💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › infidel-castro-destructive-production.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:52:55. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Destructive Production Author: Infidel Castro Date: December 1, 2003 Language: en Topics: Production, Destruction, technology, analysis Source: Retrieved on 7th November 2020 from https://crimethinc.com/2003/12/01/destructive-production-can-we-really-expect-to-manufacture-complex-technologies-in-an-anarchist-society
The modern manufacture of computers, automobiles and other complex
technological products requires an exorbitant amount of waste and
pollution, a dramatic division of labor, and an international hierarchy.
As anarchists, regardless of whether or not we adopt the viewpoint of
primitivists, we must either develop brand new ways of manufacturing
complex technologies which circumvent these problems, or we must
understand that an anarchist society will be unable to produce complex
technologies without compromising our principles. I will examine the
personal computer as an example of the problems posed by manufacture of
complex technologies – a process I call “destructive production.” The
heart of a computer – the tiny part which makes modern computers so fast
and small – is the semiconductor chip inside. You may have heard of
various brand names like Intel Pentium, Motorola, and so forth.
Manufacturing these chips requires approximately 400 steps in a
complicated process that begins with mining silicon dioxide (silica).
It’s the most abundant substance in the Earth’s crust, so it’s not too
difficult to find or extract. The silica is then heated along with
carbon to form carbon dioxide and silicon. That silicon is then heated
again with hydrochloric acid and hydrogen in the process of forming a
pure rod of silicon which is then sliced into millimeter-thick wafers
and shipped to the chip factory.
This factory is over twice the length of a football field and contains
over 100 different brands of machinery from around the world. The chips
must be manufactured in “clean rooms” that use powerful air filters to
reduce airborne contaminants to only 1 particle per cubic foot of air
(hospitals have 10,000 particles per cubic foot and normal outdoor air
contains 500,000 particles per cubic foot). However, these filters do
not work on the toxic vapors created by the chipmaking process.
Workers in the chip factory use microscopes, ultraviolet light,
photosensitive chemicals and chemical baths (all toxic), and precision
instruments which carve tiny patterns and implant phosphorus and boron
on each chip wafer. Workers also apply microscopically thin coatings of
copper and gold to the chips, then ship them off to the factory that
makes circuit boards.
The circuit board factory uses copper, fiberglass and epoxy resin to
make the boards, then coats the boards with copper and tin-lead solder,
then etches them with circuit patterns using techniques similar to those
in the chip manufacturing process. This generates acidic fumes and other
toxic wastes.
The plastic used in making the computer’s exterior comes from oil which
requires extensive refining, not to mention the complicated process by
which it is extracted from the Earth.
Finally, all of these parts are put together in yet another factory and
shipped around the world to various distribution centers.
As you can see, the manufacture of a single computer requires a great
deal of division of labor. From mining (for copper in Chile, gold in
South Africa, tin in Brazil) to oil drilling to manufacturing to
assembling, complex technologies such as these required alienated labor
supposedly anathema to anarchism. And yet many anarchists, unwilling to
confront the reality of ecological destruction and hierarchical
structure behind complex technology, assume that manufacture of
computers can continue as normal “after the revolution.”
I have heard anarchists attempt to circumvent the division of labor
issue by saying that we can “take turns” doing the various jobs, but
that seems nearly impossible for practical reasons. Would we take turns
traveling from continent to continent to mine resources and refine them
into usable parts? It seems doubtful.
Another proffered solution is to assign the various tasks of computer
manufacture to people who volunteer because they want one of the final
products. However, it seems unlikely that anyone would volunteer for
such a task given the health risks involved (workers in computer
factories report higher incidences of lung disease, skin rashes, and
miscarriages). And how much would one have to work to “earn” a single
computer? 20 hours, 40, 80, six months, an entire year’s worth of
full-time work?
Are there anarchists willing to engage in that much work just to get
their own newly manufactured computer? In addition, anarchists who don’t
mind living without computers might not be excited about dealing with
the pollutants and byproducts that come with making the machines.
Silicon Valley, where many computers are currently manufactured, has
vast areas of contaminated groundwater and the largest concentration of
Superfund cleanup sites in the United States. Computer manufacturers
generate millions of pounds of toxic waste each year – manufacturing one
computer chip creates 90 pounds of waste and uses nearly 3000 gallons of
water alone! And the process of refining copper used to create chips
contributes to acid rain. Since the non-computer-users aren’t going to
tolerate living with that waste and pollution, are the pro-computer
types willing to live with it? A lot of manufacturing-generated
pollution, such as contaminated groundwater and acid rain, can’t be
limited to one location either. What will the non-computer-users do when
their drinking water is ruined by the computer-makers upstream?
Suppose that an ecologically sound method of producing computers is
developed that requires virtually no division of labor. The process
would still be unimaginably complex and certainly would be
geographically diverse, requiring workers and materials from around the
world. It is conceivably possible to coordinate a global effort based
upon anarchist principles, but such an effort would likely be less
“efficient” (in other words, no Fordist concept of tyrannical schedules
and division of labor) and thus produce less than desired. It also seems
unlikely that people would be willing to jump through all these hoops
(copper and gold mining, exposure to dangerous chemicals, painstaking
factory-line assembly, etc.) in order to have their own personal
computer, and so there would be even fewer people to actually take part
in the process, which again means less efficiency. Management positions
would invariably develop in order to deal with the “problem” of
inefficiency, and the managers would probably receive the latest and
greatest versions of computers as compensation for their efforts.
Thus, when it comes to complex technology, we cannot be satisfied merely
with occupying factories, taking over mining sites, and seizing (instead
of destroying) these horrific means of production. And so, there are
only two ways for computers to exist in an anarchist world:
current machines.
computers (unlikely, but remotely possible – however, the process of
researching new methods of manufacture would generate its own
pollutants, division of labor, etc.). And computers are not the only (or
worst) example of destructive production. Cars are far worse, for
example, and a similar analysis of automobile manufacturing could easily
become a lengthy book.
I hope I’ve shown that you don’t need to be an anti-tech primitivist to
see why we cannot expect the production of complex, modern,
technological conveniences to continue in an anarchist society, as they
require ecological destruction, division of labor, and pronounced
hierarchy.
(A major source for the factual information presented here was the book
Stuff: the Secret Lives of Everyday Things, by John Ryan and Alan
Durning, published by Northwest Environmental Watch. This book also
discusses cars, coffee, newsprint, t-shirts, shoes, and other artifacts
from our daily lives.)