Theodore Kaczynski (1942–2023)

Un libro esplosivo.

Scherzi a parte, quest'ultima lettura che ho fatto del manifesto (ed è la terza) mi ha fatto ragionare su quanto sia incorretto posizionare il caro Teddy insieme con gli anarcoprimitivisti più blasonati: primo perche questo manifesto analizza il mondo con la lente della psicologia più che della sociologia o dell'antropologia, cosa che già lo differenzia dagli altri, ma soprattutto perché la posizione di Kaczynski è veramente più vicina ad un ecofascismo tinto di show more anarchismo -ecofascismo volontario o meno- che, ok se proprio dovessimo inquadrarlo nel contesto anarco-neoluddista delle sue azioni lascerebbe intendere un egoanarchismo o un anarcoindividualismo, ma prendendo il testo a sé stante sembra di leggere un misto tra Peterson e Evola: conservatorismo radicale, giustificato dalla psicologia. Evviva l'uomo forte perché la sinistra è debole e non vuole la forza, e nella vita la supremazia sugli altri è l'unica cosa che conta... Dove l'ho già sentita questa al di fuori del manifesto?
Ah si, da un fascio.

A parte questo il testo è gradevole, a patto di leggerlo in lingua originale. show less

"Uncle Ted", as he is sometimes referred to in certain parts of the web, came to my attention because of his earnest letters, handwritten in meticulous script, in reply to various youths who had entered into unbidden correspondence with him at his prison address. These letters were uploaded and shared to various forums and can be easily searched. Whatever his opinions, they revealed a tidy and fastidious mind which - despite its forced seclusion from the world - had strong opinions on it, show more and yet did not seek to control or to coerce or brag or deceive, but to instruct. A mind like that is rare indeed, and discovery of its existence made it inevitable that I should read this book, or manifesto, as it is titled.

I was surprised to learn that the book was written while its author was still at liberty. It really reads like a prison book. I thought the author's incarceration explained its ack of citations and cross-referencing. In fairness, the author is open about the book's evident shortcomings: concepts are often mentioned only as general observations, lengthy expositions are undesirable or impractical, the reader must use his own judgement. Etc. Again, one does at times cynically wonder if the author may have welcomed these limitations, which make his task as a writer easier.

The book's strength is the power of its observations. Yes, the industrial revolution has been disastrous for humanity as we know it; things are getting worse; the people ("leftists") who proclaim to make things betters are making it worse; and nothing we could do to change this overall trajectory will have a reasonable prospect of success, or even any predictable result. Perhaps we all know that, deep down. It is another thing to see it plainly and persuasively stated by a convicted murderer who has killed for these beliefs (or so he claims).

Another weakness lies in the book's lack of any plausible solution or alternative to the "industrial technological system". There is none. Most people like it, or think they do. The author's tendency to refer to himself always as "we", or as a member of the "FC" (later said to stand for Freedom Club), when he was probably never anything more than a lone wolf, rings a little of desperation, of subterfuge, and of conceit. Yet these failings are human and the book is not, on balance, grandiose or deluded but intellectual and sane.

It is disjointed but, in certain areas, surprisingly insightful on a psychological level. His descriptions of leftism, and of the power process, are especially perceptive for their time.

A man killed because he wanted his book to be read. I have read his book. The dead lie still. The deed is done. The book offered no solutions but contained some hard truth. Despite his crimes I will remember him, and I may yet read him again: I suspect prison has not diminished him, hence the absence of parole. Possibly he may have matured. The truth may be spoken by a murderer as well as by anyone else. Perhaps even better than some. show less

About 1/4 of the book (81 pages, 232 numbered paragraphs plus endnotes) consists of "Industrial Society and Its Future", the articulate anti-technology "Unabomber manifesto" calling for a global luddite revolution that would return the world to a pre-industrial (and perhaps pre-agricultural) state. Several parts of it are far from crazy or ignorable. E.g., while I've believed that some limited and nonviolent luddism (such as demanding and securing ironclad laws banning almost all show more collection/storage/trafficking of personal information) could suffice to arrest and reverse today's rampant privacy destruction, Kaczynski persuasively argues that the tendency to extinguish privacy and all other aspects of freedom and happiness is inevitably and inextricably baked into the essence of technology. And, while I've thought that transhumanism offers hope that humankind's irrationality and all-scales cussedness could someday be corrected, Kaczynski insists that all attempts to fix things by using advanced technology -- relevantly including genetic engineering, which he despises -- are doomed to fail. Still, his solution is unthinkable. One can only cringe at the thought of how he would critique Max Tegmark's techno-optimistic _Life 3.0_. show less

This manifesto consists of a stuctured argument in 232 parts across ~ 80 pages, with a few extra footnotes at the end. This is mostly a clear, logical, and well-reasoned attack on the social problems caused by industry and technology, and in support of reversion to a more primitive and small scale subsistence society. However, a number of moral and practical caveats remain, and what we are left with does not achieve its purpose of justifying the violent means of destroying the modern show more technological and industrial society that we currently find in developed countries.
This work is still important for a number of reasons though. Despite being over 20 years old now, it was prescient in touching on a lot of the topical dangers and ethical issues related to advances in technology and restriction of human freedom that we now face more than ever. These include: artificial intelligence (AI) and its future dangers, nuclear threat from rogue states (North Korea et al), genetic modification and "designer babies" etc, the mechanisation of labour and workforce displacement, the increasing control over human behaviour via technological monitoring (1984 style), the existential meaningless of modern consumer culture and exploitation via advertising, and the lack of psycholigically satisfying jobs for the majority of the populace which results in frustration and lack of fullfillment. In summary: “The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system.”
Despite working in a scientific profession myself (which he specifically attacks in this book), and not being a luddite who has moved to a cabin in the wilderness like the author, it was possible for me to find a lot of common ground in his arguments. Most of his points carry a lot of weight, are well thought out, rational, and based on evidence. Yet where it falls down, the call to violent revolution, is that it all comes down to personal preference. Do we prefer – industrial/technological society, or living in huts in small communities, catching and growing our own food, and living without the resources and time saving devices that technology affords us. He makes the case for why technology and industry are bad, but he doesn't propose an alternative system that is as likely to function as well on a practical level as the one we currently have. And many people would not willingly give up the benefits of technology and industry, and would not want to live in a hut without electricity and running water.
In all, a thought provoking book which raises a whole raft of important social issues relating to technology and industrialisation (many of which are even more important now than when the book was written). However it fails in its goal of convincing the reader that the current system needs to be destroyed, firstly because it is diffucult to justify the violence of a revolution, and secondly as the consequences and practicalities of the proposed replacement system are not well enough thought through, and unlikely to outweigh the current system in their benefits. show less