A review by murph51
Technological Slavery by Theodore John Kaczynski

challenging informative reflective medium-paced

5.0

Environmental reform is doomed to fail. Only by creating a global revolution will we be able to throw off the shackles of industrial society. In this, his first book, Technological Slavery, which greatly expands on and elaborates many of the points made in the manifesto, “Industrial Society and Its Future,” Theodore Kaczynski provided many compelling arguments as to why industrial society is impervious to reform and is only changeable through revolution. His arguments for this fact can be broken down into three categories: historical, psychological, and practical, ultimately showing that we cannot change the world with anything less than a complete revolt against the industrial system.

The first point made by Mr. Kaczynski is historical. In the French Revolution, people who would typically be apathetic became emboldened and assisted in overthrowing the monarchy. Another example is the Russian Revolution, where a small group of committed revolutionaries waited many years before they had a chance to spark a revolution. When they finally did, they were able to overthrow the Russian imperial government. These historical revolutions provide a historical precedent for wide sweeping changes being brought about by revolution. On the other hand, it is pointed out by Kaczynski that there is no precedent for extensive piecemeal reforms being effective. While reforms can change things in society or government (like women gaining rights in the United States), this kind of change only assists technological society by, for example, adding more skilled, educated workers dedicated to furthering the spread of industrial progress. No reform has meaningfully regressed technological society for any appreciable amount of time.

The second category of argument falls under the psychological reasons for revolution. As a psychological baseline, most people are apathetic to the climate, the planet's health, how their neighbor feels, etc. People generally only care about things that are happening right in front of them and are actively affecting their lives. This needs to be addressed when finding a solution to any problem requiring the participation of many people. As mentioned in the historical section of this essay, in the example of the Russian Revolution, it only took a small number of committed members of the revolution to get it moving. Small groups of committed members can start revolutions: a problem can be forced into the eye of the public and be made the pressing issue that causes people to take sides in an earnest and committed way. Being a member of a revolutionary force also inspires people to take more risks. These emboldened revolutionaries can act in the more extreme ways that are required and are more likely to take on and overcome personal hardships for the sake of the revolution. For example, a reformer would be willing to compromise and allow some fossil fuel use for electricity generation because it is unthinkable to live without such a thing in current society, while a revolutionary would not bend their convictions.

Finally, there are some practical reasons why a revolution is more likely to succeed over a series of reforms. The first and most apparent problem with reforms is that they require a majority vote to be effective. Because of the tools technological society has at its disposal: propaganda, global news, big business, etc. It is impossible to attain a majority vote to dismantle or seriously harm this system. A revolution, on the other hand, can be executed with a much smaller fraction of the population to much more significant effects. Reforms can also be undone. A reformer must win a long series of battles in order to achieve success. If any of these battles are lost, all of their efforts can be undone quite easily in the long term. Meanwhile, a revolution has only to win one battle: the dismantling of industrial society.

I highly recommend this book if you want to learn more about how societies evolve and how we can confront the full implications of technological progress on nature and society. But it is particularly insightful in understanding why reform of technological society is impossible and revolution to end it is the only logical, rational course of action open to us.