Is Western Civilization/modern technology really human progress?

[Adi Shankara]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-depression-cure/200907/social-isolation-modern-plague

according to scientific data, while things like loneliness, depression based on social isolation, etc. are almost unheard of in tribal societies and most 3rd world countries, here in the USA,, mental diseases and dysfunction are reaching a breaking point because of all the technology we have, as it leads to us isolating ourselves even further from others and is creating an impersonal future. Depression is doubling every decade!

what is there to do?

[Blackscare]

I think a lot of that has to do with the sense of alienation created by capitalism.


And of course tribal people have less feelings of loneliness, etc. They're members of small, insular, and incredibly interconnected social groups. It's not because they have less technology.


Capitalism is founded on the idea of individualism, the "man as an island" idea. This is because capitalism's success hinges on preventing solidarity as much as possible, and reducing people to apathetic egoism and consumerism. This works quite well in the west, especially the USA.

In places where capitalism is more brutal and exploitation is greater, people also have less luxuries etc. There is little or no incentive to think of yourself as something separate from the community.

It all really depends on perspective.

[Terminator X]

Another anti-technology thread. How original.

I actually chuckled out loud when reading this line:


mental diseases and dysfunction are reaching a breaking point because of all the technology we have

What the hell does that even mean? Talk about jumping to conclusions. Can we please stop blaming technology for capitalism's ills? I'd say being broke and jobless contributes more to "mental diseases and dysfunction" than iPods.

[NGNM85]

I second that. Using statistics indicating a rise in clinical depression to condemn the project of Western Civilization is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Blackscare]

I second that. Using statistics indicating a rise in clinical depression to condemn the project of Western Civilization is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Don't you think it's a little extreme to call sankara a baby killer

[Adi Shankara]

Don't you think it's a little extreme to call sankara a baby killer


not just a baby-killer, but a Luddite baby-killer! :lol:

[this is an invasion]

I think it's important to be aware and to be critical of the way technology functions within this society.

[Nachie]

what is there to do?

Supposedly if you bomb/burn down tire factories, demand will soon outstrip supply and civilization will collapse.

[Adi Shankara]

Supposedly if you bomb/burn down tire factories, demand will soon outstrip supply and civilization will collapse.

That's the ridiculous capitalist way to look at it, anyways. supply and demand is such a ridiculous concept, esp. considering that capitalists can charge whatever they want for food and water and there would be nothing the people could do about it.

[Nachie]

...nevermind

[death_by_semicolon]

My understanding was that, simply by serving it's evolutionary purpose, capitalism gives rise to the technology for the sustained production of all life's necessities for all society. I think we're to a point where capitalist production is repugnantly wasteful, gluttonous, and unsustainable, but that's not necessarily a trait we could attribute to technology, per se, as long as it can be used to fulfill some social or biological need.

Am I missing the mark here?

[Adi Shankara]

...nevermind

sarcasm is a bit hard to detect on the internet, so forgive me if I missed your original implication.

[RadioRaheem84]

Thomas, it's just alienation. And you have to look at how the technology is used. It's used for profit. People see this wonderful technology out there but it's not really socially used. The wonderful advances in medicine should be viewed in the light that there are still new diseases and old one gaining strength in the third world and the impoverished areas of the first.

I recommend a brilliant article by Marxist biochemist Richard Levins called "Why Programs Fail". It's on the Monthly Review website.

Capitalism, the profit motive, is the reason why technology doesn't flourish ten fold to help everyone, why it's actually stunted by capitalism.


Originally Posted by NGN
I second that. Using statistics indicating a rise in clinical depression to condemn the project of Western Civilization is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The "project of western civilization"? Get the fuck out of here.

[Franz Fanonipants]

A "rational" and technological worldview is not inherently anything. You cannot privilege any culture's advances, as there's no moral component to technological progress (as shown by the initial article).

To act as if technological progress is moral is foolish.

[RadioRaheem84]

Very true. Imperialists have just become more "civilized" in their brutality. Smart bombs are a great example. Humanitarian wars are another. Greatest medical advancements the world has ever known but its only available to those who can afford it. Ubranization benefits the yuppie upper middle class the most in the West at the expense of eliminating public housing. Gadgets, cars, clothes of better quality are mainly used for social status.

[Franz Fanonipants]

The Green Revolution is p. cool.

Except for the gigantic privatizing of agriculture/rise of monocultures.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Basically any progress under Capitalism is no real triumph for humanity, as long as Capitalism is in place.

[Terminator X]

I hate to break up the technophobic circle jerk, but what is the solution? We sit around in grass huts with no electricity listening to our 8-track players, waiting for the revolution? Why not use technological advances for our own gain? Instead of rejecting/destroying the machines, why not seize them and use them to our advantage?

And I say fuck the "moral component" of anything. It's a subjective term that means absolutely nothing. It's the equivalent of the mythical "family values" that right-wingers use as an ideological crutch.

[RadioRaheem84]

I do not think the hatred is toward technology and science but capitalism that keeps it stunted and concentrated into the hands of the few.

[Franz Fanonipants]

lol

"Technophobic."

I already said, technological advancement is neutral. I think feeding people/making sure people don't die by technological reasons is rad. I just don't think we should privilege it.

also "abloo bloo bloo" don't post if you're not going to read my actual points.

[NGNM85]

The "project of western civilization"? Get the fuck out of here.

Western civilization is the subject of the fucking thread.

[chegitz guevara]

The increase in mental disorders has three likely causes: first, better diagnoses, whereas previously, lots of people went undiagnosed and untreated. I don't know if anyone here ever paid attention to sitcoms from the early to mid 60s, but Americans were very alienated. Listen to the Stones' song (who are Brits, yes), "Mother's Little Helper." This was not a happy period in Western civilization. No wonder there was a counter-cultural revolt.

There is an aspect of technology in causing unhappiness. Very likely, humans require face to face interaction in order to bolster feelings of self-worth. Humans, being social creatures, need to build and solidify bonds with others in order to survive, and we get the data we need to ensure we're doing it right by watching the reactions of other people. On teh web, we don't get that feedback. It's one of the reasons emoticons are actually necessary. So, cell phones and teh interwebs are breaking that visual connection we need (though, with video technology getting better and better, this will likely only be a temporary phenomenon, maybe a generation). Air conditioning also plays a role in our isolation, as we're no longer outside interacting with the neighbors, but inside, on the pc or idiot box.

Of course, the other main influence is capitalist alienation, which, if you've read the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts you will know is caused by the products of people's own creation being turned against them. We create everything, but we have no control over it. It controls us.

[RadioRaheem84]

Western civilization is the subject of the fucking thread.


The project?

[NGNM85]

The project?

Yes, the collective effort on behalf of millions of individuals to collectively construct and continue to maintain western society. The endeavor to have a society.

[RadioRaheem84]

Yes, the collective effort on behalf of millions of individuals to collectively construct and continue to maintain western society. The endeavor to have a society.

You're fucking ridiculous. :rolleyes:

[RadioRaheem84]

Anyways. Back to the main topic.

A good doc on the subject is The Trap by Adam Curtis. I recommend it.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Yes, the collective effort on behalf of millions of individuals to collectively construct and continue to maintain western society. The endeavor to have a society.

death to america, death to western decadence

[Tatarin]

No, I don't see how it can be blamed on technology. First, as everyone here has come to understand, is that technology is neutral - we are not dealing with robots making us live in capitalism, but with capitalist humans using technology against other humans. Can you tell me that all those rich guys aren't enjoying Hi-Def TVs and supercomputers? Or fast, all-in-one private jets? Or what about their cars, and alarm rigged houses? Technology isn't alienating them, is it?

Second, technology is always evolving, and unless (a) humans devolve intelligence or (b) all humans agree on a hunter-gatherer society, technology will inevitably develop. No? Because someone, somewhere, will (in the fantastic event of humanity waking up, everywhere, in a hunter-gatherer society) realize that it is more effective keeping animals in a cage than spending all day hunting them. Someone will build a castle, another one a boat, etc etc. Well, unless all humans now and forever somehow agree upon not developing technology (or technology beyond a certain state).

As an idea, I'd say that we should save all these scientific articles as proof of why humans can't be treated as animals. Science, even with investors and interest groups feeding it money, again and again proves to us that capitalism is not such a nice system to live in.

[Franz Fanonipants]

No one is blaming technology. Jesus Christ guys I know you love code but is it really hard to read?

[Invincible Summer]

Basically any progress under Capitalism is no real triumph for humanity, as long as Capitalism is in place.

While I understand your sentiment, I'd have to disagree that the (admittedly slow and priced) development of treatments for disease, more efficient modes of communication/transportation/etc are "no real triumph for humanity." Are you saying that going to bullet trains up from oxen pulling carts is no real triumph?

It's terrible that technologies are only available to a privileged few, yes. But the fact that they're being developed takes us one tiny step forward.

You do realize that should the West adopt communist modes of production and organization, the infrastructure for trade will be so advanced we'd pretty much be using capitalist inventory systems and whatnot but for "the good guys?"

[Franz Fanonipants]

You do realize that should the West adopt communist modes of production and organization, the infrastructure for trade will be so advanced we'd pretty much be using capitalist inventory systems and whatnot but for "the good guys?"

That sounds pretty much like liberal talk to me. ::kawink::

I think the thing is that those inventory systems aren't inherently capitalist, rather, they're just inventory systems.

[Tatarin]

Helios+ : I have to partly disagree. While I do agree on the point that development do go, in some cases, in the right direction, many things also go in the wrong one. Sure, the progress of HIV medicine, cancer and such, the awareness has been hightened (while some decades ago smoking wasn't such a "big deal").

The bad side is the development of "control technology" - surveillance, scanners, audio catching machines, etc. They're good tools in space in the search of extraterrestrial life, but humans aren't really aliens now. Which is the problem, because the more there is of "CTs", the harder the resistance will be.

For example, surveillance of the public can prevent gatherings, as can secret tappings and audio recording of phones and electronic communications. While we may have some time before complete control - imagine machines that do not care of what they are shooting. AI planes is being used now in Afghanistan and Iraq, but when do the real pictures change into 3D-animated games - the gamer being unaware that he is shooting real people in some other country?

[Franz Fanonipants]

They're good tools in space in the search of extraterrestrial life[...]


They're good tools in space in the search of extraterrestrial life[...]


They're good tools in space in the search of extraterrestrial life[...]


They're good tools in space in the search of extraterrestrial life[...]


They're good tools in space in the search of extraterrestrial life[...]


They're good tools in space in the search of extraterrestrial life[...]

this is fucking ridiculous and why you fuckers need to stay in Sciences

[RadioRaheem84]

While I understand your sentiment, I'd have to disagree that the (admittedly slow and priced) development of treatments for disease, more efficient modes of communication/transportation/etc are "no real triumph for humanity." Are you saying that going to bullet trains up from oxen pulling carts is no real triumph?

It's terrible that technologies are only available to a privileged few, yes. But the fact that they're being developed takes us one tiny step forward.

You do realize that should the West adopt communist modes of production and organization, the infrastructure for trade will be so advanced we'd pretty much be using capitalist inventory systems and whatnot but for "the good guys?" Sometimes capitalism takes us back and keeps us from progressing. I can't think of the great example we came up with here on revleft, but it was a great discussion on how the capitalists with their presumed nonsense that the profit motive keeps us innovative, have actually kept us from really progressing in a lot of areas.

I mean capitalists have the contradiction embedded in capitalist accumulation to deal with and in the process "innovate" to constantly keep this going, so this leads to many advances (others of huge huge public and collective spending mind you). Also, like David Harvey pointed out they've really just been shifting crises to keep this innovation going too. A crises here is usually taken care of by shifting it around to other places. The crises of stagnation in the 70s was solved by shifting the burden to the global south. I really do not see this as progress per se, certainly better, but it adds to the appearance that we are really progressing in a linear fashion.

[Franz Fanonipants]

you see the search for alien life is a socialist perogative cus

[Invincible Summer]

That sounds pretty much like liberal talk to me. ::kawink::

I'm not talking about reformism, so how is that "liberal talk?"


I think the thing is that those inventory systems aren't inherently capitalist, rather, they're just inventory systems.
But they're created by and used for capitalist production.

[Franz Fanonipants]

But they're created by and used for capitalist production.

I mean, we're still going to be using wrenches too. But they won't be "capitalist wrenches."

I understand your point, that there will be similar modes of production used even in socialist economies. Basically, I agree. I'm not Pol Pot. But man threads with guys outta Sciences make me consider it.

[Invincible Summer]

Sometimes capitalism takes us back and keeps us from progressing. I can't think of the great example we came up with here on revleft, but it was a great discussion on how the capitalists with their presumed nonsense that the profit motive keeps us innovative, have actually kept us from really progressing in a lot of areas.

I mean capitalists have the contradiction embedded in capitalist accumulation to deal with and in the process "innovate" to constantly keep this going, so this leads to many advances (others of huge huge public and collective spending mind you). Also, like David Harvey pointed out they've really just been shifting crises to keep this innovation going too. A crises here is usually taken care of by shifting it around to other places. The crises of stagnation in the 70s was solved by shifting the burden to the global south. I really do not see this as progress per se, certainly better, but it adds to the appearance that we are really progressing in a linear fashion.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that capitalism is in itself progressive. My post was in response to the notion that no technology that is created under capitalism can be progressive

[Franz Fanonipants]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that capitalism is in itself progressive. My post was in response to the notion that no technology that is created under capitalism can be progressive

It isn't.

Technology is just technology. "Progress" is a pretty big capitalist lie used to sell itself.

Of course, certain technologies up efficiency etc., and that can broadly be quantified as progress. But upping an iPod Touch's gigs every couple of quarters is really not progress. Most of what your classic Professor Frinkites see as progress is really just salesmanship.

Basically what I'm saying is that these dudes have been tricked by Popular Science into sucking down big heaping helpings of capitalism.

[Revy]

Um. Capitalism is going to hold back some technology. Like robots. Robots are not economically viable under capitalism because the human workers that would be now living leisurely, would have no money to spend. This would not only harshly affect the working class, but without people buying products, the economy would crash. So this whole idea that robots will be a capitalist conspiracy because they wouldn't need to pay them, doesn't make sense.

Robots are only compatible with socialism, under which goods can be made free of charge, because it is not profit-based.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Um. Capitalism is going to hold back some technology. Like robots. Robots are not economically viable under capitalism because the human workers that would be now living leisurely, would have no money to spend. This would not only harshly affect the working class, but without people buying products, the economy would crash. So this whole idea that robots will be a capitalist conspiracy because they wouldn't need to pay them, doesn't make sense.

Robots are only compatible with socialism, under which goods can be made free of charge, because it is not profit-based.

omg

please make this thing stop please please please

[Invincible Summer]

It isn't.

Technology is just technology. "Progress" is a pretty big capitalist lie used to sell itself.

Of course, certain technologies up efficiency etc., and that can broadly be quantified as progress. But upping an iPod Touch's gigs every couple of quarters is really not progress. Most of what your classic Professor Frinkites see as progress is really just salesmanship.

Basically what I'm saying is that these dudes have been tricked by Popular Science into sucking down big heaping helpings of capitalism.

The discourse you're operating under leads to a slippery slope of conspiracy theory... "they" are withholding all the "good technology" from us, making us think technology is advancing.

I mean, there's a grain of truth in what you're saying, but I'm not necessarily talking about consumer products' planned obsolescence.

I mean, you can't deny that advanced prostheses and other bio-medical technologies (although coupled with a profit motive) are beneficial and progressive (to an extent). This is far from the reductionist "iPod" example you're using.


Um. Capitalism is going to hold back some technology.

I never said that capitalism can open up all avenues of technological progress, but rather that the idea that nothing worthwhile is ever produced out of capitalism is naive and immature.

Yeah, capitalist modes of production will withhold better technologies due to cost and maintaining capitalist relations, but steps towards making more intelligent robots are being made albeit slowly. It's still progress, even if it's at a snail's pace.

[black magick hustla]

ive been piling up weapons and canned corn for the inevitable. when 2012 and we are climbing vines going through the buildings maldorors´mexicanist-jaguar militias are gonna build the aztec states of america

[Franz Fanonipants]

ive been piling up weapons and canned corn for the inevitable. when 2012 and we are climbing vines going through the buildings maldorors´mexicanist-jaguar militias are gonna build the aztec states of america

i've just been doing a lot of blow and wearing scorpion belt buckles.

narco worship > anahuak fetishism.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Um. Capitalism is going to hold back some technology. Like robots. Robots are not economically viable under capitalism because the human workers that would be now living leisurely, would have no money to spend. This would not only harshly affect the working class, but without people buying products, the economy would crash. So this whole idea that robots will be a capitalist conspiracy because they wouldn't need to pay them, doesn't make sense.

Robots are only compatible with socialism, under which goods can be made free of charge, because it is not profit-based.

Since I got negrepped for doing this before, I'll do it again.

You're a fucking idiot. gtfo.

[Robocommie]

ive been piling up weapons and canned corn for the inevitable. when 2012 and we are climbing vines going through the buildings maldorors´mexicanist-jaguar militias are gonna build the aztec states of america

This, but unironically.

[Franz Fanonipants]

The discourse you're operating under leads to a slippery slope of conspiracy theory... "they" are withholding all the "good technology" from us, making us think technology is advancing.

I don't think it's necessarily any sort of "withholding" and I'd thank you for not constructing strawmen to argue against.

I'm saying that technology developed under Capitalism is inherently unequally distributed and therefore, like "secularism," "democracy," and "human rights" basically just privilege extended not any sort of real advancement for humanity.

[Robocommie]

I don't think it's necessarily any sort of "withholding" and I'd thank you for not constructing strawmen to argue against.

I'm saying that technology developed under Capitalism is inherently unequally distributed and therefore, like "secularism," "democracy," and "human rights" basically just privilege extended not any sort of real advancement for humanity.

I agree. We have to march at the pace of the slowest marcher. I don't see the point in investing more energy, effort and funds in building better cybernetic prosthetics or artificial hearts or improved telecommunications to further improve the lives of the people in the most industrialized nations, when there are so many nations whose farms lack proper irrigation and mechanization and methods of soil preservation, not to mention basic and renewable sources of potable water, access to things like basic healthcare and preventive medicine.

Some people like to argue that we can chew gum and walk at the same time, and while that's true to a point, it's also true that until we reach a post-scarcity economy, which won't be possible for a very long time if it ever is, we will have to make decisions about which is more important. Given the massive amount of work which will be necessary to improve the conditions of undeveloped countries which have suffered from centuries of neglect and exploitation, even if we had world socialism tomorrow, we'd be occupied in just providing basic necessities to a lot of people for many generations.

[Revy]

Since I got negrepped for doing this before, I'll do it again.

You're a fucking idiot. gtfo.

:wub: I love you too.

[bcbm]

i think it is a really weak argument to say "oh well what about medical advances?" or any other example of modern technology to prove that what western civilization has achieved has been as a whole positive for humanity. what this sort of argument completely misses is that none of these things just come in to being out of nowhere- they are built on an advanced system of ecological and human exploitation and destruction, unparalleled by anything in our history. a car isn't just a car, it is the end result of probably hundreds of thousands of poor people who had to mine the metals, drill the oil, transport those materials, construct plastic parts and microchips in toxic factories, etc, to say nothing of what that car will do once it is on the road, what will happen when it eventually becomes scrap and what had to occur to even get to the stage where the mines and factories existed (hint: nothing pretty). i think it is plainly obvious that this system is not benefiting the majority of humanity and i think many of the problems inherent in the technological world we have created cannot be solved by dumbing things down to "just abolish capitalism." i think a fundamental part of a communist project will be questioning production as it exists and most likely fundamentally altering it in the same way something like social relations will be.


the project of Western Civilizationthe project of western civilization has always been conquest and subjugation and this is now more true than ever as it has expanded to practically every inch of the planet in one way or another and this is because there is actually not one project, but rather the project of the ruling class and the project of the rest of us as a global class of the exploited and oppressed and these two projects are fundamentally at odds. our triumph would be the end of western civilization as it currently exists.

[Franz Fanonipants]

the project of western civilization has always been conquest and subjugation and this is now more true than ever as it has expanded to practically every inch of the planet in one way or another and this is because there is actually not one project, but rather the project of the ruling class and the project of the rest of us as a global class of the exploited and oppressed and these two projects are fundamentally at odds. our triumph would be the end of western civilization as it currently exists.

well u see but the internet

[Tatarin]

Um. Capitalism is going to hold back some technology. Like robots.

Not necessarily. It will surely hold back technology for most of the people, simply by putting extremely high pricetags on them. But the capitalists themselves have everything to win from more technology - effectivity, security, communications, etc.


So this whole idea that robots will be a capitalist conspiracy because they wouldn't need to pay them, doesn't make sense.

Sure, maybe all workers won't be replaced, but what about the military and the police? Already here you have "legal" problems in cases of strikes and demonstrations - was it a malfunction? Or was the crowd dangerous? Isn't this machine private property? This isn't to say that all human cops will be removed - murder, break-ins after the fact etc. will still be dealt, but we all know that revolutions don't start by one or ten people, but thousands to millions. Humans with shields and guns still have fear to overcome, orders and whatever "rules" to keep in mind, a machine does not.

Simple robots are already in use in Japan to some extent, particularly in elderly care.


i think it is plainly obvious that this system is not benefiting the majority of humanity and i think many of the problems inherent in the technological world we have created cannot be solved by dumbing things down to "just abolish capitalism." i think a fundamental part of a communist project will be questioning production as it exists and most likely fundamentally altering it in the same way something like social relations will be.

Well, it has to begin somewhere, and that is with the abolition of capitalism. However, I do agree that, technically, a socialist society puts humans first before technological progress. But unless progress is limited by law it will inevitably happen, how slowly it may be.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

i think it is a really weak argument to say "oh well what about medical advances?" or any other example of modern technology to prove that what western civilization has achieved has been as a whole positive for humanity. what this sort of argument completely misses is that none of these things just come in to being out of nowhere- they are built on an advanced system of ecological and human exploitation and destruction, unparalleled by anything in our history. a car isn't just a car, it is the end result of probably hundreds of thousands of poor people who had to mine the metals, drill the oil, transport those materials, construct plastic parts and microchips in toxic factories, etc, to say nothing of what that car will do once it is on the road, what will happen when it eventually becomes scrap and what had to occur to even get to the stage where the mines and factories existed (hint: nothing pretty). i think it is plainly obvious that this system is not benefiting the majority of humanity and i think many of the problems inherent in the technological world we have created cannot be solved by dumbing things down to "just abolish capitalism." i think a fundamental part of a communist project will be questioning production as it exists and most likely fundamentally altering it in the same way something like social relations will be.

That sounds good, but what does it mean in practice? To use your example, the private motor vehicle may have its environmental impact reduced and/or its social role changed, or it may be replaced with some other technology, but as long as civilisation sticks around we will still need a transportation system that's better than walking or using an animal.


the project of western civilization has always been conquest and subjugation and this is now more true than ever as it has expanded to practically every inch of the planet in one way or another and this is because there is actually not one project, but rather the project of the ruling class and the project of the rest of us as a global class of the exploited and oppressed and these two projects are fundamentally at odds. our triumph would be the end of western civilization as it currently exists.

I don't think "western civilisation" exists at all, except as some kind of propagandistic rallying point for reactionary blowhards, or as a strawman target for swivel-eyed idealogues. Borders tend to be far too porous, especially these days, to classify civilisations as wholly "western" or otherwise.

In fact, I would argue that there is currently only one human civilisation, such is the level of global interconnectedness and interdependance that was unthinkable in previous times. If shit goes down in South Africa, the whole world hears about it, or at least those bits of it that are interested.

The idea that we can create some idyllic Arcadia is a form of wishful thinking that looks at the pre-global world through rose-tinted spectacles; furthermore, this kind of romanticist thinking has lead to some thoroughly reactionary conclusions that deserve no place in a world where humans have the potential to inherit the universe.

[Franz Fanonipants]

The Human Progress Group = Capitalist Chauvinists

the end

/thread

[ZeroNowhere]

He believes this undermines the active civil engagement a strong democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy) required from its citizens. Putnam discusses ways in which Americans have disengaged from political involvement including decreased voter turnout, public meeting attendance, serving on committees and working with political parties. Putnam also cites Americans' growing distrust in their government. Putnam accepts the possibility that this lack of trust could be attributed to "the long litany of political tragedies and scandals since the 1960s" (see paragraph 13 of the 1995 article (http://xroads.virginia.edu/%7EHYPER/DETOC/assoc/bowling.html)), but believes that this explanation is limited when viewing it alongside other "trends in civic engagement of a wider sort" (par. 13).So apparently modern technology isn't that bad. Anyhow, the studies cited involve the elderly being more vulnerable to depression without social support, and happer mice not being as likely to get hooked on drugs. While the latter probably extends to humans, it's also fairly trivial. Extrapolating the first study to explain increased reported depression in most demographics over the last decade is rather ludicrous, though.

So really, let's get rid of real capital, and then see what happens to 'social capital'. If the development of technology does necessarily drive it down somehow, then that's not a problem because it's not important.

[bailey_187]

Franz Fanonipants once again shows himself not deserving of his username.

[bailey_187]

“for centuries [the Western world has] stifled almost the whole of humanity in the name of a so-called spiritual experience.” (Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth, p. 311)

Looks like a few Western "radicals" are doing the same again...

[Franz Fanonipants]

no one likes you bruh its ok bruh i like you

[Robocommie]

“for centuries [the Western world has] stifled almost the whole of humanity in the name of a so-called spiritual experience.” (Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth, p. 311)


What edition are you using? My WotE has no page 311.

[Invincible Summer]

The Human Progress Group = Capitalist Chauvinists

the end

/thread

Are you like 12 years old? You responses in this thread have been largely one-liners and vacuous statements that show your lack of respect for the opinions of other users - you don't listen and just want to respond "4 teh lulz."

I swear you're a troll

[bailey_187]

What edition are you using? My WotE has no page 311.

its in the first few paragraphs of the conclusion.

[RadioRaheem84]

Are you like 12 years old? You responses in this thread have been largely one-liners and vacuous statements that show your lack of respect for the opinions of other users - you don't listen and just want to respond "4 teh lulz."

I swear you're a troll

I thought it was just his shtick but maybe it's not? :confused:

[black magick hustla]

i used to be subscribed to some shitty pro situ mail list and there was once an exchange between a primitivist and an anti primitivist. the anti primitivist made a very nice post:

I will always take the side of science-fiction and utopian dreamer over the "choiceless choice" offered by the mechanist monetarist and the reductionist anti-humanist. "Rocke-Nazi" is a class and class unconsciousness is acceptance of reduced "choices". The suicide of dream by the left and its "anarchist" pseudo-opposition is not appealing to me or to anyone who doesn't embrace "giving up". Just because theory died for them doesn't mean it has to for humanity. They are not the vanguard even though they may think so. They are lemmings whose belief that joy and possibility are dead IS their own mantra of irrelevance. The time for dream and desire is EXACTLY what the Situationists, real anarchists (Malatesta, Bakunin), and utopian socialists (Owen, Fourier) gifted us. I return to that gift not out of fetish but as thankful recipient of a history based in "reaching for the stars" as one who is made from the stuff of those very stars. Dreamers are the expansion of the universe and not the boring adoration of its collapse -- with all the one-sided negativity, pessimism, and cynicism manufactured by the internal contradictions of human civilization held in its own political-economic chains. The joy of occasionally trusting, laughing, playing, and loving is testimony to a world not fully destroyed by species-guiltmongering and speculating hierarchicalists. Scarcity is counter-revolutionary and those embracing it as reality are already dead in their hearts and imagination, or at least pretend to be as the hangovers of maudlin Baudrillard and Rockefellerian self-reductionism are tolerated in the consumptive fashion worlds of character and ideology. As "way of life" and "being" in the world, they serve only a hollow and enslaved humanity. The fear of dreaming is the fear to live without having one's choices directed by "what is". Making reality means taking it in the imagination as well.

[gorillafuck]

I hate to break up the technophobic circle jerk, but what is the solution? We sit around in grass huts with no electricity listening to our 8-track players, waiting for the revolution?.
I like that you combined grass huts and no electricity with 8-track players.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Are you like 12 years old? You responses in this thread have been largely one-liners and vacuous statements that show your lack of respect for the opinions of other users - you don't listen and just want to respond "4 teh lulz."

I swear you're a troll

I take people's Star Trek Socialism very, very seriously.

e. Less flippantly: I honestly think a lot of technocrats and "pro-progress" people are either a. racist (which, as I've discussed I don't view discussing whether or not comrade's values and views are racist so don't go freaking out and crying about how a non-white comrade thinks you're a racist), or b. ridiculously utopian and worshipful. If you look at my posts at the beginning of the thread I'm more serious, as the arguments shift to: "lol look at u primitivistailures" I respond in kind.

The fact that people can't deal with the idea that the ruling class own and operate the means of production, and therefore the distribution and in many focus of technological "progress" makes me take them way less seriously than they probably deserve to be taken. Sorry.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I will always take the side of science-fiction and utopian dreamer over the "choiceless choice" offered by the mechanist monetarist and the reductionist anti-humanist.

This is essentially why "pro-progress" is such a stupid fucking position. I don't offer a "choiceless choice," rather I have a vision of poor people being able to live a good, healthy, long life (if they choose), pursue education, and broadly be able to have material opportunities they wouldn't under capitalism.

The only person who would be unhappy that my vision for people's choices don't include living on mars in tight spandex uniforms is a total, screaming, first world baby moron. I'm sorry.

[Invincible Summer]

This is essentially why "pro-progress" is such a stupid fucking position. I don't offer a "choiceless choice," rather I have a vision of poor people being able to live a good, healthy, long life (if they choose), pursue education, and broadly be able to have material opportunities they wouldn't under capitalism.
Emphasis mine.

But I thought we've been talking about "progress" within capitalism? I don't think anyone disagrees with you if you're talking about post-capitalism in this specific post.


The only person who would be unhappy that my vision for people's choices don't include living on mars in tight spandex uniforms is a total, screaming, first world baby moron. I'm sorry.
No one advocates this

[Franz Fanonipants]

But I thought we've been talking about "progress" within capitalism? I don't think anyone disagrees with you if you're talking about post-capitalism in this specific post.

I think plenty of people still have a ridiculous technology fetish that's fueled by capitalism. That simple.

If I had an obsession (as in I always talked about how rad they were) with Market Forces and talked about them all the time, I'd be a suspicious Marxist. The constant privileging of technology by technocrats and etc. makes them similarly suspicious in my eyes.

[black magick hustla]

This is essentially why "pro-progress" is such a stupid fucking position. I don't offer a "choiceless choice," rather I have a vision of poor people being able to live a good, healthy, long life (if they choose), pursue education, and broadly be able to have material opportunities they wouldn't under capitalism.

The only person who would be unhappy that my vision for people's choices don't include living on mars in tight spandex uniforms is a total, screaming, first world baby moron. I'm sorry.

idk, i just quoted an email i thought was interesting but sci fi is not really just a first world phenomenon tbh. i dont see what is wrong about dreaming about technological utopias. its more fuckin interesting than a garden of eden. communists have talked about post

[black magick hustla]

idk, i just quoted an email i thought was interesting but sci fi is not really just a first world phenomenon tbh. i dont see what is wrong about dreaming about technological utopias. its more fuckin interesting than a garden of eden. communists have talked about post Today 01:49idk, i just quoted an email i thought was interesting but sci fi is not really just a first world phenomenon tbh. i dont see what is wrong about dreaming about technological utopias. its more fuckin interesting than a garden of eden. communists have talked about post scarcity society and the scientific management of resources for ages.count of saint simon was talking about this already in the early 19th century.

[Franz Fanonipants]

i don't disagree w/you maldoror, sorry for the sharp response.

i just think the sci-fi aspect of it is fucking silly.

[Invincible Summer]

i just think the sci-fi aspect of it is fucking silly.

Why? If you're a communist you're already asking for a very big thing. And you're a Christian too, so you believe in Heaven and God and all that. I'd say that's even more utopian than any "sci fi" stuff.


So what's so "fucking silly" about it?

[Franz Fanonipants]

I prefer Middle Eastern mysticism to 20th Century American idealism?

fuck idk

[Invincible Summer]

I prefer Middle Eastern mysticism to 20th Century American idealism?

fuck idk

Hahaha okay you could've just said that in the first place.


"Hey guys fuck this technology shit... mysticism is where it's at!"

[Franz Fanonipants]

Hahaha okay you could've just said that in the first place.


"Hey guys fuck this technology shit... mysticism is where it's at!"

No, I mean that's not representative of me either.

I think technology is ok. It's a tool though. Nothing more nothing less. Certainly nothing transcendent.

[Robocommie]

No, I mean that's not representative of me either.

I think technology is ok. It's a tool though. Nothing more nothing less. Certainly nothing transcendent.

Exactly this. Technology is still ultimately an extension of humanity. That we build better tools is of course something worth valuing, but focusing on those tools at the expense of the human factor is perverse.

Think of the developments we could engage in as a species if we were to labor to bring the rest of humanity up to the level of the most technologically advanced societies on Earth. That must be our focus, compassion and justice demands it to be so.

[NGNM85]

Exactly this. Technology is still ultimately an extension of humanity. That we build better tools is of course something worth valuing, but focusing on those tools at the expense of the human factor is perverse.

Think of the developments we could engage in as a species if we were to labor to bring the rest of humanity up to the level of the most technologically advanced societies on Earth. That must be our focus, compassion and justice demands it to be so.

.........Has anybody suggested otherwise?

[Delenda Carthago]

whoever thinks technology aint progress,can kiss his computer goodbye and start to send me smoke signals.when he/she wants to listen to music,can hit a wooden stick with rhythm etc.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think plenty of people still have a ridiculous technology fetish that's fueled by capitalism. That simple.

What you call a "ridiculous ... fetish" I call justified enthusiasm. Technology offers benefits and potentials that have nothing to do with money or wage-slavery.


If I had an obsession (as in I always talked about how rad they were) with Market Forces and talked about them all the time, I'd be a suspicious Marxist. The constant privileging of technology by technocrats and etc. makes them similarly suspicious in my eyes.

How exactly is it "suspicious"? Certainly my own advocacy for advanced technology is genuine and has no ulterior motive, and the technologies I support do not require money or wage slavery in order to be socially viable.

You seem to be confusing a market-induced thirst for iPods and other trinkets with a real appreciation for the transformative power of technology.

[Franz Fanonipants]

whoever thinks technology aint progress,can kiss his computer goodbye and start to send me smoke signals.when he/she wants to listen to music,can hit a wooden stick with rhythm etc.

this isn't racist at ALL

[bcbm]

i like how if you question technological progress and production as it exists under capitalism, you are automatically some foaming at the mouth primitivist who wants everyone to love in a pre-industrial utopia. :glare:

more serious reply later when i have more time.

[LimitedIdeology]

i like how if you question technological progress and production as it exists under capitalism, you are automatically some foaming at the mouth primitivist who wants everyone to love in a pre-industrial utopia. :glare:

more serious reply later when i have more time.
The wonders of a culture where people would die for plastic music players.

[Eastside Revolt]

I remember a time when this site was not welcome to "primitivists". I myself do not in any way identify as a primitivist, though I am extremely refreshed to see that a constructive discussion is actually happening on this subject. Not that the dialoge hasn't existed in the real world for quite some time!:rolleyes:

The goals of western civilization and capitalism, are one and the same as far as I'm concerned.

I think "bcbm" put it pretty clearly about they way in which the modes of production, that support an industrial highly technological civilization, have an inherently negative effect on people aroung the world.

As far as alienation is concerned, forget about spending too much time on the internet! How about the fact that racism and misogyny, were completely necessary in order to achieve the world wide exploitation that exists today!

Read "The Caliban and the Witch", by Sylvia Frederici, it has a pretty solid analysis on it, well at least the misogyny part....

A truly anit-capitalist revolution will have to be anti-colonial and anti-patriarchal at the same time, meaning that we can no longer think of this white-supremacist concept of "progress" as the only viable form of human organization. Even in the most utopian technocratic society I can imagine, the materials still have to come from somewhere, and you can be sure that some people would still like some clean drinking water, and a way to grow food after the revolution, call me crazy!

[Theoneontheleft]

I would say that technology for good is progress, such as medicine, space exploration, transportation, & communication; but when the aforementioned things are used solely for profit, then it becomes a regression. And sadly, these things are being used by our regressive Capitalistic Western Society for profit. So in my opinion, it is not the technology that is the problem, but it is the way our Western Capitalist businesses exploit that technology which is the problem.

[bcbm]

That sounds good, but what does it mean in practice? To use your example, the private motor vehicle may have its environmental impact reduced and/or its social role changed, or it may be replaced with some other technology, but as long as civilisation sticks around we will still need a transportation system that's better than walking or using an animal.

i'm not questioning the need for advanced technology of most sorts but i am questioning the application of such technologies. to continue with this example, most urban and even rural life could be reconfigured to need no more than a bicycle to get around, with efficient public transportation for longer distances. until we've perfected a more green method of travel, though, i think its prudent to figure out ways to reduce our overall need to import and export so many goods to survive. even if such a need were to remain as it is today, though, we need better solutions than semi-decrepit ships hauling things across the seas and trucks bringing them across the land.

basically what it means in practice is to reconsider all aspects of production and re-arrange them in such a way that is beneficial to humanity while diminishing as far as possible the impact on the planet.


I don't think "western civilisation" exists at all, except as some kind of propagandistic rallying point for reactionary blowhards, or as a strawman target for swivel-eyed idealogues. Borders tend to be far too porous, especially these days, to classify civilisations as wholly "western" or otherwise.

In fact, I would argue that there is currently only one human civilisation, such is the level of global interconnectedness and interdependance that was unthinkable in previous times. If shit goes down in South Africa, the whole world hears about it, or at least those bits of it that are interested.

i think it is clear what is meant by "western civilization" and the fact that it has come to dominate almost the entire globe doesn't diminish it.


The idea that we can create some idyllic Arcadia is a form of wishful thinking that looks at the pre-global world through rose-tinted spectacles; furthermore, this kind of romanticist thinking has lead to some thoroughly reactionary conclusions that deserve no place in a world where humans have the potential to inherit the universe.

i'm curious what you think this idea has to do with anything i have said? i haven't said anything about the "pre-global world," nor do i think my conclusions have anything to do with romanticism and more to do with the fact that 200 years of almost unfettered industrial development have brought us to a position of near global catastrophe and that perhaps, just perhaps, it might be worth rethinking our relationship with the current system of production.