Workers must prepare for robots

[Aleister Granger]

My apologies, double posted the thread

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Workers have been struggling against automation in their workplaces for hundreds of years now, it's not new. It's true that tons and tons of jobs could be automated but the question will be if it's cheaper to automate the job or whether it's still cheaper to pay slave labor which for now is probably still the case. In a few more decades that could change as technology gets cheaper. If mass automation does start to take place though, I think it will definitely start off a major crisis at every level, but the enemy will never be the machines, the enemy will always be the people who own them.

[Bala Perdida]

I agree with Ethics^ on that machines are not the enemy. If we actually used the technology for everyone's favor we could drastically shorten work days and make production much easier. But the bourgeoisie are going to use it for sheer profit, and leave the worker struggling against unemployment. So I welcome the development, although I am skeptical on it's use. This could be the breaking point that leads to some sort of reform, not exactly revolution, but our ideas might gain some influence in the process.

[Loony Le Fist]

I agree with Ethics^ on that machines are not the enemy. If we actually used the technology for everyone's favor we could drastically shorten work days and make production much easier...

Precisely. Technology and science are simply tools. How those tools are used are up to the users.

[Axiomasher]

My apologies, double posted the thread

Anyone else noticing how staff at checkout tills are being replaced by self-service payment machines? It's surely only a matter of time before robots are cheap and effective enough to restock shelves and there won't be any need for staff at all, except maybe a 'customer service' clerk and a security guard or two.

At face value there surely must come a point of tension between the replacement of human labour with machines and the negative effect this has on the pool of those who are still waged and thus able to buy stuff. In short, if none of us have jobs none of us can buy stuff :rolleyes:

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I don't think machines are automatically neutral, technology and science are prisoners of capitalism as much as we are. I can think of tons of objectively bad machines and tools. I have a really hard time thinking of an automatic rifle or ICBM as neutral objects that just happen to be used for bad things because of their owners. Those things came into being as a result of a fucked up world with fucked up priorities, there's no "good" use for them. I'm just saying that the robots have owners who are the real problem.

[Rafiq]

Machines cannot create value and will inevitably lead to a loss of profit.

[Sinister Intents]

Machines cannot create value and will inevitably lead to a loss of profit.

This exactly, but for me and my concrete business, I would thoroughly benefit from a CAT or a tractor, plus several other machines like a grinder so I don't have to keep renting one.

[aristos]

Machines cannot create value and will inevitably lead to a loss of profit.

This rests upon LTV assumptions, which are faulty in this regard.

But even were it correct, it can neither signify the end of exploitation, nor that the bourgeoisie will not push further ahead with total automation, since such prediction would presuppose that the bourgeoisie consider capitalism to be their ideal system.
Capitalism might come to an end as a result, however in reality no bourgeois likes capitalism, they merely tolerate it because at the moment the alternative is either too risky or outright suicidal.
With full automation this state of affairs is completely overturned.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

This rests upon LTV assumptions, which are faulty in this regard.

Eh? I'm not sold.
On an apparent vulgar level, sure, obviously industries with high relative organic composition (e.g. nuclear power) have high rates of profit despite automation and digitization, but they're still premised on sectors of lower organic composition.
Like, to be fair, you haven't spelled out your critique, but if you're getting at what I think you are, it doesn't really effectively address capitalism as a totality.


But even were it correct, it can neither signify the end of exploitation, nor that the bourgeoisie will not push further ahead with total automation, since such prediction would presuppose that the bourgeoisie consider capitalism to be their ideal system.
Capitalism might come to an end as a result, however in reality no bourgeois likes capitalism, they merely tolerate it because at the moment the alternative is either too risky or outright suicidal.
With full automation this state of affairs is completely overturned.

"Total automation" remains a pipedream for several reasons:

1) It might be increasingly approached in particular sectors, but their profitability is still premised on the relationship between capital and labour as a whole, ie, on sectors with low organic composition.

2) Certain sectors remain more-or-less "immune" to automation, not only in terms of profitability, but in essence. Reproductive and affective labour remain (and likely will remain) premised on "humanity" - the likelyhood of real Stepford Wives (let alone their mass proliferation) is basically nil.

3) Thermodynamics, yo.

[aristos]

OK, I'll spell it out.

Regarding LTV, I think it is faulty to assume that all value originates from human labour. For one, scarcity itself already infuses things with value. But an object (that might be projected to have any use value in the first place) completely designed and manufactured from the bottom up by machines (both robots and AI) has just as much value to any consumer, that will buy it, and thus, will automatically fetch a price.
Now one might reason, that those machines had to be built and programmed in the first place and, as such, all the value generated should go to the humans from whom this manufacturing process originated (engineers and workers), but this is a slippery slope. One could just as well argue that we are all indebted to the first person who figured out how to make fire and spread the knowledge, or the one who invented the wheel and so on, and so forth, but realistically no one takes any of this into consideration when estimating the price to be charged for a modern lighter or a tyre.

However, for the sake of arguement, were I even to concede that value is created solely through human labour, my point is that capitalists continue operating within the system of capitalism solely due to lack of means to establish individual supremacy. This, however, will by no means remain a permanent state of things, and it's likely we will live to see the change occur in our lifetimes.

All accumulation of capital strives towards establishing a monopoly.

This is perfectly natural both on a systemic level (the game rules demand it) and also at the purely psychological level - the bourgeoisie overthrew monarchs in order to eventually become the monarchs themselves.
With wealth becoming more and more concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people, these finally attain the means to become completely self-sufficient (a prerequisite for any true supremacy) - if you own all the necessary mines,
all the necessary factories, all the necessary patents and can buy all the necessary scientists/engineers and workers, you can manufacture everything you need without ever having to rely on the mercy and cooperation of others.

Thus you attain your own empire.
And since there is "only place enough for one of us on this planet", the empire seeks to devour any other empires that happen to coexist.

Within this long term road-map for the future one can clearly see that the only potentially rebellious and thus unreliable factor are the humans, who do the empire's work. It is easiest at first to replace all necessary manual labour with machines, but as time goes on, the enforcers are replaced similarly and then the intellectuals.
At last remains only one person (or clan/family) on top. If singularity is possible, eventually the whole Terran civilization becomes incorporated in one super-being (this is technically an individual but far removed from our human experience of individuality).

This process is in itself inevitable.

But there are barriers.
Climate change and the naturals disasters it brings or a meteor strike, or global war can destroy human civilization and thus technology and perhaps even most knowledge with it, to the extent that such design become unfeasible from a technical standpoint.
Or the scramble for global domination may end in a stalemate under certain circumstances.

But there is another factor that will possibly (if humanity survives long enough) bring about "total automation" regardless of what individual humans might want. This factor can be described as runaway technology. Instead of elaborating here further and adding to the already long text I will just link to THIS (http://agi-conf.org/2008/artilectwar.pdf).
Some of the analyses/predictions in that paper are certainly idealist but the overall gist I deem to be highly plausible.

[Rafiq]

You challenge the LTV with points which have long been addressed by Marxists. You then attempt to infuse your science fiction fantasies with systemic realities. What cack you speak.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

OK, I'll spell it out.

Regarding LTV, I think it is faulty to assume that all value originates from human labour. For one, scarcity itself already infuses things with value.

Uh, no. Just, no. My asshole is one of a kind, ain't nobody offering fat stacks to lick it. Scarcity doesn't "infuse" value by any means - it does effect price, since scarcity effects labour (and effects labour relative to the totality of capitalist relations), but it doesn't make something valuable in and of itself.


But an object (that might be projected to have any use value in the first place) completely designed and manufactured from the bottom up by machines (both robots and AI) has just as much value to any consumer, that will buy it, and thus, will automatically fetch a price.

OK, the problem with this is that you're positing something that doesn't (and never will) exist. Even if, say, screw production is in-and-of-itself entirely automated, there's still the labour of producing the machines themselves, producing the raw materials of the screws, transporting the raw materials and finished products (including producing the means to do so: roads, gasoline, etc.), and so on. Even if a perpetual motion machine were created that, in its operation, produced screws and produced machines that made screws, without any human input, its products would still only have exchange value in relation to the whole of capital (and therefore, still remain, in the final analysis, remain dependent on the relation between capital and labour, and the production of surplus value).


Uh . . . as for the deeply problematic attempts at psychology and futurology, I can't say I really have much interest in engaging. It seems to rest on a really ideological set of assumptions about capitalism - that it essentially works according to its "inner nature" unbeholden to any particular historical reality. Like, I don't know how you can look at actually existing capitalism and be like, "Yeah, man, the cappie's are all just waiting for their chance to slaughter the rest of their class and declare themselves GOD EMPEROR OF DUNE". Like, no.

[aristos]

So what you think cappies are playing the game because they find it cool? Or that they sincerely believe in the ethics of a fair and just market?
Cappies are cappies because they want to first and foremost survive, but after that dominate, since domination is the only way in a system of competition to ensure lasting survival (both for oneself and progeny).
The stability of capitalism rests solely on the inability of each of the players (or more specifically the major players) to off all the others, pure and simple. Once the means are there, you can bet that the game will become increasingly dangerous not only for those at the bottom (life was always dangerous for them, but this time they will be facing extermination due to being superfluous) but also for those at the top.
The need to derive value from profits as opposed to use-value from production is only there as long as the capitalist is beholden to the system, as long as the capitalist is held hostage by the equally powerful ability to challenge him/her by others. As soon as the affluence of first a corporation and then the owners of that corporation reaches such heights that only few equals remain and the corporation has diversified enough, you can bet that striving for sole profit will be peanuts compared to the real ability to completely annihilate the competition. Don't fall prey to reductionist mechanical view of society, cappies just like anyone else are not a ant caste with rigid behavioral patterns, as they grow in affluence they certainly feel less and less inclined to play a preordained role.

Beyond that, the runaway technology, addressed in the text I linked to, presents a very real scenario. While the described motivations of the hypothesized "Terran faction" are obviously naive (nobody would wage a war based on conviction that humans should remain humans), the proposed mechanism for all-encompassing and all-dominating AI is sound. Just as the nuclear race of the 20th century was a reality and stopped solely due to the disintegration of the USSR and the end of irreconcilable hostilities between the two blocks, the acquisition of a true hard AI by any nation or international conglomerate will, beyond any shadow of doubt, set off a race, where the others desperately strive either not to get left behind or, if possible, to dominate any further advances in this direction.

[aristos]

OK, the problem with this is that you're positing something that doesn't (and never will) exist. Even if, say, screw production is in-and-of-itself entirely automated, there's still the labour of producing the machines themselves, producing the raw materials of the screws, transporting the raw materials and finished products (including producing the means to do so: roads, gasoline, etc.), and so on. Even if a perpetual motion machine were created that, in its operation, produced screws and produced machines that made screws, without any human input, its products would still a) only have exchange value in relation to the whole of capital (and therefore, still remain, in the final analysis, remain dependent on the relation between capital and labour, and the production of surplus value).


I addressed this previously. How far back then do you want to go? Does the price of a modern cigarette lighter entail the labour of the first human being to figure out how to make fire?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I don't think upon thinking about it the OP is that far off. Protocol-robotics and 'unmanned' weaponry have existed in history and exist today currently (eg; drones). Someone mentioned these 'users.' Under present material conditions, who would be this user? Obviously the bourgeois. Robotic warfare I think is something we will have to address as the field progresses. I mean, hypothetically a 'Terminator' or 'Fallout' scenerio with killer humanoid soldiers gone haywire isnt entirely out of the question. The same could be said in regards to nuclear warfare. Coupled with this are concerns of automation and so on. Pretty interesting if you think about it. I wish I wasn't do tired and drained or I'd go more in detail.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So what you think cappies are playing the game because they find it cool? Or that they sincerely believe in the ethics of a fair and just market? Cappies are cappies because they want to first and foremost survive, but after that dominate, since domination is the only way in a system of competition to ensure lasting survival (both for oneself and progeny).
The stability of capitalism rests solely on the inability of each of the players (or more specifically the major players) to off all the others, pure and simple. Once the means are there, you can bet that the game will become increasingly dangerous not only for those at the bottom (life was always dangerous for them, but this time they will be facing extermination due to being superfluous) but also for those at the top.
Look, it's not even that I think you're necessarily wrong, so much as asking the wrong questions. Capitalists could well be committed communists who do what they do because they read Bernstein in high school and think socialism will unfold evolutionarily due to the playing out of its contradictions. However, individualist psychology is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant for understanding emergent intersubjective social relations.Cappies aren't cappies, as you put it, for any reason that can be understood in the terms you've chosen (not only because this wacky pseudo-Darwinian shit is straight-up wrong) - they're "cappies" because capitalism. Consider a hurricane: if you look at the hurricane itself, it may appear self-propelled - but in reality in can only be understood by looking at the system (the climate and "weather" generally) with which it is mutually constitutive.


The need to derive value from profits as opposed to use-value from production is only there as long as the capitalist is beholden to the system, as long as the capitalist is held hostage by the equally powerful ability to challenge him/her by others. As soon as the affluence of first a corporation and then the owners of that corporation reaches such heights that only few equals remain and the corporation has diversified enough, you can bet that striving for sole profit will be peanuts compared to the real ability to completely annihilate the competition. Don't fall prey to reductionist mechanical view of society, cappies just like anyone else are not a ant caste with rigid behavioral patterns, as they grow in affluence they certainly feel less and less inclined to play a preordained role.
The problem is, capitalists' inclinations don't make capitalism. You've got the tail wagging the dog. And speaking of a mechanical view of society, you seem to be positing a world in which real limits don't exist, and capital doesn't encounter barriers to total monopolization (both technical and in terms of the dynamics of class struggle). Capitalism isn't a game of Monopoly where, in the end, there's a "winner".

Beyond that, the runaway technology, addressed in the text I linked to, presents a very real scenario.
I wish you good luck living on vitamins until the upload begins. :rolleyes:
In all seriousness though, what do you think the odds are such technology actually being applied on a global scale (ie the scale of capitalism)? Given that, in a world of nuclear power, people in the first world are still fed and clothed by the low-organic-composition labour of the third-world proletariat, I'm going to say, "Fat chance".

[Firebrand]

I'm pretty sure Marx said something about the inevitable increase of automation

I'd just like to point out self service checkouts are a massive false economy. You cut back on the amount you spent in wages and immediately lose loads more to shoplifters. (hmmm maybe there should be some kind of concerted movement to target shops that use those things.)