Skip to Content

Marx and Automation

480 posts / 0 new
Last post
Young Master Smeet
Offline
Joined: 15/11/2011

Alan Kerr,

the substantive point is that accounting for the cost in labour time of abstract time embodied in capital just reproduces the logic of the market, so you might as well use the market, and save yourself the effort: all labour time can tell us is how easy it is to achieve things under current conmditions, we need to take a broader look.


Crusoe be buggered.  HIs stock-book can only deal with him as the immediate consumer of the invested labour time, not as intermediate goods in eexchange.  I don't even know how/why he cept into a discussion of Air Kilns.

Alan Kerr
Offline
Joined: 08/09/2017

@Tim Kilgallon

Ultra-efficient only compared to the firms that fail. 

Alan Kerr
Offline
Joined: 08/09/2017

@YMS

With Crusoe’s way (small or full-scale), I vote to air dry the wood. This will cut average labour hour cost.

We need to make this more workable and better than the market. 

Alan Kerr
Offline
Joined: 08/09/2017

@LBird

It’s good that you study Marx.

I know that you do study as you found and thought that you solved this problem. Here it is.

Mind over matter and matter over mind. If it is, ideas which change matter and matter which changes ideas then which is the first cause?

It’s to your credit that you got so far as to find this problem. Not all students get so far. Your wrong solution was to unify mind and matter in one social production. We can do that but it is no solution to the problem.

I hope that you do get the real solution now. The real solution was in your quotes from Marx. We cannot choose our means to produce since they are the result of previous production. So we get the order of steps. We cannot choose the order of those steps. From this, we get the matter over mind view of both Marx and Engels.

We need you. Thank you for bringing your ideas to this debate. 

Marcos
Offline
Joined: 23/04/2017

Matt wrote:

MBellemare

Quote:
So, in answer to your question, Alan, how can we skip a stage of production? Well, didn't the soviet union do this? didn't they go from an agrarian society to a socialist society, by-passing the bourgeois captalist phase. They utilized force to initiate the by-pass, but there are more democratic manners by which to skip a stage of production. Don't you think?

Nonsense. An absurd statement.They had what was essentially a bourgeois revolution, from feudalism into capitalism and the Bolshevics mounted a coup, introducing  state capitalism.

https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1930s/1934/no-353-january-1934/bolshevism-past-and-present

Socialism/communism is a post-capitalist development.

This is the best  antidote to that distortion

https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/why-russian-revolution-was.... Lenin discredited Martov because he knew that he was right

 

Lenin book titled The Development of Capitalism in Russia, clearly indicates that Russia was not ready for socialism yet, it was ready to go from Feudalism to capitalism, and these are the innovators who want to give lectures to the Socialist Party

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1899/devel/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Steve-SanFranci...
Offline
Joined: 20/04/2015

How does the manager make the choice? 

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Alan Kerr wrote:

Form F wrote:

Alan Kerr wrote:

@Form F

Thank you,

Of course, the manager of the capitalist firm tries to make most profit in shortest time.

 

This doesn't answer my question. How does the manager make the choice?

I’m no expert. But I would choose 1) on money cost and 2) on the way to turn capital over in shortest time. For a big firm I would get the best deal I could for kiln. 

my experience is that assuming the manager is a man he would either;

a) give the contract to his mate from the same Masonic Lodge

b) give the contract to a bloke he knows who will take him down to the golf course and then fill him full of lager

c) give it to the same bloke he always does, cos he can't be arsed to look any further.

d) undertake some basic research and award it to the one which meets his half baked ideas of how the job should be done, with no real reference to the people who are going to use the wood or live in the house that was made by the wood.

Which is the real nature of capitalism, not the ultra efficient notional vision of the Thatcherites or the Adam Smith Institute



How does the manager make the choice!?!?!?  
the more relevant question in capitalism is "how does society choose the manager who make the choice".  

== = = = = = = == = =  = = = = = = =
In capitalism, there's a sort of competitive feedbck loop where presumably there is some sort of competition in the marketplace.  So if two companies both produce wood, then the price of the wood will be different depending on each individual managers decision making ability.  

Company A) So if Jane, a manager at "More Wood for Us", decides to give the contract to the woman from her sewing circle, then that results in a price of the wood of say $5/board.    

Company B) Meenwhile, Monique, a manager at "Hard Wood Forever" company decides to give her contract to the woman recommended by "the socialistica's reviews latest ratings on best wood producers" which is a national industry review magazine and effectively delegates the decision to the reviewing agency who tells her to give the contract to a company called "social wood works" then that rsults in a price for the wood of $6/board in the marketplace.

- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - 
So in capitalism, then "the market" decides who to buy from and who gets money and the opportunity to continue being the decision maker.  If people think the "Hard Wood Forever" company has better wood that will last for longer then they buy from that company even at a higher price and next year the "Hard Wood Forever" company manager, Monique, will have more voting shares (aka money, aka decision making power) on how more wood should be produced.  

In capitalism the marketplace is in theory the ultimate arbitar of decision making power that is collected from individuals one dollar vote at a time and consolidated into the decision making power of the manager or business owner.  It really doesn't matter in capitalism the details of how Jane or monique make her decisions and they might keep those decisions secret in capitalism as well as their decision making criteria secret from the public.  In capitalism the important thing is the assumption that the costs and price to consumer will reflect the decision making wisdom of the manager and that will result in an increase or decrease in the decision making power of the manager. It's a rather long chain of accountability and feedback with lots of places for corruption and failure, but it does at least offer the promise of individuals determining the means of production and the mode of production.  In theory everyone could refuse to buy anything not reviewed and endorsed by "the socilistica's reviews latest ratings of best people to buy from and best prices" and thereby everyone acting together in solidarity would simply stop buying from capitialist corporations that exploit the workers.  

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
in socialism I have no idea how things work or how they fail or who or what decides these matters or even who or what decides who or what decides these matters.  Different responses have been suggested for Socialism such as "there will be no property" or an enlightened something or somoene decides based on class prejudice, or more commonly "voting".  Presumably there is some long chain of voting that can also be corrupted but in theory you could vote to decide who votes to decide what based on their voting history?  In socialism presumably you could even vote to buy from capitalism through some mechanism?  

- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - 
Sorry, I'm not drawing from marx for this example.  My forte is capitalism mechanics and most of the marx I read or hear about seems focused on political thoery. So from what I understand Socialism says this conversation about producing wood doesn't matter and redirects the discussion to topics of class exploitation in which the managers Jane and Monique are both assumed to be in business together and both act in collusion or inderect collusion to exploit the people they sell wood too in a capitalist economy.  Exactly why or how jane and monique don't colllude or work to advantage themselves at the expense of others in socialism is not clear to me.  Some suggestions I've heard include the idea that they have an abundance of resources so they act out of kind hearted generousity. 

==============================

The more relevant question is socialism seems to be "why would anyone be greedy when there's plenty to go around and it feels good to help others"?  

` . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .
Sorry, this is just my humble understanding and probably wrong on many accounts. Feel free to correct or revise to make it better.  Feel free to vote this as unworthy of paying attention too or you can buy into my description by responding positively.  There's unlimited space available and an abundance of discussion forums so you can also answer with a link to a new discussion thread you create for free with a automated form voting process.  Both capitalism and socialism seem to have a problem with organizing conversation threads that is dependenent on the concious behavior or the forum users and the automation of the forum discussion software. For both capitalist and socialist, the correct response to any off topic or further replies not directly related to marx and automation would be for YOU to make a link to a new discussion thread that you create and copy my comment into the top post and then add your long reply there.  then YOU should come back to this thread and add only a small reply with a link to the new discussion thread you created so as not to confuse this discussion of Marx and Automation.  I think the Mods can maybe do this too since any regular user can do what I just described.  It seems there's a scarcity of time at present that makes all people unwilling or reluctant to contribute their individual efforts and time towards the community good of a more organized discussion forum.  Perhaps I should have created a new thread and posted this long detailed reply there and then come back to here and just put in a short link to a discussion thread I create titled "answer my question. How does the manager make the choice?". if you agree that's what I should have done, you should not reply or tell me because that would be a form of a survey which is banned on this discussion board without moderators approval in advance. So it's up to the mod to initiate the process for such a group recomendation as far as I understand it.

Alan Kerr
Offline
Joined: 08/09/2017

@Steve-San Francisco

What do you think of this chapter?

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch03.htm

Steve-SanFranci...
Offline
Joined: 20/04/2015

Alan Kerr wrote:

@Steve-San Francisco

What do you think of this chapter?

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch03.htm

I made a new thread to discuss this ridiculous excuse for a market model. For marx time it was great, but Marx was writing at time when math and reason were not so very advanced by the standards and understanding of today.  Marx was one of the first to think about these things and can be forgiven for producing a very crude and simplistic understanding of the market.  At the time no one else had any better understanding of the market, so he deserves credit like the way plato deserves credit.  But you can't do modern science with plato's thoery of perfect forms in place of congnitive psychology and set theory.  Also yu can't understand modern chemistrry with plato's brilliant theory of the 4 elements earth air fire and water.  I think the idea that everything is made up of either "earth, air, fire, or water" is ridiculous too. Don't get your panties in a wedgie just because I criticize Plato or Marx using the same criteria.  Here's details. 

https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/topic/discussion-archive-marx-...

Marcos
Offline
Joined: 23/04/2017

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

Alan Kerr wrote:

@Steve-San Francisco

What do you think of this chapter?

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch03.htm

I made a new thread to discuss this ridiculous excuse for a market model. For marx time it was great, but Marx was writing at time when math and reason were not so very advanced by the standards and understanding of today.  Marx was one of the first to think about these things and can be forgiven for producing a very crude and simplistic understanding of the market.  At the time no one else had any better understanding of the market, so he deserves credit like the way plato deserves credit.  But you can't do modern science with plato's thoery of perfect forms in place of congnitive psychology and set theory.  Also yu can't understand modern chemistrry with plato's brilliant theory of the 4 elements earth air fire and water.  I think the idea that everything is made up of either "earth, air, fire, or water" is ridiculous too. Don't get your panties in a wedgie just because I criticize Plato or Marx using the same criteria.  Here's details. 

https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/topic/discussion-archive-marx-...

Out of track clarification:

 

Nobody has to be a mathematician in order to understand what the capitalist market really is. War is a product of the market system, and peace among the capitalist is also a war for the market. Marx did not use mathematics in order to explain the logic of capitalism or the system of profits. WWI and WWII, the Iraq war, conflict among capitalists,  etc, etc, are the product of the capitalist market. The whole world is controlled by the market, therefore, socialist advocate for the end of the market system, and we do not need mathematics for that

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Login or register to post comments