Showing posts with label Topic: New Economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Topic: New Economy. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Automation and the End of Capitalism (Jim) by der Augenblick

I wanted to write a quick addendum to Rob's post on Marshall Brain's talk about robotics and employment.

At the end of his talk Brain says the only logical plan of action given the inevitability of the massive unemployment (50 million people) and concentration of wealth that will result from full automation of labor in the next decade is to "restructure the economy" or "redesign society". Brain summarizes the way we should redesign society in four points:
  • Spread the benefits of productivity increases to everyone


  • Break the concentration of wealth


  • Increase pay


  • Reduce the work week
Brain doesn't provide a lot of details for what these actions would involve, though of the last one, reducing the work week, he says we should reduce it from 40 hrs to 30 hrs to three days to two days—until we are all "perpetually on vacation".

To put the point bluntly, Brain describes communism. Notwithstanding some of the particularities given by various thinkers—Marx even remarks at one point that we will enjoy work under communism—communism has always involved two things: (1) the distribution of labor and the distribution of the product of labor is planned and not determined by the market, and (2) we are freed of the compulsory aspect of labor. The struggle against capitalism is a struggle against the imposition of labor. It is in most cases a struggle to get more use-values for less exchange-value or to get use-values without any exchange-value attached to them.

Same thing without the jargon: communism means everyone gets as much as possible by working as little as possible.

Clearly this was impossible under conditions of scarcity. Yet technologists, engineers, scientists, and inventors all seem to agree that we are fast approaching the point where scarcity will end—if we're not there already. The question is whether the scarcity we experience now and will experience in the future is the result of nature or whether it is the result of the unplanned system we live in. Brain argues that if we continue down the current path—letting market forces stand in for conscious decisions—this technology will hurt humanity, not benefit it. But if we make conscious, rational choices about how society as a whole ought to proceed with the implementation of this technology, it can benefit everyone. In fact, it is the only way it can benefit everyone and not hurt them. That is the first way in which Brain's solution negates the fundamentals of capitalism: he says we ought to bypass the market and make conscious, direct choices about the distribution of labor and the distribution of the fruits of labor in our society.

What he does not mention—and what I would emphasize—is that the ubiquity and growth of social networking technologies lays the foundation for total, conscious, decentralized, and democratic planning of the production process and the democratic distribution of the surplus-product. Communist planning in a technologically advanced world will neither resemble "administered", Soviet-style economies, nor will it reflect market forces. The current trajectory of the development of the productive forces makes this both possible and necessary.

The second way in which he bypasses capitalism is by raising the demand that we be "perpetually on vacation". He claims the only solution to the looming crisis—a crisis which we see now only in miniature—is to demand an end to the condition of forced labor. While it may appear as though capitalism is a system in which workers individually and voluntarily contract out their labor in exchange for a wage, the fact of the matter is that the working class as a whole is enslaved by the capitalist class as a whole. Every product of labor takes the commodity form. Unlike past civilizations, we do not even keep the means of subsistence. Therefore, in order to acquire access to the means of subsistence, we must work in exchange for a wage, and we exchange that wage for the means of subsistence. Money stands as the barrier between us and what we create. It is an indirect, abstract form of slavery, but it is a form of slavery nevertheless. We are not enslaved to any one particular individual; however, we are enslaved to the value-form itself. We cannot live except by working for another person, and our share of the product of labor is determined by unconscious, unplanned market forces.

But the demand for communism is the demand that we workers as a whole, rather than having to access the product of our labor only to the extent that the non-workers want us to, instead collectively have direct control over the product of our labor. This means that, as a society, we give of ourselves what we consent to give, and we take what it is reasonable to take. Given the inevitable conditions of superabundance of products approaching, the extent to which we can take approaches infinity. Given the inevitable, exponential rise in the productivity of labor, the amount of our labor we can consent to give approaches a value of zero.

We are fast approaching the point where if we do not meet anti-capitalist demands, the vast part of humanity will sink into misery. Brain demonstrates this in his talk. Yet we are approaching a point—just behind the first point—where the conditions that make capitalism possible will no longer exist. Moreover, we are creating the point where access to social wealth is necessarily decoupled from exertion. We are making necessary a transition from a liberal democratic society to a revolutionary democratic one.

Monday, March 2, 2009

How the Crash will Reshape America (Chloe) by Chloë

I've been neglecting to post this and during that time the Daily Kos picked up the article.

The original article can be found here. Definately worth a read if you are interested in how the economic crash will reshape the economic geography of the United States.

I will post some thoughts from Rob L in the comments.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

1969 Promo Clip on the Future "Internet" (Posted by X.) by X.

From our brother Sean:

"Here's a similar one, claiming to be from 1969. The sexism certainly seems to be authentic..."

1969 Promo Clip on the coming Internet

***

Wow. What a find! The creepy voiceover and bizarre sexist conception of technology implementation in this presentation gives it even more of a Twilight Zone vibe.

What's so fascinating is that this 1969 film cannot grasp the transformative possibilities of the internet as a many-to-many communications platform, it merely presents it as an automated version of existing one-way commercial services... really an uninspired capitalist outlook with frozen social relations (note how the kids are monitored on camera but not allowed anywhere near the computers!).

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

1981 TV News Report on the Intertubes (X.) by X.

If you want to grasp the full impact of the technological revolution that is the internet, enjoy this classic clip.

Yes, there was life before the internet. And yes, it now looks like an episode from the Twilight Zone ("What if we lived in a disconnected world where people struggled to get information?").

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Green Economy Organizing (Posted by Keith) by Keith

This essay, featuring Van Jones and "Green Jobs for the Ghetto" was published in this week's New Yorker Magazine. Although he is very caught up in advocacy politics there are some interesting ideas here about vision and organizing.

Greening the Ghetto
by Elizabeth Kolbert
A few months ago, Van Jones, the founder and president of a group called Green for All, went to visit New Bedford, Massachusetts. His first stop of the day was the public library, where someone had assembled an audience of about thirty high-school dropouts. They leaned back in their chairs, hands in the pockets of their oversized sweatshirts. A few appeared to be stoned.

Jones, who is forty, is tall and imposing, with a shaved head and a patchy goatee. He wears rimless glasses and favors dark clothing. On this particular day, he was wearing a black turtleneck, black jeans, black boots, and a charcoal jacket. He was introduced by a community organizer and aspiring rapper, who described him as “a leader with answers,” a “genius from the hood, similar to our own,” and a youthful version of Barack Obama. When it was his turn to speak, Jones rejected the lectern that had been set up for him, saying that it reminded him too much of college.

“I love Barack Obama,” he said. “I’d pay money just to shine the brother’s shoes. But I’ll tell you this. Do you hear me? One man is not going to save us. I don’t care who that man is. He’s not going to save us. And, in fact, if you want to be real about this—can y’all take it? I’m going to be real with y’all. Not only is Barack Obama not going to be able to save you—you are going to have to save Barack Obama.”
Read the rest here.