The Power Process
Ted’s core thesis is that humans are physiologically programmed to go through the power process. The industrialized, modern world prevents that, causing all sorts of psychological problems.
The power process comprises four steps:
- Goal: We need goals. And by goals, he does not mean a certain job or deadlifting 3 plates, he means actual physical necessities such as food or shelter and primal psychological needs like love and status.
- Effort: We need to put effort into reaching our goals.
- Attainment of Goal: We need to succeed in achieving at least some of our goals.
- Autonomy: Setting the goal and putting in the work must be our own initiative and under our own control. (It should be noted that he thinks this step does not hold for everyone. Most people are content with outsourcing this to small groups, but for some the autonomy is crucial.)
Suppressing the power process is the main factor that causes psychological problems such as low self-esteem, anxiety, depression, frustration, and so on. In extreme cases, when people desperately try to regain their sense of autonomy, it might even end in outbursts of violence or rebellions.
Ted does not really give reasons for why he believes all that, he more or less assumes it as an axiom in his manifesto. I still buy it, though, because it’s consistent with what I believe I know about human biology. As far as I know, we have a dopamine system, which is responsible for rewarding us for making progress towards some goal (by making us feel good). There’s also a serotonin system, which (among other things) tracks our social status and regulates how content we are in general. So basically serotonin regulates the low-frequency components of happiness, dopamine regulates the high-frequency components. Both as a function of progress towards goals (social status for serotonin, physical needs and other things for dopamine).
Surrogate Activities
Modern industrial society eradicated the necessity for going through the full power process for most ”real” goals, because technology just made attaining them too easy. We’re still stuck with our caveman physiology, though. Our main coping mechanism is what Ted calls surrogate activities - the pursuit of artificial goals just for the sake of emulating the real power process. Examples are trying to get wealthy, doing research, getting good at sports, so basically what we spend most of our time with in modern society.
The problem with surrogate activities is that they simply don’t work. They cannot replace the real power process we had to go to for actual, non-artificial goals. Even worse - they create a positive feedback loop: Pursuing surrogate activities leads to better technology, which eliminates even more of the leftover ”real” goals in our lives, which leads to more and more surrogate activities, and so on. The result is a steadily growing dependence on the system and the psychological damage mentioned above.
I agree with this in so far as I believe humans spend the majority of times with surrogate activities. One might argue that earning a living is still a real necessity, but at least for 50% of the population that’s simply not true (in richer countries). People might not want to hear this, but striving for more is almost exclusively driven by the need to participate in a societal game for status. In Germany, living off of social security alone gets you your own flat with electricity and running water, a full fridge, and decent mobility. From a purely materialistic standpoint, there’s no way the bump in lifestyle you get from 80-100k a year justifies working 40 hours a week for it.
Now we come to the part where I start to disagree with Ted. To me, it is not obvious at all that our brains can differentiate between ”real” goals and surrogate goals. On average, the people in the upper echelons of society seem to be much more content and happy with their lives. And the dopamine hit I get from getting a good grade in an exam I studied hard for, or after dragging myself to the gym when I didn’t want to go, feels pretty real to me. In my opinion, what’s more dangerous about modern society is when people are smart enough to realize most of the typical person’s goals are artificial and not necessary in a survivalist sense, but not smart enough to realize that they still serve a purpose (surrogate power processes). Those types of people are often pretty unsatisfied with their lives.
Overthrowing the System
Ted states reversing industrialization cannot happen in a gradual fashion since giving up technologies results in a competitive disadvantage for individuals. But just letting the system go on would only increase people’s dependence on technology because of a positive feedback loop: Engaging in surrogate activities amplifies technological progress, and technological progress robs people of even more real power processes. He draws the consequence that revolution now, which he admits would cause short-term damage, is still preferable over the inevitable collapse of the system if we let the current dynamics continue.
Nope, I have to admit I find the working-on-a-laptop / supermarket lifestyle pretty cozy.
Leftists
Abolishing technology for the good of humanity sounds a lot like degrowth fantasies of some modern leftists. But painting Ted Kaczynski as such couldn’t be further from the truth. On the contrary, even though it often seems a bit out of place, he constantly dunks on leftists throughout the whole thing. Only at the end, he explains why he fears leftism might infiltrate his movement and undermine the original idea.
”Leftism” is defined very loosely in the manifesto. He basically refers to anybody strongly associating with any of the typical movements (feminism, climate change activism, antiracism, …) as a leftist.
He characterizes leftists as ”oversocialized”. They are mostly members of the (intellectual) upper class, grew up around the people that shape the mainstream moral discourse. Subconsciously, they suffer from their strong socialization and have a need to assert their autonomy by rebelling. But they’re not strong enough to get off their socialization leash and commit to their own independent set of values. Instead, they adopt established moral principles, exaggerate them, and accuse mainstream society of violating them by being too reserved. For a leftist, the only acceptable way to live out their drive for power is imposing their morale on others (typical surrogate activities such as career are obviously off the table), therefore spreading itself is an inherent property of leftism.
Leftist have an inherent need for rebellion and craving for power (caused by the lack of power process and strong socialization), which they tend to express on a collective level. Consequently, they like to associate with all sorts of movements, originally not necessarily of leftist nature. This unintentional hijacking of movements then gradually turns them into leftist ones. Ted is cautious to have that not happen to his, because he suspects leftist’s need for power inherently conflicts with the abolition of technology. The use of technology is necessary to acquire power, which the leftist will ultimately prioritize over deindustrialization.
A pretty good indicator for (extreme) ideology is viewing everything through the same lens. Therefore, I don’t find it particularly surprising that Ted Kaczynski interprets leftism as a consequence of the lack of power process. The oversocialization idea is still interesting. It for sure is conspicuous that a large part of the (more radical, young) leftist types are part of the societal caste they criticize. Left-leaning events (demonstrations, raves) also tend to have a rebellious vibe to them. In many cases, the demands of leftist movements for the government is just to accelerate into the direction it’s going in anyway.