| |
Part
Two 130 - 232
Goto Part One
130. Technology advances with great rapidity and threatens freedom at
many different points at the same time (crowding, rules
and
regulations, increasing dependence of individuals on large
organizations, propaganda and other psychological techniques,
genetic
engineering, invasion of privacy through surveillance
devices and
computers, etc.) To hold back any ONE of the threats to
freedom would
require a long different social struggle. Those who want
to protect
freedom are overwhelmed by the sheer number of new attacks
and the
rapidity with which they develop, hence they become pathetic
and no
longer resist. To fight each of the threats separately
would be
futile. Success can be hoped for only by fighting the
technological
system as a whole; but that is revolution not reform.
131. Technicians (we use this term in its broad sense to
describe all
those who perform a specialized task that requires training)
tend to
be so involved in their work (their surrogate activity)
that when a
conflict arises between their technical work and freedom,
they almost
always decide in favor of their technical work. This is
obvious in the
case of scientists, but it also appears elsewhere: Educators,
humanitarian groups, conservation organizations do not
hesitate to use
propaganda or other psychological techniques to help them
achieve
their laudable ends. Corporations and government agencies,
when they
find it useful, do not hesitate to collect information
about
individuals without regard to their privacy. Law enforcement
agencies
are frequently inconvenienced by the constitutional rights
of suspects
and often of completely innocent persons, and they do
whatever they
can do legally (or sometimes illegally) to restrict or
circumvent
those rights. Most of these educators, government officials
and law
officers believe in freedom, privacy and constitutional
rights, but
when these conflict with their work, they usually feel
that their work
is more important.
132. It is well known that people generally work better
and more
persistently when striving for a reward than when attempting
to avoid
a punishment or negative outcome. Scientists and other
technicians are
motivated mainly by the rewards they get through their
work. But those
who oppose technilogiccal invasions of freedom are working
to avoid a
negative outcome, consequently there are a few who work
persistently
and well at this discouraging task. If reformers ever
achieved a
signal victory that seemed to set up a solid barrier against
further
erosion of freedom through technological progress, most
would tend to
relax and turn their attention to more agreeable pursuits.
But the
scientists would remain busy in their laboratories, and
technology as
it progresses would find ways, in spite of any barriers,
to exert more
and more control over individuals and make them always
more dependent
on the system.
133. No social arrangements, whether laws, institutions,
customs or
ethical codes, can provide permanent protection against
technology.
History shows that all social arrangements are transitory;
they all
change or break down eventually. But technological advances
are
permanent within the context of a given civilization.
Suppose for
example that it were possible to arrive at some social
arrangements
that would prevent genetic engineering from being applied
to human
beings, or prevent it from being applied in such a ways
as to threaten
freedom and dignity. Still, the technology would remain
waiting.
Sooner or later the social arrangement would break down.
Probably
sooner, given that pace of change in our society. Then
genetic
engineering would begin to invade our sphere of freedom,
and this
invasion would be irreversible (short of a breakdown of
technological
civilization itself). Any illusions about achieving anything
permanent
through social arrangements should be dispelled by what
is currently
happening with environmental legislation. A few years
ago it seemed
that there were secure legal barriers preventing at least
SOME of the
worst forms of environmental degradation. A change in
the political
wind, and those barriers begin to crumble.
134. For all of the foregoing reasons, technology is a
more powerful
social force than the aspiration for freedom. But this
statement
requires an important qualification. It appears that during
the next
several decades the industrial-technological system will
be undergoing
severe stresses due to economic and environmental problems,
and
especially due to problems of human behavior (alienation,
rebellion,
hostility, a variety of social and psychological difficulties).
We
hope that the stresses through which the system is likely
to pass will
cause it to break down, or at least weaken it sufficiently
so that a
revolution occurs and is successful, then at that particular
moment
the aspiration for freedom will have proved more powerful
than
technology.
135. In paragraph 125 we used an analogy of a weak neighbor
who is
left destitute by a strong neighbor who takes all his
land by forcing
on him a series of compromises. But suppose now that the
strong
neighbor gets sick, so that he is unable to defend himself.
The weak
neighbor can force the strong one to give him his land
back, or he can
kill him. If he lets the strong man survive and only forces
him to
give his land back, he is a fool, because when the strong
man gets
well he will again take all the land for himself. The
only sensible
alternative for the weaker man is to kill the strong one
while he has
the chance. In the same way, while the industrial system
is sick we
must destroy it. If we compromise with it and let it recover
from its
sickness, it will eventually wipe out all of our freedom.
SIMPLER SOCIAL PROBLEMS HAVE PROVED INTRACTABLE
136. If anyone still imagines that it would be possible
to reform the
system in such a way as to protect freedom from technology,
let him
consider how clumsily and for the most part unsuccessfully
our society
has dealt with other social problems that are far more
simple and
straightforward. Among other things, the system has failed
to stop
environmental degradation, political corruption, drug
trafficking or
domestic abuse.
137. Take our environmental problems, for example. Here
the conflict
of values is straightforward: economic expedience now
versus saving
some of our natural resources for our grandchildren [22]
But on this
subject we get only a lot of blather and obfuscation from
the people
who have power, and nothing like a clear, consistent line
of action,
and we keep on piling up environmental problems that our
grandchildren
will have to live with. Attempts to resolve the environmental
issue
consist of struggles and compromises between different
factions, some
of which are ascendant at one moment, others at another
moment. The
line of struggle changes with the shifting currents of
public opinion.
This is not a rational process, or is it one that is likely
to lead to
a timely and successful solution to the problem. Major
social
problems, if they get "solved" at all, are rarely or never
solved
through any rational, comprehensive plan. They just work
themselves
out through a process in which various competing groups
pursing their
own usually short-term) self-interest [23] arrive (mainly
by luck) at
some more or less stable modus vivendi. In fact, the principles
we
formulated in paragraphs 100-106 make it seem doubtful
that rational,
long-term social planning can EVER be successful. 138.
Thus it is
clear that the human race has at best a very limited capacity
for
solving even relatively straightforward social problems.
How then is
it going to solve the far more difficult and subtle problem
of
reconciling freedom with technology? Technology presents
clear-cut
material advantages, whereas freedom is an abstraction
that means
different things to different people, and its loss is
easily obscured
by propaganda and fancy talk.
139. And note this important difference: It is conceivable
that our
environmental problems (for example) may some day be settled
through a
rational, comprehensive plan, but if this happens it will
be only
because it is in the long-term interest of the system
to solve these
problems. But it is NOT in the interest of the system
to preserve
freedom or small-group autonomy. On the contrary, it is
in the
interest of the system to bring human behavior under control
to the
greatest possible extent. Thus, while practical considerations
may
eventually force the system to take a rational, prudent
approach to
environmental problems, equally practical considerations
will force
the system to regulate human behavior ever more closely
(preferably by
indirect means that will disguise the encroachment on
freedom.) This
isn't just our opinion. Eminent social scientists (e.g.
James Q.
Wilson) have stressed the importance of "socializing"
people more
effectively.
REVOLUTION IS EASIER THAN REFORM
140. We hope we have convinced the reader that the system
cannot be
reformed in a such a way as to reconcile freedom with
technology. The
only way out is to dispense with the industrial-technological
system
altogether. This implies revolution, not necessarily an
armed
uprising, but certainly a radical and fundamental change
in the nature
of society.
141. People tend to assume that because a revolution involves
a much
greater change than reform does, it is more difficult
to bring about
than reform is. Actually, under certain circumstances
revolution is
much easier than reform. The reason is that a revolutionary
movement
can inspire an intensity of commitment that a reform movement
cannot
inspire. A reform movement merely offers to solve a particular
social
problem A revolutionary movement offers to solve all problems
at one
stroke and create a whole new world; it provides the kind
of ideal for
which people will take great risks and make great sacrifices.
For this
reasons it would be much easier to overthrow the whole
technological
system than to put effective, permanent restraints on
the development
of application of any one segment of technology, such
as genetic
engineering, but under suitable conditions large numbers
of people may
devote themselves passionately to a revolution against
the
industrial-technological system. As we noted in paragraph
132,
reformers seeking to limite certain aspects of technology
would be
working to avoid a negative outcome. But revolutionaries
work to gain
a powerful reward -- fulfillment of their revolutionary
vision -- and
therefore work harder and more persistently than reformers
do.
142. Reform is always restrainde by the fear of painful
consequences
if changes go too far. But once a revolutionary fever
has taken hold
of a society, people are willing to undergo unlimited
hardships for
the sake of their revolution. This was clearly shown in
the French and
Russian Revolutions. It may be that in such cases only
a minority of
the population is really committed to the revolution,
but this
minority is sufficiently large and active so that it becomes
the
dominant force in society. We will have more to say about
revolution
in paragraphs 180-205.
CONTROL OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR
143. Since the beginning of civilization, organized societies
have had
to put pressures on human beings of the sake of the functioning
of the
social organism. The kinds of pressures vary greatly from
one society
to another. Some of the pressures are physical (poor diet,
excessive
labor, environmental pollution), some are psychological
(noise,
crowding, forcing humans behavior into the mold that society
requires). In the past, human nature has been approximately
constant,
or at any rate has varied only within certain bounds.
Consequently,
societies have been able to push people only up to certain
limits.
When the limit of human endurance has been passed, things
start going
rong: rebellion, or crime, or corruption, or evasion of
work, or
depression and other mental problems, or an elevated death
rate, or a
declining birth rate or something else, so that either
the society
breaks down, or its functioning becomes too inefficient
and it is
(quickly or gradually, through conquest, attrition or
evolution)
replaces by some more efficient form of society.
[25]
144. Thus human nature has in the past put certain limits
on the
development of societies. People coud be pushed only so
far and no
farther. But today this may be changing, because modern
technology is
developing way of modifying human beings.
145. Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions
that amke
them terribley unhappy, then gives them the drugs to take
away their
unhappiness. Science fiction? It is already happening
to some extent
in our own society. It is well known that the rate of
clinical
depression had been greatly increasing in recent decades.
We believe
that this is due to disruption fo the power process, as
explained in
paragraphs 59-76. But even if we are wrong, the increasing
rate of
depression is certainly the result of SOME conditions
that exist in
today's society. Instead of removing the conditions that
make people
depressed, modern society gives them antidepressant drugs.
In effect,
antidepressants area a means of modifying an individual's
internal
state in such a way as to enable him to toelrate social
conditions
that he would otherwise find intolerable. (Yes, we know
that
depression is often of purely genetic origin. We are referring
here to
those cases in which environment plays the predominant
role.)
146. Drugs that affect the mind are only one example of
the methods of
controlling human behavior that modern society is developing.
Let us
look at some of the other methods.
147. To start with, there are the techniques of surveillance.
Hidden
video cameras are now used in most stores and in many
other places,
computers are used to collect and process vast amounts
of information
about individuals. Information so obtained greatly increases
the
effectiveness of physical coercion (i.e., law enforcement).[26]
Then
there are the methods of propaganda, for which the mass
communication
media provide effective vehicles. Efficient techniques
have been
developed for winning elections, selling products, influencing
public
opinion. The entertainment industry serves as an important
psychological tool of the system, possibly even when it
is dishing out
large amounts of sex and violence. Entertainment provides
modern man
with an essential means of escape. While absorbed in television,
videos, etc., he can forget stress, anxiety, frustration,
dissatisfaction. Many primitive peoples, when they don't
have work to
do, are quite content to sit for hours at a time doing
nothing at all,
because they are at peace with themselves and their world.
But most
modern people must be contantly occupied or entertained,
otherwise the
get "bored," i.e., they get fidgety, uneasy, irritable.
148. Other techniques strike deeper that the foregoing.
Education is
no longer a simple affair of paddling a kid's behind when
he doesn't
know his lessons and patting him on the head when he does
know them.
It is becoming a scientific technique for controlling
the child's
development. Sylvan Learning Centers, for example, have
had great
success in motivating children to study, and psychological
techniques
are also used with more or less success in many conventional
schools.
"Parenting" techniques that are taught to parents are
designed to make
children accept fundamental values of the system and behave
in ways
that the system finds desirable. "Mental health" programs,
"intervention" techniques, psychotherapy and so forth
are ostensibly
designed to benefit individuals, but in practice they
usually serve as
methods for inducing individuals to think and behave as
the system
requires. (There is no contradiction here; an individual
whose
attitudes or behavior bring him into conflict with the
system is up
against a force that is too powerful for him to conquer
or escape
from, hence he is likely to suffer from stress, frustration,
defeat.
His path will be much easier if he thinks and behaves
as the system
requires. In that sense the system is acting for the benefit
of the
individual when it brainwashes him into conformity.) Child
abuse in
its gross and obvious forms is disapproved in most if
not all
cultures. Tormenting a child for a trivial reason or no
reason at all
is something that appalls almost everyone. But many psychologists
interpret the concept of abuse much more broadly. Is spanking,
when
used as part of a rational and consistent system of discipline,
a form
of abuse? The question will ultimately be decided by whether
or not
spanking tends to produce behavior that makes a person
fit in well
with the existing system of society. In practice, the
word "abuse"
tends to be interpreted to include any method of child-rearing
that
produces behavior inconvenient for the system. Thus, when
they go
beyond the prevention of obvious, senseless cruelty, programs
for
preventing "child abuse" are directed toward the control
of human
behavior of the system.
149. Presumably, research will continue to increas the
effectiveness
of psychological techniques for controlling human behavior.
But we
think it is unlikely that psychological techniques alone
will be
sufficient to adjust human beings to the kind of society
that
technology is creating. Biological methods probably will
have to be
used. We have already mentiond the use of drugs in this
connection.
Neurology may provide other avenues of modifying the human
mind.
Genetic engineering of human beings is already beginning
to occur in
the form of "gene therapy," and there is no reason to
assume the such
methods will not eventually be used to modify those aspects
of the
body that affect mental funtioning.
150. As we mentioned in paragraph 134, industrial society
seems likely
to be entering a period of severe stress, due in part
to problems of
human behavior and in part to economic and environmental
problems. And
a considerable proportion of the system's economic and
environmental
problems result from the way human beings behave. Alienation,
low
self-esteem, depression, hostility, rebellion; children
who won't
study, youth gangs, illegal drug use, rape, child abuse
, other
crimes, unsafe sex, teen pregnancy, population growth,
political
corruption, race hatred, ethnic rivalry, bitter ideological
conflict
(i.e., pro-choice vs. pro-life), political extremism,
terrorism,
sabotage, anti-government groups, hate groups. All these
threaten the
very survival of the system. The system will be FORCED
to use every
practical means of controlling human behavior.
151. The social disruption that we see today is certainly
not the
result of mere chance. It can only be a result fo the
conditions of
life that the system imposes on people. (We have argued
that the most
important of these conditions is disruption of the power
process.) If
the systems succeeds in imposing sufficient control over
human
behavior to assure itw own survival, a new watershed in
human history
will have passed. Whereas formerly the limits of human
endurance have
imposed limits on the development of societies (as we
explained in
paragraphs 143, 144), industrial-technological society
will be able to
pass those limits by modifying human beings, whether by
psychological
methods or biological methods or both. In the future,
social systems
will not be adjusted to suit the needs of human beings.
Instead, human
being will be adjusted to suit the needs of the system.
[27] 152. Generally speaking, technological control over
human
behavior will probably not be introduced with a totalitarian
intention
or even through a conscious desire to restrict human freedom.
[28]
Each new step in the assertion of control over the human
mind will be
taken as a rational response to a problem that faces society,
such as
curing alcoholism, reducing the crime rate or inducing
young people to
study science and engineering. In many cases, there will
be
humanitarian justification. For example, when a psychiatrist
prescribes an anti-depressant for a depressed patient,
he is clearly
doing that individual a favor. It would be inhumane to
withhold the
drug from someone who needs it. When parents send their
children to
Sylvan Learning Centers to have them manipulated into
becoming
enthusiastic about their studies, they do so from concern
for their
children's welfare. It may be that some of these parents
wish that one
didn't have to have specialized training to get a job
and that their
kid didn't have to be brainwashed into becoming a computer
nerd. But
what can they do? They can't change society, and their
child may be
unemployable if he doesn't have certain skills. So they
send him to
Sylvan.
153. Thus control over human behavior will be introduced
not by a
calculated decision of the authorities but through a process
of social
evolution (RAPID evolution, however). The process will
be impossible
to resist, because each advance, considered by itself,
will appear to
be beneficial, or at least the evil involved in making
the advance
will appear to be beneficial, or at least the evil involved
in making
the advance will seem to be less than that which would
result from not
making it (see paragraph 127). Propaganda for example
is used for many
good purposes, such as discouraging child abuse or race
hatred. [14]
Sex education is obviously useful, yet the effect of sex
education (to
the extent that it is successful) is to take the shaping
of sexual
attitudes away from the family and put it into the hands
of the state
as represented by the public school system.
154. Suppose a biological trait is discovered that increases
the
likelihood that a child will grow up to be a criminal
and suppose some
sort of gene therapy can remove this trait. [29] Of course
most
parents whose children possess the trait will have them
undergo the
therapy. It would be inhumane to do otherwise, since the
child would
probably have a miserable life if he grew up to be a criminal.
But
many or most primitive societies have a low crime rate
in comparison
with that of our society, even though they have neither
high-tech
methods of child-rearing nor harsh systems of punishment.
Since there
is no reason to suppose that more modern men than primitive
men have
innate predatory tendencies, the high crime rate of our
society must
be due to the pressures that modern conditions put on
people, to which
many cannot or will not adjust. Thus a treatment designed
to remove
potential criminal tendencies is at least in part a way
of
re-engineering people so that they suit the requirements
of the
system.
155. Our society tends to regard as a "sickness" any mode
of thought
or behavior that is inconvenient for the system, and this
is plausible
because when an individual doesn't fit into the system
it causes pain
to the individual as well as problems for the system.
Thus the
manipulation of an individual to adjust him to the system
is seen as a
"cure" for a "sickness" and therefore as good.
156. In paragraph 127 we pointed out that if the use of
a new item of
technology is INITIALLY optional, it does not necessarily
REMAIN
optional, because the new technology tends to change society
in such a
way that it becomes difficult or impossible for an individual
to
function without using that technology. This applies also
to the
technology of human behavior. In a world in which most
children are
put through a program to make them enthusiastic about
studying, a
parent will almost be forced to put his kid through such
a program,
because if he does not, then the kid will grow up to be,
comparatively
speaking, an ignoramus and therefore unemployable. Or
suppose a
biological treatment is discovered that, without undesirable
side-effects, will greatly reduce the psychological stress
from which
so many people suffer in our society. If large numbers
of people
choose to undergo the treatment, then the general level
of stress in
society will be reduced, so that it will be possible for
the system to
increase the stress-producing pressures. In fact, something
like this
seems to have happened already with one of our society's
most
important psychological tools for enabling people to reduce
(or at
least temporarily escape from) stress, namely, mass entertainment
(see
paragraph 147). Our use of mass entertainment is "optional":
No law
requires us to watch television, listen to the radio,
read magazines.
Yet mass entertainment is a means of escape and stress-reduction
on
which most of us have become dependent. Everyone complains
about the
trashiness of television, but almost everyone watches
it. A few have
kicked the TV habit, but it would be a rare person who
could get along
today without using ANY form of mass entertainment. (Yet
until quite
recently in human history most people got along very nicely
with no
other entertainment than that which each local community
created for
itself.) Without the entertainment industry the system
probably would
not have been able to get away with putting as much stress-producing
pressure on us as it does.
157. Assuming that industrial society survives, it is likely
that
technology will eventually acquire something approaching
complete
control over human behavior. It has been established beyond
any
rational doubt that human thought and behavior have a
largely
biological basis. As experimenters have demonstrated,
feelings such as
hunger, pleasure, anger and fear can be turned on and
off by
electrical stimulation of appropriate parts of the brain.
Memories can
be destroyed by damaging parts of the brain or they can
be brought to
the surface by electrical stimulation. Hallucinations
can be induced
or moods changed by drugs. There may or may not be an
immaterial human
soul, but if there is one it clearly is less powerful
that the
biological mechanisms of human behavior. For if that were
not the case
then researchers would not be able so easily to manipulate
human
feelings and behavior with drugs and electrical currents.
158. It presumably would be impractical for all people
to have
electrodes inserted in their heads so that they could
be controlled by
the authorities. But the fact that human thoughts and
feelings are so
open to biological intervention shows that the problem
of controlling
human behavior is mainly a technical problem; a problem
of neurons,
hormones and complex molecules; the kind of problem that
is accessible
to scientific attack. Given the outstanding record of
our society in
solving technical problems, it is overwhelmingly probable
that great
advances will be made in the control of human behavior.
159. Will public resistance prevent the introduction of
technological
control of human behavior? It certainly would if an attempt
were made
to introduce such control all at once. But since technological
control
will be introduced through a long sequence of small advances,
there
will be no rational and effective public resistance. (See
paragraphs
127,132, 153.)
160. To those who think that all this sounds like science
fiction, we
point out that yesterday's science fiction is today's
fact. The
Industrial Revolution has radically altered man's environment
and way
of life, and it is only to be expected that as technology
is
increasingly applied to the human body and mind, man himself
will be
altered as radically as his environment and way of life
have been.
HUMAN RACE AT A CROSSROADS
161. But we have gotten ahead of our story. It is one thing
to develop
in the laboratory a series of psychological or biological
techniques
for manipulating human behavior and quite another to integrate
these
techniques into a functioning social system. The latter
problem is the
more difficult of the two. For example, while the techniques
of
educational psychology doubtless work quite well in the
"lab schools"
where they are developed, it is not necessarily easy to
apply them
effectively throughout our educational system. We all
know what many
of our schools are like. The teachers are too busy taking
knives and
guns away from the kids to subject them to the latest
techniques for
making them into computer nerds. Thus, in spite of all
its technical
advances relating to human behavior the system to date
has not been
impressively successful in controlling human beings. The
people whose
behavior is fairly well under the control of the system
are those of
the type that might be called "bourgeois." But there are
growing
numbers of people who in one way or another are rebels
against the
system: welfare leaches, youth gangs cultists, satanists,
nazis,
radical environmentalists, militiamen, etc..
162. The system is currently engaged in a desperate struggle
to
overcome certain problems that threaten its survival,
among which the
problems of human behavior are the most important. If
the system
succeeds in acquiring sufficient control over human behavior
quickly
enough, it will probably survive. Otherwise it will break
down. We
think the issue will most likely be resolved within the
next several
decades, say 40 to 100 years.
163. Suppose the system survives the crisis of the next
several
decades. By that time it will have to have solved, or
at least brought
under control, the principal problems that confront it,
in particular
that of "socializing" human beings; that is, making people
sufficiently docile so that their behavior no longer threatens
the
system. That being accomplished, it does not appear that
there would
be any further obstacle to the development of technology,
and it would
presumably advance toward its logical conclusion, which
is complete
control over everything on Earth, including human beings
and all other
important organisms. The system may become a unitary,
monolithic
organization, or it may be more or less fragmented and
consist of a
number of organizations coexisting in a relationship that
includes
elements of both cooperation and competition, just as
today the
government, the corporations and other large organizations
both
cooperate and compete with one another. Human freedom
mostly will have
vanished, because individuals and small groups will be
impotent
vis-a-vis large organizations armed with supertechnology
and an
arsenal of advanced psychological and biological tools
for
manipulating human beings, besides instruments of surveillance
and
physical coercion. Only a small number of people will
have any real
power, and even these probably will have only very limited
freedom,
because their behavior too will be regulated; just as
today our
politicians and corporation executives can retain their
positions of
power only as long as their behavior remains within certain
fairly
narrow limits.
164. Don't imagine that the systems will stop developing
further
techniques for controlling human beings and nature once
the crisis of
the next few decades is over and increasing control is
no longer
necessary for the system's survival. On the contrary,
once the hard
times are over the system will increase its control over
people and
nature more rapidly, because it will no longer be hampered
by
difficulties of the kind that it is currently experiencing.
Survival
is not the principal motive for extending control. As
we explained in
paragraphs 87-90, technicians and scientists carry on
their work
largely as a surrogate activity; that is, they satisfy
their need for
power by solving technical problems. They will continue
to do this
with unabated enthusiasm, and among the most interesting
and
challenging problems for them to solve will be those of
understanding
the human body and mind and intervening in their development.
For the
"good of humanity," of course.
165. But suppose on the other hand that the stresses of
the coming
decades prove to be too much for the system. If the system
breaks down
there may be a period of chaos, a "time of troubles" such
as those
that history has recorded: at various epochs in the past.
It is
impossible to predict what would emerge from such a time
of troubles,
but at any rate the human race would be given a new chance.
The
greatest danger is that industrial society may begin to
reconstitute
itself within the first few years after the breakdown.
Certainly there
will be many people (power-hungry types especially) who
will be
anxious to get the factories running again.
166. Therefore two tasks confront those who hate the servitude
to
which the industrial system is reducing the human race.
First, we must
work to heighten the social stresses within the system
so as to
increase the likelihood that it will break down or be
weakened
sufficiently so that a revolution against it becomes possible.
Second,
it is necessary to develop and propagate an ideology that
opposes
technology and the industrial society if and when the
system becomes
sufficiently weakened. And such an ideology will help
to assure that,
if and when industrial society breaks down, its remnants
will be
smashed beyond repair, so that the system cannot be reconstituted.
The
factories should be destroyed, technical books burned,
etc.
HUMAN SUFFERING
167. The industrial system will not break down purely as
a result of
revolutionary action. It will not be vulnerable to revolutionary
attack unless its own internal problems of development
lead it into
very serious difficulties. So if the system breaks down
it will do so
either spontaneously, or through a process that is in
part spontaneous
but helped along by revolutionaries. If the breakdown
is sudden, many
people will die, since the world's population has become
so overblown
that it cannot even feed itself any longer without advanced
technology. Even if the breakdown is gradual enough so
that reduction
of the population can occur more through lowering of the
birth rate
than through elevation of the death rate, the process
of
de-industrialization probably will be very chaotic and
involve much
suffering. It is naive to think it likely that technology
can be
phased out in a smoothly managed orderly way, especially
since the
technophiles will fight stubbornly at every step. Is it
therefore
cruel to work for the breakdown of the system? Maybe,
but maybe not.
In the first place, revolutionaries will not be able to
break the
system down unless it is already in deep trouble so that
there would
be a good chance of its eventually breaking down by itself
anyway; and
the bigger the system grows, the more disastrous the consequences
of
its breakdown will be; so it may be that revolutionaries,
by hastening
the onset of the breakdown will be reducing the extent
of the
disaster.
168. In the second place, one has to balance the struggle
and death
against the loss of freedom and dignity. To many of us,
freedom and
dignity are more important than a long life or avoidance
of physical
pain. Besides, we all have to die some time, and it may
be better to
die fighting for survival, or for a cause, than to live
a long but
empty and purposeless life.
169. In the third place, it is not all certain that the
survival of
the system will lead to less suffering than the breakdown
of the
system would. The system has already caused, and is continuing
to
cause , immense suffering all over the world. Ancient
cultures, that
for hundreds of years gave people a satisfactory relationship
with
each other and their environment, have been shattered
by contact with
industrial society, and the result has been a whole catalogue
of
economic, environmental, social and psychological problems.
One of the
effects of the intrusion of industrial society has been
that over much
of the world traditional controls on population have been
thrown out
of balance. Hence the population explosion, with all that
it implies.
Then there is the psychological suffering that is widespread
throughout the supposedly fortunate countries of the West
(see
paragraphs 44, 45). No one knows what will happen as a
result of ozone
depletion, the greenhouse effect and other environmental
problems that
cannot yet be foreseen. And, as nuclear proliferation
has shown, new
technology cannot be kept out of the hands of dictators
and
irresponsible Third World nations. Would you like to speculate
abut
what Iraq or North Korea will do with genetic engineering?
170. "Oh!" say the technophiles, "Science is going to fix
all that! We
will conquer famine, eliminate psychological suffering,
make everybody
healthy and happy!" Yeah, sure. That's what they said
200 years ago.
The Industrial Revolution was supposed to eliminate poverty,
make
everybody happy, etc. The actual result has been quite
different. The
technophiles are hopelessly naive (or self-deceiving)
in their
understanding of social problems. They are unaware of
(or choose to
ignore) the fact that when large changes, even seemingly
beneficial
ones, are introduced into a society, they lead to a long
sequence of
other changes, most of which are impossible to predict
(paragraph
103). The result is disruption of the society. So it is
very probable
that in their attempt to end poverty and disease, engineer
docile,
happy personalities and so forth, the technophiles will
create social
systems that are terribly troubled, even more so that
the present one.
For example, the scientists boast that they will end famine
by
creating new, genetically engineered food plants. But
this will allow
the human population to keep expanding indefinitely, and
it is well
known that crowding leads to increased stress and aggression.
This is
merely one example of the PREDICTABLE problems that will
arise. We
emphasize that, as past experience has shown, technical
progress will
lead to other new problems for society far more rapidly
that it has
been solving old ones. Thus it will take a long difficult
period of
trial and error for the technophiles to work the bugs
out of their
Brave New World (if they ever do). In the meantime there
will be great
suffering. So it is not all clear that the survival of
industrial
society would involve less suffering than the breakdown
of that
society would. Technology has gotten the human race into
a fix from
which there is not likely to be any easy escape.
THE FUTURE
171. But suppose now that industrial society does survive
the next
several decade and that the bugs do eventually get worked
out of the
system, so that it functions smoothly. What kind of system
will it be?
We will consider several possibilities.
172. First let us postulate that the computer scientists
succeed in
developing intelligent machines that can do all things
better that
human beings can do them. In that case presumably all
work will be
done by vast, highly organized systems of machines and
no human effort
will be necessary. Either of two cases might occur. The
machines might
be permitted to make all of their own decisions without
human
oversight, or else human control over the machines might
be retained.
173. If the machines are permitted to make all their own
decisions, we
can't make any conjectures as to the results, because
it is impossible
to guess how such machines might behave. We only point
out that the
fate of the human race would be at the mercy of the machines.
It might
be argued that the human race would never be foolish enough
to hand
over all the power to the machines. But we are suggesting
neither that
the human race would voluntarily turn power over to the
machines nor
that the machines would willfully seize power. What we
do suggest is
that the human race might easily permit itself to drift
into a
position of such dependence on the machines that it would
have no
practical choice but to accept all of the machines decisions.
As
society and the problems that face it become more and
more complex and
machines become more and more intelligent, people will
let machines
make more of their decision for them, simply because machine-made
decisions will bring better result than man-made ones.
Eventually a
stage may be reached at which the decisions necessary
to keep the
system running will be so complex that human beings will
be incapable
of making them intelligently. At that stage the machines
will be in
effective control. People won't be able to just turn the
machines off,
because they will be so dependent on them that turning
them off would
amount to suicide.
174. On the other hand it is possible that human control
over the
machines may be retained. In that case the average man
may have
control over certain private machines of his own, such
as his car of
his personal computer, but control over large systems
of machines will
be in the hands of a tiny elite -- just as it is today,
but with two
difference. Due to improved techniques the elite will
have greater
control over the masses; and because human work will no
longer be
necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden
on the
system. If the elite is ruthless the may simply decide
to exterminate
the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use
propaganda or
other psychological or biological techniques to reduce
the birth rate
until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the
world to the
elite. Or, if the elite consist of soft-hearted liberals,
they may
decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest
of the human
race. They will see to it that everyone's physical needs
are
satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically
hygienic
conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep
him busy, and
that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes "treatment"
to cure
his "problem." Of course, life will be so purposeless
that people will
have to be biologically or psychologically engineered
either to remove
their need for the power process or to make them "sublimate"
their
drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered
human
beings may be happy in such a society, but they most certainly
will
not be free. They will have been reduced to the status
of domestic
animals.
175. But suppose now that the computer scientists do not
succeed in
developing artificial intelligence, so that human work
remains
necessary. Even so, machines will take care of more and
more of the
simpler tasks so that there will be an increasing surplus
of human
workers at the lower levels of ability. (We see this happening
already. There are many people who find it difficult or
impossible to
get work, because for intellectual or psychological reasons
they
cannot acquire the level of training necessary to make
themselves
useful in the present system.) On those who are employed,
ever-increasing demands will be placed; They will need
more and m ore
training, more and more ability, and will have to be ever
more
reliable, conforming and docile, because they will be
more and more
like cells of a giant organism. Their tasks will be increasingly
specialized so that their work will be, in a sense, out
of touch with
the real world, being concentrated on one tiny slice of
reality. The
system will have to use any means that I can, whether
psychological or
biological, to engineer people to be docile, to have the
abilities
that the system requires and to "sublimate" their drive
for power into
some specialized task. But the statement that the people
of such a
society will have to be docile may require qualification.
The society
may find competitiveness useful, provided that ways are
found of
directing competitiveness into channels that serve that
needs of the
system. We can imagine into channels that serve the needs
of the
system. We can imagine a future society in which there
is endless
competition for positions of prestige an power. But no
more than a
very few people will ever reach the top, where the only
real power is
(see end of paragraph 163). Very repellent is a society
in which a
person can satisfy his needs for power only by pushing
large numbers
of other people out of the way and depriving them of THEIR
opportunity
for power.
176. Once can envision scenarios that incorporate aspects
of more than
one of the possibilities that we have just discussed.
For instance, it
may be that machines will take over most of the work that
is of real,
practical importance, but that human beings will be kept
busy by being
given relatively unimportant work. It has been suggested,
for example,
that a great development of the service of industries
might provide
work for human beings. Thus people will would spend their
time
shinning each others shoes, driving each other around
inn taxicab,
making handicrafts for one another, waiting on each other's
tables,
etc. This seems to us a thoroughly contemptible way for
the human race
to end up, and we doubt that many people would find fulfilling
lives
in such pointless busy-work. They would seek other, dangerous
outlets
(drugs, , crime, "cults," hate groups) unless they were
biological or
psychologically engineered to adapt them to such a way
of life.
177. Needless to day, the scenarios outlined above do not
exhaust all
the possibilities. They only indicate the kinds of outcomes
that seem
to us mots likely. But wee can envision no plausible scenarios
that
are any more palatable that the ones we've just described.
It is
overwhelmingly probable that if the industrial-technological
system
survives the next 40 to 100 years, it will by that time
have developed
certain general characteristics: Individuals (at least
those of the
"bourgeois" type, who are integrated into the system and
make it run,
and who therefore have all the power) will be more dependent
than ever
on large organizations; they will be more "socialized"
that ever and
their physical and mental qualities to a significant extent
(possibly
to a very great extent ) will be those that are engineered
into them
rather than being the results of chance (or of God's will,
or
whatever); and whatever may be left of wild nature will
be reduced to
remnants preserved for scientific study and kept under
the supervision
and management of scientists (hence it will no longer
be truly wild).
In the long run (say a few centuries from now) it is it
is likely that
neither the human race nor any other important organisms
will exist as
we know them today, because once you start modifying organisms
through
genetic engineering there is no reason to stop at any
particular
point, so that the modifications will probably continue
until man and
other organisms have been utterly transformed.
178. Whatever else may be the case, it is certain that
technology is
creating for human begins a new physical and social environment
radically different from the spectrum of environments
to which natural
selection has adapted the human race physically and psychological.
If
man is not adjust to this new environment by being artificially
re-engineered, then he will be adapted to it through a
long an painful
process of natural selection. The former is far more likely
that the
latter.
179. It would be better to dump the whole stinking system
and take the
consequences.
STRATEGY
180. The technophiles are taking us all on an utterly reckless
ride
into the unknown. Many people understand something of
what
technological progress is doing to us yet take a passive
attitude
toward it because they think it is inevitable. But we
(FC) don't think
it is inevitable. We think it can be stopped, and we will
give here
some indications of how to go about stopping it.
181. As we stated in paragraph 166, the two main tasks
for the present
are to promote social stress and instability in industrial
society and
to develop and propagate an ideology that opposes technology
and the
industrial system. When the system becomes sufficiently
stressed and
unstable, a revolution against technology may be possible.
The pattern
would be similar to that of the French and Russian Revolutions.
French
society and Russian society, for several decades prior
to their
respective revolutions, showed increasing signs of stress
and
weakness. Meanwhile, ideologies were being developed that
offered a
new world view that was quite different from the old one.
In the
Russian case, revolutionaries were actively working to
undermine the
old order. Then, when the old system was put under sufficient
additional stress (by financial crisis in France, by military
defeat
in Russia) it was swept away by revolution. What we propose
in
something along the same lines.
182. It will be objected that the French and Russian Revolutions
were
failures. But most revolutions have two goals. One is
to destroy an
old form of society and the other is to set up the new
form of society
envisioned by the revolutionaries. The French and Russian
revolutionaries failed (fortunately!) to create the new
kind of
society of which they dreamed, but they were quite successful
in
destroying the existing form of society.
183. But an ideology, in order to gain enthusiastic support,
must have
a positive ideals well as a negative one; it must be FOR
something as
well as AGAINST something. The positive ideal that we
propose is
Nature. That is , WILD nature; those aspects of the functioning
of the
Earth and its living things that are independent of human
management
and free of human interference and control. And with wild
nature we
include human nature, by which we mean those aspects of
the
functioning of the human individual that are not subject
to regulation
by organized society but are products of chance, or free
will, or God
(depending on your religious or philosophical opinions).
184. Nature makes a perfect counter-ideal to technology
for several
reasons. Nature (that which is outside the power of the
system) is the
opposite of technology (which seeks to expand indefinitely
the power
of the system). Most people will agree that nature is
beautiful;
certainly it has tremendous popular appeal. The radical
environmentalists ALREADY hold an ideology that exalts
nature and
opposes technology. [30] It is not necessary for the sake
of nature to
set up some chimerical utopia or any new kind of social
order. Nature
takes care of itself: It was a spontaneous creation that
existed long
before any human society, and for countless centuries
many different
kinds of human societies coexisted with nature without
doing it an
excessive amount of damage. Only with the Industrial Revolution
did
the effect of human society on nature become really devastating.
To
relieve the pressure on nature it is not necessary to
create a special
kind of social system, it is only necessary to get rid
of industrial
society. Granted, this will not solve all problems. Industrial
society
has already done tremendous damage to nature and it will
take a very
long time for the scars to heal. Besides, even pre-industrial
societies can do significant damage to nature. Nevertheless,
getting
rid of industrial society will accomplish a great deal.
It will
relieve the worst of the pressure on nature so that the
scars can
begin to heal. It will remove the capacity of organized
society to
keep increasing its control over nature (including human
nature).
Whatever kind of society may exist after the demise of
the industrial
system, it is certain that most people will live close
to nature,
because in the absence of advanced technology there is
not other way
that people CAN live. To feed themselves they must be
peasants or
herdsmen or fishermen or hunter, etc., And, generally
speaking, local
autonomy should tend to increase, because lack of advanced
technology
and rapid communications will limit the capacity of governments
or
other large organizations to control local communities.
185. As for the negative consequences of eliminating industrial
society -- well, you can't eat your cake and have it too.
To gain one
thing you have to sacrifice another.
186. Most people hate psychological conflict. For this
reason they
avoid doing any serious thinking about difficult social
issues, and
they like to have such issues presented to them in simple,
black-and-white terms: THIS is all good and THAT is all
bad. The
revolutionary ideology should therefore be developed on
two levels.
187. On the more sophisticated level the ideology should
address
itself to people who are intelligent, thoughtful and rational.
The
object should be to create a core of people who will be
opposed to the
industrial system on a rational, thought-out basis, with
full
appreciation of the problems and ambiguities involved,
and of the
price that has to be paid for getting rid of the system.
It is
particularly important to attract people of this type,
as they are
capable people and will be instrumental in influencing
others. These
people should be addressed on as rational a level as possible.
Facts
should never intentionally be distorted and intemperate
language
should be avoided. This does not mean that no appeal can
be made to
the emotions, but in making such appeal care should be
taken to avoid
misrepresenting the truth or doing anything else that
would destroy
the intellectual respectability of the ideology.
188. On a second level, the ideology should be propagated
in a
simplified form that will enable the unthinking majority
to see the
conflict of technology vs. nature in unambiguous terms.
But even on
this second level the ideology should not be expressed
in language
that is so cheap, intemperate or irrational that it alienates
people
of the thoughtful and rational type. Cheap, intemperate
propaganda
sometimes achieves impressive short-term gains, but it
will be more
advantageous in the long run to keep the loyalty of a
small number of
intelligently committed people than to arouse the passions
of an
unthinking, fickle mob who will change their attitude
as soon as
someone comes along with a better propaganda gimmick.
However,
propaganda of the rabble-rousing type may be necessary
when the system
is nearing the point of collapse and there is a final
struggle between
rival ideologies to determine which will become dominant
when the old
world-view goes under.
189. Prior to that final struggle, the revolutionaries
should not
expect to have a majority of people on their side. History
is made by
active, determined minorities, not by the majority, which
seldom has a
clear and consistent idea of what it really wants. Until
the time
comes for the final push toward revolution [31], the task
of
revolutionaries will be less to win the shallow support
of the
majority than to build a small core of deeply committed
people. As for
the majority, it will be enough to make them aware of
the existence of
the new ideology and remind them of it frequently; though
of course it
will be desirable to get majority support to the extent
that this can
be done without weakening the core of seriously committed
people.
190. Any kind of social conflict helps to destabilize the
system, but
one should be careful about what kind of conflict one
encourages. The
line of conflict should be drawn between the mass of the
people and
the power-holding elite of industrial society (politicians,
scientists, upper-level business executives, government
officials,
etc..). It should NOT be drawn between the revolutionaries
and the
mass of the people. For example, it would be bad strategy
for the
revolutionaries to condemn Americans for their habits
of consumption.
Instead, the average American should be portrayed as a
victim of the
advertising and marketing industry, which has suckered
him into buying
a lot of junk that he doesn't need and that is very poor
compensation
for his lost freedom. Either approach is consistent with
the facts. It
is merely a matter of attitude whether you blame the advertising
industry for manipulating the public or blame the public
for allowing
itself to be manipulated. As a matter of strategy one
should generally
avoid blaming the public.
191. One should think twice before encouraging any other
social
conflict than that between the power-holding elite (which
wields
technology) and the general public (over which technology
exerts its
power). For one thing, other conflicts tend to distract
attention from
the important conflicts (between power-elite and ordinary
people,
between technology and nature); for another thing, other
conflicts may
actually tend to encourage technologization, because each
side in such
a conflict wants to use technological power to gain advantages
over
its adversary. This is clearly seen in rivalries between
nations. It
also appears in ethnic conflicts within nations. For example,
in
America many black leaders are anxious to gain power for
African
Americans by placing back individuals in the technological
power-elite. They want there to be many black government
officials,
scientists, corporation executives and so forth. In this
way they are
helping to absorb the African American subculture into
the
technological system. Generally speaking, one should encourage
only
those social conflicts that can be fitted into the framework
of the
conflicts of power--elite vs. ordinary people, technology
vs nature.
192. But the way to discourage ethnic conflict is NOT through
militant
advocacy of minority rights (see paragraphs 21, 29). Instead,
the
revolutionaries should emphasize that although minorities
do suffer
more or less disadvantage, this disadvantage is of peripheral
significance. Our real enemy is the industrial-technological
system,
and in the struggle against the system, ethnic distinctions
are of no
importance.
193. The kind of revolution we have in mind will not necessarily
involve an armed uprising against any government. It may
or may not
involve physical violence, but it will not be a POLITICAL
revolution.
Its focus will be on technology and economics, not politics.
[32]
194. Probably the revolutionaries should even AVOID assuming
political
power, whether by legal or illegal means, until the industrial
system
is stressed to the danger point and has proved itself
to be a failure
in the eyes of most people. Suppose for example that some
"green"
party should win control of the United States Congress
in an election.
In order to avoid betraying or watering down their own
ideology they
would have to take vigorous measures to turn economic
growth into
economic shrinkage. To the average man the results would
appear
disastrous: There would be massive unemployment, shortages
of
commodities, etc. Even if the grosser ill effects could
be avoided
through superhumanly skillful management, still people
would have to
begin giving up the luxuries to which they have become
addicted.
Dissatisfaction would grow, the "green" party would be
voted out of of
fice and the revolutionaries would have suffered a severe
setback. For
this reason the revolutionaries should not try to acquire
political
power until the system has gotten itself into such a mess
that any
hardships will be seen as resulting from the failures
of the
industrial system itself and not from the policies of
the
revolutionaries. The revolution against technology will
probably have
to be a revolution by outsiders, a revolution from below
and not from
above.
195. The revolution must be international and worldwide.
It cannot be
carried out on a nation-by-nation basis. Whenever it is
suggested that
the United States, for example, should cut back on technological
progress or economic growth, people get hysterical and
start screaming
that if we fall behind in technology the Japanese will
get ahead of
us. Holy robots The world will fly off its orbit if the
Japanese ever
sell more cars than we do! (Nationalism is a great promoter
of
technology.) More reasonably, it is argued that if the
relatively
democratic nations of the world fall behind in technology
while nasty,
dictatorial nations like China, Vietnam and North Korea
continue to
progress, eventually the dictators may come to dominate
the world.
That is why the industrial system should be attacked in
all nations
simultaneously, to the extent that this may be possible.
True, there
is no assurance that the industrial system can be destroyed
at
approximately the same time all over the world, and it
is even
conceivable that the attempt to overthrow the system could
lead
instead to the domination of the system by dictators.
That is a risk
that has to be taken. And it is worth taking, since the
difference
between a "democratic" industrial system and one controlled
by
dictators is small compared with the difference between
an industrial
system and a non-industrial one. [33] It might even be
argued that an
industrial system controlled by dictators would be preferable,
because
dictator-controlled systems usually have proved inefficient,
hence
they are presumably more likely to break down. Look at
Cuba.
196. Revolutionaries might consider favoring measures that
tend to
bind the world economy into a unified whole. Free trade
agreements
like NAFTA and GATT are probably harmful to the environment
in the
short run, but in the long run they may perhaps be advantageous
because they foster economic interdependence between nations.
I will
be eaier to destroy the industrial system on a worldwide
basis if he
world economy is so unified that its breakdown in any
on major nation
will lead to its breakdwon in al industrialized nations.
the long run they may perhaps be advantageous because they
foster
economic interdependence between nations. It will be easier
to destroy
the industrial system on a worldwide basis if the world
economy is so
unified that its breakdown in any one major nation will
lead to its
breakdown in all industrialized nations.
197. Some people take the line that modern man has too
much power, too
much control over nature; they argue for a more passive
attitude on
the part of the human race. At best these people are expressing
themselves unclearly, because they fail to distinguish
between power
for LARGE ORGANIZATIONS and power for INDIVIDUALS and
SMALL GROUPS. It
is a mistake to argue for powerlessness and passivity,
because people
NEED power. Modern man as a collective entity--that is,
the industrial
system--has immense power over nature, and we (FC) regard
this as
evil. But modern INDIVIDUALS and SMALL GROUPS OF INDIVIDUALS
have far
less power than primitive man ever did. Generally speaking,
the vast
power of "modern man" over nature is exercised not by
individuals or
small groups but by large organizations. To the extent
that the
average modern INDIVIDUAL can wield the power of technology,
he is
permitted to do so only within narrow limits and only
under the
supervision and control of the system. (You need a license
for
everything and with the license come rules and regulations).
The
individual has only those technological powers with which
the system
chooses to provide him. His PERSONAL power over nature
is slight.
198. Primitive INDIVIDUALS and SMALL GROUPS actually had
considerable
power over nature; or maybe it would be better to say
power WITHIN
nature. When primitive man needed food he knew how to
find and prepare
edible roots, how to track game and take it with homemade
weapons. He
knew how to protect himself from heat, cold, rain, dangerous
animals,
etc. But primitive man did relatively little damage to
nature because
the COLLECTIVE power of primitive society was negligible
compared to
the COLLECTIVE power of industrial society.
199. Instead of arguing for powerlessness and passivity,
one should
argue that the power of the INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM should be
broken, and
that this will greatly INCREASE the power and freedom
of INDIVIDUALS
and SMALL GROUPS.
200. Until the industrial system has been thoroughly wrecked,
the
destruction of that system must be the revolutionaries'
ONLY goal.
Other goals would distract attention and energy from the
main goal.
More importantly, if the revolutionaries permit themselves
to have any
other goal than the destruction of technology, they will
be tempted to
use technology as a tool for reaching that other goal.
If they give in
to that temptation, they will fall right back into the
technological
trap, because modern technology is a unified, tightly
organized
system, so that, in order to retain SOME technology, one
finds oneself
obliged to retain MOST technology, hence one ends up sacrificing
only
token amounts of technology.
201. Suppose for example that the revolutionaries took
"social
justice" as a goal. Human nature being what it is, social
justice
would not come about spontaneously; it would have to be
enforced. In
order to enforce it the revolutionaries would have to
retain central
organization and control. For that they would need rapid
long-distance
transportation and communication, and therefore all the
technology
needed to support the transportation and communication
systems. To
feed and clothe poor people they would have to use agricultural
and
manufacturing technology. And so forth. So that the attempt
to insure
social justice would force them to retain most parts of
the
technological system. Not that we have anything against
social
justice, but it must not be allowed to interfere with
the effort to
get rid of the technological system.
202. It would be hopeless for revolutionaries to try to
attack the
system without using SOME modern technology. If nothing
else they must
use the communications media to spread their message.
But they should
use modern technology for only ONE purpose: to attack
the
technological system.
203. Imagine an alcoholic sitting with a barrel of wine
in front of
him. Suppose he starts saying to himself, "Wine isn't
bad for you if
used in moderation. Why, they say small amounts of wine
are even good
for you! It won't do me any harm if I take just one little
drink..."
Well you know what is going to happen. Never forget that
the human
race with technology is just like an alcoholic with a
barrel of wine.
204. Revolutionaries should have as many children as they
can. There
is strong scientific evidence that social attitudes are
to a
significant extent inherited. No one suggests that a social
attitude
is a direct outcome of a person's genetic constitution,
but it appears
that personality traits tend, within the context of our
society, to
make a person more likely to hold this or that social
attitude.
Objections to these findings have been raised, but objections
are
feeble and seem to be ideologically motivated. In any
event, no one
denies that children tend on the average to hold social
attitudes
similar to those of their parents. From our point of view
it doesn't
matter all that much whether the attitudes are passed
on genetically
or through childhood training. In either case the ARE
passed on.
205. The trouble is that many of the people who are inclined
to rebel
against the industrial system are also concerned about
the population
problems, hence they are apt to have few or no children.
In this way
they may be handing the world over to the sort of people
who support
or at least accept the industrial system. To insure the
strength of
the next generation of revolutionaries the present generation
must
reproduce itself abundantly. In doing so they will be
worsening the
population problem only slightly. And the most important
problem is to
get rid of the industrial system, because once the industrial
system
is gone the world's population necessarily will decrease
(see
paragraph 167); whereas, if the industrial system survives,
it will
continue developing new techniques of food production
that may enable
the world's population to keep increasing almost indefinitely.
206. With regard to revolutionary strategy, the only points
on which
we absolutely insist are that the single overriding goal
must be the
elimination of modern technology, and that no other goal
can be
allowed to compete with this one. For the rest, revolutionaries
should
take an empirical approach. If experience indicates that
some of the
recommendations made in the foregoing paragraphs are not
going to give
good results, then those recommendations should be discarded.
TWO KINDS OF TECHNOLOGY
207. An argument likely to be raised against our proposed
revolution
is that it is bound to fail, because (it is claimed) throughout
history technology has always progressed, never regressed,
hence
technological regression is impossible. But this claim
is false.
208. We distinguish between two kinds of technology, which
we will
call small-scale technology and organization-dependent
technology.
Small-scale technology is technology that can be used
by small-scale
communities without outside assistance. Organization-dependent
technology is technology that depends on large-scale social
organization. We are aware of no significant cases of
regression in
small-scale technology. But organization-dependent technology
DOES
regress when the social organization on which it depends
breaks down.
Example: When the Roman Empire fell apart the Romans'
small-scale
technology survived because any clever village craftsman
could build,
for instance, a water wheel, any skilled smith could make
steel by
Roman methods, and so forth. But the Romans' organization-dependent
technology DID regress. Their aqueducts fell into disrepair
and were
never rebuilt. Their techniques of road construction were
lost. The
Roman system of urban sanitation was forgotten, so that
until rather
recent times did the sanitation of European cities that
of Ancient
Rome.
209. The reason why technology has seemed always to progress
is that,
until perhaps a century or two before the Industrial Revolution,
most
technology was small-scale technology. But most of the
technology
developed since the Industrial Revolution is organization-dependent
technology. Take the refrigerator for example. Without
factory-made
parts or the facilities of a post-industrial machine shop
it would be
virtually impossible for a handful of local craftsmen
to build a
refrigerator. If by some miracle they did succeed in building
one it
would be useless to them without a reliable source of
electric power.
So they would have to dam a stream and build a generator.
Generators
require large amounts of copper wire. Imagine trying to
make that wire
without modern machinery. And where would they get a gas
suitable for
refrigeration? It would be much easier to build an icehouse
or
preserve food by drying or picking, as was done before
the invention
of the refrigerator.
210. So it is clear that if the industrial system were
once thoroughly
broken down, refrigeration technology would quickly be
lost. The same
is true of other organization-dependent technology. And
once this
technology had been lost for a generation or so it would
take
centuries to rebuild it, just as it took centuries to
build it the
first time around. Surviving technical books would be
few and
scattered. An industrial society, if built from scratch
without
outside help, can only be built in a series of stages:
You need tools
to make tools to make tools to make tools ... . A long
process of
economic development and progress in social organization
is required.
And, even in the absence of an ideology opposed to technology,
there
is no reason to believe that anyone would be interested
in rebuilding
industrial society. The enthusiasm for "progress" is a
phenomenon
particular to the modern form of society, and it seems
not to have
existed prior to the 17th century or thereabouts.
211. In the late Middle Ages there were four main civilizations
that
were about equally "advanced": Europe, the Islamic world,
India, and
the Far East (China, Japan, Korea). Three of those civilizations
remained more or less stable, and only Europe became dynamic.
No one
knows why Europe became dynamic at that time; historians
have their
theories but these are only speculation. At any rate,
it is clear that
rapid development toward a technological form of society
occurs only
under special conditions. So there is no reason to assume
that
long-lasting technological regression cannot be brought
about.
212. Would society EVENTUALLY develop again toward an
industrial-technological form? Maybe, but there is no
use in worrying
about it, since we can't predict or control events 500
or 1,000 years
in the future. Those problems must be dealt with by the
people who
will live at that time.
THE DANGER OF LEFTISM
213. Because of their need for rebellion and for membership
in a
movement, leftists or persons of similar psychological
type are often
unattracted to a rebellious or activist movement whose
goals and
membership are not initially leftist. The resulting influx
of leftish
types can easily turn a non-leftist movement into a leftist
one, so
that leftist goals replace or distort the original goals
of the
movement.
214. To avoid this, a movement that exalts nature and opposes
technology must take a resolutely anti-leftist stance
and must avoid
all collaboration with leftists. Leftism is in the long
run
inconsistent with wild nature, with human freedom and
with the
elimination of modern technology. Leftism is collectivist;
it seeks to
bind together the entire world (both nature and the human
race) into a
unified whole. But this implies management of nature and
of human life
by organized society, and it requires advanced technology.
You can't
have a united world without rapid transportation and communication,
you can't make all people love one another without sophisticated
psychological techniques, you can't have a "planned society"
without
the necessary technological base. Above all, leftism is
driven by the
need for power, and the leftist seeks power on a collective
basis,
through identification with a mass movement or an organization.
Leftism is unlikely ever to give up technology, because
technology is
too valuable a source of collective power.
215. The anarchist [34] too seeks power, but he seeks it
on an
individual or small-group basis; he wants individuals
and small groups
to be able to control the circumstances of their own lives.
He opposes
technology because it makes small groups dependent on
large
organizations.
216. Some leftists may seem to oppose technology, but they
will oppose
it only so long as they are outsiders and the technological
system is
controlled by non-leftists. If leftism ever becomes dominant
in
society, so that the technological system becomes a tool
in the hands
of leftists, they will enthusiastically use it and promote
its growth.
In doing this they will be repeating a pattern that leftism
has shown
again and again in the past. When the Bolsheviks in Russia
were
outsiders, they vigorously opposed censorship and the
secret police,
they advocated self-determination for ethnic minorities,
and so forth;
but as soon as they came into power themselves, they imposed
a tighter
censorship and created a more ruthless secret police than
any that had
existed under the tsars, and they oppressed ethnic minorities
at least
as much as the tsars had done. In the United States, a
couple of
decades ago when leftists were a minority in our universities,
leftist
professors were vigorous proponents of academic freedom,
but today, in
those universities where leftists have become dominant,
they have
shown themselves ready to take away from everyone else's
academic
freedom. (This is "political correctness.") The same will
happen with
leftists and technology: They will use it to oppress everyone
else if
they ever get it under their own control.
217. In earlier revolutions, leftists of the most power-hungry
type,
repeatedly, have first cooperated with non-leftist revolutionaries,
as
well as with leftists of a more libertarian inclination,
and later
have double-crossed them to seize power for themselves.
Robespierre
did this in the French Revolution, the Bolsheviks did
it in the
Russian Revolution, the communists did it in Spain in
1938 and Castro
and his followers did it in Cuba. Given the past history
of leftism,
it would be utterly foolish for non-leftist revolutionaries
today to
collaborate with leftists.
218. Various thinkers have pointed out that leftism is
a kind of
religion. Leftism is not a religion in the strict sense
because
leftist doctrine does not postulate the existence of any
supernatural
being. But for the leftist, leftism plays a psychological
role much
like that which religion plays for some people. The leftist
NEEDS to
believe in leftism; it plays a vital role in his psychological
economy. His beliefs are not easily modified by logic
or facts. He has
a deep conviction that leftism is morally Right with a
capital R, and
that he has not only a right but a duty to impose leftist
morality on
everyone. (However, many of the people we are referring
to as
"leftists" do not think of themselves as leftists and
would not
describe their system of beliefs as leftism. We use the
term "leftism"
because we don't know of any better words to designate
the spectrum of
related creeds that includes the feminist, gay rights,
political
correctness, etc., movements, and because these movements
have a
strong affinity with the old left. See paragraphs 227-230.)
219. Leftism is totalitarian force. Wherever leftism is
in a position
of power it tends to invade every private corner and force
every
thought into a leftist mold. In part this is because of
the
quasi-religious character of leftism; everything contrary
to leftists
beliefs represents Sin. More importantly, leftism is a
totalitarian
force because of the leftists' drive for power. The leftist
seeks to
satisfy his need for power through identification with
a social
movement and he tries to go through the power process
by helping to
pursue and attain the goals of the movement (see paragraph
83). But no
matter how far the movement has gone in attaining its
goals the
leftist is never satisfied, because his activism is a
surrogate
activity (see paragraph 41). That is, the leftist's real
motive is not
to attain the ostensible goals of leftism; in reality
he is motivated
by the sense of power he gets from struggling for and
then reaching a
social goal.[35]
Consequently the leftist is never satisfied with the goals
he has
already attained; his need for the power process leads
him always to
pursue some new goal. The leftist wants equal opportunities
for
minorities. When that is attained he insists on statistical
equality
of achievement by minorities. And as long as anyone harbors
in some
corner of his mind a negative attitude toward some minority,
the
leftist has to re-educated him. And ethnic minorities
are not enough;
no one can be allowed to have a negative attitude toward
homosexuals,
disabled people, fat people, old people, ugly people,
and on and on
and on. It's not enough that the public should be informed
about the
hazards of smoking; a warning has to be stamped on every
package of
cigarettes. Then cigarette advertising has to be restricted
if not
banned. The activists will never be satisfied until tobacco
is
outlawed, and after that it will be alco hot then junk
food, etc.
Activists have fought gross child abuse, which is reasonable.
But now
they want to stop all spanking. When they have done that
they will
want to ban something else they consider unwholesome,
then another
thing and then another. They will never be satisfied until
they have
complete control over all child rearing practices. And
then they will
move on to another cause.
220. Suppose you asked leftists to make a list of ALL the
things that
were wrong with society, and then suppose you instituted
EVERY social
change that they demanded. It is safe to say that within
a couple of
years the majority of leftists would find something new
to complain
about, some new social "evil" to correct because, once
again, the
leftist is motivated less by distress at society's ills
than by the
need to satisfy his drive for power by imposing his solutions
on
society.
221. Because of the restrictions placed on their thoughts
and behavior
by their high level of socialization, many leftists of
the
over-socialized type cannot pursue power in the ways that
other people
do. For them the drive for power has only one morally
acceptable
outlet, and that is in the struggle to impose their morality
on
everyone.
222. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type,
are True
Believers in the sense of Eric Hoffer's book, "The True
Believer." But
not all True Believers are of the same psychological type
as leftists.
Presumably a truebelieving nazi, for instance is very
different
psychologically from a truebelieving leftist. Because
of their
capacity for single-minded devotion to a cause, True Believers
are a
useful, perhaps a necessary, ingredient of any revolutionary
movement.
This presents a problem with which we must admit we don't
know how to
deal. We aren't sure how to harness the energies of the
True Believer
to a revolution against technology. At present all we
can say is that
no True Believer will make a safe recruit to the revolution
unless his
commitment is exclusively to the destruction of technology.
If he is
committed also to another ideal, he may want to use technology
as a
tool for pursuing that other ideal (see paragraphs 220,
221).
223. Some readers may say, "This stuff about leftism is
a lot of crap.
I know John and Jane who are leftish types and they don't
have all
these totalitarian tendencies." It's quite true that many
leftists,
possibly even a numerical majority, are decent people
who sincerely
believe in tolerating others' values (up to a point) and
wouldn't want
to use high-handed methods to reach their social goals.
Our remarks
about leftism are not meant to apply to every individual
leftist but
to describe the general character of leftism as a movement.
And the
general character of a movement is not necessarily determined
by the
numerical proportions of the various kinds of people involved
in the
movement.
224. The people who rise to positions of power in leftist
movements
tend to be leftists of the most power-hungry type because
power-hungry
people are those who strive hardest to get into positions
of power.
Once the power-hungry types have captured control of the
movement,
there are many leftists of a gentler breed who inwardly
disapprove of
many of the actions of the leaders, but cannot bring themselves
to
oppose them. They NEED their faith in the movement, and
because they
cannot give up this faith they go along with the leaders.
True, SOME
leftists do have the guts to oppose the totalitarian tendencies
that
emerge, but they generally lose, because the power-hungry
types are
better organized, are more ruthless and Machiavellian
and have taken
care to build themselves a strong power base.
225. These phenomena appeared clearly in Russia and other
countries
that were taken over by leftists. Similarly, before the
breakdown of
communism in the USSR, leftish types in the West would
seldom
criticize that country. If prodded they would admit that
the USSR did
many wrong things, but then they would try to find excuses
for the
communists and begin talking about the faults of the West.
They always
opposed Western military resistance to communist aggression.
Leftish
types all over the world vigorously protested the U.S.
military action
in Vietnam, but when the USSR invaded Afghanistan they
did nothing.
Not that they approved of the Soviet actions; but because
of their
leftist faith, they just couldn't bear to put themselves
in opposition
to communism. Today, in those of our universities where
"political
correctness" has become dominant, there are probably many
leftish
types who privately disapprove of the suppression of academic
freedom,
but they go along with it anyway.
226. Thus the fact that many individual leftists are personally
mild
and fairly tolerant people by no means prevents leftism
as a whole
form having a totalitarian tendency.
227. Our discussion of leftism has a serious weakness.
It is still far
from clear what we mean by the word "leftist." There doesn't
seem to
be much we can do about this. Today leftism is fragmented
into a whole
spectrum of activist movements. Yet not all activist movements
are
leftist, and some activist movements (e.g.., radical environmentalism)
seem to include both personalities of the leftist type
and
personalities of thoroughly un-leftist types who ought
to know better
than to collaborate with leftists. Varieties of leftists
fade out
gradually into varieties of non-leftists and we ourselves
would often
be hard-pressed to decide whether a given individual is
or is not a
leftist. To the extent that it is defined at all, our
conception of
leftism is defined by the discussion of it that we have
given in this
article, and we can only advise the reader to use his
own judgment in
deciding who is a leftist.
228. But it will be helpful to list some criteria for diagnosing
leftism. These criteria cannot be applied in a cut and
dried manner.
Some individuals may meet some of the criteria without
being leftists,
some leftists may not meet any of the criteria. Again,
you just have
to use your judgment.
229. The leftist is oriented toward largescale collectivism.
He
emphasizes the duty of the individual to serve society
and the duty of
society to take care of the individual. He has a negative
attitude
toward individualism. He often takes a moralistic tone.
He tends to be
for gun control, for sex education and other psychologically
"enlightened" educational methods, for planning, for affirmative
action, for multiculturalism. He tends to identify with
victims. He
tends to be against competition and against violence,
but he often
finds excuses for those leftists who do commit violence.
He is fond of
using the common catch-phrases of the left like "racism,
" "sexism, "
"homophobia, " "capitalism," "imperialism," "neocolonialism
"
"genocide," "social change," "social justice," "social
responsibility." Maybe the best diagnostic trait of the
leftist is his
tendency to sympathize with the following movements: feminism,
gay
rights, ethnic rights, disability rights, animal rights
political
correctness. Anyone who strongly sympathizes with ALL
of these
movements is almost certainly a leftist. [36]
230. The more dangerous leftists, that is, those who are
most
power-hungry, are often characterized by arrogance or
by a dogmatic
approach to ideology. However, the most dangerous leftists
of all may
be certain oversocialized types who avoid irritating displays
of
aggressiveness and refrain from advertising their leftism,
but work
quietly and unobtrusively to promote collectivist values,
"enlightened" psychological techniques for socializing
children,
dependence of the individual on the system, and so forth.
These
crypto-leftists (as we may call them) approximate certain
bourgeois
types as far as practical action is concerned, but differ
from them in
psychology, ideology and motivation. The ordinary bourgeois
tries to
bring people under control of the system in order to protect
his way
of life, or he does so simply because his attitudes are
conventional.
The crypto-leftist tries to bring people under control
of the system
because he is a True Believer in a collectivistic ideology.
The
crypto-leftist is differentiated from the average leftist
of the
oversocialized type by the fact that his rebellious impulse
is weaker
and he is more securely socialized. He is differentiated
from the
ordinary well-socialized bourgeois by the fact that there
is some deep
lack within him that makes it necessary for him to devote
himself to a
cause and immerse himself in a collectivity. And maybe
his
(well-sublimated) drive for power is stronger than that
of the average
bourgeois.
FINAL NOTE
231. Throughout this article we've made imprecise statements
and
statements that ought to have had all sorts of qualifications
and
reservations attached to them; and some of our statements
may be
flatly false. Lack of sufficient information and the need
for brevity
made it impossible for us to fomulate our assertions more
precisely or
add all the necessary qualifications. And of course in
a discussion of
this kind one must rely heavily on intuitive judgment,
and that can
sometimes be wrong. So we don't claim that this article
expresses more
than a crude approximation to the truth.
232. All the same we are reasonably confident that the
general
outlines of the picture we have painted here are roughly
correct. We
have portrayed leftism in its modern form as a phenomenon
peculiar to
our time and as a symptom of the disruption of the power
process. But
we might possibly be wrong about this. Oversocialized
types who try to
satisfy their drive for power by imposing their morality
on everyone
have certainly been around for a long time. But we THINK
that the
decisive role played by feelings of inferiority, low self-esteem,
powerlessness, identification with victims by people who
are not
themselves victims, is a peculiarity of modern leftism.
Identification
with victims by people not themselves victims can be seen
to some
extent in 19th century leftism and early Christianity
but as far as we
can make out, symptoms of low self-esteem, etc., were
not nearly so
evident in these movements, or in any other movements,
as they are in
modern leftism. But we are not in a position to assert
confidently
that no such movements have existed prior to modern leftism.
This is a
significant question to which historians ought to give
their
attention.
NOTES
1. (Paragraph 19) We are asserting that ALL, or even most,
bullies and
ruthless competitors suffer from feelings of inferiority.
2. (Paragraph 25) During the Victorian period many oversocialized
people suffered from serious psychological problems as
a result of
repressing or trying to repress their sexual feelings.
Freud
apparently based his theories on people of this type.
Today the focus
of socialization has shifted from sex to aggression.
3. (Paragraph 27) Not necessarily including specialists
in engineering
"hard" sciences.
4. (Paragraph 28) There are many individuals of the middle
and upper
classes who resist some of these values, but usually their
resistance
is more or less covert. Such resistance appears in the
mass media only
to a very limited extent. The main thrust of propaganda
in our society
is in favor of the stated values.
The main reasons why these values have become, so to speak,
the
official values of our society is that they are useful
to the
industrial system. Violence is discouraged because it
disrupts the
functioning of the system. Racism is discouraged because
ethnic
conflicts also disrupt the system, and discrimination
wastes the
talent of minority-group members who could be useful to
the system.
Poverty must be "cured" because the underclass causes
problems for the
system and contact with the underclass lowers the moral
of the other
classes. Women are encouraged to have careers because
their talents
are useful to the system and, more importantly because
by having
regular jobs women become better integrated into the system
and tied
directly to it rather than to their families. This helps
to weaken
family solidarity. (The leaders of the system say they
want to
strengthen the family, but they really mean is that they
want the
family to serve as an effective tool for socializing children
in
accord with the needs of the system. We argue in paragraphs
51,52 that
the system cannot afford to let the family or other small-scale
social
groups be strong or autonomous.)
5. (Paragraph 42) It may be argued that the majority of
people don't
want to make their own decisions but want leaders to do
their thinking
for them. There is an element of truth in this. People
like to make
their own decisions in small matters, but making decisions
on
difficult, fundamental questions require facing up to
psychological
conflict, and most people hate psychological conflict.
Hence they tend
to lean on others in making difficult decisions. The majority
of
people are natural followers, not leaders, but they like
to have
direct personal access to their leaders and participate
to some extent
in making difficult decisions. At least to that degree
they need
autonomy.
6. (Paragraph 44) Some of the symptoms listed are similar
to those
shown by caged animals.
To explain how these symptoms arise from deprivation with
respect to
the power process:
Common-sense understanding of human nature tells one that
lack of
goals whose attainment requires effort leads to boredom
and that
boredom, long continued, often leads eventually to depression.
Failure
to obtain goals leads to frustration and lowering of self-esteem.
Frustration leads to anger, anger to aggression, often
in the form of
spouse or child abuse. It has been shown that long-continued
frustration commonly leads to depression and that depression
tends to
cause guilt, sleep disorders, eating disorders and bad
feelings about
oneself. Those who are tending toward depression seek
pleasure as an
antidote; hence insatiable hedonism and excessive sex,
with
perversions as a means of getting new kicks. Boredom too
tends to
cause excessive pleasure-seeking since, lacking other
goals, people
often use pleasure as a goal. See accompanying diagram.
The foregoing
is a simplification. Reality is more complex, and of course
deprivation with respect to the power process is not the
ONLY cause of
the symptoms described. By the way, when we mention depression
we do
not necessarily mean depression that is severe enough
to be treated by
a psychiatrist. Often only mild forms of depression are
involved. And
when we speak of goals we do not necessarily mean long-term,
thought
out goals. For many or most people through much of human
history, the
goals of a hand-to-mouth existence (merely providing oneself
and one's
family with food from day to day) have been quite sufficient.
7. (Paragraph 52) A partial exception may be made for a
few passive,
inward looking groups, such as the Amish, which have little
effect on
the wider society. Apart from these, some genuine small-scale
communities do exist in America today. For instance, youth
gangs and
"cults". Everyone regards them as dangerous, and so they
are, because
the members of these groups are loyal primarily to one
another rather
than to the system, hence the system cannot control them.
Or take the
gypsies. The gypsies commonly get away with theft and
fraud because
their loyalties are such that they can always get other
gypsies to
give testimony that "proves" their innocence. Obviously
the system
would be in serious trouble if too many people belonged
to such
groups. Some of the early-20th century Chinese thinkers
who were
concerned with modernizing China recognized the necessity
of breaking
down small-scale social groups such as the family: "(According
to Sun
Yat-sen) The Chinese people needed a new surge of patriotism,
which
would lead to a transfer of loyalty from the family to
the state. .
.(According to Li Huang) traditional attachments, particularly
to the
family had to be abandoned if nationalism were to develop
to China."
(Chester C. Tan, Chinese Political Thought in the Twentieth
Century,"
page 125, page 297.)
8. (Paragraph 56) Yes, we know that 19th century America
had its
problems, and serious ones, but for the sake of breviety
we have to
express ourselves in simplified terms.
9. (Paragraph 61) We leave aside the underclass. We are
speaking of
the mainstream.
10. (Paragraph 62) Some social scientists, educators, "mental
health"
professionals and the like are doing their best to push
the social
drives into group 1 by trying to see to it that everyone
has a
satisfactory social life.
11. (Paragraphs 63, 82) Is the drive for endless material
acquisition
really an artificial creation of the advertising and marketing
industry? Certainly there is no innate human drive for
material
acquisition. There have been many cultures in which people
have
desired little material wealth beyond what was necessary
to satisfy
their basic physical needs (Australian aborigines, traditional
Mexican
peasant culture, some African cultures). On the other
hand there have
also been many pre-industrial cultures in which material
acquisition
has played an important role. So we can't claim that today's
acquisition-oriented culture is exclusively a creation
of the
advertising and marketing industry. But it is clear that
the
advertising and marketing industry has had an important
part in
creating that culture. The big corporations that spend
millions on
advertising wouldn't be spending that kind of money without
solid
proof that they were getting it back in increased sales.
One member of
FC met a sales manager a couple of years ago who was frank
enough to
tell him, "Our job is to make people buy things they don't
want and
don't need." He then described how an untrained novice
could present
people with the facts about a product, and make no sales
at all, while
a trained and experienced professional salesman would
make lots of
sales to the same people. This shows that people are manipulated
into
buying things they don't really want.
12. (Paragraph 64) The problem of purposelessness seems
to have become
less serious during the last 15 years or so, because people
now feel
less secure physically and economically than they did
earlier, and the
need for security provides them with a goal. But purposelessness
has
been replaced by frustration over the difficulty of attaining
security. We emphasize the problem of purposelessness
because the
liberals and leftists would wish to solve our social problems
by
having society guarantee everyone's security; but if that
could be
done it would only bring back the problem of purposelessness.
The real
issue is not whether society provides well or poorly for
people's
security; the trouble is that people are dependent on
the system for
their security rather than having it in their own hands.
This, by the
way, is part of the reason why some people get worked
up about the
right to bear arms; possession of a gun puts that aspect
of their
security in their own hands.
13. (Paragraph 66) Conservatives' efforts to decrease the
amount of
government regulation are of little benefit to the average
man. For
one thing, only a fraction of the regulations can be eliminated
because most regulations are necessary. For another thing,
most of the
deregulation affects business rather than the average
individual, so
that its main effect is to take power from the government
and give it
to private corporations. What this means for the average
man is that
government interference in his life is replaced by interference
from
big corporations, which may be permitted, for example,
to dump more
chemicals that get into his water supply and give him
cancer. The
conservatives are just taking the average man for a sucker,
exploiting
his resentment of Big Government to promote the power
of Big Business.
14. (Paragraph 73) When someone approves of the purpose
for which
propaganda is being used in a given case, he generally
calls it
"education" or applies to it some similar euphemism. But
propaganda is
propaganda regardless of the purpose for which it is used.
15. (Paragraph 83) We are not expressing approval or disapproval
of
the Panama invasion. We only use it to illustrate a point.
16. (Paragraph 95) When the American colonies were under
British rule
there were fewer and less effective legal guarantees of
freedom than
there were after the American Constitution went into effect,
yet there
was more personal freedom in pre-industrial America, both
before and
after the War of Independence, than there was after the
Industrial
Revolution took hold in this country. We quote from "Violence
in
America: Historical and Comparative perspectives," edited
by Hugh
Davis Graham and Ted Robert Gurr, Chapter 12 by Roger
Lane, pages
476-478: "The progressive heightening of standards of
property, and
with it the increasing reliance on official law enforcement
(in 19th
century America). . .were common to the whole society.
. .[T]he change
in social behavior is so long term and so widespread as
to suggest a
connection with the most fundamental of contemporary social
processes;
that of industrial urbanization itself. . ."Massachusetts
in 1835 had
a population of some 660,940, 81 percent rural, overwhelmingly
preindustrial and native born. It's citizens were used
to considerable
personal freedom. Whether teamsters, farmers or artisans,
they were
all accustomed to setting their own schedules, and the
nature of their
work made them physically dependent on each other. . .Individual
problems, sins or even crimes, were not generally cause
for wider
social concern. . ."But the impact of the twin movements
to the city
and to the factory, both just gathering force in 1835,
had a
progressive effect on personal behavior throughout the
19th century
and into the 20th. The factory demanded regularity of
behavior, a life
governed by obedience to the rhythms of clock and calendar,
the
demands of foreman and supervisor. In the city or town,
the needs of
living in closely packed neighborhoods inhibited many
actions
previously unobjectionable.
Both blue- and white-collar employees in larger establishments
were
mutually dependent on their fellows. as one man's work
fit into
another's, so one man's business was no longer his own.
"The results
of the new organization of life and work were apparent
by 1900, when
some 76 percent of the 2,805,346 inhabitants of Massachusetts
were
classified as urbanites. Much violent or irregular behavior
which had
been tolerable in a casual, independent society was no
longer
acceptable in the more formalized, cooperative atmosphere
of the later
period. . .The move to the cities had, in short, produced
a more
tractable, more socialized, more 'civilized' generation
than its
predecessors."
17. (Paragraph 117) Apologists for the system are fond
of citing cases
in which elections have been decided by one or two votes,
but such
cases are rare.
18. (Paragraph 119) "Today, in technologically advanced
lands, men
live very similar lives in spite of geographical, religious
and
|