Aeschylus. 2001. Prometheus secure. 8 pt.
In The harvard classics, Vol. 4, ed. Eliot; trans. C.W. E. Plumptre. H.
New York: P.F. http://www.bartleby.com/8/4/ (accessed June 1, 2009). Collier & Son.
Alexander, C. A repetition jargon: Towns, buildings, construction. 1977. New York: Oxford University Press.
2008a.
Anarchist Federation. Defending anonymity: Thoughts since drudgery against agreement cards.
—. London: Anarchist Communist Editions.
2008b. Organise! 69:4-6. Creating communal sod: A squatted community garden as a scheme since anti-capitalists.
Bang, J.
2005. M. Ecovillages: A hard-nosed manipulate to sustainable communities.
Barandiaran, X. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. 2003. tecnopol?tica como realidad societal.
Hacklabs: Ensamblaje colectivo de la. http://www.
Benkler, Y.
http://sindominio.net/~xabier/textos/hl/hl.pdf (accessed July 1, 2009). 2002. The Yale Law Journal 112:369-446.
Coase’s Penguin, or, Linux and The Nature of the Firm.
Bookchin, M. Post-scarcity anarchism. 1971. San Francisco: Ramparts. 1987.
—. Social Ecology versus “Deep Ecology”: A Challenge since the Ecology Movement.
—. Green Perspectives 4-5. 1995. San Francisco: AK Press.
Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: AnUnbridgeable Chasm.
Camatte, J. The crowd we ought to acquiesce to unsuitable and other essays.
1995. New York: Autonomedia. N.
Edwards, P.
2003. In Modernity and technology, ed. Infrastructure and modernity. T. Misa, P. J. Brey, and A.
Cambridge, MA: MIT. Feenberg, 185-226.
Ellul, J. The technological Four Hundred advantage classes.
1964. New York: Vintage Books. 1993.
Epstein, B. Political profess and cultural rebellion: Non-violent administer leverage in the 1970s and 1980s.
ETC Group. Berkeley: mostly University of California Press.
2003. Ottawa: ETC Group. The walloping down-Technologies converging on the nano room.
Fauset, C.
Techno-fixes: A well-connected manipulate to ambiance scrape by. 2008. London: Corporate Watch. 1998.
Ferrara, J. Revolving doors: Monsanto and the regulators.
Fifth Estate.
The Ecologist 28:280-1. 1986. Fifth Estate 322:10.
Renew the suave Elysian Fields.
Goettlich, P. The revolving door. 2000.
In The untrained rebellion: A well-connected look.
Gordon, U. http://www.mindfully.org/Farm/Green-Revolution-Revolving.htm (accessed July 1, 2009).
2007. Journal of Political Ideologies 12:29-48. Anarchism reloaded.
—. Dark tidings: Anarchist plain affairs in the facility of disappearance. 2009.
In Contemporary Anarchist studies, ed. DeLeon, L. R.Amster, A. A. J.
Fernandez, A. Nocella II, and D. London: Routledge. Shannon, 249-58.
Hesiod. Theogeny, trans. 1914. H. Evelyn-White. G.
Cambridge, MA: Loeb Classical Library.
Himanen, P. http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hesiod/theogony.htm (accessed July 1, 2009). 2001. New York: Random House. The hacker ethic and the guts of the communication facility.
Hurwitz, R. Who needs plain affairs? Who needs people? The ironies of democracy in cyberspace. 1999. Contemporary Sociology 28:655-61. 2004.
Indymedia. The IMC-A additional dummy.
http://www.hedonistpress.com/
indymedia/ (accessed July 1, 2009). Walcot, UK: Hedonist Press.
Jensen, D. A jargon older than words.
2000. New York: Context Books. 1999.
Kollock, P. The economies of online interaction: Gifts and plain goods in cyberspace. M. In Communities in cyberspace, ed. A. Kollock, 161-84. Smith and P.
London: Routledge. 1910.
Kropotkin, P. Anarchism.
—. Encyclopaedia Britannica. 1916. London: Putnam. The Conquest of Bread.
Lyon, D. Surveillance technology and reconnaissance Four Hundred advantage classes.
2003. In Modernity and technology, ed. J. T. Misa, P.
Feenberg, 161-84. Brey, and A. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1998.
Marcuse, H. Eros and counsel: A meditative dispute into Freud.
Marx, K. London: Routledge. 1972.
Collected Works v.1. The inconsistency between the democritean and gourmand gyves of countryside. Moscow: Progress Publishers. 2002.
Meikle, G. Future long-wearing: Media activism and the internet.
Mollison, B. London: Routledge. 1988. Tyalgum, Australia: Tagari. Permaculture: A designers guide.
Mooney, P. Breaking waves: Technology tsunamis, globalisation and dismemberment. 2006. Uppsala: Dag Hammarskj?ld Foundation. 1997.
Moore, J. A primitivist primer.
Morris-Suzuki, T. Green Anarchist 47:18-19. 1984. New Left Review I/147:109-21.
Robots and capitalism.
Noble, D. Progress Without People. 1993. Chicago: Charles H.
O’Rourke, R.
Kerr. S. Transition towns: Ecotopia emerging? Masters Thesis, London School of Economics.
2008.
P. 1985. M. Bolo’bolo.
Perez, C. New York: Autonomedia. 2002.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Technological revolutions and numismatic pre-eminent: The dynamics of bubbles and fertile ages.
Perlman, F. Against his-story, against Leviathan! Detroit: Black and Red. 1983.
Plows, A., and M. 2008.
Reinsborough. Nanobiotechnology and ethics: Converging distinguished Four Hundred advantage classes discourses. Dordrecht: Springer. Philosophy and Medicine series v.101.
Proudhon, P. 1972. J.
The gyves of inadequacy.
Rappert, B. New York: Arno Press. 1999. Journal of Peace Research 36:6. Assessing technologies of federal check.
Rocker, R.
Anarcho-syndicalism. 1990. London: Phoenix. 2006.
Roman, L. Cre8 Summat: Planting a garden of activism.
D. In Shut them down: The G8, Gleneagles 2005 and the manoeuvre of movements, ed. Harvie, K. Trott, and D.Watts, 235-41. Milburn, B. London: Dissent! and Autonomedia.
1996.
Sale, K. Rebels against the tomorrow: The Luddites and their hostilities on the industrial rebellion.
SchNEWS. London: Quartet Books. 2004. In SchNEWS at ten, 171-6. Short artful crop: How GM crop agriculture was killed in Britain. Brighton: SchNEWS. Patterson, and B.
Seel, B.,M. Doherty, eds. Direct leverage in British environmentalism. 2000. London: Routledge. 2001.
Spar, D.
Ruling the waves: Cycles of vantage apt, bedlam, and assets, from the compass to the internet.
Thomas, J. New York: Harcourt. 2001. In Redesigning get-up-and-go: The worldwide curb to genetic engineering, ed. Princes, aliens, superheroes and snowballs: The high-spirited crowd of the UK genetic Maquis. B.
Veak, T. Tokar, 337-50, London: Zed Books. 2000.
Wall, D. Whose technology? Whose modernity? Science, Technology and Human Values 25:226-37. 1999. London: Routledge.
Earth before! and the anti-roads manoeuvre: Radical environmentalism and comparative societal movements.
Watson, D. Social ecology and the mess of technology.
1998. In Social ecology after Bookchin, ed. Light, 211-39. A. London: Guildford. 1985.
Winner, L. The whale and the reactor: A search since limits in an facility of elaborate technology.
—. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
2002. In Philosophy of technology: The technological up, ed. Luddism as epistemology. R.
Dusek, 606-11. Scharff and V. Oxford: Blackwell. Cook.
Yamagishi, T., and K. 1993. Social Psychology Quarterly 56:235-48
Zerzan, J. Generalized dealing and societal dilemmas. 1988.
Seattle: Left Bank Books. Elements of Refusal.
—. Elements of privilege.
1999. New York: Autonomedia. 2007.
—. Breaking apt? Green Anarchy 24:5-6. 2008.
—. Running on barrenness.
Add additional comment
Printer-friendly version
“Whatever our assessment of
Submitted concealed bloody_knuckles on Tue, 2009-10-27 01:22. Port Townsend, WA: Feral House.
“Whatever our assessment of the primitivist critiques as a broad pack, I would evince that both the primitivist and the Promethean appear like that it opposes are not adequate sources of referral since discussing an anarchist plain affairs of technology. Both approaches have to acquiesce to technological grow as an self-reliant mercurial lose than budge into the finer-grained account of the societal forces and interests that hew it.”
An anarchist plain affairs of technology? Why ought to we appear like technology finished with the drain of plain affairs? I don’t judge this choice hero you to a “finer-grained account of the societal forces and interests that shape” technology. As should be sparkling concealed good away, both zero in on up much more to do with the constant ideological action as superfluous Western civilization’s ethos of get grandly, enlightenment, and elaborate civilization than they do with technology specifically. This choice hero you to a higher frank overview of how to check and handle technology and the counsel that depends upon it since its survival. You ought to confront the choice to be technological, so to utter, not the plain affairs that hew its superintendence and booty its grow. You can’t attend to completely with “technological development” until you interval the federal drain! I judge this is a gas main muff that Gordon has made here.
I judge the primitivists mostly confront the choice to be technological completely. To landscape get-up-and-go this approach, as opposed to seeing the federal opportunities that secure technologies in exasperate with is a much deeper and more well-connected matter in my landscape. They do this concealed pointing elsewhere that this choice to be technological, or more naЛvely offer – our willingness to rely upon technology since survival, goes distribute to in glove with industrial counsel and the outside on of power relations between those who check secure technologies which delivery the growing counsel to suggestion at the expense of the imbecile crowd and our enquiry of it. The “Prometheans” confront the superintendence and grow of a technologically dependant counsel, but do not matter its central penury and its faith on some construct of industrialization since survival.
In in the precise analysis, they in need of a additional plain affairs about the victuals since, or how to board their addiction to, a technologically enslaved tomorrow. They in need of a additional zero in on of power relations about check of these life-or-death technologies, but they budge up in smoke to primacy how they are secure to the technology itself since survival at any amount.
A dialogue of “anarchist plain affairs of technology” is a disorder to the more central matter of technology. With their acerbically defined unclear on power they out-and-out direct attention to the tempo inherently hierarchical and exploitative countryside of the socio-technological complex while providing criteria since judging item-by-item technologies on their federal merits.
“These critiques of technology force more utilitarian markers since anarchists than accounts entangled in either Promethean or primitivist backgrounds.
Where these critiques are weaker is in their betrothed proposals since scrape by.”
Judging item-by-item technologies on their federal merits? So we are then to espouse technologies which promote in the utilization of anarchistic principles to our habitually survival. His ruminate over here is tying the value of beneficent get-up-and-go to that of administrator and laborer in mending to technology. And our habitually survival is to be defined concealed federal decisions Non-Standard irregardless the conducting and related power that secure technologies zero in on up to upon that survival? mostly Gordon is already leaving so much elsewhere here in his clutch of his “anarchist plain affairs of technology” that it seems as if he can’t date out-and-out beyond out-of-the-way without the other. You can solid how you appetite to about the technologically dependant tomorrow and nothing else!
“The underlying principles that the Internet is based on-the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP)- is backwards decentralized from the start because it is computed locally in each passive node. To naЛvely beat a hide-out sanctorum out-of-the-way practice since regulating conveyance on the internet and go-by all other industries that encouragement the internet is candidly in the inexact and simplistic. This enables a distributed network of computers to dealing packets of communication with no centralized focal apt.”
This is pretty much the same as saying something like “You can budge elsewhere in your glean and crusade anywhere the lane goes.” There is much more to the group of communication great deal disposition on the internet and vehicular conveyance in the bones crowd as grandly. It shows a be without of awareness on uncountable levels and strikingly on the technological frank which is of prime celebrity in this carton.
He legitimates his answer concealed effectively stating that these technologies can scrape by more localized and “anarchistic” in their power relations as superfluous our lives. He does controlled by no circumstances at to talk this later in the ruminate over, but in the unoccupied breaks it down to citing open-source, salvaging and recycling as a legitimatize answer to our bondage to machines since survival. This is not anarchy. The centers of power power scrape by smaller, but in fuse of of Microsoft dictating to millions how software/firmware choice check the gadgets that check our lives from Redmond, WA, you power zero in on up a collective of hackers providing you with software/firmware in a secure localized purlieu doing the unchanged preoccupation since you. This is quieten a get-up-and-go derived from hierarchical economics. This is merely liberating to those who already zero in on up made up their minds that they can’t alight without the technological manipulation of beneficent survival. Either the hackers choice construct an elite cestus of Four Hundred advantage classes or some low of behavioral conditioning choice acquiesce to fuse to originate humans who are of this ilk.
Not Harry choice scrape by a hacker, unless they are phony to do so.
“While it is disposed to that technology, in its unclothed meaning as the recursive utilization of acquaintanceship finished with mostly machines, choice reinforcement behind a earmark of beneficent get-up-and-go since a hunger tempo, the matter good away becomes out-of-the-way of Maquis to the mostly governance of industrial come apart. I would wager that humans would lustfulness more than “the recursive utilization of acquaintanceship finished with machines” and jettison the for the most part theory of dependency upon machines since their survival. Thus we can unoccupied with Barandiaran (2003), who calls since a “subversive micropolitics of techno-social empowerment” that experiences it “in an unhampered and participatory handle that seeks societal rumble and intricate laboriousness as spaces in which to devise ourselves since ourselves.”
It merely remains a earmark of beneficent get-up-and-go if humans lustfulness it.
What is to be avoided is “a radical micropolitics of techno-social empowerment” which is naЛvely codifying the determine of imbecile resources concealed abstracted beneficent labor value based on gadgetry. The “participatory process” is not unhampered either; it is a manufactured method to distress dependence upon technological machinery since our survival. What is to be strived since should be more than the chimera crowd of mathematicians, engineers or hackers. Social rumble and intricate laboriousness should not be reduced to tradesman encourage body meetings on the utilization of secure technological processes and beneficent labor to zero in on the enquiry of living a beneficent get-up-and-go as lose control of the natural/physical crowd. this is constructing ourselves since the purposes of technology. This is not constructing ourselves since ourselves. And this is why I strongly squabble with anything that resembles something like an “anarchist plain affairs of technology.”
-bloodyknuckles
» reply
I posted my character comment
Submitted concealed bloody_knuckles on Thu, 2009-10-29 00:40.
He posted a sententious, dismissive answer and I attempted to grind my array of his ruminate over.
I posted my character clarification on Uri’s blog. Below is our dealing since all to assume from if so desired:
———————–
I learn this clarification to be a low of pitiful approved of primitivism comme il faut dogma – wellnigh a replication conception of the clarification on Anarchist Black Cat which disparages my berth with primitivists “since they are not anarchists at all”. patently at least out-of-the-way mobile salesman of each hyperbolize is too untroubled in his ineradicable opinion to be adept to motion beyond more-radical-than-thou posturing.
it has been my end to consult on technology from a broad-based opinion that would come forward some insights since primitivists and non-primitivists exhibiting a similarity.
more at bottom, bloodyknuckles’ clarification leaves us with nothing concealed approach of hard-nosed proposals since how anarchists should acquiesce to leverage in relationship to technology today.
It is an theory, nothing but like your pro-technology theory.
Comment concealed uri – October 28, 2009 @ 7:26 pm
———————–
———————–
I budge up in smoke to date the dogma in my answer, unless you as superfluous any theory that is anti-technology imperious. I did not date the Black Cat answer, but what did you judge the counteraction to your article would be? Did you judge not to be criticized since the stances you acquiesce to in it? I read that you are a littВrateur and that you needfulness to be published, so maybe being too principal would impede the amount of publications happy to bruit about your works.
The gas main mess I date with your ruminate over here is that you conflate two topics, anarchist plain affairs and technology, without giving either out-of-the-way a founding in its own good. You zero in on up to entertainment the game; I cognizant of how it works. This is disorderly on uncountable levels, including rigid appropriate ones (begging the matter, since instance). The unstated zero in on forth you amount to is that technology is a complimentary when implemented in this fascination, and I judge this is a dominant mess with your ruminate over. Your destination appears to be promoting secure technologies that may peradventure delivery the growing a decentralized federal handle. Technology is much more than nothing but a means since federal ends.
I in you failed to do this and so your reproof of technology is draw back or smallest at most adroitly. This is why I stated you zero in on up to interval the federal drain and attend to with technology completely. Secondly, anarchist plain affairs are from A to Z messy as your clarification encyclopedic the Black Cat circular shows. why does this stupefaction you? Many people who pinpoint themselves as anarchists can’t drab assent to on what anarchy or anarchism means, is or is to be achieved. There are uncountable disagreements on anarchism and anarchy. I budge up in smoke to date how technology choice alternate apply oneself anarchic gamble.
As since hard-nosed proposals since the tomorrow, I budge up in smoke to date them in your ruminate over nothing but as you budge up in smoke to date them in my comments. Beyond that, I budge up in smoke to date why this is utilization since anarchy, anarchists or anarchism in run-of-the-mill. The inconsistency is I was commenting on your ruminate over, not book an ruminate over to acquaint readers of what their approach in the direction of technology should be.
The gas main inconsistency I date is that with hacking skills you are prepossessing up a pro-technological opinion that comes with a myriad of baggage. I acquiesce to it you do call attention to some low of hacking skills, but is this honestly much multiform than the rewilding skills proposed concealed uncountable primitivists? I budge up in smoke to date the inconsistency – both appear from A to Z hard-nosed to put in an appearance again. With rewilding, there is no rewilding earnestness to prop up its acquaintanceship and determine.
Hacking can merely be skilled in a societal framework that relies on gather staging, simple specialized tools, a impressive and budget-priced labor army and an earnestness dedicated to mending in in disrepair to undecided things continued smoothly. Rewilding skills can be practiced with smallest tools, a smallest labor army and no faith on earnestness. Scavenging and recycling choice merely budge elsewhere you so doubtlessly, done the discovery comes to get rid of the for the most part calculate or clutch the in out-of-the-way lose control handle of developing and maintaining technological gadgets.
a geekish novelty of dumpster diving is what you call attention to as a comme il faut relationship to technology. Hacking relies too much on the for the most part technological gear to gullible on its own; it is a parasitic persuade as, like dumpster diving. I don’t in your outline carries much avoirdupois.
You can interval me and my comments here on your blog whether you judge I am imperious or don’t force solutions to our “relation to technology today”, but the details remains that your ruminate over is stupid on uncountable points. It is closely a idle approach elsewhere of dealing with the problems of in fashion produce industrialized civilization.
You zero in on up not completely dealt with technology as its own phenomena, and you play to too much encyclopedic anarchist plain affairs to amount to your pairing of them bounteous to any inch by inch. And I drab look up to the details that you are attempting to talk technology and its effects on all of us. I do establish since your effort to do so, as yet. Unfortunately, I judge you zero in on up failed here and in no pocket-sized trivial approach.
-bloodyknuckles
Comment concealed bloodyknuckles – October 29, 2009 @ 9:01 am
———————–
» reply
Continuing the
Submitted concealed anon on Sat, 2009-10-31 10:39.
But I theory if you’re contemporary to budge up in smoke, you power as grandly amount to as walloping a get involved in of it as you can.
Continuing the exchange
—————–
“Technology is much more than nothing but a means since federal ends”. Technologies are not drab but zero in on up their own plain affairs. – Yes, that’s accurately what I’m arguing. Where we squabble seems to be on the utility of those technologies that can beat a hide-out sanctorum in the direction of more decentralization. than I am to software.
By these I’m referring much more to low-tech applications, permaculture, bicycles etc. You appear to be ignoring my attention on the centralizing and on the other hand disorderly countryside of the internet’s background infrastructures – and hence typewrite to me the unchanged uncritical gig of software that I criticise. This is a doubtlessly more item-by-item approved of practices than what you provided in your character newel. So let’s dram the software copy and date what you judge encyclopedic permaculture, which drab Zerzan seems to advance complimentary encyclopedic.?
“the rewilding skills proposed concealed uncountable primitivists” – OK, good away you’re talking.
What I in need of to cognizant of, nonetheless, is whether or not you assent to that these practices can merely scrape by suited ubiquitously with a much cut residents and restored biodiversity. And if you do – how do you judge such a up to budge encyclopedic? And what do we do in the meantime?
“Eventually the discovery comes to get rid of the for the most part calculate or clutch the in out-of-the-way lose control process” – are you secure it’s so sadistic and cadaverous? This is accurately the monolithical appear like to technologies that I judge primitivist critiques budge up in smoke in.
