Many hackers try to build tools that can allow individuals and Society to escape a system of repression.
Let me make some examples to clarify the way those tools liberate.
The Tor Project wants to help individuals maintain their privacy and allow them unrestricted access to information. In a world where everything you do on the internet is kept and processed by NSA and similar organizations, tor gives the ability to some individuals, to express their discontent without legal repercussions. It is the only way for whistle-blowers to provide information to the public about illegal or unethical misconduct of powerful organizations.
Multiple projects exist that build new tools that allow many people to collaborate to solve problems or cocreate value. The new communication methods that they provide allow for new forms of organization that are more democratic and more participatory.
Examples of such projects are :
1. Sensorica's open value network.
2. Multiple projects built on top of Ethereum
3, Enspiral
On the non technological side of activism, we have multiple efforts to shape a better world.
We have non-profit organizations:
1. Greenpeace.
2. Free Software Foundation
3. Red Cross
We have legislative activists:
These activists try to influence the types of laws that are passed by governments. They work with or inside the government to promote their ideas.
We have social movement activists:
These activists try to create movements around social subjects so as to provide pressure to the government or to overthrow it so that a new system of democratic control can be put in place.
A superstructure is called the set of material reasons that allow / enable or determine a specific organization of society and the shaping of individuals (behavior).
By our definition, the superstructure not only alters the social relations we have, but it also determines what we can do and it effectively shapes the individual itself, determining its opinion and its cultural preconceptions.
Of course, this definition of superstructure would be incorrect if we didn't point the effect that the individual or a group of people has over the composition of Society and on the superstructure itself.
Biologist Richard Lewontin correctly explains the role of the organism in shaping its environment:
In "Organism and Environment" in Scientia, and in more popular form in the last chapter of Biology as Ideology, Lewontin argued that while traditional Darwinism has portrayed the organism as a passive recipient of environmental influences, a correct understanding should emphasize the organism as an active constructor of its own environment. Niches are not pre-formed, empty receptacles into which organisms are inserted, but are defined and created by organisms. The organism-environment relationship is reciprocal anddialectical. M.W. Feldman, K.N. Laland, and F.J. Odling-Smee,[15] among others, have developed Lewontin's conception in more detailed models under the term "niche construction".
Activists want to change Society or the environment as Lewontin would say. Let us define two types of activists.
We call an activist superstructuralist when he wants to change the superstructure so that the new superstructure will eventually change Society.
We call an activist political when he he wants to change the minds of the people so that they, themselves, change both the superstructure and Society.
Can we effectively find which activist is a superstructuralist or a political activist? One cannot do that by simply examining the work of the activist. One needs to look into his motivation.
A greenpeace activist can promote social awareness so as that the people take action.
A social movement activist/organization can have partial control of the social movement. In other words, it could act as another type of superstructure inside the movement. It could control the discussions, the interactions with the government or with the unions.
One could say that the Free Software Foundation is the same as the Open Source Initiative. In practical terms, they both promote free/open-source software. The difference , though, is that the Free Software Foundation wants to create a social movement in which people actively work on the creation of ethical software.
Now it is time to answer the main question that is raised by this post: What practical difference does it make if you want to try to change the superstructure or if you want to convince and help the people change the superstructure and Society?
The practical difference is that when the people are not in control, they will not be able to change the new superstructure if the new structure is as bad as the previous one. If the populace is passive in the transition of superstructures, they will remain passive in accepting the new system.
What we end up with is not very different from where we started. As activists, we used the superstructure to change Society and the people themselves.
What we should have wanted is that the people be able to control the supestructure democratically and to change it whenever they want. Instead of being the objects of the system, they should be the subjects that change the system.
How to be a political activist/hacker.
Being a political activist doesn't mean that you should only try to convince people to change their ideas.
Building tools that liberate people is good too as long as you explicitly ask people not to depend on your tools/expertise for a solution but to be an enabler for their own active participation and the possible rejection of your own set of tools/ideology.
You can only be a political activist if you enable people to reject your ideas and tools.
Let me make some examples to clarify the way those tools liberate.
The Tor Project
The Tor Project wants to help individuals maintain their privacy and allow them unrestricted access to information. In a world where everything you do on the internet is kept and processed by NSA and similar organizations, tor gives the ability to some individuals, to express their discontent without legal repercussions. It is the only way for whistle-blowers to provide information to the public about illegal or unethical misconduct of powerful organizations.
Open Value Networks and Decentralized Autonomous Organizations
Multiple projects exist that build new tools that allow many people to collaborate to solve problems or cocreate value. The new communication methods that they provide allow for new forms of organization that are more democratic and more participatory.
Examples of such projects are :
1. Sensorica's open value network.
2. Multiple projects built on top of Ethereum
3, Enspiral
On the non technological side of activism, we have multiple efforts to shape a better world.
We have non-profit organizations:
1. Greenpeace.
2. Free Software Foundation
3. Red Cross
We have legislative activists:
These activists try to influence the types of laws that are passed by governments. They work with or inside the government to promote their ideas.
We have social movement activists:
These activists try to create movements around social subjects so as to provide pressure to the government or to overthrow it so that a new system of democratic control can be put in place.
Some definitions:
A superstructure is called the set of material reasons that allow / enable or determine a specific organization of society and the shaping of individuals (behavior).
By our definition, the superstructure not only alters the social relations we have, but it also determines what we can do and it effectively shapes the individual itself, determining its opinion and its cultural preconceptions.
The role of the individual/group of people:
Of course, this definition of superstructure would be incorrect if we didn't point the effect that the individual or a group of people has over the composition of Society and on the superstructure itself.
Biologist Richard Lewontin correctly explains the role of the organism in shaping its environment:
In "Organism and Environment" in Scientia, and in more popular form in the last chapter of Biology as Ideology, Lewontin argued that while traditional Darwinism has portrayed the organism as a passive recipient of environmental influences, a correct understanding should emphasize the organism as an active constructor of its own environment. Niches are not pre-formed, empty receptacles into which organisms are inserted, but are defined and created by organisms. The organism-environment relationship is reciprocal anddialectical. M.W. Feldman, K.N. Laland, and F.J. Odling-Smee,[15] among others, have developed Lewontin's conception in more detailed models under the term "niche construction".
Activists want to change Society or the environment as Lewontin would say. Let us define two types of activists.
We call an activist superstructuralist when he wants to change the superstructure so that the new superstructure will eventually change Society.
We call an activist political when he he wants to change the minds of the people so that they, themselves, change both the superstructure and Society.
Determination of the type of activist.
Can we effectively find which activist is a superstructuralist or a political activist? One cannot do that by simply examining the work of the activist. One needs to look into his motivation.
A greenpeace activist can promote social awareness so as that the people take action.
A social movement activist/organization can have partial control of the social movement. In other words, it could act as another type of superstructure inside the movement. It could control the discussions, the interactions with the government or with the unions.
One could say that the Free Software Foundation is the same as the Open Source Initiative. In practical terms, they both promote free/open-source software. The difference , though, is that the Free Software Foundation wants to create a social movement in which people actively work on the creation of ethical software.
The practical Importance of it.
Now it is time to answer the main question that is raised by this post: What practical difference does it make if you want to try to change the superstructure or if you want to convince and help the people change the superstructure and Society?
The practical difference is that when the people are not in control, they will not be able to change the new superstructure if the new structure is as bad as the previous one. If the populace is passive in the transition of superstructures, they will remain passive in accepting the new system.
What we end up with is not very different from where we started. As activists, we used the superstructure to change Society and the people themselves.
What we should have wanted is that the people be able to control the supestructure democratically and to change it whenever they want. Instead of being the objects of the system, they should be the subjects that change the system.
How to be a political activist/hacker.
Being a political activist doesn't mean that you should only try to convince people to change their ideas.
Building tools that liberate people is good too as long as you explicitly ask people not to depend on your tools/expertise for a solution but to be an enabler for their own active participation and the possible rejection of your own set of tools/ideology.
An effective test:
You can only be a political activist if you enable people to reject your ideas and tools.
