this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2024
30 points (100.0% liked)

Ask Lemmygrad

829 readers
9 users here now

A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Someone was saying that even if using machines becomes cheaper than using humans, capitalist will still use humans because

"automation constitutes constant capital and human labour is variable capital

The Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall disproves that fact"

What do those mean?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Thank you for the write up! That’s given me a lot to think about!

Honestly the only confusing part for me would be Marx’s inclusion of “mechanical and intellectual” organs when referencing the industrial machine then. Computers would still be in their primordial infancy when Marx was writing capital, and I highly doubt he had ever heard of them, so it doesn’t feel like he was referencing a “programmed” machine. Even one programmed mechanically.

That was mainly the line I was referencing when talking about how Marx humanises the machine and gives it a sense of self-autonomy. As why would a cotton gin require “intellectual organs”? Of which there is technically only one in the human body, which is the brain.

I completely agree with how you approached it, the quotes you provided gave me pause when I first read them. Although in context I'm quite sure Marx really wasn't thinking about AI, I have no explanation for his choice of words. If I had to speculate, I'd suggest that he didn't think some tasks (e.g sorting by colour) could be done without some measure of intelligence, but that's just one idea.