# Smash the state: sell your guns and buy a computer



## lowerarchy (Apr 2, 2011)

This is the way, I think. I'm not much of an anarchist but I'm more that than anything else, and when I see this crazy cryptography stuff and anonymity networks and cryptocurrencies it gives me hope that governments are losing this fucking war.

Example: Wikileaks. Just a few of those cables changed the political landscape of the Middle East - check out Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, possibly Yemen and Bahrain and a few other places. I don't think that was the real intent of the wikileaks people, that was just a good side-effect. The main ploy was to force the USA to stop writing down so much stuff because eventually it'll be leaked again and cause all kinds of shit. That means phonecalls to convey sensitive information and if you consider the sheer size of the gov't bureaucracy it's gotta have an effect.
Anyways, the point is that this whole thing is possible because really strong cryptography is available to anyone nowadays. 

Example: Tor network. That was invented by the US navy, released to the open source community to build the pool of users and protect the military from attacks against their online anonymity. Now they're in a position if they expose the protection Tor offers as bullshit (and it's uncertain that they can even if they tried), everyone will abandon their network and they'll be targets for whatever other governments want to see what they're doing online. So unless you're a greater threat to the military than losing all their major anonymous communication channel you're pretty safe. 

Example: bitcoin. Fully decentralized, can't stop it, can't forge or counterfeit it, free to use, if it takes off it'll threaten every currency in the world. Granted it's not physical (yet) but how much of the economy is run online nowadays? Banking and things? Tons. When people start selling their national currencies and switching to cryptocurrencies that'll be a scary moment for governments. Counterfeiters can make absolutely perfect bills but they need to put an imperfection in them (small but noticeable if you know what to look for) as a watermark so they can't be paid with their own products. When they start taking cryptocurrencies instead of cash in return you may as well blow up the US Mint, they'll be making perfect US$100 bills and nobody will know. 

All in all, sometimes I think the traditional anarchist tactics aren't as effective as these kinds of things are becoming. You still need people out in the real world doing stuff, don't get me wrong, but now we all have access to all these things, shit that can never be taken away from us, we're in a much stronger position as adversaries of the government and huge multinationals than we've ever been. Just a thought.


----------



## FigTree (Apr 2, 2011)

personally i've given up on ending the cycle of retardation mainstream society is in, ever since i read the dharma bums. i cant remember the exact quote but japhy(gary snyder) and ray(kerouac) disagree about trying to end it all, and ray says he decided instead of tearing it down to just walk around it and enjoy life anyway. i'd be pretty fucked in true anarchy anyway, all i'm good at is scavenging and i don't know if i could bring myself to kill an animal for my own life. not that there's anything wrong with hunting for food, i just don't know if i could do it. anyway blah blah i'll shut up now


----------



## Cobo (Apr 2, 2011)

Computers are going to make anarchy totally feasible! Imagine: by 2100, computer brain implants (yes there are already a few in use by quadraplegics!) become so widespread and affordable that everyone in the world gets one, giving us the ability to merge consciousness to share ideas, memories, emotions, ushering in a new era of creativity, cooperation, and empathy! And finally, linking our whole species (and perhaps others, imagine merging consciousness with a whale or an insect! The tremendous insight!) into a collective universal counscious! Effectively, a man made God to bring peace and order to the universe by helping us understand and love each other! Society will collapse, the world will descend into an age of darkness, lit only by the strobing lights of the ETERNAL DANCE PARTY! WOOT WOOT!!!!


----------



## FigTree (Apr 2, 2011)

i'm really hoping humanity kills itself off by 2100.


----------



## RnJ (Apr 2, 2011)

Cobo, what if your governors MAKES you have a chip to participate economically in any way, and have control of that chip via satellite? Not so good for anarchy. I think it's a bit silly to hope more technology is gonna save us. If these chips were like the internet, where PEOPLE make up the web and can do what they want, it'd be great. But I'm not sure that's gonna happen.

I'll fall on my sword before I get a chip in my head.


----------



## MrD (Apr 2, 2011)

I will just leave this here...
http://squattheplanet.com/diy-die/your-projects/13737-technology-best-friend-worst-enemy.html


----------



## outskirts (Apr 3, 2011)

1984?


----------



## AnarchistRon (Apr 3, 2011)

I would never agree to placing a computer in my head unless we lived in an anarchist state. I do not own a bank card nor will I ever. I love and yet hate technology at the same time. I long for the day when I can remove even this very computer from my life for I cannot help but wonder how much more significant my life would have been if I did not possess this technology. Then again, it is very likely that I would not have become an anarcho-communist if I did not possess this computer. But now, that I am, I long to remove this variable. 

Then again, who knows what other wonders I may not discover if I do manage to overcome this burden. 

I do not oppose the possession of guns. You'd have to be out of your mind to sell of your only form of power. The fate of humanity remains a grand mystery. For all we know zombies might over run the world by the years end.


----------



## lowerarchy (Apr 4, 2011)

Chip in the head, huh.

That has the potential to go horribly wrong. Of course, like any technology, it can be used for good or evil. Depends on the circumstances and the motivations of the builders. 

@Anarchist Ron

I'm not opposed to weapons, it's just that guns aren't the only form of power anymore (except over zombies, still very effective). They can always have bigger guns and more of them, every time - we can't win an arms race.


----------



## RnJ (Apr 4, 2011)

Exactly. Studying power is fascinating. There are, I believe, three camps of thinking about power. And all of them bring the thinker to different conclusions about how/if power can be acquired, how it can be used, and what main types of power can exist.


----------



## lowerarchy (Apr 4, 2011)

Kind of a contradiction there. If you're an anarchist you probably think that any power is subject to abuse no matter who wields it and so you basically seek to be powerless.* But to get that done you have to overpower someone who is trying to overpower you.

It's weird.

*Caveat: officially powerless. Even the lowliest beggar can still be an asshole on a personal level.


----------



## Uncle Mom (Apr 4, 2011)

Cobo said:


> Computers are going to make anarchy totally feasible! Imagine: by 2100, computer brain implants (yes there are already a few in use by quadraplegics!) become so widespread and affordable that everyone in the world gets one, giving us the ability to merge consciousness to share ideas, memories, emotions, ushering in a new era of creativity, cooperation, and empathy! And finally, linking our whole species (and perhaps others, imagine merging consciousness with a whale or an insect! The tremendous insight!) into a collective universal counscious! Effectively, a man made God to bring peace and order to the universe by helping us understand and love each other! Society will collapse, the world will descend into an age of darkness, lit only by the strobing lights of the ETERNAL DANCE PARTY! WOOT WOOT!!!!




NOBODY IS PUTTING IMPLANTS IN MY HEAD.... NOBODY. I enjoy my peace and SEPARATE THOUGHT PROCESS, and don't wish to be part of a BORG society. Fuck that.


----------



## RnJ (Apr 4, 2011)

Well, I honestly can't speak very well for secular anarchism on how it views power. But I thought it had to do a lot with empowerment, that is, giving those with less power more power. Power isn't bad, so long as it is equal and not being used to hold others down. Your common implies that instead of opening choices up to more people, nobody should have any choice. Choice = power. For Christian anarchists, power and authority are fine when people earn them by setting examples and serving people (Jesus as a model); by using _power under_ to support people and love them, not _power over_ like the state or a bishop or the governments laying down the laws.

Power is not purely political, in any sense. Basic types of power are: 1) Resources - (money, goods, interpersonal linkages etc); 2) Information (basically Paulo Friere type stuff; 3) Character (some are powerful because people like their personality and style); 4) Expertise (you have skills that other people want). Which of these do we not want for the oppressed?

And yeah, you're right about the needing to understand power to some degree to be any sort of activist. Your power does have to overpower the people you're trying to become, hence why it is especially hard for people to actually give up that power when they've achieved what they want. It's addictive, and nobody is satisfied with "using" once or twice for practical reasons.


----------



## RnJ (Apr 4, 2011)

lowerarchy said:


> you basically seek to be powerless. But to get that done you have to overpower someone who is trying to overpower you.[/SIZE]


Why couldn't you just keep being powerless, if that's what you want?


----------



## lowerarchy (Apr 4, 2011)

Ok, maybe I'm getting way over my head here because I don't know shit about anarchist theory. Logic is as follows:

1. Power will always be abused. 

2. That's why anarchists are anarchists, because there's no possible form of government that can't be completely abusive some of the time at least. If there is even one exception, followers would be regular archists not ANarchists. 

3. Therefore anarchists ultimately seek complete loss of power over others as much as possible. I don't mean that they're going to go lay down and die tomorrow, but that IN THE END that's what this is about. 


There you go, I have no idea what I'm talking about. 

@RnJ

Christian anarchists? I don't even want to know. That's the worst of both worlds. I'd sooner a facist scientist over a Christian anarchist.


----------



## lowerarchy (Apr 4, 2011)

Cobo said:


> Computers are going to make anarchy totally feasible! Imagine: by 2100, computer brain implants (yes there are already a few in use by quadraplegics!) become so widespread and affordable that everyone in the world gets one, giving us the ability to merge consciousness to share ideas, memories, emotions, ushering in a new era of creativity, cooperation, and empathy! And finally, linking our whole species (and perhaps others, imagine merging consciousness with a whale or an insect! The tremendous insight!) into a collective universal counscious! Effectively, a man made God to bring peace and order to the universe by helping us understand and love each other! Society will collapse, the world will descend into an age of darkness, lit only by the strobing lights of the ETERNAL DANCE PARTY! WOOT WOOT!!!!


 

Honestly I just reread that _and you are a fucking mystic visionary of the interweb. _

Holy crap.


----------



## rationale (Apr 6, 2011)

I must second the view that more technology, especially in the sense that you advocate, is inclined to lead to increased dehumanization; I have no desire to become a machine. We are already machine-like enough due to the influences of the mainstream media, prescription drugs, highways/cars, assembly lines, television generally, etc. 

With regard to the alleged contradiction of anarchists opposing power but needing it to overthrow oppressive forces/for self-defense, I would posit that it is not in fact a contradiction: Anarchists don't generally oppose power per se, and certainly don't oppose self-defense (under which resistance against an unjust society would likely fall). They oppose a society structured on hierarchical, coercive grounds - I don't think trying to tear down capitalism would fall under this category. However, certainly an ideal world would be void of, or have very limited amounts of, exercising of any power or violence, but within the context/reality of our society, of course no resistance - and hence, pacifism as an ideology - is asinine. "Coercion" to end coercion perhaps seems contradictory, but I see it as merely pragmatic and I don't view "coercion" (resistance) and coercion by dominant societal structures as being the same.


----------



## Nelco (Apr 13, 2011)

[video]http://youtu.be/G5RQrxkGgCM[/video]

[video]http://youtu.be/l9jHOn0EW8U[/video]


----------



## Nelco (Apr 13, 2011)

Net Neutrality



Nelco said:


> [video]http://youtu.be/G5RQrxkGgCM[/video]
> 
> [video]http://youtu.be/l9jHOn0EW8U[/video]



[video][video]http://youtu.be/9aE5DLymXu4[/video][/video]


----------



## Menyun (Jul 5, 2011)

Having a chip in the memory part of your brain where you could use it to call up infomation that you put on it would be cool... Wanna be a doctor go download the file then add it to your brain chip and you know everything they know.. that would be kick ass, but I would want to know exactly where in my brain the chip was to be implanted and if it was anywhere near motor functions or something like that where theirs even a chance it could be used to control me fuck that.... And I would NEVER want it to be somethin that could be used to link brains... My thoughts in someone else's mind .. first I'd probably be locked away but besides that it would completely fuck someones mind up im sure. Or someone that has worse thoughts then me I wouldn't want to know what they were thinking... People would start being judged by thoughts and not by their actions.


----------



## plagueship (Jul 5, 2011)

i'm sorry but if you think wikileaks caused the revolts in the mideast, you are simply not paying attention or checking your background info, at all. these events were brought on by a rise in food costs which was in turn linked to the global financial crisis which began in 2007. wikileaks, twitter and etc may have facilitated these events but to say that "Just a few of those cables changed the political landscape" is very mistaken. widespread unemployment and the inability of many people to feed themselves on a basic paycheck/welfare budget was the cause of the revolts, as usual, not some sense of political idealism which middle class, college educated activists (in egypt or in the u.s. or wherever) would like to ascribe to it. even if wikileaks got to play paul revere it wasn't the real issue.


----------



## Wolf (Jul 8, 2011)

lowerarchy said:


> Kind of a contradiction there. If you're an anarchist you probably think that any power is subject to abuse no matter who wields it and so you basically seek to be powerless.* But to get that done you have to overpower someone who is trying to overpower you.
> 
> It's weird.
> 
> *Caveat: officially powerless. Even the lowliest beggar can still be an asshole on a personal level.



Wait a second now. This is where people make a huge mistake. There is a fight between ultimate oppression and an attempt at freedom. There is nothing wrong, or even hypocritical about fighting oppressive powers. Now if we were actually in an anarchist state and a group of people tried to over throw a group of other people whos personal regulations where not harming other humans in any meaningful kind of way, that would be one thing. However, we are not in an anarchistic state so this can not be the case, therefore all means necessary still applies. We are given two choices by force. Either we sit idly by, or we don't. There is no real gray area.


----------



## viking (Jul 9, 2011)

Cryptography will become obsolete soon due to quantum computers, sadly.


----------



## RnJ (Jul 13, 2011)

Menyun, the masters would make sure that bit of doctor knowledge would sell for something you could never afford. And you'd get a hacked version, and they'd spend their eMoney paying people to get you in trouble for it. Typical.


----------



## RnJ (Jul 13, 2011)

Power is the ability to affect change, to whatever degree one can. In a non-statist communitarian ideal world, we still have the ability to affect changes, and more importantly, we hold that power together. If we were every truly powerless, we couldn't do a single thing out of our own will. We'd merely be the puppets of destiny.

"POWER: ability to do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something." (dictionary.reference.com) 

I guess I'm looking at power more in depth here. Generally in conversation, I'd say that power corrupts, but what I'd really be meaning is that someone having an excess of power over others is problematic, not that the ability to make some sort of change in your environment or community, or influence people in some way is bad.


----------

