[sudo-discuss] Power: nyms, part 2: the power of names, and self-determination.

Sat May 4 06:14:30 PDT 2013

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 at lists.sudoroom.org
> > http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130504/d1da1c74/attachment.html>