[Lagrange]

Increasingly, the upper middle class is made up of people who earn their money not through rent or others' labor but through their skills -- engineers, programmers and other science and tech-oriented workers. Most of their tools are very mobile (all they need is a laptop and an internet connection) and increasingly even manufacturing is "laborless" (3D printing and other emerging automation tools). My question is -- how are the proletariat supposed to take over the "means of production" where those means are now largely:

(a) the minds of skilled professionals (who are very mobile)
(b) cheap automation tools (which can be acquired anywhere)

Public ownership of the means of production made (some) sense when large, extremely expensive industrial machines predominated, but what does the "miniaturization" of industry and the emerge of an information economy mean for socialism?

[Sithsaber]

Star Trek esque post scarcity.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Increasingly, the upper middle class is made up of people who earn their money not through rent or others' labor but through their skills -- engineers, programmers and other science and tech-oriented workers. Most of their tools are very mobile (all they need is a laptop and an internet connection) and increasingly even manufacturing is "laborless" (3D printing and other emerging automation tools). My question is -- how are the proletariat supposed to take over the "means of production" where those means are now largely:

(a) the minds of skilled professionals (who are very mobile)
(b) cheap automation tools (which can be acquired anywhere)

Public ownership of the means of production made (some) sense when large, extremely expensive industrial machines predominated, but what does the "miniaturization" of industry and the emerge of an information economy mean for socialism?

You're right in that our global society has drastically changed since the mid-1800s when communists like Marx were around, but there are some things that have not changed: income inequality, concentration of wealth, inefficient distribution of goods. Poverty, starvation, and all sorts of other ills are by and large byproducts of some of those basic, fundamental flaws in our civilization. No matter how scientifically literate we become or how technologically advanced we become, there is still a need to address the distribution of wealth and the need for people to be educated and free of starvation and poverty.

[Lagrange]

No matter how scientifically literate we become or how technologically advanced we become, there is still a need to address the distribution of wealth and the need for people to be educated and free of starvation and poverty.

But how do you intend to redistribute the wealth when most of it is created by a minority of highly skilled individuals instead of heavy machinery? What is to stop these individuals from leaving the country once public ownership of the means of production has been established, leaving no wealth to redistribute?

Unless you intend to force the skilled laborers to work (acting as the factories of the past) it is no longer feasible for the proletariat to own the means of production. Then to redistribute all you are left with is the income tax system, and that's no different than liberal capitalism.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

But how do you intend to redistribute the wealth when most of it is created by a minority of highly skilled individuals instead of heavy machinery? What is to stop these individuals from leaving the country once public ownership of the means of production has been established, leaving no wealth to redistribute?

Unless you intend to force the skilled laborers to work (acting as the factories of the past) it is no longer feasible for the proletariat to own the means of production. Then to redistribute all you are left with is the income tax system, and that's no different than liberal capitalism.

I don't know and I don't purport to have the answers. I identify as a socialist because of things that matter to me. I don't really involve myself in politics, I don't really vote, and I don't have any interest in being active with any left-wing political organizations, marches, rallies, movements, etc.

What I can say about my views is thus: there are some things that are real, like water and bread and meat and gasoline and electricity. These things are real, there is a finite amount of these things available for consumption. These things can be distributed. These things facilitate the alleviation of thirst, starvation, the need for transportation, and keeping cool in hot weather and keeping warm in cold weather, among other things. These things actually exist, can be distributed by whatever means humans devise, and directly affect the material world through aiding and alleviating those very essential necessities of modern life. Wealth, however, is imaginary. An obscene amount of food goes to waste every day in every country on Earth, primarily in the Western world, famously in America. Recently a news article was made about children in a state in New England being turned away from school lunch queues because they didn't have enough money (the school in question was supposed to provide these poor children with milk and a cheese sandwich but they provided NOTHING).

I don't have all the answers and I don't have the answers to fix society's problems, or how to stop wasting surplus food and goods. I'm not Marx or any other political and economic thinker who might claim to have the answers. I merely recognize there are severe issues that still plague our species, and that the concept of wealth and money should be secondary to the need of addressing human deprivations. It is less necessary for 1% of humans to live a life of unimaginable luxury by any standards and control 99% of the planet's "wealth" than for billions of people who lack proper food, drinking water, and so on to have their needs addressed. Our perspective and priorities are still skewed and outdated.

[Lagrange]

What I can say about my views is thus: there are some things that are real, like water and bread and meat and gasoline and electricity. These things are real, there is a finite amount of these things available for consumption. These things can be distributed.

This is true, but today's developed countries have moved far beyond such subsistence concerns. Take for example the United States: the problem is not that the poor are malnutritioned on 2000 calories a day (like in many poor nations), it's that they're getting >10,000 calories and live unhealthy lifestyles. Gasoline and electricity (or at least traditionals means of generating electricity) are also slowly becoming an anarchonism with renewables gaining traction.

Your concerns about inequality are valid (after all, a small proportion of America's poor often go hungry) but there is basically no way to build a workable political coalition behind "bread, butter and gasoline for everyone."

The poor in America want (a) access to more consumption goods and (b) access to better healthcare. A socialist regime would drive away the people who make (a) possible and I wager a good proportion of the people who make (b) possible.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that in the near future, much of production (be it consumer goods, energy generation, advanced medical care, etc.) will be dominated by a small number of highly skilled professionals, and the prices of raw materials will not be a significant argument in the production function (given advances in recycling).

What do you do when the skilled are put off by your socialist policies and decide to jump ship?

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

This is true, but today's developed countries have moved far beyond such subsistence concerns. Take for example the United States: the problem is not that the poor are malnutritioned on 2000 calories a day (like in many poor nations), it's that they're getting >10,000 calories and live unhealthy lifestyles. Gasoline and electricity (or at least traditionals means of generating electricity) are also slowly becoming an anarchonism with renewables gaining traction.

This isn't entirely true. I have, in my past, especially when I was growing up, had to go hungry because we couldn't afford enough food. Not everyone qualifies for welfare programs. And even so, the cost of everything else in life can still leave you unable to afford enough food. Sham healthcare where bills amount to tens of thousands of dollars, where your insurance companies can successfully refuse to pay for something that should be covered... need I say more?

I was good friends with a particular individual whose family didn't have much money. She went hungry a lot. I used to give her food. When she was living on her own or with roommates she often struggled with affording enough food for herself and I did what I could to help her.

I am American and she is American by the way. It's stereotypical nonsense that everyone who is poor has welfare, enough low-cost or free food, or that the poor are mostly fat. That is fucking stupid.

What do you do when the skilled are put off by your socialist policies and decide to jump ship?

What socialist policies? All I said was that I am concerned by the unequal distribution of goods and how that affects people. I stated that I don't know the solution to the problem and that I am not involved in politics. I said that I don't have the answers. I never even said how we should redistribute said goods. I merely said that it is an enormous problem.

I also want to point out that America isn't the entire Earth. There are other countries as well. When I speak about distribution of goods I don't just mean how so much of the poor and lower class in America struggle with bills for food and other things, I am also speaking of the rest of the world as well.

[Julian]

I don't really understand the questoin

Machine tool operators and computer programmers are workers not owners of Capital. Most of paid wages in exchange for product.

The tendency for computer skilled operators has been for wages to fall as new technologies became more widely adopted and for the long term rewards to be made by large multinationals whose shareholders own and control the production and distribution networks. They are not dependent on specialised IT skill because they can move their investments around as and when the technologies change.

[Lagrange]

Machine tool operators and computer programmers are workers not owners of Capital. Most of paid wages in exchange for product.

My point is that there's a very big difference between the way these two types of workers relate to capital. The programmer is much more like the pre-capitalist skilled artisan than he is like the industrial worker. The importance for capital in production is steadily decreasing -- all the programmer needs is a very inexpensive computing machine, the industrial workers operate machinery worth a multiple of their yearly salary.

Once production of everyday material goods plummets (as 3D printers become steadily cheaper) and creative programmers can work as independent contractors (as many already do), what does it mean to "own the means of production"?

For simplicity, assume that the economy will be composed largely of independent engineers designing devices, products and programs on their 3D printers and laptops. The rest of the economy (services) exists largely to meet the everyday needs of these engineers. (This is a simplification but it is definitely a growing trend, small startups are wreaking havoc on established multinationals). In this scenario, what would a socialist revolution accomplish? Do you break into engineers' homes and take away their laptops or force them to work for the state?

[Lagrange]

I'm actually really curious to see how you guys would respond to my last point. This seems to me like a huge challenge for socialism -- if manufacturing is decentralized and made so cheap that the only real input is skilled labor, how do the (majority) of low skilled workers take over the means of production without making the skilled workers into indentured servants?

[Julian]

I can't answer that question because I don't think Socialism requires unskilled workers to seize the means of production from skilled workers.

[Lagrange]

I can't answer that question because I don't think Socialism requires unskilled workers to seize the means of production from skilled workers.

No, it requires the proletariat to seize the means of production from the capitalists. But when production is decentralized and the distinction between "capitalist" and "skilled worker" is sufficiently blurred (given that production no longer requires heavy capital investments) what would socialism look like?

[mikema63]

If the difference between capitalist and worker were sufficiently blurred that they would be the same then there would be no classes and you would have socialism.

[Lagrange]

If the difference between capitalist and worker were sufficiently blurred that they would be the same then there would be no classes and you would have socialism.

Not necessarily. In the scenario I presented, skilled workers produce most goods in the economy through programming/engineering low-cost 3D printers and other devices that use cheap, renewable (or easily recyclable) raw materials. They are essentially the "artisans" of yore -- one-man shops or small partnerships (co-ops of engineers) drive the economy.

The vast majority of the workforce doesn't have the skills to operate these devices and they are useless without the skilled engineers. They survive on income redistribution enforced by a central authority.

[mikema63]

That's some rather nasty unemployment if only the skilled engineers produce everything without hiring any workers.

[Lagrange]

That's some rather nasty unemployment if only the skilled engineers produce everything without hiring any workers.

And fertile ground for a socialist revolution. I'm interested in what that socialism would look like.

[mikema63]

Well, I should preface by saying speculation is usually wrong.

Most digital owner ship would have to be through enforced monopolies through copy-write and patent which online would suggest a much more draconian system of control over the internet that would have to be done away with.

The idea of production being done mainly by computer or machine and only requiring a very few skilled engineers seems to suggest the socialism would be technocratic in nature.

Can't say much else.

[Red Barn]

The idea of production being done mainly by computer or machine and only requiring a very few skilled engineers seems to suggest the socialism would be technocratic in nature.

Only if you assume that the capitalist system of valuation is still in play - that is, if you assume that the production of paper clips and Tampax and exotic financial products is "gainful employment," while childcare, community gardening and volunteering in hospice are not. (It's been estimated, for instance, that the ordinary labor of the average "housewife" has a market value of $120K per year at current market rates.)

So if this particular incarnation of utopia was to be genuinely "socialist" in spirit as well as in name, it would have to incorporate human values as well as productive values into its very foundation, wouldn't you think?

[mikema63]

In my head robot's danced.

I've been writing sci-fi lately.

[Someone5]

All I can say is this; you're quite foolish if you think that the majority of value creation today does not rely on financial capital.

For all that programmers can do with cheap hardware, that does not--and is not likely to ever--constitute the majority of economic activity, or even the majority of value creation. Most work requires far more intensive investments than that, and still relies on actual human labor. And the people producing those goods and services still have the worker's same relation to capital. In the modern world, that capital isn't necessarily machinery, but could instead be something as simple as patents, copyrights, or trademarks-intellectual property, not factory tools.

In the event that the worker were made completely irrelevant, as you describe, we would have already transitioned to a post-scarcity economy, and questions like "how can socialism work?" would be quite meaningless as the answer would be practically self-evident.

But let me also go back to your skilled artisan comment. The fact that many goods required skilled artisans to produce at one point--textile manufacturing before the mechanized loom, for example--did not in any way whatsoever protect those same artisans from the depredations of capitalism, or protect their jobs from structural irrelevancy as technology advances. Suppose that some capitalist gets it in his head that he wants to make an expert system for programmers to dramatically cut down on the number of programmers he needs to make a product--if such a product were made, it would have an effect on the programming profession much like the mechanized loom had on skilled weavers at the start of the industrial revolution. Yet despite this, the capitalist who owns the financial capital needed to buy that expert system would retain the same relation to the means of production--and would still remain dominant.

People think that jobs with high skill requirements will always protect them from the alienation of capitalism, but that remains true only so long as the job remains a "highly skilled position" and technology has a habit of reducing the skill requirements to fill a position. Even through means that might have seemed fantastic just a few decades before.

But we shouldn't forget that technologies and hot fields that are on the forefront of the economy hardly ever constitute the majority of what an economy is doing. I mean, for every programmer there are probably a dozen people working in food preparation. And that certainly does create value for a lot of capitalists.