Post-Scarcity Anarchism

Post-Scarcity Anarchism is a collection of essays written by Murray Bookchin and first published in 1971 by Ramparts Press.^[1] It outlines the possible form anarchism might take under conditions of post-scarcity. It is one of Bookchin's major works,^[2] and its radical thesis provoked controversy for being utopian and messianic in its faith in the liberatory potential of technology.

Synopsis

Bookchin's titular "post scarcity anarchism" is an economic system based on social ecology, libertarian municipalism, and an abundance of fundamental resources. Bookchin argues that post-industrial societies are also post-scarcity societies, and can thus imagine "the fulfillment of the social and cultural potentialities latent in a technology of abundance".^[3] The self-administration of society is now made possible by technological advancement and, when technology is used in an ecologically sensitive manner, the revolutionary potential of society will be much changed.^[4]
Bookchin claims that the expanded production made possible by the technological advances of the twentieth century were in the pursuit of market profit and at the expense of the needs of humans and of ecological sustainability. The accumulation of capital can no longer be considered a prerequisite for liberation, and the notion that obstructions such as the state, social hierarchy and vanguard political parties are necessary in the struggle for freedom of the working classes can be dispelled as a myth.

Exegesis

Bookchin's thesis is a more radical form of anarchism than that of Noam Chomsky; while both concur that information technology, being controlled by the bourgeoisie, is not necessarily liberatory, Bookchin does not refrain from countering this control by developing new, innovative and radical technologies of the self.^[3] Postanarchist scholar Lewis Call compares Bookchin's language to that of Marcel Mauss, George Bataille and Herbert Marcuse, and notes that Bookchin anticipates the importance of cybernetic technology to the development of human potential over a decade before the origin of cyberpunk.^[3] The collection has been cited favourably by Marius de Geus as presenting "inspiring sketches" of the future,^[5] and as "an insightful analysis" and "a discussion of revolutionary potential in a technological society" by Peggy Kornegger in her essay "Anarchism: The Feminist Collection".

References

1. ^ "Post-scarcity anarchism, [WorldCat.org]". WorldCat.org. Retrieved 2008-06-10.
2. ^ Smith, Mark (1999). Thinking through the Environment. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415211727.
3. ^ ^{a b c d} Call, Lewis (2002). Postmodern Anarchism. Lexington: Lexington Books. ISBN 0739105221.
4. ^ ^{a b} "Post-Scarcity Anarchism". AK Press. Retrieved 2008-06-10.
5. ^ Geus, Marius (1998). Ecological Utopias. Utrecht: International Books. ISBN 9057270196.
6. ^ Kornegger, Peggy (2003). "Anarchism: The Feminist Collection". In Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz. Quiet Rumours. Stirling: AK Press. ISBN 1902593405.

 Source : Wikipedia

Economic Impact of the Personal Nanofactory

Robert A. Freitas Jr
Institute for Molecular Manufacturing, Palo Alto, California, USA


Is the advent of, and mass availability of, desktop personal nanofactories (PNs) likely to
cause deflation (a persistent decline in the general prices of goods and services), inflation (a
persistent general price increase), or neither?
A definitive analysis would have to address: (1) the technical assumptions that are made,
including as yet imprecisely defined future technological advances and the pace and order of
their introduction; (2) the feedback-mediated dynamic responses of the macroeconomy in
situations where we don’t have a lot of historical data to guide us; (3) the counter-leaning
responses of existing power centers (corporate entities, wealthy owners/investors, influential
political actors, antitechnology-driven activists, etc.) to the potential dilution of their power,
influence, or interests, including their likely efforts to actively oppose or at least delay this
potential dilution; (4) legal restrictions that may be placed on the widespread use of certain
technological options, for reasons ranging from legitimate public safety and environmental
concerns to crass political or commercial opportunism; (5) the possibility (having an as yet illdefined probability) that nanotechnology might actually “break the system” and render conventional capitalism obsolete (much as solid state electronics obsoleted vacuum tubes), in which
case it is not clear what new economic system might replace capitalism; and (6) the changes in
human economic behavior that may result when human nature itself may have changed.
A definitive answer is beyond the scope of this essay. Here, we take only a first look at
the question...

http://www.rfreitas.com/Nano/NoninflationaryPN.pdf

Embracing Post-Privacy !

Optimism towards a future where there is "Nothing to hide"

The breaking away of privacy in the digital world is often understood as something dangerous, and for good reasons. But could there be opportunities in it, too? Do the current cultural and technological trends only dissolve the protected area of privacy, or could they dissolve as well the pressures that privacy is supposed to liberate us from? What if we witness a transformation of civilization so profound that terms like "private" and "public" lose their meaning altogether? Maybe we won't need "privacy" at all in the future because we will value other, new liberties more strongly?

In the digital world, more and more data is accumulated about us. More and more methods of datamining are invented to extract information from these data. The youth grows up enjoying informational exhibitionism to a degree many find irresponsible. Ever greater parts of life are integrated into the global public information stream. Will privacy end? If so, what about liberty? We have to look closely at the value of privacy. What does it do for values like freedom, individualism or intimacy? Why is this protected area of privacy necessary?

The conditions of privacy are rapidly changing. We have to evaluate these changes with a perspective that does justice to new modes of identity, sociality and culture: Why hide your personal weirdnesses if 21st century society thrives on difference and originality instead of conformism and predictability? What identity is there to keep private if "identity" is more and more what you externalize from yourself into the internet? Is privacy worth missing out on participation in the global "hive mind" and the "ambient intimacy" of every mind connected with every other mind?

Such questions may sound utopian and/or crazy. They may sound irresponsible, considering anti-privacy trends that may seem much more real and dangerous -- like the surveillance state. But even if you disagree with their validity, they may provoke deeper thinking about the state and value of privacy in a world that is changing more and more rapidly -- and that could hardly be a bad thing.

More information about the 25th Chaos Communication Congress can be found via the Chaos Communication Congress website:http://bit.ly/25c3_program

Source: http://bit.ly/25c3_videos

Speaker: Christian Heller / plomlompom