Why it is necessary for a Classless society to suppress technological advancement

[Crest]

I put a lot of things down in inacurate ways here/phrased them wrong, etc.
Plus this, please realize that this has since become outdated, actually by the arguments provided in this thread. I no longer believe in this primitivism, and I no longer believe it part of the revolution.


As is the basis of all/most Left-wing Philosophies, evil must be purged. The root of evil is, of course, different classes of people (Such as proletariat and bourgeoisie) and Class Transition (the process that will eventually end with Total Middle Class, as in my work, the Genticus Manuscript, which has it's own thread in this section). One question that isn't usually addressed, however, is what is the actual root of class division. Well, from what I've seen, read, and figured, there are two causes. First of all, there is capitalist structure. As long as the system of anybody getting money from anybody else is in tact, some people will recieve more money than others, creating class division.

The other part, now... I would say, in a term, that the second cause of class division is technological advancement. This would not be a problem under some circumstances, however, in any form of economy, Capitalist, Socialist, Communist, whatever, as long as there is the concept of working in a factory, the more technology there is, the less jobs open to the public there are. I understand that some jobs cannot be done/are better off not done by people, and in these exceptions, fine, keep on progressing, but in many situations, good jobs are taken by advancement. Already we see a large number of people who can't find a decent proffesion because of such advancement (and more are being dropped, all the time), and if we keep progressing, it my so happen that there will be pretty much only one job left: Repairperson... and while there's probably already more than enough machines to occupy every person on Earth with such a job, not everyone wants to be forced into a job they don't like, and some people just don't like working with machines.

The point I'm trying to make here is this: Technological advancement must stay where it belongs, with capitalist economy, and fall with it. It is okay to suppress the advancement of technology, and okay to suppress already existing technology for the sake of getting people jobs, and allowing more people to keep jobs they enjoy, that would otherwise have them dropped because of technology. In an individualist sence, many people may frown upon the idea, seeing it as cruel, strange, or even fascist in it's nature, however, Collectively speaking, it's better for society as a whole. It isn't oppressive, it is merely another element that will help all of the world, instead of depending on Bourgeoisie to allow you to have a job.

I hope this helps explain my view on the topic.

Again I beg for question, comments, critiques, et cetera.

[Luís Henrique]

As is the basis of all/most Left-wing Philosophies, evil must be purged.

No, that is a religious view that has nothing to do with the left.


One question that isn't usually addressed, however, is what is the actual root of class division. Well, from what I've seen, read, and figured, there are two causes. First of all, there is capitalist structure. As long as the system of anybody getting money from anybody else is in tact, some people will recieve more money than others, creating class division.That's not capitalist structure. Capitalism is about the production and extraction of surplus value, not about "getting money from anybody else".


The other part, now... I would say, in a term, that the second cause of class division is technological advancement.You are, of course, completely wrong.


This would not be a problem under some circumstances, however, in any form of economy, Capitalist, Socialist, Communist, whatever, as long as there is the concept of working in a factory, the more technology there is, the less jobs open to the public there are. I understand that some jobs cannot be done/are better off not done by people, and in these exceptions, fine, keep on progressing, but in many situations, good jobs are taken by advancement. Already we see a large number of people who can't find a decent proffesion because of such advancement (and more are being dropped, all the time), and if we keep progressing, it my so happen that there will be pretty much only one job left: Repairperson... and while there's probably already more than enough machines to occupy every person on Earth with such a job, not everyone wants to be forced into a job they don't like, and some people just don't like working with machines.We want all jobs taken by advancement. We, in fact, want the end of all jobs; we want the end of wage slavery.


The point I'm trying to make here is this: Technological advancement must stay where it belongs, with capitalist economy, and fall with it. It is okay to suppress the advancement of technology, and okay to suppress already existing technology for the sake of getting people jobs, and allowing more people to keep jobs they enjoy, that would otherwise have them dropped because of technology. In an individualist sence, many people may frown upon the idea, seeing it as cruel, strange, or even fascist in it's nature, however, Collectively speaking, it's better for society as a whole. It isn't oppressive, it is merely another element that will help all of the world, instead of depending on Bourgeoisie to allow you to have a job.It is not something that leftists want. We want technological advancement, not its suppression. We fight against the capitalist system, not against technology, and, in fact, we regard the enemies of technological development as enemies of the working class.

Furthermore, it is impossible to stop technological development. How would you do that?

Luís Henrique

[Crest]

No, that is a religious view that has nothing to do with the left.
Well, the actual thing I was trying to say was that the the things we do is all in the name of ending oppression.





That's not capitalist structure. Capitalism is about the production and extraction of surplus value, not about "getting money from anybody else".

One thing leads to another... it's essentially the same concept, just not in definition form.


We want all jobs taken by advancement. We, in fact, want the end of all jobs; we want the end of wage slavery.
Of course, of course, but this is more to do with the process of transition to leftism than the actual result. Until we are civilized enough a people to advance without creating weapons, etc., we need to suppress technological advancement.




It is not something that leftists want. We want technological advancement, not its suppression. We fight against the capitalist system, not against technology, and, in fact, we regard the enemies of technological development as enemies of the working class.
I suppose it all comes down to where you stand, and where your branch of leftism specifically stands, here. The point here is that Technological Advancement and capitalism go hand in hand, and until we can become a half-way-decent species that doesn't feel the need to fight at every term, it is in the interest of all to fight technology. Perhaps I'm an enemy of the working class and don't know it, but my theory here is in the intention of nothing but the best for said class.


Furthermore, it is impossible to stop technological development. How would you do that?
Who said anything about stopping advancement completely? No. We, as a species, need to keep innovating the things that matter, or we will die, because we're occustomed to having these things in our life. We simply need to stop filling our factories with machines.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Until we are civilized enough a people to advance without creating weapons, etc., we need to suppress technological advancement.

Will. Not. Happen. The further technology advances, the easier it is to create weapons of mass destruction. A spacefaring civilisation doesn't need a fleet of space warships in order to attack a planet - all it has to do is redirect asteroids to smack into it, which if you're space capable is remarkably easy.

Violence will exist among humans as long as humans have differences of opinion, and I think the chances of us ever totally agreeing on all matters is remote in the extreme.


The point here is that Technological Advancement and capitalism go hand in hand, and until we can become a half-way-decent species that doesn't feel the need to fight at every term, it is in the interest of all to fight technology.Technological advancement happened before capitalism, you dolt. And for own sake it had better continue after capitalism.


Perhaps I'm an enemy of the working class and don't know it, but my theory here is in the intention of nothing but the best for said class.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Forcing one's ideas about how things should be onto people "for their own good" is one of the primary justifications of tyranny.


Who said anything about stopping advancement completely? No. We, as a species, need to keep innovating the things that matter, or we will die, because we're occustomed to having these things in our life. We simply need to stop filling our factories with machines.If we stop filling our factories with machines, people will die. You obviously don't realise just how essential technology is to human survival. We're a technological species. We lack claws and sharp teeth to hunt, thick fur to keep us warm, and we are physically weak. We have machines and technology to feed us, clothe us, and greatly magnify our power to do work and alter our environment.

[Hit The North]

Violence will exist among humans as long as humans have differences of opinion, and I think the chances of us ever totally agreeing on all matters is remote in the extreme.

If all (or even most) differences of opinion were settled with violence then I'd be black and blue and in and out of prison.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If all (or even most) differences of opinion were settled with violence then I'd be black and blue and in and out of prison.

Thank you for that strawman, Pollyanna. :rolleyes: I never said that all differences of opinion lead to violence. The differences of opinion that are percieved as important even if they are trivial in reality, however, historically do so.

[piet11111]

after the revolution we don't want to create jobs we want to work as little as possible while still increasing industrial output through the application of technology.

work is a necessary evil in our life but through technology we can keep it at a minimum leaving us far more time to do things we enjoy.

[Hit The North]

Thank you for that strawman, Pollyanna. :rolleyes: I never said that all differences of opinion lead to violence. The differences of opinion that are percieved as important even if they are trivial in reality, however, historically do so.

No, what you said was this:
Violence will exist among humans as long as humans have differences of opinion, and I think the chances of us ever totally agreeing on all matters is remote in the extreme.

I merely hold out the possibility that we'll one day create a society where no difference of opinion will result in the kind of violence which demands weapons of mass destruction. :)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I merely hold out the possibility that we'll one day create a society where no difference of opinion will result in the kind of violence which demands weapons of mass destruction. :)

I applaud your optimism, but cannot share it. A quick look at human history confirms my suspicion that humans will be willing to kill each other over what they feel is important.

[Crest]

I'll check my facts about the factories.


This thread is quickly heading towards my junk pile.

[Vanguard1917]

I applaud your optimism, but cannot share it. A quick look at human history confirms my suspicion that humans will be willing to kill each other over what they feel is important.


You're ignoring the material basis for war and armed conflict. Is it really true that people have historically gone to war over 'ideas' and 'feelings' of what is important? Or is war in fact ultimately a consequence of the underlying material contradictions of society, of a society which is divided into classes?



The point I'm trying to make here is this: Technological advancement must stay where it belongs, with capitalist economy, and fall with it. It is okay to suppress the advancement of technology, and okay to suppress already existing technology for the sake of getting people jobs, and allowing more people to keep jobs they enjoy, that would otherwise have them dropped because of technology. In an individualist sence, many people may frown upon the idea, seeing it as cruel, strange, or even fascist in it's nature, however, Collectively speaking, it's better for society as a whole. It isn't oppressive, it is merely another element that will help all of the world, instead of depending on Bourgeoisie to allow you to have a job.



But the aim of a post-capitalist, communist society is surely to increase the productivity of labour, i.e. produce more with less labour-time, and therefore reduce the amount work that people have to do in order to produce the goods that society needs? If technological progress is key to increasing labour productivity, then shouldn't a communist society champion its progress rather than seek to hinder it?

[Hit The North]

I applaud your optimism, but cannot share it.

Really? I thought you were a revolutionary.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You're ignoring the material basis for war and armed conflict. Is it really true that people have historically gone to war over 'ideas' and 'feelings' of what is important? Or is war in fact ultimately a consequence of the underlying material contradictions of society, of a society which is divided into classes?

That's easy for you to say since we don't have any classless societies to compare, but I can't help but notice that war occurs in all class societies, regardless of the nature of said society.

I have seen no good reason why armed conflict as a means of settling disputes (whether these be ideological or material) will suddenly disappear, as there is no historical precedent for it.

In short, war is a fact of class society, and the burden of proof is on those who say classless society will be different.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Really? I thought you were a revolutionary.

I percieve a popular revolution as desirable but I am not under any illusions that it is inevitable. My status as a revolutionary is not a matter of blind faith as yours seems to be.

[Vanguard1917]

That's easy for you to say since we don't have any classless societies to compare, but I can't help but notice that war occurs in all class societies, regardless of the nature of said society.

No, but we can study wars and reveal their underlying causes and understand that such causes are historically specific rather than eternal and instrinsic to human society.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No, but we can study wars and reveal their underlying causes and understand that such causes are historically specific rather than eternal and instrinsic to human society.

And your evidence that the material conditions that engender war will not exist in classless society is what, exactly?

Not taking into consideration of course, any potential new developments in material conditions that provide ample room for conflict...

[Crest]

One thing I've just noticed, is that none of you are combating the main point. If I was to cut everything else out, and just have "Technology takes away jobs, and needs to suppressed under the current circumstances", how would you respond? You've made me question my point on the details, but you actually haven't made me rethink the main point at all.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

One thing I've just noticed, is that none of you are combating the main point. If I was to cut everything else out, and just have "Technology takes away jobs, and needs to suppressed under the current circumstances", how would you respond? You've made me question my point on the details, but you actually haven't made me rethink the main point at all.

Technological development is inevitable insofar as human ingenuity and the laws of physics allow. A small bunch of primitivist/luddite nutcases is not going to stop scientists, engineers and other sorts from pushing the boundaires as far they can. You can't put the genie of technological advancement back into it's lamp now, so it's pointless to try, and in case undesireable to do so.

Technology takes away jobs? This is a good thing. The less human drudgery required to survive the better.

[Vanguard1917]

And your evidence that the material conditions that engender war will not exist in classless society is what, exactly?



Where is your evidence that they will exist in classless society?


Not taking into consideration of course, any potential new developments in material conditions that provide ample room for conflict...

In a society in which classes have been abolished along with the material conditions which gave rise to them? Like what?

[Crest]

1st Part: Read the last part of the third post

2nd Part: Read the third part of the third post.

I've already given my case against both your points.

[Vanguard1917]

If I was to cut everything else out, and just have "Technology takes away jobs, and needs to suppressed under the current circumstances", how would you respond? You've made me question my point on the details, but you actually haven't made me rethink the main point at all.

But we have responded to this. Technological progress under communism is key to increasing the productivity of labour. The more productive that labour is, the less time that human beings have to labour in order to meet society's basic needs, and the more time that they have to develop themselves and society in other ways.

'The less time society requires to produce wheat, cattle etc, the more time it wins for other production, material or mental.'
- Marx

[Crest]

But we have responded to this. Technological progress under communism is key to increasing the productivity of labour. The more productive that labour is, the less time that human beings have to labour in order to meet society's basic needs, the more time that they have to develop themselves and society in other way

'The less time society requires to produce wheat, cattle etc, the more time it wins for other production, material or mental.'
- Marx
I suppose you're right. I have no arguments for this.

Unless someone else here has a comment for this, I'll take it that I lost this debate. Progress is truly better than suppression of progress.

I see the merits and the pitfalls of both sides. I suppose there are more merits and less pitfalls to progression, then. That's the way it looks.

Unless somebody has something further to say, this thread is now outdated and means very little to me.

[Dystisis]

I applaud your optimism, but cannot share it. A quick look at human history confirms my suspicion that humans will be willing to kill each other over what they feel is important.
A quick look at human history will reveal how far the human species has gone beyond the age of tribal wars, and this in a relatively small amount of time.

People in post-Fordist nations, in general, are against war. More than ever. There is progress.

As far as I've understood, you admire technological advancement and progress... I hope you realize advancement in that field is related to advancement in intelligence and the human psyche. There are no boundaries to the potential of human creativity, therefore I doubt we will not see an age were violence -- at least on the scale of wars -- will be obsolete or unnecessary.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Where is your evidence that they will exist in classless society?

Because war is a universal of class societies and I see no reason why classless societies will be any different.


In a society in which classes have been abolished along with the material conditions which gave rise to them? Like what?

Again, you need to provide evidence that flawed human beings will suddenly become perfect angels with the abolishment of class. So far you haven't been forthcoming.



The other part, now... I would say, in a term, that the second cause of class division is technological advancement. This would not be a problem under some circumstances, however, in any form of economy, Capitalist, Socialist, Communist, whatever, as long as there is the concept of working in a factory, the more technology there is, the less jobs open to the public there are. I understand that some jobs cannot be done/are better off not done by people, and in these exceptions, fine, keep on progressing, but in many situations, good jobs are taken by advancement. Already we see a large number of people who can't find a decent proffesion because of such advancement (and more are being dropped, all the time), and if we keep progressing, it my so happen that there will be pretty much only one job left: Repairperson... and while there's probably already more than enough machines to occupy every person on Earth with such a job, not everyone wants to be forced into a job they don't like, and some people just don't like working with machines.

You've never actually looked for a job, have you? If you moved out of your parent's basement, you would realise that technology under capitalism creates more jobs, not less, and the these new jobs are usually a whole lot more pleasant than the jobs the machines now do. Take for instance computers. In the bad old days, if you wanted a lot of calculations done, you hired a room full of young men who would sit at desks performing calculations all day. Sounds like a good job doesn't it, a never-ending maths exam? But now things are different. Computers do the gruntwork, and the bright young folk who used to sit at desks all day now not only repair computers, but also design their many components, market them, administrate them and write programs for them, while yet more people are involved their distribution and manufacture. The net effect is more jobs of a wider variety, not the simple replacement of human computers with computer repairmen.

And so it is with all the other new technologies. New technology by no means creates a shortage of jobs, although it does make education more important than ever. Which is a good thing - an educated populace has a lower birthrate (and hence a more sustainable population) and generally better prospects in life.

[Crest]

You've never actually looked for a job, have you? If you moved out of your parent's basement, you would realise that technology under capitalism creates more jobs, not less, and the these new jobs are usually a whole lot more pleasant than the jobs the machines now do.Good point... AND I'M SELF EMPLOYED DAMMIT!
Take for instance computers. In the bad old days, if you wanted a lot of calculations done, you hired a room full of young men who would sit at desks performing calculations all day. Sounds like a good job doesn't it, a never-ending maths exam? But now things are different. Computers do the gruntwork, and the bright young folk who used to sit at desks all day now not only repair computers, but also design their many components, market them, administrate them and write programs for them, while yet more people are involved their distribution and manufacture. The net effect is more jobs of a wider variety, not the simple replacement of human computers with computer repairmen.

And so it is with all the other new technologies. New technology by no means creates a shortage of jobs, although it does make education more important than ever. Which is a good thing - an educated populace has a lower birthrate (and hence a more sustainable population) and generally better prospects in life.
I get you. Again, my views, I dare say, have changed. I no longer hold to the first post.

[Vanguard1917]

Because war is a universal of class societies and I see no reason why classless societies will be any different.



Because if it is class society which ultimately causes war, then the abolishing of classes will abolish the objective cause of war.


Again, you need to provide evidence that flawed human beings will suddenly become perfect angels with the abolishment of class. So far you haven't been forthcoming.

Wars don't happen because human beings have flawed or evil personalities. That's the logic of the bourgeois simpleton, who thinks, for example, that WW2 happened not as a result of global imperialist rivalries at an objective level, but because of the subjective personality disorders of evil fascist leaders.

It is this society and the objective contradictions which are inherent to it which are 'flawed' and give rise to social conflict.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

A quick look at human history will reveal how far the human species has gone beyond the age of tribal wars, and this in a relatively small amount of time.True, there are fewer wars on average, but they became a whole lot more devastating. Medieval Europe was wracked by lots of wars, for instance, but they did overall less damage than the plagues that rampaged over Europe. But then look at the 20th century, which had two world wars which shook the world and constituted a paradigm shift of major proportions. Before 1914, it was actually plausible to talk about "the end of war", but such illusions were cruelly shattered.


People in post-Fordist nations, in general, are against war. More than ever. There is progress.But yet, armed conflict appears to happen anyway. Fights and murders still happen, even in "civilised" countries. Humanity still has a dark side.


As far as I've understood, you admire technological advancement and progress... I hope you realize advancement in that field is related to advancement in intelligence and the human psyche. There are no boundaries to the potential of human creativity, therefore I doubt we will not see an age were violence -- at least on the scale of wars -- will be obsolete or unnecessary.I'm not so sure. The people who beat their swords into ploughshares tend to get killed by people who kept their swords.

I find this an interesting statement:


Getting rid of war, on the other hand, seems to me far more difficult. It demands at least one, and probably two, psychological developments radical enough to be called breakthroughs, and our progress in developing and utilizing the psychological sciences has so far been disappointing.

The really necessary advance would involve some method of eliminating the almost universal human attitude that one's own rights are as important as anyone else's.

Not more important. As important.

I am not saying that people shouldn't feel that way, or don't have a right to feel that way, or that it's immoral or even unreasonably selfish. I simply say that unless and until it changes, conflicts of interest will continue to lead to violence in the name of right, freedom, and The People. What specific situation starts things off - the population of a landlocked country believing that it has the right to a seaport of its own, women believing that they have the same rights as men, or junkies believing that they have a right to a fix at public expense - is trivial beside the general principle that my right is as important as yours. If a way were actually discovered to alter this bit of human nature there would be screams against the dangers of psychological research; and if a government or some other group tried to apply the techniques, plenty of people (including me) would fight for the right to their own minds.

Please note that death, destruction, and mayhem are not primary aims of war. They may be secondary ones, as when a cannibal tribe attacks its neighbors for meat, but more usually they are just inconvenient by-products. The aim and end of war is to impose one's will on an opponent.

Unfortunately, imposing one's will on another includes the situation in which your will is merely that he not impose his on you.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Because if it is class society which ultimately causes war, then the abolishing of classes will abolish the objective cause of war.

The nature of class society may be a factor, but that doesn't preclude other factors from existing (As the text I quoted in my last post points out - one merely has to attempt to impose one's will on someone unwilling in order to create conflict).


It is this society and the objective contradictions which are inherent to it which are 'flawed' and give rise to social conflict.

Humans are flawed too, making it a contributing factor. Or do you seriously think that all humans are perfectly unbiased and rational, reasoning people at all times?

[Vanguard1917]

I suppose you're right. I have no arguments for this.

Unless someone else here has a comment for this, I'll take it that I lost this debate. Progress is truly better than suppression of progress.


We're here to share ideas and opinions so that we can better our understanding. It's not a competition which you win or lose.

[Vanguard1917]

Humans are flawed too, making it a contributing factor. Or do you seriously think that all humans are perfectly unbiased and rational, reasoning people at all times?


But this is still saying that wars are caused by the personal flaws of individuals rather than the inherent flaws of the social system. Do wars happen because individuals are irrational or because the system is irrational?

[Hit The North]

So NoXion is arguing from a human nature perspective: Wars happen because human beings have flawed psyches?

[Dystisis]

I can only imagine, but in my opinion material abundance coupled with altered psyche could change human behavior in such a way that violence on an organized or large scale will no longer need to happen.

There will be conflicting interests, yet a smaller amount and on a smaller scale. In some time you will not have nations fighting over resources, and organized superstition has died out. Emphasis will be put on co-operative means of organization instead of competitive.

I am not saying there never will be bloodshed, that is a utopian dream and not more. But the assumptions and indications above in mind could likely lead to a decline in violence.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But this is still saying that wars are caused by the personal flaws of individuals rather than the inherent flaws of the social system.

I am not saying that all wars are caused by personal flaws. I am saying that flawed human judgements are a contributing factor to violent conflict - someone may be under the impression that violence will further their aims and allow them to impose their will on others - the aim could be ideological (convert the heathens) or material (he has water, I don't have water, I'll take it by force). The flaws of social systems are also contributing factors, as well as the scarcity, real, artificial, or percieved, of material goods and other living essentials.

In other words, conflict has a wide variety of causes and it's simplistic to simply lay the blame at the feet of a single phenomenon, whether it "human nature" or "social forces".

[piet11111]

just look at europe and WW1 and WW2
before those wars europe was heavily divided and all nations where competing with one another.
after the wars europe decided to team up economically to pursue European interests together and no more wars happened between the EU country's.

if capitalists are capable of uniting to pursue common goals then we communists can do much better.

[Dimentio]

Your points are moot at best.

In fact, since the despotic mode of production in the bronze age, each passing century has overally seen a diminishment of class society. Capitalism is less repressive than feudalism which in its turn is less repressive than slavery which in its turn is less repressive than despotism.

Also, without technological progress, the classless society will degenerate into yet another scarcity-based system. And scarcity-based systems generates classes.