The FutureTimeline

[Aleister Granger]

I've found a very peculiar website on the Interwebs just the other day. It's called "FutureTimeline.net" and it's becoming fairly popular. Most on its forums are generally delusional but it seems to be leftist. Also they raise a point I've been trying to convince comrades across the Atlantic many times- if capitalism breeds too much automation, capitalism will fall. So should we be for or against automation?

[Luisrah]

For, of course!

More automation means more progress. It's bad in capitalism because it creates unemployment, lower salaries, crysis etc but that is because capitalism has served it's purpose.

Automation is supposed to let us do more interesting things instead of menial, repetitive, boring, etc tasks.
That means more free time for you to pursue your personal goals etc

[Mather]

A lot of futurology is based on idealistic nonsense such as the 'myth of progress' and technophilia. This type of futurology looks at technological development in isolation and completely divorces it from the wider social and class forces that ultimately shape it and direct it.

A lot of futurologists have either been employed or done work for government agencies and the tech industry and in the US a good number of futurologists have close links to the Pentagon and Silicon Valley. I make this point because futurology presents itself as a scientific from of enquiry, yet it's lack of impartially raises questions about how empirical their studies of the future actually are. If futurologists get most of their funding and support from the tech companies, then it is no surprise when they then make 'predictions' which give the technologies that are produced by their supporters a central role in their vision of the future. On some levels futurology has taken on the role of a marketing campaign, promoting the products of tomorrow.

Another criticism I have of futurology is that it doesn't really investigate all the possibilities and developments that could happen in the future but instead points to a future that the futurologists themselves would like to see. More a case of wish fulfillment than genuine scientific enquiry and this applies to the FutureTimeline website. A significant number of futurologists are also transhumanists and a good number of the predictions of futurology are ones that give transhumanism a central role in the future. Of course there are good points to be made to back that prediction up but there are also other good points to be made that don't. Any serious empirical study would recognise that fact and would offer us a whole list of plausible scenarios and developments that could happen, rather than straitjacketing the future around one particular vision and a vision that conveniently is in line with the desires of those making the predictions.


Most on its forums are generally delusional but it seems to be leftist.

What makes you say that?

Most futurologists and transhumanists are right wing libertarians and free market types. Even when some of them talk of post-capitalism it is very different to the post-capitalist vision we have as communists. Their vision of a post-capitalist world is utterly idealistic (and from the point of view of the working class, reactionary) as it is a vision which sees no role for the working class in overthrowing capitalism, instead technology alone will somehow make capitalism wither away.


So should we be for or against automation?

For communists there is no single answer to that question without the question being put in context.

For example, under capitalism automation is used for two main reasons. First to cut operating costs, as automation requires employing less workers to run a business without negatively impacting production output. Secondly it is used as a form of union bashing and as a way to undercut organised labour. London mayor Boris Johnson is very keen on the idea of automating the tube as a way of weakening the railway union the RMT and it's members, who belong to the more militant section of organised labour. The RMT and it's members have a long record in opposing the privatisation of the public transport system and ruling class attacks against the working conditions of their members. It is no wonder then why Boris Johnson would like to see the tube drivers replaced with mindless machines which cannot answer or fight back against ruling class interests. So if automation under capitalism means workers losing their jobs and those workers still in work having their ability to unionise and organise undercut, then as communists we should oppose it as a matter of principle.

As for automation under communism, that is an entirely different matter. As automation in a communist society would not involve making people unemployed or being used as a means to to attack and undercut the conditions of workers, our reasons for opposing automation under capitalism would no longer apply. That does not mean that everything would be automated in a communist society as there will always be some manual jobs and roles that people enjoy doing such as gardening, carpentry, art etc... It is impossible to know exactly what people will want or what their priorities would be in a communist society as all our current wants and needs have been shaped by the material conditions of capitalism and that would all change once capitalism has been overthrown. So I am always a bit skeptical of anyone who offers rather specific blueprints for what people would want and how they would go about getting it in a communist society.

[Aleister Granger]

What makes you say that?


On the website itself, a sizable number of its participants are openly socialist/communist/Marxist, though some hide behind this "will become communist with technology" ideal rather than "must be communist first." There are few there who say capitalism is good, but much apology for it since it's "the best way to get to the future."

Also I witnessed the coming of someone who'd gave the impression of the classic Ron Paulian right wing lollabertarian and he/she/it was chased out within a day. Any site that does that has my respect.

[Mather]

More automation means more progress.

Does it? Workers being made unemployed and having machines being used to undercut the ability of workers to organise is progress? This statement is a perfect example of the point I made in my last post about the 'myth of progess'.

Who gets to define 'progress'?

Who gets to benefit from this 'progress'?

The answer to both is the ruling class. As communists, why should we limit our interpretation of progress to the way it has been defined by ruling class ideology?


Automation is supposed to let us do more interesting things instead of menial, repetitive, boring, etc tasks.
That means more free time for you to pursue your personal goals etc

"Supposed" being the operative word.

Since the 19th century we have been given countless predictions of how automation would led to a life of leisure and plenty for all, only things never turned out like that. Two centuries later and most workers still have to work long hours in return for very little and those workers that have been made unemployed by automation aren't enjoying their free time as you can't really have a life of leisure when your struggling to survive on the dole.

There is already plenty of evidence to suggest that automation has not led to shorter working hours or an increase in leisure time for the working class, so the onus lies with those who make the claim that automation benefits the working class to back it up with some evidence.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

A lot of futurology is based on idealistic nonsense such as the 'myth of progress' and technophilia. This type of futurology looks at technological development in isolation and completely divorces it from the wider social and class forces that ultimately shape it and direct it.

To be fair, it's not all about technology, there seem to be a fair amount of predictions concerning climate change and rising sea levels, as well as other environmental ones like extinctions and depletion of easy resources.

There's also a scattering of economic and geopolitical predictions, but they're not well indexed for some reason.


A lot of futurologists have either been employed or done work for government agencies and the tech industry and in the US a good number of futurologists have close links to the Pentagon and Silicon Valley. I make this point because futurology presents itself as a scientific from of enquiry, yet it's lack of impartially raises questions about how empirical their studies of the future actually are. If futurologists get most of their funding and support from the tech companies, then it is no surprise when they then make 'predictions' which give the technologies that are produced by their supporters a central role in their vision of the future. On some levels futurology has taken on the role of a marketing campaign, promoting the products of tomorrow.

You can always check the sources. I would assume that predictions from say, the WHO would carry a bit more weight than a corporate press release or the flights of fancy by investor-hungry start-ups.


Another criticism I have of futurology is that it doesn't really investigate all the possibilities and developments that could happen in the future but instead points to a future that the futurologists themselves would like to see. More a case of wish fulfillment than genuine scientific enquiry and this applies to the FutureTimeline website. A significant number of futurologists are also transhumanists and a good number of the predictions of futurology are ones that give transhumanism a central role in the future. Of course there are good points to be made to back that prediction up but there are also other good points to be made that don't. Any serious empirical study would recognise that fact and would offer us a whole list of plausible scenarios and developments that could happen, rather than straitjacketing the future around one particular vision and a vision that conveniently is in line with the desires of those making the predictions.

Agreed. It would at least be more interesting if the website had divergent timelines showing different futures, sort of like a more detailed version of this fascinating article (http://jacobinmag.com/2011/12/four-futures/).


What makes you say that?

Most futurologists and transhumanists are right wing libertarians and free market types. Even when some of them talk of post-capitalism it is very different to the post-capitalist vision we have as communists. Their vision of a post-capitalist world is utterly idealistic (and from the point of view of the working class, reactionary) as it is a vision which sees no role for the working class in overthrowing capitalism, instead technology alone will somehow make capitalism wither away.

But isn't it at least mildly interesting that they even think it's possible? Whatever happened to "capitalism forevah!"? I'm pretty sure the website at least didn't always predict an end to capitalism at all.

[Aleister Granger]

^ Actually, the site's been accused of being communist. And they were defending communism as a rebuttal.:lol: So much for libertarianism.

The place's a riot, I swear. I just might get an account.

[tuwix]

Also they raise a point I've been trying to convince comrades across the Atlantic many times- if capitalism breeds too much automation, capitalism will fall.

This is why communism is inevitable. Automation causes less work needed. The less work needed, the greater is potential unemployment and there must be greater efforts of states to expand a bureaucracy which is useless in the most cases. Less and less useful work will cause circumstances when voluunters could do all needed work for free. And then private and state property and money will become obsolete. :)

[Luisrah]

Does it? Workers being made unemployed and having machines being used to undercut the ability of workers to organise is progress? This statement is a perfect example of the point I made in my last post about the 'myth of progess'.

Who gets to define 'progress'?

Who gets to benefit from this 'progress'?

The answer to both is the ruling class. As communists, why should we limit our interpretation of progress to the way it has been defined by ruling class ideology?

Yes it means progress.
I don't know what is your definition of progress, but I consider that less time spent cleaning, cooking every day, collecting garbage, driving, etc etc etc is progress.

Automation simply is the "end" of technology.
First you clean your floor with a broom, then a vaccuum, and then a robot does it for you.
First you walk 50 miles, then you ride a horse for 30 miles, then you ride a carriage for 30 miles, then a car/train etc.
First you eat raw food (actually takes less time :lol:), then you cook on a fire, then on a stove, then a robot does it for you.

Can you see a pattern?



"Supposed" being the operative word.

Since the 19th century we have been given countless predictions of how automation would led to a life of leisure and plenty for all, only things never turned out like that. Two centuries later and most workers still have to work long hours in return for very little and those workers that have been made unemployed by automation aren't enjoying their free time as you can't really have a life of leisure when your struggling to survive on the dole.

There is already plenty of evidence to suggest that automation has not led to shorter working hours or an increase in leisure time for the working class, so the onus lies with those who make the claim that automation benefits the working class to back it up with some evidence.

First: Future predictions about technology don't always come correct.
Some people thought we would have flying cars, robots making our food etc by now and we don't.
However no one thought in the Middle Ages (and probably later) that we would be able to travel by plain from Europe to America in much less then a day. And we can.

Second: You sound like a luddite.
If my theory is still in my memory, what builds up the revolution that changes society from feudalism to capitalism, capitalism to communism etc is the development of the productive forces.
At some point the system in use is not as effective in developing the productive forces as well as the next one would be.

In this case, capitalism is now hindering the development of those productive forces (which include technology).
If you work at a desk writing things on excel, and if someone develops a program that helps you do it in half the time 2 things can happen.
Either your work day is reduced by half or you or your colleague gets fired because one of you can do the work of both and that means more profit for the boss.

That's why in capitalism, progress of technology necessarily leads to more profits (meaning a bigger gap between rich and poor), more unemployment and a lower salary ratio (you produce more because technology aids you, but you continue to recieve the same wage).

Unemployment and bigger gaps between workers and capitalists means more struggle (strikes, riots etc). More struggle means more class consciousness, making the proletariat ready to overthrow capitalism and replace it with communism.

Now if communism ends up being like we all think it is, then automation will only help us by reducing our necessary work and allowing us to pursue our preferred activities instead of necessary but unsatisfying work.

Third: It can't be denied that technology means progress and that it has beneffited people. A vaccuum, water heater, cars, computers, washing machines (thank god!) all reduce the work we have to do (outside our normal working hours) and give us more free time to educate ourselves, play sports, play games, go on a date etc (which I bet is quite more interesting)

[Aleister Granger]

Could technology itself beget communism is the question of the year on the forums. I would like to think that communism could easily come about from giving too much power to automation and pissing off too many ex-workers.
But two things may happen. One the workers may just smash the machines as the luddites have done, which would lead to a bullet typhoon from the capitalists. Two is that the machines become communally owned and we get our equity this way (though the capitalists would almost certainly be excluded from this)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Could technology itself beget communism is the question of the year on the forums. I would like to think that communism could easily come about from giving too much power to automation and pissing off too many ex-workers.

It's not just a matter of technology, though. Within significant sections of the proletariat there has to be the confidence and ability to rule as a class. That kind of assertiveness isn't going to arise in a vacuum, and I rather doubt that technological developments alone are enough to guarantee such conditions coming to pass.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Does it? Workers being made unemployed and having machines being used to undercut the ability of workers to organise is progress? This statement is a perfect example of the point I made in my last post about the 'myth of progess'.

Who gets to define 'progress'?

Who gets to benefit from this 'progress'?

The answer to both is the ruling class. As communists, why should we limit our interpretation of progress to the way it has been defined by ruling class ideology?



"Supposed" being the operative word.

Since the 19th century we have been given countless predictions of how automation would led to a life of leisure and plenty for all, only things never turned out like that. Two centuries later and most workers still have to work long hours in return for very little and those workers that have been made unemployed by automation aren't enjoying their free time as you can't really have a life of leisure when your struggling to survive on the dole.

There is already plenty of evidence to suggest that automation has not led to shorter working hours or an increase in leisure time for the working class, so the onus lies with those who make the claim that automation benefits the working class to back it up with some evidence.

But I think this argument is just the flip-side of an abstract pro-tech position that you (imo correctly) criticize. The problem with de-skilling labor and unemployement (due to technological advances) is no more the fault of automomation than the assembly line or modern factory is the fault of cooperative labor efforts. Technology or methods of production are just there to serve a purpose - but in capitalism that purpose is to accumulate profits through "better" exploitation. So saving labor in capitalism means increasing the rate of exploitation - having less workers produce the same or more than it would take normally. This would not be so in a different kind of society. Even in feudalism or classical societies, technology was mainly used for amusement and luxuries because rulers could generally (if they wanted to produce more) get a few more slaves or serfs easier that it would be to develop new technology. In socialism automoation would be used to help us meet our needs more and our own desire not to have to do boring mundane things would be the inherent incentive in labor-saving techniques and technologies.

[Aleister Granger]

I was poring through the forum today just to see what else I could find

http://www.futuretimeline.net/forum/topic/6052-capitalism-is-the-only-way-to-technological-advancement/

[Hexen]

Well automation under capitalism is actually just replacing the human workforce with robots to increase surplus value. At least this Soviet cartoon also warns.

8_fy_BQtHUo

Also who defines progress is the ones who own and control the means of production hence it's a subjective term.

[Ledur]

What makes you say that?

I know the website's owner from another forum, and he says he's totally against capitalism, poverty, class struggle and Earth's depletion, even though he didn't admit his political visions.

[Ledur]

Does it? Workers being made unemployed and having machines being used to undercut the ability of workers to organise is progress? This statement is a perfect example of the point I made in my last post about the 'myth of progess'.

Who gets to define 'progress'?

Who gets to benefit from this 'progress'?

The answer to both is the ruling class. As communists, why should we limit our interpretation of progress to the way it has been defined by ruling class ideology?

In a communist society, automation and robotics will serve everyone, rather than capitalists.

Tech progress is everything that improves life standards, but in a human (not consumer) point of view.

Even today we have open source tech, which forces capitalism to adapt itself: Linux, then Napster, and now we have open projects to actually build things, thousands of open source product hacking, and 3D printing is a reality.

In a communist society, all of those will be welcome.

Don't forget the biggest shift: in a communist society, all knowledge will be public.

That means, the best product, the most advanced health solution, the most efficient energy source, they may be available to everyone.


"Supposed" being the operative word.

Since the 19th century we have been given countless predictions of how automation would led to a life of leisure and plenty for all, only things never turned out like that. Two centuries later and most workers still have to work long hours in return for very little and those workers that have been made unemployed by automation aren't enjoying their free time as you can't really have a life of leisure when your struggling to survive on the dole.

That's because knowledge, robots and machines are private means of production.


There is already plenty of evidence to suggest that automation has not led to shorter working hours or an increase in leisure time for the working class, so the onus lies with those who make the claim that automation benefits the working class to back it up with some evidence.

Yet it did make products cheaper, but ONLY when it became profitable, therefore it's a utterly inneficient way to spread technology. Capitalism has NOT invented ANY technology, and I hate when stupid people say "you're a communist huh, stop using computers and cellphones, you poser".

However, on producer side, I understand your points of view. Extreme automation would be the END of capitalism, because they need us to be their slaves and buy THEIR products. Too much automation would lead to massive unemployment, massive social disturbs, and finally people would understand once for all that capitalism is ridiculous.