Any tech workers here?

[Jimmie Higgins]

opinions on the prospects of unionization of these workers?

[willowtooth]

It would be worse than doctors, tech workers have already alot of control over their workplace because they're skills are reliant on modern technology. Doctors atleast have that caring, charitable inherent quality in their work, there is no "Tech workers without borders" but plenty of them make way more than a doctors salary. What would happen with a universal tech strike? absent utility workers and electricians, would the internet even shutdown, does the internet really need "tech workers" to constantly be in operation? Would it be like if mechanics went on strike for one day? nobody would notice until their car breaks down, and then if its only one day, they'll just take a bus or cab?

Are we including manufacturing in "techworkers" would some project deadline or product release date be postponed due to the lack of a few microchips? That might be worth a pay raise to avoid that struggle.

Then we get into issues of capital flight and outsourcing, how many of these so called tech jobs can't be moved at the drop of a hat?

[BIXX]

Why not instead of unionizing them, encourage self directed anti-capitalist action amongst them.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

Why not instead of unionizing them, encourage self directed anti-capitalist action amongst them.

This is too vague.

[BIXX]

Do you need me to clarify the definitions of the words I used for you? It's pretty fucking simple really.

There are tech workers. We, in this thread, have noticed several challenges to unionizing them (not saying it can't be done, just that there may be a lot of difficulty at play). So, instead of that, encourage anti-capitalist action amongst tech workers (whether affecting their workplace or the more generalized anti-capitalist insurrection), which they direct themselves. That's really simple.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

Is it really simple?

"encourage self directed anti-capitalist action amongst them"

You can say that to anyone in any work, but what does it really mean in practice, particularly in the tech industry? This is why I said it's too vague, because it is.

[Ele'ill]

It would be worse than doctors, tech workers have already alot of control over their workplace because they're skills are reliant on modern technology.

I don't think tech workers have a lot of control of their workplace. It's often long monotonous work days in which they're working on a facet of a larger project(s) and goals depending on the company and what they're doing.




Doctors atleast have that caring, charitable inherent quality in their work, there is no "Tech workers without borders" but plenty of them make way more than a doctors salary.

I don't have a list of projects on hand to reference but tech workers engage in similar projects as the medical practice people you mentioned do fwiw. 'Community' radio, solar, electrician work, powerline/grid engineering, neighborhood or city-wide network engineering, satellite communication, cryptography, anonymity, open source development, and the dark arts.



What would happen with a universal tech strike? absent utility workers and electricians, would the internet even shutdown, does the internet really need "tech workers" to constantly be in operation? Would it be like if mechanics went on strike for one day? nobody would notice until their car breaks down, and then if its only one day, they'll just take a bus or cab?

Are we including manufacturing in "techworkers" would some project deadline or product release date be postponed due to the lack of a few microchips? That might be worth a pay raise to avoid that struggle.

Then we get into issues of capital flight and outsourcing, how many of these so called tech jobs can't be moved at the drop of a hat?

All kinds of stuff happens in the absence of a magic bullet.

[pastradamus]

It would be worse than doctors, tech workers have already alot of control over their workplace because they're skills are reliant on modern technology. Doctors atleast have that caring, charitable inherent quality in their work, there is no "Tech workers without borders" but plenty of them make way more than a doctors salary. [\QUOTE]

HA! Wouldn't I just love if I had a Doctors Salary. I'm a systems administrator. I receive slightly more than the average wage because I'm self-employed. I have to pay employee & employers tax which brings my pay packet down an awful lot.

[QUOTE]What would happen with a universal tech strike? absent utility workers and electricians, would the internet even shutdown, does the internet really need "tech workers" to constantly be in operation? Would it be like if mechanics went on strike for one day? nobody would notice until their car breaks down, and then if its only one day, they'll just take a bus or cab?

Yes it does. Do you know how the internet works? Whole companies would shut down. Everything from Mom & Pop to massive multinationals. Not saying this is a bad thing, we can fix it - but we are essential to most companies.


Are we including manufacturing in "techworkers" would some project deadline or product release date be postponed due to the lack of a few microchips? That might be worth a pay raise to avoid that struggle.

Agreed. Those comrades are totally abused and absolutely not paid enough.


Then we get into issues of capital flight and outsourcing, how many of these so called tech jobs can't be moved at the drop of a hat?
Some, many. India is the tech workers biggest nightmare right now. They have poorly-trained people with baseline english that are actively taking tech jobs in the UK & Ireland. Its a horrible position for them -One second its IBM the next Microsoft (between the calls they get). It show's capitalism for what it really is - Cheaper is an excuse for exploitation. My job however, cannot be done remotely (thank jebus!).

Overall you seem to have a very narrow-minded view of the tech industry as a whole. We aren't all Bill Gates types with comfy jobs. I work my ass off, and frankly that opinion you have is downright insulting of the working class. I made my bones as a bouncer, a Butcher, a call-center worker and a security guard.....Is it wrong of me to educate myself and get a better job?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I work for a tech company, but as a service worker. In the Bay Area there is a big split between low-wage workers and tech workers. This was simmering for a while but really came into the open with a subway strike a few years back. Commuters to well paying tech jobs were incensed at "greedy" union workers and there were constant calls for automating the system (the city did during the strike and ended up killing a few people who were doing track maintenance). So that along with white tech workers acting snobby and entitled in the gentrifying blue collar neighborhoods has made them the stand-in for hatred at neoliberalism here.

In my experience the elitism is far from universal and inevitable, but also very real and people are vocal about it. But I think there is huge political polarization among these workers... probably due to a recognition that the labor market for them is beginning to turn against their temporary position as a sought-after labor pool. It's an interesting thing that many workers are building code that makes their jobs redundant.

Relatively good wages, the illusion of fun "perks" on the job and the propaganda they've probably been fed about being "magic-workers" and innovators no doubt fed into any elitism among this group of workers, but I think it is reaching it's limit and so the less elitist are looking more towards social-democracy like reforms while others are going more fascist and blaming women entering tech or foreign tech workers or poor non-tech workers in general.

But both sides mainly have a petty bourgeois view of their position in society so unity would be even more of an uphill battle than in most workplaces. Also there is a lot of contract positions which are more middle class in the way they relate to others.

I also think that in the US, the perception that labor struggles are always about wages and not about control makes unions (or workplace organization generally - to sidestep the "union" question which wasn't really the point of my question) seen alien to workers in that industry - even ones who support strikes by other workers. But I think if a struggle over speed-ups, expectations of unpaid work or 14-hour days were the issue, many people would start to reconsider.

[ckaihatsu]

Any tech workers here?


*Correct* answer: 'How much do you have to spend?' (grin)


---





Is it really simple?

"encourage self directed anti-capitalist action amongst them"

You can say that to anyone in any work, but what does it really mean in practice, particularly in the tech industry? This is why I said it's too vague, because it is.


No, it makes sense to me -- the call is for the *politicization* of tech workers, into whatever anti-capitalist (organizing) actions can be done for any given situation / environment. In other words, since the jobs are inherently portable, there's no *economic* reward to be realistically realized from conventional union-type organizing -- so the best approach, then, would be to abandon the 'economic' altogether, in favor of *politicization*, for the sake of left-wing political participation / activity.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Maybe tech industry centers like the Bay Area are different, but I don't see how there couldn't be some kind of worker-organizing. There are difficulties unique to them (as there are for various industries. But tech-work seem no more "portable" than say telecom workers or really most office kinds of work. In the Bay Area there is so much physical infrastructure that moving an operation (also moving it away from a large labor pool) would not be easy or instant.

In fact a handful of tech-workers in some key places have the power to shut down major websites.

Also one of the "problems" of this group of workers is the kind of professional elitism or individualistic p bourgeois way some of these workers view their position. Politicization would be an uphill battle without some sense of collective power or class consciousness. Not that labor actions wouldn't be uphill for the same reasons.

[willowtooth]

I don't think tech workers have a lot of control of their workplace. It's often long monotonous work days in which they're working on a facet of a larger project(s) and goals depending on the company and what they're doing.


I think its important to define what we mean by "tech workers" after all a mechanic could be considered a tech worker, since car is a form of technology, do we mean just anybody who works with a computer because that's pretty much everyone these days. When I think of tech workers, I think 6 figure salary silicon valley types.



I don't have a list of projects on hand to reference but tech workers engage in similar projects as the medical practice people you mentioned do fwiw. 'Community' radio, solar, electrician work, powerline/grid engineering, neighborhood or city-wide network engineering, satellite communication, cryptography, anonymity, open source development, and the dark arts.
see alot of this I would qualify as utility workers many of these fields also already have a healthy labor union of somekind (even in the union basing USA)



HA! Wouldn't I just love if I had a Doctors Salary. I'm a systems administrator. I receive slightly more than the average wage because I'm self-employed. I have to pay employee & employers tax which brings my pay packet down an awful lot.

I should state that I'm not in the tech industry and I'm not sure what the duties of a "systems administrator" actually are. I imagine there's a system of some kind that you administrate somehow, but that's about as much as I know. This is why I think industry specific unions are a necessity, there's no way a plumber or a truck driver could really know the difficulties of your job but I'm sure you could list many difficulties in similar jobs like software engineers


Yes it does. Do you know how the internet works? Whole companies would shut down. Everything from Mom & Pop to massive multinationals. Not saying this is a bad thing, we can fix it - but we are essential to most companies. not at all no, that was a legitimate question. Would the internet shutdown if tech workers went on strike but utility stayed on. I know the electricity would be shutoff if there was strike amongst all workers at power plants, but would the internet shut down if there was a strike at ISP's? Do they even have jobs that need to be operated 24 hours a day?




Agreed. Those comrades are totally abused and absolutely not paid enough.
but are they tech workers?


Some, many. India is the tech workers biggest nightmare right now. They have poorly-trained people with baseline english that are actively taking tech jobs in the UK & Ireland. Its a horrible position for them -One second its IBM the next Microsoft (between the calls they get). It show's capitalism for what it really is - Cheaper is an excuse for exploitation. My job however, cannot be done remotely (thank jebus!).Call centers are fascinating phenomenon aren't they? as I understand major corporations right now are eliminating their "IT" departments cutting back entire floors of workers to one or two people and a call center in India (actually the Philippines is becoming more popular these days) So if you work at a corporate headquarters at General motors or Wal-mart and your computer crashes you now will have to call some one in Mindanao to help you print


Overall you seem to have a very narrow-minded view of the tech industry as a whole. We aren't all Bill Gates types with comfy jobs. I work my ass off, and frankly that opinion you have is downright insulting of the working class. I made my bones as a bouncer, a Butcher, a call-center worker and a security guard.....Is it wrong of me to educate myself and get a better job?not at all? in fact I'm struggling to figure where you got that from anything that I wrote? I'm merely pointing out some of the difficulties organizing the people in that field. Was it that I compared to them doctors? you should take that as a compliment shouldn't you?

[Ele'ill]

I think its important to define what we mean by "tech workers" after all a mechanic could be considered a tech worker, since car is a form of technology, do we mean just anybody who works with a computer because that's pretty much everyone these days. When I think of tech workers, I think 6 figure salary silicon valley types.

That's the false ex machina aesthetics-heavy draw to tech. There are tech workers who deal with computerized car parts, hospital equipment, and pretty much everything you can imagine. The industry pays higher but so do most technical fields across the sciences.



see alot of this I would qualify as utility workers many of these fields also already have a healthy labor union of somekind (even in the union basing USA)

It's been a while since I looked into it but iirc electrician unions cover utility workers, as in the people who repair and maintain electrical things, from overhead powerlines to commercial and residential construction to whatever else. The ways in which a lot of these positions interact with the physical systems they maintain (power grids, water, etc) are computerized which requires not just what I'd safely consider an advanced understanding logically of those physical systems but an understanding of operating systems, and code input/output. I don't think it's possible to limit the tech industry to simply the innovators who make it big, there are too many others doing the work.

[ckaihatsu]

System administrator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the privileged user account, see Superuser.

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Business administration
Management of a business
Types of business[show]
Business entity[show]
Corporate governance[show]
Corporate titles[show]
Economy[show]
Corporate law[show]
Finance[show]
Accounting[show]
Trade[show]
Organization[show]
Society[show]
Types of management[show]
Emblem-money.svg Business and economics portal
v t e


System administrator
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/Professional_System_Administrator.jpg/200px-Professional_System_Administrator.jpg
A professional system administrator at a server rack in a datacenter


A system administrator, or sysadmin, is a person who is responsible for the upkeep, configuration, and reliable operation of computer systems; especially multi-user computers, such as servers.

The system administrator seeks to ensure that the uptime, performance, resources, and security of the computers he or she manages meet the needs of the users, without exceeding the budget.

To meet these needs, a system administrator may acquire, install, or upgrade computer components and software; provide routine automation; maintain security policies; troubleshoot; train or supervise staff; or offer technical support for projects.

Contents [hide]
1 Related fields
2 Training
3 Skills
4 Duties
5 See also
6 References
7 Further reading


Related fields[edit]

Many organizations staff other jobs related to system administration. In a larger company, these may all be separate positions within a computer support or Information Services (IS) department. In a smaller group they may be shared by a few sysadmins, or even a single person.

A database administrator (DBA) maintains a database system, and is responsible for the integrity of the data and the efficiency and performance of the system.

A network administrator maintains network infrastructure such as switches and routers, and diagnoses problems with these or with the behavior of network-attached computers.

A security administrator is a specialist in computer and network security, including the administration of security devices such as firewalls, as well as consulting on general security measures.

A web administrator maintains web server services (such as Apache or IIS) that allow for internal or external access to web sites. Tasks include managing multiple sites, administering security, and configuring necessary components and software. Responsibilities may also include software change management.

A computer operator performs routine maintenance and upkeep, such as changing backup tapes or replacing failed drives in a redundant array of independent disks (RAID). Such tasks usually require physical presence in the room with the computer, and while less skilled than sysadmin tasks, may require a similar level of trust, since the operator has access to possibly sensitive data.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_administrator

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think its important to define what we mean by "tech workers" after all a mechanic could be considered a tech worker, since car is a form of technology, do we mean just anybody who works with a computer because that's pretty much everyone these days. When I think of tech workers, I think 6 figure salary silicon valley types.


Well I was speaking more generally, but I think the question of 6 figure salary Silicon Valley types is an interesting one.

They certainly are skilled, but are they workers or professionals? I think it's a grey area... or at least in flux.

Do they own the code they write? Do they control how the venture capital or whatever is used? Are they employed for a wage or contracted? Skilled craftspeople (professionals) who are in the process of being progressively de-skilled (building code that makes code easier so companies can hire lower paid tech workers)? Are they skilled workers who just caught a wave of demand in the labor market and could get relatively generous deals... at least for a time.

If they are workers, What happens to these workers when capital moves or venture capital gets tight and the labor market suddenly changes?

And if they are technically workers by Marxist definitions of class, the high salaries they get at a time when everyone else is being squeezed confuses things I think. On top of that because of capitalist myths about meritocracy, those high wages, the countless boosterism in op-eds by cities trying to attract this labor pool, even if ultimately they are workers, they are likely to have p bourgeoise views which also makes it hard to see them as workers.

[willowtooth]

Well I was speaking more generally, but I think the question of 6 figure salary Silicon Valley types is an interesting one.

They certainly are skilled, but are they workers or professionals? I think it's a grey area... or at least in flux.Well, what is a tech worker? They need to make up a cohesive body before they can be defined as workers or professionals.


Do they own the code they write? Do they control how the venture capital or whatever is used? Are they employed for a wage or contracted? Skilled craftspeople (professionals) who are in the process of being progressively de-skilled (building code that makes code easier so companies can hire lower paid tech workers)? Are they skilled workers who just caught a wave of demand in the labor market and could get relatively generous deals... at least for a time.If they are workers, What happens to these workers when capital moves or venture capital gets tight and the labor market suddenly changes?
capital needs to be able to move freely, "get rid of the funds at the paris commune as quick as you can" said marx you should consider it a good thing, outsourcing is a sign of automation, automation is a sign of late stage capitalists digging their own graves.



And if they are technically workers by Marxist definitions of class, the high salaries they get at a time when everyone else is being squeezed confuses things I think. On top of that because of capitalist myths about meritocracy, those high wages, the countless boosterism in op-eds by cities trying to attract this labor pool, even if ultimately they are workers, they are likely to have p bourgeoise views which also makes it hard to see them as workers.6 figure salary tech workers are worse than doctors

[BIXX]

automation is a sign of late stage capitalists digging their own graves.s
are you sure

[ckaihatsu]

automation is a sign of late stage capitalists digging their own graves.


I agree.

For example, look at the process of *learning* -- it's now been automated to the point where any person no longer has a need for the institution of formal education. Whatever one wants to learn or learn how to do, is already available on the Internet, and the learner themselves can *self-organize* the relevant information instead of relying on an 'educational professional' to do it.

[willowtooth]

are you sure
I'm not sure of anything I make things up as I go along, but I think its important to recognize these "anti-outsourcing" programs as entirely right wing, little to nothing can be done by protesting outsourcing. Only in the 3rd world in a left-nationalist sense, could this be considered a good thing. Buying things because they are "made in the Usa" does little more than encourage xenophobia. From a labor point of view, any strike or disruption would only increase the need or desire to outsource jobs you may save a few hundred jobs in detroit or something, but this only be through inflated wages.

What is the end result of outsourcing after all? What if we release the dogs of outsourcing so to speak? would there be no employment left? No of course not, all that will happen is the cost of products will be reduced and people in a country that is guaranteed to be strides poorer than our own will receive some form of employment, that they would not have without it. The 1st world imperialist powers of course will never, become fully protectionist because they are parasite states completely reliant on labor from the 3rd world and developing nations. the xenophobic cries of dey dook our jobs, aren't being made by autarkists who dream of north korean like autonomy, they are imperialists happy to enslave the rest of the planet if it improves their quality of life a single iota. Who would sanction slavery that didn't benefit them in anyway as long as it didn't effect them.

Many so called socialists stand right alongside the imperialists, when it comes to this, damning outsourcing with one hand, and exploiting labor and resources with the other. this is why international trade specific labor unions are a necessity. if you are in the autoworkers union it should not matter if cars are being made in your country or not. instead of local autoworkers of Detroit, or local united steelworkers of Pittsburgh it should be the international union of steelworkers, or the autoworkers of mankind, uniting labor across all nations. I guarantee they wont be aking lamborghini's in Namibia anytime soon, if 1st world nations all band together and demand a certain wage or working conditions they will have to conform, except they wont always do it by granting these wages, rather they comply through automation, robots dont go on strike, because to capitalists a worker is nothing but an inefficient machine.

[BIXX]

My question is specifically this: how do you know that automation of labour is actually "a sign of late storage capitalists digging their own graves"?

To my knowledge, very little shows this to be true. Furthermore, could this be the explanation of the rise of cybernetics as the rising system of control as opposed to the political economy? Not the survival of capitalism per se, but the survival of capital and elites.

To put it bluntly, I don't see anything capital does as accidental or anything other than a survival mechanism. The only time capitalism will kill itself is in the event of impeding its ability to extract value- whether due to resource crises or apocalyptic events.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think automation would be more of a medium-term threat than outsourcing. Cities and industries spend a lot of time and money trying to build this labor pool in places like San Francisco.

The industry probably enables other industries to outsource more effectively than it actually outsources itself. My company could not outsource most functions due to the type of data they handle.

But most "disruption" by tech has been finding ways to automate existing functions (and therefore pay less labor... and usually avoid gov regulations for the traditional industry) so I think this is the direction they would go in. A few well paid engineers and a lot of people with no specialized skills filling in the blanks in code or using tools that do it for you.

But the tech labor market still favors tech bosses and they can use competition right now or have enough profits to pay some tech workers really well when they need to.

If various groups of tech workers started pushing for more control over time or work-conditions or wages, then there would probably be a concerted effort to automate more of the industry.

Also I don't think automation signals the death of the system, just part of the ups and downs. Automation didn't kill off industrial production 100 years ago.

[willowtooth]

I think automation would be more of a medium-term threat than outsourcing. Cities and industries spend a lot of time and money trying to build this labor pool in places like San Francisco.

The industry probably enables other industries to outsource more effectively than it actually outsources itself. My company could not outsource most functions due to the type of data they handle.

But most "disruption" by tech has been finding ways to automate existing functions (and therefore pay less labor... and usually avoid gov regulations for the traditional industry) so I think this is the direction they would go in. A few well paid engineers and a lot of people with no specialized skills filling in the blanks in code or using tools that do it for you.

But the tech labor market still favors tech bosses and they can use competition right now or have enough profits to pay some tech workers really well when they need to.

If various groups of tech workers started pushing for more control over time or work-conditions or wages, then there would probably be a concerted effort to automate more of the industry.

Also I don't think automation signals the death of the system, just part of the ups and downs. Automation didn't kill off industrial production 100 years ago.


It's really interesting that you describe it as "The industry that enables other industries to outsource more effectively" marxists spend alot of time and effort discussing automation but what about the automators? Could they be a distinct class themselves? the artisan-inventor class maybe? distinct from the manufacturer and maintenance worker?

full automation is more important than full employment, we can even see states creating work programs, doing unnecessary work just to keep unemployment low. This will lead to a nationalized basic income, and then possibly universal international basic income and then educational revolution. People who hate school will drop out without need of survival, people who love school will spend their entire lives in them like a new form of church. The biggest counter revolutionary strategy can be to impede this full automation, and to develop a class that fights to protect national, local, sovereign interests and maintain low unemployment, as some form of a superstitious traditionalistic feudalistic attachment. Can you have full employment and full automation (especially the way we describe employment in the capitalist sense today)? absolutely not. The demands for self sustenance of the 3rd world must not be mistaken for the demands for capitalistic employment in the 1st world, fighting for your right to go fishing is different than the right to work as a commercial lobstermen.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm a bit skeptical of UBI and I also don't know if full automation is possible under capitalism if labor as commodity is the ultimate source of profits. Automation in capitalism has either been to expand the rate of exploitation or deskill work in order to make labor cheaper... but generally not to replace labor altogether.

In the abstract, of course full automation (assuming full communism) is a likely aim and would be beneficial. But in terms of the class war, I think it's more tactical. Would a specific group of worker gain more power by resisting a planned change at their job? Worker might insist on automation of some tasks today while resisting automations that only make the same work more simplified and cheaper to pay for. It all has to come from what builds class power or not. This is where the question of class (or class self-perception) comes into it.

[ckaihatsu]

My question is specifically this: how do you know that automation of labour is actually "a sign of late storage capitalists digging their own graves"?


The general idea with this is that once a system (of production of goods and/or services) has been *automated*, there's no argument that can be made for *profit-making* (private property ownership), because the manager of the automated technology is the *only* person (at most) who would need to tend to it over time. In other words the owner(s) would be de-facto transformed into a hobbyist(s), and would either make the resulting goods and/or services available to the public in some way, or else wouldn't.

If no commodity-labor is necessary for fully automated production, then the title of 'owner' becomes meaningless -- it's like all market capitalization with no operating expenses. Does anyone have to pay 'The Internet' in order to use it -- ? Of course not, because the aggregation of all network connections doesn't belong to any single entity -- what one *does* have to pay for is some kind of 'on-ramp', which requires engineering / customer service, customized to each individual person's specific environs.

So if, for example, the production of shoes could be *fully* automated, where it boils down to one manager-type in the whole factory tracking the whole system via a computer terminal, this would become known to the public, and it would be the perfect charity -- people would be asking why this factory can't just *donate* all of its production to the world, since it's using raw materials and not employing anyone.

It would be a scenario ripe for politicization, and state -- or even popular -- control, since it would resemble a governmental program more than anything else.

Moreover, if it could be replicated on a kit / d.i.y. scale, the technology itself *could* potentially become a hobbyist kind of thing (like 3D printing), where people could simply get the raw materials themselves, inexpensively, and just produce for their own needs, themselves.

Has everyone forgotten about this saying -- ?


Who said, "A capitalist will sell you the rope to hang him with."?

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101226040338AASM9Mr


---





To my knowledge, very little shows this to be true. Furthermore, could this be the explanation of the rise of cybernetics as the rising system of control as opposed to the political economy? Not the survival of capitalism per se, but the survival of capital and elites.


Cybernetics, or systems-control, has been steadily rising throughout the 20th century, to the present, but I'd say that it's implemented *internally* mostly, per production site, for matters of production.

In other words, 'cybernetics' is the formal term for the trajectory of increasing-automation that's the norm these days, which could also be thought-of as 'engineered computational chunking':





Chunking in psychology is a process by which individual pieces of information are bound together into a meaningful whole (Neath & Surprenant, 2003). A chunk is defined as a familiar collection of more elementary units that have been inter-associated and stored in memory repeatedly and act as a coherent, integrated group when retrieved (Tulving & Craik, 2000).

It is believed that individuals create higher order cognitive representations of the items on the list that are more easily remembered as a group than as individual items themselves. Representations of these groupings are highly subjective, as they depend critically on the individual's perception of the features of the items and the individual's semantic network. The size of the chunks generally ranges anywhere from two to six items, but differs based on language and culture

The phenomenon of chunking as a memory mechanism can be observed in the way individuals group numbers and information in the day-to-day life. For example, when recalling a number such as 12101946, if numbers are grouped as 12, 10 and 1946, a mnemonic is created for this number as a day, month and year. Similarly, another illustration of the limited capacity of working memory as suggested by George Miller can be seen from the following example: While recalling a mobile phone number such as 9849523450, we might break this into 98 495 234 50. Thus, instead of remembering 10 separate digits that is beyond the "seven plus-or-minus two" memory span, we are remembering four groups of numbers.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chunking_(psychology)


And:





Cybernetics is a transdisciplinary[1] approach for exploring regulatory systems—their structures, constraints, and possibilities. Norbert Wiener defined cybernetics in 1948 as "the scientific study of control and communication in the animal and the machine."[2] In the 21st century, the term is often used in a rather loose way to imply "control of any system using technology."

Cybernetics is applicable when a system being analyzed incorporates a closed signaling loop—originally referred to as a "circular causal" relationship—that is, where action by the system generates some change in its environment and that change is reflected in the system in some manner (feedback) that triggers a system change. Cybernetics is relevant to, for example, mechanical, physical, biological, cognitive, and social systems.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics


Also:


Complexity and dialectics

https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/181977-Complexity-and-dialectics


---





To put it bluntly, I don't see anything capital does as accidental or anything other than a survival mechanism. The only time capitalism will kill itself is in the event of impeding its ability to extract value- whether due to resource crises or apocalyptic events.


I think it's valid to also look at the trajectory of automation from the *consumer* side of things, as well:

Consider movie theaters, as an example -- the process of selecting a desired movie (or other video) has become *so* automated that no one has to visit a movie theater anymore in order to watch some media, and so the movie theater industry went off a cliff in the prior decade:





New forms of competition[edit]

One reason for the decline in ticket sales in the 2000s is that "home-entertainment options [are] improving all the time— whether streamed movies and television, video games, or mobile apps—and studios releasing fewer movies", which means that "people are less likely to head to their local multiplex".[33] A Pew Media survey from 2006 found that the relationship between movies watched at home versus at the movie theater was in a five to one ratio and 75% of respondents said their preferred way of watching a movie was at home, versus 21% who said they preferred to go to a theater.[34] In 2014, it was reported that the practice of releasing a film in theaters and via on-demand steaming on the same day (for selected films) and the rise in popularity of the Netflix streaming service has led to concerns in the movie theater industry.[35] Another source of competition is television, which has "...stolen a lot of cinema's best tricks – like good production values and top tier actors – and brought them into people's living rooms."[35] Since the 2010s, one of the increasing sources of competition for movie theaters is the increasing ownership by people of home theater systems which can display high-resolution Blu-ray disks of movies on large, widescreen flat-screen TVs,[35] with 5.1 Surround Sound and a powerful subwoofer for low-pitched sounds.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movie_theater#New_forms_of_competition


---





I think automation would be more of a medium-term threat than outsourcing. Cities and industries spend a lot of time and money trying to build this labor pool in places like San Francisco.

The industry probably enables other industries to outsource more effectively than it actually outsources itself. My company could not outsource most functions due to the type of data they handle.

But most "disruption" by tech has been finding ways to automate existing functions (and therefore pay less labor... and usually avoid gov regulations for the traditional industry) so I think this is the direction they would go in. A few well paid engineers and a lot of people with no specialized skills filling in the blanks in code or using tools that do it for you.

But the tech labor market still favors tech bosses and they can use competition right now or have enough profits to pay some tech workers really well when they need to.

If various groups of tech workers started pushing for more control over time or work-conditions or wages, then there would probably be a concerted effort to automate more of the industry.

Also I don't think automation signals the death of the system, just part of the ups and downs. Automation didn't kill off industrial production 100 years ago.


I'd like to point to instances where technological leapfrogging *has* rendered past regular processes *anachronistic* -- paper, and all of the processes of its production, is no longer required for the composition and distribution of the printed word, for example. Really, *all* media (video, audio, images, and text) is now 'fully automated' over the Internet and the cellular network, and so the 'political economy' becomes mostly irrelevant if someone just wants to get a message to someone else, as over texting, email, or social media.

And look at the *price* for such -- *free* to the consumer for services like email and social media, with possibly having to look at some ads along the way.


---





It's really interesting that you describe it as "The industry that enables other industries to outsource more effectively" marxists spend alot of time and effort discussing automation but what about the automators? Could they be a distinct class themselves? the artisan-inventor class maybe? distinct from the manufacturer and maintenance worker?


Do the inventors / automators have a common interest, in a class-like way, or not -- ?

In political-economy terms, they're *workers*, like anyone else, if they're employed by ownership, for wages.





full automation is more important than full employment, we can even see states creating work programs, doing unnecessary work just to keep unemployment low. This will lead to a nationalized basic income, and then possibly universal international basic income and then educational revolution. People who hate school will drop out without need of survival, people who love school will spend their entire lives in them like a new form of church.


(The argument made against the Universal Basic Income is that it's a bait-and-switch, to slip-in neoliberalism / austerity measures, for the overall downsizing of the social services sector of government.)





The biggest counter revolutionary strategy can be to impede this full automation, and to develop a class that fights to protect national, local, sovereign interests and maintain low unemployment, as some form of a superstitious traditionalistic feudalistic attachment. Can you have full employment and full automation (especially the way we describe employment in the capitalist sense today)? absolutely not. The demands for self sustenance of the 3rd world must not be mistaken for the demands for capitalistic employment in the 1st world, fighting for your right to go fishing is different than the right to work as a commercial lobstermen.


Good distinction, though I think the biggest threat in this equation is that to *profit-making*, since fewer workers needed effectively turns the enterprise into something more like a *utility* (as I mentioned above).

Under a fully collectivized workers control all such fully-automated 'utilities' would make more-humane living possible for *everyone*, freeing us up to collectively brainstorm in the direction of *leveraging* *new* types of work for even-better ways of social living. In this way there *could* be full employment, potentially, alongside full automation (of more-utilitarian services), because new technologies could be developed from cutting-edge scientific discoveries, in parallel to mass demand / acceptance of such.





I'm a bit skeptical of UBI and I also don't know if full automation is possible under capitalism if labor as commodity is the ultimate source of profits.


As just-mentioned, I think the civilizational world *already* has a solid history of automating many kinds of everyday processes, to the point that they're no longer marketable (or only marginally so). We no-longer need telegraph operators, etc.





Automation in capitalism has either been to expand the rate of exploitation or deskill work in order to make labor cheaper... but generally not to replace labor altogether.


Perhaps much of the past hype and anxiety-mongering around the supposedly-inevitable 'technological singularity' is a *reactionary* line, to *forestall* as much as possible the possibly technological-inevitable *automation* of many everyday processes of production and consumption. (If people are *afraid* of using technologies themselves -- 'technophobic' -- then that would feed-into an overall *hindering*, or 'brake' on further technological developments that would directly assist regular people in their daily lives, further revealing the ruling elite to be socially meaningless -- and socially detrimental -- in their existence.)





In the abstract, of course full automation (assuming full communism) is a likely aim and would be beneficial. But in terms of the class war, I think it's more tactical. Would a specific group of worker gain more power by resisting a planned change at their job? Worker might insist on automation of some tasks today while resisting automations that only make the same work more simplified and cheaper to pay for. It all has to come from what builds class power or not. This is where the question of class (or class self-perception) comes into it.


Yup.

[BIXX]

Cybernetics, or systems-control, has been steadily rising throughout the 20th century, to the present, but I'd say that it's implemented *internally* mostly, per production site, for matters of production.

In other words, 'cybernetics' is the formal term for the trajectory of increasing-automation that's the norm these days, which could also be thought-of as 'engineered computational chunking':

In regards to this statement (bold and italics), the reality is that it's completely false. Cybernetics are an inherent part of our existence, through the data mining of various social media platforms and search engines, or the analysis of your smart fridge and any other access that governments and capital have to your information. It's not just surveillance, it's an art of governing. It is, as the invisible committee says, replacing the political economy. It's holistic and anthropological in nature, and it is far more wide spread than the "production site".

[ckaihatsu]

In regards to this statement (bold and italics), the reality is that it's completely false. Cybernetics are an inherent part of our existence, through the data mining of various social media platforms and search engines, or the analysis of your smart fridge and any other access that governments and capital have to your information. It's not just surveillance, it's an art of governing. It is, as the invisible committee says, replacing the political economy. It's holistic and anthropological in nature, and it is far more wide spread than the "production site".


Okay, yeah, I did think of that after I posted it.