Submitted by aludd in Anarchism

Note: An interesting comment on a post at anarchistnews. Comments in response to Wayne's provocation are being deleted (for unknown reasons) over there so I thought /f/anarchism might allow for more anarchic dialog to take place.

Wayne's comment (bold mine):

Unabomber & Anarchism Today Submitted by Wayne Price (not verified) on Thu, 01/12/2023 - 13:22

I am pleased that Ted K Archive likes and agrees with my argument. Also that you reposted my essay on the Unabomber and anarchism on your site.

I am generally for bigger countries breaking up into smaller ones, although that doesn't always lead to a real improvement, given the continuation of capitalism and the state. Unlike, say Marxists, our internationalism does not contradict decentralism and pluralism.

At your website, you have an interesting account of the influence of Kaczinski on anarchism over the years. I had not looked at it before, since I have a revulsion for him and his work (imagine sending letter bombs to rich people without considering that rich people hire secretaries to open their mail). But you point out his influence, based on his true insight (which was not original with him) of the dangers of capitalist industrialism. Like the neo-primitivists and anti-civilizationists, he never considered the possibilities of an alternate development of technology under anarchist-communism.

From your text, we are probably in agreement on most issues, except for my foundational belief in the goal of a revolution of the working class and oppressed."



You must log in or register to comment.

GoddamnedVoodooMagic wrote

There is no alternative development of technology under anarcho-communism. It's a progressivist (in the literal sense of the word), productivist, Enlightenment-borne philosophy that regards development and technological improvement as something good and worthy of holding in high regard. And besides, anarcho-communism seems like a dead-end road to, in my opinion. Only reason it keeps having new developments is because it has to go outside itself.


aludd OP wrote


That statement of Wayne's was singled out because it is the basis of his (and most anarchist-communists who revere militarism and technology) entire argument against anti-civ thought. 'Consider X under anarchist-communism' is an impossible spook to pin down and discuss.


GoddamnedVoodooMagic wrote (edited )

It implies anarchism starts and ends with anarcho-communism, which a lot of anarchists seem to think is the case, and it's also why my desire to even identify as an "anarchist" is waning, since red-black has such a powerful stranglehold on the term.

Anarcho-communists, I think, see how restricted and, ironically enough, conservative, their worldview is in comparison to anticiv and nihilism and individualism, and feel the need to somehow demonize it. Also, like many strains of leftism, they don't like to have their...I guess, sway, taken away.


jwkkwb wrote

anarchist communism -as i see it- complemented with anticiv, nihilism and anarchist indivdialism. does that make sense?


GoddamnedVoodooMagic wrote

Not really, since anarcho-communism...seems like, from all the ancom theory I've read, is pretty opposed to those things. Certainly to anticiv, that's pretty obvious. Individualism? I suppose it depends on whether they're a more traditional red-black type, or something like an "egocom". Nihilism? I know Monsieur Dupont tried to make that work (although I never read that book), but I don't see them meshing well either.


jwkkwb wrote (edited )

maybe ancom needs help

Edited a word for improvement


anarresinfoshop wrote

Yes, it does.

While today, communists in the United States (my country) are essentially relegated to being an even tinier, more marginal and less important version of the green party electoralists, in actual history the anarchist communists have always been enmeshed in coalitions and contextual circumstances with other anarchists, and non-anarchists.

While today, anarcho-communists mostly seem to spend time in isolated organizations or on forums, defending intellectual purity, in the past they spent much more time engaging intellectually and ontologically with their peers.

In the future, we will see these ideas develop past their commodification, and become renewed by new contexts of pursuing liberation. It will be vital for communists to embrace the valuable, devastating critiques offered by anticiv/nilhyilst/individualist anarchists.

In my area, egoist communists are gaining a lot of attention, and have basically nothing in common with the goals, tactics or interests of either tankies or traditional ancoms/syndicalists like the IWW etc. So, yes, your point is well heard and valid.


ArmyOfOne wrote (edited )

I think Wayne's take is more simply just rooted in the mainstream ideology of perceiving "science" as something neutral and detached from all the underlying financial and political dynamics that push its development in the first place.

For sure there's many innovations that don't make it to the mass markets (I can think of consumer-level hydrogen power tech off the top of my head), but they'd require about the same level of mass-production and distribution, and those are driven by market dynamics that are inherently capitalistic.

Example: Why hasn't there been manned Moon missions since the '70s? I don't know all the spooky details, but this appears to be due to political context.

So Wayne, again, appears to have a very paper-thin analysis. Balkanizing big countries also bears zero potential for any antiauthoritarian revolutionary outcome.


GoddamnedVoodooMagic wrote

Yeah, science is definitely not neutral at all. It's determined and manipulated by the political whims of its time. Race science was and, in many ways, still is, accepted. As are scientific denigrations of queerness or scientific justifications of patriarchy. Not because it's "correct" (because science, like any faith, demands it be universally true, no matter what; it's exactly like its supposed enemies, the Abrahamic trio, in this regard, often appearing to be a secularized version of it), but because it serves various societal/political functions and satisfies the desires of the authority figures.

Leftists seem to think that if you merely decentralize the tyranny, the tyranny is no longer there, but this is obviously a massively idiotic idea.


roanoke9 wrote

I made the mistake of dipping my toe into reddits main science sub. Literally a mistake, didn't realize what sub I was on and ended up finding first hand, arguing with a plant geneticist about ableism. He might as well have been a nazi doctor to me. History of science is a horror show for anyone with a critical mind.


GoddamnedVoodooMagic wrote

Science has historically been little else but a way for civilization to further control, torture, subdue, and marginalize various oppressed categories, from animals to non-whites to queers. We like to think of science being used benevolently, but history points to it being good at mostly increasing totalitarianism and destroying the planet.


roanoke9 wrote

Yeah, what difference does it make if the authority controlling your life is global, national, regional or local? Or a tyrant in your own home? So tired of these bait and switch bad faith proposals: but what if you were just oppressed but in a different way?

None of them. No authority. I don't care if it is a teacher, a despot, a father or a cop. I don't care if they have red aesthetics or read big books. I don't care if they have good optics or sound edgy and cool. No authority. I don't care if that sounds intolerant or dogmatic or like a religion because it is not. I don't require being understood if that means giving an inch to any authority. No authority, ever, and I will die on this hill and no other.


ArmyOfOne wrote (edited )

The ETA, that was probably the "nicest" ethno-national liberation movement, were still making their fighters commit suicide when they were going to the Spanish prisons. While this has benefits, it's still about the appropriation or alienation of individual lives by a collectivity, and there's to wonder what kind of state you'd get out of this kind of politics.


GoddamnedVoodooMagic wrote

Likely one that mirrors the supposed conservatism and reactionaryism that it may very well claim to hate. It shall speak of freedom and liberation while it strings along its subjects in chains.


roanoke9 wrote

As an experiment, can we get a Ted thread with no reference, quote or mention of Wayne Price? What is the point of glueing these two together like this?


aludd OP wrote

My deleted comment follows:

Wayne, can you expand on this more?

"Like the neo-primitivists and anti-civilizationists, he never considered the possibilities of an alternate development of technology under anarchist-communism."?

Specifically, what do you see being a "possibility of an alternative development of technology under anarchist-communism" that Ted, neo-primitivists, and anti-civ anarchists should consider? What does "under anarchist-communism" mean as you are applying it here?

A related question: under anarchist-communism would thecollective retain authoritarian control over conversations and be the deciders of who can and can not express their views on subjects? Or would perhaps there be an alternative development of technology that would allow anarchists to express themselves on subjects and also say "fuck thecollective!"?

Thank you.