Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 14:33:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jamal Hannah <jah-AT-iww.org>
Subject: Anarchism and Hyper-Technology


Hi.. a while ago (about a month ago), Z Zed posted about some "Arch
Anarchy" thing, which basicly was Extropianism (trans-humanism, cyborgism,
whatever you want to call it).  It's intertesting... every so often some
crackpot anarcho-capitalist who hates being human comes up with a "brand
new" and "more free" version of anarchy with a new name, but it's basicly
your garden-variety Extropianism (the idea that technology will bring
everyone boundless freedom, happiness, and will remove all limits to
humankind).

I think the thing to remember about hyper-technology ideologies
is they come straight out of the most brainwashed of capitalist
ideologues.. people who work for the defense industry and such, or
people who spend all their time reading specific types of Science Fiction,
probably because they arnt happy with their own lives but dont believe in
any kind of solidarity/organising/revolution to change things.

I am not against technology per se, or technological progress.. but the
problem with extropian/transhuman type ideologies is that they mirror the
ideology of marketing people.. the maxim of "The best way to get a person
to agree to something is not to give them any choice." .. when people are
told about this fabulous new cyborg future, and people object to it, we
are told that it will happen anyway, so there is nothing we can do about
it... either the corporations will force it on us, or
"underground" techno-rebels will force it on us.

The fact that something is forced on you is reason enough to oppose
it.. no other justification is needed.

First of all, the most advanced tehnologies need the power and money of
the state (and corporations working with them) to develop.  If production
were controlled by the people themselves, there would still be
technological progress, but it would be at a slower pace, and it would be
a pace that was not jarring to the cultural ties of the population as a
whole.  Also, destructive technologies would be less likely because if
"the masses" have a say in the matter, they are not going to dump toxic
waste in their backyards (or produce it in the first place).

One big problem I have with technology-obcessed people who claim to be
"anarchistic" is that they skip over what has to happen before technology
is allowed to take over everything (if it ever is)... a social revolution
that places power in the hands of the non-capitalist class.  They consider
this boring (or scary) and want to "speed up" human "evolution" by letting
corporations force technological change on all of us so we have no choice.

It is basicly premature to talk about cyborgs, nanotechnology, etc,
outside of fantasy settings in a way that suggests they are
liberating.. they are not liberating, they are profittable.  We
shouldnt be fooled about that.

Recently, AdBusters magzine printed a phony "Cyborg Manifesto".. it
basicly sounded like your standard Max More (Extripian)/Dona Haraway
(Cyborg) advocacy claptrap.  A lot of people took it seriously, I am sure,
because it was exactly the kind of stuff marketing people promise us
through their "life enhancing" commercial products and technologies.

Technologicaly obcessed people would like to convince anarchist
revolutionaries to forget about the working class and social freedom and
instead work towards creating technologies which will change life as we
know it.  I personaly think its a waste of time for them to try.. a waste
for them to keep trying to re-define anarchism or come up with new catchy
names for anarchism that isnt anarchism at all but is their own personal
ideology... and like crying, selfish babies, they insist that real
anarchy, real freedom, wont be achieved until they get their own
personal way and anyone who opposes them isnt a real anarchist and doesnt
believe in freedom. It is like the nationalist who is only intereted in a
new state for their social enclave, and isnt interested in anything
else... they want to convince anarchists to help them with their cause,
but in the end they will turn their backs on the anarchists once they get
their own dream established in reality.

 - Jamal

P.S. By the way, the issue of AdBusters that came out after the "Cyborg
Manifesto" issue had a response from John Zerzan.  I was dissapointed that
Zerzan's strongest criticism of extropianism/cyborgism is to label them
"post modern"... as if this has a stong meaning to most people. My
problem is that primitivism, which Zerzan advocates, is actualy a
_post-modern_ idea... it rejects the idea of modern progress being
benificial to humanity.  The main basis for claiming that
hyper-technology/futurism is "post-modern" is that it abandons the idea of
class struggle and proclaims capitalism and it's technology industry the
hands-down winner, and says that oridinary people have no say in how
society could proceed... and this is the opposite of the traditional
modernist, socialy progressive, humanist position that says people can
solve their own problems if they work together, as opposed to letting
elites do everything.