TOTW: Virtual Anarchy

  • Posted on: 6 August 2017
  • By: thecollective

With the growth and increasing pervasiveness of the internet it is becoming more likely that people are being introduced to anarchism, and all things related to anarchy, on the internet. It has been said on the A News podcast recently that there are many anarchists now who experience their whole lives as anarchists online, not in face-to-face contact with other anarchists. Assuming that the internet continues to get bigger and better, that more people around the world continue to plug into the net, and that more people continue to walk/ride/drive around looking down at their phones, we can only assume that this experience of virtual anarchy will become more pronounced. This is especially true considering that newer generations are growing up with this being the only world that they've known.

So our topic this week is: how can we best respond to these trends? Is trolling, memeing and doxxing the best that we can do, or is there something more? Without becoming techie geniuses, what new, creative and interesting things can we do with internet technologies as anarchists? Can we create real communities and find real freedom online, or will that all become increasingly removed from us, at least until the Megamachine is destroyed?

category: 

Comments

For all its shiny, electric awesomeness, the net is still just a coms tool. Watching porn isn't having sex, trolling people isn't combatting your political enemies and all the "awareness" raised means nothing without action in the real world.

For the love of anything/everything that matters to you, seek each other out in the real world! Make and hold physical spaces and prioritize them.

Relationships mediated through the spectacle are like social junk food, worst of all online. The tool is for the job it's meant for, never intended to replace relationships entirely.

People who have only encountered political theory online are easy to spot, the occupy camps were full of them. They often lack the most basic ability to interact with others, no clue how to cope with conflict or protect themselves from demagogues and predators.

A ferocious, effective praxis will never come from cyberspace, it can only pass through it.

To quote The Pirate Bay co-founder Peter Sunde:
"We don't like that expression [IRL - In Real Life]. We say AFK - Away From Keyboard. We think that the internet is for real."

To dismiss the Internet as "just a coms tool" is as ridiculous as dismissing the printed word or language itself as "just a coms tool", and in a way falls into the logic of civilization even more than techno-utopianism does -- at least transhumanism acknowledges the arbitrariness of boundaries between human and machine. You can't divorce how we communicate from how we think, nor from how we exist. Our social relations define us, for better and for worse. In fact, you can clearly demonstrate this from your own observation: "People who have only encountered political theory online are easy to spot". The Internet is not only a core aspect of life for a generation, it is going to continue to be so for every generation in the foreseeable future, just as the printed word was through to now.

"humans will be interacting through social networks for far longer than we’ve been in factories" - @abolishme

I understand why people would want to push back against the Internet -- it's fundamentally a tool for making the maintenance of the status quo that much easier. But that's also how I conceive of technology in general, and view the Internet as a specific, very powerful instance of that phenomenon. And like most technology, you don't change the way it flows by pretending it isn't there, nor by yelling at the rising tides they need to turn back.

PS:
Fun fact from Computer Science academia: There's a long running joke that every CS paper in the late 90's to mid 00's starts with some variation of "With the explosive growth of the Internet". I wonder what it says that this trend is now reaching here.

But I do dismiss the printed word and language, just as quick! To me, a major part of the cult of the self is the extreme emphasis on opinions, words, perspectives, pluralism. Politics isn't just the holding of opinions, anarchist praxis isn't just a theoretical rejection of authoritarian institutions.

The entire discourse of society is just a noisy distraction to me, of which anarchist discourse is only a tiny piece. The real politics takes the form of the implied threats or actual violence of various actors. The cops just standing around, doing nothing are REAL politics as they represent the paramilitary force of the state and the rich, ready to bring the hammer down when the command is given.

The masked militants are the real politics, as they at least posture like they've considered the basics of self defence. The moment that the dialogue (or pretense of one) ends, is when politics begins. It's a blood sport and anarchists are usually running away, occasionally managing some light skirmishes, hit and run style. Can you force respect from those who oppose you, or not?

I'm not pretending technology isn't there. I'm saying all those creatures of the internet at occupy were completely fucking useless when shit got real. They stood around talking and talking, arguing and trying to out-clever each other until the cops came to attack us and then they all ran away, the moment they finally understood what real politics is. It's what comes next after discussion collapses.

So I say again, just a coms tool. It has important, tactical value but it won't make you safer like learning how to defend yourself, etc.

That is because money in some form is the essence of human difference from ape they were not against other people they were against themselves they wanted to use money and didn't know what to do without them.

adam curtis' hypernormalisation is about how people are living (intellectually) in a fake world but have no stomach for exploring whether this might apply to them.

do we believe that the proportions of those living in the fake world differ in the 'anarchist' community; i.e. is the proportion greater or less?

your comment is in a small minority. that's Curtis' point; i.e. few people want to open the door to consider whether they might be living in a fake world.

people are impressed by what a great technology the internet is for moving and warehousing data, information and knowledge. how could this NOT be a good thing. but as Heracitus pointed out;

"the knowledge of many things does not teach understanding" -- Heraclitus

I agree with the above comment.The virtual is not the real.Let's get real.

Ah, the tyrrany of authenticity.

Is misspelling the word part of your trolling too?

The burning question of our time: how can terminally disengaged subculture weenies best indulge our subcultural identity needs?

link me to your infoshop page about the two things you did a decade or more ago, Kevin. Tell me again how you don't need us, Kevin. Post about how you're not mad none of us like you because you don't like us anyway, Kevin.

This is it. We're doing it right now. Just type in the box and hit the send button.

Yeah, dude -- you can't expect us to do anything characteristic of authentic conviction, physical energy and nerve -- we're subculture weenies on a protracted playdate with our fellow duds and stinkers!

That's it, Kevin. Post about us more. Tell us about us. It tells us about you. Because you're one of now, too, Kevin. You're one of us now. Your hatred of us is your hatred of yourself for being one of us. And we like to read it, because we hate you, too.

A heightened fragment of reality that gets taken way too seriously.

Unplug from television news, from facebook for a while, and there's a feeling of clarity. Go somewhere face-to-face where the phone bone isn't needed as navigational tool or social crutch, and the FOMO starts to fade. Not to mention, better sleep. And let's not let them privatize our sleep.

Speaking of privatization. American life in particular has been hardest hit by privatization of inner and outer life, accelerating in what parts of inner life can be projected and central nervous system made exteriorized as screens. (What does that do to the immune response in the long term?).

It's been really frightening to see how so many radicals and the people around the world are caught back up in distractions at the official podium, while tech companies continue to roll on, business as usual, with the monetization and weaponization of life as 'data.' Beyond trump, these companies hold the 'data' of most of the planet.

Working for them, for free is the new model. Expect culture to be flattened. Eventually, why leave the house? Cultural innovations that happened out of new orleans jazz, the harlem renassaince, folk music in greenich village, haight-ashbury, and many other examples won't happen organically as before. Whatever we come up with will be sold back to us as 'their innovative thinking.' Already, advertising has taken from people's youtube creations/memes, and used them to sell a message about brand x back to the 'consumer'/us.

I don't know if recooperation is the right name for it. Logistics flow optimization, maybe?

In nyc, there's a billionaires row that can't really be called gentry. There's a tactic now that is loyal to no locale. It's more to do with the fluidity of shifting perceived value. In this billionaire row, homes are being purchased to store value in the form of jewelry, so rich chinese businessman don't have to get their wares taxed back home. That doing so drives up rents is incidental. But, to media and financial analysts the perception of the marker for housing market growth appears real enough to report (and why not, since announcing such perceptipns as real gets people to be paid and to invest).

Perceptions taken in this context offer coinage of their own virtual reality.

I really wish more anarchists wantes to discuss rhe documentary 'hypernormalization.' Any i've talked to irl huff and puff and outright dismiss the whole thing. Can we not even handle, and unpack earnest critiques of radicals, and learn from them?

*that last part. "And i've talked with some irl, and have been met with huffs and puffs, and outright dismissals of the documentary."

I fuckin loved that piece by Adam Curtis! and there's a great interview with him and Russel Brand (of all people) where Curtis says to him something like - he's the perfect example of "radical" liberal narcissism being shoved up its own ass and sold as countercultural commodity - which is easy, you know…

To criticize Brand is pretty easy but he's definitely a personification of the hyper-normalization. Making nihilistic jokes about the slow-motion apocalypse but also mocking anyone earnest enough to try and DO anything because what's the point? That's time you could spend jerking yourself off, posting witty remarks for up votes, likes or clicks whatever.

The conclusion of that interview is worth it, IMHO

... all point to 'fake worlds' ('semantic realities') that people fall into the trap of employing as their 'operative reality'.

"The term "hypernormalisation" is taken from Alexei Yurchak's 2006 book Everything was Forever, Until it was No More: The Last Soviet Generation, about the paradoxes of life in the Soviet Union during the 20 years before it collapsed. A professor of anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley, he argues that everyone knew the system was failing, but as no one could imagine any alternative to the status quo, politicians and citizens were resigned to maintaining a pretence of a functioning society. Over time, this delusion became a self-fulfilling prophecy and the "fakeness" was accepted by everyone as real, an effect that Yurchak termed "hypernormalisation" -- Wikipedia

The 'fake world' is the world of science (mathematics) based on 'things-in-themselves' which is what we talk about on the internet. E.g. we see an 'anarchist' as a 'thing-in-itself'.

The point is that the internet is a great facilitator of simple binary messages, as explored by Yuval Harari in ‘Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind’ in the context of; "Math is the World's Dominant Language" .

In the fake world, we have 'anarchists' as 'things-in-themselves' whereas in the physically real world of our actual experience 'anarchism' is a relational mode of organisation [relations are in a natural primacy over things].

Ya know, your comments can be actually pretty readable when they're edited down to less than 80,000 word manifestos. I suggest keeping it up.

What's your current adderall dosage?

Not sure which is worse to be honest, the drama filled cliques that pass for most irl anarchist activity, or the insufferable ignorance of internet anarchists.

You're just, like, jealous. I was there when our drama filled clique invented anarchist activity on the internet.

Everybody knows this.

talk of a virtual 'anarchist nation' that lives on the internet is based on categorical identification of an 'anarchist' rather than relational identification.

a 'category' is a concept that comes from noun-and-verb language that assumes the existence of 'things-in-themselves' whose 'identity' can be established on the basis of their 'common properties' as a 'thing-in-itself' without exploring their 'in-context situational relations with other things.

People with relational languages do not have the concept of 'category' nor the concept of a 'thing-in-itself' thus 'anarchism' [e.g. of Mayan peoples in Chiapas] could only refer to 'anarchism' in the context of the relational dynamics that people engage in [e.g. mutual support without over-arching direction].

Anarchists on the internet are identified on a 'category' basis by noun-and-verb language users, if they have sufficient 'common properties' to qualify as a member of the category 'anarchist'; i.e. by their views on different issues, by their after-work protest activities etc.

The internet 'anarchist nation' and their global distribution could be illuminated by satellite imagery if they were to leave their porch lights on overnight.

Satellite imagery could similarly be obtained by having all those 'paying taxes' that support the nation state and its institutions, enforcement agencies etc. leave their porch lights on overnight.

Insofar as some of the same porch lights were turned on for an 'anarchist' who qualified BOTH as a member of the 'category' 'anarchist', on the basis of some cherry-picked common properties and as a member of the 'category' 'taxpayer' who is financing the state and its institutions, including the state police forces and 'intelligence' (surveillance) agencies, there is a contradiction that is well known in the mathematics of 'fuzzy logic' and its 'yin/yang' equation A = not.A, ... leading to the conclusion that EITHER 'is' OR 'is not' (Aristotelian) logic does not apply in the physical reality of our actual, natural (relational) experience where BOTH/AND logic is need as EITHER/OR binary logic is too simplistic; e.g. 'anarchists' are financing the authoritarian system they are struggling to get rid of.

another way of saying this is that 'there is no such thing as an anarchist'. that is, there are no 'things-in-themselves' definable by their 'common properties', that is just a language convention. therefore there is no internet based anarchist nation in the physical reality of our actual experience. anarchism is a relational activity that determines that the participants are 'anarchists', anarchists as notional things-in-themselves do not determine the relational activity known as anarchism.

one is not an 'anarchist-in-himself' outside of the relational activity of anarchism. that would be like a storm-cell that is able to separate itself out of the relational dynamics that are engendering it, on the basis that it has a categorical identity established in terms of its common measured properties such as pressures, wind velocities etc. The point is that while we can define it on the basis of its common properties, it does not physically exist outside of the context of the relational dynamics it is included in; "There is nothing outside context" -- Derrida

anarchists are definable 'relationally' on the basis of participating in anarchism as a relational activity. category-based definitions and 'semantic depictions' that derive from 'petitio principii' or 'circular reasoning' where we presuppose the 'existence' of a category of things-in-themselves', then gather together a number of candidate members, run a statistical analysis of their 'common properties' and develop a common property based definition [the circular reasoning lies in our having to assume the existence of the thing-in-itself category first, in order to assemble 'exemplars' to determine the 'common properties' that define the members of the category.

the problem with assuming that 'anarchists' exist in their own right, out of the relational context they are included in, is that they may qualify via the categorical definition even though they are AT THE SAME TIME, taxpayers, and are financing the state and its authoritarian control institutions and regulatory and enforcement agencies. The ability of these category defined 'anarchists-in-themselves' to talk the anarchist talk and play anarchist games with one another over the internet is a 'virtual reality' that is overshadowed by the physical reality wherein these same people are financing state institutions and regulatory/enforcement agencies.

those who earn no income because they commit their labours to mutual support come by their label of 'anarchist' by way of relational context in that they are participants in 'anarchism' as a relational dynamic. In the relational view of 'anarchism', there is no such thing as an 'anarchist-in-itself'. there are only 'anarchists' in the context of participating in an anarchistic relational dynamic. that the storm-cell can be defined by its 'properties' means that we can 'talk about it' as if it were a 'thing-in-itself' [nietzsche's 'double error of grammar], but it does not mean either (a) that it can exist independent of the actual, physical relational context it is situationally included in, nor (b) that it possesses internal 'genetic agency' that is the source of its 'anarchist behaviour' so that 'anarchism' is then seen as a relational activity authored by 'anarchists'.

the internet reality is a 'semantic reality' that should not be confused with the physical reality of our actual experience of inclusion within a transforming relational continuum. we construct this reality on a subject and attribute basis. this is like starting a whole new level of reality based on 'spooks' that we credit with having their own jumpstart genetic agency. this 'semantic reality', because it starts from the actions of notional things-in-themselves'; i.e. 'anarchists', does not take into account that anarchists who are taxpayers are, in effect, 'double agents' who are financing the authoritarian systems they claim to be the problem they are committed to overcoming.

the 'internet anarchist nation' is 'delusion' coming from the circular reasoning of [OUT OF RELATIONAL CONTEXT], common-property-based 'thing-in-itself' category definitions. the category-defined things-in-themselves are then used as a staging ground for constructing new thing-and-verb based 'semantic realities which conceal the physical reality of the transforming relational continuum.

collective, delete this. Trolls, mock this. Emile, post about being deleted and mocked.

We live to serve! Hey emile … you uh ... occasionally repeat yourself huh? and what's the deal with airline food?

What feels really dangerous about these strange times we find ourselves in is that very often that people of the leftist radical and alt/extreme right political ideologies are united in a mirrored quest for pure hearts and minds to make the world 'better' or certain parts of it 'great.'

The politics of ressentiment could build into a purge again, hurting a lot of people along the way. That it's unacceptible not to belong to either canp, and their toxic categories and sociality is especially alarming.

Trolls just contribute white noise, which gets easier for some of us to sift through (the mainstream treats this as a new phenomena of bullying to scare people into numb inaction and stifled interaction).

But, rhe venom being slung that one must be imprisoned into either rightist or leftist political ideologies...it's hard to not get paranoid and treat as a cointelpro psyops involving persona mnagement software. Who gains from a dead end where we convert all of our lived energies and issues down to narrow, easily defined polar categories? To trigger an easily demonized misstep to crack down on everyone, so it's business as usual, especially with a new and improved sanitized version of the internet completely privatized.

Or perhaps you're giving in to paranoia a bit? I'm firmly in the "leftist camp" according to some but it's simple self-preservation and protective instincts at work. If there's any puppetmasters pulling strings, their degree of control is very low and we're mostly just people genuinely concerned for each other. Anarchists make terrible puppets, that's why we're always first against the wall! I'll risk the meta-threat to my agency in the long term in order to strengthen our communities now. I can always become a hermit once I see definitive proof that I've been hoodwinked by the liberal establishment, as so many folks here are fond of implying.

Total isolation is over-rated by a lot of the anarchist tendency. A fundamental weakness.

by starting off with the assumption that the world is a collection of 'things-in-themselves' that 'do stuff', and believing that we humans are such 'things-in-ourselves', we are denying the relational nature of physical reality wherein epigenetic influence is inductively actualizing genetic expression.

cultures that tune-in to the relational nature of the world believe that man is included in nature, thus they do not believe that 'the farmer produces wheat' but that nature produces man and wheat. as Emerson says in 'The Method of Nature', nature evolves the ecosystem within which, the pear-tree that 'produces pears'. noun-and-verb language-and-grammar just says 'the pear-tree produces pears' as if the genetic agency resides in the pear-tree. that's how Western man sees himself, as a thing-in-itself with its own jumpstart genetic agency, as if he were included in nothing [empty Euclidian space].

Politics of the left and right follow from this 'fake world' where what happens has to come from 'things-in-themselves' that 'do stuff'. The politics of the left animate the individuals in the collective on the basis of the needs of the collective while the politics of the right animate the individuals as independent fountainheads of creative outputs that flood down upon themselves and the lucky 'second handers' and 'parasites' (Ayn Rand) that get to survive on the 'trickle-down' of an elite fountainhead class of people.

I really have to get around to writing this.

C'mon no one thinks you are actually going to do this. You don't have to pretend. We remember you never wrote your fucking dumb egoism book, either. What was the stupid non-concept you were always pushing?

I'm sitting in my room right now typing in the box on a tablet. This website is a source of reading material that I have accessed for years now. It's black letters on a white background and reads and functions much like a book. I have learned a lot from the articles and comments posted here. It is one of my favorite websites and I would miss it if it were gone. The internet is not a place to me, I am still in my room and I know you are real people somewhere reading too. I am aware that some of the readers have never done any typical anarchist actives they have only read about it in books or on a screen. Some of you may have done internet anarchist activities. We are all stuck in a matrix that some call civilization, society, spectacle, capitalism that forces us into complicity with things we disagree with. I think this is a contradiction. I think there is also a contentious debate about how much choice we have in the matter. Determinism or fate versus free agency. I'm still able to do things outside of the house and I realize that some people are not. I had the luxury of a free range childhood with a lot of danger and adventure but also fear, pain and suffering. I know compulsive computer use makes me ill and I am not as enamored with it as I was ten or fifteen years ago. I have returned to my free range tendencies and spend less time looking at screens. That's all I can think to say on this topic so I'm going to stop typing now.

Yes...it's the compulsiveness that's scary. We can talk and talk but what's happening? What's it doing to us? To the nexus of thought and perception that is consciousness? We can make all sort of facile comparisons to print and language and rationalize our addiction to the machinery but if you ask me our lives are better spent reclaiming the use of our bodies and minds in time and space. I agree with whoever said isolation shouldn't be thought of as scary. Fuck this whole age and its political cult of relevancy. The most powerful man in the world literally presses on his phone while taking a shit, half the populace jumps one way and the other half jumps the other, pliant zeroes and ones. Unplugging is important in the first place not because it will 'change the world' (whatever that fucking means) but because it changes us and then how we are in the world. (This is how I feel about veganism too- not that I want to get into that whole thread- about most things really...) Occupying buildings was a good use of my early college years because it gave me time to read radical philosophy and learn things about myself and others, not because we stopped tuition hikes or anything; affective struggle, as it were. Mostly what I learned was that I was in the wrong place, and that was invaluable. Ditto the internet.

"That's it, Kevin. Post about us more. Tell us about us. It tells us about you. Because you're one of now, too, Kevin. You're one of us now. Your hatred of us is your hatred of yourself for being one of us. And we like to read it, because we hate you, too."

Why does your scene or subculture exist? What is its function? What is its purpose? These are straightforward questions -- if your scene has any real purpose then this should be easy to answer.

. . . or GTFO with your questions asked in BAD FAITH, mmmmkay?

Thanks!

No answer to this is plenty answer, all right...

Different anon. The answer is "fuck you and your bad faith question cause we obviously don't like you." Clear enough? Should I use smaller words?

It exists for you, Kevin. You'd be alone without us. Face it, you are a part of this terrible subculture. You're one of us to a tee. PS I just saw you self-promoting your infoshop page on facebook a few hours ago. Why you afraid to post it here? Cmon Kevin, we need to see it again. Your youth activism is the real legacy of the SI, don't deprive us. Link us.

I'm actually a fan of Kevin's work and I'd be interested in seeing it, as well as a recent selfie.

You know I forgot about the infoshop but it's actually a comprehensive source of information. This site is more personal to me. I'll definitely be reading at the info shop.

nice try, this was all previously covered in, "Caught in the Net - notes from an era of cybernetic delirium"

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/return-fire-vol-4-supplement-cau...

can we get a 101 break down?

"Different anon. The answer is "fuck you and your bad faith question cause we obviously don't like you." Clear enough? Should I use smaller words?'

This is typical of the prepubescent narcissism vector that gets called anarchism in today's U.S. These are not interesting, worthwhile adults, but weaselly puerile smelly bores consumed by their own pathetic neediness.

Kevin, please brother, lay off the insults. For your own sake. It's plain to anyone that, the harder you sling shit at us, the more you smear yourself, because you are the one who for a literal decade has never stopped posting here about how much you hate it here, hate us for not accepting you, hate us for not caring about your activism, hate us so you may stand out from us. You have no one else and nowhere else to go. We love you for it. We don't like seeing you smear yourself like this. You're one of us, Kevin. Link to your infoshop page and let's accept who we are, all of us, Kevin. Brother.

"I'm actually a fan of Kevin's work and I'd be interested in seeing it..."

My understanding is that Kevin Keating has never sought "fans," but that he has sought equals -- people with authentic conviction and an abundance of energy and nerve; backbone-possessing grown-ups who have an ability to get involved and stay involved in real world social struggles, among other full-fledged adults, against what market society does to our lives. If he was looking for them in the U.S. consumer society subcultural grease trap that gets called anarchism or anti-authoritarianism, he has been looking in the wrong place.

Yes, Kevin, post with us. Post with us about you. Post about yourself in the third person. One of us, Kevin. One of us.

My understanding is that Kevin has a big dick and women like what he says about proletarians and he hasn't had sex in seven years mostly because of the the U.S. consumer society subcultural grease trap and not because of his breath.

Just the kind of hard hitting critique that we need, keep up the good work!

Here we see the usual high level of critical thinking and intelligent discussion among anarchist subculture dweebs -- ooops!

Come on, don't harsh our vibe, maaaan! we're just a bunch of sub-par weenies around here!

Weenies of the world, unite!

Virtual anarchy is an oxymoron. Nuff said. JZ I can see you grinning and perhaps, this thread could be mentioned on your show highlighting the demise of irl anarchy. Long live The Idiocracy.

I posted this:

Here we see the usual high level of critical thinking and intelligent discussion among anarchist subculture dweebs -- ooops!

Come on, don't harsh our vibe, maaaan! we're just a bunch of sub-par weenies around here!

After this:

My understanding is that Kevin has a big dick and women like what he says about proletarians and he hasn't had sex in seven years mostly because of the the U.S. consumer society subcultural grease trap and not because of his breath.

Not after gel-oberon 3's comment

You: posts anonymously about Kevin on anews, subcultural weenie

Kevin: posts anonymously about Kevin on anews, big dick proletarian

Let's start with the basics:

What is the Internet?

For reference, this is a good start to what THE Internet is:
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/05/how-the-internet-...

THE Internet is a gigantic network of devices connected with and without wires around the world. Just like telephone, radio, television, supply-chain, and mail delivery networks, the Internet is an amalgamation of properties that are owned, regulated, and managed by a variety of groups and individuals. Some of these groups and individuals are governments, some are corporations, some are you and me.

Considering the above and the other mentioned networks, what makes the Internet so different as an amalgamation of properties? Because it's data that is moved from one location to another ...and not food, or parcels, or sound waves, video broadcasts, or vehicles? Because instead of our homes having mailing addresses, our devices have MAC addresses? Because instead of checking a mailbox, we check an inbox?

The Internet seems to confound people so much. It can be demystified and thought about in the same way that the trains are thought about. The same way factories and distribution chains and retail outlets are thought about. It's the same basic problems. Mostly that it's a series of properties that we have come to depend on, that we don't have the ability to manage ourselves, for obvious reasons.

I'm also a bit skeptical about the premise of this TOTW. How can we know how many anarchists had lived solitary lives prior to the Internet's ubiquity, just reading books or zines about anarchists but never actually meeting any? And regardless of that uncertainty, I think that there's just as much of a push for anarchists to relate on the Internet from economic dispossession as there is a pull from the Internet itself. As physical space becomes less affordable where anarchists live (both to live in and to use for other projects), activity in space that anarchists can afford (virtual) just makes sense to be as a path of least resistance.

"As physical space becomes less affordable where anarchists live (both to live in and to use for other projects), activity in space that anarchists can afford (virtual) just makes sense to be as a path of least resistance." Um, this sounds like not only has 'Squee' given up has some autonomy/greater autonomy, Squee is also giving up on him/her having physical space to exist in? What else you wanna concede Squee?

The internet is another field of struggle that affects the minds of it's consumers. In that sense it offers unparalleled access to the hearts and minds of the people. In fact you could say they are inextricably linked, like you are almost yelling in someone's ear. The exodus for me is when I unhook from the wire and take what I've learned to the street. That's the completion of my collective education that I aquired on the internet. I realize that space is in demand and we suffer from increasing competition. Some people may not be able to go outside and spend the bulk of their time and energy working online. All types of anarchism need to work together to fundamentally change society and some day seize the memes of production.

as McLuhan (and others) have suggested, the substituting of 'script' for 'acoustic space experience' and thus 'literacy' for 'oracy' has been responsible for the dumbing down of the global populace. the internet amplifies what the printing press started, the elevating of (visual space) 'literacy' into an unnatural primacy over (acoustic space) 'oracy'. In McLuhan's view expressed in 'The Gutenberg Galaxy';

The invention of movable type was the decisive moment in the change from a culture in which all the senses partook of a common interplay to a tyranny of the visual. McLuhan also argued that the development of the printing press led to the creation of nationalism, dualism, domination of rationalism, automatisation of scientific research, uniformation and standardisation of culture and alienation of individuals

McLuhan wasn't around to see the explosive growth of the internet, but if he had been, he might well have re-labelled 'Gutenberg Man', 'Internet Man';

The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man is a 1962 book by Marshall McLuhan, in which he analyzes the effects of mass media, especially the printing press, on European culture and human consciousness. It popularized the term global village, which refers to the idea that mass communication allows a village-like mindset to apply to the entire world; and Gutenberg Galaxy, which we may regard today to refer to the accumulated body of recorded works of human art and knowledge, especially books.
McLuhan studies the emergence of what he calls Gutenberg Man, the subject produced by the change of consciousness wrought by the advent of the printed book. Apropos of his axiom, "The medium is the message," McLuhan argues that technologies are not simply inventions which people employ but are the means by which people are re-invented.

Re 'literacy' versus 'oracy'; ... the 'semantic reality' that comes to us through internet (visual space) communications is devoid of the richness of acoustic space experience. I.e. a large part of what we sense in our (physical presence based) acoustic space communications (75%?) is non-discursive.

Perhaps Skyping brings some of that back as screenheads talk to screenheads, but it seems as if 'Internet Man' cultivates odd relationships wherein people who think they can know others over the internet, do not know them in same manner as when they engage in 'acoustic space'. This is obvious when we engage with others in internet forums (visual print space) where misunderstandings abound, and compare this with the very different experience of engaging 'in person' (in 'acoustic space').

If we participate together in 'anarchy' as a relational dynamic, if a fellow participant is dyslexic (not possible in oral cultures) or semi-literate, we know 'who she is' regardless of what 'her writing looks like'. The opposite is not true, the gifted writer can convey anything they like in a skilled, literate fashion without this carrying any physical information about their anarchistic or non-anarchistic relational habits.

McLuhan's observation that "technologies are not simply inventions which people employ but are the means by which people are re-invented" is affirmed by the impact that cell-phones and computer games have on people.

So, to say that;

"It [the internet] can be demystified and thought about in the same way that the trains are thought about. The same way factories and distribution chains and retail outlets are thought about." .... seems to portray the internet as a disconnected 'utility'.

This would be the 'dualist' view, ... the view of science and rationality. The 'mystery' that is being denied here is the mystery associated with the nondual inference [McLuhan's and others] that genetic expression is being inductively actualized by 'epigenetic influence' [Environmental influence inductively shapes genetic expression]

Delete this, bitch

Yes, emile's 'elevator pitch' would be 10,000 words!

I assume that a critique of that practice of least resistance follows naturally, so I'm not going to bother writing it.

Love that video...

But I also think the smart phones could be replaced with magazines and news papers, radios and walkmen. The urban landscape has long been filled with drones and their distractions from the discomforts of busy walkways, subways, and buses. The naturalistic call to unplug, disconnect, meditate, get in touch with oneself, and slow down is almost a national past-time at this point. So what I think changes with smart phones (or, Web 2.0 ...with dynamic content, cookies, etc.) is what you said earlier about the extensive access we make to ourselves individually. Emphasis on the individually.

So we're not appealed to as masses or demographics quite as much, or at least psychographics and social network theory and such are changing the granularity with which marketing targets audiences. I think that it's easy to get lost in the extensiveness with which individuals are profiled, though. As well as get distracted by the extent to which time between going from here-to-there is spent using the latest gadgets. The bigger picture - that the here-to-there was and still is a path traveled on the system's circuit board - is what I don't want to see get lost or glossed over. Beyond all the individuals and their end-user devices (or magazines, or whatever) are the questions that have been central to anarchist theory since it began: the State, Property, etc.

As briefly mentioned in an absurd response to me earlier, this Patreon debacle points directly to that beyond. Who owns the platform? Who owns the servers that the platform runs on? Who owns the datacenter that those servers are in? Who owns the ISP that connects that datacenter to the rest of the Internet? What's the alternative to using their shit for our shit? Does it need to be digital tech? Can it be analog tech? Non-electrical? Non-mechanical? What is it that anarchists can do to be less dependent on this network and others?

Along with refinding old time skills and new ones is the easy answer but hard process. Individually this is hard enough to do as people have their habits and their attachments. It's akin to tapering off of an addicting pharmaceutical drug.

All the buttons and bells and whistles stimulate neurotransmitters similar to other forms of stimuli e.g. sex, drugs and roller coasters. There's also some social anxiety that comes with talking to strangers especially in a format with no profiles and pictures the imagination comes into play.
I realized how dependent I was on the wire during hurricane Wilma without electricity for 9 days. I think that's when I started recreating my AFK life. I still play Open Arena and Summoners War a little every day but I also have more AFK responsibilities so sitting in front of a PC all day isn't possible.

Squee baby, word of mouth that what anarchists can do: face-to-face. It really isn't that complicated honey pie. But people cannot be bothered, most people that is. Why do that face-to- face shit when they can switch between ANews and whatever porno site...plus, be stuffing their faces with pizza (at the same time?) Internet wins every time. Now, there is you path of least resistance!!! Yet another absurd response just for you babes coz you're worth it. Virtual Anarchy, that's gotta be the signal post that it's all over for the Circle A crowd. hey, I'm a virtual anarchist and I do virtual black bloc 'n' shit! Watch me in 3D. Cool.

ok thanks sugar

If only.............. Nah, forget it, it's too absurd! Shame tho ;-)

I just rode my longboard about 10 miles, dad brought me a cheese pizza from Little Caesars and here I am now typing in the box. There was some gay guys in the parks and I think we're gonna start knowing each other over there which is nice. Democracy Now is cued up on the laptop and I'm laying down with a tablet in my hand probably about to take a nap. Enjoy your day.

Pretty good read. Be nice if it got converted to html. I hate pdf and paper.

If somebody committed it to the library it might get done automagically.

Anarchy is a state of mind, so I don't see how "reality", whatever that is, has anything to do with it. In fact, reality is a structure of illusion/delusion. A spatial chronological dimention can be realized just as accurately by an animation or a plastic holographic, and can create a greater awareness of ones psychic parameters and the juxtaposition of relational and spatial concepts within the individual's psychic arena. I noticed this phenomena whilst incarcerated and ended up realizing that I was not actually imprisoned, but merely institutionally re-syphoned.

No … it's not. That's dumb. Anarchy is when people reject institutional authority, aggressively, en masse until the agents of order have to flee for their little pig lives.

No I would call that that path of action sociopathic nihilism and a slur upon sus scrofa domesticus!

It's not bravado or posturing when it's the actual definition of a word.

Your attempts to sound clever are coming off more and more desperate little fool ;)

I've transcended "desperate". Personal freedom is about being kewl about everything.

I mean sangfroid cool, not fashion cool,,,,,,

Work with the masses. Do the dirty walk there is countless number of people with access to the Internet and no future sometimes no resources for the next day and no idea of any possible next step.

One thing I've noticed as someone who encountered anarchy/ism online before I got to irl is there is a certain I guess constancy to the what you find in anarchist online spaces. That is you can pretty much count on running into certain ideas and certain ways of talking about them even if these things have sort of lost their relevance out in the world. For example, one might meet a number of anti-civ or green anarchists out in the world (if ones circumstances provide that) without meeting any that call themselves AP. But based on what I see strictly on the internet, I'd think primitivists far outnumber any non-prim anti civ types. Maybe this isn't the best example though. At any rate, it seems to me that for a lot of people getting into anarchy on the internet is like walking into a room where everyone else is stopped at the door and I don't know how to change that besides desperately trying to say something smarter that "read the bread book" or "nice spooks, nerd"

I don't see nothing wrong with that. You think otherwise go brainwash some vagabonds and blow something so you get real action and media covarage. It's informational war millions of people are lost in their views and they even admit it now. But no solution.

I don't think I know what you're saying

Doesn't the world wide mall make it so much easier to window shop?

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Human?
6
a
E
i
K
8
Z
Enter the code without spaces.