Capitalism and technology

[anomaly]

We're seeing it right before our very eyes. Machines are replacing human labor. In capitalism, every human must make a wage, and to do this, they must work. There can be no effective protection of the workers this growing technology is affecting under capitalism. This lead me to develop a theory of sorts, that capitalism cannot effectively survive as technology grows. The reason for this is simple. Unemployment will soon no longer able to be kept down. As technology grows, more workers lose jobs, poverty is inflated as is homelessness. and in turn more worker anger is generated. As former workers grow more and more angry, they will find socialism, a system in which worker's rights are tirelessly defended, more and more appealing. This, combined with the promise of communism in the future could make socialists grow exponentially in magnitude. I ask all of you, do you think, as I do, that capitalism is at odds with growing technology?

[ckaihatsu]

Capitalism and technology

We're seeing it right before our very eyes. Machines are replacing human labor. In capitalism, every human must make a wage, and to do this, they must work. There can be no effective protection of the workers this growing technology is affecting under capitalism. This lead me to develop a theory of sorts, that capitalism cannot effectively survive as technology grows. The reason for this is simple. Unemployment will soon no longer able to be kept down. As technology grows, more workers lose jobs, poverty is inflated as is homelessness. and in turn more worker anger is generated. As former workers grow more and more angry, they will find socialism, a system in which worker's rights are tirelessly defended, more and more appealing. This, combined with the promise of communism in the future could make socialists grow exponentially in magnitude. I ask all of you, do you think, as I do, that capitalism is at odds with growing technology?

- I do consider technology, in general, and the Internet, specifically, as being examples of the-rope-that-the-bourgeoisie-sells-you-which-hangs-their-own-necks.

- I don't think the prime variable is technology per se, but rather whether there is a potential new market capable of providing returns (by extracting surplus value from labor).

- Socialism is, of course, a much more rational basis for the management of society -- including workers' control of the means of mass production.

- Capitalism doesn't seem to have anything on the horizon right now beyond the housing bubble. How far into fantasyland does the bourgeoisie want to go with its credit machinations? See:

Lending Standards Plumb New Depths
http://www.321gold.com/editorials/ackerman/ackerman052705_keep.html


Chris







___

YFIS Discussion Board
http://discussion.newyouth.com/search.php?s=&action=finduser&userid=598

Favorite web sites: chicago.indymedia.org, wsws.org, marxist.com, rwor.org, whatreallyhappened.com, moneyfiles.org, informationclearinghouse.info, blackcommentator.com, narconews.com, truthout.org

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
http://community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

[anomaly]

Originally posted by ckaihatsu
- I do consider technology, in general, and the Internet, specifically, as being examples of the-rope-that-the-bourgeoisie-sells-you-which-hangs-their-own-necks.

- I don't think the prime variable is technology per se, but rather whether there is a potential new market capable of providing returns (by extracting surplus value from labor).

- Socialism is, of course, a much more rational basis for the management of society -- including workers' control of the means of mass production.

- Capitalism doesn't seem to have anything on the horizon right now beyond the housing bubble. How far into fantasyland does the bourgeoisie want to go with its credit machinations? See:

Lending Standards Plumb New Depths
http://www.321gold.com/editorials/ackerman/ackerman052705_keep.html


Chris







___

YFIS Discussion Board
http://discussion.newyouth.com/search.php?s=&action=finduser&userid=598

Favorite web sites: chicago.indymedia.org, wsws.org, marxist.com, rwor.org, whatreallyhappened.com, moneyfiles.org, informationclearinghouse.info, blackcommentator.com, narconews.com, truthout.org

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
http://community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

My issue is not production specifically here, but rather worker discontent. Do you not think that technology continually replacing workers, and companies in turn feeling pressure to eliminate these workers to generate a higher profit, will lead to great worker discontent that will greatly strengthen our cause? The thing about this is it is not reversible, it is not like a recession where worker discontent arises, but disappears when the economy rights itself. This will simply generate more poverty and more unemployment, and we will just have to live with it (or establish a socialist state, of course...).

[ckaihatsu]

Yeah, absolutely -- didn't mean to side-step your main point....

We've seen it since the '70s with manufacturing moving out of the U.S., with associated layoffs and working-class anger. Privatization essentially means divide-and-conquer, where each family and person is reduced to a smaller bubble of existence, despite a world of wealth out there.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by ckaihatsu
Yeah, absolutely -- didn't mean to side-step your main point....

We've seen it since the '70s with manufacturing moving out of the U.S., with associated layoffs and working-class anger. Privatization essentially means divide-and-conquer, where each family and person is reduced to a smaller bubble of existence, despite a world of wealth out there.

Now I'll ask you a question: what do you think can be done under the plannd economic system that is socialism to ensure that technology does not continue to replace human labor and increase jobless rates, all while allowing technology to advance? I have been pondering this for some time, and can't quite find an answer. Perhaps, my friend, you can. In the bureacracy I propose, many bureacratic positions would obviously appear, yet this does not seem to likely cancel out the jobs lost due to technological growth.

[ckaihatsu]

To use a glib, but accurate, analogy I'd say that what would happen would be just like what happened to chess players after computers got powerful enough to beat everyone -- nothing. There are still chess tournaments and international competitions. Despite the paradigm shift people seem to enjoy the game and continue playing.

So if computers and robots can eventually do *everything* for us, then *good*. I think people will still find meaningful things to do. Think of it as craigslist.org without the exchange of money being needed. Already vast efficiencies have led to massive deflation and even partial de-commodification of many digital-based goods.

A socialist state would be concerned with providing the modern basics -- housing, food, clothes, laundry, computer communications, education, health care, transportation, recreation/entertainment -- to everyone. Beyond that people can self-organize for whatever else, including greater developments in science, art, sport, whatever....

More complex issues involving the state would arise in regards to large-scale projects or risky research, but I hope I've answered your question anyway.

[Holocaustpulp]

Technology is not necessarily a bad thing. Despite the fact that technology has in the past lead to layoffs and the like, such layoffs have capitalist connotation and thus have no place in the socialist discussion. Advances in technology - even if they (in most extreme cases) temporarily (for this seems to be the trend) replace labor - will serve humanity as a whole. Under a socialist system, if labor were to be replaced in this manner, there would be endless alternatives for the individual, mind you.

- HP

[anomaly]

Yes, that explains things rather nicely Ckaihatsu. Thanks here.

Holocaust, I most certainly do not view technology as a bad thing. IN fact, as I've stated, I think advancing technology may prove to be an obstacle that capitalism cannot overcome. Only state planning, in the manner I've previously described, will be sufficient to create jobs, in the ways ckaihatsu mentions. The unplanned anarchy of capitalism will not be able to provide workers with a living wage as technology advances.

[anomaly]

Off topic, but ckaihatsu, how do envision the ditribution of money changing under socialism? I've envisioned workers working shorter days, as the goal is to meet the needs of society and not to produce a heavy surplus of goods. Therefore, I've envisoned government distributing money on the basis of how efficient any one factory is in their production. Government would establish a standard for every occupation, and depending on local factory output or other variables, a certain amount of capital will be distributed. I'm sure we can agree, though, that equal wages are surely a myth.

[ckaihatsu]

Here -- I have to post this link again -- see two-thirds of the way down to this section:

"A socialist program to defend the working class"
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/sep2004/prog-s20.shtml


It's an excellent short- and medium-term plan -- basically the socialist state could intervene heavily in tax policy and credit policy, for starters.