Technological advancement/Bourgeois mode of production

[Althusser]

If say... technological advancement in machinery allowed all factory type jobs to be done completely by machine, and fields could be attended to with very little effort, how would it change the bourgeois mode of production in relation to the working class? Where would the market be? What would change about the economy?

I'm trying to wrap my brain around certain things pertaining to this and keep finding myself running around in circles.

[Hit The North]

Under capitalism, if the human workforce is replaced by mechanisation then no one would have the money to purchase the capitalists' commodities and the capitalists would go out of business. This is one of reasons that capitalism cannot abolish human labour. Only socialism will be able to aim for that.

[Ostrinski]

Not to mention that people would start asking why the fuck there's a market mechanism in the first place if production is automated.

[Clarion]

When productivity reaches such levels socialism will surely follow.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

When productivity reaches such levels socialism will surely follow.

Production will not be allowed to reach such a level within the capitalist framework. Doing so would amount to the bourgeoisie voluntarily liquidating itself as a class.

[Clarion]

The bourgeoisie are forced by competition to increase productivity in order to stay in the game. It's always in the interest of the individual bourgeois to invest in more capital, which collectively damns the class.

[Althusser]

The bourgeoisie are forced by competition to increase productivity in order to stay in the game. It's always in the interest of the individual bourgeois to invest in more capital, which collectively damns the class.

This is exactly why I'm conflicted. The whole bourgeoisie does not act cooperatively, so if its profitable for an individual bourgeoisie to replace the men with machines, they will make the transition. The entire bourgeoisie wouldn't come together and say, "Hey, lets not completely mechanize the mode of production because then there won't be a market." The individual bourgeoisie will just make the transition for short term profits, and with the assumption that there will be a market. (They usually look at aspects of capitalist production, isolated from other aspects of it when they are in fact directly related and effect each other) Even if this fact was realized by individual bourgeoisie, their competitive nature would make it impossible to act collaboratively to sustain themselves as a class. Another capitalist contradiction that will, and has to an extent, revealed itself?

I guess if you're a dialectical materialist, this is evidence in your favor.

[Lynx]

As Clarion suggests, this is another example of the fallacy of composition.

[Catma]

I think the bourgeoisie are CAPABLE of acting in concert, but generally don't. In extreme situations I wouldn't rely on the bourgeoisie not conspiring.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

You’re right that there is the aspect of individual agency for the bourgeoisie, but they do make decisions collectively through trade associations and the like, but most importantly through the state. And the state has the ability to enforce unpopular decisions on the less influential bourgeoisie. As was pointed out earlier, full automation would put a serious dent in any justification for a market and that market would be destroyed anyhow with the lack of consumers that full automation would lead to. It’s conjecture but since the whole topic is conjecture I think it’s ok, it doesn’t seem that far-fetched to me for the state to introduce legislation to make a certain level of human participation in the production process mandatory for the sake of what it sees as social harmony. I don’t want to give the impression that I think it’s impossible for the technology to be developed for full automation under capitalism, I’m just deeply suspicious of whether it could deployed without a revolution to eliminate capitalist relations first.

All this may be jumping the gun anyhow; I think westerners make serious assumptions about the current level of automation in production. It makes sense to move towards automation for a company dealing with an entrenched unionized labor force, but for others it’s still cheaper to buy semi-slave labor in un/underdeveloped countries. I think people have a tendency to look at all the mass produced goods they use every day and assume it’s the product of a robot somewhere, but chances are it’s still just being put together in a giant factory room somewhere in China by peasants forced off their land for one reason or another. I think it would be a very very long time before technology even reached a point that it became cheaper to use machines instead of the labor of some unfortunate population somewhere in the world. Look at how the use of poor labor in the third world has had an effect on the wages and expectation of first world laborers; this is a cycle that could go on and on. If you’re holding out for capitalism to kill itself off in this fashion, I honestly think it’s more likely that we’ll reach a point of ecological collapse before it happens.