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