Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2016 4:02:41 GMT -5
Karl Marx, in a section of his Grundrisse that came to be known as the "Fragment on Machines", argued that the transition to a post-capitalist society combined with advances in automation would allow for significant reductions in the labour needed to produce necessary goods, eventually reaching a point where all people would have significant amounts of leisure time to pursue science, the arts, and creative activities; a state some commentators later labeled as "post-scarcity". Marx argued that capitalism - the dynamic of economic growth based on capital accumulation - depends upon exploiting the surplus labour of worker-slaves, but a post-capitalist society would allow for the free development of individualities, and the general reduction of the necessary labour of society to a minimum, which then corresponds to the artistic, scientific etc. development of the individuals in the time set free, and with the means created, for all of them.
Marx's concept of a post-capitalist communist society involves the free distribution of goods made possible by the abundance provided by automation. The fully developed communist economic system is postulated to develop from a preceding socialist system. Marx held the view that socialism — a system based on social ownership of the means of production — would enable progress toward the development of fully developed communism by further advancing productive technology. Under socialism, with its increasing levels of automation, an increasing proportion of goods would be distributed freely.
We must agree, must we not?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Apr 10, 2016 5:47:43 GMT -5
Karl Marx, in a section of his Grundrisse that came to be known as the "Fragment on Machines", argued that the transition to a post-capitalist society combined with advances in automation would allow for significant reductions in the labour needed to produce necessary goods, eventually reaching a point where all people would have significant amounts of leisure time to pursue science, the arts, and creative activities; a state some commentators later labeled as "post-scarcity". Marx argued that capitalism - the dynamic of economic growth based on capital accumulation - depends upon exploiting the surplus labour of worker-slaves, but a post-capitalist society would allow for the free development of individualities, and the general reduction of the necessary labour of society to a minimum, which then corresponds to the artistic, scientific etc. development of the individuals in the time set free, and with the means created, for all of them. Marx's concept of a post-capitalist communist society involves the free distribution of goods made possible by the abundance provided by automation. The fully developed communist economic system is postulated to develop from a preceding socialist system. Marx held the view that socialism — a system based on social ownership of the means of production — would enable progress toward the development of fully developed communism by further advancing productive technology. Under socialism, with its increasing levels of automation, an increasing proportion of goods would be distributed freely. We must agree, must we not? Having no idea (yet again!) whom "we" might be, I can only say that "we" must or must not or might or might not agree according to their prerogative and that even this can be no guarantee that all of those who might constitute said "we" would necessarily even be bothered to agree, or disagree, with this. That said - and to return to the view of at least one person not covered by said "we" - history has shown Marx's idealism here to have little foundation in reality. There's vastly more "automation" of one kind and another today than he might ever have dreamed of, yet the "freedom" that he purpotedly perceived to be an outcome of his expectations of and from socialism is in practice almost nowhere to be found and the economic inequalities between people are immeasurably greater now than was the case in his own time. Furthermore, the advances in automation, communication, travel and many other things in life have so obviously contributed so little towards the creation of a "post-capitalist" society - indeed, that the very reverse is the case is painfully obvious - that his anticipations for the success of socialism in practice are now shown to have precious little basis. That's not all his fault, of course; he was a philosopher, not a prophet and, in any case, so very much of what has been done in the name of socialism since his time has taken scant heed of the kinds of human conduct for which he fondly hoped; moreover, if humans - or at least enough of them - simply will not do what he wanted, his hopes for society can only ever continue to be dashed. Some of those who today claim to be followers of his ideas are often wont to dismiss capitalism as never having had anything good about it for humanity; this is patently not the case. That said, the corruption of capitalism in practice does indeed have nothing good about it for society and neer had done. The Scots Marxist MacDiarmid (I think it was) once predicted that one day there would be no work for the stupid (largely as a consequence of the very kinds of development to which you refer here); the trouble with that (insofar as it has become true since his time) is that those without work will almost all be poor as a direct result, which is pretty much the opposite of what Marx hoped to become the case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2016 14:32:59 GMT -5
If I may address your question directly, Sydney: " ... We must agree, must we not?" Well, ahinton does not seem to agree, but I would agree that Karl Marx certainly had a point. What happened, I suspect, over the course of the intervening century (and a half) was that workers moved out of fields and factories, for example, and into services. Now services are not necessarily leisure, but Marx probably failed to see the vast expansion of employment opportunities in the service sector. Of course, the computer had not yet been invented in Marx's day, so it woud have been difficult to predict the development of the IT industry, and possibly even AI. Artificial intelligence could, potentially, wipe out jobs in the service sector just as machines have emptied our factories, but who is to say that even more might not be created elsewhere?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Apr 11, 2016 17:10:44 GMT -5
If I may address your question directly, Sydney: " ... We must agree, must we not?" Well, ahinton does not seem to agree, but I would agree that Karl Marx certainly had a point. What happened, I suspect, over the course of the intervening century (and a half) was that workers moved out of fields and factories, for example, and into services. Now services are not necessarily leisure, but Marx probably failed to see the vast expansion of employment opportunities in the service sector. Of course, the computer had not yet been invented in Marx's day, so it woud have been difficult to predict the development of the IT industry, and possibly even AI. Artificial intelligence could, potentially, wipe out jobs in the service sector just as machines have emptied our factories, but who is to say that even more might not be created elsewhere? Who is to say indeed? - and Marx certainly did have a point (as I hoped to have clarified despite all that I wrote about that point having gone nowhere useful in practice since his days) - but humanity eventually decides, rightly or wrongly, for (or against) itself...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2016 21:16:54 GMT -5
If I may address your question directly, Sydney: " ... We must agree, must we not?" Well, ahinton does not seem to agree, but I would agree that Karl Marx certainly had a point. What happened, I suspect, over the course of the intervening century (and a half) was that workers moved out of fields and factories, for example, and into services. Now services are not necessarily leisure, but Marx probably failed to see the vast expansion of employment opportunities in the service sector. Of course, the computer had not yet been invented in Marx's day, so it woud have been difficult to predict the development of the IT industry, and possibly even AI. Artificial intelligence could, potentially, wipe out jobs in the service sector just as machines have emptied our factories, but who is to say that even more might not be created elsewhere? Herr Marx should if he could look at to-day's Guardian: www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/13/should-we-scrap-benefits-and-pay-everyone-100-a-week-whether-they-work-or-notUniversal basic income what. The word "Job" (or money slavery) is thieve's slang from 1690. That is how the O.E.D. positions the apostrophe, so it must be correct.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Apr 15, 2016 0:36:53 GMT -5
If I may address your question directly, Sydney: Well, ahinton does not seem to agree, but I would agree that Karl Marx certainly had a point. What happened, I suspect, over the course of the intervening century (and a half) was that workers moved out of fields and factories, for example, and into services. Now services are not necessarily leisure, but Marx probably failed to see the vast expansion of employment opportunities in the service sector. Of course, the computer had not yet been invented in Marx's day, so it woud have been difficult to predict the development of the IT industry, and possibly even AI. Artificial intelligence could, potentially, wipe out jobs in the service sector just as machines have emptied our factories, but who is to say that even more might not be created elsewhere? Herr Marx should if he could look at to-day's Guardian: www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/13/should-we-scrap-benefits-and-pay-everyone-100-a-week-whether-they-work-or-notUniversal basic income what. The word "Job" (or money slavery) is thieve's slang from 1690. That is how the O.E.D. positions the apostrophe, so it must be correct. So would you regard the self-employed sole trader as a victim of self-imposed slavery? The concept of UBI's all very well in principle and perhaps sufficiently so to merit theoretical exploration before possible experimental implementation, but it could not begin to work in practice unless availability of sufficient funds could be guaranteed at all times to pay the suggested sum to everyone of working age and above. In UK, that would amount to some £25bn p.a. and, were that to take the place of any and all state benefits, it would leave quite a few people considerably worse off than they are now, especially a significant proportion of those of and above state retirement age. Furthermore, as it is in any event so paltry a sum that would go nowhere near supporting any individual, let alone the additional costs of raising children or of care for whose in need of it, it would leave everyone who did not already have considerable capital with which to produce an additional income still needing to derive income from work; in a country whose average house price is around £200,000 and the average gross annual salary of working people only around £27,500, it would fall hopelessly short of meeting most people's needs. It would also take no account of the fact that some people actually want to work as well as need to do so, largely because the idea appears to be predicated upon a view of all work as slavish drudgery.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2016 7:33:23 GMT -5
. . . it could not begin to work in practice unless availability of sufficient funds could be guaranteed at all times to pay the suggested sum to everyone of working age and above. . . . What you suggest is not so Mr. H. Sooner or later NO "funds" will be available, because it will be seen that "money" is unnecessary in an advanced state of civilization such as will come in the twenty-second century. Nor will there be any "working" if I may use your quaint old-fashioned term. (Many of the little squirts running around to-day will live to see all this, so they had better be appropriately educated in the schools of to-day.) Are you a supporter of the Conservative party may I be so bold as to enquire?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Apr 15, 2016 8:44:48 GMT -5
. . . it could not begin to work in practice unless availability of sufficient funds could be guaranteed at all times to pay the suggested sum to everyone of working age and above. . . . What you suggest is not so Mr. H. Sooner or later NO "funds" will be available, because it will be seen that "money" is unnecessary in an advanced state of civilization such as will come in the twenty-second century. Nor will there be any "working" if I may use your quaint old-fashioned term. (Many of the little squirts running around to-day will live to see all this, so they had better be appropriately educated in the schools of to-day.) Were there no longer to be money, there could self-evidently be no UBI; no government could pay £100p.w. or inded any other regular sum to every UK citizen of working age or above if it had no money with which to do so! However, the fact that the abolition of money is not about to happen (and is unlikely to occur in a century's time when I won't likely be around to witness it in any case) worldwide or even in UK alone prompts me to question on what authority you base such an assumption. "Working" is in any case neither my term nor a "quaint old-fashioned" one, it describes certain human activities of which some are carried out from economic necessity, some from personal necessity arising from the desire to carry them out and some from both; as I stated, not all work is carried out in the spirit of slavery and not all is drudgery. Are you a supporter of the Conservative party may I be so bold as to enquire? Not knowing how much boldness you believe to be necessary in order to submit such an enquiry, I cannot comment on that aspect of your question but I can confirm that I am not and never have been a member or supporter of any political party; I trust that this answers your question to your satisfaction, although I must confess that your reason for putting it to me remains unclear in the context of the thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2016 0:20:18 GMT -5
. . . the fact that the abolition of money is not about to happen (and is unlikely to occur in a century's time . . . Mr. H's faith in money is unimaginative. When accommodation, food, clothing, public transport, education, goods of all kinds, etc. etc. become available to everyone without sordid pecuniosity, "money" as we know it will - like paid "work" - have become useless - an outdated concept let us say. The world in five hundred years' time will be nothing like the world of to-day.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Apr 16, 2016 5:07:04 GMT -5
. . . the fact that the abolition of money is not about to happen (and is unlikely to occur in a century's time . . . Mr. H's faith in money is unimaginative. I neither wrote nor even implied anything whatsoever about having faith - or indeed a lack thereof - in money; I merely pointed out that it's not about to bite the dust and there'd be nothing set up to replace it in any case if it were so - no more, no less. When accommodation, food, clothing, public transport, education, goods of all kinds, etc. etc. become available to everyone without sordid pecuniosity, "money" as we know it will - like paid "work" - have become useless - an outdated concept let us say. No doubt, in theory but, since none of those things can be produced and provided without the prior investment of money - and since the universal availability of them all is no more than a pipe-dream - theory is about as far as it can possibly get. What on earth makes you think that people would stop paying anyone to work and that those who do work would simply accept without question not being paid for their labours? The world in five hundred years' time will be nothing like the world of to-day. That's a mere statement of the obvious (albeit with yet another of your superogatory hyphens - do you keep a stock of these in a cupboard, by chance?); after all, the world as it is today is vastly different to that of the time of Thomas Tallis!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2016 14:30:45 GMT -5
Unanimity?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2017 10:12:02 GMT -5
The London ' Times' leads today with some editorial comment on Future Work. The leading article thunders that when an all-conquering capitalist forecasts mass unemployment it is worth paying attention, even if his solution leaves much to be desired: The newspaper concludes that while Mr Musk may be ready to pay the extra tax to fund his idea of a universal basic income, the squeezed middle class on both sides of the Atlantic are likely to balk at it. Even so, advocates of hard work, low taxes and a smaller state need to be ready to update their arguments for the age of the intelligent machine. It is almost upon us. Time may yet prove Sydney right!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Feb 15, 2017 11:24:06 GMT -5
The London ' Times' leads today with some editorial comment on Future Work. The leading article thunders that when an all-conquering capitalist forecasts mass unemployment it is worth paying attention, even if his solution leaves much to be desired: The newspaper concludes that while Mr Musk may be ready to pay the extra tax to fund his idea of a universal basic income, the squeezed middle class on both sides of the Atlantic are likely to balk at it. Even so, advocates of hard work, low taxes and a smaller state need to be ready to update their arguments for the age of the intelligent machine. It is almost upon us. Time may yet prove Sydney right! That will depend upon what Sydney thinks and anticipates in this regard. The item deals with important issues but seems to me to be somewhat over-simplistic and takes insufficient account of the extent to which various kinds of automation have impacted on the workplace and those who function in it since the Industrial Revolution; it is, after all, only the nature and scale of the technology that we now face and will face in the future that is different from what has pertained from that time onwards. The possibility that the consequences for millions of people of technological developments enabling them to be put out of paid work will be overcome by governments the world over paying some kind of universal basic income to them that will leave none of them any worse off has the air of a pipe-dream hatched in fantasy-land; governments don't have any money with which to make such payments other than the taxes that they collect from people with taxable incomes from paid work or any other sources. Furthermore, as statistics recently published in UK indicate an increase in the incomes of those of state retirement age and above that is in part due to an increased number of them still in paid work, the question then arises as to whether entitlements to such government-funded universal basic incomes would need to be means-tested in accordance with each recipient's other sources of income (including but not limited to that from paid work). That "universal basic incomes are an idea increasingly in vogue among libertarians and socialists alike" is undoubtedly true and the notion that such an idea is "presented as a radically simpler alternative to benefits and high minimum wages" is also true but doesn't mean that it could be made to work successfully as such in some or all cases; however, the claim that they would "(solve) at a stroke the problems of poverty and technologically induced mass unemployment" is pure (or perhaps impure) agenda-driven speculation, as it has never been put to the test and therefore has no demonstrable basis in fact. That said, it is clear that certain areas of robotics and, in particular, self-drive vehicles of which at the very least the drone variety would be unmanned will impact upon the world of work, but at the same time there will still be many people most or all of whose work will not be usurped by rising dependency upon these factors for the foreseeable future, if indeed at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2017 13:38:14 GMT -5
Even if it could be automated, I still like to drive, at least around Europe!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Feb 15, 2017 15:37:40 GMT -5
Even if it could be automated, I still like to drive, at least around Europe! OK, but I'm not sure that a large part of all of this really matters. Personally, I hate to drive but happen also to have a visual impediment that prevents me from being able doing so in any case; ultimately, though, to what extent does or can this actually matter?
|
|