4 ms·

> What about the spreadsheets, the computers, algorithms, industrial control systems, Python scripts, voice recognition systems, data pipelines, software powere

> What about the spreadsheets, the computers, algorithms, industrial control systems, Python scripts, voice recognition systems, data pipelines, software powered gig economy, algorithmic traders? At first I thought you were bringing these up to point out that the robots create other jobs, because robots don't just spring from the earth fully formed and ready to run forever. They require an army of engineers to build/operate/maintain them. > We're always focused on the some day maybe robots, but automation has been changing society and (I'd argue) increasing inequality for decades Inequality is a political problem. I'd rather we tackled that for what it is: bring on the fully automated luxury communism and free us from our mindless toil that can be trivially performed by mindless robots. We have nothing to lose but our drudgery.

selestify 5y ago
For your first point: the new jobs required is of course much less than the jobs removed, or else there wouldn't be a point to automation in the first place because it's not saving on labor efficiency. Agreed on your second point. Attack the inequality, not the automation.
ordinaryradical 5y ago
The totalitarian state that is necessitated by the communist political system always turns out to be as hellish, selfish, and mismanaged as any late capitalist dystopia—except usually with more murder. So I would say the political problem is very much not solved and post-scarcity Utopianism isn’t going to get us there.
- scollet 5y ago
  I don't think you're projecting as far as OP. F U L L Y is Star Trek years away, not next Wednesday.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The totalitarian state that is necessitated by the communist political system always turns out to be as hellish, selfish, and mismanaged as any late capitalist dystopia Leninism (and it's descendants) have a totalitarian state system (socialist, including non-Leninist Marxist Communist, critics tend to call it “state capitalism”) that replaces private capitalism as a hack to avoid the requirement of developing proletarian class identity in a developed capitalist system present in OG Marxism. That this turns into a dystopian nightmare that mirrors and even exaggerates the horrors of private capitalism and fails to actually bypass private capitalism is a surprise to no one but Leninists, least of all non-Leninist Communists.
  - jordwest 5y ago
    Leninism, Marxism was founded at a time when the labor equation was very different. Back then, generally there was a fixed ratio between labor input and productivity output. So communist ideals were about how to centrally distribute that productivity output while centrally controlling the inputs. With automation though I think that obsoletes a lot of those ideas. Now there's less and less connection between labor input and productivity output. We need some new ideas for distributing the fruits of automation - that take into account the productivity improvements thanks to machines, computers and efficiency improvement in general. While at the same time keeping some incentives to make things even more efficient. I think that can be done within our current system with taxes, socialising things like healthcare and access to food and healthcare (and perhaps something like UBI). No need to completely overhaul the political system, although we could be heading towards that too if things don't change.
    - bryanlarsen 5y ago
      Marx was writing precisely at the time that the equation shifted to its modern form. A single spinning jenny operator could do the work of eight or more spinners.
    - vidarh 5y ago
      Marx spent the first chapter of the Communist Manifesto fanboying over how capitalism was increasing the productivity of labour to previously unthinkable levels [1]. He explicitly argued that this was what he believed would make communism possible. So whatever else one thinks about Marx it's clear he did not think in terms of a fixed ratio. The comparison of Lenin and Marx is also flawed - Marx argued for the dismantling of the state, not a highly centralised state. In Critique of the Gotha Programme he even pointed to the US as a better model for education (arguing that government-set standards but devolution of control over the actual provision of education was something to aim for) than the SPDs proposed state run education because he disapproved of giving the state control over even that, arguing that it was rather the state which needed to be educated by the public. And in his work on the Paris Commune he lamented that one of the biggest errors he believed the commune made was to not go further and smash the rest of the state. The focus on centralised planning in the Soviet Union was Stalinist, not even Leninist, and certainly has nothing to do with Marx. [1] E.g.: "The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?"
jordwest 5y ago
> They require an army of engineers to build/operate/maintain them. Yep agreed, but there's a key difference. Unlike most other jobs, your labor continues to provide the company profits even after you leave. I think that's why software engineers are typically paid a lot and are often paid with a stock option component. > Inequality is a political problem. I'd rather we tackled that for what it is: bring on the fully automated luxury communism and free us from our mindless toil that can be trivially performed by mindless robots. We have nothing to lose but our drudgery. I think we could already do this. Obviously many workers would still be required, but they could be much more fairly compensated. Someone else mentioned Graeber's Bullshit Jobs, we're already inventing jobs just to keep people busy and spending. As Adam Curtis said[1], "your real job is shopping". [1] https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1414301661936421 https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1414301661936421
- mullingitover 5y ago
  > Unlike most other jobs, your labor continues to provide the company profits even after you leave. That's certainly the engineer's sales pitch, but let me introduce you to the engineer's fine print, tech debt.
- Talanes 5y ago
  > Unlike most other jobs, your labor continues to provide the company profits even after you leave. Maybe in terms of pure job function, but anyone who's ever solved a problem at their job in a way that is still used when they leave has continued to provide the company profits.

selestify 5y ago

For your first point: the new jobs required is of course much less than the jobs removed, or else there wouldn't be a point to automation in the first place because it's not saving on labor efficiency. Agreed on your second point. Attack the inequality, not the automation.

ordinaryradical 5y ago

The totalitarian state that is necessitated by the communist political system always turns out to be as hellish, selfish, and mismanaged as any late capitalist dystopia—except usually with more murder. So I would say the political problem is very much not solved and post-scarcity Utopianism isn’t going to get us there.

scollet 5y ago
I don't think you're projecting as far as OP. F U L L Y is Star Trek years away, not next Wednesday.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> The totalitarian state that is necessitated by the communist political system always turns out to be as hellish, selfish, and mismanaged as any late capitalist dystopia Leninism (and it's descendants) have a totalitarian state system (socialist, including non-Leninist Marxist Communist, critics tend to call it “state capitalism”) that replaces private capitalism as a hack to avoid the requirement of developing proletarian class identity in a developed capitalist system present in OG Marxism. That this turns into a dystopian nightmare that mirrors and even exaggerates the horrors of private capitalism and fails to actually bypass private capitalism is a surprise to no one but Leninists, least of all non-Leninist Communists.
- jordwest 5y ago
  Leninism, Marxism was founded at a time when the labor equation was very different. Back then, generally there was a fixed ratio between labor input and productivity output. So communist ideals were about how to centrally distribute that productivity output while centrally controlling the inputs. With automation though I think that obsoletes a lot of those ideas. Now there's less and less connection between labor input and productivity output. We need some new ideas for distributing the fruits of automation - that take into account the productivity improvements thanks to machines, computers and efficiency improvement in general. While at the same time keeping some incentives to make things even more efficient. I think that can be done within our current system with taxes, socialising things like healthcare and access to food and healthcare (and perhaps something like UBI). No need to completely overhaul the political system, although we could be heading towards that too if things don't change.
  - bryanlarsen 5y ago
    Marx was writing precisely at the time that the equation shifted to its modern form. A single spinning jenny operator could do the work of eight or more spinners.
  - vidarh 5y ago
    Marx spent the first chapter of the Communist Manifesto fanboying over how capitalism was increasing the productivity of labour to previously unthinkable levels [1]. He explicitly argued that this was what he believed would make communism possible. So whatever else one thinks about Marx it's clear he did not think in terms of a fixed ratio. The comparison of Lenin and Marx is also flawed - Marx argued for the dismantling of the state, not a highly centralised state. In Critique of the Gotha Programme he even pointed to the US as a better model for education (arguing that government-set standards but devolution of control over the actual provision of education was something to aim for) than the SPDs proposed state run education because he disapproved of giving the state control over even that, arguing that it was rather the state which needed to be educated by the public. And in his work on the Paris Commune he lamented that one of the biggest errors he believed the commune made was to not go further and smash the rest of the state. The focus on centralised planning in the Soviet Union was Stalinist, not even Leninist, and certainly has nothing to do with Marx. [1] E.g.: "The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?"

jordwest 5y ago

> They require an army of engineers to build/operate/maintain them. Yep agreed, but there's a key difference. Unlike most other jobs, your labor continues to provide the company profits even after you leave. I think that's why software engineers are typically paid a lot and are often paid with a stock option component. > Inequality is a political problem. I'd rather we tackled that for what it is: bring on the fully automated luxury communism and free us from our mindless toil that can be trivially performed by mindless robots. We have nothing to lose but our drudgery. I think we could already do this. Obviously many workers would still be required, but they could be much more fairly compensated. Someone else mentioned Graeber's Bullshit Jobs, we're already inventing jobs just to keep people busy and spending. As Adam Curtis said[1], "your real job is shopping". [1] https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1414301661936421 https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1414301661936421

mullingitover 5y ago
> Unlike most other jobs, your labor continues to provide the company profits even after you leave. That's certainly the engineer's sales pitch, but let me introduce you to the engineer's fine print, tech debt.
Talanes 5y ago
> Unlike most other jobs, your labor continues to provide the company profits even after you leave. Maybe in terms of pure job function, but anyone who's ever solved a problem at their job in a way that is still used when they leave has continued to provide the company profits.