One in three 'overwhelmed by technology'

[bcbm]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8615989/One-in-three-overwhelmed-by-technology.html

[bcbm]

fuck please fix the title

[Dr Mindbender]

Fuck the one.

I care more about the two in three.

[Hit The North]

fuck please fix the title

Fixed :)

[bcbm]

Fuck the one.

I care more about the two in three.

ok so fuck off

[jake williams]

Technophobia isn't a socially progressive view of the world, anymore than is xenophobia. That technophobia often acts as an outlet for the lack of control workers have over the production and use of technology is as true as the fact that xenophobia often acts as an outlet for the fact that workers don't have democratic control over their respective national economies and are at least in some cases objectively losing material living standards and political control through the process of neoliberal "globalization".

Both responses are understandable, but neither are right. We can't and shouldn't fight for a world without mobile telephony, and we can't and shouldn't fight for a world with closed national borders, no immigration, and racial segregation.

[bcbm]

Technophobia isn't a socially progressive view of the world

i don't think feeling overwhelmed correlates to technophobia


We can't and shouldn't fight for a world without mobile telephony, and we can't and shouldn't fight for a world with closed national borders, no immigration, and racial segregation.

who said we should?

[jake williams]

i don't think feeling overwhelmed correlates to technophobia
I think it does. The implications in the article you cited without comment seemed to be that the effects of technological progress are ambiguous or even negative. I disagree.

If your point simply is that people react psychologically to their collective lack of control over the substance and direction of how technology is implemented, then I don't disagree.

[bcbm]

I think it does. The implications in the article you cited without comment seemed to be that the effects of technological progress are ambiguous or even negative.

as far as i can tell the point was "use technology moderately and responsibly and be sure to incorporate some face to face time"

[jake williams]

as far as i can tell the point was "use technology moderately and responsibly and be sure to incorporate some face to face time"
Which is a fair enough point, but from the presentation out of context, that's not the message I got.

Would anyone disagree?

[¿Que?]

What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers.

I didn't read the article, but I think we should look at technology from a Marxist perspective, and that is as part of the historical conditions which confront workers themselves. Greater surveillance technology, alongside destructive military technology has made it very difficult various struggles to carry out clandestine activities which threaten the status quo. That technology is to a large extent under private control is another problem, although government control doesn't bode well either, as it is precise the collusion of government intelligence agencies with social media, that makes the internet such a precarious site for activist organizing. There are plenty of reasons to be wary of technology, and while I agree that this is largely due to objective conditions, as was stated earlier, by the lack of democratic control over production and use, those are the objective conditions we have to deal with. Thinking of technology as an abstraction and we are left only to hope for that one technological breakthrough that's going to usher in a new world of communism. So long as there is no democratic control over the means of production, this will never happen. Instead, we should be thinking of how to gain control of the use, development and production of technology so that we can develop the tools to smash capitalism once and for all.

[Dr Mindbender]

ok so fuck off

but you're outvoted. ;)

[bcbm]

but you're outvoted. ;)

i'm curious if you even read the article or just the title

[Aspiring Humanist]

Im gonna get restricted by those prick mods for sounding like a primmie but honestly recent technology is ruining our social skills and filling our minds with useless bullshit. the 2/3 people are liars

[Rss]

Im gonna get restricted by those prick mods for sounding like a primmie but honestly recent technology is ruining our social skills and filling our minds with useless bullshit. the 2/3 people are liars

Nah, that's just facebook being shit. Everyone I know wants jetpacks, personal teleports, lazer razors and cheap holiday trips to Mars.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Those people who felt overwhelmed by new technology were also more likely to feel unsatisfied in other areas of their lives. Individuals who retained control over new technology generally felt happier.

So it's not new technology that makes people unhappy, it's a lack of autonomy. People like it when new technology gives them fresh avenues for living their lives, but don't like it when they're spoonfed some corporate archetype.

In other news, dog bites man.


Im gonna get restricted by those prick mods for sounding like a primmie

No you're not, and fuck you too.


but honestly recent technology is ruining our social skills and filling our minds with useless bullshit. the 2/3 people are liars

This is just a modern re-iteration of the "everything is going to shit" attitude that some of us have had since time immemorial. Unless of course, you have some actual evidence...

[Queercommie Girl]

Im gonna get restricted by those prick mods for sounding like a primmie but honestly recent technology is ruining our social skills and filling our minds with useless bullshit. the 2/3 people are liars

Blame capitalism, not technology.

Capitalism without advanced technology would also be a hell hole, if not more so. Just look at how barbaric and brutal ancient class societies like slavery and feudalism were. Surely class society is the ultimate evil, not technological progress in itself.

Oppression is bad whether it's modern US marines with the latest military technology or ancient Roman legions with their iron swords.

[Queercommie Girl]

Technophobia isn't a socially progressive view of the world, anymore than is xenophobia. That technophobia often acts as an outlet for the lack of control workers have over the production and use of technology is as true as the fact that xenophobia often acts as an outlet for the fact that workers don't have democratic control over their respective national economies and are at least in some cases objectively losing material living standards and political control through the process of neoliberal "globalization".

Both responses are understandable, but neither are right. We can't and shouldn't fight for a world without mobile telephony, and we can't and shouldn't fight for a world with closed national borders, no immigration, and racial segregation.

We may disagree with a few things, but on this point we generally agree.

Technophobia, rather than intrinsically reactionary, IMO is more of a case of literally being stupid and basically missing the point.

Coming to think about it, it is actually in the interests of the capitalist ruling class to divert people's attentions from blaming capitalism and class society for the world's ills to blame technology. Not to mention sometimes new technology can actually be a threat to the capitalist status quo, like how the great technology of iron metallurgy ended the reign of the slavelord class world-wide 3000 - 2500 years ago (see the book A People's History of the World) and how technologies like gunpowder, printing and the magnetic compass made it possible for capitalism to replace feudalism. (As Marx himself pointed out)

Look at for instance how the great corporate oil barons always tend to suppress R&D into green technologies and alternative energy sources that could potentially do away with the need to use any fossil fuels which pollute the Earth, because obviously such technological progress would hurt their monopolistic business interests.

[Dr Mindbender]

Im gonna get restricted by those prick mods for sounding like a primmie but honestly recent technology is ruining our social skills and filling our minds with useless bullshit. the 2/3 people are liars

You probably wont get restricted but you will get laughed at hard for complaining about technology on an internet forum.



Wnew technology can actually be a threat to the capitalist status quo, like how the great technology of iron metallurgy ended the reign of the slavelord class world-wide 3000 - 2500 years ago

Not to mention the internet is also threatening the status quo, because ordinary people are able to share and spread ideas in an unprecedented way. No longer do the bourgeoisie have a monopoly on mass propaganda.

I am convinced that the internet is the proverbial rope to which Stalin was referring to when he made that quote.

[Queercommie Girl]

The internet is also threatening the status quo, because ordinary people are able to share and spread ideas in an unprecedented way.

I am convinced that the internet is the proverbial rope to which Stalin was referring to when he made that quote.

Green technology potentially can also be a threat to capitalism, IMO.

[Dr Mindbender]

Green technology potentially can also be a threat to capitalism, IMO.

I agree, the technological principles behind the Sinclair C5 fell in no small part thanks to the oil magnates.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ZI9ZC-oL5KQ/SUo3CAosF1I/AAAAAAAAD0M/oKIadDl9zqo/s400/c5.jpg

[Revy]

Technophobia isn't a socially progressive view of the world, anymore than is xenophobia. That technophobia often acts as an outlet for the lack of control workers have over the production and use of technology is as true as the fact that xenophobia often acts as an outlet for the fact that workers don't have democratic control over their respective national economies and are at least in some cases objectively losing material living standards and political control through the process of neoliberal "globalization".

Both responses are understandable, but neither are right. We can't and shouldn't fight for a world without mobile telephony, and we can't and shouldn't fight for a world with closed national borders, no immigration, and racial segregation.

Well, I find it wrong that some people on here defend nuclear power and then turn around and act like anyone who doesn't want to be blasted with radiation and bathe in toxic waste is a primitivist.

I love technology, but I also hate technology that takes destructive forms and is used in destructive ways.

[Dr Mindbender]

Well, I find it wrong that some people on here defend nuclear power and then turn around and act like anyone who doesn't want to be blasted with radiation and bathe in toxic waste is a primitivist.
Good work on upholding the false dichotomy between clean energy and non nuclear in order to make pro nuclear folk look like diabolical evil tech-heads. For the nth time, the incidents at Fukushima are an indictment of extenuating factors other than nuclear energy in principle. Firstly, was the foolishness of building a reactor so close to a fault line and secondly was the shoddy maintenance in keeping the plant up to date.


I love technology, but I also hate technology that takes destructive forms and is used in destructive ways.
Same here, but that is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Queercommie Girl]

On nuclear power, I agree with the law implemented by the United Federation of Planets in Star Trek - nuclear power can only be used in space (the impulse engine of starships in Star Trek is based on fusion power) but is illegal to use within the atmosphere of any humanoid-habitable planet.

[Dr Mindbender]

On nuclear power, I agree with the law implemented by the United Federation of Planets in Star Trek - nuclear power can only be used in space (the impulse engine of starships in Star Trek is based on fusion power) but is illegal to use within the atmosphere of any humanoid-habitable planet.

The problem i have with that is Earth bound people cannot benefit from any potential power supply.

We dont need a universal banning of Earth bound nuclear power, we need regulation that prevents technical negligence and plants being built near areas that needlessly maximise the potential for problems.

[bcbm]

Not to mention the internet is also threatening the status quo, because ordinary people are able to share and spread ideas in an unprecedented way. No longer do the bourgeoisie have a monopoly on mass propaganda.

I am convinced that the internet is the proverbial rope to which Stalin was referring to when he made that quote.

and now all you have to do to participate in the revolution is join a facebook group and "like" a few things inbetween planting your crops in farmville


Green technology potentially can also be a threat to capitalism, IMO.

who do you think is creating green technology?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

and now all you have to do to participate in the revolution is join a facebook group and "like" a few things inbetween planting your crops in farmville

Facebook isn't the internet. The internet was around a long time before Facebook, and I suspect it will be around a long time afterwards as well.

What's funny is that about a decade ago you would have been sneering about MySpace, not Facebook, and you would still have looked just as silly for equating it with the internet. Seems like you're just as much swept up in the latest techno-fads as those poor drones you look down your nose at.

It also misses the point that, Facebook or no, I can now communicate with someone on the other side of the world, without having to shell out for international postage or phone charges. That cannot fail to have subversive potential.

[Queercommie Girl]

and now all you have to do to participate in the revolution is join a facebook group and "like" a few things inbetween planting your crops in farmville


I guess you've never heard of Unionbook.



who do you think is creating green technology?

All wealth and innovation in society are created by workers.

[Dr Mindbender]

who do you think is creating green technology?

I think the more pertinent question is, who is blocking it?

[nuisance]

All wealth and innovation in society are created by workers.
oh, and it must be funded with all that capital they have.


I think the more pertinent question is, who is blocking it?
a contesting section of the capitalist class.

[Queercommie Girl]

oh, and it must be funded with all that capital they have.


That is irrelevant since socialists believe people can completely do away with private ownership of the means of production. It is only because ultimately workers create virtually all the wealth in society that socialism is at all possible in a scientific sense. If workers cannot effectively control the economic heart of capitalism, a successful socialist revolution will never happen.

You could also say the all the food we eat are created by capitalists (and partly by landlords in some cases, but they are at least just as bad as capitalists) because they funded them, which would imply that to be anti-capitalist one is literally going against the hand that feeds oneself.

Quantitatively some sections of the bourgeois are more progressive than others anyway. It's like during the feudal-capitalist transition, certain sections of the feudal landlord class collaborated with the bourgeois revolutionaries in the initial stages, some even transformed into bourgeois themselves eventually. It's somewhat ultra-leftist to see the world in completely black-and-white terms in a simplistic sense.

[nuisance]

That is irrelevant since socialists believe people can completely do away with private ownership of the means of production. It is only because ultimately workers create virtually all the wealth in society that socialism is at all possible in a scientific sense. If workers cannot effectively control the economic heart of capitalism, a successful socialist revolution will never happen.
it is irrelevant to understand who is financing technological progress, and to what ends because workers carry out the proceedures. a strange position indeed.
all this says is that workers are accomplices in their own misery.


You could also say the all the food we eat are created by capitalists (and partly by landlords in some cases, but they are at least just as bad as capitalists) because they funded them, which would imply that to be anti-capitalist one is literally going against the hand that feeds oneself.
i do not see what you are getting at. capitalists do things to perpetuate their control over society. food distribution is obviously part of this.


Quantitatively some sections of the bourgeois are more progressive than others anyway. It's like during the feudal-capitalist transition, certain sections of the feudal landlord class collaborated with the bourgeois revolutionaries in the initial stages, some even transformed into bourgeois themselves eventually.
so you support certain strains of capitalism and in so try to legitimate domination.


It's somewhat ultra-leftist to see the world in completely black-and-white terms in a simplistic sense.
lol.

[Queercommie Girl]

it is irrelevant to understand who is financing technological progress, and to what ends because workers carry out the proceedures. a strange position indeed.

all this says is that workers are accomplices in their own misery.

i do not see what you are getting at. capitalists do things to perpetuate their control over society. food distribution is obviously part of this.


Just because capitalists may fund something doesn't mean it is intrinsically bad. Capitalists also fund the production of basic food. Does it mean food production is intrinsically bad?

Your logic seems to be "capitalists are financing technological progress, therefore technology must be intrinsically reactionary". If that's the logic on which primitivism is based on, then no wonder most people consider you as crazy.



so you support certain strains of capitalism and in so try to legitimate domination.


No, I didn't say I support any kind of capitalism. However, I realise that not all capitalists are equally reactionary, and in some circumstances, socialists can apply the principle of "divide and conquer" on the capitalists, just like capitalists apply the same principle to the workers.



lol.


Yeah, crawl back to your ultra-leftist ideological puritanical hole. You talk about workers all the time, yet most workers do not appreciate your anti-technology ideas. Maybe you just like the sound of your own voice?

[Dr Mindbender]

it is irrelevant to understand who is financing technological progress, and to what ends because workers carry out the proceedures. a strange position indeed.
all this says is that workers are accomplices in their own misery.


The misery of the workers came about with the advent of technology? That is news to me.

If you want to get back to nature try living in the woods without awful misery inducing technological facets such as x rays, penicillin or central heating and report back to let us know how you get on.

[nuisance]

Just because capitalists may fund something doesn't mean it is intrinsically bad. Capitalists also fund the production of basic food. Does it mean food production is intrinsically bad?
no but the production is based upon control, a replication of the capitalist social relations.


Your logic seems to be "capitalists are financing technological progress, therefore technology must be intrinsically reactionary". If that's the logic on which primitivism is based on, then no wonder most people consider you as crazy.
it is you who is dealing in absolutes. it is pretty naive to percieve that technology is being improved for means other than profit, reliance and social control.
who considers who crazy, because i certainly think that many people seem to think the worshippers of Stalin and Lenin to be not only strange but fucking abhorrent?
anyway, do you think a crtique of technology in hierarchical society equals primitivism?


No, I didn't say I support any kind of capitalism. However, I realise that not all capitalists are equally reactionary, and in some circumstances, socialists can apply the principle of "divide and conquer" on the capitalists, just like capitalists apply the same principle to the workers.
yeah, alright.


Yeah, crawl back to your ultra-leftist ideological puritanical hole. You talk about workers all the time, yet most workers do not appreciate your anti-technology ideas. Maybe you just like the sound of your own voice?
what are you on about now, you creepy technophile. keep allowing what 'most workers' appartently believe mould your perspectives and leave the criticial analysis to those who want to destory the social order in all its manifestations.

[nuisance]

The misery of the workers came about with the advent of technology? That is news to me.
what have you been reading, since it obviously is not my posts.


If you want to get back to nature try living in the woods without awful misery inducing technological facets such as x rays, penicillin or central heating and report back to let us know how you get on.
ah! the typical slurs! why would i want to live in the woods? i do admit it would probably be fun to experiment with but i wouldn't want to fully commit.

[Dr Mindbender]

what have you been reading, since it obvious is not my posts.

So i read between the lines. Its obvious you regard technology as an inherent evil, because it is financed by the cappies.


ah! the typical slurs! why would i want to live in the woods? i do admit it would probably be fun to experiment with but i wouldn't want to fully commit.
You find technology abhorrent, but you dont want to commit to living without it. You are a coward.

[nuisance]

So i read between the lines. Its obvious you regard technology as an inherent evil, because it is financed by the cappies.
you should improve your abilities then.


You find technology abhorrent, but you dont want to commit to living without it.
i do not find technology abhorrent, so...


You are a coward.
for not committing to something you reckon i believe? ridiculous. anyway, if i recall, you do not do anything over than help admin a website no one uses. but lets not get petty.

[Dr Mindbender]

you should improve your abilities then.
My abilities are fine.



i do not find technology abhorrent, so...
Youre the one who said workers are complicit in their own misery because they are instrumental in producing technology or at least words to that effect.

Stop backpeddling.

[nuisance]

My abilities are fine.
try cleaning your glasses then.



Youre the one who said workers are complicit in their own misery because they are instrumental in producing technology or at least words to that effect.

Stop backpeddling.
there's no backpeddling and i stand by it, even if you have slightly misrepresented what was said to meet your own aims. actually it was an interpretation of what isuel said, who mans the machines, who produces? us, the working class. without our energies capitalism could not exist. technology is but one aspect, one means of domination. you do not have to be primitivist to recongise this but i suppose you are arrogant enough to disregard entire lines of thought and analysis.

[Dr Mindbender]

there's no backpeddling and i stand by it, even if you have slightly misrepresented what was said to meet your own aims. actually it was an interpretation of what isuel said, who mans the machines, who produces? us, the working class. without our energies capitalism could not exist. technology is but one aspect, one means of domination. you do not have to be primitivist to recongise this but i suppose you are arrogant enough to disregard entire lines of thought and analysis.

Domination does not require technology. The slave masters of imperial ancient Egypt had but the most remedial technological level so I do not buy that crap. If it wasn't technology it would be something else.

The idea that we should oppose technology or at least use it as grounds for techno-conservatism because it is 'designed by the bosses' is as stupid as wanting to ban guns because they are used by cops and soldiers.

The fact of the matter is that our life quality have been improving at an accelerated rate ever since the industrial revolution and still does today thanks to technological progress. You and the rest of the techno skeptic people can paint it how you like but that is a fact.

[nuisance]

Domination does not require technology.
obviously. but where we are currently, it does facilitate it.


The slave masters of imperial ancient Egypt had but the most remedial technological level so I do not buy that crap. If it wasn't technology it would be something else.
ok.


The idea that we should oppose technology or at least use it as grounds for techno-conservatism because it is 'designed by the bosses' is as stupid as wanting to ban guns because they are used by cops and soldiers.
and uncritical adoration is techno-liberalism which is as stupid as loving biometrics because it is a breakthrough in science.


The fact of the matter is that our life quality have been improving at an accelerated rate ever since the industrial revolution and still does today thanks to technological progress. You and the rest of the techno skeptic people can paint it how you like but that is a fact.
analysts on mental health would disagree.

[Dr Mindbender]

obviously. but where we are currently, it does facilitate it.
As mentioned before, it also facilitates the resistance against oppression. The internet has provided the transfer of subversive ideas on a scale never witnessed in human history. The mobile phone is the primary communication tool of striking workers.



and uncritical adoration is techno-liberalism which is as stupid as loving biometrics because it is a breakthrough in science.
It isn't a question of uncritical adoration. Where destructive technologies emerge (eg. nuclear weapons) these should be closely monitored and regulated However I welcome all scientific progress in principle because there is no such thing as useless knowledge.

No technology is inherently anti-worker or reactionary. Only the people that utilise it and their motives.


analysts on mental health would disagree.
Depends which analysts you talk to. If technology should be up for criticism and questioning, so should the findings of these people. I'm suspicious of university researchers with an agenda trying to secure funding by any means necessary and I'm even less interested in the shock tabloid tactics of journalists that care more about newspaper sales and blog hits.

My take on it is that anti tech analysts are for the most part conservative wind bags (including those from the torygraph) longing to take us back to a time with more 'wholesome values' without the evils of Grand theft auto or internet po4n.

[nuisance]

As mentioned before, it also facilitates the resistance against oppression. The internet has provided the transfer of subversive ideas on a scale never witnessed in human history. The mobile phone is the primary communication tool of striking workers.
it has similarily replaced the need for on the ground surevilance of radicals, with phone records and facebook information being used as evidence and exposing social connections. not to mention turning many into hermits that feel far more comfortable behind a computer with their new moldable identity than they do in the flesh.


It isn't a question of uncritical adoration. Where destructive technologies emerge (eg. nuclear weapons) these should be closely monitored and regulated However I welcome all scientific progress in principle because there is no such thing as useless knowledge.
and nor is it a question of opposing technology from a conservative viewpoint.
anyway, do you actually believe that such new developments will be monitored and regulated to protect the likes of you?



Depends which analysts you talk to. If technology should be up for criticism and questioning, so should the findings of these people. I'm suspicious of university researchers with an agenda trying to secure funding by any means necessary and I'm even less interested in the shock tabloid tactics of journalists that care more about newspaper sales and blog hits.
it is easy to be skeptical without looking at the research, which comes from all areas. no one would suggested that any research is above critical review and reflection, least of all the researchers- after all that is what they do.
perhaps you should read e.p.thompson (im sure you can find it in yourself to believe such a credible marxist) when he spoke of the massive spike in suicide and depression when the peasantry was forced off the land and into factories. this trend has only continued and become more institutionalised.


My take on it is that anti tech analysts are for the most part conservative wind bags longing to take us back to a time with more 'wholesome values' without the evils of Grand theft auto or internet po4n.
who's talking about 'anti-tech analysts'? yet again another typical slur to attempt to blur over oppoisition. not all research and statisical data has to come with the baggage of an ideology/a thought pattern that is being sought to prove.
your idea of not being critical of tools that are firmly in the hands of the enemy class is somewhat worrying, but to be expected.

[Dr Mindbender]

it has similarily replaced the need for on the ground surevilance of radicals, with phone records and facebook information being used as evidence and exposing social connections. not to mention turning many into hermits that feel far more comfortable behind a computer with their new moldable identity than they do in the flesh.

Facebook isnt the be all and end all of the internet. The point is it has enabled instantaneous communication from one extreme to the other without the need for expensive postal or phone fees. Without the internet we would not have indymedia.



and nor is it a question of opposing technology from a conservative viewpoint.
anyway, do you actually believe that such new developments will be monitored and regulated to protect the likes of you?
I expect no such assurances from the capitalist class but that does not exclude that in principle technologies can be democratically sanctioned or vetoed in a revolutionary scenario.

This is precisely the nature of the holonic model proposed by technocrats in groups like EOS.



it is easy to be skeptical without looking at the research, which comes from all areas. no one would suggested that any research is above critical review and reflection, least of all the researchers- after all that is what they do.
perhaps you should read e.p.thompson (im sure you can find it in yourself to believe such a credible marxist) when he spoke of the massive spike in suicide and depression when the peasantry was forced off the land and into factories. this trend has only continued and become more institutionalised.
The nature of that oppression says more about the oppressors than it does about technology. Again you are mixing the idea that the capitalist model of production and integration of technology are mutually inclusive. This is not the case.



who's talking about 'anti-tech analysts'? yet again another typical slur to attempt to blur over oppoisition. not all research and statisical data has to come with the baggage of an ideology/a thought pattern that is being sought to prove.
your idea of being critical of tools that are firmly in the hands of the enemy class is somewhat worry, but to be expected.
As technology grows, those tools are slowly slipping from the fingers of the class enemy.

A perfect example of how this is happening is illustrated by the 'starfish' system that will allow every user's web device to be its own autonomous internet network.

[nuisance]

Facebook isnt the be all and end all of the internet. The point is it has enabled instantaneous communication from one extreme to the other without the need for expensive postal or phone fees. Without the internet we would not have indymedia.
way to the miss the point, again. the point is that these innovations are not to benefit the autonomy people, nor concessions. they merely pose no threat. so what about indymedia? if that wasn't around people would find other ways to communicate and do. this is not to say that it isn't enjoy or useful.



I expect no such assurances from the capitalist class but that does not exclude that in principle technologies can be democratically sanctioned or vetoed in a revolutionary scenario.
and this does not lead you to take a position critical of technology in the current context? it does not exist in a vaccum and as the history of it shows, it has been utilised in areas that require the uptmost control.


This is precisely the nature of the holonic model proposed by technocrats in groups like EOS.
cool.



The nature of that oppression says more about the oppressors than it does about technology. Again you are mixing the idea that the capitalist model of production and integration of technology are mutually inclusive. This is not the case.
again, technology does not exist in a vaccum, it did not suddenly appear out of nowhere. it wasn't invented to give commodities to everyone but to accumulate capital and maintain their domination. technology is 'an integrated system of techniques, machinery, people and materials designed to reproduce the social relationships that prolong and advance its existence' (of capitalism).


As technology grows, those tools are slowly slipping from the fingers of the class enemy.

A perfect example of how this is happening is illustrated by the 'starfish' system that will allow every user's web device to be its own autonomous internet network.
so you think the creation nano and biotech, continued destruction of the ecosystem and of our mental and phyiscal health a sign of technology slipping from the capitalists? if anything it is being intensified, and in areas readjusted (green capitalist ideas), to maintain the status quo.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

way to the miss the point, again. the point is that these innovations are not to benefit the autonomy people, nor concessions. they merely pose no threat. so what about indymedia? if that wasn't around people would find other ways to communicate and do. this is not to say that it isn't enjoy or useful.

If it's useful, then it is actively helpful, and more than just "merely pos no threat".

Also, Indymedia is something that could only happen on the internet. Could you provide an independant news service over the telephone? Really? Could you tell us how? Obviously it's also much easier to reach a global audience if you're also not limited to presenting the news on dead tree flesh, which costs money to acquire, print on and then distribute.


and this does not lead you to take a position critical of technology in the current context? it does not exist in a vaccum and as the history of it shows, it has been utilised in areas that require the uptmost control.

Could you be more specific? Because for every technology that one could reasonably say was "only" for domination or control, I bet I could either find a non-coercive use for it or at least half a dozen similar technologies that are non-coercive.


again, technology does not exist in a vaccum, it did not suddenly appear out of nowhere. it wasn't invented to give commodities to everyone but to accumulate capital and maintain their domination. technology is [I]'an integrated system of techniques, machinery, people and materials designed to reproduce the social relationships that prolong and advance its existence' (of capitalism).

I don't know where the hell you're getting your definition of technology from, but Wikipedia tells me that "Technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology) is the making, usage and knowledge of tools, techniques, crafts, systems or methods of organization in order to solve a problem or serve some purpose."

Note that the definition says nothing about which problems or purposes. They could just as easily be the problems and purposes of an advanced communist society as that of a capitalist one.


so you think the creation nano and biotech, continued destruction of the ecosystem and of our mental and phyiscal health a sign of technology slipping from the capitalists? if anything it is being intensified, and in areas readjusted (green capitalist ideas), to maintain the status quo.

1) There is nothing inherently wrong with either nanotechnology or biotechnology.

2) Environmental disruption is mainly a matter of priorities, not technology. Under capitalism it is not that profitable to be truly green, so it's not a priority.

3) I'm skeptical that any recent historical decline in mental health can be simply attributed to increasing technology. It's only been a century, if that, that we have had a more scientific approach to mental issues. We didn't have statistical psychology before industrialisation, so I think it's dishonest and misleading to effectively point at the thickness of the DSM and say "there, advanced technological society is making us loopy". I'm not a psychiatrist, but somehow I don't think that living in a pre-industrial society where most adults die violent deaths would have been psychologically healthy. As for our physical health, that's nonsense. Globally, life expectancies are increasing.

[nuisance]

there's not much point in continuing this back and forth, it's hardly going anywhere?

'Environmental disruption is mainly a matter of priorities, not technology. Under capitalism it is not that profitable to be truly green, so it's not a priority.'yes, so it has to be recongised that technology, as i said, is being utilised and innovated to meet non-liberatory ends, and so is deterimental to working people in a round about way, in the here and now. therefore, does it not make sense to not critically evaluate the progression and application of technology in a society that is mobilised towards perpetuating the control of the ruling social order?
no one is saying technology is evil, but it is not a neutral force when it is wielded by one class over another. perhaps in a future society we can mobilise technology towards socially progressive ends, sorry Dr Mindbender I am not a primitivist, but that is to be seen and is not the context we find ourselves in.

its been fun!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

there's not much point in continuing this back and forth, it's hardly going anywhere?

Really? it was just getting interesting. In any case, concession accepted.


yes, so it has to be recongised that technology, as i said, is being utilised and innovated to meet non-liberatory ends, and so is deterimental to working people in a round about way, in the here and now. therefore, does it not make sense to not critically evaluate the progression and application of technology in a society that is mobilised towards perpetuating the control of the ruling social order?

So what is this non-primitivist "critical evaluation" of technology? There've been a number of people on this forum who have been like, "no I'm not a primitivist, even though I sound like one and I think Zerzan had some interesting ideas" (these "interesting ideas" are almost always left unspecified).

Or their logic appears to be thus:

1. Advanced technology X can do task Y

2. I politically disagree with task Y

3. Therefore, I politically disagree with advanced technology X.

Which ignores the obvious (to me at least) point that a technology and its use/application are two different things. Even for a technology optimised for [politically disagreeable task Y], the basic principles involved in its use and contruction may have neutral to liberatory applications.


no one is saying technology is evil, but it is not a neutral force when it is wielded by one class over another. perhaps in a future society we can mobilise technology towards socially progressive ends, sorry Dr Mindbender I am not a primitivist, but that is to be seen and is not the context we find ourselves in.

The thing is that "technology" is an umbrella term, covering an enormous field of knowledge. Sure, it's easy to say that shit's all tainted by the evil money-grubbing capitalists, but demonstrate me what is so capitalist about, say, the art and science of building bridges?

"I didn't say that" - of course you didn't, you never said anything so specific! If your point is that under capitalism technology gets used for mainly capitalist goals and purposes, then that much is obvious.

What's not so obvious is the connection with the technology itself. Take the internet, for example. It can be used as a potent money-making tool, as Facebook has demonstrated, so long as you don't mind paying only lip service to the concept of privacy and having nothing but disdain for your users, as Mark Zuckerberg does.

But in a technologically advanced communist society, the internet would be an invaluable tool for communication, coordination and collaboration. Distributed computing would enable us to take advantage of computer idle time the world over to do things like better understand protein folding (http://folding.stanford.edu/), knowledge which is useful no matter the socioeconomic system.

[Queercommie Girl]

no but the production is based upon control, a replication of the capitalist social relations.


The replication of capitalist social relations is not intrinsically based on technology.



it is you who is dealing in absolutes. it is pretty naive to percieve that technology is being improved for means other than profit, reliance and social control.
I never deal in absolutes. I don't even label myself a "technophile", because intrinsically I consider technology to be a neutral force. Technology is like the hammer a carpenter uses. When a sub-standard job is done, you blame the carpenter, not the hammer. Similarly, when technology is being used for reactionary purposes, one should blame the human agents behind the technology, namely capitalists, rather than technology itself.

Also, Marx never actually said that capitalism is reactionary or "evil" in an absolutist sense either. Marx actually pointed out the partly progressive nature of capitalism and capitalist technology relative to feudalism, despite its highly exploitative essence. So frankly even when technology is being improved solely for the purpose of making profits, it still isn't completely bad.

And the key point, as I said, is that (technical) workers are ultimately the ones that are in control of technology, not the capitalists that own the means of production. This is the point you consistently miss. There is a huge difference between criticising particular manifestations of technological progress and criticising technology in any kind of intrinsic sense.



who considers who crazy, because i certainly think that many people seem to think the worshippers of Stalin and Lenin to be not only strange but fucking abhorrent?
Fuck you. I don't "worship" Stalin, and actually I'm very critical of him, but I don't write him off completely either. I don't "worship" Lenin either, even though I'm basically a Leninist and agree with much of his ideas.

Your so-called "many people" are basically just anti-Lenin anarchists, which are a minority even within the socialist camp, not to mention the working class in general. I don't even consider anti-Lenin anarchists to be comrades, but only fellow travellers and allies. So if you think it is "strange" and "abhorrent" that I have respect for Lenin and Leninism, then I say again: Fuck you, and reflect upon how much of your ideology is actually influenced implicitly by Western bourgeois liberalism.



what are you on about now, you creepy technophile. keep allowing what 'most workers' appartently believe mould your perspectives and leave the criticial analysis to those who want to destory the social order in all its manifestations.
I'm not actually a "technophile" but frankly I'd much rather be a crazy scientist type creepy technophile than an ultra-leftist semi-primitivist who is out of touch with the real working class.

Accuse me for being opportunistic if you want, but at least I take the general views of most ordinary workers seriously rather than adopt an ideological "holier-than-thou" stance and thinks most ordinary workers are reactionary and wrong.

It's funny how some of the most explicit anti-statist anarchists can turn out to be some of the most authoritarian vanguardists in actual political practice. Like one of my Trot friends once said: Every anarchist is like a mini-Stalinist.

[nuisance]

Really? it was just getting interesting. In any case, concession accepted.
you can read it as a concession, but i assure you it is not. however if you truly would like to continue this then i suppose i shall, aslong as it exists outside of the realm of slurs and accusations. as such discussions on this topic typically degenerates into, as demonstrated, rather rapidly. not to say that i am innocent of it.


So what is this non-primitivist "critical evaluation" of technology? There've been a number of people on this forum who have been like, "no I'm not a primitivist, even though I sound like one and I think Zerzan had some interesting ideas" (these "interesting ideas" are almost always left unspecified).
i do find zerzan interesting and i hope that a future society, based upon autonomy and mutual aid, will allow for people to live in many different manners depending upon their fancy at the time.
however i do not see how this sounds like primitivism, where has it been suggested that technology is inherently reactionary or that a gather-hunter lifestyle is desired?


Or their logic appears to be thus:

1. Advanced technology X can do task Y

2. I politically disagree with task Y

3. Therefore, I politically disagree with advanced technology X.
i think this point has been made quite a few times, so i do not see how it still evades? machinery, tools and techniques are not 'bad'. however we have to understand why they exist and in what context they exist and constitute technology. they have been created with capitalism, so capitalism is the context. capitalism is not interested in making sure everyone has the most up to date gadggets or whatever for the sake of it, it is so they can accumluate more capital. the arenas of technology- factories etc are built around control, as where the first places where technology was first brought in- monasteries, torture chambers and so on. this obviously based around control. so essentially innovatives in technology, in the current capitalist context are going to be used against the working class, were that's to increased productivity, surevilance or repression.

Which ignores the obvious (to me at least) point that a technology and its use/application are two different things. Even for a technology optimised for [politically disagreeable task Y], the basic principles involved in its use and contruction may have neutral to liberatory applications.
i think this point has been made quite a few times, so i do not see how it still evades? machinery, tools and techniques are not 'bad'. however we have to understand why they exist and in what context they exist and constitute technology. they have been created with capitalism, so capitalism is the context. capitalism is not interested in making sure everyone has the most up to date gadggets or whatever for the sake of it, it is so they can accumluate more capital. the arenas of technology- factories etc are built around control, as where the first places where technology was first brought in- monasteries, torture chambers and so on. this obviously based around control. so essentially innovatives in technology, in the current capitalist context are going to be used against the working class, were that's to increased productivity, surevilance or repression.



The thing is that "technology" is an umbrella term, covering an enormous field of knowledge. Sure, it's easy to say that shit's all tainted by the evil money-grubbing capitalists, but demonstrate me what is so capitalist about, say, the art and science of building bridges?
i have defined my use of the word technology previously. it is not 'tainted', it is created by capitalists with the idea in mind of safeguarding their position. well that the concept of creating a bridge first has to be recongised as beneficial for someone to fund it and then it obvious has to adhere to a specified framework to get the funding. drawing a picture with dimensions is a picture. then you have the mining of metals, the construction of the bridge and so on, in structures designed to silience dissent and individual initative.


"I didn't say that" - of course you didn't, you never said anything so specific! If your point is that under capitalism technology gets used for mainly capitalist goals and purposes, then that much is obvious.
it is moulded to meet their ends.


What's not so obvious is the connection with the technology itself. Take the internet, for example. It can be used as a potent money-making tool, as Facebook has demonstrated, so long as you don't mind paying only lip service to the concept of privacy and having nothing but disdain for your users, as Mark Zuckerberg does.

But in a technologically advanced communist society, the internet would be an invaluable tool for communication, coordination and collaboration. Distributed computing would enable us to take advantage of computer idle time the world over to do things like better understand protein folding (http://folding.stanford.edu/), knowledge which is useful no matter the socioeconomic system.
yes, in a communist society. but alas we are not there and so our evaluation of the tools of capital must recongise this and not uncritically appreciate technological innovation since it gives them something to do and a way of meeting people.

[nuisance]

The replication of capitalist social relations is not intrinsically based on technology.
didn't say it was. i said it was part of the network of domination.


I never deal in absolutes. I don't even label myself a "technophile", because intrinsically I consider technology to be a neutral force. Technology is like the hammer a carpenter uses. When a sub-standard job is done, you blame the carpenter, not the hammer. Similarly, when technology is being used for reactionary purposes, one should blame the human agents behind the technology, namely capitalists, rather than technology itself.
a hammer is a tool, not the process that is being referred to as technology. look for my definition of the term in the thread.



Also, Marx never actually said that capitalism is reactionary or "evil" in an absolutist sense either. Marx actually pointed out the partly progressive nature of capitalism and capitalist technology relative to feudalism, despite its highly exploitative essence. So frankly even when technology is being improved solely for the purpose of making profits, it still isn't completely bad.
that is a nice opinion you have there.



And the key point, as I said, is that (technical) workers are ultimately the ones that are in control of technology, not the capitalists that own the means of production. This is the point you consistently miss. There is a huge difference between criticising particular manifestations of technological progress and criticising technology in any kind of intrinsic sense.
only if agreement means missing the point.


Fuck you. I don't "worship" Stalin, and actually I'm very critical of him, but I don't write him off completely either. I don't "worship" Lenin either, even though I'm basically a Leninist and agree with much of his ideas.
touchy.


Your so-called "many people" are basically just anti-Lenin anarchists, which are a minority even within the socialist camp, not to mention the working class in general. I don't even consider anti-Lenin anarchists to be comrades, but only fellow travellers and allies. So if you think it is "strange" and "abhorrent" that I have respect for Lenin and Leninism, then I say again: Fuck you, and reflect upon how much of your ideology is actually influenced implicitly by Western bourgeois liberalism.
anti-lenin anarchists? what is a pro-lenin anarchist? do not worry, we recongise we are a minority and most likely will remain so, we have no illusions of grandeur or some weirdly arrogant idea that we represent the ideas of anyone other than ourselves.
what western bourgeois liberalism is this? want ing to be in control of my own life and not submit to any idea that is considered, by others, to be above myself.


I'm not actually a "technophile" but frankly I'd much rather be a crazy scientist type creepy technophile than an ultra-leftist semi-primitivist who is out of touch with the real working class.
who are the real working class and where do they live? also, what's a 'semi-primitivist', it is kind of a you are or you are not type thing. so stop clingy to irrelevant slurs. yes primitivism interests me, no i am not a primitivist or even a 'semi-primitivist', as has been repeatably been shown.


Accuse me for being opportunistic if you want, but at least I take the general views of most ordinary workers seriously rather than adopt an ideological "holier-than-thou" stance and thinks most ordinary workers are reactionary and wrong.
no holier than thou here. i just have my opinions based upon my own experiences and readings. so what? should i change them because i do not think they are shared by everyone else? seems that leftism really is stuck in the swamp of quantity over quality. anyway, what i will say, is that i think that you'll find that a great many people who work in factories (yes people i know :eek:) do not love their technological surroundings and feeling like a cog in the machine, and the ones that do not necessary say that they hate it, do so out of a feeling of it being 'necessary'. but lets not squabble over who we know, or claim to know.


It's funny how some of the most explicit anti-statist anarchists can turn out to be some of the most authoritarian vanguardists in actual political practice. Like one of my Trot friends once said: Every anarchist is like a mini-Stalinist.
what has been said that would suggest authortarianism?

[Queercommie Girl]

a hammer is a tool, not the process that is being referred to as technology. look for my definition of the term in the thread.


The problem is in the application of technology to satisfy capitalist goals, not core technologies themselves intrinsically.



that is a nice opinion you have there.
Yeah, and one I happen to share with Karl Marx. :rolleyes: I'd rather go with Marx's original historical materialism than some kind of crazy "good vs. evil" moralist nonsense.



anti-lenin anarchists? what is a pro-lenin anarchist?
Not every anarchist intrinsically reject Lenin.



do not worry, we recongise we are a minority and most likely will remain so,
Yeah, and if that always persists then communism will never become a reality. :rolleyes:



we have no illusions of grandeur or some weirdly arrogant idea that we represent the ideas of anyone other than ourselves.
So in a genuinely democratic socialist society, the ideas of socialism don't really represent the majority of the working class? And it's an "illusion of grandeur" to believe that having the majority of the population on Earth believe in basic socialist ideas is certainly a plausible idea? :rolleyes:

It seems you are more interested in ideological self-validation than any kind of serious transitional strategy to attract more workers to socialism.



what western bourgeois liberalism is this? wanting to be in control of my own life and not submit to any idea that is considered, by others, to be above myself.
Western bourgeois sources tend to demonise Lenin, and even with Stalin (who I admit made a lot of mistakes) they tend to exaggerate his negative points.

Check your sources.

I didn't say the idea of "wanting to be in control of one's own life" is somehow intrinsically wrong.



who are the real working class and where do they live? also, what's a 'semi-primitivist', it is kind of a you are or you are not type thing. so stop clingy to irrelevant slurs. yes primitivism interests me, no i am not a primitivist or even a 'semi-primitivist', as has been repeatably been shown.
Not really. The world is not black and white. One can certainly partly believe in an ideology but not completely so. To some extent I consider myself to be a semi-Maoist.



seems that leftism really is stuck in the swamp of quantity over quality.
Funny, because I would probably say the opposite thing, given how tiny and insignificant revolutionary leftist forces are in today's world.

Ultimately, one doesn't acquire political victory because one has the "correct idea" in the abstract sense, one acquires political victory when one has sufficient political power to do so.



anyway, what i will say, is that i think that you'll find that a great many people who work in factories (yes people i know :eek:) do not love their technological surroundings and feeling like a cog in the machine, and the ones that do not necessary say that they hate it, do so out of a feeling of it being 'necessary'. but lets not squabble over who we know, or claim to know.
I'm not saying certain manifestations of technology under capitalism aren't problematic in some ways, as I said I'm not a "technophile" technically speaking. But I think you are exaggerating how much workers in general "hate" technology. What they really hate most of the time is the long working hours, bad working conditions and low pay.

I once read an interview of a Chinese Foxconn worker (you know, the infamous plant in which many workers literally committed suicide), and despite the fact that in a sense it was the apple iphone that literally killed his colleagues, he still says he really likes iphones, but unfortunately cannot afford to buy one, even though he actually makes them. There is no hint of an interest in primitivism or anti-technology at all.

So at the very least, being Chinese I can say that in China technophobic ideas are very rare, even among the most oppressed layers of the working class. (Most Chinese people today also label themselves as atheists) And China today is one of the most rapidly industrialising countries in the world, while many parts of the West are actually de-industrialising.

[Black Sheep]

The 1/3 should read more popularized science instead the astrology section.
:thumbdown:

[nuisance]

The problem is in the application of technology to satisfy capitalist goals, not core technologies themselves intrinsically.
the tools may not, but the process is. hate to this again but it does not exist in a vaccum. you keep isolating the product and tools from the process, that is technology.


Yeah, and one I happen to share with Karl Marx. :rolleyes: I'd rather go with Marx's original historical materialism than some kind of crazy "good vs. evil" moralist nonsense.
i don't really give a shit what marx said, so feel as chuffed as you like?
who's speaking of moralism? hang on, are you trying to attribute positions of me again?


Not every anarchist intrinsically reject Lenin.
you may get the odd platformist but i think you'd be hard pushed, especially when you try to make out that a significant section of anarchists are not anti-lenin, that's laughable.


Yeah, and if that always persists then communism will never become a reality. :rolleyes:
i don't think that everyone needs to be well versed in theory before revoultion, or communism, is possible. previous experiments justify this position.


So in a genuinely democratic socialist society, the ideas of socialism don't really represent the majority of the working class?

And it's an "illusion of grandeur" to believe that having the majority of the population on Earth believe in basic socialist ideas is certainly a plausible idea? :rolleyes:
we're talking about now, so....no your views evidently do not represent the majority of the working class.


It seems you are more interested in ideological self-validation than any kind of serious transitional strategy to attract more workers to socialism.
no, more so of encouraging critical independent thinking, not rallying behind some ideology. it is a fight to reappropriate life, not scarficing yourself to some body of thought.


Western bourgeois sources tend to demonise Lenin, and even with Stalin (who I admit made a lot of mistakes) they tend to exaggerate his negative points.
so you have to agree with lenin or suffer western bourgeois ideas...yeah, right. :lol:


Check your sources.
i know enough to know that it is not worth repeating.


didn't say the idea of "wanting to be in control of one's own life" is somehow intrinsically wrong.
good.


Not really. The world is not black and white. One can certainly partly believe in an ideology but not completely so. To some extent I consider myself to be a semi-Maoist.
this may be news to you, but you are not a maoist. you may take ideas and inspiration from maoism but you are not a maoist, or even semi. i do not oppose agriculture, i am not a primitivist. i am influenced yes, but that is merely another critique in my arsenal.


Funny, because I would probably say the opposite thing, given how tiny and insignificant revolutionary leftist forces are in today's world.
no, it just says that they're not very good at it.


Ultimately, one doesn't acquire political victory because one has the "correct idea" in the abstract sense, one acquires political victory when one has sufficient political power to do so.
i reject the political. you only need sufficient political power for victory if you intend to wield any of the 'democratic' structure of the state, so to gain some sense of legitimacy among the people you want to reshuffle.


I'm saying certain manifestations of technology under capitalism aren't problematic in some ways, as I said I'm not a "technophile" technically speaking. But I think you are exaggerating how much workers in general "hate" technology. What they really hate most of the time is the long working hours, bad working conditions and low pay.
as said already, technology is a process, which includes the conditions and hours etc that is part of it. a factory making nails will still be the same stifling job whether the workers had a say in the management of it, since it still does not allow for any flair or initative. it is inherent in the set up of the factory.


I once read an interview of a Chinese Foxconn worker (you know, the infamous plant in which many workers literally committed suicide), and despite the fact that in a sense it was the apple iphone that literally killed his colleagues, he still says he really likes iphones, but unfortunately cannot afford to buy one, even though he actually makes them. There is no hint of an interest in primitivism or anti-technology at all.
why are you talking about primitivism? again, you seperate the tool from how it was created. we are talking about the creation process, not simply the product.


So at the very least, being Chinese I can say that in China technophobic ideas are very rare, even among the most oppressed layers of the working class. (Most Chinese people today also label themselves as atheists) And China today is one of the most rapidly industrialising countries in the world, while many parts of the West are actually de-industrialising.
ok?

[nuisance]

anyone get the feeling that we are skirting around the same points?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

you can read it as a concession, but i assure you it is not. however if you truly would like to continue this then i suppose i shall, aslong as it exists outside of the realm of slurs and accusations. as such discussions on this topic typically degenerates into, as demonstrated, rather rapidly. not to say that i am innocent of it.

In my experience what tends to happen on this topic is that the pro-Zerzan side gets upset at being asked questions and take their ball home in a fit of pique.


i do find zerzan interesting

Why? What ideas has he espoused that you believe to be true and/or useful?


and i hope that a future society, based upon autonomy and mutual aid, will allow for people to live in many different manners depending upon their fancy at the time.
however i do not see how this sounds like primitivism, where has it been suggested that technology is inherently reactionary or that a gather-hunter lifestyle is desired?

Because the criticisms seem to be directed at the technology itself, rather than the capitalist price system. Even attacking the company in question would make a hell of a lot more sense; the name of Monsanto appears in a lot in GM debates, but the conduct of such corporations is a different issue to that of whether or not we should be using GM at all.


i think this point has been made quite a few times, so i do not see how it still evades? machinery, tools and techniques are not 'bad'. however we have to understand why they exist and in what context they exist and constitute technology. they have been created with capitalism, so capitalism is the context. capitalism is not interested in making sure everyone has the most up to date gadggets or whatever for the sake of it, it is so they can accumluate more capital. the arenas of technology- factories etc are built around control, as where the first places where technology was first brought in- monasteries, torture chambers and so on. this obviously based around control. so essentially innovatives in technology, in the current capitalist context are going to be used against the working class, were that's to increased productivity, surevilance or repression.

As has doubtless been pointed out to you, technological development under capitalism, while distorted by the demands of profit, is not universally bad.

It's like swearing off water because it can be used to waterboard people.

Furthermore, I'm not convinced that halting technological development under capitalism is desireable, assuming it is even possible.


i have defined my use of the word technology previously. it is not 'tainted', it is created by capitalists with the idea in mind of safeguarding their position. well that the concept of creating a bridge first has to be recongised as beneficial for someone to fund it and then it obvious has to adhere to a specified framework to get the funding. drawing a picture with dimensions is a picture. then you have the mining of metals, the construction of the bridge and so on, in structures designed to silience dissent and individual initative.

The point remains, however, that the primary function of a bridge is to enable the easy crossing of rivers and similar barriers, something that is useful not just under capitalism.

Would you recommend the destruction of structurally sound bridges just because they were built under capitalism?

All the shit that you're worried about - the crap designed to limit peoples' autonomy and shut down their initiative - exists in things like management techniques and factory floor layouts. But we won't have managers and we'll be free to change the floor plan of any building, so what's the problem?


it is moulded to meet their ends.

That doesn't tell me anything I don't know already.


yes, in a communist society. but alas we are not there and so our evaluation of the tools of capital must recongise this and not uncritically appreciate technological innovation since it gives them something to do and a way of meeting people.

There's a lot of talk about about people being "uncritical" of technological innovation under capitalism, but in my case at least that is simply not true. I have many issues with the way that technology is developed and deployed under capitalism, otherwise I wouldn't have been on a revolutionary left-wing website for the past near-decade.

But I suspect the "problem" is not so much that I lack a critique of technology under capitalism so much that I have the wrong kind of critique - my understanding is that capitalism is holding back technological and infrastructural development that is necessary for our species long-term comfort and survival.

[Aspiring Humanist]

and now all you have to do to participate in the revolution is join a facebook group and "like" a few things inbetween planting your crops in farmville

you saw end:civ too huh

[nuisance]

In my experience what tends to happen on this topic is that the pro-Zerzan side gets upset at being asked questions and take their ball home in a fit of pique.
largely, i would presume, due to the ganging up and largely pointless realm the debate exists in. i think it is clear everyone has their mind made up and the only feelings envoked are largely of animosity, rather than of interest and poigant discussion to sharpen our critiques.


Why? What ideas has he espoused that you believe to be true and/or useful?
i said interesting, not true or useful. however i am not well versed in his works.
anyway, largely his compilations on modern anthropological thought, which rids us of the hobbesian view of primitive peoples.


Because the criticisms seem to be directed at the technology itself, rather than the capitalist price system. Even attacking the company in question would make a hell of a lot more sense; the name of Monsanto appears in a lot in GM debates, but the conduct of such corporations is a different issue to that of whether or not we should be using GM at all.
yeah, alot of people oppose gm and want maintain control over what they ingest, aswell as keeping it out of the hands of money hungry coroporations. who can blame them and what anti-authoritrian would deny them choice especially when gm would price up more naturally produced foods because of the mass market. this technology is simply not suitable in such an economy.



As has doubtless been pointed out to you, technological development under capitalism, while distorted by the demands of profit, is not universally bad.

It's like swearing off water because it can be used to waterboard people.
it hasn't been suggested that technologies that could be applied usefully in a future society may exist, but this is largely irrelevant since we are concerned with the current context and how it is used.


Furthermore, I'm not convinced that halting technological development under capitalism is desireable, assuming it is even possible.
i am not suggesting that. but i think highlighting and resisting advances in technology that has detrimental affects to human life (including the enviroment) and further entrenches the logic of submission is only a positive thing.


The point remains, however, that the primary function of a bridge is to enable the easy crossing of rivers and similar barriers, something that is useful not just under capitalism.
the problem is you isolate the bridge, and in the process neglect the role of technology in producing it. afterall a bridge a tool that can be used. but how and why does it exist is the point.


Would you recommend the destruction of structurally sound bridges just because they were built under capitalism?
a bridge is not a technological process, it is out the outcome and i would suggest that new ways of building said bridge would exist in a communist world. needing a bridge does not make the process any more or less oppressive, especially since the worker is dispossessed of the product.


All the shit that you're worried about - the crap designed to limit peoples' autonomy and shut down their initiative - exists in things like management techniques and factory floor layouts. But we won't have managers and we'll be free to change the floor plan of any building, so what's the problem?
how much freedom can you have in a factory? i agree that perhaps this can be automated in the future, when these machines, tools and techniques are owned by everybody and no-one, but the point we are dealing with is technology (as i defined it) in the current context.


That doesn't tell me anything I don't know already.
good, something we can agree on!


There's a lot of talk about about people being "uncritical" of technological innovation under capitalism, but in my case at least that is simply not true. I have many issues with the way that technology is developed and deployed under capitalism, otherwise I wouldn't have been on a revolutionary left-wing website for the past near-decade.
i have not attributed blanket statements to people, but more so recieved them from others. however, what we have seen, admittebly not from you, is the the denial of a critique of technologies role in the submission of the individal in society and ill-gotten allegations of primitivism, as if it has nothing to benefit us at all, even out of interest and insight.


But I suspect the "problem" is not so much that I lack a critique of technology under capitalism so much that I have the wrong kind of critique - my understanding is that capitalism is holding back technological and infrastructural development that is necessary for our species long-term comfort and survival.
i would agree insofar much that capitalism stilfles innovation in certain directions with the emphasis being upon profit and social control. i still fail to see where i claimed that technology is inherently awful though.

[Dr Mindbender]

Ignoring your inability to understand or identify sarcasm, I am assuming you believe it was I who addressed the charge of you being a primitivist. When exactly did i make this claim? I deliberately used the terms techno-conservative and techno skeptic in a previous post.

[nuisance]

Ignoring your inability to understand or identify sarcasm, I am assuming you believe it was I who addressed the charge of you being a primitivist. When exactly did i make this claim? I deliberately used the terms techno-conservative and techno skeptic in a previous post.
no, i was not referring to you. sorry to disappoint.

[bcbm]

Facebook isn't the internet. The internet was around a long time before Facebook, and I suspect it will be around a long time afterwards as well.

What's funny is that about a decade ago you would have been sneering about MySpace, not Facebook, and you would still have looked just as silly for equating it with the internet. Seems like you're just as much swept up in the latest techno-fads as those poor drones you look down your nose at.

It also misses the point that, Facebook or no, I can now communicate with someone on the other side of the world, without having to shell out for international postage or phone charges. That cannot fail to have subversive potential.

i think you're missing the forest for the trees in my statement. the point was that the internet can be a tool for pacification as easily as a tool for subversion and i think lauding it as "the tool" for bringing down capitalism is asinine. it can be a useful aid, but it isn't ultimately what will make or break anything- we are and we can do it with or without the internet.


I guess you've never heard of Unionbook.

yes a ready made blacklist


All wealth and innovation in society are created by workers.

but as yet they don't control it and they are not the ones pumping money and resources into its development.


I think the more pertinent question is, who is blocking it?

the same people investing in it, cynically priming the next bubble while milking the current set up for all its worth.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

i think you're missing the forest for the trees in my statement. the point was that the internet can be a tool for pacification as easily as a tool for subversion and i think lauding it as "the tool" for bringing down capitalism is asinine.

I wasn't aware that anyone was lauding it as "the tool" to end capitalism. My impression is that the internet is the latest in a line of useful tools that should form part of any serious revolutionary's toolbox.

Facebook and Twitter have been mentioned by the mainstream media in relation to recent events in the Middle East and north Africa, but my understanding was that the vast majority of the people who actually took part don't use them - Twitter and Facebook do, however, put the familiar spin on events that mainstream news organisations seem to think we constantly need in order to hold our interest.

[bcbm]

I wasn't aware that anyone was lauding it as "the tool" to end capitalism.

it was right in the quotebox above what i said about facebook:


I am convinced that the internet is the proverbial rope to which Stalin was referring to when he made that quote.


My impression is that the internet is the latest in a line of useful tools that should form part of any serious revolutionary's toolbox.

Facebook and Twitter have been mentioned by the mainstream media in relation to recent events in the Middle East and north Africa, but my understanding was that the vast majority of the people who actually took part don't use them - Twitter and Facebook do, however, put the familiar spin on events that mainstream news organisations seem to think we constantly need in order to hold our interest.i think part of it too is also a sort of "look guys we helped!" thing

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

it was right in the quotebox above what i said about facebook:

Enthusiastic (overly so, perhaps) rhetoric indeed, but that's not the same as a statement of strategy. Dr Mindbender can correct me on this, but I hardly think he advocates giving up on all other media in favour of the internet.

[bcbm]

i'm sure he doesn't (well, maybe) but i still thought it was way over the top and ignores the pacifying elements of the internet.

[Dr Mindbender]

Enthusiastic (overly so, perhaps) rhetoric indeed, but that's not the same as a statement of strategy. Dr Mindbender can correct me on this, but I hardly think he advocates giving up on all other media in favour of the internet.

It depends what you mean by media. I dont think any media has or ever will be truly replaced. Painting and the written word has been around since the dawn of time and will probably be around as long as we're still here.
For me the internet represents the first phase of the next evolution of medias. I envisage one day in the distant future (emphasis on distant) cyberspace could be host to a 'Matrix style' virtual representation of the real world. Its just a question of development into the necessary game/graphics engines and user peripherals.