Morning Comrades.
Ted Kaczynski, also known as the Unabomber, died this past weekend and this is not an eulogy, quite the opposite. The reason why I am bringing this up today is because for anyone my age or older, the Unabomber was quite a figure, influential even in the 1990s and in our collective baby steps towards this so called radicalization. I vividly remember being in High School when the Washington Post printed his manifesto, “Industrial Society and Its Future” and it making relatively big waves within the “western” leftist circles at the time, hell, we even had FBI posters of him in our school. Truly, well before 9/11 the Unabomber, here in the West, was a significant cultural figure and with him a strain of thought appeared within the anarchist school that at the time, truly gathered speed and followers, called Anarcho-Primitivism and Anti-Civ(ilization) that, again, at the time, wasn’t dealt with critically, not even in the slightest. Case in point this old article that made waves from Crimthinc back in the day.
With that, a few disclaimers: this is not a piece shitting on my and our anarchist comrades, far from it. For one, we never punch down, nor left but always up. Secondly, we have enough bad eggs in our basket and most importantly, this: When shit hits the fan, your self-chosen political identity within the anti-capitalist spectrum is entirely irrelevant. I have been in way too many situations, facing armed, horse-mounted riot cops and truly, asking what the person’s political chosen identity was that was next me has never crossed my mind. Additionally, when your political identity comes from the act of doing, instead of an chosen identity, these nuances also become relatively unimportant.
Nevertheless, with the death of Ted, I wanted to drive the last nail into the coffin into this deranged and ultimately fascist ideology.
The Unabomber's manifesto, titled "Industrial Society and Its Future," presents a deeply pessimistic and misanthropic view of civilization and technology. It argues that industrial-technological society is inherently oppressive and advocates for a return to a primitive, pre-industrial state. The manifesto posits that modern technology has alienated humans from nature, caused psychological harm, and perpetuated systems of power and control. This is the original problem with this idea- technology is inherently neutral, but its ownership posits its bias. The abolition of technology does not, abolish the concept of ownership and that is truly, the root of all injustice. Continuing then, the central tenet of primitivism, anarcho-primitivism and anti-civilisationism is the abolition of technology. For most people, arguing against this is completely unnecessary, since it is immediately obvious that it is a terrible idea. Even given the most cursory glance it is clear that abolishing technology would have devastating consequences for humankind and the planet.
For starters, the 50% of the UK population who need glasses or contact lenses (which rises to 97% over the age of 65) would soon be left severely impaired. Tens of millions of people dependent on drug treatments for illnesses would quickly die. Radioactive nuclear waste needs to be monitored and controlled with high-tech equipment for tens of thousands of years. Without it, even if buried deep underground, climate changes and tectonic plate movements will eventually cause it to leak out and wreak ecological devastation on the planet. This aside from the all the other obviously unattractive prospects of this idea – no more books, recorded music, medical equipment, central heating, sewage systems... - means that almost everyone would, should and will reject this idea immediately.
From a Marxist perspective, the manifesto's rejection of technology as intrinsically oppressive is overly simplistic. While it is true that technology can be exploited under capitalism to serve the interests of the ruling class, it is the capitalist mode of production and the profit-driven logic that determine its negative effects. It once again needs to be emphasized that technology, in itself, is neutral and can be harnessed for the benefit of all when placed under democratic control.
In the manifesto, the Unabomber dismisses the potential for collective struggle and revolutionary change, instead advocating for a violent and individualistic approach. This stands in stark contrast to Marxist principles, which prioritize the organized efforts of the working class in achieving social transformation.
Contemporary Marxist scholars have also critiqued anarcho-primitivist ideas. For example, David Harvey, a prominent Marxist geographer, challenges the primitivist notion that the past was a time of harmony and abundance. Harvey argues that pre-modern societies were often characterized by harsh conditions, inequality, and limited access to resources. He contends that the struggles for emancipation and equality must be pursued within the context of contemporary society, utilizing the transformative potential of technology and collective action.
Another critique of anarcho-primitivism comes from Murray Bookchin, an influential anarchist thinker and social ecologist. Bookchin argues that anarcho-primitivism romanticizes an imagined past and neglects the potential for ecological restoration and social progress within an advanced industrial society. He advocates for a socialist approach that seeks to redefine the relationship between humanity and nature through decentralized, participatory forms of decision-making.
So why spend so much space demolishing such a fragile ideology as primitivism. One reason is the embarrassing connection with anarchism some primitivists seek to claim. More importantly primitivism both by implication and often in its calls wants its followers to reject rationalism for mysticism and oneness with nature. They are not the first irrational ecological movement to do so, a good third of the German Nazi party came from forest-worshipping blood and soil movements that sprung up in Germany in the aftermath of World War I.
This is not an empty danger. Within primitivism a self-proclaimed irrational wing has developed that if not yet advocating "nazi-style death camps" has openly celebrated the deaths and murder of large numbers of people as a first step.
In December 1987 the US publication Earth First wrote that "the AIDS epidemic, rather than being a scourge, is a welcome development in the inevitable reduction of human population."22 Around a decade later in Britain Steve Booth, one of the editors of a magazine called 'Green Anarchist ', wrote that
"The Oklahoma bombers had the right idea. The pity was that they did not blast any more government offices. Even so, they did all they could and now there are at least 200 government automatons that are no longer capable of oppression. The Tokyo sarin cult had the right idea. The pity was that in testing the gas a year prior to the attack, they gave themselves away. They were not secretive enough. They had the technology to produce the gas but the method of delivery was ineffective. One day the groups will be totally secretive and their methods of fumigation will be completely effective.”
This is where you end up when you celebrate spirituality over rationality. When the hope of 'running with deer' overcomes the need to deal with the problem of making a revolution on a planet of 6-10 billion people. The ideas above have only reactionary conclusions. Their logic is elitist and hierarchical, little more that a semi-secular version of gods chosen people laying waste to the unbelievers. It certainly has nothing in common with anarchism, let alone communism. We need more not less technology.
Which brings us back to the start. Civilisation comes with many, many problems but it is better than the alternative. The challenge is in transforming civilisation to a form that is without hierarchy, or imbalances of power or wealth.
To do this we need modern technology to clean our water, pump away and process our waste and inoculate or cure people of the diseases of high population density. With only 10 million people on the earth you can shit in the woods providing you keep moving on. With 10 billion those who shit in the woods are shitting in the water they and those around them will have to drink. According to the UN "each year, more than 2.2 million people die from water and sanitation related diseases, many of them children". Close to one billion urban dwellers have no access to sustainable sanitation. Data for "43 African cities .... shows that 83 percent of the population do not have toilets connected to sewers”.
The challenge then is not simply the construction of a civilisation that keeps everyone's standards of living at the level they are now. The challenge is raising just about everyone's standard of living but doing so in a manner that is reasonably sustainable. Only the further development of technology coupled to a revolution that eliminates inequality across the planet can deliver this.
It is unfortunate that some anarchists who live in the most developed, most wealthy and most technological nations of the world prefer to play with primitivism than getting down to thinking about how we can really change the world. The global transformation required will make all previous revolutions fade into insignificance.
The major problem is not simply that capitalism has been happy to leave a huge proportion of the world's population in poverty. The problem is also that development has been aimed at creating consumers for future products rather then providing what people need.
As long as capitalism exists it will continue to wreak environmental havoc as it chases profits. It will only effectively respond to the energy crisis once that becomes profitable and because there will be a lag of many years before oil can be replaced this might mean worsening poverty and death for many of the poorer people in the world. But we cannot fix these problems by dreaming of some lost golden age when the world's population was low enough to support hunter gathering. We can only sort it out by building the sort of mass movements that can not only overthrow capitalism but also introduce a communist society.
Finally, fuck the Unabomber and all the fans he so inadvertently created. Celebrating death is a weird one and I am not one to do so, generally ( I will pop a bottle I have been saving when that devil Kissinger finally eats it though ), but for what it is worth, I hope and will work towards ending this bullshit with the passing of Ted.
Yours, working tirelessly for our better tomorrow,
V.