اختراع آینده (فصل هشتم و بخش پایانی)

http://daricheha.com/weblog/?p=1274
http://daricheha.com/weblog/?p=1389
http://daricheha.com/weblog/?p=1466
http://daricheha.com/weblog/?p=1636
http://daricheha.com/weblog/?p=1642
http://daricheha.com/weblog/?p=1663

7. A NEW COMMON SENSE

1.Lesley Wood, Crisis and Control: The Militarization of Protest Policing (London: Pluto, 2014).
2.For an overview of some of the debates around capitalism’s origins, see Ellen Meiksins Wood, The Origin of Capitalism: A Longer View (London: Verso, 2002), Chapters 1–3.
3.For a foundational step towards understanding the conditions of postcolonial capitalism and the hegemony of ‘development’, see Kalyan Sanyal, Rethinking Capitalist Development: Primitive Accumulation, Governmentality and PostColonial Capitalism (New Delhi: Routledge India, 2013).
4.The unique conditions of Venezuela appear to have produced the only space in which this strategy is being meaningfully adopted, albeit in an intriguingly modified form. See George Ciccariello-Maher, ‘Dual Power in the Venezuelan Revolution’, Monthly Review 59: 4 (2007); Vladimir Lenin, ‘The Dual Power’, Pravda, 9 April 1917, at marxists.org.
5.For a critique of communisation’s tendency to make this supposition, see Alberto Toscano, ‘Now and Never’, in Benjamin Noys, ed., Communization and Its Discontents: Contestation, Critique, and Contemporary Struggles (Brooklyn: Minor Compositions, 2012).
6.While agreeing with their counter-hegemonic approach and insistence on a postcapitalist vision, we diverge from J. K. Gibson-Graham’s goal of folk-political community economies and their discursive understanding of hegemony. The major difference in analysis is in their denial of capitalist universalism, which enables them to see small-scale particularities as sufficient for changing economies. For the critique of capitalist universalism and the articulation of a postcapitalist hegemony, see, respectively, J. K. Gibson-Graham, The End of Capitalism (as We Knew It): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2006); and J. K. Gibson-Graham, A Postcapitalist Politics (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2006).
7.The full story of the evolution of the term within Marxist thought begins with its inclusion in the writings of G. V. Plekhanov in 1884 as gegemoniya, which by the time of Lenin had evolved into an idea of political leadership within a class alliance. This idea was developed considerably by Gramsci into a more ramified and complex understanding of rule by consent, to analyse both Marxist strategy and the existing state of capitalist power. G. F. Plekhanov, ‘Socialism and the Political Struggle’, in Selected Philosophical Works, vol. 1 (Moscow: Progress, 1974); V. I. Lenin, What Is to Be Done? (Moscow: Progress, 1971); Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, ed. Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell-Smith (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1971).
8.There have been a number of critiques of hegemony, including Richard Day, Gramsci Is Dead: Anarchist Currents in the Newest Social Movements (London: Pluto, 2005); Scott Lash, ‘Power After Hegemony: Cultural Studies in Mutation?’ Theory, Culture & Society 24: 3 (2007); Athina Karatzogianni and Andrew Robinson, Power, Resistance, and Conflict in the Contemporary World: Social Movements, Networks, and Hierarchies (London/New York: Routledge, 2010); Jon Beasley-Murray, Posthegemony: Political Theory and Latin America (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010). It suffices to say that the majority of these critiques rest upon a misconstruction of hegemony, either as being equivalent to domination (which in all its post-Gramscian formulations it is explicitly not) or as relying upon active assent (which it does not). While other theoretical understandings of power – such as those offered by thinkers like Foucault, Deleuze and Guattari, and Bourdieu – might be usefully applied as supplements to the perspective offered by the idea of hegemony, we do not agree with those who have recently argued that they can effectively replace it.
9.It is useful to note here that, while hegemonic governance is generally within the order of (at least passive) consent, it does not mean the total absence of dominance or coercive force. It indicates simply a situation in which coercive force must be cloaked in the respectable garb of consensuality. See Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, p. 80. This clarification is necessary to avoid charges of the kind levelled against Gramscian hegemony theory by critics who want to attest to the historical–cultural specificity of the idea, especially given its apparent incompatibility with very different political situations such as those of India under British colonialism, or the United States during slavery. See Ranajit Guha, Dominance Without Hegemony: History and Power in Colonial India (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998); Frank Wilderson, ‘Gramsci’s Black Marx: Whither the Slave in Civil Society?’ Social Identities 9: 2 (2003). We will presume that hegemony in the generalised sense we outline in this chapter will pertain in any complex society where domination is not the primary mode of governance.
10.This is a point also made by Podemos leader Pablo Iglesias. Pablo Iglesias, ‘The Left Can Win’, Jacobin, 9 December 2014, at jacobinmag.com.
11.John Holloway, Change the World Without Taking Power: The Meaning of Revolution Today (London: Pluto Press, 2010).
12.While Gramscianism has often been associated with the Eurocommunist political tendency, we would distinguish the basic political analysis and strategic insights of hegemony theory from this particular historical manifestation. Indeed, an overt focus on electoralism in preference to achieving broader hegemonic transformations would seem to us to be an abandonment of the fundamental insights of hegemony itself – not the least of which is an understanding of power as resting in multiple interlocking loci, of which the state is only one.
13.While we endorse the expansion of the concept of hegemony contained in the work of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, in particular its expansion of the range of political subjectivities included within it, it is not without problems. The use of discourse theory as a social ontology results in an effectively anti-realist account, which does unnecessary harm to the broader project of understanding the complexity of the political world. See Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy (London/New York: Verso, 1985); Ernesto Laclau, New Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time (London/New York: Verso, 1990). For a lengthy critique of Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse-based hegemony theory, see Geoff Boucher, The Charmed Circle of Ideology: A Critique of Laclau and Mouffe, Butler and Žižek (Melbourne: re.press, 2009).
14.David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 40.
15.This concept was originally devised by Joseph Overton, in relation to the proper operational purpose of a think tank. See Nathan J. Russell, ‘An Introduction to the Overton Window of Political Possibilities’, Mackinac Center for Public Policy, 4 January 2006, at mackinac.org.
16.This can be conceived in cultural terms as the creation of ‘capitalist realism’. See Mark Fisher, Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? (Winchester: Zero, 2009).
17.‘In such a situation, hegemony has nothing to do with the capacity to make people believe in you; it has everything to do with the strategic capacity to render their belief or disbelief irrelevant.’ Jeremy Gilbert, ‘Hegemony Now’, 2013, at academia.edu, p. 16.
18.David Harvey, Spaces of Hope (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2000), p. 159.
19.Judy Wajcman, TechnoFeminism (Cambridge: Polity, 2004), p. 35.
20.Jonathan Joseph, Hegemony: A Realist Analysis (New York: Routledge, 2002).
21.Thomas Hughes, ‘Technological Momentum’, in Merritt Roe Smith and Leo Marx, eds, Does Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994); and Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880–1930 (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993).
22.This is what Peter Thomas argues: ‘Gramsci … was aware that all social practices are interrelated, precisely because of his Marxist emphasis on social practices as social relations within a social totality, not merely as the expressions of some regional logics. That led him to conceive of what I would describe as the “political constitution of the social”.’ Peter Thomas, ‘“The Gramscian Moment”: An Interview with Peter Thomas’, in Adam Thomas, ed., Antonio Gramsci: Working-Class Revolutionary: Essays and Interviews (London: Workers’ Liberty, 2012).
23.De Witt Douglas Kilgore, Astrofuturism: Science, Race, and Visions of Utopia in Space (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003), p. 21.
24.Asif A. Siddiqi, The Red Rockets’ Glare: Spaceflight and the Russian Imagination, 1857–1957 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), p. 78.
25.Nikolai Federovich Federov, ‘The Philosophy of the Common Task’, in What Was Man Created For?, transl. Elisabeth Kouitaissof and Marilyn Minto (London: Honeyglen, 1990), p. 98.
26.For one example, see Alexander Bogdanov, Red Star: The First Bolshevik Utopia, ed. Loren Graham and Richard Stites, transl. Charles Rougle (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1984).
27.Siddiqi, Red Rockets’ Glare, pp. 86–7.
28.Richard Stites, Revolutionary Dreams: Utopian Vision and Experimental Life in the Russian Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), p. 36.
29.Francis Spufford, Red Plenty: Inside the Fifties’ Soviet Dream (London: Faber & Faber, 2010); Siddiqi, Red Rockets’ Glare, Chapter 8.
30.While the Soviet Union is now often deemed an economic failure, between 1928 and 1970 its economy did exceptionally well, outpacing every country except Japan. Robert Allen, Farm to Factory: A Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Economy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003), pp. 6–7.
31.Steve Fraser, The Age of Acquiescence: The Life and Death of American Resistance to Organized Wealth and Power (New York: Little, Brown US, 2015), Chapter 6.
32.Fisher, Capitalist Realism.
33.The shift from the secular, postcapitalist techno-optimism of Star Trek to the fundamentalist techno-pessimism of Battlestar Galactica is one example of this. Barry Buzan, ‘America in Space: The International Relations of Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39: 1 (2010).
34.See, for example, Kathi Weeks, The Problem with Work: Feminism, Marxism, Antiwork Politics, and Postwork Imaginaries (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2011), pp. 182–3; Nancy Fraser, The Fortunes of Feminism: From Women’s Liberation to Identity Politics to Anti-Capitalism (London: Verso, 2013); Helen Hester, ‘Promethean Labours and Domestic Realism’, in Joshua Johnson, ed., The Scales of Our Eyes: The Scope of Leftist Thought (London: Mimesis International, 2015); José Esteban Muñoz, Cruising Utopia: The Then and There of Queer Futurity (New York: New York University Press, 2009), pp. 19–21; Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution (New York: Morrow, 1970).
35.Fredric Jameson, Valences of the Dialectic (London: Verso, 2010), p. 413.
36.‘Marx alone sought to combine the politics of revolt with the “poetry of the future” and applied himself to demonstrate that socialism was more modern than capitalism and more productive. To recover that futurism and that excitement is surely the fundamental task of any left “discursive struggle” today.’ Fredric Jameson, Representing Capital: A Reading of Volume One (London: Verso, 2011), p. 90.
37.Fredric Jameson, A Singular Modernity: Essay on the Ontology of the Present (London: Verso, 2002), p. 8.
38.We can draw a distinction here between abstract and concrete utopias. Whereas the former project an image of the future unbound from current political conditions, the latter are guided by a rigorous analysis of the given conjuncture and aimed at intervention in the here and now. Alfred Schmidt, The Concept of Nature in Marx (London: Verso, 2014), p. 128; Ernst Bloch, The Principle of Hope (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995).
39.George Young, The Russian Cosmists: The Esoteric Futurism of Nikolai Fedorov and His Followers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).
40.Richard Stites, ‘Fantasy and Revolution: Alexander Bogdanov and the Origins of Bolshevik Science Fiction’, in Bogdanov, Red Star, p. 15; Siddiqi, Red Rockets’ Glare, Chapter 4.
41.Erik Olin Wright, Envisioning Real Utopias (London: Verso, 2010), p. 23.
42.Jameson, Singular Modernity, p. 26; Vincent Geoghegan, Utopianism and Marxism (Oxford: Peter Lang, 2008), p. 16.
43.Zygmunt Bauman, Socialism: The Active Utopia (London: Routledge, 2011), p. 13.
44.Kilgore, Astrofuturism, pp. 237–8; Stites, Revolutionary Dreams, p. 33.
45.Slavoj Žižek, ‘Towards a Materialist Theory of Subjectivity’, Birkbeck, London, 22 May 2014, podcast available at backdoorbroadcasting.net.
46.Weeks, Problem with Work, p. 204.
47.Ruth Levitas, The Concept of Utopia (Oxford: Peter Lang, 2011).
48.E. P. Thompson, ‘Romanticism, Utopianism and Moralism: The Case of William Morris’, New Left Review I/99 (September–October 1976), p. 97.
49.The most condensed and interventionist form of this utopian dimension is the manifesto. See Weeks, Problem with Work, pp. 213–18.
50.Manuel Castells, Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age (Cambridge: Polity, 2012), p. 15.
51.Patricia Reed, ‘Seven Prescriptions for Accelerationism’, in Robin Mackay and Armen Avanessian, eds, #Accelerate: The Accelerationist Reader (Falmouth: Urbanomic, 2014), pp. 528–31.
52.Wendy Brown, ‘Resisting Left Melancholy’, Boundary 2 26: 3 (1999).
53.Paul Mason, Why It’s Kicking Off Everywhere: The New Global Revolutions (London: Verso, 2012), pp. 66–73.
54.Mark Fisher, ‘Going Overground’, K-Punk, 5 January 2014, at k-punk.org.
55.Bloch, Principle of Hope.
56.Paul Gilroy, The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness (London: Verso, 1993), p. 37; Weeks, Problem with Work, pp. 190–3; Geoghegan, Utopianism and Marxism, p. 20.
57.Curiously, this lack of a profit motive has led some on the left to see space exploration perversely as a ‘capitalist utopia’. George Caffentzis and Silvia Federici, ‘Mormons in Space’, in George Caffentzis, In Letters of Blood and Fire (Oakland: PM Press, 2012), p. 65.
58.Louis Althusser, ‘Ideology and Ideological State Apparatus (Notes Towards an Investigation)’, in Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays (New York: Monthly Review, 2001), pp. 88–9.
59.Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, p. 10.
60.Mary Morgan and Malcolm Rutherford, ‘American Economics: The Character of the Transformation’, History of Political Economy 30 (1998).
61.G. C. Harcourt, Some Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972).
62.Paul A. Samuelson, ‘Understanding the Marxian Notion of Exploitation: A Summary of the So-Called Transformation Problem Between Marxian Values and Competitive Prices’, Journal of Economic Literature 9: 2 (1971).
63.Edward Fullbrook, ‘Introduction’, in Edward Fullbrook, ed., Pluralist Economics (London: Zed, 2008), pp. 1–2.
64.More information can be found on their website: rethinkeconomics.org.
65.David Colander and Harry Landreth, ‘Pluralism, Formalism and American Economics’, in Fullbrook, Pluralist Economics, pp. 31–5.
66.The most dominant textbook is by Greg Mankiw, a former Bush lackey and courageous defender of the 1 per cent: N. Gregory Mankiw, Macroeconomics, 8th edn (New York: Worth, 2012).
67.William Mitchell and L. Randall Wray, ‘Modern Monetary Theory and Practice’, 2014, pdf available at mmtonline.net.
68.For two brief but excellent exceptions, see Tiziana Terranova, ‘Red Stack Attack!’, in Mackay and Avanessian, #Accelerate.
69.For some of the existing research on this topic, see Oskar Lange and Fred M. Taylor, On the Economic Theory of Socialism (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964); W. Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell, Towards a New Socialism (Nottingham: Spokesman, 1993); W. Paul Cockshott, Allin Cottrell, Gregory Michaelson, Ian Wright and Victor Yakovenko, Classical Econophysics (London: Routledge, 2009); Andy Pollack, ‘Information Technology and Socialist Self-Management’, Monthly Review 49: 4 (1997); Dan Greenwood, ‘From Market to Non-Market: An Autonomous Agent Approach to Central Planning’, Knowledge Engineering Review 22: 4 (2007).
70.There are already a number of economists working on these issues. The problem is hindered by the existence of multiple measures (many of which nonetheless reach similar conclusions about the cyclical and secular trends), and by studies remaining at the level of appearances and not digging deeper into the causal mechanisms behind them. There seems to be a correlation between increasing use of fixed capital in the production process and a long-term secular decline in profitability, but any causal connection so far remains at the level of assertion. For more, see Minqi Li, Feng Xiao and Andong Zhu, ‘Long Waves, Institutional Changes, and Historical Trends: A Study of the Long-Term Movement of the Profit Rate in the Capitalist World-Economy’, Journal of World-Systems Research 13: 1 (2007); Guglielmo Carchedi, Behind the Crisis: Marx’s Dialectic of Value and Knowledge (Chicago: Haymarket, 2012); Deepankar Basu and Ramaa Vasudevan, ‘Technology, Distribution and the Rate of Profit in the US Economy: Understanding the Current Crisis’, Cambridge Journal of Economics 37: 1 (2013); Gerard Dumenil and Dominique Levy, ‘The Profit Rate: Where and How Much Did It Fall? Did It Recover? (USA 1948–2000)’, Review of Radical Political Economics 34: 4 (2002).
71.Mary Morgan, The World in the Model: How Economists Work and Think (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).
72.For more information, see wea.org.uk.
73.Andy Clark, Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008).
74.John Zerzan, Future Primitive and Other Essays (Brooklyn: Semiotext(e), 1996); Derrick Jensen, Endgame: The Problem of Civilization, Volume 1 (New York: Seven Stories, 2006).
75.Gavin Mueller, ‘The Rise of the Machines’, Jacobin 10 (2013), at jacobinmag.com.
76.This has been one of the main focuses of science and technology studies and feminist approaches to technology. For representative examples of this research, see Wajcman, TechnoFeminism; Wiebe Bijker, Thomas Hughes and Trevor Pinch, eds, The Social Construction of Technological Systems (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987); Wiebe Bijker, Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997); Donald MacKenzie, Fabian Muniesa and Lucia Siu, eds, Do Economists Make Markets? On the Performativity of Economics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007); Thomas Hughes, Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880–1930 (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993).
77.This is the subject of recent debates over the ‘reconfiguration thesis’. Alberto Toscano, ‘Logistics and Opposition’, Mute, 2011, at metamute.org; Jasper Bernes, ‘Logistics, Counterlogistics and the Communist Project’, in End Notes 3: Gender, Race, Class and Other Misfortunes (September 2013); Alberto Toscano, ‘Lineaments of the Logistical State’, Viewpoint, 2015, at viewpointmag.com.
78.‘Machinery does not lose its use value as soon as it ceases to be capital. While machinery is the most appropriate form of the use value of fixed capital, it does not at all follow that therefore subsumption under the social relation of capital is the most appropriate and ultimate social relation of production for the application of machinery.’ Karl Marx, Grundrisse: Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy, transl. Martin Nicolaus (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973), pp. 699–700.
79.As the examples here will show, repurposing and creation are ultimately highly intertwined, given that every repurposing involves a creative use of old material, and every creation involves a repurposing of existing material to hand. The distinction between the two is ultimately a matter of emphasis rather than opposition.
80.Andrew Feenberg, Transforming Technology: A Critical Theory Revisited (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002).
81.For a series of useful guidelines for how workers can adopt technology into the workplace, see Chris Harman, Is a Machine After Your Job? New Technology and the Struggle for Socialism (London, 1979), at marxists.org, Part 8.
82.Mariana Mazzucato, The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths (London: Anthem, 2013); Michael Hanlon, ‘The Golden Quarter’, Aeon Magazine, 3 December 2014, at aeon.co.
83.For a detailed account of this, see Mazzucato, Entrepreneurial State, Chapter 5.
84.Mariana Mazzucato, Building the Entrepreneurial State: A New Framework for Envisioning and Evaluating a MissionOriented Public Sector, Working Paper No. 824, Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, 2015, pdf available at levyinstitute.org, p. 9; Carlota Perez, Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital: The Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2003).
85.Mazzucato, Building the Entrepreneurial State, p. 2.
86.For more, see missionorientedfinance.com.
87.Caetano Penna and Mariana Mazzucato, ‘Beyond Market Failures: The Role of State Investment Banks in the Economy’, paper presented at the Conference on MissionOriented Finance for Innovation, London, 24 July 2014, available on youtube.com.
88.Germany’s major transformation towards renewable energy provides perhaps the best current example of this.
89.Nick Dyer-Witheford, ‘Cycles and Circuits of Struggle in High-Technology Capitalism’, in Jim Davis, Thomas Hirschl and Michael Stack, eds, Cutting Edge: Technology, Information, Capitalism and Social Revolution (London: Verso, 1997), pp. 206–7; Adrian Smith, Socially Useful Production, STEPS Working Paper 58 (Brighton STEPS Centre, 2014), at steps-centre.org, p. 2.
90.This shares some properties with Murray Bookchin’s notion of liberatory technologies, though we are obviously less inclined towards his vision of a small-scale communitarian future. Murray Bookchin, ‘Towards a Liberatory Technology’, in Post-Scarcity Anarchism (Edinburgh: AK Press, 2004).
91.Hilary Wainwright and Dave Elliott, The Lucas Plan: A New Trade Unionism in the Making? (London: Allison & Busby, 1981), p. 16.
92.Ibid., pp. 10, 89.
93.Ibid., pp. 101–7.
94.Smith, Socially Useful Production, p. 5.
95.Ibid., p. 1.
96.Ibid., p. 2.
97.Wainwright and Elliott, Lucas Plan, p. 231.
98.Ibid., p. 157.
99.Tiqqun, The Cybernetic Hypothesis, n.d., at theanarchistlibrary.org.
100.Eden Medina, Cybernetic Revolutionaries: Technology and Politics in Allende’s Chile (London: MIT Press, 2011), p. 26.
101.Ibid., p. 64.
102.Ibid., p. 72.
103.Ibid., p. 146.
104.Ibid., p. 150.
105.Ibid., p. 79.
106.Jameson, Valences of the Dialectic; Toscano, ‘Logistics and Opposition’; Mike Davis, ‘Who Will Build the Ark?’, New Left Review II/61 (January–February 2010); Medina, Cybernetic Revolutionaries; Nick Dyer-Witheford, ‘Red Plenty Platforms’, Culture Machine 14 (2013); Terranova, ‘Red Stack Attack!’; Evgeny Morozov, ‘Socialise the Data Centres!’ New Left Review 91 (January–February 2015).
107.For a sophisticated argument to the contrary, see Bernes, ‘Logistics, Counterlogistics and the Communist Project’.
108.For a compelling quasi-fictional account of these problems, see Spufford, Red Plenty.
109.Caroline Saunders and Andrew Barber, Food Miles – Comparative Energy/Emissions Performance of New Zealand’s Agriculture Industry, Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit, July 2006, pdf available at lincoln.ac.nz.
110.Feenberg, Transforming Technology, p. 58; Monika Reinfelder, ‘Introduction: Breaking the Spell of Technicism’, in Phil Slater, ed., Outlines of a Critique of Technology (London: Ink Links, 1980), p. 17.
111.There is an extensive literature on this political nature in the field of science and technology studies, but we would also add research on skill-biased and class-biased technical change. David Autor, Frank Levy and Richard Murnane, ‘The Skill Content of Recent Technological Change: An Empirical Exploration’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 118: 4 (2003); Amit Basole, ‘Class-Biased Technical Change and Socialism: Some Reflections on Benedito Moraes-Neto’s “On the Labor Process and Productive Efficiency: Discussing the Socialist Project”’, Rethinking Marxism 25: 4 (2013).
112.For one of the earliest arguments to this effect, see Raniero Panzieri, ‘The Capitalist Use of Machinery: Marx Versus the “Objectivists”’, in Slater, Outlines of a Critique of Technology.
113.David F. Noble, Forces of Production: A Social History of Industrial Automation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); Karl Marx, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume I, transl. Ben Fowkes (London: Penguin, 1990), p. 526.
114.Melvin Kranzberg, ‘Technology and History: ‘‘Kranzberg’s Laws”’, Technology and Culture 27:3 (1986), p. 545.
115.George Basalla, The Evolution of Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), p. 7.
116.On how users shape technology, see Nellie Ooudshorn and Trevor Pinch, eds, How Users Matter: The Co-Construction of Users and Technology (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005).
117.Harry Cleaver, ‘Technology as Political Weaponry’, in The Responsibility of the Scientific and Technological Enterprise in Technology Transfer, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1981, pdf available at academia.edu.
118.Even if never used, nuclear weapons are still fundamentally premised on this function.
119.For an incisive reflection on cognitive workers and their relation to other figures of the working class, see Matteo Pasquinelli, ‘To Anticipate and Accelerate: Italian Operaismo and Reading Marx’s Notion of the Organic Composition of Capital’, Rethinking Marxism 26: 2 (2014).