Can we love technology and hate Capitalism?

[jediknight36]

I admit it. I love technology. I love how well my smartphone keeps me connected with my comrades, I love how my mac runs and is virus free, I love how social media has changed the face of the internet and allowed us to broadcast our ideals. But in the face of all this is one huge problem:

My smartphone, my mac, my router, all of it was made by poor, overworked, underpaid people in another country for a fraction of what we must pay for it. Then there is the services tied to it, and the robbery that we are forced to pay for what is considered a human right in a growing number of countries; access to the internet. How can I love such technologies without a contradiction, even as I use it to undermine the people who sell it to us, ie "the rope we shall hang them from."?

In solidarity.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Everybody is a consumer, it's just your choice as to how much or what you want to buy. The fact that you can choose to purchase fancy, overpriced electronics does not imply that one should feel guilty for being a consumer. The inequality of consumption in society is not your fault.

[FreeFocus]

Everybody is a consumer, it's just your choice as to how much or what you want to buy. The fact that you can choose to purchase fancy, overpriced electronics does not imply that one should feel guilty for being a consumer. The inequality of consumption in society is not your fault.

I disagree. If one has knowledge of bad, unjust things and structures, but then participate in it (forced or not), a feeling of guilt is natural. Indeed, I would question any leftist's ethics who was knowledgeable about sweat shop conditions and didn't feel sick to their stomach when buying a pair of jeans. One shouldn't blame themselves, nor feel powerless: one should channel their humanity, their sense of disgust, anger, and/or guilt into working to establish socialism.

To answer jedi, you can love what something can be without loving what it is. I know that sounds terribly cliched or even non-leftist, but loving the potential that something has and seeing the reality fall far short can encourage you to usher in some changes.

[9]

I disagree. If one has knowledge of bad, unjust things and structures, but then participate in it (forced or not), a feeling of guilt is natural.
So, let's use the example of a slave who is, obviously, forced to 'participate' in the institution of slavery by virtue of being a slave... you think it would be natural for him to feel guilty for his 'participation' in slavery? I don't think so at all. And in fact, I think if he did feel guilty, it would only serve to keep him subdued - just as his masters want him to be.


Indeed, I would question any leftist's ethics who was knowledgeable about sweat shop conditions and didn't feel sick to their stomach when buying a pair of jeans.Why would you feel any more sick to your stomach about it when purchasing something than you would when not purchasing anything? Do you think that if you stopped buying jeans the people who work in sweatshops making jeans would miraculously no longer be forced to sell their labor power in order to survive?

[mykittyhasaboner]

I disagree. If one has knowledge of bad, unjust things and structures, but then participate in it (forced or not), a feeling of guilt is natural.

Perhaps a feeling of guilt is natural, i can understand this kind of view, but what do we make of workers working their jobs or owning/renting homes for example? What of even purchasing food? Should people feel "guilty" for merely living there lives according to social constructs which almost never come into question in any meaningful way? How do you propose people feel guilty about things they hardly even question?

Even if one has any kind of working understanding of capitalism and why it is particularly detrimental to human relations, this doesn't necessitate that one stops for example, using the internet as we are doing, or a plethora of other things because they feel 'guilty'.


Indeed, I would question any leftist's ethics who was knowledgeable about sweat shop conditions and didn't feel sick to their stomach when buying a pair of jeans.By this logic, people should feel sick to there stomach all day. i don't contend such an opinion, i feel pretty sick and tired about shit i see going on all day, everyday. i just don't think guilt should be attached to objects or the act of consumption. Relationships between people are just mediated and objectified in things, specifically commodities.


One shouldn't blame themselves, nor feel powerless: one should channel their humanity, their sense of disgust, anger, and/or guilt into working to establish socialism.
To answer jedi, you can love what something can be without loving what it is. I know that sounds terribly cliched or even non-leftist, but loving the potential that something has and seeing the reality fall far short can encourage you to usher in some changes.i agree.

[scarletghoul]

OP- most communists love technology. The USSR certainly invested a lot in it, for example. Humanity has a lot of potential with all its technological advancements, but the problem is so much of it is squandered on profit under capitalism,, if we had a proper socialist economy then technology could be used for the common good (see Cybersyn in Chile, the Libyan desert water project, etc etc)

[x371322]

I've got a couple of Macs (iMac and Macbook Pro). They're nice machines. As others have said you shouldn't feel guilty for your choice of computer. It's only a tool. A tool you pretty much can't do without these days. All corporations do shitty things. Whether your buying an iPhone, or a loaf of bread. You can't escape it.

Don't worry about it. Invest that energy in something more productive for the movement.

:cool:

[Ele'ill]

I admit it. I love technology. I love how well my smartphone keeps me connected with my comrades, I love how my mac runs and is virus free, I love how social media has changed the face of the internet and allowed us to broadcast our ideals. But in the face of all this is one huge problem:

My smartphone, my mac, my router, all of it was made by poor, overworked, underpaid people in another country for a fraction of what we must pay for it. Then there is the services tied to it, and the robbery that we are forced to pay for what is considered a human right in a growing number of countries; access to the internet. How can I love such technologies without a contradiction, even as I use it to undermine the people who sell it to us, ie "the rope we shall hang them from."?

In solidarity.

The working poor use the items they produce too.

[jediknight36]

The working poor use the items they produce too.

Only if they can afford them.

The reason I even ask is because in my Tapatalk signature it promoted my phone, the EVO. I really like the phone, but was rightfully call on the fact I was promoting a corporation that uses slave labor. So is it right to have a favourite technology or item when it promotes that kind of labour?

In solidarity and peace

[Kaze no Kae]

I admit it. I love technology. I love how well my smartphone keeps me connected with my comrades, I love how my mac runs and is virus free, I love how social media has changed the face of the internet and allowed us to broadcast our ideals. But in the face of all this is one huge problem:

My smartphone, my mac, my router, all of it was made by poor, overworked, underpaid people in another country for a fraction of what we must pay for it. Then there is the services tied to it, and the robbery that we are forced to pay for what is considered a human right in a growing number of countries; access to the internet. How can I love such technologies without a contradiction, even as I use it to undermine the people who sell it to us, ie "the rope we shall hang them from."?

In solidarity.
Yes, we can, because technology doesn't have to be produced on a capitalist basis and indeed a socialist society could produce better technology because it would be produced for social need not for profit and because funding for research wouldn't be subject to the preconcieved ideas of the financiers. For the time being, we don't really have a choice about funding corporations by buying corporate products because by and large, that's what's available to us.


The reason I even ask is because in my Tapatalk signature it promoted my phone, the EVO. I really like the phone, but was rightfully call on the fact I was promoting a corporation that uses slave labor. So is it right to have a favourite technology or item when it promotes that kind of labour?As people have said, all corporations exploit their workers to one extent or another. If we can afford to do so we can favour "fair trade" goods (which keep the profit margin and even add another layer to it in the form of the "fair trade" label, but are able to exploit the worker less by exploiting the consumer more) and workers' cooperatives if they're around, but we can't avoid buying some - most, in most cases - of our goods from corporations which exploit their workers

[Ele'ill]

Only if they can afford them.


Of course it depends on the who, where, when, etc.. of what we're talking about but for the most part they find a way to use it. It's just harder, often inappropriate in relation to where money could be going, takes longer to acquire and is often not top of the line or the 'newest'.

[Nial Fossjet]

Why don't we ask the Technocrats?

[Crimson Commissar]

There is no link between technology and capitalism. I personally believe capitalism is restricting technology, capitalists only develop it in a way that will bring them more profit. Technology is essential to progress humanity, I doubt there's any way we could live without it anymore.

[Amphictyonis]

Everybody is a consumer, it's just your choice as to how much or what you want to buy. The fact that you can choose to purchase fancy, overpriced electronics does not imply that one should feel guilty for being a consumer. The inequality of consumption in society is not your fault.

KKbHA76-Hi0 Freedom is not "the freedom to choose" a bunch of garbage some capitalist has made for us. Freedom is controlling what we make, when we make it and how. Freedom is democratically using the technology mankind has created for the equal benefit of mankind. Capitalist consumerism is NOT freedom.

[synthesis]

Freedom is not "the freedom to choose" a bunch of garbage some capitalist has made for us. Freedom is controlling what we make, when we make it and how. Freedom is democratically using the technology mankind has created for the equal benefit of mankind. Capitalist consumerism is NOT freedom.

I don't think "freedom" factored into any of the posts in this thread.

[Amphictyonis]

I don't think "freedom" factored into any of the posts in this thread.

Choice choice freedom to choose. I'm honestly a tad discouraged to see so many posters on here not know the difference between capitalist generated consumerism and the sort of rational consumption we should all strive to maintain. Communism or no communism. I guess you'd have to read and watch the same material I have. There's a whole world of propaganda out there you apparently can't even see. Propaganda telling you what to want, when to want it and how to attain it.

Start by reading about Edward Bernays.

0KLnaQhC73o

The point is we shouldn't hate technology we should have the ability to see how it is being used under capitalism- it's being used to pacify us, to control us, to enslave us. The opposite would be true under communism.

[Apoi_Viitor]

I disagree with Crimson Commissar, because there clearly is a relationship between capitalism and technology. Of course, it is an inverse one - as the structure of capitalism discourages risky (albeit groundbreaking) forays into technology. It is quite likely that most of the technological inventions that are a part of a given product, can be traced back to the public sector.

The saintly Alan recently gave a talk to newspaper editors in the US. He spoke passionately about the miracles of the market, the wonders bought by consumer choice and so on. He also gave some examples: the Internet, computers, information processing, lasers, satellites, transistors.28 It's an interesting list: these are textbook examples of creativity and production in the public sector. In the case of the Internet, for thirty years it was designed, developed, and funded primarily in the public sector, mostly the Pentagon, then the National Science Foundation, that's most of the hardware, the software, new ideas, technology and so on. In just the last couple of years it has been handed over to people like Bill Gates who, at least, you have to admire for his honesty: he attributes his success to his ability to 'embrace and extend' the ideas of others, commonly others in the public sector.29 In the case of the Internet, consumer choice was close to zero, and during the crucial development stages the same is true of computers, information processing, and all the rest, unless by 'consumer' you mean the government; that is, public subsidy.

In fact, of all the examples that Greenspan gives, the only one that rises maybe to the level of a joke is transistors, and they are an interesting case. Transistors, in fact, were developed in a private laboratory - Bell Telephone Laboratories of AT&T - which also made major contributions to solar cells, radio astronomy, information theory, and lots of other important things. But what is the role of markets and consumer choice in that? Well again, it turns out, zero. AT&T was a government supported monopoly, so there was no consumer choice, and as a monopoly they could charge high prices: in effect, a tax on the public which they could use for institutions like Bell Laboratories where they could do all of this work. So again, it's publicly subsidised. As if to demonstrate the point, as soon as the industry was deregulated Bell Labs went out of existence, because the public wasn't paying for it any more: its successors work mostly on short-term applied projects. But that's only the beginning of the story. True, Bell Labs invented transistors, but they used wartime technology which, again, was publicly subsidised and state-initiated. Furthermore there was nobody to buy transistors at that time, because they were very expensive to produce.

So, for ten years the government was the major procurer, particularly for high-performance transistors. In 1958 the Bell Telephone supplier, Western Electric, was producing hundreds of thousands of these, but solely for military applications. Government procurement provided entrepreneurial initiatives and guided the development of the technology, which could then be disseminated to industry. That's 'consumer choice' and the 'miracle of the market' in the one case that you can even look at without ridicule. And in fact that story generalises, even the most ignorant economist must know this. The dynamic sectors of the economy rely crucially on massive public subsidy, innovation and creativity; the examples that Greenspan gave are mostly some of the most dramatic cases of this. It's a revealing set of choices. A lot of this is masked as defence, but that's not all, the same is true in biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and so on.

http://www.chomsky.info/talks/199805--.htm

[BuddhaInBabylon]

wonderful discussion. i have thought about this topic many times before...Capitalism is indeed inhibiting the evolution of technology. here in the united states we spend more on national defense than anything while the oceans remain largely a mystery at its depths, and we destroy the very ecosystems that sustain us all. how backwards and naive we are...

[Thirsty Crow]

Of course it is natural to feel guilt when realizing what kind of lives some of us lead in comparison to people who literally do not have nothing.
But it's not our consumer habits/choices that matter ultimately, it's rather our actions within the movement (if such a thing exists) that could challenge the supremacy of this mode of production. And guilt can in fact act like a good emotional incentive to remain active.
One possible illusion here would be the following: consumer choices as a political statement/action.
Sure, people may rightfully choose, on an individual level, not to buy garments from a Californian sweatshop (just an example), and spread the message around, but they shouldn't harbour any illusions that these kind of actions will have a political impact, if they remain isolated from what we can call militant working class politics. They cannot be an end unto itself.
One also shouldn't delude himself/herself into thinking that abandoning every material comfort is the right thing to do (see paragraph above) as, it seems to me, this attitude would also constitute would be political behaviour described above.


It is quite likely that most of the technological inventions that are a part of a given product, can be traced back to the public sector.It is very likely, and it is also verly likely that the "public sector" is in fact the milltary-industrial complex.
So, our refrigerators and microwave ovens, as well as our computers and cell phones, "originate" in research and production for destruction.

[core_1]

Anyone who loves technology should hate capitalism. The potential for scientfic development is now magnified to such a point that old impossiblities are being done away with. Modern means of communication and transport (i.e. the internet, telephone connections, planes, trains, automobiles) now provide us with the ability to equally distribute nessecities throughout the globe. This technology has the potential to lead to a national and international society of abundance. There is enough food in the world to feed the earth's population 1 and a half times over and there is now the technology to accomplish this. Yet the profit motive means that (worldwide) 1.4 trillion dollars are instead directed into military technology. Thousands die of cholera in Haiti because medical suppliers are motivated by profit. Thousands die because they can't afford the medication that is probably sitting in surplus. New weapons are developed constantly that will ultimately be used for the destruction of other technology. Capitalism is a hindrance to science just as feudalism was.

[electro_fan]

i think that with everything you do you are still participating in capitalism, and unless you go to live in a cave or something, everything you do will still affect someone else indirectly as that is the nature of the system we live in. i dont buy Israeli goods for example and i try to buy organic food wherever i can as it better for the animals, and I dont buy from some companies like Heinz that have workers on strike at the moment but i am not going to feel guilty about something that is not my fault. Blaming consumers is a stupid way of going about defeating capitalism, as the whole point of capitalism is that we have choice but we dont really actually have a choice of anything. the fact is that the majority of the working population have no choice but to buy cheap and "unethical" products and i dont think people should be condemned, for buying expensive gadgets to entertain themselves !!

the people who go to live "off grid" or whatever, usually are able to do so because they have enough money and acces to land etc etc etc, in the first place

[9]

Of course it is natural to feel guilt when realizing what kind of lives some of us lead in comparison to people who literally do not have nothing.
But it's not our consumer habits/choices that matter ultimately, it's rather our actions within the movement (if such a thing exists) that could challenge the supremacy of this mode of production. And guilt can in fact act like a good emotional incentive to remain active.

"active" in what, though? In liberal campaigns? In 'food not bombs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Not_Bombs)'? I don't think many workers are going to start fighting in defense of their wages and their working conditions if they feel guilty about "what kind of lives [they] lead in comparison to people who literally do not have [any]thing", to borrow your words. If you don't feel you even deserve the standard of living you have, why would you fight to defend it, let alone demand better?

[B0LSHEVIK]

[QUOTE=jediknight36;1969521]How can I love such technologies without a contradiction, even as I use it to undermine the people who sell it to us, ie "the rope we shall hang them from."? [QUOTE]

Thats the catch. They sell it you. Technology has advanced in leaps and bounds since industrialization, be it in a capitalist/communist society. In a Cap world, they regulate profit from and control technology that would otherwise be used to move humanity foward. Green technology comes to mind. Also in a cap world, you have copyrights, legal issues, etc preventing people from freely employing certain technologies. Medications controlled by pharmaceuticals come to mind.

In the end, technology was probably developed from a schmock in a lab who gets no royalties and instead benefits those in the corporate institution in which he works. In other words, a worker developed it.

I think there is a difference in paths though. Capitalist society has filled our lives with little gadgets and gizmos that are next to useless, usually. These are also a status symbols and represent rank within the heirarchial ladder of society. Socialist technology on the otherhand, theoretically at least, would benefit us all. Like a vaccine or new green techs or advancement in agriculture, etc. Something that would us all foward, equally, and openly available to all.

[Thirsty Crow]

"active" in what, though? In liberal campaigns? In 'food not bombs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Not_Bombs)'? I don't think many workers are going to start fighting in defense of their wages and their working conditions if they feel guilty about "what kind of lives [they] lead in comparison to people who literally do not have [any]thing", to borrow your words. If you don't feel you even deserve the standard of living you have, why would you fight to defend it, let alone demand better?

Liberal campaigns?
I don't know what exactly are you referring to by "liberal campaigns", but I was referring to a broadly conceived class struggle (direct economic struggle by means of strikes and anti-austerity actions for example, in combination with a political framework which clearly and uncompromisingly aims at the abolition of capitalism) with a strong internationalist bent.
And it's not a matter of feeling as if you do not deserve the standard of living you have, but rather that there are numerous people who do not deserve the standard of living they have. Here one must constantly remind himself/herself (or be reminded) that it is only collectively that we may abolish the very conditions which engender such differences. And guilt, arising from the potential that underpins international working class solidarity, may act as something that pushes an individual or whole groups into action. Otherwise, class struggle may amount to reformism, what you call fighting for better wages and working conditions, and an abandonment of that what is necessary to end the social relations which enable whole populations to endure horrendous living standards...the abolition of capitalism.

[Vanguard1917]

Can we love technology and hate Capitalism? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/can-we-love-p1969543/index.html#post1969543)
Firstly, you should indeed hate capitalism, but know precisely why you hate it, and what you wish to see in its place.

Secondly, socialists are great admirers of capitalism's dynamic historical features -- a central part of which is its revolutionisation of human technology. There is no similarity between us and the various reactionary "anti-capitalists" that these days pass themselves off as progressives but who in fact hate the very features of capitalism that are actually historically progressive. As Marx and Engels put it in the Manifesto:

"The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades."

Thirdly, however, we recognise that, while capitalism does have dynamic features, it also has destructive ones, and it places fetters on the further development of industry and technology. Indeed, that's why we oppose it -- unlike the reactionary "anti-capitalists" aforementioned, who oppose capitalism because they feel that it creates too much development and progress.


I disagree. If one has knowledge of bad, unjust things and structures, but then participate in it (forced or not), a feeling of guilt is natural. Indeed, I would question any leftist's ethics who was knowledgeable about sweat shop conditions and didn't feel sick to their stomach when buying a pair of jeans.

Well, here is one leftist for you that never engages in any such self-important 'consumerist ethics' bullshit. Workers in poor countries don't need to be felt sorry for by privileged Westerners -- they need mass economic development, something which those same Westerners are likely to argue against.

[Asklepios]

I have thought about this question many times. And, well... I can't feed my family, if I do not purchase technology.

So my realization was this: It is as difficult for a socialist to live his/her ideals in a capitalist society, as it would be for a capitalist to live his/her ideals in a socialist society.

[pranabjyoti]

What is damaging the environment isn't the technology but rather a lesser level of development of technologies. They can be improved at present, but the control is in the hands of a wealthy few and they JUST DON'T CARE ABOUT THE REST OF THE WORLD.
In a socialist society, technology will take its original place and will serve the whole mankind of instead of a few. Instead of cutting jobs, it will cut the working hours down. Instead of damaging environment, it will help to regain the losses of the damaged environment.

[electro_fan]

I have thought about this question many times. And, well... I can't feed my family, if I do not purchase technology.

So my realization was this: It is as difficult for a socialist to live his/her ideals in a capitalist society, as it would be for a capitalist to live his/her ideals in a socialist society.

but that's nothing to do wth technology is it?

[FreeFocus]

Well, here is one leftist for you that never engages in any such self-important 'consumerist ethics' bullshit. Workers in poor countries don't need to be felt sorry for by privileged Westerners -- they need mass economic development, something which those same Westerners are likely to argue against.

I don't advocate boycotts as a real legitimate strategy, and personal choices won't result in structural changes, so get off it. I'm all for "mass economic development" everywhere, the problem is you advocate more capitalism for people in poor countries, not less. They don't need more exploitation, they need the boot of imperialism lifted from their necks.

And you're right. I don't fucking "admire" anything about capitalism. The way history ended up happening, capitalism provided the raw material base for human advancement (at the expense of millions of lives, the environment, and social development. Those are the things you and people like you ignore) in terms of scale of production. I don't subscribe to the idea that capitalism was needed to reach this.

[jediknight36]

I don't advocate boycotts as a real legitimate strategy, and personal choices won't result in structural changes, so get off it. I'm all for "mass economic development" everywhere, the problem is you advocate more capitalism for people in poor countries, not less. They don't need more exploitation, they need the boot of imperialism lifted from their necks.

And you're right. I don't fucking "admire" anything about capitalism. The way history ended up happening, capitalism provided the raw material base for human advancement (at the expense of millions of lives, the environment, and social development. Those are the things you and people like you ignore) in terms of scale of production. I don't subscribe to the idea that capitalism was needed to reach this.

Ive been reading the exchanges in my email, and this one caught me. IIRC, Marx said that Capitalism was needed to bring us out of Feudalism through the industrialized age. But most of the advancements of the 20th century were not made for profit at all, and many of them were backed by one government or another. Capitalism was needed. WAS. Not anymore. Not for many decades.

[FreeFocus]

Ive been reading the exchanges in my email, and this one caught me. IIRC, Marx said that Capitalism was needed to bring us out of Feudalism through the industrialized age. But most of the advancements of the 20th century were not made for profit at all, and many of them were backed by one government or another. Capitalism was needed. WAS. Not anymore. Not for many decades.

I'm also not a Marxist and the word of Marx is not the supreme word of man to me, so this means little to me. Moreover, that is the European socioeconomic progression. My people didn't have feudalism. I suppose capitalism is an advancement of feudalism, certainly in terms of potential, but not necessarily in terms of social development. Social development is something that I care about, I'm not only concerned with economic tangibles. Some people might say this makes me a non-materialist, but the attention that I pay to social development doesn't mean I don't acknowledge that history is driven by material reality.

[jediknight36]

I'm also not a Marxist and the word of Marx is not the supreme word of man to me, so this means little to me. Moreover, that is the European socioeconomic progression. My people didn't have feudalism. I suppose capitalism is an advancement of feudalism, certainly in terms of potential, but not necessarily in terms of social development. Social development is something that I care about, I'm not only concerned with economic tangibles. Some people might say this makes me a non-materialist, but the attention that I pay to social development doesn't mean I don't acknowledge that history is driven by material reality.

Interesting. Yes, I know Marx isnt the end all be all. But a good guideline anyway. May I ask, what peoples are you from? Because unless you are a native to the americas, then yes, a type of feudalism did happen. In fact, you could argue that even in the americas, feudalism existed and would have followed the same progression Europe and asia did if not for Imperialist Europe invading, yada yada yada.

And social development is key to any social change. It cant be ignored.

[FreeFocus]

Interesting. Yes, I know Marx isnt the end all be all. But a good guideline anyway. May I ask, what peoples are you from? Because unless you are a native to the americas, then yes, a type of feudalism did happen. In fact, you could argue that even in the americas, feudalism existed and would have followed the same progression Europe and asia did if not for Imperialist Europe invading, yada yada yada.

And social development is key to any social change. It cant be ignored.

Yes, I'm "American" Indian. Some nations in South America and Mesoamerica may have resembled a feudal arrangement, but this wasn't really the case in North America (and you can debate about groups like the Incas in South America, the Aztecs in Mexico, etc. They had some features but not all). There may be a handful of exceptions, but even in chiefdoms, there wasn't a social alliance between chiefs and warriors that was like what you had in Europe. There weren't serfs compelled to labor the land.

Can you cite any examples of sub-Saharan African societies having feudalism? I'd also be interested in Pacific Islanders. I'm aware that the bulk of Eurasia lived under feudalism but I'm not sure it existed in a meaningful way outside of that region.

[jediknight36]

Yes, I'm "American" Indian. Some nations in South America and Mesoamerica may have resembled a feudal arrangement, but this wasn't really the case in North America (and you can debate about groups like the Incas in South America, the Aztecs in Mexico, etc. They had some features but not all). There may be a handful of exceptions, but even in chiefdoms, there wasn't a social alliance between chiefs and warriors that was like what you had in Europe. There weren't serfs compelled to labor the land.

Can you cite any examples of sub-Saharan African societies having feudalism? I'd also be interested in Pacific Islanders. I'm aware that the bulk of Eurasia lived under feudalism but I'm not sure it existed in a meaningful way outside of that region.

Like you said, similar, but not exactly. Interesting, it seems to be chiefly a symptom of peoples north of the equator.

[ckaihatsu]

I'm also not a Marxist and the word of Marx is not the supreme word of man to me, so this means little to me. Moreover, that is the European socioeconomic progression. My people didn't have feudalism.




I suppose capitalism is an advancement of feudalism, certainly in terms of potential, but not necessarily in terms of social development. Social development is something that I care about, I'm not only concerned with economic tangibles. Some people might say this makes me a non-materialist, but the attention that I pay to social development doesn't mean I don't acknowledge that history is driven by material reality.


I, for one, would be interested to know what you happen to think the relationship, or dynamic, is between the two (social development and economic tangibles).... Care to take this one up -- ?

[Dr Mindbender]

I admit it. I love technology. I love how well my smartphone keeps me connected with my comrades, I love how my mac runs and is virus free, I love how social media has changed the face of the internet and allowed us to broadcast our ideals. But in the face of all this is one huge problem:

My smartphone, my mac, my router, all of it was made by poor, overworked, underpaid people in another country for a fraction of what we must pay for it. Then there is the services tied to it, and the robbery that we are forced to pay for what is considered a human right in a growing number of countries; access to the internet. How can I love such technologies without a contradiction, even as I use it to undermine the people who sell it to us, ie "the rope we shall hang them from."?

In solidarity.

Yes of course we can. In fact i'd argue that we have technology in spite of capitalism.

After the industrial revolution the bourgeoisie regarded machine power as wonderful until things got out of control for them and overproduction occured. This led to the value of their goods tumbling. Capitalism tries to keep a leash on technological process in order to mantain this artificial scarcity which enables them to raise prices. That is why so much mass production work is still done with human hands. The problem isnt technology itself but the method and motive under which it is developed.