Why Do Socialists Talk So Much About Workers? | Vivek Chibber 

It is simply not the case that full automation is inevitable. Have you seen the prices - and more importantly - maintenance contracts - for sophisticated robotics? They are simply out of reach for all but the most established manufacturers. Now you can argue that future robotic advancements will bring the cost down but that barrier to entry is only going to get taller and taller, instead of the other way around. Productivity demands of robotics will inflate prices at a similar speed to that of advancements driving cost down. The second point is that in this time of extremely disciplined labour, a left movement that is totally disorganised and warring amongst itself, shattered unions, and globalised capital - why should any business invest in extremely expensive robotics when it can simply shift factories overseas, to lower wage countries? Hell, manufacturing is actually coming _back_ to some parts of America, because wage restraint has been so severe that it is actually cheaper to make some things in America than in third world countries. The idea that robotisation is inevitable, irreversible, and furthermore, able to fulfil all roles that a human can fill more easily and _cheaply_ is simply not the case. In fact the most mundane tasks wind up being the hardest to automate; like cleaning, cooking, care work, even driving. What we tend to observe, is that rises in automation and productivity tend to happen more during periods of extremely organised labour and a high degree of class conflict, or at least, class tension putting pressure on profits. Rising wages puts pressure on employers to automate. But at the same time, workers countervail this by forcing automation to work along lines of _augmentation_ instead of _replacement of workers. So things like robotic trays that lift the workpiece to worker height so the worker can perform the operation are done, instead of an extremely expensive and sophisticated 5 axis welder or grinder that requires years to perfect. It is simply not the case that automation will replace all workers. Capitalism is always looking to _externalise_ its costs. If it cannot justify externalising labour costs due to wage restraint and an atomised workforce, it won't automate. But I would also argue that the point of socialism is not just to organise workers so as to gain power over capital, but eventually to overcome wage labour altogether, so that production is co-operative and democratic. To set up automation as an ineffable bogeyman that reaps jobs by the thousands not only precludes its potential to make worker jobs safer and easier, but also denies workers the opportunity to seize that for themselves, and work cooperatively instead of heirarchically.

@@MonMalthias Thank you, "Malthias", for the strong and informative reply to my question. It certainly gives the impression that you have Thought a lot about these automation/Worker issues and We are lucky that you would share your Thoughts with Us. May I respond to your well considered information with some more questions that "bounce off" your perspectives? Each question I ask would be preceded by my original question and then a part of your sharing. In this activity, it is my Hope, that this communication would possibly be somewhat expanded. Please, consider me to be your student about this.

@@danieljones9463 I am not a teacher, I have not read any of the "classic" socialist readings like Marx or Lenin. At least not in full. If you are looking for a tutor, I am afraid you will have to look elsewhere. A discussion about automation versus labour can be found on Ha-Joon Chang's lecture series on economics: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jmtFefE7kaA.html . It is a good beginning and lectures from the perspective of capitalist economics - but then again, we live in a capitalist society, so it is nevertheless relevant. The second article I would suggest, is ironically from Harvard Business Review, on the trials and tribulations of the General Motors Plant at Fremont: pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d8a1/4e3ac2d9162ddd544aa0a6df414a0cae1c04.pdf . It lays out the Toyota NUMMI model of production and the Japanese philosophy of kaizen and how that influences workflow design and automation. It also teases a possible future wherein production _is_ co-operative and the massive gains that can be had from that. There's also a series of essays from Novara called "Technology and the worker" which takes a long view of automation and does see it as inevitable that capital will automate as much jobs as it can out of existence: notesfrombelow.org/article/technology-and-the-worker . And while this is true - again, my comment above showcased some arguments why this is yet to be the case in the short to medium term. This current state of affairs - stagnant wages, extremely liquid capital, a shattered left, and weak grassroots organising, is not likely to persist long term. So in principle, my argument that automation will _not_ replace all jobs eventually, does have its limitations. Nevertheless, I stand by that statement because in the short to medium term, it is better that we coalesce around a vision of what the future _could be_ as regards work, _now_ , rather than be blindsided when capital does "innovate" around the whole "needing workers" problem.

@@MonMalthias Thank you for the links, Malthius. I hope you will continue to share your perspectives in these discussion and learning sites.

@@danieljones9463 Bringing up GM-Fremont reminded me of technology and automation and how that is far more problematic to implement in the ideal form for capital. The very same facility in Fremont was shut down in 2010 after nearly 30 years in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and General Motors becoming up to its gills in debt. www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a5514/4350856/ . The ground for the facility was bought up by a former Paypal executive that you may know as Elon Musk, son of blood emerald merchants from South Africa looking to produce a billionaire cult of personality around future technology like rockets and electric cars. In 2016, plans were made to build a factory that mimicked those of some Japanese factories that have zero human intervention during the production process save for maintenance. www.businessinsider.com.au/why-teslas-model-3-could-change-the-auto-industry-2016-11?r=US&IR=T There was a big problem though: the plans did not work out. Just because you have VC money and are able to sustain cash burn rates that would bankrupt anybody else trying the same thing, does not mean that throwing more robots at the problem and eliminating workers will bring success. arstechnica.com/cars/2018/04/experts-say-tesla-has-repeated-car-industry-mistakes-from-the-1980s/ www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/problems-are-piling-tesla-quality-issues-mount-executives-flee-competition-n856946 Production consistency, quality and timeliness suffered for years before Musk finally admitted defeat and began the transition to using humans, again. www.tesla.com/factory . futurism.com/musk-automation-bad-idea . Now that it employs 10,000 workers, the same frictions and conflicts are rising up. Low pay. Dangerous conditions. Pollution. Anti-unionisation drives. www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/sep/10/tesla-workers-union-elon-musk . Quality is still inconsistent, cash burn is still high, and output is still low for the money that has been pumped into the whole enterprise. The reason that union busting is going on, is because Musk recognises that he _needs_ workers, but doesn't want to _pay_ workers what they are owed. He knows that automation efforts did not and could not go far enough for him to hold robotic arms above workers like a Sword of Damocles, and so the class struggle has risen up once more. And yet - we do not observe say, students from the local university trying to organise workers, it is the relatively conservative UAW spearheading efforts. This is what Vivek Chibber means that people from academia need to get out more. If we care about workers - and we should, because it is through the organisation of labour that creates an economy, and controlling the economy means control of the state - then we must do better than before. I would go so far as to say that automation as a spectre is a form of capitalist realism - that subconscious acceptance that there is no future beyond capitalist domination. And yet, as we can observe, the reason that the same class conflicts keep cropping up across different times and in different places with different social contexts, is because that so long as domination exists, there will be those that chafe beneath the yoke. That friction should be used to galvanise people, not excuse away their suffering. The goal should not be to make the yoke lighter or more comfortable or provide excuses like automation as to why the yoke persists. The goal is to cast it off altogether, and go beyond it.

Because while Marx elaborated on and solidified the theory of the class dichotomy under capitalism (and many more things), Marxists are not the only ones to be socialists. There were socialists before Marx (n.b. the "utopian" socialists like Fourier and Owen), and there have been many more non-Marxist (notably anarchist) socialist "versions" after him. Marxism is thus not synonymous with socialism or the broader variety of socialist movements, which Chibber reminds the interviewer on. Comrade Beep Boop Your comment made zero sense. SocDems don't vie for any post-capitalism with their politics, and their definition of "socialism" (if they even use the term) is basically capitalism with a welfare state. Furthermore, and this goes for Marxists at least, socialism and communism are terms that are either used synonymously, or socialism is used to describe the lower phase of communism.

he explained that right away, because marxism is one trend within the broader socialist movement

Marxism is a trend which dominates the Left and a main reason Socialism cannot come. One cannot build a better future by oppressing people and revolutions do exactly that. One cannot built a better future by calling people to be conscious because conscience is an undefinable category. The most importantly socialism has to be built on equal human rights and no ideology so far has been able to present even how it should look like. Marxism has become a pure religion and that is a reason society cannot go further. Marxism is a fraud created by the rich to prevent a better system coming.

Of course they are, I wrote the one based on equal human rights which is the only one that could work because without equal human rights no betterment of society is possible. The problem is only Marxism has access to people and that is just because it is supported by capitalism because it puts the Left on the wrong track which cannot harm capitalism at all.

This Aleksandar dude is either completely bonkers and delusional or high on liberal ideology. wew.

Too many workers? Nonsense, pay workers on productivity including boosts given to them by technology and cut work hours. The problem is that the bourgeois simply looks at a full time worker in terms of a person they pay for 40 hours a week and not for their productivity which may exponentially increase with every advancement in production technology. If we experienced the benefits of technology as much as the profit margins do we'd be at ~20hr work weeks.

Colin Hicks if robots took all our jobs no one would have money socialism where everyone's given a salary pay to buy food and housing, and than some extra for entertainment is inevitable. If you have 0 jobs and 100% free time there's no need for jobs just hobbies and relaxing, but people like money so government distribution of money and government ownership of fully automated industry is the only way at that point.

oh no, not everyones job will be taken. People who can provide valuable services (such as the engineers designing the robots) or the business owners, who own the robots, won't be affected. People who work labour jobs, are the ones without a job. If you can provide a useful skill to society, then you'll be jobless and no, you're not entitled to the things I produce. If you don't like it, you can start your own business and run it how you like.

Most people advocating for socialism generally mean basic human needs and stuff past that you work for. For example, I personally believe in basic human needs being filled for free (food, housing, education, water, electricity, internet more on those last two later) and then having to work only to make sure production continues and wages are only for entertainment. Higher skill jobs paying more maybe but if there's say a need for a certain job, let's say a farmer, maybe we could entice people to that job by increasing its pay slightly. This would keep our productivity up, also in places where desk jobs are needed workers who work 40+ hours have been studied to show they generally are only productive for 20 or so hours (I don't have sources but i you or I can look it up, i concede i may be slightly off on my hours) now in our society we continue to have people work for the hours even when they aren't productive because of the thought that if they worked less hours they deserve less money but in a socialist environment we could cut the nonproductive hours and pay them the same, the company wouldn't lose anything because the worker wasn't doing anything anyways. On to your point about people being entitled to things you produce. I know that there's this gut feeling of mild disgust that you feel when thinking of people getting stuff you pay for for free, I feel the same way but there's a problem with that, if we automated those jobs but only gave out the basic needs to life (i'm not talking IPhones and such just what i listed earlier) people would still want to work to buy those luxury items plus you would be really bored if you had nothing to do except fulfill your basic needs. So we can divert our work from basic labor jobs and switch over to being painters, inventors, etc high skill jobs that meaning that everyone is working together and trading goods or money for goods and services. This would be great for advances in science, math, and art. It would be a second renaissance. That solves your problem of entitlement, i'm not saying people with no jobs deserve ferraris and such i'm saying that automating jobs could create a society full of full stomached educated skilled workers with a huge middle class.

Colin Hicks Why wouldn't engineering processes be automated?

Colin Hicks If the majority of people are out of work, who buys things from businesses?