A CONSTRUCTIVE CRITIQUE OF THE UNABOMBER MANIFESTO?

cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt

1.The Manifesto questions alliances with what it calls
"Leftists" and goes to some depth into what it
considers to be "Leftist" psychology-i.e.
"oversocialised" individuals who seek to impose
their views on others as a way of compensating
for their own flaws.

2.However "Leftists" are also described as "Rebellious"
and yet conforming at the same time: later I will
substitute "Leftist" for the term "Liberal" to avoid
confusion and also from my view that the description
in the Manifesto is quite apt in describing Liberals
in general.

3.A distinction could be made between Liberals,
"Rightists" and the "Anti-Bourgeois Left" in my
opinion.

4.Liberals being people associated with either
"the right" or "the left" but who's assumptions
would inevitably lead to a kind of "National
Anarchy" because they define people by groups
which cannot by definition co-exist as if
feminists should live in the feminist commune,
homosexual men should have a gay commune,
greens their commune etc.

5.I would agree with the Manifesto definition
of bourgeois.

6.Simply, the bourgeoisie are individuals who engage
in "surrogate activities" for their livelihood
=People who think they are middle class
=People enjoying a degree of individual
freedom but very little real autonomy
similar to the position non-labouring
slaves had in the Classical world.

7.Liberals think everyone should be like
them but deny their own flaws and
personality issues. Non-self aware,
morally non-autonomous beings,"biotomatons".

8.Similarly, ideologues have no sense of
personal autonomy beyond their own belief
system-which is itself adopted from whatever
cult, fad or mass movement the ideologue
identifies with.

9.Emphasis should be focused on the negative
effects of economic growth as opposed to
industrialism per se.

10.Being:
-inflation
-environmental degradation
-compulsory population growth
[think of the anti-birth control,
anti-sex education and anti-abortion
tendencies of the US Right and the
European Far Right]
-mass movement of labour
-climate refugees
-unemployment
-constant re-training for those in-work
-compulsory education
-state-sponsored economic growth
[e.g.construction of roads, houses,
power stations, schools and hospitals:
not that these things aren't needed we
just don't need more of them]
-armament spending
-the retainment of large standing armies
-high prison population
-war
-conflict over water/land
-further assaults on personal autonomy
-civil liberties violations
-compulsory fossil fuel use
-ditto nuclear power
-internet censorship of political groups
-restrictions of free speech and association

11.Whether or not ALL industrial societies/
industrial society produce(s) alienation by
their/its nature, it is beyond a doubt that
"Democratic"/Bourgeois societies tend towards
the elimination of personal autonomy; maybe
even more so than in "Authoritarian" states
like Russia and China or "less developed"
nations with workforces that are not actually
surplus to requirement.

If you disagree think about the following
examples: press intrusion into private lives,
salacious gossip about the same, the
acceptance of viewing pornography, the use
of the democratic process or legal
system to deprive "minorities" and "deviants"
of their freedom [or proper food and shelter]
and the casual way this process is accepted.
Not to mention the casual acceptance of
rape and drunken one night stands/taking
sexual advantage of someone who is not
entirely in control of their faculties

12.Consider also the acceptable
"childishness" of adults,mob rule, the
acceptability of "adultish" children,
the term "child" or "kiddie" porn, the
scapegoating of minorities and lynch mob
mentalities e.g. towards the female pediatrician
who was mistaken for a sex offender in
recent years because of her job title.

13.What sane person would become a celebrity
or deviant by choice in a "democracy"
But maybe the choice is the false one
between life in the guilded cage of
the Bourgeois or to live in a "state
of nature" as part of a feral underclass
or feral overclass/Aristocracy.

14.Fear of "1984" or a Robot takeover
may be unfounded. The state is not
a threat because it is strong, we
should think of the state as being
more like a cornered animal or a caged
tiger. States and civilisations are
always undermined or conquered eventually.
Maybe an extension to the average human
lifespan is the only thing that can
teach us this?

15.Alliance with cultists and nazis as
opposed to Liberals? On the face of
it these statements are quite offensive
but it would do us no good to disregard
those Bookchin derides as "Lumpen Fascists"
[Social Anarchism vs. Lifestyle Anarchism:
an unbridgable chasm? -Murray Bookchin]
when these individuals may have legitimate
reasons to rebel and can be brought
"on side" so to speak.

16.Are these individuals ["Revolutionaries"?]
"Anti-Borgeois" or just "Anti-Left"?

17.It is important to remember people
rebel for a reason, even if its just
graffiti or petty crime.It is
hypocritical to deride Liberals
and them describe them as being
rebellious by nature.

18.Of course there is a tendency
among Liberals towards control,
domination and restriction, not
least towards their disciples
e.g. the Ayn Rand cult of the USA
from the 1950's to 1980, usual
critiques of the British Socialist
Worker's Party etc.

19.Perhaps political parties are
totalitarian by nature.

20.I do not deny the hypocritical
nature of Liberals and those
on the Left, but at least the
Left has distanced itself in
recent years from Stalinism while
"Libertarian-types" [Rand, Rothbard,
Nozic etc] generally avoid the
kind of identity politics or
single issue campaigns that
Liberals do [I am tentatively
describing American politics]
and do not distance themselves
terribly well from the Religous
or Far Right.Libertarians are
all mouth [or keyboards anyway!]

21.Or is the above "the point"?
Are the libertarians the
"Revolutionaries" the Manifesto
describes, besides perhaps Bookchin's
"Lumpen Fascists"?

22.The Left (Bookchin) and the right
(Nozic) DO want the same thing:
effectively a "non-state" state.
But at least Liberals pretend
to believe in democracy.

23.Liberals believe they either
speak for a majority or that
everyone (usually of the 3rd World
Nations) want to be just like
them. They don't believe in
security through face to face
relations (unless its their
feeble attempt to describe
or justify "capitalism"),
their only security is in a
"mass society" mediated by
a Corporate Entity.

24.The Manifesto can be seen
as a critique of Liberalism
but its rejection of Identity
Politics and Leftism while
proposing alliances with
"Lumpen Fascists" seems
designed to deliberately
alienate potential allies/
supporters/converts.

25.Ditto the casual acceptance
of the inevitable die-offs
suggesting perhaps that only
the worthy would survive the
collapse of the industrial
system.

26.Surely civilisation's
survivors would be individuals
of breeding age, thus postponing
the decrease in population.

27.However, the Manifesto is
more concerned with criticizing
industrial society NOT civilisation.

28.But HOW MANY WOULD DIE?
Also, can local scale technologies
provide a lifeboat? The Manifesto
does not reject e.g. Permaculture,
Arcologies, solar and wind power
but it does allow for local
scale cottage industry i.e.
small-scale glass and steel smelting
using medieval techniques.

29.But do the "Revolutionaries"
understand these concepts?
Or do they reject them
e.g. Green Anarchy critique
of all forms of agriculture,
the Manifesto reasonably
rejects only the fossil-fuel
nature of modern forms of
intensive agriculture.

30.Only states can provide
the capital for large-scale
building projects and mass
conscription is impossible
in a state of anarchy, but the
Manifesto is not anti-state
per se and does not make this
case against the state.Instead
it assumes that conscription
is both a requirement and a
consequence of industrialism.

33.It may be that
a genuine free/unregulated
market would naturally tend
towards small-scale and
sustainable methods of
production. I would say
modern "Capitalism" is
impossible without the
state [36], not least
because it aims to protect
private property.

34.Computers are criticised
but networks etc well laptops
can be solar powered, servers
wind etc. and clockwork radios
exist so why not use this technology
in other areas? Power stations
and large networks of cables
are not needed really.

35.The state is however perfectly
capable of functioning post-industry
(well OK maybe not but the Incas
managed without horses, the Aztecs
without telephones and the Romans
without railways): the Borgeois
assertion that anti-capitalism
means anti-technology or that
anti-state means anti-civilisation
or a state of nature is a fallacy
which should be argued against
at every opportunity.

36.The state is or can be defined
as: Nation or City States,
the UN/IMF,
the EU,
the Catholic Church,
large banks
or amalgams of banks,security
agencies and insurance agencies
in the event of the elimination
of any of the above;being also
defined as minority government
over majority governance or
positive anarchy.

37.We don't need centralised
systems to keep the lights
on we just need to consume
less.

We may also need to learn to
hibernate through most of
the winter.

It could also be true that 24
hour television and constant
artificial light tends to
disrupt sleep patterns
and causes insomnia, depression
and anxiety problems

And compulsory "education"
IS child abuse. People learn
much more through play.

38.The Artificial Intelligence
question...well I suppose a
"Robot" is simply a Person
who cannot reproduce sexually.
AIs are "created" all the time:
a child is concieved, born and
raised somewhere every second.
Robots would be no different
in every respect of their
programming as they would be
raised by Humans just as a
Human child would be.

Do we fear our children rising
up against us and taking over?
OK maybe we do e.g. the Terminator
films, Battlestar Galactica etc
could be manifestations of this
percieved threat.

A Robot could be programmed
by direct personality donation
by/of e.g. a deceased Human.
Again, no real distinction from
a Human.

I think the point is to give
children and robots autonomy
and to set our robot descendants
a precedent by treating non-
Human animals and nature as
a whole with respect.

A Technocrat-Robot coup could
set arbitrary guidelines
on who/what is Sentient and
who is Nonsentient and
therefore no better than a
slave. Children born and
Robots concieved after
a particular date could
be put under this category.

However, slave states are
expensive and never last.
Besides, the Robots themselves
may prevent more advanced
or numerous versions of their
kind from being constructed
for fear of being usurped.

Two final notes:

39.Authoritarian states=
Citizen's freedom limited
by both the domestic government
and Bourgeois regimes.

40.Liberals=Rarely believe
in personal responsibility
but at least the Left wing
pretends to believe in democracy
as opposed to the "Democratic
Phantom" of the Right wing.