How, exactly, is technology, an inanimate thing, a form of domination? Quite clearly, it isn't. So when you simply anarchism by saying it's "against all forms of domination" [which is more often than not an accurate explanation, but not the whole of the picture], you're not even defending your belief that anarcho-primitivists and their ilk are somehow anarchists. You say you're an anarcho-communist, yet the founding principles of anarchist communism are those of supporting both agrarian and industrial development, and in fact civilisation, while you are claiming that civilisation is a "form of domination". How do you reconcile this?
The only people trying to re-define anarchism are anarcho-capitalists, primitivists, "insurrectionists", along with a host of other lively names they've chosen for themselves. The principles I am putting out are echoes of principles that are well docuemented as those of anarchism. Namely, the synthesis of liberty and socialism.
To say it is "sectarian" to call out non-anarchist groups for what they are is comparable to saying it is "sectarian" for socialists to call out "national socialists" for what they are. I don't see it as sectarian to clearly define and demonstrate the principles of anarchism.
>Brian is capable of engaging in rational discussion but has not done so in
>the debates over technology, instead using strawmen & logical fallacies
>against Chuck. Frequently (but not always), when people substitute
>rational arguements with strawmen&logical fallacies it is because they do
>not have a well-thought out critique of their opponet's position.
Hmm, interesting, this is exactly the same arguement Chuck0 uses. Maybe you read my earlier post responding to these charges?
maybe you could provide some examples of Brian doing this for us, so as to validate your position? or could you respond to the criticisms of this position I have already made against Chuck0?
>Most primitivists claim that technology & industrialism are social
>relations. You ought to read their writings before rejecting it.
So what. If i claim a rock is a "social relation", is doesn't change the fact that it's a rock. I don't think the people on this list, or any anarchists for that matter, are going to take seriously the claim that inanimate things are "social relations". And, btw, I've read many primitivst, anarcho-capitalist, and other such writings.
>And even if they didn't consider it a social relationship, there's no
>reason why one cannot both oppose domination and think a physical thing is
>wrong. Theoretically one could be both an anarchist & think that wind is
>evil. That may be a particularily stupid variant of anarchism, but the two
>beliefs aren't necessarily incompatable.
Well, no, I don't think this is true. Anarchism is very much a system that emphasizes analyising things in their relationships to people and their environment, and concerete social relations, so someone who would not recognise how this works and not recognize that wind is not in fact evil, could not be an anarchist.
>I think there's a crucial distinction between saying technology should be
>reformed and saying it should be abolished (the same is true for
>industrialism). This can be compared with critics of capitalism: the
>liberals say we just need to reform it to remove the most glaring problems
>whereas we point out that those problems are the results of more systemic
>causes: capitalism, the state, etc. The same can be said of technology
>and/or industrialism - are the various problems like code red days, toxic
>waste, etc. just flaws in industrialism that can be fixed with various
>reforms (such as abolishing capitalism) or are they results of deeper more
>systemic problems within the nature of industrialism? No one in this
>discussion has really addressed this but are instead dancing with straw
>men.
Ok, for the last time, you cannot "reform" technological progress any much as you can "reform" the sun. You can, however, re-evaluate and change the ways in which technology is applied, developed, etc. by people.
I don't my posts have been "dancing around" the issue of negative things within capitalism whatsoever. I've clearly stated my position over and over again. For example, under capitalism, the food industry is managed horribly. It's commodified, and it doesn't feed the majority of the world's population in a sustainable or adequite manner. Does this mean we abolish food distribution? Of course not, that's first rate lunacy.
Paul
_________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com