[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta / roulette ] [ GET / ref / booru]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

New Announcement: IRC<=>Matrix bridge #leftypol on Rizon
Please give feedback on proposals, new every Monday : /meta/


File: 1631191797432.jpg (69.07 KB, 735x467, socialist tech wold.jpg)

 No.483999

There is a ideological struggle going on:

The overwhelming majority of people building technology do so because they want to make the world a better place, this is of course not their only motivation for building technology but it is a very important one. The capitalists have a problem they have no credibility in terms of being able to facilitate building a better world, they once did have that, when capitalism still had progressive elements, but those times are long gone.

That means the capitalists have a problem that technology enthusiasts are now going to look for other ideologies that do let them contribute to a better world via technology. Hence this is why the neoliberal ideological enforcement apparatus is trying to make socialists appear techno phobic. The capitalists want to blackmail techies, with "There is No Alternative to capitalism" if you want to build technology. Their credo is if you want to build technology you have to do our bidding, you have to serve the ruling class. They are acutely aware that only the working class can generate the surplus that is necessary to build technological advances, and that technology doesn't need overloards, just people that design it and people that build it.

Therefor it is imperative that socialists appear as tech friendly.
We should go even further and put emphasis on how capitalism is limiting technological expression of humanity. From the very beginning Karl Marx was praising capitalism for facilitating more technological development than feudalism, but he also noted that the bourgeoisie was still holding technology back, Capitalists relations have anti technological features as well like limiting technology to a commodity form like goods or services. As well as tech-prohibition like Intellectual monopolies.

Lets not forget that the bourgeoisie knows very well that technological advances can lead to a change in class relations in society, because the bourgeoisie used technology to out-compete the feudal monarchs. Capitalists are using technology to screw people over and they want to blame this on technology. But escaping the blame is not their only agenda, they also want to get rid of the idea that technology can also be used for liberation of the masses. To free people from toil and improve living conditions.

Not every technophobe is however a psyop pro-capitalist-ideologe that is trying to insert tech-phobia into the left to make it ideologically ineffective, there still are people with feudal sentimentality that attack technology as well as capitalism, because they want to go back to an agrarian society. And there are a few primitivists who want to regress to an even lower tech-level than feudalism.

The capitalists envisage all technological control to be wielded by big corporations without any personal or collective control. It is the very opposite of what socialists and the vast majority of humanity want. This is a discussion about who wields control over tech. Under socialism people will have personal control over their personal tech, and the workers will have collective control over technology that touches the lives of society as a hole.

To make this thread more than a rant/monologue:

The internet is a technology that is being damaged by capitalism. How would you do it better, how do we repair this ?
What technology is capitalism blocking that we would already have otherwise ?
What technology could help the working class in the class struggle ?

 No.484004

>>483999
be careful anon, half this board are brainless luddites and the other half are hysterical degr*wthers AKA anglo-venetian malthusians. nothing of value can come out of this.

 No.484008

>>484004
The thread from which I imagine this thread spawned, most people lamented the poor use of technology and innovation by porky. Even the OP who appeared to be anti-tech, was mostly anti-porky tech. This is to be expected because a lot of tech we have now is the opposite of liberatory.

Maybe I read the wrong posts, but the board doesn't strike me as Luddite at all. Quite the opposite. Unless you're talking about programming languages, but let's be real, the people who shill C over other languages can't code themselves out of a box.

 No.484034

>>484004
Maybe the degrowers and malthusians are just a loud minority.
The original historical luddites weren't actually against technology, maybe some history nerd can chime in.

>The thread from which I imagine this thread spawned,

you got me
> most people lamented the poor use of technology and innovation by porky
Yes but i couldn't fit my thoughts into that thread without it being derailatory, it had the wrong overtone. So i made this one. I hope that's ok.

>>484008
>Unless you're talking about programming languages, but let's be real, the people who shill C over other languages can't code themselves out of a box.
Let me guess It's a proxy for a debate that should be about howto de-bloat programs.

 No.484038

capitalism is pro technology

socialism is only in favor of technology that is beneficial, which is hardly any

 No.484065

>>484038
>capitalism is pro technology
it once was, but it's not anymore, capitalists put all their money into finance pyramid schemes, they don't fund much technology. Most of the tech we have now was publicly funded and the capitalists just commercialized it. This is why we have such stagnation now in the field of technology.

>socialism is only in favor of technology that is beneficial, which is hardly any

This is a misnomer, whether or not a technology is beneficial or not depends on whose interests are deciding over the design parameters. If everybody gets to have control over tech it will be beneficial, if only a few capitalists get a say it will be detrimental.

 No.484072

>>484034
>So i made this one. I hope that's ok.
Of course bb
>Let me guess It's a proxy for a debate that should be about howto de-bloat programs.
I think there's some carry over from /g/. But yeah, "bare metal" shit. Not realizing that labor power is the #1 bottleneck of software development, which is, as you said, part of the reason why there is so much bloat.

Software work is one of those things that really exemplifies neoliberalism. Brave new world of reusability, self-Management (constant self and peer assessments), data driven management with surveys and shit, bean bag open offices, flat heirarchies. Although it sounds cool, it is it's own hell world.

Think of the convenience of microwaves, refrigerators, knife sharpeners, slap chop, food processors, dish washers, and somehow we're still out of time all the time. Everyone's always busy. The promise of luxurious futuristic lifestyle seems to always be around the corner. Likewise the promise of self-Management non-heirarchical employment that seems to have trancended the employer-employee confrontation, always seems around the corner. No matter how hip the company is, there is always a bureaucratic entity, ready to set thing straight and impose the ruthless will of Capital. You can see this in firing stories at Big Tech. People who's bubbles burst when they find out the "you're part of the Facebook/Twitter family" was nothing more than a lie and the company can do away with you with not even a goodbye memo or time to pack your things.

I think Marx alludes this at some point, but technology becomes an apparatus of domination. Cool videoconference tech put to use to monitor employees. Email makes work 24/7. Better transportation technology just extended our commute distances.

That's not to say the technologies we impose on ourselves to control ourselves. The fitness watches, alarm clocks, meditation apps, Duolingo.

I'm not saying technology or Duolingo is bad. I think we don't notice how technology is a tool for domination and control, and we just let it slide.

Further, there is also "meat" technology, which is how we organize, liberal democracies, legal apparatuses, even ML organization. It is also a form of technology, and the facet of domination and control is perhaps more obvious.

Returning to the point about software engineering, neoliberal ideology applied to software engineering, with all its "bean bag open office self management" is an effective form of domination. In part because it implies self-domination, nothing more omnipresent than oneself.

Basically, neoliberal self-Management Open Office flat hierarchical offices are the most advanced technology of domination and control.

>>484038
>🤡
You're a clown, I hope you know that.

 No.484082

>>483999
>The internet is a technology that is being damaged by capitalism. How would you do it better, how do we repair this ?
Censorship is key. Illegalize internet advertising and extra charges with the consequence of the wall if somebody violates it. No warnings, no appeal too, just tell 'em to face it.
>What technology is capitalism blocking that we would already have otherwise ?
I guess none? Idk for this.
>What technology could help the working class in the class struggle ?
You can virtually use every single technology around you, even the latest ones.

 No.484084

>>484038
>capitalism is pro technology
Your meds, schizoid

 No.484090

File: 1631197041288.jpg (102.33 KB, 310x422, andrew_thumb.jpg)

>>484065
based and feenbergpilled

 No.484104

>>484072
>but technology becomes an apparatus of domination
this is wrong though, conceptually technology is just applied science, the domination is found in capitalists economic relations. Just look at a transistor or a fiberglass strand, there is nothing there that could explain the abuse under capitalism. None of the technology components becomes domination.

>Think of the convenience of microwaves, refrigerators, knife sharpeners, slap chop, food processors, dish washers, and somehow we're still out of time all the time.

Yes the time saving devices didn't actually save much time, but they did make these tasks less intense, most of these invention are a net positive. wtf is a slap chop ?

> the most advanced technology of domination and control.

oh now i get it you've been reading Foucault, i'm sorry but social domination is not a technology. This strange theoretical language is the result of academics that had to compete with stem fields for funding, and that's why they made their stuff sound like tech fields. All the stem fields justified their funding with: we make theory and that turns into technology. And some academics in non stem field tried to copy the tech jargon. Don't import fragments of historical fights between sections of the labor aristocracy. Just say it the normal way: The ruling class engages in abusive behavior, because that's all this is, it doesn't stop being behavior just because there's technological tools involved.

 No.484110

>>484034
Degrowth doesn't have to be Mslthusian, especially in the first world when a lot of the growth is just building more and more cheap crap for people to hoard their houses with. We could actually inprove quality of life for the average person if the economy shrank.

 No.484116

>>483999
>The overwhelming majority of people building technology do so because they want to make the world a better place
I thought it was because they wanted to make money?

>The internet is a technology that is being damaged by capitalism. How would you do it better, how do we repair this ?

By forbidding sales of things and making it text-only.
>What technology is capitalism blocking that we would already have otherwise ?
Vertical farms growing vegetables. They exist, but they'd be far more ubiquitous.
>What technology could help the working class in the class struggle ?
Guns already exist… so aforementioned vertical farms paired up with preservation/canning technology, and train tracks all over the place. You can't fight without logistics.
>>484104
>this is wrong though, conceptually technology is just applied science
lol. This is the equivalent of "I don't have an ideology, it is just common sense!"

I've attached a pretty cool paper by Habermas, and a discussion of it by Feenberg, who contrasts it with Marcuse. Should give you a pretty neat overview of some of the main criticisms of technology.

And for extra, I link the full book The Technological Society (~500 or so pages) by Jacques Ellul because he is a cool guy and doesn't afraid of anybody.
https://monoskop.org/images/5/55/Ellul_Jacques_The_Technological_Society.pdf

Something else you might look into is Actor-Network Theory, which basically says technical objects are actors in themselves, and the more of them we use in our society, the less decisions we make as humans. Like for example the traffic light, you don't use your own judgment, but you listen blindly to the machine to tell you when to stop and when to go.

In case you started this thread to learn, and not just give us your half-baked opinions, I think I have given you a few good places to start from. Enjoy, and I really mean it, it's fascinating stuff.

 No.484117

>>484065
technology post industrial revolution has been a disaster for the human race

 No.484119

>>484084
weird cope but ok

 No.484123

>>484110
No de-growth isn't viable, we have to rebuild a lot of the industrial base because it has to be adapted to the new material conditions of this century. We don't want to make people suffer a decline in living standards. Also the fact that there is inefficiency because capitalism builds a lot of "crap" is not a argument for degrowth either. It just means we should strive to raise the quality of goods. Degrowth is too close to green neo-liberal austerity. If you want to live a austere life style you can do that even in a socialist society where most people enjoy abundance. Just don't foist your lifestyle on people that don't want it.

 No.484127

>>484123
>degrowth isn't possible.
birth rates are already declining. that is degrowth.
But it is likely the population bubble will pop

 No.484138

>>484082
>Censorship is key. Illegalize internet advertising and extra charges with the consequence of the wall if somebody violates it. No warnings, no appeal too, just tell 'em to face it.
You don't need censorship and executions to get rid off advertising, just install an ad-blocker as the default
>I guess none? Idk for this.
How about Fusion power, i think a socialist world would be further along on that front, or at least put up more regular nuclear power plants.
>>484082
>You can virtually use every single technology around you, even the latest ones.
ok can you be more specific in terms of class struggle

 No.484147

>>484138
>ok can you be more specific in terms of class struggle
Streaming stuff, so you can propagate socialist ideals to the people.
Also manual machines, so as to not robotize workplaces and create unemployment as a result.

 No.484163

>>484117
the problems is more that we aren't controlling it
>>484127
>birth rates are already declining. that is degrowth.
Birthrates are declining as a result of neoliberalism draining the life out of people, if that is degrowth, then it has absolutely nothing in common with socialism.
>But it is likely the population bubble will pop
No there is no problem with the size of human population, there is a problem with the capitalist system failing.
Malthusianism is just hatred against the masses of workers.

 No.484170

>>484147
>Streaming stuff, so you can propagate socialist ideals to the people.
ok this sounds reasonable
>Also manual machines, so as to not robotize workplaces and create unemployment as a result.
But we do want to robotize the work that nobody wants to do. And if there is less work we can just work fewer hours per day, instead of having unemployment, you know using technology to have more leisure time.

 No.484172

>>484163
>the problems is more that we aren't controlling it
the problem is the technology itself

 No.484178

>>484104
Fyi, this is me: >>484072
This is not me: >>484116
>conceptually technology is just applied science
This is a very ideological sentence. Who is applying science and to what end?
>Just look at a transistor or a fiberglass strand, there is nothing there that could explain the abuse under capitalism.
My point is that in fact there is. When an Uber driver is told by an algorithm what to do, the algorithm exists nowhere except in transistors. The transistors are essentially controlling the behavior of the Uber driver.
>most of these invention are a net positive.
Yes! Of course, in mundane activities, but was the technology liberating? Most of it wasn't.
>wtf is a slap chop ?
This was constantly on US television during the late 2000s early 10s. It's just one more useless "kitchen gadget". The salesman is very good.
https://youtu.be/UxGn2Egekic
>oh now i get it you've been reading Foucault
I really haven't (I should though).
>This strange theoretical language is the result of academics that had to compete with stem fields for funding
No. I'm not trying to play fast and loose here. I am a STEMfag. I'm a software engineer. This comes from my personal experience. The reason it sounds STEM perhaps is because I'm STEM myself.
>we make theory and that turns into technology
What I'm discussing doesn't come from "pomo" academia. It comes from software engineering research, from the early pioneers of corporate software. It comes from the ACM, from academics like Watts Humphrey (known as the father of software quality, a misnomer tbh). It comes from trying to break out from nightmare bureaucratic software development of the 90s which gave us "agile, scrum, extreme programming" etc. It was, in a way, a revolt against middle managers. Like it or not, this form of organization didn't exist before. It was discovered, developed, and implemented. Just like any other technology. The result was a more effective way of managing software developers. It basically makes software engineers more efficient, and is highly self-directed (or engineer directed) compared to top-down planning and execution like in the 90s.

The movie office space really captures the hell of 90s software development. That was replaced by more autonomy for software engineers, but at the cost of direct self-exploitation. To put it simply, I have to consciously choose what to work for, and to do that, I have to constantly think what's good for the company/product. I'm not being told what to do as much as before. Now everyone's a middle manager but also a factory line worker at the same time. It solves the employer-employee conflict which is why software workers think like managers despite being exploited as factory workers.

 No.484180

>>484163
>Birthrates are declining as a result of neoliberalism draining the life out of people, if that is degrowth, then it has absolutely nothing in common with socialism.
you're not countering anything I said.

>No there is no problem with the size of human population

there's too many people consolidated into tight areas

>Malthusianism is just hatred against the masses of workers.

malthusianism is a buzzword

 No.484199

>>484178 (me)
Wanted to add, how good that commercial is.
The product that he is selling and the things he is saying.
>Stop having a boring tuna, stop having a boring life.
>You don't have time to make breakfast. You can have an exciting life now.
This is essentially what all new consumer technology promises. We fall for it so easily. None of those products make your life easier or more exciting. They don't give you more time either.
>>484116
Thanks for the resources. This is a very interesting topic I feel we don't discuss much.
>By forbidding sales of things and making it text-only.
Merely forbidding any type of advertising and tracking would kill massive cancerous tumors of the internet.

 No.484201

this thread and the technophobe thread should be merged

 No.484204

It’s pro worker you moron. Or pro-people in general.

 No.484212

>>484116
>I thought it was because they wanted to make money?
Some people do, but most people get into technology because they it as a toy or because it promises a better world.
>By forbidding sales of things and making it text-only.
what are advantages of a text-only internet ? (it's an integrating thought)
>for the class struggle we need vertical farms, cans, guns and train tracks
how are we going to get the power for vertical farms, crops need a fuck ton of light to grow, where are we going to get all the electricity for powering the crop illumination lights ?
>I've attached a pretty cool paper
I will try reading it but if it's from the pile of "I dislike Capitalism as well as the Soviet system and therefore technological society sucks" i'm going to drop it.
>Something else you might look into is Actor-Network Theory, which basically says technical objects are actors in themselves, and the more of them we use in our society, the less decisions we make as humans.
This is just the Wizard of Oz that yells pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Technology is not an actor, this is BS to distract people from capitalists doing evil shit, it's still their actions even if they use machines.

>>484172
>the problem is the technology itself
I made this thread to explain why this line of reasoning is wrong.

 No.484214

>>484212
>I made this thread to explain why this line of reasoning is wrong.
but your whole premise is wrong

 No.484224

Anti-tech is the ultimate reaction. You will never be a monkey.

 No.484241

>>484224
>anprim
Okay,

 No.484244

>>484178
>This is a very ideological sentence. Who is applying science and to what end?
No you don't understand applied just means knowledge applied to stuff, the hole point is that you can't find the social relations in the technical depths, the collection of transistors that calculate the economic plan of a cybernetic socialism where we would live pleasant lives are identical to the one that calculate the capitalist algorithms that grind people down.
>When an Uber driver is told by an algorithm what to do, the algorithm exists nowhere except in transistors. The transistors are essentially controlling the behavior of the Uber driver.
No transistors didn't cause the gig economy, capitalists wanted that to circumvent labor protection laws. And the transistors are not controlling the behavior of the Uber driver, how can you not see the capitalists hiding behind techno-hype-gibberish. Go buy a bag of transistors and see if they make you drive your car if you don't believe me.

>>484178
>The movie office space really captures the hell of 90s software development. That was replaced by more autonomy for software engineers, but at the cost of direct self-exploitation. To put it simply, I have to consciously choose what to work for, and to do that, I have to constantly think what's good for the company/product. I'm not being told what to do as much as before. Now everyone's a middle manager but also a factory line worker at the same time. It solves the employer-employee conflict which is why software workers think like managers despite being exploited as factory workers.
I think this has more to do with a lack of class consciousness than developer tools

>>484180
>you're not countering anything I said.
Ok so you agree that degrowth and socialism don't go together
>there's too many people consolidated into tight areas
Sure that's true, the spacial bottle necks that capitalist infrastructure creates is very detrimental
>malthusianism is a buzzword
yes but it's also true
.

 No.484262

>>484244
>so you agree that degrowth and socialism don't go together
aww dude, I can't wait until we appropriate all the lipstick factories, the fidget spinner machines, the fucking CAR FACTORIES. oh man, you think it's awesome when capitalism gives you a new car every year? what about a new car every fucking MONTH. I look at all the shit being sold, the selfie sticks, the little plastic thing that cuts my egg into perfect slices, and all of those millions of NECESSARY gadgets, and I think to myself, wouldn't it be awesome if I could fill my house with this shit FOR FREE? that's what socialism is for me.

 No.484264

File: 1631204351815.jpg (367.64 KB, 650x1088, 1631204324095.jpg)

>>484244
>so you agree that degrowth and socialism don't go together
aww dude, I can't wait until we appropriate all the lipstick factories, the fidget spinner machines, the fucking CAR FACTORIES. oh man, you think it's awesome when capitalism gives you a new car every year? what about a new car every fucking MONTH. I look at all the shit being sold, the selfie sticks, the little plastic thing that cuts my egg into perfect slices, and all of those millions of NECESSARY gadgets, and I think to myself, wouldn't it be awesome if I could fill my house with this shit FOR FREE? that's what socialism means to me.

 No.484271

>>484264
Why are you strawmanning? Which socialist says these things must be kept? Not selling crap
=/= "degrowth"

 No.484277

File: 1631205189992-0.jpg (430.69 KB, 1000x1516, Anzeige_IFA_1973.jpg)

>>484264
Or we have products that are fit for purpose with long life cycles.

 No.484288

>>484262
>>484264
> the alternative to bad products is no products
Capitalism produces cheap crap that gets used once before it goes into a landfill and that's bad, i get it.
We should improve the quality of the products.

 No.484296

>>484271
so you agree with should dismantle some of our forces of production and shut down certain avenues of "progress and development", such as the cosmetic industry or the fashion industry?

 No.484351

>>484264
On the other hand without profit motive, there's no reason to continuously sell the highest volume we are able to. The incentive instead is to find ways to meet needs with the least amount of labor, so we start producing things that will last as long as possible (muliple generations if we can) so most people will only have to ever get a new one once (if that).

 No.484354

>>484296
>shut down certain avenues of "progress and development", such as the cosmetic industry or the fashion industry
SHHHHHH shut up, we don't want all of the basic women to hear this.

 No.484391

File: 1631210498270-0.jpg (60.34 KB, 500x533, soviet fashion 1.jpg)

File: 1631210498270-1.jpg (195.67 KB, 1191x771, soviet fashion 2.jpg)

File: 1631210498270-2.jpg (204.51 KB, 1200x794, soviet fashion 3.jpg)

>>484296
>shut down certain avenues of "progress and development", such as the cosmetic industry or the fashion industry?
I don't. That is foolish and juvenile. You can't act as le enlightened vanguard bureaucrat and get rid of all products you do not like or consider necessary. You need to meet peoples needs AND desires. In any case I am sure you and anyone that agrees with the examples you have given has certain things you like that someone might call "certain avenues of "progress and development"".
And keep in mind if you or someone that shares your views became some influential person in a socialist society, there would be also be influential people that specifically enjoy makeup and fashion. Everyone has their own biases, a task of socialism is to satisfy as many people as possible.

 No.484404

>>484354
What about the metrosexual men?

 No.484408

>>484391
I feel like it's more important to satisfy basic needs first than desires honestly.

 No.484411

>>484408
>I feel like it's more important to satisfy basic needs first than desires honestly.
Well yes obviously. The point is to do both.

 No.484414

File: 1631212090551.jpg (38.58 KB, 700x394, 49897472_303.jpg)

>mfw there is instrumental logic on the front page
so your saying you are into the holocaust, anon?

 No.485141

>>484244
> you can't find the social relations in the technical depths,
0_0
read marx's shit on Feuerbach.
>Go buy a bag of transistors and see if they make you drive your car if you don't believe me.
It's not that I don't believe you, but there isn't a capitalist literally telling this person to work. It's all automated. It's a new form of domination, enabled by technology.
>I think this has more to do with a lack of class consciousness than developer tools
Read the rest of the post on why developers have little class consciousness.

 No.485267

Socialism is pro efficiency, if technological development isnt needed to make peoples lives better than it wont be developed

 No.485274


 No.485280

>>485267
But how will you accurately determine the value of some technology? Many innovations start out as novelties or impractical experiments and their more useful applications don't appear until much later.

 No.485292

>>485280
These are feasibility studies for example railways stopped investing in steam research as they saw diesel and electric solutions overshadow them. On the flip side nuclear powered trains quickly became a dead end as engineers saw the unneeded complexity of having a running reactor on the train instead of stationary and simply powering the lines that feed the train.

 No.485321

>>485292
I agree but my question is less about developing existing technologies and more about creating new technologies which can initially appear to be without purpose. Sometimes innovation occurs by accident, and sometimes they are ignored until one or more people are autistic enough to realize a practical application.

 No.485332

>>485321
When it comes to the world of engineering we've kinda hit the limit with mechanical and electrical systems, what's needed these days is to utilize other particles outside of photons, neutrons, electrons and protons for all the shit humanity uses and onto different particles and systems like muons, nuclear transmutation, phonon and research into phonons etc

 No.485356

>>483999
>Socialism is pro-technology
Socialism is neither necessarily "pro-technology" nor "anti-technology". The question is which technology & for what purpose does the technology exist?

>The overwhelming majority of people building technology do so because they want to make the world a better place


Muh great thinker/scientist narrative is just as delusional as muh great entrepenaur. The majority of "technology" is not invented by one person or even a small group of people contributed to in part by many people, corporations, institutions, etc. Very few great discoveries today are made by one person, many people unknowingly/unconsciously contribute to said discoveries to a point where naming a single "discoverer" or "inventor" just doesn't sense.

>That means the capitalists have a problem that technology enthusiasts are now going to look for other ideologies that do let them contribute to a better world via technology.


Again you're falling into the trap that great ideas/great "technology" is produced by great men. It isn't, and hasn't been since back in the days when level of collective knowledge was low enough that single weaponized autist could learn the entirety of human knowledge in his lifetime & apply it to whatever field.

The renaissance man/"great scientist" is just as much a fairy tale as the great entrepreneur. Science cultism is as much a pety-bourgeois narrative as entrepreneur worship.

We're seeing no such drive in real time. Most scientists are just as overworked, tired and stressed as everybody else. They're just as prone to mindrot and as everybody as, and as members of the privileged pety-bourgeoisie/LA, like journos/lawyers, etc, they are loyal to the dominant system.

In the past it may have been the case that scientists drifted towards socialism, but social decay + massive degeneration in the education system plus drift to hyper specialisation have rendered most "scientists" and STEM types inverted cripples, excelling at physical application of a particular field or set of fields at best but absolutely fucking retarded when it comes to anything outside said fields & unable to form any kind of concrete analysis of things.

OP is either a STEMlord who has drank the science cultist coolaid or he's a science cultist who has never interacted with real scientists IRL. Most STEM types in the west, muh scientists/doctors, are fucking retarded. Talking with them about anything outside of their hyperspecialization is like talking like to a very smug, ego driven brick wall and frankly, you can have a more meaningful conversation with illiterate third-world peasants most of the time.

If a revolution were to occur, these scientists/doctors would form the basis of reaction and frankly, most of them are going to need to be liquidated.

>Therefor it is imperative that socialists appear as tech friendly.


Define tech. What technology? And for what purpose?

>Lets not forget that the bourgeoisie knows very well that technological advances can lead to a change in class relations in society


Theory of productive forces, this is exactly what led to market socialist mindrot. While a Dengist type strategy may be necessary as a survival move for smaller socialist states (ie Vietnam, Laos, Cuba) it was never necessary in China's case as it already had a sufficient base level of industrial development necessary to sustain a soviet style mass industrialization push. This is effectively proven by the DPRK, who arguably had a harder time than China, lower industrial capabilities, smaller labour force, less natural resources, and still pulled off an equivalent but *EVEN* level of development to China.

Could go on and on but TL;DR

OP is caught up in bourgeois science cultism, is conflating development (which Marxists absolute support) with the fantasy of Sid Meir's civilization style linear & infinite technological/social development which he sees as been driven by great individuals. Commentors don't understand what Malthusianism or is or who luddites were, and are labelling anybody who doesn't believe in infinite growth in a world full of finite resources via hypothetical star trek magical technology or asteroid mining, fantasies of space colonization etc as primitivist luddites & anti-socialists/poverty worshippers.

Irony of the world is that those who push Science cultism the hardest often times have the lowest level of scientific literacy & are high on IFLS/black science man tier pop science.

 No.485370

>>485332
My point is: how can someone be absolutely certain that any given novel technology - like 3D printing or virtual reality - will or will not have useful future applications; or how do you know that some egghead doing blind research won't discover a new particle or a new way to use existing ones?

 No.485381

>>483999
>but he also noted that the bourgeoisie was still holding technology back, Capitalists relations have anti technological features as well like limiting technology to a commodity form like goods or services.
There if, if you will excuse the phrase, a precedent that new technology is … disruptive. The development of the Gutenberg printing press ushered in serious social upheaval in the late middle ages.

The goal of the revolutionary technologist is to make genuinely disruptive technology, such that material conditions can change. However, technological development is currently being steered to primarily benefit the ruling class. The only sort of genuinely disruptive technology now is in the form of social media algorithms that keep people glued to their devices, and image recognition algorithms that reduce the need for content moderation with humans. Advancements in technology are broadly incrementalist, for now.

>Lets not forget that the bourgeoisie knows very well that technological advances can lead to a change in class relations in society, because the bourgeoisie used technology to out-compete the feudal monarchs.

This is true. Objectively.

 No.485526

>>484411
utopian thinking. capitalism aims to satisfy every single desire it can create in people. wait, you don't think we are born desiring things? we have to be taught to desire, and we are told what to want by the endless ads, movies, media we consume. capitalists are in a race to create the next big thing that people will want.

cars are a perfect example. in the 1930s only 10% of Americans owned a car. so the car companies went on massive marketing campaigns, equating owning a car with prosperity and "The American Way", while at the same time destroying public transport infrastructure. 70 years later everyone and their mums has a car and more importantly, WANTS a car. because a car became a rite of passage, "it gives you freedom". yeah, freedom to sit in a traffic jam alone, for an hour or more, instead of taking the never-stopping train or subway with your fellow workers.

one of the best way to atomise people and alienate them is to tell them they're unique, with their own desires, and need a life specifically tailored to them and their needs. capitalism provides this, an endless array of ways to imprison yourself with your wants and needs.

 No.495105

>>485381
>There if, if you will excuse the phrase, a precedent that new technology is … disruptive. The development of the Gutenberg printing press ushered in serious social upheaval in the late middle ages.
>The goal of the revolutionary technologist is to make genuinely disruptive technology, such that material conditions can change. However, technological development is currently being steered to primarily benefit the ruling class.

China is not bound by this limitation that technology must benefit capitalists.
Does that mean that they will make the next technological leap forward ?

 No.495139

>>483999
A buch of twitter / reddit / chan weridos who attribute to themselves autistically overdesigned "ideologies" with zero material or real world basis do not create an "ideological struggle". This hyperonline "monke" vs "techbro" "war" is, as Matt Christman put it so well, just an argument that exists for the sole puprouse of having an argument and expressing your piggish individual wacky politicky self online.

 No.495164

>The overwhelming majority of people building technology do so because they want to make money AND make the world a better place.
But yes socialist are pro-technology and not apeprims.


Unique IPs: 29

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta / roulette ] [ GET / ref / booru]