No.2595
maybe
these things are pretty hard to tell, because you never know exactly what caused a social change (and its never really just one thing, is it?), and you can't say exactly what caused a technological innovation either, though that may be more easily attributable to social conditions. (e.g. a society pillages others, enslaves a captive agricultural population, suddenly there's a buildup of wealth, and some metalworker or chemist finds out how to make a new alloy or steel or something. Here it seems kinda unbelievable to say that eventually someone would have figured it out regardless of the social conditions)
But for my taste, I don't totally buy fredy's shit. It's very hard to know why a change happens, but it may be because of technology in part. Im kind of torn between acknowledging that a historical determinsm type of worldview is pretty much undeniable, in that what comes before influences what comes after, but also I am anti-technology and think that we could very well "go back" (as some would call it…) to a lower level of buildup of industry, and more dispursed, small scale society.
It's weird because, would I ever have had the chance to think this without society being how it is now? Or without the internet? probably not, I suppose
So I think it's fair to simultaneously say that social change and technology drive each other cyclically, or even more simply, that social change always rests on some kind of technique, which is the basis of technology or knowledge, and technique drives itself towards new and further development of knowledge and itself - but also, that this doesnt say anything about the necessity of some buildup of technology that we have to wait on - how should anyone know that?!?? I think, if I'm able to think anarchist things, or communist or whatever it may be, then obviously the productive forces were ripe enough to give birth to me. More than that I think that we should demystify, and instead of thinking that for some reason, eventually everyone will see the truth of our ideas or enact some ideal or reformed society out of necessity (which we must patiently wait on), we should strive to understand what has led to our own empowerment, and seek to replicate it in others. We aren't just statistical inevitabilities created by random fuckups of the system, we're part of a long and unbroken chain of subversion that has touched us all and helped us grow into our passions.
Kinda got off topic tho :P
Back on the question, society will keep on making new technologies no matter what… I see it as neutral or even the advance of further right-wing entrenchment, since theyre always conservative technologies, molded by visions of the future which are not a radical break with the present (btw if you're into anarchist technology, read Hartmann the Anarchist cause it's fucking great it's 1800s sci-fi). It's up to us to make new tools and experiement and come up with techniques to fight back the state and help empower more people… but the form of the tech is always very different, on the one hand is expensive shit, or proprietary bullshit, or stuff that is very alienated in its form from the average person, since it's basically impossible for them to make or modify. But on the other hand is distributed, DIY tech that every person can have, and implement, and use to make themselves more powerful, invisible to the state, connected with others, etc.
Basically:
waiting for society to progress or invent something that will overturn existing conditions - lame and wont happen, shit just gets worse (in the boring way)
hacking/cracking/DIY - necessary and cool
No.2597
I think the point is more about how "Leviathan" (or Capital or Power) and technology are closely intertwined and we can't get rid of the former and while keeping the latter. With that sentiment I agree. Otherwise you end up with the Soviet Union and an essentially reformist conception of communism.
No.2600
>>2590>productive forces “ripening” until they “give rise to” or “make possible” the “transition to a new social form.” That's not the hole story, advancements of productive forces are just a state of high potential for change. The ignition for those changes comes from class struggle. For the birth of capitalism the bourgoisie needed not just deploy steam engines but also overthrow the feudal aristocracy.
The large slave societies like the Roman empire were enabled by advances in sailboat technology (a type of sail that alowed ships to sail against the wind) but the slave merchants also needed to overthrow the clans that surounded the Mediterranean Sea to get control of the port cities.
The Soviet mode of production needed a proletarian revolution and electrification.
No.2611
Is the whole book bullshit then?
No.2616
I finished the book. It was entertaining, and it did make me want to leave civilization and never look back.
No.2617
>>2600This. Haven't read the book but the argument quoted in OP is based on a straw man.
No.2618
>>2617But the post you quoted just agreed that productive forces need to "ripen" to "make possible" the "transition to a new social form." How is it a strawman when you just replied to a post that honestly believes it?
No.3877
Even Marx and Engels and later marxists spoke about machines being able to have a "bourgeois character" and that the proletarian can't take over the bourgeois machinery ready made.
https://www.academia.edu/74390228/On_the_Limit_of_Artificial_Intelligence No.3878
>le civilization bad
die of cholera of then
No.3879
>>3878Cholera is a civilisational illness.
No.3888
of course it's true. take a look at science today. science has moved away from being 'natural philosophy' into a realm of non-reflexivity. it's excellent at producing weapons of war, but sucks at most other things.
No.3889
fredy was only half-right. Technology on its own does not create social production. the social body , the socius , is defined by the technology of its time. this was proven by d&g thought a la primitive, asiatic, moderno-capital. perlman was right in respect to this aspect. what perlman misses however is as the socius expands and contracts its tensions create new social relations and greases the techno-productive gears. large jumps in Technolyzation can force social relations further too, when they are lacking. it is a laxadayzical process, jolting, jilting etc. too the two are simultaneous but also concurrent. they can happen in big jumps.
Perlman missed as such then that Civilization thus produced Capital who became its own Being in its own right.
>fangs and nails
these are tools, and thus remain the same throughout, but evolving as so too we do.
No.3890
>>3889Perlman lacked vision and presight. the fore and the for. He fell into the pseudo-reactionary trap as much as he attempted to go further - there can be no RETVRN. there can only be forward momentum, through progress and through collapse. ultimately we are not in control of the process, but the sentient We of which no one is in awareness of. Perlman idealizes a truly idyllic life insofar as he maintained some belief that it could be returned to. His realization that it could not be so sent him insane, alone, and he secluded himself.
cyberspace has truly proven the worst fears of Perlman, Situationists, and all others who grasped at It but couldnt quite get it.
No.3891
>>>>3890
There is nothing more to do my friends. We will all enter oblivion together. I shall try and do so contented
No.3892
>>3878>>3879you cant not have a civilization