He predicted and theorized
free software 10 years before it happened in Tools for Conviviality, made the most obvious and needed critic of education and hospitals alone against the Zeitgeist, studied step by step a lot of field of society to find patterns to simplify understanding.
He created simple concepts that everyone should know —- counter productivity, vernacular, iaotrogenic, radical monopoly, conviviality, poverty vs. misery etc.
He is much more pragmatic than all his leftists colleagues. He might not go very deep in economics but at least he’s not a basic marxist. He might not go as deep as Jacques Ellul in his critics of technology, but at least he is very understandable, anyone can be inspired by his books. I read most of Illich writings at 19 years old and it stayed with me for years
I suspect it's because he's like most of the more radical writers: if you actual dissect his writing, it really gets to the heard of a lot of what is rotten about modern industrial society. And the rectification of the problems he highlights pretty much necessitates disassembling a lot of modern technological society and getting rid of most of its institutions.
So while he makes sense, no one wants to discuss his work, because then they must also come to a lot of the same conclusions he did, which is: the global society we have today is a lost cause, and a lot of it needs to be torn down. Which of course goes against the status quo.
It's a lot different than the fluffy, weak criticism of many today that recommend making changes that don't change anything. But then at least people reading that stuff can convince themselves that they are doing something, when they are not.
People don't like revolutions, even if they are the one carrying it out. Revolutions are a last resort, mainly because of how uncertain it is what comes out at the end of it. So, an action calling for complete dismantling will never have large support. And everyone kind of knows where to go to. Th difficult thing is knowing how to get there in a piece by piece manner, one area of the social order at a time.
Having said that, his criticism is completely on point. But the people who have reached the same solution are then lost on what to do after it.
> Having said that, his criticism is completely on point. But the people who have reached the same solution are then lost on what to do after it.
True. But as Kaczynski rightly pointed out, you can't have a revolution out of thin air, and the seeds of distrust have to be sufficiently grown first before there is a critical mass of tension that can act as fuel for the fire. So the first step might just be to sow seeds of well-placed distrust against the modern tech oligarchs.
Also his criticism is very specific. Most of contemporary anti-capitalist or marxist thought that gets published is very, very abstract and hence toothless. It's easy to entertain radical ideas as long as they don't pit you against your employer.
You might enjoy a newsletter called The Convivial Society, which is heavily influenced by Illich.
I'm just starting Tools For Conviviality. I suspect that Illich's ideas are underrated because, at least today, most people want more and Illich does not offer that. He offers freedom, I think, in his definition of conviviality... but it seems to be quite clear that offered freedom or comfort, most of us today (I'm not excluding myself from this) prefer comfort.
The fact that he's a very eclectic thinker and not very systematic, although that's one of the things that a lot of people admire about him. His religious commitments, as well, I would guess. But also he had some very odd ideas--like refusing to get a tumor removed from his face. He also was not the best at communicating his ideas.
I agree with you. Is it perhaps because of his religious background (he was a Catholic priest)? For much of the last couple decades, there has been an anti-religious streak in the educational mainstream universities.
The last couple of millennia, really. Who lynched Hypatia? Who burned the Timbuktu Manuscripts? Who burned Giordano Bruno alive? Who burned the Maya codices?
At the same time, religious institutions have always contained many intellectual traditions, perhaps most of them. When the Christians extirpated knowledge of the hieroglyphs, it was the Egyptian priests they scattered. We don't know what was in the Maya codices, but large parts of the surviving Maya inscriptions are religious in nature. European universities began as seminaries; al-Azhar University is over 1000 years old and initially taught only sharia, fiqh, and the Quran. And everyone knows how Irish monks saved civilization.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that religious people are usually the ones who care about intellectualism, whether in favor or opposed.
Bruno’s execution was of course evil and wrong but it’s also wrong to depict him as some kind of martyr for science and that the Catholics were setting back intellectual progress. Bruno was not a scientist, he was a mystic. He did not carry out experiments to try to prove his beliefs nor even believe in the ability of math to explain nature. The conflict that lead to his death was between two different religious/mystical traditions and not between “intellectualism” and religion. If he were alive today he would be more comparable with Deepak Chopra than a real scientist
Christians simply did not “extirpate” knowledge of the hieroglyphs or “scatter Egyptian priests.” Hieroglyphs were already falling into disuse since they were the writing system of a tiny elite of priests. There was no abolition or persecution of the hieroglyphic using class. The fading of hieroglyphs has its roots in the Hellenization of Egypt centuries before Christianity began. As Egyptians became Christian, the Coptic script came to be dominant for writing the Egyptian language. In the same way very few people bother to learn how to write JCL anymore, very few people were interested in retaining knowledge of hieroglyphs.
There’s an implicit idea here too that Christians were some kind of foreign interloper in Egypt instead of being themselves Egyptian — this is simply not the case. Egypt was one of the early hotbeds of Christianity and the modern-day Copts are essentially the people most closely culturally and genetically related to the ancient Egyptians.
This is a combination of nonsense and non sequiturs. Why didn't you mention my non-Christian example of flagrant anti-intellectualism at all, or any of my examples of Christians promoting intellectualism? Are you trying to argue that Christians are somehow different from other religious people?
My central point, as I said, was, "Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that religious people are usually the ones who care about intellectualism, whether in favor or opposed." Are you implicitly claiming that Christians don't care about intellectualism?
My best hypothesis is that you just did some kind of keyword search and then recited a couple of marginally relevant polemical talking points you'd previously memorized, without any regard to the actual conversation you were injecting them into.
Seems to me that the focus should be on institutions as power centers, rather than beliefs or loosely defined "religious people".
Illich himself also noted how institutionalization of an initially revolutionary idea reverses its meaning, switching, say, liberation into oppression.
Power grabbers will always attempt power grabs, and will eventually distort an initial good idea. They will pretend to Embrace it, then attempt to Extend it with their own input, to finally Extinguish the original idea.
The distinction between lack of wealth/goods/services and lack of access to services that you now mandatory need to get wealthy/goods/others services (because of how society just changed commons into privatisation). Note that I’m not anticapitalist yet I think there are interesting concepts there
Majid RAHNEMA wrote a book about this in french, “Quand la misère chasse la pauvreté” based on similar ideas than Illich
This was a whole cottage industry during the cold war, kind of like it is now that we're in another sort of cold war.
The Soviets would fund anyone applying Marxist thought to this or that. There may be some interesting ideas for those willing to sort out the chaff, but for the most part you know exactly what they're going to say if you're already familiar with the propaganda that came before.
I completely agree that Marxism and its descents are bankrupt ideas, but I’m not getting the connection to Illich.
I’ve only read one of his books, Energy and Equity, but I don’t really recall any strain of Marxism or leftism, though it was a long time ago so maybe I’ve forgotten.
He's connected with liberation theology, which is what the KGB was promoting in Catholic countries to recruit for militant groups. Similar to how they promoted revolutionary Islam to people like Goddafi. I think the Soviets actually claim to have invented liberation theology, but who knows.
His deschooling and Limits to Medicine stuff were standard Soviet tropes and still are today. The obvious purposes are to get the US to weaken its education and medical systems. They ran similar strategies to get the US to weaken its nuclear system and to me it looks like they're also trying to weaken adoption of AI through similar ideas. But basically schools are bad, medicine is bad. Claims we're "pathologizing" everything. You see the same ideas in socialist spaces online today. Especially these days around psychology. Similarly with the "factory school" trope.
When Energy and Equity was written in 1974 it was a year after the 1973 oil crisis. The Soviet Union was destabilizing countries in the middle east and wanted to secure access to oil especially at the expense of the US. Their normal propaganda would be about American imperialism and how they're evil and oil producing countries should side with the Soviet Union instead. I haven't read the book, but that would be the Soviet take at the time.
I don't know whether he was supported by the Soviets. He was a public intellectual who traveled a lot especially to South America. It's very likely he was approached and attempted to be recruited by the KGB. But whether he rebuffed them or not isn't public knowledge.
One thing we're learning as more stuff gets declassified is how many household names were more actively involved in the cold war than we realized. For example, Howard Zinn being actively involved in communist organizations despite lying about it for years. Or Earnest Hemingway actively collaborating with the KGB (although in the end wasn't very successful). There are a few other examples.
> He's connected with liberation theology, which is what the KGB was promoting in Catholic countries to recruit for militant groups. [...] I think the Soviets actually claim to have invented liberation theology, but who knows.
Any reputable sources for these claims? Sounds like American Cold War propaganda.
Some of their activities are described in this interview [0]. The claims come from 2015 not from the Cold War. And they're from a communist intelligence defector, not America.
There's no shortage of interviews from former intelligence people talking about Cold War era South America and much of it is well known. The basic gist is it was before modern ICBMs, the USSR wanted nuclear missiles close to the US and they wanted military bases there. This is where the FARC, Fidel Castro, Che Guevera etc all come from. And famously it's what led to the Cuban Missile Crisis and Bay of Pigs Invasion. A lot of this can best be understood in the context of what ideas the Soviets were promoting in other parts of the world, like revolutionary Islam.
There are also many essays on the connections between Marxism and liberation theology, many (maybe most?) of them written by liberation theology proponents during the Cold War years.
Some of the claims made in the interview
> On October 26, 1959, Sakharovsky and his new boss, Nikita Khrushchev, came to Romania for what would become known as "Khrushchev's six-day vacation." He had never taken such a long vacation abroad, nor was his stay in Romania really a vacation. Khrushchev wanted to go down in history as the Soviet leader who had exported communism to Central and South America. Romania was the only Latin country in the Soviet bloc, and Khrushchev wanted to enroll her "Latin leaders" in his new "liberation" war.
> The movement was born in the KGB, and it had a KGB-invented name: Liberation Theology.... The birth of Liberation Theology was the intent of a 1960 super-secret "Party-State Dezinformatsiya Program" approved by Aleksandr Shelepin, the chairman of the KGB, and by Politburo member Aleksey Kirichenko, who coordinated the Communist Party's international policies. This program demanded that the KGB take secret control of the World Council of Churches (WCC), based in Geneva, Switzerland, and use it as cover for converting Liberation Theology into a South American revolutionary tool. The WCC was the largest international ecumenical organization after the Vatican, representing some 550 million Christians of various denominations throughout 120 countries.
and so on.
There are lots of details you can check out and try to fact check. But it would be a research project and my guess would be hardly any of the classified information is public now. As a general rule, we get books and interviews from defectors and former intelligence officers, but they're based on first-hand recollection and contemporaneous notes backed by still-classified information.
So it's up to you to decide how much weight to give the various pieces of evidence. But certainly what he says in the interview is consistent with how the KGB operates. But we can't know things like whether he was lied to by the KGB at the time, or whether he's misremembering facts, or whether he's embellishing here or there.
The ideals of Illich's work are so far removed from the centralized, institutionalized Soviet socialism, I really doubt the Soviets would've been very happy if people in the USSR started talking that way. Anyone who is swayed by Illich will loathe the idea of five year plans, concerted efforts for more technological progress, and the propaganda that goes with it ("Plan is law, fulfillment is duty, over-fulfillment is honor!").
But who knows, maybe the communist spooks just saw someone geographically close to the US propounding ideas that were radically different from capitalism and didn't mind that they were also radically different from communism. The same has happened enough times in the other direction.
Usually the idea of critique was to create dissatisfaction with democracy, not to advocate for what the USSR was doing. For example, the KGB heavily promoted the US peace and anti-nuclear movements despite being strongly pro-war and pro-nuclear within the Soviet Union.
It's a bit like the fundamentalist religious people who talk a lot about how immoral everyone else is but then make excuses for the immoral things their leadership is doing. Or the congresspeople who talk about how important the family is but are serially unfaithful and don't see their kids.
It's more about having a useful way to attack people than an advocacy for a specific position or way of life.
People act like you need a petaflop for something to be useful. The US census of 1890 would have been impossible to complete before the next one started without puchcard machines. One may as well say the information age arrived then. Anyone with basic numeracy and imagination could imagine what the future held at that point.
“We could easily be made increasingly dependent on machines for speaking and for thinking…”
One thing that bothers me about the ubiquitous encroachment of LLMs into most areas of human writing is that it helps us write faster, but does not necessarily help us read faster. Producing large amounts of human-looking text is instantaneous, but reading (and acting upon) still takes the same amount of time. I was e.g. called to read and review a report from an academic committee with hundreds of pages that mostly looks human but also not, with pages and pages of slop after slop. I felt like I was staring into the abyss, spending hours to read something that probably took seconds for someone to produce with AI. It felt like an absolute meaningless waste of my time.
The thing is that I think people have missed the fact that the act of reading is inherently connected to the act of writing; I take the time to read something because I know that someone took the time to write it. For those who live/work by writing it seems that the act of writing has become so detached and matter-of-fact that they think “words are words” regardless of whether they were written by a human or an AI. If it helps you write faster, then why not? Like someone who used to cut trees with axes and suddenly gets a chainsaw as a gift.
But the problem is that, inevitably, we will go down the road of “if you can’t bother to write it, I won’t bother to read it” and AI will also be used to read and interpret the writings that it itself generated. So we’ll have documents with thousands of pages that are never going to be read by humans, with AI processing in both ends, so the writing will basically be a payload, a protocol, and nothing more. As such processes become the norm, we’ll be entirely dependent on the AI to both produce text and read what it produced, and become enslaved by whatever hidden (or not?) ideological bias it has been fed by its masters.
Different perspective: I'm currently using a LLM to rewrite a fitness book. It takes like 20 pages of rambling text by an amateur writer and turns it into a crisp clear 4 pages of latex with informative diagrams, flow charts, color-coding, tables, etc. I sent it out to friends, and they all love the new style.
My experience is LLMs can write very very well; we just have to care enough to ask them to do so. Those 4 pages needed a whole lot of fine-tuning. But I'm optimistic eventually people will figure it out.
Illich's 1983 Japan talk seems to be in response to McLuhan's 1971 convocation talk where he critiques Illich: https://mcluhan-studies.artsci.utoronto.ca/v1_iss5/1_5art3.h...
(The spacing on this document I'm linking is hideous. Excerpts inlined below, paragraph breaks my own)
Both talks center "enterprise" and communication. Thanks Claude for validating my hunch about the late-century subtweet.
> What has happened today is that there is a new hidden ground of all human enterprises, namely a world environment of electric information, and against this new environment the old ground of 19th century hardware—whether at school or factory, whether of bureaucracy or entertainment—stands out as incongruous.
...
> It is this situation that Ivan Illich addresses himself to in Deschooling Society. He is vividly aware of the irrelevance of current curricula, drills and certification. He knows that these can no longer help us relate to the new world, and he frankly appeals to the forms of preliterate, and even prenatal experience as models for the training now needed.
> As Coleridge said "If you wish to acquire a man's knowledge, first start with his ignorance." Illich is unaware—I'll repeat: Illich is ignorant of the new all-inclusive "surround" of electric information which has enveloped man, but it is his instinctive response to this new ground that in some measure validates the figure-image he suggests for the new school. For example, he says "Since most people today live outside industrial societies. Most people today do not experience childhood. In the Andes, you till the soil once you become useful: before that you watch sheep; if you are well nourished you should be useful by 11, and otherwise by 12."
> Illich relates this story: "Recently I was talking to my night-watchman, Marcos, about his 11 year old son who works in a barbershop. I noted in Spanish that his son was still a nino. Marcos answered with a guileless smile, 'Don Ivan, I guess you are right.' I felt guilty for having drawn the curtain of childhood between two sensible persons." What Illich has in mind, although he does not state it, is that childhood was unknown in the Middle Ages and was a renaissance invention that came in with printing, and is ending very rapidly now in the television age...
> "Enclosure, once accepted, redefines community. Enclosure underlines the local autonomy of community. Enclosure of the commons is thus as much in the interest of professionals and of state bureaucrats as it is in the interest of capitalists. Enclosure allows the bureaucrats to define local community as impotent..."
That was made much more evident with the government restrictions/mandates during Covid.
The endgame seems to be that people will be treated as farm animals.
Why is Ivan Illich so underrated ?
He predicted and theorized free software 10 years before it happened in Tools for Conviviality, made the most obvious and needed critic of education and hospitals alone against the Zeitgeist, studied step by step a lot of field of society to find patterns to simplify understanding.
He created simple concepts that everyone should know —- counter productivity, vernacular, iaotrogenic, radical monopoly, conviviality, poverty vs. misery etc.
He is much more pragmatic than all his leftists colleagues. He might not go very deep in economics but at least he’s not a basic marxist. He might not go as deep as Jacques Ellul in his critics of technology, but at least he is very understandable, anyone can be inspired by his books. I read most of Illich writings at 19 years old and it stayed with me for years
I suspect it's because he's like most of the more radical writers: if you actual dissect his writing, it really gets to the heard of a lot of what is rotten about modern industrial society. And the rectification of the problems he highlights pretty much necessitates disassembling a lot of modern technological society and getting rid of most of its institutions.
So while he makes sense, no one wants to discuss his work, because then they must also come to a lot of the same conclusions he did, which is: the global society we have today is a lost cause, and a lot of it needs to be torn down. Which of course goes against the status quo.
It's a lot different than the fluffy, weak criticism of many today that recommend making changes that don't change anything. But then at least people reading that stuff can convince themselves that they are doing something, when they are not.
People don't like revolutions, even if they are the one carrying it out. Revolutions are a last resort, mainly because of how uncertain it is what comes out at the end of it. So, an action calling for complete dismantling will never have large support. And everyone kind of knows where to go to. Th difficult thing is knowing how to get there in a piece by piece manner, one area of the social order at a time.
Having said that, his criticism is completely on point. But the people who have reached the same solution are then lost on what to do after it.
> Having said that, his criticism is completely on point. But the people who have reached the same solution are then lost on what to do after it.
True. But as Kaczynski rightly pointed out, you can't have a revolution out of thin air, and the seeds of distrust have to be sufficiently grown first before there is a critical mass of tension that can act as fuel for the fire. So the first step might just be to sow seeds of well-placed distrust against the modern tech oligarchs.
Also his criticism is very specific. Most of contemporary anti-capitalist or marxist thought that gets published is very, very abstract and hence toothless. It's easy to entertain radical ideas as long as they don't pit you against your employer.
You might enjoy a newsletter called The Convivial Society, which is heavily influenced by Illich.
I'm just starting Tools For Conviviality. I suspect that Illich's ideas are underrated because, at least today, most people want more and Illich does not offer that. He offers freedom, I think, in his definition of conviviality... but it seems to be quite clear that offered freedom or comfort, most of us today (I'm not excluding myself from this) prefer comfort.
Tools for Conviviality is insanely relevant today.
When I was reading it I just couldn't believe it was written in 1973. So ahead of its time.
The fact that he's a very eclectic thinker and not very systematic, although that's one of the things that a lot of people admire about him. His religious commitments, as well, I would guess. But also he had some very odd ideas--like refusing to get a tumor removed from his face. He also was not the best at communicating his ideas.
I agree with you. Is it perhaps because of his religious background (he was a Catholic priest)? For much of the last couple decades, there has been an anti-religious streak in the educational mainstream universities.
Half agree.
The other half, as a very conservative Catholic, conservative Catholics are neglecting our great teachers like Dorothy Day.
Could that perhaps be a reaction to an anti-intellectualism streak in the mainstream religious narrative for the last couple decades?
The last couple of millennia, really. Who lynched Hypatia? Who burned the Timbuktu Manuscripts? Who burned Giordano Bruno alive? Who burned the Maya codices?
At the same time, religious institutions have always contained many intellectual traditions, perhaps most of them. When the Christians extirpated knowledge of the hieroglyphs, it was the Egyptian priests they scattered. We don't know what was in the Maya codices, but large parts of the surviving Maya inscriptions are religious in nature. European universities began as seminaries; al-Azhar University is over 1000 years old and initially taught only sharia, fiqh, and the Quran. And everyone knows how Irish monks saved civilization.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that religious people are usually the ones who care about intellectualism, whether in favor or opposed.
Hypatia’s murder had very little to do with religious conflict against a free thinker and everything to do with class alexandrian class politics.
https://historyforatheists.com/2020/07/the-great-myths-9-hyp...
Bruno’s execution was of course evil and wrong but it’s also wrong to depict him as some kind of martyr for science and that the Catholics were setting back intellectual progress. Bruno was not a scientist, he was a mystic. He did not carry out experiments to try to prove his beliefs nor even believe in the ability of math to explain nature. The conflict that lead to his death was between two different religious/mystical traditions and not between “intellectualism” and religion. If he were alive today he would be more comparable with Deepak Chopra than a real scientist
Christians simply did not “extirpate” knowledge of the hieroglyphs or “scatter Egyptian priests.” Hieroglyphs were already falling into disuse since they were the writing system of a tiny elite of priests. There was no abolition or persecution of the hieroglyphic using class. The fading of hieroglyphs has its roots in the Hellenization of Egypt centuries before Christianity began. As Egyptians became Christian, the Coptic script came to be dominant for writing the Egyptian language. In the same way very few people bother to learn how to write JCL anymore, very few people were interested in retaining knowledge of hieroglyphs.
There’s an implicit idea here too that Christians were some kind of foreign interloper in Egypt instead of being themselves Egyptian — this is simply not the case. Egypt was one of the early hotbeds of Christianity and the modern-day Copts are essentially the people most closely culturally and genetically related to the ancient Egyptians.
This is a combination of nonsense and non sequiturs. Why didn't you mention my non-Christian example of flagrant anti-intellectualism at all, or any of my examples of Christians promoting intellectualism? Are you trying to argue that Christians are somehow different from other religious people?
My central point, as I said, was, "Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that religious people are usually the ones who care about intellectualism, whether in favor or opposed." Are you implicitly claiming that Christians don't care about intellectualism?
My best hypothesis is that you just did some kind of keyword search and then recited a couple of marginally relevant polemical talking points you'd previously memorized, without any regard to the actual conversation you were injecting them into.
> religious people
Seems to me that the focus should be on institutions as power centers, rather than beliefs or loosely defined "religious people".
Illich himself also noted how institutionalization of an initially revolutionary idea reverses its meaning, switching, say, liberation into oppression.
Power grabbers will always attempt power grabs, and will eventually distort an initial good idea. They will pretend to Embrace it, then attempt to Extend it with their own input, to finally Extinguish the original idea.
My Shift key seems to be Jittery, apologies :)
yes, certainly
Poverty vs Misery?
The distinction between lack of wealth/goods/services and lack of access to services that you now mandatory need to get wealthy/goods/others services (because of how society just changed commons into privatisation). Note that I’m not anticapitalist yet I think there are interesting concepts there
Majid RAHNEMA wrote a book about this in french, “Quand la misère chasse la pauvreté” based on similar ideas than Illich
Huuu... he's absolutely not underrated? Quite well-known here in Europe
Well that’s good news then. I don’t see him quoted often though, or his concepts re-used
I like your username ahah.. you might be biased ;)
This was a whole cottage industry during the cold war, kind of like it is now that we're in another sort of cold war.
The Soviets would fund anyone applying Marxist thought to this or that. There may be some interesting ideas for those willing to sort out the chaff, but for the most part you know exactly what they're going to say if you're already familiar with the propaganda that came before.
Well, was it wrong what they said?
Yes. In general that's why you resort to propaganda and polemics rather than giving a formal argument that can be disproved.
I completely agree that Marxism and its descents are bankrupt ideas, but I’m not getting the connection to Illich.
I’ve only read one of his books, Energy and Equity, but I don’t really recall any strain of Marxism or leftism, though it was a long time ago so maybe I’ve forgotten.
He's connected with liberation theology, which is what the KGB was promoting in Catholic countries to recruit for militant groups. Similar to how they promoted revolutionary Islam to people like Goddafi. I think the Soviets actually claim to have invented liberation theology, but who knows.
His deschooling and Limits to Medicine stuff were standard Soviet tropes and still are today. The obvious purposes are to get the US to weaken its education and medical systems. They ran similar strategies to get the US to weaken its nuclear system and to me it looks like they're also trying to weaken adoption of AI through similar ideas. But basically schools are bad, medicine is bad. Claims we're "pathologizing" everything. You see the same ideas in socialist spaces online today. Especially these days around psychology. Similarly with the "factory school" trope.
When Energy and Equity was written in 1974 it was a year after the 1973 oil crisis. The Soviet Union was destabilizing countries in the middle east and wanted to secure access to oil especially at the expense of the US. Their normal propaganda would be about American imperialism and how they're evil and oil producing countries should side with the Soviet Union instead. I haven't read the book, but that would be the Soviet take at the time.
I don't know whether he was supported by the Soviets. He was a public intellectual who traveled a lot especially to South America. It's very likely he was approached and attempted to be recruited by the KGB. But whether he rebuffed them or not isn't public knowledge.
One thing we're learning as more stuff gets declassified is how many household names were more actively involved in the cold war than we realized. For example, Howard Zinn being actively involved in communist organizations despite lying about it for years. Or Earnest Hemingway actively collaborating with the KGB (although in the end wasn't very successful). There are a few other examples.
> He's connected with liberation theology, which is what the KGB was promoting in Catholic countries to recruit for militant groups. [...] I think the Soviets actually claim to have invented liberation theology, but who knows.
Any reputable sources for these claims? Sounds like American Cold War propaganda.
Some of their activities are described in this interview [0]. The claims come from 2015 not from the Cold War. And they're from a communist intelligence defector, not America.
There's no shortage of interviews from former intelligence people talking about Cold War era South America and much of it is well known. The basic gist is it was before modern ICBMs, the USSR wanted nuclear missiles close to the US and they wanted military bases there. This is where the FARC, Fidel Castro, Che Guevera etc all come from. And famously it's what led to the Cuban Missile Crisis and Bay of Pigs Invasion. A lot of this can best be understood in the context of what ideas the Soviets were promoting in other parts of the world, like revolutionary Islam.
There are also many essays on the connections between Marxism and liberation theology, many (maybe most?) of them written by liberation theology proponents during the Cold War years.
Some of the claims made in the interview
> On October 26, 1959, Sakharovsky and his new boss, Nikita Khrushchev, came to Romania for what would become known as "Khrushchev's six-day vacation." He had never taken such a long vacation abroad, nor was his stay in Romania really a vacation. Khrushchev wanted to go down in history as the Soviet leader who had exported communism to Central and South America. Romania was the only Latin country in the Soviet bloc, and Khrushchev wanted to enroll her "Latin leaders" in his new "liberation" war.
> The movement was born in the KGB, and it had a KGB-invented name: Liberation Theology.... The birth of Liberation Theology was the intent of a 1960 super-secret "Party-State Dezinformatsiya Program" approved by Aleksandr Shelepin, the chairman of the KGB, and by Politburo member Aleksey Kirichenko, who coordinated the Communist Party's international policies. This program demanded that the KGB take secret control of the World Council of Churches (WCC), based in Geneva, Switzerland, and use it as cover for converting Liberation Theology into a South American revolutionary tool. The WCC was the largest international ecumenical organization after the Vatican, representing some 550 million Christians of various denominations throughout 120 countries.
and so on.
There are lots of details you can check out and try to fact check. But it would be a research project and my guess would be hardly any of the classified information is public now. As a general rule, we get books and interviews from defectors and former intelligence officers, but they're based on first-hand recollection and contemporaneous notes backed by still-classified information.
So it's up to you to decide how much weight to give the various pieces of evidence. But certainly what he says in the interview is consistent with how the KGB operates. But we can't know things like whether he was lied to by the KGB at the time, or whether he's misremembering facts, or whether he's embellishing here or there.
[0] https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/31919/former-soviet-...
The ideals of Illich's work are so far removed from the centralized, institutionalized Soviet socialism, I really doubt the Soviets would've been very happy if people in the USSR started talking that way. Anyone who is swayed by Illich will loathe the idea of five year plans, concerted efforts for more technological progress, and the propaganda that goes with it ("Plan is law, fulfillment is duty, over-fulfillment is honor!").
But who knows, maybe the communist spooks just saw someone geographically close to the US propounding ideas that were radically different from capitalism and didn't mind that they were also radically different from communism. The same has happened enough times in the other direction.
Usually the idea of critique was to create dissatisfaction with democracy, not to advocate for what the USSR was doing. For example, the KGB heavily promoted the US peace and anti-nuclear movements despite being strongly pro-war and pro-nuclear within the Soviet Union.
It's a bit like the fundamentalist religious people who talk a lot about how immoral everyone else is but then make excuses for the immoral things their leadership is doing. Or the congresspeople who talk about how important the family is but are serially unfaithful and don't see their kids.
It's more about having a useful way to attack people than an advocacy for a specific position or way of life.
I really see Illich idea fully orthogonal to USA capitalism vs. USSR weird communism flavor. They can be applied in both in different directions
Interesting information. Most of what Illich says applied equally to the USSR regime though
Was it available in the USSR?
Computers could hardly do anything back then. Mostly backend data processing.
Yet this speech could have been written today.
Intriguing.
Neuromancer was published only half a year later.
Or take The Machine Stops from 1909.
People act like you need a petaflop for something to be useful. The US census of 1890 would have been impossible to complete before the next one started without puchcard machines. One may as well say the information age arrived then. Anyone with basic numeracy and imagination could imagine what the future held at that point.
> Anyone with basic numeracy and imagination could imagine what the future held at that point.
Yet most of us (myself included) are in denial (willful or just delusional) about what AI is going to do.
Data processing by itself was a major leap in productivity.
My city ran its payroll on a single computer with 64KB of RAM. This would have required weeks of work from a whole team of bureaucrats.
Similar to Guy Debord in The Society of Spectacle, what he wrote witnessing the beginning of TV and mass cinema applies for us in 2025, 100 fold
I just looked up the Wiki page for the book. Prescient.
“We could easily be made increasingly dependent on machines for speaking and for thinking…”
One thing that bothers me about the ubiquitous encroachment of LLMs into most areas of human writing is that it helps us write faster, but does not necessarily help us read faster. Producing large amounts of human-looking text is instantaneous, but reading (and acting upon) still takes the same amount of time. I was e.g. called to read and review a report from an academic committee with hundreds of pages that mostly looks human but also not, with pages and pages of slop after slop. I felt like I was staring into the abyss, spending hours to read something that probably took seconds for someone to produce with AI. It felt like an absolute meaningless waste of my time.
The thing is that I think people have missed the fact that the act of reading is inherently connected to the act of writing; I take the time to read something because I know that someone took the time to write it. For those who live/work by writing it seems that the act of writing has become so detached and matter-of-fact that they think “words are words” regardless of whether they were written by a human or an AI. If it helps you write faster, then why not? Like someone who used to cut trees with axes and suddenly gets a chainsaw as a gift.
But the problem is that, inevitably, we will go down the road of “if you can’t bother to write it, I won’t bother to read it” and AI will also be used to read and interpret the writings that it itself generated. So we’ll have documents with thousands of pages that are never going to be read by humans, with AI processing in both ends, so the writing will basically be a payload, a protocol, and nothing more. As such processes become the norm, we’ll be entirely dependent on the AI to both produce text and read what it produced, and become enslaved by whatever hidden (or not?) ideological bias it has been fed by its masters.
Different perspective: I'm currently using a LLM to rewrite a fitness book. It takes like 20 pages of rambling text by an amateur writer and turns it into a crisp clear 4 pages of latex with informative diagrams, flow charts, color-coding, tables, etc. I sent it out to friends, and they all love the new style.
My experience is LLMs can write very very well; we just have to care enough to ask them to do so. Those 4 pages needed a whole lot of fine-tuning. But I'm optimistic eventually people will figure it out.
Illich's 1983 Japan talk seems to be in response to McLuhan's 1971 convocation talk where he critiques Illich: https://mcluhan-studies.artsci.utoronto.ca/v1_iss5/1_5art3.h... (The spacing on this document I'm linking is hideous. Excerpts inlined below, paragraph breaks my own)
Both talks center "enterprise" and communication. Thanks Claude for validating my hunch about the late-century subtweet.
> What has happened today is that there is a new hidden ground of all human enterprises, namely a world environment of electric information, and against this new environment the old ground of 19th century hardware—whether at school or factory, whether of bureaucracy or entertainment—stands out as incongruous.
...
> It is this situation that Ivan Illich addresses himself to in Deschooling Society. He is vividly aware of the irrelevance of current curricula, drills and certification. He knows that these can no longer help us relate to the new world, and he frankly appeals to the forms of preliterate, and even prenatal experience as models for the training now needed.
> As Coleridge said "If you wish to acquire a man's knowledge, first start with his ignorance." Illich is unaware—I'll repeat: Illich is ignorant of the new all-inclusive "surround" of electric information which has enveloped man, but it is his instinctive response to this new ground that in some measure validates the figure-image he suggests for the new school. For example, he says "Since most people today live outside industrial societies. Most people today do not experience childhood. In the Andes, you till the soil once you become useful: before that you watch sheep; if you are well nourished you should be useful by 11, and otherwise by 12."
> Illich relates this story: "Recently I was talking to my night-watchman, Marcos, about his 11 year old son who works in a barbershop. I noted in Spanish that his son was still a nino. Marcos answered with a guileless smile, 'Don Ivan, I guess you are right.' I felt guilty for having drawn the curtain of childhood between two sensible persons." What Illich has in mind, although he does not state it, is that childhood was unknown in the Middle Ages and was a renaissance invention that came in with printing, and is ending very rapidly now in the television age...
Illich seems to have been an interesting thinker.
He also seems to prompt many interesting book review comments. I have now found my mission!
> The thing is, Illich is more like Plato than Marx. Nobody ever tried to mount a Platonic revolution. [0]
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2LL7H3HL0WENO/re...
A Platonic revolution would be the ideal Form of a revolution that all other revolutions are merely shadows of.
Yes, and more grounded in friendly, as apposed to romantic notions, of the world.
Non-referral link:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2LL7H3HL0WENO/
Thanks. Didn't know just grabbing a link defaulted to a referral program.
Interesting
Speech is sometimes said to be a commons..
So it's really more about the medium in itself, rather than what it is or is not used for
> "Enclosure, once accepted, redefines community. Enclosure underlines the local autonomy of community. Enclosure of the commons is thus as much in the interest of professionals and of state bureaucrats as it is in the interest of capitalists. Enclosure allows the bureaucrats to define local community as impotent..."
That was made much more evident with the government restrictions/mandates during Covid.
The endgame seems to be that people will be treated as farm animals.