A Hacker Manifesto,   ISBN:9780674015432

Customer Rating: 

I sigh when I see writing like this, writing that is so stylized and cryptic that few can understand it. I do understand why some theorists employ this style: trying to break free of certain political and historical conventions, they decide they had better break every convention in language while they are at it. Some of the reason for this book's difficulty is that its language is constantly (but silently) referring to other theorists' work (theorists who mostly write in this difficult style and who are read almost exclusively by academics). So the end result is less than satisfactory, unless you happen to be a poet of this particular school of poetry. Then, it's little more than an internal memorandum to those already in the choir.

On a more practical note, this book isn't about hackers as most people understand the term (and as most who might buy this think it means). Wark is using the term to describe a divers group of not-necessarily related revolutionaries who want to change the world for the better by safeguarding knowledge from privatization and undermining the efforts of those who want to own knowledge.

Customer Rating: 

Reading this book is a difficult hack. To be honest, I often have no idea what he means even after reading a sentence several times, and looking every word up in the dictionary.

I've never been able to understand Karl Marx either, and the book has a lot of Marxist rhetoric.

The apologists for the vectoral interest want to limit the semantic productivity of the term "hacker" to a mere criminality, precisely because they fear its more abstract and multiple potential--its class potential.

Customer Rating: 

Let me start of by saying up front that I am apparently a political opposite to the points of view raised in this book.. I really tried to read this with an open mind, but the writing is so dry and stilted that I simply couldn't get in to the philosophies being presented.. It felt like reading Decline and Fall.. Only without the love and craftsmanship.. At least when you finish reading Decline and Fall you feel a sense of accomplishment.. After reading A Hacker Manifesto I felt robbed of my time..

Mackenzie Wark's A Hacker Manifesto tries to present the hacker as the driving force, and real power of civilization.. He declares the hacker, whether he is a scientist, artist, or programmer, as the only true creator.. Everyone else is either a user or used.. With the hacker falling somewhere in the middle bridging the gap between classes..

The whole time I was reading this book I kept waiting for a revelation.. Something new.. But it just doesn't happen.. A Hacker Manifesto reads like Marxism 2.0.. It's the same old idea wrapped in modern trends and job classes.. It subtly paints the capitalist class as the oppressive users of the labor classes and portrays the hacker class as the salvation for everyone.. It's too black and white, too obvious, of a philosophy to be of any real use for anyone that has even a basic understanding of Marxism and Communism.. And the whole time I was reading it I got this subtle feeling that the author was really writing a "look at me, I'm smart" book.. I'm sure that others will disagree, but I just see nothing groundbreaking in this book.. If you want to good book on Communism, go to some original sources and read Trotsky or Lenin.. If nothing else they are a better read..

Customer Rating: 

Warks book is one of the most refreshing books I have read from this year. His argument about the change in capitalism and the role of intellectual "property" will become increasingly important. His use of Debord, Marx and Deleuze to deal with the rise of the vectorial class is great! Anyone interested in internet theory, postmodern theory or anarchist theory should really read this book.

Customer Rating: 

McKensie Wark calls the state "an envelope" whose primary function is to "police representations." I think this way of construing nations has a such a forceful brevity that it disallows simple rebuttal. An envelope loosely unifies, contains, closes, enfolds multiplicities into a unit, a projectile. And what does "policing representaitons" mean? Determing the extent to which an identity (political, social, religious, etc) can be commodified and incorporated into the state in order to perpetuate itself and yet give the specific identity the illusion of freedom and self-determination. This can be seen in the way cops determine routes and surrond the perimeter at protests (J20 for instance) and give us some limited form of freedom, 'allowing us free speech' while at the same time, if we concede to this limited freedom, we give up the possibility of confronting the form of freedom they allow, i.e., freedom surrounded by police with weapons telling you when you can move, and hence, we are neutralized without even knowing it. This is how incredibly dispossessed peoples can identify with the state, since the state gives them a possibility, a "dream" of a moment of limited freedom. The minute a real threat is formulated, ie, a threat to the economy or to the collective hallucination of the state itself, you better bet that you don't pass go or collect $200 but go straight to jail. This is why, perhaps, the state makes it incredibly clear that hackers are NOT political prisoners. Those
who hijack the information vectors that regulate finance, statistics, communicatiom, and images must be stopped before they can form a political class. They are criminals. copyright infringement, filesharing, (and soon, indymedia) are crimes, not acts of culture. Not until the state can find a way to represent those acts, commodify them, and sell them back to us for
a price will they be seen as cultural/political acts. That is already happening, I believe.

This book challenges our previously held critiques of the state, identity, production, and class in a synthetic crptomarxist style that is both difficult and attractive. It incorporates the rise of the information class into its analysis, as well as the relations between the overdeveloped and underdeveloped world.

My only critique is that it's radical potential was limited by its allegiance to a (form of) Marxist critique. I think that a conversation with anarchism and anarchist organizing could have produced/unified some different trajectories of thought about representation and the state.

Either way, its a great read. If the language and poetry turns you off, then just skip around until you find the parts you like. Its a playground of meaning.

Hear my interview with Mckensie here: http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2005/02/3719.php