What should anarchists do with new technologies? The world is changing very rapidly with new technologies. Maybe in 50-60 years there will be technologies that enter the human body and keep it safe from harmful pathogens/diseases/etc. There might be virtual reality in which people can just plain old live their entire lives. Technology might make for a huge increase in material wealth. Technology might be able to feed all at anytime. Obviously I want to keep living my life as free as possible. Obviously I want anarchism. But, realistically, who, when these technologies come into being, would oppose them. And some anarchists would (post leftists. anti civ, primitivists. But who could make the argument to non anarchists and even other anarchists that we should still abolish law, the state, and technologies that can do these amazing things. Is there someway to have a technologically advanced society without law? I doubt it. Anyways what do you think?
Of course it doesn't allow you to control the thoughts of somebody living on another continent (which I know is a very important milestone to achieve for humans, duh), but you get way more control over it, instead of nano-scale circuit boards. But as far as crystal radios and even HAM radio internet are awesome ideas, not much people are into it.
...which is a good thing since this avoids all the Fedbook idiots.
Vinyl and needle pickups with an optional hand crank and horn speaker, stuff Zerzan would approve of, oh wait, no, they use steel needles and petro chemicals in the vinyl,,,,,
It isn't about managing capitalism. I know the whole revolution thing isn't working out for y'all, but without it, there seems to be this slide into market anarchist nonsense and petite-bourgeois concerns. The more and the longer revolution is rejected, the more anarchists grow increasingly stupid. Yes, the idea of revolution is pretty much a bunch of crap, a myth. Without this myth anarchists are weak and can't comprehend their own narrative and purpose.
There is a bunch of lying to yourself with the rejection of revolution. You want the smashy smashy, but you want it to be some jaded philosophy student at the same time. The aesthetics of anarchy is iconoclasm and such movements were founded on a lack of faith in institutions but at the same time a higher faith in the spirit and the people that made up the institutions. Certainly there is no revolution to end all revolutions, if we are thinking of some sort of world war. But there is no reason for a shared experience in anti-authoritarian expression without a focal point.
Insurrection attempted to be this, but it is trapped by its demographic appeal, primarily based on age. Maybe we live too long to be dangerous as a class, but I'd more say an insurrection is a fascination of those who have nothing to lose, which can also mean they have no stake in a longer, protracted battle to control our lives. There is a divide between the doers of the deeds and those who want a non-judgemental anarchy. If anarchists are fucking shit up, you best bet there is some judging going on. Especially if it is to move beyond reactive and defensive modes of operating.
I say all this on this thread because of the bourgeois nature of this topic. Maybe anarchy can be little pockets of individuals inside of capitalism that use solar panels. I don't want to waste my time with these people, but you could generate a definition of anarchy that makes this their version of anarchy. At a certain point though, we have to recognize, if this is what anarchy is, then perhaps anarchy is a bunch of stupid bullshit and maybe that revolution thing is more interesting than anarchist navel gazing and radical posturing?
Good post! I feel similarly about the nature of the problem but I think there's always other things to focus on, besides "revolution".
I don't dismiss or malign revolutionary posturing (let alone activity) because to me, that's just a sad attempt to cultivate a sense of intellectual superiority based on how weak we all are, which is too depressing! It's more about recognizing the traits that you're obscuring with vague terms like "revolutionary".
What kind of skills and experience would that person need to have? Regardless of whether the "revolution" is around the corner? Then you ask yourself, how else are those skills useful? Then, acquire those skills for different, more immediate contexts and use them. The "revolution" might never come but you're still learning and practicing stuff to do with conflict and self-reliance so it's a net gain and clearly not what most of the left is currently doing. Sure sure, everybody is shit-talking antifa these days but a lot of people have met each other and learned practical skills because of that tendency.
Now here's the best part, it doesn't need to have anything to do with countering the far right! Antifa/ARA is just one more context among countless others.
"Insurrection attempted to be this, but it is trapped by its demographic appeal, primarily based on age."
Hums... looking at the longevity of people involved in the local IWW crowd (3-4 years for the most prominent members, a few months for the most independent-thinking ones), I'd say that the revolutionary ideal is also one helluva teenage thing that gets easily lost in the social structures as times go by, or at worse, travestied through some forever fucked up entryist schemes.
I don't know what this whole "market anarchism" thing is, but you appear to be describing tendencies that are nothing else than the same old liberalism. Identity politics... bitcoin-mining... academic radical poseuring... all typical liberalism. Which consists in attempting to address issues (or not even addressing them, but giving the impression you do) at the low-hanging fruits level of things and not caring going any deeper.
So I still contend that between the broken revolutionary ideal and liberalism, insurrection still sits perfectly as the alternative. It's just that most of us, distracted and caught up with the daily routines of capital, don't see it clearly enough. And this really ain't just about smashing windows... which to me is a petty tactic like another.
Real insurrectionist anarchy is a praxis that is ageless. Plenty of Euro insurrecto anarchists are having a very significant post-30s existence, even if some are behind bars. I couldn't say the same of here where you're, like, forced to jump in the Left activist bandwagons when you get older, just to avoid being deemed an undercover or a sexual offender, or just because you ain't cool enough or too weird for the 20s anarchos...
People fucking grow up.
I'm one of these people you're theorizing about. A mid-30s anarchist, interested in and occasionally using an insurrectionary praxis. The hard limits I've ran in to were a simple lack of reliable comrades. It's barely even anything specific to the anarchist subculture where I live, although the flakiness is slightly moreso than the rest of the millenials.
People as a whole just can't seem to conceive of putting more than a few hours work in, like in a year! I don't hold a grudge when it's about survival like having to go to your wage job or whatever but I often get the sense like people expect their anarchism to pay off instantly or they're on to the next cheap thrill.
There are always some exceptions and those are my comrades but they are very few...
"The hard limits I've ran in to were a simple lack of reliable comrades"
Me too!
Walls made of VOID are the toughest. Especially when they got nice graffiti art painted on these.
Add new comment