side and attributes an unjustifiable amount of cynicism to “their” side, defaulting our thoughts to give the benefit-of-the-doubt to our states, and creating a never-ending skeptical and critical eye for others. These biases make the burden of proof required to convict our side of a crime much higher than the one required for theirs. Bad deeds by our side are readily categorized as exceptions rather than rules — justified as mistakes that can be explained away by the ineptitude of politicians, institutions that couldn’t get it just right, the very limited activities of a narrow set of bad actors, and so on. Yet, bad deeds from their side are by default considered the results of bad actors or outright malevolence indicative of a whole system or way of thinking.

To be clear, when it comes to collectives and states, a skeptical and critical attitude is a good thing. But, applying it in full force only against our so-called rivals does not give you a principled approach. Skepticism must be applied evenly, and in fact, perhaps even more so to ourselves. It’s easy to point out the bad intentions or acts of those already identified as “the enemies.” The harder task, and the one we’re the most responsible for — since we can more likely affect our own side’s affairs and conduct — is to do our best to avoid nationalist biases and uneven criticism. The alternative is failures of understanding that mis-assess history, current events, and directions of the future.

Nationalist Sentiments Frame History

To have a serious discussion about a country’s affairs, one needs to challenge the underlying assumptions and claims of nobility, good faith, and moral fortitude often used to frame past and present actions, and future intentions.¹ Underlying assumptions of this kind tilt discussions on politics and social justice on an incline that creates an uphill battle for clearheaded thinking because they poison analysis from the outset and set up a rigid spectrum of conclusions one is expected to pick from and accept.²

National mythologies inform a nation’s official historical record, couch the way major mainstream media frames stories (especially international affairs), and fuel broader social opinion. Nationalist framing often doesn’t question whether, on net, our country and our history could be judged on the negative, nor does it tolerate analysis of present controversies to start from a neutral point of view in judging our acts and intentions.³ 

Tales of past deeds, present actions, and future intentions never start with us as “the bad guys,” conducting ourselves in a morally corrupt or self-interested manner at the cost of others. Nor do they stop nearly as much as they should to question our right to action or response to an issue on principle. Indeed, a detached, materialist, or realistic conception of politics, institutions, social norms, and the elites that have power most often seems to be a framework of understanding reserved for the others, but it is not the dominant approach for anyone taking a look at a country they claim to be proud of — whether it’s applied to political history, current situations, or so-called accomplishments on the whole.

This isn’t to say that wrongdoing is never pointed to or highlighted by those taking a look at their side. Quite the contrary; the historical record and national mythology of a country — especially one part of the “free world” — must allow room for wrongdoing to be highlighted and discussed. This is identified as proof that debate and self-criticism are alive and well in a democracy (regardless of the actual quality of either). However, it is crucial to note that in many cases the language used to frame our side’s wrongs (and the underlying assumptions that criticism rests upon) tends to present faults, immorality, or outright evil as simply speed bumps, small wrong turns, and unfortunate blots on timelines of overall good. Additionally, there are certain topics of past brutalities that act as safe zones for self-criticism in our side’s public discourse. If leveraged properly, this style of criticism is often pointed to to defend us against accusations of jingoism, or treating our history in a nationalist way. By recognizing certain discussions as the exception to the rule of nationalism, overarching nationalism is permitted to escape critique and we all avoid actual interrogation of other stances, including more modern ones 

Take, for example, my high school Canadian History class, which did briefly cover the American and Canadian failure to allow a ship of Jewish refugees from Europe to dock and find safety from persecution and slaughter at the hands of Nazi Germany — a disgusting episode of history. Of course, how the story was presented is key. It was framed as a grave mistake, a misstep, a tragedy where good people didn’t have a chance to affect good, something that shouldn’t be repeated, and something to be mourned and learned from. However, the moods and frameworks of tragedy and error set up different historical understandings of peoples and governments than the evocative framing devices and keywords that could have been used, but are most often reserved for our enemies — especially if they experienced the same, or similar, events, or committed themselves to the same courses of action.

Indeed, nationalist framing becomes a little more understandable when you consider the natural or taught urge to view a past you’re connected with in the best light possible. For instance, certain areas on the Canadian timeline described and discussed using words and terms such as “inhumane” or “human rights violations,” making charges of guilt that say a government has blood on its hands, or a deeper dive into anti-semitism in Canada — even if well deserved — probably wouldn’t go over well as an ongoing theme in most public schools, media pieces, or at dinner tables. Even if the most truth can be pulled from those threads of conversation, it would mean the Canadian mythology of a largely open and welcoming society (save for only a mistake or two here and there of course) might suffer some second guesses, deeper questioning, and more honest evaluation.

Nationalism Assumes Moral High Ground and Encourages Apologetics

Starting from the perspective that your side (e.g., the government or authority you agree with or live under, or are naturally inclined to sympathize the most with) has the moral high ground on a given issue due to good or benevolent intentions (or perhaps simply being on the “right” side of the issue) means that any bad along the way is reviewed through the lens of this starting point. Even the evilest of deeds can be categorized or explained as a mistake or misstep rather than the result of bad intentions, inexcusable actions, or unmitigated self-interest violently inflicted upon others. Furthermore, it means any critical voices or those completely opposed to your side on principle are considered at least confused and unhelpful, and at worst the enemies of good. 

The danger these assumptions pose is they invite apologetics and excuses, however desperate or disingenuous they may become, to be leveraged to defend your side from the outset. This blocks serious thinking on core faults of principle or problems with the intentions and actions of the “good guys” — our side — and encourages gentle-handed treatment and assessment, along with lots to be said for the benefits of the doubt. As for the other side and their intentions and actions, this same nationalist lens works in the inverse to invite everything from overexaggerated assumptions to uncritical acceptance of outright falsehoods to justify an outlook that leads one to believe or conclude that nothing can be used to reason with them — except perhaps military force in certain cases.

Indeed, for conscious nationalists and those that clearly exploit nationalist sentiments, “the beauty of nationalism is that whatever means your state employs, since the leadership always proclaim noble objectives, and a nationalist can swallow these, wickedness is ruled out and stupidity explains all despicable behavior.”^4/ Yet, too many think they won’t fall into this trap because it’s so easy to identify and denounce nationalist apologists and jingoists who shamelessly shill for the state, its power, and its abuses. Naturally, those who fancy themselves a little more humane, compassionate, and objective than this crowd will attempt to disassociate from them. However, as mentioned above, nationalist sentiments aren’t always and everywhere consciously bought into and leaned upon. We must still fear the subtle, unknown elements and dead truths that fill our subconscious frameworks of analysis and work as underlying assumptions — they direct and guide our understandings of, and conclusions about, the world.

This is no less true today than when Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman decided to take a look at attitudes and sentiments that existed in mainstream media before and after America’s destructive escapades in Southeast Asia — particularly after most of the country’s endeavors in Vietnam had ended. The two note “it is only for assorted enemies that we look closely at real objectives and apply the more serious observation that means are both important in themselves as measures of evil and are inseparably related to (and interactive with) ends.” Important to recognize is their usage of “we” and how it ties everyone into the problem of nationalist sentiments to some degree — even those who would consider themselves at the very least less-than-nationalist, and at most an outright critic of their government’s actions. Indeed, it quickly becomes clear that more important than the easy task of finding hawkish war attitudes in the American media is considering what the supposed critics are, and aren’t, willing to criticize. 

During and after the Vietnam War, Chomsky and Herman observed that there were those writing opinion in mainstream outlets (and as such, representing areas of mainstream opinion) claiming to take a stance against the war, but doing so in such a way that never seriously challenged the noble intent or righteousness behind the U.S.’ support and maintenance of a client state and ongoing violence in South Vietnam. To be clear, many on the so-called “liberal” end of the U.S. ideological media spectrum did offer condemnation of the unprecedented destruction⁵ seen in Southeast Asia, with at least one Charles Peters going so far as to describe a “campaign of mass slaughter against the Vietnamese.” However, even condemning the extent of military violence — rather than questioning why the events happened to begin with and properly exploring one’s role in the lead up to and perpetuation of them, a crucial distinction — can be presented in the context of mistakes, tragedies, and missteps. This avoids direct critique that calls the use of force itself and your right to it into question, and challenges the moral assumptions that a country is looking out for the interests of the greater good rather than its own gain. For Peters’ part, discussing the “slaughter” in Vietnam couldn’t stand without some obligatory patriotic positioning and moral righteousness. He didn’t let the writing of at least one of his articles on the topic go to print without a healthy dose of whataboutism and false equivalence to remind his reader that the U.S. started its adventures with the right intentions. He makes sure to point out that it “[wasn’t] wrong to try to help the South with supplies and volunteers, any more than the American left was wrong to give help to such Loyalists during the Spanish civil war.” It seems to Peters that everything after was just a comedy of errors and bad judgement.

Indeed, according to many supposedly critiquing the war, the use of military force that indiscriminately exterminated poor rural families and other Vietnamese people (in what was of course presented as a fight against ideological malevolence and a defense of democracy and capitalism), started with what could “be regarded as blundering efforts to do good”⁶ continued in a way that was “more bumbleheaded than evil,”⁷ and ultimately became what “was clear to most of the world — and most Americans — [an] intervention [that] had been a disastrous mistake.”⁸

To me, a “disastrous mistake” describes merging into traffic, forgetting to signal, and causing a pileup. However, it does not describe causing the exact same pileup by intentionally rear-ending a row of cars with a semi-truck — killing many in the process — to prevent a rival trucking company from passing you on the highway.

If being a so-called critic of a war simply means calling attention to the fact that power and force was used in a way that didn’t render the results hoped for and went too far in some places, then that can hardly be considered a serious investigation or criticism of the war itself and the state’s use of force on principle. A discussion of degrees and results of this nature rests on unqualified assumptions of good intentions, and allows one to criticize certain dying trees while disregarding who poisoned the soil of the forest. Apparently, it was unquestionable to many of the critics that the United States was righteously representing the quest to make things right. It didn’t seem to occur to opinion leaders that “Vietnam should be left to the Vietnamese, not to whatever fate is determined for them by the likes of…Henry Kissinger” or other state planners.⁹

None of this should be taken as proof or implication that those who consider themselves genuine critics of their side are stupid, dishonestly voicing their opinions, holding back their true thoughts due to fear of public outcry, or anything of the sort. They probably are genuinely angry about the topics they address and feel they righteously call out wrongdoings appropriately. Yet, even so, they often cannot bring themselves to question what side of history they and their country were on, because it is obvious to them either way. They are happy to be harsh critics of tactical errors but never harsh critics of their government’s right to decide on tactics. In the case of those speaking out against tactics in Vietnam, in other words, the use of napalm was perhaps a mistake, but the reasons it was being sprayed on children wasn’t.

Of course, openly questioning a government’s moral stance and credibility in the case of war isn’t the only challenging area to do so.  Take domestic policy as another example. Here, is an area where it also seems anyone taking a view on authority or an arrangement or act of power that says it’s inherently unjustifiable or morally wrong, is considered extreme or radical to the point of deserving ridicule. They are often dismissed, leaving the rest of the discussion to narrow spectrums that consider more important tactical matters such as whether we should attack a city with boots on the ground, or only bombing from the air.

Facing History Without Nationalist Biases

Although facing the facts and aiming for a deeper historical understanding might get one closer to the truth, short-form history and national mythology is easier to digest and makes for better doctrine. Intentionally or not, the effect of a nation’s education systems (especially those funded publicly), media, and dominant public intellectual opinions are to create versions of history and a framework for understanding systems of power that are non-starters for honest questions, challenges, and critiques of an overall national identity and history being “good” or something to be proud of. This is extremely dangerous for our understanding of the past and present. 

These sentiments aren’t limited to those who live in specific nations, and often aren’t even consciously bought into. In many cases, governments and peoples use the past to justify their actions and position today to varying degrees, so it feels natural and almost instinctual to frame history in the best possible terms. Nevertheless, as we can say about many of our instincts, simply because something feels justifiable upon first glance or with limited thought doesn’t make it so, nor does it make it conducive to a healthier culture or way of thinking.

Indeed, if one were to explore the histories of nations and governments honestly as tales of power, hierarchy, ongoing injustices, and flawed human characters (some often to be completely repulsed by) — rather than triumphs of benevolent ideals sometimes blundered by errors in judgement here and there — one might start seeing a different set of consistencies and threads that paint a different overall picture. For instance, one might more easily and correctly make a connection between the Canadian antisemitism that turned around the aforementioned boat of Jewish refugees on the one hand, and the antisemitism of Nazi Germany on the other hand. In doing so, one might realize the same poisoned seeds of prejudice could have easily grown into a similar garden of horrors — “our” side certainly wasn’t (and isn’t) invulnerable to that outcome.

Furthermore, after correctly recognizing that the German people of the 1930s and Nazis were not cartoon villains, but rather real people just as flawed and susceptible to the trappings of nationalism and justification for state atrocities as we could have been (and still are), perhaps one might then go even further to discover that Hitler’s concern with an Aryan master race being tainted by other cultures and bloodlines in the early 20th century is not a sentiment exclusive to aggressive German dictators and goose-stepping fascists. In fact, it was not unlike the first Canadian Prime Minister’s concern in the late 19th century when he spoke in Parliament to preach his belief that Chinese people should be excluded from the right to vote. 

Canadian professor and lawyer Benjamin Perrin brings John A Macdonald’s words out of the archives:

“Of course we ought to exclude them,” said Macdonald, “because if they came in great numbers and settled on the Pacific coast they might control the vote of the whole Province, and they would send Chinese representatives to sit here, who would represent Chinese eccentricities, Chinese immorality, Asiatic principles altogether opposite our wishes; and, in the even balance of the parties, they might enforce those Asiatic principles, those immoralities which he speaks of, the eccentricities which are abhorrent to the Aryan race and Aryan principles, upon this House.”¹⁰

Of course, us-versus-them moral panic isn’t uncommon in history. Perhaps even the use of “Aryan” can be excused (to some relative degree) as an unfortunate sign and relic of the times. However, at least for one of the Fathers of Confederation, some parliamentary xenophobia wouldn’t be complete without furthering “an astonishingly racist vision for [a] new country based on theories of white supremacy and racial superiority.”¹¹ Macdonald encouraged his peers to take notice of some alleged racial realities:

If you look around the world you will see that the Aryan races will not wholesomely amalgamate with the Africans or the Asiatics. It is not to be desired that they should come; that we should have a mongrel race; that the Aryan character of the future of British America should be destroyed by a cross or crosses of that kind. Let us encourage all the races which are cognate races, which cross and amalgamate naturally, and we shall see that such an amalgamation will produce, as the result, a race, equal, if not superior, to the two races which mingle.¹²

Indeed, this isn’t the only instance where Canada’s history greys a little more than one might like, and we need not leave conversations related to antisemitism, Nazism, and Aryan races to find more examples. Again, the world is more complicated than good guys and bad guys, and so are the elites who run it. The standard superficial takes on history many internalize (if anything at all) tell those absorbing them that by the time World War II was on the horizon of the end of the 1930s, people were beginning to feel the danger of racism-fueled totalitarianism accompanied with wild fantasies of world domination by a master race. In this narrative, the free world and its allies looked on to Germany with only worry and contempt for the looming threat. If this were the clear-cut case, then it is odd that Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King found himself still somehow “striding into one of the darkest hours in Canadian diplomatic history”¹³ by getting “far more wrong than right”¹⁴ in his visit to Nazi Germany in 1937.

Although the “racist extremism of the Nazis was no secret when King arrived in the Third Reich,” and “public book burnings had been staged as early as 1933 and German Jews were being progressively stripped of their property, employment and rights,”¹⁵ King — who incidentally “was troublingly indifferent to the state persecution of Jews and other ‘undesirables’”¹⁶ — was seemingly impressed by Nazism and its Führer. During his visit to Germany in 1937, he “opened [his meeting with Hitler] by praising the ‘constructive work’ of Nazi Germany and said he hoped that ‘nothing would be permitted to destroy that work.’”¹⁷

Although King was there to influence a lessening of international tensions and find assurance that the fascist country was not entertaining further expansionist dreams, he managed instead to put himself under the delusion that he was a diplomatic wizard in an epic tale. “[B]elieving that he had found the path to Hitler’s heart,” “the prime minister concluded that war was highly unlikely” and “judged his hosts honourable men and reliable international partners with whom he anticipated productive diplomatic relations, even enduring personal friendships.”

Historian Robert Teigrob tells us:

King’s ability to champion Nazism arose from a complex constellation of factors, ranging from his overwhelming fears of leftist revolution and another world war to his support for improved labour conditions, from his love of elites and weakness for flattery to his own anti-Semitism. He was intoxicated by the undeniable gravity of his mission, a gravity amplified ad absurdum by the fantasy that he held the fate of the world in his hands.¹⁸

Canadian history is just one area to look at. And all of this is not to say that this portion of Canadian history is somehow equivalent to that of fascism or Nazism, nor is it to pose the idea that this alone should determine how we view all of Canadian history. What it does indicate is spending more time exploring one Prime Minister’s concerns for the “Aryan character,” and another’s “ability to champion Nazism” many decades later might provide a much-needed balance to all the grand talk of Confederation, cross-country railroads, publicly funded healthcare, and other self-flattering tales taught in schools and re-told through media.

Answering the tough questions in any nation’s history that come from diving into these sorts of facts might get us closer to a proper understanding of history unbiased by nationalism, and provide a more realistic framework with which to analyze the politics, the people, and the institutions that surrounded the people of the past, and ourselves today. Without a correct version of history, we miss crucial context to judge the present and decide on the directions we should take into the future.

Where to Go From Here

Upon first glance, these discussions on the domestic and foreign affairs of a nation considered part of the free world, especially as presented in mainstream media and intellectual opinion, seem acceptable to most, who proceed on the assumption that information is being presented to them in a fashion that’s mostly right, save for a bias or slight tilt here and there. However, when one takes a critical look at the way the issues are framed, with special consideration to some of the underlying assumptions that couch stories or analysis, it becomes increasingly clear that a certain view of how the world is ordered (and a certain version of history) is required to fully internalize and take the stories as truth without many questions for morality and wrongdoing, or criticism from principle. These underlying assumptions are largely based on forms of nationalist biases.

Too often, we comfort ourselves that the trappings of these tendencies are reserved for those who don’t pay much attention to politics, some level of political theory, or a deeper understanding of history. However, those who consider themselves learned in the aforementioned areas are possibly even more susceptible to these trappings as their own ambition, personal interests and tastes, and internalized assumptions and values guide their quest for truth. Furthermore, they have an additional layer of responsibility to guard against making the mistake of carrying forward these assumptions if they’re spreading ideas and looked upon as an authority on a subject by others.

As noted, it is especially easy to point out the flaws in others and be overly skeptical of “the bad guys,” but the harder task, and the more important one, is pointing out the wrongdoing on our side and bringing the same (or perhaps an even stronger) sense of skepticism to what we learn about, internalize, assume, and preach about our own cultures, governments, and countries.

The first step in the quest toward a clearheaded, fact-based understanding of our past, present, and future is to accept the fact that biases — especially nationalist ones — will plague your journey, and recognize the responsibility to challenge and guard against them — especially if you’ve told yourself they don’t affect you.

1. The inverse is also true. Assumptions about the “evil” of others, accepted for no other reason than it being the established or convenient narrative, need to be looked at carefully.
2. Consider the limited range of what is considered accepted, mainstream public opinion that often accompanies discussions on a country’s past or present dealings with armed conflicts. For example, if I were to ask you if you thought the U.S. should deal with a so-called enemy with boots on the ground or just tactical air strikes, I leave no room for further discussion on why the conflict exists to begin with, if there is just cause for violence, etc.
3. Some exceptions here would be a nation or a country that has experienced a massive regime change (from external or internal pressure), historical turning point, or section of history that (for various social and political reasons) is preferable and acceptable to distance itself from while building up the new national mythology or identity.
4. Chomsky, Noam and Edward S. Herman. After the Cataclysm: Postwar Indochina and the Reconstruction of Imperial Ideology (United Kingdom: South End Press, 1979), 15.
5. By the time the United States ended its Southeast Asian bombing campaigns, the total tonnage of ordnance dropped approximately tripled the totals for World War II. The Indochinese bombings amounted to 7,662,000 tons of explosives, compared to 2,150,000 tons in the world conflict. (See Wikipedia.)
6. Chomsky and Herman, op. cit. (Chomsky and Herman are quoting author Anthony Lewis.)
7. Chomsky and Herman, op. cit., p.12. (Chomsky and Herman are quoting author Mitchell S. Ross.)
8. Chomsky and Herman, op. cit. (Chomsky and Herman are quoting author Anthony Lewis.)
9. Chomsky and Herman, op. cit., p. 13.
10. Benjamin Perrin. Overdose: Heartbreak and Hope in Canada’s Opioid Crisis (Toronto: Penguin Canada, 2020), 50.
11. Ibid. (Perrin’s own words.)
12. Perrin op cit.
13. Tristan Hopper. “The prime minister with a man crush for Hitler: The day Mackenzie King met the Fuhrer.” National Post. May 15, 2017. <https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/he-loves-flowers-the-insane-true-story-of-the-day-canadas-prime-minister-met-hitler>
14. Robert Teigrob. “Mackenzie King’s forgotten visit to Nazi Germany.” The Canadian Jewish News. June 26, 2019. <https://www.cjnews.com/news/canada/mackenzie-kings-forgotten-visit-to-nazi-germany>
15. Hopper op. cit.
16. Teigrob op. cit.
17. Hopper op. cit.
18. Teigrob op. cit.

Di Eric Fleischmann. Originale: Seriously, What Is Mark Thornton Talking About? pubblicato il 17 settembre 2020. Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

Una persona cara, che non nomino, dice che prima di dire qualcosa bisognerebbe rispondere a tre domande: È vero? È necessario? È rispettoso? Se le risposte affermative sono almeno due, si può procedere. Temo che quello che dirò sull’articolo di Mark Thornton, membro anziano del Mises Institute, pubblicato su Mises Wire (“America’s Riots Are Just the Latest Version of Marxist ‘Syndicalism’”) non sarà rispettoso (anche se, spero, moderatamente educato), ma perlomeno sarà, almeno a mio giudizio, vero e necessario.

L’articolo è così pieno di asserzioni fuorvianti, frutto di scarsa erudizione, spesso insensate, che davvero non so da dove cominciare. All’inizio, ad esempio, parlando sommariamente delle rivolte recenti, dice che “[I]l caos nelle strade è stato facilitato da sindaci, governatori e capi della polizia riluttanti ad applicare la legge.” È evidente, invece, che tutta la situazione è stata causata dall’assoluta brutalità della polizia contro persone di colore come George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Justin Howell, Tony McDade, Jacob Blake, Sean Monterrossa, David McAtee e molti altri. Ed è chiaramente ridicolo dire che “sindaci, governatori e capi della polizia… sono riluttanti ad applicare la legge”, quando in tutto il paese le città stanno militarizzando le proprie forze di polizia contro qualunque forma di dissenso percepito, causando così innumerevoli feriti e diversi morti. Non so in quali Stati Uniti viva Thornton, quali siano quelle amministrazioni e forze di polizia che stanno sedute a guardare come Nerone mentre Roma brucia, ma certo non è lo stesso paese in cui vivo io.

Thornton aggiunge poi un’osservazione casuale – svogliatamente, dopo aver condannato “antifascisti, Black Lives Matter e particolarmente i ‘provò anarchici’” – quando dice che “[c]erto anche a destra c’è qualche violenza, come mi è capitato di vederne nella cittadella universitaria di Auburn.” Questo contraddice nascostamente le conclusioni raggiunte riassunte da uno studio del Center for Strategic and International Studies, che dimostra che la violenza di destra prevale su quasi tutte le altre, come dimostrato dalla raccapricciante sparatoria da parte di Kyle Rittenhouse contro i manifestanti a Kenosha, nel Wisconsin (fatto avvenuto poco prima della pubblicazione dell’articolo di Thornton). Ma contraddice anche la bozza di documento del dipartimento di sicurezza interna che conclude dicendo che i suprematisti bianchi saranno probabilmente la “minaccia più letale e persistente” per il paese fino a tutto il 2021. E senza citare – se vogliamo parlare del caos perpetuato dalle amministrazioni, dagli stati e dalla polizia locale – le relazioni esplicitamente protettive tra polizia e squadristi di destra come Patriot Prayer e Proud Boys a Portland, nell’Oregon, e il fatto che agenti della polizia di Kenosha prima della tragica sparatoria avevano elogiato e offerto dell’acqua a Rittenhouse.

Ma l’aspetto più accademicamente oltraggioso dell’articolo è la sua totale incomprensione storica, politica ed economica del sindacalismo rivoluzionario. Prima fa un’affermazione incauta: “[g]eneralmente parlando, intendo per sindacalismo rivoluzionario la possibilità di fare quel che si vuole a spese degli altri.” Non so da dove abbia cavato fuori questa definizione o interpretazione. Non mi è mai capitato di leggere una pubblicazione sul soggetto – da Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice di Rudolph Rocker a “Syndicalism: the Modern Menace to Capitalism di Emma Goldman – in cui i sindacalisti si identificassero in un’ideologia, o descrivessero la loro ideologia in termini di “possibilità di fare quel che si vuole a spese degli altri”. È vero che poi definisce specificamente il “sindacalismo politico” una “azione rivoluzionaria diretta e violenta contro le istituzioni del capitalismo, come le forze di sicurezza, la proprietà, in particolare la proprietà aziendale, e lo stato di diritto”, ma le sue affermazioni ruotano attorno alle teorie di Georges Sorel – “che sosteneva che contro le istituzioni del capitalismo occorresse agire con violenza implacabile, anche con lo ‘sciopero generale’, così diffuso nell’Europa dei suoi tempi” – visto qui come principale (anche se non l’unico) originatore del sindacalismo rivoluzionario. Non è la peggior descrizione dell’opera di Sorel che mi sia capitato di leggere (anche se dire che gli scioperi della moderna Europa sono una realizzazione dei suoi ideali è perlomeno un’esagerazione), ma David Graeber (che riposi in gloria) nel suo Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology dà un quadro più preciso:

Sorel era dell’opinione che, data l’inaffidabilità o l’irrazionalità delle masse, era da sciocchi rivolgersi a loro con ragionamenti ponderati. La politica è l’arte di ispirare l’altro con un grande mito. Ai rivoluzionari propose il mito di un apocalittico Sciopero Generale come momento di trasformazione totale. E per tenere in piedi il mito, aggiunse, occorreva un’élite rivoluzionaria capace di tenere in vita il mito e la volontà dei rivoluzionari di esibirsi in simbolici atti violenti.

Anche a voler accettare l’interpretazione di Sorel fatta da Thornton, Kevin Carson, in uno scambio di email tramite C4SS, nota come “vedere in Sorel – un politologo machiavellico fissato con lo sciopero generale come mito fondativo più che assertore del sindacalismo come serio modello organizzativo – una fonte primaria d’ispirazione del sindacalismo è perlomeno discutibile. Ci sono riferimenti più appropriati, tra cui soprattutto De Leon e Rocker.”

Ma cos’ha a che vedere tutto ciò col marxismo? Sorel potrebbe anche essersi ispirato a Marx (e ha anche influito su alcuni marxisti), ma, come nota lo storico Zeev Sternell, tra i tre principali pensatori socialisti francesi tra ottocento e novecento – Paul Lafargue, Jean Jaurès e Sorel – solo quest’ultimo “ruppe col marxismo e, dopo un approfondimento di [Karl] Marx e [Pierre-Joseph] Proudhon, [Friedrich] Nietzsche e [Henri] Bergson, si mosse verso varie forme di nazionalsocialismo”, ovvero, sostanzialmente, il proto-fascismo. Ma Thornton non fa nessuno sforzo per connettere il termine “marxista” con la sua idea tarata di “sindacalismo rivoluzionario”, se non dicendo che tutti i marxisti (ma anche anarchici e fascisti) apparentemente lo utilizzano. Come spiega Carson, “Tra i marxisti, c’è un ramo sindacalista, ma Marx stesso non si è mai espresso specificamente riguardo quel modello industriale, se non con qualche riferimento ad ‘associazioni di produttori’ o simili.” Ma io ho il forte sospetto che Thornton usi la parola “marxista” non in riferimento a qualche linea di pensiero, bensì come tormentone pressoché insignificante buttato lì da persone di destra nel tentativo di denigrare i movimenti sinceramente liberatori, che siano marxisti o altro.

Certo Thornton parla de “L’altro genere di sindacalismo” come “quello meglio noto come sistema sociale alternativo alla pianificazione centrale socialista”. E segue l’analisi tradizionale del sindacalismo fatta da Mises, il quale conclude che con la sua messa in pratica “la produzione crollerebbe e i prezzi non sarebbero più legati ai prezzi di mercato. La ‘economia’ collasserebbe se il sindacalismo fosse applicato a una base economica.” A questo Carson risponde notando che “[q]uanto al concetto di Mises di quello che lui chiama “sindacalismo”, confonde mercato in beni strumentali con mercato in capitali aziendali – cosa che fa spesso nelle sue opere –, il che rende pressoché insignificante la usa opinione.” Ma qui non ci si chiede se è meglio un’economia capitalista o il sindacalismo, piuttosto si coglie l’occasione per tirar fuori parole come “marxista” e “sindacalismo” senza badare tanto al loro significato e ricondurli ad un pensatore violento e di stretta nicchia come Sorel, usando il tutto per criminalizzare la protesta attualmente in corso negli Stati Uniti contro la polizia. Una cosa sciatta e ipocrita.

E secondo Thornton, ci si chiede, quale sarebbe l’alternativa a questo “‘sindacalismo rivoluzionario’ marxista”? Lui indica quella che lui stesso definisce “opzione individualista”, ovvero:

le persone si armano come possono. Usano dispositivi di sicurezza come videocamere e blindature. Le aziende si rivolgono alla vigilanza privata e mettono protezioni alle vetrine. Altri più semplicemente si spostano dalle città ai sobborghi o oltre. Non aspettatevi una soluzione da parte dello stato, anche se più secessionismo e decentramento non guasterebbe.

Alcune cose attirano – giusto l’idea di una popolazione armata e il decentramento –, ma il tutto suona sostanzialmente come una lotta di classe da parte delle classi proprietarie contro tutti gli altri. Si tracciano linee e barriere ancora più arbitrarie, si proteggono gli interessi delle élite a discapito di tutti gli altri, creando una società sempre più intrisa di diffidenza e priva di altruismo e mutualità.

Ma una mano la voglio tendere comunque. Io spero che il dottor Thornton di questi tempi strani e malandati stia bene. Lo spero sinceramente. Ma spero anche che dedichi qualche tempo a studiare la situazione difficile vissuta da chi protesta, o che almeno cerchi di capirne il dolore. Spero anche che voglia leggere seriamente qualcosa sul marxismo e il sindacalismo, non solo quelle caricature fatte da pensatori di destra come Ludwig von Mises, ma anche gli scritti di chi realmente professa quelle ideologie. Per ultimo, visto che non voglio creare ulteriori divisioni in un mondo già diviso, è nel nome del rispetto e della reciprocità che allungo la mano al dottor Thornton e esprimo il mio desiderio di sentire una sua replica pubblica a questo pezzo, o magari di avere con lui una discussione civile in privato.