The guest of “Deconstruction” is the rector of the European University at Saint Petersburg, sociologist and author of the book “Anarchy, or Life Without a Boss” Vadim Volkov. Together with him we discussed the origins of anarchism, the ideas of abolishing the state and building a fairer society, as well as how the views of classical theorists influenced modern technologies: blockchain, cryptocurrencies and DAOs. ForkLog (FL): How has the concept of “anarchy” changed over time? Vadim Volkov (V. V.): Since the times of ancient Greece, anarchy in political terms meant a threat to the polis and the impossibility of governing it. This threat was feared until the mid-19th century, until an intellectual innovation occurred. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and other anarchists proposed leaving this political sandbox. They tried to do without the state and to build society through direct ties. At that time, due to the industrial revolution and the development of science, the entire familiar order was collapsing. Against this backdrop, a new state was emerging, and along with it many new utopias, including anarchist thought. FL: What is the economy of exchange and the social contract in Proudhon? V. V.: His thinking about the economy of exchange was rather weak. He proposed small communities where people engage in direct exchange without added value, interest and rent. The social contract became an empirically consistent expression of this theory of exchange. It was a real voluntary contract of everyone with everyone about the principles of forming society. Each person agrees with every other person to create a community for certain economic, political or cultural purposes. Thus, thanks to voluntary ties, everything works without the involvement of any central authority. FL: When did the state obtain a monopoly on legitimate violence? V. V.: This happened approximately over the course of a hundred years after the end of the Thirty Years’ War in 1618–1648. The state became the sole monopolistic form of political organization in modern times. We already consider such an order part of the familiar landscape or natural state. Although the anarchists came out with their own concept and said that the natural state is mutual aid. They argued that innate human qualities would flourish if you simply removed the state. But this was a weak concept, since it assumed some unchanging and benevolent human nature. FL: Why did rebellion become the lot of loners? V. V.: If direct action leads to the seizure of power, then the political prize turns out to be very toxic. The state machine and hierarchical rule quickly capture those who have obtained them. Political action cannot be symmetrical, so a brilliant question arose: how to change the world without seizing power. Lifestyle anarchism tried to solve this by preserving inner freedom, spontaneity of thought and creativity. This led to a retreat into creative communes and individual projects, but it completely buried the political agenda. The recipe was born from the painful experience of understanding that power subordinates the individual to its own logic. FL: How do you assess Balaji Srinivasan’s Network State project? V. V.: Any social experiments and innovations seem better than the simple reproduction of existing systems. However, in this project the term “state” is used incorrectly. The state represents a territorial monopoly on violence, taxation and lawmaking. These distributed communities are better called an attempt to build networked social forms on the margins of the state. Balaji’s initiative is very correct, but it already presupposes a selection of people socialized into these ideas. As long as they are harmless and do not compete with states, they will be regarded as exotic things. FL: Can order exist without personal trust? V. V.: Order can indeed exist where people fundamentally do not want to know one another. Modern megacities serve as an excellent example of more complex forms of social control, where trust works without personal acquaintance. Crypto-anarchism grew precisely out of the idea of minimizing trust and creating smart contracts. The latter themselves act as a third authority that certifies the fulfillment of conditions and executes itself. At the same time, there is no direct continuity here with classical anarchism, because humanism has completely disappeared. There is no human in this system at all; he is replaced by an algorithm and program code. FL: Why didn’t cryptocurrencies lead to anarchism? V. V.: Early anarchists fought against the state but never created reliable infrastructure for decentralized communities. Crypto-anarchists developed such a technological base in the form of blockchain and consensus algorithms. They thought that creating the infrastructure would immediately solve the problem, but this was only the first step. Next comes the question of the adoption of this technology by the majority, but this large-scale transition did not happen. Society does not quickly accept new tools, and any technology is in itself neutral. Its real meaning is set by use, which may turn out to be very far from the original intent of the creators. FL: What is more important for a crypto project: the right to vote or the right to exit? V. V.: In a conservative reading, the participant’s internal ethical commitment comes first. This is a voluntary obligation to participate in a collective project to the end, not to exit and not to deceive. If everyone has the right to exit at any moment, participants will want to take advantage of this before others for their own benefit. In that case, long-term expectations collapse, and the entire social construction quickly falls apart. Consequently, the right to exit must be placed in the very last place. A genuine human community relies on ethics, not on attempts to fully algorithmize social ties. FL: Would the classics of anarchism recognize the ideas of the crypto-anarchists? V. V.: The social anarchists were consistent anti-capitalists who sought a lost paradise in the distant past. Each theorist had his own ideal: from early Christians to primitive communities without a state. This entire line rejects not only the state but also the market, competition, inequality and money. Therefore, everything connected with techno-optimism and financial markets would not have aroused their sympathy. Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin would hardly have recognized their ideas in the blockchain. The connection between their works and cryptocurrencies is too strongly mediated. FL: What is the blockchain missing for mass adoption? V. V.: Right now there is a lack of mediating technological links between blockchain systems and the mass user. The industry needs convenient interfaces, devices and entire layers that will allow complex technology to be brought to ordinary people. Whoever invents these intermediary tools will successfully solve the main scalability problem. If independent engineers do this, they will be able to carry out a synchronous and conflict-free transformation of society. Such an approach would simply put the state out of the game. However, if the authors of crypto projects fail, the state itself will intercept the initiative and adapt the ideas to its own purposes. The conversation is presented in significant abridgment. Watch the full episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsTUAR3m6UE Subscribe to the podcast: Apple Podcasts Spotify YouTube Deezer Yandex.Music YouTube Music
Source: ForkLog
Новости в мире криптовалют
Random quote about money
"В плохие старые времена было три легких способа разориться: самым быстрым из них были скачки, самым приятным - женщины, а самым надежным - сельское хозяйство."
Interesting posts in other sections of the blog
* to search the proxy database, just enter a country name, e.g. Russia, USA, Thailand