💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › ted-kaczynski-the-road-to-revolution.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:19:53. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: The Road to Revolution Author: Ted Kaczynski Language: en Topics: Revolution, anti-technology Source: Transcribed by https://www.wildwill.net/blog/2017/04/26/the-road-to-revolution/
The revolution is not a dinner party…[1]
-- Mao Zedong
A great revolution is brewing. What this means is that the necessary
preconditions for revolution are being created. Whether the revolution
will become a reality will depend on the courage, determination,
persistence, and effectiveness of revolutionaries.
The necessary preconditions for revolution[2] are these: There must be a
strong development of values that are inconsistent with the values of
the dominant classes in society, and the realization of the new values
must be impossible without a collapse of the existing structure of
society.
When these conditions are present, there arises an irreconcilable
conflict between the new values and the values that are necessary for
the maintenance of the existing structure. The tension between the two
systems of values grows and can be resolved only through the eventual
defeat of one of the two. If the new system of values is vigorous
enough, it will prove victorious and the existing structure of society
will be destroyed.
This is the way in which the two greatest revolutions of modern
times—the French and Russian Revolutions—came about. Just such a
conflict of values is building up in our society today. If the conflict
becomes sufficiently intense, it will lead to the greatest revolution
that the world has ever seen.
The central structure of modern society, the key element on which
everything else depends, is technology. Technology is the principal
factor determining the way in which modern people live and is the
decisive force in modern history. This is the expressed opinion of
various learned thinkers,[3] and I doubt that many serious historians
could be found who would venture to disagree with it. However, you don’t
have to rely on learned opinions to realize that technology is the
decisive factor in the modern world. Just look around you and you can
see it yourself. Despite the vast differences that formerly existed
between the cultures of the various industrialized countries, all of
these countries are now converging rapidly toward a common culture and a
common way of life, and they are doing so because of their common
technology.
Because technology is the central structure of modern society—the
structure on which everything else depends—the strong development of
values totally inconsistent with the needs of the technological system
would fulfill the preconditions for revolution. This kind of development
is taking place right now.
Fifty years ago, when I was a kid, warm approval or even enthusiasm for
technology were almost universal. By 1962 I had become hostile toward
technology myself, but I wouldn’t have dared to express that opinion
openly, for in those days nearly everyone assumed that only a kook, or
maybe a Bible-thumper from the backwoods of Mississippi, could oppose
technology. I now know that even at that time there were a few thinkers
who wrote critically about technology. But they were so rare and so
little heard from that until I was almost 30 years old I never knew that
anyone but myself opposed technological progress.
Since then there has been a profound change in attitudes toward
technology. Of course, most people in our society don’t have an attitude
toward technology, because they never bother to think about technology
as such. If the advertising industry teaches them to buy some new
techno-gizmo, then they will buy it and play with it, but they won’t
think about it. The change in attitudes toward technology has occurred
among the minority of people who think seriously about the society in
which they live.
As far as I know, almost the only thinking people who remain
enthusiastic about technology are those who stand to profit from it in
some way, such as scientists, engineers, corporate executives and
military men. A much larger number of people are cynical about modern
society and have lost faith in its institutions. They no longer respect
a political system in which the most despicable candidates can be
successfully sold to the public through sophisticated propaganda
techniques. They are contemptuous of an electronic entertainment
industry that feeds us garbage. They know that schoolchildren are being
drugged (with Ritalin, etc.) to keep them docile in the classroom, they
know that species are becoming extinct at an abnormal rate, that
environmental catastrophe is a very real possibility, and that
technology is driving us all into the unknown at reckless speed, with
consequences that may be utterly disastrous. But, because they have no
hope that the technological juggernaut can be stopped, they have grown
apathetic. They simply accept technological progress and its
consequences as unavoidable evils, and they try not to think about the
future.
But at the same time there are growing numbers of people, especially
young people, who are willing to face squarely the appalling character
of what the technoindustrial system is doing to the world. They are
prepared to reject the values of the technoindustrial system and replace
them with opposing values. They are willing to dispense with the
physical security and comfort, the Disney-like toys, and the easy
solutions to all problems that technology provides. They don’t need the
kind of status that comes from owning more and better material goods
than one’s neighbor does. In place of these spiritually empty values
they are ready to embrace a lifestyle of moderation that rejects the
obscene level of consumption that characterizes the technoindustrial way
of life; they are capable of opting for courage and independence in
place of modern man’s cowardly servitude; and above all they are
prepared to discard the technological ideal of human control over nature
and replace it with reverence for the totality of all life on Earth—free
and wild as it was created through hundreds of millions of years of
evolution.
How can we use this change of attitude to lay the foundation for a
revolution?
One of our tasks, obviously, is to help promote the growth of the new
values and spread revolutionary ideas that will encourage active
opposition to the technoindustrial system. But spreading ideas, by
itself, is not very effective. Consider the response of a person who is
exposed to revolutionary ideas. Let’s assume that she or he is a
thoughtful person who is sickened on hearing or reading of the horrors
that technology has in store for the world, but feels stimulated and
hopeful on learning that better, richer, more fulfilling ways of life
are possible. What happens next?
Maybe nothing. In order to maintain an interest in revolutionary ideas,
people have to have hope that those ideas will actually be put into
effect, and they need to have an opportunity to participate personally
in carrying out the ideas. If a person who has been exposed to
revolutionary ideas is not offered anything practical that she can do
against the techosystem, and if nothing significant is going on to keep
her hope alive, she will probably lose interest. Additional exposures to
the revolutionary message will have less and less effect on her the more
times they are repeated, until eventually she becomes completely
apathetic and refuses to think any further about the technology problem.
In order to hold people’s interest, revolutionaries have to show them
that things are happening—significant things—and they have to give
people an opportunity to participate actively in working toward
revolution. For this reason an effective revolutionary movement is
necessary, a movement that is capable of making things happen, and that
interested people can join or cooperate with so as to take an active
part in preparing the way for revolution. Unless such a movement grows
hand-in-hand with the spread of ideas, the ideas will prove relatively
useless.
For the present, therefore, the most important task of revolutionaries
is to build an effective movement.
The effectiveness of a revolutionary movement is not measured only by
the number of people who belong to it. Far more important than the
numerical strength of a movement are its cohesiveness, its
determination, its commitment to a well-defined goal, its courage, and
its stubborn persistence. Possessing these qualities, a surprisingly
small number of people can outweigh the vacillating and uncommitted
majority. For example, the Bolsheviks were never a numerically large
party, yet it was they who determined the course that the Russian
Revolution took. (I hasten to add that I am NOT an admirer of the
Bolsheviks. To them, human beings were of value only as gears in the
technological system. But that doesn’t mean we can’t learn lessons from
the history of Bolshevism.)
An effective revolutionary movement will not worry too much about public
opinion. Of course, a revolutionary movement should not offend public
opinion when it has no good reason to do so. But the movement should
never sacrifice its integrity by compromising its basic principles in
the face of public hostility. Catering to public opinion may bring
short-term advantage, but in the long run the movement will have its
best chance of success if it sticks to its principles through thick and
thin, no matter how unpopular those principles may become, and if it is
willing to go head-to-head against the system on the fundamental issues
even when the odds are all against the movement. A movement that backs
off or compromises when the going gets tough is likely to lose its
cohesiveness or turn into a wishy-washy reform movement. Maintaining the
cohesion and integrity of the movement, and proving its courage, are far
more important than keeping the goodwill of the general public. The
public is fickle, and its goodwill can turn to hostility and back again
overnight.
A revolutionary movement needs patience and persistence. It may have to
wait several decades before the occasion for revolution arrives, and
during those decades it has to occupy itself with preparing the way for
revolution This was what the revolutionary movement in Russia did.
Patience and persistence often payoff in the long run, even contrary to
all expectation. History provides many examples of seemingly lost causes
that won out in the end because of the stubborn persistence of their
adherents, their refusal to accept defeat.
On the other hand, the occasion for revolution may arrive unexpectedly,
and a revolutionary movement has to be well prepared in advance to take
advantage of the occasion when it does arrive. It is said that the
Bolsheviks never expected to see a revolution in their own lifetimes,
yet, because their movement was well constituted for decisive action at
any time, they were able to make effective use of the unforeseen
breakdown of the Tsarist regime and the ensuing chaos.
Above all, a revolutionary movement must have courage. A revolution in
the modern world will be no dinner party. It will be deadly and brutal.
You can be sure that when the technoindustrial system begins to break
down, the result will not be the sudden conversion of the entire human
race into flower children. Instead, various groups will compete for
power. If the opponents of technology prove toughest, they will be able
to assure that the breakdown of the technosystem becomes complete and
final. If other groups prove tougher, they may be able to salvage the
technosystem and get it running again. Thus, an effective revolutionary
movement must consist of people who are willing to pay the price that a
real revolution demands: They must be ready to face disaster, suffering,
and death.
There already is a revolutionary movement of sorts, but it is of low
effectiveness.
First, the existing movement is of low effectiveness because it is not
focused on a clear, definite goal. Instead, it has a hodgepodge of
vaguely-defined goals such as an end to "domination," protection of the
environment, and "justice" (whatever that means) for women, gays, and
animals.
Most of these goals are not even revolutionary ones. As was pointed out
at the beginning of this article, a precondition for revolution is the
development of values that can be realized only through the destruction
of the existing structure of society. But, to take an example, feminist
goals such as equal status for women and an end to rape and domestic
abuse are perfectly compatible with the existing structure of society.
In fact, realization of these goals would even make the technoindustrial
system function more efficiently. The same applies to most other
"activist" goals. Consequently, these goals are reformist.
Among so many other goals, the one truly revolutionary goal—namely, the
destruction of the technoindustrial system itself—tends to get lost in
the shuffle. For revolution to become a reality, it is necessary that
there should emerge a movement that has a distinct identify of its own,
and is dedicated solely to eliminating the technosystem. It must not be
distracted by reformist goals such as justice for this or that group.
Second, the existing movement is of low effectiveness because too many
of the people in the movement are there for the wrong reasons. For some
of them, revolution is just a vague and indefinite hope rather than a
real and practical goal. Some are concerned more with their own special
grievances than with the overall problem of technological civilization.
For others, revolution is only a kind of game that they play as an
outlet for rebellious impulses. For still others, participation in the
movement is an ego-trip. They compete for status, or they write
"analyses" and "critiques" that serve more to feed their own vanity than
to advance the revolutionary cause.
To create an effective revolutionary movement it will be necessary to
gather together people for whom revolution is not an abstract theory, a
vague fantasy, a mere hope for the indefinite future, or a game played
as an outlet for rebellious impulses, but a real, definite, and
practical goal to be worked for in a practical way.
[1] "Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan," in
Selected Readings from the Works of Mao Tsetung [=Zedong], Foreign
Languages Press, Peking, 1971, page 30.
[2] As used in this article, the term "revolution" means a radical and
rapid collapse of the existing structure of a society, intentionally
brought about from within the society rather than by some external
factor, and contrary to the will of the dominant classes of the society.
An armed rebellion, even one that overthrows a government, is not a
revolution in this sense of the word unless it sweeps away the existing
structure of the society in which the rebellion occurs.
[3] Karl Marx maintained that the means of production constituted the
decisive factor in determining the character of a society, but Marx
lived in a time when the principal problem to which technology was
applied was that of production. Because technology has so brilliantly
solved the problem of production, production is no longer the decisive
factor. More critical today are other problems to which technology is
applied, such as processing of information and the regulation of human
behavior (e.g., through propaganda). Thus Marx’s conception of the force
determining the character of a society must be broadened to include all
of technology and not just the technology of production. If Marx were
alive today he would undoubtedly agree.