Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tillwe (talk | contribs) at 19:37, 23 October 2002. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Well, bear in mind that Marx's model may simply not be very useful for describing current transformations in capitalism. But I see two issues: first, people have to make the nanobots. I suppose one day machines might make machines, and machines will be able to produce all material goods without human supervision, although this seems a long way off. Marx would suggest that this would not be possible under capitalism, because it would lead to a falling rate of profit. That doesn't mean that it isn't possible, just not possible under the current system. Perhaps I am agreeing with you that such technology would indicate the end of capitalism, but I am suggesting that rather than the end of capitalism being caused by nanotechnology, the end of capitalism would be a necessary precondition for the full development of nanotechnology (again, only if Marx's theories are right).

But even if nanobots produce all material goods, including other nanobots and the fuel necessary for nanotechnology, the question remains about the organization of other labor (e.g. writing poems, playing rollerball, performing music): will people own their own technology, and own their own labor, or will they work for others? Most poets for example own their own computers and their own labor. But some musicians are employees of symphonies. What will the future be like? Will all artists work for themselves, or will they work for others? Again, only if you take Marx seriously, this is the issue -- not whether people "have to" work with their hands (many people in fact enjoy working with their hands and would not want to rely on nanobots!) but rather whether they sell their labor or not. Nanotechnology MIGHT accompany and end to the labor market, but it might not. Certainly, people are coming to see information as a commodity that can be bought and sold. Thee are biologists, chemists and physicists who work for big corporations and do very creative work yet their ideas legally belong to their employers, not themselves -- this is precisely what Marx called "capitalism" in the 1850s. The parts of the system may have changed, but the relationship among hte parts has not. SR

I cut the following:

Marx's analysis of capitalism began with classic political economy, exemplified by Adam Smith. To their analysis of the role of the division of labor in capitalist production, Marx explored how the labor market drove the price of labor down:

The greater division of labor enables one laborer to accomplish the work of five, 10, or 20 laborers; it therefore increases competition among the laborers fivefold, tenfold, or twentyfold. The laborers compete not only by selling themselves one cheaper than the other, but also by one doing the work of five, 10, or 20; and they are forced to compete in this manner by the division of labor, which is introduced and steadily improved by capitalism.

Marx continues, "Furthermore, to the same degree in which the division of labor increases, is the labor simplified. The special skill of the laborer becomes worthless. He becomes transformed into a simple monotonous force of production, with neither physical nor mental elasticity. His work becomes accessible to all; therefore competitors press upon him from all sides. Moreover, it must be remembered that the more simple, the more easily learned the work is, so much the less is its cost to production, the expense of its acquisition, and so much the lower must the wages sink -- for, like the price of any other commodity, they are determined by the cost of production. Therefore, in the same manner in which labor becomes more unsatisfactory, more repulsive, do competition increase and wages decrease."

Marx goes on, "The laborer seeks to maintain the total of his wages for a given time by performing more labor, either by working a great number of hours, or by accomplishing more in the same number of hours. Thus, urged on by want, he himself multiplies the disastrous effects of division of labor. The result is: the more he works, the less wages he receives. And for this simple reason: the more he works, the more he competes against his fellow workmen, the more he compels them to compete against him, and to offer themselves on the same wretched conditions as he does; so that, in the last analysis, he competes against himself as a member of the working class."

There are two reasons I cut these quotes, much as I love them. First, I think the task of an encyclopedia article is to provide a general outline of knowledge, or debates, concerning a particular topic -- not to provide a catalogue of quotes. The information in these quotes is important in Marxist theory, but to plop the quotes in to the middle of the article is simply poor style. They should be paraphrased or summarized, and more importantly, contextualized, and integrated into the article. Second, once you start quoting, where do you stop? Why not quote the entire first chapter of the Manifesto, which is beautifully written? Why not quote the whole 18th Brumaire? Why were these quotes in particular chosen? In fact, people interested in Marx should NOT rely on an article, they should read Marx's works -- so let's not quote excessively, let us just describe his different books with anough information so that interested people can read the works as a whole. Slrubenstein

he is most famous for his analysis of history in terms of class conflict

No, he is most famous for creating the thought that led to Communism. He was not just a philosopher -- he founded a movement which swept up one third of humanity. Historical materialism takes a back seat to this. --Ed Poor

Sorry to disagree with you, but from a sociological point of view, that's wrong. There Karl Marx is famous (and I'd say: most famous) for his analysis of history. Just read the "influence" part of the article.--till we *)