[Potemkin]

Well, that's the problem, so to speak.

As industry, trade and finance developed in the late Middle Ages, they were constricted by the old feudal mode of production, which was experienced by the new embryonic capitalist mode of production as a problem. Capitalism heaved its shoulders, and the feudal fetters constraining it were burst asunder. Now we are approaching another such juncture in economic history. Capitalism itself is becoming, and has become, a set of fetters constraining the future economic development of human society. Capitalism is indeed the problem.

[wat0n]

In what way is capitalism the problem @Potemkin? To me, this is just another stage in the Industrial Revolution, just like the initial waves dating from the 19th century.

[Beren]

There are more slaves today than at any point in history. Now imagine if they never had to source them via the human trafficking trade, if they could have just grown them as needed. There would be 100x more slaves (and there will be when this technology matures). Imagine being able to grow slaves in your basement.

So that's what you're fantasising about? Which porn starlets would you like to home-grow in your basement?

I guess demand will be fulfilled without a problem by traditional human trafficking trade as long as human population grows that fast, especially in the third or whatever world, so this technology won't be so easy to commercialise actually, not to mention that we've already had societies based on slavery and they got outdated.

Capitalism is indeed the problem.

In a capitalist society the agony of capitalism is a problem and they call it crisis.

[Potemkin]

In what way is capitalism the problem @Potemkin? To me, this is just another stage in the Industrial Revolution, just like the initial waves dating from the 19th century.

This would be something fundamentally new, @wat0n - human labour power itself would become obsolete. Without employment (which would have become an obsolete concept), how will people live? Capitalism cannot solve this distribution problem, because it distributes goods and services according to a labour market. With no labour market, there can be no distribution (other than by government fiat). Do you not see how this could be a problem?

[wat0n]

This would be something fundamentally new, @wat0n - human labour power itself would become obsolete. Without employment (which would have become an obsolete concept), how will people live? Capitalism cannot solve this distribution problem, because it distributes goods and services according to a labour market. With no labour market, there can be no distribution (other than by government fiat). Do you not see how this could be a problem?

Well, I don't think we'll get to that stage anytime soon. Automation is easier said than done.

But if that happened, I'm guessing that capitalism would indeed disappear because it would not be necessary anymore. You don't need markets when you effectively don't have scarcity anymore.

[Potemkin]

Well, I don't think we'll get to that stage anytime soon. Automation is easier said than done.

But if that happened, I'm guessing that capitalism would indeed disappear because it would not be necessary anymore. You don't need markets when you effectively don't have scarcity anymore.

Precisely my point.

[wat0n]

...But then that would be like the ultimate victory of capitalism, if anything. In that kind of world, I suppose workers would be replaced indeed but they'd use their assets during the transition to own part of the capital and become capitalists themselves - which they already do, yes, but most would be able to actually live off that. That kind of change would not be abrupt either but would probably be gradual just like the current automation wave is.

[late]

...But then that would be like the ultimate victory of capitalism, if anything. In that kind of world, I suppose workers would be replaced indeed but they'd use their assets during the transition to own part of the capital and become capitalists themselves - which they already do, yes, but most would be able to actually live off that. That kind of change would not be abrupt either but would probably be gradual just like the current automation wave is.

Without getting into the big issues, there have been proposals for this since the 1972 campaign. McGovern proposed UBI (universal basic income). Back then, it would have been cheaper than welfare. Prob would be cheaper now, as well.

If something forces us away from capitalism, it'll prob be climate change. Ooops, I said I wasn't going to get into the big issues.

[wat0n]

It's not the same thing though, mostly because it would be a rational move on the workers' end rather than a government initiative. For automation to truly replace human labor capital must suddenly become very profitable to own after all.

In reality, I think it won't happen and instead new types of jobs will appear that are just too hard to automate.

[Beren]

In reality, I think it won't happen and instead new types of jobs will appear that are just too hard to automate.

The newest jobs will be already automated ones, in the not too distant future there'll be no new types of jobs for humans. It's the ancient jobs such as motherhood, nursing, teaching, being an artist, etc. that are the hardest to automate and will be done by humans even when they won't have to work anymore. In socialism they'll be the most valued professions (still done by people), which isn't the case in capitalism and wasn't the case in Soviet socialism either.

[Potemkin]

...But then that would be like the ultimate victory of capitalism, if anything.

Indeed, in the sense that capitalism could be described as the ultimate victory of feudalism. Feudalism contained the seeds of capitalism within itself, after all. It was feudalism which made capitalism possible. Likewise, capitalism contains the seeds of socialism within itself; without capitalism preceding it, socialism would not be possible.

In that kind of world, I suppose workers would be replaced indeed but they'd use their assets during the transition to own part of the capital and become capitalists themselves - which they already do, yes, but most would be able to actually live off that. That kind of change would not be abrupt either but would probably be gradual just like the current automation wave is.

In such a system, there would be no "capitalists" and no "workers".

[wat0n]

Indeed, in the sense that capitalism could be described as the ultimate victory of feudalism. Feudalism contained the seeds of capitalism within itself, after all. It was feudalism which made capitalism possible. Likewise, capitalism contains the seeds of socialism within itself; without capitalism preceding it, socialism would not be possible.

Maybe. Honestly, contemporary capitalism (not to be confused with markets, which have existed for a much, much longer time) would not be possible without industrialization. It's the product of a technological revolution, just like all economic systems are product of the state of technology at the time.

In such a system, there would be no "capitalists" and no "workers".

But in the transition there will still be. In the end, in the long run everyone will be capitalist (own capital).

The newest jobs will be already automated ones, in the not too distant future there'll be no new types of jobs for humans. It's the ancient jobs such as motherhood, nursing, teaching, being an artist, etc. that are the hardest to automate and will be done by humans even when they won't have to work anymore. In socialism they'll be the most valued professions (still done by people), which isn't the case in capitalism and wasn't the case in Soviet socialism either.

It's not just those - counseling, plenty of services, etc will still be done by humans. Likely, repairing and maintaining machines will also have a human component, so will R&D.

[Rancid]

Artist jobs will not get replaced by stupid fucking machines.

[Beren]

It's not just those - counseling, plenty of services, etc will still be done by humans. Likely, repairing and maintaining machines will also have a human component, so will R&D.

Most of that, the whole process of production basically, will be done and controlled by AI. In terms of production (of goods and services) humans just won't be able to compete with machines and AI, and they won't even be able to take part in any production process anymore, except a few perhaps.

[Rancid]

We are so far away from this hypothetical future, that it kind of doesn't matter.

[Beren]

We are so far away from this hypothetical future, that it kind of doesn't matter.

It's a hypothetical future because future itself is never certain, it's a foreseeable future, though. Now it's possible for anyone to see if what Karl Marx talked about, and he talked about it without having a clue if what AI is.

[Rancid]

It's a hypothetical future because future itself is never certain, it's a foreseeable future, though. Now it's possible for anyone to see if what Karl Marx talked about, and he talked about it without having a clue if what AI is.

Fair enough. AI is still not that sophisticated though. Big tech also tends to way over promise, and way under deliver.

[Crantag]

This would be something fundamentally new, @wat0n - human labour power itself would become obsolete. Without employment (which would have become an obsolete concept), how will people live? Capitalism cannot solve this distribution problem, because it distributes goods and services according to a labour market. With no labour market, there can be no distribution (other than by government fiat). Do you not see how this could be a problem?

Marx of course proved that under capitalism machines (which I would suspect include robots) can't really replace labor power, as surplus value is the basis of all profits. Capitalists are of course coerced into replacing humans with machines, but the machines produce no surplus value.

A society based on robotic production would therefore have to be post-capitalist.

This is of course a point which most utopians who talk about a leisure society based on robots doing all the work don't understand, for good or bad, but they usually don't grasp this point.

[Potemkin]

Marx of course proved that under capitalism machines (which I would suspect include robots) can't really replace labor power, as surplus value is the basis of all profits. Capitalists are of course coerced into replacing humans with machines, but the machines produce no surplus value.

A society based on robotic production would therefore have to be post-capitalist.

This is of course a point which most utopians who talk about a leisure society based on robots doing all the work don't understand, for good or bad, but they usually don't grasp this point.

Precisely, which is why they are utopianists rather than serious commentators. Any such "leisure society" would have huge implications for the mode of economic production. If robots do all the work, then who will be able to earn any money to buy any of this abundance of goods and services? There is a glaring distribution problem. This thought never seems to occur to them. It's weird. Are they really that dim?

[wat0n]

It's why the only way would be for those former workers to own some of those robots.