Human Interactions

[Paul Mackin]

On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, jbor wrote:

> 
> 
> ----------
> >From: Doug Millison <millison at online-journalist.com>
> 
> > Luddism = nihilism? I don't think so. I suggest _Rebels Against the
> > Future_ by Pynchon's friend Kirkpatrick Sale as a starting point for
> > deeper insight into the Luddite project.
> 
> As with everything there are degrees. Pynchon's article traces the history
> of Luddism, and the use of the term, as it has variously applied to
> "technophobic crazies" and "open eyed class war". The Unabomber was a
> self-proclaimed Luddite, had a "Luddite project" in mind: one which verged
> on -- more than verged on, was -- nihilism. For example. When Pynchon talks
> of *Frankenstein* as a Luddite novel or King Kong as a "Luddite saint" we're
> getting right into Blicero territory I think.


The trouble with so called luddite projects is that they require
force. Once the analysis of the trouble with technology is drawn up it's
time to act. The unabomber's plan was to terrorize. Sale's plan if I
remember it rightly would ultimately require a dictatorship, not of the
proletariat, but of the luddites. Of course Sale did not actually suggest
that people be forced to radically relocate and radically change their
manner of living. However no one imagines the world would follow
his proposals willingly. The analysis of technology phase has always been
relatively  easy and has been going on for centuries. The action phase
will never happen..

Jacques Ellul wrote a good modern analysis back in the 60s (or
thereabouts). Didn't suggest an action phase. As a result he had trouble
with his publishers. Popular books always include a chapter at the end
which tells how everything will be all right if the world will only follow
the authors suggestions.  I know I've told this story before. It a problem
with being around so long. 

			P.