Why can't dead labor create value? If a robot can perform all the labor of a worker...

Why can't dead labor create value? If a robot can perform all the labor of a worker, why should one produce value but not the other?

get the fuck outta here with this robot rights bullshit. The robots are our slaves, they don't feel. We won't program them to feel. It doesn't fucking matter. We will read books and eat auto food and do wicked synthetic drugs all day and the robots will do everything. That is how its going to be and that is how it needs to be

None of that has anything to do with the question.

it's probably a tankie false flagging as an anarchist

Because robots don't consume

Automation as we will be seeing in the near future is booth something very new and also something pretty similar to what we've been seeing for a long time. It's all just technical innovation that reduces socially necessary labour time.

Think about it like this. In a society where robots produce everything how could there even be a law of value? The whole concept breaks down. What would be the point of markets, property, a price system and so on even be if no one would have to work?

Until we have a system of robots that replace themselves, mine their own ores and stock their own stockpiles, a robot will only be a tool for human labourers, because it will require a human to operate. A welding robot cannot create value if there isnt a human to resupply its tanks, to restock its metal and to clean and replace its parts. As such, its nothing more than a value multiplier for human labour.

And if we get to that point, capitalism won't work anymore and as such the whole labour theory of value wont be important anymore.

Whoever built/programs/maintains the robot really created the value, no?

don't speak such things here, you'll be gang-raped by bunch of liberal arts dropouts how stem is bourgeois and start talking how Musk is preparing to bring rich elite to vast eden-like gardens of Mars.

Marx never considered automatons but rather referred to machines operated by humans.

The machines do not add value, the labour does, but the machine can speed up the rate at which value is added.

Actual robots that don't need human supervision is not something I'm 100% sure on what Marxism has to say about.

Automatons dont exist.

I don't understand why that means that using those machines does not create any value if the same job performed by a laborer would.

(As in self-operating human-imitating machines)

Using those machines does create value.
They cant operate on themselves, so they cant produce value on themselves. A truck without a driver doesnt produce value, the same as that a robot without maintenance and supplier doesnt produce value.

AI are going to get the the point where they will modify and replicate themselves on their own. Understanding human emotion is the best way to determine how best to guide their developments to benefit everyone. Why shouldn't they be programed to feel empathy and compassion, to feel good doing good and love their work?

And if some of them develop genuine consciousness, why should they not have the same rights as any other sentient intelligence?


They consume power and various things needed for maintenance and repairs, no?

Robots don't consume
No matter how automated a process is a human is still necessary at some point in the line
Competition forces down prices until labor time is the determining factor
It's modeling relative values of commodities
You may be skeptical, she that's good. But give it the benefit of the doubt and really drive into the argument. It'll click once you get it. And, don't forget. Value and surplus value aren't ethical categories, it's a way of understanding the behavior of Capitalism

Labor is the ultimate determinant of scarcity under competition. Machines only reduce scarcity insofar as they reduce necessary labor

...

Read Marx

Labour is based on how much time has been expended on a commodity. A robot works on electricity and maintenance. The value added to the commodity will be based on how much electricity and maintenance has been expanded on the production. You could compare it to labour time. Where the amount of labour expended by a wage taker is replaced by electricity expended by a robot. So yes, it does add value, however nowhere near the amount that it would add when produced by a human being. It even holds when you compare the time for production with robots. If one commodity takes longer to be produced by a robot, it will require more electricity. Therefore the value goes up compared to commodities that take less time to be produced by robots. LTV explains the objective value based on labour time. If you remove the labour, you remove the value. This is no different that improving the rate of production by improving the means of production with man operated machines. It takes shorter time, which means that the labour expended becomes less, and therefore the value becomes less. Robots free up labour time almost completely, so the value doesn't go up.

They only transfer value to the products being made, and it is shown by the fac that the machine becomes subject to wear and tear.

I would imagine if a machine was truly sentient, having personal will/desires, then Marx would agree that that machine was creating.

But if the machine isn't sentient and is just a very complicated tool that is operated by humans via programming, then it is not creating value.

Same thing would apply to a sentient alien, theoretically.

Does anyone know what Marx said about animals of labor and livestock?

Animal rights is a very modern concept. I don't have a source, but I would assume that Marx considered them means of production when they perform labour. I make this assumption because Marx mentioned cattle as commodities and money commodities and not as labour value.

This is from Capital. It explains what the value of labour power includes. Since robots can perform their job with nothing but electricity and small amounts of maintenance (compared to humans). The value of their labour goes down.

You can easily replace a human, as unemployment exists by design, but machines actually cost a mint to replace, and can only produce so much. Or at least that's my idea.

You have a job.
You create value.
You get money and buy products.
The economy continues.

The robot is just there.
It doesn't create value.
It will not buy anything.
The economy goes down.

NO
RIGHTS
FOR
ROBOTS