December 1976 RAIN Page 9' AND . ·'f···· word, man's consciousness-changes (he does not say: is totally determined) with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?" It is a great error to overlook or to underestimate the effects of the 'modes of production' upon people's lives, not just their 'standard of living': ' -how they produce; what they produce; -where they work; where they live; whom they rneet; -how they relax or 'recreate' tnemselves; what they eat, breathe and see; -and therefore what they thinR;1their freedom or their dependence. Adam Smith was under no illusion about the effects of the 'mode of production' on the wor~er: ' The understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily ' formed by their ordinary employments. The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations ... has no occasion to exert his understanding.... He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such ~xertion and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become.... But in every improved and civilized society this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it." Marx, who quotes Adam Smith, adds the comment that People say to me:.before you can make headway with your 'Intermediate Technology' you must first change the system, do away with capitalism and the profit motive, dissolve the multinationals, abolish all bureaucracies, and reform education. All I can reply is: !'know of no better·way of changing the 'system' than by putting into the world a new type of technology-technologies by which small people can make themselves productive and relatively independent. During the ~ighteenth and nineteenth centuries technology just grew like Topsy. Incre~singly, however, it became the outgrowth of Science. Today', its primary derivation is from Science; in fact, it appears that Science is today mainly valued for its technological fruits. Starting, then, with Science, the question may be raised: what determines the course of Science? There is always more that could be studied than can be studied; so there is need for choice, and how is it made? By the interests of scientists.? Yes, unquestionably.· By the interests of big business and government? Surely yes. By the interests of 'the people'? On the whole, no! The people have fairly simple requirements to meet for which hardly any additional science is needed. (It could be that an entirely different kind of science would really benefit the people; but that is another matter.) Somt; crippling of body and mind is inseparable even from division of labour in society as a whole. Since, however, manufacture carries this ... much further and also, by its peculiar division,· attacks the individual at the very roots of his life, it is the first to ---=-- afford the materials for, and give start to, industrial pathology. -.,.::::;::::::::;~~:iZ"."~~~~ And he quotes his contemporary, D. Urquhart, who says: "the subdivision of labour is the assassination of' a people." Better society needs a different technology People still say: it is not the technology; it is the 'system.' Maybe a particular 'system' gave birth to this technology; but now it stares us in the face that the system we have is the . product, the inevitable product, of the technology. As I compare the societies which appear to have different 'systems,' the evidence seems to be overwhelming that where they employ the same technology they act very much the same and become more alike every day. Mindless work in office or factory is equally mindless under any system. I suggest therefore that those who want to promote a better society, achieve a better system, must not confine their activities to attempts to change rhe 'superstructure'-laws, rules, agreements, taxes, welfare, education, health services, etc. The expenditure incurred in trying to buy a better society can be like pouring money into a bottomless pit. If there is n.o change in the base-which is technology-there is unlikely to be any real change in the superstructure. Cautionary example of USA Moving on from Science to Technology, there is again far more that could be done than can be done. The choice is endless. Who decides or what decides? Scientific findings can be used for, 'incarnated in,' countless different 'shapes' of technology, but new technologies are developed only when people of power and wealth back the development. In other words, the new technologies will be in the image of the system that brings them forth, and they will reinforce the system. If the system is ruled by giant enterprises-Whether privately or publicly owned-the new technologies will tend to be 'gigantic'
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz