No, at standard it will just lead to a collapse (unstable fake capital) or simply fascism embracing its monarchistic, feudal root and we will return to human labor promptly because it is cheaper. Recall in vol 2 of Capital it goes over valorization, the transfer of value from machines onto goods, and automatization; maintaining machines, even if its self-repairing, self-programming AI slaves from Bladerunner or someshit they still will eat value put into them into a ever declining spiral where input is less than value output. Capital can’t grow like the cancer it is under such a scenario, leading to all sorts of instability.
No. Anyone not wealthy enough to own the means of production, will become servants to those that are…or they’ll be allowed to die of starvation, somewhere just out of sight.
capitalism will inevitably experience crises it is unable to weather before it achieves that stage of development
Yanis Vourofakis thinks we end up with technofeudalism. Profits are abolished and rent seeking becomes the dominant force of wealth accumulation on the economy.
idk how much I agree with his book, but it was neat I guess
Yanis Varoufakis just put a new label on monopoly capitalism. Marx wrote about it already. The end stage of capitalism is monopolies everywhere who charge monopoly rents, because rents are the easiest form of profit. No investment, just money.
Yeah, I could only think while reading his book that there’s little difference between tech oligarchs charging rents for data centers and railroad barons charging rents for access to the railroad. He doesn’t do anything to address this obvious historical antecedent.
Nope they will just continue killing us all faster and faster as more of us become “useless.” “Voluntary” assisted dying for the white people who are depressed because they are poor or disabled because they hurt themselves doing one of the unautomated jobs. Pogroms and prisons for the non white western populations. Climate change and War for the global south.
If they have their way eventually all of humanity will be descendants of musk, bezos, gates, zuckerberg and a few other white billionaires and even then they will still try to fight and enslave each other.
Capitalism cannoy automate everything. The road to such automation creates crisis for capitalism, namely profitability due to, e.g., firing too large a percentage of the workforce and killing demand while operating on even slimmer profit margins. Resolving these crisis has historically been fueled by destruction and rebuilding. War and occupation. Genocide.
This is the right take. Moreover, the capitalist West lacks the means of production to automate in the first place. So the real question is, what will AES states do as they continue to automate?
Barbarism.
I fear that RFK is not just a crank put in to create chaos but as an intentional ploy to cull the proles, to make us sicker, to live shorter lives, to be more desperate for healthcare that must be paid out of pocket, to go into medical debt more readily because the only covered healthcare is quackery and the air and water and soil are poisoned.
You’re describing neofeudalism, where we serfs are bound not to a landlord but to a corporate entity.
It wouldn’t be neofeudalism. Maybe it would be neoneoliberalism.
Here’s a version without an ideological filter : An actuary will calculate what is the best for the stock market for a corporation: invest into automation or offshore production to a country where production is cheaper. It’s mostly always cheaper to offshore than invest in automation.
At some point, no offshoring option exist and some actuary will actually tell their masters to invest in automation. Some will do, but research is not always successful and takes a long time.
Neo-liberal gov. will seek stability and so they will either invest into their friends corporation, to stabilize them and enrich themselves. This will mean wage stagnation and being outcompeted by countries that successfully automated.
At this point, the empire will grow hungry for stability and stock market growth, and will either try to make another country it’s cheap offshore location, by several economic, diplomatic or even millitary strategy or start to make it’s actually population serf again.
If the second happens, chances of revolution starts to go up. We may see a modern French-style revolution in the empire, or something like that, start to be more likely.
But more realistically, we won’t get to see this, as the climate is already starting to disrupt human activity. The western empire is already imploding and unable to respond to the new reality so mostly, no one serious is able to predict the next few years.
I think nothing would substantially change from right now. The world is already able to provide for everyone. The capitalists will just make up billions of extra bullshit jobs.
No, they would not. That is something a more socially oriented government would do, capitalists have no interest in employing everyone and anyone. It goes against their interests
I don’t see ever happening, but for the sake of question: No, full automation under capitalism most likely would mean everything is owned by one guy or one small clique. Which at one hand is good because it means the bourgeoisie do have just one neck, but on the other means most of other people were socially murdered before that happened.
Answer is well, no. Likely what would happen is we’d circle back around to Feudalism, and just… well, Get fucked over.
I would research “tendency of rate of profit to fall.” No, automation is not socialism, though it is more viable with socialism than capitalism in the long term.
So, what could happen at the end? Once the rate of profit becomes 0?
Presumably a massive economic crash. This has obviously never happened, it doesn’t even “fall” consistently over time due to the repeated capture of new markets overseas. Marx is just describing the consequences of “automation” under capitalism, or more generally the outsourcing of human labor to machinery.
Not necessarily.
Socialism specifically refers to who owns and controls the means of production, such as factories, farms, businesses, or other assets that produce commodities which hold useful value.
As it stands, the means of production, despite its operation becoming increasingly automated, still largely remains owned by private individuals.
To achieve socialism, the means of production would need to be seized and both held in common / public ownership and be put to use producing on a basis of the material needs of the population instead of chasing the profit motive.
no it gets more fascist than ever
In which sense?
