Anarchist victory despite association of cryptocurrencies with libertarians and/or finance bros

Karl gmkarl at gmail.com
Fri Dec 17 18:21:10 PST 2021


I have not reviewed this article.  I tried to paste it once, and made
an error, pasting something different.  I then deleted the different
thing I pasted.  Here is the content of the article PR linked.  I do
not know what it is about.


Skip to main content
Home
No Ethical Activism Under Capitalism
No Ethical Activism Under Capitalism
Dec
17
2021
1 comments
By thecollective
C4SS grindset

from Center for a Stateless Society by Emmi Bevensee

DAOs, DeFi, and Purity Politics

This piece was co-authored with Jahed Momand and Frank Miroslav.

Quit your purity politics and pay attention to things outside of your
camp or else you’ll get wrecked by a changing world and miss
meaningful opportunities.

As such, one space I’ve been paying attention to is that of
Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs). Despite the fact they
often have relationships with Evil naughty bad boy things like
speculative finance and artificial scarcity, I nevertheless believe
DAOs have the potential to significantly impact the global economy
over the next few decades.1 Even if you think that DeFi and crypto are
horrible (and there are good reasons to feel that such as scams and
carbon emissions), you should still be paying attention to them if
only because they have a much greater likelihood of dramatically
impacting the global economic system than, say, neo-Stalinism in our
lifetime. A major reason is that despite the public association of
cryptocurrencies with libertarians and/or finance bros, there are
powerful innovations in governance and public goods allocation being
written in the marginalia that should be of serious interest to anyone
sincerely committed to helping others.

What the hell are you on about?

Before we hop in let’s define a few terms:

    Web3: A broad field, still being defined, but gesturing towards a
decentralized internet where users control their data, interactions
can be direct, and large corporations don’t mediate transactions.
Worth noting there are lots of cool decentralized web projects that
are not currencies such as the Indigenous lineage tool Āhau and the
“gossip” protocol Secure-Scuttlebutt it was built on. Here’s a friend
defining the terms and talking about some of his concerns and
excitement in Web3 land especially re organizing, governance, and
coordination problems.
    Blockchain: A decentralized ledger used to create consensus
between who controls what assets in many (but not all) web3 projects
but especially crypto-currencies.
    Ethereum: “Ethereum is the community-run technology powering the
cryptocurrency ether (ETH) and thousands of decentralized
applications.” Since its creation other applications have done what
ETH does more cheaply (both in cost and environmental concerns) though
ostensibly ETH is upgrading soonishly.
    Smart Contracts: Like vending machines made of code, which are
automated and run on blockchains. Smart contracts are basically a set
of rules, programmed on top of decentralized protocols such as the
Ethereum token that execute actions given some conditions being met.
This is part of the layer of “programmable money” that revolutionized
crypto-currencies away from the static, boring, earth destroying,
dinosaur proof of concept that is Bitcoin.
    DAO: Decentralized Autonomous Organizations, first seen on
Ethereum, allow developers to create apps that let users interact with
various protocols to create more complex economic and social
technologies. These generally employ smart contracts. Some examples
are things like lending pools where no one is going to check your
credit score (because it’s over-collateralized and automated). Here’s
a cool overview on what DAOs are. They describe them as such: “DAOs
are Web3-native, and as such they tend to be organized according to
the values of blockchain technology: openness, transparency, and
decentralization. DAOs are an emergent model for facilitating and
scaling human coordination in a way that gives members autonomy over
their work and reduces issues related to bureaucratic gridlock.”
    Equity/Derivatives/Put/Long/Synthetics: Ehhhhhh, it’s just stonk
stuff. Don’t worry about these financial instruments too much unless
you really want to dive in. TradFi refers to the “traditional finance”
world where these financial mechanisms emerged, as opposed to DeFi
(decentralized finance) where DAOs live now. There are various ways
that DAOs make money for DeFi investors. Generally the protocols and
smart contracts reward you for things like providing liquidity to the
network; much like a bank does with small payments for letting them
invest your money. Because web3 is very modular, the creative space
for these DAOs to interact is much more complex than what is possible
in TradFi.

Impact, purity, and money

One of the strongest critiques of anarchism (or consequentialism) I’ve
heard (often from former anarchists no less) is that it’s too hard.
And maybe it is. Hard problems don’t have Solutions in pure form. They
have scales of tradeoffs and inventiveness at the margins. Your best
hope with hard collective action problems is usually that prosocial
tactics and incentive structures proliferate rapidly in a cascade of
concurrent action. But at the end of the day, if you try to change
anything in this fucked world, you will have dirty hands.

Take, for example, money. By interacting with money in any way you
have touched capitalism and been sullied by the very association.
After all, capitalist markets are inherently competitive and zero-sum,
captured by elites, prone to inequality, used for exploitation and
destruction, etc. Lefties responded to this with the Discourse moment
of “there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism” as a challenge to
vulgar individualist thinking that downplayed systemic approaches that
proliferated through liberal feminist campaigns and greenwashing
schemes. And that’s not even getting into more abstract concerns
around the Value Form or debts being corruptions of promises by math
and violence and the like.

But if you are anti-money and a purist about it, you can get into some
sticky positions real quick.

Are you anti-‘direct cash based reparations’?

Are you anti-‘immigrants sending remittances to family back home’?

Assuming we’re all on the same page that, relative to our current
political and economic moment, giving some money to a homeless person
is not Inherently Ethically Bad™, then we can acknowledge some worthy
uses of money in the real world.

Part of the issue here is the collapsing of scales of badness in how
captured or compromised a given tactic is into the binary of Good
versus Evil. Yes, capitalism is defined by captured markets and
money/markets have some perverse incentives even if we got rid of all
the overtly bad stuff. There may be alternative ways of organizing,
but pretty much everything that people have suggested come with
trade-offs. Given that we need to act, we should try to become
comfortable with the complexity.

After all, funneling money to BIPoC and global south radical movements
is Good and Pure effective altruism on a scale that would make
Yudkowsky shudder in confusion. Maybe projects like Popcorn DAO aren’t
quite that, but can possibly (and sometimes want to) be wrenched in
that direction.

And what’s more, these same trade offs exist in all activism.

Is burning tires at a land defense barricade ideal for the environment? No.

Am I going to critique and nitpick native radicals fighting genocide,
the destruction of their water supply, and ongoing disposssion for
using the tools at hand? Hellllll no.

Does shutting down a road contribute to carbon emissions from idling
engines? Yes.

Should we rule it out as a tactic in all cases? Probs not, my dudes.

Etc.

So sure, some tactics are more captured and fundamentally compromised
than others (see: critiques of reformism) and we should distinguish
them along these lines, but if you want to be pure, then changing
things for the better shouldn’t be your goal. Interacting with complex
systems necessarily means unintended negative externalities. The best
you can do are honest debriefs and pivots as your tactics develop
through testing, but at the end of the day all forms of activism are a
gamble. Some cool kid nihilists often see this dynamic and kind of
give up on complex systems modeling but that seems like a cop out to
me, even if post-left critiques of ‘activism’ as a saviour infused
ineffective concept are valid and important. You can’t dismantle the
master’s house with the master’s tools, but you can still use them to
absolutely wreck some shit in the best possible way.

DAOs and DeFi, are they good???

So everything is bad and some things are worse. Where does this leave
us? Most recently I’ve been paying a lot of attention to the DeFi
space as something that is clearly disruptive in some ways to
capitalism as we know it (ie lower obstacles to entry for people
outside of global metropoles to get flash loans because of
over-collateralization), even as in many ways it replicates all of the
very same financial mechanisms (bonding, derivatives, shorts, longs,
put, etc).

Some examples of these are in the DAO space. DAO stands for
Decentralized Autonomous Organization and is basically an app that
automatically moves crypto-tokens around according to some rules for
how it should be governed. In the most decentralized forms, these
platforms are completely governed by the community of owners. Others
assume some off-chain trust in a collective with keys to the treasury.
Currently DAO voting is a contested zone in that often money = votes
but there’s a range of projects such as conviction voting, quadratic
voting, and others that articles like this one describe, alongside
projects like Aragon for modularizing DAO governance. The DAO space is
less ideologically rigid in my experience than right libertarians as
well and ripe for some plug-and-play syndicalism and the like. In
fact, a web3 developer co-op called dOrg has already formed and is the
first DAO with an LLC.2 A member was recently interviewed by “The
Blockchain Socialist” who has this to say about unions in DAOs:

:

(Worth noting that these dynamics of getting kicked out of banks and
payment processors apply to all radicals and marginalized laborers
such as sex workers.)

But within this obviously capitalist and market-oriented system, are
their windows for radicalism or at least harm reduction? To me this is
an unequivocal yes (at least on the latter) as long as you don’t
subscribe to hyper-campism and the original sin of proximity to
libertarianism. Minimally, there are a lot of really cool BIPoC
projects popping up.

Here are a couple tweets 3 mentioning a few of interest:

https://twitter.com/sirsuhayb/status/1461504054723584000?s=20

https://twitter.com/KristyT/status/1463582953968005120?s=20

https://twitter.com/BlackSocialists/status/1465425858835927044?s=20

(Worth noting that Black Socialists of America have always been
consistent in their enactment of Black radical collective and co-op
traditions/theory including in the web3 space. To the point of being
ruthlessly attacked and slandered by tankies.)

Buying back and repatriating stolen African art? Funding Indigenous
land back (a friend of mine is running a collective OHM wallet with a
gnosis safe where they’ve agreed to redistribute the rewards to land
back projects after a year)? Supporting BIPoC artist collectives? It
takes a lot of gall to suggest all of these people are too stupid to
realize how compromised their tactics are (though Twitter inevitably
produces every possible bad take).

Beyond just these though, we also have other proofs of concept at play
in projects like KlimaDAO that in less than a month has purchased over
10 million tons of carbon credits by adding a layer of speculative
finance on top of the mission. There are plenty of critiques to be
made of carbon markets on a dying planet but if you actually look at
the credits transparently being bought by the KlimaDAO treasury (via
Verra and the Toucan protocol), it’s supporting pretty cute stuff like
hydroelectric dams in India and reforestation in South America.
Additionally they address some of the critiques of carbon markets
head-on in the docs and even more so in their discord.

Is it ironic for Klima to be sequestering carbon via what is
essentially a carbon-producing redundantly decentralized database?
Sure. Proof of stake produces carbon and proof of work is way more
horrible. And at the same time, many investors are bullish on carbon
credits as projects like Klima DAO dramatically raise the price as
they hoover up the cheap credits. The fact that the technology and
financial instruments surrounding Klima seem to be working as intended
(aside from intense price collapse right now hahahahahah /cry) suggest
the possibility of a wide range of creatively impactful projects
grounded in climate science. And indeed, there are heaps of other
supposedly carbon-negative blockchain projects including the new
Mobile Coin created to synchronize with Signal Messenger as well as
some fairly solarpunk stuff getting funded.

KlimaDAO is a fork of OlympusDAO (OHM) which is creating a
decentralized reserve for the crypto ecosystem. I’d think the “abolish
the fed” energy of this should be ancap catnip, but I’ve not even seen
them significantly involved, surprisingly (and thankfully). Regardless
of what ideologies might like the idea, if Olympus continues to work
as advertised then it and projects like it could be disruptive to
nation-state capitalism on an international scale. The most obvious
reason is because many of the projects don’t require any proof of
identity (much less citizenship!). This alone undermines the banking
apartheid that is an aspect of global imperialism. Then on top of
that, like the Robinhood trading app, these protocols (especially the
ones off of expensive networks like Ethereum) allow people to make
money off of small amounts of money but without the national identity
verification. They function inherently as something of a natively
international business in ways that corporations cannot. Even the core
functioning of many of these projects is a kind of dual power that
could dramatically change the relation of people to the states that
govern them as parts are shown to be clearly inferior. I’ve not heard
anyone in OlympusDAO say that they are trying to supersede the USD as
the global reserve currency, but they might as well.

States will try to attack at every centralized choke point such as
fiat onboarding and taxes they can if various cryptocurrency schemes
become seriously threatening. The question is whether their efforts
will work. Obviously central banks and regulatory agencies are
extremely nervous, and likely to push back on permissionless systems
for international cooperation involving competitive currencies (even
as states and central banks create their own cryptocurrencies). But
for the most part, they just weren’t designed for the scale of
decentralization that typifies web3. Surprisingly, this paragraph at
Foreign Policy sums up nicely:

    “the U.S. Food and Drug Administration was set up to regulate
Merck and Pfizer, not 1 million biohackers; the Federal Aviation
Administration was built for Boeing and Airbus, not 1 million drone
hobbyists; and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission was created
to go after Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, not 1 million Web3
developers.”

In contrast to this systemic failure mode, in web3, there is often a
degree of both lawless freedom and collective accountability that is
possible through democratic protocols.

Our imagination shouldn’t stop there though. What if you could get
paid to give money directly to campesinos (Indigenous subsistence
farmers) stewarding and protecting sacred land from extractive and
imperialist multi-nationals? Feels weird, but it would be cool right?
This is kind of what projects like Kolektivo DAO are already doing.

There’s a broader point here about incentives, a domain that most
leftists give unfortunately little thought to outside of big old
texts. Some of this might be an understandable reaction against those
who think you can just theorycraft how a future world would look like
and some might be a defensive ploy to muddy the waters against
critiques about intra-left abuses. Regardless, there’s the basic point
that incentives matter in the when it comes to trying to build the
world we want (or when we’re just trying to stop the one we have from
sliding into apocalypse).

With programmable money and smart-contracts you can, to some extent,
just create game theoretically cooperative incentives in the here and
now in the ways that authoritarian-communists think The New Socialist
Man would’ve (but somehow never does) or that capitalism grinds into
the pavement. Capitalism dgaf about the environmental commons and
Ostromian analyses faces serious scaling problems when we try to apply
it to global commons without local trust building. But what if in
person trust wasn’t required to scale the wicked problem of global
stewardship? I’m not saying that DAOs fix this (particularly on their
own), but there are many that are doing interesting innovations in
that domain.

A handful of projects are now focusing on these innovations in
stewardship from an Ostromian point of view, even going so far as
adopting Ostrom’s Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) wholly
into the goals of their projects. GitcoinDAO, The CommonsStack, Token
Engineering Commons, 1Hive, and PrimeDAO are working to build tools to
enable cooperation across DAOs and protocols. All of them are
ostensibly, in their outward-facing messaging and their daily
practice, collectively governed projects that are trying to build
open-source, freely available tools and components for cooperative
economies to scale themselves on blockchains. While there is a move
within the blockchain space overall toward “progressive
dictatorships,” where companies and protocols start as strongly
founder-led, both in their product vision and in their ownership,
projects like 1Hive aim to show that starting community-first is
viable, even as far as coining product-community fit vs.
product-market fit. GitcoinDAO has put $40M into the open-source
community using quadratic voting to let people better express their
preferences. And this isn’t another charity—they’re using these grants
to fund projects that build open-source components that then feed
right back into the economy created by Gitcoin, with the ultimate goal
of building and funding sustainable public goods. Solidarity not
charity.

It’s clear that there’s a very strong undercurrent trying to push
speculative finance toward sustainable public goods that most people
can participate in and benefit from. The CommonsStack kind of leads
the way here—they’re incorporated in Switzerland as a foundation to
limit liability on their participants, and you can join for as little
as $425 (paid in DAI), or you can take on tasks and work your way in.
They’re strictly structured to limit some of the worst accumulative
behaviors of speculative finance.

There’s a case to be made (primarily by Marxists) that speculative
finance is inherently bad. And sure, anyone with access to the
internet could verify the extent to which our world is being fucked by
the purely self-interested gambling of ultra-wealthy (though this
critique ignores the evidence of the history of
actually-existing-capitalism, as well as the history of
actually-existing markets that have operated in stateless societies).
But even if DeFi inherits the logics of TradFi in many respects,
there’s a pretty big gap between giving your friend some wood so that
they can build a swing you will both benefit from and the US stock
exchange.4

There’s also the value of lived experience, both in terms of exposing
people to new possibilities and imparting the necessary experience to
embody alternative ways of life. One of the most unfortunate things
about the mass socialist movements of the 19th and early 20th century
was the failure to promote alternate ways of doing things in the here
and now (encouraged by a vision that saw social change as coming from
good socialists seizing mass centralized industry through either
electoral or revolutionary means). A big problem with a model of
social change that posits major breaks between radically different
ways of doing things is that people (even radicals) really
underestimate just how complex our existing world is and how much we
get by on accumulated “common sense.” Building parts of the new world
in the shell of the world lets us trace out potential failure modes
and generate new common sense that can help avoid the worst of the
disorientation should significant change at scale happen.

Furthermore, actual lived experience or exposure to alternatives is
for the majority of people the most persuasive argument for why they
should consider a different world, to say nothing of fighting for it.
And this isn’t just speculation (haha). For example, the class of
people most likely to be radical anticapitalists until the late 19th
century was not the dispossessed mass worker, but rather
skilled/deskilled artisans who were pushing back against the threats
against their autonomy. Give people something concrete and useful that
they can experience, work toward, or protect, not promises about a
better future premised on abstract arguments.

Taking Risks

Cryptocurrency, DAOs, and the like aren’t inherently radical in my
opinion and they aren’t direct action (though they do seem to
sometimes get the goods). Like other tactics, they’re just tools.
Protests can be used for extremely asinine things like COVID-19
denialism or for awesome things like ousting corrupt authoritarian
regimes or getting Indigenous land back. It just depends on the
context and application. These new forms of tech are going to continue
to disrupt or reinforce the various institutions that are clearly not
capable of handling the various problems and existential risks we all
face.

DeFi is inherently risky. Speculative finance is gambling and there
are a lot of hucksters out there. I have no doubt that there are many
crypto bubbles overdue to burst even alongside many other crypto
projects likely to explode in utility and value over the next decade.
But with all that said, if there’s a pathway that a collective of sex
workers or activists or marginalized freelance artists can share a
savings pool with 150% APY (annual percentage yield, ie your bank
giving you .06% bonus for letting them use your money) and relatively
low risk yields then it makes sense to at least be curious. Even
better when most of these projects are completely open source, heavily
independently audited, and feature built-in bug bounties.

Ancaps, fascists, and right-wing libertarians will continue to get
crypto rich (and waste money on various ponzi scams), while also
developing out their infrastructure and influence in these spaces
regardless of whether anticapitalists, queers, BIPoC, and other
marignalized people start asserting their presence in the often pepe
the frog flavoured environs. Personally, if there’s a .00001% chance
all my rad friends can retire and devote their lives to the meaningful
work I know they’d do while also supporting emergent tech that can be
crowbarred towards more radical ends, then minimally I’m all eyes.

There’s also the seriously unappreciated potential of public goods
funding. The mid-century social democratic welfare state, for all its
flaws, did legitimately improve things for a lot of people. But it had
serious flaws, most notably that it was fundamentally tied to the
mechanisms of a nation-state that had to generate tax revenue by
strengthening capitalism and also created a single point of failure
that was easy to attack. Public goods financed and coordinated using
the blockchain are far less liable to such problems. Projects like
Protocol Labs and IPFS are working on public infrastructure to combat
AWS etc. Moreover the relative lack of innovation in this area
(because it’s been tied to the state as more decentralized forms of
mutual aid dried up) potentially means there’s a lot of low-hanging
fruit now that things like computing or homebrew manufacturing have
become significantly cheaper. There’s also significant resources that
could be employed here (see how for his 2016 campaign Bernie Sanders
raised $200,000,000). That might not sound like much when compared to
what the United States and other governments spend on welfare, but if
I’m right about the low-hanging fruit being unpicked, millions
directed by a polycentric network of autonomous organizations (as done
currently by projects like the incredible Open Collective that are
currently charting an ‘exit to community’) can get a lot more done
than big government bureaucracies that have billions behind them. 5

The future of DAOs will probably not be inherently good. They’re part
of a wave of super-empowerment tech that could have universal appeal
to both the goodies and the baddies and there’s no way to stop the
baddies from leveraging it as well. Sure there are VC wealth transfer
pump and dump scams6 and nazi fundraisers but you don’t try to abolish
books because there are terrible ones. Instead you try to leverage
what you can for the good. The train has left the station and we can’t
go in reverse. As my friend Jahed said, “You either participate and
bend the will of this thing in your direction, or you literally remove
your own agency and become a non-playable character. There’s no reason
to make yourself an NPC.” Obviously this domain is not accessible or
desirable to everyone, but even if you think that crypto is the latest
stage of late stage capitalism there’s still a point to actually
understanding how it works so you can do more than just mindlessly
react to it.

None of us like capitalism but there are liberatory collective points
of pressure, illegibility and mechanisms of circumvention within
systems of exchange that marginalized trade cultures and others have
always utilized. I know I’m not going to convince nihilist anti-civ
insurrectos with these diatribes (although given how many post on
Twitter maybe they’ll come around and cheers to a potential Abolish
Civilization DAO), but I’m hoping that tech-friendly leftists,
anarchists, solarpunks, mutualists, co-ops, collectives, organizing
spaces, and communities that have historically often been early
adopters of new tech such as sex workers, consider it more deeply.

There may be no ethical activism under capitalism, but you should
probably still try.

        Some friends and I had an interesting conversation about
scarcity in DeFi wherein a lot of the defi web3 world is about
financialization in ways that are inherently scarce (ie NFTs) as
opposed to the relative abundance of say, the p2p torrenting era. I
argue that scarcity in financial mechanisms is often necessary to
solving for need allocation at scale but it’s worth noting that the
dynamics of extraction, rent seeking, inequality etc that capitalism
is prone to can be recreated in these domains unless efforts are made
to support the more centrifugal and communal tendencies in
decentralized markets. More theory is needed around the extent to
which DeFi and DAOs could abolish extractive renter classes or whether
they just mean your boss is a computer and you owe them money. Here
are some jokes about NFT scarcity
        DisCo Co-Op identifies as an alternative to DAOs.
        Here are two more posts with neat folks in the space.
https://twitter.com/psruano/status/1470469405737893891?s=20  and
https://twitter.com/psruano/status/1470469518510206982?s=20
        This gets a deeper divide that reflects fundamental
differences between anarchist and Marxist theories of how capitalism
arises and is maintained that we don’t have the space to get into.
Nevertheless, it’s worth noting just how fundamental investment
dynamics are to push back against sweeping statements about how
particular forms of organization are bad or dangerous. For example
even in a neo-Stalinist utopia there is no way that all forms of
speculative finance could possibly be stopped. Black markets would
emerge around literally anything that can be moved (as they literally
always do under Actually Existing Communism). Say everyone is born
with rights to a 1/(total population of nation)% ownership of the
steel produced by said nation. Should cyborg-brain-in-a-vat-Marx ban
people from saying “Hey if you give me some o’ that good steel ya got
there i will make a bicycle machine and give you three bikes for your
family”. I should hope not! Hate entrepreneurship all you want but
it’s pretty hard to get rid of these underlying incentive dynamics.
        Indeed there’s a delicious possibility if crypto does result
in serious innovation in public goods funding and governance that
we’ll see a significant shift in terms of ideological association in
the public eye away from libertarians and fascists and towards
leftists simply because payment tech has seen quite a lot of
innovation, whereas public goods hasn’t and as such leftists have far
more reason to be really excited about it. If this happens, I won’t
brag about calling it. Much.
        Worth noting the extreme bias of the person they brought on to
make this point though.
        I am extremely not a financial advisor and none of this should
be considered financial advice. It’s just for entertainment purposes.
However, here is a guide by my friend about how to balance risk and
diversify in crypto as well as some useful general thoughts on how to
think about the whole ecosystem. Also here is a guide to getting into
the Olympus (OHM) DAO ecosystem (including Klima). Also worth
mentioning, I usually imagine my target audience in my writing as
leftists and anarchists who would hate my guts for having so many
shared values and yet saying such blasphemous things. However, I’ve
also noticed that left-libertarians/mutualists/freed market
anarchists/etc seem to not be very involved or interested in this
space (or entrepreneurship for that matter) which seems weird but I
guess y’all are sometimes broke theory paralysis prone academics.
Thanks to Jahed Momand for coming through with support for the section
on public goods, Frank Miroslav for adding heaps, and a bunch of nerdy
friends that’ve been puzzling this through with me and helped
strengthen the work immensely.

Tags:
optimalitrical economicalizationalitrics
c4ss
cryptocurrency

    Add new comment

There is 1 Comment
"Also worth mentioning, I
Submitted by anon (not verified) on Fri, 12/17/2021 - 17:51

"Also worth mentioning, I usually imagine my target audience in my
writing as leftists and anarchists who would hate my guts..."

you're not wrong

"However, I’ve also noticed that left-libertarians/mutualists/freed
market anarchists/etc seem to not be very involved or interested in
this space (or entrepreneurship for that matter) which seems weird but
I guess y’all are sometimes broke theory paralysis prone academics."

well, fuck you too

    reply

Add new comment
Your name
E-mail
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Homepage
Subject
Comment *
4000 characters, remaining: 4000

More information about text formats
Text format

    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.

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor
and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Y
@
a
p
i
C
(
E
Enter the code above *
Enter the code without spaces.
Recent Articles

    Understanding the Modern State
    No Ethical Activism Under Capitalism
    Elon Musk Says That Politically, He’s a “Utopian Anarchist”
    Help Us Recover from the Fire that Destroyed Our Mailorder Space
    An Interview with Ben Wildflower

Recent comments

    How about a wack (Roman 9 min 33 sec ago
    maybe Elon Musk will donate, 12 min 54 sec ago
    welcome to anarchism! 16 min 37 sec ago
    "Also worth mentioning, I 28 min 12 sec ago
    sincere, but would prefer 1 hour 33 min ago
    Sarcasm,,,? Or would a 1 hour 40 min ago
    yes, i'd like to be murdered 2 hours 49 min ago
    no, don't insist anyone comes 2 hours 50 min ago
    Another poster here thinking 3 hours 19 min ago
    Anarchic temperament is 3 hours 29 min ago
    in general totally agree with you 3 hours 31 min ago
    still bulshit. "he who is not 3 hours 44 min ago
    This article appropriately 3 hours 52 min ago
    There is an intersection 4 hours 5 min ago
    I came to anarchy relatively 4 hours 27 min ago
    thanks for letting us know 5 hours 28 min ago
    Use the reply link below the 9 hours 11 min ago
    no advertisements,  9 hours 18 min ago
    Dude, watch a movie or 10 hours 1 min ago
    self-serving fake 10 hours 20 min ago

Upcoming Events

    Feast After Plague
    Thu Jan 6 to Sun Jan 9

Active forum topics

    What is the actual difference between anarchism and communism?
    Call out for volunteers to help finish editing Truth Versus Lies
by Ted Kaczynski
    Anarcho-Lifestylism
    Uncommon opinion?
    It Could Happen Here (Daily w/ Robert Evans)

More
Navigation

    Add content
    Tracker
    Forums
    About Us
    ANARCHY PLANET
    ATUBES
    Events Calendar
    IRC
    RSS
    Zines

User login
Username *
Password *

    Create new account
    Request new password

Search form
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor
and to prevent automated spam submissions.
c
t
C
%
k
#
M
b
Enter the code above * Enter the code without spaces.


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list