Four Futures: Life After Capitalism review – will robots bring utopia or terror?

The Guardian

The idea that computers will soon steal our jobs is an article of faith among many of the world's most powerful people. The argument goes like this: breakthroughs in robotics and artificial intelligence will make it possible to automate various kinds of labour. Self-driving cars will replace taxi and truck drivers; software will replace lawyers and accountants. We'll end up with a world where machines do almost all of the work. Over the last few years, a growing chorus of pundits, academics and executives have made this scenario seem inevitable – and imminent.


Could AI And Big Data Help Create This 'Luxury For All' Utopia?

#artificialintelligence

As someone who watches technology trends closely as part of my business, I have been thinking about the future impact of all the technology innovations and automation we are currently experiencing and on the cusp of achieving. Many of the headlines I read about these trends -- and even some I write -- predict some pretty negative consequences right along with the monumental achievements and improvements. While improvements in machine learning, artificial intelligence, big data, and robot automation could mean huge advances in medicine, science, commerce and human understanding, it's also undeniable that there will be consequences as well. These technological advances represent a significant challenge to capitalism. Together, they are poised to potentially create jobless growth and the paradox of an exponentially growing number of products, manufactured more and more efficiently, but with rising unemployment and underemployment, falling real wages and stagnant living standards.


It's No Myth: Robots and Artificial Intelligence Will Erase Jobs in Nearly Every Industry

#artificialintelligence

With the unemployment rate falling to 5.3 percent, the lowest in seven years, policy makers are heaving a sigh of relief. Indeed, with the technology boom in progress, there is a lot to be optimistic about. Manufacturing will be returning to U.S. shores with robots doing the job of Chinese workers; American carmakers will be mass-producing self-driving electric vehicles; technology companies will develop medical devices that greatly improve health and longevity; we will have unlimited clean energy and 3D print our daily needs. The cost of all of these things will plummet and make it possible to provide for the basic needs of every human being. I am talking about technology advances that are happening now, which will bear fruit in the 2020s. But policy makers will have a big new problem to deal with: the disappearance of human jobs. Not only will there be fewer jobs for people doing manual work, the jobs of knowledge workers will also be replaced by computers.


Do you know your Trotskyists from your anarcho-syndicalists?

BBC News

A feature of the fight for control of the Labour Party over the past year has been a fair amount of finger-pointing, with leader Jeremy Corbyn's supporters decried as "Trots" and "anarcho-syndicalists" and his critics branded "Blairites" and "neoliberals". What do all these terms mean? While Labour members on different sides of the party might not agree on much, most are happy to call themselves socialists. It was in Tony Blair's controversial speech to party conference and 1994, and it was in Jeremy Corbyn's speech to conference on Wednesday, when he heralded "21st Century socialism". Since the idea first came into being in the 19th Century, socialism has taken on many forms, but most versions of it have in common a belief in public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.


150 years of 'Das Kapital': How relevant is Marx today?

Al Jazeera

It is quite amazing that Karl Marx's Capital has survived and been continuously in print for the past century and a half. After all, this big, unwieldy book (more than 2000 pages of small print in three fat volumes) still has sections that are evidently incomplete. Even in the best translations, the writing is dense and difficult, constantly veering off into tangential points and pedantic debates with now unknown writers. The ideas are complex and cannot be understood quickly. In any case, the book aims to describe economic and social reality in 19th-century northwestern Europe - surely a context very different from our own.