MM, Scarcity and the Possibility of Working Class Revolution in the Present

[RedNovember1917]

NOTE: This is a re-post of sorts of a document that I originally posted on the RevLeft message board on 30 August 2007. The reason why I am re-posting this document on this message board at the present time is because I wanted to begin a discussion about this subject here. Also, I must state that the main differences that will exist between this re-post and the original posting on RevLeft are that:

• the important points would be separated by parenthesized numbers and bullet points;
• the document would be more grammatically-sound;
• the document would be written in British English rather than American English;
• the document would be separated by separate posts rather than being present on one main post.
  

---

Molecular Manufacturing, Scarcity and the Possibility of Working Class Revolution in the Present
BY: RedNovember1917
DATE: 30 August 2007
UPDATED: 7 January 2010

Introduction

(1) In this document, I will explain my position on Molecular Manufacturing, scarcity and the possibility of working class revolution in the present. The reason why I have brought this document into existence is because of a debate that I happened to get into with a RevLeft user named "rev" in that message board's chat room during the latter part of the evening of 29 August 2007.

This debate was based on his assertion that working class revolution is not a realistic possibility at this time due to the fact that we have not reached the technological level of Molecular Manufacturing.

(2) Molecular Manufacturing is a technological level of development that was first elaborated upon by the one of the fathers of the scientific field of Nanotechnology, K. Eric Drexler, during the late 1980's and early 1990's, in two books that both explained the proposal of this type of manufacturing (Engines of Creation, 1986) and explained how it would function in deeper detail from his perspective (Nanosystems, 1992).

The basic assertion that K. Eric Drexler makes in both "Engines of Creation" and "Nanosystems" is that the evolution of the scientific field of Nanotechnology will eventually result in the development of a technology that would be able manufacture almost anything from the molecular level, using precise atomic precision.

This process of building manufactured products using atomic precision would take place in a electronic set-top box environment. This electronic set-top box environment would contain nanorobots that would take the chemicals injected into it and develop those chemicals into a product.

This will be done through the use of cartridges that would would be placed into a metal container that is attached to the electronic set-top box environment that would be performing this manufacturing process, and, when this environment needs those chemicals, it would extract the chemicals from these cartridges and proceeds to use the chemicals that were extracted from the cartridges to perform the manufacturing process.

The insertion of these chemicals into this electronic set-top box environment would allow the nanorobots that are within the electronic set-top box environment and whose purposes are to handle the chemicals inserted into that environment by the extraction of those chemicals through the cartridges that are attached to the device and to perform the actual manufacturing process to build the product that the consumer desires, that is, according to the specifications that are inserted into that environment. These specifications will be inserted into that environment through inputs that will allow the consumer to do so.

After this initial manufacturing process is completed, the product that is being manufactured would be removed from that environment by the consumer and would eventually develop itself into the desired product, thus, completing the manufacturing process. K. Eric Drexler called this technology in both Engines of Creation and Nanosystems "Molecular Nanotechnology (MNT)" and the process of manufacturing "Molecular Manufacturing".

(3) The position of the RevLeft user "rev" and the others who happen to think like him is that this would make a successful working class revolution possible because:

• it would allow the total bypassing of private property relationships;
• it would solve the scarcity that haunts the world;
• it would industrialise the non-industrialised regions of the planet with ease and would ultimately plunge Capitalism into the inescapable crisis that would eventually cause it to absolutely commit suicide.
  

It is my contention however, that this position is fatal and that it is fatal for four reasons.

The first reason why this position is fatal is because it assumes that the scarcity that faces the world is totally real and it is not artificial after all.

This assumption totally negates Marx's premise of overproduction, which is really the understanding of the fact that our current technology can bring about the necessary materials needed to end the scarcity that we all suffer from. But, due to the fact that it is the Capitalist class that owns the means of production and not the entire population, the Capitalist class destroys and/or eliminates the excess commodities that is produced by the working class during the time in which they are selling their labour-power to the Capitalists. This act is an act that many of us that are involved in the struggle against the existence of both Capitalism and class society refer to as the "process of creative destruction". If they do not carry out this "process of creative destruction", then, these commodities would end up flooding the relevant markets in question, causing both a rise in speculation and, eventually-speaking, a depression, because there are too many commodities in those markets, thus, impeding the ability of the Capitalist class to sell back the products that the working class produces back to the working class in the time in which it is not working for the Capitalist class.

So, imagine if the commodities that are constantly destroyed due to overproduction were produced in the Communist mode of production, instead of the Capitalist mode of production. If that were the case, then, these commodities would be accessible to everyone, because they would be produced with a purpose of both use and need instead of for the purpose of accumulating profit and extracting surplus-value from the majority of the population. The only thing that would need to be done would be to modify the technology that we have to work with in the present to work in an automated fashion, as so to reduce human labour in manufacturing industries that are both developed and restored to a negligible percentage and to allow overabundance to occur without direct human intervention.

The second reason why this position is fatal is because it assumes that in a non-MNT civilisation that is in a post-Capitalist period, the industrialized portion of the world will a problem of satisfying the demand of the people who live in the industrialised regions of the planet, because only a MNT society could produce the necessary overabundance needed to satisfy everyone's needs - and it assumes that in a non-MNT civilisation that is in a post-Capitalist period, the non-industrialised regions of the world would not be able to industrialise on their own and industrialise in a way that is going to solve the problems that people face as a result of a lack of scarcity. This is irrational, because, again, it negates the idea of overproduction, and, it is implying that humans will be prevented from finding their way around certain problems in a non-MNT post-Capitalist civilisation, because the technology is not there yet. In fact, it is an underestimation of the human species. After all, we are the most intelligent species on the planet. We have managed to figure our way out of detrimental situations before. If we did not, then, we would not be here and we would not be using this virtual space to discuss important subjects such as this one. What is not to say that humanity would not be able to figure out the path out of whatever detrimental situations that may develop if MNT does not materialise and if we enter a post-capitalist period anyway?

Also, "rev" and his contemporaries on this subject are of the idea that, in such a situation, there would need to be a centralisation of resources into the hands of a few in order to commence complete industrialisation in both the industrialised regions of the planet and the non-industrialised regions of the planet. This is simply not the case and it is totally possible for society to be managed in a non-authoritarian way and put into place the necessary resources to industrialise the entirety of the planet in an non-Capitalist and authentically Communist fashion.

The third reason why this position is fatal is because it places too much hope on a technology that has not materialised and that has been in the middle of a fierce debate between scientists who think that Drexler and his ilk are just dreaming, that Molecular Nanotechnology (MNT) and Molecular Manufacturing are impossible and scientists, such as Drexler, who think that Molecular Nanotechnology (MNT) and Molecular Manufacturing are not only possibilities; they are possibilities that are destined to happen and because of their destiny of coming into the light at some point in the future, we must prepare for them as so to allow them to be used by the world in the way that they should be used.

If it turns out that they are possible and that we must prepare for them, we must do so while taking into account the ramifications it would have for both the working class and the class struggle in general, that is, if the revolutionary situations that currently in the present do not turn out to be successful. But, if they are not possible, if they are not inevitable and if we do not have to prepare for them, then, we need to find ways to realistically implement Communism in such an non-MNT/MM environment and the only way to do that is to, once again, modify the industrial manufacturing technology that we have now to work on an authentically Communist basis.

And the fourth reason why this position is fatal is because it is sending a extremely dangerous message to the international working class revolutionary movement; that if Molecular Nanotechnology (MNT) and Molecular Manufacturing are possible and inevitable technologies, then, it is better to give up on working class struggle in the interim and wait until it materializes as so to resume that struggle. If we give up on working class struggle until these technologies materialise, that is, if they ever materialise, then, we are going to continue to give the extremely religious fundamentalists, the racists, the Nationalists, the Homophobes and the Misogynists the upper hand, and, quite possibly, we may end up giving up the future of the human species up to them, so, it is not acceptable for those who have heard about these technologies to give up fighting. Otherwise, they will have proven themselves to be counter-revolutionaries that are in the disguise of revolutionaries, because of their incessant implication of supporting Capitalist development and because of their willingness to sit down and to let those that may end up putting the lives of millions at risk to do so without mounting any kind of effective resistance to their actions.

(4) My objective in this document is to justify these four reasons with verifiable and circumstantial evidence and justify the fact that we should not be waiting for the "promised land" of Communism to suddenly come to us, like the Christians who are waiting for the second coming of Jesus Christ, only this time, in the form of both Molecular Nanotechnology (MNT) and Molecular Manufacturing. What we should be doing instead is to develop cohesive and sensible forms of both workplace and neighborhood organization that will actually produce an authentically Communist society and developing a new paradigm of working class struggle that places the emphasis on class struggle rather than the concept of Capitalism in crisis and develop realistic ways to implement authentically Communist ideas in any type of Capitalistic environment.

I will first put the focus of this essay on the evidence dealing with the question of scarcity.