> Interesting points and thanks for the source. But how does your
> evidence contradict Zizek's (attributed) point?
Zizek was raised as an example of the line of reasoning that implies that Capitalism can achieve greater productivity than Socialism, it is this line of reasoning that I have refuted, by pointing out that a system of withholding capital from labour can not possibly be more productive than one that makes capital available to labour at cost.
That was the context of the discussion in this thread, I am not sure in which Context Zizek makes the original quote, it is not the quote directly I am refuting.
> Some forms of tech can
> be used to commodify/deskill workers;
Deskilling is a component of Fordism-Taylorism, not Capitalism. As I mentioned to Carrol, Fordism-Taylorism was also the guiding principal of organizing production in the USSR, the PRC, etc, not only Capitalist societies.
> That said though, I suspect that modern tech is engineered flexibly
> and generally enough that a lot of it will remain useful, even despite
> radically different applications. Build the new society in the shell
> of the old, and all that...
100% agree.
> As for capitalism as a stepping stone to an advanced, egalitarian
> industrial society... I thought the logic was that industrialization
> is painful enough to require significant coercion. Competition and
> conflict were required to get over the initial humps. And that war and
> state capitalism have been the main drivers of modern tech progress.
> Is this view mistaken?
I am not disputing that Capitalism is a stepping stone, I am disputing that it is inherently productive. It is a stepping stone for many reasons, including the ones you mention, but it is certainly not a productive system, it is very inefficient and wasteful.
Ok, that's thee posts, so I am the day's limit. See you all tomorrow. I am available by private email.
-- Dmytri Kleiner, robotnik Telekommunisten, Berlin.
dk at telekommunisten.net http://www.telekommunisten.net freenode/#telnik