Rejection of industrial society [Archive]

ÑóẊîöŉ

22nd November 2008, 21:40

Whether a planned economy or a market economy, the perpetuation of industrial society will unlikely be less alienation and more human happiness.

And you base this bald-faced statement on what, precisely?

I think the left has not dwelled enough on the question of technology and its effects on industrial society.
The sophisticated mechanisms of large-scale technology will continue with (1) the detachment of human beings from themselves, (2) perpetuation of hierarchical desires among those with technological "knowledge capital".1) How does technology "detach" human beings from themselves?

2) How does knowing something make that knowledge hierarchical? If anything, technological society is more "co-dependant" than any other. The vast majority of nuclear physicists have no idea how to operate a combine harvester. Similarly, most farmers would be hard-pressed to operate the nuclear reactors which power their farms. Cooperation is essential in technological society.

Therefore, we should seriously reconsider whether there is such a thing as neutral technology that serves the totality of life. In this respect, John Zerzan rightly asks "Who's gonna go down to the mines?". Who says we need to send anyone down the mines? ;) But in any event, modern mining has little relation to the old "send 'em down with pickaxes" attitude of times past. Rotas and apprenticeships are the way to go, and nobody who is physically able is exempt from helping in some manner.

P.S. This is not a "primitivist" manifesto.Sure sounds like it.

BobKKKindle$

22nd November 2008, 22:43

I think the left has not dwelled enough on the question of technology and its effects on industrial society. There is an increasing tendency for sections of the left to reject technology on the basis that using technology is inherently "alienating" without ever explaining how this is actually the case, and to idealize pre-industrial society without thinking about what life would be like for workers and other people who lack access to resources if we refused to take advantage of the incredible scientific advances that have been made over the centuries and especially in the modern epoch. This is a reactionary trend which needs to be forcefully rejected, as it is only by using technology as much as possible that we can reduce the need for people to work and thereby establish conditions which will allow people to spend time developing their abilities and doing things they actually enjoy, which is really what communism should be about.

The idea of "alienation" is something that comes up quite a lot in discussions over the role of technology and anti-industrialists like to assert that technology will always lead to people being alienated. To understand why this is false we first need to be clear that alienation is the process by which people become separated from the world in which they live, including separation from other members of the human species, as well as separation from the products of our labour. Capitalism is an alienating society because the structure of the market forces us into competition with each other, and prevents us from controlling the goods that we produce, as private ownership ensures that these goods fall under the control of the capitalist class even though they are the result of people working together in large units of production. Abolishing technology, however, would give to an even more serious form of alienation - we would be denied the ability to control the natural world and would ultimately be constantly subject to the threat of natural forces which have the capacity to destroy life when we cannot adequately prepare for and counter these forces - hurricanes, eruptions, famines, etc. Far from removing alienation, abolishing or even diminishing the use of technology would intensify it.

It is interesting that in the countries which actually come close to the kind of society that primitivists/ecologists want to see, you never hear about people who enjoy living without technology and want to stop their countries from becoming industrial societies based on mass consumption and the widespread use of modern technology. Anti-industrialism is restricted to the developed world and is only promoted by a tiny minority who like to think of themselves as being part of the left but are actually even more reactionary than the worst sections of the right - at least proponents of the free-market recognize the value of technology, even if they fail to acknowledge that the free-market will deny the exploited majority access to technological advances.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, this makes me angry - why don't you go to a group of peasants in India, and tell them they should be satisfied with their standard of living because life will be worse if they get to have computers and medicines? Then you can tell us about how they respond if you even get a chance to finish your patronizing nonsense.

the detachment of human beings from themselvesWhat is this even supposed to mean? How does sitting in front of a computer or taking antibiotics "detach" me from myself?

perpetuation of hierarchical desires among those with technological "knowledge capital".The obvious solution to this issue is to make sure that everyone has a working knowledge of technology - in the developed world it is already compulsory for students to learn how to use computers when they are at school and the same principle could be applied in a socialist society. Hierarchy would become more intense without technology, as those who have access to food during the famines (which [would] happen much more often in pre-industrial societies, due to the lack of fertilizers and other forms of agricultural technology, combined with our inability to store food for long periods of time or transport food from areas which are not experiencing famine) will be in a position of authority over everyone else, as they will have the power to decide who gets to live, and who dies, because they distribute food. The same could be said of those who control the natural water sources during droughts - the point is that hierarchy will become more prevalent, again because we would be subject to natural forces.

Tatarin

23rd November 2008, 05:14

Primitivism has excluded, it seems, historical facts. History has shown that people tend to develop what is most efficient to use. Primitivism requires all people to reject technology, but also that all generations after them will reject it as well - how would this be done? What happens with the person/group who reinvent technology?

Even if we imagine peak oil having a huge impact - let us say, air traffic stops, nuclear generators, etc etc, it would only go back so far. People would still build ships, even if they are made out of wood. People would still use coal and stone, iron, glass. What about the knowledge? The books, papers, etc?

Dean

25th November 2008, 02:48

Whether a planned economy or a market economy, the perpetuation of industrial society will unlikely be less alienation and more human happiness.

I think the left has not dwelled enough on the question of technology and its effects on industrial society.
The sophisticated mechanisms of large-scale technology will continue with (1) the detachment of human beings from themselves, (2) perpetuation of hierarchical desires among those with technological "knowledge capital".

Therefore, we should seriously reconsider whether there is such a thing as neutral technology that serves the totality of life. In this respect, John Zerzan rightly asks "Who's gonna go down to the mines?".

P.S. This is not a "primitivist" manifesto.

It is important not to have the attitude that technology is inherently disassociative. It is only in its social application that technology exists as a social destructive force.

That said, the things posted by Bobkindles for instance are crap. While he could have found a situation in which technology has succeeded in further associating social tendencies - i.e. the availability of less narrow news outlets and social circles - he states that "...denied the ability to control the natural world and would ultimately be constantly subject to the threat of natural forces which have the capacity to destroy life when we cannot adequately prepare for and counter these forces..." Simply put, this is not an issue of alienation, except for in this context: the notion of control over nature is disassociative between human existence and natural disasters. This isn't a situation in which you want an unalienated existence, at least not in the way Bob articulates it.

But the fact remains that technological progress as it exists today, in the role technocrats propose or as a dominantly laboring force is dangerous. For each portion of your laboring and active life that is mechanized and externalized, humans shift towards a passive-receptive orientation. The difference is squarely between having and being. The bourgeois notion of social life is to possess it: life is delegated to machinations, while the possessor is primarily interested in the possession, adjustment and trade of such forces. The technocrat proposes only the most alienating aspect of this, which is the quantification and mechanization of industrial powers.

What is interesting is that we have not actually opposed the personal mechanization of labor. For instance, a backhoe and trencher are wonderful tools which speed up such forms of work. I don't have any opposition to such labor, and I don't think anyone else does. Such alienation is primarily between the physical labor of the user and the product.

What is damaging is when the system of social, economic and industrial control, organization and maintenance are mechanized by the dominance of numerical expressions as perceived social goods for control and systemization of these fields. It is not a mistake that the minimax solutions and linear programming of the 80s and 90s were described as technocracy. That's just the fact of what that is and always has been. It is an insidious form of concession of control. Of course, what ultimately benefits humans is what we strive for. But the never-ending mechanization of labor, the never-ending "numerical rationalization" of what are ultimately value judgments is not goign to help that cause, not at all.

It truly speaks wonders that the technocrats are dogmatically in support of technological reorganization of all fields of human existence. The notion is that since humans created technology, its usage is ultimately humanist. This suffers from the same deficiency as 'individualism': They forget that such widely adopted economic and social systems as slavery, democracy, representative government, bureaucracy, management, price-cost analyses were all created by individuals or minorities. The fact is that technology has never been positive in and of itself: it is good or even decent when it serves an associative, productive human goal without damaging, weakening or taking control of human labor and activity.

Technocrats love to bash reports and articles which exemplify the damaging relationship between people and technology. To them, such a statement is a rejection of progress. Well, what does that mean? If progress is a linear notion directly proportional to time, then the progress seen in 1944 is shit and I oppose it, for example. Frankly, progress is only positive as seen altogether. To cite the strawman Bob posted, Indians not having increased standards of living is comparable to Japanese not being bombed. The notion is false in the first place. There is nothing purifying or wholly positive about the social implementation of technology. Sometimes it is wonderful. Sometimes it is shit. Today, it is alienating and destructive, and primarily serves to reinforce a xenophobic, selfish and disassociative culture. In some applications, such as scientific research and medical fields, science has great results. But don't pretend that there aren't powerful, destructive trends in its application - and indeed, the direction and goals of research itself.

ex_next_worker

25th November 2008, 13:07

The choice of people to create technology after a collapse of a technological society is trying to go with your head against the wall. After all, what mechanism could there possibly be that would prevent a hierarchical development of society in, say, an egalitarian society of the future? If you can argue this question, I don't see how you can argue for ahistoricism of techno-pessimism, since obviously this is bound in the social relations that arise in a type of society that either has certain attributes like technology or doesn't.

And this drives me to the second point: I think you should carefully read the post by Dean in this thread, since the naive perception of technological neutrality seems to be a given for some of you. Obviously then, technological advancements do not perpetuate mass division of labor, centralization, social atomization and a perpetuation of a technological process that injects values, dependence on technology and the glorification of technology as Progress.

Indian peasants? If advancements of biotechnology are on their side, why are they massively committing murders over the loss of their livelihoods? Saying that someone would show a mobile phone to a peasant and say "you're better of without it" is completely decontextualized.

ernie

25th November 2008, 14:15

What is damaging is when the system of social, economic and industrial control, organization and maintenance are mechanized by the dominance of numerical expressions as perceived social goods for control and systemization of these fields. It is not a mistake that the minimax solutions and linear programming of the 80s and 90s were described as technocracy.
Who calls it technocracy? I've read quite a bit on this subject and I've met a few people who work in this field and have never encountered that word.

That's just the fact of what that is and always has been. It is an insidious form of concession of control. Of course, what ultimately benefits humans is what we strive for. But the never-ending mechanization of labor, the never-ending "numerical rationalization" of what are ultimately value judgments is not goign to help that cause, not at all.
What do you mean by "concession of control" and by "numerical rationalization"? Perhaps you could further explain the whole paragraph, because it was difficult for me to understand. It seems that you are saying that using algorithms that optimize objectives is, in and of itself, harmful to society. So, for example, minimizing the time -- or cost or amount of work -- to distribute food to different communes (a classic optimization problem) is somehow a bad thing? How is this a "numerical rationalization"?

Vanguard1917

25th November 2008, 14:48

It is interesting that in the countries which actually come close to the kind of society that primitivists/ecologists want to see, you never hear about people who enjoy living without technology and want to stop their countries from becoming industrial societies based on mass consumption and the widespread use of modern technology. Anti-industrialism is restricted to the developed world and is only promoted by a tiny minority who like to think of themselves as being part of the left but are actually even more reactionary than the worst sections of the right - at least proponents of the free-market recognize the value of technology, even if they fail to acknowledge that the free-market will deny the exploited majority access to technological advances.

Well pointed out. However, i think we should make clear that such reactionary positions aren't just the preserve of marginal and irrelevant 'ptimitivists'. In fact, they are very mainstream to the contemporary ruling class ideology that is environmentalism. No doubt a progressive, Marxist critique of the destructive impact of capitalism on our material surroundings can and needs to be made. That has nothing whatsoever in common with the reactionary ideology of environmentalism, however.

Eco-worriers of various stripes may think they're being radical, but they could not be more reactionary. They oppose the features of modern capitalism which are in fact progressive and, in some aspects, revolutionary: e.g. technological, industrial and agricultural progress, higher levels of mass consumption, the ability of human society to better command natural forces, the internationalisation of the economy, urbanisation, greater international human mobility.

In its 'critique' of industrial capitalism, the environmental movement - essentially an upper and middle class movement rooted in the West - calls for extremely backward 'alternatives': localised economies, economic nationalism (e.g. the 'buy British' and 'buy local' campaigns of the middle classes), the expansion of backward agricultural methods (being pro-'organic', anti-GM, anti-factory farming, etc.), opposition to urban development, hostility to development in the 'third world', the advocacy of 'sustainable development' for poor countries (i.e. localised and small-scale development projects), the demand that people become less mobile and stay where they are (opposition to long-distance travel, for instance).

Hence an immensely parochial, conservative, narrow-minded, backward and anti-working class viewpoint which must be strongly resisted and struggled against.

Everything new got drawbacks. Maybe we should abolish the knowledge of fire because people tend to burn to death from time to time?

Or let's go back to living in caves, because houses have the potential of falling down on us.

ex_next_worker

25th November 2008, 15:59

In fact, they are very mainstream to the contemporary ruling class ideology that is environmentalism. No doubt a progressive, Marxist critique of the destructive impact of capitalism on our material surroundings can and needs to be made. That has nothing whatsoever in common with the reactionary ideology of environmentalism, however.

Eco-worriers of various stripes may think they're being radical, but they could not be more reactionary. They oppose the features of modern capitalism which are in fact progressive and, in some aspects, revolutionary:

You can't be serious? Explain for me then in what respects are Greenpeace and Earth Liberation Front the same?

e.g. technological, industrial and agricultural progress, higher levels of mass consumption, the ability of human society to better command natural forces, the internationalisation of the economy, urbanisation, greater international human mobility.

Wait, don't we have this already?!?

In its 'critique' of industrial capitalism, the environmental movement - essentially an upper and middle class movement rooted in the West ...

Yeah, they're as wealthy like the majority of Marxists theorists, armchair theorizing from the comfortable centres of bourgeois society. Give me a break.

... calls for extremely backward 'alternatives': localised economies, economic nationalism (e.g. the 'buy British' and 'buy local' campaigns of the middle classes), the expansion of backward agricultural methods (being pro-'organic', anti-GM, anti-factory farming, etc.), opposition to urban development, hostility to development in the 'third world', the advocacy of 'sustainable development' for poor countries (i.e. localised and small-scale development projects), the demand that people become less mobile and stay where they are (opposition to long-distance travel, for instance).

This kind of rhetoric shows that either 1) you support the current economic globalization and with it, the minimal regulation of environment degradation - so obviously, it's ok to use pesticides; to have your food delivered from another continent while polluting the planet; to use advanced technology (like, for example in India, where the peasants have it so good because of biotechnology!), etc. or 2) again, that you don't have the slightest idea of what enviromentalism is.

Hence an immensely parochial, conservative, narrow-minded, backward and anti-working class viewpoint which must be strongly resisted and struggled against.

Hahahaha, the irony, my friend...

zimmerwald1915

25th November 2008, 16:50

You can't be serious? Explain for me then in what respects are Greenpeace and Earth Liberation Front the same?
Who mentioned Greenpeace and Earth Liberation Front? For the life of me, I can't find a single mention of them in the post you quoted. The closest I can find is "eco-warriors" which, and I might be interpreting this wrongly, seems to be a perjoritive term for all environmentalists. That post contains rather a lot of them.

Wait, don't we have this already?!?
Perhaps I'm wrong, but that was the point Vanguard1917 was making: capitalism, for all its contradictions, for all its exploitiveness, for all the destruction is causes, has been a historically progressive system to the extent that it has brought about the things mentioned.

Yeah, they're as wealthy like the majority of Marxists theorists, armchair theorizing from the comfortable centres of bourgeois society. Give me a break.
Insults help nobody...

This kind of rhetoric shows that either 1) you support the current economic globalization and with it, the minimal regulation of environment degradation - so obviously, it's ok to use pesticides; to have your food delivered from another continent while polluting the planet; to use advanced technology (like, for example in India, where the peasants have it so good because of biotechnology!), etc.
Economic globalization is not in itself a bad thing. In fact, economic globalization is the material basis for internationalism and international struggle, and thus for the victory of the workers' movement over capitalism. What is bad about economic globalization is that, while capitalism still exists, the world economy is subject to all the contradictions and convulsions of capitalism. What is needed is a bit of historical perspective; economic globalization in communism will not be subject to these contradictions and convulsions, because said contradictions and convulsions will die with capitalism.

or 2) again, that you don't have the slightest idea of what enviromentalism is.
On the contrary, he seems to have a pretty clear idea. Particularly since environmentalism, wherever it finds political expression, takes the form of "curbing the excesses" of capitalism rather than developing a perspective against it.

Hahahaha, the irony, my friend...
Well, quite.

ex_next_worker

25th November 2008, 17:08

Who mentioned Greenpeace and Earth Liberation Front? For the life of me, I can't find a single mention of them in the post you quoted. The closest I can find is "eco-warriors" which, and I might be interpreting this wrongly, seems to be a perjoritive term for all environmentalists. That post contains rather a lot of them.

Eco-worriers of various stripes may think they're being radical, but they could not be more reactionary.

conflated with...

... calls for extremely backward 'alternatives': localised economies, economic nationalism (e.g. the 'buy British' and 'buy local' campaigns of the middle classes), the expansion of backward agricultural methods (being pro-'organic', anti-GM, anti-factory farming, etc.), opposition to urban development, hostility to development in the 'third world', the advocacy of 'sustainable development' for poor countries (i.e. localised and small-scale development projects), the demand that people become less mobile and stay where they are (opposition to long-distance travel, for instance).

Or maybe the generalization is something that should be taken for granted.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but that was the point Vanguard1917 was making: capitalism, for all its contradictions, for all its exploitiveness, for all the destruction is causes, has been a historically progressive system to the extent that it has brought about the things mentioned.

Economic globalization is not in itself a bad thing. In fact, economic globalization is the material basis for internationalism and international struggle, and thus for the victory of the workers' movement over capitalism. What is bad about economic globalization is that, while capitalism still exists, the world economy is subject to all the contradictions and convulsions of capitalism. What is needed is a bit of historical perspective; economic globalization in communism will not be subject to these contradictions and convulsions, because said contradictions and convulsions will die with capitalism.

From a completely different angle (for those ahistorical fools), anthropology and ethnographic fieldwork have shown that most small-scale societies are affluent societies that have access to an abundance of resources, they are skilled and can survive without resorting to advanced technology and they are often egalitarian. Here you might want to read Marshall Sahlins's "stone age economics", just to begin with. Interestingly, these are also the societies possess no belief in Nature as the enemy which should be dominated for the sake of Progress.

So why would I want economic progress at all? Though I'm sure I know the argument behind the next corner...

In fact, economic globalization is the material basis for internationalism and international struggle, and thus for the victory of the workers' movement over capitalism. What is bad about economic globalization is that, while capitalism still exists, the world economy is subject to all the contradictions and convulsions of capitalism. What is needed is a bit of historical perspective; economic globalization in communism will not be subject to these contradictions and convulsions, because said contradictions and convulsions will die with capitalism.

You know, that's all nice and shiny, but it remains rhetoric 101 and we might ask ourselves, from a sociological perspective, why those societies that were highly technological and aware of the technological "gift", failed to bring freedom and resulted in historical massacres.

P.S. No disrespect, but why in the world are you explaining what someone else said and meant?

Vanguard1917

25th November 2008, 22:04

Perhaps I'm wrong, but that was the point Vanguard1917 was making: capitalism, for all its contradictions, for all its exploitiveness, for all the destruction is causes, has been a historically progressive system to the extent that it has brought about the things mentioned.

Yep, that's exactly the point i was making. And you're absolutely right to make the astute point that environmentalism is interested in '"curbing the excesses" of capitalism rather than developing a perspective against it.' It is the environmentalist argument that capitalism is flawed because it gives way to too much progress. Hence environmentalism's essentially conservative nature.

Tatarin

25th November 2008, 22:22

The choice of people to create technology after a collapse of a technological society is trying to go with your head against the wall. After all, what mechanism could there possibly be that would prevent a hierarchical development of society in, say, an egalitarian society of the future?

On the contrary, much more than going back to the stone age. While I do agree that many tribes and prehistoric societies may not have been bloody barbarians, this have developed differently throughout the world. People went along with "that's just the way life should be"-thinking, the ruler was chosen out of the spirits, a religion, being the strongest etc.

But take a closer look on the world today. The majority of people would most likely seek leadership if a collapse came tomorrow. Nazi and fascist sects, being fan-clubs for now, would gain authority. Religions would again rule many people. Sure, egalitarian societies may develop in some places, but most would be focused around other ideals.

In contrast to the future, where technology can make democracy transparent at any time of day, for everyone. Like the internet, cell phones etc. History has been recorded, and people can access those records at any time for knowledge and enlightenment.

Again I ask, what is to become of the cities, books, weapons and all the other stuff that's been invented uptil now? Do you really expect every single society to turn its back on everything that is around them and run into the woods? For that matter, what would become of, say, nuclear technology? Just leave it to chance and see what happens?

Dimentio

25th November 2008, 22:35

There is a reason why human societies developed beyond the stone age level. You also ignored that there is actually no freedom of choice in a stone age society. Either you work or you starve. You do not invent music, arts, culture, you adhere to the elders. You get 29-33 years old. It is a 30% chance that if you are a male, you will be killed by another male.

We could observe that in tribal societies today.

Of course, there are tribal societies which are relatively harmonic, but that's because they also are relatively remote. And the dullness, the inability to develop and the static nature of these societies are reactionary at best.

Moreover, look at this:

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/d/d9/360px-Population_curve.svg.png

You do not seriously - very seriously - think, that 7 billion people could be sustained by the means of production available during the stone age. The world will shrink back to 500 million if we move to the neolithic age, and back to 10 million if we move back to a hunter-gathering state of order. That will mean enormous suffering and destruction.

I do not believe in nature as an enemy, but I am a firm believer that we could and should unify a high standard and quality of life with a balance with nature. The economic system which I advocate is called technocracy (http://en.technocracynet.eu) and could, unlike primitivism, go hand in hand with communism.

Our goal is to replace the market economy, which is causing an ecological collapse, with our own system of energy accounting (http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=84&Itemid=103), to prevent the collapse which you neo-flagellants are awaiting.

I hold nothing but contempt for anti-ecological and anti-egalitarian anarcho-primitivism.

I think anarcho-primitivists are enemies of all serious environmentalism and progress, because you make the progressive movements you infest look like kooks. Its of course partially their fault as well.

zimmerwald1915

26th November 2008, 03:55

From a completely different angle (for those ahistorical fools), anthropology and ethnographic fieldwork have shown that most small-scale societies are affluent societies that have access to an abundance of resources, they are skilled and can survive without resorting to advanced technology and they are often egalitarian. Here you might want to read Marshall Sahlins's "stone age economics", just to begin with. Interestingly, these are also the societies possess no belief in Nature as the enemy which should be dominated for the sake of Progress.
First of all, it is a fallacy to extrapolate conclusions about prehistorical society from a relatively tiny number of people living in still tinier, isolated groups in extreme[ly hostile] environments. People living in pre-class conditions in New Guinea do not necessarily have the same relationships with themselves, between each other, or to nature than did people living in pre-class societies in the middle east. The climate, available food sources, the adaptability of those sources (both plant and animal), and the amount of labor necessary to adapt and ensure the continued viability of those sources led to the creation of class society in one place and disallowed it in another. Class society initially developed where it did because it was natural for it to do so. It spread because, once it existed, its inner dynamics were such that it had to expand to maintain its necessary labor stock, its stock of arable land, or its market, depending on the type of society in question and the stage of its development. Societies evolve their own imperitives according to their own internal laws of motion; so it was with the creation of the first class society.

"Egalitarianism" is not an eternal principle, something to be strived for throughout time. It is something to be strived for now as a means toward the overthrow of capitalist society and the creation of communist society. Idealization of societies simply based on their "egalitarianism" is abandoning any sort of historical perspective and replacing it with what amounts to worship of an ideal.

Also, as to your last point, the societies in question have no conception of dominating nature because they view nature as the unchallengable dominating force. That is what "humanity living as a part of a whole, harmonious nature" means; nature is the subsumer, the devourer, the dominatrix.

So why would I want economic progress at all? Though I'm sure I know the argument behind the next corner...
Why should it matter if we want it or not? If I may quote, for a bit, "men make history, but they do not make it of their own free will". We live in a society that has as its internal imperitive, its unchallengable law, economic progress. That is the condition in which we find ourselves. As long as that society continues to exist, that criterion will remain unchallenged. As for why there will be progress in communism, I will begin by asking a question: when are humans most human? When they submit to the dictates of their environment? Hardly. When they're deriving sadistic pleasure from the torture they inflict on other living creatures? No. Humans are most human when they are creative, and societies are most humanizing when they allow for the free creativity of human individuals. What happens when we create? We rearrange materials we find into something new; that's the very definition of progress, the invention of new things, ideas, modes of life and of thought.

You know, that's all nice and shiny, but it remains rhetoric 101 and we might ask ourselves, from a sociological perspective, why those societies that were highly technological and aware of the technological "gift", failed to bring freedom and resulted in historical massacres.
Hmm, I'm getting the picture here. You picked up a Sociology 101 (or perhaps slightly more advanced), a couple of "radical anthropology" texts, and suddenly you find yourself compelled to bring the dogma of reasonable regression to us poor, benighted, creative people. Do I get the gist of it? Probably not; I just made that up, but it's a nice story, don't you think?

You're positing a false dichotomy, based on a presupposition that is false to begin with. The false dichotomy is between technological society and the blissful ignorance of antique lifestyle. The false presupposition is that class and technology go hand in hand. Both are in fact partly true; class societies have, hitherto, been the only ones to develop technology extensively, and hitherto the choice has been class society and primitivism (that is, where there is a choice; class society tends to spread). But you're forgetting one important historical alternative; communism, in which there will be no classes and in which technology will be already furnished by past societies. As Tatarin pointed out, it's here already. Why, if we succeed in eradicating classes, can we not make use of the material stuff that's been bequeathed to us by capitalist society, since we've abolished capitalist relations?

P.S. No disrespect, but why in the world are you explaining what someone else said and meant?
None taken (not over this comment anyway). I'm explaining it because you didn't seem to understand what he was trying to say, because I thought it would be a while before he could get on again and I didn't want his comment to be occluded by others in the meantime, and because I'm just such a nice guy. You'll notice he hasn't objected. Yet.

ex_next_worker

26th November 2008, 08:11

First of all, it is a fallacy to extrapolate conclusions about prehistorical society from a relatively tiny number of people living in still tinier, isolated groups in extreme[ly hostile] environments. People living in pre-class conditions in New Guinea do not necessarily have the same relationships with themselves, between each other, or to nature than did people living in pre-class societies in the middle east. The climate, available food sources, the adaptability of those sources (both plant and animal), and the amount of labor necessary to adapt and ensure the continued viability of those sources led to the creation of class society in one place and disallowed it in another. Class society initially developed where it did because it was natural for it to do so. It spread because, once it existed, its inner dynamics were such that it had to expand to maintain its necessary labor stock, its stock of arable land, or its market, depending on the type of society in question and the stage of its development. Societies evolve their own imperitives according to their own internal laws of motion; so it was with the creation of the first class society.

"Egalitarianism" is not an eternal principle, something to be strived for throughout time. It is something to be strived for now as a means toward the overthrow of capitalist society and the creation of communist society. Idealization of societies simply based on their "egalitarianism" is abandoning any sort of historical perspective and replacing it with what amounts to worship of an ideal.

I salute your arguments up until..

Also, as to your last point, the societies in question have no conception of dominating nature because they view nature as the unchallengable dominating force. That is what "humanity living as a part of a whole, harmonious nature" means; nature is the subsumer, the devourer, the dominatrix.This is a very crude generalization that is also based on an ethnocentric comprehension - that is, the Western conception of nature. Unfortunately, this doesn't fly, at least not from my perspective, considering the anthropological insight that has twisted and broken down the nature discourse.

When they're deriving sadistic pleasure from the torture they inflict on other living creatures?

And this implies..?

No. Humans are most human when they are creative, and societies are most humanizing when they allow for the free creativity of human individuals. What happens when we create? We rearrange materials we find into something new; that's the very definition of progress, the invention of new things, ideas, modes of life and of thought.Sounds like Marx from the 1848 Manuscripts. :rolleyes:

Perhaps at this point, a common reading of a text that I defend (that would be Sahlins's) and the idea you oppose with further discussion would be good.

Hmm, I'm getting the picture here. You picked up a Sociology 101 (or perhaps slightly more advanced), a couple of "radical anthropology" texts, and suddenly you find yourself compelled to bring the dogma of reasonable regression to us poor, benighted, creative people. Do I get the gist of it? Probably not; I just made that up, but it's a nice story, don't you think?Not really, I'm a anthropology phd candidate, but hey...

zimmerwald1915

26th November 2008, 13:25

This is a very crude generalization that is also based on an ethnocentric comprehension - that is, the Western conception of nature. Unfortunately, this doesn't fly, at least not from my perspective, considering the anthropological insight that has twisted and broken down the nature discourse.
Then you concede that, somewhere, human beings had this sort of conception of nature as dominating? Very well. I will in turn concede that this perspective is not endemic to all pre-class societies. Logrolling arguments is fun.

And this implies..?
It implies very little but more rhetoric 101. Examples (or provokative rhetorical questions) are more compelling when they come in threes. I was stuck, and needed a bit of filler.

Sounds like Marx from the 1848 Manuscripts.
I do my best.:cool:

Perhaps at this point, a common reading of a text that I defend (that would be Sahlins's) and the idea you oppose with further discussion would be good.
Perhaps it would. If only we knew each other IRL...

Not really, I'm a anthropology phd candidate, but hey...
Ah well, it was a nice story. Still, you got a cool name for your proposals out of it..."reasonable regression". I like it.

Pogue

26th November 2008, 13:36

Troll alert, troll alert

ex_next_worker

26th November 2008, 13:38

Then you concede that, somewhere, human beings had this sort of conception of nature as dominating?

Maybe I wrote it unclearly or you misunderstood me. In no way do I concede.

Vanguard1917

26th November 2008, 13:40

This is a very crude generalization that is also based on an ethnocentric comprehension - that is, the Western conception of nature.

Nope, it's objective fact. The less that humans are in control of natural forces, the more that they are controlled by nature forces. When humanity was living in 'harmony' with nature, when it was a part of nature's 'web of life' and was subjected wholly to its laws, human life was short and brutal. It was only by learning to subject nature to the will of humanity that our existence on earth began to improve. Communist society seeks to further this progress, by empowering human beings to consciously command their material surroundings, allowing them for the first time to leave the realm of necessity and enter the realm of freedom.

"With the seizing of the means of production by society, production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer. Anarchy in social production is replaced by systematic, definite organization. The struggle for individual existence disappears. Then, for the first time, man, in a certain sense, is finally marked off from the rest of the animal kingdom, and emerges from mere animal conditions of existence into really human ones. The whole sphere of the conditions of life which environ man, and which have hitherto ruled man, now comes under the dominion and control of man, who for the first time becomes the real, conscious lord of nature, because he has now become master of his own social organization. The laws of his own social action, hitherto standing face-to-face with man as laws of Nature foreign to, and dominating him, will then be used with full understanding, and so mastered by him. Man's own social organization, hitherto confronting him as a necessity imposed by Nature and history, now becomes the result of his own free action. The extraneous objective forces that have, hitherto, governed history,pass under the control of man himself. Only from that time will man himself, more and more consciously, make his own history — only from that time will the social causes set in movement by him have, in the main and in a constantly growing measure, the results intended by him. It is the ascent of man from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom."
- Engels (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm)

zimmerwald1915

26th November 2008, 16:53

Cue: "but that's old, outdated, and infected by Western ideology to boot!"

ex_next_worker

26th November 2008, 17:50

When humanity was living in 'harmony' with nature, when it was a part of nature's 'web of life' and was subjected wholly to its laws, human life was short and brutal.Care to point out examples of these barbarians(!) that need our enlightenment?

Vanguard1917

27th November 2008, 00:14

Care to point out examples of these barbarians(!) that need our enlightenment?

Was anything mentioned about 'barbarians in need of our enlightenment'? What was pointed out was what the reality of the inablity to control natural forces in human interests is like. It's not a 'Western conception', as you patronisingly put it -- as though those living in poor countries should somehow celebrate the backwardness and poverty of their socio-economic conditions, rather than being allowed to have full and equal access to the best technology and highest living standards that the world currently has to offer.

ex_next_worker

27th November 2008, 06:29

Was anything mentioned about 'barbarians in need of our enlightenment'? What was pointed out was what the reality of the inablity to control natural forces in human interests is like. It's not a 'Western conception', as you patronisingly put it -- as though those living in poor countries should somehow celebrate the backwardness and poverty of their socio-economic conditions, rather than being allowed to have full and equal access to the best technology and highest living standards that the world currently has to offer.

We are talking not of poor people within industrial societies, but primitive societies. If you can't distinguish, then I'll go with your incomprehension and see your reasoning in light of this failure to grasp differences.

as though those living in poor countries should somehow celebrate the backwardness and poverty of their socio-economic conditions, rather than being allowed to have full and equal access to the best technology and highest living standards that the world currently has to offer.

And I advocated this technological deprivation exactly where?

The aim of technological abolitionism is not the deprivation of some people from access to technology and continual use by those who already have access to it.
It is a position that advocates social change with less technology, as technology is not seen as neutral; ironically, if anything subjects humans to domination, then it's technology.

Dimentio

27th November 2008, 09:52

We are talking not of poor people within industrial societies, but primitive societies. If you can't distinguish, then I'll go with your incomprehension and see your reasoning in light of this failure to grasp differences.

And I advocated this technological deprivation exactly where?

The aim of technological abolitionism is not the deprivation of some people from access to technology and continual use by those who already have access to it.
It is a position that advocates social change with less technology, as technology is not seen as neutral; ironically, if anything subjects humans to domination, then it's technology.

Care to enlighten us what "less technology" means? 1800;s? 1700;s? 700;s? 2000 B.C?

ex_next_worker

27th November 2008, 12:03

There is a distinction to made between tools, which require no particular knowledge and can be easily taught to make. Such tools certainly preserve the autonomy.

However, complex technology that requires division of labor and is most efficient when work is broken down where a multitude of labourers perform simple, alienating tasks. Such technology also requires authority (as already Marx pointed out in On Authority). What makes the matters worse is the dependence on engineers, programmers and other sophisticated professions that make people's lives dependent on their expertise. Unless, of course, we take turns while performing surgical procedures.

Dimentio

27th November 2008, 13:09

Alright. I do not agree with you that complex technology is alienating people, on the contrary, I think that complex technology is needed in order to build societies where people could be free.

Think of it.

In primitive societies, you are the subject to the whims of nature, and do not have any other thing to do than go get food.

In early agricultural societies, a surplus is made which would allow a small minority to do whatever they like with their life, and would give partial autonomy to a sort of urban middle class.

In industrial society, most people have limited autonomy, a little larger minority could do what the hell they want.

In communism, everyone would be free to do what they like.

Vanguard1917

27th November 2008, 13:13

We are talking not of poor people within industrial societies, but primitive societies.

OK, so we're talking about poor people within primitive societies, and thus celebrating the poverty and backwardness of their socio-economic conditions.

Who do you think you are to tell people that they should be happy with their poverty?

It is a position that advocates social change with less technology, as technology is not seen as neutral; ironically, if anything subjects humans to domination, then it's technology

Yes, you seek to gradually do away with technological development. Marxists, on the other hand, seek to massively step up technological development. The key reason that we oppose capitalism is in fact precisely that it restrains the development of the productive forces of society.

It's not technology which subjects humans to domination by others; it's the social relation of capitalist society. As i explained above, technological progress is key to liberating humanity, by allowing us to reduce the realm of necessity and expand the realm of freedom.

What makes the matters worse is the dependence on engineers, programmers and other sophisticated professions that make people's lives dependent on their expertise. Unless, of course, we take turns while performing surgical procedures.

Lol, so the solution is to get rid of scientists, engineers and surgeons, is it? No, we can't all take it in turns to perform surgical procedures. So let's just abolish all progress in medical science and make ourselves fully vulnerable, once again, to nature's wonderful diseases?

Make sense to you?

ex_next_worker

27th November 2008, 13:47

In primitive societies, you are the subject to the whims of nature, and do not have any other thing to do than go get food.

Marshall Sahlins: The Original Affluent Society from Stone Age Economics. Google it.

Don't you think it's biased to say that there is nothing to do, as if different ways of living implies dull, empty existence? (If I understood you right, maybe you were trying to say they were too busy with hunting and gathering).

In communism, everyone would be free to do what they like.

Remember the first phase: primitive communism :D

lvl100

27th November 2008, 14:09

There is a distinction to made between tools, which require no particular knowledge and can be easily taught to make. Such tools certainly preserve the autonomy.
.

You still didnt answered Serpent`s question.And i think it very important to see where you draw the line on this.
Like how about a shovel ? Its a very basic tool , but you still need miners to work in the the iron mines mostly manual (without Catterpilars and other heavy machinery because you need the oppressive technology to make them) and hard working blacksmiths (for agriculture you need a shitload of shovels if we quit on the alienating combines)

So we keep the shovel or not ?

ex_next_worker

27th November 2008, 14:26

You still didnt answered Serpent`s question.And i think it very important to see where you draw the line on this.
Like how about a shovel ? Its a very basic tool , but you still need miners to work in the the iron mines mostly manual (without Catterpilars and other heavy machinery because you need the oppressive technology to make them) and hard working blacksmiths (for agriculture you need a shitload of shovels if we quit on the alienating combines)

So we keep the shovel or not ?

No, we want the trucks and the combines, because they come out of thin air and are practically given to us! :glare:

Vanguard1917

27th November 2008, 14:29

What's your point?

Address the points i made in my previous post.

lvl100

27th November 2008, 14:37

No, we want the trucks and the combines, because they come out of thin air and are practically given to us! :glare:

This seems like trolling already and quite a primitive one (pun intended)

I asked you a simple question. In general, where we draw the line . And i want specific examples.
Start with that shovel.

ex_next_worker

27th November 2008, 14:55

I perceived your question as provocation.

If you need a shovel, you need steel and if you wanted to preserve progressive steelmaking, you'd have to keep the modern industry and of course advance it. The same pattern goes for wood, if other materials aren't used.

Where do we draw the line? Well, everyone draws the line where they want to and where others allow them to. You can have the factory and you can find the people that will work in the factory, essentially realizing they are producing for an egalitarian society. But how long will this ethical argument last?
If anything, the irony is that the claims of natural domination really ought to come from technology since technology truly is today's dominating force. Pull the plug on technology and you'll see what happens.. meaning that certain industry, which may be dangerous and particularly unpleasant, needs to be kept for the sake of people and the preservation of life.

In what way does this domination of machines differ from natural domination?

lvl100

27th November 2008, 15:06

In what way does this domination of machines differ from natural domination?

The machines are man made products. They cant be inherently evil because the man is not inherently evil.

BobKKKindle$

27th November 2008, 15:07

Well, everyone draws the line where they want toWhat you don't understand is that returning to the "wild" does not actually require any radical social change, especially if you acknowledge that other people should be able to live in an industrialized society if they can find other people who want to do the same thing - why can't you go and live in the middle of the desert, or the depths of the rainforest right now? Why are you using a computer, given that advanced technology is apparently such a bad thing which leads to people being alienated?

In what way does this domination of machines differ from natural domination? The use of technology allows us to avert famine - fertilizers have allowed us to produce large amounts of food and thereby support a global population of more than six billion people, transport allows us to move food to areas where it is required in the event of food shortages, storage technology allows us to preserve surpluses so we are prepared for shortages which may arise at some point in the future. If we abandoned all these forms of agricultural technology our food output would instantly drop back to the level of a pre-industrial society and consequently we would not be able to feed even a small share of the entire planet's population and there would be a famine on a massive scale. This is far more terrible than any "domination" arising from machines.

ex_next_worker

27th November 2008, 15:26

The machines are man made products. They cant be inherently evil because the man is not inherently evil.

You're right, they aren't. Guns aren't either. (No trolling)

ex_next_worker

27th November 2008, 15:32

What you don't understand is that returning to the "wild" does not actually require any radical social change, especially if you acknowledge that other people should be able to live in an industrialized society if they can find other people who want to do the same thing - why can't you go and live in the middle of the desert, or the depths of the rainforest right now? Why are you using a computer, given that advanced technology is apparently such a bad thing which leads to people being alienated?

Why do you go to the store and pay for food with your wage? If capitalism is the problem, why haven't you dissolved it yet, but remain living in capitalist state, if it's so alienating?

I'm not trying to deflect, just pointing out to the barriers that remain in the struggle. The capitalist economy desires infinite progress and its logic is bound to colonize every profitable piece of land on the planet. The native Americans - among others - are the (remaining) living proof of this.

BobKKKindle$

27th November 2008, 15:36

Why do you go to the store and pay for food with your wage? If capitalism is the problem, why haven't you dissolved it yet, but remain living in capitalist state, if it's so alienating?

The overthrow of capitalism and creation of a socialist society requires the cooperative effort of the international working class, whereas you could plausibly isolate yourself from industrial society and thereby obtain your desired lifestyle without overthrowing capitalism - there are many wilderness areas which have not been exploited by capitalism and may not ever be exploited because they are so remote and do not obtain any resources of economic value - the forests of Northern Russia come to mind. Why can't you find people who hold the same ideas as you, and go to live in one of these wilderness areas?

ex_next_worker

27th November 2008, 16:43

Tatarin

28th November 2008, 03:24

The big question about primitivism is, again, how it is supposed to stop a group in Japan from recreating industrial society. Because that is what will happen. Unless every single person on the planet agrees to never "go back" to industrial society, and it is somehow guaranteed that every person after also agrees to this. It simply can't be done.

Contrary to global revolution. It isn't "waiting for something to happen". Venezuela is a good example. The Cuban revolution. The Russian, Chinese, hell, the whole damn world for that matter. In every country you find people who wish for the better. And people who act for the better.

In a socialist society, for example, I would have to be a garbage collector for one day in my entire life. Less pleasant work can be directed that way. Imagine all completely useless jobs like salesmen, advertisement, etc. More people could work less on jobs that are hard but necessary for society. Also, pointing out technology, it could very well be directed to improvements in the mine.

Robotics, nanotechnology, and so on. When there are no more resources to fight over, science will put all of its might to solve the mining problems, garbage collecting, waterlines, power, internet etc. Had we have a complete global revolution in the 1900's, I'd bet most of those things would now be automated.

But that is not all. First you must accept the fact that most of the global population will die by "ending technology". I don't think many people are okay with that.

Decolonize The Left

28th November 2008, 07:33

From my perspective, you are arguing with this dry stuff thas has passed into obsolescence a long time ago and there is absolutely no qualitative basis for me to buy into this "creation of a socialist society requires the cooperative effort of the international working class". Such dogmatic crap that wants to push itself away from criticism by positioning some pseudo-universal basis for not creating change right here, right now.

But ok, it's your choice to choose to wait and hope for a strong, global working class.

Obviously you are saying "accept technology or go live in the remote forest" RIGHT NOW as if i said to you "why don't you crush the state or shut up about your workers' party".

It seems as though the notion that 'creation of a socialist society requires the cooperative effort of the international working class' is based on simple logic rather than dogmatic hope... For if a socialist society is to have worker control of the means of production, the workers would need to cooperate. And if the workers would need to cooperate, they would need to cooperate globally.

You must remember that technology is a tool. It can be used for good, evil, whatever, but it is, in itself, just a series of aids and advancements. Your issue with technology (and industrial society), as I understand it, is with how it has been used rather than with the things in themselves. Is this correct?

- August

lvl100

28th November 2008, 07:44

You're right, they aren't. Guns aren't either. (No trolling)

Yes they aren`t.

From my perspective, you are arguing with this dry stuff thas has passed into obsolescence a long time ago and there is absolutely no qualitative basis for me to buy into this "creation of a socialist society requires the cooperative effort of the international working class". Such dogmatic crap that wants to push itself away from criticism by positioning some pseudo-universal basis .

That reminds me about how funny primitivism tries to promote itself.
First they do anything to attach their ideology to to the Left to gain some kind of revolutionary legitimacy .
And then this small minority start to attack the rest the left for being reactionary and act like they discovered the wheel. (oups, i take it back the wheel is alienating and bourgeois)

for not creating change right here, right now

Yes we need more ELF and hospitals bombings

Obviously you are saying "accept technology or go live in the remote forest" RIGHT NOW as if i said to you "why don't you crush the state or shut up about your workers' party".

Moot point. There is nothing revolutionary in going back to be part of the food chain again.

Dimentio

28th November 2008, 07:58

Primitivism is the future because we make free love and porno movies (http://www.fuckforforest.com/) to gain attention and save the environment. Our men are breastfeeding their babies and our women are wearing dreads. We are denouncing civilisation, living outside during warm summer days. But its a bit too hard under winter, so we are sleeping in our friends' apartments then instead.

We are only eating vegan food. Animal liberation!

Socialism is an outdated, patriarchal philosophy which is so HARD and so COLD, because it does'nt take into consideration the needs of humans, to be a part of nature. The only thing we must need to do is to DARE to live.

You are reactionaries, unless you agree with us. We are cool because we have beards and piercings.

Join us.

ex_next_worker

28th November 2008, 09:29

Actually, if you feel that calling anyone who advocates techno-abolitionism (either on a certain or a total extent) a primitivist, then you obviously have more of a problem with sectarianism than with an actual discussion.

If you see this discussion as a way of confrontation between technocrats, Lenininsts and whatnots, then basically it can all degrade down to sarcastic remarks and straight-forward attacks.

Nor is there a theoretical totality the thng that I want or would even want to have in mind, i.e. a sketch of an existence with a key to basically every answer and built-in mechanisms for defending reactionary moves.

The point of the thread - and I'm glad it came down to so many posts - was to discuss the views that open up fields that have not been discussed enough or simply embraced as the absolute good, i.e. technology; I find it useful to look into social critics and philosophy of technology not because I would oppose a certain political position, but because such a technology does not necessarily boil down to a neutral invention that brings emancipation and because there's more to it..