>>12123>Anything that the bourgeois requests for them self's falls under the category of luxury or otherwise unproductive.
The steam engine was made possible by the bourgeoisie. Watt's father was a teacher IIRC, and there were people around young James that were able to recognise his abilities and pushed him further towards study. Watt studied and worked at the University of Glasgow. It wasn't until Watt met Boulton that he was able to actually build a working model of his engine that could then be put on trains and ships. Boulton was a rich capitalist who saw a lot of profit in Watt's engine design.>Technology only interferes with the progression of history when the productive classes get better tools.
You have something messed up here. History progresses via class struggle, that is the "engine of history". Technology doesn't interfere with the progression of history, but is an important part of that progression. We get a social revolution when changes in the superstructure are not able to follow the changes in the productive base. Steam engines have been around since 1712, Watt's was a game changer and by 1775 there were already working steam engines in factories around the country. American revolution happened in 1776 and the French Revolution happened in 1789. >The working class, is the class that reproduces society, everything else is an appendage to this primary material cycle.
But the working class doesn't exist in a vacuum, the base and superstructure are contantly influencing one another.>If ruling classes divert technical talent away from the primary reproduction cycle of society, society will either correct the mistake or go into decline and other societies will rise to become the new force that makes history progress.
But they aren't. Automation is a big one. They have robots flipping burgers, autonomous self-driving trucks, self-driving trains, robot warehouse workers, and so on. I'd even argue that the invention of the integrated circuit was the start of another industrial revolution, it ushered in an era of computers, internet, connectivity and globalisation, allowed us to put computers in literally everything. It started an unprecedented migration too, something that hasn't been seen since the great migration of Europeans to the "New World" in the 19th century. Reproduction of society is not in danger, because currently we produce more food than we can eat, we have more houses and apartments than there are people, there's plenty of clothes and other items to go around. In fact, because society isn't in existential danger, we can have "NEETs", anti-work people, nihilist anarchists, etc. without pushing society into crisis.>Musk builds weapons ? what kind?
He builds weapon delivery systems (rockets).>Do you mean star ship ? If they load it with weapons, it's going to get rammed by a diverted satellite before it reaches orbit.<Elon Musk's SpaceX and the US military plan to build a rocket capable of delivering 80 metric tons of cargo anywhere in the world in 60 minutes.https://www.businessinsider.com/musks-spacex-partners-us-military-to-deliver-weapons-by-rockets-2020-10>the alternate purpose of star-link is passive espionage
That's also one of its uses, yes.>weaponizing it with any kind of active system would lead to it's destruction (low flying satellites are very vulnerable)
They don't need active weapons, their orbits can be adjusted so they hit other satellites or stations, like the new Chinese Tiangong station that is also in Low Earth Orbit.<falls under the category of luxury
I have to comment on this. Marx makes no distinction between "wants" and "needs", between "luxuries" and "necessities". Remember: "a commodity is any product that satisfies a human want or need". Marxism isn't about moralising and judging what people should and should not want.<or otherwise unproductive.
Productive labour in capitalism, in Marxian terms, is the labour that goes into a commodity (product or service) and generates surplus value, that is, any commodity or service that contributes to the M - C - M' cycle. For example, a masseuse giving massages to people in her home is unproductive, a masseuse working for Massage, Inc., working at the Massage Centre, giving $25 half-hour massages to people for $10/hr. is productive labour. In the first case, the masseuse pockets the money and will use it on feeding herself, in the second case, the money from the customer goes to Massage, Inc., who will use this money to expand the company, perhaps offer more products and services, hire more workers, while paying the masseuse a wage.