Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Wikileaks #3: A decrease in the ability of the conspiracy to think, act and adapt

[I wrote the bulk of this before I saw that Assange has been arrested. I don't think it changes anything I say here, but it's definitely worth mentioning.]

Towards the end of #2, I brought up the criticism that Wikileaks is useless, because no matter how shocking the information it reveals may be (in leaks that have already been released or any that may be in the future), the system can easily withstand these shocks with the ol' in one ear and out the other trick. I also briefly mentioned the "this is nothing new" argument (which is deployed at times in opposition to, and at times in support of, the "it doesn't matter anyway" argument*) against the specific, released leaks themselves. I'd like to expand on that a little.

*By which I am not cattily suggesting that the people who make these arguments are inconsistent. Each use on its own, and even a combination of both at the same time, makes perfect sense to me. Anyway, inconsistency is great. I'm inconsistent, you're inconsistent, we're all inconsistent.

I'm never a fan of the "this is nothing new" attitude. My reasons for this are primarily a combination of my sentiments expressed here and here (and I promise I won't keep linking to myself, because don't you hate that?). Briefly, a) what's old news to one is not necessarily old news to another, and b) those of us who reject the worship of "progress" that capitalism depends upon should not be so quick to dismiss anything just because it's not novel to us. In fact, as I mentioned in the last essay, I'm starting to think that continuous cynicism can only end up being another method by which the system absorbs these shocks: this is no big deal, we say, and in so saying we help make it true.

Regardless, though, this is all micro-level stuff: talking about the impact of just the contents of just one specific leak, rather than the endeavor as a whole.

At this point I doubt there are many people reading this who haven't read the wonderful essay Aaron of zunguzungu wrote a week or so ago examining the aims of Wikileaks as stated in a four-year-old essay written by Julian Assange. If you've somehow missed it, I urge you to read it. I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that I read zunguzungu before it was cool.

A brief, brief, very brief summary would be something like this: because knowledge of its activities creates its own opposition, authoritarianism requires secrecy. It also requires communication between its secretive elements. The more secrecy, the harder it is for those elements to communicate. The more leaks in the secrecy, the more the authoritarians tighten their security, and hence the more difficult it is for them to communicate with one another. The more difficult it is for them to communicate with one another, the more difficult it is to hold on to authority.

In other words, by providing a mechanism by which it is extremely easy for any one member of an authoritarian conspiracy to make secrets public, Wikileaks hopes to change the environment in which those conspiracies work in order to make it more difficult for them to function effectively.

The moment where I have to change my pants is this, from Assange's original essay:
If total conspiratorial power is zero, then clearly there is no information flow between the conspirators and hence no conspiracy. A substantial increase or decrease in total conspiratorial power almost always means what we expect it to mean; an increase or decrease in the ability of the conspiracy to think, act and adapt…An authoritarian conspiracy that cannot think is powerless to preserve itself against the opponents it induces.
This is what I meant when I said the other day that I'm more excited about Wikileaks than I have been about anything in a good long while. Despite my dislike of cynicism, I've grown accustomed to feeling like there is nothing that anyone can effectively do to fight Power. Any solution I'd ever been able to think of requires such a critical mass of people as to be effectively impossible.

But this? Call me naive, but I can almost believe it has a chance of working.

But before I get carried away with my excitement, allow me to circle back to my opening. We can see now that any objection to Wikileaks based on the actual information content of the leaks--either in specific, as with the "nothing new" argument, or in general, as with the "in one ear" argument--is essentially moot. The content of the leaks is important in some senses, but is irrelevant to the underlying strategy, which is only concerned with the existence of leaks. There is one other major objection I've seen that I considered valid, which goes along the lines of "these releases will just make Power dig in its heels even more--tighter security means we'll know even less of what's going on." When I first saw that objection being thrown around, my perspective was that it was a fair price to pay. Looking at it in light of this whole anti-conspiracy strategy, though, increased secrecy is a win.

I'm far from the smartest person in the world, but I have yet to think of a flaw in the logic. One of the very few counterarguments I've seen that strike me as anything close to damning comes from Doctor Science (another is BDR's, which I actually think is stronger and will try to discuss soon). Doctor Science points out, simply, that we don't have to look far to come across dozens of examples of authoritarian evil that didn't require secrecy at all. And it's true--a great portion of the horrifying things our ruling class does, it does out in the open.

However, it is trivially easy to show at least that the ruling class, in practice, relies very heavily on secrecy--just look at the leaked cables to see the crap they felt the need to classify! Greenwald pointed out that the very banality of a good portion of the cables is in itself a scandal--because what the fuck is a government that claims to be democracy doing making all this trivial nonsense secret? (Note, please, that this behavior does not come as a surprise to people with the perspective that I and most of you bring to things, but note also what I said about how not everything needs to be surprising to be important.)

So, yes, I do take Doctor Science's point, and I will admit that she did manage to temper my excitement slightly by pointing out the obvious (there's that word again) that hadn't occurred to me. But the fact remains that even if the ruling class doesn't actually require all that much secrecy to get away with its fucking of the world, it still currently relies on secrecy as a primary tool. At the very worst, Wikileaks is screwing with their ability to use one of their favorite tools.

And now I'm excited again, so I'm going to return to that quote that got me all hot and bothered. Specifically, to the money shot. Let's see it again, in slow motion:
An authoritarian conspiracy that cannot think is powerless to preserve itself against the opponents it induces.
We know what that means, right?

7 comments:

Jack Crow said...

I should probably pad my cynicism a bit, but I'm just too old for that.

You make good points - and I'd like to add that we have an example of two forms of resistance that don't require training, a learning curve or captured resources: disobedience and non-cooperation.

Manning, Assange and the Wikileaks organization demonstrate the more active form - disobedience. Especially Manning, who has put his own life very much on the line. They directly challenge the hierarchies of control by weaponizing the liabilities encoded into them (secrecy, information hording), by transforming obedience roles into disruptive ones.

All things being equal, though, we should honestly and soberly consider the reaction. Wikileaks exists not in an ideal environment, but in a capitalized one, in a media space which is so thoroughly controlled by corporations and corporate culture, that it cost its capitalist hosts nothing to rapidly and effectively disrupt its operation, in return.

Wikileaks is not samizdat - and I think that's its own sort of weakness. It depends upon the capitalized world to perform its disobedience.

A question or two, then, follow - can it survive its banishment to the margins, and can it escape the limitations of the medium?

Respect,

Jack

whoa, veriword: gamethie

Jack Crow said...

Damn.

I just finished reading this:

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/12/07/will-wikileaks-be-the-internets-titanic/

If I'd read it first, I'd have just linked it and foregone my own verbosity.

Randal Graves said...

Ethan, I agree with your bit on the "newness" of news. By definition, most of us are plugged in/wired/pick-a-dumb-phrase into what's going on, but I don't think - and I realize I'm parsing where I likely don't need to - it's because of any specific action or infraction or bumbling or stumbling or crime by a state actor, but a cynicism that is continually 'rewarded.'

The Pentagon Papers didn't enact a sea change, Iran-Contra treason, Tuskeegee, revelations of institutionalized torture, pick anything one wishes. The state, the empire, whatever, will simply move on to the next arena to exploit. Once, it was for land, then when they realized they didn't need to send and supply vast armies, they found other ways.

I see WikiLeaks (though I'm 100% in support of leaking all this crap) as yet another blip on the screen, something that in the everyday life of most Americans struggling to get by financially, doesn't mean a goddamn thing. But then again, I'm probably a shade more cynical than you are and could have shortened this ramble to this final sentence. :)

Ethan said...

Jack, I'm very much with you on disobedience and Manning.

Samizdat is a very interesting comparison, and it's true that Wikileaks is extraordinarily different. I'm hoping that its advantage--the ability to spread extraordinarily more quickly and broadly than Samizdat--overcomes the disadvantage--the capitalized media space on which, as you point out, it depends for that advantage. And yes, I'm very aware of what that hope is.

So far Wikileaks has been very good at overcoming all of the attacks--it rerouted hosting and server space when those were taken away, did the same with funding, and is still on course to continue releasing leaks on schedule despite all the attention on those attacks and on Assange's arrest. If, as you and emptywheel suggest, this is the moment when net neutrality vaporizes, obviously we'll all need new solutions, but for the time being the solutions exist.

I'm sure, by the way, that you're not suggesting that the (very real) possibility that Wikileaks could serve as the excuse for eliminating net neutrality is in any way an indictment of the Wikileaks endeavor itself. After all, Power will do what it wants to do, and as Arthur Silber keeps pointing out, they lie about everything.

Randal, you very likely will be rewarded for your current cynicism, while I'll probably get punished for my excitement, but I think at the very least we need to be keeping our eyes open with this--there is still a possibility that this will lead to further, real opportunities for action, and we just cannot miss that moment if it does come.

Jack Crow said...

Ethan: "I'm sure, by the way, that you're not suggesting that the (very real) possibility that Wikileaks could serve as the excuse for eliminating net neutrality is in any way an indictment of the Wikileaks endeavor itself. After all, Power will do what it wants to do, and as Arthur Silber keeps pointing out, they lie about everything."

If I've given that impression the failure is entirely my own. I think the net neutrality debate is instructive for what it reveals, more than I care about the predictable outcome (no net neutrality). Will WL be used as an excuse? I'd wager on it. But the conclusion was foregone, anyway.

I'm less critical of WL than I was even a few days ago, especially as I look more and more into the tremendous courage and risks taken by Bradley Manning, who has less profile than Assange, and more to lose.

Do I think it can and will still feed the spectacular functions of power? Yes.

But, to quote myself, "Even the futile should be undertaken. The enemy only has so many pieces on the board."

With respect,

Jack

Ethan said...

Jack, you didn't give that impression at all; I just thought I'd use your comment to take the opportunity to point it out explicitly.

And, yes, even the futile should be undertaken.

Randal Graves said...

there is still a possibility that this will lead to further, real opportunities for action, and we just cannot miss that moment if it does come.

Which is why I'm hoping this turns out to be more than a blip. Always assume the worst, heh, but hey, surprises pop up now and then.

Hear that indifferent cosmos, just a few state fuckers not named Bradley Manning with life sentences, thanks.