Technology and the "De-Skilling" of Work

[Invincible Summer]

I've been having this discussion with some school friends about the issue of how technology "de-skills" workers, and how more automation puts people out of work.

For example, cashiers in the past had to actually know math, whereas today many cashiers can't do math quickly on the spot, as was previously expected of cashiers even 30 years ago; film editors had to know how to do things without programs like Final Cut Pro or other film editing software.

The argument also suggests that with the advent of computer technology, one worker is able to be more efficient, therefore requiring fewer workers to do the same job and potentially causing higher unemployment.

The issue of the "digital divide" was also addressed - how technological access it limited mainly to those who can afford it, and therefore certain segments of society will inherently not have jobs in certain sectors due to the inability to afford a decent computer, the internet (which offers access to a wealth of information), etc.

As we got further into the debate, their position reeked of Neo-Luddism.



Now, I offered the opinion that the problem is not with the technology itself, but with the distribution of technology. Capitalism offers it to those who can pay for it (in order to fund CEOs et al) and doesn't present it to markets that aren't seen as profitable. Furthermore, it is capitalism that forces us to define "good" and "bad" jobs. In a Communist society, technology would be evenly distributed, and as work would not be under wage labour, we would be encouraged to find fulfillment in work. As technology increases, it will indeed require fewer workers, but then we'd be free to do things which are more pleasureable - this is an impossibility in capitalism.

However, I am thinking - should we as Anarchists/Communists be against technology that puts workers out of work today, or be optimistic that it can be utilized as a liberating tool for society in the future?

[JimmyJazz]

You're right, technology in itself doesn't do anything, the class-based application of technology goes. Google "taylorism", "scientific management", "Fordism". You might also try googling "Noam Chomsky scientific management".

And I think Luddism is perfectly justified. It just isn't very far-sighted. Books:

In Defense of Luddism (http://www.amazon.com/Progress-Without-People-Defense-Luddism/dp/1896357008/ref=cm_lmf_tit_2)
Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century (http://www.amazon.com/Labor-Monopoly-Capital-Degradation-Twentieth/dp/0853459401/ref=cm_lmf_tit_4)

De-skilling and alienation, two concepts which go hand-in-hand with each other, and which both tie in with the division of labor, are two of the most important topics in Marxism, in my opinion. I see the oppressive power relations on the job as infinitely more important than a little stolen surplus value (value which, even in a socialist society, would have to be mostly reinvested in new capital and amortization/repair costs as long as any capitalist societies still existed, with which these socialist would be forced to compete). The Soviet economy, from what I can tell, was mostly built mostly around the goal of eliminating profit (stolen surplus value) with little or no real attention paid to the imo much more important aspect of the Marxist critique, workers' control and the lack thereof under the profit system.

Stalin was a huge fan of Fordism and of scientific management, btw. Actually, Lenin was enthusiastic about them too. And the Nepalese Maoists seem to be fans of pseudo-capitalist measures as well. IMO it's the great flaw of Marxism that a historical materialist outlook seems to so often give Marxists the idea that their mission should be to emulate capitalist industrialization, rather than implement socialism. What a scam. And yet, historical materialism is so brilliant and so useful in so many ways. The more I read the more I actually see myself "reverting" (as it were) to the position of an anarchist, but now merely one who highly appreciates Marxism and who is more eloquent in his condemnation of Bolshevism. Marxism as an ideology just doesn't seem to lead to workers' control when put into practice by governments. Maybe I am being as short-sighted as the Luddists, but if a Marxist world revolution is only capable of being built for some people several generations from now, on the back of my labor under some collectivization/state industrialization scheme, you'll have to forgive me if I'm not altruistic enough toward posterity to want to go along with this too enthusiastically.

And yet all the Marxist critiques of luddism and anarchism as being incapable of achieving revolution do still seem powerfully spot on to me. So I'm just kind of lost without a revolutionary theory at the moment.

But yeah, technology isn't bad.

[Potemkin]

This is a common problem people seem to have, which has led to primitivist/luddite critiques of technology. However, I think their "problem" with technology inverts the causes of misuse of technology. Often, these arguments blame technology itself.

However, we must realize that the current state of advanced capitalism has leaked into every aspect of our lives, and is a primary factor in our relationships, including our relationship to technology.

If we accept Chomsky, Bookchin, and others' assertions that abstractions such as technology are neutral tools, created by humans, we would also accept that technology reflects the values and interests of the society in which it is created. In a capitalist society, it only makes sense that the technology that comes out of it reflects the interests of capitalism -- maximizing profit at the expense of everything else. As such, we currently have technology that is centralized, super-specialized, environment destroying, inaccessible, etc. Technology is developed in the form of commodities designed to break and not be user serviceable, for profit's sake. It is also used to control populations, make war, displace workers, etc.

In contrast, it only stands to reason that a decentralized society valuing egalitarianism, community, the environment, and liberating people from toil, would have technology that reflects this.

As you say, technology in a anarchist/communist society would be available to all, developed with the interests of the community in mind, and focused on maximum utility rather than profit. Technology could be much greener, enhancing and living in equilibrium with the natural world, user servicable, empowering, and much more.

Murray Bookchin has written on technology that is liberatory and used rationally, but is not technocratic. I'm sure the technocrats here could recommend some of their stuff, as well, though I personally feel it's a bit over the top.

Peter Kropotkin was also an advocate of responsible technologies, and socialists and anarchists alike have traditionally believed in the liberatory potential of technology. It's all just a reflection of who controls the technology: when the people control it, it will work in the interests of the people.

[JimmyJazz]

Yeah, Bookchin's Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bookchin/soclife.html) is another good book on this topic.

Basically any critique of primitivism will give you ammo against the silly idea that technology is inherently evil. Many such critiques will argue instead that by itself it is purely neutral (as Bookchin does), while some (especially those by Marxists) will argue that it is somehow inherently good and progressive.

[Dr Mindbender]

Technology isnt the problem, scarcity planning is and thats the thing that the anti-technocrats fail to appreciate.

Capitalism relies on mantaining artificial scarcity to keep a market value on it's production. This is why it is hesitant to rely on a fully automated, abundant society that will produce many more times goods than is at the moment. It has the same effect on jobs; the market only requires x amount of a particular skill in order to mantain scarcity.

Without scarcity planning, there could be infinite room for skilled workers of all fields. Therefore, keeping people in postions of menial work would be senseless because a- they wouldnt be working at full efficiency and b- nobody wants to be stuck in a shit job.

[apathy maybe]

We are all cyborgs now.

Face it, very few people are able to do maths in their head as fast as people could 30 years ago.

We don't need to. It isn't anything to do with work, it is technology making our lives easier.

[casper]

technology is good in the long term. It helps with a creative destruction in the market and is essential in the advancements of the means of production. a communist society will need advance modes of production... it may deskill in the short term.But it creates the need and demand for more advance skills later on.

[casper]

be optimistic that it can be utilized as a liberating tool for society in the future?
That one.

[Invincible Summer]

technology is good in the long term. It helps with a creative destruction in the market and is essential in the advancements of the means of production. a communist society will need advance modes of production... it may deskill in the short term.But it creates the need and demand for more advance skills later on.

But how does one talk to a non-Leftist about this? To them, it seems almost callous to "leave it for the revolution to deal with."

[Vanguard1917]

Now, I offered the opinion that the problem is not with the technology itself, but with the distribution of technology. Capitalism offers it to those who can pay for it (in order to fund CEOs et al) and doesn't present it to markets that aren't seen as profitable. Furthermore, it is capitalism that forces us to define "good" and "bad" jobs. In a Communist society, technology would be evenly distributed, and as work would not be under wage labour, we would be encouraged to find fulfillment in work. As technology increases, it will indeed require fewer workers, but then we'd be free to do things which are more pleasureable - this is an impossibility in capitalism.

Yeah, i think that was well pointed out. Along with the fact that it can't evenly 'distribute' already existing technological advancement, we should also emphasise that capitalism restrains further advancement, too. Indeed, it's the latter (capitalism's inability to advance as a mode of production) that represents the key justification for a new system -- since it's arguable that, if the problem is just one of flawed distribution, all that's needed is state reform of the existing system as opposed to revolutionary change.



However, I am thinking - should we as Anarchists/Communists be against technology that puts workers out of work today, or be optimistic that it can be utilized as a liberating tool for society in the future?


Depends on the specific situation. For example, i think that it is entirely legitimate for workers in a coal mine to oppose its closure, even if coal represents backward technology. The issue is not to oppose technological progress itself, but to defend jobs and take a stand against capitalism putting profits before people and using arguments invoking 'technological progress' in order to do so.

Again, it comes down to the fact that the problem is not technology itself, but capitalism's use of it.

As for socialists, Trotsky explained the vital importance of technology, and human planning of it, for communist progress:

"The proper goal of communism is the domination of nature by technology and the domination of technology by planning, so that raw materials of nature will yield to mankind all that it needs and more besides."

[Dean]

I've been having this discussion with some school friends about the issue of how technology "de-skills" workers, and how more automation puts people out of work.

For example, cashiers in the past had to actually know math, whereas today many cashiers can't do math quickly on the spot, as was previously expected of cashiers even 30 years ago; film editors had to know how to do things without programs like Final Cut Pro or other film editing software.
Production technology as it exists today serves to degrade and devalue the human being. It transform productive human labor into a dead, irrelevant task.

...and this is precisely its goal. A central theme to capitalism is the homogenization and alienation of human labor. This disempowars and isolates the working human, and removes all creative and productive input from their labor - this of course makes labor a drugery, where the human no longer is interested in the product but rather a prize for completing a specific task.

It doesn't have to be this way, and what many techno-communists fail to understand is that this "efficiency" fetishism is harmful to the human being, and should be opposed from a communist perspective. Vanguard1917 captures precisely this attitude here:

Depends on the specific situation. For example, i think that it is entirely legitimate for workers in a coal mine to oppose its closure, even if coal represents backward technology. The issue is not to oppose technological progress itself, but to defend jobs and take a stand against capitalism putting profits before people and using arguments invoking 'technological progress' in order to do so.
Technology should never be applied where it is in opposition to the human being and his or her existence. Our total orientation toward technology should be in concern for its use to human beings - that means that productive organization and systemization should serve the interests of the worker as well as the consumer, not simply the salability or consumptive value of the product.


However, I am thinking - should we as Anarchists/Communists be against technology that puts workers out of work today, or be optimistic that it can be utilized as a liberating tool for society in the future?

As communists we should support technological development which ultimately serves the human race, without devaluing one generation for the perceived benefit of another. If that means opposing the capitalist grasp of advanced technology, then so be it. It is important to remember that our ultimate goal is to seize that power, rather than to arrest it.

[Vanguard1917]

Technology should never be applied where it is in opposition to the human being and his or her existence. Our total orientation toward technology should be in concern for its use to human beings - that means that productive organization and systemization should serve the interests of the worker as well as the consumer, not simply the salability or consumptive value of the product.

So you would oppose the demands of the workers in the coal mine?



Production technology as it exists today serves to degrade and devalue the human being. It transform productive human labor into a dead, irrelevant task.



You need to explain what you mean there.



It doesn't have to be this way, and what many techno-communists fail to understand is that this "efficiency" fetishism is harmful to the human being, and should be opposed from a communist perspective. Vanguard1917 captures precisely this attitude here:



What?

[Dean]

So you would oppose the demands of the workers in the coal mine?
No, reread that. I said that technology should serve the worker.




You need to explain what you mean there.
Please read the paragraph directly below that one.




What?
I am using your quote as an example of someone who recognizes that technology is valuable only insofar as it serves mankind. I was agreeing with you.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Production technology as it exists today serves to degrade and devalue the human being.

That's funny, I thought the goal was making money, myself.


It transform productive human labor into a dead, irrelevant task.Yeah, because assembling goods by hand all day is so uplifting! :rolleyes: Believe me, having done it myself, let me tell you: It's mind-numbingly boring.


...and this is precisely its goal. A central theme to capitalism is the homogenization and alienation of human labor. This disempowars and isolates the working human, and removes all creative and productive input from their labor - this of course makes labor a drugery, where the human no longer is interested in the product but rather a prize for completing a specific task.It doesn't matter if it's doing fretwork or pushing a button on a machine all day, if one doesn't like the job one is doing then of course it's going to be a major drag. The problem with capitalist automation is that it is focused almost entirely on making money rather than reducing drudgery or increasing efficiency. This combined with uneven education and employment prospects under capitalism is what causes people to have little interest in their work. People want to be writers, engineers, scientists, and other skilled, interesting jobs that by their nature are impossible and undesirable to automate. But due to circumstances outside their control, they become burger-flippers instead.

Personally, I'd be very tempted to push for the abolishment of the service sector under communist society - it's boring, demeaning work of the sort that used to be performed by servants. Plus I think it would do society a lot of good to have people cook their own damn burgers.


It doesn't have to be this way, and what many techno-communists fail to understand is that this "efficiency" fetishism is harmful to the human being, and should be opposed from a communist perspective.Human labour is inefficient. By reducing the amount of human labour required to make goods and perform services, not only do we increase efficiency, but drudgery is also eliminated. A machine can make consistent, quality goods 24/7/265 and requires considerably less maintenance and downtime than a human being.

Unless you actually like doing repetitive work all day, in which case I recommend you find a field somewhere and keep digging holes and filling them up again - don't drag down the rest of society for the sake of your sweat fetish.

[Yazman]

This thread is beginning to disgust me with the pseudo-luddite attitudes beginning to arise here. Technological progress should not be opposed for the sake of "saving jobs" - new industries and job opportunities always arise when others are closed.

There is little that is "humane" or enriching about keeping humans in industrial, production, or manual labour jobs that can be easily done by machines. Where possible we should be advocating this so that workers may take up less dangerous and mind numbing work.

[Sentinel]

We should strive for a post-capitalist society where mankind in it's entirety constitutes an 'aristocracy' (as the technocrats put it) as free of the chains of labour as possible. As much of the labour as possible is to be automated, and the rest -- which shouldn't be much -- shared between those who are able. I can see a system where all young individuals, say under 40, would perform a few hours of community service weekly.

The fact that humans become more skilled certain areas if they have to is not a justification to purposefully make them -- let people spend their time on education and leisure instead, and try to reach their full potential on areas that interest them. The goal of socialists must be to provide as fulfilled and free lives as possible to everyone equally, and people are happy if they get to do what they enjoy.

This has been made impossible by low technological level so far; thus antiquated and oppressive forms of government have prevailed. This is what is meant with 'lacking the material conditions for communism' -- technological and social progress are intertwined, go hand in hand.

[black magick hustla]

We are all cyborgs now.

Face it, very few people are able to do maths in their head as fast as people could 30 years ago.

We don't need to. It isn't anything to do with work, it is technology making our lives easier.

who cares about doing arithmetic in ones head though? even if i am not that good of an arithmetician, i probably understand more conceptually physics and maths than sophmore 50 years ago.