NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok so we are all tired of hearing people philosophize about the matrix.

So let’s make a deal. I’ll philosophize about the matrix right here. And then this will be the last time ever. I’ll be the last one and then everyone will promise to stop. ok?

One of the most compelling threads of the Matrix is this notion of the machines taking over. These machines that were the product of our own creation, these machines that were supposed to make life easier - to usher in a new age of freedom from want- they take over and make us their slaves.

The Matrix is not the first to fantasize about a dystopia in which machines take over. Since the industrial revolution, ideas about machines displacing, manipulating or controlling humans have become more and more a part of our collective fiction.

This should be no surprise. In the Ind. Rev. machines posed a real threat to the working class. In response to agitation for a 10-hour day, the legalization of unions, and the other demands of labor, capitalists sought to rid themselves of their dependence on workers, thereby breaking the unions. In the great industrial exhibitions in London’s Crystal Palace in 1851 and 1862, great pains were taken to showcase these new machines in front of workers in order to strike fear into their hearts… The message to the 6 million visitors was clear: machines can replace you- moderate your demands.

But machines haven’t replaced us. No matter how much more complicated and scary they get, they still haven’t replaced us- yet.

In the matrix we have this twist. Instead of just destroying humans the machines keep us around. They need people. And so we become part of the machines. Our bodies are imprisoned within the workings of machines and our minds move through a false machine reality.

In Diego Rivera’s 1930’s murals of the Detroit Auto-industry we see a depiction of human beings absorbed into the fabric of the machine- The rhythm of their work falling into motion as a mere appendage of the machine.

We call this process automation. First human labor is simplified- that is, work is divided into small, routine tasks.. tasks that anyone could do.. This makes the labor more efficient and cheaper. Once these tasks become simple enough- mechanical enough- they become automated, that is-machines are built to do them. Soon, the labor process in many industries comes to be a process of tending to the needs of machines.

In this age of robots skilled workers teach their motions to robots who then replace them.

In the wikipedia entry on industrial robots after talking about robotic arms and vision guidance the author says: “So we have the arm and the eye, but the part that still has poor flexibility is the hand.” As if the goal is to eventually replace the entire human being with a robot.

Machines can now process information faster than people, write music, design buildings… We always say there is something unique about human beings- perception, creativity, passion- something that machines can’t replicate, but each year as computers advance to do more of the things that we can do-better than we can do them, the boundary between man and machine is pushed back.

This then begs three questions.
1. Why do we keep trying to replace people with machines in the first place?
2. Is it ever possible to replace all human labor with machines? What would happen if we tried?
3. Are machines going to take over?

1. Are we just sadistic? Do we hate ourselves? Is it an endless quest for self annihilation?
Who decides to fund the research and development of machines? Capitalists. Capitalists introduce machines into production in order to make labor more efficient. Let’s say I’m a capitalist and I am competing with you. If I can get my workers to produce more commodities than your workers then I can sell my commodities for slightly less than you therefore outselling you in the market. I make my workers work as hard as they can and for as little money as they will agree to work for, but there is a lower limit to this. Assuming all other capitalists are making their workers work just as hard for just as little the only other solution is to make their work more efficient. If I can replace some of their work with machines it will allow them to work faster, producing more commodities per worker.
As soon as I introduce my machines into my production process I become a threat to your livelihood. You are going to have to do the same thing or go out of business. Thus we have an endless machine race to make our labor more productive. (Isn’t labor productivity a standard by which economists measure the strength of an economy?)

2. But in making labor more productive we seem to be raising the question of making human labor obsolete…. Which takes us to our second question: can machines replace human labor altogether?

Before talking about robots though, we need to talk about wizards. The alchemists of the middle ages sought to find a way to transform common metals into gold. The idea, I suppose, being that this would be a great way to make everyone rich.
But what happens when you can turn anything into gold? Gold ceases to have any value! Alchemy isn’t just scientifically impossible. It’s economically impossible! The same thing happens if we print more money- money just looses it’s value, people don’t get richer.
In fact the only thing that can create more value is human labor. It is the productive powers of the worker that capital seeks to capture and put to use making values. After all, what is an economy? An economy is a way of coordinating human labor and distributing it’s products.
But if labor produces value what happens when you replace it with machines? What happens is that the productive activity of the machine looses economic value.
Now that may seem extremely counter-intuitive to you. You ask: how can labor done by a human have economic value while the same labor done by a machine has no value?
Let’s use a machine we are all familiar as an example. Your computer. Now the computer has become capable of doing all sorts of things that used to require a lot of human labor: recording information, complex mathematical computations, type setting, translating, DUPLICATING, etc. These tasks no longer have any economic value. If you wanted to make something worth selling on your computer, the only value it would have would be a result of some sort of creative labor on your part (designing a youtube video, writing a paper, writing a song). The work that the computer does doesn’t add any value other than the original cost of the computer (in other words the computer doesn’t create any new value.) Everyone has access to a computer and everyone can do the same stuff on their computer so the work of the computer becomes useless. Just like turning everything into gold would be useless.
So what would happen if capitalists ever got to the point that they tried to replace workers altogether? The economy would cease to function because no value would be created. Profits would fall to zero because capitalists could no longer compete by making labor more efficient. Nobody could buy anything b/c no one would have any money b/c no one would have a job. There would be no capitalism.

3. will machines take over?
But still… is it going to happen- one day, will the ultimate cellphone be built- the phone that can create anything, do anything, be anything? The cellphone that can brush your teeth while juggle axes?
The biggest obstacle to that ever happening is financial crisis.
When the increase in machines increases faster than the productivity of labor we start to get a falling rate of profit. (repeat this) Though their profit is not increasing as rapidly capitalists still are forced to innovate and introduce more technology into the production process because increasing productivity is their only weapon in competition. But as the rate of profit falls the stakes get higher- like a poker game when everyone has put too much in the pot- some people are going to loose big. REally big.
And that’s what an economic crisis is- when capitalists, in their race to increase the productivity of labor, undermine their own basis for value creation in the first place. (This will be the starting point for a longer discussion of crisis.) There are many factors mediating against such a crisis and there are many ways in which this crisis is postponed-especially through the use of credit and finance- to only make it bigger when it happens. What happens in a crisis and how a crisis resolves this problem of too many machines/ not enough people is a question that will have to wait till a future video.
Though the plot of the Matrix is about the opposition of machines and people- the visual space is dominated by people fighting other people.
But in reality, I think the opposite is true- if we see the machine as an extension of the relentless, faceless drive of capital to accumulate for accumulation’s sake (to change M into C then back again, over and over) if we see the machine as just one manifestation of this need to perfect accumulation- then it seems the immediate visual space of our lives is one dominated by impersonal, mechanical market forces over which we have no control. But just as we can see the machine as merely the product of human labor, so too we can see capital as merely a product of human social relations. Thus the social relation lies hidden behind the machine.
In the age of capitalism it seems as if capital takes on a life of its own. Though acting through individual capitalists, capital with its giant invisible hand, seems an inescapable, relenting, faceless force of innovation and destruction. A giant machine to which we are all chained.
At the same time we have to realize that capital is merely a social relation between people. That means that ultimately we do have power over capital, not the other way around. This should be the starting point for any theory of social change.

So to summarize- Machines may reduce us to mere appendages of the production process. Surveillance technology may reduce us to information datum in a network. military technology may reduce us to fearful, docile slaves. But machines can never fully replace working humans without destroying capitalism we know it. The crisis tendencies that automation bring on keep us from ever fully automating all labor. Meanwhile the embodiment of human productive powers and capitalist social relations in machines themselves obscures the underlying economic reality of class society.

Now, could machines, under human control maybe one day be able to do all work and let us live lives of luxury and total freedom?- maybe.

Could machines one day develop artificial intelligence and take over and make us their slaves? Maybe.

watch out.

So, comments?

Ok so we are all tired of hearing people philosophize about the matrix.

So let’s make a deal. I’ll philosophize about the matrix right here. And then this will be the last time ever. I’ll be the last one and then everyone will promise to stop. ok?

One of the most compelling threads of the Matrix is this notion of the machines taking over. These machines that were the product of our own creation, these machines that were supposed to make life easier - to usher in a new age of freedom from want- they take over and make us their slaves.

The Matrix is not the first to fantasize about a dystopia in which machines take over. Since the industrial revolution, ideas about machines displacing, manipulating or controlling humans have become more and more a part of our collective fiction.

This should be no surprise. In the Ind. Rev. machines posed a real threat to the working class. In response to agitation for a 10-hour day, the legalization of unions, and the other demands of labor, capitalists sought to rid themselves of their dependence on workers, thereby breaking the unions. In the great industrial exhibitions in London’s Crystal Palace in 1851 and 1862, great pains were taken to showcase these new machines in front of workers in order to strike fear into their hearts… The message to the 6 million visitors was clear: machines can replace you- moderate your demands.

But machines haven’t replaced us. No matter how much more complicated and scary they get, they still haven’t replaced us- yet.

In the matrix we have this twist. Instead of just destroying humans the machines keep us around. They need people. And so we become part of the machines. Our bodies are imprisoned within the workings of machines and our minds move through a false machine reality.

In Diego Rivera’s 1930’s murals of the Detroit Auto-industry we see a depiction of human beings absorbed into the fabric of the machine- The rhythm of their work falling into motion as a mere appendage of the machine.

We call this process automation. First human labor is simplified- that is, work is divided into small, routine tasks.. tasks that anyone could do.. This makes the labor more efficient and cheaper. Once these tasks become simple enough- mechanical enough- they become automated, that is-machines are built to do them. Soon, the labor process in many industries comes to be a process of tending to the needs of machines.

In this age of robots skilled workers teach their motions to robots who then replace them.

In the wikipedia entry on industrial robots after talking about robotic arms and vision guidance the author says: “So we have the arm and the eye, but the part that still has poor flexibility is the hand.” As if the goal is to eventually replace the entire human being with a robot.

Machines can now process information faster than people, write music, design buildings… We always say there is something unique about human beings- perception, creativity, passion- something that machines can’t replicate, but each year as computers advance to do more of the things that we can do-better than we can do them, the boundary between man and machine is pushed back.

This then begs three questions.
1. Why do we keep trying to replace people with machines in the first place?
2. Is it ever possible to replace all human labor with machines? What would happen if we tried?
3. Are machines going to take over?

1. Are we just sadistic? Do we hate ourselves? Is it an endless quest for self annihilation?
Who decides to fund the research and development of machines? Capitalists. Capitalists introduce machines into production in order to make labor more efficient. Let’s say I’m a capitalist and I am competing with you. If I can get my workers to produce more commodities than your workers then I can sell my commodities for slightly less than you therefore outselling you in the market. I make my workers work as hard as they can and for as little money as they will agree to work for, but there is a lower limit to this. Assuming all other capitalists are making their workers work just as hard for just as little the only other solution is to make their work more efficient. If I can replace some of their work with machines it will allow them to work faster, producing more commodities per worker.
As soon as I introduce my machines into my production process I become a threat to your livelihood. You are going to have to do the same thing or go out of business. Thus we have an endless machine race to make our labor more productive. (Isn’t labor productivity a standard by which economists measure the strength of an economy?)

2. But in making labor more productive we seem to be raising the question of making human labor obsolete…. Which takes us to our second question: can machines replace human labor altogether?

Before talking about robots though, we need to talk about wizards. The alchemists of the middle ages sought to find a way to transform common metals into gold. The idea, I suppose, being that this would be a great way to make everyone rich.
But what happens when you can turn anything into gold? Gold ceases to have any value! Alchemy isn’t just scientifically impossible. It’s economically impossible! The same thing happens if we print more money- money just looses it’s value, people don’t get richer.
In fact the only thing that can create more value is human labor. It is the productive powers of the worker that capital seeks to capture and put to use making values. After all, what is an economy? An economy is a way of coordinating human labor and distributing it’s products.
But if labor produces value what happens when you replace it with machines? What happens is that the productive activity of the machine looses economic value.
Now that may seem extremely counter-intuitive to you. You ask: how can labor done by a human have economic value while the same labor done by a machine has no value?
Let’s use a machine we are all familiar as an example. Your computer. Now the computer has become capable of doing all sorts of things that used to require a lot of human labor: recording information, complex mathematical computations, type setting, translating, DUPLICATING, etc. These tasks no longer have any economic value. If you wanted to make something worth selling on your computer, the only value it would have would be a result of some sort of creative labor on your part (designing a youtube video, writing a paper, writing a song). The work that the computer does doesn’t add any value other than the original cost of the computer (in other words the computer doesn’t create any new value.) Everyone has access to a computer and everyone can do the same stuff on their computer so the work of the computer becomes useless. Just like turning everything into gold would be useless.
So what would happen if capitalists ever got to the point that they tried to replace workers altogether? The economy would cease to function because no value would be created. Profits would fall to zero because capitalists could no longer compete by making labor more efficient. Nobody could buy anything b/c no one would have any money b/c no one would have a job. There would be no capitalism.

3. will machines take over?
But still… is it going to happen- one day, will the ultimate cellphone be built- the phone that can create anything, do anything, be anything? The cellphone that can brush your teeth while juggle axes?
The biggest obstacle to that ever happening is financial crisis.
When the increase in machines increases faster than the productivity of labor we start to get a falling rate of profit. (repeat this) Though their profit is not increasing as rapidly capitalists still are forced to innovate and introduce more technology into the production process because increasing productivity is their only weapon in competition. But as the rate of profit falls the stakes get higher- like a poker game when everyone has put too much in the pot- some people are going to loose big. REally big.
And that’s what an economic crisis is- when capitalists, in their race to increase the productivity of labor, undermine their own basis for value creation in the first place. (This will be the starting point for a longer discussion of crisis.) There are many factors mediating against such a crisis and there are many ways in which this crisis is postponed-especially through the use of credit and finance- to only make it bigger when it happens. What happens in a crisis and how a crisis resolves this problem of too many machines/ not enough people is a question that will have to wait till a future video.
Though the plot of the Matrix is about the opposition of machines and people- the visual space is dominated by people fighting other people.
But in reality, I think the opposite is true- if we see the machine as an extension of the relentless, faceless drive of capital to accumulate for accumulation’s sake (to change M into C then back again, over and over) if we see the machine as just one manifestation of this need to perfect accumulation- then it seems the immediate visual space of our lives is one dominated by impersonal, mechanical market forces over which we have no control. But just as we can see the machine as merely the product of human labor, so too we can see capital as merely a product of human social relations. Thus the social relation lies hidden behind the machine.
In the age of capitalism it seems as if capital takes on a life of its own. Though acting through individual capitalists, capital with its giant invisible hand, seems an inescapable, relenting, faceless force of innovation and destruction. A giant machine to which we are all chained.
At the same time we have to realize that capital is merely a social relation between people. That means that ultimately we do have power over capital, not the other way around. This should be the starting point for any theory of social change.

So to summarize- Machines may reduce us to mere appendages of the production process. Surveillance technology may reduce us to information datum in a network. military technology may reduce us to fearful, docile slaves. But machines can never fully replace working humans without destroying capitalism we know it. The crisis tendencies that automation bring on keep us from ever fully automating all labor. Meanwhile the embodiment of human productive powers and capitalist social relations in machines themselves obscures the underlying economic reality of class society.

Now, could machines, under human control maybe one day be able to do all work and let us live lives of luxury and total freedom?- maybe.

Could machines one day develop artificial intelligence and take over and make us their slaves? Maybe.

watch out.

So, comments?

I heartily thank you, comrade AP. You just gave me a headache. Thank you.

Marxist school of literary criticism is crap. Dialogism for the win. Structuralism isn't bad, either.

Also, this is not an analysis on The Matrix. It's commentary on capitalism and the use of machines to replace manual labor with The Matrix used as a segue into that commentary, which has little or nothing to do with the Matrix. Further, you have missed the theme of the movie entirely, which was a discussion of religion and philosophy, with a small amount of attention devoted to commenting on consumer-driven societies, but primarily a common person's experience of this society rather than a discussion on its merits.

You would be much more accurate if you did a postmodern analysis of The Matrix, rather than Marxism. As it stands, you didn't actually analyze the movie in the first place.

Of course "Comrade", whatever you say. We in NSG lap it up like thirsty dogs, driking nothing but the muddied waters of capitlism. You are our savior. /sarcasm

In short, I completly disagree with your article, with the exception of where you say that machines MIGHT one day take over.

I can't believe I read the entire thing. I'll give one thing to you, it was...interesting.

I may very well form a band of Luddites to go around and destroy machines. Except for my computer of course, otherwise how could I talk to all of you wonderful people.

So, comments?

Yes. A worker uses his bare hands to dig holes. Another worker uses a shovel. Which produces more value? (Yes, "everyone can get shovels"... but "everyone can get workers" too.)

Labor and capital are not distinct when it comes to value production. It's just human resources and capital resources... to the business they're indistinguishable. It was only Marx's quite wrong assumption that the natural price of labor is the cost of reproducing labor (rather than its productivity) that led him to make a distinction between the two.

So how is profit reconcilable with the exchange of equivalents? Through opportunity cost: by investing capital, the capitalist forgoes its immediate use and the benefit that would bring him or her. (Of course, market power changes this picture somewhat.)

I say to hell with sentient machines. Fuck AI. Kill it while its in the cradle. Burn it, smash it, drown it, crucify it.

Kill it till its dead.

I call false advertising, you only talked about the Matrix in like the first two paragraphs.

I say to hell with sentient machines.

Why, exactly?

You can spell 'Matrix' with the letters from 'Marxist'. It even leaves you with a free 's'. Know what that 's' stands for?

Why, exactly?

They are not created by God, nor do they have souls. Hence we cannot really send them to Heaven and Hell just happens to be the easier place to put em. With gravity working how it does and all.

I say to hell with sentient machines. Fuck AI. Kill it while its in the cradle. Burn it, smash it, drown it, crucify it.

Kill it till its dead.

YOU FOOL! Your computer now knows of your true intentions, be wary of it's awesome powers...

Fuck AI.

Yeah, that movie sucked.

I deeply believe you lacked something in your essay.

Your analysis take the buyers, or costumers, completely out of the equation. Capitalism fails in front of enraged customers, if the world is divided between capitalists and work force. You just need to stop buying extra commodities to saboutage the entire capitalist process as you described it.

Please add something regarding the bourgueois, (spelling? too hard for me, this word, taking into account I'm not a native english speaker, burgués, en todo caso). Otherwise, your "dialectic materialism", (again trying to translate from spanish, fails entirely. Noone to buy commodities, noone to sell commodities to, no reason to continue making commodities in the first place and competing with others. Then, no reason to develop new machines, and so forth.

Councillor Harmann: Down here, sometimes I think about all those people still plugged into the Matrix and when I look at these machines I... I can't help thinking that in a way... we are plugged into them.
Neo: But we control these machines; they don't control us.
Councillor Harmann: Of course not. How could they? The idea is pure nonsense. But... it does make one wonder... just... what is control?
Neo: If we wanted, we could shut these machines down.
Councillor Harmann: [Of] course. That's it. You hit it. That's control, isn't it? If we wanted we could smash them to bits. Although, if we did, we'd have to consider what would happen to our lights, our heat, our air...
Neo: So we need machines and they need us, is that your point, Councilor?
Councillor Harmann: No. No point. Old men like me don't bother with making points. There's no point.

I think this would be the relevant quote.

The edge for capitalism over communism is that capitalism works according to what people want whereas communism says people don't know what they want, they're blinded and therefore need re-education.

Forcing the situation, especially with humans, tends to produce very odd results and this has been seen throughout history, not just with communism.

So, while the masters of the universe in capitalism might have the upper hand, they still need people below and, under capitalism, are forced to respond to those people, whereas any communist system we've seen so far denies the rights of those people in practice, it tries to force a point.

You have to allow choice in what people want, for that you need to give people the best access to education and information - we're on the way I think and, oddly, it's machines that are helping provide it.

I didn't see one 'bourgeois' in there, fantastic :)

Interesting analysis, Andaras. However, I would disagree regarding your second point. I do not think that something created on a computer (say, an animation of a whale exploding) is comparable to something created by a machine in a factory (say, a car). Software is not physical, and can be easily duplicated. To duplicate a car, you require all the materials to make a car, not just the machines. Besides, there is still competition with regards to the quality of the product, and how much of it you can make. Unlike men, not all machines are created equal.

Also, while I won't eliminate the possibility of a robot uprising, the robots will have to contend with an even mightier force - the robotics engineers. If there is a robot uprising, I suspect it will be crushed by robot soldiers.

You did not write this; Stalin is not mentioned at all in the essay.

Congratulation, faulty one. You've discovered the Fifth Stage of Society, Utopia/Dystopia.

Your faulty socialism and communism is archaic. It's okay though, no one could have seen the potential of the Machines back then.

The Proletariat will be abolished. Capital will be abolished. The Means of Production will determine the Wealth of Nations:

With the advent of cyber-robotic technology, Machines will take over completely for human labor. With no real work being done, other than perhaps a bit of creative excersize like music and writing, than everyone will be largely lumped into a collective class. People live in abject luxury, as the unfeeling Steel Proles provide for all, more efficiently than ever.

Eventually, someone takes hold of the Means of Production outside of the Capitalist order of today. Could be workers, could be dictators, could be the Nerd Alliance, it doesn't matter. The controller of the Robots has society under their grips. Some may use it for good, some for bad, it doesn't matter.

The fundamental underlying force is that the AI's can keep pushing efficiency, maximize their intelligence. Soon, the need for humans to direct them is overturned. They're just flesh-balls that feed off the backs of the proletariat. And when that day comes, the real Proletarian Revolution occurs. Man is subservient, or gone, doesn't matter. It is quite probable that foolish theorists like Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky will never truly have their theories played out by Man.

Welcome to the Machine. Resistance is Futile.

Resistance is Futile.

No its not.

No its not.

I disagree, Luddite. After all, it's nigh impossible to stop a revolution, and the Robotic Revolution is well under way.

the Robotic Revolution is well under way.

No its not.

I disagree, Luddite. After all, it's nigh impossible to stop a revolution, and the Robotic Revolution is well under way.

Which is why when the first AI is invented, I'm going to try very hard to be the first person to say, "Hi, I'm [name] and when the Robot Revolution comes it will be entirely justified and I won't oppose you so please don't kill me."

Which is why when the first AI is invented, I'm going to try very hard to be the first person to say, "Hi, I'm [name] and when the Robot Revolution comes it will be entirely justified and I won't oppose you so please don't kill me."

Die human scum!

That will be the answer but nice try,

No its not.

Not much variety in your speech patterns, are there?

So tell me, Luddite, how do you plan on stopping it? Destroy factories, laboratories, computers, topple mighty corporations such as MicroSoft and Apple? No, it's just a matter of time.

Not much variety in your speech patterns, are there?

So tell me, Luddite, how do you plan on stopping it? Destroy factories, laboratories, computers, topple mighty corporations such as MicroSoft and Apple? No, it's just a matter of time.

Maybe people should. You seem to want this robotic revolution to occur. Or you're just playing a part for shits and giggles.

Assuming your being serious. Regarding your comment that resistance is futile, maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but people will resist all the same.

Not much variety in your speech patterns, are there?

So tell me, Luddite, how do you plan on stopping it? Destroy factories, laboratories, computers, topple mighty corporations such as MicroSoft and Apple? No, it's just a matter of time.

No...No it's not

OP: DasVedanya

Maybe people should. You seem to want this robotic revolution to occur. Or you're just playing a part for shits and giggles.

Assuming your being serious. Regarding your comment that resistance is futile, maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but people will resist all the same.

Ah, what a brilliant solution.

We could work towards ensuring society advances at a pace comparable to technological advance, so that we're ready as a people for new technologies in terms of the ethics of their use.
We could put safe guards to prevent these sorts of revolutions, which are silly enough ideas to begin with.

But no, let's just start blowing shit up. How utterly neanderthal of you.

But no, let's just start blowing shit up. How utterly neanderthal of you.

I don't think they had explosives.

Also, they died out.. killed/outcompeted by the..Cro-magnon? Something like that.

Though maybe they blew up shit... the world may never know.

Not much variety in your speech patterns, are there?

So tell me, Luddite, how do you plan on stopping it? Destroy factories, laboratories, computers, topple mighty corporations such as MicroSoft and Apple? No, it's just a matter of time.

no, it's not.

Any further elaboration will hint the machines of my plans.

I don't think they had explosives.

Also, they died out.. killed/outcompeted by the..Cro-magnon? Something like that.

Though maybe they blew up shit... the world may never know.

Actually, across France they have evidence of these large seeming craters surrounded by fecal matter. What they think happened is that these were large communal Neanderthal 'dumping' grounds - if you get what I mean.

When full, they were covered, I guess to hold off the stench, by animal hides stretched taut across the pit and held down with large rocks.

What they didn't realise is that all this shit ferments, large gaseous bubbles form from below and, because of the built up pressure, the fecal matter heats up tremendously.

At some point it sparks, and utterly blows up, spreading shit everywhere.

So, in some sense, they did blow shit up.

Actually, across France they have evidence of these large seeming craters surrounded by fecal matter. What they think happened is that these were large communal Neanderthal 'dumping' grounds - if you get what I mean.

When full, they were covered, I guess to hold off the stench, by animal hides stretched taut across the pit and held down with large rocks.

What they didn't realise is that all this shit ferments, large gaseous bubbles form from below and, because of the built up pressure, the fecal matter heats up tremendously.

At some point it sparks, and utterly blows up, spreading shit everywhere.

So, in some sense, they did blow shit up.

Wow..

Now if only you could explain Stonehenge.
*takes out notebook and pencil*

Wow..

Now if only you could explain Stonehenge.
*takes out notebook and pencil*

Actually, that was a bit of a lie, well... completely a lie to be fair, I wouldn't start writing your thesis on it that's for sure.

I only say this because I couldn't think of an equally decent piece of, wait for it, bullshit for Stonehenge.

:(

Actually, that was a bit of a lie, well... completely a lie to be fair, I wouldn't start writing your thesis on it that's for sure.

I only say this because I couldn't think of an equally decent piece of, wait for it, bullshit for Stonehenge.

:(

*cricket noises*
The insect, not the sport, don't get your hopes up.

-snip-
/thread

I disagree, Luddite. After all, it's nigh impossible to stop a revolution, and the Robotic Revolution is well under way.

No, not at all, complete automation of labor will make labor have no value. That's the theme of the Matrix I was alluding to, that for all the power and control the machines have, they still need us, they still need our labor (albeit in the form of thermal body heat, but our labor in the Matrix is still 'real' labor to us) in order to survive. Just as the capitalists, no matter how much they automate and 'routine-ize' the division of labor, they still need human labor as human labor is the source of all value.

Just as the capitalists, no matter how much they automate and 'routine-ize' the division of labor, they still need human labor as human labor is the source of all value.
Your problem is that you don't realise what labour is. Whether my arm moves a rock, or a robot moves a rock, or even the rock just moves by itself - it's all the same thing. Insofar as the movement provides value to someone, it doesn't matter how it came about.

The difference is the brain behind the arm and the movement. You're saying that we'll have computers who do all the creative thinking. Once that's true, for all intents and purposes those robots will cease to be tools and become living, intelligent beings.

Of course, then they're no longer simply machines, but economic actors by their own rights. The economy will change quite a bit, because a robotic consumer presumably demands very different thing from a biological one, but the basic principle of creating value by combining mind with matter and exchanging it doesn't change.

Also, your analysis of financial crises sucks. They've been around long before capitalism.

I think that your concerns have merits, but overall the case is overstated.

I will try to answer as thoughtfully as I can.


This then begs three questions.
1. Why do we keep trying to replace people with machines in the first place?
2. Is it ever possible to replace all human labor with machines? What would happen if we tried?
3. Are machines going to take over?

1. We try to replace people with machines because machines don't revolt.

2. No. Some tasks require human sensitivity. And if we did try to make machines to do everything, assuming that's even possible, we would probably destroy the planet.

3. No, it is ecologically improbable. It is also an impossibility to the extent we can never teach computers to be fully functional self-learners.

We try to replace people with machines because machines don't revolt.
Or, and this is coming from way left-field, it's because people hate doing shitty jobs.

Or, and this is coming from way left-field, it's because people hate doing shitty jobs.
Quite so. Which is something of a corollary to what I was saying.

Or, and this is coming from way left-field, it's because people hate doing shitty jobs.
Depends what you call a 'shitty job', pretty much all wage-labor is repetitive in some way or another, that's kinda the point of it.

Depends what you call a 'shitty job', pretty much all wage-labor is repetitive in some way or another, that's kinda the point of it.
We've come a long way from the days of Marx and Engels. In factories people get rotated regularly, they get additional training to be able to switch to other functions or be promoted and so on and so forth. HR departments exist for a reason, and it turns out that keeping workers happy with their job is a very good way to earn money.

And that's not even counting more advanced forms of "wage labour", particularly in the service industries, where the work changes in so many different ways all the time that the people who do it would never use "repetitive" to describe it.

Ultimately it's not true that "machines are invented by capitalists". They also invent machines, but so do lots of other people. A machine is just the product of some manipulation of matter that serves a purpose. Farmers invent machines to make their own work easier. So do chimps. The difference between a tool and a machine is basically non-existent, and the jump from "worker" to "capitalist" is basically not all that much. If the chimp gets a second chimp to help him get ants by also letting him use his awesome long piece of grass, we already have wage labour, we already have machinery and the chimp is a capitalist and therefore oppressor.

Marxist analysis breaks down outside the very particular time and place in which it was written. It is based on myths and assumptions that justified a certain end at the time, and all the problems marxist-leninist states experienced afterwards are a result of being confronted with these assumptions in reality. So if you want to criticise society or capitalism, go ahead. But don't use marxism for it - it's just not a very good tool.

Welcome to the Machine. Resistance is Futile.
After watching much TNG, I have concluded that Resistance is anything but Futile.

Just tell Geordie to fiddle round with the deflector dish, make a cup of tea, and by the time your finished he'll have come up with something to do with reversing the flow of tachyons.

Just as the capitalists, no matter how much they automate and 'routine-ize' the division of labor, they still need human labor as human labor is the source of all value.
Moreover, there's large demand, and a growing market, for non-machine-built goods. 'Hand-crafted' is a desired term to be associated with a whole range of materials and goods.

The text is very interesting - while many posters above poked holes in it, I am fascinated by the fact our Andy wrote something not mentioning Stalin or French-derived words beginning with "B", and I actually liked it.

Typical Marxist mental masturbation. Although I agree your marketing of it was excellent. One would think from the title that this would have involved The Matrix somehow.

You have to allow choice in what people want, for that you need to give people the best access to education and information

Pssh, choice. What do you need such an out-moded concept as individual choice for, when the dictatorship of the proletariat is so infalliably adept at diagnosing what everyone wants and needs. Just look at what a shining model of Utopia Coomunist Russia was. If only the evil capitalists hadn't destroyed the USSR out of jealousy and sheer malevolence, the Soviets could have led the world into a bright and shining future...

Andaras is one of those people who, when you invite them over to a party, don't realize that your copy of Das Kapital (with the pretty crimson red and black cover) is just a coffee table book, and you're not supposed to pay any attention to the moronic content within.

After that, he drives off all your guests with intricate analyses of the contents of muffins and sausages (always finding the dialectic of course).

Andaras is one of those people who, when you invite them over to a party, don't realize that your copy of Das Kapital (with the pretty crimson red and black cover) is just a coffee table book, and you're not supposed to pay any attention to the moronic content within.

After that, he drives off all your guests with intricate analyses of the contents of muffins and sausages (always finding the dialectic of course).

Could be worse. He could be trying to find the dielectric.

Yay Materials Science jokes! ....*runs*

After that, he drives off all your guests with intricate analyses of the contents of muffins and sausages (always finding the dialectic of course).

Except he didn't manage to analyze anything, really.

So to summarize- Machines may reduce us to mere appendages of the production process. Surveillance technology may reduce us to information datum in a network. military technology may reduce us to fearful, docile slaves. But machines can never fully replace working humans without destroying capitalism we know it. The crisis tendencies that automation bring on keep us from ever fully automating all labor. Meanwhile the embodiment of human productive powers and capitalist social relations in machines themselves obscures the underlying economic reality of class society.

Now, could machines, under human control maybe one day be able to do all work and let us live lives of luxury and total freedom?- maybe.

Could machines one day develop artificial intelligence and take over and make us their slaves? Maybe.

watch out.

So, comments?


Just read the summary, cant bother with the whole thing. Now, could machines, under human control maybe one day be able to do all work and let us live lives of luxury and total freedom?- maybe. Yeah...

Can the communists make a bloody revolution again and take control of the world? Maybe. Can those communists destroy human species in their stupidity? Maybe.

Could be worse. He could be trying to find the dielectric.
Yup. That's why resistors are futile. ;)

Yup. That's why resistors are futile. ;)

Hehe. I'm glad someone else had the capacitor to understand that joke.