cross-posted from: https://lemmy.today/post/49749386
If the video isn’t working, try these links:
- https://cdn.videy.co/8f2f25e11.mp4
- https://streamable.com/0xj1ni (slightly better quality but only up for 2 days)
Clipped from full hour long video (around 49 minutes in): https://www.bitchute.com/video/jmhFAjqbxnQ
Europol report: https://www.europol.europa.eu/cms/sites/default/files/documents/The-Unmanned-Future-Report.pdf
Most jobs in history have already been automated, so I don’t think it’s an exaggeration. Farming has been automated, clothes making has been automated, copying books has been automated, message bearing has been automated, translation has been automated, art creation has been automated, article writing has been automated. Not all of these to the same standard, but the point stands.
The rest of your comment didn’t make any sense to me. Machines aren’t exploitable? They work for free, they just need energy, which costs much less than what human workers require. If they were conscious then we definitely would say they are exploited all the time.
A lot of what you said is only automated if you set the quality bar extremely low, farming is a good example you gave but it still requires humans doing the mental and driving work.
What I mean by exploitation is not just the act of not paying a wage, but the ability for a capitalist to create a surplus value by paying less for the production process than they need to. Machines require a fixed amount of capital to operate and maintain, humans on the other hand are paid just so much as the capitalist can get away with without them revolting. That’s where true surplus originates from and no capitalist could be rich without that surplus, or even exist as an economic class to begin with.
A lot of what I said also has machines doing the job better than humans. Copying books and message bearing for example.
I don’t understand your concept of surplus value. Wouldn’t making profit count as creating surplus value? People can make profit using purely automated production. Or what about turning raw materials into useful products for yourself or to sell to others? Isn’t that creating surplus value?
That sounds just like the fact machines are given just as much as they require to do their job without breaking. I don’t see the difference. The businessman could decorate his machines and give them more breaks and oil changes than they need, but he doesn’t so therefore he is now getting “surplus value” compared to if he had done those things.