Better society closer then you think ? or not?

[UndergroundConnexion]

Ive just done some reading, about robotics etc. and I've read that in 2020 aprox, most of the services, and industries, will be taken by robots or machines. Meaning they will go automatically.

So I've been thinking if this is the case, less work will be done by men, technically at least. The working men will then have far less work , and could have a working week of faaar less hours.

Next would also be that the richesses will then be generated by robots, meaning men could live live as he wants while robots do the work.

This are just very simple thoughts that came to me while looking at wikipedia etc.

Yet the problem coming is that the tools of repression while also be harder to defeat, as these could be 2030 or something be robotized aswell, and the state would have a far easier job controlling the people.

These are extremely simple thoughts I write up here, maybe y'all could help me a bit expanding on them. Also is the "By 2020 everything will be robotized" notion, isnt that also a bit too quick of an estimation?

[Q]

Technology in itself won't free us, we still have to abolish private property over the means of production and smash the bourgeois state representing that inequality.

[UndergroundConnexion]

But technology could take away exploitation through labour though.

[UndergroundConnexion]

As robots and machines are able to fullfill more and more the tasks of men, in industries, but also more and more in services, would this then lead to the exploitation of the working men withering away?

[Dominicana_1965]

If the majority of labour is taken by robotics then how will the Capitalists make a profit?
I doubt that robots will replace human labour power
If robots are provided for more labour (by the Capitalists) it will most likely be in the "First world", where the majority of the "compradors" are located, so the Capitalist will be making less profit since there is less employment.

[UndergroundConnexion]

but will be exlusively in control of the richesses of a country, not letting anybody else getting to it. so very basically the capitalists will have more then ever the richesses of a country in their hands.

[EwokUtopia]

Its possible that it will end the exploitation of working people, but under a capitalist system, this will lead to absolute neglect for all of the working people outside the consumer areas, who will continue to be priveleged so they can continue to buy.

You'll see all those former workers without jobs, without capital, without food, without water, and eventually without life. We must stand up against this if this were to happen.

[Enragé]

then the rich dont need us anymore, they wont pay us anymore, and we'll die.

"Who needs those poor bastards anyway :angry:"


So I've been thinking if this is the case, less work will be done by men, technically at least. The working men will then have far less work , and could have a working week of faaar less hours.

And if you compare say 1930 to now, the same applies, now do we all work faaaaaar less hours?
no we dont

[UndergroundConnexion]

not faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar less, but in europe generally where some in the beginning of last century (1900 - 1940) would sometimes work 50 hours, or a bit more, now in France the normal worker at least works 35 hours aprox

[la-troy]

complete mechanization of industries is a extreme threat to the stability ( what little of it there is ) of the working class.The bourgeois class alone will benefit from it as they will be able to lower their production cost. This in turn puts the working class in a desperate situation in which they have to compete for employment not only with them self but also
with machines. This allows for more exploitation of the working class.

[freakazoid]

Like NKOS said. If the robots take over the work then the workers will be out of a job. This is not to our benefit, although it could perhaps spark a new class consciousness.

[bcbm]

Of course not. The only reason capitalists introduce projects like mechanization and automation is to undermine the combative force of the working class and maximize profit and production without threat of interference from worker action. It is therefore important that we stand in opposition to the introduction of such technologies and join workers on the front lines when they actively combat them, in so much as this is even possible in modern first-world nations.

[UndergroundConnexion]

complete mechanization I believe would like I stated somewhere before, put all the means of productions in even fewer hands. Only the already very rich , would be able to get things produced. Thus the handycraftman would vannish, the worker (industrial) would vannish, the peasant would vannish. What would these people thus do ? They would oribabky be formed into other jobs for the most part. They would eventually be one big class.

Yet as we know, the captalist will seek to make the most profit, by economic strangulation, and thus for the "lower class" into the bare minimum of living.
An extreme minority would thus impose this on a vast majority.

This however, could lead towards the lower class organizing itself and leading to an overthrowing of the system.

Folowing this, in how long, do you think complete, or near complete mechanization of the service , industry , and farming will be a reality?
Also it needs to be remembered that machines can become obsolete quickly, and replacement costs allot. Therefore I believe that in at least the coming years, the coming decades I may hope, men will be a necesity still in generating materials and richesses....

[Janus]

Technology itself cannot eliminate exploitation (we have seen it to increase exploitation), the oppressed must eliminate it for themselves. As far as increased automation goes, there will still be a need for workers for management/repair work though one would assume that the state itself would have to get involved in order to create jobs for workers much like they did during the Depression.

[colorlessman]

No, Technology will increase exploitation, oppression, control and will leave a lot without jobs. Most technological advances that take place under capitalism are for the benefit of the capitalists.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 06:42 pm
not faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar less, but in europe generally where some in the beginning of last century (1900 - 1940) would sometimes work 50 hours, or a bit more, now in France the normal worker at least works 35 hours aprox
yes, then take into account that most women work now too

and as you said the great technological advances

and then explain to me why we aren't working 4 hours a day, at the most


the reason why we went from 50 to 35 (isnt it 40 the average? anyway), is because we fought for it, because we would have made the capitalist pay if they didnt cut labourtime.

[Janus]

Also is the "By 2020 everything will be robotized" notion, isnt that also a bit too quick of an estimation?
I think that robots will be widespread through the world by 2020 but the degree to which they will be autonomous is still contested. Some robotics experts believe that we'll be seeing autonomous robots quite often by 2035 while some others believe that it's too optimistic since we have yet to truly delve into AI, long-term battery sources, etc.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 06:12 pm
If the majority of labour is taken by robotics then how will the Capitalists make a profit?
I doubt that robots will replace human labour power
If robots are provided for more labour (by the Capitalists) it will most likely be in the "First world", where the majority of the "compradors" are located, so the Capitalist will be making less profit since there is less employment.
Your right in what you say except that human labour is something that is clearly going to always be on the wane and further mechanisation/robots in the labour process are a certainty.

This shows how Marx was correct in is analysis of the tendency of falling profit. Capitalism will only be able to make it to a certain point where there is no longer enough human labour to extract surplus value from. Even if one company was to have all robots making its goods and one has all human labour, both will see their profits fall because the 'pooled' surplus value of human labour will decrease because the total human labour that has taken place has fallen.

[RebelDog]

These are extremely simple thoughts I write up here, maybe y'all could help me a bit expanding on them. Also is the "By 2020 everything will be robotized" notion, isnt that also a bit too quick of an estimation?

Thats a pipe dream in my opinion. Its coming but much later than that I would imagine. If everything is robotised then capitalism would no longer exist and so we would have to deduce from this that capitalism has about ten years at most to live.

[Lynx]

It depends on how the technology is used. Our standard of living is higher today because of technology. This, in spite of the malice by some.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 06:42 pm
not faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar less, but in europe generally where some in the beginning of last century (1900 - 1940) would sometimes work 50 hours, or a bit more, now in France the normal worker at least works 35 hours aprox
Yes - and the change was not due to technology. It was conquered by workers' struggle.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

A robot that can do everything a human does will be able to take its own decisions, and will demand a wage, so that it can buy stuff. And, of course, they would go on strike if their demands are not met... so where is the difference?

Or, of course, they might be unable to take decisions for themselves, in which case human workers will still be necessary, and would produce surplus value.

Luís Henrique

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by UndergroundConnexion+--> (UndergroundConnexion)As robots and machines are able to fullfill more and more the tasks of men, in industries, but also more and more in services, would this then lead to the exploitation of the working men withering away?[/b]

Let's see:

In capitalist class society automation leads to unemployment and misery for the working class.

In communism it makes the lives of everyone more enjoyable and reduces the amount of dull, hard and dangerous work.

The answer of this equation is, as I see it, as follows: many jobs have already been and will be automated (and also outsourced), and that is indeed bound to cause increasing tension and very propably a revolutionary change in 'western' society before the end of this century.

So far this new development hasn't led to conflicts of decisive proportions in the first world due to the development of the service sector -- it's swelling has provided the children of the old industrial proletariat employment and a means to survive.

But the service worker is hardly less oppressed, on the contrary we have to sell every ounce of personal dignity because of the very nature our work takes in capitalism, while simultaneously having to constantly struggle in order to preserve any rights whatsover; the right to organise, the right to permanent jobs etc.

Services are harder to automate than industry, but no doubt will they increasingly be. And I have a hard time seeing any peaceful solution to the class conflict in such a situation, with the unemployment and misery that will follow..

Technological development and automation of production and distribution is basically a material prequisite for our progression past the limits of capitalism -- not only through it's enormous increase of tension between classes and thus making the revolution necessary and inevitable, but also by laying the foundations for the infrastructure of the new society.

A highly automated and abundant society happens to be an ideal starting ground for a new, communistic society. :)


Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected]
It is therefore important that we stand in opposition to the introduction of such technologies and join workers on the front lines when they actively combat them, in so much as this is even possible in modern first-world nations.

That's quite futile an attempt, as there is no éffective way of stopping the capitalists from using the cheapest and most effective means to profit in the long run, except overtrowing capitalism. It's truly infuriating how it turns posive things like technological progress into misery for a majority. :(

I think we have to face it -- the industrial proletariat of the first world has largely played out it's role due to technological progress as well as outsourcing of jobs to neo-colonies in the third world, and it is mainly the service sector of large cities which offers us employment.

In the future that'll no doubt be automated too, to the degree it's possible.. the future under capitalism looks grim for us, indeed, but that's precisely why it's violent overthow will become an urgent necessity in the near future. The death of an old society and the birth of a new one is a painful process, but as sooner we get it over with it, the better if you ask me.

What we can, and must, do now is to organise and radicalise all workers regardless of sector, to fight for the common benefits of our class and our rights at the jobs this dying system has to offer -- as fighting practice for our ultimate goal, the revolution.

But fighting against the development of production and distribution technologies is a loosing battle, and ultimately also a battle against our own revolutionary as well as post-revolutionary interests.

There's no going back, as only development can make capitalism truly obsolete..


colorlessman
No, Technology will increase exploitation, oppression, control and will leave a lot without jobs. Most technological advances that take place under capitalism are for the benefit of the capitalists.

As long as capitalism exists, everything is. But capitalism won't last forever.

[RebelDog]

A robot that can do everything a human does will be able to take its own decisions, and will demand a wage, so that it can buy stuff. And, of course, they would go on strike if their demands are not met... so where is the difference?

Robots are hardly going to be designed to consume and demand wages. Capitalists will regard robots as investment in constant capital, and I think to properly understand what robots replacing human labour means, we should too.

[bcbm]

That's quite futile an attempt, as there is no éffective way of stopping the capitalists from using the cheapest and most effective means to profit in the long run, except overtrowing capitalism. It's truly infuriating how it turns posive things like technological progress into misery for a majority.

I don't think technological progress is inherently "positive," but that's another issue. It is certainly possible to mount struggles against changes in the mode of production and the pushing forward of capitalist "progress" on other fronts as well- the struggle against the TAV in Italy comes to mind, among others. Even if such projects ultimately fail, it is vital to undertake them. The logic you used could be applied to any struggle we engage in.


What we can, and must, do now is to organise and radicalise all workers regardless of sector, to fight for the common benefits of our class and our rights at the jobs this dying system has to offer -- as fighting practice for our ultimate goal, the revolution.

But fighting against the development of production and distribution technologies is a loosing battle

Maybe, maybe not but either way these two struggles are linked. By fighting against the bosses attempts to strangle us, we're organizing and radicalizing others.


and ultimately also a battle against our own revolutionary as well as post-revolutionary interests.

We've built it before, we can build it again, so we shouldn't hesitate to stand in the way of, tear down or completely destroy whatever we need to until we gain our freedom. Its common practice for workers in struggle to destroy machines and factories.


There's no going back, as only development can make capitalism truly obsolete..

No, only the mass action of the workers and their allies can make capitalism obsolete.

[Sentinel]

I don't think technological progress is inherently "positive," but that's another issue.

Fair enough, but surely you must agree that automation, which like I previously said 'makes the lives of everyone more enjoyable and reduces the amount of dull, hard and dangerous work' is, and that it's the capitalist world order which has perverted it into instead being something negative? Surely you aren't glorifying work like standing at an assembly line? Shit like that is waste of human potential, and nothing else!


It is certainly possible to mount struggles against changes in the mode of production and the pushing forward of capitalist "progress" on other fronts as well- the struggle against the TAV in Italy comes to mind, among others. Even if such projects ultimately fail, it is vital to undertake them.

I can see the value of such struggles as efforts to organise and radicalise workers against he bourgeoisie. But I'm firmly convinced that the development (including technological as one of the most important aspects) of society and infrastructure is what makes old models of production obsolete and necessitates revolutionary change, in other words these struggles are while beneficial on short term, counter productive in long term.. unfortunately.


The logic you used could be applied to any struggle we engage in.

True, and I do not condemn any struggles for short term victories over the bourgeoisie at all, on the contrary I support them all because of what they are, radicalising and organising class struggle (see the previous paragraph). Some my sense of logic forces me to criticise as ..shortsighted though, namely ones that try to put on the brakes for development of the material conditions.

Communism is impossible without the right material conditions in place.


Maybe, maybe not but either way these two struggles are linked. By fighting against the bosses attempts to strangle us, we're organizing and radicalizing others.

Once again, I agree. Organised struggle against the class enemy is the only realistic means for the working class to radicalise itself and train for even grander struggles. It's also necessary practice in the use of autonomous, direct democracy -- the way, say, a syndicalist union is organised resembles in much the way a direct workers democracy (a true DoP!) propably would be.


We've built it before, we can build it again, so we shouldn't hesitate to stand in the way of, tear down or completely destroy whatever we need to until we gain our freedom.

This sentence sounds right, and propably mostly is -- we can't let anything stop us in our struggle and the proletariat obviously has built everything and can rebuild it. Moreover, necessary sabotage during, conducted in order to succeed in, a revolutionary war is propably unavoidable.

It should be minimised to the extent it's possible though, considering the likely quite harsh conditions immediately following the victory. The more of the infrastructure, the machinery already in place, the better for us as we have to get things running again.


No, only the mass action of the workers and their allies can make capitalism obsolete.

I regret to say that to me, you're coming off a bit ..idealistic, denying the importance of material conditions in society like this. :(

***

Bcbm, like you know I really like debating this sort of stuff and I'd like to think our differences are mostly (albeit far from entirely) semantic. I do not consider myself incapable of making mistakes and strive to learn all the time.

It's good debate and I'm grateful for the opportunity to do it with you. I'd really like to apologise for insults and other personal shit I have thrown at you in the past, particularly at one specific incident.

That had actually really nothing to do with of your politics, neither your person, it wasn't much else than flaming masked as argumentation -- due to a combination of that incident and my personal real life problems at that moment. And accordingly, it only made me look stupid myself.

I just wanted to say this.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 28, 2007 05:43 am
No, only the mass action of the workers and their allies can make capitalism obsolete.
Capitalism is already obsolete, but we are yet to replace it with something more efficient. You're right that it is only the struggle of the workers that will overthrow capitalism but they will not do this by opposing technological development.

It is the nature of capitalism to change positive advancements to the disadvantage of the working class, but this progress and development must occur. Currently automation technology is fairly crude and if we oppose advancements in it we will have to deal with the fact that people in our world post-revolution will still have to do jobs which could easily have been automated.

[fordan55]

Capitalism is killing us it creats a system were the richer are around 10% and the poor are the rest if we could have an anarchist based socetey were every one can make there own choices and rull them self. then we could live free with now povertey and the probloms we face today

[ichneumon]

why do you define proletariat as "unskilled blue collar labor"? IT workers are treated like shit all the time. automating factories isn't going to stop capitalist labor exploitation. marxism needs to adapt to the information age - it was created to deal with euroamerican industrial age societies. that time is over. did marx dream of electric workers? a day when manual labor is not longer a significant part of human existence? this calls for reinventing ourselves - the goal is of stateless, classes, communal society, not some weird retro-futuristic dystopia where everyone works in a steel plant one day a week. fuck that.

[Vanguard1917]

Its common practice for workers in struggle to destroy machines and factories.

No, attacking productive technology is not at all 'common practice' in working class struggles against capitalism.

Luddism - destroying productive machinery - was always a petit-bourgeois movement: it expressed petit-bourgeois interests. The development of industrial capitalism threatens the petit-bourgeoisie with social extinction. As a result, some elements within the petit-bourgeoisie attacked industrial technology in order to hold back industrial progress and preserve their petit-bourgeois way of life.

Working class socialism, on the other hand, was always about wanting to take over the means of production and developing and operating them in the interests of society as a whole. The working class socialist critique of capitalism concentrated on attacking the social relations under which the means of production are developed in capitalist society - not the means of production themselves.

[bcbm]

No, attacking productive technology is not at all 'common practice' in working class struggles against capitalism.

What is sabotage if not a common tactic that damages production? There were widespread and militant struggles in the US against mechanization and automation in the 20th century where workers destroyed many machines and fought against those changes. The struggles over the past year in Bangledesh have also seen many machines and factories completely destroyed. The bosses own them, not us, and it is certainly in the interests of the workers in struggle to strike back against everything of the bosses- and they often do. Physical violence against places of work has never been uncommon. It also occured during the Hot Summer in Italy, as I recall.


Luddism - destroying productive machinery - was always a petit-bourgeois movement: it expressed petit-bourgeois interests.

The Luddites attacked specific types of machinery- not all machinery- because it was making their jobs obsolete. They were defending their interests (ie, their jobs!) as workers.

More later, I'm at work right now.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 28, 2007 08:34 pm
The Luddites attacked specific types of machinery- not all machinery- because it was making their jobs obsolete. They were defending their interests (ie, their jobs!) as workers.
I could be wrong, but I thought they were technically self-employed skilled knitters that violently opposed the introduction of new wide-framed looms that could be operated by cheap labor, which would ultimately mean that they were petit-bourgeois and struggling to sustain themselves amidst the growth of modern industry? I did not know that they were employed as wage earners, and that they were merely being replaced with cheaper labor and machinery, but once again, I think that you seem more knowledgable in this subject than me. I would appreciate any sources that you have on this, because it is something of the utmost interest to me.

[Vanguard1917]

which would ultimately mean that they were petit-bourgeois and struggling to sustain themselves amidst the growth of modern industry?

The Luddites were early 19th century displaced artisans. They attacked industrial progress because such progress was making their position in society redundant. Artisans and small producers were being displaced by the advance of industrial capitalism and large-scale production. That strata of society was increasingly being drawn into the ranks of the industrial proletariat (a historical process which Marx and Engels describe well in the Communist Manifesto). This was a fundamentally progressive change, increasing the social weight of the working class.

The Luddites tried to resist this change, sometimes with admirable courage and resolution. But, in truth, they represented the past and their demands were essentially conservative: i.e. they were trying to conserve the status quo - trying to protect the present from the future. It was only with the rise of the industrial working class that a progressive alternative to capitalism was starting to be put forward in society.


There were widespread and militant struggles in the US against mechanization and automation in the 20th century where workers destroyed many machines and fought against those changes. The struggles over the past year in Bangledesh have also seen many machines and factories completely destroyed. The bosses own them, not us, and it is certainly in the interests of the workers in struggle to strike back against everything of the bosses- and they often do. Physical violence against places of work has never been uncommon. It also occured during the Hot Summer in Italy, as I recall.

The working class movement did not pursue sabotage as a tactic of the class struggle. There may have been incidents of sabotage here and there, but the working class movement generally understood that the goal was to gain control of the means of production, not to destroy them.

It was correctly recognised that acts of sabotage against productive machinery will just give way to such machinery being replaced. It will do nothing to challenge capitalist society because it does not challenge capitalist relations of production. In order to challenge such relations, it became clear that the means of production need to be taken over by the workers.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 07:33 am
Fair enough, but surely you must agree that automation, which like I previously said 'makes the lives of everyone more enjoyable and reduces the amount of dull, hard and dangerous work' is, and that it's the capitalist world order which has perverted it into instead being something negative?
No, I don't agree. Under current circumstances, automation does nothing of the sort. It doesn't make life more enjoyable, it makes life much harder and shittier for those workers (probably the most combative ones!) who find themselves without a job because of the introduction of automation. And it certainly doesn't reduce the amount of dull, dangerous or hard work... many of those jobs can't be automated, and in the ones that can the replaced workers will merely end up doing dull, dangerous or hard work somewhere else. The only ones who real benefit from automation at this point are the bosses. Automation was a project developed by the Air Force in order to reduce the possibility of "human error" in manufacture of their technological needs, and to maximize productivity. It was then picked up by other industries who saw the obvious benefit to their profits, an easy way to get rid of those who can sabotage, be lazy, skip work, strike, etc.


Surely you aren't glorifying work like standing at an assembly line? Shit like that is waste of human potential, and nothing else!

Of course not. Such jobs are complete and utter shit, like all jobs under capitalism. The point is that those jobs being destroyed puts many out of work and weakens the combative force of those who oppose the bosses by splitting them up into smaller and more isolated compartments.



I can see the value of such struggles as efforts to organise and radicalise workers against he bourgeoisie. But I'm firmly convinced that the development (including technological as one of the most important aspects) of society and infrastructure is what makes old models of production obsolete and necessitates revolutionary change, in other words these struggles are while beneficial on short term, counter productive in long term.. unfortunately.

Changes in the mode of production have always been a top-down affair, and the end result of this is clear in who has benefited from them- the bosses. From the factory system, to mechanization, to automation, all of these changes have been undertaken in order to strengthen the control of the bosses against the workers and to weaken their ability to resist.


Some my sense of logic forces me to criticise as ..shortsighted though, namely ones that try to put on the brakes for development of the material conditions.


Technological process is not something that simply happens, it happens with a certain logic pushing it forward. Right now the logic controlling that motion is that of our enemies and therefore the changes they push will ultimately benefit their class and not ours. We can certainly find positives in these developments and even adapt parts of them, but that process comes after they have been implemented. Until then, we should fight them tooth and nail. The projects of the capitalists are not projects for the good of humanity. They don't care about making less work for us, or making our lives any better. Until we are in control, we should get in their way as much as possible.


Communism is impossible without the right material conditions in place.

I think human beings have always been capable of self-management, and that remains so. There are currently many obstacles to this and I agree that a change will most likely develop under certain conditions, but I don't think there is a magical formula for when a revolution may occur.



It should be minimised to the extent it's possible though, considering the likely quite harsh conditions immediately following the victory. The more of the infrastructure, the machinery already in place, the better for us as we have to get things running again.

Sure, but we're not in those conditions now, nor do I foresee them developing out of any struggles in the near future (though I hope I'm wrong). Under these circumstances, we shouldn't hesitate to destroy anything and everything of theirs we can get our hands on and to stand in the way of all their projects.



I regret to say that to me, you're coming off a bit ..idealistic, denying the importance of material conditions in society like this. :(

I think conditions play a role in the development and rise of revolutionary or insurrectionary movements of self-management, but I don't think we need one set of circumstances. I certainly don't think we need to sit around with our thumbs up our asses while the bosses steamroll "progress" over our corpses.



Bcbm, like . . .
I just wanted to say this.

Thank you, that means a lot.

--------


It is the nature of capitalism to change positive advancements to the disadvantage of the working class, but this progress and development must occur. Currently automation technology is fairly crude and if we oppose advancements in it we will have to deal with the fact that people in our world post-revolution will still have to do jobs which could easily have been automated.

We must allow them to undertake projects that are detrimental to our friends, our families, our class, our lives, our struggle? I don't buy that for a minute, and you'll have a hard time pushing it to workers who's livelihoods are actually threatened by the introduction of new technologies. They tend to not hesitate in taking direct action against those threats.

-------


Working class socialism, on the other hand, was always about wanting to take over the means of production and developing and operating them in the interests of society as a whole. The working class socialist critique of capitalism concentrated on attacking the social relations under which the means of production are developed in capitalist society - not the means of production themselves.

Yes, we obviously want to seize them for ourselves and use them once we've destroyed our class enemies, and we will. But in the mean time, we should strike against all threats to our class.

-------


I could be wrong, but I thought they were technically self-employed skilled knitters that violently opposed the introduction of new wide-framed looms that could be operated by cheap labor, which would ultimately mean that they were petit-bourgeois and struggling to sustain themselves amidst the growth of modern industry?

They were skilled workers, but I don't think they were "self-employed." They didn't own their own machines, or sell their own products, but were part of the pre-factory cottage system, more or less. The newer looms allowed unskilled workers to basically do the same work, and so they attacked those.

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by black coffee black metal
No, I don't agree. Under current circumstances, automation does nothing of the sort. It doesn't make life more enjoyable, it makes life much harder and shittier for those workers (probably the most combative ones!) who find themselves without a job because of the introduction of automation. And it certainly doesn't reduce the amount of dull, dangerous or hard work... many of those jobs can't be automated, and in the ones that can the replaced workers will merely end up doing dull, dangerous or hard work somewhere else. The only ones who real benefit from automation at this point are the bosses.

That doesn't in any way contradict what I was arguing; that it's the capitalist world order which has perverted it into instead being something negative. More precisely, it has such characteristics because it came to be and works currently under capitalism. My point is that those characteristics aren't inherit to it.

I fully acknowledge the fact that large scale automation under capitalism brings misery to the working class; what I'm saying is that it's necessary to form the conditions for revolution and communism, mainly for two specific reasons:

1) It makes the status quo unbearable and literally forces the proletariat to become conscious and take over production and infrastructure.

2) It makes a future society founded on the communist principle from each according to ability, to each according to need far more realistic. Less work has to be done by people, less people are needed in the process to 'deliver the goods'. Another premise for said society is abundance, which will be achieved with the abolition of capitalism and it's characteristic arficial scarcity.


Automation was a project developed by the Air Force in order to reduce the possibility of "human error" in manufacture of their technological needs, and to maximize productivity. It was then picked up by other industries who saw the obvious benefit to their profits, an easy way to get rid of those who can sabotage, be lazy, skip work, strike, etc.

Yes, it has seen the light of day under capitalism, was invented and developed by capitalists, and has been used to capitalist purposes. That doesn't change it's true nature, it's potential and usefulness once under proletarian control the slightest though.

We need it!


Of course not. Such jobs are complete and utter shit, like all jobs under capitalism. The point is that those jobs being destroyed puts many out of work and weakens the combative force of those who oppose the bosses by splitting them up into smaller and more isolated compartments.

Strangely, ichneumon of all people has already reflected my own position on this perfectly:


marxism needs to adapt to the information age - it was created to deal with euroamerican industrial age societies. that time is over. did marx dream of electric workers? a day when manual labor is not longer a significant part of human existence? this calls for reinventing ourselves - the goal is of stateless, classless, communal society, not some weird retro-futuristic dystopia where everyone works in a steel plant one day a week.

The key of success for the worker's movement in the twenty-first century is adapting to new circumstances, not clinging into old ones. Instead of fighting the development itself, which can not succeed, we must see to it that we do not let ourselves be divided, our combative force weakened. We must radicalise the service and information workers, and most importantly: we must organise over sector and branch boundaries!


Changes in the mode of production have always been a top-down affair, and the end result of this is clear in who has benefited from them- the bosses. From the factory system, to mechanization, to automation, all of these changes have been undertaken in order to strengthen the control of the bosses against the workers and to weaken their ability to resist.

Yes, and accordingly the emphasis of our struggle must lay in fighting that ambition of the bourgeoisie while remaining a modern movement for the workers of modern society. A movement of the past can't build the society of the future.


Technological process is not something that simply happens, it happens with a certain logic pushing it forward. Right now the logic controlling that motion is that of our enemies and therefore the changes they push will ultimately benefit their class and not ours. We can certainly find positives in these developments and even adapt parts of them, but that process comes after they have been implemented. Until then, we should fight them tooth and nail. The projects of the capitalists are not projects for the good of humanity. They don't care about making less work for us, or making our lives any better. Until we are in control, we should get in their way as much as possible.

While the class interests of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are contradictory, development (progress) of the material conditions under capitalism isn't the opposite of progress under communism. Communist progress is the continuation of that under capitalism once the wage and price system has been overthrown. The capitalist mode of production, distribution has been like a cocoon in which human society has developed, and now is ready to burst out from and leave behind.

Precisely as feudalism was for capitalism -- an even viler system which allowed development and progress until a certain point and thereafter became an obstacle. Further development was finally impossible under such despotism, while the in comparison libertarian and way more effective capitalism allowed for the progress to proceed.

Communist theory emerged at the same time, but the material conditions for it's implementation weren't there, it became the role of capitalism to give birth to those. An automated hightech society has those conditions, and capitalism is in the final stage of delivering that to us. In fact, sufficient conditions for communism may be there already, but the class conflict has yet to intensify to the point of no return, when the bastions of capitalism start falling inevitably like domino bricks.


I think human beings have always been capable of self-management, and that remains so.

Human beings may have been capable, but human society has not been ready. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this, as I'm firmly convinced of the accuracy of Marxist historical materialism.


I certainly don't think we need to sit around with our thumbs up our asses while the bosses steamroll "progress" over our corpses.

Certainly not, and I hope I have made it clear that I support all workers struggles of self defense against bourgeois chauvinism and violence. But if we neglect to acknowledge progress and adapt to the conditions it brings, we'll be fucked.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 08:10 am
That doesn't in any way contradict what I was arguing; that it's the capitalist world order which has perverted it into instead being something negative. More precisely, it has such characteristics because it came to be and works currently under capitalism. My point is that those characteristics aren't inherit to it.
I'm not suggesting it is inherently bad, but whether it can be used for good or not isn't relevant at this point, as I see it. The capitalists are in control and will use it against us, and we should therefore oppose it at every opportunity, and oppose all of their other development projects as well.


I fully acknowledge the fact that large scale automation under capitalism brings misery to the working class; what I'm saying is that it's necessary to form the conditions for revolution and communism, mainly for two specific reasons:

1) It makes the status quo unbearable and literally forces the proletariat to become conscious and take over production and infrastructure.

I wouldn't hold my breath on that. Capitalism has weather many crises, major and minor, and it certainly can/has figured out how to handle the stress caused by automation. I think it will take far more than that to push people to the edge, if such a thing even factors in a major way at all.


2) It makes a future society founded on the communist principle from each according to ability, to each according to need far more realistic. Less work has to be done by people, less people are needed in the process to 'deliver the goods'. Another premise for said society is abundance, which will be achieved with the abolition of capitalism and it's characteristic arficial scarcity.

There is already both abundance and the means to fit that particular maxim, should we get rid of the capitalists. We shouldn't let them take actions that damage our class without a struggle, even if those benefits may ultimately benefit us "after the revolution."



Yes, it has seen the light of day under capitalism, was invented and developed by capitalists, and has been used to capitalist purposes. That doesn't change it's true nature, it's potential and usefulness once under proletarian control the slightest though.

It has no "true nature," it isn't some sort of animal driven by instinct. Its "nature" (really, its use) is whatever its particular master is using it for. In this case, it is being used against us (yes, yes, I know we agree), and we should therefore attack it.


We need it!

Not right now! Right now we need to keep our class combative and functioning, not to mention keeping our classes' families able to survive.



The key of success for the worker's movement in the twenty-first century is adapting to new circumstances, not clinging into old ones. Instead of fighting the development itself, which can not succeed, we must see to it that we do not let ourselves be divided, our combative force weakened. We must radicalise the service and information workers, and most importantly: we must organise over sector and branch boundaries!

I agree entirely that we need to adapt and not cling to the past, and I'm not suggesting we do. My argument isn't grounded in luddism or idolization of prior modes of production, it is rooted in opposition to any and all projects that are detrimental to our class and being a thorn in the bosses' ass (or perhaps a wooden shoe in their machine?). Ultimately their projects will probably continue and we'll move the struggle to some other front. In the mean time, we are building solid relationships with others moved in to radicalism, which helps with what you're talking about.



Yes, and accordingly the emphasis of our struggle must lay in fighting that ambition of the bourgeoisie while remaining a modern movement for the workers of modern society. A movement of the past can't build the society of the future.

To remain modern it is important to be in touch with actual struggles going on, and the struggles against these changes have been major and on-going. Workers fight against that which is in direct opposition to their interests and we need to be shoulder-to-shoulder with them, even if we recognize later benefits for whatever they are in opposition to.



While the class interests of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are contradictory, development (progress) of the material conditions under capitalism isn't the opposite of progress under communism. Communist progress is the continuation of that under capitalism once the wage and price system has been overthrown. The capitalist mode of production, distribution has been like a cocoon in which human society has developed, and now is ready to burst out from and leave behind.

I'm afraid I don't share that view of history, nor am I a proponent of "progress" in the Enlightenment sense of the word. I see a communist society as a distinct break from that system and its history, and as reconnecting with something far more common in human history- self-management and mutual aid.



Certainly not, and I hope I have made it clear that I support all workers struggles of self defense against bourgeois chauvinism and violence. But if we neglect to acknowledge progress and adapt to the conditions it brings, we'll be fucked.

I agree, though I support taking a very critical view of both progress and those conditions.

[VukBZ2005]

I absolutely agree with you BCBM.

This is the reason why I am so opposed to the concept of "Crisis-Captalism", because it states that the situation in an industrialized country has to deteriorate in order for a working class revolution to happen and that the economy has to be volatile in order to accelerate the revolution. If this was the case, then why did May 1968 happen in France? And why did the "Hot Autumn" of 1969 happen in Italy? These situations happened at the high point of international Capitalist prosperity and not in a horrific economic and social crisis such as the Great Depression.

I am more in agreement with the Autonomist concept of Capitalism using technology as a means to destroy the combative nature of the working class in order to prevent the development of working class revolution.

Because I am in agreement with latter instead of the former, I am also opposed to the development of technologies that would intensify the exploitation of the working class in the industrialized "world" by driving workers into the services sector, leaving them prone to an high-tech version of 19th century conditions. By this, I also mean things like molecular manufacturing.

Thus, one of the thing I view as essential to bring about working class revolution in the industrialized "world" is the proactive sabotage of new technologies that are meant to intensify "post-industrial" capitalism by workers.

[ichneumon]

Because I am in agreement with latter instead of the former, I am also opposed to the development of technologies that would intensify the exploitation of the working class in the industrialized "world" by driving workers into the services sector, leaving them prone to an high-tech version of 19th century conditions. By this, I also mean things like molecular manufacturing.

Thus, one of the thing I view as essential to bring about working class revolution in the industrialized "world" is the proactive sabotage of new technologies that are meant to intensify "post-industrial" capitalism by workers.

that is flamingly, utterly insane. you=primitivist, ban immediately. gee, my insulin is made a a microbe now instead of a factory and freak ass frankenstein pig farm - you would stop this? i'd proudly SHOOT YOU IN THE HEAD for even coming NEAR my happy biotech wonder.

how the hell is working at walmart worse than a sweatshop? as my people say, i bet you ain't never hit a lick at snake.

whoa, i can't even get started with this. excuse me, jazzratt, vanguard, SIC SIC.

deleted crap where i quoted Sentinel out of context. sorry, i was in a rabid anti-primitivist fit. ignore that last bit.

[Luís Henrique]

Yeah...

It seems we have our quote of luddites here... :(

Luís Henrique

[Vanguard1917]

Yeah...

It seems we have our quote of luddites here...

Luís Henrique

Hmm, where have all the Marxists gone?


I'm not suggesting it is inherently bad, but whether it can be used for good or not isn't relevant at this point, as I see it. The capitalists are in control and will use it against us, and we should therefore oppose it at every opportunity, and oppose all of their other development projects as well.

You say 'us' and 'we', suggesting that you mean the working class. Yet, at the same time, you wish that capitalist development had never happened. So there is a major inconsistency in your argument. You claim to support the working class as a revolutionary subject, yet you can't see the revolutionary significance of the very historical process which gave birth to the working class: capitalist economic development.

Marx and Engels wrote about this kind of 'anti-capitalism' over a century and a half ago: 'their chief accusation against the bourgeoisie amounts to this, that under the bourgeois regime a class is being developed which will cut up root and branch the order of the old society'.

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by ichneumon+--> (ichneumon)gee, i wonder who's more miserable, the working class of highly automated japan or the working class of serf-labor bangladesh? if you're planning on making people miserable to get your revolution, i think the human race could just fake it and say we didn't.[/b]

Your posts are getting increasingly either confused or trollish, I've been fervently arguing in favor of automation not only this entire thread, but almost since I joined revleft. I have also explicitly stated that 'strangely, ichneumon of all people has already reflected my own position on this perfectly'.

I am not arguing that living conditions were better before automation, on the contrary I've said that 'shit like that is waste of human potential, and nothing else!'

What I'm saying is that misery caused by unemployment due to automation of industries is prone to increase class tensions in the first world, although the service sector still provides jobs and is taking over as the main employer in the developed countries.

Also, I'm not 'planning to make people' anything, I'm not the one of us with aspirations to lead people, using say, 'powerful tools such as religion'. I'm merely trying to apply historical materialism to present day conditions.


Vanguard1917
Hmm, where have all the Marxists gone?

While I'm sort of pissed on for his ruining of the First International with his authoritarianism, I certainly do think he was 'dead on' with historical materialism.. ;)

Anyways I'll make a more thorough reply to everyone later, lunchbreak is over.

[ichneumon]

so, if you have a gov't factory that makes shoes, which people need, is it better to employ more people making shoes (which can be done by hand, even, and are much better, some say) or to produce cheaper shoes through automation? do the people need cheap shoes or employment? or should we have an automated shoe factory AND a hand-made shoe local industry?

in a progressive society, should the gov't actively create employment? is that even rational?

(this is not a trick question, i don't really know the answer)

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 12:21 am
You say 'us' and 'we', suggesting that you mean the working class. Yet, at the same time, you wish that capitalist development had never happened.
I never said such a thing, actually. I don't think capitalist development was a particularly good development, but mercantile society and semi-industrial feudalism and almost everything that came before weren't any more preferable. All of them have been negative for the people at the bottom who maintain those systems through their labor, and that is why I support their self-organization and resistance to everything that benefits the bosses as it appears.


You claim to support the working class as a revolutionary subject, yet you can't see the revolutionary significance of the very historical process which gave birth to the working class: capitalist economic development.

I don't agree with the view of history that the only time people could ever manage an egalitarian and free society on their own is following the development of capital. It has made it possible for such a society to be larger and more widespread, but people have always been capable of managing their own lives and numerous struggles towards this end attest to that.


Marx and Engels wrote about this kind of 'anti-capitalism' over a century and a half ago: 'their chief accusation against the bourgeoisie amounts to this, that under the bourgeois regime a class is being developed which will cut up root and branch the order of the old society'.

You clearly don't understand a word I am saying. It has nothing to do with opposing development just because it is development, but rather opposing development undertaken by our class enemies that harms us.

[bcbm]

gee, i wonder who's more miserable, the working class of highly automated japan or the working class of serf-labor bangladesh?

Doesn't Japan have one of the highest suicide rates in the world? Maybe they're both miserable and want the same thing...