💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › john-jacobi-placing-our-bets.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 11:21:44. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Placing Our Bets Author: John Jacobi Date: 22 September 2014 Language: en Topics: anti-civ, anti-tech, anti-civilization, anti-technology, ecology, deep ecology, wildness Source: http://johnfjacobi.github.io/articles/2014/09/22/placing-our-bets/ Notes: Text created by Freedom Club at UNC-CH. For feedback or questions, email uncfc@riseup.net.
A revolt against technology is inevitable; the task before us[1] is
turning that revolt into revolution. How we will go about doing this is
not yet known, and it will not be a sure path no matter what we choose
to do. One thing we can be sure of, however, is that the vehicle for
change in modern society will continue to be the mass movement.
There are many things that make up a revolution, but most of them are
inevitable. Revolts, terrorism, contrarian art, and so on are all
elements of a revolution that will happen without any conscious force.
The decisive factor in every revolution, however, is the mass movement.
And while a mass rebellionmay happen without any guiding hand, a mass
movement must be a conscious endeavor. There must be a dedicated and
stable force that connects each rebellion, that sustains its fervor, and
that makes it grow.
Other frameworks toward revolution have been offered before. Some
anarchists of the 1800s proposed terrorism or “
.” In their visions, a dramatic act of class violence would awake the
masses from their ignorant slumber and induce them with a fervor that
would power the revolution. Quite obviously, their framework failed.
Furthermore, the anti-tech terrorists[2] of today have demonstrated
clearly that terrorism is a tactic of those who have
. Consider this quote from
by ReacciĂłn Salvaje:
…we do not want to form an “anti-technological movement” that encourages
the “total overthrow of the system,” we do not see it as viable, we do
not want victory, we do not pretend to win or lose, this is an
individual fight against the mega-machine; we don’t care about getting
something positive from this…
How clear a line of demarcation from the luddite position!
Then there are some who proposed (and some still propose) an armed
struggle against the powers-that-be. This is an ignorant suggestion when
any armed struggle in present times would clearly be stamped out from a
number of factors. No group will be successful in an armed struggle
against the United States, for example, with all its advanced technology
and overwhelming military power. Such a group would only achieve long
prison sentences for the actors. And what work do they suppose they can
do in prison?
Not only would an armed group be unable to succeed, it would be unable
to sustain its success. An armed revolution would do nothing to
legitimize the values of wild living. Therefore, a successful armed
struggle would lead only to the overthrow of the armed group or a
reversion to the same circumstances as those that compelled them to
overthrow it.
Then there are those who support a nonviolent revolution. It is true
that in some areas a nonviolent revolution similar to the historical
ones could take place. But the historical ones have always been
supplemented by violent counterparts.[3] Furthermore, nonviolent
revolutions almost always occur in nations transitioning to
industrial-capitalistic democracies. In other words, these “revolutions”
are not a break from the general trend of history; they are a
continuance of it. Because of this, non-violent movements often have
considerable institutional backing, from states to NGOs and other
organizations. And one cannot deny that a state’s power is based on
violence.
That is not to say that luddites should discard nonviolence completely.
It remains effective and desirable in many cases. But,
:
If you’re an adivasi [tribal Indian] living in a forest village and 800
CRP [Central Reserve Police] come and surround your village and start
burning it, what are you supposed to do? Are you supposed to go on
hunger strike? Can the hungry go on a hunger strike? Non-violence is a
piece of theatre. You need an audience. What can you do when you have no
audience? People have the right to resist annihilation.
The luddites are not terrorists, pacifists, or insurgents. We are
revolutionaries, and the path to revolution is one that begins with a
group that has placed its bets on a mass movement. How we might sustain
a revolution is a question for another essay—or a book, more likely—but
one present and clear task can be discerned now: those who wish to
protect their freedom must find each other and organize around common
values and a common project. Only from there can we move forward.
[1] The Luddites
[2] I speak here of Individualidades Tendiendo a lo Salvaje (ITS), now
renamed ReacciĂłn Salvaje (RS), and of the various cells of the
Federazione Anarchica Informale / International Revolutionary Front
(FAI/IRF) and the Conspiracy Cells of Fire (CCF). Groups like Stop
Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), Animal Liberation Front (ALF), and
Earth Liberation Front (ELF) are more complicated groups. Some,
especially the ELF, probably do not even qualify as terror groups.
[3] The Indian independence movement consisted of Ghandi, but it also
consisted of riots and bombs; Martin Luther King Jr. (who did not, by
the way, lead a revolution—he lead a reform) had Malcom X; and so on.