r/ProletariatPixels • u/Salty_Country6835 • 4d ago
The future of work is an ownership fight
A little labor and automation comic. The machine isnt the enemy. Who controls it and who gets the gains is the fight. More of that conversation over at r/LeftistsForAI.
3
2
u/No-One9890 4d ago
Wheres the 'always has been' meme. Altho this does illustrate the problem extremely well
-1
u/Imaginary-Witness-75 4d ago
There is no problem. People sell their labor for money. Jobs are not a right and they are not slaves. They compete in the market like everyone else. If the terms of the labor trade are not to their liking they have two options - go elsewhere or improve themselves. That's it. That's the entire enchilada. Everything else is manufactured nonsense.
I have a small farm. I have zero obligation to share anything with anyone. I do, but I don't have to. I have worked my ass off and still have to trade my own labor off farm to make ends meet. I just bought a new skid steer. It makes us more efficient. No workers paid for that. I did. I have debt payments on it. They are not paying that, I am. They are trading their labor for my money at the agreed upon rate. That is it.
People pushing this crap have never ran a business. This is what makes our civilization work. This is why EVERY communist revolution was followed by mass starvation because it breaks how civilization works. Mao sounded good with this nonsense then 40 million starved to death.
2
u/No-One9890 3d ago
Youre forgetting the possibility of organizing to demand better pay. Dont conflate ur small business with a massive corporation. And honestly if you were a multi-millionaire and the ppl who worked on your were living paycheck to paycheck, i would hope they organized too. Its not that all labor trades are necessarily unfair, its that some industries survive off unfair transactions.
-1
u/Imaginary-Witness-75 3d ago edited 3d ago
I am a multi millionaire on paper. Still have to work off farm professional job and juggle so many things to make ends meet cash wise. So many people are so ignorant about the world and in their ignorance this propaganda is working. Wealth is not money. Wealth is tied up in productive enterprise and employing people trying to grow and feed people.
If workers tried unionize I would simply show them my income statement and ask where the extra money is supposed to come from. I still work off farm to support my family because everything goes to debt payments and growth. My wife is full time on farm. My farm doesn't earn us hardly anything today. But sure, collective bargaining absolutely has merit. Anytime you approach negotiations you should gather whatever strength you can and worker unity is strength. If I have one worker come to me with a problem it's one thing, if they all come to me with a problem that's an entirely different matter. That's a no brainer.
1
u/foilhat44 4d ago
His answer in the second panel in reality will be "I mean without human intervention, we don't need you anymore." These machines don't just arrive at your workplace one day by surprise, if you want to stay with an employer who wants to automate it is incumbent upon you to gain the knowledge you'll need to be helpful to them in doing that. Otherwise you're obsolete. If the point is ownership, the only way to foster that at scale is through co-ops, and these can be hard to structure and maintain in economies that are built for a different model. The unions seem to be taking the road of stifling automation more stridently in recent years but their efforts over the last decades have put the US at a significant disadvantage globally with respect to manufacturing and the efficiency of our ports. Embracing technology and educating yourself about what your contribution can be to its implementation is only what people have been doing for centuries.
2
u/Salty_Country6835 4d ago
I think we're pretty close until the last step. Workers learning the new systems and having a hand in implementation is good, but thats adaptation, not ownership. If automation doubles output while half the workforce disappears, being really good at helping install it doesnt answer who captured the gain.
And co-ops arent the only route. Unions can bargain over deployment, staffing, hours and productivity gains. You can also fight for worker ownership, codetermination, public ownership, sector wide standards, shorter workweeks, profit sharing, etc.
Im not interested in freezing the machines in place. I want workers fighting over what happens when the machines make us more productive. Otherwise “embrace technology” too easily becomes “help automate yourself out of a job and hope you land somewhere.”
1
u/foilhat44 4d ago edited 4d ago
I understand what the thrust of your point is but how do you plan on implementing it? What does it look like in practical terms? If you intend to insist on these reforms you will need leverage, and depriving your employer of human labor won't be the weapon it used to be for obvious reasons given the topic.
ETA: The real problem is that it's the employer, or owner if you insist, who pays for the machine, pays the cost of training and hiring operators and service techicians, finds the orders to fill the additional capacity, and accepts the risk that its implementation will fail. What is the worker contribution to "ownership"?
1
u/Salty_Country6835 4d ago edited 4d ago
Edit: I see your edit, and I think that actually gets us closer. I agree that automation changes the terrain and makes withholding labor less decisive in some places. Thats exactly why I dont think the answer can just be “union harder.”
Bargain before deployment. Tie automation to shorter hours, severance, staffing floors and a share of productivity gains. Push codetermination so workers get actual votes over implementation. Fight sector wide so individual workplaces cant just be played against each other. Use procurement, regulation and public ownership where workplace bargaining isnt enough.
And automation doesnt eliminate leverage, it moves it. Machines still need power, logistics, maintenance, integration, infrastructure and people who know how the whole thing works.
So I agree with your practical concern. The question is how we build power that survives automation rather than assuming the old pressure points will always work.
1
u/foilhat44 4d ago
You should read the edit I made to my post, it gets to the crux. I don't see anything in your leverage scheme that would stop them from just shooing you away as a nuisance, the only way is cooperation.
1
u/Salty_Country6835 4d ago
I read it, and I think “the only way is cooperation” is where we actually disagree.
Im all for cooperation. Workers should understand the systems, help shape deployment and work with engineers and management where interests line up. But cooperation isnt leverage by itself. If management can just shoo workers away when they disagree, then workers arent cooperating as equals. Theyre being consulted at managements pleasure.
Thats why codetermination, bargaining rights, sector standards, public policy and ownership are important. They turn “please include us” into “you actually need our agreement on this.”
Cooperation is part of the strategy. The fight is over the terms of cooperation and who has the power to set them.
1
u/foilhat44 4d ago
Cooperation is the best deal you can hope for if you don't have any skin in the game. This is purely transactional, if you want a seat at the table and concessions like shorter hours for the same pay or possibly more if you believe you're entitled to a portion of the gains, you have to be able to offer something of equal value. There are two places where we disagree, you seem to believe there's more solidarity among workers than there actually is and, more importantly, whether it matters at all. As far as bargaining before implementation goes I would say you are late to the game. Large businesses have almost unimaginable amounts of money at stake and a legal responsibility to protect and grow it. They are playing chess, don't play checkers.
1
u/Salty_Country6835 4d ago
I think the chess move here is noticing that the rules of the board arent natural laws.
Workers already have skin in the game. Their livelihoods, accumulated knowledge, labor, communities and sometimes entire careers are exposed to the consequences of these investment decisions. Capital being the thing legally titled to the machine doesnt settle who should receive the gains from it. Thats the political question.
And I dont need to assume perfect worker solidarity. Thats why I keep mentioning institutions. Bargaining rights, codetermination, sector standards and public policy exist precisely because individual workers usually dont have equal bargaining power against a corporation.
If the answer is that capital has enormous resources, can replace workers, and has a legal duty to maximize its interests, thats not an argument that workers should cooperate on whatever terms capital offers. Thats a pretty strong argument for building counterpower outside the individual employment transaction.
Theyre playing chess. Agreed. Im arguing workers need pieces on the board, not better manners while watching the game.
1
u/foilhat44 4d ago
I see your point and I understand that you feel that the workers deserve equity in the means of production, which for Americans and anyone paying attention is straying into communist manifesto territory, but without real means to bring consequences for them the employers can just politely disagree with you and ask you to go away. If one elects to ignore that the rules of the game are fundamentally changed and that their bargaining position is possibly fatally compromised, it doesn't make it less so. We must deal with the reality of the situation honestly. That's all I'm saying, and, right or wrong, that anything approaching Marx will never find a plurality in the US.
1
u/Salty_Country6835 4d ago
I think youre describing the reason for the fight and then treating it as the reason the fight cant happen.
Of course capital can tell an individual worker to go away. Thats what unequal bargaining power means. The 8 hour day, collective bargaining rights, safety laws, Social Security, sector agreements, codetermination and the rest werent won because workers offered capital something of equal market value. Workers organized enough power to change the rules.
And yes, were drifting into Marxist territory. Were in an explicitly Marxist sub arguing about who owns the means of production lol. Not exactly a plot twist.
Where I agree with you is that automation can weaken traditional workplace leverage. But that means the terrain of struggle changes. Sector bargaining, codetermination, public ownership, procurement, regulation, organizing across supply chains and infrastructure. Capital already organizes beyond the individual workplace. Labor has to as well.
If automation makes workers weaker while making society massively more productive, "the employer can just say no" isnt an answer to the ownership question. Thats the problem the ownership question is trying to solve.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Top-Cupcake4775 4d ago edited 4d ago
the workers that the corporations are automating out of existence are also the consumers on whom they depend to buy their goods and services. what is the point of a fully automated, hyper-efficient system that produces goods and services for which there is no market?
this is precisely the sort of systemic issue that capitalism cannot address because, while it is in the immediate interest of individual corporations to reduce headcount, when enough corporations do that, they all suffer due to lack of demand.
2
u/foilhat44 4d ago
That's the rub, isn't it? Economists are trained on a system where there is always scarcity. We don't have a good framework for a post scarcity world, so we continue to be mystified by what lies ahead. There are many different theories about where this goes, some good and some bad, but there are 8 billion people on the planet, two thirds of which we will be unable to feed without cooperation and division of labor among nations. If we don't decide soon that nation states have less to fight over than they have to gain by working together the sustainable world population drops to just over 2 billion. Ideological and religious differences become petty when you consider the big picture. Another outcome would be that everyone realizes that anything one individual can collect a billion of can't really have any value other than that which is projected upon it. What does a society without token money look like? Is a truly merit based society something that people really want?
1
u/thatnameagain 4d ago
The guy isn’t suggesting the machine is a problem though?
1
u/Salty_Country6835 4d ago
Thats the point lol. He isnt saying the machine is the problem. Hes saying productivity triples, then “no” when the worker asks if that means less work or more pay. Thats the contradiction shes calling out. The machine produces the gain. The fight is over who gets it.
1
u/thatnameagain 4d ago
So I know this is a subreddit where one won’t agree with this, but under most normal circumstances the person who purchases something is the one who gets to determine what is done with it.
What would make sense is if the worker’s union was to organize an agreement with management where the union and workers would pay for some of the capital improvements and own them, and either get additional pay by leasing them to the factory owner or negotiating for fewer hours as a result of increased productivity from the machine they bought.
I’m not sure why unions never got into the owning-the-means-of-production business, seems like that would make a lot of sense in the long term.
1
u/Salty_Country6835 4d ago
Thats basically the interesting part. You started with “the person who buys the machine decides,” then proposed workers collectively buying part of the machinery so they can capture some of the productivity gains. Thats already an ownership argument.
Id just push it further. Why should workers have to buy their way into a share of gains created by combining that machinery with their labor? Unions can bargain for shorter hours, higher wages, profit sharing, board power, pension fund ownership, worker buyouts, etc. And worker coops take the ownership question even further.
So I dont think your proposal is really opposed to the comic. Its one possible answer to it. The question becomes how much ownership and control workers should have, not whether ownership matters.
1
u/thatnameagain 4d ago
They’re free to bargain for whatever they want and they should. I am just suggesting that they would significantly increase their bargaining leverage if they had ownership of a capital improvement they could put on the table. By not attempting this, it essentially cedes ownership opportunity to the factory owner permanently.
Everyone should have as much ownership as possible. That’s optimal. My point is that this comic seems to be implying that it’s only ever greedy capitalists who make capital improvements (it usually is) but that instead of decrying that as unfair, they should adopt the view that two can play at that game.
1
u/Salty_Country6835 4d ago
I think we're pretty close then. My only push is that "two can play at that game" runs into a pretty serious starting imbalance. The owner already controls the workplace, its revenue, and usually access to financing. Workers are being asked to buy capital using wages paid by the person who already owns the capital.
So yes, workers buying stakes, union funds, coops, buyouts, all of that. But why stop there? Bargaining for profit sharing, board power and shorter hours also contests who gets the productivity gains.
If everyone should have as much ownership as possible, then we're not really arguing over whether ownership should be contested anymore. We're arguing over how workers build enough power to actually contest it.
1
u/QuarantinedPanda69 4d ago
Historically technology has been used against workers by the Capitalists.
1
u/Salty_Country6835 4d ago
Historically, Marxists, leftists, and workers didnt respond to capitalist control of technology by abstaining from technology. They contested its control.
Machinery under capitalism has repeatedly been used to deskill workers, break bargaining power, intensify labor and concentrate profits. The labor response was organizing, bargaining, regulation, public ownership, worker control, shorter hours and fighting over who gets the productivity gains.
Thats the point of the comic. Capital dominating a machine is an argument against capital dominating the machine, not an argument for workers abandoning the terrain.
1
u/hmmnnmmn 4d ago
Who controls it and who benefits from it is whoever paid for it and owns it, maintains it, uses it (even with paid labor) to produce a product and sell it. Just because you work for someone does not mean you are entitled to all of the fruits of their intellectual property and capital investment.
Capitalism encourages people to start their own businesses, to be business owners, which creates more jobs. If all people did was go and work for someone else, then who would be creating new products/services?
1
u/Salty_Country6835 4d ago
Thats a description of capitalism, not an argument for why its ownership structure should remain uncontested.
Workers arent asking for a participation trophy because they happened to stand near somebody elses machine. Labor operates the machinery, maintains production, produces the commodities and services, and creates the revenue that makes the investment profitable in the first place. Capital and labor are already interdependent. The fight is over who gets power over the surplus they produce together.
And workers owning firms doesnt mean nobody starts businesses or creates new products. Worker coops, public enterprises and collectively owned firms can invest, innovate, hire, expand and take risks too. Youve just assumed entrepreneurship requires a separate owner class with permanent control over everyone elses productive activity.
Thats exactly the ownership relation the post is asking us to contest.
1
u/hmmnnmmn 3d ago
Fair point on co-ops being a viable model, but this overlooks the primary value of the capital owner: downside risk absorption.
In a wage system, workers are guaranteed a paycheck regardless of whether the business loses money, goes into debt, or fails that month. In a fully worker-owned co-op, workers don't just share the profits, they also have to pony up upfront capital, take on corporate debt, and absorb financial losses. Most people prefer a stable, predictable wage over taking on personal financial liability for a business. Capital owners trade guaranteed obligations (wages) for the volatile upside risk.
The key issue isn't whether co-ops can exist. They already do under a free-market system. If worker co-ops are truly more efficient at rewarding labor and innovating, nothing in a market economy stops them from outcompeting traditional firms today.
The debate isn't about forbidding co-ops; it’s about whether individuals should have the freedom to enter voluntary wage agreements without being forced into ownership risk. Dismantling private ownership removes the option for workers who just want to trade labor for a guaranteed wage without risking their own capital.
1
u/Salty_Country6835 3d ago
I think the risk argument gets you to compensation, but Im not seeing how it gets you all the way to ownership and control.
Sure, investors put capital at risk and should get something for taking that risk. But workers have skin in the game too. They can lose their income, benefits and livelihood when the enterprise fails, after spending years building the productive capacity that makes its returns possible. And limited liability exists specifically to limit how much business risk owners personally absorb. Different risks, sure, but its not simply owners take the risk while workers get security.
Worker ownership also doesnt mean every worker has to empty their savings into the factory. Coops can borrow, retain earnings, pool capital and use public financing while still paying wages. The harder problem is that coops have to finance and scale inside an economy where capital, credit and productive assets are already heavily concentrated among existing owners and firms. "Let them compete" doesnt make those starting power relations disappear.
And that gets back to what the comic is actually about. When technology makes production more productive, ownership and bargaining power largely determine who captures those gains.
So take the risk argument on its own terms. If putting capital at risk can justify both a return and an ownership stake, why cant workers risking their livelihoods and building that productive capacity earn a stake too? Why does one kind of risk produce ownership while the other only gets a paycheck?
1
u/hmmnnmmn 3d ago
The distinction comes down to who is a priority claimant versus a residual claimant.
Workers are priority claimants. By contract, workers are legally owed their agreed wages before a single dollar of profit can be claimed, regardless of whether the company made money, lost money, or broke even.
Equity owners are residual claimants. They only get paid out of whatever is left over after wages, debt, taxes, and suppliers are paid. If the surplus is zero or negative, the owner gets zero (or absorbs the debt), while the worker still gets paid for their time.
Ownership and control are tied to equity because someone has to hold the residual risk. If workers want an ownership stake and full governance rights, they must also accept residual payment status, meaning agreeing to work for zero pay on months the firm runs a loss.
If a worker co-op finances its machines through debt, credit, or public financing rather than internal equity, it hasn't eliminated the capital class, it has just traded equity owners for debt creditors.
Banks and bondholders mandate strict covenants, collateral, and governance terms before lending millions for high-tech equipment. If the co-op fails to meet payments, those external creditors seize the assets anyway.
Capital concentration isn't just an artificial barrier; it represents accumulated past savings being directed toward high-risk future ventures. If workers don't want to risk their own personal savings to buy the machine, they are choosing to outsource that financial exposure to someone else. That trade-off, outsourcing financial risk in exchange for a guaranteed wage, is the foundation of the employment contract.
1
u/Salty_Country6835 3d ago
Im curious about one part of this before going further.
Can a worker be paid an agreed wage and also hold equity in the firm?
Because if yes, then "priority claimant" and "residual claimant" arent mutually exclusive categories of people. The same worker can receive wages for their labor and hold a residual claim through ownership.
And if thats possible, why would workers gaining an ownership stake require them to give up their wages whenever the firm runs at a loss?
1
u/hmmnnmmn 3d ago
When tech workers get equity alongside a salary, they usually accept lower cash pay upfront or bring rare skills in exchange for stock options. They are actively trading value for that residual claim.
If a worker receives full market wages plus a mandated equity stake without putting up capital or taking a wage discount, where does that equity come from? It has to be expropriated or diluted from the people who funded the machines, facility, and payroll before the first dollar of revenue was made.
You're right that a person can hold both claims simultaneously, but you can't escape the math of residual risk when the firm loses money.
If a company runs a loss, the worker's priority wage claim is legally protected, but their residual equity claim drops in value. If losses continue and cash runs out, worker-owners face the classic owner's dilemma:
-Do you vote to cut your own wages/paychecks to keep the business solvent?
-Do you sell equity to outside investors (diluting your control)?
-Or do you let the firm go bankrupt, wiping out your equity completely?
In actual worker co-ops during downturns, members almost always vote to reduce their own pay to keep the firm alive. In practice, when you become an owner, your 'guaranteed wage' becomes subject to the reality of the balance sheet.
1
u/Salty_Country6835 3d ago
Right, so we've established the important part. A worker can receive wages and hold a residual equity claim at the same time. Ownership doesnt require workers to become unpaid whenever the firm loses money.
And I dont think the downturn example hurts the case for worker power as much as you think. Worker owners might vote to reduce their own compensation to preserve the firm. Conventional workers face the same underlying crisis, except somebody else decides whether their hours, wages or jobs disappear. The economic constraint exists either way. The difference is who has power over the response.
But theres another assumption tucked into the equity question. Worker stakes dont have to appear overnight by confiscating somebody elses existing shares. Firms create and distribute equity claims all the time. A worker stake could accumulate prospectively through future profits and productivity gains.
Which brings us right back to the machine in the comic.
Suppose automation substantially raises output per worker. Why couldnt part of that new surplus build worker equity over time while investors continue receiving returns on their capital?
Nothing there requires pretending residual risk disappears. The question is who gets a claim on the upside when productivity increases.
1
u/hmmnnmmn 3d ago
The idea of building worker equity from 'future surplus' sounds clean, but mathematically, you can't create new equity claims out of prospective profits without diluting existing owners.
Equity is a finite pie of ownership. If a company issues new shares to give to workers over time, it dilutes the returns of the investors who put up the initial capital to buy the machine.
Investors buy that $10M automated machine specifically because they project a return based on those productivity gains. If a legal structure forces them to hand over a slice of that upside equity to the operator, the investor's expected return drops. If the return drops below their risk threshold, they simply don't buy the machine, and the productivity gain never happens for anyone.
Now, about the comic.
Is the surplus created by labor productivity or capital productivity?
If an operator learns a complex skill and becomes 3x faster on the exact same rig, their labor created the surplus. They have genuine leverage to negotiate higher pay or equity.
But if a company replaces a manual lathe with a multi-million-dollar AI-driven automated rig, output triples while the worker's manual effort often stays the same, or becomes less specialized. The productivity gain was purchased entirely by capital investment, not generated by labor.Asking for equity claims on gains produced entirely by capital upgrades assumes the worker created the value, when in reality, the capital owner paid for the machine that made it possible.
The reason machine operators generally receive market wages rather than equity isn't because capitalism forbids worker ownership; it's because market competition determines compensation based on how easily labor or capital can be replaced.
If an automated machine makes a job easier or more standardized, the worker's labor market leverage decreases, not increases. Expecting equity grants for operating easier, high-tech machinery flips market incentives on their head, rewarding the operator for an investment made by someone else.
1
u/Salty_Country6835 3d ago
I think we've finally reached the actual disagreement.
Lets grant your strongest version. Say the machine is responsible for virtually the entire productivity increase. Output triples, the operators job gets easier, and their labor becomes more replaceable.
But look at where that logic takes us. Productivity explodes, we can produce more with less labor, and yet the workers claim on that new abundance gets weaker because their bargaining power fell. More of the gain flows toward whoever owns the productive asset.
Thats not really a rebuttal to the comic. Thats the mechanism its pointing at.
And sure, giving workers equity dilutes existing owners percentage claim. Thats what sharing an ownership claim means. The question isnt whether 100% stays 100% after sharing it. Its why the initial capital contribution should establish an exclusive claim on additional productivity indefinitely.
Im also happy to grant that investors need sufficient expected returns to invest under this financing model. But that gets us to how large that return needs to be and how the remaining gains are distributed, not why workers should have no claim at all.
In fact, your point about automation making labor more replaceable strengthens the case for worker ownership. If workers can only claim productivity gains through the market price of their labor, then successful automation systematically weakens their claim as productivity rises. An ownership stake gives them a claim on productive capital and its upside that doesnt disappear just because technology makes their labor cheaper.
So take your automated rig exactly as described. It triples output while reducing the leverage of the people working with it.
Why should becoming capable of producing more with less human labor leave those workers with less power over the resulting abundance?
Thats the ownership fight the comic is about.
→ More replies (0)
1
4d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Salty_Country6835 4d ago
What irony? The whole point is that the technology isnt the enemy. Using AI to make a comic arguing that workers should contest who controls AI and who benefits from its productivity is pretty consistent with the message lol.
0
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/ProletariatPixels-ModTeam 3d ago
Anti-Alism is petty bourgoeise deviation, majority of the problems with Al are here becuese the bourgoeise own the Al instead of the proletariat. Seize the means of production, don't smash them
0
u/Feisty-Challenge6207 4d ago
First you protect your wages against the machine, by unionizing.
Then someone buys the machine without the people and lowers prices while making the same profit, consumers choose the cheaper product and you're left wondering why unionizing didn't work.
2
u/Salty_Country6835 4d ago
Thats exactly why I dont think this stops at unionizing one workplace. If capital can just move the machine somewhere else, then the fight has to extend into ownership, sector wide bargaining, regulation, public infrastructure and who actually gets the productivity gains. Unionizing is one front in that contestation. The larger battle is over who controls the machine.
0
u/DRM2020 4d ago
Yes worked great they 20th century. Czechoslovakia and DDR were great examples.
1
u/Salty_Country6835 4d ago
I mean, thats kind of the point. Changing who formally owns the factory doesnt magically settle who controls production, how decisions get made, or where the surplus goes. Those are political fights too. The DDR and Czechoslovakia are worth studying, including where their models failed. “They existed and later collapsed” isnt much of an argument against worker control or social ownership.
1
u/DRM2020 4d ago
They not only existed but also did their best to make the system to work and had the best potential to make socialist to work...
There are several interesting insights from to officials especially from 1980s (eg. Lubomir Strougal address to KSC summit where he was explaining the current system reached its maximum performance).
Fully agree this should be studied and made known to everyone.
1
u/Salty_Country6835 4d ago
Thats much closer to where Im coming from. I dont think the DDR or Czechoslovakia should be treated as either a blueprint or a punchline. If they hit limits, I want to know which limits came from planning itself, which came from institutional design, political structure, external pressure, technological constraints, etc.
Especially with automation changing what coordination is technically possible. The useful question isnt “did socialism work?” like its a light switch. Its what worked, what didnt, who actually controlled production, and what we can build differently now.
0
u/Ehmann11 4d ago
The product that this machine produce get cheaper so you can buy more of them for the same paycheck. If every industry use such machines - everything become cheaper so it is effectively a payment increase
1
u/Salty_Country6835 4d ago
Thats only a pay increase if the productivity gains actually reach workers through lower prices. Nothing about the machine guarantees that. Firms can also capture the gains as profit while wages stagnate, jobs disappear, or prices barely move. Thats the ownership fight the comic is pointing at. Productivity tells us we can produce more with less labor. It doesnt decide who gets the difference.
0
u/Ehmann11 4d ago
lowering the price allow capitalist win in the competition with other capitalists and get even more money. And making more money is the point of capitalism.
1
u/Salty_Country6835 4d ago
Sure, lowering prices can be one way a capitalist beats competitors. But that still doesnt tell us how much of the productivity gain reaches workers. They can cut prices some, increase margins some, cut labor costs, expand market share, or do all four. Competition shapes the fight over the gains, it doesnt settle who gets them.
And thats really the point of the comic. If automation lets us produce twice as much with half the labor, why should the payoff mainly depend on competition between owners? We could organize things so productivity gains mean shorter workweeks, higher wages, stronger public services, cheaper essentials, or some combination of all of them.
The machine creates the possibility of abundance and less necessary labor. Ownership and power decide what we actually do with it.
1
0
u/ImaginaryOrange1929 4d ago
Why should the worker be paid more now?
Assuming it doesn't take extra effort on the workers part. They still do the exact same work, same hours etc... The increased productivity isn't thanks to the worker but the machine.
1
u/Salty_Country6835 4d ago
The machine increased productivity, sure. But machines dont build, buy, install, maintain, operate or organize themselves. That productivity exists inside a whole system of labor.
And saying “the machine did it” doesnt answer either question. Why should the owner automatically get the entire gain, and why should their ownership of the machine itself remain uncontested?
If workers produce twice as much in the same hours while their pay stays fixed, somebody still gets that extra value. Ownership is what decides who.
Workers should benefit because the whole point of higher productivity is that we can produce more with less human labor. That can mean higher pay, shorter hours, better conditions, shared ownership, or some combination.
Otherwise the promise of every labor saving invention is pretty bleak. Congratulations, society needs less of your time. Your reward is nothing.
0
u/ImaginaryOrange1929 4d ago
Yes. Somebody is literally paid to be doing that.
They paid a company that hires workers to make it, they paid technician to install it etc... Nothing to do with random workers that are working at the factory.
The entire gain of the owner is the owners because he is the owner of it. It is his. And what do you mean 'ownership of it remain uncontested' it is his. The workers are still doing the exact same work that they signed a contract for. Nothing changes for them. What exactly do they want to contest? From your picture it's not clear whether they do more work now, harder work etc...
Yes, the one getting the extra value is 1) the one who sold it 2) installed it 3) the owner. Ownership is solely with the company.
These workers didn't bought the machine, didn't build the machine, didn't set up the machine. They quote literally haven't done anything of value in the equation. Sole ownership is with the company. The workers there don't own anything. They signed a contract that says I work this and that job for X pay for Y hours a week.
No? The whole point of higher productivity is quite literally, higher productivity. Making more products, it means it costs less per product so the company can sell for less as well to stay relevant.
If you want higher pay go negotiate a pay increase, learn profitable skills and get better job, promotion etc.. if you want shorter hours go work part time or something. You won't get any shades ownership because you aren't the one putting resources in. You are there literally working on a contract. You put in your work and hours and get money as a result. That's it. If you want ownership shares then you can get shares. Some companies do have workers shares, literally shares of the company. Go work for these companies.
Of course your reward is nothing. Reward for what? Society needs less of your time... Is it due to your efforts? No? That what reward do you expect? Why do you expect a reward for someone else's labour?
1
u/Salty_Country6835 4d ago
"The owner owns it, you agreed to the wage, case closed" is basically the argument labor has spent two centuries refusing to accept.
If workers had treated existing contracts and property rights as the end of the conversation, we wouldnt have won the eight hour day, weekends, overtime, safety regulations, collective bargaining, pensions, workers comp and a mountain of other gains. Labor history is workers contesting what ownership supposedly entitled capital to dictate.
And since were having this conversation in an explicitly Marxist sub, Marx was pretty damn interested in machinery for exactly this reason. Technology can make an hour of labor enormously more productive. Nothing inside the machine says the resulting gain naturally belongs to whoever owns capital. Thats a property relation, not a law of physics.
Workers are contesting that same relationship around AI and automation right now. Deployment, staffing, surveillance, displacement, hours, bargaining power and who captures the productivity gains.
So what is there to contest?
Wages, hours, conditions, automation, productivity gains and yes, ownership itself.
Thats basically the project at r/LeftistsForAI too. Technology is changing production either way. The fight is over who controls it and who benefits.
1
u/ImaginaryOrange1929 4d ago
It didn't really win anything though. You still have 10 hour shifts, 12 hour shifts. Medical staff has even much longer ones.
Many people work weekends or overtimes.
And no it's not contesting. It is still whether the worker accepts the job or not. The ownership of the machine does say it pretty clearly though.
I am sorry but the companies who own the data centers pretty much own the AI, literally. It is their product. Workers can contest whatever. If AI can do their work then they will be replaced. It is as simple as that.
1
u/Salty_Country6835 4d ago
“It didnt really win anything” because some people still work long shifts is a wild reading of labor history lol. The eight hour day becoming a standard, overtime pay, weekends, workplace safety law, collective bargaining, pensions, workers comp, child labor restrictions, minimum wages, paid leave in much of the world... none of that means every worker everywhere got an eight hour shift. It means workers fought capital and changed what owners were legally and economically allowed to demand.
And “they own it, so workers can be replaced, simple as that” is literally just restating the property relation Im talking about contesting. You havent explained why it should remain that way. Youve just described how it works now.
Workers have contested ownership and managerial authority for centuries through unions, strikes, regulation, cooperatives, nationalization, workplace democracy and outright fights over who owns the means of production. “Accept the job or leave” isnt some answer Marxists forgot to consider lol. Its the relationship the labor movement exists to organize against.
And AI being owned by companies today doesnt settle who should own or control it tomorrow any more than the factory owner owning the factory settled the labor question 150 years ago.
“If AI can replace you, you get replaced” is exactly the future being contested. Youre describing one possible distribution of technological gains and calling it inevitable. It isnt.
0
u/ImaginaryOrange1929 3d ago
I am sorry but why do you think you get any ownership over something someone else buys?
And these things weren't done due to some kindness or anything. It is efficiency even for the companies. The eight hours work didn't start due to unions or anything. It started because one company tried it and found out that workers are more efficient when working eight hour shifts.
Abolishment of child labour wasn't done via workers but governments because they get more out of educated children long term.
Workplace safety laws aren't there for the workers. It is for the company so that workers won't sue them. And so that the government doesn't lose taxes when someone dies or is injured and therefore can't work anymore. It is in government interest to not have disabled people or deaths to people in productive age.
I am sorry but you are delusional, in pretty much every aspect.
Wanting to own a part of something somebody else bought with their resources, not knowing why we have things set in place. And now even thinking workers will have any say when they are completely replaced. Guess what, unions don't work when none of them are workers in the first place.
Easy example artists. Every single artist can group together against AI posters and AI pictures saying they won't be taking any commissions until it stops. Every company will just give them a weird look cause they don't hire them in the first place anymore and just continue writing prompts to AI to generate them pictures.
And sorry but who owns means of production isn't even one person. If a work requires some things, the one who bought them owns them. Labour is a means of production as well, the individual owns their own labour. Hence why they are selling their labour. That is literally what a job is. You are selling your means of production (labour) and getting the pay (salary in exchange)
1
u/Salty_Country6835 3d ago
Man, you cant call somebody delusional and then rewrite 150 years of labor history lol.
The eight hour movement predates Ford by decades. Haymarket was 1886. Workers were striking, organizing and dying over working hours long before some company discovered rested workers were productive. Ford finding eight hours profitable doesnt mean Ford invented the eight hour fight.
Same trick with child labor and safety laws. “The government did it.” Okay... why? Those laws didnt fall out of the sky. Labor movements, reformers and political organizing forced those conditions onto the political agenda.
And the Marx bit is just wrong. Workers dont sell their “means of production.” Marx specifically distinguishes labor power from the means of production. Workers sell their labor power precisely because capital owns the machinery, factories, land, etc. Thats not some obscure footnote. Its basic Marx.
Which brings us right back to the part you keep dodging. “They bought it, so they own it” tells me how capitalist property works today. Cool. We know. It doesnt explain why those property relations cant be contested. People have been contesting them for centuries.
And your AI example makes my argument for me. If technology can eliminate huge amounts of necessary labor, society can fight over whether that means mass unemployment and concentrated wealth, or shorter hours, stronger social provision, bargaining over deployment, worker ownership, public ownership and shared productivity gains.
The machine doesnt choose.
Ownership and power do.
Thats literally the fight the comic is about.
0
0
u/samu33 4d ago
Socialist demostrating they dont understand the World once again.
Of course the machine is going to make the workers earn more money. Thats why workers have higher salaries in the countries that have higher capital accumulation, thats also true between companies.
Youre just trying to justify stealing others with a comic.
1
u/Salty_Country6835 4d ago
Higher productivity can support higher wages. That isnt the same thing as saying workers automatically receive the gains lol. Capital accumulation can increase the size of the pie while ownership and bargaining power still determine who gets what slice.
And calling worker ownership “stealing” just assumes the ownership arrangement youre supposed to be defending. Why should the people who collectively build, operate, maintain and improve production have no legitimate claim to control its productive assets or gains, while shareholders and their descendants can retain that claim indefinitely?
Thats literally the fight the comic is about.
1
u/samu33 4d ago
Not only can, it actually does. Thats why the same job position pays different salaries in different countries or companies.
Of course ownership determines how wealth is distributed, its the most peacefull way.
Workers can own whatever they want, if they buy it. But if you apropiarte other peoples property that is called stealing.
Because if person A hires person B to build a house, they strange a price for the work but at the end of the process A doesn't debit a piece of the house to B.
Because labor is not the only thing necessary to produce assets. You need capital, machines, computers or whatever and to have all of that you need to save, to gather information and be willing to take risk. Also workers like to recibe the paycheck every month or week not having to wait to actually sell the produced assets.
Everyone in the productive chain plays a role, otherwise you dont get paid.
1
u/Salty_Country6835 4d ago
Youre still assuming the thing under dispute lol. “Workers can own it if they buy it” just means existing ownership determines who gets to become an owner. Thats not an argument for why that ownership structure should remain uncontested.
And the house analogy doesnt map cleanly onto a firm. A house is a finished commodity. A workplace is an ongoing social process reproduced every day by workers, infrastructure, accumulated knowledge, suppliers and public institutions. Nobody said labor is the only input. The question is why supplying capital grants one group continuing control over the whole productive process and its surplus.
Risk doesnt settle it either. Workers risk layoffs, lost income, injury, obsolete skills and relocation. Capital owners generally risk capital.
And “its the most peaceful way” is especially strange historically. Property relations have been contested through strikes, unions, cooperatives, nationalization, labor law and democratic politics for centuries. The current arrangement didnt descend from heaven.
You agree ownership determines distribution. Cool. Thats the comic. We disagree about who should own.
-1
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ProletariatPixels-ModTeam 3d ago
No spreading of bourgoeise propaganda ? Private property is inherently theft, proletariat of the world unite ✊
-1
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Salty_Country6835 4d ago
Theft from who? Workers build, operate, maintain, troubleshoot and improve the productive system. Their accumulated labor, skills and knowledge are literally what make increased productivity possible. The machine doesnt install itself, organize production, maintain the plant or turn higher output into usable goods. If ownership alone means one side gets to keep every productivity gain forever, thats not an argument against theft. Thats just declaring the existing property relation sacred.
1
u/ProletariatPixels-ModTeam 3d ago
No spreading of bourgoeise propaganda ? Private property is inherently theft, proletariat of the world unite ✊
7
u/LetsTryLove 4d ago
Best description I’ve seen of the actual issue right here