Max Haiven's Blog, page 2

Clue-Anon (board game)

In CLUE-ANON, 3-4 players take on the role of conspiracy influencers in the batshit attention economy, competing to uncover nefarious conspiracies… or pursue other agendas…

Are the space aliens being funded by an evil corporation to work with the deep state to steal the election? Could satanists be in league with the military-industrial complex to abduct children, and is it being hidden by the mainstream media? And what if I told you that shadowy foreign agents are using a secret society to hire paid protesters to undermine civilization by faking the moon landing?

In this game, players use their influence to gain money and followers, and mobilize these resources to investigate the conspiracy, making guesses either secretly (which is safer) or in public (which attracts money and followers but…)

While at first it appears that all players are seeking the truth, each actually has a secret character… and their motivations are far from innocent.

True, the Independent Journalist might be seeking to learn what’s really going on and share it with the world. But the Social Media Corporation is mostly interested in how conspiracies can drive engagement and increase revenue, and the YouTube Grifter is after followers. They’re all trying to influence the True Believers while the Troll Army just delights in causing chaos. And there is a Secret Agent who really is spying on everyone.

CLUE-ANON is a delightful way to discover what makes conspiracy theories so much fun… and so dangerous.

I began working on CLUE-ANON in 2021 as part of the Conspiracy Games and Countergames research project I undertook with Aris Komporozos-Athanasiou and A.T. Kingsmith, who helped develop the game. That project also included a research podcast with experts on conspiracism, on games and on their intersections, as well as essays and interviews in public and in academic venues.

A free printable version of CLUE-ANON can be found at the Itch.io page of my gaming outfit, Our Move.

CLUE-ANON takes under an hour to learn and play and is suitable for inexperienced board game players. The print-at-home package includes everything you need to play and is free.

I am grateful to have been able to present and playtest Clue-Anon in many academic and non-academic contexts, including the “Games, incorporated” conference hosted by the journal ephemera in Malmö in June of 2022. The journal will publish CLUE-ANON soon, in conjunction with my essay “Why Play Games with Conspiracies?”, which is already online.

Download the free print-at-home game

The post Clue-Anon (board game) appeared first on Max Haiven.

Clue-Anon

[image error]

In CLUE-ANON, 3-4 players take on the role of conspiracy influencers in the batshit attention economy, competing to uncover nefarious conspiracies… or pursue other agendas…

Are the space aliens being funded by an evil corporation to work with the deep state to steal the election? Could satanists be in league with the military-industrial complex to abduct children, and is it being hidden by the mainstream media? And what if I told you that shadowy foreign agents are using a secret society to hire paid protesters to undermine civilization by faking the moon landing?

In this game, players use their influence to gain money and followers, and mobilize these resources to investigate the conspiracy, making guesses either secretly (which is safer) or in public (which attracts money and followers but…)

While at first it appears that all players are seeking the truth, each actually has a secret character… and their motivations are far from innocent.

True, the Independent Journalist might be seeking to learn what’s really going on and share it with the world. But the Social Media Corporation is mostly interested in how conspiracies can drive engagement and increase revenue, and the YouTube Grifter is after followers. They’re all trying to influence the True Believers while the Troll Army just delights in causing chaos. And there is a Secret Agent who really is spying on everyone.

CLUE-ANON is a delightful way to discover what makes conspiracy theories so much fun… and so dangerous.

I began working on CLUE-ANON in 2021 as part of the Conspiracy Games and Countergames research project I undertook with Aris Komporozos-Athanasiou and A.T. Kingsmith, who helped develop the game. That project also included a research podcast with experts on conspiracism, on games and on their intersections, as well as essays and interviews in public and in academic venues.

A free printable version of CLUE-ANON can be found at the Itch.io page of my gaming outfit, Our Move.

CLUE-ANON takes under an hour to learn and play and is suitable for inexperienced board game players. The print-at-home package includes everything you need to play and is free.

I am grateful to have been able to present and playtest Clue-Anon in many academic and non-academic contexts, including the “Games, incorporated” conference hosted by the journal ephemera in Malmö in June of 2022. The journal will publish CLUE-ANON soon, in conjunction with my essay “Why Play Games with Conspiracies?”, which is already online.

Download the free print-at-home game

The post Clue-Anon appeared first on Max Haiven.

What Do We Want? (A podcast about what brings movements together… and drives them apart)

Sense & Solidarity is pleased to present What Do We Want?, a podcast about the weird, wild and wonderful things that draw social movements together… and drive them apart.

We ask the tough and uncomfortable questions that keep organizers for ecological, economic, social, gender and racial justice awake at night!

Drawing on co-host Sarah Stein Lubrano’s specialization in politics and the cognitive sciences and co-host Max Haiven’s writing on activism and the radical imagination, each episode shares research, stories and insights to help social movements and the people who care about them change the world.

The podcasts’ first season’s six episodes focus on heartbreak, conspiracy, despair, fantasy, shame and pleasure and special guests include Rachel Donald, Lola Olufemi, Brent Lee and Sophie Lewis.

What Do We Want? is an initiative of Max and Sarah’s project Sense & Solidarity, a platform for radical social movements and their protagonists ot learn about ideology, psychology and how to change hearts and minds.

What Do We Want is written and hosted by Sarah Stein Lubrano and Max Haiven and produced and edited by Alastair Elphick. Music and sound mastering is by Daniel Gouly. The project has been supported by RiVAL: The ReImagining Value Action Lab and our many crowdfunding supporters (see below).  

The post What Do We Want? (A podcast about what brings movements together… and drives them apart) appeared first on Max Haiven.

What Do We Want? A podcast about what brings movements together… and drives them apart

[image error]

Sense & Solidarity is pleased to present What Do We Want?, a podcast about the weird, wild and wonderful things that draw social movements together… and drive them apart.

We ask the tough and uncomfortable questions that keep organizers for ecological, economic, social, gender and racial justice awake at night!

Drawing on co-host Sarah Stein Lubrano’s specialization in politics and the cognitive sciences and co-host Max Haiven’s writing on activism and the radical imagination, each episode shares research, stories and insights to help social movements and the people who care about them change the world.

The podcasts’ first season’s six episodes focus on heartbreak, conspiracy, despair, fantasy, shame and pleasure and special guests include Rachel Donald, Lola Olufemi, Brent Lee and Sophie Lewis.

What Do We Want? is an initiative of Max and Sarah’s project Sense & Solidarity, a platform for radical social movements and their protagonists ot learn about ideology, psychology and how to change hearts and minds.

What Do We Want is written and hosted by Sarah Stein Lubrano and Max Haiven and produced and edited by Alastair Elphick. Music and sound mastering is by Daniel Gouly. The project has been supported by RiVAL: The ReImagining Value Action Lab and our many crowdfunding supporters (see below).  

The post What Do We Want? A podcast about what brings movements together… and drives them apart appeared first on Max Haiven.

There is a world after Amazon, or the radical joy and need to imagine together (interview)

The following interview about The World After Amazon: Stories from Amazon Workers and the Worker as Futurist project was published in the Bulgarian journal dВЕРСИЯ (Dversia): https://dversia.net/8070/after-amazon/

Stanislav Dodov: It seems like you’re quite busy with the launch of the book. How is it going?

Max Haiven: It’s going great, we just did our launch in London on September 15th and we have the launch here in Berlin coming up on September 26th. And then we have also launches in Toronto, New York and other places in Canada and Germany. It’s nice that the book is getting around.

SD: Sounds like a movie premiere – launching simultaneously in ten different places!

MH: I increasingly feel that books serve as catalysts for certain types of conversations and foster community and communion as well. It seems we’re in an age where fewer people are reading, yet more and more are drawn to books – it’s a strange conundrum.

Defense mechanisms

SD: While preparing for this interview, something came to my mind that might seem unrelated to the topic. It’s about two types of comments and reactions I often receive when working with people, especially in group and educational contexts. The first one is: ‘This is all well and good, but give me something practical – give me a step-by-step guide on how to achieve this.’ The second, which I believe is somewhat connected, is: ‘This is all well and good, but it’s utopian. People or the system are not like that, so even if I try, I know it’s bound to fail, so I’d rather not even discuss it.’ These reactions seem quite common, and I wanted to hear about your experience with them and how you manage to address them.

MH: It’s tough. I think these responses are fear-based, but rooted in real experiences. We inherit a world that has seen its fair share of destructive utopian schemes, and many of us live in the ruins of these visions – whether it’s the communist utopianism of the Soviet Union or the remnants of neoliberal capitalist dreams. Those aftermaths contribute to people’s cynicism.

However, I believe these responses you mention are often driven by another kind of fear. If you genuinely believe that utopia is possible and that society can change, it implies you might have to behave differently, you might have to challenge yourself and those around you, take uncomfortable risks, and act in ways that strive to bring about a better world, or alternately dwell with the reality that you could have tried, but didn’t and therefore bear some responsibility for the consequences of its failure.

Even people who aren’t particularly thoughtful quite intuitively grasp that embracing utopian thinking could imply difficult changes in their lives. So I think people respond very reactively to such proposals, defaulting to notions of ‘human nature’ or to a distorted version of a history that never happened, so as to license themselves to say, ‘This is impossible, so we can safely put it aside’.

Alternately, as you pointed out, they ask for a practical step-by-step guide to utopia. But I would say that 95% of the time they don’t genuinely want such a guide – they want to nitpick and problematize the steps, again to prove it is impossible and indemnify themselves from the consequences. 

There are perhaps a few ways I deal with this, depending on the circumstances I was recently doing a workshop with Amazon workers and some were really frustrated, saying, ‘We’re supposed to be doing organizer training, and you want us to imagine a better future where we run Amazon, but this is useless.’ I decided I was going to get really reactive, saying, ‘No, there is importance to imagination – it’s part of our basic human dignity! We have a right and a duty to use it! For once, let’s put aside our obsession with pragmatism and take half an hour to imagine together, just for the joy of it. For the fact that it makes us bigger and wider as humans. For the fact that not everything needs to have an outcome!’ So, sometimes as a facilitator I get a bit pushy, and people are usually surprised by that, and the surprise itself opens up a kind of space. Sometimes you need to be the problem you want to see in the world.

Another approach I take, if there’s enough time and the right circumstances, is to gently observe participants’ fear-based response to utopianiasm and then I’ll ask the people in the room, ‘Why? Let’s analyze ourselves and figure out the source of this fear.’ Usually, most of the audience quickly reaches the same conclusion I shared a moment ago: that people are afraid of the consequences, they’re afraid of getting their hopes up, they’re afraid of having their hopes betrayed, they’re fearing they won’t be good enough. That can be quite a generative experience as well.

Understanding dystopia

SD: Let’s talk about the collection The World After Amazon: Stories from Amazon Workers – it’s quite dystopian, isn’t it? Most, if not all, of the stories are quite bleak, which I didn’t expect. There seem to be small glimmers of resistance here and there, but that’s essentially the ‘utopian’ spice. So, what were your expectations regarding this dystopia-utopia dichotomy, and how do you interpret the final outcome?

MH: It’s something we discussed quite a bit in the team that put the book together, because we were also a bit surprised. Xenia Benivolski, whom I work with on the book, has a theory that most of the writers we collaborated with are between the ages of 25 and 45, and they have been raised on a pretty steady diet of dystopia in our popular media and literary landscape. Especially since the 2000s, there’s been a barrage of dystopian science fiction, and that’s kind of what people have become habituated to and what their imagination focuses on when we ask about the future.

I think that’s probably the soundest explanation, but I have others that are more speculative that I toy with.

In my scholarly work on the radical imagination I argue that it is embodied: it emerges from our lived experience of systems of domination and the way they impact our body-minds and shape our social spaces. If you think about an Amazon worker, they’re the meat that gets fed into a profit-driven machine that’s mostly robots and algorithms. Drivers or warehouse workers, which is the vast majority of their workforce – these people are doing tasks either because Amazon hasn’t invented a robot to replace them or because it’s cheaper to just burn through human meat than it is to build a robot. That is an incredibly dystopian way to be treated by your society. And for what? So that people can get a commodity they want a tiny bit faster and a little more cheaply? This is utter horror. I think the workers’ writing reflects the fact that they are already subjects in a dystopia. That is how they live, and in a way, we ask them to write about a future, but they are actually writing about the present; it’s just future-flavored. 

By the same token, what you can imagine in terms of a different society stems from your social and political life now.

If you want to envision a society where people cooperate differently, care about each other differently, and interact with the world differently, it’s very difficult to do that if you rarely have experiences of that kind of difference.

Amazon, as we know, uses its algorithms, robots, surveillance and extreme managerial control to ensure that workers are divided in space, by scheduling, by protocol. The company is so paranoid about unionization and so interested in fragmenting its workforce that it doesn’t create the circumstances for basic conviviality. There are no break rooms in many warehouses, for example, and the subcontracting of drivers means they rarely have an opportunity to meet. In such a circumstance, where will the utopian spark come from? I think it’s very, very difficult for people to envision much more than saying ‘No!’ 

But this is where I think the utopian kernel comes through in the book. In most of the stories, even though they’re dystopian, there is a character or characters who at some point just say ‘No!’ Often their bodies just say ‘No!’ – they collapse, they reject, they refuse to participate in some way, or they go insane in some circumstances. Perhaps this is the only way a body that has been isolated and torqued by a totalitarian corporate system refuses and rebels.

There is another utopian “spice” (as you call it) at work in these otherwise dystopian stories: the characters’ personal relationships or their relationships with other workers, or with comrades in certain circumstances, and often with their families. Many of the stories focus on the reunification of families who have been broken apart by war, work, or circumstance. I see in that a kind of wish-image, borrowing a term from Ernst Bloch, of solidarity that can’t yet fully express itself in a way that someone like me would like to see solidarity expressed. But it holds open a space.

SD: This reminds me of Mark Fisher’s piece, Dystopia Now. I think your colleague’s argument mirrors his point – that recent cultural production is saturated with dystopian themes. Fisher also notes that if there are glimmers of hope in these dystopian scenarios, they lie in the small, almost impossible connections between individuals, resisting against the odds. 

MH: I think that’s very apt. I’m thinking a lot about fascism lately – as unfortunately we all are – and I return to Bloch, who was trying to understand it from a utopian perspective. He was a writer active in the Weimar Republic and through the rise of the Nazis, then went into exile, eventually becoming a major intellectual of the GDR. He was very frustrated with his colleagues in the Frankfurt School and elsewhere, who, in the 20s, seemed to want to reduce the allure of fascism to just hysteria and irrationality, to a kind of atavism harking back to some primordial tribalness.

His contribution, which was very sympathetic to someone like Walter Benjamin, was to argue that fascism picks up on the vanquished dreams of our revolutionary forebears and perverts and distorts them. I wouldn’t say all dystopia is fascist, but I think there’s a similar observation we could make about people’s attraction to dystopian narratives today: they often emerge from the heartbreaks of history. So a dystopian narrative like The Hunger Games, or the ones we see in our book, often contain a haunting echo, a strain of utopian music, distorted but lingering. 

SD: I find this very interesting, and I can definitely see parallels in the current Bulgarian context. It might sound exaggerated, but it feels as though society here is clinically dead. Over the past few months, things have been worsening rapidly at the legislative level, and the situation is becoming increasingly bleak. I’m trying to understand why people are so reluctant to at least say, ‘No! This law is absurd, we won’t accept it,’ or something similar. What you’re saying makes sense, that some fascist tendencies seem to be feeding off the broken dreams of the past 35 years and turning them into monstrosities.

MH: I think we’re seeing it everywhere on some level. There’s much we could say about people’s fear, complicity, acceptance, and individualism in the face of rising fascism. But I think, on some level, we’re also in this very strange moment in many societies where, when a new horror reveals itself, the response is extremely blasé. Part of that, I think, is people saying to themselves, maybe unconsciously, ‘Well, if I oppose this new horror, I would need to oppose everything else, I’d have to oppose the one before that, and the one before that…’ and then that stacks up quickly to an insurmountable problem. And how do you live with yourself for having let it get so far? We accept the new horror because we have also accepted the previous horrors. It’s a sick loop.

But what that seems to generate, though, are these weird moments where those systems suddenly implode on themselves. Suddenly, tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people who are otherwise completely complicit or quiet, or resigned, flood into the streets based on prompts that sometimes make no sense. But the danger is that this blows in many different directions. These kinds of explosions can very easily be manipulated by fascist and reactionary forces who offer simple and seductive reasons and solutions, while left-wing forces tend to be in utter disarray.

SD: Going back to the book, I feel there’s a contradiction between the title and what’s actually described in the stories. It doesn’t seem like a world after Amazon – it’s more like a world where Amazon is on steroids. So, if we were to look at the stories together – though it may not be entirely fair to the authors – what historical epoch are they describing? What kind of future do you think this is and what would future anthropologists make of this book?

MH: The stories don’t take place in a shared world; the world-building of each author is different. However, the vast majority of them take place in the same time frame, which is basically the next 20 years, though sometimes it extends up to the next 100 years. Most of the authors are thinking about the world after Amazon based on fairly near-future projections. In one story, Amazon takes over the prison system and starts creating human-animal hybrids to work for them. In another story, they replace humans with robots, and then the robots and humans rise up and overthrow Amazon…

SD: And there’s revolutionary love between robots and humans!

MH: Yeah, I love that story by Ibrahim Alsahary… A lot of the stories resemble a Mad Max, fall-of-civilization scenario. I think these stories will be remembered as a reflection on our present, they represent what Steven Shaviro calls a kind of ‘extrapolation politics’ in his new book Fluid Futures, where you take current trends and extrapolate them into the future. 

In decades past extrapolation used to serve as a kind of warning: if we continue on our current trajectory, we might reach this grave point, so let’s change our ways. But today, it seems to me that speculative and dystopian fiction serves a more therapeutic function. We have learned to enjoy the warning for its own sake, perhaps because, as I’ve alluded to earlier, it reflects our own dystopian conditions back to us.

Anyway, who could act on such a warning now? The idiom of dystopia-as-warning is itself a bit utopian, because it implies that the reader is part of some polity that has some agency to change the future. We readers almost never feel that kind of agency today, and so the warning functions mostly as sad entertainment.

But then there are a few stories that are a bit different. The story that closes the book is actually about a society far in the future where humans have discovered not only a source of infinite energy, a mystical form of energy in some ways. What’s interesting about that story is that it speculates that this discovery can only be achieved once there is a kind of revolution, and it’s a very tricky revolution. The author really wanted to highlight that this is also a future where there aren’t other forms of propaganda and manipulation instilled in the machines themselves.

So, I think what future anthropologists would make of this book is that it represents people’s hopes and fears in 2024 on some level. Those hopes and fears are expressed in a genre that is very much shaped by the cultural habits of 2024. If we were to go back 1,000 years to Europe and ask people what their hopes and fears are for the future, they would mostly express them in a religious language. And they did: workers’ struggles 1,000 years ago often articulated themselves in terms of the Second Coming of Jesus and the fulfillment of the Book of Revelation. This was the cultural idiom through which they could express hopes and fears, aspirations for the future.

I think our cultural idiom in this allegedly secular, hyper-mediated society is often the dystopian narrative.

You, too, can and should do it!

SD: The stories have very clear class dimensions, which I somewhat expected, although it’s striking how explicitly this theme is present throughout. The systems of class subjugation are central, and I was particularly impressed by the story featuring the housekeeper. In terms of topics beyond class as such, the stories also cover a wide range, including critiques of cultural assimilation, technology, etc. But why would people choose to read this book? Or why is it important for them to read it?

MH: This is a very good question, and it’s one we’re asked by many publishers. It’s one of the reasons why we ended up publishing the book through my research lab rather than with a conventional publisher. I don’t have a very good answer. I think the reason is to be inspired to get together with their friends, comrades, colleagues, or coworkers and write their own stories. The effectiveness of these stories is not so much that they’re going to be very enjoyable to read – although I find them very enjoyable – or even that they’ll be particularly insightful, but more that what they express silently. It is right, good, and important that we – no matter who we are – honor and exercise our imaginations. That’s not only part of coming together to envision different futures so we can fight for them; it’s also a big part of being or becoming human.

I think this is especially crucial in an age when the future is being written for us by forces far beyond our control. If only it were just the politicians, but the future is now being shaped by billionaires – like Jeff Bezos – who have made ridiculous amounts of money from their corporate empires and use that to, with almost complete freedom and impunity, shape the future of our species in terms of space travel, “artificial intelligence,” geoengineering, research and development in global health, and much more. To a certain extent, I think one small part of refusing this system is, in a very small but collective way, reclaiming our power to tell different stories.

So, I hope the real lesson and message of the book is that you, too, can do this; you too should do this. You should do it for the joy of it and also for the dignity of it, because one of the things this system silently tells us is that the vast majority of us should be happy with what we’ve got and leave the question of the future to the billionaires.

If we’re lucky, we won’t end up like the housekeeper in Cory Gluck’s story “Thalia in Albios”, basically cleaning up after horrible rich people, or like the character in “Always on the Clock” who decides to quit their job at Amazon one morning because they can’t take it anymore and ends up in prison – only to discover that the prison is being run by Amazon. On some level, I think writing with others gives us a way to redefine our own (post-)humanity. That’s actually valuable in and of itself.

Understanding utopia

SD: Let’s focus on utopia for a moment. I didn’t read most of the book, I listened to it through a text-to-speech application.

MH: But we have the audio version read by Sook-Yin Lee!

SD: Yeah, but I realized that too late. Still, I thought my experiment with the app is very interesting, because – of course I hated the robot voice – it made me think about the medium. What is the relationship between the medium and our capacity to imagine different futures? It seems that today, our understanding of utopia—and dystopia, for that matter—is primarily mediated by images, rather than written text or spoken word.

MH: One of the things I really liked about Mark Fisher was his approach to thinking through utopia in terms of sound rather than just text or image. In particular, his thinking around retro-utopianism tries to uncover the ontological trace of past utopias that make themselves felt in musical nostalgia. I think this can also animate utopian imaginings and the radical imagination now in ways that might help us move beyond some of the conundrums we discussed today. When you present a utopia to people – whether in literature or in a workshop space – they often respond by saying, as you pointed out, either, “That utopia would never work; it’s unrealistic, it’s not human nature; I hate it,” or, “Yeah, fine, but show me the ten steps to get there.” I think there might be a different way music can bypass these defense mechanisms. I’d be very interested in exploring that.

Also, I’ve been thinking a lot about C. T. Nguyen’s very good book Games: Agency as art, which explores what it is in games that we find so appealing. I don’t recall if he uses the word “utopian,” but one thing I think about a lot – since I’m also a game designer and I’m doing a bunch of work in games right now – is his point that, when you enter into a game, whether it’s like Monopoly or a video game, the rules of the world are intoxicatingly simplified. Usually, when we interact with the world, our agency is incredibly complex; we’re navigating multiple conflicting systems of power, social interactions, subjectivity and institutions. Agency is a very complicated thing, especially in this neoliberal age when we’re all tasked with surviving and navigating multiple jobs, school, life, romance, sociality – all of these different levels in a world without any guarantees. But when you enter into the game, your agency is clear, what you’re supposed to do is clear, and your affordances for action in your environment are clear. I think of this clarity as utopian. Nguyen writes of how enchanting that simplified agency is, and how dangerous that enchantment can be when we believe that the real world ought to work like a game.

So these are just two examples of non-literature and non-film, and non-image that I’m thinking through in terms of this great question of the medium of utopianism. My sense is that image-based and time-based media like literature and film may be too saturated by this point, both by failed utopias and charismatic dystopias. Utopian thinkers and activists may need to look to other parts of the sensorium to explore these things.

I would, for example, love to make games with Amazon workers. When we were doing the pilot project that led to this book, we gave a workshop of Amazon workers an assignment to imagine a video game that they would force all Amazon managers to play.

There were two very different visions. One group imagined the kind of game I was expecting, that showed how horrible and difficult it is to work at Amazon, placing those managers in the shoes of the workers; it was a kind of revenge game, sort of like an elaborate Tetris where the difficulty just stacks up to impossible levels.

The other group’s game, however, created a game that was basically about retraining mid-level managers to recognize the value of hard-working workers over lazy ones. It was the kind of game Amazon might have itself invented. 

I think both of these games have a “topian” kernel – not necessarily utopian or dystopian, maybe rather heterotopian: an other-space that runs within but also counter to our world, expressing latent hopes, fears, dreams, nightmares…

SD: That’s very interesting. I’ve been thinking also about the importance of dialogue, particularly in relation to Freire’s idea that naming the world changes the world. If we had the time and space – likely the biggest issue – to engage in meaningful dialogue with one another… Isn’t that the foundation for all the other mediums and techniques we’re discussing?

MH: I think you’re absolutely right, and if I were to do this project again, I would maybe build in enough space and time for people to pair up or get in groups of three to write their stories. I have a hunch that if we did that, the stories might be less dystopian.

SD: I guess there are two major theses regarding where we can find utopia. The classical view posits that utopia exists somewhere, sometime – hence its name. The more recent perspective suggests that utopia is here and now, something we live but may not fully recognize, waiting for us to help it emerge at scale. How should we think about utopia today? Which thesis is more viable, or is there a third option?

MH: One other way of framing your question would be, ‘Is utopia a transcendental or an imminent phenomenon?’ The first means that it exists somewhere beyond the shores of our world, either spatially or temporally – somewhere else, in the future, or maybe in the past. I think myths like that can be very useful and also very dangerous. Certainly, around the world, we’ve seen the incredible danger of the myth of a past utopia: back when our country was strong, back when America was great, when men were really men and women were really women, all of that bullshit. But I also think that for a long time, people have organized around the vision that, someday, we might move into the stars or create a better society.

I’m on the side that believes utopia is much more everyday, much more imminent to our lived experience. As in the case of the stories, the way that utopianism typically makes itself felt is simply through refusal – the refusal of the body, the refusal of people to accept their conditions.

Often, I think utopia can only express itself in the word ‘No!’. The work of social movements and cultural creators is to show us that inside of a ‘No!’ there is a utopian seed or seeds. Because, after all, why would we refuse unless we thought things could get better?

And why would we sustain our refusal beyond just the initial spasm unless we knew somewhere deep down that things could be different? But I think most of us are denied the opportunity to think systematically about it.

I would go back to Thomas More’s original 1516 Utopia which is interesting to me not only because it’s a book about a transcendental other-place, a better world, but because so much of it is actually about sociality, conviviality, feasting, talking, being together, it’s about how people treat one another. The real utopianism is in the relationships. In the same way that the Odyssey is really about hospitality, Utopia is also a book about sociality. I think that reveals something about the immanence of utopianism: it is not just this abstract concept of a better society; it is something very much baked into the way we treat each other, the way we interact as a society, and the joy we find in playfulness, rather than a concrete vision of a better tomorrow.

The radical joy and need to imagine together

SD: In dVERSIA, we’re really struggling with the publication this interview will be a part of some day. Initially, we thought it would be an issue of the magazine, but now we’re considering it a compendium. However, we’ve never been able to sit down, put up a plan, and actually follow through. Things tend to fall apart at various stages, and we end up back at square one. It seems to me that when people try to engage in this kind of conscious thinking about utopia—especially when there’s a clear political purpose—the system projects itself onto us, blocking our ability to truly start and commit to the process.

MH: I think you’re absolutely right. I think that our own internalization of the system makes us allergic to optimism on some level. I’m very distrustful of theories that center around trauma, but if I were to dwell with the term I would suggest we are traumatized by living in this dystopian society, and we’re very shy about investing our hearts in thinking the world could be better because we don’t want to go through the heartbreak again. I think being socialized into this society is to be heartbroken, and so it makes sense to me why people would avoid the risk of utopia. Even those of us who are officially, intellectually, and ideologically dedicated to utopianism might also have structures of avoidance.

I hate the answer I’m about to give because I think it’s stupid – but I think if we want people to use the utopian imagination we probably need to make it fun. One of the reasons I like the writing groups is that they’re fun things for people to do; we get together, we imagine, we world-build. I think the dominant culture of late capitalism is one that wants fun to be non-political; it wants fun to be in the form of playing video games or sports – individualized acts.

I’m very interested in creating spaces of collective fun and creativity right now, not so much because I think that anything ingenious is going to emerge from it, but maybe in a Spinozian sense, there is a kind of radicalness to the joy of abounding together. It’s that embodied experience of collective joy, even if small, that becomes the affective bedrock on which you can start to build other forms of solidarity, conviviality, and struggle.

The post There is a world after Amazon, or the radical joy and need to imagine together (interview) appeared first on Max Haiven.

There is a world after Amazon, or the radical joy and need to imagine together

[image error]

The following interview about The World After Amazon: Stories from Amazon Workers and the Worker as Futurist project was published in the Bulgarian journal dВЕРСИЯ (Dversia): https://dversia.net/8070/after-amazon/

Stanislav Dodov: It seems like you’re quite busy with the launch of the book. How is it going?

Max Haiven: It’s going great, we just did our launch in London on September 15th and we have the launch here in Berlin coming up on September 26th. And then we have also launches in Toronto, New York and other places in Canada and Germany. It’s nice that the book is getting around.

SD: Sounds like a movie premiere – launching simultaneously in ten different places!

MH: I increasingly feel that books serve as catalysts for certain types of conversations and foster community and communion as well. It seems we’re in an age where fewer people are reading, yet more and more are drawn to books – it’s a strange conundrum.

Defense mechanisms

SD: While preparing for this interview, something came to my mind that might seem unrelated to the topic. It’s about two types of comments and reactions I often receive when working with people, especially in group and educational contexts. The first one is: ‘This is all well and good, but give me something practical – give me a step-by-step guide on how to achieve this.’ The second, which I believe is somewhat connected, is: ‘This is all well and good, but it’s utopian. People or the system are not like that, so even if I try, I know it’s bound to fail, so I’d rather not even discuss it.’ These reactions seem quite common, and I wanted to hear about your experience with them and how you manage to address them.

MH: It’s tough. I think these responses are fear-based, but rooted in real experiences. We inherit a world that has seen its fair share of destructive utopian schemes, and many of us live in the ruins of these visions – whether it’s the communist utopianism of the Soviet Union or the remnants of neoliberal capitalist dreams. Those aftermaths contribute to people’s cynicism.

However, I believe these responses you mention are often driven by another kind of fear. If you genuinely believe that utopia is possible and that society can change, it implies you might have to behave differently, you might have to challenge yourself and those around you, take uncomfortable risks, and act in ways that strive to bring about a better world, or alternately dwell with the reality that you could have tried, but didn’t and therefore bear some responsibility for the consequences of its failure.

Even people who aren’t particularly thoughtful quite intuitively grasp that embracing utopian thinking could imply difficult changes in their lives. So I think people respond very reactively to such proposals, defaulting to notions of ‘human nature’ or to a distorted version of a history that never happened, so as to license themselves to say, ‘This is impossible, so we can safely put it aside’.

Alternately, as you pointed out, they ask for a practical step-by-step guide to utopia. But I would say that 95% of the time they don’t genuinely want such a guide – they want to nitpick and problematize the steps, again to prove it is impossible and indemnify themselves from the consequences. 

There are perhaps a few ways I deal with this, depending on the circumstances I was recently doing a workshop with Amazon workers and some were really frustrated, saying, ‘We’re supposed to be doing organizer training, and you want us to imagine a better future where we run Amazon, but this is useless.’ I decided I was going to get really reactive, saying, ‘No, there is importance to imagination – it’s part of our basic human dignity! We have a right and a duty to use it! For once, let’s put aside our obsession with pragmatism and take half an hour to imagine together, just for the joy of it. For the fact that it makes us bigger and wider as humans. For the fact that not everything needs to have an outcome!’ So, sometimes as a facilitator I get a bit pushy, and people are usually surprised by that, and the surprise itself opens up a kind of space. Sometimes you need to be the problem you want to see in the world.

Another approach I take, if there’s enough time and the right circumstances, is to gently observe participants’ fear-based response to utopianiasm and then I’ll ask the people in the room, ‘Why? Let’s analyze ourselves and figure out the source of this fear.’ Usually, most of the audience quickly reaches the same conclusion I shared a moment ago: that people are afraid of the consequences, they’re afraid of getting their hopes up, they’re afraid of having their hopes betrayed, they’re fearing they won’t be good enough. That can be quite a generative experience as well.

Understanding dystopia

SD: Let’s talk about the collection The World After Amazon: Stories from Amazon Workers – it’s quite dystopian, isn’t it? Most, if not all, of the stories are quite bleak, which I didn’t expect. There seem to be small glimmers of resistance here and there, but that’s essentially the ‘utopian’ spice. So, what were your expectations regarding this dystopia-utopia dichotomy, and how do you interpret the final outcome?

MH: It’s something we discussed quite a bit in the team that put the book together, because we were also a bit surprised. Xenia Benivolski, whom I work with on the book, has a theory that most of the writers we collaborated with are between the ages of 25 and 45, and they have been raised on a pretty steady diet of dystopia in our popular media and literary landscape. Especially since the 2000s, there’s been a barrage of dystopian science fiction, and that’s kind of what people have become habituated to and what their imagination focuses on when we ask about the future.

I think that’s probably the soundest explanation, but I have others that are more speculative that I toy with.

In my scholarly work on the radical imagination I argue that it is embodied: it emerges from our lived experience of systems of domination and the way they impact our body-minds and shape our social spaces. If you think about an Amazon worker, they’re the meat that gets fed into a profit-driven machine that’s mostly robots and algorithms. Drivers or warehouse workers, which is the vast majority of their workforce – these people are doing tasks either because Amazon hasn’t invented a robot to replace them or because it’s cheaper to just burn through human meat than it is to build a robot. That is an incredibly dystopian way to be treated by your society. And for what? So that people can get a commodity they want a tiny bit faster and a little more cheaply? This is utter horror. I think the workers’ writing reflects the fact that they are already subjects in a dystopia. That is how they live, and in a way, we ask them to write about a future, but they are actually writing about the present; it’s just future-flavored. 

By the same token, what you can imagine in terms of a different society stems from your social and political life now.

If you want to envision a society where people cooperate differently, care about each other differently, and interact with the world differently, it’s very difficult to do that if you rarely have experiences of that kind of difference.

Amazon, as we know, uses its algorithms, robots, surveillance and extreme managerial control to ensure that workers are divided in space, by scheduling, by protocol. The company is so paranoid about unionization and so interested in fragmenting its workforce that it doesn’t create the circumstances for basic conviviality. There are no break rooms in many warehouses, for example, and the subcontracting of drivers means they rarely have an opportunity to meet. In such a circumstance, where will the utopian spark come from? I think it’s very, very difficult for people to envision much more than saying ‘No!’ 

But this is where I think the utopian kernel comes through in the book. In most of the stories, even though they’re dystopian, there is a character or characters who at some point just say ‘No!’ Often their bodies just say ‘No!’ – they collapse, they reject, they refuse to participate in some way, or they go insane in some circumstances. Perhaps this is the only way a body that has been isolated and torqued by a totalitarian corporate system refuses and rebels.

There is another utopian “spice” (as you call it) at work in these otherwise dystopian stories: the characters’ personal relationships or their relationships with other workers, or with comrades in certain circumstances, and often with their families. Many of the stories focus on the reunification of families who have been broken apart by war, work, or circumstance. I see in that a kind of wish-image, borrowing a term from Ernst Bloch, of solidarity that can’t yet fully express itself in a way that someone like me would like to see solidarity expressed. But it holds open a space.

SD: This reminds me of Mark Fisher’s piece, Dystopia Now. I think your colleague’s argument mirrors his point – that recent cultural production is saturated with dystopian themes. Fisher also notes that if there are glimmers of hope in these dystopian scenarios, they lie in the small, almost impossible connections between individuals, resisting against the odds. 

MH: I think that’s very apt. I’m thinking a lot about fascism lately – as unfortunately we all are – and I return to Bloch, who was trying to understand it from a utopian perspective. He was a writer active in the Weimar Republic and through the rise of the Nazis, then went into exile, eventually becoming a major intellectual of the GDR. He was very frustrated with his colleagues in the Frankfurt School and elsewhere, who, in the 20s, seemed to want to reduce the allure of fascism to just hysteria and irrationality, to a kind of atavism harking back to some primordial tribalness.

His contribution, which was very sympathetic to someone like Walter Benjamin, was to argue that fascism picks up on the vanquished dreams of our revolutionary forebears and perverts and distorts them. I wouldn’t say all dystopia is fascist, but I think there’s a similar observation we could make about people’s attraction to dystopian narratives today: they often emerge from the heartbreaks of history. So a dystopian narrative like The Hunger Games, or the ones we see in our book, often contain a haunting echo, a strain of utopian music, distorted but lingering. 

SD: I find this very interesting, and I can definitely see parallels in the current Bulgarian context. It might sound exaggerated, but it feels as though society here is clinically dead. Over the past few months, things have been worsening rapidly at the legislative level, and the situation is becoming increasingly bleak. I’m trying to understand why people are so reluctant to at least say, ‘No! This law is absurd, we won’t accept it,’ or something similar. What you’re saying makes sense, that some fascist tendencies seem to be feeding off the broken dreams of the past 35 years and turning them into monstrosities.

MH: I think we’re seeing it everywhere on some level. There’s much we could say about people’s fear, complicity, acceptance, and individualism in the face of rising fascism. But I think, on some level, we’re also in this very strange moment in many societies where, when a new horror reveals itself, the response is extremely blasé. Part of that, I think, is people saying to themselves, maybe unconsciously, ‘Well, if I oppose this new horror, I would need to oppose everything else, I’d have to oppose the one before that, and the one before that…’ and then that stacks up quickly to an insurmountable problem. And how do you live with yourself for having let it get so far? We accept the new horror because we have also accepted the previous horrors. It’s a sick loop.

But what that seems to generate, though, are these weird moments where those systems suddenly implode on themselves. Suddenly, tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people who are otherwise completely complicit or quiet, or resigned, flood into the streets based on prompts that sometimes make no sense. But the danger is that this blows in many different directions. These kinds of explosions can very easily be manipulated by fascist and reactionary forces who offer simple and seductive reasons and solutions, while left-wing forces tend to be in utter disarray.

SD: Going back to the book, I feel there’s a contradiction between the title and what’s actually described in the stories. It doesn’t seem like a world after Amazon – it’s more like a world where Amazon is on steroids. So, if we were to look at the stories together – though it may not be entirely fair to the authors – what historical epoch are they describing? What kind of future do you think this is and what would future anthropologists make of this book?

MH: The stories don’t take place in a shared world; the world-building of each author is different. However, the vast majority of them take place in the same time frame, which is basically the next 20 years, though sometimes it extends up to the next 100 years. Most of the authors are thinking about the world after Amazon based on fairly near-future projections. In one story, Amazon takes over the prison system and starts creating human-animal hybrids to work for them. In another story, they replace humans with robots, and then the robots and humans rise up and overthrow Amazon…

SD: And there’s revolutionary love between robots and humans!

MH: Yeah, I love that story by Ibrahim Alsahary… A lot of the stories resemble a Mad Max, fall-of-civilization scenario. I think these stories will be remembered as a reflection on our present, they represent what Steven Shaviro calls a kind of ‘extrapolation politics’ in his new book Fluid Futures, where you take current trends and extrapolate them into the future. 

In decades past extrapolation used to serve as a kind of warning: if we continue on our current trajectory, we might reach this grave point, so let’s change our ways. But today, it seems to me that speculative and dystopian fiction serves a more therapeutic function. We have learned to enjoy the warning for its own sake, perhaps because, as I’ve alluded to earlier, it reflects our own dystopian conditions back to us.

Anyway, who could act on such a warning now? The idiom of dystopia-as-warning is itself a bit utopian, because it implies that the reader is part of some polity that has some agency to change the future. We readers almost never feel that kind of agency today, and so the warning functions mostly as sad entertainment.

But then there are a few stories that are a bit different. The story that closes the book is actually about a society far in the future where humans have discovered not only a source of infinite energy, a mystical form of energy in some ways. What’s interesting about that story is that it speculates that this discovery can only be achieved once there is a kind of revolution, and it’s a very tricky revolution. The author really wanted to highlight that this is also a future where there aren’t other forms of propaganda and manipulation instilled in the machines themselves.

So, I think what future anthropologists would make of this book is that it represents people’s hopes and fears in 2024 on some level. Those hopes and fears are expressed in a genre that is very much shaped by the cultural habits of 2024. If we were to go back 1,000 years to Europe and ask people what their hopes and fears are for the future, they would mostly express them in a religious language. And they did: workers’ struggles 1,000 years ago often articulated themselves in terms of the Second Coming of Jesus and the fulfillment of the Book of Revelation. This was the cultural idiom through which they could express hopes and fears, aspirations for the future.

I think our cultural idiom in this allegedly secular, hyper-mediated society is often the dystopian narrative.

You, too, can and should do it!

SD: The stories have very clear class dimensions, which I somewhat expected, although it’s striking how explicitly this theme is present throughout. The systems of class subjugation are central, and I was particularly impressed by the story featuring the housekeeper. In terms of topics beyond class as such, the stories also cover a wide range, including critiques of cultural assimilation, technology, etc. But why would people choose to read this book? Or why is it important for them to read it?

MH: This is a very good question, and it’s one we’re asked by many publishers. It’s one of the reasons why we ended up publishing the book through my research lab rather than with a conventional publisher. I don’t have a very good answer. I think the reason is to be inspired to get together with their friends, comrades, colleagues, or coworkers and write their own stories. The effectiveness of these stories is not so much that they’re going to be very enjoyable to read – although I find them very enjoyable – or even that they’ll be particularly insightful, but more that what they express silently. It is right, good, and important that we – no matter who we are – honor and exercise our imaginations. That’s not only part of coming together to envision different futures so we can fight for them; it’s also a big part of being or becoming human.

I think this is especially crucial in an age when the future is being written for us by forces far beyond our control. If only it were just the politicians, but the future is now being shaped by billionaires – like Jeff Bezos – who have made ridiculous amounts of money from their corporate empires and use that to, with almost complete freedom and impunity, shape the future of our species in terms of space travel, “artificial intelligence,” geoengineering, research and development in global health, and much more. To a certain extent, I think one small part of refusing this system is, in a very small but collective way, reclaiming our power to tell different stories.

So, I hope the real lesson and message of the book is that you, too, can do this; you too should do this. You should do it for the joy of it and also for the dignity of it, because one of the things this system silently tells us is that the vast majority of us should be happy with what we’ve got and leave the question of the future to the billionaires.

If we’re lucky, we won’t end up like the housekeeper in Cory Gluck’s story “Thalia in Albios”, basically cleaning up after horrible rich people, or like the character in “Always on the Clock” who decides to quit their job at Amazon one morning because they can’t take it anymore and ends up in prison – only to discover that the prison is being run by Amazon. On some level, I think writing with others gives us a way to redefine our own (post-)humanity. That’s actually valuable in and of itself.

Understanding utopia

SD: Let’s focus on utopia for a moment. I didn’t read most of the book, I listened to it through a text-to-speech application.

MH: But we have the audio version read by Sook-Yin Lee!

SD: Yeah, but I realized that too late. Still, I thought my experiment with the app is very interesting, because – of course I hated the robot voice – it made me think about the medium. What is the relationship between the medium and our capacity to imagine different futures? It seems that today, our understanding of utopia—and dystopia, for that matter—is primarily mediated by images, rather than written text or spoken word.

MH: One of the things I really liked about Mark Fisher was his approach to thinking through utopia in terms of sound rather than just text or image. In particular, his thinking around retro-utopianism tries to uncover the ontological trace of past utopias that make themselves felt in musical nostalgia. I think this can also animate utopian imaginings and the radical imagination now in ways that might help us move beyond some of the conundrums we discussed today. When you present a utopia to people – whether in literature or in a workshop space – they often respond by saying, as you pointed out, either, “That utopia would never work; it’s unrealistic, it’s not human nature; I hate it,” or, “Yeah, fine, but show me the ten steps to get there.” I think there might be a different way music can bypass these defense mechanisms. I’d be very interested in exploring that.

Also, I’ve been thinking a lot about C. T. Nguyen’s very good book Games: Agency as art, which explores what it is in games that we find so appealing. I don’t recall if he uses the word “utopian,” but one thing I think about a lot – since I’m also a game designer and I’m doing a bunch of work in games right now – is his point that, when you enter into a game, whether it’s like Monopoly or a video game, the rules of the world are intoxicatingly simplified. Usually, when we interact with the world, our agency is incredibly complex; we’re navigating multiple conflicting systems of power, social interactions, subjectivity and institutions. Agency is a very complicated thing, especially in this neoliberal age when we’re all tasked with surviving and navigating multiple jobs, school, life, romance, sociality – all of these different levels in a world without any guarantees. But when you enter into the game, your agency is clear, what you’re supposed to do is clear, and your affordances for action in your environment are clear. I think of this clarity as utopian. Nguyen writes of how enchanting that simplified agency is, and how dangerous that enchantment can be when we believe that the real world ought to work like a game.

So these are just two examples of non-literature and non-film, and non-image that I’m thinking through in terms of this great question of the medium of utopianism. My sense is that image-based and time-based media like literature and film may be too saturated by this point, both by failed utopias and charismatic dystopias. Utopian thinkers and activists may need to look to other parts of the sensorium to explore these things.

I would, for example, love to make games with Amazon workers. When we were doing the pilot project that led to this book, we gave a workshop of Amazon workers an assignment to imagine a video game that they would force all Amazon managers to play.

There were two very different visions. One group imagined the kind of game I was expecting, that showed how horrible and difficult it is to work at Amazon, placing those managers in the shoes of the workers; it was a kind of revenge game, sort of like an elaborate Tetris where the difficulty just stacks up to impossible levels.

The other group’s game, however, created a game that was basically about retraining mid-level managers to recognize the value of hard-working workers over lazy ones. It was the kind of game Amazon might have itself invented. 

I think both of these games have a “topian” kernel – not necessarily utopian or dystopian, maybe rather heterotopian: an other-space that runs within but also counter to our world, expressing latent hopes, fears, dreams, nightmares…

SD: That’s very interesting. I’ve been thinking also about the importance of dialogue, particularly in relation to Freire’s idea that naming the world changes the world. If we had the time and space – likely the biggest issue – to engage in meaningful dialogue with one another… Isn’t that the foundation for all the other mediums and techniques we’re discussing?

MH: I think you’re absolutely right, and if I were to do this project again, I would maybe build in enough space and time for people to pair up or get in groups of three to write their stories. I have a hunch that if we did that, the stories might be less dystopian.

SD: I guess there are two major theses regarding where we can find utopia. The classical view posits that utopia exists somewhere, sometime – hence its name. The more recent perspective suggests that utopia is here and now, something we live but may not fully recognize, waiting for us to help it emerge at scale. How should we think about utopia today? Which thesis is more viable, or is there a third option?

MH: One other way of framing your question would be, ‘Is utopia a transcendental or an imminent phenomenon?’ The first means that it exists somewhere beyond the shores of our world, either spatially or temporally – somewhere else, in the future, or maybe in the past. I think myths like that can be very useful and also very dangerous. Certainly, around the world, we’ve seen the incredible danger of the myth of a past utopia: back when our country was strong, back when America was great, when men were really men and women were really women, all of that bullshit. But I also think that for a long time, people have organized around the vision that, someday, we might move into the stars or create a better society.

I’m on the side that believes utopia is much more everyday, much more imminent to our lived experience. As in the case of the stories, the way that utopianism typically makes itself felt is simply through refusal – the refusal of the body, the refusal of people to accept their conditions.

Often, I think utopia can only express itself in the word ‘No!’. The work of social movements and cultural creators is to show us that inside of a ‘No!’ there is a utopian seed or seeds. Because, after all, why would we refuse unless we thought things could get better?

And why would we sustain our refusal beyond just the initial spasm unless we knew somewhere deep down that things could be different? But I think most of us are denied the opportunity to think systematically about it.

I would go back to Thomas More’s original 1516 Utopia which is interesting to me not only because it’s a book about a transcendental other-place, a better world, but because so much of it is actually about sociality, conviviality, feasting, talking, being together, it’s about how people treat one another. The real utopianism is in the relationships. In the same way that the Odyssey is really about hospitality, Utopia is also a book about sociality. I think that reveals something about the immanence of utopianism: it is not just this abstract concept of a better society; it is something very much baked into the way we treat each other, the way we interact as a society, and the joy we find in playfulness, rather than a concrete vision of a better tomorrow.

The radical joy and need to imagine together

SD: In dVERSIA, we’re really struggling with the publication this interview will be a part of some day. Initially, we thought it would be an issue of the magazine, but now we’re considering it a compendium. However, we’ve never been able to sit down, put up a plan, and actually follow through. Things tend to fall apart at various stages, and we end up back at square one. It seems to me that when people try to engage in this kind of conscious thinking about utopia—especially when there’s a clear political purpose—the system projects itself onto us, blocking our ability to truly start and commit to the process.

MH: I think you’re absolutely right. I think that our own internalization of the system makes us allergic to optimism on some level. I’m very distrustful of theories that center around trauma, but if I were to dwell with the term I would suggest we are traumatized by living in this dystopian society, and we’re very shy about investing our hearts in thinking the world could be better because we don’t want to go through the heartbreak again. I think being socialized into this society is to be heartbroken, and so it makes sense to me why people would avoid the risk of utopia. Even those of us who are officially, intellectually, and ideologically dedicated to utopianism might also have structures of avoidance.

I hate the answer I’m about to give because I think it’s stupid – but I think if we want people to use the utopian imagination we probably need to make it fun. One of the reasons I like the writing groups is that they’re fun things for people to do; we get together, we imagine, we world-build. I think the dominant culture of late capitalism is one that wants fun to be non-political; it wants fun to be in the form of playing video games or sports – individualized acts.

I’m very interested in creating spaces of collective fun and creativity right now, not so much because I think that anything ingenious is going to emerge from it, but maybe in a Spinozian sense, there is a kind of radicalness to the joy of abounding together. It’s that embodied experience of collective joy, even if small, that becomes the affective bedrock on which you can start to build other forms of solidarity, conviviality, and struggle.

The post There is a world after Amazon, or the radical joy and need to imagine together appeared first on Max Haiven.

Amazon as dystopian world-builder (and its enemies) – Cyberflaneur

[image error]

The Syllabus asked me to curate a selection of texts about Amazon for the Cyberflaneur section.

Preamble

Amazon is not only the world’s largest online retailer. It is a corporation that has reshaped the world, from logistics to web services, from robotics to groceries, from the shopfloor exploitation of labor to new platforms for digital serfdom.

We might think of Amazon, like all corporations, as a kind of predatory artificial lifeform adapted to thrive under capitalism. If so, it is a lifeform made, in part, of stories: the story of its founder Jeff Bezos as a maverick genius; the story of the company as a bold pioneer into a bright future of technical prowess and customer satisfaction; the story of Amazon “associates” as partner’s in the firm’s noble mission to “work hard, have fun, make history.” As cynical as these sci-fi narratives may sound, they are highly influential, securing the support of shareholders, consumers, workers, and regulators who have come to imagine Amazon’s actions as somehow both uniquely bold and also the inevitable march of progress.

More generally, the emergence of a megacorporation as a powerful storyteller poses profound questions for us as a global society of what Sylvia Wynter calls homo narrans, a self-transforming storytelling species. This is perhaps especially important when it comes to Amazon, a company that, thanks to its hegemony over book and ebook sales as well as web services (an estimated half the public-facing internet runs on Amazon servers) and streaming media is the gateway to a huge percentage of what humans read and the stories we tell.

What is the power of corporate storytelling today, especially storytelling about the future, particularly in the hands of firms like Amazon with the power to radically transform life as we know it? And what does this power imply for the struggle of workers and communities not only to defend their rights in the here-and-now, but to reclaim the right to determine the shape of the future?

SelectionsBook: Work and Alienation in the Platform Economy (Sarrah Kassem)

This invaluable study compares the conditions of alienation, power and worker resistance in two parts of Amazon’s operations: its warehouses and its online “Mechanical Turk” (or MTurk) microtask platform. The conditions in the former are the stuff of legend, with workers interacting with robots to meet ever more extreme benchmarks of efficiency in taking orders, sorting items, and packing boxes. Meanwhile, those toiling on the MTurk platform aren’t even classified as workers but, rather, independent contractors, located around the world and competing with one another to perform miniscule  “Human Intelligence Tasks” (HITs) at the cheapest possible rate, often contributing to the grooming of large data sets that help train so-called artificial intelligence. The author illustrates how, in each case, workers suffer the complexities of alienation (from their time, from one another, from the thing they’re making, from their potential). Their conditions also exemplify the ways that digitally-augmented capitalist power exerts itself in new ways through Amazon’s cutting-edge use of technology. But, importantly, this book also assesses the forms that worker resistance has taken at Amazon and the strategic opportunities that exist for workers and their allies to bring the corporation to heel and build a better economy. 

Article: “Amazon’s distribution space: constructing a ‘labour fix’ through digital Taylorism and corporate Keynesianism” (Mostafa Henaway)

A gifted labor organizer and sharp critical analyst, Mostafa Henaway worked at a Montreal Amazon fulfillment center for several months, in part to see for himself the labor conditions of its significantly migrant workforce. That experience, and interviews with workers there, results in an analysis of the grueling way that human flesh is incorporated into the company’s state-of-the-art algorithmically-powered and robotized logistics machine. This cyborgian nightmare would probably horrify even the turn-of-the-century father of “scientific management,” Frederick Winslow Taylor. Cutting edge, AI-driven surveillance combines with a corporate culture dedicated to squeezing every ounce of productivity out of workers in ways that are exhausting, stressful and profoundly physically dangerous. But the author insightfully notes the ways Amazon sweetens the pill, including through what he calls “corporate Keynesianism,” a set of performance-rewarding health, education and career benefits that, in the absence of a functional welfare state, serve as a proxy for security and stability. We might take these, along with the gushing corporate narrative of technological advancement and customer satisfaction, as part of Amazon’s highly exploitative world-building project.

Report: “Amazon’s Trickle-Down Monopoly: Third-Party Sellers and the Transformation of Small Business” (Moira Weigel)

The vast majority of items sold through Amazon are actually being vended by third-party sellers, who rely on the massive corporation to list their goods, manage their relationship to customers and often to fulfill orders from their warehouses. Amazon presents this as a boon to a world of eager entrepreneurs: the corporation makes getting products to customers easy, cheap and convenient, drastically reducing the set-up costs and unleashing the capitalist spirit of ambitious people around the world. The reality is, unsurprisingly, an highly exploitative “walled garden” where these would-be entrepreneurs take almost all the risk and, in turn, surrender not only a considerable share of their revenue but also a massive amount of control to the megalithic middleman. At stake here is not simply the plight of the exploited petit bourgeoisie. (Although the anger of this subclass is nothing to sniff at, and it frequently leans fascist). Rather, this is a key example of how Amazon wields its monopsony power (the power of a single hegemonic buyer or intermediary) to essentially subvert the very “free market” it claims to champion, leading Yanis Varoufakis to apply the label of “technofeudalism” to its operations (Cory Doctorow and Rebecca Giblin prefer the term “chokepoint capitalism”). This report makes clear that the narratives that lure so many people to starting “small businesses”–the desire to escape the control of a boss and to succeed based of effort and resourcefulness–remain compelling myths. Amazon presents itself as a friend to entrepreneurial dreamers. In fact, it is predatory.

Article: “Battling the Behemoth: Amazon and The Rise of America’s New Working Class.” (Charmaine Chua and Spencer Cox)

This chapter, written by two scholars who are also labor organizers, takes a geographical approach to the way Amazon is at the forefront of the recomposition of the working class in the United States. In short: e-commerce is a significant factor in the processes known as gentrification, which sees wealthier, “better” educated young would-be professionals move into the core of cities, driving up rents. Amazon facilitates this way of life, bringing a world of commodities and services to their hip urban doorstep. Meanwhile, Amazon relies on precariously employed working class warehouse and logistics workers living in poorer suburban and exurban areas, who often spend hours commuting thanks in part to atrocious public transit. This has significant and predictable racialized and gendered dimensions. An invaluable part of this paper is that it offers important strategic lessons for those who would challenge Amazon’s power. The first is to take seriously the way Amazon is reorganizing the geography of class struggle, with some of the most important sites being warehouses in suburban and exurban locales like Bessmer, Alabama, New York City’s Staten Island and the broader Chicago or Los Angeles areas, where Amazon union efforts have been most successful. The second is to realize that race and racism are key elements of these struggles, at the cutting edge of what oppresses workers and divides communities. Beyond liberal pleas for tolerance and cynical corporate multiculturalism (including Amazon’s own saccharine efforts), worker-to-worker solidarity is the real basis of an anti-racist politics of liberation. The third is that, in this context, some of the most important aspects of workers’ struggles are happening outside the workplace, for instance over housing, transit, or immigration. Finally, all of these have a fundamental gendered dimension, with reproductive justice, childcare, intimate partner violence and schooling as key issues. The authors advocate and are part of a movement that turns away from traditional “business unionism” and returns to a form of worker organizing that is built on and that builds grassroots, worker-to-worker solidarity and militancy.

Article: “Toward Degrowth: Worker Power, Surveillance Abolition, and Climate Justice at Amazon” (Nantina Vgontzas)

Amazon’s power and reach is so deep and broad that it can seem impossible to stop. And even if it were to be tamed, what would prevent the same system of rapacious tech-driven hypercapitalism from generating an even worse replacement or successor? Nonetheless, this article takes inspiration from the vast number of labor and civil society organizations fighting back against Amazon and tries to suggest a common platform. Rejecting the argument that Amazon is simply responding to market pressures, the author argues that its dominance and profound internal coordination might make it possible to transform it into a democratic organization that benefits, rather than exploits, workers. If so, a seized Amazon could be a flagship in the effort to end consumerism and move towards a degrowth economy. This approach does not entirely satisfy me in its ambitions or strategy, but it does reflect the wishes of many Amazon workers and has the advantage of beginning to think through the thorny problem of how to make a just transition from capitalism with the infrastructures we actually have, like Amazon itself. That company is, perhaps, the most impressive logistics operation humanity has ever built, capable of moving goods around the world in ways that allowed it to play hero during the Covid-19 pandemic, delivering essential commodities way faster and more reliably than most states. This article might be said to be social science as pragmatic, militant speculative fiction. We need more scholarly work like this that helps workers and communities envision real alternatives, even if those alternatives have their limits.

Book: Everything and Less: The Novel in the Age of Amazon (Mark McGurl)

Amazon may be one of the most significant phenomena to happen to the novel since the genre emerged in the 18th century as a (at the time fairly controversial) pastime for the rising bourgeoisie. Today, this one corporation controls a whopping 80% of the ebook market (most of it through its exclusive proprietary Amazon Kindle Direct) and 50% of the total book market. If we add to that the fact that an estimated 50% of the public-facing internet runs on Amazon’s servers, including several social media platforms, it’s not an exaggeration to say that the lion’s share of the words that pass before human eyes today are mediated on some level by Amazon. McGurl’s brilliant book is an investigation of what all this implies for the novel and for society at large, especially in an era when most people read not for enlightenment or the challenge of new ideas, but for comfort. This comfort is increasingly found in the sameness of the writing that a new generation of genre fiction authors pen for the largest and most lucrative literary market ever: Kindle readers. Here, Amazon appears in many forms: a content empire the likes of which the world has never known; an employer pioneering new heights of worker exploitation and surveillance; a storytelling corporation that profits from and organizes itself around its own self-aggrandizing narratives; and a proxy marketplace that has terminally “disrupted” the market for fiction in ways that promise upstart writers and publishing industry outsiders a chance at fame and success. But at what cost for creativity, and for the imagination?

Review: “The Stories Corporations Tell: Two new histories of American capitalism reveal how alluring narratives have nurtured corporate power” (Adam M. Lowenstein)

In offering a review of two recent books, something important but submerged comes into focus: Forms like Amazon are not just dangerous, “psychopathic” mobilizations of self-perpetuating capital, as Joel Bakan illustrated decades ago in his influent book and film The Corporation. They are also, like all narcissists, excellent storytellers. Corporations became legal “persons” decades before European empires afforded most humans that designation. As these organizations emerge as the most powerful beings in earth history (what is Napoleon next to Exxon?) we can and should ask: how did the fiction of the limited liability corporation make itself so deadly real? Beyond the advertising or propaganda of this or that corporation, beyond the smarmy “corporate culture” that builds itself around just-so tales of the founder’s wisdom, beyond even the power of companies like Amazon or Penguin Random House LLC or Netflix have over the stories our society tells itself, we are faced with the importance of narrative to the corporate-financial form of capitalism. 

Essay: “The Fake Nerd Boys of Silicon Valley” (Lyta Gold)

It’s Revenge of the Nerds, suicidal capitalism edition. Somehow, science fiction moved from the disreputable hinterland of popular entertainment to arguably the most influential genre on the planet. It’s not simply that beloved blockbuster franchises have raked in billions of dollars in revenues for film, TV and publishing giants. It’s also that a new generation of “big tech” plutocrats have appropriated unimaginable wealth and unrivaled power to shape the future of humanity and the planet with copies of Heinlein, Phillip K. Dick and an assortment of Star Trek fanzines under their arms. These (typically macho) sci-fi classics have inspired these tech overlords to plough their ill-got profits into private space programs and other dangerously absurd projects (Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’ massive 10,000 year clock is a harmless trinket compared to Elon Musk’s efforts Neuralink to hack the human brain, or next to Bill Gates’ tinkering with geoengineering). These tycoons have parlayed sci-fi ideas, rhetoric and enthusiasm into a hype machine that presents their corporations’ products as both revolutionary and inevitable, representing the unstoppable march of progress, enchanting investors, regulators and the public. Most of these personalities seem to resemble the villains rather than the heroes of classic science fiction dystopias. Nonetheless, their dedication to the genre is not just an ideological but an important part of how capitalism reconciles some thorny contradictions in the 21st century, notably tensions between the tech and financial sectors, who can both agree that speculating on the future is big business, especially if that future looks a lot like the present, but with more gadgets and, as Gil Scott Heron famously put it, “whitey on the moon” (or Mars). 

(book) Octavia’s Brood : Science Fiction Stories from Social Justice Movements (adrienne maree brown and Walidah Imarisha, editors)

When it was published in 2015, this collection of short stories from racial and economic justice activists represented a high water mark of a growing turn towards speculative creative writing as a reflex or companion to grassroots organizing. Since its inception with Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein through to its unique role in the Soviet Union, the literary genre of speculative fiction has been a platform for social critique. Octavia Butler, after whom this collection is named, was among the first Black SF writers to rise to prominence, a reputation that has grown since her death in 2006 given her uncanny anticipation of the rise of white supremacist clown-led fascism in an ecologically and economically ravagedUnited States. The editors of this book, brown and Imarisha, convened workshops with grassroots organizers, asking them to use creative speculative writing to explore their hopes and fears and to reflect on their radical community work anew. The stories are not all inspiring, but the most important feature of the book is the model it offers for speculative creative writing as a form of activism. At the 15 October 2024 London launch of The World After Amazon, for example, we’ll be joined by several author-activists who are doing similar work: Lola Olufemi, who uses specualtive fiction writing to radicalize the imagination around racial and gender justice; Phil Crockett Thomas, who has worked with incarcerated people to write abolitionist science fiction; Sarah Truman, who does SF-writing workshops with young people in (post-)extractive zones, and Jamie Woodcock who, in addition to being a scholar and protagonist of Workers’ Inquiry methods is also a catalyst behind Red Futures, a platform for radical SF writing.  

Book: Social Poetics (Mark Nowak)

For over 25 years, Mark Nowak has been hosting poetry workshops for working people, including most recently and famously the New York City-based Worker Workers School. Importantly, Nowak champions the radical politics of liberation that emerge when working people dignify their everyday lives and struggles in verse. There have been plenty of left-wing poets who have dwelled on their experiences as workers, or on the struggles of the working class; Nowak is, in his other work, a sterling example. But there is also a long history (that the author elaborates) of the writing workshop as a space for a radical class consciousness to arise, not out of Marxist propaganda (as important as that is) but from workers recognizing their own value in the collective experience of finding and developing their voice. Such workshops are, as Nowak explains, especially important as the nature of class changes under platform capitalism, of which Amazon is at the vanguard.

The post Amazon as dystopian world-builder (and its enemies) – Cyberflaneur appeared first on Max Haiven.

The World After Amazon: Stories from Amazon Workers

At long last, we’re ready to share a very, very special project with the world:

The World After Amazon is a collection of 9 short speculative stories, written by rank-and-file workers at the corporation that has transformed the way we read and so much more.

Amazon’s sci-fi propaganda tells the story of a company using cutting-edge technology to deliver a utopia of cheap consumer convenience. But its workers pay the price, toiling in dystopian conditions to create a future that will exclude them.

What happens when those workers reclaim the radical imagination and their power to tell their own stories?

The World After Amazon can be ordered in print or read or downloaded online for free as a PDF or EPUB. It’s also available as a free podcast and audiobook.

For more information, visit http://afteramazon.world

[image error]

We are preparing to host a series of launch events in the coming weeks, including:

London on September 15 at Pelican HouseBerlin on September 26 at LISBETHNew York City (week of October 14)Toronto (weekend of October 26)

The World After Amazon is the culmination of the Worker as Futurist project in which I was very fortunate to work with Xenia Benivolski, Sarah Olutola, Graeme Webb and Stella Lawson to host speculative creative writing workshops for Amazon workers. We also have phenomenal art from Amanda Priebe. The audio version is narrated by famed Canadian broadcaster and film-maker Sook-Yin Lee and recorded, edited and produced by Robert Steenkamer.

You can read more about the project in a recent article for the academic journal Triple-C, or an essay we published last year in Jacobin. Or you can listen to a 20min presentation I gave at last year’s Historical Materialism conference.

In addition to producing The World After Amazon: Stories from Amazon Workers, we also produced a podcast, The Workers’ Specualtive Society, which features interviews with activists, theorists, researchers and writers focusing on the world Amazon is building and the workers and artists fighting for different futures. It featured interviews with people including Robin D. G. Kelley, Charmaine Chua, Marc McGurl, Cory Doctorow, Jamie Woodcock, Mark Nowak and the Worker Writers School, and Steven Shaviro.

Since we are publishing The World After Amazon ourselves, I’d be very grateful if you could share this announcement with anyone who might be interested – we have no marketing or promotion team!

The post The World After Amazon: Stories from Amazon Workers appeared first on Max Haiven.

Capitalism’s sacrifice of humanity

[image error]

I was very pleased to collaborate with Stefan Christoff of Free City Radio on a 3-part podcast mini-series on “capitalism’s sacrifice of humanity,” inspired in part by some themes in my 2022 book Palm Oil: The Grease of Empire.

You can hear interviews with Nick Partyka, Keren Wang and me here.

The post Capitalism’s sacrifice of humanity appeared first on Max Haiven.

Billionaires and Guillotines

I made a fun and hopefully insightful game about some of the contradictions of capitalism.

This fall, I’ll be working with my publisher Pluto Books to run a crowdfunding campaign to manufacture it.

But meanwhile, this summer, I’ve released a free print-at-home version you can play with your friends and family.

I’d very much appreciate it if you played it and sent me feedback!

Billionaires and Guillotines is a raucous and moderately challenging competitive game for 2-5 players. New players can learn in under an hour. Experienced players can finish a game in less than 30-minutes.

You take on the roles of billionaires, competing to win by claiming PRIZES before a  REVOLUTION happens and every billionaire loses (almost). 

By using cards to BID at five different MARKETS, the billionaires can try and grab the five PRIZEs they need. 

But hidden in the deck are CRISIS cards that penalize players and unleash REBELS.

Players use BRIBES to change GOVERNMENT POLICY to make them richer, or to have the government  AUDIT their opponent. 

When the going gets tough, the billionaires can trigger a PANIC! phase, where they can cooperate to try and distract the public or put down the rebellion before the GUILLOTINE gets wheeled out and all the billionaires lose (more than their assets).  

As the players gain experience, each billionaire gets assigned a secret ROLE that gives them special powers.

To download the printable game and the manual, please visit https://ourmove.itch.io/billionaires-and-guillotines

If you do play Billionaires and Guillotines, could you send me some feedback? You could…

Write me an email, send me a voice note or record a video.Please tell me how long it took you to learn and play the game and what happened (“it took us about 20-minutes to get the hang of the game, but then things started moving quickly. For most of the game, Karl was in the lead, but near the end Rosa used her gangster power to steal his private island and it looked like she would win. But then Che triggered the revolution and Slavoj won as the celebrity at 48mins in.”)Was the game fun? Was it fun for everyone? If not, why?What was frustrating or confusing?Any suggestions, either for changes to the game or ways we can publicize it?

Billionaires and Guillotines will be the first game either I or Pluto have published, so your feedback is especially welcome! If it’s successful, we’re looking forward to collaborating on a new initiative, Pluto Games, which will combine that press’s 50+ year history of publishing radical books with the rising popularity of board, card and other analog games.

A huge thanks not only to the fine folks at Pluto, but also to Stella Lawson and Sam Cousin who worked as graduate assistants to me over the past two years and did invaluable and fascinating research on the politics and political economy of games that helped get this game this far.

The post Billionaires and Guillotines appeared first on Max Haiven.