A new history of the Luddites, "Blood in the Machine," argues that 19th century fears about technology are still relevant today. It's the latest in a long line of attempts to reclaim the label.
The entire problem is that labor-saving technology no longer… saves labor. It just displaces people who had it pretty okay, doing skilled labor for decent enough money. Lemmy’s many Actual Communists will no doubt say wage labor is the problem and workers must et cetera. But a co-op that suddenly needs 1% of its former labor force is in the same position as a private company. Do all those people take turns working three days a year? Do they become joint owners of the machines their labor paid for, and receive continuing dividends for initially funding the new factory? … do we pretend that’s different from capital?
Universal basic income is a hand-wave solution that fits this problem. We know there’s enough stuff being made. We know there’s no lump of work awaiting these new lumps of labor. The whole first-world economy is shifting toward “service workers” because there’s fuck-all for most people to do. Machines took most heavy lifting and computers took most heavy thinking. There’s not much left of the human buffalo. Even creativity isn’t safe. Advances from just this year might make the entirety of a Hollywood production as easy as telling a ghost story by campfire.
Only one question counts, in any discussion of progress. If a person’s labor is no longer needed - does that person rest, or starve?
Nobody’s really against technology.
Almost everyone is against starvation.
The entire problem is that labor-saving technology no longer… saves labor. It just displaces people who had it pretty okay, doing skilled labor for decent enough money. Lemmy’s many Actual Communists will no doubt say wage labor is the problem and workers must et cetera. But a co-op that suddenly needs 1% of its former labor force is in the same position as a private company. Do all those people take turns working three days a year? Do they become joint owners of the machines their labor paid for, and receive continuing dividends for initially funding the new factory? … do we pretend that’s different from capital?
Universal basic income is a hand-wave solution that fits this problem. We know there’s enough stuff being made. We know there’s no lump of work awaiting these new lumps of labor. The whole first-world economy is shifting toward “service workers” because there’s fuck-all for most people to do. Machines took most heavy lifting and computers took most heavy thinking. There’s not much left of the human buffalo. Even creativity isn’t safe. Advances from just this year might make the entirety of a Hollywood production as easy as telling a ghost story by campfire.
Only one question counts, in any discussion of progress. If a person’s labor is no longer needed - does that person rest, or starve?