last week's listen - a more abolitionist approach to technology

Last Week's Listen will be dropped on occasion mixed in with its sibling, Last Week's Read. It may be slightly edited pieces but also maybe just snippets, streams of conscious, etc. that help me process through things I'm listening to or reading and the ideas, thoughts, and mostly questions that come up.

Last Week's Listen - a more abolitionist approach to technology
30 July 2026

Tech Won't Save Us (Tech Refusal Has a Very Long History, Thomas Dekeyser)

Technological "progress" is not inevitable. There are refusals worth embracing together.

These days there is a lot of good reporting and writing about the many ways that modern technology is harming our world from our planet to our well-being and more. I have great appreciation for much of this work and lean on it regularly to help keep myself informed and engaged in the conversation. I'm inspired when I learn about the organizing that people are doing against data centers, the refusal of surveillance technology that people attacking Flock cameras are acting out, the questions that healthcare workers are asking about AI in the clinic, and much more. I also appreciate the philosophical deep dives into what it means to continue to further cede our critical thinking and active engagement to machines.

This episode and the work of Thomas Dekeyser stand out as both a deepening of our historical knowledge that expands how we understand the centuries long relationship between humans and technology and power while also packing in many reasons why this is directly relevant today.

The guest goes beyond the history of the Luddites (don't get me wrong, I love me some Luddite history). Sometimes on the Left, though, we can fall into a one-track-mind kind of story telling (about both the history and the present) where we latch onto one example and stop there. We know the Luddites were these cool, nuanced resistors to the technology of their times but what do we know about the rest of the long lineage of which they are a part?

Furthermore, Dekeyser's reasoning for investigating this more in-depth history is because it challenges the false linear understanding of technological progress. It wasn't a direct, smooth line from one invention to another but instead was fought at most points along the way by those who knew that they would suffer from it. Which is so key in this moment when we are being told that things today (like AI) are 'inevitable.'

Also cool - he dives into how the shift from mercantilism into full capitalism changed how people and the state related to technology. Heck yea.

But here's where he really gets me. What he is interested in is a relationship with technology that is a 'no.' Not a 'yes' or a 'yes but we need to change it' - not a reformist approach. Instead, he is looking to historical and present day ways of resisting technology that "don't rely on the 'yes.'" He ties this to the potential to open up our approach and imagine technological objects, infrastructure, and ideas that are made up of what we dream of, something outside of the dominant, forced, hyper-capitalist technology.

Even if we just stop there, I think it is worth challenging the idea that the tech we're being handed is not only inevitable but the best way to respond is with reform or small tweaks and changes. But this also offers an interesting question to one of the dominant themes across responses to technology as well as general resistance right now: how many people across different political beliefs and reasonings are coming together because they are against just one thing.

This can be seen in the reporting and discussion on resistance to ICE and immigration camp construction as well as the resistance to data centers. That shared thread is complicated. This is a massive question amongst those communities fighting ICE and camps right now. How far can being against only one thing but otherwise disagreeing take us? (that's not a leading question, I'm honestly curious). So, what happens if some of the people in that fight against the data center are more abolitionist?

Clearly that doesn't mean that we can't work in coalition. If anything, possibly having those with a bold abolitionist stance who can also build real coalitional relationships is a good idea in a data center fight. Because what happens when not wanting a data center in your town is easy to come together around but not wanting AI in your health clinic or children's classroom isn't?

The episode takes this further into a conversation about eco-fascism. The above question might be difficult but, perhaps, one of a relationships and organizing nature. What about when the people who also don't want that data center are complete fascists? All the more reason to have a clear understanding of our positions (in this case as abolitionists), why we are resisting, and a broader view of liberation. Which might make it difficult - as with almost every fight I've ever participated in - is to hold on to our values while centrists and liberals tend to comply or compromise.

This means developing a more articulated abolitionist approach to the technology being shoved down our throats. Specifically so that we can be in those broader coalitions (I'm never arguing for more radicals in the corner who are too cool with their ideas to talk to others). Which brings me to the last of so many aspects of this episode that are worth noting.

Dekeyser also reflects on the slide into individualist forms of resistance to technology that have taken hold (as opposed to more collective resistance that had existed throughout history). This brings all of these ideas together even more cohesively. It is not enough to be able to state an abolitionist approach or even, as just individuals, be in coalition. We must form collectives in the places where these fights are happening and/or with specific goals in mind to both share these ideas and also to work from that perspective together over time.

I use 'abolitionist' not just because it's a kinda cool term right now (he does actively use it at the end of the interview as well) but because I do think that at the core of abolition, we know that it is not simply about getting rid of a bad thing but building the world we want. I'm in alignment with what the author argues here - how can we say 'no' and have that open up new imaginaries for how we - the collective we - want technology to exist in the world that we are building?