AI and Labor
Throughout history, there has generally been the two distinct classes: the working class and the ruling class. These have always existed in various forms, but the key is that the working class works, while the ruling class does not. Think of, for example, the ancient Pharaohs. Their slaves would work, build the temples, cook the food, fight the wars, create goods. Meanwhile, the Pharaohs' entire existence is supported not by their own labor, but by the work of others.
The ruling class does not want to labor. It does not want to have to work for its existence. The ruling class views itself as above such things. But for thousands of years, the ruling class has needed to give the working class some concessions, some privileges, to stop it from revolting. The working class was a necessity to support their lifestyles. But now, with artificial intelligence, a possible future is emerging.
Why are robots being prototyped in the form of humans? Is it because it is familiar and likeable to us? Or is it because industrial machinery is outfitted for a human operator? If a humanoid robot cost $50,000, would a company rather keep its staff employed, or simply buy a robot to operate the machine? A humanoid robot does not require retrofitting expensive machines. Sure, humans have better fine motor skills than a robot, but that's for now. When a robot can operate with more precision, more dexterity than a human, more agility, then what happens to all these irreplaceable trades?
I am trying to say, what happens when the working class is obsolete? When there are machines to make the machines, machines to maintain the machines, machines to design new machines. When there is no need for a working class to maintain the lives of the ruling class, what will happen?
Not everyone can be sustained by machines. If human labor becomes obsolete because advanced machines are able to automate every step, what will become of the working class? Will eight billion people really be supported by this system?
I am not suggesting a purge or class-genocide will occur. But once there is no need for the working class, what incentive exists for the ruling class, those who own those machines, to keep people employed? They're less efficient, more accident-prone, less versatile. Jobs may become more scarce. The ruling class wouldn't simply drop prices to zero at this point. After all, those machines cost a lot of money to buy, and those loans need to be repaid. The working class would be priced out of existence. Not starving, not enough to rebel. But maybe one kid instead of two. Maybe no kids at all. The working class would slowly dissolve, simply due to a lack of money to support children.
In Wage Labor and Capital, Marx said:
| Here, however, there enters another consideration. The manufacturer who calculates his cost of production and, in accordance with it, the price of the product, takes into account the wear and tear of the instruments of labour. If a machine costs him, for example, 1,000 shillings, and this machine is used up in 10 years, he adds 100 shillings annually to the price of the commodities, in order to be able after 10 years to replace the worn-out machine with a new one. In the same manner, the cost of production of simple labour-power must include the cost of propagation, by means of which the race of workers is enabled to multiply itself, and to replace worn-out workers with new ones. The wear and tear of the worker, therefore, is calculated in the same manner as the wear and tear of the machine. Thus, the cost of production of simple labour-power amounts to the cost of the existence and propagation of the worker. The price of this cost of existence and propagation constitutes wages. The wages thus determined are called the minimum of wages. This minimum wage, like the determination of the price of commodities in general by cost of production, does not hold good for the single individual, but only for the race. Individual workers, indeed, millions of workers, do not receive enough to be able to exist and to propagate themselves; but the wages of the whole working class adjust themselves, within the limits of their fluctuations, to this minimum. |
So what happens when the propogation of the working class is no longer necessary for the survival of capitalism?
Is it possible that there would be some solution to this? Debt forgiveness for those buying these machines, universal basic income, abolition of currency? Maybe. But would the banks, the factory owners, those with lots of money to spend, really let these proposals happen? The mode of operation for the government, being so influenced by the ruling class, has always been to give the people enough to make them happy, but not enough to make a difference.
Is the solution to ban AI? To force state legislation? No. It is instead communist revolution. There is no worry about being priced out of existence when there is no price. There is no worry about loan repayments or corrupt bureaucracies when there are no banks, no class, no state. The advance of AI is a good thing, machines to support the economy. This would continue under communism. The only difference is that this would continue without the disenfranchisement of working class, without their lives being a constant struggle to make ends meet. This is no way for man to live, especially in such an abundant time. Now more than ever is revolution necessary, the development of artificial labor poses an existential threat to the working class. There must be a revolution imposing a moneyless society, before artificial labor within a moneyed society drives the working class into extinction.
Or perhaps, this is communism. This is going to be the natural evolution to the next mode of production. A classless, moneyless society, not driven by proletarian revolution, but simply by technological advancement. With labor no longer a necessity, wages and money will become useless. Class distinction will dissolve. The state will shrink and gradually disappear, without classes to reconcile as a purpose. A strange, backwards communism, but still communism.