Anti-Tech Revolution: Why And How

Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How (ATR) is considered by many to be Kaczynski’s magnum opus. Written entirely during his incarceration, this piece is arguably the most important of all his works. Where “Industrial Society and Its Future” (ISAIF) was written to sway a world that worships technology, ATR was written with the hopes that the reader had already been freed from the siren-like myth of progress. As a consequence, Kaczynski is able to bypass lots of the basics and delve straight into the core message he had in mind. He tackles the hard-hitting truths, such as; why a society cannot be subject to rational human control (and why the path of a society cannot be predicted), the inevitability of collapse, the transformation of a society, and the path a revolutionary movement should take. Kaczynski also explores past revolutions, showing what made them work, what made them fail, and what we can learn from them. Whether you decide it’s his magnum opus or not, you can’t deny the depth and accuracy of this book, especially with the added difficulties of where he was writing from. Kaczynski opens with a brief evaluation on why it’s impossible to predict the path a society will take, and by extension, impossible to rationally control. He shows that each of many near infinite variables could be completely changed by even the slightest actions, which could have immense consequences and so on. This bears a striking resemblance to chaos theory and therefore has come under similar scrutiny to that of the opening segment of ISAIF (specifically the critique of leftist behaviour) for being largely irrelevant to the overall theme of the rest of the book. This claim is largely put forth by people who have not understood the book. The opening segment ties together later chapters, such as chapter four touching on the fallacy of pre-planning a revolutionary movement. The author concludes in ATR that modern technological society will inevitably collapse (and take with it most of the biosphere) if left to continue growing indefinitely although he doesn’t make guesses about when, he assures that it’s certain for a system infinitely growing, dependent on certain conditions and finite resources, struggling for power and dominion in the modern world-system. He coins the term “self-propagating system” to describe the aforementioned structure that promotes its own growth, out of short-term considerations at the expense of long-term health, as a fundamental attribute of all dynamic systems and organizations. In the case of industrial society, infinite technological growth becomes its downfall due to rapid, unpredictable and uncontrollable shifts in the conditions of the environment in which the process of competition among self-propagating systems (themselves dependent on the environment) takes place. Chapter three, introduces four “postulates” that logically lead to several rules that determine a revolutionary movement’s success (or failure). These postulates invoke themes and messages from ISAIF and Kaczynski’s first book, Technological Slavery (TS), such as tendencies of leftists (postulate three) and the essay titled “The Systems Neatest Trick” (postulate one, in a more abstract sense). In chapter four he goes over strategic guidelines of a revolutionary movement, stating that the path of revolution cannot be planned in advance, but is more effectively planned in accordance to the systems ebb and flow, reaching back to themes expressed in the first chapter. Here he expresses perhaps the two greatest takeaways of the book: firstly, a revolutionary movement should remain optimistic; secondly, meaningful progress in a revolution will be achieved by a minuscule but devout core of pragmatic and intelligent individuals united by a single, concrete goal. The author takes many examples of past revolutionary movements and shows how they achieved their goals, the tactics they used, and how the revolutionary movements themselves functioned. Learning from movements such as the “Arab Spring,” the IRA, the Bolshevik uprising and even as niche a phenomenon as the rise of Mexican gang dominance. Anti-Tech Revolution perfectly exemplifies the brilliance and pragmatism of Kaczynski, and whilst not the most well-known, its utility is undeniable. I could not recommend it more to those who found TS and ISAIF compelling. Though it’s quite different from his two prior published books, it’s incredibly insightful and well researched.

amazing book, wish he was still around to write more. although, he was not a good person.

The book contains excellent analysis on the dynamics of power between social structures and individuals (not unlike Foucault in some ways). He also utilizes a non-linear view of history which exposes it not as a progression of events towards an ultimate end, as in Hegel’s massively influential Dialectical model but instead as events which are connected in time, yet bring more truth to light when looked at as having common patterns of chaos and entropy. He reveals the uncontrollable nature of complex human systems (but especially Industrial society). There are many parallels between his views and classical anarchism as represented by thinkers such as Bakunin. Professor Kaczynski is not wrong in his analysis but every comment on his work must also reconcile the horrific violence that he set upon many people. Some may see him as a revolutionary but I see his life as a culmination of so many social issues. When his behaviors in reality are viewed from a psychological perspective, he seems to be a very disturbed man with many anti-social traits. As with many people who suffer from this disorder they are often a product of severe trauma, combined perhaps with a certain degree of genetic predisposition towards certain conditioned responses when under intense stress. The Professors life is a conundrum of academic brilliance and a descent into homicidal dysfunctionallity. I believe in many of the ideas espoused in his book, but I do not believe in violence for revolutionary means. For this reason, the Professor is still rightfully controversial. Truly a contradiction of moral and social problems. The book is well worth the read.

This is a fantastic read regardless of what political disposition you have. Kackzysnki made many statements in this book alone that have come to fruition almost 20 years later. It was truly sad to see him leave our world in incarceration. His words will hopefully inspire many generations to actions other than violence

It seems to me that Kaczynki tries too hard, as if writing an academic paper, with masses of notes, appendices, and references occupying many pages at the end. This would be fine, were it not for the fact that he is trying to get some simple ideas across to the masses, who need simple facts and counterarguments. His key ideas are sound, and are laid out in a series of Propositions in Chapter 2 (p51). They constitute an extension to the idea of natural selection, as it applies not just to living organisms but also to groups, systems and 'supersystems'. His particular point is that the system we find ourselves in began with the industrial revolution, which led to technological development that took off with a speed never seen before. Humans were complicit in this development, because it helped them in their short-term goals and made their lives easier, but at the same time it created, in the longer term, a world that was in conflict with their instinctive needs, leading to an epidemic of what we call 'diseases' in the modern world: depression, anxiety, autism, self-harm, eating disorders, suicides and so on, especially perhaps in the young. To reject any aspect of our modern world that causes this stress, such as by giving up our phones, or not watching television, or not going into a boring workplace is to put ourselves at a huge disadvantage against our fellow humans; and so most people just go along with it while repressing feelings, and in many cases they get ill. It is 'the system' that is controlling them, and because of these feedback mechanisms that entrap us the only way out of our pain, according to Kaczynski, is to destroy 'the system', by shutting down technology and technological development. Kaczynski of course, regarded by his peers as a genius, gave up a stellar academic career to go and live off nature in a cabin in the forests of Montana, before engaging in a sixteen year terror bombing campaign that finally landed him in prison for life. Though Darwin is held in high esteem today, because he supposedly brought us 'a theory of evolution by natural selection', it has long been obvious to me (and I am not alone) that he did no such thing. Natural selection, I maintain, is a self-evident fact (but not a tautology); things that are best fitted to their environment are more likely to survive than those less well fitted. It could not be otherwise, and needs no empirical evidence. What Darwin provided lots of empirical evidence for was the more basic hypothesis that life forms came about by evolution, at a time when the idea of evolution, though it had been around for a very long time, was rejected by religion. He recognised that organisms change, but he did not know what the source of that change was, and although today it is widely said to be random mutation in DNA, the mechanisms of variation are still far from understood (something I specialise in). I might mention that my hero (of the Lunar Society) Erasmus Darwin, grandfather of Charles, wrote about evolution and even natural selection, but in a poem about nature, because he lived in dangerous times, and so his ideas remained in obscurity. My point here is that natural selection is a fundamental self-evident property of systems that needed no empirical demonstration. Kaczynski simply carries on the logical thinking to list other self-evident properties of what he calls 'self-propagating systems' - ideas that are not new to me, but which need to be clearly stated and understood more widely. I would even go so far as to say that these ideas should be taught in primary schools, along with rational thinking, and some genetics, instead of a jumble of 'facts'. Just as Darwin did not need to spend twenty years trying to make his case, I don't think Kaczynski needed to either. Perhaps he should have started with a simpler book (his manifesto was not an easy read either). The organisation and presentation of his ideas is far from ideal; like Darwin, he has spent a long time in a struggle to be understood and accepted, and become trapped in his own passion. Like Erasmus and Charles, he lives in a time when his ideas are rejected because they threaten the system; in this case the system of growth, profit and progress that has largely replaced religious belief (at least in Britain if not in the USA where the basic idea of evolution is still fighting for recognition too). The rest of Kaczynski's ideas are less sound, but grounds for discussion. I don't believe that bringing down the system by revolution is the only answer, and nor do many others who are struggling with this problem. Other reviewers have felt the need to dissociate themselves from Kaczinski on moral grounds, but I think that what he did (kill three people and injure many more) is a separate issue, and the reason why he writes from prison with no chance of ever regaining freedom. Nobel invented dynamite, others invented the atom bomb and used it, but their actions do not invalidate their theories. Many intellectuals are in conversations with Kaczynski now, and helping him write his books, and that is a good thing. A very important book that I recommend, and my hope is that Kaczynski's writings will form material for others to study as the basis for a growing new movement dedicated to understanding the evolution of human life and societies and their relation to so-called mental illness.