Is It Anarchy on the Internet?

In a word, no. Considering that it was founded by branches of the U.S.
government, and today is funded mostly by commercial companies, public and
private schools, and the government, it seems like kind of a stupid question.
But since countless pundits, some of whom even claim to be anarchists, have
maintained that it is, I'd like to state why I think that the Internet does not
fit any definition of `anarchism' that I am comfortable with.

The media seem to have adopted the practice of using the word `anarchy' to
describe what happens when a government fucks up more than usual--the civil war
in Somalia being one of the more recent examples. Anarchists, on the other hand,
use it to describe a system of social organization where people and communities
take responsibility for their own lives and actions instead of depending on a
government to do so for them. Anarchists, in other words, are describing a
positive, proactive alternative to the current political system, whereas the
popular press are describing the lack or failure of certain acts of the current
system. So it's not surprising to see some of the various services of the
Internet, which have pretty much had ``anything goes'' usage policies and have
remained quite free from government control since their inception, described by
the press as ``anarchic.'' What is surprising is that I occasionally see
self-proclaimed ``anarchists'' who seem to agree with this!

The thinking seems to go like this:

      From a user's point of view, most Internet services are truly
   decentralized. Outside of any given site, there is no central administration,
   and what hierarchies there are tend not to be rigidly ``enforced.'' 
      Whereas, for instance, it is a crime to send certain items through the
   U.S. Mail, the internation and open nature of, and the enormous volume of
   information carried on, the Internet makes such restrictions on content
   difficult (though not impossible) to enforce. 
      In many areas, if you look hard enough, you can find a way to access the
   Internet for free although you often need to own a computer to do so. 

In other words, this philosophy seems to define the Internet in terms of what it
isn't [not (usually) centralized, not (usually) censored, not (usually)
expensive]. You'll notice that this fits very neatly into the ``media''
definition of `anarchism,' but says nothing about the need for a positive
alternative to government-dependent lifestyles, as required by the ``anarchist's
definition'' of the word.

The Internet is a very useful tool. It's both faster and, for most people,
cheaper than the U.S. Postal Service. It's far cheaper than the telephone, and
usually just as fast. It's also the easiest way I know of to get a message out
to a large group of people at once. I also find that I get much more personal
feedback from email messages than I get from zines, and sometimes even personal
letters, probably because it's so much easier to do. But there are several
downsides that we must keep in mind:

      Any computer network or bulletin board is fundamentally classist, because
   most people simply don't have access to it. Whereas nearly anyone can receive
   paper mail or a telephone call, whether or not they have a permanent address,
   you must have access to both a computer and an appropriate account to use the
   Internet. Recognisign this, groups in many cities are forming ``Freenets,''
   which offer (usually) free accounts with Internet email access, and often
   provid public-access terminals. Buit today, at least, the majority of people
   do not have access to these services. 
      While personal email can be quite useful, few if any of the services meant
   for large groups of peole to use simultaneously, such as mailing lists (like
   the aaa-web) and Usenet (an enormous ``bulletin board'' system) end up being
   consistently constructive (if, indeed, they are ever constructive at all!).
   Most are like a meeting where the person who shouts the loudest gets to be
   heard, and where those who aren't into screaming tend to eventually leave. 
   Spy writer Chip Rowe asked, ``How much would you pay to spend your evenings
   and weekends with a room full of con artists, misogynists, computer geeks,
   snooty academics, rude teenagers, pushy salesmen, Iowa housewives, bad poets,
   Nazi sympathizers, certified morons, corporate suits, Elvis fans, recovering
   alcoholics, aging hippies, pockmarked pornographers, and overzealous FBI
   agents?'' 
      There's nothing available on the internet that isn't also served by other
   means, like letters and zines, albeit not quite as well, in some instances.
   None of the services that it offers add to our efforts, they simply make them
   a little more convenient. In other words, truly autonomous communities are no
   more likely to arise given the use of the Internet. 

So while Internet services can be a great way to get the word out about the
real, constructive projects that you and your community are doing, please don't
fall into the trap of mistaking use of the net itself as something of any real
value to the creation of an autonomous society.

-Craig



Any comments on this article? Send email to the address below!


       Return to home page 
Craig (stuntz@rhic.physics.wayne.edu)

