Midterm Essay Assignment Fall 2020.pdfNoble. Defence of Luddism.pdf-Double Spaced! No more than 2 pages, but more than 1 page. 12- point font, with one- inch margins all around. Thank you!
Untitled Chapter 1 In Defence of Luddism There is a war on, but only one side is armed: this is the essence of the technolo gy quest ion today. On the one side is pr ivate capital, scient ized and subsidized, mobile and global, and now heavily armed with military-spawned command, co ntrol, and communicat ion technolo gies. Empow ere d by the seco nd indust rial revolut ion, capital is moving decisive ly now to enlarge and consolidate the social dominance it se cured in the first. In the face of a steadily declining rate of pro fit, escalating co nflic t, and intensify ing co mpetition, those who alrea dy hold the wor ld hostage to their narrow interests are under- taking once again to rest ruc ture the inter nat ional eco nomy and the patter ns of pro duc tion to their adv antage. Thus, with the new technolo gy as a weap on, they steadily adv ance upon al l re maining vest iges of wor ker autonomy, skil l, organiza- tion, and pow er in the quest for more potent vehicles of invest ment and exploitat ion. And, with the new technolo gy as their symb ol, the y launch a mult imedia cultur al offensive desig ned to rekind le co nfidence in “prog ress.” As their extor- tionist tactics daily diminish the wealth of nat ions, they announce anew the opt imist ic promises of technolo gical de liver ance and salvation throug h science. On the other side, those under assault hastily abandon the fie ld for lack of an agenda, an arsenal, or an army. Their own co mprehension and crit ical abilit ies co nfounded by the cul- tural bar rage, they take refuge in alter nat ing st rateg ies of appeasement and accommo dat ion, denial and delusion, and re e l in desp erate disar ray before this seeming ly inexo rable onslaug ht—which is known in polite circles as “te chnolo gical change.” What is it that accounts for this apparent helplessness on the part of those whose ver y surviv al, it would seem, dep ends up on resist ing this systemat ic de gradat ion of humanit y into mere disp osable factor s of produc tion and accumulat ion? To be sure, there is a ser ious imbalance of pow er betwe en the op posing forces, and per haps an immobilizing fear on the weaker side in the face of so awesome an assault. But histor y is reple te with examples of how such weaker forces hav e valiantly defied, and eve n tr iumphe d over, the stro nger. Why then this striking lack of resolve against the new technolo gi- cal offensive? In search of an explanat ion for this apparent par alysis, and a cure for it, this book explores beyond the const raints of the Exce rpted fro m Progress without People: New Tec hnolog y, Une mploy- me nt, and the Message of Resistanc e, by Dav id F. Noble. © 1995 by David F. Noble. ISBN 978-1-896357-00-3. First publishe d in 1995 by Betwe en The Lines. cur rent crisis to focus upon older and more fundamental handicaps. Rather than examining the wel l-known enemies without—the tactics and threats of mult inat ional cor por a- tions that are daily rep orted in the press and chronicle d by a sp ect rum of specialists—this analysis examines the enemies within—the opp osit ion’s own establishe d patter ns of pow er and inherite d habits of thoug ht that now render it so supine and suscep tible. These inter nal foes, at once polit ical and ide- olo gical, can only successful ly be ove rco me by means of direc t and frank confrontat ion, which is the task begun here. In outline, the opp osit ion suffer s from a fatalist ic and futurist ic co nfusion about the nature of technolo gical devel- op ment, and this intel lec tual pro blem is roote d in, and rein- force d by, the polit ical and ideolo gical sub ordinat ion of people at the point of pro duc tion, the locus of technolo gical de velop ment. This twofold sub ordinat ion of wor ker s, not alone by capital but also by the friends of lab our (union offi- cials, left polit icians, and intel lec tuals), has hardly been acci- dental. Rather, it has served the interests of those who wie ld co ntrol ove r lab our’s resources and ideas. For the polit ical subordinat ion of wor ker s has disqualifie d them fro m ac ting as sub je cts on their own behalf, throug h their own dev ices and org anizations, and thus has minimized their chal lenge to the labour leader ship. And the ideolo gical sub ordinat ion of the wor ker s has invalidated their perce ptions, knowledge, and insights about what is to be done, and has rendered them de pendent upon others for guidance, deferential to the abst rac t and often ignor ant for mulat ions of their absentee agents. Such sub ordinat ion has handicapped the opp osit ion to the curre nt technolo gical assault in seve ral ways. First, and perhaps most obv ious, it has eliminated fro m the battle those ac tual ly on the battlefie ld of technolo gical innovation, those best situated to comprehend what is happening and to fight effe ctive ly. Second, in denying the possibilit y of people at the point of pro duc tion par ticipat ing on their own behalf in the st rug gle, the opp osit ion has lost as wel l its under standing of what is actual ly happening—an appreciat ion that arises only from daily confrontat ion, extende d experience, and intimate shopfloor knowledge. Final ly, the polit ical and ideolo gical subordinat ion of people at the point of pro duc tion has entaile d a remov al of the technolo gy quest ion fro m its actual site and social conte xt, with serious conse quences. While this remov al of the technolo gy quest ion has per haps st rengthene d the posit ion of the friends of lab our, vis-à-v is the wor ker s themse lves, it has weakened them vis-à-v is capi- tal. For without any pow er roote d in the self-a ctivity of the wo rke rs at the point of pro duc tion, the friends of lab our have / 1 beco me more suscep tible to the pow er of others. Without a fir m grasp of realit y base d up on exp erience, the y have beco me abst rac t in their thinking, and more vulnerable to the ideas of others. (It must be emphasized that this is not a matter of individual integ r ity or weakness, but rather a pow- er ful cultur al phenomenon that has influenced eve ryo ne.) The imp otence and ignorance result ing from the double disqualificat ion of people at the point of pro duc tion, more- over, hav e manifested themse lves in pro f ound intel lec tual co nfusion about the nature and pro mise of technolo gical de velop ment itse lf. Abst rac ted fro m the point of pro duc tion, and there fore fro m the possibilit y of a genuine ly indep endent point of view, the opp osit ion’s own not ion of technolo gical de velop ment has come to resemble and rat ify the hegemonic capitalist ideolo gy of technolo gical necessit y and pro gress. Fo r it too has become a mere ide olo gical dev ice, an enchant- ment, and an opiate. The idea of technolo gy has lost its essent ial co ncreteness, and thus all reference to par ticulars of pla ce and purpose, tactics and ter rain. Without mooring s in space, the disemb o died idea has wandered adrift in time as wel l. Technolo gical develop ment has come to be viewe d as an auto nomous thing, beyond poli- tics and socie ty, with a dest iny of its own which must become our dest iny too. Fro m the per spective of here and now, tech- nolo gical develop ment has become simply the blind weight of the past on the one hand and the per petual pro mise of the future on the other. Technolo gical deter minism—the domi- nat ion of the present by the past—and technolo gical pro gress —the dominat ion of the present by the future—have com- bine d in our minds to annihilate the technolo gical present. The loss of the concrete, the inevitable conse quence of the subordinat ion of people at the point of pro duc tion, has thus resulted also in the loss of the present as the realm for assess- ments, decisions, and actions. This intel lec tual blind-sp ot, the inabilit y even to comprehend technolo gy in the present te nse, much less act upon it, has inhibited the opp osit ion and lent legitima cy to its inaction. This chap ter examines the origin of this paralysis and the ideas that sanction it, looking in tur n at the first and seco nd indust rial revolut ions. The aim is to reg ain the concrete by affir ming the perce ptions of those at the point of pro duc tion, there by to reclaim the present as a locus of action—w hile there is still time to act. For people at the point of pro duc tion we re the first to comprehend the full sig nificance of the first indust rial revolut ion and to resp ond according ly. The y have also been the first to see the seco nd indust rial revolut ion for the devastat ing assault that it is—not because of their sup e- rior sop hist icat ion at diale ctics but because of what it is alrea dy doing to their lives—and to resp ond according ly. The pur pose here is to acknowledge, endor se, and encour- age their resp onse to technolo gy in the present tense, not in order to abandon the future but to make it possible. In poli- tics it is always essent ial to const ruc t a compelling vision of the future and to wor k toward it, and this is especial ly true with reg ard to technolo gy. But it is equal ly essent ial to be able to act effec tively in the present, to defend exist ing forces ag ainst assault and try to extend their rea ch. In the absence of a str ate gy for the present, these forces wil l be dest roy ed, and without them all talk about the future becomes mere ly aca- demic. No one alive today remembers first-hand the trauma that we