The fear to technology (technophobia)

A common place fear (not sure if this is the word you want, but you need to say what it is that is common place) in modern arts and pop culture is the fear to of technology. We could say that such fear got in deepest in the soul of our times, because of the industrial revolution and all the complex situations which have arisen since then as a threats for the humans and our environment.

In fact, the dominant production mode (capitalism) implies a continuous revolution [I think you mean to say "evolution" as in things constantly being changed and improved] in the technology used in the production processes, and that implies that people are replaced by machines, and in on the other hand, much of this many of these people are reduced to doing repetitive activities, as appendices of the machinery.

If we carry this picture to his its last consequences, we could arrive to an apocalyptic landscape where machines took the control of the whole production processes, and the most of the humans have been reduced to be slaves. All the more, at some point the machines get some awareness and rebel against the humans; so, they eventually unite and do a revolution. [we wouldn't say "do" a revolution - you could "start a revolution", "have a revolution", or simply just "revolt"]

That sounds familiar for you? perhaps in literature? in series and movies? Yep, it's funny, the common sense of the dominant culture is able to imagine the revolution of the machines, and the fall of the humans, but in the same way, it can't imagine the end of the capitalism, the end of the dominant production mode, it can't imagine the revolution of the people. What is wrong with this the common sense here! The human dominant class think that the end of the capitalism, is the real end of the human civilization, because it would be the end of their preponderant role.

We have to change our common sense. The improvement in the technologies and the industrial production in a wider sense, don't have to cause social or environmental threats. If a machine can do the work of five people, they don't would have to lose their job, or being reduced to being appendices. Such would have to address a decrease of the workday, keeping the same salary, and so, getting time to the persons to improve their knowledge over the world, to improve their singularities, and also, to be citizens. [This sentence needs a bit of a re-write to make sense. This may not capture exactly what you are trying to say, but I would suggest: "This would require there to be a decrease in workday hours while keeping the same salary. This would allow people to have more time to improve their knowledge about the world, to undertake self-improvement and also to carry out their civic duties.]

But, for that, we haven't don't have need to fear the machines (or technology in a wider sense), we have to change our common sense of how the things have to be done, we have to get awareness, unite and fight (in a wider sense), fight for the change.

* * *

Nice essay :) Obviously you have very advanced English skills, with a very broad vocabulary and excellent grasp of grammar. My overarching recommendation would be to try to reduce the length of your sentences. Shorter sentences are easier for a reader to follow and also force you as the writer to be specific and carefully hone your points. As a guide try to stick to 20-30 words as the maximum length. Look for commas, semicolons, "that", "which", "and" as places where you can split a long sentence. Hope that helps - as always, feel free to message me if you have any questions on my edits!

The Podemos effect (attempt two)

Spain is living a rupture of it's its party system, where there existed the hegemony of two parties until now; both are falling faililng because of their commitment to the adjustment policies which have been dismantling the welfare state, while they rescued the banks' banks [I don't think it's correct to use a possesive here, but if you are talking about something that belongs to the banks you need to be clearer as to what that is - it's not obvious from the context] ; furthermore, both are fully involved in a massive structural corruption issue. [Just a style note - having two semi-colons in one sentence is unusal. This would read better if you broke it into two or more sentences instead.]

On the other hand, Podemos is formed by people who have been fighting against the adjustments, against the evictions, claiming the rescue of the people instead of the banks. This is why Podemos is growing up, in just one year, they achieved five MEPs, and obtained the power in city halls all over the country, including the mayoralty in Barcelona, Madrid, Zaragoza, La Coruña and Cádiz.

They have serious possibilities [a common expression you could use here is "they have a real chance"] of winning the next general elections which will take place in November.

The people in around the world, who are struggling to save the planet and humanity from ourselves, are paying attention to Podemos' successes. While it is true that they pick up the Latin-American experience (our experience) from the last years of struggle against the neoliberalism, now their rise is feeding us and is renewing our morale and hopes, it's feedback with fresh winds.

Podemos is not going to have a measurable effect, say, in the next elections in Colombia which will happen in October. But the people in the leftwing political circles, we are talking about them, and thinking, “so, yes, we can” (podemos), so, as a result, the successes of Podemos are possibly helping to boost a huge movement right now, maybe, [as you've already said "possibly"] around Latin-America. Though we cannot see it's its impact before some years pass, it's true that a lot of people are awakening.

Another world is possible, we can change it.

---------

Nice entry - very well written for some challenging subject matter! I'm sure you know the rules for it's/its so I haven't explained them - but feel free to message me if you have any questions on my comments :)