7 ms·

Leaving aside questions of if it could exist, if such a machine should exist, in my opinion, it should be used to relieve people of work, not merely to shift th

by ue_ 10y ago

Leaving aside questions of if it could exist, if such a machine should exist, in my opinion, it should be used to relieve people of work, not merely to shift them to another job in the useless search for employment. For too long has the capitalist replaced humans with machines and rather than returning the saved value to the labourer he has taken it for himself. Automation ought to benefit the workers who should no longer need to sell their labour. Not benefit the "job creator" or "risk taker". I think the utility of the machine could come three-fold; firstly as a way of producing with applying very little labour, secondly as a way of providing what would otherwise be too labour intensive to produce otherwise, thirdly as a way of ensuring we all really are freed.

gnaritas 10y ago
Agree, but doing so requires changing our economy to not be based on capitalism. How do you see that happening?
- philipkglass 10y ago
  Competition between producers already incentivizes eliminating labor whenever you can do a job cheaper without human labor. That provides enduring pressure for more automation without any basic changes to the incentive structure of markets. How do you get human liberation instead of IP-holders-and-landlords-own-everything after human labor is 90% obsolete? Several possibilities here: - Open source imitations of commercial robot systems - "Pirate" clones of commercial systems (de facto illegal, but de jure as common as copying movies) - Poorer nations rejecting rich nations' IP regimes and legalizing all sorts of imitations, even building national programs to copy the rich, if the previous two factors are not sufficient by themselves You might think that it's in the long term interest of producers to require some skilled human labor to make the makerbots, so the bots don't become effectively reducible to bits and copied as easily as bits. But there is a collective action problem that works against producers and in the long term favor of the general public: a "defecting" producer can always gain a temporary advantage by eliminating a bit more human labor, even if in the long term it means the decline of their own position and the position of all large capital owners.
  - ue_ 10y ago
    Eliminating labour on the whole in society does not bode well for the capitalists; there will be no money that can be used to buy the goods that are being produced, or there will be very little money, which is held by those who must work in some capacity or another. Total or very-nearly-total automation is not compatible with capitalism unless there's someone there to hand out money to keep the economy functioning, which seems quite silly, because how is it decided who gets how much money? >How do you get human liberation instead of IP-holders-and-landlords-own-everything after human labor is 90% obsolete? By socialising the means of production. By passing the returns on to the people who ought to be happy that a job requires less labour, rather than forcing them into "unemployment", something which is only really problematic when unemployment means you depend on welfare programs or die.
    - philipkglass 10y ago
      People who become unable to participate in the market economy no longer matter to it; their preferences don't matter for the logic of market supply or market demand. The shareholders of General Electric don't care what North Koreans or the beggars of Dhaka want, because those people are effectively outside the market economy. Large numbers of working age Americans could join the beggars of Dhaka in market irrelevance, if their labor becomes obsolete and there's no progress on UBI or other waged-labor-replacement schemes. It's true that ever-increasing ownership concentration and the decline of mass-participation market exchange wouldn't much resemble capitalism as pictured by economists circa 1950. If the richest gradually morph into neo-feudal lords rather than successful capitalists in the 20th century mold, I don't think they'll worry too much about the fine distinctions as long as they still control the best and the most of real estate and other natural resources. I totally agree that socializing the means of production (and for real, not the hatchet job of 20th century "communist" states) is the right way to ensure that the gains of automation benefit humanity in general. But the process that ultimately leads to socializing those benefits may resemble stealing fire from the gods more than it resembles ordinary electoral politics.
      - ue_ 10y ago
- TaylorAlexander 10y ago
  The the story of The Machine, I took a Marxist view that if the people own The Machine they can share the outputs of the machine without capitalism.
  - ue_ 10y ago
    I have to say that I really like your idea, I've been reading leftist literature recently (Marx, Proudhon, Harvey, I.I Rubin..) and your idea really made me think. Thanks.
    - TaylorAlexander 10y ago
      That feels so encouraging to hear! Thank you. I've been trying to figure it all out too. I just launched a community site to talk more about these ideas. I'd love it if you joined! http://reboot.love/ http://reboot.love/
calsy 10y ago
I dont know where this idea of relieving people from work came from. Humans are workers, it's a part of our being and their wouldn't be a civilisation without it. The idea that everyone really just wants to put their feet up in a hammock and relax but these damn social constructs are keeping us tied to work is crazy. If the need to work and strive for something is taken away, I can tell you bad things will happen.
- burkaman 10y ago
  Just replace "work" in that comment with "jobs". It's about removing the necessity of work, and working for other people, not getting rid of work as a concept.
  - calsy 10y ago
    The idea of working with other people is also a part of our being. 'I scratch your back, you scratch mine', we bond as humans by assisting each other, that's how communities are built. Humans have a hard time accepting people into their community who do not wish to work simple because they don't 'feel like it', machine or no machine. It maybe unfortunate, but people as a whole have always taken a dim view of those who don't pull their weight in a group.
    - burkaman 10y ago
      That's fine. There's still a difference between "I want to work" and "I have to work".
    - ue_ 10y ago
      >The idea of working for other people is also a part of our being. Poppycock. This is tired ideology used to say that humans need unjustified authority, someone to give the product of their labour to. And it's hardly a "you scratch mine" relationship when the boss decides who gets how much profit, despite having little to no involvement in the labour process itself. Working may be something humans "need" to do (even that is so far unfounded) but the idea that we need to work for other people is exactly what was pushed on the serfs during feudalism and it's exactly what's being pushed by the state, the church and the owners of capital on the labourers of today. With regard to your second point, humans may indeed have a hard time accepting people who don't want to pull weight, but that pulling doesn't have to be done for someone else. It can be, sure - and I feel as though many or most people would be happy to work for collective good, for whatever motivation, but to force someone to work in such a fashion is authoritarian. Just as being forced to sell labour is authoritarian.
TaylorAlexander 10y ago
I absolutely agree and I envisioned this as a way to free people from the need to work. People only work by choice in this imagined world.

by ue_ 10y ago

gnaritas 10y ago

Agree, but doing so requires changing our economy to not be based on capitalism. How do you see that happening?

philipkglass 10y ago
Competition between producers already incentivizes eliminating labor whenever you can do a job cheaper without human labor. That provides enduring pressure for more automation without any basic changes to the incentive structure of markets. How do you get human liberation instead of IP-holders-and-landlords-own-everything after human labor is 90% obsolete? Several possibilities here: - Open source imitations of commercial robot systems - "Pirate" clones of commercial systems (de facto illegal, but de jure as common as copying movies) - Poorer nations rejecting rich nations' IP regimes and legalizing all sorts of imitations, even building national programs to copy the rich, if the previous two factors are not sufficient by themselves You might think that it's in the long term interest of producers to require some skilled human labor to make the makerbots, so the bots don't become effectively reducible to bits and copied as easily as bits. But there is a collective action problem that works against producers and in the long term favor of the general public: a "defecting" producer can always gain a temporary advantage by eliminating a bit more human labor, even if in the long term it means the decline of their own position and the position of all large capital owners.
- ue_ 10y ago
  Eliminating labour on the whole in society does not bode well for the capitalists; there will be no money that can be used to buy the goods that are being produced, or there will be very little money, which is held by those who must work in some capacity or another. Total or very-nearly-total automation is not compatible with capitalism unless there's someone there to hand out money to keep the economy functioning, which seems quite silly, because how is it decided who gets how much money? >How do you get human liberation instead of IP-holders-and-landlords-own-everything after human labor is 90% obsolete? By socialising the means of production. By passing the returns on to the people who ought to be happy that a job requires less labour, rather than forcing them into "unemployment", something which is only really problematic when unemployment means you depend on welfare programs or die.
  - philipkglass 10y ago
    People who become unable to participate in the market economy no longer matter to it; their preferences don't matter for the logic of market supply or market demand. The shareholders of General Electric don't care what North Koreans or the beggars of Dhaka want, because those people are effectively outside the market economy. Large numbers of working age Americans could join the beggars of Dhaka in market irrelevance, if their labor becomes obsolete and there's no progress on UBI or other waged-labor-replacement schemes. It's true that ever-increasing ownership concentration and the decline of mass-participation market exchange wouldn't much resemble capitalism as pictured by economists circa 1950. If the richest gradually morph into neo-feudal lords rather than successful capitalists in the 20th century mold, I don't think they'll worry too much about the fine distinctions as long as they still control the best and the most of real estate and other natural resources. I totally agree that socializing the means of production (and for real, not the hatchet job of 20th century "communist" states) is the right way to ensure that the gains of automation benefit humanity in general. But the process that ultimately leads to socializing those benefits may resemble stealing fire from the gods more than it resembles ordinary electoral politics.
    - ue_ 10y ago
TaylorAlexander 10y ago
The the story of The Machine, I took a Marxist view that if the people own The Machine they can share the outputs of the machine without capitalism.
- ue_ 10y ago
  I have to say that I really like your idea, I've been reading leftist literature recently (Marx, Proudhon, Harvey, I.I Rubin..) and your idea really made me think. Thanks.
  - TaylorAlexander 10y ago
    That feels so encouraging to hear! Thank you. I've been trying to figure it all out too. I just launched a community site to talk more about these ideas. I'd love it if you joined! http://reboot.love/ http://reboot.love/

calsy 10y ago

I dont know where this idea of relieving people from work came from. Humans are workers, it's a part of our being and their wouldn't be a civilisation without it. The idea that everyone really just wants to put their feet up in a hammock and relax but these damn social constructs are keeping us tied to work is crazy. If the need to work and strive for something is taken away, I can tell you bad things will happen.

burkaman 10y ago
Just replace "work" in that comment with "jobs". It's about removing the necessity of work, and working for other people, not getting rid of work as a concept.
- calsy 10y ago
  The idea of working with other people is also a part of our being. 'I scratch your back, you scratch mine', we bond as humans by assisting each other, that's how communities are built. Humans have a hard time accepting people into their community who do not wish to work simple because they don't 'feel like it', machine or no machine. It maybe unfortunate, but people as a whole have always taken a dim view of those who don't pull their weight in a group.
  - burkaman 10y ago
    That's fine. There's still a difference between "I want to work" and "I have to work".
  - ue_ 10y ago
    >The idea of working for other people is also a part of our being. Poppycock. This is tired ideology used to say that humans need unjustified authority, someone to give the product of their labour to. And it's hardly a "you scratch mine" relationship when the boss decides who gets how much profit, despite having little to no involvement in the labour process itself. Working may be something humans "need" to do (even that is so far unfounded) but the idea that we need to work for other people is exactly what was pushed on the serfs during feudalism and it's exactly what's being pushed by the state, the church and the owners of capital on the labourers of today. With regard to your second point, humans may indeed have a hard time accepting people who don't want to pull weight, but that pulling doesn't have to be done for someone else. It can be, sure - and I feel as though many or most people would be happy to work for collective good, for whatever motivation, but to force someone to work in such a fashion is authoritarian. Just as being forced to sell labour is authoritarian.

TaylorAlexander 10y ago

I absolutely agree and I envisioned this as a way to free people from the need to work. People only work by choice in this imagined world.