3 ms·

> But in doing so it hardly “leverage[d] resource extraction and control” Actually, it did. Maybe not in the ways you'd think on inspection. Prior to cameras,

> But in doing so it hardly “leverage[d] resource extraction and control” Actually, it did. Maybe not in the ways you'd think on inspection. Prior to cameras, the only way to get a reliable portrait was to hire a skilled painter -- so cameras transferred extraction and control of portraiture from skilled painters to photographers, which meant the barrier to entry into portraiture got lowered significantly, especially so as the price of cameras continued to drop. In other words, camera technology democratized the ability to produce representative imagery by significantly lowering the barrier to entry.

gumby 4y ago
I agree with your analysis of how things rolled out! But I think it's pretty clear that the use of "resource extraction" in the case we're talking about is control by "Capital" of natural resources and the concomitant chokepoint/control over labor and the general public. Not the more general use of the term "resource" which you are pointing at. I'm trying hard not to use the M word because it usually leads to flaming and not reasonable discussion.
- TimTheTinker 4y ago
  I'm not used to thinking of things in the terms in which "M"ism (as you put it) casts them. He had some interesting ideas, but his idea of an ideal society (and how to get there) doesn't correspond to reality. He was fundamentally wrong in how he views capitalist societies -- particularly his ignorance of the middle class and how access by literally anyone to equity and capital markets affects society. Power always concentrates to a few (the Pareto principle alone assures us of this, not to mention unequal distribution of 10,000 other differentiating characteristics between individuals). The question isn't whether that happens, but how and under what terms. When a middle class of educated business owners and professionals exists, and a government that ensures peaceful rule-of-law, a society looks nothing like anything "M" describes.

gumby 4y ago

I agree with your analysis of how things rolled out! But I think it's pretty clear that the use of "resource extraction" in the case we're talking about is control by "Capital" of natural resources and the concomitant chokepoint/control over labor and the general public. Not the more general use of the term "resource" which you are pointing at. I'm trying hard not to use the M word because it usually leads to flaming and not reasonable discussion.

TimTheTinker 4y ago
I'm not used to thinking of things in the terms in which "M"ism (as you put it) casts them. He had some interesting ideas, but his idea of an ideal society (and how to get there) doesn't correspond to reality. He was fundamentally wrong in how he views capitalist societies -- particularly his ignorance of the middle class and how access by literally anyone to equity and capital markets affects society. Power always concentrates to a few (the Pareto principle alone assures us of this, not to mention unequal distribution of 10,000 other differentiating characteristics between individuals). The question isn't whether that happens, but how and under what terms. When a middle class of educated business owners and professionals exists, and a government that ensures peaceful rule-of-law, a society looks nothing like anything "M" describes.