From: GERALD LEVY (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Sat Aug 30 2008 - 18:49:01 EDT
Paul C: I am aware of what you said. Indeed, I excerpted sections of your post to make it clear what I was replying to. The issue here has to do with the political economy of technological change: in looking at the case of mechanized cotton production, you emphasize that this was a productivity- increasing technological change. Of course, that is true but it does not negate what I thought to be a simple and uncontroversial claim, i.e. that the design of particular technologies takes into account the form of labor and hence specific social relations of production. This is because technological change is typically also a form of control of labor or - to be more precise - the design of new technologies includes a control dimension. Mechanized cotton production technologies (your example) clearly had both strategic and control objectives. In solidarity, Jerry PS: please note also that my post highlighted more than simply the presence or absence of keys in tractors. Surely you are aware that one of the most dangerous occupations in advanced capitalist nations is agricultural labor. Did it not occur to you that this is to a great degree a consequence of a particular design of farm technologies which are dangerous to agricultural workers? The farm technologies which will be utilized by workers in a socialist society will be designed by workers with their welfare in mind and not simply or only to increase the productivity of labor. _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 02 2008 - 00:00:08 EDT