[T]echnoprogressivisms will never properly crystallize into a tribal designation, an identity movement, a political party machine, a subcultural movement, an army marching in lockstep toward "the future," or any such thing. The future is not a place or a "goal": futurity is the political condition of plurality, democracy, freedom... and it is open, unpredictable, collective, promising, unforgivable or it is nothing at all, whatever it calls itself.
Democratic and progressive movements are inherently anti-monolithicizing, inherently pluralizing.
It is true that emancipatory politics is forever discovering the connections between oppressions as a way of overcoming them, but finding and untangling these connections is an interminable process, it is not the building of a new Pyramid to survey the scene from, it is not the delusive discovery of the One True Way yet again. Democratic organizing directs itself to proximate, ongoing, and emerging sites of struggle, it is not a matter of the creation of the Truth that Says the Way the World Is, it is not a matter of evangelizing for that Truth that Holds the Keys to History, it is not a matter of becoming part of the Movement that will Sweep the World. These are fundamentalist perspectives, and always utterly anti-democratizing (even when they appropriate the terms and superficial forms of democracy in their public relations)….
[O]ne doesn't have to join a Robot Cult to devote oneself to any of the campaigns delineated [in the longer piece from which this is excerpted], and… one can have a tantalizing glimpse of the connections between many of these technoprogressive struggles without imagining thereby that one has become a particular kind of person different from or superior to other people with whom you share the world here and now, however much you may disagree with them on particular questions, or differ from them in your aspirations.
I don't think that all progressives are technoprogressives, inasmuch as not all progressives would agree with me or have necessarily given a lot of thought to the specific inter-implication of contemporary democratic struggles and technoscientific change that preoccupies my own attention.
But I do think that all technoprogressives are just progressives, and people of the legible democratic left.
I think technocentric analyses can provide interesting perspectives, analytic tools, strategic recommendations, creative provocations, and novel sources for solidaity for progressive democratic-left politics in its more conventional guises. But I think all five of my technoprogressive advocacy areas are completely legible in terms of those more conventionally progressive perspective --  permaculture,  p2p/a2k,  Pro-Choice,  basic income, and  planetary democracy.
There is nothing Superlative to be found here, no promises of transcendence, no One True Heaven to die for (or to live for, and in so living die in one's life).
Using Technology to Deepen Democracy, Using Democracy to Ensure Technology Benefits Us All
Monday, November 19, 2007
Although I am regularly castigated for my "negativity," "failure of imagination," "rhetoric over substance," "lack of a comprehensive vision," and so on, it remains true that often it is the very readers who make such charges who go on to attach themselves to the most negative, off-the-cuff, decontextualized goofs I've posted here on Amor Mundi while completely ignoring my regular efforts to provide more positive, substantial, comprehensive posts of the kind they claim to crave. In order to direct some attention to this weekend's Amor Mundi and Technoprogressive Advocacy (to which I devoted real time and attention), I will repost smaller more "negative" and snippy snippets from that longer, more thoughtful, more positive piece over the next couple of days, to provide readers more of what they really seem to be looking for, whatever their protestations to the contrary, all in the hopes that this will lead some more of them to engage with the actually more useful piece from which they are culled…. By the way, I understand that it is harder to know how to respond to just one aspect of a much longer piece, harder to feel that one's response to a piece one agrees with -- right on! -- is as useful a contribution as firm disagreement, and so on… I don't really think the silence that often greets one's most thoughtful posts is so unreasonable as all that. I'm just calling attention to a phenomenon that always rumbles in the back of my mind when I hear complaints about my negativity, superficiality and so on….