Breaking up of working class communities- the Boss class and their use of Technology

[Kropotesta]

Like the Luddites, we, the contemporary working class of the UK are yet again under the attack of jobs loses adminstrated by the bosses, well the somewhat constant battle. However unlike the Right says, this isn't exclusively due to immigration. I feel that the critque of the use of technology is far more viable. Also we already know that immigration throughout this and the last century have been used as scapegoats and to disguise authoritarian policy making.
Just in the last two days my local suergy is getting ready to have no people other than GP's working there, and now also my building society is preparing to be run exclusively by computers.
This money saving trick of the ruling class is disjointing the working class and further fragmenting it into the underclass and various other statures of the class structure. Thus making cohesion and community in other class harder to unify. So as revolutionaries, this is a very real problem, yes I know that is in the OI...


I haven't fully made my mind up on this and would like to view other opinions. No, this isn't just some primmie drivel at all.

[Lord Testicles]

Here is another view on the suject:

http://deoxy.org/fallofwork.htm


One day, perhaps, we shall see strikers, demanding automation and a ten-hour week

[Dimentio]

Like the Luddites, we, the contemporary working class of the UK are yet again under the attack of jobs loses adminstrated by the bosses, well the somewhat constant battle. However unlike the Right says, this isn't exclusively due to immigration. I feel that the critque of the use of technology is far more viable. Also we already know that immigration throughout this and the last century have been used as scapegoats and to disguise authoritarian policy making.
Just in the last two days my local suergy is getting ready to have no people other than GP's working there, and now also my building society is preparing to be run exclusively by computers.
This money saving trick of the ruling class is disjointing the working class and further fragmenting it into the underclass and various other statures of the class structure. Thus making cohesion and community in other class harder to unify. So as revolutionaries, this is a very real problem, yes I know that is in the OI...


I haven't fully made my mind up on this and would like to view other opinions. No, this isn't just some primmie drivel at all.

Fuck work. When we'll get the PT rolling, we'll will have a minimum of personnel per project. All that possibly could be automatised should be automatised. That is the best way to bring about social change.

[Kropotesta]

yeah ok, fuck work. However it's all very well you saying that when it isn't you being made redunant or sacked to acommodate machines, which is pretty alot of working people out of work.

[Dimentio]

yeah ok, fuck work. However it's all very well you saying that when it isn't you being made redunant or sacked to acommodate machines, which is pretty alot of working people out of work.

Well, why not then reinstitute feudalism? Guaranteed employment until you die. ^^

I am sure that the weavers who destroyed the spinning-mills had it much better than their grandchildren's grandchildren today.

[Kropotesta]

Well, why not then reinstitute feudalism? Guaranteed employment until you die. ^^

I am sure that the weavers who destroyed the spinning-mills had it much better than their grandchildren's grandchildren today.
how is that an arguement at all?
fact is, allegedley, that you need the working class for revolution, whereas the use of technology is creating a vaster underclass, which many of this site state have no revolutionary potenial. Also whether you like it or not, the working class needs jobs to get by.

[Joby]

I agree. Technology screws everyone over.

I was considering solar-panels, but decided this would put people out of work.

Instead, I'm now pushing for all-DC power plants on every block to raise employement.

Progress sucks.


just kidding

Conflicting Interestes, do you want to get rid of tractors beause this puts people out of work?

The truth is that the growing pains under technology might affect some, but it allows for increases of production and an economy that will, hopefully, be off the farm and out of the factory in the future.....Just a few years ago, 9/10 people would be out plowing the field today.

Thanks to technology, these jobs were eliminated and we can move on.

[Kropotesta]

Conflicting Interestes, do you want to get rid of tractors beause this puts people out of work?

The truth is that the growing pains under technology might affect some, but it allows for increases of production and an economy that will, hopefully, be off the farm and out of the factory in the future.....Just a few years ago, 9/10 people would be out plowing the field today.

Thanks to technology, these jobs were eliminated and we can move on.
no I don't propose that. Instead I advocate the abolishment of the boss class, that puts regular people out of work with thier money saving and all around greed.. Only communities organised by the people are capable to make decisions like putting people out of work, while being able to provide other work for them, if they choose to do it.
I don't give a fuck about progress, if your view of progression is putting some people down so that others can get higher than I absolutely oppose it.

[Dejavu]

I agree. Technology screws everyone over.

I was considering solar-panels, but decided this would put people out of work.

Instead, I'm now pushing for all-DC power plants on every block to raise employement.

Progress sucks.


just kidding

Conflicting Interestes, do you want to get rid of tractors beause this puts people out of work?

The truth is that the growing pains under technology might affect some, but it allows for increases of production and an economy that will, hopefully, be off the farm and out of the factory in the future.....Just a few years ago, 9/10 people would be out plowing the field today.

Thanks to technology, these jobs were eliminated and we can move on.


I'm sure you understand the introduction of new technology has an important role in redrawing the division of labor. Virtually any technology brings with it destruction and creation and can radically shift the division of labor. This is known as 'creative destruction.' Schumpeter makes the first reference to it.
An example would be the introduction of the assembly line and automobile and the expansion of related markets and the shrinkage of the horse and buggy business and the shrinkage of its related markets.

But socialists and communists despise the division of labor (and therefore, modern civilization) so trying to reason with them will not go very far.

[Black Dagger]

IMO this sort of critique misses the point - obviously the bosses do not care for the the job security of individual workers. Indeed that bosses put profits before people is an accepted matter of fact, even outside revolutionary circles - particularly amongst the working class - so why focus on this particular example amongst all the others? The bosses serve their own interests, this is abundantly clear to most - even if accepted apathetically.

Obviously the effects of new technology will displace some workers (though also creating new jobs - but the ratio of jobs lost to those created is unknown?) - this is inevitable, as human knowledge and technology develops certain jobs will become obsolete, and not necessarily by the design of the bosses (whose prime concern is the profit margin) - but because the nature of work evolves over time, that is as the technology of class society develops. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the service industry has grown so much over the past few decades? Though that is just speculation on my part. Regardless, the ruling class will not abolish human labour (or anything close to it) - creating a majority population of unemployed workers would run against their class interests, that is their craving for social order.

[Dimentio]

I'm sure you understand the introduction of new technology has an important role in redrawing the division of labor. Virtually any technology brings with it destruction and creation and can radically shift the division of labor. This is known as 'creative destruction.' Schumpeter makes the first reference to it.
An example would be the introduction of the assembly line and automobile and the expansion of related markets and the shrinkage of the horse and buggy business and the shrinkage of its related markets.

But socialists and communists despise the division of labor (and therefore, modern civilization) so trying to reason with them will not go very far.

Yeah, that's why revleft.com hates technological progress so much that people who opposes it are restricted. You are attacking a strawman. We technocrats for example loves automatisation because it diminishes the need for work.

www.technocracynet.eu

[Vanguard1917]

Also we already know that immigration throughout this and the last century have been used as scapegoats and to disguise authoritarian policy making.

Technology does not cause unemployment - capitalism does.

[Dimentio]

how is that an arguement at all?
fact is, allegedley, that you need the working class for revolution, whereas the use of technology is creating a vaster underclass, which many of this site state have no revolutionary potenial. Also whether you like it or not, the working class needs jobs to get by.

When the service sector is automatised, we will probably see a transition to some form of socialism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

no I don't propose that. Instead I advocate the abolishment of the boss class, that puts regular people out of work with thier money saving and all around greed.. Only communities organised by the people are capable to make decisions like putting people out of work, while being able to provide other work for them, if they choose to do it.
I don't give a fuck about progress, if your view of progression is putting some people down so that others can get higher than I absolutely oppose it.

In what way does abolishing the "boss class" have anything to do with technology?

Your primitivism is showing.

[Bud Struggle]

In what way does abolishing the "boss class" have anything to do with technology?

Your primitivism is showing.

Dead on. If I own a company full of working people or a company full of working machines--it's all the same to me. Either way I OWN the company.

[Dimentio]

Dead on. If I own a company full of working people or a company full of working machines--it's all the same to me. Either way I OWN the company.

The question is not about ownership, but about de-facto control. De-facto, many owners, especially of larger firms, do not control their own property and have left it to the governorship of corporate boards, something which showns that the labour aristocracy maybe is beginning to replace the bourgeoisie.

[Bud Struggle]

The question is not about ownership, but about de-facto control. De-facto, many owners, especially of larger firms, do not control their own property and have left it to the governorship of corporate boards, something which showns that the labour aristocracy maybe is beginning to replace the bourgeoisie.

Boards of directors are almost unanimously (with a token here or there, of course,) CEO's or senior managers of other companies. CEOs of various companies routinely sit on the boards of each other's businesses and especially executive committees (where "financial compensation" to executive officers is doled out.) The ownership of these businesses is located among thousands of shareholders but very large shareholders often have a good deal to say about a company's management.

And Labor, and by that I mean unionized labor is a vastly diminishing entity in corporate America and he world in general. It's a product of the early 20th century and will be gone very soon.

[Kropotesta]

Technology does not cause unemployment - capitalism does.
the use of technology for capitalist means.

[Kropotesta]

In what way does abolishing the "boss class" have anything to do with technology?

Your primitivism is showing.
Via the abolition of the boss class, the working class can dictate the use of technology in a way which is more sympathetic to the people working in the sectors that would be disrupted by the introduction of various new forms of technology.
My primitivism? na mate. I ain't once mentioned technology being abolished in this thread, neither that technology is inherently evil, so no I haven't shown that at all. My advocation to abolish the boss classes, which is the capitalist class, which is capitalism, is what I have stated in this thread.

[Black Dagger]

I understand what you're saying, but what is the point of contention here?

I.E. what are we meant to be discussing?

I think we (well, the revleftists) all agree that bosses in general care little for the job security of individual workers, and so cannot be relied upon to ensure the livelihood of workers displaced by technological development.

Further, we all agree that workers themselves should be in control of the means of production (and thus capable of ensuring the livelihood of all peoples) - and that to do this the working class must, through social revolution - abolish the boss class and with them capitalism (as you suggest) - so what is the controversy? On what point do you see a difference of opinion with other comrades here?

[Vanguard1917]

Via the abolition of the boss class, the working class can dictate the use of technology in a way which is more sympathetic to the people working in the sectors that would be disrupted by the introduction of various new forms of technology.

With the overthrow of capitalism, the working class will seek to massively step-up technological advancement and its application in the industrial and agricultural production process, as a means to increase the productivity of labour - so that we can produce more with less labour-time.

But you're for getting rid of all industry, aren't you?

[Black Dagger]

But you're for getting rid of all industry, aren't you?

Can has loaded question?

[Forward Union]

Like the Luddites, we, the contemporary working class of the UK are yet again under the attack of jobs loses adminstrated by the bosses, well the somewhat constant battle. However unlike the Right says, this isn't exclusively due to immigration. I feel that the critque of the use of technology is far more viable.

The Luddites didn't criticise Technology or blame technology for anything. They wanted set prices for set work and opposed the idea of a "free market" alot has been written about the luddites. But not alot was written by the luddites. In their own words they said they would fight until "full fashioned work at the old fashioned price Is established by Custom and Law"

And some other extracts from "General Ludds Triumph"

"The guilty may fear, but no vengeance he aims
At the honest man's life or Estate
His wrath is entirely confined to wide frames
And to those that old prices abate "

They actually wanted set-prices for set labour. And used machine smashing as a direct-protest.

"Then the Trade when this arduous contest is o'er
Shall raise in full splendour its head
And colting and cutting and squaring no more
Shall deprive honest workmen of bread."

[Bud Struggle]

With the overthrow of capitalism, the working class will seek to massively step-up technological advancement and its application in the industrial and agricultural production process, as a means to increase the productivity of labour - so that we can produce more with less labour-time.


Getting rid of the "boss class" is like trying to get rid of homosexuals. Some people are just BORN to take over when there's a vacuum (like anarchy.)

[Forward Union]

Getting rid of the "boss class" is like trying to get rid of homosexuals.

Keeping the boss class is like murdering babies.

Hey look, I can make shocking comparisons to buttress my non-existing point to.

[Bud Struggle]

Keeping the boss class is like murdering babies.

Hey look, I can make shocking comparisons to buttress my non-existing point to.

Fair enough, but some people are just BORN to rise to the top. At least I think so. And they come to the fore with anarchism--or near anarchism. Look at Hitler after the Weimer Republic or Nepoleon after the (Paris Commune!) French Republic. Look at Stalin after Lenin. They just arise. Same as in business--do you think all these guys that can rise to the heights of corporate power will just go away?

The day after the "revolution" believe me, I (and those like me) will declare my undying faith to the cause and then will start aquiring a power base. We were born to rule. I don't really care what the political or economic structure is, we'll work within it's confines, just fine--but we will rule.

That twenty centuries of stony sleep Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle, And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

[Vanguard1917]

The Luddites didn't criticise Technology or blame technology for anything. They wanted set prices for set work and opposed the idea of a "free market" alot has been written about the luddites. But not alot was written by the luddites.

Well pointed out. When the Luddites (the 19th century radicals) attacked industrial technology, it wasn't technological progress itself that they were opposed to - they were fighting against the effects of emerging industrial capitalism on their livelihoods. Compare this to today's 'primitivists' and eco-worriers, some of whom openly condemn technology for raising living standards and giving way to 'over-consumption', and we see that their petty sentiments are a millions miles away from the aspirations of the Luddites.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The question is not about ownership, but about de-facto control. De-facto, many owners, especially of larger firms, do not control their own property and have left it to the governorship of corporate boards, something which showns that the labour aristocracy maybe is beginning to replace the bourgeoisie.

Actually, it's more complicated than what either you or the petit-bourgeois TomK have said. Power has shifted away from boards towards "senior management" ("officers"). This "senior management" isn't part of a "labour aristocracy" as you and Lenin put it, but rather part of the ever-changing "functional capitalist" subclass.

[Please read my "article submission" on class relations. Thanks.]

[Bud Struggle]

petit-bourgeois TomK

There is nothing "petit" about me. I have three houses and a Bentley. :cursing:


This "senior management" isn't part of a "labour aristocracy" as you and Lenin put it, but rather part of the ever-changing "functional capitalist" subclass.

What the hell does that mean?

[Die Neue Zeit]

There is nothing "petit" about me. I have three houses and a Bentley. :cursing:

Personal possessions (as opposed to the legalized theft known as capital property) doth not determine one's class. That is merely reductionist thinking.

What company do you own: a "small-to-medium business," or some large national enterprise? :glare:


What the hell does that mean?

You'll have to read and understand Das Kapital, Volume III (most "cappies" can't stomach going past the popularized Volume I) to understand. :)

[Bud Struggle]

You'll have to read and understand Das Kapital, Volume III (most "cappies" can't stomach going past the popularized Volume I) to understand. :)

Ain't gunna happen, buddy.

Get a job. :(

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I already have a good one (being way past the teenage years), thank you. :glare:

[Bud Struggle]

[quote] You'll have to read and understand Das Kapital, Volume III (most "cappies" can't stomach going past the popularized Volume I) to understand. :)

Even Lenin never read that far.

That's why the "magic" never happened. :laugh:


^^^ I already have a good one (being way past the teenage years), thank you.

A good job? Bowing to the Capitalist, I see. :)

[careyprice31]

Ain't gunna happen, buddy.

Get a job. :(

Could we all get along.

Please?:(

I love tomk and I love jacob. Two nice people. At least nice to me and treat me very well. :)


oh technology......that wouldnt put people out of work, at least i dont think so. For example, wouldnt machines still need people to operate them?

[Bud Struggle]

Could we all get along.

Please?:(

I love tomk and I love jacob. Two nice people. At least nice to me and treat me very well. :)

Yes. Sorry.

He called me a petit-bourgeois. :(:(:(

Petit! :(

[careyprice31]

well petit bourgeois are like ones who own smaller businesses not huge corporations and big trans national corporations.

Thats all he meant. Like the guy who lives down the road from us. He owns a small grocery store. He's a petit bourgeois.

[Bud Struggle]

well petit bourgeois are like ones who own smaller businesses not huge corporations and big trans national corporations.

Thats all he meant. Like the guy who lives down the road from us. He owns a small grocery store. He's a petit bourgeois.

I'm not FREAKIN' petit!

I own a shitload of proletarians!

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Sorry, but "owning" lots of proletarians still doesn't determine your still-petit-bourgeois class. :p

[careyprice31]

I'm not FREAKIN' petit!

I own a shitload of proletarians!

im not saying you are, just explaining what jacob meant. I get the idea that your factory of course is larger than a neighborhood store. What type of factory is it? how many proletarians?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ It doesn't matter. Because of the development of capitalism, there are other factors, such as market share and market size. He could be the boss of 1,000 proles all hand-making products that could be manufactured, and still be considered petit-bourgeois (please swallow your false pride, TomK).

[My still-petit-bourgeois boss owns a f****** personal aircraft (for his own piloting) compared to your car.]