Oscar Wilde wrote in his essay "The Soul of Man under Socialism:"
Up to the present, man has been, to a certain extent, the slave of machinery, and there is something tragic in the fact that as soon as man had invented a machine to do his work he began to starve. This, however, is, of course, the result of our property system and our system of competition. One man owns a machine which does the work of five hundred men. Five hundred men are, in consequence, thrown out of employment, and, having no work to do, become hungry and take to thieving. The one man secures the produce of the machine and keeps it, and has five hundred times as much as he should have, and probably, which is of much more importance, a great deal more than he really wants. Were that machine the property of all, every one would benefit by it. It would be an immense advantage to the community. All unintellectual labour, all monotonous, dull labour, all labour that deals with dreadful things, and involves unpleasant conditions, must be done by machinery. Machinery must work for us in coal mines, and do all sanitary services, and be the stoker of steamers, and clean the streets, and run messages on wet days, and do anything that is tedious or distressing. At present machinery competes against man. Under proper conditions machinery will serve man. There is no doubt at all that this is the future of machinery, and just as trees grow while the country gentleman is asleep, so while Humanity will be amusing itself, or enjoying cultivated leisure – which, and not labour, is the aim of man – or making beautiful things, or reading beautiful things, or simply contemplating the world with admiration and delight, machinery will be doing all the necessary and unpleasant work. The fact is, that civilisation requires slaves. The Greeks were quite right there. Unless there are slaves to do the ugly, horrible, uninteresting work, culture and contemplation become almost impossible. Human slavery is wrong, insecure, and demoralising. On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine, the future of the world depends.Wilde was writing in 1891, at a time when slavery had been abolished in most of the Western world. Yet there certainly were "wage slaves" then and still are. The American Progressive movement really began to take off around that time (1892). Make what you will of Wilde's thoughts on slavery -- it's been widely quoted -- I was more interested in his take on machinery ownership.
Thomas Jefferson had a different take on property ownership when it came to machines. He set up our current patent system, rewarding inventors with an exclusive right to exclude others for a fixed term in exchange for full disclosure of the invention. This was a brilliant compromise -- among other things Jefferson invented. But we've lost sight of half of the bargain. Or I should say the average person has lost sight of it.
I saw a blog post somewhere a couple weeks ago regarding works of copyrighted art which have entered the public domain. Shouldn't there be a regular announcement of cool inventions you can now use free and clear? Even if they never became commercially successful? Certainly generic drug manufacturers are aware of such patent term expirations. Every week detailed plans and diagrams enter the public domain after their patent terms expire.
44 comments:
Who builds the machines? Someone must engineer, design and build the machines. That's employment right there. Skilled labor.
There's good money in engineering. As we move into the future, we need more and more skilled labor to build the items we need and want, to provide the services we want and need. Does Oscar Wilde think that all work = slavery?
If no one does any work and we all just sit around and wait for things to happen and a welfare check, what gets done? Traffic lights and all that...
Someone wake up Oscar and tell him to purchase some Microsoft stock.
He set up our current patent system....
Not quite right, I don't believe, as modifications have been done to the system, though nothing as tragic as what's been done to the copyright laws.
April, do you know any unemployed engineers? I do. Being an engineer isn't a guarantee of employment. Especially when the companies all want to move both their production and design work overseas.
Impressive that you recognize the phenomenon of wage slaves. I wasn't aware of Wilde's views in this regard, (still have a bit to learn about him). But I saw something on Stephen Fry the other night and am curious to start with a biopic he made of the guy. Interesting appearance he had, to say the least. I thought what he declared once at customs was what I'd found most impressive about him. Pretty witty guy.
See, there's the idea that's been lost... the idea that automation would free humans to live the exalted life of contemplation, art and recreation.
I always saw working as a nasty necessity. Since I did, my emphasis was on making the most money in the shortest amount of time.
The future will present us with problems and opportunities we can't yet imagine. We really don't know what work will be in the future.
The U.S. is going through a refractory period after the great and extended boom from about 1980 through 2001. We're tired and flailing. This period will come to an end, probably about the time Obama leaves office.
I predict that by the latter part of this decade or the beginning of next decade, we'll be back in the upswing of the boom cycle.
Work will once again be plentiful, although it won't be the kind of work you're doing now. The machines will have taken over most of the repetitive labor, and humans will be freed for a new, and yet unimagined, form of labor.
@ Ice... They don't all want to move overseas. I know people who tried to move their companies over-seas and it didn't work out. They ended up shutting it down and retreated back here. Perhaps we should re-think what we are doing to force companies to look overseas?
I get really sick and tired of the blanket vilification of companies (businesses or "corporations").
If I ran a US business, and I was vilified in the press, vilified by Hollywood and by politicians - and then forced to comply with punitive taxation, red tape and regulations that didn't do anything but cut me off at he knees - I might consider friendlier shores.
Well said, ST.
The U.S. is going through a refractory period…
Lol. Sorry, not making fun of your comment (probably agree at points here also), but that's sort of a funny thought.
Pretty witty guy, true. And a good excuse to drag up this great Edith Evans bit.
"Mr. Worthing, to lose one parent may be regarded as a misfortune. To lose both looks like carelessness."
Not quite right, I don't believe, as modifications have been done to the system, though nothing as tragic as what's been done to the copyright laws.
I'm not talking about modifications and overhauls such 1952 and more recently. I'm talking about the basic "this for that" premise: limited monopoly in exchange for full disclosure; that I believe, was Jeffersonian. The natural alternative (and predecessor) was trade secrecy or monarchial grant of monopoly which involved paying a royalty
Perhaps we should re-think what we are doing to force companies to look overseas?
You mean the open borders and (one way) unrestrained trade policies? Come on.
As for not all companies wanting to move overseas. This is true. My wife worked for one such company. It was very small. As for bigger companies ... well, I don't think I know anyone working for a bigger company that hasn't seen that company attempt to move as much of its labor overseas, or at least import as many foreigners as possible here to put downward pressure on wages. Uh, wages for those below the management level, of course.
I get really sick and tired of the blanket vilification of companies (businesses or "corporations").
I get tired of being vilified everywhere I go by the corporations who claim that I am too lazy and stupid to learn the STEM trades necessary for the modern workforce, by every Republican that thinks that I, as an unemployed person, am personally responsible for the economic mess the country is in, and by every Democrat that thinks that I am horrible for being a straight white male who has *GASP* married a woman for purposes of monogamous family creation.
It gets pretty fucking old, I tells ya. And I don't have the option of laying off a bunch of long0-time productive employees in order to make the stock jump just before my options are due.
I do know some decent companies. They're all small, every last one of them. Once they get beyond a certain point in size (either monetarily or by headcount) they always go to shit, expecting people to be extremely loyal to the company, to treat it as they would their own children, while pissing on their employees at the first convenience of management.
I was a wage slave all day long today. Now I'm exhausted &going to bed. Night all.
Poy-yo! Why the name change?
Perhaps I'll dream of Nancy Pelosi's Nobel prize winning poet and grant money dream job.
Poy-yo! Why the name change?
Back to basics.
limited monopoly in exchange for full disclosure; that I believe, was Jeffersonian.
Those guys (the Founders) were smart, but it seems the idea of patents goes back further. It seems that the idea you present was first explicitly done by Henry II of France, in 1555. Unfortunately, I'm getting this off Wikipedia and the source is off-line. (Boo!)
Oh, wait, here's the article in question online (Huzzah!):
M. Frumkin
The Origin of Patents *
Journal of the Patent Office Society 27 (3)
March 1945, 143-149
It gives the following details.
Henry II., King of France, introduced a novelty which still remains a basic principle of patent law, namely, that an inventor must fully disclose his invention, so that the public may benefit from it after the patent has expired. The disclosure is now made by printing a description of the invention. In 1555 the first ‘patent specification’ was printed by royal command for an instrument maker, Abel Foullon, inventor of a kind of range-finder. A copy of that curious booklet (Usaige & Description de l’holometre) is kept at the British Museum Library. The printed date thereon-1555 - was cunningly altered by pen to 1561. As the patent was granted in 1551 for a term of ten years, we may assume that someone held back the issue of that book in order to minimise the chance of piracy. The same forgery was discovered also on most other copies of that book, kept in other libraries.
Sadly, the original article isn't sourced.
I'm not sure where you're going with this icepick. But thanks for clarifying that. Whether or not Jefferson conceived the idea or not isn't relevant to my point.
Jefferson's own personal views (which sort of demonstrate that he did compromise) are beautifully expressed in this letter: link.
Perhaps Jefferson (Francophone that he was) knew of and approved of the French system over the English system of his time.
I'm not sure where you're going with this icepick.
I wasn't going anywhere with my previous comment, other than attempting to get a better understanding of where the concept came from.
From a comment chick made at the link he provided:
Just a couple years ago [comment written in March of 2011] the US appeared to be headed towards a more fuller accord with international patent law. This would have gutted the US's unique protection of first-to-invent versus first-to-file. Large corporations seemed to want this most of all and they appear to given up for the time being.
Gee, wonder why the corporations would want the law changed from first-to-invent to first-to-file?
Anyway, the distinction between the two reminded me of the time one Charles Hall (but not that Charles Hall, or that Charles Hall, or even that Charles Hall) failed in defending a patent on the modern waterbed, due to Robert A. Heinlein having thought to describe one thoroughly in several of his stories.
Gee, wonder why the corporations would want the law changed from first-to-invent to first-to-file?
There is a ton of US patent case law juxtaposed against the newer green lights. Wait for it. Too bad that the Obama Admin decided to move all that litigation to D.C. via its gutting of interference practice.
D.C. is a fucking cancer
Being an engineer isn't a guarantee of employment.
Well, duh. These is no such thing as a guarantee of employment.
Especially when the companies all want to move both their production and design work overseas.
Saying "all" the companies want to do that is silly and ignorant. The number of engineering jobs in the United States is increasing faster than the number of engineering degrees.
It gets pretty fucking old, I tells ya.
Maybe if you didn't seek out public places in which to loudly blame everyone BUT yourself for your problems, people wouldn't treat you with hostility?
Gee, wonder why the corporations would want the law changed from first-to-invent to first-to-file?
Because under a first-to-invent system it is impossible to safely invest in research without the running the risk that someone else has already "invented" the thing you're working on and just didn't bother to tell anybody because he, unlike you, wasn't willing to put his money where his mouth is.
Waiting for someone else to actually build, market, distribute, and sell "your" invention before springing out of the woodwork and saying "ah ah ah! You owe me a cut!" has become a depressingly common legal tactic, especially in the software industry.
We probably ought to be looking into reducing the scope of inventions we allow to be patented at all, really.
Your bread is buttered sufficiently, Revenant, so naturally it's easy to defend the status quo, n'est-ce pas?
You know what is worse than working hard for low wages?
Never getting that chance.
"...simply contemplating the world with admiration and delight..."
Yea, that will feed you, and help your fellow man. The world was here and beautiful before you arrived, and it will be after you are gone. It's also that way on you days off. Don't sully it by using it for an excuse for sloth.
Now don't pretend that's not what your doing, cause it is, and you know it. That's why you are trying so hard to convince us otherwise. Isn't that hard work too? How much do make for that shit?
Your bread is buttered sufficiently, Revenant, so naturally it's easy to defend the status quo, n'est-ce pas?
You seem to know a lot about what I do for a living and what my socio-economic status is. I'd be curious to hear details.
Anyway, saying I defend the status quo is pretty dumb. I support abolishing most of the laws and regulations currently on the books. :)
Maybe if you didn't seek out public places in which to loudly blame everyone BUT yourself for your problems, people wouldn't treat you with hostility?
There are about five million fewer full-time jobs now than there were when the recession started. The working age population has increased about 12,000,000 or so. Exactly how many of those jobs did I cut? How many of those people did I father? (The answers are "ZERO" and "ZERO".)
But please, tell me some more about how I created the current economy. This will be an interesting look into your so-called mind.
Your bread is buttered sufficiently, Revenant, so naturally it's easy to defend the status quo, n'est-ce pas?
Shut up, Palladian, you fucking commie. If you'd just stop whining then the economy would be perfect.
/ sarcasm
Over the last few years it has become apparent that there isn't a conservative or libertarian alive who doesn't look up to Ebeneezer Scrooge (the one at the start of the story) as their own personal hero.
He certainly is my hero, IP.
Imagine the plight of the people in the story if Scrooge didn't exist.
I'm presently listening to a lecture series on medieval European history.
The lecturer is one of those life-sucked-immeasurably-back-in-the-old-days kind of guys.
He says that Purgatory was invented to mediate between traditional ideas of Christian piety and the new wealth created by the now institutionalized merchant class.
If I were one of those medieval peasants, I think I'd probably be glad to have a tractor. A truck and maybe some highway sounds pretty good, too.
Being an engineer isn't a guarantee of employment.
Well, duh. There is no such thing as a guarantee of employment.
This can't be stressed enough. The world doesn't owe you or any of us anything. NOTHING. We get what we deserve by what we do....good and bad.
Automation, mechanization of work, advancements that reduce the need for labor, are always being thought of and done. The invention of the wheel was probably a cause for bitching and moaning. You just can't please everyone :-) The invention of the cotton gin put a lot of people out of work. Was that a good thing? or a bad thing? Depends. Maybe both. The social ramifications of the invention of the cotton gin were huge.
Whenever technology changes, people need to change as well. Buggy manufacturing companies either went out of business or adapted to becoming automobile manufactures.
One thing I do know.....you can't outsource your plumber to an overseas company
;-P
One thing I do know.....you can't outsource your plumber to an overseas company
You're right about that. When our hot water heater recently went on the fritz I turned to YouTube for help and fixed it myself. I even found a cool a video on sweating copper pipes and it was easier than I thought.
@ Chickenlittle
Right. Most of the home repairs needed can be accomplished by a person who just tries. Youtube ROCKS for learning things!! Most people are pretty helpless, though. It is quite sad.
Outsourcing jobs, overseas or moving to another State/location, is always going to be a problem for people who work in those industries. Why shouldn't the companies make the change to maximize their profit and production? Businesses are not in business to be charities and provide jobs with "living wages" (whatever that means) at a loss.
Young people who want to have "guaranteed" work (we know there is no guarantee really) need to look to those occupations that require hand's on work and skillful knowledge.
Pricing yourself out of the profitability curve, like the fast food workers want to do and who have this delusion that they are indespensible, is a guarantee that your industry will find a better way. Just like Jurassic Park....a work around will be found.
Could I paint the dystopian "big picture" here? Let me opine my belief held since the 80s (and that of a few economists now coming out of the woodwork) that the period 1945-to, say, 1965 was unique in all of human history in that the US was undamaged as an industrial society with tremendous pent-up-demand while all of its major competitors--both allies and enemies--were flat on their backs financially/economically. Further, America operated within a "closed system/loop" comprised of mainly the English-speaking countries where standards-of-living, salaries, etc., were roughly the same such that there was little comparative advantage in moving industry overseas and wage increases could be made as "pattern" agreements across entire industries) (e.g., the auto industry union contracts) without worry about competition undercutting on price. The rest of the "third-world" and/or "developing" "Second World" was (painting with a broad brush here) for all practical purposes still living in the stone-age and little affected our economy. All of that began to change in the mid sixties as former industrial competitors got back on their feet and then with the competition brought on by a well-educated (following our advise) third-world work-force the rest of the world obtained first a "comparative advantage" then an absolute advantage in terms of lower wage rates proffered by a now skilled and educated work-force. The world has FOREVER changed. As the Prime Minister of Singapore once said: "America is now on the wrong side of History." In short, now no American man's job is safe as long as there is a Bolivian coal-miner still alive working for a dollar/hr willing to double his wages assembling washers & dryers for Whirlpool..
PS: Meant to say "Bolivian TIN miner, lol.
There are about five million fewer full-time jobs now than there were when the recession started.
Because we're in a recession, not because companies are mean.
Virgil, something people always forget is that the pot of available wealth isn't finite. It can grow without limit (or shrink to nothing, of course).
As the rest of the world develops skills beyond "picking grains of rice in a field somewhere", both the supply of skilled labor AND the demand for the results of skilled and unskilled labor increase. There's inherent reason why this has to impact the United States negatively.
In America, we harvest grievance, envy, false boogiemen (corporations, insurance companies and the Koch brothers eeek!) phony ethnic, gender and racial divisions, (also called "women's studies"). None of it ads to our GDP.
& Sadly, there's no real buyer. Only manufactured sales though alliances with certain connected politicians, media and bureaucrats.
" Most of the home repairs needed can be accomplished by a person who just tries."
But it takes substantial extra effort to be able to see your own butt crack.
Did you know that Chinese plumbers have horizontal cracks? Pros and cons either way.
I can't believe that people around the world would want and compete for our jobs. Don't they know who we are?
We are a people looking for a deal, a cheaper source, a discount, a lower price, except we also want paid lots more than anyone else in the world, and we want lots of free benefits too all for making those same things. Dammit, this is unfair!
Post a Comment