Could an anarchist society build the Hubble Telescope?

[MacCruiskeen]

I don't see why not.







http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoverie ... eep_field/

[Joao]

"No idea."

It's a helluva quandary to me. On the one hand, I detest hierarchy and don't want to live a world that's not at least inching toward real liberty, equality, and kinship. On the other hand, the overwhelming mass of humanity often appears to be shiftless and utterly bovine, incapable of walking through an open barn door without being guided by the nose. My only hope is that this can be overcome, but I'm far from certain that it can.

The Soviets had a lot of great rhetoric in the early days, but they sure did screw it up badly. I raise the USSR because although I haven't yet read Kropotkin or much other anarchist thought, to my current understanding anarchism seems largely identical to the communist ideal--stateless, classless, self-empowered organization. "Communism" has just become a tarnished label, however, burdened with historical baggage and counterpropaganda.

The Frankfurt School (Adorno, Marcuse, etc.) is often accused of elitist pessimism despite holding a thoroughly Marxian perspective. I find them obnoxious for other reasons, but I think I understand where they were coming from.

A corollary question I'd add: would a capitalist society not in competition with (nominal) socialism have produced the Hubble? Hubble was deployed in 1990, and thus designed and built when it was a priority to make the Soviets look bad. With no profit motive, will projects like this ever happen again (at least until the revolution comes)?

Edited for typos and a few clarifications.

[barracuda]

"Could" an anarchist society build the Hubble Telescope? Well, anything might happen. But the history of the Hubble project suggests that it wouldn't. The reliance upon a huge, well funded existing military and quasi- military infrastructure (JPL, Lockheed, NASA, et al), and the critical contributions of large multinational corporations such as Corning and Kodak and many others, along with the necessity for a regular program of manned space maintenance trips would seem to weigh against such a possibility. At least, I hope it would. High-end star-gazing strikes me as a rather boutique undertaking these days when so many more vital matters are routinely trod underfoot.

[Forgetting2]

What about San Francisco Bay Bridge or the movie Citizen Kane, just off the top of my head. You could spend all day coming up with examples of things generally considered to have practical or aesthetic value created under an authoritarian structure.

[82_28]

I would imagine in an ideal existence, yes, it would be possible. When I was a little kid (early 80s) all you had to do was write to NASA for picture books and literature and they would send crazy insane glossy pictures and little magazines free of charge. All you had to do was ask. It wasn't sponsored by any company, no logos, just NASA. Every time some new publication came out the young 82_28 would get the "NASA sent you something today" from his parents upon checking the mail. And then I would frenetically tear open the envelope thick with books and behold the contents the great NASA had sent me.

If you look at Carl Sagan for instance, scientists, the very engineers who designed, lobbied for and launched Hubble, would easily fit into an anarchist society. But they're all dead now. You can't even find a Carl Sagan book at the store any more.

What I am saying is that great proponents of science taught me to be, in truth, essentially an anarchist at heart and to respect all there is.

So ideally, what many scientists who "brought us" HST and popularizers of science believed could have been an option in a respectful anarchist society. And it perhaps was "anarchistic" and quite socialist for a time.

[Joao]

What about San Francisco Bay Bridge or the movie Citizen Kane, just off the top of my head. You could spend all day coming up with examples of things generally considered to have practical or aesthetic value created under an authoritarian structure.

I would contend that many/most of those things have immediately-recognizable profit motive or otherwise enable commercial enterprise, however. (And those aren't necessarily bad per se, at least in the context of this discussion, but just to speak to the driving force.)

What I am saying is that great proponents of science taught me to be, in truth, essentially an anarchist at heart and to respect all there is.

And thanks for those motherfucking thermonuclear MIRVs, assholes. [Respect to 82_28 ]

[82_28]

What about San Francisco Bay Bridge or the movie Citizen Kane, just off the top of my head. You could spend all day coming up with examples of things generally considered to have practical or aesthetic value created under an authoritarian structure.

Sure, but from what I know about those who came before me and gave me my life, most people worked for the common good. I work and live next to a beautiful bridge built in the 1930s. Huge bridge. The Aurora bridge. Sure, it was built for commerce and growth, but it was done for the common good and was built with pride and probably those who built it made little money.

If we did away with money, anything could be done.

[Forgetting2]

Got 'ya Joao.

Side anecdote: I once had a conversation with the Pastor of my Mom's church where I was trying to convince him that the Hubble was a modern day tower of Babel. (Not that I really thought it a great analogy, but I just liked fucking with the guy.)

[82_28]

What about San Francisco Bay Bridge or the movie Citizen Kane, just off the top of my head. You could spend all day coming up with examples of things generally considered to have practical or aesthetic value created under an authoritarian structure.

I would contend that many/most of those things have immediately-recognizable profit motive or otherwise enable commercial enterprise, however. (And those aren't necessarily bad per se, at least in the context of this discussion, but just to speak to the driving force.)

What I am saying is that great proponents of science taught me to be, in truth, essentially an anarchist at heart and to respect all there is.

And thanks for those motherfucking thermonuclear MIRVs, assholes. [Respect to 82_28 ]

Well, that's exactly what Sagan propounded. He pointed out and wrote at extensive length about the military use of all the tools that could be used for scientific causes. He was a great humanitarian.

[freemason9]

I've discovered that it's much easier to live as an anarchist when it's publicly funded.

[peartreed]

Earliest man would take time out from struggling for survival, hunting, foraging, fighting, pillaging, torturing and raping neighboring competitive tribes to gaze at the sun, moon and stars in ignorance and wonderment, simply to stretch the boundaries of observation, interpretation and exercising the creative mind to try to discern the meaning of the celestial display.

Over the intervening millennia that passing interest between aggressions evolved into using the heavens to navigate, to develop astrology and map the zodiacal signs and to provide a mysterious domicile beyond the mountaintops for the gods, angels, devils and demons of imaginative superstition, beliefs, aspirations and nightmares.

The same basic, somewhat secondary treatment of the overhead mysteries of space continues as technology now frees up some of the time mankind previously spent on the fight for survival. With new tools initially developed for battle, commerce and conquest, the homo sapien can now turn to conquering the worlds beyond, and their imagined inhabitants and competitors for the expanded resources out there.

Driven by the fear of the unknown (and a possible superior species threat beyond incoming wayward and colliding objects) mankind has extended the battle horizons and reach, while also searching – as always – for new travel capabilities and stuff to exploit.

My belabored point is that it is in our DNA and instincts to explore and test boundaries. Whether we are anarchists, Marxists, socialists, capitalists or nihilists we remain fundamentally competitors and challengers. I suspect we’d still be squinting at the starlit skylines seeking advantage and pathways to glory, even only if to try and face our Maker (origins) and challenge whatever “That” might be too.

Deep inside we are driven to do whatever is possible to overcome our limitations and even ourselves. The end is not yet in sight nor in our grasp. We still reach.

[peartreed]

Yes. Even anarchists could eventually get it together enough to build the Hubble. It would just take a lot more time arguing.

[Joao]

Related, from Graeber: Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit

To begin setting up domes on Mars, let alone to develop the means to figure out if there are alien civilizations to contact, we’re going to have to figure out a different economic system.

[brainpanhandler]

It's a meaningless question until "anarchist society" is defined.

What's the most sophisticated project any type of arguably "anarchist society" ever built?

[norton ash]

Citizen Kane is an interesting example to choose. Welles was a strong force, and if the stories are true, the Mercury Theater thrived because of the enthusiasm, dedication, self-sacrifice and belief of its artists-- in just doing what they were doing, making their art. Kane might be described as the product of a bold grassroots collective from New York that muscled its way into Hollywood under Welles' leadership. (And of course got punished for their audacity not long after.)