[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ wiki / twitter / cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
leftypol archives


File: 1718233300677.jpeg (418.5 KB, 828x702, IMG_0108.jpeg)

 

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that the Chinese government and the CPC are deliberately sabotaging efforts to implement fordist principles into the country’s manufacturing sector, so the country’s industrial labour force remains cheap and readily exploitable for literally the entirety of the planet (yes even the ‘poor countries’ of the world). I believe that there is no other explanation for how the both governments can host about record economic growth and exports, while the country’s largest factories still rely on direct human labour to produce whatever the fuck the world needs or wants.
There is no other reason for China’s modern factories to not use more machinery and more educated job seekers to produce higher quality goods for both domestic and foreign markets. Shame on Dengists, the Chinese government, and the CPC for not taking advantage of the opportunities available to them. >:(

 

>>1884191
More machinery means more costs. China is automating but can't just replace everyone with robots.

 

>>1884191
Also, China doesn't want to create an unemployment crisis either. There's still plenty of rural peasants and the cities need to continue to grow to grow the economy

 

>>1884195
Well I’m not seeing that automation. Also I hate the term ‘automation’; use ‘mechanization’, because that’s what actually happens under fordism. It’s not that labour is being replaced, but that certain kinds of goods produced by human labour are produced indirectly where humans take the role of producing, maintaining, and repairing machinery that produces the goods we all use. This blatant rejection of efficiency by the Chinese government is obvious in most of its 2 million active factories.

 

File: 1718233835099.png (13.68 KB, 730x290, ClipboardImage.png)

What is ChatGPT talking about

 

>>1884198
<make more stuff for the west!
Just kys rightoid

 

>>1884197
Pfffft, nonsense. Unemployment is the result of Taylorism and little ambition than the direct result of the mechanization of labour. Think about the situation of a workforce like this. Should a manager have all their workers dig a ditch with spoons to keep everyone employed in bad jobs, or should the manager give everyone onsite shovels to dog many ditches for better pay?

 

>>1884191

Real life isn't a game of factorio retard. Certain industries like textiles literally can not be fully automated. If you own any article of clothing that was sewn together it was made by hand.

Also China makes more industrial robots than anybody else. Bazingas like you are the fucking worst. A bunch of dilettante intellectuals who think real life is jsut like le ebic automation vidya.

 

>>1884198
Do you really think that the Chinese government hates automation? Or are they just trying to do the best they can with their resources? It could take years or even decades to pay off the investment of a new factory machine and some would never be paid off if the factory goes bust.

 

>>1884207
I never stated that I was expecting automation, I stated that there is little reason for most of china’s industries to not use machines more often to improve efficiency.
>>1884198
As for the robots, I want to see evidence of them being used for Chinese workers specifically, and not to be used either for revenue generation as another asset to be exported, or to be used purely to satisfy foreign markets.

 

>>1884203
Yes obviously better tools is a good thing but there's a certain point where increasingly elaborate and expensive tools aren't worth it, just look at the US military

 


 

>>1884208
“Or are they just trying to do the best they can with their resources”, brother, the Chinese federal government has two million factories at its disposal and a population of 1.4 billion. The relation between these two numbers is manageable enough, so that the country could reasonably mechanize its industries rapidly at any time.

 

>>1884214
Factories IRL don't work like in HOI4, they don't just make anything, they make specific products, I'm sure China is doing the best they can to grow their economy including automation.

 

>>1884216
Alright

 

>>1884218
Cool. Well I get your frustration, fair question

 

Factories in HOI4 are the worst simulation of industry i have ever seen.

 

>>1884191
>There is no other reason for China’s modern factories to not use more machinery and more educated job seekers to produce higher quality goods for both domestic and foreign markets

I dont know much of anything about Chinese industry but I know my Marx fairly well and based on what youre saying here its possible that the PRC's management of capital is functioning intentionally or otherwise as a counter-tendency against the TRPF, since state involvement complicates individual firms pursuing more automation to cut labor costs, so the ratio of variable to constant capital remains high relative to similarly industrialized countries. Not sure what the implications of that are. Is the PRC trying to build up a stronger service sector? If so I can't imagine why they wouldnt implement greater automation in industry. Likewise, would it be reasonably possible for the PRC to increase automation as a means of reducing work-hours? I understand why they wouldnt WANT to do this in terms of wanting to be as competitive as possible on the global market, but within China's existing economic situation would it be viable to use automation to cutdown labor time for the purpose of reducing workers actual hours, instead of just as a way to free up labor-power on the market to be diverted into new industries?

 

>>1884210

You saw one youtube video and now you think you have deep insights about the level of mechanization of Chinese industry. You're no better than all the other retarded burgerbrains whose entire view of the world is based off of half remembered tropes from movies.

 

File: 1718236987115.png (13.17 KB, 355x253, 878164-blank-355.png)

Op is a racist idiot

 

>>1884252
I’m guessing automation for domestic would be something the cpc government would strive for, because this does happen in other countries (including the global south for the dudes in the North Atlantic that think their the centre of the planet), but time will tell if the party actually reaches these goals in a sufficient time frame given the country’s current problems.

 

>>1884256
Anon you do understand that labour productivity increases can exist for reasons beyond mechanization and innovation right? It’s been recorded internationally that simply having more people work on any specific task increases labour productivity, because there are certain tasks that wouldn’t be accomplished without having more hands or machines available in the first place. Like you can’t seriously imagine some random peasant and his family building an entire vehicle by hand, but if you put a lot of peasants together to start manually assembling vehicles you might get a lot produced even if the results are lacklustre.

 

File: 1718237524072.png (48.59 KB, 1000x743, 251380.png)

>>1884258
>simply having more people work on any specific task
racist idiot

 

>>1884258
Can we just take all these econofags out to the back, cut their tongues out, and force them to do the manual work they keep trying to avoid?

 

>>1884295
But I do do manual work :(

 

Obviously this f@g hasn't read capital

 

>>1884191
You are looking at it wrong. Where do the unemployed go from automating something? Well, they go to some other industry. You get manual labor situated in specific industries precisely for this reason

 

>>1884245
I mean they're basic but most wargames don't have any kind of economics at all (and are therefore completely shallow and insipid)

 

>>1884316
I read all three volumes man, and I’m aware of the fact that industry is inherently unprofitable. That doesn’t mean that profits are always favoured in human society or will always exist to prevent industry from flourishing regardless.

 

>>1884336
>industry is inherently unprofitable

Where was this in capital??

 

>>1884329
Oh, right. It's called the uneven development of capital in the book

 

>>1884337
Did you skip over that part? FYI, this idea was discussed in the first volume. Marx’s theory stated that machines can only produce as much revenue as they cost, because they require a person to get the skills and tools required to build and maintain them in the first place. When taking into account for the fact that machines can also just break down for any reason, often machinery can be even less efficient than just using ordinary human labour. However, this doesn’t make machinery obsolete, just not always the best option for capitalists when resolving issues with productivity.
Does that explanation answer your question?

 

>>1884340
>Marx’s theory stated that machines can only produce as much revenue as they cost
No, retard. They only produce as much value. From the value pie, the capitalists get their individual shares of revenue which are not in tight correspondence with the value contributions of their workers. So of course a capitalist can get higher profits from using machines, and in a world with much international trade even the capitalists of some country together can get higher profits from using machines.

This thread is AIDS. A I D S. Kill yourself OP.

 

>>1884372
This thread is also cancer. Of the head.

 

>>1884258 thats kind of horseshit though especially considering the fact that A. China has been buying up a shitload of Autonomous robots to be used in manufacturing and B. the percentage of those employed in manufacturing within china has been steadily declining since 2010.

 

>>1884340
>>1884336
>I’m aware of the fact that industry is inherently unprofitable
So true bestie. Industry has negative profits. For every commodity a capitalist's company sells, he becomes poorer and poorer. Such is life in this cruel capitalist world.

 

>>1884191

>le evil ceeceepee is trying to enslave its people to manufacturing by delaying implementing automation within its manufacturing sector.


Umm this is just blatent bullshit as it dosent take into account the massive amounts industrial robots and machines the Chinese have been buying up on mass for the past several years OR the fact that the percentage of those employed within manufacturing has actually been falling for the past several years.

God please read some actually stastics about this bcz if you did you wouldn't be posting this sorta bullshit, is it true that certain chinese factors still use manual labour, yes but its only going to be a matter of "when" they shift to using automated labour (e.g. machines) and we are already starting to fucking see this.

God almighty talking to ultras and Anarkiddies who think a single video is enough to prove that le evil ceeceepee is preventing the implementation of automation within its industry genuianlly makes me want to kill myself oh my god.

 

>>1884191
i think you just assume that because china has risen the country is fantastically wealthy. this is wrong. a lot of china is still quite poor, especially the rural regions.people work by hand because china is still quite poor, but has a lot of people who can do jobs by hand.

 


 

>>1884446
Why is it a matter of "when" and not a matter of profitability? If profit rate is low and it is at small factories and we live at time of small factories, machine could be to expensive to automate or "When" can be very long time, do not you think?

 

>>1884191
> but I believe that the Chinese government and the CPC are deliberately sabotaging efforts to implement fordist principles into the country’s manufacturing sector, so the country’s industrial labour force remains cheap and readily exploitable for literally the entirety of the planet (yes even the ‘poor countries’ of the world). I believe that there is no other explanation for how the both governments can host about record economic growth and exports, while the country’s largest factories still rely on direct human labour to produce whatever the fuck the world needs or wants.
Perhaps start by looking up some proofs.
But if you want an explaination, here is one:

The market cost of labour is geographically competitive, meaning that if productivity is generally high, even identical work (like servers, teachers, grocery shop employees) make higher wages in that are than in low productivity areas. This is true because if you paid the same starvation wages in the first world while the infrastructure and capital exists to be far more productive, some proles with connections will just start competing driving up wages, unions will organise to get a bigger share of the pie, etc.

Machines cost are identical whether they be in europe or asia or africa. This means that capitalist firms will move production that is high in direct labour costs to places with low productivity overal and push machinery into places with high productivity and thus higher average wages.

China was once such a low productivity area. The CPC used this to move all the manufacturing to China, to build up its domestic industrial base. Now we have a situation where most of the labour intensive work that can not be done economically with assembly lines (injection molding lego bricks is a lot simpler to automate than sowing complex clothes or assembling the next new iteration of phone version #95865 every 3 months) is done in the third world like china. China does not have large scale high tech automated assembly lines whose products they export, because those products are still manufactures closer to the import markets.

This in itself explains how despite growth in economic output, despite the construction of automated production lines, a good chunk of the chinese economy remains manual. It is that part of our global industrial output that is extremely expensive and difficult to automate, making manual assembly cheaper overall, especially given that chinese wages are still relatively comparable.

The existance of manual assembly lines in china, which, by the way, are already an example of "fordism", does not demonstrate a lack of automation overal. Its not like the electronics assembly factories are all artisanal, its all manufacture line individual steps which is what fordism is, i advise you to look up how those lines work irl. It is simply that large part of our manufacturing is cheaper to do manually, but the first world forgot that, since all the manual factory work is outsources to the other side of the world, leading to a terminal futurist scifi brain understanding of industry.

If you are actually a marxist you would look up if your gut feeling actually is supported by data, then try to find find disprovable hypotheses that explain the data in china and see if it works out in other countries. This is not a defense of china, the same thing is true all over the world. A lot of the shrimp caught in europe is processed in Marocco because its near impossible to automate and its way cheaper to get a bunch of underpaid marroccans to do it by hand. Shrimp peerers in marocca does not disprove the existance of other types of factories in marocco.

 

>>1884340
>Did you skip over that part? FYI, this idea was discussed in the first volume. Marx’s theory stated that machines can only produce as much revenue as they cost, because they require a person to get the skills and tools required to build and maintain them in the first place. When taking into account for the fact that machines can also just break down for any reason, often machinery can be even less efficient than just using ordinary human labour. However, this doesn’t make machinery obsolete, just not always the best option for capitalists when resolving issues with productivity.
Imagine misunderstanding the fundamentals of LTV this badly.

Lets dunk
>Breakdowns are taking into account with average deprecation of machinery
>Machines are said to produce no extra value in a closed perfectly competitive system, but can produce extra superprofits when implemented over competition that does not have them by increasing the productivity of the labour used, taking total value and thus profits away from industries that are less automated
>Increasing automation is almost always the best option for capitalists because of the above reason, it ensures you stay ahead of the competition and gives you temporary advantages which you can use for exponentially outpacing competitors in the long term due to increased capital gain to further snowball.
>In LTV all industry is always profitable in the long term, because those that arent die off, and those that remain, even in zero growth periods, gain profits not by taking it from other capitalists, but by just not giving the workers the products they made, but just a part of it. That is also why shares in companies are fundamentally different from shitcoins or gold, even if both are "speculation goods", because even in periods of zero change in operations, companies are still fundamentally profitable by exploiting workers. Shitcoins and gold are just things that exist, companies are continuously productive operations that produce new things from labour which costs less than it produces. "Industry is unprofitable" is the most retarded thing someone can say while claiming to be a marxist.

 

>>1884523
I’ve already thought about that idea, but doesnt the extraction of human value just result in mechanization under capitalism being just another ploy to extract value from other people? You said it yourself, the machine—much like any other asset under capitalism—will only have as much value was what was originally put into it. After all, in the first few chapters, Marx clarifies that the constant circulation of capital would prevent any form of profits from being gained by any person in a manner that doesn’t require theft and inflation.

 

>>1884593
Yes. But since all capitalists operate with a certain rate of exploitation, taking half the profits from your competition doesn't make your competition unprofitable, just less profitable.

 

>>1884596
Alright then

 

>>1884191
>Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that the Chinese government and the CPC are deliberately sabotaging efforts to implement fordist principles into the country’s manufacturing sector
you are completely wrong, this is completely retarded and directly contradict all actual stats that show that the exact inverse is true and they have a very big automation drive.
kys glowie anti china propaganda spreader

 

>OP: There are contradictions in chinese capitalism
>leftypol: Holy marx you're retarded, how dare you to use rational observation against china, the socialistiest socialiser! you're a liberal


Unique IPs: 23

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ wiki / twitter / cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]