Zig Forums turned into all tankies since I last visited, so I guess I'll post this here

Zig Forums turned into all tankies since I last visited, so I guess I'll post this here.
Too few leftists have a critical attitude towards technological change. They take the notion of 'technological progress' at face value, and any change that happens in available technology as just part of some vague process of progress, things getting better.
Under capitalism, and also under any form of socialism or social anarchism if no change in our ideas about how we relate to our tools takes place, such changes often make the technology more complex and more like a black box. Computer drives turn from replaceable parts to elements of the PCB, soldered in place, only to be touched by "qualified professionals". Software turns from a tool to empower the user to apply the computational ability of the computer for whatever they need it for, into a series of rigid templates, delivering pre-fabricated applications with which the user may only fill a few boxes then have it do its magic. Any other task they want to do, they'll have to rely on some qualified programmer somewhere else to have done. Cars become harder to repair. ETC ETC.
All of this puts power in the hands of the firms selling these tools, or even without those firms, into the hands of designated "specialists". It is seen as progress, advancement, because things changed to it from a different form, and it means people think about the tools they use less. That is a mistaken idea of the purpose of tools. Increasing specialization, often for rather little actual practical gain, is not advancement or progress. Progress should be thought of as anything that expands the realm of what is possible. Some degree of specialization is necessary, but anything that increases the amount of it is not inherently desirable.
Technology should expand what is possible for individuals as well as humanity as a whole. So, technology can and should advance in a direction that enhances individuals abilities to repair their own tools, to apply their tools in creative ways, and to understand how the world of technology around them works decently well. A direction that prefers the fundamentally simple when possible, that prioritizes interchangeability of parts and the ability to use different tools together, and for different purposes. Specialization should be understood as a means to this end, or a sacrifice made in situations where there is no other option that allows us to achieve the goal in question. And complexity should always be understood as an occasionally necessary evil.

Attached: 1488855252967.jpg (1696x1664, 497.78K)

It's gotten much worse.
But also tldr I'm eating right now so sorry dude I can't use much mental power nwo.

Now it seems like roughly

black flags are still the worst posters on the board.

Does it? Well the moderators didn't like that I was anti-state, so I imagined they were the 25% tanky just following orders from the squeakiest wheels.

Seem to be a lot of tankies though

I agree. Tools of reaction sees these technological developments and trys to find ways of making them docile and its revolutionary potential dormant. One way of doing it is by forcing any emerging social relations that society has with the new development to adhere to the present social economic system, such as over specialization. It is important to recognise what is progressive and what is not.

Thats also true, but I think its a result of the logic of the market rather than reactionary forces trying to stifle the revolutionary potential of technology.
Either way, what I'm talking about isnt necessarily the revolutionary potential of technology to change social relations, but how different social relations ought to change technology. Technology that has the potential to empower its users often doesn't for one reason or another under capitalism. For another example with computers, the most popular free software is often too complex(in its actual form, as in lines of code and logical complexity, not hurr durr linux is 2 hard 4 grug) for a user to understand even if they wanted to without specializing, because of the interests of businesses using it and of contributing parties writing deliberately obscure and complicated code to give themselves power over this software that many moneyed interests depend on(see systemd. but even the kernel itself exemplifies this.)

I generally agree. While I am basically a green anarchist, I think technological advancement is very important. However, the issue under a capitalist system is that it generally focuses on benefitting a very privileged elite, rather than benefitting the general population. It can be manipulated by that elite, forcing people out of the labor force.

I do think technology has the potential to improve the lives of everyone through everything from automation of mundane work to the development of medical technology. However, capitalist mechanisms will never lead to this ideal outcome. Capitalism incentivizes developing technology that puts the disadvantaged majority in worse and worse situations, from better bombs to destructive consumer goods. The trick is to figure out how to incentivize developing technology that will benefit everyone.

I think I understand where you are coming from OP, and something similar was discussed regarding science in the recent book club reading of God and the State.

How so? I haven't been since January of last year.

You could have saved yourself some time and just said 100% fuckwit.

What matters isn't what technology is developed but what technology is popularized, what sorts of technology actually come into broad use.

I agree with this, but I have a problem with the technology capitalism incentivizes even ignoring these problems because it limits peoples autonomy more than some other avenues would have to to achieve the same or nearly the same benefit.
I think both of our criticisms of it go together well though. Simpler,cheaper, easier to understand, construct and maintain medical devices would do more to benefit everyone rather than just people who can afford first world healthcare for example.