Revy
23rd January 2010, 12:05
I'm interested in your thoughts on this article (http://socialistwebzine.blogspot.com/2010/01/reader-response-robots-and-revolution.html) I wrote for The Socialist.
This article is a response to a previous article by Roy Fischler published in the Socialist Webzine. The original article can be found here. (http://socialistwebzine.blogspot.com/2009/09/automation-socialism.html)
The article by comrade Roy Fischler, appearing in the previous issue, on the subject of automation brings up an important subject when it comes to socialism and technology, in fact, perhaps the most relevant form of technology to socialists.
Robots were originally imagined as machines created for the purpose of labor for humanity. Although machines have been present since the Industrial Revolution, the concept of a bipedal robot came to prominence in the 20th century.
Marx outlined three classes, the proletarians (working people), who are forced to by the conditions (often desperately, especially in crises where unemployment is high) to sell their labor to the other two classes, the bourgeoisie (big business corporations) and the petit-bourgeosie (small businesses).
It has been theorized that the capitalists would use robots in order to gain more profits without having to pay for labor. In theory, without the human worker, money normally going to wages would be in the pockets of the capitalist.
As Marshall Brain, founder of How Stuff Works and author of e-book Robotic Nation, told the audience of the Singularity Summit: "In theory, we should all be able to go on a perpetual vacation as robots do all the work. Instead because of the way the economy is structured right now, when robots arrive it will have devastating effects on all of us because there will be so many unemployed people."
What was Brain's solution to this problem? Brain proposed, "Spread the benefit of productivity to everyone by breaking the concentration of wealth, increase pay and reduce the work week." Brain stopped short of calling for workers' ownership of the means of production, the basis upon which socialism would exist. Only this would really solve the problems that robots would create.
People who object to machines replacing human labor should not be viewed as neo-Luddites, because when the Industrial Revolution began and the machines were put on the factory floor, the labor pool still existed, the social conditions in which it existed were just changed. The use of robots as labor causes deep uncertainty now for many people, especially in these sensitive times, as unemployment worsens.
Socialists should champion robotics and automation all the while highlighting its limitations under capitalism. I would venture to say that any approach from capitalists on the issue is likely to be cautious. Are not capitalists dependent on the existence of the workers? If the bourgeoisie abolishes the human proletariat as a class to be employed, making them an unemployable and homeless mass, it would sow the seeds of its own abolition.
Few among the people would be so apathetic to not stand against such barbarism. It should be our hope that if that were to happen, the outrage would not descend into primitivism. Thus, if the capitalists were so shortsighted to prevent wealth from being spent (do robots shop?) and thus transferred to their bank accounts, a revolt for socialism, workers' control of the means of production, could be possible.
Today the iRobot Corporation, and its recent competitor, Evolution Robotics are creating a new and strong market in domestic robots. I think that this will be the main use of robots in the near-future under our capitalist system (aside from uses by the government and military). Domestic labor by the working class is unpaid. Millions of autonomous self-directing robot floor cleaners and lawn mowers have been sold. Anthropomorphic humanoid versions of these are likely to created in the future. But capitalists still need people to buy them. If they replace more and more human workers with robots, there will be less money to be spent.
The Soviet Union under Stalin and the various bureaucratic dictatorships that followed his rule were not socialist, but state capitalist. I wouldn't say their failure has to do with the absence of robots in that level of technological development. Were the efforts of the Socialists of the early 20th century America then futile?
Would people do the necessary work under socialism, voluntarily? This is Fischler's main concern. I think that socialism on this planet would be successful if it simply had the chance to be tried. If we fight for socialism, we know that it is superior to the poverty and barbarism that is capitalism. But it is not a utopia and there may be some problems, but we can work to solve them. The main change in the substance of work under socialism is that it is free. We speak of "free time" when all our time should be free. The substance and form of production under socialism is not exploitative or oppressive, it is not servitude. For this reason, I think most people before the robotic age would have accepted this change, even if it meant they were at least socially compelled to work (I don't like to speak of force, because I don't think a society that forces people to work (the very definition of slavery) is compatible with socialism.
In conclusion, I agree that as robots are now an emerging technology we should use them under socialism to eliminate labor and free the working class from the drudgery of labor. It is indeed a fascinating technology that is upon us.
This article is a response to a previous article by Roy Fischler published in the Socialist Webzine. The original article can be found here. (http://socialistwebzine.blogspot.com/2009/09/automation-socialism.html)
The article by comrade Roy Fischler, appearing in the previous issue, on the subject of automation brings up an important subject when it comes to socialism and technology, in fact, perhaps the most relevant form of technology to socialists.
Robots were originally imagined as machines created for the purpose of labor for humanity. Although machines have been present since the Industrial Revolution, the concept of a bipedal robot came to prominence in the 20th century.
Marx outlined three classes, the proletarians (working people), who are forced to by the conditions (often desperately, especially in crises where unemployment is high) to sell their labor to the other two classes, the bourgeoisie (big business corporations) and the petit-bourgeosie (small businesses).
It has been theorized that the capitalists would use robots in order to gain more profits without having to pay for labor. In theory, without the human worker, money normally going to wages would be in the pockets of the capitalist.
As Marshall Brain, founder of How Stuff Works and author of e-book Robotic Nation, told the audience of the Singularity Summit: "In theory, we should all be able to go on a perpetual vacation as robots do all the work. Instead because of the way the economy is structured right now, when robots arrive it will have devastating effects on all of us because there will be so many unemployed people."
What was Brain's solution to this problem? Brain proposed, "Spread the benefit of productivity to everyone by breaking the concentration of wealth, increase pay and reduce the work week." Brain stopped short of calling for workers' ownership of the means of production, the basis upon which socialism would exist. Only this would really solve the problems that robots would create.
People who object to machines replacing human labor should not be viewed as neo-Luddites, because when the Industrial Revolution began and the machines were put on the factory floor, the labor pool still existed, the social conditions in which it existed were just changed. The use of robots as labor causes deep uncertainty now for many people, especially in these sensitive times, as unemployment worsens.
Socialists should champion robotics and automation all the while highlighting its limitations under capitalism. I would venture to say that any approach from capitalists on the issue is likely to be cautious. Are not capitalists dependent on the existence of the workers? If the bourgeoisie abolishes the human proletariat as a class to be employed, making them an unemployable and homeless mass, it would sow the seeds of its own abolition.
Few among the people would be so apathetic to not stand against such barbarism. It should be our hope that if that were to happen, the outrage would not descend into primitivism. Thus, if the capitalists were so shortsighted to prevent wealth from being spent (do robots shop?) and thus transferred to their bank accounts, a revolt for socialism, workers' control of the means of production, could be possible.
Today the iRobot Corporation, and its recent competitor, Evolution Robotics are creating a new and strong market in domestic robots. I think that this will be the main use of robots in the near-future under our capitalist system (aside from uses by the government and military). Domestic labor by the working class is unpaid. Millions of autonomous self-directing robot floor cleaners and lawn mowers have been sold. Anthropomorphic humanoid versions of these are likely to created in the future. But capitalists still need people to buy them. If they replace more and more human workers with robots, there will be less money to be spent.
The Soviet Union under Stalin and the various bureaucratic dictatorships that followed his rule were not socialist, but state capitalist. I wouldn't say their failure has to do with the absence of robots in that level of technological development. Were the efforts of the Socialists of the early 20th century America then futile?
Would people do the necessary work under socialism, voluntarily? This is Fischler's main concern. I think that socialism on this planet would be successful if it simply had the chance to be tried. If we fight for socialism, we know that it is superior to the poverty and barbarism that is capitalism. But it is not a utopia and there may be some problems, but we can work to solve them. The main change in the substance of work under socialism is that it is free. We speak of "free time" when all our time should be free. The substance and form of production under socialism is not exploitative or oppressive, it is not servitude. For this reason, I think most people before the robotic age would have accepted this change, even if it meant they were at least socially compelled to work (I don't like to speak of force, because I don't think a society that forces people to work (the very definition of slavery) is compatible with socialism.
In conclusion, I agree that as robots are now an emerging technology we should use them under socialism to eliminate labor and free the working class from the drudgery of labor. It is indeed a fascinating technology that is upon us.