These problems surelyhave to do with how technology has come to be produced, organized, and put towork in capitalism especially, with a very low or absent consideration for theenvironment or for peoples needs. Thecritique is coherent and relevant. Whatmost people will hardly and most expectedly never agree with is what to do aboutthis, because there are not only two options: for or against technology. In fact, these options are irrelevant,because to simply stand against technology would be to claim a power overpeoples actions in order to impede them from building technology. Or else, as we will discuss below, it is tobelieve in the primacy of human interiority over the external world. Technologyis for Zerzan an expression of class domination. Surely, in capitalism it hasbeen geared towards making profit, and thus it does have a class rulecomponent. Depending on the technologywe can point to, such as agribusiness machines, certainly they have been builton the basis of profit and class rule. Technology is not neutral, not merely atool. On this, anarchists will agree. Technology is not something one can have fullcontrol of. Zerzan claims it can be controlled, although he watches televisionbecause he needs to be narcotized, he says.Zerzan and the Power-Vacuum: Anarchist?Zerzanclings to the notion of power as repression only. He writes that quantity has been masteringus,[59]thus showing how the subjective has no place in his understanding ofpower. He shows how he is not free fromobjectivism and the negation of subjectivity, a legacy he so repeatedly critiquesthroughout his work. Actually, thishappens because in his thinking, subjectivity cannot be rejected, onlyapproved, since it is always in its essence true and positive. If something is to be rejected, it must havecome from the exteriority of subjectivity. If something as an appreciation for a form of art exists, for Zerzanthis came from an imposition of Civilization, not from any interior humaninstinct for art for example. In thisfashion, he negates everything that cannot fit his theory, which is that of ahuman interiority devoid of instincts for language, culture, art, or any formor craftsmanship. The latter, in histheory, have all come from alienation.Alienationis certainly real, appears in most or all capitalist relationships, depending onones situatedness and world view, besides ones comprehension of freedom. Itis real, although it is not an explanation for everything, since itsunderstanding depends on situatedness of the subject within social, cultural,historical, economic and political contexts. Those labeled alienated have had no say in this labeling throughout manyliberatory discourses. Postmodernthought has been, and Zerzan is right in saying this, in many ways acontinuation of alienation. With manyexceptions, though, and considering that alienation is a situation and a socialrelation that depends on the subjects experience as well, of feelingalienated, as much as on social institutions. Having said this, we can stateagain that postmodern thought has also reproduced alienation. One, because it does infuse specializationlinked to capitalist production with a new impetus. Particularly, it does this when it tries tonegate wants and desires of total understandings and practices towards life. Wemust, I contend, when participating in current discussions on resistance andidentity for example, realize that people many times