Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
23. I don't reject that notion.
Mon Aug 19, 2013, 01:47 AM
Aug 2013

I think agriculture was certainly a step up, objectively. However, as a technology it allows one to use it as a tool to subjugate the masses, but it can also be used as a tool to bring about a more relaxing lifestyle.

I think Zerzan is correct as opposed to Jensen because we do see primitive tribes that have yet to adopt agriculture, but have language, so agriculture probably comes after language. Language and intent and interpretation and expression is a tool that the shaman in a tribe uses to create a hierarchical mode of production. Jensen and other primitivists don't think it's a big deal because it's one or a few people who wind up being the shaman, and so who cares, right?

However, the shaman has no useful skill outside of that of finding healing techniques, such as herbal remedies and such. This is a dangerous game because they may wind up eating poison and dying, so they try to legitimize their position by inventing reasons for why they live or die or get sick. Gods, demons, whatever. They use this as a psychological hold over the group. So once you get into agriculture you get things like Egyptian Pharaohs who think they're gods, etc.

I am not a historical materialist simply because I do not believe it to be an accurate representation of history. Maybe, once you get into the whole singularity thing, but I think that's a cop-out because in all reality every single revolution in technology should've resulted in revolution in society.

We're talking about agriculture, how about industrial agriculture. Ideally historical materialism would've said, "Once humans are able to feed themselves with minimal of effort using machines, everyone should be able to eat for free, and food should be abundant, and people can then go on to do things that they want as opposed to what they have to do." A perfect, wonderful, idea of Marxism. Except that never happened. What happened to the farmers? They went on to be industrialists, build skyscrapers, etc. They went on to be factory workers, building cars, building out infrastructure, etc.

The next age will be when the information age meets industry. Infoindustry or something like that. Where people will be able to print out computers, electronics, TVs, etc. Where they will be able to print out whole factories to make those things. Using common, and abundant, materials that are around the world (I'm not necessarily talking nanotechnology though that's not ruled out in the argument). Now it can go two ways, we can emancipate ourselves from capitalism, or capitalism will use its force to make us pay for parts that by all intents should be absolutely free.

You might say that capitalism couldn't stop people from sharing each other stuff with damn replicators! But I'd counter that they simply do that by putting patent and IP rights on things and requiring that all things be networked! If you're caught with a non-networked piece of gadgetry then you're in deep shit! And that's the trend we're already seeing with things like SOPA, and we're still a decade or two away from having the ability to replicate things.

The whole reason industrial agriculture didn't help emancipate the farmer from the drudgery of capitalist work is because technology always manages to find a void in itself, and capitalism has an impressive mechanism in order to force that void to be filled. Property. I am a farmer and I'm paying a lease and paying taxes on that property, and I'm no longer needed to tend to the fields, then I have to get a job somewhere else to pay taxes and my lease on said property. So when the big venture industrialist who buys up my neighbors property and runs the big machines next door knocks on mine, I'm eager to take his offer, because my skill has been rendered irrelevant. This shouldn't have happened. And it probably wouldn't have had the capitalists not cracked down on the industrial workers in the late 1800s and early 1900s, killing or arresting them en masse, then passing laws to prevent them from having any agency whatsoever. They should've sat down, said, "Hey, we're a farmers union, let's all band together, let's all use this new machinery to help us farm, and let's split the proceeds evenly." That's what Proudhon talks about when he talks about organization being the primary factor here, not technology.

In a word, yes. Proud Public Servant Jul 2013 #1
In a word, no. ChairmanAgnostic Jul 2013 #2
Perhaps. TBF Jul 2013 #3
hmmm pretty interesting limpyhobbler Jul 2013 #7
Marx and Engels wrote each other letters talking about the problem. Starry Messenger Jul 2013 #4
Thanks for the links limpyhobbler Aug 2013 #11
In a word, maybe. Jackpine Radical Jul 2013 #5
So the middle class in some places may turn out to have been sort of temporary. limpyhobbler Aug 2013 #8
Well to me that's the crux of this question...... socialist_n_TN Aug 2013 #9
Yeah it really seems that way. limpyhobbler Aug 2013 #10
There's a lot of history behind ALL of these reform/revolution arguments.... socialist_n_TN Aug 2013 #12
Yeah this is limpyhobbler Aug 2013 #13
Well I'm not so sure that eminent domain couldn't be used.... socialist_n_TN Aug 2013 #14
They should be using eminent domain for that. limpyhobbler Aug 2013 #16
reform vs revolution DonCoquixote Aug 2013 #28
Just a quick reply as I have to go to work in a few.......... socialist_n_TN Aug 2013 #29
my reply DonCoquixote Aug 2013 #30
Well once again, I don't think that it's a guarantee that the ....... socialist_n_TN Aug 2013 #31
Marx didn't get industry. joshcryer Jul 2013 #6
"at no point in history did new productive facilities actually change the mode of production" BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #20
That's a Jensen view. joshcryer Aug 2013 #21
i appreciate the name-dropping BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #22
I don't reject that notion. joshcryer Aug 2013 #23
"Ideally historical materialism would've said, BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #24
it was actually utopian socialists, e.g. the saint simonians - BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #25
I didn't say historical materialism said that. joshcryer Aug 2013 #32
i'm sorry historical materialism didnt say what you wanted it to say BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #33
What do you think "new productive faculties" are? joshcryer Aug 2013 #34
you remain wrong about the "new productive faculties" BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #35
This message was self-deleted by its author BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #36
Capitalism is inherently hierarchical. joshcryer Aug 2013 #37
what is workplace alienation? BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #38
Eh. Disengagement commenced. joshcryer Aug 2013 #39
Three things changed since Marx that were firsts in history Taverner Aug 2013 #15
Coal, oil and gas certainly did fuel the development of modern society. limpyhobbler Aug 2013 #17
The Peak Oil Hypothesis still holds Taverner Aug 2013 #18
no BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #19
Yes he did, for a couple of reasons Warpy Aug 2013 #26
Not at all. David__77 Aug 2013 #27
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Socialist Progressives»Did Marx underestimate th...»Reply #23