I disagree. They don’t see humans in general as such. They do see civilization, which is a product of humanity that has grown dependent upon technology to such a degree that humans do live as parasites, as such though.

“This is to say that primitivists perhaps fail to admit that humans are not only capable of technological innovation, but that technological innovation could very well serve in ecologically restorative projects, at the very least in the meantime, in pursuit of a completely different ontological and epistemological epoch of humans-in-nature existence.”

This sounds like “green washing” the situation and does not affect ontological concerns. Epistemologically, the limit is unchanged as well. There still is a dependence upon technology to fix things for us rather than knowing and living outside the constructs of a technologically defined existence. The ontological concern is to experience life directly without the mediations of technological apparatus. You are assuming that nature needs our technical help with “ecologically restorative projects.” This ontological approach is rubbish and epistemological stunted.

“Eco-fascism” – I’m not forcing you to live in the wild… just trying to point out the deficiencies of living within civilization which I think are plentiful. You must come to the understanding on your own. I can’t physically force you to do this and I don’t think you’ll find anarcho-primitivists who really believe it should be forced upon you and everyone else. It’s more likely they believe it will be forced upon you by the collapse of civilization than by anarcho-primitivists themselves.

“Revolution” – talk about the remnants of a failed ontological view! Although, I must say that I do appreciate you calling it a process rather than a cataclysmic event. The new fashionable term is “insurrection” which I think is more of how you mean “revolution”. The problem with much insurrectionist thought, from my viewpoint, is a problem of epistemology actually. Much vitriol is aimed at the state and capital in an effort to abolish both, but the limit of insurrectionary theory is what happens after you get rid of both. You still have a view of life that depends upon mass society and I think they fail horribly at seeing the connection between the state, capital and mass society. They are all linked, yet insurrectionists (or old-school revolutionaries) never offer much about curtailing mass society that depends upon a large state, or state like, machine to administer the operations of mass society. And due to this, I feel they don’t really offer much hope for the future.

Hadn’t come back here since October. It’s nice to be back.

-bloodyknuckles

“While the technological systems monopolized by the state are mostly out of reach for now, and others (the motorway system or the coal-/oil-/nuclearpowered energy grid) are so deeply entrenched in everyday life that dismantling them would require a much wider consensus, many new technologies that anarchists would clearly reject are still in the process of being developed and implemented and thus more vulnerable.”

Even though I know that Bloody knuckles above doesn’t conceive of completely wiping the technological slate clean at least right now, Uri is right in insisting on an answer to the question of action in the meantime. So what do these actions look like absent an ontological shift of Copernican proportions that deep ecologists and primitivists are calling for? I would also contend that it is especially important to consider the current structures that are enabling humans to live in the environment, or the material configurations of society.
I do believe Uri is right in stating that widespread technological overhaul, or any fundamental radical change can not transpire without far-reaching consensus. Furthermore, I no longer see revolution as this huge cataclysmic event where the forces of evil are defeated and human society can go on living peacefully for ever and ever. Revolution is a process, much like a permaculture garden. And much like a permaculture garden there are more variables than we can possibly be aware of. To cast a dogmatic, or at least, unyielding or simplistic, ideology on to an extremely complex system can be a recipe for authoritarian practices in the least, and disaster in the worse. The world currently can not bear any more of these types of reductivist ideologies. We all know the consequences.
So where do these two perspectives come together? I think it would be petty sectarianism (something I admit to doing above) to insist that they are incompatible. If we can accept that revolution is a process that requires consistent means to ends, and a process where consensus should be reached as far-reaching as possible, maybe it is that appropriate/autonomous/liberatory technology that subverts energy monolopies, fosters face to face community togetherness and community subsistence, health and safety, can send human societies in the direction of this ontological shift that primitivists believe is so necessary, and rightfully so. Keep struggling!

“And what do we do in the meantime?” There is a phrase – rewild, resist. We have a long way to go on these matters. The ideas are in their infancy, and so by extension are the actions. Most important is to recognize the problems with support ing technological systems. I don’t think you have done this. Obviously, we can’t undo thousands of years of “technological progress” in one clean sweep. What you are advocating seems to be a reduction of certain technological processes in favor of others. What I am saying is that there really is no difference between large and small scale techonological dependence. It is still dependence and the product of a poor approach to life and what it means to live.

“the rewilding skills proposed by many primitivists” — OK, now you’re talking. This is a far more concrete example of practices than what you provided in your original post. What I want to know, however, is whether or not you agree that these practices can only become applicable everywhere with a much lower population and restored biodiversity. And if you do – how do you expect such a condition to come about? And what do we do in the meantime?

“Eventually the decision comes to scrap the whole project or embrace the entire process” — are you sure it’s so black and white? This is exactly the monolithical approach to technologies that I think primitivist critiques fail in. Surely there is a difference between the present technological gigantism and a world of small-scale, regionally self-sufficient communities employing minimally intrusive technologies that they can generate and maintain by themselves?

The main problem I see with your essay here is that you conflate two topics, anarchist politics and technology, without giving either one a foundation in its own right. This is problematic on many levels, including strict logical ones (begging the question, for instance). Your goal appears to be promoting certain technologies that may possibly enable a decentralized political process. The unstated claim you make is that technology is a positive when implemented in this fashion, and I think this is a major problem with your essay. Technology is much more than just a means for political ends. This is why I stated you have to remove the political filter and deal with technology directly. I believe you failed to do this and so your analysis of technology is absent or minimal at best. Secondly, anarchist politics are quite messy as your comment about the Black Cat poster shows. There are many disagreements on anarchism and anarchy… why does this surprise you? Many people who identify themselves as anarchists can’t even agree on what anarchy or anarchism means, is or is to be achieved. I fail to see how technology will help concentrate anarchic activity. Beyond that, I fail to see why this is good for anarchy, anarchists or anarchism in general.

As for practical proposals for the future, I fail to see them in your essay just as you fail to see them in my comments. The difference is I was commenting on your essay, not writing an essay to inform readers of what their attitude towards technology should be. I suppose you do propose some sort of hacking skills, but is this really much different than the rewilding skills proposed by many primitivists? I fail to see the difference – both seem quite possible to achieve. The main difference I see is that with hacking skills you are taking up a pro-technological position that comes with a lot of baggage. With rewilding, there is no rewilding industry to prop up its knowledge and practice. Rewilding skills can be practiced with minimal tools, a minimal labor force and no reliance on industry. Hacking can only be accomplished in a societal framework that relies on mass production, very specialized tools, a large and inexpensive labor force and an industry dedicated to service in order to keep things running smoothly. Scavenging and recycling will only get you so far, eventually the decision comes to scrap the whole project or embrace the entire process of developing and maintaining technological gadgets. Hacking relies too much on the whole technological apparatus to survive on its own; it is a parasitic function, like dumpster diving… a geekish variation of dumpster diving is what you propose as a proper relationship to technology. I don’t believe your proposal carries much weight. It is actually a lazy way out of dealing with the problems of modern day industrialized culture.

You can dismiss me and my comments here on your blog whether you think I am dogmatic or don’t provide solutions to our “relation to technology today”, but the fact remains that your essay is weak on many points. You have not directly dealt with technology as its own phenomena, and you assume too much about anarchist politics to make your pairing of them productive to any degree. I do applaud your effort to do so, though. And I even admire the fact that you are attempting to address technology and its effects on all of us. Unfortunately, I think you have failed here and in no small trivial manner. But I guess if you’re going to fail, you might as well make as big a mess of it as you can.

-bloodyknuckles

it has been my intention to discuss technology from a broad-based position that would offer some insights for primitivists and non-primitivists alike. apparently at least one representative of each camp is too comfortable in his entrenched position to be able to move beyond more-radical-than-thou posturing.

more materially, bloodyknuckles’ comment leaves us with nothing by way of practical proposals for how anarchists should take action in relation to technology today.

An anarchist politics of technology? Why must we approach technology through the filter of politics? I don’t think this will lead you to a “finer-grained account of the social forces and interests that shape” technology. This will lead you to a higher level overview of how to control and administer technology and the civilization that depends upon it for its survival. You can’t deal directly with “technological development” until you remove the political filter! I think this is a key mistake that Gordon has made here. You must confront the will to be technological, so to speak, not the politics that shape its administration and fund its development. I think the primitivists confront the will to be technological directly. They do this by pointing out that this will to be technological, or more simply put – our willingness to rely upon technology for survival, goes hand in glove with industrial civilization and the shell game of power relations between those who control certain technologies which enable civilization to continue at the expense of the natural world and our experience of it. To view life this way, as opposed to seeing the political opportunities that certain technologies afford is a much deeper and more important question in my view. The “Prometheans” confront the administration and development of a technologically dependant civilization, but do not question its fundamental necessity and its reliance on some form of industrialization for survival. They want a new set of power relations concerning control of these vital technologies, but they fail to grasp how they are bound to the technology itself for survival at any cost. In essence, they want a new politics concerning the diet for, or how to feed their addiction to, a technologically enslaved future.

A discussion of “anarchist politics of technology” is a distraction to the more fundamental question of technology.

“These critiques of technology provide more useful markers for anarchists than accounts entangled in either Promethean or primitivist backgrounds. With their focus on power they clearly indicate the often inherently hierarchical and exploitative nature of the socio-technological complex while providing criteria for judging particular technologies on their political merits. Where these critiques are weaker is in their attached proposals for change.”

Judging particular technologies on their political merits? So we are then to adopt technologies which aid in the application of anarchistic principles to our daily existence. And our daily existence is to be defined by political decisions regarding the direction and relative power that certain technologies have to define that existence? Gordon is already leaving so much out here in his embrace of his “anarchist politics of technology” that it seems as if he can’t see clearly beyond one without the other. His essay here is tying the value of human life to that of administrator and laborer in service to technology. You can choose how you wish to serve the technologically dependant future and nothing else!

“The basic platform that the Internet is based on—the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP)— is thoroughly decentralized from the start because it is computed locally in each client node. This enables a distributed network of computers to exchange packets of information with no centralized hub.”

This is tantamount to saying something like “You can get in your car and drive anywhere the road goes.” There is much more to the system of information packet distribution on the internet and vehicular traffic in the physical world as well. To simply pull one protocol for regulating traffic on the internet and ignore all other industries that support the internet is seriously misguided and simplistic. It shows a lack of understanding on many levels and strikingly on the technological level which is of prime importance in this case. He does attempt to address this later in the essay, but in the end breaks it down to citing open-source, salvaging and recycling as a legitimate response to our slavery to machines for survival. He legitimates his response by effectively stating that these technologies can become more localized and “anarchistic” in their power relations over our lives. This is not anarchy. This is still a life derived from hierarchical economics. The centers of power might become smaller, but instead of Microsoft dictating to millions how software/firmware will control the gadgets that control our lives from Redmond, WA, you might have a collective of hackers providing you with software/firmware in a certain localized region doing the same thing for you. This is only liberating to those who already have made up their minds that they can’t live without the technological manipulation of human existence. Not everyone will become a hacker, unless they are forced to do so. Either the hackers will form an elite band of society or some sort of behavioral conditioning will take place to produce humans who are of this ilk.

“While it is likely that technology, in its bare sense as the recursive application of knowledge through machines, will remain a feature of human life for a long time, the question now becomes one of resistance to the governance of industrial decay. Thus we can end with Barandiaran (2003), who calls for a “subversive micropolitics of techno-social empowerment” that experiences it “in an open and participatory process that seeks social conflict and technical difficulty as spaces in which to construct ourselves for ourselves.”

It only remains a feature of human life if humans desire it. I would wager that humans would desire more than “the recursive application of knowledge through machines” and jettison the whole theory of dependency upon machines for their survival. What is to be avoided is “a subversive micropolitics of techno-social empowerment” which is simply codifying the domination of natural resources by abstracted human labor value based on gadgetry. What is to be strived for should be more than the fantasy world of mathematicians, engineers or hackers. The “participatory process” is not open either; it is a manufactured method to enforce dependence upon technological machinery for our survival. Social conflict and technical difficulty should not be reduced to worker run committee meetings on the application of certain technological processes and human labor to modify the experience of living a human life as part of the natural/physical world. This is not constructing ourselves for ourselves… this is constructing ourselves for the sake of technology. And this is why I strongly disagree with anything that resembles something like an “anarchist politics of technology.”

-bloodyknuckles