Marx and Automation
- This topic has 650 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
@Tim KilgallonThe post has everything to do with the title of this discussion, Marx and Automation.Are you following the discussion?Since MBellemare and Steve-San Francisco both want you to throw Marx’s explanation over-board.So a post seeks their alternative to Marx’s explanation.Don’t you want to know of their alternative?How else can we discuss this topic properly?Now will you Tim please help remind MB and SF to explain what if not the market is shifting total labour around in a way that keeps us alive?So far, no one on here has set out to spoil this discussion.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:moderator1 wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:Marcos wrote:Alan Kerr wrote:@Steve-San FranciscoWho or what is shifting total sunlight around in a way that keeps trees alive?“A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"(Stephen Hawking’s book A Brief History of Time)At least the little old lady did give an answer.If not the market then who or what is shifting total labour around in a way that keeps us alive?We are shifting from social sciences into Botany, Agronomy, and Zoology
message to Moderator 1can you explain how the original post relates to the title of this discussion, marx and Automation. As pointed out by Marcos, the posting had nothing to do with the thread title, yet no action was takenagainst the posters, yet later posts wchich diverge ended up with bans from the forum. I for one would like some degree of consistancy in the moderation of this forum!!!
1st warning: : 2. The forums proper are intended for public discussion. Personal messages between participants should be sent via private message or by e-mail.
ffs Every single post by LBird is directed at an individual. What makes you suddenly apply the rules to Tim and Marcus????
@LBirdOk I’m not SPGB either.Without 'automation-for-the-bourgeoisie’, what automation would you have to discuss at all?
Alan Kerr wrote:@LBirdOk I’m not SPGB either.Without 'automation-for-the-bourgeoisie’, what automation would you have to discuss at all?Funnily enough, I'd have us discuss the other alternative that I've already mentioned.'Automation-for-the-proletariat'.Being a Democratic Communist and a Marxist, I don't recognise the non-social, non-historical, category 'automation'.As a starter, since we're all democratic socialists (well, I could name someone who isn't, but won't), we could discuss democratic 'automation-for-the-proletariat'.I suspect that those who wish to employ the category 'automation' are doing so to hide their anti-democratic intentions, and to pretend that 'automation' is nothing to do with social production, and therefore, nothing to do with democracy.
LBird wrote:Funnily enough, I'd have us discuss the other alternative that I've already mentioned.'Automation-for-the-proletariat'.You really are a comedian. "Automation for the slaves".LOL. Educate yourself and join the SPGB for the abolition of slaves.
@LBirdWell then,1) 'automation-for-the-bourgeoisie’ comes earlier.2) 'automation-for-the-proletariat' comes later.Please see The Socialist Preamble.Or see anything by Marx and Engels.
Alan Kerr wrote:@LBirdWell then,1) 'automation-for-the-bourgeoisie’ comes earlier.2) 'automation-for-the-proletariat' comes later.Please see The Socialist Preamble.Or see anything by Marx and Engels.There can be no proletariate in socialism. There can be no free slaves. See Marx and Engels ! "Vulgar socialism has accepted as gospel from the bourgeois economists (and a part even of the democracy has taken over the doctrine from the unreflecting socialists) that the problem of distribution can be considered and treated independently of the mode of production, from which it is inferred that socialism turns mainly upon the question of distribution.""We look forward to an end forever to the wages system".NO MARKET! NO WAGES! NO PROLETARIAT! Eeeeehhh, tell you what, its like being back at nursery school
@VinThank you,Yes I was wrong there.Well then,1) 'automation-for-the-bourgeoisie’ comes earlier.2) automation-for-the-worker comes later.Please see The Socialist Preamble.Or see anything by Marx and Engels.Is that better?
Alan Kerr wrote:@VinThank you,Yes I was wrong there.Well then,1) 'automation-for-the-bourgeoisie’ comes earlier.2) automation-for-the-worker comes later.Please see The Socialist Preamble.Or see anything by Marx and Engels.Is that better?Presume your theory is 'Stalinist Stages Theory', then?I'm for class struggle, here and now, not 'later'. I find that 'later' never actually comes, for those theorists who tell workers that their 'x-for-the-workers' 'comes later'. I suspect that 'later theorists' aren't actually interested in workers' self-development.At least you've got to the view that 'automation' is actually a class issue, which, again, I suspect many reading have never even thought about. I'm talking about the 'materialists', who probably think that 'automation-in-itself' is going to bring socialism, and that they 'know' this because 'automatons' talk to them, alone. I have my doubts. I've actually read both Marx and Engels.Anyway, take a well-earned 'Well Done!', Alan. At least we're now actually talking about 'Marx and Automation', not the 'Machine Socialism' of the 'materialists'.
Vin wrote:Alan Kerr wrote:@LBirdWell then,1) 'automation-for-the-bourgeoisie’ comes earlier.2) 'automation-for-the-proletariat' comes later.Please see The Socialist Preamble.Or see anything by Marx and Engels.There can be no proletariate in socialism. There can be no free slaves. See Marx and Engels ! "Vulgar socialism has accepted as gospel from the bourgeois economists (and a part even of the democracy has taken over the doctrine from the unreflecting socialists) that the problem of distribution can be considered and treated independently of the mode of production, from which it is inferred that socialism turns mainly upon the question of distribution.""We look forward to an end forever to the wages system".NO MARKET! NO WAGES! NO PROLETARIAT! Eeeeehhh, tell you what, its like being back at nursery school
What norsery school did yee gan tee marra? Ah din't knaa th'wez that clivvor owa the watta.Forthest we iva got at norsery wus Logical Positivism and a little bit of existentialism!
LBird wrote:It seems to me that a thread entitled 'Marx and Automation' should have at least some reference to the question of 'Automation for who?'.Marx was interested in social production, conscious revolutionary activity by the proletariat, engaged in a democratic political process of self-development.Thus, with Marx, we must ask for whose needs, interests and purposes any posited 'automation' is referring to.'Automation' can only refer to the 'needs for automation of the workers', the 'interests in automation by the workers', and the 'conscious purposes intended for automation by workers'.Put simply, it must be 'automation for us' (not 'automation for the bourgeoisie'). There is no asocial, ahistoric, 'automation', an 'automation in itself'.Automation is created, usually for a profit motive in a capitalist society. BUT, automation is routinely missused, re-adapted, used by the unintended users in ways unforseable by the creators. that's sort of a principle of User Experience Designer forcused Education I received and is discussed in great detail with case studies and whole body of liturature for support. Google "wikipedia Affordance" and speceficially google "wikipedia social affordance" to find the url I am repeating here only for your convenience without intending it as an endorsement or spam. . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_affordance and more ganerally https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordance A "social Affordance" is what us User Experience designers in a capitalist work process use as words to obliquely refer to the concept Marx discussed and with the words "modes of production". I guess maybe "modes of production" only exist in a socialist society that has never been tried so capitalist got tired of arguing about it with socialist about it's meaning so they just changed the name to be "social affordance" and continued the discussion and advanced the argument without the marxist and socialist restricting the conversation? Anyway, if you want to discuss marx and automation, you might want to look at the capitalist conception of Automation in regards to society which has the benefit of starting from marx and added to marx original thoughts many other great thinkers, and statistisical analysis, and fine distinctions and a sort of nomenclature for distinguishing between technologies and usage (ake modes of production). Also they threw out some of marx misconceptions (yes, it's true even though it's as hard for some of you to believe that marx could make a misconception as it is for some people to believe that jesus was black). My main point of relevance to your comment is to point out that technology isn't usually limited to just one class. It is usually developed and designed and created for the benefit of a small group, but that small group of people could be proletariate or bouroise or deaf or color blind or rich or poor (well not usually designed FOR the poor). However once that technology is created and the genie is out of the bottle it serves everyone and anyone depending on how much utiliity value it can be harnesed by anyone or everyone. So for exmaple the laser was originallly developed by academics then taken over to make Ronald Reagans Star Wars missile defense program, but it failed as a technology for stopping ICMB missles and was repurposed to make laser CD's to play music with for the poor and everyone else instead of being a technology for war owned by military elites. Now the technology of the laser is seen everywhere with applications an spin offs for even very poor people. So my point is that it doesn't much matter in the long run to technology who is using it and automation has it's own way of deciding who uses it for what that is mostly independent of the creators wishes. To put it simply I strongly disagree with you saying "Put simply, it must be 'automation for us' (not 'automation for the bourgeoisie'). There is no asocial, ahistoric, 'automation', an 'automation in itself'."
LBird wrote:[Presume your theory is 'Stalinist Stages Theory', then?I'm for class struggle, here and now, not 'later'. I find that 'later' never actually comes, for those theorists who tell workers that their 'x-for-the-workers' 'comes later'. I suspect that 'later theorists' aren't actually interested in workers' self-development.At least you've got to the view that 'automation' is actually a class issue, which, again, I suspect many reading have never even thought about. I'm talking about the 'materialists', who probably think that 'automation-in-itself' is going to bring socialism, and that they 'know' this because 'automatons' talk to them, alone. I have my doubts. I've actually read both Marx and Engels.Anyway, take a well-earned 'Well Done!', Alan. At least we're now actually talking about 'Marx and Automation', not the 'Machine Socialism' of the 'materialists'.More bollocks from LBird . I dont know of anyone here who thinks that 'automation-in-itself' is going to bring socialism. If our resident Leninist troll knew anything about socialism at all, or the SPGB, he would understand that socialism can only come if and when a working class majority want and understand it. As per usual he just invents things as he goes along to fill his daily quota of sneers and then scurries back to his comfort zone by simply ignoring all questions fired at him. There is a good article on automation here which puts the matter in perspective http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1960s/1965/no-725-january-1965/automation-perspective
LBird wrote:I've actually read both Marx and Engels.You have not. Let's see some quotes from Marx and Engels to support your idealist rubbish.ONE!!
Tim Kilgallon wrote:What norsery school did yee gan tee marra? Ah din't knaa th'wez that clivvor owa the watta.Forthest we iva got at norsery wus Logical Positivism and a little bit of existentialism!Ah dident gann ta norsry marra and am not that clivver, like. I'ts just the thik c$£ts around mak es luck clivver. Ya naw, the liverbird's a div lol
Vin wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:What norsery school did yee gan tee marra? Ah din't knaa th'wez that clivvor owa the watta.Forthest we iva got at norsery wus Logical Positivism and a little bit of existentialism!Ah dident gann ta norsry marra and am not that clivver, like. I'ts just the thik c$£ts around mak es luck clivver. Ya naw, the liverbird's a div lol
Whey ah thowt yee'd had a gud educashun marra, yee'd sed ya school was approved, mind wor wag wifey knewed mare than yon liverbord, he wadn't knaa what cuddy kicked im.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.