>I'm flaming Brian. Pure and simple. I've tried to engage him in rational
>discussions, but it just isn't possible.
Can you give evidence that Brian isn't capable of engaging in a rational discussion? I think you're just frustrated by the fact that he is, in fact, engaging in a rational discussion.
>Brian is arguing HIS position, which he is free to do. There is no one
>anarchist position on this, obviously, since anarchists are arguing about
>these issues. There is a strong critique of technology that has been part
>of anarchism for many years. This critique ranges from activism that
>anarchists engage in against certain technologies (nuclear plants and
>genetically-engineered foods) to a more wholesale rejection of high
>technology and civilization. And there are anarchists who like high
>technology and recognize its bad points. It's a spectrum, not one
>consistent position.
Sure, he's argueing his position, you're argueing yours, and I'm putting forward mine. No surprises there. However, when you say there is no anarchist position on this, I think you're wrong. It's like saying there's no anarchist position on fascism. While Anarchism has a diverse critique of fascism, while there is a broad attack against fascism that is not dogmatic or doesn't follow the kind of rhetorich we find in the Church of Marx, there actually is, in fact, an anarchist position on fascism, and an anarchist position on people who mistake technology for the applications thereof, etc.
It can be said that, given the broad concensus amongst the anarchist movement [stemming from the time of Bakunin and Kropotkin to contemporary anarchists] to this day on the principles that fundamentally outline anarchism and differentiate it from other ideologies, that technology is a good thing. What we as anarchists are against are negative applications of technology.
>Accountability is one thing, but what some anarchists argue is that
>technology is a more fundamental problem.
This is incorrect. No one who was really an anarchist, who understood the anarchist critique of capitalist relations and so forth, would reasonably suggest that technology is a "fundamental problem". Because anarchism, at it's core, does not attack object and material things, it criticiese concrete, real social relationships. It does not objectify these relationships and project their qualities onto inanimate objects, like you are trying to do.
>Brian consistently engages in strawman arguments of my views. He thinks
>that I'm part of that primitivist "axis of evil," when I've developed my
>critique of technology independent of writers such as Zerzan.
Why say "axis of evil", and equate Brian's arguement with one written by conservative speach writers for an illiterate, cokehead president? I think Brian's critique of your unfounded attacks on technology is right on, and I think your continual reliance on "flaming" and other personal attacks is due to your frustration over the accuracy of his criticisms.
>Again, the anti-technology critique takes many forms and people have
>different levels of critique and opposition to technology. Some anarchists
>have taken the anarchist critique of capitalist relations in the workplace
>to its logical end, by looking at other factors that contribute to that
>alienation.
There is no "anti-technology critique" in anarchism, as i have already mentioned.
Please, try and understand this statement: As anarchists, we do not criticise things and objects as having human characterists. We do not say that we are "against technology" any more than we are "against wind" or "against rocks". We are against applications of technology, of other objects and things, by capitalists.
In short, we critique people and their ideas, not objects and material things. We critique people for how they use objects and material things.
>I thought the Luddites were dead? Which luddites are you talking about?
I'm using the term "luddite" to refer to those who have a knee-jerk reaction against technology, as I have described earlier. I am not talking about real, certified luddites.
>Anarchists have long been opposed to nuclear power, because they understand
>what it represents. This long-standing opposition is one example of why the
>anti-tech critique has been part of anarchism.
Again, this is incorrect. Anarchists have been opposed to the uses of nuclear power, especially the development of nuclear weapons and nuclear warships. Nuclear power in and of itself is not a person, it is something that exists independetly of people. It's like saying, literally, that we are "against" the sun. The sun is a series of ongoing nuclear reactions.
>Aha, I think you've just thrown a wrench into the process of this argument.
>By suggesting that a bunch of anarchists are anti-anarchists you've
>effectively defined away much of contemporary anarchism. This is a
>dishonest debate trick that Brian Oliver Strawman uses all the time. Brian
>thinks that the only acceptable anarchists are anarcho-syndicalists.
No, I'm suggesting that there people who claim to be anarchists who aren't. And that me, you, and everybody else on this list could easily identify such people by comparing their views and advocation of different topics [including this idea of attack inanimate objects] with traditional and established works that detail anarchist principles, which are very much applicable on these matters. Since contemporary anarchism is a continuation of "non-contemporary" anarchism, It cannot be at odds with it. Therefore, my reference to the principles of anarchism in no way "defines away" contemporary anarchism. On the contrary, it strengthens that which is legitimately contemporary anarchism. A plant does not grow independently or in a contrary fashion to its roots.
>Green anarchists, some primitivists, and insurrectionists are anarchists
>just as much as you or Brian or I am.
No, they aren't. Just as "anarcho-capitalists" and their ilk as well, are not anarchists.
>I'm not going to participate in any discussion that engages in discourse
>like this.
Discourses based on rational discussion grounded in reality? Does this mean you only participate in discussions based on "flaming" people, like you have already admitted to?
Paul
_________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com