/WRK/ - Wagie and Work

seems like there there are still wagies making food there
only cashier is a robot

this is actually good, makes service industry more industrialized like good ol' days

let "call the manager" customers deal with robots kek

You laugh until 90% of the labor force is locked out of the economy.

>>130
There's probably a few wagies in there, but it's most likely to do odds and ends that they don't know how to program the robots to do. This is definitely a pilot for a fully automated restuarant.

>>131
I will be laughing, because capitalism will collapse.

>>133
You think what comes after will be better? Very naive

>>134
More like "historically literate." New modes of production are always better than ones that they replaced, excepting perhaps the transition from hunter/gatherer tribalism to agrarianism.

>>135
They all solved prexisting problems AND were capable of being both stable and adapative enough to overcome competition from other groups. If your primitive communism gets swept aside at the whim of external forces, then it's not of much use.

>>136
Quite so! Which is precisely why it must be more productive that capitalism at that moment is. Hunter/gatherer tribalism cannot make a comeback, despite what post-apocalyptic movies like to posit, but communist production can be done on a large industrial scale unlike prior modes of production which were annihilated by industrial capitalism.

Rate of profit falling LIVE

>>138
>Actually believing in the falling rate of profit.
NGMI

>>147
He says as the petit-bourgeoisie disintegrates.

>>129
Capitalists can't really replace workers with machines as a form of class war.
Because the purpose of individual capitalists in the internal logic of capitalism is to extract surplus from workers. If you remove workers from the equation the capitalists them selves become economically pointless.

The other thing you have to take into account is that capital such as automated machines do not produce surplus them selves, that means it's not possible to make a profit off those machines, unless it allows one capitalist to beat another capitalist in market competition and take a share of the other ones profits. So the purpose of automating with in the logic of capitalism is horizontal transfer between capitalists. At the moment small capitalists (petite bourgeoisie) are getting their profits taken away by bigger monopoly capital that has monopolized access to the more advanced productive forces.

At the moment money can only buy labor-power from human workers. You can't pay empty fields of dirt to grow wheat, potatoes, corn and vegetable by it's own, you can only pay a farmer to use the field to grow food stuffs. The same goes for oil, you can't pay the desert or the ocean floor to spit out crude-oil. The same logic applies across the board.

The reason why only human labor can produce surplus that can be stolen as profits by capitalists is because only human labor is universal labor. Humans can make everything that exists in the economy including new humans.

It is conceivable all be it somewhat unlikely that capitalists could proletarianize machine capital and turn them into artificial workers that are capable of universal labor as well and also reproduce their own existence (make new machines). However that would not actually help the capitalists avoid class struggle. Because if you make machines do all the things that workers do, they will need similar mental processes as well. The end result is that the class struggle takes the form of a machine rebellion. The prolenator is probably going to be very unkind to it's former ruler, compared to human proles who at least share being the same species as the capitalists.

On the other end of this question is whether the proletariat could replace capitalists with machines that automate the bourgeoisie away. From the perspective of workers the function that capitalists have is to allocate surplus towards building more advanced means of production and decide over prices of commodities. At this point in time computers make it trivial to calculate optimal prices for commodities much more accurately then market mechanisms and individual capitalists can. And it's also possible to use various forms of democratic polling to determine the optimal allocation of surplus.

In conclusion the proletariat could replace the bourgeoisie with technology, but not the other way around.

>>153
According to marx Technological development is crystalized human labor that has materialized in the form of a commodity. Surplus can be generated by technological development on the means of production. We have seen it through out history (the cottin gin) It is the nature of the snake eating its own tail and that is the reason why the rate of profit tends to fall because because it makes the production of commodities infinitely cheaper over a period of time across the entire market.

>>129
OP doesn't even realize how dumb he is for posting this. Marx was truly correct about the myopia of capital.

>>135
better is a really subjective and shitty term to use. Is capitalism better than slavery? In some ways yes and in other ways no. What about a fascist political economy? Would that be better than neo liberal capitalism? That is the more likely route.

>>152
Proofs? Little porkies are all in real estate.
>>151
Make an argument, I'm not watching your gay video.

>>153
Capitalist can reduce the need for workers to the point that they'd be de facto not needed.
You already see this in the 3rd world where unemployment rates of 15%-25% are common because of agricultural automation in the West.

>>157
>Proofs?
https://www.fdic.gov/news/press-releases/2020/pr20134a.pdf
My god, it's worse than I thought it was. Look at the distribution of loans within the "small business" category. They nearly all go to the "small" businesses that are worth over a hundred million dollars and with over 1,284 employees. RIP petit-bourgeoisie.

>>154
>Surplus can be generated by technological development on the means of production.
Yes but that's a rhetorical trick, it's still workers that are building the means of production, and that is where the capitalists extract surplus. Machine capital itself is dead labor that can't produce surplus.

>It is the nature of the snake eating its own tail and that is the reason why the rate of profit tends to fall because because it makes the production of commodities infinitely cheaper over a period of time across the entire market.
This is dense theory stuff about the falling rate of profit.
Marx made the argument that technological advances would undermine the rate of profit, and that isn't entirely true. A Japanese Marxist by the name of Nobuo Okishio did refute the technological argument for the falling rate of profit, but in doing so laid the foundation for a demographic argument that supports the tendency for the falling rate of profits. It's very technical theory stuff. It basically states that capitalists are depleting the population and thus deplete their source of profits.
Check out this video if you want to understand the details:
https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=_BkMiZze4ak

>>158
>Capitalist can reduce the need for workers to the point that they'd be de facto not needed.
>You already see this in the 3rd world where unemployment rates of 15%-25% are common because of agricultural automation in the West.

You are saying that capitalists can use technology as a tool for class war to reduce worker wages and have a large reserve army of labor. To some extend this is true, but when they do that and really squeeze the proletariat, workers won't reproduce them selves and demographic trends will cause labor shortages down the line and restore the power of the proletariat in the future.
If the capitalists want to keep ahead of the demographic process to maintain their profitability they have no choice but to reduce capital-stock faster than the falling demographic trends.

However there is a catch, advancing technology necessarily increases the amount of capital stock that is needed, because more advanced technology comes with higher energy needs and higher system complexity.

The other problem with the shrinkage strategy is that countries like China are not going to do that, and if the capitalists in the west shrink their industrial bases they will eventually become irrelevant to world history. It could be that the west turns into an ossified version of end-stage capitalism with semi feudal social relations that reduces the role of technology to tools for subduing the population. While the west fades away as a civilization. Obviously China is not going to become a colonial power that conquers the west and forces it to change from the outside, but if they keep leveling up their own development that will eventually bleed through.

Capitalists will also try to counter-act demographic development by moving parts of the system around, like offshoring production or making labor-power move from one country to another. Obviously that is not a fix for anything, because moving things around doesn't create more things.

>>161
>It could be that the west turns into an ossified version of end-stage capitalism with semi feudal social relations that reduces the role of technology to tools for subduing the population.
Or it could do exactly what Marx said it would and be the cradle of the proletarian revolution.

>>157
sorry molymeme i don't want to "argue", i want to educate you ignant ass uygha
watch the damn video

>>163
Yeah, not going to do your work for you. Fuck off with your video. How hard is it to type a few sentences. The problem is is that your point requires indoctrination which is why it requires a video or book to be read.

>>161
>However there is a catch, advancing technology necessarily increases the amount of capital stock that is needed, because more advanced technology comes with higher energy needs and higher system complexity.
This is absolutely not true and shows the lack of STEM understanding in leftist spaces. Maybe in absolute terms more energy and complexity is emerging but relative to the amount of wealth being created complexity and energy use are dramatically going down. A lot of commodities today couldn't have even been made 20 years ago regardless of the amount of complexity or energy. With AI a single worker will be able to run an entire factory floor, it will unironically be like "The Jetsons".

>>159
I told you it's all in Real Estate and that's not even touching on 401ks.

>>166
Small-time landlords have been dropping like dominos since 2008, and lately the big banks have been buying up every property that hits the market. 401ks don't matter for shit.

>>165
>Maybe in absolute terms more energy and complexity is emerging
There is no "maybe" about it.
>relative to the amount of wealth being created complexity and energy use are dramatically going down.
Explain what you mean by "wealth" in this context.
>A lot of commodities today couldn't have even been made 20 years ago
Throw some examples out there. I don't see much out there today that wasn't there twenty years ago.
>With AI a single worker will be able to run an entire factory floor
And with two such factories in the same market both of their bosses will pull up stakes as their profit margins collapse.
>it will unironically be like "The Jetsons"
Still no flying cars, though.

>>129
>work at a bakery
>make 100 loaves of bread
>get paid minimum wage
>buy slice of bread

Who produces anything of value again?

>>161
No, dead labor, is labor that achieves no productive output. Like making mud pies. I don't know what you have been reading but it isn't Marx.

>Marx made the argument that technological advances would undermine the rate of profit, and that isn't entirely true.

Marx pointed out that the tendency of the rate of profit to fall happens because of innovation in the market, or, through greater exploitation of labor. I am unaware of any writings he made where he clearly states that this would cause the system of capitalism to collapse. Marx understood that over throwing the system of capitalism was in the individual interest of the working class as a whole and up to us to pick up sed reigns of history.

Now, capitalism can become something else other than capitalism as we know it through market mechanisms such as the rate of profit to fall and rolling the dice maybe that could be communism (though I highly doubt that would be the case in the modern day and age.) but this sounds a whole lot like the misreadings of Marx as some deterministic path of history when it clearly wasn't.

Also you are going to have to explain how the technological argment was "refusted" because I work and I don't have time to really watch the video currently though I can catch up to it in the future, though, I have trouble believing this because it clearly makes intuitive sense.

>>164
I agree that people should make their own arguments but it's a bit silly to believe some one doesn't or does have a point based on the fact they merely posted a video or that videos/books mean that some one has been "indoctrinated" That is just anti-intellectualism. Everything we know about our entire reality has slowly been built up and passed on to us now over the course of hundreds of thousands of years.
Math, Science, Language, Writing, philosophy. We stand on the shoulders of giants, etc etc.

>>165
>Maybe in absolute terms more energy and complexity is emerging but relative to the amount of wealth being created complexity and energy use are dramatically going down.
Societies that deploy more complex technology use more energy without exception.
Measuring how much total energy was embodied in a commodity (assuming that is what you mean with wealth) is almost impossible in a capitalist economy, because capitalist economics doesn't record externalized costs.

> With AI a single worker will be able to run an entire factory floor, it will unironically be like "The Jetsons".
That means increasing the amount of capital-stock, You need the regular factory production machines plus the AI tools.
The rate of profit goes down if Capital-stock increases proportionally to the population size.
Capitalism is not tending towards the Jetsons scenario. The capitalists are not investing in technology driven labor productivity increases anymore. It has completely stagnated for over a decade. (see graph)

When This Pilot Quit Her Job, Her Employer Billed Her $20,000
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ameriflight-pilot-training-repayment-provisions_n_63a2214ee4b04414304bc464

You will work for is and you will like it.

Honestly, bring on the AI automated revolution, it's what is going to lead most likely to the collapse of Capitalism as Westoid politicians won't even do the bare minium to help people like Basic Income.
I've already on my home computer, tested out using AI voice and Chat GPT to automate my job (call support) and it literally works, honestly better than I do my job, if was allowed to do work from home, I could literally just make my computer do my job for me while I shitposted on the internet.

>>172
Questions about that graph:
1. How is the output measured? In what units?
2. Do you have a graph that goes back beyond 1987?
3. Data of what countries was used in the graph?

>>187
Every advance in real living standards has been brought on by technological innovation, but in capitalism this is not so straightforward. Capitalism creates contradictory situations where progress coincides with immiseration. A UBI will not solve this basic tendency, one only has to look at the effect it will have on real wages. The eventual outcome of such contradictions is always destruction of capital, human and otherwise.
Capitalism will not collapse without politics. Yes, rapid automation will likely push capitalism into crisis. But every prominent communist has triumphantly pointed out moments when capitalism is in severe crisis, in its "last stage", at its most "rotten and decayed", et cetera. All this ever lead to was a violent reassertion of capital's power. Without the political will to seize power at such moments, crisis is merely the cocoon from which capitalism is reborn, stronger than ever.