2 ms·

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 produ

by 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
  >People who become unable to participate in the market economy no longer matter to it I don't think goods would continue to be produced if so few people (in this society in which almost all human labour has been eliminated) can pay for them. Forget market participation, the market almost ceases to exist as a whole. And what are these beggars and North Koreans to do? All they can do is sit and watch products drop off the production line and wallowing in their needs. But actually, if the market is so small, no capitalist will be producing much of anything at all; the costs of production would not justify catering to such a small group of people. I don't think it is good for things to be in this state of extreme automation in capitalism, because it would be the biggest failure of the capitalist system. The only reason I could see for ever wanting such a thing would be to accelerate the arrival of what comes next (according to Marx, socialism and Communism).
  - philipkglass 10y ago
    I'm not saying that having wealthy owners who no longer produce for mass consumption and a much larger number of dispossessed people with nothing to offer for market exchange is a good situation. I'm saying that there are tendencies that could drive things in that direction if extreme automation is possible and market logic endures without further modifications. In the 19th and 20th centuries, both Marxists and their rivals believed that a large work force was a crucial part of industrial production. They just differed on social/political arrangements around that necessary labor. In the long run, the feud between Marxists and capitalists may seem as quaintly parochial as the conflict between 17th century Catholics and Protestants seems to an agnostic 21st century European. What need have we of a doctrine of factory workers when nobody needs factory workers at all?

by ue_ 10y ago

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
>People who become unable to participate in the market economy no longer matter to it I don't think goods would continue to be produced if so few people (in this society in which almost all human labour has been eliminated) can pay for them. Forget market participation, the market almost ceases to exist as a whole. And what are these beggars and North Koreans to do? All they can do is sit and watch products drop off the production line and wallowing in their needs. But actually, if the market is so small, no capitalist will be producing much of anything at all; the costs of production would not justify catering to such a small group of people. I don't think it is good for things to be in this state of extreme automation in capitalism, because it would be the biggest failure of the capitalist system. The only reason I could see for ever wanting such a thing would be to accelerate the arrival of what comes next (according to Marx, socialism and Communism).
- philipkglass 10y ago
  I'm not saying that having wealthy owners who no longer produce for mass consumption and a much larger number of dispossessed people with nothing to offer for market exchange is a good situation. I'm saying that there are tendencies that could drive things in that direction if extreme automation is possible and market logic endures without further modifications. In the 19th and 20th centuries, both Marxists and their rivals believed that a large work force was a crucial part of industrial production. They just differed on social/political arrangements around that necessary labor. In the long run, the feud between Marxists and capitalists may seem as quaintly parochial as the conflict between 17th century Catholics and Protestants seems to an agnostic 21st century European. What need have we of a doctrine of factory workers when nobody needs factory workers at all?