Slashdot Mirror
The Anarchist in the Library
Basically, the book puts the information battles relating to culture and copyright into a broader context, ranging from Parisian enlightenment cafes through the latest copyright battles to the Zapatistas and Falun Gong. Unlike many recent books that deal with these issues, Siva doesn't approach them from a legal perspective so much as from a political/cultural/media theory basis. But don't let that scare you, the book is as readable as it is wide-ranging.
At its most basic level, The Anarchist in the Library is about control of information, both cultural and political. As Siva says in the last chapter, "This book was supposed to be about entertainment - the battle over control of digital music, text, and video ... But as I researched this new project, the world shifted beneath my feet ... My concerns moved to the regulation and control of all sorts of information, much of it cultural, much of it political." Thus, throughout the book, Siva contrasts two very different regimes of information control: oligarchy and anarchy.
Oligarchy we are all familiar with. It is the traditional, centralized control of information by the few. It is the system that, for the most part, we all grew up with and continues to be the default today. On the other hand, we've all heard of anarchy, but most of us aren't familiar with its deeper meanings and history. Siva helps us to understand anarchy as a serious positive political philosophy, something more than merely a reaction to oligarchy. To his credit, however, Siva fully endorses neither position. His is a course of moderation, avoiding the excesses and pitfalls of both sides.
The other theme that runs throughout the book is that of cynicism. Here Siva contrasts the civically engaged cynicism of the Greek philosopher Diogenes of Sinope, with the narcissistic cynicism of Seinfeld's George Costanza. Why cynicism? In Siva's words, "What could be a more ideal environment for a cynic than cyberspace...?" The question, however, is whether and how we can promote the responsible and humane cynicism of Diogenes vs. the shallow, rude and selfish cynicism of Costanza. Of course, it sort of depends on how you define rude. To make a point, Diogenes once masturbated in the market square. Says Siva, with tongue in cheek but also a valid point, "And nothing represents the overall nature and substance of the Internet better than masturbating in the marketplace."
Diogenes' zealous humanity is also an especially important consideration of Siva's. Whenever possible, Siva emphasizes consideration of the humane over cold theory. It is this concern with the humane, I think, that draws Siva from engaging with Metallica's issues with P2P to questions of terrorism and networks.
Framed by these themes, Siva proceeds to dig through the many information control issues that have come to the fore these past few years or so. He starts with Peer-to-Peer, of course, and moves through many of the issues constantly showing up in "Your Rights Online" such as MP3s, DeCSS, the broadcast flag, the Phantom Edit and many, many others. The path is not random, however; Siva is demonstrating the reactions between oligarchic control and anarchic response in the creation of culture, and that culture requires, even demands, some anarchy in order to thrive.
From this point, Siva begins to leave the world of digital rights and begins to explore other means of controlling information and culture, such as the subtle, sometimes nearly invisible assumptions made by many international institutions through trade policy and market regulations. The book also discusses how information and cultural controls (such as the PATRIOT Act) grow out of security concerns and fear.
At this point in the book, some readers who might have been nodding along in agreement so far may begin to disagree with some of the points Siva makes, as he takes on the WTO riots, "Techno-Libertarianism," and the war in Iraq. But the book is no thoughtless, radical polemic; it seeks a moderate, well-articulated and researched middle ground.
In the end, Siva's moderation is demonstrated as he concludes that there are seldom easy answers in a world where control of information and culture is sometimes necessary. Without giving specific answers, Siva argues for approaching problems from a particular perspective: with engaged, humane cynicism and a commitment to civic republicanism, both within and without our borders. It is a perspective well worth reading about.
[Full disclosure: I've met Siva a couple of times at conferences and corresponded with him by email on occasion. I would consider him a friend in the fight against copyright maximalism.]
You can purchase The Anarchist in the Library: How the Clash Between Freedom and Control is Hacking the Real World and Crashing the System from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews. To see your own review here, carefully read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
In the end, Siva's moderation is demonstrated as he concludes that there are seldom easy answers in a world where control of information and culture is sometimes necessary.
Ok, I know that to elaborate on this one should read the fine book, anyway: the problem is not whether information and culture should be controlled, but the fact that in modern world such control Cannot Be Achieved without artificial barriers imposed to the people. Most people resent that and they are right.
In other words, one thing is the government censoring the press and the tv, but censoring internet access and fruition is different. It's more personal, like revoking freedom of speech.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
"In the end, Siva's moderation is demonstrated as he concludes that there are seldom easy answers in a world where control of information and culture is sometimes necessary"???
I was with him till this sentence. The control of culture is sometimes necessary???
I for one do not welcome our new Brittany spears-Clearchannel-Fox news overlords....
As for the control of information, that imo is a red-herring too. In a "free" society, there should be no control of information as the free flow of information is crucial to an informed citizenry, and thus to civilian oversight of governmental deeds and misdeeds.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Anarchists aren't just a catch all term for protestors...
... yea sure...
Anarchism is a very specifical political ideology that shares something with marxism but doesn't believe in the use of state power to acheive socialism as opposed to marxists who think that workers should sieze the state power and use it to create a socialist society.
Both are revolutionary socialist and have a history of working together and squabbling with each other that goes back 150 years or so.
The "smashing of starbucks windows" is one critisism anarchists have to take because you often see leading up to protests anarchists groups bashing anyone who won't go for direct action including property destruction as liberals or sellouts etc. but then after the protest when the working people of the city are pissed off because they have to clean up vandalism from anarchists now the anarchists change tune and say "oh we never do property destruction only peaceful protest, it must have been the cops!"
Although anarchists do a lot of good activist work, in the eyes of the working class anarchists ideology has largely been discredited. The times have changed a lot since 1872 and the idea that everyone will just rise up and whipe out the nation-state system and then live in harmony with no government just comes off a tad naive.
Anarchy is not the same as disorder. It's a situation where there are not static leaders.
The best pragmatic definition of an anarchist I know is "Someone who doesn't need a cop to tell him what to do."
KFG
One of the errors I often see is people confusing "anarchy" with "chaos". They two do not equate. There is no assumption of disorder or destruction with anarchy, unlike chaos. Anarchy is simply the individual choosing rather than having those choices made for them.
One of the more interesting aspects of Libertarian politics is a dedication to the principles of the constitution of the US, the Declaration of Independence, and other such things. As "The Importance Of" points out, this is a middle ground.
The original copyright and patent, for example, was enacted for only a limited time. This bears little resemblance to todays unlimited copyright. The abuse is based on the fact that politicians have only one motivation: Election. They sell law to the highest bidder.
This looks like a good book, and I hope to find a pirate e-version on the P2P networks soon.
(oh no, I'd never do that. really.)
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Tad of a contradiction, no?
Well, no actually, although I see how you read my post. Getting past our corruption is a pre-requisite for a successful anarchist society, hence the dream of such a society holds the implicit faith in mankind's ability to achieve such a state.
1) abolish the state 2) ???? 3) utopia!
I think it's worth taking a little longer to consider anarchist theory in depth before dismissing it - there is a great deal out there. One thing worth mentioning is that anarchism is not 'abolish' the state but more a case of make it redundant. For anarchy in action consider local currencies such as Ithaca Hours or more impressive (to my mind), Calgary dollars and these
I believe there is some grounds to consider our current system of government (I'm in the UK) as promoting corruption, by placing excessive power in the hands of small numbers of people, instead of distributing that responsibility to a wider number, and also by concealing information and the decision making process from the public.
Anyway, I now have work to do. Any answers to questions and objections in reply to this post can probably be found in the links in my original post. Kropotkin will put the case better than I can.
Power to the people!
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
One of the errors I often see is people confusing "anarchy" with "chaos". They two do not equate. There is no assumption of disorder or destruction with anarchy, unlike chaos. Anarchy is simply the individual choosing rather than having those choices made for them.
h y.htm).
In the real world, there's little difference. Sooner or later, someone will make a choice that relieves you of a choice-- robbery, rape, murder, etc.
Larry Niven wrote an excellent short story on this, called Cloak of Anarchy (http://www.larryniven.org/stories/cloak_of_anarc
One could argue what point Mr. Niven was trying to make, but when I read it, I was well into being an anarchist, and that story started me on the road out.
I've never understood if there is one political ideology based on anarchy or two. One where people think it's good to smash windows and one where they do not (and, presumably, a lot of other stuff).
The same can be applied to Capitalism, Christianity and just about any other group you care to name that doesn't have strict membership control.
I'll speak first as someone who has participated in some very large protests (mainly anti-war) which have attracted a large number of people who describe themselves as anarchist. The vast majority were very peacable, even one time in the face of police aggression in Bristol, UK. Nor did they support property damage. They pretty much denounced such people as not being proper anarchists in the same way that hackers denounce script kiddies, muslims denounce Al Quaeda and Americans denounce Bush (at least on
However, I would say that the most fundamental definition of anarchy is that mankind is better off living without central control than with and this does not comment on violence one way or another. Nevertheless, few anarchists have such a low-level definition of anarchy. You can find anarcho-captialist factions, anarcho-socialist factions, and others, but most (all?) of these begin to denounce violence. Once you begin to use violence to get your way then whatever your intentions were, you'll find it very hard to stop using violence.
The non-window smashing anarchy that you are interested in consists of finding ways of returning people's repsonsibility for their lives to them, taking it back from the government. The example I usually use is local currencies. See here, but as I'm on
In this sense Anarchy seems very much like a more humane capitalism; humane because anarchists are usually very community orientated. They have to be community orientated because the intention is to replace Government force with self-governance. However, likening anarchy to enlightened capitalism is only my view. Others will draw closer parallels to Socialism. In reality it is neither - it is simply the belief that mankind functions better working together willingly and co-operatively, than he does through force and the threat of force (which is what government is based on.) If you find your belief falls under this then it is in accord with anarchism.
There are few hard and fast definitions, but like hacking, it is only outsiders who think anarchism==criminal. More depth can be found here. Whether you agree with anarchism or not, if you find a group of them, you can usually be sure of some lively political debate.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Diogenes is very funny. You should read his account of the time his mother came home and found him masterbating... Hilarious. ;)