Everyday perceptions of Technology tend to describe it as being an “instrument” or a “human activity.” While those are understandable and acceptable definitions of Technology, neither properly addresses the true “essence” of Technology. As mentioned in Part VII of the SMP Compendium entry on Der Arbeiter, Technology is capable of presenting specific interpretations of Reality. Not just the manner in which it is used or misused, but also the style, design, purpose, and specifications that define it.
Describing Technology as a “Science” deters the possibility of other interpretations, other ways of applying them. It implies that there is only one way to set the parameters of how Technology can be applied within economic, social, political, and financial contexts. An alternate description of Technology is an “Artform”: by describing Technology in the SMP Compendium as an Artform, Technology itself becomes open to different interpretations. It is then feasible to describe specific financial technologies and information technologies custom-tailored to the Work-Standard. Two aforementioned examples have been “Project Cybersyn” and “Splinternet,” both of which are different conceptions unlike the Internet as the “World Wide Web.”
The Work-Standard itself is meant to be an Artform insofar as its elaboration and description promote distinct “Artforms” for Economics and Finance, Statecraft and Legal Jurisprudence. Its understanding of “Socialism” is capable of adopting more than one definition, depending on specific national origins. “Federal Socialism” is the Work-Standard applied in an American context just as “Prussian Socialism” is the Work-Standard applied in a Prussian and German context. However, this form of Socialism which the Work-Standard promotes must never become a “Scientific Socialism.” Such a term like “Scientific Socialism” implies there can only be one interpretation of what is Socialism. Not only did this allow for the Dogmatism and Revisionism of the Eastern Bloc and Soviet Union, it deters anyone from describing Socialism as something other than a shorthand for Marxism.
A similar problem also occurs under Liberal Capitalism, which is discernible in how other alternatives to the Work-Standard continue to operate within the framework of that ideology. “Cryptocurrencies” operate on an Austrian School interpretation of Supply and Demand, as evidenced in the limited quantity of existing Bitcoins, and “Modern Monetary Theory” is more like the Keynesian opposite of Monetarism. And “Democratic Socialism” and “Market Socialism” are described to function within the framework of a Market Economy or Mixed Economy. It is hardly new nor should it be considered as a product of Postmodernity or even Late-Stage Capitalism. It demonstrates a growing lack of creativity and imagination, as if there is no other conceivable form of political-economic life besides a “Market Society.”
An Art of Technology is worthy of being explored from the purview of the Work-Standard, as evidenced by its Mechanization Rate and why it prefers a Splinternet of national Intranets. The possibilities are endless but they can be explored in greater detail as more SMP Compendium are completed. Openness to other possibilities, other ways of tactical conduct is crucial.
Therefore, as some point, I am hoping to eventually set aside time to discuss potential opportunities for distinct technological applications. It will help put into perspective the implications described in Parts VI and VII of Der Arbeiter and why those two are important in understanding the Work-Standard and its own relationship with Technology.
Categories: Blog Post