Automation

Where were you when the CEO of McDonalds did more to destabilize Capitalism than every single Communist Party in the Developed World combined?
outline.com/ajyCAm

Attached: https---blogs-images.forbes.com-edrensi-files-2018-07-mcdonalds-1200x783.jpg (960x626, 94.4K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=hSjKoEva5bg
selforganizedseminar.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/harvey_condition_postmodern.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Shit like this makes me think demsocs are the most realistic path to socialism.

flippy is the new gritty

automation's a meme, even a retard should understand that robots don't buy shit

not exactly. the military is always enlisting (your progressive 2020 candidate Elizabeth Warren helped pass the $717 defense budget), and prostitution and cam whoring are always options.

This is the real reason why fighting for wages and conditions is so important. The more expensive labor becomes, the more capital will seek to replace it with machinery. Unfortunately for the capitalists, human labor is the sole source of value. Greater automation drives capitalist value production to zero. No value production means no profits or wages. Production without value, wages, or profits (ie, production solely of use values) is the definition of communism.

Therefore, the fundamental operation of capitalism drives inexorably toward communism. Contra Land, the real meaning of the 'death drive' of capitalism is positive: the contradiction at the heart of capitalism means that it is constantly trying to kill itself and establish communism. One of the few things preventing this self-destructive impulse is state intervention (through monetary policy, regulation, stimulus, imperialism and value destruction [war]).

Given the above, our political task is clear: We must exacerbate the trends that accelerate this drive toward communism, and stymie the trends that slow it. All communist praxis follows directly from these tasks.

The hell it is. It's not terribly "lefty" to admit, but they don't just take any retard that walks in anymore.

they pretty much do unless you have the eyesight of an old person.

That is the point, it is damaging capitalism in the long term but capitalists don't care because immediate profits are their only concern. They are too busy packing their golden parachutes to notice any imminent disaster.

we will have cryptocurrency UBI.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (696x696, 771.95K)

Only because they aren't desperate for recruits anymore. Just wait for them to start up the next war.

lol

*blocks your path*
*creates military robots*

Attached: pentagon.jpg (1600x1146, 422.42K)

...

...

The only source of our political power is labour power. The key is to use it in a way to cut off those unproductive elements who only usurp through rent/profit/dividends/bonds.

Solution is cryptocurrency, but for labour vouchers tied to time worked as a basis for value. Anything else would lead to speculation and again the same usury and parasitism like before.

And crypto element would imply that your identifier will be a hash of your name, to prevent any backtracking to your identity but to ensure your uniqueness. Distributed database element would be needed to anonymously track the chain of work->issue of voucher -> pay for consumables -> account labour time in production of consumables -> work -> issue voucher and so on in the all circuits. With this the point for capital accumulation can be made in taxation, or at the point of issuing the voucher.

Before you say anything about UBI, work needs to be done to keep the society going and to keep our comforts. People do not object to this work as such, people object to shitty pay, to shitty conditions, to terrible bosses who boss them around.

How do you determine pay if someone creates a labor saving device that automates the functions of other workers in the workplace?

Reminder that the US Government is literally gonna use Left Wing talking points in order to kill sandniggers in the future.

Attached: US support Kurds.jpg (1200x1151 149.54 KB, 253.49K)

Today creation of such devices is explicitly ordered, either with project proposals through various funding mechanisms. Today labour time is allocated through funding. Money paid is for the work spent on the creation.

I'd say same mechanism would apply for labour vouchers, even though the accounting would be done in labour time directly, and not indirectly through money. Labour time accounted would be in creation of the device that saves labour time.

And for historical evidence, in the 1950's and 1960's, ordinary workers were sometimes implementing workplace improvements for increases of productivity. Things like using coal loader to load grain to train cars, to mechanize previously physical labour and so on. The result? Their orders were in labour to be done. The outcome, they could probably go home early after finishing the quota for the day.

By the way I know what argument are you trying to make. The short answer is, the time spent is the basis for all social work. Day has 24 hours. Cyclists have power output around 100W of mechanical power. Since we live in society, the work needs to be measured in something that is the limit in work planning, and it is the labour time done by the bags of water and organic molecules.

If you want twice the work done by a machine, you give it twice as powerful power source and let the machine work twice as fast. You cannot do the same with a person.

Your argument assumes that people are just alienated workers having no agency in the societal allocation of work, and are just atomized producers for exchange. Socialism is based on production for use. Less things to be used, less work for everybody, simple as that.

How do you determine? It is up to discussions with your colleagues in work council at your workplace. One cannot be a prophet in this, your question is answered through the real social relations, not just some rambling idiots on the internet like me.

youtube.com/watch?v=hSjKoEva5bg

Honestly, Kiosks don't actually impact employment: i've worked in the food retail industry like 5% of the workload is dealing the initial order itself.
However the impact of this is quite important from another perspective: we are seeing the fullscale introduction of Fordism into the service sector. This is something the left needs to pounce upon, considering how it failed to do so properly last time.

Military robot decided to protect humanity the only way it knows how

Attached: Terminator 2 - 5.jpeg (1024x768, 179.72K)

When talking about all fast food chains globally that’s around a hundred thousand people. People which communist parties must do everything possible to organize.

Not quite how it works: nobody specifically purely works on just taking orders. Sure maybe in a restaurant or a pub, but they aren't going to take kiosks anyways. Like if you are on a till at McDonalds, your role is to take orders and distribute orders: there is really not going to be an automated way of doing the latter without extreme cost. To add to that, most of them will help-out working in the kitchen if needs be, or cleaning. As I said, this is not the replacement of working individuals but the introduction of complementary automation along a Fordist model. You're right these people should be organised, which is exactly what the trade unions in my country are doing.

do you think this leads to the further dehumanization of service workers?
now, instead of having to address someone else to place your order, you can simply put it into a machine and wait for a prole to bring it to you. it seems reminiscent of house servants or slaves who were seen but not heard.
anecdotally, ive seen examples of people going straight to the machine despite the complete lack of a line at the till. then, on top of that, a complete lack of mutual recognition towards the worker who brings their food to them.

Well yes, like any application of Fordism it removes the human element infavour of augmenting the human as a part of a greater machine: and in that inherent dehumanisation there is room for unionisation and radicalisation of a force. It is the inherent contradiction of Fordism: it makes a man a part of that machine, but man can break it by removing himself from it.

The problem is is that I'm pretty antisocial so I might start using kiosks if they start popping up. It's not like I have anything to say to the employees other than my order in the first place.

This, I was trying to explain this among other things in an Accelerationism thread; Land is a fucking brainlet and anyone who thinks that he has anything theoretically sound to say and shouldn't just become a sci-fi writer doesn't understand the relationship between technology & labour.

If taking orders is automated and all people need to do is distribute orders, than McDonalds can cut their staff.

Except they won't: because the staff are doing less work but are still required for the same time period. Also the theoretical increase in order throughput generated by having kiosks requires the staff to distribute orders. Basic fordism, the mechanical drill didn't mean fewer workers were needed than with hand drilling, it just meant the same amount of workers did more effective labour.

selforganizedseminar.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/harvey_condition_postmodern.pdf
Also tbh if you are gonna talk automation you need to read this.

(Well, Chapter 8 is the important part)

...

It's acceleration

Why do people seem to care more about kiosks in fast food restaurants than they do grocery stores and supermarkets? Those are actually replacing jobs unlike the fast food ones, like said. There are even some grocery stores now that don't even have cashiers. Instead, all of the cashiers have been replaced by kiosks and one person there to make sure the kiosks work properly.

Thoughts?

Attached: Harvey_value.png (1410x2865, 1.13M)

...

If a new technology can have ten people do what eleven people could do, and your a capitalist paying eleven workers in a store, you will fire one.

But the total amount of labor needed is reduced.

This post displays a fundamental misunderstanding of Fordist methods: the reduced amount of labour in a section the assembly line process leads to more throughput and thus requires more labour in its other sections. The kiosks mean more input demands can be processed: thus more labour is required to meet and distribute those demands. It's pretty direct with fast food since it is a three step process (input order, fulfill order, distribute order). The kiosks mean more orders are proceed in less time, thus you need to move that labour to the kitchen to handle it, or to the till to distribute it. Such is the wonder that is Fordism.
Honestly I thought a technocrat would understand it: technocracy is fordism taken to its logical conclusion.

This is not true here because Fordism relies on consumption increasing in order to increase production this can’t be done with food, because the amount of food an individual consumes donsn’t increase rapidly.

And an individual doesn't consume more cars, but more individuals can consume cars at a faster rate: if anything it is easier for consumption to increase with food for pleasure.

When you eat food for pleasure you don't eat fast food though?

What you think people go to Maccydees instead of grocery shopping?

Because they need to prepare it? Or are you saying that because they don't need to prepare the food they have more time to go shopping?

*don't need to

To save time, not for pleasure. Besides if fast food production increases at the expense of grocery stores, that would cause more job loss than Kiosks.

At first I had trouble figuring out exactly what Harvey was going for in the passage you quoted, but Harvey's thesis in the pdf made it clear:
[referring to the transition of developed nations toward a service-based economy from ~1972 onward]

You might suspect, given that I'm posting in favor of more automation, that I'd disagree with this thesis. That isn't the case. I don't think this latest wave of automation represents or points to a substantial break in capitalist accumulation. My point is that it is precisely this process of capitalist accumulation, with its internal contradictions, that leads capitalism into crisis, dysfunction, and communism.

The argument I'm advancing has nothing specific to do with the present moment. This same process of contradiction leading to a crisis of overproduction gripped the developed world in 1929. Only massive intervention in the form of government make-work (in Nazi Germany and the USA), value destruction (WWII), and the deliberate wasting of productive capacity (arms production in the post-war period) stopped capitalism from killing itself dead right then and there. Those interventions had run out of steam by the 1970's, threatening crisis once again. Like before, we saw massive interventions, like the departure from the gold standard (to facilitate greater financialization) and the opening up of low-wage production in China et al. Today we're seeing these attempts to stop capitalism from killing itself reach the end of their useful life. The expansion of credit has lead to the 'everything bubble', and offshoring labor has created Xi's China, an industrial juggernaut with rising wages, a rapidly dropping organic composition of capital, and a huge debt burden. In other words, it's a capitalist economy with all of the problems we were hoping to get away from by shipping everything off to low-wage China in the first place. China is now gearing up to paper over its problems by shipping everything off to lower-wage Africa, but I'm surewe can all see where this is heading by now.

My point is that through all of this, the rate of profit has ticked inexorably lower. Its fall is temporarily arrested or reversed by the interventions described above, but they never stick, and profit always hits lower lows.

Again I say that the task of all communists is to bring the rate of profit down, and to arrest any upward movement. Communism is the limit as the rate of profit approaches zero.

cheers