The Age of Monsters

Aaron Dunkel

Why This Article

A lot of conferences, projects and initiatives in the tech and hacker spaces have taken up radical slogans of fighting the system, challenging power and building a fundamentally different world. With very few exceptions they are not living up to them. To some, radical wording is just a marketing ruse. Many others genuinely believe in the necessity for such a fight yet not in the possibility to actually win it. They are ideologically and materially dependent on the system they want to challenge, which makes their resistance little more than a spectacle of managed opposition.

This text is about how to break that dependency, create the basis for a meaningful fight and incorporate the opportunities at hand into a consistent strategy.

On Ideology

Until well into the 20^th century, the twin phenomena of technology and ideology were believed to hold the power to realize humanity's greatest aspirations. Even the world wars, with their demonstration of the most despicable ideologies and horrific technologies, were not able to smash the hope attached to these terms. Recently the perception of technology and ideology has shifted. The sense of optimism had faded and been replaced by something more sinister.

Many people are anti-ideology and yet lack a clear understanding of what ideology actually is. Ideology is seen as something to manipulate people's perception of the truth in order to use them, to wield power through and over them. Ideology is a smokescreen, a pretty facade for ugly Machiavellian politics. It is nothing new that those in power claim this to discredit any challenges to their status while proclaiming their own ideology to be simply “the truth." Monarchs, priests, oligarchs and bureaucrats have done this for thousands of years. What is new is that those genuinely wishing to challenge those in power and the system they have built seem to be just as scared of ideology as their adversaries.

Ideology is, simply put, the lens through which we perceive the world; how we put our perceptions in relation to one another and derive meaning from them. The moment we start perceiving the world around us we become ideological. Ideology encompasses such notions as values, morals, worldview and the meaning of life. Ideology is shaped by material conditions, but it likewise shapes the material conditions we find ourselves in.¹

Each group, class, gender or other social identity has its own ideology. A society may be defined as a large group of people united by a qualitative amount of shared ideology. This definition is particularly relevant in an age where instant global communication and overwhelming segregation between people and the products of their labor have made geographic and economic qualifiers less relevant than ever for our understanding of what a society is. Abdullah Öcalan calls such ideologies “systems of truth;" i.e. the collective way for societies and individuals to make sense of the world.² One can no more stop being ideological than stop breathing. To have no ideology is just a euphemism for unconditionally adhering to the dominant system of truth.

It is paramount to understand the respective systems of truth we live in and the motives and incentives behind them. Mastering this allows us to shape our ideology and become empowered, to change the way we and others perceive the world and ultimately to change the world itself.

On Technology

Science and technology are means by which people discover truth, effect change and wield power. As such they are closely intertwined with ideology, shape it and are shaped by it. Understanding this connection enables us to freely and purposefully undertake scientific research and technological development. If we do not, we are doomed to unknowingly fulfill purposes that have nothing to do with our intentions, or even to see our life's work come to nothing as our system of truth becomes undone.

The United States, despite having the world's largest, most technologically advanced and well-financed military, has on numerous occasions been defeated by forces that could not compare to it in any of these categories but were ideologically superior, most notably by the Vietcong in 1975 and the Taliban in 2021. Likewise, the Islamic State overran much of the Middle East in the 2010s until meeting its match not in a nation-state army but in PKK and YPG guerrilla fighters who were armed with little more than their ideology.

What is the meaning of technology in the fight for freedom? In short, technology is crucial because it changes the arena, the very conditions under which this fight takes place. While in the present the status quo of human existence may seem impossible to change, technological development constantly creates new opportunities. Working on strategic technology is 4th-dimension warfare. It is about creating a bridgehead into the future.

Now we are entering an age of information in which technology changes not just the military and economic dimensions of society but also (and in particular) the social and cultural sphere. In our metaphorical arena, this is akin to changing not only the available weapons or topography of the battlefield but also the very laws of physics. Modern information technologies make direct communication and coordination between people anywhere on the globe possible at scale, enabling previously unimaginable political systems both of stateless democracy and of anti-human totalitarianism.

Technology is never inherently good or bad. It is simply tools that may be used for various purposes. The strategic development and use of technology therefore requires an acute understanding of the desired purposes, especially among the developers of technology.

Tradition vs Modernity

Hegemonic civilization is in a state of decadence, decay and disintegration. In this age it is not the contradiction of classes or nations or even humans and nature that is most profound. It is the contradiction between tradition and modernity. Viewed through this lens all other conflicts become more clear in their scope and direction.

First, tradition and modernity is not a moral distinction. We can find elements of democratic civilization and state civilization on both sides. Secondly, tradition should not be conflated with reaction. While reactionaries often claim their cause is to preserve tradition they are also the first to destroy it when it serves their interests. Modernity has become a religion for communists and capitalists alike and the world we live in is the result. Societies that have fought bitterly to achieve independence have nonetheless kept the institutions built to oppress them and destroy their culture. People have rejected and vilified their own identity and heritage in order to become part of the exclusive club of the global hegemonic class. This is true not just for the colonies but for many in the imperial centers as well.³ Capitalist modernity has, as any hegemonic system does, manifested a truth that it is synonymous with moral good. All means that advance, protect or maintain capitalist modernity are therefore good too. Everything standing against it or simply outside it is by definition evil.

Modernity has both positive and negative aspects. Capitalist modernity holds its democratic elements — such as the immense advance of science, technology and human reason, the liberation from spiritual dogmatism and its arbitrary authorities — hostage to legitimize its crusade for monopoly and assimilation. Modernity in such a form is not only murderous and destructive, it also remains very much incomplete and weak due to its profane materialism. Individualism cripples humans' resilience, adaptability and initiative and leaves them sad, isolated creatures afraid of the world they created yet too weak to believe in changing it. More and more they hold on to the halo of progress as a sacred talisman that will redeem them. They dream up cities in the sky, a life free from want, and — of course — immortality.

While the masters of modernity work to make life ever more perfect inside fortified enclaves, the wretched of the earth toil away beneath the gates to make it possible, hoping to get some scraps off the master's table. They do not have a home. The places where they live are turning into fields of carnage and despair. Some resent their origins for this. They want to leave everything behind that is outside of the good. Others remember that they once had their own good, spiritually as well as materially and their resentment is directed upward toward the masters. Most are in-between, hating and envying the masters with equal measure.⁴

Modernity is a singular global phenomenon that can be traced back to the European renaissance and has since become the dominant ideological and material reality in most parts of the world. Tradition is much less consistent and more abstract. It is an umbrella term to describe the prevalent reality before the advent of modernity. As such, one of its defining properties, when compared to the assimilating-annihilating, monolithic and universalist outlook of modernity, is its multipolarity and heterogeneity. The diversity hailed in contemporary modernity by a thoroughly assimilated and uniform class is a twisted farce next to the rich heritage of human communities and traditions. Due to the systematic erosion of morality by capitalist modernity, tradition is defined through a comparatively more spiritual and ideational view that places a higher value on morality. While in many ways these morals serve to uphold exploitative power systems, they also allow for a strong social fabric and prevent excesses in power and wealth accumulation. As such, by indiscriminately attacking the morals of the old world many social reformers and revolutionaries have inadvertently broken the basis of their collective social existence and therefore the potential for united resistance.

The rebellions of those who are already assimilated into the new system of truth are doomed from the start. They can at most win a place inside the new regime but never topple it. Those who have learned to fear — but do not yet know — modernity, may sustain some resistance but are unable to win significant victories against it. The role of the catalyst for revolution often falls to those who know both tradition and modernity: the African-born slaves in Haiti⁵, or the impoverished farmers forced to migrate to the city in Paris and St. Petersburg⁶. This is related to the old counsel of Sun Tzu: “Know your enemy and yourself and of a thousand battles you will win every one".

The War to Come

The current geopolitical situation is marked by the decline of Western global hegemony and the rise of multiple great and middle powers. The West has already made clear that they intend to confront this development through military escalation. To fear the outbreak of a world war in this context is justified but also shows how far detached from reality the Western mind has become. The third world war already began with September 11, 2001. It has since expanded from the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq to Syria, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, Ukraine and many others. Further escalation is not yet inevitable but will be very difficult to stop.

While this development is no less catastrophic than the ongoing destruction of the Earth's biosphere, it would be inconsequential to become singularly focused on this threat. Without understanding the conflict between tradition and modernity all possible solutions will ultimately revert back onto the current path of doom.

There will be a great anti-modernity uprising in our lifetimes that will in itself reach the scale of a world war. As we have said, it is likely that such a rising will be spearheaded by people who are part of both worlds. The champions of capitalist modernity can never achieve this because they are blinded by arrogance and ignorance for what they consider evil and of the past. Their fanatic attachment to the idols of progress and accumulation makes it impossible for them to understand the reality of the world, in particular that of those they have excluded from it.

Does this mean that the anti-modernist faction will win? That is but one scenario. Near-total annihilation of human life is a possibility. A Pyrrhic victory for one side, with successor factions of both sides surviving and continuing, is another. Capitalist modernity might even throw back the insurgents if they are badly organized or their leadership is destroyed — for a time. The anti-modernity faction will be highly spiritual and teach an ideational, anti-material cosmology, akin to the Christians in the Roman Empire before Constantine. The most likely ideology right now to fulfill such a role is Islam but it is just as conceivable that a new cult with its own messiah⁷ will emerge. The movement will enforce a strict discipline to resist the lures of modernity. Its organization will be decentralized but highly authoritarian.

It is not important which side will win. What is important is the outcome. There are two possibilities: either the winners will take the place of those they overthrew, embracing hegemonic civilization and assimilating into it. Thus hegemonic civilization will endure in essence with but cosmetic changes and continue its path toward annihilation. Or the anti-modernity mindset will triumph and modernity will die. This might ensure human survival but at the price of losing a large part of knowledge and wisdom obtained through the philosophical and scientific methods and of a revival of older forms of statehood and domination over mind, body and soul.

If we accept this antagonism as inevitable the path to the future is set. Indeed, we could say with certainty that the world of tomorrow will be a synthesis of the two warring factions. This synthesis, as was the case with the adoption of Christianity by the Roman emperor, may easily contain the worst of both worlds: a life-denying, death-worshiping misanthropic cosmology paired with uncultured, self-serving and savage political authority.

One should not attach too much meaning to this exercise of imagining the future. The prognosis, despite its supposed dialectics, is as flawed as it is rooted in the static philosophy of being, ignoring the reality of becoming. It is a view of the future based on what is now instead of what is already coming to be. The most powerful ideologies of our time are not strictly materialist or ideational, nor are they limited by the political categories of modernity. They are not for or against the nation-state, in that they do not see it as relevant to the future. They do not spend their energy trying to overthrow the state system but use the condition of existing states strategically to their advantage. Examples of this are the Israeli settler movement, the Zapatistas in southern Mexico and the Confederalist movement in the Middle East growing out of the PKK.

Our Role

Antonio Gramsci is quoted as saying in one of his letters from prison, “the old world is dying and a new one is struggling to be born. Now is the time of monsters." Indeed, this age is giving birth to many monsters in the form of twisted cults and demagogues. What, then, is to be done?

Our quest should be for a third way, a meaningful synthesis of tradition and modernity. This requires democratic civilization, which already today embodies the popular, socialist, libertarian and democratic qualities of both tradition and modernity, to take the lead. This is the mission of our movement; this must be our task as engineers, inventors and philosophers. It requires us to break with the moral dichotomy of hegemony. Ours is neither the corrupted morality of power of hegemonic modernity, nor its reactive inverse taken up by the anti-modernists. Ours is constructed on the foundation of moral and political society and guided by the desire to live a meaningful life. We need to own up to our values and principles, propagate them, take pride in them. As Zarathustra said, “think well, speak well, act well".

Closing Thoughts

• In all societies there are progressive elements who value change, risk-taking and inquisitiveness and more conservative ones that value persistence, stability and fidelity. Both are just and meaningful positions and and a healthy society has need of both.
• Liberals (social democrats, individualists, capitalists) and reactionaries (fascists, monarchists, religious fundamentalists) are factions of the ruling class competing for hegemony within the system of capitalist modernity. Neither want to change the system. Both manipulate the people in order to divide and rule and to weaponize them against the competing hegemonic factions. Right-wing and left-wing are social categories signifying those who have sided with one of these ruling-class positions.
• We must actively and purposefully focus on building a political platform of Democratic Technology. It will be focused on affirmative goals: a vision for society. If the Democratic Technology Movement is successful most of its followers will not be busy developing technology but adapting existing tech to most effectively serve the people. The potential is massively under-utilized. A strong political and moral vision will serve as a catalyst and guiding framework.
• Today, material power through technology seems to be almost exclusively in the hands of the enemies of freedom. The oppressed and exploited often see little recourse than to embrace an entirely immaterial truth that is beyond their enemies' power - “no matter how many of us they kill, our idea (god, paradise, kingdom of heaven) will prevail." Such faith is important, in fact it is crucial to find solace, hope and courage under prolonged adverse circumstances. But it can degenerate into a rejection of the physical world altogether and all the good and powerful things that come with it. Such was the fate of the early Christians.
• What people crave most are the values absent from capitalist modernity: compassion, loyalty, humility, a place and group to belong to, serving a purpose beyond oneself. The principles of our movement should be easy to understand and inspire awe and respect — in such a way that they don't need to be written down, because they are obvious from our comrades' behavior immediately.
• In the late-imperial stage of Western civilization that is the arena of our social and political existence politics are usually exclusively about performance, not about content. We and our potential allies are no exception to this. The qualifier of principles — the adherence to which is expressed in practice — must be added to ends and means. Common means make for tactical collaboration, common ends make for strategic allies, common principles make for comrades.