this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2023
7 points (100.0% liked)

MoreWrite

112 readers
8 users here now

post bits of your writing and links to stuff you’ve written here for constructive criticism.

if you post anything here try to specify what kind of feedback you would like. For example, are you looking for a critique of your assertions, creative feedback, or an unbiased editorial review?

if OP specifies what kind of feedback they'd like, please respect it. If they don't specify, don't take it as an invite to debate the semantics of what they are writing about. Honest feedback isn’t required to be nice, but don’t be an asshole.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A Brief Primer on Technofascism

Introduction

It has become increasingly obvious that some of the most prominent and monied people and projects in the tech industry intend to implement many of the same features and pursue the same goals that are described in Umberto Eco’s Ur-Fascism(4); that is, these people are fascists and their projects enable fascist goals. However, it has become equally obvious that those fascist goals are being pursued using a set of methods and pathways that are unique to the tech industry, and which appear to be uniquely crafted to force both Silicon Valley corporations and the venture capital sphere to embrace fascist values. The name that fits this particular strain of fascism the best is technofascism (with thanks to @future_synthetic), frequently shortened for convenience to techfash.

Some prime examples of technofascist methods in action exist in cryptocurrency projects, generative AI, large language models, and a particular early example of technofascism named Urbit. There are many more examples of technofascist methods, but these were picked because they clearly demonstrate what outwardly separates technofascism from ordinary hype and marketing.

The Unique Mechanisms of Technofascism

Disassociation with technological progress or success

Technofascist projects are almost always entirely unsuccessful at achieving their stated goals, and rarely involve any actual technological innovation. This is because the marketed goals of these projects are not their real, fascist aims.

Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are frequently presented as innovative, but all blockchain-based technologies are, in fact, inefficient distributed database based on Merkle trees, a very old technology which blockchains add little practical value to. In fact, blockchains are so impractical that they have provably failed to achieve any of the marketed goals undertaken by cryptocurrency corporations since the public release of Bitcoin(6).

Statement of world-changing goals, to be achieved without consent

Technofascist goals are never small-scale. Successful tech projects are usually narrowly focused in order to limit their scope(9), but technofascist projects invariably have global ambitions (with no real attempt to establish a roadmap of humbler goals), and equally invariably attempt to achieve those goals without the consent of anyone outside of the project, usually via coercion.

This type of coercion and consent violation is best demonstrated by example. In cryptocurrency, a line of thought that has been called the Bitcoin Citadel(8) has become common in several communities centered around Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other cryptocurrencies. Generally speaking, this is the idea that in a near-future post-collapse society, the early adopters of the cryptocurrency at hand will rule, while late and non-adopters will be enslaved. In keeping with technofascism’s disdain for the success of its marketed goals, this monstrous idea ignores the fact that cryptocurrencies would be useless in a post-collapse environment with a fractured or non-existent global computer network.

AI and TESCREAL groups demonstrate this same pattern by simultaneously positioning large language models as an existential threat on the verge of becoming a hostile godlike sentience, as well as the key to unlocking a brighter (see: more profitable) future for the faithful of the TESCREAL in-group. In this case, the consent violation is exacerbated by large language models and generative AI necessarily being trained on mass volumes of textual and artistic work taken without permission(1).

Urbit positions itself as the inevitable future of networked computing, but its admitted goal is to technologically implement a neofeudal structure where early adopters get significant control over the network and how it executes code(3, 12).

Creation and furtherance of a death cult

In the fascist ideology described by Eco, fascism is described as “a life lived for struggle” where everyone is indoctrinated to believe in a cult of heroism that is closely linked with a cult of death(4). This same indoctrination is common in what I will refer to as a death cult, where a technofascist project is simultaneously positioned as both a world-ending problem, and the solution to that same problem (which would not exist without the efforts of technofascists) for a select, enlightened few.

The death cult of technofascism is demonstrated with perfect clarity by the closely-related ideologies surrounding Large Language Models (LLMs), Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), and the bundle of ideas known as TESCREAL (Transhumanism, Extropianism, Singulartarianism, Cosmism, Rationalism, Effective Altruism, and Longtermism)(5).

We can derive examples of this death cult from the examples given in the previous section. In the concept of the Bitcoin Citadel, cryptocurrencies are idealized as both the cause of the collapse and as the in-group’s source of power after that collapse(6). The TESCREAL belief that Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) will end the world unless it is “aligned with humanity” by members of the death cult, who handle the AGI with the proper religious fervor(11).

While Urbit does not technologically structure itself as a death cult, its community and network is structured to be a highly effective incubator for other death cults(2, 7, 10).

Severance of our relationship with truth and scientific research

Destruction and redefinition of historical records

This can be viewed as a furtherance of technofascism’s goal of destroying our ability to perceive the truth, but it must be called out that technofascist projects have a particular interest in distorting our remembrance of history; to make history effectively mutable in order to cover for technofascism’s failings.

Parasitization of existing terminology

As part of the process of generating false consensus and covering for the many failings of technofascist projects, existing terminology is often taken and repurposed to suit the goals of the fascists.

One obvious example is the popular term crypto, which until relatively recently referred to cryptography, an extremely important branch of mathematics. Cryptocurrency communities have now adopted the term, and have deliberately used the resulting confusion to falsely imply that cryptocurrencies, like cryptography, are an important tool in software architecture.

Weaponization of open source and the commons

One of the distinctive traits that separates ordinary capitalist exploitation from technofascism is the subversion and weaponization of the efforts of the open source community and the development commons.

One notable weapon used by many technofascist projects to achieve absolute control while maintaining the illusion that the work being undertaken is an open source community effort is what I will call forking hostility. This is a concerted effort to make forking the project infeasible, and it takes two forms.

Its technological form is accomplished via network effects; good examples are large cryptocurrency projects like Bitcoin and Ethereum, which cannot practically be forked because any blockchain without majority consensus is highly vulnerable to attacks, and in any case is much less valuable than the larger chain. Urbit maintains technological forking hostility via its aforementioned implementation of neofeudal network resource allocation.

The second form of forking hostility is social; technofascist open source communities are notably for extremely aggressively telling dissenters to “just for it, it’s open source” while just as aggressively punishing anyone attempting a fork with threats, hacking attempts (such as the aforementioned blockchain attacks), ostracization, and other severe social repercussions. These responses are very distinctive in the uniformity of their response, which is rarely seen even among the most toxic of regular open source communities.

Implementation of racist, biased, and prejudiced systems

References

[1] Bender, Emily M. and Hanna, Alex, Ai Causes Real Harm. Let’s Focus on That over the End-of-Humanity Hype, Scientific American, 2023.

[2] Broderick, Ryan, Inside Remilia Corporation, the Anti-Woke Dao behind the Doomed Milady Maker Nft, Fast Company, 2022.

[3] Duesterberg, James, Among the Reality Entrepreneurs, The Point Magazine, 2022.

[4] Eco, Umberto, Ur-Fascism, The Anarchist Library, 1995.

[5] Gebru, Timnit and Torres, Emile, Satml 2023 - Timnit Gebru - Eugenics and the Promise of Utopia through Agi, 2023.

[6] Gerard, David, Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain: Bitcoin, Blockchain, Etherium and Smart Contracts, {David Gerard}, 2017.

[7] Gottsegen, Will, Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Miladys but Were Afraid to Ask, 2022.

[8] Munster, Decrypt / Ben, The Bizarre Rise of the ’Bitcoin Citadel’, Decrypt, 2021.

[9] , Scope Creep, Wikipedia, 2023.

[10] , How to Start a Secret Society, 2022.

[11] Torres, Emile P., The Acronym behind Our Wildest Ai Dreams and Nightmares, Truthdig, 2023.

[12] Yarvin, Curtis, 3-Intro.Txt, GitHub, 2010.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

essentially the target is folks like you and me — leftists (presumably) working in tech who don’t need convincing of any of this, but might not have the ideas in a structured form specific to what’s happening in tech. this one isn’t meant to be too convincing to anyone completely unaligned with the ideas I’m drawing on, which I figure is a job for another post or maybe even another writer

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

FWIW you nailed me on the tech. I am nominally leftist in the sense that I’m full communism all the way, without virtually any of the theoretical/academic knowledge to back it up. Whenever I read articles that quote Big Name from literature, I get a pang of guilt. So selfishly, I like it when there’s some expansion of terms. I think there’s a good amount of that in this draft- hence why I asked about target audiences, haha- I didn’t want to say “please explain more” if you were intending this for people much more well read than me.

In general I think the direction is good, I think you’re doing a good job of both expanding what technofascism is and making a case for your thesis, especially with relating back to definitions/properties of fascism. I don’t get the feeling that you’re doing anything wrong, so everything from here is just potentially useless ideation, so ignore it if you don’t want to add scope/lose focus.

I think it could be useful to draw parallels with historical implementations of fascism could give your article more narrative cohesion (not that you need more), but ultimately, matching with definitions is the stronger move. Specifically I’ve got in mind the Californian Ideology, and how the continuation of its evolution is the technofascism we have today, which is pretty much the same plot as a liberal/capitalist society fully blossoming into a fascist one.

Also, as a primer, prime me more daddy! Would love some further reading/context, though it’s totally fair not to have a list of reading in a first draft, aside from dat reference list.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am nominally leftist in the sense that I’m full communism all the way, without virtually any of the theoretical/academic knowledge to back it up.

I don’t read much theory myself, and I think that might be due to my background. some of the folks who helped raise me were working-class communists, who taught me a lot of the basics of socialism without citing any theory at all (and I suspect the theory they did read had to be very concise and relevant; they didn’t have a ton of time to spare). that’s why I do my best to respect the reader’s time and summarize the research and theory that I studied for what I’m writing, because chances are that the reader is also too busy working to dig deep into theory. this also helps keep my writing relatively neutral to the reader’s background; I usually consider myself a fairly generic socialist, in that I can see value in a wide range of genuine (ie, not fash in disguise) pathways to durable (doesn’t fall apart under scrutiny and allow for a fascist takeover) socialism.

I think it could be useful to draw parallels with historical implementations of fascism could give your article more narrative cohesion (not that you need more), but ultimately, matching with definitions is the stronger move. Specifically I’ve got in mind the Californian Ideology, and how the continuation of its evolution is the technofascism we have today, which is pretty much the same plot as a liberal/capitalist society fully blossoming into a fascist one.

Also, as a primer, prime me more daddy! Would love some further reading/context, though it’s totally fair not to have a list of reading in a first draft, aside from dat reference list.

you’re not the only one making suggestions around these lines! David’s been recommending reading up on the Californian Ideology and on a few authors who isolated the distinguishing traits of technofascism way back in the 90s. catching up on that is what I’m focusing on right now, so hopefully my next draft should have some good pointers to other authors you can read up on.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Love to see it.