Three basic factors which the Marxist theory is not taking account

[nomoba]

There are at least three basic factors today which Karl Marx wouldn't be possible to predict, to be included in the Marxist theory.


1st: The rapid transfer of huge amounts of capital across the world.


2nd: The explosive increase of human population which leads to oversupply of human labor and consumers.


3rd: The hyper-automation of production.


http://failedevolution.blogspot.gr/2015/10/three-basic-factors-which-marxist.html

[Guardia Rossa]

4th: Neo-liberalism, with all it's strategical, tactical, cultural and economic implications.

[DOOM]

huh?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour

[willowtooth]

5th robots

[Guardia Rossa]

5th robots

Lets ally with the robots at first, as soon as the bourgeoisie is eliminated we can fight ourselves (Robotocracy vs Proletocracy)

On a serious note, I don't understand why everyone automatically antropomorphize robots, as if they were humans and their (nonexistent until now) artificial intelligence made them humans.

I don't think they will follow our main rule, the one of reproduction (And therefore evolution)

They are a weapon and function like all machines: replace human labour. Nothing more than that. We could say that computers and internet make a bigger difference than robots.

[willowtooth]

Lets ally with the robots at first, as soon as the bourgeoisie is eliminated we can fight ourselves (Robotocracy vs Proletocracy)

On a serious note, I don't understand why everyone automatically antropomorphize robots, as if they were humans and their (nonexistent until now) artificial intelligence made them humans.

I don't think they will follow our main rule, the one of reproduction (And therefore evolution)

They are a weapon and function like all machines: replace human labour. Nothing more than that. We could say that computers and internet make a bigger difference than robots.

what happens when the robots are smarter than us?

[#FF0000]

4th: Neo-liberalism, with all it's strategical, tactical, cultural and economic implications.

er, neoliberalism is hardly anything new though.

And for the OP, Marx does talk about this sort of thing. Explicitly.

[Rafiq]

There are at least three basic factors today which Karl Marx wouldn't be possible to predict, to be included in the Marxist theory.


The problem, however, is that this rests upon the assumption that Marx made a pretense to being able to "predict" these things. Marx couldn't have predicted the fall of the Berlin wall in 1985, because the developments mentioned - so to speak - were not inevitable ones. Marx was no fortune teller.

Understanding these developments scientifically, however, can only be done so through the particular method Marx employed.

As far as Marx's understanding of general tendencies of capitalism, both the "rapid transfer of capital" globally and increased automation were directly understood. The only tricky part, perhaps, is the so-called "over-supply" of human labor, but even this rests upon flimsy foundations. Was it within Marx's capacity to predict the precariat in the late 19th century? No, because the precariat, as a class, emerged within a context that couldn't have possibly predicted. Marx could have postulated 1000 different outcomes for what the late 20th century could have looked like, and every outcome would have been just as possible. That our society has reached a certain political, social limit (for to even speak of a technical one is wrong) to include such giant swaths of people into its sphere of activity in a way that was similar to what constituted the "sphere of activity" one hundred years ago sais nothing about some kind of explosive growth in population being a burden upon present day capitalism.

We must remember that this giant boom in the world's population directly coincided with globalization and the introduction of capitalist relations globally. Perhaps we might understand the precariat as a new and distinct class, but how do we go about this? Returning to old Malthusian myths ("Okay guys, let's just face the cold hard truth here, we need a huge genocide to wipe out 4 billion people, tis' nature's will") or recognizing the precariat's existence as coinciding with both the absence of a worker's movement globally, as well as a conflict between the relations to production and the productive/technical capacity of society.

As far as the 19th century goes, there was nothing inevitable about Neoliberalism. There could have been a world revolution several times over, and these failures are owed to failures of political leadership and will. And just as much, the Soviet Union could have never existed, the Comintern could have never existed, there could have been no schism of the 2nd International and all the Marxists who constituted a part of it could have fallen to corruption. All of these developments (or lack there-of) were owed to socially-conscious will.

[Rafiq]

5th robots

Perhaps you mistaken Marx for a science fiction writer?

[Guardia Rossa]

what happens when the robots are smarter than us?

Then they are smarter then us.

I will repeat myself: There is no why to think that robots will function as we do, think as we think, act as we act. They are ROBOTS and not some "metal man". This "metal man" figure is an antropomorphization created by science fiction and media.

[ckaihatsu]

Very good recent discussion on the topic of so-called 'AI', at the 'Ex Machina' thread.... Here's my position:





I'm saying that *no* algorithm / machine would be able to hold up to a line of questioning regarding its own purported 'personal social history', so *any* use of the Turing test to supposedly demonstrate 'artificial intelligence' is just a social exercise in triviality and self-deception, or 'pretending'.




I guess my *own* standard would be what I stated previously, that the algorithm would have to be able to successfully bullshit someone about its own purported history, but then there'd be the ethical issue of if that should be a goal of science to begin with.


Ex Machina

http://www.revleft.com/vb/ex-machina-t193073/index.html?t=193073

[Antiochus]

Perhaps you mistaken Marx for a science fiction writer?

No, why would you think that.
http://www.ew.com/sites/default/files/styles/tout_image_612x380/public/i/2013/06/02/George_RRMartin_612x380_0.jpg?itok=5IzLTFzr

Predicting the future is more or less, absolutely fucking pointless. You can make careful estimations and guesses, but they can't possibly include all the required variables.

The only ones obsessed with "prediction" (as opposed to the action that leads to it) are religious fanatics, who every 20 years proclaim that Jesus will return or the Da-jjal is among us. They have this luxury off course because they are willing to rationalize that Byzantines=Americans; Russia=Gog/Magog or some other imbecility like that.

[Luís Henrique]

1st: The rapid transfer of huge amounts of capital across the world.

This should be expressed in a more precise way; it is not that Marx wasn't aware of the international mobility of capital, but that the exact form of these transfers have changed, from basically dependent on international trade of commodities, to international direct investment in production (and, of course, speculation).


2nd: The explosive increase of human population which leads to oversupply of human labor and consumers.

Not really:

Progressive Production of a Relative surplus population or Industrial Reserve Army (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch25.htm#S3)


3rd: The hyper-automation of production.

Again, not really:


As long as the means of labour remains a means of labour in the proper sense of the term, such as it is directly, historically, adopted by capital and included in its realization process, it undergoes a merely formal modification, by appearing now as a means of labour not only in regard to its material side, but also at the same time as a particular mode of the presence of capital, determined by its total process – as fixed capital. But, once adopted into the production process of capital, the means of labour passes through different metamorphoses, whose culmination is the machine, or rather, an automatic system of machinery (system of machinery: the automatic one is merely its most complete, most adequate form, and alone transforms machinery into a system), set in motion by an automaton, a moving power that moves itself; this automaton consisting of numerous mechanical and intellectual organs, so that the workers themselves are cast merely as its conscious linkages. (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch13.htm)


4th: Neo-liberalism, with all it's strategical, tactical, cultural and economic implications.

In Marx's times, the predominant ideology was one of economic liberalism à outrance; Marx would probably be surprised by the relatively long detour the bourgeoisie took through Keynesianism, socialdemocracy, etc., but hardly by its falling back into the principles that guided its actions in the second half of the 19th Century.


5th robots

That is the same as 3rd. above.


what happens when the robots are smarter than us?

They will demand wages, then better wages, then ownership of the means of production. And quicklier than us, because they are smarter.

If they become human, then the capitalists lose; their possible gain is based in robots doing what we do (labour) without doing what we do (revolting against our fate).

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Now if there is something that is really missing in Marx, it is the almost complete replacement of metallic money by fiat money (and, more recently, by "plastic money"). Though I am sure other Marxists have dealt with the issue, and I don't think Marx's theory can't deal with it properly.

Luís Henrique

[Halert]

6th: Human nature. don't kill me please

[Guardia Rossa]

*Eternal Facepalm*

[Guardia Rossa]

Actually, I think he didn't predicted fascism and right-wing populism. If it didn't existed, we would live in full communism (With space travels to Alpha Centauri?) by now.

[olahsenor]

1. spies

2. saboteurs

3. corruption

They either do damage to socialism or to its repute.

[ckaihatsu]

Now if there is something that is really missing in Marx, it is the almost complete replacement of metallic money by fiat money (and, more recently, by "plastic money"). Though I am sure other Marxists have dealt with the issue, and I don't think Marx's theory can't deal with it properly.


The term for this is 'credit', also known in Marx's time:





Credit money

The development of the modern credit system gave rise to a new form of money: credit money. Credit money is an IOU that can be transferred from one person to another to either purchase commodities or make payments. These IOUs are generally issued by the banks, and increasingly replace in circulation coins made of money metals such as gold, and later legal-tender token money issued by the state monetary authority.

Credit money combines credit relations with money relations. Credit money can replace gold and legal-tender token money as a means of purchases or payments. However, the basic function of money, the universal equivalent that measures the exchange values of all commodities in terms of its use value, can only be played by a special money commodity—such as gold. In the basic monetary function, gold cannot be replaced by either token money or credit money.

Credit money is always payable in another form of money, either in full-weight gold coins, bullion or nowadays in legal-tender “fiat money”—token money—issued by the state’s “monetary authority.”

In the days of Marx, credit was sometimes called “circulating credit.” It has generally taken two forms. (5) During the 18th and early 19th century, banknotes were widely used as credit money. Even before the 18th century, bankers sometimes issued a note to a depositor confirming that a certain sum of money in either coin or bullion had been deposited at the bank. (6) You could if you wished then use such notes to make purchases or pay off your debts in place of actual gold or silver.

The next, and far more important, step was when banks began to make loans or discounted commercial paper not in gold or silver coins but in their banknotes instead. This enabled the banks to create a supply of credit money in the form of banknotes above and beyond the actual amount of money that they had on hand in their vaults. This practice is called fractional reserve banking.

The bankers learned from experience that all owners of banknotes would not normally demand redemption of their banknotes at the same time. However, when a bank’s credit was shaken for one reason or another, a “run” would develop on the bank. The owners of the bank’s notes would attempt to convert the bank’s notes into “specie”—gold or silver coin. The bank would fail and the banknotes would then become worthless.

Originally, such banknotes were issued by private commercial banks. Gradually, the central banks—in the early days sometimes called national banks—achieved a monopoly on the issue of banknotes. (7) Since the government kept its own bank account at the national bank, these banks became increasingly intertwined with the state power. They were thus gradually transformed from corporate, for-profit banks into their modern incarnation as governmental monetary authorities. (8)

During this transition, the national cum central banks, instead of concentrating on making the maximum profit for their shareholders, aimed at stabilizing the currency and, insomuch as it is possible under capitalism, the economy. When the central banks acquired a monopoly on the issuing of banknotes, they became the sole “banks of issue.”

This made it very easy for the government to convert the credit money of the central banks into token money by simply ending the obligation of the central bank to convert their notes into gold on demand. This happened in England for the first time as early as the Bank Restriction Act of 1797, which converted the banknotes of the Bank of England into legal-tender token money.

After the world war that followed the French Revolution ended, the convertibility of the notes was restored. This renewed convertibility into gold of the Bank of England’s banknotes lasted for almost a century but was suspended again when the next world war broke out in 1914.

The evolution of banknotes into modern paper money leads to the illusion that token money evolved from credit money and represents an ultra-modern form of money. But the opposite is the case. As Marx demonstrated in the first three chapters of volume I of “Capital,” token money first arose out of coins that, though they were made of metals that functioned as money commodities, became worn down below their legal weight in circulation.

Credit money, in contrast, pre-supposes the rise of the modern capitalist credit system. The “banknotes” issued by today’s central banks are simply a form of token money. They will again become credit money only if and when their convertibility into gold is restored. (9)




https://critiqueofcrisistheory.wordpress.com/money-as-a-means-of-payment/

[ckaihatsu]

1. spies

2. saboteurs

3. corruption

They either do damage to socialism or to its repute.


Uhhhhhh, *yeah* -- socialism isn't some corridors-of-power cloak-and-dagger game of intrigue.

[Comrade #138672]

Lets ally with the robots at first, as soon as the bourgeoisie is eliminated we can fight ourselves (Robotocracy vs Proletocracy)

On a serious note, I don't understand why everyone automatically antropomorphize robots, as if they were humans and their (nonexistent until now) artificial intelligence made them humans.

I don't think they will follow our main rule, the one of reproduction (And therefore evolution)

They are a weapon and function like all machines: replace human labour. Nothing more than that. We could say that computers and internet make a bigger difference than robots.I don't think robots will be like humans either, but it is perfectly possible to evolve robots, using genetic algorithms, evolutionary computation and similar techniques. Self-reproducing robots is also a real possibility. Evolution is not necessarily limited to biological organisms.

[Guardia Rossa]

Uhhhhhh, *yeah* -- socialism isn't some corridors-of-power cloak-and-dagger game of intrigue.

"A Song of Steel and Genocides - A Game of Kremlin"
By Courtois, Stéphane

Wut?

[Comrade #138672]

I'm saying that *no* algorithm / machine would be able to hold up to a line of questioning regarding its own purported 'personal social history', so *any* use of the Turing test to supposedly demonstrate 'artificial intelligence' is just a social exercise in triviality and self-deception, or 'pretending'.Interesting take on the matter. Indeed, how could a robot have a personal social history of its own?

A possibility would be that the robot is allowed to talk with people and develop its social history during its own development, much like a child. Another possibility would be to simulate the social history of the robot in some kind of virtual world.

[Guardia Rossa]

I don't think robots will be like humans either, but it is perfectly possible to evolve robots, using genetic algorithms, evolutionary computation and similar techniques. Self-reproducing robots is also a real possibility. Evolution is not necessarily limited to biological organisms.

It is perfectly possible! Until then, STOP ANTROPHOMORPHIZING EVERYTHING.

EDIT: Why do I even care? Remember, kids, objects fall because they get tired!

[Comrade #138672]

It is perfectly possible! Until then, STOP ANTROPHOMORPHIZING EVERYTHING.

EDIT: Why do I even care? Remember, kids, objects fall because they get tired!I agree with you. I just like to talk about evolving robots. :(

[ckaihatsu]

I don't think robots will be like humans either, but it is perfectly possible to evolve robots, using genetic algorithms, evolutionary computation and similar techniques. Self-reproducing robots is also a real possibility. Evolution is not necessarily limited to biological organisms.




Self-reproducing robots


No glove, no love. (grin)

Here's where robotic self-replication *really* is at: reprap.org/wiki/About#Machine_Self-Replication

The question always at-stake with this 'AI' thing is about letting go of the tether, which is always going to be more of a social-philosophical issue than a technical one -- it's okay if *kids* have fun with a pretend-based 'robotic pet', like a Tamagotchi or whatever, but are *adults* really going to socially *introduce* a synthetic consciousness -- hypothetically -- around their personal social circles and get them into buying real estate -- ?

[ckaihatsu]

"A Song of Steel and Genocides - A Game of Kremlin"
By Courtois, Stéphane

Wut?


What? -- Using incidental world history to define socialism until the end of time -- what??

[ckaihatsu]

Interesting take on the matter. Indeed, how could a robot have a personal social history of its own?

A possibility would be that the robot is allowed to talk with people and develop its social history during its own development, much like a child. Another possibility would be to simulate the social history of the robot in some kind of virtual world.


Yeah, sure, and I *myself* would like the name of the person who pushes the button for all of that.

Again, my own 'litmus test' would be if that hypothetical synthetic consciousness is allowed to own property, or not -- let's not fuck around, shall we -- ?

[Comrade #138672]

Here's where robotic self-replication *really* is at: reprap.org/wiki/About#Machine_Self-ReplicationYes, RepRap is a really nice project, but it is just one project. There are more, although probably less mainstream.


The question always at-stake with this 'AI' thing is about letting go of the tether, which is always going to be more of a social-philosophical issue than a technical one -- it's okay if *kids* have fun with a pretend-based 'robotic pet', like a Tamagotchi or whatever, but are *adults* really going to socially *introduce* a synthetic consciousness -- hypothetically -- around their personal social circles and get them into buying real estate -- ?Well, in the near future, we probably do not have to worry about AI becoming "self-aware" (probably more about the U.S. using more advanced drones to bomb more people). We are still struggling to overcome a lot of obstacles, most of them of a technical nature. You see, even when we have "good" mathematical models, the more complex models usually are so computationally expensive, that they are practically unfeasible. We still "waste" a lot of time and effort on optimization for very specific purposes.

[Comrade #138672]

Yeah, sure, and I *myself* would like the name of the person who pushes the button for all of that.

Again, my own 'litmus test' would be if that hypothetical synthetic consciousness is allowed to own property, or not -- let's not fuck around, shall we -- ?Fair enough.

[ckaihatsu]

Yes, RepRap is a really nice project, but it is just one project. There are more, although probably less mainstream.




Well, in the near future, we probably do not have to worry about AI becoming "self-aware"


'Worry' -- ??

My overriding issue with anyone who subscribes to the 'runaway-AI' scenario is to ask 'Who's about to go nuclear?' -- any kind of artificial 'self-awareness' cannot happen unless someone *designs* it that way, and society should be keeping tabs on anyone and everyone in the field who may be tempted to 'go renegade' in that direction, the same as nukes or whatever.


---


From another thread:





('Artificial intelligence' may also mean just more sophisticated tasks performed by regular, conventional linear computation, as for speech recognition, etc.)


---





(probably more about the U.S. using more advanced drones to bomb people). We are still struggling to overcome a lot of obstacles, most of them of a technical nature. You see, even when we have "good" mathematical models, the more complex models usually are so computationally expensive, that they are practically unfeasible. We still "waste" a lot of time and effort on optimization for very specific purposes.


No prob here -- at most this would be expert-system 'neural networks', and nowhere near the direction of bringing about any kind of artificial self-awareness.

[Comrade #138672]

I am not sure if I agree with your definition of AI. Sure, a lot of times AI is "just more sophisticated tasks performed by regular, conventional linear computation", but the general idea is much broader than that. I admit that it can be hard to give a clear definition for AI, but I am convinced that it is more than that.

[olahsenor]

Uhhhhhh, *yeah* -- socialism isn't some corridors-of-power cloak-and-dagger game of intrigue.

http://bamfstyle.com/tag/reilly-ace-of-spies/

This man did terrible damage to the Bolsheviks. However Soviet intelligence was able to lure him back, false flagged him and had him identified. Tortured in Lubyanka. Imagine we have hundreds of these in the future's Bernie Sander's Communist Party of USA. I myself have talent identifying these kinds of persons in the Communist Party of Canada. Gruesome ill-wishers, the disgruntled types who gloated in the fall of the Soviet Union and attempted to wreck the Party. (See history of CPC)

[ckaihatsu]

I am not sure if I agree with your definition of AI. Sure, a lot of times AI is "just more sophisticated tasks performed by regular, conventional linear computation", but the general idea is much broader than that. I admit that it can be hard to give a clear definition for AI, but I am convinced that it is more than that.


Okay, lemme know when you're ready.

[olahsenor]

Uhhhhhh, *yeah* -- socialism isn't some corridors-of-power cloak-and-dagger game of intrigue.

My friend, this is a classic case of a terrorist mole or sellout mole in DGSE, France's foreign intelligence spy agency, who deliberately desisted to act on helpful intelligence given to him. The mole is the cause of the success of the terrorists. There are plenty of spies or moles even in communist spy agencies.


http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/parisattacks/turkey-we-warned-france-twice-about-paris-attacker/ar-BBn5407?li=AAadgLE&ocid=sk2mdhp

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

Then they are smarter then us.

I will repeat myself: There is no why to think that robots will function as we do, think as we think, act as we act. They are ROBOTS and not some "metal man". This "metal man" figure is an antropomorphization created by science fiction and media.


Are you underestimating science in 2015?

It will happen, at least very similar to Humans, I just can't predict when.

[ckaihatsu]

Are you underestimating science in 2015?

It will happen, at least very similar to Humans, I just can't predict when.





[M]y overriding issue with anyone who subscribes to the 'runaway-AI' scenario is to ask 'Who's about to go nuclear?' -- any kind of artificial 'self-awareness' cannot happen unless someone *designs* it that way, and society should be keeping tabs on anyone and everyone in the field who may be tempted to 'go renegade' in that direction, the same as nukes or whatever.


One big assumption from the 'runaway-AI' camp is that if a synthetic consciousness *is* covertly produced, it would automatically be omnipotently nimble and would 'escape', forever evading any and all social efforts to neutralize its functioning. (More Hollywood plotlines internalized as being realistic.)

[Hit The North]

Actually, I think he didn't predicted fascism and right-wing populism. If it didn't existed, we would live in full communism (With space travels to Alpha Centauri?) by now.

His treatment of Bonarpartism as an ideology in The 18th Brumaire basically describes the 19th Century variant and forms the basis for later Marxist analyses of fascism, populism and bureaucracy.

Damn, the old man was good!

...