Fallout as Ideology: Why Nuclear War Is Not A (Primary) Option For Collapse
“We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita: Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and, to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says, “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” I suppose we all thought that, one way or another.”
Apocalypse Now?
The rise of public interest in the collapse of civilization has exploded in recent years, due in part to articles such as what VICE has written. Often the shout is heard, ‘My generation is doomed!’, and such a cry spans millennia, from religious apocalypses and to modern economic crashes, and then following the Great Depression throughout the 1930’s.
It is unfortunate that Primitivists (I will use this term as a label for Luddites and related ideologies) fall into this, because it suits their political worldviews. It can be compared to Communists foaming at the mouth whenever a new click-bait publication writes about a coming recession.
An even more interesting representation of this interest is its presence in entertainment mediums like Fallout. It breaks from the ‘Doomer’ mentality of click-bait articles and conspiracy theories, and shifts it into a sort of escape from reality, almost presenting such a world as better than our current one. The issue is of course, an obsession with an end, not the movement itself.
The Issues At Hand
While I would agree that any form of collapse of global institutions is a net positive, I’d argue against using Nuclear Holocaust as either:
- A solution to our problems, or excuse not to be actively resisting World Society
- A method of attracting new followers to our ideology
In addition to these problems, the System; especially in its capitalist forms, has the ability to commodify the movement into a non-revolutionary shadow of itself (part of recuperation).
Not A Solution
As a supposed solution or excuse, this calls back to my last work, where I mentioned that using ‘natural collapse’ as a solution is cowardly, and I’ll extend that logic here as well. It is similar to natural collapse idea in that revolutionaries have little control, but in this case, those in bureaucratic positions have more power.
The Primitivist revolutionaries should not have aims related to controlling technology, such as nuclear devices; instead only in imminent destruction of said technologies. This then rules out the possibility of it being a revolutionary action, because those still in control of said devices necessary to carry out such acts are also world leaders (and in some cases, leaders of rogue states like North Korea).
Some may argue for accelerating the tensions to where leaders use nuclear weapons, and this is of course, a laughable position. It has no historical basis, nor one that can be predicted with any sort of materialist analysis.
Whether Primitivists like to admit it or not, as civilizations progress and grow, violence declines, especially the chances of mutually assured destruction (MAD). Because of this, banking on accelerated stresses leading to MAD is baseless and likely would lead only to ‘basic’ warfare or some form of Cold War scenario, as opposed to the idea of all-out global Nuclear War.
Simply put, it won’t heat up.
Some may then try to cite Kaczynski, who had this to say on a similar topic (reduced quote from Anti Tech Revolution: Why and How):
“[…]Some time ago this writer received a letter from an individual who asked whether revolutionaries should strive to bring about the collapse of the technological system even though the chaos attendant on the collapse would entail an increased risk of nuclear war. The answer is that revolutionaries should not be deterred by such a risk.
[…], if nothing intervenes to prevent the technological system from proceeding to its logical conclusion, there is every reason to believe that the eventual result will be a planet uninhabitable for all of the more complex forms of life as we know them today. So if we had to choose between a major nuclear war and the continued existence of the system, we would have to take nuclear war as the lesser evil.
[…], if we allow the defenders of the system to deter us with the threat of nuclear war or of any other dire consequences, then we may as well give up. A revolutionary movement can’t be successful if it allows its pursuit of its objective to be limited by reservations or qualifications of any kind, for these can only lead to fatal hesitation at critical times. Revolutionaries must take their goal to be the collapse of the system no matter what. You have to make a decision: Is the elimination of the technological system worth all of the desperate risks and terrifying disasters that it will entail? If you don’t have the courage to answer “yes” to that question, then you’d better quit whining about the evils and hardships of the modern world and just adapt yourself to them as best you can, because nothing short of the collapse of the system will ever get us off the road that we are on now.”
Kaczynski here is not advocating for a nuclear war situation. He is referring to a situation in which we face the threat of nuclear war either as a consequence from the revolution, or as a threat to it.
He simply means that, if given the choice of maintaining the course we are on, or opting for nuclear war as a result of the revolution, we must choose the latter.
Unsurprisingly, I agree.
Besides claims to revolutionaries gaining control of Nuclear weapons, or hoping certain tactics can nudge leaders to do so, we also cannot rely on it as a logical end of our society. There is no evidence to lay claims upon it, since there are few examples of civilizations falling to war (most collapse under economic, ecological and exhaustion issues- Rome, for example, had all 3).
We must deal in a material analysis, not hard-Determinism or in any sense of idealism. Therefore, accelerationism (in this case!) and assumed Nuclear collapse are off the table.
Collapse as Commodity
Back to entertainment; before we discuss Nuclear War as a method of attracting certain individuals or groups; we should understand the literary, theatrical and gaming fascination with Nuclear apocalyptic scenarios serve dual and contradictory meanings through two methods:
- Commodification as Reinforcement — a negative light. It has taken any threat to mainstream society and altered it into a devastating situation unthinkable and inhumane, such as movies about the USSR / Communism in the Cold War.
Sometimes, it takes apocalyptic scenes, usually post-Nuclear and makes them into hellish landscapes as to present it as a less preferable situation to modern day.
- Commodification as Escapism — a positive light. Presenting alternative situations that allow us as consumers to have short term ‘escapes from reality’, taking away revolutionary design.
This meaning presents the Wastelands of apocalyptic Earth, again, usually post- Nuclear, as a free and anarchic world. While filled with danger, the universe is still seen as a positive, as the main character (either one we sympathize with in movies or play as in video games) can take on all challenges. However, as it becomes an escape tactic, it loses all its original potential.
Obviously, we see contradictory meanings in these messages, as is the way with our society. However, both act as a method of recuperation:
the process in which radical, threatening ideas are slowly merged into society, stripped of revolutionary edict and finally appropriated into the system, adding another commodity to be sold and consumed.
Sometimes the meanings are separate, never interconnecting in a specific medium. However, there are cases in which a product, such as how the The Hunger Games movie and book series* presents both meanings in truly contradictory manner.
This doesn’t even take into account apocalyptic clothing lines, or other sources of commodification.
The Fallout game series may very well be the prime instance of point B, which I find to be the scariest of the two, which I will explore soon.
The Fallout series is a series of games that explores a post-Nuclear Armageddon United States, through different characters, settings and struggles. It typically is notable for world design, where cities are ruins and vast deserts reach as far as the eye can see. Raiders, bandit-like gangs roam while other major factions all claim to ruling the U.S.A, like military remnants of the old government or those who wish to horde technology from the masses to prevent another War.
An excerpt from one of the Fallout sites describes the world, the Wasteland as such:
Countries such as the United States were turned into scorching wastelands that became filled with new dangers due to mutations in wildlife that altered many of the species, making them more dangerous than before. As the remnants of humanity began to spread once again, new violence was introduced in the form of different factions. They began warring against each other in the new anarchic world which they now reside in, and though more than two centuries have passed since the Great War, progress in the reclamation of humanity has been slow and the wasteland remains a radioactive and war-torn desert, where life itself is a struggle.
Notice, the description is grim, but the games themselves present themselves as a free world, almost cartoony in fashion.
Despite my hostility to those who worship Nuclear Holocaust, I understand the Escapist mindset, wanting to retreat to a world, even if fictional, to have a sense of ‘freedom’. However, people who do this are less likely to be radicalized, especially for the right reasons — as long as they are in that mindset of Escapist hedonism.
*Note that Hunger Games is set in a world likely caused by environmental disaster; not nuclear, but the message is still the same.
Followers of the Apocalypse
This method of commodification and presentation poses the largest threat because it has the ability to manipulate Primitivist and non-Primitivists alike into glorifying a certain outcome, distracted from the movement itself. It can even convince Primitivists to use the subject or the culture around it as a recruitment pool, as it presents a sort of quasi-consciousness as the culture grows.
Beware of this, for it also attracts a certain type of people to the anti-Tech movement, those who deal in idealism and worship a certain outcome, somewhat similar to mainstream anarcho-primitivists, who romanticize the Paleolithic.
While, in the future, we may be able to utilize certain fascinations or worldviews separate from our own to bring people into the fold, we should primarily be focused on agitation and raising stresses in society. Using a commodified concept like the Fallout series* is not going to help.
This means not using the culture around the franchise, nor appealing to the concept (surviving in overgrown cities of mutants and warring factions) as to recruit.
The culture around it is already an Escapist one, given the fictional nature and immersion principles of mainstream entertainment, but also, as mentioned earlier, people who are obsessed with this culture are already preoccupied with a sort of Hedonism.
The people we should ‘recruit’ (if that even is the word to use) are not those constantly trying to escape this world, but understand and confront it, and give them direction. Otherwise, our best options at this time are agitation and education.
*It should go without saying, I mean all mediums or franchises similar to this, such as Metro.
Fin
While many concepts were tackled, the short of it can best it can be simply put as not allowing the System (the growing World Society, Capitalism, Techno-Industrialism in most people’s cases) to appropriate or disfigure the movement. Going forward, as Primitivists gain more traction in society, the more the System will threaten us and turn the movement against itself.
In doing so, revolutionaries and thinkers must do their best to avoid the cesspool of mainstream Collapse culture and entertainment, as this will lead the movement to misdirection and total commodification, and soon enough, the movement will become pacified.
