> Where's the class politics among "tech liberation" proponents? Nowhere, it's in the critic. (doesn't make much sense to me, either i'm misreading you or you

> Where's the class politics among "tech liberation" proponents? Nowhere, it's in the critic. (doesn't make much sense to me, either i'm misreading you or you are) To make it clear "tech liberation" here is the editorialized version of the so-called "californian ideology", which has been coined and attacked by OP, by saying among other things, that it is completely blind of any class-based vision of politics. > And "tech" as a whole has only become more and more accessible over time to those who used to be broadly marginalized for economic or social reasons. Were computers in the socialist bloc really less inherently "classist" than in the West? Ooh now i'm understanding your misunderstanding! You seem to have understood "class politics" as defamatory and that's why you thought i applied it to the thing being criticized. It's the opposite: any politic which is not based on class (ie by definition, the only (and all) materialistic criterion relevant socially) is imho based on bogus concepts. Now as is obvious from all my vocabulary the class i'm defending politically isn't the class of owners, but that's another thread. I would be happy already if people doing owner-class politics would publicly acknowledge doing so. edit: If your not doing class-based politics what are you doing then? Religion-based? Racist? I'm not completely dismissing identity politics insofar that there is sense in fighting for specific rights in some circumstances, but my point is that identity is nowhere near being a working tool for general politics.