Annual Fundraising Appeal
Over the course of 21 years, we’ve published many unflattering stories about Henry Kissinger. We’ve recounted his involvement in the Chilean coup and the illegal bombings of Cambodia and Laos; his hidden role in the Kent State massacre and the genocide in East Timor; his noxious influence peddling in DC and craven work for dictators and repressive regimes around the world. We’ve questioned his ethics, his morals and his intelligence. We’ve called for him to be arrested and tried for war crimes. But nothing we’ve ever published pissed off HK quite like this sequence of photos taken at a conference in Brazil, which appeared in one of the early print editions of CounterPunch.
100716HenryKissingerNosePicking
The publication of those photos, and the story that went with them, 20 years ago earned CounterPunch a global audience in the pre-web days and helped make our reputation as a fearless journal willing to take the fight to the forces of darkness without flinching. Now our future is entirely in your hands. Please donate.

Day12Fixed

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
cp-store

or use
pp1

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

The Relevance of Lewis Mumford

Homo Technomorphis?

by WILLIAM MANSON

Over several decades, I’ve managed to hold on to my worn, battered copies of Lewis Mumford’s The Myth of the Machine (two volumes: 1967, 1970).  And a few nights ago, disturbed by the wide-awake nightmares in which we are now forced to “live,” I found myself immersed once again in this fascinating, monumental work.  In his brilliantly comprehensive, comparative-historical analysis, Mumford demonstrated how centralized “power-systems”—whether, say, ancient Egypt or Nazi Germany—have utilized technical means for the military-bureaucratic regimentation of immense human populations (“the Megamachine”).   (As to the latter example, see Edwin Black’s recent study IBM and the Holocaust.)  Mumford painstakingly examined how over centuries technical means, implementing mass-organization and over-arching social control, have served power-elites.  In social theory, “modernity” is characterized by centralization, standardization, ever-greater “efficiency,” and the reduction of the unique individual into “the calculable person” (Foucault).

How did Mumford differ from other major critics of technology?  First and foremost, he was a humanist, emphasizing that the ultimate function of social structures (“society”) should be to enhance individual development and mutually beneficial patterns of social cooperation.  Living in such conducive, humanly-scaled communities, individuals could develop their many-sided capacities (moral/empathic, cognitive, aesthetic, etc.).  Technical means, if limited to these human purposes and values, could enhance such growth and social well-being—a humanist vision shared also by such previous thinkers as W. von Humboldt, J. S. Mill, and even Marx & Engels (“the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all”).

What was Mumford’s somber vision for the years to come?  The beleaguered– even “obsolete”–individual would be entirely de-skilled, reduced to a passive, inert, “trivial accessory to the machine.”  Technical surveillance and limitless data-collection—“an all-seeing eye” (Panopticon)—would monitor every “individual on the planet.”  Ultimately, the totalitarian technocracy, centralizing and augmenting its “power-complex,” ignoring the real needs and values of human life, might produce a world “fit only for machines to live in.”

Moreover—as we already observe now–people, losing “confidence in [their] own unaided capacities,” would become psychologically dependent on an array of ubiquitous devices, instruments, computers.  Entirely indoctrinated in what may be called “techno-inevitabilism,” such “machine-addicts” would mindlessly accept the latest gadgets, surrendering “to these novelties unconditionally just because they are offered, without respect for their human consequences.”  By 1970, Mumford was already diagnosing “technological compulsiveness”—a condition in which “society meekly submits to every new technological demand and utilizes without question every new product.”  And even a decade earlier, sociologist C. Wright Mills had perceived a qualitative decline in human thinking– obscured by an “overwhelming accumulation of technological gadgets.”  (More recently, see Simon Head’s book, Mindless: How Smarter Machines are Creating Dumber Humans, 2013.)

Ultimately, Mumford advocated a negative revolt—resistance, refusal, withdrawal– whereby individuals may reclaim their autonomy and humanly-derived desires and choices.  One might call this “dodging the Mega-System”: possibly fleeing the urban, market-driven “Patholopolis”—or at least, exercising one’s autonomous right to–Choose to Refuse!  Technolatry—a failed religion which has denied and starved real human needs and aspirations—is already beginning to lose its acolytes and followers.

William Manson, a psychoanalytic anthropologist,  formerly taught social science at Rutgers and Columbia universities. He is the author of The Psychodynamics of Culture (Greenwood Press).