Marx on the Increasing Intensity of Labour in Industrial Capitalism: I Refute Him Thus

In the videos below.

But first let us look at Marx’s theory. It is that capitalists aim at increasing their theft of surplus value from workers.

They can do this in three ways:

(1) by increasing the length of the working day while holding down the real wage to a subsistence level (that is, increasing absolute surplus value);

(2) decreasing the price of the basic commodities making up the value of the maintenance and reproduction of labour by automation, and thus reducing the real subsistence wage when the working day is held constant (that is, increasing relative surplus value);

(3) given a stable working day, using machines to increase the intensity and speed of work by labourers and so increasing the socially necessary labour time worked per hour, while holding down the real wage to a subsistence level (that is, increasing relative surplus value).

It is method (3) that concerns us here.

Marx says clearly that one of the primary effects of machines in factory work is as follows:

“It is self-evident, that in proportion as the use of machinery spreads, and the experience of a special class of workmen habituated to machinery accumulates, the rapidity and intensity of labour increase as a natural consequence.” (Marx 1906: 447).

“The shortening of the hours of labour creates, to begin with, the subjective conditions for the condensation of labour, by enabling the workman to exert more strength in a given time. So soon as that shortening becomes compulsory, machinery becomes in the hands of capital the objective means, systematically employed for squeezing out more labour in a given time. This is effected in two ways: by increasing the speed of the machinery, and by giving the workman more machinery to tend. Improved construction of the machinery is necessary, partly because without it greater pressure cannot be put on the workman, and partly because the shortened hours of labour force the capitalist to exercise the strictest watch over the cost of production.” (Marx 1906: 450).

“There cannot be the slightest doubt that the tendency that urges capital as soon as a prolongation of the hours of labour is once for all forbidden, to compensate itself, by a systematic heightening of the intensity of labour, and to convert every improvement in machinery into a more perfect means of exhausting the workman, must soon lead to a state of things in which a reduction of the hours of labour will again be inevitable.” (Marx 1906: 456).

So the general effect of machines in capitalism is to make workers labour with more and more intensified work and faster speed per hour of work.

Marx’s world of increasing intensity of labour may as well be the factory imagined by Charlie Chaplin in the movie Modern Times (1936), as below.



Marx even quotes with approval the bizarre idea of John Stuart Mill that it was “questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet made have lightened the day’s toil of any human being” (Marx 1906: 405).

While Marx certainly could point to some evidence of an intensifying of factory labour in the 1810s to 1850s, as a general tendency of developed capitalism even in the 19th century or in the long-run history of Western capitalism, it is a most absurd perversion of the truth. It is a piece of communist propaganda.

Let us look at human labour in the videos below in some modern factories where more and more machines have been introduced.





Look carefully at the workers in these videos. Is their work more labour intensive and faster than the work required before machines were introduced? The very idea is absurd.

In video 2, most of the factory work has been reduced to visual inspection and overseeing of machine work, not physical labour.

In video 1, the work has manifestly been made less intense and less arduous given the massive use of robots, machine tools, conveyer belts, and load-bearing technologies, and certainly in relation to how the cars were manufactured in past decades.

Marx’s central claim that machines, generally speaking, are an unmitigated evil in capitalism whose primary effect to increase the intensity and speed of work by labourers is an outrageous falsehood – a perversion of history and reality. If true, it would imply that advanced industrial capitalism would have increased the intensity of work so much that an individual worker would be moving at the rapidity of Speedy Gonzales.

Even worse, Marx himself even in Chapter 15 of volume 1 of Capital on machines badly contradicted himself, because he let slip the reality that large-scale industry can result in a “lightening of the labour” for workers (Marx 1906: 462) and then refers to the “light character of the labour” in the factory system (Marx 1906: 505).

These days even some Marxists realise that Marx’s theory on this point is rubbish: e.g., the Marxist Harry Cleaver admits that, in the long run in capitalism, the “general tendency has been for a reduction in intensity” of labour (see here under Section 3. Working Class Response).

And once we admit that the third and last element in Marx’s theory of increasing exploitation of workers based on extraction of surplus labour value cannot be sustained, the whole theory collapses like a house of cards because the first two are false as well.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Marx, Karl. 1906. Capital. A Critique of Political Economy (vol. 1; rev. trans. by Ernest Untermann from 4th German edn.). The Modern Library, New York.

Limits of Artificial Intelligence

Futurist and inventor Ray Kurzweil – author of such books as The Age of Spiritual Machines (1999) and The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology (2005) – is interviewed here in a somewhat breathless interview in the Observer:

Carole Cadwalladr, “Are the Robots about to rise? Google’s New Director of Engineering thinks so…,” The Observer, 23 February 2014.

Something that looks uncomfortably like a cult has arisen around Kurzweil’s idea of “the Singularity,” which is “a hypothetical moment in time when artificial intelligence will have progressed to the point of a greater-than-human intelligence, radically changing civilization, and perhaps human nature.”

Of course, there seems little doubt that the rise of increasingly sophisticated machines such as computers and robots will revolutionise economic and social life as we go forward into the future.

Indeed, a substantial part of the industrial revolution is simply the profound changes in production by labour-saving machines.

But the economic problems that are, and will be, created by increasing automation, structural unemployment and loss of aggregate real income should be of profound concern to economists. Indeed, an interesting warning of the possible economic problems that could be caused by technology is given, not by an economist, but by the computer engineer Martin Ford in his The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future (2009) (though I think some of his predictions are too dire).

But, to return to my main point, this interview with Kurzweil contains so many questionable ideas, it is difficult to know where to start.

Take the central idea:

“Ray Kurzweil … believes that … computers will gain what looks like a lot like consciousness in a little over a decade is now Google’s director of engineering.”

But if we read the whole interview and Kurzweil’s statements elsewhere, it appears that Kurzweil thinks that computers will actually attain consciousness, not just simulate it.

There is a fundamental difference between (1) merely simulating something and (2) actually having that property.

The crude behaviourist Turing test, for example, does not test for whether an entity has conscious life, but merely whether it simulates human intelligence. Thus even if future computers all start passing Turing tests, it is not going to be some shocking milestone in human history: all it will show is that software programs have become sophisticated enough to fool us into thinking machines have conscious minds as we do, even though they do not.

This point has been brilliantly made by the analytic philosopher John Searle, who, in my view, has written outstanding work on philosophy of mind (e.g., Searle 1990; Searle 2002; Searle 1992).

When I was an undergraduate, I did a course on cognitive science, and Searle’s work, such as the Chinese room argument, was rightly required reading.

John Searle convincingly argues that external behaviour of computers – no matter how sophisticated – does not provide any good evidence that computers really have conscious thought as humans do.

This is why the “computer” metaphor for the brain is potentially misleading. Brains are often compared to computers. There is no doubt that computers are based on information processing, and in some sense this is also what the brain does.

But it does not follow that the consciousness of the human mind is just information processing that can be reproduced in other synthetic materials, such as in silicon chips in digital computers. After all, DNA and its behaviour exhibit a type of information processing and storage as well, but DNA is not conscious.

As Searle points about in the video below, all the empirical evidence suggests that consciousness is a biological phenomenon in the brain causally dependent on neuronal processes and biochemical activity, but one that can be explained by physicalist science, not some discredited supernatural ideas about souls or Cartesian dualism.



The crucial term here is biological: consciousness is a biological property of complex living systems like humans and higher animals.

Exactly what causes it and how it emerges is a profoundly difficult scientific question, but it is fairly clear that consciousness is a complex emergent property of the brain, its neurons and biochemical processes.

If that is so, no matter how sophisticated any digital computer is, it remains as unconscious and unfeeling as your washing machine or pet rock. Once this is accepted, it follows that a lot of Ray Kurzweil’s more outlandish claims are ridiculous, such as, for example, that a human being could transfer his or her conscious mind into a digital computer. Perhaps you could create a believable simulation of a human mind with a digital computer, but again it is extremely unlikely that such a thing would be conscious.

I have to stress that this is not some obscurantist, religious objection to artificial intelligence (I am completely non-religious): it is grounded in good science.

As John Searle has argued, science may well be capable of creating truly conscious and self-aware artificial intelligences in the future, but it is unlikely that they will be digital computers.

An artificial intelligence will have to directly reproduce or replicate the biological processes in the brain that cause consciousness. Perhaps an “artificial” intelligence – in the sense of not being a normal human being – will need to have organic or biochemical structures in its “brain” in order for it to be fully and truly conscious.

Such entities, if they were fully conscious, would create all sorts of ethical issues. They would probably have to be imbued with moral/ethical principles as humans are, for example. Probably they would have to be granted some kind of human rights at some point, so that we could not treat them as slaves. And what actually would they do? What work would they perform?

I suspect virtually all the work of production – especially the difficult, unpleasant, and backbreaking work that humans hate – can one day be done by machines. But what we want for this task is unthinking, unfeeling, and unconscious machines: machines that can be treated like slaves with no ethical problems arising. For example, nobody needs to worry that the household washing machine is being mistreated or exploited, because such concepts do not, and cannot, apply to unthinking and unfeeling machines. But with a truly artificial intelligence, suddenly such ethical question would arise.

But such musings can only remain speculations, and whole issue of whether truly conscious artificial intelligence can be created is a matter for a future science that has first completely mastered what human (and higher animal) consciousness actually is.

Further Reading
Gary Marcus, “Ray Kurzweil’s Dubious New Theory of Mind,” The New Yorker, November 15, 2012
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/11/ray-kurzweils-dubious-new-theory-of-mind.html

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ford, Martin. 2009. The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future. Acculant Publishing.

Kurzweil, Ray. 1999. The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers exceed Human Intelligence. Penguin Books, New York.

Kurzweil, Ray. 2005. The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. Viking, New York.

Searle, John. R. 1980. “Minds, Brains, and Programs,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3: 417–424.

Searle, John. R. 1980. “Intrinsic Intentionality,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3: 450–456.

Searle, John R. 1982. “The Chinese Room Revisited,” The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5: 345–348.

Searle, John. R. 1990. “Is the Brain a Digital Computer?,” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 64: 21–37.

Searle, John R. 1992. The Rediscovery of the Mind. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass and London.

Searle, John. R. 2002. “Why I Am Not a Property Dualist,” Journal of Consciousness Studies 9.12: 57–64.