Human Iterations

2008-07-06T04:01:00.000-07:00

(Nothing I'm Going To Tell You Is New)

"Should you speak to a man who understands commerce he will tell you that the everyday business transacted by merchants would be absolutely impossible were it not based on mutual confidence."
--Peter Kropotkin

"Auschwitz confirmed the philosopheme of pure identity as death."
--Theodor W. Adorno

"Everything that accelerates the flow of information and communication benefits the human race, and every communication jam damages us"
--Robert Anton Wilson

2008-07-03T00:37:00.000-07:00

(Racism Does Not Equal White Supremacy -- A Mild Rant)

I'm really sick and tired of this "racism" is one institutional system defined historically not theoretically bullshit. I understand the desire to be hardheaded and absolutist when grappling with intensely personal and totalizing social issues. And I realize that the word "racism" is one of the very few tools people of color currently have at their disposal. It makes sense to try and hijack it. But seriously. WTF.

1. That's not how we use the word. The Koreans hate the Japanese -- sorry, but we call that racism too. If you're going to try and rewrite the dictionary or attempt some philosophy of language at least try to make a coherent case. Rough historical trends, connections and perceptions do not make a fucking argument. They make a subjective appeal, back it up with shallow populist force and then try to ramrod it into cannon. Excuse me if I don't accept your skin color as a magical get-out-of-logic-free card. Back in the good ol' days when we said crazy shit like "Anarchy is Order" or "Property is Theft" we were obliged to break out some fucking logical analysis to prove them.

2. Whether you believe it or not -- I certainly wouldn't -- there are sane, cogent anarchists out there capable of intelligently examining teh dread theoretical hierarchies of oppression and weighing out judgement of and reaction to expressions of racial antagonism/reactionism in a reasonable manner. We don't need to get beaten into submission with screams that racist acts/structures/attitudes targeting white people should be wiped from our minds as irrelevant in comparison. Surely we are capable of recognizing the ridiculously drastic disproportionality and broader social/historical context. Just as I hold out hope that you too will one day not fear going into deeper utilitarian examinations of the interactions/interrelation of cause and effect, however fringe the specific subject may be. Somehow I think that we're all capable of exploring minute counter-examples without misleading and blinding ourselves to the larger systems of oppression. The desire for a little theoretical consistency never turned anyone into an ineffective douchebag. Please, have a little fucking faith in those of us who like going deeper -- even if we're white. We're not going to stray from the struggle. The party line doesn't need protection. In fact broad, simplistic slogans tend to make us weak, not strong.

3. The appeal to institutionality is particularly embarrassing. I mean for god's sake, we don't need any more help looking like shallow anarchist caricatures. The cops are not the end-all component in society. "Institutionalization" can be far more diffuse and localized to networks and modes of our social existence. Growing up the only white kid in the projects, for example, means taking shit and suffering disproportionate systematic violence on a culturally institutionalized level with -- by the way -- no recourse or contact with the distant beneficiary systems that might provide some access to white privilege. That dynamic is part and parcel of a larger social matrix of racism characterized on the whole by 'white supremacy,' but to call such local realities anything but institutional and systematic would be willful blindness. While the annoyed reaction to class warfare idiots blithely attempting to place the whole 'white working class' in some ridiculous parallel position is reasonable, their idiocy does not negate the tactical -- much less theoretical/personal -- importance of studying and openly addressing such realities.

4. Blunt theoretical force never solved anything. The push to create a simplistic party-line on racism within the anarchist movement or draw up borders between subjective experiences is keeping us in the fucking stone age when we have the tools and the expertise to move the entire world forward. Struggle, resistance, insurrection and revolution are augmented and strengthened -- not diminished or bypassed -- by conceptual coherence, nuance and clarity.

5. I hate to break it to you but yes, even when a bourgeois white kid gets passed over by a college quota system in favor of some black kid, that's racism. It's racism because, of course, its racial discrimination on the part of the state -- and anyway how the hell is that not institutional and subjugation based in force, however minimal? But further any racial discrimination, while not as abhorrent as most of the outright brutal subjugation that characterizes racism, should for god's sake still be unacceptable to any anarchist -- after all we're not goddamn marxists seeking some sort of transitory accomplishment before even considering setting after our underlying idealism. Its absolutely critical that we contextualize that almost negligibly minute act of discrimination within the larger, self-perpetuating system helping uphold racism and white supremacy. As anarchists it should never be our job to cheer when someone gets their ass handed to them in a sling, but to be there to point out to them how such misfortune is part of a larger project of self-perpetuating power structures feeding off the memes and social context that constitute racism.

So anyway, please. The next time you're slapping around some privileged semi-radical douchebag, please. For the fucking love of god. Don't use simplistic reductions of complex phenomena as a verbal battering ram. By all means, don't let them get away with mamby-pamby "things are complicated, there's counter-examples" handwaving and avoidance of engagement, either. Beat them to the punch. By not trying to force idiotic, historically and anthropologically discredited premises into your discourse.

"Racism" = largely universal theoretical descriptor. "White Supremacy" = large component of actually existing historical/social construct. White Supremacy is an embodiment of racism. Racism is not a fucking embodiment of White Supremacy. It's classification as such is really just another annoying case of shallow American Exceptionalism and unwarranted reactionary Eurocentric analysis.

2008-07-02T01:13:00.000-07:00

(My Search Continues)

The Challenge: Can an Autonomist complete just one sentence without obliging me to roll my eyes?

...I keep on wanting to kick them out of the movement. To find some crystal clear point of divergence. So that I can rain fire and brimstone down from the heavens and declare: there can be no alliance -- die and go to hell, you rat-bastard Marxists! Or, conversely, to find this supposed "theory" they're so smug about having. But after a dozen excruciatingly inane texts (and the accompanying optical gymnastics) I must unfortunately conclude that there is no essential division between Anarchism and Autonomism. They're incompetent and hopped up on litcrit, yes. But sadly, being ignorant, obnoxious and useless is not a good enough excuse for me to put them up against the wall.

Hmm... Maybe I can go all Zerzan on them and call them fascists for fetishizing language?

Anyway, all of this is to say I'm finding Holloway surprisingly decent. Ignoring, of course, fact that he has no original ideas, every single one of his sentences is an effete frenchman, and -- like all Marxists -- wouldn't know economic theory or analytical philosophy if it bit him on the ass.

2008-07-01T23:24:00.000-07:00

(Two Definitions Of Power)

Two Definitions of Power

There are two competing definitions of the word "power" in the english language:

1. Power as capacity.

2. Power as control.

With "empowerment," aside from the abstract connotations of self-actualization, what's really being said is: one has the capacity to do something.

But with the strict sociological definition of power, one refers to control over another; coercion perhaps not conveyed in violence or the threat of violence, but nevertheless a situation where one person looses to some degree their own agency to become a deterministic extension of some external will. Or, in the material case, where an object's behavior is determined more fully by one's will.

This makes sense in the most common application. We say that one individual has 'power over another' when they can determine that individual's actions/thoughts.

However that same phrase can be -- and often is -- read as having more power than another. Thus power might be a quantity. A substance, the unequal distribution of which between the two individuals is the source of the determination of the other's thoughts/actions. In the marxist sense this could refer to the distribution of resources. One person "has" more resources and these resources lend them the capacity to take certain actions with a varying degree of force. Between two individuals the one with the most material capacity can win any contention between wills, and thus has control over the other BECAUSE they have more capacity. Capacity, being the root reality, could thus be the subject best deserving the recognition of the term "power."

But is this really so?

If this were the case then the ideal society, most anarchists (and a few statists) would assert, would be the equal distribution of power.

But we can easily conceive of a situation where, despite equal allocations of capacity, both individuals are capable of coercing one another. Even further, occasions where they do.

To pose a very simple situation: One might be intelligent and manipulative while the other might be strong and brutal. Both individual's wills would be constrained by the other's conditions. The brute may intimidate the conman while simultaneously be in turn manipulated by him. The conman's agency is constrained by the ever-present threat of the brute's fury on some areas while the brute may be beguiled into certain forms of behavior.

One might object that this only demonstrates the existence of different kinds of power.

But we can, with a little more thought, replicate the same phenomenon with two conmen or two brutes. While in a contest of wills neither party will triumph in achieving their goal, both parties find themselves constrained.

The contest of wills itself is constraining. And yet neither party would consider the other powerless. In fact both would likely consider the other to be exerting power over them. The conmen in particular may find themselves ever more deeply wrapped in a relationship they are unable to escape, their thoughts ever more dominated by reactive calculations.

In short, both parties capacities are reduced while we do not say the same of their power. Power thus seems to operate as "control."

There are absolutely no situations where one "has power" with high capacity and low control. But there are situations where one "has power" with high control and low capacity. We're reminded of the classic image of a king becomes a slave to his own throne. He has power -- control -- but is controlled himself.

Power then -- despite some sloppy thinking -- is best referenced not as a quantity of capacity but rather a relationship of control. Often to some degree mutual control.

"It seems to me that the truly American Revolution would be to abolish power."
--Karl Hess.

2008-06-29T15:34:00.000-07:00

(Growing Asparagus On Mars)

"About a cubic centimeter of soil mixed with sterile water brought from Earth had a pH of 8 to 9 and contained magnesium, sodium, potassium, and chloride. "Earth-type life would be happy to live in this soil," Phoenix team member Samuel Kounaves of Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts, said at a media teleconference today. "You could grow asparagus but not [acid-loving] strawberries" in the alkaline dirt."

Dude!

2008-06-29T00:32:00.000-07:00

(Giggle)

"...anarchist communists and post-left anarchists, such as Bob Black, reject markets based on the principle that all theories of monetary value are subjective ..."

Seriously.

2008-06-28T03:30:00.000-07:00

(A Manifesto Of Intent)

A Manifesto of Intent

There are three common mathematical arguments for Anarchism that I will tritely state as such:

1. Altruism is pragmatic. cf Kropotkin via Game Theory, Evolution

2. Centralization is inefficient. cf Mises via Price Signals, Economics

3. Collapse is inevitable. cf Zerzan via Systems Dynamics, Anthropology

Each are more or less correct. But even combined they are insufficient at providing a solid inclination, much less moral ought, towards the abolition of rulership. Further all sorts of psychopathy, manipulation and coercion are still possible.

These mathematical realities are supposed to lead individuals to social and political perspectives like so:

1. Collective solidarity is sufficient to meet the individual's desires as well as the course of action with the most certain positive results. There are far fewer individuals on the margins in an anarcho-communist society, thus from a Rawlsian perspective anarcho-communism best balances our desires with the fullest possibility of their achievement. So, to avoid the drastic uncertainties of statist capitalism, abolish the state and abolish capitalism.

2. Diffuse systems will provide for everyone's desires better. The rich will get richer, the poor will get richer. If you want to get richer, abolish the state.

3. Extended rigid structures or limited processes applied perpetually are bound to fail. The tension and eventual crises they generate are undesired. Thus, to avoid as much undesired tension as possible, refuse to participate in the state and capitalism, and when civilization collapses don't rebuild it.

There is a hole in each of these arguments.

1. While the gratification of one's desires in existing society may be uncertain, an individual might place value in the fulfillment of their desires differently. The possibility of being a millionaire, or even simply petite bourgeoisie in the first world, may be desired so extraordinarily that it outweighs the greater likelihood of being or remaining a prole for life. Lastly, of course, none of us are behind a veil of ignorance and society is already constructed. The benefactors of privilege have no personal incentive to downgrade the satisfaction of their desires. Game theory evaluations that favor mutual aid are premised upon largely uniform or linear value systems. Sociology and psychology teach us that the valuations of the human mind are anything but.

Note 1: Kropotkin had an additional element to his argument -- in fact the more significant component -- which appealed to human nature. Being altruistic or, more broadly, participating in a naturally composed social ecology, is one of our innate biological desires. Because our evolution was effected by game theory. This is a good trick and pretty much the central patch keeping Social Anarchism afloat. But there's no reason this natural desire to participate in mutual aid is so strong as to not be individually fulfilled within existing conditions. The giving of charity is a product like any other under capitalism and welfare in the state, maybe even to a sufficient extent to satisfy our biological desire. In short the tendency towards Mutual Aid must compete with every other desire. Humans, like all animals, are born with varying tendencies. Some individuals will barely feel altruistic desires. And as individuals or even just products of our society we have some control over our genetic desires. Most importantly: What's to stop me from writing mutual aid out of my DNA? Self-improvement (once the core of anarchist thought) is utterly irreconcilable with appeals to biological essentialism.

Note 2: Marx claimed that the proles would inevitably one day have the strength to overthrow the upper classes. Thus it would make sense as an individual to side ahead of time with the winning bloc. If this truly was inevitable or even probable within our life times then it might be possible to set off a chain reaction where differently inclined individuals progressively abandon their privilege to adopt anarcho-communism until all the rats have finally jumped ship. But by all accounts the proles are not going to win, they never were. The very idea is preposterous and utterly disconnected from all history, culture, realpolitik and sociology. As should be obvious after all these centuries, the proles are not the strongest class, they're unfortunately the weakest class. They can only win if a significant fraction of the upper classes voluntarily side with them. If there's a state apparatus waiting for them with the promise of more privilege, then such a move would make sense. And historically, in a few cases, did. But it is in no way proven -- or even suggested by history -- that the upper classes can be sufficiently moved by the desire for mutual aid. Insofar as this desire crops up, capitalism and the state, as we've seen, provide them with substantive placebos.

2. While abolishing the state may make me richer, there's far more frequently something to be said for playing its game. Furthermore, should the state dissolve, it's important to note that there's nothing whatsoever dissuading me from taking advantage of others as opportunity avails itself. But even if we take game theory into account and combine with #1 (decentralized market + mutual aid), the same realities apply. We can still find occasion to manipulate and coerce where the counter-incentives are outweighed. Decentralized conspiracy or arbitrary separatism is rewarded. Privilege can be easily re-established in a decentralized, altruistically acting society. Simply keep your knowledge to yourself or closely mind the circles of its transmission. Very quickly power structures can emerge (or simply remain) based solely on information and association. Those who cluster in shared circles create classes, while those who most adeptly manipulate the lines of communication gather self-compounding power. In short relative differences in social strength can reach a point where whatever absolute advances in strength those at the bottom might have made, they can be rolled back.

Note 1: Rothbard makes some ridiculous jumbo about "rights" and "natural law." This is clearly meant to amuse us. The supposed a priori case for property titles, non-aggression, etc. is sufficiently elegant and grounded in common sense to gain internet fanboys, but as a theoretical physicist I find its assumptions (like the distinction between positive and negative action) about as reasonable as golden thrones in the clouds and holy trinities. My market anarchist comrades will have to excuse me for not mincing words. If property titles are to be reconstructed -- or even excused -- they must have a more substantive basis. I believe reputation markets offer this, but that's a treatise unto itself.

3. This is by far the most convincing of arguments, I was a primitivist for a good many years for a reason. Elaborate lies, systems and power structures do tend to eventually fall apart when embedded in dynamic realities. Their collapse is often drastic, unpredictable and of such magnitude as to outweigh any good derived from them. But they do not have to fall within an individual's lifetime. This is the abhorrent truth and the whole reason Civilization (in the bad sense) caught on to begin with. Crooks can, and often do, die happy. Thus, even if Peak Whatever is set to inevitably destroy Civilization within an individual's life time there's no inherent reason to avoid creating separate power structures around oneself. One can detach from doomed existing structures, while still participating in the creation of such structures. Just ones that have a good chance of keeping you in a position of privilege till death.

In short, no matter what in all of these arguments -- even combined -- there is a slim (or not so slim) opening for manipulation, control, exploitation, privilege and power. The rulership Anarchism claims to oppose. All these mathematical realities do is generate awareness of the broader landscape in which one's personal power operates. In fact, as is apparent across the Social Anarchist milieu, such knowledge has in most cases only facilitated the spread of power. We Anarchists, being attuned to all these nuances and experienced in a wide variety of settings/procedures, have become the most adroit Machiavellians in the world. (Thank god by the time we develop these skills most of us are trapped in a dead-end scene!) Although detached from the altruistic placebos of the State, we still manage to find useless wastes of time to keep our genes content while opening entirely new vistas of power games.

I intend to provide, establish and elucidate the personal moral ought that is missing from this discussion.

note: don't expect go expecting a complete work any time soon.

2008-06-27T16:09:00.000-07:00

(Reformism Matters)

The Supreme Court's expansion of the 2nd Amendment is one of the most significant victories ever made in the cause of liberty. When American Empire falls it will be Americans who bring it down. There are 300 million bullets in the belly of this beast, waiting for something to set them off. May the politicians tremble.

2008-06-27T04:10:00.000-07:00

(The Relevance Of Anarchism)

Note: I'm going to start releasing full, standalone articles on this site. They will look like this.

The Relevance of Anarchism

Anarchism is nothing new. Anything we could show you, you've heard already. The touch of Anarchism is in everything around you. A million premises you've already encountered and explored. It's an old idea.

Freedom. Compassion. Ingenuity. Exploration. Things that are good.

We're all on our way to them already. We'll make it or we won't. In every aspect of our lives, before a million separate vistas, we're struggling to make things better.

You're engaged in this struggle. In different ways you've been fighting it your whole life. Perhaps deconstructing gender, challenging faith, inventing new tools...

Why turn aside and get wrapped up in a piece of history? With a dumb name and a bunch of dirty, insipid punk-rockers.

Because anarchism still offers the most basic, radical analysis of society possible, unfettered by clumsy abstractions. And a willingness to take things as far as they need to be taken, a commitment to act rather than retreat.

In short because liberalization isn't enough. The powers of our world may appear to be falling into remission, but they are not going to die without a fight. Sooner or later the hammer will drop. The forces of regression always rear up. It's not enough to obsess over -- to cling to -- some rules only to stand back in shock when those rules are thrown out by the powerful.

To defeat bullies you have to plan, you have to fully understand the underlying realities and you have to be ready.

Power is a social psychosis; a manner of thinking that constricts thought and action for its own sake. So that all who engage in its machinations are left marionettes of their own roles. It stems from a disinterest in active engagement and a longing for a security of mind that might as well be death.

Power is how we control one another and how we are controlled by our very need for control. In building our networks of manipulation and obedience, society has come to resemble bubblewrap. Each of us sealed off from one another by our common bonds.

Resistance, true resistance, is about connecting in new, fluid ways. In solving our problems by thinking about them rather than defaulting on old formulas. But further we must realize that to break down and remake the existent we have to grapple with it.

It's not enough to pay lipservice, to dwell on our occasional flashes of insight, we must be vigilant. In throwing out our idols we must retain our sense of direction. In coming to grasps with the world around us we must not lose our urgency.

Anarchism is not one more chain, but a bellwether.

Our moral urge, clarified and applied.

Because we're not going to get anywhere until we are ready for the full struggle.

2008-06-26T23:10:00.000-07:00

(Why We're Going To Win)

Because they haven't killed the kid in us. Because the culture xkcd is flagshipping is the only revolution that matters.

2008-06-24T22:25:00.000-07:00

(Post-Leftist Core Text Already Lost To History)

I'm desperately looking for a copy of Anarchy in the Age of Dinosaurs, which, like so many other works, seems to have slipped through the scene into oblivion. For some reason I've always remembered it as Days of War, Nights of Love's far superior, but overlooked, brother. I read bits back in 2003 and really admired the individualist take on organizing, but the last copy I saw was ages ago in the home of a Green Party candidate(!).

If anyone in world still has a copy I would do anything to help scan it for the interwebs and fight off theoretical entropy.

The Curious George Brigade, in case you didn't know, were a lower budget Crimethinc with politics that we could actually be proud of. They're the cavalier superheroes who published Liberate, Not Exterminate -- a wonderful defense of cities against primitivism (I've resurrected a printable PDF version). ...Although for some unfathomable reason when I last found myself defending teh Crimethinc boogieman Marina Sitrin cited them as the evil ones. Go figure.

2008-06-21T23:56:00.000-07:00

(Five Year Anniversary)

There needs to be a framing narrative. Or so I'm told.

Okay. Catharsis.

On a March evening five years ago we invaded Iraq. Five years ago I stormed out of an anarcho-communist meeting. Lived on my own for a month. Applied to an elite college. Scribbled preposterous predictions on the road as the crowd moved over it. Fought with a counter-protester, stumbled and fell on a passage. Started a blog.

Over the intervening years Human Iterations has--quite naturally--been a lot of things, but it was started with specific intent and has steadfastly remained the centerpiece of a broader attempt to bring together left and right. To push as hard as I could to help redefine the spectrum in terms of liberty. I spent several years playing the conventional blog game with progressives and libertarians, constantly juggling readership, before slowly turning my attention entirely on the anarchist movement, the gooey nuggety core of that whole effort.

Today I am hardly alone. There are thousands around the anglosphere and beyond! redefining the political spectrum. Ron Paul, SDS, the Rothbard Caucus, Aliance of the Libertarian Left, Agorist Action Alliance... As Shawn and I gushed together the other day, Brad Spangler works alongside Chuck Munson!

Truly the times, they are a changing.

And I... I am getting bored.

I have other hills to storm.

I'm not throwing away the blog away. But I can't help but feel the battle it was built to fight has effectively been won.

2008-06-19T15:51:00.000-07:00

(Belgian's Plans For Steampunk Internet Ruined By Nazis)

By far the coolest article this year.

2008-06-18T05:40:00.000-07:00

(Shenanigans Throughout The Ages)

Wendy McElroy has an interesting article up all about the stickers that Benjamin Tucker and the Liberty crew apparently sold in bulk. It's an interesting historical tidbit that I wouldn't have expected.

...I've now got this weird image in my head of the 1890s Boston individualists as sort of old-timey Crimethinkers.

2008-06-14T22:18:00.000-07:00

(The Case Against Primitivism In A Nutshell)

"What I hear from a lot of Greens is "We need to protect the earth because it is far more valuable than humankind, and if necessary, the majority or totality of human life can and should die to make sure the rock stays green and blue and spinny."

That's total fucking nonsense.

Besides the impossibility of trying to organize the world's population to self-destruct, I find it offensive to consider humans to be anything but the immensely powerful, rational actors we are. We can build any kind of a world we want. I think it's in our best interest to build a clean, green world, but we should do it because it helps us, not to spite ourselves or out of 'giving up' on our ability to progress. Any political program which seeks to use violence or authority to stop me from using SCIENCE is a pretty fucking horrible political program. Science is LEARNING. It's learning to use what's around you to better your life. Some of what science has achieved has been atrocious, due in part to a misunderstanding of what is in the user's best interest, but you can't be against science itself... or technology itself... do you really think that people will just stop being curious or stop trying to make life easier for themselves?"

Emphasis mine. A surprising nugget of sanity in an otherwise typical bout of Red/Green bullshit.

2008-06-12T17:54:00.000-07:00

(Dresden Codak Reveals Its Serious Affliction With Cerebus Syndrome Slowly... Sensuously)

Transhumanism has a weird relationship to Science Fiction. While the two exist alongside one another in the broader realm of futurism, SF is nothing more than a literary tradition with a mild ethical imperative towards cognitive modeling. Transhumanism on the other hand is an attempt to politicize and radicalize Science.

There are many SF books addressing ideas that fall within the transhumanist discourse, and even a few that directly address Transhumanism itself. SF authors are surprisingly conservative, always addressing transhumanism from afar. While many relate in vague geek-culture terms to the goal of self-improvement, SF is an introspective discipline. You won't find transhumanism as a protagonistic motivation in their writing, because transhumanism is far too political. Its call for action is fundamentally alien to sedentary dreamers.

SF takes great pride in addressing radical political possibilities, but it almost uniformly does this from the perspective of the outsider with largely default personal aspirations. It's hard to write a character fighting for something greater than themselves. It's extremely difficult to portray a character fighting for something unconventional, and it's downright near impossible for a SF author to delve into something so relevant to their own perspective.

Every SF author desires fervently to live in a fancy nanotech utopia. Transhumanism asks: "Why aren't you doing anything about that?" Which is not a fun question.

Anyway, all of this is purely academic because a little "quirky" (isn't that word like dragging your fingernails over chalkboard?) webcomic called Dresden Codak has punched through this longstanding barrier. I didn't actually realize it until today, but Dresden Codak is actually going for broke on a Cerebus Syndrome. It's trying for serious Hard SF explicitly centered on Transhumanism. And it's actually doing pretty well.

Dresden Codak, for those of you put off by my earlier description, is one of the best showcases of gorgeous cutting-edge sequential art. The sort of Copper-style single pieces that take weeks to craft. (If you ever saw one of those old water-colored Calvin and Hobbes sunday strips and thought it should hang in an art gallery, this is the crowd who took it as inspiration.) Dresden Codak's catch was the artists' fascination with geeky intellectual concepts in topics like physics, philosophy and lit crit. Sort of like XKCD with more gumption and less wry self-apologism.

The first pieces published were snapshots of magical realism and intellectual exploration. (And, yes, I followed it since the beginning. I have more indie cred than you. Sometimes I throw myself a little party.) But eventually these one-off pieces were replaced by a narrative. This was very slow process--not because of the eons between updates--but because even when the narrative very explicitly started it maintained the random discreteness of each individual paintings.

Besides. Dresden Codak is a webcomic. It makes jokes. Online.

Gradually, however, it has become a full-fledged graphic novel. Unique in uncountable details of art and presentation, but more unique than I think even its author realizes in its actual material. Dresden Codak Presents: Hob is a hard SF graphic novel about transhumanism, from a transhumanist perspective. Not the edges of transhumanism, the aftereffects or scottish-accented folks off on a distant hill, but the thing itself.

Anyway, it's also really good. So. You know. You should get on that.

2008-06-12T15:50:00.000-07:00

(The Neurology Of Property)

The tests were run in a magnetic resonance imaging scanner, tracking certain areas of the brain known to be associated with buying and selling. If the reason for the endowment effect came from the products being overvalued by their owners, Knutson’s team expected to see a part of the brain called the nucleus accumbus change during the test. It didn’t, “whether buying or selling, the activation in the nucleus accumbus looked the same”, says Rick.

But others part of the brain, the insula, which has a role in the experience of pain, and the greater mesial prefrontal cortex became activated when the subjects contemplated selling one of their items. If they had ranked that item as one they particularly liked, the change in the insula was greater.

According to this research, this is because of loss aversion, says Rick. “It is not because people are overplaying the positive [aspects of a possession].” Rather, we just become attached to objects we own — so much so that it takes a lot to convince us to part with them.

-- Nature.

2008-06-06T21:57:00.000-07:00

(Links To Free Printable Agitprop)

A friend of mine in Indiana is starting his own loaning library of anarchist material. And while I had a ton to say about titles, he was more interested in printable zines -- what, with the cheapness and ubiquity. Most anarchist literature in the world remains stuck in the 80s, slinking around the pockets of dirty scenesters on dead tree and generally drowning in our own insularity. But there are PDF copies available. You just have to know where to look. So, in answering him, I thought I'd post this online to provide a resource for others and finally stave off these queries.

Of course I couldn't fail to mention the biggie out of Olympia, Zine Library.net, but it's more of a scattershot archive attempt than a solid resource. It's worth digging around in, but if you're getting started or looking to table propaganda it can be of less use than a specific distro. As chance would have it there's really only five online distros of note, and each toes a pretty distinct party line:

Communist Anarchism @
Prole.info

Anarcho-Syndicalism / Platformism @
Zabalaza

Insurrectionary Anarchism @
Quiver

Post-Left / Lifestylist Anarchism @
CrimethInc

Market Anarchism @
Invisible Molotov

Anarcha-Awesomeness
Strangers in a Tangled Wilderness

Ah, unintentional self-parody...

Maybe later, when I'm feeling more bombastic I'll put up some helpful list of "core texts." Less because I seek to dictate cannon, and more because I realize there really aren't any good lists readily available.

2008-05-29T10:48:00.000-07:00

(Fighting The State's Weather)

"Why is it good for the movement that the LP have radicals in it? Because although electoral politics should never be the primary focus of libertarian education, so long as there is a self-proclaimed libertarian political party, whatever it says or does is going to have an impact on people’s perception of libertarianism, thus making the job of education easier or harder as the case may be. A libertarian party that puts forward relatively radical/leftish candidates like Ruwart thus helps the cause of radical libertarian education more (or, if you prefer, hinders it less) – in that respect, at least – than a libertarian party that puts forward relatively moderate/conservative/statist candidates like Barr. (No, I don’t think the adjectives “moderate,” “conservative,” and “statist” are interchangeable, exactly, but that’s another story. They’re all bad anyway.)

The paradox isn’t a contradiction. There is a respect in which radicals help the cause of agorist education by participating in the LP. There is a different respect in which radicals help the cause of agorist education by repudiating the LP. The question is how to weigh these two respects against each other. Most participants in the dispute seem to think it’s obvious how to weigh them (though their answers differ), but I don’t find it nearly so obvious.

To most people, the word “libertarian” means the Libertarian Party. One might react to this fact by feeling that it is vitally important for radicals to steer the LP in a radical direction so as to project the right image. One might instead react by feeling that it is vitally important for radicals to repudiate the LP loudly and forcefully so as to undermine the mistaken identification. I myself feel the pull of both considerations fairly strongly."

--Roderick Long.

Having never identified with or seriously participated in the whole rigmarole of electoral politics, I find myself occasionally drawn to the bombastic intrigue and grandeur of it. It's fascinating, it's amusing, and it almost fills a certain hole--a nutritional supplement of conventional politics akin to the rush of long-deprived patriotism Social Anarchists feel when we look at clips of Barcelona in '36. The Libertarian Party is the closest I have to a "home team" and such throw-away allegiance is a prerequisite for garnering any entertainment out of spectator sports. You have to root for somebody. Even if you're only pausing on a channel before going outside, it's important to note whether you're yellow or black. Otherwise it's just grown men splashing about in the mud.

I like to pretend that I vote in elections in order to piss off the dogmatic abstentionists, but usually when my ballot shows up in the mail I just have better things to do.

And that's the real critique. Electoral politics is a time sink, an amazingly ineffective waste of time even when compared to the amazingly ineffective wastes of time conventional anarchist activism is already prone to. Arguing about one candidate versus another is pretty much like wolfing chilidogs and yelling at the TV with your friends.

But--and this is where I side with Jeremy and Roderick--it's worth noting that people bond over chilidogs. It's easier to start a conversation over mindless fluff than ask your neighbor to pull a shift in the community garden. "I don't get the point of Football" is a pretty solid position. It's a pretty easily defendable position. But that's all it is. It leaves an uncomfortable silence in the room. And nobody gets to eat any chilidogs.

As Anarchists we're pretty hardcore idealists, but that's no reason to not be hardcore realists as well. Ron Paul, despite being an outright sith lord on borders and sexual liberty, managed to radicalize a whole fucking slew of people. I personally know at least three market anarchists now active as community activists who got started with fucking Ron Paul meetups. So while he may suck as an agent for liberty, as an effect, the campaign was positive weather. Even Obama's campaign has its positive aspects. Just as certainly a Hillary nomination or a McCain victory would be delicious cheesecake mana from the heavens.

While electoral politics rarely adds up to a hill of beans it shapes the tone of conversation in a country, and that's something to pay attention to even if only rarely are we offered the barest, unsubstantial effect on it. A Ruwart victory in the LP would have been a boon to the party's radical caucus. But who knows what the long term effects would have been. And that's the whole point. Participation in conventional politics abstracts us away from the concrete. We lose agency over our actions in the larger machine. And then we grow used to it.

2008-05-28T10:22:00.000-07:00

(Green Gap)

I'm just really looking forward to the day when some Prius driving yuppie makes up his mind about a war based on the environmental ratings of each side's bombs.

2008-05-27T13:08:00.000-07:00

(We're Not Fucked Enough, Throw In Some Triffids)

While I fully and enthusiastically support Genetic Engineering (caveat: once we actually know what we're doing) I respectfully disagree with Freeman Dyson. As much as I salivate at any opportunity to outrage the goddamn primmies, the solution to global climate change is not blindly fucking with the biosphere a little more. The solution is throwing away our cars and smashing the artificial market distortions that make globe-trotting production cheap.

There are wonderful pro-technology solutions to global warming. But--and I'm sorry to smash your bourgeois dreams Mr Dyson--"technology" does not equal cars.

SUVs, suburbs and industrial behemoths are not some pinnacle of technological development, but rather a horrible misstep that's getting in the way of true progress.

2008-05-24T15:22:00.000-07:00

(Utah Phillips Is Dead)

That is all.

2008-05-22T21:17:00.000-07:00

(Open Capitalist Network)

Thanks to Kevin Carson for highlighting a positive development.

2008-05-22T16:33:00.000-07:00

(Mass Graves)

"The commission estimates at least 100,000 people were executed, in a South Korean population of 20 million. That estimate is based on projections from local surveys and is "very conservative," said Kim. The true toll may be twice that or more, he told The Associated Press."

In 1945, as the Japanese Empire finally went into retreat, the Korean people were left without an occupational authority for the first time in decades. In that brief moment something amazing happened. The Korean Anarchists, long the champions of the resistance struggle, came out of the woodwork and formed a nationwide federation of village and workers councils to oversee a massive project of land reform. Korea graduated from feudalism overnight. Aside from some struggles with the Socialists and Nationalists, the peninsula was at peace.

When WWII concluded, however, the "responsibility" of securing peace and order in Korea was assigned to the Americans and Soviets. By all accounts in this instance the US actually had no imperialist intentions. While the Soviets moved quickly to deploy their forces and occupy the North, the Americans took their time showing up, and were largely content to let the South Koreans manage themselves.

The Koreans, culturally steeped with anti-authoritarian values, were fond of America and openly despised the Soviets. While a few socialists fled North hoping that the Soviets would give them a hand against the Anarchists, they were overwhelmed in numbers by a mass migration south. Everyone assumed the Americans would assist or at least respect their autonomy.

This did not last.

The Americans Military commanders who eventually arrived had trouble understanding or dealing with the anarchy they found. They had no protocol for dealing with regional federations and autonomous communes. So they helped the dispossessed aristocracy form a military government. In order to make the map "simple." In order to "get things under hand."

Most importantly they did not understand that the Korean Anarchists and Anti-Authoritarian activists that saturated the countryside were different than--and in fact vehemently opposed to--the Communists, going so far as to organized and launch insurrectionary attacks on the Soviet Occupation before the Americans arrived.

The Americans couldn't understand "anarchists". But "leftists", they knew, meant Soviets. And they had the gall to ignore or resist their puppet military government. So they started killing them.

By the start of the Korean War, the slaughter was in full swing. Having arrested every anarchist organizer or sympathetic peasant they could get their hands on, they started executing them en masse.

The Korean Anarchist movement was, historically, one of the strongest in the world. It survived half a century of brutal occupation and economic exploitation. It survived a three way assault by the Chinese, Japanese and Soviets. It has survived many, many massacres and exterminations. It is even still around today. So strong that in the last few years they've been known to evict the police from the streets. But the worst injury it ever suffered was initiated and orchestrated by the United States military. In a single campaign so horrific it borders on genocide.

This was truly, objectively, one of the worst things the US has ever done. And there are some big fucking contenders.

Most north american papers ran front-page stories this Monday about the latest mass graves being uncovered while I was riding the "Empire Builder" from St. Paul to Portland. I found a copy wedged between Amtrak seat cushions. And there was an ancient photo of piled corpses as far as the eye could see. The papers euphemistically used the term "leftists." But I know the history, I did the research.

They were almost all anarchists.

However lovely America may be. Remember, the US government is not our friend. It will never be. It can never be.

2008-05-15T20:35:00.000-07:00

i hate my flower, he said, so he punched it and it blossomed

But this is not the beginning. When we hacked into the blog account we had no idea.

They sit in sleeping bags, talking. But they're so close, he said, I can feel it brimming on the edge of every word. Birds who clip their own wings in protest of airline food. Hidden there, an entire passage rhapsodizing on the development of flight, while they grunt shallow slogans against it.

You better watch out, she said, they'll hobble you too.

I'm not afraid of the bourgeois, their penny souls are worth too much to sacrifice.

Days earlier. he's becoming one of them, did you see. All pretty pictures, smudged toner and anthemic quips.

I'm already corrupted, as he buried deeper into his cocoon.

cocoon! cried the English majors. for shame! they drank the drying ink. Art projects spread out like the broken bones of assault rifles that will never be fired.

But if I made millions on a graphic design project I know I'd start a scenester publishing house. And I, too, would fuel your pretensions of conspiracy with my own silence. But we are not these clones of ourselves. and who will do the dirty work of hating them?

How can you tell a ninja that his secrecy is a sword pressed against your neck?

Yo. Somebody put CrimethInc's latest book online.