There is an opinion that modern economies are good for business. And this economy will always seek to increase their numbers. To this point push as domestic considerations, like “the more people, the more profit, and more complex. For example, “capitalism is always looking for markets”. Yeah, that was Marx, and other thinkers of the time, and the modern economists, too. However, here the most interesting that Marx and his contemporaries were right, but modern economists — not quite.
It seems paradoxical — “how can you be right and wrong, if the thesis has not changed?” but, in addition to the thesis, because conditions can change. At the same time, what has changed and how, it is possible to understand with the help of one of the provisions of the “labor theory of value”.+ Every man spends part of his time on production. In a primitive case, the production of food and clothing for himself. In more complex — the production of a product, which can be exchanged for other products. Time, in days, of course, so he can spend on the production end.
At the same time, he can consume anything produced, can exchange it many different ways, can engage in more complex economic relationships, but one thing remains constant: they produced is divided into two main sections. One part is what goes on its own reproduction. That is, for food, clothing, shelter — necessary for survival the quantity and quality. As well as the cultivation of “new workers” — primarily of his own children.
The second part is produced beyond what is necessary for survival (it is called “surplus value”, by the way). In fact, this all means that the part of the working time a person spends on your mandatory “sustenance” and the production beyond that. The first part needs to be consumed in a mandatory manner by the same person or he after a short time, will simply cease to exist. This part it is impossible to tear in a regular manner. A time to come and Rob — Yes. But that he was a supplier of valuable products — no. That is, no matter what system or was in the yard, this part will always remain in the person. Another thing — the second part. “Surplus value.” It’s already possible to fight. It can be put on the adornment of the life of one who has made it, and can move to someone else. For example, the owner of production. Of course, reality is never so that one got all that part entirely.
But the trend is clear. The owner is advantageous to collect all of their employees all of the produced surplus value. The worker, on the contrary, it is advantageous to keep it entirely for himself. And within a certain “parity” it is possible to put on the “public good.” For example, common to all local residents of the Park or the Museum. At the beginning of human existence, that man was able to produce is sufficient for only the first part for the survival of himself and the raising of children. Local excess, usually went to “guarantee the future” — stocks for the winter, for example.
But with the development of technologies (including, by the way, the social situation began to change. People suddenly found themselves capable in certain conditions to produce more than necessary. Moreover, more than necessary, even with the required reserves. This led to the fact that there is not only the ability to create luxury goods, but also to contain those who gives less than is necessary for its survival, or not create at all. Indeed, while man creates nothing more than need it to survive, it makes no sense to enslave. Rob — Yes, it makes sense.
But as a slave it will still work for their own livelihood. Without giving the “owner” of any bonuses from staying with him in slavery. However, if the person can produce, say, 10% more than it needs, meaning it appears. You can, for example, enslave ten continue to live without working. The same level of welfare as they are, but not working. But you can also work, but live twice as rich. If each produces two times more than necessary, and enslaved, for example, a hundred people, then there is a possibility to obtain a hundred times more than each of them. And thus out of the tent to move into the Palace garden. In General, opportunities. Again, in practice, from the growth of the amount produced in excess of the cost of reproduction additional bonuses will get and the employees themselves.
They will have to live in tents, and in houses. There is not that horrible, and the bread or rice soup. After some time and they will also be available of the show, as well as luxury items. Just for the reason that from their side too is there a struggle for them. We have to share. Grow up, by the way, and the cost of reproduction — now it will include the education required to use new technologies, medicine, allows you to save the already received education and experience as long as possible, as well as some other things.
The question arises: why would the owner need all these technologies if the cost of reproduction increases? Wouldn’t it be better without them? The fact that the technology give greater increase of surplus value than the cost of reproduction of the worker. Put, worker, technology began to produce twenty units of a product per day, and had produced ten. Ten units on the reproduction of the worker previously spent seven units. Now spent eleven. Before, therefore, the owner could count on three units from the employee at the day and now to nine. Though seemingly the cost of reproduction of the worker has increased by about half. In General, even if a couple of units in this situation, unfasten the luxury, is still profitable.
Yes, for that you have to pay another price — in particular, to give the employee more freedom. Since the system is a high-quality training of the masses of slaves to organize quite difficult, and difficult work slaves are given much worse. However, to withdraw the surplus-value and in other ways. Many of them will even appear to be “voluntary transaction”. Like not someone personally, and “the conditions” force. Here they present their claims. Note that up to this point the concept of “more enslaved, higher profits” still works. Although some movement to change it already has. In particular, the appropriation of surplus value is not quite directly.
Before this local leader received from each servant a bag of rice and a piece of meat. It is now increasingly difficult. From the employee master employee receives manufactured product. This product he sells and part the proceeds passes to the employee as salary. Another part of the money he spends, for example, to expand production. Third — on the development of technologies. And so on. However, as a result of so much money it is for their own consumption. And this part gives him a lot more than those bags of rice and pieces of meat that would have received the richest slave owner on the planet. In General, something has changed, but still profitable to expand. Even if you raised the productivity of additional workers still increase revenues.
You probably heard the thesis “capitalism is all the time looking for markets”. On the one hand, it’s true. On the other hand, part of the truth here, discreetly hidden. Because all this sounds as if the goal of the owner — distribution. Although in reality the goal is consumption. And distribution need only for the reason that it is now extracted through surplus value. Roughly, there are in Africa any country which still do not buy a washing machine. You can come in there and start them there to sell. Search the market, Oh yeah. However, the goal is not to provide a washing machine of people in this country.
The goal is that the washing machine Vilniaus some money with which to buy what is being produced by the people of this country, and then sell it there, which produced washing machines. The result of this operation may be that part of the surplus value produced by Africans will be yours. And additional part of the surplus value produced there, which manufactured washing machines. For example, in the African country the diamonds are mined. Producing them Africans are quite poor, but the one who owns the diamond mines, how much pay their employees. Washing machines there are not able to produce, so you can only buy them from us. And the locals buy. On this money we buy the diamonds (owner of the mining company, too, produces diamonds for us to change something, he as many diamonds don’t need).
The diamonds we sell in the country as a luxury item. Now what happened in the end? In the washing machine and diamond “contained” part of the surplus value produced by those who made washing machines and diamonds — that is, those time and effort that they spent on production. The result is a nimble operation, we “converted” the cost of washing machines and diamond money that you can buy what we want. The operation was a success. But did it make sense to sell washing machines if the diamonds or anything else was not done? No. Once they produce nothing, they have nothing to exchange for money “our country” (e.g., dollars). Now “our” money comes to him from the owner of diamond manufacturing, which sells the diamonds to the people of our country.
There is no production, no sales, no money. Even if they decided to print their own money, the money would not be worth anything — after all, they nothing to buy because they do not produce anything. The idea of “search market” in fact masked here is the thing: we need not just a market, and market exchange. A chain may be involved as many participants, but where we sell, something must be done. Something demanded from the outside. Not diamonds, bananas, oil, bone figurines, ethnic songs, like the residents of other countries. Something. And though it need not directly to the residents “of our country”, but at least someone chain from whom leads to our. Only in this cycle it becomes possible to obtain more surplus value, and not just to give someone produced. Then, market expansion will be profitable.
More precisely, it is advantageous in some conditions. Which, until the end of the twentieth century, all the while everywhere was present, but because it seemed that it always will be. In this sense, the same Marx wrote the truth: capitalism is always looking for new markets. It’s true it has always been. And it “always” goes on for another hundred and fifty years after the release of his books. However, in the mid-twentieth century could be understood that “always” moves towards its end. As it became clear to emerge what early on such a scale did not exist. Here’s the thing. As described above, to pick up in regular order only surplus value. And while it is not much higher than the cost of reproduction, everything is logical. We got home to a thousand people, they produce three times more than they can consume.
We are floating somewhere, which produces half as much. Yes, every local resident we are four times less profitable than our resident. But, so what? Not so bad — still got a raise. Especially if they are still at the same time consume less. For example, half —resident then there is only two times less profitable. In addition, there’s a way to teach than to increase their productivity, and to share with them out of inertia still got less. Sometimes for this reason there would be even more profitable to move the production, but here, we leave only the engineers Feel the catch? “We” were only the engineers. And what happened to our former workers? They were less profitable. And therefore become unemployed. Our local. Fortunately, while there is where to get new workers, our local, you can still turn in extra engineers. In addition, they may provide local engineers of the service. Well, there are restaurants to serve them, songs for them to sing and so on.
It is here that it would be possible to suspect a sad ending. However, there were saving straw: after a while it’ll go mad, too, and will demand more — that’s when it will again become profitable to keep jobs here. And during the intermediate state we will take good extra profit: because temporarily it was possible to share with those who produce, to a much lesser extent. And it really worked, while productivity increased relatively slowly. While working West to your machine has produced five times more than a worker of the East with a hammer and a file… But there are robots and computers.
And I suddenly found that it is possible to produce thousands of times more per employee. Modern automated plant can serve a couple dozen people, and produces he — like hundreds of thousands of Africans manually. And this is the best — because the processor, such as a hammer, generally it is impossible to produce. And this is not even the limit. Quite clearly the looming prospect that one person will be able to serve dozens of factories. Yes, some people will make computer models of what these factories produced, but on Earth, because there are billions.
In these conditions, Africans simply nothing to get — because they are all in sum, it is likely to produce less than one plant. Well, okay, one of the plants. Each serving a hundred people. But still, ten thousand people go out, they produce surplus value as much as a billion. It makes sense to include in the system of Africans which give four times less than Europeans, even ten times less.
But not a hundred thousand times. This just doesn’t pay. Even a difference of a thousand times that deprives of sense from the point of view of the capitalist economy. Moreover, not only African — Asian, American, European. In other places for the same. What is the meaning of all of them to sell something if they all together have productivity equal to several hundreds of automated factories? Employees of these plants produce so great a surplus value that trade only makes sense with them and the owners of these factories. Well, perhaps, even to those who for their dancing and food brings them. But there are still billions of people speech.
You can ask the question: who then sell the produced at this plant? After all, if the billions will become unemployed, and indeed the meaning of them to sell something will be gone, then where will products be sold? Probably have them on some kind of work leave? The fact that there is exactly the same error as with the “markets”. It is understood that the goal is to sell. Although the real goal is to get yourself made by other surplus-value in products of final consumption. And to sell something makes sense only when it serves to achieve this main goal.
Yes, for a long time, these goals coincide, but here it is — the moment when the mismatch. If “just give them some work”, what in fact will happen? Those who generate the bulk of goods, just give the lot of people money that a lot of people buy these same goods. In General, you can just products to give away — with the same success. Indeed, in this process, those who just give you the goods no cost is not possible, and therefore no surplus value, which they have to withdraw in their favor. Roughly speaking, you give them goods, and they’ll answer nothing.
It is like the hypothetical African country with no diamonds. Then why make so many products? In General, there is no need. But still the system will go in that direction. Because all of the intermediate stages is more profitable to produce in auto plants, where workers (even with gold ) just bring a giant bonus than trying to grab something from the pile even living on rice and water manufacturers manually. There are purely evolutionary logic: anyone who, for example, thinking about the future, try to produce a non-automated way, will lose in the competition. After all, to make his enterprise will be less, and to pay workers in the amount will have more. Any such mind will be ruined and absorbed by the Automator.
Even legally abort the automation will not work: indeed, in this case the same will occur at the level of countries and transnational corporations. Well, OK, somewhere forbidden — those who can carry its production to another country, and the rest after a while Shariat neighbors together from across the country. In other words, the ultimate state of this system is that it is not just not profitable to expand in Africa, and generally throughout the world, people do not want to fuck. Hypothetically it would be possible to assume the appearance of something like “the two paths of the economy.” Sverhrazdutaya automatic and artisanal production for the billions of “outcasts”. But even this pessimistic scenario: anyone who succeeds in the handicraft industry, will go in a better automatic, but because the second loop will always be only the most miserable of technology.
Moreover, medicine and education in it, too, will come to naught. But this is hypothetical — unlikely. In fact it will act in the aforesaid pattern. Anyone with money will buy them better and cheaper goods from automated production, rather than the more expensive and less quality at “craftsman”. Craftsman just won’t be able to afford the competition — the price of the goods with automatic production will be so low that if you sell a handicraft at the same price, the revenue will not be able to provide even the survival of the craftsman. In fact, most people will be forced to switch to natural farming: he raised himself ate. But then the question: where to get so much land?
Because the production of food without technology gives much worse results, and therefore it need more to feed the same number of people, and all the bells and whistles, like vertical farming, craftsmen do not Shine. And who will give them this land? They have no money, but just to give — as it is unprofitable. As a maximum, you can give something that is not really something and need.
Thus, in a subsistence economy at best will move a small part of people in the “bad” parts of the world. The second alternative is simply the extinction of the majority of the population. And not even because of the secret Masonic circles somewhere is going to decide to destroy humanity. No, going to-they certainly can (now someone is going and their close circle plays in world domination), however, will decide they do not, and the device system. The device is such that as it follows to a natural end most people either lose the ability to reproduce, or is forced out in a primitive subsistence economy. Which, however, still a lot of people can not feed, so a few billion people will die.
In addition, as a result of acute problems of survival, people will be easily provoked to war, than will be used by those people who wish to participate in the redistribution of ownership to automated production. However, the constant bloody conflicts in such circumstances would be even without their desire. We can hope that, fearing mass revolts and revolutions, if not the owners themselves privately, while the ruling circles will introduce something like a system of sinecures (paid but useless jobs or social benefits. However, it is necessary to understand the ruling circles in these conditions will be 100% composed of the most successful owners of automated enterprises, but because for them such a system will be identical to the same distribution of wealth, in their view, belonging to them personally, without any hope of getting something in return.
If in the current state of the unemployed are perceived as useless for the moment ballast, which in the long term, however, it may be helpful, there is “ballast” would be useless to them in the future too. And, of course, he will try to get rid of. Not direct killing, but degradation and “natural” extinction. Ultimately any of these branches leads to the same outcome: on the Ground in a civilized state saved the owners of automated production facilities, workers in these industries whose number of the increasing automation is also constantly decreasing, as well as those who ministered to the workers and the owners.
The “chain” of ministering — ministering to those who ministered, etc. — to build will not succeed. Maybe the owners will have a staff of cooks and waiters. It is even possible that such staff will be employees of these industries. But it is unlikely that the cook that the chef prepares for the owner of automated enterprise, will also be your personal chef. Thus, even assuming that owners of automated enterprises is a hundred thousand (this is a very generous assumption, the apparent trend towards monopolization), the other in the amount of at best will amount to hundreds of millions.
Soon all it will be about ten million or less. Especially in the later stages of automation and monopolization. This destroys all hope for “postindustrial economy,” which “will fix everything, because it allows to deal not only with production. Indeed, due to the high labor productivity in the modern economy possible existence of a huge number of people producing services. It seems almost every second inhabitant of the developed countries doing something that has nothing to do with the production. And it’s not an illusion — it’s true. In this even there is nothing really to worry about.
But only as long as the situation described here is far from the pessimistic scenario. The fact that the exchange of services for goods — regardless of the length of a chain of exchanges, which separates the provider services from the supplier of the goods is possible only in the case when involved in the production of a sufficient total demand in services to compensate for the necessary service providers a number of products. For example, consider a situation where in a village of a thousand people produces products and one works as a hairdresser.
Until all one thousand regular hair cut at this Barber, he can barter their service for food (Yes, they still have each other the potatoes and carrots are bartering, but in this case does not matter). Then to it is added a innkeeper. Again, everything is still working: the peasants go to the hairdresser and use the services of the innkeeper who cooks them food (even in the end of the products that they have grown). But now suppose that someone from the food producers have got a robot krestyanin, which is able to grow as much food as during this time it grows ten thousand people. Growing food the old way can no longer compete with him (i.e., to sell their products at a price at least offsetting the cost of their reproduction), and therefore forced either to move to full self-sufficiency, or look for a place in the “services”.
In General, no matter what they choose: someone may begin to sing a song, someone to open the Bank, someone — also to go to the hairdressers. And then there is the sad fact: anyone can change their service to another service. However, the money move only between the producers of services. In order to get food, you need to share with the owner of a robot farmer. But Tom did not have five haircuts in a day.
And a hundred restaurants and over he also can not sit. No matter how active nor would exchange their services, their producers, their total exchange with the manufacturer of the food is uneven. These two subsystems — services and production — are in a situation when the flow of money between them is heavily weighted in one direction. From this it follows that all the money rotate among the producers of services, flow the manufacturer of the food. Just because the food he bought all, and he only buys some. And let the upper class did not restrain himself, but still he’s the only one. Even bankers who might have time to nadaljevati all money at interest, after a while will be out of business: manufacturers of services no money to invest in the Bank, and the owner of a robot-farmer, on the contrary, the money borrowed doesn’t really need. Yes, the owner of the robot is still able to exchange for food to offer throughout the crowd to build him statejnyj Palace.
And then the second row. But, alas, there is a second option: you can order a small group from among all others to create a robot Builder. Then the whole crowd will not need it. Thus, the “post-industrial economy” after some time, collapses in full accordance with a pessimistic scenario: whoever managed with human labor go to robotic, just squeeze all the savings of those who had not moved. And they’re even employees him to be hired can not — he just doesn’t need as many employees.
Here it should be mentioned, along with “capitalism is always looking for markets,” another common objection: “to operate (i.e., to assign the produced surplus value) can only be human, not machine”. The fact that this is, again, really “always been true”, but that “always” is also coming to an end already. Everything was exactly as long as any required machine work on it.
As soon as a man finished his day’s work, the machine ceased to produce anything. So the whole situation could be presented as “all humans produce and the machine only catalyses the process.” However, the autonomy of machines day by day increased, which strives the situation to the “point of singularity the labor theory of value”: in the limiting case, no one living on Earth will no longer work for “the machine”, so will either have to assume that are operated for dead people, or that are operated by robots. Committed then an error similar to that considered previously. The owner does not need the process of human exploitation. He needs the redistribution of wealth in their favor. While the exploitation of the worker is the most effective way, the owner will indeed do just that. But if the situation will change, except that those owners who will do anything in the name of following the precepts of the classics, will continue to do the same. However, they will quickly clean up the “evolutionary process”.
If a worker produces surplus value as much as millions of other workers in the amount, operate makes sense. No matter whether to consider it all personally, it produced surplus value, or to reformulate the theory, as is done in the article about “the singularity”, and consider that the surplus value produces a robot, it’s not about theory, but about real goals and real benefits. It is obviously beneficial, so be done it will be so. Even if workers at some point will be zero and in theory you happen to be a singularity, it will still be beneficial.
It is not excluded, even cheaper — robots may not be human-like free will, they will not protest, to fight for their rights, to claim their share of the produced surplus value and so on. They will meekly give up all made, allowing the owner to decide who to fix and who to scrap it. If you look at this final stage, it will seem absurd: everything in the world is produced by machines, but for some reason only part of the people is the owner is produced. But they do not participate in the process. Do not contribute.
They might even in previous steps haven’t invested anything, but just received all this by inheritance. Why it’s not public domain, and someone else’s property? Why billions of people have died or degraded to the stone age? Alas, despite the absurdity of the finale, lead to it not even absurd steps. Each of which inevitably follows from the previous one. It really pays to make production more automatic. Indeed this leads to the fact that fewer people are employed in manufacturing. Indeed this implies that more and more people lose their livelihoods. Do they cease to be customers.
And it really leads to the collapse of world production and to reduce the number of civilized inhabitants of the Earth. And all it really is, each step leads to the welfare of relatively small groups of people. And since that is the purpose of the current system of relations, described the final of the absurd only to those who in this group is not included. For the same group — everything is fine. At their disposal as many material and spiritual benefits, as well as the vast territory under his personal beach you can at least the whole coast to pick up. Resent the injustice is already really something and no one, but because of their position — much more durable than before.
In General, not life, but a fairy tale. In General, for them it is, if you ignore some of the moral aspects, rather optimistic scenario — pessimistic it is for us. Even more sadly, barring some global cataclysm that will destroy all or return to the stone age, the movement towards this scenario is inevitable. It cannot be interrupted by a volitional effort. Only time to turn on an optimistic alternative.
But about it – in a separate article
