Mechanized Production

[Jude]

Today, millions of people world-wide are losing their jobs to robots and computers. While this may seem bad (and in fact it is, for the moment), I believe that the capitalists, in order to maintain profits whilst decreasing labor power and in effect expenses, are unwittingly perpetuating the revolution.
Due to the mechanization of factories, as well as other fluctuating economic fluctuations, the middle class is slowly being milked of every last penny that the bourgeoisie can take. One effect is that he expenses of the everyday middle class family have increased drastically. Now, one could attribute this to inflation, as well as many other economic and social issues, such as the War in Iraq. While these do in fact play a role in the degradation of our class, the major issue is the decrease or in the income of the same family. This fluctuation varies significantly from that of the expense, and the reason for this is the lack of jobs, and the stagnation of wages over the past few decades.
We cannot reasonably say that the capitalist ruling class is in anyway dull or ignorant. everything they do is perfectly orchestrated to preserve their way of life. However, the course that they are taking, if in fact they continue to pursue the mechanization of their production to extremes, will eventually push the middle class of the final edge, thereby creating only a ruling corporate class, and a lower class. There is no reason that i can think of that the ruling class would intentionally destroy their means of profit, so this only leaves two options: (1) The ruling class will inadvertently destroy the middle class by controlling the means for production, or (2) the ruling class will realize their mistake and will reverse their mechanization until they can maintain both profit and control.
If the middle class is destroyed, then close to 98% of the worlds population will be living in the streets, and will have both the manpower and the determination to begin a formal takeover. If the ruling class realizes their mistake and reverses the mechanization, the people will be completely powerless, and the corporate government can continue their formal takeover. The people will eventually, in either situation, be forced into powerless, extreme poverty, and be forced to retaliate. However, we can only hope that by that time we will still have the opportunity that we do now. We currently enjoy many freedoms that I predict will soon be revoked, and I propose that, while we can, we take full advantage of them to perpetuate the revolution.


Lol, anyone who reads this will be able to tell that (1)i was making it up as i went, and (2) due to the former statement, I was slightly changing the message, but ... whatever...

[nom de guerre]

It's unfortunate the topic post was inane babble, because I think automation will be an important tool for the development of communist society. You see, under capitalism, automation can never take over too much of the division of labor. The organic composition of capital, that is, the ratio of fixed to variable capital in the production of commodities, collapses upon itself when fixed capital gets too large. An inherent aspect of the nature of the system itself is the necessity to derive new value from the exploitation of labor - if you cut out the labor, the whole think breaks down into crisis.

Of course, this has changed slightly in the modern era of neoliberalism. Often today new value is derived from speculation. This proved to be very successful at first, but seems to be unable to sustain productive accumulation for substantiated periods of time. We are currently in an era where capital is unable to reproduce itself successfully through American markets, and is re-aligning itself itself Eastwards for the future.

Once liberated from the tyranny of capital, automation could be very successfully used to cut out most non-socially necessary labor, and reduce the necessary labor time for the area down to very little. Imagine, after communism, we could be liberated from work altogether!

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Okay, im still sketchy on Marxist economics but here is how understand it.

When capitalists compete with one another, they are doing so in search of profits, the profit incentive.

But, through their competition, the dynamic of capitalism, they continue to reduce profitability in the long run.

Here's how (i think :blush: )

Company A, has 1000 workers and can produce 1000 commodities per day. and has a 50% share of the market.

Company B, also has 1000 workers, can produce 1000 commodities per day, and also has 50% share of the market.

According to the labor theory of value, surplus value is taken from each worker, which means that both company A and company B generate the same amount of profits from their workers. Say for the example, their profit each year is $1,000,000.

But, then company A, buy machines for its workforce, meaning they can create 2000 commodities a day. This gives them say, a 75% market share, meaning they INCREASE profits, in the short term, but extract less surplus value from each worker.

In response to this, company B, also buy some machines for its workforce, creates 2000 commodities per day, and restores its market share to 50%.

Now company A is extracting less surplus from its workers, and so is company B.

So in order to increase the productivity of the workforce, the capitalists have to invest in new technology, but that technology needs to be paid for in relation to the surplus value. This means the companies are reducing their profits through searching for short term profits by investing in new technology.

What i think i have explained is the 'tendency for the rate of profit to fall' and shows how the dynamic of capitalism reduces overall profits in the industrial sector.

So, in the not too distant future capitalists might try to buy more and more robots to make commodities, but this will mean ever higher unemployment levels, meaning fewer and fewer will be able to buy commodities, leading to declining profits, crisis etc.

(if a person who knows this better can explain i think we would all be greatfull :lol: )

[Jude]

Originally posted by nom de [email protected] 29, 2007 04:17 pm
It's unfortunate the topic post was inane babble
Umm... what part of I wrote in in 10 minutes while the idea was fresh didn't you understand?

It was poorly written, not proofread, and who knows what other problems it has...

Point is... I'm not an accomplished intellectual, or a learned economist, neither do I pretend to be one. I simply had an Idea and ran with it. Now, if you need to fulfill your selfish needs to put yourself on a pedestal for all to see, then keep going, if not, kindly look at what is important in a post.


Often today new value is derived from speculation.

Like I said, I'm not an economist, could you please explain this? Thanks.


You see, under capitalism, automation can never take over too much of the division of labor. The organic composition of capital, that is, the ratio of fixed to variable capital in the production of commodities, collapses upon itself when fixed capital gets too large. An inherent aspect of the nature of the system itself is the necessity to derive new value from the exploitation of labor - if you cut out the labor, the whole think breaks down into crisis.

So you're saying that the capitalists cannot simply have machines producing their product because they won't have anyone to buy their product?

Once liberated from the tyranny of capital, automation could be very successfully used to cut out most non-socially necessary labor, and reduce the necessary labor time for the area down to very little. Imagine, after communism, we could be liberated from work altogether!

Exactly my point! Once we can overthrow the ruling class, who knows what's possible?

[nom de guerre]

Umm... what part of I wrote in in 10 minutes while the idea was fresh didn't you understand?

Sorry for coming off as abrasive; apparently I did understand more than I thought, as my reply satisfied you. Didn't mean to come off as a dick.


Like I said, I'm not an economist, could you please explain this? Thanks.

Ever since the transition into post-Fordism in the mid-1970s, the role of the stock market and the credit companies is speculative; that is, it does not derive new value from the actual production of surplus-value, but it speculates based on market fluctuations who will make and lose money from the rise or fall of commodity costs. Credit companies augment this by creating fictitious capital out of nothing, and then loaning it to people at interest.

This exists for a simple reason: in the 50's, capitalists figured out you make more money, if you pay your workers more so that they can afford to buy your commodities. Unfortunately, this is not sustainable on a long-term, as no part of capital is. To continue to reap surplus-value effectively, they needed to dematerialize the economy.

[Jude]

Originally posted by nom de [email protected] 01, 2007 03:50 pm
Sorry for coming off as abrasive; apparently I did understand more than I thought, as my reply satisfied you. Didn't mean to come off as a dick.
It's alright, sorry for calling you out on a single sentence.


Ever since the transition into post-Fordism in the mid-1970s, the role of the stock market and the credit companies is speculative; that is, it does not derive new value from the actual production of surplus-value, but it speculates based on market fluctuations who will make and lose money from the rise or fall of commodity costs. Credit companies augment this by creating fictitious capital out of nothing, and then loaning it to people at interest.

So a company isn't what is has, but what it can say it has?


This exists for a simple reason: in the 50's, capitalists figured out you make more money, if you pay your workers more so that they can afford to buy your commodities. Unfortunately, this is not sustainable on a long-term, as no part of capital is. To continue to reap surplus-value effectively, they needed to dematerialize the economy.

I knew this part, and I think I touched on it in the first post. The wealth of the ruling class is based solely on what we give them. if they pay us less, then they get less. however, if they all pay us the same wage, and compete against each other on the market with advertising and commodity pricing, they can attempt to get the money from the working class that both they gave their workers, and that their rival companies gave to their respective workers.

However, if they could eliminate the working class, and bring society into an extremist dual-class system, they would be competing against themselves, for their own business. The scary part is if they can figure this out, and how to accomplish it, it will create an elitist corporate class, and an extremely impoverished one.

[nom de guerre]

However, if they could eliminate the working class, and bring society into an extremist dual-class system, they would be competing against themselves, for their own business. The scary part is if they can figure this out, and how to accomplish it, it will create an elitist corporate class, and an extremely impoverished one.

This is exactly what historical materialism concludes is the natural progression of advanced capitalism. It becomes impossible for the bourgeoisie to have their cake and eat it too, which results in increasingly impoverished living conditions for the proletariat.

Marx predicted that this would be the cause of the paradigm-shift in proletarian consciousness that was a prerequisite for communist revolution.

Whether or not he was right depends entirely on this.

[Jude]

So what do you think will be the result of increased mechanization?

I mean, from my vague understanding, there can be two outcomes, neither any good, and any of the infinite possibilities in between the first and second level of hell

[Dimentio]

There is an idea that we could abolish money and instead distribute the needed resources directly while reducing the amount of labor.