Futurist anarchists?

Well I'm a fan of not wiping my arse with leaves, if that's what you mean...

What the hell are you talking about?

or a turdist, or a tardis

I suppose there will be some technophiles among us. I confess.

Hi

Futurist, definitely. Don't take that as an endorsement of this thread.

Regards etc

LR

im more concerned why all your posts are formatted like shite poems!

why can't you post like everyone else, you muppet.

Hi

The future’s coming early

The past is always late

Those muppets better scarper

From revol68

Love

Chris

Rockin cuss, chris!

I think you should read some of Ian M Bank's books on his science fiction culture ,called The Culture, as they are essentially about a near anarchist future that exsists because of the massive increases in technology. Menial non sentient robots do all the grunt work and there is no need for work or money the work of hygeine and such is done by these robots. There are also sentient robots who have equal status with the other people of the Culture. Of course these people can regrow themselves, live much longer etc. So I guess some people can see it as futurist anarchy or some other label....

On the other hand, they did then spend most of their time interfering in other cultures with a brand of liberal ideological imperialism...

i'm definately a libertarian futurist, I want to see 80billion humans spreading out across and beyond the solar system, establishing planetary colonies, terraforming, orbital cities, nanotech, ai, utility fogs, beef vats, aquaculture, farms, arcologies, teleportation, drexler cornacopia recycling, quantum communications, solar fision, life extension, intelligence increase, if we cant reach our full potential as a species under anarchism then i'm not interested in it. i actually suspect that it is only a lib com society that could achieve this...

oh and technology is beneficial as a rule

Libcomers to invent all that? John to invent terraforming to keep his hair under control and Jack to invent beef vats to piss off the AR mob maybe...

Hi

Go kalabine! You rock.

Love

Chris

that's what makes the baby jesus cry

I'm with kalabine on this.

The decision is not between technology and no technology, it is between setting technology to work for the masters, or using it for ourselves.

Interesting side note, article I was reading today was talking about new research which suggests that the microchip has played a significant part in widening the class divide by effectively removing the need for many of the old skilled labour jobs (particularly in industry) to replace them with computer-type stuff. The upshot is apparently that there are less middle level jobs going around, so increasing the tendency for people in high-tech societies to either end up on top of the heap or lose out entirely...

Hi

It was not the introduction of the microchip that impoverished the working class, it was deindustrialisation. I suppose they’re related in a way, but social policy, not technology, is the reactionary force at play.

Love

Chris

absolutely - the only question we need to ask is can we make technology work for our class interests? technology can be used like anything else under capitalism to opress and marginalise us, in a free society it can be used for the benefit of everyone

I don't see what that means really - what do they mean by "top of the heap"?

The invention of the microchip under workers' control could basically be used to massively decrease the amount of work needed to be done!

And terraform my hair? In fact it's the perfect example of anarchic self-management - no external activity is required 8)

I have no problem with technology, and sure I agree that it's benefits and best application is in using it for everyone. Though, joking or not, there's a weeeeee bit of technocratic feeling to some people's posts. Technology and material advancement may lead to improved living conditions etc. but it will not bring "happiness" and is not valuable in itself.

I think it's more than a possibility that human beings (and the environment**!*!) can become slaves to machinery whether its in the interests of a few or supposedly the masses.

Any technology brought to prominence under capitalism will be used, while capitalism persists, in the net interest of capital. The Machine Wreckers/Luddites of the late 18th and early 19th centuries (who were definitley not primmos, or anything like it) knew this well enough, and practiced attacks on technology as a key part of the class war.

Nano-technology is going to be a very strong tool for capital, and potentially do a lot of harm to the people of the earth. more information and anti-capitalist analysis on emerging technologies from: http://www.etcgroup.org/publications.asp

Hi

Why is Prince Charles so against it then? Nano-tech is being held back by capitalists, not advanced by them.

Love

Chris

I always thought Futurism was art that looked like this: -

Ah well. You live & learn.

Prince Charles isn't a strong agent of capital, he's an anachronism. For example, he's also against new architecture. I don't think it's the case that capital-in-general is against big shiny new buildings.

Can't think of any other evidence for the view that nano-tech is being held back by capitalists. Some good evidence that it's not is that many large firms are sinking enormous costs into nano-tech (really a name for a whole range of different technologies operating on a similar scale) and that there is currently (last time I looked) *absolutely no* regulation, national or international, on the use of nano-tech in products in the public domain (except maybe some labelling regulations), despite that among other dangers, nano-particles can cross the blood/brain barrier.

So did I.

Either way, I like it. (Although the Italian Futurists had some very dodgy politics.)

Hi

“Strong” covers a wide spectrum. Regardless, the Monarchy are strong agents of the Bourgeoisie and they certainly encourage reverence for the current social economic system.

Superb. Where do I sign up? The fact the capitalists need to invest in nano-tech despite it being part of the social trajectory that will lead to their demise is just one of those contradictions of capitalism that we can afford to take for granted.

Love

Chris

yeah, nano-particles can only cross the blood/brain barrier of capitalists.

i think that technology is good. But sometimes when capitalist use it its bad.

what the class needs to do is get all the bad technology on a rocket (good technology) and shoot it in to the sun (which is good nature, but that's another issue).