Today’s thread is on the strangest figure of 1960s tech counterculture. A friend of McLuhan, Bateson & Glenn Gould. Someone who went from being a CIA-adjacent psychiatrist to a hippie guru to a manual worker in an iron foundry to a Maoist instructor of Chinese engineers.
Meet Warren Brodey (b. 1924), the star of A SENSE OF REBELLION. Someone with huge but unknown impact on digital culture (MIT's Negroponte lists him as one of his most important early mentors). Someone who, in his hippie phase, would climb trees - pantless (see end of this clip!)
In 60s/early 70s Brodey coined many interesting concepts - from "soft architecture" to "intelligent environments" (he also characterized bureacracy and capitalism as "Mechy Max" systems dubbing his own ecological counterculture "bioptemes"). Pics are from his 74 book, Earthchild
Unlike the rest of the tech community that preached "human augmentation" - making smarter computers to boost total productivity of man-machine systems - Brodey believed in the idea of "human enhancement": using computers to make humans smarter & able to perceive in richer ways.
Brodey hated Buckminster Fuller and loved Antonio Gaudí. He wanted our digital culture to be more like the latter and less like the former. In mid-1960s, he was already demanding response-able ("smart") gadgets to fight alienation. He is an intellectual godfather of interactivity
Together with Avery Johnson, Peter Oser, and a few others, he tried to build such "response-able" and "ecological" technologies in his Environmental Ecology Lab (67-69) and then Ecology Tool & Toy (69-73). These were wildly experimental ventures - hippie startups of sorts.
Eventually, Brodey got radicalized and turned to politics. By late 1973, he was engrossed in reading Lenin, Marx, and Mao and was rubbing shoulders with members of the Workers' Communist Party (AKP) in Norway. That's when he rethought US tech counterculture along Marxist lines.
For more on Brodey, check out my podcast A SENSE OF REBELLION. For my threads on Johnson and Oser, Brodey's collaborators in the lab, see my earlier threads (Oser: and Johnson: )sense-of-rebellion.com
Back in 2018, I explained the rise of Big Tech as a result of
a) low-interest rate environment of the global economy
b) SoftBank's ability to borrow cheaply despite deep losses
The recent wave of massive AI investments proves it's still true! A thread 🧵theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
Check this Bloomberg piece on how the $500 billion AI project - Stargate - would be financed. It shows that
a) SoftBank, its main backer, is about to report a $ 1 *billion* quarterly loss
b) It borrows in Japan - hence its low-interest rate debt payments finance.yahoo.com/news/softbank-…
Keep in mind that even pre-Stargate, Softbank was already heavily indebted - to the tune of $82 billion at the end of 2024. And that's despite them selling shares - Alibaba, Arm, etc - to repay some of that gigantic debt. And now they want to *add* on top on of that!
In 2014, I wrote an essay on the rise of "algorithmic regulation" / "lean start-up" imaginary in government circles. Silicon Valley's recipe for government efficiency, I argued, would - at best - yield the "Singaporization" of liberal democracy. 🧵 below theguardian.com/technology/201…
Re-reading that essay in 2025, I can't shake off the suspicion that there would be no DOGE without Obama - and there would be no Elon Musk without Cass Sunstein and Tim O'Reilly. These were the Mensheviks to DOGE's Bolsheviks.
Sure, Musk & DOGE are doing it with violence & hubris. But the launch - and legitimation - of that agenda does go back to the early 2010s. And I suspect it was precisely the resistance of the administrative state that stopped Obama/Sunstein/O'Reilly from imlementing it back then.
The attack on foreign aid/USAID reveals the naive idealism - i.e. non-materialism - of Trump's eco-nationalist wing. They hate aid's supposed progressivism - but not its role in containing China, channeling $ to US corps abroad, or cultivating pro-US sentiment globally. 🧵
That aid has been key to US economic and political hegemony since the 1940s - and that, without it, America would be in an even weaker position vis a vis China - doesn't matter. And it can't matter, not when the enemy is so generic (e.g. "Wall Street" or "techno-feudalists")
It's the same thing with Bannon's techno-feudalist critique: it looks coherent - but only by tapping into questionable metaphors or mobilizing related ideologies (vassal-like position of users; transhumanism) instead of analyzing actual mechanisms of (capitalist) accumulation.
The Silicon Valley bits of Bannon's interview are quite revealing about one thing. All the recent talk about “technofeudalism” and antitrust - and their fusion by Bannon - has come to obfuscate the dynamics (as well as history) of America’s global techno-power. A thread. 🧵
First, why date America's efforts to use the tech industry to strengthen its global hegemony to *2008*? This has been going on since the mid-1970s! That's how Europe & Japan were eventually defanged while the Global South (e.g. Group of 77) weren't allowed to regulate US tech.
Second, Bannon doesn’t see the link between the 2008 crisis (even as he mentions it!) and the rise of Big Tech. But the connection is clear: given lack of other enticing investment options post-2008, smart money – from everywhere, not just US - flew to tech, private and public.
Will either "surveillance capitalism" or "techno-feudalism" framework survive the rise of generative AI? I very much doubt it: both seem less relevant/accurate today than they did a few years ago. A thread on what we've learned about their deficiencies.
As for surveillance capitalism, it's obvious that advertising is mostly peripheral to the whole AI enterprise. So is manipulating users into "extracting" their personal data, creating behavioral future markets, stealing their "right to the future," etc. It all feels dated now.
Rather, the AI model is all about grabbing any data with little concern for who & how produced it. Tinkering with & nudging individuals is irrelevant. Yes, most of these companies suck at protecting users' data but it's not because they are after Zuboff's 'behavioral surplus.'
While generative AI presents the best possible case against tying an important innovation to capitalist dynamics, Silicon Valley's cultural hegemony will make us to draw the exact opposite conclusion, i.e. that generative AI shows that capitalism & tech progress are inseparable🧵
First, what's so rational about pursuing such a massive R&D endeavor via market competition? Why have several companies spend billions - not to mention their energy bills - on building identical capabilities? Imagine multiple Manhattan Projects or Apollo Programs: it's a waste.
Second, why settle on an inferior and punitive institutional arrangement that would obviously redistribute power/income away from the group most responsible for the training of such models - i.e. content creators whose prior work powers AI services? It's a choice we are making.