Monday, March 23, 2015

Concerning Communism

For the most part I would like to think that "Fully Automated Luxury Communism" could actually take off, or actually be possible. The argument for these robots and machines to replace humanity's "dirty work" is a concept that is both intriguing and borderline concerning. In the idealism for FALC seems to have a relatively large following though I see some probable concerning aspects that would have to be worked out in order to proceed into making this fantasy world a real robot utopia. For starters, who would be responsible for purchasing and maintaining these cyber workers? If you say private corporations then my continuing question would be as to what these machines true quality of work is: nothing quite beats items made by hand with "love and affection." In a more public sense what companies would be granted exclusive rights to maintain equipment available to citizens using driverless-cars driven for public transportation, and who is to say their products are more reliable than others? Further we live in a democratic capitalist society which doesn't allow for competition. Thus, either these companies who lay off workers to use robotic technology instead would have to provide their ex-employees with monetary sustainment for life, or the government would have to provide for these individuals in the society who doesn't need humans to do their work. Secondly, where would money coming from government programs to help individuals who had been replaced come from if they have no income to pay taxes with. Lastly, what would become of the population of individuals who live in this "utopia"? With little to no stimuli to keep them busy, focused, and driven for a common goal, such as financial stability, individuals are more likely to become bored. With this boredom can cause acting out, crime, irrational actions, lack of concern for a common welfare. This idea of FALC could potentially be a positive one, but I see too many outlying factors and questions for this idea to have a true chance at this point in our societies.

6 comments:

  1. I completely agree with this blog. In the article “Fully Automated Luxury Communism” by Brian Merchant he talks about how human jobs can possibly soon be replaced by robots. I do think this is possible, but like Rachel said I do believe that there is many questions that would need to be answered first in order for this to happen. Brian Merchant is right to argue that things like Spotify, iTunes, and Wikipedia could be the leading trends to hardware, but he exaggerates when he claims that technology could be the leading cause to robots to basically live our lives for us. I do not think that our society that we live in today would even consider switching to communism. What would happen to us humans if these “automatons” took over all our duties? Would society die off or would they be able to adjust to this kind of living style? People cannot live a life having these automatons live our life for them. I do not think that people would be able to function sitting at home doing nothing. I think that people enjoy earning what they have instead of getting it handed to them because it gives them a feel of satisfaction. I do agree with Rachel when she says that soon enough people would end up losing control and causing destruction and problems in our society. People cannot live their life being bored the whole time. Yes this is possible to happen in the future, but I think it is a very slim chance.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In your blog Rachel, you bring up so great points and I agree with what you have concluded from this reading. In "Fully Automated Luxury Communism" by Brian Merchant, his main idea is to bring light to the fact that our society has a very likely chance of robots overtaking jobs that are currently occupied by humans. Some businesses of today have future business plans to have driverless cars, for instance with the company Uber. Although I could see how this idea of automation could be extremely intriguing and create an ease on production, but it does have flaws. These flaws are concerning the fact that the human race is very hands on and could not just sit around all day long with limited work. This is where the human races boredom comes from, which could lead to unfortunate situations. Another positive someone is favor of FALC would be that it would create an enormous amount of products and would take out the redundancy for people in that line of work. While this statement is true, it does not necessarily lead to how unemployed people will create an income for themselves to provide for a luxurious lifestyle that this "post-work society" would offer. So many questions, like you said Rachel, would come up regarding how our government would handle this situation of large majority of unemployed workers. In the future, many automated appliances and things may start replacing the work of humans but that does not come with the price of many flaws and situations that could lead to a downfall seen in society.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree whole hardheartedly with what you said Rachel. I find the FALC views to be much like communism in general. good in theory, but bad in practice. While I am sure a lot of people (myself included) would want machines to do the dirty work of everyday life, like scrubbing floors, dishes, and laundry; I find that this is not practical. The simple fact is ithat there are people who are hands on, there always will be. Likewise, in capitalist countries like the USA, this idea will not lift off simply because that's a lot less opportunities to make money. There are some greedy people in the US, and taking away their chance to make money in a nation that runs on the dollar I think will never happen.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In your response to "Fully Automated Luxury Communism" by Brian Merchant, you point out some major flaws in allowing the robots take over jobs that were previously performed by humans. Many issues, like compensating for the pay the ex-workers had, are very big problems, however, many people prefer to work with humans than the machines. For example, many people refuse to use the self-checkout stations at wal-mart because it can be confusing, and much slower. Also those machines don't run themselves they do have at least one person tending to these machines for customers. So for future jobs to be taken completely over by machines is fairly unlikely. Also in the text the author mentions that we must use a non-profit idea of thinking when installing these machines to do our work. I feel if we can allow the machines to do the "dirty work," then this can allow many workers to focus on their goals and hobbies allowing them to focus as much time towards these things. So people should never just go bored because they don't have a job to go to most days, they have their hobbies to work on that they may be truly passionate about. If this idea of machines doing most of our work does catch on and takes flight then I think many people can benefit from it in a much more happy lifestyle.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Brian merchant’s article on luxury communism wrestled with the idea that our global future consists of a automated lifestyle, much like the futuristic cartoon, The Jetsons. Followers of what he calls the Fully Automated Luxury Communism (FALC) movement, or Luxury Communism purport a society in which machines ran by algorithms and smart technology do work once performed by humans and the humans run the machines. As with any global culture shift, this Luxury communist will become a matter of politics. Those concerned particularly with unemployment, at this point would question the idea on the basis that it would create widespread unemployment especially among those not qualified to run the machines essentially turning the economy upside down. However, this idea is one that has been grappled with already. Books like the Red Mars trilogy or TV shows like Star Trek, paint a society fully integrated in this new system effectively. Everyone has a role. In reality though, as MIT professor Erik Brynjolfsson puts it, “Many things we consider necessities today – phone service, automobiles, Saturdays off – were luxuries in the past.” The idea of Luxury Communism is not to rid people of jobs but to make their lives easier by taking society away from being slaves to careers. In fact, it is a utopian ideal we have been progressively striving for ever since the industrial revolution. As Aaron Bastani, founder of Novara media explains, naysayers are wrapped up in the notion that, “if you work hard and play by the rules,” you can achieve with you want. In reality, if you want to achieve something you, “seize the means of production.”

    ReplyDelete
  6. Your analysis of "Fully Automated Luxury Communism" by Brian Merchant is quite good, in the objective sense. On the one hand, I wholeheartedly agree that we would see masses of people succumb to complacency. There is a strong possibility that hedonism would spread like a virus should the culture of a fully-automated Communist society embrace it. But on the other hand, let's think about what a lack of manual labor jobs could do in terms of scientific progress. The human spirit is impossible to suppress. Throughout history, it finds a will and a way. Those still driven to do work will still pursue it. With as much free education as they need, these people will go on to either control the existing technology or design new mind-boggling things. Said workers would have a revered spot in society due to the reliance on technology, providing incentive to attain those positions.
    Of course, many people who have only known capitalism all of their lives might not be able to conceive the idea of an egalitarian communist society. Where would the jobs go? How would we make money? The point of communism is to eliminate the need for currency exchange in order to survive. Should just one country become a FALC state, all living needs would be provided to them. Private corporations would cease to exist, ideally. Money would be generated from exports to other countries, fueled by the efficiency of automated manufacturing and the technological advantage that comes with widely-distributed, high levels of education among the population.

    ReplyDelete