s66
27th September 2006, 05:30
I am a defender and advocate of what K calls "totalitarianism." I am a leftist, and proud to be, though not exactly a True Believer by Hoffer's definition, since I often reassess my beliefs.
Since he is closely connected with "green anarchy," I found it interesting that K says relatively little about human impact on the environment (although he mentions early on that he avoids this in ISaiF because it is well-documented elsewhere), instead focusing on the oppression of _humans_ by technology. As a Green Maoist and Species Traitor, I prioritize the well being of non-human animals _more than_ that of humans, so K's approach runs opposite to mine. Because of this difference in emphasis, we also arrive at different conclusions. My primary goal is the restoration of ecological equilibrium _no matter what the cost_ to humans. Frankly, I don't much care if this process temporarily oppresses humans, nor is the suffering of a few billion humans a priority to me as long as _trillions_ of animals are _tortured from birth to death_ for food or poisoned by pollution every year by humans.
What strategic conclusions do I consequently draw? That the only way to suture the wounded environment is with advanced technology, and the only way to prevent further damage is under the dictatorship of a vanguard party and the total re-education of all humans, including the party. Of course, these are the very things K wants to abolish. Notably, he states at several points that humans _could_ learn to be happy under such circumstances, but nonetheless argues against imposing them because it would infringe upon "human dignity," a vague concept he never defines. In reply I can only ask whether the priority of those who abhor suffering should be the daily genocide of entire species and literal butchery of millions of individuals, or some abstract notion of "human dignity." Some humans express horror at the millions of human deaths that have occurred, as a result of imperialism, from starvation, disease, and war. Yet as many non-human animals die _every day_. Why should the lives of one species be assigned any more ethical weight than those of any other species?
Obviously, my answer is that they shouldn't, but I'm aware that I occupy an extreme minority position. It's possible that such ideas will _never_ take hold among a larger segment of humans. And humans probably could do much more severe harm even than they already do, and still not only survive but prosper. But if ecological genocide is to be stopped, it will take nothing less than a police state with severe penalties for acts of aggression against the ecosystem, or the advocacy of same. Whether a vanguard party would arise to defend a line of species-treason, I can't say; it might or might not. However, as far as I can see hierarchy represents our only chance for ecodefense, because such defense is _impossible_ without it. To reiterate: I don't believe that the ecosystem _can_ be saved without strong state power.
Primitivism certainly would be the surest way to prevent ecological damage, but I highly doubt that without party leadership any mass movement will develop against civilization as K seems to think. Socialism would be easier to achieve than primitivism under current conditions because its benefits would be more understandable to most people. As Fromm pointed out, most people don't really want freedom anyway. Only after socialism was consolidated could technology be dismantled (probably only by force and against the wishes of the masses).
Also, when K proposes the abolition of "industrial" technology as soon as possible, but simultaneously demands autonomy for humans, he reveals a contradiction in his thinking, since the goal of ecodefense could only be achieved by the enforcement of morality using leftist tactics, which he opposes. To borrow K's own phrase, he wants to eat his cake and have it, too. In fact one can be green, or one can be an anarchist, but one can't be a "Green Anarchist," only one or the other.
I note that socialism would probably take many decades or centuries to consolidate power on a large scale, and that in countries like the U.S., where there is almost no proletariat, one's ability to advance socialism is limited to either the donation of resources to red zones worldwide, or to international propaganda work, as on the web. In this case, depending on one's skill-set and opportunities, it may be more efficient tactically to resort to direct action if one's primary goal is ecodefense. But the above principle still holds: the ecosystem _cannot_ be saved by the actions of isolated individuals, nor will a mass movement spontaneously arise, as the result of propaganda by deed or for any other reason, without constant ideological guidance.
In his mostly correct criticism of the Left, K traces its ideology to a frustrated desire for power, and I believe he's probably right about that. As Bertrand Russell and others have shown, ethics are subjective. I'll freely admit that I have had for most of my life an apparently limitless reservior of anger that no amount of compassion or chemicals has abated (the social democrat Jello Biafra memorably and insipidly said that K's life was determined because he couldn't get laid, but neither love nor sex has proven to be an antidote for my condition). I channel this aggression toward targets of opportunity, and on this tactical level K and I seem to see eye to eye.
K believes that an essential step in the "power process" that all humans must repeat is autonomy. Here are my thoughts on that: Imagine someone who had little or no knowledge about computers, and wanted to understand their commonalities. If she surveyed 10 computers, she would probably find that they had many different hardware configurations, but would probably also find that they all ran only versions of Windows. "Ah," she might say, "even though all these computers have many different shapes, sizes, colors, and peripherals, they are all ultimately organized in everything they do by this system called 'Windows,' which, although it manifests in several different forms, retains similar characteristics in all of them. Therefore, the _nature_ of computers must be based on Windows. Even after much investigation, she probably wouldn't find any evidence to disprove this hypothesis.
Imagine what a shock she would have, then, if someone showed her a Linux box! She would see that, not only can computers run operating systems other than Windows, but that _new_ operating systems can be created that work even _better_ than previous ones (and that these can be continually improved by the collective effort of many people working toward a common goal).
I'm sure my point is clear: there is no single human nature, even in a single individual, who will change countless times over a lifetime (she will change her nature every moment, in fact!). Humans, like computers, are thinking machines, and similarly can be programmed in an almost unlimited number of ways, as we learn from modern behaviorists like Skinnerians. Yet the way humans are currently programmed leads to immense suffering for other species and themselves- so what we need is an OS upgrade.
Here are a few of my notes on the text, for discussion:
//can a surrogate activity provide a more fulfilling experience of autonomy than basic survival activities like gathering/hunting in the forest? could such activities potentially be more satisfying of the power process?
178. Whatever else may be the case, it is certain that technology is creating for human beings a new physical and social environment radically different from the spectrum of environments to which natural selection has adapted the human race physically and psychological[ly].
//This seems to be erroroneously reasoned, at least in part. Surely the same process of natural selection K mentions also accounts for the attraction to technology and the adaptation to it demonstrated by contemporary humans.
183...with wild nature we include human nature, by which we mean those aspects of the functioning of the human individual that are not subject to regulation by organized society but are products of chance, or free will, or God (depending on your religious or philosophical opinions).
//I don't acknowledge _any_ of those three things!
30. (Paragraph 184) A further advantage of nature as a counter-ideal to technology is that, in many people, nature inspires the kind of reverence that is associated with religion, so that nature could perhaps be idealized on a religious basis.
//I don't think I have ever experienced this religious feeling with regard to nature, but I _have_ experienced awe and excitement at the possibilities of technology. So, at least based on my subjective observations, a techno-religion is at least as possible as a nature-religion. Could a techno-(psuedo)religion be as satisfying as a nature-religion?
It is probably best not to try to introduce religion into the conflict of nature vs. technology unless you REALLY believe in that religion yourself and find that it arouses a deep, strong, genuine response in many other people.
//I see much more of this kind of response in broad masses of people with regard to technology than nature.
//In 186-9 K essentially advocates Lenin's vanguard theory "History is made by active, determined minorities, not by the majority, which seldom has a clear and consistent idea of what it really wants." He's right a vanguard is needed for revolution- green anarchists would have much more success if they followed K's advice.
204...Objections to [genetic determinism] have been raised, but objections are feeble and seem to be ideologically motivated.
//what ideological motivation do behaviorists have?
216...When the Bolsheviks in Russia were outsiders, they vigorously opposed censorship and the secret police, they advocated self-determination for ethnic minorities, and so forth; but as soon as they came into power themselves, they imposed a tighter censorship and created a more ruthless secret police than any that had existed under the Tsars,
//No doubt (and I defend these actions). But
and they oppressed ethnic minorities at least as much as the Tsars had done.
//what is evidence of this?
Since he is closely connected with "green anarchy," I found it interesting that K says relatively little about human impact on the environment (although he mentions early on that he avoids this in ISaiF because it is well-documented elsewhere), instead focusing on the oppression of _humans_ by technology. As a Green Maoist and Species Traitor, I prioritize the well being of non-human animals _more than_ that of humans, so K's approach runs opposite to mine. Because of this difference in emphasis, we also arrive at different conclusions. My primary goal is the restoration of ecological equilibrium _no matter what the cost_ to humans. Frankly, I don't much care if this process temporarily oppresses humans, nor is the suffering of a few billion humans a priority to me as long as _trillions_ of animals are _tortured from birth to death_ for food or poisoned by pollution every year by humans.
What strategic conclusions do I consequently draw? That the only way to suture the wounded environment is with advanced technology, and the only way to prevent further damage is under the dictatorship of a vanguard party and the total re-education of all humans, including the party. Of course, these are the very things K wants to abolish. Notably, he states at several points that humans _could_ learn to be happy under such circumstances, but nonetheless argues against imposing them because it would infringe upon "human dignity," a vague concept he never defines. In reply I can only ask whether the priority of those who abhor suffering should be the daily genocide of entire species and literal butchery of millions of individuals, or some abstract notion of "human dignity." Some humans express horror at the millions of human deaths that have occurred, as a result of imperialism, from starvation, disease, and war. Yet as many non-human animals die _every day_. Why should the lives of one species be assigned any more ethical weight than those of any other species?
Obviously, my answer is that they shouldn't, but I'm aware that I occupy an extreme minority position. It's possible that such ideas will _never_ take hold among a larger segment of humans. And humans probably could do much more severe harm even than they already do, and still not only survive but prosper. But if ecological genocide is to be stopped, it will take nothing less than a police state with severe penalties for acts of aggression against the ecosystem, or the advocacy of same. Whether a vanguard party would arise to defend a line of species-treason, I can't say; it might or might not. However, as far as I can see hierarchy represents our only chance for ecodefense, because such defense is _impossible_ without it. To reiterate: I don't believe that the ecosystem _can_ be saved without strong state power.
Primitivism certainly would be the surest way to prevent ecological damage, but I highly doubt that without party leadership any mass movement will develop against civilization as K seems to think. Socialism would be easier to achieve than primitivism under current conditions because its benefits would be more understandable to most people. As Fromm pointed out, most people don't really want freedom anyway. Only after socialism was consolidated could technology be dismantled (probably only by force and against the wishes of the masses).
Also, when K proposes the abolition of "industrial" technology as soon as possible, but simultaneously demands autonomy for humans, he reveals a contradiction in his thinking, since the goal of ecodefense could only be achieved by the enforcement of morality using leftist tactics, which he opposes. To borrow K's own phrase, he wants to eat his cake and have it, too. In fact one can be green, or one can be an anarchist, but one can't be a "Green Anarchist," only one or the other.
I note that socialism would probably take many decades or centuries to consolidate power on a large scale, and that in countries like the U.S., where there is almost no proletariat, one's ability to advance socialism is limited to either the donation of resources to red zones worldwide, or to international propaganda work, as on the web. In this case, depending on one's skill-set and opportunities, it may be more efficient tactically to resort to direct action if one's primary goal is ecodefense. But the above principle still holds: the ecosystem _cannot_ be saved by the actions of isolated individuals, nor will a mass movement spontaneously arise, as the result of propaganda by deed or for any other reason, without constant ideological guidance.
In his mostly correct criticism of the Left, K traces its ideology to a frustrated desire for power, and I believe he's probably right about that. As Bertrand Russell and others have shown, ethics are subjective. I'll freely admit that I have had for most of my life an apparently limitless reservior of anger that no amount of compassion or chemicals has abated (the social democrat Jello Biafra memorably and insipidly said that K's life was determined because he couldn't get laid, but neither love nor sex has proven to be an antidote for my condition). I channel this aggression toward targets of opportunity, and on this tactical level K and I seem to see eye to eye.
K believes that an essential step in the "power process" that all humans must repeat is autonomy. Here are my thoughts on that: Imagine someone who had little or no knowledge about computers, and wanted to understand their commonalities. If she surveyed 10 computers, she would probably find that they had many different hardware configurations, but would probably also find that they all ran only versions of Windows. "Ah," she might say, "even though all these computers have many different shapes, sizes, colors, and peripherals, they are all ultimately organized in everything they do by this system called 'Windows,' which, although it manifests in several different forms, retains similar characteristics in all of them. Therefore, the _nature_ of computers must be based on Windows. Even after much investigation, she probably wouldn't find any evidence to disprove this hypothesis.
Imagine what a shock she would have, then, if someone showed her a Linux box! She would see that, not only can computers run operating systems other than Windows, but that _new_ operating systems can be created that work even _better_ than previous ones (and that these can be continually improved by the collective effort of many people working toward a common goal).
I'm sure my point is clear: there is no single human nature, even in a single individual, who will change countless times over a lifetime (she will change her nature every moment, in fact!). Humans, like computers, are thinking machines, and similarly can be programmed in an almost unlimited number of ways, as we learn from modern behaviorists like Skinnerians. Yet the way humans are currently programmed leads to immense suffering for other species and themselves- so what we need is an OS upgrade.
Here are a few of my notes on the text, for discussion:
//can a surrogate activity provide a more fulfilling experience of autonomy than basic survival activities like gathering/hunting in the forest? could such activities potentially be more satisfying of the power process?
178. Whatever else may be the case, it is certain that technology is creating for human beings a new physical and social environment radically different from the spectrum of environments to which natural selection has adapted the human race physically and psychological[ly].
//This seems to be erroroneously reasoned, at least in part. Surely the same process of natural selection K mentions also accounts for the attraction to technology and the adaptation to it demonstrated by contemporary humans.
183...with wild nature we include human nature, by which we mean those aspects of the functioning of the human individual that are not subject to regulation by organized society but are products of chance, or free will, or God (depending on your religious or philosophical opinions).
//I don't acknowledge _any_ of those three things!
30. (Paragraph 184) A further advantage of nature as a counter-ideal to technology is that, in many people, nature inspires the kind of reverence that is associated with religion, so that nature could perhaps be idealized on a religious basis.
//I don't think I have ever experienced this religious feeling with regard to nature, but I _have_ experienced awe and excitement at the possibilities of technology. So, at least based on my subjective observations, a techno-religion is at least as possible as a nature-religion. Could a techno-(psuedo)religion be as satisfying as a nature-religion?
It is probably best not to try to introduce religion into the conflict of nature vs. technology unless you REALLY believe in that religion yourself and find that it arouses a deep, strong, genuine response in many other people.
//I see much more of this kind of response in broad masses of people with regard to technology than nature.
//In 186-9 K essentially advocates Lenin's vanguard theory "History is made by active, determined minorities, not by the majority, which seldom has a clear and consistent idea of what it really wants." He's right a vanguard is needed for revolution- green anarchists would have much more success if they followed K's advice.
204...Objections to [genetic determinism] have been raised, but objections are feeble and seem to be ideologically motivated.
//what ideological motivation do behaviorists have?
216...When the Bolsheviks in Russia were outsiders, they vigorously opposed censorship and the secret police, they advocated self-determination for ethnic minorities, and so forth; but as soon as they came into power themselves, they imposed a tighter censorship and created a more ruthless secret police than any that had existed under the Tsars,
//No doubt (and I defend these actions). But
and they oppressed ethnic minorities at least as much as the Tsars had done.
//what is evidence of this?