How do you view the development of technology?

[UltraWright]

What is your view concerning the social development of technology? That is, how do you approach the way society develops technology and the path that the development takes.

For instance, how does your philosophy explain that the contemporary technology has its current form rather than a steampunk one?

[CAleftist]

Technology for whom?

[Commissar Rykov]

What is your view concerning the social development of technology? That is, how do you approach the way society develops technology and the path that the development takes.

For instance, how does your philosophy explain that the contemporary technology has its current form rather than a steampunk one?
Because steampunk is silly fiction and hardly very useful? I am not quite sure what you want us to discuss here to be quite honest.

[Pioneers_Violin]

OK, I'm a student of Technology. I'll try....

Modern Technology is often invented by a lone inventor like oh, say, Newcomen, Tesla or Haber.
These Geniuses often seek only to improve life for everyone with their inventions and often die broke.
Just these three men alone changed the world forever in many ways yet hardly anyone now knows of them.

Then after the basic invention is made, many will seek to capitalize on it by either developing it further, copying it directly or modifying it so as to circumvent patent royalties.

Occasionally, some Cappie will either place a patent on something that someone else invented or draw up a patent on something that doesn't exist yet so when someone (else) does invent it, the Cappie get the reward. The Selden patents are a good example of this.

Then you've got the "Businessmen Inventors" like Edison. Ones that are in the business for the money and often hire "real" inventors to work for them or merely develop existing ideas further or merely market them. Such "Inventors" are not above dirty tricks to promote their ideas.

Meanwhile, the Capitalists will use Technology to increase Profits, often at the expense of workers. Ultimately, you end up with England in the 1800's with Child Labor, horribly unsafe conditions and rampant death and disease.

Even with the exploitation of workers, the products of modern technology do generally improve life for most, so society benefits as a whole.
Unless of course something gets used for what the Inventor never intended. Remember Fritz Haber? He invented a nice little process for making Nitrates for fertilizer so as to feed the world.... and Kaiser Wilhelm used it to start a World War! Germany of 1911 had too few nitrates to feed herself and make bombs and gunpowder... Haber changed that and a few years later... Boom.

Occasionally, a Great Inventor will insist that an invention go Royalty-free so as to benefit mankind. When this happens, (or when a patent runs out) a great effort is often made to replace the invention with something else that IS patented even if it's inferior.

My conclusion: Society itself does little outright invention. A few great Geniuses do. To adopt these technologies, Society then is often at the mercy of those driven to make profits and occasionally those driven to better life for everyone.

Oh well. At least that's how I view the happenings of the last couple of hundred years in the "Capitalist" world.

I have yet to study the great collective efforts in the USSR in detail... many great things were accomplished there but I am ignorant of the specifics.

One of the things that struck me with my first exposure to Soviet technology was a part labeled "Tesla". I wondered what a "Tesla" might be and looked "it" up.
It seems that the Soviets honored the truly great by naming factories after them! How very appropriate to name an electrical parts factory after Tesla.

[Dogs On Acid]

The path of technology along the dimension of time seems to be pretty much unilateral. The same as social-political systems, one technological achievement will eventually replace a previous one.

There might of course be slight exceptions to the rule, but it is pretty much impossible to go from the Stone age to the Iron Age without going through a Bronze age first.

Pretty much the same way that you can't achieve Communism from Despotism unless you go through Capitalism. It will fail.

Interestingly Technology is also intimately tied to the social-political system it flourishes in. Aside again from a few exceptions.

[gendoikari]

Because steampunk is silly fiction and hardly very useful? I am not quite sure what you want us to discuss here to be quite honest.

me either but I always liked to think the advancement of technology was there to improve the lives of the society. I.E. The poor today live better than the kings of yesterday. In fact there will come a day when robotics can perform all manufacturing, leaving humans the choice to submit to a totalitarian state that shuns and hoards that technology, or one where only those that wish to create need to actually work. That day is a long way off those.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

There are different directions technological development can go in at any particular time. To a large extend class struggle influences technology-automation was impelled by the need to replace or discipline uppitty workers and deskill work. Perhaps the explosion of information technology over the past few decades is connected to the "globalization" and the greater mobility of finance capital.

Technology of course can be, and has been a great force for human liberation.

[gendoikari]

There are different directions technological development can go in at any particular time. To a large extend class struggle influences technology-automation was impelled by the need to replace or discipline uppitty workers and deskill work. Perhaps the explosion of information technology over the past few decades is connected to the "globalization" and the greater mobility of finance capital.

Technology of course can be, and has been a great force for human liberation.
Your forgetting the inventions that revolutionized farming shortly after slavery was outlawed.

[StoneFrog]

Well development especially in software is aching to be let free from the constraints of capitalism. As capitalism deteriorates further along its course, you will see more development of things based not on for profit but out of the sake for development and necessity.

[gendoikari]

Well development especially in software is aching to be let free from the constraints of capitalism. As capitalism deteriorates further along its course, you will see more development of things based not on for profit but out of the sake for development and necessity.

you mean like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIsHKrP-66s

[ckaihatsu]

The path of technology along the dimension of time seems to be pretty much unilateral. The same as social-political systems, one technological achievement will eventually replace a previous one.

There might of course be slight exceptions to the rule, but it is pretty much impossible to go from the Stone age to the Iron Age without going through a Bronze age first.

Pretty much the same way that you can't achieve Communism from Despotism unless you go through Capitalism. It will fail.

Interestingly Technology is also intimately tied to the social-political system it flourishes in. Aside again from a few exceptions.


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

http://postimage.org/image/34mjeutk4/

[Dogs On Acid]

[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

http://postimage.org/image/34mjeutk4/

Does this support or contradict my proposition?

Support due to the relations I guess?

[ckaihatsu]

Does this support or contradict my proposition?

Support due to the relations I guess?


Yah.

It's a framework, so it illustrates societal relations in parallel, sorted according to scale.

I'll add that the juxtapositions shown also reveal an interesting (meta-)dynamic -- because of the scale aspect shown, you can visualize a social 'base' and 'superstructure' *relativistically*. So, for example, people may typically think of nature -- shown here at the ground level -- as being our "normal" social 'base', but with the mass usage of high-productivity technological means our social base is effectively "raised" to a very high level of functioning, as for transportation or communication.

Obversely this technology is "ceilinged" or "capped" at its upper boundary by society's overall mode of production, and by class rule. While we may have concepts and prototypes of even-more-advanced technologies in existence, these can't actually be fully socially realized until our *societal* limitations are transcended. An anti-class-rule proletarian revolution is *needed* to make this happen, to bring about a mode of fully *socialized* collective workers' production, for the good of everyone in the world. Currently production is artificially restricted by the limits of private capital ownership.

[Dogs On Acid]

Yah.

It's a framework, so it illustrates societal relations in parallel, sorted according to scale.

I'll add that the juxtapositions shown also reveal an interesting (meta-)dynamic -- because of the scale aspect shown, you can visualize a social 'base' and 'superstructure' *relativistically*. So, for example, people may typically think of nature -- shown here at the ground level -- as being our "normal" social 'base', but with the mass usage of high-productivity technological means our social base is effectively "raised" to a very high level of functioning, as for transportation or communication.

Obversely this technology is "ceilinged" or "capped" at its upper boundary by society's overall mode of production, and by class rule. While we may have concepts and prototypes of even-more-advanced technologies in existence, these can't actually be fully socially realized until our *societal* limitations are transcended. An anti-class-rule proletarian revolution is *needed* to make this happen, to bring about a mode of fully *socialized* collective workers' production, for the good of everyone in the world. Currently production is artificially restricted by the limits of private capital ownership.

So the superior strata is limited by the lower strata, hence the only way to change or remove the top is to alter the bottom. Once we remove class struggle by modifying the mode of production, what will replace class struggle? Collective collaboration?

Also the removal of the rulers/popular leaders/etc. strata altogether as would occur in Anarchy would require a complete redesign of the tower. The removal of this specific strata would also open previously massive boundaries, for the rulers strata limits all the other above itself. This would mean a complete redesign of society and human mentality, and possibly create NEW barriers (strata) to replace the old ones?

[ckaihatsu]

So the superior strata is limited by the lower strata,


No, it's better to conceptualize the levels as "floors" and "ceilings" -- higher floors / levels, once reached, give rise to a more enabled / complex / sophisticated paradigm of social being for any given society. Likewise, any of the levels may also be an upper boundary, or "ceiling" that *limits* higher-level social functioning.





hence the only way to change or remove the top is to alter the bottom.


Lower-level developments may *or* may not serve to raise the societal base of functioning -- it all depends on if there's "room" "above" to *allow* those upward-reaching developments as well.





Once we remove class struggle by modifying the mode of production,


Think of it as "punching through" the ceiling, for a relative point of view at any level -- remember this part...?





[It] is pretty much impossible to go from the Stone age to the Iron Age without going through a Bronze age first.

Pretty much the same way that you can't achieve Communism from Despotism unless you go through Capitalism. It will fail.


So a certain *kind* of mode of production, once attained, will enable the *possibility* of "punching through the ceiling" to attain involvement and *some* degree of functioning at the next-higher level.





what will replace class struggle? Collective collaboration?


The class struggle has been around since the time of a societal surplus of production and its related type of class rule. That's why it's positioned *above* the mode of production, because class rule *limits* any given mode of production from advancing any higher. If class rule and its concomitant class struggle was not the "ceiling" of social existence then it wouldn't need to be there and the mode of production would be at the very top, necessarily that of a post-commodity-production, fully global-proletarian socialized production for humane need.





Also the removal of the rulers/popular leaders/etc. strata altogether as would occur in Anarchy would require a complete redesign of the tower.


I respectfully disagree here. While I'm not speaking as an anarchist, my understanding -- and extrapolation based on it -- is that *some* kind of politics would continue after the existence of class has ended, since there would still be large-scale materials and a socialized productive process to determine in a collective way.

The *difference* would that empires / nation-states / city-states would either cease to exist or would continue to exist in non-authoritarian ways, as some countries' royalty does today -- ditto for some institutions, leaders, administrators, etc.





The removal of this specific strata would also open previously massive boundaries, for the rulers strata limits all the other above itself.


Yes and no, as with any or all of the levels.

The 'rulers / popular leaders / presidents / officials' level would actually be a *positive* development for a world of rampant local warring tribalism, but in our present day it's a woefully *outdated* system of roles that feels "below ground" compared to the social existence we now access and live through with common societal and consumer technologies.

I agree that routines and rituals at that level only 'drag us down' because they're simply not needed anymore.





This would mean a complete redesign of society and human mentality, and possibly create NEW barriers (strata) to replace the old ones?


Please feel free to elaborate if you like -- it's a generic framework so it's meant to facilitate and grow any ideas you throw into it.

[Dogs On Acid]

No, it's better to conceptualize the levels as "floors" and "ceilings" -- higher floors / levels, once reached, give rise to a more enabled / complex / sophisticated paradigm of social being for any given society. Likewise, any of the levels may also be an upper boundary, or "ceiling" that *limits* higher-level social functioning.

Class struggle cannot exist without a mode of production just as rulers cannot exist without people. So the lower strata shall always be the ultimate limiters. Not the other way around. The mode of production is not limited by class struggle, for the mode of production itself is independent of the existance class struggle or not. Struggle is simply a product of the MoP, and such cannot limit it, only promote a replacement of it, that is inevitably achieved due to contradictions and decay.




Think of it as "punching through" the ceiling, for a relative point of view at any level -- remember this part...?

Not punching through, but removing, altering or replacing. For if we have a communist/anarchist society, if class struggle were "punched through" it would still remain a lower strata to the one we opened it's hole to. As such, if it still exists then classes still exist. As such, it wouldn't be communism. Thus the tower would be redesigned, rulers/leaders/etc would be replaced with communal democracy and all above strata would be altered because of this, for the lower strata defines above strata.

It would turn into this +-:

|Collectivism/Classlessness (has replaced Class Struggle for it ceases to exist)|
|MoP|
|Technology/Technique (should be placed below economy, for economy is a product of technology, but I might be wrong here, I think that's what Marx said, that Economical progress is defined by technology, hence technology is the ultimate barrier to practical economics, but not abstract theories (movements)??)|
|Economical Trends|
|Regional Culture|
|Communes/Communities - Rogue remaining Capitalist States|
|Movements/Institutions (should not be placed so low? for movements and institutions are a product of Socio-Economical systems and technology (Historical Materialism), hence it should be ABOVE economic trends and technology, and BELOW mode of production, which it seeks to consciously replace)|
|Communal Democracy (replaces leaders and all above strata are manipulated directly)|
|Events (isn't this Objective reality/Nature?? For an extinction is an event that would affect people, humans can only manipulate an event, not remove it, for an occurred event is past and unchangeable and a future event can only be manipulated into another different event unless time ceases to exist, this would be the last event of all that would also be impossible to manipulate in the current dimension, so people against reality acts as class struggle against MoP)|
|People|
|Objective reality, Nature|


Lower strata DIRECTLY manipulates above strata, it has ultimate authority over it.
Above strata INDIRECTLY manipulates lower strata, but has no ultimate authority over it.

As you can see the whole tower has been redesigned to fit Material Conditions.

[ckaihatsu]

Class struggle cannot exist without a mode of production just as rulers cannot exist without people. So the lower strata shall always be the ultimate limiters.


If you like, in the sense that lower-level forms of social existence are akin to 'dead weight' that 'pull us down'.

For example, we long ago transcended our 'natural state' and so we are not *bound* to a social existence that only knows the implements of nature, yet we *are* biologically natural and can potentially still be 'pulled down' by our biological selves, as with disease, harm, etc.





Not the other way around.


Well, I'm going to have to insist that it's *both* -- of course we don't want to 'fall through the floor', but we'd *also* like to not be limited by the 'ceiling'.





The mode of production is not limited by class struggle,


Yes, it *is* constrained by the existence of class rule, and by the efforts necessarily expended by either side in the class struggle.





for the mode of production itself is independent of the existance class struggle or not.


It *can* be, since there was a period of human history -- *most* of it, in fact -- that existed without generating a societal surplus or a need for class division (and class struggle). (This was the 'primitive communism' mode of production.)





Struggle is simply a product of the MoP, and such cannot limit it, only promote a replacement of it, that is inevitably achieved due to contradictions and decay.


But the class struggle *does* limit it because if workers had their way they would just run industry the way they know best, without interference from the managers of capital.

Class struggle does *not necessarily* promote an overturning of the current (capitalist) mode of production -- that's why it's called 'struggle'. There's nothing *inevitable* about the transcending of capitalism, though I think a strong argument for it *can* be made.





Not punching through, but removing, altering or replacing. For if we have a communist/anarchist society, if class struggle were "punched through" it would still remain a lower strata to the one we opened it's hole to.


This makes no sense, because 'class struggle' contradicts 'collectivism / classlessness'. (Either there are contending classes or there aren't.)





As such, if it still exists then classes still exist. As such, it wouldn't be communism.


Right -- that's what *I'm* saying.

It would make more sense to "remove the ceiling" of class rule / class struggle once it's been transcended, opening up a socialized collectivized mode of production as the highest, most advanced, most complex societal form ever attained by human civilization. This is what I said originally.

As things stand the *class struggle* is the most developed, advanced form of social existence ever, if viewed as a "floor". (In the schematic diagram it can be seen to be "pure management", with no labor activity or pleasure included.)





Thus the tower would be redesigned, rulers/leaders/etc would be replaced with communal democracy


If you like, though that's a particularly *anarchist* conception of a post-capitalist mode of production, and is debatable.





and all above strata would be altered because of this, for the lower strata defines above strata.

It would turn into this +-:

|Collectivism/Classlessness (has replaced Class Struggle for it ceases to exist)|
|MoP|


I tend to think of these two post-capitalist uppermost levels as being one and the same.





|Technology/Technique (should be placed below economy, for economy is a product of technology, but I might be wrong here, I think that's what Marx said, that Economical progress is defined by technology, hence technology is the ultimate barrier to practical economics, but not abstract theories (movements)??)|


Only a certain degree / level of social organization can give rise to particular technologies -- for example, only the joint-stock aggregation of capital, combined with an urban industrial gathering of close-quarters factory workers is sufficient for the mass production of machine tools.

But the same tired routines of technology production begin to *limit* economic development -- we know this as *overproduction*.





|Economical Trends|
|Regional Culture|
|Communes/Communities - Rogue remaining Capitalist States|


To be precise, either capitalist states exist or they don't -- once 'collectivism / classlessness' has been attained it would structurally *surpass* and *supersede* the politics of capitalist states, leaving them to only be geographical markers at most.

I'll also add that 'economic trends' wouldn't exist, post-capitalism, since such a politics would *be* the economics, on a mass-intentional pre-planned scale.





|Movements/Institutions (should not be placed so low? for movements and institutions are a product of Socio-Economical systems and technology (Historical Materialism), hence it should be ABOVE economic trends and technology, and BELOW mode of production, which it seeks to consciously replace)|


I'd say 'no' here because a pre-class, *tribal* / clan grouping could have its own 'movements', as with incoming generations of youth, and its 'institutions', as with certain rituals that stay more-or-less static through many generations.

Technology tends to *disrupt* the traditionally steady pattern of incoming generations into gradual, age-based participation in society and its matters of governance -- that's why technology is higher-level than traditional institutions.





|Communal Democracy (replaces leaders and all above strata are manipulated directly)|
|Events (isn't this Objective reality/Nature??


No, events are *social* occurrences and do not necessarily have to take place, depending on societal conditions. (Please note the attached second diagram in which I detail 'events' with 'who' 'what' 'where' 'when' 'why' and 'how'.)





|Events (isn't this Objective reality/Nature?? For an extinction is an event that would affect people,


Okay, then, for the example of 'mass natural extinction', that *event* is the *upper bounding limit* of *nature*.





humans can only manipulate an event, not remove it, for an occurred event is past and unchangeable and a future event can only be manipulated into another different event unless time ceases to exist, this would be the last event of all that would also be impossible to manipulate in the current dimension,


Yes, all levels of history take place in regular time, as on a timeline.





so people against reality acts as class struggle against MoP)|


I don't understand this part of yours.





|People|
|Objective reality, Nature|




Lower strata DIRECTLY manipulates above strata, it has ultimate authority over it.


In a post-capitalist context I could see this as being the case for *political* matters, but there's always the hazard of routinized habits, possibly -- even with fully socialized collectivized mass production there might be those who may tend to aggregate themselves into "traditional" institutional practices within. Perhaps a condition of 'permanent revolution' would need to be maintained in perpetuity to make sure that elitist power blocs don't re-formulate.





Above strata INDIRECTLY manipulates lower strata, but has no ultimate authority over it.

As you can see the whole tower has been redesigned to fit Material Conditions.


Thanks for the input -- 'ppreciate it.


History, Macro-Micro -- Political (Cognitive) Dissonance

http://postimage.org/image/35rsjgh0k/

[ckaihatsu]

(I'll just also throw in this additional diagram that can be used in conjunction with the other ones I posted to this thread.) (Its dynamics can be placed within any given 'level'.)


Interpersonal Meanings

http://postimage.org/image/1d5a6d1c4/

[Dogs On Acid]

(I'll just also throw in this additional diagram that can be used in conjunction with the other ones I posted to this thread.) (Its dynamics can be placed within any given 'level'.)


Interpersonal Meanings

http://postimage.org/image/1d5a6d1c4/

My stupid brain can't grasp the point of that diagram.

Is it some sort of quality of information by hierarchy? From the top meaning pure truth/fact joined to objective unemotion and the bottom representing false truth/subjective knowledge bonded to subjective emotions?

[ckaihatsu]

Is it some sort of quality of information by hierarchy? From the top meaning pure truth/fact joined to objective unemotion and the bottom representing false truth/subjective knowledge bonded to subjective emotions?


No, but thanks for asking (grin)...!

Nothing about the interpersonal meanings is about unemotional objectivity because the term 'meaning' *implies* *subjectivity*, varying according to a person's own interpretations. (It can be used in combination with the historically *objective* 'History: Macro-Micro' framework, as I've noted.)

That said, though, someone could probably make a decent point for 'wisdom' being *inter-subjective* in many cases, often operating in a socialized commonality. As this conceptual framework is set up, a heightened point of 'wisdom' either brings you up to the next level in the 'History: Macro-Micro' framework or brings you up high enough to 'punch through' to the next-higher level. (Since it's a framework it's ultimately decided by the particulars of whoever uses it.)

There's no 'emotional' component in the 'Inter-Personal Meanings' framework, though I usually conceptualize such a schematic component as extending just beyond one's sole personhood, as an extended expanding circular area around oneself, with an outlying circular band of 'physicality' just outside of that. (This, then, is intrinsically an interpretation of emotions as being strictly *social* emotions.)

All three concentric circular areas are modeled as a circular arrangement of the main 'Bloom's Taxonomy' categories around the individual:


[14] Bloom's Taxonomy, Illustrated

http://postimage.org/image/1coz2ku10/


[12] G.U.T.S.U.C.

http://postimage.org/image/194apk0w4/

[ckaihatsu]

I'd be remiss if I left out one final portion, since these exchanges have now covered the 'History: Macro-Micro' (objective) historical framework and also the 'Inter-Personal Meanings' (subjective / inter-subjective) social framework.

We can conceptualize a third, "mid-ground", portion "between" these two scales of interpersonal and societal-historical -- that of the *political*, which has a historical and objective material ongoing trajectory, but which will also *vary* according to current conditions and subjective interests.

The conventional left-right political spectrum is represented throughout the frameworks I've attached as a visual virtual *physical space* continuum from left to right. These three main systems of conceptualization are all congruent and complementary to each other so that anyone may "line up" their various elements in customized arrangements to model any given material social-political situation.


[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

http://postimage.org/image/34modgv1g/


[21] Ideologies & Operations

http://postimage.org/image/1d2pk9lok/

[Queercommie Girl]

Because steampunk is silly fiction and hardly very useful? I am not quite sure what you want us to discuss here to be quite honest.

Steampunk is fiction so it's not to be taken seriously in the political sense.

However, you shouldn't just dismiss it as "silly" either since there are many socialists here who appreciate science fiction as a great form of literature.

Personally steampunk isn't my favourite genre of science fiction, but there are a few good ones in this category too.

Anti-science fiction is a wrong view to take because frankly such a view is offensive to socialists who like science fiction.

[Dogs On Acid]

Anti-science fiction is a wrong view to take because frankly such a view is offensive to socialists who like science fiction.

Anti-McDonald's is a wrong view to take because frankly such a view is offensive to socialists who like a Big N' Tasty.

[Queercommie Girl]

Anti-McDonald's is a wrong view to take because frankly such a view is offensive to socialists who like a Big N' Tasty.

How the fuck is anti-science fiction like anti-McDonald?

To dismiss sci-fi as fast food is pretty fucking stupid, IMO.

And frankly, yes I do think as a political stance to be "anti-McDonald" is completely futile and useless. Personal taste is another matter.

I think if you did a poll here, you will find that the number of socialists who like some form of science fiction greatly exceeds the number of socialists who actually like McDonalds.

One of the famous contemporary authors of steampunk-style sci-fi, China Mieville, is actually a member of the SWP. There is, to some degree, a link between radical leftism and science fiction, and such a link is certainly not present between radical socialism and any form of fast food.

And with all the sectarianism that already exists on the left, don't you think it's pretty stupid to have arguments over personal tastes in art and literature? One problem with some people is that they seem to have a strong opinion about almost everything. Nothing really socialist about that at all.

There are many things I don't like on a purely personal level, but frankly I never tell other people about it anywhere (unless people force it on me) because I just don't like getting into useless arguments over things that serve no positive purpose. I'm just not opinionated when it comes to aesthetics. There are things I don't like personally, but I never make it into some kind of "anti-something" on any ideological level.

[Queercommie Girl]

Anti-McDonald's is a wrong view to take because frankly such a view is offensive to socialists who like a Big N' Tasty.

By the way, suppose I said Anti-religion is a wrong view to take because frankly such a view is offensive to socialists who are religious, would you still have used the same kind of sarcasm? If not, then frankly what is the difference between the 2 cases?

[Hit The North]

Anti-science fiction is a wrong view to take because frankly such a view is offensive to socialists who like science fiction.

I enjoy a K Dick or Gibson as much as the next nerd, but to say it can't be dismissed because it might be offensive to people who like it, is just silly. As far as I'm concerned, everyone has the right to offend me.

To bring it back to the question, technological innovation under capitalism is stimulated through the competition of capitalists attempting to increase the productivity of their workforce (generally resulting in a shrinking of the wage bill as a percentage of the total outputs and, obviously, de-skilling and unemployment).

[Queercommie Girl]

I enjoy a K Dick or Gibson as much as the next nerd, but to say it can't be dismissed because it might be offensive to people who like it, is just silly. As far as I'm concerned, everyone has the right to offend me.


Well, I'd say it's pointless to have arguments over non-political things. Arguments always have the potential to cause divisions among an already excessively sectarian left. It's also a waste of energy to have a strong opinion about everything.

My own stance is that frankly I don't give a damn about other people's styles, as long as they don't force me to follow it. Live and let live. I generally don't engage in aesthetic critique, so if someone literally walks up to me naked I won't criticise him/her. Frankly I'm too fucking lazy to have an opinion on everything. Life is too short for that.

But at least you should recognise that religion and culture shouldn't be made into a special case either. We should have the right to offend religious socialists too by dismissing their religion, including Muslim socialists. I find it pretty fucking stupid to always make religion a special case - that you are allowed to trash every single thing about a person's personal preferences, the clothes they wear, the books they read, the music they listen to, but whenever it comes to religion somehow it's just magically a special case that no-one dares to touch.

I mean if you say to a sci-fi fan right next to his/her face that sci-fi is the worst shit in the universe, you are merely expressing a valid personal opinion. But if you say to a Muslim right next to his/her face that you think the same thing about the Qu'ran, then you must be an Islamophobe and a racist.

Religion really isn't anything special relative to clothing styles, art and literature. If we follow your logic, then people should be allowed to trash religion however they like too.

[Dogs On Acid]

How the fuck is anti-science fiction like anti-McDonald?

To dismiss sci-fi as fast food is pretty fucking stupid, IMO.

And frankly, yes I do think as a political stance to be "anti-McDonald" is completely futile and useless. Personal taste is another matter.

I think if you did a poll here, you will find that the number of socialists who like some form of science fiction greatly exceeds the number of socialists who actually like McDonalds.

One of the famous contemporary authors of steampunk-style sci-fi, China Mieville, is actually a member of the SWP. There is, to some degree, a link between radical leftism and science fiction, and such a link is certainly not present between radical socialism and any form of fast food.

And with all the sectarianism that already exists on the left, don't you think it's pretty stupid to have arguments over personal tastes in art and literature? One problem with some people is that they seem to have a strong opinion about almost everything. Nothing really socialist about that at all.

There are many things I don't like on a purely personal level, but frankly I never tell other people about it anywhere (unless people force it on me) because I just don't like getting into useless arguments over things that serve no positive purpose. I'm just not opinionated when it comes to aesthetics. There are things I don't like personally, but I never make it into some kind of "anti-something" on any ideological level.

Calm the fuck down, it was a joke :thumbdown:

[Dogs On Acid]

By the way, suppose I said Anti-religion is a wrong view to take because frankly such a view is offensive to socialists who are religious, would you still have used the same kind of sarcasm? If not, then frankly what is the difference between the 2 cases?

Because Science Fiction is a case of entertainment, not a case of delusion.

[Queercommie Girl]

Because Science Fiction is a case of entertainment, not a case of delusion.

That's actually not an entirely bad answer, but if the latter is really a case of delusion, then surely even more reason to be able to freely criticise it?

I guess I feel a bit more passionate about sci-fi than the average nerd who just sees it as "entertainment" like say good food or something.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/symphony-science-set-t159126/index.html

For me science and humanism basically completely takes the place of religions for religious people.

But then as I said, "steampunk" really isn't my favourite sci-fi genre anyway.

[GPDP]

Well this thread took a turn for the worst.

Anyway, to ask about the merits of technological development on the abstract is kind of pointless. Such a question misses the crucial dimension of WHO benefits from the technology.

For instance, I and hopefully everyone else here sees the development of communications technology and the exponential growth in computational power to be generally quite beneficial to all of us. However, the development of more sinister things, such as military weapons programs and domestic surveillance tech should be cause for worry. And of course, chances are capitalism will dictate all the "good" developments to also aid in furthering the "bad" developments (better communications technology will of course help in better surveillance).

Obviously, that does not take away from the merits of socially-beneficial technology. It just means we need to get rid of the corrupting influence of capitalism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Technology is developed and utilized in connection to the ruling class and how they have organized society. So in capitalism that means medicine, machines and so on are made to uphold the profit system - or at least the defenders of the profit-system since a lot of technology is developed through the military here in the US.

So if wood was more efficient and cheaper than petrol as a fuel source, then we probably would have more steam-based technology:lol:. Instead we have a petrol-based society - especially in places that have developed more recently, like most US cities compared to older cities where there might be more of a central urban hub and trains and so on that were developed before cars. Of course petrol is very problematic as well all know, but since the profit-system is short-sighted, from a capitalist standpoint, using oil until it becomes too hard to extract and too expensive to use (even at the risk of either crashing the entire world trade system by making transportation of commodities too expensive or destroying the world's environment), is completely "logical". This is why on the one hand capitalism creates the potential to make great advantages, but the social relations often put the breaks on these possibilities.

[Thirsty Crow]

To bring it back to the question, technological innovation under capitalism is stimulated through the competition of capitalists attempting to increase the productivity of their workforce (generally resulting in a shrinking of the wage bill as a percentage of the total outputs and, obviously, de-skilling and unemployment).
So, would it be correct to say that technological development stands in relation to the deepenig of the division of labour (primarily the division between mental and physical labour)? Would it be meaningful to conclude that this development itself acts as a motor force for the before mentioned advance in the division of labour?

[hatzel]

As we're kind of talking about sci-fi and technology, I feel we should check this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14291992) out...there is a potential for cross-over between sci-fi and other fictional ideas and the actual development of technology...