1. Introduction

‍

"While we create this new world, we do not own it. What we create is mortgaged to others, to their profit, and to the state and corporations that monopolize the means to make the world we discover for ourselves. We do not own what we produce."¹⁾

‍

The transition to a globally automated society is reshaping the relationships between labor and capital. According to the 2017 report Technology, Jobs, and the Future of Work by the McKinsey Global Institute, robots were replacing over 45% of all tasks previously performed by humans. Four years after this report, technological advancements and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic have further automated many jobs. These technological developments drive corporate automation, reducing the cost of goods globally and diminishing the need for physical labor as we enter a virtual age. Yet, in reality, the boundaries between labor and leisure have blurred, making it difficult to separate the two. Activities such as “likes” on social media or posts uploaded during leisure time fuel the economic engines of social media platforms, with user data transformed into marketing resources and monetized through sales to advertisers.
This mode of operation in the digital economy tends to alienate users from the outcomes of their contributions. Individuals who engage with social media in their free time find themselves exploited as they contribute to platform profits. Consequently, class relations derived from the traditional employer-employee framework are undergoing rapid changes. McKenzie Wark, in A Hacker Manifesto (2004), foresaw such phenomena, introducing the concept of the emerging ruling vectoralist class and its opposition, the hacker class, to explore the class struggles of a future—or already arrived—era.

‍

2. Vectoralist Class vs Hacker Class

‍

In A Hacker Manifesto, Wark introduces the vectoralist class and the hacker class as new social classes emerging in response to societal changes. The vectoralist class, an extension of the traditional capitalist-worker relationship, is defined as "the new ruling class of our era."²⁾ This class possesses the ability to abstract (extract value from) immaterial dimensions, such as information stock, information flow, and the means of information distribution (vectors).
Wark explains that the vectoralist class increasingly comes into class conflict with the hacker class as it consolidates its monopoly over the means of realizing the value of intellectual property, including patents and copyrights. This monopoly enables the privatization of information and its conversion into commodities. Wark names this new ruling class the "vectoralist class" because "just as the capitalist controls the material means of production and the pastoralist controls the means of food production, the vectoralist class controls the vectors that allow the abstraction of value." ³
In contrast, the hacker class consists of individuals who can create new possibilities and produce things like wetware, software, and programs. This class is not fully subordinated to the vectoralist class and retains access to the means of production. According to Wark, the hacker class generates new value "in art, science, philosophy, culture, and every kind of knowledge production from which information is extracted, producing new possibilities for the world from that information."⁴⁾ Through such activities, the hacker class resists the commodification and privatization of information by the vectoralist class, opposing its control over vectors through initiatives like the free software movement.
Seventeen years after the publication of Wark’s book, the relevance of this class-based perspective might appear to have diminished. For instance, hackers, who were central to the free software movement initiated by Richard Matthew Stallman’s GNU Manifesto in 1985, have increasingly lost their alternative character. Many hackers have transformed into "white hat" hackers, protecting corporate networks and security, while open-source methods and information sharing have been reduced to the business philosophy and production logic of digital platform corporations. Today, hackers do not exist as a cohesive class or force, and the possibility of them re-emerging as such seems slim.
These transformations resonate with the expanding digital world and the evolving capitalist society. However, they also indicate that the influence of the vectoralist class has become more entrenched. The gap between these two classes has narrowed, rendering the distinctions that once defined them less relevant.
Wark's discussion remains significant today, not only at the time of her book's publication but also in light of the current societal changes. She accurately foresaw how the vectoralist class would extract surplus time and transform it intovoluntary labor, integrating individuals into production processes without their conscious awareness by commodifying their intellectual labor. Dallas Smythe anticipated a similar dynamic with his "theory of audience commodity," which posited that "not only are goods and services sold to audiences, but the audience itself is produced and traded as a commodity." ⁵⁾

‍

3. Big Tech, Private Education, and Game Regulation in China (2021)

‍

A specific case related to the questions raised earlier can be found in the regulations China imposed in the latter half of 2021 on the online platform industry and private education sector. Major IT corporations such as Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent, and JD.com have established monopolistic dominance in most areas of the digital economy, including e-commerce and mobile payments, thereby creating a market-dominant structure. These companies, like many other platform businesses worldwide, initially secured dominance in digital markets by leveraging core services such as search engines, e-commerce platforms, and messaging services. They then expanded their influence into AI, fintech, and healthcare industries, supported by the vast customer data they had accumulated.
From the second half of 2021, China began implementing regulations on its Big Tech companies, which had been under preparation since the beginning of the year. Similar regulatory efforts are emerging worldwide, including in South Korea, the EU, and the US, reflecting a global trend. Officially, these policies aim to monitor the monopolistic practices and unfair behaviors of Big Tech firms while strengthening the competitiveness of diverse IT industry players in the long term. Additionally, these regulations emphasize the connection between the information handled by internet platform companies and national security, asserting that the government must effectively control this information within the framework of the law.
However, underlying these measures is the central government's strategic intention to curb the growing digital power of Big Tech companies, preserve sovereignty over critical data, and reinforce state power within the socialist system. Alongside these Big Tech regulations, the Chinese government implemented restrictions on private education and gaming around the same time, suggesting a close link between these distinct industries.
On July 24, 2021, China's State Council and other governmental bodies issued "Opinions on Reducing Homework and Off-Campus Learning Burdens for Students in Compulsory Education." This directive banned or reduced private educational activities related to compulsory education and prohibited private education firmsfrom raising funds through IPOs. The stated purpose was to alleviate the rapidly increasing costs of private education and address declining birth rates. ⁶⁾
Moreover, on August 30, 2021, the National Press and Publication Administration (NPPA) described online gaming as “spiritual opium” in the state-run Xinhua News. They introduced regulations limiting minors to playing games only from 8 PM to 9 PM on weekends and public holidays.⁷⁾
These policies, unique to China's political and economic system, reflect the government’s response to the rising inequality in access to private education, traditionally seen as a ladder for upward mobility, and the intensifying commodification of information as a resource for the vectoralist class. They also reveal the central government’s intention to redirect the power held by Big Tech companies back to the state, reinforcing its ideological foundation.
By reclaiming the power of the vectoralist class for the state, these measures suggest a rapid polarization within traditional capitalist class structures. They also highlight how the new "vector" domain of intangible goods exerts profound influence on contemporary economic systems and class relations.
The uneven flow of immaterial goods creates the illusion of an egalitarian digital utopia, but it exacerbates social inequalities and dismantles the ladder of social mobility. Furthermore, these industries’ commonalities—commodifying leisure, social value, and micro-level production—illustrate how individual activities nourish the power of the vectoralist class.
Given this reality, is it foolish to imagine a system that compensates for such labor? Is the revival of hacker creators, capable of reconstructing a broken ladder of mobility, now relegated to the realm of science fiction?

‍

4. Education as a Tool of Production

‍

To address the issues rooted in the immaterial dimensions of intellectual activity and labor, it is essential to examine education as a starting point. Historically, education has played a key role in forming a shared moral foundation and values among members of a state, thereby sustaining the state’s structural integrity. Education has traditionally focused on cultivating citizens as integral members of their national communities. With the advent of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century, public education systems also assumed an economic function, preparing individuals with the knowledge necessary for productive activities.
In her book, Wark adopts a radical and political stance on education. She begins the chapter on education by asserting, “Education is slavery. It captures the mind and makes it a resource for class power. The essence of enslavement will reflect the current state of class struggle over knowledge within the apparatus ofeducation.” ⁸⁾ With this statement, she argues that modern education operates as a tool for producing and reinforcing class power.
Wark further critiques education’s role in supporting capitalist systems, stating, “When capital needs a ‘hand’ to do its dirty work, education trains useful hands to accept the machinery and the social order they discover naturally.” ⁹⁾ This view frames education not only as a conveyor of pure knowledge or a moral foundation for citizenship but also as a site of disciplining individuals to sustain the economic system, producing “useful hands” for industrial demands.
This functional aspect of education extends beyond formal compulsory education. As job tenure shortens and industries become increasingly digitalized, education has evolved into a lifelong process. Mark Fisher highlights this reality, noting, “Education now continues throughout one’s working life, with training extending as long as work does. People bring their jobs home, work from home, or find comfort at work akin to home. As power takes the form of ‘infinitely deferred’ processes, external surveillance is replaced by internal policing.” ¹⁰⁾ Fisher’s critique suggests that the perpetual education of individuals functions as a mechanism to stabilize the power of the vectoralist class.
An intriguing aspect of Wark’s discussion is the ambivalence hackers exhibit toward education. She notes, “The hacker class has a double-edged relationship with education. Hackers desire knowledge, not education. Hackers exist in the pure freedom of knowledge itself. This places hackers in an antagonistic relationship with the capitalist struggle to turn education into wage slavery. Hackers may lack an understanding of the different relationships workers have to education and may fall into the elitist and hierarchical educational culture that reinforces scarcity and economic value.” ¹¹⁾
Even though hackers are positioned as agents resisting the vectoralist class, it is challenging to clearly delineate their resistance within the intertwined realities of labor, education, and knowledge. Mark Fisher’s observation, “Education is not an immune ivory tower, but the engine room of capitalism that reproduces social reality while confronting the inconsistencies inherent in its social terrain,” ¹²⁾ captures the essence of how deeply education is embedded in the digital era’s reality.
To envision an escape from the vectoralist system, we must question and modify the content of existing education systems, assigning new functions to education. By creatively applying hacking methodologies in the educational sphere, we can reorganize abstract commodities and move toward transforming reality in novel ways.

‍

5. Conclusion

‍

“Hacking is the act of expressing knowledge in any form. Hacker knowledge implies free information, free learning, and the gift of results in peer-to-peer (P2P) networks. Hacker knowledge also contains an ethics of knowledge that remains open to the desires of productive classes and is not subordinated to commodity production.” ¹³⁾
The vectoralist class views education as a means of producing and consuming individuals for the creation of value-added resources. Education is also regarded as a profitable industry for recruiting digital platform laborers who generate intellectual property. In response to this privatization of knowledge, Wark asks, “Who owns knowledge? Is knowledge’s role to approve subjects that are recognized only through their function in the economy?” ¹⁴⁾
This question demands a reevaluation of the labor of hacker creators, often obscured and alienated in the process of producing innovative ideas. It also necessitates reflection on the realities faced by those who do not own the means of production. Expanding this discussion to the realm of schools and public domains, we must consider how to reclaim the ownership of knowledge created within these spaces so that it does not remain confined to industrial use. By revisiting the role of hacking, we can conceive of it as a tool for resisting systemic control, functioning as a new ethical force and a minimal defense for individuals and public institutions.
The prerequisite for these changes lies in overcoming the conventional perception of hacking, generally associated with crime. As Wark emphasizes, “The first step in this struggle is to free the concept of hacking from its specifics and understand its capacity for embodying greater possibilities.”¹⁵⁾ Transforming the negative connotations of hacking, often dismissed as subcultural, into a methodology applicable to education is essential. By doing so, the abstracted commodities owned by the vectoralist class—such as intellectual property and financialized data—can be opened up and transferred to the public domain.

‍

Now, it is time to return to the starting point and pose the question once again:
"Can schools teach hacking? If so, what should we steal?“

‍

Footnotes:

1) McKenzie Wark, A Hacker Manifesto, Harvard University Press, 2004, p.15.
2) McKenzie Wark, A Hacker Manifesto, Harvard University Press, 2004, p.18.
3) Ibid., p.21.
4) Ibid., p.15.
5) Dallas Smythe, Communications: Blindspot of Western Marxism, Canadian Journal of Political and Society Theory, Vol.1, 1977, p.9.
6) Jonathan Crary, 24/7: Late Capitalism and the Ends of Sleep, translated by Kim Seong-Ho, Munhakdongne, 2014, p.26.
7) Ibid., p.34.
8) Mark Fisher, Capitalist Realism, translated by Park Jin-Cheol, Seoul: Reciol, 2018, p.46.
9) McKenzie Wark, A Hacker Manifesto, Harvard University Press, 2004, p.36.
10) Mark Fisher, Capitalist Realism, translated by Park Jin-cheol, Risiol, Seoul, 2018, p.46.
11) McKenzie Wark, A Hacker Manifesto, Harvard University Press, 2004, p.36.
12) Mark Fisher, Capitalist Realism, translated by Park Jin-cheol, Ibid., p.52.
13) McKenzie Wark, A Hacker Manifesto, Harvard University Press, 2004, p.42.
14) Ibid., pp.41-42.
15) Ibid., p.44