Sozialismus und das Technologische Problem

Die ersten Arbeiterbewegungen wurden nicht mit der Absicht gegründet, das von der bürgerlichen Klasse geschaffene Industriesystem zu verbessern, sondern um gegen die mechanisierte Arbeit und die wachsende Macht der Industrie über den arbeitenden Menschen zu kämpfen. Lenin sagte, als er die ersten Arbeiterbewegungen erwähnte:

„Die Arbeiter der Städte wussten anfangs nicht, wie sie einen vereinten Kampf führen könnten, sie wussten nicht, welche Forderungen sie gemeinsam stellen sollten, sie zerstörten einfach die Maschinen und die Fabriken.“

Meiner Meinung nach war der größte Fehler den die Marxisten begingen nicht, im Gegensatz zu dem was einige Anarchisten sagen, weder die Zentralisierung des Arbeiterkampfes unter einem gemeinsamen Banner, noch die Eroberung des Staates um soziale Reformen von oben durchzusetzen. Nein, der große Fehler wurde begangen, als die moderne Technologie als ein einfaches Werkzeug gesehen wurde, welches in den Händen der Bourgeoisie unterdrückend war, jedoch in den Händen des Proletariats (oder des Staates!) befreiend ist. Die Technologie der Industriegesellschaften erschaffen im Arbeiter eine starke Abhängigkeit von großen Organisationen. Dies triff sowohl auf liberale, als auch auf sozialistische Regime zu, denn wo auch immer Ideologie das industrielle System übernimmt ist das Ergebnis dasselbe.

Was nützt es, wenn der Eigentümer des Unternehmens ein Bürger oder ein Staat ist, wenn der Arbeiter, aus technischen Gründen weiterhin nicht in der Lage ist, seine eigenen Produktionsmittel zu besitzen? Der Versuch die Industriegesellschaft zu reformieren oder zu verbessern hat wenig bis gar keine Bedeutung, denn während sie selbst fokussiert, ausschließlich auf den technologischen Fortschritt des Arbeiters fokussiert bleibt, wird dieser niemals Autonomie haben, er wird niemals wahrhaft frei sein!

Es ist nicht genug die Fabriken, die Minen oder die Farmen zu verstaatlichen oder zu kollektivieren, wenn der Arbeiter weiterhin weder Autonomie noch Kreativität haben darf. Es ist nicht genug lediglich bessere Löhne oder weniger Arbeitsstunden zu fordern, wenn der Arbeiter weiterhin einer vollständigen mechanisierten und entmenschlichten Arbeit ausgesetzt ist. Anstatt zu versuchen, jedes einzelne Problem des industriellen Systems mit mehr Techniken zu reformieren und die Autonomie und Freiheit von Individuen und kleinen Gruppen noch mehr zu opfern, ist es besser für einen Zweck, wie der Auflösung des technologisch-industriellen Systems zu kämpfen. Der einzige Weg zum Erfolg besteht darin, die Wurzel des Problems anzugreifen: Die moderne Technologie!

Der Staat, die Gemeinden und die Gewerkschaften sind einige der Instrumente, die wir nutzen können (und sollten) um unsere anti-technologische Revolution voranzubringen, jedoch ist die Natur dieser Revolution nicht politisch, unser Ziel ist kein neues politisches Regime, sondern die totale Reformation (d.h. Revolution) der gesamten Wirtschaft, welche eine technologische Rückbildung auf ein vorindustrielles Niveau provozieren wird.

Es ist wahr, dass die Krankheit des (technologischen) Progressivismus auf der Seele des Sozialismus und Syndikalismus vor sich hin fault. Engels hat den technologischen Fortschritt als Ursprung der Industriegesellschaft identifiziert:

„Diese industrielle Revolution wurde durch die Entwicklung der Dampfmaschine, verschiedener Spinnmaschinen, des mechanischen Webstuhls und einer ganzen Reihe anderer mechanischen Geräte ausgelöst. Diese Maschinen, welche sehr teuer waren und daher nur von wenigen Großkapitalisten gekauft werden konnten, veränderten die gesamte Produktionsweise und verdrängten die ehemaligen Arbeiter, weil die Maschinen billiger waren und bessere Wirtschaftsgüter herstellen konnten als die Arbeiter mit ihren ineffizienten Spinnrädern und Handwebstühlen. Die Maschinen übertrugen die ganze Industrie in die Hände der Großkapitalisten und machten das spärliche Eigentum der Arbeiter (Werkzeuge, Webstühle, usw.) völlig wertlos. Das Ergebnis war, dass die Kapitalisten bald alles in ihren Händen hatten und den Arbeitern nichts blieb.“

Doch anstatt für das revolutionäre Ziel der Beseitigung des industriellen Systems zu kämpfen, schlugen sie lediglich vor die politische Struktur des Eigentums an den Produktionsmitteln dem proletarischen Staat zuzuspielen, indem sie behaupteten, dass „die Geschichte nie zurückkommt“, was wahr ist, die Geschichte kommt nie zurück, trotzdem kann (und sollte) der technologische Fortschritt rückgängig gemacht werden. Selbst mit den progressiven Idealen von Marx und Engels gab es eine marxistische Partei, die bewies, dass es möglich war technologisch „zurückzukehren“. In Kambodscha wurde aufgrund des Chaos, welches durch den Bürgerkrieg zwischen Sozialisten und Monarchisten verursacht wurde, für die sozialistischen Gewinner unmöglich, die städtische Bevölkerung zu ernähren und deshalb bestand die Lösung des kambodschanischen Zentralkomitees darin, eine anti-technologische Revolution zu organisieren. Als Folge des wirtschaftlichen Zusammenbruchs, der auf den Bürgerkrieg folgte, wurde beschlossen, die Mehrheit der städtischen Bevölkerung zu evakuieren und sie auf die kooperativen Handwerker und Bauern zu verteilen, welche während des Disputs mit den Monarchisten entstanden waren. Während eines Interviews jugoslawischer Journalisten im Jahr 1978, wurde Pol Pot gefragt, ob die Evakuierung der Städte vorübergehend sei oder ob sie ein neues Sozialmodell verfolgten. Pol Pots Antwort:

„Der erste Grund war ein wirtschaftlicher, nämlich die Nahrungsmittelversorgung vieler Millionen Einwohner in den Städten zu gewährleisten. Nachdem wir das Problem gründlich durchdacht hatten, kamen wir zu dem Schluss, dass wir dieses Problem nicht lösen konnten, solange so viele Bewohner in den Städten blieben. Doch wenn wir diese Bevölkerung aufs Land bringen würden, in die Genossenschaften, könnten diese sie wiederum ernähren, denn sie hatten Reisfelder, Produktionsmittel und alles was sie brauchten. Wir hatten Genossenschaften, die diese Bevölkerung aus den Städten aufnehmen konnten, indem sie sie am Reisanbau teilhaben ließen, dank ihrer Ochsen, Büffel und der Produktionsmittel… Um also das Nahrungsmittelproblem zu lösen, war es notwendig die Bevölkerung aufs Land zu evakuieren. Nur wenn wir das Nahrungsmittelproblem lösen können, hätten die Menschen Vertrauen in die Revolution. Wenn die Bevölkerung in den Städten verbliebe und an Hunger starb, hätten sie kein Vertrauen in die Revolution, das war der wirtschaftliche Grund.“

Man kann nun argumentieren, ob die kambodschanischen Kommunisten wirklich gegen den technologischen Fortschritt waren, wahrscheinlich war ihr Jahr Null nur eine Übergangszeit hin zu einer staatlicheren und autarkeren Re-Industrialisierung. Doch trotzdem beweist das Beispiel, dass die Theorie von Ted Kaczynski, welche die Möglichkeit einer anti-technologischen Revolution mit dauerhaften Auswirkungen vorsieht richtig ist, besonders wenn sie in einer internationalen Anstrengung von statten geht.

Es wird immer offensichtlicher, dass die Technologie Autonomie erlangt hat. Die Technologie hat eine so bestimmende Rolle erreicht, dass die Funktion, die der Mensch im heutigen technologischen Fortschritt spielt, nur die eines Beobachters ist. Ob es in öffentlichen oder privaten Angelegenheiten ist, das Einzige was vom Individuum erwartet wird ist: Effizienz! Alles andere ist zweitrangig geworden, entweder mit heuchlerischer Toleranz ignoriert oder verhasst. Von allen historischen Zivilisationen ist die moderne Zivilisation diejenige, mit dem größten spirituellen Vakuum, diejenige, die die Menschenwürde am stärksten verletzt, diejenige, die das Überleben allen Lebens auf diesem Planten am meisten gefährdet und auch diejenige, die die strammste Herrschaft über das Leben des Menschen und seiner natürlichen Gemeinschaften hat.

Das bestimmendste Element der modernen Gesellschaft stellt die Technologie dar, daher ist es wichtig, dass alle Rebellen, welche die Art und Weise, wie große Organisationen unsere Lebensumstände kontrollieren, verabscheuen, gegen dieses industrielle System revoltieren und sich mit uns in diesem ehrgeizigen und mutigen Kampf für die Auflösung der Technologiegesellschaft und deren Techniker vereinen, für den Aufbau einer neuen Zukunft, die von freien Gemeinschaften aus Bauern, Viehhirten, Jägern und Handwerkern dominiert wird. Die Zukunft ist das, was wir darauf machen!

Ricardo Sequeira,

für die Portugiesische Liga der Ludditen.

Socialism and the Technological Problem

The first worker’s movements were not created with the intention of improving the industrial system created by the bourgeois class, but to fight against mechanized work and also against the growing power of the industry and machines over the working man. Lenin when mentioning the first working class movements said that:

«The workers of the cities in the beginning didn’t know how to fight an united struggle, they didn’t know which demands they should present together, they simply broke the machines and demolished the factory.»

In my opinion, the great mistake committed by the Marxists, unlike what some anarchists say so, was not the centralization of the worker’s struggle under a united command, neither the conquest of the State in order to impose social reforms from above. No, the great mistake was made when modern technology was interpreted as a simple tool which was oppressive in the hands of the bourgeoisie, but liberator in the hands of the proletariat (or the State!) The technology of the industrial societies create in the worker a strong dependence on great organizations. This is true both in liberal regimes and in socialist regimes, because wherever ideology takes over the industrial system, the result is the same.

What matters if the owner of the company is a bourgeois or a State, if the worker, for technical reasons continues to not being able to own his own means of production? It means little or nothing to try reforming or improving the industrial society, because while it keeps itself focused, exclusively focused on technological progress the worker will never have autonomy, he will never be truly free!

It’s not enough to nationalize and collectivize the factories, the mines or the farms, if the worker continues to not being allowed to have neither autonomy nor creativity. It’s not enough to only demand better salaries or less work hours if the worker continues to be subjected to a completely mechanized and dehumanized work. Instead of trying to reform each separate problem of the industrial system with more techniques, sacrificing even more the autonomy and freedom of individuals and small groups, it’s better to fight with purpose, to fight for the dissolution of the technological-industrial system. The only way to succeed is to attack at the root of the problem, which is modern technology!

The State, the Municipalities and the Labor Unions are some of the instruments that we can (and should) use to apply our anti-technological revolution, but the nature of this revolution is not political, our purpose won’t be to create a new political regime, but to impose total reforms (i.e. Revolution) over all of the Economy, provoking a technological regression back to pre-industrial levels.

It’s true that the disease of (technological) progressism has been festering on the soul of socialism and syndicalism. Engels has identified technological progress as the origin of industrial society, saying that:

«This industrial revolution was precipitated by the discovery of the steam engine, various spinning machines, the mechanical loom, and a whole series of other mechanical devices. These machines, which were very expensive and hence could be bought only by big capitalists, altered the whole mode of production and displaced the former workers, because the machines turned out cheaper and better commodities than the workers could produce with their inefficient spinning wheels and handlooms. The machines delivered industry wholly into the hands of the big capitalists and rendered entirely worthless the meager property of the workers (tools, looms, etc.). The result was that the capitalists soon had everything in their hands and nothing remained to the workers.»

But instead of fighting for the revolutionary goal of eliminating the industrial system, they propose only the reform of the political structure and the ownership of the means of production to the Proletarian State, claiming that “history never comes back”, it’s true, history never comes back, but technological progress can (and should) be reverted. Even with Marx’s and Engels progressive ideals, there was one Marxist Party that proved that it is possible to “go back” technologically in modern times. In Cambodia, because of the chaos created by the civil war between socialists and monarchists, it became impossible for the socialist winners to feed the urban population and because of that, the solution found by the Cambodian Central Committee was to organize an anti-technological revolution. It was decided, as a consequence of the economical collapse that followed the civil war, to evacuate the majority of the urban population and distribute the people between the cooperatives of artisans and farmers that had been created during the dispute against the monarchists. During an interview by Yugoslavian journalists in 1978, when Pol Pot was questioned if the evacuation of the cities was temporary or if they were pursuing a new social model, Pol Pot responded that:

«The first reason was an economic one, that is to ensure food supply for many millions inhabitants in the cities. After having taken the problem into much consideration, we came to the conclusion that we could not solve this problem as long as such numerous population remained in the cities. But, if we evacuated this population to the countryside, in the cooperatives, the latter could feed them for they have rice-fields, instruments of production and everything they needed. We had cooperatives which could receive this population from the cities by letting them participate in rice-growing thanks to their oxen, buffaloes and instruments of production… Then, in order to solve the food problem, it was necessary to evacuate the population to the countryside. It is only when we can solve the food problem that the people have confidence in the revolution. If in the cities, the population remained in the cities and died by starvation, they would not have any confidence in the revolution, such was the economic reason.»

It’s arguable if the communists from Cambodia were really against technological progress, it’s likely that their year zero would have been just a transition period to a more nationalist and self-sufficient re-industrialization. But even so, the example proves that the theory of Ted Kaczynski, which proposes the possibility of making an anti-technological revolution with lasting effects, is in fact correct, especially if it is done in an international effort.

It’s increasingly more evident that technology has gained autonomy. Technology has achieved such a determinant role that the function that man plays in today’s technological progress is merely that of an observer. Wherever it is in public or private matters, the only thing that is expected from the individual is: Efficiency! Everything else has become secondary, either ignored with hypocritical tolerance or even hated. From all the historical civilizations, modern civilization is the one with the biggest spiritual vacuum, it’s the one that greatly insults human dignity, it’s the one that is the most dangerous for the survival of life on this planet and also the one that has the tightest dominance over the life of Man and of his natural communities.

In modern society, technology represents it’s most determinant element, as such it’s important that all the rebels that truly hate the way that big organizations control the circumstances of our lives revolt against this industrial system, uniting with us in this ambitious and daring struggle for the dissolution of the society of the technology and the technicians, for the construction of a new future dominated by free communities of farmers, cattle herders, hunters and artisans. The future is what we make of it!

Ricardo Sequeira,

for the Portuguese Luddite League.

Socialismo e o Problema Tecnológico

Os primeiros movimentos trabalhistas foram criados, não com a intenção de reformar ou melhorar o sistema industrial criado pela classe burguesa, mas sim para combater o método de trabalho mecanizado e também contra o domínio crescente da industria e das máquinas sobre o homem trabalhador. Lenine ao mencionar os primeiros movimentos trabalhistas afirmou que:

«Os operários nas cidades de início também não sabiam travar uma luta unida, não sabiam que reivindicações haviam de apresentar em conjunto, simplesmente partiam as máquinas e demoliam a fábrica.»

Na minha opinião, o grande erro cometido pelos Marxistas, ao contrário daquilo que muitos anarquistas afirmam, não foi nem a centralização de toda a luta dos operários sob um comando centralizado, nem a utilização do poder Estatal para impor reformas sociais de cima para baixo. O grande erro foi cometido quando se interpretou a tecnologia moderna como uma simples e inocente ferramenta, que ela é opressora nas mãos da burguesia, mas que é libertadora nas mãos do proletariado (ou do Estado!) A tecnologia própria da sociedade industrial cria no trabalhador uma dependência forte das grandes organizações. Isto é verdade tanto para os regimes liberais como para os socialistas, porque qualquer que seja a ideologia que governe o sistema industrial a realidade mantém-se a mesma.

De que importa se o dono da empresa é um burguês ou um Estado, se o trabalhador por razões técnicas continuará a não conseguir ser o possuidor dos seus próprios meios de produção? De pouco ou nada adianta tentar remendar ou melhorar a sociedade industrial, porque enquanto ela se mantiver focada, exclusivamente focada no progresso tecnológico o trabalhador nunca terá autonomia, nunca será livre!

Não basta colectivizar as fábricas, as minas ou as fazendas, se o trabalhador continua sem poder ter autonomia nem criatividade. Não basta exigir melhores salários ou menos horas de trabalho, se o trabalhador continuar a estar sujeito a um trabalho mecanizado, técnico e completamente desumanizado.

Ao invés de tentar reformar cada problema da sociedade industrial com mais técnicas modernas, sacrificando cada vez mais a autonomia e a liberdade dos trabalhadores, será melhor que lutemos com propósito, que lutemos pela dissolução do sistema tecnológico-industrial. A única forma de vencer tal combate é atacar a raiz do problema, que é a Tecnologia Moderna.

O Estado, os Municípios e os Sindicatos são alguns dos instrumentos que podemos (e devemos) usar para aplicar a nossa revolução, mas a natureza desta revolução não é política, o seu propósito não será o de criar um novo regime político, mas sim, impor reformas totais (i.e. Revolução) sobre toda a Economia, provocando uma regressão tecnológica a níveis pré-industriais. É verdade que a doença do progressismo (tecnológico) há muito que se apoderou da alma do socialismo e do sindicalismo. Engels identificou o progresso tecnológico como a origem da sociedade industrial, dizendo que:

«Esta revolução industrial foi precipitada pela descoberta do motor a vapor, várias máquinas de fiar, o tear mecânico e uma série de outros dispositivos mecânicos. Essas máquinas, que eram muito caras e por isso só podiam ser adquiridas por grandes capitalistas, alteraram todo o modo de produção e deslocaram os antigos trabalhadores, porque as máquinas produziam artigos mais baratos e melhores do que aquilo que os trabalhadores produziam com as suas rodas giratórias e com os seus teares manuais. As máquinas entregaram a industria toda nas mãos dos grandes capitalistas e arruinaram a modesta propriedade dos trabalhadores (ferramentas, teares, etc.) O resultado foi que os capitalistas em breve conseguiram tudo e nada restou aos trabalhadores.»

Porém, ao invés de lutarem pela meta revolucionária de acabar com o sistema industrial, decidiram propor apenas a mudança da estrutura política e a posse dos meios de produção para o Estado proletário, afirmando que “a história não volta para trás”, é verdade, a história não volta para trás, porém, a tecnologia pode e deve voltar atrás. Apesar da visão progressista de Marx e Engels, foi um Partido marxista que provou ser possível “voltar atrás” tecnológica em tempos modernos. No Camboja, devido ao caos causado pela guerra civil entre socialistas e monarquistas tornou-se impossível para os vencedores socialistas alimentarem a população urbana e como tal, a solução encontrada pelo Comité Central do Camboja foi uma revolução anti-tecnológica, decidiu-se por consequência do colapso económico que a guerra provocou, evacuar grande parte da população urbana e distribuí-la pelas cooperativas de artesãos e de camponeses que haviam sido criadas durante a disputa com os monarquistas. Na entrevista com a delegação de jornalistas Jugoslavos de 1978, Pol Pot ao ser questionado se a evacuação das cidades era temporária ou se fazia parte dum novo modelo social, Pol Pot respondeu que:

«O primeiro motivo foi económico, evacuamos as cidades para garantir a alimentação de muito milhões de habitantes das cidades. Após termos tido este problema em consideração, chegamos à conclusão que nós não conseguiríamos resolver este problema enquanto tivéssemos uma população tão grande nas cidades. Mas, se evacuássemos esta população para o campo, para as cooperativas, as ultimas poderiam alimentar as pessoas, pois têm os campos de arroz, instrumentos de produção e tudo o que precisavam. Nós tínhamos cooperativas que podiam albergar esta população vinda das cidades, deixando-lhes participar nas sementeiras do arroz graças aos seus bois, búfalos e instrumentos de produção… De modo a resolver o problema da comida, foi necessário evacuar a população urbana para o campo. Apenas resolvendo o problema alimentar é que a população manteria fé na revolução, se a população continuasse nas cidades e passasse fome, perderia toda a fé na revolução, assim foi a razão económica.»

No entanto é discutível se os comunistas do Camboja era contra o progresso tecnológico, muito provavelmente o ano zero seria apenas um período de transição para uma nova re-industrialização auto-sustentável. No entanto, o exemplo comprova que a teoria de Ted Kaczynski, que afirma ser possível fazer uma revolução anti-tecnológica está, de facto, correcta, especialmente se for um esforço internacional.

Tem se revelado cada vez mais visível que a tecnologia ganhou autonomia, a tecnologia tornou-se de tal modo dominante que o papel do homem no progresso tecnológico é apenas o de observador. Seja no âmbito público ou privado só se espera uma coisa do indivíduo: Eficácia! Tudo o resto tornou-se secundário, desprezado ou até mesmo odiado. De todas as civilizações que a história registou a moderna é aquela que tem o maior vazio espiritual, é aquela que mais insulta a dignidade humana, aquela que é mais perigosa para a vida neste planeta e também aquela que tem o domínio mais apertado de sempre sobre a vida do Homem e das suas comunidades naturais.

Na sociedade moderna a tecnologia moderna representa o seu elemento mais determinante, como tal é importante que todos os rebeldes que odeiam a forma com que as grandes organizações controlam as circunstâncias das nossas vidas se revoltem contra este sistema industrial e se unem a nós neste combate ambicioso e audaz destruição da sociedade da tecnologia e dos técnicos e pela construção de um futuro dominado por comunidades de camponeses, pastores, caçadores e artesãos livres. O futuro é aquilo que fizermos dele!

Ricardo Sequeira,

pela Liga Ludista Portuguesa.

About

The International of the Luddite Leagues is a political movement with the single and concrete objective of making an international revolution against the industrial-technological system, legally and democratically.

We are still in the initial steps towards creating one International with National Luddite Leagues affiliated, being that each Luddite League will consist of various Communities and Urban Committees.

Our purpose will be to prepare the ground for an anti-technological revolution in the entire world, by spreading a set of values opposed to the industrial system, making use of the democratic systems to conquer power from the progressives and (democratically) impose far-reaching reforms with the aim of permanently de-industrialize modern society, in a more or less gradual manner.

Short Term Objectives:

Any Revolution starts by organizing a political movement, ideally within the law. At this stage, we are working towards the creation of political associations with the name of Luddite Leagues, which will have the task of presenting our ideas and solutions to the public, as well as keeping our militants and sympathizers occupied with activities related to propaganda, participation in elections and mutual collaboration in the acquisition of land for the establishment of Luddite Communities.

Medium Term Objectives:

Conquer, using the democratic system, the local and regional organs of power, and use that as a tool for the establishment of anti-industrial economic reforms:

  • Acquiring Salt Mines in order to secure a way of conserving meat without electric refrigeration;
  • Creating local programs for the breeding and commerce of horses and mules;
  • Creating of cooperatives of carpenters, as well as local programs supporting the craftsmanship of horse-cars;
  • Creating of cooperatives of blacksmiths, as well as local programs supporting the craftsmanship of Iron Plows and agrarian tools, restoring the traditional techniques of this art.
  • Acquiring Stone Mines in order to secure a way to produce good stones to grind cereals and corn into flour, as well as to grind olives into olive paste (half of the process of making olive oil).
  • This is more or less what we need to do on a local and regional level.

Long Term Objectives:

  • The last Great Objective in the Revolutionary Process, I.E. the destruction of the industrial-technological system can be divided in the following sub-objectives:
    • Ilegalization and dismantling of the Electric Grid;
    • Ilegalization and dismantling of all of the oil industry, demolition of all the oil refineries, gas stations, as well as the demolition of all the rare metal mines and nuclear reactors.
    • Demolition of all modern industries and destruction of all the machines, telecommunication posts and television stations.
    • Burning of all technical books and all modern propaganda.
  • We insist that these objectives need to come last, our Luddite Leagues should only make a true push for National Power, at a much later stage, probably during the next few generations, because for a minority big enough to conquer the national organs of power democratically, the vast majority of the people need to lose all faith in technological progress first and it must be done during a period where the industrial elites are in a position of weakness, de-organized and demoralized.
Create your website with WordPress.com
Iniciar