Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.


0 votes

I recently read an article in issue 90 of Organise entitled 'FALC On Punching Left' which referred to an article 'In Defence of Industrial Anarchism'. Can anyone tell me where I could find the article?

without having read the link from @sms and not being familiar with the article you are looking for, what is it you find intriguing/puzzling/aggravating/whatever? The ideas might be a nice springboard for conversation...

I've never heard of 'Industrial Anarchism' so was just curious to read about it. I think it sounds interesting and goes against my general view of most present Anarchist thought, as being a bit regressive. frown

I don't disagree. Whatever it is (or isn't), it is unlikely many folks here would be particularly sympathetic, but I was hoping for a better idea just because the more things there are for us to (critically) engage with, the better this site is. As I've said elsewhere, I honestly wish some more reddish anarchists would come join this assemblage of greenish/nihilist/post-left/without-adjective types.

I think I am probably an Anarcho-syndicalist. I think we should embrace technology and use it to better humanity. I don't have much time for all this 'Post-left' stuff. That is the problem with the left in general and in my opinion why they never get anywhere. They spend too much time quibbling over terms. There are something like 30 or more 'left-wing' parties, some created because they split over disagreements that were as trivial as to whether Lenin farted on a Wednesday or a Thursday! laugh

The reason why I was interested in an article about 'industry' and 'anarchism' is because I think many of the issues facing humanity in the 21st century require big solutions. I also hope one day that we are mining resources from other planets!

@stuart i did a quick look on organise's own website to see if i can find the article you are looking for in their old issues, but nothing.  its not listed on google either, or anarchist library.  it seems to either have disappeared from the internet, or was never there in the first place.  that or im being an idiot again.  maybe try contacting them?  they might know where it be.

now to get stuck in to the topic of space colonies!  ah, how ive missed conversations with leftists.  personally i hope one day that mining stops happening, at least mining that affects me.  id ask where you intend to get the space rockets to reach other planets, but id imagine id get much the same answer that most of my leftist frenz give me; 'the space ships we have now'.  frenz might be a tad optimistic though.  i dont tend to keep frenz for very long, if you hadnt guessd.  your comment about space mining reminds me of my litmus test for people, that being their reaction to the phrase 'galactic human empire'.

im very skeptical, indeed hostile, to the leftist project of creating a totalising expansionist human collective, not that i think itll likely be a problem for me given how long the ussr lasted.  still, it lasted long enough to terrorise multiple generations.  i have little faith that a selfproclaimed 'anarchist society' would be much more pleasant than soviet russia if it operated on the same principles of expansion and assimilation.  i mean, if expansionist human civilizations are your thing, you might want to take another look at the current capitalist/imperialist/expansionist model.  it seems to be going pretty well if measured on a scale of industrial holocaust and technological ascendency/spacetravel.

i have no interest in humanity, or the problems that it is facing, and am not very happy with the idea of 'big solutions' being imposed on me for the sake of the 'greater good', however conceived.  im more interested in the immediate problems and joys of my own life, as opposed to abstractions concerning humanism and self sacrifice.  to quote @funky 'i ain't doin shit for "anarchism"'

I think my comment about a future society moving into space was a bit of an unnecessary aside. I don't think we could get to other planets with present day rockets. It's more of a long term thing.

The USSR was a dictatorship, as is present day China. I wouldn't want to force anybody to do anything. When you have to have secret police and censor what people say and do, then something isn't right.

You are right about Capitalism. Wasn't it Marx who said Capitalism had built things greater than the Egyptian pyramids etc. but that people were exploited in the pursuit of profit?

'I have no interest in humanity'. Well, what can I say?

'I'm more interested in the immediate problems and joys of my own life'. Aren't we all? But, don't you have any concern about the state of the world?

Unless you are prepared to be completely self-sufficient you surely have to have some concern about humanity? Who do you think made the computer/phone you are using to read this message?

we can get to other planets with present day rockets.

what do you mean by long term?  do you imagine yourself living on another planet, or perhaps going on a mining holiday on mars?  or are these your plans for future generations?

the state of the world is intimately connected with my own problems and joys, and in as far as they overlap i am concerned.  i dont like being swept up in an anonymising, massifying society, and i think that trying to sort out the big picture before ive even got my own life figured to be counterproductive to say the least.  not that i thnk i will ever have my own life 'sorted out', as i intend to busy myself with my own life from now until the day i die.  if i have time to plan other peoples lives, i shall consider that a shortcoming.  im not much of a one for plans, or sticking to them.

im afraid i have no idea who made my laptop.   i would bet that neither do you.  regardless of whoever made my laptop, i would probably prefer that they didnt have to, and that the whole system of production that made my laptop didnt.  but there isnt much i can do about that, so thats pretty much where my thoughts on the matter end.

im very open to the idea of a future without laptops, mind numbing things that they are.  i have a real problem with technology addiction.  oh, and when i say future i dont mean some mystical future generations after i have died, because that is as nothing to me, only a fantasy.  i mean my future.

Stuart, you and I will disagree a LOT about stuff, but I really encourage you to stay here and engage in conversation, as long as you are doing so in good faith.
@ingrate I'm here in good faith. I like to discuss things and hopefully learn something or have my opinion changed.
You come across as being a bit cynical. In my opinion, technology has been a force for good. It is not technology that is the problem, it is how it is used. Take the example of nuclear fusion. It can be used to generate power or abused and used to make bombs. Despite the fact I hate seeing people ogling at mobile phones rather than speaking to each other, they have made life easier. If you didn't have a laptop you wouldn't be able to debate with people on this website.

I'm not interested in planning other people's lives, but working with them to create a better world. Unless you grow your own food and are prepared to do everything for yourself you rely on others to do it for you, just as, I presume, you contribute to society by doing something.

If we all lived as individuals and were completely self-sufficient what an awful world it would be!(?)
stuart, i'm delighted you're here. i hope you enjoy the challenge and have fun disagreeing with people.

we can all stand to change our opinions periodically.


Stuart, the idea that tools and technologies are somehow separate from the intentions, designs, and worldviews of their inventors/implementers is woefully naive at best, and willfully ignorant at worst. Let's take your example of "nuclear fusion" [sic] to "generate power or abused and used to make bombs." You are confused (semi-pun intended). Nuclear fission is what generates power and is used in atomic weapons, and the intertwining of "atoms for peace" (civilian application of controlled fission/chain reactions to generate electricity for the grid) and atomic weapons existed from the beginning of the specialized field of physics. The funding of scientific research for civilian and military applications has always been created, maintained, and controlled by the state, and the state is always and almost exclusively interested in expanding its control over its citizens, either through increased intrusion into their daily lives through the use of public infrastructure or through militarist mobilizations. The idea that nuclear technology is somehow separate from this process, or that its civilian applications are "good" (apparently you're uninterested in how to deal with spent fuel rods and other forms of radioactive waste, an enormous deferred cost of this "good") while the exact same technology and infrastructure are magically transformed into "abuse" because you don't approve, is, as I said, woefully naive. It is a wholly inadequate analysis for anyone who considers themselves to be any kind of anarchist; you cannot separate the public availability of various technologies from the policies and programs of government. If you are opposed to the project of government -- the foundational component of anarchist philosophy -- then at the very least you need to be a lot more aware of the role of the state in technological research and availability.

just in case you're interested:

stuart: "I think my comment about a future society moving into space was a bit of an unnecessary aside."

perhaps to you it is, but to me it speaks volumes about your acceptance of/desire for imperialist/colonialist type activity - in the supposed interest of "humanity". there is a long history of that kind of behavior (with the same justification/rationalization), and it is a very significant point in any discussion of anarchist thought and action.

as to the whole technology question, there will always be disagreement about that here, at some level. and i think that is absolutely necessary, given where the world is today, along with the hugely varying desires of different individuals and groups. i just wish folks would leave morality (implicit or explicit) out of the discussion. given the extent to which thoughtful people disagree on the subject, i think it is pretty clear that there is no objective "good" or "bad" about it. for me the question needs to be framed in the context of people's desires and priorities - which will always vary from individual to individual (and group to group). folks often bring up the idea of some "collective good" (perhaps in line with your "humanity"); yet, there is no single "collective" which would all agree on what is "good" or not.

also, it is not necessary for one to exist - or even desire to exist - in a complete vacuum of self-sufficiency, in order to be staunchly against the idea of some overarching "society" which forms the basis for some ideal life for all. imo, that is a false dichotomy driven by a tendency toward binary thinking.

it is, however, difficult for me to envision a life filled with advanced industrial technology that does not require such a massified (and largely homogenized) collective existence.

there is the concept of "appropriate technology", which used to be discussed (maybe still is) among certain green and anti-civ types. given the world as it actually exists today, i find that a much more interesting and relevant discussion than the all-or-nothing binary of tech: yes or no.

in addition to the comment by boles about intent and funding sources regarding high tech, there is the unavoidable discussion of the impact of designing and creating these technologies, on the multitudes of lives that had absolutely no input into the decisions behind those activities.


rejection of the concept "the good of humanity" does not equal (or imply) "total self-sufficiency".
hi stuart, welcome to the hive.

i don't call this place "a hive"....if anything, the "technology is a force for good" ideology is something i hear from almost everyone i meet who does not consider themselves anarchist....those of us here are but a few straggling bees who have flown away from that hive and happened to have found each other in cyberspace.

and i don't know why my comment about "conformity is an obsession" for george costanza got has some relevance, and i find it quite funny.

depending on the width of one's horizon, anything can be a hive, i guess.

Please log in or register to answer this question.