Is industry the end of history?

is industry the end of history?

in the sense that it blocks free cultural developement to keep every society immersed in the sole task of maintaining and developing its version of industry.

Capitalist industry is the end of human culture, but that doesn't end history.

>the end of human culture, but that doesn't end history.

the only way that history can take place is based on a developing culture. if that is blocked how can history continue?

id say rather that human culture, and therefore its history too, stopped and became just a part of the history of industry. which is absurd for how can something that is dead in itself could be said to have an autonomous history?

Capital is enough of an agent to have a history.

>Capital is enough of an agent

capital is not alive itself, so the same thing applies. for it to have a history it has to rely on a real agent, which can only be humanity, thus depriving the latter of its own history in order to maintain that of industry, or capital or whatever you wanna call it.

As long as there are people, there will be history. Things will keep happening.

the end of Christian Europe was the end of history

History is the struggle of class conflict. So long as their is a capitalist and proletariat class there will continue to be history.

what about prehistory? were those not people? history, at that scale, is a pretty recent phenomenon. history in the socio political sense, not just in a natural one.

what

lol

Prehistory is just history before writing.

No. It's a transitory phase, assuming there is nothing that sends global civilization back to zero, there's an absolutely undeniable trend of miniaturization, manufacturing efficiency, automation, and mass production.
At some theoretical point in the future industry will evolve to the point where it's independent of culture.

well it is only writing that allows real history to appear

the rest is at best at the level of myth

This is not true. You can learn a great deal from artifacts even if there's no writing on them.

>global civilization back to zero

such a thing it hasnt even started, or is at least in its very first steps.

and i think it is independent of culture in its principle, ptherwise it wouldnt be what it is. it just tolerates its existence for humans need it to live, but is slowly creating an adaptation that will not need it.

well yes but that history will be written by those who interpret them a long time later

those who used them just used them in their rituals and no notion of history was involved in that

So oral history isn't history to you?

>oral history

what do you mean by that? oral practices, that may be interpreted as, in fact reduced to, history by those who know history as such, are practices that take place in a whole social system where its role is that of social regulation, which just has pragmatic ends, to which any supposed notion of historical accuracy is irrelevant, if not inconceivable.

>capital is not alive itself
But it is in control, unlike you. Being alive is pretty insignificant.

If you can't trust oral history at all, why can you trust written history at all? Are people somehow less likely to lie in text than in speech?

thats an interesting point for it exposes the separation of something that can only work as a single whole

something that is in control but is not able to use it is useless, and life without controlling its own path is simply dead or dying.

the control 'capital' has can only be moved by those alive, and it is thus that they lose control over their own lives

you are putting both at the same level which makes no sense.

'oral history' can be trusted as a means for what it is intended, which is regulating the human community. but its supposed accuracy to suppsed objective events is irrelevant for that has no place in the practical perpetuation of that community.

history on the other hand, has no place, or at least not such an important and central one, in the regulation of a society that knows writing, for in such a society there are other means of regulation that have become necessary with the increase of complexity that carries with it things as writing

but ok maybe here itd be necessary to distinguish history as science and as something else that i dont know how to name but that would be clearly illustrated by history in imperial china for example

Of course textual history is used to regulate society. No author is totally unbiased, certainly not in antiquity when the means to do fact-checking did not exist.

Ye that's essentially what I'm proposing. Humans will have increasingly less agency over themselves, even collectively, but they retain the ability to observe and document their own existence as organic tools. That said, perfect capitalism is utopian so we'll never see anything like that happen in reality.

wait how did this turn into an orality/writing debate if it was focused on industry.

anyhow, the complexity that makes necessary writing as a relevant social practice combined with industry, makes that writing as a regulation tool lose its force as such, for society will be, through industry, able to perpetuate itself without relying on social means but on purely technichal ones. this then makes history to stop or to become the history of the machine.

>wait how did this turn into an orality/writing debate if it was focused on industry.
I said history would happen as long as there were people. Someone asked if that meant that cavemen weren't people.

The presence or lack thereof of industry has no bearing on whether history takes place. It only determines what specifically happens, not whether anything happens at all.

of course it will never happen in reality but that doesnt mean that it will not change its actual course. and it will change it into something that will no longer be able to be called human nor machine.

>anything happens at all.

things only 'happen' as we conceive their taking place, and such a thing is not done at random nor as a past time, but is done guided by social needs that make such conception necessary. these is always by definition a choice, that is guided by practical interests, and that leaves a whole lot of potential events out of consideration.

this*