Automation

[Ricardo]

With the speed technology advances, nearly complete automation of the workplace should be possible before the end of the century. I have nothing to back this up but I can't see robotics not advancing this much in 90 years. When this happens, if there hasn't been a world revolution yet, I see the bourgeoisie jumping at the chance to cease paying workers when they could make a one time payment for a robot.

How could capitalism continue to survive with so many industries automated?

Is it possible that the bourgeois will realize the implications automation could have, with mass unemployment among other things?

And if a revolt has not yet begun, would automation make a communist revolution much more likely?

[danyboy27]

With the speed technology advances, nearly complete automation of the workplace should be possible before the end of the century. I have nothing to back this up but I can't see robotics not advancing this much in 90 years. When this happens, if there hasn't been a world revolution yet, I see the bourgeoisie jumping at the chance to cease paying workers when they could make a one time payment for a robot.

How could capitalism continue to survive with so many industries automated?

Is it possible that the bourgeois will realize the implications automation could have, with mass unemployment among other things?

And if a revolt has not yet begun, would automation make a communist revolution much more likely?

wage slave will always be more profitable than robots. Robot require expert you pay a shitwad of money, replacement part cost a lot of money, extra cost etc etc.

Even if we have the tech, we will still hire vietnamese, chinese or other exploited third world countries.

[Os Cangaceiros]

With the speed technology advances, nearly complete automation of the workplace should be possible before the end of the century. I have nothing to back this up but I can't see robotics not advancing this much in 90 years. When this happens, if there hasn't been a world revolution yet, I see the bourgeoisie jumping at the chance to cease paying workers when they could make a one time payment for a robot.

How could capitalism continue to survive with so many industries automated?

Is it possible that the bourgeois will realize the implications automation could have, with mass unemployment among other things?

And if a revolt has not yet begun, would automation make a communist revolution much more likely?

I don't really see capitalism existing in a world where everything is done for us by robots.

[Ricardo]

wage slave will always be more profitable than robots. Robot require expert you pay a shitwad of money, replacement part cost a lot of money, extra cost etc etc.

Even if we have the tech, we will still hire vietnamese, chinese or other exploited third world countries.


I actually didn't consider the horribly low wages third world citizens are paid in comparison to repair prices, but does no one think capitalists will progressively automate their businesses? I could be wrong but I don't see how the bourgeoisie collectively paying billions of workers year after year is more profitable then buying robots and keeping up with repairs. When technology is around to make production more efficient and/or cheaper, don't capitalists usually always make use of it?

[Widerstand]

How do you think would automation increase the likelihood of revolution? I agree that it can play a keyrole in reducing unpleasant work post-rev, but how exactly would it bring about revolution?

I've read somewhere that 70% of all work currently done by humans could be automated. Now I'm very skeptical of that number, but the statement offers an undeniable truth, also mentioned by the above posters: In most cases, human labor is still cheaper than automation, and as long as it stays that way, wage slavery will continue to exist in a capitalist system.

A possible, but IMO very far away, scenario would be the (inevitable) collapse of capitalism, once unemployment has risen so high that corporations can't sell their products anymore, which could follow from automation. But I'd think some sort of uprising would start way before we hit critical numbers. It should be noted though, that those uprisings aren't necessarily a good thing, as they can tend towards fascism and far right ideas just as well.

[Invincible Summer]

But I'd think some sort of uprising would start way before we hit critical numbers. It should be noted though, that those uprisings aren't necessarily a good thing, as they can tend towards fascism and far right ideas just as well.

Any sort of social upheaval could result in this. I mean, post-war Germany allowed Hitler to come into power.

[Ricardo]

How do you think would automation increase the likelihood of revolution? I agree that it can play a keyrole in reducing unpleasant work post-rev, but how exactly would it bring about revolution?


A possible, but IMO very far away, scenario would be the (inevitable) collapse of capitalism, once unemployment has risen so high that corporations can't sell their products anymore, which could follow from automation. But I'd think some sort of uprising would start way before we hit critical numbers. It should be noted though, that those uprisings aren't necessarily a good thing, as they can tend towards fascism and far right ideas just as well.

The second paragraph was basically my answer to your question. I figured that technology would be around to make most industries automated, and if there hasn't been a revolution by then, I didn't see how capitalism could survive full automation.

[Widerstand]

I agree that capitalism will face a dead end sooner or later, but I'm not too convinced on this revolution. I mean, there will be more social unrest, but the direction a possible revolution will take is uhm, unknown. For example, I wouldn't at all be surprised if people just directed their hate at technological advance rather than the capitalist system.

[BAM]

For Marx, capitalists introduce machinery because machines, as they transfer their own value into end-products, displace more labour than is required to create them. That is, machines lower per-unit costs of end products.

To put it another way, a capitalist is producing and selling 1000 units of widgets for $1 each. His costs are $900, so he makes $100 profit. It doesn't matter to him whether he spends $300 on labour and $600 on machines, or $800 and $100 or whatever. However, if he spends $500 on labour and then replaces it with a machine that transfers $400 to the products over the same production period, his new costs are $800. Thus, as long as his new production method doesn't spread throughout his sphere of production, he makes a surplus profit of $100.

(Once the new production technology spreads through that branch of production, prices fall and the capitalist loses his competitive advantage. This is how the rate of profit falls.)

If however machinery will not reduce costs, then it will not be introduced. Marx writes that with automation, there was a tendency to increases in, say, service sector and domestic labour. Some Marxist economists have also done research which shows that growth in industries that are capital intensive is mirrored by a growth in labour-intensive industries - sweatshop labour in other words.

So, no, automation will not lead to revolution. However, it does increase productivity, which we'll need if ever a socialist/anarchist society ever comes about.