Manifesto
The man
Of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys
Power, like a desolating pestilence,
Pollutes wathe'er it touches, and obedience,
Bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth,
Makes slaves of men, and, of the human frame,
A mechanized automation.
- Percy Bysshe Shelley
Who?
Paradigma is a hacker collective dedicated to the research, development and application of technologies for building a fairer society, supported through networks of mutual-aid. We do so in an autonomous manner, though always seeking to do it in association with other popular organizations.
What?
We use the term hacker referring to a subculture that, still in the '60s, popularized such term to describe individuals that enjoy practical intellectual challenges and seek to surpass the limitations of a given system in creative and interesting ways. As such, a much broader and distinct conception than the its recent pejorative connotation, that of someone that exploits vulnerabilities in computer systems for malicious ends.
Moreover, it doesn't even involve the use of computers exclusively. To cite some examples that fit into the criteria of a hack and do not necessarily involve using computers, we can list: the permaculture, the punk subculture, and DIY (or, Do It Yourself). Thus, practices conductive to the exercise and difusion of a given technique, that's conducted in an autonomous manner by its very participants.
Why?
The world is not advancing but, guided by growing authoritarianism, galloping towards an unsustainable condition of degradation. Tools created to give us abundance, now bring us devastation. Take the internet as an example: what was supposed to be an instrument for the uninhibited expansion of human conscience is now to a large extent an automatized mechanism for its constant surveillance and disinformation.
How did this come to be?
Our society operates on a structure that was mostly conceived during the Industrial Revolution. This structure has as its central component the concept of an hierarchical bureaucracy. That is, the idea that, to coordinate large numbers of people effectively, it's necessary to organize them along a hierarchy, centralized around bureaucracies.
On the one hand, a hierarchy is a pyramidal organization where actions are carried at the base under levels of supervision and management. Information travels upwards along the hierarchy and commands are passed down. So that, at the very top, a tiny minority, sometimes a single individual even, has majoritary control over all strategic decisions taken. On the other hand, a bureaucracy is an administrative structure built around departments, groups of people technically capable of solving a given set of tasks in a rule-based e pre-estabilished manner set by supervisors.
Thanks to further technological advances, we became able to communicate over long distances, and radically modify our environment. And by extension, also our own society. Bureaucracies were created and extended as an instrument to manage such changes. Hierarchies accentuated and consolidated in ever more expansive organizations such as the United Nations, the European Union, and transnational corporations closely associated with the interests of government.
And what's the problem with that?
Firstly, are the congestions. When information and power concentrates in an ever smaller number of individuals, gradually it becomes impossible for these to make the amount of decisions required, with the adequate judgment, to solve the problems presented. Thus provoking stagnation. To avoid that such structure fragments, these must resorts to subterfuges such as filtering and segmenting the information received, and prioritizing some decisions over others. Which leads to decisions that, to some extent, are removed from the context to which they're applied, that when they aren't discarted in favor of deliberations that are more in line with the interests of management. This tends to worsen with the scale of the organization. As the hierarchy becomes more entrenched, those at the top become more powerful and further removed from the consequences of their decisions while, at the same time, the decisions to be taken become more numerous and complex.
Secondly, a hierarchy is a form of organization founded around an appeal to authority. It derives its power from the disposition or necessity, real or imagined, that those from below have to follow through with what is decided by those above. Therefore, a hierarchy is maintained so long as those that are subject to it remain dependent to it. It maintains itself from the imbalance between governors and governed. Hence, solutions presented tend to be palliative when self-preservation is in question.
As such, hierarchies fail as structures for the resolution of global problems. They can't absorb the volume of information, they can't make decisions neither adequately nor frequently enough, and worse of all, they subsist from the very problems they were intended to resolve. Hence, this model scales problematically, and needs to give way to a form of organization that is more adequate to serve the interests of all.
Then what?
Through technology we seek the technical subsidy for the construction of decentralized organizations joined together by networks of mutual aid. Namely, non-hierarchical organizations, also known as grassroots organizations or organizations of free association. We understand that this is the only form of organization truly conductive to the development of autonomy. That is, the capacity for each and every participant to effectively solve problems.
We understand, also, that suggesting we need to place our trust and efforts under the tutelage of yet another leadership is to propose a deceitful solution. It is not addressing the problem that fundamentally is the dependence and consequent vulnerability of the population to such forms of organization.
How?
We make use of and develop Free Software, a tool built under the condition of free association and that is maintained under conditions that foster such interaction. Furthermore, our demand for decentralized forms of organization isn't restricted to those that we interact with. It applies especially to us. So, to apply it effectively, we're oriented by a set o principles which we believe are conductive to this goal, and in the of interest of all who seek to realize it. These lay the fundamentals for our Code of Conduct:
Equity
Together we can achieve goals we never could on our own. To achieve such unity, we enforce conditions in which most of those involved, if not all, have an opportunity to participate and contribute. We do so by managing our resources in a democratic and proportional manner, in open and regular meetings, addressing the distinct needs of each.
Liberty
Of utmost importance for the intellectual and creative development that make up the individuality of each human being, is liberty. As participants in an egalitarian community, we understand that the maximization of the liberty of all is the most coherent, and therefore effective, manner to protect our own individual freedom. Hence, we do not aim to further our own freedom by restricting that of others, but instead, search for solutions for the expansion of freedom for all. We never impose a demand for permission to use or do anything in our activities. Though sometimes we might at times recommend it, that's never expected to be a norm. The norm should be to experiment, to act and think for yourself.
Solidarity
We welcome and aid everyone in our community, as best as we can. We point out any behavior short of that, and demonstrate by our example. We seek through this proactive attitude of solidarity to produce most consistently conditions for both liberty and equity. We believe that, if by our actions we restrict the participation of some, we're denying everyone the opportunity to conceive the world in all its complexity and wholeness. And as a result, we would be striping ourselves of a chance of finding solutions we could never conceive on our own.