Who should profit from automation?

Na, communists believe government should own the means of production. I think the workers should.

Ummm, no, unless you're using "communists" to refer blandly to 20th century Marxist-Leninist states.

Communists believe the society, chiefly through the workers/administrators of the means, should own the means of production and advocate the state merely act as a tactical surrogate, and even that is but a subset of communist theory.

Communism, even before Engels articulated it, is fundamentally premised on the eventual effectual withering of government.
 
Ummm, no, unless you're using "communists" to refer blandly to 20th century Marxist-Leninist states.

Communists believe the society, chiefly through the workers/administrators of the means, should own the means of production and advocate the state merely act as a tactical surrogate, and even that is but a subset of communist theory.

Communism, even before Engels articulated it, is fundamentally premised on the eventual effectual withering of government.

Yeah, the first part.

I also think it is a fundamental difference, to ever allow the government to control the means of production, even in a transitory fashion, then giving those who do the work, collective ownership only over that company.
 
The automatons, they are doing all the hard labor.

croppedimage450450-Casero-de-service-robot.jpg
 
Yeah, the first part.

I also think it is a fundamental difference, to ever allow the government to control the means of production, even in a transitory fashion, then giving those who do the work, collective ownership only over that company.

Practically, this is a much less easily managed dichotomy, as the state ultimately plays some role in administration and regulation of the marketplace and legal recognition of ownership. And that's in peace time and in post-industrial development. For pre-industrialized economies or countries under the threat of foreign military engagement or political subterfuge, the state necessarily shoulders a whole shifting set of responsibilities in safeguarding the means and retaining the modes of production. And, with regard to the modern economy, the necessity of the state in fact seems a bit more necessary than in previous eras.

For the most obvious example of the delicacy of this balance, see the Soviet Union, which was premised on the economic role of the soviets (worker councils) controlling the means of production, but which were relegated and suspended by Lenin amid the strife of industrialization, world war, and retaining the revolution, and were ultimately disbanded by Stalin. While they could have readily been reinstated subsequent the post-revolution/post-World War stabilizing period, and most likely would have been under Lenin or Trotsky, their entitlement at that point was built into the discretion of the state bureaucracy which had permeated its dominion over the economy throughout the sprawling state-legal apparatus.

Of course, traditional Marxist ideology presupposes the central workers revolution taking place at the economic epicenter of the world marketplace, which at the time of Marx would seem to have set about a fairly logical and seamless transfer of ownership without huge need for the state, but that was in is a far less-diversified and far less hyper-professional economic landscape. For instance, to now think that the workers of Uber could properly administrate the company for which they work is kind of a lofty presumption.
 
Practically, this is a much less easily managed dichotomy, as the state ultimately plays some role in administration and regulation of the marketplace and legal recognition of ownership. And that's in peace time and in post-industrial development. For pre-industrialized economies or countries under the threat of foreign military engagement or political subterfuge, the state necessarily shoulders a whole shifting set of responsibilities in safeguarding the means and retaining the modes of production. And, with regard to the modern economy, the necessity of the state in fact seems a bit more necessary than in previous eras.

For the most obvious example of the delicacy of this balance, see the Soviet Union, which was premised on the economic role of the soviets (worker councils) controlling the means of production, but which were relegated and suspended by Lenin amid the strife of industrialization, world war, and retaining the revolution, and were ultimately disbanded by Stalin. While they could have readily been reinstated subsequent the post-revolution/post-World War stabilizing period, and most likely would have been under Lenin or Trotsky, their entitlement at that point was built into the discretion of the state bureaucracy which had permeated its dominion over the economy throughout the sprawling state-legal apparatus.

Of course, traditional Marxist ideology presupposes the central workers revolution taking place at the economic epicenter of the world marketplace, which at the time of Marx would seem to have set about a fairly logical and seamless transfer of ownership without huge need for the state, but that was in is a far less-diversified and far less hyper-professional economic landscape. For instance, to now think that the workers of Uber could properly administrate the company for which they work is kind of a lofty presumption.

I don't think it is a lofty presumption. A MIT computer programmer has a much lower hill to climb to learn bean counting, then a Harvard MBA, has in understanding programming.

One is basic arithmetic, the other calculus.

Subject matter experts of production systems, engineering, and R&D, are the talent that is hard to come by. A bean counter, not so much. I could train a monkey to do statistical analysis.

As to the rest, I believe you are giving justifications for the need for that kind of central authority, which I don't dispute. Where I'm not so sure we agree, is in whether central authority is destined to fail, 100 out of 100 times.

To me it is an argument a kin to the Saw movie. Yes, the guy had to cut his leg off, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea.
 
The rich people will kill the poor people through various means and then all the people alive from that point on will be automaton based royalty tracing back their lineages to rich people at the dawn of the age of automation.
 
The rich people will kill the poor people through various means and then all the people alive from that point on will be automaton based royalty tracing back their lineages to rich people at the dawn of the age of automation.

I'm still holding out hope, that they keep me as breeding stock.
 
They'll be having genetically modified babies by that point that could be what they want them to be.

I don't think that would be a very good idea. You would always want to keep a unaltered genetic stock, in case things went awry.

This is why we have seed vaults.
 
I don't think that would be a very good idea. You would always want to keep a unaltered genetic stock, in case things went awry.

This is why we have seed vaults.

The modification process will be very exact and specific. They'll keep blueprints of where everything goes, but beyond that having old ass genetic stock would be like keeping floppy disks of windows 3.1 around.
 
The modification process will be very exact and specific. They'll keep blueprints of where everything goes, but beyond that having old ass genetic stock would be like keeping floppy disks of windows 3.1 around.

Oh, it's cool. Just destroy my fantasies of being breading stock in our upcoming transition to fuedalism, before the elimination of the useless eaters.
 
Ever see that show how it's made?

All that was done by hand and employed a lot of people .

Now it's push a button and robots can mass produce.
 
Would that maximize its power though?

From my own reasoning, by having a computer that can read 1, 0, and 1/0, you need a new construct for programming. I kind of envision it as if the x-axis is 1, the y-axis is 0, then the z-axis is 1/0.

We need programming that goes from 2 dimensional linear constructs, to 3 dimensional constructs.



......... no, its very inefficient. and difficult. thats why no one does it.

you sound like you watched too much star trek when you talk about automation. Its just sensors, motors, valves, and the system that controls them all. They get more advanced, but at a basic level thats all it is.
 
I don't know the answer. But I do know the US should have a minimum income for being a citizen. Maybe 5 or 10 grand a year for everyone. Keep the economy rolling. No big deal.

Automation will decrease the need for low skilled labor in many vectors. Full time employment for these people will become a relic.

On the other hand, like most Right Wingers, I don't think the Rich have enough money and we should do all we can to make their lives a little easier and much better.


How much money per year is rich?
 
I have been tracking the progress of automation since I first realized it's coming impact.

Something striking has occurred to me. The majority of advancements I see, come from state funded Universities.

This begs a simple question for me. Who should profit from the coming automation revolution?

Should a capital holder, who has done nothing but accumulate wealth previously, be the major beneficiary of technology that was developed with our tax dollars?
Whoever purchases the technology and takes the machines to market, then those that purchase the machines and put them to practical use. The developers are already profiting with very little risk.
 
Why?

What value does that guy have, other then that he has money?

Why not just cut out the middle man, and give all the profits to the banks, who actually control the capital?



Because that man is the one who had an idea, took the risk, and created something.



I happen to believe everyone is NOT created equal. Some people are smarter, more hard working, and take more chances/make better life choices. Those people should be rewarded, or at least able to control/profit from their endeavors.
 
Good point, actually. Bitcoin is good for the black market, unfortunately.

It's not going to be long before bitcoin will allow us to buy crazy shit like, for example, a silencer for an AR-15.

Oh wait...
 
Back
Top