/lit/ - Literature

>Karl Marx maintained that the means of production constituted the decisive
factor in determining the character of a society, but Marx lived in a time when
the principal problem to which technology was applied was that of production.
Because technology has so brilliantly solved the problem of production, production
is no longer the decisive factor. More critical today are other problems to which
technology is applied, such as processing of information and the regulation of
human behavior (e.g., through propaganda). Thus Marx’s conception of the force
determining the character of a society must be broadened to include all of technology and not just the technology of production. If Marx were alive today he would undoubtedly agree.

>>14968477
Funny enough, I was actually thinking about that. I'm sure Ted was some what a Marxist due to the fact he disliked Capitalism.

>>14968477
Capitalism is a product of the Industrial Society

What a fucking retarded thread. Fuck OP, fuck the other retarded answers, FUCK NIGGERS AND FUCK JANNIES.

>>14968477
Sure but being retarded doesn't fix the world around you

>>14968477
The problem with anti-tech philophy is that it can´t be solved. If technology progresses, then it´s just impotent whining; if there´s crisis of the technological system then everyone scrambles to defend the system and if the system fails, then such philosophy will be forgotten.

>>14969357
You haven’t read him.

>>14968491
>Thus Marx’s conception of the force determining the character of a society must be broadened to include all of technology and not just the technology of production.
It already does, since Marx is talking about production and reproduction of society, not about production in some stupid narrow sense people who haven't read him properly have in their little heads.

>>14969206
That's not what makes someone a Marxist.

>>14968477
He solved marxism. But first you would have to read Marx and Kaczynski. Why do you think Ellul and Camatte, who were marxist erudites, turned to anti-tech thought? There is not one single intellectual who went from anti-tech thought to marxism, yet most intelligent marxists moved to anti-tech thought.

>>14969473
Yet I´m still correct.

>>14970054
cope

>>14969722
Intro to those two authors bro?

>>14970063
Feel free to provide a counter-argument once you stop being emotional.

>>14968477
>implying there is a problem

>>14969206
>some what a Marxist due to the fact he disliked Capitalism.
Yeah like Hitler and Mussolini

>>14969722
my negro

>>14968477
Hell yeah dude a worker owned industrial society wouldn't destroy ecosystems, it definitely wouldn't involve alienated labor, subjugating man and his will to Economy Activity.

>>14970094
Read The Technological Society

Marxist analysis could have helped complement his criticism of the industrial society but i don't see how that could have helped solve his personal problems or further his goal of destroying the technological society.

>>14968491
nice quote job, dumbfuck.

>>14968477
>technoskepticism
>Marxism
Pick exactly one

>>14970132
Read Bookchin.

>>14969570
Not that guy but ; he says next in the very post you quoted : "processing of information and the regulation of human behavior (e.g., through propaganda)." It's clear he refers to tasks that are no part of the capitalistic process, i.e., he is making the perenial argument that economic activity is not the prime determinant. Simply, he's making it from a standpoint of, still, *technological* determinism, by pointing to tech-dependant and highly impactful activities that are outside of the economic process proper. If you want to say that it's still 'ultimately ruled by capitalist economy' go ahead, and we go back to Engel's letter on 'determination in the final instance', but to me this is pure crap.

>>14970292
Hitler's table talks contains better insights.

>>14970311
>It's clear he refers to tasks that are no part of the capitalistic process
But they are, you just have too narrow of a conception of what the "capitalistic process" is. Regulation of human behaviour takes place because it is necessary for the reproduction of society under its current form (capitalist). What gets reproduced are not just physical objects but above all determinate social relations (such as the relation of class domination through various means, like ideological means) because those are a necessary part of a form of production. A bunch of machines and a bunch of people aren't by themselves capitalism.

>>14969206
>Ted was some what a Marxist due to the fact he disliked Capitalism.

That's a very smooth brain you have there.

>>14970388
You are absolutely wrong. Excuse me for not quote-mining Marx here, I don't want to go through that, so you'll have to believe me or not. Ideology is *not* part of the economic process for Marx. It is not reducible to it, it is *determined* by it. And this determination must not be total, or there would be no distinction. Engels, as I said, explictely adresses economic reductionism as mecanistic and foreign to Marxism. And that seems obvious to me ; if you define economy as 'whatever proces society needs to enact to exist, transform itself, or transform its environment', you've defined economy *away*, not understood it better.
Now, what I think is that once that is admitted, that there is such a thing as a 'non-economic thing', there is nothing left except to look, concretely, at the degree to which a given state of affairs is dependant on capitalist economic activity or something that is not capitalist economic activity, not directly part of the value proces. Look at the schemas of reproduction in Capital ; everywhere they refer to externalities to the economic process. Every time it does, you can argue that there is something non-economic that determines the economic process - for exemple, on setting the level of wage, on the legal structure that influences which technologies are developped and therefore *what the means of production actually are*, etc. The Marxist answer to this cannot be anything other than the following : "at the end, when look at these supposedly external determinations, you will *ultimately come back to economic determinations again*". It's absurd unless you literally make economy the science of Being lel, and I can't make head or tail of that. I'm not the first one to have found that idea of determination in the last instance absurd. It's not much better than economic 'determinism' or 'mecanism' to me. It would only make sense if you took out the 'last instance' part... But then what is left?

>>14970281
shut the hell up

>>14969473
Not the guy you were answering to, but, well, I've read Teddy boy, and his theory is basically revolutionary socialism - more of the Blanquist kind - applied to the technology question. His thesis is basically that a dedicated enough terroristic revolutionary movement could bring industrial society down - or at least, that it's the best bet we have. I think deep down he himself knows it's absurd, but is contained by autistic dedication to 'truth', including the truth of 'what is the least bad option', unlikely as it is.

You look like a sincere motherfucker

>>14970775
Oh this Teddy boy character of yours sounds interesting, but i think he was talking about Theodore Kaczynski, whose ideas are largely different from whatever you're on about.

>Ted's problems would have wen away if he just embraced a philosophy that was optimistic towards technology
Damn, who would have ever thought.

>>14970837
" To work effectively toward the elimination of the techno-industrial system, revolutionaries must attack the system at points at which it cannot afford to give ground. They must attack the vital organs of the system. Of course, when I use the word “attack,” I am not referring to physical attack but only to legal forms of protest and resistance. [he is of course here taking litterary precautions...]

Some examples of vital organs of the system are:

The electric-power industry. The system is utterly dependent on its electric-power grid.

[... etc.]

To accomplish anything against the system you have to attack all electric-power generation as a matter of principle, on the ground that dependence on electricity makes people dependent on the system. This is a ground incompatible with the system’s values. "
How is that different from what I claimed? That's a theory of revolution (he himself calls himself a revolutionary), but through brute strength victory, by a minority, hence my reference to Blanquism.

>>14970853
(I'm quoting from 'Hit where it hurts' here)

>>14970853
That tactic is not Blaquist, it´s copypasted from Trotski. Blanquism is about seizing political power from above, while Trotski´s tactics were specifically about seizing railways, power and other utilities crucial for proper functioning of cities.

>>14970913
Blanqui wrote a lot about the specific manner by which a military victory was possible for the revolutionary, and he was the first to do so. He has a big book on the strategies of the barricades, of taking control of a city, etc. That's the broadline thing I'm referring to ; that's why I'd classify the Bolsheviks's tactic as broadly 'Blanquist', as a descendant of it. But you are right, Trotsky's more specifically close to this, in that he aimed at economic and administrative nodes.

>>14970913
Also in both cases, be it Blanqui or Trotsky, they want to 'take power'. In a sense, Ted doesn't, he just wants to destroy the system. But it doesn't, my comparison was only meant to go as far as *what I said*, not more ; this is all besides the point that this guy >>14969357
is right.

>>14970936
* But it doesn't matter

>>14968477
No problem on Earth has ever been fixed by marxism, marxists or being a marxist.

>>14970292
Oh, right. More technological advancement, the right kind of technological advancement will liberate us. Absolutely ridiculous.

Technology almost always tends towards centralization of productive dependence. Humans can't even wipe their ass without the factories of the Scott paper company. Automation multiplies exponentially problems of maintenance and further alienates productive effort from the worker.

>>14970977
They fixed hunger in Russia

>>14971132
Yearly harvests fell so hard during the civil war they took decades to recover. And they were improving until then.

>>14970543
>You are absolutely wrong....Ideology is *not* part of the economic process for Marx.
I don't know what you mean by "economic process" and I never used that term. Going back to what I did say, for Marx ideology definitely is part of the reproduction process of capitalism, since the latter wouldn't be possible if for example the labouring masses didn't accept that the arrangement in which they have to sell their labour-power to an owner of capital is generally "just".
I won't be able to address the second paragraph because I barely understood anything in there.

>>14968477
>Hates capitalism? MUST BE MARXIST
I know this board is full of pseuds but I want to believe most posters here at least have over 100 IQ.

>>14969220
based and redpilled

>>14970977
>Ted and his readers
>solving problems
lmao

>>14971538
cope harder marxoid filth

>>14971556
>marxoid
I don't agree with Ted

>>14970775
>and his theory is basically revolutionary socialism
Leftists lole

>>14971441
If you don't understand the second paragraph then I won't talk to you any further, since I think it's pretty transparent.
I'll make it even more simple because I'm a nice guy ; the guy you answered said : "Thus Marx’s conception of the force determining the character of a society must be broadened to include all of technology and not just the technology of production", you answered that it does because Marx is talking about reproduction of society and that includes ideology. But what Teddy boy was saying was that there uses of technology, such as in the domain of ideology, that are just as influential as economically determined ones but are not themselves determined economically. Unless you can show that economy determines all aspects of history, then Teddy boy is right.
Then, in my precedent post I also adressed what I think is meaningless in adding ; "ok but Marxism only says economy determines all history *in the last instance*", but I won't repeat that since you don't understand the more basic point beneath it.

>>14971580
It's ideologically motivated transformation of society through violent means by a minority. In other periods of history that wasn't especially linked with socialism, but in the context he is writing in, it is.

>>14969213
so are marxist societies (except of the most extreme colonial branches, eg: the khmer rouge)

>>14972670
Even they were a product of it. A reactionary one, but still.

tedism is just bookchin communalism for the unaware
change my mind

>>14972847
Bookchin, just like Zerzan, just like John Moore, just like all revolutionary leftists, thinks that we can achieve a sui generis society free of want through "advancement." They are operating on fundamentally different axioms than Kaczisnki. What they want are societies that master technology, but technology cannot be mastered under the Kacziskian view because ever since the advent of agriculture it has not been a tool of the individual but a tool of society (see Ellule's techniques).

>>14970292
>communalism
no.

Human nature is Inviolate and the idea that we can create an entirely new social organization is ridiculous. The unchanging nature of technology's role in civilization is evidence enough. See >>14971022

>>14973070
typo:
'it has not been a tool of the individual but [the
end] of society'

>>14973070
I like to say: The man may make the tool, but the tool soon shapes his hand.

>>14972244
>>14970543
I'm currently reading Das Kapital and what Marx says is that the ultimate factor in determining why things are done in capitalistic societies is precisely on the basis of economy. David Harvey argues even that the primary critique that Marx unravels is that the only way of seeing value in a capitalistic society is trough the lens of the money-commodity. So when you laugh at the fact that economy for Marx is the science of Being I think you're confusing the fact that Marx is describing the capitalist society (DESCRIBING). He is not saying this is how it should be, he is saying how it is currently.
As to what the poster said you were quoting said, he is right. The reproduction of capitalism has many facets, surplus value, psychological control, disenfranchising of the proletariat, etc. etc. Many of these were showed to be by others than Marx, Marcuse, Lukács, Lyotard, but the primary struggle, even for Zizek, is still class-struggle, originally discussed by Marx, which includes all that the he said by >"processing of information and the regulation of human behavior (e.g., through propaganda).". So when you don't believe that all of this is created by the economy you are in plain denial that it is the commodity that runs your life in a capitalist system. This shouldn't be this way, the commodity and the economy should play a major part in our lives, but not determine it. This is why Marx wrote his book, because he was too, like kaczynski, worried with the difference between how things ARE and SHOULD be.

>>14968477
>unironically
thanks for the addendum, fag

>>14970111
>yes indeed the fascists do dislike capitalism

>>14969357
>If technology progresses, then it´s just impotent whining; if there´s crisis of the technological system then everyone scrambles to defend the system and if the system fails, then such philosophy will be forgotten.

So Ted has been right all along? We're slaves to technology?

>>14970132
NCOV-19 has similar characteristics and is postulated to have a chronic presence. There will be long term effects of the coronavirus disease. Essentially an AIDs lite.

>>14972244
>But what Teddy boy was saying was that there uses of technology, such as in the domain of ideology, that are just as influential as economically determined ones but are not themselves determined economically.
"Uses of technology, such as the domain of ideology" definitely ARE determined economically. Firstly because the level of development of technology (an economic factor) obviously constrains what technology is available to use and how it can be used (mass media enabling mass propaganda etc.); secondly because the type of ideology that's going to be reinforced by the ruling class itself depends on the mode of production, which is determined by the development of forces of production. For example, ancient societies aren't going to see liberalism reinforced, since they depend on slavery and their technological level doesn't make it possible for them to be based on formally free labour, i.e. wage labour (lack of machinery, etc.)

>>14974651
fascists dislike capitalism and attempt to restrain and subjugate it to their ends, unlike marxist retards who think socialism is a viable economic alternative

>>14970426
You're a nigger pseudo smooth brain

>>14968477

>>14969213
i would argue that industrial society is the product of capitalism. as AI is. different shit same reason i.e. to increase productivity

>>14975163
Capitalism didn't exist before the industrial revolution. Communists need to get it in their head that capitalism is one of the many symptoms of the industrial revolution and that destroying capitalism without the industrial society as a whole is impossible.

>>14975646
actually no. capitalism started in 16-17 century.(wikipedia) and in 1735 john wyatt began the industrial revolution by the invention of spinning machine.(das capital).

>>14968477
Yeah, being a marxist it's a good apology, even if you're a pedo.

>>14975646
and also how can u say capitalism is good when you don't even know what capitalism is.

>>14976152
well i'm not marxist, i don't know much about that, i know little bit about capitalism, and can say it's another delusion of mankind like agriculture rev.

>>14973987
"what Marx says is that the ultimate factor in determining why things are done in capitalistic societies is precisely on the basis of economy."
In the name of the lord that's precisely what I've written, that Marx thinks that society is not entirely economy but is determined by economy (i.e. its mode of production). I've produced argument against : 1) saying that society is determined by economy 2) saying that society is merely 'ultimately' determined by economy.
>So when you laugh at the fact that economy for Marx is the science of Being I think you're confusing the fact that Marx is describing the capitalist society
No, I'm not confused about that you absolute retard. Unless everything that happens has as its ultimate determinant economy, i.e. unless economy is very nature of being as such - or whatever else is the first principle of all things, then Marx is wrong. That's my point.
>The reproduction of capitalism has many facets, surplus value, psychological control, disenfranchising of the proletariat, etc.
In the name of god I fucking know. But that's NOT what Ted is saying. He is saying that society (call it capitalist society if you want) is reproduced by activities that are technological, but not themselves economic. And I say that if they are not themselves economic, it makes no sense to say that they are 'ultimately' determined by economy, for the reason pointed out previously.
The rest of your illiterate name dropping of retards (Lukacs excepted), I won't adress.

>>14974852
The answer above adresses you as well. It's the third time I repeat the same basic things. At some point I wonder if reading the German Ideology doesn't make one retarded, what I'm saying is pretty simple. No one is denying that without capitalism these technology wouldn't exist ; just like capitalism wouldn't exist without some other technological discoveries, up until you reach, ultimately, determinations such as our biological nature or the way physics work that are *not* economic and that determine the way history has unfolded. Economic reductionism is semantically empty and economic reductionism qualified as 'only in the last instance' leads to absurd consequences.

>>14977396
And before you say that all activity is economic activity, read Marx again and wonder if it makes any sense to say that me, say, distributing stuff for free, that is, acting in a way that is not part of the process of valorisation of value is an economic activity. Again, something being *determined* by something doesn't mean that *it is part* of that thing. I was precisely adressing the difficulties of Marxist theory as it assumes economic *determinism*, qualified 'in the last instance' or not ; I wasn't adressing this kind of 'everything-is-economy' stance because it's *retarded* and *Marx & Engels opposed it*. Again, read Engel's letter on determination in the last instance.

https://twitter.com/spaceprole/status/1241059322177695746

mass literacy was, is and will be a mistake

>>14977396
I'm so mad I'll phrase it in a (naive) deductive form ;
(p1) The proximate cause of all actions is not economic, and not all actions have economic consequences
(p2) Some non-economic actions can thus themselves not result in economic effects
(p3) If p1 and p2 is true, direct economic determinism, which posits the contrary, is false
(p4) The ultimate causes of all things is not economic either
(p5) if p4 is true, then determination in the final instance by economy is false, because determination in the final instance can only mean that.
(p6) p1, p2 and p4 are true.
(c) Direct economic determinism *and* economic determinism 'in the ultimate' or 'in the last instance' are both false
To me it's pretty clear than only a retard would deny p1 and p2 ; Marx & Engels knew this and so they didn't defend a full-on economic determinism, but a partial one, 'in the last instance' ; the whole discussion since the beginning should have been you trying to explain to me what 'in the last instance' can mean that is not trivial or a misuse of the expression, but is also not what p4 denies ; you should show that p5 is false and that there is another possible meaningful use of the expression (I think there isn't).

>>14977497
* (p1) not all actions have proximate consequences that are economic
But it should be obvious that's what I mean

>>14968477
>The problem is not the question of technology as a whole but only a subset of it, namely capitalism
no