What if the Workers were replaced by Machines?

[Rafiq]

If the workers were replaced by machines, would this ruin the whole Idea of Marxism in general?

If there were no workers, just machines.

Some factory's have robots do many of the work.

But if Robots do the work, and there is no workers, what will the be the outcome?

Will it still be Capitalism? Will there be a need for Revolution?

Thanks

[Sosa]

you would still need workers to maintain those machines.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

It depends how we conceive of capitalism - is it defined by the contradiction between workers and capitalists, or should we look at it more broadly as the rule of capital, the logic of commodities, of progress, etc.?

Whether or not the name "capitalism" would suit a society without workers-as-a-class-unto-themselves, the more pressing question to me is not about capitalism, but communism. Revolution is not so much about the details of Capitalism (as a form), but about the realization of a radical emancipatory project against the existent - "workers" or none, this post/industrial prison that's been built around me is shit, and I want out.

[Ocean Seal]

The bourgeoisie would never completely get rid of the workforce. If everyone is unemployed a revolution is almost inevitable, shame is that it would probably be a primitivist revolution if "machines" were perceived to be the cause of everyone's problems.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The bourgeoisie would never completely get rid of the workforce. If everyone is unemployed a revolution is almost inevitable, shame is that it would probably be a primitivist revolution if "machines" were perceived to be the cause of everyone's problems.

Y'know, there's some significant space there that you're writing out of existence. Having a critique of technology, or even a straight-up affinity for Luddism is different than "primitivism", which is pretty specific (if not necessarily pretty coherent).

[Antifa94]

if there were only machines, we'd need a neo-luddite revolution.

[28350]

Having only machines would not be profitable, as there would be no one to create value.

[YouSSR]

Actually a very interesting question. Machines cannot create value, only human labor can do that, so if you think about it such a system would be free from exploitation and at the same time have no growth. It would basically be the opposite of capitalism and even though it's a good thing and an "alternative" to communism for sci-fi nerds, our understanding of capitalism shows such a society would never be allowed to come into place.

[Summerspeaker]

Advancing automation heights the absurdity of private ownership of the means of production. Once a factory can run on its own capitalism loses a key argument for its survival. Machines need no incentive or threat to work. Unfortunately, I suspect a combination of bread and circuses with naked force would maintain the hierarchy under such circumstances.

[RadioRaheem84]

Where would workers work to earn money? If no one is earning money by doing work, then who is buying the junk being produced by robots?

[Magón]

The bourgeoisie would never completely get rid of the workforce. If everyone is unemployed a revolution is almost inevitable, shame is that it would probably be a primitivist revolution if "machines" were perceived to be the cause of everyone's problems.


if there were only machines, we'd need a neo-luddite revolution.

http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2008/07/terminator-salvation-still.jpg

Ta-da!

[red cat]

If the workers were replaced by machines, would this ruin the whole Idea of Marxism in general?

If there were no workers, just machines.

Some factory's have robots do many of the work.

But if Robots do the work, and there is no workers, what will the be the outcome?

Will it still be Capitalism? Will there be a need for Revolution?

Thanks

If this ever happens in capitalism, wages will fall to an extent where human labour will be cheaper than the machines and hence capitalists will recruit workers for more profits.

Communism will definitely reach such a stage whereby the whole population will fully engage in intellectual labour.

[Unclebananahead]

Further automation of production under capitalism would lead to greater wealth for the capitalist class, and greater impoverishment for the proletarian class. This could lead to the creation of an even smaller, and even richer 'techno-bourgeois,' and greater immiseration for the broad masses (which is already considerable bearing in mind the fact that just in the US alone, the bottom 80% have to share something like 15% of that country's wealth).

Generally speaking, the wealthy will replace workers with machines whenever it is cost effective to do so. When this occurs, it means more people out of work which creates a larger pool of unemployed to be used to drive down wages by the owning class. A theoretical fully automated system of production of goods and services under capitalism would almost invariably entail considerable repression and violence to keep the majority destitute population in check from overthrowing the rule of the tiny, elite 'techno-bourgeois.'

[Outinleftfield]

you would still need workers to maintain those machines.

You can program machines to maintain machines, and if they also know how to maintain the same prototype as themselves along with maintaining other kinds of machines then the system could run itself(other than humans still having to give orders). Humans are still needed for intellectual labor, for telling the machines what to do to an extent even if we shorten that extent by providing instructions for how to come up with its own "solutions".



If technology ever advanced to the point where machines can do all necessary labor capitalism is toast. It would have lost its entire argument to being based on productivity if no human is doing work any more. But at this point if machines can make everything for everyone the capitalist class might not even care, since such a step might be a gain for both them and the rest of society.

Alternatively, we might figure out how to build machines capable of all physical labor but still not all the intellectual labor, maintaining capitalism but it would be ownership of "intellectual circles", basically each corporation would by running a think tank of workers figuring out what to ask the machine for. During this period ideas themselves would become more and more commodified. Since the owners themselves literally are doing nothing at this point since most would just be investors and not participating in the intellectual activity this could intensify class conflict and lead to a socialist revolution.

For all human labor to be based on thinking about what to tell a programmed machine to do the economy would have to be at such a productive level that we would already be out colonizing space.

[Psy]

Problem is automation increases the devaluation of commodities as less labor is invested in each individual commodity thus reducing the rate of profit.

Meaning if under capitalism we had machines building more machines on their own capitalism will quickly fall into a crisis of over production as constant capital rises (more machines) while variable capital falls (less human workers).

[Luís Henrique]

Where would workers work to earn money? If no one is earning money by doing work, then who is buying the junk being produced by robots?

This.

Machines cannot actually replace workers, because workers do two things: 1) they produce commodities; and 2) they buy commodities. Machines cannot do #2, so...

Luís Henrique

[Hit The North]

Further automation of production under capitalism would lead to greater wealth for the capitalist class, and greater impoverishment for the proletarian class.

This is untenable for the reasons set out above by Luis. If there are no consumers for the commodities produced by capitalists, then the capitalist will quickly go out of business and also become impoverished.

[robbo203]

As a thought experiment its an interesting idea. However, increasing automation and robotisation does not necessarily in itself have to entail less employment. Workers can presumably be shunted over to the unproductive sphere of the economy which does nor produce surplus value but consumes it. In fact the growth of unproductive labour has been posited by writers, such as Fred Moseley, as the single most significant factor in the falling rate of profit in the post war era. Here I think particularly of all those bureaucrats and bankers and other useless occupations in the services sector. They perform work but it is not useful or productive work. However it enables these workers to obtain a wage to purchase commodities produced in the productive sector. Problem is, as others have suggested on this thread, if no suprlus value was being produced (because there were no more workers being employed in the productive sector) then there could not be any income transfers to workers employed in the unproductive sector. Meaning they could no longer buy the goods produced in the productive sector. So the system would just grind to a complete stop.

Its not going to happen though because the operation of the laws of supply and demand will push the price of labour power downwards making it more attractive for employers to employ workers rather than robots (that moreover cannot be laid off come a recession!) until some sort of equilibrium has been reached. Normally, its a shortage of workers that induces the capitalist to invest in capital intensive technologies but here we are postulating a surplus of workers made redundant by the deployment of robots.

In a sense then the very problem itself contains the seeds of a solution

[Summerspeaker]

Machines do certain tasks so much better than people that they're no longer interchangeable. I can't imagine, for instance, foot or bicycle porters ever replacing trucks and trains for freight distribution regardless of how cheap they become. The same may apply to manufacturing jobs in general within a few decades.

[Hit The North]

Machines do certain tasks so much better than people that they're no longer interchangeable. I can't imagine, for instance, foot or bicycle porters ever replacing trucks and trains for freight distribution regardless of how cheap they become.

This seems to miss the point that human beings are necessary to drive and maintain the trucks and trains.

[PoliticalNightmare]

The bourgeoisie would never completely get rid of the workforce. If everyone is unemployed a revolution is almost inevitable, shame is that it would probably be a primitivist revolution if "machines" were perceived to be the cause of everyone's problems.

I don't think that's likely at all. The concepts of society destroying all of its technology is absurd. Even if there was an external anarcho-primitivist revolutionary force, there is no way we would allow them to destroy the world's capital. I think that with everyone unemployed, we would take over the capital and create a post-scarcity society in such a situation where the technology can replace the necessity for labour (though is this truly possible?).

[RedScareTactic]

I would think robots replacing workers would allow humans to shift their focus to advancement.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

There is a story about Henry Ford taking Walter Reuther (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Reuther) (the union leader) around one of his factories.

"Look at all those machines, Wally. One day I plan to have nothing but machines in here. They never go on strike", gushed Ford.

"Very nice, Henry, but if everyone did that, who's going to buy your automobiles?"

[Summerspeaker]

This seems to miss the point that human beings are necessary to drive and maintain the trucks and trains.

Machines have already replaced humans and other animals in physical aspects of transportation. Once they can manage the mental aspects as well I see no reason to believe we'll be able to survive by underselling automated cars and factories. Wages would be too low to live on.

[Struggle]

The idea and to at least some extent, the economic system has already been termed; ‘Resource-Based Economy’. In actual fact, in some ways it is very similar to Communism. People receive what they need, rather than what they desire. Thus, it is described as a ‘Resource-Based economy’, as opposed to the current profit driven, or in correct terminology; ‘Monetary-based Economy’.

I would provide those who do not yet know of ‘Resource-Based economy” with website links. However, I currently do not have a high enough post count to do so.

One can type ‘Resource-Based Economy’ in Google, and it will provide websites related to ‘Resource-Based Economy’ and it‘s social-engineer, Jacque Fresco.

[Summerspeaker]

The resource-based economy of the Venus Project mirrors the technocracy movement. You'll find various supporters here. Unfortunately, from what I've seen Fresco himself rejects the obvious connections between that ideal and traditional leftist struggle.

[S.Artesian]

If the workers were replaced by machines, would this ruin the whole Idea of Marxism in general?

If there were no workers, just machines.

Some factory's have robots do many of the work.

But if Robots do the work, and there is no workers, what will the be the outcome?

Will it still be Capitalism? Will there be a need for Revolution?

Thanks

Wouldn't ruin Marxism. Would eliminate the source of surplus value.

About that Reuther/Ford story: After the UAW had finally organized Ford, Henry Ford took Walter Reuther on a tour of an "experimental" workshop where almost all the assembly work was being done by machines.

Said Ford to Reuther "This is the future, when machines do all the work. Who will you be organizing in your union then, Walter""

Said Reuther: "And who will you be selling your autos to in that future, Henry?"

Reuther, would-be social democrat, thinks it's an issue of consumption, of "effective demand," when in fact it is an issue of the basis for production, the basis of value.

Now obviously, if one automaker was completely automated it could still realize a profit, as the markets would distribute the aggrandized profit from the other, less automate automakers, and less automated industries.

But if all work were automated, there would be no basis for surplus value as no one would be required to sell his/her labor power for the means of subsistence, or the equivalent value of the means of subsistence.

The ongoing automation, improvement in productivity, is precisely the source for the tendency for the rate of profitability to decline as capitalism develops.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

SA, thanks for that, but it only goes to show that you just can't ignore me, can you?:lol:

[ZeroNowhere]

"A development in the productive forces that would reduce the absolute number of workers, and actually enable the whole nation to accomplish its entire production in a shorter period of time, would produce a revolution, since it would put the majority of the population out of action."Capitalism is based upon surplus-value, and this must be produced by labourers. A decrease in ratio of labourers to machinery itself leads to a fall in the rate of profit which must be counter-acted through accumulation, that is through hiring more labour (but this has limits). In other words, things would've crashed and burned a long time before this scenario could ever take place.

[ckaihatsu]

What if the Workers were replaced by Machines?


Then they would be some kind of worker-machine-robot hybrid, or 'wor-bot'.


= D

[ckaihatsu]

Alternatively, we might figure out how to build machines capable of all physical labor but still not all the intellectual labor, maintaining capitalism but it would be ownership of "intellectual circles", basically each corporation would by running a think tank of workers figuring out what to ask the machine for. During this period ideas themselves would become more and more commodified. Since the owners themselves literally are doing nothing at this point since most would just be investors and not participating in the intellectual activity this could intensify class conflict and lead to a socialist revolution.




For all human labor to be based on thinking about what to tell a programmed machine to do the economy would have to be at such a productive level that we would already be out colonizing space.


Or, it would be the present day and you'd have to teach some sort of class just to prove to the public that you're still an existing, flesh-and-bones regular person....

[Cane Nero]

If the workers were replaced by machines, would this ruin the whole Idea of Marxism in general?

If there were no workers, just machines.

Some factory's have robots do many of the work.

But if Robots do the work, and there is no workers, what will the be the outcome?

Will it still be Capitalism? Will there be a need for Revolution?

Thanks

In the economic system we live in today the workers will not be fully replaced by machines.
There are countries with manpower much cheaper, which in turn compensating for employers to hire a lot of workers to do a work that one machine could do.