Yeah you primmo cunt!
Nah I I thought it was coming from a pov saying that office workers were "top of the heap" and manual workers were the bottom - but I see what you meant now, and agree.
Oct 3 2005 23:48
Oct 12 2005 15:30
Obviously the role of capital and private property makes all the difference.
A futurist wouldn't care/understand:technology,even if destructive,always
benefits ALL (and that's what I have a problem with) mankind. A political
example is probably Milton Friedman's son's (he's an anarcho-capitalist) views on the internet as something that will overthrow dictators and spread peace and ideas throughout the world.
An anarchist view would be:only if it benefits state and capital first.
I tend to think things should be judged on individual merit. For example,
genetic screening for cancer OK (as long as info is private and
unexploitable) but I am against "cosmetic improvments" to
the human genome.
Oct 13 2005 11:12
Ironically 'the anarcho-futurists' were neo-diffusionists (primmies) who believed that everything the proletariat had built in Russia had to be destroyed because it was base and corrupt. They held huge conferences where people talked for hours about how they agreed that everything needed to be destroyed.
Utter fucking nonsense. It was nonsense neo-diffusionist bullshit and anal introspection that allowed the Russian revolution to pass most Russian anarchists by.
Oct 13 2005 11:15
Quote:
allowed the Russian revolution to pass most Russian anarchists by.
...you've said this before, but it's far from correct. Surely you're aware of the anarchist involvement in the Soviets, in their own organisations and even in the early Bolsheviks?
Oct 13 2005 14:05
Nick Durie wrote:
Utter fucking nonsense. It was nonsense neo-diffusionist bullshit and anal introspection that allowed the Russian revolution to pass most Russian anarchists by.
I've never come across that view before, what are the sources? I haven't seen any Dielo Truda stuff mentioning that, is there any?
Can comment on articles and discussions
I was paraphrasing, they were talking about the class divide becoming more polarised so either you are in obscenely rich category or get cast down with the rest of the untouchables.
Yeah that's kind of what they meant. Under capitalism, if you ain't got a job you ain't got shit right? According to the study, the microchip removes certain jobs in skilled menial labour (mostly involving a repetitive series of learned movements, such as speed typing, mathmatical equations, machine operating), and thus helped remove the need for a strata of society that was traditionally relatively well paid, union organised cos of the skill needs, and forming a section of society that made the whole thing look less polarised.
They don't appear to be saying it was the sole cause of the polarisation, but that it was a significant factor. Given that this has been a major aim of technology development under capital, it's not surprising I guess.
NB// I hope you aren't attempting to place this as an attack on technology, given that every post I've ever put up on libcom has been staunchly in the 'technology's great' category...