4 ms·

>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 th

by 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

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?