Paul wrote:
> > As anarchists, we recognize that class struggle,
> > with the full aid of scientific progress and technology, is tantamount
> > to the success of any revolutionary endeavour.
Chuck0 responded:
> I think most anarchists would disagree with that last statement, because
> we understand that there is a political angle to scientific progress and
> technology. These institutions imply certain relationships and systems. It
> doesn't take a wild-eyed primitivist to point this out.
If "most anarchists" would disagree with this, then more's the pity as far as the beliefs of "most anarchists" are concerned. Actually, Paul has it exactly right. You say that "we understand there is a political angle to scientific progress and technology" - it's not simply political; it's also economic. A system driven by profit will certainly propel technological development along a path that will not be consonant with human need. This is because technological development is unaccountable. Make it accountable - put it in the service of people - and it is more likely to enrich human experience and need. Destroy it altogether and you deprive humans of the many benefical uses it can be put towards.
> I also think that the dismissal of "going back to the land" is an easy way
> to dismiss much of what anarchists have been arguing for over a century.
"For over a century" anarchists have not been arguning for primitivism (in fact, quite the contrary) or for "going back to the land."
If someone were to see what you regularly advocate as being anarchist, and decided to go to their library to look into the matter further, they'd likely find books on the subject totally at odds with what you suggest. For ex. at my local library there are several books by Bakunin, Murray Bookchin, Sam Dolgoff's collection of pieces about the Spanish Collectives, Emma Goldman's biography, _Anarchism and the Mexican Working Class_ by John Hart, Guerin's No Gods, No Masters anthology, etc. None of these books is about the kind of anarchism you cheerlead for. They are way more in line with what Paul suggests than this stuff about avoiding insitutions, opposing computers, resettling people across the countryside, and proclaiming an end to airplanes.
> We understand from ecology and other sciences that cities are
> unsustainable. If you doubt this, I invite you to experience Washington,
> DC on a Code Red day.
We have Code Red days in the city where I live as well - even Code Purple, whichis worse. I can feel it, too. This isn't simply caused by something vague and abstract known as the "city." It's caused by the kinds of relations that characterize capitalism (the city itself is caused by them). Code Red Days are caused by these relations (i.e. capitalism), not "the city."
Brian
---
"And Mr. Block thinks he may / Be President some day." - Joe Hill, "Mr. Block"