Mechanisation of labour? A bad thing?

[Comrade Thomas]

I'm not proposing any arguments for or against. But wouldn't most left-wingers support this as it frees up mankind to go into other jobs such as education etc.

[Blake's Baby]

No, because it doesn't.

'Work' is necessary under capitalism. So unemployment is a bad thing. Sure, you have more time, unless the government sends you on some ridiculous time-wasting scheme (or worse makes you work for nothing).

In a socialist society we will of course be eliminating 'work' from day one.

[bricolage]

You're doing this manual labor and you know that technology can do it. (Laughs.) Let's face it, a machine can do the work of a man; otherwise they wouldn't have space probes. Why can we send a rocket ship that's unmanned and yet send a man in a steel mill to do a mule's work?

Automation? Depends how it's applied. It frightens me if it puts me out on the street. It doesn't frighten me if it shortens my work week. You read that little thing: what are you going to do when this computer replaces you? Blow up computers. (Laughs.) Really. Blow up computers. I'll be goddamned if a computer is gonna eat before I do! I want milk for my kids and beer for me. Machines can either liberate man or enslave 'im, because they're pretty neutral. It's man who has the bias to put the thing one place or another.https://www.msu.edu/~jdowell/135/STerkel.html

[Dialectical Wizard]

I'm not proposing any arguments for or against. But wouldn't most left-wingers support this as it frees up mankind to go into other jobs such as education etc.



Mechanization of labour and overproduction are one of the main causes of unemployment under capitalism. Within a socialist system a mechanization of labour might have some virtues if used wisely.

[AnaRchic]

This is one of the most prominent contradictions under capitalism. We rely on selling our labor power to exist, but mechanization allows capitalists to hire less labor, thereby increasing their profits. The result overtime is a precarious mass of workers who will eventually be unable to afford the products of production, sending the whole capitalist system into crisis.

In the context of libertarian socialism however, mechanization becomes a liberating force. As human labor becomes less and less necessary we can all devote our energies to other pursuits, such as intellectual and artistic endeavors. One day in the future we may be able to coordinate the entirety of production by computers and robots, and "work" will truly have no meaning and will be an unimaginable concept. This will be the dawn of the highest possible realization of freedom, freeing human beings from any kind of struggle for existence. We will all be free to do exactly what we want, when we want, how we want, with who we want.

[Comrade Thomas]

Ah, thank you everyone who has responded with their viewpoints.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It seems contradictory to oppose the mechanisation of labour under capitalism, yet support it in a future socialist society.

The mechanisation of labour is indeed a (potentially) liberating force; as said above, it can allow us to reduce our workload without having a negative effect on productivity, and allow us to pursue all manner of leisure activities.

I don't oppose mechanisation under capitalism because it leads to ill-effects on the working class. I oppose the ill-effects themselves, because mechanisation does not necessarily need to lead to unemployment and loss of earnings on the part of workers. Rather, capitalism and the pursuit of profit are the necessary causal factors that link mechanisation of labour with higher levels of unemployment and loss of earnings. We should tackle capitalism itself, not the improved technologies that (investment aside), are mostly exogenous to capitalism.