News
Exploring the potential impact of authoritarian efficiency
The most recent episode of Bankless podcasts they discussed the potential benefits of authoritarian regimes in the 21st century. The argument stems from the idea that the Chinese and Russian governments allocate significant resources to promoting their narratives, while the US government takes a more hands-off approach.
In the episode, hosts Ryan Sean Adams and David Hoffman delve into the question of whether authoritarianism can prevail in liberal democracies, with insights from economist Noah Smith and Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin.
The efficiency of authoritarian regimes as a threat to liberalism
Smith argues that liberal democracy was hailed as the optimal social model in the late 20th century, epitomized by Francis Fukuyama’s thesis “The End of History”. However, recent developments have called this triumphalism into question. The rise of China, perceived weaknesses in the United States, and the transformative impact of the Internet are central to this reassessment.
The role of the Internet is fundamental. Smith argues that liberal democracies historically excel at aggregating information through markets, elections, and public debate. However, the Internet’s ability to centralize large amounts of data potentially reduces this advantage. Authoritarian states can now leverage this data to gauge public sentiment, allocate resources more efficiently, and respond quickly to unrest, as demonstrated by China’s rapid policy changes following the 2022 “white paper protests.”
Furthermore, the Internet fosters information anarchy, facilitating the proliferation of disinformation. This scenario complicates governance in liberal democracies, where politicians spend a lot of time countering false narratives and raising funds, diminishing effective governance.
Buterin expands on this concept, comparing the information landscape to Thomas Hobbes’ concept of a “war of all against all,” in which monopolistic control over narratives might emerge as the only stable equilibrium. This metaphor highlights the potential for authoritarian regimes to exploit the internet’s capacity for data aggregation, transforming a tool designed for liberal empowerment into one that enforces centralized control.
Counterarguments to the Efficiency of Authoritarian Regimes
Smith and Buterin then explore counterarguments. Smith draws a parallel with the press, which lowered the costs of information and led to greater liberalism and social fragmentation rather than authoritarian dominance. He wonders why the Internet shouldn’t follow a similar trajectory.
However, Smith explains that the current situation implies nonlinearity. Initially, the reduction of information costs through technologies such as the printing press and the telegraph strengthened liberal democracies by improving the aggregation of information. As these costs approached zero, the benefits plateaued while the costs of disinformation and information warfare increased exponentially.
Buterin adds that centralized systems often excel at extraction rather than production, potentially outperforming more liberal systems in zero-sum conflicts. He points out that defining success solely by economic output may overlook broader impacts on human flourishing.
Buterin then considers the fundamental differences between the digital and physical worlds, particularly in terms of defense mechanisms. Digital defenses, such as cryptography and decentralized platforms, offer robust protections without physical analogues, suggesting an inherent resistance to totalizing control in the digital sphere.
Furthermore, Buterin notes that fragmenting the Internet into smaller, more specialized communities could mitigate the negative impacts of information warfare. These fragmented spaces often maintain a higher quality of discourse than large, chaotic platforms like Twitter.
Buterin said:
«Twitter is the worst thing you can see, and it is the worst thing precisely because you can see it clearly if you think, for example, of private group chats.
Private group chats consistently maintain higher levels of quality and high levels of productive discourse on smaller social media platforms, be it Farcaster or whatever they maintain higher levels of discourse.
He then pointed to a 2022 article by Smith that discussed how The Internet Wants to Be Fragmented.
Smith acknowledges this point, agreeing that reducing reliance on large, controversial platforms could reduce the social costs associated with information tournaments by allowing for more constructive and focused discussions within smaller, more coherent groups.
Despite these reassurances, Smith raises concerns about the global reach of authoritarian influence, particularly through hard-edged power tactics. He highlights how China uses economic leverage to influence foreign companies and governments, blurring national lines in the digital space. This ongoing cross-border information warfare presents a unique challenge distinct from traditional physical conflicts.
How blockchain could save democracy
During the discussion, Noah Smith raised the question of whether blockchain technology could enable secure communication between citizens in authoritarian states such as China and Russia. He wonders whether there are ways for people to speak freely and anonymously about political issues, bypassing government surveillance and censorship.
Vitalik Buterin responds by highlighting the work of a company called Rarimo, based in Kiev. It has developed a tool called “Instrument of freedom”, which uses zero-knowledge proof technology to allow Russian citizens to prove their citizenship and participate in online voting without revealing their identities.
This system ensures that the results are tamper-proof and visible, creating a form of anonymous and censorship-resistant voting. Buterin sees this as an example of how blockchain and zero-knowledge proofs can provide both privacy and trustworthiness, potentially creating a more secure and resilient infosphere against centralized and decentralized cyberattacks.
Buterin acknowledges that while blockchain technology may not be necessary for Americans to communicate, it may be crucial for people in authoritarian states to have secure, private conversations about their political situations. This technological capability could help foster internal dissent and democratization efforts within these regimes by providing a safe space for dialogue and organization.
Smith appreciates this perspective and sees potential in developing tools that make the Internet landscape more conducive to pluralism, where multiple groups can interact in productive ways. The idea is not to play a cat-and-mouse game with oppressive regimes, but to create robust systems that support healthy information ecosystems, allowing diverse voices to be heard without fear of reprisal.
In conclusion, blockchain technology, with its ability to provide secure, anonymous communications and verifiable voting mechanisms, offers promising avenues for supporting democratic movements and safeguarding freedoms in authoritarian contexts.
By leveraging these technologies, it may be possible to counteract some of the disadvantages liberal democracies face in the digital age, ensuring that democracy can continue to thrive even in challenging contexts.
Ultimately, the discussion highlights the complexity of predicting long-term outcomes in the face of rapid technological advances. While the potential for authoritarian regimes to exploit these technologies is significant, the inherent adaptability and resilience of liberal democracies should not be underestimated. The future remains uncertain, shaped by the interaction between technological capabilities, political structures and social values.