[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 214 KB, 1200x1200, ted-kaczynski-578450-1-420.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14560325 No.14560325 [Reply] [Original]

He was right in the diagnosis, wrong regarding the cause. Technology has only lead us down this path because it was appropriated by capitalism.

>> No.14560342

>>14560325
But the technology brought capitalism into being anon.

>> No.14560343

>>14560325
yikes

>> No.14560347

>>14560325
>he doesn't know that technology and capital are one and the same

>> No.14560394

>>14560342
Capitalism has existed since the 1500s

>>14560347
No. Ted's concern is primarily with the industrial revolution of the 1700 and 1800s. Technology like the printing press had existed beforehand, not tied to capital before the mercantilism of the 1500s

>> No.14560456

>>14560325
Nope. Read his essay “stay on target” where he addresses this.

Capitalism arose because it is the social system best adapted to survive and propagate under current technological conditions. It’s determined by our level of technology. You ain’t going to do anything to eliminate capitalism unless the tech environment changes—which you have no control of because it is for a number of reasons outside of prediction and control.

Attacking capitalism is like attacking a symptom and not the source of a disease. A waste of time and effort.

Here I have oversimplified for the sake of brevity. Read “stay on target.” It was published in the John Jay Sentinel, but it is also included in “Anti-Tech Revolution”

>> No.14560493

Retroactively refuted by Ellul.

>> No.14560501

>>14560493
what

>> No.14560509

>>14560325
most brainlet take I've ever heard. You're human garbage.

>> No.14560712

>>14560325
Somebody hasn’t read Anti Tech revolt yet

>> No.14560729

>>14560325
His whole point that technology, as a force, is independent of any political party and exists as a a force in itself. No party opposes it, they only disagree about minor minor details but all seek to propagate technological development further.

>> No.14560802

>>14560394
Mercantilism is not capitalism.

>> No.14560846

>>14560394
>Capitalism has existed since the 1500s
they had technology in the 1500s anon, cavemen had technology

>> No.14560933

>>14560394
>Ted's concern is primarily with the industrial revolution of the 1700 and 1800s, not the 1500s
wrong. If you have only read the manifesto it might seem like it is his primary concerns, but it's not. But it does not matter; one's feelings towards a certain type of society are largely irrelevant towards its maintenance or destruction. Sometimes negative feelings towards society can be counter-productive and help the system expand, as described in his major works and "The System's Neatest Trick" - a cornerstone of his entire philosophy.

Whether or not the 1700s make him seethe more than the great works of Ancient Egypt is irrelevant to his ideas, the anti-technological movement and us readers.

>> No.14560951

It’s not very clear, this distinction between technology and capitalism. It’s also not very useful to use the language of causation to say “capitalism caused technology” or “technology caused capitalism”. Many legal and social practices found in mercantile cultures (such as joint stock companies) served a role in sowing the fields of corporate capitalism, but the practical necessity to fund the great navigations also led to joint stock companies being created. I

>> No.14561050

>>14560509
agreed

>> No.14561549

What is it with the internets obsession with this guy?

>> No.14561559

>>14561549
Read “Technological Slavery”

>> No.14561620

There is no way that capitalism, being the best our species can do in terms of a system of organization and exchange, cannot appropriate technology. As soon as a technique comes into being that supersedes others in efficiency, producers and co. have no choice but to adopt it, and human life (both physical and social) alters itself to be compatible with the technique. We can rail against global capital all we want, but to say that there's someone "at the controls" whom we can blame for propagating the developed world's technological societies is wrong.

I do like Kaczynski, though. He thinks and writes pretty clearly. The effect of information (entertainment) technology on my own life has been disastrous, though, so I have an incentive to like him more. No matter how much self-discipline I develop, the need to remain 'connected' in order to keep functioning in society keeps me from living the life I want to live. But that's true of most people, so I've made my peace with it.

>> No.14561937

>>14560325
National socialism was the only way for us to wield control over kikenology, and we fucked it up.

>> No.14561944

>>14560342
Wrong.

>> No.14561945

>>14560325
Technology freed us from material constraints, allowing us to apply a radical market logic to spheres of life that were previously untouched. Technology is the cause, not "capitalism" (itself a vague and nebulous term that attaches itself to whatever you want).

>> No.14561950

Read "Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum."

>> No.14561955

>>14560347
Land, labor, and natural resources are not 'technologies', brainlet.

>> No.14561957

>>14561620
>As soon as a technique comes into being that supersedes others in efficiency, producers and co. have no choice but to adopt it, and human life (both physical and social) alters itself to be compatible with the technique. We can rail against global capital all we want, but to say that there's someone "at the controls" whom we can blame for propagating the developed world's technological societies is wrong.

this i basically what kaczynski is saying. so....?

>> No.14561977

>>14560951
>It’s not very clear, this distinction between technology and capitalism.
Are you retarded? Capitalism is just private absentee ownership of the means of production, which includes technology, land, labor, etc.

>> No.14561997

>>14561945
>Technology is the cause, not "capitalism" (itself a vague and nebulous term that attaches itself to whatever you want).
Wrong. It is Capitalism that is clearly defined. "Technology" is the vague and nebulous term.

>> No.14562023

>>14561997
I gave a clear, functional explanation of what is meant by technology (the bad part we are focused on anyway). The definition of capitalism is too broad to be useful. It can be applied to many societies that are quite different in character and quality. Personal economic decisions are not made in a void.

>> No.14562086

>>14562023
>I gave a clear, functional explanation of what is meant by technology
What is it?

>It can be applied to many societies that are quite different in character and quality.
It's obviously not the only characteristic by which to classify societies. "Capitalism" applies to any society in which ownership of the means of production is concentrated in a few idle hands rather than broadly shared by working people themselves. So, in 2020, basically every society.

>> No.14562112

>>14560325
This. Luddites can be excused because they were bound to misunderstand the situation. But to still fall for that after Marx is a bit embarrassing.

>>14560342
And it will bring it to a close.

>>14561945
>Technology freed us from material constraints
The level of technology is the material constraint.

>> No.14562285

>>14561945
nigger you and almost everyone else are more dependent on and thus constrained by material goods than ever before

>> No.14562316

>>14561957
My post was directed at OP's critique of "capitalism," not at Kaczynski. Sorry; that second block of text is misleading.

>> No.14562334

>>14562086
>What is it?
Those developments which free us from material constraints. This allows for the logic of market to creep into spheres of life that previously were governed by social and material necessities. Just to take an example, we got washing machines, fridges, and birth control, which meant women didn't have to spend all of their time tending to their home. This accelerated the collapse of a gendered division of labour. In some ways this is good; now women don't have to be economically dependent on men. In other ways it is bad; now mothers stay in the workforce, pressured to be high-achievers, rather than spending the time with their children (or having the father spend the time with their children); notions about love, while not always accurate and maybe more myth than reality, have been supplanted by a hedonistic market logic, in which sex does not aim at spiritual or even material union, but is a mere transaction of pleasure.

>It's obviously not the only characteristic by which to classify societies. "Capitalism" applies to any society in which ownership of the means of production is concentrated in a few idle hands rather than broadly shared by working people themselves. So, in 2020, basically every society.
This is a narrow, pejorative definition of capitalism.

>> No.14562363

>>14562334
>In some ways this is good; now women don't have to be economically dependent on men.
post tits whore

>> No.14562385

>>14562334
>Those developments which free us from material constraints.
So, would a knife count as "technology" under your definition? It frees us, perhaps, from the material constraint of having to use our teeth or rocks to cut things. Sorry, but your definition is vague and applicable to anything.

>This is a narrow, pejorative definition of capitalism.
It's the original and only definition of capitalism.

>> No.14563531

Bumping because I'm going to post some quotes/thoughts in a bit.
Feast on slayer for now
https://youtu.be/aLDalKSJ18I

>> No.14564082

>>14560325
Honestly I think a lot of the problems he addresses are as much overpopulation as technology. I guess technology led to the overpopulation though?

>> No.14564119

>>14560342
Civilization brought both into being, and love brought civilization into being. Ted is fighting love without realizing it; his diagnosis is completely off the mark as a result.

>> No.14564133
File: 90 KB, 640x960, 1578537823538.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14564133

>>14564119
The eternal christcuck...

>> No.14564137

>>14564133
>christcuck
You're even more wrong than Ted, lmao

>> No.14564189

>>14562385
Yes, of course it does. Metal weapons always affect the societies they're introduced into. What matters is a critique of the specific technologies introduced, particularly at the massive rate since the industrial revolution.

>> No.14564202
File: 494 KB, 1024x768, heidegger-crop.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14564202

>>14564189
>critique of the specific technologies

>> No.14564213

>>14560456
I have not read, but this seems interesting. good post.