| Revision as of 01:28, 7 February 2002 editSlrubenstein (talk | contribs)30,655 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:08, 7 February 2002 edit undo212.154.193.xxx (talk)mNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| Also there is a point of view that an emerging ] is a next stage in development of ], because it'll make a ] unnecessary and so it will completely change a ]. -- ] | Also there is a point of view that an emerging ] is a next stage in development of ], because it'll make a ] unnecessary and so it will completely change a ]. -- ] | ||
| : Within Marxist thought, capitalism is defined by the alienation of labor power, not by the amount of manual labor. Also, |
: Within Marxist thought, capitalism is defined by the alienation of labor power, not by the amount of manual labor. Also, Marx characterized capitalism as the most revolutionary system because the means of production were constantly changing. In other words, a new technology, like nanotechnology, is not sufficient to create a new mode of production, indeed it is completely consistent with this mode of production. And whether people are working at home or in factories or behind desks is secondary to whether people own the technologies they rely upon, and whether people sell their labor (for wages or salaries). Capitalism has changed tremendously in the past 200 years, and will continue to change. But IF you use Marx's notion of mode of production, I do not see how nanotechnology will change the mode of production, SR | ||
| ::I sorry for my English, under "manual labor" I meant a production of goods (as distinct from "creative labor" like ], ]s etc, producing ]). And here, I can't see how it is possible to alienate industrial labor power, if all such labor is performed by ]s? Robotization and automation of labor already changed capitalism greatly (and now ] is even more "social" then the ] implemented in ]). I think, all relations that were and are in industrial area now are steadily moving into the area of creative labor. Particulary, "]" battles - they are a sign of new emerging relations. May be, the mankind will pass all modes of "creative production" it has passed through in "industrial production". But industrial production itself seems reaching its last point - the nanotechological "communism". It doesn't mean that progress will finish - it just means that it will be continued (and may be repeated) on a new - informational - level. -- ] | |||
Revision as of 14:08, 7 February 2002
Excellent explanation of the "global" perspective:
- Some argue that capitalism does not exist as an independent system in any one country, and that one must analyze it as a global system. They further argue that when examined as a global system, capitalism is still organizing and exacerbating the gulf between rich and poor
Also there is a point of view that an emerging nanotechnology is a next stage in development of means of production, because it'll make a manual labor unnecessary and so it will completely change a mode of production. -- AVB
- Within Marxist thought, capitalism is defined by the alienation of labor power, not by the amount of manual labor. Also, Marx characterized capitalism as the most revolutionary system because the means of production were constantly changing. In other words, a new technology, like nanotechnology, is not sufficient to create a new mode of production, indeed it is completely consistent with this mode of production. And whether people are working at home or in factories or behind desks is secondary to whether people own the technologies they rely upon, and whether people sell their labor (for wages or salaries). Capitalism has changed tremendously in the past 200 years, and will continue to change. But IF you use Marx's notion of mode of production, I do not see how nanotechnology will change the mode of production, SR
- I sorry for my English, under "manual labor" I meant a production of goods (as distinct from "creative labor" like science, arts etc, producing information). And here, I can't see how it is possible to alienate industrial labor power, if all such labor is performed by nanobots? Robotization and automation of labor already changed capitalism greatly (and now capitalism is even more "social" then the socialism implemented in USSR). I think, all relations that were and are in industrial area now are steadily moving into the area of creative labor. Particulary, "copyright" battles - they are a sign of new emerging relations. May be, the mankind will pass all modes of "creative production" it has passed through in "industrial production". But industrial production itself seems reaching its last point - the nanotechological "communism". It doesn't mean that progress will finish - it just means that it will be continued (and may be repeated) on a new - informational - level. -- AVB