Well then what are you arguing about? If there are external sources of innovation then I don't see the way all innovation can be caused by capitalism. If capitalist processes are parasitic on non-capitalist ones, then it seems fairly clear that the latter aren't caused by the former.
> On the
> issue of science and technology though, your argument that they are
> independence from capitalism opens the door to claims that the
> problems in society- ecological problems including climate change,
> hunger, ect..- are not caused by capitalism but by the independent
> science and technology.
When an ecological problem is pretty much directly related to industrial production it's hard to see what science and tech have to do with the argument at all--except to say that an independent vector of science and tech might actually be able to address these problems, whereas the current system has basically appropriated the scientific apparatus--universities, institutes etc.--for its own purposes, instrumentalizing that knowledge and making it virtually impossible the system to put any actual innovations into widespread use.
> It can lead to neoluddite anti-industrial and
> anti-technological arguments and does so easier than anti-capitalist
> ones.
I guess. But the luddites, as Carol will tell you, had a very clear sense of the way the particular technology in question intersected with the particular economic formation they were being asked to adopt--making the anti-capitalist and anti-tech argument in that case pretty hard to distinguish.
The argument against capitalism is not so weak that we can't
> allow for some positive things to have been developed by it. This
> does not undermine the facts that it is a shitty system and ripe with
> exploitation and misery. Vulgar unnuanced claims of capitalism
> complete lack of any sort of human gains simply make the left look
> silly,
I never said this. you're projecting.
> or worse lead to attacks on the independent science and
> technology instead of locating the roots of the problems in
> capitalism.
Saying that science can be independent doesn't mean that ever instance of science is. Saying that we need to be careful about how we understand the causal relationships here seems more apt than a blunt instrument that simply and automatically blames any scientific or technological gaffe of the past 200 years on the economic system alone. These are distinct cultural realms that are articulated in particular ways. You must describe this articulation and its history rather than just presuming you can assume it.
s