why slander the luddites? they were a working class movement defending their class interests from the bosses.

because technophobia and techno-conservatism are complimentary to scarcity planning, not abundancy.

The drive to a high energy abundancy society is frustrated by the ignorance and backwardness of groups like the luddites.

By the way, most bosses ive encountered are happy to remain in a state of technological stagnation. Human labour is a valued commodity within capitalism, so i fail to understand how defending this institution is in the interests of the working class.

Its good that you're here though bcbm, you'll provide some interesting threads.

the luddites weren't technophobes, ignorant or backwards, they were skilled workers who recognized that the ruling class were attacking their livelihood by introducing machines that allowed for unskilled labor to do the more work for less. they weren't against the technology because it was technology, they were against the technology because it threatened their lives. this is why they were willing to risk death to resist.

i think their position is actually one it would benefit more communists to take, or at least learn from. few seem to recognize that many "advances" in technology and production come at the cost of working class lives and consolidate the power of the ruling class.

The luddites may have had an argument during pre-industrial days, but their intellectual inheritants do no longer. We now live in an era of comparitive social maturity and high demand where technology enriches and liberates as opposed to rendering people redundant.

My concern is the anti-technology arguments of the here and now, not of those many centuries ago.

The Luddites rawked. A slightly primitive (oops..) form of class war but definitely on tge right side.

I'm less sure of all that. I'm technoskeptical, but sure do love a lot of it. Kinda crazy for the dishwasher...

technology still renders people redundant, and i think for much of the globe the technological revolution of recent years has lacked a liberating character.

I won't deny that the path to a technological society will incorporate inevitable growing pains. Without which, we have nothing to look forward to but centuries more of backbreaking toll.

Convieniently though, you duck the blatant fact that technology creates as many jobs as it renders obsolete.

Moreover the behaviour of capitalist companies is not an indictment of technology per se. Do i approve of what electronics companies do in Africa? No i dont. But that doesnt mean that such exploitative behaviour is necessary to produce electronics.

i think it is pretty disgusting to gloss over the misery, degradation, abuse and murder forced upon human beings as "inevitable growing pains." there is nothing inevitable about it, these are conscious choices made by humans. if that is the only way to your future technological paradise, i don't think it has anything in common with the communist project.

odd that the development against "backbreaking toil" requires so much backbreaking toil. technology can be developed humanely and provide real benefits, but its current progression is not towards a better future.

the jobs "created" by technology are typically not available to the same groups of people who would work the jobs they destroy. the jobs that are "opened" for these workers generally require expensive and time-intensive retraining and offer lower wages and fewer benefits.

i have nothing against technology per se, but i don't believe you can remove it from the processes in which it is developed and produced. as it stands, technological development is undertaken by our enemies and harms workers, damages the environment and increases the power of the ruling class. we should therefore retain a skeptical, if not hostile, position to most developments.

as for not approving, would you support the workers if they burned the factories and blew up the mines?

The idea that we must keep people in employment is ignoring the fact that the class relations of capitalism is keeping people in poverty all the time, thus forcing them to seek unsatisfying employment and compete against technological innovation. In a post-capitalist society built on egalitarianism, machines would not render people unemployed.

i am thinking that bcbm is of the opinion that certain workers are not 'trainable' to seek satisfying employment.

we don't live in a post-capitalist egalitarian society, however, we live in a capitalist society where technological development serves the needs of the ruling class.

nothing i have said anywhere suggests such an opinion, because it isn't one i hold. as i've said to you before when you make unfounded and offensive speculations about me:
if you're not going to bother having an open, respectful discussion, then neither am i.

Fine then, if the cure for cancer ever comes out i wont expect to ever see you in the queue to recieve it since it 'serves the interests of the ruling class'.

I think the point that dimentio is making is that we need to fight the social conditioning that enforces human labour in certain roles ie. the automatable ones.

You are very easilly offended. Perhaps you need to grow a thicker skin.

from earlier in this discussion:

once again, this would be a better discussion if you'd at least pay attention to what i am saying instead of making things up.

no, i was just under the apparently mistaken impression we were having a discussion and i found that preferable to your idiotic speculations about me. seems pretty clear you just want to throw insults though, so whatever.

i was responding to an argument in which you blanketly slandered all technological progress as being 'bourgeoisie' in interest, there was no exception made that time.

It might help if you were specific.

i know you americans have a tough time grasping ironic wit, but did it ever enter your thought processes at any time that i was only being semi-serious?

why would you put in quotes a word i didn't use? strange.

anyway, what i said in response to dimentio and what i said to you earlier are exactly the same thing, i just added a conclusion on to the end of the earlier one. it isn't slander to recognize that technological development serves the interests of the ruling class. where do you think the money for technological research and development comes from? to use your example, a cure for cancer certainly benefits humanity generally, but it primarily exists to make profit for pharmaceutical companies and its creation and distribution will be geared towards that aim, not helping the sick.

well, your statement seemed more in line with previous insinuations you've made about me hating workers than joking and i don't see what is particularly ironic or witty about it. try adding a smiley face next time.

I think the point here is that we need to oppose every attack the ruling class delivers. Including foreclosures because of technological advances. Its not the technology itself though. I imagine more efficent ways of productions under the communist project would mean less work if we got rid of the worthless service sector. I dont think this is the case with all technological developments. I would imagine birth control pills weren't a direct attack to workers.

I'd much rather see people working in automatable industries retrained now to do new tasks sooner rather than later.

If people are no longer in jobs that machines can do better and more efficiently then that is a good thing. The problem is when the ruling ideologues fail to deal with the wake of human misery that they leave behind. Technocracy would cater for everyone's needs.

You're right, its an indictment of the way in which this low energy society has allowed itself to be dependent on inefficient production means.
bar the military sector, i cant think of an example of a technology that represents a threat in itself to working class interests. Perhaps you can name some?

PS: the threat isnt the technology itself, rather the way it is planned and implemented.

Yes. So should we oppose pharmaceutical companies finding a cure for cancer? No, of course not. We should be opposing the pharmaceutical industry because it is unable to meet humanity's medical needs.

Hence the problem with your pov: instead of blaming capitalism for holding back technological development, you blame technological development itself for maintaining capitalism.

And it's simply not true that industrial and technological development is what is having a negative impact for workers today. Ask workers in the rapidly developing parts of China and India if they were better off 20 or 30 years ago. The empirical facts concerning living standards, health, education and life expectancy speak for themselves.

But you don't have to go as far as Asia. Ask the masses of unemployed workers in the decaying former industrial centres of northern England if they would not benefit from greater economic investment and more factories.

By placing the blame on technology, you are moving the focus of your attack away from the real problem: capitalism's deeper social contradictions.

no i don't.


in this very thread i have laid all of the blame fully on capitalism. sorry, try again.

Luddites smashed physical capital in an attempt to keep a useless amount of people employed in the textile manufacturies, and tried to justify it with some confused idea that somehow people's lives would get worse due to the machines despite the fact that increased productivity meant higher wages and lower prices for textile goods.

The Luddites were not 'valiantly fighting capitalism', they were taking a stab at being monopolists and destructionists just as todays imperial capitalists and big labour unions are.