VukBZ2005
30th August 2007, 19:18
Debate on Molecular Manufacturing, Scarcity and the Possibility of Working Class Revolution in the Present
By: Communist FireFox
30 August 2007
Introduction
In this essay, I will explain my position on Molecular Manufacturing, scarcity and the possibility of working class revolution in the present. The reason why I have brought this essay into existence is because of a debate that I happened to get into with a RevolutionaryLeft user named "rev" during this forum's chat room in the latter portion of yesterday evening.
This debate was based on his assertion that working class revolution is not possible right now, due to the fact that we have not reached the technological level of Molecular Manufacturing.
Molecular Manufacturing is a technological level of development that was first elaborated upon by the one of the fathers of the scientific field of Nanotechnology, Eric Drexler, during the late 1980's and early 1990's, in two books that both explained the proposal of this type of manufacturing (Engines of Creation, 1986) and explained how it would function in deeper detail from his perspective (Nanosystems, 1992).
The basic assertion that Eric Drexler makes in both Engines of Creation and Nanosystems is that the evolution of the scientific field of Nanotechnology will eventually result in the development of a technology that would be able manufacture almost anything from the molecular level, using precise atomic precision.
This process of building manufactured products using atomic precision would take place in a electronic set-top box environment. This electronic set-top box environment would contain nanorobots that would take the chemicals injected into it and develop those chemicals into a product.
This will be done through the use of cartridges that would hold those chemicals in relation to that electronic set-top box environment (that is, these cartridges would be placed into a metal container that is attached to the electronic set-top box environment that would be performing this manufacturing process and, when this environment needs those chemicals, it would extract the chemicals from these cartridges and proceeds to use the chemicals that were extracted from the cartridges to perform the manufacturing process).
The insertion of these chemicals into this electronic set-top box environment would allow the nanorobots that are within the electronic set-top box environment and whose purposes are to borhg handle the chemicals inserted in that environment by the extraction of those chemicals through the cartridges that are attached to the device and to perform the actual maufacturing process, to build the product that the consumer desires, according to the specifications that are inserted into that environment. These specifications will be inserted into that environment through inputs that will allow the consumer to do so.
After this initial manufacturing process is completed, the product that is being manufactured would be removed from that environment by the consumer and, would eventually develop itself into the desired product, thus, completing the manufacturing process. Eric Drexler called this technology in both Engines of Creation and Nanosystems "Molecular Nanotechnology (MNT)" and the process of manufacturing "Molecular Manufacturing".
The position of the RevolutionaryLeft user "rev" is that this would make a successful working class revolution possible, because it would allow the total bypassing of private property relationships, it would solve the scarcity that haunts the world, it would industrialize the non-industrialized regions of the world with ease and would ultimately plunge Capitalism into the inescapable crisis that would eventually cause it to kill itself in its totality.
It is my contention however, that this position is fatal for four reasons.
The first reason why this position is fatal is because it assumes that the scarcity that faces the world is totally real and it is not artificial after all.
This totally negates Marx's premise of overproduction, which is really, the realization or understanding of the fact that our current technology can bring about the necessary materials needed to end the scarcity that we all suffer from. But, due to the fact that it is the Capitalist class that owns the means of production and not the entire population, the Capitalist class destroys and/or eliminates the excess commodities that is produced by the working class during the time in which they are selling their labor-power to the Capitalists.
If they do not carry out this process of creative destruction, then these commodities would flood the markets, causing a rise in speculation and eventually causing a depression to occur, because there are too many commodities in the markets, thus, impeding the ability of the Capitalist class to sell back the products that the working class produces back to the working class in the time in which it is not working for the Capitalists.
So, imagine if the commodities that are constantly destroyed due to overproduction, were produced in the Communist mode of production, instead of the Capitalist mode of production. If that were the case, then these commodities would be accessible to everyone, because they are produced with a purpose of both use and need instead of just accumulating profit and extracting surplus-value from the majority of the population.
The only thing that needs to be done is to modify the technology that we have to work with in the present to work in an automated fashion, as so to reduce human labor in manufacturing industries that are both developed and restored to a negligible percentage and to allow overabundance to occur without direct human intervention.
The second reason why this position is fatal is because it assumes that in a non-MNT civilization that is in a post-Capitalist period, the industrialized portion of the world will a problem of satisfying the demand of the people who live in the industrialized portion of the world, because only a MNT society could produce the necessary overabundance needed to satisfy everyone's needs - and it assumes that in a non-MNT civilization that is in a post-Capitalist period, the non-industrialized portion of the world would not be able to industrialize on their own and industrialize in a way that is going to solve the problems that people face as a result of a lack of scarcity.
This is irrational, because, again, it negates the idea of overproduction and, it is implying that humans will be prevented from finding their way around certain problems in a non-MNT post-Capitalist civilization, because the technology is not there yet. In fact, it is an underestimation of the human species. After all, we are the most intelligent species on the planet. We have managed to figure our way out of detrimental situations before. If we did not, we would not be here and, using this virtual space to discuss important topics such as this one. What is not to say that humanity would not be able to figure out the path out of whatever detrimental situations that may develop if MNT does not materialize and, if we enter a post-capitalist period?
Also, "rev" is of the idea that in such a situation, there would need to be a centralization of resources into the hands of a few in order to commence complete industrialization in both the industrialized portion of the world and the non-industrialized portion of the world. This is simply not the case and it is totally possible for society to be managed in a non-authoritarian way and put into place the necessary resources to industrialize the world in an non-Capitalist fashion.
The third reason why this position is fatal is because it places too much hope on a technology that has not materialized and that has been in the middle of a fierce debate between scientists who think that Drexler and his ilk are just dreaming, that Molecular Nanotechnology (MNT) and Molecular Manufacturing are impossible and scientists, such as Drexler, who think that Molecular Nanotechnology (MNT) and Molecular Manufacturing is not only a possibility; it is something that is destined to happen and because of its destiny to come into the light, we must prepare for it to allow it to be used by the world in the way that it should be used.
If it turns out that it is possible and that we must prepare for it, we must do so while taking into account the ramifications it would have for both the working class and the class struggle in general, that is, if the revolutionary situations that currently in the present do not turn out to be successful.
But, if it is not possible, if it is not inevitable and if we do not have to prepare for it, then, we need to find ways to realistically implement Communism in such an non-MNT environment and the only way to do that is to, once again, modify the industrial manufacturing technology that we have now to work on a real Communist basis.
And the fourth reason why this position is fatal is because it sending a extremely dangerous message to the international working class revolutionary movement; that if Molecular Nanotechnology (MNT) and Molecular Manufacturing are possible and inevitable technologies, it is better to give up on working class struggle in the interim and wait until it materializes.
If we give up on working class struggle until these technologies materialize, that is, if they ever materialize, we are going to continue to give the extremely religious fundamentalists, the racists, the nationalists, the homophobes and the misogynists the upper hand, and quite possibly, we may end up giving up the future of the human species up to them, because from the way things are looking, the situations that are being produced by Global Warming may place the existence of all life on Earth at risk and, it is set to past the point of no return by an estimation of twenty to thirty years from now, if not earlier than that.
So, it is not acceptable for those who have heard about these technologies to give up fighting. Otherwise, they will have proven themselves to be counter-revolutionaries that are in the disguise of revolutionaries, because of their incessant implication of supporting Capitalist development and because they are willing to sit down and to let those that may end up putting the lives of millions at risk to do so without putting up any kind of effective resistance.
My objective in this essay is to justify these four reasons with verifiable and circumstantial evidence and justify the fact that we should not be waiting for the "promised land" of Communism to suddenly come to us, like the Christians who are waiting for the second coming of Jesus Christ, only this time, in the form of both Molecular Nanotechnology (MNT) and Molecular Manufacturing.
We should develop cohesive, sensible forms of both workplace and neighborhood organization, forms of both workplace and neighborhood organization that will actually produce a real Communist society; develop a new paradigm of working class struggle that places the emphasis on class struggle rather than the concept of Capitalism in crisis and develop realistic ways to implement real Communist ideas in any kind of Capitalistic environment.
I will first put the focus of this essay on the evidence dealing with the question of scarcity.
On Scarcity
(To be completed...)
By: Communist FireFox
30 August 2007
Introduction
In this essay, I will explain my position on Molecular Manufacturing, scarcity and the possibility of working class revolution in the present. The reason why I have brought this essay into existence is because of a debate that I happened to get into with a RevolutionaryLeft user named "rev" during this forum's chat room in the latter portion of yesterday evening.
This debate was based on his assertion that working class revolution is not possible right now, due to the fact that we have not reached the technological level of Molecular Manufacturing.
Molecular Manufacturing is a technological level of development that was first elaborated upon by the one of the fathers of the scientific field of Nanotechnology, Eric Drexler, during the late 1980's and early 1990's, in two books that both explained the proposal of this type of manufacturing (Engines of Creation, 1986) and explained how it would function in deeper detail from his perspective (Nanosystems, 1992).
The basic assertion that Eric Drexler makes in both Engines of Creation and Nanosystems is that the evolution of the scientific field of Nanotechnology will eventually result in the development of a technology that would be able manufacture almost anything from the molecular level, using precise atomic precision.
This process of building manufactured products using atomic precision would take place in a electronic set-top box environment. This electronic set-top box environment would contain nanorobots that would take the chemicals injected into it and develop those chemicals into a product.
This will be done through the use of cartridges that would hold those chemicals in relation to that electronic set-top box environment (that is, these cartridges would be placed into a metal container that is attached to the electronic set-top box environment that would be performing this manufacturing process and, when this environment needs those chemicals, it would extract the chemicals from these cartridges and proceeds to use the chemicals that were extracted from the cartridges to perform the manufacturing process).
The insertion of these chemicals into this electronic set-top box environment would allow the nanorobots that are within the electronic set-top box environment and whose purposes are to borhg handle the chemicals inserted in that environment by the extraction of those chemicals through the cartridges that are attached to the device and to perform the actual maufacturing process, to build the product that the consumer desires, according to the specifications that are inserted into that environment. These specifications will be inserted into that environment through inputs that will allow the consumer to do so.
After this initial manufacturing process is completed, the product that is being manufactured would be removed from that environment by the consumer and, would eventually develop itself into the desired product, thus, completing the manufacturing process. Eric Drexler called this technology in both Engines of Creation and Nanosystems "Molecular Nanotechnology (MNT)" and the process of manufacturing "Molecular Manufacturing".
The position of the RevolutionaryLeft user "rev" is that this would make a successful working class revolution possible, because it would allow the total bypassing of private property relationships, it would solve the scarcity that haunts the world, it would industrialize the non-industrialized regions of the world with ease and would ultimately plunge Capitalism into the inescapable crisis that would eventually cause it to kill itself in its totality.
It is my contention however, that this position is fatal for four reasons.
The first reason why this position is fatal is because it assumes that the scarcity that faces the world is totally real and it is not artificial after all.
This totally negates Marx's premise of overproduction, which is really, the realization or understanding of the fact that our current technology can bring about the necessary materials needed to end the scarcity that we all suffer from. But, due to the fact that it is the Capitalist class that owns the means of production and not the entire population, the Capitalist class destroys and/or eliminates the excess commodities that is produced by the working class during the time in which they are selling their labor-power to the Capitalists.
If they do not carry out this process of creative destruction, then these commodities would flood the markets, causing a rise in speculation and eventually causing a depression to occur, because there are too many commodities in the markets, thus, impeding the ability of the Capitalist class to sell back the products that the working class produces back to the working class in the time in which it is not working for the Capitalists.
So, imagine if the commodities that are constantly destroyed due to overproduction, were produced in the Communist mode of production, instead of the Capitalist mode of production. If that were the case, then these commodities would be accessible to everyone, because they are produced with a purpose of both use and need instead of just accumulating profit and extracting surplus-value from the majority of the population.
The only thing that needs to be done is to modify the technology that we have to work with in the present to work in an automated fashion, as so to reduce human labor in manufacturing industries that are both developed and restored to a negligible percentage and to allow overabundance to occur without direct human intervention.
The second reason why this position is fatal is because it assumes that in a non-MNT civilization that is in a post-Capitalist period, the industrialized portion of the world will a problem of satisfying the demand of the people who live in the industrialized portion of the world, because only a MNT society could produce the necessary overabundance needed to satisfy everyone's needs - and it assumes that in a non-MNT civilization that is in a post-Capitalist period, the non-industrialized portion of the world would not be able to industrialize on their own and industrialize in a way that is going to solve the problems that people face as a result of a lack of scarcity.
This is irrational, because, again, it negates the idea of overproduction and, it is implying that humans will be prevented from finding their way around certain problems in a non-MNT post-Capitalist civilization, because the technology is not there yet. In fact, it is an underestimation of the human species. After all, we are the most intelligent species on the planet. We have managed to figure our way out of detrimental situations before. If we did not, we would not be here and, using this virtual space to discuss important topics such as this one. What is not to say that humanity would not be able to figure out the path out of whatever detrimental situations that may develop if MNT does not materialize and, if we enter a post-capitalist period?
Also, "rev" is of the idea that in such a situation, there would need to be a centralization of resources into the hands of a few in order to commence complete industrialization in both the industrialized portion of the world and the non-industrialized portion of the world. This is simply not the case and it is totally possible for society to be managed in a non-authoritarian way and put into place the necessary resources to industrialize the world in an non-Capitalist fashion.
The third reason why this position is fatal is because it places too much hope on a technology that has not materialized and that has been in the middle of a fierce debate between scientists who think that Drexler and his ilk are just dreaming, that Molecular Nanotechnology (MNT) and Molecular Manufacturing are impossible and scientists, such as Drexler, who think that Molecular Nanotechnology (MNT) and Molecular Manufacturing is not only a possibility; it is something that is destined to happen and because of its destiny to come into the light, we must prepare for it to allow it to be used by the world in the way that it should be used.
If it turns out that it is possible and that we must prepare for it, we must do so while taking into account the ramifications it would have for both the working class and the class struggle in general, that is, if the revolutionary situations that currently in the present do not turn out to be successful.
But, if it is not possible, if it is not inevitable and if we do not have to prepare for it, then, we need to find ways to realistically implement Communism in such an non-MNT environment and the only way to do that is to, once again, modify the industrial manufacturing technology that we have now to work on a real Communist basis.
And the fourth reason why this position is fatal is because it sending a extremely dangerous message to the international working class revolutionary movement; that if Molecular Nanotechnology (MNT) and Molecular Manufacturing are possible and inevitable technologies, it is better to give up on working class struggle in the interim and wait until it materializes.
If we give up on working class struggle until these technologies materialize, that is, if they ever materialize, we are going to continue to give the extremely religious fundamentalists, the racists, the nationalists, the homophobes and the misogynists the upper hand, and quite possibly, we may end up giving up the future of the human species up to them, because from the way things are looking, the situations that are being produced by Global Warming may place the existence of all life on Earth at risk and, it is set to past the point of no return by an estimation of twenty to thirty years from now, if not earlier than that.
So, it is not acceptable for those who have heard about these technologies to give up fighting. Otherwise, they will have proven themselves to be counter-revolutionaries that are in the disguise of revolutionaries, because of their incessant implication of supporting Capitalist development and because they are willing to sit down and to let those that may end up putting the lives of millions at risk to do so without putting up any kind of effective resistance.
My objective in this essay is to justify these four reasons with verifiable and circumstantial evidence and justify the fact that we should not be waiting for the "promised land" of Communism to suddenly come to us, like the Christians who are waiting for the second coming of Jesus Christ, only this time, in the form of both Molecular Nanotechnology (MNT) and Molecular Manufacturing.
We should develop cohesive, sensible forms of both workplace and neighborhood organization, forms of both workplace and neighborhood organization that will actually produce a real Communist society; develop a new paradigm of working class struggle that places the emphasis on class struggle rather than the concept of Capitalism in crisis and develop realistic ways to implement real Communist ideas in any kind of Capitalistic environment.
I will first put the focus of this essay on the evidence dealing with the question of scarcity.
On Scarcity
(To be completed...)