Questions concerning technology and anarchism

[theyellowspot]

wonderful questions Michelaccio!

to start, my view of technology is somewhere in the middle as far as primitivism and uh, non-primitivist anarchism goes. I generally agree that all technology harms the planet, though i don't really think that we need to destroy all technology to have an "anarchist" (how i define it at least) society. there are definitely certain inventions that i think would be incompatible though.

second question, i hate to generalize, so i'll try not to do it to much. i do think there is a variety of beliefs among folks that call themselves primitivists and/or anarcho-communists. IN GENERAL, i think there is not enough analysis of how industry/work/civilization/technology effects the planet and society. at the same time, i don't think that there is much heart in a lot of primitivist writings that i have read. i don't see enough talk about how to help the greatest number of people, without the massive tragedy that would come with industrial collapse.

i think it's definitely POSSIBLE to respect differences, though right now (from what i see in the US) i see way too much childish bickering back and forth (esp. in the letters sections of Green Anarchy and Northeastern Anarchist). I think there's way too much thinking along the lines of "we have THE answer, and those other people are wrong/not real anarchists".

i'm not super optimistic at this point in time. i believe that economic and ecological collapse are VERY near, and there is not enough work being accomplished to prepare for eitehr of these situations.

[vequalsv0plusat]

Michelaccio said:

In response to a debate on the regional message board, which several people rightly suggested should be moved here.

A few open questions to get things rolling:

It's good that you moved it here--I couldn't follow the debate over on the other board given the format of the regional message board.

Michelaccio said:

As an anarchist, what is your view of technology in general, if indeed you have one?

Personally, I believe that an increase in technology (particularly the accelerated one that'll result from nanotech) will result in massive unemployment and will therefore be conducive to anarchic revolution. Therefore, I favor it at present.

Michelaccio said:

Are anarcho-primitivists caught in a naive, utopian, prelapsarian vision of humanity before a technological "fall"?

I don't know enough about their ideology as a whole to comment.

Michelaccio said:

Are anarcho-communists romantic throwbacks to the 19th century, focusing on justice within industrial society to the exclusion of the consequences of industrial society on all living things?

Possibly, I'll have to watch this debate and see how it goes.

Michelaccio said:

Is it possible to reconcile or at least respect our differences while still working together?

From what I gather (correct me if I'm wrong), some anarchists wish to return to a more primitive society after the revolution, while other anarchists wish to keep the technological level of society as it is and perhaps heighten it, but still have a revolution---it seems to me that all these anarchists can work together to further some sort of revolution, but will have some trouble later on. After all, technology and non-technology can't coexist unless humanity divides into two groups, one having loads of technology and one not.

Michelaccio said:

What, if any, elements of civilization must be overcome in order to achieve a better future? How might they be overcome? Or can they be overcome at all?

As of now, I personally don't see why civilization should be overcome. Technological achievements have certainly bettered the physical condition of humanity; life expectancy has been increased, among other things. Besides, I somehow doubt the majority of people would want to go about destroying technology in an anarchic society.

Michelaccio said:

As an anarchist, are you optimistic about the possibilities for revolution/change given current conditions? Or do you see the greatest likelihood of change coming from some sort of apocalyptic collapse of the current world social/economic/ecological system?

Both, I'm supposing. An extension of current conditions will likely lead to such a collapse.

[workerscommunes]

Michelaccio said:

As an anarchist, what is your view of technology in general, if indeed you have one?

Well I take the view that technology is not inherrantly bad but the fact that the way it is used has throughout history been monopolised by a minority of self-serving ruling classes has led to most of it being used in harmful ways. Theoretically, in a classless society technology would be used in the interests of all and that would natrually include conservation of the environment as failure to do so would be damaging to everyone (as well as nature itself).

Michelaccio said:

Are anarcho-primitivists caught in a naive, utopian, prelapsarian vision of humanity before a technological "fall"? Are anarcho-communists romantic throwbacks to the 19th century, focusing on justice within industrial society to the exclusion of the consequences of industrial society on all living things?

I think both criticisms are true for a large number of individual cases but that that does not neccesarily undermine either philosophical position.

Michelaccio said:

Is it possible to reconcile or at least respect our differences while still working together?

It's definately possible but would probably be quite difficult. The best position would probably be somewhere in the middle, using technology if it was beneficial to everyone and did not have a negative impact on the environment. However the lines are likely to be blurred as regards to what sorts of activities this would include. For example communists like myself could claim that by preventing them setting up a powerplant of some kind which would generate the electricity to run a city's transport and communications systems, primitivists are causing them unneccesary harm as such things are absolutely neccesarry for city-dwellers. Likewise primitivists could claim that building the power station is damaging to the environment and everyone dependant upon it. The best solution would probably be limited numbers of eco-friendly and efficient powerplants (geothermal etc.) and further research into clean energy sources. Like I said on the board, different people in different areas will have diffrerent requirements and we need to meet all of them, not just those of the larger or more influential group.

Michelaccio said:

What, if any, elements of civilization must be overcome in order to achieve a better future? How might they be overcome? Or can they be overcome at all?

I'm not sure what definition of civilisation we're dealing with here so I'm not sure.

Michelaccio said:

As an anarchist, are you optimistic about the possibilities for revolution/change given current conditions? Or do you see the greatest likelihood of change coming from some sort of apocalyptic collapse of the current world social/economic/ecological system?

Probably a combination - I am not optimistic about the near future but some sort of revolution is bound to occur when the current political and economic system can no longer provide most people with their most basic needs. This hopefully will show up the inneficiency and incompetence of the current system and convince people that no one is more qualified to rule over them than themselves. Whether there will be a popular overthrow of a seriously weakened state or the spontaneous coming together of autonomous communities folowing the collapse from within I don't know but I think most of the damage to the state will be done before any revolution.

[claptonpond]

Excellent post, WC.

Workers said:

Well I take the view that technology is not inherrantly bad but the fact that the way it is used has throughout history been monopolised by a minority of self-serving ruling classes has led to most of it being used in harmful ways. Theoretically, in a classless society technology would be used in the interests of all and that would natrually include conservation of the environment as failure to do so would be damaging to everyone (as well as nature itself).

I think this is the crux of the matter. Communists see class as the root of all evil, while for primitivists it's civilisation. This difference in focus can sometimes make it difficult to work together.

Primitivists generally don't believe it's possible to have a classless society without getting rid of civilisation, since they believe that division of labour, and indeed any form of mediation between us and our environment (right down to symbolic thought, for the more extreme ones), necessarily leads to class divisions.

However, even if there's some truth in this (which would require a very broad definition of class), one has to ask whether it's really worth throwing away all the benefits that civilisation brings in order to eradicate every last vestige of class. Also, do primitivists really expect everyone to voluntarily give up civilisation, or would they be willing to achieve this by force?

Personally, I think there has to be some kind of balance. I don't think most people would be prepared to give up industrial civilisation entirely, although almost everyone would want to make it much less damaging to people and the environment. I also think it would be very difficult to lead a serious primitivist lifestyle alongside industrial civilisation. There'd have to be a fair amount of compromise to avoid ending up in a situation where the primitivists are sabotaging the communists' technology and the communists are trashing the primitivists' environment.

[Anarchic Tribes]

As an anarchist, what is your view of technology in general, if indeed you have one?

I think it's something that doesn't particuarly do a lot of good but most definately does a lot of harm. Technology to me is like science, it's a nice idea, but what's the point? I suppose a lot more good could be done with such stuff but when compared to the irrepairable destruction it causes, in reality, is it worth it?
(this is an extremely short answer that I shall likely expand on later).

Are anarcho-primitivists caught in a naive, utopian, prelapsarian vision of humanity before a technological "fall"?

Not that I know of no. Although some primitivist writings do seem to lean that way. This book for example:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_(novel) ]

Personally I had never really considered history until I read Mr Zerzan's work, but even then I'd have to admit that is where I think his biggest problem is, because it can't be proven and therefore can be used to distract from the reality of the situation by his opponents.

Are anarcho-communists romantic throwbacks to the 19th century, focusing on justice within industrial society to the exclusion of the consequences of industrial society on all living things?

I don't really know much about it, but from what I've read up on in order to answer the question, I would say yes.

Is it possible to reconcile or at least respect our differences while still working together?

Yes of course, anything is possible

What, if any, elements of civilization must be overcome in order to achieve a better future?

Hierarchy.

How might they be overcome?

With love.

Or can they be overcome at all?

Yes.

As an anarchist, are you optimistic about the possibilities for revolution/change given current conditions?

Yes, how else could one live?

Or do you see the greatest likelihood of change coming from some sort of apocalyptic collapse of the current world social/economic/ecological system?

Yes, that as well. That's most likely where the above possibilities will come from.

[Anarchic Tribes]

my view of technology is somewhere in the middle as far as primitivism and uh, non-primitivist anarchism goes. I generally agree that all technology harms the planet, though i don't really think that we need to destroy all technology to have an "anarchist" (how i define it at least) society. there are definitely certain inventions that i think would be incompatible though.

YS, from what I've seen this is pretty much the view that most primitivists take.

I really don't understand why primitivists get called too extreme and unbalanced when those that are defining them as such are also doing exactly that. (not that I'm saying this is what you're doing, but it is often done.)

i do think there is a variety of beliefs among folks that call themselves primitivists and/or anarcho-communists. IN GENERAL, i think there is not enough analysis of how industry/work/civilization/technology effects the planet and society.

What sort of analysis? Would it require yet more industry/work/civilization/technology?

i don't think that there is much heart in a lot of primitivist writings that i have read. i don't see enough talk about how to help the greatest number of people, without the massive tragedy that would come with industrial collapse.

Have you read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn?

i'm not super optimistic at this point in time. i believe that economic and ecological collapse are VERY near, and there is not enough work being accomplished to prepare for either of these situations.

In a way I agree, but then I also see that just us having this communication is indeed preparation. I do see big changes ahead, if not in our lifetime, certainly in our children's or their children's. This is the best way to prepare for the future. To love, have faith, and get real.

In this respect technology has it's uses today, this I don't deny. But the best use of it seems to be in dealing with the damage that has already been created with it.

i see way too much childish bickering back and forth (esp. in the letters sections of Green Anarchy and Northeastern Anarchist). I think there's way too much thinking along the lines of "we have THE answer, and those other people are wrong/not real anarchists".

I see this too, but perhaps this is inevitable in such circumstances (spouting anti-tech on the net for example). But this happens in all areas of life. The Monbiot-Bellamy tiff was a classic example of excessive arguing. It's good to argue your point, but there are limits to how much is reasonable when trying to achieve getting the point across. This is something that can be learnt through practice of communication?

[Anarchic Tribes]

vequalsv0plusat,

Personally, I believe that an increase in technology (particularly the accelerated one that'll result from nanotech) will result in massive unemployment and will therefore be conducive to anarchic revolution. Therefore, I favor it at present.

do you know, I've seen the same reasons given for why it's a good thing to vote for Bush.

Here's a link I found yesterday whilst also wondering exactly what anarcho-primitivism is: www.eco-action.org/dt/primer.html

From what I gather (correct me if I'm wrong), some anarchists wish to return to a more primitive society after the revolution, while other anarchists wish to keep the technological level of society as it is and perhaps heighten it, but still have a revolution---it seems to me that all these anarchists can work together to further some sort of revolution, but will have some trouble later on. After all, technology and non-technology can't coexist unless humanity divides into two groups, one having loads of technology and one not.

There are people/anarchists that want and indeed do live a more primitive lifestlye, right now, irrelevant of revolution, and they do it within an industrial-tech society. So I'm not quite sure what you mean. There are surely enough people in america that are living without technology (or at least keeping it to a minimum, like living in teepees or treehouses) to see that coexistence is easy to achieve?

[theyellowspot]

What sort of analysis? Would it require yet more industry/work/civilization/technology?

looking back at what i wrote, i see i forgot to specify that this statement was generalizing about anarcho-commies. hope that didn't confuse. i don't think that analysis requires too much of the above to be done, i analyze things while sitting in the park thinking about them all the time without any help from the above. i guess i was saying that i think a lot ACs focus so much on the class struggle, organizing the work place, that figuring out if this shit should even be perpetuated gets left at the wayside. do give a small example, the campaign to organize starbucks workers by IWW members working in a starbucks in nyc. while i understand that people "need" jobs, i would just as soon see that starbucks closed down than be organized, it's a detriment to the environment and society. though maybe the organized workers would change that, i don't know, but i doubt it. it's a behemoth that can't be changed too much.

[theyellowspot]

oh yeah, i haven't read daniel quinn, i started reading beyond civilization once, but i had just read language older than words by derrick jensen and felt like BC was just gonna be a simplified version of a bunch of stuff i already knew.

[Anarchic Tribes]

Ah I see. Yes absolutely. I had similar thoughts about the coal miners' strikes. I was very young, and whilst I was aware of the political nature of it all I was at a bit of a loss when it came to why these guys actually wanted to work down the mines and live in such bloody awful places. And I'm not going to start campaigning for better pay for those that work at McDs either.

This is the big problem I see it with such schemes as Parecon, and where I can identify with primitivist thinking. The real issues aren't being addressed. If we gave everyone with jobs equal pay, there would still be big problems, such as the point of their jobs. Most of the things that are bought and sold in this country are completely unnecessary and that is terrible. That is a cause of many ills in this world. The whole pointlessness.
How many resources could be saved, how much waste reduction would there be, how much better would people feel, if we got rid of the crap?

I've not read Quinn either but from what I have read and heard he certainly addresses matters for the heart.
I probably wouldn't read much stuff like that for the same reason you gave.

[vequalsv0plusat]

Anarchic said:

vequalsv0plusat,

do you know, I've seen the same reasons given for why it's a good thing to vote for Bush.

I have as well, although I'd rather vote for someone more socially libertarian---a socially libertarian environment will make it easier for people to organize and revolt.

Here's a link I found yesterday whilst also wondering exactly what anarcho-primitivism is: www.eco-action.org/dt/primer.html

Interesting link, although I did occasionally find it vague and evasive. Maybe it's because the guy was acknowledging so much debate and uncertainty.

There are people/anarchists that want and indeed do live a more primitive lifestlye, right now, irrelevant of revolution, and they do it within an industrial-tech society. So I'm not quite sure what you mean. There are surely enough people in america that are living without technology (or at least keeping it to a minimum, like living in teepees or treehouses) to see that coexistence is easy to achieve?

Well those people aren't really coexisting; they're more living in separate places without disturbing each other. I was just saying primitive and industrial people might have trouble living together.

[workerscommunes]

Anarchic said:

Technology to me is like science, it's a nice idea, but what's the point?

I see your point on the destruction caused by much technology but now you're knocking science itself? I think that's a very regressive view to take - of course science allows for the construction of harmful technology but it also gives us all kinds of disciplines which allow us to gain a better (if not complete) understanding of the world and don't require technologies which cause irrepearable damage (astronomy and anthropology for example).

Calling science pointless on an internet forum is like calling gravity pointless while jumping around on a pogo-stick.

[Anarchic Tribes]

Astronomy??? Explain yourself.
(btw I've called science pointless on many internet forums. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, I do expect to be able to voice my opinion.)

[Anarchic Tribes]

vequalsv0plusat,

I have as well, although I'd rather vote for someone more socially libertarian---a socially libertarian environment will make it easier for people to organize and revolt.

but why would they? People do not revolt when life is easy. You said you favour technology because of the huge problems it causes will bring us closer to a revolt. But then you want things easy?
You are right of course on both accounts, and whilst I was certain that Bush would get in again (much to other people's suprise), doesn't mean that I wanted him too.
I also don't want all the problems that technology brings, just so that we have something bigger to complain about. Again I do agree that a positive may be the revolution you speak of, but what's the point if it's too late?

Well those people aren't really coexisting; they're more living in separate places without disturbing each other. I was just saying primitive and industrial people might have trouble living together.

We are all coexisting and we are all living in seperate places. There are no primitive people and no industrial people, there are people, and yes we do all seem to have trouble living together. This must change. Change will come, are you ready for it?

[claptonpond]

Anarchic said:

(btw I've called science pointless on many internet forums. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, I do expect to be able to voice my opinion.)

As long as you don't mind if people conclude from your opinion that you're a crazy fool.

Seriously, calling science pointless is just bizarre. Even the most extreme primitivists recognise that science (and technology for that matter) has a point - they just think the negative side outweighs the point.

Of course I have to admit I have a vested interest in technology. I'm short-sighted, and without glasses I probably wouldn't be able to see well enough to survive as a hunter-gatherer.