Industrial Society And Its Future A Book By Theodore John Kaczynski
We hope we have convinced the reader that the system cannot be reformed in such a way as to reconcile freedom with technology. The only way out is to dispense with the industrialtechnological system altogether. This implies revolution, not necessarily an armed uprising, but certainly a radical and fundamental change in the nature of society. People tend to assume that because a revolution involves a much greater change than reform does, it is more difficult to bring about than reform is. Actually, under certain circumstances revolution is much easier than reform.
Trends cannot be destroyed by any political process, as it would be suicidal for the politicians. Many people compensate with surrogate activities, which still leave them unsatisfied. Other people champion the causes of people and groups that they subconsciously see as inferior to them. Relying on society themselves, they challenge society to do a better job of supporting these causes.
Suppose you asked leftists to make a list of ALL the things that were wrong with society, and then suppose you instituted EVERY social change that they demanded. One should think twice before encouraging any other social conflict than that between the power-holding elite and the general public . This is clearly seen in rivalries between nations.
Recent artificial forms of the power process (e.g. accumulation of the latest technology or fashion, as encouraged by the advertising industry) don’t actually satisfy, and people feel unfulfilled and purposeless. Oversocialized leftists assert themselves by rebelling. They don’t rebel directly though, but accuse society of violating its own moral principles (racism, sexism, etc.). That is, they don’t oppose society, but support it and want to make it even stronger.
This is the same place that, despite any real evidence, has a user base that aggressively defended the usage of hydroxychloroquine. As it stands, we’re actively encouraging the use of violence to amplify an argument, and this blog post takes part in that. I have no doubts about the authors good intentions, but I’m flagging it nevertheless. This is basically the media version of “we don’t negotiate with terrorists / kidnappers / hostage takers / etc”. In each individual case, it usually does make sense to negotiate.
It’s unfortunate these subjects don’t get discussed openly , rather than getting them from Kaczinky. I think this is roughly valid in the context of technology changes they way we live in unpredictable ways. A much better read of this is Technopoly by Neil Postman. To me this reads like a decent description of groups like SJWs and anti-fa, which resort to violence and at time suppressing the rights of others to match the model of the world they have. But the original argument was that if you are in harmony with nature you even dislike the idea of strong pleasure and that’s just clearly wrong. Improvement I assume to mean social progress or improvement in the quality of life.