Unabomber is like, not cool and stuff.

Louis N Proyect lnp3 at columbia.edu
Sun Oct 8 09:11:28 MDT 1995


On Sat, 7 Oct 1995, Divakar Goswami wrote:
> 
> Well, that still doesn't address the issue raised by Patterson. Although,
> technology is value neutral, it tends to maintain and further relations of
> domination in a society where the control of those technologies usually
> don't fall in the hands of the dominated but in that of the dominators.
> This distinction is necessary especially in the context where the likes of
> Bell talk of "technologies of freedom".
> 

Louis: This doesn't advance the discussion. The statement that technology 
"tends to maintain and further relations of domination in a society where 
the control of those technologies usually don't fall into the hands of 
the dominated but in that of the dominators" is a truism.

What we need to discuss is the feasibility of socialism. Stupid people 
like the Unabomber and his counterpart in polite society, Kirkpatrick 
Sale, discuss industrialization and technology without addressing the 
class context. I have implemented high technology in revolutionary Nicaragua 
and helped to advance nutrition, health care and literacy. I have also been 
implementing high technology on Wall St. on and off for 27 years and have 
done nothing except help the ruling class keep track of its capital.

It makes no sense to talk about machinery, technology and 
industrialization without relating it to class relationships under the 
capitalist system. To do otherwise leads to the romantic, 
irrational stance of the early New Left: "do not fold, spindle or 
mutilate." This sort of stuff, like Maoism, has gone out of style and 
there's no need to give it a new lease on life.



     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---



More information about the Marxism mailing list