In April 1980, Toulouse witnessed the burning offices of multinational technology firms Philips Data Systems and CII-Honeywell-Bull, leading French authorities on a frantic search for the culprits behind the suspected arson and bombing attacks.
Initially, there was confusion over who was responsible, with militant left-wing group Action Directe claiming involvement. However, a communique from a clandestine group of IT workers known as the Committee for Liquidation or Subversion of Computers (Clodo) clarified the situation by detailing the contents of the Philips Data Systems director’s office desk and outlining their motivations for the attack.
The group of IT workers stated, “We are attacking the computer as a tool of exploitation, control, and repression used by the dominant. Our sabotage is a more dramatic version of the daily attacks against domination.” Despite not being as widely remembered as other radical groups, a 2022 documentary called Machine in Flames has brought renewed interest in Clodo and their actions.
Co-director of Machine in Flames, Thomas Dekeyser, explained that his fascination with Clodo stems from their unique approach to challenging the bureaucratic nature of digital politics. He sees their actions as a form of “techno-refusal” that offers a different perspective on political resistance.
Dekeyser’s upcoming book aims to explore the history of resistance to technology, highlighting the diverse motivations behind techno-refusal movements throughout history. He argues that the refusal of technology is not simply about rejecting progress but is deeply tied to questions of human identity and ethics.
According to Dekeyser, the history of technology is inseparable from the history of its rejection, as individuals and groups have consistently challenged the impact of technology on human existence and values.
Techno-refusal and being human
Dekeyser emphasizes that techno-refusal movements like Clodo are often misunderstood as simply anti-modern or nostalgic, when in reality, they represent a diverse range of motivations and philosophical considerations. The refusal of technology is ultimately a struggle for defining and preserving human identity in the face of technological advancements.
The subjects that resist [tech] are so diverse, and so are their motivations for refusal
Thomas Dekeyser
Dekeyser’s research delves into the complex relationship between technology and humanity, highlighting how technological advancements shape our understanding of what it means to be human. He argues that the intense debates and conflicts surrounding technology stem from its profound impact on human values and identity.
Ultimately, Dekeyser’s work seeks to uncover the nuanced history of techno-refusal and its significance in shaping our perceptions of technology, progress, and human existence.
From Archimedes, the Ancient Greek inventor known for destroying his own inventions, to the early mercantilist states of Europe supporting guild members’ acts of sabotage against new labor devices, technology has always been a battleground for political struggle. Mercantilist economics, which was protectionist and supportive of guilds and crafts, shifted with the emergence of Western capitalism in the 19th century. This shift saw states, technology, and economics becoming more closely intertwined than ever before.
The Luddites, a collective of weavers and textile workers, began a systemic approach to machine breaking in 1811 in response to the imposition of new technologies by industrialists. As industrialization progressed, states no longer supported workers breaking machines, leading to the prosecution of machine breakers like the Luddites.
The relationship between technology, capital, and the state tightened further with the emergence of cybernetics during World War II. This science of communication and control aimed to manage and control various systems by increasing information sharing. The 70s and 80s saw discussions on how society could be controlled through information gathering and sharing.
While the term cybernetic has fallen out of fashion, the integration of data gathering technologies into governance and technology, especially AI, reflects a cybernetic approach. AI’s reliance on existing data limits the ability to conceive radically different futures, diminishing human agency and potentially canceling the future by predicting and predetermining outcomes to benefit capital and the state.
Clodo, a group that opposed the cybernetic logic of post-war society, targeted the destructive role of computing in imperialist wars, police surveillance, and capitalist domination. Their actions challenged the view of humans as systems to be controlled and highlighted the physical vulnerability of computer technology. Through direct action, Clodo demonstrated that digital technologies are tangible objects with physical components.
Despite a period of silence after 1980, Clodo continued their attacks on multinational computer firms and government data processing sites in 1983, emphasizing their resistance to the cybernetic logic that threatened human agency and the future.
This involved setting fire to the offices of US computer manufacturer Sperry in protest of then-president Ronald Reagan’s invasion of Grenada, as well as bombing a data processing plant in the Toulouse suburb of Colomiers.
In a statement following the Colomiers attack, the group expressed joy at destroying files and databases belonging to the local authority and police, referring to it as a “brain drain.” The group made it clear that their acts of sabotage were aimed at institutions, not individuals.
Clodo members emphasized the role of technology in serving the interests of the powerful, viewing computers as tools of oppression. They argued that computers were used for surveillance, profit maximization, and exploitation of marginalized individuals.
Despite criticism from French authorities for endangering lives, Clodo made it known that they were committed to avoiding harm to individuals. They believed in the power of direct action to challenge oppressive systems and empower those who carried out the actions.
The group’s anonymity added to their mystique, as no members were ever identified or revealed their identities. Clodo was driven by political ideals rather than personal gain, focusing solely on their revolutionary goals.
In today’s world, technology is more ubiquitous and interconnected, making it harder to pinpoint targets for sabotage. However, there are still groups engaging in acts of technological sabotage, such as the Vulkangruppe targeting infrastructure and tech companies.
The challenges of achieving popular support for these actions raise questions about the effectiveness of different strategies for social change. While some groups aim for mass consciousness raising, others, like Clodo, prioritize direct action and resistance against oppressive systems without seeking widespread approval.
Despite the concerns many may have regarding the actions of collectives like Clodo or the Volcano Group, and the disruptions caused by technological sabotage in today’s highly interconnected world, Dekeyser emphasizes that they are making a significant political statement about the prefigurative nature of technology.
“Prefigurative politics” entails the idea that the means used to achieve change must align with the desired outcomes and not perpetuate existing societal issues. Dekeyser argues that this concept also applies to technologies, as they are shaped by the underlying principles guiding their development and usage.
The idea that just putting harmful technologies in the hands of workers or a ‘good state’ is likely to be insufficient in resolving the problem
Thomas Dekeyser
Dekeyser explains, “The notion that merely placing detrimental technologies in the hands of workers or a ‘good state’ will solve the problem is inadequate. The capitalist and military ideologies embedded in the technology cannot be easily removed.” He highlights how the French Communist Party criticized Clodo for opposing labor tools, believing that these computer technologies offered liberation for workers.
However, Clodo argued that repurposing existing technologies would only perpetuate the same issues.
“Groups like Clodo emphasize the importance of not just repurposing existing technologies, but starting afresh,” Dekeyser states. “Merely nationalizing or publicizing a technology, while advantageous, does not address the surveillance and militaristic aspects ingrained in their functionality.”
He continues, “When considering alternative technologies, it is essential to create something new instead of repurposing existing systems.”
Using social media platforms as an example, Dekeyser acknowledges that data collection is inherent to the technology, making it challenging to have meaningful interactions without leaving digital traces. However, he suggests that an alternative approach would involve rejecting the data-gathering aspect from the outset.
Dekeyser emphasizes the importance of ensuring technologies are not influenced by the same factors: “It’s about undoing while simultaneously building something new, following the principles of prefigurative politics.”
