Capitalism and robotics

[Dimentio]

Imagine that the natural tendency of capitalism to advance technology for profit usher into a period of intense automatisation where most industrial labour and most administrative works could be taken over by machinery?

One doesn't need to be an Einstein to understand that could lead into severe unemployment and the creation of a large unemployable underclass. The main question is how the capitalists, the working classes and the state would react to such a development.

How would they react, do you think?

[Luís Henrique]

Imagine that the natural tendency of capitalism to advance technology for profit usher into a period of intense automatisation where most industrial labour and most administrative works could be taken over by machinery?

One doesn't need to be an Einstein to understand that could lead into severe unemployment and the creation of a large unemployable underclass. The main question is how the capitalists, the working classes and the state would react to such a development.

How would they react, do you think?

Robots do not produce surplus value.

Luís Henrique

[Dimentio]

If I was a capitalist and had to choose between hiring 50 000 workers or 500 robots, and the workers require payment while the robots are working for free and only requires electricity and maintenance sometimes, I would opt for the robots.

I am sure that capitalists do not lie sleepless over night because their profits are not corresponding to marxist definitions.

Of course, there will be some humans that would be employed, at least in maintenance. But we are going to experience a drop in human employment numbers as the automatisation of industry and administrative services are continuing.

[Luís Henrique]

If I was a capitalist and had to choose between hiring 50 000 workers or 500 robots, and the workers require payment while the robots are working for free and only requires electricity and maintenance sometimes, I would opt for the robots.

I am sure that capitalists do not lie sleepless over night because their profits are not corresponding to marxist definitions.

Of course, there will be some humans that would be employed, at least in maintenance. But we are going to experience a drop in human employment numbers as the automatisation of industry and administrative services are continuing.

And whom are the capitalists going to sell the gadgets they produce, to robots?

Luís Henrique

[Dimentio]

Do the capitalists think that far?

[black_tambourine]

Do the capitalists think that far?

Yes...

Also,


If I was a capitalist and had to choose between hiring 50 000 workers or 500 robots, and the workers require payment while the robots are working for free and only requires electricity and maintenance sometimes, I would opt for the robots.

I am sure that capitalists do not lie sleepless over night because their profits are not corresponding to marxist definitions.

Look, robots are expensive. They are likely to require a far larger initial outlay of capital than wages for an equivalent number of workers during a given production cycle. And since even the wealthiest capitalist firms often can't afford to pay for large-scale fixed capital (let alone an army of effing robots) out of pocket, the interest on any loan the capitalist takes out is bound to be an ongoing cost - the robots would not be working "for free".

Further, what if, before our capitalist's robot army is amortized, a spiffy new brand of robot comes out that makes the old look like utter crap? Our capitalist is still stuck making interest payments on his old robots, while getting killed in the productivity department by all the firms that have bought the new ones; he can either sell his old robots (good luck finding a buyer) and get some of the new model, interrupting his firm's operations and taking yet another loan on top of the one that's already outstanding, or he can reduce his prices to those that represent the new productivity level, which will substantially cut into his profits.

This also applies if existing robots are merely reduced in price rather than made obsolete (thanks to a technological improvement in the robots that make the robots, or something): newly entering firms can purchase the robots for much less than our capitalist originally did, and charge lower prices on their output to reflect this, while our capitalist again has to endure reduced profits since he now has to charge prices lower than would be optimal to recoup the initial monetary investment he made when the robots were more expensive.

Crisis Theory 101, dude.

[Invincible Summer]

Imagine that the natural tendency of capitalism to advance technology for profit usher into a period of intense automatisation where most industrial labour and most administrative works could be taken over by machinery?

One doesn't need to be an Einstein to understand that could lead into severe unemployment and the creation of a large unemployable underclass. The main question is how the capitalists, the working classes and the state would react to such a development.

How would they react, do you think?


I was actually thinking about this topic the other day. I was thinking that if/when such a situation occurs with massive layoffs and unemployment due to automation, we may see an uprising similar to the Luddite movement.

But at the same time, if humans become obsolete as labourers, would that not necessitate the ushering in of a new society? If only a small percentage of the population will still work (as maintenance workers for robots, etc), then it seems to follow that humans will have more time to do things other than work. I don't see how capitalist society would be able to maintain itself if production became automated. The ex-working class would not allow themselves to live in poverty

[al8]

Phase 2 would then be to give robots low wages to spend at their discretion on their own self maintenance (oils, battery chargers, etc) and reproduction (?). The robot labor force would compete with the organic labor force to bring down wages - if we have a capitalist class divided society that is.

[Dimentio]

Phase 2 would then be to give robots low wages to spend at their discretion on their own self maintenance (oils, battery chargers, etc) and reproduction (?). The robot labor force would compete with the organic labor force to bring down wages - if we have a capitalist class divided society that is.

You are joking now right? :lol:

The main point with robots is that you just need to keep them in maintenance. No wages, no surplus value = greater profit.

[black_tambourine]

You are joking now right? :lol:

The main point with robots is that you just need to keep them in maintenance. No wages, no surplus value = greater profit.

False. Having an entirely mechanized work force is an excellent way to guarantee that your profits fall to the point of unsustainability. The proportion of robotic labor productivity to cost is fixed by specific technical indicators, whereas the proportions with human labor are much more plastic. If a competing firm buys a more "efficient" crew of robots than yours, you will have to spend much more time and money to "keep up" in terms of competitiveness than you would if we were talking about different productivity-raising techniques with human workers, and the economy as a whole is much more likely to suffer decreased profits as a result (since the capitalist firm that undercut you could be forced to unsustainably cut their prices by another firm that buys an even more advanced robot, etc.). Every vulgar-Marxist prophecy of economic apocalypse would then come true in short order, even ignoring the screamingly obvious underconsumption question as pointed out by L.H.

With human labor, all a capitalist has to do is bust unions and enforce workplace "discipline", and workers will produce at whatever productivity level, and whatever wage, is dictated by "the market". The capitalist does not have to worry about ongoing interest payments, since wages for the initial production cycle are cheap relative to fixed capital and wages for subsequent production cycles can be taken out of revenue. Further, human workers themselves do not become "obsolete" - only their specific numbers and methods do, and these can be more-or-less costlessly adapted by the capitalist to match the competition. As long as the capitalist firm is composed of some combination of fixed and variable capital (i.e. of machines and human workers), our capitalist can in theory calibrate the optimal level of mechanization that strikes a balance between increased productivity and increased potential for long-term instability of the firm's profits. Of course, the capitalist often fails at this practice, but with a combination of machine and human labor he at least has a chance to succeed, whereas with an entirely mechanized labor force he would not even have a chance.

[al8]

You are joking now right? :lol:

The main point with robots is that you just need to keep them in maintenance. No wages, no surplus value = greater profit.

Only slightly. But think about it; with robots the capitalist would have to take up maintenance and creation of the robot; something the capitalists already have for the most part - among many other things - outsourced onto the proletariat. Maternity is not payed payed at an hourly rate (maternity leave being limited and not even universal), neither is parenting. But this would be have to be payed for by the capitalist - in regards to machines, unless the machines can take up human traits of self-reproduction on their own scrap budget. It would be cattle slavery all over again if the capitalist would dump the proletariat and become robot owners.

[Dimentio]

False. Having an entirely mechanized work force is an excellent way to guarantee that your profits fall to the point of unsustainability. The proportion of robotic labor productivity to cost is fixed by specific technical indicators, whereas the proportions with human labor are much more plastic. If a competing firm buys a more "efficient" crew of robots than yours, you will have to spend much more time and money to "keep up" in terms of competitiveness than you would if we were talking about different productivity-raising techniques with human workers, and the economy as a whole is much more likely to suffer decreased profits as a result (since the capitalist firm that undercut you could be forced to unsustainably cut their prices by another firm that buys an even more advanced robot, etc.). Every vulgar-Marxist prophecy of economic apocalypse would then come true in short order, even ignoring the screamingly obvious underconsumption question as pointed out by L.H.

With human labor, all a capitalist has to do is bust unions and enforce workplace "discipline", and workers will produce at whatever productivity level, and whatever wage, is dictated by "the market". The capitalist does not have to worry about ongoing interest payments, since wages for the initial production cycle are cheap relative to fixed capital and wages for subsequent production cycles can be taken out of revenue. Further, human workers themselves do not become "obsolete" - only their specific numbers and methods do, and these can be more-or-less costlessly adapted by the capitalist to match the competition. As long as the capitalist firm is composed of some combination of fixed and variable capital (i.e. of machines and human workers), our capitalist can in theory calibrate the optimal level of mechanization that strikes a balance between increased productivity and increased potential for long-term instability of the firm's profits. Of course, the capitalist often fails at this practice, but with a combination of machine and human labor he at least has a chance to succeed, whereas with an entirely mechanized labor force he would not even have a chance.

The thing is that by creating an artificial "middle class" centered around culture, economics, marketing, consulting and the fashion industry, the capitalists could focus their production towards these groups and ignore the proletariat.

[black_tambourine]

The thing is that by creating an artificial "middle class" centered around culture, economics, marketing, consulting and the fashion industry, the capitalists could focus their production towards these groups and ignore the proletariat.

That would fix the underconsumption problem to an extent but would leave the problem of profit instability due to technological change and the lack of costless adjustment options intact.

[Dimentio]

That would fix the underconsumption problem to an extent but would leave the problem of profit instability due to technological change and the lack of costless adjustment options intact.

Yes, but experiences do show that capitalism has a constant instability factor in it. Moreover, I doubt capitalists could plan more than six months in advance on a detailed basis. There is a diskrepancy between ownership of capital and management of capital. Most capitalist firms today has several owners and a management board which is independent from the owners.

[black_tambourine]

Yes, but experiences do show that capitalism has a constant instability factor in it. Moreover, I doubt capitalists could plan more than six months in advance on a detailed basis. There is a diskrepancy between ownership of capital and management of capital. Most capitalist firms today has several owners and a management board which is independent from the owners.

Capitalism is always unstable, of course, but as long as there are some humans in the work force, there is always some possibility to alleviate said instability since the productivity of human labor can be increased at a much lower cost than that of fixed capital, and is not subject to the same innovatory disruptions. If the work force were entirely mechanized, there would be literally no possibility of this.

Capitalists do a lot more planning than you think, as well. That's part of the reason why capitalism is even still around. The separation between ownership and management is seldom a problem since so many CEOS have stock options as part of their pay.

[Dimentio]

Capitalism is always unstable, of course, but as long as there are some humans in the work force, there is always some possibility to alleviate said instability since the productivity of human labor can be increased at a much lower cost than that of fixed capital, and is not subject to the same innovatory disruptions. If the work force were entirely mechanized, there would be literally no possibility of this.

Capitalists do a lot more planning than you think, as well. That's part of the reason why capitalism is even still around. The separation between ownership and management is seldom a problem since so many CEOS have stock options as part of their pay.

There are already factories which are wholly mechanised. And today, fixed capital is so much more productive than new loads of workers that the disruptions probably are worth the effort. And yes, automatisation processes tend to arrive in waves due to the tendencies of fixed capital.

Which probably is one of the reasons why structural unemployment have tended to increase after each major recession since the 1970's, despite new periods of growth.

[black_tambourine]

There are already factories which are wholly mechanised. And today, fixed capital is so much more productive than new loads of workers that the disruptions probably are worth the effort. And yes, automatisation processes tend to arrive in waves due to the tendencies of fixed capital.

Which probably is one of the reasons why structural unemployment have tended to increase after each major recession since the 1970's, despite new periods of growth.

We are talking about the economy as a whole, not individual firms within individual sectors. Of course an individual firm can settle into a comfortable niche of producing high-end commodities for the luxury market, with a low but stable number of buyers (and, consequently, of producers, thus limiting competition) and perpetually high prices. Then the level of mechanization doesn't matter, since there's virtually no competition and a relatively fixed number of consumers.

And what do you mean by "worth the effort"? When you're undercut, you're undercut. Your absolute productivity numbers don't matter, only the fact that the other guy's are higher.

[Dimentio]

Most works today are within the service sector, at least in my country. The industrial workers are quite high-paid compared to for example nurses, grocery store clerks and people working selling cellphones on the street. These jobs are unstable and there tend to be a movement between them and short-term unemployment in matter of months.

[Luís Henrique]

If producing labour power to sell into the market was a profitable trade, capitalist companies would be doing it and profiting out of it at this moment, instead of leaving it to families...

The core secret of capitalism is that there is one commodity that is not (and can not be) produced by capitalist methods: labour power. Thats why anthropomorphic robots working as unpaid slaves for capitalists are not an option.

True, they are always coming closer to that - but that is exactly what Marx meant by "tendencial lowering of profit rates".

Luís Henrique

[Revy]

Layoffs are one thing but robots would make human labor obsolete. Under capitalism the human worker is a wage-slave and must work or starve. Under socialism that is not the case. If the capitalists replace human labor with robots, they will be abolishing capitalism (but not creating anything better on top of it), creating a huge mass of permanently unemployed people. the results are obvious, people will rise up and take the only logical course of action which could accomodate the use of robots for labor: socialism.

What we will see and are already seeing is robots being promoted for the household, domestic environment. Rather than robots making robots we'll see people making robots, people buying robots, robot toys, robot vacuums, robot lawn mowers, and then robot housekeepers......and robotic pets, companions, etc.

And the workers will be led into believing that this is all for their own good. The truth is, it's the system that needs to be changed for robots to be used for labor and free us of that burden.

I am very pro-robotics, I created a group about it on here. I would like to see the technology continue to develop. It has many applications not just on Earth but in space, robots do not need oxygen, food or water so they could construct bases and settlements without as much difficulty. It really is going to be a huge part of our future.

[Dimentio]

If producing labour power to sell into the market was a profitable trade, capitalist companies would be doing it and profiting out of it at this moment, instead of leaving it to families...

The core secret of capitalism is that there is one commodity that is not (and can not be) produced by capitalist methods: labour power. Thats why anthropomorphic robots working as unpaid slaves for capitalists are not an option.

True, they are always coming closer to that - but that is exactly what Marx meant by "tendencial lowering of profit rates".

Luís Henrique

I am not talking about antropomorphic robots, but about robots which are made to fulfill certain goals. I know that in Malaysia, there is a car factory which is producing 20 000 cars a year with only a fraction of workers there, mostly robot controllers.

As I said, the movement to an automated society is made in stages, often recurring in connections to recessions. In each modern recession, recovery has meant the creation of less jobs, pushing the structural (natural) unemployment higher.

Also, capitalists cannot replace or upgrade machinery as fast, so it is natural that an automatisation process is cyclical and could take decades. But the competition for higher short-term profits will drive us toward more automatisation.

That will mean both higher cyclical and structural unemployment on markets in general. In Sweden, I know the politicians have tried to "solve" that by creating conditions for more small firms (for example cleaners who have their own company and do "services" for the affluent, externalising the proletariat). Also, the state has tried to hide unemployment figures by putting off long-term unemployed from the labour market, diagnosing large segments of the working class with "letter-diseases" to domesticate them within the framework of humiliating but ultimately meaningless jobs, and ultimately creating a "success myth" claiming that all your successes and failures are depending on you.

But I don't believe that could save capitalism in itself. What I think would happen instead in long-terms is that they will lower the amount of man-hours, create more holidays, start to dole out citizen wages and to recommend the people to "scale down" their consumption to accommodate environmental needs. They would also employ a lot of people in short-term works associated with festivals and so on, creating a society remniscent of the "bread-&-circus society" of ancient Rome.

[black_tambourine]

Nobody is denying that there is a progressively increasing mechanization of production under capitalism. The question is whether it will reach the asymptotic point of being entirely mechanized, as you proposed in your first post. It will not, thanks to a combination of oligopolistic collusion between firms (again, much more planning than you think) and governmental regulation of the pace of technological change via patent laws and the like. This was recognized by capitalists as early as the 1890s, when the concept of "ruinous competition" gained currency among conservative business interests: an excess of fixed capital (a loosely defined proportion, but we may safely assume that 100% is an "excess") in a competitive economy would not only lead to prices being driven down to a point where most firms could no longer turn a profit, it would also mean an enormous misallocation of productive capacity and thus a suboptimal "use of society's resources" (from the capitalist perspective), since a large proportion of capital would be sunk into fixed forms that could no longer produce adequately at a given price level.

As a result, in the modern capitalist economy, competition is regulated in most sectors by the small number of firms and their agreement on things like price levels and the like, and what competition that takes place is guaranteed to have an at least partially labor-intensive character, thanks to governmental regulation of technological change. An economy that were entirely mechanized, in order to be stable, would have to be so planned and monopolistic that it would no longer be capitalist.

[Dimentio]

Nobody is denying that there is a progressively increasing mechanization of production under capitalism. The question is whether it will reach the asymptotic point of being entirely mechanized, as you proposed in your first post. It will not, thanks to a combination of oligopolistic collusion between firms (again, much more planning than you think) and governmental regulation of the pace of technological change via patent laws and the like. This was recognized by capitalists as early as the 1890s, when the concept of "ruinous competition" gained currency among conservative business interests: an excess of fixed capital (a loosely defined proportion, but we may safely assume that 100% is an "excess") in a competitive economy would not only lead to prices being driven down to a point where most firms could no longer turn a profit, it would also mean an enormous misallocation of productive capacity and thus a suboptimal "use of society's resources" (from the capitalist perspective), since a large proportion of capital would be sunk into fixed forms that could no longer produce adequately at a given price level.

As a result, in the modern capitalist economy, competition is regulated in most sectors by the small number of firms and their agreement on things like price levels and the like, and what competition that takes place is guaranteed to have an at least partially labor-intensive character, thanks to governmental regulation of technological change. An economy that were entirely mechanized, in order to be stable, would have to be so planned and monopolistic that it would no longer be capitalist.

I did not say it would be completely mechanised. But most likely, the industrial sector would be completely automatised in 20 years. Then, the services sector will also see increased automatisation, pushing up greater rifts between the "middle" class and the working class.

[Dr Mindbender]

I think capitalists are deliberately avoiding 100% automation because they fear over-production.

When goods go into abundancy, it reduces their value. Human menial labour will always be made a necessity thanks to scarcity planning. It is a mutually sustaining relationship. If we experience a spike in production, there will most likely be a large war because this is one method in which the bourgeoisie artifically sustain scarcity, both in terms of resources and labour. Any blue collar workers who find themselves redundant will quickly become 'green collar'.

[Dimentio]

They have already achieved abundance. Why else would they destroy perfectly working electronics and trash it into western Africa, or dump millions of tonnes of fine quality food in the ocean? There is more than enough food in the world to feed 12 billion people. And yet, we haven't near achieved our full potential.

The system is vile.

[Dr Mindbender]

They have already achieved abundance. Why else would they destroy perfectly working electronics and trash it into western Africa, or dump millions of tonnes of fine quality food in the ocean? There is more than enough food in the world to feed 12 billion people. And yet, we haven't near achieved our full potential.

The system is vile.

I dont disagree with you, and if anything i think the factors above you mention only go to highlight why the bourgeoisie are in no hurry to expediate automation.

Even with a largely man based production system, they're still producing things quicker than they can sell/destroy them.

The status quo is working well for them and they're in no hurry to rock the boat.

[Dimentio]

The bourgeoisie is not working as one organism. They have established states to act for their common interests, but there are still conflicts over market shares. Especially outsiders would do their best to promote automatisation. I would say there are frictional tendencies, like application time and retardation of technology due to cartels, but we are inevitably moving towards a society with 25-33% structural unemployment.

[A.R.Amistad]

This needs to be moved to the science threads

[Dimentio]

I do not think so since it could help us discuss how theory would be changed in case of a social-transforming increase of the structural unemployment due to automatisation.