> Brian O. Strawman x349393 wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.
I don't agree with the anti-technological critique inasmuch as it is just that: anti-technology. Technology can be extremely beneficial. It's obvious that arguing this point with you is fruitless. Much technology serves to liberate people from mind-numbing, dehumanizing labor. It also saves lives, as in medical technology. How is feeling this way "anti-technology"?
Also, again you've started "speaking to the floor" - some 3rd party out there - for some bizarre reason. Who are you talking to? ("Brian thinks this - he is bad," etc.)
> 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.
My concern moreso than what "most anarchists agree with" is what makes sense. Does "what most anarchists think" make sense? If not, then it should be disregarded - and criticized. Classical anarchism made sense. Middle class bourgeois anarchism doesn't.
> Brian has constructed this strawman where he suggests that I am "against
> airplanes."
Which is exactly what you said.
> 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?
There are plenty example of technology unavailable in the 3dr world that might make life easier, more enjoyable, etc. The fact that they have gotten along without them is poor reason to suggest they never have an opportunity to decide for themselves whether they would adopt them. There are plenty of other technological advances the 3rd world has "done without" - take basic medical care during pregnancy. This isn't desirable simply because they have gotten along with it so far. Some things engineered in the 1st world, if expropriated by teh 3rd world, could do much good there.
> 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?
Airplanes can be used to haul goods, supplies, food, etc to starving people, as well, and have done this, too. Airplanes may have been created due to the military industrial complex, but so was the Internet. Why do you use it? Activists have benefited by the net, just as starving people have benefited by some airplanes. Modern forms of anti-capitalist organization grew as a response to modern capitalism - just because it developed because of capitalism doesn't mean it is bad.
> 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 here, like you, as a "spokesperson for ideology X." Your "anarcho-syndicalist friends" can disagree with me all they want. You are more concerned with being an unappointed ambassador to anarchism here than anything else. If your friends disagree with me, they are free to voice their disagreements, and if they're sound points, they should be able to withstand criticism. If not, they should be honest with themselves and see where their views are flawed.
I have had no disagreements with anarcho-syndicalists about my views as they pertain to anarcho-syndicalism. Black blocs, which are not specifically anarcho-syndicalist, are a matter where I may disagree with other anarchists just as I do with you and your primitivist or post-leftist leanings. (I'd come closest to supporting explicitly working class based black blocs that had class struggle-based aims; primitvist or lifestylist blocs, which have existed, are dangerous to anarchism.) As far as syndicalism goes, there are no disagreemens that i know of. And if there are I trust the people in disagreement to approach me; you shouldn't have to tattle on me.
The black bloc issue, where I quoted a passage from a magazine, is about the only thing I might disagree with other anarcho-syndicalists on. Your reassurances to your anonymous 3rd party audience here that I am a marginal, maverick, kind of voice in anarchism, out of touch with it, is nothing but pathetic argumentation. It tries to make a point where you have none simply by appealing to peoples' sense that those who are marginalized (which I'm not really, in any event) must by default have nothing interesting to say. However, I don't know of any massive disagremeents you speak of.
Your cheerleading for primitvist or post-leftism or whatever has caught your fancy for the moment, however, has caused a lot of disagrement in the anarchist community. And I don't need tospeak to some invisible 3rd party to make that point - it's obvious simply in what you say.
Brian
---
"And Mr. Block thinks he may / Be President some day." - Joe Hill, "Mr. Block"