Technology And The Disruption Of The Social.

[Mr. Cervantes]

I think it's interesting how technological advance has been used to a great degree in exploiting people more specifically the working class.

More and more in this technological era we are coming to the notion that specific types of human beings are obsolete in terms of adaptation to modern society where such people are looked upon as no longer necessary in even existing. In this current era we are all on the verge of a technocracy if we haven't already entered one.

I think as technology advances there will only be even more of a disregard to basic human life in general.

There is this cultic mantra that technology is bringing the world closer together where it is improving all our lives progressively. I think it is the direct opposite actually.

Technology in the hands of the ruling class is creating a world where the elite social classes actually have it easier in enslaving and controlling the rest of us. It is the elite ruling social class that controls the prospects and applications of technology on the rest of the populance to which it forcibly makes everybody submit to.

The technological advance of humanity is also where every couple of years we find new innovations in creating weapons to kill ourselves in modernized war.

I'm somewhat of a luddite I guess in that I do not see salvation in technology whatsoever in that for me as technology grows and becomes more innovated so does our social damnation into oppression grow as well.

[Strannik]

My opinion is, that potential technological capability must be separated from its practical application in a particular social formation.

Technological advancement in an opression-based society creates naturally more efficent and extensive oppression. At the same time, growth of the technological capability creates potential for a larger variety of possible interesting activities in a society that isn't oppressive.

So one can't condemn technological progress based on how the technology is applied in a particular society. Another society would use same technology in a different manner.

[ZeroNowhere]

Technological advances further the productive power of social humanity and salvation from capitalism comes as a result of it.

[Hit The North]

Technological advances further the productive power of social humanity and salvation from capitalism comes as a result of it.

True, but in the hear and now of a social formation depending on capitalist accumulation, technological advance is generally employed in order to ratchet up the level of exploitation and maximise profit. The emancipatory features of technological progress (to free us from labour and necessity) are held in a state of potentiality.

[Mr. Cervantes]

Technological advances further the productive power of social humanity and salvation from capitalism comes as a result of it.

Until all human beings control and participate in production there is no salvation in technology but instead only oppression as it is used as a oppressive tool.

The problem is how the social elite has used technology as a sort of mechanism to barricade themselves in all manners of supremacy.

Technology has become a sort of fortress to which capitalists use as a sort of platform for exploitation.

[ZeroNowhere]

True, but in the hear and now of a social formation depending on capitalist accumulation, technological advance is generally employed in order to ratchet up the level of exploitation and maximise profit.
Of course, almost everything in capitalism is applied to maximize profits. The road to a low rate of profit is paved with good intentions.


Until all human beings control and participate in production there is no salvation in technology but instead only oppression as it is used as a oppressive tool.Yes, it is used as an oppressive tool. But this is capitalism, and most important action takes place behind the backs of the actors.

[Blackburn]

Technology in the hands of the ruling class is creating a world where the elite social classes actually have it easier in enslaving and controlling the rest of us. It is the elite ruling social class that controls the prospects and applications of technology on the rest of the populance to which it forcibly makes everybody submit to.

Yes I agree.

To me, on a personal level, it's personified with these automatic 'self' checkouts at supermarkets.

When I left school I was in a rural area, and I was going through personal/family problems. The only work I could get was as a checkout operator at one of the supermarket chains. I was mocked/looked down on for it, but at the time I was proud of myself for being employed, for doing honest work. Of course you cop all sorts of abuse from the public all day long, including the guy who handed me money with human excrement on it.

But today, they sack the workers and I have to check my own groceries out. I don't get any discount. All savings got to the corporate owners.

If anyone is familiar with the Australian Supermarket industry it is controlled by a Duopoly. There is little choice down under and we have some of the highest food prices in the world.

[Blackscare]

Since you lifted your OP from that AI thread, and didn't answer my response (I know, how self-absorbed of me), I'll post what I wrote here:


Well, this is true only in the context of capitalism, really. I won't really touch the weapons bit because, well, in a communist world this wouldn't really be a problem.


Under capitalism, automation is more of a means of wage suppression than anything else. The capitalist class, as a whole, has no interest in fully implementing automation because it would eliminate demand. Automation reduces the number of workers and makes those that remain more easily replaced and less essential to production. You made reference to the ruling class, to be fair, but I still think that you have too grim a view of technology. Industrial automation will ultimately be the only way to achieve communism and liberate people from work.


I feel that, failing some sort of near-future revolutionary cascade that isn't too likely to happen, the "final" communist revolution worldwide will result in the bourgeoisie's inability to reconcile the obvious advantages of automation and AI with the need to harvest surplus-value. The only answer to this will be the suppression of it's widespread use intentionally to an "acceptable" level, probably aided in this effort by unions and the like trying to protect human jobs from the "threat" of automation. It will be increasingly apparent to people that the progress of automation is being hampered by the ruling class, even if they originally supported such policy in their own self interest, as automation in the home and throughout certain sectors of society becomes advanced and prevalent enough to make it obvious that it could be implemented throughout the economy without the working class 'losing out'. The old argument that "capitalism has it's flaws but its the best system around" will be basically a joke, as anyone will be able to see that it clearly can't cope with such massive progress. Since capitalism is prone to ups and downs, so to speak, it's still pretty hard to convince people that capitalism is a doomed system altogether even in times of crisis. People believe it will bounce back, etc. People need to lose faith in capitalism. This won't be the result of all of our best efforts or really happen until a new system (something we proselytize for) to replace capitalism meets with a clear route to it's implementation. Of course, economic crisis will have to precipitate this.


So yea, technology now is used to assault the worker generally, but it's precisely because of this fact that it will one day be used to unleash the full productive power of humanity.

[Thirsty Crow]

Technological advances further the productive power of social humanity and salvation from capitalism comes as a result of it.
I'm pretty sure that "salvation" from capitalism comes as a result of relentless class war, and not the productive power.

[Queercommie Girl]

Technology can be a very good thing, but only if workers and the masses are truly in control of it.

[ZeroNowhere]

I'm pretty sure that "salvation" from capitalism comes as a result of relentless class war, and not the productive power.
That would appear to be a false dichotomy.

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm pretty sure that "salvation" from capitalism comes as a result of relentless class war, and not the productive power.

Productive power is important up to a point, because socialism is impossible in a pre-industrial society.

But other than that, worker's democracy is always central to socialism, not "productive power" in the abstract sense.

[Mr. Cervantes]

Productive power is important up to a point, because socialism is impossible in a pre-industrial society.

But other than that, worker's democracy is always central to socialism, not "productive power" in the abstract sense.

What about primitive communism?

[Queercommie Girl]

Primitive "communism" isn't the kind of communism we are trying to build. Also, primitive "communism" is intrinsically unsustainable. It's bound to give rise to class society, like what happened in history.

Primitive "communism" isn't really a very nice place in live in anyway. While there was no class oppression, human productivity was at such a low level that we were much more at the mercy of nature than we are now. Life expectancy was low, and diseases were largely untreatable.

Individual humans are happiest when they are neither oppressed by their fellow humans nor by any natural elements, when they have command over nature but no-one uses this to exploit anyone.

[Mr. Cervantes]

Primitive "communism" isn't the kind of communism we are trying to build. Also, primitive "communism" is intrinsically unsustainable. It's bound to give rise to class society, like what happened in history.

Primitive "communism" isn't really a very nice place in live in anyway. While there was no class oppression, human productivity was at such a low level that we were much more at the mercy of nature than we are now. Life expectancy was low, and diseases were largely untreatable.

Individual humans are happiest when they are neither oppressed by their fellow humans nor by any natural elements, when they have command over nature but no-one uses this to exploit anyone.

Maybe so but one has to laugh at the cruel irony that throughout history in order to alleviate humanity's existence from that of primitive communism at the mercy of nature humanity has enslaved itself to it's own productions overtime.

Which is the better? I don't think anybody could say either way in that both are existentially devestating.



Blackscare: Since you lifted your OP from that AI thread, and didn't answer my response (I know, how self-absorbed of me), I'll post what I wrote here:


Well, this is true only in the context of capitalism, really. I won't really touch the weapons bit because, well, in a communist world this wouldn't really be a problem.


Under capitalism, automation is more of a means of wage suppression than anything else. The capitalist class, as a whole, has no interest in fully implementing automation because it would eliminate demand. Automation reduces the number of workers and makes those that remain more easily replaced and less essential to production. You made reference to the ruling class, to be fair, but I still think that you have too grim a view of technology. Industrial automation will ultimately be the only way to achieve communism and liberate people from work.


I feel that, failing some sort of near-future revolutionary cascade that isn't too likely to happen, the "final" communist revolution worldwide will result in the bourgeoisie's inability to reconcile the obvious advantages of automation and AI with the need to harvest surplus-value. The only answer to this will be the suppression of it's widespread use intentionally to an "acceptable" level, probably aided in this effort by unions and the like trying to protect human jobs from the "threat" of automation. It will be increasingly apparent to people that the progress of automation is being hampered by the ruling class, even if they originally supported such policy in their own self interest, as automation in the home and throughout certain sectors of society becomes advanced and prevalent enough to make it obvious that it could be implemented throughout the economy without the working class 'losing out'. The old argument that "capitalism has it's flaws but its the best system around" will be basically a joke, as anyone will be able to see that it clearly can't cope with such massive progress. Since capitalism is prone to ups and downs, so to speak, it's still pretty hard to convince people that capitalism is a doomed system altogether even in times of crisis. People believe it will bounce back, etc. People need to lose faith in capitalism. This won't be the result of all of our best efforts or really happen until a new system (something we proselytize for) to replace capitalism meets with a clear route to it's implementation. Of course, economic crisis will have to precipitate this.


So yea, technology now is used to assault the worker generally, but it's precisely because of this fact that it will one day be used to unleash the full productive power of humanity.


Those that have the power to control the flux of technologies and machines while having the ability in directing the population to subject themselves in specific manners to them control the very fabric of the entire world.

What about that? So long as industrial capitalists control all forms of technology, machinery, or industry the rest of the population remains at their mercy especially when through government authorities they write all the laws because such technological forces dominates modern economics which turns dominates both governments and nations themselves.

[Mr. Cervantes]

Technology under it's current format is being used to manipulate, deceive, and negatively transform the social collective.

It is being used to disrupt collective social interaction in ways it could of never have done prior to the recent technological explosion of say two hundred years ago.

[Queercommie Girl]

Maybe so but one has to laugh at the cruel irony that throughout history in order to alleviate humanity's existence from that of primitive communism at the mercy of nature humanity has enslaved itself to it's own productions overtime.

Which is the better? I don't think anybody could say either way in that both are existentially devestating.


But you are missing the essential point. The "irony", as you say, only exists because class oppression exists. Technology is not the enemy, class society is. The "irony" is not due to anything intrinsic in technological advance. An "anti-technology" stance is frankly a waste of time ideologically speaking because it detracts one's focus from the real enemy of humanity - the capitalist ruling class.

[agnixie]

Technology under it's current format is being used to manipulate, deceive, and negatively transform the social collective.

It is being used to disrupt collective social interaction in ways it could of never have done prior to the recent technological explosion of say two hundred years ago.

Fuzzy logic is annoying - are you sure you're a social scientist and not some pomo litcrit bore?

What do you call disrupting social interaction?

[Queercommie Girl]

It is being used to disrupt collective social interaction in ways it could of never have done prior to the recent technological explosion of say two hundred years ago.

Um. Tens of millions of ordinary urban civilians and peasants brutally massacred by the iron swords of Genghis Khan's feudal imperialist armies in the 13th century. That "disruptive" enough for you? :rolleyes:

Why do some people continue to believe that class oppression is worse when society is more technologically advanced, I really don't understand. They must think the lives of ancient peasants are not worth as much intrinsically as the lives of modern workers.

[Queercommie Girl]

Fuzzy logic is annoying - are you sure you're a social scientist and not some pomo litcrit bore?

What do you call disrupting social interaction?

Rather than some kind of fuzzy pomo stuff, I say how about we measure oppression by something much more explicit and concrete - the number of innocent civilians killed by each type of class society. (Yeah I'm a pragmatist and I'm very direct and not very subtle at all regarding these things)

In this sense I think one will find that slavery and feudalism were certainly no better and no less oppressive than capitalism. Go ask a Celtic tribesman in ancient Gaul or the civilians in Baghdad during the Mongol period if one doesn't believe me.

[agnixie]

Um. Tens of millions of ordinary urban civilians and peasants brutally massacred by the iron swords of Genghis Khan's feudal imperialist armies in the 13th century. That "disruptive" enough for you? :rolleyes:

Why do some people continue to believe that class oppression is worse when society is more technologically advanced, I really don't understand. They must think the lives of ancient peasants are not worth as much intrinsically as the lives of modern workers.

I seem to recall Chinese censi going down by like two thirds after the mongol conquest. And of course there's the bit where he pretty nearly committed a genocide against the tajiks because the khwarezmid emperor pissed him off. Bagdad going from first city in the world to a backwater. Eastern europe and the middle east falling apart. No disruption at all.

[ckaihatsu]

The problem is how the social elite has used technology as a sort of mechanism to barricade themselves in all manners of supremacy.

Technology has become a sort of fortress to which capitalists use as a sort of platform for exploitation.




Until all human beings control and participate in production there is no salvation in technology but instead only oppression as it is used as a oppressive tool.


This part prompted me to recall a portion from history in which a kind of 'physical escapism' -- if you will -- actually *improved* the conditions of life of the oppressed, for those who did so.

Perhaps we're seeing a *like* paradigm shift of social existence and consciousness due to the bulk amounts of one's life-time that can now be spent in this globalized mass cultural / political cyberspace....





Towns began to revive as craftsmen and traders settled in them, erecting shops and workshops around the castles and churches. Trading networks grew up which tied formerly isolated villages together around expanding towns and influenced the way of life in a wide area.101 To obtain money to buy luxuries and arms, lords would encourage serfs to produce cash crops and substitute money rents for labour services or goods in kind. Some found an extra source of income from the dues they could charge traders for allowing markets on their land.

Life in the towns was very different from life in the countryside. The traders and artisans were free individuals not directly under the power of any lord. There was a German saying, ‘Town air makes you free.’ The urban classes were increasingly loath to accept the prerogatives of the lordly class. Traders and artisans who needed extra labour would welcome serfs who had fled bondage on nearby estates. And as the towns grew in size and wealth they acquired the means to defend their independence and freedom, building walls and arming urban militias.




Harman, _People's History of the World_, Chapter 5, European feudalism, p. 144

[Lenina Rosenweg]

This may be relevant


FORTUNE -- There seems to be little doubt that unemployment is going to remain stubbornly high -- quite possibly for years to come. There's also mounting evidence that a good part of that unemployment is really structural in nature: The skills and capabilities of many experienced workers are simply no longer demanded by the market.
In manufacturing and in many clerical and administrative occupations, computerization and automation have left many formerly middle-class workers with few viable career options. Is it possible that we're creating a future in which jobs are going to be harder and harder to create?



While most economists would probably acknowledge the role that advancing technology has played in the elimination of many middle-skill jobs, few, if any, seem prepared to give any serious thought to where that trend is likely to lead in the future. History shows clearly that the overall capability of information technology accelerates over time -- roughly doubling every two years according to the widely-accepted "Moore's Law." If that trend continues through the next decade -- and there is every reason to expect that it will -- we can anticipate that the computational power available to be focused on automating jobs of all types will increase by a factor of approximately 32. A change of that magnitude isn't something to take lightly. Imagine that your monthly mortgage payment increased by 32 times -- say from $2,000 to $64,000.
As technology continues to accelerate, the number and types of jobs that can be automated is certain to expand dramatically. It's not just factory ....


http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/10/news/economy/unemployment_layoffs_structural.fortune/index.htm

A guy wrote a book saying that rapidly increasing levels of technology in the coming years and decades will make most jobs, including white collar jobs redundant. He's not a Marxist but some of his analysis is interesting.

http://econfuture.wordpress.com/

[Hit The North]

This may be relevant


http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/10/news/economy/unemployment_layoffs_structural.fortune/index.htm

A guy wrote a book saying that rapidly increasing levels of technology in the coming years and decades will make most jobs, including white collar jobs redundant. He's not a Marxist but some of his analysis is interesting.

http://econfuture.wordpress.com/

It's a great example of how capitalism comes to undermine the basis for its own existence; of how the development of the means of production comes into conflict with the social relations of production which act as its fetter.