Let’s say that the many, many people who are needed to do (relatively) unskilled labor such as restaurants, factory, retail, etc. are not needed to do those jobs anymore due to them being fully automated.

It’s relatively easier to automate those sorts of jobs, but what about the ones that require much more skill: doctors, lawyers, plumbers, electricians. These would take more time to automate compared to the more basic jobs. So when these basic jobs are all lost due to automation, but the skilled ones are remaining, what would a communist/socialist society do to solve this?

Would they force some people to learn how to do these needed jobs in case of a shortage? Would they allow the unemployed masses to survive without labor? What do you think?

  • @CannotSleep420
    link
    2
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m not 100% sure what you’re asking. I didn’t say that the bourgeoisie would want to abolish robo lawyers.

    My comment was directed at this from your previous comment:

    I can see AI achieving that kind of smooth system. This is already starting to be implemented. But I think the bourgeoisie will intervene to crush that possibility, eventually, even if it binds the rest of us. The ruling class would lose many of its advantages without human lawyers.

    However, looking back at that comment I think I may have misunderstood what you were saying. I thought “crush[ing] that possibility” was the use of AI lawyers, but a second look at your comment I originally replied to as well as your response to me makes me think that the possibility that is being crushed is instead the streamlining of law to be more cut and dry and less opaque to reason about, reducing or even eliminating the need for people trained in legalfu. To retain power, the state would either require writing legislation in a way that outlines how workers are to be fucked without the veil of inscrutable esoteric legalese or make fair laws only to flagrantly violate them. This would make the bourgeois legal system the proverbial emperor with no clothes, undermining the air of legitimacy required for the human rights law trickery you outlined to work, among other things.

    If that’s what you were getting at, I agree with you.

    • @redtea
      link
      21 year ago

      That’s a good way to put it. I think we agree. And I could have been clearer!