Hi. Welcome to the site. Please check out the About Us, and if you have a question about crime and/or punishment, perhaps look at some previous questions along those lines first.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Can technology serve the manifestation of anarchy

+3 votes
As technology progresses the inevitable is going to be full automation. Within my lifetime we'll see more and more jobs gone, probably most jobs really. What will this mean for everybody, how will people earn a living if there are no jobs?

To me, this is an opportunity to turn to anarchy and to further the development of a technological international community of non-coercive co-operation.

Giving over all manual jobs to technology will mean we can do what we've never been able to do before, completely relate and completely allow ourselves to grown mentally, emotionally, and creatively.

It seems to me complete technological use will be the final nail in the coffin of dictatorship in every form as companies will cease to exist as no one will be able to buy anything as no one will be earning. Just as no one will have the funds to start up companies to compete with the big businesses which have a stranglehold on the marketplace.

The logical step is for everyone to take control of technology to serve our needs as a whole rather than the needs of a few. Technology can be used to free us completely, because so long as we have to work, we're enslaved by those who claim to own and those willing to enforce that falsehood.

Full automation of food production, etc, means we can make a smooth and bloodless transition from ownership by the few to communal usage for the benefit of all. The latter obviously involving far less waste than current methods as individual ownership of things like cars, etc, would become unnecessary. Even food production could be more local and more varied than the present companies permit.
asked Dec 7, 2017 by curious bystander (540 points)
dns, perhaps you can help me figure out why ancaps/agorists use these websites like http://ancapistan.com/ or https://www.freedomcells.org/map/ to dox themselves or make it easier to figure who & where they are? It seems so bizarre.
@dot: they are distinct entities. I didn't say they have no relationship. Where have I said that or pretended that you didn't say that? Please look again and see that the problem arose from words being put in my mouth.

@bornagain: I recently tried to help someone configure an international fiat wire transfer. After 3 weeks we gave up. I've transacted crypto with the same person in seconds. Not fundamental true, still just value transfer, but convenience and ease can be a tipping point for a technology becoming broadly accepted. Fees much lower so smaller payments become viable. Also we cut out the banking system, which I think is significant. What's wrong if I send you (or anyone) "charity" derived from profit?

@human: http://ancapistan.com/  looks like a work in progress don't you think? Freedomcells is much more developed. I've setup a local 'cell' and been able to connect with other agorists worldwide. Quite important as we are in a tiny minority globally. 'Who' they are depends if they've used real names or not, but can be contacted via PMs. Where can be determined from the 'cell' locations. It's trying to do a lot technically and largely achieving it, although quite confusing when you first experience it.

Overall it is in line with the agorist objective of removing dependency on the State which is impossible to do as an individual. Economic and political activity needs to be conducted entirely outside State channels (which have been designed to coerce conformity). To do this it is necessary to co-operate with others (devoid of any kind of authority structure).

dns, bitcoins are converted to and from dollars (and other currencies) on an exchange. they have "values" in dollars. the government looks at them like securities for capital gains. so they still get tied into the existing monetary systems. do you disagree?

i didn't make a moral judgement (right/wrong) about profit and charity....i just have no desire to make a profit of other people or for people to profit off of me.....i don't need bitcoins or dollars, i need food and shelter. and i don't want my life monetized, or the ideology of a monetary system.

1 Answer

+3 votes
The idea of automation is one that has almost always interested me, and my views have changed violently over the years.

My views used to be similar to yours, in that I saw the possibility of zero-work as a chance for widespread liberation.  But there were many problems I had and still have with this notion.

I will name drop a lot, and I justify this by encouraging you to read up on any ideas you find particularly difficult or interesting, and as such I will try to provide pointers.

Capitalism, technology, civilization, production; these are not things I think can be explained in purely economic/material things.  Woven into these issues are values, ideologies, philosophies, theologies etc.  Whilst economic exploitation, and economic privilege, do go some way towards explaining the world today, there comes a point where an honest appraisal of the world cannot be explained by a class exploiting the rest of humanity for their own personal power and pleasure.  The fact is that a lot of rich people are totally miserable.  They work long hours, incur great amounts of stress, worrying about numbers in their bank accounts, numbers in general.  They engage in self destructive as well as aggressive behaviour.  Why?  Because they sincerely believe in notions of material value and production.
Society functions to produce more to make more society to produce more to make more... on and on forever.  This is the ideology of the modern world.  Instead of engaging and experiencing with the world as actual, existent, sensory beings, we are producers and consumers of material commodities.  The experiences are secondary to what we materially derive from them.  To steal a phrase from the Situationist Guy Debord, ‘being is replaced by having, which is replaced by appearance’.

This draws upon many ideas.  For starters, Max Stirner’s idea of the Spook; an idea that can ‘possess’ an individual and make them act as if that idea has a meaningful corporeal existence.  Typical examples are great causes or social projects, such as a Nation or Civilization, to which citizens must sacrifice their lives to build, maintain, and grow, but St Max extends this even to notions such as Humanity, or Truth, or Justice.  The same can be said of Production; it is concieved of as some actual existent fact about the world to which indiviudals must devote some portion of their lives to increasing.  It is this notion of Production, and its counterpart Consumption, that the development of technology is pushed towards.  The logical endpoint of current techno-productionist system is not a kind of ‘fully automated luxury space anarchism’, but in fact the removal of the human element altogether, with automated production for its own sake.

This of course doesn’t even consider the cost of reaching the level of technological advancement you describe.  It is fair to say that technology now is not used for the creation of more anarchy, but for the expansion of Society, and the projection of homogeneity and conformity.  What will the mental state of these future humans be with the advent of full automatism?  How far down the rabbit hole of ecological destruction will we have to go to develop, produce, and maintain this technology?

Now consider the roles of Master and Slave.  There is a large body of theory that states that the only way that any individual copes with being a slave is to be a master, and that to be a master you must first be a slave.  That is to say everyone is both a slave and a master, though of course to different things.  This might mean that a working man is slave to his boss, but might be master of his wife, or children.  The woman might be slave to her husband, but could be master to a poorer woman, coloured woman, or perhaps her children again.  What about the King, or the Capitalist?  Their mastery is obvious, but what about their slavery?  The King is slave to notions of Honour perhaps, to Prestige, to Law, to Kingdom.  The Capitalist to Profit, to Production.  What are the implications of everyone having their own personal robot-slave?  Surely anarchy is the attempt to break away from this simultaneous domination and submission, and I wonder whether automation is necessarily the way towards this.

I have my grave doubts that technology can lead us towards anarchy.  Look at what it is used for right now; what technology there is that is directed towards human experience is almost exclusively used to escape the world that we have built pursuing that very technology.  Think of TV, of the Internet, of the emergence of Virtual Reality.  These exist to remove us from our reality, to place us somewhere else, to mediate our relations through things.  It seems to me part of a systematic attempt to objectify every aspect of reality, from person to relation.  Are we really the masters of Technology, or do we serve Science in the pursuit of Technology?
answered Feb 28 by Shinminmetroskyline (450 points)
If referencing Debord and Stirner is name dropping "a lot", then a lot of us who frequent this sight are in trouble.
I had initially planned on more, but had forgotten who and what by the time I got to writing the next bit, so I just wrapped up and went to sleep.
sleep>name dropping/footnotes/etc.
depends on the footnotes!