I have basically zero patience when it comes to being expected to explain why racism and intellectual property are fucking evil.

I'll just yell at you and block you on both issues. These are such baselines in anarchism they're not up for debate. But read: dklevine.com/general/intell…
The ONLY justification ever for possession/property is scarcity. Information is not scarce and making it scarce has horrific externalities and philosophical implications. Labor is not an objective good of objective value. Making mud pies doesn't entitle you to compensation.
IP creates massive economic inefficiencies and damage literally measured in the deaths of hundreds of millions. But moreover IP is the logic of censorship and mind control, declaring you have the right to stop folks from ultimately quite arbitrary communication of experiences.
YOU'RE ACTUALLY *NOT* ENTITLED TO A LIFE OFF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. Artists, musicians, coders, etc all have ways of earning a living without using the vicious evil of copyright. Every anarchist knows this. Most of us creatives practice this.
Moreover IP has direct consequences in terms of interpersonal power dynamics within a movement. If a major anarchist publisher puts out a book many need to be aware of the contents of the specific arguments, etc, regardless of whether they approve...
...If the publisher embraces IP and doesn't make the book freely accessible (note anarchist publishers like C4SS and Crimethinc and virtually every zine distro make all our content free online) then the publisher would be exploiting their power to gain money.
This is broadly an example of how you can't engage in a truly voluntary -- and yes *consensual* -- transaction with someone when they deny you informed agency about the full content of the good transacted. Thus there's eg an obligation on sellers to make blueprints/etc available.
Only *AFTER* reading a book can I know whether I actually want to donate to the author.

Buying *physical craft goods* or *services* is different. Anarchist artists labor hard to screenprints. Anarchist coders may sell their time to help work on something.
But the idea that, having bought a physical book, or the service of a programmer to write something, you shouldn't be free to communicate the information you received however you like is beyond abhorrent. It imposes extreme constraints of freedom with extremely negative results.
Anyway since the absurd comparison to rape culture has been brought up by the libs, let me emphasize that part of why we're so rabid about freedom of information is precisely having fought rapists who've tried desperately to stop survivors from sharing their experiences.
Personally I've more than a few times encountered the "I put myself through accountability"/"I did X the survivor asked" ... "therefore it's an EXCHANGE and they're obligated to never share what i did" move.

Naw fool, they get to share no matter what. Can't stop the signal.
If you think intellectual property can't be weaponized to stop survivors from speaking out I've got HUGE news for you about how DMCAs have been frequently used. Indeed lol nazis have used DMCAs about "exposing my racist words is violating my copyright" against us.
Information is not something you get to limit in an exchange, for much the same reason it's not valid for someone to sign a contract selling themselves into slavery. Being free to share your experience/information you know is a core part of remaining a person with agency.
No anarchist would ever imagine respecting a non-disclosure agreement. No anarchist would ever imagine respecting someone who says "here's my album but don't share it."

If we want you to continue doing what you're doing we'll *donate.*
There are of course contextual reasons for not communicating certain things -- we don't want to put our comrades in jail thus we don't like folks livestreaming crimes -- but these are about individual choice re the consequences, not a matter of *transaction.*
We're obviously exposing literally everything to do with the cops, the state, fash, libs, etc.

We believe in maximizing people's informed agency. And this means that -- barring extreme shit around security culture re crime -- we try to be radically transparent within the scene.
Because there is nothing more cancerous and dangerous to a movement than the runaway feedback loops of (social and material) capital accumulation. The asymmetries of knowledge generated by IP *turbocharge* such.
I have personally scanned *dozens* of anarchist books. The Anarchist Library (for all my irritations with the clique behind it) is a repo of flagrant piracy (yes, from anarchist publishers). As it should be. We have no tolerance for IP among comrades or corporations.
Part of what's so deeply infuriating about "but i neeeeed ip to survive" is that virtually every anarchist creative manages to make money to survive without utilizing IP. I've NEVER paywalled my content in any form, always using open donations alone.
I know anarchist artists that work their fucking asses off and they'd never think of putting their work behind copyright. We create to share not enforce dystopian claims to your agency re sharing. And if we have to push a mop or collect disability or spange to do so, we have.
As a writer I collect donations. As a book publisher I charge only for physical copies (and make contents free online). As a distroer I scam printing and always run sliding scale from $0. As a coder and designer I sell my time, not apps or images.
Inevitably when IP comes up the reactionaries and "temporarily embarrassed creative class professionals" desperately turn to "no ethical consumption under capitalism" -- completely flattening and hiding sharp variances in ethicality. This is just completely disgusting nihilism.
Finally the most disgusting middle class reactionary shits among the marxists turn to appeals to the labor theory of value. See for example Jacobin's infamous defense of IP. We've already covered this but again:
1) scarcity is the only possible justification for property/possession, CREATING ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY IS ALWAYS CATASTROPHICALLY BAD

2) while you should of course donate to folks providing un-scarce goods, there's no coherent or ethical way to *price* such goods for "exchange".

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with William Gillis 🏴

William Gillis 🏴 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @rechelon

21 Feb
Let me just say that one of the critiques more humanities inclined folks often trot out of rationalist circles is that they're all arrogant engineers.

Actually their stronger problem -- as someone who's socialized at many events with them -- is *humility*.

Let me explain:
One of the most immediate things you notice at a rationalist social event is how many of them are, for lack of a better description, witless rubes who look up fawningly to anyone they think sounds intelligent and original (in a direction that doesn't challenge them).
Like you'll overhear someone confidently proclaim the most absurd or plainly wrong shit with no real justification besides essentially just trotting out some "I've five math phds" level handwavey qualifications. And a crowd will nod along, looking at them with sparkling eyes.
Read 6 tweets
21 Feb
To hybridize two dramas in my circles:

The best story the closet racist ever told was about a lawyer who is crippled by a fear she left her hairdryer on, constantly returning home/being late to work. Solution: just bring the damn hairdryer with you. Anyway, it's my story now.
The piece this story originates in is a defense of trans folks. It operates in an aside that's basically "sometimes you shouldn't care so much about 'solving' some underlying condition when you can just treat the symptom and save a life." That framing is dismissive, but...
A number of trans friends have positively cited that article as a powerful tool to win respect or even that helped free them to finally transition. The point of the story however is far more general about practicality and I've applied it in many situations.
Read 4 tweets
21 Feb
WAIT WAIT WAIT

The "who knew rejecting intellectual property was a core anarchist plank???" lib is also pro *gun control* and *mandatory public education*?

HOLY SHIT BURN THEM TO THE GROUND
this is literally everything that goes wrong when you try to tell democrats that they're "already anarchists because anarchy just means respecting people" or some shit

every single one of these people will be outraged we expect them to just serve sentences rather than snitch
I *cannot wait* for all the libs/marxists who just showed up to be all "expecting me to serve solitary confinement for a year rather than answer grand jury questions about other protesters is white supremacist / patriarchal / ableist /etc... why are anarchists jumping me??"
Read 4 tweets
21 Feb
As with ICE and Homeland Security, there's an astonishing lack of understanding of how RECENT a construction intellectual property mostly is. Copyright laws lagged into creation after the modern surge of creation. Patents, well... Image
Image
When we say that the framework of intellectual property has literally killed hundreds of millions the examples of pharmaceutical patents is the most go-to example, but there are actually many more IP dynamics with arguably comparable death tolls.
Read 10 tweets
19 Feb
Core to my analysis of power has been -- since about 1998 -- that power is rooted in a cognitive strategy of disengagement (walls, borders, static systems, tradition, etc), whereas freedom is about engagement (networking, vigilance, reflection, empathy, etc).
I discuss this briefly in my piece Two Definitions Of Power (which got reposted in 2009 during a website change, but was first posted in the early 00s) while addressing and rejecting attempts to use "power" with positive valences or other definitions.

humaniterations.net/2009/11/13/two…
This core analytic dichotomy between engagement and disengagement cuts through all my work. It was initially a troubling tension with my involvement in the counter-globalization movement. Eventually it won out in the consent v agency framework debate and became positive freedom.
Read 12 tweets
17 Feb
"But what do we owe future generations that have done nothing for us?"

Boy, conservatives are just going to increasingly make their moral nihilism more and more absurdly explicit, aren't they?

The freedom of people ten billion years from now is continuous with my freedom.
I keep re-emphasizing that limited time preference is connected to a limited circle of care. To blur our present identity with the agent operating in our body in the future is basically the same as blurring identity with agents operating in different bodies.
Fascism is based in the intensification of limited identity and horizons. It shrinks the circle of care to the nation -- or in the case of some fash, just the "individual."

This is likewise the mistake of liberal statism (which doesn't care to plan coherently for the future).
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!