>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.
Why would you say "i have to have a good laugh"? What's the point in engaging in this kind of diologue? Why not stick to the issues at hand instead of making these petty personal gestures towards an anarchist?
I think Brian is actually argueing AGAINST the "anti-technological" critique of anarchism at this point. He is argueing the anarchist position. Obvious, technology, just like all other facets of human production and distribution [small wonder] should be accountable in an anarchist society, that is the nature of such a society.
>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.
He's not building a strawman of your views, he's attacking them for what they are. As anarchists, we don't claim that opponents of anarchism who are luddite in nature want to all "destroy technology", we say that *the basis of their critique against technology is an objectified one, alienated from the context and functions of society*.
>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?
The "anti-technology" attack on anarchist principles is not a "critical approach", but rather an attack on industrial relations within capitalism as if those industrial relations would be unchanged in an anarchist society. It is also a position that often devolves into advocation of returns to idealist agrarian societies, and other lunacy.
Technology, such as nuclear power, is in no way anti-thetical to the principles of anarchism. You are saying that a thing, an idea, an object can be anti-thetical to the principles of anarchism. But this is far from the truth, because no object can hold that position. Only the *application* of an object, by a person or society, by a living social organism, can hold that positon. The luddites attack us anarchists for our belief that it is the application of technology, not technology itself, that is a problem under consumer capitalism.
>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.
I think this arguement around the relevance of airplanes is a bit abstract and off the point. Let's get down to a better example. Recently, in the anti-anarchist press of the primitivists and their luddite followers who call themselves by a myriad of names ["insurrectionists", "green anarchists", neo post-modernists, to name a few] there was an article saying that groups in the third world were fundamentally wrong for struggling for advancements in their community like electricity and such.
Basically, this luddite approach is a very middle class, first world approach. It is conducted by people who don't understand or don't care that in the so-called third world, the problem is a *lack* of technology, because the use of technology i monopolized by a minority of the worlds population.
>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.
Kropotkin said that technology provided one of the best hopes for anarchism to be more successfully applied on a broader scale within society, and that it's advancement should be the goal of all anarchists. Also, Kropotkin was a noted scientist in his day.
I don't think Brian has a "narrow list" of 'approved' anarchists, I've never found him to be biased against anarchist-communism, for example, despite his strong position as an anarcho-syndicalist. What all anarchists, whether they be syndicalist, or just plain anarchist-without-adjectives, agree on is that these luddite tendencies like primitivism are in no way compatible with anarchism, and are in fact attacks on the very core principles of anarchism.
>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).
I'm not going to evaluate whether Brian is a poor or good spokesperson for anarcho-syndicalism, because frankly he is a little known spokesperson, and to my knowledge Brian has never claimed to be a well known or largely published anarcho-syndicalist within the intentional syndicalist circles. Certainly, I have never encountered an instance in which he has mis-represented anarcho-syndicalism.
I am curious as to what you mean by him "ignoring" activism like Black Bloc's. As a participant in more than a few Black Bloc's, I have a critical view of them yet I continue to support some of them. Personally, it's the people that make the Bloc, so it depends on who those people are and if they are anarchists or not, etc. Quite the opposite, I support much of Brian's critique of black bloc's, and siagree with some of it. I don't see it as a disregard of the activism that we anarchists do, but rather as a critical analysis of it, which is good.
It is a sorry thing when 'anarchists' lash out against criticisms of their behaviour. As an anarchist, I feel my actions, whether or not I am in a black bloc, are subject to critical anaylsis and I think this is a healthy part of any revolutionary movement. If you want true ignorance of critical analysis, go to a marxist movement where they pay lip-service to criticism and "two line struggles" while forwarding authoritarian agendas.
>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.
No, anarchists have not been critical about technology itself, they have been critical about the *applications* of technology *under consumer capitalism*.
>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 believe that the entire socio-economic structure under capitalism is wholly unsustinable, as do most anarchists. That being said, large urban centers that cannot supply most of their own food aren't necessarily a bad thing under anarchism. One of the things about society is that we are all dependent on each other as we are in a broad economy, that we each contribute to in different ways. Major urban centers can form part of this contribution, and receive a contribution as well. I suggest that Chuck0 study the history of the Spanish civil war, as it provides illuminating examples of anarchists engaged in this kind of activity.
>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.
I don't think so at all. You should develop a critical attitude towards the applications of technology, just as you should develop a critical attitude towards the applications of anything under any context. Technology itself is neutral - if it werne't, it would be a person or social organism, which has it's own thoughts, feelings, opinions, etc. Technology has none of these.
The applications of technology, however, AREN'T neutral, because these arise from capitalist relations.
Paul
_________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com