←back to thread

184 points entaloneralie | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
ttoinou ◴[] No.44610568[source]
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

replies(8): >>44610633 #>>44610789 #>>44611267 #>>44611959 #>>44612234 #>>44612902 #>>44613561 #>>44615563 #
ants_everywhere ◴[] No.44610789[source]
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.

replies(1): >>44610864 #
xg15 ◴[] No.44610864[source]
Well, was it wrong what they said?
replies(1): >>44610968 #
ants_everywhere ◴[] No.44610968[source]
Yes. In general that's why you resort to propaganda and polemics rather than giving a formal argument that can be disproved.
replies(2): >>44611756 #>>44612189 #
appreciatorBus ◴[] No.44612189[source]
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.

replies(1): >>44612426 #
ants_everywhere ◴[] No.44612426[source]
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.

replies(3): >>44612854 #>>44613998 #>>44614342 #
internet_points ◴[] No.44614342[source]
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.

replies(2): >>44614442 #>>44616702 #
1. ants_everywhere ◴[] No.44614442[source]
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.