Aestetix & Yo's-
The power of names is that they are unique identifers for persons:
at least "unique" up to the point where the population of a locality
increases to produce duplicates.
The power of names is also that they are usually "given" (assigned)
rather than "taken" (chosen), thereby locking down a person's unique
identity within their local society.
And the liberating power of "nyms" is precisely that they break both
parts of that paradigm:
Just as someone named "Baker" breaks the historic heredity of
occupation by choosing to become a builder or a sailor (this was
revolutionary in its time), someone who is known in his/her circle
of peers by his/her _chosen_ name (usually something that has an
echo of linguistic meaning) breaks the historic linkage between
"given name" and "unique identity."
There are two underlying issues here:
One is the right to _choose_ one's name, rather than have one's name
_chosen for him/her_ by one's parents. This challenges the entire
idea, which is a core element of human cultures with few exceptions,
that one's primary affiliation is with the family of one's parents.
In and of itself, this isn't a major issue. Most of us have strong
connections to our parents and no objection to being identifiable as
their offspring. The exceptions are easily solved when individuals
can change their legal names (for example to escape from being
associated with a parent who was abusive or is a notorious convicted
criminal, or to escape ethnic persecution such as when European Jews
fleeing the Nazis often changed their names along the way).
Two is the right to _confound unique identification_ by using
different "names" for different contexts.
THIS is the nexus of where radical action about names and nyms is
needed today.
You need to go here and read this list, or at least give it a quick
scan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claritas_Prizm
The oligarchy has moved beyond the simplicity of hereditary
occupation names, and the obvious discrimination by ethnic names.
Instead, your name, whatever its roots, may be combined with other
factors (collected by Big Data) to assign you to a category such as
"Upper Crust," "Pools & Patios," "Shotguns & Pickups," or
"Mobility Blues." There are 66 such categories in the Wikipedia
article linked above. They translate into the new socio-economic
caste system (or perhaps by now we can start using the word "class"
again?).
Other demographic analysis companies use other names for similar
categories. But what they translate to is "metal citizenship." Are
you familar with the "metal" system that's used to evaluate the
performance of sales people? Platinum sellers sell the most, and
get the most rewards. The scale descends through Gold, Silver, and
Bronze, the latter being the lowest performers who get the least
rewards and often get the most penalties such as unpleasant sales
territories. The cleverly-named demographic categories in the
Wikipedia article may as well be Platinum, Gold, Silver, and Bronze,
referring to your status as a citizen.
If you're a Platinum citizen, you control enormous wealth, you can
call Senators and speak to them when you choose, and you can't be
charged with crimes no matter how egregiously you break the law.
If you're a Gold citizen, you control major wealth, you can't call
Senators but you can call Representatives, and you can be charged
with crimes but never convicted.
If you're a Silver citizen, you own your house or at least pay a
mortgage, you have a high five-figure or low to mid six-figure
income, you can get convicted of crimes but at least you get a
decent lawyer to defend you, and you can write letters to your
Representatives & Senators and get form-letter replies.
If you're a Bronze citizen, you pay rent, you have a low five-figure
income, and if you're charged with a crime you get a public defender
with an overloaded schedule.
Below that might be Lead citizens, who are guilty until proven
innocent, and who, like the nobility itself, have the right to sleep
under bridges.
Make no mistake about this: those categories or their euphemistic
equivalents, are used to determine, regardless of your own will,
what opportunities you will be allowed to have, and what
opportunities you will not be allowed to have. They are used to
determine what rewards will be given to you, and what penalties will
be imposed upon you, and what behaviors you must exhibit and must
not exhibit in order to get the rewards and avoid the punishments.
All of this, without without any right on your part to challenge,
correct, or cross-examine them. Just as surely as a "Jewish name"
would, until recently, be used to lock you out of certain careers
and occupations. (And it wasn't that long ago when an Irish or
Italian name was also the basis of discrimination, as in "No Irish
need apply.")
Breaking the unique identifier is a way to revolt against being
assigned to a category that would be used to dictate your choices
and determine your future.
It's as American as apple pie: because we are after all a nation
that is founded upon the principle of _self-determination_, not
_social determinism_.
But let's keep one other thing in mind: there's a system of
categories that is uniquely threatening to the oligarchy, and that
is _economic class_, because it exposes their power for what it
really is. When you understand your role in the realm of production
and consumption, you can seek out the solidarity of others who have,
regardless of whatever other diversity, this same common ground with
you. And that's the first step toward doing something about it.
-G.
On 13-05-03-Fri 11:30 PM, aestetix wrote:
You've opened a can of worms here :)
Since elucidated discussion seems to be the modus operandi lately,
I
have a few thoughts on this matter that are worth contributing.
Feel
free to ignore at your pleasure (free listening is just as
important
as free speech).
I think that the two key elements of your essays, food and power,
are
rather interchangeable depending on the contexts. It's (hopefully)
obvious why we need food. Power in a more abstract sense is
fascinating to me, though. Other words that come to mind are
drive,
charisma, persuasion, but also intellect, and most important,
control.
IMHO, one of the most fundamental elements of control is language,
as
shared patterns are effectively a way to communicate and attain
various levels of self-mastery. An easy way to experience this is
to
try to understand a foreign language: there might be some hints of
familiarity within the chaos, and as we find them, it's a bit like
setting markers around, and using the markers to control the
direction
of your ultimate understanding. You can extend that to vocabulary
and
concepts as well. One of the hallmarks of a good education is the
ability to curse someone out without using the generic "fuck shit
damn" slurs.
Language is composed of words, symbols which point to meanings,
and
one of the most interesting set of words is our names. And you all
can
guess where I'm going with this one ;)
Hail Eris,
aestetix
PS: it might be worth doing another cryptoparty soon.
On 5/3/13 7:58 PM, GtwoG PublicOhOne wrote:
> 2) Where the power is, and where it isn't.
> Now we come to the proletariat and the lumpenproletariat.
> For this, credit also goes to a good friend of mine who I
won't
> name here, but who's welcome to name him/herself if s/he so
> chooses: s/he got me thinking down this trail a few months
ago.
> The proletariat is the working class: basically defined as
people
> who have full-time jobs or at least jobs that provide
sufficient
> income for the core necessities (shelter, clothing, food,
> transportation, sanitation, communication), but who have
little or
> no ownership stake. This includes people who are in business
for
> themselves, but earning a working class income: they own
their
> employment, but their economic wellbeing is at the same level
as
> that of a wage-worker.
> The lumpenproletariat is the level below that: basically
defined
> as people whose employment is marginal at best, and whose
access to
> the basic necessities is frequently interrupted in some way.
The
> unemployed, homeless, couch-surfers (another form of
> homelessness), people who live at the margins of the law in
order
> to survive, and people who earn their livings on criminal
activity.
> This also includes wage-workers whose wage income is not
sufficient
> to provide their basic necessities from month to month: they
have
> jobs, but their economic wellbeing is at the same level as
that of
> someone who's marginally employed at best.
> Decades ago, the Bay Area left/radical community made the
deadly
> strategic error of embracing the (essentially Maoist)
analysis that
> the lumpenproletariat is the revolutionary class. This error
> continues to this day, in the ideology of Black Block
tactics,
> which are founded on the idea that expressing rage and
provoking
> police over-reaction will somehow spark The Revolution.
> The very same tactic in more obviously violent form pops up
in the
> ideology of the extreme right: such as the Hutaree, a group
that
> was busted by the FBI for planning to shoot a bunch of cops
and
> then set off bombs at their funerals, in the attempt to
provoke
> martial law and thereby set off a "revolution" from the
extreme
> right.
> But here's the nexus of the problem:
> To the oligarchy, the lumpenproletariat is disposable: their
roles
> in production and consumption are so minimal that they can be
> totally disregarded. They have NO power. N-O power. As
> individuals or as any kind of collectivity or class.
> When a social movement identifies with the lumpenproletariat
> and/or attempts to organize the lumpenproletariat, the
movement
> effectively short-circuits its efforts into something that is
> inherently doomed to failure. They may as well be trying to
> organize the squirrels on the Cal Berkeley campus to strike
for
> better teaching-assistant salaries. How seriously do you
think the
> UC Regents would take the threat of a squirrel strike?
> The proletariat is where the power is: the power to produce
and
> consume at the level that drives the engine of oligarchy, is
also
> the power to refuse consent in a meaningful way.
> The power of the proletariat takes two forms:
> One, the power to remove themselves from the oligarch's
engines of
> production: by going on strike (which translates to the power
of
> collective bargaining), by going into business for
themselves, and
> by developing alternatives to conventional capitalism such as
> cooperatives and other forms of production that subordinate
capital
> to labor.
> Two, the power to remove themselves from the oligarch's
> consumption matrix: by boycotts (consumer strikes), by
> anti-materialist or "simple living" principles that reduce
> consumption levels (the equivalent of consumer general
strikes), by
> shifting their consumption to alternative institutions such
as
> coops, credit unions, and small local producers (e.g. buying
> veggies at the farmers' market rather than Safeway), and very
> importantly for _us_ as hackers/makers/etc., the power to
build
> for our own use.
> This is real power. It's the power that makes the oligarchs
quake
> in their boots and have nightmares. And it's the power that
gives
> the oligarchs strong incentive to keep us distracted,
digressed,
> and disempowered by wasting our time trying to organize a
squirrel
> strike.
> -G.
> _______________________________________________ sudo-discuss
> mailing list sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>