> 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 have to have a good laugh at this point. Brian is basically arguing the anti-technological crtique at this point. He acknowledges that technology has economic and political ramifications. He agrees that we should have some accountability about technology and that it should be put in the service of the people. He's basically agreeing with the anti-technological critique at this point.
Shit, I agree with him on most of these points. However, he doesn't understand what people like me are saying because he is too busy building a strawman out of our views. I'm not against all technology. I'm not against forks, spoons, and good sanitation systems. I certainly would never argue that we "destroy technology," because that is not what this critique is about. And most anarchists would agree with me about this.
The "anti-technology critique" is basically a critical approach towards the use of technology in our communities and our world. It asks questions that are about accountability, sustainability, responsibility, and approriate use. It asks fundamental questions that any radical should be asking about institutions in our capitalist societies. If we argure for a radical alternative, what would that alternative look like? If we value basic human values, anarchist and socialist philosophies, and a world where the environment isn't destroyed, how can we keep around institutions (inlcuding technologies) that are antithetical to what we value?
Brian has constructed this strawman where he suggests that I am "against airplanes." I would respond by asking Brian how much of the world manages to survive without airplanes? Is this way of life, where people don't travel by airplanes, such a bad one? I think that this example is one where Brian hasn't even examined the economic aspects of airplane travel and the aeronatatic industry? Why do we have jet travel? Because of the military industrial complex and the situation after WW II. Who mostly travels on airplanes? Why were airplanes so empty in the months before 9-11? What do these things tell us about the function of airlines in a capitalist society.
Or, a more basic human question: why are we in such a hurry to get places?
> "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.
I agree with Brian. Go to the library and read what anarchists and leftists have been writing about technology for the past century. Keep in mind that the list that Brian gives you is going to have a narrow list of approved anarchists on it, because he believes that the only acceptable anarchism is anarcho-syndicalism.
BTW, let me speak up for my anarcho-syndicalist friends: Brian is a poor spokesperson for anarcho-syndicalism. He misrepresents their views and ignores some of the activism that they engage in (such as black blocs).
Anarchists and other leftists have written extensive critical works about technology. More than a few anarchists have argued that we need to live in a more decentralized society. Bookchin argued for this in several books. I'm sure that a few of the classical anarchist argued for this. This vision has been a staple of anarchist fiction, including works by Marge Piercy and Ursula Le Guin.
The critique of technology has been widespread among anarchist and left writers. A brief list that Id suggest would include: Theodore Roszak, Murray Bookchin, Wendell Berry, Jerry Mander, Lewis Mumford, Jacques Ellul, Marshall McLuhan, Paul Goodman, Ivan Illich, Carolyn Merchant, Andre Gorz, E.F. Schumaker, Jeremy Rifkin, and on and on. Just a few names off the top of my head.
>>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."
I think you need to examine this a bit more deeply. Yes, capitalism causes these really bad things, but cities imply certain political and economic arrangements. A city is ill-equipped to provide its own food and is thus reliant on areas outside of a city to provide it with food and resources. You could spin a scenario where cities are being run in a libertarian fashion, but this is still an exploitative relationship.
I don't agree with some of my anarchist friends that technology is THE crucial question, but I do think that whatever type of anarchist or leftist you call yourself, you should have a developed critical attitude towards technology. Technology is not neutral--it implies certain political and economic situations and relationships.
Chuck0
------------------------------------------------------------ Personal homepage -> http://chuck.mahost.org/ Infoshop.org -> http://www.infoshop.org/ MutualAid.org -> http://www.mutualaid.org/ Alternative Press Review -> http://www.altpr.org/ Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/ Anarchy: AJODA -> http://www.anarchymag.org/
AIM: AgentHelloKitty
Web publishing and services for your nonprofit: Bread and Roses Web Publishing http://www.breadandrosesweb.org/
"...ironically, perhaps, the best organised dissenters in the world today are anarchists, who are busily undermining capitalism while the rest of the left is still trying to form committees."
-- Jeremy Hardy, The Guardian (UK)