Marx and Automation

[Form F]

Alan Kerr wrote:

This question is to everyone.Let’s say that we have got rid of capitalist society.Let’s say that new society needs some wood.New society must fell and cut trees into boards.Next new society must dry boards.The new society must choose.Will they 1) air dry or 2) kiln dry?How will they choose?There’s no need to answer that they will choose by votes.In that case, I will just need to ask how voter will choose.I do not ask if they will choose 1 or 2.But I do ask how they choose. 

I don't know. But suppose you have inputs A and B. Both materially 'do the job', they can be used in the same production process, and  both can be found on the market at the same price. How does the manager of the capitalist firm choose?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Yes, social labour alone, which is a material thing…

How often do we have to read what you've posted from Marx himself, to get you to understand what you're posting?'Social labour', according to Marx, is an 'ideal-material' thing.In your vocabulary, it's a 'mind-matter' thing.It's not 'material', nor is it 'matter'. Nor is it, as for the god-botherers, 'divine consciousness' or the 'ideal'.You show me a 'social' which doesn't have 'mind', and I'll show you a liar. Or a bourgeois academic fantasist, determined to 'prove' that we can't have democratic production, but we must rely on bourgeois experts, an 'elite who know reality'.FFS, 'social' and 'conscious' tell you what Marx is talking about. It's not fuckin' 'matter'. It's 'activity'. Labour. Production.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

You show me a 'social' which doesn't have 'mind', and I'll show you a liar. Or a bourgeois academic fantasist, determined to 'prove' that we can't have democratic production, but we must rely on bourgeois experts, an 'elite who know reality'.FFS, 'social' and 'conscious' tell you what Marx is talking about. It's not fuckin' 'matter'. It's 'activity'. Labour. Production.

I entuirely agree, the mind is entirely material, and exists in material processes.  The actuality (what is rational is actual, what is actual is rational, and all that) – with the emphasis on the act – is what counts.To refer to the question of automation: can a submarine swim?  Of course, it doesn't, it doesn't have that degree of intentionality, per Serle's chinese box, the meat machine of the human mind does.  Ideas do not exist separetly from humans and human production, and humans actively – with the emphasis on the act – exist within nature.  We are of the stuff of nature.Our machines are thus the stuff f nature, and the way in which we transform the world by acting in it, as concrete individuals.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

There is always a two way interaction between the objective and the subjective, between mind and matter. Its not a one way process

robbo, this is your ideological interpretation of 'object' and 'subject'.You choose 'matter' and 'mind' to be synonyms of them.Marx didn't – he chose 'inorganic nature' and 'conscious activity' which produces 'organic nature'.That is, the 'object' is a product of 'subject', by its 'conscious activity'.So, you are arguing something different to Marx. Which is your right.But, it's nothing to do with Marx's ideas about 'social production'. There is no 'matter' prior to our production of it – read the various quotes by Marx, provided by several of us here, on these two threads, including yourself.BTW, Engels also used the terms 'mind' and 'matter' erroneously, at least in places, because he understood as much about Marx's ideas as you do. Which is why you follow Engels, not Marx.

"Absolute" "unsubstantiated" "bullshit""Prove" Marx agreed with an idiot like "you"?? "You" can't even "read", let alone "understand" Marx  

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

I beginning to doubt your ability to understand the meaning of what you yourself write, YMS.

Repetitive BULLSHIT!Repetitive abuse of forum members

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

You show me a 'social' which doesn't have 'mind', and I'll show you a liar. Or a bourgeois academic fantasist, determined to 'prove' that we can't have democratic production, but we must rely on bourgeois experts, an 'elite who know reality'.FFS, 'social' and 'conscious' tell you what Marx is talking about. It's not fuckin' 'matter'. It's 'activity'. Labour. Production.

I entuirely agree, the mind is entirely material…

'Agreement' and 'Opposition' are also entirely foreign concepts to you, too, aren't they, YMS?You can only 'agree' by writing "the mind is entirely material and the material is entirely mind".You keep separating the two. You're opposing 'material' to 'ideal'.You can only 'agree' with Marx if you, like he did, unify the two.Perhaps you're best left to your own dream world. At least Engels was confused only some of the time…

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

 But, it's nothing to do with Marx's ideas about 'social production'. There is no 'matter' prior to our production of it – read the various quotes by Marx, provided by several of us here, on these two threads, including yourself.BTW, Engels also used the terms 'mind' and 'matter' erroneously, at least in places, because he understood as much about Marx's ideas as you do. Which is why you follow Engels, not Marx.

Absolute tosh! Marx was not an idealist. He believed the earth existed BEFORE we did. A school child recognise that we didn't create the sun and moon. Idiot. 

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

You keep separating the two. You're opposing 'material' to 'ideal'.

Nope, no I'm not, I am saying they are one thing, the stuff of the universe.We are thinking rocks, but not all rocks think.

[moderator1]

Mon, 25/09/2017 – 4:08pm#432 LBird 3rd and final warning: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message.   Forum members are free to discuss moderator’s decisions on a separate thread set up for that purpose but should not discuss moderator’s decisions on the main forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.If this user breaches the rules within the next 30 days I will issue an immediate indefinite  suspension.

[moderator1]

Tue, 26/09/2017 – 10:15am#452LBird Immediate indefinite suspension: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’). 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.

[Anonymous]

@ Alan Kerr Post# 438   However you cut it, Marx, was an idealist, who idealized "materialism", i.e., material concepts over immaterial concepts. In the end, materialism is a concept, through and through, it is a concept, foremost, with an added cocnceptual characteristic of corporeality. No matter what we do, we are, each of us, locked into our own iron conceptual cage of rationality. To quote ludwig Wittgenstein "The limits of my language is the limits of my world". And we keep running into the limits of our concepts and language.   So, in answer to your question, Alan, how can we skip a stage of production? Well, didn't the soviet union do this? didn't they go from an agrarian society to a socialist society, by-passing the bourgeois captalist phase. They utilized force to initiate the by-pass, but there are more democratic manners by which to skip a stage of production. Don't you think?@ Marcos,  You keep stating the SPGB forum has discussed this or that in the past, like it is a closed case. But the SPGB forum has errored in a few of its basic premises and assumptions, because it relies too heavily on Marx and Engels. Such as the concept of materialism.    

[Alan Kerr]

@LBirdAre you a robot?We ask you a question. We expect you to reply with some kind of answer. It’s how forums work.Not for the first time, here’s the question.How could you achieve automated factory stage first and simple manufacture stage after?We know how you always say oh but it's not a case of fixed 'stages', in which the 'former stage' must precede the 'latter stage'. Yes, that’s the point of the question. Should we expect the answer soon?If you really cannot separate things then the fault is yours.A real bird, because it’s not a robot, can think of a birdseed as a whole. But this does not stop the bird from also thinking of both the seed-shell and the seed-kernel. A bird can separate. Are you saying that you cannot?We could program a robot to answer a given question with: the whole universe is the universe. That answer would be true enough. The trouble is that it answers everything and nothing.Please answer the question.Please show that you’re not a robot. 

[Alan Kerr]

@Form FThank you,Of course, the manager of the capitalist firm tries to make most profit in shortest time.For Socialist Production please see the answer that I gave at post #408

[Young Master Smeet]

Alan Kerr #386 wrote:

This question is to everyone.Let’s say that we have got rid of capitalist society.Let’s say that new society needs some wood.New society must fell and cut trees into boards.Next new society must dry boards.The new society must choose.Will they 1) air dry or 2) kiln dry?How will they choose?There’s no need to answer that they will choose by votes.In that case, I will just need to ask how voter will choose.I do not ask if they will choose 1 or 2.But I do ask how they choose. 

1) in Engineering these sort of trade ffs are called for all the time, and sometimes thee is simply not clear cut method of deciding, and any choice is arbitrary.  Using pricing mechanisms involves trade offs with invisible xternalities.2) A future socialist society would be transparent, so we can assume:a)Full knowledge (to a reasonable degree of accuracy) of all stores.b)A reasonable knowledge of all current demand on inventories (as well as detailed historical knowledge of demand).So, we wuld know:a) the absolute avaialbility of the goods required for each techniqueb) The relative demand fr goods using each technique.c) the amount of effort it takes to obtain those goods.d) th different qualities and effects of using the different processes.  The mythic solid gold bicycle doesn't appear.

[Alan Kerr]

@MBellemareNo. In practice, ideas have never skipped material steps.The Soviet Union was 1) too late on the scene to skip simple manufacture 2) too early on the scene for socialist society.The simple question to you is how could humans build the first automated machine if not by previous methods?

[Author]

Posts