The New Prometheans: Technology and the Dreams of Reason

prometheus_screenplay

What shall we do with time? – Ray Brassier

Ray Brassier in the Accelerationist Reader which I’ve written about in another post will offer a critique of the theological underpinnings of Jean Pierre-Dupuy’s antagonistic stance against the new “convergence technologies” (NBIC). Dupuy in his defense would rely on Hannah Arendt’s The Human Condition which was itself influenced by Martin Heidegger’s notions of Dasein and Kant’s insight into finitude. Without going back over all this in detail I only want to go back to the heart of Brassier’s argument which dealt with Dupuy’s insistence that a balance or equilibrium must be maintained between the made and the given otherwise the dreams of reason may spawn monstrosities and introduce a disequilibrium into existence.  Against such a notion Brassier will state:

What I want to suggest is that it is precisely this assumption of equilibrium that is theological; it is the claim that there is a ‘way of the world’; a ready-made world whose order is simply to be accepted as an ultimately unintelligible, brute given, that is objectionably theological. (p. 485)

Against this myth of the given – or the idea that the world was made by a Divine being and should not be messed with less we bring about some hubristic doom, Brassier tells us that “Prometheanism is the attempt to participate in the creation of the world without having to defer to a divine blueprint. It follows from the realization that the disequilibrium we introduce into the world through our desire to know is no more or less objectionable than the disequilibrium that is already there in the world. (p. 485). Against Heidegger’s fear that such a Prometheanism is grounded in voluntaristic assumptions Brassier will maintain that it need not be, that rather than being based on some notion of a vitalist will or activity it could be simply based – as in Kant, on a rule-governed activity (i.e., the notion of “rationality as the faculty of generating and being bound by rules” (p. 485). This form of rationality “consists in grasping the stratification of immanence, together with the involution of structures within the natural order through which rules can arise out of physical patterns” (p. 486). That this rationality ousts intentionalism from its bastion in philosophical speculation is not only a consequence of this new Prometheanism it is a enactment of the very principle of “technological ingenuity” that would allow such experimentalism to pervade the dynamism of this social project to begin with.

For Brassier we can either accept the old theological world of the given, accept finitude and the limits and constraints upon human and technological ingenuity and advancement; or, “more interestingly, we can try to reexamine the philosophical foundations of a Promethean project that is implicit in Marx – the project of re-engineering ourselves and our world on a more rational basis” (p. 487). Brassier sees this as part of a collective project, a research program that takes as its starting point an aspect of Badiou’s notions of event and subjectivity (although not exactly as Badiou describes these), through a reconnection to his “account of the necessity of the subjectivation to an analysis of the biological, economic, and historical processes that condition rational subjectivation” (p. 487). In that essay he would see the need to realize that reason should be tempered by imagination because it is both fueled by imagination, while at the same time being able to remake the limits imposed on imagination.

One aspect he did not go into in depth was the two paths of bifurcations upon which such a future might take. He mentions the capitalist view of those such as Ray Kurzweil and others who invest in a future that would reengineer society based on a transhumanist project in which AI, Cloning, More-than-human biotechnologically enhanced humans might transcend current humanity allowing for a new class division of those who would become superior in intellect and physical capacities, while others would be disposed into ‘zones of exclusion’ much like our slum-worlds that Mike Davis and others have already documented so well.

This notion of two futures: one based upon Marx’s posthumanist vision of remaking humans and society based on equalitarian views of social justice; and the other based on neoliberal visions of Nietzsche’s Übermensch are part of the Accelerationist Politics of Prometheanism I’ve slowly been working through over the past couple years since Williams and Srnicek’s manifesto was published. At the heart of it is this need to reevaluate as Brassier mentioned the “biological, economic, and historical processes” that inform both sides of this Prometheanism.

We can understand the capitalist Prometheanism as the command and control of nature through Science, Technology, and Society in the first Industrial Revolution based on steam and autonomization; the Fordist transformation based on Taylorism of efficiency and the assembly line; and, the computational transformation in economics and communications that brought about our Financial Network Society; as well as the new systems of capital that are moving into the NBIC Technologies of the 21st Century. All of these will need to be explored in depth and detail, as well as Marx’s initial critiques of the first Industrial Revolution. His basic insights will need further updates into these other forms of capital up to our time.

The Left during the twentieth-century broke away from Marx’s basic economic insights of the Industrial political economy and machinic civilization and turned toward Culture. This I believe was not a terrible mistake, yet it lost sight of the original vision set forth by Marxian analysis and thereby was unable to see the form of Prometheanism that Capitalism was taking in its various scientific and technological transformations aligned as it was with economic, military, and industrial complexes. With Lukacs and then the Frankfurt School Marxian analysis came to a dead end with the pragmatic fall of Stalinism and then the demise of Socialist State Tyrannies. We can no longer afford to dwell on past failures, but must realign our vision toward the future while investigating the historical aspects that made those failures possible to begin with.

The Left has of late been imploding and falling into an internecine war among its own members allowing both despair and self-defeat to set in. This must be stopped. Time to take Marx to heart and begin again from his initial insights, while at the same time not seeing them as some kind of frozen historical document that we must follow like the Torah to the letter of the Law. Marx spoke of change, dynamism, and the future reengineering of man and society. I think he meant just that. I also think if he were here today he’d be shaking his head at much of the defeatism we see in Leftist journals with their open despair and self-deprecatory attacks on each other. Sadly those who attack are usually less than adequately informed on just what Marx actually said. Instead of Solidarity the Left has atomized itself into identity therapies of race, gender, and sex wars that have little to do with overcoming the political and social ramifications we’re facing.


Addendum: Notes For later

When one looks at the base set of issues:

  1. Climate Change and Catastrophism in general (Sixth Extinction underway, etc.)
  2. Resource depletion (Water, Soil, Energy, Food, etc. the need for Sustainability);
  3. Inequality at the local and international level: the exclusion of what many term disposable people, etc.
  4. Economic Resource Wars – Middle-East, Africa, and other nations caused by resource wars Oil, Minerals, etc.
  5. Austerity in the first world
  6. Racism and Police brutality across the planet (Prison Planet, etc.)

One could go on and on with lists of areas that need to be organized by the Left. But instead we see nothing but infighting and academic one-upmanship in journals and press. We see the same critiques laid our against neoliberalism in book after book but the activism has died out as having no effect. Is it that we think these problems insurmountable? Or do we just lack imagination tempered by reason to actually formulate an initiative to actually change things? It’s time to do something more than spin our wheels.

I know in my own work-in-progress its the organization of the various problems we’re facing in this next century that concerns me most, while incorporating how the neoliberal capitalist vision is seeking to construct its own Utopian Future right before our eyes: one that will be based on inclusion/exclusion principles based on biological, economic and class distinctions. Many of the things we see at a local level in racism, gender, and sex related issues that are separated out into micro-narratives need to be brought back into a meta-narrative that allows us to see them in the larger frame. I disagree not with Focault’s basic premises, but see that he threw out the baby with the was in refusing the need for a larger meta-framework of imagination tempered by reason within which we can incorporate these various stratified issues as part of our critique of Neoliberal or Late Capitalism.

Financial capitalism is among other things based on a form of derivatives debt of failure and risk casino trading that bets on countries and other types of commodities failing rather than succeeding. Today, swaps are among the most heavily traded financial contracts in the world: the total amount of interest rates and currency swaps outstanding is more than $348 trillion in 2010, according to the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). Even if you added up the current World GDP these Swaps would beat it by 50%. Instead of investing in people, in lives, in rebuilding the worlds actual foundations these are immaterial goods swapped in and out of light-speed transactions on markets that are both autonomous and inhuman.

Strangely I was turned onto something I’d not thought about before which is the notion of geoengineering, which is what the military used to term Weather modification, etc. By seeding clouds with aluminum oxides, barium, sulfur dioxide etc. they can modify moisture content, and change jet-stream patterns, etc. Video on this of worth by supposed whistle-blower Kristen Meghan.   One of the surprisingly large stocks is Weather derivatives where people bet on bad weather happening. Weather derivatives are financial instruments that can be used by organizations or individuals as part of a risk management strategy to minimize risk associated with adverse or unexpected weather conditions. If one could control the weather on analyst stated in the documentaries on the geoengineering site that hundreds of billions could be made. Just as traditional contingent claims, a weather derivative has an underlying measure, such as: rainfall, wind, snow or temperature.  Nearly $1 trillion of the U.S. economy is directly exposed to weather-related risk.  More precisely, almost 30% of the U.S. economy and 70% of U.S. companies are affected by weather.  The purpose of this monograph is to conduct an in-depth analysis of financial products that are traded in the weather market. Presenting a pricing and modeling approach for weather derivatives written on various underlying weather variables will help students, researchers, and industry professionals accurately price weather derivatives, and will provide strategies for effectively hedging against weather-related risk.  This book will link the mathematical aspects of the modeling procedure of weather variables to the financial markets and the pricing of weather derivatives.  Very little has been published in the area of weather risk, and this volume will appeal to graduate-level students and researchers studying financial mathematics, risk management, or energy finance, in addition to investors and professionals within the financial services industry. ​

Another aspect of Weather control with the use of aluminum oxides and barium and other substances is that they introduce into the atmosphere, soil, and human populations the risk of acidic neutralization of soil (i.e., makes the soil infertile), medical issues, and related issues of Alzheimers, Autism, etc. that are caused by aluminum oxides introduced into the human system. One can see where this leads. But it gets worse, there is also the notion of this use in India and Africa along with large cartels of chemical companies such as Monsanto that have due to such soil neutralization by chemicals introduced their terminator seeds that must be bought from these companies that have been genetically altered to withstand (what else?) the problem of aluminum oxides in the soil. Strangely in India and other countries the suicide death toll of farmers that cannot afford such seeds each year has also contributed to large international agribusiness in buying out such properties over the past 15 years. We’re talking trillions of dollars in revenue. This is just the tip of the ice-berg of what is left out of most national and international news reporting. Most of this is written off in main-stream media as “conspiracy theory”. Almost anything that relates to large corporatism on a national or international level that does not fit into the accepted vision of the neoliberal elite is cast into an exclusionary zone of conspiracy. But more an more many of the things once thought of as fringe notions at best are becoming a part of our everyday reality whether we like it or not.

As one medical whistleblower admitted the basic three agendas on the plate of global governance and control is depopulation through toxic agents released in the atmosphere that will slowly accumulate while neutralizing soil acidity, enforcing a food monopoly based on terminator seeds by Monsanto and other large Combine and International Control Agents. As well as the introduction of agents that will speed up the break down in neuro-activity causing autism, Alzheimer’s and other specific diseases to increase subtly and without knowledge of the host countries. All paid through tax funds and austere measures. Documentaries like Seeds of Death speak of genetic modification that leads to immunity and systemic damage across the environment. Null’s other documentary exposing the FDA. Another one of the history and toxicity of fluoride The Great Culling. Many learning disorders have been related to this. We use sodium fluoride (Hexafluorosilicic acid) from China. China banned the use of it in their own country due to it ineffectiveness and toxicity related to diseases. All done by Cargill the largest chemical maker of this waste product.

We’ve seen in recent time that human intervention into frakking, or the new forms of oil extraction in China and other countries have instigated man-made earthquakes. We know that the use of the HAARP is for weather related modification as well. Air Force admitted to using this system to make modifications to the ionosphere, and that they have found other ways to do it. One can make of it what one wants. Yet, many of these things being done are usually spoofed off into conspiracy sites or disinformation campaigns, etc. The only thing one knows for sure is that these are secret DARPA projects that know one knows in detail except those sworn to secrecy. This is one of the dark sides of democracy: that we have secrets, surveillance, Patriot Acts, etc. All the flavors of dictatorships without the supposed dictator.

When you realize that corporatism no longer cares one way or the other about humans, that humans have all become disposable as risk and failure in this latest edition of immaterial or semiotization of capital one realizes that the world is doomed unless we do something collectively to stop this machine in its tracks. If we don’t who will? The Neoliberal Transhumanist Agenda is one in which elites and the plutocracy shall enhance their futures with technological initiatives while slowly ridding the planet of its excess population through new forms of Eugenics (not called that, but by way of International Health Programs). This neoliberal Prometheanism seeks to overcome the human with a version of the enhance human through pharmaceuticals, medicines, technology, etc. Is this what we want?

As Zoltan Istvan a candidate for the Transhumanist Party puts it: “Transhumanism wants to improve the human body with science and technology–which is to say it wants to help people evolve. That’s a strange cultural and philosophical position for a movement. And yet, evolution is exactly what transhumanism aims to usher in–except transhumanists want to do it far more quickly than by glacial-paced natural selection.” They want to play at being gods who can reengineer humanity to fit the neoliberal agenda. At the heart of this is the notion of overcoming suffering, death, and human limitation:

Our identity should not only be based on who we are, or where we come from, but also on where we’re going and what we can become–especially in the 21st Century when science and technology is starting to change so many things about us. Transhumanists aim to make every person the very strongest, very best person they can be if they want to be. We aim to make it so that suffering, death, lack of ability, and lack of well-being never reach anyone ever again if they choose not to want it. (ibid.)

One hears nothing about creating a world based on equality and justice. In fact most of these right-wing transhumanist believe that to be impossible, so for them the path is one path only: those who share in their utopian system and also belong to the wealthy classes will enter this new global cosmopolitan world of enhanced humans. All others will be left outside the gates of their pearly palaces and evil paradises.  Is this a Manichaen vision of the future? No. One can see it in the world today. The future is all around us if we’d just open our frekking eyes.

15 thoughts on “The New Prometheans: Technology and the Dreams of Reason

  1. Just after I read this the following appeared in my facebook feed. An extract I think you’ll appreciate.

    “Most of the theoretical expressions that emerge from this confused condition share a fundamental misidentification of effects as causes. Identifying the source of their unhappiness in their own naïve optimism and commitment, their investment in some political project or process, they reason that, in order to spare themselves future suffering, they must cease to hope, to commit, to desire, they must treat each new event as dead from the start. They conclude not only that disaffection and pessimism will cause us to suffer less in the face of the failure of struggles, but that optimism, earnest commitment, investment, are the source of these failures. In other words, they reason that the reason we lose is because we keep trying, despite the fact that it is obviously the other way around. There are now dozens of accounts of how struggle against capitalist domination requires some form of withdrawal, subtraction, de-subjectivization, removal, impassivity, patience, slowness. In some cases, there may be real practical and psychological insights in these accounts, but each one makes, in our view, a fundamental mistake – it turns a political process into a psychological operation; it substitutes an ethics for a politics. Though it’s true that capitalism uses our investments and passions against us all the time, the better to render us compliant, exploitable; the better to set us against each other; the better to keep us scrambling after illusory goals, capitalism has no problem mobilizing various forms of disaffection, indifference, and unfeeling. These moods quite obviously render one just as pliable as the excited, enthused worker; the passionate consumer; the overly sentimental parent; the enraged activist. Depression is not a weapon, it’s a wound in the shape of a weapon”.

    I need to go back and look this over. I have been a nihilist anarchist and moved into what they call “civic anarchism”- the polite and nice anarchism that does nice things and organizes well. But I consider this a failure too. I’m not so sure that I am coming out on the side of a renewed optimism. There are two problems going on here, two problems that have been run together. The need for therapy and the necessity of politics. In the first case we’re talking about coping with reality and the prison we find ourselves in. In the latter case we’re dealing with the fact that we’re always involved. That is part of the prison. The problem gets glossed one of two ways. 1. “REVOLT, not therapy!” 2.”Communism as the therapy of singularisation”. This is why I have begun to talk about (psycho)survivalism. This is a “by any means necessary” operation that doesn’t really care for leftist tropes. It certainly starts to jar with my continued membership of an anarchist organization. What is the minimal difference between victimhood and survival?

    One of the conversations I see taking place on facebook is the need to abandon the idea of capitalism and its various qualifiers in order to see the future-present for what it is. There are lots of candidates (my favourite so far is MacKenzie Wark’s “thanaticism”) that all want to have done with the ceaseless talk of capitalism so as to actually see what it is that that term occludes. In other words, to have a new metanarrative. What I see in thanaticism is the centrality of the uneven distribution of death and vulnerability to death at the core of the project. The transhumanists are perfected capitalists insofar as they are engaged in a literal project that seeks the “denial of death”. Accumulated capital was an immortality project but it fails. As Baudrillard endlessly repeats all accumulation is laid to waste by disaccumulation. The denial of death can never halt death.

    Overcoming suffering is to my mind the only thing worth pursuing. This is what keeps me in any way attuned to the world. The idea of the necessity of suffering is disgusting. It turns my stomach. So here I am ambivalent.What to do with transhumanism? If it doesn’t talk about equality then it is hardly about overcoming suffering, that seems obvious. It is about overcoming MY suffering. It is a narrow and petty egoism.

    The identity therapies you talk about are abundant for one reason: they are based on the ontologization of the experience of a particular shared oppression. They are communities that have nothing in common except their particular symptoms. Communities of the symptom are communities of victims who lacerate themselves for pleasure. Here it is: pleasure is painful to the organism. Well, pain is pleasurable too.

    If depression is not a weapon then what is it? A wound that looks like a weapon. Okay. But is the idea that we just pull ourselves up by the bootstraps and get on with it? That is very much the idea of enforced healing that we’re familiar with throughout our history. GET BETTER OR GET OUT. I am hardly going to recommend depression. I am hardly going to castigate it or therapy either. Between despair and hope is depressive realism. The depressive realist position has hardly been entertained. It’s too soon to say “oh forget that”.

    P’raps what I’m saying is simply confused jibberish- talking to keep the accusing silence at bay- and it might be symptomatic of the politics of hopelessness you’re talking about. I see the political projects I am involved in and see that they are really about survival. They pretend to be about something bigger and that is all.

    This is where I wonder about pushing the victim further. The victim doesn’t want to survive. She wants revenge. She is full of resentment and compassion. She wants to implode. To go further into indifference towards the big abstractions so as to discover the little suffering bodies that populate this corner of the cosmos. Where is solidarity if it is not in suffering?

    Liked by 3 people

    • Yea, been reading Bob Black’s works on anarchism of late… he’s got some interesting things to say. His book After Leftism. It’s like you’d think these guys would have read Norman O. Brown and Ernst Becker, or at least Marcuse on this denial of death crap… 🙂

      Like

      • Bob Black is dreadful is you ask me. I read him as a teenager anarcho. Thought it was brilliant. Maybe I need to go back to that and check it out. The Abolition of Work is still a lovely bit of inspirational writing.

        Like

      • There is a bit of back story. It’s lovely to see he’s a lawyer. An anarchist who is a lawyer, much like Linda (?), is a brilliant reveal of the game- the mutuality of the partners invoked in a single body. I myself am class war. But the real story is that something or other happened, I don’t know, and he called the cops to act as informer. Of course his Anarchy After Leftism was hugely important for Bookchin’s final departure from anarchism…so it is an important little book. And the appreciation of Stirner.

        Like

  2. Just read the link to Neoliberal Transhumanist Agenda. So, Google Ventures’ President Bill Maris thinks we’ll be able to live to be 500 years old!? We’d look like that wrinkled old fart astronaut Dave comes across in 2001 A Space Odyssey…

    Liked by 1 person

      • Aquote from another lawyer. Hervé Juvin. There are those who see the book this comes from as a reactionary text but when I read it shortly after its release I found in it a real analysis of a possible fascist transhumanism based around a deeply engrained thanatological somatophobia. I read it alongside a re-reading of Houellebecq’s A Possibility of an Island, so might have been led along by the grim vision of a posthuman future that is endlessly nostalgic for a lost dimension of the naively humanist (we don’t need to wait for posthuman disconnections for that- such is what so much of the left endlessly harps on about).

        In the end it is a rather reactionary text in lots of ways, mostly in the same way that Virilio can appear reactive. But in other ways it reads like a premonition of the trans*sexual machinic of Paul Precadio’s Testo Junkie. As an example of this latter tendency:

        “Can excitement survive wealth? After the invention of the body and the assertion of its primacy of, business and society are left with the primary function of the production of desire. Viagra symbolizes this pursuit of desire by the body, along with its essential rituals and self-interested servants. It used to be necessary to overcome the poverty of human products and means while overwhelmed by desire in a profuse world; what has to be overcome now is the disappearance of desire, its exhaustion in a world shrivelled by excess of available means and techniques, the superabundance of products.”

        Once or twice we’ve all experienced the petite-mal seizure of consumer paralysis: you stand there in a hypermarket, I don’t know, you’re looking for some wine let’s say, and there are row upon row of wines. Whites, yes, reds, yes, and Rose too; but not just whites, reds and Rose, but a dizzying selection; but not just this dizzying selection- it stretches into the absurd spiral of dozens of Italian reds and dozens of French reds and dozens of Chilean reds and Spainish and more and more… you stand perplexed and unable to choose. In truth you don’t want to have to choose. At least, you don’t want this much choice. So you pick up whatever is cheap but not shit and whatever is within arms reach. Abundance and luxury can be a terrible burden. Isn’t that hilarious? Post-scarcity society will be full to the brim of paralysed neurotics who, confronted with endless labour time, will go nuts and sculpt clouds and crash into the houses of the women they are denied.

        “The desire system has no connection with the need system”, he says on the same page (153). With Precadio and Juvin we’re not in a semiocapitalist society but what I’ve called after them a “society of stimulation”. Yes, signs are produced but what is also produced is excitations and exhaustions.

        Juvin sees it all as death denial writ large: “the myth of [a technologically produced] body without origin, character or determination…belongs only to its own image, its own will and the market…become one’s own product…”

        In a sense he is describing a kind of horrified reaction to the xenofeminist call to make matter simply that which is plastic and reprogrammable. But it is all from within the confines of capitalism that he is talks, or should we say technologically advanced thanaticism.

        In his final diagnosis the problem is that the left is useless. The Bolsheviks wanted to create a new human and the transhumanist project is just that and already has gone some of the way, thanks very much. The left belongs to a time whose accounts have been settled.

        In a way the xenofem passage suits me fine and Juvin can keep his horror. We get at the projectors of the illusions we live by. Okay then. I can endorse Juvin’s opening to his closing and repeat the words without remorse or regret or nostalgia: “At the end of the secular revolution, the body is real now only to be transfigured: to escape from reality through processes of fabrication”.

        I don’t think my ironic little name “transpessimism” could have a better slogan. When I come to write something more sustained on the impish idea I’ll have to come back to Juvin.

        http://www.versobooks.com/books/354-the-coming-of-the-body

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yea, too bad it’s not out in pdf… can’t quite afford this at the moment.

        Yea you say: “In truth you don’t want to have to choose. At least, you don’t want this much choice. So you pick up whatever is cheap but not shit and whatever is within arms reach. Abundance and luxury can be a terrible burden. Isn’t that hilarious? Post-scarcity society will be full to the brim of paralysed neurotics who, confronted with endless labour time, will go nuts and sculpt clouds and crash into the houses of the women they are denied.”

        This sense of allowing decisions to be produced for us by systems of external data: smart systems that know our buying patterns, and anticipate our needs even before we know them ourselves. As you walk along this globe of wine, the one’s that have already been chosen for you suddenly produce holographic field displays that capture your desires, allow you to move toward them as the only alternative you can possibly need. Desire suddenly captured in a global-data driven system of decisional matrices that allow you all the choices you want, but give you only the choice of your desire as a possibility. A totally open system of pure control. Lambs led to the slaughter of pure jouissance.

        Like

      • You should read the Juvin. Just skimming over it there and it’s got so much of relevance to the right about now.

        When I saw Mark Fisher talking about accelerationism here in Glasgow he said something about this consumer paralysis. He said it’s the reason we like franchises like Starbucks and McDonalds: we all just want the universal same. Secretly we’re all Soviets. I can remember making this joke to friends for years, but it took Mark saying it at that time in that setting for it to click. Yes. I really don’t want to have to choose.

        This is at play in Baudrillard as well of course. The silence of the masses is partly their refusal to get involved in the latest radical political grass roots whatever, unless they’re groupishly immersed because some member of their kith or kin is implicated. During the Scottish Indy Referendum I bemoaned the situation: the political “libido” (god we need a better word) got incited and instantly captured in the cyrogenics of the party-form. The snp ate the energy like a vampire and the grass roots movement died on its arse. Ha! I was so wrong headed. It was the reverse of that situation, totally opposite, I was reading things backwards.

        The masses got excited, saw that for this occasion and only this occasion (right now) they wanted to participate but they didn’t want to have to choose and carry out. It’s boring work- hustings, meetings, mediation sessions, the endless post-meeting analyses…. so they said “right, look at these clambering morons with their rosettes and their party colours, let them do the grunt work!” And this might also explain Syrizia and Podemos, although its hard to generalize from afar.

        So my anarchist critique was as naive as the party membership- we were both playing a game of politics that the masses- the demos- couldn’t give two shits about.

        There has been this trend in American anarchism to sneer at the masses, and in the UK to ask what the hell the working class is up to, while in Germany there is this whole anti-German left (I spoke to one of these people, a really nice guy who told me “we know about what the German proletariat is capable and we do not trust it”).

        It’s wrongheaded. It isn’t that the people/mass/demos/class fail to live up to the revolutionaries, it is that the revolutionaries fail to live up to the people! I’m spit-balling here, so I might need to expand this elsewhere, but it might be that- yeh- the anarchists fail to understand that the people don’t want to be anarchists all the time, and the communists fail to realize that the people don’t want autogestion and the endless misery of self-managed production.

        We say it’s a system of pure control but control is never pure. A fully programmed being wouldnt be controlled because there would be nothing there to control. So what is the “use of control procedures” that the people make out with? Is there any?

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s