>At 11:14 PM -0500 15/9/03, Chuck0 wrote:
>
>>ee, I never said anything about industrial society or going back to the land or Pol Pot, for that matter. I challenged the simple-minded canard that technology is neutral.
>>
>>
>You did a bit more than that, you said that you thought industrial technology required a capitalist society:
>
> "A coal plant implies a system of industrial capitalism. It requires
> laws to force workers to mine coal, a state to enforce property
> rights for coal owners, and a command and control economy to move
> coal to the plant and deliver electricity."
>
>Since you are anti-capitalist, I put two and two together. Brian did too, tentatively, but sought clarification. You ducked the question. No, you "never said anything about industrial society or going back to the land", but if you:
>
> a) reject capitalism, a command and control economy, etc; and
> b) insist that this form of social organisation is necessary to
> industrial production,
>
>then by implication you are rejecting industrial production.
>
Bill, you nailed my argument perfectly. I would elaborate a little further.
Chuck maintains that these technologies are the result of industrial capitalism. I wouldn't doubt that (it is an historical fact), but as I pointed out before, Chuck's argument makes the "capitalism" part the crucial factor in the creation of such technologies as coal and nuclear power plants. Therefore, we must ask: if there had been a _different_ economic model in place in history, how would the technology have been different? Would industry even arisen _at all_?
That is why I asked Chuck to explain how things might've gone differently from 1900 or so-- to describe how, say, an anarcho-socialist industry would have developed. How would the political values have informed industrial development?
However, if we believe that the rise of _industry_ shapes the emerging technologies, with relatively less influence from the political structures, then we can't be blaming capitalism _per se_ for the emergence of specific technologies.
(I'd like to make it clear that I don't think that political structures are without influence. I doubt that the personal computer, for example, would have been developed in the former Soviet Union, or in China under Mao.)